The Committee on Taxation was called to order at 12:00 p.m., on Tuesday, May 11, 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. Greg Brower

Mrs. Vivian Freeman

Ms. Dawn Gibbons

Mr. Mark Manendo

Mr. John Marvel

Mr. Harry Mortenson

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. John Jay Lee

Mr. Bob Price

Ms. Sandra Tiffany

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Goldwater opened the hearing on S.B. 349.

Russ Law, representing the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), explained the bill would provide for an administrative fine for using dyed fuel on the highways. Dyed fuel was for nontaxable use; only clear fuel could be used on the highway.

The bill also made minor changes in tax liability bonds and supplier retention for collecting the special fuel tax. Those minor changes were in line with A.B. 584 the committee passed.

The dyed fuel program in Nevada was almost nonexistent, and NDOT had worked to build one. That was accomplished by writing a memorandum of understanding with the Nevada Highway Patrol in which the department supplied them with $50,000 for training and equipment to begin seriously enforcing dyed fuel regulations.

Mr. Law added the bill put some "teeth" into their efforts. There were federal fines for using dyed fuel for taxable use but there were no state fines. The bill would provide for that.

Next to speak was Peter Kruger, representing Nevada Petroleum Marketers, who expressed support for the bill. He advised he and Mr. Capurro had worked over the interim to help expedite the process. There has been a serious problem in Nevada, the scope of which was unknown; however, through anecdotal information there were businesses and individuals running dyed fuel in their vehicles on the highway in violation of federal and state laws.

The bill would empower the Nevada Highway Patrol (NHP), give them equipment, and the necessary statutes to stop vehicles to verify the fuel in the tanks that operated the vehicle was clear fuel. The bill was necessary to help the businesses and people who were abiding the law and stop people who were evading tax through illegal use for which a product it was not intended.

Next was Daryl E. Capurro, representing Nevada Motor Transport Association, who echoed the comments of the previous two witnesses regarding S B. 349. He added it was another effort on the part of industry and the regulators and enforcers to ensure all the tax money mandated was received by the state before the issue of tax increases was considered as a way to address highway needs.

Assemblyman Marvel asked what uses were exempt from the diesel tax fuel. Mr. Kruger responded off-road uses; agriculture, mining, stationary sources, generators, uses off the public highway. He noted people could obtain dyed fuel, for example, construction sites, large ranches, and so on. Those types of businesses purchased it in bulk for use in fueling their farm or construction equipment. The "inadvertent evader" simply filled up his pickup truck or vehicle on the job site because it was easy, either through laziness or without thinking through the process. But there were others who purposely used the product to power their larger trucks or tractor-trailers on the highway.

Mr. Marvel noted those mining, ranching, or construction operations would have to have two tanks, for exempt and nonexempt fuel.

Mr. Capurro believed there was a larger problem with the on-highway situation, which Mr. Kruger referred to as "inadvertent use." The real problem was having no enforcement. It was well known that many highway drivers were using dyed fuel. It was a competitive situation as well. Considering it cost more than 50 cents in overall taxes for federal and state taxes, it was a significant item to the user and significant to both state and Federal Government as well.

Mr. Marvel asked if the Nevada Highway Patrol would randomly stop suspected users to test with something they could put into a tank. Mr. Capurro said special equipment was available. He and Mr. Kruger had been working with the NHP and they would use that in conjunction with the other stops they regularly made.

Next to speak was Nina Laxalt, representing the Nevada Propane Dealers Association, who had requested section 10 to the bill. She referred to the bill explanation, marked Exhibit C, and explained section 10 lowered the threshold to $100 for the bond to hold a special fuel dealer's license. Those dealers were the smaller sellers and it was lowered to coincide with the amount of fuel they would be selling. The original bond amount was $1,000, which was quite high for the amount of special fuels sold.

Chairman Goldwater asked why the bond had been set so high initially. Ms. Laxalt was unsure. However, for the larger suppliers it was more in line with the amount of fuel they were selling. For the smaller dealers it was a disincentive, because the bond was higher than the amount of fuel they sold.

Mr. Kruger said that was exactly correct. When they moved the collection point to the rack, they moved it to the highest point where the user purchased fuels in large volume. With propane there was a class of trade no one else had, namely the dealer where barbecue bottles were refilled at retail level. Lowering the bond would effectuate the correct tax consistent with the volume and not require the smaller dealer to have two tanks; because there were two uses for propane as well making one taxable and one nontaxable.

Mr. Goldwater asked if propane dealers would be interested in taking a look at the volume metric conversion factor as well. Ms. Laxalt responded they had reviewed that and in the past taken the position to support the conversion factor. However, they determined the amount of their total sales was so small toward motor vehicle fuel, they would stay neutral on the issue.

Mr. Marvel wondered if there was a way to distinguish the propane with coloration, the way it was done with diesel. Ms. Laxalt felt there was not a need to distinguish between the off-road and highway use. Mr. Marvel asked if there was a propane use that was taxable. Ms. Laxalt confirmed that was correct, but the tax paid would never change. The bond fee was similar to a security deposit up front that went to the Department of Transportation to sell motor vehicle fuel. The Department of Motor Vehicles still determined what the bonding level would be, and the actual taxes collected quarterly did not change. The dealer would always pay the actual amount of taxes owed. Mr. Marvel pursued to question of conversion to propane and asked if those people who did so would be able to get tax exempt propane to operate their vehicles on the highway. Ms. Laxalt said it was a small volume of the total sales with the association she represented. There were some members who did use the conversion formula, others had chosen not to use it. The association was split on that issue.

Clay Thomas, assistant chief of the Motor Carrier Bureau, Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety, echoed the sentiments of the previous speakers in support of S.B. 349.

Mr. Goldwater asked if their support included the volume metric conversion factor. Mr. Thomas said they had not reviewed it to any degree.

There was no further testimony and Chairman Goldwater closed the hearing on S.B. 349 and opened the hearing on S.B. 534.

No one came forward to testify on the bill. Mr. Goldwater opened the hearing on S.B. 523.

Madelyn Shipman, deputy district attorney, representing Washoe County, explained S.B. 523 was a "small" bill because it added one exemption to a list of approximately three already existing in statute for payment of delinquent taxes for the acquisition of open-space property identified in a regional open-space plan. The other uses exempted from that delinquent tax payment were uses of drainage, streets, and affordable housing. The county was adding open space because there was an open space regional plan. Mr. Whitney, the open-space planner for Washoe County, was present to provide a description of the program and why it was important to have the tools, of which the exemption was one very small tool, to acquire open space for the benefit of all the citizens of Washoe County.

Bill Whitney, regional open-space planner for Washoe County, noted that Washoe County and the cities of Reno and Sparks had adopted a regional open space plan in late 1994. The three local governments placed a high priority on the preservation of open space in the Truckee Meadows, or southern Washoe County where 300,000 plus Nevadans lived and worked, and where the open space was disappearing. That was where the county wanted to preserve the open space. Mr. Whitney provided "A Proposal to Enable an Additional Method of Open Space Acquisition," marked Exhibit D.

S.B. 523 was seen as one of the tools the county could use to help accomplish its goal. Washoe County had acquired tax delinquent properties from the treasurer's office in the past and have had to pay the back taxes. It amounted to the regional planning department transferring funds to the Washoe County Treasurer, another county department. The properties the department could acquire under the bill must be shown in a regional open-space plan as desirable open space, so there were qualifications that extended statewide in the statewide bill. In other words, the department would not set out to acquire any kind of property; it had to have the qualities and resources that were desired to be preserved.

Assemblyman Marvel asked how the properties were acquired; did they do a title search to look for tax liens. Mr. Whitney said they did not have a dedicated funding source to acquire land so they were looking at every other possible means besides purchase. However, if they were going to purchase land they would do a title search. Mr. Marvel then asked how the property had a tax obligation. Ms. Shipman responded they were privately-owned properties on which taxes had not been paid and had gone into delinquency. Current law required the delinquent taxes to be paid. In the case of the four parcels the county had actually purchased within their open space plan, through the tax-delinquent process were not highly valued properties and had very low taxes. People generally did not let taxes go on properties with development potential or real value. The back taxes on the four parcels were approximately $780.

Assemblyman Mortenson asked if in buying the property and paying the back taxes, the money went from one pocket of the county into another, why was the bill needed. Could an ordinance be passed. Ms. Shipman said "No." She explained under the law all property taxes collected, including delinquent taxes, were disbursed to the other entities in the county designated to receive a portion.

Mr. Goldwater opined local improvement districts, school districts, or redevelopment area would not be pleased about not getting their share of the tax because the county wanted it for open space. He asked if they had heard that argument. Bill Whitney said they had not. He referred to a letter from the Washoe County School District, included in Exhibit D, indicating support of S.B. 523. The school district would be the largest percentage recipient of the back taxes. Mr. Goldwater said it might be more important to the smaller districts. Mr. Whitney said if Mr. Goldwater was referring to those outside the county to the rest of the state, he would be in agreement with that. It would be of more interest to those smaller entities. However, the key language in the bill was that the property acquired for open space had to be included in a regional plan that showed it for open space. That would mean that community had looked at open space as something desired, and their priority would be in that direction.

Mr. Goldwater asked Joan Lambert if she wanted to testify on the bill. She did not; however, she did say it was a "good bill."

As there was no further testimony on the bill, Chairman Goldwater closed the hearing on S.B. 523 and opened the work session with S.B. 259.

Mr. Goldwater described the bill as one that revised various provisions related to the Commission on Economic Development and economic development incentives. Sections 1 through 4 provided for the same criteria for tax abatements for businesses that would locate in small cities.

Section 2 of the bill exempted motion picture productions conducted for less than 60 days in the state from the business tax. The Division of Motion Pictures had requested an amendment to exempt all motion picture productions from the business tax.

Section 5 of the bill provided that money appropriated to the Commission on Economic Development for grants or occupational education programs must be carried over from 1 fiscal year to another and not be reverted.

Section 6 would increase the size of the Tourism Commission from seven to nine members. The membership was to include the directors of the fair and recreation boards or county commission chairman if there was no fair or recreation board, in the three counties that paid the largest amount of room taxes to support the commission during the following fiscal year. The governor's appointees must include at least one member from Clark and Washoe Counties and at least two members from a county whose population was 50,000 or less.

Sections 7 to 9 repealed various provisions that required motion picture production to obtain a permit from the Labor Commissioner and post a bond under certain circumstances.

The Division of Motion Pictures had requested an amendment to remove motion picture and television productions from the definition as follows:

"Production means a stage production, concert, trade show, exhibition, convention, or sporting event."

There was no testimony in opposition to the bill, although some reservations about extending those incentives were expressed by the committee.

Assemblyman Marvel asked if the Department of Taxation had an opportunity to review the amendments. Also, with the total exemption, what kind of impact would that have on business tax.

Dino DiCianno, deputy director for the Department of Taxation, advised that under the original bill it was very minimal. He had not reviewed the fiscal impact with regard to the amendments now under discussion. Mr. Marvel felt there might be a budgetary problem because the size of the commission was being increased from seven to nine. Mr. DiCianno said his department would review it and get back to the committee on the fiscal impact of the exemption. Additionally, Mr. Goldwater asked for his thoughts on section 5 specifically not allowing money to revert if appropriated. He was not sure that followed good budgeting practices. Mr. DiCianno asked for clarification on the request for impact on the increase of membership of the Commission on Economic Development. If that was indeed what Mr. Goldwater wanted, Mr. DiCianno believed it would have to come from the commission directly, as it did not come from the Department of Taxation.

Mr. Goldwater said the committee would hold action on the bill awaiting Mr. DiCianno's report. Mr. Goldwater next turned to S.B. 287.

Mr. Goldwater explained the bill removed a requirement that voters approve the imposition of certain county-optional tax up to 4 cents per gallon on jet fuel. The bill was supported by the Nevada Taxpayers Association which believed the imposition of optional fuel taxes should be left to the discretion of the county commissions. The Nevada Taxpayers Association representative pointed out the jet fuel tax was the only local option fuel tax that still required voter approval. There was no opposition and no amendments were requested.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 287.

ASSEMBLYMAN MORTENSON SECONDED THE MOTION.

Assemblyman Anderson spoke in opposition to the motion. Taking the right of taxation away from the voter was of great concern to him. Even in the narrow area of the bill, he did not like the precedent that would be set.

Assemblyman Marvel noted at one time the state collected the tax, and it funded some part of the tourism budget. It was a local option and for that reason he favored it. If the county commissioners wanted to impose the taxes it was up to them.

Assemblyman Mortenson generally agreed with Mr. Anderson's sentiments, however, the tax was not on the people. The commissioners were far more knowledgeable whether the aircraft tax should be raised.

THE MOTION CARRIED. MR. ANDERSON AND MS. GIBBONS OPPOSED.

The next item on the work session was S.B. 318.

Chairman Goldwater explained the bill provided that buyers and sellers were the parties responsible for payment of the real estate transfer tax and the title companies were not responsible for payment of that tax. The bill was worked out through negotiations between title companies and recorders and the draft was supported by both groups. There was no testimony in opposition.

However, one committee member had concerns about requiring payment of the tax from a buyer or seller in a transaction where the other party had agreed in a written contract to be responsible for the tax. He believed the bill needed to be amended to eliminate the possibility.

ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 318.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL SECONDED THE MOTION.

On discussion, Mr. Mortenson said it was a wonderful bill and accomplished the right thing. It removed an injustice from the escrow holder. However, if the bill was not amended it would be possible for the registrar to collect from the seller any tax not paid by the buyer, even though a contract existed between seller and buyer that buyer would pay the tax. The amendment written by Ted Zuend made it very simple and did not complicate anything.

Although Ms. Lambert believed it would mean the registrar would have to keep extra records, Mr. Mortenson disagreed. The process could be done exactly as before; if the registrar tried to collect taxes from a seller who had a preexisting contract with the buyer, the registrar would have to accept that and try to collect those taxes from the buyer. Mr. Mortenson moved to amend and do pass.

As currently written, the bill provided in page 2, section 2, subsection 2, that "the buyer and seller are jointly and severally liable." According to Mr. Zuend, adding the language "except as otherwise provided in section 4, the buyer and seller are jointly and severally liable." In section 4 it stated that "a buyer and a seller may agree by written contract that one party or the other will be responsible for payment of the tax due pursuant to this chapter." Mr. Mortenson provided the amendment, marked Exhibit E.

Mr. Neighbors opposed the amendment based on the support of the bill by the title companies and county recorder. The amendment placed the county recorder in the position of enforcing private contracts, and would slow up recording because the recorder would have to read the contract to determine who was responsible. It might also require the contract to become a public document, and some of the large companies might not want that to happen.

He believed it was a good bill as written.

Assemblywoman Gibbons remarked she had not been present the day the bill was heard; however, she had notes that indicated Ms. Burke from the country recorder's office had been opposed to sections of the bill. Ms. Gibbons asked to have someone from Washoe County speak on the bill.

Lisa Gianoli, administrative analyst, Finance Division, Washoe County, stated she believed the comments Ms. Gibbons had from Ms. Burke were about the original bill. Subsequent negotiations eliminated those oppositions.

Assemblywoman Freeman remarked that other than Mr. Neighbors comment about why not to add the amendment, she wanted to know what his reasons were for opposing the amendment. Mr. Neighbors responded the amount of tax generated and the work involved was large, especially in Clark County. He reiterated his opposition to the amendment, because it placed the recorder in a position of enforcing a private contract and would slow up recording because the contract would have to be read to determine who was responsible for allowing the deed to be recorded, and some people would not want their deed to be a matter of public record.

Mr. Goldwater said the motion before the committee was a do pass motion. The vote was taken.

THE MOTION CARRIED. MS. GIBBONS OPPOSED.

The next item on the work session was S.B. 362.

Mr. Goldwater noted the bill was the "Taxpayers Bill of Rights" and explained it provided for additional notification to taxpayers regarding audits and elimination of additional penalties and interest on delinquent taxes when an audit extension was not caused by the taxpayer. The bill clarified how penalties and interest were calculated and provided for the appeal of decisions to the Nevada Tax Commission. Further, the bill expanded the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights to require notification regarding reduction or release of security and to have statutes and regulations generally construed in favor of the taxpayer. The bill allowed the department to waive penalties and interest based on regulations established by the Tax Commission and provided for waiver by the department when the taxpayer relied on advice from the department or an opinion of the attorney general. The bill authorized certain actions to be brought in Clark County and not just Carson City.

One committee member suggested amending the latter provision to allow actions to be brought in a court anywhere in the state.

The bill also required additional information regarding the collection of sales taxes to be furnished to a person when they were granted a sales tax permit.

The bill was supported by the Nevada Taxpayers Association. There was no opposition; however, a representative of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) was concerned about provisions which might affect the DMV's administration of special fuel taxes. Included was language in section 2 which applied that provision to the administration of the Revenue and Taxation Title, sections 28 and 29, and possibly 30, that amended the special fuel tax statutes.

Mr. Anderson advised that the Attorney General's Office had given him a memo, which he had given to Mr. Goldwater earlier, and which might need to be examined. There were some amendments that were supposed to come to the bill earlier or that were overlooked, relative to the question of special fuel tax statutes. Unfortunately Mr. Zuend had not had those before preparing the work session document.

Mr. Goldwater stated action would be held pending receipt of those amendments.

Mr. Goldwater turned next to S.B. 428.

Mr. Goldwater read from the work session document which stated in part the bill was principally designed to allow residents to import up to 12 cases of wine per year into Nevada, from smaller wineries that did not have a presence in the state. It also allowed suppliers to ship wine into the state as long as excise taxes were paid. The bill required a supplier of wine who shipped 100 or more cases of wine in a fiscal year to designate an importer, and one who shipped 200 or more cases to pay the $500 fee for an importer's license. Finally, the bill required suppliers to maintain records of their shipments into Nevada for 4 years.

The bill was supported by affected parties and no concerns were raised by committee members. Several amendments were proposed:

• Case of wine was defined as 12 bottles containing 750 milliliters of wine.

• Amend section 3, page 1, line 9, by deleting 100 and inserting 25 to reduce the minimum number of cases required to designate an importer.

• Amend section 10, page 3, line 12, by inserting "other than a supplier, wholesaler or retailer" after "person."

• Amend by renumbering section 11 as section 12, and adding a new section to read as follows: "Sec. 11. The amendatory provisions of this act do not apply to not-for-sale liquor, including, but not limited to, complimentary samples of liquor to media writers, liquor used for consumer test marketing purposes, liquor used for laboratory analysis, and liquor shipped to a consumer to replace unsatisfactory liquor already purchased by the consumer." There was a note that stated: "This is the way it was proposed, but it probably needs to be added as another new section to chapter 369."

Mr. Anderson asked if "consumer test marketing purposes" included wine shipped in for a wine tasting event had to have the tax paid on it.

Harvey Whittemore, representing Southern Wine and Spirits, answered it went to whether or not it would be tax exempt, which in that case it did not provide a tax exemption. It simply meant they could bring it in pursuant to the terms directly rather than going through the wholesaler. Mr. Goldwater asked why that was so. Mr. Whittemore said the amendatory provisions only went to the limitations it did not go to the tax provisions.

Mr. Neighbors asked whether bringing in three bottles of wine would constitute a felony. Mr. Whittemore said the class D felony provisions applied to other sections; that would be a misdemeanor, unless violated more than once.

Mr. Anderson was uncertain about the first amendment regarding 12 bottles in a case being 750 milliliters, however Mr. Whittemore explained "or comparable" Mr. Anderson was satisfied.

Mr. Anderson next challenged the reduction from 100 to 25 for the number of cases required to designate an importer. Mr. Whittemore explained that change was the result of agreement with all of the proponents of the legislation to provide a mechanism to allow the smaller wholesalers in the state to have more wines to sell. It was supposed to be 25 when the bill was drafted.

Mr. Goldwater asked for the committee's wishes on the bill.

Mr. Goldwater reopened the hearing on S.B. 534.

Marvin Leavitt apologized for not being in the room when the bill was called earlier. He explained the bill had come out of the S.B. 253 committee. It related to the tax distribution formula and local government entities that were losing population in assessed value. The formula could have been designed so when that happened they automatically lost money at the same time. But there was a concern expressed by local governments and members of the committee that a situation could arise where it might not be appropriate for them to lose money. If there was a decline in population and a number of vacant homes, the fire or police problems could increase in a declining economy. The concern also was that if revenue was automatically removed that might create a problem. The bill provided when there was no growth or loss in growth for at least 3 years, the director of the Department of Taxation did an evaluation and submitted it to the committee on local government finance for review. It then went to the Tax Commission who could actually make an adjustment in the amount of revenue.

Mrs. Freeman noted the issue had been discussed extensively and she was ready to make a motion to do pass.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 534.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Goldwater opened the hearing on S.B. 535.

Mr. Leavitt noted the bill had also come out of the S.B. 253 standing committee. It involved the calculation of the distribution of monies from the same tax distribution account in connection with redevelopment agencies. In the past the assessed valuation of a redevelopment agency had been excluded when computing the amount of assessed valuation that would be used in the formula. It had appeared logical that it should be included for two principal reasons. First, the government had to provide services within the redevelopment agency just the same as it did through all areas of the county or city. Second, a major practical problem in the future could arise if something was not done now, namely, if the assessed valuation of a redevelopment area was not included and with the passage of time some redevelopment areas were eliminated, what would be done in the year they were eliminated. There would be a huge jump in assessed valuation of a local government, and that could cause severe problems to the formula where the other entities in the county could lose a substantial amount of money in that 1 year. The best solution was to include it, and let the formula run the way it will and neither guaranteed a loss or a gain in revenue to anyone in any particular year.

Mrs. Freeman said the bill had also been discussed extensively and she would move to do pass.

Mr. Goldwater mentioned that Henderson and Boulder City had some concerns and wondered how they would be affected. Mr. Leavitt said the bill was unrelated to those concerns.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 535.

SECONDED MY ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Returning to the work session document, Mr. Goldwater moved to S.B. 537.

The bill was recommended by the S.B. 253 committee studying the distribution of taxes among local governments. The bill established uniform standards for new and expanding businesses to qualify for property, sales, and business tax abatements. Currently there were different criteria for each abatement.

The bill was supported by the Commission on Economic Development and the Nevada Taxpayers Association. Testimony indicated the differences in the abatement incentives made them much more difficult to use as part of a sales package for prospective employers. There was no testimony in oppposition to the bill, and no concerns were raised by the committee.

Two amendments were needed to correct technical flaws in the bill. Those were discussed with and approved by the executive director of the Commission on Economic Development. The amendments were:

• Amend section 2, page 9, lines 25 to 27, to read: "a business qualifies for a partial abatement during the current fiscal year as to whether the business is still eligible for the partial abatement in the next succeeding fiscal year."

• Amend section 6, page 13, line 14, to read as follows: "231.020 As used in NRS 231.020 to 231.139, inclusive, and"

Ted Zuend explained it was bill drafting amendment.

ASSEMBLYMAN MARVEL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

S.B. 537.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

The last item was S.B. 538.

Mr. Goldwater explained the bill simply clarified some provisions and fixed some oversights in S.B. 254 of the 1997 session that consolidated distribution of six local government revenues into a single intracounty formula. The bill was supported by the Department of Taxation. There was no opposition. One local government representative asked the Taxation Committee to send a letter of intent to the S.B.253 committee asking it to review how the revenue distribution formula was working relative to the goals the committee originally established, and to include those findings in the committee's final report, which Mr. Goldwater would submit to the committee for approval.

ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 538.

SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN FREEMAN.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Goldwater noted the committee had three letters pending to the S.B. 253 committee members before the committee's close of business for approval.

Additionally, he said as soon as he received an opinion on the art tax and the gray market cigarettes he would distribute those to the committee. He also referred the committee to the memorandum from the attorney general regarding S.B. 362, on which action would be taken next meeting.

With no further business before the committee, Mr. Goldwater adjourned the meeting at 1:25 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Darlene Rubin,

Transcribing Secretary

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

___________________________

Nykki Kinsley,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Chairman

DATE: