►
From YouTube: 5/25/2021 - 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,
I'm
going
to
call
this
meeting
of
assembly
revenue
to
order.
Madam
secretary,
please
take
the
role.
A
And
I
am
present.
Thank
you,
madam
secretary.
Please
mark
the
members
who
are
absent,
absent
excused
and
mark
them
present
if
they
should
arrive
from
their
other
hearings
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping.
Before
we
begin,
oh
and
just
for
the
record,
we
do
have
a
quorum
with
us,
eight
members
here,
so
just
some
housekeeping
members
and
presenters.
Please
remember
to
silence
your
electronic
devices
and
then
just
note
that
members
will
be
using
our
laptops
and
possibly
other
devices
to
review
materials
exhibits
that
type
of
thing.
A
A
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
senator
james
settlemyre,
district
17..
We
have
a
habit,
as
we
know,
to
try
to
watch
the
tv
and
try
to
slip
in
at
the
right
proper
time.
Just
in
case
you
have
other
bills
that
you
need
to
have
heard
first
anyway,
senate
bill
278
as
we
brought
it
forward
and
has
amended,
defines
wholesale
sales
or
sales
or
transfers
of
cannabis
by
a
cannabis
cultivation
facility
to
another
cannabis
establishment.
C
The
bill
is
amended
excludes
from
the
definition
of
wholesale
sale,
a
transfer
of
cannabis
by
a
cannabis
cultivation
facility
to
another
cannabis
cultivation
facility
when
both
facilities
share
identical
ownership.
As
with
most
businesses,
we
run
into
situations
where
people
have
sub
businesses,
so
they're
selling
clones
or
plants
to
one
another
that
should
not
trigger
the
taxation.
It
should
just
be
at
the
end,
point
sale.
So
in
that
respect,
that's
what
the
bill
does.
C
D
Thank
you
will
adler
representing
a
sierra
cannabis
coalition
today
to
clear
of
any
haziness,
as
the
good
senator
said,
with
what
we're
doing
here
today
and
why
we're
bringing
it
forward.
You
know
the
initial
language
around
cannabis,
cannabis
taxation
came
from
the
ballot
initiative
that
passed
in
2016
when
referred
to
recreational
cannabis,
and
when
the
wholesale
tax
would
or
would
not
be
applied,
the
language
there
was
a
little
clunky
and
it
kind
of
implied
whenever
there's
any
transference
or
transportation
of
cannabis
out
of
that
cultivation
facility.
D
The
wholesale
tax
must
be
applied
so
to
clarify
that
if
you
own
two
cultivation
facilities
as
a
single
group
and
in
this
case
have
have
an
identical
ownership
structure
that
there
shouldn't
be
a
any
problem
with
doing
just
general
business
practices
of
taking
it
from
one
of
your
cultivation
facilities
to
another.
To
do
you
know
packaging
or
some
sort
of
secondary.
D
You
know
manipulation
of
the
product
to
get
it
ready
for
sale
and
then
have
the
sale
and
sales
and
then
hence
the
wholesale
tax
be
applied
once
it
leaves
the
second
or
final
facility
when
the
products
are
finalized,
and
that's
that's
essentially
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here,
and
it
should
be
nice
clean
bill
after
department
of
taxation's
amendment
on
the
other
side.
Thank
you.
F
D
Assemblywoman
kasama
to
this
day,
marijuana
is
still
federally
illegal
and
has
no
ability
to
actually
be
transported
between
states.
So,
even
if
you
owned
a
cultivation
in
california,
one
in
nevada,
you
cannot
transport
any
of
it
ever
between
either
of
those
properties
because
it
is
still
federally
illegal
and
that
crosses
that
state
barrier,
so
that
that
it's
just
for
in-state
operations
only
in
the
state
of
nevada.
Thank
you.
F
That
thank
you.
That
makes
sense
if
it
becomes
federally
legal.
D
I
yeah
well,
you
know
looking
to
the
future,
if
federal
legalization
does
happen
or
will
add,
look
for
the
record
speaking
again
looking
forward
in
the
future.
If
there's
federal
legalization,
I
think
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
syncing
up
between
states,
regardless
of
what
nevada
does.
H
D
So
will
adler
for
the
record.
D
A
Do
you
want
to
confirm
with
with
director
young
director
director
young,
do
you
do
you
have
a
response
to
that.
G
A
And
if
I
may,
before,
assemblywoman
constantine
asks
her
next
question
director,
so
when
you're
talking
about
hundred
percent
we're
not
are
we
just
talking
about
the
same
owners
or
are
we
what,
if
they're
the
same
owners
but
different
they
each
own
different
percentages
in
the
in
the
different
businesses?
H
C
This
is
senator
settlemeyer.
I
can
only
speak
to
the
other
industry
that
I'm
familiar
with,
which
is
agriculture.
Yes,
within
agriculture.
If
I
have
my
father
myself,
if
we
own
cattle
and
we
both
own
the
same
ownership,
but
we
transfer
them
to
one
another,
there's
no
taxation.
Until
you
get
to
the
end
point
of
sale
and
that's
traditionally
how
agriculture
works,
I
can
only
speak
as
to
that
also
within
garlic.
I
know
the
same
thing
has
occurred
on
snyder
corporation
and
others
such
that
nature,
such
as
perry.
C
D
Will
adler
for
the
record
I
I
could
speak
to.
We
base
the
cannabis
taxation
sort
of
roughly,
I
will
say,
base
the
taxation
off
of
the
alcohol
wholesale
program.
So
you
have
the
initial
producer
of
the
alcohol
that
you
then
apply
the
wholesale
tax
prior
to
that
transportation
or
the
wholesaler
actually
is
in
charge
of
the
taxes
there
and
then
that
is
paid
before
it
ever
goes
to
the
retail
outlet
right,
so
that
that's
essentially
the
same
with
cannabis
here,
where
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
the
cultivation
is
paying
the
wholesale
tax.
D
So
in
cannabis
and
from
the
origin
of
the
camps.
We
said
that
wholesale
tax
needs
to
be
paid
before
it
leaves
your
cultivation
facility,
and
we
know
that
tax
has
been
applied
because
it
can
go
two
ways
go
to
the
production
facility
or
it
could
go
to
a
dispensary
right.
So
it
was
just
a
check
to
say
you're
responsible
for
this
before
it
leaves
your
facility
and
it
kind
of
was
similar
to
the
alcohol
model
when
we
came
up
with
it.
A
A
B
A
B
A
Thank
you,
bps.
Anyone
in
neutral
in
the
room,
okay,
seeing
none
and
no
one
in
neutral
director
young
did
you
have
anything
you
wanted
to
add
in
neutral,
or
are
you
just
answering
questions.
G
A
B
A
C
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
with
that.
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
278
and
open
the
hearing
on
sp442.
I'm
sure
I've
got
yes.
Okay,
sb
442
prospectively
eliminates
the
program
to
provide
a
partial
abatement
of
property
taxes
for
certain
buildings
and
structures,
which
means
certain
energy
efficiency
standards
director
and.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
david
bobson,
for
the
record
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
energy
with
me
today
is
robin
yocum
who's,
the
energy
program
manager
for
all
things,
energy
efficiency,
including
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee
for
the
afternoon
opportunity
this
afternoon
to
present
this
legislation,
which
is
a
budget
bill,
part
of
the
governor's
recommended
budget
and
from
a
high
level.
This
is
for
a
sun
setting
of
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program
program
manager.
I
Yocum
will
walk
you
through
the
specifics
of
our
rationale
for
why
it
is
time
to
sunset
this
program,
but
the
the
top
line
takeaway
is
that
building
codes,
energy,
the
energy
efficiency
code
has
reached
a
level
is
rapidly
reaching
a
level
of
efficiency
that
eclipses
the
need
for
this
program,
in
other
words,
the
required
standard
for
new
construction,
we're
entering
a
space
where
there's
no
need
to
provide
incentives
to
projects
that
are
building
to
this
minimum
code.
I
So,
with
this
legislation
and
the
retirement
of
the
program,
we
will
see
a
long-term
return
of
revenues
that
otherwise
would
have
been
abated
to
many
local
governments
across
the
state.
So
we
are
pleased
to
present
this
for
your
consideration
and
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
ms
yokum,
to
give
you
the
really
intelligent
part
of
this
presentation
with
a
high
much
higher
level
of
expertise
than
I
can
offer
today.
A
Please
go
ahead
program
manager
joachim.
J
Thank
you
assemblywomancon
so
good
afternoon
and
chair
cohen
and
members
of
the
committee
robin
yocum
for
the
record
energy
program
manager
with
the
governor's
office
of
energy.
So
thank
you
again
for
allowing
us
to
present
this
bill
to
you
today.
So
before
we
review
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program,
I
want
to
give
you
some
context
about
the
international
energy
conversat
conservation
code
or
iecc,
so
nrs701.220
directs
the
governor's
office
energy
to
adopt
the
most
recently
published
version
of
the
iecc
every
three
years.
J
J
So
what
this
means
is
that,
upon
adoption
of
the
2021,
we
will
be
26
more
efficient
than
the
baseline,
which
is
the
2012
iecc,
and
that
is
what
the
rating
systems
use
as
their
baseline
for
comparison
in
order
to
participate
in
our
program.
So
once
the
2021
iec
cc
is
adopted,
abatements
will
be
awarded
for
projects
that
construct
to
the
state
adopted
code.
J
J
So
now
we're
going
to
dive
into
the
gbta
program
and
how
energy
codes
have
a
role
in
awarding
the
abatements
in
2005.
The
gbta
program
was
enacted
to
address
an
energy
market
substantially
different
than
today's.
It
provided
an
incentive
to
business
owners
to
increase
the
efficiency
of
the
built
environment
within
the
state
in
an
effort
to
bring
new
businesses
and
jobs
into
nevada.
J
Existing
buildings
are
compared
to
a
national
database
of
comparison
properties,
known
as
the
commercial
building
energy
consumption
survey
or
cbex,
which
is
provided
by
the
energy
information
administration.
It's
important
to
note
that
most
of
the
comparison
properties
in
that
system
were
built
prior
to
1980.
J
As
mentioned
earlier,
the
iecc
increases
the
required
efficiency
of
newly
constructed
buildings.
Every
three
years
when
published
the
continuance
of
the
gbta
program
after
the
2021
iecc
has
been
adopted,
will
allow
owners
to
receive
an
abatement
for
building
to
the
minimum
standard
already
adopted
in
the
state,
thus
no
longer
aligning
with
the
intent
of
the
program,
as
initially
established
in
nrs,
upon
adoption
of
the
2018
iecc
by
the
governor's
office
of
energy,
local
jurisdictions
followed
suit
and
the
largest
populated
areas
in
the
state
have
adopted
the
same.
J
J
So
in
this
slide,
we
wanted
to
show
the
different
counties
and
the
percentage
of
projects
that
have
been
awarded
an
abatement.
As
you
can
see,
81
percent
of
the
projects
are
in
clark
county
with
over
half
of
those
projects
being
a
resort
casino
type
of
project.
14
are
in
washoe,
with
5
in
the
other
four
counties
or
five
counties.
J
So
again,
abatements
are
awarded
for
achieving
certification
through
either
the
lead
or
green
globe's
rating
systems
per
current
statute
and
out
of
221
projects,
85
have
been
awarded
an
abatement
utilizing
the
lead
rating
system
and
136
projects
have
utilized
the
green
globes
rating
system.
As
you
can
see,
this
covers
over
210
million
square
feet
of
building
stock.
J
This
next
slide
shows
the
fiscal
impact
of
the
abatements
to
the
counties
and
municipalities
where
the
abatements
have
been
awarded
an
estimated
275
million
dollars
of
property.
Taxes
will
have
been
abated
over
the
life
of
the
program
and
the
largest
portion
of
those
dollars.
250
million
will
be
from
clark
county.
J
So
upon
adoption
of
the
2018
iecc
goe
recognized
a
need
to
evaluate
the
efficacy
of
the
gpta
program,
as
the
adoption
of
more
efficient
codes
would
continue.
So
we
contracted
with
a
neutral
third
party
vendor
who
possessed
experience
in
green
building
practices
and
the
iecc
the
vendor
evaluated
the
relationship.
The
minimum
energy
efficiency
levels
required
to
achieve
the
specified
energy
points
in
comparison
to
both
the
2018
iecc
and
the
2021
iecc.
J
J
So
during
the
analysis
performed,
it
was
noted
that
upon
adoption
of
the
2018
iecc,
the
first
tier
for
the
abatement
for
new
construction
was
simply
compliant
with
the
required
codes
in
a
few
slides.
I
will
show
you
that
graph,
so
you
know
it.
It
was
apparent
that
a
significant
tax
abatement
can
be
achieved
by
constructing
to
the
current
minimum
energy
code
requirements
adopted
by
nevada.
J
The
energy
points
dictate
the
term
of
the
abatement
which
are
calculated,
based
on
a
percentage
of
improvement
over
the
baseline
of
the
2012
iecc
or
ashrae
90.1-2010
standard
to
receive
at
least
five
points,
depending
on
the
project
type.
The
project,
which
must
achieve
an
improvement
between
seven
to
fourteen
percent
over
the
baseline
seven
points
requires
an
eleven
to
eighteen
percent
improvement
above
the
baseline
and
eleven
points
would
require
19
to
26
above
the
baseline.
J
J
J
J
Okay,
so
here
is
a
graph
showing
the
comparison
of
the
baselines
and
adopted
codes.
This
graph
depicts
the
minimum
and
maximum
required
percentage
of
improvements
over
the
baseline
to
achieve
the
required
points,
as
you
can
see
in
the
green
bar,
the
minimum
percentages
range
from
7
to
19
percent
and
the
dark
blue
bar
ranges
from
14
to
26
percent.
J
J
So,
lastly,
we
would
like
to
review
some
of
the
challenges
within
the
gbta
program,
since
the
enactment
of
nrs701a
in
2005,
both
new
construction
and
existing
building
projects
could
participate
in
the
program.
However,
in
2011
existing
buildings
were
taken
out
and
only
new
construction
projects
could
apply.
The
program
was
drastically
modified
during
the
2007
session
to
address
concerns
that
had
arisen
after
the
enactment
of
the
program
prior
to
2013.
J
There
have
been
multiple
challenges
with
this
program
since
inception,
ranging
from
a
potential
drain
on
the
local
government's
budget,
which
was
addressed
in
ab33
in
2013,
awarding
abatements
to
condominium
projects
without
requiring
the
owners
to
continue
or
improve
the
efficiency
of
the
condo
and
allowing
a
single
building
to
receive
multiple
abatements,
increasing
the
amount
of
abated
taxes
beyond
the
established
cap.
Both
of
these
challenges
were
addressed
through
regulation
in
2019.
J
If
this
bill
does
not
pass
upon
adoption
of
the
2021
iecc,
the
state
will
award
abatements
to
building
owners
for
simply
complying
to
code
or
even
being
less
efficient
than
the
adopted
code
in
2024
goe
and
the
local
governments
will
adopt
the
2024
iecc,
which
will
again
increase
the
efficiency
of
the
code.
Perpetuating
this
cycle
goe
has
concluded
that
the
original
intent
of
the
program
is
no
longer
being
met
with
increased
adoption
of
required
energy
codes,
and
with
that
we
thank
you
for
your
time,
and
we
are
here
for
any
questions.
I
Madam
chair,
if
I
might
just
give
two
more
points
to
our
presentation,
the
first
is
you
see.
This
is
the
first
reprint
of
the
bill.
There
was
an
amendment
adopted
on
the
other
side.
We
heard
concern
from
the
nevada
resort
association
as
to
the
effective
date,
which
originally
was
effective
upon
passage,
so
we
got
together
with
them
and
determined
that
essentially
a
two-week
extension
out
to
july
1,
the
new
fiscal
year
would
be
doable
and
appropriate.
I
I
bring
that
up
to
also
just
sort
of
paint
the
picture
of
what
this
looks
like
in
terms
of
the
program
itself.
The
pipeline
exists
and
there
will
be
some
projects
that
probably
still
come
in
as
long
as
they're.
You
know
certified
or
not
certified,
I'm
not
getting
the
terminology
correct
correct.
If
they
get
the
project
to
us
prior
to
the
effective
date,
we
then
still
have
the
obligation
to
process
it,
but
from
that
point
forward,
no
more
projects
come
in.
I
Similarly,
for
existing
abatements,
our
staff
is
still
responsible
for
those
projects
and
we'll
see
them
through
their
term,
but
essentially
by
retiring
the
program
after
july
1,
no
new
participants
in
the
program
itself.
I
will
also
say
sort
of
a
broader
conversation
about
some
concerns.
We
heard
on
the
senate
side,
and
I
think
this
is
where
ms
yocum's
slide
about
the
history
of
the
problems
with
this
program
come
into
play.
I
There
is
discussion,
and
certainly
our
office
is
open
to
a
future
discussion
about
how
to
then
provide
incentives
to
induce
high-performing
buildings
on
you
know
from
an
efficiency
standpoint
beyond
what
is
required
in
the
iecc,
and
we
do
think
that
there's
a
space
for
that
and
that's
certainly
contemplated
in
the
climate
strategy,
but
we
figured
it
was
more
prudent.
I
Given
the
history
of
concerns
with
this
program
to
just
go
ahead
and
conclude,
this
program
start
from
scratch
and
then
we
can
begin
anew
with
future
conversations
about
how
to
incentivize
high-performing
buildings
above
and
beyond
the
iecc.
So
that
was
that
was,
I
think,
some
some
point
of
debate
and
discussion
on
the
senate
side.
But
that's
where
we
landed
on
this
is
that
it's
probably
better
just
given
the
history
of
all
the
challenges
that
we've
had
with
this:
let's
just
retire
it
and
then
start
fresh
with
another
conversation.
A
Thank
you
director
and
thank
you
program,
manager
joachim,
so
so
that
does
raise
a
question
for
me.
So
with
the
so
with
starting
a
new
program.
Are
you
saying
that
we've
got
those
efficiencies
that
building
is
efficient
and
at
the
level
of
efficiency
that
we'd
want
to
see
in
order
to
start
a
new
program,
or
is
it
going
to
take
some
more
time
before
the
engineering
and
science
catches
up
to
make
that
worthwhile
for
the
state.
I
I
think
it's
important
to
note
our
office's
extensive
work
with
the
international
energy
conservation
code
and
how
we
interact
with
local
governments,
so
the
adoption
that
goe
does
of
each
version
of
the
code
we
adopted
on
behalf
of
the
state,
but
ultimately
it's
a
signal
to
the
local
building
departments
to
hopefully
follow
a
suit,
and,
as
mr
oakum
pointed
out,
we
have
across
the
state
plenty
of
history
of
that
happening,
each
building
department,
subject
to
their
own
resources
and
expertise.
I
You
know
they
have
their
own
adoption
process
that
they
have
to
go
through,
but
we
like
to
think
that
we
lead
the
way
and
send
a
signal
as
to
what
high-performing
energy-efficient
construction
can
look
like.
So
beyond
that
there
may
be
opportunity
to
go
above
and
beyond
what
that
is,
and
so
the
consideration
might
be
for
a
future
program
that
we'd
potentially
bring
to
the
legislature
for
consideration
that
could
expand
upon
that
work.
I
But
I
think
the
question
is
and
how
we
look
at
this
is
primarily
what
can
we
do
working
with
the
iecc
with
that
code
to
make
sure
that,
on
the
ground,
jurisdiction
by
jurisdiction,
we're
seeing
a
robust
adoption
of
that
we're
seeing
broad
adoption
of
best
practices
in
in
construction
to
pursue
energy
efficiency?
I
You
know
insulation
energy
systems,
there's
there's
so
much
in
play
right
now,
it's
a
very
exciting
time,
so
we
think
it's
premature
to
possibly
think
about
another
incentive
package
that
would
come
to
you
with
a
revenue
piece,
but
we're
just
flagging
it
that
that
may
be
something
that
we
want
to
do.
But
for
now
we
have
lots
to
do
when
it
comes
to
just
the
international
energy
conservation
code
and
making
sure
that
we're
at
the
leading
edge
of
that
here
in
nevada.
K
Thanks
and
I
said
this
in
the
ways
and
means
hearing
when
we
saw
kind
of
the
fiscal
part
of
this
and
and
we're
discussing
the
the
programs
in
your
department-
and
so
just
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
it
takes,
I
think,
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
courage
to
be
able
to
come
forward
and
say
hey.
This
is
something
that
we
need
to
address,
and
this
is
you
know.
K
K
Or
did
we
miss
the
target
in
some
ways,
and
I
think
the
thing
that
is
especially
good
to
note
note
about
this
program
is
we're
kind
of
putting
a
program
to
rest
because
the
rest
of
the
world
caught
up
to
us,
which
is
great
right.
K
So
what
our
intentions
were
and
what
legislators,
when
you
were
one
and
working
on
this
policy,
hoped
to
see
and
the
type
of
change
you
hoped
that
would
come
in
the
state,
we're
here
and
that's
not
very
often
that
we
get
to
look
at
programs
and
say
guess
what
people
are
running
ahead
of
us
now.
So
we
can.
K
We
can
pull
this
back
and
then
we
have
the
opportunity
to
rethink
about
what
the
new
environment
has
for
us
and
and
how
we
leap
frog
forward
again,
because
I
know
that's
always
the
intent
in
the
state
as
we
want
to
be
at
the
forefront
in
a
good
way.
So
I
I
I
appreciate
this
policy
conversation
a
lot.
I
Madam
chair,
through
you
to
the
assemblywoman
david
bobson
for
the
record,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
kind
words.
It
was
absolutely
that
sense
of
introspection
that
we
brought
to
this
and
yeah.
I
think
that
says
it
very
clearly
there's
a
lot
to
celebrate
with
this
program,
but
it
has
served
its
purpose
and
now
it's
time
to
put
it
to
rest,
shall
we
say
and
move
on
to
the
next
chapter.
So
yes,
thank
you
for
your
time.
I
A
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
committee,
okay,
seeing
none
we
are
going
to
move
on
to
support?
Do
we
have
any
support
in
the
room?
Please
come
forward.
L
Good
afternoon,
chair
cohen
and
members
of
the
committee
dagny
stapleton
executive
director
of
naco,
the
nevada
association
of
counties,
we
are
in
support
of
sb
442,
as
explained
by
the
state
office
of
energy.
The
green
building
tax
abatement
program
in
nevada
is
out
of
date.
It
currently
offers
tax
abatements
for
buildings
that
meet
energy
standards,
which
are
now
the
same
as
building
codes
in
many
counties.
L
The
projected
dollar
amount
of
these
abatements
is
presented
by
the
office
of
energy
of
250
million
through
2031.
That
is
a
very
impactful
number.
Any
abatements
granted
of
tax
dollars
should
ensure
that
there
is
a
true
incentive
and
benefit
created
in
nevada's
communities.
This
is
no
longer
the
case
for
green
building
abatements
in
terms
of
how
this
program
is
structured
and
since
property
tax
revenues
are
so
important
to
local
governments.
L
C
These
tax
abatements
do
have
great
effect
on
the
local
budget,
and
we
do
see
this
bill
as
a
positive
step
forward.
Thank
you.
So
much.
M
M
However,
now
as
you've
heard,
it's
clear
that
the
program
has
outlived
its
usefulness,
the
clear
path
forward
is
to
adopt
higher
energy
conservation
standards
that
take
advantage
of
an
of
all
cost-effective
energy
efficiency
measures
and
start
to
move
toward
net
zero
buildings
in
the
near
future.
We
would
like
to
see
local
governments
move
forward
with
adopting
the
most
recent
version
of
the
international
energy
conservation
code
and
adding
provisions
to
make
buildings
electrification
ready,
including
charging
infrastructure
for
electric
vehicles.
M
A
B
If
you
would
like
to
provide
testimony
in
support
of
senate
bill
442,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
again.
If
you'd
like
to
provide
testimony
and
support
to
senate
bill
442,
please
press
star,
9,
now
chair
the
line
is
open
and
working.
However,
we
do
not
have
any
callers
at
this
time
wishing
to
provide
support.
Testimony.
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
anyone
in
opposition
in
the
room
a
seeing,
none
and
seeing
none
on
the
zoom
we'll
go
to
the
phones,
please,
for
opposition.
B
A
B
B
A
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
david
bobson,
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
this
afternoon.
Thank
you
for
the
hearing
wish
everyone.
Well,
if
you
have
any
questions,
please
reach
out
to
us.
A
N
Gillis.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Excuse
me
good
afternoon
chairwoman
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
My
name
is
scott
gillis.
I'm
the
senior
advisor
to
governor
sislak,
I'm
here
today
to
present
senate
concurrent
resolution
11.
N
scr
11
would
ultimately
create
a
joint
special
committee
of
the
legislature
for
the
purpose
of
conducting
hearings
and
a
full
analysis
of
the
idea
presented
by
the
governor
in
his
state
of
the
state
speech
that
idea
to
create
innovation
zones
in
nevada.
The
the
percent
intent
of
the
governor's
proposal
is
to
diversify
nevada's
economy
and
enhance
our
ability
to
attract
new
and
innovative
technology
companies
to
the
state.
N
The
proposal
would
create
a
broad
structure
by
which
excuse
me,
the
the
the
original
innovations
on
proposal
would
create
a
broad
structure
by
which
applicants
engaged
in
the
development
of
these
technologies
could
apply
to
create
an
innovation
zone
after
meeting
strict
standards
require
requirements
laid
out
by
statute,
including
a
significant
investment
commitment.
N
No
tax
incentives,
incentives,
abatements
or
public
investment
would
be
part
of
this
proposal.
As
it's
currently
drafted
the
projects,
the
projections
compiled
for
one
project
that
would
apply
for
an
innovations
owners
substantial
the
the
extent
of
the
economic
output,
development
output,
wages
and
jobs.
What
would
equate
to
a
significant
positive
economic
impact
for
the
entire
state
and
the
creation
of
an
entirely
new
industry
based
on
these
projections
and
the
economic
development
potential
for
nevada,
the
governor
believed
and
still
believes
this
is
an
idea
worth
pursuing.
N
But
the
reality
is
this:
there
are
limitations
that
come
with
a
bi-annual
120
day
session,
never
mind
one
taking
place
during
a
historic
pandemic
that
has
required
state
officials
and
legislators
to
direct
their
energy
toward
the
impact
of
covet
and
the
critical
response
needed
throughout
this
session,
and
it
became
clear
in
recent
weeks
that
a
proposal
this
magnitude
was
not
going
to
fit
into
this
particular
session.
The
governor
believes
this
idea
warrants
and
deserves
a
proper
vetting,
proper
analysis
and
time
to
work
through
what
is,
admittedly,
a
number
of
issues
and
complex
pieces.
N
We
understand
simply
could
not
happen
in
the
last
month
of
the
session
and
that
ultimately
felt
that
wouldn't
be
good
for
anyone
involved
after
working
with
leadership.
On
the
concept
of
excuse
me,
after
working
with
legislative
leadership,
on
the
concept
of
the
innovation
zone
proposal,
the
governor
felt
the
best
path
forward
to
vet.
The
idea
and
in
a
valuable
way,
was
to
establish
an
interim
joint
special
committee,
which
is
what
scr
11
would
ultimately
do
like
the
proposal
for
innovation
zones
itself.
N
The
method
for
creating
this
committee
is
also
unique
in
its
approach,
along
with
establishing
the
committee
to
meet
in
the
interim,
the
resolution
does
the
following:
in
terms
of
membership.
Scr
11
provides
for
the
appointment
of
at
least
six
members
to
the
committee,
two
members
of
the
senate
and
two
of
the
assembly
appointed
by
the
majority
leader
and
the
speaker
respectively,
and
one
member
from
the
assembly
and
one
member
from
the
senate
appointed
by
the
minority
leaders
in
terms
of
process,
the
committee
would
elect
pretty
straightforward.
N
Ultimately,
what
what
we've
asked
and
we're
looking
to
do
is
the
the
the
governor's
bdr,
which
was
submitted
early
in
the
session,
as
as
we've
worked
with
lcb
on
on
finalizing
that
language,
the
hope
is-
and
I've
talked
to
mr
fernley
about
this-
and
he
said
this
was
doable
to
have
at
least
a
a
a
final
product
by
the
end
of
session
for
the
committee
then
to
to
look
at
and
treat
as
an
actual
bill.
That
would
go
through
that
joint
special
committee,
so
that
that
piece
of
proposed
legislation
is
not
finalized.
N
Yet,
but
again,
the
idea
is
that
we'd
have
a
place
to
start
at
least
for
those
discussions
going
forward.
The
committee
would
not
you
know
as
as
laid
out
in
the
the
resolution.
N
The
committee
would
not
be
limited
on
the
issues
it
it
would
like
to
discuss
or
could
discuss,
but
there
the
resolution
itself
does
refer
to
a
few
specific
topics
of
economic
benefit
and
impact
that
the
committee
must
look
at
and
I'll
go
through
those
quickly
things
you
you'd
probably
expect
to
be
in
there:
economic
development,
job
creation,
workforce
development,
affordable
housing,
water,
natural
resources
in
the
environment,
impact
on
surrounding
counties,
as
well
as
any
county
where
an
innovation
zone
would
be
located
and
impact
on
other
forms
of
local
government
in
the
surrounding
areas,
and,
importantly,
and
probably,
most
importantly,
state
and
local
revenues
and
distribution
of
taxes
and
again
any
other
topics
related
to
the
proposal
that
the
committee
members
feel
is
appropriate
to
analyze
and
review
and
vet
they'd
be
allowed
to
do
that
and
again
the
opportunity
to
do
this.
N
All
not
you
know,
under
the
same
time,
constraints
created
by
the
last
few
weeks,
let
alone
days
of
a
regular
legislative
session
in
terms
of
stakeholders.
The
committee
has
directed
solicit
the
input
of
all
interested
stakeholders,
and
that
is
ultimately
our
intention,
but
the
bill
specifically
calls
out
local
governments.
Tribal
governments,
environmental
groups,
labor
organizations,
economic
development
authorities,
water
authorities
and
technology
industries.
N
Unfortunately,
the
unprecedented
impacts
of
kova
19
on
nevada
have
left
this
legislature
with
many
other
critical
issues
to
deliberate
in
the
last
113
days
or
whatever.
We've
been
here
for
the
proposed
measure
for
you
today,
we
we
believe
is
a
responsible
solution
to
the
to
that
challenge,
ultimately
trying
to
evaluate
an
unprecedented
economic
development
measure
in
a
short
amount
of
time,
let
alone
again.
The
last
couple
weeks
of
this
session
was
was
truly
not
going
to
be
practical.
N
N
The
creation
of
the
committee
will
provide
legislators
and
stakeholders
this
opportunity
to
hold
and
participate
in
hearings
and
fully
evaluate
the
proposal
which
we
believe
holds
a
tremendous
potential
for
the
state
of
nevada
in
the
end.
Ultimately,
the
governor
wants
the
stakeholders,
the
public
and,
of
course,
this
legislative
body
to
be
enthusiastic
about
the
opportunity
and
not
skeptical
skeptical.
Excuse
me
about
a
fast
track
bill
and,
in
the
final
weeks
of
the
session,
nevadans
deserve
that
and
the
governor
believes.
This
joint
committee
is
the
right
solution
to
explore
that
opportunity.
N
I
urge
your
support
for
this
process
and
that
will
allow
for
a
full
and
deliberate
review
of
the
proposal
and
its
potential
impacts
to
our
state.
I
also
want
to
take
the
opportunity
to
thank
a
majority
leader
and
the
speaker
for
their
support
in
bringing
this
this
resolution
and,
of
course
thank
you
to
the
committee
for
hearing
the
scr
11
today
and
with
that
I'm
happy
to
take
questions.
A
E
You,
chair
cohen,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill
forward.
Mr
scott,
a
few
questions.
Sorry,
the
first
question
has
to
do
actually
with
the
date
that
the
study
has
to
be
done
by
december
31st
2021.
E
N
Thank
you
through
the
chair
to
the
assemblywoman
yeah.
The
reason
for
it
is
we
wanted
to
have
it
addressed
sooner
sooner
rather
than
later.
In
the
event,
one
of
the
recommendations,
which
is
actually
laid
out
in
the
resolution
as
an
opportunity
as
an
option
for
a
recommendation,
would
be
to
bring
this
to
a
recommendation
to
have
this
brought
forth
in
a
special
session
to
have
it
addressed
that
that
was
the
the
primary
driver
for
the
timeline.
Admittedly
it
it
is
fast.
N
I
think
we
all
know
that
they'll
there'll
be
some
work
between
done
between
now
and
then
I
won't
opine
on
lcb's
staff's
ability
and
and
resources.
I
we
came
to
the
state
after
discussions
with
the
with
leadership.
E
Thank
you.
Can
I
have
another
question
a
chair.
Is
that
okay?
Oh
thank
you.
My
other
question
has
to
do
actually
with
the
items
that
are
listed
and
I
realized-
and
you
had
mentioned
that
there
were.
This
is
just
the
section,
not
sections.
I
guess
it's
on
page
2
lines
13
through
20,
where
you
list
out
those
eight
items
is
there?
E
Has
there
been
any
discussion
at
all,
or
is
there
also
time
to
be
able
to
discuss
the
infrastructures
such
as
the
roads,
the
bridges,
the
sewers
and
how
that
would
also
have
an
impact
on
the
counties
around
them,
or
is
that
a
believe
that
that
would
actually
be
under
number
seven
listed,
trying
to
figure
out
if
that
needs
to
be
specified
at
all.
N
Thank
you
through
the
chair,
scott
gales.
For
the
record.
Sorry,
I'm
rusty
at
this
scott
kills
for
the
record
through
the
chair
to
the
assembly
woman.
You
know
at
least
it's
our
intent,
that
the
list
in
in
that
particular
section
is
not
an
exhaustive
list
and
those
are
the
exact
things
we
would
want
to
have
discussed
and
and
vetted,
and
I
I
do
believe
you
know,
impact
on
county
and
other
forms
of
local
government
would
cover
those
types
of
infrastructure
and
road
issues.
E
Thank
you
and
last
question.
I
promise.
If
I
may.
I
really
appreciate
that
the
fact
that
there
is
the
discussion
around
this
I
think
a
biggie
is
the
checks
and
balances,
and
so
during
this
discussion,
has
there
been
any
or
will
there
be?
Do
you
envision
also
a
possibility
of
okay,
so
this
is
brought
forward,
it's
going
great
and
then
it
all
of
a
sudden
is
not
going
well.
Has
there
been
any
sort
of,
or
do
you
believe
there
should
be
discussion
as
well?
E
N
I
think
so
scott
gills
for
the
record
through
the
chair
too,
to
you
assemblywoman
yeah.
I
mean
I
if
I
understand
your
question.
That
is
exactly
what
neat
one
of
the
pieces,
one
of
the
many
pieces
that
needs
to
be
discussed
and
work
through
what
that
legislation
is,
is
to
figure
out.
N
Ultimately,
if,
if
this
process
has
started
with
an
application
to
go
it
and
the
financial
commitments
are,
are
are
made
and
it
gets
down
the
line
and-
and
whatever
happens
happens
with
with
economic
development
projects,
just
like
any
other
major
master
plan
community
in
the
state
to
make
sure
that
those
protections
for
whether
it
be
residents
or
business
owners
or
whoever
it
may
be.
Who
live
in
in
this
particular
innovation
zone,
which
is
you
know,
will
be
a
quasi-governmental.
N
You
know
that
they're
ultimately
protected
in
that
event,
just
like
any
other
major
development.
E
Thank
you
chair,
so
I
am
looking
at
and
I
believe
it
should
probably
be
on
nellis.
I
know
it
was
emailed
to
us
sort
of
the
one
page
summary
that
you
sent
us
and
I
took
the
liberty
to
go
ahead
and
look
per
your
last
paragraph
at
the
joint
special
committee
from
the
59th
session,
which
was
1977
and
recognized
some
of
those
names.
Now
every
member
was
six
members
of
the
senate
and
six
members
of
the
assembly.
E
You
did
make
reference
to
the
responsibilities
of
the
committee
and
then
working
with
interested
stakeholders.
Is
it
the
idea
that
I
know
I've
served
on
interim
committees
in
the
past
that
have
had
members
of
the
public?
Not
just
of
this
body
serving
on
that
as
well,
and
I
was
just
sort
of
wondering-
is
it
so
at
each
meeting?
E
Is
the
idea
that
we
would
have
members
of
this
legislative
body
on
this
committee
and
then
create
the
agenda
to
bring
the
stakeholders
or
would
there
be
a
and
and
if
and
if
that
is
you're,
not
in
your
head?
So
I'm
guessing
that.
That's
what
you're
saying
and
then
I
guess,
I'm
trying
to
understand
the
when
we're
saying
that
we're
bringing
the
stakeholders
I
just
am.
I
I
get
a
little
concerned
that
the
people
who
would
be
invited
might
not
really
have
the
voice
that
we're
kind
of
hoping
that
they
would
have.
E
Does
that
make
sense,
I
just
we're
bringing
the
stakeholders,
but
really
the
committee
is
the
one
that's
setting
the
agenda,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that,
during
the
study
that
the
voices
of
folks
are
very
very
much
heard
and
how
would
we
sort
of
figure
that
what
would
that
look
like
if
that
makes
sense.
N
N
I
know
in
the
last
house
when
we
had
this
hearing.
There
was
discussion
of
public
workshops
and
stakeholder
workshops
outside
of
the
actual
specific
legislative
process,
which
will
be
a
legislative
committee
run
just
like
this
committee.
With
with
a
bill
to
work
off
of.
I
think
we
would
totally
be
in
support
of
that
again.
It's
obviously
going
to
defer
to
to
this
body
and
how
they
would
want
to
run
the
joint
special
committee.
A
N
Thank
you,
chair
scott
gills,
for
the
record,
I
apologize
if
I
confuse
that
issue
the
way
this
is
drafted
now,
I
I
don't
see
that
the
stakeholders
would
be
voting.
Members
you'd
have
at
least
six
members
of
the
joint
committee
who
would
ultimately
be
voting
on
the
way.
I
understand
it,
a
recommendation
that
says
we
don't
think
any
further
action
is
is
needed.
N
We
should
bring
this
back
and
submit
a
bdr
for
the
2023
session,
which
this
resolution
would
allow
gives
them
a
bdr
or
a
recommendation
to
the
governor's
office
that
this
makes
sense
to
be
brought
back
for
a
during
a
special
session,
but
in
terms
of
how
that
decision
is
made.
The
way
I
read
it
is:
it
would
be
the
six
or
more
legislative
committee
body
who
would
be
making
that
final
vote
and
determination
on
whether
or
not
to
what
what
recommendation
to
bring
forward
so
long-winded
answer
to
answer
question.
N
C
C
So
when
you
look
at
those
discussions
that
your
legislature
is
going
to
be
involved
in,
then
you
look
at
the
timeline
that
you
hear
and
even
you
were
talking
or
we've
been
talking
about,
having
work
groups
or
hearing
sessions
out
in
the
communities.
C
Is
there
a
legal
ramification
to
that
or,
and
that's
why
I
say:
I'm
not
sure
you
can
answer
it,
but
I
hope
you
and
staff
can
understand
where
I'm
sort
of
going
forward,
considering
all
that's
in
front
of
us
that
our
scheduling
as
we
have
now
and
what
we
want
to
do,
because
I
I
I
may
be
doing
an
epistle
to
you.
This
is
a
serious
situation
or
a
serious
committee
that
we're
trying
to
develop
here
on
a
very
involved.
It's
just
not
a
simple
action.
C
What's
some
of
the
areas
and
I
think
that
will
expand
that's
my
question
is:
is:
is
there
the
time
with
this
timeline
given
to
me,
I
think
it's
too
short
personally,
that
would
be
my
stumbling
block
to
really
supporting
the
bill,
not
the
design
of
the
bill,
but
if
it
has
to
be
done
and
done
half-heartedly,
then
just
to
meet
a
deadline,
I
think
you're
going
to
get
a
poor
presentation.
Would
you
I've
got
to
make
a
question
out
of
it?
Would
you
agree
with
that.
N
N
Why
we've
chosen
not
to
try
and
press
that
piece
of
legislation
into
a
in
a
really
tight
timeline
during
this
120
day
session,
so
that
the
reason
you're
flagging
is
the
exact
reason
why
we've
we've
talked
to
leadership
and
asked
them
to
bring
this
measure
to
have
this?
N
Have
this
discussed
and
dissected
outside
of
this
120
day
session?
Again,
admittedly,
it
is
a
fast
timeline.
There
will
be
a
lot
going
on
between
now
and
then
we
came
to
the
state
following
discussions
with
leadership
and
again
I
want
opine
on
lcb's
resources.
That's
not
my
job,
but
this
is
what
we
were
told
would
would
be,
would
work
and
be
sufficient
in
the
conversations
we
had
with
leadership.
So
I
don't
know
if
I
have
anything
else
to
add
to
that.
N
You
know
in
terms
of
legal
ramifications,
for
not
having
a
report
submitted
to
the
governor
and
back
to
this
body
by
december
31st.
I
don't
believe
there
are
any
in
the
bill.
I
mean
this
is
a
concurrent
resolution
that
would
come
out
of
this
body
with
this
body's
approval,
but
there
is
language
in
that
speaks
to
the
extent
practicable
by
december
31st.
So
I
would
say
it's
not.
You
know
not
not
a
black
and
white
deadline,
but
I'm
the
bill.
The
bill
suggests
a
goal
of
december
31st.
C
I
appreciate
that
I
just
don't
see
it
as
a
suggestion.
I
see
it
as
a
drop
dead
date
and
that
that's
my
only
con.
That's
probably
my
biggest
concern
considering
the
importance
of
this
bill
and
we
want
to
do
it
right.
That's
great
that
that's
what
I
would
like
for
you
so
chair.
I
don't
know.
If
there's
a
way,
am
I
asking
an
impossible
question
there
for
the
determination
on
that
or
is
there
do
you
have
any
legals
not
here,
so
maybe
we
can
delay
for
legal.
Would
that
be
appropriate.
A
Right
we
can
certainly
ask
legal,
but
it
is
this
committee's
purview
to
vet
the
bill
and
determine
if
we
want
amendments,
if
we
want
to
follow
the
language
as
it
is
and
but
I
think,
the
simple
language,
if
you
read
the
language
it
says
say
if
possible.
So
I
think
it
would
be
up
to
the
committee
that
is
appointed.
Should
this
pass
to
determine
what's
possible.
O
Thank
you,
madam
sharon.
If
I
could
have
two
questions,
one,
mr
gill
is
first
of
all
it's
great
to
see
you
today.
I
appreciate
you
presenting
and
I'll
throw
you
a
softball
to
follow
up
on
assemblyman
o'neil's
question.
N
You
thank
you,
scott
gills,
for
the
record
through
the
chair
to
to
the
assembly
minute.
As
a
as
a
former
lawyer
in
my
previous
life,
I
wanted
to
make
sure
I
was
reading
it
correctly.
I
believe
the
way
it
reads
that
that
that
could
be
the
recommendation.
I
I
think
the
vehicle
for
doing
that
is
not
necessarily
laid
out
in
here
explicitly,
but
you
know
it
would
it's
a
legislative
committee
so.
O
And
thank
you
for
that.
My
other
question
is:
is
kind
of
along
the
same
lines
as
as
all
the
other
members
has
mentioned.
Is
that
the
time
frame
you
know
we're
knocking
on
what
hopefully
coming
out
of
a
once
in
a
decade
pandemic,
and
we've
been
discussing
this
now
for
almost
five
months,
and
I
know
that
there's
a
possibility
for
this
to
go
into
a
special
session,
and
I
just
with
all
the
conversations
and
all
the
studying
why.
N
N
If
you
know
the
committee
has
the
the
opportunity
to
to
vet
these
issues
and
hear
from
stakeholders
and
ultimately
determines
it
is
what
we
believe
it
to
be
a
an
economic
development
opportunity
for
the
state
of
nevada.
You
know
we
wouldn't
want
to
limit
them
to
not
bringing
it
sooner
than
february
of
2023.
H
H
If
this
was
to
pass
so
when
this
study
goes
on
will
will
the
members
of
the
study
be
looking
at
whether
or
not
an
innovation
zone
would
be
able
to
take
any
of
that
property
in
eminent
domain
or
through
annexation
or
like
expansions
or
whether
or
not
it
has
to
be
contiguous
without
having
islands?
I
guess
I'm
just
sort
of
worried
about
how
big
this
gets.
If
it's
a
piece
here
piece
here,
it's
here
and
then
connected
later
on,
so
would
that
be
part
of
the
study.
N
Scott
gills
for
the
record
through
the
chair
to
the
assemblywoman,
absolutely
I
mean
I
think,
any
any
piece
of
how
an
innovation
zone
can
be
created.
How
it
can
you
know,
do
things
with
land
that
is
privately
owned
will
be
discussed.
You
know,
through
that
substantive
process
of
of
the
the
joint
special
committee,
I'm
not
aware
of
any
proposal
to
date
and
again
we
don't
have
a
bill
yet,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
any
proposal
to
date.
N
That
would
allow
for
the
things
you
just
described,
but
if
those
were
concerns
that
the
committee
had
that
they
didn't
think
were
appropriate
for
that.
You
know
an
ultimate
piece
of
legislation
on
on
creating
innovation
zones
and
that
committee
would
have
that
right
to
you
know,
make
that
decision
and
put
that
in
and
ultimately
into
a
you
know,
a
bill
for
the
2023
session,
as
is
outlined
in
the
resolution.
H
Thank
you.
I
ask
another
question
and
then
my
other
question
is
looking
at
this
as
potentially
being
multiple
zones,
not
just
one,
and
I
know
that
that
the
study
would
be
whether
or
not
an
innovation
zone
should
should
be
created,
but
if
they,
if
they
were-
and
these
were
continue
were
continuous-
would
the
county
that
these
zones
may
possibly
be
in
be
included
in
all
of
these
areas,
so
that
you're,
considering
whether
or
not
okay,
is
this
workable
within
the
county
as
it
is,
does
it
need
to
be
in
an
innovation
zone?
H
Will
that
sort
of
set
up
then
be
carried
over
whenever
there
is
another
innovation
zone
applied
for?
Will
that
that
sort
of
bifurcation
of
understanding,
whether
or
not
it
can
be
done
within
the
existing
county,
or
does
it
need
to
be
an
innovation
zone?
Would
that
be
done
each
time,
or
is
that
only
this
one
overlay.
N
Scott
gills
for
the
record
through
the
chair
to
the
assembly
woman.
I
think
that's
a
great
question.
It's
a
question.
I
don't
have
an
answer
to
right
now
because
again
we
don't
have
a
you
know,
final
piece
of
legislation
we're
working
off
of,
but
that
is
exactly
the
conversation
we
want
to
have
during
the
joint
special
committee
is
to
vet
a
concern
like
that
for
a
committee
member
and
make
sure
that.
However,
it's
established
the
the
process
for
a
company
to
to
apply
for
an
innovation
zone.
N
A
I
have
some
questions
in
the
topic
section,
so
number
four
empowerment
centers.
What
what's
that
referring
to.
N
Scott
gillis
for
the
record,
the
powerman
centers,
my
understanding
of
empowerment
centers,
would
refer
to
community
centers
for
seniors
or
students,
it's
kind
of
an
all-encompassing
term.
You
know,
I
don't
know
that.
There's
any
specific
parameters
on
that
term
in
in
our
statutory
in
nrs,
so
I
think
that
could
be
defined
as
as
needed
throughout
those
discussions
during
the
joint
special
committee.
But
my
understanding
would
be
empowerment,
centers
would
be
senior
or
student
type
community,
centers.
A
Okay
and
then
staying
in
the
topic
section
under
the
counties
and
other
forms
of
local
government
is
that
including
judicial
issues
that
can
arise
if,
if
the,
if
an
innovation
zone
were
allowed
to
proceed,
yeah
would
would
court
issues
and
judicial
issues
fall
under
that.
N
Scott
gills
for
the
record.
Thank
you.
I
believe
so
I
the
list
of
topics
there,
the
the
you
know
it
really
charges
the
the
special
committee
with
looking
at
the
the
benefits
and
the
impacts
of
innovation
zones
on
the
following
things,
those
being
counties
and
other
forms
of
local
government.
So
yeah,
I
think
it's
you
know,
counties,
cities,
gids
and
you
know
any
other
type
of
quasi-governmental
agency
courts
within
that
district.
All
those
would
the
impact
and
benefits
would
be
of
those
of
any
of
those
organizations
or
governments.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
that
also,
I
know
that
tribal
the
tribal
governments
are
mentioned
in
a
few
different
places,
but
not
specifically
in
that
list.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
the
intent
is
for
them
to
be
included
there.
A
Okay
and
then
under,
and
you
and
I
discussed
this
and-
and
I
don't
know
if
you
had
a
chance
to
to
to
get
an
answer-
answer
on
the
reference
to
global
interests,
which
is
in
a
couple
places
in
the
bill.
Can
you
tell
me
what
is
global
interest.
N
Scott
gills
for
the
record-
I
I
didn't
do
a
great
job
since
this
morning
of
tracking
down
that
answer
chairwoman.
You
know,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
not
drafting
the
bill.
I'm
not
sure
what
the
exact
intention
behind
it
is.
My
belief
is
it's
referring
to
other
businesses,
international
businesses
that
could
be
potentially
recruited
to
an
innovation
zone.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
then,
and
then
mentioned
improvement
districts
and-
and
I
didn't
do
a
good
job
in
my
notes
of
writing
down
what
I
was
thinking
about,
but
the
that
I
understand
that
area
is
under
the
tri
general
improvement
district
and,
and
so
will
they
be
specifically
a
part
of
this
or
if
the
committee
were
to
exclude
them,
would
they
be
excluded
like
how?
How
is
that
all
in
working.
N
Sure
great
questions,
scott
gills
for
the
record.
I
expect-
and
I
hope
that
that
general
improvement
improvement
district
is
heavily
involved
in
these
discussions.
A
Okay,
thank
you
and
yeah,
and
then
I
guess
I
just
want
to
echo
the
concerns
that
have
been
mentioned
by
some
people
on
the
committee
about
the
timeline.
A
When
I
think
about
the
water
law
issues
alone,
I
think
getting
people
up
to
speed
on
that
would
could
possibly
take
six
meetings
over
six
months,
but
with
that
I
will
move
on
and
have
the
vice
chair.
Ask
her
questions.
K
K
N
You
know
conversations
that
our
our
office
had,
you
know
related
to
a
potential
project
that
would
need
this
type
of
framework
to
work.
You
know,
based
on
projections,
we
saw
in
terms
of
jobs
and
and
indirect
output,
direct
output,
wages,
potential
taxation
and
revenue
it
was
worth
pursuing.
N
I
mean
that's
ultimately
what
brought
us
to
the
point
of
the
governor
speaking
about
in
the
state
of
the
state
and
working
on
a
bill
draft
that
we
submitted
to
to
lcb,
and
ultimately
you
know,
knowing
that
you
know
there
was
never
a
version
of
the
world
where
the
first
bill
that
we
submitted
was
was
going
to
be
the
final
version,
because
this
is
a
complex
topic,
so
we
you
know,
we
we
didn't.
We
haven't
had
that
opportunity
and
we
don't.
K
Okay,
I
I
was
actually
thinking
of
something
different.
I
think
of
how
we
got
to
now
is
the
fact
that
everything
that
you're
enumerating
kind
of
one
through
one
through
eight
in
the
document
of
things
that
you
want
the
special
committee
to
consider
are,
I
look
at
it
and
I
kind
of
see
it
as
a
conversation.
That
is,
that
is
long
overdue.
K
When
you
look
at
that
list,
which
is
how
do
we
organize
and
manage
ourselves,
how
do
we
have
some
planning
around
how
we
grow
and
how
do
we
make
sure
all
needs
are
being
met
as
we
grow,
and
I
think
that
it's
a
conversation
that
has
been
missing
from
this
area
of
the
state
that
kind
of
comprehensive
conversation,
both
retroactive
and
forward-looking,
to
say,
we
have
impacts
that
come
when
we
do
these
kinds
of
projects,
and
you
know
what
we
ought
to
do
is
we
ought
to
study
those
impacts
before
we
move
forward,
and
so
we
have
kind
of
an
eyes
wide,
open,
public
policy
approach
and-
and
and
that's
a
piece
of
this-
that
I'm
extremely
interested
in
my
experience
has
been
without
a
whole
conversation
about
how
you
plan
and
how
you
grow
and
how
you
bring
in
a
business
is
that
you
end
up
with
a
a
bunch
of
one-off
conversations
so
I'll.
K
Take
the
the
example
of
around
the
the
natural
resources
and
environment
so
and
the
regional
water
supplies
without
comprehensive
planning.
K
In
the
past
administration,
I
remember
being
called
very
swiftly
to
an
emergency
ifc
meeting,
so
we
could
contemplate
the
bonding
of
the
water
line
to
bring
the
effluent
from
the
the
reno
sparks
area
from
sparks
out
into
the
the
trick
area
and
then
a
lot
of
good
conversations
that
we
should
have
had
about
water
management
who's
paying
for
that
water
who's,
not
paying
for
that
water.
K
How
that
water's,
coming
in
and
who's
who's,
bonding
and
and
all
of
those
conversations
are
happening
really
hot
and
quick
in
an
afternoon
committee
and
then
we're
just
hoping
that
everything
kind
of
plays
out
well
right
when
we
talk
about
affordable
housing.
If
we
talk
about
how
we
grow
and
how
we
want
to
grow,
I
think
we
all
feel
like
we're
being
negligent
if
we
don't
talk
about
affordable
housing
and
so
to
me,
the
pieces
of
this,
I
really
like,
is
their
conversations
about
how
we
grow
in
a
way.
That's
right.
K
For
these
other
things,
it's
economic
development
saying
as
long
as
we're
growing
and
bringing
a
company
in
then
we've
landed
the
plane
in
mission
solved
without
the
conversation
about
infrastructure
surrounding
that
development,
and
that's
where
how
I
feel
like
we
got
to
now
is
because
those
conversations
have
been
missing
and-
and
I
like
this
as
a
recognition
that
it's
time
to
sit
down
and
think
about
how
things
play
out
before
we
as
legislators,
push
a
button
and
then
just
watch
it
play
out
and
realize.
Oh,
my
gosh,
we
don't,
we
don't
have
housing
out
there.
N
If
I,
if
I
may,
scott
gills
for
the
record
through
the
chart
of
the
vice
chair,
I
agree
100.
I
misunderstood
your
question,
but
I
think
those
are
valuable
questions
to
have.
I
think
a
a
proposal
of
this
magnitude
that
you
know
doesn't
include
tax,
abatements
and
incentives,
but
does
does
include
a
pretty
significant
change
in
in
policy
and
and
the
creation
of
what
is
a
a
new
type
of
local
government
or
an
expanded
gid
in
the
economic
development
sense
does
necessitate
these
these
conversations.
N
K
I
know
there
are
some
conversations
about
workshops
and
such
and-
and
I
understand
that
I
would
say,
though,
that
you
want
it
to
all
conversations
to
be
had
on
the
legislative
record,
because
that's
where
the
minutes
are
kept
and
that's
where
the
official
minutes
are
kept
work
workshops,
members,
they're,
not
staffed
and
minutes
aren't
kept.
Even
if
we
just
devolved
this
committee
into
a
workshop,
where
you
know
the
staff
don't
keep
minutes
and
we
you
don't,
have
an
accurate
record
of
that
other
than
what
someone
happens
to
write
down
on
a
piece
of
paper.
K
So
I
think
the
more
you
keep
this
within
that
traditional
committee
system,
the
the
better,
because
that's
where
the
resources
are
and
having
worked
on
some
committees
like
this
before
you
you
do
want,
you
do
want
the
resources
of
the
legislature.
You
want
access
to
your
legal.
You
want
access
to
your
policy
drafters,
all
those
wonderful
things
that
insulate
legislators
to
help
us
make
good
decisions.
N
Scott
gillis
for
the
record.
Thank
you
vice
chair,
I
I
I
tend
to
agree
with
you.
I,
the
concept
of
the
public
workshops
was
brought
up
in
the
other
house,
and
you
know
it's
my
opinion
of
the
resolution
that
it
wouldn't
preclude
that.
But
ultimately
it
will
be
the
this
body
and
the
committee's
decision
on
how
to
run
those
committees
and
the
the
length
of
the
meetings,
the
frequency
et
cetera
above
and
beyond.
N
You
know,
at
least
one
per
month
is
laid
out
in
the
the
resolution,
but
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
again
I'll
I'll
make
a
pitch
that
the
executive
branch
and
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
is,
is
here
to
assist
and
be
a
resource
for
these
committee
meetings.
To
the
extent
this
body
wants
us
to
and
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
O
The
majority
leader
in
the
the
chairwoman's
line
of
questions
actually
got
me
looking
at
this
a
little
bit
deeper,
and
I
know
that
I
believe
it's
the
third,
whereas
talks
about
all
of
the
stakeholders-
and
it
mentioned
the
majority
leader-
mentioned
the
water
concerns.
Obviously
I
for
the
full
disclosure
I
run
a
private
water
company,
and-
and
so
I
do
see
that
that
could
be
a
big
big
component
of
this.
O
I
noticed,
though,
that
we're
listing
water
authorities
and
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
there's
only
two
water
authorities
in
the
state,
and
so
I
just
would
like
to
make
sure
that
we're
we're
not
limited
to
that,
because
I
believe
most
of
the
smaller
counties
have
water
districts
kind
of
a
smaller
scale
of
the
water
authorities,
and
so
I
just
I
just
like
to
have
it
on
the
record
that
they
will
still
have
the
ability
to
have
a
seat
at
the
table,
as
these
in
innovation
zones
potentially
could
be
anywhere
throughout
the
entire
state.
N
Scott
gills
for
the
record,
through
the
chart
of
the
assemblyman
again
having
not
drafted
the
bill.
I
can't
speak
to
the
actual
intention
of
the
bill
language,
but
that
is
our
intention,
at
least
from
the
governor's
office,
that
any
impacted
water
authority
or
water
company
who
who
needs
to
have
a
say
in
these
discussions,
would
absolutely
have
a
say
in
these
discussions.
O
Just
for
clarification,
I
wasn't
referencing
water
companies.
I
was
trying
to
reference
the
water
districts.
Excuse
me:
water
districts,
specifically
lincoln
water,
district
and
knight
county
has
a
water
district
as
well.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
it
was
on
the
record
for
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
we
will
move
on
to
any
support
in
the
room.
B
B
P
Hello,
my
name
is
chris
bossie,
that's
b-o-s-s-e
for
the
record,
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
renowned
health,
to
stand
in
support
of
fdr
11..
We
believe
a
study
to
evaluate
innovation
zones
and
their
potential
impact
on
economic
and
workforce
development
is
of
significant
importance
to
nevada.
As
we
look
at
ways
to
grow
the
nevada
economy,
we
urge
your
support
of
fdr
11
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
participate.
B
P
P-A-T-R-I-C-K-P-O-I-L-E-A-U,
the
operating
engineers,
local
three
and
the
nevada
building
trades
stand
strongly
in
support
of
this
bill.
We
think
that
a
holistic
look
at
development,
including
workforce
development,
is
exactly
what
nevada
needs
and
we
urge
you
to
pass
this
building.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
P
My
name
is
vince
cevadra,
that's
v-I-n-c-e,
savadra
s-a-a-b-e-d-r-a,
representing
iron
workers
in
the
state
of
nevada.
We
just
want
to
let
you
know
we're
in
support
of
this
bill.
Thank
you.
B
P
Good
afternoon
rob
benner
r-o-b
b-e-n-n-e-r
with
the
northern
nevada
building
trades
a
project
this
size
will
benefit
the
entire
state,
not
just
northern
nevada,
and
will
keep
our
workforce
working
in
the
event
of
another
downturn.
We
believe
this
project
is
worth
your
study
and
consideration
energy
to
support
scr11.
B
A
C
Sorry,
madam
chair,
I
was
in
another
committee
that
just
finished
up
just
want
to
testify
in
support
of
this
bill
on
behalf
of
operating
engineers,
local
12
and
local
3..
We
see
this
as
a
great
opportunity
for
the
state
of
nevada.
We
see
it
as
a
job
opportunity
for
everyone
in
northern
nevada,
certainly
and
and
to
benefit
the
state
as
a
whole,
so
we're
in
support.
A
Thank
you,
okay,
seeing
no
one
else
in
support,
we
will
go
to
opposition.
Let's
start
with
opposition
in
the.
Q
Q
Q
At
a
time
when
our
state
is
facing
an
affordable
housing
crisis,
lack
of
access
to
adequate,
affordable
health
care
and
a
poorly
funded
public
education
system.
It
is
grievously
inappropriate
to
spend
time
studying
a
proposal
to
give
a
billionaire
ceo,
an
unproven
company,
their
own
autonomous
government.
We've
been
here
before
I've.
Seen
this
my
entire
life
in
this
state.
Q
We
went
through
this
with
the
raiders
stadium,
where
proponents
assured
us
that,
if
you
just
build
it,
they
will
come
and
that
it
wouldn't
cost
the
nevada
taxpayers
very
much
at
all
that
clearly
didn't
last,
as
we
told
you
all
it,
wouldn't
we
went
through
it
with
faraday
futures
who
promised
investments
and
jobs
that
clearly
collapsed
quickly
and
now
henderson
is
meeting
with
the
oakland
athletics
this
week
to
possibly
spend
even
more
tax
dollars
on
yet
another
stadium.
I
have
to
ask:
when
are
we
going
to
learn?
Q
We
already
know
this
blockchain
quasi
county
would
require
stealing
water
from
local
tribal
communities
who
were
not
consulted
before
blockchain
started,
buying
up
the
rights.
It
also
raises
serious
concerns
about
the
return
of
company
towns,
which
is
exactly
what
this
is
regardless,
how,
regardless
of
how
you
tried
to
dress
it
up?
Q
While
this
resolution
only
requires
the
study
of
this
proposal,
we
remain
extremely
concerned
that
the
proper
input
will
not
be
sought,
nor
that
input
will
be
needed
in
future.
Whatever
the
final
report
concludes
this
legislature
and
this
committee
has
the
ability
to
reject
this
ridiculous
concept
here
and
now
and
focus
on
other
priorities
that
would
benefit
struggling
nevadans.
My
dad
has
always
taught
me
that
if
something
is
too
good
to
be
true,
it
usually
is.
Q
Q
Please
vote
no
on
scr
11
and
have
a
real
conversation
about
raising
revenue
in
a
sustainable
long-term
way
and
supporting
nevadans
who
are
suffering
like
agr1,
instead
of
another
handout
to
a
corporation.
That
will
fail,
like
all
the
previous
ones
have
by
the
way
the
raiders
stadium
just
took
out
another
payment
from
the
county
this
week.
Thank
you.
R
Thank
you,
madam
chair
chris
daley
nevada,
state
education,
association,
first,
just
a
quick
word
about
public
schools,
and
I
know
that
we
have
a
career
teacher
and
chair
of
the
education
committee
in
the
room.
We
know
that
schools
are
here
to
educate
our
kids
in
communities.
R
R
In
fact,
public
education
comes
out
of
really
the
goals
of
a
democratic
society
from
the
late
1800s
to
prepare
people
to
become
responsible
citizens
to
improve
social
conditions,
promote
cultural
unity
and
the
like
public
schools
really
are
a
huge
part
of
the
common
good
in
this
country,
and
so
I
say
that
in
reference
to
scr
11
in
opposition,
largely
because
of
the
failure
of
this
resolution
to
contemplate,
consider
highlight
the
role
of
public
education
or
public
schools
in
the
creation
of
a
new
city
or
a
new
county
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
innovation
zones.
R
Certainly
I
would
say
if
you
do
decide
to
move
forward
with
the
discussion.
We
would
implore
you
at
the
very
least,
to
amend
this
resolution
to
make
sure
that
public
schools,
public
education
are
forefront
in
any
contemplation
of
creating
a
new
place
that
has
any
semblance
of
community
in
the
state
of
nevada.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
B
B
L
L
Good
afternoon
again,
chair
cohen
members
of
the
committee
dagny
stapleton
executive
director
of
naco,
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
We
are
neutral
on
str11
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
provide
testimony
today
when
the
idea
of
innovation
zones
was
introduced.
The
proponents
did
reach
out
and
presented
their
concept
and
preliminary
language
to
counties.
At
that
time,
county
representatives
made
clear
that
we
had
a
handful
of
concerns
about
innovation
zones.
L
S
S
We
appreciate
the
study
would
include
impacts
to
local
revenue
and
taxes,
not
just
state
revenues,
because,
while
the
proponents
have
stated
that
there's
no
impact
on
state
revenue
or
abatements,
there
is
substantial
impact
on
local
revenues
and
local
taxes.
We
also
appreciate
the
study
will
include
the
impacts
to
counties.
Thank
you,
madam
chairman.
A
Please
go
ahead,
go
ahead.
Vice
chair.
K
Thank
you
so
much.
I
wanted
to
ask
a
little
bit
more
to
make
sure
that
we
had
it
clear
for
the
record,
miss
walker.
You
mentioned
the
local
impact
and
impact
to
local
local
jurisdiction.
Local
taxes,
I'm
assuming
you
mean
lost
revenue
is,
but
I
don't
want
to
misinterpret.
Is
that
what
you
mean.
S
For
the
record,
mary
walker,
yes,
there's
a
couple
of
of
ways
that
this
can
impact
a
local
revenues
first
off
in
the
mr
burns.
Blockchain
llc
proposal
would
take
approximately
40
percent
of
story,
county's
land
away
from
them,
if
with
into
another,
basically
county
that
takes
away
the
future
growth
of
the
community.
S
The
other
thing
that
happens
is
in
section
35
of
the
mr
burns
blockchain
llc
proposal.
Is
it
states
that
if,
if
the
blockchain
company
is
is
building
their
city
and
they're
paying
sales
tax
and
local
sales
tax?
S
That
is
part
of
the
consolidated
tax
section,
35
says
the
following
year:
the
executive
director
of
the
department
of
taxation
will
reimburse
all
of
those
local
taxes
back
to
it
says
the
innovation
zones,
but
because
it's
going
to
be
operated
by
two
members
of
the
blockchain
group,
then
it's
the
majority
of
the
members
would
get
the
benefit
of
those
dollars
back.
In
addition,
there's
another
concern,
and-
and
this
has
been
discussed-
and
that
is
the
concern
that-
and
we
can
provide
a
map
to
you.
S
Madam
vice
chair,
if
you
look
at
the
map
of
the
area,
the
blockchain
land
is
about
57,
000
acres
and
it
does
create
islands
of
the
google.
For
example,
google
is
totally
an
island
with
the
blockchain
land
all
around
it
in
tesla
it
it
looks
like
it's
about.
Maybe
three
quarters
of
the
land
is
surrounding
tesla
is
the
mr
burns
blockchain
llc
property,
so
the
concern
is,
is
this?
S
Is
this
proposal
going
to
allow
annexation
of
tesla
google
switch
to
this
new
county,
and
if
it
is,
then,
basically
what
would
happen
is
tesla
right
now
has
two
couple
of
different
abatements
one's
on
property
tax,
it's
for
10
years,
and
it
comes
up
and
goes
away
in
a
cup
about
three
or
so
years.
From
now
the
sales
tax
abatement
is,
it
was
a
20-year
abatement.
That's
13
years
from
now
it
will
go
away.
S
S
So
if
that
happens,
and
all
of
that
those
tesla
taxes
goes
to
this
new
jurisdiction,
this
new
county,
they
would
be
able
to
use
it
for
the
development
costs
as
an
example
to
put
in
sewer
water
roads
that
a
developer
would
normally
have
to
do
so.
They're
taking
in
in
my
mind,
story,
county
taxpayers,
local
taxpayers,
dollars
and
they're
going
to
be
giving
it
to
a
developer
to
pay
for
its
developer
costs.
So
there's
some
tremendous
effects:
okay,.
K
I
had
a
question
and
maybe
tax
staff.
You
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
You
mentioned
the
the
abatements
from
tesla
the
property
tax
piece
and
then
the
sales
tax
piece,
and
they
do
have
staggering
timelines
when
they
end
one
is
ending
in
up
in
a
couple
of
years,
but
then
I
believe
another,
I
think
that's
the
property
tax,
but
then
the
the
sales
tax
has
an
additional
extension
on
that
is.
Is
that
right.
F
Madam
chair,
this
is
russ
again
with
physical
analysis,
division
yeah,
the
my
from
memory
here,
the
property
tax
abatements
for
tesla
were
10
years,
and
so,
as
ms
walker
stated,
I
believe
it's
2024
thereabouts
that
then
the
property
tax
abatements
will
be
expiring
and
then
those
taxes
will
begin
being
paid
well
being
paid
and
distributed
according
to
the
property
tax
distribution
provisions
and
and
from
memory.
The
sales
tax
abatements,
I
believe,
are
20
years.
F
That's
right,
and
so
then
there
will
be
another
20
years
past
that
2024
period
that
the
sales
tax
abatements
will
still
be
in
place.
K
Perfect
and
the
and-
and
I'm
glad
you
mentioned
those
because
when
we
talk
about
tesla,
we
talk
about
all
those
ones.
Those
are
projects
that
that
came
to
be
specifically
through
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
so
the
state
kind
of
making
that
investment
and
saying
we
aren't
going.
We
are
going
to
forego
the
collection
of
these
taxes
and
the
state
general
fund
being
able
to
to
to
earn
these
revenues,
knowing
that
in
2024
down
the
line,
revenues
will
be
coming
in.
K
I
I
for
fun
and
well
actually
the
whole
committee
we
heard
about
the
demographers
report
as
it
relates
to
taxes
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff,
and
when
you
look
through
there
and
it
looks
through
the
projections
of
growth
for
story,
county
there's
not
much
growth
in
population,
it
looks
to
stay
about
the
same.
So
in
about
2024.
When
those
property
taxes
end,
it
looks
like
the
population
is
going
to
still
be
about
eight
and
a
half
thousand
people,
9
000
people
is
that
right.
S
T
T
The
board
of
story
county
commissioners
in
2006,
with
unanimous
approval
of
the
planning
commission-
or
let
me
just
say
you-
approve
all
the
planning
commission
just
to
make
sure
the
record's
correct,
approved
a
major
planned
unit.
Development
at
painted
rock
in
story
county
for
mixed-use
residential
commercial
community
because
of
the
state
of
the
economy
in
2008
and
beyond.
That
project
was
not
able
to
be
built,
and
at
this
point
there
would
be
the
availability
for
somebody
to
come
and
build
that
community.
In
fact,
I'll
speak
a
little
bit
later.
K
I
appreciate
that
so
is
that
I
guess
that
I
and
thank
you,
because
you
were
so
kind
as
to
earlier
in
a
different
conversation
with
me-
share
that
that
master
plan
that
you
have,
but
it
looked
like
we're
correct
me
frame-
run
we're
kind
of
ten
years
out
from
that
bump
in
residence.
Or
so
I
guess
from
the
time
you
everything
gets
approved,
planned
built,
permitted
occupied,
and
my
am
I
my
fair
very
far
off.
I
might
be
for
our
office.
T
Austin
osborne
for
the
record,
I'm
happy
to
answer
your
question.
So
at
this
point
you
know
that
we
can
only
move
as
fast
as
a
developer
will
apply
at
this
time.
We
do
not
have
an
application
for
a
development
of
that
nature
in
that
area
in
story
county.
If
an
application
were
to
come
in
now
today,
then
we
would
start
processing
that
immediately.
So
we
make
sure
the
development
application
is
complete.
T
We
have
county
code
that
guides
us
through
that
process,
and
then
we
go
through
the
process
of
subdividing
planned
unit
development
and
in
the
zoning
that
would
be
necessary.
There
is
no
master
plan
amendment
needed
for
this.
In
fact,
the
maps
of
the
master
plan
call
this
a
transition
area
at
painted
rock,
and
that
me
that
specifies
in
the
language
of
the
master
plan,
that
a
zone
or
a
master
plan
amendment
to
something
else
is
not
required
immediately.
T
K
So,
a
little
bit
further
than
a
no
no
known
developer
right
now,
it's
not
like
we're
out
there
breaking
ground
right
now,
so
so
we're
we're
the
county's
quite
a
bit
off
from
having
a
master
planned
community
built.
So
when
I'm,
when
I'm
sitting
here
as
a
legislator
and
I'm
thinking
about
what
does
affordable
housing
look
like
or
just
housing
general
for
the
county,
look
like
I
sh.
I
should
or
should
not
be
envisioning
something
in
the
next
in
the
next
decade
and.
T
Then
you
would
like
I'll
answer
that
austin
osborne
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
It's
a
good
question.
It's
probably
the
most
important
question
out
of
all
of
this.
If
they
were
to
do
it,
we
don't
believe
it
would
take
10
years
to
get
a
project
like
that
going.
We
have
a
very
short
window
of
period
of
time
that
it
takes
for
us
to
go
through
the
planning,
commission
and
county
commission.
T
K
T
That's
why
we
wrote
our
master
plan
in
2016
to
specify
exactly
what
we'd
like
this
community
to
look
like
and
to
answer
your
question
on
affordable
housing.
One
of
the
reasons
we
wanted
this
to
be
a
high
density,
mixed-use
kind
of
urban
type
of
environment
is
exactly
for
affordable
housing.
We
like
to
see
multi-family
we
like
to
see
single
family
in
a
dense
community
core
and
then,
as
you
grow
from
that
core
becomes
significantly
less
dense,
we're
not
looking
for
ranch
houses
on
one
acre
parcels
with
horses
on
that
property.
T
We
have
places
in
story
county
for
that.
We
want
to
protect
those
areas
for
that.
This
area
is
the
workforce
area
for
the
tahoe
reno
industrial
center.
It's
for
the
millennials,
the
generation
z's,
the
high-tech
people,
people
that
want
to
live
very
close
to
the
innovation
that
they're
doing
out
at
tri-center.
Now
we
have
set
it
up
for
that,
an
app,
a
developer
that
once
can
come
and
build
that
project
and
build
like
this
rendition.
They
have
with
high-rise
buildings
and
very
small
spaces
to
live
in
with
open
space.
K
Okay,
but
so
at
some
point,
that's
where
you
hope
to
land,
but
for
right
now,
the
workforce
that
is
out
there
is
mostly
a
commuter
workforce.
But
at
some
point
the
goal
in
and
down
the
road
would
be
to
be
able
to
house,
have
housing
supply
out
their
workforce
and
not
to
be
a
commuter
county.
K
Only
well
we're
sorry
while
we're
waiting
for
that
to
happen.
I
guess
we
have
a
big
change
coming
in
2024
when
those
abatements
start
the
abatements
of
those
taxes,
property
taxes
start
coming
off
of
line.
So
what?
What
do
things
like?
Look
like
in
once?
Those
property
taxes
start
come
online
for
the
county.
T
At
this
point,
austin
osborne
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question,
so
we're
looking
at
that
at
this
point,
there's
some
capital
improvements
that
we
need
to
look
at
inside
story
county,
there's
a
lot
of
deferred
things
that
have
occurred.
You
know
in
our
county
buildings
and
our
senior
services
and
facilities.
T
K
T
K
That
was
that
was
created
right
and
I
think
you
authored
the
the
first
report
on
the
the
water
for
the
I'm
gonna,
say
water
company,
but
that's
probably
the
bad
term
of
art,
but
that
gid,
the
general
improvement
district
specifically
for
water
and
that
coming
in
and
remind
me
because
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
get
it
wrong,
but
the
the
water
rights
assessment-
evaluation
in
that
was
it
around.
K
T
K
K
S
K
I'm
sorry,
I'm
talking
specifically
about
the
the
effluent
coming
from
washington
front
carming
from
sparks
all
right,
the
pipeline
that
the
state
bonded
to
bring
that
into
story
county
and
so
now
that's
an
asset
of
story,
county
and
so
my
recollection
is,
is
that
there
was
no
payment
for
those
water
rights,
because
that
was
part
of
the
deal.
But
when
we
evaluate
those
water
rights
as
an
asset
that
the
gid
has
it's,
I
want
to
say,
215
million
or
200
million.
T
K
It's
a
different
piece.
I
think
I
I
want
to
yeah
come
on
down
and
I've
got.
I
left
the
the
binder
in
my
office,
but
I've
I've
got
it,
so
I
can
make
sure
that
I
get
comments
to
staff
that
are
are
more
specific,
but
I'm
sure
someone
has
that
I
in
I'll
and
I'll
and
I'll.
Let
you
talk
to
that.
Miss
massadler.
K
I
think
the
piece
that
I'm
holding
in
my
head
as
I
look
at
this
and
once
again
saying
that
we're
begging
the
question
of
impacts,
we're
begging,
the
the
question
of
impacts
of
economic
development
and
we're
begging
the
question
of
all
of
the
pieces
of
quality
of
life,
including
resources
around
this,
that
this
committee
might
look
at
that.
Some
things
that
I
would
hope
would
be
considered
and
talked
about
are
the
in
the
same
way
that
the
state
has
supported
and
brought
supports
to
encourage
economic
development
for
story
county
as
a
county.
K
Then
then,
the
same
conversation
has
to
be
about
the
the
impacts
to
the
state
and
the
surrounding
counties
as
well,
and
so
those
conversations
about
timelines
and
how
things
look
over
the
next
decade
are
going
to
be
really
important.
What
does
story
county?
Look
like
it's
going
to
be
a
county.
That's
going
to
have
arguably
a
very
healthy
property
tax
revenue,
starting
in
2024,
but
also
I'm
going
to
want
to
know.
K
Then,
when
does
affordable,
housing
and
housing
for
that
workforce
over
there
happen,
because
otherwise
the
impacts
are
all
lying
on
the
counties
to
the
west
of
it.
They're
lying
in
the
counties
where
I
live,
and
so
important
to
this
conversation
for
would
be
how
what
are
these
time
frames
look
like
and
then
also
the
support
that
the
state
has
has
given
to
the
county.
Usa
parkway.
I
think
we
built
out
there
in
the
tesla
special
session.
I
believe
that
was
30
million
dollars
that
road
we
put
out
there
and
then
the
bonding.
K
Now
I
I
think,
just
as
we
talk
about
impacts
and
things
that
have
worked
well,
I
think
it's
also
time
to
talk
about.
You
know
reciprocity
as
well,
because
we
have
to
have
an
idea
of
what
this
region
looks
like.
We
have
to
have
an
idea
of
what
this
area
looks
like
and,
and
I
don't
want-
I
don't
think
I
think
we're
dealing
with
a
lot
of
healthy
and
resilient
organizations
in
the
room.
I
think
of
story
county
as
being
healthy
and
resilient.
K
K
Innovation
zones,
yes
or
no,
what's
happening
with
story
county.
How
these
dovetail
are
not
on
supports
that
the
state
has
put
in
out
there
and
investments
we've
made
in
economic
development
by
taking.
You
know,
foregoing
revenues
that
we've
collected
as
well.
So
to
me,
that's
where
I
don't
know
of
another
place
where
you're
going
to
have
all
those
conversations
other
than
something
like
this.
F
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
through
you
to
the
majority
leader,
my
name
is
sarah
adler,
with
silver
state
government
relations
and
today,
representing
the
tri-gid
and
to
your
specific
question.
I
am
in
technology-based
communication
with
sherry
whelan,
who
is
the
general
manager
and
professional
engineer
out
at
tri-gid
and
if
she
responds
during
this
meeting
today,
I
will
share
that
information
with
the
committee.
Otherwise
I
will
follow
up
with
you
on
the
value
of
the
effluent.
F
Ms
wayland
does
reference
that
we
also
collaborate
on
management
of
an
additional
4
000
acre
feet
of
treated
effluent
under
contract
to
serve
an
expansive
and
innovative
regional
water
reuse
system
that
is
currently
under
construction.
So,
as
you're
aware,
that
is
a
collaborative
effort
with
truckee
meadows
water
authority,
but
to
your
question,
we
will
follow
up
with
your
information.
I
would
just
like
to
acknowledge,
while
I'm
here
at
the
table,
that
the
issues
that
try
gid
presented
in
their
letter,
which
you
see
as
an
exhibit,
are
related
to
questions
that
you
have
already
asked.
F
A
Mr
osborne,
while
you're
up
there,
can
you
just
give
the
committee
a
little
bit
of
information
about
timelines
for
zoning
and
planning
and
building
in
story
county?
I
mean,
I
think
story
county
has
a
reputation
for
getting
projects
built
quickly
compared
to
other
counties,
and
so
can
you
just
give
us
a
little
bit
of
that
just
to
make
sure
we
we
do
understand
what
that
is
and
what
it
would
be
for
a
company
to
come
in
and
want
to
do
this
type
of
project.
T
Austin
osborne
for
the
record
I'd
be
happy
to
chairwoman
cohen.
Thank
you
for
the
question
we
just
off
the
cuff,
without
looking
at
all
of
our
zoning
again
and
everything
but
180
day,
process
or
less
is
about
what
it
takes
by
the
time
you
come
through
and
you
get
your
application
reviewed,
make
sure
it
meets
the
necessary
criteria
and
then
you
go
through
the
planning
commission
county
commission
through
your
subdivision
plan,
unit
development,
etc.
Some
of
that
would
also
be
dependent
on
how
ready
the
developer
is
with
their
plans
and
what
they're
submitting.
A
T
I'm
austin
osborne
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
I
don't
know
exactly
what
goes
on
in
other
counties,
but
I
know
when
we
were
looking
at
our
ordinances,
particularly
title
16
and
17,
that
deals
with
zoning
planning
and
development
and
subdivisions
and
all
the
things
associated
with
them.
We
did
a
survey
of
what
other
counties
were
doing
particularly
washoe
and
lyon.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
and
so
I'm
feel
free.
If
you
wanted
to
make
your
statement
or
if
you're
done.
T
Thank
you,
I'd
be
happy
to
are
there
other
questions
on
this
and,
if
not
I'd,
be
happy
to
answer
any
further.
When
I'm
doing
my
testimony.
T
Okay,
thank
you
once
again,
austin
osborne
for
the
record,
I'm
the
county
manager
for
story
county,
so
story
county.
At
this
point,
we
are
expressing
a
neutral
position
on
this
situation,
and
I
just
want
to
remind
this
board
that
four
times
the
board
of
story,
county
commissioners
voted
and
also
directed
staff
and
lobbyists
to
support
elements
of
what's
being
proposed
here
and
then
to
oppose
others.
As
far
as
technology
goes
cryptocurrency,
stable
coin,
you
name
it
as
long
as
the
state
of
nevada
puts
in
the
necessary.
T
You
know,
structure
in
place
to
manage
those
resources
appropriately,
we're
totally
in
support
of
it.
No
problem
as
far
as
housing
goes
I'll
talk
about
briefly
in
a
little
bit.
The
story
county
commissioners,
in
accordance
with
the
master
plan,
have
supported
the
ideas
of
housing
out
of
painted
rock,
as
far
as
the
separation
from
local
government
and
everything
related
to
the
commissioners
are
strongly
opposed
to
that.
T
We
believe
that
if
an
interim
study
does
move
forward,
that
we're
going
to
find
that
really
it's
not
necessary
or
appropriate
for
this
method
to
move
things
forward
with
what
I
think
the
goals
are
in
place
here
and
we
said
before,
and
I
think
we'll
apply
it
to
two
things
that
are
based
on
discussion
today,
that
we
really
are
the
innovation
zone.
Already.
T
We've
said
that
in
the
past,
because
we
really
believe
it-
you
look
at
tesla,
google
switch
about
20
million
other
square
feet
of
companies
out
at
tahoe,
reno
industrial
center
and
otherwise
really
prove
it.
They've
come
to
us
because
we're
fast
we're
expedient
we're,
not
we're
easy
to
work
with,
and
then
the
proponents
talk
about
a
sandbox.
You
know
where
the
best
minds
of
the
world
can
work
on
innovative
technology
and
those
sorts
of
things,
and
we
couldn't
agree
more
that
story.
County
is
the
best
place
for
that
to
happen.
T
Our
zoning
out
there,
all
of
it
supports
that
going
back
to
water.
You
know
we
put
the
tax
increment
area
together
and
supported
the
affluent
line
transfer.
We
believe
that
this
provided
washoe
reno
sparks
about
a
hundred
million
dollars
benefit
by
not
having
to
build
a
water
treatment
facility
that
would
treat
nitrates
to
the
level
that
are
required
by
the
epa.
T
Instead,
they
send
that
affluent
water
to
tri-center
for
industrial
development
and,
at
the
same
time
tri-center
or
the
tri-gid,
whichever
donated
1500,
acre
feet
upstream
of
clean
water
to
be
put
back
into
the
river,
so
that
not
only
was
the
dirty
water
not
going
in,
but
also
clean
water
was
going
in
to
further
clarify
epa
standards
for
the
truckee
river.
So
it's
really.
We
were
excited
about
it
because
everybody
benefited
story.
County
tri,
center,
reno
sparks
wash
show.
It
was
an
amazing
project,
that's
good
for
everybody,
and
then
we
supported
sb1.
T
If
you
remember
that
this
legislature
approved
in
the
past
with
regard
to
data
centers
and
and
allowing
that
innovative
technology
to
come
to
northern
nevada
and
all
these
companies,
including
the
blockchains
group,
will
get
the
same
treatment
as
the
other.
The
guaranteed
30-day
building
permit
the
five-day
grading
permit
and
then,
following
all
necessary
state
regulation,
all
that
for
making
sure
environmental
matters
are
concerned
are
covered.
T
The
second
thing
that's
most
important.
I
think
in
this
conversation
is
really
housing.
That's
being
brought
up,
and
I
kind
of
want
to
put
a
special
emphasis
on
that
is.
The
board
of
county
commissioners
has
expressed,
and
we
do
hear
that
we're
in
support
of
the
housing
and
the
smart
city
quote
unquote,
that's
being
proposed,
but
I
think
what's
more
important
about
that.
T
Is
that
the
2016
master
plan,
that's
written
with
goals
and
objectives
and
illustrations
and
narrative
writing
to
describe
what
this
community
is
to
be
like
at
painted
rock,
I
think,
is
it's
a
written
document
that
was
not
only
written
by
staff
approved
by
the
board
and
the
planning
commission
and
went
through
an
exhaustive
seven
year
process
with
three
years
of
intensity
through
all
of
our
communities
and
our
communities
all
supported
this
and
then,
even
more
so
in
2006,
a
proposal
to
build
mixed-use
residential
kind
of
like
a
modern
high-density
housing
development
was
approved
by
the
story
county
commissioners
and
by
the
planning
commission,
as
this
is
what
we
want
to
see
and
because
of
the
state
of
the
economy.
T
Unfortunately,
it
wasn't
able
to
get
built.
So
we
wrote
that
master
plan
to
not
only
support
it,
but
it
even
references
that
2006
project
to
show
this
is
really
what
we
want.
We
did
it
before.
Please
support
doing
it
again
and
the
renditions
I
said
before,
of
high
density
and
high-rise,
stainless
steel
and
all
the
exciting
things
that
you
see
in
the
smart
city,
renditions
that
you
see
with
the
blockchains
group
and
r
and
r
partners.
T
This
is
what
we
would
like
to
see
for
painted
rock
we're,
not
looking
for
ranch
houses
on
horse
properties
and
equestrian.
We
have
places
for
that.
We
want
to
see
this
kind
of
thing
as
a
workforce,
development
generation,
z,
generation,
millennial,
people
that
are
working
out
at
try
and,
more
importantly,
people
that
are
really
interve
and
are
interested
in
innovative
technology
and
doing
things.
T
We
do
provide
a
reminder
that
this
type
of
development
is
developer
driven.
We
are
a
county,
we
can't
build
it,
but
we
can
support
those
who
do
want
to
come
build
it,
and
I
want
to
remind
us
that
no
master
plan
amendment
is
needed
for
this
and
we
go
right
through
the
process.
So
I'll
conclude,
we
really
kind
of
think
of
a
study
was
to
move
forward.
It
should
compare
the
progress
that
such
a
project
would
make
if
the
innovation
zone
legislation
were
to
be
approved
versus
just
going
through
story.
T
C
Thank
you
acting
chair,
benitez,
thompson
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
My
name
is
clay
mitchell,
it's
spelled
c-l-a-y
m-I-t-c-h-e-l-l
and
I
am
a
story
county,
commissioner.
We're
grateful
to
be
included
in
this
discussion
and
thankful
for
the
insightful
questions
and
concerns
expressed
by
the
committee.
C
We're
particularly
thankful
to
the
governor's
office
for
the
inclusion
of
local
jurisdiction,
governance
and
taxation
elements
in
the
scope
of
the
study,
as
both
of
the
both
the
potential
impacts
and
the
opportunities
are
substantial.
With
a
proposal
like
this,
I'm
going
to
echo
just
just
a
couple
of
the
ideas
that
my
county
manager
had
just
mentioned.
C
First
of
all,
we're
supportive
of
a
study
process
and
look
forward
to
being
active
participants.
We
are
testifying
in
neutral
on
this
resolution
because
we
maintain
that,
at
least
in
the
case
of
the
proposed
project
that
we've
been
discussing
here,
a
separate
new
and
untested
political
subdivision
is
unnecessary.
To
accomplish
the
proponents
stated
goals.
C
C
We
have
implemented
several
unique
and
creative
structures
within
story
county
to
accommodate
some
of
these
developments,
some
of
the
biggest
companies
and
developments
in
the
world
and
we'll
continue
to
explore
ways
to
facilitate
innovation
within
the
county,
either
through
a
committee
study
or
independent
of
it
in
story
county.
The
doors
are
open
and
we're
prepared
and
enthusiastic
to
facilitate
innovative
projects
such
as
the
one
proposed
by
blockchains
through
the
existing
structures
and
authorities
at
our
disposal,
and
we
look
forward
to
the
impact
conversation
that
majority
leader,
benitez
thompson
has
been
championing
champion.
D
Hello
will
adler
representing
the
pyramid
lake
paiute
tribe
today,
pyramid
lake
would
like
to
first
refer
you
to
the
letter
written
by
the
chairwoman,
janet
davis,
that
should
be
available
as
an
exhibit
on
the
record
and
then
secondarily
would
like
to
just
first
thank
the
governor's
office
and
the
sponsors
of
the
the
measure,
scr
11
for
the
inclusion
of
tribal
concerns
in
the
bill
and
the
issues
specifically
to
pyramid
lake,
which
pertain
mostly
to
water
and
the
studying
of
water
and
the
impacts
to
water
in
the
area
regarding
innovation
zones.
K
B
B
K
Okay,
seeing
nothing
else,
no
other
neutral
testimony,
I
guess
I'll
go
back
to
the
bill,
sponsor
any
closing
remarks
for
us
on
scr11,
no
okay!
Thank
you
so
much
so
in
that
case,
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
senate
concurrent
resolution
number
11
and
we
will
move
into
public
comment
so
at
this
time,
if
there's
anyone
who
wants
to
come
on
down
and
give
a
public
comment,
we
welcome
it.
G
Echeverrie,
I
guess
it's
good
evening
now,
good
evening,
chair
and
committee,
my
name
is
dawn
echeverry
and
I
have
been
a
teacher
music
teacher
in
washoe
county
for
28
years.
I
am
currently
serving
as
the
vice
president
of
the
nevada
state
education
association
since
last
summer's
special
session
educators
have
lined
the
streets
in
front
of
the
legislature
and
called
in
for
public
comment
to
their
ask:
listen
to
educators
and
put
ajr
one
up
for
a
public
hearing.
G
K
R
Thank
you,
madam
chair
reading.
A
couple
of
additional
public
comments
from
educators
regarding
education.
Funding
in
support
of
agr1
kailyn
evans
is
a
teacher
in
washoe
county
president
of
empower
nevada
teachers,
an
msc
member.
He
writes.
I
want
to
start
off
by
thanking
legislators
who
have
been
working
to
allocate
additional
funding
for
education.
The
action
taken
in
the
past
week
on
the
k-12
budget
is
a
much
needed
first
step
in
addressing
the
drastic
lack
of
funding
for
education
system.
R
As
you
know,
though,
our
own
funding
commission
has
recommended
increasing
education
funding
by
two
billion
dollars
a
year
for
us
to
reach
an
adequate
funding
level
and
get
us
near
the
national
average.
The
addition
of
500
million
dollars
to
the
governor's
budget,
while
very
much
needed
and
appreciated,
only
gets
us
back
to
current
year
per
pupil
funding
levels.
So
we
need
to
continue
to
invest
more
in
our
education
system.
R
R
R
It
was
astonishing
to
walk
into
a
classroom
with
no
curriculum
and
few
supplies,
coupled
with
large
class
sizes
and
case
loads,
as
a
special
education
teacher
that
a
service
that
is
being
done
to
students
due
to
a
lack
of
funding
is
of
deep
concern.
There
have
been
instances
where
students
are
placed
in
a
special
education
program,
but
they
could
have
stayed
in
general
education
if
the
teacher
had
a
little
more
time
with
the
student
I
attribute
this
to
large
class
sizes
and
lack
of
funding
nevada
doesn't
provide
for
our
students.
R
D
D
Very
recently,
we
were
excited
about
the
500
million
dollars
put
back
from
the
governor's
budget
and
it's
been
labeled
as
an
investment
in
education,
but
on
upon
for
the
review,
it
really
appears
to
be
more
of
a
maintenance
getting
back
to
almost
where
we
were
last
year,
just
some
numbers
from
the
paperwork
from
the
lcb
in
the
bdrs
and
the
laws
themselves.
D
The
new
funding
will
bring
the
per
average
state
total
all
funds
to
ten
thousand
two
hundred
four
dollars
in
the
law
passed
two
years
ago
for
the
2021
year
it
was
10
319,
so
it's
an
effective
reduction
of
115
per
student,
and
so
in
order
to
get
to
better
than
48th
we're
going
to
have
to
truly
invest,
and
time
is
running
out
on
our
on
our
10-year
timeline.
Thank
you.
B
B
P
P
It
is
no
secret
that
nevada
needs
new
revenue
and
has
needed
new
revenue
for
as
long
as
any
of
us
can
remember,
our
schools
are
critically
underfunded
and
our
social
safety
net
is
virtually
non-existent,
and
yet,
when
our
leaders
are
presented
with
a
popular,
fair
way
to
raise
revenue
in
this
state,
we
are
hearing
nothing
but
crickets.
It
is
incomprehensible
why
we've
hit
the
114th
day
of
session,
and
this
measure
still
hasn't
even
been
heard.
P
Many
of
the
people
in
this
room
have
already
voted
for
ajr1,
we're
not
asking
you
to
change
your
values
or
your
positions.
Just
to
finish
what
you
started
last
summer.
This
measure
is
so
long
overdue
and
clearly
popular
with
nevadans,
as
evidenced
by
the
thousands
of
emails,
hundreds
of
protesters,
hours
of
public
comment
and
overwhelming
polling
results.
You
have
all
seen
since
its
introduction
last
summer
and,
of
course
it
is
popular.
The
mines
in
nevada
make
a
fortune
from
our
resources
while
paying
a
pittance
in
taxes
to
support
the
state
that
makes
those
profits
possible.
P
It
is
time
that
they
start
paying
their
fair
share
in
this
state.
Just
like
the
rest
of
us
this
morning,
a
trio
of
voting
measures
were
heard
in
assembly
ways
and
means
these
bills
show
this
body's
commitment
to
democracy,
and
I
applaud
them,
but
ajr1
is
no
different.
There
is
no
difference
between
allowing
all
nevadans
to
vote
for
their
leaders
and
allowing
them
to
vote
for
their
constitution.
P
We
are
asking
that
you
allow
nevadans
to
vote
on.
This
measure,
allow
our
voices
to
be
heard.
If
you
believe
that
nevadans
want
to
see
new
revenue,
then
let
us
pass
this
measure.
If
you
believe
that
nevadans
don't
want
new
revenue,
then
trust
nevadans
and
let
them
vote
it
down
either
way.
It
is
time
to
trust,
nevadans
trust,
democracy
and
let
nevadans
vote.
Thank
you.