►
From YouTube: 4/1/2021 - Assembly Committee on Revenue
Description
For agenda and additional meeting 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
C
D
D
A
And
I
am
here,
thank
you.
Please
mark
assemblywoman
kasama
absent
excused,
although
she
is
just
having
technical
difficulty
so
mark
her
present
when
she's
able
to
arrive
sorry,
I
messed
up
my
screen
just
a
second.
A
Okay,
we
have
a
couple
of
bills
today,
so
let
me
quickly
get
through
housekeeping,
so
we
can
get
started.
We
are
going
to
go
in
order
and
start
with
ab370.
A
Members
and
presenters,
please
silence
your
electronic
devices.
Courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
during
the
meeting
is
required.
Additionally,
courtesy
and
respect
when
working
with
staff
before
or
after
meetings
is
also
required.
A
Please
note:
committee
members
will
be
using
our
laptops
and
possibly
other
screens
and
devices
to
not
only
participate
in
the
meeting
virtually,
but
to
view
exhibits
due
to
that,
you
may
see
members
looking
at
multiple
screens
or
hard
copy
printouts.
Please
don't
take
that
as
a
sign
of
inattention
or
disrespect
as
a
reminder
and
as
is
stated
on
our
agenda,
we'll
have
public
comment
which
will
occur
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
may
be
limited
in
duration.
A
Anyone
wishing
to
provide
testimony
or
attend
the
meeting
virtually
must
pre-register
online
registration
opens
when
an
agenda
is
posted
to
the
nevada
legislature's
website
upon
successful
registration,
registrants
will
receive
a
telephone
number
meeting
id
and
instructions
for
joining
the
meeting
and,
as
a
reminder,
pursuant
to
rule
number
54
of
the
assembly
standing
rules,
support
of
a
bill
or
resolution
means
that
you
improve
that.
You
approve
of
the
entire
measure
as
written
or
the
measure
as
written
along
with
proposed
amendments
that
have
been
accepted
by
the
sponsor
of
the
measure.
A
Opposition
to
a
bill
or
resolution
means
that
you're,
not
supporting
the
measure
or
as
written
or
opposing
the
measure
as
revised
with
amendments
that
have
been
accepted
by
the
sponsor
and
a
neutral
position
on
a
bill
or
resolution
is
one
in
which
you
offer
particular
insights
on
the
measure,
but
express
no
position
on
the
measure.
A
So
as
an
example,
if
you
love
a
bill
but
want
to
change
anything
to
the
way
it's
written
and
you
don't
have
an
amendment
accepted
by
the
sponsor,
you
must
testify
in
opposition,
but
you
certainly
can
say
how
much
you
love
the
bill.
Otherwise,
so
with
that,
we
will
start
our
hearing
on
assembly
bill
37.
A
E
E
E
E
It's
very
important
to
note
that
studies
have
shown
that
recovery
support
services
bring
with
them
a
significant
cost
savings
for
behavioral
health
services.
In
a
study
conducted
in
colorado,
it
was
found
that
for
every
dollar
spent
on
recovery
services,
the
health
care
system
experienced
a
2.2.28
return
on
investment.
E
I
think
it's
important
that
we
not
only
find
ways
to
make
providing
behavioral
health
services
more
cost
effective,
but
it's
also
important
that
we
don't
simply
forget
about
those
who
need
our
help.
The
minute
they
walk
out
the
door
of
a
treatment
facility,
there's
no
one
better
to
provide
this
support
than
someone
who
has
walked
in
their
shoes.
E
Let's
help
them
recover
so
that
they
don't
have
to
go
back
also,
since
the
original
language
of
the
bill
that
we
got
back
didn't
quite
capture
our
intent.
We're
presenting
this
bill
with
a
short
amendment
that
I
hope
you've
all
had
a
chance
to
look
at
in
section
2.
The
amendment
removes
detoxification
and
rehabilitation
and
replaces
it
with
peer
recovery
support
services,
because
most
detox,
detoxification
and
rehabilitation
services
are
already
covered
by
medicaid.
E
It
also
adds
recovery
community
organization
as
the
type
of
provider
that
will
be
receiving
these
funds.
Now,
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over.
If
it's,
okay,
with
you,
chair,
cohen,
to
sean
o'donnell,
he's
the
executive
director
of
foundation
for
recovery,
he
will
be
going
over
more
details
about
the
kinds
of
services
that
we're
talking
about
and
the
great
results
that
can
be
achieved
for
our
fellow
nevadans
who
struggle
with
addictions.
Thank
you.
So
much.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
hearing
my
testimony
today.
For
the
record,
my
name
is
sean
o'donnell.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
foundation
for
recovery.
We
are
nevada,
statewide
recovery,
community
organization
and
charitable
nonprofit
governed
and
led
by
people
in
recovery
from
substance
use
disorders.
I
am
also
a
person
in
recovery
and
celebrated
four
years
on
january
5th
of
this
year
today.
I
am
fortunate
to
lead
a
team
of
trained
peer
recovery,
support
specialists
and
volunteers
who
provide
mentorship
and
support
at
no
cost
to
anyone
in
need.
F
F
This
was
possible
by
embedding
myself
into
an
environment
with
others
post-treatment
who
have
been
through
similar
life
experiences
and
one
which
focused
on
my
strengths
instead
of
my
illness.
Empowering
me
to
no
longer
feel
ashamed
of
my
past,
while
treatment
saved
my
life
recovery
supports
helped
me
to
rebuild
it
at
the
heart
of
this
bill.
F
The
grim
reality
is
that
the
number
of
people
struggling
with
substance
use
and
mental
health
challenges
is
likely
to
increase
drastically
due
to
the
coronavirus,
the
cdc
reports
that
there
were
81
000
drug
overdose
deaths
reported
from
may
2019
to
may
2020
an
all-time
high.
The
predicted
count
for
the
remainder
of
2020
is
expected
to
be
at
least
double
due
to
the
pandemic.
F
Our
state
and
much
of
our
nation
has
rightfully
focused
on
addressing
the
opioid
crisis
and
rising
overdose
deaths,
but
alcohol
still
takes
the
majority
of
lives
annually.
Alcohol
misuse
contributes
to
88
000
deaths
in
the
united
states
each
year.
1
in
10
deaths
among
among
working
adults
is
due
to
alcohol
misuse.
F
In
order
to
dramatically
reverse
this
troubling
trend,
it
is
imperative
for
our
addiction
crisis
response
to
evolve
from
an
acute
short-term,
individual,
focused
treatment
response
to
a
broader
community
recovery
response.
Addiction
is
a
chronic
illness
and
recovery
often
is
a
lifelong
process
where
external,
community
and
social
determinants
of
health
play
a
vital
role
in
its
sustainability.
F
In
2016
surgeon,
general
vivek
murti
issued
the
first
surgeon
general
reports
on
alcohol,
drugs
and
health.
In
that
report
there
is
well-supported
evidence
and
data
that
tells
us
that
if
we
can
just
get
someone
past
the
fifth
year
in
recovery,
they
have
an
85
chance
of
sustaining
that
recovery
for
the
rest
of
their
life.
F
Now
most
treatment
programs
are
weeks
and
sometimes
months
months
in
length.
So
what
happens
after
treatment?
I'm
sure
we've
all
heard
of
the
28
day
program.
What
happens
after
those
28
days
and
ask
yourself
is
28
days
enough
to
force
a
chronic
disease
into
remission
recovery,
community
organizations
or
rcos
are
independent,
nonprofit
organizations
that
are
led
and
governed
by
local
communities
of
recovery
organically.
They
are
reflective
of
the
people
that
they
serve.
F
Many
rcos
operate
community
centers
provide
peer-based
recovery,
housing,
peer
respite
care,
workforce
development
programs,
individualized
peer
support
and
offer
a
place
for
meetings
and
other
groups
group
support
to
autonomously
congregate,
pro-social
events
and
activities,
transportation,
assistance
among
other
supportive
services
and
amenities.
They
are
a
place
for
community
and
social
integration.
F
Peer-Based
recovery
supports
help
break
the
treatment
cycle
and
reduce
recidivism
rates.
It
is
an
evidence-based
practice
that
lowers
the
cost
of
mental
health
services
by
reducing
re-hospitalizations
and
days
spent
in
inpatient
treatment.
Mental
health
america
published
a
white
paper
in
2018
chronicling.
Some
of
this
evidence
here
are
just
a
few
of
those
accounts.
F
Optum
saw
an
80.5
average
reduction
of
inpatient
days
for
individuals
who
had
at
least
two
hospitalizations
on
average
per
year.
The
problem
is
historically
and
currently,
recovery
supports
and
acute
treatment
have
been
thought
of
synonymously.
As
a
result,
we
have
drastically
underfunded
sustainable
post-treatment
community
oriented
services
every
year
through
the
federal
substance,
abuse
block,
grant.
F
F
This
morning
the
white
house
released
the
administration
statement
of
drug
policy
priorities,
advancing
recovery-ready
workplaces
and
expanding
the
addiction
workforce,
along
with
expanding
access
to
recovery
support
services
were
highlighted
as
top
priorities
in
year.
One,
your
support
of
recovery,
community
organizations
and
services
will
save
lives,
reduce
health
care
costs
and
provide
the
ongoing
recovery
infrastructure.
Many
of
us
in
recovery
need
to
stay
well
and
rebuild
our
lives.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
o'donnell,
and
thank
you
for
sharing
your
story
and
for
your
work
in
our
community
assemblywoman
dickman
did.
I
believe
that
you
were
the
only
two
presenting.
Are
you
ready
for
questions,
or
is
there
more
to
your
presentation.
A
Okay,
I
have
a
question
from
assemblyman
yeager.
G
G
So
I
think
right
now
the
money
that
we're
talking
about
essentially
is
distributed,
as
indicated
by
section
two
of
the
bill,
which
is
existing
law,
and
then
it
looks
like
we're
basically
carving
out
15
of
the
money
that's
currently
collected
and
we're
going
to
distribute
that
for
a
peer
recovery
support
services,
as
indicated
on
the
amendment,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
confirmation
that
that's
we're
not
raising
additional
money,
we're
just
reallocating
the
resources
that
are
already
raised
by
the
state.
E
Assemblywoman
dickman
for
the
record
to
us
through
you,
madam
chair,
to
assemblyman
yeager
directly
to
the
member.
Oh
good,
thank
you
because
I
get
all
tongue
tied
over
that.
Yes,
that
is
absolutely
correct.
G
Thank
you
and
then
the
next
question
there's
an
exhibit
up
on
nellis
and
assemblywoman.
I
think
it
has
your
name
on
it,
but
I
don't
know
if
you
prepared
it
or
this
could
be
a
question
for
fiscal.
So
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
amount
of
money
we're
talking
about.
There
are
a
lot
of
numbers
on
the
chart
and
I'm
probably
just
not
reading
it
well,
but
if
you
know
approximately
what
what
amount
of
money
would
the
15
percent
reference.
E
This
actually
came
from
fiscal
and
it's
from
2020.
the
amount
that
would
go.
This
15
that
would
go
to
these
services
would
be
3
235.
Each.
H
G
Thank
you
and
then
just
a
couple
more
madam
chair.
If
I
might
so
the
other
question,
I
have,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
you
know
this
or
not
assemblywoman
dickman,
but
under
the
current
structure
that
exists
with
the
monies
that
are
already
collected.
G
Well,
let
me
ask
it
this
way,
so
we're
going
to
take
15
of
the
money
and
we're
going
to
allocate
it
to
certain
organizations
that
meet
the
requirements
that
are
indicated
in
your
amendment.
Do
we
have
any
idea
on
a
statewide
basis,
how
many
organizations
might
be
eligible,
because
I
noticed
in
the
amendment
in
the
actual
bill
and
the
amendment
they
have
to
be
certified
by
the
division,
and
so
I
guess
the
question
is:
are
they
already
certified
by
the
division,
or
is
this
a
new
process
that's
being
set
up.
E
I'm
not
exactly
sure
of
the
answer
to
that,
but
I
believe
pbh
is,
I
know,
they're
listening
and
I
thought
they
were
going
to
be
on
there.
Maybe
someone
on
the
phone
who
could
probably
answer
that
question
or
possibly
sean.
A
Mr
evans,
are
you.
A
F
Sean
o'donnell
for
the
record
so
I'll
say
currently
mine.
Now,
with
my
knowledge,
there
are
two
recovery
community
organizations
in
the
state
of
nevada.
I
think
the
hope
would
be
that
this
funding
would
be
able
to
expand
these
types
of
services
into
other
populations
across
the
state.
G
G
E
Community
jill
dickman
for
the
record,
apparently
stephanie
woodard,
is
on
the
phone,
but
she
can't
get
through
and
I
think
she
would
have
she's
from
dvdh.
She
might
have
that
answer.
E
G
B
It
just
seems
where
you're
stating
the
3.2
million
goes
to
this
fund.
It
seems
like
that,
isn't
quite
right,
because
the
top
section
of
the
table,
the
amount
that
is
collected
for
over
22
percent
alcohol
volume,
is
the
3.9
million
and
of
that
amount.
3.2
million
goes
to
the
general
fund
and
then
some
to
the
counties
and
some
to
the
other
account.
So
is
it
actually
15
of
the
3.2
million
and
then,
of
course,
on
the
bottom
is
a
breakdown
of
the
total
collection.
E
B
E
A
Clarification
thanks:
we've
got
a
question
from
an
assemblywoman
from
the
vice
chair.
Vice
chair,
bernius,
thompson.
I
If
I
could
have
tell
me
if
I'm
right
or
wrong
or
might
just
too
far
left
or
right-
and
I
okay,
so
I
know
staff
will
go
through
the
table.
I
think
what
I'm
just
trying
to
think
is.
It
looks
like
right
now
that
the
annual
amount
that
goes
into
this
program
is
about
164
000.
So
what
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
was.
It
was
fifteen
percent
of
the
three
point,
two
million
so
getting
us
just
to
around
485
000.
I
That
would
be
more
than
double
than
what
is
going
into
the
program
right
now,
and
so
I
would
if
that's
where
you
were
landing,
assemblywoman
dickman.
If
your
goal
was
to
try
to
dump
like
ideally
double
the
amount
or
I
think
a
better
question
would
be
why
15
percent?
Why
not
10?
Why
not
5?
Why
not
20.
15.
E
I
Okay,
so
I'm
sorry,
so
thank
you
so
that
is
3.2,
so
we'd
be
going
from
the
status
quo.
Right
now
is
about
162
000,
and
then
it
would
go
up
to
3.2
million
correct
okay,
and
so
I
guess
then
the
same
question:
the
rationale
behind
15
percent,
why
3.2
million
is
sweet
spot
and
not
just
a
doubling
of
the
number
or
a
tripling
of
the
number.
E
Well,
assemblywoman
dickman
for
the
record
sean.
Do
you
want
to
address
that?
I
just
for
me.
It
was
you
know.
I
would
have
liked
to
ask
for
more
honestly,
but
with
our
financial
situation
and
our
economy
in
such
poor
shape,
I
thought
that
might
be
a
reasonable
number
to
start,
but
sean
do
you
have
any
other
thoughts
on
that.
F
Yeah
sean
o'donnell
for
the
record,
so
I
I
can
say
that
I
can't
speak
specifically
to
the
reason
behind
the
methodology
for
coming
up
with
15
but,
as
I
had
explained
in
my
testimony,
just
the
amount
of
funding
that's
currently
going
towards
other
services.
You
know
3.2
million
dollars
going
towards
building
out
this
necessary
infrastructure
in
the
state
of
nevada
to
support
recovery,
origin
systems
of
care
when
we've
just
been
hit.
You
know
by
a
terrible
public
health
crisis
and
you
know:
nevadans
are
struggling
with
with
mental
health
and
substance.
F
Use
I
mean
really.
3.2
million
dollars
could
could
go
a
long
way,
a
lot
farther
with
recovery
community-based
services
than
going
into
clinical
care.
So
I
think
that
15
is
reasonable.
Again,
I
can't
speak
to
the
methodology
behind
coming
up
with
that
number.
I
I
know-
and
I
I
I
appreciate
that
and
and
I
and
I
I
love
the
the
merit
of
the
spill,
I
have
absolutely
no
qualms
with
it.
I
think
it's
really
important.
I
think
I'm
eager
for
tax
staff
to
walk
us
through
this,
because
I
think
I
did
confuse
the
number.
I
think
I
I
think
I
was
looking
at
the
15
and
representing
that
as
a
status
quo,
but
I'm
not
sure
so.
I
know
I'll.
I
Let
staff
play
kind
of
clean
up
on
that,
but
I
guess
what
I
wanted
to
say
was
typically
when
we
look
at
how
how
we
might
fund
a
program
we
would
say
well,
is
there
a
wait
list
and
then
what
would
it
take
to
cover
that
wait
list?
Or
is
there
a
you
know
a
capital
project
in
an
expansion,
and
so
typically,
if
there's
a
number,
there's,
usually
a
target
associated
with
it.
So
that's
why
I
was
asking
about
the
15.
I
didn't
know.
I
A
So
so
I
think
right
now:
let's
have
the
tax
staff
walk
us
through
the
table
and
and
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page.
J
Thank
you,
madam
sheriff,
for
the
record
russell
guindon
principal
deputy
physical
analyst,
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division,
and
so
this
was
work
product
that
was
created
for
assemblywoman,
dickman
per
request
and
so
I'll
assume
I've
been
released
from
my
code
of
conduct
since
it's
now
in
the
public
domain
and
there's
all
kinds
of
questions
being
asked
about
it
to
be
able
to
discuss
it.
J
So
someone
dickman
asked
me
when,
with
the
construct
that
which
is
working
on,
and
so
there
were
different
scenarios
put
together
for
her
consideration
in
terms
of
the
percentages.
J
Just
for
that,
since
that
question
has
come
up,
and
so
then
it
was
obviously
then
assemblywoman
dickman's
decision,
and
so
this
is
the
one
that
was
chosen
for
the
bill
and
so
the
table
just
to
walk
to
a
little
bit
is
it
may
have
more
information
than
was
necessary
for
the
request,
but
to
just
have
it
there
with
you
can
see
the
it
gives
you
an
overview
of
the
liquor
tax
that
there's
four
different
types,
the
rates
and
then
the
actual
gallons
from
fy
2020
and
then
the
tax
receipts
from
those
gallons
and
then,
where
they're
distributed
and
so
based
on
the
the
direction
to
staff
from
the
sun
dickman.
J
We
we're
looking
at
the
the
over
22
percent
since
there's
a
portion
of
that
already
being
distributed
to
the
liquor
tax
program
account.
So
at
the
on
the
line
there.
That
says
over
2022
at
the
in
the
top
block
that
that
26.3
million
dollars,
that's
the
total
tax
receipts,
and
so
then
you
can
see
in
column.
I
that's
I'm
just
showing
showed
her
15
of
all
the
different
taxes,
so
she'd
have
an
idea
of
what
the
15
percent
meant
for
any
one
of
the
four
revenue
sources.
J
So
then,
down
in
the
middle
block,
title
breakdown
of
over
22
percent,
that's
showing
how
that
26.3
million
dollars
is
actually
distributed
under
current
law
in
column,
f
and
then
the
percent
breakouts
in
column
g
and
so
then,
again
in
column,
I
you're
seeing
15
of
those
amounts
so
that
again
allow
the
assembly
women
to
see
the
dynamics
of
where
you
could
decide
to
take
fifteen
percent
up
so,
as
has
been
stated
here
by
siloam
dickman,
the
amount
that
would
be
redirected
from
being
deposited
in
the
state
general
fund
to
the
account
and
program
that
assignment
dickman
is
proposing
in
her
bill
is
indeed
the
cell.
J
That's
highlighted
in
green
there
under
column
I
so
it
would
be
the
3.2
million
dollars
they
had
this
been
in
place
at
fy
2020.
That
would
have
been
directed
to
this
program
being
proposed
in
the
bill
versus
being
deposited
in
the
general
fund,
and
so
hopefully
that
answers
the
question
and
explains
the
table.
It's
just
one
of
those
things
that
when
I
was
putting
together,
I
was
showing
all
the
pieces,
because
that
was
the
direction
of
the
request
from
a
seminar,
dickman
and
then
her
using
the
table.
J
A
A
If
anyone
wants
to
ask
those
questions
of
mr
gindin,
so
the
next
person
on
the
list
is
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
thank.
H
You,
madam
chair
for
the
question,
so
I'm
looking
at
this
bill
and
I'm
looking
at
section
2
sub
subsection.
Well
I'll
just
say
it's!
The
very
last
line
41
on
in
administrative
and
personnel
costs
related
to
the
grants
with
two
organizations
who
are
currently
able
to
receive
these
grants
and
the
amount
being
3.2
million.
H
I
just
am
wondering
if
that's
not
some
a
little
too
ambiguous
to
say
that
we
can
use
some
for
administration.
I
know
in
my
life
as
working
on
grants
in
grant
writing,
at
least
in
the
federal
level,
they're
very,
very,
very
specific,
on
what
can
be
used
for
personnel
administrative.
I
mean
it
really
has
to
be
direct
services
for
most
things
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
that's
not
a
little
ambiguous
and-
and
maybe
you
can
speak
to
the
intent
of
that.
E
Assemblywoman
dickman
for
the
record,
and
thank
you
for
that
question:
assemblywoman
billbray
axelrod.
That
is
actually
money
that
will
be
taken
out
of
the
funds
that
will
that
dpbh
will
be
able
to
use
for
their
administrative
costs,
because
this
money
ultimately
is
allocated
to
dpbh
and
then
they
will
allocate
it
but
to
the
organizations,
and
so
they
may
need
additional
staff
in
order
to
administer
this.
But
if
they
do,
it
will
be
paid
for
out
of
what
we
are
already
asking
for.
H
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
sean
think
you
could
probably
best
answer
this
question.
First,
congratulations
on
some
very,
very
hard
work
on
what
you've
done
over
the
last
several
years
and
putting
this
together
with
assemblyman,
particularly
presenting
it
I'm
going
to
try
to
keep
it
simple
for
the
3.2
mill.
What's
our
return
on
the
investment,
do
we
have
any
statistics
on
recidivism
more
people
such
as
sean
that
will
be
coming
out
some
numbers
to
tell
me
what
I'm
buying.
F
Yeah
absolutely
sean
o'donnell
for
the
record.
That
is
an
excellent
question.
Assemblyman
o'neil,
as
I
had
mentioned
in
my
testimony
and
assemblywoman
dickman,
had
mentioned
in
hers.
These
community-based
services
have
greatly
alleviated
re-entries
into
hospital-based
programs,
more
costly,
inpatient
programs,
lowered
recidivism
rates
and
they've
been
a
great
cost
savings
for
for
many
different
organizat,
I'm
sorry
states
and
local
communities.
F
K
I
apologize
that's
what
I
was
looking
for
some
numbers,
because
you
said
that
they
have
been
successful.
I
was
just
trying
to
get
some
numbers
for
us
to
help
us
understand
a
little
better
on
what
the
ex
the
return
of
investment
is
for
us.
F
Sure
and
I
think
sean
o'donnell
for
the
record,
you
know,
depending
on
where
we're
looking
at
those
numbers,
if
that
is
the
cost
of
recidivism
or
re-entry
into
hospital
programs
or
inpatient,
it
definitely
differs,
but
on
some
of
the
studies
that
that
we
know
have
been
done
and
as
I
had
mentioned
in
my
testimony,
I
mean
arizona,
arizona
based
organization
that
had
started
to
implement
three
community-based
recovery
services
had
seen
a
great
reduction
in
hospital
readmissions,
pierce
county
and
washington,
reduced
involuntary
hospitalization
by
32
percent,
which
led
to
a
cost
savings
of
about
2
million
dollars
in
just
a
single
year
for
hospital
re
admissions,
and
I
know
two
assembly
women
dickman
had
mentioned
some
studies
from
the
behavioral
health
department
at
michigan
state
university.
F
I
don't
have
those
on
hand,
but
I
know
that
there
are
many
many
many
studies
I'd
be
happy
to
share
them
with
the
committee
after
after
today's
hearing
as
well.
E
K
And
I
can
understand
that
something
different
being
chairman
of
our
salvation
army
here
in
carson
city.
We
have
programs
that
we
worked
on,
but
we
still
have
to
look
at
some
of
the
costs.
We
have
to
be
able
to
compare
some
of
that
to
make
sure
what
we're
doing
is
appropriate
and,
as
mrs
bilbray
axelrod
said,
I'm
the
federal
grants
you
always
have
to
have
performance
measurements
on
it
and
be
able
to
give
those
so
to
sustain
some
of
your
grant
monies.
So
I
really
appreciate
it
look
forward
to
some
of
that
information,
though.
D
I
don't
know
if
it's
on
the
chart.
Thank
you,
chair
cohen.
I
don't
know
if
it's
from
the
chart
or
if
it
is
something
for
mr
gideon
didn't
excuse
me
just
in
general,
what
percentage
is
currently
used
for
the
education
program
such
as
this?
I
realize
that
it's
not
set
in
statute,
but
from
the
current
language.
It
sounds
like
when
there's
excess,
it's
supposed
to
utilize
nests
in
that
case,
so
is
there
currently
a
percentage
that
is
known
that
it's
used
for
these
programs.
J
J
What
you
see
in
shown
there
in
the
middle
block,
is
all
of
the
liquor
tax
for
the
malt
beverages,
the
half
of
a
percent
to
14
percent
and
over
14
percent
to
22
over
22
percent,
or
excuse
me
up
to
22.
You
can
see
in
college
all
those
proceeds
are
dedicated
to
the
state
general
fund,
so
there
is
no
redistribution
of
the
proceeds
from
those
three
taxes
on
liquor.
So
it
is
only
the
portion
of
the
liquor
text.
That's
on
liquor!
J
That's
over
22
alcohol
by
volume
that
has
the
distribution
provisions
shown
there
in
the
middle
block
of
the
table
and
so
thus
of
the
3.60
per
gallon
rate
to
2.95
cents
of
it
goes
to
the
general
fund.
50
cents
of
it
is
distributed
to
local
governments
through
the
sea
tax
distribution
formula
and
then
the
15
cents
currently
goes
to
the
tax
and
liquor
program
account
for
use
for
those
programs.
So
that
amount
that's
shown
there
that
approximately
in
column
f
approximately
1.1
million
dollars
to
109.621.
J
D
Thank
you,
and
I
I
did
mean
the
education
programs
for
exactly
that
assembly
member
dickman
is
bringing
forward.
I
did
not
mean
school
k-12
education
programs-
sorry
about
that,
this
misunderstanding
for
that
one.
But
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
So
if
I'm
understanding
correctly,
then
the
chart
is
currently
it's
utilizing,
a
tax
rate
or
a
money,
a
specific
amount
of
money
or
dollars
cents,
and
now
this
bill
is
proposing
to
change
that
to
a
percentage
instead.
In
addition
to,
if
I'm
understanding
this
correctly.
J
Yeah,
yes,
that's
correct
again
for
the
record
russell
again
with
the
fiscal,
announce
division
that
and
I
apologize
when
I
hear
education.
It's
a
literal
translation
for
me,
so
I
apologize
for
that.
So
yes,
under
current
law,
it's
the
15
cents
per
gallon
of
the
alcohol
over
22.
That's
currently
dedicated.
J
So
then
this
it
would
be
then
allocating
15
of
the
an
additional
15
percent
of
the
2.95
ray,
which
I
believe
and
that's
actually.
I
think
mr
nakamoto
put
that
in
the
bill
explanation.
So,
while
I'm
saying
about
talking
about
it,
just
that
you'll
have
it
for
reference,
that
would
be
then
an
additional
44
cents
of
the
liquor
tax
on
that
has
over
22
percent
alcohol
by
volume
would
be
dedicated
to
this
program
in
some
women
dickman's
bill.
So
that's
how
we
would
see
taxation
administer
this.
J
That
and
and
that's
you
can
see,
sort
of
the
languages
that's
being
phrased
in
the
bill
that
you
would
end
up
now,
saying.
Basically
sorry,
I'm
doing
the
math
that.
J
2.51
cents
of
that
3.60
rate
would
be
going
to
the
general
fund.
The
50
cents
would
continue
to
go
to
the
local
governments
for
distribution
to
the
sea
tax.
The
15
cents
would
continue
to
go
to
the
liquor
tax
program.
Account
is
under
current
law,
and
then
there
there'd
be
this
44
cent
rate.
That
would
be
the
proceeds
from
that
would
be
dedicated
to
the
purpose
specified
in
assemblywoman
dickman's
bill.
That
would
really
so
in
a
sense.
J
D
A
We
apparently
dr
woodard
is
on
the
phone
and
I
think
we're
trying
to
get
her
into
the
meeting.
Dr
whittaker
you're.
Not
there.
Yet
are
you
okay?
She
was
also
given
the
zoom
length,
so
I
thought
maybe
she
checked
in
okay.
So,
while
we're
trying
to
get
dr
woodard
on
the
phone,
I
I
have
a
question
about
the
section
two
and
the
new
grant
program
or
changing
the
grant
program.
A
I
guess
I
should
say
so
is:
is
this
language
changing
the
or
hamstringing
dhhs
from
other
programs
they
might
want
to
do
because
the
way
I
read
it
is
this
is
utilizing
all
of
the
money
that's
set
up
in
the
account
in
nrs
369.1.
E
A
E
Assemblywoman
dickman
for
the
record.
That
would
be
my
intent.
I
would
like
to
give
it
to
sean.
The
thing
is:
there's
already
so
much
money
spent
on
these
other
services.
It's
the
pure
recovery
services
that
don't
get
funded
and
they're.
The
programs
that
really
do
the
most
to
keep
people
from
going
back
is
what
I
would
say,
but
sean
would
you
be
able
to
add
a
little
to
that.
F
Yeah
sean
o'donnell
for
the
record-
that's
absolutely
right.
Originally
the
bill
was
written
with
tax
that
would
provide
additional
funding
for
detoxification
and
treatment
again.
Looking
at
that
acute
care
model,
and
our
hope
was
that
funding,
because
prevention,
intervention
and
treatment
already
received
so
much
funding
that
there
would
be
more
funding
available
for
those
community-based
services
on
the
back
end.
F
So
once
someone
is
stabilized
and
goes
through
that
continuum
of
care,
they
can
come
out
on
the
other
end
and
start
you
know,
more
programs
would
be
available
for
them
to
start
to
be
able
to
rebuild
their
lives,
connect
with
the
community
of
other
peers.
You
know
partner
and
work
within
workforce
development
programs
receive
transportation
assistance.
All
of
these
things
aren't
typical
community-based
services
that
clinical
treatment
providers
provide,
and
I
also
wanted
to
make
a
correction
to
an
earlier
statement
that
I
made
earlier.
F
If
I
may,
when
I
had
said
that
there
are
two
organizations
currently
doing
this
work,
I
wanted
to
clarify
that
there
are
two
organizations
that
I'm
aware
of
that
consider
themselves:
recovery,
community
organizations
or
rcos.
But
there
are
many
many
other
organizations
in
the
state
that
are
providing
these
community-based
peer
recovery
support
services,
whom
I
believe
would
be
eligible
to
receive.
This
funding
as
well
and
dpph
when
they're
on
can
clarify
that.
A
And
luckily
dr
woodard
is,
is
here
with
us
now
on
the
zoom,
so
dr
woodard,
can
you
clarify?
I
don't
know
if
you
heard
the
last
question,
but
can
you
clarify
that.
L
So
let
me
make
sure
I
understand
the
question.
The
question
was:
is
there
some
significant
limitations
that
this
would
pose
for
the
division
because
of
the
requirement
that
the
dollars
go
to
recovery
in
recovery
communities?
Is
that
correct.
A
Yes,
although
I'd
say
more
specifically
the
way
it's
written
in
the
amendment
so
that
it's
not
just
recovery
community,
it's
not
just
the
recovery
realm,
but
the
peer
recovery
support
services
by
recovery,
community
organizations.
L
So
stephanie
woodard
for
the
record.
I
don't
think
so.
One
of
the
important
things
about
the
funding
that
would
be
allocated
through
these
dollars
is
that,
while
some
of
our
grants
do
and
and
absolutely
encourage,
are
the
use
of
those
funds
for
recovery
support
services,
what
this
would
do
would
be
allow
us
to
have
some
real
sustainability
on
the
back
end
of
some
of
those
grants.
L
As
you
know,
many
of
the
grants
that
we
get
tend
to
be
in
two
to
three
year
allocations
without
a
lot
of
sustainability
on
the
back
end,
so
having
these
funds
specifically
available
to
continue
some
of
the
great
work
that
we
can
initiate
with
some
of
our
grant
funds
to
ensure
that
we
don't
lose
these
programs
when
we
lose
grant
funding
would
be
vitally
important,
especially
because
so
many
individuals
really
do
come
to
depend
on
the
existence
of
these
services
in
the
community.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
we
appreciate
you
being
here.
Is
there
any
before
I
see
if
there
are
any
questions
for
you?
Do
you
have
a
statement
you'd
like
to
make
or
any
other
information
you'd
like
to
give.
L
I
believe
there
were
some
other
questions
earlier
that
I
wasn't
able
to
get
through
on
the
phone.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
of
those
questions.
Now
I
apologize
for
the
technical
difficulties
but
happy
to
be
able
to
join
you
on
zoom.
D
Thank
you,
chair
challenge,
just
a
quick
question.
If
this
were
to
how
are
you,
how
are
grants
utilized
or
decided
upon
at
this
time
through
your
department?
Are
they
done
competitively?
Are
they
done
based
upon
locales?
Is
it
a
consideration
of
need
and
also
past
practices?
L
Stephanie
woodard
for
the
record,
it's
a
great
question.
Some
of
it
depends
on
the
federal
funding
and,
what's
stipulated
by
the
federal
government
in
our
notice
of
funding,
opportunity
and
our
award,
but
for
the
most
part,
what
ends
up
happening
is
that
the
state
is
required
to
have
a
state
plan
where
we
identify
using
data
where
some
of
the
greatest
needs
and
gaps
are.
L
Certainly
that
includes
doing
a
crosswalk
to
medicaid
to
ensure
that
we
are
funding
two
services
that
are
not
duplicative
of
what
medicaid
covers,
or
we
are
funding
services
that
are
covered
by
medicaid
for
those
who
are
uninsured
or
underinsured.
So
that's
typically
the
way
that
we
gear
our
funding.
L
In
addition
to
that,
we
do
competitive,
competitive
notices
to
the
community.
Certainly,
government
entities
are
also
eligible,
most
of
the
time
to
be
able
to
compete
for
these
dollars.
L
So
we
typically
roll
out
competitive
rfas
by
funding
stream
to
make
sure
that
we
are
soliciting
the
most
competitive
applications
available
to
meet
the
needs
in
the
communities.
A
K
Sure
I
was
just
thinking:
do
we
have
legal
with
this?
I
maybe
I
should
recuse
myself
with
some
of
this,
since
I
do
sit
on
the
board
salvation
army
and
could
be
involved
in
requesting
or
applying
for
these
grant
money.
A
So
assemblyman
o'neill,
we
don't
have
legal
with
us,
but
we're
not
taking
any
action
right
now
today.
So
I
so
I
think
that's
something
if
you
want
to
discuss
that
with
legal,
you
certainly
can
and
have
information
before
any
further
actions
taken.
If.
A
K
L
So
stephanie
woodard
for
the
record
actually
over
the
last
few
years.
One
of
the
requirements
for
some
of
our
federal
funding
is
to
ensure
that
faith-based
organizations
are
not
only
con
included
in
the
planning
but
are
eligible
for
funds.
There
are
no
current
restrictions
on
a
faith-based
organizations,
making
use
of
this
specific
fund
of
money,
and
so,
unless
the
legislature
decided
to
stipulate
some
type
of
limitation
in
the
statute.
L
K
A
Thank
you
and
I
I'd
certainly
suggest
that
you
don't
need
to
wait
until
we
have
legal
at
a
hearing.
You
can
reach
out
to
them
whenever
it's
convenient
for
you,
okay,
so
do
we,
I
don't
think
I'm
seeing
any
other
questions,
but
just
double
checking
all
right.
Assemblywoman
dickman.
Would
you
do
you?
Have
anyone
else
who's
testifying
or
can
we
go
to
support.
A
M
A
Thank
you
bps
with
that,
I
will
call
up
assemblywoman
dickman.
Excuse
me
if
you'd
like
to
make
any
closing
remarks.
E
I
also
like
to
thank
dr
woodard
and
mr
gindin
for
their
help
in
figuring
out
how
to
pull
this
bill
together,
but
I
also
especially
want
to
thank
mr
o'donnell,
because
I
learned
a
lot
of
several
months
ago
about
this
issue
and
he's
been
incredible
in
helping
me
to
understand
the
needs
that
we
have.
E
A
Thank
you,
and
with
that
I
will
bring
the
hearing
to
an
end
and
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
435,
which
revises
provisions
governing
the
commerce
tax
and
welcome
steve
hill,
and
I
believe,
we're
also
having
presenting
is
bethany
khan.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
N
Thank
you
check
on
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
steve
hill,
I'm
the
ceo
and
president
of
the
las
vegas
convention
and
visitors
authority.
I
appreciate
you
hearing
this
bill
today
and
allowing
me
to
present
it
and
you'll
hear
from
some
supporters
later.
I
just
want
to
thank
them
for
their
work
on
this
bill
as
well,
and
particularly
the
the
culinary
union
and
the
work
that
they've
done
on
this.
N
I
was
a
part
of
that
process,
testifying
on
that
bill
and
during
the
planning
of
that
bill,
at
least
from
the
executive
branch,
there
was
a
recognition
that
the
meetings
and
convention
industry
was
exceptionally
important
to
nevada,
and
that
was
really
what
generated
the
inclusion
of
sub-paragraph
and
in
section
one
of
this
bill
into
that
language.
The
intent
at
the
time
was
to
make
sure
that
those
who
participated
in
a
trade
show
or
a
meeting
or
a
convention
we're
not
subject
to
the
commerce
tax.
N
N
N
N
But
the
pandemic
has
really
shown
how
important
that
industry
is
to
both
the
economic
and
fiscal
health
of
the
state
and
many
of
its
citizens,
as
you
may
be
aware,
as
we
have
relied
on
virtually
entirely
on
the
leisure
traveler
since
the
pandemic
started,
and
you
can
see
the
difference
in
occupancy
with
just
leisure
travelers
here
between
weekends
and
weekdays,
that
difference
has
been
pretty
consistently
about
30
percent
occupancy
difference,
regardless
of
the
health
of
the
market.
N
Now
that
things
are
more
healthy,
both
physically
and
economically,
weekends
are
pretty
strong,
friday
and
saturday
nights
we're
seeing
our
weekends
back
into
the
80
plus
percent
range,
but
the
other
five
days
of
the
week
are
still
in
that
50
percent
range
and
that
difference
is
due
to
not
having
meetings
and
conventions
currently
in
the
destination.
We
hope
that
starts
to
pick
up.
N
It
brings
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
a
year
in
tax
revenue,
both
at
a
state
and
local
level,
and
it
is
responsible
for
tens
of
thousands
of
jobs,
and
so
the
recovery
of
that
industry
is
very
important
to
us,
and
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
there
are
no
obstacles
that
we
can
remove
in
the
way
of
that
industry
recovery.
N
A
Thank
you,
mr
hill.
Is
miss
khan
going
to
speak
first
or
do
you
want
to
take
start
with
questions
now.
N
I
I'm
happy
to
wait
until
ms
khan
speaks.
A
Okay,
why
don't
you
go
ahead?
Please
miss
con
hi.
O
I'm
bethany
khan,
with
the
culinary
union.
I
represent
the
culinary
union
as
a
spokeswoman,
so
the
culinary
union
supports
assembly
bill.
435
nevada
is
slowly
recovering
from
this
unprecedented
covid19
pandemic
and
hospitality.
Workers
are
now
eligible
for
the
covid
19
vaccine
and
we've
seen
tourism
levels
increase.
Thousands
of
culinary
union
members
were
furloughed
from
their
jobs.
Actually
98
of
the
60
000
members
that
we
represent
were
furloughed
from
their
jobs
for
months
and
as
of
today,
if
only
about
50
of
the
60
000
members
we
represent
are
back
to
work.
A
G
Thank
you
so
much
madam
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
hill
and
miss
khan.
You
know
I
was
in
the
building
in
2015,
but
not
as
an
elected
official,
so
I
obviously
knew
that
the
discussions
around
the
commerce
texts
were
happening,
but
I
wasn't
intimately
involved
in
them.
So
you
know
my
question
was
just
sort
of
this
language.
Obviously,
that
is
in
front
of
us
the
existing
language.
G
I
was
sort
of
vetted
through
that
process
and-
and
I
understand
we're
wanting
to
make
some
changes,
and
it
sounds
like
mostly
due
to
the
need
to
have
an
economic
recovery
on
the
strip
and
get
people
back
to
work
with
certainly
a
laudable
goal.
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
sort
of
shed
any
more
light
sort
of
beyond
that
goal,
which
again
is
a
good
one,
why?
You
know
why
we
didn't
include
these
sort
of
exemptions
in
the
original
commerce
bill.
If
you
have
insight
on
that,
I
know
it
was.
G
N
Assemblyman
steve
hill-
I
I
can
shed
light
on
the
intent
that
was
put
forward
by
the
executive
branch.
You
know
once
it
gets
to
the
legislature.
I
really
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
63
legislators,
who
were
there
at
the
time,
but
it
was
our
intent
on
that.
N
What
we
are
recommending
today
was
really
what
was
said
in
this
paragraph
at
the
time
so,
but
that
has
then
since
then,
over
the
last
18
months
or
so
been
questioned
and
shown
that
we
just
apparently
we're
not
clear
enough
with
the
language
to
express
the
intent
from
2015,
but
we're
really
not
trying
to
change
the
intent
of
at
least
what
the
executive
branch
was
looking
at
in
the
2015
session.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
so
so,
mr
hill,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we're
clear
so
you're
saying
this
is
the
intent
to
the
executive
and
not
the
you're,
not
speaking
for
the
legislature.
At
the
time.
A
Okay,
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
have
a
clear
record.
I
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
consider.
A
N
Assemblywoman,
steve
hill:
we
do
not
have
that
estimate
yet
then
I
maybe
should
explain
that
this
tax
has
not
been
collected
over
the
last
six
years
from
this
industry,
in
keeping
with
what
we
think
the
intent
of
that
bill
was
that
has
questions
have
come
up
around
that,
so
that
that
conversation
is
happening
right
now,
so
from
a
looking
at
historical
revenue,
that's
been
generated
by
the
con
commerce
tax
and
your
fiscal
staff
can
certainly
either
verify
this
or
correct
me,
but
in
looking
at
what
has
been
collected
and
what
has
been
budgeted
into
the
next
year,
I
don't
think
this
bill
would
have
an
impact
on
that
economic
forum
process
the
the
specific
amount
of
this
tax.
N
Assemblywoman
steve
hill-
I
guess
it
depends
on
how
you
ask
that
question.
If
it
were
to
be
collected
in
the
future,
there
would
be
revenue.
Obviously,
as
a
result
of
that,
I
will
say
that,
given
the
importance
and
the
size
of
this
industry
and
the
impact
that
it
the
fiscal
impact
that
it
has
in
generating
tax
revenue
in
any
number
of
different
ways,
even
losing
a
small
portion
of
that
industry
here
in
nevada,
I
think,
would
pretty
easily
offset
the
level
of
taxation.
N
I
I
will
give
you
one
example:
one
of
our
largest
customers
and
the
largest
show
organizer
in
the
world
is
in
this
conversation
right
now
they
bring
about
half
a
billion
dollars
a
year,
an
economic
impact.
I
don't
know
exactly
what
that
translates
into
in
other
taxes,
but
the
tax
bill
for
them.
For
that
same
time,
frame
for
the
commerce
tax
is
about
130.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
mine.
Similarly,
constantine.
C
Kind
of
covered
it,
and
basically
it's
my
understanding
that
yeah
this
this
tax
has
never
been
collected
on.
These
really
need
that
midweek
travel
and
we
definitely
don't
want
to
deter
because
we're
competing
with
states
like
texas
and
florida
for
convention
business,
and
so
my
question
to
you:
is
those
states:
don't
have
this
kind
of
tax
on
their
convention
ears?
Do
they.
N
We
don't
want
to
poke
this
industry
in
the
eye
at
this
point,
didn't
then-
and
it's
I
think,
even
more
so
now
and
in
consideration
of
the
fact
that
they're
here
on
a
very
temporary
basis
and
leave
and
provide
such
a
meaningful,
both
economic
impact,
job
creation
and
tax
generation
already.
I
think
that
was
part
of
the
rationale
then,
and
that's
more
important.
Now.
C
Thank
you
for
the
answer,
and
it
certainly
makes
sense
and
I'll
support
you
in
this
endeavor.
A
Thank
you,
mr
hill,
though,
when
we're
talking
about
other
states,
they
have
other
taxes
right
that
we
don't
necessarily
have
it's
more
clear
that
that
would
affect
a
company
that
is,
that
is
producing
the
a
a
trade
show,
etc.
A
Yes,
okay,
I
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
bilberry
axelrod.
Thank
you.
H
Madam
chair,
so
I
just
have
a
question
so
these
the
the
folks
that
you
put
in
here
to
be
part
of
the
exemption
have
never
we've
never
taxed
them
for
the
last
six
years.
So
this-
and
I
guess
I'm
I'm
questioning
why
I
is
that-
was
that
a
determination
by
the
department
of
taxation
was
there.
Was
there
a
legal
question
that
that
brought
that
and
and
then
is
the
intent
of
this
bill
just
to
clarify
that?
H
Well,
maybe
they
should
be
included,
and
I
just
I
I
guess
I'm
just
wondering
who
made
that
determination
that
they
were
not
going
to
be
added.
N
The
interpretation
that
I
we
feel
is
what
the
original
language
in
the
bill
or
in
the
block
called
out,
has
been
interpreted
by
the
industry
throughout
those
six
years
as
excluding
them
from
this
form
of
tax
that
the
tax
department
called
that
into
question.
As
I
said
just
before
the
pandemic
a
few
months
before
the
pandemic
and
was
kind
of
put
on
hold
through
that
process.
H
N
My
understanding
suddenly
on
this
steve
hill
is
that
the
the
tax
department
has
at
least
with
this
one
company
determined
their
auditor
determined
that
they
owe
this
tax
on.
The
company
is
appealing
that
decision
and
that
process
is
ongoing.
A
Mr
hill,
that
that
one
company
does
have
have
conventions
scheduled
in
las
vegas
for
the
next
year
to
now
correct,
correct.
N
I'm
chair,
cohen,
steve
hill.
Yes,
they
do.
A
I
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
some
things.
So
this
is
really
specific.
When
you
are
talking
about
the
description
and
paragraph
and
when
we
set
up
the
commerce
tax,
we
were
very
careful
to
try
to
line
up
everything
by
nasic
codes.
So
would
it
be
then,
that
when
we
are
looking
at
this,
we
want
to
consider
everyone
who's
in
that
561
basic
code.
I
I
N
Assemblywoman
steve
hill-
that
was
the
example
for
that
one
company.
Yes,
for
that.
I
One
okay,
so
I
just
I
want
to
know
I
I'm
trying
to
think
of
scope
here.
Are
we
talking,
and
I
guess
that's
why
I
asked
about
the
nasa
code,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out.
Are
we
talking
about
one
particular
tax
payer?
Are
we
talking
about
a
whole
class
of
taxpayers
under
five
six
one,
because
I
don't,
I
guess
I
don't
have
a
way
to
judge
like
the
impact
or
the
the
breadth
of
what
this
would
be
without.
I
I
Okay,
so
I
think
then,
if
we're,
I
think
I
might
want
some
help
from
tax
staff
just
kind
of
put
it
in
the
parking
lot,
not
necessarily
right
now
on
what
that
looks
like
just
so
that
we
have
a
good
idea
of
what
kind
of
I
guess
what
that
would
look
like
for
the
state
to
say
clearly
with
this
code.
I
You
would
be
exempt
from
this.
I
don't
know,
maybe
right
now
we
have
a
mix
and
that
code
is
larger
than
what
we're.
Thinking
of
so.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we're
looking
at
our
statute,
language
and
the
codes
and
how
congruent
they
are.
I
think
the
other
question
I
had
is,
I
think,
with
that
example
of
a
hundred
and
thirty
five
thousand
dollars
of
commerce
tax
due
working,
the
math
backwards
and
staff.
I
think
included
for
us
a
chart
on
commerce
tax
to
help
think
about.
I
I
Okay
and
then
so,
we
specifically
want
to
say
that
for
that
we
don't
want
to
apply
that
concept
of
a
commerce
tax,
on
economic
benefit
or
for
that
company.
That
would
make
more
than
not
do
more
than
92
million
dollars
of
grocery
of
a
new
business
in
a.
N
I
Okay
and
so-
and
I
I
wanna
I'm
listening
to
the
hearing,
I
too
asked
about
the
legislative
history
because,
as
as
you
probably
remember,
there
were
a
couple
of
different
tax
proposals.
I
think
four
bit
big
different
tax
proposals
and
I
want
to
say
I
sat
through
more
than
30
hours,
total
of
tax
hearings
among
tax
proposals
that
year.
So
I
think
the
great
thing
about
the
legislative
record
is
it's
not
just
one
individual
person's
recollection,
because,
my
goodness
that
would
be
bad.
I
I
it
was
getting
pretty
blurry
and
I
think
we
were
doing
late
nights
and
then
long
saturdays
and
we
had
assembly
committees
and
then
committees
of
the
whole.
So
I
often
say
after
session
ends.
It's
not
that
I
don't
remember
what
I
did.
I
don't
necessarily
always
remember,
which
version
stuck
right,
and
so
knowing
that
we
saw
so
many
different
versions.
I
I
think
that
this
is
a
fair
question
to
ask:
was
paragraph
and
written
as
contemplated,
and
so
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
for
staff
to
let
us
know
kind
of
what
the
legislative
record
reflects
and
the
dialogue
and
conversation
on
paragraph
end,
because
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
for
me
and
my
recollections
of
things
I
think
the
the
other
piece
of
it
is
is
you
know
I've
been
sensitive
to
other
legislation
where
we
talk
about
changes
to
the
commerce
tax,
because
the
effective
tax
rate
is
is
very
low
and,
and
we
made
it
that
way
on
purpose
kind
of
thinking.
I
N
N
That's
how
they
we
have
read
that
paragraph
for
the
last
number
of
years
to
then
impose
what
they
would
feel
now
is
imposing
a
tax
on
them
in
the
middle
of
what
has
been
you
know,
the
worst
situation
they
they
have
not
been
able
to
be
in
generate
revenue
in
the
past
12
13
months
is,
I
think,
sends
the
wrong
message
from
the
state
to
that
industry
when
we
are
in
desperate
need
of
that
industry
to
recover
right
now,.
I
I
appreciate
that
it
sounds
like
there
was
a
tax
assessment
and
it
sounds
like
that
tax
assessment-
I
think
I
heard
you
say-
is
being
contemplated
or
kind
of
playing
out
through
that
that
taxation
process,
where
someone
a
taxpayer,
disputes
an
assessment
that
they've
received.
I
I
think,
if
I'm
right,
if
I
remember
from
what
my
history
has
been,
is
those
those
audits
on
taxpayers
are
typically
running
a
couple
years
in
behind.
So
I
guess
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
if-
and
this
will
make
a
difference
for
me,
mr
hill.
So
if
we
have
an
industry
who
says
hey
we're
caught
up
just
like
everyone
else
in
this
pandemic,
so
in
this
past
year
we
have
experienced
incredible
loss.
I
N
Assemblywoman
steve
hill:
this
is
a
period
of
time.
That's
pre-pandemic.
I
I
think
that's
all
the
questions
I
had
a
madam
chair.
I
think
some
of
my
other
questions
are
more
processy
that
might
be
more
relevant
for
the
department
of
taxation.
I
appreciate
being
able
to
ask
some
of
those,
so
I
could
make
sure
I
understand
clearly
as
much
as
I
could
on
this.
A
Thank
you.
You
had
mentioned
checking
something
with
staff.
Do
you
have
any
questions
for
staff,
though,
before
we
move
on
to
the
next.
I
Oh
yeah,
I
think
it
would
just
be
some
some
clarity
on
the
legislative
record
since
it's
it's,
never
one
person's
individual
recollection.
It's
not
going
to
be
my
recognition.
It's
not
you
know
the
body
of
62
or
63
people.
It's
always
interesting
to
know
what
the
legislative
record
is,
but
I
didn't
know
if,
if
I
could
go
back,
if
they
could
point
me
to
a
specific
record
or
a
piece
of
either
committee
hearings
or
committees
of
the
whole,
where
I
could
look
at
what
the
dialogue
was.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair
russell
guindon
for
the
record
principal
deputy
fiscal
analyst,
with
the
fiscal
announce
division.
What
I
can
attempt
to
do
is
provide
you,
the
information
that
your
fiscal
staff
and
trying
to
go
back
and
after
seeing
the
bill
and
look
at
this
issue
from
the
2015
session,
when
the
commerce
tax
was
established
in
sb
43.
J
And
so
I
was
looking
at
the
sort
of
what
we
can
see
is
some
history
on
the
and
I'm
just
going
to
refer
to
it
as
paragraph
n.
J
That
is
the
in
the
provisions
as
being
excluded
as
a
business
entity
for
the
purposes
of
the
commerce
tax
that
the
commerce
tax,
as
you
see
it
in
nrs
chapter
363c,
sort
of
the
first
time.
The
legislature
saw
that
type
of
structure
from
our
going
back
and
looking
at
it.
It
was
in
a
proposed
mock-up.
J
A
proposed
amendment
to
assembly
bill
464
is
a
mock-up,
and
then
that
was
heard
in
a
joint
meeting
of
senate
finance
and
assembly
ways
and
means
on
may
25th,
and
so
the
mock-up
was
done
on
may
20th
and
and,
as
I
stated
heard
in
the
joint
money
committee
hearing
on
may
25th.
J
That
version
of
the
mock-up
for
the
commerce
tech
did
not
have
paragraph
in
in
it.
So
then
proceeding
forward
into
the
timeline
of
the
session.
Then
there
was
a
a
mock-up
that
was
done
or
a
proposed
amendment
to
senate
bill
43.
J
that
was
done
on
may
31st
2015
and
that
amen
proposed
amendment
had
paragraph
n
in
it.
But
us
listening
to
the
presentation
by
jeremy,
aguero
and
and
that
was
held.
That
hearing
was
held
in
assembly
committee
of
the
whole
on
may
30th
and
so
listening
to
the
testimony
and
the
questioning
and
well
the
presentation
by
jeremy,
aguero
and
others
in
the
questioning.
J
There
was
no
mention
or
statement
regarding
that
paragraph
end
being
added
to
the
bill,
as
in
between
that
may
20
mock-up,
and
then
the
amendment
that
was
brought
forward
in
may
31st
and
then
excuse
me.
May
30th
and
then
on
may
31st
there
was
a.
It
was
actually
a
formal
floor
amendment
with
that
version
with
paragraph
in
in
it,
and
then
that
was
the
version
that
was
adopted
by
the
assembly
and
then
went
to
the
senate
for
concurrence
in
sb-43.
J
So
that's
what
I
can
provide
to
you
as
your
staff
as
for
having
any
interaction
as
your
fiscal
staff
as
to
that
paragraph
in
going
into
the
bill
and
what
the
intent
is,
your
fiscal,
stat
fiscal
analysis,
division
staff
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
comment
on
that.
It
was
just.
As
I
said,
it
was
a
paragraph
that
went
in
to
that
version
of
the
bill
and
as
to
the
what
the
actual
intent
was.
I
I,
as
your
fiscal
analysis,
division
staff.
I
don't
have
the
ability
to
provide
clarification
or
not
on
that
issue.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
mr
guindon.
So
with
that,
we
will
move
on
to
a
question
from
assemblywoman
kasama.
B
Sorry,
my
mouse
was
on
the
other
screen.
Thank
you
so
much.
Actually,
I
think
a
lot
of
the
questions
have
been
answered
with
the
other
assembly
people
and
the
questions
they've
asked
and,
and
one
of
my
questions
was
it
looks
like
this
was
perhaps
the
original
intent.
This
looks
like
it's
a
cleanup
to
make
it
clear,
so
we
don't
have
those
issues
and
that
answers
my
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so
before
we
go
forward,
let
me
see
if
we
have
any
more
questions
for
mr
hill.
A
Okay,
so
seeing
none
is
there
anyone
else
in
your?
I
think
we've
covered
this,
but
there's
no
one
else
in
your
presentation,
mr
hill.
So
let's
move
on
to
support.
We
do
have
the
department
of
taxation
here
and-
and
I
think
we'll
just
ask
any
questions
the
committee
has
for
the
department
after
we
go
through
support
and
opposition
and
get
into
neutral,
so
bps,
please
go
to
the
phones
for
the
first
person
in
support.
M
M
M
C
C
As
some
of
you
may
recall,
mgm
was
very
supportive
in
2015
of
the
commerce
tax
and
as
part
of
our
support,
it
was
our
understanding
back
into
2015,
as
it
is
today
that,
at
least
in
part,
our
support
was
based
on
the
idea
that
we
were
not
going
to
be
taxing
conventions
so
that
the
industry
can
make
maintain
this
competitive
advantage
in
nevada
and
that
we
were
more
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
using
the
taxes
that
are
generated
through
sales,
tax,
slot
tax
room
tax,
etc
for
the
revenue
from
those
conventions.
C
So
in
exchange
for
the
at
least
our
understanding
15
in
exchange
for
that
exemption
under
slot
tax,
our
property
and
all
the
other
resort
properties
that
do
host
conventions
in
the
state
of
nevada
also
agreed
to
pay
a
flat
fee
for
hosting
those
conventions,
so
that
the
properties
themselves
would
provide
a
tax
to
the
state
nevada.
A
Thank
you,
mr
griffin,
before
you
go,
I
just
you
mentioned
a
flat
fee
and
I
just
want
to
understand
that
a
little
more.
C
Madam
chair,
I'm
sorry
could
you
say
that
again
I
was
getting
the
unmute
microphone
message
during
that.
A
C
Yes-
and
I
apologize-
I
don't
have
the
statute
in
front
of
me,
but
there
is
a
flat
fee
that
is
assessed
on
all
resort
properties
that
are
hosting
conventions
under
the
commerce
tax.
That
provision
was
included
in
the
original
bill.
I
don't
recall
what
perhaps
mr
ginding
can
help
on
that.
I
don't
recall
the
exact
section
of
the
lab
that
is
in,
but
there
is
a
flat
fee
for
hosting
a
convention
that
is
assessed
upon
the
properties.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
I'm
not
sure
if
mr
is
going
to
have
that,
but
I
will
certainly
add
that
to
the
list
of
things
to
ask
a
taxation
one
day
and
man.
J
Madam
chair,
this
is
your
staff
russell
again,
I
didn't
know
if
mr
griffin's,
referring
to
the
current
statutory
provision
that
was
put
in
place
way
back
after
the
2003
session,
that
in
lieu
of
participants
at
these
types
of
events
having
to
have
a
business
license
fee
the
person
putting
on
that
I'm
putting
on
the
person
that
has
the
facility
to
do
that.
They
can
pay
a
flat
fee
in
lieu
of
those
people
getting
the
business
license
fee.
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
statutory
provision
that
mr
griffin
may
be
referring
to.
C
For
the
record,
madam
chairman,
yes,
that
is
the
provision
and
the
discussion
that
I
recall
in
15
was
that
that
provision
would
remain
in
effect
under
the
commerce
tax,
because,
of
course,
the
commerce
tax
is
attached.
The
liability
of
the
commerce
tax
is
attached
based
upon
your
requirement
to
get
a
business
license
fee.
So
yes,
that
that
is
correct.
I
believe
the
statute
is
nrs.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
We
appreciate
it,
mr
griffin,
with
that
bps,
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
person
in
support.
M
C
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
com,
excuse
me
members
of
the
committee
on
revenue.
This
my
name
is
jessie
wadhams,
j-e-s-s-e
w-a-d-h-a-m-s,
with
the
law
firm
of
black
and
waters
representing
the
reno
sparks
convention
and
visitor
authority.
Obviously
we
wanted
to
mention
that
we
appreciate
the
work
of
mr
hill
and
ms
khan.
We
are
pleased
to
stand
in
support
of
ab435
and
our
partners
at
the
las
vegas
convention
of
visitor
authority.
Thank
you.
A
So
we're
talking
about
you
know
because
it's
the
the
commerce
tax
we're
talking
about
amounts
over
four
million
dollars,
and
you
know
I
think,
we're
all
familiar
with
las
vegas
in
the
convention
industry
there.
But
I
don't
know
that
any
of
us
are
really
so
familiar
with
the
reno
sparks
conventions.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
appreciate
it
without
a
bps
next
person.
M
C
M
B
B
I'm
here
today
to
speak
in
support
of
ab
435
as
miss
khan
mentioned,
trade
shows
and
conventions
create
jobs
and,
as
mr
hill
said,
the
meeting
and
trade
shows
brings
millions
of
visitors
and
fill
rooms.
Mid-Week
the
economic
benefits
of
meetings
and
trade
shows
contribute
directly
and
indirectly
to
the
state's
economy.
B
As
you
know,
resorts
were
closed
completely
closed
for
76
days
last
year
there
have
been
no
meetings
and
no
convention
since
closures.
We
support
this
bill
because
we
believe
that
this
clarifying
language
will
remove
one
small
but
important
barrier
to
our
recovery
in
closing
meetings
and
trade
shows
are
extremely
important
to
the
resort
industry,
the
nevada
economy,
our
recovery
and
bringing
back
jobs.
We
urge
you
to
support
this
bill
to
clarify
the
commerce
tax.
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman
and
committee
members
for
your
time
this
afternoon,
and
your
consideration
of
this
bill.
M
A
Thank
you,
then.
I
will
ask
director
young,
if
you're
available
for
questions
and
before
you
take
questions,
if
you
do
have
any
comments,
you'd
like
to
make.
P
A
Thank
you
vice
chair.
Please
go
ahead.
I
Thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
it.
I
was
trying
to
remember
how
the
tax
audits
work
and
the
time
frame
for
the
the
tax
addicts-
and
I
know,
we've
been
through
it
before
in
various
bills
and
committees.
So
I
I
think
I
heard
mr
hill
put
on
the
record
that
there
was
concern.
It
seems
by
one
individual
payer
or,
if
there's
more,
I
don't.
I
It
sounded
like
just
one
one
individual
company
and
so
and
then
his
response
that
it.
This
was
an
issue
that
was
kind
of
pre-pandemic,
so
we
started
assessing
the
commerce
tax,
I
believe
in
2016
passed
in
2015,
and
then
we
had
to
like
give
department
of
taxation.
I
think
34
staff
to
begin
it.
So
did
we
start
collections
in
2016
or
2017.
P
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
I'd
just
like
to
make
one
comment,
but
pursuant
to
nrs360.255
any
testimony
that
I
provide
today
will
not
be
related
to
the
situation
that
mr
hills
is
talking
about.
The
department
protects
that
information,
and
that
is
confidential.
P
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
that
the
department
will
be
if
we
provide
testimony,
will
be
broad
and
as
as
an
example,
but
not
should
not
relate
to
the
current
situation
that
mr
hill
was
speaking
about.
I
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that.
So
we
started,
I
guess:
assessing
and
collecting
the
commerce
tax
in
2016.
is
that
right,
melanie.
I
I
Or
I
guess
no,
that
won't
help
because
of
360.025?
Has
the
tax
department
changed
its
administration
of
the
tax?
There's
been
no
policy
changes?
Is
there
anything
we
should
know
or
hold
into
consideration?
P
So,
thank
you,
melanian,
executive
director
for
the
record.
Let
me
clarify
the
question:
are
you
asking
if
the
department
has
changed
its
interpretation
of
the
commerce
tax
section
of
363
c.
P
P
So
are
you
specifically
talking
about
again
sorry,
an
executive
director
for
the
record?
Are
you
talking
about
procedures
or
specifically
to
that
paragraph
in
paragraph
and
okay,
so
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation?
I
Would
you
be
able
to
tell
me
how
many
tax
payers
are
generally
with
this
nasic
code?
I
don't
know
if
we're
talking
about
it's
a
big
business
in
vegas.
I
don't
think
we're
here
to
argue
that
point,
but
I'm
certainly
not
interested
in
arguing
that
point.
I
just
didn't
know
if
I
could
get
get
that
quantified.
Are
we
talking
about
30
groups
right
now
that
are
that
are
registered
with
that
this
particular
nasa
code?
Five,
I
just
don't
have
an
idea.
P
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
tax
station,
so
under
the
commerce
tax,
the
na6
codes
that
are
used
are
at
a
very
high
level.
Most
of
them
are
two
digits
or
three
digits,
but
the
whole
in,
and
so
those
are
very
broad
high
level.
Nix
codes,
nasa
codes,
sorry
and
in
specific
to
this
industry,
the
nasix
code
is
561
and
that
is
for
administrative
and
support
services
under
that
is
very
broad.
P
As
I
said
group
for
that
number
of
taxpayers,
the
department
has
hundreds,
I
think.
Last
I
checked
was
in
the
the
realm
of
the
high
300s
to
400
taxpayers
who
report
under
that
basics
code
now
to
narrow
it
down
to
the
convention
and
trade
show
organizers
the
department
of
taxation.
That
number
would
the
nasix
code
would
be
five
six
one,
nine
two
and
the
department
since
my
records
that
I
have
it
goes
back
to
2017..
I
P
Thank
you
for
the
question
melanie
young
executive
director.
That
question
is,
I
I
don't
have
the
details
of
whether
they're
under
the
fourth
out
four
million
dollar
threshold
or
above
that,
okay,
those
are
just
ones
that
we
have
registered
with
the
department.
P
So
when
we
asked
that
last
legislative
session,
not
every
business
closed
down,
the
commerce
tax
account.
I
I
heard
one
legislator
say:
oh,
it
sounds
like
you
meant
this
and
that
that's
that's
not
my
recollection,
because,
as
we
were
doing
all
these
hours
and
hours
of
hearing,
we
were
talking
so
much
about
nasa
codes
and
about
industries,
and
you
can
imagine
that
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
people
who
who
made
cases
about
why
their
basic
code
or
their
specific,
subsequent
category
basic
code
should
be
in
or
out,
and
I
and
I
referenced
those
hearings
quite
a
bit
to
remind
myself
of
what
our
goal
was.
I
What
with
this,
and
so
because
it
doesn't
seem
like
we
had
a
dialogue
on
this.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
have
a
dialogue
now
so
that
if
we
were
absent
or
vacant
of
a
legislative
record
from
2015,
then
let's
go
ahead
and
make
sure
we've
got
a
record
now
with
with
their
intent.
So
I
appreciate
you
answering
those
questions
because
I
think
it'll
help
future
legislators
when
they
come
back
and
you
know
have
to
have
to
address
similar
types
of
questions.
I
I
know
you
can't
answer
much
more
because
it
sounds
like
there's
some
ongoing
issues
or
discrepancies,
but
you
couldn't
even
quantify
for
me.
If
there's,
I
guess
an
issue
with
once
again,
am
I
trying
to
think
of
one
taxpayer?
Am
I
thinking
of
13
taxpayers,
but
that's
something
you
can
tell
me
right.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair.
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
for
director
young,
miss
anderson,
senator
clinton.
D
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
it
would
be
for
miss
young
or
if
it
would
be
for
staff
when
it
comes
to
specifically
a
question
that
was
brought
up
or
a
comment
that
was
brought
up
in
the
primitive
when
it
came
to
the
flat
fee.
First
of
all,
and
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
that
information,
but
then
also
when
I'm
taking
a
look
at
n,
with
the
proposed
language,
change
of
n,
an
organizer
manager
or
sponsor
of
such
an
event
or
an
exhibitor
at
such
an
event.
D
Sometimes
the
convention
centers
are
actually
the
managers
of
those
or
even
the
the
ones
that
go
out
to
try
to
organize
them.
So
I'm
wondering
if
there
is
that
there's
a
possible
conflict
between
keeping
the
flat
fee
event,
but
then
later
in
the
language
for
n
of
basically
making
them
exempt,
and
I
don't
know
who
that
question
would
be
for.
P
So
I
can.
This
is
melanie,
I'm
the
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
I
can
answer
the
question
from
the.
What
we
call
is
the
exhibition
facility
fee
and
so
that
exhibition
facility
fee
is
was
put
into
place
in
I'm
just
clarifying
the
information
was
put
into
place
in
2005
at
the
22nd
special
session
and
the
way
that
exhibition
facility
feed.
It
is
a
flat
fee
of
five
thousand
dollars
that
the
facility
pays
for
for
those
vendors
who
are
attending
the
exhibition
that
do
not
have
a
state
business
license.
P
There's
an
alternative
fee
that
could
be
paid,
which
is
a
little
bit
more
complicated
calculation,
and
that
is
it's
a
dollar
25
a
day
for
each
day,
and
then
somebody
who
does
have
that
business
license
participating
in
which
the
exhibition
location
would
pay
that,
on
behalf
of
those
those
vendors
play,
that
clarifies
the
question
and
then
I
would
have
to
defer
on
the
rest
of
your
questions,
to
someone
else.
D
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
clarifying
where
the
flat
fee
comes
from.
I
guess,
then
I
don't
know
if
this
would
be
for
mr
hill
or
if
it
would
be
for
our
staff,
then
that
this
this
language
would
not
take
away
that.
D
J
Flat
fee,
this
is
your
russell
kind
in
your
staff,
and
so
maybe
I
can
attempt
to
follow
up
on
the
information
that
director,
young
provided
and
in
addressing
summit
woman
anderson's
question
on
this
issue.
J
I
I
have
to
admit
that
I'm
I'm
trying
to
sort
through
the
context
of
the
provisions
in
nrs
360
780
in
relation
to
the
commerce
tax
as
a
flat
fee
for
the
conventions
other
than
you
see
it
being
used
as
a
reference
and
paragraph
end
here
with
regards
to
exclu,
I
think,
as
we're
hearing
here,
it
was
to
exclude
participants
from
the
events,
but
as
director
young
stated
that
in
the
2003
special
session
there
we
esta
established
the
business
license
fee
that
we
have
today.
J
There
was
an
interim
study
after
the
2003
session,
of
which
I
staffed,
and
out
of
that
came
the
recommendation
to
establish
the
provisions
and
nrs
360
780
that
director
young
those
provisions
were
to
say
rather
than
having
to
worry
about
all
the
people
that
would
come
to
these
conventions.
Trade
shows
and
exhibitions
to
have
to
try
and
get
a
business
license
fee.
They
could
but
then
here
it
says
that
then
the
person
can.
J
That
they
in
lieu
of
that,
then
the
events
sponsor
they
can
pay
this
flat
fee
in
lieu
of
all
those
people
participating
in
the
event
having
to
have
a
business
license.
J
So
that's
the
flat
fee
that
you
hear
being
referenced
here
is
this.
It
came
out
of
a
an
interim
study
after
the
2003
session
and
then,
as
it
was
put
in
place
in
2005,
to
try
and
deal
with
that
issue,
and
if
it
it's
my
recollection
that
that
that
this
this
proposal
was
actually
brought
forward
by
staff
from
lvcva
from
that
interim
study,
but
so
then,
to
take
that
flat
fee
and
and
and
have
this
association
with
the
commerce
tax.
J
That's
I
I
just
don't,
have
the
ability,
as
your
staff,
to
comment
on
that
as
something
that
I
was
aware
of
as
part
of
the
discussions
during
the
2015
session.
I
can't
say
that
it
didn't
occur,
I'm
just
saying,
as
your
staff
involved
in
the
commerce
tax
in
the
2015
session,
that
the
disassociation
between
these
provisions
and
that
other
than
you
can
see,
the
reference
was
used
for
these
provisions
for
based
on
what
legal
was
drafted
and
I'm
assuming
based
on
what
they,
the
information
that
they're
provided
to
draft
paragraph
n.
J
As
you
see
it
existing
in
the
commerce
tax
that
was
approved
in
2015
and
I'm
not
aware
of
any
requests
for
it
to
be
amended
in
the
2017
or
the
2019
sessions
as
your
fiscal
staff.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
provides
much
clarification,
but
I
hope
that
it
may.
D
A
I
Just
had
one
last
question
for
mr
hill
so
because
I
think
there's
a
sensitivity
to
this.
I
think
that
there's
the
this
this
thought
of
here's
an
industry-
that's
been
particularly
hit
by
the
pandemic.
I
think
there's
a
sensitivity
to
very
much
valuing
getting
things
going
back
again
for
clark
county,
and
so
I
get
so
help
me
think
about
this.
I
Like
are
we
thinking
about
short-term
help
because
there's
an
industry
that
needs
it
or-
and
this
is
kind
of
going
back
to
the
question
I
had
before
or
are
we
talking
about
more
of
a
longer
simming
issue
with
a
group
of
taxpayers
or
taxpayer
who
are
more
or
less
offended
by
the
tax?
I
Do
you
get
what
I
mean,
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
I
can
like
contextualize
pieces
of
the
conversation,
because
if
it's
a
ladder,
then
I
think
that
there's
more
things
that
we
can
do
if
it's
about
the
the
idea
of
trying
to
adjust
what
taxes
and
fees
are,
then
then
that's
a
different
path.
I
think,
but
I'm
also
have
the
sensitivity
to
you,
know
a
state
general
fund
that
you
know
I
had
these
conversations
about
how
we're
going
to
have
to
cut
services
to
the
blind.
I
We've
had
the
conversations
about
you
know
having
to
cut
services
to
foster
care,
and
so
for
me,
I
I
just
you
know
not
understanding.
If
I'm
talking
about
one
taxpayer
or
class
of
taxpayers,
I
don't
know
what
the
impact
of
this
would
be
or
fetch
future
revenue
coming
into
the
state's
general
fund.
Does
that
have
to
be
a
general
fund
connection.
N
Assemblywoman,
steve
hill,
our
our
request
with
this
bill,
as
I
said,
is
to
clarify
language
that
we
think
has
had
this
intent
all
along.
It's
intended
to
be
a
permanent
clarification.
A
Sorry
about
that
vice
chair
anything
else.
I
know
I
appreciate
that.
A
Okay,
so
with
that
I'll
invite
mr
hill
and
miss
khan
back
up
unless
there's
any
more
questions
and
ask
you
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
closing
statement
if
you'd
like
and
then
mr
hill,
I'm
I'm
not
sure
if
we
actually
got
on
the
record
that
you're
with
you're
here
representing
lvcva.
So
if
we
just
for
the
sake
of
a
clean
record,
if
you
can
just
confirm
that.
N
Madam
chair,
thank
you,
steve
hill
and
yes,
I'm
the
president,
ceo
of
the
las
vegas
convention,
visitors
authority
and
I'm
here
representing
them
on
us
today,
and
I
just
want
to
say
thank
you
specifically
to
you
and
certainly
to
all
the
members
of
the
committee
for
your
thoughtfulness
and
your
willingness
to
hear
this
bill
today,
certainly
available
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have
as
we
move
forward
again.
N
I
want
to
thank
all
the
others
organizations
that
have
been
involved
in
this
important
bill
as
well,
and
I
want
to
thank
miss
khan
in
the
culinary
for
their
help
specifically.
But
thank
you.
O
A
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
ab435
and
open
up
for
public
comment.
Bps.
Can
you
please
go
to
the
public
comment
line.
A
Thank
you,
bps
committee,
any
anything
anyone
has
for
the
committee,
okay,
seeing
none
then
before
I
adjourn,
we
will
have
hearings
on
tuesday
and
thursday,
including
work
sessions.