►
From YouTube: 5/18/2021 - 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
And
I
am
here,
please
mark
the
vice
chair
present
when
she
arrives
good
afternoon,
everyone
to
assembly
revenue.
We
have
two
things
on
the
agenda
today:
a
work
session
on
assembly,
bill,
363
and
public
comment.
Please
keep
in
mind
for
public
comment.
A
The
length
of
time
for
public
comment
will
be
30
minutes
and
each
person
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
and
we
will
be
timing
that
I'm
going
to
skip
the
normal
introductions
and
housekeeping
and
just
go
right
into
the
work
session,
welcome,
assemblywoman,
win
and
just
for
committee
members
and
anyone
watching
we'll
be
working
from
proposed
amendment
3378
to
assembly
bill
363..
A
A
Normally
we
don't
have
a
ton
of
questions
but
feel
free,
because
this
has
been
a
work
in
progress
and
I
know
assemblywoman
assemblywoman
wynn
has
continued
to
work
with
it
and
is
still
getting
requests
and
recommendations,
probably
right
now
on
her
phone,
but
throughout
the
day
and
throughout
the
week,
so
feel
free
to
ask
any
questions
that
you
have
so
with
that
or
we
can
actually
maybe
women
win.
If
we
can
have
you
go
through
it
first
and
then
we'll
then
we'll
go
to
questions.
C
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
and
members
of
the
revenue
committee.
My
name
is
rochelle
nguyen
I
represent
assembly
district
10..
I
will
kind
of
go
through
some
of
the
overview
highlights
of
what
is
included
in
this
mockup.
C
I
did
ask
legal
to
and
I'm
very
grateful
for,
the
division
to
put
it
in
this
mock-up
form,
because
I
think
that
it
makes
it
easier
to
read
and
conceptualize
on
the
flip
side
chair.
You
are
very
correct.
I
am
receiving
proposed
changes
and
clarification.
Everything
from
complete
policy
changes
to
clarifying
language,
to
kind
of
encapsulate
what
the
intent
is
and,
as
you
can
see
on
here,
on
the
mock
amendment
and
for
those
watching
in
the
public
too.
C
This
does
show
them
still
in
the
conceptual
form
and
the
language
and
its
placement
in
the
official
amendment
may
differ.
So
if
there
are
like
spelling
errors
or
duplicative
language
or
things
didn't
get
into
one
section
into
the
other,
I'm
sure
that
legal,
I
know
legal
will
be
working
to
clean
that
up
as
well.
C
So
if
we
just
kind
of
start
from,
I
guess
the
beginning-
the
major
change
that
this
bill
is
broken
up
into
two
sections,
one
that
kind
of
deals
with
cities
or
municipalities
and
one
that
deals
with
counties
and
so
there's
conforming
language
in
each
one
of
those
sections
to
go
there
to
start
off
with.
We
did
and
still
include
the
population
cap
of
700
000
to
accommodate
those
jurisdictions
that
already
have
no
regulations
in
place
and
would
continue
just
to
let
the
members
of
the
committee
know
in
talking
with
those
jurisdictions.
C
It
would
have
been
very
difficult
and
it
would
have
led
to
potential
lawsuits
for
those.
I
guess
homeowners
and
people
operating
short-term
rentals
to
now
be
under
some
of
the
provisions
that
we
have
in
here.
So,
but
I
I
do
plan
on
continuing
to
work,
no
matter
what
happens
with
this
bill
like
into
the
next
session,
to
see
what
we
can
do
to
accomplish
some
of
the
problems
that
might
exist
throughout
the
state.
C
C
As
I
had
stated
during
my
presentation,
which
is
still
my
intent,
I
wanted
to
still
allow
flexibility
for
those
municipalities
that
have
already
included,
and
I've
already
like
worked
with
their
local,
like
constituents
to
come
up
with
ordinances
in
this
area.
So
they
will
still
be
allowed
to
the
restrictions
that
we
had
placed
in
the
original
bill,
and
those
that
had
been
proposed
in
during
the
presentation
of
the
bill
have
changed
as
well.
C
For
example,
the
thousand
feet
separation
distance
requirement
is
now
660..
I
know
conceptually
and
I
proposed
it
at
500
and
speaking
with
some
of
the
stakeholders.
That
was
one
of
the
things
that
was
very
important
to
be
able
to
look
at
and
again
these
numbers
for
occupancy
requirements
for
distance
separation
requirements.
C
They
are
all
like
a
floor
or
ceiling
like
not
to
exceed
or
not
two.
So
if
a
for
example
in
this,
it
says
that
you
can't
have
more
than
16
individuals
in
a
short-term
rental,
and
you
can't
have
them
closer
than
660
feet
between
short-term
rentals.
C
In
addition
to
other
multi-family
dwellings,
we
had
some
clarifying
language
to
kind
of
carve
out
those.
I
guess
properties
that
are,
for
lack
of
a
better
term,
like
they're
attached
to
a
casino
they're
run
like
a
casino
they're
cleaned
like
a
casino
property,
and
so
they
are
not
included
in
this
at
all,
and
so
they
can
be
continue
to
operate
in
that
way,
and
they
have
been,
they
have
been
so
a
lot
of
them
are
either
time
shares
or
other
types
of
rentals
that
are
run
kind
of
like
resort
casinos
anyway.
C
So
they
are
carved
out
of
this.
The
provisions
of
this,
because
a
lot
of
them
are
like
on
the
same
property
as
the
casino,
and
so
that
was
not.
My
intent
was
to
not
include
those
types
of
properties.
It
was
to
include
the
properties
that
were
outside,
of
that.
C
C
An
example
I
would
give
is,
if
we
have
a
local
casino,
let's
say
you're
at
green
valley
ranch
and
the
city
of
henderson
has
allowed
a
short-term
rental
across
the
street.
That
is
within
the
2500
feet
limitation
that
we
have
in
this
under
this
bill.
That
person
would
be
grandfathered
in
as
long
as
they
were
in
compliance
with
what
was
existing
in
the
city
of
henderson
as
far
as
their
ordinances
and
regulations.
C
Additionally,
during
this
time
there
are
some
other
clarifying
amendments
that
we
are
making
sure,
and
I
will
tell
you
like.
I
said
this
is
a
mock-up,
but
it
is
our
intent
to
make
sure
that,
just
as
I
always
said-
and
sometimes
it's
wordsmithing,
some
of
these
languages,
the
language
of
some
of
these
bills.
C
So,
for
example,
if
you're
looking
in
section
11
two
it's
on
page
eight,
if
you
have
it
printed
out,
there's
a
paragraph
that
starts
for
the
purposes
of
paragraph
b,
subsection
one,
the
combinations
facilitator
shall
be
deemed
to
engage
in
the
business
of
tr.
This
is
causing
a
lot
of
confusion,
so
I'm
looking
at
how
we
would
either
word
it
or
remove
it,
because
I
don't
think
it
encapsulates
the
intent
that
I've
been
talking
to
you
all
about.
C
C
Additionally,
I
have
received
amendments
from
the
city
of
henderson
to
just
kind
of
give
in
the
city
of
las
vegas
and
clark
county,
to
make
sure
that
there's
still
that
flexibility
you'll
see
some
of
the
language
changed,
because,
depending
on
where
you
are
people,
call
it
a
permit
or
registration
or
an
authorization.
So
you'll
see
a
lot
of
things.
We've
used
the
term
authorization,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
giving
the
flexibility
to
those
local
jurisdictions.
So,
for
example,
sometimes
it's
the
incorporated
city,
the
city
council
or
their
designee.
C
I
know
that
we
are
also
working
on
some
wordsmithing
about,
for
example,
in
section
7,
subsection
2
k,
it
appears
that
only
a
neighbor
can
complain
about
a
violation
of
an
ordinance
adopted
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
could
be
anyone.
That's
complaining,
you
don't
have
to
have
like
an
immediate
neighbor.
C
That's
the
only
person
that's
able
to
lodge
any
kind
of
complaints
about
like
strs
that
are
operating
unlawfully
or
in
violation
of
any
ordinance,
and
we
are
looking
to
give
make
sure
that
clark,
county,
the
city
of
las
vegas,
the
city
of
henderson
and
other
municipalities
and
counties
have
the
expressed
authority
to
impose
like
civil
fines
and
penalties.
That's
something
that
I
had
talked
to
with
assemblyman
roberts,
and
I
have
been
both
working
to
figure
out
how
we
can
make
sure
that
that
enforcement
piece
is
also
you
know
effective.
C
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman.
I
want
to
make
sure
we've
got
the
the
the
limitation
on
knights.
A
Disgust
so
I
believe,
that's
in
7
sub
2d,
and
so
what
we're
saying
is
for
if
you're
owner
occupied
it's
one
night
and
if
it's
not
owner
occupied
the
the
guest
can
stay
two
nights
or
more.
C
That
that's
rochelle
win
for
the
record
that
that
is
correct.
We've
been
going
kind
of
back
and
forth
through
the
wording,
because
it's
kind
of
awkward
and
like
choppy
but
yeah
the
intent
and
what
we're
trying
to
get
in
there
and
so
hopefully
it'll
look
it'll
read
a
little
bit
better
when
the
final
amendment
is
per
like
drafted,
the
intent
is,
if
it's
owner
occupied,
you
can
rent
for
one
night.
C
There
were
some
concerns
that
someone
would
have
like
a
four
bedroom
house
and
they
would
be
living
in
one
of
the
bedrooms
and
then
renting
out
all
three
of
them
kind
of
like
it's
a
hostel
and
like
that.
That's
not
our
intent
to
allow
for
something
like
that,
so
we're
just
coming
up
with
some
clarifying
language,
I'm
not
sure
what
that's
going
to
look
like
right
now.
I've
had
a
couple
of
different
things
and
I
know
legal
is
kind
of
looking
at
what
works
legally,
but
that's
also.
C
A
C
A
Okay,
thank
you.
We've
got
some
other
questions,
we'll
start
with
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I'll
start
with
that.
660
thing
excuse
me
so
660,
you
said
it
was
a
block.
I'm
kind
of
confused
and
I've
been
confused
on
this
and
now
that
it's
up
that
from
what
I
understand
like
as
the
crow
flies
correct
so
and
if
that
is
the
case,
then
that
kind
of
confuses
me
with
the
city
block
thing,
because
I'm
thinking,
if
I'm
on
a
street
here
and
then
my
neighbors
behind
me
and
then
the
neighbor
behind
that
that
would
be
660
feet.
C
People
say
as
the
crow
falls:
yes
as
the
crow
flies,
so
that
exactly
sorry,
rochelle
win
for
the
record.
It
would
be
three
660
feet
apart
and
again,
that
is
a
minimal
distance.
If
people
choose
to
increase
that,
they
would
be
able
to
do
so.
B
Okay
and
one
more,
if
I
may,
and
first
of
all,
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
so
much
for
all
the
work
you've
done
on
this
because
I
we
have
been.
I
know
all
of
us
have
been
blown
up
on
this.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
confusion,
and
I
know
for
my
folks
in
clark
county
who
can't
even
legally
do
this.
This
is
very
necessary,
so
I
wanted
to
get
that
on
the
record.
B
C
Know
what
I'm
sorry
rochelle
win
for
the
record?
It's
actually
section
11
part
two.
C
C
C
See
I'm
going
to
give
him
a
point.
I'm
going
to
give
clark
kenny
a
point
here,
rochelle
win
for
the
record.
That
section
causes
some
problems.
I
know
that
in
speaking
with
clark
county
as
well
as
culinary
as
well
as
even
members
of
this
committee,
the
they
want
to
the
way
that
this
is
read
is
they
want
to
be
able
to
place
additional
requirements
on
the
accommodations
facilitators
within
their
local
ordinances.
C
So
we
want.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
granting
them
some
expressive
authority
to
like
impose
fines
or
penalties
for
failure
to
comply
with
those
additional
requirements
set
forth
by
the
board.
So
this
is
just
kind
of
some
enabling
like
if
we
remove.
If
we
have
that
in
there
it
like
ties
their
hands
where
they're
not
able
to
do
anything
like
that.
So
we
want
to
make
sure
that
they
can
enact
things
where
they
can.
You
know,
appropriately,
you
know,
levy
fines.
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
assembly,
woman
nguyen
for
all
the
work,
because
you've
got
a
lot
mike.
I've
got
two
questions
again
is
from
that
same
section,
because
just
I'm
wondering
if
there
is
or
possibly
in
another
area,
is
there
any
place
where
there's
a
licensing
expectation
being
placed
on
the
provide
not
on
the
platforms
they're
actually
doing
that
area.
I
don't
know
if
that's
in
that
section
or
another
section,
because
we
had
talked
about
possibly
the
national
area
or
the
the
groups
that
are
doing
this
online.
C
Looking
for
this
section,
rochelle
win
for
the
record,
there
is
provisions
and
I've
just
got
to
figure
out
what
section
it
is,
and
I
had
also
it's
clarified
as
well,
and
it
should
be
actually
in
the
most
recent
conceptual
amendment
that
was
distributed
to
everyone.
The
platforms
would
have
to
put
the
license.
C
Not
only
would
the
owner
have
to
like
display
the
license
in
the
house,
it
would
also
be
have
to
be
displayed
on
the
platform.
I
can
tell
you
how
it
works
like
in
the
city
of
henderson.
They
have
like
a
process
where
they
have
a
portal
where
they
can
go
through
and
they
can
see
everyone
who
is
listed
on
like,
for
example,
one
of
the
short-term
rental
platforms,
and
they
can
compare
it
to
all
the
people
that
they
know
are
licensed,
and
then
they
can
say,
hey
look.
C
B
C
E
I
should
know
that
by
now
thank
you,
chair
and
actually
one
of
my
questions
was
was
addressed
in
the
in
your
clarification
of
the
night
stays
and
everything.
So
thank
you
for
that.
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
nguyen
for
what
you've
done.
E
But
I
think
it's
important
that
we
need
to
move
it
forward
as
we
we're
losing
too
much
money
as
a
state
and
people
are
legitimately
using
this
service.
So
that's
all
I
just
want
to
get
that
on
the
record,
since
my
question
was
answered
about
the
one
night
stay.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
rochelle
went
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
assemblyman
miller.
You
know,
we've
been
going
back
and
forth
on
the
owner
occupied
in
particular
right
now.
It
is
not
included
in
there
to
allow
just
owner
occupied
to
exist,
but
I
would
will
continue
to
have
those
kind
of
conversations
with
you
going
forward.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
echo
everybody's
sentiments.
Assemblywoman
win
about
all
the
hard
work
that
you've
taken
on
for
this
bill,
and
I
appreciate
the
conversations
I
just
kind
of
have.
I
guess
more
of
a
follow-up
question,
page
six,
so
it
would
be
section
eight
sub
three.
B
So
it's
upon
the
request
of
a
board
of
county
commissioners.
Of
course,
there's
a
matching
one
for
the
city
later
on.
An
accommodations
facilitator
shall
report
all
current
listings
of
a
residential
unit.
So
there's
the
word.
The
use
of
the
word
shall
in
there,
but
my
question
is
well
what,
if
they
don't,
if
there's
a
time
frame,
if
the
county,
commission
or
the
city
says
you
know,
okay,
can
you
please
give
this
to
me
within
30
days
and
they
don't
or
the
county
or
the
city
requests?
B
Hey
these
folks
are
not
permitted
or
authorized.
Can
you
take
them
off
the
platform
and
they
don't?
Is
there
a
penalty
structure?
Is
that
left
up
to
the
ordinance?
Is
there
an
issue
with
kind
of
penalizing
the
platform
for
not
doing
the
airport.
C
Rochelle
win
for
the
record.
It's
my
intention
that
has
been
as
complicated
as
this
is
platform.
Liability
is
even
more
complicated
as
members
of
this
committee,
and
everyone
knows
there
are
so
many
platform-based
peer-to-peer,
sharing,
apps
and
other
things
out
there,
and
it
is
definitely
something
that
we
need
to
probably
have
been
addressing
as
a
legislative
body,
probably
about
15
years
ago,
but
it's
not
specifically
laid
out
in
this
bill.
It
is
not
something
that
I'm
able
to
include
in
this
bill
and
fully
address
any
of
the
concerns.
C
I
do
want
to
have
the
ability
for
those
local
ordinances
to
take
place
to
deal
with
it
on
that
level.
So
I'm
currently
looking
at
how
we
can
include
that
enabling
language
without
like,
inter
interrupting
interstate
commerce
and
other,
like
issues
that
might
pop
up.
If
we
don't
get
that
language
right.
B
Thank
you.
Can
I
do
a
quick
follow-up
chair
as
quick,
please,
okay!
Well,
thank
you
very
much,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
reading
this
in
the
overall
way
that
this
is
a
floor,
that
if
any
jurisdiction
wants
to
do
something
a
little
bit
more
stringent,
they
cannot
go
below
this,
but
they
could
do
something
a
little
bit
higher
if
they
chose
to.
Thank
you.
C
Rochelle
wynn,
for
the
record,
I
know
that
this
is
what
a
lot
of
emails
have
come
in.
There's
a
lot
of
misinformation
out
there
and
it
we
are
all
you
know
it's
a
representative
government,
so
I
know
that
you
are
all
hearing
from
your
own
constituents
about
this.
That
is
definitely
the
intent.
That
is
what
the
language
specifically
says
having
gone
through.
I
think
there
are
four
legal
representatives
that
have
been
working
on
this
for
lcb
to
make
sure
that
this
language
is
correct.
C
These
are
floors.
They
are
not
to
exceed
or
maximums
for
all
of
these
jurisdictions.
I
have
been
working
diligently
with,
especially
within
clark
county
with
those
that
have
ordinances
to
make
sure
that
they
are
able
to
keep
those
ordinances
and
they
don't
have
to
go
back
and
change
that.
I
know
the
city
of
henderson
has
a
little
a
bit
of
a
difference
as
they
allow
for
25
percent
occupancy
in
a
multi-family
like
you
know,
and
this
brings
it
back
down
to
10.
C
But,
like
I
said,
on
the
flip
side,
there
are
plenty
of
people
and
I'm
sure,
you've
heard
emails
from
your
constituents
and
kind
of
echo,
some
of
the
sentiment
of
like
assemblyman
miller,
who
would
like
to
have
the
ability
to
continue
to
you
know,
rent
out
a
room
if
they
need
to
and
so
balancing
some
of
those
interests.
Those
are
some
of
the
things
that
we
took
in,
but
definitely
floor
and
ceiling
depending
on
what
it
is
for
these
local
jurisdictions
to
come
up
with
ordinances
that
fall
within
those.
B
One
question
to
have
is
other
juris
states
probably
have
had
more
experience
with
these
kinds
of
laws,
and
are
we
following
a
well
trodden
path?
Is?
Is
there
a
kind
of
convergence
on
a
certain
template
that
we're,
or
is
everybody
all
over
the
map?
How
do
how
do
we
compare
to
other
states,
and
this
kind
of
thing.
C
C
I
don't
believe
it's
ever
been
addressed
on
a
state
level,
and
you
can
see
that
people
are
trying
to
do
it.
A
lot
of
these
issues
where
they
change
things
midway
were
problematic
where
people
were
existing
lawfully
and
then
ordinances
were
changed
to
do
it.
So
we
are
all
over
the
place
and
there
are
lots
of
considerations.
C
Everything
from
you
know,
I
guess
commerce
and
you
know,
being
able
to
use
and
be
able
to
invest
in
these
properties
as
well
as
housing,
affordability
issues.
So
it
really
is
all
over
the
place.
B
Thank
you,
chair,
assemblywoman
wen,
thank
you
again
what
a
big
project
you've
taken
on
and
I
think
something
that
we
know
from
our
constituents
there's
been
kind
of
an
outcry
for
assistance
with
this,
and
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
so
much
for
looking
at
some
of
the
concerns
or
issues
I've
had
and
and
your
your
willingness
to
look
at
some
of
those
to
incorporate,
and
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
for
just
your
openness
with
all
of
these
suggestions.
Thank
you.
C
A
Okay,
so
with
that
we're
going
to
adjourn,
we
will
take
the
vote
when
we
come
back
because
recess,
I'm
sorry
recess.
We
will
be
back
on
the
floor
because
we
do
have
to
go
to
the
floor.
Unfortunately,
we
have
120
days,
and
this
is
what
happens
so
we're
going
to
recess.
We
will
come
back,
take
the
take
a
motion
and
then
do
our
public
comment.
So
with
that
we
are
in.
A
A
Revenue
members
who
are
watching
please
make
your
way
to
4100
immediately.
G
A
Thank
you,
we're
going
to
come
out
of
recess
and
come
back
to
order,
so
I
believe
before
we
take
the
motion.
Assemblywoman
wynn
has
a
clarifying
statement.
C
Rochelle
win
for
the
record.
I
noticed
this
and,
like
I
said,
I
know
that
that
was
a
conceptual
mock-up
and
that
legal
will
work
to
draft
it
and
as
there's
two
sections
for
municipalities
and
counties,
I
noticed
that
we
needed
to
make
some
changes.
I
did
in
to
my
intention
was
to
not
include
apartments
both
in
city
and
county,
so
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
section.
13.2
was
consistent
with
section
7.2,
g1
and
so
I'll
make
sure
that
those
changes
are
made.
A
B
A
And
as
a
reminder,
you
always
have
the
right
to
do
so.
Please
just
check
it
with
me.
Should
you
change
your
vote
by
the
time
we
get
to
floor?
Okay,
so
I
have
the
motion's
been
made
and
seconded
so
all
those
in
favor.
I.
A
All
those
opposed,
nay,
okay,
so
no
need.
So
that
was
unanimous.
If
all
members
present,
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
assemblywoman
win
with
a
backup
from
assembly,
woman,
bilbray
axelrod.
So
thank
you
assemblywoman
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
public
comment.
As
a
reminder,
public
comment
is
going
to
be
for
two
minutes
per
caller
at
the
most
and
we
will
have
30
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment.
A
Is
there
anyone
in
the
room
for
public
comment?
Please
go
ahead
as
soon
as
you're,
ready.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
chris
daley
nevada,
state
education,
association,
the
voice
of
nevada
educators
for
over
120
years.
As
you
know,
there's
less
than
two
weeks
left
in
this
legislative
session,
we're
still
waiting
on
a
public
discussion
of
mining
taxes
and
serious
contemplation
of
generating
revenue
needed
by
public
education
and
other
important
public
services
in
nevada.
It's
past
time
to
open
a
public
hearing
on
ajr
one
k-12
public
education
has
been
woefully
underfunded
for
decades,
ranking
48th
among
the
states
in
per
pupil
funding.
I
Nevada
also
has
the
largest
student-to-teacher
ratio
in
the
country
still
being
considered
and
we'll
see
what
happens
in
this
room
in
a
little
bit
is
156
million
dollar
cut
to
class
size
reduction
over
the
next
biennium?
This
would
mean
a
loss
of
about
a
thousand
teachers
across
the
state,
meaning
even
more
students
packed
into
nevada
classrooms.
I
Also
still
in
play
is
a
33
million
cut
to
early
literacy
supports
in
the
read
by
grade
3
program
last
session,
sb
543,
the
new
school
funding
plan
created
the
commission
on
school
funding
and
charged
it
with
recommending
funding
targets
and
identifying
revenue
to
fully
fund
the
associated
cost.
Last
month,
the
commission
published
their
preliminary
recommendations
for
optimal
funding,
while
nsea
opposed
sb543.
We
largely
agree
with
the
commission's
funding
targets.
The
commission
proposed
reaching
adequate
funding
by
increasing
education
investment
by
two
billion
dollars
over
the
next
10
years.
I
That's
about
400
million
dollars
each
biennium,
starting
with
this
session.
That's
why
nsa
believes
ajr1
passed
in
the
32nd
special
session
would
be
a
strong
start
to
meeting
this
goal.
Ajr
one
would
generate
about
485
million
dollars
in
new
revenue
for
nevada
annually.
It's
the
right
sized
response
this
session
to
the
revenue
challenge
that
we
all
face.
We've
we've
all
heard,
there's
been
conversations
about
a
possible
deal
with
the
mining
industry,
but
no
one
seems
to
know
any
of
the
parameters.
It's
time
to
open
up
the
conversation.
Please
schedule
ajr1
here.
A
Thank
you
for
your
public
comment.
Anyone
else
in
the
room
for
public
comment,
seeing
none.
We
will
go
to
the
phones,
bps
first
person
for
public
comment.
Please.
G
D
My
name
is
johnny
desmond,
last
name
d-e-s-m-a-n,
so
for
str
operators.
This
bill
abc363,
is
extremely
concerning
and
I
post
it
as
written.
First,
I
would
like
to
point
out
that
assemblywoman
win
has
voiced
that
she
does
not
believe
bands
work.
Well,
what
about
all
the
str
owners
that
will
be
banned
from
operating
due
to
being
one
of
the
fun
to
do
to
not
be
one
of
the
lucky
ones
to
fall
in
with
these
expensive
distance
restrictions?
D
There's
no
difference.
Thousands
of
owners
will
still
be
flat
out
banned
from
operating.
If
you're
going
to
set
these
extreme
provisions,
I
believe
we
should
look
to
lower
the
31
night
minimum
for
operators
that
don't
have
the
fair
opportunity
to
get
a
permit.
Why
not
something
closer
to
a
weekly
minimum
for
non-licensed
operators?
I
can
almost
guarantee
you
that
any
gas
coming
for
longer
than
a
weekend
is
not
coming
to
this
party,
which
so
many
people
seem
to
be
so
concerned
about.
D
In
my
experience,
most
of
these
guests
are
coming
to
vegas
for
business,
and
this
will
eliminate
thousands
of
lodging
options
for
these
travelers.
Allowing
non-licensed
operators
to
run
weekly
stays
will
give
everyone
at
least
some
opportunity
to
make
an
extra
income
and
continue
to
hire
local
people
such
as
cleaner
contractors,
law
enforcement
pool
service,
etc.
D
D
I
mean
this
is
vegas
we're
supposed
to
be
one
of
the
most
innovative
cities
in
the
world.
These
were
13,
make
it
look
like
we're
years
behind
the
time
and
we've
heard
all
the
lazy
excuses.
That's
why
people
think
str's
are
bad.
They're,
just
party
houses,
no
they're,
not
you
can
set
your
own
rules
and
get
10
followed
rules.
It's
kind
of
crazy
str
are
bad
for
businesses.
D
No,
I
challenge
everyone
to
name
a
number
of
hotel,
casinos
or
gaming
centers
that
have
been
forced
to
shut
their
doors
due
to
str,
and
the
answer
is
none.
But
if
this
bill
passes,
thousands
of
independent
owners
will
be
forced
to
shut
theirs
with
the
way
the
provisions
are
written
in
a
bill.
They
could
be
the
final
blow
to
not
only
the
majority
of
str-operated
businesses
but
to
our
lives.
D
G
J
Thank
you.
My
name
is
david
figler,
d-a-y-v-I-d,
f-like
and
frank
igler,
and
I'm
the
president
of
the
john
s
park
historic
neighborhood
in
downtown
las
vegas.
We
know
a
lot
about
strs,
as
they
are
legal
and
abundant
in
ours
and
surrounding
neighborhoods,
even
though
legal
sdrs
encourage
investors
over
vested
neighbors,
reduce
housing
stock
for
first-time
buyers
and
renters.
J
Looking
for
a
house
over
an
apartment,
increase,
haphazard
traffic
from
people
unfamiliar
with
the
area
and
pierce
the
quiet
enjoyment
of
the
neighborhood
with
events,
parties
and,
frankly,
people
coming
to
our
community
to
do
a
too
much
vegas.
Without
consequence,
they
also
encourage
stripping
of
historic,
interiors
and
flipping
to
lure
the
transient
visitor
to
the
exclusion
of
our
heritage
in
las
vegas's
oldest
communities.
That
str's
are
able
to
proliferate
greater
under
this
bill
without
taking
into
account
all
these
consequences
is
not
lost
on
us.
J
I
really
appreciate
assemblywoman
wynn
accepting
our
calls
to
her
and
listening
to
our
many
concerns
when
we
recently
became
aware
of
this
bill,
including
the
need
to
protect
the
flexibility
that
our
city
land
use,
ordinances,
allow
in
regulating
and
taxing
this
industry,
as
they
have
done
after
a
five-year
collaborative
effort
with
mine
and
other
neighborhood
associations
which
are
not
hoas
that
are
registered
with
the
city
and
which
represent
thousands
of
homeowners
and
long-term
renters.
But
even
today
we
are
in
the
blind,
giving
testimony
and
that's
where
we've
been
for
most
of
this
bill
creation
process.
J
Despite
our
vast
knowledge,
our
track
record
participation
on
this
topic
and
the
fact
that
we
are
the
ones
most
impacted
by
anything.
Anyone
does
on
short
term.
We
are
in
the
blind,
because,
while
some
answers
are
being
provided
today,
it
is
obviously
still
a
work
in
progress
and
we
still
haven't
been
invited
to
participate
in
the
shaping
or
maybe,
more
importantly,
the
consequences
of
any
tinkering
that
could
allow
one
single,
more
str
in
our
specific
and
unique
communities.
J
J
Certainly,
it
is
focused
only
on
clark
county,
which
is
not
fair,
since
it
was
supposed
to
be
statewide.
Initially,
we
have
a
diverse
set
of
of
different
concerns
within
our
county.
But
finally,
I
want
to
address
one
thing
that
has
been
addressed
and
why
does
the
gaming
industry
get
a
2500
foot
buffer?
Basically.
G
H
This
is
tara
anderson,
t-e-r-a
a-n-d-e-r-s-o-n.
I
am
the
rancho
manor
president
in
southern
nevada.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
efforts
on
this
bill.
While
I
appreciate
that
the
birth
of
this
bill
was
a
result
of
an
effort
to
help
address
short-term
rentals,
this
bill
in
and
of
itself
is
an
egregious
overreach
and
I
think,
requires
and
calls
for
a
substantive
reconsideration
of
the
contents
of
the
bill.
There's
two
major
issues
that
I
think
are
of
of
noteworthy
consideration,
one
of
which
is.
H
While
I
appreciate
count,
our
assemblywoman
wins
comments
in
keeping
the
local
jurisdictions
oversight.
The
unintended
consequences
that
come
with
this
bill
is
a
grave
overreach
by
the
state,
in
that
this
is
a
nuanced
issue
that
affects
local
communities.
Local
neighborhoods
vary
uniquely,
and,
I
think
more
importantly,
it
calls
for
the
management,
unfettered
oversight
and
authority
to
be
preserved
by
local
communities,
I.e,
city
of
las
vegas,
henderson,
north
las
vegas
and
the
county
to
govern
according
to
what
the
in
real-time
needs
are
of
their
neighborhoods.
H
The
bill
language
currently
includes
a
lot
of
quote
certain
exclusions
from
the
governing
language
and
the
authority
of
the
local
municipalities
to
manage
this
issue,
and
I
think
its
unintended
consequences
are
worth
considering.
Subsequently,
this
bill
has
been
put
forth
as
a
protective
measure
on
affordable
housing,
and
I
think
that
this
bill
does
quite
the
contrary.
H
H
G
G
K
L-A-U-R-A-M-C-S-W-A-I-N-
and
I
want
to
thank
the
revenue
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak-
I
am
the
president
of
mcniel
state,
neighborhood
association,
I'm
also
a
native
of
las
vegas,
and
over
the
years
I
have
served
on
various
city,
las
vegas
committees,
including
the
planning
commission.
While
it's
appreciated
that
much
has
been
done
to
soothe
concerns
about
ab263.
K
The
entirety
of
our
objections
are
too
numerous
to
outline
in
the
brief
amount
of
time
afforded.
What
I
will
speak
to
is
that
the
vigilance
of
mcneil
and
the
surrounding
neighborhood
resident
that
after
nearly
five
years,
resulted
in
an
ordinance
that
met
with
general
approval
and
has
worked
to
minimize
the
impact
of
strs
in
our
neighborhoods.
K
In
contrast,
how
is
it
even
considered
possible
to
put
forth
legislation
that,
even
up
until
midnight
last
night,
its
language
was
unavailable
to
residents
of
the
neighborhoods,
mostly
uniquely
impacted,
if
each
one
of
you
would
put
yourselves
in
our
shoes?
Try
to
imagine
the
feeling
of
absolute
shock
and
discouragement
that
you
would
feel
after
such
a
hard-fought
battle,
only
discovered
that
you
had
been
left
out
of
over
70
meetings
over
an
18-month
period,
and
here
we
are
still
unclear
on
the
language
of
the
bill.
With
concerns
of
the
legal
interpretation
of
language
and
its
consequences.
K
The
nuances
of
the
city
ordinance
are
complex
and
ongoing
works
in
progress.
The
reason
land
use
issues
are
local
is
because
we
have
things
such
as
general
plan
amendments
and
zoning
ordinances
that
take
years
to
develop.
These
processes
allow
for
ongoing
public
hearings
and
any
land
use
issues
impacting
residents
can
be
addressed
within
days.
K
The
inappropriateness
of
str
is
becoming
a
state
managed
issue
to
a
bill
that
uniquely
affects
distinct
neighborhoods
within
a
single
county
warrants
the
bill
being
voted
down
outright
on
the
merits
of
that
alone,
and
if
bans
don't
work
in
the
interest
of
uniformity
and
shared
responsibility,
how
is
it
that
hoas,
with
banned
in
place,
are
not
also
required
to
lift
theirs
candidly
residents
being
left
out
of
the
conversation
during
the
critical
conceptual
phase
of
ad363's
development
seems
less
about
the
lack
of
time
and
more
about
possible
motives,
still
unknown.
Assertions
in
previous.
K
Thank
you.
Yes,
with
affordable
housing,
code
enforcement
and
the
protections
of
employees
in
the
resort
industry,
lack
data
or
an
appropriate
study
on
things
like
revenue
versus
cost
to
enforce,
rendering
such
assertions
and
ballots.
We
respectfully
request
that
you
vote
this
bill
down.
You
are,
I
guess,
you're
not
going
to.
G
G
G
F
F
Well,
there
is
an
improvement,
it
is
still
an
overreach.
You
said:
why
are
we
concerned
with
the
city
block
measurement?
I
feel
the
distance
is
arbitrary
and
illogical,
and
I
urge
you
to
reduce
it
to
the
500
feet
we've
requested.
It
is
also
proposed
that
the
distance
between
the
casino
resorts
and
a
short-term
rental
is
2500
feet.
This
excludes
thousands
of
hard-working
law-abiding
taxpayers
fresh
out
of
a
global
pandemic
from
hosting
these
voters
have
lost
jobs,
loved
ones
and
tons
of
income
over
the
last
14
months.
F
Why
are
we
continuing
to
step
on
the
little
guy,
so
the
mega
corporations
can
grab
every
dollar.
Have
we
learned
nothing
during
covid?
Have
we
not
learned
of
strife
and
hard
time?
Meanwhile,
big
companies
get
federal
grants,
while
we
just
hope
to
keep
up
our
mortgage
payments
and
perhaps
retain
our
jobs
as
we
try
and
come
back.
My
guests,
head
straight
to
the
strip
and
downtown
after
checking
in
many,
are
budget
travelers
who
cannot
afford
the
over-inflated
room
prices
on
the
strip.
F
Many
international
guests
are
on
four
to
eight
week
itineraries
that
demand
they
stick
to
a
strict
budget
that
does
not
allow
them
to
stay
on
the
strip
they
shouldn't,
be.
They
shouldn't
be
able
to
stay
close
to
the
strip,
because
the
big
casinos
and
resorts
are
being
greedy.
I
urge
you
to
lower
these
distances.
It's
the
right
thing
to
do.
The
taxpayers
are
watching
you.
Thank
you.
G
L
I
understand
this
bill
has
come
a
long
way
from
when
it
was
first
introduced,
and
I
do
think
assemblywoman
you
win
for
her
work
on
this.
However,
with
the
bill
still
in
draft
form
and
little
clarity
around
some
of
the
questions
asked
today,
there
are
still
concerns
about
the
enforcement
of
both
legal
and
illegal
ftrs,
the
unequal
impact
this
industry
will
have
on
our
older
and
middle
neighborhoods,
and
also
a
lot
of
concern
around
the
proposed
regulations
in
the
bill
not
applying
to
property
owners
possessing
an
unrestricted
gaming
license.
L
As
someone
who
lives
in
a
neighborhood,
that's
very
near
las
vegas
boulevard.
I
know
firsthand
how
difficult
enforcement
of
str's
can
be.
It
is
very
frustrating
to
have
this
industry
in
your
neighborhood,
particularly
when
homes
are
not
owner
occupied
people
do
come
to
las
vegas
to
have
fun,
and
we
have
had
to
deal
with
many
issues
throughout
the
years,
including
excessive
noise
trash
and
unruly
behavior,
even
racing
rented
sports
cars
through
our
neighborhoods.
L
Our
only
outlet
is
to
call
code
enforcement
and
metro's
non-emergency
number,
and
these
kinds
of
incidents
take
many
hours
for
response.
Sometimes
even
weeks
long
after
the
visitor
or
the
behavior
is
is
done.
So
this
bill
does
not
help
to
fix
this
issue
and
when
there
aren't
good
resources
for
mitigating
problems.
Like
this
situation,
they
do
take
an
emotional
toll
on
our
neighbors.
It
can
give
rise
to
stress,
conflict
and
other
consequences.
L
The
bill.
This
also
doesn't
address
the
fact
that
neighborhoods
with
hlas
are
able
to
exclude
strs
from
their
communities,
leaving
older
communities
and
middle
neighborhoods
to
bear
the
social
and
economic
burdens
that
this
bill
will
impose
by
making
neighborhoods
without
hoas.
I'm
sorry
neighborhoods
without
hoas
become
more
appealing
to
investors,
and
it
really
only
serves
to
exacerbate.
A
L
Sure
so
I
don't
think
that
the
communities
without
hoas
should
need
to
take
to
bear
the
burdens
and
the
unintended
consequences
of
this
bill
and
really
quickly.
The
bill
seems
to
exclude
property
owners
with
uninterested
gaming.
G
A
Thank
you,
bps,
okay,
and
with
that
we
will
wrap
up
public
comment
any
anything
from
anyone
on
the
committee
seeing
none
so
as
far
as
our
next
meeting
just
stay
in
touch,
and
we
will
let
you
know
when,
if
it
will
be
tuesday,
sorry,
thursday
or
tuesday,
we're
still
waiting
to
see
what
we
get
from
the
senate.