►
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
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Welcome
to
senate
revenue.
It
is
officially
deadline
week,
the
end
of
the
week
and
we
are
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
this
meeting
to
order
secretary.
Please
call
the
roll.
A
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
joe
reel
deputy
fiscal
analyst
of
the
fiscal
analysis,
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
committee.
You
have
work
session
documents
available
in
nellis
first
bill
on
work
session.
Today
is
senate
bill
235
revises
provisions
relating
to
cannabis,
heard
a
response
by
senator
harris
and
heard
in
this
committee.
On
april
1st
senate
bill
235
has
introduced,
authorized
a
person
who
holds
a
medical
cannabis
establishment
license
or
medical
cannabis
dispensary.
D
If
the
board
approves
the
application,
the
person
is
required
to
surrender
the
medical
establishment
license
or
a
medical
cannabis
dispensary
and
is
issued
an
adult
use,
cannabis
establishment
license
or
an
adult
use
cannabis.
Retail
store
bill
also
requires
an
adult
use
cannabis
retail
store.
That
is
not
a
dual
licensee
that
wishes
to
acquire
and
sell
cannabis.
D
On
page
two
of
the
work
session
document,
there
are
two
referenced
amendments
one
senator
harris
presented
to
the
committee
during
the
hearing
on
the
bill
and
subsequent
to
the
hearing.
The
second
amendment
was
submitted
as
well,
so
I'll
walk
through
both
of
those
amendments.
Just
so,
the
committee
understands
what
was
presented.
D
220
number
two
would
authorize
the
cannabis
compliance
board
to
issue
a
single
adult
use.
Cannabis
establishment
license
for
an
adult
use,
cannabis
retail
store
to
an
applicant
that
meets
on
requirements.
You
can
see
the
five
identified
requirements
there
in
the
work
session
document.
I
won't
go
through
all
those
number
three.
The
ccb's
authority
to
accept
applications
for
licenses
described
in
number
two
shall
commence
on
the
effective
date
of
the
act
and
expire
on
december
thirty.
D
Number
six
would
require
the
cannabis
compliance
board
to
adopt
regulations
that
establish
the
criteria
for
determining
whether
an
applicant
qualifies
as
a
social
equity.
Applicant
number
seven
would
require
the
cannabis
compliance
board
to
adopt
regulations
governing
all
future
competitive
application
processes.
D
You
see
the
10
different
items
there
that
are
listed
in
terms
of
the
regulations
that
would
be
required.
Number
eight
would
remove
the
requirement
and
statute
and
the
I'm
sorry
remove
the
requirement
in
statute
and
the
nevada.
Canada's
compliance
board
regulations
that
owners
officers
board
members
and
employees
cannabis
establishments
must
not
have
been
convicted
of
an
excluded,
felony,
offense
and
beginning
march
1st
2022.
D
The
ccb
shall
study
the
market
demand
and
determine
how
many
licenses
be
awarded
in
the
future
licensing
round
and
the
ccv
to
complete
the
study
of
work
manned
by
february
1st
2023,
and
if
the
ccb
determines
that
market
demand
warrants
additional
licenses,
the
ccb
shall
offer
a
competitive,
merit-based
licensing
round
open
to
any
interested
market
participant
not
later
than
july.
1St
2023,
pursuant
to
the
regulations
established
in
number
seven
of
this
proposed
amendment.
D
So
following
that
you'll
see
amendment
number
two,
which
was
submitted
after
the
hearing
with
respect
to
this
amendment.
There
are
a
lot
of
similarities
so
I'll
just
try
to
highlight
the
differences
between
these
two.
With
respect
to
the
first
amendment
and
the
amendment
number
two
item,
one,
the
first
two
items
referenced
are
the
same
as
in
amendment
number
one
of
the
bullet
points.
D
D
The
items
under
two
three
and
four
of
the
amendment
one
are
deleted
in
amendment
number
two
and
then
all
the
items
under
future
licensing
applications
items
two
through
seven
and
amendment
number.
Two
that
is
before
you
are
the
same
as
in
the
amendment
number
one
in
terms
of
numbers:
five
through
seven
and
amendment.
One
are
the
same
as
what
you
see
here
is
two
through
sorry,
five
through
ten,
and
one
are
the
same
as
what
you
see
here
is
two
through
seven
and
then
finally,
and
the
second
amendment.
D
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
members.
Any
questions
on
sp235
amendment.
E
Yeah
I'll
just
send
it.
I
just
think
it's
probably
just
important
to
get
that
on
the
record.
So
does
the
bill
as
amended
so
first
we'll
accept
the
is
the
recommendation
to
accept
amendment
number
two.
Yes,.
F
I
just
wanted,
I
want
to
know
you
all
have
an
amendment
in
front
of
you.
I
believe
it
is
slightly
different
than
the
one
that
mr
real
just
ran
through.
F
I
would
be
more
than
happy
to
discuss
that
that
amendment
and
any
questions
on
that.
If
the,
if
the
committee
has
any
what
you
see
before,
you
is
the
reflection
of
some
conversations
with
the
cannabis
compliance
board,
we're
trying
to
streamline
a
single
license
for
all
establishment
types,
cultivation,
production
and
the
retail
the
ccb
would
be,
of
course,
in
charge
of
facilitating
that
transition.
F
I
am
ready.
Amendment
number
three
is
what
you
should
have
delivered
to
you
and
is
what
was
said
in
the
most
recent
email
from
chair
neil.
F
And
miss
briscoe
may
have
a
copy
for
you,
chair
ready.
I
have
my
legislative
assistant
kind
of
hand,
her
amendments
to
so.
A
This
is
what
this
is,
what
we're
gonna
do,
because
I
don't
know
if
everybody
saw
that
amendment
I
sent
it
to
everyone's
email,
because
I
felt
like
clarifying
some
things
need
to
be
clarified.
So
what
we'll
do
is
pause
on
235?
Let
everybody
review
that
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
it.
A
Yeah,
I
didn't
know
it
was
drastically
different.
I
thought
it
was
just.
You
were
just
clarifying
the
intent
of
the
second
amendment.
F
It
does
the
the
only
difference
is
in
point
one,
the
the
cannabis
compliance
board
is
asked
for,
not
to
say
that
adult
use
licenses
will
become
medical,
but
they're
gonna
create
just
a
single
use,
license
called
a
cannabis
established
license.
It
streamlines
the
administrative
process,
but
accomplishes
the
same
task
of
moving
us
away
from
a
dual
license
to
a
single
license.
A
A
Let
everybody
read
that
email
look
at
that
third
amendment,
which
adds
a
single
use
license,
but
the
rest
of
the
amendment
two
is
the
same
and
so
we're
just
going
to
pause
there.
And
let
everybody
look
at
that.
So
you
can
make
a
decision
about
how
you
actually
want
to
vote
on
this
policy
and
there's
complete
clarity.
A
G
D
Has
been
posted
to
nellis
under
today's
agenda
item
and
it's
the
last
exhibit
conceptual
amendment
to
sb235.
F
E
So
senator
I
have
it
and
I
think
it's
less
the
challenge
of
the
it's
the
labeling,
so
once
they
were
all
printed
out,
there
was
no
way
to
tell
which
one
was
the
one
that
came
when
so
understood.
What
I
think
is
most
important
is
the
staff
and
legal
counsel
know
which
one
we've
accepted
so
that
when
we
get
to
the
drafting
that
we're
getting
the
appropriate
details,
so
it's
probably
a
good
reminder
for
all
of
us.
That
labeling
is
is
important
date
and
time
stamp.
E
E
This
also
makes
all
of
those
individuals
who
got
a
new
license.
That
was
adult
use
only
would
now
be
eligible
to
add
a
medical
license
to
that
existing
license.
Is
that
what
it
does.
F
What
it
does
chair
ratty
is,
at
this
point,
creates
what's
called
a
cannabis
establishment
license
and
will
transition
us
to
just
a
single
license,
and
so
it
doesn't
create
any
additional
licenses
of
sorts
but
transitions
to
a
point
where
everyone
will
just
hold
one
cannabis
establishment
license.
So.
H
Thank
you
manager,
so
I
know
the
city
of
fallon
has
been
specifically
interested
in
ensuring
that
they
protect
their
ability
to
to
to
regulate
the
industries
and
their
jurisdiction
or
the
establishments
in
their
jurisdiction
to
maintain
their
medical
only
facility.
H
F
Thank
you
for
the
question,
senator
kikifer,
so
it's
my
understanding
that
local
jurisdictions
still
maintain
the
ability
to
approve
zoning
and
a
couple
of
other
regulations
that
they
can
place
upon
these
establishments
before
they
can
be
approved
and
approval
by
the
local
jurisdiction
is
a
prerequisite.
And
so
I
I
believe
the
city
of
fallon
has
some
tools
that
they
could
could
use
to
still
keep
their
establishment
medical
only.
F
But
I
think
that's
a
legal
question
and
I
would
hope
mr
klimas
maybe
could
jump
on
and
if
he
has
any
ideas
of
how
the
ccb
would
facilitate
the
transition
and
ensure
that
you
know
local
control
remains
I'd,
be
happy
to
hear
his
thoughts
as
well.
A
Ccb,
mr
climates,
can
you
chime
in
because
my
my
goal
and
my
intent
was
just
I
thought
I
was
getting
clarifying
language
on
amendment
2.,
and
so
I
really
need
you
to
say
some
more
right
now.
C
Sir,
thank
you
chair,
tyler
klimas
for
the
record
and
executive
director
of
the
cannabis
compliance
board,
we're
here
neutral
but
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
senator
thanks
for
your
question.
Looking
at
this
concept
on
the
amendment,
yes,
a
local
jurisdiction
would
have
authority
to
still
restrict
and
ensure
that
that,
in
fallon's
case,
the
city
of
fallon's
case
that
they
could
continue
to
to
sell
only
medical,
even
under
a
single
cannabis
establishment
license.
H
So
that
so
the
so
a
license
that
would
be
issued
by
ccb,
that
is
a
that
is
a
single
license
for
or
a
cannabis
establishment.
Would
you
condition
that
license
based
on
the
approvals
of
the
local
jurisdiction?
H
C
Senator
tyler
klein
is
for
the
record.
I
think
it's
a
good
question,
probably
something
we'd
have
to
figure
out
in
the
statute.
All
I
would
say
is
from
the
ccd's
perspective.
This
was
to
go
forward
it
would
it
would
not
try
to
supersede
any
any.
You
know
local
desire
to
to
only
have
medical
product
being
sold,
the
mechanics
of
which
we
would
probably
have
to
figure
out
how
that
would
would
look
if
that
makes
sense.
H
C
Yeah,
I
guess
it
would
be
in
regulation
again
I'd
probably
defer
to
lcd
council
or
legal
counsel
on
that
either
or
you
know,
whatever
the
best
path
forward
is
to
figure
that
part
out.
We
would
ensure
that
that
protection's
in
place.
F
And
senator
kikofer,
if
I
can,
I
would
suggest
you
know
it
is
my
intent
to
have
the
ccb
through
regulation
implement
the
statute,
and
so
I
would
be
asking
them
to
facilitate
this
transition
to
a
single
use
license
process
because,
of
course
that's
where
the
expertise
lies.
C
In
tyler
klein
is
for
the
record,
if
I
may,
and
senator
just
back
to
that
there
also
probably
be
a
role
to
play
for
the
locals
and
their
ordinance
as
well,
but
something
that
wouldn't
happen
overnight,
something
that
would
happen
through
the
regulatory
process
and
so
there'd
be
plenty
of
notes.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification,
because
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
any
any
new
activity
was
happening
under
ccb.
It
was
happening
under
the
discretion.
The
there
were
no
more
workarounds
that
they
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
process
that
individuals
walked
through
under
ccb
new
regs
or
changes.
A
G
I'm
sorry,
or
vice
versa,
thanks
chair
neal,
so
I
wanted
to
get
a
little
more
information
about
dispensaries
and
the
upcoming
dispensaries.
So
my
understanding
is,
we
have
81
right
now
and
there's
51.
Excuse
me
50
more
to
be
planned.
Have
the
decisions
already
been
made
as
far
as
who's
going
to
have
those
licenses
for
those
dispensaries
or
would
this
pertain?
This
legislation
pertain
to
especially
around
the
social
equity
piece.
F
Senator
dallas
hairs
for
the
record
to
you
send
receivers
cancer
through
you,
chair
neil.
It
is
understanding
that
those
50
licenses
are
currently
in
a
conditional
status
where
they're
awaiting
perfection,
and
so
the
question
would
be
what
would
happen
if
they
do
not
perfect
and
that
I
I
am
assuming
would
go
through
the
new
open
process
that
would
be
established
under
the
ccb's
regulations.
F
If
those
50
do
perfect,
then
they
already,
of
course,
have
the
licenses
and
then
what
you
would
see
moving
forward
is
the
ccb
doing
a
market
analysis
to
determine
how
many
more
licenses
the
market
can
bear
and
then
those
licenses
would
be
opened
up
in
a
competitive
round.
Pursuant
to
the
the
new
regulations
that
will
be
put
into
place.
G
Thank
you,
and
you
know,
kind
of
circling
back
to
the
issue
around
foul.
I'm
still
a
bit
concerned
to
use
that
we
would
be
using
a
regulatory
process
versus
statute
to
make
sure
that
local
communities
and
their
ordinances
can
manage
or
set
set
up,
basically
what
type
of
establishments
they
want.
Because
I
understand,
I
think,
having
a
license
that
first
for
areas
that
want
to
have
both
is
fine,
but
if
you
do
have
a
municipality
or
an
area
where
they
just
want
one,
they
just
want
the
medical.
G
I
want
to
make
sure
that
they
have
that
and
I'm
you
know,
regulations
can
change
and
move
around,
but
statute
can't.
So
I
don't
know
whether
we
already
have
that
statute
that
we,
the
local
ordinance
sort
of
trumps
when
it
comes
to
a
local
again
when
you're
down
to
the
local
level,
not
the
state
level.
G
F
You
and
if
I
can
share
neal
to
you,
senator
seavers
cancer.
I
would
just
say
you
know
the
industry
is
changing.
I
think
that's
a
bit
of
why
we
want
to
kind
of
allow
the
regulatory
process
to
kick
into
play,
and
currently
it's
changed
so
much
that
there's
really
only.
I
think,
one
identifiable
establishment
that
is
medical
only
today
and
it
is
the
one
in
fallon.
F
So
there's
so
you
know
that
model
is
is
evolving
and
I
think
that's
what
this
legislation
is
designed
to
do
is
to
keep
up
with
the
with
the
with
the
with
our
industry.
A
Okay,
any
senator
katherine.
H
Yeah,
thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
I'm
gonna
change
change
the
topic
a
little
bit.
I
apologize
so,
mr
klamas.
If
currently
people
who
hold,
we
call
it
a
dual
license,
but
I
don't
think
there
really
is
such
a
thing.
So
is
the
people
who
have
what
we
call
dual
licenses
right
now.
Do
they
have
both
a
medical
and
an
adult
use
license.
H
C
Senator
thanks
tyler
clementine
record.
Yes,
I
I
that
is
correct.
They
would
not
necessarily
in
half
there
is
a
renewal
fee
for
a
medical
and
a
recreational
depending
on
what
the
establishment
type
is.
But,
yes,
that
is
correct.
H
Okay,
you
by
chance
know
how
much
money
that
is,
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
how
much
revenue
we
bring
in
off
licensing
fees
versus
you
know.
I
mean
obviously
most
of
it's
coming
through
excise
tax
and
things
like
that
to
come
in
from
the
industry.
So
I
just
don't
know.
C
Senator
tyler
thomas
for
the
record,
it's
considerable
and
I
can
get
you
the
amount,
but
I
think
if,
if
you
were
to
envision
this
moving
forward,
I
think
it
would
be
certainly
reasonable
to
consider
addressing
that
that
fee
in
the
single
establishment
license
therefore
increasing
the
fee.
If
it's
going
to
be
one
license
to
ensure
that
you
don't
lose
any
revenue,
I
think
that
would
probably
something
important
to
consider.
H
Do
you
currently
you
you,
the
board
currently
has
authority
to
set
those
fees.
C
A
But,
okay,
let
me
get
this
all
the
way
together,
because
now
I'm
getting
I'm
having
an
issue
so
you're
going
to,
because
that
means
that
there's
additional
statutory
language
that
should
be
adopted
because
number
one
you're
going
to
be
changing
a
fee
structure
that
that
I
don't
think
other
people
had
a
chance
to
weigh
in
on
number
one
within
the
statutory
construct
of
this
bill.
To
going
to
the
single
use
license
my
understanding
there
are
there,
it's
not
just
a
fee.
A
I
think
there
there's
a
little
bit
more,
that's
wrapped
into
when
you
start
combining
and
say,
there's
one
license,
and
so
that
is
not
an
issue
that
has
been
vetted
where
individuals
can
weigh
in
and
speak
their
piece
and
opposition
or
support
on
this
new
conversation
that
we're
having
right
now.
Do
you
I
mean?
Are
we
recognizing
that?
Because
I'm
recognizing
that.
F
Well,
chair
neil,
I
would
this
is
senator
dale's
hairs
for
the
record.
The
idea
of
what
the
proper
license
fee
should
be
if
we
move
to
a
single
license
is
not
not
a
discussion
that
the
committee
has
had,
but
the
idea
of
moving
to
a
single
license
was
was
part
of
the
original
hearing.
A
A
A
F
Well,
chair
neil,
I
would
I
the
way
I
interpreted
the
the
amendment
that
we
heard
in
the
committee
is
number
point.
One
is
exactly
is
similar
to
the
point
one.
We
have
now
we're
just
changing
the
way
that
we
transition
to
a
single-use
license.
What
you
were
referring
to
about
the
creating
the
new
licenses
was
sections
two
through
four,
which
have
been
removed
from
the
version
that's
in
front
of
the
committee
today
and
so
point.
F
One
of
facilitating
a
transition
away
from
this
dual
license
structure
was
always
a
part
of
the
of
the
bill.
F
So
if
I
recall
that
was
mostly
the
the
pieces
where
we
were
trying
to
determine
who
would
be
eligible
for
the
licenses
that
were
created
at
this
point,
the
bill
in
front
of
you
does
not
create
any
additional
licenses,
and
so
this
piece
has
been
altered.
A
So
senator
harris
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
we'll
continue
with
the
work
session.
I
will.
A
I
am
going
to
vote
I'm
going
to
accept
a
motion
on
your
third
amendment,
understanding
that
this
is
going
to
have
to
be
discussed
and
I'm
going
to
reserve
my
right
on
this
one
and
then
I
will
get
it
out
of
committee,
because
I
feel
I
feel
very
strongly
about
folks
being
able
to
talk
about
this
new
cannabis
license
single
license
structure
within
a
hearing,
but
that
could
also
be
handled
in
finance
where
this
bill
will
probably
go
so
so
do
we
have
additional
comments.
E
I
guess,
madam
chair,
so
I'm
I'm
willing.
So
I
was
the
one
who,
during
the
hearing
on
the
bill,
who
expressed
the
concern
for
the
public
that
when
they,
because
we
had
this
round
of
licenses
that
were
released
in
2018,
I
believe,
and
they
were
still
released
under
the
constitutional
construct
that
we
didn't
have.
The
ability
to
change
is
my
understanding.
They
were
all
released
as
adult
use
licenses
because
they're
the
cap
on
the
medical
licenses,
and
so
I
think
that
is
confusing
for
the
public
and
I
am
actually
more
of
an
advocate.
E
So
I
do
think
we
discussed
that.
I
don't
know
that
we
got
down
to
the
detail
level.
I
was
picturing
it
more
as
those
40
could
get
an
additional
medical
licenses
license
and
we
would
still
keep
the
twos
two
separate
structures.
There's
an
until
the
ccb
had
the
opportunity
to
decide
what
they
wanted
to
do
through
regs,
potentially
to
you
know,
does
it
make
more
sense
to
have
just
one
license?
E
Does
it
make
sense
to
have
two
licenses,
but,
but
you
could
always
get
both
is
the
thing
with
the
exception
and
I
think
it's
a
critical
exception
unless
local
government
doesn't
approve
adult
recreational
in
their
jurisdiction
and
therefore
you
cannot
so.
I
believe
that
this
bill
does
that
with
the
third
amendment,
so
I'm
willing
to
make
the
motion
to
amend
do
pass
with
the
third
amendment
and
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
say
amend
do
pass
with
the
third
amendment
and
we
refer
to
finance
so
that
we
are
all
very
clear
that
it.
A
And
I
I
will
thank
you
bye
sure,
ready.
I
will
accept
that
as
a
motion.
H
C
H
You
can't
hear
me,
I'm
sorry
better,
yes,
no,
yes,
okay,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna
oppose
the
motion.
I've
got
a
couple
of
concerns.
First,
is
I'm
with
I'll
do
respect
to
mr
klimas
and
and
his
board.
I
don't
necessarily
think
we
should.
We
should
probably
give
them
more
direction
over
what
we
want
in
statute.
H
If
we're
going
to
say
that
local
governments
need
to
retain
that
authority,
I
don't
think
that's
something
we
need
to
punt
to
them
and
put
have
them
put
in
stat
and
into
reg,
and
I
think
more
importantly,
for
my
my
purposes,
we've
got
50
outstanding
licenses
that
haven't
been
perfected
yet
and
I
think
authorizing
a
study
that
could
create
up
to
an
unknown
number
of
new
licenses
is
certainly
a
step
too
far
from
me,
so
I
just
feel
uncomfortable.
Thank
you.
G
Senator
sivers
cancer.
Thank
you
turn.
You
know.
I
too
will
not
be
supporting
the
motion.
I
think,
if
we
want
to
make
sure
local
government
has
control
over
what
they
have
in
their
community,
we
need
to
put
that
in
statute.
I
also
think
the
language
is
open-ended
and
there's
already
been
a
couple
of
studies
as
far
as
market
evaluations,
and
they
differ
substantially
and
leaving
it
open-ended,
I
think,
is
a
concern
instead
of
having
a
maximum
cap,
and
we
do
have
50
licenses
that
are
outstanding
right
now
that
are
not
perfected.
G
B
Just
well,
I
guess
a
quick
question
well
comment.
First,
I
still
have
some
questions,
I'm
willing
to
to
vote
to
move
it
forward,
but
I
think
that
you
know
there's
just
a
lot
of
stuff
been
thrown
out,
but
I
think
in
order
to
keep
it
moving,
I'm
willing
to
vote
for
it
today
and
just
want
to
be
able
to
to
see
that
once
I
get
to
see
it.
B
The
the
second
question
that
I
have
is:
can
we
do
a
motion
to
to
to
pass
it
out
and
then
refer?
Do
we
just
need
to
wait
until
it
gets
to
the
floor,
and
then
we
refer?
I
just
wondering
on
the
because
of
the
deadlines.
If
we,
if
we,
I
guess
we're
moving
it
to
the
floor
first
and
then
it
would
get
re-referred,
otherwise
it
would
it
would
die.
I
would
assume.
E
A
So,
mr
real,
do
you
want
to
weigh
in
on
that?
But
the
way
the
vice
chair
stated
that
I
understood
that
it
worked.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
joe
reel
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division.
The
staff
understand
that
the
actual
action
item
might
be
more
appropriate
to
amend
and
re-refer,
which
will
send
it
to
the
senate
floor
with
the
amendment
and
then
to
be
re-referred.
But
it's
not
amended
to
pass
but
amend
and
re-refer.
E
E
A
E
E
And
senator
keith
for
shared,
so
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
the
sponsor
knows
that
we
need
significantly
greater
clarity
on
the
local
government
control
issue
on
whether
or
not
this
opens
it
to
ccb
to
be
able
to
create
new
licenses
without
it
having
to
come
back
to
the
legislature
and
anything
any
impact
on
fees,
at
least
for
me.
Those
are
the
questions
I'm
going
to
have
before.
I
would
be
comfortable
voting
with
the
board
on
floor.
F
And
and
chair
neil
sanders
for
the
record,
I
just
want
to
commit
to
the
entire
committee
that
I
am
willing
to
have
further
discussions
and
am
open
to
making
it
very
clear
if
we
have
to
in
statute
that
local
communities
retain
control
over.
You
know
what
what
types
of
products
are
sold
in
their
in
their
jurisdictions.
I
Or
who,
madam
chair
this,
is
your
staff
russell,
what
I
wouldn't
mind
just
offering
so
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page
as
that
the
bill
currently
doesn't
have
a
positive
fiscal
impact,
and
thus
it's
not
denoted
as
eligible
for
exemption,
but
I
believe,
based
on
the
testimony
and
based
on
the
questions
asked
by
senator
kepper
regarding
the
potential
negative
impact
on
the
fees.
I
I
will,
if
you
amend
and
and
pass
this
bill
out,
then
I'll
have
to
when
when
that
amendment
is,
if
that
amendment
is
processed
by
the
senate,
the
bill
goes
in
the
first
reprint.
Then
that's
I'll
have
the
conversation
with
wayne
thorley
as
senate
fiscal
analyst,
that
the
bill
would
have
a
potential
negative
impact
on
revenues,
and
thus
it
would
get
referred
to
finance
anyway
and
then
it
would
the
eligibility
for
exemption
would
attach.
So
I
think,
that's
just
for
everybody.
I
A
A
A
A
A
All
right,
so,
mr
real,
you
know
hey,
let's,
let's
do
the
jack
in
the
box:
sb
346.!
Let's
just
do
it,
let's
throw
it
on
out
there.
D
This
bill
imposes
a
tax
on
the
retail
sale
of
certain
digital
products,
sponsored
by
senator
neil
heard
in
this
committee
on
april.
6Th
inner
bill
346
provides
for
the
imposition
of
an
excise
tax
on
the
retail
sale
or
use
of
specified
digital
products,
which
includes
digital
audio
works,
digital
audio,
visual
works,
digital
books,
digital
code
and
other
digital
products,
at
a
rate
equal
to
the
sales
and
use
tax
rate
in
the
county,
where
the
specified
digital
product
is
purchased
or
used.
D
There
was
no
opposition
to
the
bill
during
the
hearing
committee
will
recall.
Senator
neil
presented
two
conceptual
amendment
documents.
Those
are
attached
to
the
work
session
and
also
summarized
here
going
through
those
amendments.
Amendment
number
one
would
delete
sections
118
through
138
of
the
bill
to
remove
the
excise
tax
on
direct
to
home
satellite
service.
D
Amendment
number
two
would
amend
section
21
to
reflect
the
deletion
of
sections
118-138,
as
provided
in
number
one,
and
we
also
need
to
clarify
that,
while
direct-to-home
satellite
television
service
and
video
service
are
not
considered
to
be
specified
digital
products.
Pursuant
to
this
section,
direct-to-home
satellite
providers
and
video
service
providers
are
subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
bill
with
respect
to
any
sales
of
specified
digital
products,
which
are
which
additional
consideration
is
paid.
D
Amendment
number
three
would
add,
provisions
to
section
94
specify
that
a
provider
or
direct
broadcast
satellite
service,
as
defined
by
federal
code
or
a
cable
operator,
as
defined
by
federal
code,
would
be
a
marketplace
facilitator.
Facilitator.
Excuse
me
for
applications
on
the
platform
that
charge
consideration
for
use
that
are
bundled
through
a
marketplace
platform
and
it
would
exclude
the
applications
that
are
free.
D
Amendment
number
four
would
amend
subsection
three
of
section
21
of
the
bill
to
clarify
that
the
digital
code
definition
that
the
digital
code
does
not
include
a
public
or
private
keys
when
used
in
a
transaction
conducted
on
the
blockchain,
and
the
proposed
amendment
would
identify
the
definitions
of
blockchain,
private,
key
and
public
key.
With
respect
to
this
section,
based
on
provisions
of
current
law
and
following
the
hearing
on
the
bill,
senator
neil
came
forward
with
an
additional
amendment.
Amendment
number
five.
D
This
amendment
would
go
into
section
114
and
added
subsection
three,
which
provides
that
payments
credited
to
an
account
pursuant
to
paragraph
two
attributable
to
the
tax,
impose
on
the
sales
and
retail,
tangible
personal
property
and
use
due
on
the
purchase
of
tangible
personal
property
for
use
in
this
state.
Pursuant
to
nrs,
377.040
must
be
distributed
to
each
county
based
on
the
county
in
which
fees,
taxes,
interest
penalties
were
sourced.
D
Pursuant
to
section
129
of
this
act
and
legal
would
correct
any
references
with
respect
to
the
section
references
there
and
with
that,
madam
chair
I'll,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
So
we
we,
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
had
amendment
six,
which
was
from
chelsea
capuro
about
dish
which
legal
will
roll
into
this,
which
states
so
in
section
21,
point
sub
2
that
the
term
does
not
include
that
the
term
specified
digital
products
does
not
include
a
provider
of
direct
broadcast
satellite
service
as
defined
in
47,
usc,
335,
b5
and
then
video
service,
as
defined
in
nrs
711.141.
A
So
it's
a
slight
nuance
change
that
dish
and
att
had
asked
for
to
really
clarify
it.
Just
deleted
portions
of
those
sentences
to
create
a
different,
well,
the
same
phrase,
minus
parts
of
a
sentence,
so
that
would
be
amendment
number
six
legal
will
have
to
roll
that
in.
But
I
I
just
wanted
to
state
that
for
the
committee
and
for
the
listeners
or
who
were
the
stakeholders
in
our
meetings
over
the
past
year,
att
and
dish
that
that
was
also
an
adopted
amendment
number
six.
A
Digital
goods-
I
was
just
like
what
you
don't
remember
the
elvis
christmas
album.
Nobody
can
forget
that
one.
I
don't
know.
Oh
it's
that
one.
Oh
okay,.
E
G
Thank
you
cherniel,
so
I'm
not
going
to
be
supporting
this
motion.
This
is
a
significant
change
in
our
and
our
tax
policy,
and
we
have
a
number
of
amendments
and
I
I
just
feel
like
the
this
process
is
not
conducive
to
getting
as
much
input
as
we
typically
would,
and
so
I'm
concerned
about
the
vetting
process.
So
at
this
time
I'm
not
going
to
be
supporting
the
bill
for
the
motion.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
H
Thank
you
manager
this
so
on
this
bill,
I
will
be
supporting
this
motion
to
with
the
bill
out
of
committee,
I'm
going
to
reserve
my
right
to
change
my
photo.
B
D
A
Yes,
okay,
so
I
will
so
the
motion
passes.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
me.
Thank
you
for
the
indulgence
of
the
thursday
before
deadline
all
right,
so
we
will
move
to
the
next
one.
Mr
reel,
can
we
move
to
sv
389
peer-to-peer.
D
D
The
bill
requires
a
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program
to
collect
from
each
shared
vehicle
driver
the
governmental
services
fee
of
10,
the
total
amount
for
which
the
vehicle
was
shared
through
the
program
plus
any
additional
fee
imposed
on
the
sharing
of
a
vehicle
authorized
by
counties
currently
there's
a
rate
of
two
percent
that
is
imposed
in
clark
and
washoe
counties.
The
bill
requires
the
peer-to-peer
card
sharing
program
to
admit
such
fees
to
the
department
of
taxation.
Along
with
a
quarterly
report.
It
specifies
that
the
peer-to-peer
card
sharing
program
is
required
to
maintain
certain
records.
D
Bill
requires
money
received
from
the
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program.
Pursuant
to
the
bill
to
be
deposited
to
the
state
general
fund
individuals
testified
on
the
measure
is
summarizing.
The
work
session
document
with
respect
to
amendments
there
were
two
proposed
amendments.
Basically,
the
first
amendment
is
the
proposed
amendment
3163
that
was
presented
by
senator
nail
during
the
hearing.
D
Second
amendment
was
discussed
during
the
hearing
and
it
would
amend
the
bill
to
include
provisions
establishing
mou
to
allow
the
department
of
taxation
to
collect
the
sales
tax
on
behalf
of
those
who
do
not
pay
sales
tax.
At
the
time
the
vehicle
is
purchased
and
with
that
madam's.
Here
I
can
answer
any
questions.
H
A
B
A
Okay,
seeing
no
discussion
secretary,
will
you
do
the
roll
call.
G
A
Yes,
all
right,
so
the
amended
pass.
The
motion
was
unanimous.
Once
again,
I
will
give
this
floor
statement
to
me.
Sv389
mr
real
sv,
395.
D
D
This
bill
revises
provisions
governing
the
funding
of
capital
projects
for
school
districts
in
certain
counties
sponsored
by
senator
gokuchiya
and
herding
committee
on
april.
First
kinder
bill
395
provides
that,
if
approved
by
voters
border
county
commissioner
of
a
county
whose
population
is
less
than
forty
five
thousand.
Currently,
that
is,
churchill,
esmeralda,
eureka,
humble
lander,
lincoln
mineral
nye,
persian
story
and
white
pine
counties
which
olivia
attacks
and
not
more
than
25
cents
on
each
100
of
assessed.
D
Additionally,
the
bill
specifies
that
the
amount
of
any
tax
imposed
pursuant
to
the
bill
is
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
current
law,
which
generally
limit
annual
increases
in
property
taxes
to
between
three
and
eight
percent
in
the
work
session
document
summarizes
the
testimony
on
the
bill
and
there
are
no
amendments.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
G
C
A
D
A
Okay,
so
the
motion
passes,
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
senator
gokuchiya
all
right,
so
that
doesn't
necessarily
conclude
our
work
session,
because
we
have
to
hear
two
bills
and
then
those
two
bills
will
roll
to
work
session.
After
so.
Thank
you,
mr
real.
I
will
go
ahead
and
open
up
for
sb
255,
which
is
creates
the
office
of
supplier
diversity.
A
A
One
of
the
initial,
the
reasons
why
were
you
know
in
2000,
either
2005
2007
legislation
passed
out
of
the
legislature
to
create
the
regional
business
advisory
council.
A
The
minority
spend
small
business
spend
on
women,
etc,
and
so
it's
been,
it's
been
a
thought
pattern
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
connect
what
was
happening
with
rbdak,
who
submits
a
report
to
the
governor
every
two
years
since
2000
of
roughly
2005
2007,
to
try
to
connect
it
to
our
office
of
economic
development
under
go
ed.
So
I
went
to
director
brown
and
I
said
I
really
want
to
try
this.
Do
you
think
you
could
support
this
idea?
A
A
What
you
have
in
front
of
you
is
the
the
language
that
represents
our
first
step
into
creating
this
and-
and
I
and
and
in
addition,
the
bill
also
tries
to
connect
our
emerging
small
business
program,
which
was
the
small
business
program
that
was
created
under
assemblyman
assemblywoman
bustamante
adams
in
2017,
which
she
created
a
threshold
to
try
to
bring
emerging
small
businesses
under
goed
to
help
them
find
a
way
to
get
contracts,
and
there
was
a
threshold
of
like
a
million
to
three
million
dollars
where
those
businesses
could
go
in
and
attempt
to
get
assistance.
A
So
the
way
the
emerging
small
business
system
works.
If
anybody
has
ever
used
it,
you
go
in.
You
fill
out
like
a
piece
of
paper
that
says
you
are
an
emerging
small
business.
You
pretty
much
verify
self-certified
that
you
fit
this
criteria
you're
eligible
under
that
criteria
to
then
become
a
part
of
a
procurement
system.
E
A
A
Okay,
so
so
the
idea
was
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
take
what
was
currently
happening,
where
you
could
go
into
goed
right
now
and
the
locals.
The
rbdac
committee
was
not
connected
and
the
emerging
small
business
are
not
connected
and
to
try
to
build
some
coordination
between
these
series
of
activities
that
were
similarly
doing.
The
same
thing,
except
for
rbdeck
was
probably
one
of
the
oldest
consortium
groups
created
through
statute,
where
it
was
focused
on
minority
business.
Spend
women
spend,
and
I
added
the
disability
where
they
were
working
with
political
subdivisions.
A
A
That
has
not
had
an
administrator,
well
part-time
person
to
help
move
that
program
along
to
try
to
make
sure
that
we
could
build
a
house
around
procurement
in
the
state
of
nevada
to
make
sure
that
the
report
that
has
been
going
to
the
governor,
whoever
the
governor,
was
since
2007
that
the
report
from
rb
dac
is
actionable
because
it
was
set
out
in
law
that
it
was
supposed
to
be
actionable
that
this
was
information
that
was
supposed
to
go
to
the
governor.
A
And
then
this
report
was
supposed
to
help
the
state
understand
what
was
happening
with
small
business
procurement.
What
was
happening
with
minority
business
procurement
since
way
back
when
so
that
is
ultimately
what
the
bill
does,
and
so
in
section
one.
A
A
So
that's
in
section
one
and
then
in
section
two.
Basically,
it
takes
the
goed
office
and
then
it
adds
the
office
of
supplier,
diversity
under
the
division
of
economic
development,
motion,
pictures,
etc.
B
A
I
don't
believe
so
I
mean
mr
brown
is
on.
If
I
don't
know
if
he
wanted
to
comment
or
mr
hume,
I
don't
know,.
C
Michael
brown,
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
you
may
recall
at
the
over
overview
hearing
that
we
had
at
the
beginning
of
the
session.
I
talked
about
the
pets
program
that
we
had
rolled
out
for
small
business
and
particularly
to
help
disadvantaged
and
minority
businesses.
C
Since
then,
the
urban
institute
has
they
did
a
conference
on
the
effect
of
the
pandemic
on
minority
and
small
business,
and
I
participated
in
that
and
they
noted
that
these
businesses
were
hit
particularly
hard
by
the
pandemic
and
that
the
sba's
ppp
program
largely
missed
those
businesses
in
its
first
round,
and
they
said,
though-
and
this
was
this-
was
good
news
for
nevada.
They
said
that
the
the
the
the
difference
was
made
up
by
programs
authorized
by
state
and
local
governments,
such
as
the
peps
and
craig
program
that
we
rolled
out.
C
But
during
that
process
we
learned
about
the
vulnerability
of
these
businesses.
We
also
at
goad
housed
the
the
ptac
program,
which
is
the
federally
chartered
procurement
program
with
the
defense
department
and
other
federal
agencies.
So
we
have
an
existing
staff
that
works
on
helping
small
businesses
and
minority
businesses
and
veterinary
businesses
and
others
win
federal
contracts.
C
Their
work,
though,
is
fairly
prescribed
and,
and
has
to
has
to
meet
the
federal
guidelines,
the
urban
institute,
when
they,
when
we
got
into
the
what
should
we
do
next
discussion
at
this
forum
that
I
participated
in
they
said
with
the
large
infrastructure
bill,
that's
coming
through
the
congress
and
the
rescue
funds
that
are
coming
through,
they
said
it
would
be
very
important
for
state
and
local
governments
to
prioritize
the
procurement
process
for
small
and
minority
and
veteran
owned
businesses,
and
so
this
legislation
that
the
senator
has
brought
is
very
timely
on
a
policy
basis
and
we're
prepared
to
assist.
C
C
If
this
program
were
to
come
into
place,
there
would
be
more
than
enough
justification,
particularly
with
the
federal
funds
that
will
start
to
flow
to
help
these
small
businesses.
When
these
win
these
contracts,
we
we
have
just
enough
office
space
at
this
point
to
accommodate
that
person,
persons
and
and
and
if
the
legislature
wishes
to
do
that,
it
would
complement
the
existing
ptac
program
that
we
have.
So.
Thank
you.
A
B
All
right,
yes,
senator
stevers
cancer.
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
had
a
question
for
mr
brown.
You
know
I
was
looking
at
the
fiscal
note
and
I
think
this
is
an
extremely
important
program
and
I
agree
with
you
that
we
have
significant
dollars
that
will
be
coming
down
from
the
federal
government,
potentially
through
the
state
and
available
to
to
businesses,
and
so
mike.
My
question
was:
do
you
have
or
is?
Do
you
have
individuals
in
your
office
that
can
help
with
this,
or
do
you
have
to
hire
new
people?
C
If
this
program
were
to
come
to
pass,
we
need
to
add
additional
resources.
We
need
a
program
manager,
who's
doing
this
and
the
emerging
small
business
program,
and
this
becomes
their
focus.
What
you
experience
with
small
businesses,
there's
lots
of
them
and
and
it's
a
data
intensive
process,
and
so
we
need
clerical
support
and
I.t
support
for
that.
There's
lots
of
them,
and
then
you
know
we
have.
You
know
13
or
14
different
chambers
of
commerce
that
are
in
that
space.
C
B
Not
hearing
not
seeing
any
okay
senator
neil,
do
you
have
any
other
presentations
before
I
go
to
the
support
testimony.
A
B
Okay,
all
right
with
that,
we
will
go
to
support
testimonies
those
wishing
to
give
support
if
they,
if
the
bps
could
cue
up
the
first
caller.
H
H
H
The
city
of
north
las
vegas,
is
in
full
support
of
this
measure
and
would
like
to
thank
senator
neil
for
bringing
this
forward
as
the
largest
majority
minority
city
in
the
state.
We
believe
that
outreach
training
and
providing
opportunities
and
support
to
minority-owned
small
businesses,
women-owned
small
businesses
and
small
businesses
owned
by
persons
with
a
disability,
will
only
continue
to
aid
in
the
growth
of
our
economy
and
enrich
our
community
at
large.
We
urge
the
committee
support
and
passage
of
senate
bill
255..
H
B
Thank
you.
Let's
go
to
those
in
opposition.
H
H
H
A
Yes,
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
hearing
this
bill.
I
think
this
is
a
good
first
step
to
start
creating
procurement
opportunities,
statewide
building
upon
existing
efforts
that
have
been
in
play
for
over
15
years
and
to
try
to
really
build
build
ourselves
as
a
state
that
focuses
on
procurement
opportunities
for
small
businesses
because
number
one
it
grows
their
base.
A
It
allows
them
to
expand
in
in
their
employee
pool,
which
also
expands
wages,
which
in
turn
has
an
indirect
effect
on
our
economy,
and
these
are
all
great
things
to
for
our
for
our
economy
as
a
state
as
we
pivot
and
grow
out
of
come
out
of
the
pandemic.
That
we
are
then
able
to,
I
think,
offer
support
for
the
small
businesses
that
are
seeking
to
get
contracts
in
order
to
create
more
independence
and
stability
for
themselves.
B
B
A
A
A
It
seemed
to
make
sense
in
a
non
in
a
non-budget
cycle
where
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
come
up
with
money,
to
fund
our
state
to
do
a
minimal
excise
tax
of
three
percent,
which
is
the
amendment
to
the
bills,
not
one
percent,
but
a
three
percent
excise
tax.
In
order
to
pay
for
these
efforts,
so
that
safety
regulations
and
health
regulations
could
be
extended
to
these
products.
Currently
they
are
unregulated
in
the
market.
A
A
So
the
amendment
in
front
of
you
all
has
been
worked
through
between
the
division
of
health
and
human
services.
The
department
of
agriculture
and
we've
also
talked
to
the
department
of
tax.
So
what's
super
important
to
note
and
I'm
going
to
work
backwards
is
the
effective
date.
A
It
will
be
effective
january
1st,
2020
202
for
regulations,
but
it
won't
be
effective
for
collection
until
january,
1st,
2023
and
here's
the
reason
why
department
of
taxation
is
going
to
a
computer
system
which
will
allow
them
to
take
on
the
retail
component
of
this
bill.
We
contemplated
the
wholesale
just
applying
this
to
wholesalers,
but
it
seemed
to
make
sense
in
the
long
term
discussing
the
fiscal
impacts
and
what
really
is
going
on
in
the
space
and
what
the
attempt
is
to
regulate
and
inspect
is
that
it
should
apply
to
retail.
A
So
I
did
the
extension
of
the
effective
date
to
number
one
give
department
of
taxation
time
to
get
their
computer
system
up
to
and
time
to
work
out
the
regulatory
process,
which
would
be
a
co-sharing
between
two
departments
in
order
to
inspect.
A
In
addition
to
find
out,
give
notice
to
the
retailers
that
this
is
currently
going
to
be
in
play
and
that
they
would
now
be
subject
to
inspection
and
labeling
content
to
determine
if,
if
what
they
are
selling,
is
true,
truly
cbd
and
not
going
to
have
a
negative
effect
on
our
citizens
of
the
state
of
nevada.
In
a
way
that
causes
illness
or
anything
else,
so
that
is
the
public
policy
purpose
of
the
bill
and
the
the
reason
why
that
effective
date
is
there.
A
So
if
you
look
at
section
5,
it
defines
the
excise
tax
section,
six
reas
retail
sale,
because
that
is
largely
where
majority
of
this
activity
is
happening.
A
A
In
addition,
the
language
on
the
payment
for
inspection,
I
believe,
is
language
that
is
adopted.
That's
currently
in
our
statutes,
section
11,
which
discusses
the
how
the
excess
tax
would
be
imposed.
A
The
amendment
which
we
weren't
able
to
get
to
would
strike
out
that
one
percent
and
place
that
at
three
and
then,
when
you
get
to
section
12,
the
department
would
then
go
in
and
determine
the
consumable
hemp
products.
A
That
the
excise
tax
would
be
paid
on
and
then
the
rest
are
the
refund
mechanisms
that
are
in
place
in
360.,
and
then
it
continues
on
with
the
existing
360
sales
tax
statutes.
And
then
you
have
the
judicial
review,
which
is
all
standard,
conforming
language,
that's
currently
in
play
in
the
statute.
A
A
The
only
difference
is
that
the
the
excise
tax
some
of
it,
goes
to
administration,
and
then
some
of
it
would
go
to
the
education
account
that
was
remaining
and
the
reason
why
we
did
that
in
the
bill
was
to
try
to
make
sure
that
you
know,
there's
been
a
thought
pattern
that
anything
that
was
kind
of
cannabis
based
or
cannabis
like
or
esque
would
go
to
education,
so
that
would
be
the
excess.
A
And
then
it
goes
forward.
Talking
about
on
section
34
that
the
department
or
health
authority
may
investigate
apparent
violations
of
the
provision.
And
then
in
that
it
continues
on
in
35
about
the
authority
to
determine
violations
board
of
health,
adopting
regulations
and.
A
And
then
the
rest
is
kind
of
conforming
and
then
there's
a
deletion
at
the
back
of
the
repealed
sections,
and
so
with
that,
because
I
know
that
we're
running
out
of
time
and
people
have
other
committees
and
we
have
work
sessions.
I
will
open
myself
up
for
questions.
A
A
B
J
You
for
the
record,
ashley
jefferson,
with
the
nevada
department
of
agriculture,
so
just
for
for
clarification,
yeah.
The
department
of
agriculture
approached
senator
neil
about
some
of
the
challenges
with
unregulated
cannabidiol,
which
is
cbd
most
people
that
that's
what
what
they
recognize
it
from.
J
It
is
extracted
from
the
flower
of
the
hemp
plant
and
it's
considered
a
drug
by
fda.
So
that's
part
of
why
it
tends
to
be
in
this
unregulated
kind
of
gray
area,
so
we've
appreciated
senators
and
senator
neil's
attention
to
this
specific
issue.
We've
been
working
with
health
and
human
services
and
looking
at
what's
existing
and
what
other
legislation
is
in
place
or
in
the
works
to
try
to
address
this
issue.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
J
H
Thank
you,
and
I
appreciate
I
think,
what
you're
trying
to
do
so,
mrs.
We
have
a
situation
where
people
are
being
harmed
by
these
products
because
they're
not
regulated.
What
are
we?
What
are
we
trying
to
get?
I
don't.
I
don't
think
the
problem
has
been
clearly
identified
for
me,
but
the
problem
that
we're
trying
to
solve.
J
For
the
record,
ashley
jepson
nevada
department
of
agriculture,
so
the
the
big
challenge
here
is
cbd
is
being
put
into
food
products.
You
see
it
really
everywhere.
You
can
see
it
at
the
gas
station
and-
and
at
this
point
in
time
all
the
human
services
and
some
of
the
other
regulatory
structures
hands
have
been
tied
because
fda
considers
it
a
drug.
So
it's
technically
not
supposed
to
be
added
as
a
food
ingredient.
It's
not
supposed
to
be
making
any
medical
claims
unless
approved
by
fda.
J
So
with
that,
that's
the
constraint
that
our
current
regulatory
authorities
are
in-
and
this
is
trying
to
we
know
these
products
are
widely
available.
J
The
the
facilities
manufacturing
them
are
not
going
through
health
inspections
because
they
can't
secure
them
so
that
that
is
the
issue
at
hand,
is
trying
to
allow
for
these
facilities
to
be
inspected
and
to
incorporate
these
products,
because
if
it's
happening
we'd,
rather
it
be
done
on
a
safer
level.
So
the
amendment
which
I
think
there's
our
final
final
amendment
didn't
quite
get
through
so
we'll
continue
to
work
with
senator
neil
on
that.
J
But
the
amendment
is
trying
to
capture
what
existing
authority
is
available,
what
other
opportunities
are
available
to
in
the
current
session
and
where
we're
trying
to
fill
that
gap
happy
to
expand
on
anything
public.
J
For
the
record,
ashley
jefferson
you
cut
out
at
the
beginning,
but
I
think
you
asked
if
hhs
has
authority
over
food
facilities
in
the
state.
So
I'm
to
assume
that
was
your
question
and
move
on.
Okay,
yes,
you're!
Absolutely
correct
department
of
ag
typically
stops
once
it's
no
longer
an
unmodified
ag
product.
We
just
regulate
the
ag
product
typically,
so
we
regulate
the
production
of
hemp
in
the
field
and
then
once
it
leaves
that
point.
It
goes
to
health
and
human
services.
B
Thank
you
I
okay.
Thank
you.
I
see
that
senator
ratty
vice
chair
ratty's
back
and
so
I'm
going
to
turn
the
gavel
back
over
to
her.
E
E
All
right
are
we
good
to
go
to
public
testimony
if
there
is
any
all
right,
great,
let's
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
public
testimony
on
sb
281
in
support.
H
H
H
H
Hey
man,
I'm
sure
so,
based
on
the
idea
that
these
things
are
everywhere
right.
These
products
are
everywhere
how
many?
What
level
of
staffing
do
you
think
you
would
need
to
to
conduct
these
type
of
inspections
appropriate
to
effectively
ensure
compliance
with
the
law.
C
Typically,
regulatory
authority
for
food
establishments
and
food
products
are
split
among
the
four
health
jurisdictions,
so
dhhs
typically
has
direct
authority
in
the
rural
and
frontier
counties,
the
others
in
their
respective
county
jurisdictions.
So
I
cannot
speak
to
them.
I
do
know
that
that
is
one
of
the
things
we
were
looking
at.
If
this
were
to
go
forward,
whether
or
not
we
would
develop
a
fiscal
note
and
how
we
would
proceed,
I
don't
believe
that
has
yet
been
done.
A
A
Yeah,
we
actually
have
fiscal
notes
mda
because
they
were
going
with
hhs
withdrew
theirs,
but
tax
has
won.
So
we
actually
have
actual
fiscal
notes
in
the
exhibits.
E
Okay,
so
then,
then,
to
the
caller
and
I'm
sorry,
I've
dropped
your
name.
You
may
still
put
an
additional
fiscal
note
on
it.
Is
that
what
you're
saying.
C
A
A
We
try
to
pay
for
the
administration
of
going
out
and
inspecting
whether
or
not
it's
a
co-responsibility
between
department
of
ag
and
hhs,
and
the
reason
why
the
excess
excess
tax
was
created
at
the
three
percent
was
to
try
to
generate
revenue
off
of
the
retail
product
so
that
they
could
go
out
and
expect.
A
Knowing
that
we
were
coming
into
a
session
where
we
were
budget,
we
had
budget
constraints,
so
that
was
the
purpose
behind
the
excise
to
pay
for
the
administration,
so
they
could
properly
go
out
and
be
funded
to
check,
labeling
and
inspect
these
products,
which
are
in
a
lot
of
places,
and
those
will
be
my
closing
comments.
Adam.
E
Advice,
you
does
anybody
else
on
the
committee.
Have
any
final
comments
or
or
thoughts
on
this
bill.
E
A
Madame
vice
chair,
so
what
we
are
going
to
do
is
go
into
a
work
session
on
the
existing
language,
for
what
is
that
sv
255?
The
the
bill
as
presented
in
committee,
is
the
form.
So,
mr
real
can
turn
this
over
to
you.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
joe
rio,
deputy
fiscal
analyst
of
the
fiscal
analysis.
Division
committee
on
work
session
now
is
senate
bill
255
this
bill
creates
the
division
of
supplier
diversity
within
the
office
of
economic
development
sponsored
by
senator
neil
and
herding
committee
today,
as
presented
bill
creates
the
office
of
excuse
me
the
division
of
creates
the
division
of
supplier
diversity
within
the
office
of
economic
development.
The
bill
specifies.
D
The
duties
of
the
office,
as
outlined
in
the
bill
to
conduct
an
outreach
minority,
small
businesses,
women-owned
small
businesses,
small
businesses
owned
by
persons
with
a
disability,
to
inform
such
businesses
of
both
the
private
and
public
sector
contracting
opportunities,
provide
information,
education,
training
and
assistance
to
minority-owned
small
businesses.
Women-Owned
businesses,
small
businesses,
owned
by
persons
with
disability,
to
assist
assist
those
businesses
in
obtaining
state
and
local
government
contracts,
also
requires
the
development
of
implementing
an
online
data
dashboard.
With
certain
information.
D
D
Primarily,
the
amendment
removes
the
small
business
designation
and
replaces
it
with
a
local
emerging
small
business
reference.
It's
primarily
the
changes
that
are
throughout
the
bill
also
revises
some
of
the
provisions
of
the
newly
created
office
and
with
that
manager
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
on
senate
bill.
D
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Any
questions
on
sv
255.
A
Okay,
can
I
get
a
motion
amended
to.
B
G
You
know
I
was
going
to
ask
about
an
emerging
small
business,
just
a
difference.
The
definition
of
emergency
emerging
small
business
before
we
had
the
motion,
but
I
missed
it.
Oh.
A
Yeah,
no,
I
can
answer
that.
I
don't
know
if
mr
brown's
on,
but
basically
by
bringing
an
emerging
small
business,
it
increases
that
threshold.
So
when
we
adopted
it,
I
think
it
went
up
to.
I
think
she
had
up
to
10
million,
so
it
really
takes
and
it's
based
on
that
gross
revenue
of
a
small
business.
But
it
took
it
all
the
way
down
to,
I
think
3
million.
A
So
I
know
that
it
it
just
it
struck
out
small,
because
we
were
adopting
existing
statute
that
we
that
we
voted
on,
but
I
think
it
expands
the
base.
So
that
allows
not
not
just
a
business
that
has
gross
revenue
of
maybe
300
000,
but
also
one
that's
a
little
bit
larger
to
expand
and
potentially
be
like
a
super
super
millionaire
company
which
I'm
perfectly
okay
with,
because
we
know
that
small
businesses
are
in
different
levels
in
terms
of
their
revenue,
but
they
could
be
run
by
four
people.
A
So
that
was
the
goal.
G
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
okay.
So
any
additional
question
on
the
most
comments
on
the
motion:
okay,
seeing
none
secretary
will
you
do
the
roll
call
vote.
B
A
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
for
that,
so
the
motion
passes.
I
will
assign
this
for
statement
to
me.
Okay,
so
now
we
will
move
to
sv
281,
mr
real.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record,
joe
real
deputy
fiscal
analyst
at
the
fiscal
analysis
division
committee.
Our
next
bill
on
work
session
is
senate
bill
281,
which
enacts
provisions
relating
to
certain
products
containing
hemp
sponsored
by
senator
neil
and
herding
committee.
Today,
this
bill
repeals
the
requirement
for
the
department
of
health
and
human
services
to
regulate
commodities
and
products
that
contain
hemp,
which
are
intended
for
human
consumption,
provides
for
the
regulation.
Consumable
hemp
products
by
the
state
department
of
agriculture.
D
D
It
also
deletes
other
provisions
to
be
consistent
with
reinstating
the
provisions
requiring
the
related
439-532
and
then
additionally,
senator
neil
in
the
hearing
today
made
additional
amendments
to
revise
section
11,
to
change
the
rate
of
the
tax
from
1
to
three
percent
and
then
also
revising
the
effective
date
to
clarify
that
the
effective
date
of
january
1st
2022
is
relative
to
developmental
regulations
and
then
with
respect
to
the
imposition
of
the
tax
becoming
january
1st
2023,
and
with
that
madam
chair
I'll,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
E
I
have
a
question
I
apologize.
Yes,
I
apologize.
This
was
probably
more
appropriate
for
the
hearing,
but
I
was,
I
missed,
a
good
portion
of
the
hearing
having
to
bounce
back
and
forth.
So
if
I
could
just
get
a
couple
of
clarifications
now
that
I've
landed
and
settled
in
a
little
bit
more
so
we
had
this
conversation,
I
believe,
just
two
days
ago,
it's
an
excise
tax,
so
it
looks
like
a
sales
tax
feels
like
a
sales
tax.
E
A
We
did
reach
out
to
them,
but
I
will
let
mr
ginnon
speak
to
that
because
I'm
having
a
brain
fog
right
now.
I,
mr
ginnon,
do
you
remember
what
mr
johnson
told
us.
I
Chair
for
the
record,
russell
guindon
principal
deputy
colonels
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
implications
may
be
for
suda
in
terms
of
getting
the
official
clarification
from
a
gentleman
at
suda,
because,
as
senator
raddy
has
stated
it,
it
is
operating
as
a
excise
tax
and
it
does
have
the
elements
of
the
sales
tax
in
it
for
administration
purposes.
E
And
then
I
think,
if
I'm
understanding
the
intent
of
it,
that's
where
it
ends
as
a
sales
tax.
So
it's
not
going
to
flow
into
sea
tax
at
all.
It
would
purely
just
go
to
the
department
of
ag
and
then
they
could
use
it
for
the
cost
of
implementing
and
then
anything
left
goes
to
the
education
fund.
Is
that
still
all
correct.
A
Well,
there's
a
there's,
a
small
change
to
that,
so
we
spread
between
hhs
and
department
of
ag
in
order
to
administrate
to
administer
this
because
department
of
ag
rolled
in
interests.
What
is
it
557
because
currently
under
statute
hhs
has
the
ability
to
inspect
labels
and
investigate,
and
so
this
is
kind
of
like
a
shared
kind
of
like
a
shared
responsibility,
and
so
the
three
percent
would
spread
across
both
of
those
entities
so
that
they
could
properly
administer
inspect
inspect
businesses
and
the
labeling
content
of
cbd.
A
E
J
For
the
record
ashley
jefferson,
in
response
to
your
question:
yes,
there
there's
a
wide
range
of
products
that
would
have
cbd
oil.
Specifically,
so
part
of
our
amendment
was
clarifying
in
the
language
that
it
is
a
hemp
derived
compound,
because
the
gray
area
is
for
the
area.
That's
been
designated
as
a
drug
by
fda,
so
any
any
product
that
is
encompassing
a
hemp-derived
compound,
which
would
include
that
cbd
oil
would
apply.
J
E
Okay,
so
then
my
question
is:
do
we
know
for
the
retailers
I
know,
chair
neal,
you
do
lots
of
stakeholder
engagement.
Do
we
know
from
the
retailers
their
ability
to
sort
of
program
around
that
different
tax
rate
for
this
product?
So
if,
if
I'm
buying
it
at
a
7-eleven
or
I'm
buying
at
a
raley's
or
I'm
buying
it
at
walmart,
are
they
all
going
to
be
able
to
program
for
this
differential
tax
rate.
A
So
that
was
that's
that's
why
the
delayed
implementation
is
there
to
allow,
when
I
talked
to
the
department
of
tax
about
being
able
to
program
this
in
and
what
it
looked
like.
It's
easier
if
it's
an
electronic
way
to
program
this,
where
it's
remitted
in
a
different
way.
So
we're
not
doing
this
paper
sales
tax
form,
but
actually
allowing
it
to
be
an
electronically
remitted
instance
over
to
department
of
taxation.
A
They
felt
the
administration
would
be
easier
when
they
got
their
computer
system,
so
we
have
the
effective
date
of
the
first
2022,
for
you
know
to
start
the
reg
process
to
do
a
couple
of
things
number
one
identify
who
those
retailers
are
and
then,
when
that
reg
process
starts,
you
know
we.
They
know
exactly
that.
This
is
out
there
and
then
there's
time
and
then
by
23
department
of
tax
has
their
computer
system
up,
which
makes
it
easier
for
them
to
administer.
A
Initially,
we
were
looking
at
a
wholesale
because
the
whole
tax
or
whole
tax
on
a
wholesaler
fit
within
otp
invade,
but
because
that
base
is
narrow
and
when
we,
when
I
kept
seeing
the
amendment,
come
back
with
retail,
I
said
well,
why
does
this
keep
it
retail?
Because
that's
really
what's
what
it's
going
after
is
the
labeling
and
inspection.
A
E
I
Madam
chair,
this
is
your
staff
russell
in
terms
of
looking
through
some
of
my
notes,
as
additional
information
for
consideration
to
senator
ratty's
question
about
pseudo
implications.
I
Again,
as
I
said,
we
would
have
to
get
the
final
confirmation,
but
we're
not
expecting
there
to
be
an
issue,
because
this
isn't,
unlike
the
10
retail
excise
tax
on
cannabis
products.
So
this
would
be
a
three
percent
excise
tax
on
the
retail
value.
So
since
they're
similar
in
structure-
and
we
have
not
right-
we
didn't
have
any
problems
with
pseudo
with
regards
to
the
10
retail
excise
tax.
So
I
just
thought
I
would
offer
that
as
additional
information
that
I
had
thought
of
for
the
committee's
consideration.
A
Yeah-
and
I
just
wanted
to
add
the
only
reason
why
I
did
the
excise
is
because
there
is
no
money,
so
I
and
you
know
I
wanted
to
number
one-
help
them
for
safety
and
regulat
and
to
regulate
this,
which
is
unregulated,
now
allow
them
to
jump
into
the
space,
and
you
know
you
have
to
find
a
way
in
order
to
pay
for
the
activity
that
you
want.
A
So
if
it
can't
be
an
appropriation,
then
typically,
you
know
you
try
to
find
a
way
to
fund
it,
and
so
that's
that
was
why
that
three
percent
was
there
versus
the
one
percent,
because
spread
across
two
agencies
who
have
a
cold
relationship
to
then
go
after
multiple
retailers.
A
Okay,
all
right,
so
is
there
any
discussion,
any
additional
discussion.
B
All
right,
the
in
the
testimony
that
we
heard
somebody
mentioned
an
amendment
that
was
coming.
What
was
that
all
about.
A
A
So
that's
the
difference
because
I'm
like
it
is
going
to
cost
department
of
ag,
and
I
know
that
they
think
that
hhs
is
going
to
be.
You
know,
is
going
to
come
under
their
authority,
but
department
of
ag
has
a
role
there
and
I
do
think
that
there
is.
There
is
some
revenue
that
you're
going
to
need
to
perform
this
task.
You
don't
see
it
now,
but
you're
going
to
see
it
later.
So
that's
why
the
the
amendment
that
we
discussed
and
what
I
discussed
in
committee
is
what
we're
going
with.
B
A
Yes,
because
I
saw
that
and
everything
that
I
discussed
in
the
hearing
and
this
co-responsibility
and
the
spreading
of
that
three
percent
is
how
it
should
be,
because
I
know
there's
going
to
be
cost
with
that
number
of
retailers
out
there
in
department
of
ag's
role,
at
least
even
if
it's
simply
a
reviewer
and
a
co-co-manager.
A
A
H
All
right
now,
maybe
I
missed
this.
How
much
is
this
gonna
raise.
A
That
is
a
good
question.
We
have
not
gotten
to
that
point
yet,
but
I
don't
think
mr
gannon
was
able
to
run
any
numbers.
Mr
gidden
were
you,
I
don't
think
you
were
the
way
this
week
has
been
and
last
week.
I
For
the
record
russell
getting
in
principal
deputy
fifth
glance,
with
the
fiscal
miles
division,
no,
I
think
this
will
be
a
very
difficult
one,
because
I
think
it's
been
discussed
here.
The
cbd
containing
products
are
pretty
broad
and
also
in
terms
of
their
availability
in
stores,
in
terms
of
bricks
and
mortar
stores,
as
well
as
being
able
to
order
them
online
and
have
them
delivered
to
you.
So
I'm
not
very
versed
in
the
whole
product
line
that
is
out
there
for
consumers
in
the
tangible,
personal
property
area.
I
So
I
don't
have
an
estimate
for
what
three
percent
excise
tax
could
potentially
generate.
A
And-
and
that
was
part
of
the
reason
of
having
the
timeline
extended
so
that
they
could
figure
out
who
they're
actually
going
to
be
inspecting
and
dealing
with,
get
time
to
effectively
do
the
reg
and
bring
in
the
proper
amount
of
stakeholder
conversation
and
then,
in
that,
following
period
of
time,
allow
department
of
taxation
to
be
able
to
electronically
do
this,
so
that
these
are
not
paper
filings,
because
in
louisiana,
it's
all
electronic,
the
three
percent
cbd
and
it
just
and
from
our
discussions
it's
easier
for
them
to
administrate
that
what
administer
it
that
way
and
it
reduces
the
burden
on
this
taxpayer.
H
A
So
any
additional
comments.
E
I
guess
just
I
have
to
ask
you
sorry,
madam
chair,
so
I
I
think
I
need
some
clarifying
clarification
on.
Why
you're
not
accepting
their
amendment,
because
I
think
what
I
hear
being
said
and
I've
lost
love,
sorry,
plus
a
little
track
of
what
was
said
but
is
dhhs
doing
all
the
inspections
now
so
miss
jefferson.
The
version
that
we're
going
to
vote
on
is
dhhs
doing
all
of
these.
A
Dhs
is
in
the
version
that
I
had
a
hearing
on,
but
can
you
explain
like?
Are
they
fully
doing
it
or
is
this
a
co-relationship,
because
I
thought
it
was
more
of
a
co-relationship
that
you
were
taking
the
existing
statutory
language
so
that
you
didn't
have
to
recreate
the
inspection
and
labeling
language,
but
you
guys
will
work
together.
J
For
the
record
ashley
jefferson,
so
I'm
happy
to
provide
some
clarification.
So
a
couple
things
went
into
the
justification
for
our
amendment,
one
being
there's
existing
authority
for
health
to
require
that
was
passed
through
the
2019
legislative
session.
That
requires
hemp
products
that
have
cbd
and
thc
to
include
it
on
their
label.
J
So
health
and
human
services
has
already
been
going
through
the
regulation
adoption
process
to
allow
for
the
regulation
of
particularly
imported
products
into
nevada
and,
as
we've
been
working
with
health
and
human
services
and
senator
neil
and
through
this
legislative
session,
sb
114
came
to
our
attention
and
that
is
trying
to
address
that
health,
allowing
for
a
health
facility
or
a
permitted
facility.
That's
doing
food
products
to
add
cbd
and
to
maintain
that
licensure.
J
So
it
would
give
local
health
authorities
the
ability
to
still
license
a
facility,
that's
using
cbd,
which
is
where
part
of
the
limitation
was
before.
So
that's
the
justification
that
came
from
why
we
proposed
the
amendment
of
repealing.
Excuse
me
striking
the
repealed
language
for
439
and
allowing
health
to
continue
with
that
labeling
for
imported
products
to
nevada
and
also
our
amendment
details.
Sv
114
filling
that
other
big
concern
that
we'd
approach
senator
neil
on.
A
I
put
it
back
and
then
in
in
committee
said
I
wanted
shared
between
the
two
entities.
That's
the
only
difference
in
the
language
I
discussed
in
committee
is:
who
does
the
revenue
go
to
because
they
sent
me
an
amendment
where
they
struck
themselves
out,
and
then
I
put
them
back
in
and
then
after
reflecting
on
it,
I
felt
that
it
should
be
shared
between
the
two.
That's
the
only
change
the
bill,
cbd,
hhs
and
all
of
that
is
in
the
bill
that
I
presented
and
discussed
in.
A
E
I'm
wondering
like
I'm
willing
to
support
the
bill
out
of
committee.
I
think
I
have
some
questions.
I'm
wondering
I'd
like
to
get
greater
clarity
on
if
we're
raising
the
excise
tax
to
cover
the
cost
of
doing
the
work
making
sure
I
understand
where
the
work
lives
and
maybe
there's
a
way
to
structure
the
bill
where
it's
a
waterfall.
So
if
most
of
the
work
is
at
dhhs,
we
cover
the
cost
of
that.
E
If
there's
work
it
department
of
ag,
then
it
flows
to
them
and
then,
if
there's
anything
left
to
close
to
the
department
of
education
as
opposed
to
doing
a
50,
50
split
which
may
or
may
not
match
up
to
who's,
actually
doing
the
bulk
of
the
work,
because
I
I
think
I
think
the
underlying
concept
of
the
bill
is
that
it's
a
more
like
a
fee
structure
to
cover
the
cost
of
actually
doing
the
work.
So
again,
I'm
willing
to
support
it
out
of
committee
and
then
have
some
more
more
discussion.
A
And
thank
you
for
that.
Vice
chair,
I
agree
with
you.
We
just
didn't
have
the
time
to
really
spell
that
out,
because
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
and
I
understand
what
you're
saying
and
the
intent
is
exactly
what
you're
saying,
which
is
it
pays
for
the
work
it
pays
for
them
to
administer
this
to
inspect
and
then
go
out,
because
these
are
additional
entities
that
they're
taking
on
because
of
the
retail
component
of
this.
So
all
right,
so
I
know
there's
you
know.
A
I
know
that
there's
some
thoughts
and
I'm
okay
with,
however
people
land,
though
had
I
accepted
emotion,
I
think
I
did
so.
Can
I
get
a
motion
on
amend
and
do
pass,
based
on
doing
a
shared
revenue
structure
between
dhs
and
agriculture
based
on
workload
and
the
amendment
that
was
discussed
in
committee
by
me,
which
has
the
blue
red
purple
and
orange
language,
and
it
says,
proposed
amendment
sb,
281,
plant
industry
division
as
the
cover
page.
That
is
the
amendment
that
was
discussed
in
the
hearing.
A
Okay,
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
I'm
sure
there
is.
B
Yeah,
so
I
I
have
similar
thoughts
to
what
senator
ratty
was
talking
about
on
how
we
do
that
piece,
I'm
willing
to
vote
it
out,
knowing
that
we're
going
to
have
some
additional.
I
think
this
is
something
that
you
know
obviously
has
been
brought
forward.
That
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
so
I'm
willing
to
do
that
just
want
to
feel
comfortable
as
we
come
forward.
When
I
get
to
see
what
it
looks
like
and
and
see
what
the,
where
the
discussions
go.
A
G
Thank
you
chair.
I
won't
be
supporting
the
motion
at
this
time.
I
think
this
is
a
substantial
industry
and
we
need
to
have
regulations
around
it
and
testing
around
it,
but
I
it's
unclear
exactly
the
tax
policy
implications
at
this
time,
and
so
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
at
this
time.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Senator
keith
keffer.
A
C
A
Okay,
so
the
motion
passes
for
men
to
do
pass.
I
understand
everybody's
concerns,
I
get
it.
I
will
take
the
floor
statement
if
you
know
I
know
it's.
Probably
this
is
going
to
go
to
finance
and
I
appreciate
you
guys
help
the
vote
on
this
to
try
to
help
me
help
department
of
ag
get
there.
Okay,
all
right.
So
with
that
we
will
close
the
work
session
on
sb
281
and
then
we
will
open
ourselves
up
for
public
comment,
because
that
concludes
our
business.
A
A
I
I
am
as
in
the
words
of
my
other
colleague,
I
am
pretty
much
text
out.
There's
I
don't
see
anything
from
me
for
a
while
okay.
So
then
we
will
adjourn.