MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TAXATION Sixty-Eighth Session June 20, 1995 The Committee on Taxation was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Tuesday, June 20, 1995, Chairman Jeannine Stroth presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bob Price, Chairman Ms. Jeannine Stroth, Chairman Mr. Pete Ernaut, Vice Chairman Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider, Vice Chairman Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr. Mrs. Maureen E. Brower Mrs. Joan A. Lambert Mr. Mark Manendo Mr. John W. Marvel Mr. P. M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mr. Larry L. Spitler GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Jon Porter STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Ted Zuend, Deputy Fiscal Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark Schofield, Clark County Assessor Mr. Michael Pitlock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation Ms. Donna Wadey-Howell, Department of Motor Vehicles Ms. Janice Wright, Department of Taxation Ms. Carole Vilardo, Nevada Taxpayers Association Chairman Jeannine Stroth announced the first bill scheduled on the agenda was Assembly Bill 672, which had a companion bill, Senate Bill 519. Senate Bill 519 had been amended this date on the floor of the Senate. Assembly Bill 672 would be discussed in relationship to Senate Bill 519 with its amendments (Exhibit C). ASSEMBLY BILL 672 - Revises provisions governing taxation of property that is exempt from taxation when it is leased to entity which is not exempt from taxation. SENATE BILL 519 - Revises provisions governing taxation of property that is exempt from taxation when it is leased to entity which is not exempt from taxation. First to testify was Mr. Mark Schofield, Clark County Assessor. He relayed to the Committee that A.B. 672, as currently crafted, was virtually the same bill as Senate Bill 519. Senate Bill 519, however, had been amended (Exhibit C). Mr. Schofield noted Assemblyman Roy Neighbors had a concern as it related to the assessment of property at the test site; this would not adversely impact that at all. Chairman Stroth requested Mr. Schofield explain what the bill did and also describe the amendments on the Senate side. Basically, the bill inserted the term "fairground," which would have exempted any improvements on any fairground that was accessible and open to the public. The amendments on Senate Bill 519, in essence, removed the term "fairground" as it was currently crafted in A.B. 672 and inserted the term "public airport" in addition to any property owned by a public airport. The bill would exempt from property taxes any property currently being leased by a for-profit business residing on airport property. It would virtually provide the same benefit to all airports open for public use (that Washoe county currently enjoyed through its airport authority). Assemblyman Price wondered about personal property. He admitted to being confused about the bills. Assemblyman Roy Neighbors cited two laws: NRS 361.157, that had to do with real property and NRS 361.159, that had to do with personal property (exempt from taxation). Mr. Neighbors elaborated on the laws. He was concerned the language would affect Nye county's multi-million dollar law suit. An extensive discussion ensued on the comparisons between the bills, as well as existing laws. The fiscal impact was addressed by Mr. Schofield. In Clark county, it would be approximately $333,000 of revenue lost. However, he contrasted it with the amount of new revenue which would be generated due to new construction that had been put on the roll over the last six months: with all entities combined, there would be about $25 million in ad valorem proceeds. Removing what Mr. Schofield termed an administrative "nightmare" for the assessors would create equity, as all airports and property owned by public airports would be exempt from taxation just like Washoe County. Further elaborate examples were illustrated. There were also repeated opinions on the complications of the statute that was very difficult to administer across the board. Lively discussion bantered back and forth. Chairman Stroth asked the Committee to look at the floor statement on S.B. 519 (Exhibit D), which further clarified the issues, and instructed the committee to keep in mind they were hearing S.B. 519, basically, with the proposed amendment. Assemblyman Larry Spitler asked how Washoe was different from Clark County: did they, by ordinance, "just not do it?" Mr. Schofield replied Washoe had carefully crafted into their statute (in their airport authority) the language that would do exactly what this language would do for those counties that had airports open to the public. Mr. Schofield thought Washoe's statute should be pursued for everyone, statewide. He acknowledged, as well, there had been some unfortunate inconsistencies across the state. Mr. Neighbors pointed out that real property had always been exempt. Mr. Michael Pitlock, Executive Director of the Department of Taxation, addressed the fiscal note, which was about $485,000 annually of actual lost revenue -- the vast majority of which was in Clark County. There was probably an additional $344,000 of revenue that should have been collected, but was not because of the inconsistencies Mr. Schofield had testified to. The potential impact, therefore, was a little higher that $485,000. Regarding Mr. Neighbors concerns, it was the department's opinion "this would not affect the situation referenced earlier with the test site and the naval air station." The hearing on A.B. 672 was not closed by Chairman Stroth because she wanted the committee to discuss "using the jacket." Senator Jon Porter, District 1 - Clark County, spoke next. He explained he was seeking a method to resolve a circumstance happening throughout the state and that was the number of private individuals who were leasing property to government at reduced, if not almost a zero rate. For example, there was a man in Boulder City who had purchased a vacant church for close to $1.5 million who was leasing it back to the community college for $1.00 a year to use the facility as a campus. In this case, that $1.00 a year was a substantial savings to the state and system. It was a real advantage to everyone involved. Mr. Schofield wholeheartedly supported the concern and supported any change in legislation that would address the concern Senator Porter had. He suggested the possibility of taking A.B. 672 and inserting new language using the jacket of A.B. 672 to exempt one parcel of land owned by a church currently renting (for worship purposes), and then adding some language that would address Senator Porter's concern. Chairman Stroth requested clarification: did Mr. Schofield want only Section 3, which related to church-owned land, in addition to what Senator Porter suggested regarding exempting real and personal property from the university and college system? Mr. Schofield replied affirmatively. There had been another suggested amendment that all real and property used for religious worship be exempted from taxation, but Mr. Schofield thought perhaps an area was being approached that would be very difficult to administer. He thought the language in paragraph 3 (exempting one parcel) would address the "church" issue. He thought Senator Porter's issue, which addressed community college or university system property leased or rented to the university system for a nominal amount as a benefit to the state should be considered for an exemption. If market rent was charged, Mr. Schofield did not think the landlord should enjoy an exemption. Mr. Pitlock commented on the suggestions. It was obvious to him that a property owner who leased property to a governmental entity at a greatly reduced price deserved some consideration in terms of an exemption of property taxes. On the other hand, Mr. Pitlock contended that someone who leased the property at a fair market value should benefit from a tax exemption. Where the difficulty ensued was where to draw the line between those two extremes. The policy question was when the exemption would be triggered. Ms. Vilardo shared the same concern. She suggested, rather than assigning a dollar value, perhaps the language could be crafted to say "under 10 percent of the market value." That would then constitute the cap on what would be considered nominal. Mr. Pitlock agreed a percentage would be a more appropriate measurement; 10 percent might be a good starting point. Adjustments could then be made later. Mr. Neighbors talked about Tonopah's rather large airport: 5,000 acres. A subdivider had built homes, planned a nine hole golf course, etc. If the bill went through, he wondered if all the homes, privately owned hangars, and trailers be tax exempt. Mr. Pitlock responded, saying in calculating the fiscal note on the issue, it had been determined only $12,000 of accessed value in Nye county fell into the category. However, it was his belief they did not go to the airport; he thought the local assessor had been contacted to glean a determination. The homes, et cetera, would be exempt from personal property tax if the bill were passed. Mr. Schofield said anything privately owned, no matter where it was situated, would be assessable. But Mr. Pitlock thought Assemblyman Neighbors was referring to a situation similar to what was transpiring in Clark county: the county was buying up the property around the airport. If it was privately owned, Mr. Pitlock agreed with Mr. Schofield. Mr. Schofield would not be opposed to revisiting the language incorporated into S.B. 519 if, in fact, any airport were to engage in competition with the private sector (such as building an industrial park and charging less rent than the open market would command). But then the private versus public issue might be need to be examined. Chairman Stroth asked for the will of the committee on A.B. 672. If some action were not taken, the bill would not make it to the Senate. But Assemblyman Pete Ernaut suggested some action be taken on Assembly Bill 490, which had been scheduled for a work session. ASSEMBLY BILL 490 - Gradually reduces and prospectively repeals business tax. Chairman Stroth requested the committee peruse Mr. Ted Zuend's summary of the amendment to A.B. 490 (Exhibit E) and asked for comments. If the bill passed out of Taxation, Ms. Stroth advised it would have to go before Ways and Means. However, the committee did not all agree with Ms. Stroth's statement regarding Ways and Means. ASSEMBLYMAN BRIAN SANDOVAL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 490, INCORPORATING ITEMS 1 - 7 AS STATED IN MR. ZUEND'S MEMORANDUM. ASSEMBLYMAN MARK MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Sandoval explained the intent was to have an employer receive a credit for the first employees in the event the revenues came in excess of $11 million over the Economic Forum projection. Assemblyman Spitler questioned the motion, wondering if A.B. 490 was going to be re-referred to Ways and Means. Assemblyman Joan Lambert did not think it had to go to Ways and Means. Mr. Spitler specifically asked if Mr. Sandoval's motion included the referral to Ways and Means. Chairman Stroth replied the referral had not been included in the original motion. Assemblyman Ernaut cautioned it had been the practice to not refer from one committee to another within the committee; that was done on the floor. But it was his intention, as it was Assemblyman Richard Perkins', the bill would be re-referred to Ways and Means. Mr. Ernaut was emphatic the bill would go before Ways and Means, and declared, "There is no discussion, no negotiation about it! It obviously has a drastic fiscal impact and it has to go to Ways and Means -- and that is that!" Mr. Neighbors did not understand why it HAD to go to Ways and Means; it had no fiscal impact -- unless there was some trigger he was unfamiliar with. Informal discussion ensued. Finally Chairman Stroth announced that all had heard the motion and requested legislative action be taken. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 490. ******** Chairman Stroth then revisited A.B. 672. She requested the committee review "361.125 - Exemption of Churches and Chapels" (Exhibit F). Ms. Stroth reiterated and summarized item No. 3 and item No. 5 ( which was a handwritten section). Someone asked if there was a bill that accompanied (Exhibit F). Ms. Stroth proposed using "the jacket for the A.B. 672 that would become S.B. 519" and use A.B. 672 as a vehicle to exempt church property. Assemblyman Joan Lambert talked about a church outside her district that had a large parcel of land. The church never intended to construct a chapel. They had a parking lot, but their religion was to worship nature. They never wanted to build a chapel, but they were an organized religion. Was building a chapel an improvement? Ms. Stroth brought up campgrounds or park grounds a church owned that were used for recreational purposes or for retreats. Mr. Sandoval said it would be exempt, as it was currently. Mr. Schofield commented, "Because it was not used for church purposes. It was a vacant parcel of land. They could, in essence, erect a tent on the property every Sunday (and receive the outrage of the neighbors) and be exempted because it was used for religious purposes. This was a classic example of where a congregation was trying to collect enough money to start construction to build a chapel." "Okay," Ms. Stroth said. "But what about Ms. Lambert's question?" Mr. Schofield answered, "I realize that Washoe County has had a situation relative to a religious organization who owned several acres of property -- and correct me if I am wrong -- but have they not gone before the Board of Equalization numerous times to try to secure an exemption? Had they been unsuccessful?" "The last I heard," Ms. Lambert responded, "they were unsuccessful. But again, I did not pursue getting a bill, so I do not know. It had something to do with the technical language regarding improvements . . ." Mr. Spitler regained control of the now far-ranging examples and discussions and said, "S.B. 519 is on its way over to us. Regarding A.B. 672, we are trying to structure a new bill that will benefit the person who has purchased a church and has offered that to the community college system for $1.00 a year, or a lower percentage of the market rent (Ms. Vilardo's suggestion), i.e., you must charge no more than 10 percent of what the market rent would ordinarily be, in addition to the vacant land. We want to encourage people to do that." Mr. Price addressed the use the building was put forth to. For example, one of the best restaurants in Reno Mr. Price knew of was a catholic church on the corner of Vassar and Wells. In an attempt to cease the dialogue and prolonged discussion, Ms. Stroth announced if the bills were to go anywhere, they needed to voted on today! More bantering followed anyway. Mr. Schofield referred to (Exhibit F) again, saying, "The language being added, specifically No. 5 (actually, it would be No. 4, would it not?) only addresses property rented to the university system." The meeting had become disjointed. Ms. Stroth wrinkled her brow in exasperation and muttered, "I can see amendments coming two years from now . . ." Now the committee members were coming and going, and a quorum was no longer present to vote. Dismayed, Ms. Stroth instructed the Committee Secretary to try to round up the members. The meeting was flustered now, with a lot of verbal rambling and members muttering to one another. The Committee Secretary left the meeting, as instructed, to try to find the whereabouts of the missing committee members. "Not to waste any more time," Chairman Stroth commanded in a firm tone, "It is my understanding that S.B. 519 is not needed if A.B. 415 passes . . ." ASSEMBLY BILL 713 - Provides separately for taxation of users who also store special fuel. Ms. Donna Wadey-Howell, Acting Chief for the Registration division (Department of Motor Vehicles), testified that Chairman Stroth was correct: With the passage of Assembly Bill 415 (if it passed all the way through the Senate and was signed by the Governor), there was no requirement for A.B. 713. Basically, it did away with the requirement for the bulk users. The two bills were in conflict. Chairman Stroth announced A.B. 713 would be held until it was ascertained what action would be taken on A.B. 415. She noted Mr. Schofield had an interest on Assembly Bill 671, which was addressed next. "We have now become a subcommittee work session," Ms. Stroth warily noted. ASSEMBLY BILL 671 - Provides exemption from property tax for certain tangible personal property used in business. Mr. Mark Schofield spoke in support of A.B. 671. This was another area within the assessment statutes that was very difficult to administrate, specifically, the consumable supplies businesses used (such as certain office and cleaning supplies). Chairman Stroth reiterated the bill, and Ms. Brower refreshed the memories of the committee members regarding a conflict in the fiscal note figures. Janice Wright and Carole Vilardo had both testified on A.B. 671 and had vastly different numbers. Mr. Schofield affirmed the impact would be approximately $669,000. Ms. Janice Wright wished to testify, but Chairman Stroth interrupted the proceedings. Ms. Stroth wished to vote on A.B. 672 while there were enough members present on the committee to vote. The motion would amend and do pass in relationship to exempting the church-owned property (if the church was planning to build on the property) and to exempt real and personal property leased or rented to the university and community college system at less than 10 percent of the fair market value. ASSEMBLYMAN BOB PRICE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 672. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. Ms. Stroth asked for discussion. Seeing none, she took a vote. Five yes votes were received (Manendo, Sandoval, Schneider, Price, and Stroth) and three voted against the motion (Ernaut, Lambert, and Spitler). A big debate ensued over how many committee members were required to be present and the translation of the official committee rules. The committee decided no action could be taken on the bill. Mr. Price remarked the bill had "not been killed, it would sit until there were more committee members present." "It is usually common protocol when you got a bill and put a bill in that has not been publicly noticed, the motion truly would be to amend and do pass and re-refer to committee so there would be an opportunity for a public hearing," stated Mr. Spitler with firm conviction. "It is always bothersome to me when, at the very end of the session, committees just amend bills and the public has no idea of what was done. I cannot support actions when we do that sort of thing! Because the public does not even know. Anyone in this state is looking at A.B. 672. They see `amend and do pass.' They will be looking for an amendment relative to the bill, not an amendment that has nothing to the bill! I think it is very poor public policy for us to move a bill out in that manner!" "I certainly appreciate your comments. And I agree with you. Thank you, Mr. Spitler, for keeping me straight, " Ms. Stroth said with sincerity. "So can we have a motion to amend, do pass, and re-refer? "Madam Chairman," replied Mr. Spitler, "I would do that -- not confirming my commitment to the bill, but my commitment to a proper public hearing." ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO AMEND, DO PASS, AND RE- REFER (TO TAXATION) A.B. 672. ASSEMBLYMAN SANDOVAL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Returning to A.B. 671 (the bill that provided exemption from property tax for consumables), Chairman Stroth asked Ms. Janice Wright to provide insight into the fiscal impact. Ms. Janice Wright from the Department of Taxation spoke to her previous testimony. The potential impact was $1.8 million. The $200,000 was in response to a comment by Ms. Vilardo that said the location portion of Clark County would be about $200,000 compared to Ms. Wright's figure of $600,000; however, the LOCAL portion of the tax rate -- if all of the overlapping rates were excluded -- would be about that. She stood by her testimony: The POTENTIAL impact was $1.8 million -- the dollars that could be lost (if everybody was paying). She could not say what the ACTUAL loss was. There were two categories. One had to do with mining properties, the other had to do with other types of consumables (i.e., office equipment, supplies, etc.). The mining properties used cyanide, viewed as a consumable. When the mining properties were assessed, there was about $34 million in value for consumables; those are determined at the Department of Taxation and then provided to the county assessors to be billed. She could not tell the committee if those were actually billed; she did not know if they were. She assumed once the county assessor received that information, it was ultimately going to be transmitted as a bill to the company. For the consumable (office supplies, etc.) items, the figure was $30 million. Assemblyman Brower asked how much money was ACTUALLY collected of this tax -- statewide. Ms. Wright did not have that information and stated she did not know. She could only say the department provided the information for bills to the county assessors. It was confusing to Ms. Stroth, because if the department could not tell what was collected, how could they tell how much SHOULD have been collected? Ms. Wright explained the centrally assessed section of the Department of Taxation calculated how much was owed. Then they sent the information to the county assessors. It was not a state collected tax and therefore the department had no control over it. Mr. Schofield, Clark County Assessor, did not debate the figure with Ms. Wright. However, he imagined the Department of Taxation COULD tell if the taxes were not collected on the centrally assessed properties, primarily the mines. In Clark County, they did not enjoy a gold mine. However, in assessed valuation of consumable supplies that went into the mining operations (none of which were gold mines), the figure was $233,820. From the 15-cent tax rate, one could trace back whether or not the state was receiving the proceeds deserved. He could state emphatically the assessors were not arbitrarily removing the supplies. There was a fiscal impact that needed to be noted as it related to a percentage of the overall unsecured personal property: 1.52 percent in Clark County. He hated to harp on how confusing the consumable supply issue was to the taxpayer and the assessors. On one hand, there could be a major strip resort that rented their linen that would be afforded the benefit of depreciation. But the Mirage and the MGM, for example, had their own laundries, and those linens would be characterized as supplies with NO benefit of depreciation! Warranty car parts were a classic example of the paradox. If it were not a warranty car part, it would be classified as inventory and exempt from taxation. But some dealers reported warranty car parts and paid taxes on them. Ms. Lambert asked Mr. Schofield if he could guess what percentage of the consumables tax he was collecting. But he replied it was difficult to ascertain because the law provided the assessor with the ability to estimate assessments if they were not getting cooperation or if they had not received the information after making contact to receive it. It was a predicated estimate based on comparable businesses. But they did make an estimate so everyone was paying something. Mr. Schofield had philosophical differences. It was the first time he had been told about cyanide being used in the manufacture of gold. In that instance, in his mind that was actual inventory. It went into the manufacturing of a product and was required to complete the product to sell on the market; therefore, it was part of the inventory. The products mining used, like cyanide for a gold mine, may not seem like a significant item to Clark County, but Mr. Pitlock pointed out there were other counties where it was a significant amount. For instance, in Eureka there was almost $12 million in centrally assessed property in that category. It was easy to talk about exempting paper clips, but it was not the same thing as millions of dollars of chemicals consumed in the mining processes in the rural counties. Mr. Pitlock acknowledged the problems in the consumables area, as well as inconsistencies in the way the items were treated by the local assessors county to county. Those inconsistencies were of great concern to the department. One of their tasks was to ensure the items were treated consistently throughout the state. Mr. Pitlock stressed there were some serious issues in terms of the potential impact on the rural counties if the exemption was passed. He stood by the $1.8 million fiscal note. When inventory was exempted, Ms. Stroth asked Mr. Pitlock why items like cyanide and things used in the production of mining were not included with inventory when the exemption was made. Mr. Pitlock explained cyanide was an important part of the process for heap leaching of ore to extract the gold and he would not necessarily categorize it as inventory in the classic sense of a manufacturing process where there was the assembling of parts required to come up to a new product. That was not what cyanide was used for in the gold mining industry. He did not believe it fell into the category of an inventory; it was consumed in the process. Mr. Price did not think that method of gold mining was being used when the inventory tax was instituted. He thought it was a scientific development that had happened since then. The impact of the counties was the school district on the 50-cent rate, commented Ms. Lambert, and Humboldt County might lose a teacher. If it were not so late in the session, the D.S.A. could have been adjusted. But Humboldt had $11 million and Nye had $6 million, and 50-cents on that could be significant... For the record, Mr. Pitlock commented on Nye County, which was one of the counties the Department of Taxation had difficulty getting under the cap. Anything done to lower assessed valuation for Nye would aspirate the problem. Ms. Stroth pondered the possibility of separating the mining out, and retaining just the simple consumable items in the bill. However, Mr. Pitlock commented that action may solve one problem but create another one in terms of equitable treatment of all the taxpayers. The department was more than willing to work with the local assessors in the interim to try to deal with the situations that arose during the session, especially in terms of the inconsistencies and how the different assessors treated the matters. Mr. Schofield responded to Mr. Pitlock, declaring it was not primarily the inconsistency the assessors treated the assessment of supplies with: it was the lack of understanding the TAXPAYERS had as it related to what was a supply. Which was the genesis for the bill. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 671. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH TWO OPPOSING (ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER AND PRICE). ******* Chairman Stroth emphasized this was an issue that definitely needed to be addressed during the interim; there were too many questions and too much confusion over the bill. She urged the tax assessors and Taxation Department would get together after the session and attempt to clear up the problem. As Ms. Stroth understood it, most of the taxes on the consumables were not being collected anyway. With that statement, she closed the hearing on A.B. 671. ASSEMBLY BILL 656 - Extends exemption from taxation for veterans of Persian Gulf Crisis to all veterans who served on active duty during crisis. Ms. Stroth announced she had talked to Senator Lowden and was told Assembly Taxation would not be seeing Senate Bill 354, which increased the exemption to $2,000. There had been a lot of discussion during the Assembly Taxation's first hearing regarding A.B. 656 and whether the veterans deserved to be included or not in the exemption. It was an exemption on property tax and vehicle fees. There had been comments by local entities who expounded it was difficult to tell whether the person was actually a veteran or not. ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 656. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT SECONDED THE MOTION. The Persian Gulf Crisis veterans had been shot at and people got killed, and Mr. Price thought it was unfair for veterans in other wars (WWI ,WW II, Korea, and Vietnam) to receive exemptions, but not the Persian Gulf veterans. Ms. Stroth clarified the bill did not just cover war time duty, it covered everybody who was on active duty during time period. Ms. Janice Wright informed there were about 7,000 veterans who would be eligible. If all of those veterans took exemptions on their property tax, that would amount to about $200,000. However, if they chose to take it on their vehicles, the amount could be as much as $40 per vehicle -- depending upon the value. Hence, that would make the impact about $280,000. Somewhere between those two figures would be the fiscal impact. Mr. Schneider withdrew his motion and Ms. Lambert withdrew her second. ASSEMBLYMAN SCHNEIDER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 656. ASSEMBLYMEN LAMBERT, NEIGHBORS, AND MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** The next bill to be heard was Assembly Bill 682. ASSEMBLY BILL 682 - Increases tax on transfer of real property and allocation from proceeds to account for low-income housing. Mr. Neighbors was opposed to A.B. 682 because the tax was one of the few that stayed in the county. If it was going to be increased, he thought it should stay in the county. He did not suggest it should be increased. The intent of the bill, though, was not something he objected to. The problem Mr. Schneider had was with the legal services taking the money for homeless, etc. If the monies were going to help the low-end, first-time home buyer, that was what it should go for. He did not like it to be siphoned off for other uses. Hence, Mr. Schneider would oppose it. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 682. ASSEMBLYMAN NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED, WITH ONE NO VOTE FROM MR. SPITLER. ******** Mr. Price asked the Chairman to consider Senate Bill 417. There was some confusion over what the bill was; it was not on the agenda to be heard. SENATE BILL 417 - Revises provisions governing collection of money for issuance of certain business licenses. ASSEMBLYMAN SPITLER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 417. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Ms. Lambert requested that Senate Bill 309 be considered, although it was not on the agenda for discussion. SENATE BILL 309 - Revises provisions governing delinquent taxes. Ms. Lambert refreshed the committee regarding the former testimony on the bill, most of which had to do with problems on the dates. Some of the dates conflicted with Assemblyman John Carpenter's bill. Ms. Lambert referred to Assembly Bill 499, and a motion she heard in the Committee on Government Affairs to put the language contained in S.B. 309 into A.B. 499. A.B. 499 also dealt with the publishing of voter's lists. Ms. Lambert requested a decision be made on S.B. 309 to facilitate the job for Government Affairs. The issue, she felt, was addressed better in S.B. 309 than in A.B. 499. ASSEMBLYMAN LAMBERT MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 309. ASSEMBLYMEN BROWER AND NEIGHBORS SECONDED THE MOTION. Mr. Price confirmed he would vote in favor of the bill, although he liked the names of the delinquent taxpayers published four times, or even more, because he enjoyed reading who was late paying their taxes. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ******** Seeing no further business, Chairman Stroth adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Carolyn Grabski, Committee Secretary Assembly Committee on Taxation June 20, 1995 Page