Nevada Assembly Bill AB249

Nevada 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/18/25
• Refer: 2/18/25
• Report Pass: 4/10/25
• Engrossed: 4/17/25
• Refer: 4/17/25
• Report Pass: 5/19/25
• Enrolled: 5/29/25
• Chaptered: 6/6/25
• Passed: 6/6/25

Caption

Revises provisions relating to fiscal notes. (BDR 17-932)

Summary

AB 249 revises Nevada’s rules for how fiscal impacts are described in the summaries of bills and joint resolutions. It changes the standard state-impact label in bill summaries from “Effect on the State: Yes” to “Effect on the State: May have Fiscal Impact,” and it adds a new required summary line addressing the State Highway Fund. The bill also preserves the existing local-government fiscal note language and clarifies the options that may appear in the bill summary depending on whether a measure affects local government, the state, or the State Highway Fund. The bill also changes the timing rules for fiscal notes. For state agencies, the Fiscal Analysis Division may extend the deadline for returning a fiscal note by up to 10 additional working days when extended research is needed. For local governments, the bill keeps the requirement to prepare a fiscal note when a measure reduces revenues or increases expenditures, but allows the Fiscal Analysis Division to grant up to 7 additional working days for extended research, instead of the prior 8-working-day return period alone. The act becomes effective July 1, 2025.

Impact

AB 249 amends NRS 218D.415 and NRS 218D.475, affecting how legislative bill summaries and fiscal notes are prepared in Nevada. It requires the Legislative Counsel to include State Highway Fund fiscal-impact language in bill summaries and updates the wording used for state fiscal effects. It also gives the Fiscal Analysis Division explicit authority to extend local-government fiscal note deadlines by up to 7 additional working days, and maintains the existing authority to extend agency deadlines for complex fiscal research. These changes primarily affect the Legislative Counsel Bureau, the Fiscal Analysis Division, state agencies, and local governments that must respond to fiscal note requests.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was generally supported, though not unanimously. It passed the Assembly 27-15 and later passed the Senate 13-8, indicating majority support in both chambers but some opposition. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record here shows a procedural and administrative bill that advanced successfully but with a noticeable minority of lawmakers voting against it.

Contention

The likely points of contention are administrative rather than policy-driven. Opponents may have objected to changing the standard fiscal-impact language, adding a new Highway Fund category, or giving the Fiscal Analysis Division more flexibility to extend fiscal-note deadlines, especially if they viewed those changes as slowing the legislative process or increasing procedural complexity. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a technical update that improves accuracy and transparency in fiscal reporting and gives local governments and analysts more time for complex research.