►
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
A
Here
please
mark
senator
rowdy
president,
as
she
arrives
here:
oh
you're,
here:
okay,
all
right,
okay,
she
is
present
okay,
so
we
have
a
super
short
agenda:
we're
going
to
take
bill's
out
of
order,
we're
going
to
do
the
work
session
first
and
then,
after
the
work
session,
we're
going
to
hear
sb,
395
and
then
sb
235
last
to
a.
B
A
So
we
have
a
short
agenda.
We
are
going
to
take
the
bills
out
of
order
we're
going
to
do
the
work
session
first
on
svp3n,
then
we
will
list
here,
sb,
395
and
then
sb
235
senator
harris
has
other
things
we're
trying
to
accommodate
her
in
another
committee.
A
So
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
towards
the
work
session
for
sb
310
sv
310
makes
the
approach
appropriation
for
the
envy
grow
program.
We
heard
it
last
week
and
then
I
will
have
mr
reel
take
us
through
the
work
session
document.
B
B
This
bill
makes
an
appropriation
to
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education,
to
enable
the
college
of
southern
nevada
to
assist
and
carry
out
the
nevada
grow
program
sponsored
by
senator
neil
and
heard
in
this
committee.
On
march
25th
senate
bill
310
provides
for
a
general
fund
appropriation
of
400
thousand
dollars
the
nevada
system
of
higher
education,
to
allow
the
college
of
southern
nevada
to
perform
certain
tasks
relating
to
the
administration
of
the
enemy
grow
program
originally
established
by
the
legislature
in
assembly
bill
399
of
the
2015
session.
B
It
was
mentioned
during
the
hearing
on
the
bill,
and
it's
summarized
here
in
the
work
session
document
put
him
in
section
one
subsection,
one
and
add
a
new
paragraph
f
to
create
an
incubator
program,
and
you
can
see
there.
The
provisions
of
the
incubator
program
are
outlined
here
and
I'll.
Just
note
that
the
third
paragraph
you
would
notice
it
adds
an
appropriation
of
an
additional
200
000,
as
money
becomes
available
within
federal
relief
funds
and
with
that
medal.
Chair
I'll,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
It's
not
as
pretty
and
we'll
clean
it
up
later,
but
it
was
something
that
was
addressed
in
the
hearing
and
the
focus
of
the
amendment
was
to
try
to
expand
nevada
growth
to
businesses
that
intend
to
pivot
because
of
pandemic
and
may
be
in
a
startup
mode.
And
since
we're
already
doing
counseling
we're
already
doing
counseling
coaching
and
support
and
giving
tech
technical
assistance,
we
thought
that
we
could
expand
and,
as
you
saw
in
the
envy,
grow
presentation,
we're
already
bringing
them
into
the
csn
space
and
helping
them
to
develop
their
e-commerce
platform.
A
A
C
A
Okay,
all
right
that
works.
Oh
okay,
cancer,
but
that's
I
mean
okay.
The
voice
is
all
right,
so
senator
seaver's
cancer
is
my
all
right.
So,
madam
secretary
well,
mr
secretary,
can
you
do
the
roll
call
vote.
A
Yes,
so
thank
you
for
that
committee,
so
the
sb
310
is
an
amenity
pass
and
I
will
assign
this
awesome
floor
statement
to
me
once
it
ever
leaves
finance
okay.
D
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I
do
believe
I
have
some
people
from
white
pine
county
school
district
also
online
to
present
on
this
bill,
but
we
won't
take
a
lot
of
your
time.
I
promise
you
senate
bill
390
again
for
the
record.
Senator
pete
guccio,
representing
senate
district
19,
bringing
you
senate
bill
395.
Today,
it's
a
tough
bill,
but
it's
very,
very
simple.
D
In
rural
counties
under
45
000,
it
would
allow
a
school
district
to
fund
capital
projects
upon
voter
approval,
to
have
a
rate
of
up
to
25
cents
per
100,
and
that
could
be
outside
the
364
cap.
That's
the
long
and
the
short
of
it
really
what
it
is
we're
asking
to
go
outside
to
cap
the
364
cap
to
actually
with
voter
approval,
to
bring
money
for
capital
projects
predominantly
at
school
and,
like
I
say,
white
pine
county,
I'm
assuming
their
cfo
as
well
as
their
superintendent.
Is
there
to
plead
their
case.
D
I
can
tell
you
for
a
fact.
I
did
attend
schools
in
white
pine
county.
I
remember
at
four
years
old
playing
in
the
construction
zone
where
they
were
building
the
the
addition
of
what
is
the
middle
school
there
in
italy
and
that's
been
well
over
65
years
ago,
and
that's
the
new
piece
of
that
addition.
D
Clearly
they've
got
some
issues
there
as
far
as
schools
they're
just
asking
for
the
ability
to
go
to
their
voters
and
if
the
voters
approve
it
get
an
override
of
up
to
25
cents
outside
the
cap,
and
I
assume
in
that
language,
whatever
language
they
propose
on
the
ballot,
it
would
probably
cap
the
length
of
the
time
that
that
override
would
be
in
place.
So
with
that
I'll
I'll
stand
for
questions,
and
hopefully
mr
johnson
and
mr
adams
are
available.
Thank
you.
A
C
Thank
you
and
thank
you
senator
it's
outside
of
the
364
cap,
and
it's
also
outside
of
the
abatements
right.
This
levy
would
not
be
constrained
by
the
three
percent
property
tax
cap,
as
we
call
it.
D
To
senator
keith
kevin
through
the
chair,
it
is
definitely
intended
to
be
outside
the
abatement.
So,
as
far
as
I
don't
know,
if
I
don't
think
that
I
didn't
believe
that
would
exempt
it
from
a
three
percent,
but
I
I
I
assuming
it
probably
would
because
the
25
cents
would
increase
the
rate
enough
to
get
us
outside
that
three
percent
yeah.
So.
C
Yeah,
maybe
someone
from
the
district
or
the
counties
about
what
they
would
expect
to
raise
at
25
cents
if
it's
outside
or
what
it
would
look
like
if
it
was
inside.
Maybe
maybe
I'm
reading
it
incorrectly.
But
it
looks
to
me
like
section
4
exempts
from
the
abatements,
whereas
the
section
3
and
section
one
sub-section.
A
Oh
senator
cococcia,
you
want
to
call
the
one
of
the
school
board
members
to
answer.
D
Yes,
if
they're
available,
mr
johnson,
is
your
cfo
and
again
I
apologize
mr
key
kepper
again
caught
me
over
my
pay
grade,
so
we'll
leave
it
at
that
all
right,
mr
johnson,
mr
adams,
if
you're
available.
E
Well,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
goguccia
for
your
help
and
also
senator
keith
for
the
the
question
I
wish
I
had
an
answer
because
I
don't
actually
know
much
about
the
impact
of
the
abatement
other
than
it
affects
about
28
of
our
total
tax
revenue
from
property
taxes.
E
We've
been
at
the
tax
cap
since
1997.,
we
have
200
year
old
schools
that
house
about
45
percent
of
our
students,
and
I
have
been
the
the
cfo
here
for
about
24
years
and
I've
been
trying
for
that
period
of
time
to
to
figure
out
a
way
to
replace
these
pre-world
war.
One
school
facilities,
the
amount
of
money
that
we're
asking
to
raise
is
not
going
to
cover
the
full
cost
of
a
school.
It
would
be
a
partial
approach.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
So,
mr
guindon,
because
mr
gindin
can
answer
the
question.
So
I'm
going
to
ask
mr
gindin
to
clarify
on
the
record.
B
Well,
I
I,
mr
johnson,
I
think,
answered
for
the
record.
This
is
russell
ginden
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division,
and
so
I
guess
I
was
looking
at
department
of
taxation's
fy
21
red
book
and
had
the
assessed
value
for
white
pine
at
around
670
million
in
that
fiscal
year.
And
so
then
one
cent
for
100
of
assessed
value
would
be
about
67
000.
B
I
guess
when
I
do
the
math,
so
I
didn't
know
if
that
was
aligning
with
what
mr
johnson
was
saying
with
regards
to
what
he
thought
and
again
that
that
would
be
the
red
book
cess
value
number
for
fy
21..
I
don't
have
anything
for
the
current
fiscal
year,
fy
2022.
B
Yes,
that
that
would
be
the
provisions
in
section
four,
the
bill
subsection
two
places
the
rate
that
would
be
approved
by
the
voters.
If
this
bill
were
passed
and
it
went
to
the
voters,
it
puts
the
rate
outside
the
partial
abatements,
and
you
see
the
three
sections
referenced
there
in
subsection,
two
of
section
four
of
the
bill.
B
About
that's
the
math
that
I
come
up
with,
based
on
the
six
hundred
and
seventy
million
dollars
in
assist
value
from
the
red
book
for
white
fine
put
out
by
the
department
of
taxation
prep
way,
21.
well,.
C
That
that
would
be
one
point:
six,
seven,
five
million
dollars-
and
I
think
oops
sorry
yeah,
but
it
was
gonna-
generate
seven
million
dollars.
So
I
think
maybe
maybe
mr
johnson
clarified
did
hear
you
say
that
you
thought
it
was
going
to
generate
seven
million
dollars
a
year.
E
Yes,
senator
chair
paul
johnson
for
the
record,
the
we
actually
have
a
24.9
levy
currently
that
we
did
a
rollover
initiative
in
order
to
provide
some
capital
funds.
E
E
Yes,
ben
chair
again
paul
johnson
for
the
record
yeah,
whatever
amount
of
revenue
that
is
generated
from
that
25
cents,
multiplied
by
the
tax
base,
excluding
net
proceeds
of
minerals,
and
I'm
not
sure
if
mr
ginden's
amount
included
net
proceeds
of
minerals
or
not,
but
that
amount
of
money.
We
would
then
use
to
secure
a
20-year
bond.
E
If,
based
on
that
tax
base,
including
that
proceeds
minerals
it
it
would,
if
you
exclude
that
amount,
I
think
that's
about
almost
I'd
have
to
check
the
red
book.
I
don't
have
that
in
front
of
me,
but
if
you
take
the
net
proceeds
of
minerals
out,
it
shrinks
the
tax
base,
I
believe,
closer
to
400
million
and
based
on
that
figure,
that's
what
that
I
use
to
secure
long-term
debt.
G
Thank
you,
chair,
neal
and
so
kind
of
circling
back.
I
I
guess
I
need
to
understand
the
with
and
without
the
gross
proceeds
of
minerals
tax,
and
is
that
something
you
can
use
for
schools
for
construction
or
not.
D
If
that
question
is
headed
to
me,
senator
george's
here
for
the
record,
clearly,
the
school's
portion
of
the
net
proceeds
could
be
used
for
school
construction.
Again,
it's
not
wise
to
bond
on
that,
especially
if
you're
a
rural
county.
We
we've
all
been
involved
in
those
the
chicken
and
feather
scenario
that
happens
there,
and
so
typically
no
one
you
know
most
of
it
is
used
for
one
shots.
D
If
it
is
truly
net
proceeds,
you
try
not
to
incorporate
it
in
your
budget
in
any
form,
because
you
don't
know
if
you
got
100
million
this
year
in
10
cents.
Now.
D
E
Madam
chair,
with
your
permission,
paul
johnson
again
for
the
record
we
have,
as
senator
goldbergia
had
mentioned,
when
we
have
knit
proceeds
of
minerals-
it's
great,
but
we
never
know
from
from
one
year
to
the
next.
E
That
condition
actually
happened
back
in
1993
in
our
community,
where
net
proceeds
and
minerals
was
used
to
secure
long-term
debt,
and
when
the
net
proceeds
went
away.
The
school
district
couldn't
meet
its
financial
obligation
to
pay
its
debt
and
had
to
get
bailed
out
by
the
state.
So
that's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
we
exclude
that
from
calculation
of
bonds,
we
do
have
a
very
secure
fund
balance
in
our
operating
fund
in
our
general
fund.
E
It's
in
excess
of
the
16.6
percent,
that's
identified
in
statute
under
the
bill,
sb543
that
was
passed
last
session
with
respect
to
schools,
and
we
do
have
a
comfortable
fund
balance
in
our
debt
services
fund
that
we
are
helping
fund
capital
improvements
on
a
pay-as-you-go
basis
with
that
levy.
So,
but
there's
no
guarantee
that
will
continue.
A
Questions:
okay,
all
right!
So
then
senator
goku
chia.
Do
you
have
any
additional
comments
before
we
go
to
questions?
I
mean
public
support.
D
No,
I
don't.
I
don't
know
if
mr
johnson
had
superintendent
young
with
adams
with
him
or
not.
H
Yes,
chair
neal,
thank
you.
I
I
do
have
a
few
comments
that
I
would
like
to
make.
Pending
your
permission,.
H
H
My
name
is
adam
young
for
the
record,
the
superintendent
of
white
pine
county
school
district,
and
I
I'm
a
white
pine
born
and
raised
kid.
I
attended
unlv
for
both
my
bachelor's
and
master's
degrees
and
I'm
very
proud
to
call
ely
nevada,
my
home
as
members
of
the
senate
revenue
and
economic
development
committee.
You
you
keenly
understand
the
connections
among
industry,
workforce
economic
development
and
and
world-class
schools
as
a
superintendent
and
a
lifelong
resident
of
one
of
nevada's
rural
counties.
I
understand
those
connections
too.
H
I
mean
regularly
with
members
of
our
local
government
and
industry
in
my
community,
as
well
as
parents
and
students
in
white
pine.
We
have
developed
a
an
aggressive
district
performance
plan
that
pushes
towards
what
our
motto
is
of
of
world-class
learning,
and
this
includes
opening
a
steam
academy,
operating
innovative
real-life
preparation
programs,
creating
college
and
career
ready
specialists
to
stretch
students
towards
their
goals
and
more.
H
We
are
on
our
way
towards
achieving
this
mission
and
the
possibilities
are
really
exciting,
but
imagine
trying
to
persuade
families
to
relocate
to
ely
when
upon
touring
our
1909
elementary
school.
They
learned
that
fire
suppression
systems
ventilation
in
the
midst
of
a
pandemic.
No
less
and
campus
security
are
limited
due
to
the
age
of
the
facility
and
the
cost
of
remodeling.
H
This
bill,
just
as
described
by
senator
gorkachia,
allows
for
smaller
school
districts,
many
of
whom
are
already
maxed
out
in
bonding
capacity
under
existing
law,
to
go
to
the
voters
of
their
county
and
secure
funding.
That
will
help
remove
some
of
these
structural
barriers
that
limit
their
progression
and
do
inhibit
economic
development.
A
I
I
A
Okay,
we'll
go
to
opposition.
I
J
J
Although
I'm
shocked
that
the
sponsor
chose
to
abandon
our
principles
as
for
even
proposing
this
property
tax
increase
when
nevadans
are
still
suffering
the
economic
hardships
created
by
lockdowns
and
various
emergency
declarations
is
unthinkable.
J
So
how
do
you
expect
them
to
pay
for
more
property
taxes
when
they
can't
pay
their
obligations?
Now
story
county
was
screwed
already
over
your
tesla
deal
when
we
didn't
get
school
funding
from
their
property
tax
deal
for
10
years.
So
now
you
want
the
taxpayers
and
barely
hanging
on
business
owners
to
pay
more
property.
Taxes
quote
for
the
children.
J
The
biggest
percent
of
school
taxes
goes
to
clark
county.
How
many
times
are
rural
counties
going
to
have
to
pay
vote?
No
on
sb
395.
Excuse
me,
even
though
this
gives
the
people
in
the
rural
counties
right
to
vote
on
this
property
tax
increase.
We
still
strongly
oppose
it.
How
can
you
even
consider
raising
property
taxes
when
nevadans
are
still
suffering
the
economic
hardship
created
by
the
emergency
shutdown?
J
I
I
K
J-A-N-I-N-E-H-A-N-S-E-N
we
understand
the
concerns
of
white
pine
county
and
trying
to
build
new
schools.
We
are
concerned
about
the
broad
nature
of
this
sb
395
that
would
allow
11
rural
counties
to
raise
their
property
taxes
even
with
a
vote.
We
know
how
it
happens
like
it
did
in
washoe,
when
the
governments
combined
to
promote
increased
in
taxes
and
the
people
lose
out
even
with
the
ballot.
K
It's
a
very
bad
time
to
raise
taxes
at
this
particular
moment.
You
know
there
are
other
ways
we
can
address
the
school
issues
like
arizona
has
they
introduced
the
empowerment
scholarship
amounts
accounts
in
2011
and
12
originally
reserved
for
special
needs
children.
The
program
has
since
expanded
for
children
in
failing
schools.
The
programs
is
groundbreaking
in
its
flexibility
of
how
the
account
can
be
used.
Money
in
the
accounts
awarded
by
the
state
can
be
used
for
tuition
textbook
tutors
online
classes,
homeschool
materials
and
more
analysis
from
the
goldwater
institute
shows
that
the
state
saves.
K
This
is
no
time
for
a
tax
increase.
We
already
pay.
According
to
the
institute
for
policy
innovation,
56
percent
of
our
annual
personal
consumption
in
federal
state
and
local
taxes.
We
just
can't
afford
more,
and
so
we
are
concerned
that
this
applies
to
11
of
our
rural
counties,
who
may
be
having
the
most
difficult
time
during
this
pandemic.
Thank
you.
I
I
I
A
Hey
thank
you
for
that.
So
senator
gokachia.
We
have
an
additional
question
from
senator
key
keffer.
C
The
bill
doesn't,
as
I
read
it,
the
bill
doesn't
require
a
county
commission
to
place
this
question
on
the
ballot
in
any
place,
so
the
normal
process
would
have
to
be
followed
where
a
county
commission
sort
of
voluntarily
put
this
question
on
the
ballot
and
then,
if
it
passes
they're
obligated
to
impose
it,
is
that
the
process,
so
a
school
board,
a
school
district
in
any
of
these
counties
would
have
to
con
the
port
of
county
commissioners.
To
do
this.
In
the
first
place,.
D
That's
cinderella,
could
you
for
the
record?
That
is
correct.
That's
the
only
way
we
can
get
a
vote
on
on
a
ballot
in
in
a
rural
county
unless
we
actually
did
it
by
referendum
by
petition
and
and
clearly
the
bill
intends
for
it
to
go
before
the
board
of
county
commissioners.
I
request
a
ballot.
I
think
there
there
are
people
that
believe
that
in
pipeline
county,
the
commission
would
in
fact
bring
that
ballot
question
forward.
Okay,.
C
D
And
I
just
as
my
closing
comments,
that's
truly
what
this
bill
is
all
about
and
about
again
in
the
interest
of
time.
This
is
enabling
legislation
that
would
allow.
We
heard
the
comments
about
the
11
rural
counties.
They
are
conservative,
trust
me,
and
most
of
them
are
not
going
to
stand
for.
You
know
not
going
to
approve
this.
This
is
going
to
be
a
heavy
lift.
D
I
think
mr
johnson
and
mr
young
understand
that,
as
well
as
the
people
in
white
punk
county,
so
it's
going
to
be
a
heavy
lift
to
get
it
on.
I
do
believe
the
commissioners
probably
would
entertain
that
that
ballot
question.
If
and
let
the
people
decide
for
themselves,
they
are
going
to
impose
this
tax
on
themselves.
D
A
A
All
right,
that's
so
case
rested
all
right,
so
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
sb
395
and
we
will
open
up
for
sb.
I
believe
it's
2
35.
senator
dallas
harris.
L
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
neal
vice
chair
ratty
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
dallas
harris.
I
represent
senate
district
11
in
the
southwest
part
of
clark
county
and
it's
my
pleasure
to
to
present
senate
bill
235
to
you
all
today,
I'm
going
to
do
a
a
quick
walk
through
of
the
bill
and
then
turn
it
over
to
mr
goldwater
for
questions
as
I'm
trying
to
juggle
between
multiple
committees.
So
I'll
beg
your
indulgence,
senate
bill.
235
does
a
couple
of
things.
L
We
do
that
by
allowing
all
holders
of
adult
use
licenses
to
sell
camp
medical
products,
subject,
of
course,
to
all
applicable
rules
regarding
the
sale
of
those
medical
products.
We
then
sunset
the
authority
to
issue
new
licenses,
but
allow
new
licenses
to
be
put
forward.
New
medical
license
be
put
forward
if
the
jurisdiction
has
not
reached
that
cap.
Otherwise
we
prohibit
new
medical
licenses
from
coming
into
the
market.
L
The
cannabis
compliance
board
would
then
be
authorized
to
issue
these
single
adult
use
licenses
to
certain
applicants
who
meet
certain
requirements.
That's
listed
in
the
conceptual
amendment
I'll
just
run
through
a
couple.
It's
those
who
have
applied
for,
but
were
not
granted
some
adult
use
licenses
in
the
2018
process.
L
They
already
are
dual
licensee:
they
meet
all
the
requirements
of
678,
b,
250
and,
of
course,
any
other
requirements
deemed
necessary
by
the
board.
The
bill
then
puts
a
limit
on
how
long
those
applications
can
come
forth
and
also
provides
that
the
statutory
caps
do
not
apply
to
the
licenses
issued
under
that
provision.
L
In
addition,
the
bill
defines
a
social
equity
applicant.
As
someone
who
has
been
adversely
affected
by
the
war
on
drugs,
we
would
require
the
ccb
to
adopt
regulations
to
establish
criteria
for
what
a
social
app,
what
qualifies
as
a
social
equity
applicant
and
then
require
the
ccb
to
adopt
regulations
governing
all
future
competitive
application
processes.
We're
going
to
ask
the
ccb
to
establish
some
clear
and
objective
criteria
to
score
these
applicants
set
forth.
The
relative
weight
require
a
preference
for
social
equity
applicants.
L
Permit
a
cap
on
the
number
of
licenses
require
the
use
of
a
system.
That'll
provide
the
same
informational
applicants.
Ask
them
to
take
a
look
at
geographical
diversity
of
licensees
in
just
a
couple
of
more
requirements
that
are
also
listed
in
the
conceptual
amendment,
but
wait.
There's
more.
We
are
going
to
take
a
look
at
removing
the
exclusion
of
felony
offenses
so
that
we
can
get
more
people
involved
in
the
industry.
L
We're
going
to
ask
them
to
complete
that
study
by
february
1st
2023
and
then
once
they
do,
that
market
determination,
they'll
offer
a
competitive,
merit-based
licensing
round
open
to
any
interested
market
participants
no
later
than
july,
1st
2023
pursuant
to
those
regulations
that
we've
asked
them
to
establish
with
the
chair's
indulgence.
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
goldwater
for
further
comments
and
to
answer
questions.
L
M
Thank
you,
chair
neil
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
attention
today
and
thank
you
senator
harris
for
agreeing
to
pick
up
this
important
issue.
Let
me
start
out
by
outlining
our
presentation
today
briefly
describe
what
is
available
on
your
analysis
regarding
sp235
and
then
give
you
a
little
background
on
the
genesis
of
this
bill.
M
The
other
members
of
our
team
today
are
joanne
abbasian
of
the
apothecarium
who
will
discuss
the
impacts
of
the
bill
on
nevada's
medical
cannabis
program.
Then
bonnie
chu
of
euphoria
dispensary
will
discuss
the
economic
benefits
we
can
all
expect,
as
well
as
a
market
analysis
suggesting
there's
sufficient
opportunity
in
the
market
for
what
we
are
proposing.
M
Finally,
mark
fiorentino,
representing
the
grove,
will
outline
the
in
detail.
The
proposed
amendment,
as
well
as
the
judicial
decision
handed
down
in
the
controversy
involving
the
last
round
of
licensing
on
your
nellis
suggested
amendment,
is
the
suggested
amendment
from
senator
harris
that
she
referenced
there's
also
an
economic
report
from
rcg
economics,
a
brief
powerpoint
that
flows
through
this
presentation.
I'm
not
going
to
use
it
because
it's
much
more
fun
to
sort
of
stock.
Everybody's
background.
M
On
the
zoom,
and
also
there's
a
copy
of
betsy
gonzalez's
decision
regarding
the
difficult
2018
licensing
process,
as
our
nascent
cannabis
industry
continues
to
evolve,
we
are
continually
dealing
with
opportunities
to
improve
the
last
round
of
cannabis.
License
in
2018
offered
a
huge
opportunity
not
only
to
improve
future
licensing
application
process,
but
also
provide
some
remedy
for
the
mangled
process
of
2018.
M
M
Obviously,
she
was
demoted
from
working
as
a
state
senator
to
work
in
the
federal
government,
but
senator
harris
bravely
took
on
her
work
and
has
improved
this
measure
through
her
amendment.
What
started
out
as
a
bill
that
clumsily
attempted
to
solve
some
problems
has
evolved
into
an
excellent
piece
of
public
policy.
M
That
course
corrects
the
cannabis
industry
in
nevada
to
be
leaders
in
the
nation.
Once
again,
sb
235
aspires
to
do
three
things.
First,
to
convert
the
medical
license
into
a
single
class
of
license
allowing
medical
patients
to
access
dispensaries.
They
cannot
use
their
medical
card
in
today,
number
two.
It
creates
a
process
by
which
many,
not
all,
of
the
aggrieved
locally
owned
small
dispensary
owners
to
convert
their
medical
license
into
the
new
single
class
license
eligible
to
be
ported
to
another
location
and
three.
M
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
M
P
B-O-N-N-I-E-C-H-U,
thank
you,
chair
neil
and
the
members
of
the
committee
for
your
time
and
thank
you
senator
harris
for
your
support
in
sponsoring
sb235.
I'm
speaking
today
to
the
suggested,
amended
version
of
the
bill.
P
P
P
Euphoria
is
a
typical
dispensary.
We
have
about
50
employees.
We
offer
health
insurance,
we
pay
very
competitive
wages.
There
are
about
at
least
15
service
and
supply
providers.
That's
unique
to
our
location,
including
accountants,
attorneys,
payroll
insurances,
a
wide
variety
of
wholesalers
and
retailers,
amongst
other
various
vendors.
P
P
At
euphoria,
some
of
our
employees
that
have
had
difficulty
finding
success
in
other
industries
have
flourished
in
cannabis.
Make
no
mistake,
regardless
of
your
opinion,
about
cannabis.
In
nevada,
cannabis,
industry
has
created
thousands
of
good
paying
jobs
and
improve
the
communities
in
which
they
operate.
P
P
Rcg
economics
recently
published
a
study
that
sought
to
answer
one
simple
question:
whether
the
nevada
cannabis
market
can
handle
another
40
dispensaries
in
addition
to
the
73
currently
in
operation
and
potentially
another
51
that
were
approved
in
the
2018
licensing
process,
and
the
conclusion
is
an
overwhelming.
Yes.
P
According
to
rcg's
analysis
for
the
black
market,
sales
represents
a
large
percentage
of
the
cannabis
market.
The
addition
of
more
dispensaries
erodes
the
illegal
market
and
expands
expense,
the
regulated
and
taxed
market.
In
summary,
sb
235
provides
the
opportunity
to
expand
employment
and
economic
development
in
nevada
by
local
operators
with
proven
track
record.
P
M
Thank
you
bonnie,
now,
a
face.
That's
handsome
and
familiar
to
all
of
you
on
the
committee
mark
fiorentino
representing
the
grove,
can
go
over
in
some
detail.
The
proposed
amendment,
as
well
as
some
of
the
challenges
and
issues
raised
by
judge
gonzalez
and
her
decision.
Q
Q
I
think
senator
harris
actually
did
a
very
good
job
of
going
through
the
conceptual
amendments,
but
I'm
prepared
to
go
through
them
in
more
detail
and
answer
questions.
If
you
have
any
madam
chair,
I
will.
I
will
start
by
saying
this:
the
the
judge
gonzalez's
decision,
we
put
it
on
nellis
for
everybody
to
be
able
to
see
and
read
on
purpose.
Q
If
you
have
a
few
minutes,
it's
a
relatively
easy
read,
believe
it
or
not.
Even
though
it's
pretty
extensive,
I
encourage
you
to
read
it,
but
in
case
you
don't
and
you're,
I'm
sure
if
you
haven't
already
you'll,
hear
from
lots
of
different
lawyers
about
what
that
opinion
says
and
what
it
doesn't
say
and
what
it
means
and
what
it
doesn't
mean.
Q
Frankly,
I
don't
think
it's
in
your
best
interest
or
in
the
best
interest
of
the
state
to
fault,
go
down
that
rabbit
hole.
I
will
just
say
this
to
you:
if
you
read
it,
I
don't
think
anyone
could
seriously
argue
that
the
decision
points
out
to
that
the
last
round
was
flawed.
There
were
some
very
serious
flaws
that
occurred
in
that
process.
Q
We
tried
to
address
some
of
those
flaws
in
this
bill
and
I
think
the
conceptual
amendment
shows
you
precisely
how
we
would
do
that,
and
I
guess
I
would
suggest
this
to
you
why
that
matters.
You
know,
why
do
you
care
about
there
being
flaws?
Q
To
do
that,
I
think
I
think
it's
also
relatively
clear
that
that
process
denies
some
opportunity,
some
economic
opportunity
for
the
state
and
and
that's
the
other
issue-
that
the
conceptual
amendments
are
designed
to
address,
to
enhance
the
ability
for
companies
that
are
ready,
willing
and
able
to
proceed
on
short
notice
to
continue
to
invest
in
the
state,
create
new
jobs
and
create
new
tax
revenue.
Q
So
I'm
not
sure
how
you
want
me
to
proceed.
Madam
chair
again,
I
think
senator
harris
did
a
very
good
job
of
of
summarizing,
but
I
can
go
through
it
in
more
detail
or
I
can
just
go
through
it
in
enough
detail
to
answer
questions
the
conceptual
amendment,
whichever
you
prefer.
A
We
will
just
go
ahead
and
move
to
questions.
Members
have
any
questions.
A
I'm
going
back
to
the
camera.
Senator
keith
keffer.
C
I'm
sure
my
questions
are
probably
from
mr
klimas
on
just
sort
of
a
informational
perspective
rather
than
the
proponents
of
the
bill.
So
I'll
defer
to
you
to.
Let
me
know
when
the
appropriate
time
is
for
that.
A
A
Members
any
questions
to
the
presenters.
If
not,
I
will
go
ahead
and
let
you
ask
questions
to
mr
climates.
Senator
keith,
keffer.
C
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
so,
based
on
I've
been
trying
to
get
my
arms
around
some
of
the
numbers
right
that
that
that
are
the
prospective
new
licenses
that
would
be
could
be
awarded
under
this
temporary
round
or
this
limited
round
of
licensing
that
is
being
proposed
in
the
amendment.
Mr
climates,
have
you
reviewed
the
amendment?
Do
you
have
an
estimate
as
to
how
many
potential
new
licenses
could
be
issued
under
this
special
licensing
outlined
in
section
two
of
the
proposed
amendment.
N
Thank
you
senator
for
the
question
and
chair
I'll.
Sorry,
you
all
just
the
senator
tyler
klein
is
for
the
record.
So
the
way
we
looked
at
this
as
far
as
section
two
you
know
what
we
see
is.
There
was
127
applicants
in
that
2018
round.
17
applicants
were
awarded
the
61
licenses
for
a
stand-alone
retail
facility,
so
you
know
that
leaves
110
applicants
out
there.
N
I
would
certainly
convert
to
the
bill
sponsor
if
they've
got
clarification,
but
the
way
we
see
this
senator
is
that
you
know
there's
potential
here
for
110
retail
facilities
to
come
online
as
a
result
of
of
section
two
and
proposed.
C
N
Right
so
so,
up
until
2018,
they
were
one
for
one.
So
all
of
those
before
2018
were
essentially
dual
licensed,
so
yes,
these
would
be
for
a
stand-alone
telephone
director.
I
apologize.
This
would
be
for
a
stand-alone
recreational
retail
facility.
However,
in
conjunction
with
the
first
section,
which
would
allow
retail
to
sell
medical,
it
wouldn't
would
be
essentially
irrelevant
for
them.
C
N
So
we
have
roughly
tyler
clements
for
the
record.
Senator
thanks
for
the
questions.
We've
roughly,
I
believe
81
operational
retail
stores
and
there
are
roughly
around
50
that
are
in
a
provisional
status
that
should
be
coming
online
by
february
of
2022,
which
was
a
date
that
the
board
set
for
any
and
all
provisional
licenses
on
any
establishment
types
to
become
online.
C
Okay,
so
and
all
of
those
would
fall
so
if
those
50
are
perfected,
then
all
of
them
would
fall
under
the
the
statutory
caps
in
terms
of
the
number
of
dispensaries
per
jurisdiction
in
278b
260.
N
C
C
You
know
of
the
110
applicants
from
the
2018
round:
do
you
have
a
breakdown
of
where
they
would
be
by
jurisdiction
or
anything
of
of
that
sort?.
N
Senator
tyler
claims
and
that's
a
great
question
that
would
have
to
be
clarified
in
this,
and
so
you
know
some
applicants
could
apply
for
multiple
licenses
in
multiple
jurisdictions,
and
so
certainly
there
would
need
to
be
clarification
on
on
you
know
which
jurisdiction
that
that
license.
You
know
this
single
license
that
would
be
awarded
to
that
applicant.
What
jurisdiction
would
that
you
know
apply
to.
C
And
then,
finally,
madam
chair
I'll,
let
other
people
jump
in
I
apologize
for
going
on
the
since
you've
stood
up
the
just
the
cannabis
compliance
board
has
been
created.
Have
you
embarked
on
any
licensing
or
any
regulatory
procedures
to
promulgate
lice
regulations
relating
to
potential
new
licensing
procedures?.
N
Senator
tyler
claims
again
for
the
record,
and
so
that
is
kind
of
that's
on
the
the
that's
on
the
docket
next
for
the
ccb
right,
so
we're
we're
about
nine
ten
months
old.
First
point
of
order
was
to
establish
this
board,
get
it
up
and
running,
which
we
did.
Second
was
as
laid
out
in
ab533,
which
created
the
ccd
was
for
the
board
to
promulgate
regulations
around
any
new
licensing
rounds.
So
we
have
not
had
one.
We
will
have
one
in
the
future.
N
You
know
a
a
study
and
data
behind
those
decisions
are
going
to
be
important,
certainly
studying
data.
That's
that's
initiated
by
the
board
will
be
something
that's
important
to
us
as
well,
so
that,
in
conjunction
with
promulgating,
how
we
open
a
licensing
round,
those
will
likely
take
place
over
the
next
year
or
two.
As
far
as
a
study
you
know
before
that
takes
place.
We've
got
50
provisional
licenses
that
have
yet
to
come
on
online
for
retail
stores
and
so
watching.
N
That
impact
is
also
very
important
to
us
as
we
as
we
move
forward
to
open
up
a
new
licensing
room.
C
I
said
that
was
gonna,
be
my
last
question.
I'm
sure
I'm
gonna
ask
one
more
really
quick
before
you
unmute
yourself.
There
you
go.
Does
the
board
currently
have
full
discretion
over
when
to
open
a
licensing
round
or
and
what
discretion?
If
any,
does
the
board
have
right
now
relating
to
those
statutory
caps
by
jurisdiction
or
the
total
number
of
dispensaries.
N
N
You
know,
mandates
the
board,
or
at
least
authorizes
the
board
to
to
make
recommendations
to
the
legislature
on
any
need
to
lift
or
raise
those
those
caps.
I
also
believe
there's
a
mechanism
for
some
of
the
local
jurisdictions
to
request
that
as
well.
Either
way
it
would
have
to
go
in
front
of
the
legislature
to
change
that
statute
on
the
132.
M
Thank
you
chair.
Yes,
david
goldwater
here
I
think
it
might
be
informative
if
you
could
allow
mr
fiorentino
to
address
some
of
the
to
address
senator
keith,
keffer's
question
and
sharpen
up
mr
climbing's
estimates.
A
Okay,
go.
Q
Ahead,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
in
fairness
to
director
climates,
you
know
we
were
working
on
some
of
these.
The
details
of
this
conceptual
amendment
and
we're
kind
of
at
that
stage
in
the
session
where,
but
I
actually
think
the
number
of
potential
licensees
in
answer
to
your
question,
senator
key
keffer
is
is
significantly
less
than
110
and
here's.
Why?
So?
Q
If
you
focus
again
on
proposed
amendment
number
two
and
subsection
two
of
number
two,
so
the
combination
of
subsection
one
and
number
two
you
had
to
have
applied
for
but
were
not
granted
and
director
klimus
indicated.
That
was
about
110
in
his
estimation.
Q
So
so,
if
you
take
60
or
65,
let's
just
use
60
for
the
sake
of
the
discussion
today
and
you
subtract
from
that,
the
17
who
got
licenses
in
the
last
round.
Q
But
if
you
continue
to
use
the
rest
of
the
criteria
that
are
set
forth
there
in
subsection
2,
I
suspect
the
actual
number
will
be
substantially
less,
maybe
half,
and
that's
primarily
because
of
subsection
four
of
the
second
amendment,
which
would
require
you.
If
you
are
going
to
apply
in
this
new
round,
to
show
that
you've
already
obtained
your
local
government
approvals.
Q
So
you'll
you'll
have
to
be
ready
to
go
in
the
next
18
months
with
local
government
approvals
in
place.
So-
and
this
is
just
my
estimation-
but
of
that
43-
it's
it's
probably
closer
to
20-
who
can
and
will
be
willing
to
do
that
and
ready
and
able
to
do
that.
I
think
that
also
addresses
your
second
concern
about
which
jurisdictions
would
they
fall
in.
Q
So,
although
I
don't
think
anybody
could
give
you
a
specific
answer
about
primarily
where
they
would
go,
they're
roughly,
in
my
opinion,
again
going
to
be
roughly
distributed
amongst
the
population
centers,
because
no
one's
going
to
invest
in
a
location
that
can't
be
supported
by
the
market
and
the
geographic
area
and
by
the
time
you
weed
through
which
local
governments
allow
recreational.
Because
there
are
still
some
out
there
that
don't
all
of
those
limitations
add
up
to,
I
think,
certainly
substantially
less
than
110
and
probably
in
the
area
of
roughly
20..
Q
I
will
say
this,
though
I
won't
speak
for
senator
harris,
but
I
I
I
believe,
she's
willing,
if
the
concerns
ever
since
the
bill
was
introduced,
was
the
flooding
of
market
with
too
many
licenses,
and
so
I
think,
she's
open-minded
to
any
other
reasonable
suggestions
and
how
to
further
limit
that
and
and
to
create
some
of
the
I'm
sorry
to
alleviate
some
of
the
problems
and
inequities
that
were
caused
by
the
last
round.
A
Okay,
senator
ratty.
Q
So
senator
raddy,
I
think
the
con
the
confusion
that
let
me
say
this.
I
think
the
original
bill
created
that
confusion
about
what
does
it
mean
to
con
convert
a
con
medical
license
and
how
we're
going
to
all
do
that.
But
if,
if
you're,
the
heart
of
your
question
is
how
do
how
many
potential
new
adult
use
licensees
will
we
have?
Q
G
The
last
time
to
be
able
to
be
both
a
recreational
and
a
medical
for
the
benefit
of
that
benefit.
Benefit
of
that
licensee,
but
also
for
the
benefit
of
the
public,
too,
reduce
the
confusion.
So
if
I'm
a
patient
now
I
can
go
anywhere.
I
want
to
get
what
I
need
and
I'll
just
get
the
10
tax
deduction
reduction,
but
not
have
to
worry
about.
If
I'm
at
a
medical
or
a
recreational
spot,
so
are
the
20
that
are
left
solving
that
problem.
Q
It's
actually
a
different
part
of
the
bill
that
solves
that
problem.
So
thank
you
for
asking
the
question
now
that
I
understand
it.
There
are
very
there
are
very
few
today
or
going
forward
medical
only
licensees
and
those
only
exist
in
jurisdictions
that
didn't
allow
recreational
use.
Q
However,
there
are
potentially
going
forward
a
large,
a
approximately
60,
because
the
last
round
of
licenses
was
only
adult
use
licenses,
so
there
were
approximately
60
issued
in
the
last
round
if
they
all
get
put
into
effect.
None
of
those
would
legally
be
able
to
sell
medical
product
to
patients
because
they
don't
have
a
medical
license,
nor
could
they
add
a
medical
license,
because
medical
licenses
under
the
statute
are
capped
and
in
almost
all
the
jurisdictions
have
reached
that
cap.
Does
that
make
sense.
M
So
david
goldwater
for
the
record,
madam
chair,
let
me
take
a
stab
the
the
answer
to
your
question.
Is
yes,
senator
ratty,
the
20,
the
additional
20
possible
20,
possibly
more
with
the
confluence
of
a
single
license
class,
addresses
the
problem
that
you
outlined
in
in
your
question
and
we've
we've
tried
to
solve
in
this
bill.
G
M
Correct
current
medical
licensees-
and
this
is
david
goldwater
again
and
not
they're,
not
one
of
the
other
advantages
of
being
a
current
licensee.
Is
it
in
order
to
get
your
medical
license?
In
the
first
round
of
licensing,
there
was
a
preference
for
local
dispensary
owners
for
some
local
element
that
was
not
included
in
the
2018
round.
So
of
the
people
that
hold
a
medical
license,
most
of
them
are
have
local
roots,
are
smaller
and
and
have
been
working
in
the
medical
cannabis
field.
Since
2015.
G
Businesses
that
that
got
in
early
they
got
in
early
with
a
medical
mission
and
got
passed
over.
If
that's
the
right
word
for
the
expansion
to
recreational,
when
you
do
the
promulgation
of
regulations
or
your
process
to
unders
to
decide
how
you
want
to
do
the
expansion
of
licenses,
do
you
have
the
current
authority
to
solve
this
problem
through
the
regulatory
or
would
you
need
statutory
changes
to
do
so.
N
Senator
vice
chair
for
the
question
tyler
claims
for
the
record-
and
I
I
think
maybe
you
know
we'll
need
to
lean
again
on
the
the
bill
sponsors
here
for
a
little
bit
of
clarification,
because
I'm
I'm
I'm
a
little
unclear
on
this
as
well,
because
the
the
20,
if
that
is
the
proposed
number
they're,
not
as
I
understand
it,
they're,
not
medical.
Only.
We
only
have
two
medical,
only
dispensaries
that
are
operational
right
now.
So
these
are.
These
are
both
medical
and
wrecked
dual
licensees.
N
A
They've
never
had
one,
they
are
medical
and
we
are
seeking
for
them
to
get
an
adult
used
or
wreck
or,
however,
you
guys
describe
it
or
the
other
category,
if
they're,
if
they're
adult
use
and
now
they
want
wreck.
I
think
this
is
getting
all
muddled
and
I
really
need
you
to
just
matter
of
fact
say
what
it
is
say:
there's
a
new.
This
is
how
many
never
had
a
license
and
we
are
trying
to
get
them
a
license
because
of
x
or
y.
G
G
Madam
chair,
yes,
I
think,
thank
you.
You
know,
I
think
it's
getting
confusing
too
and
my
thought
would
be
to
have
a
table
that's
produced
and
maybe
the
tyler
klimas.
Maybe
the
board
can
produce
that
because
I
think
there's
just
a
lot
of
numbers
that
are
floating
around
now
and
it's
hard
to
differentiate.
What's
what
it'd
be
nice
to
have
something
in
writing
that
delineates
everything.
A
Thank
you
I
agree,
but
so
for
now
answer.
Senator
ratty's
question
be
real
real
super,
clear
and
just
matter
of
fact
state.
What's
what's
really
going
on
and
answer
linus.
M
There
were
the
first
round
of
licensing
within
the
medical
program
was
60
original
licenses
66,
I
think,
ended
up
being
handed
out.
Statewide.
M
Then
we
then
question
two
passed.
You
in
your
wisdom
had
an
early
start
program
and
of
those
60
licenses.
We
gave
them
all
those
licenses
to
existing
medical
licensees,
so
every
person
who
got
a
medical
license
also
got
a
another
adult
use
licensed
in
question.
Two.
The
remaining
licenses
60
plus
licenses,
were
competitively.
G
Yeah,
I
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
think
that
adds
great
clarity,
for
where
I
was
that
this,
the
problem
that
we
are
not
the
problem,
we're
trying
to
solve
is
not
that
it's
confusing
in
the
marketplace,
because
every
single
licensee
that
was
medical,
also
got
adult
recreational
permission.
If
you
will,
when
we
did
the
expansion
to
adult
when
adult
was
when
adult
was
approved,
and
we
followed
on
with
our
legislation,
everybody
at
least
if
they
were
in
a
jurisdiction
that
allowed
for
it,
was
now
in
the
adult
market.
M
David
goldwater
to
answer
senator
rowdy's
question:
if
I'm
a
senator
that
was
directed
towards
me,
go
ahead,
that
is
true,
senator
ratty.
I
would
add
a
finer
point
on
that
to
to
remind
you
that
of
the
licenses
that
were
awarded
in
the
2018
process.
Those
were
adult
use
only
licenses
and
those
were
given
to
many
people
who
did
not
have
a
medical
license
before
so
in
our
community.
Today,
some
of
those
licenses,
some
of
those
licenses
have
opened
up,
they
are
adult
use.
M
M
That
is
true
and
david
goldwater
again
for
the
record.
That
is
true
and
that's
the
confusion
and
to
add
an
even
finer
point,
which
I
think
you'll
be
personally
interested
in
those
medical.
A
All
right,
we
will
go
ahead
and
go.
I
mean
I
had
questions,
but
I
don't
even
want
to
ask.
C
Thank
you.
So,
according
to
the
ccb
website
right
there,
it
says
there
are
currently
14
standalone,
rack
right
and
one
standalone
med,
so
those
15
combined
facilities
would
create
this
issue
that
you're
talking
about
regarding
potential
confusion
in
the
marketplace
for
a
medical
card
holder
and
the
proposed
amendment.
C
Relating
to
the
conversion
to
a
single
license
or
the
elimination
of
the
the
medical
only
license
would
solve
that
problem
right
and
I'm
looking
for
that
in
the
in
the
amendment.
Q
Madam
chair,
I
can
save
some
time.
If
you
let
me
it's,
it's.
That's
primarily
encompassed
in
number
one
senators.
C
So
it
would
basically
allow
allow
ccb
to
convert
all
licenses
to
dual
licenses
in
the
way
we
think
of
them.
Allow
all
licensees
to
sell
both
medical
and
recreational
products.
Q
C
Said
some
jurisdictions
don't
want.
I
don't
use
it
okay,
exactly
so
so
that
problem
is
solved
primarily
in
section
one,
which
is
outside
of
the
issue
over
new
licenses
being
issued.
Q
C
Section
two
of
your
amendment
primarily
deals
with
the
issue
of
new
licenses,
as
it
relates
to
the
2018
licensing
procedure
right
section,
two
section:
three
section
four
deals
with
that
right
and
then
everything
else
following
that
is
prospective.
I
I
R
R
R
I
R
I
I
R
I
F
I
S
C-H-A-D-C-H-R-I-S-T-E-N-S-E-N,
it's
an
honor
to
testify
in
support
of
sb
325,
I'm
in
support
of
senator
harris
in
her
efforts
years
ago
I
had
the
opportunity
to
serve
there
in
the
legislature
with
some
of
you,
some
of
you
that
can
hear
me
now:
senators
gancer
to
dennis
and
keycuffer
and
long
to
go
with
with
one
senator
joe
neal
and
senator
neal.
S
Madame
chair,
I
heard
you
say
a
while
ago,
and
I
just
said
okay,
if
I
ever
testify
on
your
committee,
I
need
to
point
this
out.
I
heard
you
say
that
not
long
ago
you
did
a
search
for
johnny
quest
dvd,
and
that
happens
to
be
my
favorite
show
from
when
I
was
a
kid
to
the
degree
that
my
fourth
son
is
named
grace
after
race
banner,
the
the
tough
guy
and
now
but
that's
I
wasn't
planning
on
that.
Being
a
part
of
my
testimony.
Just
wanted
to
point
that
out.
S
I
see
that,
with
a
with
a
big
smile
on
my
face,
I
am
one
of
the
owners
of
pesos
dispensary
we're
100
percent
nevada
owned.
We
employ
over
100
nevadans.
We
pay
medical
and
dental.
S
We
pay
for
college
tuition
for
our
staff,
we're
in
clark
county,
and
we
were
also
you
all
have
made
mention
of
the
of
the
legal
proceedings
that
took
place
over
the
summer,
where
judge
gonzalez
in
her
ruling
pointed
out
that
we
as
plaintiffs,
where
we
were
saying
that
that
there
were
some
flaws
in
the
state
process.
S
She
said
that
we
were
right,
but
that
it
was
more
of
a
legislative
matter
to
to
resolve
some
of
those
flaws
in
the
state
process.
S
You
know
a
few
of
us
thought
you
know:
okay,
let's
meet
with
with
most
in
the
industry,
to
discuss
this,
where
we
saw
that
there
was
a
tremendous
amount
of
support
to
to
do
this.
To
advocate
for
this
bill,
where
it'd
be
great,
for
patients
get
rid
of
the
confusion,
it
would
also
allow
those
that
are
approved
by
the
ccb
and
by
local
government
to
to
convert
a
medical
license
to
to
be
able
to
be
used
for
adult
use
as
well
and
so
again,
strong
support
and.
R
And
it's
an
honor
to
to
speak
to
you
all
today,
thanks
so
much.
I
I
I
I
F
Hi
this
is
this:
is
bernadette
schneider,
b-e-r-n-a-d-e-t-t-e,
schneider,
s-c-h
n-e-I-d-e-r.
Thank
you,
chairwoman,
neil
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
have
family
in
the
cannabis
industry
and
I
strongly
support
support
sb
235,
as
amended,
I
believe
in
our
state's
medical
program,
and
I
feel
local
dispensaries
should
have
a
fair
opportunity
to
expand
locations.
Thank.
R
R
R
I
saw
firsthand
the
issues
and
wrongful
execution
that
occurred
during
the
last
round
of
awarding
of
the
new
dispensary
licenses.
As
judge
gonzalez
pointed
out
in
her
decision,
both
the
application
process
and
the
merit-based
grading
system
were
conducted
with
completely
unfair
and
inequitable
practices.
R
R
Secondly,
the
data
has
shown
that
the
nevada
market
can
strongly
support
additional
growth
in
the
number
of
dispensaries
in
the
state.
Our
industry
is
on
the
verge
of
being
taken
over
by
large
multi-state
operators
without
ties
to
our
community
viewer
operators
do
not
benefit
our
consumers,
since
options
will
be
fewer
and
prices
higher
with
less
competition.
R
This
bill
provides
an
opportunity
to
level
the
playing
field
for
all
of
us.
I
believe
this
was
the
original
intent
when
the
program
first
came
into
being.
Additionally,
the
increased
legal
competition
puts
an
even
tighter
squeeze
on
the
illicit
market.
Our
industry
is
heavily
regulated
and
testing
ensures
that
safe
products
are
going
out
to
our
consume,
going
out
into
our
consumer's
hands.
This
is
not
the
case
with
black
market
products.
They
continue
to
operate
unimpeded
and
are
not
going
away
easily.
R
I
I
R
Thank
you,
chairman
will
chairman
chairwoman,
neil
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
work
in
the
cannas
industry
and
I
strongly
support
sb
235
as
amended,
I
believe
in
our
state's
medical
program,
and
I
feel
local
dispensaries
should
have
a
fair
opportunity
to
expand
location.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
I
R
Hi
this
is
my
name,
is
paige
batty
good
afternoon,
I'm
a
small
dispensary
owner
and
I'm
also
a
physician,
living
and
practicing
medicine
here
in
nevada
for
the
past
26
years,
and
I've
been
in
the
cannabis
industry
for
eight.
R
My
children
are
born
here
and
we
consider
ourselves
nevadans
mike.
My
company
is
a
member
of
the
nevada,
dispensary
association.
However,
we
share
a
different
view
than
the
nda.
We
are
in
full
support
of
sp235
and
I
want
to
share
with
you
why
and
I'll
try
to
keep
in
less
than
two
minutes.
R
Firstly,
as
a
physician
who
got
into
the
industry,
because
I
believe
in
the
medical
benefits
of
cannabis
use
it
for
my
mom,
we
found
we
find
a
significant
amount
of
confusion
in
our
patients
that
do
not
understand
the
details
between
the
recreational
and
medicinal
programs.
R
They
they
don't
understand
why
they
can't
get
their
use
their
medical
card
to
get
to
go
to
certain
dispensaries,
and
why
can't
this
cancer
patient
get
their
required
dosages
from
a
recreational
dispensary,
the
new
60
or
so
dispensary
is
all
recreational
only
and
our
patients
can't
obtain
what
they
need
from
them.
R
R
Thirdly,
the
bill
would
allow
the
participation
of
some
of
the
smaller
local
players
have
not
been
involved
in
the
canadian-owned,
publicly
traded
takeover
of
our
of
our
state
and
the
national
industry
giants
who
benefit
from
the
profits
of
our
of
our
state
and
our
industry.
R
Lastly,
I
know
this
is
not
a
perfect
solution
from
everyone
and
I'm
sure
the
big
guys
who
have
received
multiple
licenses
would
like
to
minimize
their
competition
with
this.
The
proposed
bill,
but
I
think
this
will
allow
smaller
guys
like
us
to
be
able
to
survive
and
we've
been
in
it
from
day
one
and-
and
you
know
thank
you
so
much
for
taking
the
time
to
listen
to
me.
I
I
B
Good
afternoon,
chair
neal
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
brandon,
weigand
spelled
b-r-a-n-d-o-n
w-I-e-g-a
and
I
am
the
regional
general
manager
of
nevada,
organic
remedies,
I'm
also
a
native
nevadan,
who
has
been
an
operator
in
the
legalized
cannabis
industry.
Since
its
inception,
I
sit
on
the
board
of
the
nda
and
I
also
have
an
ownership
interest
in
the
grove,
and
I
oppose
sb
235,
as
drafted
the
bill's
proponents,
make
the
claim
that
awarding
them
licenses
would
bring
the
state
millions
in
tax
revenue
and
create
jobs.
B
This
argument
is
both
unsupported
by
the
facts
and
short-sighted.
There
is
no
evidence
that
more
stores
will
increase
consumer
demand.
As
jeremy
aguero
noted
in
his
june
2020
expert
report
on
supply
demand
dynamics
in
the
nevada
marijuana
industry
quote
over
95
percent
of
southern
nevada's
population
is
within
a
15-minute
drive
of
an
existing
dispensary.
B
Aguero
said
there
are
relatively
few
if
any
nevada
residents
residing
in
primary
urban
markets
that
do
not
have
ready
access
to
a
cannabis
dispensary,
he
concluded
that
it
is
very
likely
that
existing
licensees
will
experience
some
reduction
in
sales
should
additional
storefronts
licensees
be
added
to
the
market.
If
the
committee
has
questions
about
that
report,
or
mr
aguero's
analysis,
I
am
sure
he
would
be
available
to
speak
to
the
committee.
B
As
aguero's
report
demonstrates,
new
stores
will
dilute
the
existing
retail
market,
which
would
not
lead
to
a
significant
increase
in
tax
revenue
or
jobs.
The
best
approach
for
maintaining
or
increasing
tax
revenue
is
to
strengthen
and
stabilize
the
existing
market
and
control
growth
through
analyzing
demand.
Before
opening
additional
licensing
rounds,
nevadans
voted
for
ballot
question
2,
which
stated
quote
there
would
also
be
limits
on
the
number
of
retail
marijuana
store
licenses
issued
in
each
county
by
the
department
of
taxation.
B
I
B
My
name
is
rusty.
Graf
r-u-s-t-y.
Last
name
is
graf
g-r-a-f
good
afternoon,
chair
o'neal
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
a
nevadan,
an
attorney
and
a
participant
in
the
nevada
cannabis
industry
in
the
trial
between
the
successful
and
unsuccessful
applicants.
Today,
we've
already
heard
from
several
unsuccessful
applicants.
B
I
represented
a
successful
applicant,
clear
river
llc
in
the
2018
recreational
license
application
process
as
well
as
in
that
litigation
that
ensued
last
summer,
I'm
testifying
in
opposition
to
fb
235
is
written.
The
proponents
of
sb
235
would
have
this
committee
believe
that
the
2018
application
process
was
somehow
flawed
and
fraught
with
impropriety.
B
This
is
not
what
the
court
ruled,
nor
what
it
sound.
Just
gonzales
entered
a
thirty
page,
finding
the
facts
and
conclusions
of
law
regarding
the
application
process
that
occurred
in
2018.
The
findings
and
conclusions
identified
problems
of
a
youthful
industry
and,
more
so
those
of
an
evolving
administrative
agency
in
structure.
The
department
of
taxation
is
no
longer
the
administrative
agency
charged
with
the
governance
of
this
purposefully,
highly
regulated
industry.
B
B
Among
other
responsibilities,
the
ccb
regulates
the
licensing
of
all
applicants
in
nevada,
as
well
as
the
duty
to
determine
if
additional
licenses
should
be
issued.
Sb
235
seeks
to
take
those
responsibilities
from
this
newly
formed
agency
and
fails
to
recognize
the
successful
learning
curve
that
the
ccp
has
benefited
from
over
just
a
short
number
of
months.
B
In
fact,
the
ccb
reviewed
and
approved
the
settlements
entered
into
by
several
of
the
applicants
on
both
sides
of
that
case,
both
successful
and
unsuccessful
applicants.
The
litigation
explored
the
process
and
brought
to
light
its
deficiencies,
but
the
court
deferred
to
the
agency
in
its
interpretation
and
creation
of
those
governing
regulations.
B
The
ccb
is
the
third
agency
to
govern
the
marijuana
industry.
I
requested
this
committee
allow
the
ccb
to
learn
from
the
prior
agency's
mistakes
and
allow
the
ccb
to
govern.
According
to
their
legislatively
stated,
purpose,
don't
take
away
the
ccb's
authority
to
determine
how
many
and
how
future
licenses
will
be
awarded,
especially
less
than
a
year
after
the
ccb
has
take
taken
charge.
B
I
B
B
B
The
ccbs
review
review
process
for
cannabis
licensing
is
far
too
important
to
be
bypassed,
as
it
brings
critical
accountability
and
transparency
to
our
industry.
If
these
low-scoring
companies
have
nothing
to
fear,
then
they
should
welcome
the
opportunity
to
compete
when
the
ccb
determines
that
a
new
round
of
licensing
is
warranted.
B
B
Meanwhile,
many
existing
dispensaries
are
currently
struggling
to
attract
customers
and
with
50
new
dispensaries
opening
over
the
next
12
months.
Nevada
demand
simply
does
not
justify
additional
storefronts
at
this
time.
Moreover,
this
bill
disregards
the
existing
statutory
caps
for
retail
stores
in
each
county
at
its
core.
This
bill
is
protectionist
and
anti-competitive
and
it
ignores
the
needs
of
nevada's
citizens.
It
is
an
attempt
to
skirt
the
will
of
the
voters,
the
nrs
requirements,
the
ccb
regulations
and
its
application
processes
and
local
government
authority
to
determine
if
more
retail
stores
are
needed.
B
With
that
being
said,
it
is
disappointing
to
see
that
anyone
would
propose
legislation
that
is
so
divisive
at
a
time
when
the
industry
is
healing
from
prolonged
litigation.
This
bill
is
further
designed
to
tell
the
business
world
that
in
nevada,
the
rules
are
not
to
be
trusted
and
can
always
change
if
special
interests
have
their
way.
Therefore,
defense
encourages
you
to
vote
no
on
sb235.
I
R
J-O-E-G-U-T-I-E-R-R-E-Z
I'm
an
attorney
representing
thrive,
cannabis
marketplace
and
was
one
of
the
attorneys
or
thrived
during
the
dot
litigation.
Before
judge
gonzalez,
we
are
in
opposition
of
this
bill
as
introduced.
The
bill
appears
to
bypass
the
statutory
provisions
stating
the
number
of
establishments
allowed
in
the
state.
The
cannabis
advisory
commission
is
charged
with
studying
issues
and
making
recommendations
to
the
ccb
regarding
the
regulation
of
cannabis
and
any
related
activity
which
includes
studying
the
distribution
of
licenses.
R
R
R
The
proposed
amendment
does
not
make
the
bill
any
better,
as
it
appears
to
include
information
that
is
already
required
in
statute,
as
it
relates
to
scoring
applicants
and
applying
weights
to
criteria.
Among
other
things,
the
ccb
has
come
to
legislature,
asking
for
new
positions
and
increased
labor
to
handle
its
current
workload
and
massive
backlog.
There
are
many
regulatory
activities
that
the
board
is
trying
to
manage,
and
new
licensing
under
a
different
structure
will
only
further
the
issues
and
benefit
a
small
number
of
groups
causing
a
further
divide
and
less
diversity
in
the
marketplace.
I
R
Good
afternoon
to
the
chair
and
the
committee
members,
my
name
is
scott
rutledge
with
argentine
partners.
I
am
speaking
today
in
opposition
on
behalf
of
our
client,
the
chamber
of
cannabis.
I
just
want
to
echo
some
of
the
other
remarks
made
by
those
in
opposition
and
to
point
out
a
couple
of
things.
R
The
big
question
we
have
is:
if
the
state
were
to
authorize
the
addition
of
these
new
licenses,
what
would
that
do
in
terms
of
impacting
the
future
for
social
equity
applicants
as
being
is
being
discussed
not
only
in
this
legislation's
amendment,
but
during
the
legislative
session
as
well?
We
appreciate
the
ccb's
report
that
was
released
earlier
this
year,
as
it
relates
to
the
lack
of
diversity
in
the
industry,
and
we
do
not
see
the
support
of.
We
do
not
see
the
passage
of
this
bill
working
in
favor
of
expanding
diversity.
R
In
fact,
it
would
further
dilute
the
number
of
persons
who
would
fall
under
the
definition
of
a
non-diverse
industry,
we're
talking
women,
ownership,
people
of
color
and
then,
of
course,
affirmations
social
equity
applicants
who
may
be
looking
to
get
into
the
industry
in
the
future.
So
for
these
reasons,
the
chamber
of
cannabis
is
in
opposition
to
sb
235,
as
written
and
to
the
amendment
as
it
has
been
proposed.
I
F
F
F
As
this
committee
knows,
the
ccb
is
specifically
purposed
to
understand
our
industry's
unique
needs
and
economic
challenges.
At
a
time
when
our
industry,
in
conjunction
with
the
ccb,
must
be
moving
towards
stability,
transparency
and
diversity,
sb
235
advances.
None
of
these
goals-
sb
235
supplants,
the
ccb's
authority-
to
recommend
licenses
with
private
party
demands.
Re-Wraps
licensing
away
from
the
ccb
creates
a
brand
new
class
of
license
disregards
market
necessity
gives
licenses
to
a
select
few
who
did
not
receive
licenses
in
the
2018
application
round.
F
Importantly,
sb
235
seeks
to
create
and
distribute
approximately
110
brand
new
licenses
before
any
economic
study
is
conducted
by
the
ccb
to
determine
their
need,
as
director
klim
has
testified.
Over
50
previously
awarded
recreational
license
are
yet
to
come
online.
They
are
due
on
or
before
february
of
2022..
These
licenses
will
be
opening
in
communities.
In
addition
to
any
new
licenses
granted
under
235
235
without
a
doubt
will
increase
the
number
of
present
day
recognition
recreational
licenses
by
over
200
percent.
F
F
All
of
this
is
going
to
be
done
before
nevada
through
the
ccb
determines
that
market
demands
will
meet
the
supply.
We
have
heard
of
the
want
for
a
fair
and
open
process.
Yet
it
is
a
handful
of
well-heeled,
unsuccessful,
2018
applicants
who
already
have
recreational
dispensary
licenses
that
brought
sbc
235
to
this
committee.
F
Through
this
protectionist
bill,
they
are
asking
you
to
hand,
pick
winners
and
direct
new
licensees
to
a
select
few
without
the
recommendation
or
oversight
of
the
ccb.
This
is
neither
fair
nor
open
and
it
should
not
be
nevada's.
Standard
circumvention
of
our
ccb
process
will
perpetrate
perpetuate
instability
and
lawsuits
and
limit
diversity,
while
undermining
the
ccb's
regulatory
process.
F
The
nevada
board,
the
nevada
nba
board,
voted
to
oppose
this
bill
as
it
conflicts
with
the
nda's
most
fundamental
tenant.
That
licenses
should
be
limited
as
the
people's
willed
unless
and
until
it
is
determined
by
the
ccb
that
more
should
be
awarded
or
new
licenses
should
be
created
in
either
such
case.
The
nda
would
support
such
new
licenses,
provided
that
they
are
awarded
pursuant
to
a
fully
open,
transparent,
merit-based
process.
F
F
I
I
F
My
name
is
blake
martin
l-a-y-k-e
m-a-r-t-I-n
good
afternoon
cheer
neal,
the
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada,
dispensary
association.
The
nda
board
is
comprised
of
five
representatives
elected
from
the
membership
at
lunch.
The
board
members
guide
the
policy
positions
of
the
nda
and
they
take
action
by
agreement
or
through
majority
vote.
F
This
bill's
proponents,
one
of
whom
is
an
nda
board
member,
did
not
show
the
concept
in
sb
235
with
the
board
or
with
the
nda
membership
in
advance
of
the
bill
being
introduced.
There's
a
reason
for
that.
The
award
of
new
licenses
is
set
forth
in
section
2.
The
amendment
threatens
the
strength
and
integrity
of
the
industry
at
large,
and
it's
not
something
that
the
nda
would
ever
support.
F
The
bill's
proponents
hoped
that
the
association
would
stay
neutral
and
when
the
board
voted
to
oppose
the
bill,
the
proponents
sought
to
make
it
look
like
the
board
acted
against
the
interests
of
its
members.
That's
simply
not
true.
The
nda's
mission
is
to
develop
and
promote
best
practices
among
nevada
to
century
owners.
It
is
best
practice
for
new
licenses
to
be
awarded
through
an
open,
competitive
and
merit-based
licensing
process,
which
will
be
run
by
the
cannabis
compliance
board.
F
It
is
best
practice
to
increase
diversity
in
the
cannabis
industry,
and
social
equity
should
be
a
part
of
the
next
licensing
round.
It
is
best
practice
for
all
applicants,
including
those
in
the
proponents
group,
to
have
to
apply
in
an
open,
mirror-based
licensing
round
in
order
to
be
awarded
licenses
further.
F
We
are
grateful
to
senator
harris
for
her
work
so
far
to
try
and
incorporate
some
of
these
ideals
into
the
proposed
amendment
and
we
hope
to
continue
to
work
with
her,
but
because
fc
235
currently
seeks
to
award
licenses
to
a
select
few
outside
of
the
state
licensing
process.
The
nda
cannot
support
this
bill
as
written.
Thank
you.
I
I
T
Hello,
my
name
is
aisha,
goings,
a
e
s
h,
a
g
o.
I
n
s.
Thank
you,
chairwoman,
neil
and
committee.
I
am
an
advocate
activist
community
servant
and
pioneer
in
the
nevada,
cannabis
marketplace,
I'm
also
the
founder
of
ceic
cannabis,
equity
and
inclusion
community.
It
is
with
great
fervency.
I
oppose
senate
bill
235
on
behalf
of
ceic
and
d
bruce
harvest
every
time.
T
We
turn
our
heads
the
other
way
when
we
see
the
law
flouted
when
we
tolerate
what
we
know
to
be
wrong
when
we
close
our
eyes
and
ears
to
the
corrupt,
because
we
are
too
busy
or
too
frightened
when
we
fail
to
speak
up
and
speak
out,
we
strike
a
blow
against
freedom
and
decency
and
justice
attorney
general
robert
f
kennedy.
On
thursday
february,
the
4th
nevada
campus
compliance
board
executive
director,
tyler
clements,
presented
the
nevada,
cannabis
business,
demographic
study
to
the
assembly
judiciary
committee.
T
T
I
S
I
represented
deep
roots
harvest
in
the
licensing
litigation
last
summer,
and
so
I
want
to
specifically
speak
on
some
of
the
issues
related
to
that
litigation.
First,
once
we
noticed
that
the
proponences
are,
the
proponents
are
offering
a
new
economic
report.
We
thought
it
was
important
for
the
committee
to
be
aware
of
the
economic
report
they
had
already
paid
for
and
argued
in
court.
We
have
submitted
that
to
the
committee
secretary
and
would
ask
that
it
be
included
in
the
record.
S
Importantly,
the
new,
the
new
economic
report,
actually
acknowledges
that
more
licenses
would
likely
require
a
reduction
in
tax
revenue
rather
than
an
increase
and,
most
importantly,
their
original
report
that
they
submitted
in
court
argued
that
there
was
already
too
many
licenses
and
then
in
fact,
as
it
stood
then,
a
year
ago,
in
june
of
2020,
that
dispensaries
were
within
a
15-minute
drive
of
95
of
the
population
as
you've
already
heard
today.
Another
50
are
already
due
to
come
online
and
now
the
proponents
want
to
offer
even
more.
S
S
Excuse
me
on
the
proponents
part.
In
fact,
if
you
look
at
the
end
of
her
findings
at
paragraph
75
and
76,
she
discusses
both
the
tainted
and
the
untainted
plaintiffs
and,
more
importantly,
found
that
the
equities
do
not
even
favor
the
untainted
plaintiffs
so
put
another
way.
The
proponents
of
this
bill
do
not
deserve
help.
They
did
not
warrant
a
handout,
so
it
was
not
that
she
felt
that
she
couldn't
do
something
or
that
the
law
needed
to
go
to
the
legislature.
She
acted.
In
fact.
S
She
found
that
the
department
of
taxation's
departure
from
requiring
every
owner
and
officer
and
board
member
to
be
to
be
background
checked
was
inappropriate
and
she
did
enter
an
order
on
that.
But
when
it
came
to
the
proponents
and
the
plaintiffs,
she
in
fact
found
that
their
claims
were
speculative
and
that
the
equities
were
not
in
her.
Excuse
me
in
their
favor.
S
Turning
to
the
bill,
certainly-
and
I
think
vice
chair
ready
was
correct
to
point
out
if
there
are
flaws
and
if
there
is
confusion
by
all
means.
Let's
address
that,
and
I
would
encourage
the
ccb
to
study
that
and
the
legislature
to
take
that
up
in
due
time
section.
One
of
the
proposed
amendment
would
would
address
some
of
that
confusion.
S
If,
if
the
idea
of
social
equity,
if
it
is
that
important,
it
should
be
first,
not
last
by
all
means
if
social
equity
is
important.
If
we
are
serious
about
that,
the
ccb
should
study
social
equity
should
decide
whether
or
not
new
licenses
should
be
awarded
and
then
should
by
all
means
award
those
to
social
equity
applicants,
but
to
flood
the
market
with
new
licenses
first
and
then
say
we'll
conduct
a
study
and
maybe
handsome
out
to
social
equity
shows
where
the
proponents
priorities
really
lie.
S
Lastly,
I
think
it's
very
troubling
that
the
proponents
of
this
bill
do
not
even
know
how
many
licenses
it
would
award
and
with
such
a
poorly
thought
out
and
poorly
put
together
proposal,
clearly
designed
to
only
favor
a
handful
of
unsuccessful
applicants.
I
would
urge
the
committee
to
vote
no.
Thank
you.
I
J
Much
of
what
I
had
to
say
has
already
been
said,
but
I
guess
I
would
say
that
the
promote
the
proposed
amendment
also
does
not
seem
to
fix
these
issues
but
added
in
a
whole
new
set
of
issues.
As
you
may
know,
when
the
medical
marijuana
licensing
program
was
established,
we
struggled
with
the
statutory
language
concerning
the
criteria
for
consideration
and
how
to
ensure
a
fair
and
equitable
equitable
application
process.
We
did
the
best
we
could,
but
there
are
still
some
nuances
in
the
statutory
language
that
make
it
a
difficult
process
for
applicants.
J
I
A
A
You're
good
okay,
so
we
will
go
to
closing
comments
for
the
presenters.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
really
appreciate
your
time
on
this
long
hearing
and
difficult
issue.
I
just
wanted
david
goldwater
for
the
record.
I
wanted
to
make
it
it's
no
surprise.
Much
of
the
opposition
that
you
heard
today
spoke
to
the
bill
and
not
the
amendment.
The
amendment
attempted
to
resolve
many
of
the
issues
that
opponents
pointed
out.
M
Lastly,
regarding
the
nevada,
dispensary
association,
I
too
am
a
board
member
of
the
dispensary
association.
Nobody
on
this
committee
is
a
stranger
to
internacing
battles
among
associations,
but
this
was
a
unique
case
where
the
association
took
a
position
on
a
bill
that
the
members
are
were
had
a
differing
of
opinion.