MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Sixty-eighth Session April 6, 1995 The Committee on Transportation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Thursday, April 6, 1995, Chairman Vonne Chowning presiding in Room 331 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Thomas Batten, Chairman Mrs. Vonne Chowning, Chairman Mr. Dennis L. Allard, Vice Chairman Mr. David Goldwater, Vice Chairman Mr. Bernie Anderson Mr. John C. Carpenter Mrs. Marcia de Braga Mr. Dennis Nolan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Ms. Patricia A. Tripple GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dina Titus STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Mouritsen, Senior Research Analyst Jackie L. Valley, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Dave McNeil, State Energy Office James Barber, Clark County Admin., General Services/Automotive Donna Wadey-Howell, Dept. Of Motor Vehicles & Public Safety, Registration Division Jack Jeffrey, Cal-Nev Super Speed Train Commission Walt Monaghan, The Car Doctor Arnie Adamsen, City Councilman, Cal-Nev SST Commission Sharon Segerblom, Las Vegas City Manager's Office Richann Johnson, City Council Office/SST Commission As the hearing was being teleconferenced to Las Vegas, Chairman Chowning welcomed those in Clark County who had come to testify as well as those in Carson City. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 25 - Urges President and Congress to support efforts to build and use superspeed trains which operate by magnetic levitation. Senator Dina Titus from District 7, Clark County, opened testimony on A.J.R. 25 stating she chaired the interim study committee to review present efforts to conserve and develop energy resources. Ms. Titus mentioned Don Williams had been staff researcher for the study committee, and gave the Committee members copies of his presentation, (Exhibit C.) She also distributed Bulletin 95-7, the interim committee's report, (Exhibit D.) Ms. Titus testified the committee studied a number of different aspects of energy including renewable energy, energy conservation and transportation. She added one bill and one resolution currently before the Committee were recommendations from the interim committee. Ms. Titus mentioned the interim study committee heard testimony that energy use in the transportation sector is the most critical energy policy facing Nevada. Energy used in transportation accounts for 34 percent of the total energy used in the state and is equal to 45 percent of the total dollar expenditure for energy in the state. In 1991 alone the state transportation fuel bill was 1.8 billion dollars for 25.3 million barrels of oil, most of which was imported from out of state. The two measures currently before the Committee address this problem of energy use in transportation from two very different angles but they both work together to get at the problem. A.J.R. 25 urges the Committee's support for the superspeed train, an alternative means of transportation. Ms. Titus noted she is also a member of the superspeed train commission. The other bill, A.B. 397, directs state and local governments to purchase vehicles which meet fuel efficiency standards, which will cut down on fuel use and also help with air pollution problems. Mrs. Chowning thanked Senator Titus for speaking to the Committee and added efforts of the interim study were greatly appreciated. Mr. Jack Jeffrey, Chairman of the California-Nevada Superspeed Train Commission, testified A.J.R. 25 would send a message to Washington that more federal support is needed for mag-lev (magnetic levitation) transportation. Mr. Jeffrey mentioned he was fortunate enough to travel to Germany and ride a mag-lev train and stated it is a 185 mile per hour vehicle with no moving parts and no noise except for the wind. It operates electrically so it would conserve fuel oil. He noted the project between Las Vegas and Anaheim was on hold because the consortium originally put together using German technology, Japanese financing and American operations had run into trouble. German unification had absorbed much of the money for the project from that country, and the Japanese financial problems have not helped the project either but supporters are hoping to get underway soon. The long range plan is to run the train from Las Vegas to Anaheim, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and over to Reno. Councilman Arnie Adamsen, Chief Financial Officer for the California-Nevada Superspeed Train Commission, read a statement President Clinton made during his campaign and repeated during his first one hundred days in Congress which is as follows: "I strongly support the development of high speed rail because we need to ensure that we possess a transportation system that boosts American productivity and international competitiveness. Passenger rail service creates jobs, conserves energy and provides an opportunity to avoid airport expansion." Mr. Adamsen emphasized how time consuming and congested travel between California and Nevada had become. He noted California tourists were the major contributors to Nevada's tourist industry, but that the highways would be unable to accommodate future population demands as they related to Nevada's tourist industry. Mr. Adamsen believed hi-speed or superspeed train systems were a priority born of necessity and asserted A.J.R. 25 was a critical statement of support in securing federal funding to develop hi-speed and superspeed train programs. He stressed passage of A.J.R. 25 would be an imperative step in continuing programs to convey Nevada toward the next generation of transportation systems and in addition preserve high technology and high paying jobs California and Nevada are losing as a result of the defense industry down- sizing. Mrs. Chowning asked how much federal funding Nevada would need to get this wonderful project on track. Mr. Adamsen replied the commission is asking for a continuation of the funding already in place. There is approximately $178,000 left in a federal grant received to do technology and feasibility studies in the early 1990's. The commission is asking the Federal Railroad Administration to release that money to the Superspeed Train Commission. Mr. Adamsen stated in conversations with staff and Federal Railroad Administration administrators, they asked the Commission to request a statement of support from the state of Nevada, which is A.J.R. 25. The money would update a ridership study they already have. The ridership and financial feasibility studies were all finalized during the late 80's and early 90's. The original ridership studies showed, conservatively, that the superspeed train system would carry six million round trip visitors per year. Mrs. Chowning reiterated the resolution is important because if the Commission does not ask; it will not receive. Mr. Adamsen concurred. Mrs. Chowning asked if there was any opposition to A.J.R. 25. Seeing none, she requested a motion on A.J.R. 25. ASSEMBLYMAN BERNIE ANDERSON MOVED FOR ADOPTION OF A.J.R. 25. ASSEMBLYMAN DENNIS ALLARD SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mrs. Chowning emphasized the superspeed train project was tremendously exciting and noted many people were waiting to travel from California to Las Vegas on a superspeed train. She enthused how marvelous it would be to have the project completed. ASSEMBLY BILL 397 - Requires that certain motor vehicles purchased by public body comply with average fuel economy standards established by Federal Government. Dave McNeil, Energy Program Specialist for the State Energy Office, presented his office's comments regarding the bill, (Exhibit E,) which included several recommended amendments. He added representatives of local governments were concerned about the bill as written and emphasized his department is very willing to collaborate on an amendment that would produce a bill everyone could live with. Assemblywoman Tripple stated vehicles that had been excluded probably pollute the air as much, if not more, than the ones being included and asked why they were being excluded. Mr. McNeil replied the intent of A.B. 397 was to address the high mileage vehicles, in other words those designed primarily for highway operation as opposed to off- road vehicle use. He stated transportation energy use within the state was significant based on experiments tried elsewhere in other states and he believed this was an opportunity which should be explored. Ms. Tripple inquired if other states typically ignore the heavier vehicles. Mr. McNeil responded Iowa exempted heavy duty vehicles, those pulling heavy loads and medical emergency vehicles, but other than Iowa's policy he was not aware to what extent exceptions were provided and he offered to check into that point. Ms. Tripple said she was also interested in the transportation of pupils to and from school and whether that category might include parents who would be transporting their children to school or official school buses. Mr. McNeil replied it had not been their original intent to include school buses within the realm of that particular requirement. He questioned if Ms. Tripple was asking about the use of minivans by parents to bus their children to school or the use of day care type facilities that might have larger size vans in which they pick up and drop off children. Ms. Tripple asked if the bill was being limited to the public body and Mr. McNeil replied it was. Ms. Tripple commented the statute refers to all public bodies and not just the state and added this would be a mandate. She emphasized cities and counties strongly object to mandates, especially unfunded ones. Ms. Tripple suggested just applying the provisions of A.B. 397 to the state and letting that experience, that track record of savings, be an example to the local entities. Mr. McNeil recommended the scope of the bill not be limited in that respect until representatives of the State Division of Purchasing had responded to that question. Nancy Brown, intern for Senator Dina Titus, testified the Senator had been informed of the intended changes by Mr. McNeil and the State Energy Office and that Ms. Titus supports those changes because they make the bill more applicable and easy to implement for state, city and county agencies. It also maintains the intent of the legislation and preserves the bill in its entirety. Mrs. Chowning noted the Committee would receive more information regarding state vehicles, but she was under the impression it was already the policy of the state to purchase fuel efficient vehicles and implement those measures. Assemblyman Allard asked what the fiscal note stated, what the bill was anticipated to really cost. Mr. McNeil explained the note for the most part stated there should be no significant impacts. The note did describe problems with respect to ordering different engine and transmission design options. The State Department of Transportation (DOT) had been experiencing problems with manual transmissions. Mr. McNeil believed a large part of that problem was a result of towing trailers much of the time. As a result DOT is purchasing vehicles with automatic transmissions and Mr. McNeil believed that was justified and deserved an exemption. Mr. Allard asked if those vehicles cost more. Mr. McNeil deferred to Kathy Pruit, a buyer for the Division of Purchasing, who testified in almost every case an automatic transmission will cost from $700-$800 more per vehicle. Mr. Allard inquired if all of DOT's vehicles would have automatic transmissions. Ms. Pruit agreed those were what had been purchased and DOT had indicated they would continue to purchase. Mr. Allard questioned if new vehicles the motor pool is purchasing are all going to be equipped with automatics. Ms. Pruit replied most vehicles for the motor pool have manual transmissions. Mr. Allard stated he saw nothing referring to emergency vehicles in the bill. Mr. McNeil replied the existing bill referred just to "law enforcement" vehicles. Mr. Allard explained he was thinking about paramedics and ambulances but was uncertain if those vehicles exceeded the gross vehicle weight. Mr. McNeil said all emergency vehicles purchased by state and local governments are exempt because so many are special purpose vehicles with atypical energy demands on their power plants. Mr. Allard asked if the Energy Office was planning to amend A.B. 397. Mr. McNeil reiterated his testimony suggested the Committee consider amending wording of the bill to include that recommendation. James Barber, Automotive Services Administrator for Clark County, whose background included extensive experience in public purchasing as well as experience gained in his present position, wished to address the issue of A.B. 397 from both perspectives, (Exhibit F.) He believed another way to achieve the same result would be through education, through guidelines on recommended vehicles or some other more positive or less punitive method. Mr. Barber also mentioned vehicles could be specified according to functional need and explained Clark County and some of the other counties handle vehicle purchases that way. They make decisions about their vehicle specifications according to how the vehicle is going to be used. For instance depending upon how a particular vehicle is going to be used they decide between a car or a truck, diesel or gas fuel, a V-8 engine as opposed to a 6 cylinder. Occasionally a customer department asks for more vehicles than it needs but that problem is resolved by negotiating back and forth, talking about the application and coming to a resolution about what kinds of features and specifications on the vehicle are appropriate for its use. Mr. Barber's division would like to be able to continue to do that. He is concerned passage of A.B. 397 may place him or his buyer in a situation of not being able to specify engine capacity for a vehicle they might need for a specific application. Mr. Barber agreed with Mr. McNeil that alternative fuel vehicles should not be a part of the bill because alternative fuel vehicles, especially compressed natural gas, which is what Clark County is using for its alternative fuel vehicle program, require larger engines to offset the performance loss that comes with the use of that fuel. Another problem Mr. Barber noted with A.B. 397 is it contains no provision for measuring compliance with its requirements nor does it mention any sanctions for an entity's failure to comply. In conclusion, Mr. Barber testified Clark County cannot support A.B. 397 in its present form but would be willing to work with Mr. McNeil and anyone else from the state staff or Legislature to formulate a method to achieve the result that vehicles will be specified properly for their application. Mrs. Chowning asked if there were any further questions. Being none, she thanked Mr. Barber for his testimony. Mrs. Chowning mentioned her intention to place A.B. 397 in a subcommittee chaired by Mr. Goldwater with the other subcommittee members to be Mr. Carpenter, Mrs. de Braga and Ms. Tripple. Mrs. Chowning felt all parts of the state would be represented by the four subcommittee members and added this issue was very important and should receive proper attention. Mr. Walt Monaghan, owner of The Car Doctor in Clark County, testified he was present at Mr. Barber's request. In his business he has had the opportunity to look at every local government agency's vehicles at the southern end of the state and a portion of those in the northern part of the state. He testified Nevada's climate and operating conditions differ greatly from an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lab. Real world driving is not on a dynamometer with a driver very slowly throttling. An undersized engine put in a pickup truck, for example a 2.5 liter, is anemic for the average driver who would use a wide-open throttle to get normal acceleration. Mr. Monaghan stated driving like that, more times than not, you will actually get the reverse of what you are asking for, less real world fuel efficiency. Mr. Monaghan commented Mr. Barber's division does a good job writing specifications for vehicles. They are not buying hot rods, they are buying the vehicles they need to do the job. Mr. Monaghan believed A.B. 397 is "micro managing" and that passage might lead to more problems than cures. Mrs. Chowning asked for an amplification of the climate conditions mentioned. Mr. Monaghan responded when the 2.5 liter engine is purchased, the radiator is also small and the transmission core is absent, which is a necessity to maintaining a vehicle in Nevada's hot climate. He used Southwest Gas as an example which used 6 cylinder engines on their vans. As a result, vehicles were being replaced every 2« to 3 years. Moving up to a V-8 engine resulted in a vehicle life of 6 years. Their buyers were buying the smallest possible engines which had the highest EPA ratings, but the net result was worse fuel mileage and higher maintenance costs. Mr. Monaghan summarized A.B. 397 would force that upon the governments. Mrs. Chowning requested clarification about the smaller engine also having a smaller radiator. Mr. Monaghan answered the cooling system is also smaller on those smaller engines. He added car dealerships in Las Vegas do not even carry those small engines on their lots. Mr. Anderson asked about elevation problems with usage of the smaller engines. Mr. Monaghan replied the more oxygen, the more power to the rear wheels. As a result, the smaller displacement engines would be adversely impacted by elevation. Mr. Allard commented the fiscal note, (Exhibit G,) stated most of the 6 cylinder engines met the EPA guidelines. He also noted the bill language refers to the average fuel economy for each classification of new motor vehicles and questioned if there would be a propensity to buy 4 cylinder engines to keep the average down and then buy some 8 cylinder engines for other purposes. Mr. Barber replied that had happened. He added another counterproductive result of A.B. 397 could be governments might buy a larger sized, more expensive vehicle than what was really needed in order to get enough power. Mrs. Chowning reiterated there would be no action taken on A.B. 397 today, that it had been placed in a subcommittee and thanked those who testified on the measure and attended the hearing. SENATE BILL 186 - Revises provisions governing fee for procession of fingerprints for applicants for licensure as vehicle transporters, manufacturers, distributors, dealers and rebuilders. Donna Wadey-Howell, Chief of the Registration Division, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), explained her agency had requested S.B. 186 to address a problem they are having regarding fees for fingerprints. The processing charges from the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have been raised one dollar. S.B. 186 would allow the agency to establish the fee by regulation so if increases occur during the period between Legislative sessions, they could adjust their fees without having to request legislation to adjust the fees. The impact of the one dollar increase is about $1,600 per year to the agency's budget, but they are currently unable to collect it from the licensees. Mrs. Chowning asked if the charge would exceed the cost of the fingerprints. Ms. Wadey-Howell replied the division would not attempt to charge additional fees just recoup fees they are currently paying other local and federal agencies to process the fingerprints. Mrs. Chowning wondered where taxpayers would find the reporting of the costs so they would truly know fees and charges were in balance. She asked if they would be listed in the budget hearings every session. Ms. Wadey-Howell agreed the exact charges were reported through the division's budget. Mrs. Chowning reiterated the importance of the public realizing someone is monitoring the costs at various intervals. Mr. Allard asked what current costs to the Department are. Ms. Wadey-Howell replied the costs run a total of $39. CJIS receives $15 and the FBI receives $24. Mr. Allard noted in calculating the Department's costs those two fees were the only ones used. Ms. Wadey-Howell agreed the two costs are the only ones recouped, but offered to amend S.B. 186 to read the costs charged by those two agencies if the Committee would like. Mr. Allard stated before he could support S.B. 186 it would need an amendment like that. He was very reluctant to have charges like that added at the administrative level. He preferred the agencies come to the Legislature and get approval from representatives directly accountable to the people. Mr. Anderson agreed with Mr. Allard and asked how the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) justified their fee. Ms. Wadey-Howell replied she does not know but could provide that information to the Committee. He reiterated he would not like to see this turn into a dollar generator for the state. Ms. Wadey- Howell commented that was not the department's intention. Mrs. Chowning remarked she appreciated the fact that revenue enhancement had not been a factor in the drafting of S.B. 186. She mentioned staff had been asked to research whether there was any precedent for an agency to have total authority to set fees. Assemblywoman Ohrenschall queried whether the fee paid CJIS included any of their overhead or profit. Ms. Wadey-Howell repeated she did not know what was incorporated into that fee but would look into it. Ms. Ohrenschall stressed she needed to know and would be really disinclined to give such an appearance of broad discretion to the DMV at this time. Mrs. Chowning thanked Ms. Wadey-Howell and commented the Committee would not be taking action on S.B. 186 because more information would be needed. She asked if anyone else wished to testify either for or against the measure. With no response the hearing on S.B. 186 was closed. SENATE BILL 188 - Authorizes department of motor vehicles and public safety to issue sample license plates. Donna Wadey-Howell presented S.B. 188 which had been requested by her division of the DMV. She stated the reason for the legislation was because of the number of requests for sample plates the division receives from school children, license plate collectors and organizations having conferences or conventions in Nevada that wish to hand out a souvenir for attending the conference. Ms. Wadey-Howell testified for well over 20 years the DMV had been issuing these sample plates, but a review of their statutes did not show the department had specific authority to do so. During 1994 the division issued 430 sample plates and they just recoup the cost of issuing the license plates by charging two dollars for them. When used for a school project, the division issues them at no charge. S.B. 188 would provide the authority for DMV to issue sample plates. Ms. Wadey-Howell showed a sample license plate to the Committee and explained it is provided with a decal on the back that says it is for display purposes only. The division does not issue the validation decal with it and the bill specifically provides that it cannot be used on a motor vehicle. DMV also provides samples of other types of license plates collectors may want. The license plates have zeros in place of the numbers so they cannot be misconstrued as a regular license plate. Mr. Anderson declared he has occasionally seen sample license plates on vehicles and stated that does raise a level of concern because some of the plates are used by various agencies to identify their particular group and the privileges that come with being a member, for instance disabled veterans, Purple Heart recipients or radio operators. If S.B. 188 is passed, he requested a readily identifiable decal be placed in the upper right hand corner thus eliminating the possibility someone would misuse the plates. Ms. Wadey-Howell agreed the decal currently in use could be redesigned and placed in that spot if the Committee desired. Mr. Anderson maintained it would be more acceptable to him and also facilitate handling of the license plates by DMV. Ms. Ohrenschall agreed Mr. Anderson's points were very well taken and that the license plates could be misused or fall into the wrong hands. She was also concerned that if only a decal were used to signify a sample plate, it might be easily removed. She asked whether a permanent marking that would not mar the license plate could be placed on the plate itself. Ms. Wadey-Howell suggested DMV could look at using a smaller die that would mark "sample" somewhere on the plate. She planned to check with the manufacturing supervisor to see if that would be possible. Ms. Tripple stressed prices charged for the plates should not be lower than costs and noted the cost was no more than $15. She questioned whether the $15 fee covered all the costs including design, labor and any other expenses incurred. Ms. Wadey-Howell replied current license plate costs run around two dollars and include the costs of inmate labor, the facility used to produce the plates and technicians at the special plate counter. DMV occasionally will ask for up to $15 because special options such as silk screened emblems done by the book bindery for a convention or other group would raise their costs. Ms. Tripple repeated she did not want the person buying a regular license plate to subsidize this project. Ms. Wadey-Howell reiterated that was not DMV's intention. DMV's intention was to make sure they charge the appropriate cost for each license plate they make. Mr. Allard summarized the purpose of the sample license plates was so different groups could display them and he asked how many are sold. Ms. Wadey-Howell stated in 1994 DMV issued 430. Mr. Allard had the same concerns as Mr. Anderson and Ms. Ohrenschall that the license plate with the zeros could be easily altered somehow or the decal removed. Ms. Wadey-Howell replied she would research if a little die that would fit in the upper right hand corner could be made that would clearly identify it as a sample license plate. Ms. Tripple related she attended a governor's energy conference once and participants were given license plates with no numbers on them but the word "energy". She wondered whether an appropriate word could be placed on the license plate rather than the numbers. Mr. Anderson responded the state's "vanity plates" sometimes have words on them or names. To keep one's vanity plate reserved, whether using it or not, one pays an annual fee to have that one unique plate. As a result he is not certain Ms. Tripple's idea would be practical. Mrs. Chowning asked whether anyone else in the audience wished to speak for or against S.B. 188. Seeing none, the hearing was closed. Mrs. Chowning requested Mr. Nolan give the subcommittee's report on A.B. 352. ASSEMBLY BILL 352 - Authorizes establishment of program for issuance of certificates of registration and license plates for new vehicles sold by new vehicle dealer. Mr. Nolan presented the subcommittee report on A.B. 352, and proposed amendments, (Exhibit H.) Mrs. de Braga, referring to the fourth amendment, asked if dealerships would be calculating sales tax on new vehicles. Mr. Nolan replied they would be responsible for collecting those taxes and other fees, but in order to do that the car dealer would have to be online via computer terminal with DMV which has the ability to automatically calculate the taxes and fees. Assemblyman Batten declared he supported A.B. 352 but queried whether participation would be voluntary or a mandate. Mr. Nolan replied it would be voluntary. Mr. Anderson called attention to the fifth recommendation of the subcommittee and asked if a dealership had a terminal linked to DMV software, would it give him additional access to information within the DMV system. He did not want to see access to DMV records which would give home location by license plate number or any other kind of tracing data. Mr. Nolan responded a concern of the subcommittee as well as DMV had been that no one have access to information considered privileged information by DMV. The hookup would be strictly a screen in which to input information. The screen would scroll for that purpose only, not allowing any access to other privileged information. Mrs. de Braga mentioned if passage of A.B. 352 would ease the load at DMV that would be good, however she had talked to some dealers who expressed concern that the dealerships that could afford this type of technology might have a marketing edge. She asked if she bought a car and registered it there, would she just go home and wait for the license plates and not have to do anything else? Mr. Nolan agreed that was all she would have to do. He added the prospect of using this ability as a marketing tool had been discussed. Originally the dealers would have liked to see DMV absorb the cost since they felt they were providing a service to DMV by helping them reduce waiting lines. The cost was estimated to be about $3,000-$5,000 for installation of a terminal and modem link. The dealerships agreed it was a cost they would absorb and probably use as a marketing tool. Mr. Allard asked whether, since participation would be voluntary, there had been any indication how many dealers would actually go to the expense of providing this licensing service. Mr. Nolan replied of the 84 dealers within the state only five or six were expected to participate and the rest would watch. A concern of the subcommittee was the ability of DMV to monitor the car licensing and registration but DMV said they could establish a cap on the number of dealerships that might come on line if they felt the amount of information being inputted from dealerships was going to create an exceptional amount of work for them. Mrs. Chowning thanked the subcommittee for an extensive amount of work well done and added both Chairmen appreciated their efforts. She noted Assemblywoman Steel's effort (A.B. 352) was very timely because the legislators this Session want to implement measures that would shorten lines for Nevada's consumers. Mr. Nolan expressed the subcommittee's appreciation to Ms. Ohrenschall for the work she did in the subcommittee. ASSEMBLYMAN BATTEN TO MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 352. ASSEMBLWOMAN PATRICIA A. TRIPPLE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Ohrenschall thanked Mr. Nolan for doing an excellent job chairing the subcommittee. Mrs. Chowning mentioned the Committee's standing rules, (Exhibit I,) had been revised. She remarked rules number eight and ten had been changed at the request of Assembly Leadership. The changes further clarify how a roll call vote should be taken from this point forward. Mr. A n d e r s o n i n q u i r e d w h e t h e r r u l e n u m b e r t e n p r e c l u d e d t h e a b i l i t y o f a m e m b e r o f a c o m m i t t e e f r o m r e q u e s t i n g a r o l l c a l l v o t e i f t h e y s o d e s i r e . Mrs. Chowning responded she interpreted number ten to be as Mr. Anderson stated, because it is at the discretion of the chairman. She added if the chairman and the committee member did not agree on the necessity for a roll call vote, that would be a problem. Mr. Anderson agreed there might be a problem because members of the committee can ask for a roll call vote as the rule stands currently. If rule number ten was adopted the chairman would have additional authority. Mrs. Chowning disagreed stating she does not interpret it that way. She reiterated the ultimate decision is with the chair and rule number ten would read "at the discretion of the chair". Mr. Batten asked if roll could be taken as it is in the Ways and Means Committee where the only thing recorded is that a quorum is present instead of announcing who is excused or otherwise not present. Mrs. Chowning stated roll could be taken that way because the meeting would not start until a quorum was present. Mr. Anderson interjected a memorandum from the Chief Clerk of the Assembly had been circulated today providing a formula reflecting the new verbiage and he believed it was a final decision of the two Speakers of the House. Mrs. Chowning, noting this may not be the final verbiage for rule number eight, stated no vote on the Committee's standing rules would be taken today. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Terry Horgan, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ________________________________ Assemblywoman Vonne Chowning, Chairman ________________________________ Assemblyman Thomas Batten, Chairman Assembly Committee on Transportation April 6, 1995 Page