►
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.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
It's
great
to
be
presenting
in
front
of
you
and
the
committee
here
today
for
the
record.
My
name
is
gregory
hafen
ii,
I
represent
assembly
district
36,
and
I
do
have
to
say
I
I
miss
madam
chair
and
serving
with
you
on
the
assembly
side.
B
B
Even
with
this
drop,
though
about
one
in
every
20
middle
school,
students
reported
in
22
that
they
used
e-cigarettes
in
the
past
30
days
and
about
one
out
of
every
five
high
school
students
reported
that
they
used.
E-Cigarettes
tobacco
cigarettes
and
cigars
use
is
lower,
but
it
still
represents
a
significant
problem.
B
So
what
is
age
advanced
age,
verification
technology?
Essentially,
it's
an
identification
card
scanning
tool
that
pulls
limited
information
from
a
photo
id
to
automatically
verify
and
validate
both
the
age
of
the
person
and
validate
the
actual
id
itself
to
implement
this.
Retailers
only
need
a
2d
bar
scanner
to
be
able
to
scan
the
back
of
the
government-issued
id,
and
most
retailers
already
have
this
bar
scanner
that
they
use
in
their
point-of-sale
systems.
B
Therefore,
implementation
of
this
age
verification
component
should
be
very
simple
and
then
technology
could
be
used
beyond
tobacco
products
in
the
future
if
the
legislative
body
so
chose.
Finally,
we
know
this
technology
reduces
the
visual
age
verification
failure
rate.
It
takes
the
guesswork
out
of
confirming
the
age
of
the
purchaser,
reduces
the
use
of
fraudulent
ids
and
would
require
the
sales
clerk
to
complete
the
age
by
age,
verification
step
in
order
to
complete
the
sale.
B
Briefly,
the
contents
of
assembly
bill
360
is
very
simple.
It
simply
requires
the
retailer
to
scan
the
id
at
the
point
of
sale
for
every
tobacco
purchase,
to
ensure
that
the
buyer
is
of
age,
and
as
long
as
there
is
a
caveat
here
that,
if
somebody
is
over
the
age
of
40,
they
would
not
be
required
to
have
their
id
scanned.
B
So
in
essence,
this
bill
basically
applies
to
me
and
we
did
add
a
new
requirement
to
add
some
teeth
and
a
civil
penalty
of
a
hundred
dollars
for
each
offense.
This
is
above
and
beyond
the
current
penalty
structures
or
any
future
penalty
structures
that
may
be
implemented
for
selling
to
minors.
B
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you.
Mr
hafen
appreciate
the
presentation
and
certainly
what
you're
trying
to
accomplish.
As
a
parent
of
two
freshmen
and
high
school
students
and
two
in
middle
school
is
the
so
when
it
comes
to
tobacco
cigarette
paper.
Is
that
the
same
thing
as
paper
that's
sold
in
cannabis
retailers
and
do
they
have
the
same
requirement
depending
on
what
what
product
is
being
rolled.
B
Through
you,
madam
chair
to
senator
key
keffer,
the
marijuana
products
that
are
sold
at
the
marijuana
facilities
are
excluded
from
this
legislation.
This
legislation
is
specifically
to
address
the
tobacco
products
in
the
future.
This
could
be
expanded
and
utilized
in
the
marijuana
field
or
the
tobacco
field.
However,
this
bill
only
deals
with
the
tobacco
aspect.
D
Yeah
I
mean,
and
there's
at
the
age
of
21,
to
sell
to
purchase
cannabis
anyway
and
they've
got
age
verification
systems
in
place
for
those
retailers,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it
wasn't
duplicative
of
what
they
had
to
do
in
order
to
sell
rolling
papers
and
dispensaries.
But
if
it
is
clear
the
intent
is
not,
then
that
satisfies
me.
Thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
chair
neil,
so
I
first
of
all
I
want
to
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
because
I
think
we're
all
concerned
about
sales
to
minors,
and
I
came
in
a
little
bit
late.
So
I
didn't
know
if
you
were
able
to
tell
us
how
much
a
system
would
cost
to
be
able
to
scan,
because
you
can,
you
can
just
check
an
id
or
you
can
scan
it
and
what
that
type
of
technology
costs.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
letting
me
go
direct
and
senator
cancer.
That's
a
great
question.
The
the
current
technology
that's
available.
The
vast
majority
of
the
retailers
are
currently
using
it's
just
your
whatever
they
use
are
using
to
scan
the
you
know,
sodas
or
in
this
case
the
tobacco
products
for
the
point
of
sale,
so
to
actually
put
it
in
the
cash
register.
B
It's
the
same
device
that
can
be
utilized
in
there.
What
it
is
is
an
actual
software
upgrade
to
their
their
computer
system,
and
the
federal
government
is
actually
offering
that
software
for
free
as
an
encouragement
to
get
more
and
more
retailers
to
start
utilizing.
This
new
technology
for
the
age,
verification
to
try
to
get
the
youth
away
from
smoking,
and
so
the
cost
for
the
software
is
free.
B
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
the
industry,
both
the
association
and
the
non-association
members.
There
was
a
about
10
or
12
of
them
that
I
reached
out
to
that
were
not
members
to
kind
of
see
what
it
would
take
for
them
to
purchase
the
the
scanning
device
and
get
the
software
and
implement
it.
They
felt
that
within
12
months
they
could
they
could
get
that
all
up
and
running.
B
However,
with
us
living
in
the
crazy
pandemic
time
that
we're
living
in
you'll
notice
in
the
build,
the
effective
date
is
actually
not
until
january
1
of
2023,
and
that
was
specifically
put
in
there
to
allow
the
the
retailers
and
the
convenience
stores
and
those
that
do
sell
the
tobacco
products
enough
time
to
do
their
due
diligence
and
if
they
have
to
buy
the
100
or
200
scanner,
they
can
get
that
purchased
or
if
they
just
have
to
get
the
software
upgrades.
E
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
answer
and
I
would
imagine
to
get
an
eye:
a
scanner
for
age,
identification
that
works
for
alcohol
too.
So
when
you
look
looking
at
convenient
stores
in
a
lot
of
those
places,
I
would
imagine
they
already
have
that
technology
are
ready
for
it
so
and
the
the
delay
until
january
1st
2023.
I
did
notice
that
is
helpful
as
well.
So
thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
not
that
I
am
wanting
to
promote
anybody
buying
cigarettes.
My
thought
process
on
on
on
this
was
what,
if
you
have
folks
that
are
older,
that
don't
have
id,
so
they
would
have
to
I
mean:
do
you
anticipate
that
that's
going
to
be
an
issue.
B
Thank
you
senator
for
that
question,
and
that
is
that
was
a
concern
on
the
assembly
side
that
was
brought
to
my
attention
and
that's
why
we
put
in
here
that
the
40
years,
so
if
you're,
if
you're
under
the
age
of
40
the
id,
would
have
to
be
scanned
if
you're
older
than
40,
you
no
longer
would
have
to
scan
the
id
because
you're
right
that
some
of
the
older
generations
don't,
and
so
this
is.
B
This-
would
only
apply
to
individuals
under
the
age
of
40,
which
still
includes
me
not
from
very
much
longer.
C
Yeah,
and
so
but
at
least
but
the
under
40
would
still
have
to
then-
and
you
know
having
and
once
again
I
don't
know
why.
I'm
even
asking
these
questions,
because
I
don't
really
you
know,
promote
anybody
wanting
to
smoke,
but
I
have
at
least
my
youngest
has
no
had
no
desire
to
get
the
driver's
license
and
he
doesn't
have,
but
now
he
does,
but
I've
got
a
daughter
and
a
daughter
and
all
that
look
like
they're
middle
school
kids
and
they
probably
will
be
until
their
30s.
I
mean
they're.
C
One
of
them
is
almost
30.,
and
so
anybody
that's
in
that
thing,
would
probably
have
to
get
some,
but
I
are
they
going
to
so
I
guess
my
question
is:
are
they
going
to
do
some
kind
of
a
campaign
to
show
to
tell
them
hey
you
need
to
have
id
so
that
they
know
ahead
of
time
to
do
that.
B
Great
great
question
senator
and
for
the
record
I
I
could
grow
this
beard
at
the
age
of
15.,
so
I
have
the
opposite
of
problem
there,
but
yeah.
So
the
with
the
implementation
of
the
tobacco
21
there's
a
big
push
for
making
sure
everybody
understands
the
changes
in
the
tobacco
regulations.
B
As
part
of
that,
I
would
assume
that
there
would
be
some
sort
of
education.
However,
there
is
not
a
an
education
campaign
component
of
my
bill,
specifically
because
this
is
specifically
aimed
at
the
retail
industry,
implementing
the
software
and
just
scanning
the
ids.
I'm
sure
that
the
second
that
somebody
walks
into
the
store
to
buy
tobacco
products
and
they're
denied,
because
they
don't
they'll
they'll,
learn
real
quick.
A
Hey
thank
you
for
the
questions.
I
don't
have
any
questions,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
senator
ratty
thanks
questing.
G
All
right,
so,
the
way
I
read
the
bill
is
that
the
civil
penalty
of
100
for
each
offense,
that
offense
is
the
not
using
the
scanning
technology
and
by
putting
that
offense
in
we
are
not
getting
rid
of
the
other
fences
offenses
that
are
within
section
5,
which
is
the
100
on
their
first
violation,
250
on
their
second
violation,
500
on
their
third
violation
and
then,
as
we
go
down
further
the
violations
for
the
business
that
go
500,
1250
and
2500.
So
this
is
in
addition
to
those.
G
So
if
they
were
to
sell
to
somebody
who
was
underage
and
they
didn't
scan,
they
would
get
the
hundred
dollar
violation
for
the
clerk
would
get
a
hundred
dollar
violation
for
first
selling
to
somebody
who
was
underage
and
then
they
would
get
an
additional
hundred
dollar
violation
for
not
doing
the
scanning.
Is
that
how
you
understand
this
would
work.
B
So
this
this
is
an
additional
fee
and
fine.
So
if
I
were
to
walk
into
a
store
after
this
was
in
effect
and
purchase
tobacco
products,
without
my
id
being
scanned,
the
clerk
would
be
subject
to
100
only
at
the
100
fine,
because
I
am
of
age
to
purchase
the
tobacco,
but
I
am
under
the
age
of
40,
so
they
would
have
been
required
to
scan
my
id
if
the
individual
was
under
the
age.
So
let's
say
they
were
17
years
old.
They
went
in
to
purchase
tobacco.
B
H
H
I
I
assembly
bill
360,
does
nothing
but
requires
people
to
people
who
already
should
be
being
carded
people
to
be
carded
and
ensure
that
we
use
the
technology
that's
being
used
by
the
vast
majority
of
the
industry
to
card
people
100
of
the
time
at
the
nevada,
vaping
association
100
of
our
members
already
utilize
this
technology
and
have
found
that
it
is
a
not
cost
prohibitive
and
b
makes
it
much
easier
to
train
employees
not
to
sell
products
to
members
or
to
minors.
I
J
J
We
fully
support
ab360
and
believe
it
will
help
add
tools
and
ensuring
that
only
those
legally
allowed
to
purchase
tobacco
products
will
be
able
to
do
so,
helping
reduce
underage
purchasing
and
ensuring
age
verification.
Compliance
also
to
make
the
record
clear-
and
I
appreciate
assemblyman,
saying
this
as
well.
J
Other
automated
software
based
systems
include
age
verification
systems
in
use
today
that
rely
on
computer
software
or
other
automated
technology
to
determine
a
person's
birth
year
from
a
valid
government
issue
id,
and
that
will
help
us
with
compliance
and
implementation
of
this
and
again,
we
fully
support
it,
and
I
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
Thank
you.
H
I
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
bradley
mayer
m
a
e
r
for
the
record
partner
with
our
gentle
partners
representing
southern
nevada
and
washoe
county
health
districts.
Today
we
just
wanted
to
test,
find
this
bill
and
let
everybody
know
that
nevada
is
currently
in
the
midst
of
a
youth,
vaping
epidemic
and
as
such,
we
appreciate
assembling
hayfin,
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
the
amendment
he
put
on
it
in
the
assembly
because
requiring
this
additional
layer
of
verification
will
help
nevada's
compliance
rate
and
serve
as
additional
tool
to
address
you.
I
I
H
H
J
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So
similarmenhafen
any
closing
remarks.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and,
first
and
foremost,
it's
been
an
honor
to
to
present
here.
This
was
the
first
bill
that
I've
ever
presented
on
the
senate,
and
so
I
wanted
to
say
thank
you
for
that,
and-
and
I
have
to
thank
mr
maylin,
mr
mayor
and
all
the
other
stakeholders
that
helped
me
get
this
bill
to
where
it
is
today.
B
Is
it
perfect?
Is
it
going
to
end
you
smoking?
No,
it
will
not.
I
will
be
the
first
to
admit
this
will
not
end
it.
They
will
still
find
ways,
but
this
is
a
a
huge
step
in
the
right
direction.
The
data
shows
that
this
is
effective
in
in
preventing
youth
from
purchasing
the
tobacco
products,
and
I
genuinely
believe
that
this
this
will
be
a
a
huge
step
in
the
right
direction
and
and
ending
our
our
vape
use
and
our
tobacco
for
our
youth.
So
again,
I
thank
you
all
for
your
time
today.
A
And
thank
you
for
testifying,
assemblyman
hayfin.
Sorry,
I
missed
you
all
right,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
open
up
for
work
session.
While
we
have
all
the
members
and
then
we'll
we
will
return
to
av
368.,
so
we're
going
to
have
two
bills
instead
of
three
we're
going
to
pull
66
and
then
we'll
have
that
on
thursday.
So
mr
real.
J
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
record
joe
reel
deputy
fiscal
analyst
with
the
physical
analysis
division.
Our
work
session
today
begins
with
the
symbol
bill
20
in
the
first
reprint.
J
This
bill
revises
provisions
relating
to
transferrable
tax
credits
for
film
and
other
productions
sponsored
by
the
assembly
committee
on
revenue,
on
behalf
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
and
hurting
this
committee
on
april.
29Th
senator
bill
20
in
its
first
reprint
makes
several
changes
to
the
transferable
tax
credits
for
film
and
other
productions
that
may
be
issued
by
the
governor's
office
economic
development.
J
J
It
also
provides
additional
circumstances
under
which
the
office
may
withhold
and
hold
or
impart
transferable
tax
credits
that
have
been
issued
to
a
production
company.
It
also
establishes
requirements
for
in
credits
of
a
qualified
production
to
acknowledge
that
a
production
was
filmed
or
produced
in
nevada,
and
there
are
no
amendments.
Madam
chair,
thank
you.
A
Okay,
so
I
have
a
first
or
a
second
second,
so,
second
from
senator
ratty
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Okay,
seeing
none!
Mr
secretary,
will
you
please
do
the
roll
call
on
this.
J
J
J
J
The
library
of
the
variety
and
extent
of
locations
in
the
state
which
are
available
for
the
production
of
motion
pictures
must
be
made
available
on
the
internet
website
maintained
by
the
nevada
film
office
and
the
requirement
that
the
regu
that
the
registration
filed
with
the
nevada
film
office
be
signed
by
the
head
of
the
department
or
agency
authorized
to
issue
business
licenses
on
behalf
of
the
county
in
a
county
whose
population
is
700,
000
more
of
clark
county
is
removed,
and
there
were
no
amendments
to
this
bill.
Madam
chair,
thank
you.
A
C
G
A
It's
been
a
rough
week.
You
guys
all
right.
I
will
so
the
bill
passes
for
ab69.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to,
I
don't
know,
senator
dennis
and
then
ab22
senator
receivers,
cancer.
C
A
I
figured
you
have
film
tax
credits,
so
senator
dennis
you
were
the
best
for
that
one.
Okay,
all
right!
So
now
we
will
close
the
work
session
and
we
will
move
to
ab368.
A
A
G
K
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
record.
I
am
assemblywoman
teresa
benitez-thompson
represent
representing
assembly
district
27
in
northern
nevada,
and
I
appreciate
so
much
senate
revenue
committee
hearing
ab
368
today,
so
I'm
going
to
be
taking
us
back
in
time
a
little
bit
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
star
bonds,
one
of
our
most
favorite
tax,
increment
district
financing
tools.
Ever
and
as
I
prepared
to
exit
in
my
final
year
of
service
to
the
people
of
state,
nevada
and
the
assembly,
there
were
some
certain
things.
K
I
was
looking
back
on
that
I
thought
you
know.
We
really
should
just
clean
this
up
before
I
you
know
before
I
exit
I'm
as
a
private
citizen,
I'm
going
to
still
continue
to
follow
tax
reports.
I'm
still
going
to
continue
to
follow
some
of
these
financing
mechanisms,
and
I
realized
that
specifically,
the
reporting
on
star
bonds
is
real
wasn't.
K
Is
I'm
de-aggregating
some
of
the
data
that
is
being
requested
to
be
reported
on
these
bonds
for
the
life
of
the
rest
of
the
bonds?
And,
yes,
we
still
have
life
on
the
rest
of
these
bonds,
and
so
my
apologies,
because
what
I
didn't
do
for
the
committee
members
I
want
to
apologize
to
chair
and
staff.
K
Is
I
didn't
upload
the
the
report
that
is
existing
right
now
that
we
get
through
legislative
commission
so
I'll
be
sure
to
upload
it
for
you
so
that
you
can
see
it
and
reference
it
and
then
the
mock-up
that
our
wonderful
tech
staff
did
for
us.
That
would
be
the
new
revised
version
that
the
language
would
be
asking
for.
So
a
couple
of
things
that
we
learned
in
the
journey
when
I
was
revisiting
star
bonds,
one.
K
There
were
a
couple
more
of
these
star
bonds
out
there
than
we
thought
we
thought
they
initially
were
all
in
northern
nevada,
but
there
was
actually
one
in
southern
nevada,
so
there
was
one
that
we
picked
up,
that
kind
of
took
us
a
while
to
know
that
it
was
out
there,
so
there
was
one
more
than
we
thought
out
there.
Two.
The
other
thing
we
learned
about
this
is
that,
just
from
looking
at
the
reports
and
the
information
we
can
we
collect
from
the
department
of
taxation.
K
We
don't
easily
see
what
the
number
of
years
that
are
remaining
on
the
bond,
the
number
of
payments
on
the
bond
and
whether
or
not
those
bonds
are
in
kind
of
a
good,
healthy
status.
So
some
of
the
report
I'm
asking
for
is
going
to
just
give
us
better
markers
about
where
we
are
in
the
life
of
that
project.
It's
also
going
to
better
identify
geographic
locations,
so
that
we'll
know
generally
where
the
area
is.
K
As
many
of
you
who
are
on
this
committee
know,
there
might
just
be
one
star
bond
area,
that's
one
business
as
a
proprietary
business,
so
we
are
not
seeking
at
all
to
have
any
proprietary
information
shared.
Rather,
what
we're
doing
is
asking
for
the
report
to
come
to
us
and
describe
which
bond
star
bonds
are
existing
in
which
geographic
location
and
then,
if
there's
just
one,
perhaps
say
in
a
certain
municipality,
then
they
can
aggregate
that
up
to
a
little
bit
of
a
bigger
area.
K
K
I
was
here
for
at
least
one
session
where
we
were
still
trying
to
do
clean
up
on
the
bill
sponsors
bringing
forward
language
to
clean
up
some
of
the
ways
that
we
saw
the
reality
of
how
these
financing
mechanisms
played
out
in
our
communities
versus
kind
of
the
initial
thought
of
in
the
intent
of
how
they
might
play
out
and-
and
I
thought
we
did
so
much
work-
that
to
to
make
sure
that
that
these
things
weren't
taking
advantage
of.
K
K
It's
nothing
that's
being
proposed
to
be
used
by
anyone
right
now
and
if
it
is,
I
would
argue,
it's
probably
from
past
experience,
not
the
wisest
path
in
terms
of
the
world
of
tax,
increment
financing
that
local
governments
could
do,
and
so
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
propose
sun
setting
the
authorizing
provisions
we'll
keep
the
reporting
provisions
alive
so
that
we
can
continue
to
watch
these
through
the
life
of
the
the
bonds
that
are
out
there
and
that's
my
policy
proposal
to
you
folks
today
and
I
stand
open
for
questions.
A
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
We
might
need
to
you're
right.
I
I
think
we
transposed
a
number,
and
so
we
can
correct
that
and
get
that
to
the
sentence.
But
it's
a
big
white
piece
of
paper
with
one
sentence
on
it
that
says
sunset:
the
authorizing.
A
Language,
I
saw
it,
but
it
I
just.
I
think,
that's
why
it
wasn't
uploaded,
because
I
think
it
had
a
different
bill
number.
My
apologies,
oh,
but
I
will
senator
that
gets
uploaded.
It's
it's
fine,
assemblywoman
benitez
is
constant.
I
know
exactly
what
you're
trying
to
do
all
right.
So
members
questions.
D
You
very
much
I
actually
had
a
question
potentially
for
our
staff
in
mr
real's
summary
of
of
the
legislation.
D
It
indicates
that
potentially
section
two
of
the
bill
would
would
potentially
expose
some
some
information
that
is
currently
considered
confidential,
that,
through
the
report
issued
in
271
8.105,
and
I
was
hoping
he
might
be
able
to
walk
me
through
that
explanation,
because
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
the
assemblywoman's
intent
or
what
the
what
that
exposure
might
be.
L
Madam
chair,
this
is
russell
gandon
for
the
record
principal
deputy
fiscal
analyst.
With
the
fiscal
house
division
senator
p
kepper.
I
will
try
and
field
that
question
for
you.
So
if
a
little
bit
of
history
probably
to
be
able
to
do
that,
is
you
can
see
what
this
bill
does?
L
It
also
adds
the
word
proprietary
so
because,
as
the
history
of
this
bill
and
language,
that
you
have
the
reporting
requirements,
but
there
have
been
off
and
on
the
concern
about
reporting
an
individual
taxpayers
information
on
their
taxable
sales,
which
would
then
be
their
revenue,
and
so
the
adding
the
word
proprietary
then
tries
to
get
at
well.
L
You
can
then
release
and
report
that
information,
but
it
could
still
be
the
case
that
a
taxpayer
could
try
and
make
the
case
to
the
department,
taxation
that
that
information
is
proprietary,
and
so
then
the
intent
here
is
is
that
to
if
that
event
occurs,
then
subsection
three
provides
the
alternative
way
of
attempting
to
report
the
information
and
just
so
to
provide
the
context
that
goes
on
here
with
the
tids
is
that
of
the
seven
tids.
L
L
So
if
they
would
so
this
putting
the
proprietary
in
is
trying
to
get
it,
then
you
can
now
report
that
information
unless
again,
that
entity
would
make
the
the
claim
the
taxation,
but
they
feel
that's
proprietary
and
taxation,
would
then
say:
okay,
we
won't
report
for
those
that
have
multiple
businesses.
L
You
could
still
run
into
the
situation
where
you
may
not
be
able
to
report
it,
and
so
then
the
new
subsection
three
is
an
alternative
way,
attempting
to
allow
taxation
to
compile
the
information
if
you're,
in
a
district
where
you
have
multiple
business
entities,
but
you
end
up
in
a
situation
where
you
cannot
to
close
disclose
each
individual
taxpayer,
but
then
compile
the
information
in
a
way
that
does
reveal
information
on
taxpayer
taxpayers
taxable
sales,
but
in
a
stratified
manner.
K
And
through
chair
neil
to
senator
keith
keffer,
thank.
K
To
senator
keith
keffer
I
have
what
we
did
is
a
mock-up
of
three
different
examples:
that
taxation
could
look
at
all
all
of
them
being
less
aggregated
than
the
report
now,
but
seeking
to
not
get
to
the
level
where
you
just
have,
obviously
the
reportable
sales
of
just
one
individual.
So
in
none
of
these
scenarios,
do
you
go
below
less
than
two
businesses
and
a
lot
of
it
will
depend
on
how
you
do
the
taxable
greater
sales
then
or
the
taxable
greater
sales
less
than
or
equal
to?
K
So
what
I'm
proposing
is
more
of
like
a
range
and
then
grouping
people
in
in
by
that
range.
So
there's
there's
a
couple
different
ways
to
get
at
it
where
we
know
more,
but
we
don't
completely
tie
back,
hopefully
not
tie
back
the
the
the
tax
revenue
being
paid
to
just
one
specific
taxpayer.
D
I
appreciate
that
so
I
just
want
to
so
just
to
be
clear
on
the
record:
it's
not
your
intent
to
reveal
this
new,
this
proprietary
information
on
a
taxpayer
basis,
but
to
remain
sort
of
aggregated
or
de-identified
in
whatever
the
reports
are
that
come
out
through
this
new
mechanism.
K
That
would
be
the
goal
in
the
direct.
Thank
you
to
senator
for
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
That
would
be
the
goal,
and
the
drafting
of
the
legislation
would
be
to
hopefully
not
be
in
a
spot
where
you
are
talking
about
less
than
two
taxpayers
so
when
we
so
when
they
aggregate
it
by
by
geography
that
they
can
take
that
into
consideration.
K
So
we
might
be
able
to
see
things
more,
north
or
south
or
by
municipality.
They've
got
a
couple
different
ways
that
that's
the
intent
is
to
offer
a
couple
of
different
ways
to
look
at
it
to
generate.
E
E
Thank
you.
I
I
think
russell
may
have
mentioned
that
the
department
of
tax
would
have
to
there
may
be
discussions
about
what's
proprietary.
What's
not,
and
so
I
guess
that's
one
of
the
questions
whether
a
business
has
to
come
forward
and
say
we
have
proprietary
information
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it
remains
confidential.
E
E
K
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question
so
to
senator
seaver's
ganzer.
This
is
theresa
benitez-thompson
for
the
record,
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
were
looking
to
do
is
in
the
the
report.
As
we
have
it
right
now.
You
you
get
a
couple
of
different
pieces
of
data
points,
but
nothing's
going
to
give
you
an
idea
of
whether
you're
looking
at
projects
in
northern
nevada
or
southern
nevada.
K
There
was
also
because
some
of
these
are
let's
say,
and
most
of
this
is
public
knowledge,
so
just
like
in
this,
in
the
same
way
that
we're
talking
about
cabela's
right
cabela's
is
one
single
taxpayer
as
a
stand-alone
district,
but
you
go
over
to
sparks
and
then
you
have
legends
which
is
kind
of
one
district
but
then
made
up
of
a
whole
bunch
of
little
retailers,
and
so
what
we
were
trying
to
get
at
was
a
report
that
wouldn't
hopefully
say
this
is
report.
K
Cabela's
report
taxable
sales
because
that's
proprietary,
but
what
we
do
want
to
know
is
for
a
district.
Let's
say
we
take
reno.
So
then,
you've
got
a
couple
of
them
in
there
you're
going
to
know
the
amount
of
pledged
sales
that
are
there
you're
going
to
know
for
the
area,
the
the
the
life
of
the
bonds
that
are
left,
and
so
I
guess
what
I
could
so.
The
goal
was
try
to
protect
as
much
as
we
can
and
not
draw
be
able
to
draw
like
a
straight
line
back.
K
But
on
some
of
these
it
is
a
little
bit
hard,
because
if
there's
that
I
mean
obviously
they
are
known-
and
this
is
where
it's
a
little
bit
different,
because
we
do
the
inverse
and
on
goed
right
when
we
look
at
the
governor's
office
of
economic
abatements
and
we're
doing
tax
abatements
there.
We
know
specific
amounts
of
taxable
abatements
and
we
tie
them
to
a
company's
name,
but
on
the
front
end
because
it's
actual
taxable,
it's
actual
sales
or
they're
in
the
tax
that
they're
paying
that
their
sales
are
proprietary.
K
K
I
think
we
could
look
at
that
and
say
what
pieces
would
not
if
there
was
a
concern
about
a
piece
that
they
have
to
put
down
on
the
report
being
proprietary
like
their
name.
Their
name
would
not
be
something
that
we
would
want
reported
other
than
that.
I
think
they
only
give
like
right
now,
three
or
four
data
points
as
it
is,
but
I
think
it's
was
trying
to
tie
it
back
to
saying.
E
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
efforts
for
more
transparency.
I
think
it's
just
a
little
bit
tricky
because
some
of
these
districts
have
so
few
businesses
in
them
that
it's
hard
not
to
disclose
who
they
are
by
by
just
evaluating
the
information-
and
I
think
you
know
several
years
ago
when
we
took
out
the
two
percent
for
the
lssc.
I
think
that
made
some
sense,
so
I
know
we've
got
two
more
now
that
don't
have
the
lsst
piece
removed.
So
thank
you.
A
So
thank
you
for
that.
I
know
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson.
I
know
miss
hughes
was
on
and
miss
upton
from
department
of
text.
Would
you
like
them
to
address
anything.
K
If
you
have
them
available,
I
think
we've
written
this
in
a
way
that
that
allows
them
the
ability
to
have
a
couple
different
scenarios
in
which
they
can
collect
information
and
report
it.
While
trying
to
keep
that
information
proprietary
just
depending
on
the
project
and
the
location
of
the
project.
But
if,
for
some
reason
they
feel
like
there's
a
compromising
piece.
Then
now
would
be
a
good
time
to
to
hear
about
that.
For
sure.
F
Good
afternoon,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
and
we've
reviewed
the
provisions
of
the
bill
and
the
way
we
currently
do
this
is
this
information
is
self-reported
from
these
in
this
industry
and
we
would
revise
the
form
to
allow
them
to
identify
if
that
information
would
be
proprietary
and
then,
when
we
aggregate
that
we
would
again
take
a
look
at
the
information
to
make
sure
we
weren't
disclosing
any
confidential
information,
and
I
hope
that
answers
your
questions.
A
A
Okay,
so
seeing
no
additional
questions,
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
for
support
for
av
368.
H
A
No,
I'm
almost
positive
if
they
were
ready,
they'd
be
sitting
there
ready
to
say
something.
We
can
go
ahead
and
move
to
opposition
for
av-368.
A
H
M
M
M
An
exhibition
and
at
the
time
that
intent
at
least
from
the
executive
branch
side,
was
that
trade
show,
organizers,
meeting,
organizers
and
all
of
those
additional
participants,
including
exhibitors
and
attendees,
would
be
exempt
from
the
commerce
tax
that
was
implemented
that
way
for
several
years,
but
the
definition
of
who
is
included
or
what
is
included
in
the
definition
of
a
person
and
the
definition
of
an
exhibition
has
been
brought
into
question
over
the
past
18
months
or
so,
and
we
feel
that
it
is
important
for
all
of
those
in
the
industry
and,
frankly,
for
the
state
that
those
two
topics
be
more
clearly
defined.
M
The
the
industry
is
obviously
exceptionally
important
to
nevada.
Approximately
16
17
percent
of
visitors
in
nevada
come
for
meetings
and
conventions
each
year.
They
are
our
visitors
that
really
help
fill
a
hotel
rooms
during
the
week,
and
it's
very
apparent
now
after
having
not
well
and
still
really
not
having
meetings
and
conventions,
particularly
in
southern
nevada.
M
We
have
high
occupancy,
as
our
leisure
travelers
have
returned
on
weekends,
but
our
weekday
occupancy
is
down
around
50,
in
addition
to
them
simply
filling
hotel
rooms.
Our
meeting
and
convention
visitors
spend
in
our
state
at
a
higher
rate
than
our
leisure
visitors,
and
make
significant
contributions
in
a
number
of
different
ways.
M
Our
figures,
as
well
as
others
that
analyze
this
industry,
are
that
these
meetings
and
conventions
support
approximately
44
000
jobs
in
nevada
over
2
billion
a
year
in
wages
and
salaries
and
approximately
6.6
billion
dollars
of
economic
impact,
and
that
is
the
the
direct
contribution
that
these
meetings
and
trade
shows
make.
If
you
look
at
the
indirect
contribution,
those
numbers
go
up
by
approximately
50
percent,
so
it's
critical.
M
They
have
also
been
an
industry
that
has
been
completely
shut
down
over
the
past
12
to
15
months
and
is
just
now
getting
back
up
and
running
and
certainly
have
a
ramp
up
period.
That
is
going
to
be
difficult
and,
frankly,
we've
lost
some
of
those
companies
and
they
just
weren't
able
to
make
it
through
the
pandemic.
M
So
they
are
analyzing
every
aspect
of
their
shows,
including
where
they
will
have
them,
and
we
often
think
when
we
talk
about
trade
shows,
particularly
when
the
lbcba
talks
about
trade
shows,
we
think
of
the
really
large
ones.
Like
ces
homebuilders
broadcasters
and
sema,
but
it
is
a
broad
spectrum
of
shows-
and
certainly
most
of
the
shows
do
not
happen
here
at
our
convention
center.
They
happen
through
properties
throughout
southern
nevada
and
the
state
and
all
of
those
shows
are
considering
their
next
steps.
M
M
A
Thank
you
for
that
members.
Any
questions,
madam.
G
Chair
this
is
senator
roddy.
G
M
G
M
Senator
ratty,
steve
hill,
those
associations
are
required
to
segregate
their
revenue
in
a
number
of
different
ways
for
several
different
reasons.
They
are
typically
non-profit.
So
if
they
do
things
that
create
revenue
that
are
outside
of
activities
that
qualify
under
that
non-profit
distinction,
they
are
required
to
separate
that
now
that
would
be
a
part
of
their
normal
accounting
and
normal
reported
structure.
M
A
Madam
chair
senator
stevers
gansard.
E
Thank
you.
I
just
want
to
thank
mr
hill
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
haven't
seen
him
for
a
while,
and
I
appreciate
the
clarification
so
again.
Thank
you
for
the
bill
and
I
think,
as
you
mentioned,
conventions
will
book
out
for
years
and
years
and
years,
and
so
we
want
to
make
sure
we
capture
as
much
business
as
possible
now
so
that
we
don't
have
entities
relocate
and
potentially
lose
them
for
for
a
decade
of
time.
So
thank
you.
A
So
I
I
have
a
couple
mr
hill
and
then
I
I
want
to
ask
some
questions
to
the
department
of
taxation.
So
so
the
conversation
has
been
that
it
was
originally
not
intended
for
these
trade
shows
to
be
included,
and
there
is
this
conversation
number
one
around
intent,
legislative
intent
or
the
absence
thereof.
A
But
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
understand
is
department
of
taxation
felt
they
were
included
and
there
must
have
been
a
legal
reason
for
why
they
felt
they
were
included.
And
if
that's
the
case.
A
M
Senator
dale
steve
hill
and
just
to
be
clear,
I
I'm
I
can
only
speak
and
I
was
involved
with
this
bill
in
2015..
I
can
only
speak
to
the
intent
from
the
executive
branch.
It
certainly
would
not
speak
for
the
legislature
or
what
the
legislature's
intent
was
in
2015,
but
I
was
a
part
of
that
conversation
toward
the
end
of
the
session
when
this
issue
actually
arose
and
sub-paragraph
n
was
added
to
that
bill
at
the
time
toward
the
end
of
may.
M
The
change
in
that
I
really
leave
to
the
department
to
answer
from
their
perspective
on
that,
but
a
part
of
what
created
the
question
was
one
of
our
customers
filing
a
commerce
tax
return
which
I
think
in
retrospect
they
probably
feel
like
that
was
an
error,
but
it
would
cause
the
question
to
be
raised.
A
So
I
mean,
I
know,
there's
an
ongoing.
I
guess
it's
a
case
but
was
did
the
did
the
trade
show
or
customer
or
client
file
because
they
met
the
four
million
dollar
threshold.
M
Madam
chair
steve
hill-
I
I
don't
know
why
they
filed.
They
certainly
meet
the
four
million
dollar
threshold.
A
So
I
guess
you
know
when
I
was
trying
to
like
think
through
and
examine
you
know,
I
guess
everything.
That's
kind
of
been
the
conversation
around
this.
You
know
I
I
was
thinking
about
the
statutory
construction
right,
and
so
I
started
digging
around
saying.
Okay,
how
does
statutory
construction
work
in
the
absence
of
intent?
Right
if
you
say
that
there
is
no
intent,
then
technically
we
would
look
at
the
plain
language
and
then
determine
whether
or
not
someone
is
in
or
out
and
then
when
I
looked
at
nrs.
A
Yeah
367
80.
I
was
really
trying
to
get
an
understanding
on
you
know.
So
if
there
is
no
intent-
and
we
read
the
plain
language-
the
plain
language
seems
to
say
that
they
they
may
be
a
group
of
individuals
that
could
have
been
included.
And
then,
when
you
read
further
read
into
three
360
780,
there's
a
distinguished
there,
they
distinguish
between
participant
and
operator,
and
so
so
what
I
got
stuck
on
was
who's
an
operator
who's,
a
participant
because
3780
doesn't
wrap
them
in,
doesn't
wrap
in
a
participant.
A
And
so
I
I
want
to
know
the
distinction
here,
because
I
do
feel
that
there
is
one
and
I
wanted
seda
set
out
on
the
record
about
who
is
an
operator
and
who
is
a
participant.
L
Adam
chair,
if
I
could,
this
is
matt
griffin
for
the
record
with
the
griffin
company
and
I
represent
the
lbcda.
If
you
could
I'd
just
like
to
offer
a
little
bit
of
the
statutory
framework
for
you,
because
I've
I've
looked
at
this
quite
frequently.
If
you
don't
mind,
I'm
gonna
have
to
turn
my
camera
off,
because
my
my
video
feed
is
spotty.
Was
it
on,
but
for
purposes.
I
direct
you
for
the
legal,
the
legal
reasoning
behind
this.
L
I
think
you
first
start
with
the
assumption
that
a
business,
indian
nevada,
must
pay
the
commerce
tax
if
they
are
engaged
in
business
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
if
they
meet
certain
criteria,
and
so
in
order
to
be
required
to
be
designated
as
a
business
entity.
In
that
a
definition
of
that
falls
in
nrs,
363c
0.020.
L
That's
that
section
and
that's
the
section
that
senator
ganzard
or
excuse
me
senator
raddy,
just
referenced
that
that
we
are
amending.
It
says
a
person
who
takes
part
in
an
exhibition
held
in
the
state
for
the
purposes
related
to
the
conduct
of
a
business
is
not
required
to
obtain
a
state
business
license,
and
then
so,
if
you
are
taking
part
quote
unquote
in
an
exhibition,
you
are
not
required
to
pay
a
state
business
license.
In
addition,
is
the
sac
section
of
the
statute
you
referenced,
madam
chair,
which
is
nrs
360.780..
L
That
says
that
section
says
if
you
are
taking
part
in
an
exhibition
and
if
the
host
of
the
convention
is
paying
the
flat
rate
under
360.787,
then
that
person
putting
on
the
convention
does
not
have
to
pay
the
commerce
tax.
So
it's
kind
of
a
two-part
analysis,
which
is,
if
you
take
part
in
a
convention
and
if,
where
you're,
holding
it,
if
they're
paying
that
flat
rate,
then
that
the
the
convention
company
does
not
have
to
put
get
a
business
license
or
pay
the
commerce
tax.
A
I
guess
so
so
staying
right
there
around
the
flat
rate.
A
I
need
you
to
distinguish
this
out.
When
is
you
know,
in
terms
of
the
flat
rate
being
applied
and
not
applied
to
an
operator
versus
versus
a
participant?
I
I
mean
listen,
I
don't
I
mean
you
visit
trade
shows,
but-
and
you
see
the
you
know
the
the
people
who
set
it
up
and
then
and
then
the
the
the
operators
who
may
be
a
part
of
the
space.
A
So
so
I
really
need
to
understand
a
little
bit
more.
Can
you
give
me
a
little
bit
more
information
there
yeah
in.
L
Respect
to
the
staff
story,
language
in
360.780,
the
term
operator
in
that
section-
is
referring
to
the
operative
facility,
where
the
exhibition
is
held
so
I'll
give
you
an
exemption.
L
I
also
represent
mgm
so
say
there
is
a
convention
being
held
at
mgm
with
that
saying
when
it
refers
to
operator
they're
referring
to
mgm,
if
mgm
is
paying
that
flat
rate
fee
under
787
and
if
the
exhibition
or
and
if
the
person
is
taking
part
in
the
exhibition,
then
they
do
not
have
to
pay
the
the
commerce
tax,
but
the
operator
of
the
facility
still
owes
that
flat
rate
commerce
tax.
L
A
And-
and
I
guess
so-
and
I
guess
this
is
why
I'm
like
super
stuck
right-
and
I
know
senator
keith
keffer-
has
some
has
a
question
and
I'm
gonna,
let
him
jump
in,
but
I'm
not
sure.
I
agree
that
the
legislature
didn't
intend
for
these
groups
to
take
part
in
the
commerce
tax.
I
so
that's
my
first
issue
right
and
then
and
then
my
second
issue
is
in
the
in
the
absence
of
intent.
A
How
the
legislature
or
or
court
would
then
view
that
statute
and
then
think
about
the
history
that
is
present,
which
is
at
this
point
you
guys
say,
there's
an
absence
of
an
intent,
but
we
knew
that
the
commerce
tax
was
meant
to
be
more
inclusive,
because
the
whole
goal
at
the
time
was
to
create
a
broader
base
of
businesses
and
to
really
try
to
buffer
the
state
it
was.
It
was
a
big
deal.
A
I
was
currently
sitting
on
revenue
and
the
conversation
was
to
broaden
the
base
not
to
reduce
it
and
so
and
and
knowing
that
intent.
Knowing
that
that
was
the
background
and
it
was
an
expansion
of
the
business
tax.
A
I
guess
I'm
stuck
on
whether
or
not
I
agree
that
they
should
be
excluded
simply
because
we
believe
that
they
should
they
weren't
right,
because
I
think
that
if
we
were
to
argue
about
language
and
statutory
language,
we
could
make
the
argument
that
they
potentially
were
in
and
not
out,
and
so
I
guess
that's
where
I'm
stuck
so
and-
and
I
have
some
additional
thoughts
around
this
because
because
I
was
listening
to
the
conversation
about
the
impact,
the
44,
what
was
it
44,
000
jobs
and
the
economic
impact
that
we're
talking
about
and
and
the
first
question
that
popped
up
in
my
mind,
was
if
they
were
included.
A
How
would
this
affect
their
ability
to
pay
because
pay
the
tax,
because
what
what
my
assumption
is
is
that
somewhere
from
2015
someone
believed
that
they
were
included,
whether
or
not
they
and
it,
and
if
that
was
the
case,
then
why
is
the
argument
being
made?
You
know
the
pandemic
hit
me,
I'm
being
hurt.
So
therefore
I
cannot
be
subject
to
this.
Why?
Wouldn't
the
conversation
be
more
so?
Okay,
I
get
it,
everybody
got
hurt.
A
So,
let's,
let's
hold
off:
let's:
let's
abate
you
for
a
while,
let
you
get
your
feet
under
yourself
and
then
and
then
this
tax
would
apply
to
you.
Why
is
it
just
a
total
exclusion
out
rather
than
trying
to
find
the
the
other
way.
M
Senator
neil
steve
hill,
a
couple
of
things
I
think
actually
the
conversation
you
know
mr
griffin
had
illustrates
the
need
for
this
bill
to
make
it
clear
and
that's
why
we
have
brought
it
because
there
are
now
different
thoughts
on
that.
The
to
answer
your
question,
I
I'm
I'm
not
trying
to
say
that
this
industry
doesn't
have
the
capacity
to
pay
the
tax.
M
There
may
be
a
few
that
would
feel
that
way,
but
most
would
not
what
they.
What
what
I
think
this
bill
is
really
about
is
nevada,
putting
its
best
foot
forward
for
an
industry
that
is
critical
to
have
returned
to
the
state
and
having
gone
through
a
period
of
a
number
of
years,
where
we
have
said
that
this
industry
and
have
behaved
as
if
this
industry
is
exempt
from
this
tax
and
then
changing
that
position
right
now.
Whether
that
applies
immediately
or
applies
in
the
when
the
pandemic
is
over,
and
economics
are
back.
M
That
message
will
be
sent
either
way,
so
the
the
relative
risk
of
losing
any
of
these
shows
would
tend
to
over
run
the
amount
of
revenue
that
these
shows
would
contribute
through
the
commerce
tax.
They
contribute
in
so
many
other
ways
from
a
fiscal
standpoint,
as
well
as
a
job
creation
and
economic
impact
standpoint
that
we
feel
like
it's
important,
that
this
be
clarified
and
be
clarified
in
this
way,.
D
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure
I
appreciate
it.
I
think
the
my
interpretation
of
this
bill
has
always
been
that
it's
clarifying
my
first
read
on
it
and
the
way
I
read
it
after
this
conversation
remains
that
this
is
a
clarification
of
paragraph
n,
which,
when
we
originally
put
it
into
the
bill
in
2015,.
D
Related
to
an
exemption
for
tradition
for
organizers
of
these
events,
that's
why
it's
there
right.
I
think,
if,
if,
if
we
didn't
mean
for
them
to
be
exempted,
paragraph
and
wouldn't
exist
in
the
first
place,
so
I
see
it
that
way.
I
do
have
a
follow-up
question
on
behalf
of
senator
ratty,
however,
because
she
had
to
depart,
and
I
think
it
relates
to
the
question
of
the
language
without
limitation,
so
her
question
would
be
specific
to
a
nevada-based
company
right
that
participates
in
some
of
these
events.
M
Senator
keith
kepler
steve
hill:
it's
not
my
understanding
that
they
would.
The
the
contractors
working
on
behalf
of
these
organizers
are
not.
I
don't
believe,
contemplated
in
this
language.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
So
I
want
to
ask
a
question
to
the
department
of
taxation
so
department
of
tax
director
young.
Why?
Why
did
you
think
that
they
were
these
trade
shows
were
included
in
the
commerce
tax?
What
was
the
thought
pattern
and
what
what
legal
basis
did
you
believe
that
they
were
included.
F
So,
thank
you.
Senator
neil
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
The
way
the
department
of
taxation
has
interpreted
this
section
and
it's
subject
here,
is
that
it
was
based
upon
a
exhibitor
which
is
somebody
who
participates
only
in
as,
for
example,
would
be
a
vendor.
Somebody
who
is
a
part
of
that
trade
show
that
is
exhibiting
or
sharing
their
wares,
and
so
that's
how
the
department
has
interpreted
that
subsection
in.
A
So,
if
so,
if
you're
interpreting
it
that
way,
this
expansion
without
limitation,
because
I
saw
the
same
thing
that
senator
raddy
saw
organizer
manager
or
sponsor
or
an
exhibitor
you
now
have.
The
original
language
is
now
expanded
beyond
that
space.
So
what
so?
What?
So?
What
could
be
the
contemplated
impact
of
the
expansion
who's
being
captured
that
wasn't
necessarily,
probably
maybe
envisioned
to
be
excluded.
F
So,
thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
neal
for
that
question.
F
To
be
able
to
answer
that
is
you
know
the
commerce
tax
is
imposed
on
the
nasix
code
and
for
the
example
that
I
would
like
to
provide
is
the
nasix
code
that
is
five
six
one,
and
that
is
for
administrative
and
support
services.
F
The
way
the
nay
six
codes
are
built,
there's
27
different
a6
codes
for
the
commerce
tax,
and
so
what
we
would
view
this,
as
is
that
the
nasix
code
for
this
industry
would
be
five
six
one,
nine
two
zero
and
that's
for
convention
and
trade
show
organizers,.
F
F
Then
we
went
further
into
our
taxpayer
records
and
looked
at
the
commerce
tax
to
try
and
identify
the
potential
exposure
on
this,
and
so
we
had
to
compare
a
couple.
Different
data
sets
to
be
able
to
identify
those
that
were
truly
under
the
five
six
one
as
their
primary
business
or
their
greatest
percentage
of
business
in
working
in
this
industry,
and
so
we
looked
at
that,
there
is
potentially
seven
taxpayers
in
this
record
set
that
could.
F
I
Good
afternoon
shelley
hughes
for
the
record
with
the
department
of
taxation,
these
would
be
those
entities
that
would
be
under
the
next
code,
561920,
which
would
be
convention
and
trade
show
organizers.
So
they
would,
they
would
fall
under
those
establishments,
primarily
primarily
engaged
in
organizing,
promoting
and
or
managing
events
such
as
businesses.
In.
A
Trade
show
conventions,
conferences
and
meetings,
and
so
within
that
I
mean
because
the
way
I
envision
this-
and
maybe
this
is
a
question
for
steve
hill
too.
So
when
we
talk
about
operators
they're
just
the
big
guy
on
top,
I
think,
of
an
umbrella,
and
then
I
think
about
subcontractors
that
fall
under
is
that
is
that
a
proper
way
to
view
that.
M
A
M
Senator
neil
steve
hill,
and
certainly
the
department
can
weigh
in
on
this
as
well.
The
6.6
billion
is
economic
impact,
not
revenue
to
trade,
show
operators
that
is
in
there,
but
that
is
a
small
percentage
of
the
6.6
billion
dollars.
M
A
M
Senator
neal,
the
they're,
the
seven
operators,
I
believe,
are
simply
the
seven
who
have
filed
the
rest
have
been
operating
under
the
understanding
for
all
these
years
that
this
tax
does
not
apply
to
them.
So
there
are
a
multitude
of
meeting
organizers
and
trade,
show
operators
and
owners
out
there
and
they
span
a
very
broad
spectrum
of
revenue
generation.
M
A
Well,
thank
you
for
that,
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
get
down
to
like
the
bare
bones
like.
I
understand
why
you
guys
want
the
bill,
but
I
guess
my
the
concerns
that
I'm
having
and
my
thoughts
of
is
that
you
know
why
there
wasn't
any
intent
on
the
record
when
there
was
a
committee
of
the
whole
and
this
subsection
in
I
guess
got
thrown
into
the
fray,
and
you
know
that
my
immediate
thought
was.
A
You
know
when
there
was
a
big
bill
that
came
through
the
legislature
that
people
really
really
wanted.
A
So
why
not
us,
and
then
it
kind
of
defeats
the
purpose
of
to
me
what
the
commerce
tax
was
supposed
to
be
about,
which
was
a
broad
base
of
businesses,
and
so
that
that's
my
that's
my
basic
concern
and
issue
with
the
bill
and
I'm
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
get
over
that,
and
I'm
also
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
deal
with
the
fact
that
a
executive
agency
felt
that
they
were
included
and
now
outside
business
is
saying:
no
we're
not
and
change
the
law
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
so
those
those
are
my
concerns
and
those
are
my
issues.
D
You,
madam
chair,
so
I
guess
if
so
we've
this
has
been
on
the
books
since
2015,
how
many
of
these
companies
have
actually
paid
commerce
tax
director.
F
Thank
you,
senator
keith
keffermellon,
a
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation.
I
apologize
seem
to
be
having
a
little
bit
of
a
coughing
fit,
but
we
do
have.
As
of
those
records
there
are.
A
few
of
them
have
been
remitting
where
others
have
been
remitting.
Zero
tax
returns
the
department
of
taxation.
F
If
a
business
is
under
four
million
dollars,
they
only
have
to
check
a
box
and
that
tax
return
is
submitted
prior
to
the
2019
session,
when
we
brought
forward
sb4
497
that
exempted
businesses
from
having
to
report,
and
so
currently
there
are
a
few
in
that
seven
that
are
remitting
some
tax,
and
then
there
are
some
that
are
not
remitting
under,
and
it
is
that
maybe
they're
under
the
threshold.
D
Yeah
or
potentially,
or
that
they
think
they're,
not
that
that
the
text
doesn't
apply
to
them
right
because.
H
D
D
The
fact
that
a
few
are
have
decided
to
interpret
this
to
apply
to
them
puts
them
in
the
vast
minority,
not
the
not
the
vast
majority
of
these
companies
and
their
and
their
accounts,
who
have
who
have
interpreted
it
this
way,
so
I
mean,
in
my
mind
everything
sort
of
hinges
on
the
question
of
whether
we
think
a
an
organizer
participates
in
an
event,
and
I
I
don't
see
how
they
don't.
D
You
know
also
flashing
back
to
those
hearings.
As
the
the
chair
referenced
them,
I
mean
there
was.
There
was
a
lot
of
material
to
go
through
and
to
get
down
into
the
sort
of
nitty-gritty
of
what
we're
discussing
here
today
I
mean
we
know
how
legislative
hearings
go.
D
They
don't
always
provide
ample
opportunity
for
that
sort
of
thing,
but
I
I
again
back
get
back
to
the
idea
that
this
was
inserted
specifically
for
this,
for
this
purpose
and
and
believe
that
what
we're
what
we're
doing
is
primarily
clarifying
the
intent,
as
I
understood
it
at
the
time.
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Any
additional
comments.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
I
will
go
ahead
and
move
in
for
support
for
ab435.
A
Is
there
any
in
the
room,
so
the
person
who
is
currently
in
the
room?
Can
you
come
to
the
table.
H
Good
afternoon,
chair
neil
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
paul
moratkin
m-o-r-a-d-k-h-a-n
with
the
vegas
chamber,
the
chamber
is
in
support
of
ab435
in
the
chamber's
perspective
and
opinion.
This
legislation
does
provide
clarity
to
what
we
believe
was
the
original
intent
of
the
commerce
tax
that
did
not
apply
to
trade
shows
and
events
from
our
observations
and
discussions
and
recollections
from
the
2015
legislative
session.
We
agree
with
the
remarks
made
by
mr
hill
from
the
las
vegas
convention
and
visitors
authority
and,
mr
griffin.
H
We
believe
this
clarification
is
important
to
supporting
our
tourism
and
convention
industry
as
part
of
our
economic
recovery.
The
reality
is
states
like
texas
and
florida
are
aggressively
going
after
our
convention.
Trade
shows,
and
cities
like
orlando,
chicago
and
san
francisco
are
also
doing
the
same.
H
We
saw
this
before
the
pandemic
and
they
will
only
continue
with
their
efforts
to
go
after
more
of
our
convention.
Trade
shows.
We
believe
this
piece
of
legislation
will
send
the
message
that
we're
serious
about
their
convention
business
and
want,
and
we
want
them
to
come
back
to
las
vegas
stability
and
clarity,
of
course,
is
always
important
to
businesses.
H
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Bps
will
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
support.
H
H
M
Sure,
neil
it's
it's
always
a
pleasure
to
be
in
your
committee,
and
I
certainly
appreciate
your
time.
I'm
embarrassed
by
my
beard
following
assemblyman
hafen
on
being
in
your
committee.
I
just
don't
hold
a
candle
to
him
when
it
comes
to
a
beard,
but
thank
you
and
the
committee
for
your
time
this
afternoon.
We
very
much
appreciate
it.
A
H
I
My
name
is
susan
kaiser.
Thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
I'm
making
public
comments
today
to
ask
for
your
support
to
really
fix
sv
543
and
support
ajr
one
tax
development,
as
incentives
for
companies
have
been
on
autopilot
since
the
great
recession.
Those
decisions
brought
some
diversity
to
our
economy,
but
it
has
not
been
without
a
cost.
School
funding
took
an
even
bigger
hit,
with
ip1
monies
for
education,
voted
on
and
passed
by
the
people
that
planted
to
pay
for
other
state
programs.
I
Since
that
time,
actions
to
increase
funding
for
education
have
been
rebuffed,
with
the
exception
of
the
commerce
tax
for
categorical
education
funding
as
an
educator
lobbyist
for
over
20
years,
legislators
have
told
me
that
quote:
we
are
broke,
end
quote,
or
that
quote:
it
is
up
to
the
leadership.
In
short,
the
buck
is
passed.
The
evidence
is
mounting
that
poor
funding
of
nevada
public
schools
has
impacts
on
our
economy.
I
The
funding
commission
recently
reported
that
nevada
education
funding
must
be
adequate
to
meet
the
future
needs
of
our
nevada
economy
as
defined
adequate
as
reaching
the
national
average.
Yet,
on
education
lobby
day
only
two
weeks
ago,
few
legislators
took
the
nsda
pledge
to
meet
that
goal.
I
want
to
thank
assembly
members,
anderson,
caragay
and
watts
for
their
signatures,
whether
you
are
a
legislator
in
your
first
term
or
in
your
last,
you
are
serving
today
and
you
are
serving
the
citizens
of
the
state
of
nevada.
I
At
this
exceptional
moment,
it
is
on
your
collective
shoulders
to
look
at
funding
solutions
for
education
into
the
future
beyond
the
gift
of
the
rescue
money
from
uncle
sam.
To
quote
mike
kasmersky,
president
of
ceo
president
and
ceo
of
edon,
washington
cannot
fix
our
antiquated
tax
system,
one
that
has
contributed
to
education,
funding's,
long-standing
decline.