Nevada committee hears bill to clarify fiscal‑note timing and face‑of‑bill language

Assemblymember Danielle Monroe Moreno, sponsor of Assembly Bill 249 and chair of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee, introduced the bill to the Assembly Committee on Legislative and Operations and said it would make “clean up” changes to how fiscal notes are handled during the legislative session and in the initiative/referendum process. Michael Nakamoto, chief principal deputy fiscal analyst with the Legislative Counsel Bureau’s Fiscal Analysis Division, walked the committee through two parts of the bill: aligning the face‑of‑bill wording for fiscal notes and changing the deadline for fiscal notes tied to initiative and referendum petitions.

Nakamoto told the committee that current statute uses different face‑of‑bill language for state and local fiscal impacts and that AB 249 would change the effect‑on‑state statement from “yes” to “may have fiscal impact” so that the face of the bill more clearly reflects that agencies submit the actual fiscal note. “The certainty is not in the drafting of the bill. Rather, it’s in the fiscal notes themselves,” Nakamoto said, explaining that two fiscal notes on AB 249 had been filed showing no impact even though the bill’s face said the state effect was “yes.”

The bill’s second change would alter the deadline for the Fiscal Analysis Division to post a fiscal note after an initiative or referendum petition is filed with the Secretary of State. Under current law the division must submit a fiscal note within 10 business days after a petition’s filing; AB 249 would instead tie that deadline to the end of the 15‑business‑day period for challenges to a petition’s description of effect, or to 10 business days after the first judicial district court rules if a challenge is filed. Nakamoto said the change is intended to give staff and agencies more time to gather and evaluate information for accurate fiscal notes.

Local government representatives who testified in support said the additional time and an express extension authority would improve the quality of fiscal responses. Jennifer Berthium, government affairs manager for the Nevada Association of Counties, thanked Monroe Moreno for accepting a NACO amendment that would allow fiscal analysis to extend the period for local governments to submit fiscal notes when requested. Cadence Matejevich, representing Washoe County, told the committee Washoe had received 144 fiscal note requests this session and said “this additional time … will allow us to give you better quality fiscal responses.”

Alexis Motarex of the Nevada Chapter of the Associated General Contractors proposed language (described in testimony as a proposed friendly amendment) to require that bills and resolutions indicate fiscal impacts to the State Highway Fund in addition to the state and local government effects, arguing the change would increase transparency about transfers that affect highway funding. Nick Ciccone, government affairs manager for the City of Reno, said an extra seven days would improve local agencies’ ability to respond.

Committee members asked about training and guidance for agencies preparing fiscal notes, and Nakamoto said the Fiscal Analysis Division provides multi‑hour trainings for state and local officials and that fiscal notes submitted by agencies are printed as submitted under statute; LCB staff may review or investigate if a legislator raises a concern about a particular fiscal note. Nakamoto also provided an overview of the scope of the system, saying the fiscal note process involves 12 agencies in the fiscal note system, 64 local governments, 48 state agencies, and that fiscal staff had issued just over 9,000 fiscal note requests so far this session.

No formal vote was recorded during the hearing. Sponsors and proponents indicated two amendments had been filed (one from the Nevada Association of Counties and one suggested by the Associated General Contractors); witnesses described both as friendly and available for the work session. The hearing record closed after public testimony and committee discussion.