MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Taxation
Seventy-second Session
May 29, 2003
The Senate Committee on Taxation was called to order by Chairman Mike McGinness, at 2:36 p.m., on Thursday, May 29, 2003, 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 Sandra J. Tiffany
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bob Coffin
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman David R. Parks, District No. 41
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Rick Combs, Fiscal Analyst
Mavis Scarff, Committee Manager
Gale Maynard, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mark Schofield, Assessor, Clark County
Robert McGowan, Assessor, Washoe County
Doug Sonnemann, Assessor, Douglas County
William (Jeff) Johnson, Assessor, Humboldt County
Charles W. (Chuck) Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Michael Alonso, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association
Gaylyn J. Spriggs, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association
Chairman McGinness:
We will open the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 533.
ASSEMBLY BILL 533 (2nd Reprint): Makes various changes to provisions governing the recordation and taxation of property. (BDR 32-122)
Chairman McGinness:
This is the assessor’s bill 3 days before the end of the session.
Mark Schofield, Assessor, Clark County:
I would like to thank you for hearing this bill and apologize for getting it to you so late, however, we were postponed in the Assembly. As a matter of fact, this is the fifth, consecutive assessors’ omnibus bill to come before this committee. We have been pleased with your support in the past and will be pleased to be supported now.
It took over 2 hours to render the testimony in the Assembly taxation committee, and A.B. 533 passed unanimously. There have been several amendments made to this bill and we have broken it down by subject matter as opposed to section in the “A.B. 533 Summary” (Exhibit C). Most of these changes are technical in nature and there is nothing in this bill that would adversely impact the taxpayers.
There are two issues to be discussed at length. The first issue is the enhancement of the exemptions and primarily the veterans’ exemptions. The next issue is surviving spouses. We have applied the consumer price index (CPI) for surviving spouses using the same concept emanating from this committee relative to the veterans’ exemptions taking effect in 2005. We felt it would be equitable to apply the same formula to surviving spouses since the exemption resides in statute.
The other issue, which was not our concern originally, was the elimination of the public inspection of the roll. This was amended into the bill by Assembly taxation and I believe there is opposition to this section of A.B. 533. I would urge the committee to not let the public inspector issue jeopardize the passage of this legislation. We believe A.B. 533 is meritorious legislation and these are technical changes we need to enhance the operation of our offices, and to make the laws user friendly. The rest of the bill has no controversy attached.
Robert McGowan, Assessor, Washoe County:
The number one thing on our list is to clarify what we are allowed to do. As it stands now, we factor in the years we do not reappraise areas. We have the ability to re-cost every year and this will allow us to re-cost the improvement part of the equation rather than by factoring, which is a more accurate way of doing it while still factoring the land. Presently, there is some confusion, at least with our Department of Taxation. We either have to factor or reappraise everything.
Senator O’Connell:
Would you mind mentioning the section you are speaking to and could you explain what re-costing is?
Mr. McGowan:
On the handout, re-costing is the first item, “Real Property Appraisal.” Let me explain. When re-costing, by state law, we are required to use a Marshall & Swift cost. They supply us with this cost and we determine the quality class, then we are given the cost per square foot on a particular building. By re-costing this way, we get the improvement part done. The State of Nevada gives us a factor in the years we do not physically reappraise and we apply that factor to whatever value we have on the building. Factors, by general nature, involve taking a large group and using a conservative number; it does throw the equalization part off, which was the reason factors were installed. Now, with the advancement of computerization, we can certainly re-cost buildings every year.
Senator O’Connell:
Is it just the building you are referring to and not the land?
Mr. McGowan:
You can do one or the other, but not necessarily both.
Senator Neal:
What is the reevaluation cycle?
Mr. McGowan:
By state law, we have to reappraise once every 5 years. We split the county into four sections. There are some counties that have their staff do appraisals more often, and they can by law. As the larger counties grow, it becomes more difficult. We do one-fifth of Washoe County every year.
I just wanted to make clear the part of this bill on real property appraisals and leaving the amendment in would help us progress and get work done in a more timely and accurate fashion.
Senator Neal:
Mr. Schofield, is the reevaluation cycle different in Clark County?
Mr. Schofield:
Yes it is. We are the only county in the state that reappraises annually. I believe the cycle in all 17 counties varies, not all are 5-year cycles.
Senator Neal:
Under the law, you must do it within 5 years.
Mr. Schofield:
Yes, this is correct.
Doug Sonnemann, Assessor, Douglas County:
I believe Carson City is on a 4-year cycle. Most counties are on a 5-year cycle because it creates less personnel need. To try and lower the cost as much as possible, we are going to a computerized program. There have been 13 counties that have formed a consortium on a computer program and we are hoping to achieve this as well in order to reappraise every year at the same staffing level.
Mr. Schofield:
You are correct, Senator O’Connell, I believe we need to read what page and section we are dealing with because not everyone has the summary (Exhibit C).
The next issue is “Improvement Destruction,” page 31, section 36, where we are adding equity into the statute. Currently, the statute dealing with factual heirs, Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 361.768, allows us to remove secured personal property that is destroyed, but does not allow us to remove unsecured personal property that is destroyed. This is an equity issue where we are creating balance and because of Dillon’s Rule we needed to address it statutorily.
Page 17, section 18, ”Declaration Format” addresses technology. One day all 17 assessors hope to have the ability to do e-government and allow businesses to file their personal property declarations over the Internet.
The next section is 29, on page 26, and makes issue on “Lien Position.” This is a clarification issue requested by the Civil Division of the Clark County district attorney’s office. It clarifies the position of statutory liens for out-of-state attorneys. We have had cases we win relative to the placement of our statutory lien in Nevada reference bankruptcy cases. It is a legal issue readied by several attorneys in the district attorney’s office who it was important to include in the bill.
Senator Neal:
Is this just being proposed, or is this being supported by a court decision?
Mr. Schofield:
No. This is proposed language to go into NRS 361.450.
Chairman McGinness:
Mr. Schofield, you mentioned in section 18 about the technology advancements, but also in section 18, subsection 2, paragraph (c), is the language about a natural person who owns 25 mobile or manufactured homes.
Mr. Schofield:
The document you have (Exhibit C) has broken it down by subject matter and will be addressed later on in the testimony.
Senator Neal:
Go back to page 26, section 29, dealing with the liens. Can you share with the committee the type of problems you have had to bring this legislation forward?
Mr. Schofield:
It has to do with bankruptcy claims. The lawyer for the defendant may be from out of state and may have a lien where they will argue the lien takes priority over our lien. This has been put in to protect the State of Nevada, and those that receive the proceeds of the property taxes.
Again, pages 28 and 29, section 32, is a similar issue of unsecured personal property acquired and amends NRS 361.484. This statute deals with the government purchasing property through condemnation. They rapidly abate the property taxes, but there is no provision to abate personal property taxes. Therefore, this amendment provides for the abatement and is a sound fiscal issue that needed to be corrected.
The next issue is seizure and minimum bids for sale of property that has been seized; all we are requesting is to post the seizure in the assessor’s office and at the site of the property being seized. The legislation also requires if we get to the point of sale, which is a rare occurrence in most of the counties, the minimum bid must equal the total amount of taxes, penalties, and costs due.
Senator Neal:
How is this working now?
Mr. Schofield:
Currently, we post in three locations: the county seat or the courthouse, the assessor’s office or in the government center, and then at the property site. This language eliminates one location, the courthouse. As I indicated, it is redundant having to post the seizure in three places. If we ever get to the point of sale, it is advertised in the newspaper. We hope we never have to sell personal property of any kind, whether manufactured homes or business personal property or aircraft. It is rare, but it does happen and if we get to the point of seizure, in most cases this brings compliance and the case is closed. Very rarely is property sold, unless it has been abandoned.
Chairman McGinness:
Mr. Schofield, why is the language within the immediate vicinity of the property being seized.
Mr. Schofield:
There may be occasions where we cannot get on the property for various reasons, therefore, we would post the notice of seizure on the gate. There may be an occasion where there are vicious animals. We will not send our associates into that particular site for liability reasons, or there may be individuals with guns and this has happened.
The next section is 22, page 21, and section 26, page 25, “County/State Board of Equalization (BOE) No Remedy.” This is clarification language about the taxpayer refusing “without good cause” and embeds this language into both the County Board of Equalization and the State Board of Equalization. This suggests if you refused to give information without good cause as a taxpayer, you have eliminated your remedy before the county and state boards respectively. It also creates a mandatory review for all adjustments made by the respective boards of equalization from the prior year and again, we avoid redundancy.
There may be a piece of property that has serious economic problems associated with it for various reasons and those same problems may apply the following year. Rather than forcing the taxpayer to go back through the process of appealing, it allows us to maintain the value. We currently do this in Clark County, but what we have done is put it into statute. It actually saves the taxpayer the aggravation of having to go through the appeals process if the assessor agrees.
Senator Neal:
What will the penalty be for refusing entry to the assessors, under this section, without good cause?
Mr. Schofield:
Senator Neal, you would lose your right to appeal.
Senator Neal:
What does that mean?
Mr. Schofield:
That means if you have a business and you were requested to provide information to adequately assess the personal property and you refused, after several attempts by our office to communicate this request to you, then we would estimate the value of your property. We try to estimate realistically and if you wish to protest this estimate, you would have lost your rights.
Mr. Sonnemann:
The three items I would like to talk about are on page 2 of the summary (Exhibit C), items 1, 3, and 4. These deal with businesses that own 25 manufactured homes or more leased out as a business. What these amendments do is clarify the reporting requirements for such businesses to make for easier reporting and better tracking for our offices.
Pages 1 and 2, section 2, “Manufactured Home Commercial Use,” allows a business that leases out manufactured homes to report in the same manner as any other business with personal property.
Senator O’Connell:
Are these homes on a foundation or are they tied down in some manner to make them stable as a regular home would be?
Mr. Sonnemann:
They could be on a foundation, but these are specifically homes that are not.
Senator O’Connell:
I am thinking of a construction site. Is this a circumstance that would fall under this legislation?
Mr. Sonnemann:
Typically, they are not converted to real property. They would still be considered, by the State of Nevada and manufactured housing, to be personal property and if converted, they would not affect any converted housing treated as real property and taxed under the real property statutes.
Senator O’Connell:
The tax is applied to the owner, not to the renter of the home or is this a part of the lease?
Mr. Sonnemann:
Yes. The tax is applied to the owner and typically, they write who is responsible for the taxes into the lease. Usually, it is the person renting as a pass-through from the person leasing it to them.
Senator O’Connell:
Are those leases over a year or more in time?
Mr. Sonnemann:
I think it varies. We have had portable modular units leased to a school district and sometimes they will just need them for a year to get them through until the next school is built. Other times, a school might not be down the road for another 10 years and they may have these portable modular units and move them around the district.
Senator O’Connell:
Could you collect a double tax in 1 year? Would you go through this for me?
Mr. Sonnemann:
These are companies who are in the business of leasing these rental units. They are used as construction site offices as portable manufactured houses. They would be paying the full year’s tax. Who these units are leased to throughout the course of the year is not material to us. The company that owns the manufactured housing or the portable modular units would be paying the full year’s tax once they report them on the declaration.
On page 17, section 18, “Declarations for Commercial Manufactured Homes” identifies reporting requirements for those businesses with manufactured homes.
The next item is on page 26, section 30, “Quarterly Payments for Commercial Manufactured Homes.” This outlines requirements and dates for the taxpayers to get the four equal installments and this same section clarifies the requirements for those who can get the four equal payments as far as delinquency penalties. This will allow people to go to the four installments sooner and in a more equitable manner, so they can have an easier payment plan than in the past.
Another item on page 14, section 15, “Taxable Value,” has grammatical changes.
The next item on page 31, section 35, “Dwelling Unit Defined,” clarifies language to allow taxation of vehicles either through the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or through our office on those vehicles being used as living units that would not otherwise be taxed. This will allow us clarification to tax this segment without ambiguity.
The last item on page 18, section 19, “Public Inspection of the Roll,” is about publishing the roll in the newspaper and the pros and cons to this issue.
Senator O’Connell:
Do you have a county-to-county list as to how much we spend on the publication of the roll?
Mr. Sonnemann:
I do not have that information, but I can give you some general ideas. Clark County spends the most at $360,000, and in Washoe County I am not sure.
Mr. McGowan:
In Washoe County, it has been a decreasing amount for some reason. A few years back, spending got as high as $65,000 and in that particular year paper costs were up, accounting for the high cost. At present, costs are in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. The point is we would not want to be in a position where we jeopardize the rest of this bill by fighting for this one particular issue.
Chairman McGinness:
Mr. Johnson, can you give us some ideas as to the cost for printing in the rural county areas?
William (Jeff) Johnson, Assessor, Humboldt County:
I do not know what the figures are individually, but I was informed that it was close to $500,000 for every county. I know of one county that said it had done a telephone survey and the total was close to a half-million dollars for the state.
Chairman McGinness:
What about Humboldt County?
Mr. Johnson:
Humboldt County is around $5000 to $6000.
Mr. Sonnemann:
As a follow-up on this topic, the cost for publishing the roll in Douglas County was $18,000 and for Carson City, it was $15,500 last year.
Senator Neal:
Going back to page 31, section 35, reference to “Dwelling Units Defined,” you speak of the type of motor vehicle not registered with the DMV. What types of vehicle are we discussing that would not be registered with the department?
Mr. Sonnemann:
These could be motor homes in a recreational vehicle park or manufactured home park not registered with the DMV because the owners do not take the motor homes on the road anymore and are not declaring these vehicles as manufactured homes under those set of laws; therefore, this sector escapes taxation.
Senator Neal:
Are these vehicles on blocks?
Mr. Sonnemann:
Not necessarily, the motor homes could still be on wheels and perfectly usable, but owners have chosen not to register because they no longer drive the vehicles on the highway.
Senator Neal:
You spoke of an alternative to publishing the secure tax roll, besides the newspaper. What would that alternative be?
Mr. Sonnemann:
One of the proposals mentioned in Assembly taxation was to publish the roll on the Internet, provided it was available in the individual counties. In Douglas County, there are a lot of people who read and widely use the publication. The one problem I see when people come into our office is the roll does not give all the information to answer a lot of the questions on why their taxable value is more than their neighbors’. Then you have to explain it could be an age, quality, or size issue.
One of the advantages of having this researched on the Internet is it provides more information than we can put into the newspaper and people can find the answer to some of their questions. We certainly do not mind addressing their concerns, but we cannot put a lot of information into the newspaper supplement.
Senator Neal:
Do you have dual reporting?
Mr. Sonnemann:
Essentially, we have that now. At least in Douglas County, people can look up the information available on the Internet. Essentially, the newspaper is a supplement.
Senator Tiffany:
I have been on your Web site and used it. Is the roll printed in the newspaper the same as on your Web site?
Mr. Schofield:
No, we do not replicate the roll as it is published in the newspaper.
Senator Tiffany:
I am thinking of format and how people are accustomed to reading it in the newspaper. Your site on the Internet is very complex with a great deal of information to navigate through. But if you just had the rolls printed on the Internet as they are in the newspaper, would this be an additional cost?
Mr. Schofield:
No, it would not. Essentially, we would mirror the same computer information we provide the newspapers to publish the roll.
Senator Tiffany:
I see you having to keep a dual system for a while because not everyone has access to the Internet. We are trying to encourage everyone to use the e-mail addresses and the Web site posting and move as much as you can electronically. Do you know how many hits you have on your site?
Mr. Schofield:
We receive about 3 million hits per month. There are a lot of very interested taxpayers.
Senator Tiffany:
I think the newspaper is very expensive. In Clark County you have to publish an entire section and the print is very small.
Senator Coffin:
I agree with Senator Tiffany; it is a reality we will have to publish by both venues. The Internet is very important and I think you are sending this information in an electronic form to the newspaper. I suspect it would be relatively simple to convert this information to the Internet. It is expensive to publish in the newspaper and this issue to not publish the roll in the newspaper has come up several times. If it is $350,000 to publish the roll in Clark County, what is the amount of money yielded from a 1-cent property tax in that county? How are you going to raise the money for this?
Mr. Schofield:
It is about $4.4 million for a 1-cent property tax. Are you talking about raising the money to embed the roll on the Web site, or raising the money to publish the roll? We do not raise the money to publish the rolls. My colleagues currently have embedded the amount required to publish the roll, as required by law, into their budgets and operating fund. Clark County is different than the other counties in relation to this subject. We do not have this put into our budget in the assessor’s office.
A countywide advertising fund is used and the commissioners make the decision on how the roll is published. We work closely with the newspapers chosen and a debate has always ensued as to how we should circulate the roll, either by actual publication, not publishing or mailing booklets, or distribution by some other means. The commissioners concluded the spirit of the law was to inform the public. We do not get involved in those discussions.
Senator Coffin:
I am not sure 1 cent raises that much, but I think it needs to be published and needs to be Web-based. The unfortunate thing is newspapers are not being read as much and not enough people are using the Internet; therefore, we have to use them both.
Mr. Schofield:
Whether we publish the roll in the newspapers or not, the following year this information is going to be available on our Web site. The Las Vegas Review‑Journal has the roll on their Web site and it has been very beneficial. Any and all information available for public consumption, as it relates to the assessment of property, is important.
Senator Coffin:
There is a reason for this discussion and that is to create a dispute within the newspapers between the Internet advertising salesman and the print advertising salesman.
Mr. Johnson:
I will be discussing the exemptions part of the summary (Exhibit C), “Surviving Spouse” on page 2, section 4, and on page 33, section 39, as it relates to the DMV exemption. We are removing language dealing with orphan children, because there are none in the State of Nevada, and we are adding a CPI element to fiscal year (FY) 2005 through FY 2006. It now stands at $1000 and we would like to make this similar to the veterans’ exemption and allow this as an adjustable based on the consumer price index.
On page 2, section 5, “Low Income Housing,” we are asking that owners of low income housing units be given a form to be returned annually and let us know how many of these units still qualify for the exemption. Right now, it could be the entire complex or it could be only a number of the units. Sometimes the numbers can change and we would like to have owners file this information annually.
The “Blind” exemption applies on pages 3 through 4, section 6, and pages 33 through 34, section 40, as it relates to the DMV. This adds CPI elements for FY 2005 through FY 2006 for the blind and also requires these individuals be bona fide residents of the State of Nevada.
The last exemption we want to talk about is the veterans’ exemption on pages 4 through 12, sections 7 through 12, subsection 3, and pages 34 through 42, sections 41 through 46, subsection 5, as it relates to the DMV. This is going to expand some of the dates so we include more veterans who were involved in conflicts of war, including the current Afghanistan war and Operation Iraqi Freedom. It also will clarify the veterans’ home gift account so money can be given toward the home.
Chairman McGinness:
Sometimes there is a controversy over which war, scrimmage, or operations of war are included. Will the legislation standardize this, or at least in the property tax?
Mr. Johnson:
I believe it will and this gives us some definitive dates we did not have before.
Chairman McGinness:
Is there a fiscal note on A.B. 533 of which we should be aware?
Mr. Johnson:
I believe the taxation department did have a fiscal note at one point.
Senator O’Connell:
Is it distinguished as to whether or not the veteran was from Nevada, or does this apply to all veterans.
Mr. Johnson:
This applies to all bona fide residents in the State of Nevada who are veterans.
Chairman McGinness:
I am looking at the fiscal note (Exhibit D) and it seems pretty large. Has the scope changed? At one point it included every veteran.
Mr. Johnson:
Initially, we proposed to include all veterans and I believe this was amended in the Assembly to give specific dates. I am not sure, but I believe the fiscal note includes all veterans.
Mr. Schofield:
Additionally, I believe the state’s fiscal note is the worst-case scenario and rightfully so. Clearly, by our database, all veterans who are eligible will not apply for this exemption. In Clark County, we believe we have close to 200,000 veterans eligible for this exemption. Approximately 42,000 of those eligible veterans have signed up, but less than the 42,000 veterans actually use the exemption every year. You have to factor into the equation that as time goes on, this language covers just the conflict periods and the police action in post Korea. We have World War II and Korean veterans who are passing away on a daily basis. Based on our numbers, we do not believe the fiscal impact is going to be that dramatic.
Charles W. (Chuck) Fulkerson, Executive Director, Office of Veterans’ Services:
Currently there are approximately 241,000 veterans in the State of Nevada and at the present time about 93 percent of these veterans are considered eligible for property tax exemption. The language in A.B. 533 will add about 7 percent to the total. This is not alarge increase, particularly in Clark County where almost 200,000 veterans are eligible for this exemption, but only 40,000 apply as shown in the summary (Exhibit E).
Senator Tiffany:
Mr. Fulkerson, do you remember what we did when we closed your budget on the veterans’ home gift account?
Mr. Fulkerson:
I believe you are referring to the license plate money?
Senator Tiffany:
I just want to know if we rolled the veterans home gift account into the license plate money or did we take it off of the General Fund? Do you remember?
Mr. Fulkerson:
I do not recall that happening.
Senator Tiffany:
You do not remember what we did with the money or what the end result was? We had a closing conflict with the Assembly.
Mr. Fulkerson:
Okay, because A.B. 192 passed, and the language in S.B. 234, currently in the Assembly is in conflict, the gift account placement has not been resolved.
Senator Tiffany:
Can money get swept into the veterans’ home gift account?
Mr. Fulkerson:
Yes, it can and this is the other amendment I want to address. Under these provisions, when a veteran applies for property tax exemption, he or she may elect to donate those savings to the nursing home. Under the present law, the money goes into the operating account of the nursing home. We request the money go to the gift account so the administrator can use the funds in a discretionary manner to purchase and provide goods and services to the residents not being provided by the General Fund.
Senator Tiffany:
Would the exempt portion the veteran gets be donated?
Mr. Schofield:
Indeed, this is what would happen. Let us take a typical veteran in Clark County where the exemption would ordinarily be applied to the Governmental Services Tax, but if the veteran wanted to apply it to the veterans’ home gift account, then he or she would pay the full Governmental Services Tax of $50 and dedicate it to the veterans’ home gift account.
Senator Tiffany:
Is this new, or has it existed?
Mr. Schofield:
This has been in existence. We publicize and notify the veterans currently in our system by postcard, but we have very few takers at this time. In fact, I sent out a letter to the veterans currently in our system explaining this benefit was available, and they thought we were taking money away from them. We received hundreds of phone calls and letters from concerned veterans.
Senator Coffin:
I believe Assemblyman Parks is here to present a friendly amendment to A.B. 533. He has been in communication with some of us on the subject of veterans who live out of state.
Assemblyman David R. Parks, District No. 41:
Assembly Bill 533 has been of interest to me. I communicated with Senator Coffin and asked if it were possible to amend the provisions of Assembly Bill 366, which Mr. Fulkerson supports, into A.B. 533. Considering the limited time we have left, I am wondering if this committee would consider A.B. 366 as part of any amendment they might introduce.
ASSEMBLY BILL 366 (1st Reprint): Provides exemption from governmental services tax for vehicles registered by resident of Nevada who is on active duty in Armed Forces of United States. (BDR 32-347)
Chairman McGinness:
Can you give us an executive summary of A.B. 366?
Assemblyman Parks:
Assembly Bill 366 would correct a circumstance currently existing with regard to the DMV. It seems that under the current Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act, a federal statute or regulation was implemented exempting any service person from personal property tax in any state where they would be stationed. The motor vehicle privilege tax and the Government Services Tax are personal property taxes. Any person from Nevada, or stationed in Nevada from another state, who had a vehicle would be able to register without having to pay the Government Services Tax. This only works if you are outside in another state where you would be subject to the tax unless exempted by the State. The DMV realized they did not have any regulations for the Government Services Tax. A short time ago DMV started assessing all persons who are Nevada residents and want to maintain the Nevada plates on their vehicles.
If a person from Nevada was stationed at Fort Benning, Georgia and it was time to renew their registration, they could renew their registration with Nevada by paying the registration fee as well as the Government Services Tax, since there is presently no exemption. If, on the other hand, they decided they wanted to avoid this tax, they could register their vehicle in the state of Georgia and that state would be required to not charge any personal property tax against that registration. The dilemma we have is if an individual from Nevada who has Lake Tahoe plates on their car wants to keep those plates, they would pay a significantly greater fee at renewal for registration because Nevada does not provide this exemption to residents.
Chairman McGinness:
Where is A.B. 366 now?
Assemblyman Parks:
It is currently in the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means. What happened is A.B. 366 and A.B. 533 were heard together in Assembly taxation and because there had been a large fiscal note placed on the bills, they got referred to Assembly Ways and Means. Assembly Bill 366 did have a hearing this morning in front of Assembly Ways and Means, but no action was taken.
Chairman McGinness:
Does this apply to active duty personnel?
Assemblyman Parks:
Yes. It strictly applies to those individuals who are active in service.
Senator Tiffany:
Are you trying to get this amendment put into A.B. 533?
Assemblyman Parks:
Yes. Since the sections are relevant, and in the interest of time, it might be simpler amending A.B. 366 into A.B. 533, if the Senate is voting.
Senator Tiffany:
You cannot avoid the fiscal note. We have closed DMV on certain numbers and if this impacts the closure of the DMV budget, we cannot do this.
Assemblyman Parks:
Senator Tiffany, in reality it is a false number. You have an individual who registers their vehicle in Nevada, yielding $33 for the State. The car will not be on the streets or roads in Nevada, but the State will still get the money, otherwise the individual will end up registering the vehicle in Georgia or Texas, or wherever they are based. Nevada keeps the registration on the vehicle, collects $33, but the vehicle is not driven in Nevada while the individual is active elsewhere.
Senator Tiffany:
Senator Raggio often says fiscal notes should not be ignored and I would hate to have this diluted by saying we are going to gain $33 instead of losing it. The fiscal notes are put on for a reason and we should not skirt around the Assembly Ways and Means or the Senate Finance committee on this. I disagree with putting that amendment into this bill without a fiscal note. I do not think this is wise.
Senator Coffin:
I hope I have not put Assemblyman Parks in an uncomfortable position. My inclination is to believe A.B. 366 is a germane amendment, but one we should study before we process the bill. I do not know if the assessors consider the proposal by Assemblyman Parks a friendly amendment or not.
Mr. Schofield:
We would support this amendment and I believe the fiscal impact would be negligible overall and is the right and fair thing to do.
Senator Townsend:
This issue ranks at the top and I have received calls from all over the world. I understand the concerns of the members on this committee who also serve on the finance committee and their need to analyze, but I think what you have done here is extremely important.
Assemblyman Parks:
We have found the fiscal notes were substantially the same with both A.B. 366 and A.B. 533 and had taken the worst-case scenario. I do not want to criticize fiscal notes from various departments or agencies, but we believe the total number of potential, active duty individuals far exceeded any possible real number.
Mr. Fulkerson:
About 20,000 Nevadans have been on active duty and, from my experience in the military, I would say less than half of them have automobiles to register. There are a lot of active duty personnel who do not make that kind of money.
Chairman McGinness:
We appreciate you bringing this issue forward and sometime the committee will have to determine whether A.B. 366 should go to Senate Finance. There is a DMV fiscal note on A.B. 366 (Exhibit F).
Mr. Schofield:
We certainly do not want to make light of the fiscal notes emanating from the Department of Taxation and I believe they should give you worst-case scenarios because you need to know what could be possible, although the statistics do not back it up.
I will go through the “Technical Amendments” quickly in the summary (Exhibit C) where we dealt with surveyors in each of the municipalities in southern Nevada. We worked with several of the county recorder offices throughout the state, Washoe and Clark Counties especially. We coordinated with the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, a southern Nevada chapter, and everyone concurred with the amendments I am about to go through.
On page 14, section 13, subsection 7, “Parcel Numbers,” add the word “correct” to read “correct and complete.”
Page 44, section 50, “Realigning Boundaries” already exists in statute for counties under 100,000 and legislation gives cities the ability to realign boundaries, so we do not have tax districts crossing parcels. This creates a situation where we have to send two tax bills and the amendment allows all counties over 100,000 to enjoy the same statutory language currently available for those covered.
Page 53, section 61, “Amended Subdivision Plats,” states the amended subdivision plat must contain a legal description of only the area being amended.
On pages 55 and 56, section 63, “Reversionary Maps of Subdivided Parcel,” states in part that future conveyances of parcels/lots reverted to acreage must contain a metes and bounds legal description until a subsequent map has been recorded.
“Patented Mine Exemption” on page 32, sections 37 through 38, state if you have a patented mine, you have to file an affidavit of labor. The affidavit has to go to the county clerk’s office. The county clerk’s office has to record the document, and then we get it. What we are doing is bypassing the county clerk and having the affidavit documented in the recorder’s office so we can get it more quickly.
“Recorded Deeds,” on pages 42 through 43, section 47, suggests, “water rights conveyances do not need a parcel number to record.” Currently, any conveyances require a parcel number under a law we changed over 10 years ago. We are saying let us not put the taxpayer in a position where they can get the document kicked back because it did not have a parcel number.
The next item under “Recorded Deeds” is parcel numbers used by the assessor’s office. Essentially what this is saying, and in Clark County’s case, is if you record a document, you need to provide the 11-digit parcel configuration we currently use. Other assessors have varying parcel configuration numbers, some have 12 and others have 9. When you record your document, it should have the accurate parcel number on it.
Senator Neal:
If an individual came to your office without the documentation, would you have some place in your office where it could be looked up?
Mr. Schofield:
We do have a cross-reference. Currently, if you come into the recorder’s office and the conveyance documentation has no parcel number, you must put a parcel number on the document before it is recorded. This is the current law. The change we are creating makes it clear whatever number you put on the document must conform tothat assessor’s or county digit parcel configuration number.
Senator Neal:
What type of problem does this pose other than the misdirection of the property in some way?
Mr. Schofield:
It does not pose any problem. The number on the document does not have to be accurate, but there must be a number on it in order to get the document recorded. If a taxpayer came in and wanted to record a document, he or she could literally make up a number and the assessor’s office would have to record it. But if you left the document blank without a parcel number, they would not record it.
The next item is cleanup language from last session. When we came with S.B. 376 of the 71st Session, we had a section that basically talked about providing tax-mailing addresses on conveyance documents being recorded and this created a significant problem. We do not look at all conveyance documents; we are only looking at grantor/grantee documents. Because the law stated address mailers must be provided for all conveyance documents, it forced the situation where the conveyances were mailed back and not recorded when tax mailing addresses were not attached. We received calls from all over the country by mortgage institutions trying to record reconveyances just because we were not aware of the required tax-mailing address on grantor/grantee documents. We are defining what documents we want the tax-mailing address to benefit the taxpayer, so they can get their tax bill on time and it does not go into a penalty.
On pages 43, 46, 48 through 52, 54 through 57, sections 48, 53, 56 through 62, 65 through 66, “Acceptable Format” is language the recorders and the assessors agreed upon for this bill. It basically states when the recorder delivers documents to the assessor’s office, they must be in a format agreed to by the recorder and the assessor. We worked on this for some time, made changes before it got to the Assembly, then we made changes in the Assembly relative to this, and we have the support of the recorders.
The next issue is an interesting one. The recorders came before the Legislature last year and imposed, in addition to their other fees, a $3 fee for enhancing the technology. That money is exclusively dedicated to the recorders. The law will not allow the recorders to share those funds with anyone and it also accumulates in a fund designated specifically for the recorders.
What we attempted to do in the Assembly was the same thing, but slightly different. We tried to increase the collection fee of 6 percent on personal property to 8 percent and dedicate the additional 2 percent to technology. Because of the impact on fiscal and school districts, it did not survive Assembly Ways and Means. However, they did provide language for a technology fund and the board of county commissioners in each respective county must create a technology fund and dedicate it to the assessor.
Unfortunately, there is no identified funding attached to the fund. We are going to have to work with the respective county commissioners and Legislature over the course of the next biennium to identify a funding source to go into this account. It is very important. Out of all the offices, surely the clerks, treasurers, and the assessors are heavily dependent on technology. If we had our own account, the difference nuance as it relates to this language versus the recorders, once the account is established and funding is identified, to share these funds with nexus departments. We envision a committee being formed to determine how those funds will be allocated to help the treasurer’s office or the planning department.
Senator O’Connell:
We are currently dealing with a bill like this for the recorders. Does your office have the authority to bid and spend money without the county commissioners’ authorization? Do the laws give you this kind of independence?
Mr. Schofield:
No, we are not authorized. Everything would have to go through the appropriate purchasing regulations and agencies.
Senator O’Connell:
Even though the funds might be generated through your office, would they still have to be approved through the county commission in order for you to spend them?
Mr. Schofield:
We would follow that procedure, yes. It is for our own protection we follow the purchasing laws and the ordinances in Clark County that govern purchasing.
Senator O’Connell:
It is interesting. There is a conference committee on this now, but I wonder if we allowed the money to stay in, could it be shared in order to establish this fund?
Senator Tiffany:
Senator O’Connell is referencing the Recorders’ Bill. During the testimony, sharing was one of the things the recorder was most concerned about. I think we agreed with that at the time and to change, dilute, or share those monies would now probably go against what we voted on in the committee. I am not sure it is a smart idea.
If the recorder does have this dedicated source of funds, through the technology fund, what type of sharing could you actually do with the equipment? Would it be hardware, software, scanners, or data formatting? What type of equipment could you actually share with the recorders? Maybe we can look at that kind of language as opposed to sharing the money.
Mr. Schofield:
We currently do share equipment and that is not the issue. This particular language would not even address the recorder side. The language we just provided to the committee a few moments ago designates a format mutually agreed upon wherein whatever technology employed by the recorders’ offices across the state will provide for compatibility with the assessors’ technology.
When I was talking about sharing the funds, I was referring to other offices that do not enjoy a fund like the recorders. Senator O’Connell, I appreciate your remarks, but we made an agreement in the Assembly with the recorders. We wrote language into our bill providing a mechanism for recorders to share those funds with assessors and when it was opposed, we agreed to pull that language out of the bill.
We are now addressing the problem from another point of view and saying there should be a mechanism to share these funds once they are identified with departments that have a natural nexus to the assessors. The recorders are the genesis of everything and without the recorder we could not function. All of the documents, the ownership changes, the subdivision maps, everything emanates from the recorder’s office.
The treasurer is the next natural nexus to the assessor and they have deployed a new technology program to enhance the tax collections. We can envision one day, if we are able to identify funds, the recorders as well as assessors would need program enhancements, and we would have this fund that would not have competing interests vying for available funds in the counties’ capital accounts.
We would have this fund available and share it with those in need. There is a process in Clark County that works well and is called a community of interest process. I do not want to get into the details now, but it is very similar to what I have just articulated.
Senator Neal:
Going back to the water rights conveyance, I noticed you are looking for permissive language, but with the statement you have in the summary (Exhibit C), is it you might need the number or you do not need it? Which is it?
Mr. Schofield:
It is enabling. You can either put it there or you do not have to; either way, the document gets recorded. We are trying to help the recorders who are recording the conveyances and who are being stopped because they do not have a parcel number. There are so many of them coming through, rather than not record the document because it does not have a number, we are saying go ahead and record it. Assessors are not typically looking at water right conveyances anyway. We do not know if the person who conveys it owns it; we do not know where these conveyances are because they often do not include legal descriptions.
Mr. Sonnemann:
The last page of the summary (Exhibit C) deals with date changes and clarifications. The first item is the “Notice of Value Cards,” page 19, section 19, subsection 2, paragraph (b). The current deadline is January 1 for the assessor to send those notices to the property owners. The new date will be December 18, and I believe this was at the request of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, to send notices out earlier and allow the taxpayer more time to review it and meet with the assessor’s office to resolve any discrepancies.
The next item, “County BOE Hearing Deadline,” page 21, section 21, changes February 28 to the last day in February to account for leap years.
The third item, “County/State BOE Appeal Deadline,” pages 22 through 23, section 23, subsections 2 through 5, page 23, section 24, also page 24, sections 25 and 26, clarifies the deadlines for filing and appeals for the County/State BOE.
The final item, “Segregation Report,” page 25, section 27, specifies what dates this report is due to the Department of Taxation.
Senator Neal:
Why would February 28 give you a problem?
Mr. Schofield:
It would be a problem because of leap year.
Senator Neal:
Yes. I understand that is for a leap year, but why would that be a problem?
Mr. Schofield:
All this language does is add another day. It gives another day to have hearings so everyone is not rushed.
Senator Neal:
What if it came on a Sunday?
Mr. Schofield:
For you, Senator Neal, we will be open. We would appreciate your support as it relates to this meritorious piece of legislation. We spent about a year and a half on it to get all the parties involved, and as I indicated at the beginning of my testimony, we went through the Assembly. It is always an education to be here and we appreciate your support.
John Sande III, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association:
We are here requesting you amend section 19 in A.B. 533, having to do with the publication of the secure roll of total valuation of all properties in the respective counties, and basically strip it out of the bill. First of all, it is the end of the session and we do not believe a policy such as this should be seriously considered without more information provided.
The reason for the publication originally was to have full disclosure to make sure assessors did not have any favorites, to review the accuracy of assessments, and to also allow the taxpayer to compare his or her parcel to other properties.
We believe, from what we have heard today, you agree with the concept of full disclosure. If this is the case, you still need to have full disclosure in newspapers. I enjoy comparing the parcels to some of the people I went to high school with to see how they are doing and what the valuations are.
As I understand it from the newspapers, these are very popular and newspapers publish extra copies because of their popularity. The Internet is more of a pull media as compared to newspapers, which are a push media. To get into the Internet, you have to be a person who knows how to get in, has an interest in getting in, and are able to navigate. I would never look at my assessed valuation on the Internet unless I thought there was a problem. On the other hand, when I see this publication in the newspaper, I always go through and observe the assessed valuation and make sure it is titled the way I believe it to be titled. Basically, this is what the Nevada Press Association thinks.
Senator Rhoads:
Mr. Sande, if we take out section 19, the newspapers, particularly in the rural areas, can you continue printing the tax rolls?
Mr. Sande:
That is correct. I noticed on page 19, subsection 6, the date has been changed from January 1 to December 18, and might be of interest to the assessors, but it does not have anything to do with the publication. If you deleted everything from lines 11 through 24 on page 19, section 19, that would accomplish what we are here for today.
Senator Rhoads:
You do not want the entire section out, just lines 11 through 24?
Mr. Sande:
Yes. I think the assessors may have wanted to retain lines 37 through 38 in section 19, page 19.
Senator Neal:
What is the difference between the language written on page 18, section 19, subsection 1, about the secured tax roll published in the newspaper? Would this not be sufficient?
Mr. Sande:
This talks about preparing a list and putting it into the courthouse.
Senator Neal:
It also states “and publish in a newspaper.”
Michael Alonso, Lobbyist, Nevada Press Association:
I believe that relates to the notice on the assessment being completed, not the actual assessment roll published in the newspaper.
Senator Neal:
That is not sufficient?
Mr. Alonso:
That is correct.
Mr. Johnson:
He is correct, that is just a notice saying the roll is complete and open for public inspection. It is not an entire listing of the taxpayers. It is a separate notice stating the roll is complete.
Gaylyn J. Spriggs, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association:
With the amendments and as the bill is presented today, the Nevada Taxpayers Association is in favor of the bill and urges the committee’s support.
Senator O’Connell:
You are saying the bill as it stands without the deletion of the language just testified to?
Ms. Spriggs:
We do not have a position on that particular issue as it does not relate to the tax itself, and our position is we want to urge the committee’s support on the bill as a whole. The amendments submitted and the issues that have come up were not discussed. I cannot offer anything else on this.
Senator Neal:
Do you know if it was brought up on the Assembly side?
Ms. Spriggs:
I was not at the hearing.
Assemblyman Parks:
I came here because of section 19, page 19, in A.B. 533. The amendment on page 19, subsection 3, was at my request. I would like to take a moment and go through it to explain what is requested.
The language I had asked to be put in was for assessors to post in public areas, at public libraries and branch libraries located within the county, and in public areas of the county courthouse or county offices where the assessor is located, and to have this posted on a Web site. In Clark County, the assessor file is posted on the Clark County Web site or another Web site operated or administered on behalf of a county assessor. If there is no such site, a copy of the list and evaluation must be published once in the newspaper of general circulation and the last part is the determination of the county commission.
This does make it elective and it is the county commission who may decide to include the posting of the assessor file. It certainly makes it easier and we are all moving toward the electronic age. You have heard testimony about push versus pull, but I know from e-mails I have received as well as comments from individuals in Clark County, one of the complaints seems to be the spending of $350,000 to $360,000 per year to publish the secured rolls in more than one paper. Less than 20 percent of the residents are actually getting the service for the price of $360,000 and a very limited number of people subscribe to the newspapers. For persons who do not live in Clark County and do not subscribe to a newspaper, publishing of the secured roll is much thicker than a Sunday news section prior to Christmas.
I have a lot of people complaining to me it was not worth the money to publish. It is also interesting to know the Reno Gazette-Journal and the Washoe County assessor placed a survey some years ago asking the readers if the roll should still be printed. Only 19 people said it should be printed and 529 people said no. I believe there is justification to making this optional with the counties.
Senator Neal:
On page 19, subsection 3, paragraph (2), it seems to be mandatory, but when you add the further language, “if the board of county commissioners so requires,” this makes it full discretionary. Even if you did not have a Web site to meet the other language, this language has made it discretionary on the part of the county commissioner. I can see where someone would have a problem with this. You are leaving it up to the county commissioner to say if you do not have a Web site, we still do not have to publish the roll, and this is what it is actually stating.
Assemblyman Parks:
It is certainly not the intent of what I had requested for the language to read. My request was the county commissioner could determine whether or not to put it on the Web site or print it in a paper of general circulation.
Senator Rhoads:
Can you not print on the Internet now without this bill? Why do you need this bill? It seems the county could print the tax rolls without this law.
Assemblyman Parks:
It also indicates posting the roll in various public libraries, branch libraries, and making it available in areas and the county courthouse. This is additional language.
Senator Rhoads:
Could they not print the tax roll on the Internet without this bill?
Assemblyman Parks:
At this time, Clark County and Washoe County make it available and there may be other counties as well.
Chairman McGinness:
I know for some of the counties Senator Rhoads and I co-represent or represent alone, you could post the roll at the courthouse in Tonopah and miss the huge area in Pahrump by 180 miles. This does bring some concern for availability of the tax roll.
Assemblyman Parks:
This is why I asked it also be placed in public libraries and branch libraries.
Chairman McGinness:
If there is no one else to testify on A.B. 533, we will close the hearing. Does the committee want to contemplate this issue brought before us? There are a few issues, the possible conclusion of A.B. 366, and also the publication issue. What does the committee want?
Senator Neal:
With all due respect to Assemblyman Parks and what he has attempted to do with this language, I would move we strike the new language in section 19, page 19, subsection 3 and move to amend and do pass.
SENATOR NEAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 533 WITH THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE NEW LANGUAGE IN SECTION 19, SUBSECTION 3.
Chairman McGinness:
Senator Neal has moved to amend and do pass to strike out the publication language on page 19. Is there a second?
Senator Coffin:
I need clarification. This language might be useful in part; is the maker of the motion noticing another area where it is required to be published? I can see value in having it posted in both areas via the Internet and newspapers. If you do away with that language, you do away with the Internet.
Senator Neal:
Okay, my motion, Senator Coffin is to leave the newspapers of general circulation in so it can be published in those papers. Whether they want to do additional publishing through Internet sites or by other means, fine. I do not want to get into a battle over this issue because people are interested in reading the roll. However the bill drafter wants to deal with the language, it would be to keep the newspapers of general circulation in the Legislation.
Chairman McGinness:
Senator Neal has made a motion.
Senator Coffin:
I would like to offer an amendment to the amendment.
Chairman McGinness:
I need a second on the first amendment.
SENATOR COFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Coffin:
I would like to offer a friendly amendment and move we add to this bill the language contained in A.B. 366 to enable veterans, particularly those overseas, who create money for us and would like to keep us as a resident state. It is to our advantage and I would move to add this to the motion.
SENATOR COFFIN M0VED TO FURTHER AMEND A.B. 533 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A.B. 366.
SENATOR NEAL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Senator Rhoads:
Do we have a fiscal note?
Senator Tiffany:
It is $3.2 million.
Chairman McGinness:
I believe if A.B. 366 is included we can make the motion to amend and do pass, or we could make it to amend and re-refer to Senate Finance. I think whichever way we try, the bill is going to end up in Senate Finance with this amendment.
Senator Neal:
Since A.B. 366 is an exempt bill, can we just act on this alone?
Chairman McGinness:
Actually, we do not have the bill in our committee.
Senator Neal:
Why is it here?
Chairman McGinness:
The bill was heard in Ways and Means this morning on the Assembly side.
Senator Neal:
It has not moved down here yet, and therefore, we do not have it in our possession.
Chairman McGinness:
No, we do not.
Senator Neal:
We can only act by amendment to another bill. Do we know if this bill is coming to us?
Chairman McGinness:
We made an effort to find out, Senator Neal, and we do not know.
Rick Combs, Fiscal Analyst:
If you turn to the fiscal note on A.B. 366 (Exhibit F), page 2, the DMV has basically indicated they cannot determine how many residents are active in the service, located out of state, and have their vehicles registered in Nevada. What they have done is given a range from 5000 to 20,000 persons who would be affected, and they listed how much that would be. It is certainly not a definitive fiscal note and I have called the office to ask the analyst to call DMV, but I have not received any additional information.
Senator Neal:
I will have to withdraw my second on the motion. I thought this was more definitive than what has been stated.
SENATOR NEAL WITHDREW HIS SECOND ON THE MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND A.B. 533 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A.B. 366.
SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION TO FURTHER AMEND A.B. 533 WITH THE PROVISIONS OF A.B. 366.
Chairman McGinness:
Are there any further comments or questions? Let us hear from all those in favor or opposed to include the provisions of A.B. 366 in A.B. 533.
THE MOTION FAILED (SENATORS TIFFANY, NEAL, O’CONNELL, RHOADS, AND MCGINNESS VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman McGinness:
We are back to Senator Neal’s original motion.
Senator Tiffany:
The way I read page 19, paragraph (b), subsection 3, paragraph (2), is “published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county.” I do not have any problem with this at all.
Chairman McGinness:
Senator Tiffany, if you look at the second reprint, subsection 3, paragraph (b), subparagraph (2) states “if there is no such site ….” It lets the board of county commissioners decide whether it should be printed.
Senator Tiffany:
I like the way the red version of A.B. 533 is written.
Chairman McGinness:
Senator Neal has proposed to eliminate lines 11 through 24 or to eliminate the language requiring the counties to publish in the newspapers which does not preclude the assessors from putting the roll on the Internet.
Senator Tiffany:
Take out line 23 or 24. Maybe Senator Neal does not like, “if the board of county commissioners so requires.” The rest of this section is about being posted in a public library and giving an opportunity to post on the Internet, and then it says, “must be published in a newspaper.” Do you want to take out the language, “if the board of county commissioners so requires”? Is this the problem?
Senator Neal:
The intent of my motion is to allow the newspapers to remain and all the other Web sites or Internet sites that are in the bill will remain.
Senator Tiffany:
Is that what you want taken out, “the board of county commissioners”?
Senator Neal:
This part will probably be taken out if it impacts the newspaper circulation. In this particular case it would impact the circulation of the newspaper, therefore, it would come out.
Senator Coffin:
The motion I seconded is exactly what Senator Neal just paraphrased. You still require the publishing of the secure tax roll in print.
Senator Neal:
Senator Coffin is correct. Mr. Combs, are you understanding what we are saying?
Mr. Combs:
Just to be clear. Do you want to leave in statute the assessors must post on the Internet and these other public areas in addition to posting in the newspaper, or do you want to go back to the old language that required them to publish it in the newspaper?
Senator Neal:
No, we want to put it on the Internet.
Senator Coffin:
And for the roll to be published in the newspaper.
Chairman McGinness:
We want them to print it in the newspaper and allow them to put it on the Internet, but we are not mandating they put the roll on the Internet.
Senator Neal:
Yes. Now we have the intent correct.
Chairman McGinness:
Let me review the motion. The motion is to mandate the printing of the roll in the newspaper and have the ability to post it on the Internet and put the roll in a public place, such as a library. Is there any further discussion on this issue? All in favor or opposed?
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR O’CONNELL VOTED NO.)
*****
Chairman McGinness:
There are a few things happening in taxation and we may have more meetings. This meeting is adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Gale Maynard,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mike McGinness, Chairman
DATE: