►
From YouTube: 4/6/2021 - 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
Hey
good
afternoon,
I'm
going
to
call
this
meeting
of
assembly
revenue
to
order.
Madam
secretary,
will
you
please
take
the
role.
C
D
F
F
A
And
I
am
present,
please
mark
assemblyman
roberts
present
when
he
arrives.
I
believe
he's
was
here
just
a
moment
ago.
A
Welcome
everyone
again
to
this
committee
before
we
get
into
housekeeping.
I
just
want
to
discuss
this
schedule,
so
we're
going
to
go
a
little
out
of
order
and
I'm
sorry
for
catching
people
off
guard.
We
had
multiple
hearings
going
on
with
a
lot
of
people
out
and
me
presenting
so
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
let
people
know.
So
what
we're
going
to
do
is
we're
going
to
start
with
assembly
bill
90.
A
A
So
sorry
about
any
confusion,
that's
causing
anyone,
but
we'll
just
get
started
so
some
housekeeping
very
quickly.
Members
presenters,
please
silence
your
electronic
devices,
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
during
the
meeting
is
required,
and
additionally,
courtesy
and
respect
when
working
with
staff.
Before
and
after
the
meeting
is
required,
committee
members
will
be
using
our
laptops
and
possibly
other
screens
and
devices
not
only
to
participate
in
this
meeting
virtually.
But
to
view
exhibits
due
to
that,
you
may
see
us
looking
at
multiple
screens
or
hard
copy
printouts.
A
A
Anyone
wishing
to
provide
testimony
or
attend
the
meeting
virtually
must
pre-register
online
registration
opens
when
an
agenda
is
posted
to
the
now
legislature's
website.
Upon
successful
registration
on
the
nellis
page,
registrants
will
receive
a
telephone
number
meeting
id
and
instructions
for
joining
the
meeting.
A
Also
as
a
reminder,
pursuant
to
rule
number
54
of
the
assembly
standing
rules.
Support
when
you
are
testifying
in
support,
support
of
a
bill
or
resolution
is
construed
as
approval
as
the
measure
as
written
or
approval
of
system
of
the
measure
as
written
along
with
proposed
amendments
that
have
been
approved
by
the
sponsor
of
the
measure.
Opposition
to
a
bill
or
resolution
shall
be
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
is
a
position
on
a
bill
or
resolution
in
which
you
offer
particular
insight
on
the
measure,
but
express
no
position
on
the
measure.
So
if
you
love
a
bill
but
just
need
a
little
thing
changed,
but
the
the
bill
sponsor
has
not
agreed
to
that.
That
is
opposition,
but
please
feel
free
to
tell
us
how
much
you
love
the
bill.
A
Otherwise,
so,
okay,
with
that,
I'm
going
to
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
90
assembly,
bill
90
requires
counties
to
pay
impact
fees
to
certain
local
governments
for
projects
of
inter-county
significance,
and
I'm
going
to
invite
up
the
vice
chair
to
present
the
bill.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
G
Thank
you
so
much,
I'm
assemblywoman,
theresa
benitez-thompson
and
I'm
here
presenting
assemblyville
90..
If
I
could
refer
the
committee
members,
you
do
have
a
conceptual
mock-up
available
on
nellis
and
we
will.
I
will
be
referring
to
the
conceptual
mock-up
in
its
entirety,
intended
to
replace
all
of
the
language
and
sex
sections
of
the
other
bill.
G
So
first
I'll
start
with
the
legislative
history,
so
the
original
assembly
bill
90,
was
introduced
by
one
of
my
colleagues
assembly
bill,
153
of
the
2017
session.
At
that
time
a
conversation
was
looking
to
be
had
regarding
inter-county
planning
and
the
measure
did
not
prevail
at
that
time.
G
G
Meet
and
report
and
produce
a
report
for
the
legislature
regarding
regional
impacts,
and
then
a
report
was
produced
at
the
end
of
december.
For
us
assembly,
bill
90
was
introduced
in
its
original
version
from
the
2017
legislative
session,
just
as
a
starting
point,
knowing
that
it
would
be
heavily
amended,
but
really
wanting
to
get
back
to
the
conversation
regarding
inter-county
planning.
G
Since
this
bill
was
originally
introduced,
there
have
been
other
dynamics
in
the
building
and
other
conversations
regarding
inter-county
planning
that
I
think
big.
The
question
once
again,
which
is,
which
is
the
structure
that
you
would
that
ought
to
be
set
up
in
order
for
regional
planning
to
be
discussed.
G
So
now
is
way
of
background
just
on
regional
planning.
Some
of
you
might
be
familiar
with
the
truckee
meadows,
regional
planning
agency
or
with
intracounty
regional
planning
agencies.
So
within
intracounty
regional
planning
agencies,
you
have
cities
in
the
county
coming
together
to
have
more
uniform
planning
for
growth,
so
the
first
regional
planning
commission
was
set
up
after
a
history
of
judicial
conflicts,
where
you
saw
local
city
agencies
entering
into
those
conflicts
and
really
always
having
to
use
the
judicial
system.
In
order
to
resolve
differences,
they
had
so.
G
Finally,
what
happened
is
the
regional
planning
commission
was
set
up
and
since
that
time,
it's
allowed
for
the
at
least
up
north
the
conversation
to
have
to
happen
around
how
planning
and
growth
is
managed,
while
outside
of
washoe
county,
we
have
an
adjacent
county
that
is
growing
and
they're
there
for
about
six
years
has
been
a
conversation
in
this
building
about.
How
do
we
talk
about
inter-county
growth?
G
How
do
we
talk
about
growth
among
county
lines,
to
use
a
quote
from
then
from
our
former
senator
bill
raggio,
who
said
in
1989?
Why
plan
regionally?
Because
the
impact
of
growth
knows
no
boundaries?
I
think
it
is
especially
important
because
the
geographic
situation
is
not
like
many
other
areas.
G
For
all
intents
and
purposes,
the
reno
sparks
washoe
county
population
is
like
a
large
bowl
is
largely
a
cohesive
population
with
the
confined
to
the
mountains,
and
the
urban
communities
makes
little
sense
to
impose
restrictions,
limitations
and
regulations
which
are
tied
to
artificial
geographic
boundaries,
and
this
is
the
same
conversation
that
is
we're
back
at,
which
is
how
do
we
plan
a
structure
to
or
growth
and
be
supportive
of
growth,
but
also
realize
that
we
have
geographic
boundaries
that
might
prohibit
some
of
those
conversations
on
both
most
of
them
being
geopolitical.
G
That
being
said,
since
this
bill
was
first
introduced,
the
conversation
about
intra-county
planning
has
changed
and
has
a
different
tone
to
it.
At
this
time.
G
This
bill
still
might
be
needed
that
at
that
time
it
might
not,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
start
down
a
path
of
other
conversations
regarding,
inter
or
insurer
county
planning
at
this
time,
just
because
they
were,
they
were
not
at
all
necessarily
relevant
at
the
at
the
outset
of
the
spill.
G
However,
what
the
study
is
contemplating
is
that,
regardless
of
the
lay
of
the
land,
is
the
legislature,
the
judicial
system,
the
best
place
to
land
these
conversations
about
inter-county
growth,
or
indeed
can
we
have
government
stand
up
a
region,
an
intra
account
intra-county
planning
system
that
makes
sense
for
them
and
a
place
to
house
all
future
conversations.
G
So
this
is
looking
for
the
legislative
commission
to
appoint
a
committee
to
conduct
an
interim
study
regarding
regional
and
state
impacts
from
projects
of
inter-county
significance.
It
will
be
comprised
of
six
legislators
and
you
can
see
from
the
amendment
that
we
have
a
composite,
that's
very
typical
of
interim
committees
within
the
study.
What
I
would
like
to
be
looked
at
without
limitation
is
one
the
effect
affected.
G
Local
government,
which
means
a
county
that
is
adjacent
to
the
county,
where
a
project
of
inner
county
significance
is
located
or
city
located
in
the
county
that
is
adjacent
to
the
county,
where
the
project
of
inner
county
significance,
spurred
by
state,
approved
economic
development.
Growth
is
located
to
economic
development
projects
and
their
impact
to
the
state,
good
and
and
and
growing
pains
related,
because
we
have
to
acknowledge
that
in
so
many
of
the
ways
the
growth
that
we've
been
experiencing
in
this
state
is
good
and
that
it's
something
we
want
to
encourage.
G
But
we
always
want
it
to
be
planned.
Cognizant
growth
on
third
is
that
the
tax
revenue
abated
by
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
and
the
amount
of
revenues
projected
to
be
generated
once
those
abatements
end
so
because
we
as
a
state
have
been
approving
abatement
incentives
throughout
the
counties.
G
I
wanted
that
nexus
to
that
state-sponsored
growth
that
we've
been
encouraging
over
the
past
decade.
Lastly,
the
committee
should
also
consider
certain
revenues
considered
considering
impacts
to
contiguous
counties
and
statewide
needs.
The
committee
may
also
use
data
it
deems
relevant,
including
one
state
and
local
tax
reports
and
assessments,
two
demographics
and
projected
population
growth,
three
housing
trends
to
meet
the
projected
population,
growth
or
master
plans,
and
five
step
state
medicaid
costs
for
employees
with
dependents,
who
employers
receive
tax
abatements,
and
then
what
the
legislative
commission
will
do
is
report
the
report.
G
The
results
of
the
studies
to
the
chair
of
the
senate
committee
on
revenue,
as
well
as
the
assembly
committee
on
revenue
and
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
for
transmission
to
the
83rd
session
of
the
nevada
legislature,
and
what
this
will
do
is
hopefully
set
the
next
legislative
session
with
some
guide.
Some
some
scaffolding
around
what
legislation
should
look
like,
so
that
we
will
finally
have
a
place
where
we
can
have
these
conversations
that
isn't
strictly
limited
to
a
bill
draft
resolution
or
strictly
limited
to
actions
within
a
court.
C
All
right,
you
think,
we'd
be
better
at
getting
nothing
at
this
point.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill.
It
was
really
interesting
to
me
and
I
did
like
a
lot
of
sort
of
research
on
on
other
county
other
places
that
might
have
these
and
I
I
was
really
kind
of
coming
up
with
not
a
lot
of
information,
and
I
I
kept
harboring
back
to
atlanta,
which
is
a
city
that
has
several
counties
in
the
metropolitan
district,
but
it's
kind
of
the
opposite
right.
G
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question
to
assemblywoman
billbray
axelrod
through
chair
cohen.
So,
yes,
you
see
structures
like
this
much
more
common
on
the
east
coast.
Where
you
have
multiple
forms
of
government,
you
might
have
a
township,
then
you
have
a
city
and
then
you
have
a
county
or
you've
got.
Even
you
know
big
infrastructure,
starting
in
one
county
and
ending
in
another
county,
like
bridges,
and
so
you
see
them
much
more
common
on
the
east
coast
space,
but
in
nevada.
G
We
have
not
been
successful
in
having
a
inter
county
structure
set
up,
and
I
think
we
have,
I
think,
we're
going
to
have
to
think
about
what
are
what's
going
to
meet
our
own
needs,
and
I
think
that
the
interim,
with
a
study
structure,
where
we've
got
eight
to
ten
meetings
to
to
to
have
that
conversation
is
probably
gonna,
be
the
best
way
for
us
to
come
at
it.
C
C
G
Thank
you
so
much.
I
think
that
we've
crafted
the
language
in
this
with
the
ability
to
examine,
without
limitation,
the
ability
to
say
what
are
those
pieces
that
should
be
in
there.
So
what
you
saw
in
the
original
ab-90
was
a
lot
of
reference
to
the
structure
that
is
set
up
or
was
set
up
with
truckee
meadows,
regional
planning
agency,
and
that's
why
you
saw
very
specific
references
to
roads
and
to
traffic
counts.
G
You
kind
of
saw
those
those
those
nods
to
infrastructure
and
I
think
we
still
want
to
have
those,
but
but
at
the
same
time
there
are
pieces
where,
when
you
try
to
quantify
it
too
too,
specifically
you
fall
out
of
sorts
with
each
other
very
easily.
So
I
thought
that
the
the
the
better
way
to
do
it
would
be
to
allow
for
all
types
of
conversations,
but
really
look
at
the
when
you're
looking
at
the
back
end
of
impacts.
G
If
you're
looking
at
state
and
local
tax
reports
and
assessments,
you
kind
of
inherently
scoop
all
of
that
up.
You're
going
to
be
able
to
look
at
local
school
support
taxes,
you're
going
to
be
able
to
look
at
sales,
tax,
modified
business,
tax,
you're
kind
of
being
able
to
scoop
that
all
up
on
the
back
end
via
assessments
and
and
payment.
G
So
I'm
hoping
and
that's
my
intent
that
when
I
say
without
limitation
that
we
would
be
able
to
look
at
some
of
those
things
but
more
at
the
end
of
being
assessed
versus
the
so
much
as
ab
90
was
looking
at
originally,
which
was
the
front
end
of
planning
a
b
night,
the
amendment's
kind
of
moving
more
to
the
back
end.
Where
you're
looking
at
more
hard
data
about
what
has
been
happening
versus
the
trends
of
where
you're
going.
G
A
Oh
sorry,
I
thought
you
were
asking
for
another
question.
Okay,
so
I
so
vice
chair
is
when
doing
this
type
of
study.
Is
there
any
concern
about
not
getting
the
data
that
that's
going
to
be
needed
for
the
study.
G
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question.
I
don't
I
don't
believe
so.
I
believe
I
believe
that
the
legislature,
through
the
interim,
has
the
right
tools
at
hand
in
order
to
request
for
or
request
the
the
information
and
much
of
this
is
living
in
public
space,
anyways,
local,
that
the
tax
reports
are
are
leaving
in
a
in
a
public
place.
The
demographic
reports
are
living
in
a
in
a
public
place.
G
A
A
Okay
with
that,
then,
unless
you've
got
anyone
with
you
vice
chair,
which
I
don't
think
you
do,
we
will
move
to
support
on
the
telephones.
G
I
I
should
mention
real
quick
assembly,
chair
cohen,
in
my
apologies,
so
I
do
know
that
I
have
been
approached
about
two
amendments,
one
formally,
and
so
I
believe
that
mary
walker
from
story
county
has
an
amendment
which
will
add
a
sentence
in
about
a
county
in
which
a
project
of
inter-county
significance
exists,
and
so
I
at
this
point
I
think,
that's
that's
fine
to
have
in
there,
and
I
consider
that
friendly.
Secondly,
was
a
request
by
naco
to
see
if
they
could
have
a
member
on
the
committee.
G
I
did
talk
with
nato
briefly,
having
non-legislative
members
and
legislative
members
on
the
same
committee
would
would
change
the
the
structure
of
the
committee
and
the
type
of
committee,
although
I'm
I'm
willing
to
examine
other
ways
in
which
this
could
be
stood
up
as
a
study
or
a
committee.
During
interim,
we
have
a
couple
different
vehicles
available
to
us,
so
I'm
not
at
all
offended
by
that
notion.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
so
we
will
now
move
to
support
on
the
phones.
H
H
E
Yes,
my
name
is
richard
skip
daily
d-a-l-y
for
the
last
name,
and
I
was
calling
to
lend
support
to
this
proposal
as
amended
and
going
forward
happy
to
see
that
the
majority
leader
is
taking
up
the
mantle
of
this.
This
cause-
and
I
do
know
that
it's
been
an
issue
for
several
years
and
we're
trying
to
find
an
answer
to
to
resolve
many
of
these
concerns
that
have
come
up
over
time.
E
E
So
I
wanted
to
add
support
for
the
majority
leader
moving
this
bill
forward,
and
I
I
hope
that
we
have
success
on
this.
As
another
step
in
this
direction,
which
will
address
many
of
these
concerns-
and
I
know
back
east
for
assembly
woman
after
rod-
asked
the
question-
they've
actually
had
deals
like
this
interstate
in
maryland:
new
jersey
back
there
in
those
areas
on
the
east
coast
between
agencies
and
states,
for
projects
of
significance
that
go
across
state
straight
lines,
not
only
county
lines.
So
anyway,
thank
you
and
I
wish
the
committee
well.
H
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
committee,
jamie
rodriguez,
that's.
I
J-A-M-I-E-R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z,
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county
and
wanted
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
the
the
conceptual
amendment
and
what
will
hopefully
become
80
90..
We
did
have
some
pretty
strong
concerns
about
the
bill
drafted
mostly
concerned
that
it
would
do
the
opposite
of
her
intent
and
really
just
cause
all
of
us
local
governments
to
have
more
infighting.
I
We
did
want
to
keep
the
language
a
little
bit
open.
Our
concern
is
that
if
we
get
too
specific,
different
counties
collect
different
information
in
different
ways,
and
if
we
get
too
specific,
it
could
be
really
difficult
for
any
of
us
counties
or
some
of
us
counties
to
then
comply
with
the
request
for
from
the
committee
and
making
sure
that
we
get
you
the
information
that
you
need
to
review,
to
make
the
interim
study
as
fruitful
as
possible
so
genuinely
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
We
think
this
is
a
great
measure
and
hope
that
it
can
move
through
this
session
and
I
hope
we'll
get
there
moving
forward
and
again
do
appreciate
the
amendments
from
both
mary
walker
and
I
think
we
were
hoping
to
have
somebody
from
nico
on
there
just
to
help
read
through
the
information
and
how
counties
operate
and
how
some
of
these
impacts
and
what
some
of
these
impacts
may
be.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
H
I
I
We
are
in
support
of
ab
90
with
the
conceptual
amendment
amendment
from
the
assembly
woman
and
also
with
the
comments
that
she
made
that
she
would
accept
our
amendment
as
a
friendly
amendment,
and
I
will
get
that
to
the
committee
right
away
now
that
I
know
that
she's,
okay
with
it,
what
we
our
amendment
does
basically
is
currently
in
the
conceptual
amendment
of
ab90
paragraphs.
Three
and
four.
The
story
study
only
includes
an
adjacent
county
or
an
adjacent
city,
but
it
does
not
include
the
actual
county
where
the
project
of
inter-county
significance
exists.
I
We
would
like
to
see
the
county
where
the
project
exists,
to
have
the
same
standing
as
the
other
adjacent
local
government
by
being
included
in
paragraphs
three
and
four,
and
I
will
get
that
amendment
to
the
committee.
We
sincerely
appreciate
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson's
effort
and
her
conceptual
amendment,
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
her.
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
hope
you're
all
doing
well.
H
C
A-L-E-X-I-S-M-O-T-A-R-E-X
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada,
we
are
in
support
of
ab-90,
as
presented
with
the
amendment.
Regional
planning
should
not
be
limited
by
the
arbitrary
lines
drawn
to
determine
city
and
county
boundaries,
projects
of
large
inter-county
significance,
impact
entire
regions
and
more
thoughtful
collaborative
approaches
necessary.
This
interim
committee
will
go
a
long
way
in
starting
a
meaningful
dialogue
and
we
appreciate
the
assembly
woman
benitez
thompson
for
bringing
it
forward.
Thank
you.
H
J
Thank
you,
I'm
jake
tibbetts
j-a-k-e-t-I-b-b
I-t-t-s
and
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
eureka
county
and
I'm
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
eureka
county,
so
chair
cohen
and
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
allowing
your
county
to
provide
our
opinion
and
insights
on
ab-90
eureka
county
had
registered
to
provide
testimony
and
opposition
to
ab-90.
However,
we've
reviewed
the
amendment
from
the
majority
leader
and
the
recognition
that
story.
County's
amendment
is
a
friendly
amendment
to
include
a
county
that
has
the
project
of
internet
county
significance
in
the
study.
This
has
changed
our
position
to
support.
J
Everything
comes
full
circle
and,
and
one
county's
shoe
is
often
swapped
to
another
county's
foot
mining
has
to
occur
where
the
mineral
resource
lies,
and
so
this
is
a
big
consideration.
We
think
needs
to
be
taken
into
account
moving
forward
again,
thank
you
for
your
consideration.
Today
and
again,
we
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
her
common
sense
middle
ground
on
this.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
H
J
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
vincent
guthro
and
I
serve
as
the
deputy
director
of
the
nevada
association
of
counties
nico
wanted
to
get
on
the
record
and
support
the
presented
amendment
on
ab-90
and
thank
the
sponsor
the
majority
leader
for
working
with
local
governments
and
for
including
naco.
H
C
C
I
C
To
thank
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
for
recognizing
the
importance
of
this
topic
and
bringing
forward
the
amendment
with
the
goal
of
creating
dialogue
on
this
piece
of
the
puzzle,
as
it
relates
to
impacts
of
regional
development.
Growth
in
our
region
is
certainly
an
important
issue
to
the
city
reno.
We
will
stand
ready
to
assist
in
these
conversations
in
in.
I
H
F
F
At
this
point,
pursuant
to
your
change
of
the
bill
with
mary
walker's
request,
which
we
really
appreciate,
we
will
support
ab-90,
as
amended
to
be
an
interim
study
if
the
county,
which
has
the
project
with
inter-county
significance,
has
the
same
standing
as
the
adjacent
local
government,
as
suggested
by.
B
F
Walker,
thank
you
very
much
for
making
that
change.
We
very
much
appreciate
it.
We
look
forward
to
being
a
cooperating
partner
in
this
bill
as
it
approaches
the
next
steps.
We
also
thank
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
for
her
consideration
and
our
suggestions
and
for
including
us
in
conversations.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Thank
you
and
before
we
move
on
to
the
next
person
in
support
committee,
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
the
conceptual
amendment
is
being
posted
to
nellis
right
now,
so
it
should
be
up
short
and
with
that
next
person
and
support.
Please.
H
H
H
A
Thank
you
with
that
vice
chair.
Would
you
like
to
make
any
closing
remarks.
G
No,
I
just
this
is
not
a
new
the
question
being
brought
before
this
body.
I
think
that
we,
it
really
is
time
to
think
about
how
we
grow
we're
a
small
state
which
is
a
blessing,
and
what
it
means
is
that
we
just
were.
G
Our
counties
are
more
independent
on
each
other
than
what
we
and
what
we
might
initially
think
and
that
as
we
grow,
we
want
to
do
it
thoughtfully
in
a
way
that's
respectful
of
our
neighboring
counties
and
consider
of
our
neighboring
counties,
and-
and
so
I
I
think
that,
through
the
interim,
we
will
be
able
to
work
to
a
spot
to
stand
up.
Scaffolding
for
future
conversations
that
make
sense.
G
The
committee's
open
to
it
it's
my
own
villa,
you
know
it's,
it's
not
the
favorite
motion
that
exists
in
this
building.
So
now
that
I'm
back
in
committee
mode
versus
bill
sponsor
moan
I'd
be
happy
to
make
the
recommendation
that
we
would
refer
with
that
recommendation
to
two
ways
and
means.
A
C
C
C
C
K
A
And
I
am
a
yes
so
with
that
it
passes
and
to
be
clear
that
was,
let
me
just
make
sure
I
get
this
right.
A
And
to
be
clear,
also
that
passed
with
in
the
affirmative
with
every
member
present
and
the
motion
was
to.
A
Okay,
not
hearing
anything
from
them,
I'm
going
to
assume
that's
a
yes!
Is
that
a
yes,
okay,
I'm
I'm
seeing
a
head
nod!
Okay!
So
thank
you
for
that
with
that
we
are
going
to
move
on
to
our
work
session
and
I
will
ask
mr
nakamoto
to
provide
us
some
information
about
those
bills.
L
This
bill
makes
several
changes
relating
to
the
transferable
tax
credits
for
film
and
other
productions
that
may
be
issued
by
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
On
the
work
session.
There
are
nine
different
things
that
are
listed
in
the
bullet
points.
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
nine
of
them.
I
will
point
out
a
few.
The
first
four
basically
have
to
do
with
the
definition
of
what
is
a
qualified
production
or
what
is
not
a
qualified
production
in
term
or
for
the
purposes
of
the
transferable
tax
credits.
L
There
are
two
amendments
to
the
bill
that
have
been
submitted.
The
first
was
submitted
by
the
office
at
the
hearing.
That
would
add
language
to
section
two
subsection
four
of
the
bill
to
require
that
the
application
for
transferable
tax
credits
include
an
agreement
to
include
the
state
logo
that
is
provided
by
the
nevada
film
office
in
the
end
credits
indicating
that
the
production
was
filmed
in
nevada.
L
But
if
the
production
does
not
include
end
credits
and
screen
credits,
an
alternative
acknowledgement
to
the
state
of
nevada
is
required
within
the
final
production.
There
is
a
second
amendment
that
is
attached
to
the
work
section
document
that
was
submitted
by
mr
alonso
on
behalf
of
ufc
endeavor.
That
has
three
changes
that
are
outlined
in
the
work
session
document.
L
The
first
one
is
in
subsection
one
of
section
one.
The
definition
of
qualified
production
would
be
amended
to
include
a
multi-day
event
which
culminates
in
an
international
competition
televised
in
a
minimum
of
100
countries.
The
second
change
would
be
to
subsection
two
of
section,
one
specifically
paragraph
e,
which
deals
with
sporting
events.
This
would
be
further
amendment
amended
to
specify
that
it
is
not
intended
to
preclude
any
qualified
production
section.
L
One
of
this
act
there's
it
was
information
that
was
provided
to
the
chair
and
the
staff
from
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
That
spoke
specifically
to
this
amendment
by
mr
alonso
that
it
seeks
to
clarify
that
a
production
would
that
would
otherwise
qualify
such
as
a
commercial
documentary
or
television
series
should
not
be
disqualified,
simply
because
it's
related
to
sports.
They
gave
examples
such
as
a
commercial
that
has
a
player
for
the
vegas
las
vegas
raiders,
a
documentary
on
the
vegas
golden
knights
or
a
reality
show
featuring
participants
in
ufc
events.
L
These
could
still
be
included
as
qualifying
productions,
as
the
amendment
would
be
intended.
The
third
change
that
is
sought
by
mr
alonso
is
in
paragraph
f
of
subsection,
two
of
subsection,
one
which
currently
is
amended
to
exclude
pageants.
In
addition
to
gala
or
award
shows,
it
would
be
a
clarification
that
the
amen,
the
pageants
that
would
be
excluded
would
only
be
local
or
national
pageants.
L
A
Thank
you
committee.
Do
we
have
any
questions?
We
do
have
mr
hum
from
goed
here
to
answer
any
questions
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page
about
what
is
what
is
listed.
What
is
what
goed
is
is
proposing
from
the
alonzo
amendment
and
what
it
is
not
accepting.
A
So,
mr
do
you
have
anything
you
want
to
add
with
that.
M
For
the
record,
james
hum
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
chair
cohen,
if
you
don't
mind,
I'd
actually
like
to
kick
that
over
to
director
brown
to
make
initial
comments,
and
then
we
also
have
eric
price
from
the
film
office
to
dive
in
and
answer
any
specific
questions.
F
You
michael
brown,
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
We
studied
this
issue,
we
did
a
comparison
with
some
of
our
peer
states
and
we
can
accept
the
proportion
where
we
sporting
related
events.
That's
particularly
with
the
emerging
sports
economy
in
southern
nevada.
That's
something
that
we
think
we
can.
We
would
like
to
do.
This
would
not
actually
grant
credits,
though,
to
the
actual
sporting
event.
F
It
would
be
the
events
surrounding
it,
but
on
the
issue
of
pageants
that
became
more
complicated
and
we
couldn't
find
a
pure
state
example
that
would
chart
a
path
for
us,
and
so
we
would
respectfully
like
to
go
forward
with
the
sports
amendment,
as
mr
alonso
suggested,
but
we
would
like
to
defer
on
going
forward
on
the.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
So
with
that
committee,
do
we
have
any
questions
or
does
anyone
need
any
clarification?
Assemblyman
o'neill
go
ahead.
F
M
I
do
thank
you
for
the
question:
assemblyman
o'neill.
Actually,
no,
we
would
not
be
accepting
l
multi-day
event
which
culminates
in
an
international
competition.
That's
the
one
we
would
not
like
to
accept,
but
we
would.
We
would
accept
a
section
2e
not
intended
to
preclude
any
qualified
production
in
section
one
of
this
act.
A
Yes,
please
go
ahead.
Mr
nakamura.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
michael
nachoto,
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division.
It
is
my
understanding
that
the
office
is
accepting
as
listed
in
the
work
session
document
of
mr
alonzo's
amendment.
They
would
only
be
accepting
the
item
number
two
of
those
three
that
are
listed
there
and
not
number
one
or
number
three.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
so
committee.
Any
other
questions,
okay,
seeing
none!
I
am
looking
for
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
C
Wait,
I'm
so
sorry,
chair
cohen,
I
do
have
a
question.
Please
go
ahead.
Assemblywoman
anderson!
Thank
you
chairphone.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
rereading
this
that
looking
at
subsection
3,
it's
just
a
further
amendment.
It's
this
was
not
accepted
that
only
local
or
national
pageants
would
be
excluded.
So
I
I
guess
I'm
trying
to
it's.
Just
every
pageant
period
would
be
excluded.
It
does
not
matter
if
it's
local
national
statewide
international
anything
like
that
all
pageants
are
being
excluded.
Is
that
correct.
A
Thank
you,
okay.
So
with
that,
seeing
no
other
questions,
I'm
looking
for
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
A
Counseling,
thank
you
assemblywoman
consonant
and
a
second
from
assembly.
Second,
a
second
from
assemblyman
miller.
Any
comments
please.
P
H
A
Thank
you,
and
that's
certainly
fine
and
all
members
do
have
a
right
to
change
their
vote
before
bill
gets
to
floor.
I
just
request
that
you
inform
me
and
the
bill's
sponsor
in
any
situation
if
you
do
decide
to
change
your
mind,
any
other
comments.
A
Okay,
seeing
none,
please
take
a
roll
vote.
B
C
C
M
E
C
L
A
And
I'm
a
yes,
so
that
is
a
yay
from
all
members
present,
except
for
one.
Mr
nakamoto,
please
go
ahead.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
again
for
the
record,
michael
nakamoto,
with
fiscal
analysis
division.
The
next
bill
on
today's
work
session
is
assembly
bill
29,
which
was
heard
in
this
committee
on
march
4th
and
which
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
again
on
behalf
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
L
The
money
in
this
account
may
be
used
to
fund
a
program
for
the
development
and
commercialization
of
research
and
technology
at
the
university
of
nevada,
reno,
the
university
of
nevada,
las
vegas,
as
well
as
the
desert
research
institute
for
dri
assembly
bill
29
makes
the
following
changes
relating
to
the
knowledge
account.
First,
it
changes
the
name
of
the
account
to
the
nevada
innovation
account.
L
There
is
a
series
of
amendments
that
were
submitted
to
the
bill
by
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
which
are
attached
to
the
work
session
document.
There
are
actually
two
amendments
included
in
the
attached
document.
The
first
would
amend
subparagraph
one
of
paragraph
c
of
section
subsection,
four
of
section,
two
of
the
bill
to
specify
that
the
competitive
grant
programs
are
designed
to
facilitate
the
technology
outreach
program
created
to
pursuant
to
nrs
231.1596,
as
amended
by
section
six
of
the
bill.
L
The
second
change
to
the
bill
would
be
to
amend
section
two
by
adding
provision
requiring
that
80
percent
of
all
competitive
grants
be
awarded
to
the
research
universities
or
dri,
or
to
partnerships
between
private
entities
and
the
research,
universities
or
dri.
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
that
is
the
end
of
the
document.
I
would
like
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
any
questions
and
again
as
a
reminder,
director
brown
and
his
team
are
available
on
the
zoom,
so.
A
Seeing
no
questions,
I
will
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass,
also
move
chair.
Thank
you,
assemblyman
o'neal
and
a
second
from
assemblyman
haven.
Do
we
have
any
comments.
A
Seeing
none
madam
secretary,
please
take
the
role.
O
C
A
And
I
am
a
yes
so
that
passes
with
all
members
present
voting
in
the
affirmative.
I
will
ask
a
sentiment:
art
looker,
to
take
the
floor
statement
and
then
just
for
the
record,
I
will
take
the
floor
statement
for
the
previous
bill,
so
with
that,
mr
nakamoto,
if
you
will
please
go
ahead.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
again
for
the
record,
michael
nakamoto,
with
the
physical
analysis
division.
The
final
bill
on
today's
work
session
is
assembly.
Bill
368,
which
was
heard
in
this
committee
on
march
30th
and
which
was
sponsored
by
the
majority
leader
assembly
bill
368,
revises
the
provisions
report
governing
the
report
that
the
department
of
taxation
must
periodically
release
containing
information
on
tourism,
improvement,
districts,
otherwise
known
as
tids
that
are
created
in
nevada.
L
There
is
a
a
conceptual
amendment
that
was
submitted
by
the
majority
leader
to
this
bill,
which
is
outlined
in
the
work
session
document.
This
would
add
language
to
section
two
subsection
two.
This
is
the
provision
that
currently
requires
the
department
of
taxation
honor
before
april
1st
and
october
1st
of
each
year
to
prepare
and
submit
to
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau,
certain
information
regarding
tourism,
improvement,
districts
or
tids
within
each
municipality.
L
L
Third,
additional
reporting
of
the
taxable
sales
for
the
businesses
located
within
a
tid
in
each
county
for
each
six-month
reporting
period
within
specified
dollar
amount
ranges.
The
specified
dollar
ranges
shall
be
determined
in
a
manner
by
the
department
of
taxation
for
each
tid
that
results
in
the
most
detailed
reporting
of
information
possible
without
resulting
in
the
potential
disclosure
of
proprietary
information
of
any
business
located
in
the
tid,
and
you
can
see
that
there's
an
example
listed
on
the
work
session
document
there.
L
You
would
also
know
that
the
reporting
of
taxable
sales
is
only
required
in
this
fashion
if
the
department
of
taxation
cannot
report
taxable
sales
for
each
business
in
the
tid
without
including
proprietary
information.
And
finally,
the
report
should
include
the
time
that
is
remaining
for
the
bondholders
of
the
tid
project
to
make
payments
on
those
bonds.
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I
would
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
seeing
none,
I
will
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
you
pass
no
move.
A
Okay,
I
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod
and
his
second
from
was
that
assemblywoman
constandine
a
second
from
assemblywoman
kasama.
Do
we
have
any
comments
committee.
A
Okay,
seeing
them
please
take.
Q
C
A
Cohen-
and
I
am
a
yes
so
that
is
the
unanimous
yay
from
all
members
present
and
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
with
that,
we'll
bring
our
work
session
to
a
close,
and
we
will
move
on
to
the
next
bill
hearing
which
will
be
assembly
bill
279,
which
revises
provisions
governing
taxes
imposed
on
certain
heavy
equipment
with
us
as
assemblyman
levitt
and
assemblyman
I'll.
A
Let
you
introduce
your
co-presenter
and
then
I'll
just
before
you
do
that
I'll,
remind
the
committee
that
and
the
public
that
there
is
a
conceptual
amendment
from
assemblyman
levitt
which
was
sent
to
the
committee
members,
but
is
also
on
nellis.
So
please
go
ahead
as
some
women
love
it.
R
R
As
current
law
is
law
currently
exists:
heavy
equipment,
rental
companies
pay
two
independent
property
taxes
for
their
machinery
once
upon
the
purchase
of
that
piece
of
equipment
and
again
upon
leasing
the
equipment.
This
policy
used
to
be
fairly
standard
nationwide.
However,
most
states
have
provided
some
sort
of
relief
for
this
dual
tax
situation.
R
This
bill
would
exempt
heavy
equipment,
rental
property
from
a
property
tax
on
the
rental
portion
and
instead
impose
a
line
item
fee
that
would
be
collected
on
these
rental
transactions
to
go
over
the
details
of
this
bill.
Madam
chair,
I
have
chris
ferrari
john
mcclellan
and
ed
noonan.
It
will
also
be
available
to
answer
any
questions
regarding
the
details
of
the
bill
and
its
conceptual
amendment
with
that.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
With
your
permission,
I'd
like
to
hand
over
the
presentation
to
mr
ferrari.
O
Thank
you
cohen,
and
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
chris
ferrari
spelled
f-e-r-r-a-r-I
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
american
rental
association
in
support
of
ab279,
I'd
like
to
thank
assemblyman
levitt.
I
thank
the
state
department
of
taxation
for
their
time
and
thank
you,
chair
cohen,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
hearing
this
important
measure
today.
O
I
also
noticed
in
the
queue
that
a
couple
of
our
state
assessors,
mr
dolly
and
ms
seddon,
are
here
likely
in
opposition
to
the
measure.
O
The
sales
tax
is
paid
on
all
of
these
rentals,
as
is
a
full
year
of
property
tax
on
equipment.
That
happens
to
be
in
nevada
on
july
1..
Now,
if
I
have
50
pieces
of
heavy
equipment
and
they
travel
around,
the
western,
united
states
and
10
of
those
pieces
of
equipment
happen
to
be
in
nevada.
On
july
1.,
I'm
going
to
be
hit
on
those
pieces
with
the
personal
property
tax.
O
O
O
In
fact,
they
quote,
distort
markets
by
discouraging
capital
investment
and
imposing
high
and
administrative
compliance
costs
exactly
we're
trying
to
remedy.
Without
this
reform
we
aren't
storing,
selling
or
maintaining
equipment.
This
means
jobs.
This
means
economic
activity
in
nevada.
If
I
know
that
my
equipment
is
going
to
be
subject
to
that
middle
middle
of
the
year,
personal
property
tax,
I'm
going
to
do
my
best
to
make
sure
it's
in
any
of
our
neighboring
states.
O
O
The
rate
would
be
determined
based
on
historical
data
by
the
department
of
taxation
to
offset
the
loss
of
property
tax
revenue
that
affords
a
predictable
taxation
rate
and
benefits
both
the
consumer
and
the
industry.
It's
a
real
win-win
here
to
provide
an
overview
of
the
attached
conceptual
amendment,
which
is
titled
ab279
conceptual
amendment
c
ferrari
on
nellis.
If
you
don't
have,
it
is
john
mcclellan,
the
vice
president
and
chief
economist
for
the
american
rental
association.
Thank.
O
N
Thank
you
chris
and
chair
cohen,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
john
mcclelland
spelled
john
m
c
capital
c:
l,
e
l,
l,
a
n
d.
I
am
the
vice
president
for
government
affairs
and
chief
economist
at
the
american
rental
association,
and
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
for
the
opportunity
to
appear
before
you
today.
N
I'm
proud
to
say
that
the
equipment
rental
industry
supports
6200,
good,
paying
jobs
in
nevada
and
I'm
here
to
support
passage
of
ab279
as
amended.
I
also
want
to
convey
the
support
of
sunbelt
reynolds
one
of
our
members,
whose
representative
was
unfortunately
unable
to
be
with
us
this
evening.
So
please
record
that
as
a
supporting
of
of
sun
belt,
rentals
ara
has
17
member
companies
with
48
locations
in
nevada
that
are
engaged
in
the
business
of
renting
heavy
equipment.
Q
Q
We
currently
employ
135
employees
working
from
seven
locations
in
the
state,
I'm
here
today,
speaking
in
support
of
ab279
in
a
conceptual
amendment.
I'd
like
to
start
by
saying,
I
concur
with
the
remarks
made
by
mr
mcclellan
and
I'd
like
to
address
just
a
couple
key
points
with
the
conceptual
amendments.
Q
Q
Ab279
shows
the
rate
to
be
1.25
percent.
We
would
expect
the
rate
determined
by
the
department
to
be
somewhere
between
one
and
one
and
a
half
percent
effective
july.
1St
2022
heavy
equipment
will
be
exempt
from
local
property
tax
and
the
heavy
equipment
rental
fee
will
be
imposed
and
collected
on
rental
transactions.
A
A
Okay,
thank
you.
I
guess
I'm
still
a
bit
confused
about
the
mechanics
so
can
can
we
go
through
the
the
conceptual
amendment
with
a
little
more
detail.
O
Certainly,
madam
chair
chris
ferrari
for
the
record,
yeah
ed,
feel
free
to
join
me
here,
but
yep,
okay.
So
actually,
if
I
may,
madam
chair
ed,
let
me
punt
to
you
and
then
I
can.
I
can
play
back
up
here.
Thank
you
sure.
Q
Sure
so,
just
to
kind
of
go
through
the
conceptual
amendments.
Q
The
way
it's
proposed
within
90
days
after
the
close
of
the
2021
fiscal
year
ended
june
30th
2021,
the
rental
companies
will
provide
the
department
of
taxation
with
the
following
12
months
of
revenue
submitted
for
nevada
state
sales
tax
for
the
period
july,
1
2020
through
july
30th
2021
for
each
location
in
the
state
total
personal
property
tax
paid
statewide
for
the
fiscal
year,
2021
period
july,
1
2020
through
june
30th
2021
by
december
31
2021.
Q
The
rate
will
be
set
as
determined
by
the
department
and
imposed
on
and
collected
on,
rental
transactions
of
qualified
heavy
equipment
in
the
state
to
a
renter
in
a
taxing
district
in
a
county
in
his
in
this
state.
I'm
sorry
every
equipment,
rental
companies
will
then
remit
collected
tax
quarterly
to
the
department.
I'm
sorry
collected
fee
quarterly
to
the
department
for
each
rental
location
in
the
state
annually.
The
department
will
distribute
the
funds
back
to
each
county
detailing
the
amount
remitted
by
each
rental.
Q
A
You
you
did
cut
out
so,
mr
noonan,
could
you
just
repeat
the
last
couple
of
sentences
there.
Q
It's
just
a
more
efficient
method
in
order
to
get
there
and
there'll
be
no
loss
of
revenue
to
local
governments
and
the
way
this
has
been
created,
it's
done
in
such
a
way
that
the
collection,
the
remain
the
distribution
back
to
local
governments,
will
be
done
by
the
location.
So,
however,
that
property
tax
is
being
allocated
today
within
all
those
taxing
jurisdictions,
this
additional
fee
will
be
distributed
in
that
same
manner.
O
Madam
sheriff,
I
made
chris
ferrari
for
the
record.
Please
go
ahead,
and
mr
thank
you
so
to
put
this
in
in
terms
that
I
can
understand,
which
is
which
is
relatively
limited
when
it
comes
to
tax
policy,
the
the
whole
idea
is,
and
we've
asked
also
for
a
july
1
implementation
date.
All
of
the
data
on
personal
property
taxes
paid
by
these
companies
on
their
equipment
and
on
sales
or
rentals
is
already
available.
O
So
that
part
of
that
is,
that's
immediately
available.
It's
going
to
go
to
the
department
of
tax.
It
affords
them
plenty
of
time
to
review
it,
to
compare
what
the
rental
fee
will
need
to
be
to
offset
that
loss
of
property
tax,
and
then
it
gives
them
plenty
of
time
so
we're
proposing
by
end
of
year
that's
about
90
days
to
review
and
look
at
that
for
the
department
and
I'm
sure,
there's
somebody
on
they
can
speak
to
that.
O
Specifically,
I
don't
want
to
speak
on
their
behalf,
so
plenty
of
time
to
review
the
revenues,
ensure
it's
revenue
neutral,
set
the
rate
accordingly
and
again
that
affords
the
consumer
and
the
rental
company
predictability.
That
fee
is
in
place;
they
know
what
it
is.
They
can
work
with
it,
they're
not
going
to
get
that
whammy
in
the
middle
of
the
year
to
offset
them,
and
then
it
also
ensures
that
revenue
neutrality
for
all
the
municipalities.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
So
so
I
have
a
question
and
we
discussed
this
somewhat
before
the
hearing,
but
I
want
to
go
through
who's
paying.
What,
because
right
now
my
understanding
is
a
customer
comes
in
and
they're,
not
necessarily
paying
a
tax.
It's
all
included
in
what
they're,
paying
and
now
they're
going
to
be
paying
a
tax,
correct.
R
They
rent
a
piece
of
equipment
for
a
certain
amount
of
money
that
certain
amount
of
money,
what
their
charge
for
that
piece
of
equipment
includes,
whatever
tax
that
is
placed
upon
the
upon
the
rental
equipment
company,
so
the
the
rental
equipment
company's
rate
of
rental
is
included
with
that
as
best
as
they
can
predict
what
that
will
be
on
as
far
as
the
burden
that
they
will
have
to
pay
on
that
property
tax
moving
forward.
R
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
A
If
someone
I
mean,
how
do
we
know
not
necessarily
not
necessarily
the
the
people
represented
here
and
their
organization,
but
how
do
we
know
that
other
businesses
aren't
going
to
use
this
as
an
opportunity
to
raise
their
prices
and
say
because
it's
the
same
base
price
as
it
used
to
be
and
then
just
throw
the
tax?
On
top
of
it?.
O
O
So
if
I'm
going
back
to
my
example
of
having
50
pieces
of
equipment
that
are
traveling
around
the
country,
I
may
get
10
stuck
in
nevada
during
that
july
period,
but
from
a
business
perspective
I
better
count
on
20,
because
just
in
case
I
don't
want
to
have
that
additional
expense,
so
that
expense
right
now
is
being
passed
on
to
the
consumer.
I've
got
to
be
extra
careful
about
that.
O
At
this
point
we
have
something
that
is
predictable,
that
is
stable,
there's
no
smoke
and
mirrors
and
they're
able
to
put
put
it
on
as
a
line
item
to
answer
your
question
further
on
a
broader
economic
scale,
you're
talking
about
probably
a
relatively
low
amount
to
that
end
user,
which
is
usually
more
of
a
b2b
commercial
type
transaction,
and
the
market
rates
are
going
to
dictate
that.
So,
if
somebody
is
an
outlier
they're
not
going
to
be
successful
in
renting
that
equipment.
N
Chair
cohen,
yes,
john
mcclellan,
for
the
record,
and-
and
I
was
I
would
say
that
the
the
one
word
answer
to
your
question
is
competition.
N
I
mean
there,
as
I
mentioned,
we
have
17
member
companies
in
nevada
and
and
they
are
competing
against
each
other
very
strongly.
So
I
think
that
you
know
the
idea
that
somebody
would
just
arbitrarily
raise
rates
and
and
not
face
the
competitive
pressure
from
other
companies
you
know
is,
is
something
that
we
economists
think
is.
It
does
doesn't
last
for
very
long.
You
start
losing
business,
you
start
losing
utilization
on
your
machines
and
then
you're
paying
a
very
heavy
economic
cost.
A
Thank
you,
mr
mcclellan,
and
I
I
guess
I'm
still
concerned
for
consumers,
because
I
mean
that's
it.
It's
still
already
there
right,
the
competition's
already
there
and
and
frankly
for
a
lot
of
consumers,
they're
not
going
to
be
checking
the
different
locations
and
the
different
companies,
because
maybe
this
is
something
they're
doing
some.
I
don't
know
renovation
on
their
house
whatever.
A
That
would
require
this
type
of
to
rent
this
type
of
a
product
and
because
they're
doing
it
just
once
maybe
they're
not
doing
a
whole
lot
of
a
whole
lot
of
of
comparing
in
comparison
shopping
because
they
just
need
to
get
it
done.
It's
part
of
a
project
and
even
if
they
did
notice
that
there
was
a
difference,
they
might
say.
A
R
Madam
chair,
some
women
love
it
for
the
record.
They
could
do
that
now.
They
could
do
that
now
they
could.
They
could
charge
a
higher
rate
if
they,
if
they
so
chose
to,
above
and
beyond
the
warm
fee
that
they're
paying
that
they're
passing
on
to
the
consumer.
At
this
point
for
the
for
the
property
tax
assessment,
they
could
do
that
now
and
the
reason
they
don't
is
because
they
have
to
compete
and
they
have
to
be
viable.
And
so
I
don't
you
know,
that's
that's
the
that's
the
down.
R
That
would
be
the
downside
of
of
doing
that,
of
of
trying
to
inflate
your
rental
and
inflate
your
rental
costs
for
that
for
that
point,
because
they
could
do
it
now,
if
they,
if
they
so
chose
to,
they
could
rent
their
equipment
for
whatever
they
want
to
rent
it.
For
this
moment,.
A
And
I
appreciate
that,
but
I
guess
I
would
just
say
that,
but
it
wouldn't
look
like
inflation
to
inflating
the
the
rental
product
right
now
to
the
consumer,
because
the
consumer
would
think
they
wouldn't
necessarily
know
that
that
a
few
months
earlier
or
a
few
weeks
earlier,
the
tax
was
included.
A
So
that's
what
I'm
getting
at
that
that
I
I
have
a
concern
that
there's
going
to
be
a
jump
now
from
the
existing.
What
it's,
what
they're
paying
now
and
now
you
can
add
taxes
on
top
of
it
and
committee.
I
just
want
to
also
remind
you
that
we
do
have
director
young
from
taxation
in
case
you
do
have
any
questions
and
then
we
also
do
have
representatives
from
the
assessor's
office,
although
I
believe
they
actually
are
going
to
be
testifying
and
not
just
here
to
answer
questions.
C
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
and
thank
you
assembly,
member
levitt,
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
have
two
questions
the
first
has
to
do
with.
Although
I
know
this
is
a
policy
committee,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear
we're
not
explaining
where
how
the
money
is
would
be
spent
if
it
was
going
from
ways
and
means.
But
looking
at
the
information
that
was
presented,
there
are
many
counties
that
have
put
in
a
hit
or
an
economic
excuse
me.
A
Well,
I
can
interrupt
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt,
but
I,
the
fiscal
notes,
are
on
the
bill
as
introduced.
So
just.
R
Some
moving
on
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
You
know
we
we
worked
with
them
and
and
and
that's
why
it
became
revenue
neutral
by
county.
C
I
think
you've
had
clarification,
so
that
will
be
I'm
sure,
put
into
nellis
soon
on
that,
and
in
my
other
question
I
found
that
the
nevada
tax
system
is
out
of
sync
with
other
states.
This
map
that
was
presented
as
an
amendment
was
very
interesting,
but
out
of
curiosity,
how
many
of
the
other
states
that
do
allow
for
this
language
to
take
place?
How
many
do
you
already
have
a
payroll-
or,
I
guess,
a
better
way
to
say
it-
would
be
a
income
tax
of
some
sort
to
help
fund
their
tax
system.
R
I
assemble
them
in
glen
eleven
for
the
record.
I
would
attempt
to
punt
to
one
of
the
other
presenters,
but
I'm
not
sure
that
they
could
answer
that
question
if,
if
mr
ferrari
and
mr
mcclellan
or
mr
maynard
have
an
answer
to
that
question
by
all
means,
but
I
I
don't.
Q
Yeah
for
the
record
at
noon
in
united
rentals,
I
would
say
most
of
these
other
states
have
similar
taxes
in
place
and,
if
you
think
of
a
state
such
as
oregon
that
just
put
this
in
place
two
years
ago
same
legislation,
they
do
not
have
a
sales
tax
today,
and
so
you
know,
other
states
may
not
have
may
have
some
other
things,
but
I
think
the
the
answer
is.
Most
of
these.
Other
states
have
similar
types
of
taxes
as
what
we're
dealing
with
here
in
nevada.
A
R
I
Follow
up
on
that
last
question.
M
Madam
chair,
this
is
russell
guindon
for
the
record
principal
deputy
fiscal
analyst,
with
the
physical
analysis
division
and,
yes,
we
do
of
what's
called
the
modified
business
tax,
which
is
the
tax
that's
based
on
the
wages
paid
by
an
employer
to
their
employees,
and
so
this
industry
would
be
in
what's
called
the
general
business
or
non-financial
business
category
so
on
any
quarterly
wages
that
a
business
in
this
category
plays
that
pays
to
their
employees.
That's
over
fifty
thousand
dollars
per
quarter,
then
they
would
pay
the
tax
rate
of
one
point.
Four.
Seven.
M
Five
percent
on
that.
So
to
the
extent
that
these
businesses
are
meeting
that
threshold,
then
yes,
they
would,
they
would
definitely
be
subject
to
the
tax
and
then
they
would
have
a
liability
given
that
their
gross
wages
paid
to
their
employees
less
allowable
health
care
deductions
was
greater
than
fifty
thousand
dollars
for
a
quarter.
P
Chair
I
have
to
apologize,
I
didn't
mean
to
single
out
any
particular
business.
I
know
that
was.
C
C
This
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
this
bill
has
been
created
but
analogizing
that
to
rental
cars-
and
I
don't
know
if
rental
car
companies
already
have
this
this
set
up
or
if
not,
if
this
bill
passing,
would
then
maybe
lead
to
rent-a-car
companies
asking
for
the
same
the
same
type
of
setup.
Q
Q
This
is
kind
of
a
similar
situation
as
it's
transient
property,
it's
property
that
moves,
and
I
would
say
that
this
property
probably
moves
more
across
state
lines,
probably
than
rental
cars
too,
on
an
annual
basis
and
john
paul.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
chime
in
on
that.
N
Sure
we
we,
we
know
that
our
equipment
moves
around
a
great
deal,
and
I
know
that
in
I
don't
know
in
nevada
specifically,
but
I
do
know
in
other
states
that
rental
cars
do
have
a
similar
kind
of
setup
because
well
and
don't
don't
forget,
rental
cars
are
licensed
vehicles
and
the
equipment
that
we're
talking
about.
These
are
not
plated
that
you
know
vehicles
see.
This
is
off-road
equipment
that
is
not
operated
on
a
highway.
N
C
A
Okay,
any
other
questions
all
right.
I
have
a
question
about
the
quarterly
fee.
Why
can't?
Why
isn't
it
being
distributed
quarterly
versus
having
taxation
distributed
annually.
Q
For
the
record
at
noon
in
united
rentals,
I
think
the
way
this
was
constructed,
we're
open
to
to
work
in
with
the
department
and
any
other
stakeholders
on
this.
That
was
just
language
that
is
common
in
in
most
states
where
it's
done
on
a
quarterly
basis
and
so
and
done
annually
by
the
department
where
it's
remitted,
so
we're
open
to
suggestions,
and
somebody
has
a
you
know,
that's
something.
The
department
would
like
to
do-
we're
open
to.
A
That
all
right,
thank
you
for
that.
So
let's
call
for
questions
not
seeing
any
okay,
then
I
will
move
on
to
support.
Is
there
anyone
else
on
the
zoom
for.
A
Support:
okay,
seeing
none!
Let's
go
to
the
phones
for
support.
H
H
H
D
We
we
support
ab
279
and
it's
a
company
conceptual
amendment
as
it
simplifies
our
complex
taxi
property
tax
system
and
provides
for
the
implementation
of
the
heavy
equipment
rental
fee,
which
would
replace
the
taxes
that
are
currently
collected.
D
This
mechanism
is
also
revenue
neutral
and,
and
so
we
believe,
as
an
instance
that
it
it
it
can
simplify
the
system,
that's
currently
existing
in
existence
and
add
greater
certainty
for
the
companies.
D
In
conclusion,
we
support
ab2
ab279.
We
thank
the
sponsor
and
committee
members
for
your
time
and
consideration
and
we
strand
ready
to
work
with
the
committee,
the
sponsor
and
all
the
stakeholders
moving
forward
on
the
legislation.
A
H
D
D
D-A-N-N-A-B-R-O-T-Z-K-Y,
I
am
vice
president
of
finance
and
accounting
with
sunset
equipment.
Company
sun
state
equipment
is
a
heavy
construction
equipment.
Rental
company
providing
equipment
needs
in
the
state
of
nevada
as
well
as
other
states.
We
have
two
rental
branches
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
we
have
around
50
employees
in
the
state.
D
D
We
concur
with
the
comments
previously
made
by
mr
mcclellan
of
the
american
rental
association
and
mr
noonan
of
united
rentals.
We
believe
this
bill
will
help
stimulate
economic
activity
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
allow
companies
like
sun
state
to
continue
to
provide
the
support
needed
to
invest
in
the
construction
needs
of
the
state.
D
H
H
H
H
A
Yes,
and
if
it's
possible
for
that
caller,
if
there's
a
technical
problem-
and
they
hear
us-
please
call
back
in
if
you
can't
get
back
in,
please
send
us
your
written
testimony
but
yeah.
Please
go
ahead
to
the
next
caller.
H
A
Okay-
and
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
we
didn't
have
anyone
in
opposition
on
the
zoom
or
if
everyone
else
on
zoom
is
in
neutral.
I
guess
okay.
K
Chairwoman,
cohen
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you.
My
name
is
dave,
dolly
I'm
the
carson
city
assessor
and
I'm
here
representing
the
nevada,
assessors
association,
I'm
here
with
janice
jenna,
sudden
and
michael
mayers
were
assessors
here
in
the
state
and
doug
scott
from
clark
county.
The
nevada,
assessors
association
provided
written
opposition
to
the
original
bill
this
afternoon
and
didn't
see
the
conceptual
amendment
until
after
we
sent
our
email.
Unfortunately,
we
are
still
opposed
to
this
bill,
as
the
amendment
is
conceptualized
and
believe
that
this
will
be
creating
a
bad
tax
policy.
K
The
assessors
will
not
be
speaking
on
the
revenue
portion,
just
the
methodologies
and
process
for
calculation
of
the
assets.
Article
10
of
the
nevada
constitution
calls
for
the
uniform
and
equal
rate
of
assessment
and
taxation
and
valuation
of
property.
We
believe
that
this
bill
goes
against
every
principle
of
that.
By
passing
this
bill,
you
would
be
creating
a
special
class
of
equipment
that
does
not
provide
for
a
special,
uniform
and
equal
taxation.
K
This
is
the
second
year
that
this
bill
has
been
or
a
similar
bill
like
this
has
been
introduced
and,
yes,
we
have
been
working
with
the
the
lobbyist
to
try
to
come
up
with
an
agreement
on
this,
but
we
were
unable
to.
During
the
2019
session
the
we
were
told
that
the
rental
equipment
companies
did
not
feel
that
they
should
be
paying
property
taxes
on
this
because
all
of
their
equipment
was
for
sale.
K
Therefore,
it's
it's
an
inventory
item
and
it
should
not
be
taxed
at
all,
even
though
they
were
renting
the
items
out
and
they
were
collecting
a
a
rental
fee
for
that
in
mr
or
I'm
sorry
in
assemblyman
levitt's
testimony.
He
stated
that
rental
companies
are
subject
to
into
independent
property
taxes,
and
I
I
would
like
to
clarify,
because
each
company
that
owns
equipment
in
the
state
of
nevada,
once
they
purchase
equipment,
they're,
subject
to
sales
tax.
K
If
you
have
a
company,
such
as
a
copier
company
that
actually
leases
equipment
or
copiers
to
anybody
in
the
state
of
nevada,
they're,
subject
to
a
use
tax,
the
the
property
tax
is
only
a
once
a
year
tax
and
that's
the
lean
date
is
july
1st.
So
all
of
the
equipment
that
would
be
here
in
the
state
of
nevada
as
of
july
1st
would
be
taxables.
K
As
you
know,
the
devil
isn't
it's.
The
devil
is
in
the
details,
and
and
in
this
conceptual
agreement
or
conceptual
amendment,
there
are
many
many
devils.
We
we
there's
a
lot
of
unclear
stuff
that
we
would.
We
would
like
to
go
through.
The
nevada.
Assessors
are
opposed
to
this
bill
because
you
have
equipment,
companies
are
creating
their
own
taxation
policy.
That
would
benefit
only
them.
The
assessors
are
concerned
that
passage
of
this
bill
would
cause
unintended
consequences
that
may
be
detrimental
to
the
counties.
K
Additionally,
we
are
concerned
that
the
heavy
equipment
rental
rate
fee
will
be
set
for
life
based
on
a
one-year
calculation
and
that's
the
2021
calculation
of
the
rental
gross
receipts
and
the
personal
property
taxes.
We
are
concerned
that
the
heavy
equipment
rental
companies
will
be
treated
differently
than
those
potentially
who
actually
own
their
comp,
their
own
equipment,
such
as
construction
companies.
K
So,
even
though
a
construction
company
may
not
be
using
their
heavy
equipment
each
and
every
day
they
would
be
subject
to
taxation.
Yet
this
the
rental
companies
would
not
be
we.
We
do
have
a
couple
other
concerns,
and
it's
okay
with
you,
but
I'm
sure
I'd
like
to
pass
it
to
doug
scott
down
in
clark
county.
He
can
address
some
of
the
other
concerns
we
have.
P
The
mission
of
the
assessor's
office
in
clark
county
is
to
perform
accurate
and
equitable
assessment
functions
to
serve
the
public.
This
is
a
core
value
shared
by
assessors
offices
throughout
the
state.
This
is
what
we
live
by
the
standard
by
which
we
are
held
to
this
is
what
taxpayers
expect
of
us.
What
we
have
before
us
today
is
a
property
tax
exemption
proposal,
similar
to
one
that
was
introduced
at
the
2019
session.
P
Even
if
this
proves
true,
it
doesn't
solve
the
problem
that
identical
items
of
a
heavy
equipment
would
receive
two
different
forms
of
tax
treatment,
depending
on
whether
it
is
owned
by
a
construction
company
or
owned
by
an
equipment
rental
company.
So
this
runs
against
the
grain
of
uniformity
of
taxation.
P
If
the
goal
is
to
introduce
a
new
system
of
taxation
that
is
truly
revenue
neutral,
then
why
have
a
system
this
complicated?
Despite
the
18
pages
of
this
bill,
there
are
still
parts
of
it
that
are
vague,
subject
to
possible
misinterpretation,
unanswered
questions.
This
could
lead
to
appeals
and
the
need
for
further
regulatory
processes.
P
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have,
first
of
all,
do
we
have
any
questions
committee
for
the
representatives
for
from
the
assessors.
H
J
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
revenue.
My
name
is
vincent
guthro,
and
I
appreciate,
and
I
serve
as
the
deputy
director
for
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
J
J
Some
of
the
impacts
for
individual
counties
are
outlined
in
the
fiscal
notes
that
are
that
were
placed
on
the
bill
and
are
available
on
nellis
for
the
committee
we're
understanding
of
the
amendment,
but
without
further
analysis
of
the
of
the
amendment
from
all
of
our
counties
on
the
fiscal
impacts
we
do
have
to
oppose
the
bill
as
we
understand
it
and
as
it
is
drafted.
J
A
Mr
guthro
you're
still
there,
okay
well
mr
guthrie
or
neko,
if
you're
listening.
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
you
haven't
had
the
opportunity
yet
to
review
the
amendment
so
you're,
basing
this
solely
on
on
the
bill
is
drafted
and
if
you
can
get
back
to
us
and
maybe
like.
Let
me
know
in
the
next
couple
of
days,
if
you
have
an
opportunity
to
review
the
amendment,
how
that
would
impact
the
fiscals
or
anything
else
in
your
opposition.
K
Cohen,
I'm
sorry
dave
dolly
carson
city
assessor
when
you,
when
mr
guindon
sent
the
proposal
to
us,
we
I
did
forward
it
to
nato.
A
J
Madam
chair,
this
is
vincent
guthro,
for
the
record.
No
our
counties
have
not
had
have
had
have
not
had
an
opportunity
to
review
the
fiscal
impacts.
I
I
mean
I
I
don't
remember
when
we
got
the
proposal,
but
I
know
that
they
haven't
submitted,
I'm
what
I'm
indicating
in
my
testimony
that
they
have
not
submitted
fiscal
impacts
based
on
the
amendment.
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
with
that
we
will
go
to
neutral.
Do
we
have
anyone
in
the
zoom
on
neutral.
B
Yes,
this
is
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
We
are
neutral
on
this
bill
and
we
do
have
a
couple
items
in
the
conceptual
amendment
that
we
think
needs
to
be
clarified
and
if
we
could
put
that
on
the
record
today
in
the
conceptual
amendment
in
section
two,
where
the
department
would
compare
the
rental
revenue
to
the
property
tax
and
create
a
revenue,
neutrality
and
then
in
section,
four
would
require
the
department
to
set
a
rate
by
july,
1
2022..
B
Currently
it's
unclear
to
the
department.
If
this
is
a
one-time
rate
setting-
or
this
would
be
the
intent
of
an
annual
rate
setting
process-
and
this
is
a
rate
setting
process
that
the
department
does
not
currently
do,
and
we
would
like
some
clarity
on
how
that
would
work.
So
we
appreciate
the
time
to
come
before
you
today.
Thank
you.
A
H
H
A
Thank
you,
okay.
So
with
that
we
are
going
to
go
back
to
questions.
I
have
a
question
from
assemblyman
jaeger.
M
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair,
and
I
think
my
question
are
for
the
two
assessors
that
we
heard
from
and
I'm
sorry
I
didn't
ask
it
a
little
quicker.
But
you
know
if
I
understand
the
testimony
correctly,
it
seemed
like
the
position
was
that
this
would,
you
know,
maybe
lead
to
loopholes
or
inequitable
taxing
or
a
gaming
of
the
system,
and
so
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is.
M
It
sounds
like
a
lot
of
other
states
already
tax
in
the
way
that
the
bill
advocates
and,
of
course,
the
national
conference
of
state
legislatures
has
advocated
for
this
policy.
So
so
the
real
question,
I
guess,
is:
is
there
like
an
assessor
trade
organization
throughout
the
country
and
are
you
able
to
sort
of
weigh
in
on
you
know
what
other
states
are
doing
or
have
you
had
conversations
with
other
assessors,
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
if
this
is
something
there's
something
unique
to
the
state
of
nevada?
M
That
makes
you
think
that
this
would
be
a
bad
policy
when
it
seems,
like
other
states,
are
doing
it,
and
so,
if
you
could
maybe
address
that
and
I'm
sorry
a
little
bit
for
the
rambling
question,
it's
just
it's
getting
pretty
late.
So
I'm
having
a
hard
time
composing
my
thoughts.
K
Chairwoman
cohen,
through
you,
too
assemblyman
yeager,
sir,
we
I've
never
reached
out
to
any
of
the
other
counties
or
any
of
the
other
states
that
that
have
anything
like
this.
The
only
way
that
I
know
that
the
states
do
have
it
is
by
the
testimony
of
the
lobbyists,
but
no
we've
never
reached
out
to
any.
We
don't
there's.
There
is
a
national
organization,
but
we've
never
reached
out
to
see
if
they,
if
they're
doing
this
at
all,.
A
Okay,
sam
lemon
hayfin.
R
R
C
R
Proposal,
oh,
I
apologize
some
england
levitt
for
the
record
right
now
in
in
with
the
handout
you
can
see
that
it's
44
out
of
50
states
have
a
similar
tax
policy
as
this.
So
it's
not
out
of
the
realm
of
possibility
and
it's
not
a
unique
tax
policy,
and
it's
not
it's
not
something
that
that
hasn't
been
done
before
or
that
is
it
is.
That
is
out
of
the
realm
of
possibility.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and,
and
this
question
might
be
more
for
mr
gindin.
What
I'm
wondering
is,
if
this
were
to
pass,
would
there
be
any
effect
or
if
there
was
what
effect
would
there
be
to
the
mining
industry?
Since
I
know
they
use
a
lot
of
heavy
equipment.
M
For
the
record
russell
getting
in
with
the
physical
analysis
division,
I
don't
know
that
I
have
the
ability
to
answer
that,
because
yes
you're
absolutely
correct
that
the
mining
companies
have
lots
of
heavy
equipment.
But
I
don't
know
to
the
extent
that
they're
leasing
it
versus
they're
purchasing
it
for
themselves.
M
So
I
just
don't
have
that
detail.
I
don't
know
whether
any
of
the
assessors
that
are
here
would
know
anything
about
how
the
mines
work
with
regards
to
the
assessment
of
their
personal
property.
O
We
did
field
one
call
from
a
member
today,
but
they
are
aware
of
the
proposal
and
have
had
in
their
possession
since
it
was
introduced
and
do
have
a
copy
of
the
proposed
conceptual
amendment
as
well.
So
as
we
have
been
upon
the
introduction
of
this
bill
and
for
the
last
couple
of
years
there
again
no
no
shell
games
here,
everything
is
on
the
table
and
we're
discussing
with
everybody,
including
other
states,
and
what
their
policies
are
and
any
impact
so
not
aware,
but
certainly
can't
speak
on
behalf
of
mining.
Thank
you.
C
M
It's
a
combination.
When
it
comes
to
minus
assessments,
I
have
mines
that
solely
own
all
of
their
heavy
equipment.
I
have
mines
that
completely
rent
all
of
their
equipment
because
they're
using
contract
mining.
I
have
mine
sites
that
are
a
complete
combination
of
both
where
they
have
company-owned
equipment,
but
they
also
have
rented
equipment
that
they
use
at
different
times.
Then
that's
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
expressed
you
know
when
mr
dolly-
and
I
were
discussing
this
with
our
association
is-
is
that's
where
I
look
at
the
the
equitability
here.
M
I've
got
a
mine
site,
that's
got
owner,
you
know
owned
equipment,
that's
being
taxed
in
one
manner
and
valued
in
one
manner
as
personal
property,
and
then
I've
got
similar
equipment
on
the
same
site.
That's
now
going
to
be
valued
and
taxed
in
a
different
manner,
and
I
just
question
that
equitability
there
that
it's
the
same
equipment
and
yet
we're
treating
it
differently,
even
though
it's
on
the
same
site.
So
I
hope
that
answer
answered
your
question.
Assemblywoman.
A
You,
mr
mayors,
so
I
also
have
a
question
for
I
think
it
was
mr
noonan
and
and
forgive
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
when
there
was
the
discussion
about
putting
the
language
together
for
this
and
and
looking
at
other
states,
I
think
it
was
about
the
you
know
the
quarterly
versus
annually,
which
I
had
asked
about
earlier.
Can
you
get
us
a
copy
of
that
language
that
that
was
used.
A
A
All
right
seeing
none
assemblyman
love
it
would
you
and
your
presenters
like
to
make
closing
statements.
R
Yeah,
I
I
I'll
I'll
turn
I'll
turn
the
time
over
to
to
john.
Before
I
make
my
final
statements,
if
that's
so,
if
that's
okay,
I'm
sure.
N
N
I
have
been
working
on
this
issue
since
2004.
We
have
passed
legislation
similar
to
this
in
at
least
25
states
20
to
25
states.
I
have
lost
count
at
this
point,
so
over
the
past
15
years,
there's
been
a
big
change
in
the
way
states
treat
heavy
equipment,
rental
property
because
of
the
very
specific
aspects
of
that
property
that
we've
mentioned
throughout
the
hearing
today
today
we
have
had
no
state
try
to
amend
or
repeal
the
legislation
that
we've
passed
in
those
states
in
the
past
15
16
years.
N
So
I
would
just
suggest
that
this
is
not
something
that's
out
of
the
ordinary
and,
as
mentioned,
ncsl
has
come
into
full
support
of
this
legislation
throughout
the
united
states.
So
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
to
our
distinguished
sponsor
some
of
them
in
levitt,
and
I
thank
you.
R
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
john
simon
and
glenn
levin,
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
all
for
for
sitting
through
this.
Is
you
if
you've
ever
sat
through
a
hearing
with
me,
I
try
and
knock
it
out
in
about
five
minutes.
However,
this
is
this
is
not
only
an
important
issue,
but
it's
it
gets
to
be
a
little
complicated.
R
So
I
I
really
appreciate
you,
you
staying
engaged
for
this
important
measure
today.
You
know,
we
believe
that
streamlining
a
process
for
an
industry
that
already
has
a
high
tax
burden
with
the
modified
business
tax
and
the
commerce
tax
is
very
important
for
economic
prosperity
now
just
to
reemphasize.
R
A
Thank
you
with
that.
I
will
bring
the
hearing
on
ab279
to
an
end
and
close
it,
and
we
will
move
on
to
public
comment.
As
a
reminder,
public
comment
may
be
limited
based
on
the
number
of
participants.
Bps.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
lines
for
public
comment.
C
I
P-H-I-L-L-I-P-S,
I
actually
tried
and
hit
star
six
a
couple
of
times
to
speak
in
support
of
the
bill
and
don't
understand
the
technical
difficulties,
but
I
would
like
to
take
this
quick
opportunity
to
re-urge
everything
that
the
the
previous
supporters,
john
ed
dan
and
the
nevada
taxpayer
association
said
the
bill
would
would
really
be
a
good
thing
for
the
industry
as
a
whole.
It
would
eliminate
actually
quite
a
bit
of
tax
inequality,
sometimes
up
to
the
point
of
double
and
triple
taxation
on
the
equipment.
I
A
F
Good
evening
my
name
is
cyrus
hogadi,
and
I
just
want
to
give
you
some
comments
about
taxation.
I
watched
a
show
clip
from
radio
host
jimmy
dore.
A
well-known,
progressive
radio
show
host
talking
about
the
fact
that
how
many
large
corporations
dodged
paying
corporate
income
taxes
and
the
problem
continued
to
worsen
the
2020,
and
I
don't
think
that
the
next
bill
is
going
to
reverse
the
trend.
H
F
Basically,
the
way
I
see
things
at
the
federal
and
even
state
level
is
we
have
pretty
progressive
taxation.
Our
main
sources
of
taxation
is
property
taxes
and
sales
taxes
that
comes
from
the
people.
The
low-income
folks
pay
a
higher
rate,
percentage-wise,
not
dollar
amount,
and
I
really
wish
this
would
stop.
F
I
really
wish
that
one
thing
we
can
do
is
we
can
find
other
means
of
getting
revenue
while
reducing
other
taxes,
particularly
sales
taxes
and
speaking
about
all
this
is
that
I
want
to
make
sure
that,
however,
we
remain
a
low
tax
state,
because
if
we
don't
it
will
backfire,
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
fortune,
500
companies
and
wealthy
people.
Our
main
attraction
to
nevada
is
our
low
tax
climate.
This
is
why
a
lot
of
people
are
moving
here
and
if
taxes
go
up,
it
will
backfire.
F
F
A
Okay,
seeing
none
once
again,
thank
you,
everyone
who
came
over
from
their
afternoon
hearings.
I
know
those
went
very
long,
so
I
appreciate
you
being
here
and
being
engaged
thank
you
to
to
all
the
staff
as
well,
because
you're
working
hard
all
day
long
every
day.
We
know
that.
So
with
that
I'll,
let
you
know
our
next
assembly
revenue
meeting
will
be
thursday
april
8th.
Please
keep
an
eye
out
for
the
agenda
with
possible
changes
in
bills.
Work
session.