►
From YouTube: 4/8/2021 - 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
Good
afternoon
welcome
to
this
assembly
revenue
meeting.
Madam
secretary,
would
you
please
take
the
role.
C
A
Cohen,
I
am
present
once
again
welcome
to
the
assembly
revenue
committee
meeting
just
some
housekeeping
before
we
get
started
members
and
presenters.
Please
silence
your
electronic
devices,
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
during
the
meeting
is
required
additionally,
courtesy
and
respect
when
working
with
staff.
Before
and
after
the
meeting
is
required,
many
members
will
be
using
our
laptops
and
possible
other
screens
and
devices
not
only
to
participate
in
the
meeting
virtually
but
to
view
exhibits.
A
A
As
a
reminder
and
as
stated
on
our
agenda,
we
will
have
public
comment
which
will
occur
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
and
may
be
limited
in
duration.
Details
on
how
to
participate
during
public
comment
are
available
on
nellis,
which
you
can
get
to
on
the
legislature's
website.
Anyone
wishing
to
testify.
A
As
a
reminder
in
person
who
went
to
rule
number
54
of
the
assembly
standing
rules,
support
of
a
bill
or
resolution
shall
be
construed
as
approval
of
the
measure
as
written
or
proof
of
of
the
measures
written
along
with
proposed
amendments
that
have
been
approved
by
the
sponsor
of
the
measure.
Opposition
to
a
bill
or
resolutions
shall
be
construed
as
not
supporting
the
measure
is
written
or
opposing
the
measure
as
revised
by
an
amendment
that
has
not
been
approved
by
the
sponsor
of
the
measure.
A
A
neutral
position
on
a
bill
or
resolution
is
one
in
which
the
person
testifying
offers
particular
insight
on
the
measure,
but
expresses
no
position
on
the
measure
as
an
example.
If
you
love
a
bill
but
just
need
a
couple,
little
tweaks
or
changes
that
haven't
been
worked
out
with
the
bill
sponsor.
Yet
then
you
must
oppose,
but
please
feel
free
to
tell
us
how
much
you
love
the
bill
in
your
opposition.
A
So
with
that,
would
you
have
a
couple
of
presentations
today,
but
we
are
first
going
to
work
on
our
work
session.
So,
mr
nakamoto,
if
you'll,
please
go
ahead
with
that.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
michael
nakamoto,
deputy
fiscal
analyst,
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
The
first
bill
in
today's
work
session
is
assembly.
Bill
66,
which
was
heard
in
this
committee
on
february
18th
and
which
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
assembly.
Bill
66
does
two
main
things.
D
Secondly,
the
bill
also
requires
the
applicant
to
enter
into
the
agreement
within
one
year
after
the
application
is
received
by
the
office.
If
the
applicant
fails
to
enter
into
an
agreement
within
one
year
after
the
application
is
received,
the
applicant
is
required
to
submit
a
new
application
to
be
eligible
to
receive
approval
for
the
abatement
or
the
partial
abatement.
D
There
was
one
amendment
that
was
submitted
by
the
office
of
economic
development.
It
was
on
behalf
of
the
office
and
the
department
of
taxation
of
the
provisions
of
the
amendment
or
the
language
that
was
submitted
is
attached
to
the
work
session
document.
There
are
two
main
points
to
this
particular
amendment.
D
The
first
is
that
if
an
applicant
for
abatements
makes
any
eligible
purchases
that
are
subject
to
an
abatement
after
the
application
is
made
with
the
office,
but
before
the
application
is
approved
and
sales
and
use
taxes
paid
on
that
eligible
purchase,
the
applicant
may
claim
a
refund
of
the
taxes
paid.
Once
an
agreement
is
executed
with
the
office.
However,
no
interest
shall
be
allowed
on
the
approved
refunded
amount
if
a
refund
of
the
taxes
is
approved.
D
The
second
part
requires
the
to
issue
an
exemption
letter
to
the
applicant.
Once
an
abatement
agreement
is
executed
with
the
office,
which
must
be
utilized
when
the
business
makes
eligible
purchases
that
are
subject
to
abatement.
If
the
exemption
letter
is
not
utilized
when
making
purchases,
the
business
may
apply
for
a
refund
of
the
taxes
paid.
That
should
have
been
abated,
however,
if
the
business
fails
to
use
the
certificate
and
ends
up
paying
the
full
amount
of
taxes
on
50
or
more
of
the
eligible
purchases.
D
The
business
shall
be
deemed
to
be
non-compliant
and
will
be
assessed,
a
penalty
of
10
of
the
tax
abatement
to
offset
the
burden
placed
upon
the
county
affected
by
a
refund
of
the
funds
that
were
previously
distributed.
Madam
chair,
that
is
the
end
of
the
work
session
document
for
this
bill.
I
would
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
nakamoto,
and
just
to
be
clear
because
you
cut
out
for
just
a
slight
second
there.
When
you
were
talking
about
the
second
portion
and
the
abatement
letter,
that's
coming
from
the
director
correct.
D
Madam
chair,
my
understanding
is
that
the
exemption
letter
is
issued
by
the
department
of
taxation
once
the
abatement
has
been
approved
by
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
They
forward
that
information
to
taxation
and
taxation
is
the
one
who
issues
the
exemption
letter
to
the
business
who
receives
the
abatement.
Okay,.
A
Great
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
and
then
committee,
just
so
you're
aware
we
do
have
mr
hum
from
the
from
goed
here
I
don't
think
director
brown
is
here,
but
but
mr
hum
is
here
also
we
do
have
director
young
from
taxation
in
case
anyone
has
any
questions
for
either
of
them.
Do
we
have
any
questions.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
I'll
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
also.
A
B
A
And,
and
with
that
we'll
please
take
the
wrong.
F
B
H
A
And
I'm
a
yes,
so
the
measure
passes
with
two
no's.
Mr
nakamoto,
can
you
please
go
forward
with.
D
8320
you,
madam
chair
again
for
the
record
michael
nakamoto,
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division.
The
second
and
final
bill
on
the
work
session
for
this
afternoon
is
assembly
bill
322,
which
was
heard
in
this
committee
on
march
25th
and
was
sponsored
by
assemblyman
miller
as
introduced.
The
bill
provides
for
the
licensure
and
regulation
of
portable
cannabis,
vendor
events
and
temporary
cannabis
events
by
the
cannabis
compliance
board
under
the
bill.
D
A
temporary
cannas,
a
cannabis
event
is
an
event
at
which
a
participating,
adult
use,
cannabis,
retail
store,
can
sell
cannabis
or
cannabis
products
to
persons
21
years
of
age
or
older,
and
the
consumption
of
cannabis
or
cannabis.
Products
by
such
persons
is
allowed
a
portable
cannabis
vendor
event
is
defined
as
an
event
held
by
a
portable
cannabis
vendor
at
which
the
portable
cannabis
vendor
sells
cannabis
or
cannabis.
Products
to
persons
21
years
of
age
or
older
and
the
consumption
of
cannabis
or
cannabis
products
by
such
persons
is
allowed.
D
The
bill
also
allows
for
the
issuance
of
licenses
for
portable
cannabis,
vendors
and
cannabis
event,
organizers,
and
it
revises
provisions
that
currently
prohibit
the
consumption
of
cannabis
in
a
public
place
to
permit
the
consumption
of
cannabis
or
cannabis
products
in
an
area
that
has
been
designated
for
that
activity
at
a
temporary
cannabis
event
or
portable
cannabis.
A
vendor
event.
D
When
the
bill
was
heard
in
this
committee
there
was
a
mock-up.
It's
a
proposed
amendment
3139
to
assembly,
bill
322,
which
was
submitted
by
assemblyman
hillary
miller
and
was
discussed
at
the
hearing.
This
is
attached
to
the
work
session
document.
This
proposed
amendment
makes
the
following
changes
to
the
bill.
First,
it
removes
references
to
portable
cannabis,
vendor
events.
Second,
it
removes
references
to
a
temporary
cannabis
event
license
or
change
to
refer
instead
to
a
temporary
cannabis
event.
D
And,
finally,
the
board
is
given
discretion
to
establish
reduced
fees
for
cannabis
event,
organizer
licenses
and
portable
cannabis
vendor
licenses
for
those
social
equity
applicants
also
attached
to
this
work
section
session
document
is
our
proposed
amendments
that
would
further
amend
that
mock-up
that
were
submitted
by
the
cannabis
equity
inclusion
committee,
as
well
as
assemblyman
miller
and
those
are
listed
on
the
work
session
document
with
the
following
changes
noted
first
in
section
four,
which
currently
contains
the
definition
of
the
term
portable
canada's
vendor,
the
ability
of
the
portable
cannabis
vendor
to
purchase
cannabis
or
cannabis
problem
products
from
an
adult
use,
retail
store
is
removed.
D
D
that
deletes
this
section
and
that
previously
required
an
adult
use,
cannabis
retail
store
to
accept
returns
of
unsold
products
from
a
temporary
cannabis
vendor.
The
fifth
change
is
to
section
25
of
the
bill.
This
section
currently
allows
a
local
government
having
jurisdiction
over
the
location
where
the
cannabis,
temporary
cannabis
event
is
held
to
impose
a
fee
for
holding
event
an
event.
It
removes
the
requirement
that
the
fee
be
based
on
the
number
of
persons
who
are
expected
to
attend
the
event.
D
The
sixth
change
is
in
section
42
in
proposed
subsection,
eight,
which
would
have
exempted
the
sale
of
cannabis
or
cannabis
problem
products
by
an
adult
use,
cannabis
retail
store
to
a
portable
cannabis
vendor.
For
the
purpose
of
resale
for
the
10
retail
excise
tax
on
these
problems,
our
products,
that
section
is
deleted,
the
seventh
change.
There
are
additional
provisions
relating
to
the
prioritization
and
issuance
of
cannabis
licenses
to
social
equity
applicants
that
are
included
at
the
end
of
this
document.
A
Thank
you,
mr
nakamoto
and
committee.
Obviously
we
have
the
full
sponsor
and
the
committee
in
case
you
have
questions.
We
also
have
mr
klimas
klimus
from
the
ccp
who's
on
the
zoom
for
questions
and,
of
course,
mr
nakamoto.
So
do
we
have
any
questions.
A
Okay,
assemblyman
miller,
is
this
a
question
I
I'm.
I
Sorry,
I
just
need
to
clarify
something
on
the
amendment:
I'm
not
sure
that
it
was
the
it
was.
I
don't
think
it
was
right.
What
was
ready
it
might
have.
Might
I
might
have
sent
the
wrong
the
most,
not
the
most
updated
version?
May
I
address
that
quickly.
A
Or
maybe
just
for
clarify
clarity
for
the
committees,
we'll
roll
it.
I
I
One-
and
that
is
the
only
change
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
clear.
A
B
Thank
you,
and,
and
this
time
I'm
a
little
bit
better
prepared
sorry
about
last
last,
one
under
the
new
language
for
number
three.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding
correctly
that
if,
if,
if
there
are
not
enough
individuals
who
apply
to
be
licensed,
I
actually
you
know
what
can
you
explain
that
second
sentence
of
of
the
new
language
for
number
three,
where
it
says
in
the
circumstances
that
there
are
not
enough
qualified
social
equity
applicants,
those
adult
use
cannabis
establishment
licenses
shall
be
held
in
reserve.
H
Absolutely
assemblyman
c.h
miller
for
the
record.
I
Actually,
we
have
aisha
goings
on
the
call
to
be
able
to.
A
Miss
coins-
I
didn't
realize
you
were
here-
please
go
ahead.
F
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
chair
cohen,
to
assemblywoman
anderson.
The.
What
that
is
saying
is,
if
there's
a
collective
of
licenses,
let's
say:
there's
25
license
and
15
are
going
to
the
social
equity
applicants.
Those
15
licenses
will
stay.
So
even
if
someone
drops
down
it
would
stay
a
social
equity
license
so
that
another
social
equity
applicant
can
obtain
that
license
or
if
15
don't
apply.
Those
licenses
will
still
be
set
aside
for
those
applicants.
K
Sorry,
I
don't
know
if
you
can
see
the
waving
or
how
we're
doing
this.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
assemblyman
miller
for
the
bill,
and
one
of
the
questions
that
came
up
with
this
bill
was
regarding,
I
think,
like
the
the
clean
air
act,
and
there
was
a
couple
other
issues
the
air
might
be
cleaned
or
how
that's
going
to
be
handled.
F
Assemblywoman
call
in
to
assemblywoman
kasama.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
There
are
phil.
I
did
not
put
this
specifically
in
the
bill.
I
allowed
this
to
be
redirected
to
the
cannabis
compliance
board
to
apply.
However,
I
do
want
to
address
that
there
are
filters
that
can
be
used
with
what
do
they
call
them
generators,
and
so
that
would
be
something
that
I
believe
that
cannabis
compliance
of
war
would
require.
But,
yes
that
could
filter
the
air.
I
did
the
research
because
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
could
happen.
F
But,
yes,
there
are
filters
that
some
of
the
licensees
are
currently
using
to
filter
the
to
the
air.
K
Thank
you
so
much.
I
think
I
think
I'm
leaning
towards
you
know
in
favor
of
this,
but
I
have
some
issues
with
this
bill.
I
know
there's
another
bill
out
there.
That
goes
along
the
the
same
routes
and
I
think
it
had
some
more
detail
in
that.
K
So
I
could
work
with
that,
and
perhaps
I
don't
know
if
we
bring
these
together,
but
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
that
will
work,
but
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
I'll
probably
be
no
on
this,
but
I'm
in
favor
of
of
the
concept,
and
so
hopefully
that
will
be
worked
out
a
little
bit
more
as
we
go
along.
A
Thank
you
and-
and
I
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
the
sponsor,
but
I
think
he
he
you
know
say
this.
This
is
still
somewhat
a
work
in
progress
and
but
I'm
sure
he's
he's
willing
to
look
at
any
proposals.
A
Amend
and
do
pass
based
on
the
information
we've
been
given
by
mr
nakamoto,
and
what
assemblyman
miller
has
told
us
about
another
amendment.
H
E
A
Thank
you,
mr
yeager.
Do
I
have
a
second
second.
I
have
a
second
from
assemblywoman
considine
and
any
discussion.
Assemblyman
roberts.
Let's
go
roberts,
o'neal
and
then
heathen.
Please
go
ahead.
Assemblyman
robert.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
had
a
discussion
with
miss
coins.
Yesterday
I
appreciate
her
and
assemblyman
miller's
work
on
this
bill.
I
I
will
vote
yes
today
to
get
it
out
of
committee,
but
reserve.
My
right,
I
don't
know
I
haven't,
had
a
good
chance
to
digest
the
amendment.
Although
you
know
the
good,
it
was
a
good
explanation,
but,
mr
yakimoto,
I
don't
know
how
this
impacts
the
other
consumption
lounge
bill,
that's
out
there,
and
so,
but
but
I'm
voting
yesterday
to
get
it
out
of
the
committee.
A
F
Yes
I'll,
say
ditto
as
well.
Most
of
my
concerns
have
been
addressed.
It
appears,
but
I
would
like
to
see
the
final
language
so
I'll
just
leave
it
at
ditto.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
wanted
to
thank
assemblyman
miller
and
miss
goins
for
working
on
this.
For
those
of
you
who
are
on
judiciary,
you'll,
see
some
similarities
with
another
bill
that
was
referenced,
consumption
lounge
bill
ab341,
which
we
still
haven't
processed
yet
out
of
committee.
E
But
I
just
wanted
to
say
thanks,
because
these
are
two
different
concepts,
but
they
sort
of
touch
on
the
same
issue,
and
I
think
it
is
important
to
get
them
aligned
in
some
fashion
and
the
truth
is
probably
both
of
them
will
end
up
in
the
ways
and
means
committee
if
they
pass
out
out
of
these
policy
committees
anyhow.
So
just
want
to
express
that.
I
think
it's
come
a
long
way
from
the
hearing,
and
I
know
this
is
a
tough
difficult
issue
with
a
lot
of
interest
from
a
lot
of
people.
K
H
B
A
A
So
with
that,
I
will
bring
our
work
session
to
a
close
and
we
will
open
up
our
hearing
on
assembly
bill.
389.
Sorry
we're
going
to
go
out.
I
guess
that
is
an
order.
So
assembly
bill
389
revises
provisions
governing
the
taxation
of
certain
tobacco
products
and
with
that
assemblyman
ellison.
We
welcome
you
to
present
in
the
committee
and
we'll
have
you
introduce
the
bill
and
any
speakers
you
have
with
you.
Please
go
ahead.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
I'm
state,
assuming
when
john
ellison,
I
represent
district
33,
which,
if
anyone's
ever
been
in
that
area,
I
know
colleagues
here
on
the
committee
has,
but
it
goes
from
jackpot.
Nevada
on
the
idaho
border,
wendover
utah
goes
all
the
way
over
to
the
oregon
border
and
then
all
the
way
down
to
lincoln
county.
So
my
district's
quite
large,
so
we
get
around
a
lot
and
use
a
lot
of
gas.
H
So
if
I
may
go
ahead
and
start
madam
chair,
miss
cohen
and
committee,
I'm
here
for
this
bill,
I'm
happy
to
present
it.
I
agreed
to
sponsor
this
bill
when
I
learned
that
it
could
bring
back
jobs
to
nevada,
not
impact
revenue
to
the
state
and
not
impact
taxes,
consumers
paid
to
the
other
tobacco
products.
H
If,
if
I
raise
the
price
of
cigarettes,
my
wife
would
kill
me,
I
don't
smoke,
but
my
wife
does
this
bill.
A
bill
was
passed
in
2019
session
of
the
sb-81
was
unintended
consequences
that
caused
several
business
to
close
or
relocate
out
of
the
state
and
killed
over
a
hundred
good,
paying
jobs,
primarily
in
las
vegas,
and
if
I
may,
madame
sherrod,
I've
already
had
one
colleague
call
and
ask
if
this
bill's
passed
if
he
could
go
ahead
and
start
the
process.
I
said
yes,
this
depends
on
if
this
bill
passes.
H
H
A
Please
go
ahead
and
before,
however,
before
we
I
just
get
into
that,
I
just
want
you
to
address.
There
is
a
fiscal
on
the
bill.
So
are
you
saying
the
amendment
takes
care
of
that.
H
Yes,
yes,
madam
chair,
and
I'm
sure
they
can
go
to
this
same
pretty
clear.
Actually,
by
the
time
they're
done
there,
there's
a
no
revenue,
it's
a
match,
because
the
way
the
taxes
go
out
and
they'll
be
able
to
explain
this
a
lot
better
than
I
can
and
it's
not
collected
so
this
might.
They
might
be
able
to
identify
this
a
lot
better
than
I
can.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and,
and
then
just
so
you're
aware
committee
again
we
do
have
a
taxation
on
the
zoom,
so
we'll
just
have
them
clarify
that
later
on
hearing
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
let
the.
F
F
F
We
have
been
told
if
this
bill
passes,
manufacturers
and
distributors
will
return
to
las
vegas
and
restore
many
of
the
100
plus
jobs
that
were
lost
since
passage
of
sb-81.
Some
companies
will
likely
expand
their
operations.
These
are
good-paying
manufacturing
and
distribution,
jobs
that
will
help
diversify
las
vegas
economy.
F
A
I
am
so
sorry
I
was
having
such
trouble
with
the
presentation
of
getting
to
the
right
button.
I'm
sorry,
please
go
ahead.
Mr
badera.
D
J
J
Do
I
really
do
apologize
for
this?
I
promise
it's
not
the
first
time
I've
used
zoom.
A
J
I
guess
I'm
going
to
do
this
without
the
deck,
so
I
apologize
so
here
we
go
without
the
deck,
so
I
did
include
the
deck
in
the
committee
notes,
but
one
moment
yeah,
I
don't
know
what's
going
on
so
when
you
think
about
the
nevada,
vaping
industry,
you
typically
think
about
the
corner
vape
shop.
J
That's
not
what
this
bill
affects
this
bill
strictly
touches
the
wholesale
and
distribution
side
of
the
vaping
industry,
which
is
primarily
related
to
products
that
we'll
never
see
be
touched
in
the
hands
of
nevada
consumers.
There
is
one
specific
company
in
nevada
that
actually
manufactures
the
vast
majority
of
its
products
for
sale
in
china,
so
we
see
made
in
nevada
products
in
chinese
convenience
stores,
instead
of
the
opposite.
What
we're
used
to
seeing
as
a
result
of
that
there
is
a
hey
my
screen
sharing
right.
J
Thank
you.
If
someone
made
that
work
as
a
result
of
that,
we
see
a
direct
economic
output
into
the
state
of
nevada
of
85
million
973
direct
jobs
over
28
million
in
wages
and
over
40
million
in
non-tobacco
taxes.
So
when
we
talk
about
that,
I
am
not
including
otp
taxes
paid
we're
talking
about
commerce
tax.
J
We
are
talking
about
property
tax,
we're
talking
about
sales
tax
paid
by
these
companies
and
the
average
wage
in
the
manufacturing
distribution
side
of
these
industries
is
over
15
an
hour
and
is
continuing
to
increase,
as
the
in
the
as
the
industry
grows
within
the
state,
the
majority
of
jobs.
The
majority
of
this
revenue
in
the
state
does
not
come
from
retail-based
jobs,
so
I'm
going
to
skip
over
the
background
slide
because
I
think
assemblyman,
ellison
and
randy
thompson
covered
this
very
well,
but
basically
sb
81
assessed
this
tax
structure.
J
When
that
tax
structure
was
was
created,
vapor
products
were
not
included
as
otp
and
a
few
hours
later
in
the
same
legislative
session.
Vapor
products
were
then
included
into
these
definitions,
so
our
industry
was
not
involved
in
the
discussion
of
sp
81
or
how
to
set
up
the
structure.
J
It's
important
to
really
look
at
what
sp
or
ab
389
does
and
what
it
doesn't
do
and
we'll
get
into
the
technical
pieces
of
the
amendment
the
bill
in
one
second,
but
I
wanted
to
get
this
down
in
plain
english
before
we
we
did
that
it
only
changes
when
the
tax
is
paid.
Not
it
does
not
change
how
much
is
paid
or
how
much
taxes
on
any
of
the
products
and
it
eases
the
administration
of
the
tax
by
the
industry,
and
we
believe,
will
also
ease
the
administration
of
the
tax
by
the
state.
J
The
things
it
does
not
do
and
the
original
draft
of
the
bill
did,
but
we
fix
in
our
amendment
it
does
not
change
the
price
of
the
product
or
the
taxes
paid.
It
does
not
change
the
rate
or
the
total
tax
is
paid
to
nevada,
and
while
this
isn't
exactly
relevant,
we
feel
like
it's
very
important
to
say
it
does
not.
It
does
not
change
any
miners
ability
to
access
the
product
or
make
it
easier
for
miners
to
get
tobacco
products.
J
This
only
eases
the
ability
to
buy,
sell
and
trade
and
manufacture
wholesale
tobacco
products
for
sale
out
of
the
state
digging
into
our
proposed
amendment
to
the
draft
bill
section
one
should
be
what
takes
care
of
most
of
the
fiscal
note,
which
is
it
reverts
subsection
six
to
current
law,
keeping
the
definition
of
a
wholesale
tobacco
dealer
the
same.
It
is
our
understanding
that
should
eliminate
the
need
for
all
the
additional
ftes
that
are
in
the
fiscal
note.
J
Subsection
seven
further
defines
the
taxable
event
to
be
when
the
product
is
sold
to
a
retailer
or,
in
some
cases,
end
consumer
that
should
eliminate
the
reduction
of
revenue
into
the
state
section.
Two
of
the
amendment
subsection
two
clarifies
that
when
the
product
is
sold
out
of
state
are
not
subject
to
taxation,
that's
just
further
clarification
of
current
state
law,
so
it
should
have
no
substantial
effect.
J
J
All
right,
I
apologize
for
that
so
now,
digging
into
what
ab389
does
we
made
a
graphic
to
help
folks
understand
is
under
the
current
scheme
the
taxable
event
takes
place
when
the
product
is
first
made
or
imported
into
the
state
of
nevada.
So
and
then
the
product
moves
through
the
nevada
supply
chain,
with
the
taxes
assessed.
J
What
we
are
proposing
we
do
is
move
the
event
when
the
time
when
the
tax
is
paid
to
when
the
product
is
purchased
by
a
nevada
retail,
allowing
the
products
to
move
through
the
wholesale
side
of
the
transaction,
with
no
with
no
tax
assessment
on
it.
Why
should
now?
Why
do
we
need
to
do
that?
J
So
when
that
product
is
sold
out
of
state,
the
result
is
that
it
is
taxed
both
in
nevada
and
by
the
other
state.
There
is
no
other
state
we're
aware
of
in
the
country
that
taxes
products
this
way,
causing
this
double
taxation
problem,
meaning
that
made
in
nevada
products
because
of
this
extra
tax
can't
compete
in
california
against
made
in
california
products,
whereas
made
in
california.
Products
can
easily
compete
against
made
in
nevada
products
in
nevada,
because
california
structure
is
more
friendly
to
manufacturing
than
nevada's.
J
J
Is
that
if
a
made
in
nevada
product
is
destined
to
be
sold
out
of
state
to
an
end
consumer
if
to
avoid
the
double
taxation,
what
they
end
up
doing
is
selling
the
product
to
a
distributor
based
in
another
state.
So
the
made
in
nevada
product
is
sold
a
california-based
distributor
that
eliminates
the
taxable
event
within
the
state
of
nevada
and
allows
the
product
to
be
sold
out
of
state
effectively.
J
What
we've
done
with
the
current
tax
structure
is
tell
made
in
nevada
companies
or
nevada
manufacturers
if
you
sell
to
nevada
distributors
and
keep
all
the
distribution
jobs
related
to
your
product.
In
the
state
you're
going
to
have
to
pay
some
extra
taxes
as
a
result,
nobody
does
it,
and
the
third
and
final
reason
why
this
is
important
is
that
the
nevada,
retail
stores
and
nevada
consumers
often
struggle
to
source
the
products
they
need
to
stay
in
business.
J
But
your
corner,
because
distribution
taxes
are
so
high
on
this
product.
What
ends
up
happening
is
that
distributors
keep
the
absolute
minimum
amount
of
products
in
their
warehouse,
meaning
that
hard
to
sell
items,
specialty
items
that
don't
sell
very
often
or
even
high
ticket
items
are
rarely
stored
in
nevada
distribution
facilities.
J
J
So
it
creates
an
advantage
for
an
out-of-state
distributor
selling
products
to
nevada
retail
stores
versus
an
in-state
distributor,
selling
products
to
nevada
retail
stores,
again,
making
it
difficult
for
these
distributors
to
create
and
maintain
these
good-paying
jobs
in
nevada
and
so
finally,
just
to
wrap
this
up
is
why
we
need
this
bill.
J
The
current
tax
policy
incentivizes
companies
to
make
products
outside
of
the
state
to
keep
them
or
store
them
outside
of
the
state
or
to
but
to
do
do
everything
possible
to
keep
the
product
out
of
nevada
until
that
last
mile,
before
retail
and
you'll
hear
from
some
of
nevada,
vaping
associations
members,
but
we
can
directly
track
that
behavior
to
the
loss
of
over
100
jobs
in
the
state
of
nevada
companies
that
have
moved
out
of
state
or
even
just
moved
substantial
amount
of
their
operations
out
of
state,
even
though,
though,
they
still
have
distribution
and
factories
in
nevada
and
could
turn
them
back
on
tomorrow.
J
If
we
fix
this
problem
and
finally,
it's
important
to
understand
that,
because
of
this
structure,
these
are
not.
Businesses
aren't
paying
these
taxes.
What
they're
doing
is
routing
their
products
around
the
state
of
nevada
before
they
get
to
their
end
consumer
and
paying
the
tax
just
at
the
last
minute,
and
so
what's
ending
up
happening
is
we're
getting
the
same
amount
of
tax
revenue.
We
would,
if
we
just
allowed
the
wholesale
side
of
the
business,
to
work,
tax-free
and
so
with
that.
That
concludes
our
presentation.
A
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
do
have
a
couple
few
questions
to
to
clarify
this
in
my
mind,
but
before
I
get
to
that
question,
the
first
question
is
on
the
slides
aren't
numbered,
but
you
have
a
slide.
We're
saying
the
average
wage
in
wholesale
manufacturing
and
distribution
side
of
the
industry
is
over
five
dollars
per
hour.
But
how
was
this
calculated
and
specifically,
what
I'd
like
to
know
is:
if
15
is
the
average
wage?
What's
the
hourly
rate
of
the
lowest
wage
earner
in
the
industry.
J
So
the
wage
was
calculated
by
the
wage
was
calculated
by
going
through
the
total
amount
of
wages
for
the
industry
and
of
dividing
it
by
the
number
of
employees
that
we
were
aware
of.
We
also
did
a
brief
survey
of
a
number
of
our
members
to
confirm
this.
I
do
believe
on
the
distribution
side
and
I'm
just
speaking
for
the
members
I've
spoken
to
about
their
wages.
I
would
believe
we're
in
the
13
to
14
hour
wages
on
the
bottom
end
in
the
wholesale
distribution
side.
J
M
Okay,
thank
you.
If,
for
any
reason,
you
get
that
information,
you
want
to
send
it
to
the
committee
that
would
that
would
be
great,
but
that
kind
of
leads
to
my
to
the
next
question,
if
you're,
comparing
to
like
the
other
retail
type
stores,
trying
to
get
some
clarity
on
the.
M
How
you're,
explaining
like
the
issue
with
this,
is
your
your
suggestions
with
this
bill
to
fix
it
is
that
how
products
the
tax
distribute
or
the
tax
issue
is
handled
with
other
products
where
they
don't
pay
a
tax
for
on
the
wholesale
side
or
in
the
distribution
center
in
the
warehouse
side
right
now,
they
only
pay
it
when
it's
gone
to
a
retailer.
J
This
is
similar
to
the
structure.
We
would
see
with
like
a
sales
tax
over
that
taxes
paid
by
the
consumer,
not
by
the
retail
store,
what
I
so
this
is
amongst
excise
tax
products
within
the
state
of
nevada.
This
is
this
is
different
for
sure,
however,
compared
to
say
sales
tax,
it's
not
that
dissimilar
with
the
product
being
paid
closer
to
the
end
consumer
and
not
being
paid
upon
upon
her
first
possession.
M
J
Yeah
so
with
the
exception,
I
believe,
alcohol
and
marijuana.
Those
would
be
the
only
two
products
I
would
know
at
the
top
of
my
head
that
have
similar
floor
tax
type
structures.
M
Okay
and
then
just
my
last
question
to
kind
of
get
this
clarified
is.
I
was
confused
why
you
have
the
line
in
here
that
nevada
is
the
only
state
to
double
tax,
its
local
businesses,
but
am
I
correct
when
you're
saying
double
tax,
the
local
businesses
you're
saying
that
product
made
and
first
arrived
in
nevada
is
taxed
once
and
then
that
product
is
now
taxed
again
in
another
state?
So
it's
not
that
there
is
a
double
tax
that
nevada
gets.
J
That
is
correct,
so
to
use
california
for
an
example,
the
state
of
california
exempts
their
local
manufacturers
and
distributors
completely
from
taxation.
If
they
only
do
business
outside,
they
only
sell
their
products
outside
of
california
customers
and
that's
kind
of
the
typical
model
around
the
country.
So
you
end
up
paying
effectively
the
nevada
tax.
M
Then
sheriff
I
may
ask
one
question
or
I
can
wait
until
everyone
else
has
questions.
Please
go
ahead.
Okay!
So
thank
you
again,
mr
vadera.
This
is
my
last
question.
So
then,
if
products
were
housed
in
nevada
that
have
not
been
manufactured
here,
but
are
warehoused
in
nevada
under
this,
if
this
bill
were
to
pass,
they
don't
pay
the
taxes
on
it
and
then,
if
those
same
products
are
distributed
out
of
state
where
the
taxes
are
paid
by
the
other
state,
then
in
that
situation,
where
is
any
nevada
taxes
paid.
J
So
no
nevada
taxes
will
be
paid
in
that
structure,
but
that's
not
dissimilar
to
the
current
structure.
So
if
a
product
is
made
out
of
state
warehoused
and
then
sold
and
they're
brought
into
nevada
for
distribution
and
then
sold
out
of
state
under
the
current
tax
structure,
no
taxes
are
paid.
What
ends
up?
No
net
taxes
are
paid.
M
So
then,
under
that
sorry
under
under
that,
I
guess
I'm
confused.
When
then,
how
does
that
become
fiscally
neutral.
J
So
because
there
is
so
currently
there
all
the
taxes
that
are
paid
by
that
distributor
in
the
middle,
whose
out-of-state
product
into
the
state
a
tax
is
paid,
then,
when
they
ship
it
out
of
state
that
tax
is
refunded
by
the
state
of
nevada.
J
So
it's
it's
a
fully
re.
The
transaction.
The
tax
paid
is
fully
refundable
if
it
is
shipped
out
of
state
by
that
middle
distributor,
the
problem
only
arises
where
we're
trying
to
accept
taxation
when
a
product
is
made
by
a
nevada
company
and
then
sold
to
a
nevada
distributor.
That's
the
only
time
the
tax
is
not
refundable.
When
it's
sold
out
of
state
under
the
current
structure.
A
Okay,
seeing
sorry
I
have
blocks
coming
up
on
my
screen
to
boot.
So,
okay,
so
no
more
questions
all
right.
Okay,
director
young,
can,
can
you
please
explain
to
us
the
way
the
otp
tax
works.
N
I
will
provide
some
clarifying
information
here
on
what's
being
shared
today
and
then
I
have
my
deputy
director,
terry
hughes
or
terry
upton,
who
is
the
deputy
director
over
compliance
and
so
the
way
sb
81
was
passed
in
the
2019
legislative
session.
It
imposed
the
tax
upon
when
the
product
is
first
make
sure
I
say
this
right
transferred
into
not
into
nevada.
F
F
When
we
did
when
we
worked
on
sb
81,
we
had
three
goals
and
those
goals
were
one
to
make
it
easier
for
the
wholesalers
in
nevada
who
were
selling
other
tobacco
products
to
was
to
simplify
the
tax,
and
this
was
at
their
request.
The
second
goal
was
to
capture
the
product.
That
was
escaping
taxation,
not
only
in
nevada
but
also
to
assist
other
states
as
well
and
then
goal
three
was
to
simplify
the
audit
process
for
not
only
the
department
but
also
the
wholesalers
too.
F
F
Yes,
chair
hi,
this
is
cindy
with
bps
miss
upton.
Your
audio
is
cutting
in
and
out.
If
you
could
try,
maybe
toggling
with
your
settings
in
the
microphone.
F
Yes,
I
see
that
yeah,
if
you
could
try
just
messing
with
it
and
changing
it
to
stay
my
system.
Sometimes
that
fixes
it.
F
Okay,
my
apologies,
so
the
tax
structure
in
nevada
is
very
similar
to
liquor.
Tax
chapter
369,
where
a
out-of-state
supplier
will
ship
the
product
into
nevada
and
the
taxable
event
occurs.
Then,
then,
that
wholesaler
may
either
transfer
the
product
to
another
wholesaler
or
they
sell
it
to
a
retailer,
and
there
is
no
tax
on
those
transactions
that
same
wholesaler
who
brought
the
tax
the
product
into
nevada
and
paid
the
tax.
If
that
wholesaler
sends
the
product
out
of
state,
then
they
can
claim
a
deduction
on
their
tax
return.
F
N
So
jericho
cohen,
this
is
melanie.
I'm
the
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation,
I'd
like
to
add
just
a
little
bit
more
clarifying
information
on
what
ms
upton
was
saying.
So
in
regards
to
sb
81
that
was
passed
last
legislative
session,
the
tax
was
changed
from
when
the
tax
was
sold
so
upon
the
wholesaler
who
would
transfer
the
the
product
to
retailer
tax
was
paid
at
that
time,
but
it
in
sb
81.
N
It
moved
it
back
to
the
time
when
it
was
first
possessed
or
received
by
a
wholesaler
in
the
state
of
nevada,
and
so
with
that
it
moved
the
tax
taxing
event
from
that.
That
first
event
that
is
being
talked
about
here
today,
and
so
what
the
department
of
taxation
did.
N
Deduction
for
products
that
was
sold
out
of
nevada
is
being
referred
to
here,
so
that
it
would
not
capture
the
tax
at
the
time
and
would
prevent
the
refund
that
mr
bedera
was
talking
about.
So
hopefully
that
clarified
your
question
and
if
I
could
provide
any
more
information,
please
let
me
know.
A
N
Yes,
thank
you,
so
the
the
issue
on
the
taxation
of
when
the
product
was
sold.
It
would
allow
the
industry
to
have
an
inventory,
and
so,
as
they
were,
selling
out
that
inventory,
that
tax
would
be
due
when
they
transferred
it
from
the
wholesaler
to
the
retailer.
In
this
example,
the
inventory
was
constantly
changing
and
created
issues
when
we
would
go
into
an
audit
and
also
created
issues
at
the
industry,
tracking
that
what
I
would
consider
a
first
in
first
out
inventory
process
in
in
determining
when
the
tax
was
due
products
not
selling
quickly.
N
So
at
the
request
of
industry,
the
department
in
2019
brought
forward
sb,
81
and
so
working
with
industry
partners.
We
heard
that
that
was
a
complicated
process,
so
we
proposed
that
change
and
it
also
helped
us
identify
and
bring
in
closer
compliance
on
those
that
were
not
providing
or
paying
the
tax
in
potentially
escaping
the
taxation
and
third,
it's
it
simplified.
The
audit
process
for
not
only
the
department
but
the
industry
and
so
prior
to
this.
N
Our
audit
would
take
quite
a
bit
of
time
to
complete
and
then
now
it
is
an
easier
process,
because
it's
upon
the
taxation
is
upon
invoicing,
a
receipt
of
that
into
nevada.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Do
we
have
any
other
questions,
I'm
sorry,
assemblywoman
anderson.
B
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
and
thank
you
for
all
this
information.
I
think
I'll
I'll
be
asking
miss
young
or
miss
upton.
Could
you
verify
that
this
would
be
cost
neutral?
I
I
listened
to
the
the
answer
that
mr
badara
gave
to
the
other
assembly
member,
but
I
could
you
just
kind
of
walk
me
through
how
and
verify
in
fact
that
it
would
be
cost
neutral
as
well
from
your
analysis
if
that
has
taken
place
yet.
N
Thank
you
for
the
question:
assemblywoman
anderson,
milan,
a
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
So
the
way
we
would
view
this
is
that
upon
the
bill,
as
it
would
be
effective
july,
1.
and
so
up
until
june.
The
way
we
would
look
at
this
as
any
product
that
is
in
nevada.
The
tax
would
have
been
paid
on
it
after
that
date.
That
product
would
not
have
tax
paid
until
it
is
sold,
which
could
create
a
what.
N
I
would
consider
a
revenue
impact
to
the
state
of
nevada
in,
in
that
that
tax
would
be
now
delayed
on
the
other
side
of
it.
So
we
could
have
months
of
reduced
revenue
into
nevada.
B
Thank
you
so
that
there
is
an
anticipation
of
that
having
an
impact
and
then
my
second
question.
What
exactly
or
what
are
vaping
products
currently
taxed
at
when
it
is
here
in
the
state
of
nevada,
realize
that
that's
not
necessarily
new
language,
but
just
trying
to
make
sure
to
do
a
comparison
of
what
nevada
taxes
for
the
payton
products,
as
opposed
to,
let's
say
california,
which
I
believe
is
currently
taxing
their
vaping
products
at
50
or
higher.
So
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
that
percentage
is
at
this
time.
N
B
Thank
you
so
much,
and
I
will
not
ask
you
for
other
states,
because
I
don't
think
that's
really
your
job.
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
for
that
and
for
that
leniency.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
a
question
and
mine
goes
into
so
we
bring
manufacturers
back
into
the
state.
So
what
kind
of
taxes
do
manufacturers
pay
other
than
other
than
this
retail
tax
that
they
pay
now?
But
what
would
they
pay?
They
would
contribute
to
mbt
and
some
other
taxes.
So
if
we
we
brought
on
more
companies,
wouldn't
that
increase
taxes
there.
N
So,
thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record.
I
appreciate
the
question
miss
silly
man
roberts.
The
industry
could
likely
pay
commerce
tax
if
they
made
more
than
four
million
dollars
into
the
state
of
nevada,
because
that
would
be
the
threshold
that
commerce
taxes
imposed
as
well
as
modified
business
tax.
They
would
pay
if
they're
wages
are
greater
than
50
000
per
quarter.
There's
a
rate
that's
imposed
on
that.
E
Thank
you
very
much
so
in
essence,
if
we
lured
people
back
in
state
depending
on
retail
or
wholesale
or
whatever,
if
companies
that
are
manufacturing
in-state
aren't
really
selling
to
folks
in
state,
we
could
actually
see
a
revenue
increase,
but
I
understand
there'll
be
a
gap
in
between.
So
thank
you
very
much.
M
After
hearing
a
little
bit
more
about
the
tax
structure
and
and
the
presentation
saying
that
this
has
become
an
issue
because
the
the
the
vaping
industry
came
in
after
this
was
changed,
my
question
for
the
department
of
taxation
is,
then:
will
this
cause
issues
with
the
other
otp?
N
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
consonant
for
the
question
melanie
young
executive
director.
Yes,
I
mean
you
could
have
one
industry
who
would
prefer
the
taxes
to
be
paid
in
the
way
it
is
currently
being
paid,
because
it's
easier
for
their
record,
keeping
and
again
this
and
some
would
prefer
it
to
be
paid
on
the
other
side.
So
there
is.
K
A
N
Thank
you,
chair
cohen,
for
the
question
melanie
young
for
the
record.
The
department
of
taxation
believes
that
we've
clarified
that
issue
in
when
we
revised
our
form
in
november
of
2020
that
allowed
for
that
deduction
on
the
tax
return
itself,
that's
submitted
to
the
department,
so
it
would
prevent
having
to
have
that
product
to
be
taxed
as
it
transferred
out
of
the
state
of
nevada
into
another
entity
wherever
its
destination
is
going
and
would
prevent
the
refund
on
that
product.
N
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
let's
go
to
support
on
the
phones,
please
well
yeah!
So
let's
go
to
support
on
the
phones.
G
G
I
Good
afternoon
committee,
my
name
is
howard
lennox
lima,
echo
november,
oscar
x-ray.
For
the
record
I
work
for
a
company
called
fumari
international
based
out
of
reno
nevada.
We
wanted
to
speak
up
and
let
you
know
about
our
support
for
ab389.
I
We
agree
with
the
vapor
industry
that
realigning
the
taxable
event
to
the
point
of
from
the
point
of
acquisition
to
distribution
to
a
retailer
and
consumer.
I
More
inline
fits
with
what
other
departments
throughout
the
country
do,
and
it
also
makes
it
makes
the
ability
to
do
business
in
nevada
more
advantageous.
I
want
to
tell
you
a
quick
story
about
a
a
client
of
ours
down
in
las
vegas
who
buys
from
us
as
well
as
other
manufacturers.
I
They
have
had
manufacturers
offer
them.
Free
goods
and
the
the
buyer
has
turned
the
goods
down,
because
the
taxable
event
since
sb
81
has
passed
and
the
reason
that
he's
done.
That
is
because
there's
no
guarantee
that
those
cigars
are
actually
going
to
sell
right
away
now
that
that
losing
that
losing
those
free
goods
means
nothing
to
the
retailer
they
didn't
pay
for
them.
But
the
state
lost
out
on
30
of
the
wholesale
price
of
what
would
have
been
had.
They
purchased
them
if
they
were
sold.
I
If
the
if
the
otp
was
remitted
at
the
time
of
sale
as
opposed
to
the
time
of
acquisition,
also
as
the
as
probably
one
of
the
biggest
non-vapor
otp
distributor
manufacturers
in
the
state
of
nevada.
I
I
can
confirm
that
the
state
department
of
taxation
has
never
reached
out
to
anyone
who
files
reports
that
I'm
aware
of
most
definitely
not
in
the
otp
community,
prior
to
sb,
81
being
passed,
that
sb-81
has
killed
jobs,
jobs
that
ab-389
will
help
recreate
or
bring
back
to
to
nevada,
and
it
it
basically
sb
81
that
did
not
simplify
anything.
It
took
a
clean
and
simple
process
and
turned
it
into
a
convoluted
and
time-consuming
process.
I
I
personally
do
the
tax
returns,
the
otp
tax
returns.
I'm.
A
Sorry
you're
at
two
minutes,
so
if
you
could,
please
wrap
it
up.
I
Okay,
I
personally
do
the
tax
returns
for
for
the
business
for
the
otp,
the
modified
business
and
whatnot,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
81
basically
made
things
move
slower
and
we
paid
less
and
ab389
will
basically
bring
some
of
that
revenue
back
to
the
state
as
well
as
jobs.
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you
for
letting
me.
G
O
B-R-Y-A-N-W-A-C-H-T-E-R
on
behalf
of
the
retail
association
of
nevada,
we
are
in
favor
of
assembly
bill
389.
I
believe
assembly
bill
389
fits
in
with
the
three
goals
that
you
heard
from
the
department
of
taxation
regarding
236
and
and
81
from
last
session.
We
also
think
we
need
to
take
a
careful
look
at
the
balance.
No
tax
should
cause
a
taxpayer
to
make
an
economic
decision,
especially
one
that
costs
jobs
in
nevada.
O
We
have
an
unemployment
rate,
especially
in
las
vegas
of
9.3
percent,
and
this
is
a
time
when
we
need
to
be
looking
to
diversify,
bring
these
jobs
back.
You
heard
that
there's
not
going
to
be
any
change
to
the
revenue.
O
That's
brought
in
it's
a
simple
cash
flow
change,
but
we
do
believe
this
to
be
revenue
neutral
in
the
sense
that
the
same
amount
of
tax
revenue
will
be
collected,
but
we
do
believe
that
there
are
economic
benefits
to
nevada
in
terms
of
direct
and
indirect
economic
support
when
we
bring
these
thousand
jobs
back
to
nevada.
We
urge
your
support
and
appreciate
your
time.
G
O
B-A-R-R-Y-D-U-N-C-A-N,
dear
committee
and
and
members
barry
duncan
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
taxpayers
association,
we
just
want
to
voice
our
support
for
the
legislation
and
believe
that
it
creates
a
better
balance
within
the
current
tax
structure.
A
Okay
I'll
ask
that
caller.
If
you
can
hear
me
to
try
to
call
in
again
and
and
we
will
let
you
testify,
even
if
it's
out
of
order,
however,
you
can
also
send
us
your
written
testimony
so
yeah
so
bps,
I'm
sorry,
you
said
that's
the
last
person
in
support.
G
A
G
O
O
This
bill
would
change
that
so
that
they
would
now
be
a
taxpayer.
Currently,
a
convenience
store
is
a
licensed
retail
deal
or
dealer,
and
this
will
bill
would
change
that,
forcing
them
to
become
a
wholesale
dealer
requiring
them
to
figure
out
that
tax
and
remitted
to
the
department
of
taxation.
Our
members
do
not
want
to
be
remitting.
The
otp
excise
tax
payments,
the
department
of
taxation,
have
to
deal.
G
O
Good
evening,
chair
cohen
members
of
committee,
peter
krueger,
kruger
k-r-u-e-g-e-r
this
evening,
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
cigar
association
of
america,
and
we
are
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
389
as
introduced.
We
believe
that
this
bill
turns
good
tax
policy
on
its
head.
Good
tax
policy,
which
is
part
of
the
nevada
department
of
taxation's
goals,
which
include
equity,
fairness
and
certainty,
are,
we
believe,
don't
meet
and
measure
up
those
goals
to
in
within
this
bill.
O
While
we're
sympathetic
to
vape
manufacturers
and
premium
cigar
retailers
we're
not
wanting
to
pay
a
tax
on
inventory
before
the
product
sold,
we
believe
that
this
bill's
one
size
fitball
is
not
a
good
tax
policy.
The
bill
will
require
about
three
13,
I'm
sorry,
3
100
licensed
retail
dealers
now
to
become
licensed
wholesale
wholesale
dealers
and,
for
the
first
time,
be
required
to
emit
the
30
otp
excise
tax
to
the
department,
as
opposed
to
purchasing
the
their
product
as
tax
already
paid.
O
Please
note
that
there
is
a
significant
fiscal
note
on
this
bill
and
we
believe
that
that
is
correct
in
the
sense
that
enforcement
becomes
a
major
problem.
O
We
also
believe
that,
under
the
provisions
of
389
enforcement
by
the
department
and
the
attorney
general's
office
becomes
even
more
complicated
and
costly,
the
two
agencies
currently
have
the
tools
that
were
in
the
2019
session
to
end
or
at
least
slow
down,
tax
avoidance
and
direct,
more
enforcement
efforts
towards
gray
and
black
market
transactions
here
in
nevada.
This
remains
those
kinds
of
gray
and
black
market
activities
remain
a
major
problem,
especially
in
nevada,
which
serves
as
a
staging
and
distribution
center
for
illegal
tobacco
products
being
moved
to.
O
G
G
G
G
A
G
G
G
G
G
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Let's
move
on
so
I'd
also
like
to
call
up
the
department
of
taxation
director
young
miss
upton.
If
you
have
any,
I
am
gonna
have
a
question
for
you,
but
if
you
have
any
testimony
neutral,
you'd
like
to
make,
please
go
ahead.
N
Thank
you,
mel
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation,
we're
available
for
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
so
I
just
I
want
to
confirm
something
I
think
you
testified
to
this
already,
but
there
was
contrary
testimony
in
on
the
phones
in
support,
so
I
just
want
to
clear
your
position
on
if
this
will,
if
we
would
were
to
pass
this
bill,
what
the
effect
would
be
on
revenue.
N
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
The
department
of
taxation
believes
that
this
would
create
a
it
would
change
the
timing
when
taxes
would
be
due
so,
for
example,
in
june,
because
this
bill
would
be
effective
of
july
1.
N
2021
that
taxes
on
all
the
products
in
in
inventory
would
be
due
at
that
point
in
time
in
june,
then,
in
july
it
would
be
only
on
when
that
product
is
sold,
so
you
would
likely
not
see,
or
you
could
see
reduced
revenues
for
several
months
while
the
inventory
is
being
sold
out
that
already
had
taxes
paid
on
it.
So
we
were.
We
would
be
looking
at
that
this
would
create
a
revenue
impact
to
the
state
in
the
first
fiscal
year
of
2022.
A
Okay,
thank
you
so
with
that
I
will
ask
assemblyman
ellison
and
miss
thompson.
Miss
mr
predaria.
If
you'd
like
to
make
a
closing
remark.
H
Yes,
ma'am.
I
know
that
mr
kruger
should
have
referred
to
the
amendment
that
was
proposed
and
apparently
was
still
looking
at
the
bill.
But
one
of
the
questions
I
do
have,
if
I'm
a
manufacturer
this
is
for
maybe
that
miss
young
can
answer
to
the
body
is
if
I'm
a
manufacturer-
and
I
have
products
coming
in
and
I'm
going
to
send
it
to
a
distributor,
the
distributor
to
pay
the
taxes.
That's
not
not
correct
and
that's
where
we're
getting
it.
H
So
you
say:
there'd
be
a
shortfall
based
on
what
they've
already
paid
so
seemed
like
to
me
that
there
could
be
a
thing
that
cut
it
off
at
a
certain
time
and
then
they
wouldn't
have
to
be
a
shortfall
in
the
taxes
that
had
just
come
up.
But
I
don't
know
how
car
dealers
do
it.
They
don't
pay
taxes
in
the
state
nevada
on
every
car
until
they're
sold,
so
it
is,
is
seem
like
the
distributors.
H
We
want
the
distributors
here,
we
want
them
to
to
build
the
product
and
then,
as
they
go
to
the
the
retailers,
then
the
taxes
are
paid
from
the
retailers
collected
and
sent
to
the
state.
So
you
might
ask
mrs
thompson
and
for
closing
remarks
on
her
side
and
thank
you
so
much
for
at
least
spending
the
time
late
at
night
and
and
being
here
to
listen
to
this
bill.
Mr
thompson,
please
go
ahead.
Ms.
F
Tom,
thank
you,
madam
chair
I'll,
actually
refer
to
mr
padilla
to
see
if
he
has
any
wrap
up,
since
he
is
the
industry
expert.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
only
have
two
quick
things
that
I
wanted
to
point
out.
One
is
that
the
director,
the
director
young,
is
right
that
the
products
can
be
credited
back.
J
However,
if
a
nevada
manufacturer
then
sells
the
product
to
a
nevada
distributor,
the
current
policy
does
not
allow
for
those
products
to
be
credited
so
a
product
that
goes
from
nevada
manufacturing
to
nevada
distribution
to
out-of-state
retail
ends
up
being
hit
with
that
double
tax
problem,
whereas
if
a
product
that
is
manufactured
in
nevada
is
then
sold
to
an
out
of
state
distributor,
they
receive
the
credit,
and
so
that
causes
nevada
distributors
to
not
be
able
to
to
distribute
nevada
products
without
having
this
tax
assessed.
That
cannot
be
returned
and
that's
the
core
problem.
J
We're
trying
to
fix
here-
and
I
just
like
to
state
to
the
committee
and
the
director
we're
open
to
other
solutions
to
fix
this
problem,
to
allow
nevada
manufacturers
to
sell
to
a
nevada,
distributor
who's
that
just
selling
those
products
out
of
state
the
same
way
they
could
sell
to
a
california
distributor
and
so,
whether
it's
this
session
or
whether
it's
into
the
future
or
whether
it's
administrative,
we
as
an
association,
are
committed
to
finding
a
solution
that
helps
these
nevada
distribution
and
manufacturing
and
manufacturing
jobs.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
We
appreciate
that,
and
I
will
you
know
this
is
a
confusing
issue.
I'll
certainly
suggest
if
anyone
has
any
more
questions
that
they
follow
up
with
the
sponsor
and,
of
course
our
staff
is
always
available
for
answering
questions,
as
I'm
sure
ms
young
and
her
staff,
as
are
as
well.
So
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
ab389
and
open
the
hearing
on
ab449,
which
revises
provisions
governing
economic
development
and
ask
the
vice
chair
to
please
go
ahead
and
present
when
you're
ready.
L
Hi.
Thank
you,
madam
chairwoman.
I
appreciate
it.
I'm
closing
out
my
anything
that
might
make
little
noises
so
during
the
presentation
or
trying
to
at
least
thank
you
so
much
for
the
ability
to
present
assembly
bill
449
today,
and
thank
you
for
the
time
for
committee
members
to
hear
the
bill.
L
So
we're
going
to
be
talking
a
little
bit
about
the
goet
abatement
structures
and
what
we
have
set
up
over
the
past
decade,
how
they've
been
performing
where
our
strengths
are
and
there's
lots
of
strengths,
to
talk
about
some
improvements
and
how
we
think
about
moving
forward
and
moving
forward
is
going
to
be
very
important,
we're
obviously
in
a
place
right
now,
where
we
are
talking
really
in
a
significant
way
about
what
it
means
to
grow
and
to
nurture
and
to
develop
nevada's
economy.
L
L
So
in
general
I
want
to
talk
about
the
strengths
that
we
have
with
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
system,
around
abatements
and
incentives
and
the
way
we
have
to
have
the
conversations
on
them
so,
first
and
foremost,
all
of
our
abatement
packages.
Tax
abatement
packages
are
prescriptive
by
law.
They
live
in
statute
and
this
is
a
wonderful
strength
for
nevada.
When
you
go
to
other
places,
they
don't
live
in
so
much
sunlight,
and
so
it
can
be
very
hard
to
understand
what
exact
power
is
being
negotiated
and
what
is
being
talked
about.
L
You
can
see
a
lot
of
wheeling
and
dealing
in
and
nevada's
strength
is.
We
have
a
prescriptive
abatement
in
statute?
You
can't
go
outside
of
it.
It's
clear
and
right
there
for
all
of
us
to
read
an
nrs.
The
second
best
strength
of
it
is
that
we
have
audits
to
ensure
compliance.
We
have
audits
at
the
two-year
mark,
and
then
we
have
audits
again
at
the
five
year
mark,
and
so
those
audits
done
by
the
department
of
taxation
say.
Okay,
this
business
made
an
agreement
with
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
L
L
The
third
biggest
strength
of
our
abatement
system
is
that
we
have
the
ability
to
have
the
the
recipient
of
the
abatement
pay
back
the
rebate,
the
abatement.
If
those
audits
don't
come
true
and
we're
going
to
walk
through
what
those
reports
look
like
in
a
little
bit,
but
this
is
a
great
strength.
It
just
means
that,
if
the
deal
that
nevada
negotiated
doesn't
turn
out
to
be
what
we
thought,
it
was
we're
going
to
ask
the
test
taxpayer
to
repay
those
abatements
and
collect
them,
and
we
state
has
a
phenomenal
collection
record
on
that.
L
The
next
would
be
the
reports
and
transparency.
Obviously,
with
this
finder
that
I
provided
to
you,
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
has
to
report
on
their
abatements
yearly,
and
so
everything
lives
in
sunshine
and
transparency
for
people
who
want
to
follow
these
kinds
of
reports-
and
lastly,
is
the
most
important
is
we.
We
have
a
proven
track
record
when
you
look
at
these
abatements
through
a
number
of
different
lenses.
L
They
have
changed
growth
and
for
for
certain
regions,
they
really
have
been
a
game
changer
in
terms
of
shifting
the
economic
foundation
of
the
community
to
a
much
healthier
and
prosperous,
prosperous
ones,
and
that
also
presents
some
new
challenges
for
us,
but
they're
the
type
of
challenges
that
ultimately,
in
the
long
run,
we
we
can
tackle
together
and
handle
together.
So
if
we
could
go
to
the
first,
the
first
report
to
look
at
this
is
the
goeds
2021
report.
L
L
So
if
you
look
at
page
16,
what
you're
going
to
see
is
all
of
the
approved
tax
abatements
for
fiscal
year,
2015.
you're
going
to
see
clearly
the
date
that
the
abatement
was
approved.
You're
going
to
see
the
company
for
which
the
abatement
was
approved,
you're
going
to
see
the
type
of
the
bateman,
I'm
sorry,
the
type
of
industry,
that
it
is
the
next
column.
You
see
new,
slash,
exp,
that's
whether
it's
a
new
abatement
or
an
expansion
abatement
and
we'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
those
in
a
moment.
L
You
can
see
they
can
get
four
years
of
a
portion
of
their
modified
business
tax
abated
and
then
approved
for
10
years
of
a
portion
of
their
personal
property
tax
abatement
and
then
another
column
where
there's
also
the
approved
real
property
abatement.
So
you
can
see
it
all,
and
then
you
can
even
look
to
see
the
ones
that
are
highlighted
in
yellow.
L
That's
where
the
company
submitted
an
application.
The
process
began,
but
ultimately
they
withdrew
because
they
withdrew.
This
means
that
the
abatements
didn't
necessarily
come
to
fruition
or
that
you
can
look
to
the
audit
to
see
kind
of
how
it
ended
up.
So
if
this
is
kind
of
a
fun
place
to
play
in
as
a
for
committee
members
you,
when
you
look
year
by
year
at
what
our
general
abatements
are,
you
can
see
what
exactly
is
being
considered
or
what
is
being
given
to
in
terms
of
abatements.
L
L
So
on
page
46
you're,
going
to
see
the
report
on
the
approved
tax
abatements,
and
this
is
coming
from
fiscal
year-
2015.
the
two-year
and
the
five-year
audit
result
results.
So
you
can
see
very
clearly
that
in
yellow
is
accompanied
with
truth.
So
there's
not
an
abatement
here.
The
package
was
approved,
but
ultimately
there
wasn't
the
follow
through
so
you're
not
going
to
see
an
abatement
there.
L
You
can
see
here
that
when
they
look
at
the
audit
findings,
you
can
clearly
see
the
effective
date
of
the
abatement
package,
the
two-year
audit
date
you
can
see
if
the
audit
is
pending
and
then
once
it
is
done
being
pending
on.
What's
once
it's
completed,
you
can
see
that
whether
the
company
was
deemed
compliant
or
not
compliant
at
the
very
end
there.
You
can
see
the
number
of
jobs
that
were
projected
by
the
company
versus
the
actual
number
of
jobs
that
were
found
at
the
audit.
L
So
you
have
lots
of
information
here
about
this
process
and
then,
as
you
go
forward,
you
can
see
that
as
we
get
more
forward
to
like
the
2019
or
2020
approved
abatements,
we're
still
waiting
on
those
audits
because
we
haven't
hit
those
time
frames
yet,
and
so
you
see
a
lot
of
really
good
information
here
about
what
what
we're
doing
and
what
we
are,
what
we
are
approving
in
terms
of
abatements
and
so
we've
had
the
system
in
place
for
a
decade.
L
So
the
first
one
is
going
to
be
on
the
discussion
on
housing.
So
if
you
look
behind
the
housing
tab,
you're
going
to
see
a
a
paper
article
from
the
reno
gazette
journal
dated
february
18
2021,
so
it
was
released
last
month
and
I'm
just
going
to
read
a
quote
from
it.
It
says
call
it
the
biggest
little
drop
just
one
year
after
soaring
to
the
number
four
spot
in
the
milliken
institute's
annual
best
performing
cities
list.
Last
year,
the
greater
reno
metro
area
felt
14
places
down
to
18th
in
2021.
L
L
Even
as
reno
made
the
stellar
climb
up
in
the
list
in
2020,
there
was
one
weak
link
in
its
economic
chain
that
garnered
concern
for
the
millikens
institute,
mostly
glowing
analysis
of
the
city.
At
the
time
it
stated
that
declining
housing
afforded
affordability
challenges
further
economic
development.
L
L
So
the
reason
why
I
end
quote
so
the
reason
why
I
have
this
article
here
is
because
there
is
established
now
with
a
you
know,
a
prestigious
report
that
is
as
an
indicator
to
all
business
out
there
about
economic
growth,
that
housing
and
economic
development
are
going
to
be
talked
about
in
the
same
sentence.
This
is
the
new
world
in
which
we
live
in.
It's
something
that
a
lot
of
us
have
known
intuitively.
It's
something
that
we've
talked
about
around
the
edges,
but
really
with
the
milliken
institute's.
Finding.
L
I
have
the
entire
milliken
institute
report
on
best
performing
cities
attached.
So
if
you
want
to
look
through
as
well
another
great
source
of
data,
you
can
see
what
they're
looking
at,
but
on
page
two
the
report
they
clearly
state
that
they
are
incorporating
housing,
affordability
as
one
of
their
clear
metrics.
L
The
next
area
of
challenge
is
on
on
medicaid
and
that's
what
you're
going
to
see
in
the
next
tab.
So
this
next
tab
is
a
report,
nevada,
medicaid
recipients
employed
by
employers
with
50
or
more
employees.
I've.
Given
you
a
copy
of
the
2021
report,
there's
also
2019
report
and
what
this
report
tells
us
as
you
read
through
it,
is
it's
going
to
tell
you
the
numbers
exactly
how
many,
how
many
employees
and
dependents
are
on
the
medicaid
system
and
who
their
employers
are
where
this
document
becomes?
L
10
is
where
it
starts.
The
information,
and
this
list
is
in
order
of
the
businesses
that
have
the
most
employees
on
medicaid.
So
you
could
look
at
the
first
company
listed
there
and
you're
going
to
see
the
company
name
you're,
going
to
see
the
the
form
the
the
5500
form
there.
L
So
at
the
beginning
of
the
report
they
explained
that
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
sends
their
data
and
information
to
deter
to
cross-check
employment
and
then,
most
importantly,
at
the
end,
you
see
the
employees
on
medicaid
that
number
and
what
the
cost
is.
And
then
you
see
the
dependents
on
medicaid
that
number
and
what
that
cost
is.
The
last
column
is
the
total.
So
you
can
see
for
the
number
one
company
there
they
have
more
than
seven.
L
They
have
seven
thousand
eight
hundred
and
ninety
two
employees
and
dependents
on
medicaid,
which
is
costing
the
state
just
over
21
million
dollars,
and
I
want
to
preference
this.
I
want
to
say
that
I
have
combed
through
the
reports
of
2021
and
2019,
and
the
good
news
is
you.
There
aren't
very
many
companies
that
receive
abatements
that
actually
sent
show
up
on
this
report,
but
there
are
a
handful.
L
It's
not
a
dollar
we
can
spend
on
education.
It's
not
a
dollar
we
can
spend
in
foster
care.
It's
not
a
dollar
that
we
can
spend
in
our
criminal
justice
system.
It
just
is
money
that
we
can't
spend
at
all,
and
so
if
we
can
bring
down
the
cost
of
our
medicaid
and
then
still
have
healthy
abatement
packages,
then
I
believe
we
have
a
win-win
for
everyone.
L
So
that
being
said,
let's
go
ahead
and
get
into
the
bill,
so
I'm
going
to
do
a
walk
through
just
by
concept
and
then
the
walkthrough.
So
you
know
in
the
chapters
where
the
concepts
are
hitting:
okay,
so,
first
and
foremost
to
address
the
issues
of
our
our
growing
pains.
First
would
be
on
housing
so
through
the
general
abatement
sections
general
abatements
aircraft,
abatements
and
data
center
abatements.
L
I
am
suggesting
that
we
have
a
policy
that
allows
a
company
to
rebate
back
to
the
state
10
of
their
awards
package
annually.
So
you
can
get
a
an
abatement
for
up
to
ten
years
of
that
ten
years,
two
bits
can
be
property,
tax,
four
bits,
gonna
be
mbt
and
then
you've
got
the
property
for
up
to
ten.
L
Well,
so
you're
gonna
see
the
this
concept,
sprinkled
throughout
all
of
the
different
sections.
The
second
big
piece
that
you're
going
to
see
conceptually
through
here
is
regarding
the
medicaid
piece
and
that
that
medicaid
piece
is
going
to
ask
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
L
To
say
before
you
approve
an
expansion
abatement,
you
have
to
look
at
the
company's
history
and
see
about
their
interaction
with
medicaid
and
their
number
of
employees
and
dependents
on
medicaid
and
what
that
cost
looks
like,
and
does
it
still
make
economic
sense
for
the
state
to
move
forward
with
that
abatement
package?
So
it
seems
like
reasonable
policy
to
contemplate
that
factor,
to
make
sure
that
once
again
we're
getting
really
great
packages
that
we
can
all
stand
behind.
L
L
The
property
taxes
is
ten
years
and
then,
when
you
go
the
same
for
data
centers
and
aircrafts,
although
different
time
limits
they're
static,
there's
there's
just
one
package
that's
allowed,
but
when
you
look
at
the
type
of
abatements
that
we've
been
approving
in
that
initial
go
ed
report,
you
can
see
that
there's
so
much
variation
among
the
business
and
and
and
that
maybe
we
can
consider
better
side
right
size
packages
to
meet
their
needs.
L
10-Year
property
tax
abatement
might
not
mean
much
to
someone
who's,
not
doing
a
large
capital
expenditure
build
out.
They
might
have
a
lot
more
employees,
so
more
and
so
mbt
the
modified
business
tax
and
getting
a
break
on
modified,
more
of
a
break
on
modified
business
tax
might
make
more
sense
to
them
and
might
be
that
extra
help
to
get
them
here
versus
just
saying
you
get
four
and
you're
done.
L
I
do
not
propose
to
change
the
sales
tax
amount,
I'm
keeping
that
at
two
years,
but
at
least
for
modified
business
tax
and
property
tax.
It
makes
sense
to
say:
can
we
right
size,
those
a
little
bit
better
so
that
we
don't
necessarily
give
10
years
of
property
tax
to
someone
in
which
that's
not
as
meaningful,
as
as
maybe
a
little
bit
more
in
modified
business
tax?
This
initial
language
is
suggesting
that
we
add
the
words
up
to
so
right
now,
as
opposed
to
just
four
years
of
modified
business
tax.
L
It
would
be
one
to
four
years
of
business
tax
depending
a
modified
business
tax,
depending
on
what
that
business
needs
and
then
with
property
tax
one
to
ten,
depending
on
what
that
business
needs,
and
so
I
think
that
we
still
have
some
parameters
on
the
abatements,
but
I
also
think
it'll
give
us
the
opportunity
it
will
give
the
board
a
little
bit
more
opportunity
to
right-size
the
projects
for
the
for
the
projects
that
come
to
that
come
to
us,
so
that
those
are
kind
of
the
the
big
concepts
in
here.
L
The
last
big
concept
is
is
really
one
that
that
I've
I've
hoped
a
direction
that
goed
would
go
in
for
a
long
time,
and
so
for
the
past
10
years.
The
focus
of
goed
in
all
the
way
that
the
statutes
are
written,
the
way
that
the
360
750
general
bateman
statutes
are
written,
the
aircraft
statutes
and
the
data
center
statutes
are
written.
Is
they
have
a
a
pretty
hefty
capital
investment
component
and
for
the
new
businesses?
L
We're
really
looking
for
you
to
relocate
here,
so
we're
kind
of
looking
for
the
big
business
outside
to
come
in,
but
we
have
long
had
different
scattering
of
bills
over
the
decade,
to
kind
of
say,
let's
champion
our
smaller
businesses
that
are
here,
let's
find
a
way
organically
to
grow
those
mom-and-pop
businesses
that
we
talk
about
and
we
help
them
grow
a
number
of
different
ways.
L
There
are
federal
programs
out
there
through
the
small
business
administration
that
the
the
governor's
office
of
business
and
industry
are
wonderful,
helping
connecting
people
too,
and
business
and
industry
does
just
an
amazing
job
with
round
tables
and
advocacy.
Another
bill.
That's
in
this
committee,
not
in
this
committee,
but
in
the
session
that
that
I'm
a
co-sponsor
of
a
proud
co-sponsor
of
is
a
bill
to
create
the
small
business
advocate
within
the
lieutenant
governor's
office.
To
specifically
kind
of
help
navigate
regulations
and
to
help
those
small
businesses
swim
through
the
process.
L
So
I
define
a
smaller
I'm
so
yeah
I
define
business
smaller
as
in
their
gross
revenue
versus
the
terms
versus
the
number
of
employees
that
they
have
and
what
the
bill
actually
states
is
that
there
would
be
a
division
within
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
Quite
frankly,
I'm
I'm
not
married
to
a
term.
L
If
there's
a
number
that
could
be
helpful
and
meaningful
and
relevant
for
small
business
in
terms
of
incentives
and
abatements
that
we
could
build
out
as
we
rebuild
the
economy,
so
those
are
the
concepts
I'll
kind
of
walk
you
through
the
bill.
Now.
L
Right
section,
one
nrs
36750:
this
is
what
we
call
the
general
abatement
section.
So
in
the
report
that
I
showed
you
the
goed
report,
that's
where
you're
seeing
the
year
by
year,
reports
come
in
and
all
of
those
different
businesses
in
what
they
get,
what
they
get
awarded.
So
those
are
these
are
our
general
business
abatements
and
within
here,
you're
gonna,
see
that
one
of
the
first
things
that
that
we're
contemplating
in
section
one
sub
two
is
a
change
from
shall
to
may
so
right
now.
L
The
goed
board
of
directors
and
the
goed
office
has
to
absolutely
approve
every
single
project
that
comes
through,
and
it's
I'm
not
it's
not
so
much
that
the
notion
that
they
have
to
approve
the
board
that
I
want
to
to
contemplate.
But
it's
the
it's,
the
idea
of
a
rubber
stamp
board
or
a
rubber
stamp
director
that
I've
always
taken
issue
with
I've
always
thought
you
know
we
have
this
board
that
is
at
the
head
of
that
board.
Is
the
governor
we've
got
our
lieutenant
governor,
our
lieutenant
governor
on
the
board.
L
L
And
so
this
is
where
you
see
that
piece
introduced
in
this
in
this
bill
and
then
you'll
see
it
in
the
other
abatement
chapters
as
well.
L
Section
still
in
section
one
bottom
of
page
six-
and
this
is
the
policy
proposal
for
the
deliberation
of
medicaid,
so
that
when
an
applicant
is
looking
for
an
expansion
of
their
abatement,
so
they've
just
they
finished
two
years
of
a
sales
tax
abatement,
they're
coming
back
and
they're
asking
for
another
two
year:
sales
tax
abatement,
that's
the
first
one
to
expire.
The
state
could
look
back
and
say:
let's
just
take
a
look
at
their
history
with
medicaid
and
make
sure
that
this
is
still
the
best
deal
for
us
in
terms
of
what
it
costs
us.
L
The
next
change
is
still
keeping
in
line
with
the
housing
concept
on
the
bottom
of
page
eight,
which
is
that
the
the
entity
that
is
receiving
the
abatement
would
make
that
percentage
payment
to
the
affordable
housing
trust
fund
for
as
long
as
their
abatement
lasts
or
if
they
cease
operations.
L
So
obviously,
if
they
thought
they
were
going
to
make
it
ten
years,
and
they
only
make
it
five,
they
don't
have
to
pay
in
year
six
if
they
cease
as
an
entity,
but
also
that
they
fail
to
pay
it
that
that
they
re
they.
They
realize
that
they're
they're
not
upholding
their
abatement
agreement
with
with
goed
section.
Two
is
actually
one
that
I'll
tell
you
that
will
be
it
it
not
in
there
like
out.
It
was
a
section.
L
I
was
hoping
that
there
could
be
more
movement
on
this
is
abatement
specific
to
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education.
It's
been
in
place
since
I
believe
2013,
but
it's
it's
never
been
used
in
a
in
just
a
couple
conversations
with
nc
they've.
It
was
a
funky
statute
that
never
served
them
well,
and
so
I
thought
maybe
we
might
have
the
brain
power
during
this
session
to
say.
Can
we
kind
of
finally
make
this
work,
especially
for
as
much
as
research,
oriented
and
research
growth
is,
and
she
is
focused
on
right
now?
L
Could
we
make
this
a
more
meaningful
statute,
but
we
just
haven't
got
there
yet.
So
if
someone
else
down
the
road
has
a
brain
power
to
work
on
this.
I
think
that
you
know
the
intent
is
good.
It
could
be
beneficial
for
the
state
and
beneficial
for
enshi,
but
it's
just
a
statute
that
doesn't
seem
to
work
well
for
right
now,
so
we're
going
to
leave
it
alone,
as
it
is
section
3,
nrs,
360
753.
L
So
these
are
the
abatements
specific
to
aircrafts,
and
you
see
once
again
the
language
here
about
the
10
percent
or
housing
that
would
be
rebated
through
to
the
controller
for
the
account
for
affordable
housing,
and
you
see
that
on
page
15.
L
L
Section
four:
this
is
our
language
on
data
centers
in
our
data
center
abatements.
They
work
differently
than
our
general
business
advance
that
you
can
see
here
that
you,
the
concept
once
again
on
page
19
about
the
10
rebate
or
the
account
for
affordable
housing.
Is
there
and
then
on
page
21
you're,
going
to
see
once
again
that
consideration
for
the
impact
on
medicaid
before
you
make
an
expansion
abatement?
L
Next
you're
gonna
go
to
section
five,
and
this
is
just
carrying
through
the
shall
to
the
may
section.
Five
and
six
are
ones
that
it
could
be
very
exciting
if
we
use,
although
I
don't
know
if
we're
gonna
use
them
again
really
anytime
soon.
Section
5
is
for
that
billion
dollar
investment
and
section
6
is
for
that
3.5
capital
expenditure,
investment
and
so
and
and
tax
credits
in
there
as
well.
So
these
were
statutes,
obviously
that
were
kind
of
set
up
by
a
special
session.
A
legislature
contemplated
these.
L
Section
seven
is
specific
to
your.
Your
your
data,
centers
you're
gonna,
see
that
the
red
stricken
language
is
just
conforming
language.
L
So
one
thing
that
that
happened
in
in
this
bill
that
that
I
did
not
intend-
and
so
the
one
piece
that
that
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
I
put
on
the
record-
is
that
this
is,
I
believe,
shortening
the
length
of
time
on
the
property
taxes
for
data
centers,
just
from
one
to
two
one
to
ten
years
versus
10
to
20
years,
and-
and
this
was
this-
this
was
unintentional
just
because
after
so
many
conversations
on
the
data
centers
and
how
the
data
centers
work,
and
we
do
have
a
lot
of
stiff
composition
with
with
arizona
and
data
centers.
L
So
this
piece
didn't
it
once
I
saw
it
in
and
read
it
didn't
make
as
much
sense.
So
the
the
intent
here
was
not
to
shorten
years
on
on
this
particular
piece.
L
The
next
piece
section
eight.
This
is
referring
to
the
modified
business
tax
specifically,
so
this
is
where
modified
business
tax
can
be
up
to
four
years
versus
just
a
static
four
years,
but
really
getting
back
to
that
concept
of.
If
we
need
to
work
on
how
that
right,
sizing
language
works
a
little
bit
more,
that
this
would
be
the
start
of
the
conversation
on
that
right,
sizing,
the
next
on
section
nine.
L
This
is
where
you
see
the
language
around
the
intent
to
be
purposeful
and
thinking
about
small
business
and
small
business
being
defined
by
under
four
million
dollars
in
gross
revenue
and
having
them
think
about
how
some
of
these
statutes
might
work
well
for
small
business.
Next
is
section
11,
which
is
conforming
changes,
section
12..
L
Actually,
the
12
13,
14
and
15
all
deal
with
historically
underutilized
business
zones,
redevelopment
areas,
our
community
development
block
grants.
This
is
another
one
where
the
the
statutes
I
got
caught
up
in
in
my
conceptual
drafting,
but
did
not
intend
for
them
to
play
out
in
it
here
on
the
shell
to
the
maid,
just
because
these
are
our
different
kind
of
creatures,
so
it
doesn't
make
sense
to
have
the
shell
to
the
maid
there.
L
So
I
think
that
is
everything
I
will
say
this.
I'm
appreciative
of
everyone,
who's
had
conversations
with
me
on
this
bill.
Before
I
open
up
to
take
questions
on
the
bill,
you
know
you
can
always
say
your
your
majority
leader
doesn't
pull
rank
and
pull
favors
for
herself,
because
I
got
the
very
last
personal
bdr
introduction
and
this
dropped.
L
It
came
out
just
a
couple
of
days
ago,
and
so
it's
been
such
a
quick
turnaround
time
to
connect
with
people
and
talk
with
people,
and
so
I
just
appreciate
everyone
who's
been
willing
to
hear
off
the
concepts
and
spend
a
little
bit
time
with
me
on
these.
On
these
policy
conversations
and
with
that
being
said,
madam
chair,
I
am
open
for
questions.
A
I
do
have
mr
roberts,
but
before
that
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
so
going
back
to
the
conversation
about
property
tax
and
that
maybe
it
won't
be
as
long
because
we'll
cut
that
down,
because
people
the
companies
aren't
building.
I
I'm
just
wondering
it
do
you
know.
Was
it?
Was
there
an
idea
when
it
was
when
it
was
set
up?
Because
we
wanted
the
companies
to
come
in
and
build,
or
was
that
just
fortuitous
that
that
it
was
the
10
years.
L
I
thank
you,
madam
chairwoman,
for
the
question
so
you're
saying
why,
in
statute
for
the
general
business,
abatements
is
the
abatement
of
a
static
10
years
right
for
the.
L
I
was
a
freshman
the
year
that
we
set
up
this
committee,
and
so
so
many
conversations
so
many
conversations
on
this,
and
so
the
idea
was
so
in
these
general
economic
incentives
they
require,
depending
on
the
size
of
county
that
you
you
live
in
either
a
one
million
dollar
investment
not
later
than
two
years
after
the
abatement
becomes
effective
in
capital
assets
or,
if
you're,
in
a
in
a
smaller
county,
with
a
smaller
population,
2
000
investment
not
later
than
two
years
after
the
effective
abatement
date
and
capital
assets.
So
the
idea
was
you.
L
We
were
really
focusing
on
that
capital
asset
investment,
so
moving
in
and
and
moving
companies
here,
so
they're
they're
building
right.
We
we
wanted
construction
jobs
and
then
we
wanted
long-term
employment
jobs
and
so
the
there
was
a
really
heavy
focus
on
on
build
build
build.
But
as
you
as
you
look
at
the
abatements
and
you
look
at
what
you
know
what
companies
are
coming
in
with,
if
you
take
let's
take,
for
example,
you
know
the
the
2018
fiscal
year
abatement.
So
that's
in
the
goed
report
on
page
20
22.
L
You
can
see
that
some
of
them
are
just
hitting
that
threshold
on
capital.
You
have
big
swings
in
capital
investment
right.
You
have
some
companies
that
are
doing
20
million
dollars
in
capital
investment.
Then
you
have
some
companies
that
are
doing
just
one,
so
you
have
quite
a
range
there.
L
You've
got
some,
I
think
the
biggest
one
in
that
year
was
30
36
million
dollars,
and
so
you've
got
such
a
big
range
in
capital
investment
that
I
think
the
idea
at
the
time
was:
let's
just
plan
it
on
the
high
end
and
and
then
figure
it
out
from
there.
I
don't
want
to
say
figure
out
from
there,
but
like
the
idea
was
plan
it
on
the
high
end,
assuming
that
we
would
have
like
almost
all
of
them
would
be
those
you
know,
big
heavy
capital,
investments,
or
hopefully,
at
least
of
that.
A
Thank
you
and
then
I
do
have
a
question
about
the
medicaid
report,
which
I
I
don't
know
if
you,
if
you
have
an
answer,
but
it's
the
on
page
six
is
the
top
10
employers
for
tenants
on
medicaid,
and
I
mean
besides
the
fact
that
you
know
you
can
see
this
clark
county
school
district
in
the
state
of
nevada
there.
There.
L
I'm
thinking,
madam
chairwoman,
no,
I
I
I
don't
know
that
this
this
this.
This
report
changes
from
from
year
to
year,
you're
probably
gonna,
have
here.
Some
people
make
some
comments
on
report.
There
are
a
couple
of
qualifiers
on
this
report,
although
it
is,
they
talk
to
you
about
the
process
of
how
they
work,
the
report
and
those
in
technical
report.
That's
on
technical
notes
and
page
four,
and
so
you
can
see
kind
of
how
they
technically
go
through
it.
L
I
mean
they
do
a
data
check
and
then
they
also
you
know
recheck
on
their
their
number
of
dependents
and
and
look
at,
I
see
the
corresponding
case
ids.
So
they
do
a
couple
of
different
checks,
so
the
numbers
are
are,
are,
are
pretty
good,
are
pretty
good
numbers,
but
they
do
tell
us
that
some
of
these
people
might
have
more
than
one
job.
So
that's
one
thing
we
want
to
hold
in
our
head
now.
L
We
don't
want
to
assume
that
every
single
employee
who
is
employed
here
has
more
than
one
job,
but
we
do
know
that
there's
a
a
little
margin
of
error,
because
some
of
these
employees
might
be
working
two
jobs,
they
might
say,
be
working
at
two
big
box
chain
stores
or
they
might
be
working
in
a
warehouse
and
then
have
another
job
as
well.
L
So
we
do
know
that
that
is
con,
that
that
is
one
consideration
for
the
report,
but
as
far
as
the
training,
it's
just
where
we
asked,
you
know
medicaid
to
look
at
the
numbers
and
give
us
the
numbers,
and
then
we
get
what
we
get.
I
do
want
to
address
the
state
of
nevada
being
in
this
report
because,
obviously,
being
legislators,
we
have
a
responsibility
to
acknowledge
that
and
we
have-
and
actually
the
report
that
was
first
generated
in
2019
tells
us
a
lot.
L
It
actually
told
us
specifically
what
employee
groups
were
on
medicaid,
and
so
we
have
the
ability
to
kind
of
course
correct.
We
know
that
we
are
you
know
there.
Not
everyone
in
agreement
at
this
in
this
committee
might
be
an
agreement
on
the
allowing
the
state
to
collectively
bargain,
but
I
know
I
supported
it
and
supported
it
really
wholeheartedly,
because
I
know
that
that
ability
for
them
to
negotiate
is
going
to
help
bring
up
the
bottom.
L
What
now
that
we
have
specifically
identified
the
employment
types
that
tend
to
show
up
here,
so
we
have
a
way
to
course
correct,
and
we
ought
to
right
like
we
need
to
be
the
first
ones
to
say
that
when
we
have,
we
play
a
role
in
this
economy
as
an
employer
too.
I
think
the
difference
between
that
statement
and
then
looking
at
the
goed
stuff,
is
that
we
are
we're
not
a
private
entity.
Looking
for
an
ability
to
you
know
have
our
taxes
abated
for
us
that
number
of
years.
A
Thank
you.
I
have
a
question
from
assemblyman
roberts.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and,
first
of
all,
probably
the
best
presentation
that
I've
had.
I
can't
believe
you
put
it
together
in
two
days.
I
wish
you
around
when
I
did
my
master's
program.
I
crammed
a
lot
but
fantastic.
You
put
a
lot
of
thought
into
this
and
I
bet
you
know
the
answers
off
the
top
of
your
head
to
my
questions
and
it's
kind
of
two
into
one.
E
So
how
do
you
think
the
current
economic
development
package
that
we
have
under
the
current
system
compares
to
other
states
and
then
the
follow-up
would
be
you'd
think
that
this
would
have
any
negative
impact
on
our
ability
to
compete
with
other
states.
L
I
appreciate
that
question
to
assemblyman
roberts
from
through
chair
cohen.
I
I
think
that
there's
nothing
about
this,
that
states
that
we
don't
have
a
strong
commitment
to
economic
development.
I
think
that
we
have
robust,
robust
laws.
I
think
that
we
have
an
inherently
tax
friendly
environment
here
in
nevada.
We
we
have
quite
a
few
taxes
and
that
other
states
don't
pay.
L
We
don't
have
you
know
a
state
income
tax
which
we
can't
say
about
all
of
our
neighbors
and
then,
if
you
look
to
our
neighbor
to
ourselves,
because
we
talk
so
much
about
being
competitive,
with
arizona
being
competitive
with
arizona
but
arizona's
a
tax
system,
is
you
have
different
tax
rates
by
zip
code
because
their
their
local
entities
can
tax
and
have
different
tax
rates.
L
So
in
previous
sessions,
where
we've
looked
at
that
in
nevada,
it's
really
easy
to
figure
out
what
your
tax
rate
is
and
what
you're
going
to
be
assessed,
because
we
don't
allow
our
local
governments
to
to
tax
at
different
rates,
and
so
I've
always
said
that
when
you
you
go
to
arizona
it's
hard
because
they
are
competing
against
zip
code
they're.
They
have
cities
and
competing
against
each
other.
So
that's
been
hard
one
of
the
things
that
mr
brown
has
done
as
his
as
the
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
L
That,
I
think
is
wonderful,
is
actually
reached
out
and
done
a
look
at
nevada
and
nevada's
abatements
to
help
us
understand
where
we
fall
and
we've
got
a
good
system
and
also
to
try
to
minimize
the
amount
of
competition
we
have
with
states
around
us
by
having
more
conversations
to
make
sure
we're
not
playing
race
to
the
bottom.
I
don't
think
anything
about
this
inherently
ties
anyone's
hands.
L
I
think
the
concept
of
trying
to
right-size
abatements
and
knowing
that
this
is
a
would
be
kind
of
the
the
starting
point
on
how
we
could
think
about
right-sizing
them.
I
think,
I
think,
helps
business
in
a
way.
I
think
that
if
they
say
look
and
a
little
bit
more
help
on
mbt
is
going
to
be
meaningful
to
me
because
the
type
of
business
I
am
versus
property
tax,
a
little
less
property
tax,
then
that
board
would
have
the
ability
to
to
talk
about
that.
L
The
director
would
have
the
ability
to
talk
about
that,
but
I
think
the
I
don't
think
there's
anything
else
about
this-
that
that
would
inherently
dissuade
anyone
from
thinking
that
we
are
anything
less
than
thinking
100
all
the
time
about
our
economic
recovery.
E
E
E
So
here
is
my
question
in
a
few
sections
of
the
bill.
We
have
this
language
that
the
director
of
the
office
of
economic
development
is
going
to
consider
essentially
the
medicaid
portion,
how
many
of
the
employees
of
the
business
are
on
medicaid
and
what
the
cost
is
to
the
state,
and
so
I
just
wondered
if
you
had
a
vision
of
what
that
analysis
would
look
like
for
the
office
of
economic
development.
L
Thank
you
so
much.
I
appreciate
that.
So
the
good
news
is
is
that,
like
I
said,
a
majority
of
of
the
employers
who
get
abatements
are
actually
paying
good
wages,
because
that
is
one
of
the
tenants.
Absolutely
one
of
the
tenants
that
we
stood
up
the
governor's
economic
development
office
on
was
you
got
to
pay
100
the
state
average
wage,
and
then
we
have
to
you
have
to
tell
us
what
that
average
wage
is
going
to
be.
L
But
where
the
trend
seems
to
be
is
that
companies
that
have
more
than
500
employees
on
medicaid
are
the
ones
where
we
see
really
heavy
medicaid
costs
incurred
to
the
state.
L
There
are
a
couple
with
with
thousands
on
on
medicaid,
and
so
those
to
me
seemed
the
most
problematic
because
they
look
to
cost
us
so
much
in
medicaid.
If
you
look
at
the
number
one
company
that
that
that
was
listed
in
this
year,
they
were
also
in
the
top
10
for
last
year,
and
the
2021
cost
to
medicaid
was
20
just
over
21
million
dollars.
The
2019
cost
of
medicaid
was
just
over
was
6.5
million
dollars
so
from
the
2019
to
the
2021.
L
L
Does
that
27
million
dollars
in
cost
to
the
state
of
medicaid
is
that
is
that
beneficial
to
us,
considering
that
the
capital
expenditures
and
and
the
number
of
employees
they're
going
to
come
in?
I
think
at
that
point
it's
a
pretty
hard
case
to
make.
They
didn't
want
to
set
a
fixed
number.
L
Just
because,
like
I
said,
we've
got
a
smart
board.
We've
got
a
board.
You
know
that.
I
think
that
our
our
governor
pays
attention
a
lot
to
these
applications.
I
I
know
that
more
than
than
ever,
we've
had
so
much
careful
consideration
and
thought
about
how
we
want
to
grow
these
states
as
we
look
at
these
applications,
so
I
the
the
goal
would
be
is
we
would
see
that
conversation
reflected
in
the
minutes
of
the
board?
L
I
believe
ultimately,
but
I
also
think
that
it
would
serve
a
little
bit
as
a
deterrent
too,
because
if
you
have
a
company
that
wants
to
come
to
the
state-
and
they
look
at
you
know,
are
we
offering
health
insurance
to
our
employees?
L
How
much
you
know
are
we
making
sure
that
we're
being
the
best
employer
we
can
and
in
terms
of
health
care
coverage
for
employees,
they
can
kind
of
look
at
themselves
and
do
some
soul
searching
and
say
you
know,
nevada
has
that
medicaid
policy
and
and
wow
we
know
with
the
wages
we
pay
that
that
we
are.
We've
got
a
lot
of
employees
on
medicaid
and-
and
maybe
this
doesn't
make
sense
for
us.
K
Thank
you
thank
you,
chair
and
thank
you
so
much.
This
is
just
a
beautiful
presentation
and
I
love
the
book
helps
my
eyes.
Thank
you.
It's
just
great
to
be
able
to
go
through
that
and
and
read
that,
so
I
just
had
a
couple
questions
so
when
goed
is
looking
at
the
abatements
because
I
didn't
see
mention
of
that,
are
they
looking
at
the
total
economic
output
that
the
company
brings
into
the
state
of
nevada
through
all
kinds
of
different
areas,
not
only
employment,
but
you
know
sales
of
their
products.
K
So
when
we're
looking
at
adding,
let's
say
medicaid
to
the
to
the
picture
as
a
consideration
for
their
abatements
they're,
also
looking
at
the
total
revenue
package
of
what
they'll
bring
to
the
state
and
then
we're
going
to
have
all
these
different
factors
to
see
which
one
we
like
more
than
the
other
is,
is
that
correct.
L
Actually
it
two
assembly,
women
kasama
through
third
chair
cohen,
please
go
direct,
oh
thank
you
so
much
because
we
have
the
two-year
audit
process
and
we
have
the
sales
tax
abatement
at
two
years.
We
actually
have
the
ability.
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
guessing
game
by
the
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
development
right
so
when
if
a
company
is
coming
and
asks
asking
for
an
extension
of
their
abatement,
so
their
first
term
of
the
abatement
is
ending.
L
So
if
it's
sales
tax
it's
two
years,
if
it's
modified
business
tax,
it's
for
on
the
general
abatements
I'll,
just
talk
about
the
general
abatements
right
now.
So
when
that
first
one
ends,
they
typically
come
back
to
ask
for
an
expansion,
and
so
what
the
board
can
do
is
say.
Let's
look
at
the
audit
and
first
of
all
did
we
meet.
Did
the
company
meet
they
do
this
already?
L
Did
the
company
meet
the
investments
at
that
two-year
audit
and,
if
not,
they're
gonna
they're
gonna
ask
for
the
taxpayer
to
to
pay
the
taxes
that
were
abated,
but
if
the,
if
they
look
good
on
the
audit,
which
you
see
a
number
of
these
companies
do
but
there's
a
handful
of
examples
like
five
or
ten,
where
the
the
audit
isn't
catching
the
consideration
for
medicaid
and
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
capture
here
is
that
they
have
the
the
audit
that
they're
looking
at,
as
well
as
having
this
consideration
for
medicaid
on
the
expansion
of
payments.
L
So
on
the
initial
abatement
that
comes
in
the
way,
those
work
is
those
are
coming
in
through
the
regional
development
authorities,
and
every
abatement
and
statute
has
certain
metrics.
They
have
to
meet
so
they've
got
requirements
on
their
period
of
operation.
They've
got
requirements
on
their
wages,
they've
got
requirements
on
capital,
investment
and
requirements
on
jobs,
and
those
by
the
audits
seem
to
be
working
very
well.
L
They
do
have
a
requirement
for
health
care
hypothetically
at
the
beginning
of
the
conversation
with
the
regional
development
authorities
and
then,
as
it
gets
to
to
goed
when
their
application
is
submitted
to
goed
they're
supposed
to
be
the
health
care
benefits
they're
offered
to
the
employees
of
the
state,
so
we're
at
the
front
end
where
that's
what
we
want
and
that
we're
encouraging.
K
Yes,
okay
and
then
would
any
of
this
be
retroactive
or
it
just
starts
for
people
that
are
now
asking
for
the
second
extension.
L
Thank
you,
it's
it's
would
be
going
forward,
and
so
it
would
be
for
the
the
abatements
that
are
signed
after
the
effective
date
and
and
going
forward.
So
we
wouldn't
see
this
well
for
the
expansions
too.
So
if
they
are
after
the
effective
date
is
if,
when
they're
applying
for
their
first
set
of
their
first
expansion
abatement,
then
it
would
apply
there.
So
it
would
be
after
the
effective
date
whenever
they
would
be
applying
for
their
expansion
abatement.
K
Great
thank
you
here.
May
I
have
another
question?
Oh
please
go
ahead,
so
the
question
I
have
is-
and
I
I
there's
a
lot
of
just
great
things
here:
did
you
speak
with
the
the
go
at
office?
Economic
development
would
would
we
possibly
lose?
I
know
we
have
a
lot
of
great
things
going
on
the
state
and
I
think
we
all
feel
that
way.
But
let's
say,
for
example,
that
they
have
to
pay
a
10
percent
for
affordable
housing.
Now
could
we
possibly
lose
some
good
businesses
that
we
would
want
here?
K
Was
there
any
discussion
about
that?
Did
you
visit
with
with
the
you
know
the
office
to
you
know
just
kind
of
get
their
feel
of
you
know.
Is
it
could
that
be
a
stumbling
block,
or
is
it
small
enough?
It's
not
or
just
any
I'll.
L
Be
honest
to
sell
me,
woman
kasama.
I
think
it
depends
on
where
you
are
regionally,
because
economic
development
is
so
based
by
region.
You
can
see
that
it's
based
by
the
type
of
package
you
can
get
in
the
type
of
level
of
investment
that
you
have
to
have
is
depending
on
what
how
the
size
of
your
the
read
the
county
that
you're
in
and
so
different
regions
are
situated
in
different
places,
and
so,
if
you're
asking
the
question,
how
would
this
be
received?
L
I
would
say
it's
probably
going
to
be
received
in
different
in
different
parts
of
the
state.
I
my
hope
would
be,
and
I
I
know
that
as
a
resident
up
in
in
northern
nevada,
anything
that
that
tells
me
that
we're
doing
something
to
address,
affordable
housing
is
going
to
be
a
good
thing,
and
these
reports
are
saying
now:
nevada
is
less
competitive
in
the
economic
development
growth
because
of
affordable
housing,
it's
a
hindrance
to
us.
Now
it's
a
problem
every
any.
L
Anyone
who
cares
about
this
issue
read
this
report
and
was
not
happy
about
what
was
read
when
the
milliken
report
came
out.
This
is
a
stand
on
our
toes
pay
attention.
We
have
to
consider
a
policy
change
kind
of
a
moment
for
us,
because
when,
when
you
talk
about
economic
development,
you
talk
about
these
reports,
they're
they're
signaled
to
the
rest
of
the
the
world
about
you
know
the
conversation
starters.
Are
we
going
to
look
at
reno
and
we
get
on
or
off
people's
list
depending
on
now
housing,
affordability,
I've
read
the
report.
L
We
know
that
we're
on
or
off
the
list
depending
on
education.
That's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
stood
this
up,
but
I
would
I
would
say
that
that
it's
reasonable
to
say
that
in
other
areas
will
it
ring
as
true.
I
believe
that
we
have
you
know,
issues
with
affordable
housing
all
throughout
the
state.
I
think
in
you've
heard
that
argument
made
in
lots
of
different
venues
and
lots
of
different
committees,
but
do
some
areas
feel
more
of
the
pinch?
K
B
Thank
you,
chircon,
thank
you
for
the
presentation
and
the
binder
and
all
the
information,
assemblymember
mini
test
thompson,
two
questions
for
you.
B
The
first
is
from
paige
well,
actually,
first
a
comment
on
on
for
page
four,
with
the
having
the
money
being
transferred
to
the
affordable
housing,
it
would
be
great
if
we
could
actually
start
that
for
those
individuals
that
or
for
those
companies
that
already
have
the
abatements,
but
I
don't
believe
that's
a
possibility,
but
wouldn't
it
be
great
as
it
was,
but
then
my
my
question
really
is
from
page
11
my
first
one
has
to
do
with
the
information
that
is
being
struck
that
is
being
removed
for
section
two
h,
one
as
well
as
two
and
then
three,
so
the
businesses
will
not
need
to
employ
the
15
or
more
full-time
employees
for
the
duration
of
the
abatement.
L
Portion
all
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
anderson
and
I
know
I
was
I
was.
I
had
a
lot
of
information,
so
I
was
probably
moving
too
fast
in
my
apologies
for
that,
but
section
two
is
one
that
that
was
in
there
with
the
hopes
that
we
could
see
if
we
can
make
this
work
better.
It's
specific
to
businesses
that
choose
to
make
investment
in
an
enshi
and
in
the
enchi
system.
So
that's
what
this
was
looking
at
contemplating,
but
it's
not
soup.
L
Yet
so
it's
it's
nothing
that
we
need
to
deliberate
much
further.
B
L
Thank
you
so
much
so
the
the
intent
is
that
it
would
be
distinctly
different,
so
in
sponsoring
that
bill
we
need,
we
need
an
advocate.
We
have
right
now
within
you
know
it's
hard
to
keep
track
of
all
the
programs
within
business
of
industry.
They
do
just
an
amazing
job
director
reynolds
over
there
and
his
group
on.
They
do
some
small
business
advocacy.
They
do
small
business
roundtables.
They
have
financing
and
planning
groups,
there's
a
connection
to
the
small
business
administration
and
loans.
L
There
are
folks
that
we've
had
handling
the
new
market
tax
credits
awesome
program
that
senator
neil
got
state
money
for
to
to
extend,
so
they
are
wonderful
in
in
and
doing
all
that
and
then
with
lieutenant
governors.
It's
you,
as
you
read
the
language,
it's
very
much
about
helping
small
business
swim
through
dealing
with
regulations
dealing
with
roadblocks
dealing
with
present
barriers.
The
idea
and
the
concept
behind
this
was
that
we
would
have
someone
who
is
thinking
about
state
skin
in
the
game
in
a
specific
way.
L
That
is
focused
around
like
a
setting
up
a
pilot
program
for
abatements
for
for
small
business,
and
so
you
know
we
learned
a
lot
when
we
did
the
pets
grant
program
over
the
summer
and
one
of
the
first
bills
we
passed
at
the
beginning
of
session,
like
we
learned
a
lot
and
the
state
was
interacting
with
small
business
in
a
way
that
we
never
had
before.
L
Quite
frankly
now
I
I
think
that
during
the
next
two
years,
it'd
be
important
to
say
you
know
when
we
give
a
you
know
a
hundred
we
can,
when
we
give
a
two-year
sales
tax
abatement
to
you
know
a
a
highly
profitable
company
that
moves
to
the
state.
It's
it's
meaningful.
L
These
are
all
about
people
who
can
make
them
the
million
dollar
cap
x,
investment
or
make
you
know
when
you
get
to
aircrafts
and
data
centers.
They
they
go
up
even
more
so
it's
it.
You
know
I
the
the
idea
would
be.
Could
we
look
for
a
way
to
have
something
that
is
meaningful
and
that
that
doesn't
that
doesn't
exist
out
there
right
now
we
have
lots
of
help
for
pass-through
for
federal
programs,
but
the
state
skin
in
the
game
is
missing.
F
If
I'm
a
madam
chair
majority
leader
and
first
and
foremost,
did
out
what
everybody
said,
amazing
presentation,
my
question
is
in
regards
to
the
10
going
to
the
housing,
affordable,
housing
authority.
Is
that
correct-
and
I
know
I'm
just
going
to
give
an
example
because
everybody's
been
hearing
about
it
in
the
news
there's
some
projects
in
northern
nevada
that
are
looking
to
develop?
F
Is
there
any
safeguards,
because
I
I
think
your
intent
is
for
the
affordable
housing
to
be
where
these
new
developments
go.
But
is
there
any
safeguards
in
place
to
ensure
that
this
10
percent
goes
towards
housing?
Affordability
in
this
example
in
northern
nevada,
rather
than
in
southern
nevada,.
L
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question,
so
I
I
do
think
that
that
the
the
the
one
piece,
it's
probably
an
incomplete
sentence
in
the
bill,
and
so
I
appreciate
you
acknowledging
that
something
would
have
been,
would
be
that
you
would
want
that
10
percent
to
go
back
to
the
county
where
the
abatement
is
approved,
and
so
they
you
have
within
the
division
of
housing
in
the
affordable
trust
fund.
L
You
already
have
a
system
states
set
up
that
works
down
to
the
local
level,
and
so
the
idea
would
be
that
that
that
percentage
would
stay
in
the
county
where
it
is
where
the
project
is
being
approved
or
if
there
is,
we
would
probably
also
say
no
master
plan
for
a
build
out
in
that
county
that
it
could
go
to
a
you
know,
a
contiguous
county.
F
A
Hey
assemblyman
o'neil.
Sorry,
please
go
ahead.
E
E
So,
madam
vice
chair,
I've
got
to
give
you
huge
kudos,
but
and
most
of
my
questions
I
was
going
to
ask
you've
already
addressed
because
you
know
besides
just
affordable
housing.
You've
also
got
the
issues
with
our
education,
both
in
the
lower
grades
and
all
the
way
up
through
our
entity,
programs
or
engine
which
agencies
or
companies
often
talk
about
why
they
won't
come
here
because
we
don't
have
the
educated
workforce.
E
E
It's
so
competitive
between
the
states
to
attract
businesses
you
and
businesses
like
stability.
They
want
to
know
exactly
what
it's
going
to
be
every
day
and
don't
like
to
hear.
Well,
it
may
change,
it
scares
them
all.
So,
in
short,
do
you
think
some
of
your
cu
are
these
proposals
that
you're
presenting
could
hinder
any
of
our
state's
attractiveness
to
future
businesses?
L
I
appreciate
the
question,
mr
neil,
I
think
it's
a
assemblyman
o'neill
and
I
think
it's
a
really
fair
one
and
I
think
it's
a
brave
one
to
ask
too,
because
I
don't
think
anyone
sat
here
drafting
legislation
thinking
I
know
what
I
want
to
do
is
scare
off
anyone
who's
interested
in
nevada.
I
think
that
that
would
be
an
unfair
thing
to
say
about
anyone
in
this
building.
I
think
we
are
all
trying
to
row
in
the
same
direction.
L
I
think
we
all
are
open
and
honest
about
what
the
needs
are.
We
know
that
there
are
regions
of
the
state
that
are
hurting
more
than
others,
and
so
that
is
absolutely
not
not
the
intent.
The
intent
was
absolutely
to
to
start
the
conversation
about
right-sizing
abatements
and
to
see
if
there
was
a
a
better
way
to
still
within
parameters.
L
Allow
the
director
and
the
board
to
to
better
allocate
some
of
these
abatements
the
the
piece
with
with
housing.
Like
I
said
I
would,
I
would
hope
that
wouldn't
deter
anyone,
because
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
concerns
is,
can
I
house
my
workforce
and
and
ultimately,
if
you
want
to
bring
a
company
to
certain
parts
of
the
state
with
a
thousand
employees,
there
are
parts
of
the
state
that
are
at
occupancy.
L
We,
we
just
don't
have
the
room
to
house
them,
and
so,
but
there
are
other
places
where
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense,
and
so
the
the
the
goal
is
to
not
in
any
way
to
to
hinder
economic
development
and
growth.
But
I
I
will
say
that
in
the
past,
business
has
been
resilient.
L
Nevada
has
been
resilient,
the
the
businesses
that
locate
here
you
know,
they're
nevadans
they've
got
some
nevadans
and
if
they're
not
in
events
when
they
come
here,
we
make
them
nevadans,
and
so
they
they're
they
get
tough
and
they
can
weather
things
right.
And
so
we
have
made
changes
to
these
statutes.
Over
the
years
we
have
almost
every
session.
We
make
a
little
bit
of
change
to
the
statute
and
it
has
not
is
not
stopped
us
from
from
having
applications
come
in.
L
It
has
not
stopped
us
from
approving
applications,
and
so
this
this
concern
that
the
sky
will
fall
and
everything
will
dry
up
and
go
away.
I
don't
think
that's
true.
I
think
it
might
be
more
fair
to
say:
could
we
think
about
certain
pieces
of
the
spill
and
see
if
they
ring
true
in
a
way
that
the
bill
sponsor
would
help?
I
think
that
that's
a
fair
statement
to
say,
but
when,
as
when
we
leave
this
meeting,
there
will
be
unanimous
agreement
that
I
can
put
together
a
binder
really
well.
E
You
benitez
thompson
or
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
Do
you
think
or
what
would
happen
if
the
housing
affordable,
housing
balance
is
out?
We
actually
get
to
a
point
where
we
built
down
here
in
carson
city,
we're
putting
together
huge
complexes
of
apartments,
townhomes
et
cetera,
where
this
money
going,
as
in
the
current
plan
into
affordable
housing.
E
Is
it
flexible
enough
that
we
could
put
it
to
something
else
like
infrastructure,
our
roads
appreciate
that
bigger
challenges
too.
L
I
I
wouldn't-
I
don't
know
that
it.
I
think
I
would
leave
that
to
future
legislate
tours
and
legislatures
to
to
deliberate.
I
I
think
that,
right
now
we
know
what
the
need
is,
but
if
times
change
and
things
change,
anyone
at
any
time
can
come
in
and
change
this.
L
You
know
change
change
the
language
and
say:
is
there
another
need
or
if
mission
accomplished,
and
we
no
longer
have
a
need
for
affordable
housing,
then
I'll
show
up
and
say
you
can
take
that
out,
because
there's
there's
just
we're,
we
finally
hit
it.
We
finally
did
it
affordable
housing
in
our
neighborhood.
I
would
I'll
be
so
happy
when
that
day,
when
that
day
comes,
I
think
we're
far
off
from
it.
L
I
think
we
are
we're
we're
far
off
from
getting
there
at
this
point,
but
if
we
cross
that
line
then
take
it
off
there's
no
I've
always
been
one
that
I
don't
think
we
need
to.
The
government
doesn't
need
to
collect
something
that
we
don't
have
to.
So
if
the
need
goes
away,
it
can
go
away.
A
G
G
C
Thank
you
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
alexis.
Motorex
a-l-e-x-I-f
m-o-t-a-r-e-x,
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada.
Agc
is
here
in
support
of
eb
449,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
the
affordable
housing
fund.
We
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
benitos
thompson
for
thinking
outside
of
the
box
to
help
solve
the
affordable
housing
crisis.
C
This
is
an
elegant
solution
that
will
not
that
will
not
increase
the
cost
of
construction,
jeopardize
jobs
or
increase
the
cost
of
housing,
as
other
proposals
over
the
years
have
threatened
to
do.
It
is
not
the
builders
and
developers
who
are
creating
the
demand,
they
are
simply
responding
to
it.
It
is
new
and
expanding
businesses
that
are
creating
the
demand
and
it's
time
for
them
to
contribute
to
the
housing
crisis.
They've
helped
create.
C
In
december
goed
awarded
over
29
million
dollars
in
abatements
to
11
companies.
Last
week
they
approved
another
nine
companies
to
receive
4.7
million
in
abatements
of
those
20
companies
10
are
paying
an
average
wage
at
or
below
the
housing
wages
determined
by
the
nevada,
housing
coalition
of
approximately
29
an
hour
and
five
are
paying
just
a
few
cents
above.
If
this
bill
had
been
in
place
just
for
the
last
two
rounds
of
abatements,
we
would
already
have
over
three
million
in
the
affordable
housing
fund.
G
O
And
so
from
that
perspective,
I
I
am
encouraged
by
this
legislation
and
asked
us
to
consider
how
long
we
can
continue
to
subsidize
the
shortcomings
of
job
quality
in
our
state,
particularly
as
we
look
at
the
need
to
make
further
investments
in
mental
health,
education
and
housing.
Affordability,
as
you
review,
the
report
commission
and
issued
by
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
in
january
of
this
year,
consider
what
the
opportunities
would
be
if
we
were
not
subsidizing
to
the
tune
of
over
700
million
dollars.
O
If
we
consider
who
the
top
employer
is
on
the
list,
but
also
what
would
the
opportunities
be
if,
as
a
part
of
the
abatement
process,
we
were
intentionally
requiring
some
investment
in
the
employees
who
work
and
serve
in
those
communities,
and
so
I
come
to
it
in
support,
saying
thank
you
and
asking
you
can
to
consider
how
long
we
can
sustain
subsidizing
things
like
health
care
costs
as
we
grapple
with
our
inability
to
get
to
adequate
education,
funding
or
housing,
affordability,
and,
as
a
part
of
that,
do
we
ever
want
to
be
known
as
a
part
of
the
equation
for
really
fostering
the
working
poor
as
housing
costs
go
up,
wages
go
down
while
we
waive
taxes
and
pay
for
health
care
costs
that
maybe
employers
could
be
empowered
to
to
cover.
G
B
B
As
we
continue
to
encounter
challenging
times
of
economic
downturn
and
widespread
pandemic,
we
all,
as
a
community
citizens,
institutions
and
companies
alike,
must
equitably
participate
in
creating
and
maintaining
this
revenue
to
encourage
mutual
economic
development.
This
means
all
parties,
including
companies
and
corporations,
must
be
held
accountable
to
contribute
their
fair
share.
Ab449
establishes
measures
essential
to
increasing
state
revenue
and,
consequently,
quality
of
life
for
all
nevadans.
By
requiring
much
needed
company
tax
abatement,
transparency,
transparency
and
restrictions.
B
Provisions
in
ab449
will
increase
the
amount
of
employed
persons
provided
direct
health
care
benefits
from
companies
a
right
all
employees
should
be
provided
while
opening
up
more
medicaid
opportunities
for
those
who
are
most
in
need.
We
are
also
excited
with
this
that
this
bill
will
through
stated
provisions
contribute
10
percent
funding
from
abatements
to
directly
and
positively
affect
those
in
need
of
critical,
critical,
affordable
housing.
If
we
want
to
continue
creating
a
prosperous,
fair
and
compassionate
nevada,
we
must
all
be
willing
to
pay
for
it.
G
C
C
We
believe
that
we
can
build
and
sustain
a
nevada
that
meets
the
needs
of
all
nevadans
and
ensures
all
residents,
regardless
of
zip
code,
can
thrive
in
dignity.
The
nevadans
have
long
suffered
from
underfunded,
education
and
health
care.
The
pandemic
has
not
only
exposed
the
inadequacy
of
our
public
funding
to
meet
the
basic
needs
of
hardworking
nevadans.
It
also
necessitated
cuts
to
the
services
vulnerable
nevadans
need
most.
C
Ab449
will
help
ensure
that
the
businesses
who
move
to
the
state
are
actually
making
real
investments,
providing
good
jobs
and
supporting
the
development
of
needed,
affordable
housing
with
our
growing
population,
rather
than
be
giveaways
to
corporations
who
take
advantage
of
the
state
social
services.
We
urge
your
support
of
this
legislation.
Thank
you.
G
O
O
Briefly,
if
you've
proven
your
binder,
perhaps
you've
noticed
that
the
clark
county
school
district,
unfortunately,
is
one
of
the
top
employers
in
terms
of
employees
who
are
on
medicaid.
A
lot
of
these
mem
are
our
members
that
we
represent.
We
work
for
better
wages
and
for
benefits
like
health
care.
Unfortunately,
an
employer
like
the
clark
county
school
district
doesn't
have
the
resources
to
provide
that.
That's
part
of
the
reason
why
we
fight
for
more
funding
for
public
education.
O
We
want
money
in
classrooms
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
educators
that
serve
students
also
have
a
living
wage
and
they
are
able
to
live
with
dignity.
O
So
when
we
hear
that
employers
are
are
receiving
abatements
or
tax
loopholes
or
giveaways
and
have
their
employees
with
jobs,
you
know
that
they've
created
in
part
with
these
abatements
that
are
on
medicaid,
taking
state
dollars
and
taking
precious
resources
away
from
other
services
that
are
needed
in
the
state.
Whether
that
be
others
who
require
health
care
or
the
public
education
system,
that
really
hurts.
So
we
appreciate
the
majority
leader
anita
thompson
for
bringing
this
bill
on
outer
naming
support.
Thank
you.
G
G
O
Good
afternoon,
sir
cohen
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
alex
camberos
and
today,
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
battleborn
progress
in
support
of
ab449,
safe
and
secure
housing,
essential
to
wellness
and
the
opportunity
for
so
many.
So
many
nevadans
make
the
difference
to
be
able
to
provide
themselves
and
their
family
with
food
health
care.
A
strong
education
and
reliable
transportation.
O
It
would
both
preserve
current
housing
and
create
new
housing
at
10
percent
over
the
next
three
years.
600
more
units
could
be
built
combined
with
other
sources
of
funding.
Nevada
could
make
real
progress
in
its
low
house,
low-income
residents
in
housing.
It's
low-income
residents
and
workforce
affordability
over
the
next
10
years.
It
could
provide
a
predictable
and
consistent
revenue
stream
for
each
tax
abatement
recipient.
We
thank
majority
leader
benitez
thompson
for
presenting
this
bill
and
providing
an
innovative
solution
to
improve
the
availability
of
affordable
housing
throughout
nevada.
O
A
Cabarrus,
can
you
please
state
and
respell
your
name
so
that
we've
got
it
for
the
committee
secretary.
O
G
C
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
tess
oppermann,
that's
spelled
o
p
o-p-f-e-r-m-a-n
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
women's
lobby,
companies
continue
to
move
to
nevada
and
for
good
reason,
one
of
which
are
significant
tax
abatements
to
draw
the
company
here.
But
what?
If
these
companies
pay
very
low
wages
and
don't
cover
benefits,
residents,
move
to
nevada
and
then
can't
afford
housing.
Ab449
is
a
logical
solution
that
ensures
companies
who
have
been
given
generous
tax
abatements
are
still
giving
appropriate
funds
back
to
our
state.
C
Large
companies
need
to
be
held
accountable
to
ensure
our
nevada
residents.
Those
who
have
been
here
for
generations
and
those
who
are
new
to
our
state
have
affordable
and
stable
housing
and
are
given
medical
coverage.
We
want
businesses
to
come
here
and
we
want
our
state
to
grow
and
prosper,
but
at
what
cost?
Let's
pass
policy
that
brings
businesses
here,
but
also
ensures
nevadans,
get
health
care,
make
a
living
wage
and
can
afford
to
buy
houses
and
continue
to
live
in
our
state.
C
G
G
E
D-E-R-E-K-A-R-M-S-T-R-O-N-G,
my
name
is
derek
armstrong:
the
director
of
economic
development,
tourism
for
the
city
of
henderson.
I
had
originally
signed
up
to
testify
neutral,
but
listening
tooth
and
not
in
opposition
to
contributing
to
affordable
housing
and
has
supported
several
bills
already
this
session.
E
The
first
section,
changing
our
incentives
from
a
shallow
to
a
may
is
going
to
cause
many
issues
with
certainty
for
businesses
when
we're
attracting
them
and
recruiting
them.
But
then,
additionally,
the
process
for
approval
by
going
through.
E
This
is
a
system
of
picking
winners
and
losers,
and-
and
I
think
that
currently
we
have
a
system-
that's
very
mechanical
and
objective,
and
inserting
a
lot
of
that
subjectiveness
is
going
to
cause
a
lot
of
issues
when
we're
recruiting
companies
that,
when
we're
talking
about
medicaid,
my
my
biggest
complaint
there
is
that
we're
not
treating
businesses
fairly.
E
We're
only
talking
about
businesses
expanding
within
the
state
without
having
that
same
conversation
with
new
businesses
that
are
coming
here
and
and
the
amounts
of
medicaid
employees
that
they
have
elsewhere
and
then
affordable
housing,
assemblyman
hasten.
I
brought
up
one
point
that
I
didn't
see
in
the
bill
talking
about
the
regionality
and
making
sure
that,
where
the
business
locates
the
affordable
housing
dollars
go
to
that
community,
so
I
appreciated
that
question,
but
also
the
process
for
collecting
that
hasn't
really
been
addressed
either.
E
Is
that
a
bill
that
comes
from
the
state
at
the
end
of
the
year?
Or
is
it
the
responsibility
of
the
business
to
track
that
and
then
send
a
bill?
And
then
taxation
audits
it?
So
I
think
with
that
it
still
needs
to
be
vetted
out
as
to
that
process
and
and
how
that
will
work
out
and
additionally,
the
the
section
that
creates
the
the
office
of
small
business
there's
so
many
offices
of
small
business.
E
Now
that
I
I
just
feel
like
it's
muddying
the
waters
and
creating
a
lot
of
confusion,
so
understanding
that
there's
several
different
things.
E
G
O
Good
evening,
chair
cohen
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jonas
o
peterson,
a
s
p
e
t
e
r
s,
o
n,
I'm
the
president
and
ceo
with
the
las
vegas
global
economic
alliance.
Thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
this
evening
on
ab449
as
the
regional
development
authority
for
southern
nevada,
our
mission
at
lbga
is
to
grow
southern
nevada's
economy.
O
Wear
your
boots
on
the
ground
to
help
southern
nevada's
economy
recover
from
the
pandemic.
With
that
mission
in
mind,
we
respectfully
oppose
ab449.
We
believe
the
bill
would
make
nevada
less
competitive
for
new,
high-value
jobs
by
decreasing
the
value
and
decreasing
the
predictability
of
tax
abatements
nevada's.
Existing
tax
abatements
have
a
proven
track
record
of
success
and
are
necessary
tools
for
our
region
to
help
companies
add
much
needed
jobs.
O
O
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
Third,
we
don't
have
a
competitive
incentive
program
to
attract
new
businesses.
Ab449
only
adds
to
the
erosion
of
the
state's
economic
incentive
program.
That's
taken
place
over
the
last
several
years
from
the
perspective
of
our
potential
clients
and
finally,
the
state
doesn't
devote
enough
resources
to
this
effort
and
thus
we're
not
competitive
with
many
other
states.
I
The
problem
is
that
we
could
have
had
this
exact
same
conversation
20
years
ago.
Southern
nevada,
economic
growth
has
been
outstanding
over
that
time
period,
but
because
our
economy
is
not
more
diversified,
we
continue
to
leave
ourselves
open
to
economic
disasters
like
those
caused
by
the
great
recession
and
covet
19..
I
Two
economic
disasters
in
20
years
should
be
incentive
enough
to
meaningfully
address
our
economic
diversification
challenges.
I
recognize
some
of
you
have
reservations
around
incentives.
That
said
a
common
sense
incentive
program
with
strong
safeguards
for
performance
is
an
important
tool
to
attract
new
businesses
to
our
state
is
currently
drafted
does
not
contribute
to
that
goal.
In
my
opinion,.
A
Sorry,
but
your
two
minutes
are
up,
so
if
you
could
please
thank
you
next
person
in
opposition.
G
G
C
Thank
you
so
much
good
evening,
chair
cohen
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
mary
beth
speewald
s-e-w-a-l-d,
I'm
the
president
and
ceo
of
the
vegas
chamber.
First
and
foremost,
I
would
like
to
thank
assembly
majority
leader
benitez
thompson
for
taking
the
time
to
talk
with
our
team
this
week
about
the
proposed
legislation.
C
C
C
We
need
both
small
and
large
employers
to
succeed,
especially
with
the
competition
that
we
face
from
other
states,
and
I
would
echo
my
colleague
jonas
peterson
at
the
lbgea
who
says
we
do
lose
deals.
We
absolutely
do
lose
deals.
Other
states
are
actively
working
to
attract
new
employers
and
industries
to
their
states
even
during
the
pandemic.
C
Our
state
nevada
needs
to
do
the
exact
same
thing,
and
we
have
the
tools
to
succeed.
To
do
that.
The
reality
is
that
two
things
are
against
us
time
and
competition
from
other
states
those
two
things.
That
is
why
we
really
have
to
incentivize
new
businesses
to
come
to
nevada,
like
most
other
states,
do
to
compete,
so
we
can
rebuild
and
put
nevadans
back
to
work
and
diversify
our
economy.
On
behalf
of
the
biggest
chamber,
I
appreciate
your
time
and
consideration
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
G
E
Good
evening,
madam
chair
committee,
members,
I
am
sheldon
mudd
s
e
s-h-e-l-d-o-n-m-u-d-d,
that's
mike
uniform
delta
delta,
and
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
northeastern
nevada
regional
development
authority
on
behalf
of
the
nnrda
board
of
directors.
I'm
here
today
regarding
various
concerns
associated
with
ab449.
E
Our
first
concerns
reside
with
sections
one
through
four
in
the
ten
percent
stipend
that
will
be
allocated
to
an
affordable
housing
account.
We
agree
that
housing
is
an
enormous
issue
within
the
state.
However,
we
don't
feel
that
this
is
the
most
efficient
way
to
address
it.
The
state
of
nevada's
incentive
packages
are
at
best
on
par
with
surrounding
states.
We
fear
that
this
proposed
string
that
will
be
attached
to
these
abatements
could
put
us
at
a
disadvantage
to
our
neighboring
states,
our
competitors
in
section
9
through
11.
E
We
believe
that
these
efforts
are
redundant
and
unwarranted
between
the
small
business
administration,
nevada,
small
business
development
center,
multiple
non-profits
and
the
various
regional
development
authorities
in
the
state.
There
are
plenty
of
resources
in
nevada
that
can
provide
useful
and
effective
information
at
no
cost
to
small
businesses
and
prospective
startups,
and
last
in
section
12
of
the
bill
eliminated
eliminating
the
go
ed
director's
ability
to
approve
projects
within
abatements,
valued
at
less
than
two
hundred
fifty
thousand
dollars
in
rural
nevada.
E
We
tend
to
see
investments
that
pale
in
comparison
to
our
urban
counterparts,
but
in
light
of
that,
we
can
off
often
offer
speedy
turnarounds
on
permitting
and
incentive
approval.
We
fear
that
this
change
will
eliminate
a
portion
of
that
advantage.
For
this.
These
reasons
nnrda
finds
itself
opposing
this
bill
and
would
ask
that
the
committee
would
do
the
same.
Thank
you.
G
E
E
An
mba
is
opposed
to
assembly
bill
449
for
all
of
the
reasons
already
expressed
by
our
colleagues
at
lbgea
and
nrda
in
the
las
vegas
chamber.
The
diversification
of
nevada's
economy
has
been
the
direct
result
of
nevada's
business
incentives.
They
facilitate
the
diversification
of
northern
nevada,
which
helped
to
mitigate
its
adverse
economic
impact
of
the
pandemic.
E
Sadly,
rural
and
southern
nevada
did
not
care
as
well,
and
now
those
areas
need
the
incentives
more
than
ever,
to
facilitate
much
needed
economic
revitalization.
In
order
to
spur
recovery
and
build
resistance
without
nevada's
existing
business
incentive
formula,
it
will
be
difficult
to
attract
the
industries
and
businesses
to
meet
nevada's.
Robust
economic
goals
has
laid
out
in
the
nevada's
plan
for
recovering
resilience,
and
we
are
especially
opposed
because
we
do
not
believe
that
ab449
will
be
productive
and
helpful
for
rural
and
southern
nevada.
Thank.
A
Thank
you,
then
we
will
go
to
the
phones
in
neutral.
Please.
G
G
O
That
demand
is
not
necessarily
a
bad
thing,
and
so
we
would
encourage
continue
dialogue
on
this
matter
so
that
maybe
we
can
get
to
a
point
that
our
friends
in
the
north
and
the
south
can
agree
on
future
direction
for
the
state.
Thank
you
very
much.
G
A
L
Oh
no,
it's
late
and
you
folks
have
heard
me
out,
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
time
and
I
appreciate
everyone's
consideration.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
with
that.
I
will
bring
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
449
to
a
close
and
we
will
go
to
public
comment.
Please,
no
public
comment
may
be
limited
in
time.
Do
we
have
anyone
on
the
phones
for
public
com.
G
G
A
Okay,
seeing
none
as
far
as
tomorrow,
we
will
be
having
a
work
session,
so
keep
keep
your
eyes
open
and.
A
We'll
go
ahead
and
post
that
as
soon
as
we're
able
so
thanks
everyone
and
have
a
good
night.