The Committee on Taxation was called to order at 1:40 p.m., on Tuesday, April 20, 1999. Chairman David Goldwater presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. David Goldwater, Chairman

Mr. Roy Neighbors, Vice Chairman

Mr. Bernie Anderson

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. Greg Brower

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

Mr. Bob Price

COMMITTEE MEMBERS EXCUSED:

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Maurice Washington, Senate District 2

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Upon silent roll call it was determined a quorum was present.

Chairman Goldwater began the meeting by pointing out, with the 120 day session and the resulting deadlines having passed, the staff for the Committee on Taxation took the opportunity to compute the bill statistics and found the committee had received 37 bills in total and processed 21. The remainder either failed or were withdrawn by the sponsor giving them a pass rate of 56 percent; however, none of the bills the members passed out of committee failed on the floor so that was also a positive indicator.

Included as part of the record was a bill explanation prepared by Fiscal Analyst Ted Zuend and identified as Exhibit C.

The Chairman called on Senator Washington as primary sponsor of S.B. 238 and asked him to begin his testimony.

Senator Washington introduced himself and his constituent Gary Murray, owner of Fresco's Take 'N Bake Pizza business. The Senator described Mr. Murray as a successful businessman who had contributed a great deal to the community of Sparks. The genesis of the bill dealt with a situation in Sparks concerning the pizza business of Mr. Murray and the question of his being required to pay sales tax on his product which was pizza that was not ready for immediate consumption, and he felt should have benefited from the sales tax exemption. Senator Washington asked Mr. Murray to address his concerns to the committee members.

Mr. Murray explained in essence, his product, the take and bake pizzas were not baked in his store but were ordered and picked up by the consumer who would then take them home to consume them. Which would have been no different from anyone going into the local grocery store, purchasing a can of a food item, taking it home, and not being charged the sales tax. His problem was he had been told he must charge sales tax on the items.

He felt that put him in an unfair disadvantage where he had to compete with grocery stores who were selling frozen pizzas as well as other grocery items. After discussing that with Senator Washington they were able to get the Department of Taxation to correct that decision in their regulations and they wanted to make certain it was codified in the law whereby his particular item would be exempt from having to charge tax.

Mr. Murray acknowledged he had pretty much said everything necessary; however, the situation did cause his business a major hardship. Take 'N Bake pizza had been around for about 20 years and then the state sent him a letter stating he had 2 weeks to be in compliance or he would be fined. He called the state agency and they said, "well, write us a letter and tell us what your problems are." The problem was he had to buy a new cash register system because the one they had was not able to discern taxes and non-taxes, and they would have been required to change all of their menus to say "includes state sales tax." Mr. Murray pointed out he had written to the deputy director and she wrote back saying, "well, too bad, you are going to collect the sales tax," and they had only 14 days to make it happen. He pointed out to the state agency the grocery stores such as Albertson's, Safeway, and so forth, selling frozen pizza did not charge sales tax. He said he had discussed the issue with the staff person from the department and told her, "You make us collect the sales tax, or make us exempt like we always have been in the past," and she said that was the law and if he did not like it, he could take the State of Nevada to court and sue them, and she guaranteed him he was going to lose. He asked the staff member he had spoken with how she could be so sure and she replied, "because we wrote the law." He called Senator Washington and told him what had been going on, and they had been working the issue for about a year. The state had already rescinded their decision. He wanted to make it a law so it did not come up again, and they would be done with it. He had been told he could just get on with running his business the way he always had.

Chairman Goldwater complemented Mr. Murray for taking the initiative to make the law work as it should which was beneficial to him and his customers. He then recognized Mr. Manendo for a question.

Mr. Manendo asked Mr. Murray if his business was a franchise and was advised in the negative with Mr. Murray explaining he owned Fresco’s Take ‘N Bake.

Chairman Goldwater called on Mr. Marvel who asked if Mr. Murray had been charged any penalties and learned they were not. They were able to be in compliance by the date the department had established so they did not have any fines or penalties.

Mr. Mortenson explained he was trying to differentiate the fact that when he went to McDonald’s and bought a hamburger he paid the tax on it so there must be a fine line between what was a prepared food and a non-prepared food. He asked if that was the way the tax read or if anyone could clarify that for him. He admitted he should wait for the tax people to provide the answers for him.

Chairman Goldwater pointed out Ms. Vilardo’s organization put out a tax fact book which would explain those issues and would be a good place to start. He then asked Mr. Pursell if the codification and statute coming from the bill would have any affect other than what was intended in that particular case.

Mr. Pursell, executive director of the Department of Taxation, responded to Mr. Mortenson stating the test on the exemption boiled down to whether the food was ready for immediate consumption versus if more preparation had to take place. If it was for immediate consumption, such as at a fast food chain, the sales tax would be imposed. Mr. Mortenson accepted the explanation and agreed in Mr. Murray's particular situation, the food had to be cooked.

Chairman Goldwater recognized Mr. Brower for a question. Mr. Brower wanted to thank the Senator for bringing the issue to the committee, indicating he had been following the situation in the press since 1997, and it really was about fairness. An individual could buy that same product in any grocery store and would not pay sales tax on it which was what the committee was discussing. He extended his thanks indicating he appreciated the sponsor bringing the issue to the committee.

Chairman Goldwater asked Mr. Pursell if the proposed legislation would have any unintended consequences in his opinion and was advised in the negative. Chairman Goldwater pointed out his understanding was it would simply codify the existing language. He extended the thanks of the committee to Mr. Murray for the pizzas he had brought for the enjoyment of the committee members. He then asked if there were further questions from the committee. There being none, he asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to testify on the bill, either in support or opposition. Seeing none, he closed the hearing and indicated he would entertain a motion.

Chairman Goldwater opened the hearing on S. B. 202.

The Chair turned the floor over to Clay Thomas, assistant chief of the Motor Carrier Bureau for the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety (DMV), who explained he was present to speak on the bill which addressed three separate issues.

The first issue was identified as sections 2 and 3 of the bill which would add language to chapter 481 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) to allow the DMV to file, for the record, a certificate in the office of any county recorder to place a lien on all real or personal property of an individual in order to collect all delinquent fees owed to the department. The language within the section had been copied verbatim out of NRS 360, which was the statute being used by the Department of Taxation for the collection of debt owed to their agency.

The action was, in part, predicated upon a 1994 legislative audit in which the Motor Carrier Bureau (MCB) was identified as having been remiss in the area of debt collection. Since that time, the MCB had been aggressive in its pursuit of delinquent accounts by the implementation of show-cause hearings and also by small claims court actions. With the passage of the language, it would give the bureau one more tool in the collection process. The 1994 audit indicated the MCB was remiss in collecting approximately $1,300,000. Since that time, with the aggressive efforts of the bureau, they had brought the amount down to approximately $500,000. Currently there were 16 delinquent accounts, 14 of them currently were in bankruptcy, and the remainder were with the attorney general's office for collection. The proposed bill would give his department the opportunity to file a certificate with the county recorder to place a lien. If an individual left the state and attempted to open a business elsewhere, they would have the benefit of knowing the credit check would identify what had happened to that individual, and he or she would have to pay the amount owed to Nevada.

Chairman Goldwater interjected at that time, suggesting it would be preferred if Mr. Thomas would go through the bill section by section as they contained different issues. He then acknowledged Mr. Neighbors for a question.

Mr. Neighbors asked, in regard to one of the delinquent accounts, why it was not paid when the transaction was completed. Responding, Mr. Thomas confirmed there were a variety of payments that came into DMV. One could be privilege tax that was owed, there could be registration fees that were owed, and there could also be special fuel monies that were owed. When taxes were due, either monthly or quarterly, often times individuals became delinquent in their accounts so DMV did not collect the money at the time it was due.

Mr. Neighbors questioned if they could not collect the privilege tax, why was the license not pulled, whereupon Mr. Thomas clarified the agency had the capability of doing that, through a show-cause hearing where they attempted to identify the individual, bring him before the board and show cause as to why they should not revoke his license. The problem was, even if they revoked the license, the money was still owed to the state. The proposal before the committee was an attempt to allow the department to collect the money owed.

Chairman Goldwater asked Mr. Thomas if the administration had in place now the administrative authority that would allow them to: a) place the liens on the business and, b) release the liens when the taxes had been paid. Mr. Thomas replied in the affirmative to both questions adding within the DMV budget, they had asked for an additional revenue officer in Las Vegas that would be responsible strictly for that procedure. On the question of filing with the county recorder, there were no costs incurred so the staff would simply file the appropriate paperwork, and they had revenue officers to do that.

Chairman Goldwater asked if there were further questions on the lien provisions. There being none, he asked Mr. Thomas to continue with section 4 of the bill which would remove an exemption for motion pictures, carnivals, and circuses.

Mr. Thomas explained the second issue would, as stated by the Chair, make changes to NRS 366.221 by deleting the exemptions for certain entities having to register for use of state roadways and fuel licensing requirements. By deleting that section, all motor carrier operators, whether interstate or intrastate, would be treated the same. At that time, the State of Nevada was the only known state that had exemptions for those entities. There was no other state, of which they were aware which allowed that. Upon conducting research into the matter, the Motor Carrier Bureau learned the State of California currently collected all monies owed to the State of Nevada by members of the movie industry. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to those types of operations which had been a concern in the past. In addition, it was discovered that three carnivals and or circuses whose base of operation was in the State of Idaho, spent approximately 40 percent of their time travelling within Nevada and yet, no taxes were collected from those entities. With section 4 of the bill, they were asking to level the playing field for all entities that were using Nevada's roadways.

There being no questions Chairman Goldwater requested Mr. Thomas to continue. Mr. Thomas stated the third issue was identified in section 5 of the bill which made changes to the current language allowing the department to utilize money identified as credit or refund. Those were funds due an individual or a company, to be utilized to offset or be applied to the debt owed to the department by the same individual or company. For example, the Motor Carrier Bureau could actually be in the process of issuing a refund to an individual on one situation, while at the same time, attempting to collect from that same person for another delinquent account. As it stood now, the department must give the refund back and then attempt to collect on the separate account. The bill would allow them to use any credit available to offset any debt by an individual or his or her company.

Chairman Goldwater acknowledged that was an interesting concept and asked for questions or comments from the committee. Mr. Price asked at that point if there was a dispute over the second tax that was owed, was the department saying they would use the first refund even though the taxpayer might be challenging or questioning the second amount.

Mr. Thomas explained the proposed legislation would allow them if there was a challenge, to hold the money in abeyance until the issue could be resolved. If an individual owed the state money, for instance for taxes for off-road use and the state owed him credit for that, but he owed the state for payment of registration fees he had not paid, the bill would allow the state to offset those two.

Mr. Price pointed out his understanding of what was being said was that his department would use the other money, even though there may be a challenge on the account, and the money would eventually have to be returned. He asked if he was understanding their position correctly. Mr. Thomas concurred with the statement, adding if they were challenged and the funds were theirs, it would not apply to that section.

Mr. Price reiterated his question and understanding, that being as long as the taxpayer did not challenge the agency, they could use that credit, but if there was a situation or a question, they would not use the other credit. The license holder would still get their money back, even though they might be going through the process of a challenge. Mr. Thomas again responded his agency would not hold back any credit to any individual or company until the challenge was adjudicated if, in fact, it had become an issue.

Chairman Goldwater wanted confirmation the agency had the accounting systems in place to use the section effectively and was advised in the affirmative. He then asked for further questions and recognized Mr. Marvel who asked if the proposal would be put into the department's Genesis system as well.

Mr. Thomas, replying to Mr. Marvel's question stated it would not. The Motor Carrier Bureau within the confines of the Genesis system, was a stand-alone unit. The only contact or interaction the Motor Carrier Bureau would have with Genesis, was an interface through their accounting system. Other than that, the Motor Carrier Bureau was a stand-alone operation.

Assemblyman Marvel asked Mr. Thomas if his division had adequate tools to perform the necessary functions and was advised they were prepared.

Chairman Goldwater informed the committee that was the extent of the bill and thanked Mr. Thomas adding that was very thorough presentation. He asked if there had been any resistance to the bill on the Senate side and learned there was none. Mr. Thomas added the information his agency had also worked with the involved industries, and they were supportive of the bill as well.

Chairman Goldwater asked if there were further questions or comments either in support or opposition to the bill and recognized Ms. Vilardo who wished to provide a statement.

Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association indicated her association was in support of the bill. She added the Committee on Government Affairs would have another bill coming over which was the result of the same audit and would provide those mechanisms to all state agencies not currently using them. The provision was due to testimony on the bill and the audit mentioned by Mr. Thomas, saying when the Legislative Counsel Bureau (LCB) audit staff had gone back to look at collection procedures, there were very few agencies that had any mechanisms in place to allow the collections and they identified $50,000,000 uncollectable. Her association supported the bill because they would rather see the state collect what was out there than raise taxes.

Assemblyman Marvel was recognized next by the Chair and pointed out he understood there was a more recent audit report out of the other subcommittee and Ms. Vilardo was correct. The state did have a plethora of uncollected taxes or accounts receivable, and he concurred with Ms. Vilardo's statement when she said between $45 million and $50 million were uncollectable. He felt the measure would be a step in the right direction.

Chairman Goldwater expressed his only concern wasn't the ability to place the lien but to remove the lien once it had been paid. Just noticing in general business, people placed liens all the time and sometimes those liens were satisfied which often created an administrative nightmare, not in the clerk’s office but within the business itself. He wanted to encourage Ms. Vilardo and Mr. Marvel, as they moved forward on the issue, that the committee was mindful of the ability of a department to remove a lien once it was satisfied.

Carole Vilardo pointed out the Chairman had a very valid point, however, to the best of her knowledge, the state has had no major problems with the Department of Taxation. Inasmuch as there would be another bill coming through and a number of legislators on the Committee on Government Affairs would be hearing it, she asked if it would be a good idea for the first year or two, at least through the next legislative session, to have some type of report back from agencies who would be using the mechanism. She admitted she did not know how cumbersome or how easy it was to develop but it might be one way to insure the operation. If a problem developed which could be identified right away additional actions could be taken so they did not continue.

Chairman Goldwater indicated he could say with a great degree of certainty the legislators would hear if there was a problem adding the provisions included a 3-year "out" period. Ms. Vilardo agreed; however, she pointed out it might be of interest to review the tracking to determine whether the lien procedure was being used inasmuch as it was being made available to various agencies. The Chairman then called upon Mr. Marvel, who pointed out the committee may want defer to the legal staff, but if a lien was not removed even though it had been paid, would that be a problem of clouding the title on real property. There was no response to the question.

Assemblywoman Freeman, after being recognized by the Chair, asked Ms. Vilardo if she could explain to her why an audit was not done before, and was that why the state was in that position. Ms. Vilardo explained she thought someone like Gary Crews with the Legislative Counsel Bureau would be in a better position to answer her question as she could only go by what she read in the audit report Issued by the legislative staff. She stated her association saved all the audits they received in their office. She felt it was interesting because in 1987 and 1989 they had a couple of very large agencies that were audited and the same issue was discovered. In fact, it was strange because there would be an agency collecting from two different taxes which were part of off-setting and at that point, the business may have been due some money. Her office had on three, four, or five occasions taken checks which had bounced and had not been collected with no off-sets and she admitted she still had some of them. Those individuals who were legitimately in business and complying with the law wanted everyone else to comply.

Chairman Goldwater concurred, stating the legislators saw that continuously in the Committee on Ways and Means, and what it came down to was budgets in the private sector usually had accounts receivable, and as they grew the business-owner started paying attention. When the budgets were prepared in the legislature they did not have accounts receivable. The audit report stated agencies needed some tools to collect the money due and the proposed bill was one of them.

Finding there was no further testimony on the bill, Chairman Goldwater indicated it was an agency bill and, inasmuch as there did not appear to be any opposition he would accept a motion.

Chairman Goldwater summarized the three bills on the agenda and heard by the committee and announced they appeared to be items appropriate for the consent calendar. He stated in the interest of time he would accept a motion to that effect.

Chairman Goldwater acknowledged that was making good use of the consent calendar. He then opened the hearing on S.B. 494.

The bill provided that the Nevada Tax Commission would divide the counties into three groups for purposes of the ratio study of assessed to taxable value and that each county must be studied at least once every 3 years. Currently, the ratio study of all counties was conducted over a 2-year period.

The Chair recognized Dave Pursell and invited him to take a place at the witness table and present his comments.

Introducing himself, Dave Pursell, executive director of the Department of Taxation, explained the bill was the department’s request for the Committee on Taxation to consider extending the cycle of the ratio study which he wanted to briefly discuss with the members. The department was responsible for monitoring what the county assessors were doing as they valued property in the reappraisal cycle. In the past, by statute, the reappraisal cycle was to take place at least once every 5 years, and he believed it was during the 1997 session it was changed to allow property to be re-appraised every year. That in turn, increased the number of properties the department appraisers needed to sample to compare what county assessors were doing in their appraisal.

In order for them to complete a statistically valid sampling of the property, they were requesting they be allowed to break the 17 counties into a 3-year cycle. That would enable his division to maintain a sample size large enough to run their tests against what the county assessors were doing. That was preferable to being directed to conduct a ratio study on eight counties in 1 year and nine counties the next,

Chairman Goldwater asked Mr. Pursell if he received any resistance to the bill in the Senate and was advised in the negative.

Chairman Goldwater invited Mr. Schofield or anyone else in the audience to testify if they wished as the committee was always ready to hear ideas or suggestions from the public and or affected officials.

Mark Schofield, Clark County assessor, pointed out of the 17 counties within the state, his department received no opposition related to the bill. The purpose of his testimony was not to oppose the bill but rather to compel committee members to think about certain issues. The ratio study was a check and balance provision built into statute to insure compliance from each of the 17 counties and to be assured there was uniformity as constitutionally mandated in the assessment practices. He could appreciate and understand the purpose of the bill which was due to the department suffering from a severe lack of manpower. If he had his way, Clark County would go through a ratio study each and every year, but he realized that was not humanly possible due to the way the Department of Taxation was currently configured.

The idea for the bill surfaced 4 years ago, and at that time he wrote a letter to the respective taxation committees in both houses and posed this question, "If you were a business, would you allow that business to go without a finance audit for more than a year?" He reiterated he was not opposing the bill and appreciated the position Director Pursell had been placed; however, the had not been provided an adequate enough budget to facilitate the manpower necessary to maintain the ratio study every 2 years. He admitted they had put him in that position in Clark County in 1998 when they made the decision to reappraise Clark County each and every year, but they used the ratio study as a check and balance. As the Clark County assessor, it gave him a report card on how well they were doing and so far, so good. Now they were re-appraising the whole county each and every year, and in order for the department to adequately perform the ratio study, they needed more samples and subsequently more time. Eventually, he would assume that many of the counties would adopt a yearly reappraisal cycle as it was more fair for the taxpayers, and it helped achieve equity in a much more expeditious fashion.

Assemblyman Marvel explained his understanding was that most of the counties were fully equipped with computer capabilities. He assumed they could do that reappraisal every year. He was advised by Mr. Schofield most of the counties were not equipped adequately to facilitate yearly reappraisal. Assemblyman Marvel pointed out he thought, at one time, Elko and Lander counties could and was advised by Mr. Schofield that currently Clark County was the only county that had adopted the policy in the state, and he understood Washoe was not too far behind.

Assemblyman Marvel next asked Mr. Pursell how the ratio study was used for his agency. He asked if he used it in one area, such as a county in a taxing jurisdiction or did they try to apply it statewide.

In response Mr. Pursell explained they went into a county and looked into the reappraisal area for those counties that were in the cycle, and as Mr. Schofield had said, when they were looking at one-fifth of Clark county, they were looking at about 80,000 parcels. When they went to the yearly appraisal they would be looking at about 400,000 parcels, and Mr. Schofield was correct, it was a matter of resources. The appraiser positions they had requested in the department’s budget did not make it through the governor's recommendations, so in order to keep the integrity in the size of the sample, they had one other option, and that was to spread the cycle out. But they did it by county and by reappraisal area for the counties that were earmarked for that year’s study.

Assemblyman Marvel pointed out he was on the tax commission when the legislature adopted the ratio study, and they had followed it for a long time trying to understand how they really applied it.

Mr. Schofield explained the department had an excellent relationship with all assessors throughout the state, and he wanted to commend them for the way they approached the ratio study. It was not used as a tool for admonition as much as it was used as a tool for education. They used it in Clark County because the assessors, from time to time, became a target because of the very virtue of what they did. They put value on property and, the derivative of that was the property tax. They got all kinds of frivolous allegations made about their assessment practices, and they used the ratio study as a tool to defuse those. That was why it was so important to them.

Chairman Goldwater called on Mr. Neighbors who stated, as a former appraiser working for the county, he hated to have to convince people his job was strictly to appraise the property, but the taxes were set by the commissioners. He asked Mr. Schofield when the tax rolls closed and was advised by him the tax rolls virtually never closed. They closed one time in December and they had to be closed January 1 as far as the secured roll, but the legislature enacted legislation during the 1991 session where they would be able to reopen the roll and secure all the new construction on the supplemental roll. He was guessing at the year so he did not want to make that date definite.

Assemblyman Neighbors asked Mr. Purcell a hypothetical question, if a county had a subdivision of brand new homes at a certain percent of completion but they were not ready for sale and tax time was due, would he pick those up as personal property or how would his department handle it.

Responding to the question was Mr. Schofield who pointed out it varied from county to county. It could be actually secured to the roll, the reopened roll, or it could be picked up as personal property. To give the committee an idea of the magnitude of new construction in Clark county, in 1998 between January 1 and June 30, they closed to the open roll $5 billion in new improvement, taxable value. That equated to approximately $50 billion in property taxes enjoyed by all the various local entities in Clark County.

Chairman Goldwater asked for further questions. There being none, he asked If the committee did not approve the bill, how it would affect the appraisers.

Mr. Pursell, in response to the Chairman's question, replied, if the bill was not approved, they would cut the sample size back to meet the requirement in the statute now to do the ratio study on eight counties 1 year and nine counties the next.

Assemblyman Price asked Mr. Pursell if he knew what the request had been from the division and was advised the request was to change the ratio study to a 3-year cycle rather than a 2-year cycle. They would separate the 17 counties into three groups. Assemblyman Price then asked what the original request was in the budget, how many additional staff were requested, and so forth.

Dave Pursell, in response to Mr. Price, stated it was to increase the staff by two more positions that could be assigned to Clark County or, if the positions were kept in Carson City as all the appraiser positions were now, there would be additional travel to get those appraisers to Clark County.

Chairman Goldwater next called upon Mr. Anderson for questions or comments. Assemblyman Anderson, directing his question to Mr. Pursell, asked if the size of the sample would be the same in each of 3 years even though the makeup of the counties, would dramatically be different. Did he anticipate there would be some balancing within the statute so he could make some sort of understanding from year to year. Currently, he presumed that someone could say that every odd-numbered year were certain counties and every even- numbered years were other counties, so he could make a comparison over a time period of how the accuracy of changes in the tax system would be evaluated. He asked Mr. Pursell if he would be able to make a similar comparison in the future, if the legislature passed the legislation.

Mr. Pursell responding to Mr. Anderson, pointed out if the state did go to the 3 year cycle, the assessors would put Clark, Esmeralda, Eureka, and Storey in one cycle. Then the statute would break out the types of categories of property at which they would be looking. That was how they did their sample. He called the committee's attention to page 3 of the bill, where it showed a vacant, single-family residential, multi-residential, commercial, and rural. They would keep the sample in those categories and, historically had tried to keep the sample size the same each time they went in and did the ratio study on whichever county it was they were studying at that time.

Assemblyman Anderson guessed his curiosity was piqued because of what would happen relative to when Clark county's ratio would come up and how much larger percentage of the ratio it would make up.

In response, Mr. Pursell concurred with Mr. Anderson, adding he was absolutely correct because when they had a 5-year cycle regardless of what county they were in, there was a certain type of property in each one of that 20 percent at which they were looking. He recalled, in the past, in some of the rural counties in one of those years of the cycle, they would be looking at nothing but agricultural property and, based on how that cycle hit one could be looking at different property. With the counties going to a reappraisal of all types of property, they were probably going to have to sit down with the assessor and determine which areas they needed to examine and insure there was fairness involved. The one thing that was very important about the ratio study was consistency in applying the assessment of property in the state.

Assemblyman Anderson explained it was very reasonable that he ask the question. It seemed to him that whenever Clark County fell into the study, there would be a full variety of property available for him to study and less, when it was not there. They may be able to include it with Washoe County, but if it was only going to come up once in every third study, that meant neither of the two large counties populace, with variances and evaluation were going to be there, at least in one of those cycles. He asked Mr. Pursell if that was correct.

Dave Pursell answered he was absolutely correct. It was just a matter of resource with the number of appraisers they had and the amount of property they could review in any given year.

Chairman Goldwater recognizing there were no further questions from the committee thanked Mr. Pursell and asked if there was anyone else who wished to testify in support or opposition to S.B. 494. There were none, whereby the Chair closed the hearing stating he would entertain a motion for action by the committee and asked whether the members wished to include the bill on the consent calendar or did they believe the issue needed separate debate. It was concluded the issue would require two separate motions.

MOTION WAS MADE BY MR. NEIGHBORS TO

DO PASS S. B. 494.

MOTION SECONDED BY MR. MARVEL.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

The Chairman recognized Mr. Anderson on the question of including the bill as a consent calendar item or did the committee wish to keep it separate. In response, Assemblyman Anderson pointed out it seemed to him there may be questions from members on the floor, and if it was the committee's intent to send it to the Committee on Ways and Means, it may not be prudent to put it on the consent calendar.

Chairman Goldwater indicated he did not think it was going to go to the Committee on Ways and Means. He felt what Mr. Price had referred to earlier was for the staff in the Department of Taxation to keep the 2-year assessment in place as that was the alternative.

Assemblyman Anderson pointed out if the Chair thought there would be questions on the floor in terms of the budgeting cycle, he may want to explain it to the members through a formalized statement to which the Chair readily agreed, adding if there was even a small question, he did not think it belonged on the consent calendar.

Chairman Goldwater perused the remaining legislation to come before the committee, basically all agency bills. He added he had looked at the bills coming over from the Senate and three bills caught his eye that would be of interest to the committee; one was the gray-market cigarette bill, another bill was dealing with art in public places, and another relative to a room tax issue dealing with the Reno Convention Visitors Authority. Those were three the Chairman saw as potentially "lively hearings." He suggested the members would do well to familiarize themselves with the issues before the hearings.

Confirming there was no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Nykki Kinsley,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Chairman

DATE: