►
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
So
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
call
senate
revenue
to
order.
Mr
secretary
call
the
roll.
A
All
right,
so
we
have
a
work
session,
we're
gonna
work
session,
sb
367
with
some
changes,
and
I
will
let
mr
real
go
over
the
work
session.
C
Document,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
joe
reel
deputy
fiscal
analyst
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
Our
work
session
today
is
sb367.
This
bill
removes
certain
exemptions
from
the
excise
tax
on
live
entertainment
sponsored
by
this
committee
and
heard
both
on
april
6th
and
on
may
20th.
C
During
the
hearing,
senator
neil
presented
the
bill
based
on
proposed
amendment
3401
to
senate
bill
367,
and
this
amendment
would
delete
the
original
provisions
of
the
bill
was
introduced
and
would
instead
amend
nrs
368
a
.020
to
specify
that
the
determined
mission
charge
includes
a
fee
or
charge
that
must
be
paid
to
reserve
or
guarantee
the
right
to
pay
at
the
same
time
or
in
the
future
an
additional
fee
or
charge
in
exchange
for
admission
to
a
facility
where
live
entertainment
is
provided.
C
A
Okay,
so
thank
you
for
that,
so
the
suggested
amendment
for
the
work
session
will
be
delete
section,
one
which
talked
about
the
bill
providing
the
tax
that's
applied
for
the
fee
or
charge
that
must
be
paid
to
reserve
or
guarantee
the
right
to
pay
an
additional
fee.
So
my
proposed
change
is
to
strike
out
section.
A
One
keep
section
two
keep
the
definition
of
governmental
entity
because
that
needed
to
be
defined
and
then
also
keep
the
changes
where
we
returned
the
original
language
for
7
500
in
the
bill
and
where
we
returned
the
original
language
for
an
athletic
contest,
now
being
continuing
to
be
an
exclusion
and
the
effective
date
upon
passage
and
approval.
A
So
any
questions,
that's
that's!
Those
are
my
suggested
amendments
that
would
be
the
work
session.
Send
it.
D
E
E
On
page
three,
the
7
500,
which
was
the
original
number,
would
stay
on
page
4.
The
7
500,
which
is
the
original
number,
would
stay
on
page
5
lines,
one
through
five,
which
includes
the
maintaining
the
exemption
for
the
athletic
contents
context
and
the
light
and
adding
the
live.
Entertainment
text
that
is
provided
entirely
for
the
benefit
of
a
government
entity
would
stay
and
it
would
be
effective
upon
passage
and
approval.
F
Thank
you
thank
thank
you,
chair,
neil,
so.
A
F
In
the
end
is
the
only
additional
exemption,
the
live,
entertainment
that
is
provided
by
or
entirely
for
the
benefit
of
a
governmental
entity.
That's
it
so
everything
else
remains
the
same,
except
we're
exempting
live,
entertainment
that
is
provided
by
or
entirely
for
the
benefit
of
a
governmental
entity.
Correct,
okay,
all
right!
Thank
you.
A
F
Correction,
current
law,
so
the
athletic
contest
by
professional
team
based
in
the
state
is
already
exempted.
F
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
and
this
might
be
an
implementation
question,
so
the
the
live,
entertainment
that
is
entirely
proved
that
is
provided
by,
I
would
think.
That's,
then
a
comma
or
entirely
for
the
benefit
of
comma,
a
governmental
entity.
So
if
it's
live,
entertainment,
that's
provided
by
a
governmental
entity,
how
do
we
decide
if
who's
providing
the
entertainment?
Is
it
the
venue?
G
Is
it
the
promotion
company?
Is
it
I'm
trying
to
figure
out,
I
mean:
are
we
exempting
everything
that's
going
to
take
place
in
alicia
stadium,
because
it's
a
government-owned
facility.
D
We
don't
have
representatives
from
the
department
taxation
on
the
game
control
board
here
I
would
not
read
the
language
to
be
interpreted,
and
so
it
would
not
be
my
expectation
that
gcb
and
or
the
department
of
taxation
would
administer
it.
That
way,
that
you're,
correct,
senator
kikifer
that
the
legion
stadium
is
owned
by
a
governmental
entity.
D
Right
if
I'm
a
promoter-
and
I
have
a
concert
in
there-
I'm
the
one
putting
it
on
and
I
would
be
the
one
that
would
be
benefiting
from
it,
not
the
legion
stadium,
but
I
think,
if
say
clark,
county
decided
to
put
on
some
kind
of
event
that
would
otherwise
be
subject
to
live
entertainment
tax
as
a
governmental
entity,
possibly
for
the
benefit
of
that
governmentality.
D
Then
I
would
think
that
that
would
probably
be
exempt.
But
I
have
to
be
careful
here
as
your
legislative
staff
not
doing
the
job
of
taxation
or
giving
to
control
board
because
it
may
be
dependent
upon
each
specific
case.
But
what
this
is
in
a
sense,
I
think,
restoring
the
exemption
for
governmental
entities
that
existed
pre-2015.
D
So
that's
a
good
observation
and
question,
but
I
don't
think
that's
how.
I
would
read
this
that,
just
because
the
facility
is
owned
by
a
governmental
entity
that
then
the
event
is
exempt,
because
I
believe
we
actually
have
that
occurring
in
the
real
world.
Now
that
where
private
parties
can
use
governmental
facilities
to
put
on
an
event.
But
then
it's
subject
to
the
live
entertainment
tax
because
of
the
person
who's
putting
it
on
or
benefiting
from
it.
A
So,
mr
gannon,
I
think,
but
we
could
solve
it
by
just
saying:
live
entertainment,
that's
provided
by
and
entirely
for,
instead
of
an
ore,
and
that
just
puts
it
in
that
very
narrow
circumstance
where
it
is
by
governmental
entity
and
entirely
for
their
benefit,
that
that
removes
the
example
of
you
rented
out
a
government
facility.
But
you
are
a
private
party.
D
I
would
agree
that
that
that,
if
that
was
part
of
the
motion
that
made
by
the
committee
as
the
intent
of
the
amendment
here
and
then
obviously,
we
know
what
the
intent
of
what
the
committee
is
doing
here
this
afternoon.
So
then,
as
your
physical
staff,
we
can
work
with
the
legal
division
for
them
to
get
the
language
clear.
When
the
amendment
comes
to
the
senate
floor
for
consideration.
A
E
Go
ahead,
thank
you.
So
I
would
be
concerned
about
changing
that
to
and
because
I
have
no
idea
what
type
of
event
we're
trying
to
capture
here.
I'm
trying
to
picture
what
what
government
entities
are
putting
on
events,
but
I
would
not
be
surprised
that
if
a
government
entity
is
putting
on
an
event
for
the
benefit
of
a
government
entity
that
they
wouldn't
contract
out
or
have
a
promoter
doing
the
event,
but
the
proceeds
would
benefit
the
government
entity.
E
A
At
so
okay,
I
I
mean,
I
see
it
differently
because,
like
in
clark
county,
they
have
reagan
in
the
desert,
they
have
jazz,
and
that
is,
although
public
comes,
it
benefits.
Clark
county.
G
G
D
This
is
russell
again
as
fiscal
announcement
stuff
that
I'm
not
obviously
totally
informed
on
the
events,
but
there
are
local
governments
that
are
putting
on
they're
actually
in
a
sense
providing
it.
But
to
get
to
senator
raddy's
point:
are
they
contracting
or
hiring
somebody
to
help
them
facilitate
putting
on
the
event
I
don't
know,
but,
but
so
it
can
be
provided
by
them
and
then
it's
or
can
be
provided
by
some
for
the
benefit
of
them.
D
So
I
think
that's
what,
when
legal
phrased
it
this
way,
but
I
think
what
we're
understanding
the
intent
of
that
to
try
and
get
out
local
government
events
that
without
having
it,
be
construed
to
be
that
it's.
You
know
the
type
of
things
that
you
don't
want
to
have
in,
where
that
it's
a
a
governmental
facility,
but
it's
a
private
entity,
but
those
are
still
in,
and
so
we
can
talk
to
the
legal
division
to
get
the
intent
of
that.
But
I
read
it.
I
think
sort
of
the
way
senator
reddy
does
that.
A
So
thank
you
for
that,
mr
ginnit.
So
can't
we
provide
an
exclusion,
then
and
saying,
like
okay
live
entertainment
that
is
provided
by
or
entirely
for
the
benefit
of
a
government
entity,
but
unless
it
is
being
done
for
by
a
private
entity
which
is
not
which
all
the
proceeds
go
to
that
private
party,
then
it
is
in
I
mean
I'm
not
as
I'm
just
trying
to
create.
D
An
acceptance,
I
think,
where
my
concern
goes,
is
your
staff?
Is
that
first
phrasing
like
that,
then
right
and
again
under
senator
raddy's
scenario,
where
they
actually
contract
with
somebody
to
help
them
facilitate
putting
on
the
event?
And
so
perhaps
not
100-
of
the
proceeds
go
to
the
local
government
because
they
have
to
make
some
payment
to
the
entity
that
helped
them
put
on
the
event.
D
So
it's
just
right
the
phrasing
here,
and
so
I
think
it's
to
where
senator
ki
cafe
would
be
it's
possibly
going
to
be
the
the
administration
of
it
by
the
gaming
control
board
and
the
department
of
taxation,
and
then
they,
since
they're
jointly
administering
the
chapter
can
work
to
come
up
with,
if
necessary,
regulations
to
administer
the
the
governmental
entity
exemption
so
that
it's
only
applying
to
when
it's
provided
by
or
for
the
benefit
of
that
governmental
entity.
D
But
not
other
entities
and
part
of
you
would
think
they're.
I
don't
know
how
they
were
totally
administering
the
exemption
that
existed
prior
to
2015,
but
I
think
the
understanding
is
that
they
would
go
back
to
that
construct
for
their
administration,
that
they
were
doing
pre-2015
session,
because
it's
restoring
the
exemption
for
governmental
entities
that
existed
prior.
A
Okay,
so,
based
on
this
conversation
committee,
members,
that
there
is
existing
intent
on
how
governmental
entities
how
this,
how
led
was
applied
to
governmental
entities?
Are
you,
okay,
with
section
2
subp
as
written,
knowing
that
there
is
existing
clarifying
language
or
intent
on
the
application
of
this.
A
G
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
All
right!
So
so
do
I
is
I'd,
be
willing
to
take
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
based
on
removing
the
green
language
in
section
one
keeping
section
two
as
written.
A
So,
first
from
senator
dennis.
A
Second,
all
right!
Mr
secretary,
can
you
call
the
rule
madam
chair.
F
A
F
I
think
you're
going
to
have
places
where
it's
going
to
get
caught
unintended
consequences
if
you
leave
the
provided
by
because
there
could
be
a
lot
of
different
events
that
are
promoted
by
local
government,
I'm
thinking
of
art
town
in
reno
right.
So
it's
not
really
local
government,
but
it's
it's
kind
of
all
over
but
they're
the
the
places
that
host
them.
A
lot
of
them
are
county
parks,
city
parks
and
so
forth.
So
it's
kind
of
provided
by,
but
it's
not
for
the
benefit
of
them.
A
A
Yes,
all
right,
so
the
motion
passes
with
two
reservations,
so
I
will
assign
this
floor
statement
to
me
all
right
so
and
so
we
will
open
up
for
public
comment
on
for
senate
revenue
as
anyone
on
bps
and
sign
up
for
and
on
the
line
for
public
comment.