►
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,
okay,
good
afternoon,
I
would
like
to
call
to
order
senate
committee
on
revenue
secretary.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
A
We
have
two
bills
on
work
session
today
and
278
and
sb
284,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
turn
the
meeting
over
to
mr
real
who
will
go
through
the
work
session
documents.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
joe
reel
deputy
fiscal
analyst
of
the
fiscal
analysis
division
committee.
The
work
session
documents
are
available
in
nellis
and
the
first
bill
on
work
session
today
is
senate
bill
278..
This
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
taxation
of
cannabis,
sponsored
by
senator
keith
keffer.
I'm
sorry,
senator
settlemeyer
heard
in
this
committee
on
march
23rd
senate
bill
278
provides
up
to
15
wholesale
marijuana
excise
tax,
which
is
imposed
on
medical
and
adult
use.
B
Cannabis
cultivation
facilities
pursuant
to
nrs
372a
0.290,
does
not
apply
to
any
transfer
of
cannabis
by
these
facilities
to
another
cannabis
cult
space
facility.
If
the
cannabis
cultivation
facility
to
which
the
cannabis
is
transferred
is
an
affiliate
of
the
cannabis
cultivation
facility,
transferring
cannabis
bill
defines
affiliate
as
a
person
who,
directly
or
indirectly
owns
or
controls
or
is
owned
or
controlled
by
or
is
under
common
ownership
or
control
with
another
person.
B
The
work
session
document
summarizes
the
individual
to
testified
on
the
measure.
There
is
an
amendment
that
was
submitted
by
senator
cinema
following
the
hearing
on
the
bill.
It's
proposed
amendment
3159,
it's
attached
to
the
work
session
document.
B
It
basically
eliminates
the
amendments
that
were
made
to
372
8.290
in
section
one
and
basically,
then
the
amendment
reinstates
existing
provisions
of
372
8.290
that
requires
a
15
wholesale
tax
to
be
imposed
on
each
wholesale
sale
of
cannabis
and
then
on
page
two
of
the
work
session
document.
The
amendment
adds
a
new
paragraph
g
to
subsection
eight
to
provide
a
definition
for
wholesale
sale
to
mean
a
sale
or
transfer
of
cannabis
by
cannabis
cultivation
facility
to
another
cannabis
cultivation
facility
or
another
cannabis
cultivation
establishment.
B
Thank
you
for
the
amendment,
so
any
in
the
new
language,
mr
real,
under
in
paragraph
g.
What
about
a
scenario
where
there
might
be
a
transfer
between
a
cannabis
called
cultivation
facility
where
there's
not
identical
ownership?
Would
that
then
be
considered
a
wholesale
sale.
B
B
Again:
well,
I
guess
it's.
The
first
transfer
between
the
identical
ownership
occurred.
No
I'm
suggesting
I'm
sorry,
I'm
suggesting
that
if
there's
a
transfer
between
cultivation
facilities
that
do
not
have
identical
ownership,
so
that
would
be
wholesale
transfers
where
it's
taxed
at
15
and
then
that
secondary
cultivation
facility
transfers
it
up
to
a
dispensary
is
that
secondary
transfer
also
wholesale
transfers,
wholesale
sale.
D
Madam
chair,
this
is
russell
guindon
with
the
physical
analysis
division.
I
think
that's
a
good
question
by
senator
kitkefer
and
it
would
be
my
interpretation
as
your
lcd
staff
that
the
the
existing
interpretation
and
administration
law
for
that
event
would
be
that
the
whole
15
wholesale
tax
would
be
on
that
first
transfer.
D
So
when
the
person
is
transferring
it
safe
from
cultivation
facility,
one
to
cultivation
facility,
two
and
they're
not
affiliated
and
then
cultivation
facility,
two
would
transfer
it
again
as
my
understanding
from
the
hearing
on
this
bill
and
then
looking
at
the
law
that
it
wouldn't
be.
But
we
I
believe
we
do
have
representatives
from
the
department
of
taxation,
madam
chair,
and
it
may
be
best
to
have
them
address.
Senator
kate
keffer's
question.
A
Okay,
department
of
tax.
F
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
to
senator
key
kepper's
question
on
the
transfer.
After
from
the
cultivation
facility.
C
E
E
E
F
E
And
that
I,
and
that
ownership
would
have
to
be
identical
yes,
but
if
there
was
a
subsequent
move.
So
what
I
want
to
make
sure
is
that
first
move
then
doesn't
get
treated
like
all
other
moves
or
subsequent
moves
and
therefore
would
not
be
taxed.
Their
first
move
to
a
non-identical
owner
would
still
be
test.
F
Mill,
any
young
executive
director
for
the
record:
yes,
that
that
is
correct.
E
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
members.
Any
additional
comments.
A
Yes,
okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So
if
and
when
this
you
know
bill
moves
because
it
may
get
siphoned
but
senator
settlemyre,
I
would
give
that
floor
statement
to
him.
A
Okay,
mr
real,
the
next
bill.
B
B
B
senate
bill
284
revises
various
provisions
governing
the
affordable
housing
tax
credit
program
established
pursuant
to
senate
bill
448
of
the
2019
legislative
session
as
a
four-year
pilot
program
and
administered
by
the
housing
division
of
the
department
of
business
and
industry,
specifically
senate
bill.
284
revises
the
procedure
or
the
issuance
of
transferable
tax
credits
so
that
the
transferable
tax
credits
are
issued
before,
rather
than
after
the
project
is
completed.
B
B
Bill
also
removes
the
four-year
sunset
provisions
originally
established
for
senate
bill
448
from
the
2019
session,
making
the
program
permanent.
Then
the
bill
also
clarifies
that
the
maximum
amount
of
tax
credits
that
may
be
issued
under
the
program
remains
at
the
40
million
dollars,
as
established
from
senate
bill
448
from
the
2019
session.
B
There
is
a
amendment
that
was
discussed
by
senator
ratty
during
the
hearing
on
the
bill
and
so
you'll
see
on
the
page
two
of
the
work
session
document
that
we're
amending
section,
one
subsection,
six
b3
and
we're
just
adding
the
phrase
or
more
such
that
with
regard
to
transferring
the
tax
credits,
an
entity
to
which
a
project
sponsor
transfers,
any
transferable
tax
credits
maybe
may
transfer
those
transferable
tax
credits
to
one
or
more
of
its
subsidiaries
or
affiliates
and
then
shall
notify
the
department
upon
making
that
transfer.
A
Questions:
okay
remembers
any
questions
on
284.
A
Okay,
saying
none,
I
will,
can
I
get
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass.
D
A
A
We
are
going
to
take
the
bills
and
and
we're
going
to
do
sb,
346,
first
and
then
sb
367
and
then
ssb
389.
So
I
will
open
well.
Actually
you
will
open
the
hearing
vice
gear
ready,
because
all
these
bills
are
under
me.
E
All
right
well
once
again
got
my
hands
on
the
revenue
and
economic
development
committee,
which
always
makes
me
happy.
We
are
through
the
work
session
and
moving
on
to
doing
the
bills.
Let
me
just
check
in
with
the
sponsor.
In
order
make
sense,
do
you
have
all
the
presenters
that
you
need?
E
A
I
believe
the
only
other
person
that
was
going
to
be
on-
and
I
don't
see
him
for
sb
346-
was
brian
walked
her,
oh,
are
you
on?
Oh,
I
see
you.
Okay,
I
had
to
scroll
the
camera
all
right
and
mr
guindon
will
be
presenting
tables
that
he
created.
So
that's
it.
Okay,.
E
A
Thank
you,
so
this
is
going
to
be
probably
the
most
unorthodox
introduction
to
digital
goods.
Ever
so
sv346
does
a
couple
of
things.
The
bill
is
trying
to
deal
with
tax
erosion.
That's
happened
at
our
base
and
it's
broadening
our
tax
base
and
it's
touching
on
digital
goods
that
have
transformed
out
of
our
base.
So
I'm
going
to
walk
you
guys
through
memory
lane
really
quick.
A
So
remember
the
days
where
you
used
to
buy
albums
and
you
might
have
gone
to
tower
records.
You're,
probably
wondering
how
in
the
world
did
she
find
an
elvis
christmas
album.
Well,
thanks
to
my
aunt,
who
had
one
in
her
closet,
I
was
just
like
I
shall
take
this
back
to
carson
city.
Thank
you
and
then
for
all
of
my
very
senior
members
who
have
been
around
harry
como
and
his
awesomeness
doing
his
christmas
album
of
the
century
and
how
we
don't
get
our
music
this
way
anymore
and
to
top
the
charts.
A
I
went
and
found
me
a
little
bit
of
nat
king
cole,
so
the
albums
of
the
century.
So
when
we
think
about
how
we've
grown
right,
we
remember
when
we
would
go.
Get
our
tdk
tapes
because
we
wanted
to
capture
our
lives
and
make
music
for
our
friends
or
we
would
go
get
well.
This
was
maxwell
and
this
is
our
tdk
and
you
would
go
and
say:
I'm
gonna
make
my
friend
a
tape
and
you
would
make
them
a
little
mixtape
and
you
would
write
on
the
label.
We
don't
do
this
anymore.
A
We
no
longer
go
to
the
store
and
get
our
vhs,
which
is
the
awesome
jungle
book
from
1965,
which
was
the
best
movie
ever
we
also
don't
go
get
our
little
baby
geniuses
which,
when
we
had
our
small
little
children,
we
stuck
them
in
front
of
the
vcr
and
said
hey,
let's
watch
baby
geniuses
and
see
how
you
can
learn
today.
We
don't
do
that
anymore.
We
also
don't
go,
get
the
companion
good,
where
we
would
then
go
buy
that
vhs
tape.
A
A
A
A
A
Well,
I
still
own
one
because
of
the
awesomeness
of
it
and
I
still
have
cassette
tapes,
but
when
we
talk
about
tax
erosion
and
we
talk
about
what
is
no
longer
in
our
tax
base,
these
are
some
of
the
goods
that
are
no
longer
in
our
tax
base,
because
they've
transformed
they've
become
they've,
become
digital,
they
have
become
something
else.
We
now
download,
we
download
everything
we
download
our
books
and,
if
you
think
about
hunger
games
hunger
games.
A
A
They've
had
an
effect
because
the
durable
good
and
the
hard
tangible
good
that
was
a
part
of
our
sales
tax
base
has
eroded
out
of
the
base,
and
so
sv346
tries
to
recapture
that,
but
also
walk
us
into
the
future
of
how
we
are
now
getting
our
audio
visual,
our
books,
our
games,
because
everything
is
via
an
app.
And
so
I
wanted
to
share
that
with
you
guys.
Just
so.
I
could
walk
us
back
down
memory.
A
A
I
want
to
share
some
information
that
our
russell
guindon
has
on
what
is
happening
in
the
space,
because
he
kind
of
went
in
and
tried
to
find
out
who
is
who
are
our
payers
in
this
system
and
how?
What
what
kind
of
revenue
are
we
talking
about
when
we
talk
about
digital
goods
and
the
tangible
good
space?
A
And
so
I'm
going
to
transfer
over
to
mr
guindon
and
then,
mr
walker,
we
what
we
needed
was
information
on
what
is
the
consumption
rate
that
is
going
on
with
these
digital
goods
to
understand
whether
or
not
this
policy
truly
truly
truly
will
broaden
our
tax
base,
which
is
the
second
goal
of
the
bill
and
then
help
us
understand
why
this
bill
may
be
a
much
needed
policy
to
modernize
our
revenues,
our
revenue
for
the
state
and
our
tax
statutes
for
the
state.
So
mr
ginnon.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
russell
again
and
principal
deputy
fiscal
analyst
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division,
and
so
there
should
be
one
chart
and
three
tables
that
are
in
nellis
available
to
you.
And
so
what
I
will
do
is
attempt
to
share
my
screen
here
and
bring
up
a
chart
that
was
put
together.
D
So
hopefully
you
can
see
the
chart
and
just
let
me
slide
some
of
the
zoom
windows,
so
I
can
see
the
chart
so
what
you
should
be
seeing
on
your
screen
or
again,
you
have
the
exhibits
in
ellis
that
this
is
taking
data,
that's
published
by
the
bureau
of
economic
analysis
of
the
u.s
department
of
commerce,
and
so
this
is
what
they
call
us
personal
consumption
expenditures.
So
this
would
be
consumer
spending
and
they
do
this
by
some
fairly
detailed
categories
and
they
actually
put
the
information
out
quarterly
at
the
u.s
level.
D
And
so
what
you
see
here
is
for
those
the
level
detail
that
I
can
get
at.
That
would
have
bearing
on
sort
of
the
sp
346
issue
and
also,
I
think,
helps
demonstrate
sort
of
what
senator
neo
was
discussing
as
she
went
through
memory
lane
there.
D
So
the
solid
blue
line
here
and
the
titles
that
you
see
at
the
bottom
are
the
bureau
economic
analysis,
titles
so
just
to
give
a
little
bit
the
overview.
The
bea
bureau
of
economic
analysis
for
these
personal
consumption
expenditures
they
break
what
we
consume
into
goods
and
services
and
then
within
goods.
They
break
it
into
durable
and
non-durable,
so
right,
this
tangible
personal
property
that
our
sales
tax
would
currently
be
subject
to
would
be
in
this
durable
category.
So
the
solid
blue
line
is
durable
goods
for
audio
and
video
recording
media.
D
So
those
would
be
a
lot
of
the
things
that
the
chair
was
presenting
to
you,
but
it
it.
So.
You
can
see
how
it
was
peaked
up
here
in
the
level
that
you
see
in
the
early
or
first
half
of
2000
decade
to
where
it
is
now,
and
then
you
can
see
the
short
dash
line
here.
That
is
actually
the
video
component
and
the
longer
dashed
line
is
the
audio
component,
and
you
will
notice
that
in
the
title
that
they're,
including
at
their
level,
reporting
what
they
call
permanent
downloads
permanent
digital
downloads.
D
So
that
would
not
be
in
our
current
sales
tax
base,
but
they're
recording
it
as
a
durable
because
that
their
view
is,
is
you're,
recording
and
permanently
retaining
it
on,
say
a
storage
media
so
they're
deciding
to
put
it
there,
and
so
I
would
argue
this
short
dash
line
that
you
see
coming
up
here.
Part
of
that
is
probably
because
of
the
digital
downloads,
not
because
of
the
tangible
construct
or
the,
and
so
then
you
see
the
solid
green
line
shooting
up
here,
starting
in
2013
2014.
D
That
is
it's.
They
categorize
it
as
a
service,
but
that
is
would
be
your
audio
digital
audio,
video
streaming
and
rental
component.
Where
again,
this
the
long
dash
line
is
the
audio
component
and
the
short
dash
line
is
the
video
component.
So
I
think
this
is
the
personal
consumption
expenditures
that
the
us
put
out
for
the
u.s
level
sort
of
demonstrates,
statistically
what
senator
neal
was
stating.
I
don't
have
this
at
the
nevada
level.
D
They
they
just
don't
at
the
state
report
it
at
the
same
level
of
detail,
but
this
would
be
the
u.s
level.
So,
madam
chair,
did
you
want
me
to
continue
with
the
other
tables
or
just
stop
at
this
chart
and
go
through.
D
To
ask
the
sponsor,
I'm
sorry,
sorry
senator
neil,
I
said
I
forget,
who's
who's
got
the
gavel,
so
I
apologize.
So
that's,
okay,
so
senator
neil.
Do
you
want
me
to
proceed
through
and
just
quickly
go
to
the
other
three
tables
yeah
really
quickly?
Thank
you.
So.
D
D
D
Sorry,
so
that's
just
the
data,
that's
in
the
chart
at
the
us
level,
and
then
I
I
put
down
here
in
table
1b
to
just
show
you
the
video
audio
and
then
the
video
audio
broken
out.
Then
those
components
is
a
share
of
cable
and
satellite.
D
So
you
can
see
how
video
and
audio
streaming
was
around
18
of
cable
and
satellite
in
2015
and
then
was
around
41
5
years
later
in
calendar
2020..
D
So
then,
as
I
said,
what
I've
done
down
is
we
take
and
calculate
what
it
was
on
a
u.s
per
capita
basis
and
we're
going
to
interpolate
use
that
to
interpolate
what
it
might
imply
for
nevada
on
a
per
capita
basis.
So
you
see
that
potent
that
tax
base
or
what
the
consumption
expenditures
would
be
for
nevada
on
the
per
capita
in
table
1c.
D
So
you
can
see
that
would
imply
that
it's
somewhere
around
362
million
dollars
here
in
calendar
2020,
taking
the
us
data
and
interpolating
it
into
nevada
on
a
per
capita
basis.
And
then
you
can
see
the
breakout
between
video
and
audio
listed
below
there,
and
so
then
just
to
provide
a
reference
point,
because
I
think
sometimes
people
can
lose
context
that
when
you
have
a
say,
hundreds
of
millions
dollar
tax
base
what
it
would
yield
for.
The
state
general
fund
at
the
two
percent
rate.
D
And
so
that's
what
table
1d
does
is
show
you,
then
that
362
million
dollars
would
yield
approximately
7.2
million
dollars
in
2
sales
tax
collections
for
the
state
general
fund.
If
that
was
indeed
the
tax
base
from
the
audio
video
streaming
component
and
then
just
a
table
was
one
e
and
in
one
effort
just
showing
you
the
data
that
was
being
used
to
do
in
terms
of
population
in
the
u.s
per
capita.
D
So
that's
just
that
was
the
starting
point
for
the
data
that
the
fiscal
staff
had
available
to
look
at
this
as
what
it
may
mean.
As
the
potential
tax
base.
That's
out
there
and
sorry
there
we
go.
D
Sorry,
all
of
a
sudden,
my
computer,
is
getting
a
little
less
than
accommodating
here.
D
So
what
this
table
does
is
tries
to
walk
through
what
the
fiscal
division
staff
would
think.
D
The
potential
tax
base
could
be
using
the
information
that
was
presented
as
well
as
other
information
we've
attempted
to
obtain
through
google
research
and
or
we
made
the
request
for
the
commerce
tax
database
by
taxpayer
again
under
the
provisions
of
nrs218fs.620
to
try
and
get
that
data
to
look
at
what
some
of
the
tax
base
may
be,
and
so
all
that
data
then
was
utilized
in
trying
to
produce
what
we
believe
would
be
a
reasonable
estimate
for
the
potential
tax
base
for
digital
products.
D
So
in
table
two,
that's
walking
through
that.
What
we
think
the
tax
base
would
be
and
what
would
be
the
implications
for
tax
collections
for
the
various
rates
and
then
the
state
general
fund
impact
so
in
table
2a.
That
would
be
the
the
actual
taxable
sales
here
statewide
in
fy
2020,
and
this
would
be
the
imputed
taxable
sales,
given
the
economic
forms
december
2020
forecast
for
the
state
two
percent
tax
collections.
D
We
believe
that
the
the
digital
products
tax
basis
around
this
394
million
dollars
and
had
it
been
in
place
in
fy
2020
again
using
the
data,
that's
available
from
the
bureau
of
economic
analysis,
us
looking
at
the
data
that
the
excellent
taxpayers
reported
for
fy
2020
under
the
commerce
tax,
as
well
as
then
looking
at
other
information
that
we
were
able
to
utilize
in
producing
assessment
and
then
we're
just
sort
of
letting
it
grow
out
by
a
demographic
and
inflationary
factor
for
to
get
the
estimates
for
fy22
and
fy23
for
the
next
biennium.
A
So,
mr
guindon,
before
you
go
further,
can
you
explain
like
like
what
is
all
included
in
this
number,
because
we
don't
have
the
full
tax
base
of
digital
goods?
Because
of
this
is
you
know
the
method
in
which
you
were
able
to
derive
this
number?
I
want
you
to
just
kind
of
explain
like
what's
in
that
what's
in
that
base
and
then
what
we
think
probably
could
would
be
in
the
expanded
base
once
we
know
who's
in
as
far
as
payers.
If
the
bill
passes.
D
Clearly
we
know
the
audio
streaming
is
in
there,
so
then
the,
and
so
we
could
use
the
the
personal
consumption
expenditure
at
the
us
and
the
interpolation
to
try
and
give
us
some
gauge
of
what
the
potential
tax
base
could
mean,
but
again
we're
also
able
to
go
into
the
commerce
tax
and
see
and
find
those
entities
that
we
know
are
providing
the
digital
product.
And
I
just
have
to
be
careful
here
that
I
have
to
maintain
the
confidentiality
of
that
information.
D
So
I
don't
want
to
get
into
naming
the
actual
taxpayers
and
stuff
like
that
that
we're
able
to
find,
but
I
think
you
can
realize
who's
out
there
and
then
what
we
did
is
tried
to
go
through
and
look
at
some
of
those
that
we
may
not
be
able
to
find
in
the
commerce
tax
base,
but
knew
that
might
be
in
there.
And
so,
but
principally
you
know
we're
looking
at
those
streaming.
D
Services
such
and
you
can
see
they're
almost
popping
up
daily,
like
the
paramount
plus
the
disney
plus
the
discovery
plus
netflix
hulu
sling
roku,
those
things
where
you're
you're
paying
for
the
right
to
be
able
to
consume
a
digital
product.
D
But
we
know
there
may
be
others
that
are
out
there,
that
we
don't
have
data
on
such
as
the
the
senator
mentioned
the
mirror
and
then
clearly.
This
is
a
very
a
dynamic
I
think
growing
product
line.
So
there
could
be
things
that
we
are
out
there
that
we're
not
aware
of
or
could
crop
up.
So
that's
sort
of
what
was
staff's
logic
and
trying
to
think
through
this
and
seeing
what
data
that
we
could
find.
D
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
using
the
the
ba
data
actual
data
from
the
fy
2020
commerce
tax
reported
by
businesses
that
are,
would
be
in
this
and
then
trying
to
look
at
information.
D
In
fact,
there's
a
website
called
statista.com
and
it's
actually
a
sort
of
an
interesting
website
that
they
do
a
lot
of
surveys,
and
so
they
have
surveys
where
they've
tried
to
do
like
how
many
people
have
netflix
how
many
people
have
hulu
whether
they
might
be
paying
on
average
per
you
know
a
month,
and
so
all
that
kind
of
data
was
used
to
the
best
that
we
could
think
of
those
things
that
would
be
included
in
the
tech
space.
D
So
with
that
and
table
two
b
of
table
two
that
takes
that
our
estimated
tax
base
for
digital
products
and
shows
you
how
what
the
estimated
yield
would
be
for
each
of
the
the
tax
rate
components.
The
state
general
fund,
two
percent,
the
lsst
2.6
percent,
the
bcc
and
sccrt,
which
is
the
portion,
the
2.25
rate
that
goes
to
local
governments,
and
then
we
did
not
attempt
to
do
estimates
by
county.
It's
going
to
be
a
difficult
exercise
to
do.
I
think
statewide.
D
So
what
we
did
is
did
a
what
would
be
a
taxable
sales
weighted,
statewide
average
sales
tax
rate
using
the
fy
2019
taxable
sales,
not
the
fy
2020
because
of
the
pandemic
effect,
so
that
would
imply
a
statewide
weighted
average
tax
rate
of
approximately
2.224
percent.
D
So
then
you
can
see
what
would
be
what
would
be
the
implied
yield
from
that
1.374
weighted
average,
all
other
rate,
and
so
you
can
see,
then
it
would
be
somewhere
around
8.4
to
8.6
million
dollars
for
the
two
percent,
fy22
and
fy23,
and
then
around
11
million
dollars
for
the
lsst.
D
D
And
so
I
just
put
the
economic
forum's
current
forecast
there
as
the
reference
point
and
then
section
two
of
table,
two
c:
here's
the
two
percent,
but
we
also
get
the
general
fund
commissions
off
of
those
other
rates.
So
we're
going
to
pick
up
a
few
hundred
thousand
dollars
off
of
the
commissions
and
so
section
three
shows
you.
D
The
total
amount,
that
of
the
impact
for
the
general
fund,
their
from
the
digital
goods
in
terms
of
adding
the
digital
products
estimate
from
section
two
to
the
economic
forum's,
current
estimate
for
section
one,
and
so
that's
that's
the
potential
base,
and
then
I
think
finally,
what
I
just
wanted
to
do
is
your
staff
was
trying
to
think
through
this.
E
D
I
think
okay,
so
I
apologize
the
estimated
total
general
fund
revenue
impact
from
the
two
percent
rate
plus
the
general
fund
commissions
would
be
approximately
eight
point:
seven
million
dollars
in
for
fy
2022
and
eight,
basically,
nine
million
dollars
for
fy23.
D
Well,
as
I
I
I
tried
to
explain,
is
that
that
staff
trying
to
use
the
bea
data
that's
available,
that
they're
reporting
at
the
u.s
level
and
then
interpolating
that
in
plus,
using
the
commerce
tax
by
taxpayer
to
see
what
they
reported
for
fy
2020,
but
also
could
go
back
and
look
at
fy
19
and
using
that
information
and
then
also
going
to
the
websites
like
website
slate,
statista
and
just
trying
to
look
at
other
states
and
to
get
whatever
information
we
could
to
try
and
capture
what
we
thought
would
be
included
in
this
base.
D
Now
realizing
we
may
be
missing
some
things
in
in
that
analysis.
D
A
D
D
Yes,
because
we
have
a
certain
amount
of
data
and
then
your
your
fiscal
staff
had
to
start
to
try
and
make
some
guesstimates
of
what
might
be
representative
of
the
other
stuff
that
we
didn't
have.
Data
on
that
would
but
could
would
be
included
in
there,
such
as
digital
games
and
again
right.
We
because
of
the
newness
of
some
of
these
streaming
products
they're,
possibly
not
even
in
the
fiscal
year
2020
tax
base
as
a
streaming
product.
D
So
there
we
had
to
also
extrapolate
what
we
thought
might
be
in
the
dac
space.
Okay,
so
then.
Finally,
what
I
did
is
to
try
and
provide
perspective,
and
this
is
going
to
be
the
hard
table,
but
I'll,
try
and
blow
it
up
here.
D
So
this
takes
the
taxable
sales
for
fy2820
and
fy
2019
statewide
and
takes
them
by
the
actual
business
categories
that
the
department
of
taxation
reports
that
level
of
detail
at
the
three-digit
nix
code,
and
then
it
ranks
them
by
fy
2020.
From
largest
to
smallest,
so
that's
what
you
see
here
is
the
left-hand
column
is
the
ranking,
here's
the
the
business
category
and
then
here's
the
amounts.
D
So
you
can
just
look
at
some
of
these
and
see
the
order
of
magnitude
of
them
that
they're
in
the
billions
of
dollars.
So
your
first
15
categories
are
a
billion
dollars
or
more.
Then
you
get
below
the
billion
dollars.
Mr.
D
It's
not
sharing
whoops,
sorry,
it
didn't
hook
up.
I
apologize.
D
Yes,
okay,
I
apologize
thank
you
for
letting
me
know
I
clicked
on
it,
but
it
clearly
didn't
hook
up.
So
I
apologize.
So
this
is
the
table
again
as
you
as
I
stated
that
it
takes
the
taxable
sales
actual
reported
by
the
department,
taxation
for
fy20
2019
fiscal
years,
and
then
it
takes
the
these.
Are
the
three
digit
detailed
categories
that
taxation
reports,
except
for
the
dark,
shaded
gray,
one
that
I'll
get
to
here
and
then
it
ranks
them
by
their
fy
20
from
largest
to
smallest.
D
So
if
the
394
million
that
we're
estimating
could
be
the
potential
tax
base
for
it,
had
it
been
in
place
in
fy
2020,
based
on
the
information
from
census,
based
on
the
information
from
looking
at
the
commerce
tax
by
taxpayer,
and
then
your
tax
team
staff
making
an
estimate
for
the
other
stuff
that
we
think
could
be
occurring.
D
So
this
provides
you
a
reference
point
of
where
the
394
million
dollars
would
sit
in
the
taxable
sales,
so
it
would
have
been
around
in
the
top
third,
because
there's
98
categories
here
so
at
28,
right
it'd,
be
almost
in
the
top
third,
and
so
then
there's
possibly
people
go
well.
D
D
But
I
think
one
of
the
things
is
your
staff
was
working
to
this
to
try
and
keep
in
mind
when
you're
doing
the
analysis
is
that
when
you
look
up
at
some
of
the
other
products
and
try
to
get
a
a
relative
bearing
on
the
potential
the
estimate
for
the
potential
digital
goods
product
tax
base
compared
to
some
of
the
other
categories,
if
you
let
yourself
think
about,
if
you
have
a
family
of
four
and
they
need
one
connection
for
netflix
or
hulu
to
stream
that
roddick
most
likely
right
versus
for
some
of
these
other
categories.
D
If
you're
going
to
take
that
family
of
four
out
to
eat
and
right,
you
could
well
spend
over
right
a
hundred
dollars
or
150
well,
disney
plus
allows
you
to
stream
disney
plus
hulu
and
espn
plus,
for
I
believe
it's
14
a
month.
D
So
if
you
think
about
something,
if
you're
spending
say
150
dollars,
that's
10
months
worth
of
your
streaming
service
so
and
me
being
a
golfer,
I
go
buy
one
golf
club
that
would
probably
pay
for
a
year's
worth
of
streaming
at
14
a
month.
So
I
think
that's
when
we
looked
at
as
your
staff
to
go
well,
should
it
be
up
there
around
sporting
goods,
it's
800
million
or
some
of
these
others.
D
Could
it
be
bigger
than
394
possibly,
but
this
is
where
we
settled
as
your
staff
and
then
thinking
through
that
the
the
other
types
of
things
that
people
consume
as
a
household
in
terms
of
needing
one
access
for
a
stream
versus
a
household
of
four,
especially
if
you
think
about
you're
buying
clothes
right,
I
don't
think
people
can
stream
one
shirt
amongst
four
people,
but
they
can
stream
one
access
to
the
digital
products,
so
the
consumption
nature
of
this
can
be
different
than
for
other
types
of
products
that
people
consume,
to
which
we
impose
the
sales
tax.
D
E
Thank
you,
mr
gibbon.
I
just
want
to
note
for
the
public
if
you're
struggling
to
follow
along
on
the
screen.
These
documents
are
all
on
nellis.
They
would
be
listed
as
exhibits
on
today's
agenda
and
they
would
be
chart
ones
and
tables
one
two
and
three.
So
if
you're
trying
to
keep
up
with
us
and
all
these
numbers,
that's
where
you
would
find
them
senator
neil.
A
Thank
you
sure,
ready
so,
mr
guindon,
for
to
simplify
this,
because
I
know
what
you're
saying
I
think
I've
I've
spent
like
eight
years,
knowing
what
you're
saying,
but
so
the
expected
base
is
394
million
that
we
can
based
on
the
limited
data
that
we
have,
because
it's
my
understanding
based
on
that
number.
This
is
an
estimate,
but
we
do
not
have
all
of
the
data.
A
Unless
this
bill
passes,
then
we
would
know
what
the
true
true
impact
is
right,
but
but
394
is
what
we
would
if,
if
the
bill
passed,
knowing
using
commerce
clause,
commerce
and
commerce
clause,
but
commerce
tax
information
on
who
our
existing
payers,
that
is
the
number
that
we
would
get
for
the
state.
D
Yes,
that's
that's.
Had
it
been
in
place
in
fy
2020
and
then
you
can
see
it's
it's
larger
as
we
grow
it
out,
based
on
our
assumptions
for
fy,
22
and
fy23,
and
I
would
agree
that
in
terms
of
ranking
them,
the
best
data
that
your
staff
had
was
the
commerce
tax
data,
because
that's
actual
data
reported
by
taxpayers
for
july
1st
through
june
20th
fiscal
year
period.
So
that's
probably
our
best
data
that
we
had
because
right
since
we're
not
currently
taxing
it.
D
So
so
that
would
be
the
information
set
rank
from
best
moving
down
to
less
than
best
and
how
it
was
utilized
to
generate
the
estimate
of
the
approximately
394
million
dollars
as
the
base
that
had
it
been
in
place
in
fy
2020
versus
the
estimates
for
if,
if
if
this
was
approved
in
our
estimates-
and
I
would
say
this
is
somewhat
still
a
work
in
progress
because
we're
you
know
we're
thinking
about
it
and
obviously
now
that
it's
out
in
the
public,
other
people
may
have
information
to
provide
your
staff
for
consideration.
D
But
thus
we
think
it
could
be.
Our
estimate
is
419
million
dollars
for
fy
2022
would
be
the
the
potential
digital
products
tax
base
and
431
million
dollars
for
fy
23
are
the
current
estimates
by
your
fiscal
analysis,
division
using
the
information
available.
E
Thank
you,
mr
hinden,
and
just
we'll
we'll
know
it
would
be
the
same
as
any
new
tax
that
we
would
be
doing
that
really
until
you
can
make
your
projections,
but
until
you
have
your
actuals
you're,
not
really
going
to
know
all
right.
So
senator
neil.
A
Thank
you
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
try
to
simplify
it.
I
I
respect
mr
gidney,
but
I
just
want
to
simplify
for
our
listeners
to
so
that
they
understand
what
the
numbers
are,
because
sometimes
the
charts
they're
really
hard
to
see,
even
when
you're
just
sitting
in
front
of
the
computer
and
you're
not
able
to
actually
see
unless
you
have
leaders
on.
But
I
will
let
mr
walker
go
and
talk
about
consumption,
then
I'll
do
a
high
level
on
the
bill.
G
Thank
you
vice
chair,
ratty
and
and
senator
neil
brian
walker,
for
the
record
with
the
retail
association
of
nevada.
I
just
want
to
thank
senator
neil
for
working
on
this.
G
This
has
been
a
work
in
progress,
for
I
think,
six
years
now
in
the
making-
and
this
is
something
that
we
appreciate
her-
bringing
the
stakeholders
together
to
arrive
at
the
version
of
senate
bill
346
that
you
have
I'm
going
to
get
into
the
consumption
patterns,
but
I
really,
after
we've
had
a
overview
of
mr
gindin
and
what
we
could
bring
in
really
want
to
touch
on
the
reason
behind
the
tax
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
and
the
nevada's
current
sales.
G
Tax
law
does
not
treat
consumers
equally
when
they
purchase
the
same
product
products
in
different
formats
and
this
disadvantages
customers
of
physical
goods
relative
to
the
buyers
of
digital
goods,
and
this
asymmetry
also
adds
to
the
regressivity
of
the
current
sales
tax.
As
the
average
income
of
households
with
internet
access
is
greater
than
the
average
of
households
without
internet
access,
making
it
very
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
for
the
latter
to
purchase
digital
goods.
G
Moreover,
among
households
with
internet
access,
those
who
buy
online
tend
to
have
higher
than
average
incomes,
and
similarly,
there
are
also
unequal
tax
treatment
among
businesses
that
sell
media
goods.
The
vendors
of
physical
books,
music
and
movies
are
required
to
charge
the
tax
while
vendors
that
specialize
in
digital
goods,
or
not,
even
when
both
are
selling
the
exact
same
content.
G
G
In
2019
alone,
more
than
10
states
expanded,
considered
or
proposed
digital
product
taxes,
even
in
states
that
don't
impose
a
sales
tax
on
digital
products.
There
are
other
assessments,
for
example,
florida
generally
does
not
levy
a
sales
tax
on
digital
products,
but
it
imposes
an
almost
eight
percent
communication
services
tax
on
video
and
streaming
services.
Chicago
also
imposes
a
personal
property
lease
transaction
tax
on
cloud
computing
services
at
nine
percent.
G
So
why
does
nevada
need
this?
Well?
According
to
a
recent
study
entitled
the
global
rise
of
digital
goods
and
services,
nearly
three-quarters
of
online
purchases
are
digital
products
and
or
digital
goods
and
services.
Currently,
42
percent
of
all
state
and
local
tax
revenue
in
nevada
is
derived
from
the
sales
and
use
tax
base.
The
digital
economy
makes
up
nine
percent
of
the
gdp
or
1.8
trillion
dollars
and
nevada
has
made
great
strides
in
updating
our
current
sales
and
use
tax
act.
G
As
you
know,
it
was
originally
designed
in
1955
it's
older
than
the
previous
education
funding
formula.
That
was
recently
changed
last
session,
and
so
that's
what
funds?
The
state
is:
a
1955
sales
and
use
tax
law.
Fb
346
strengthens
our
tax
foundation.
It
ends
the
erosion
of
our
tax
base
that
senator
neil
outlined
and
it
brings
parity
between
customers
and
vendors.
G
To
give
you
an
example,
dvd
sales
reached
16.3
billion
dollars
in
2005.
these
days.
Dvd
sales
account
for
less
than
10
percent
of
the
total
market,
with
sales
only
hitting
2.2
billion
in
2018.
blu-ray
discs,
which
have
always
been
slightly
more
expensive
than
dvds,
launched
in
2006
and
blu-ray
sales
reached
2.37
billion
in
2013.
G
Before
falling
to
1.8
billion
in
2018.,
it's
likely
the
blu-ray
sales
fractionally
impacted
dvd
sales,
but
the
fact
that
dvd
sales
still
outpace
blu-ray
sales
shows
that
that
is
not
the
case.
What
we
have
is
a
hyper
adaptation,
I
think,
is
the
word:
we're
going
to
use
this
hyper
adaptation
of
digital
services,
especially
due
to
covid
and
natural
evolution
into
the
market.
G
We
could
see
a
lot
of
this
happen
during
the
recession
in
2010,
disposable
income
for
americans,
bottomed
out
it
shattered,
and
no
one
had
disposable
income,
and
so
over
the
last
decade,
as
income
has
been
able
to
grow,
people
have
been
changing
their
consumer
habits.
Once
you
go
digital,
you
don't
go
back,
and
so
as
more
and
more
folks
are
onto
these
platforms
and
changing
their
consumer
behavior.
These
are
evolutions
that
are
going
to
be
permanent,
kovid
required
out
of
necessity.
G
For
that
hyper
adaptation
to
take
place
very
quickly,
people
were
forced
to
stay
in
their
homes.
They
couldn't
access
our
retailers.
They
were
certainly
at
a
very
low
capacity
for
those
that
even
were
open
the
entire
time
and
so
folks
moved
over
to
that
digital
space,
and
that
has
skyrocketed
the
amount
that
we
have
seen
for
instance,
selling
subscription
online
is
nothing
new.
We've
been
doing
that
and
the
market's
been
doing
that
since
the
late
90s.
G
I
think
we
all
remember
signing
up
for
an
anti-virus
software
subscription
where
it
would
just
update
your
antivirus
every
so
often
those
were
subscription
based,
and
that
was
something
that
we
have
from
the
late
90s,
but
now
that
subscription
business
model
has
gone
mainstream.
Digital
products
are
packaged
and
sold
as
online
services
access
via
subscriptions
these
subscriptions
and
these
companies
are
building
strong
long-term
relationships
with
their
customers,
and
so
we've
actually
seen
based
on
a
survey
that
same
survey,
I
referenced
in
the
united
states
about
one
every
or
sorry
point
nine.
G
G
and
another
area
that
we
could
look
at
as
well
as
the
gaming
market,
not
thinking
of
casino
gaming
but
actual
video
gaming.
This
market
has
radically
transformed,
in
the
last
two
decades
technology
advancements
like
mobility,
cloud
ai,
are
really
starting
to
change
consumer
trends
and
we're
seeing
that
companies
and
consumers
are
willing
to
experiment
in
this
regard
and
what
they're
doing?
In
fact,
when
we
look
at
the
gaming
sector,
45
of
gen
of
those
in
generation
z
had
purchased
a
game.
G
In
the
last
12
months,
51
percent
of
millennials
had
made
game
had
made
a
purchase
in
the
last
year,
while
14
of
those
in
the
boomer
generation
and
36
of
generation
x
had
bought
a
video
game.
In
the
last
year
in
the
united
states
on
average
we
each
buy
7.38
mobile
games.
G
G
And
lastly,
I
would
say
that
you
know
the
lsst
portion
of
the
sales
tax
is
the
largest
portion
funding
our
school
system,
more
than
property
tax
or
general
fund
contributions
for
the
clark
county
school
district.
Any
dollar
that
we
are
losing
for
erosion
in
the
tax
base
is
a
dollar
that
we're
not
able
to
then
put
into
their
classrooms
and
a
dollar
that
we
have
to
make
up
either
through
the
general
fund
or
through
additional
tax
increases.
G
The
reason
that
we
think
that
increasing
and
broadening
the
base
on
the
sales
tax
is
the
appropriate
way
to
go
is
because
we
are
not
raising
the
rates
as
you've
seen.
The
sb
346
actually
helps
decrease
the
amount
of
regressivity
that
we
currently
have
in
our
sales
tax
and
sets
nevada
up
for
a
more
prosperous
future.
So
with
that,
I
thank
you.
Senator
ratty
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
questions.
E
A
Yeah,
it's
going
to
be
super
high
level.
I
just
want
to
note
some
amendments,
so
in
section
118
through
138,
that
is
actually
deleted
out
of
the
bill.
A
So
there
are
no
questions
for
those
sections
sections
after
138
sections.
I
know
I'm
going
in
a
weird
order,
but
139
through
149
just
make
conforming
changes,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
note
that.
So
if
anybody
had
questions
from
sections,
1
18
to
138
they're,
not
there,
also
in
and
I'll
get
to
section
21,
but
I'm
just
going
to
talk
about
the
amendments
really
quick.
So
when
you
ask
questions
you
kind
of
know,
so
there's
an
amendment
that
was
uploaded
on
nella.
A
So
in
section
21
we
spelled
out
what
digital
code
was.
There
was
conversation
on
public
or
private
keys
that
may
have
been
associated
with
blockchain
and
making
sure
they
they
weren't
included,
and
the
purpose
behind
that
is
because,
when
you
have
the
well
blockchain
in
general,
digital
currency
is
not
in
because
it's
money,
we
don't
tax
money
right.
A
So
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
spell
that
out
and
then
there
is
another
amendment
in
section
21
where
we
have
struck
out
language,
but
then
we
returned
it
back
to
say
that
cable
operators
and
satellite
companies
are
not
digital
goods
providers
or
they're,
not
digital
they're,
not
included
in
the
digital
good
definition,
and
so
with
that,
I
will
go
back
to
the
beginning
and
walk
through
the
provisions
really
high
level.
A
So
pretty
much
sections
1
through
13
define
give
definitions
of
what
we're
doing
gross
receipts.
What's
electronically
transferred
end
user,
digital
books,
etc.
A
Then
sections
15
through
20
lay
out
you
know:
what's
it
what's:
a
redefinition
of
a
retail
sale
bringing
in
our
existing
sales
tax
statutes,
and
I
want
to
make
super
clear:
we
mimicked
our
exact
sales,
tax
sales,
tax
statutes,
but
just
moved
and
acting
like
an
excise
tax.
So
we
could
pick
up
the
digital
goods
section
17
defines
what
a
ringtone
is:
18
sales
sales
price,
the
seller
and
then
in
section
21.
A
This
is
the
specified
digital
products
and
what
the
following
types
that
are
electronically
transferred.
So
this
includes
audio
works.
Audio
visual
works,
digital
books,
digital
codes.
So,
when
you
do
digital
codes
like
nowadays,
you
get
a
digital
code.
If
you
go
to
red
box
to
download
a
movie,
and
so
that
code
then
acts
as
electronic
transfer
or
media,
which
is
then
consumable,
which
is
then
seen
as
digital
product
section
22
gets
into
subscription
and
subscription
arrangements.
A
A
A
If,
if
this
bill
was
to
pass
the
the
excise
tax
on
digital
goods
would
be
a
seventh
revenue
that
would
go
into
the
county,
it
goes
into
the
first
tier
of
the
sea
tax
base
as
well,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
those
quick
sections
and
then
you
guys
can
just
just
go
ahead
and
let's
start
talking
about
the
bill.
E
E
That
looks
like
a
go-ahead
all
right,
so
I
just
want
to
get
the
basic
framework
out
on
the
just
make
sure
I
understand
it.
So
these
are
the
sales
tax
or
are
we
creating
something
that
looks
exactly
like
a
sales
tax
and
so
forth?
Is
something
get
out
the
county
rates
right
if
a
county
raises
its
sales
tax
rate,
let's
say
we
give
them
the
authority
to
raise
sales
tax,
to
support
parks
or
something
along
those
lines.
A
A
A
But
I
will
let
mr
gundan
talk
about
that,
because
we
did
talk
about
that
like
a
lot,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
saying
that
correctly,
because
that
was
my
understanding
when
we
played
with
inequities
of
having
a
higher
rate,
we
needed
to
make
sure
that
the
rate
was
exactly
the
same,
because
it
can
create
legal
issues
if
it
was
not
the
same.
So
if
it
grows,
my
understanding
would
have
to
grow
with
it.
But
mr
guindon.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
russell
goodman,
principal
deputy
fiscal
analyst,
the
fiscal
analysis,
division,
and
so
the
answer
to
your
question
is
yes
it
it.
It
is
a
new
excise
tax,
so
it'll
be
in
its
its
own
new
chapter
in
the
nrs,
but
it
has
all
the
functional
elements
of
our
current
sales
tax.
In
fact,
if
you
look
at
the
bill
explanation
that
was
prepared
and
provided
to
you,
we
provided
you
this.
D
There
are
section
references
to
in
interest
chapter
372.,
so
the
the
vast
bulk
of
this
bill
are
the
sections
from
nrs
chapter
362
that
are
in
our
sales
tax.
To
have
those
structural
elements
be
part
of
this
excise
tax
and
also
so
then,
the
the
definitions
that
center
neal
referred
to
as
the
the
digital
audio
works,
the
digital
audio
visual
works,
the
digital
books,
those
are
suda,
streamlined
sales
and
use
tax
definitions.
D
So
not
only
are
we
putting
the
structure
elements
of
our
sales
tax
in
place,
or
this
is
also
being
done
in
a
way
to
so
that
it's
suited
compliant
in
terms
of
picking
up
the
sales
tax
elements
and
the
provisions
from
chapter
360
b
to
have
it
be
consistent
with
us
being
a
streamlined
sales
and
use
tax,
full
member
state
and
then
so
the
specific
part
of
your
question
about.
D
Yes,
the
provisions
in
the
bill
are
that
the
current
sales
tax
rates
attached
to
the
digital
products
so
that
if
the
legislature
would
authorize
or
actually
impose
a
new
rate
at
the
state
or
local
level
or
the
local
governments,
decide
to
utilize
a
rate.
That's
also
already
been
made
optionally
available
to
them
and
they
decide
to
implement
that
rate.
It
would
attach
to
the
digital
products
tax
base
in
their
county.
A
Yes,
I'll,
I
can
answer
that.
I'm
sorry
senator
neil
for
the
record.
Yes,
so
we
have
spent
a
great
amount
of
time
working
with
suda
getting
advice
from
suda
on
exactly
how
to
craft
this
bill.
A
So
when
I
had
this
bill
in
2019
and
it
had
a
hearing
on
the
assembly
side,
you
know
it
was
probably
a
blessing
in
disguise
to
get
a
chance
to
work
on
the
bill
for
the
next
two
years
and
to
really
codify
pseudo
rules
and
to
build
in
protections,
because
we
had
a
lot
of
conversations
about
making
sure
that
we
baked
in
suda
suda
rules
into
the
bill
so
that
360
360
372
that
they
literally
were
going
to
be
able
to
speak
to
the
suitor
rules.
A
We
actually
dragged
in
clear
language
that
comports
with
what
they
told
us
to
do
to
make
sure
that
it
was
not
out
of
compliance,
and
so
we
we
talked
heavily
with
them,
and
I
forgot
to
mention
that,
because
it
was
such
a
huge
part
of
my
life
for
two
years,
we
had
like
six
or
seven
stakeholder
meetings
with
stakeholders
and
then
with
sudan
and
with
department
of
tax,
just
to
make
sure
that
we
were
all
on
the
same
page.
E
Great
thank
you.
I
appreciate
that,
and
also
thank
you
for
the
timely
remember
to
all
of
our
legislative
colleagues
that
sometimes
it's
a
blessing
to
disguise
when
your
bill
dies,
probably
a
good
time
good
timing
for
that
reminder.
E
A
Yes,
it's.
My
understanding
goes
into
the
first
tier.
We
had
a
conversation
with
local
governments
to
try
to
explain
what
this
bill
did
and
how
how
the
digital
goods
would
work
and
what
they
could
understand
to
be
the
benefit
of
this
policy.
But
I
will
let
russell
guindon
get
into
the
first
tier
of
the
sea
tax.
E
Okay,
actually,
I
don't
think
we
need
more
details.
It's
in
the
bill.
I
think
it's
clear.
I
I
just
because
it's
a
long
bill
and
a
complex
hearing.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
some
things
are
on
the
record,
so
it
works
with
suda.
It
flows
into
the
sea
tax.
While
it
is
a
separate
tax,
digital
goods,
it
walks,
like
talks
like,
looks
like
sales
tax
and
will
function
like
sales
tax.
The
way
that
folks
are
commonly
referring
to
it
in
all
all
other
ways.
E
I
think
that's
that's
important
to
get
on
the
record
and
then
just
to
make
sure
just
circling
back
around
to
the
estimate.
So
we
think
there's
roughly
and
we
understand
these-
are
projections
400
million
dollars
worth
of
product
out
there
and
that
for
the
state
rate
that
that
would
generate
in
the
ballpark
of
9
million.
I
think
of
what
you
said
was
9
million
first
year,
10
million
second
year,
but
that
would
just
be
the
state's
portion.
E
A
D
No,
the
the
ratty
has
it
correct
in
terms
of
the
tax
basis
in
that
400
plus
million
dollar
range,
and
so
then
estimated
for
fy,
22
and
fy
23.
The
general
fund
impact
would
be
in
that
nine
to
ten
million
dollar
range
in
terms
of
the
sales
tax
yield.
From
that
estimated
potential.
400
million
dollar
tax
base.
D
D
No,
that
the
what's
showing
on
the
table
there's
the
amount
statewide
that
would
go
to
that
rate.
But
there
was
no
attempt
or
effort
made
by
staff
to
try
and
estimate
it
by
county
and
thus
what
would
flow
down
through
the
ctex
calculations.
E
D
Yes,
and
that
would
be
in
table
two
and
section
two
b
of
the
table,
that
would
be
the
bccr
slash
sccrt,
and
that
would
be
approximately
in
that
nine
and
a
half
to
ten
million
dollar
range
in
fy,
22
and
fy
23
again
based
on
the
estimated
taxable
sales.
D
So
that
would
be
the
statewide
total
amount
that
would
be
there
from
that
would
be
then
distributed
based
on
the
county
and
the
intent
would
here
is
to
have
the
I
believe-
and
that's
one
thing
we
can
talk
with
the
chair
is
that
we
would
cite
a
set
to
the
county
in
which
the
sale
took
place
for
the
digital
products,
tax
rates
for
the
bcc
rt
and
sccrt
rates.
Okay,
that's
a
great.
D
I
think
the
the
number
that
would
give
you
the
9
to
10
that's
the
bcc
on
sccrc,
so
the
the
total
amount
that
we
would
expect
statewide
to
be
generated
from
the
digital
products
would
be
approximately
34
to
35
million.
D
That
would
be
all
the
rates
statewide
that
are
imposed,
and
then
it
would
be
that
eight
to
nine
million
dollar
range
for
the
state
general
fund
10
to
11
million
dollars
for
the
the
lsst
that
would
go
on
to
fund
schools
and
then
that
nine
to
ten
million
dollars
that
would
be
distributed
to
the
locals
and
then
it
would
be
in
the
five
to
six
million
dollar
range
would
which
would
be
going
out
to
the
counties
based
on
the
local
option
rates
that
are
imposed.
E
Now
that
is
a
super
helpful
clarification
I
think,
with
all
the
numbers
being
thrown
around,
so
I
apologize
if
I
confused
it,
but
I
think
laying
it
out
so
new
tax
generates
35
million,
totally
broken
down
the
way
you
just
described,
and
so
then
again,
if
you
could
just
briefly
talk
about
the
base,
so
in
the
base,
we,
you
are
estimating
that
400
million
to
include
everything
that's
listed
in
the
bill,
so
I
think
it's
section
21.
It
really
goes
through.
D
Again
for
the
record
russell
getting
in
with
the
fiscal
announcement.
That's
that's
correct
man
that,
based
on
us,
looking
at
our
law,
is
similar
to
other
states
that
have
this
type
of
tax
on
digital
projects.
So
look
trying
to
look
at
that
and
what
may
be
included
or
excluded,
and
then
what
the
state
senator
neil
and
her
bill
is
including
or
excluded
the
best
that
we
could
made
estimates
of
what
we
thought
that
potential
tax
base
could
be
in
nevada
and
then.
E
Got
it,
and
that
makes
sense
that
we
would
have
the
experience
of
other
states
with
similar
laws.
Okay,
I
think
those
are
my
top
level
questions.
Other
members
of
the
committee
senator
key
cover.
B
Chair
vice
chair,
so
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
what
exactly
is
happening
with
satellite
tv
providers.
So
I
think
it
indicated
that
they're
being
ultimately
stripped
out
of
the
bill
through
the
amendments
of
deletions
through
118
through
138,
then
being
added
specifically
to
the
definition
of
marketplace
facilitator,
is
that
I
reading
that
correctly.
A
Yes,
I'll
explain
so
satellite
was
stripped
out,
so
there's
a
whole.
How
can
I
explain
this?
So?
Basically,
I
know
the
satellite
is
taxed
in
other
states
and
we
were
attempting
to
bring
in
create
tax
parity
between
cable
and
satellite
by
bringing
them
in.
That
was
our
original
intent,
and
so,
when
we
had
a
conversation
with
the
local
governments
about,
will
you
give
up
your
local
franchise
fee
so
that
we
can
create
tax
parity?
A
I
won't
say
all
of
the
local
government
said
no,
but
a
big
county
said
no,
and
so
the
attempt
was
to
since
the
franchise
fee.
It's
not
a
tax,
but
since
cable
was
already
paying
the
five
percent,
we
knew
that
legally
we
could
do
a
five
percent
satellite
tax,
which
would
then
pick
up
the
satellite
companies
and,
of
course,
when
the
bill
dropped
out,
nuclear
war
started
that
this
is
not
tax
parity,
so
I
stripped
it
out.
A
So,
basically,
what
we
don't
have
is
we
don't
have
tax
parity
between
cable
and
satellite,
which
would
totally
expand
our
our
our
base
and
the
revenue
that
we
expect,
and
so
what
I
asked
them
to
do
was
since,
if
you
have
apps
and
if
you
grow
like
if
they're
apps,
that
are
being
paid
on
the
website,
this
is
the
marketplace
facilitator
language.
So
if
you
have
apps
that
are
on
not
not
the
apps
that
are
free,
but
apps,
where
you
are,
you
are
somehow
it's
bundled
into
your
service
that
you
would
be.
A
You
would
act
as
a
marketplace
facilitator
and
collect
and
remit
the
excise
tax
back
to
the
state,
and
so
that's
the
provision
that
I
put
in
the
bill
for
a
couple
of
reasons,
number
one.
I
believe
cox
has
one
app
that
fits
that
scenario:
satellite
they
they
may.
A
They
may
have
that
in
the
future,
and
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
I
had
a
bill
that
reflected
on
activity
that
could
occur
in
the
future
being
that
they
were
not
being
brought
under
the
digital
goods
application
of
this
bill
and
that
any
any
app
that
was
walking
through
those
doors
that
we
would
collect
it
as
well,
because
here's
what's
happening
in
the
digital
space,
it
changes
all
of
the
time.
A
The
way
goods
are
bundled
the
way
a
provider
may
perform
or
act,
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that,
as
you
know
in
2023
that
we
have
language
that
dealt
with
how
they
may
adapt
their
platform,
because,
if
you've
gone
into
cox,
I
don't
know
if
anybody's
gone
to
cox,
I
have
it,
but
you
could
literally
go
on
and
play
games
right
now,
like
you
could
find
an
app
play
games
other
than
just
watching
something
other
than
what's
on
cable.
A
You
can
go
on
and
do
other
things,
and
so,
as
I
saw
that
growth,
that's
what
that's
what
I
asked
them
for
and
that's
what
I
did,
and
that
was
the
intent
and
the
reason
why
I
did
it
is
because
of
the
future
that
I
just
suspect
will
enable
that
to
perform
in
a
very
different
way.
B
Perspective,
let's
talk
about
just
like
live
tv
with
this
create
parody
between
like
hulu,
live
and
satellite,
and
a
cable
provider.
A
A
A
A
D
Thank
you
senator
neil
and
chair
for
the
record
russell
again
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division.
D
So
senator
dale
is
correct,
which
is
that
your
question
that
there
is
no
sales
tax
on
these
types
of
things,
because
they're
not
a
tangible
personal
property
construct
right
now
there
is
the
local
governments,
have
the
statutory
authority
coming
from
federal
the
federal
law
that
they
can
impose
up
to
a
five
percent
franchise
fee
tax
on
the
gross
receipts
of
cable
operators
and
retain
the
proceeds
for
their
use,
but
there's
a
federal
prohibition
against
a
local
rate
being
placed
on
satellite
companies.
D
So
that's,
as
senator
neil
stated,
the
bill
as
introduced
was
going
to
try
and
balance
that
by
putting
the
five
percent
on
satellites.
So
then
you'd
have
five
percent
local
on
cable,
five
percent
state
on
satellite
and
then
the
sales
tax
rate
would
attach
to
the
digital
products.
So
then,
your
question
about
the
hulu,
cable
and
satellite,
so
hulu
as
a
digital
streaming,
would
have
the
sales
tax
rate
and
then,
as
the
bill
was
introduced,
cable
and
satellite
would
have
had
five
percent
a
local
five
percent
on
cable,
a
five
percent
state.
D
Now,
under
the
proposed
amendment,
the
you,
the
five
percent
on
cable,
is
still
in
place
through
the
franchise
fee.
The
satellite
will
not
have
the
tax
on
their
their
services
that
you're
paying,
but
then
the
digital
streaming
services
will
have
the
sales
tax
rate
on
it.
B
From
an
equivalency
standpoint,
that's
like
three
different
tax
rates
for
the
same
service.
If
it's
live
tv,
but
I'm
not
suggesting
there's
an
easy
way
to
fix
it.
B
The
I
had
a
couple
just
mechanical
questions
about
the
ability
that
might
be
a
little
in
the
weeds.
But
if
look
at
section
40
subsection,
two
at
the
bottom
of
page
11
of
the
bill,
for
example,
just
every
business-
that
purchases
a
specified
digital
product
needs
to
register
with
the
department.
B
A
So
so
no-
and
I
think
the
so
in
section
40
sub
2-
this
applies
to
a
business,
a
retailer.
So
if
it
is
my
understanding,
this
was
the
retailer,
not
not
the
individual
person.
B
Right,
I
just
think
if
you
have
an
office,
if
you're
in
an
office
environment,
you
have
a
subscription
service
music
way.
I
would
read
that
is
that
that
office
business,
that
whatever
business
is
in
that
office,
be
it
a
dentist
office
or
whatever
you
have
to
buy
some
paperwork
just
trying
to
figure
out.
A
So
yeah,
I
want
to
think
through
that,
but
our
intent
was,
I
mean
there
will
be
some
personal
consumption
there,
but
the
way
that
we
work
this
out
is
it
would
be
the
business
who
would
then
register
with
the
department
and
give
the
name
and
address
of
all
the
agents
and
location
of
their
offices
and
the
way
that
we
worked
it
out,
because
so
one
of
the
biggest
questions
that
we
had
was.
Is
this
creating?
What's
the
burden
that
we're
creating
in
this
scenario?
A
And
so
when
we
we
worked
with
and
that's
why.
I
think
that
it's.
I
know
that
we
intended
business,
because
what
we
were
our
intent
on
the
actual
tax
form
itself.
When
we
talked
to
suda
to
try
to
make
sure
there
were
no
burden.
A
We
were
going
to
be
able
to
do
this
through
the
department
of
tax
by
adding
one
column
and
one
row,
so
so
that,
well,
I
won't
say
one
row,
but
one
column
where
we
could
insert
digital
goods
and
then
insert
that
in
because
one
of
the
largest
conversations
we
had
other
than
definitions
and
who's
in
and
who's
out
was
okay.
The
real
life
scenario
of
what
this
tax
form
looks
like.
Are
we
changing
this
tax
form?
How
do
we
change
it?
A
How
do
we
bring
individuals
in,
and
that
is
what
we
we
talked
about
when
we
started
to
think
about
how
many
pairs
would
we
pick
up
in
the
system
and
then
drag
in
and
then
make
sure
that
it
wasn't
burdensome
to
have
figure
out
who
this
was
and
how
we
would
do
it,
and
so
I
want
to
think
through
that
section
40,
if
you're
seeing
that
and
try
to
make
sure
that's
a
little
bit
cleaner.
D
Senator
neil
of
imei
is
your
staff.
Senator
keith,
kipper,
section
40
is
basically
the
digital
counterpart
to
the
tangible,
which
is
nrs372.220,
and
this
is
the
use
tax
construct,
not
a
sales
tax
construct.
So
in
our
sales,
it's
a
sales
and
use
tax.
D
So
if
you
see
that
it's
saying,
if
the
product's
for
use
in
this
state
and
if
the
every
business
that
purchase
spent
for
use
in
the
state,
so
this
is
mirroring
on
the
digital
side
for
this
ex
new
excise
tax,
the
counterpart
that
we
have
for
the
use
tax
of
tangible
personal
property
that
the
department
of
tax
asian
administers,
so
I
just
wanted
to
get
that
out-
is
that
this
is
a
section
that
mirrors
the
tangible
use
tax
provisions
that
are
in
place
and
administered
by
the
department
of
taxation
with
regards
to
businesses,
purchasing
things
for
use,
and
then
the
the
tax
rate
can
attach
to
that
under
the
use
tax.
B
D
Yeah,
so
this
is
the
capture
that,
if
you're
you
buy
things
and
you're
going
to
use
it,
then
in
a
sense,
if
it
wasn't
a
retail
transaction
and
the
tax
wasn't
collected
and
your
use
then
you're
the
final
consumer
when
you're
using
it,
and
thus
the
use
tax
kicks
in
to
say
that
the
tax
is
due
because
you're
consuming
it.
That
is
using
it.
D
B
Language
we
get
regarding
non-profit
status
is,
is
that
all
what's
currently
mirrored
in
our
sales
tax
law.
D
Madam
chair
again,
it
just
made
the
easiest
answer
and
I
apologize.
It's
just
that's
a
good
question
by
the
senator,
but
I
think
that
the
easy
answer
is
then
to
possibly
cover
the
senator
king
kevin's
question
as
well
as
potential
other
forthcoming
ones.
Is
that
all
the
exemptions
that
are
in
the
tangible
counterpart
in
chapter
372
were
carried
forward
into
this
new
excise
tax
again
to
mirror
the
two
taxes
in
terms
of
their
structural
elements?
D
So
you'll?
D
If
you
see
like
again
that
the
exemptions
that
are
in
chapter
372
for
tangible,
we
carried
those
forward
to
the
extent
possible
to
the
digital
counterpart
in
this
new
excise
tax,
so
for
the
educational,
charitable
and
religious
exemptions.
Those
carried
forward
for
textbooks
for
newspapers.
B
And
is
it
finally,
is
the
quarter
percent
hold
back?
Is
that
also
consistent
with
the
current
sales
and
use
tax.
D
The
you're
referring
to
the
quarter
percent
that
can
be
retained
by
the
taxpayer
for
well.
Excuse
me
for
the
retailer.
That's
collecting
and
remitting
the
tax.
Yes,
that's!
The
quarter
percent
is
what
a
retailer
for
tangible
personal
property
is
allowed
to
retain
for
collecting
and
remitting
the
tax
to
the
department
of
taxation.
D
B
I
think
so
the
question
of
section
106,
it's
probably
going
to
be
answered
the
same
way
as
the
one
regarding
the
business,
mr
getting
on
page
38,
every
seller,
every
retailer
and
every
person
storing,
using
or
otherwise
consuming
in
the
state
specified
digital
projects
purchased
from
a
retailer
shall
keep
records
receipts
invoices.
B
What
is
what's
going
on
there.
It's
a
way
of
reach
makes
it
sound
like.
I
need
to
keep
full
records
of
every
streaming
services
subscribe
to
for
the
report.
D
D
so
section
106
is
equivalent
to
nrs
372.735
so
that,
in
terms
of
that
section
exists
and
for
the
tangible,
personal
property
sales
tax
that
the
department
taxation
has,
that
requirement
for
the
sale
and
a
retail,
a
seller
retailer
for
tangible
personal
property.
So
then
we're
carrying
that
construct
over
into
the
digital
products.
Excise
tax-
and
I
will
be
honest
with
you
when
you
read
some
of
these
under
the
digital
construct.
D
They
it's
hard
for
me,
sometimes
to
get
my
mind
around,
because
you
you're
so
used
to
living
in
the
tangible
counterpart,
then
to
read
the
words
in
the
digital.
But
that's
what
we
felt
when
we
were
bringing
this
forward
is
bringing
the
chapter
372
provisions
that
taxation
uses
to
administer
the
tangible
tax
to
have
those
in
place
for
this
excise
tax
on
digital
products
and
and
clearly
then
it
will
be
the
department
taxation
will
take
these
provisions
and
and
administer
them
in
the
real
world.
A
No,
that's
not
the
intent,
but
I
see
what
you're
saying
when
you
see
the
the
way
it's
written
with
the
commas
all
right.
E
H
H
G
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
warren
w-a-r-r-e-n
last
name
hardy
h-a-r-d-y,
calling
in
support
of
346
today
on
behalf
of
the
urban
consortium,
which
is
made
up
of
the
cities
of
las
vegas,
henderson,
reno
and
sparks.
I
want
to
thank
senator
nail
for
taking
the
time
she
spent
countless
hours
working
with
us
on
this.
G
This
idea
and
this
concept,
and
especially
for
taking
on
this
critical
issue
of
tax
erosion,
that
new
technology
and
all
the
other
developments
in
the
last
few
years
or
how
they're
impacting
our
tax
structures-
and
I
think,
madame
madam
chair
or
vice
chair,
excuse
me,
you
know
we
we've
advocated,
along
with
the
league
of
cities,
for
a
larger
study
of
all
tax
revenues
in
the
state
of
nevada,
similar
to
what
we
did
back
in
the
late
80s
with
the
price
waterhouse
study.
G
E
H
I
Good
afternoon,
alexander
marks
m-a-r-k-s
with
the
nevada
state
education
association,
the
voice
of
nevada
educators
for
120
years
nfda
supports
sb
346
to
establish
parity
for
the
digital
version
of
project
products
subject
to
sales
tax.
At
the
beginning
of
this
legislative
session,
hundreds
of
educators
and
red
scarves
and
face
coverings
were
back
in
carson
city
lining
both
sides
of
the
street,
from
the
legislative
building
to
the
capitol
to
bring
attention
to
education
funding
after
sustaining
difficult
cuts.
Last
summer,
k-12
public
education
is
threatened
with
more
devastating
hits.
I
Early
literacy
supports
are
proposed,
a
33
million
cut
in
the
next
biennium
and
156
million
in
cuts
to
class
size
reduction
means
more
overcrowded
classes,
even
with
the
largest
class
sizes
in
the
nation.
Now,
while
federal
funding
from
the
cares
act
and
the
american
rescue
plan
will
certainly
help
nevada
weather
this
crisis
over
the
next
couple
years,
we
know
nevada
faces
a
chronic
funding.
Shortage
in
public
education,
nevada
consistently
ranks
near
the
bottom
of
state
and
per
pupil
funding.
That
is
why
we've
been
asking
legislators
to
be
brave,
be
bold
and
secure.
I
New
revenue,
the
emerging
economy,
increasingly
moving
to
digital
format,
has
created
a
loophole
in
sales
tax,
which
is
only
applied
to
the
purchase
of
physical
products.
We
know
technology
companies
are
minting
new
millionaires
each
day,
oftentimes
disrupting
industries
and
exploiting
these
types
of
tax
loopholes.
At
the
same
time,
we
know
sales
tax,
one
of
the
main
revenue
streams
for
k-12
public
ed
educators
have
been
calling
on
our
leaders
to
invest
in
nevada
for
years
and
now
is
the
time
to
take
bold
steps
to
meet
our
state's
needs.
I
We
need
our
leaders
to
have
the
courage
to
stand
up
and
demand
new
and
progressive
revenue
to
move
nevada
from
the
bottom
of
the
education
funding
list.
We
believe
our
legislature
has
the
opportunity,
this
session
to
advance
a
package
of
revenue
proposals,
including
sb
346,
to
take
a
big
and
bold
step
in
addressing
our
funding
challenge.
Thank
you.
H
F
Hello,
my
name
is
rebecca
garcia
r-e-b-e-c-a-g-a-r-c-I-a,
president
of
the
nevada
parent
teacher
association,
nevada
pta's
mission
is
to
make
every
child's
potential
a
reality
by
engaging
and
empowering
families
and
communities
to
advocate
for
all
children.
This
year
has
shown
a
light
on
the
essential
role
schools
play
not
only
in
the
education
of
our
children,
but
the
fabric
of
our
community
nevada
schools
have
been
chronically
underfunded
for
decades.
For
too
long
our
class
sizes
have
led
the
nation,
and
our
funding
has
been
at
the
bottom.
F
As
a
mother
of
four
and
sot
chair
for
many
years,
I
have
seen
the
impact
of
new
york
school
budgets
directly
on
students
and
classrooms.
My
daughter
returned
to
her
fourth
grade
classroom.
Today
they
had
to
move
to
a
larger
room
to
accommodate
the
33
students
in
her
class
in
nevada.
We
think
that
this
is
normal,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
our
reality.
Sb
346
is
one
step
forward.
This
legislature
can
take
to
provide
additional
funding
for
our
schools.
F
Nevada,
pta
is
in
support
of
this
legislation
in
2019,
the
nevada
legislature,
after
more
than
five
decades
started
the
process
of
updating
the
education
funding
formula
with
sb
543.
A
new
funding
formula
in
the
critical
efforts
of
the
commission
on
school
funding
provide
progress
towards
addressing
historical
challenges.
F
Yet
the
reality
is
without
additional
revenue
to
increase
education
funding.
The
new
formula
will
simply
redistribute
inadequate
funding
without
improving
our
education
system.
Nevada
needs
to
move
out
of
the
past
and
ensure
parity
in
digital
goods.
When
was
the
last
time
you
purchased
a
dvd
or
cd
or
even
a
book,
we
cannot
afford
to
lose
this
revenue
that
could
be
used
to
improve
our
schools.
Nevada,
school
funding
relies
heavily
on
local
school
support
taxes
collected,
and
we
know
that
additional
funds
are
needed.
Federal
relief
coming
to
our
state
is
desperately
needed.
F
It
is
only
a
short-term
band-aid,
not
a
sustainable,
long-term
solution.
Now
is
the
time
to
plan
and
implement
legislation
that
will
provide
for
our
students
in
the
future
of
our
state.
We
need
to
invest
in
the
health
and
well-being
of
nevada's
children
and
families,
and
this
requires
resources.
Nevada
needs
strong,
stable
and
diverse
mix
of
revenue
that
effectively
meets
the
needs
of
our
state,
not
just
today,
but
in
5,
10
and
20
years.
F
H
F
The
retirees
are
very
much
in
support
of
sb
346
and
we
thank
senator
neil
for
bringing
forth
this
bill
and,
as
mr
hardy
had
referenced,
all
the
hundreds,
I'm
sure
of
hours
she
has
done
to
to
get
us
to
the
place
where
we
have
a
bill
that
we
can
all
get
behind.
Nevada
has
had
poorly
funded
education
and
health
care
prior
to
the
pandemic,
and
just
this
morning
I
spent
my
own
personal
time
representing
the
aspie
retirees
in
a
budget
hearing
where
millions
of
dollars
were
cut
from
the
state
health
care
system.
F
Because
of
yet
again,
budget
shortfalls
in
the
state
budget,
nevada,
joins
28
would
join
28.
Other
states
and
62
counties
that
have
already
adopted
some
type
of
taxation
on
digital
products
and
over
time,
this
transition
to
digital
products
that
are
not
subject
to
sales
tax
will
reduce
the
amount
of
sales
tax
dollars
coming
into
the
sales,
the
state
budget
and
in
turn,
education
and
hopefully
the
state
workforce
budgets
as
well.
F
F
H
G
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
for
the
record.
My
name
is
benjamin
chalmer,
that's
b-e-n-j-a-m-I-n
c-h-a-l-l-I-n-o-r
and
I
am
representing
faith
in
action
in
nevada,
and
we
are
here
in
support
of
sb
346
and
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
o'neill
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
would
first
like
to
echo
the
sentiments
of
the
previous
speakers.
G
We
every
time
there's
an
economic
downturn.
We
seem
to
always
cut
education,
healthcare
and
mental
health.
This
bill
will
make
sure
that
we're
able
to
at
least
bring
some
stability
and
make
sure
that
we're
not
making
as
much
cuts
providing
more
suitability
to
our
local
governments
and
making
sure
that
we
are
able
to
provide
more
to
our
education.
G
Nevada
need
new
streams
of
revenue
to
help
our
company
economy
recover,
especially
after
our
previous,
especially
due
to
coven,
and
we
also
need
to
adopt
our
tax
policies
by
including
our
digital
goods
and
will
provide
additional
help
for
our
communities.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
have
a
good,
and
we
urge
your
support.
E
Thank
you,
caller
and
I'll
just
remind
callers
that
we
do
have
three
bills
to
hear
today.
So
if
somebody
has
said
something
similar
and
you
can
just
say,
ditto
or
I
agree
feel
free
to
keep
your
remarks.
H
F
We
are
happy
to
support
sb
346,
as
it
would
capture
revenue
from
the
growing
share
of
digital
products
that
are
currently
not
contributing
to
nevada
sales
tax
structure
and
create
equity
for
those
types
of
goods.
Nevada's
counties
through
the
sea
tax
formula
receive
a
distribution
of
sales
taxes,
and
so,
as
you
heard,
would
receive
additional
revenue.
If
sb
346
were
passed,
we'd
like
to
note
that,
for
many
of
nevada,
county
sales,
taxes
are
their
primary
or
secondary
source
of
revenue.
F
So
these
revenues
and
additions
to
it
are
very
important
and
very
welcome
to
counties
collecting
sales
taxes
for
digital
goods
could
be
an
important
contribution
to
assist
counties
with
the
many
critical
services
that
they
provide
to
nevadans,
including
services
to
our
most
vulnerable.
Our
local
justice
system,
emergency
response,
roads
parks,
pools,
libraries
and,
of
course,
our
local
election
systems,
and
we
also
really
want
to
thank
the
chair,
chair
neal,
for
working
with
us
along
the
way
on
this
bill
and
its
different
iterations
and
how
those
impacted
counties.
H
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee,
or
I'm
sorry,
it's
madam
chair
woman,
now
for
the
record,
mary
walker,
m-a-r-y-w-a-l-k-e-r
representing
carson
city
and
lyon
county,
and
we
rise
in
support
of
sb
346..
It's
equitable.
It's
shared
burden
and
it'll
help
stop
the
tax
erosion
caused
by
changing
technology.
I
want
to
thank
senator
neil
very
much
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
thank
you,
madam
chairman,
hope
everyone's
doing
well.
H
F
F
F
Our
safety
net
of
one-time
federal
funds
will
end
implementing
this
bill
now
will
provide
us
with
much
needed
revenue
at
a
critical
time.
Waiting
for
the
next
session.
To
start
addressing
our
shortfall
is
not
an
option.
We
should
even
consider
last
session.
The
legislature
took
the
first
step
in
modernizing
nevada's
education
funding
by
passing
the
people-centered
funding
plan.
We
ask
that
you
show
that
same
commitment
this
session
by
modernizing
our
sales
tax.
This
tax
is
one
step
towards
providing
necessary
funds
to
implement
this
new
plan
as
intended.
F
We
are
in
support
of
this
legislation
because
one
it
goes
directly
to
the
existing
local
school
support
tax.
It
broadens
our
sales
tax
base,
which
aligns
with
recommendations
from
the
commission
on
school
funding.
It
brings
more
stability
to
our
revenue
system.
It
actually
makes
our
sales
tax
less
regressive,
as
it
doesn't
disproportionately
affect
those
who
can
least
afford
it
and
once
passed,
we
can
start
accumulating
much
needed
revenue
within
six
months.
F
H
H
F
Good
afternoon,
chair
neil
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
michelle
booth
m-I-c-h-e-l-l-e-b-o-o-t-h,
representing
educate
nevada.
Now
we
are
testifying
in
support
of
sb
346,
because
nevada
is
in
desperate
need
of
solutions
to
address
its
grossly
underfunded
public
education
system.
Even
before
the
pandemic
nevada
students
face
significant
obstacles,
including
the
largest
class
sizes
in
the
nation.
The
link
between
education
funding
and
student
outcome
is
well
established.
A
wide,
ranging
study
by
the
learning
policy
institute
found
that
states
cannot
reliably
improve
student
outcomes
without
long-term
investments.
F
The
federal
dollars
expected
to
help
lift
the
state
out
of
the
current
crisis
are
only
temporary
resources.
Nevada
schools
will
face
an
enormous
cliff
as
these
funds
expire,
meaning
any
gains
achieved
with
this
historic
federal
investment
will
likely
be
lost.
Cnn
supports
long,
stable
revenue
solutions
like
sb
346
that
create
a
path
toward
a
quality
education
system.
Thank
you,
senator
neal,
for
bringing
this
go
forward
and
pursue
solutions
to
address
the
needs
of
our
state.
H
F
A-N-D-R-E-A-C-O-L-E,
I'm
a
mom,
a
former
ccsd
special
education
teacher
and
I've
served
as
co-chair
on
the
sot
team
at
my
son's
school
due
to
the
budget
cuts
I
saw
in
my
sot
just
a
few
years
ago.
I
founded
ccsd
parents,
which
is
now
an
online
community
of
over
14
000
nevadans,
who
care
about
education.
F
I
support
sb
346,
because
nevada's
school
funding
relies
heavily
on
revenue
generated
by
the
local
school
support.
Tax,
sb
346
provides
parity
and
sales
tax
to
ensure
digital
sales
will
support
our
schools.
We
all
know
nevada
education
has
funding
issues
and
we
need
a
real
solution,
which
is
what
sbe
346
creates.
F
My
friends
and
family
from
out
of
state
say
they
would
never
live
in
nevada
because
of
our
schools.
I
think
as
nevadans
we
have
become
accustomed
to
the
state
of
our
public
schools
and
we
forget
that
people
in
other
states
are
offered
a
much
better
public
education
for
their
children,
because
they
value
education
enough
to
fund
it.
We
will
never
be
able
to
diversify
our
economy
or
diversify
the
quality
of
our
residents.
If
we
don't
start
to
make
education
a
priority,
this
simply
closes
a
loophole.
F
F
Please
hear
me
clearly
when
I
tell
you
I'm
a
consistent
voter
and
I'm
an
education
voter.
It's
the
issue
that
is
most
important
to
me.
It's
the
issue
that
I
talk
to
my
friends
and
family
about
it's.
The
issue
that
I
use
social
media
to
discuss.
Please
pass
sb
346
and
show
us
that
education
is
important
to
you
as
well,
do
it
for
our
kids
and
for
all
new
additions.
Thank
you.
H
F
Good
afternoon
committee,
my
name
is
jamie
rodriguez,
that's
spelled.
F
J-A-M-I-E-R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-V,
I
am
the
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county
and
appreciating
the
very
busy
schedule
you
have
ahead
of
you
still.
I
just
want
to
be
on
the
record
of
supporting
the
bill
and
thank
the
sponsor
for
working
with
us
through
the
different
different
proposals
for
this
bill.
We
think
bringing
parity
to
our
tax
structure
in
this
state
is
a
good
thing
to
move
forward
and
appreciate
again
that
those
funds
are
working
with
us.
Thank
you
very
much.
H
I
Hello
and
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
testify.
My
name
is
dylan
o'neill,
d-y-l-a-n-o,
apostrophe
n-e-I-l-l
and
I'm
a
senior
state
policy
analyst
at
the
institute
of
taxation
and
economic
policy
for
itef.
We
are
in
support
of
fd
346
because
it
would
advance
important
tax
policy
principles
to
help
the
people
and
the
economy
of
nevada.
G
I
Should
be
broad
for
reasons
that
have
already
been
covered
today.
I
will
add,
though,
that
consumer
spending
is
slow
to
recover
when
coming
out
of
a
recession
and
when
people
not
only
reduce
their
consumption,
but
also
shift
it
into
untaxed
sectors,
as
has
happened
with
digital
products.
During
the
current
downturn,
the
impact
on
the
state's
budget
is
even
larger
and
longer
lasting,
and
the
importance
of
a
broad
base
is
even
more
important.
I
E
346.
all
right,
thank
you
all
right.
So
that's
been
20
minutes
of
testimony
and
support,
and
while
I
hate
to
cut
off
public
testimony
on
these
bills,
we
really
don't
have
any
other
choice
as
we
get
closer
to
the
deadline
week.
So
if
you
are
on
the
line
and
are
here
to
testify
and
support,
please
make
sure
to
send
an
email
to
the
committee
and
if
you
do
it
by
the
end
of
the
day,
we
will
put
it
on
to
the
public
record
so
that
we
will
still
have
your
input.
H
H
H
I
believe
these
are
for
neutral,
never
mind
if
you
would
like
to
speak
in
neutral
testimony
to
sp346,
please
press
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
more.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
in
neutral
testimony
to
sp3486,
please
press
our
night
now
to
take
your
place
in
the.
H
F
Thank
you
broadcast
center.
Thank
you,
senator
ratty,
for
the
record,
this
is
randy
thompson,
r-a-n-d-I,
t-h-o-m-p-s-o-n
state
director
for
the
national
federation
of
independent
business,
and
I'm
testifying
today
in
neutral,
where
we
have
concerns
with
the
bill.
We
are
also
very
concerned
that
small
businesses
continually
to
be
at
a
disadvantage
when
it
comes
to
going
to
grassroots
books
and
buying
a
book
and
having
to
pay
sales
tax,
but
downloading
it
on
amazon.
F
There
is
no
sales
tax,
so
there
are
definitely
small
business
implications
here
and
we
support
the
elements
that
bring
parity
to
our
tax
system.
We
are
neutral,
but
we
do
thank
senator
neal
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
her
to
maybe
get
into
support.
Thank
you.
H
G
My
name
is
david
dazlich
d-a-z-l-I-c-h,
I'm,
the
director
of
government
affairs
with
the
vegas
chamber,
vegas
chamber,
is
here
today
to
testify
in
neutral.
We
just
would
like
to
in
the
interest
of
time
thank
the
sponsor
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
H
E
All
right,
thank
you,
senator
neil
any
closing
remarks.
A
I
just
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
for
hearing
this
bill.
It's
been
a
long
journey
since
2019.
A
There
was
a
lot
of
work
done
and
I
appreciate
the
hearing
and
I
appreciate
fiscal
staff
who
and
department
of
taxation
who
pretty
much
were
with
me
every
step
of
the
way,
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
could
craft
policy
that
made
sense
and
stabilizes
the
nevada
economy
and
modernizes
our
tax
statutes
and
deals
with
tax
erosion
of
tangible
goods
that
are
no
longer
operating
in
our
base.
And
so
I'm
thank
you
for
the
hearing
and
my
colleagues
for
listening
to
this
bill.
A
A
Okay,
so
l.e.t,
why
did
I
bring
this
bill?
It's
been
an
issue.
We
haven't
had
an
led
discussion
since
2015
when
we
changed
the
statute,
and
so
I
put
this
chart
up
and
I'm
only
focused
on
where
we
have
it
involved
in
the
the
broadened
part
of
the
led
is
because
the
pandemic
showed
us
a
lot.
It
showed
us
that
our
whole
lives
in
nevada
and
in
las
vegas
changed
dramatically,
and
when
I
thought
about
tax
fairness,
I
thought
about
how
I
should
really
try
to
deal
with
this
number.
A
A
We
were
beyond
zero
taint,
and
so
I
decided
to
bring
a
bill
that
would
remove
the
exemption
from
sports
teams,
which
grew
in
nevada
over
a
period
of
time,
and
I
thought
okay,
why
not
have
them
baked
in
while
there's
a
recession,
there's
no
activity,
it
would
have
an
effective
date
of
the
2022
and
they
could
easily
build
this
into
their
cost.
A
A
And
so
once
again,
I
was
attempting
with
sb
367
to
not
only
broaden
the
base
for
the
led,
but
to
focus
on
the
fact
that,
because
we
took
such
a
severe
hit
in
a
negative
93
percent
and
the
led
was
to
capture
other
entities
that
were
going
to
be
a
part
of
the
led
and
entertainment
that's
happening,
because
it's
a
real
thing.
So
the
bill
is
super
simple.
A
I
took
away
the
exemption.
There
was
a
conversation
in
section
one
where
you
see
the
I
believe
in
section
one
where
you
see
the
the
drop
off
from
the
7
500
to
the
5
000.
A
That
was
a
conversation
that
I
had,
I
believe,
with
department
of
tax,
that
that
could
be
a
minor
change
that
could
happen
to
try
to
pick
up
entities
that
were
at
the
5000
below
the
above.
The
five
thousand
dollar
thresh
five
thousand
person
threshold,
because
it
seemed
like
a
lot
of
the
non-profit
events
that
were
going
on.
A
The
o-
and
that
was
my
reasoning-
I
know
that
a
lot
of
people
were
just
like.
Why
are
you
tampering
with
the
led,
but
the
reason
why
I
was
tampering
with
the
leds,
because
when
I
saw
the
economic
forecast-
and
I
saw
that
number-
I
was
just
like
we're
we're
at
where
ground,
zero
and
the
best
time
to
make
revenue
change,
is
when
you're
at
ground
zero,
and
I
thought
it
was
fair
because
gaming
pays,
it
they've
been
paying
it,
and
so
why
not
the
large
sports
teams?
There
was
an
argument
that
came
up.
A
Well,
you
guys
passed
the
raiders
and
they
have
a
contract
which
says
that
they
cannot
have
a
specific
tax,
targeted
tax,
says
the
target
attacks
towards
them,
and
the
conversation
that
well
pretty
much.
My
thoughts
towards
that
was
number
one
led
is
not
a
target
of
tax.
It's
a
removal
of
an
exemption
number
two.
There
is
no
contract
that
can
be
written
as
far
as
I
know
that
can
tell
the
legislature
what
to
do.
Our
power
is
plenary,
so
you
can
write
it
in
it's
an
illegal
term.
A
A
I
found
it
interesting
that
that
term
even
existed
or
was
adopted,
but
it
is
inaccurate
to
believe
that
there
is
any
legal
place
or
standing
for
that
contract
term
in
the
state
of
nevada,
where
you
would
then
elicit
a
suit
to
say.
Well,
I
told
the
legislature
that
they
shouldn't
do
this
to
me.
Well,
they're,
probably
going
to
lose
that
fight
because
we
are
plenary
and
the
legislature
establishes
the
law
of
the
state
and
if
we
change
contract
terms,
that
is
our
power.
A
It
is
not
a
power
of
a
business,
and
so
those
were
some
of
the
pushbacks
that
I
got.
But
I
said:
okay
I'll
take
my
chances.
I
know
the
reason
why
I'm
bringing
this
bill,
I'm
bringing
it
because
of
the
loss,
significant
loss
that
the
state
encountered,
and
with
that
I
will
open
myself
up
for
questions
and
stop
sharing.
A
So,
thank
you
for
the
the
conceptual
amendment.
The
idea
was
to
go
after
the.
I
know
that
amateur
teams
are
considered
professional,
but
the
request
was
to
delineate
between
the
amateur
versus
an
nfl
or
the
wnba,
and
so
I
would
have
to
put
some
more
sentences
in
that
conceptual
amendment
to
delineate
what
I'm
exactly
going
after.
A
But
that
is
that
was
a
request
and
I
and
I
and
I
and
I
understood
their
plea
and
I
understood
why
they
wanted
to
be
separated
out,
and
so
that
is
the
conversation,
but
the
conversation
clearly
would
probably
be
on
the
size
or
or
the
revenue
that
I
may
consider
what
that
looks
like.
I
have
to
talk
to
legal
about
how
I
would
craft
that
delineation,
but
that
that
was
the
intent
and
that's
the
goal
is
to
separate
amateur,
which
is
considered
professional
from
the
big
big
leagues.
A
E
B
Gonna
just
jump
on
in,
even
though
I'm
not
getting
called
on-
that's
okay,
the
so
there
are
different
leagues
that
sometimes
it
may
have
like
different
status
right.
So
in
professional
soccer,
there's
major
league
soccer,
we
don't
have
a
major
league
soccer
team.
We
do
have
professional
soccer
teams,
they're,
not
necessarily
considered
minor
leagues,
although
they
may
be
affiliated
with
with
major
league
soccer
teams.
B
A
So
that's
a
really
good
question.
It's
something
that
I
need
to
flesh
out
in
regards
to
how
to
carve
it
out,
but
it
seems
like
the
the
like
the
best
way
to
do
that
is
either
based
on
size
or
revenue,
but
so
it
was
my
understanding
that
there
may
be
some
minor
league
socks,
soccer
or
amateur,
but
not
level
of
wnba,
and
so
that's
something
to
think
about
how
to
carve
that
out.
It's
it's
a
question.
A
I
don't
have
answered
because
I
just
accepted
that
amendment
yesterday
and
so
it's
something
I
need
to
think
through.
I
wanted
to
just
have
the
have
the
hearing
on
the
general
policy
and
why
I
thought
removing
the
exemption
was
important,
the
fair,
the
fairness
that
I
was
going
after
and
why
I
felt
you
know
the
the
major
professional
sports
team
should
be
on
the
equal
playing
field
with
gaming
and
pay
the
led.
B
B
B
I
think
I
mean
it,
it
is,
but
what
I'm
saying
it's?
Not
it's
not
mls
right.
So
it's
another
league.
We
have
affiliations
with
mls
teams,
so
I
don't
think
they'd
necessarily
be
considered
minor
league.
That's
what
I
was
getting
at.
So
I
mean
if,
if
they're
not
included
the
way
I
would
read
it
is
really.
B
A
A
Actually,
it
seemed
to
be
when
I
went
back
looking
at
2015
and
then
prior
to
that
it
seemed
that
this
was
this
was
an
agreement
behind
closed
doors
to
create
this
exemption,
but
there
wasn't
actually
legislative
minutes
or
statements
that
spoke
to
it.
A
I
had
no
idea
that
that
was
that
that
was
going
on,
because
I
I
was,
I
was
a
member
of
assembly
taxation
in
2015,
marilyn
kirkpatrick
was
the
chair.
I
remember
the
led
bill
because
I
think
was
liberelli
who
worked
with
now,
commissioner
kirkpatrick,
who
worked
on
this
field,
and
we
had
a
lot
of
conversations
around
the
led,
and
I
didn't
remember
that
we
specifically
carved
that
out
and
I
didn't
find
any
minutes
that
reflected
it.
But
that
is
what
I
heard
from
groups,
but
there
are
no
legislative
minutes
that
reflect
those
comments.
G
You
know
my
concern
is
how
many
other
states
tax
their
their
professional
teams.
A
That
is
a
good
question
because
I
believe
a
lot
of
you
do,
but
I
will
find
that
data
and
send
it
to
you.
I
think
that
we
are
unique
with
providing
that
exemption,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
states
that
do
a
lot
of
things.
That
nevada
is
clearly
doesn't
want
to
put
his
toe
in
or
chooses
not
to
do.
I
knew
this
bill.
A
Would
you
know
make
people
feel
some
kind
of
way,
but
I
also
felt
that
the
fair
play
argument
was
much
greater
because
the
question
that
I
asked
myself
was
well:
why
should
gaming
pay
it
where,
especially
in
clark
county,
where
we
have
I
mean
from
the
data
from
when
this
bill
came
out?
I
mean
we
were
talking
about
32
million
visitors
a
year
roughly
in
a
low
year.
We
we
could
be
talking
about
28
million
visitors
a
year
coming
to
vegas.
A
So
when
the
economy
opens
back
up
the
the
thought
in
my
mind,
was
why
not
broaden
this
base.
So
we
don't
see
a
you
know.
Looking
at
937
percent
drop
in
the
led
and
create
some
fair
play,
there
that's
happening
in
clark
county.
I
know
it
affects
washoe,
but
there's
also
gaming
in
reno,
and
I
just
felt
like
yeah.
A
I
understand
the
carrot
but
they're
here
and
and
and
I
couldn't
figure
out
what
would
be
the
legal
argument
for
someone
not
to
pay
the
live,
entertainment
tax
and
you're
performing
live,
entertainment
and
tourists
are
coming
through
vegas
in
stark
numbers
and
when
we
open
up,
I
can
guarantee
that
vegas
is
probably
going
to
boom.
It's
bustling
now
and
we're
at
50
percent,
and
you
know,
because
I
see
the
strip
and
I
see
what's
happening
at
50,
and
I
just
in
my
mind
I
I
wanted
to
at
least
make
the
argument.
A
I
knew
that
people
would
probably
disagree,
but
I
wanted
to
make
the
argument
that
this
was
fair
play.
Gaming
has
always
paid
it.
You
have
other
players
in
the
market
who
are
associated
with
drawing
large
numbers
of
people
and
yet
they're
exempt.
Why,
and
I
didn't
see
a
legal
reason
for
why
they
should
not
be.
G
And
I
don't-
and
I
don't
disagree
necessarily
in
that
premise,
except
that
the
difference
is
the
gaming
is
a
long-established
part
of
our
economy
and
professional
sports
is
something
that
we're
trying
to
establish.
G
We
still
don't
have
an
nba
team,
we
still
don't
have
an
mls
team
and
we
have
to
compete
against
other
cities,
and
so
my
concern
is
that
it's
we're
kind
of
young
in
this
particular
type
of
expansion
into
our
economy,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
this
would
be
a
disincentive
to
try
to
attract
other
teams
because
we
want
to.
We
want
to
expand
our
economy
from
just
gaming.
To
other
things,
I'm
wondering
you
know
what
the
thought
process
on
that
is.
A
So
the
thought
process
on
that
was-
and-
and
I
thought
about
that-
I
mean
the
question-
is:
how
do
you
want
to
incentivize
people
to
come?
If
you
don't,
if
you
don't
put
them
in
now,
when
there's
a
when
there's
a
recession
and
no
activity,
I
can
guarantee
five
years
from
now.
They
are
not
going
to
willingly
walk
themselves
into
a
tax
base
when
they're
making
millions,
and
then
they
say
I'm
making.
A
A
So
then
that
brings
in
40
million
visitors
to
the
state
of
nevada.
Those
40
million
visitors
use
our
roads,
our
services,
our
medical
everything
and
then
we're
just
going
to
say
well,
because
we
want
to
incentivize
them
we're
not
going
to
get.
I
mean,
I
know
we're
getting
other
revenue,
but
gaming
has
that
same
situation,
but
we
don't
we
don't
let
gaming
off
the
hook
at
all
at
all
for
whoever
they
draw
in.
So
why
is
it
that
a
sports
team
should
get
that
benefit?
A
And-
and
I
didn't
have
the
legal
position
to
hear
this
debated
in
committee
when
led
came
about
in
2015
with
the
major
changes
in
overhaul
that
happened,
and
so
I
I
just.
I
just
think
that
you
know
because
incentives
we
use
incentives
to
bring
people
in,
but
I
feel
like.
Sometimes
we
hurt
ourselves
because
they
never
want
to
give
it
up.
They
never
want
to
walk
backwards
and
say:
okay,
thank
you
for
the
help.
A
Thank
you
for
letting
us
establish
ourselves,
but
I
still
want
to
keep
my
exemption
and
never
give
anything
back
to
the
state.
Is
that
I
just
I
don't
see
that
as
fair
long
term
and
I've
also
seen
how
the
abatements
are
working,
where
we
exempt
taxes
in
other
spaces,
and
I
don't
know
any
of
those
companies
that
want
to
give
it
back.
E
You
know
I'm
gonna,
I
need
to
lean
in
here
and
interrupt
so
I
apologize
senator
dennis
so
senator
kikefer
and
I
need
to
hop
on
over
to
the
senate
health
and
human
services
committee,
because
we
have
a
work
session
that
we
need
to
get
done
today.
E
So
I'm
going
to
ask
senator
dennis
to
chair
red
as
we
move
through
the
rest
of
this
and
if
and
if,
if
we're
able
to
make
it
back,
we
will
thank
you
for
the
discretion
as
we're
in
deadline
week
and
need
to
hop
over
to
another
committee.
So
appreciate
you
we'll
talk
to
you
soon.
G
Okay,
thank
you,
so
any
other
questions
from
members.
G
Anybody
and
now
that
I
could
see
everybody,
I'm
not
seeing
anybody,
so
we
could
probably
move
on
to
the
those
that
would
be
speaking
in
support.
So
if
we
could
have
those
that
are
speaking
support.
H
H
F
Thank
you,
committee,
chairperson,
dennis
and
committee
members.
My
name
is
hava
ahmad,
h-a-w-h
a-h-m-a-d
and
I'm
here
representing
the
clark
county
education
association,
the
clark
county
education
association
is
the
official
bargaining
partner
for
the
clark
county
school
district
and
we
represent
more
than
18
000
licensed
individuals.
F
We
are
here
testifying
in
support
of
this
bill
and
the
live.
Entertainment
tax
should
be
extended
in
this
fashion
to
provide
a
more
diverse
and
expanded
revenue
base
for
us
to
be
able
to
collect
their
tax
revenue.
There
is
no
secret
that
we
support
funding
sb543
optimally
and
we
do
need
to
get
creative
when
it
comes
to
our
tax
system.
In
addition
to
our
support
on
this,
we
do
want
to
mention
to
this
committee
that
you
know
when
it
comes
to
our
taxes.
F
We
have
to
make
sure
that
we
look
at
everything
holistically,
and
this
is
only
one
portion.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
the
sponsor
of
this
bill
and
all
of
the
stakeholders
to
ensure
that
when
we
look
at
taxes,
we
make
sure
that
we
all
compromise
a
little
bit
to
put
our
students
first.
Thank
you.
So
much.
H
I
The
more
of
these
exemptions
that
we
can
close
the
fair
it'll
be
for
everyone
and
nevada
is
just
about
last
in
the
country
in
revenue
per
capita.
So
this
is
something
that
is
desperately
needed,
not
just
for
education
in
k-12,
but
for
higher
ed
for
public
safety
for
health
care
for
infrastructure.
We
strongly
encourage
you
to
support
367
and
thank
sponsor.
H
F
F
H
G
Okay,
so
let's
let's
go
then
to
those
who
are
speaking
in
opposition.
H
Callers,
if
you
would
like
to
speak
in
opposition
to
sp
367,
please
press
star,
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
once
more.
That
is
star
9
now
to
take
your
place
in
the
queue
call
her
with
the
last
three
digits
834.
Please
state
and
split
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes.
You
may.
H
H
I
Thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you
good
afternoon
to
the
members
of
the
senate
revenue
committee.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
mark
vidane
spelled
m-a-r-c
d-a-d-a-I-n.
I
am
the
president
of
the
las
vegas
raiders
here
today
in
opposition
to
sb
367..
First,
I
want
to
thank
the
entire
legislature
for
making
our
move
to
nevada
possible.
I
More
than
12
000
workers
were
employed
on
allegiant
stadium
and
we
finished
construction
on
time
and
on
budget.
In
addition
to
raiders
games,
allegiant
stadium
will
host
unlv
games
concerts
and
eventually,
a
super
bowl.
Every
hot
dog
soda
t-shirt
sold
at
these
events
generates
tax
revenue.
Every
hotel
room
occupied
by
visitors
to
these
events
generates
room
tax
revenue.
Thousands
of
jobs
are
created
because
of
this
stadium
and
will
continue
to
be
employed
when
the
stadium
is
operation.
I
I
Changing
the
terms
of
such
a
negotiated
deal
before
any
fans
have
even
attended
a
game
at
the
stadium
is
not
the
spirit
of
the
partnership
that
brought
the
team
to
nevada.
We
would
love
to
see
the
day
when
the
nba
decides
to
join
the
wnba's
aces
or
when
mls
joins
the
nfl
and
nhl
here
in
las
vegas.
Imposing
the
led
on
nevada-based
teams
will
be
viewed
as
a
negative
for
leagues
and
teams
comparing
markets
when
they
contemplate
relocation
or
expansion.
I
H
H
I
Yes,
thank
you
chairman,
a
chairperson
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
chip,
siegel
f-e-I-g-e-l
and
I'm
the
chief
legal
officer
of
the
vegas
golden
knight,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
today,
I'm
going
to
speak
to
you
on
the
impact
on
vegas
golden
knights
of
the
removal
of
this
exemption.
I
I
The
nhl
in
general,
average
percentage
of
revenue
from
ticket
sales
is
60
to
65,
which
is
still
high
as
compared
to
other
professional
sports
who
gain
revenue
from
broadcasts
the
vegas
golden
night.
Ticket
sales
are
overwhelmingly
to
local
buyers,
and
this
tax
will
ultimately
hurt
these
local
fans.
This
is
not
tourists
that
are
generally
going
to
the
games.
These
are.
These
are
locals
also
that
there
was
talk
of
the
impact
of
the
pandemic
well,
kovit
and
the
restrictions
on
large
gatherings
have
exacerbated
the
the
situation
because
of
the
heavy
reliance
on
ticket
sales.
I
It
was
also
mentioned
the
turn
effect
on
other
professional
sports.
That
is
one
of
the
reasons.
It
was
a
consideration
when
vegas
chose,
I
mean
when
the
golden
knights
chose
vegas
as
the
place
they
wanted
to
come.
That
was
one
of
the
one
of
the
conditions
that
they
they
were
relying
on,
and
that
is
that
there
was
no
tax
on
that
and
it
will
be
a
deterrent
effect
for
nba
mlb,
msl,
et
cetera,
who
will
consider
these
excise
tax
when
they're
making
their
decisions?
I
H
H
H
A
Thanks
thanks
to
the
committee
for
hearing
the
bill,
I
know
that
this
is
a
controversial
removal
of
the
exemption.
Just
wanted
to
reiterate
that
my
my
goal
was
to
at
least
number
one
highlight:
the
loss
in
revenue.
The
937
percent
number
that
was
out
there
from
the
economic
forum
make
the
fair
play
argument
that
if
gaming
pays
it,
then
why
not
everyone
else?
A
Gaming
employs
over
hundreds
of
people,
thousands
and
so,
but
they,
but
they
shoulder
it
and
they
carry
it
and
and
and-
and
so
I
wanted
to
make
that
statement
out
there-
that
you
know
if
you're
out
and
operating
in
nevada,
that
there
is
fair
play,
gaming
didn't
get
any
abatements.
They
also
didn't
get
any
exemptions
to
start
what
they
got
was
they
got
an
argument
about
fair
taxes
and
fair
policy,
and
they
have
shouldered
that
burden
and
I
think
in
the
future.
A
A
A
I
don't
see
them
on
so
I'll,
just
go
through
the
bill,
all
right,
so
sv
389
is
peer-to-peer
car
sharing.
When
I
first
got
introduced
to
this
concept,
I
was
at
a
national
local
sales
tax
meeting
called
salt
with
ncsl,
and
I
thought
they
were
joking,
that
peer-to-peer
existed,
but
literally
we
have
grown
in
significant
ways
and
our
economy
has
grown
in
significant
ways.
A
So
I
call
it
like
the
airbnb
of
cars,
even
though
that's
not
his
formal
name,
but
basically
peer-to-peer
allows
someone
who
has
a
personal
vehicle
to
rent
it
to
a
stranger
through
a
platform.
A
This
bill
is
the
work
of
several
stakeholders
to
come
to
an
agreement
about
what
should
be
the
tax
structure
that
is
associated
with
peer-to-peer
peer-to-peer
platform.
There
is
an
amendment
on
it
should
be
on
nellis
and
so
I'll
quickly
go
through
the
bill,
because
I
know
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
time,
but
basically
in
section
one,
it
amends
title
43
governing
public
safety
vehicles
and
places
in
this.
A
new
chapter
to
consist
of
the
provisions
in
this
bill
section
three
and
four-
are
deleted
by
the
amendment
section.
A
A
7.5
defines
passenger
car
as
having
the
meeting
inscribed
described
and
42.087
passenger
car
is
anything
carrying
10
persons
or
less,
except
for
motorcycle
electric
bike.
Electric
scooter
section
eight
then
defines
the
peer-to-peer
sharing
program,
which
is
a
platform
that
connects
owners
of
shared
vehicles
with
a
shared
driver
to
enable
sharing
of
vehicles
in
the
exchange
for
money.
A
Section
9
defines
a
shared
vehicle.
Section.
10
defines
a
shared
driver,
section
10.3
in
subsection
a
basically.
This
is
where
the
taxing
provisions
comes
in.
So
this
was
an
agreement
with
the
peer-to-peer
platform
that
they
would
take
on
some
of
the
burdens
that
a
car
rental
company
has,
and
so
there's
a
gst
government
service
tax
of
10
percent
that
will
be
applied
to
the
shared
vehicle
that
was
shared
on
the
vehicle
driver.
A
The
reason
why
that
was
placed
in
there
is
because
there
are
elements
of
acting
like
a
carbon
company
except
for
you're,
not
a
car
rental
company
you're,
a
peer-to-peer
platform
and
the
car
is
a
personal
car
that
is
then
being
used.
The
policy
that's
driving
the
other
parts
of
this
are
on
the
assembly
side.
A
I
was
only
handling
the
taxation
portions
of
this,
and
so,
if
you
continue
to
read
in
subsection
2
of
10.3,
it
says
that
the
fees
due
from
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program
to
the
department
of
taxation
are
due
on
the
last
day
of
the
calendar
year.
It
talks
about
how
you
know
what
should
be
filed
with
the
department
of
taxation
in
the
form,
how
it
should
be
remitted
and
subsection
3
of
10.3
it
talks
about.
A
You
know
how,
if
a
contract
is
made
pursuant
to
244
a
the
department
of
taxation,
shall
deposit
money
received
on
from
the
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program,
and
so
there
was
a
conversation
around
whether
or
not
you
know
there
should
be
sales
tax
associated
with
it,
but
the
the
and
there
there
won't
be
sales
tax
unless
the
peer-to-peer
platform.
A
It
has
a
car
that
has
never
paid
sales
tax
before
and
they
start
to
have
their
own
cars,
which
they
then
put
on
the
platform.
And
so
what
is
the
agreement
is
that
the
peer-to-peer
platform
will
do
an
mou
with
the
department
of
tax
to
collect
that
remittance
of
the
tax.
If,
in
the
rare
circumstance
that
happens,
then
they
will
submit
the
sales
tax.
A
So
in
section
I'm
just
going
to
skip
to
section
well
sections
11
through
30,
we're
deleted
by
amendment.
So
I'm
going
to
jump
to
section
31
which
amends
nrs
42,
and
this
is
where
it
basically
establishes
that
the
short
term,
lesser
they'll,
secure
a
license:
bonding
pay
a
license
fee
of
125
and
go
through
a
formalized
process
of
establishing
themselves
within
nrs482.
A
A
And
then
the
bill
make
some
other
conforming
changes
and
I
will
stop
it
there
and
just
go
ahead
and
open
myself
up
questions,
because
the
majority
of
the
bill
focuses
on
trying
to
establish
a
tax
construct
around
peer-to-peer
platforms
where
they
are
paying
taxes
into
nevada
for
operating
as
a
peer-to-peer
platform
where
they
have
a
car
sharing
agreement.
A
So
with
that
being
said,
senator
dennis
I
will
open
myself
up
with
questions.
I
A
C
Thank
you,
his
advice,
vice
chair
dennis
sorry,
I
just
came
over.
I
was
over
in
assembly
growth.
It's
an
infrastructure
on
the
policy
bill,
the
companion
piece
that
senator
neil
referred
to-
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
I
appreciate
senator
neil
bringing
the
spill.
There
is
the
policy
on
peer-to-peer
car
sharing.
That's
being
heard
now
and.
C
I'm
sorry,
I'm
michael
alonso
and
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
turo
inc
and
just
again
I
appreciate
senatorial
bringing
this
as,
as
we
understand
the
language
that
we
agreed
to
pay
the
the
gst
and
the
and
the
two
fees
under
244,
a
810
and
244
a
860
and-
and
I
understand,
there's
language
in
there
that
differentiates
between
a
short-term
lessor
and
a
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
platform
and
a
vehicle
owner
is
defined.
C
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
all
clear
in
the
record
and
as
senator
neil
said,
you
know
under
nevada
law
if,
if
a
person
is
purchasing
something
that's
subject
to
sales
or
use
tax
and
they
choose
to
take
an
exemption
because
they're
going
to
rent
or
lease
that
personal
property
it
goes
beyond
vehicles,
then
they
have
to
take
an
election
with
the
department
of
taxation,
become
a
registered
taxpayer
and
start
filing
returns
and
then
charging
the
sales
tax
on
a
transaction
by
transaction
basis.
C
We
don't
believe
that
any
of
our
owners
are
going
to
avail
themselves
of
that
exemption,
but
if,
in
the
event
that
they
do,
we
have
agreed
to
the
conceptual
amendment
on
the
memorandum
of
understanding
with
the
department
of
taxation
that
we
would
collect
that
sales
tax
on
the
transaction
by
transaction
basis
and
remit
it
to
the
state
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
G
Okay,
senator
neil,
do
you
is
there
anybody
else
that
you
were
you're
expecting.
C
He's
still
over
in
assembly
growth
infrastructure
again
michael
for
the
record-
I'm
sorry
cheerio
was
supposed
to
be
on
here,
but
he's
testifying
right
now.
In
the
other
hearing.
A
So
what
I'll
do,
though,
is
I
don't
know
if
director,
young
or
miss
hughes
wanted
to
talk
about
the
mou,
because
it's
the
conceptual
it
wasn't
in
the
mock-up,
because
I
know
that's
probably
a
question
on
how
that
will
work.
But
if
you
want
to,
then
this
is
probably
the
time
to
kind
of
say
it.
E
E
C
My
understanding
is
that
that
it
would
be
charged
against
the
the
cost
of
the,
I
guess,
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
Were
you
sharing,
but
the
cost
of
them
rental
minus
those
things.
C
E
So
since
you're
sharing-
and
if
you
have,
if
you
own
a
car
100
of
the
time
but
you're
sharing
it
30
percent
of
the
time,
it
may
be
the
pro
rating-
and
I
think
it
said
it
was
reported
quarterly.
So
you
figure
out
what
your
income
was
and
then
you
charge
against
that
income,
a
portion
of
insurance
and
fuel
and
any
other
other
fees
associated.
I
guess
and
that
the
net
amount
is
probably
what
you
pay
the
fee
on.
Does
that
sound
right,
yeah.
C
Mike
alonzo
for
the
record
senator
and
may
I
go
directly
to
her-
I
know
I'm
sorry.
I
would.
C
The
platform
is
agreeing
to
collect
and
remit
this,
so
this
all
happens
to
the
app
and
the
platform
on
a
transaction
by
a
transaction
basis
would
would
charge
the
fee
of
the
vehicle
driver
as
outlined
in
the
in
the
language
and
then
keep
track
of
that
they
have
to
keep
records
in
the
policy
bill,
plus
all
the
records
that
are
required
under
this
mock-up,
and
they
would
remit
that
minus
those
they're
not
charging
the
tax
on
those
items
that
you
mentioned
that
are
in
the
bill.
Those
are
not
taxable.
E
Right,
I
guess
it's
not
really
clear
in
the
bill,
if
you,
if
you
pay
ten
dollars
or
a
hundred,
say
pay
a
hundred
dollars
to
to
share
a
car
if
you're
paying
the
fee
will
be
on
the
hundred
dollars,
I
don't
think
it
actually
is
on
the
hundred
dollars.
I
think
it's
on
the
hundred
dollars
less
whatever
your
cost
of
goods
are,
which
you'll
have.
I
think
the
the
owner
of
the
car
is
gonna
have
to
figure
that
out.
C
The
again
mike
alonzo
for
the
record,
the
platform
will
actually
figure
that
out
the
if
it's
a
hundred
dollars
for
the
sharing
of
the
vehicle
or
the
rental
fee.
You
would
pay
the
tax
on
100
and
I
believe
the
language
is
in
there
just
to
set
forth,
because,
if
there's
fueling,
which
that
would
generally
be
between
the
driver
and
the
owner-
but
I
think
from
the
statutory
standpoint
builder
after
put
that
in
to
make
it
clear
that
those
things
aren't
taxable
and
they
mirror
to
a
certain
extent.
E
I
think
I'm
understanding
it
better.
So
so,
basically,
if
you're
trying
to
share
a
car
and
it
has
to
be
delivered
to
you
or
you're,
sharing
a
car
and
you
have
to
put
fuel
into
it-
that's
sort
of
settled
between
the
person
operating
the
car
and
and
that
individual.
But
it's
not
part
of
what's
charged
as
far
as
taxes.
C
That's
correct,
michael
alonzo,
for
the
record
and
the
insurance,
for
example,
the
insurance
and
the
policy
bill
the
platform's
required
to
provide
to
cover
so
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
insurance
coverage.
The
base
insurance
is
provided
at
no
charge,
but
then
the
vehicle
owner,
for
example,
could
up
increase
those
limits
and
pay
additional
fees.
Those
things
would
not
be
subject
to
the
tax,
but
the
fee
that
they're
paying
for
the
actual
rental
car
would
be
subject
to
the
tax
right.
G
C
Again
for
the
record
michael
alonso
senator
dennis
licensed
they,
the
peer-to-peer
platform
would
be
the
entity
under
the
policy
bill
that
would
be
licensed
with
the
dmv
to
act.
In
this
capacity,
the
driver
and
the
owner
would
have
to
have,
and
again
this
is
under
depaul,
I
think,
is
being
heard
right
now.
They
obviously
they
would
have
to
have
driver's
license.
They
would
have
to
have
vehicle
insurance.
C
They'd
have
to
meet
certain
requirements
to
be
on
the
platform
as
either
a
vehicle
owner
or
a
vehicle
driver,
but
the
platform
itself
would
have
to
get
a
file
and
application
with
the
dmv
at
least
proposed
under
the
assembly
bill
429
have
to
file
an
application
and
be
licensed
by
the
dmv,
and
then
the
policy
bill
has
all
the
insurance
and
consumer
protection
provisions
in
there.
Along
with
that
licensing
and
record
keeping.
G
Okay,
doesn't
look
like
it.
Let's
go,
then
we're
we're
gonna
go
to
those
that
wish
to
give
testimony
in
support.
So
the
testimonials
in
support.
H
H
I
I
I'm
the
head
of
government
relations
for
a
vail.
We
are
a
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
company,
that's
actually
part
of
the
allstate
insurance
family
of
companies
and
I'm
here
to
support
senate
bill
389
at
avail.
We
are
strong
believers
of
living
into
a
regulatory
structure
and
paying
our
fair
share
of
taxes
to
help
promote
this
innovative
transportation
model
that
can
help
consumers
in
nevada.
I
We
are
very
appreciative
of
the
work
that
chair
neil
and
the
committee
has
been
doing
on
on
this.
We
look
forward
to
supporting
you
all
through
the
legislative
process
and
here
to
answer
any
questions.
G
Okay,
let's
go
then
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition.
I
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
dennis
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
brian
rothery
b-r-I-a-n,
rothery
r-o-t-h-e-r-y.
We
are
with
enterprise
holdings,
which
operates
the
enterprise
alamo
and
national
carbon
companies.
I
wish
to
offer
some
some
comment
on
the
bill,
we're
taking
a
neutral
position
at
this
time.
I
I
believed
we
were
a
stakeholder
of
this
conversation,
but
this
hearing
leads
me
to
believe
that
there
was
some
discussion
concerning
the
issue
of
sales
tax
that
I
certainly
would
have
liked
to
to
offer
some
perspective
on
and
would
like
to
offer
just
some
basic
comments
related
to
that
concept.
Specifically,
it
was
mentioned.
You
know
that
you
know
the
extent
to
which
hosts
or
vehicle
owners
either
pay
or
don't
pay
sales
tax
at
the
time
of
purchase.
I
It's
a
factual
one
that
I
think
bears
quite
a
bit
on
this
debate,
and
you
know
I
just
like
to
inject
a
little
more
sunlight
into
that
topic.
I
think
it
would
be
a
better
piece
of
public
policy
if
we
had
more
information
around
the
extent
to
which
that's
occurring.
I
think
mr
alonso
indicated
in
his
testimony
that
he
didn't
believe
that
turo
vehicle
owners
were
taking
advantage
of
a
tax
break
and
that's
you
know,
that's
fair.
You
know,
there's
more,
there's
more
competitors
out
there
in
the
space.
I
I
I
think
it
would
just
be
better
informed
by
a
piece
of
data
that
perhaps
the
state
of
nevada
could
engage
in
so
that
we
could
just
sort
of
see
if
that
really
is
the
best
way
to
handle
it,
because
I
think
you
also
have
a
choice
which
would
make
the
opposite
presumption,
which
would
say
we're
going
to
presume
that
sales
tax
is
owed
on
all
of
these
transactions
and
then
allow
owners
who
hack,
who
can
prove
that
they
paid
sales
tax
to
go
and
demonstrate
that
they
deserve
some
sort
of
credit
or
reimbursement,
factually
speaking,
the
amount
or
the
incidence
of
tax
being
paid
or
not.
I
I
think
matters
on
this
and
I
think
it
would
make
a
better
public
policy
debate
and
just
to
sort
of
offer
a
proof
point.
While
I
was
here
listening
to
the
testimony,
I
just
went
out
to
search
on
the
web
to
see
you
know
what
sort
of
is
out
there
on
on
the
internet
related
to
the
topic.
There's
a
there's,
a
cpa
that
appears
to
be
an
expert
on.
It's
called
my
shared
cpa
on
sharing
economy,
and
he
says
this
specifically.
I
It
says
if
your
local
government
charges
sales
tax
on
rentals.
You
must
pay
sales
tax
on
your
earnings.
However,
if
you're
wondering,
if
you
will
need
to
pay
sales
tax
on
a
new
vehicle
that
you
purchase
exclusively
for
business
and
the
answer
is
generally
no,
but
that's
the
professional
advice
that's
out
there
for
folks
that
want
to
buy
more
than
one
or
two
or
three
cars.
I
A
Oh
sorry,
yes,
thank
you
for
that,
so
so
the
sales
tax
conversation.
I
I
want
to
talk
about
this
because
the
sales
tax
sales
tax
conversation
did
happen.
A
We
heard
the
other
side
and
we
understand
what
they
want,
which
is
if
the
peer-to-peer
platform
start
to
engage
in
an
activity
where
the
car
itself
has
not
paid
the
sales
tax.
I
know
the
peer-to-peer
platform
was
in
agreement.
They
were
going
to
do
marketplace
facilitator
language.
We
could
not
put
that
in
to
the
mock-up,
because
if,
if
everybody
remembers,
when
the
bill
first
dropped
out
number
one,
it
dropped
out
with
no
taxes.
A
So
we've
been
going
back
and
forth
to
make
sure
that
the
mock-up
came
out
with
all
of
the
information
it
was
debated
and
the
conversation
with
fiscal
staff
and
tax
staff
about
the
fact
that
there
are
very
rare
circumstances
where
a
car,
a
personal
vehicle,
because
these
are
personal
vehicles-
have
not
already
paid
the
sales
tax
and
we
were
not
going
to
tax
a
personal
vehicle
twice,
because
typically,
that
is
remitted
at
the
time
of
sale
for
that
personal
vehicle.
A
A
That
is
not
something
we
should
do
to
personal
car
owners.
Who've
already
paid
the
sales
tax
and
to
tax
their
car
twice,
but
in
the
circumstance
where
peer-to-peer
starts
to
purchase
their
own,
they
will
be
a
remitter
of
that
sales
tax
on
that
car,
and
that
is
where
they're,
acting
as
a
marketplace
facilitator
to
remit
the
sales
tax
or
through
the
mou,
as
discussed,
we
are
just
working
out
the
best
pathway
for
them
to
do
that
in
the
language
that
reflects
that
behavior.
A
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
interpretation
of
this
hearing,
although
rushed,
although
pushed,
is
that
that
conversation
is
not
lost,
but
double
taxation
will
not
be
the
outcome
of
the
language
that
you
see,
but
there
will
be
a
provision
that
allows
the
peer-to-peer
to
remit
sales
tax
if
they
purchase
a
vehicle
that
is
not
paid.
Sales
tax
or
a
car
gets
on
the
platform.
That
is
a
personal
vehicle
that
has
never
paid
sales
tax
and
that's
a
very
rare
circumstance
in
the
latter.
But
thank
you
committee
for
this
hearing
on
scp-89.
G
All
right
with
that,
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing,
and
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
the
chair.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
a
lot
in
the
past
three
hours.
Okay,
so
we
will
open
ourselves
up
for
public
comment.
If
anyone
signed
in
a
public
comment,
dps.