MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Taxation
Seventy-First Session
February 20, 2001
The Senate Committee on Taxationwas called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 2:01 p.m., on Tuesday, February 20, 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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kevin D. Welsh, Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Rochelle Trotts, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, The Walters Group
William T. Walters, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Walters Golf
Mark Schofield, Assessor, Clark County
Jens T. Larsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority
Michael T. Pagni, Attorney, Legal Counsel, Reno Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority
Cash A. Minor, CPA, Chief Financial Officer, Fiscal Affairs, Elko County
Chairman McGinness:
We have three bill draft requests (BDRs) for committee introduction.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 32-618: Authorizes Nevada tax commission to exchange with certain local governmental entities information concerning businesses that are subject to tax. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 222.)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 32-618.
SENATOR O’CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE)
*****
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 43-148: Provides for the regulation of off-road vehicles. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 220.)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 43-148.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
BILL DRAFT REQUEST S-916: Authorizes City Council of City of Reno to increase tax on rental of transient lodging and levy special assessments to pay costs of certain capital improvement projects. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 221.)
SENATOR TOWNSEND MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-916.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR SCHNEIDER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman McGinness:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 82.
SENATE BILL 82: Establishes circumstances under which certain golf courses located on property of local government are exempt from taxation. (BDR 32-766)
Robert E. Campbell, Lobbyist, The Walters Group:
You have a brief summary entitled Recreational Golf Legislation (Exhibit C). The need for cost-efficient golf is an increasing need in Southern Nevada. Several of the local governments have found that the best way they can meet that need is through entering into a public-private partnership with a private golf course developer. The developer builds on city-owned public property. In many cases, the developer is required to build a first-rate golf course, but also to give local residents preference of 50 percent of the tee times and reduced cost. The cost for the local senior population is kept within a reasonable amount. The cost of golf, particularly in Clark County, is simply out-of-reach of many people, were it not for these public-private partnerships. One issue, arrived at both through private legal opinions and prior legislation, is the need for courses that meet specific requirements that are negotiated and approved by the local government such as you see set forth in this bill. In those cases, the owner, the golf course developer, has turned those improvements over to the local government so that those improvements should not be taxed, given the totality of the situation and the public good has been done through this type of arrangement. Mr. Walters has one golf course that fits within this definition you have before you.
William T. Walters, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Walters Golf:
I am here to provide some background information on this one particular golf course. We own and operate six golf courses in Clark County. There is a unique circumstance surrounding this golf course and some background that is important to get on the record. In 1995, when we originally contacted Las Vegas with the intent of doing a public-private partnership involving this property, this property was formerly referred to as Nature Park. I believe the intent of the City of Las Vegas was to develop this as an in-fill for that particular area, but at the same time, develop an additional golf recreational vehicle for the citizens. At the time of negotiating this deal, we were under the impression this property was tax-exempt. We put together a rate structure and business model that was reflective of that. As Mr. Campbell stated, unfortunately for us, after the golf course was opened, that issue has been treated differently from time to time. We have paid taxes since we opened. It has been something we did not expect and has had a huge impact on us. In our contract with the City of Las Vegas, we are required to make at least 50 percent of all the tee times available to residents and provide them a rate that is substantially below what non-residents pay. We have a special rate for juniors and seniors.
Senator O’Connell:
What has happened to the area and the type of improvements made?
Mr. Walters:
The City of Las Vegas sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for this project. Seventy-nine picked up the RFP and we were the only company that responded in developing the area. The day we were awarded the contract at city council, a fire marshal and the captain in charge of that district came up and said, “You have really taken a problem off of our hands.” This area was described to us as being the highest crime area in all of Las Vegas. Since we have developed the golf course, prior to opening, we held a job fair in the neighborhood. We interviewed over 100 applicants and, I am proud to say, we hired in excess of 65 people from that general neighborhood. Since we have opened the property, officials at the city have conveyed to me that there has been $170 million of new development that has come into that area. We are extremely proud to be a part of the redevelopment of that area. The City of Las Vegas has conveyed to us on many occasions that we were recognized by the state; we were given the tourism award for the development of the property. There has been a huge sense of personal satisfaction in the development in that property.
Senator Rhoads:
There is a fiscal note for the local government and the state, do you know what that is?
Mr. Walters:
To my knowledge, this would only apply to the Las Vegas municipal golf course (Las Vegas Golf Club), which is owned by the City of Las Vegas. The Desert Rose Golf Course, which is owned by the county, the Boulder City Municipal Golf Course, Desert Pines Golf Club, and Angel Park Golf Club. The county assessors can articulate it accurately, but I have heard the total fiscal impact was about $750,000, which is for all of the golf courses involved.
Senator Neal:
Is the golf course in question owned or leased by you?
Mr. Walters:
The property is owned by the City of Las Vegas, I lease the property. I would be signing over all of the improvements to the City of Las Vegas.
Senator Neal:
Starting on lines 8 through 10 (of section 1 of S.B. 82), it states each year the operator of the golf course make at least one half of the total available time to begin a round of golf available to the residents of the county in which the golf course is located. What does the phrase mean “to begin,” “available time to begin a round of golf?”
Mr. Walters:
We are required to make at least 50 percent of all the times on the golf course available for residents to play. Give the residents time to be able to begin a round of golf and complete that round of golf in the same day. What we do right now on an annual basis is, we provide an audited statement to the City of Las Vegas which confirms we actually have made those times available. Since we have been in business, every year we have made over 75 percent of the times available to the residents.
Senator Neal:
What is the meaning of “seasonally adjusted maximum fee?”
Mr. Walters:
The maximum fee is $56, which includes a cart fee. There are certain times of the year we reduce those rates down to as low as $25, including the cart. Seasonal would mean, the summer, sometimes in the winter, and early morning times.
Senator Neal:
The residents would have to pay one-half of that?
Mr. Walters:
The fees I referred to were resident fees. There are certain times seniors would get a discount from that rate. Juniors would also get a discount during certain times from that rate. The normal fee to non-residents ranges from $125 to $175.
Senator Neal:
The annual report requirement (subsection 3) says, “certified by the operator.” What does certification mean?
Mr. Walters:
Our accounting firm is Deloitte & Touche LLP, which has been approved by the City of Las Vegas. They review all records. We provide to the city a certified statement of that, which confirms that we have abided by the terms and conditions of the contract.
Senator Neal:
For the record, how many other golf courses have this exemption you seek?
Mr. Walters:
To my knowledge there is one, Angel Park Golf Club.
Senator Neal:
Who owns Angel Park?
Mr. Walters:
A large group of people are involved in the ownership of Angel Park.
Senator Neal:
Angel Park is owned by the city and is leased by someone?
Mr. Walters:
Yes.
Senator Schneider:
Why does the city not give you the waiver? If they are in agreement, why would you have to come to the State.
Mr. Walters:
The city is not the entity that is taxing us, it is the State. The city, on an annual basis, would have to sign off for us to be able to enjoy this exemption. We have to be able to demonstrate to them, on an annual basis, that we have conformed to all of the things that are in the bill in order for us to qualify.
Senator O’Connell:
My understanding of the public-private partnerships with the golf courses is the land being used is not to be used for any other purpose. It is a distressed part of the city’s property and something they are trying to do is to bring other improvements into the area.
Mr. Campbell:
That is certainly the case with Desert Pines Golf Club that Mr. Walters is referring to in this bill. I do not know if that is statutorily required. From observing the local governments that have taken advantage of public-private partnerships, I think they are all located in situations where it is probably the best thing that can be done with the property.
Senator Neal:
A golf course, which is presently being used by people, can not be used for any other purpose?
Senator O’Connell:
When I was discussing the bill with Mr. Campbell, he was telling me that the uses of the property that are designated for these types of ventures are property that for some reason or another is not suitable, perhaps, for housing. It is property they (the city or county) own and they are looking for a useful purpose for it, something they can get revenue from.
Mark Schofield, Assessor, Clark County:
I am not here to advocate nor to oppose the tax status of this particular property. I do, however, have a concern as it relates to the equal and uniform treatment of similarly situated properties. Before I get into my discussion of this, I would like to clarify the fiscal impact that this bill would have in Clark County alone. There are five golf courses that are currently in Clark County that are on municipally, federally, or county-owned land. One of those golf courses, because it meets a criteria in the statute that speaks to parks, enjoys an exclusion from the taxes. There are four other courses, essentially, that would be excluded from taxation if this bill were to pass. The fiscal impact on that is $509,610, as best we can estimate. Not having the upcoming year’s certified tax rates, we used the current tax rates. The fiscal impact for the following fiscal year, I am going to give you 2 years of fiscal impact, would be $521,720, so you can see, it would not escalate that dramatically.
If you recall in the 1999 Legislative Session, the Assessors Association of Nevada had some language that was very similar to this language that is before you today. We have come before you and asked you to do one of two things: either allow the other golf courses to enjoy the same treatment as the one golf course or assess them all the same way. The issue of the tax status of properties is a policy issue that resides in your venue. We act merely as your agents to execute that policy. In the 1999 Legislative Session, the amendment that was made in the Assembly that removed a portion of the language that dealt with this issue, once again created an inequity that was resolved in the 1997 session, by making them all taxable. How this bill came to you the following session, was the operators of these courses got together and reached a consensus on what they could live with as it related to the language. They stipulated certain criteria that must be followed. We offered to put it in our omnibus bill, we felt it was a meritorious piece of legislation and we ended up with the same inequity that we had prior to 1997.
Senator Rhoads:
If we process this bill, does that put them on a level playing field?
Mr. Schofield:
They would all be treated equally. That is what I am advocating you do. I am in no way attempting to remove an exclusion that someone currently enjoys. If you are going to do that by policy, then if you could bring everyone else into the loop, under similar circumstances, the problem would be solved and hopefully we would never have to visit this issue again. From an assessor’s standpoint, Mr. Weaver from the Carson City Assessor’s Office could concur, the most difficult part of our job carrying out your policy in the assessment of property is treating everybody equally. It is when we have an imbalance it creates significant problems for us, administratively as well as politically, and as well as significant problems for the Legislature, because in most occasions, when there are high-spirited debates about the assessment of property, I feel it is incumbent to bring into the discussion the fact that the assessment of the property is a legislative issue. We only act as the enforcers of that legislation. I feel compelled to bring these issues before you, so you can appreciate what we are dealing with in the field when there are inequities.
Senator Neal:
Relating to Senator Schneider’s question about getting a waiver from the city. Why would it not be necessary to do that?
Mr. Schofield:
The city has no authority to assess property. That authority is vested within the various local assessors by statute. They could certainly make arrangements to reduce the fees and could vary from contract to contract. What this legislation does is spell out very clearly the mandatory providing of tee times to local residents at one-half of the seasonally charged rate. The arrangements between the various operators and the local governments are immaterial to that to which this particular bill speaks. Another feature Mr. Walters briefly touched on earlier is that it did not show up in the legislation proposed the last session. Those that own the improvements, in order to take advantage of this law, would have to convey ownership of those improvements to the local government where the golf course sits. In Mr. Walters’s case, he would have to turn the legal ownership of those improvements, which currently the city does not own, over to the city. If they had not turned over the ownership, it would not be a possessory interest because it is privately owned and thus taxable.
Senator O’Connell:
Would you be familiar enough with the area around this particular golf course, as well as the other three that would fall into this category, to know if there have been improvements and if the assessed value has gone up since the different courses have moved in?
Mr. Schofield:
I have not analyzed the trending and the assessed valuation. I know in the case of Desert Pines Golf Club, it jump-started redevelopment in a very blighted area of the city, but I do not see a great deal of new improvement, I know they continue to improve the golf course. It is the same situation with Desert Rose Golf Course, I know there has been some significant development around Desert Rose because that is one of the areas where there is vacant land available. As it relates to Boulder City Municipal Golf Course, that is relatively new.
Senator Coffin:
I represent the area that is adjacent to the course. I see a lot of improvement. It has improved the area, it has been a positive attribute for that part of Las Vegas. Angel Park, and likewise, Desert Rose, has improved the area since going semi-private, just because they could afford to put more money into it than the county could originally. The greens fees they are charging are considerably less than any of the hotel courses or the development-type courses.
Mr. Schofield:
Another interesting feature in this proposed legislation is the fact that while they (people seeking the exemption) usually have to come to the assessor to get authorization for such exemptions as veterans’ and widows’ exemptions, in this case, the onus of proof lies with the operator to go to the respective governing body of the jurisdiction that they are working out of to make this audited report. For example, if it were Desert Rose, the operator of Desert Rose would have to come to the Clark County Board of Commissioners and demonstrate to them that they have met the stipulated criteria of the law, that there has been a benefit to the local residents, financially as well as being able to have their recreation available to them. The county commission would subsequently notify me that this property has maintained the requirement and will be excluded from the roll. It is a very important check and balance that ensures that the right thing is done if this legislation was passed.
Chairman McGinness:
We will close the hearing on Senate Bill 82 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 92.
SENATE BILL 92: Authorizes business that employs disabled person to apply tax credit against tax on privilege of conducting business in this state. (BDR 32-783)
Senator O’Donnell:
I met with Kathleen (Kitti) Barth, Administrator, Governor’s Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities. We have come up with some ideas to hire the handicapped. The state spends a lot of money in Medicaid dollars to house, feed, and take care of people with disabilities. However, what we could do is give incentives to employers to hire the handicapped, and to help make the handicapped productive members of society in terms of being able to make their own house payments, car payments, and so on. This is a small way to employ the handicapped. It would take a small amount of money for the state in terms of employing the handicapped. If Nevada Power Company, for example, employs handicapped people, it would be a direct recipient of the $600 credit. The $600 credit would be a quarterly item and it would be a credit of $600 per employee that was handicapped. We would also use the same criteria that we use for Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
Senator Neal:
If you hire a handicapped person for one quarter, that could equate to $600?
Senator O’Donnell:
Yes, you get a $600 exemption. For instance, if you hired 1000 employees and one of them happens to be handicapped person, you would have to pay 1000 times $25 for that quarter.
Senator Neal:
This relates to the business activity tax. You pay $25 a quarter for each employee that you hire. If a person has three people, in essence, they could just about eliminate that tax for the year if one of them was handicapped.
Senator O’Donnell:
That is correct. It is under lines 8 and 9 of the bill (S.B. 92), which determines whatever amount they pay up to $600.
Senator Neal:
We do have handicapped legislation that requires, if you refuse to hire a handicapped person who can do the job, legal action can be brought against you. Are we so lacking employment in this area that this would be needed? What is the incentive?
Senator O’Donnell:
We live in a world that is cognizant of peoples’ inabilities to do certain jobs and functions, however, if there is an employer who is willing to take a chance on employing somebody who may not be as fast as someone else in terms of typing, if the employer is going to get a credit (for hiring me) because I am in a wheelchair, I think he would rather hire me than hire someone else, or at least, I would be on a par position. People get into accidents and lose their mobility, it is not something they plan on happening. In these situations, people have to be retrained in a different area, and their skills may not be as good as someone who has been doing it for many years. I would like to have that opportunity to have that employer hire me over someone else, or at least be in competition with the other person, even though I may be a lot slower. There are laws against discriminating against handicapped people, however, there is also the ability area that we are not addressing. This bill addresses the ability; if you have a handicapped person that does not have quite the same ability, this gives an even keel to the situation.
Senator Rhoads:
Do you know the fiscal impact?
Senator O’Donnell:
I do not, but the figure is so low that if the state has to continue to buy homes, pay them money (supplemental security) to do basically nothing, then it costs us. Six hundred dollars is a small fee compared to the savings we get.
Chairman McGinness:
Where did you come up with the $600 figure?
Senator O’Donnell:
We determined how much savings there would be if we had an individual who was not employable, an individual that did not have a job. How much would it cost the state on a quarterly basis? Some of the funds we get for Medicaid are matching funds from the federal government. You cannot really count that as impact to our state budget. However, we can quantify the amount of money that impacts us in terms of our matching funds. The $600 was our matching funds for one month, not quarterly.
Jens T. Larsen, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association:
(Mr. Larsen presented and read from his written testimony [Exhibit D]).
Chairman McGinness:
We will now close the hearing on Senate Bill 92 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 122.
SENATE BILL 122: Makes various changes concerning tax imposed on revenues from rental of transient lodging. (BDR 32-125)
Chairman McGinness:
This bill came through the interim study committee which has the name and concern of Distribution among Local Governments of Revenue from State and Local Taxes, commonly known as the S.B. 253 committee, Senate Bill 253 of the Sixty-ninth Session. The only thing this bill purports to do is move all the room tax statutes into one easily recognizable chapter. Nevada has turned the room tax money into a great promotional tool for our tourism and economic development agencies. We have no intention of “messing”with those allocations. Nevada has maintained its spot in tourism because of our wise use in room tax money. This is a simple bill with technical changes.
SENATE BILL 253 OF THE SIXTY-NINTH SESSION: Creates legislative committee to study distribution among local governments of revenue from state and local taxes. (BDR 17-193)
Marvin Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
This bill appears to do more than it actually does. At the end of the 1999 Legislature, the Assembly Committee on Taxation requested this committee to take a look at the room tax statutes, attempt to consolidate them to try to get more uniformity in the way these statutes relate to the collection of this tax, and remove what appeared to be conflicting provisions. Essentially, what this bill does is remove from chapter 244 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS), which is the general law relating to counties and chapter 268 of NRS, which is the general law relating to cities. Most of the language in bold (boldface print) is a repeat of what appears in these statutes. There are areas in this bill where there are certain changes. The S.B. 253 committee (Senate Bill 253 of the Sixty-ninth Session), appointed a subcommittee, chaired by Linda Ritter, City Manager, City of Elko. On this committee, we had representatives from the major convention authorities, representatives from Clark County and the City of Las Vegas, areas in Reno, Sparks, and Elko. We had representatives and many hearings from everyone involved around the state. Bond attorneys looked at it to be certain we did not have any impairment as it relates to those issues. At the time this work was completed, we had an agreement from everyone involved in the statewide process. Some people did not have the opportunity to see the actual language and might have an issue with it; but as far as the concept, I believe there was no one in opposition at the time it was approved by the legislative 253 committee (Senate Bill S.B. 253 of the Sixty-ninth Session). We had some definitions that we wanted to put into the bill to make clear, and those definitions you can see through section 8, that essentially define, in general, the terms as they relate to transient lodging.
Senator Schneider:
Under transient lodging, they have not had a timeshare unit. People buy timeshare units and have ownership, they have a deed or a right to use. It is not really transient lodging, if you own a deed or right to use for 100 years, you have ownership interest.
Chairman McGinness:
On page 18, section 47, line 27, it addresses that issue. The only time a transient guest is taxed is if you trade that with someone else for that time
Mr. Leavitt:
If you refer to that section 47, you will notice there are three situations involving timeshares. One of which, you rent, the other is trade, and the third is you own the unit and would not be subject to tax. Use of a timeshare unit by the person who owns the timeshare unit or a part of the timeshare unit in fee shall be exempt from a tax on transient lodging imposed by this chapter as it appears on lines 32 to 34 (of page 18 of S.B. 122). This particular area of the bill is where we see most of the changes. In a package program, where someone will sell a package program that might involve airfare, lodging, and meals, this provides a mechanism for the way you determine the value of individual components of that program. The tax will only be on the lodging component. This is a clarification on the way it should be done in the hopes that on a statewide basis, everyone is doing the same. In section 49 (page 19 of S.B. 122), there are several situations where tax on transient lodging would not be imposed on rents paid by the United States government, this state, and foreign diplomats, but it is clear the same exemptions would apply on a statewide basis. This is more of an attempt to consolidate and clarify rather than to change the law. I think it will be beneficial because those who want to review the provisions that relate to this subject, can look in one place.
Mr. Larsen:
The Nevada Taxpayers Association is in favor of S.B. 122. In addition to updating definitions, a major benefit of this bill is in consolidation of various administrative provisions of the transient lodging tax, better known as the room tax. Being located in the new section of the statute dealing only with this issue will allow both local governments and an innkeeper an easier means by which to find out what will be required regarding the imposition of the tax and the collection of the tax, respectively. Anytime better understanding can be imparted to those charged with collection of a tax, compliance is improved.
Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort association:
I am a neutral party to this bill. I participated in the committee, chaired by Linda Ritter, that put this bill together. That committee grew from 8 people to a table that housed 20 to 30 people. This committee spent innumerable hours and days fighting over every inch and every line of this bill. I have had inquiries from hotels about recent audits that have been conducted by one of the taxing authorities and have concerns about the language. This is a fluid situation and there are always tax audits going on relative to this. We could not decide in the committee hearings whether we were the taxpayer or the tax collector. We certainly collected tax from our guests and transferred that money to the proper taxing authorities, which varies. You will note, in this bill, it often says it authorizes local government to adopt a regulation on these matters. The reason that language is in there is because the parties at the table could not agree on what language should exist in the statute. Instead, we said we would let local government determine what that is. To a large extent, that is because the local governments have varying ordinances on the books today. In Washoe, Elko, or Clark County, a similarly situated guest in a hotel room may be taxed differently, depending upon the local government entity in which that tax collecting authority exists, which local government will have to adopt into an ordinance. Other interested parties would like to speak on behalf of this bill, but are not here today. If you would like to move on this bill as it stands, we will have to look at it later somewhere in the process. What portion of a package is taxable is not addressed in this bill and I do not believe will be addressed, because the local tax collection process is different whether you are in Washoe, Clark or Elko County. This is a very important piece of legislation with a lot of detail in terms of how we administer this tax and how the money flows.
Chairman McGinness:
We will certainly give you that opportunity. We will not move on the bill today. I would hope you would be able to visit with Mr. Leavitt or Mr. Welsh (Kevin D. Welsh, Deputy Fiscal Analyst), who is also involved on the 253 committee (Senate Bill S.B. 253 of the Sixth-ninth Session). If you have some specifics, we would like to have you bring them forward; Mr. Leavitt talked about the “package” in section 47, if that language meets your criteria and if not, we will look forward to hearing your comments.
Mr. Ostrovsky:
I will assure you that we will get those comments to you in written form, and to your deputy fiscal analyst or any other members of the committee, right away.
Senator Townsend:
Given the tremendous work that committee put in, along with the remarks Mr. Ostrovsky made about the participants, and that all of the things we believe we read are not necessarily interpreted the same way by those who are not currently here, perhaps, while the parties look into this, they could include those local folks who would be interpreting this for purposes for tax collection. Since they collect them differently in each jurisdiction, we want to make sure that their interpretation is exactly what we, the providers of this tax, think it says. If they read it differently, it does not matter how many of us agree to it. If we could make sure that those people who are the ultimate arbiters locally, of the tax collection, were participating with the parties that are affected, that might be helpful.
Chairman McGinness:
Good idea, Senator. If you could visit with those folks and see what their concerns are, or if they are on the same page, then that would help us.
Tom R. Skancke, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority:
(Paul) Luke Puschnig, legal counselwith the convention authority, has some concerns with about nine words in the bill. The original draft that came out of the 253 committee (Senate Bill (S.B.) 253 of the Sixth-ninth Session) is not what is before this committee today, and not what was agreed to. Mr. Puschnig would like to have an opportunity to work with Carole Vilardo and other members throughout the industry and make sure that language is what everyone agreed to. (A couple of changes that do not affect the overall outcome of the bill, but will change the language that the 253 committee Senate Bill (S.B.) 253 of the Sixty-Ninth Session agreed.) We will be offering some language changes to the bill as well.
Senator O’Connell:
In this case, the language that we agreed to is in the bill, but the changes in statements is the way the Legislative Counsel Bureau had to write it. The technical things (area) have raised some concerns because of the suggestions Senator Townsend made. The very people that were involved in the writing of it are the people who need to communicate the actual process to those who have concerns. I would feel much better about it if all of the concerns could be worked out and people could understand. In actuality, it is just what Mr. Leavitt said, there is nothing hidden here.
Michael T. Pagni, Attorney, Legal Counsel, Reno Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority:
I also participated in the committee and have clarifications that I would like an opportunity to bring forward to this committee.
Chairman McGinness:
We may proceed on another full hearing on this bill. I would ask that those concerns be brought back, whether it is a language change or eight or nine words. Get those to Mr. Welsh and we will see if we can work that out. If we are not able to work this out with Legislative Counsel Bureau, we may do a subcommittee or have another full hearing.
Chairman McGinness:
We will close the hearing on Senate Bill 122 and open the hearing on Senate Bill 124.
SENATE BILL 124: Requires allocation and remittance of money collected from certain taxes to be made directly to incorporated cities. (BDR 32-894)
Mr. Leavitt:
This bill relates to gasoline taxes. We have a situation right now where the state treasurer is allocating, getting, and distributing gasoline taxes. He makes the distribution to the various counties, and then the county makes the distribution to the city. The computation of the amounts are all done at the state level. This bill would make the entire distribution, both to counties and to cities, done directly from the state. It essentially eliminates one tier of the physical distribution of the monies. It does not change the allocation of the gasoline taxes, it simply changes the method of distribution. This was presented to the committee by the City of Elko, and we had no objections from other members of the committee. The county receives the total amount of the money, holds it for a certain period before making the allocation to the cities; I suppose there could conceivably be some small loss of interest. There is another bill on gasoline taxes which affects the amounts of the distribution, but this one is not it.
Cash A. Minor, CPA, Chief Financial Officer, Elko County:
I support S.B. 124 and do have one concern. We have a 1989 bond issue, issued by the Regional Transportation Commission of Elko County. That bond is guaranteed by the City of Elko 4-cent allocation, the RTC (Regional Transportation Commission) tax, as well as the additional pledges of their 1.75-cent and 2.35-cent gas tax revenues. Those bond ordinances are predicated on that money going through the treasurer’s office. If we can find an easy way to modify the bond document without refinancing, that is fine. But it does pose a potential problem.
Senator O’Connell:
Have you had a chance to talk with Linda Ritter, (City Manager, City of Elko) about this?
Mr. Minor:
I learned of this bill late last night and remembered about the bond issue and have had no time to confer with anyone.
Chairman McGinness:
If you could visit with Linda Ritter and see if there is a simple way to fix this and perhaps, before you leave, talk with someone in the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, they may have some ideas as well.
(Cheryl Blomstrom, Lobbyist, Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors, mailed a letter to Chairman McGinness and the members of the Senate Committee on Taxation [Exhibit E], supporting the changes as proposed in S.B. 124.)
Chairman McGinness:
We will close the hearing on Senate Bill 124. This meeting of the Senate Committee on Taxation is adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rochelle Trotts,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
DATE: