►
From YouTube: 07/16/2020 - 31st (2020) Special Session: Senate Chamber
Description
For agenda and addtitional information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature. The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process. All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
madam
president.
Let
us
pray.
Thank
you,
lord.
For
this
day
you
have
given
us
lord.
We
come
before
you
to
welcome
your
presence
amongst
us
during
this
special
legislative
session.
As
we
strive
to
conclude
today's
series
of
discussions,
meetings
and
hearings,
we
thank
you
for
guiding
our
thoughts
and
actions
toward
the
most
productive
outcomes.
C
May
all
members
of
this
body
work
faithfully
and
courageously
with
compassion
toward
that
which
is
best
for
our
state
and
its
residents
during
this
critical
time,
we
especially
give
thanks
to
all
the
hard-working
dedicated
employees
who,
without
their
expertise
and
devotion,
we
would
find
our
work
impossible
to
income
to
accomplish
bless
this
legislative
body
and
its
staff.
And
finally,
may
god
bless
nevada's
governor
sisilak,
giving
him
inspiration,
guidance
and
direction
during
these
very
difficult
times,
amen.
A
A
Thank
you,
you
may
be
seated
order
business
number
three
reading
and
approval
of
the
journal
by
previous
order
of
the
senate.
The
reading
of
the
journal's
dispense
with
and
the
president
and
secretary
authorized
to
make
the
necessary
corrections
and
additions
order.
Business
numbers:
oh
we're,
going
to
have
a
little
recess
here.
B
B
B
A
B
Chamber,
carson
city,
carson
july
15
2022,
the
honorable
senate,
have
the
honor
to
inform
you
on
our
bodies.
Assembling
this
day
passed
senate
bill
number
three.
Also
on
july
16th
2020,
the
honourable
senate.
I
have
the
honor
to
inform
your
own
body.
The
assembly
in
this
day
passes
a
minute
assembly
bill
number
four
signed
carol:
ayala
lasalla
assistant
street
clerk
of
the
assembly,
end
of
messages.
A
Thank
you
order
business
number,
nine
motions,
resolutions
and
notices,
senator
canazzaro.
A
A
Of
the
whole,
thank
you,
senator
ratty
has
moved
to
refer
senate.
I'm
sorry
assembly
bill
4
to
the
committee
of
the
whole
of
any
objections
to
the
referral,
all
right,
if
not
so
order-
and
that
concludes
our
to
business
number
10.
all
right.
I
think
we're
going
back
here
to
order
business
number
nine
motions,
resolutions
and
notices,
senator
canezzaro.
E
Thank
you,
madam
president,
I
move
that
the
senate
resolve
itself
into
a
committee
of
the
whole
to
consider
assembly
bill
number
four
in
work
session
and
any
other
matters
relating
to
the
state's
budget
shortfall
with
senator
canozzaro
serving
as
chair
and
senator
rowdy,
serving
as
vice
chair.
Thank
you.
Senator.
A
All
right
hearing,
none
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
opposed.
F
E
Many
of
the
whole
will
come
to
order.
We
will
open
the
committee
of
the
whole
hearing
on
assembly
bill
number
four,
which
revises
the
formula
for
determining
the
tax
on
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
extracted
from
members
of
the
committee.
You
will
have
a
copy
of
assembly
bill
4
in
front
of
you,
as
it
is
also
available
online
for
those
of
you
who
are
watching
online.
E
We
also
have
accompanied
with
it
a
an
exhibit
as
well
committee
members
should
have
been
provided
here
in
the
chamber
and
also
available
online
for
those
of
you
joining
us.
We
have
with
us
this
evening
to
walk
us
through
assembly
bill
number,
four,
our
very
capable
and
trusted
staff,
russell
guindon
from
the
fiscal
analysis
division,
and
we
will
turn
it
over
to
him.
He
will
be
joining
us
remotely
to
talk
about
the
bill
and
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions
from
the
committee.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
russell
ginden
principal
deputy
fiscal
analyst
with
the
fiscal
analysis,
division
of
legislative
council
bureau-
and
I
just
would
like
to
start
by
noting
that
you
know
as
your
non-partisan
legislative
staff.
I
neither
advocate
for
against
legislative
measures
being
considered
by
the
legislature.
G
I've
been
asked
to
go
through
eb4
in
its
first
reprint
that
was
just
passed
out
of
the
assembly.
It's
a
relatively
short
bill.
What
a
section
was
not
well
what
the
bill
does.
Is
it
revises
the
formula
for
determining
the
tax
on
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
extracted
and
I'll
just
state
up
front
here
that
you
may
catch
me
saying
and
npm
instead
of
net
proceeds
and
minerals,
because
it's
just
easier
to
say
and
it's
become
sort
of
part
of
my
vernacular.
G
So
what
the
bill
does
in
section
one
is.
It
actually
reduces
the
amount
of
the
deductions
that
a
mining
operation
can
take
against
their
gross
gross
proceeds
to
calculate
their
net
proceeds
by
40
and
that's
actually
effectuated
by.
If
you
look
at
language
on
page
two
on
line
nine,
you
can
see
that
that's
done
by
capping
the
amount
of
abatements
that
are
listed
there
in
the
new
sub-paragraphs
that
are
being
created,
but
it's
actually
existing
law.
G
With
regards
to
the
deductions
that
exist
in
current
statute
to
limit
those
two
that
you
can
take
no
more
than
60
percent
of
those
deductions.
G
Then
it's
worth
pointing
out
that,
on
page
three
of
the
bill
on
line
10,
you
can
see
there's
the
new
paragraph
b,
that's
being
created
where
royalties
are
excluded
from
the
60
restriction,
and
the
reason
for
that
is
because
the
royalty
proceeds
that
are
paid
to
the
royalty
recipient
is
the
royalty
recipient
that
actually
is
responsible
for
filing
the
return
and
paying
the
taxes
on
the
royalties.
G
So
thus
the
mining
operation
is
allowed
to
deduct
those
from
their
calculation
to
get
the
net.
If
we
did
not
do
that,
then
there
would
be
double
tax
being
paid
on
the
royalties
and
thus,
if
we
kept
it
inside
the
60
percent,
then
that
40
percent
would
end
up
getting
taxed
again,
along
with
the
100
that
gets
paid
by
the
royalties.
G
So
I
just
thought
that
was
worth
noting.
When
you
you
see
that
we're
striking
not
including
the
royalties,
then
that's
the
reason.
Why
and
then
section
four
of
the
bill
actually
makes
the
provisions
of
this
bill
effective
for
the
current
calendar
calendar
2020
that
we're
in
so
thus
the
the
provisions
of
the
60
percent
cap
on
the
amount
of
deductions
that
can
be
taken
by
a
mining
operation
to
subtract
them
from
the
gross
to
get
their
net
proceeds.
G
When
the
mining
operation
will
file
their
return
in
february
16
of
calendar
21,
that
is
fy
that
we're
in
they
will
be
calculating
their
their
actual
net
proceeds
based
on
the
actual
calendar
year.
2020
mining
activity
under
these
provisions
with
the
60
percent
restriction
on
the
amount
of
deductions
that
can
be
taken,
and
so
with
that.
Madam
chair.
G
That
really
concludes
my
presentation
of
the
bill,
and
with
that
we
I
can
answer
questions
about
the
bill,
or
I
can
proceed
on
with
the
going
to
the
exhibit,
which
just
would
allow
me
to
walk
through
for
the
members
of
the
senate
committee
as
a
whole.
The
estimate,
or
that
comes
out
of
this
bill
and
then
because
of
the
the
amendment
and
first
reprint
form.
G
I
will
have
to
do
because
the
the
provisions
of
ab4
will
also
apply
to
the
estimated
payment
that
will
be
made
under
the
provisions
of
sb3
that
this
committee
heard
yesterday,
and
so
with
that.
I
will
wait
if
you
want
me
to
just
continue
to
proceed
with
the
presentation
of
the
table
and
then
take
questions
afterwards
or
if
they
wanted
me
to
pause
and
take
questions
on
ab4.
First.
G
Okay,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
what
you
have
is
a
table
that
was
put
together
to
try
and
document.
G
The
estimate
for
the
provisions
of
ab4
itself
in
terms
of
the
what
would
be
the
estimated
impact
on
the
tax
payment
that
would
be
paid
in
fy
21
for
calendar
2020,
and
so
to
do
that
exercise.
G
We
first
used
the
calendar
year,
2019
actual
data
that
we
had
by
a
mining
operator
that
we
received
from
the
department
of
taxation
to
simulate
what
would
be
the
potential
impact,
and
so
you
can
see
that
the
table
is
set
up
to
have
four
separate
tables
so
table.
One
actually
shows
you.
The
the
first
line
in
that
table
is
the
current
statute
using
the
calendar,
2019
data,
and
so
again
just
I
know
we
just
went
through
some
of
this
yesterday,
so
I
won't
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
it.
G
But
this
is
the
aggregated
results
for
all
types
of
mining
operations,
statewide
that
occurred
in
calendar
2019,
as
reported
by
the
department
of
taxation
based
on
information
reported
to
them
by
the
individual
mining
operations.
G
So
you
can
see
that
in
calendar
19
2019
there's
about
7.6
billion
dollars
of
gross
proceeds
with
about
approximately
5.5
billion
dollars
in
deductions,
generating
net
proceeds
of
approximately
2.3
billion.
So
that
ends
up
being
a
net
to
growth
ratio
of
30.2.
G
Then
you
can
see
the
average
effective
tax
rate
is
4.92,
remembering
again
for
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
tax.
The
tax
rate
is
constitutionally
restricted
to
five
percent.
Then
you
can
just
see
there.
I've
listed
the
different
sort
of
breakouts,
with
the
local
government
tax
rate
portion
being
that
portion
that
comes
from
the
property
tax
rate
that
be
imposed
by
the
local
governments,
and
that
would
be
the
counties.
The
cities,
towns,
gids,
other
types
of
districts
that
would
exist
in
the
tax
district
in
which
the
mining
operation
exists.
G
Then
you
have
the
school
district,
75
cent
rate,
that's
part
of
the
nevada
plan,
funding
formula.
You
have
the
state
17
tax
debt,
tax
rate
and
those
three
rates
there.
They
are
what
are
referred
to
as
the
combined
property
tax
rate
and
then
finally,
you
have
shaded.
In
and
gray
is
the
state
general
fund
tax
rate?
G
And
it's
probably
as
we're
pointing
out
here
again
that
the
general
fund
rate
is
actually
the
difference
between
the
mpm
tax
rate
that
comes
out
of
the
statutory
provisions
for
determining
the
tax
rate,
less
the
combined
property
tax
rate.
So
thus,
if
the
rate
is
the
combined
property
tax
rate,
then
there
is
no
general
fund
rate
such
that
there
would
be
general
fund
money
generated
by
from
the
net
proceeds
of
that
specific
mining
operation,
so
also
by
walking
through
the
table.
G
So
then
the
next
line
is
simulating
ab4,
so
went
through
by
each
mine
and
reduced
their
deductions
by
40
or
actually
did
what
the
bill
does
and
capped
their
deductions
out
at
60
percent
of
what
what
under
the
what's
allowed
under
the
current
law
and
then
use
that
to
recalculate
the
net
proceeds
and
walk
that
to
the
tax
rate,
determination
table,
that's
in
statute
and
then
recomputed,
the
net
net
proceeds
and
minerals
tax.
That
would
be
due.
G
So
that's
that's
table
one.
So
then,
perhaps
the
easier
way
to
look
at
it,
then
is
table
two.
So
this
shows
you
the
change
in
the
impact
of
ab4
and
current
statute.
So
again
I
will
be
concentrating
on
the
state
general
fund
portion,
but
you
can
see
the
table.
There
does
show
the
increments
for
the
other
portions.
G
That
would
get,
because
all
all
rates
that
will
be
imposed
against
the
net
proceeds
will
benefit
because
right,
you're
you're
in
you're
reducing
the
amount
of
deductions,
thus
you're
increasing
the
tax
base,
but
and
then
because
of
that
it
could
affect
the
net.
The
gross
ratio,
which
could
also
then
affect
the
tax
rate
that
would
be
opposed
against
that
mining
operation.
G
So,
looking
at
just
in
the
shaded
area,
table
too,
you
see
that
84
and
it
hadn't
been
in
place
in
calendar
2019
would
have
been
estimated
to
generate
approximately
46.4
million
dollars
based
on
the
actual
calendar
2019
data,
so
the
table
3
just
shows
you
in
percent
terms.
What
that
dollar
increase
from
table
2
would
be
compared
to
the
current
statute
amount.
So,
as
you
can
see
for
the
general
fund
portion,
it
would
be
an
87.2
percent
increase
in
the
general
fund
portion
of
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
due
to
the
effect
of
84..
G
Finally,
then,
as
I
stated
at
the
beginning
is
well
what
would
be
the
potential
estimate
for
fy
21
and
calibrating
that
against
the
current
budget,
fiscal
consensus
forecast?
So
what
you
see
there?
The
current
statute,
fy
21
consensus,
estimate
that
was
done
by
budget
and
fiscal
excuse
me,
and
the
department
of
taxation
is
the
62.7
million
that
you
see
shown
there
in
the
darker
gray
shading.
G
Thus
this
is
sort
of
a
static
status
quo,
type
of
analysis,
so
we
applied
the
87.2
percent
increase
to
that
consensus
estimate
to,
and
so
that
yields
that
it
would
generate
117.4
million
that
you
see
shown
there.
Thus,
the
increment
is
to
just
to
the
right
of
that,
which
is
the
54.7
million
dollars.
G
Rounding
that
ab4
would
have
generated
well
is
estimated
to
generate
in
fy
21,
and
that
is
based
on
the
as
the
payment
that
mayans
will
make
in
fy
21,
based
on
the
actual
calendar
year,
2020
mining
activity
period.
That
we're
in
now
sitting
here
in
july
16..
G
So
with
that,
then
I
have
to
go
through
that
because
the
the
bill,
then
in
first
reform,
as
amended
by
the
assembly,
the
the
60
cap
on
reductions,
provisions
will
apply
to
the
estimated
payment
that
will
be
required
to
be
made
in
fy
21,
based
on
the
estimate
for
calendar
21's
mining
activity
period.
G
And
so
you
may
recall
from
yesterday
that
that
was
estimated
to
be
approximately
54.5
million
dollars
based
on
the
provisions
in
sp3
requiring
the
estimated
payment
and
that's
what
you
get
that
extra
payment.
But
now
because
of
the
60
cap
on
deductions
would
also
apply.
G
Then
that
would
be
estimated
to
generate
approximately
another
47.5
million
dollars
for
that
estimated
payment
due
to
the
application
of
ab4
and
sb3.
G
Thus,
the
total
additional
payments
that
will
be
made
due
to
sp3
and
ab4
in
f1
fy21
would
be
approximately
156.6
million,
but
the
increment
over
sb3
is
102.2
million,
because
remember,
sb3
was
the
54.5
million.
That
was
on
the
sheets
for
the
deliberations
that
were
going
on
this
special
session.
G
And
so
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
think
that's
the
information
that
I
wanted
to
provide,
which,
with
regards
to
the
actual
provisions
in
ab4
in
its
first
reprint
and
then
the
potential
estimated
revenue
based
on
the
consensus
estimate
for
21
based
on
calendar
2020
and
then
the
consensus
estimate
for
the
additional
payment
based
on
the
additional
estimated
payment
required
under
sp3
adjusted
for
the
effect
of
ab4.
E
And
thank
you
so
much,
mr
guindon,
for
being
with
us
and
being
able
to
just
walk
us
through
the
the
technical
pieces
of
this
built.
We
very
much
appreciate
it
at
this
point
in
time
we
will
open
it
up
for
questions
from
members
of
the
committee.
Senator
settlemyre.
H
G
The
deductions
would
apply
to
calendar
2020..
So
even
though
we're
sitting
here
in
july
16th,
it
would
apply
to
the
full
calendar.
So
thus,
when
the
mining
operation
files,
its
required
tax,
return
on
february
16,
2021
to
report
its
gross
proceeds
and
thus
its
deductions,
this
60
percent
will
apply
to
that
calculation
for
determining
the
net
proceeds
from
actual
calendar
year
2020
mining
to
determine
then
their
mpm
tax
is
due
for
in
fy
21
based
on
calendar
2020.,
so
it'll
apply
to
the
whole
calendar
year
period.
H
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So
it's
retroactive
in
that
respect,
but
as
you're
indicating
it's
not
really,
it
really
just
reduces
the
amount
of
the
deduction
correct.
It's
not
really
an
increase
in
a
rate
correct.
What.
G
It
does,
is
it
reduces
the
amount
of
by
capping
the
deductions
at
sixty
percent.
It
reduces
the
amount
of
deductions
that
the
taxpayers
allow
it
to
take
by
forty
percent.
Thus,
what
that
does
is
everything
else
is
the
same
right.
You
subtract,
you're
subtracting
a
lower
amount
from
your
gross
proceeds,
thus
yielding
higher
net
proceeds,
to
which
then
the
applicable
npm
tax
rate
would
be
applied
to
determine
the
mpam
tax
too.
G
The
it
does
not
change
the
the
five
percent
rate,
the
five
percent
maximum
rate
isn't
constitutionally
restricted
to
the
five
percent.
G
What
can
happen
under
the
mpm
is
by
right,
given
a
fixed
gross
proceeds
amount
and
then
lowering
the
amount
of
actual
deductions
that
can
be
taken
against
the
determined
net
that
the
result
of
that
would
be
is
to
increase
the
the
net.
The
gross
ratio,
thus,
depending
where
that
entity
was
under
current
law,
they
could.
G
They
could
end
up
getting
a
higher
mpm
tax
rate
as
they
walked
through
the
tax
rate
bracket,
that's
in
and
nrs
362.140,
and
then
they
couldn't
go
any
higher
than
five
percent
so
that
some
entities
could
end
up
getting
a
higher
rate.
For
instance,
if
they
had
a
forty
percent,
npm
ratio
say
under
current
law
that
would
end
up
generating
a
npm
rate
under
the
provisions
in
nrs
362.140
of
four
percent.
G
Thus,
if
the
effect
of
ab4
was
by
lowering
the
amount
of
deductions,
raising
the
amount
of
net
would
drive
the
net
the
net
to
gross
ratio
to
say
over
50
percent,
then
they
would
be
at
the
maximum
five
percent
rate.
Thus,
the
mpm
rate
for
that
entity
would
go
from
the
four
percent
to
the
five
percent,
then,
depending
on
the
property
tax
rate,
for
that,
where
that
mine
is
located,
what
will
happen?
Is
that
actually
ends
up
increasing
the
portion
that
would
go
to
the
state
general
fund?
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
gindin.
It's
been
a
while,
since
you-
and
I
have
talked
about
mining
taxes-
is
the
sixty
percent
in
the
bill
from
a
specific.
Is
it
there
for
a
specific
reason?
I
may
have
missed
it
when
you
were
talking
about
the
the
royalties
deduction,
but
what
is
the
trigger
on
the
sixty.
H
G
H
You
know
I
I
get
that
I
apologize
russell
used.
The
wrong
term
is,
let
me
ask
you,
this
is
60
arbitrary.
Could
we
change
that
number.
G
Out
that
this
bill
is
similar
to
assembly
bill
428
from
the
2011
session,
and
that
bill
was
actually
instead
of
60,
it
was
40
percent.
G
What
that
percentage
would
be
in
terms
of
what
they
would
like
to
set
it
at.
G
I
believe
that
question
would
be
more
appropriate,
be
directed
to
general
counsel,
kevin
powers
from
the
legal
division.
H
Thank
you,
mr
kind,
and
I
appreciate
it
the
the
confines
of
how
we
tax
mining
is
still
restricted
by
article
10,
section
5
of
the
constitution
right.
So
that's
what
sets
up
the
maximum
5
rate.
G
Yes,
that's
correct
and
I
see
we
we
have
kevin
on.
So
maybe
mr
powers
could
address
your
first
question
and
then
probably
he'll
address
the
second
one.
At
the
same
time,.
J
J
Article
10,
section
5
exists
now
uses
the
term
net
proceeds,
but
that
term
and
the
term
proceeds
have
been
used
in
the
constitution.
Since
it
was
adopted
in
1864.,
no
constitutional
provision
has
ever
defined
the
term
net
proceeds
so
when
a
term
is
undefined
in
the
constitution
generally,
it's
given
its
ordinary
and
common
meaning,
but
the
legislature
also
through
implementing
legislation
to
give
further
meaning
to
the
term.
In
this
case,
proceeds
or
net
proceeds.
J
In
the
first
legislative
session
in
1865,
the
legislature
gave
meaning
to
the
term
proceeds
by
developing
the
first
net
proceeds
tax
that
tax
the
legislature
created
a
standard
deduction
of
20
dollars
per
ton.
So
for
every
ton
of
ore
extracted
from
the
earth
that
was
the
gross
yield,
the
mining
operation
got
to
deduct
20.
That,
then,
was
the
net
proceeds.
It
was
standard
across
the
board
for
every
mining
company.
J
There
were
no
itemized
deductions
that
continued
for
several
young
decades
into
the
1800s
by
the
1890s,
the
legislature
enacted
different
legislation
and
started
to
provide
itemized
deductions.
The
first
three
itemized
deductions
were
for
extraction,
transportation
and
reduction
of
the
ores
that
continued
for
several
decades.
Then
in
the
early
1900s
mid-1900s
in
that
range
legislature
started
to
expand
the
list
of
deductions,
but
it
also
would
take
some
deductions
away
or
adjust
deductions,
and
that
has
continued
obviously
up
to
the
present
day.
J
What
the
history
shows
us
is
that
the
legislature
gives
meaning
to
the
term
proceeds
or
net
proceeds
in
the
constitution
and
that
there's
a
wide
range.
How
the
legislature
can
interpret
that
and
have
a
standard
deduction
like
it
did
in
1865,
or
it
can
have
itemized
deductions
as
it
does
now,
but
in
between
there
it
can
adjust
those
deductions
in
a
manner
that
it
determines
to
be
reasonable.
So
the
standard
to
answer
the
senator's
question
is
that
the
legislature
has
the
power
to
determine
the
reasonable
level
of
deductions.
J
So
yes,
one
extreme
would
be
the
legislature
removed
all
deductions
that
would
be
patently
unconstitutional,
because
it
would
essentially
become
a
grocery
proceeds
tax
on
that
at
the
other
end,
if
the
legislature
gave
the
mining
organizations,
99.9
percent
of
their
gross
is
not
taxed,
that
probably
would
be
unconstitutionally
unreasonable
in
how
you
define
that
proceeds,
but
in
between
those
two
extremes,
the
legislature
is
given
a
great
deference
by
the
courts
to
come
up
with
a
reasonable
definition
of
what
death,
what
deductions
are
allowable
from
gross
yield
to
arrive
at
proceeds.
H
Thank
you,
mr
powers.
I
certainly
appreciate
it
the
so
there
was
there's
also
recently
been
the
addition
and
subtraction
of
individual
deductions
right.
I
recall
at
one
point
we
had
made
some
changes
to
health
care
deductions
is
that
is
that
accurate?
So
then,
could
we
also
pick
and
choose
which
of
these
deductions?
We
perhaps
would
want
to
keep
or
or
throw
aside
as
as
compared
to
just
sort
of
lumping
off
a
certain
percentage.
J
C
Thank
you,
madam
mature,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
this
this
might
be
for
mr
ginden
I'm
trying
to.
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
so
under
the
the
scenario
that
we
have
on
the
sheet
local
government
tax
rate
portion.
G
G
If
the
mine
exists
in
a
town
or
city,
then
they're,
operating
and
or
or
debt
rate.
Excuse
me
they
would
have
an
operating
rate.
They
could
have
a
debt
rate
that
would
be
applicable
and
then
there
could
be
other
things
like
general
improvement
districts,
special
assessments
that
would
exist
and
then
also
the
school
op.
The
a
school
debt
rate
would
be
included
in
that
local
government
portion
and
I've
just.
G
Out
here,
the
75
cent
rate
to
see
that,
because
of
it,
plays
its
role
right
in
the
funding
of
k-12
education
under
the
nevada
plan,
and
then
the
state
17
cent
debt
rate,
which
is
the
rate.
That's
the
property
tax
rate
that
we
use
to
fund
our
capital
improvement
projects
through
the
bonds
that
are
issued
and
then
paid
off.
So
that's
that's.
What
would
be
making
up
the
combined
property
tax
rate?
G
And
then
the
local
government
are
those
pieces
that
I
specifically
mentioned,
and
I
I
will
probably
address
the
question
of
my
coming-
that
you
look
down
below
in
table
four
and
you
can
see
those
boxes
are
blanked
out
and
it's
not
that
they
will
get
additional
money
under
the
provisions
of
84..
It's
just
that
I'm
estimating
the
general
fund
as
sort
of
the
the
state
general
fund
guy
here
for
the
legislature-
and
I
don't
do
estimates
for
the
local
government
portions.
G
Any
of
those
rates
that
I
mentioned
and
we
will
from
time
to
time,
do
the
75
rate
and
the
17
cent
death
rate.
But
I
just
didn't.
We
don't
have
a
consensus
estimate
to
which
I
can
calibrate
against,
like
I
do,
for
the
general
fund
right.
G
Yes,
the
the
local
governments
have
the
ability
to
control
their
operating
end
or
debt
rate
under
within
the
provisions
in
statute.
Again,
though,
they
cannot
exceed
the
3.64
cap,
that's
in
law
and
so
there's
a
process
that
the
local
government
should
go
through
when
they're
setting
their
rates.
That
and
the
department
taxation
administers
that
to
make
sure
that
their
combined
rate
would
not
exceed
the
statutory
cap
of
364.
G
You're,
you
are
correct
so
that
a
local
government
could
lower
or
raise
their
rate
and
then,
as
they
do,
that
that
could
impact
the
rate
that
belongs
to
the
state
general
fund.
And,
in
fact,
that's
a
very
good
observation.
G
And
that's
what
we
see
that
goes
on
from
year
to
year
is
that
the
local
governments
may
change
their
rate
and
thus
that
affects
the
portion
that
belongs
to
the
state
general
fund,
which
then
actually
has
the
effect
of
increasing
the
volatility
that
we
can
see
in
the
general
funds
portion
and
the
ability
to
then
estimate
that.
G
Yes,
basically,
if,
when
you
look
at
the
statutory
provisions
for
the
rate,
determination
and
nrs
362.1.0,
basically
the
minimum
rate
is
the
combined
property
tax
rate.
So
then,
the
general
fund
sits
there
waiting
to
see
if
the
actual
tax
rate
that
the
mine
has
to
pay
is
greater
than
that
combined
property
tax
rate.
If
it
is,
then
the
general
fund
rate
is
the
difference
between
that
the
required
rate
to
be
paid
by
the
mine
and
the
combined
property
tax
rate.
So
thus,
from
year
to
year,
that
rate
can
change.
G
The
the
good
thing
is
is
for
the
state
general
fund
portion
is
that
the
probably
somewhere
around
96
to
97
percent
of
the
general
fund
portion
of
the
mpm
comes
from
gold
and
silver
and
the
vast
majority
of
the
gold
and
silver
operations
they
either
have
net
proceeds
greater
than
4
million,
that
that
requires
the
maximum
five
percent
rate
to
be
imposed,
or
they
end
up
with
the
net
to
growth
ratio
over
55
over
50
percent
then
also
requiring
the
maximum
five
percent
rate
to
be
imposed.
C
Under
this
scenario,
there
would
be
more
money
for
schools.
Would
it
only
be
in
those
counties
that
are
receiving
that
or
would
it
would
it
be
statewide.
G
So
I
just
need
a
moment
to
catch
my
thoughts,
so
the
yes,
the
75
rate
would
generate
additional
money.
In
fact,
you
can
see
estimated
in
the
table.
It's
the
under
the
simulation
for
county
of
2019,
it's
approximately
90.
G
So
thus,
if
you
had
an
estimate
for
calendar
year,
2020
you
again
assuming
the
same
status
quo,
sort
of
static
analysis,
it
would
go
up
by
the
90
percent,
so
yes,
the
it
would
depend
on
the
the
mining
operations
existing
in
each
county
and
obviously,
as
you're
aware,
some
counties
have
much
more
mining
going
on
than
others
in
terms
of
how
much
the
75
cent
rate
would
generate
for
the
schools
and
then
it
is
part
of
the
the
property
tax
portion,
and
so,
as
you
know,
under
that,
that
goes
in
and
two-thirds
of
it
is
outside
the
formula
and
one-third
is
inside
such
that
the
state
holds
harmless
against
the
one-third.
G
I
think
it's
also
worth
pointing
out
senator
dennis
that,
under
the
way
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
is
handled.
With
regards
to
the
funding
of
schools,
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
for
one
fiscal-
you
pay
for
one
physical
year
actually
is
then
used
in
the
budget
for
the
next
fiscal
year.
So
it's
in
a
sense
budgeted
in
arrears
and
and
the
reason
for
that
is
right.
G
It
takes
some
of
the
the
volatility
due
to
the
the
uncertainty
that
can
go
into
the
generation
of
this
tax
and
being
able
to
estimate
it
so
that
that
is
one
of
the
things.
So
actually
this
tax,
the
provisions
of
sb3
and
ab4,
generating
additional
net
proceeds
of
minerals
tax
in
fy
21
for
the
75
rate,
will
be
a
benefit
to
fy
2022,
not
fy,
2021
like
it
will
be
for
all
the
other
rates
for
the
counties,
the
town,
cities
and
the
state
general
fund.
The
state
debt
rate.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
with
your
indulgence,
I
have
a
few
clarifying
questions
before
I
know
if
my
substantive
questions
make
sense.
F
First,
when
you
talk
about
a
consensus
estimate,
I
I
heard
you
name
some
those
that
participated
in
that
decision
can.
Can
you
remind
me
of
who's
involved
in
coming
up
with
those
estimates.
G
Yes,
senator
the
it
was
done
by
your
fiscal
staff
as
the
economist
from
the
budget
office
and
staff
from
the
department
taxation
is
the
department,
that's
responsible
for
administering
the
net
proceed
to
minerals
tax.
So
thus
we
looked
at
the
data
we
looked
at
where
the
current
gold
price
is
looked
at
sort
of
what
we
thought
the
production
would
be.
We
also
had
information
from
the
mines
that
they're
required
to
prepare
our
estimate
for
calendar
2020
and
file
that
in
march,
so
that
occurred
in
march
2020.
G
So
we
had
that
information
and
so
based
on
that
information,
as
well
as
our
own,
we
came
up
with
the
consensus
estimate
for
calendar
year,
2020
that
you
see
there
of
the
62.7
million
dollars.
F
All
right,
thank
you,
and,
and
so
you
answered
my
next
question,
which
was,
if
you
got
industry
input,
but
obviously
you
do
have
we
you
you
made
mention
of
the
the
estimates
and-
and
I
assume
that
that
includes
economic
theory,
that
when
we
see
profits
going
down,
investments
go
down
and
that
sort
of
thing
it
was
that
factored
in.
G
The
net
process
taxes-
I
stated
it's
it's
a
difficult
tax
to
forecast
because
of
being
a
net
one
and
with
the
rates
that
can
change
and
especially
and
then
affecting
the
portion
that
would
belong
to
the
general
fund.
G
So
we
look
at
the
historical
information
in
terms
of
deductions
and
gold
prices,
and
then
we
actually,
you
can
go
to
a
website
called
kitco.com
and
that
they're
tracking
on
pretty
much
a
daily
basis,
the
gold
prices.
So
when
we
were
doing
this
in
june,
we
sort
of
knew
halfway
through
the
calendar
2020,
where
the
gold
prices
were
tracking
and
then
made
assumptions
for
that
going
forward
for
the
remainder
and
then
again,
based
on
some
of
the
information
that
we
had
reported
from
the
mines
in
their
march.
G
2020
report
made
assumptions
for
deductions
and-
and
then
that's
that
was
taken
in
so
then
that
actually
answers
your
question.
Can
I
tell
you
that
we
explicitly
take
some
of
the
factors
that
you're
talking
an
account?
Probably
not.
Are
they
implicitly
in
your
mind
as
a
forecaster
when
you're
thinking
about
making
up
an
estimate
for
not
only
net
proceeds
and
minerals,
but
any
revenue
source
that
we're
producing
estimates?
G
Sometimes
it's
just
really
hard
to
quantify
and
if
you
would
ask
me
and
say,
can
you
show
me
your
estimate
where
you
took
account
of
that?
I
I,
the
honest
answer
would
be.
I
can't
show
you
where
I
explicitly
accounted
for
that
and
can
pull
it
out
of
the
estimate.
But
it's
in
your
mind
as
a
forecaster
and
trying
to
process
all
information
when
you're
making
an
estimate.
F
Sure-
and
that
makes
perfect
sense
to
me,
but
now
when
we
talk
about
you
mentioned
rates
a
few
times,
I'm
a
little
confused,
because
I
thought
that
we
were
saying
that
the
rates
aren't
changing.
F
G
You
are
correct
in
that
all
the
the
effect
of
ab4
is
is
to
change
the
amount
of
actual
deductions
that
a
mining
operation
can
use
to
subtract
from
their
growth
to
determine
their
net.
So
then,
the
provisions
under
362.140
require
you
to
take
that
net
proceeds
and
divide
it
by
the
gross
proceeds
to
get
a
ratio.
G
That
percentage
is
then
you
have
to
walk
it
to
the
graduated
scale.
That's
in
that
statutory
section
to
determine
the
actual
mpm
tax
rate,
thus,
even
under
current
law
year
to
year,
some
of
the
mines,
their
tax
rate
can
vary
because
their
net
to
gross
ratio
is
varying,
but
the
minimum
rate
that's
in
place
is
the
combined
property
tax
rate.
F
G
F
Okay
and
I
apologize
if
I
weren't
clear,
the
the
effective
rate
may
change,
but
the
calculation
itself
stays
the
same.
Is
that
fair.
F
F
G
You
know
I've
had
a
long
history
here,
so
I
don't
recall
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
there
there
may
have
been
an
increase
of
this,
but
that
doesn't
mean
there
wasn't
it
I'm
just
able
to
say
here
tonight
that
I
don't
recall.
G
G
Again,
to
my
recollection,
I
can't
recall
it
could
have
occurred.
I
just
don't
recall,
because
I'm
trying
to
think
of
the
sessions
where
we've
had
some
more
of
the
the
major
tax
changes
or
created
new
taxes
and
and
so
the
the
only
one
that
would
come
to
my
mind,
is
potentially
the
commerce
tax
from
the
2015
session.
G
But
I
don't
believe
so
because
we
based
that
tax
on
a
fiscal
year
period,
not
a
county
or
period,
and
thus
we
had
had
it
become
effective.
The
july
1st
after
the
end,
the
conclusion
of
the
session.
J
I'm
sure
I
might
be
able
to
offer
some
additional
insight
on
that.
J
J
J
We
actually
have
an
example
of
this
in
nevada
with
regard
to
the
net
proceeds
tax
from
1867.
in
april
of
1867,
the
legislature
changed
the
net
proceeds
tax.
As
I
mentioned,
it
was
originally
a
standard
deduction
of
20
dollars
per
ton
of
ore
in
1867
in
april,
the
legislature
changed
that
to
18
per
ton
of
ore.
If
you
did
not
use
a
roasting
or
smelting
process,
if
you
did
use
a
roasting
or
smelting
process,
then
it
was
a
standard
deduction
of
40
per
ton
of
ore
that
was
done
in
april
of
1867..
J
The
manhattan
silver
mining
company
challenged
that
as
an
impo
impermissible
retroactive
tax
under
the
nevada
constitution,
it
went
to
the
nevada
supreme
court.
The
national
court
rejected
the
mining
company's
argument,
saying
that
applying
changes
to
the
collection
of
the
tax
in
the
taxable
year
that
is
presently
being
dealt
with
is
not
a
retroactive
application
and
it's
not
unconstitutional.
J
F
J
F
Appreciate
that-
and
I
was
probably
a
little
inaudible
in
in
how
I
asked
the
question
because
legally
I
understand
the
difference
in
terms
of
retroactive
application
in
law.
I
was
just
thinking
you
know
in
my
lifetime.
Have
we
ever
done
this,
I'm
not
as
concerned
about
what
happened
in
1865,
but
I
certainly
understand
the
legal
side
of
that
because,
of
course,
our
decisions
are
presidential
and
we
we
sometimes
look
back
that
far
mr
powers.
Well,
I've
got
you.
Maybe
you
can
answer.
F
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
again
kevin
powers,
general
counsel,
lcb
legal
division.
I
believe
my
colleague
mr
guindon
did
not
answer
the
question
directly
about
being
arbitrary.
He
answered
yes
to
that.
The
legislature
could
change
the
amount,
because
in
the
legislation
from
proposed
in
2011,
it
was
at
a
40
amount.
Now
this
is
at
60.
I
think
he
was
answering
yes,
the
legislature
had
that
flexibility.
He
was
not
answering
that
this
was
an
arbitrary
number.
J
The
number
the
legislature
chooses
just
has
to
be
reasonable
and
within
that
range
of
not
being
manifestly
unjust.
As
long
as
the
legislature's
choice
of
deduction
amounts,
whether
itemized
deductions,
a
standard
deduction
or
a
combination
of
both
as
long
as
it's
reasonable,
it
will
be
entitled
to
deference
by
the
court
and
it
will
be
upheld
unless
the
court
were
to
find
it
was
manifestly
unjust
again.
I
do
not
believe
that
mr
gindin
agreed
that
this
was
arbitrary.
I
think
he
stated
that
there
was
flexibility
and
that
in
prior
legislation
the
legislature
proposed
a
difference.
F
All
right
well-
and
I
appreciate
that
very
much
and
and
since
mr
ginnon
is
still
here,
maybe
I
can
go
back
to
him
and
ask
him
to
clarify.
F
Can
you,
mr
ginny,
can
you
tell
me
the
criteria
used
to
derive
the
60
number?
What
calculation
did
you
use
or
what
analysis?
What
rationale
did
you
use
to
get
to
that
60
percent.
G
First,
I
would
agree
with
mr
power's
assessment
in
terms
of
not
did
not
say
it
was
arbitrary,
but
also
then,
to
your
your
current
question.
I
didn't
come
up
with
the
60
that
right
this
was.
This
is
not
my
bill
as
your
legislative
staff.
I'm
merely
here
to
present
the
provisions
of
the
bill
tonight
as
drafted
to
you
that
and
the
right.
The
legal
division
was
asked
to
draft
this
bill.
It's
a
60.
F
Sure-
and
I
appreciate
that-
I
I
don't
want
to
put
you
on
the
the
spot
on
that-
I
would
like
to
know
who
came
up
with
it,
because
I
would
like
to
know
what
the
rationale
was
but
we'll
move
on,
and
I
appreciate
your
indulgence,
madam
chair
just
a
couple
of
brief
questions,
and
I
think
this
will
be
for
mr
powers.
F
I
I
caught
the
tail
end
of
some
of
the
testimony
on
the
assembly
side
and
there
were
a
lot
of
teachers
calling
for
us
to
pass
this
bill
in
order
to
raise
money
for
education
and
as
I
sat
down
and
and
started
reading
the
bill
just
before
we
started
the
the
presentation,
I
don't
see
any
language
that
actually
sends
any
of
this
money
to
the
to
education.
J
J
F
All
right
and
and
that's
a
critical
point,
then,
because
we
don't
know
what
a
future
legislature
might
do
to
appropriate
it,
but
my
understanding
was
that
property
taxes
stay
in
the
county
in
which
those
are
collected
is.
Is
that
not
true.
J
Thank
you
again
again:
kevin
powers,
lcb
legal
blues
and
I'll.
Let
mr
gindin
comment
on
this
as
well.
If
it's
truly
a
local
assessment,
it
will
stay
in
the
local
county.
However,
the
local
governments
also
when
they
collect
certain
taxes,
they're
actually
acting
as
collectors
of
state
taxes
and
they'll,
send
a
portion
to
the
state.
So
it's
going
to
depend
on
the
actual
tax
being
collected,
but
if
it's
truly
a
local
assessment,
it
will
stay
in
the
county
where
it's
collected.
F
All
right
and-
and
that
makes
that
makes
sense
to
me,
so
I
guess
the
the
last
question
I
have
is
we
were
talking
about
and
and
mr
gindin
I
I
apologize
if
I
was
mistaken
or
misunderstood
you,
but
I
understand
that
the
calculations
are
based
on
or
the
estimates
were
based
on
the
price
of
gold,
but
we
have
many
other
minerals
was
that
were
the
rates
actually
spread
out
across
all
the
different
materials
that
are
mined
in
nevada?
Or
did
we
peg
this
to
gold.
G
Specifically,
the
way
sort
of
the
model
that
your
fiscal
staff
uses
and
I
believe
it's
somewhat
comparable
for
staff
for
the
department
of
taxation
and
staff
at
the
budget
division,
but
I
won't
explicitly
speak
on
their
behalf.
I'll
just
talk
to
you
what
your
staff
did
when
we
look
at
trying
to
estimate
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
tax,
we
principally
concentrate
on
the
gold
and
silver,
because
again,
it
generates
approximately
96
to
97
percent
versus
all
the
other
types
of
mining.
Are
that
right?
Three
to
four
percent?
G
So
we
do
look
at
the
price
of
gold
and
the
production
of
gold
and
silver
and
attempting
to
estimate
the
gold
the
the
amount
of
the
general
fund
tax
that
would
come
from
gold
and
silver.
Then
we
roll
all
the
other
types
of
mining
up
into
an
all
other
category
and
estimate
that
remaining
three
to
four
percent
and
again
there.
F
F
Sorry,
maybe
I
should
ask
it
this
way:
aren't
we
then
crowding
out
the
small
operations
that
don't
make
or
don't
develop
a
lot
of
gold
or
silver?
Doesn't
this
become
kind
of
a
a
bill
that
pushes
out
the
competition?
G
I'm
not
sure
how
to
respond
that,
but
I
will
attempt
here
by
saying
well,
if
you're
talking
about
competition
within
your
class,
that
is,
competition
within
the
gold
and
silver
versus
you're,
talking
about
well
the
people,
doing
dolomite
or
bear
right
well,
they're,
not
in
competition
with
gold
and
silver,
and
then
the
provision,
the
net
proceeds.
G
Emmanuel's
tax
under
current
statute
treats
all
taxpayers
the
same
as
well
as
capping
it
out
at
the
60
percent
that
they're
going
to
calculate
their
growth
based
on
whatever
it
is
mineral
they're
extracting
and
the
price
that
they've
got
for
that
to
get
their
growth
and
then
they'll
take
their
deductions
that
are
allowed
and
calculate
their
net
and
then
apply
now
just
like
any
tax
and
then
that's
a
tax
increase.
G
Can
it
have
economic
effects
on
an
industry?
Yes,
do
I
know
what
those
will
be?
No
and
it's
because
right
they,
they
all,
have
their
different
elements
based
on
the
markets
that
they're
in
that
the
mineral
that
they're
mining
and
what
they're
in
the
demand
for
that
as
and
as
as
you
pointed
out,
the
other
competitors
that
could
be
out
there.
Also
supplying
that
product.
F
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
I
I
do
appreciate
all
your
effort
and
your
late
night.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
J
J
This
bill
is
based
on
the
existing
statutory
structure
in
nrs,
chapter
362.
and
right
now,
there's
no
differentiation
between
the
type
of
mineral
being
extracted
and
how
the
rates
are
applied.
However,
that's
a
statutory
decision-
it's
not
required
by
the
constitution
under
article
10,
section,
1,
there's
a
uniform
and
equal
taxation
and
assessment
clause,
and
that
applies
to
most
properties.
So
you
can't
deviate
between
the
types
of
property
surgery
unless
there's
a
specific
constitutional
exception.
J
However,
the
uniform
and
equal
taxation
and
assessment
clause
does
not
apply
the
mining
net
proceeds
tax
because
that's
under
article
10,
section
5,
and
when
the
amendment
was
proposed,
it
was
to
remove
tax,
remove
mining
and
net
proceeds
from
the
uniform
people,
so
the
legislature
could,
in
this
legislation,
distinguish
between
gold,
silver,
other
precious
metals
and
other
different
types
of
mining.
So
you
would
not
necessarily
have
to
have
the
same
deductions
for
every
mining
operation
you
could
choose
which
operation
gets,
which
types
of
deductions
as
long
as
there's
a
rational
basis
for
making
the
distinction.
J
F
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
it's
pretty
much
along
the
same
lines.
Mr
guindon,
if
you
could
I'm
really
surprised
that
the
average
effective
tax
rate
is
at
495.,
I
didn't
think
it
would
be.
Quite
quite
that
close.
Can
you
kind
of
walk
through
that?
Very
briefly,
I
believe
the
cap
is
that
if
you
don't
generate
over
four
million
dollars,
then
I
I
think
your
rate,
your
effective
rate,
is
at
like
two
percent
and
then
it
changes.
Could
you
just
walk
through
that
quickly
for
us.
G
Yes,
senator
again
under
the
the
tax
rate
provisions
in
statute,
it's
actually
that
the
the
rate
is
two
percent.
G
But
then
also,
you
also
mentioned
that
if
your
actual
net
proceeds
exceed
four
million,
then
you're
at
the
five
percent
rate.
So
that's
the
tax
brackets,
that's
as
graduated
out
in
the
statutes.
B
Yes,
thank
you,
and
I
guess
I
just
wanted
you
to
walk
through
that
quickly,
because
there
actually
is
somewhat
of
a
difference.
If
you're
in
a
in
a
particular
industry
or
or
mining
a
particular
product
that
has
has
a
lower
return,
there
is
in
fact
a
little
flexibility
as
far
as
the
rate,
but
I
was,
I
would
have
thought
it
would
have
been
given
all
of
the
mines
103
or
whatever
producers
we've
got
in
the
state,
it
would
have
been.
The
average
rate
would
have
been
a
little
less
than
the
4.95.
B
So
I
was
surprised
at
that,
because
again
aggregate
producers
clearly
wouldn't
be
generating,
at
least
at
least
the
smaller
ones,
that
four
million
dollar
cap
that
would
take
them
to
the
to
the
five
percent
rate.
I
wouldn't
think
so,
is
that
correct?
Is
there
a
little
adjustment,
let's
say
gypsum
or
aggregate?
Some
of
those
that
have
a
lesser
return.
G
So
that's
when
you
look
across
you
can
see
then
the
nuances
of
this
tax.
When
you
to
get
to
your
point,
as
you
start
looking
at
these
different
kinds
of
mining
that
are
not
gold
and
silver
that
occur
in
the
different
counties,
then
you
have
to
you're
not
only
trying
to
look
at
the
net,
the
gross
ratio
that
they
may
have,
but
actually
what's
the
combined
property
tax
rate
that
they
may
have
in
place,
and
then
I,
I
think,
just
work,
adding
the
additional
information.
G
Given
the
question
that
you
have
senator
that
the
the
average
effective
tax
rate-
yes,
it
does
appear
to
be
relatively
high
when
you
look
at
that.
But
again
I
I
would
go
back
to
it's
gold
and
silver.
G
That,
as
I
stated,
is
that
it's
the
majority
of
the
tax
being
paid
and
the
majority
of
those
taxpayers
in
the
golden
and
mining
they're
at
the
5
maximum
either
because
their
net
to
growth
ratio
is
50
or
more
or
they
have
more
than
4
million
in
net
proceeds.
B
Thank
you,
then,
just
one
quick
clarification
on
so
technically
the
average
effective
tax
rate
is
is
starts
at
the
in
most
cases,
the
364
stats
to
statutory
cap.
In
most
cases,
most
counties
are
at
least
counties
and
cities
are
at
364..
So,
thank
you.
I
I
understand,
and
it's
not
not
that
big
a
margin
unless
you
happen
to
get
into
one
of
the
really
small
rural
counties
where
they've
got
a
lesser
rate.
Thank
you.
G
Senator,
I
just
think
it's
worth
the
clarification
on
that
the
the
maximum
combined
property
tax
rate
that
and
that
could
be
in
place
the
364,
but
that
that
this,
the
ins,
if
we
go
look
in
several
of
these
tax
districts,
that
the
mines
exist
in
some
of
these
counties,
they
do
not
have
they're
not
at
the
maximum
rate.
They
have
a
a
lower
rate
imposed
is
the
combined
rate,
possibly
because
of
the
effect
of
the
net
proceeds
in
their
particular.
G
Tax
districts
allows
them
to
have
a
lower
rate,
but
then,
but
they
that
you
may
have
in
several
of
these
districts
a
rate
that's
lower
as
a
combined
property
tax
rate
than
than
the
364
cap.
H
Thank
you
for
the
second,
so
late.
Madam
chair,
mr
kind,
didn't
I
was
actually
I'm
I'm
scrolling
through
the
most
recent
bulletin
and
I
was
actually
struck
by
the
number
of
operators
that
are
below
the
five
percent
rate.
Do
you
have
a
then
you
may
have
mentioned
this
earlier?
Do
you
have
a
breakdown
as
to
how
many
operators
are
below
the
five
percent.
H
Okay
and
then
I.
H
Appreciate
that
I
can-
and
I
can,
I
can
scroll
through
it-
it's
fine
on
the
and
the
sort
of
policy
that
you
talked
about
as
we
have
this
step
down
or
stepped
up
tax
rate
based
on
the
gross
to
yield
percentage.
H
G
Minerals-
thankfully,
I
wasn't
here
when
this
bracket
was
put
in
place,
but
I
would
look
at
it
as
an
economist
that
it's
somewhat
like
a
progressive
tax
rate
schedule
right
that
what,
as
the
net
the
gross
ratio
goes
up,
that
means
right,
you
have
higher
net
in
relation
to
your
deductions,
and
so
thus
is
right
as
a
progressive
income
tax.
As
you
have
more
income,
you
walk
up
through
the
income
brackets.
So
here
is
you
have
a
higher
net
gross
ratio
than
you're
walking
up
into
the
tax
brackets.
G
So
that
would
be
part
of
my
conjecture
for
answering
your
question,
the
other.
Could
it
could
have
just
been
decisions
to
go
because
remember
the
general
funds
sitting
there
only
getting
money
when
the
actual
npm
rate
that's
imposed
is
greater
than
the
combined
property
tax
rate.
So
when
this
is
being
designed,
could
there
have
been
some
to
look
at
you've
got
to
push
them
up
in
the
rates
to
create
a
a
general
fund
rate
portion?
Also,
but
you're
going
to
do
that,
such
that
they
have
higher
net
in
relation
to
their
growth.
E
Okay,
see
no
further
questions
from
the
committee.
We
want
to
thank
you,
mr
gindin
and
mr
powers
for
being
with
us
and
being
able
to
answer
our
questions
and
indulge
us.
We
very
much
appreciate
it
and
know
that
the
hour
is
laid
and
that
you
have
done
a
lot
of
really
hard
and
long
and
good
work
for
all
of
us
to
be
able
to
be
here
with
us
this
evening
and
answer
questions.
So
thank
you
very
much
we're
very
appreciative
at
this
time.
We
will
go
ahead
and
move
to
public
comment
on
the
bill
again.
E
I
would
note
that
we
will
be
taking
this
in
the
same
manner
in
which
we
have
dealt
with
this
public
comment
period
and
testimony
on
the
bill
for
the
entirety
of
this
last
week,
or
so
for
those
of
you
who
are
watching
online
and
wish
to
join
us
for
public
comment.
Please
make
sure
that
you
refer
to
our
agenda
for
directions
to
dial.
E
In
once,
you
dial
in
you
will
be
entered
into
a
queue
of
other
callers
who
are
waiting
to
testify,
and
it's
important
that
you
stay
on
the
line
until
it's
your
time
to
speak.
Otherwise,
you
will
lose
your
place
in
the
queue
because
of
time
considerations.
We
are
going
to
be
limiting
testimony
during
this
period
to
not
more
than
two
minutes.
E
The
lines
are
now
open
for
that
public
testimony,
and
I
would
note
that
if
you
have
more
to
share
with
us
than
the
two
minute
a
lot
you
are
welcome
to
submit
written
testimony
or
if
you
would
rather
submit
written
comments,
we
can
certainly
take
those
and
add
them
to
the
meeting
on
the
legislative
website
in
lieu
of
your
testimony.
The
email
address
to
submit
those
written
comments
is
also
noted
on
today's
agenda.
E
We
are
going
to
move
through
this
comment
period
in
the
following
fashion.
We
will
take
public
comment
for
assembly
bill
number
four.
Then
we
will
take
public
comment
against
assembly
bill
number
four,
and
then
we
will
take
public
comment
in
the
neutral
position
on
assembling
bill
number.
Four
at
this
point
in
time,
I'm
going
to
turn
it
over
to
our
wonderful
legislative
council
bureau,
broadcast
staff
who
have
been
able
to
help
facilitate
this.
For
us.
E
For
those
of
you
who
are
on
the
phone
waiting
to
speak,
please
make
sure
that
you
pay
attention
to
the
directions
that
are
given
by
our
wonderful
staff
so
that
we
can
best
accommodate
where
it
is
that
you
will
be
giving
public
testimony.
We
will
now
open
up
the
public
comment
for
those
of
you
wishing
to
speak
for,
for
excuse
me,
assembly,
bill
number.
Four.
A
D
For
the
past
two
decades
plan
has
been
calling
on
this
body
to
hold
the
mining
industry
accountable
and
you've
heard
over
and
over
again
this
past
week
that
what
we
need
is
real
revenue
reform
like
taxing
the
mines
rather
than
balancing
our
budget
on
the
backs
of
working
families.
Children
in
nevada's,
most
vulnerable
any
chance
to
raise
new
revenue
is
a
chance
to
change
the
programs
you
cut.
D
I
hope
you
heard
the
overwhelming
testimony
in
support
of
this
bill
earlier
tonight.
I
hope
you
remember
that
many
current
members
of
this
body
across
the
aisle
have
voted
to
limit
deductions
before
nevadans
are
counting
on
you
to
step
up
again.
Our
children
are
counting
on
you
to
step
up
again.
I
urge
you
to
listen
to
them.
It's
time
for
long-term
solutions
that
set
nevada's
revenue
system
on
the
right
track.
It's
time
to
make
mining
pay
their
fair
share,
and
I
urge
you
to
vote.
Yes.
Thank.
D
A
I
I
I
had
a
state
senator
one
time
tell
me
that
the
job
of
a
legislator
is
walking
on
the
beach
and
seeing
all
the
starfish
that
you
know
will
certainly
perish.
If
they're
left
out
there,
you
have
the
opportunity
to
pick
one
up
and
throw
it
back
in
the
ocean
and
understanding
the
job.
When
you
get
into
it,
you
can't
save
them
all,
but
you
do
your
hardest
to
save
as
many
as
you
can.
I
This
pandemic
has
brought
unprecedented
pain
and
suffering
onto
many
nevadans.
As
you
all
know,
I
don't
need
to
lecture
you
on
this
you're
a
you
are
a
citizen
legislature,
I'm
sure
you've
experienced
in
your
own
life
and
in
your
community,
some
of
the
pain
and
suffering
that's
out
there.
This
bill
gives
you
the
opportunity
to
throw
one
of
those
starfish
back
into
the
ocean
and
to
assure
that
a
child
or
a
parent
has
the
opportunity
that
they'll
never
be
able
to.
Thank
you
for.
I
Sadly,
many
people
may
not
stay
up
till
1am
to
hear
this
and
they
may
not
know
your
names.
I
know
you
don't
do
this
for
same
or
for
glory,
but
know
that
this
boat
will
allow
you
to
save
one
family,
and
I
know
some
of
you
have
all
the
reasons
why
you
should
vote
against
the
spill.
But
all
you
need
is
one
reason
to
vote
for
it.
So
please
I
implore
you
to
find
that
one
reason
to
support
this
bill.
Thank
you.
Good
night.
A
D
My
name
is
laura
deich
l-a-u-r-a,
be
like
david
e.
I
t
like
thomas
us
like
sam,
see
like
charlie
h,
like
hotel.
I
am
strongly
in
favor
of
84.
I
feel
like
it
is
high
time
for
mining
to
pay
their
fair
share,
and
I
would
ask
our
legislature
to
look
out
for
the
whole
state
of
nevada
and
make
this
more
fair
for
everyone.
Thank.
A
I
But
we,
the
public,
have
been
bringing
up
the
need
to
make
minds,
finally
pay
their
fair
share.
We
raised
the
issue
when
it
was
unpopular.
We
raised
the
issue
when
you
wouldn't
entertain
discussion
on
it
and
we
raised
the
issue
so
much
because
every
part
of
our
state
is
impacted
socially,
financially
and
environmentally
by
the
extractive
and
capitalistic
average
of
the
mining
corporation.
G
I
I
Is
that
the
minds
need
us?
These
are
nevadan
lands
and
nevada
resources
and
the
entities
such
as
mines
that
disturb
and
pillage
them
must
give
their
nevadan
community.
This
is
not
a
matter
of
partisanship.
This
is
a
matter
of
equality,
and
while
I
recognize
that
this
bill
still
doesn't
necessarily
take
us
all
the
way
there,
it
is
still
forward
momentum.
So
I
ask
you
to
be
bold,
to
stand
for
your
constituents
and
to
pass
this
bill
today.
Thank.
A
D
Hi,
my
name
is
stella
kerr
s-t-e-l-a-k-u-r-r.
I
would
like
to
thank
everyone
for
being
here
very
late.
I
am
in
support
of
this
bill.
I'm
pretty
disappointed
in
a
lot
of
what
I'm
hearing.
D
I
think
this
bill
should
be
passed
because
it's
a
long
overdue
past.
This
has
been
talked
about.
Since
I
was
a
child.
It
needs
to
get
done
because
it
will
bring
revenue
to
our
state,
there's
no
reason
to
vote
against
it.
Unless
you
are
for
corporations
and
against
nevadans,
you
could
be
part
of
a
historic
change
in
our
state.
That
would
do
nothing
but
help
us
nothing
at
all.
So,
during
this
financial
crisis,
I
hope
that
you
will
take
leadership
and
move
our
state
forward.
Thank
you.
A
D
I
am
so
thankful
for
all
of
you
that
are
staying
up
tonight
and
listening
to
this.
I
believe
it
is
definitely
time,
as
others
have
said,
to
tax
these
mining
companies
who
have
made
billions
of
dollars
off
of
nevada,
and
these
are
people
that
don't
even
live
in
our
state.
It
is
time
to
protect
those
who
do
not
have
money
to
fix
this
debt
tax,
those
that
have
the
money.
I
thank
you
again
and
I
fully
support
this
bill.
A
D
C-H-R-I-S-T-I-C-A-B-R-E-R-A
I'm
calling
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league
in
support
of
ab4.
It's
time
we
call
on
the
mining
industry
to
pay
their
fair
share.
Nevada's
landscape
is
littered
with
abandoned
and
decommissioned
mines
and
mining
shouldn't
continue
to
receive
excessive
deductions,
including
deductions
for
reclamation
to
clean
up
the
messes
they
make
on
our
land.
We
urge
your
support
on
this
bill.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
D
Hello,
my
name
is
ryan
brown
r-y-a-n-b-r-o-w-n
and
I'm
calling
in
strong
favor
of
av4
at
the
straw.
Excuse
me
as
a
small
business
owner
and
also
coming
from
industries
that
are
are
deeply
affected
by
this
in
such
a
dire
time.
D
This
gives
us
the
opportunity,
finally
to
hold
mining
accountable,
to
pay
their
fair
share
and
to
finally
bring
some
type
of
revenue
reform.
That's
going
to
help
education
and
health
care.
It
just
sends
a
strong
message
when
we
keep
big
businesses
accountable.
Thank.
A
D
For
the
record,
this
is
kimberly,
mull
k-I-m-b-e-r-l-y-n-u-l-l,
I'm
an
advocate
for
victims
of
violence
against
women
and
children.
Nevada
has
historically
been
at
the
top
of
domestic
violence,
sexual
assault
or
sex
trafficking
in
our
state.
Yet
we
have
the
least
state-provided
funds
for
victims
and
service
providers.
D
The
pandemic
has
made
the
race
of
domestic
violence
and
violence
against
children
and
child
abuse
even
higher
than
it
already
was
in
our
state,
and
we
have
no
money
for
victims.
There
are
no
funds
coming
in.
There
are
no
resources
available
and
we
need
any
kind
of
help
that
we
can
get
to
help
service.
These
individuals
and
any
revenue
would
be
beneficial,
but
having
revenue
come
from
a
resource
that
is
available,
ready
to
get
funds
to
the
victims
and
is
basically
fair
share
already
needed
is
beneficial,
so
I
urge
you
to
support
sb
4..
A
D
A
D
Hi
y'all,
my
name
is
sarah
miller
and
that's
so
csm
valor
e-r-a-m-I-l-l-e-r.
D
I
want
to
echo
what
christine
said,
how
we
shouldn't
be
balancing
the
budget
off
the
backs
of
education
and,
like
sorry
off
the
backs
of
education
off
the
backs
of
health
care
off
the
backs
of
families
like
we
should
be
taxing
corporations.
We
should
be
raising
revenue.
We
should
be
taxing
mining
because
of
all
the
things
that
they
take
from
our
land
and
the
things
that
they
take
from
our
people
like
this
really
isn't.
D
Okay
and
if
we
are
so
desperately
looking
for
other
avenues
to
stay
still
live
in
this
crisis,
which
we
are
and
it
sounds
like
you
are,
then
I
really
hope
that
you
vote
in
favor
of
this
bill
because,
like
this
is
an
avenue
the
more
we
tax
here,
like
the
more
we
will
be
able
to
support
people
in
our
state.
A
D
C-I-N-T-H-I-A-M-O-O-R-E,
I'm
a
member
of
the
nevada
environmental
justice
coalition
and
I'm
calling
in
support
of
ab4
time
and
time
again.
This
budget
has
been
balanced
on
the
backs
of
working
families.
It
is
time
to
look
for
other
solutions.
This
bill
is
the
step
in
the
right
direction.
Many
have
said
that
the
silhouette
will
end
whining.
D
I
asked
how
our
state
has
the
minerals
and
the
products
that
have
made
them
profitable.
Where
else
are
they
going
to
go?
It
is
time
for
mining
to
step
up
and
pay
their
fair
share.
I
urge
you
to
vote.
I
urge
you
to
set
aside
partisanship
and
put
nevada
families.
First,
please
vote
yes
on
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
I
I
This
is
a
good
feeling
to
step
in
the
right
direction.
We
have
seen
too
many
hard-working
nevada
families
struggling
to
make
ends
meet
during
this
endemic
too
many
and
central
public
services
that
flash
and
so
many
gaping
holes
in
our
health
care
and
education.
That's
being
cut
right
now.
Meantime
we're
reading
schools
of
executives
for
the
large
largest
mine
operator,
raising
in
tens
of
millions
of
dollars.
Just
so
bear
goes,
chairman
actually
passion,
50
million
dollars
worth
of
stock.
I
A
D
Will
you
side
with
the
people,
the
small
business
owners,
the
children
that
need
to
have
schools
that
are
well
funded,
the
public
employees
that
have
been
giving
their
lives
to
the
state
or
to
a
an
industry
that
sure
they've
brought
in
jobs,
but
they
haven't
paid
their
fair
share
since
the
inception
of
this
date?
I
ask
all
the
legislators
here:
what
are
you
going
to
say
to
the
small
business
owners
that
are
struggling
right
now
that
can't
make
the
deductions
that
mining
can?
What
will
you
say
to
them
if
this
doesn't
pass?
D
A
D
Hi,
my
name
is
anna
perez-mckay,
that's
a-n-a-p-e,
hyphen
m-c-k-a-y,
I'm
calling
in
favor
of
ab4.
I
think
that
even
considering
placing
all
of
the
cuts
and
the
deficits
of
the
coronavirus
onto
working
families
and
children,
our
students
is
completely
unacceptable.
D
A
A
D
D
However,
my
family
has
remained
a
low
income
family
for
the
last
four
generations,
because
we
just
don't
have
the
incentives
as
working
class
people
that
the
corporations
do
so
the
expert
testimony
I
was
given
where
the
person
said
we
have
to
think
about
this.
Like
an
economist,
I
would
encourage
you
all
to
think
about
this,
like
your
constituents,
because
if
the
cuts
go
through,
my
family
won't
be
able
to
make
it
in
nevada.
D
So
thank
you
all
and
thank
you
for
working
with
late
night,
and
I
hope
that
you
too,
vote
in
favor
baby
poor.
I
relinquish
my
thank.
A
D
Hi,
my
name
is
madelaine
williams,
that's
m
a
d
e
l
e,
I
n
e
last
name,
willian
w.
I
l,
l,
I
ams,
and
I'm
calling
in
support
of
av
sport
in
response
to
the
letters
that
you
must
have
received
from
various
mining
associations
objecting
to
the
tax
on,
on
the
basis
of
it
being
a
single
source
tax
and
arguing
that,
with
record
unemployment,
all
businesses
are
suffering
the
same
way.
D
I
would
object
to
that
and
remind
you
all
that
the
the
bill
that's
proposed
still
leaves
them
with
over
50
million
of
their
their
tax
liability
that
they
don't
have
to
pay.
The
mines
will
be
fine.
Nevadans
will
not
if
you
do
not
take
care
of
your
constituents,
and
it
is
your
duty
and
your
responsibility
to
do
so.
I
encourage
you
and
I
to
do
so,
and
I
remind
you
that
that
is
your
sole
purpose
as
legislators
as
to
do
what's
right
for
nevadan.
A
D
Good
morning,
senator
cannizzaro
members
of
the
senate
for
the
record,
my
name
is
annette
magnus
and
I'm
the
executive
director
of
battleborn
progress
and
we
are
in
full
support
of
az4.
For
the
last
few
days,
multitudes
of
nevadans
from
all
over
this
state
have
been
begging
you
to
find
additional
revenue
so
that
working
nevadans
and
families
aren't
the
ones
bearing
the
brunt
of
the
budget
cuts
that
are
being
made
by
you.
This
is
a
great
first
step.
D
It's
absolute
nonsense
to
hear
members
of
this
legislature
say
they
didn't
know
a
bill
like
this
was
coming.
People
have
been
calling
into
both
chambers
for
nine
days.
Talking
about
this
nevadans
have
been
asking
for
this
for
decades,
it's
time
for
the
legislature
to
do
the
right
thing
for
our
kids
and
our
families
and
get
this
bill
to
the
governor's
desk.
As
a
native
nevadan,
I
have
seen
cut
after
cut,
but
never
a
real
attempt
to
raise
revenue.
D
We
have
heard
the
testimony
from
crying
mothers
who
are
struggling,
educators,
literally
begging
you
for
help.
Doctors
and
health
care
professionals
worry
about
the
health
and
well-being
of
our
entire
state.
All
of
them
telling
you
exactly
how
they
will
suffer
if
you
do
not
find
the
revenue
to
fill
this
shortfall.
D
While
many
industries
are
struggling
in
the
midst
of
this
pandemic,
mining
companies
are
not.
They
have
not
felt
the
economic
hardships
that
we
have
in
our
state
and
they
must
do
right,
but
by
those
suffering
in
nevada.
We
ask
every
member
of
this
body
to
come
together
tonight
and
vote
yes
on
ab4.
This
is
a
non-partisan
issue.
This
bill
will
start
to
give
nevadans
the
much
needed
relief
we
need
during
these
difficult
times.
D
Do
the
right
thing
tonight
for
assemblywoman,
pierce
and
all
of
the
hard-working
nevadans
in
this
state
mining
must
pay
for
what
they
extract
from
our
state
on
our
land.
We
should
not
have
to
beg
the
people
we
elect
to
do
the
right
thing.
Nevadans
are
watching
you
right
now.
Even
at
1am
there
is
no
excuse
and
we
will
hold
you
accountable
if
you
vote
wrong
tonight.
Thank
you.
A
D
Hi,
my
name
is
bailey
watkins
b
a
I
l
e
y
w
a
t
k,
I
n
x,
and
I
am
in
station
of
the
bill
as
someone
who
has
gone
through
the
nevada
education
system
for
my
whole
life
and
also
worked
in
it
like.
D
Thank
you
for
the
thank
you
for
your
yes
vote
on
this
bill
and
making
sure
that
we
are
funding
the
things
that
are
important
to
nevada
and
maintaining
a
strong
community,
specifically
like
I'm
very
passionate
about
education,
knowing,
unfortunately,
the
failings
of
our
education
system,
and,
oh
I'm
so
sorry,
but
yes,
we
need
to
be.
Oh
goodness,
please
stack
the
mines,
please
we
you
all
know
that
we
need
more
revenue.
We
all
know
it.
D
A
D
P,
a
a
couple
of
things
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
about
considering
taxing
minds
is
not
enough.
We
need
to
go
all
the
way
through
with
this,
because
education
and
health
care
should
not
be
the
first
in
the
chopping
block.
We
should
not
be
the
scapegoat
during
a
global
crisis.
This
is
ineffective
and
only
shows
that
this
legislature
does
not
care
about
its
people,
and
if
you
do
care
about
us,
you
would
think
about
this
and
go
all
the
way
through.
Thank.
A
D
Hi,
my
name
is
olivia
piccarelli
platt,
that
is
o
l.
I
v,
I
a
p,
I
c
c
I
r
I
l,
l,
I
hyphen
p
l,
a
t
t.
I
have
gone
through
the
nevada,
public
school
education
and
I
now
work
in
nevada,
public
school
education
and
I
think
that,
especially
if
we
are
going
to
be
asked
to
go
back
to
school
in
the
fall
and
put
ourselves
at
risk,
we
should
be
funded
more
and
the
future
of
the
children
that
are
also
being
put
at
risk
need
to
be
funded
more.
D
A
A
A
I
I
It's
long
past
time
that
mining
begins
to
pay
their
fair
share
when
we're
cutting
k-12
and
higher
education,
including
the
most
recent
suggestion
to
take
an
additional
25
million
dollars
from
higher
ed.
It's
way
past
time
for
a
bill
like
ab4
there's
been
a
decade
of
notice
for
a
bill
like
this,
please
support
ab4
and
help
our
state
move
forward.
Thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
work
for
our
state.
A
I
I
am
calling
on
behalf
of
myself
and
my
family,
my
sister,
my
mother
in
particular,
who
are
now
unemployed
due
to
the
pandemic.
I
have
to
say
that
it's
quite
ironic
that
this
call
happened.
I
I
literally
just
spent
the
last
hour
and
a
half
talking
to
my
sister
about
putting
together
her
resume
and
working
with
her
about
putting
together
her
resume
to
attempt
to
look
for
work
during
this
time
and
now
there's
an
opportunity
here
to
give
relief
to
nevadans,
and
I
urge
the
the
entire
body
to
support
ab4
as
our
family
would
definitely
benefit
from
that,
as
well
as
hundreds
of
thousands
of
other
nevadans
as
an
individual
who
went
to
school
with
buildings
that
were
not
that
we
could
not
enter
because
the
school
could
not
afford
to
to
complete
construction.
I
A
D
Good
morning,
madam
chair
of
the
members
of
the
senate,
my
name
is
cecilia
alvarado,.
D
C-E-C-I-A-A-L-B-A-R-A-D-O,
I
am
the
nevada
state
director
for
missouri
and
I'm
calling
in
strong
support
of
this
build
and
in
support
of
all
of
those
groups
that
have
been
working
for
decades
on
holding
that
and
making
sure
the
mines
are
paying
their
fair
chair
just
think
about
our
state
rank
45
in
education
and
31
in
healthcare
think
about
the
devastating
effect
in
the
lives
of
working
families,
they're
counting
on
you
most
families
are
right
now
because
they
are
thinking
on
how
they're
going
to
put
food
on
the
table,
they're
counting
on
you
to
advocate
for
them.
D
A
I
Good
morning,
I
am
la
la
montoya,
l-a-l-o-m-o-n-c-o-I-a
political
director,
at
mecco
nevada.
We
are
in
support
of
ab4.
Our
organization
is
made
up
of
thousands
of
vibrant
and
beautiful
working
families,
who
desperately
need
decisive
action
that
will
offer
them
dignity
and
the
ability
to
care
for
themselves
and
their
family.
I
A
D
Good
evening
my
name
is
catherine
lorenzo
r.
I
e
l,
o
r
e
n
z,
o.
I
am
here
as
a
community
member,
and
you
just
heard
from
my
husband
at
gonzalez.
So
I
am
not
gonna
repeat
what
he
just
said.
I
am
just
calling
in
support
of
ab4.
Our
family,
as
you
heard,
is
really
facing
financial
hardship.
So
I
ask
that
you
please
text
the
mind.
Our
state
is
in
dire
need
of
financial
resources.
Thank.
A
D
D
She
has
these
countless
struggles,
learning
to
read
and
at
one
point,
while
I
was
a
single
mother
working
low
wage
job
with
a
college
education,
I
had
to
break
down
and
put
her
in
outside
tutoring,
so
she
could
have
one-on-one
support.
I
would
not
have
had
to
do
this
if
our
schools
were
funded
properly.
D
D
A
D
Therefore,
I
ask
you
that
you
think
of
all
the
individuals
that
are
struggling
to
put
food
on
their
table
right
now.
Our
elderly
are
vulnerable
that
are
scared
of
going
back
to
work
because
they
don't
want
to
die.
I
urge
you
to
vote
yes
on
84
and
create
revenue
for
nevadans,
the
folks
that
elect
you
again,
please.
I
urge
you
to
vote
yes
on
ab4.
A
A
D
D
We
cannot
continue
to
balance
our
abilities
on
the
backs
of
children
and
education,
and
so
I
am
calling
to
I'm
totally
in
support
of
ab4.
I
hope
that
you
all
will
support
it
as
well,
because
us
working
with
adam,
we
need
the
additional
revenue
to
our
state.
Thank
you.
A
I
Good
morning,
paul
moradkin
m-o-r-a-d
k-h-a-n,
the
senior
vice
president
for
the
vegas
chamber.
The
vegas
chamber
has
several
concerns
with
ab4
and
cannot
support
this
bill.
As
each
of
you
know,
cobia
19
has
definitely
nevada's
employers,
both
large
and
small.
It
does
not
matter
if
you're
in
las
vegas,
reno,
elko,
employers
and
employees
are
hurting
because
of
this
pandemic.
I
I
The
impact
has
been
both
devastating
to
both
employers
and
employees,
and
this
is
a
pacific
industry
tax
and
we've
seen
several
times
the
last
few
decades
that
relying
on
specific
industry
sectors
makes
our
tax
base
more
vulnerable
and
less
diverse.
The
chamber,
as
many
of
you
known,
has
taken
a
long
standing
position
to
post
industry
specific
taxation.
I
This
is
a
tax
increase
and
we
would
urge
you
not
to
pass
this
an
economic
crisis
and
one
that
we
do
not
know
when
it
will
end.
We
do
believe
that
if
the
sales
pass
good,
paying
jobs
in
the
industry
will
be
lost
and
that
and
those
and
that
will
directly
impact
nevada's
families
in
those
communities
that
rely
on
these
jobs.
I
Sensible
taxation
should
be
broad-based,
energy-specific
taxation,
lease
of
volatility
and
uncertainty.
We
at
the
vegas
chamber
support
important
services
such
as
education
and
health
care,
but
doing
so
without
careful
and
thoughtful
analysis
will
leave
our
community
without
a
stable
base
for
those
sources.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
I
B-R-Y-A-N-W-A-C-H-T-E-R,
I'm
the
senior
vice
president
at
the
retail
association
of
nevada,
and
we
are
in
strong
opposition
to
ab4
we've
heard
in
testimony
tonight
that
everyone
would
like
the
senate
to
do
the
right
thing,
but
in
this
particular
case
we
believe
that
the
right
thing
would
be
a
comprehensive
plan
that
allows
nevada
to
meet
its
needs
going
forward.
There
are
many
flaws
in
our
current
tax
system
that,
if
corrected,
would
set
nevada
and
political
subdivisions
on
a
path
to
fiscal
solvency.
I
I
A
D
Hi,
my
name
is
willard
barron
l-I-l-I-p-h-b-a-r-a-n.
I
am
actually
for
the
bill
and
did
not
get
let
in
for
opposition.
I
think
that
it
is
criminal
that
we
are
calling
at
1
30
in
the
morning
to
argue
for
our
schools
and
funding
for
proper
education,
I'm
school
teacher
and
mother
as
well
as
the
union
member
and
musician.
I
understand
that
economic
impact
has
affected
every
single
person
as
well
as
retail
industries.
D
We
will
continue
to
be
the
laughing
stock
of
our
country
and
be
47th
in
education
and
50th
in
mental
health,
and
I
think
that
every
single
one
of
you
should
be
ashamed
of
yourselves
for
allowing
us
to
get
to
this
point,
as
it
is
after
150
years
of
the
strongest
lobby
in
mining.
I
think
that
it's
absolutely
disgusting
and
I
do
not
know
how
you
sleep
at
night.
Thank
you.
A
D
A-N-N-S-I-L-V-E-R,
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce
has
a
long
tradition
of
opposing
any
tax
that
singles
out
a
specific
industry.
This
is
not
the
time
to
put
a
burden
on
one
industry
when
our
entire
economy
is
facing
the
impact
of
this
pandemic
together,
the
reno
sparks
chamber
proposes
instead
a
lowering
of
the
sales
tax
to
stimulate
spending
by
private
citizens,
who
would
appreciate
greater
opportunities
to
purchase
larger
ticket
items
such
as
appliances
and
vehicles
at
lower
prices.
D
D
A
I
Good
morning,
this
is
tyree
gray
t-y-r-e-g-r-a-y,
president
of
the
nevada
mining
association,
an
association
comprised
of
over
550
members
representing
every
link
in
the
mining
supply
chain.
Though
I've
been
on
the
job
for
just
over
four
months.
I
am
not
new
to
the
process
and
I
am
a
known
entity
to
all
of
you
there
in
the
senate
chamber
at
3
16
pm,
I
received
a
call
about
assembly
bill
4.,
I
nor
the
time
leading
up
to
special
session
or
during
the
special
session,
as
my
phone
rang
to
discuss
the
concepts
contained
within
this
bill.
I
Mining
is
one
of
nevada's
foundational
industries
with
companies
of
all
sizes,
and
I
honestly
still
do
not
know
how
this
will
impact
all
my
members,
especially
some
of
the
small
ones,
except
to
say
in
a
bad
way.
It
bears
mentioning
that
we
are
discussing
an
industry
specific
tax.
The
revenue
projections
discussed
in
this
bill
ignore
the
simple
fact
that
mining
pays
every
single
tax
that
every
other
business
pays,
plus
this
industry
specific
tax,
the
net
proceed
not
once
not
twice,
but
every
time
the
state
has
called
upon
mining
to
prepay
or
discuss
tax
policy.
I
A
D
D
While
we
all
recognize
that
the
effects
of
code
bid,
19
has
left
no
person
or
industry
untouched,
and
I
can
appreciate
the
need
of
the
state
to
address
its
budget
deficit.
I
have
serious
concerns
about
ab4
and
the
way
it
is
written.
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
I'm
so
sorry,
I
would
like
to
point
out.
D
The
disposition
of
a
portion
of
the
funds
to
the
general
fund
is
an
area
of
great
concern
and
I
do
not
support
the
efforts
to
single
out
any
one
particular
industry,
and
while
I
certainly
can
recognize
the
need
for
an
equitable
tax
structure,
I
cannot
support
a
b4
as
written
and
respectfully
ask
that
you
and
the
members
of
the
senate
reconsider
these
actions.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
E
E
A
D
S-A-R-A-H-A-D-L-E-R
I
apologize
madam
chair.
I've
been
in
the
queue
for
hours,
but
was
invisible
until
this
moment.
I
would
like
to
testify
in
favor
so
good
morning
and
on
behalf
of
thank
you
on
behalf
of
the
charter
school
association
of
nevada
and
of
advocates
for
public
charter
school
options.
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
testify
in
favor
of
ab4.
D
Mining
is
undoubtedly
an
industry
that
is
greatly
beneficial
to
our
state
and
has
a
proud
history
here.
Certainly,
there
are
reasons
to
carefully
consider
whether
you
legislators
support
this
bill.
The
public
charter
school
sector
says
props
to
the
mining
industry
for
being
willing
to
step
up
for
the
prepayment.
D
D
A
A
D
Hi,
my
name
is
arya
flores
for
the
record.
D
A-R-I-A-S-L-O-R-E-S,
I
am
actually
4ab
for
technology
issues,
but
I
do
have
my
full
intention
to
use
my
two
minutes
to
be
heard
to
the
full
intent
being
born
and
raised
in
nevada.
I
have
grown
to
love
my
state
to
the
core.
This
is
my
first
year
where
I
got
to
cast
my
vote
in
my
very
first
primary
and
use
that
I
will
be
voting
for
the
general
as
well.
I
am
in
full
support
of
ab4
because
we
need
this
revenue
in
order
to
continue
being
quote
unquote.
A
D
Begin
hi,
I'm
actually
also
in
favor
of
the
bill
name,
is
kaylee
barnett,
k-a-I-l-e-y
b-a-r-n-e-t-t.
I
just
hopped
on
the
call
I
apologize
like
I
said
I
am
in
favor
for
ab4.
D
I
insist
that
minds
pay
their
fair
share
and
the
budget
shortfalls
from
coven
19
don't
fall
on
the
backs
of
working
families
and
children.
Our
education
system-
I
am
a
teacher
and
nevada-
has
ranked
very
low
in
education
for
many
years.
I'm
a
product
of
clark,
county's
education
system
and
washoe
county's
education
system.
D
Koban
19
has
put
nevada
in
a
fiscal
crisis,
and
mining
needs
to
contribute
to
that
and
according
to
the
nevada
current,
nearly
nearly
half
of
nevada's
gold
mines
has
not
paid
any
mining
taxes
since
2016
and
I
believe
they
need
to
pay
their
fair
share
and
it
shouldn't
be
put
on
working
families.
E
Okay,
great,
thank
you
so
much.
We
will
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
number,
four,
having
heard
the
neutral
testimony
and
again,
thank
you
for
your
time
and
patience
as
we
move
through
the
public
comment.
We
really
appreciate
it
and
thank
you
for
keeping
me
on
track.
I
appreciate
that
very
much.
E
We
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
number
four
at
this
period
of
time.
That
will
conclude
the
presentation
on
assembly
bill
number
four,
and
I
would
accept
any
motion
from
the
committee
senator
harris
a
motion
to
move
do
pass.
Is
there
a
second
second
from
senator
schreibel
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
E
E
B
B
B
C
C
When
we
concluded
the
general
session
last
year,
I
don't
think
any
of
us
expected
a
global
pandemic
to
hit
our
state,
our
nation
and
our
country.
I
don't
think
any
of
us
expected
to
see
tourism
suffer
the
way
it
has
and
to
see
all
the
vital
services
that
our
constituents
rely
on
suffer
so
greatly
assembly
bill
4
has
the
potential
to
help
our
constituents
to
help
our
school
children
to
help
everyone
who
benefits
from
health
and
human
services.
Everything
that
we've
discussed
these
last
nine
days.
C
C
H
Thank
you,
madam
president.
I
appreciate
you
calling
on
me
at
this
earlier
late
hour.
I
don't
know
which
way
to
say
it
at
this
point
in
time.
This
bill
began
in
the
assembly.
Seven
o'clock
yesterday
p.m.
Here
we
are
at
2
am
day
9,
slash
10.
in
a
situation
where
the
general
public
can't
be
in
the
building.
We
have
members
actually
voting
from
clark
county
on
a
divisive
issue,
I'm
bothered
by
this
bill
within
our
constitution.
We
talk
about
just
evaluation.
H
H
H
Farmers
versus
miners
on
a
water
war
called
alpine
decree,
and
I
was
here
in
2015
and
I
voted
to
take
away
deductions
for
mining,
and
I
have
no
problem
looking
at
those
deductions
again,
but
wholesale
just
take
a
percentage
away
from
them
on
something
that
they
have
not
looked
at
and
have
actually
started
businesses
or
new
mines
out
based
on
the
rule
that
it
was
it's
not
fair.
It's
not
right,
especially
in
the
middle
of
a
pandemic.
F
F
First,
I
think
it
was
pretty
obvious
when
mr
ginden
went
through
and
and
presented
the
bill
and
the
exhibit
that
went
with
it,
that
it
is
anything
but
a
simple
process.
F
The
bill
and
its
intent
are
in
its
current
form,
appears
not
to
have
been
provided
to
industry
or
even
adequate
notice
for
them.
You
can't
review
a
bill
until
you
read
it.
F
So,
whatever
decisions
they've
made
are
moot
at
this
point,
they're
out
the
window
now
they're
going
to
have
to
set
aside
twice
the
actual
tax,
or
at
least
the
differential,
in
order
to
be
able
to
pay
it
and
they
had
no
notice
now
I
did
vote
yes
out
of
committee.
I
think
that
we
need
to
do
more,
particularly
for
education,
but
I'm
really
concerned
about
the
legal
analysis
of
this.
F
F
I
have
no
problem
with
that,
but
what
concerns
me
the
most
is
that
so
many
people
believe
that
this
bill,
this
tax
is
going
to
be
a
boon
to
education
and
in
doing
some
back
of
the
napkin
math,
it
appears
that
we're
talking
about
somewhere
between
10
and
15
million
to
education.
The
rest
goes
to
the
general
fund.
F
I
don't
know
if
that's
a
mistake,
if
that's
the
lateness
of
the
hour,
I
don't
know
why,
but
I
certainly
felt
that
by
the
end
of
the
testimony
they
thought
this
was
to
help
education,
and
yet
there
is
nothing
in
the
bill
except
for
the
property
tax
piece
and
then
only
two
thirds
of
it.
That
goes
outside
of
the
the
county
in
which
it's
raised.
F
So
there
is
no
assurance
from
the
language
of
the
bill
that
this
puts
money
into
education.
I
would
have
been
a
strong
yes
if
this
were
going
to
education,
but
it
is
not.
It
is
going
to
fund
other
things,
and
if
history
is
any
indication,
as
they
say,
passed
his
prologue,
we
watched
this
body
strip
money
out
of
permanent
funding
money
out
of
education
and
replaced
with
one
shots.
I
have
no
reason
to
believe
that
this
effort
is
going
to
be
any
different.
F
So
while
I
voted
this
out
of
committee
because
it
is
a
complex
beast,
there
is
no
way
for
us
to
know.
What's
really
going
to
be
done
with
the
money.
No
one
has
said
what
is
going
to
be
done
with
this
money
and
because
it
is
so
complex
and
we've
had
so
little
time
to
really
digest
it.
I
cannot
comfortably
vote
for
passages
this
bill,
so
I
urge
my
colleagues
to
push
the
pause
button.
F
H
This
is
about
policies,
procedures
and
people.
I
quite
frankly,
am
very
grateful
for
the
leadership
recognizing
that
this
is
indeed
an
increase
in
taxes
and
thus
requires
a
two-thirds
vote
for
approval.
People
can
understand
that
we
have
differences
of
opinion
on
policies
they
like
it
when
they,
when
we
agree
with
them,
and
they
don't
like
it.
H
H
The
mining
industry
is
at
risk
for
this
bill
and
other
industries
may
feel
appropriately
nervous
about
what
is
going
to
happen
to
them.
Next
year,
an
alternative
budget
was
actually
presented.
That
did
not
require
a
new
state
revenue
creation,
but
used
other
sources
and
adjustments
to
even
give
teachers
willing
to
be
in
the
classroom,
a
well-deserved
raise
in
the
presentation
and
the
testimony
tonight
we
have
heard
this
will
cause
a
rate
increase
for
some.
H
H
H
B
Thank
you,
madam
president,
and
at
this
late
hour
I'll
be
brief.
I
usually
aren't
not
given
the
long
speeches
anyway.
It's
no
secret
that
I
am
an
advocate
for
rural
nevada
and
I
looking
around
the
room,
I'm
probably
the
only
one.
That's
ever
in
this
room,
that's
been
employed
as
a
minor
at
least
sitting
in
the
body,
I'm
not
going
to
speak
to
the
sergeant-at-arms
here,
and
it
is
true
that
ab4
will
increase
local
revenues.
B
Some
of
the
smaller
projects
will
be
stopped.
There
is
no
way.
Mines
are
very
capital
intensive.
It
takes
two
to
three
years
to
develop
a
mine
before
you
ever
pull
an
ounce
of
product
out
and
I'm
really
not
sure
how
that's
going
to
work.
You
can't
carry
it
with
you.
I
look
around
the
room
and
I'm
going
to
ask
you
how
many
of
you
file
a
long
long-term
form,
1040a
your
income
tax
and
then
how
many
of
you
are
prepared
to
write
off
40
of
your
legitimate
deductions.
B
B
I
commit
to
you
bring
this
back
to
the
regular
session,
where
it
belongs
an
open
session
where
we
can
have
input
net
proceeds
is
a
heavy
lift.
I've
been
dealing
with
it
since
the
early
90s.
When
I
was
serving
as
a
county
commissioner,
it's
hard
it's
hard
to
get
it
right,
I'm
not
going
to
say,
we've
got
it
right,
but
I
commit
to
you.
I
will
work
on
it,
but
let's
bet
it
first.
Thank
you.
A
E
E
Now
I
I
recognize
that
what
has
been
proposed
in
this
bill
is
not
going
to
fill
a
1.2
billion
dollar
shortfall
in
the
state
revenue,
but
neither
is
scraping
the
bottom
of
accounts
to
find
additional
monies
to
save
some
critical
programs,
and
so
the
the
prospect
that
somehow,
if
that
is
the
exercise
we
engage
in,
that,
that
should
be
good.
Enough
is
just
a
false
sense
of
hope.
E
But
at
that
point
in
time
I
think
it
was
that
we
didn't
need
more
money
because
it
was
enough
and
we
didn't
need
to
have
that
conversation
because
of
process,
and
we
didn't
need
to
talk
about
it.
And
here
we
are
talking
about
cutting
education,
and
there
is
no
easy
answer
to
that.
There
is
not
1.2
billion
dollars,
hiding
in
the
nevada
budget
to
fill
that
hole.
E
And
yes,
we
cannot
say
that
in
the
future
a
legislature
would
use
revenue
funds
from
this
particular
bill
to
fund
education.
But
that
is
the
same
thing
that
we
do
in
every
single
bill
that
passes
out
of
this
legislature.
You
cannot
bind
the
hands
of
a
future
legislature,
but
what
we
could
do
is
make
a
decision
to
say
that
we
can
take
revenue
and
make
a
decision
to
put
it
to
education.
E
And
at
some
point
that
has
to
to
matter
enough
that
we're
not
making
excuses
about
well,
if
this
particular
bill
was
earmarked
specifically
for
education,
then
it
wouldn't
be
a
problem,
but
because
there's
not
a
specific
sentence
in
the
bill
that
says
it
goes
to
education.
We
can't
make
that
decision.
E
What
should
be
hard
is
listening
to
testimony
from
real
people
who
rely
on
the
public
education
system
to
educate
their
kids,
who
rely
on
services
here
in
the
state
of
nevada
to
make
sure
that
they
can
get
proper
health
care
who
are
trying
to
just
their
best
to
work
in
honest
living
and
live
day
to
day.
That
should
be
hard.
This
shouldn't
be
hard
at
some
point.
E
Because
I
can't
find
a
specific
piece
of
of
validation
for
that,
and
so
if
this
is
our
arbitrary
number
and
it
should
be
higher
well
that
conversation
could
have
happened,
but
instead
it's
oh
well,
it's
arbitrary
and
that
just
feels
like
another
reason,
another
justification
to
not
make
the
decision
and
the
idea
that
this
is
being
brought
late.
That
has
happened
in
this
body
at
all
hours
of
the
night
at
the
end
of
legislative
sessions,
including
a
decision
to
talk
about
taking
money
out
of
public
education.
Three
minutes
before
the
end
of
a
legislative
session.
E
Yes,
we
are
short
on
time,
but
we
are
also
trying
to
close
a
budget,
and
this
has
been
a
topic
of
conversation
that
we
have
heard
and
I
think
every
public
comment
that
we've
had
for
the
next
nine
days.
By
my
count,
the
hole
in
the
budget
has
been
a
topic
of
conversation
for
at
least
the
last
month
and
ways
in
which
to
address
that
problem
have
had
to
be
at
the
forefront
of
everyone
sitting
in
this
body's
mind,
or
I'm
not
really
sure
what
we're
doing
here.
E
E
E
E
But
if
this
is
not
the
compelling
situation,
if
this
is
not
the
problem
we
face,
that
is
of
such
a
magnitude
that
we
say
yes,
this
is
something
that
we
are
going
to
value.
Then
I
just
don't
know
what
is,
and
if
this
is
not
an
answer
to
the
problem,
I
welcome
that
conversation,
but
I
think
that
this
is
a
way
that
we
can
say.
Yes,
we
want
to
make
fewer
cuts
to
education
and
we
can
make
that
decision.
E
C
Thank
you,
madam
president,
I'm
going
to
be
really
brief,
because
a
lot
of
my
colleagues
have
already
hit
upon
some
of
the
points
I
would
I
would
make.
I
know
we
just
heard
it
in
passion,
plea
for
and
on
behalf
of
the
bill,
but
I'll
say
this:
I'm
going
to
go
back
to
a
comment
that
was
made
by
one
of
the
callers
who
called
in
favor
of
the
bill.
C
You
know
asking
us
to
think
about
what
we
were
doing
and
how
we
could
respond
to
small
businesses,
and
I
think
that
my
thoughts
wrap
around
that
particular
question
because
it
stuck
in
my
mind.
I've
been
sort
of
dwelling
on
it
ever
since
a
lot
of
the
discussion
that
we've
had
tonight
and
things
that
I've
been
talking
well
talking
to
my
colleagues
and
others
about
since
about
seven
o'clock.
C
Yesterday
night
really
centered
around
the
process.
You
know
I've
been
here
long
enough
to
know
that
there
is
a
certain
process
and
yes,
there
are
times
when
things
have
moved
faster
than
we
tend
to
like
they
move
faster
than
we
sometimes
can
keep
up
with,
but
I've
never
seen
something
like
this.
I
know
that,
yes,
we
have
been
talking
about.
F
C
Idea
people
have
been
bringing
it
up
in
conversations,
they've
been
bringing
it
up
during
questions
and
in
in
comment
sections
when
they
talk
about
the
need
to
tax
more
in
the
area
of
mining.
So
yes,
we've
had
that
discussion.
But,
as
everybody
knows,
you
really
don't
know
what
the
discussion
center
is
around.
Until
you
have
language,
the
language
was
not
presented
to
us
until
late,
so
to
those
small
businesses.
Who
would
ask
what
I
would
you
know
what
I
have
done?
C
There
is
a
time
to
do
this.
I
was
here
in
2013
when
a
group
of
us
brought
up
the
idea
of
taxing
mining
and
we
categorized
some
of
the
funding.
We
we
directed
the
funding
to
education.
We
have
us,
we
had
a
specific
purpose
for
why
we
were
asking
more
money
from
gold
mines
and
how
it
was
going
to
impact
education.
C
I've
also
been
in
here
in
a
couple
of
different
sessions
where
tax
and
tax
policy
was
brought
very
late,
with
no
time
to
really
discuss.
This
is
not
easy
stuff
right
here
and
to
just
spring
it
on
everybody
and
the
language
be
brought
at
the
last.
Second,
really,
I
think,
subverts
the
whole
idea
of
a
process
where
things
are
discussed,
as
we
have
been
doing
since
the
beginning
of
this
session
when
it
was
brought.
C
I
know
some
of
my
several
of
my
colleagues
on
both
the
the
right
and
left
of
the
political
spectrum
have
been
talking
and
have
been
in
discussions
about
where
money
is
located,
how
we
can
get
more
money
and
where
that
should,
and
when
we
do
collect
the
money
where
the
add
back
should
be,
and
we've
had
that
discussion.
We've
released
our
ideas
and
they're
out
there
in
the
in
the
public
for
everybody
to
kind
of
see
what
we
value,
what
add
backs?
We
want
to
put
back
out
there
and
there
is
money
out
there.
C
C
So
what
we're
asking
for,
for
all
those
people
who
were
calling
in
earlier
and
we're
wondering
what's
going
on
the
language
it
doesn't
lie?
It
doesn't
go
specifically
to
education,
it's
not
really
designed
to
fill
a
hole
right
now,
and
it
really
is,
in
my
opinion,
more
political
than
anything
else.
It's
to
kind
of
see
where
we
are
with
this,
and
I
I
truly
can't
support
anything
like
this
and
I'll.
Tell
you,
education,
you're,
absolutely
right.
C
When
people
are
talking
about
education,
this
last
quarter
of
the
year,
many
families
saw
their
children
at
home
on
computers
trying
to
help
them
with
their
education,
while
they
were
working
at
home
and
seeing
that
their
children
were
not
progressing
not
by
any
fault
of
educators,
but
by
circumstance,
and
yet
those
parents
had
no
alternative.
They
were
given
no
alternative
and
now
that
prospect
of
trying
to
find
a
way
to
educate
their
children,
this
fall
is
pretty
dismal.
C
Many
of
them
are
looking
at
their
students
staying
at
home
again,
and
they
would
love
the
opportunity
to
find
a
different
way
to
educate
their
children
if
they
don't
have
confidence
in
the
public
education
system
and
delivering
that
education.
I
personally
am
not
in
favor
of
adding
any
new
taxes
to
our
state.
A
All
right
looks
like
everyone's
voted:
does
anyone
wish
to
change
his
or
her
vote.
A
A
All
right,
you
have
heard
the
motion
june
18th
saturday
july
july,
18th
saturday,
actually
guys
it's
only
one
day
away,
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
any
opposed.