MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON TAXATION Sixty-eighth Session June 13, 1995 The Senate Committee on Taxation was called to order by Chairman Sue Lowden, at 2:10 p.m., on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Sue Lowden, Chairman Senator Kathy M. Augustine, Vice Chairman Senator Ann O'Connell Senator Dean A. Rhoads Senator Randolph J. Townsend Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator Ernest E. Adler STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Welsh, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Fiscal Analysis Division Kathy Cole, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Roberta Skelton, Elko County Commissioner Royce Hackworth, Elko County Commissioner Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer Walter Sanders, Mayor, West Wendover Judy May, West Wendover Tom Stratton, West Wendover Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Charlie Joerg, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association Lucille Lusk, Concerned Citizen Michael Pitlock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation John Bartlett, Sr. Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General Warren Hardy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas Janice Wright, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation Thomas Grady, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities Robert Hadfield, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties John Papageorge, Lobbyist, Silver Sate Disposal Chairman Lowden opened the meeting and began with Senate Bill (S.B.) 123. SENATE BILL 123: Permits imposition of tax on retail sales for management of solid waste. (BDR 32-661) Royce Hackworth, Elko County Commissioner, testifying in behalf of the bill, read from prepared text (Exhibit C). Senator Rhoads asked why Elko County has not turned to privatization? Mr. Hackworth reported county representatives have been talking with people in Las Vegas and Reno to start up the dialogue. However, there are time constraint problems. There has been some interest and the project seems feasible to those the county representatives have talked to, but time is the problem. Senator Rhoads questioned exactly where the problem areas for solid waste were? Mr. Hackworth stated the problems are in the rural areas. An extension for 1 year was secured, but the extension ends when the Legislature is out of session. Senator Rhoads said he keeps hearing the federal government will be more lenient in the future, and will probably back off again. Roberta Skelton, Elko County Commissioner, interjected the federal government may back off, but there may a change of flavor in Washington, D.C. and the county will be back to square one. As the committee members may be aware, some of the dumps sites which are being referred to are in remote canyons. Jarbridge, for example, has its dump site right along the riverbed. Midas has its dump site along the river banks. These are poor locations. The Elko County Commissioners, therefore, feel that while they have the chance, they would like to clean up the garbage and put it some type of management plan which Elko County can live with and, at the same time, provide its citizens with good service as well. The Elko County plan has been well publicized. There has been no real objection, so the Elko County commissioners feel they are on the right track. Senator Rhoads explained he had not looked into the past, but he believes most of the time the sales tax has been raised in most counties, it has been put to a vote of the people. He inquired why the Elko County commissioners were not putting the issue up for a vote? Mr. Hackworth replied most of the reason is the time constraints the county must deal with. The reality is Elko County has a budget of $16 million. When there is a project which will cost $2.5 million, there is no way that amount can be eked out of the county's budget. Roberta Skelton added a former Elko County commissioner was appointed as head of the landfill project. He and his aides went all over the county to present this idea to county residents in public forums. County commissioners thought a « cent increase to the sales tax was a more equitable solution than trying to have the property owners pay for it all. Senator Regan asked if the commissioners had talked to Tom Isola of Silver State Disposal of southern Nevada about privatizing the dump sites. It is Senator Regan's understanding that Mr. Isola traveled the state 18 to 24 months ago looking at all the dump site situations and has a good understanding of the problems. The development he has built at APEX is superb for Clark County. Mr. Hackworth reported he believed Commissioner Chapman made a trip to the APEX facility and talked to Mr. Isola, who has visited Elko County looking at preliminary planning. Mr. Isola says the plan seems feasible, but the number situation still must resolved. Chairman Lowden interjected she also has had conversations with Mr. Isola. He has been in Elko County at least once. It is her understanding Mr. Isola is trying to accommodate Elko County through privatization. All the arrangements have not been worked out yet. Chairman Lowden asked the Elko County commissioners if it were true they had come before the committee as a stopgap, not wanting the session to end without having something to go home with in the event Mr. Isola's plan does not work. Both Commissioner Skelton and Commissioner Hackworth corroborated Chairman Lowden's statement. Commissioner Skelton stated if an amendment to the bill stating the county will work toward privatization would help to get the bill out of committee, the county commissioners would be willing to accept the amendment as a compromise. They would also be willing to look at putting the increase in sales tax before the voters after the initial capital for the enterprise fund has been set up. Chairman Lowden announced a facsimile had just been received from the Elko County mayor, which would be entered into the record. (See Exhibit D.) Senator Augustine asked for clarification on the chronological outline provided the committee by the Elko County commissioners. The plan for imposing a county- wide sales tax of « percent was developed over a year ago in March 1994. So why was it not put on the ballot in November of 1994? Mr Hackworth was unable to answer the question as he was not an elected official at that time. Senator Augustine added there was an October 1, 1994 deadline. When the county submitted paperwork to the Division of Environmental Protection, State Department of Human Resources, prior to the October 1, 1994 deadline the parperwork indicated the county was going to go to the Legislature to submit a bill authorizing the « cent increase. It appears there was never any thought given to putting the increase in sales tax to a vote of the people. Ms. Skelton agreed it might seem that way. However, the county commissioners held public hearings on public tours; the plan was presented throughout the county. The commissioners met with local officials and a management team appointed by a former commissioner. Senator Adler interjected there was no enabling legislation to allow the county to put the issue on the ballot in November 1994. There was no statute which would have allowed a vote on a solid waste tax. Senator O'Connell stated she was unaware of any other place in the state where the taxpayers have been allowed to support the government handling the solid waste. She asked for some clarification from the Elko County commissioners present. Mr. Hackworth explained about 10 to 15 years ago there was a problem with random dumping in Elko County. The county at that time took a position. Instead of having random dumping, some dump sites would be developed within the rural areas of the county around the community so there would be a containment area which could be policed. The dump sites were opened; there was no tipping fee charge or anything of that nature. Since that time, the county has had to look at the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), subtitle D qualifications in closing dumps. The county, in order to be in compliance, has closed the dumps down ahead of the deadline. Once again the county is experiencing random open dumping. The county commissioners looked at trying to have free dumps. By funding the dump sites with the increase in sales tax, and not having a charge station at the dump site, residents would not feel they had to pay to dump. The last 6 months he has been on the commission, the idea of privatization has been more favored. Even though the commission is highly receptive to privatization, they want to make sure in the whole system all the rural communities are protected. Ms. Skelton added there was one community in the county whose inhabitants during the winter time are looking at 200 miles one way to reach a dump site. Therefore, it is important to have a truck or trailer available to those residents so the garbage can be hauled out at intervals. This type of transfer station must be put in place for those living in rural communities as they cannot afford an ad valorem tax which would pay for this service. Walt Sanders, Mayor, West Wendover, expressed West Wendover has a unique and different situation. West Wendover fully supports S.B. 123. In West Wendover there is a community dump which happens to be on the Utah side of the community. It has been mandated that the dump be closed by October 1995. Without the sales tax increase allowed in S.B. 123, West Wendover has no idea how the dump situation can be handled. West Wendover sees the passage of the bill as an option which will allow the community to deal with the problem, whether the refuse is sent to the landfill in Elko or one in Utah. The community has not been told its waste will be accepted in Utah, yet. Also, approximately 80 percent of the community's solid waste is generated by the casino and tourist industry. Only a small percentage is generated by West Wendover residents. Currently, West Wendover is at approximately 22 tons of refuse per day. There has been a phenomenal growth in the casino and tourism industries. Last year at this time the community was at only about 14 tons per day. West Wendover has now exceeded the 20 ton per day requirement for the small landfill. Mr. Hackworth added Jackpot was the next closest site Elko County was looking at for a dump site. Jackpot landfill is now running about 17 tons per day. Extensions from the federal government have been lenient with the under 20 ton per day limit facilities, but above that figure, it is hard to get an extension. Ms. Skelton stated Jackpot representatives have told the Elko County commissioners by next year the Jackpot community will generate in excess of 20 tons per day because they are growing at a rapid rate. Thomas Grady, Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada League of Cities, said his association supports the City of Elko, Elko County, and other cities in Elko County in pursuit of this legislation. The league keeps hearing the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is going to relax, but the league does not feel the agency will abandon its efforts. It will keep on the cities until the problem is corrected. Robert Hadfield,Lobbyist, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, stated he has appeared before the Senate Committee on Taxation many times urging the committee to allow local governments the flexibility they need to address problems throughout the state. These problems vary from region to region, city to city, county to county, but this is an example of a measure where local governments have gotten together and come up with a solution to their problem and need the Legislature to provide them with the flexibility, should it be needed, to utilize this vehicle. They are working very diligently with the private sector on this. There are other counties that may at some time in the future be interested in this. Many of those counties do not have a large enough retail sales base to generate the amount of money needed. Otherwise, he was sure there would be other counties testifying on behalf of the bill. Rumors the federal government will relax its requirements may be true, but until it is put in writing, the Nevada Association of Counties urges the committee to carefully consider this bill and approve it. Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke neither in support nor opposition to the bill. She wanted only to express concerns the committee should consider. It is unfortunate that this is a huge unfunded mandate which has come down on the local governments. They do need some abilities to deal with the mandate. As Mr. Hadfield testified, the mechanisms in this bill actually work for Elko. They do not work for other areas. To allow this to be used with the proposed restraints would give a false sense of security to some of the other areas. It would be very difficult to say another area could generate enough sales tax revenue within a 3-year time frame on the 1/2 cent sales tax increase to build the facility required by federal EPA mandates. If the committee chooses to process this legislation, she asked it be processed so that it is applicable only to Elko, has the 3-year sunset at the end of the 1/2 cent provision, and that the 1/4 cent provision have some sort of a sunset provision on it, where, thereafter, there would have to be a vote of the people in order to continue the sales tax increase. Ms. Vilardo also requested the committee insert a general provision in the bill to allow these mechanisms only if efforts to secure requests for privatization of a needed facility were not successful. Senator Rhoads asked what other counties have been doing, especially in the recycling area? He wanted to know if any of the counties with facilities in place were funded by a tax, or is everything privatized? Ms. Vilardo stated, to the best of her knowledge, the facilities are funded by user charges. Usually, the project is put out to bid and then a contract is entered into for the public service. Probably among the best privatized services, because they can be done in very, very small communities, which is a good bulk of the United States, are wastewater treatment plants, landfill dump sites and disposal. When it is mandated, the local government generally has to enter into some type of a contract. It may be a franchise agreement or interlocal agreement. Unlike a lot of the contracts for services, these tend to be very long-term contracts. Scottsdale, as an example, has police and fire service which are privatized. The contract for these services runs for 3 years. The contract is rebid every 3 years. When you get involved with facility type things, they generally bid out for 20 to 25 years. The reason is the amount of capital which must be invested up-front in building the necessary plants and providing the necessary equipment. Generally they are contracts with the local, state or federal government which tend to be long-term and supported through user fees. Senator Rhoads stated the rural counties have a bad problem because, rather than travel 200 miles to dump and then pay a user fee, there are those who will just dump their solid waste in the sagebrush somewhere along the way. Ms. Vilardo explained most of the problems experienced in the rural counties more often than not is because of the way the government mandates items on to those counties. A one-size-fits-all mentality is employed by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., or a capital of a state, which tends to be in an urbanized area. Those standards from urbanized areas are taken and used for rural America. It does not work. Senator Adler opined one of the problems of Elko County is that it has areas of concentrated population, but other areas which are sparsely populated. It would be difficult to take the standard franchises employed in Washoe and Clark Counties and use them in Elko County. The other problem is the talk about building a large infrastructure for this garbage pick-up operation. If the operation is privatized before the infrastructure is built, there are additional problems. If the county builds the infrastructure, under a tax regime, it is eligible for low interest loans from the federal government. If the private entity has to build the infrastructure, Senator Adler doubted if the entity could get the loan to build. If the county built the infrastructure and then leased it to a private company to operate after it was built, it might work. He thought it would cost a lot more money to build the infrastructure if the private entity had to build the infrastructure and borrow the money at the going rates. Carson City has a franchise, but the dump is really owned by the county and the county leases it to the franchisee. In Elko, the cheapest method would be to have the county build the infrastructure and then lease it back to a franchisee to be the operator. The county will pay a lot more money in interest rates to finance the project if a private entity has to build the dump with market money. Senator Rhoads asked where rural Clark County residents dump their garbage? John Papageorge, Lobbyist, Silver State Disposal, reported in Clark County there were between 12 and 17 rural landfills which were closed and have now been converted to transfer stations operated by Silver State Disposal. There are user fees charged to the users in those rural areas. At first there was a lot of resistance, but the hard work of the Clark County Public Works Department and Silver State Disposal visiting those communities and reassuring them has resulted in residents asking for more services than originally offered. More transfer stations are being added in some of the locations. Clark County is not as vast as Elko County, but there are 100 miles from Las Vegas to one end of the county. Silver State Disposal pays the local governments a 5 percent franchise fee on gross collections. Mr. Papageorge continued by confirming Mr. Isola of Silver State Disposal had indeed visited Elko County. Mr. Isola felt, even if Silver State Disposal was not the company to provide the service in Elko County, there are other companies capable of performing the services. A Request for Proposal could be sent out and the private sector could probably go in and provide all transfer stations, landfill operations and residential and commercial pick up for somewhere between $10 and $15 per month per user. Discussion ensued on the problems of illegal dumping when user fees are employed. Chairman Lowden announced no action would be taken on the bill today, because there are amendments to the bill and other things the committee wants to discuss. She assured the interested parties, they would be contacted before any final action on the bill is taken. Chairman Lowden thanked all the testifiers for coming. Chairman Lowden said the committee was going to skip S.B. 320, because the amendment to the bill was not ready. SENATE BILL 320: Increases statutory limit on total rate of taxes ad valorem. (BDR 32-607) The hearing on S.B. 490 was opened by Chairman Lowden. SENATE BILL 490: Proposes to exempt certain modular homes from taxes on retail sales. (BDR 32-1408) Charlie Joerg, Lobbyist, Nevada Manufactured Housing Association, explained to the committee there are essentially three different types of homes in Nevada. There is the typical site built home where the contractor goes to the lumberyard and buys materials and constructs the house. In that case, the individual contractor pays sales taxes when he buys the materials. Then there are two types of manufactured homes. There are manufactured homes built to the uniform building code (UBC), which are defined by statute under Chapter 461 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Then there are manufactured homes built to the housing and urban development (HUD) code. Those are defined in Chapter 489 of NRS. Actually, there is a fourth type, also. The old mobile homes are also defined in Chapter 489 of NRS. Those are homes built before 1976. The problem is previous legislation proposed in 1987 and brought before the Senate Committee on Taxation contained wording to exempt 40 percent of the sales price of manufactured homes from sales tax, because 40 percent was deemed by the Legislature at that time to be attributable to labor. Sales tax is not paid on labor. In an effort to equalize the two distinct types of housing, site-built and manufactured, the proposed legislation was to exempt 40 percent of the cost of the manufactured homes from sales tax. This proposed legislation went to the citizens for a vote in 1988. The measure was approved by the voters. Subsequent to the vote, the Department of Taxation has been auditing some of the manufactured home dealers. The department determined that dealers selling UBC homes should have been paying 100 percent sales tax because of the way the enabling legislation passed in 1987 was written. Mr. Joerg, after studying the law for clients, concluded the department was right. He referred the committee to the copy of the ballot and statute he had distributed to them (Exhibit E). The ballot question did not talk about UBC- or HUD-coded homes. However, the bill itself, included the wording, "as used in this section a manufactured home has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 489.113." Unfortunately, this wording was not included in the act under chapter 461 of NRS. This was an oversight according to Mr. Joerg. Therefore, the purpose of S.B 490 is to rectify an error in the drafting of the act. However, this bill calls for going back to a vote of the people. Mr. Joerg thinks this burden has already been met when the ballot question was passed previously. The Legislature should be able to enact this law without having to go back to a vote again. Mr. Joerg asked the committee to amend the bill to eliminate the requirement for a ballot initiative and then pass the bill. Senator O'Connell asked if Mr. Joerg had talked to legislative counsel about the change without a vote. In the definition of the bill, could counsel foresee anything else being construed as needing to go back for a vote. Mr. Joerg replied he did in fact discuss this with legislative counsel. Legislative counsel made the determination without direction from the Legislature itself, it should go back for a vote. If, however, counsel was directed by the Legislature not to put the issue before the voters, counsel would draft the legislation the other way. That is the sum and substance of the discussion he had with legislative counsel. Senator Rhoads inquired whether the cost to the state would be an ongoing hit or a onetime loss of revenue. Mr. Joerg explained there are approximately 200 of these homes sold per year, which would result in a continued loss of sales tax on 40 percent of the cost of the home. Chairman Lowden moved the hearing to S.B. 512. SENATE BILL 512: Provides separate method of assessment for unit in common interest community. (BDR 32-1549) Michael Pitlock, Executive Director, Department of Taxation, explained the intent behind S.B. 512 was to deal with a situation on how to tax common elements for certain developments. In researching this issue, he came across NRS 116.1105 which apparently provides directions specifically on the issue with which this bill was attempting to deal. Once this particular statute was reviewed he asked several assessors to review it also. The consensus was NRS 116.1105 would provide the statutory basis for the types of regulations Mr. Pitlock talked about the last time he addressed S.B. 512. It is the department's intention to go forward and adopt regulations to deal with the situation based on NRS 116.1105. The other issue the bill attempted to deal with was a public/private park. A separate amendment has been crafted to an Assembly bill to deal with this. Therefore, it appears to the department there is no need to consider S.B. 512 any further. Discussion ensued about potential problem areas if this bill is dropped, and the need to conduct an interim study on the issue. Chairman Lowden said she had the bill draft which called for the interim study before her. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-2121: Provide for interim study of taxation of property subject to common interest ownership. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO INTRODUCE BILL DRAFT REQUEST (BDR) R-2121. SENATOR TOWNSEND SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR ADLER VOTED NO.) ***** SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE SENATE BILL 512. SENATOR AUGUSTINE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Chairman Lowden opened the hearing on Assembly Bill (A.B.) 375. ASSEMBLY BILL 375: Revises dates upon which certain property taxes are due and time within which notice of delinquency must be given. (BDR 32-356) Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer, testified she had spoken to several county treasurers throughout the state. A.B. 375 was amended and voted on before country treasurers had seen the amendments. It was originally thought the bill had been killed. The bill has some definite conflicts with S.B. 309. SENATE BILL 309: Revises provisions governing delinquent taxes. (BDR 32- 660) County treasurers throughout the state would like to see the bill killed. They do not have a problem with the way installments are currently set up. There is a major concern with the first due date and with the last due date in A.B. 375. This bill sets the last due date at the end of April, making it follow the due date of annual income taxes. County treasurers are afraid the Internal Revenue Service will take precedence over the property taxes. Secondly, it is really in conflict with S.B. 309. It also runs into the next tax year making it necessary for county treasurers to be collecting taxes on one year and being required to send out new tax bills. It is the concern of the county treasurers this would create a great deal of confusion with the taxpayers who may see delinquencies on their tax bills when, in fact, the taxes have been paid, but the payment and the new tax bill passed in the mail. Chairman Lowden asked if Ms. Reed knew the status of S.B. 309? Ms. Reed said S.B. 309 had been heard in committee last week. She testified at that time. The committee told her the bill was in conflict with A.B. 375. Ms. Reed does not know what the committee intends to do with S.B. 309. Chairman Lowden inquired if there was anything in A.B. 375 which could be amended? Is there anything worth saving in the bill? Ms. Reed replied the county treasurers would like to see the first due date changed from the last day in July to the third Monday in August, as it is currently. The August date allows the treasurers enough time to get the tax bills out. Also, the last installment currently is due the first Monday in March. The treasurers are not concerned about changing it to the last day in March, but the bill puts the date in April. If the dates could be adjusted and the bill could be meshed into S.B. 309 it would really help county treasurers. The Assembly did not seem to have a problem with meshing the two bills. Senator O'Connell asked whether money is lost by the school districts in the bill? Mr. Pitlock stated there was a fiscal note prepared on the original version of A.B. 375 which had a relatively minor impact of $255,000 loss in the first year and a $100,000 loss in the second year. This was basically related to the loss of the use of the money because the payment dates were being delayed. When the bill was amended, the department was not asked to provide an amended fiscal note. However, the amendments have a significant impact on the fiscal note. The $255,000 loss now becomes a $1.4 million loss; the $100,000 loss becomes a $1.2 million loss. The Assembly did not ask for that information to be provided, but when Mr. Pitlock saw the amended bill was going forward, he felt it was important to bring the matter to the committee's attention. Chairman Lowden appointed a subcommittee of Ms. Reed, Mr. Pitlock and Kevin Welsh, Deputy Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, to go to the Assembly to give them this new information and see if there were any way to salvage anything deemed necessary out of A.B. 375 to amend into S.B. 309. Chairman Lowden opened the hearing on S.B. 483. SENATE BILL 483: Makes various changes relating to collection of taxes. (BDR 32-596) John Bartlett, Sr. Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, testified he had a major hand in drafting the bill. The bill came out of the Interim Senate Tax Committee from last summer. A similar bill was introduced last session. He referred the committee to a handout summarizing the bill (Exhibit F). It is an attempt to fill in the gaps and to consolidate many repetitive provisions in one place to make it easier for everybody to find, including the taxpayers. It also expands and clarifies the procedures the taxpayers have to follow when contesting a tax deficiency. Mr. Bartlett briefly went over the handout with the committee and offered to answer any questions. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO DO PASS SENATE BILL 483. SENATOR O'CONNELL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED. (SENATOR ADLER WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Lowden announced the last task of the committee was to decide whether to concur or not concur on an amendment to S.B. 104. SENATE BILL 104: Revises provisions governing financial administration of municipal library district of City of North Las Vegas. (BDR S-345) Warren Hardy, Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas, was asked to explain why the Assembly changed the bill, and why the new language in the bill is necessary. Mr. Hardy gave a chronology of what occurred regarding the bill. The bill passed the Senate and went to the Assembly. In the Assembly there were some amendments made at the request of the City of Las Vegas bond counsel. The reason for the changes were to allay concerns from a representative from the Department of Taxation and Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, who were present at the last hearing on the bill. Discussion on the language changes ensued. Janice Wright, Deputy Executive Director, Department of Taxation, explained the tax rate the North Las Vegas Library District used to levy was tied to the Consolidated Library Districts' operating rate. Ultimately, it was a 12 cent rate allowable in the big district. The language change in S.B. 104 would break the relationship between the two districts. Now, North Las Vegas will be on its own with a tax rate which will allow the North Las Vegas Library District to independently increase the rate every year by the normal calculation. Senator O'Connell asked why certain language was removed from the first reprint to the second reprint, specifically lines 18 through 21. Ms. Wright stated the bond counsel from North Las Vegas thought the last sentence was too restrictive in that other library districts would not be held to that standard. The bond counsel revised the bill to remove the language so the North Las Vegas Library District is no longer obligated to comply with that provision. Ms. Wright does not know if other library districts have that restriction. SENATOR REGAN MOVED TO CONCUR WITH AMENDMENT NO. 664 TO SENATE BILL 104. SENATOR SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR ADLER, SENATOR AUGUSTINE AND SENATOR TOWNSEND WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** The meeting was adjourned at 3:47 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: _________________________________ Sandy Arraiz, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: ______________________________ Senator Sue Lowden, Chairman Date: ________________________ Senate Committee on Taxation June 13, 1995 Page