►
From YouTube: 4/15/2021 - 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
A
And
I
am
here,
thank
you.
Please
mark
assemblyman,
o'neill
absent
excused
again
good
afternoon.
Welcome
to
the
assembly
revenue
meeting
some
housekeeping
before
we
begin.
We
are
all
getting
used
to
the
change
and
different
screens
that
type
of
thing.
However,
several
of
us
still
have
multiple
screens
to
review
exhibits
that
type
of
bills.
So
please
don't
consider
that
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention.
A
If
you
see
us
looking
on
our
screens
looking
at
hard
copies
of
documents
that
type
of
thing
members
and
presenters,
although
our
presenters
aren't
with
us
anyone
in
the
audience,
please
silence
your
electronic
devices.
Courtesy
and
respect
is
always
expected
and
required
in
our
committee.
Additionally
courtesy
and
respect
when
working
with
our
staff
before
after
the
meeting
is
required.
A
People
wishing
to
provide
testimony
or
attend
the
meeting,
virtually
or
in
person
must
pre-register
online,
which
you
can
also
get
to
on
the
legislature's
website.
Registration
opens
when
an
agenda
is
posted
on
the
website
as
a
reminder
and
pursuant
to
rule
number
54
of
the
assembly
standing
rules,
if
you
testify
in
support
of
a
bill
or
a
resolution
that
is
construed
as
approval
of
the
measure
as
written
or
approval
of
the
measure
as
written,
along
with
the
proposed
amendments
that
have
been
approved
by
the
sponsor
of
the
measure.
A
Opposition
to
the
bill
or
resolution
is
construed
as
not
supporting
the
measure
as
written
or
opposing
the
measure
as
revised
by
an
amendment
that
has
not
been
approved
by
the
sponsor
of
the
measure.
A
neutral
position
on
a
bill
is
one
in
which
the
person
testifying
offers
no
particular
insights
on
the
measure.
Support
or
opposition,
however,
expresses
they're
just
providing
information,
so
they're
providing
information
without
taking
a
position.
A
So,
therefore,
if
you
love
a
bill,
but
you
have
a
small
change
that
you
want
to
make
and
it
has
not
been
accepted
by
the
bill
sponsor,
that
is
opposition,
but
please
feel
free
to.
Let
us
know
that
you
still
love
the
bill
with
that.
We
are
going
to
move
on
to
our
bill
presentations,
we're
going
to
begin
with
senate
bill
25,
which
revises
provisions
governing
the
determination
of
whether
food
for
human
consumption
is
subject
to
sales
and
use
taxes,
and
with
us
is
director
melanie
young
from
the
department
of
taxation.
D
Thank
you
cohen,
and
members
of
the
assembly
revenue
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
with
me
here
today
I
have
chief
deputy
shelley
hughes
and
deputy
director
terry
upton.
We
are
here
to
present
sb
25,
which
revises
the
provisions
governing
the
determination
of
whether
food
for
human
consumption
is
subject
to
sales
and
use
tax.
The
department
of
taxation
is
requesting
to
repeal
language
in
the
statute
that
is
no
longer
relevant
since
the
department
joined
the
streamlined
sales
tax
at
this
time.
D
E
Additionally,
nrs
372
284
and
the
identical
provision
founded,
nrs
374
289
exempts
feud
food
for
human
consumption
from
sales
and
use
tax.
However,
excluded
from
this
exemption
is
prepared.
Food
intended
for
immediate
consumption,
in
other
words,
prepared
food
intended
for
immediate
consumption,
is
subject
to
sales
and
use
tax.
E
The
department
has
also
adopted
nac
372
605,
consistent
with
the
streamlight
sales
and
use
tax
agreement
that
provides
guidance
on
how
to
determine
when
food
is
considered,
prepared,
food
and
thus
subject
to
tax
this
bill,
repeals
nrs
372-2841
and
the
identical
provision
in
nrs
374-2891
and
thereby
eliminates
the
language
that
directs
the
department
not
to
look
at
the
type
of
establishment
where
the
food
is
sold.
When
determining
the
taxability
of
the
food
sold,
nrs,
372,
284
and
nrs
374
289
would
remain
in
place
to
provide
that
prepared.
E
E
The
purpose
of
the
agreement
is
to
simplify
and
modernize
sales
and
use
tax
administration
in
order
to
substantially
reduce
the
burden
of
tax
compliance.
This
includes
having
uniformity
and
consistency
in
sales
and
use
tax
laws.
Among
the
states
there
are
23
states
that
are
full
member
states
and
they
have
adopted
the
measures
in
the
agreement.
E
E
E
The
department
would
like
to
repeal
nrs,
372-2841
and
nrs
374-2891,
because
these
statutes
predate
our
adoption
of
the
streamlined
sales
and
use
tax
agreement
and
no
longer
applicable
in
our
determination
as
to
whether
food
is
intended
for
immediate
consumption,
because
we
now
follow
provisions
that
are
found
in
the
agreement.
Consequently,
these
statutes
are
no
longer
relevant.
E
Nrs3742891,
in
addition
to
these
statutes
being
no
longer
applicable,
leaving
these
statutes
in
the
nrs
leads
to
confusion
in
the
industry,
because
we
cannot
provide
guidance
on
our
website
and
our
publications
or
in
our
industry
trainings
to
to
specific
establishments
as
to
when
the
establishment
food
sales
are
taxable
nrs.
372,
2841
and
nrs3742891
prevent
us
from
referring
to
the
type
of
establishment.
E
Additionally,
this
guide
provides
examples
of
when
sales
tax
applies
to
common
food
transactions
at
grocery
stores,
convenience
stores,
concession
stands
and
fast.
Food
restaurants
indiana
has
a
sales
tax
information
bulletin
that
indicates
a
number
of
items
sold
by
grocery
stores,
supermarkets
and
similar
type
businesses
that
are
classified
as
non-taxable
food
items
and
taxable
food
items
maine,
while
not
a
member
state,
has
a
publication
that
includes
a
quick
answer.
Chart
that
lists
the
types
of
retailer
and
what
items
that
retailer
sells
that
are
subject
to
tax
washington
has
a
publication
for
restaurants
and
bars.
E
E
E
At
that
time
there
was
issues
on
determining
when
food
was
subject
to
tax.
For
example,
restaurants
served
food
for
immediate
consumption,
so
restaurants
were
being
taxed
on
their
sales
of
food.
However,
grocery
stores
were
not
being
taxed
on
their
sales
of
food,
because
food
purchased
from
grocery
stores
were
taken
home
to
prepare
and
serve
at
a
later
time.
E
In
the
minutes
of
the
assembly
committee
on
taxation
dated
april
20th
1999
and
the
city
senate
committee
on
taxation,
dated
february
25th,
1999
testimony
was
provided
by
a
pizza
parlor
that
sold
frozen
pizzas.
The
owner
came
forth
to
testify
that
he
could
not
compete
with
grocery
stores,
because
his
food
sales
of
frozen
pizzas
were
being
taxed
where
grocery
store
sales
of
frozen
pizzas
were
not
the
legislature,
recognized
the
unfairness
in
the
tax
application
and,
as
a
result,
the
statute
was
put
in
place.
E
D
A
Thank
you
both.
So
before
we
go
to
questions
from
the
members,
I
do
have
a
question:
how,
if
the
change
is
made,
will
there
be
any
look
back
on
any
businesses
and
having
to
redo
taxes
for
businesses?
Anything
like
that
or
this
would
just
be
moving
forward,
even
though
we're
just
clarifying
what
really
already
is
what
we're
pretty
much
doing.
D
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
The
department
of
taxation
is
already
operating
under
the
provisions
of
the
streamline
sales
tax,
so
this
would
not
change
whether
or
not
we
would
look
back
on
taxes
or
taxpayers
who
have
been
complying
with
the
bill
to
clarify.
I
would
believe
that
they
would
still
expected
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
agreement
as
it
is
today.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation
it
and
I
and
I
looked
in
your
information
packet
and
I
kind
of
have
the
answer,
but
I
just
want
to
confirm
so
in
in
2008.
That's
when
nrs
360
b
0.110
was
amended
to
require
that
we
become
or
we
we
get
into
this
tax
agreement.
So
if
that's
ever
repealed,
we
would
have
to
reinstitute
these
nrss
to
to
clarify
that,
since
it
wouldn't
be
clarified
in
our
in
our
agreement,.
D
E
Yes,
this
is
chief
deputy
shelly
hughes
for
the
department
of
taxation,
assemblyman
roberts.
If
we
we
did
repeal
360,
b
460
and
we're
no
longer
part
of
the
streamlined
sales
and
use
tax
agreement,
nrs,
372,
284
and
three
seven,
two
two
eight,
the
identical
provision
found
in
374
would
still
be
in
place,
and
so
it's
it
still
provides
that
food
for
human
consumption
does
not
include
alcoholic
beverages,
pet
foods,
tonics
and
vitamins,
but
it
does
exclude
prepared
food
intended
for
immediate
consumption.
C
Well,
maybe
I
just
didn't
catch
because
it's
all
the
says
too
many
numbers
in
it,
so
so
what
we're
repealing?
What
my
point
is
is
if
we
repeal
these
sections,
because
we
have
the
agreement,
if
we
ever
repeal
the
agreement,
would
we
have
to
put
these
back
into
statute?
And
yet
I
guess
the
answer
is
no.
E
Shelly
he's
for
the
department
of
taxation.
Yes,
the
answer
is
no
the
provisions
that
we're
appealing
indicate
that
we
could
not
look
at
the
type
of
establishment
where
the
food
is
sold
to
determine
whether
food
is
for
immediate
consumption.
All
right.
A
Thank
you.
I
also
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod.
F
Chair,
I
was
just
curious
on
how
this
might
impact,
and
maybe
it
doesn't
meal
prep
services.
I
know
there
used
to
be.
I
don't
know
if
they're
still
in
existence,
there
is
a
company
that
I
know
in
my
district
called
dream:
dinners
where
you
would
go
in
and
create
your
meal,
but
you
would
then
take
it.
I
know:
there's
several
subscription
type
meal
delivery
services
are
those
impacted
at
all.
D
G
If
anything
that
is
prepared
by
the
vendor
for
immediate
consumption
would
be
taxable
if
something
was
prepared
by
the
vendor
for
the
customer
to
take
home
and
prepare
in
their
home,
that
would
be
exempt.
F
G
Yes,
terry
upton,
for
the
department
of
taxation
for
the
record.
G
If
a
business
were
to
simply
package
the
food
and
not
heat
it,
that
food
would
be
exempt
because
part
of
the
statute
says
that
it
has
to
be
in
a
heated
state
two
and
more
ingredients
sold
with
utensils.
G
Any
food
that
was
sold
in
a
heated
state
such
as
you
know,
a
grocery
store
that
you
would
go
in
and
they
have
hot
food.
They
have
pizza,
they
have
sandwiches,
they
have
soup.
That
would
be
taxable
if
you
go
in
and
put
the
soup
in
the
container,
take
it
up
to
the
grocery
store,
cashier
and
pay
for
it
there.
That
would
be
taxable.
C
G
G
C
With
that,
then
I
happen
to
notice
when
I
read
that
it
had
a
lot
of
definitions,
but
it
didn't
have
chopsticks,
and
so
you
know,
if
you
pick
up
sushi,
that's
been
prepared
and
they
give
you
chopsticks.
So
as
long
as
you
don't
take
the
chopsticks,
it's
not
taxable.
G
G
Well,
the
the
the
statute
is
food
sold
in
a
heated
state
by
the
cellar
or
two
and
two
and
more
ingredients
mixed
together.
So
it
doesn't
necessarily
always
have
to
be
heated.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
I
was
just
trying
to
unmute
myself
there.
That's
what
the
pause
was
and
then
remember
to
have
to
push
the
button,
so
I
I
recall
the
conversations
serving
on
the
legislative
commission
when
we
were
talking
about
the
regulation.
F
So
so
much
of
these
conversations
are
coming
back
to
me.
If
you,
if
you
could
remind
me
there
is
a
provision
in
here
and
it
it
might
be
becoming
coming
from
the
regulation,
but
where
we
talk
about
the
items
containing
four
or
more
servings
and
then
those
are
those
are
not
taxed.
F
So
are
we,
I
guess
when
we
say
four
or
more
servings,
I'm
thinking
of
an
example.
You
know.
Let's
say
hypothetically
assemblyman
roberts
goes
to
costco
right,
which
I,
in
fact
I
think
he
I
believe
he
did
today
so
like
there
in
the
in
their
deli
area.
You
might
have
meals
prepared,
but
they're
intended
for
servings
of,
like
large,
large
servings,
so
you're,
not
just
getting
individual
serving.
Nothing
comes
individual
costco
you
like
servings
for
four
or
more
so
with
the
intent.
F
G
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
question
terry
upton
deputy
director
for
the
record.
G
The
we,
the
statute,
doesn't
provide
a
bright
line
such
as
four
or
more
each
case
is,
is
looked
at
individually
and
what
is
the
intent
of
the
consumption
of
that
food?
Is
it
a
whole
pizza?
Could
someone
actually
sit
down
and
eat
that
whole
pizza?
Is
it
sold
in
a
box
where
they
take
it
out?
Of
course,
that
would
be
heated
state,
but
if
you
look
at
other
pizzas
that
are
sold
where
there
will
you
take
them
home
and
cook
them
at
home,
those
would
not
be
taxable,
so
it
really
it's.
F
I
I
guess
I
would.
I
guess
I
would
ask
then
do
because
they're.
I
believe
that
the
regulation
gave
90
days
for
a
business
to
come
in
compliance
with
this
new
methodology
versus
the
old
methodology.
I
think
by
this
point,
we're
past
the
90
days.
So
do
we
have
established
practices
where
right
now,
someone
would
know
kind?
G
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
question,
terry
upton,
for
the
record.
These
are
established
practices.
Retailers
know
by
now,
what's
taxable,
what's
not
the
department
has
had
numerous
classes
available
through
ask
the
advisor.
E
This
is
shelly
hughes,
chief
deputy
for
the
department
of
taxation
and
and
to
answer
your
question.
Yes,
I
believe
that
the
the
taxpayers
are
familiar
now
with
our
regulation.
I
think
the
issue
you
were
talking
about
with
the
regulation
and
the
prepackaged
food
had
it
had
to
do
with
that.
The
very
thing
it's
a
pre-packaged
food,
so
it'd
be
four
or
more
in
a
pre-packaged
container.
So
it's
already
packaged
together.
It's
not
separate
you.
It's
not
buying
four
separate
items.
E
It's
in
one
item,
that's
pre-packaged
altogether!
That's
where
the
exclusion
comes
for
the
regulation.
I
hope
I
clarified
that,
rather
than
cause
more
confusion,.
G
A
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you
and
then
just
to
add
to
our
our
list
of
foods.
I
have
a
message
from
mr
guindon,
our
physical
analyst,
who
said
just
confirmed
it's
just
it's
not
just
about
heating.
As
you
get
salad
or
gazpacho
at
a
restaurant,
then
it
is
cold
but
still
prepared
food
for
immediate
consumption
so
taxable.
A
Additionally,
I
just
would
like
to
direct
members
to
the
nevada
constitution.
It's
article
10
iii,
sub
a
that
has
the
food
exempt
from
taxes
on
retail
sales
and
the
exceptions
there.
So
with
that,
I've
got
a
question
from
assemblyman
yeager.
F
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair,
now,
I'm
very
hungry
we've
talked
about
sushi
gazpacho
and
it's
almost
dinner
time.
I
actually
find
this
topic
quite
fascinating.
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do
in
the
bill,
but
I
guess
my
question
is
just
a
little
bit
of
a
follow-up
of
a
couple
of
my
colleagues
as
assemblywoman
kasama
mentioned
and
vice
chairman
tess
thompson.
Some
of
these
issues
seem
a
little
confusing.
F
You
know
you
can
blur
that
line
when
you
have
a
retailer
who
maybe
is
serving
food
to
be
consumed
right
there,
but
then
has
like
a
takeout
option
for
heating
up
your
food
later.
I
think
about
like.
I
think
it
was
california
pizza
kitchen,
where
you
can
eat
your
food
there,
but
then
you
can
add
on
additional
food
to
take
home
and
heat
up
later,
and
so
my
question-
and
I
think
you
touched
on
it
a
little
bit.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question,
terry
upton,
for
the
requirement
of
taxation
for
the
record.
They
have
several
opportunities
to
reach
out
to
the
department.
We
have
a
call
center
who
are
available
to
answer
their
questions.
They
can
also
write
into
the
department
and
receive
an
advisory
that
is
in
writing
and
we
also
have
asked
the
advisor
classes
which
they
can
attend,
and
we
will
give
that
information
to
them.
We
also
have
a
technical
bulletin,
I
believe,
on
the
subject
that
is
out
there
on
our
website
and
some
faqs.
A
Okay
and
certainly
committee.
Our
fiscal
analysts
are
available
to
answer
any
other
questions
you
may
come
up
with
later,
or
I'm
sure
we
can
also
reach
out
to
director
young
and
her
staff
to
ask
questions.
Should
any
more
come
up
so
with
that
director?
Was
there
anyone
else
as
part
of
your
presentation
who
you'd
like
to
have
speak.
D
Thank
you,
young
executive
director,
no
there's,
no
one
else
that
we
would
like
to
have
speak,
but
really
what
I
would
like
to
just
clarify
here
is
the
goal
from
repealing
this.
This
provision
is
the
department
can
provide
additional
guidance,
because,
right
now
the
the
law
prevents
us
by
identifying
the
establishment
that
to
whether
they're
to
to
collect
the
tax
or
not,
and
so
our
goal
is
to
be
able
to
expand
the
guidance
provided
in
this
area,
so
that
there
is
clear
information
out
to
the
taxpayers.
A
So,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that.
So,
with
that
we're
going
to
go
to
support,
do
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
in
support.
A
Bps
is
there
anyone
else,
okay,
seeing
none,
let's
go
to
the
telephones.
Please.
B
C
B-A-R-Y-A-N-W-A-C-H-T-E-R,
I'm
the
senior
vice
president
at
the
retail
association
of
nevada.
We
want
to
thank
director,
young
and
her
staff
for
being
so
diligent
in
keeping
nevada
in
compliance
with
the
streamlined
sales
and
use
tax
agreement.
We
are
very
proud
that
nevada
is
a
governing
member
and,
as
this
conversation
and
hearing
has
brought
up,
it
is
very
confusing
and
very
complex
on
what's
taxable
and
not
taxable.
C
The
streamlined
sales
and
use
tax
agreement
provides
us
with
clarity
so
that
our
members
and
our
retailers
know
what's
required
and
what's
not
required
and
as
hard
as
it
might
be
believe.
Senate
bill
25
actually
provides
some
clarity
specifically
on
this
issue,
and
we
look
forward
to
keeping
our
taxpayers
in
compliance
and
keeping
those
compliance,
costs
down
and
low
for
the
state
of
nevada,
and
we
urge
your
support
on
senate
bill.
25.
A
Mr
walker,
so
I
I
appreciate
that
director
young
said
that
there
are
bulletins
and
that
her
staff
is
available
to
provide
information.
A
Do
you
feel
like
your
members,
not
just
from
the
department,
but
also
from
the
work
that
you
do
and
possibly
other
chambers,
if
you're
aware,
are
able
to
get
that
information,
not
just
when
they
know
they
need
to
make
a
change,
but
that
they're?
Given
that
information,
that
there
is
a
change
that
they
need
to
make.
C
I
I
believe
that
working
with
our
partners,
the
retail
association,
the
chambers,
as
well
as
the
department
we
are
able
to
get
that
message
out.
This
is
something
that
our
members
pay
a
lot
of
attention
to.
We
were
involved
during
the
regulatory
process,
so
it
is
something
that
we
are
constantly
analyzing
and
making
sure
that
our
members
are
in
compliance.
As
you
know,
the
state
of
nevada
doesn't
have
traditional
tax
collectors.
C
B
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
anyone
in
opposition?
B
A
Thank
you
same
with
neutral.
I
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom.
So
if
we
can
go
to
the
phones,
please.
B
A
D
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
We
would
like
to
thank
you
for
your
time
in
hearing
sb
25,
so
the
department
can
provide
additional
guidance
out
to
our
taxpayers
in
nevada
and
hopefully
provide
clarity
at
the
lowest
level
of
compliance.
So
we
appreciate
your
time
today.
Thank
you.
A
D
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation,
I'm
here
with
members
of
my
team,
again,
chief
deputy
shelley
hughes,
jeff
hardcastle,
the
state
demographer
and
kevin
williams,
our
management
analyst
who's
responsible
for
our
tax
distributions.
D
We
are
here
to
present
sb
74,
which
revises
the
provisions
where
population
will
be
used
for
certain
tax
distributions.
This
is
a
housekeeping
bill
that
cleans
up
language
that
aligns
with
how
the
department
is
processing
our
tax
distributions.
Over
the
past
two
years,
the
executive
team
has
been
working
hard
on
reviewing
our
processes.
D
This
review
is
large
so
that
we
can
become
more
efficient
and
modernize
the
department
in
an
anticipation
of
our
I
t,
modernization
project
with
that
being
said
a
while
back.
We
asked
our
internal
auditor
to
audit
some
of
our
processes.
During
this
audit,
it
was
discovered
that
the
department
was
not
following
the
law.
E
The
requested
changes
are
to
statutes
that
govern
the
distribution
of
state
taxes
and
the
changes
do
not
have
any
impact
on
how
the
population
tolls
are
arrived
at.
Nor
do
the
changes
impact
the
local
government's
petition
and
appeal
rights
of
the
population
totals
existing
law
requires
that
population
totals
be
used
for
the
distribution
of
certain
taxes
and
several
provisions
of
the
nrs,
such
as
nrs
360,
690
and
377057.
E
E
Walking
through
the
bill
section
1
amends
nrs,
360,
690,
subsection,
8
and
eliminates
for
certain
taxes.
The
requirement
to
use
the
population
totals
of
the
bureau
of
the
census
of
the
united
states
department
of
commerce
in
case
of
conflict
with
the
population
totals
of
the
governor
section,
2
amends
nrs
377055
and
clarifies
that
the
population
totals
used
to
make
the
determinations
are.
E
Once
the
demographer
has
determined
the
population
it
is
submitted
to
the
governor
who
certifies
the
population
totals
on
or
before
march
1st
of
each
year,
as
required
by
360
285,
the
department
uses
the
governor's
certified
population
totals
every
year
to
determine
the
calculation
of
distributions
for
the
basic
city,
county
relief,
tax,
the
supplemental
city,
county
relief
tax
and
to
local
governments
for
money
remaining
after
base
monthly
allocations,
since
the
census
bureau
totals
have
never
been
used.
Since
the
enactment
of
this
language
in
the
1990s,
the
department
finds
this
bill
to
be
a
housekeeping
matter.
E
There
are
several
problems
with
using
census:
decennial
totals
in
annual
census
estimates,
most
notably
timing.
The
governor's
certified
population
totals
for
the
current
year
are
based
on
population
totals
from
two
fiscal
years
prior.
If
we
were
to
use
census,
decennial
totals
and
annual
census
estimates.
These
are
based
off
the
current
year.
E
Would
we
use
census,
totals
two
fiscal
years
behind
to
correlate
with
the
governor
certified
totals.
Additionally,
the
governor's
certified
totals
are
released
march,
1st
for
counties
incorporated
cities
and
unincorporated
towns
census.
Annual
estimates
for
counties
are
released
in
march
and
unincorporated
city
estimates
are
released
in
may,
and
the
census
bureau
does
not
produce
decennial
totals
or
annual
census
estimates
for
unincorporated
towns.
E
Next,
the
language
is
unclear
when
census
totals
should
be
used
to
determine
if
there's
a
conflict
between
census
totals
and
governor
certified
totals.
Is
it
every
year
and
we
use
annual
census
estimates
instead
of
governor
certified
totals
or
is
it
every
10
years,
and
we
use
decennial
totals
and
then
use
governor
certified
totals
in
off
years?
E
Then
the
problem
becomes
if
it
is
determined
that
decennial
census
totals
and
annual
census.
Estimates
are
to
be
used
every
year
determining
whether
there
is
a
conflict.
In
reality
the
decidial
census
totals
in
the
annual
census.
Estimates
will
always
be
in
conflict
with
the
governor
certified
totals.
E
E
E
E
E
The
statute
did
not
contain
any
reference
to
the
census
senate
bill
506
in
1993
added
language
to
nrs
377057,
requiring
that
the
census
totals
be
used
if
the
census
totals
were
in
conflict
with
the
total
certified
by
the
governor.
The
bill
was
enacted
to
correct
errors
made
in
another
assembly
bill
from
a
prior
session.
E
E
E
Can
we
assume
that
the
legislative
intent
was
also
to
use
the
decennial
census
totals
every
10
years,
and
then
the
governor
certified
totals
and
off
years
with
sb
74?
We
would
like
to
remove
the
language
that
indicates
the
bureau
of
census.
Population
totals
will
be
used
when
they
are
in
conflict
with
the
governor's
certified
population
totals
this
language
occurs
both
in
nrs
377057
in
nrs,
360
690..
E
There
are
several
reasons
why
we
believe
there
will
not
be
a
negative
impact
if
this
language
is
removed.
First,
during
our
research,
we
cannot
find
where
the
department
has
ever
used.
The
census
totals
based
on
the
legislative
history
for
nrs
36690.
We
believe
that
the
census
total
should
have
been
used
in
2000,
2010
and
now
2020..
E
Second,
the
legislative
history
of
nrs
36690
suggests
that
the
census
language
was
added
to
reach
more
accurate
population
totals.
However,
there
isn't
any
reference
to
why
the
language
was
added
to
nrs
377057,
with
the
addition
of
the
demographer
to
the
department
in
1987
and
the
ability
for
local
governments
to
appeal
the
population
totals
before
they
are
certified
by
the
governor
pursuant
to
nrs
360
283,
subsection,
3
and
nac
360
390.
E
E
In
fact,
we
determined
there
would
be
a
positive
impact
if
we
remove
the
language.
The
change
would
harmonize
nrs,
37705
and
nrs
360
690,
with
other
tax
statutes
such
as
nrs
360,
285,
noaa.
No
other
allocation
provisions
in
nrs,
377
or
nrs
360
referenced
using
census
totals
removing
the
language
would
assist
in
carrying
out
the
original
intent
of
377057,
as
shown
by
the
statute's
legislative
history,
and
removing
the
language
would
allow
for
timely,
consistent
and
clear
distributions.
E
In
summary,
we
are
requesting
to
remove
the
language
present
in
both
nrs
377057
and
nrs.
36690
that
indicates
that
the
bureau
of
census
population
totals
will
be
used
when
they
are
in
conflict
with
the
governor's
certified
population
totals,
and
we
request
the
language
in
nrs
377055
clarify
that
only
the
governor's
certified
population
totals
will
be
used,
and
I
think
it's
important
again
to
emphasize
that
the
requested
changes
are
to
statutes
that
govern
the
distribution
of
state
taxes
and
the
changes
do
not
have
any
impact
on
how
the
population
totals
are
arrived
at.
A
Thank
you,
chief
deputy
use.
I
think
what
we're
going
to
do
is
have
our
fiscal
analyst.
Mr
guindon
go
through
the
charts
that
have
been
provided
to
committee
members
are
also
online
for
the
public
to
see
as
exhibits.
A
I
think
that
will
he's
planned
something
and
that
will
help
give
us
some
information
about
sea
tax
and
put
things
in
perspective
for
us.
So
please
go
ahead.
Mr
guindon.
H
I'm
here
to
present
information
that
your
staff
working
with
department
of
taxation
staff
in
terms
of
working,
the
issue
that
it
was
in
sb
74
and
making
sure
we
understood
trying
to
figure
out
the
language
and
then
some
of
the
points
that
ms
hughes
was
making.
H
So
what
I
have
is
a
set
of
five
tables
that
were
prepared
by
your
staff,
working
with
information
that
we
were
getting
from
the
department
taxation
as
well
as
working
with
the
department
of
taxation
on
putting
the
tables
together,
and
so
let
me
bring
up
the
first
table.
But
hopefully
you
have
these
available
to
you.
H
I've
tried
to
color
code
them
a
little
bit
to
make
it
a
little
easier
to
present,
and
so
I'm
going
to
try
and
blow
them
up
on
the
screen
here,
but
also
make
it
so
that
I
can
still
see
them
on
my
screen
to
present.
H
So
I
thought
what
to
try
and
go
to
these
tables
is,
for
the
members
benefit
is
to
provide
sort
of
the
context
by
in
the
numerical
world
of
the
data.
H
H
Under
an
assumption
of
how
it
would
be
administered,
as
ms
hughes
pointed
out,
there
is
potentially
some
ambiguity
about
how
would
be
administered
at
taxation
administered
it.
H
But
so
the
tables
that
you
have
here
the
first
one
is
table
one
which
should
have
the
light
blue
banner
across
the
top
in
terms
of
trying
to
just
help,
people
find
the
right
tables
amongst
all
the
tables,
and
so
this
is
going
under
the
assumption
that
every
year,
when
the
department
of
taxation
is
doing
these
statutory
calculations
under
that
assumption,
that
hey
they're
supposed
to
see
if
there's
a
conflict
between
the
demographers,
estimates
and
the
census
estimates
what
those
numbers
could
look
like
for
the
two
years
that
are
displayed
here
and
what
the
potential
implications
could
be
for
that.
H
So
you
see
here
in
the
table
1a
the
top
block
of
the
table
in
the
left-hand
side
with
the
orange
shading.
Those
are
the
state
demographers
estimates
for
july,
1st,
2015
and
july
1st
2016
that
these
are
the
governor's
certified
estimates
that
you
heard
misuse
reference
that
honor
before
I
believe
it's
early
march,
that
the
governor's
required
to
certify
the
estimates
for
the
preceding
july
first
period.
H
Those
are
the
guaranteed
counties
and
under
the
the
distribution
here
guaranteed
counties
are
exactly
that
when
the
the
sccrt
was
put
in
place
under
this
guaranteed
non-guaranteed
structure,
the
the
guaranteed
counties
have
an
amount
that
is
distributed
to
them,
1
12
every
month,
and
that
amount
is
guaranteed,
and
then
it's
adjusted
every
year
based
on
the
statutory
formulas
and
that
statutory
formula
is
you,
take
the
last
year's
amount
and
adjust
it
for
the
growth
in
the
population
in
the
cpi
or
the
growth
in
prior
years,
sccrt
distributions,
whichever
less
so.
H
You
can
see
there
again
in
the
orange
block.
There's
the
demographers
estimates
and
then
going
over
to
the
the
right-hand
block
shaded
in
yellow.
That's
the
census,
estimates
for
that
july,
1st
2015
and
july
1st
2016
periods.
So
you
have
the
same
two
periods.
So
to
give
you
the
perspective.
H
Well,
you
can
go
I'll,
just
take
the
go
down
to
clark,
which
is
the
third
row
and
then
douglas,
which
is
the
guaranteed
county.
That
just
said.
Well,
you
go
look
at
the
left
hand,
side
and
the
oranges
and
tomographers
estimates
and
then
the
census.
Well,
the
the
demographer's
estimates
for
these
two
local
governments
are
higher
than
the
census.
H
So
then
right
you,
as
has
been
discussed
here.
That
is
that's
the
conflict,
that
the
estimates
are
not
the
same,
and
rarely
would
they
be
right.
I
think
that's
unreasonable
to
think
that
the
census
doing
their
thing
and
the
demographer
doing
their
thing
are
going
to
come
up
with
the
exact
same
estimates
for
all
these
entities
for
each
year.
So
if
that's
the
conflict,
then
that
the
census
estimates
are
different
than
the
demographer,
then
the
law
would
require
taxation
to
use
the
census.
H
Estimates
under
this
scenario
that
we're
assuming
that
that's
okay
every
year
when
there's
this
conflict,
you
have
to
use
the
census
estimates,
but
what
you're
actually
doing
is
then
using
those
census
estimates
to
calculate
the
growth
rate,
because
it's
not
the
levels,
it's
the
growth
rate,
that's
being
used
to
determine
the
guaranteed
calculation
in
nrs,
chapter
377
for
the
guaranteed
portion
for
the
those
guaranteed
counties,
and
so
you
can
see
then
looking
there
that,
even
though
clark
has
higher
estimates
for
population
for
the
state
demographer
than
the
census,
the
growth
rate
for
excuse
me,
yeah.
H
But
you
go
down
to
douglas
and
again
the
population
estimates
by
the
demographer
are
higher
in
levels
than
the
census
estimates,
but
there
the
census,
estimate
growth
rate
is
higher.
So
you
now
start
to
get.
I
think
some
of
the
the
elements
that
ms
hughes
was
talking
about,
that.
Okay,
if
the
conflict
is,
is
that
the
estimates
are
different,
then
you
have
to
use
those
to
calculate
the
growth
rates
and
then
you're
going
to
get
different
results
by
using
the
census
versus
the
the
state.
H
Demographics
estimates
where
there's
a
statutory
provision
for
the
demographer
that
is
required
to
prepare
the
estimate.
There's
a
regulatory
process
for
preparing
those
estimates
to
be
used.
But
here
this
piece
of
law
would
say
no
you're
supposed
to
use
the
census
because
there's
a
conflict,
so
you
can
look
in
the
far
right
hand,
column
and
just
the
the
green
rows.
H
H
So
that's
that's
going
through
for
the
fy
2018
calculation,
so
the
table
1b,
which
is
below
that,
is
just
showing
you
the
results
that
would
have
been
in
place
for
fy,
2019
and
thus
again.
Here
the
population
estimates
are
for
july,
first,
2016
and
july,
first
2017,
census
and
demographer
and
again
you
can
just
look
through
there
and
and
especially
in
the
right-hand
column,
and
see
the
differences
with
regards
to
whether
the
growth
rate
coming
out
of
the
census.
H
Estimates
would
be
higher
than
the
growth
rate
coming
out
of
the
demographers
estimates
and
so
that's
going
to
have
a
potential
impact
on
the
guaranteed
calculations
for
those
guaranteed
counties.
And
so
that's
really.
What
I
wanted
to
show
in
this
table
is
allow
you
to
see
sort
of
the
provide,
the
actual
visual
context
to
the
points
that
ms
hughes
is
making
about.
H
You
have
census
and
demographer
preparing
these
estimates,
and
then,
if
there
is
this
conflict,
which
is
the
estimates,
are
different,
then
what
could
potentially
happen
here
with
regards
to
taxation
and
being
required
to
use
the
census
estimates
to
do
the
calculations
and
for
the
sccrt
distributions
in
chapter
377.?
H
H
Okay,
let
me
just
I
have
to
I've
been
told
if
you
wait
just
a
few
seconds,
it's
gotta
sort
of
clear
its
head
before
you
bring
up
the
next
one.
So
let
me
get
out
of
the
chair
and
bring
up
document.
H
Yes,
okay!
Thank
you
very
much
so
table
two
is
and
as
miss
hughes
was
going,
you
see
they
have
information
in
their
slide
deck.
There's.
Also
information
in
the
back
of
the
bill.
H
Explanation
for
the
committee's
consideration
is
here
wanted
to
show
that,
as
was
stated,
this
is
tied
into
the
sccrt
is
one
of
the
rest
one
of
the
revenues
that
is
distributed
at
the
first
tier
of
the
consolidated
tax
distribution
or,
as
we've
referred
to
it
as
ctax
and
along
with
the
five
other
revenue
sources,
and
so
the
I
thought,
I'd
just
provide
a
little
bit
of
information
on
that
here
in
tabular
form
to
complement
the
information
that
taxation
has
in
their
slide
deck
and
the
information
that
your
staff
has
provided
in
the
bill
explanation.
H
So
what
I've
just
decided
for
the
committee's
benefit
here
is
provided.
These
are
the
six
revenue
sources
that
we
talk
about
that
go
into
the
first
tier
and
by
first
tier
we
mean
there's
a
distribution
requirement
for
these
taxes,
c6
taxes
to
be
distributed
at
the
county
level
to
the
counties
and
that's
the
first
tier
bucket
or
the
first
tier,
so
the
basic
city,
county
relief
tax.
H
This
is
the
half
a
percent
sales
tax
rate
that
has
come
up
in
discussions
from
time
to
time,
and
so
it
is
got
distribution
formulas
that
require
it
to
go
to
if
it's
an
in-state
sale,
meaning
that
the
the
sale
can
be
sourced
and
occurred
in
that
county,
then
the
revenues
from
that
are
sourced
to
the
county
if
they're
out-of-state
sales,
meaning
it's
a
business,
not
maintaining
a
fixed
place
of
business
in
the
state,
then
they're,
distributed
to
the
counties
on
a
per
capita
basis.
H
The
and
I'm
gonna
leave
the
supplemental
for
last,
so
the
cigarette
tax.
This
is
the
10
portion
of
this.
The
cigarette
tax
rate
that
is
distributed
to
the
counties
on
a
per
capita
basis.
The
liquor
tax
is
the
50
cents
from
the
tax
on
hard
liquor,
which
is
the
tax.
That's
over
22
alcohol
by
volume
that
is
also
distributed
to
the
counties
on
a
per
capita
basis
and
then
the
real
property
transfer
tax.
H
This
is
the
55
cents
per
500
of
value
tax,
on
a
transfer,
real
property
between
people,
and
this
is
sourced
to
the
county
in
which
the
transfer
occurred.
And
then
you
have
the
a
portion
of
the
four
cent
basic
governmental
services
tax.
This
is
what
you
pay
when
you're
registering
your
vehicle
each
year,
so
there's
a
statutory
distribution
formula
for
distributing
the
proceeds
from
this
between
the
state,
general
fund
and
highway
fund,
school
districts
and
cap
to
the
county.
H
So
this
is
the
portion
that
is
distributed
to
the
county,
so
that
is
five
of
the
six
revenue
sources
that
go
into
again,
this
first
tier
of
the
sea
tax
to
be
distributed
to
the
local
governments
within
the
county,
but
I'll
get
to
that
a
little
bit.
H
H
It's
1.75
percent,
and
here
there's
the
statutory
distribution
formulas
that
have
been
discussed
for
allocating
the
sccrt
money
between
the
guaranteed
counties
highlighted
in
green
and
then
the
non-guaranteed,
and
so
the
way
that
works
is
that,
as
we've
stated,
you
have
to
do
the
calculation
for
how
much
should
the
guaranteeds
get
for
a
year
and
then
they're
distributed
one
twelfth
of
that
amount
each
month,
then
the
amount
of
the
sccrt
attacks
that
is
above
the
guaranteed
amount
is
then
required
to
be
distributed
amongst
the
non-guaranteed
counties
as
the
share
of
their
actual
sccrt
collections
to
the
total
sccrt
collections
for
the
non-guaranteed
cabinets.
H
And
so
so
that's
you
can
see
here.
These
are
the
actual
distributions
for
fy
2018
to
for
those
six
revenue
sources
under
the
statutory
provisions.
For
that,
so
then
the
table
2b
here
and
so
this
excuse
me
table
2a-
would
then
be
using
the
demographer's
estimates.
Doing
what
taxation
said.
They're
using
the
demographics
to
do
the
calculation
for
the
sccrt
and
so
table
2b
would
be
the
distributions
that
would
occurred
for
the
sccrt.
H
How
do
you
use
those
census?
Estimates
that
I
showed
in
table
1a
and
so
down
here
at
the
bottom.
You
can
see
the
diff,
the
the
amounts
for
the
sccrt,
but
it's
actually
just
easier
to
get
if
you've
got
it
planted
out
two-sided
to
go
to
flip
the
page
and
table
2c
is
showing
you
the
difference
between
the
census
population
estimates
versus
those
that
were
actually
done
in
the
top
table,
using
the
demographic
resistance.
H
So
you
can
see,
as
was
I
think
this
somewhat
discussed
here
or
referenced
it
by
ms
hughes.
Is
that
right?
There
may
not
be
any
impact,
and
here
you
can
see
it.
I
would
argue
relatively
de
minimis,
that
the
change
in
the
distribution
amongst
amongst
the
guaranteed
would
have
been
approximately
fourteen
thousand
dollars
for
fy
2018.
H
Had
you
used
the
census
estimates
versus
the
demographers,
and
but
and
because
of
that
fourteen
thou,
approximately
fourteen
thousand
dollars,
went
to
the
guaranteed,
then
that
reduces
the
amount
for
distribution
to
the
non-guaranteed
by
that
approximately
fourteen
thousand
dollars.
So
that's
so
that
would
have
been
the
results
here
now.
I
think
what's
worth
referencing
here
on.
H
H
That
estimate
that
certified
by
the
governor
that
the
demographer
prepared
for
say
july
1st
2015
is
fixed.
It
will
not
change
versus
the
census
estimates
for
july,
1st
2015
when
they
originally
prepared.
It
are
different
than
the
estimates
that
if
you
would
go
to
the
census
website
and
pull
the
estimate
for
july
1st
july
1st
2015
today,
it's
most
likely
going
to
be
different
for
all
17
counties,
and
so
that
would
be
one
of
the
issues.
H
Is
that
the
the
census
estimates
are
sort
of
a
moving
estimate
because
of
the
methodology
that
they
use
to
do
their
estimates
versus
the
statutory
requirements
in
place
for
the
demographer
to
do
their
estimates
and
do
and
then
be
certified
by
the
governor
to
be
used,
as
miss
hughes
pointed
out,
so
that's
table
two
and
so
table.
Three
just
shows
you
the
results
for
fy
2019.
H
In
terms
of
the
same
stuff,
using
the
stuff
from
table,
1b
those
estimates
for
the
census
and
then
going
through
it-
and
you
can
look
at
that
table
and
see
that
the
again
the
change
on
that
there
is
a
little
larger,
but
it
was
around
227
thousand
dollars
for
had
you
used
the
census
estimates
compared
to
the
demographic
assessments
to
do
the
secret
distribution
for
fy
2019.
H
So
then,
what
I
want
to
do
is
bring
up
document
or
I
can
bring
it
see
here.
So
that's
that's
sort
of
the
the
results
for
the
sccrt
and
the
and,
as
we
discussed
the
first
tier
of
the
sea
tax
for
distributing
revenues
to
the
county
and
then
those
those
revenue
amounts
that
are
available
from
those
six
revenues
at
the
county
are
distributed
to
local
governments
within
the
county
based
on
the
statutory
provisions
that
are
are
in
interest,
360.680
and
360.690
for
determining
the
the
second
tier
distributions.
H
H
So
the
base
allocation
basically
takes
the
amount
of
sea
tax
that
was
distributed
to
the
local
governments
and
a
county
that
are
eligible
to
receive
it
and
those
would
be
counties,
cities,
towns,
special
districts
and
enterprise
districts,
and
so
you
take
that
amount
and
you
adjust
it
for
the
consumer
price
index
and
that's
their
base
amount
to
be
distributed
for
the
current
fiscal
year.
So
taxation
is
then
required
to
distribute
it
to
the
extent
there's
enough.
H
Actual
revenue
generated
to
distribute
112
to
that
fiscal
year
base
amount
to
the
local
government
based
on
that
base
share
allocation.
So
that's
the
the
the
base.
So
then,
the
the
excess
allocation
is
where
the
statutory
provisions
that
you
see
here
that
taxation
is
asking
to
be
removed
from
360.690
is
in
the
calculation
provisions
for
the
excess
distribution
and
those
are
the
the
excess
distribution
share.
Distribution
shares
are
based
on
factors
using
the
five-year
average
growth
in
population
and
the
five-year
average
growth
and
assessed
valuation.
H
To
then,
do
these
mathematical
calculations
to
calculate
what
that
excess
distribution
share
is,
and
so
the
the
excess
distribution
would
be
is
if
there's
a
more
than
enough
money
to
cover
the
base
allocation
for
a
month,
then
that's
excess.
So
then
the
excess
has
to
be
distributed.
Based
on
these.
These
shares
that
come
out
of
this
mathematical
calculation.
H
So
what
you
see
here
in
table
four
again,
keeping
the
color
schematic
and
the
orange
is
there's
the
for
every
one
of
the
entities
that
is
eligible
to
receive
money
from
the
sea
tax
distribution
under
the
second
tier
distribution
mechanism.
H
I've
I've
shown
you
there
in
the
orange
column
to
the
on
the
left-hand
side.
That's
the
five-year
average
growth
rate
and
the
population
based
on
the
demographers
estimates.
H
So,
looking
specifically
at
carson
city
the
five
year,
average
growth
in
population
for
the
results
that
would
have
been
used
for
doing
the
calculation
for
fy
2018
was
minus
0.31
percent
going
to
the
left,
then
for
the
census.
It
would
have
been
minus
point.
One
nine
percent
and
then
so
here's
the
difference
census
less
than
mammographer,
so
that
that
would
then
be
the
change
in
the
pop
the
five
year
average
population
estimate
that
would
be
be
run
through
the
mathematical
formula
for
calculating
the
s
distribution
shares.
H
So
you
can
see
that
I've
listed
here
every
one
of
the
counties
and
then
within
the
counties,
the
entities,
so
you
can
see
here
for
special
districts,
there
is
no
population
for
them,
so
it's
their
factor
is
just
being
driven
off
the
average
five-year
average
growth
in
assessed
value.
H
So
that's
why
but
not
applicable
here
so
that
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
population
for
doing
the
calculations
for
special
districts.
But
let
me
scroll
down
one
page
here
and
you
see
clark
county
which
has
right
the
the
county.
You
have
the
cities
and
then
you
have
all
the
towns,
and
then
you
have
special
districts.
So,
as
ms
hughes
had
pointed
out,
one
of
the
issues
here
that
I
think
causes
some
tension
with
regards
to
actually
administering
these
provisions
is,
as
was
stated,
the
census
is
preparing
estimates
for
only
counties
and
cities.
H
They
are
not
providing
and
preparing
estimates
for
towns.
Now
the
law
requires
the
state
demographer
to
actually
prepare
estimates
for
counties,
cities
and
towns.
Why?
Because
you
have
towns
getting
money
from
the
sea
tax
and
you
need
population
estimates
to
be
able
to
calculate
the
five
year
average
growth,
so
you
can
suddenly
see
here.
You
have
a
mismatch
if
taxation
is
supposed
to
switch
over
and
use
the
census
estimates,
so
they
would
have
them
for
counties
and
cities,
but
they
wouldn't
have
them
for
the
towns.
H
H
I
guess
I
have
to
use
the
demographers
estimates
for
the
towns,
because
that's
all
I
have,
and
so
that's
starting
to
create
that
you
have
one
person,
the
demographer,
creating
a
set
of
estimates
for
the
towns,
but
you
have
the
census,
who
is
another
set
of
demographers
and
preparing
estimates
that
would
be
used
for
counties
in
cities.
So
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
see
the
point
that
miss
hughes
is
making
here
tabular
here
in
the
real
world
data
that
is
available
and
what
it
would
mean
for
to
go
through
the
calculations.
H
So
then
the
right
hand
side
is
just
it's
the
same
information
just
doing
the
calculations
for
fy
2019
in
terms
of
the
five-year
average
for
based
on
the
demographics
estimates
and
the
five-year
average
growth
based
on
using
the
census
estimates.
H
H
So
then
the
final
table
that
I
just
wanted
to
bring
up
quickly
and
sorry
just
trying
to
pause
a
little
bit
here
to
give
my
computer
a
chance
to
go
through
this.
H
So
can
everybody
see
this
document
with
the
red
banner
at
the
top?
Yes,
okay,
thank
you.
So,
finally,
the
final
table
here
table
five
is
taking
those
those
five-year
average
population
estimates
for
that,
the
demographer,
which
was
what
was
actually
done
by
the
department
of
taxation
and
doing
the
calculations
for
the
excess
distribution
chairs.
And
then
this
is
what
mr
williams
does
kevin
williams
for
the
department.
Taxation
is,
does
these
calculations
and
then
does
the
distributions
for
the
first
tier
and
the
second
tier
every
month
for
the
sea
tax?
H
And
then
you
can
see
the
dollar
amount,
the
change
and
one
of
the
things
you're
going
to
note
here.
If
you
went
and
looked
at
the
the
difference
in
table
two,
which
is
you
see
the
302
dollars
for
carson
city
here
as
the
carson
city
difference
well,
that
was
the
difference
that
the
sccrt
distribution,
and
so
you
see
that
matches
up.
If
you
go
look
at
table
2c,
there's
the
302
difference
for
carson
city
due
to
the
sccrt.
H
H
It's
a
it's
a
zero-sum
game
for
the
distributions,
and
so
this
was
just
to
attempt
to
try
and
put
tables
together
to,
and
it
was
as
much
for
staff
from
taxation
and
fiscal
to
work
through
this
issue
to
see
what
it
would
potentially
mean
for
this
language
to
be
administered
under
this.
H
Well,
if
the
conflict
is
that
hey
every
year
census
estimates
are
supposed
to
be
used
if
they're
in
conflict
with
the
demographers,
and
I,
as
your
staff,
I
would
offer
to
you
that
possibly
one
of
the
the
practical
effects-
and
I
doubt
that
it
was
would
be
the
intended
effect-
is
again.
As
I've
already
stated,
the
the
rare
thing
would
be
for
the
planets
to
align
such
that
the
demographers
estimates
and
the
census
estimates
matched
for
every
county
and
city.
So
almost
every
year
in
a
year
out,
could
they
be
close?
H
H
H
So
you
have
a
statutory
process
for
the
demographers,
estimates
to
be
prepared
and
then
be
used,
but
then
to
turn
around
and
say:
no,
you
got
to
use
the
census
when
there's
a
conflict,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
observation
as
your
staff
of
having
looked
at
this
bill,
the
the
issue
and
having
and
it
took
sort
of
working
through
the
data
to
get
that
full
understanding
of
what
the
potential
could
be
for
this
provision
to
be
administered
by
department
of
taxation.
And
so
with
that.
Madam
chair,
that
I
realized.
H
That
was
a
lot
of
information
about
this.
The
the
the
the
bill
with
regards
to
the
population
issue,
but
also
the
first
tier
and
second
tier.
But
I
can
attempt
to
answer
any
questions
or
we
also
have
a
department
of
taxation
here
who
actually
administers
the
first
and
second
tier
provisions
of
the
sea
tax.
And
with
that
I'm
willing
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
members
of
the
committee
may
have
manager.
A
Thank
you,
mr
gundan,
so
I
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page,
so
this
bill
is
not
about
changing
sea
tax,
correct
that
was
a
head
nod.
Yes,
okay
and.
H
It's
about
these
provisions
with
regards
to
you,
the
the
language
that
you
see
and
read
in
the
bill
about
the
requirement
to
use
the
census
estimates
when
they
are
in
conflict
with
the
demographics
estimates
and,
as
ms
hughes
pointed
out,
that
is
there's
potentially
some
ambiguity
as
to
what
conflict
means
and
does
it
mean
every
year
you
use
the
census
estimates
because
they're
preparing
annual
estimates
just
like
the
demographers
or
is
it
supposed
to
be
in
every
10-year
census
thing,
but
I
would
argue
even
the
mathematics
will
get
complicated
if
every
10
years
you're
supposed
to
try
and
switch
over
to
the
census
estimates.
H
But
you
can
see
here
you
need
to
do
a
five
year.
Average
growth,
the
census,
is
a
point
estimate
for
one
year,
so
you'd
have
to
then
start
to
blend,
either
with
the
census
and
or
the
demographers
to
calculate
a
five
year
average.
So,
as
ms
hughes
pointed
out
that,
even
if
you
were
supposed
to
do
this
on
a
decennial
basis,
you
still
have
a
mathematical
issue
that
potentially
has
to
be
addressed.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
so
miss
directory
use
or
I'm
sorry
as
chief
deputy
director
hughes.
So
what
happens
if
we
don't
pass
this
bill?
How
does
that
impact
your
department
and
how
determinations
are
made.
D
D
This
is
a
hard
conversation
to
have,
because
when
this
was
brought
to
our
attention,
we
investigated
the
matter
and
found
that
this
would
be
mathematically
problematic,
especially
to
go
back
since
to
the
2019
or
2000,
and
we
clarify
1999
when
this
provision
was
put
into
place,
and
so
we
would
have
to
go
back
and
recalculate
have
to
recalculate
that
information,
but,
as
mr
guindon
is
provided
in
his
spreadsheets,
that
he's
demonstrated
there
that
the
change
you
know
might
necessitate
pulling
back
revenues
that
have
been
distributed
already
to
local
governments.
D
Some
it
would
move
some
from
one
county
to
another
and
some
de
minimisly
in
others.
It
might
be
a
little
bit
larger
number,
but
this
would
take
quite
a
bit
of
time
if
this
bill
is
not
passed
to
rectify
that
situation.
A
Thank
you
for
that
and
just
to
confirm
so
the
so
c-tacs
is
extremely
complicated.
We
know
that,
and
so
with
sea
tax,
it's
required
to
look
at
population
growth
of
towns,
but
the
information
from
the
census
isn't
providing
that
correct.
The
census
is
looking
at
counties
and
other
things,
but
not
the
towns
that
are
required
to
be
examined
for
sea
tax.
D
So
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record-
thank
you,
chair
cohen,
for
the
question.
The
federal
census
numbers
will
determine
the
counties
and
cities
but
does
not
determine
the
towns.
So
when
the
state
demographer
does
his
population
numbers,
it
is
the
counties,
cities
and
towns,
unincorporated
towns.
A
Thank
you.
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we're
very
clear
on
that
and
then,
mr
again,
didn't
you
have
anything
to
add
to
that.
H
Thank
you,
yeah.
I
would
just
offer
because
I
think
that's
a
very
good
question
and
so
since,
as
you
stated,
the
statute
says
that
there
has
to
be
this
calculation
done
to
distribute
the
money
under
the
sea
tax
to
all
those
entities
that
you
see
listed
in
the
table.
There
counties,
cities,
towns,
enterprise
districts
and
special
districts.
H
The
the
three
entities
that
involve
population
to
be
able
to
do
the
calculation
are
county
cities
and
towns
and,
as
has
been
stated
here,
you
have
the
census
only
doing
it
for
counties
and
cities
the
demographers
doing
it
for
towns.
So,
in
my
mind,
I
look
at
this
your
staff
and
say
well
if
the
statute
is
left
in
place
and
the
determination
is
that
you
have
this
conflict
and
then
you're
going
to
administer
it
annually.
H
And
then
you
have
the
census,
preparing
estimates
for
counties
and
cities,
but
now
you're
going
to
go
blend.
The
census,
estimates
for
counties
and
cities
with
the
demographers
estimates
for
towns
to
calculate
these
five-year
growth
five
year,
average
growth
rates
to
drive
through
the
excess
c
tax
calculations
and-
and
I
think
that
would
potentially
be
come
problematic.
A
Vice
chair
thompson,
but
before
you
ask
your
question,
I
also
just
want
to
remind
the
committee
that
the
that
mr
hardcastle,
the
demographer,
is
here
I'll.
Certainly
let
mr
hardcastle
make
any
statement
he
wants.
I
don't
know
if
you
just
plan
to
answer
questions,
but
he
is
available
as
well.
So
with
that,
thank
you.
Please
go
ahead.
Vice
chair.
F
Thank
you
so
much.
It's
not
so
much
a
question.
It's
just
a
big
fan
of
the
of
our
state
demographer
and
the
work
he
does.
I
love
the
site.
I
love
all
the
reports
that
you
produce.
I'm
referencing
one
in
one
of
my
bills,
because
people
seem
to
think
that
you
know
how
we
estimate
populations
or
what
the
composite
of
our
populations
might
look
like
is
some
type
of
magical
thinking.
I'm
like
no,
it's
not.
It
all
exists
in
the
department
of
taxation,
big
fan
of
the
democrat
living
in
the
department
of
taxation
as
well.
A
Thank
you
is
that
a
question
down
at
the
end?
Okay,
thank
you.
So
you
got
a
second,
mr
hardcastle
as
well
dittoing.
What
the
vice
chair
had
to
say
about
your
work.
Okay,
so
I
am
not
seeing
any
other
questions
and,
and
mr
hardcastle
do
you
have
a
statement
you'd
like
to
make
or
testimony
on
the
bill.
C
C
A
Thank
you
for
that.
I'm
not
seeing
any
other
questions
director
did
do
any
of
your
staff.
Members
have
other.
D
Testimony
yes,
chair
cohen,
thank
you
for
the
record,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
D
I
really
want
to
thank
you
in
your
committee's
time
for
hearing
this
bill
and
would
like
to
shout
out
to
russell
and
the
tax
team
for
the
the
spreadsheets
and
calculations
that
they
have
put
in
to
give
a
visual
depiction
of
our
testimony
today,
and
we
realize
that
this
is
a
hard
conversation
to
have
by
coming
forward
from
the
department
on
a
statutory
change
that
removes
language
implemented
in
1999,
that
the
department
never
implemented
for
the
distribution
of
state
tax
revenues
to
local
governments.
D
We
do
view
this
matter
as
a
housekeeping
matter,
since
we've
never
implemented
or
used.
The
bureau
of
census
totals
our
goal
in
this
bill
is
to
align
the
statute
with
the
processes
and
with
no
impact
to
local
governments.
Currently,
the
way
the
statute
is
written,
it
makes
these
calculations
of
the
distribution
process
mathematically
problematic.
D
If
the
census
bureau
of
totals
were
to
use
to
be
used
in
the
timing
issues
when
they
are
pushed
and
when
they
are
continually
updated,
it
creates
conflict
what
population
numbers
to
use
and
when
and
as
well
as
the
point
to
make
that
the
data
is
developed
for
the
point
in
time.
Additionally,
the
census
bureau
does
not
determine
again
the
population
of
the
unincorporated
and
unincorporated
towns,
since
we've
always
used
the
governor's
certified
population
numbers
and
will
continue
to
do
so.
If
this
bill
is
passed,
there
should
be
no
effect
on
local
governments.
D
Furthermore,
the
population
counts
developed
by
the
state
demographer
and
certified
by
the
governor.
The
local
governments
do
have
a
do
local
due
process,
as
you
have
seen
in
some
of
the
exhibits
and
in
previous
hearings,
there
has
been
some
opposition
from
local
governments,
although
indirectly
related
to
this
bill
about
how
the
state
demographer
develops.
Those
population
estimates
I
would
like
to
place
on
the
record
here
today
again
that
the
department
is
willing
to
continue
to
work
with
local
governments
as
we
transition,
and
I
would
like
to
share
with
you.
D
Jeff
hardcastle
has
announced
his
retirement
and
he
will
be
retiring
at
the
end
of
june
and
I
personally
would
like
to
thank
jeff
hardcastle
for
all
of
the
work
that
he's
done
for
the
state
of
nevada
in
in
the
work
that
he
does
in
determining
not
only
the
federal
census
but
the
the
population
numbers
here
in
nevada.
D
The
department
has
interviewed
for
mr
hardcastle's
replacement
and
are
working
to
finalize
that
process.
We
have
discussed
a
plan
with
local
governments
on
what
the
first
six
months
of
the
demographer's
job
would
look
like,
and
that
includes
outreach
to
local
governments.
We
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
of
this
proposal
and
this
concludes
our
remarks.
A
Thank
you
very
much
director,
and
certainly
we
also
appreciate
the
work
that
you've
been
doing
doing
the
audit
in
the
first
place,
realizing
that
there
were
probably
some
issues
that
needed
to
be
addressed
and
finding
them
for
us.
So
with
that,
seeing
no
other
questions.
B
B
B
A
Thank
you
for
that
and,
however
I
I
do
want
to
a
director
ask
you.
I
believe
there
was
some
some
of
the
localities.
Some
of
the
the
municipalities
I
should
say
there
was
some
concern
that
they
expressed
in
the
senate.
I
believe
you've
been
working
with
them
and
I
just
want
to
put
on
the
record
that
you're
continuing
to
work
with
them
and
that
that
work
is
moving
forward.
D
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
cohen,
for
the
comments
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record.
Yes,
we
will
continue
to
work
with
local
governments
as
we
bring
on
the
new
demographer
and
he
has
a
the
new
demographer
has
an
opportunity
to
work
with
mr
hardcastle.
Through
his
retirement.
We
will
definitely
be
working
with
the
local
governments
on
improvements
of
our
processes
and
or
changes
necessary.
A
C
Not
a
problem
at
all,
I
know
it's
late
greetings.
C
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
vice
chair
benitez
thompson
and
the
committee
members
yeah,
just
really
quick
to
encapsulate
director
young
pretty
much
wrapped
it
up
for
us.
We
were
originally
in
opposition
of
of
sb-74,
because
in
opening
the
nrs
there
was
concern
having
just
gone
through
an
appeal
process
with
population
estimates.
There
was
some
concern
on
our
end
and
some
other
local
governments
and
that
the
difference
in
various
variables,
in
the
regression
models
being
used,
caused
some
confusion
and
some
questions
on
our
end.
C
B
C
Bill
and
why
they're
moving
forward
and
we
were
able
to,
then
you
know,
reflect
and
talk
to
them
about
our
issues
with
or
concerns
with
the
regulatory
process,
and
I
appreciate
her
committing
again
on
the
record
that
she
has
volunteered
to
work
with
us
and
we've
accepted
that
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
her
and
her
team
and
the
new
state
demographer
big
shoes
to
fill
and
in
some
transparency
and
clarity
revolving
the
the
actual
process
by
which
you
know
you
can't
use
the
same
variables
for
a
county
or
a
city
that
you
use
for
a
town.
C
So
those
are
some
of
the
things
that
I
hope
that
we
will
be
working
on
and
and
looking
at
down
the
road
and
if
it,
if
I
may,
share
just
to
thank
jeff
hardcastle
and
wish
him
well
in
his
next.
Whatever
his
next
adventure
is,
and
also
mr
guindon,
your
understanding
of
sea
tax
and
your
ability
to
explain
it
with
such
animation.
I
applaud
you.
So
thank
you
for
the
time,
chair
and
committee,
and
that
concludes
my
testimony.
A
Thank
you
and
mr
luke,
can
you
just
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
then
just
let
us
know
you're
in
opposition,
but
happily
working
toward
support.
C
A
Thank
you
and
I
think
you
cut
out
a
bit
so
I'm
just
going
to
repeat
it:
it's
j,
a
r
e
d!
L!
U!
U
k
e!
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation
director
and
chief
deputy
director
hughes
also,
certainly
thank
you
to
mr
hardcastle
and
mr
guindon.
A
So
with
that
I
will
bring
a
close
to
senate
bill
74's
hearing
and
ask:
do
we
have
anything
from
the
committee.
B
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
chris
daley,
d-a-l-y
nevada,
state
education,
association,
the
voice
of
nevada
educators
for
over
120
years
today
is
april,
15th,
that's
tax
day
and
non-pandemic
times.
So
it's
a
great
day
to
talk
about
the
importance
of
generating
revenue
necessary
to
provide
the
services
relied
on
by
nevada's
families
and
for
nsca.
I
We
often
talk
about
the
importance
of
funding
public
education
in
february
hundreds
of
educators
and
red
scarves,
and
face
coverings,
convened
in
carson
city
lining
the
street
from
the
legislative
building
to
the
capitol
asking
you
to
dig
deep
to
address
our
budget
challenges
after
sustaining
difficult
cuts
in
the
31st
special
session
last
summer.
K-12
public
education
is
again
threatened
this
session
with
difficult
general
fund
cuts.
I
This
includes
a
proposed
33
million
cut
to
the
read
by
grade
three
program,
which
provides
critical
early
literacy,
supports
and
156
million
dollars
and
proposed
cuts
to
class
size
reduction,
despite
already
having
the
largest
class
sizes
in
the
country.
I
Emergency
assistance
from
the
american
rescue
plan
will
certainly
help
schools
address
pandemic
related
issues
and
is
greatly
appreciated,
but
these
funds
are
one
time
and
will
expire
in
2023,
ranking
near
the
bottom
of
states
and
per
pupil
funding.
Nevada's
public
schools
and
other
vital
services
deserve
new
state
revenue.
Not
just
continued
austerity.
I
I
Educators
have
been
calling
on
our
leaders
to
invest
in
nevada
for
years
and
now
is
the
time
to
take
bold
steps
to
meet
our
state's
needs.
We
need
our
leaders
to
have
the
courage
to
stand
up
and
demand
new
and
progressive
revenue
to
move
nevada
up
from
the
bottom
of
the
education
funding
lists.
We
believe
our
legislature
and
this
committee
has
the
opportunity
now
to
advance
a
package
of
revenue
proposals
to
take
this
big
and
bold
step
in
addressing
our
funding
challenge.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
committee
a
bit
of
the
lay
of
the
land.
As
you
know,
the
priority
is
going
to
be
getting
bills
out
of
the
house.
So
please
just
pay
attention
for
our
agendas
coming
out.
There
will
not
be
a
meeting
on
this
coming
tuesday.
A
Excuse
me
to
our
staff
because
I'm
starting
to
cough
no,
I'm
not
going
to
list
everyone,
but
thank
you
very
much
very
much
appreciated
and
we
are.