MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-second Session
February 25, 2003
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, February 25, 2003, in Room 2149 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 Mark Amodei, Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Dina Titus
Senator Valerie Wiener
Senator Terry Care
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel
Lora Nay, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, County Fiscal Officers Association
Andrew A. List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court
Donald W. Winne Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General
Leland Sullivan, Chief, Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada (RAN)
Chairman Amodei:
We will begin by looking at several bill draft requests (BDRs): BDR 3‑562, BDR 15‑1030, BDR C‑607, BDR 6‑612, BDR 9‑755, and BDR 10‑940.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 3-562: Revises certain provisions governing disclosure of certain information to purchasers of real property. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 204.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 15-1030: Prohibits impairment of minor by use of alcoholic beverage. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 205.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST C-607: Proposes to amend Nevada Constitution to allow Legislature to establish intermediate appellate court. (Later introduced as Senate Joint Resolution 5.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 6-612: Enacts provisions concerning separation and adjudication of certain small claims actions. (Later introduced as Senate Bill. 203.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 9-755: Makes various changes to provisions relating to mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 206.)
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 10-940: Makes various changes concerning conveyances of property and wills and estates. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 207.)
SENATOR MCGINNESS MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 3‑562, BDR 15‑1030, BDR C‑607, BDR 6‑612, BDR 9‑755, AND BDR 10‑940.
SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS WASHINGTON AND TITUS WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Amodei:
The hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 162 is opened.
SENATE BILL 162: Makes various changes regarding fees charged and collected by county clerks. (BDR 2-171)
Alan Glover, Lobbyist, City of Carson City, County Fiscal Officers Association:
I am here today representing both the County Fiscal Officers Association and the Nevada Association of County Clerks and Election Registrars. Senate Bill 162 addresses a necessary increase in fees collected by the county court clerks for filing certain documents and in providing certain functions to citizens of the State of Nevada. The issue before you today is one of compensation to county governments, giving them the ability to maintain a vital service to the residents of Nevada within the framework of a unified fee structure (Exhibit C).
We believe the fee increases proposed in S.B. 162 are modest in their amount and are necessary to maintain the high quality of services provided by county government. Many counties in Nevada have a decline in their fiscal health as measured by the data collected by the Department of Taxation. Nine counties are within the 15 cents of the mandatory ad valorem cap. Sixteen counties have declining or flat sales tax revenues. Nine counties have declining total assessed evaluations, thus a decreased ability to generate property tax revenues. While the ability to generate tax revenues is diminished and the county revenues decline, the cost of administering their court systems continues to increase. This is measured by the total percentage of General Fund expenditures that are dedicated to judicial functions. In fiscal year 2002, county judicial costs averaged 16 percent of the General Fund expenditures. This is up from fiscal year 1996 when the average was 13.2 percent.
The fee increases set forth in S.B. 162 are intended to offset the increased cost of administering the judicial system in Nevada. Additionally, the bill will provide funding for much needed technology upgrades in the county clerks’ offices. Finally, there is a need for a fully funded arbitration system. Cases can be processed and adjudicated more quickly and efficiently, benefiting an already overburdened district court system. Mr. List can guide you through the historical background why we are here today (Exhibit D).
Andrew A List, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO):
The Nevada Association of Counties first started looking at these fees about 10 years ago during the 1993 session. At that time, NACO commissioned a comprehensive study of all the fees set by statute. This study resulted in the introduction of Assembly Bill (A.B.) No. 592 of the 67th Session, which had mixed results. About half of the fees were reduced and some of the others were completely eliminated. We had also requested an indexing system to keep fees paced with the cost of doing business. In the 2001 Session, NACO introduced A.B. No. 94 of the 71st Session,which completed unfinished business from the earlier bill. In its final form, A.B. No. 94 of the 71st Session increased fees collected by county recorders and certain law enforcement officials. It also created a technology fund for use in the recorders’ offices. It also increased the marriage license fee, setting aside additional funding for victims of domestic violence. However, several fees were amended out of the original version of A.B. No. 94 of the 71st Session before passage. The fees amended from A.B. No. 94 of the 2001 Session are the fees that you see in S.B. 162 before you today.
Let me walk you through the bill. There are four important components. Let us start, for simplicity’s sake, with section 2.1 of the bill, which raises eight standard fees listed in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 19.013. Most of these fees are intended to offset the increased costs of administering the judicial system. Most of them have not been increased since A.B. No. 592of the 67thSession. I have indexed these to the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and they are not increasing with the cost of inflation or with the cost of administering the judicial system. These eight fees we are seeking to increase include the fee paid when an action is commenced, which would be raised from $56 to $65. The fee paid by the defendant when answering a civil complaint would be raised from $44 to $52. Working with the counties, NACO estimates these fee increases would generate approximately $556,000 in fiscal year 2004, an increase of 11 per cent over fiscal year 2002. Again, these fees have not been increased for 10 years.
Section 2.2 and section 1 work in conjunction with each other. These sections create a fund for technology purchases and upgrades in the offices of the county clerks. This would be accomplished through an additional $5 fee collected for filing and recording the bond of a notary public, another task that the county clerk undertakes. The Nevada Association of Counties estimates this additional fee would generate approximately $38,000 for county clerk technology funds in fiscal year 2004.
Section 3 of the bill would raise the fees set in NRS 13.0315. The fee is used to fund programs of arbitration pursuant to NRS 38.250. This fee is charged upon the commencement or answer of an action and is in addition to the fee listed in NRS 19.013. The fee assessment for arbitration programs would increase from $5 to $10, which NACO estimates would generate an additional $290,000 in fiscal year 2004 for arbitration programs throughout the State.
Finally, section 4 makes the bill effective July 1, 2003. Let me talk to you about some of the cumulative impacts of S.B. 162. As you may or may not know, the fees collected upon filing certain documents in the courts are different from county to county, depending upon what section of the NRS fee structure a particular county has chosen to implement. I have pulled filling fees from three different counties, representative of how S.B. 162 will impact filing fees and civil answer fees in Nevada. For example, in Clark County the current fee paid upon filing a civil complaint is $133. This fee would increase by an additional $14 to $17. The fee charged upon the appearance of a defendant would increase $13 from $86 to $99. In Carson City, the current fee paid upon filing a civil complaint is $146. This fee would increase by $14 to $160. The fee charged upon filing a civil answer would increase $13 from $99 to $112. Finally, in rural Pershing County the fee paid upon filing a complaint is $116. This would increase $9 to $125. The fee charged upon filing a civil answer would also increase $9 from $69 to $78. Passage of S.B. 162 is of the highest priority to the NACO membership. We respectfully request we be afforded the ability to recover the costs of county-provided services and urge your favorable support and prompt passage.
Senator McGinness:
How would the amount of increases, close to a million dollars, spread out? I am thinking of counties such as Esmeralda and Lincoln. Would they generate enough money to even buy a computer cord? The increase is insignificant, isn’t it?
Mr. List:
You are actually right. In some of the smaller counties, the amount to be generated for a technology fund is quite small. We estimate Esmeralda County would get $28 in the next fiscal year and in fiscal year 2004. On the other hand, Clark County would receive close to $27,000. These amounts could be matched up with other funds provided by the State or the federal government, or used however they see fit.
Senator McGinness:
In section 2, part 1, the biggest part of the funding will obviously be in Clark County, correct?
Mr. List
Correct.
Senator McGinness:
What part goes to Clark?
Mr. List:
It is approximately $406,000.
Senator McGinness:
Is there any program that would help smaller counties obtain needed technology? If 13 out of 17 counties are up to speed, and then Mineral, Esmeralda, and Lincoln counties, and maybe a couple of others, just cannot afford technology, are we gaining anything?
Mr. List:
I understand your concern. There is another proposed bill, S.B. 106, which also has a technology fund for district courts. In most of our counties, with Washoe County being the one exception, the district court and the county clerk are separate. Some of the money could be commingled, except for the $5 going specifically to the county clerk’s office for technology. The county clerk could use the money in the district court system in conjunction with money that could be generated by S.B. 106.
Senator McGinness:
I did talk to Mr. Titus last week and we got the definition of rural Nevada straightened out. I also talked to some of the rural judges and they indicated some money is flowing to them and some to those multicounty judicial districts. He indicated Eureka, White Pine, and Lincoln Counties could be linked. I hope one fund will pick up where the other cannot, and provide help for some of those counties.
Mr. Glover:
As an example of how the technology fee would help us, even though it does not generate a huge amount of money, involves our project with the administrator of the court to convert our courts. We are short money for the conversion of old data. Any money we could generate to help match other funds would go a long way. Frankly, we do not have the funds in this year’s budget to accomplish what we are hoping. Maybe, by working with the vendor, we can have multiyear payments. I think our finance department might let us spend money in advance and then go ahead and pay, knowing these funds will come in. Any amount will go a long way to help improve the courts.
Mr. List:
If I may clarify this one more time, the money generated in the technology fund as proposed in S.B. 106, if it is passed, must go to the district court system for technology purposes. The money generated by S.B. 162 goes to the county clerk’s office. The county clerks could decide its use in their own offices. I know in Clark County, for example, they want to upgrade some of the technology in their marriage license bureau. Also, a county clerk could ask that the money be shifted over to the court system.
The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Associate Justice, Supreme Court:
I have two very brief matters. First of all for Mr. Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, I will call one item to his attention. In Washoe County, the clerk of the court is separate from the county clerk. I do not know if the bill would have to have language defining the county clerk or clerk of the court. The situation in Washoe County may be just a technical issue.
Secondly, I am speaking in my previous capacity as chief judge of the Eighth Judicial District Court. As chief judge, I supervised their arbitration program. I support the portion of S.B. 162 changing the amount of arbitration from $5 to $10. I can advise you, in our district, the arbitration commissioner does double duty. He administers the Short Jury Trial Program in Clark County as well as the whole arbitration program. The Eighth Judicial District has been very proactive in alternative dispute resolution procedures. The staff in Clark County does extra work accommodating these particular programs. I spoke to the arbitration commissioner, Chris Beecroft, as he could not be here today, and I indicated I would pass his thoughts on to the committee.
Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel:
The current statutes, in chapter 19 of NRS, all refer to the county clerk as being the person who has those duties. I understand S.B. 106 does make a distinction. It depends on the will of the committee as to what language they want used.
Mr. List:
The $5 fee added onto the bond of notary publics for the technology fund is collected by the county clerks. Any language would work for us.
Chairman Amodei:
Our records should indicate that Kelly Helton, a deputy clerk from the Churchill County Clerk/Treasurer’s office supports the bill, but does not request to speak. Dan Musgrove, on behalf of Clark County, is also in favor of the bill and does not request to speak. Mr. Titus, Court Administrator and Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, has signed in, does not request to speak, and is neutral today. The hearing on S.B. 162 is closed.
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 162.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Senator Amodei:
The hearing on S.B. 186 is open.
SENATE BILL 186: Imposes fee upon obligor each time employer withholds income for payment of support for child. (BDR 3-446)
Donald W. Winne Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Human Resources Division, Office of the Attorney General:
The request for this bill came to the Attorney General’s office from the Welfare Division. It is supported by the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association. At this point, Mr. Sullivan will speak.
Leland Sullivan, Chief, Child Support Enforcement, Welfare Division, Department of Human Resources:
I am here to support S.B. 186. It would provide revenue to the State and its county partners by imposing a $2 increase in the income-withholding fee paid by noncustodial parents. Under current law, employers may already deduct $3 to cover their administrative costs. Employers would be required to forward the new fee to the Nevada State Treasurer. With these fees being paid to the treasurer’s office, the fee revenue does not have to be shared with the federal government. Under federal rules, program income must be shared with the federal government, thus dramatically reducing the State-retained share. With the fees being returned to the General Fund, through the treasurer’s office, the Child Support Enforcement Program (CSEP) would receive 100 percent of the revenue (Exhibit E).
Child support is an integral part for financial stability of many families. For a low-income family, receiving child support payments is a crucial component in achieving and maintaining self-sufficiency. During State fiscal year 2002 the program distributed $16 million in support payments to former Nevada public assistance recipients and in excess of $6 million to families receiving cash assistance.
The Nevada program has a strong partnership between the State and county district attorneys offices. The program provides services to Nevada families at no cost. Services are also provided to families in other states when the noncustodial parent resides in Nevada. Last year the program provided in excess of $115 million to these families. The child support program operates under Title 42, chapter 7, subchapter IV, part D, of the Social Security Act. The federal program reimburses the Nevada Child Support Program for 66 percent of eligible expenditures. The difference between federal reimbursement and State and county expenditures is covered by the county general funds and state‑retained child support collections. In recent years, federal changes have increased State responsibilities without a corresponding increase in their program funding. With the conversion to NOMADS (Nevada Operations Multi Automated Data Systems), the State assumed full financial responsibility for a statewide automated system. This system allowed counties to retire use of their existing systems. The NOMADS program also resulted in the State experiencing a substantial increase in correspondence and mail costs due to its centralized distribution.
In August of 2000, federal regulations required the State to introduce a State Collection and Disbursement Unit (SCaDU) for central collection and distribution of child support payments. The SCaDU eliminated a function previously accomplished by each county, thus making it a State business activity supported by State funds. Last year, the federal government reduced the State share of retained collections from 50 to 48 percent.
Passage of S.B. 186 will enhance the fiscal stability of the child support program for both the State and counties through equal distribution of the revenue collected. Referring to historical income withholding information, we suggest this initiative would generate approximately a million dollars in revenue for each fiscal year. This revenue would be split 50-50 between the State and county child support programs. With increasing caseloads and many changes facing the program, this additional revenue would greatly assist the program in providing services to Nevada’s families. During the last 2 years, the district attorneys’ offices in Lander and Esmeralda Counties have dropped out of the program due to fiscal issues. Services for their families are now being provided by the State and the district attorney’s office in Elko County. Costs in the program continue to grow. This bill will help us meet ever-increasing expenses. I encourage your support of S.B. 186, thereby providing a stable revenue source for State and county child support programs.
Senator Titus:
When you say you provide services to Nevada families, would you go over what those services are and how someone qualifies to receive those services?
Mr. Sullivan:
For public assistance cases, and Medicaid cases we receive applications. For non-assistance cases, a person can go right in to the district attorney’s office and make application for child support services. As I mentioned in the testimony, there is no fee involved.
Senator Titus:
Are there certain income levels?
Mr. Sullivan:
No, there is not.
Senator Titus:
Anybody who is receiving child support can get these additional services?
Mr. Sullivan:
Yes, we provide four services. We will attempt to locate a noncustodial parent. If the custodial parent does not have a child support obligation, we will establish a support obligation. If parentage is an issue, we will work to establish paternity on a case. Once an order is established, we will enforce the order and process the payments.
Senator Titus:
If this money is put in the General Fund, how do you guarantee you will get it back out of the General Fund? They may see this extra million dollars and send it somewhere else.
Mr. Sullivan:
We are hoping the money would be designated for the child support program.
Senator Titus
Would the federal provision be violated?
Mr. Sullivan:
The federal law requires fees coming into the program have to be counted as program income. We get 66 percent. Reimbursement program income has to be deducted from the expenditures before we get the 66 percent. For program income direct to the child support program, we would only receive $1 out of every $3 collected.
Senator Titus:
Can you permanently earmark this money to the General Fund?
Mr. Sullivan:
Again, in our budget hearings, we have this revenue indicated for supporting program expenditures.
Senator Titus:
Maybe for this year, I just do not trust the finance committee. They might want to take this money and use it somewhere else.
One other question, you say you provide services to families outside of Nevada, would you tell us how that works?
Mr. Sullivan:
There are 40 agencies receiving services from custodial parents in their state. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), if a noncustodial parent is located in Nevada, a state could refer the case to us and we would provide services to the family. There is no cost. Currently, we have approximately 113,000 cases in which we are providing services. I believe incoming out-of-state cases are right around 20,000.
Senator Titus:
Is this reciprocal? If a noncustodial parent was in some other state, would that state then provide this service back to us?
Mr. Sullivan:
That is correct.
Senator Care:
Existing law has a provision requiring the employer be notified of a change to the statute. Do you know if the obligor is going to be informed by the court an additional $2 is going to be deducted?
Mr. Sullivan:
No there is not. I do not believe the court is ordered to advise them of the deduction. This is something that could be considered for the program. Right now it is the employers who have the option, for each withholding, to deduct the $3 to cover their costs.
Mr. Winne:
There is nothing in the order saying employers must charge up to $3. A notice goes out to the employers saying they may charge up to $3 if they so choose. Through practice, if the person receiving a paycheck sees there is an extra deduction, they may discuss it with their employer. The employer has the right, through regulation, to charge the $3. I agree with Mr. Sullivan. We could generate a program letter to let the obligor know this is something forthcoming. The way it is written, the fee is $2 per month even if they are weekly wage earners.
Senator Wiener:
As I am reading an explanation of the bill, it says the deduction is $2 from a pay period not to exceed $4 a month. Or is it a $2 maximum per month?
Mr. Wilkinson:
It is $2 from each withholding of income.
Senator Wiener:
There is no monthly cap? It would not necessarily be $2 per month, but $2 per payroll period?
Mr. Winne:
You are correct. Under the existing law, an employer can deduct $3 from each withholding. What we are requesting is to add an additional $2, so the employer would deduct $5 from each withholding. If there are two pay periods in a month, $10 would be withheld.
Senator Wiener:
Could you tell us how you came up with the $2 fee? Will it address your concerns for a period of time or should we look forward to you coming back and asking for an increase in the next few sessions? How did you determine the amount of $2? How will your needs be addressed? Do you have any projection as to how long you think this may hold before you come back and ask for help again?
Mr. Glover:
We felt a $2 fee, generating approximately a million dollars, would support both county and State efforts at this point in time. As our caseloads continue to grow, and as we establish and enforce obligations by income withholding, we hope this will help us meet our expenditures and supplement the program.
Senator Titus:
If a person is paid weekly, can you deduct $3 and then add $2 more with each check?
Mr. Glover:
That is correct. Currently the employer can deduct $3 for each pay period. There is no minimum amount.
Senator Washington:
Is this amount based on a formula? Is this not currently in statute for child support?
Mr. Glover:
The $3 is in statute. There are also child support guidelines establishing the amount of support to be paid, which the court considers when ordering a child support award.
Senator Washington:
Whatever the court awards, is the $3 an additional figure to that amount?
Mr. Glover:
That is correct
Senator Washington:
If this bill passes, then it moves up to $5?
Mr. Glover:
That would be correct.
Senator Washington:
Let me ask you about the administration. Do you currently administer the $3?
Mr. Glover:
We send an income withholding notice to the employer when a noncustodial parent is under an obligation to pay support. Within the notice, the employers are advised to withhold the amount of money for current support and an additional $3 to cover their costs. When the employers deduct the $3, they just retain it, we do not process the $3.
Senator Washington:
When it is retained, where does the money go? Does it go to the State treasurer? Who gets the fee?
Mr. Glover:
No, the $3 is just to cover the employer’s costs of processing the income withholding. This covers the cost of deducting child support from the wages and forwarding the support payment to our central collection and disbursement unit.
Senator Washington:
Are you proposing the $2 comes back to the Welfare Division through the State treasurer?
Mr. Glover:
Correct. With this bill we are asking for an additional $2. The employer would have the option of sending these payments to the treasurer monthly or quarterly. It may be beneficial for an employer to commit a check once a quarter with a listing of all the noncustodial parents whom they pay. They could pay quarterly or weekly, however it would accommodate the employer.
Senator Washington:
To follow this through, would you send the money to the State treasurer’s office to be earmarked per se and for what?
Mr. Glover:
The money would be earmarked for the child support program. Through regulations, we would pass on 50 percent of the revenue to the counties participating in the program to assist in them in reducing or providing additional revenue. The other 50 percent would be used by the State to offset the increasing costs experienced since welfare reform.
Senator Washington:
Like Senator Titus, I do not believe once fees are put into the State treasury, who knows where they go, but that is another issue.
Senator McGinness:
Will this require a separate filing by the employer? If there is a withholding order of $100, the employer adds $5 and gets to keep $3. Where do they send the $100 and where will the $2 be sent? Does the $2 go to the State treasury? Will this be a new filing for the employer?
Mr. Glover:
That is correct. Under existing law, the $100 would go to our central collection and disbursement unit. The $2 would be a separate check to the State treasurer.
Senator McGinness:
So, an employer could conceivably have to write a $2 check 12 times a year to the State treasurer if he has one employee?
Mr. Glover:
That is correct. However, we did add in the bill they could do it quarterly. So again, every 3 months, an employer could send one check for one employee on a quarterly basis.
Senator Amodei:
Am I correct, from your testimony Mr. Sullivan, if we do nothing with this bill, employers already have the ability to withhold $3 every time they submit a check under the existing regulations?
Mr. Sullivan:
That is correct. It is not just in the child support program, it is any income withholding issue. It could also be from private bar, where the employer would have the right to withhold the $3. Under federal requirements, all income‑withholding payments have to go through our central collection and disbursement unit. It is not just a wage withholding issued from the child support program. If the private bar was representing a client and they had an income withholding order, those payments, by federal law, are required to go through the central collection and disbursement unit.
Chairman amodei:
I am looking at the language in sections 2 and 3 on page 1 of the bill and will ask Mr. Wilkinson to check with somebody attached to one of the money committees to see if the raise is accounted for separately and must be administered by the welfare administrator pursuant to regulations to be adopted, if it sufficiently sequesters any potential fees for use in accordance with how the testimony has been, or if there needs to be anything else added to make sure we do not get into the circumstance Senator Titus alluded to, which was: Well, now you have another million from this deal, we can cut a million bucks out of your budget because it is coming from that new fee.
When you say we are going to split
the money 50-50 and it is going into programs, that is not much information. I
do not know your business, but we
need more specificity about accountability. Additional information and
testimony, no matter where it is from, would be helpful before this bill gets
to the floor.
Mr. Winne:
There is an agreement between the State and the county district attorneys. Money being passed on to them through budget requests for funding of the child support program must be spent to enhance program requirements and facilities. We will have them here to address this specifically at work session. Just to let you know, we have a contract with the counties which requires them to spend the money we give them on child support functions and services.
chairman amodei:
I am sure they do, Mr. Winne, I just want to make sure we have information for our colleagues who are not familiar with this. Having dealt with the jurisdiction of this committee before, we need to have some background in the event it is wanted. When you come to us the next time with a request to increase fees we can feel good about doing it at that time also.
Senator Washington:
We are all aware of the debacle with NOMADS. My concern is, last session we gave the Welfare Division the responsibility to administer the energy assistance program. As of this date, we still do not know where that program is, if it is being administered. It would be helpful to know where you are at in that program as we decipher and go through this bill to see if it is going to work, if it is needed, or if welfare is able to handle this request.
Mr. Glover:
As chief of the child support program, it is difficult for me to advise you on what has been done on the energy assistance program. I am sure we can get information to you.
Senator Titus:
When you are talking about distributing money back to the counties, I would be interested in how you would distribute it. Does it go back to the county where it is collected? Do you have a formula? How much does Clark County get versus Washoe County versus the rurals? That would be something I would be interested in. Instead of making the employer fill out two forms or two chits, what if they just added the $2 onto the amount they withheld for the payment they send to you. How much difference would that make?
Mr. Glover:
If the employer added the $2 to the child support payment deduction and sent it to our central collection and disbursement unit, then probably, the federal government would look at it as program income. For every $3 collected, we would only receive $1 in revenue. For every amount, the federal government would experience 66 percent benefit and the State would benefit 34 percent. We would look at distributing the money through regulation, meeting with our county partners to determine the methodology on how we would distribute the revenue.
Senator Amodei:
Tentatively, we will schedule this for work session next week. If the district attorneys want to submit something in writing instead of attending, we have no objection. Something we could refer to in our record will be fine. We will try to get the issues that have been discussed today resolved so the committee can make a decision by Friday of next week. Some additional detail is needed for the half the State anticipates receiving. Where do you think it would go, the major areas of operation?
Mary Lau, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada (RAN):
I do not have an opinion on the bill itself or the withholding of the $2. Employers do have the option of being reimbursed for their cost of expenses. What I would like to address is to make sure the record is very clear on how employers are going to be notified and how they are going to comply. A lot of small companies use payroll services because there are so many intricacies to payroll filing and timing deadlines. Employers could end up in bad situations, even when they are meticulous about their payroll, if they have not withheld money properly or turned it over properly. It is important for employers to be notified properly, given directions of how to collect, where to send the fee, and this type of thing.
Chairman Amodei:
Do you have in mind any language that has been used before in this area?
Ms. Lau:
I do not have specific language to recommend. It could probably be taken from other areas of withholding and “sends to,” and the noticing requirements. It would probably require the department to make a change in their form to add a paragraph saying money is going to be collected and where it is going to be sent. We can look at some of the other states and see if this has been implemented; I can check my counterparts and see if they have specific language they have used.
Senator Care:
That is the reason I raised the issue of notice to the employer under section 2. There does exist statutory language which addresses that. What I think you may be thinking of is making it clear to the first-time employer.
chairman Amodei:
Senate Bill 186 is postponed to a work session. Mr. Wilkinson, could you develop some suggested language in terms of notification. Ms. Lau, please check with Mr. Wilkinson by Wednesday.
Other business coming before the committee is BDR 2‑619, which increases fees for filing certain documents relating to estates or trusts.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 2-619: Increase probate filing fees. (Later introduced Senate Bill 211.)
SENATOR CARE MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 2‑619.
SENATOR MCGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
*****
Chairman Amodei:
There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting is adjourned at 10:29 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Lora Nay,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman
DATE: