MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Taxation
Seventy-First Session
May 29, 2001
The Senate Committee on Taxationwas called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 3:31 p.m., on Tuesday, May 29, 2001, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Vice Chairman
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
Senator Ann O’Connell
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Bob Coffin
Senator Michael Schneider
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kevin D. Welsh, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Rochelle Trotts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Bruce Woodbury, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Clark County
Jacob L. Snow, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada
George W. Stevens, Lobbyist, Director of Finance, Department of Finance, Clark County
Martin J. Manning, Director, Public Works, Clark County
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Philip Morris Management Corporation
Chairman McGinness:
In 1991, Senate Bill (S.B.) 112 of the Sixty-sixth Session was passed to address traffic congestion in the Las Vegas Valley. The committee looked at several things and passed S.B. 112 of the Sixty-sixth Session and part of that bill required a report in 10 years from Clark County.
SENATE BILL 112 OF THE SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Authorizes local taxes to improve transportation. (BDR 20-721)
Bruce Woodbury, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Clark County:
In the 1980s we faced a situation in Clark County where traffic congestion was getting progressively worse. Prior to that time traffic did not seem like a big deal but it was becoming clear to some of us it would soon be a big deal. During the 1980s our population doubled due to a number of Strip mega-resorts, and it appeared the trend was not going to slow down anytime soon. We had a freeway system built for a population of the 1960s and we had mass transit, and a privately run bus system geared to handle some of the tourists.
The only resources we had for local transportation improvements was 4 cents of the gasoline tax, and we were able to occasionally pass a property tax bond issue to supplement those funds, but we felt we were not getting an adequate share of the available state and federal funding. It was clear a great deal was at stake for our community.
In 1989, I proposed the Master Transportation Plan and we tried to come up with a funding formula that would give us at least $100 million a year, in 1990 dollars, for transportation improvement to add to our existing funding. The board of county commissioners authorized a comprehensive master transportation planning process. The outcome was a determination that our needs for transportation were in excess of $2 billion, or over $100 million a year for a 20-year period. It was obvious we needed a broad-based funding approach to the problem, and as a result we formed the Transportation Funding Committee, which included not only local officials but state legislators, business and labor leaders, and a number of community representatives. We then proposed a fair-share funding plan that included six separate funding components: a 1 percent motor vehicle privilege tax and a development fee which were targeted for our beltway construction; a 1 percent room tax for resort corridor projects in the county and in each of the cities; additional motor vehicle fuel tax of up to 5 cents for a regional street and arterial program; a 25‑cent sales tax for mass transit; and jet aviation fuel tax for the airport projects. This was approved by the voters in 1990, as Question 10, and with that support in hand we came to the legislature in 1991 and you helped us pass S.B. 112 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
Mr. Woodbury:
We then had to plan, design, and construct literally hundreds of millions of dollars worth of transportation projects along with the related flood control and drainage facilities, and traffic control measures. It turns out our growth projections for the 1990s were too conservative, but our funding from all of the sources grew rapidly and is now well over $100 million a year from the Question 10 funding. However, population growth and especially motor vehicle growth in the community was unrelenting, and has, if anything, outstripped our ability to keep up. But a great deal has been accomplished. Our beltway is one of the only, if not the only, freeway projects in the United States being constructed totally with local funds. We plan to have a beltway segment all the way around the community by the year 2003 but it will not be full freeways everywhere. We will go back as the money is available to add the full freeway aspects to it.
In the resort corridor we have had things like the Desert Inn Super Arterial, which was partnered with NDOT (Nevada Department of Transportation) and we also used our resort hotel/motel room tax for the counties share of that. A number of other improvements in the resort corridor include a new east-west arterial at Harmon Avenue and a north-south roadway. We are calling it Frank Sinatra Drive and it will give us a lot of new capacity in the resort area of the county.
We have a massive regional street program in every city and county area in Clark County. We think we are doing a lot better with NDOT where they are focusing more on southern Nevada. The CAT (Citizens Area Transit) bus system has added an important new element in mass transit in the community. We have won awards for having the most cost-efficient bus system and for having the highest percentage of fare-box recovery of any system in the country. Our ridership is increasing by leaps and bounds. We have formed a partnership with the private sector on a new monorail system to go all around the resort corridor. It is a public-private partnership, a seamless system that will connect to the neighborhoods with a series of park-and-ride centers. Modern express buses will bring the local people into the monorail stations. We will then be able to serve hundreds of thousands of tourists as well as a very large number of our local workers and other citizens.
Mr. Woodbury:
We are embarking upon what we call RTC III (Regional Transportation Commission Citizen Coalition), which is a broad-based group of business, labor, environmental, activist, industrial users, and CAT bus riders. Everybody we could think of is represented on this committee. We are trying to chart where we go from here in terms of transportation; what our needs are for the next 20‑plus years. What it is going to cost us. How we can pay for it. The answer is with the master transportation plan, the Question 10 funding, and what was provided with S.B. 112 of the Sixty-sixth Session.
We have seen the most ambitious public works program in the history of the state of Nevada, but growth has not moderated. We foresee a large deficit in the coming years in our ability to fund all of the transportation improvements, both in surface road transportation and mass transit over the next several years.
We would like to extend an invitation to all of you to participate in our transportation summit in August 2001. We will have our federal congressional delegation meet with us and any legislators who can be there, and we will try to find the common ground to help chart our future. Then we will be back to you later in the year with recommendations from the Regional Transportation Commission Citizens Coalition of what we see as our needs and our pathway to the future.
Senator O’Connell:
Mr. Snow, how would you compare the cost to run the paratransit system to the cost to run the regular system?
Jacob L. Snow, Lobbyist, Regional Transportation Commission of Southern Nevada:
The budget to run our fixed-route system is in excess of $62 million a year for the regular CAT-bus fixed-route system. The budget for the paratransit system is $14 million per year.
Senator O’Connell:
Have you ever considered going out to bid? It would seem the cost-to-benefit would be an issue here because I have noticed there rarely are more than two or three people on the paratransit system.
Mr. Snow:
We recently rebid the contract and awarded it to Laidlaw Transit Services, Incorporated. We know we will see significant cost-efficiencies with this contract. We have a new service called CAT STAR (subscription service for paratransit customers) which is designed specifically for our paratransit customers. We have paratransit because the federal government requires us to have it. The CAT STAR, however, is a program where you will see many more than two people riding those vehicles. The vehicles hold up to 12 individuals at a time and we are now serving major destinations in town like Opportunity Village and Nevada Association for the Handicapped. We are getting a much more cost-effective service with the new CAT STAR program. We are very proud of the success we have had so far and look forward to furthering that success. The last legislative session passed a bill allowing us reimbursement for up to half the cost of such a program. We have yet to achieve the breakthrough with the state Administrative Services Division on an actual funding agreement but we are very close.
Senator O’Connell:
Have we had our contract with CAT STAR long enough to have any tracking on it?
Mr. Snow:
Yes, we have. We had a pilot project for the first year and it appears if we have the revenues to expand CAT STAR services, we can cut down our cost for paratransit by about 30 percent.
Senator O’Connell:
The Laidlaw Transit Services, Incorporated, would be doing what?
Mr. Snow:
They are the private company providing the drivers and the maintenance for the system. All of the operational aspects of our fixed-route and paratransit system are contracted to the private sector and they are competitively bid periodically.
Senator O’Connell:
What did you project the cost or the return would be with the CAT STAR system in the first year and how close were they?
Mr. Snow:
It was just a pilot project which lasted almost a year so it could not be compared across the rest of the system. We need additional vehicles before we can fully implement the CAT STAR system, so, we do not have answers to those types of questions.
Senator O’Connell:
What was the cost to us for the pilot project?
Mr. Snow:
I am not prepared to give you cost about CAT STAR and apologize for not having those figures available, but I can provide those figures to you at a later date. Everyone was surprised how successful the service was and we can give you detailed information in terms of the cost savings.
Senator O’Connell:
Can you give me a projected savings from the $14 million?
Mr. Snow:
We think we will save 30 percent of $14 million.
Senator Neal:
In contracting for these services, is it a matter of cost or philosophy?
Mr. Snow:
We use a number of evaluation factors to procure the services; cost is one of the factors that we weigh most heavily; philosophy is not involved.
Senator Neal:
Any time the government is operating something people want to know whether it can be contracted out as a matter of philosophy. Mr. Woodbury, how much effect did the money this legislature force you to transfer to the Needles Highway have on the project?
Mr. Woodbury:
The regional transportation commission worked with the county and did a bond issue a couple of years ago to add additional funding from gasoline tax money for the beltway. We tried to determine which county would pay money back to the regional transportation commission. There were also a number of other regional projects funded from this additional funding. One of those regional projects was the improvement of Needles Highway from Laughlin to the California state line, part of which goes on the other side of the state line. We are partnering the project with NDOT. We believe this project is very important to the community of Laughlin and there was no other project this money was taken from. Not only from the point of view of the public traveling to and from Laughlin, but the ability of Laughlin to generate tax dollars to the county and to the state was why we thought this project was important.
Senator Neal:
Did the money that was acquired to go to the Needles Highway have any impact on the beltway funding? Was any money taken away from the beltway?
Mr. Woodbury:
No, that money was not ever budgeted for the beltway.
Mr. Snow:
Nevada Revised Statutes specify how outlying communities such as Laughlin would receive money from fuel taxes under a direct distribution formula. It was contemplated the money that area would receive would be based on the formula as calculated over future years. So, no money was taken from the beltway.
Senator Neal:
And, no money will be taken from the beltway based on the bill that we passed.
Mr. Snow:
No money will be taken from the beltway.
Senator Neal:
Not even the $7 million?
Mr. Snow:
No, the $7 million comes from a discrete funding source of fuel tax revenues. The beltway has other dedicated funding sources, as our presentation will show.
George W. Stevens, Lobbyist, Director of Finance, Department of Finance, Clark County:
A detailed book has been prepared for you (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.) which goes into a lot of detail about where the money has come from and where it has gone specifically project-by-project. I will summarize via a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit D) some of the funding aspects of what has occurred over the first 7˝ years of this plan and what we are projecting for the next 10 to 11 years. The county began collecting the MTP (Master Transportation Plan) revenues mid-way through fiscal year 1992, and for the first 7˝ years ending June 2000, a total of more than $1.2 billion in revenue was collected. An excess of $3 million of this amount was available for the beltway. Fuel tax revenue for RTC generated roughly an equal amount. We also generated about $300 million in sales tax for mass transit.
The money available for resort corridor projects was significantly less than what was available for those other three categories, but since the expenditures of those funds are restricted to specific geographical areas, there have, nevertheless, been significant amounts of money available to ease some of the congestion in the resort areas. In addition to the resources provided by the taxes themselves, we have leveraged all of the revenues to get additional proceeds from bond issues. A total of nearly $600 million in bond proceeds have been generated to date, and including interest earned on these proceeds, we have added another $200 million. So, slightly more than $2 billion in total resources have been available for the MTP projects. About half of the money has gone to the beltway and another 25 percent has gone to the Strip resort corridor.
To date, out of the $2 billion a total of $1.7 billion has been spent on either project cost or debt service. This represents about 82 percent of the total money we have raised to date. About $1.4 billion of the $1.7 billion has gone into direct project cost with about 15 percent of the total amount being used for debt service. So far the construction of the beltway has been the largest area of expenditure, well over $500 million. Land acquisition alone for the beltway has been more than $180 million, but fortunately all of the rights-of-way we need for the entire system have been acquired. Another $300 million has been spent on a variety of resort projects with the Desert Inn Super Arterial being the most significant project completed to date.
Mr. Stevens:
Over the next 11 years of the plan, including the current fiscal year, we project a total of $3 billion should be available to fund transportation projects and mass transit programs. This includes about $250 million in bond proceeds all of which are attributable to RTC borrowings. This is down significantly from what we have done on historical levels due to the fact we have no immediate plans to issue any debt for either the beltway or the Strip resort corridor projects. We do not plan on issuing any debt for either the beltway or the Strip resort corridor because, at this point, we have maxed-out the leveraging capabilities of the room tax and the motor vehicle privilege tax. We do anticipate, if growth continues in the second half of the plan, we may be able to do some significant borrowings, but do not currently have any planned.
Over the next 10 years about $900 million or about one-third of the total amount of money that is dedicated to MTP, unfortunately, is going to be consumed by debt service on bonds already issued. An additional $1.5 billion will be channeled to RTC and split fairly equally between street projects and mass transit. Unfortunately, because the arterial street project funding seems to be more than adequate, RTC in recent months has agreed to fund $250 million in regional projects including some beltway projects, the Interstate 15, the Interstate 215 interchange and the Charleston Boulevard Interstate 15 interchange.
It appears that outside the money we will get from RTC of about $100 million to $150 million for the beltway, we will have another $200 million that can be spent over the next 5 years on beltway projects, bringing it to about $350 million. The next biggest area of expenditure will be sales tax for the mass transit.
Senator Neal:
What is a discrete funding source?
Mr. Snow:
Discrete funding sources for the beltway include the development tax Mr. Stevens referred to and the 1 percent supplemental motor vehicle privilege tax. Those two funding sources have been identified and, indeed, the motor vehicle privilege tax has been completely bonded to the capacity that Clark County has available to it to fund the beltway. The development tax varies each year so we cannot bond off of it effectively.
Senator Neal:
Is the development fee of $310 million for the year 2000, projected over 2001 to 2011?
Mr. Stevens:
Yes, that is projected over 11 years. Basically we project about $10 million a year in development tax on a consistent basis. In addition, we have entered into an agreement with the RTC to pass $5 million a year in development tax to the RTC in exchange for $100 million in fuel taxes to be used for the beltway.
Senator Neal:
Is the beltway supposed to be finished in 2003?
Martin J. Manning, Director, Public Works, Clark County:
What is going to happen in 2003 is there will be a beltway around the valley from Henderson all the way around and through North Las Vegas. It will connect from Interstate 515 and U.S. Highway 95 in Henderson, cross over Interstate 15 and U.S. Highway 95 and connect up with Interstate 15 by 2003.
Senator Neal:
Have those rights-of-way been acquired?
Mr. Manning:
Yes, all 53 miles of rights-of-way have been acquired.
Senator Neal:
What about the sunken road we hear about in Las Vegas that goes into the Summerlin property?
Mr. Manning:
The Summerlin property contributed a substantial amount of money to the beltway-accelerated program. It amounted to about 8 miles of rights-of-way and is about 350 feet wide, plus they dug a depressed section that was 6 miles long, and put about $55 million of real value into the beltway project which will help us in getting all the way around the valley.
Senator Neal:
How much were construction costs?
Mr. Manning:
The western leg of the beltway is around $109 million.
Senator Neal:
The sunken portion you put in for the Summerlin project is around $92 million?
Mr. Manning:
It is about $109 million and another $55 million contributed by Summerlin. The beltway is going to be a functional, usable roadway for all of the jurisdictions that it is going through. People will be able to use it in 2003. As we get more traffic, there will be more additions to complete in order to meet the traffic demands in the area.
Senator Neal:
Would the beltway be going through the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) land in North Las Vegas that was sold for about $47 million?
Mr. Manning:
I do not believe it will be going through that property.
Senator Neal:
Would it be going near that property?
Mr. Manning:
It will probably be near the property, but it is not going to abut the property that I am aware of.
Senator Neal:
Would we have to build sunken roads to get to that property?
Mr. Manning:
Not at this point because in the future we would expect in residential areas to have depressed sections of the beltway to protect them, and to make the beltway a better neighbor. But as long as development is not there yet, it is not quite time to build the sunken sections. As we get to the more complete beltway with all of the additional pieces on it, then it will be depressed with sound walls and all of the features you want to see.
Senator Neal:
When would we be able to see an activity out in the North Las Vegas area in terms of the beltway project?
Mr. Manning:
As it stands right now, the county either has under construction or has received bids for all of the construction between U.S. Highway 95 and Interstate 15. We have an award or two to make, but everything is going to be built, or be underway, for construction.
Senator Neal:
Are you talking about an existing road or building a new road?
Mr. Manning:
This is a brand new road that will help supplement other existing roads, and make them easier to travel. This will be additional capacity to those communities.
Senator Neal:
When do you expect to have that completed?
Mr. Manning:
It will be done by 2003, perhaps a little sooner, all the way across the north.
Senator Coffin:
I like what you are doing on the sunken aspect and wish it was more. I did not realize it was going to be so expensive in some places. I thought it would be a fair trade that the dirt dug out would provide the berm to help offset the sound. The disappointing thing that has occurred over the last 10 years was an awful lot of money from these six or so taxes we raised has been held back and not spent or obligated. I was worried this had been an exercise of futility and then, suddenly, the spending and construction picked up. Of course that meant the congestion picked up, too. In the future you are going to have to be spending as fast as you can because, if you do not, you back up and create congestion. Is there a plan for consistent steady construction throughout build out, not only beltway, but also in the other arterial constructions?
Mr. Manning:
Yes, there is. Essentially, we are experiencing, even in the portions of the beltway already built to full freeway standards, that there are modifications and adjustments that have to be provided to accommodate additional traffic. We see that occurring all the way around the beltway. The way we set up the beltway was to build as much as we could that was permanent and then to add to it as those traffic demands began to grow. That way the investment was fairly consistent with the growing traffic. So we are looking at a continuing program that will finally end up with a full freeway of whatever magnitude it has to be. This right-of-way has the capacity to go to 10 lanes as it stands right now, or fewer if we want to see other multi-modal types of things happening within the beltway. We think we are going to be able to continue the program to a complete and effective beltway that will satisfy our community needs.
Senator Coffin:
I would like to compliment you on the strategy of “partial” which will help eliminate some of your construction problems later.
Mr. Manning:
Yes, essentially, what has been left there is an opportunity to construct soffit-filled bridges at the interchange locations, which means when you go there you see a large fill. But what happens is you build the bridges on top of the fill and then excavate out from under them. It is less expensive to build that way and more accommodating for the traffic. Essentially, you can build without impacting the traffic that you presently have and so the construction and the traffic can live together within the same right-of-way, with only minimal kinds of conflicts.
Senator Coffin:
We are in difficulty with our overhead freeway running directly east of downtown as it begins to sag. How close are we getting to its life span? Is that part of your responsibility?
Mr. Manning:
No, that is the Nevada Department of Transportation’s freeway, U.S. Highway 95. They have quite a large expansion program underway right now for a lot of the portions of U.S. Highway 95 to improve its capacity. They would be better able to answer your question.
Senator Coffin:
Is there any other way to penetrate around Nellis Air Force Base, either above or below ground, to try to make a true circular beltway out of this by stopping short of Nellis and following creek paths or existing drainage pads? You have some potential areas where you do not have a right-of-way problem. Is it possible there is additional thought about this?
Mr. Manning:
There is a cooperative work under way involving the NDOT, the RTC, and the county that is exploring exactly what those alternative alignments may be. The security areas at Nellis Air Force Base are some of the really difficult places to determine the route of the eastern leg of the beltway. Their concerns are the live ordinance loading areas and the other protective areas they have established to be able to continue their operations without causing risks to the community. That may be one of the lower priorities, but there are at least six to eight other choices for bringing a leg of the beltway further to the east and at least around to Sahara Avenue, and perhaps even further south.
Senator Coffin:
I would like to see those as they mature because they run through a part of town which has no service, and none is contemplated. They have tremendous traffic needs which put a great burden on the surface streets. Anything that can be done should be on the drawing boards.
Mr. Manning:
We can provide you with the information we have.
Senator Neal:
Referring to your accelerated schedule, would the beltway be 53 miles after completion?
Mr. Manning:
Yes, sir. We also have 53 miles of rights-of-way right now.
Senator Neal:
On the schedule you have four lanes, two lanes, and frontage roads. When I look at the total east side there is nothing there. Are you saying you will be able to complete this in 2003?
Mr. Manning:
We can complete the part that you can see on the map (page 15, Exhibit C), but the part on the east side is going to take a little longer. We will work to see which route makes the best sense and see if we cannot get that project underway.
Senator Neal:
You would not be completing the beltway in the year 2001?
Mr. Manning:
We will have the completed section that goes all the way from Henderson through Las Vegas and North Las Vegas by the year 2003, which is about three-quarters of a full complete beltway all the way around the urban area.
Senator Neal:
How many miles have you completed out of the 53 miles to date?
Mr. Manning:
We just opened up to Summerlin Parkway. We have about 27 miles that people can travel on now. Construction goes another two miles to Cheyenne Avenue and all the way across the northern beltway between U.S. Highway 95 and Interstate 15. We expect to see a lot of openings over the next months on this project.
Senator Neal:
When will you be able to complete the other section of the eastern section?
Mr. Manning:
On the eastern section we are in the preliminary stages with the Nevada Department of Transportation and the regional transportation commission looking for the best path to follow through there, where you are not going to adversely impact the communities you are going through. There is a lot of development there and we are looking at it very carefully so we know which pathway is best. We will have a lot of public contact and public meetings to make sure we get the kind of input necessary to end up with the best solution.
Senator Neal:
Have you had the Federal Highway Administration’s or the Nevada Department of Transportation’s participation or consultation on the completed sections?
Mr. Manning:
Yes, we have. The Federal Highway Administration has looked at our plans and reviewed them with us and the Nevada Department of Transportation also provides us project-engineering support as it is being built. So, we have the Nevada Department of Transportation right in the middle of it, as well as the Federal Highway Administration.
Senator Neal:
When do you expect to have some conclusion from the review for the east-side route?
Mr. Manning:
On the east side I would expect we would be going into an environmental impact statement process to look at all the environmental and other issues. We are looking at tentative locations now that people can look at and make a judgment about, so they can be screened to a reasonable number.
Senator Neal:
You have not acquired any rights-of-ways?
Mr. Manning:
No, we have not.
Senator Neal:
We are looking at 2025?
Mr. Manning:
Let us hope it is sooner than that.
(A handout was presented to the committee for additional history and information about the Las Vegas beltway [Exhibit E. Original is on file in the Research Library.].)
Chairman McGinness:
We have a concur/not concur on the gray market cigarettes, S.B. 527, Amendment No. 811.
SENATE BILL 527: Revises provisions governing contraband cigarettes, cigarette dealers and enforcement of statutes regarding cigarettes. (BDR 32-1326)
Samuel P. McMullen, Lobbyist, Philip Morris Management Corporation:
I am also here on behalf of the other companies that participated in this including the Retail Association of Nevada. This allowed us to clarify a couple of things and update the law with respect to additional gray market provisions, especially those in concert with the federal law. Amendment No. 811 does three things, all of which were agreed to and there was no opposition. In section 1, the bold, italicized language clarified the injunctive relief provisions, reduced its breadth and had it apply only to the export or import provisions of NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 370.385 or the failure to file a certificate to the reports that are required by federal law. The next change was on the bottom of page 1, subsection 2, which expanded the particular sections of federal law that could be enforced by Nevada. We would not just have it that federal law would enforce those; we could also enforce those sections as well. These are basically the packaging, importing, and exporting in violation of those sections.
Page 2, section 5, under paragraph (h), there is a catchall provision which clearly gives the department authority to enforce the federal laws as well. The last set of amendments starts at the bottom of page 3, section 2, with language suggested by the attorney general’s office indicating if the Department of Taxation is not the seizing entity; it is the sheriff. It sets forth a procedure by which contraband cigarettes are either destroyed or transmitted to the department, so it was handled and agreed to as well. Those are the changes from the Assembly, which were supported by everyone.
Senator Neal:
Can you tell me whether or not the public interest is protected?
Mr. McMullen:
Our original testimony was this is a whole area, if done right, which basically continues to protect the distribution of tobacco settlement funds to Nevada because this does away with vehicles by which they can go around the reporting of the domestic sales into Nevada and reduce our share. So, this keeps our share complete and we think is greatly in the public interest because it continues the flow of revenue into Nevada.
SENATOR O’CONNELL MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 811 TO SENATE BILL 527.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman McGinness:
The Assembly has refused to concur with our amendment on A.B. 653, which is the Henderson bill and they wanted to go to conference.
ASSEMBLY BILL 653: Makes various changes to formula for distribution of certain revenues. (BDR 32-1459)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO NOT RECEDE FROM AMENDMENT NO. 926 TO A.B. 653.
SENATOR O’CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
I adjourn the meeting at 4:27 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rochelle Trotts,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
DATE: