►
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.
C
D
A
As
you
know,
the
legislative
building
is
currently
closed
to
the
public,
and
so
all
committee
meetings
will
be
held
virtually
meaning
committee
members
staff
and
everyone
else
will
participate
either
through
zoom
video
conference
or
by
telephone.
However,
there
are
various
ways
members
of
the
public
can
engage
with
us
and
participate
throughout
the
process.
As
in
previous
sessions,
all
committee-related
information
is
available
on
nellis,
which
is
accessible
on
the
legislative
website.
A
There
are
four
ways
to
engage
with
the
committee.
These
include
registering
to
participate
in
a
committee
meeting
through
the
new
system
on
nellis,
which
places
you
in
line
to
testify
on
the
bill.
Providing
public
comment
during
the
meeting
submitting
submitting
written
testimony
to
the
committee
as
sent
by
sending
to
the
committee
email
address
or
fax
number
listed
on
the
agenda,
sharing
your
opinion
via
the
legislator's
opinion,
application
on
nellis
or
viewing
committee
meetings
through
nellis
or
on
the
legislators,
youtube
channel
during
the
201
2021
legislative
session
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
A
Members
of
the
public
must
first
register
for
the
meeting
you
would
like
to
participate
in
committee
meetings
are
listed
in
several
places
on
nellis
and
simply
click
participation,
and
then
you
will
then
be
moved
into
a
queue.
You
will
then
tell
what
that
you
want
your
registration
submitted.
You
will
get
a
constant
confirmation
screen
and
you
will
also
receive
an
email
with
the
phone
number
and
meeting
id
to
call
at
the
time
of
the
meeting.
Just
note
that,
while
meeting
registration
is
required
to
participate,
it
is
not
guaranteed
guarantee.
A
A
E
E
It's
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
and
then
heard
in
this
committee
on
february
18th
senate
bill
24
revises
various
provisions
governing
the
requirements
and
approval
of
a
program
of
workforce
development
and
administration
of
the
workforce.
Innovations
for
a
new
nevada
account
by
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
bill
adds
certain
information
that
must
be
included
in
an
application
to
provide
a
program
of
workforce
development.
E
It
also
requires
any
program
or
workforce
development
that
may
be
approved
by
goed
to
result
in
a
post-secondary
or
industry-recognized
credential
or
an
identifiable
occupational
skill
that
meets
the
applicable
industry.
Standard
requires
go
ed
to
coordinate
with
relevant
state
agencies
and
review
federal
warrant
act
notices
to
ensure
that
businesses
participating
in
a
program
of
workforce
development
meet
certain
criteria.
E
With
respect
to
the
amendment
that
I
mentioned
during
the
hearing,
goed
did
propose
an
amendment.
It's
to
section
one
subsection,
four
paragraph
b,
specifically
sub-paragraph
three
in
that
as
written
goed,
is
required
to
make
certain
assurances
that
each
business
for
which
an
applicant
that
has
submitted
an
application
will
provide
a
program,
a
workforce,
recruitment
and
assessment
that
meets
the
criteria
there
in
items.
One
through
three
and
three
currently
requires
that
the
business
has
not
conducted
any
layoffs
in
the
12
months
immediately
preceding
the
date
of
the
application.
E
The
job
categories
related
to
the
proposed
program
of
workforce
recruitment
assessment
and
training
in
the
amendment
just
makes
it
so
that
the
business
would
have
to
provide
a
report
outlining
the
basis
for
any
furloughs
or
layoffs
in
the
12
months
immediately
preceding
the
application,
and
with
that
manager
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
but
so
mr
real,
thank
you
for
the
amendment,
but
I
wanted
to
propose
a
second
amendment.
Is
that
possible
to
do
that
right
now,
absolutely.
A
So
I
wanted
to
propose
an
amendment
to
the
bill:
to
cap
the
administration
fees,
administrative
fees
to
10
that
excludes
the
fee,
the
fee
for
marketing
that
would
be
in
the
budget
to
an
institution.
A
So
and
then
so
members
are
there
any
questions
on
the
proposed
amendment
that
I'm
offering,
along
with
questions
to
mr
real
adam
chad,
go
ahead.
C
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
amendment
that
you're
offering.
I
think
it
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
cap
the
administrative
costs
associated
with
this
program.
So
thank
you
for
that,
and,
and
I'm
fine
with
the
rest
of
the
bill
as
well.
A
A
Okay,
seeing
none,
I
will
accept
an
emotion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
F
A
Yes,
okay,
so
seeing
that
this
passed
unanimously
from
committee
with
both
amendments,
I
will
give
the
floor
statement
to
senator
ganzer.
A
All
right,
thank
you
for
that.
So
now
we
will
move
into
our
bill
presentations.
We
have
two
bills.
Our
first
bill
will
be
sb
117,
which
is
by
senator
gansert,
and
we
will
open
up
for
the
hearing.
G
C
C
More
frequently,
I
was
serving
as
governor
sandoval's
chief
of
staff
in
2011
when
we
passed
some
legislation
to
reorganize
economic
development
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
part
of
that
was
a
state
plan
which
is
basically
a
strategic
plan
to
look
at
industries
and
some
opportunities
the
state
may
have,
and
we
were
able
to
publish
the
original
estate
plan
in
2012
and
just
recently
governor
sissellach
and
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
was
able
to
publish
an
update
of
that.
So
in
2021
or
nine
years
later,.
C
Then
you
want
to
be
able
to
match
your
workforce
programs
with
that,
and
so
it's
really
critical
to
do
both
to
to
look
at
your
opportunities
for
current
workers
and
new
workers
and
transitioning
workers
and
then
go
ahead
and
put
down
put
together
the
workforce
programs
that
we
need
to
promote
diversification
and
resiliency
goi
did
a
really
great
job.
I
think
was
a
week
or
two
ago
discussing
diversity,
diversification
in
the
state
of
nevada.
C
And
if
you
remember,
we
looked
at
the
hatchman
index
and
we
have
some
neighboring
states
that
are
doing
pretty
well
utah
and
arizona
and
our
score
is
significantly
lower.
That's
really
around
the
industries
that
we
have
and
the
weight
or
the
number
of
employees
that
we
have
in
certain
sectors
and
if
we
have
some
that
are
heavily
weighted
versus
others,
and
so
I'm
kind
of
looking
at
northern
and
southern
nevada.
C
The
diversification,
if
you
were
to
look
at
washoe
county,
of
course,
it's
much
smaller
and
they've
been
working
on
diversification
for
years
and
years
and
years,
and
you
can
see
that
they're
significantly
diversified
and
right
now
are
experiencing
an
unemployment
rate
of
about
five
percent.
And
then,
when
you
look
at
clark,
we
still
have
hospitality
really
outweighing
all
the
other
industries,
and
so
their
unemployment
rates
are
significantly
higher.
C
So
there's
really
a
story
to
be
told
between
diversification
and
unemployment
rates
and
how,
if
we
strategically
plan
and
and
do
the
workforce
development
that
we're
doing
now,
but
continue
to
do
that
and
do
it
on
an
ongoing
basis.
We
can
really
improve
and
it
is
a
heavy
lift.
It's
not
something
that
happens
overnight.
It's
a
heavy
lift
and
we
have
to
be
dedicated
to
that,
and
and
with
that,
it's
important
to
be
updating
our
plans
and
be
focused.
You
can
look
at
jobs
and
wages.
C
And
you
can
see,
we've
got
pretty
extensive
list
of
incentives
and
abatements,
and
this
again
was
from
goad's
presentation
to
us
earlier.
So
we-
and
you
know
when
talking
to
michael
brown
separately
and
then
also
listening
to
his
test
testimony.
We
do
a
really
good
job,
around
incentives
and
abatements.
As
far
as
making
sure
that
we
require
benefits
be
paid.
We
have
call
back
provisions,
we
have
auditing,
and
so
we
really
have
some
good
programs
and
a
good
structure.
C
I
think,
since
we
looked
at
these,
we
tend
to
fiddle
around
the
edges,
but
really
not
look
at
the
whole
thing,
so
I
think
it's
important
to
review
all
of
it
and
then,
as
far
as
the
bayonets
and
incentives,
I
remember
during
the
testimony
we
heard,
I
believe
from
potts
say
that
some
of
the
businesses
that
chose
to
come
to
nevada,
like
70
percent,
say
that
the
incentives
and
abatements
were
important
to
them
to
come
here,
and
this
is
just
sort
of
a
simplified
chart
showing
that,
while
we
may
have
abated
334.7
million
dollars,
the
new
tax
revenue
that
the
state
enjoyed
was
1.5
billion
and
then,
of
course,
the
economic
impact
was
was
significant
for
a
beta
dollar
too.
C
C
C
Can
you
see
me
now,
oh
yeah,
maybe
I
had
to
unshare.
I
think
I
I
didn't.
I'm
sure
I
think
I'm
back
so
you
know
I
I
picked
three
years.
It
could
be
a
little
bit
longer,
but
I
don't
think
it
could
be
any
shorter.
I
think
it
does
take
a
little
bit
of
time,
but
we.
What
I
want
to
make
sure
is
that
we
consistently
assess
our
strategic
plan.
C
It
doesn't
we
don't
have
to
start
it's
an
update
really,
so
you
can
start
from
ground
zero
or
you
can
update
and
kind
of
check
what
you're
doing,
but
it
seems
like
the
economy
changes
pretty
rapidly
and
now
because
of
covid
we've
seen
this
acceleration
going
to
to
ai
and
and
remote
employment
and
things
look
a
lot
different
than
they
did
a
couple
of
years
ago,
really
or
even
even
even
a
year
ago,
and
so
I
think
it's
smart
for
us
to
do
it
more
frequently
and
I'm
flexible
as
far
as
three
years.
A
Yes,
I
I
agree
with
you
so
just
a
quick
follow-up,
the
cost
to
update
the
plans
by
goed.
Do
you
know
how
much
that
is?
I've
heard
that
on
average
it
could
be
maybe
500
000
for
them
to
update
plans.
C
So
so
I
thought
the
last
contract,
of
my
understanding
at
least
what
I
thought
I
heard
was:
two
was
two
hundred
thousand
dollars,
and
so
you
know
every
couple
bienniums,
if
you
updated,
I
think
that's
probably
money
well
spent
because
again,
on
the
other
side
of
that
we're
putting
millions
of
dollars
into
workforce
development
programs,
because
we've
got
state
money,
but
we
also
have
department
of
labor
federal
dollars
that
get
pushed
down
for
workforce
development.
C
H
Thank
you.
So
I
appreciate
the
presentation
of
the
bill
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity,
I'm.
I
guess
I'm
curious,
I
think
we're
seeing
an
emergency,
an
emerging
body
of
research
from
folks
like
pew,
charitable
trust
and
others
that
just
are
questioning
whether
or
not
tax
incentives
or
baiting
taxes
is
a
successful
economic
development
tool.
H
C
Thank
you
senator
ratty,
so
so
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
all
the
above
and
I
do
specifically
remember
during
goed's
testimony
that
they
said
70
percent
of
the
company
said
they
came
here,
and
that
was
a
driving
mechanism,
for
them
was
the
incentives
and
the
abatements,
but
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
them.
You
know
just
we
had
a
bill
last
session.
C
I
think
maybe
some
of
us,
or
all
of
us
ended
up
supporting
that
to
look
at
the
average
wage
and
what
what
average
wage,
because
I,
especially
when
times,
were
even
more
robust.
We
don't
just
want
any
jobs.
We
want
jobs
that
are
good
for
the
quality
of
life
and
will
help
make
our
economy
more
resilient.
So
if
we
are
to
offer
something,
what
does
that
look
like?
What
kind
of
benefits
are
required?
What
type
of
wages
what
level
of
wages
are
required?
C
Are
they
jobs
in
certain
fields?
We
know
we
can't
get
enough
healthcare
providers.
You
know,
that's
for
sure,
and
we
know
we've
got
this
not
growing
an
emergency
emerging
knowledge
based
economy.
So
we
really
need
to
look
at
what
it's
going
to
take
to
support
businesses
here
and
continue
to
grow
those
to
diversify
and
but
I
do
think
everything's
on
the
table
so
so,
whether
it's
suggesting
what
we
have
reworking
it
or
maybe
eliminating
some
of
those
programs.
A
I
I
B
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
dylan
keith
k-e-I-t-h
policy,
analyst
with
the
vegas
chamber.
The
chamber
is
in
support
of
sb-117
today,
as
the
economy
continues
to
change
and
see
new
advancements,
it
is
imperative
for
nevada
to
keep
up
as
we
strive
to
diversify
the
nevada
state
economy,
as
goethe
oversees
the
state's
preparedness
to
reach
our
goals,
it
is
essential
for
the
office
to
receive
regular,
in-depth
briefs
and
for
our
plans
to
adjust
accordingly,
this
bill
ensures
we
continue
towards
a
sustainable
and
diverse
economy.
B
A
Hey
we
will
move
to
opposition
for
sb.
I
I
I
J
This
testimony
is
actually
in
support,
not
in
neutral
just
so
you
know,
but
because
of
the
delay,
that's
why
I'm
getting
it
right
now.
Ccea
is
testifying
in
support
of
senate
bill
117
and
thanks
to
sponsors
for
bringing
this
bill
forth.
We
know
now
more
than
ever
that
we
must
develop
and
diversify
the
nevada
economy.
However,
we
cannot
let
another
nine
years
go
by
to
decide
that
economic
development
is
still
a
priority
by
implementing
sb
117
nevada
will
ensure
that
there
is
flexibility
available
to
periodically
revise
the
plan
to
align
with
new
and
emerging
industries.
J
If
we
were
to
suggest
any
changes
to
this
bill,
it
would
be
to
request
that
those
updated
plans
provide
specific
information
related
to
progress
on
diversifying
our
economy.
Economic
development
is
not
necessarily
synonymous
with
economic
diversity.
We
strongly
believe
that
our
state's
economy
must
diversify.
So
we
do
not
experience
the
same
drastic
downturn.
We
have
experienced
by
relying
on
two
industries.
J
We
would
also
like
to
suggest
to
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
to
consider
adding
language
under
section
three
that
emphasizes
focus
on
the
types
of
incentives
that
would
help
facilitate
economic
diversity
in
our
economy.
Our
economy
must
diversify
and
key
to
that
is
having
a
workforce
with
education
and
skills.
The
excuse
me
what
the
education
and
skills
necessary
to
serve
those
industries
and
businesses.
J
Nevada's
k-12
system
is
the
base
of
nevada's
k-20
education
delivery
system.
We
must
strengthen
the
base
now
more
than
ever
as
legislators
and
the
governor
chart,
of
course,
of
recovery.
Investing
in
our
state's
education
delivery
system
is
paramount.
Accordingly,
sb
7
117
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction
in
monitoring
our
economy
in
a
timely
and
surgical
way.
Thank
you
for
your
efforts
and
we
look
forward
to
doing
all
that
we
can
to
support
economic
diversification,
workforce
development
and
giving
every
student
an
opportunity
to
succeed.
I
No
chair
there's
no
one
else
on
the
line
to
testify.
Thank
you.
C
Remarks,
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
appreciate
you
hearing
the
bill
today
and
I
would
appreciate
your
support.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
D
Greetings,
senator
nill
and
members
of
the
senate
revenue
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation,
I'm
here,
along
with
members
of
my
team
chief
deputy
shelly
hughes,
deputy
director
dave
prather,
jeff
hardcastle,
the
state
demographer
and
kevin
williams,
the
management
analyst
responsible
for
our
distributed
tax
distributions.
D
D
Over
the
past
two
years,
the
executive
team
at
the
department
has
been
working
on
reviewing
our
processes.
This
review
is
large
in
part
due
to
our
to
become
more
efficient
and
modernize
the
department
in
anticipation
of
our
I.t
monetization
project,
but
that
being
said
a
while
back,
we
asked
our
internal
auditor
to
audit
some
of
our
processes.
D
D
G
G
G
Existing
law
requires
that
population
totals
be
used
for
the
distribution
of
certain
taxes.
In
several
provisions
of
the
nrs,
such
as
nrs
360,
690
and
377.057,
the
population
totals
to
be
used.
Are
the
population
totals
certified
by
the
governor
unless
those
totals
conflict
with
the
bureau
of
census
totals
in
the
case
of
the
conflict,
the
bureau
of
census
totals
must
be
used.
G
The
requirement
to
use
the
population
totals
of
the
bureau
of
the
census
of
the
united
states
department
of
commerce
in
case
of
conflict
with
the
population
totals
of
the
governor
section,
2
amends
nrs,
377
055.
It
clarifies
that
the
population
totals
used
to
make
these
determinations
are
the
population
totals
certified
by
the
governor
annually.
G
G
There
are
several
problems
with
using
census,
decennial
totals
and
annual
census
estimates
most
notably
timing.
The
governor's
certified
population
totals
for
the
current
year
are
based
on
population
totals
from
two
fiscal
years
prior.
If
we
were
to
use
census,
decennial
totals
and
annual
census
estimates.
These
are
based
off
the
current
year.
Would
we
use
census,
totals
two
fiscal
years
behind
to
correlate
with
the
governor's
certified
population
totals.
G
G
Another
problem
is
the
mandatory
language
in
nrs
360
285,
which
requires
the
department
to
use
governor
certified
population
totals
for
any
tax
that
is
collected
for
apportionment
where
the
basis
of
apportionment
is
the
population,
while
the
census
language
in
nrs,
360,
690,
nnrs
377057
deals
with
calculating
population
change,
it
isn't.
It
is
inconsistent
with
the
language
in
nrs,
360
285..
G
Then
the
problem
becomes
if
it
is
determined
that
decennial
census
totals
and
annual
census.
Estimates
are
to
be
used
every
year
determining
whether
there
is
a
conflict.
In
reality,
the
decennial
census
totals
in
the
annual
census.
Estimates
will
always
be
in
conflict
with
the
governor's
certified
population
totals
that's
according
to
nrs,
360,
690
and
377057
decennial
census
totals
at
annual
census.
Estimates
should
always
be
used,
decidional
totals
would
be
used
every
10
years
and
annual
census
estimates
would
be
used
in
off
years.
The
problem
with
using
annual
census
estimates
is
annual
census.
G
Estimates
do
not
include
estimate
populations
of
unincorporated
towns,
so
governor
certified
totals
would
have
to
be
used
for
those
population
totals
again.
This
causes
a
problem
because
the
governor's
certified
totals
are
calculated
based
on
the
population
for
the
two
fiscal
years
prior
and
the
census
totals
are
calculated
for
the
current
year.
G
Again,
we
will
have
to
determine
if
the
statute
requires
that
we
use
census
totals
two
fiscal
years
behind
to
correlate
with
the
governor's
certified
population
totals
alternating
between
census
totals
and
governor's
certified
totals,
and
the
calculation
of
the
distributions
becomes
a
difficult
task.
We
would
not
have
consistent
statistical
algorithms
year
to
year
and
finally,
if
census
totals
are
only
to
be
used
in
decennial
years,
then
the
governor's
certified
totals
could
be
used
in
off
years.
G
But
then
we
encounter
two
problems:
inconsistencies
from
moving
from
the
decennial
census
totals
to
the
governor's
totals
and
a
timing
difference
regarding
the
decennial
census
totals
based
on
the
current
year
and
the
governor's
totals
being
two
fiscal
years
behind
again.
We
would
have
to
determine
if
the
statute
requires
that
we
use
census
totals
two
fiscal
years
behind
to
correlate
with
the
governor
certified
population
totals
additionally,
the
bureau
of
census
continually
updates
the
census
totals.
So
these
totals
can
change,
so
we
would
have
to
continually
update
the
population
totals
when
calculating
the
distribution.
G
The
legislative
history
of
the
current
law,
so
ab-721
from
1969,
was
codified,
as
nrs
360
285
was
enacted
to
require
where
any
tax
collected
for
apportionment
the
population
would
be
determined
by
the
last
preceding
national
census
of
the
bureau
of
census.
G
G
G
The
statute
did
not
contain
any
reference
to
the
census,
ab506
in
1993
added
language
to
nrs
377057,
requiring
that
the
census
totals
be
used
if
the
census
totals
were
in
conflict
with
the
total
certified
by
the
governor,
the
bill
was
enacted
to
correct
errors
made
in
another
assembly
bill
from
a
prior
session
and
an
amendment
to
the
bill.
The
census
language
was
added.
There
is
no
discussion
of
the
use
of
the
census
totals
in
the
legislative
history.
Nor
was
there
any
discussion
of
any
issues
arising
from
the
use
of
population
figures
certified
by
the
governor.
G
The
senate
committee
on
taxation
minutes
of
april
6
1999
teresa
glasner
from
the
department
of
taxation,
said
that
the
governor's
certified
totals
were
used
until
the
census
totals
were
released.
Then
the
formula
would
be
re-established
based
on
the
census
totals
in
the
senate
committee
on
taxation
minutes
of
april
8
1999
for
sb
538.
G
There
was
a
discussion
about
when
census
total
should
be
used.
There
was
a
discussion
that
using
estimates
may
be
unconstitutional.
The
chair
of
the
committee
clarified
that
when
census
figures
were
current,
they
were
used
in
an
off
years.
The
state
demographer
would
provide
totals
which
were
certified
by
the
governor.
G
Can
we
assume
that
the
legislative
intent
was
to
also
use
the
decedial
census
totals
every
10
years
and
then
governor
certified
totals
and
off
years
sb
74?
We
would
like
to
remove
the
language
that
indicates
that
the
bureau
of
census
population
totals
will
be
used
when
they
are
in
conflict
with
the
governor's
certified
population
totals
this
language
occurs
both
in
nrs
377,
057
and
nrs
360
690.
G
There
are
several
reasons
why
we
believe
there
will
not
be
a
negative
impact
if
this
language
is
removed.
First,
during
our
research,
we
cannot
find
where
the
department
has
ever
used.
The
census
totals
based
on
the
legislative
history
for
360
690.
The
census
total
should
have
been
used
in
2000,
2010
and
now
2020..
G
G
G
G
D
Thank
you
for
the
record
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation,
and
we
thank
you
for
your
time
and
discussion
on
this
statutory
change.
We
realize
that
this
is
a
hard
conversation
to
have
by
coming
forward
requesting
this
change
that
removes
language
implemented
in
1999,
that
the
department
never
implemented
for
the
distribution
process
of
state
tax
revenues
to
local
governments.
D
D
We
believe
that
if
the
statutory
provisions
were
implemented,
the
department
and
our
local
governments
would
have
come
forward
during
a
legislative
session
to
make
those
changes.
We
believe
this
again.
This
is
a
housekeeping
matter,
as
shelly
hughes
had
indicated,
as
the
department
has
never
used
the
bureau
of
census
totals
in
the
state
distribution
process.
D
If
this
bill
is
passed,
there
should
be
no
effect
on
local
governments.
Furthermore,
the
population
counts
developed
by
the
state,
demographer
and
certified
by
the
governor.
The
local
governments
have
at
local
due
process
rights
and
they
have
the
ability
to
appeal
to
the
department.
Their
population
counts,
thus
giving
them
in-state
due
processes.
D
A
Thank
you
for
that
director
young.
So
before
we
get
to
questions
committee,
I
want
mr
guindon
to
share
some
charts.
That
kind
of
it's
like
we're
going
to
do
a
show-and-tell
version
of
what
the
law
would
have
done,
and
so,
mr
guindon,
can
you
share
the
chart
table
one.
K
Yes,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
the
record.
Ro
russell
ginden
principal
deputy
fiscal
analyst
with
the
physical
analysis
division
and
what
you
should
see
here
is
table
one
and
there's
five
different
documents
that
are
provided
today
and
the
re
the
results
in
these
tables
come
out
of
when
melanie
young
and
her
staff
from
taxation.
K
Let
us
know
that
this
bill
would
be
coming
forward
and
then
we
started
working
in
terms
of
the
discussions,
and
so
your
staff
has
gone
through
and
reviewed.
The
legislative
history,
too,
that's
been
compiled
by
your
research
library
staff
and
we
would
concur
that
there
does
not
seem
to
be
testimony
on
the
record
to
why
this
census
language
is
added
to
the
sccrt
distributions
in
1993
and
believe
it
was
probably
just
picked
up
and
carried
forward
into
the
sea
tax.
K
Second
tier
distribution
calculations
when
that
law
was
established
in
1997
and
before
I
start
going
to
the
table,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
semantics
can
come
into
play
here,
because
you
keep
hearing
the
word
census.
I
bet
you.
If
you
would
ask
the
average
person
they
would
think.
What's
going
on
it's
the
decennial
census,
not
realizing
that
you
actually
have
a
u.s
census
bureau,
that's
doing
the
census
and
then
that
census
bureau
is
actually
producing
calendar
year.
Estimates
for
states
and
counties
in
in
the
cities
in
those
counties.
K
So
I
think
that,
as
as
shelly
hughes
and
director
young
testified
that
what
is
meant
by
the
word
census
and
census
estimates
and
census
population
estimates.
K
K
So
what
you
have
in
front
of
you
on
the
screen
here
and
it's
also
available
in
nellis-
is
table
1..
So
the
top
part
of
the
table
table
1a
shows
the
population
estimates
that
were
prepared
by
the
state.
Demographer
highlighted
there
in
orange
on
the
left
side
of
the
table,
and
these
would
have
been
the
estimates
that
were
certified
by
the
governor
for
july,
2015
and
july
2016.
K
That
would
have
been
used
to
do
the
actual
sccrt
guarantee
and
non-guaranteed
county
distribution
calculations
for
fy
2018,
and
so
then
to
the
right
of
that
highlighted
in
the
yellow
block
at
the
top
you,
those
are
the
current
u.s
census,
bureau
estimates
for
july
2015
and
july
2016.,
and
as
was
mentioned,
I
used
you
see,
I
say
they're
the
current
estimates,
because
the
census
bureau
can
they
intermittently
they're,
updating
or
revising
or
changing
their
estimates
for
these
years
and
versus
the
demographics
estimates
when
they're
certified
by
the
governor
for
a
july
first
date,
they're
certified
that
that's
that's
the
estimate
and
they're
not
revised.
K
So,
as
was
mentioned,
that's
one
of
the
issues
that
taxation
noted
is
to
creates
a
mathematical
issue
with
regards
to
calculations.
K
So,
given
that
these
would
have
been
the
estimates
used
for
the
fy
2018
sccrt,
you
just
to
go.
Look
here
at
clark.
You
have
the
two
estimates
for
those
two
calendar
years
done
at
july
of
each
year
for
clark,
and
so
I
have
the
hand
on
them
here.
So
you,
and
so
you
can
see,
the
growth
rate
is
2.26
percent.
K
So
thus
you
can
see
where
you
have
situations
that
that
the
law
says
that
if
the-
and
this
is
just
one
interpretation-
that
the
fiscal
analysis
division
staff
department
taxation
went,
this
might
be
sort
of
a
non-lawyer
plain
reading
person
who
had
to
do
the
math
would
read
this
language
and
say
this
is
what
we
think
it
would
tell
you
to
do.
So.
If
that
was
true,
then
you'd
come
and
get
the
census.
K
Estimates
and
you'd
say
well
they're
in
conflict,
because
they're
different
and
they're
always
going
to
be
in
conflict,
because
I
think
it
would
be
a
statistically
odd
result
that
the
census
bureau
and
the
state
demographer
have
the
same
estimates
for
every
entity
in
the
state
right.
So
thus,
it's
almost
by
default.
The
statutory
provision
will
say
that
they're
in
def
that
they're
in
conflict.
Thus
you
must
use
the
census,
and
so
I
would
also
offer
here
before
I
move
on.
K
So
if
that
process
would
actually
occur,
where
the
local
government
petitions
to
have
their
estimates
prepared
by
the
state
democrat
reviewed
and
it
went
through
that
review
process,
and
there
was
the
final
estimate
that
from
the
state
demographer
that
local
government
and
you
implemented
this
statutory
provision.
K
The
way
we're
looking
at
it
here
is
somewhat
of
a
plain
reading.
It
would
nullify
that
state
demographer's
estimate
because
you'd
have
to
then
go
use
the
census
estimate,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
go
through
that
as
your
fiscal
staff
to
go.
It's,
it's
not
clear
from
reading
the
record,
what
really
the
the
intent
was
and,
as
was
pointed
out,
is
it
to
use
the
10-year
decennial?
K
Well,
that
would
create,
I
think,
mathematical
issues.
So
that's
just
you
can
come
down
and
then
so,
if
you
go
to
the
next
table
table
1b,
you
can
see
clark
the
state
democrats.
Estimates
are
still
greater
than
the
than
the
census,
but
the
growth
rate
under
the
census
is
now
higher.
It's
two
percent
versus
1.28
percent.
K
So
with
in
these
two
years
you,
the
demographer's
estimates,
are
always
higher
than
the
census,
but
yet
the
growth
rates
are
flipping
between
whose
was
higher,
but
if
you
would
interpret
these
statutory
provisions
this
way
you
would
have
to
use
the
census
estimates
and
then
the
census
growth
rates,
because
again
the
sccrt
distribution
is
based
on
growth
rates,
not
the
actual
count
of
the
people.
It's
the
change
in
the
count
of
the
people,
so
then
to.
K
K
Okay,
so,
and
what's
I
would
also
point
out
for
as
your
fiscal
staff
that
taxation
did
not
make
this
point,
but
the
out-of-state
basic
city,
county
relief
tax
and
the
local
government
portion
of
the
cigarette
tax
and
the
local
government
portion
of
the
liquor
tax
are
also
required
to
be
distributed
on
a
per
capita
basis,
but
there
are
no
census
type
provisions
in
those
chapters
for
those
taxes
with
regards
to
this
census
thing.
K
So
so,
that's
just
to
me
as
your
staff,
another
oddity
that
you
have
three
other
revenue
sources
that
are
going
to
be
distributed
on
a
per
capita
basis,
not
growth
rates,
but
on
a
per
capita
basis.
But
there's
nothing
about
oh
well.
If
there's
a
conflict
use
the
census
for
those
three
taxes
and
again,
I
think
part
of
this
is
you
have
people
interacting
here
that
weren't
around
when
this
was
originally
put
in
place,
so
to
what
the
the
logic
our
intent
was,
but
that's
more
just
an
observational
fact
of
noting.
K
K
These
are
the
eight
guaranteed
counties,
so
they're
they're,
the
ones
that
are
guaranteed
an
amount
and
that
amount
is
adjusted
for
one
plus
the
growth
in
the
the
lesser
of
the
growth
in
the
cpi
and
population,
or
one
plus,
the
growth
in
the
prior
periods,
sccrt
collections,
so
every
year
that
you
take
what
they
got
last
year
and
you're
adjusting
that
for
either
the
growth
in
population
and
inflation
or
the
growth
in
prior
sccrt
collections.
K
K
So
then
the
the
important
thing
probably
is
okay
table
two
table.
2C
here
shows
you
the
difference,
so
this
would
be
the
difference
using
the
census
estimates
versus
what
was
actually
distributed
using
the
demographers
estimates.
So
you
can
see
what
this
is
is
under
the
the
377.057
provisions.
It's
about
changing
the
amount
of
money
that
would
go
to
the
guaranteed
and
then
out
of
that
formula
comes
changing
the
amount
that
would
go
to
the
non-guaranteeds
under
the
statutory
prop
formula
for
the
the
guarantee
versus
non-guaranteed
calculation
of
the
sccrt
at
the
first
tier.
K
So
you
can
see
for
this
particular
leader.
Under
this
simulation,
it's
pretty
de
minimis.
Now
you
can
look
across
the
entities
but
for
the
guarantees
in
a
sum
it's
less
than
fourteen
thousand
dollars,
and
then
that
has
to
be
spread
across
the
non
guarantees,
because
within
these
distributions
it's
a
zero-sum
game.
K
So
that's
that's
the
scrt,
so
this
would
be
reflecting
the
377.057
under
this
interpretation.
That's
shown
here
that,
oh,
if
the
estimates
are
different,
that's
a
conflict
go
use
the
census
estimates,
but
it's
not
you're
using
those
census,
estimates
to
calculate
growth
rates
and
then
driving
those
growth
rates
through
the
statutory
formulas.
K
So
then
table
three
just
shows
you
the
results
for
fy
2019.
I
won't
bring
that
one
up.
You
can
look
yourself,
but
there.
The
net
change
for
the
guarantees
was
around
227
thousand
dollars.
K
So
then
the
other
part
of
the
bill,
as
was
discussed,
is
the
changes
for
and
this
one
I
might
have
to
leave
a
little
smaller
for
the
the
360
690
provisions
and
that's
what
we
call
the
second
tier
of
the
sea
tax
distribution.
K
So
360
680
actually
determines
the
base
amount
for
each
local
government
entity
and
then
360
690
is
how
to
distribute
that
base.
And
then,
if
there's
more
money
to
distribute
than
the
base,
that's
called
excess.
K
And
so
there
are
statutory
formulas
and
provisions
for
the
formulas
that
you
must
work
through
to
calculate
the
excess
distribution
shares
for
the
county
cities
and
towns
and
special
districts
who
would
share
in
any
excess
that
would
be
available
for
distributing
any
specific
month
of
a
fiscal
year.
K
So,
as
was
noticed
that
under
the
sccrt,
the
percent
changes
only
for
one
year
for
the
excess
distribution
calculation
in
366.90,
it's
the
five-year
average
growth
rate
in
population.
K
So
you
can
now
see
what
that
would
say
is
well
you're,
taking
six
years
worth
of
population
data
to
calculate
five
growth
rates
and
then
average
over
so
now
to
walk
over
to
the
census
side.
Kevin
williams
and
I
had
to
do
the
same
thing.
He's
gonna
go,
get
those
census,
estimates
and
calculate
this.
These
five-year
growth
rates.
So
that's
what
table!
Four
that
I
have
up
here
shows
you
again
in
the
orange.
This
was
the
this
is
the
actual
demographer's
five-year
based
on
the
actual
demographers
governor
certified
estimates.
K
K
Population
estimates
five
year
average,
so
this
table
just
allows
you
to
walk
through
and
see
what
is
the
difference
in
the
population
change
these
five-year
average
growth
rates
here,
in
the
left
hand,
side
for
fy
2018
on
the
right
hand,
side
for
fy,
2019
and
so
you'll
see
in
the
table
I'll
flip
down
to
the
next
page,
as
was
mentioned
by
shelly
hughes,
that
I
designed
this
table
to
have
how
people
try
and
grasp
the
understanding
of
what
was
verbally
said
here
about
the
census.
K
Bureau
is
only
doing
estimates
for
counties
and
cities,
thus
that,
but
the
demographer
is
required
to
do
them
for
towns
and
those
town
population
growth
rates
that
you
can
see
here
are
actually
used
to
calculate
the
excess
distribution
shares
for
towns.
No
such
counterpart
exists
that's
prepared
by
the
census
bureau.
K
So
thus,
as
was
mentioned,
that
I
would
offer
that
there'd
be
a
mathematical
oddity
going
on
here
that
you
would
be
required
under
this
interpretation
to
go
well,
you
got
to
go
replace
the
census
estimates
because
they
don't
equal
the
demographers
and
use
that
five-year
average
growth
rate
for
the
counties
and
cities,
but
you're
still
going
to
use
the
demographers
for
the
towns
and
then
for
enter
enterprise
districts
and
special
districts.
Population
is
not
involved
at
all
in
their
distribution
shares
for
the
the
sea
tax
distributions.
K
So
I
think,
when
you
start
to
look
at
this,
it's
it's
just
math,
but
the
math
would
start
to
result
in.
I
think
oddities
of
the
distributions-
and
I
think
in
some
sense
had
taxation
administered
this.
I
believe
yes,
there
were.
There
would
have
been
amendments
to
it
sometime
in
the
past,
possibly
even
repealed.
K
Given
the
discussion
that's
going
on
here,
just
because
of
what
we
see
so
I
just
wanted
to
go
through
how
you're
reading
this
table
as
that's
what's
going
on,
is
you
don't
have
some
of
the
information
for
some
entities
from
the
census,
as
you
do
for
the
others?
So
you're,
I
would
argue,
you're
getting
a
little
bit
of
apples.
K
So
then
the
question
really
becomes
well
okay,
that
that's
the
second
tier.
What
does
that
mean
for
the
dollars?
And
so
that's
what
the
final
table
does
oops
apologize.
So
this
takes
the
those
five
year.
Average
growth
rates
and
again
the
orange,
is
what
those
those
five
year:
average
growth
rates,
driving
them
through
the
second
tier
c
tax
calculation
for
excess
and
doing
the
distribution.
K
So
this
is
the
actual.
So
the
yellow,
then,
is
simulating
if
you
took
the
five
year,
average
growth
rate
from
census
and
driving
that
through.
So
then,
here
in
the
light
gray,
you
see
the
dollar
difference
and
then
in
the
dark,
great
you're,
seeing
the
percent
difference,
and
so
what
I
will
note
that,
if
you're
looking
at
this
table
go
well,
that's
odd
that
the
the
s
the
number
from
table
to
c
was
300
minus
302
dollars
for
carson,
and
then
it
was
the
minus
of
4
940
940.
K
for
fy
19.
That's
exactly
what
should
happen,
because
if
that's
going
to
be
the
change
in
the
sccrt
amount
of
the
first
tier,
that
has
to
be
the
amount
that's
being
driven
through
the
second
tier.
But
there
are
other
shifts
occurring
here
because,
as
these
population
five-year
average
growth
rates
are
changing,
they're
going
to
create
winners
and
losers
of
the
amount
of
money
that's
being
distributed
of
the
excess
between
those
entities
and
so
I'll
leave
it
to
you
to
go
through
the
tables.
But
you
can
see
that
on
average,
these
results.
K
I
are
fairly
de
minimis
when
you
look
across
all
the
different
local
governments
to
which
these
calculations
are
going
because
I'll
just
I
scrolled
to
here's
clark
county
in
terms
of
the
amount
that
you're
you're
that's
moving
around
at
the
second
tier,
because
you're
changing
the
excess
distribution
share
and
and
again
this
is
the
information
that
I
wanted
to
present
in
these
tables
to
to
try
and
help
the
members
as
well
as
others
that
are
out
there.
K
Looking
at
this
bill
and
hearing
and
what
its
intent
is
and-
and
I
would
agree
that
you
know
what
this
bill
does-
is
it's
not
changing
at
all
the
process
that
the
state
demographer
is
required
to
do
under
nrs
and
nec
for
producing
the
estimates
or
the
review
process
that's
about
by
local
governments.
A
Thank
you,
mr
gindin.
So
members
question,
so
we
have
two
parts
to
this
conversation
right:
the
questions
to
director
young's
executive
team
also,
mr
hart
castle's
on
who's,
a
demographer
and
mr
kendon,
so
all
right,
if
you're
still,
if
you're
still
there,
I
think
it's
interesting,
but
I'm
special.
H
Adam
chair,
this
is
senator
ratty,
so
I
thought
it
might
just
be
helpful
to
summarize
to
make
sure
that
I'm
understanding
it
and
importantly
that
everybody
else
is
understanding
it,
particularly
local
governments
who
are
maybe
concerned.
So.
H
D
H
D
No,
that
was
our
goal
from
this.
Is
that,
because
we're
already
doing
this
process,
it's
a
sound
process,
it's
about
we've
gone
through
all
the
the
different
elements
of
it,
and
so
we
will
stay
consistent
with
what
we're
doing
today.
So
they
should
not
see
a
change
or
an
impact
from
this.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
right,
so
I
think
you
started
off
director
young
by
saying
that
this
won't
or
the
intent
is
not
to
change
any
appeal
rights
of
local
governments.
I
know
that
they
have
a
process
right
by
which
they
can
appeal
the
the
estimate
of
their
population,
and
probably
I
assume
they
would
feel
it
if
it
goes
downward
and
they
don't
agree
with
that.
D
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
senator
keith
keffer
for
the
question.
D
I'm
going
to
talk
about
two
separate
processes
a
little
bit
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
my
expert
jeff
hardcastle
who
handles
that.
So
when
it
comes
to
the
federal
census
process,
there
is
everybody
can
appeal
to
that
process
to
the
u.s
census
bureau.
But
then,
when
it
comes
to
the
department
of
taxation's
processes,
it
is
outlined
in
statute
and
in
nac
that
gives
local
governments
the
ability
to
appeal
how
we
determine
the
population,
and
so
that's
done
through
the
annual
process,
where
jeff
hardcastle
sends
out
the
estimates.
D
He
has
conversations
with
the
local
governments
and
they
can
appeal
that
hearing
would
go
to
administrative
law
judge
who
would
hear
the
both
sides
of
the
story
and
then
come
up
with
the
resolution,
and
so
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
bring
in
jeff
hardcastle.
Who
can
talk
about
more
in
detail
about
exactly
what
that
process
is
and
how
many
times
that's
happened.
L
If
it
hasn't
been
resolved
by
that
end
of
that
30-day
period.
It
then
goes
to
an
administrative
hearing
through
the
administrative
judge
in
taxation
and
depending
on
the
findings
that
administrative
judge
and
what
the
local
airmen
wants
to
do
as
a
result
of
that,
they
can
then
appeal
that
decision
to
the
nevada
tax
commission,
so
there's
the
time
frame
to
work
with
them
initially
present
to
them
the
estimates
and
work
with
them
on
reviewing
the
estimates
and
resolving
any
initial
questions,
because
sometimes
it
turns
out.
L
We
can
go
back
and
forth
some
but,
like
I
say,
there's
not
a
resolution
because
of
the
march
one
time
point
for
certification.
There
has
to
be
that
trigger
of
the
appeal
hearing.
The
only
formal
appeal
hearings
that
have
actually
been
have
been
in
2002
with
the
cities
of
from
clark
county
and
that
did
not
go
actually
to
a
full
hearing,
but
they
met
with
the
director
at
that
time
and
myself
up
in
carson
city
about
the
estimates,
and
then
there
was
a
hearing
from
the
city
of
mesquite.
L
I
believe
that
was
in
2012
and
then
in.
I
believe
it
was
2015
or
16
the
city
of
elko
appealed
and
that
went
to
an
administrative
judge
hearing
as
well.
So
it
was
just
the
mesquite
hearing
and
the
elko
hearings
that
actually
went
forward
and
all
both
those
appeals
were
found
by
the
administrative
judge
to
uphold
the
estimate
that
was,
you
know,
submitted
to
them.
Because
what
will
happen
at
times
is
that,
even
with
that
discussion,
you
provide
them
an
alternative
estimate
and
what
happens
is
because
everybody
wants
more
more
people.
A
So
I
I
just
had
one
quick
question
and
I
guess
it
would
be
to
miss
hughes
number
one
thank
you
for
the
legislative
history
that
was
really
great,
but
in
in
2011
that
was
my
first
session.
We
we
had
the
seatex
discussion
and
there
were
some
changes.
G
Shelly
hughes
for
the
record
during
my
research,
I
did
not
find
any
minutes
that
popped
up
around
this
discussion
in
in
those
minutes
from
2011..
Okay,.
A
I
I
I
I
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jared
luke,
the
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas
j-a-r-e-d-l-u-k-e,
I'm
calling
in
opposition
of
senate
bill
74
as
it
is
currently
written.
We've
had
many
conversations
with
the
department
of
taxation,
including
earlier
today,
and
I
want
to
thank
the
executive
director,
melanie
young
and
her
staff
for
helping
us
understand
what
is
a
very
complex
model
and
has
been
a
month-long
conversation
to
understand
that
model.
We
understand
that
this
is
a
difficult
conversation
to
have.
B
We
understand
that
senate
bill
74
is
intended
to
be
a
housekeeping
bill,
but
it
proposes
the
removal
of
the
dependence
on
the
census
bureau
numbers
which
serve
as
a
a
check.
We
can
argue
legislative
intent
all
day
long,
but
I
think
that
the
census,
the
decennial
census
numbers,
are
to
serve
as
a
check
for
the
population
estimates.
B
We
believe
this
leaves
the
door
open
for
wide
open
wide
for
interpretation
without
a
transparent,
reliable
standard
for
inputs
and
a
regression
model.
We
fear
that
the
senate
bill
74,
as
proposed
today,
will
only
add
to
existing
confusion
in
regards
to
sea
tax,
disbursement
and
population
estimates,
as
well
as
overload
the
state
and
department
of
taxation
with
increasing
appeals
and
review
requests
year
after
year.
B
Ctax,
as
you
know,
is
one
of
the
primary
ways
in
which
local
government
forecasts
to
provide
equitable,
essential
services
for
community
for
the
community
and
is
heavily
impacted
by
population
rate
of
change.
We
feel
that
this
is
a
larger
and
more
in-depth
conversation
to
be
had
and
as
written,
we
we
oppose
senate
bill
74.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
D
That
so
thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
and
we
did
meet
with
the
city
of
north
las
vegas
earlier
today,
jared
luke
and
had
conversations
with
them
about
this,
and
you
know
the
department
has
its
regulatory
process
and
outlines
what
the
demographer
jeff
hardcastle
goes
through
is
his
model.
There
are
conversations
that
mr
hardcastle
continually
has
with
the
local
developing.
D
Planning
departments
within
each
local
government
so
that
the
information
that
he
has
can
be
prepared
consistently
throughout
this
process,
and
so
you
know
I
I
can
acknowledge
that
you
know
the
conversation
that
city
of
north
las
vegas
has
that
they
believes
that
this,
the
census
per
the
decennial
census
provides
a
check
and
balance
in
that,
and
you
know
we
would
be
willing
to
have
further
conversations
on
this
matter
to
make
sure
that
the
money
that
is
distributed
to
the
local
governments
has
done
so
in
a
fair
and
efficient
process.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
mr
hart
castle.
Any
comments.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
jeff,
hardcastle
for
the
record
just
to
follow
up
with
what
director
young
had
said.
You
know
we
did
have
extensive
conversations
with
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
L
Over
the
years,
her
staff,
member
johanna,
murphy
and
now
sharian
dodson
have
been
contributing
to
the
local
population
estimates.
The
clark
county
is
one
of
the
two
jurisdictions
in
the
state
that
does
their
own
housing
in
a
base.
Population
estimate-
and
you
know
that
process
and
working
with
the
local
governments
down
there
has
been
at
times
you
know
a
little
bit
of
tug
of
war
at
times,
but
we
do
tend
to
work
pretty
well
over
time,
and
I
think
we
continue
to
have
that
dialogue
and
there's
nothing
wrong
with
continuing
to
have
that
conversation.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
I
know
north
las
vegas
city
of
north
las
vegas
uploaded
a
letter.
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
had
a
chance
to
read
it.
They
talked
about
the
regression
models.
I
don't
I
mean
it's
it's
it's
part
of
the.
A
I
guess
why
they
think
there's
a
need
for
to
keep
that
check,
but
I
hope
you
guys
can
address
that
because
they
talked
about
the
spread.
I
guess
there's
like
a
13-point
spread,
mr
hardcastle,
in
in
the
numbers,
and
I
guess
I
don't.
I
don't
understand
that
the
wideness
of
that
but
the
deviations-
but
maybe
you
can
just
for
this
just
for
the
legislative
record
and
some
completeness,
try
to
you
know,
have
an
explanation
there.
L
I
did
not
see
the
exhibit
yet,
but
it
may
be
what
they
had
provided
in
their
appeal
letter
in
working
with
and
and
because
part
of
the
process
that
that
goes
on
with
the
clark
county
folks,
because
they
are
the
jurisdiction
that
puts
in
probably
the
most
staff
effort
into
their
local
housing
union
estimate.
They
have
every
quarterly.
Now
a
group
of
people
at
the
staff
level
that
meets
and
annually.
L
I
present
the
population
estimates
to
that
group,
and
this
year
I
was,
and
I've
always
been
transparent
as
possible
in
presenting
them
the
attorneys
for
the
regression
side
of
things
to
get
some
feedback,
because
at
times
there
can
be
some
closeness
and
that's
part
of
the
estimate,
and
this
year
I
was
probably
not
as
as
judicious
as
I've
been
in
the
past,
and
I
just
showed
them
the
full
range
of
everything
I
looked
at.
It
was
totally
transparent,
just
showing
the
full
range
of
everything
that
came
up.
L
You
know-
and
I
think
a
couple
of
them
were
actually
as
joanna
murphy
walked
me
through
some
of
her
questions
and
asked
me
some
very
good
questions.
The
the
planner
from
the
city
of
north
las
vegas,
and
we
clarified
that
a
couple
of
things
I'd
done
were
actually
data
entry
errors.
L
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
all
right,
so
bps
is
anyone
else
calling
in
for
opposition.
J
C-R-O-M-P-T-O-N
we'd
like
to
thank
the
sponsors
in
the
committee
for
their
time.
In
presenting
this
bill
and
after
hearing
listening
to
the
hearing,
we
have
a
bit
of
a
bit
more
understanding
of
the
intent
of
the
legislation.
We
agree
with
the
presenters.
There
are
oddities
and
a
need
for
housekeeping
within
the
law.
J
It's
for
those
reasons
that
we're
expressing
our
opposition
to
this
bill
as
it
is
written
as
a
result
of
moving
removing
the
decennial
census
from
the
process.
We
believe
it
does
serve
as
north
las
vegas
stated,
as
at
least
some
form
of
a
check
on
the
state
demographer's
annual
population
estimates.
The
city
of
las
vegas
submitted
an
appeal
to
the
state
democracy
late
last
year
of
its
population.
Estimates
based
upon
one
of
the
allowable
criteria
and
an
incorrect
assumption
was
made
in
developing
the
process
proposed
estimates.
J
J
In
fact,
in
our
view,
statistical
significance
does
not
appear
to
be
the
determining
factor
when
selecting
from
multiple
outcomes
and
further
the
variables
used
in
the
economic
regression
model
are
inconsistent
from
year
to
year.
The
inconsistency
in
the
methodology
results
in
the
selection
of
data
inputs
that
appear
to
be
arbitrary.
J
We
had
a
couple
of
questions
that
north
las
vegas
addressed
and
madame
chair,
you
asked
the
sponsors
to
discuss
so
we'll
leave
it
with.
We
would
very
much
welcome
the
opportunity
to
work
closely
with
the
committee
and
the
presenters
and
the
department
of
taxation
to
ensure
a
better
and
more
transparent,
more
consistent
and
more
reliable
process
for
determining
annual
population
figures
which
are
critical
in
distributing
taxes,
as
well
as
formulated
grants
from
a
variety
of
different
governmental
agencies.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
A
D
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
have
jeff
hardcastle,
provide
some
final
clarifying
information
and
then
I'll
close
up.
If,
if
that's
all
right
with
the
chair.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
jeff,
hardcastle
for
the
record
nevada
state
demographer,
just
to
clarify
you
had
asked
earlier
about
putting
in
information
in
on
the
record
regarding
the
appeal
from
or
the
information
that
the
city
of
north
las
vegas
sent
I'd
like
to
go
ahead
and
follow
up
at
least
and
submit
after
this
hearing
through
your
staff,
the
appeal
packet,
and
that
was
the
response
to
them,
as
well
as
to
the
cities
of
las
vegas
and
henderson,
because
that
does
address
the
issues
that
the
city
of
las
vegas
at
least
had
raised
as
well,
so
and
and
actually
shows
that
the
most
accurate
effort
was
made
to
be
unbiased
and
provide
a
a
statistically
accurate
estimate
and
just
walk
you
through
the
thinking
process.
A
D
D
I
apologize
for
the
delay
mill
and
a
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
and-
and
I
don't
believe
that
with
first
off,
I
want
to
thank
everybody
for
their
time
and
attention
to
this
complicated
matter
for
the
department
and
in
in
closing
and
answering
your
question.
Senator
neal
is,
I
would
say
that
the
census
totals
are
not
prohibited
from
being
used
because
the
demographer
uses
some
of
that
information
when
he
arrives
at
his
totals.
D
So
there
are
some
element
between
that
information
in
what
he
does,
and
so
that
concludes
my
closing
remarks
and
again
you
know
we
are
here
to
be
transparent
through
this
process
and
are
willing
to
work
with
others
on
this
bill.
So
thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that,
and
so
folks
that
were
listening
in.
I
would
definitely
direct
you
to
reach
out
to
director
young
and
her
staff
and
mr
har
castle
to
work
out
the
other
issues
on
the
regression,
because
that's
tangential,
but
it's
it's
not
the
direct
issue
that
they
were
dealing
with
in
this
bill.