MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION
Sixty-seventh Session
June 22, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Taxation was called to order by Chairman Robert E. Price at 1:31 p.m., Tuesday, June 22, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert E. Price, Chairman
Mrs. Myrna T. Williams, Vice Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut
Mr. Ken L. Haller
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. John W. Marvel
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Mr. Larry L. Spitler
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
John P. Comeaux, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Taxation
Howard E. Barrett, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Robert S. Hadfield, representing the Nevada Association of Counties
Stan Warren, representing Sierra Pacific Power Company
C. Joseph Guild, III, representing the Union Pacific Railroad Company
Gaylyn J. Spriggs, representing Rayrock Mines, Inc.
Lucille K. Lusk, representing Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens
Nancy J. Howard, representing Nevada League of Cities
Martha Gould, Director, Washoe County Library, representing the Nevada Library Association, Friends of Washoe County Library and the Washoe County Library Foundation
Diane Baker, Head of the Library Development Center, Nevada State Library
Howard E. Barrett, Nevada Taxpayers Association
John Bartlett, Deputy Attorney General
Barbara Drake, Vice President, Planning and Fund Distribution, United Way of Northern Nevada and the Sierra
Louise Bayard de Volo, Executive Director, Planned Parenthood in Northern Nevada
Paula Berkley, representing Walker River Paiute Tribe
Anita M. Collins, Chairman, Walker River Paiute Tribe
Viola Kennison, (Carries Eaglefeather) Tax Director, Walker River Paiute Tribe
Following roll call, Chairman Price alluded to a few articles he had provided each committee member. Exhibit C was an article illustrating what had been happening in various legislatures with a tobacco tax. Exhibit D was an article written in the Mineral County Independent-News covering the meeting in Hawthorne, Nevada. Chairman Price thought it was a really nice coverage. Chairman Price delineated Exhibit E was provided by Phil Stout depicting the recent Supreme Court ruling with regard to use tax.
Chairman Price opened testimony on AB 697.
ASSEMBLY BILL 697 - Requires department of taxation to impose fees for assessment, collection and distribution of certain property taxes by department. (BDR 32-1549)
Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, provided committee members with a Bill Explanation for AB 697 attached hereto marked Exhibit F.
John P. Comeaux, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Taxation, explained if AB 697 was approved it would provide the Department of Taxation with the authority, under NRS Chapters 361 and 362, to bill local governments and centrally assessed property owners for the cost of services provided to them in connection with the valuation, billing, collection and distribution of the net proceeds of minerals and centrally assessed property taxes.
Mr. Comeaux iterated section 1 of AB 697 amended NRS Chapter 361 and subsection 1 provided for an annual fee on each owner of centrally assessed property in an amount equal to the cost incurred by the department in administering the provisions of NRS 361.3205 and 361.321. Those provisions required the department to bill each centrally assessed property for property taxes due, then collect the tax and distribute the tax to the appropriate counties.
Mr. Comeaux explained the requirement was added by the 1987 legislature at the request of certain centrally assessed properties. Prior to the change the department notified each county of its share of the centrally assessed valuations. The counties calculated the tax due, billed and collected the tax, and made its own internal distributions. As a result centrally assessed properties received multiple property tax bills. It was possible a utility (for example) could receive up to 34 separate bills a year if it was located in all 17 counties. The change in the statute in 1987 was made at the taxpayers request as a means to reduce bookkeeping.
Mr. Comeaux asserted AB 697 provided the means for the general fund to reimburse itself for the cost associated with a combined billing, collection and distribution function.
Mr. Comeaux continued explaining Section 1, subsection 2 of AB 697 provided for an annual fee upon each county that received a distribution of the property tax revenue from the department related to centrally assessed property in an amount equal to a cost incurred by the department in valuing the property for taxation purposes. It also provided the county must pay the assessed fee within 30 days of receipt of the billing.
Mr. Comeaux added Section 1, subsection 3 of AB 697 required the department to deposit the fees provided for in subsections 1 and 2, into an account established for that purpose.
Mr. Comeaux iterated Section 2 of AB 697 amended NRS Chapter 362 which was the net proceeds of minerals chapter. Mr. Comeaux proceeded to read subsections 1 and 2 of Section 2 of the bill. He expanded stating every biennium the department estimated the cost to collect revenues distributed to somewhere other than the general fund. The department collected administrative fees designed to cover costs from the entities that received the revenue. Those fees partially funded the department's budget and were currently collected on the gasoline tax. The gasoline tax was collected from the highway fund and the various local governments.
Mr. Comeaux communicated for years the department had valued for tax purposes, calculated, billed, collected and distributed taxes on the net proceeds of minerals and centrally assessed property taxes with no reimbursement of the costs. AB 697 would change the situation.
It was Chairman Price's understanding the revenue generated from AB 697 was already built into Governor Miller's budget. Mr. Comeaux agreed. Mr. Comeaux indicated the latest figures generated from the centrally assessed fees amounted to approximately $305,000 during the first year of the biennium and roughly $306,800 in the second year of the biennium. The net proceeds fee was approximately $224,000 in the first year and approximately $223,000 in the second year. It totalled a little over $1 million.
Mr. Marvel pointed out it was terrible budgetary policy. A budget was built, then the committees were expected to process the bills having no assurance the committee was going to pass the bills. If the Taxation Committee did not pass AB 697, then another hole was dug in the budget. Mr. Marvel stressed a budget should be built that balanced, or in the alternative have two budgets, one containing existing revenue and the other budget with the anticipated revenue. That was Mr. Marvel's policy statement.
Mr. Neighbors echoed Mr. Marvel's thoughts. Mr. Neighbors asked Mr. Comeaux what the Department of Taxation's budget was. Mr. Comeaux responded approximately $10.3 million and in the second year approximately $10.2 million. Mr. Comeaux explained how the department calculated the administrative fees.
Mr. Comeaux reiterated his earlier testimony explaining the service provided for the centrally assessed property owners.
Mr. Comeaux stated the department assessed administrative fees for revenues collected in every area, except the areas before the committee today.
Mr. Comeaux pointed out in fiscal year 1992 the department collected $1.3 billion in revenue and only about $440 million (approximately 30 percent) went to the general fund; the other 70 percent was collected for some other fund and distributed.
Mr. Comeaux responded to a question asserting other centrally assessed properties were airlines, railroads and pipelines.
Howard E. Barrett, Nevada Taxpayers Association (NTA) testified in opposition to AB 697. It appeared in order to have property reappraised an additional charge would be assessed. The centrally assessed properties should not have to pay to have property assessed.
Mr. Barrett also noted with regard to the assessments for the counties, the NTA felt, "Sometimes there was a greater cost in allocating the costs than the costs would be if the you didn't allocate the costs." There was a great deal of paperwork, book work and revision in allocating the costs in the first place.
Robert S. Hadfield, representing the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), spoke in opposition to AB 697. NACO just did not like AB 697. The Department of Taxation in the sixty-seventh session picked up $4.5 million in revenue that came out of the counties' pockets, the school districts pockets and the taxpayers pockets. The money would have been available for NACO to provide services.
Mr. Hadfield found AB 697 objectionable because NACO was not allowed to charge Nevada a collection fee for the revenues collected for Nevada. Mr. Hadfield believed NACO should be allowed to charge for the collection to administer the collection system for all the revenues NACO collected and disperse to other units of government.
Mr. Hadfield suggested if AB 697 was going to pass, cut the fee in half. He pointed out NACO's costs increased to administer its programs, but NACO did not have a built-in cost factor to pass on.
Mr. Hadfield urged the committee to consider the public policy addressed before the committee. If the bill was something necessary for the state, then the counties ought to have the same privilege.
Mrs. Lambert and Mr. Hadfield discussed a bill that passed out of Assembly Government Affairs Committee.
Stan Warren, representing Sierra Pacific Power Company (SPPC), stated his opposition to AB 697. Mr. Warren asserted passage of AB 697 would add to SPPC's cost of doing business and would be passed on to the customers. SPPC was opposed to AB 697 for exactly that reason. Mr. Warren conveyed if SPPC was given a choice to have the state continue to perform the service or SPPC perform the service itself, SPPC would elect to accomplish the service itself. Mr. Marvel asked if Mr. Warren had held any discussions with the Public Service Commission or the Consumer Advocate. Mr. Warren asserted he had not held any discussions with either of those agencies. Mr. Warren emphasized he did not represent any of the other utility companies regarding any of his comments.
C. Joseph Guild, III, representing the Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR), testified in opposition to AB 697. UPRR was opposed to AB 697 due to the fact there was no accountability factor contained in AB 697. Once AB 697 was passed there was no ability to determine how the department might be spending the revenue fees collected. Mr. Guild presented an example for the committee.
Mr. Guild echoed the sentiments of Mr. Warren and Mr. Barrett and stated AB 697 really set a bad precedent in charging a taxpayer for the collection of a tax. He iterated that was why citizens paid taxes.
Gaylyn J. Spriggs, representing Rayrock Mines, Inc., was opposed to AB 697. She iterated if the committee found out how many employees were involved in the Department of Taxation in centrally assessed properties, the number kept decreasing. If one could find out how many employees were in centrally assessed properties, it would be found it did not cost $1 million to have the persons there.
Lucille K. Lusk, representing Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC), spoke in opposition to AB 697. Ms. Lusk brought to the committee's attention the fee was just another indirect tax on the taxpayer.
Nancy J. Howard, representing Nevada League of Cities, for the record, opposed AB 697. It was a further erosion of Nevada's revenues.
Mr. Neighbors was of the opinion if the counties were going to be assessed, then the counties should be able to assess the citizens.
Chairman Price concluded testimony on AB 697.
Chairman Price opened testimony on AB 699.
ASSEMBLY BILL 699 - Authorizes imposition of tax for libraries that is exempt from limits on revenue upon approval by voters. (BDR 33-1593)
Martha Gould, Director, Washoe County Library, testified on behalf of the Nevada Library Association. She testified in support of the concept of AB 699. Ms. Gould provided committee members a copy of her prepared testimony attached hereto marked Exhibit G.
Mr. Neighbors offered Amendment No. 910 to AB 699, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit H. Mr. Neighbors added AB 699, with the amendment was a good bill.
Diane Baker, Head of the Library Development Center, Nevada State Library, spoke in support of Amendment No. 910 to AB 699. The amendment was proposed due to the situation that occurred in Nye County. It began with a few legal situations in which the District Attorney decided a number of the libraries in the area might not have been legally formed. The County Commissioners directed the local libraries to form districts. What the amendment would propose was to assist the commissioners in that measure to be able to form districts and go onto the business of operating a library.
Lucille K. Lusk, representing Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens (NCCC), stated NCCC held a neutral position on AB 699. NCCC believed it was appropriate to let the people decide. She requested an amendment to require the ballot question specify plainly if passed it would exceed the property tax established by law.
Howard E. Barrett, Nevada Taxpayers Association, stated AB 699, as interpreted by NTA, would not go above the $3.64, but on line 13, page 1, of AB 699, it would be exempt from Section 354.59811 which stated the property tax revenue in any one year could not exceed 106 percent of the property tax revenue from the previous year. That was one of NTA's large objections to AB 699, because it was simply another attempt of getting around the cap on property tax revenue placed on the local governments.
Chairman Price was under the impression in 1979 provisions were made stating the restrictions could be exceeded by a vote of the people. Mr. Barrett responded the property tax rate would be increased if there was a vote of the people. Chairman Price noted a technical difference between AB 699 was the library itself could have the questions placed before the people. Mr. Barrett saw the problem a vote of the people could acquire a special property tax. Then the county library was permanently being funded by property tax in the regular budget.
Mrs. Gould stressed the whole idea of AB 699 was the fact libraries were not mandated services. Since the tax shift in 1981 county libraries that were not districts (not their own government but part of a local government) had seen their budgets frozen or decreased. As more and more fees and obligations from the state level were rolling down the local level, library services outside the districts were bound to be negatively impacted. Mrs. Gould iterated if the issue went to a vote of the people and the ballot stated it would go above the 106 percent, let the people decide. That was the democratic way.
Chairman Price expanded stating the most common budgeting practice within the state was the county libraries were currently funded within the county budget, primarily most of the income was from property tax. He stated the libraries were permitted to direct the county commissioners to allocate funds for the library. Chairman Price asked if the three cents (or whatever amount was requested) passed by a vote of the people, was there anything in the bill to prevent the county commissioners in their regular budget process to then deduct at the other end an equal amount that might have been allocated to the library for the next fiscal year. Chairman Price conveyed that was a mechanism used by governments over and over.
Mrs. Gould suggested in the ballot question it could be stated the override be geared to the operating costs above and beyond the present level of library service. She felt there were several ways it could be done. The bottom line was somehow in the state of Nevada a way needed to be figured out to protect the public libraries. The public libraries had no access to money other than the general fund. If something was not done, the legislature next would have to look at some kind of specific tax revenues dedicated to public libraries.
Chairman Price closed the hearing on AB 699.
Chairman Price opened testimony on AB 731.
ASSEMBLY BILL 731 - Proposes to revise provisions governing exemption of gross receipts from sales of tangible personal property to and by specified governmental entities and certain charitable, educational or religious organizations from certain taxes on retail sales. (BDR 32-975)
Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, provided committee members with a Bill Explanation for AB 731 attached hereto marked Exhibit I.
John P. Comeaux, Executive Director, Nevada Department of Taxation introduced John Bartlett, Deputy Attorney General assigned to the department. Mr. Comeaux explained Mr. Bartlett had a lot to do with writing the language contained in AB 731.
Mr. Bartlett provided the committee secretary with a copy of his prepared testimony attached hereto marked Exhibit J. Mr. Bartlett read from Exhibit J.
* * * * * * * * *
Chairman Price asked for consideration of AB 699.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED TO AMEND AND REREFER AB 699 BACK TO THE TAXATION COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT SECONDED THE MOTION
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
* * * * * * * * *
Mr. Bartlett concluded AB 731 contained a provision allowing the tax commission to adopt regulations specific to the exemption allowing more leeway on the administration of AB 731. The bill basically provided more direction by the legislature as to how the exemption should be administered.
Barbara Drake, Vice President, Planning and Fund Distribution, United Way of Northern Nevada and the Sierra, clarified United Way understood the dilemma the legislature faced regarding the need for clearer language in the statute, but United Way was concerned, in protecting its nonprofit agency, anything that impinged the fund-raising ability would seriously impact the delivery of services. Ms. Drake stated United Way had already received many cuts.
Ms. Drake noted the language regarding the food and beverage issue and mentioned many of the agencies held dinners that were considered fund-raisers. She was concerned stating many of the agencies operated thrift stores and did not consider that unfair competition, but indeed a source of revenue.
Ms. Drake clarified she knew the bill was supposed to have been drafted providing an exemption, but the exceptions stated in the bill only allowed an agency three special events to be exempt from the sale of items. Ms. Drake explained many of the agencies were small agencies and held many events throughout the year in order to raise funds. The provision would limit the agencies' abilities.
Louise Bayard de Volo, Executive Director, Planned Parenthood in Northern Nevada, voiced originally she was going to testify in support of AB 697 representing many private nonprofits. She had originally been led to believe AB 697 assured nonprofits to be exempt from taxes on sales and purchases.
Ms. Bayard de Volo conveyed when the bill was read more carefully the bill actually removed the exemption for sales by the organizations. She wanted to make sure the legislators ignored the letters which were received from nonprofits in support of AB 697, because none of those organizations knew AB 697 really eliminated the tax exempt status for the sales made.
Ms. Bayard de Volo noted page 3, subsection 7 of AB 697 needed to be removed because the section stated her organizations were not exempt. She noted page 4, the bracketed (e) section needed to be reinserted. She also referenced subsection 5 on page 3 also needed to be deleted.
Martha Gould, representing the Nevada Library Association, the Friends of Washoe County Library and the Washoe County Library Foundation, addressed there was a problem with subsection 5, page 3 of AB 697 because there were a number of organizations who held a single major fund-raising event. She expressed it also hurt a number of small nonprofit organizations including Friends of Library. There was very little paid staff and a number of fund-raising events were held in a course of a year including anything from bake sales to book sales. One could not expect the volunteers to handle the paperwork involved in AB 697. She did not really think it was the intent of the committee to hamper the ability of nonprofits to provide services.
Chairman Price communicated it looked like the sections needed to be researched with Mr. Comeaux. Chairman Price indicated his intention was to get the bill in proper form and notify the parties accordingly. Mr. Spitler said staff needed to go through the bill line by line because he did not even understand AB 697 did what the testimony had represented.
Lucille K. Lusk, representing Nevada Coalition of Concerned Citizens, stated the NCCC had been trying to understand AB 697. It was extremely confusing. She was concerned with page 3, lines 14-20 of AB 697 where religious organization were defined. The definition was so narrow it would exclude the women's groups and the youth groups associated with various religious organizations. She also conveyed her concern with subsection 7 on page 3. She wanted to hear the same line-by-line explanation.
Chairman Price recessed the hearing until 5:00 p.m. to hear a presentation from the Walker River Paiute Tribe and possibly some other action.
Chairman Price called the Taxation Committee back to order.
Chairman Price previously had asked the members of the Walker River Paiute Tribal Council to give some consideration to the issues and report back to the Taxation Committee with some ideas on how to proceed. Chairman Price asserted at the meeting in Hawthorne, Nevada, everyone actually admitted there was a problem with the school located in Schurz. He indicated the Hawthorne citizens had a problem with a bond being mandated, but at least they realized the problem with the Schurz School. Chairman Price conveyed it had been brought to the committee's attention there were also problems with the schools in Hawthorne.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-2108 - Requires construction of certain school in Mineral County.
Paula Berkley, representing Walker River Paiute Tribe, wanted to bring the committee current as to how BDR S-2108 was brought about. She informed the committee BDR S-2108 was drafted based initially on the testimony at the Indian fuel tax hearing.
Ms. Berkley indicated she had been listening to the testimony as well as to the reaction of the legislators to see what the legislators were responding to. Ms. Berkley said she heard the committee was upset Mineral County had only tried to float a bond once in the 23 years the Schurz School was condemned. She said she also heard testimony the Hawthorne students should be bussed to Schurz so the problem could be identified. She also heard racism and the economic plight of Mineral County were two basic reasons given for not going for a bond issue or having bond issues fail.
Ms. Berkley believed the Superintendent of Schools, the School Board, the Bond Committee and the Principal of the school testified the school was needed and in the worst shape, but still did not think it would pass for a bond and that was why the fuel tax was supported by Mineral County.
Ms. Berkley relayed after some research she found out taxes could be imposed without voter approval and there was actual precedence. That was when BDR S-2108 was requested to require Mineral County to float the bond without voter approval to build the school. In order to address the economic plight of Mineral County (which was real) combine sales and property tax so it would not be quite the economic hardship on the property owner.
Ms. Berkley found after the Hawthorne hearing, it came to the attention of the committee Hawthorne schools were in need and a bond should be passed including the Hawthorne schools as well. That was when Ms. Berkley suggested drafting BDR S-2108 allowing Mineral County a certain number of months to pass a bond and if, after the number of months ran, a bond in good faith had not been passed, then mandate the Schurz School be built.
Ms. Berkley's logic was the school had been condemned for 23 years. Mineral County had 23 years to address the problem and had not done so. The tribe on the other hand had been collecting money out of the employees paychecks for the school; hired a lobbyist; addressed the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); and built a truck stop to generate enough property tax to get the school. Ms. Berkley's point was the tribe had done quite a bit in order to address the issue, but to date it had not been enough to get a school built.
Ms. Berkley referred to Chairman Price reading the Nevada Constitution at the Hawthorne meeting requiring the schools be safe for the children. It was a legal requirement and liability. Ms. Berkley said BDR S-2108 seemed to be the best solution.
Mr. Marvel asked what the tax rate was in Mineral County. Ms. Berkley was not sure. Ms. Berkley stated Mineral County did not have any bonds out because only one bond had been passed in 30 years and it was paid off. Mr. Marvel clarified how much would it take to float the bond. According to BDR S-2108 for just the Schurz School the quarter cent sales tax would generate $100,000 per year and then the remaining would be the property taxes which would cost up to roughly $100 per person in Mineral County. It would not take Mineral County over the cap.
Mr. Marvel asked if bond counsel would allow use of sales tax to pay the bond obligation. Ms. Berkley said the bond counsel would allow that. Mr. Marvel iterated the counsel was rigid in its requirements and property tax was the best security. Ms. Berkley asserted she had spoken with Mr. Swenseid and he indicated it would not be a problem. The county combined bond rate was 2.7867.
Anita M. Collins, Chairman, Walker River Paiute Tribe, alluded to the fact two attempts were made in two legislative sessions to pass the fuel bill to build the school in Schurz, but had been overcome. Another attempt to build the school was through BDR S-2108. She had informed Mineral County the Walker River community was a growing community and had approximately 150 children in elementary school, approximately 80 new homes being built and had a very young community with the majority being under 18 years of age with a greater majority being 30 and under.
Ms. Collins emphasized Hawthorne was a declining community. The mines were closing and jobs were being lost. It was becoming a transient community. Hawthorne's graduating class was smaller than it had ever been and continued to decline. She stressed again the Walker River community was growing.
Ms. Collins stated at the hearing in Hawthorne the people were against paying property and sales taxes to build a school, yet the fuel tax was bypassed without interfering with anybodies' property taxes. The tribe was willing to work toward a bond in Mineral County for school construction. Ms. Collins was concerned Mineral County felt it could not vote a bond until the election time in November of 1994. She was concerned with the lack of expertise and lack of funding in Mineral County with regard to bond issues.
Ms. Collins asserted the fact had come up with regard to bussing the Schurz School children (kindergarten through eighth grade) to Hawthorne. That trip included a 68 mile round trip around the cliffs, the lake, high wind area, flash flood zone and icy roads in the winter. The children would be leaving before day break and returning after dark. Ms. Collins emphasized the parents in the community would not allow the children to be bussed to Hawthorne.
Ms. Collins was worried stating in two months the children were going to be returning to an unstable, dangerous school, be bussed over an equally dangerous highway or will the children be kept home. She felt the Indians were treated as second class citizens in many areas. There had been a lot of racism. It appeared the people in the state of Nevada wanted the first people of the nation to be kept economic and social prisoners.
Ms. Berkley said when Mineral County was threatened with mandated taxes it was a "bitter pill" no matter what. Ms. Berkley asserted the taxes must be mandated because Mineral County would not vote for the Schurz School.
Mr. Ernaut asked how many property owners lived in Schurz. Ms. Berkley said $8,000 in taxes were paid to Mineral County last year. She did not know the exact number of property owners.
Viola Kennison, (Carries Eaglefeather) Tax Director, Walker River Paiute Tribe, responded 24 or 26 property owners.
Chairman Price alluded to a letter he had received earlier from Ms. Marlene S. Bunch, the Mineral County Clerk and Treasurer, attached hereto marked Exhibit L. Ms. Bunch indicated in her letter there were 25 taxable parcels on the Walker River Reservation of which only 16 actually had households. Chairman Price read from Ms. Bunch's letter with regard to in-lieu-of-tax monies received.
Ms. Berkley added when she asked the superintendent of schools and the superintendent of Mineral County how much in-lieu-of-tax dollars were received in his general fund, he indicated $200,000. Mrs. Lambert believed the per pupil state guarantee in Mineral County was in excess of $4,000. She indicated there was enough money from the federal government if it was divided by the $4000 plus figure to fund 10.8 students. It really was not a whole lot of money.
Mr. Ernaut indicated there were 194 properties in the Schurz area that were exempted from property tax. He asked if those properties were assessed. Mr. Ernaut did believe racism played a part in the issue, as well as the fiscal question. Mr. Ernaut asked what Ms. Berkley thought if the 194 tax exempt property owners voluntarily agreed to pay a tax rate equal to that assessed through the bond until it was paid off. Ms. Berkley noted there was 42 percent unemployment on the reservation. Property tax would not be a solution because it was an economic hardship.
Mr. Ernaut knew the tribe had shown intent; however, something in the area of payment of taxes might "go a long way." Ms. Berkley noted the tribe donated the land so Mineral County would not have to pay for it. The tribe offered to conduct the site preparation because the tribe had the tools to do that. Every individual earning any money from the Tribal Council had been donating money every pay period for the last year. Ms. Berkley said the tribes had even done more. Mr. Ernaut pointed out all those things had not worked to erase the problem. Mr. Ernaut did believe those things did show intent. Ms. Berkley listed other deeds the tribe had performed toward assisting Mineral County. Ms. Berkley emphasized there were some real indicators no matter what happened with the bond issue, Hawthorne would not want to fulfill a first class job.
Chairman Price asked if the recommendation from the council would be to move forward with BDR S-2108. Ms. Berkley agreed.
Chairman Price read additional information from Ms. Bunch's letter attached hereto marked Exhibit L. He read Ms. Bunch's suggestion to the taxation committee from Exhibit L. Ms. Berkley mentioned there were no residents in Lyon and Churchill counties, even though the reservation land sat in the other two counties.
Mrs. Williams asked what portion of the Indian taxes were the result of payment on the land. Chairman Price indicated it was $25,274.72 according to Ms. Bunch's letter. That was the Mineral County portion.
Mr. Neighbors believed in the goodwill measures. Mr. Neighbors asserted if some more effort was there, it would help. He noted currently in Mina classes from the fifth grade up drove 32 miles to school. He mentioned the high school children from Schurz go to school in Yerington, so why not bus the children to Yerington. At least there was not the problem with the lake. Ms. Collins responded the high school children could attend school at Churchill, Lyon or Mineral counties by state legislation. The majority of the high school children attend the school in Lyon County. There was an Indian population in Lyon County. Mr. Neighbors believed in terms of safety it would be a better idea.
Mr. Neighbors asked if the tribe told Mineral County it had $600,000 to contribute. Ms. Berkley said Mineral County was aware of the funds. Ms. Berkley stressed the $600,000 was only available for the education fund for the school, not for construction. Ms. Collins said the money would be used to enhance the school. Mr. Neighbors stated it was up to the district to fund the classes after the school was built. Ms. Berkley iterated the district would not fund the school as it needed to be funded. There were many things the districts had to do, but did not. She thought it was unfortunate.
Mr. Schneider brought up the fact in Las Vegas children were taught in portable classrooms for years due to overcrowded schools. The latest price of a portable classrooms was $33,000. Mr. Schneider believed portable classrooms would eliminate the immediate problem in September. The portable classrooms were heated and air conditioned facilities. He pointed out most new schools in Las Vegas opened with portable classrooms. Ms. Berkley responded the tribe did request portable classrooms during the interim, but did not want the portable classrooms standing there for the next 23 years. Ms. Collins requested the name of the contractor. Mr. Schneider said the portable classrooms were being brought in from Phoenix. Ms. Berkley believed it would be a cheaper solution than bussing the children. Hawthorne schools were already full. Mr. Schneider suggested the portable classrooms for the children and the administration could be housed in the old building. At least it would buy a couple of years to work out the problem, and provide decent classroom space.
Ms. Collins pointed out the tribe paid federal taxes. The tribe did not pay property taxes. Ms. Berkley added Walker River Paiute Tribe spent $33 million in the rural economies. Not every dollar was in Mineral County, but a good portion of it was.
Responding to a comment by Mr. Neighbors, Ms. Kennison asked if he had a military base in his community would he go to those parents that had children on the military base and ask them to pay above and beyond what the federal government already paid in military taxes. The people in Mineral County wanted to see the money come out of the pockets of the Indians. Mr. Neighbors said his only point was "we'll give a little bit too." Hopefully there would be some way to work it out. It has been a "bottleneck."
Ms. Collins added the Indians assisted in the economy of Mineral County because the reservation allowed the ammunition to go through the reservation.
Following extensive discussion between the members of the committee, Chairman Price detailed the proposed amendment to BDR S-2108 would be to set a time in November of 1993 to hold a special election.
Mr. Neighbors clarified if a bond issue did not pass in the election, then it would be mandated. Chairman Price indicated that was correct. Mr. Neighbors expressed concern with what would happen with the rest of the state once precedence was set. Mr. Neighbors emphasized it was very bad legislation and bad tax policy. He did not believe a tax rate should be mandated on anyone. He indicated he would not support BDR S-2108.
Chairman Price recalled the Hawthorne meeting and noted Hawthorne also needed a school. He was hopeful, "They could be going for both schools at the same time." At least it would give Hawthorne the chance to take care of their own school.
Chairman Price suggested to amend and rerefer the bill draft request. The bill would not come out of the committee yet. He asked for a vote.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR S-2108 AND TO AMEND AND REREFER THE BILL BACK TO THE TAXATION COMMITTEE.
ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS VOTING NO.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
DIANNE LAIRD
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Taxation
Tuesday, June 22, 1993
Page: 1