►
From YouTube: 4/9/2021 - Assembly Committee on Revenue
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
And
I
am
here
again
welcome
to
the
revenue
committee.
We
are
going
to
be
doing
a
work
session
today.
Some
housekeeping
information,
though
we
will
have
a
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
hearing.
Public
comment,
may
be
limited
based
on
the
number
of
people
we
have
and
the
fact
that
we've
got
a
lot
of
other
committees
waiting
to
meet
for
deadline
day
today.
So
to
get
us
going,
I'm
just
going
to
go
ahead
and
open
the
work
session.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
michael
nakamoto,
deputy
fiscal
analyst,
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
There
are
three
bills
on
today's
work
session.
The
first
bill
is
assembly
bill
360,
which
was
heard
in
this
committee
on
march
30th
and
which
was
sponsored
by
assemblyman
haven.
C
The
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
waiver
products.
I
will
just
basically
go
into
the
amendments
to
the
bill
because
the
testimony
was
given
on
an
amendment
that
was
submitted
by
assemblyman
hafen
prior
to
the
meeting.
The
the
amendment
that
he
was
that
was
submitted
would
delete
the
provisions
of
the
bill
is
written
and
instead
require
retailers
to
utilize,
advanced
age,
verification
technology
at
the
point
of
sale
for
every
tobacco
and
vapor
product
purchase
to
ensure
the
purchaser
is
at
least
21
years
of
age,
and
that
would
become
effective
on
january
1
2023.
C
There
were
also
penalties
for
violations
of
the
section
that
were
outlined
in
the
proposed
amendment
following
the
hearing.
Assemblyman
haven
submitted
another
amendment
which
is
attached
to
the
word
session
document,
and
that
is
dated
april
9th.
So
with
today's
date
on
it,
it
contains
provisions
amending
the
original
amendment
as
follows.
First,
the
age
verification
would
not
be
required
by
the
retailer
if
the
purchaser
is
40
years
of
age
or
older.
C
C
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
if
there
are
any
questions,
I
would
be
glad
to
answer
them.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
mr
nakamoto,
and
I
will
just
let
the
committee
know
that
I
have
been
advised
that
both
southern
nevada
and
washoe
county
health
districts
are
in
support
of
the
bill
with
the
amendments
and
also
there
we
had
some
kind
of
some
back
and
forth
about
the
penalty
section
and
and
if
we
needed
to
have
it
or
not,
have
it
because
we
do
have
some
other
bills,
this
session,
that
are
addressing
those
issues
as
well.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none
I
will
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
you
pass
so
move
to
mention
dupat.
I
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
bilbray
axelrod.
Do
I
have
a
second.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
roberts.
So
just
do
we
have
any
discussion.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
can
we
please
have
a
roll
call
vote.
D
D
D
D
A
C
C
There
was
an
amendment
that
was
submitted
at
the
hearing
relating
to
the
proposed
use
of
the
funds
by
the
division.
It
would
amend
section
2
of
subsection
2
of
the
bill
to
specify
that
the
money
received
by
the
division
from
this
portion
of
the
liquor
tax
must
be
used
to
pay
for
grants.
For
the
provision
of
peer
recovery
support
services
for
persons
with
alcohol
or
other
substance
use
disorders
that
meet
the
requirements
specified
in
the
section
following
the
hearing,
there
was
another
conceptual
amendment
that
was
submitted
by
assemblywoman
dickman.
C
That
would
revise
the
bill
as
follows,
and
this
is
outlined
on
the
work
session
document.
First,
it
would
receive
remove
the
15
allocation
of
that
portion
of
the
excise
tax
on
liquor.
That
would
go
to
the
tax
on
liquor
program
account
and
it
would
maintain
the
distribution
of
those
revenues
in
the
state
general
fund.
C
Shortly
before
the
hearing,
we
received
another
amendment
from
assemblywoman
dickman,
which
would
go
into
that
very
first
amendment
that
was
submitted
at
the
hearing
and
removed
the
word
peer,
so
that
the
the
proceeds
from
this
allocation
would
be
used
for
the
grants
of
the
provision
of
recovery,
support
services
and
removing
the
word
here,
and
it
is
my
understanding
that
assemblywoman
dickman
and
someone
from
dpbh
will
be
on
to
clarify
that.
With
that
madam
chair,
I
would
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
so,
let's
first
turn
to
assemblywoman
dickman
and
I'm
not
sure
who's
here
from
dpph
dr
weird,
and
have
them
give
them
a
moment
to
explain
the
the
basis
behind
the.
E
Okay,
yeah,
as
I
understand
it,
with
dpp
dpvh,
the
the
word
peer
is
too
restrictive
for
the
granting
of
funds,
and
I
believe
dr
woodward
woodard
is
on
to
explain
that.
F
Good
afternoon,
stephanie
woodard
for
the
record.
Yes,
by
removing
the
word
peer
and
leaving
it
to
recovery,
support
services,
we
would
be
able
to
use
these
dollars
to
fund
a
number
of
recovery
support
services
which
would
be
inclusive
of
peer
recovery,
supports,
but
not
exclusive
to.
F
Thank
you,
assemblyman
anderson,
stephanie
woodard
for
the
record.
My
understanding
is
no
that
the
addition
of
the
200
000
over
the
biennium
would
be
in
addition
to
the
existing
funding
that
the
program
uses.
Therefore,
the
programs
that
are
currently
funded
would
retain
that
funding.
F
E
A
Okay
committee,
any
other
questions
on
this
issue.
Seeing
none
do
we
have
any
questions
on
any
issue
anything
else
with
this
bill.
G
You
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
just
have
a
clarifying
question
because
I
I
think
I've
got
an
email
that
confused
me
today,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
all
of
these
amendments
correctly
is
that
in
the
original
bill,
the
original
funding
from
the
from
the
the
liquor
tax,
the
tax
on
liquor
program
remains,
but
the
additional
request
of
that
15
percent.
On
top
of
that
that
is
being
taken
out,
and
then
there
is
the
200
000
in
the
biennium
that
is
being
added
in.
G
A
Mr
nakamoto,
do
you
want
to
answer
that.
C
Yes,
matt,
I'm
chair,
assemblywoman
considine.
This
is
michael
nakamoto
for
the
record.
That
is
correct.
The
bill,
as
amended,
would
maintain
the
current
funding
for
the
tax
on
liquor
program
account,
but
instead
of
having
that
15
allocation,
it
would
the
bill
or,
as
amended,
would
remove
that
and
then
place
an
additional
200
000
per
biennium
into
that
account.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
that
I'll
just
thank
the
sponsor
and
assemblywoman
constantine,
I
know
they
they
work
to
get
this
bill
to
a
good
place,
and-
and
thank
you,
dr
woodard,
for
joining
and
madame
chair
yeah.
Please
go
ahead.
E
A
D
B
D
D
B
A
Cohen
and
I'm
yes
with
that,
the
bill
passes
unanimously.
Congratulations,
assemblywoman
dickman,
and
we
will
sign
you
the
floor
statement,
mr
nakamoto
next
bill.
Please.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
again
for
the
record,
michael
nakamoto,
with
the
physical
analysis,
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
The
third
and
final
bill
on
today's
work
session
is
assembly
bill
35,
which
was
heard
in
this
committee
on
april
1st
and
which
revises
provisions
governing
the
commerce
tax.
The
bill
specifically
amends
the
definition
of
business
entity
for
the
purposes
of
this
tax
to
exclude
a
person
who
takes
part
in
an
exhibition.
C
A
trade
show
industry
or
corporate
meeting
or
similar
event
held
in
this
state
for
a
purpose
related
to
the
conduct
of
a
business,
including
without
limitation,
an
organizer
manager
or
sponsor
of
such
an
event
or
an
exhibitor
at
such
an
event.
As
drafted,
the
provisions
of
this
bill
would
exempt
these
persons
from
paying
the
commerce
tax.
Madam
chair,
there
are
no
amendments
to
the
bill.
The
only
thing
that
I
would
note
is
that
this
bill
is
eligible
for
exemption.
C
So
if
it
does
move
out
of
this
committee,
the
next
destination
is
likely
the
assembly
committee
on
ways
and
means
with
that.
I
would
be
glad
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
I
go
ahead.
Assemblywomany
anderson.
E
It's
not
really
a
question,
it's
more
of
a
comment
at
this
time.
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
because
I
had
not
been
thinking
far
enough
in
advance
when
it
was
presented
to
ask
if
there
was
any
way
to
have
it
be
for
a
specific
amount
of
time,
for
example,
just
until
the
next
session,
or
to
get
some
more
clarification
on
the
history.
E
So
I'm
just
putting
that
out
there
as
a
comment
more
than
as
a
question
to
be
answered,
I
just
at
this
time
I'm
a
no,
but
it's
because
I
think
it
should
only
be
for
the
until
the
next
session.
So
that
way
we
can
have
some
more
time
to
to
consider
it
and
talk
about
it.
A
little
bit
more.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
and
then
just
as
a
reminder
to
all
committee
members,
you
always
reserve
your
right
to
change
your
mind
and
we
just
ask
that
should
a
bill
make
it
to
the
floor
that
you
inform
me
if
there
is
going
to
be
a
change
on
your
vote.
Do
we
have
any
other
questions
and
I'm
chairwoman
please
go
ahead
assemblywoman.
A
Thank
you.
So
much.
H
And
this
is
a
more
another
one.
That's
where
it's
a
comment
more
than
a
question,
but
during
the
hearing
I
tried
to
be
really
deliberative
and
kind
of
how
I
was
thinking
about
this.
To
make
sure
I
had
the
information
I
needed
and
the
series
of
questions
I
asked
during
the
hearing
was
trying
to
sort
out.
Is
this
a
piece
that's
needed
for
economic
recovery,
and
I
think
I
heard
really
pretty
clearly
like
no.
This
is
not
what
this
is
about.
H
It's
helpful
in
that
way,
but
that
that
was
not
the
intent
of
this.
It
really
is
about
a
disagreement
over
you
know
a
taxpayer
and
who
should
be
included
in
the
tax
collection.
My
my
understanding
is
that
this
bill
moving
forward,
won't
interrupt
any
of
the
outstanding
processes
that
are
in
place
and
happening
between
some
taxpayers
and
the
department
of
taxation.
H
So
that
gives
me
some
reassurance,
because
I
I
don't
think
the
legislature's
place
is
to
get
in
in
the
middle
of
tax
disputes
that
are
in
process,
but
at
and
and
so
at
this
time,
I'm
a
no
because
once
again,
if
this
had
been
about,
you
know
part
of
our
economic
recovery
effort
and
a
very
specific
need
in
in
clark
county
for
this
type
of
business
or
a
certain
amount
of
period
of
time,
two
or
four
years.
Then
then,
then
absolutely.
But
this
does
seem
to
be
just
about
a
disagreement
and
tax.
H
We'll
say
that
our
staff
did
some
really
extensive
research
and
didn't.
We
did
not
find
a
legislative
history
regarding
to
paragraph
n
on
this
bill,
it
sounds
like
there
might
have
been
some
reference
to
this
conversation
on
other
tax
bills,
but
once
again
it
didn't
end
up
in
in
as
a
consideration
for
for
this
bill.
So
I
I
feel
most
comfortable
feeling
like
at
that
time.
H
When
I,
when
I
took
my
vote
on
it,
I
you
know
I
was.
I
had
the
understanding
that
it
would
be
like
the
exhibitors
and
the
participants,
not
the
person
organizing
it.
So
that's
that's
where
I
am
today.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
had
it
on
the
record.
F
Chair
my
unmuted,
okay,
I
will
be
voting
to
move
this
out
of
committee,
but
I
had
indicated
to
stakeholders
that
that
is
based
on
the
fact
that
I
believe
from
talking
to
a
couple
of
folks
that
that
it
was
the
intention,
so
I'm
gonna
do
a
little
more
digging
and-
and
I
will
see
where
I
arrive
when
it
gets
to
the
floor.
But
I
will
vote
yes
to
get
it
out
of
committee.
Today.
A
A
G
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
With
that,
can
we
please
have
a
roll
call.
D
D
Yeah,
I
have
serious
reservations
about
this
bill
too.
A
D
Oh
okay,
I'm
going
to
vote
now.
D
A
And
I'm
a
yes
with
that
the
bill
passes.
So
after
we
come
out
of
the
work
session,
I
will
allow
you
to
make
a
comment:
assemblement
looker.
So
with
that
we
will
conclude
the
work
session
before
we
move
on
to
public
comment.
I'll
just
do
this
in
reverse
and
ask
if
we've
got
any.
A
We've
got
any
oh,
and
I
need
to
I'm
going
to
take
on
the
the
floor
statement.
I'll
give
that
to
me.
A
So
with
that,
I
will
ask
if
I
will
close
the
work
session
and
ask
if
we
have
any
anything
from
the
committee
and
some
women
weren't
liquor.
Please
go
ahead.
D
Yeah
I,
like
some
of
my
colleagues,
I'm
open
to
voting
in
favor
when
this
gets
to
the
floor,
but
we
need
more
information.
I
feel
we
need
more
information
from
about
the
need
for
this
before
we
make
a
decision
in
favor
of
it.
A
Okay,
all
right,
thank
you!
So
do
we
have
any
other
comments
from
the
committee
about
general
anything,
okay,
seeing
none!
I
am
going
to
open
up
the
phones
for
public
comment.
F
A
Okay,
so
with
that
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
recess
the
committee.
I
do
not
think
that
we
will
need
to
come
back,
but
we'll
just
keep
that
open
just
in
case
so
we'll
let
you
know
as
soon
as
possible.
If
anything
does
happen,
and
then
before
I
recess,
I
just
want
to
thank
our
our
staff.
A
I
don't
want
to
leave
anyone
out,
but
thank
you
so
much,
because
we
do
really
appreciate
it
and
know
how
hard
you're
working
and
I
would
gush,
but
then
I
would
be
holding
you
up
to
go
to
other
committees
to
get
our
stuff
out
of
here
tonight.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
we
are
in
reset
until
call
of.