MINUTES OF THE
JOINT meeting of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means
AND THE
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining
Seventy-Second Session
May 28, 2003
The Joint Meeting of the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means and the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining, was called to order at 2:22 p.m., on Wednesday, May 28, 2003. Chairman Morse Arberry Jr. presided in Room 4100 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.
Assembly Committee on Ways and Means MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Walter Andonov
Mr. Bob Beers
Mrs. Vonne Chowning
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Marvel
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Tom Collins, Chairman
Mr. Jerry D. Claborn, Vice Chairman
Mr. Kelvin Atkinson
Mr. John C. Carpenter
Mr. Chad Christensen
Mr. Marcus Conklin
Mr. Jason Geddes
Mr. Pete Goicoechea
Mr. Bob McCleary
Mr. Harry Mortenson
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Stevens, Assembly Fiscal Analyst
Steve Abba, Principal Deputy Fiscal Analyst
Linda Eissmann, Senior Research Analyst
Susan Cherpeski, Committee Secretary
Erin Channell, Committee Secretary
Senate Bill 420 (1st Reprint): Makes various changes relating to Division of Wildlife of State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. (BDR 45‑1254)
Terry Crawforth, Administrator, Division of Wildlife, addressed the Committees and introduced Patty Wagner, Licensing Program Supervisor, Division of Wildlife, and Bill Bradley, Board of Wildlife Commissioners. Mr. Crawforth said he had presented information regarding the Division of Wildlife to both Committees at previous hearings. The Division was user-funded, and he had provided a handout of a PowerPoint presentation with additional details about the Division and its fiscal projections (Exhibit C).
Mr. Crawforth explained that the Division of Wildlife was the wildlife and boat agency in Nevada, which was big business and had an estimated value to Nevada’s economy of $600 million per year. Those numbers were from the “2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation,” and Mr. Crawforth indicated he had provided copies of the Nevada portion of that report to the Committees (Exhibit D).
Mr. Crawforth commented that the Division of Wildlife had a difficult job. There were over 600 species of wildlife in Nevada, and the Division managed those along with associated recreational pursuits and boating activities. He opined that the Division’s responsibilities would expand into a number of new areas related to basic wildlife, wildlife health, various invasive plant species, and urban wildlife issues, and that expansion would increase costs. The Division had attempted to address that growth and had spent the last five years developing a comprehensive strategic management plan. The Division had tried to keep the public apprised of the situation and garner support, and Mr. Crawforth felt those efforts had been successful. He provided Exhibit E, the “Wildlife Almanac” to the Committees. The Almanac was a Division of Wildlife publication that informed the public of wildlife-related issues and included a discussion of Senate Bill 420. There was also a packet of letters of support (Exhibit F) from various groups and individuals around the state for wildlife-related legislation.
Mr. Crawforth explained that the budget for the Division of Wildlife was comprised of federal aid from the excise tax on fishing and hunting equipment and supplies, licenses and fees, a number of gifts and grants, and an additional 3 percent in General Fund appropriations. In FY2002, the budget had included 1 percent from the Tourism Commission; however, that was not included in the budget for the upcoming biennium. He directed the Committees’ attention to Exhibit C, which contained graphs detailing the history of the Division’s federal aid, General Fund appropriation, and the license revenue. He pointed out that each of those funding sources had remained relatively flat with a few minor fluctuations.
Mr. Crawforth indicated that the Division’s budget was a “no growth” budget, and the Division had 3.5 fewer positions in the upcoming biennium. There were no new initiatives, and the existing initiatives were actually funded from other funding sources than what had previously been mentioned. He pointed out that according to the graphs he had provided regarding the revenue situation, the Division would have a shortfall of approximately $2 million by the end of the upcoming biennium and approximately $7 million by FY2007. The Division had recognized that problem and had been working with the Wildlife Commission to develop a plan to help fund the programs, which had led to the creation of S.B. 420. The bill contained across-the-board fee increases, the majority of which would begin March 1, 2004. Page 7 of Exhibit C contained a chart showing the projected result of the fee increases as well as a history of hunting and fishing license fees over the past 15 years. Mr. Crawforth pointed out that the fees had not kept pace with the cost-of-living increases, and there had not been any major fee increases in several years.
Mr. Crawforth indicated that he had provided a handout (Exhibit G) comparing current and proposed license fees for all licenses, permits, boat titles, and boat registrations. In addition, there were two new fees being proposed to aid in habitat improvement in Nevada. The first would be a habitat conservation fee of $3, which all license holders would pay, and those funds would be placed in the obligated reserve account for the range restoration project. The second would be a $10 fee for upland game bird hunting, and those funds would be placed into the obligated reserve account for the upland game wildlife habitat and the water development program.
Mr. Crawforth offered to review the bill in detail if the Committees wished, and he pointed out that there had been a few minor amendments in the bill.
Assemblyman Carpenter inquired as to the purpose of the fee increases and how the money generated from those increases would be used. Mr. Crawforth explained that there were no new programs or additional personnel in the budget for the upcoming biennium; the funds would be used to continue at existing program levels. He reiterated that the budget contained 3.5 fewer positions, and the increase in fees was an attempt to deal with inflationary costs.
Assemblywoman Giunchigliani asked if there was a license for hunting raccoons. Mr. Crawforth indicated that one could purchase a trapping license in order to trap raccoons and sell their fur.
Assemblyman Geddes commented that the revenue generated from the increased fees would be approximately $6.6 million in upcoming biennia, yet there were not any new positions in the budget and $6.6 million would be necessary to deal with inflationary costs. Mr. Crawforth indicated that was correct.
Mr. Geddes commented that the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining had previously heard a bill that would convert the Division of Wildlife into the Department of Wildlife and he questioned the cost of that conversion. Mr. Crawforth confirmed that revenue generated from increased fees would not be used in that conversion.
Mr. Geddes said that the master guide and subguide fees appeared higher than what had previously been discussed, and he asked if the industry was in agreement with the fees. Mr. Crawforth responded that there was agreement regarding the fees. Mr. Geddes then asked if nonresidents were currently eligible to purchase licenses to hunt antelope, elk, mountain goat, and other large game. Mr. Crawforth said nonresidents were eligible and that new language had been included in the bill as the Wildlife Commission had previously had the authority to set tag fees up to a specific cap, but the bill would set those fees in statute.
Assemblyman Goicoechea expressed his concern that the increase in fees would actually cause the sales to further decrease and would create an even greater shortfall. Mr. Crawforth agreed that there was often “buyers’ resistance” the first year of increases, but that seemed to be fairly minimal unless tied to climatic conditions, such as drought. He indicated that the Division had attempted to account for those possibilities in the budget. He pointed out that the demand for tags was high, and the Division typically had more applicants than tags available. He did not think tag sales would be affected.
Mr. Goicoechea inquired as to how the Division would address the declining numbers in the deer herds. He commented that with the increase in fees that sportsmen would be asked to pay, there should be an increased focus on addressing that problem. Mr. Crawforth concurred and said that Nevada had one of the most sophisticated deer management systems in the United States. The Division had been working on range projects, particularly as there had been a loss of large tracts of winter range due to fire. In addition, the Division was working on predator management projects in order to protect the deer, and the Board of Wildlife Commissioners was working with the sportsmen to initiate a deer management plan. Mr. Crawforth pointed out that the mule deer herds across the western United States were in decline, although he conceded that Nevada had the largest decline, primarily due to habitat conditions and climate.
Mr. Goicoechea asked Mr. Crawforth to elaborate on the predator control program as it was unfamiliar to the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Crawforth explained that there had been a $3 surcharge added to the application for big game tags during the previous legislative session. Those funds were placed in the predator management program, which was determined by project proposals from the Board of Wildlife Commissioners. That surcharge, as well as a voluntary donation by unsuccessful applicants, generated approximately $350,000 per year that was spent on science-based predator management programs. The program was in its second year of full implementation, and Mr. Crawforth emphasized that the Board of Wildlife Commissioners decided annually which projects to fund.
Assemblyman Mortenson commented that the fee increases were considerably greater than inflation rates, and it appeared that the Division wanted to initiate programs for development of new habitat conservation. Mr. Mortenson was concerned that with tax increases and fee increases, it was not a good year to initiate new programs.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani responded to Mr. Mortenson’s concerns and emphasized that there were no new programs contained in the budget that had already been closed or in S.B. 420. She explained that the Senate and Assembly had already closed the Division of Wildlife budget based on the fees in S.B. 420. The individuals that would pay the fees had worked with the Commission to reach an agreement regarding the fees, and other legislation had been passed earlier in the session giving greater access to the Division regarding the fees. S.B. 420 was a continuation of a plan that began at the start of the session.
Mr. Crawforth added that there was never a good time to raise fees, but it was necessary. He explained that the Division was required to come to the Legislature if the funds in the reserve were being depleted past a certain level, and that had been the case. There had been discussions, and S.B. 420 had originally contained a consumer price index trigger in order to ensure there would be small, periodic increases; however, that had been removed from the bill. On page 7 of Exhibit C there was a graph that showed the cost-of-living increases since 1978, and Mr. Crawforth pointed out that the fee increases would be consistent with that cost-of-living increase. He added that the new programs Mr. Mortenson had referred to were not new. The range development program and the wildlife water program had been in existence for many years, but S.B. 420 proposed a new funding source for those programs.
Assemblyman Claborn questioned the status of the fish hatchery restoration project. Mr. Crawforth explained that the fish hatchery refurbishment program had been presented to the Legislature the previous session and was essentially a $20 million bond issuance, which would be paid back with federal funds and trout stamp revenues. He indicated that the Division was working with the Public Works Board in order to implement that project, and they did have the design for the refurbishment of the Lake Mead hatchery. That hatchery had been closed, and the design was ready for bid. The cost would be approximately $9 million. There were several other hatcheries that were being examined and designs were being submitted for those as well. Mr. Crawforth opined that the project was proceeding satisfactorily and he pointed out that the Legislature had recently approved a bill that would allow for an additional $14 million in bond sales to carry through the life of the project. Mr. Claborn thanked Mr. Crawforth for that information and remarked that the fishermen would be pleased.
Mr. Carpenter commented that as the sportsmen were willing to fund the increase, the deer herd problem needed to be addressed and progress needed to be shown or the sportsmen would be very unhappy. Mr. Crawforth agreed and said the Division was very concerned and was working to remedy the problem; however, the fee increases would not allow the Division to enhance its efforts, the increases would merely allow the Division to maintain existing programs. Mr. Carpenter said that did not answer the question, and he felt the problem might be the lack of predator control. Ms. Giunchigliani commented that there had been 12 deer in her backyard the previous year, and Mr. Carpenter said the problem was that the number of deer was decreasing in the Ruby Mountains and nothing was being done.
Mr. Claborn asked if there would be additional funding provided by the fee increases that could be used to hire biologists to study the problem. Mr. Crawforth indicated there would not be additional funding available to hire new personnel.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani commented that once the increased fees were in place and the Division was able to evaluate the progress in revenue, the Governor would be more likely to include expansions to the programs in The Executive Budget. Mr. Crawforth assured the Committees that the Division would be reevaluating the current programs, and he indicated the Division was in the process of developing a strategic plan and would be shifting efforts in order to deal with issues relating to wildlife and climatic conditions. That strategic plan would then be brought to the Interim Finance Committee for approval. He agreed with Mr. Carpenter and said that there had been approximately 275,000 deer in Nevada in the late 1980s, but there were only about 108,000 currently. The Division was concerned and believed that a combination of factors was responsible; however, the next step was determining a course of action to combat the problem.
Bill Bradley, Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, addressed the Committees and said he had served on the Board for seven years and was the senior member of the Board. He explained that for the past year, the Board had been working to garner support for the increased fees, and he said that there was strong support from the sportsmen and sportswomen in the state. He said that the county advisory board system, which was comprised of sportsmen and sportswomen across the state who had been appointed by their county commissions, also supported the bill.
Mr. Bradley added that he would like to thank Assembly leadership for allowing a joint committee meeting in order to expedite the processing of S.B. 420. He said that as a member of the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, he was appointed by the Governor to represent sportsmen. There were other commissioners who represented agriculture, ranching, conservation, and the general public, but all the commissioners represented wildlife. In order to maintain the current programs, the fee increases were “absolutely essential.” In his seven years of service, Mr. Bradley had watched the agency develop and mature and nurture a strong relationship with the sportsmen in the state, and he opined that the relationship had never been better. Mr. Bradley was proud to say that the sportsmen overwhelmingly supported the bill and he asked for the support of the Committees.
Senator Dina Titus, District No. 7, addressed the Committees and indicated she had provided an amendment to S.B. 420 (Exhibit H) and a copy of an editorial regarding poaching (Exhibit I) from the Las Vegas Sun. Senator Titus commented that as had been stated earlier, hunting and fishing were very popular activities in Nevada, and she opined that those activities should be encouraged and protected. She indicated that she had worked with Senator Dean Rhoads to develop a bill that would establish a strong anti-poaching statute in order to protect wildlife and sportsmen who paid the necessary fees. That bill had been heard in the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining, but there were problems with an amendment and there had not been enough time to resolve the issues. Senator Titus was proposing to amend S.B. 420 so that there would be a strong anti-poaching statute.
Senator Titus explained that the amendment would do several things: first, a person convicted of a poaching offense would not be eligible to serve on the Wildlife Commission; second, it would make intentional poaching a Class E felony or a gross misdemeanor; and third, it would include a provision regarding killing a wild animal from a plane or helicopter. Senator Titus pointed out that there was a “wobbler” provision, which allowed a judge to use discretion when determining whether a poaching offense should be a felony or a misdemeanor. She said the intention of the amendment was not to punish the legitimate hunter or a young hunter who made a mistake and shot the wrong animal. Nor was it meant to punish a hunter who killed an animal with a pass-through shot or a legitimate trapper who accidentally trapped the wrong animal. The purpose of the amendment was to punish those individuals who intentionally and egregiously killed a big game animal without having the proper licenses.
Assemblyman Marcus Conklin, District No. 37, addressed the Committees and thanked Senator Titus for her concise explanation of the amendment. He said he wished to comment on the intent of the amendment as well. As Senator Titus had indicated, the intent of the amendment was to strengthen the anti-poaching laws in Nevada and to punish those individuals who wantonly, willfully, and intentionally came to Nevada to kill or torture animals strictly for pleasure or profit. Mr. Conklin said it was not the intent to use the felony charge to plea bargain a misdemeanor for crimes. The intent was not to punish hunters who were lawfully hunting, but have accidents. Therefore, the word “intentionally” had been included in the amendment.
Mr. Conklin commented that there was a concern that law enforcement would become too aggressive, and he emphasized that the “wobbler” provision had been added for that specific reason. An individual could be charged with a Class E felony or a gross misdemeanor at the judge’s discretion, and it was not the intent that all charges brought forward be felonies. Only those that warranted being a felony should be charged as a felony so that it could not be used as a plea bargaining mechanism.
Mr. Conklin requested that the Division of Wildlife return the next legislative session and report to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining. That report should include four key areas: the number of cases filed as felonies, the number of felony convictions, the number of cases filed as felonies and reduced to gross misdemeanors, and the number of felony cases per warden. Mr. Conklin said the report would demonstrate whether the law was being pursued.
David Schumann, Vice President, Nevada Committee for Full Statehood, voiced support for S.B. 420 but spoke against the proposed amendment. He noted that on page 4 in Section 5 of S.B. 420, the second subsection contained a penalty of $25 to $1,000 to be paid if an individual violated the law. Mr. Schumann opined that increasing the fine to $5,000 or even $10,000 would be a far better deterrent and would not discourage those individuals who followed the law. He pointed out the intent as stated by Mr. Conklin and Senator Titus was admirable, but that intent was not actually included in the wording of the law, and an individual who wished to come to the state of Nevada to hunt would be less likely to do so because mistakes occasionally happened and to be charged with a felony for a mistake was grossly disproportionate to the offense. Mr. Schumann reiterated that it would be more effective to change the fines, and it would not hurt the tourism industry.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani clarified that Mr. Schumann was in support of S.B. 420, but was not in support of the amendment. Mr. Schumann confirmed that was the case and said that S.B. 420, without the amendment, was a good bill and was needed.
Vice Chairwoman Giunchigliani noted that Section 2(b) on page 4 of the amendment stated that the provisions did not apply if “the animal killed was not the intended target of the person who killed the animal.” Mr. Schumann commented that there were not many witnesses to hunting accidents so it would be a matter of the ranger’s word against the hunter’s word, and the tendency of juries and judges would be to believe the ranger, putting the hunters at a disadvantage.
Gilbert Yanuck, Carson City Advisory Board to Manage Wildlife, spoke in support of S.B. 420 and the amendment. He said the majority of sportsmen and sportswomen who had attended meetings at which S.B. 420 was discussed supported the various changes as well as the fee increases in the bill. Those same individuals recognized that the increases were necessary for the Nevada Division of Wildlife to continue to provide programs of game and fish management, as well as maintain the personnel needed to enforce regulations affecting safe hunting, fishing, and boating practices within the state of Nevada.
Mr. Yanuck indicated that he was also a member of the Governor’s Sage Grouse Conservation Team, and he traveled extensively throughout the state and had spoken to many employees of the Division of Wildlife. He said that those employees needed the morale boost that S.B. 420 would provide. Mr. Yanuck asked the Committees to vote favorably on the bill so there would be adequate funding to allow the Division of Wildlife to continue current programs that benefited residents and nonresidents and allowed them to take advantage of fishing, hunting, and boating in Nevada.
Larry Johnson, Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife and Nevada Bighorns Unlimited, spoke in support of S.B. 420 and agreed that it was badly needed to maintain programs. He said there was no comparison in recreation value for what one received with a hunting or fishing license. A one-day lift ticket at a ski resort or a day of golf cost far more with less benefit than a fishing or hunting license that could be used for an entire year.
Mr. Johnson reiterated that he strongly supported S.B. 420, but he had concerns regarding the amendment. He indicated that hearing Senator Titus and Mr. Conklin speak about the intent of the bill had allayed some of his concerns, but there were still “what ifs” in the bill. Mr. Johnson said he did not want to see an overzealous prosecution of an individual who crossed an imaginary game management line and killed an animal on the wrong side of a boundary, and he did not want to see the lifelong loss of a right to own a firearm or work for the federal government for an 18-year-old kid who poached a doe to feed his family. He conceded that the bill contained language regarding the “willful” violation of the law, but he was concerned that the true intent of the bill would be lost in the judicial process.
Fred Church, Chairman, Nevada Bowhunter’s Association, said he had spent 19 years on the Washoe County Advisory Board, and he believed the Wildlife Commission and the Division of Wildlife were doing a good job for the state. He commented that there had been earlier discussion regarding predators, and he pointed out that the sportsmen had requested predator control and paid an additional charge on the application fee to fund that program. Mr. Church said the Division and the Commission had listened to the advisory boards throughout the state and the sportsmen had been heard. The majority of the organized sportsmen and women were very supportive of the bill, and Mr. Church asked that the Assembly vote to pass S.B. 420.
Daryl Capurro, private citizen, addressed the Committees and said he had been a hunter in Nevada for 48 years and supported the intent of S.B. 420. He pointed out that the Division had developed a good program for tag drawing that had allowed for hunters to apply for deer tags and other tags online and to use credit cards to secure those tags. He was concerned that the drawing for big game tags would be June 3, 2003, but the results would not be announced until June 22, 2003, and he felt the results should be posted on the Internet as soon as the drawing had taken place. Mr. Capurro reiterated that the Division of Wildlife had done a good job.
Michael Alonso spoke on his own behalf and requested that the Committees support S.B. 420 as he felt the bill was good for the state. He said he was an avid hunter and fisherman and in his opinion the bill was necessary.
Joe Johnson, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, spoke on behalf of the sportsmen and women who were members of the club and said he supported S.B. 420. He remarked that his only regret was that there was not additional money from the General Fund to support the programs.
Cecil Fredi, Hunters Alert, spoke in opposition to S.B. 420. He said there were two important factors to examine when discussing funding: budget cuts and revenue. Mr. Fredi said that the Division of Wildlife had cut 3 percent of the General Fund monies in the budget, which represented only $20,000 in a $21 million budget. The Division had cut 3.5 FTEs; however, the Division had 221 employees during the previous legislative session but currently had 229. Mr. Fredi said there had not been any budget cuts. He pointed out that the biggest revenue producer in the Division’s budget was the sale of deer licenses and tags. Since 1988 the deer population in the state had drastically decreased, but the Division had not included any plans in the budget to address that problem. He asked the Committees to oppose S.B. 420 as it would be an increased tax on the sportsmen who funded the agency.
Gerald Lent, Nevada Hunters Organization, spoke in opposition to S.B. 420 because it was a large increase in taxes for sportsmen. He provided the Committees with a handout (Exhibit J) that included “The Division of Wildlife Annual Report: 2000-2001” and pointed out that the report stated that the agency had a “healthy reserve” and was “in good financial shape.” Mr. Lent expressed concern that, in a relatively short time, the agency would begin experiencing a shortfall in funding. He said that the agency itself had indicated that the money was not needed immediately, and he opined that the Division of Wildlife should prioritize their expenses and request additional funding in the next legislative session.
Mr. Lent directed the Committees to the second graph in Exhibit J, which showed the estimated effect of enhanced revenues and seemed to indicate that the Division would be operating at a loss until FY2006, even with the $2.7 million in enhanced revenues from increased fees. Mr. Lent said that as the expenditures exceeded the revenues, increasing the fees would not solve the problem because it was a spending problem. He commented that many agencies were having budget problems, and he included several examples in Exhibit J. One example was the Washoe County School District, and he explained that the district had held town meetings to discuss priorities and determine the most cost-effective way to run the most essential programs, and he felt the Division of Wildlife needed to follow a similar course of action.
Mr. Lent said he had heard the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means ask agencies to prioritize needs and expenses, and he did not think the Division of Wildlife had done that. He opined that, if the Division had worked with the public to resolve budget issues, there could have been a better solution than raising the taxes for the sportsmen.
Mr. Lent concluded his remarks by stating that one possible answer to the budget problems was the Nevada Gift and Donation Fund. He agreed with Assemblyman Beers, Assemblyman Hettrick, and Assemblywoman Angle that those who wished to pay higher taxes could write a check to the state of Nevada so that those people who said they wanted higher taxes could “put their money where their mouth is” and tax themselves. Mr. Lent stated emphatically that many sportsmen in the state felt they were already paying too high a price for the services they received.
Tony Hart, speaking on his own behalf, said he had observed the decline of the deer herd and he felt the Division of Wildlife was not addressing the problem despite the amount of money that was being spent. He conceded that more money was needed to maintain the programs, but he felt the Division needed to give the sportsmen something in return.
Chris MacKenzie, Board of Wildlife Commissioners, spoke in support of S.B. 420. He said the deer problem was essentially a habitat issue and there were many factors contributing to those problems. Mr. MacKenzie had been placed in charge of the new deer management plan, and he assured those who had concerns regarding the deer population that it was a high priority for the Commission and the Division. The bill included a habitat stamp, and revenue from that stamp would be used to improve the habitat. Mr. MacKenzie stated that he believed the Division was doing an “amazing job with the resources they have.”
Chairman Arberry asked if there were any other questions or comments. There being none, he declared the hearing on S.B. 420 closed.
Chairman Arberry indicated that the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means would take action on the bill.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 420.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED WITH MR. HETTRICK AND MRS. GIBBONS VOTING NO. (Mr. Beers and Mr. Perkins were not present for the vote.)
********
Assemblyman Collins thanked Chairman Arberry for his indulgence in allowing the Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Mining to be present for the hearing on the bill.
Chairman Arberry adjourned the meeting at 3:22 p.m.
Susan Cherpeski
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Morse Arberry Jr., Chairman
DATE:
Assemblyman Tom Collins, Chairman
DATE: