►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
C
All
right
so
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
do
the
work
session
first.
Mr
reel,
can
we
start
with
sb
440.
D
C
Bps
is
mr
real
okay,
so
fiscal
staff
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
start
with
work
session
and
then
we'll
hear
367..
So,
mr
reel,
I'm
going
to
start
with
sp440.
A
If
the
purchase
occurs
on
the
date
in
which
nevada
day
is
observed
or
the
immediately
following
saturday
and
sunday,
bill
also
revises
the
eligibility
requirements
for
the
current
exemption
that
is
authorized
for
members
of
the
nevada
national
guard
called
into
active
service
to
provide
that
this
exemption
is
available
to
these
members
and
certain
relatives.
If
the
member
has
been
called
in
active
duty
for
a
period
of
more
than
30
days
outside
of
the
united
states,
there
are
amendments
proposed.
C
Members
any
questions
on
the
work
session
document
senator
kikefor.
E
E
F
F
C
F
F
C
So
I
I
I
have
discussion
on
emotion.
I'm
gonna
support
the
measure,
but
I
I
did
want
a
lower
threshold
to
so
that
the
nexus
of
the
sales
tax
holiday
would
have
a
rational
relationship
to
the
public
policy
purpose
that
was
put
on
the
record
about
the
pandemic,
being
that
the
pandemic
was
in
2020
and
was,
and
there
were
several
comments
on
the
record
about
the
virus
and
its
relationship.
C
I
wanted
the
five
years,
but
I
deferred
to
what
the
governor
wanted,
but
I
but
I
feel
very
strongly
about
the
five
years,
and
so
I
will
vote
it
out
of
committee,
but
I
feel
like
the
adverse
impact
over
on
tax
is
significant
in
the
10
years
because
of
the
expanded
base
of
individuals
that
are
included
in
the
measure.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
will
take
secretary.
Will
you
the
roll
call
senator
dennis.
C
All
right,
mr
real
next
sb441.
A
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
again
for
the
record
joe
reel
deputy
fiscal
analyst
with
the
fiscal
analysis
division
next
bill
is
senate
bill
441.
This
bill
revises
provisions
governing
the
issuance
and
renewal
of
a
seller's
permit,
sponsored
by
the
committee
on
finance,
on
behalf
of
the
office
of
finance
in
the
office
of
the
governor
and
heard
on
may
13th.
A
This
bill
establishes
that
a
permit
issued
by
the
department
of
taxation
to
a
seller
or
tangible
personal
property
expires
on
december
31st
of
each
year.
Bill
authorizes
a
seller
who
has
been
issued
a
permit
to
renew
the
permit
by
filing
an
application
for
renewal
with
the
department
and
paying
an
annual
renewal
fee
of
five
dollars.
A
It
would
basically
restructure
the
provisions
such
that
the
provisions
for
the
15
annual
seller's
permit
fee
would
be
established
in
chapter
360
of
nrs,
rather
than
individually
within
nrs
chapters,
372
374
and
377,
and
we
will
also
establish
provisions
for
the
distribution
of
the
15
annual
permit
fee.
Such
the
five
dollars
would
be
distributed
to
the
general
fund,
based
on
the
current
distribution
of
the
sellers
permit
under
nrs
372.
A
dollars
would
be
distributed
to
the
state
education
fund,
based
on
the
current
distribution
of
the
seller's
fee
under
nrs,
chapter
374,
and
then
five
dollars
would
be
distributed
to
local
governments
based
on
the
current
distribution
of
the
basic
city,
county
relief
tax
under
nrs
377,
and
then
finally
would
establish
provisions.
That
would
not
require
the
ordinances
outfitted
under
nrs
377,
377a
and
377b
in
any
special
local
acts
to
include
provisions
that
require
the
payment
of
the
seller's
fee
to
the
department
of
taxation
within
those
ordinances
and
with
that
manager.
C
C
Second,
from
senator
ratty
any
discussion
on
the
motion:
senator
receivers,
cancer.
B
Thank
you,
ma'am
chair,
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
on
this,
I'm
you
know,
I
guess
I'm
not
sure
why
we're
raising
it.
I
understand
that
they
want
to
make
an
annual
instead
of
instead
of
like
a
one-time,
I
guess
part
of
it.
I
understand
the
rationale,
but
I
also
know
that
when
the
economic
forum
came
in,
they
came
in
with
a
lot
more
money
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
federal
money
coming,
so
I'm
just
going
to
be
a
no
for
now.
Thank
you.
F
C
F
Just
want
to
flag
for
everybody,
I'm
not
certain
if
this
is
a
budget
implementation
bill
or
not,
but
I
want
to
flag
that
it
may
be
because
we
referred
some
to
committees
before
we
had
our
experience
on
the
floor
yesterday.
So
I'm
just
going
to
take
a
look
and
just
want
to
flag
that
this
may
be
something
that
was
tied
to
a
prior
conversation
in
money
committees.
We'll
take
a
look,
it's
ringing
a
bell,
and
so
I
think
that
that
may
be
the
case.
I
yeah.
C
F
And
here's
what
I
will
say:
we've
had
tremendous
success
with
the
revised
economic
forum
being
able
to
add
back
a
lot
of
the
cuts
that
were
proposed
in
the
governor's
budget
from
the
first
budget
that
he
had
to
put
forward
during
a
pandemic
that
was
based
on
the
december
revenue.
We
have
not
had
sufficient
funds
to
add
everything
back,
so
some
of
the
things
that
were
done
to
balance
the
budget,
we're
going
to
need
in
place
need
to
keep
in
place.
F
So
I'm
happy
to
have
further
conversation
with
everybody
on
this,
but
I'm
99
certain
that
this
is
implementing
something
that
is
in
the
governor's
budget.
B
C
All
right,
thank
you,
senator
seaver's
cancer,
any
any
additional
discussion
on
the
motion.
Okay,
seeing
none
mr
secretary
to
the
roll
call.
C
All
right,
so
the
motion
carries.
I
will
assign
this
floor
statement
to
okay,
senator
ratty,
all
right,
okay.
So
then
I
will
turn.
C
C
So
I
will
go
ahead
and
start
the
opening
on
sb
367.,
so
this
bill
you've
seen
the
number
before,
but
this
was
a
revised
bill
that
we
brought
back
to
deal
with
the
issue
that
was
going
on
with
the
let
it
was
brought
to
our
attention
that
there
were
certain
entities
charging
a
reservation
fee
and
so
this
bill.
C
C
In
section
2,
it
then
replaces
the
language
that
was
struck
out
about
an
athletic
contest
and
then
adds
that
live
entertainment
is
provided
by
or
entire
that
live
entertainment
that
is
provided
by
or
entirely
for
the
benefit
of
a
governmental
entity
is
not
in
the
lat,
and
then
it
changes
the
effective
date
to
passage
upon
passage
and
approval,
so
the
governmental
entity
definition
it
came
to
our
our.
C
It
was
brought
to
our
attention
by
believe
it
was
gcb
gaming
control
board
that
governmental
entity
was
not
defined,
and
so
we
added
the
definition
that
was
now
an
nrs
372-325
to
apply
to
these
provisions
so
that,
if
there's
anything
that
is
being
done
by
a
government
entity
for
the
purpose
of
that
government
entity,
it
is
not
subject
to
the
led
and
then
further
define
that.
E
Thank
you,
mr
vice
chair.
Senator
dennis
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
all
right,
vice
versa,
so
thank
you
so
senator
can
I
can
we
start
with
the
governmental
entity
what
types
of
events
are
being
captured
by
events
live
entertainment
that
is
provided
by
or
entirely
for
the
benefit
of
a
governmental
entity.
C
Hard
time
envisioning,
thank
you
for
the
question
senator
kikefor,
because
these
these
are
the
events
that
are
excluded
from
the
led.
So,
for
example
like
in
clark
county,
we
have
jazz
that's
put
on
by
clark
county
and
there
may
be
a
ticket.
They
do
reggae
in
the
desert,
which
may
be
a
ticket,
but
the
funds
go
to
clark
county
they're,
not
necessarily
going
for
anyone
else's
benefit,
except
for
the
direct
benefit
to
the
government,
who
is
putting
on
a
live
entertainment
event,
but
they're
not
charged
to
let
it's
my
understanding,
they're
also.
C
So
that
is
a
really
good
question
because
I
know
it
says
political
subdivisions
of
the
state,
but
that
is
probably
a
question
for
mr
guindon
because
I
didn't
think
that
the
lvcba
was
a
governmental
entity
per
se
under
this
bill.
But,
mr
gandon,
can
you
add
some
context
or
director
young.
G
This
is,
I
can
attempt
to,
and
but
we
may
need
department.
Taxation
is
my
understanding
that
I
believe
the
lbcva
is
a
governmental
entity,
that's
funded
by
the
st
the
room
tax,
and
so
I
I
don't
know
what
live
entertainment
tax
they
would
be
putting
on,
but
if
they
would,
they
would
probably
be
out,
but
that's
possibly
an
answer
better
answered
by.
We
have
representatives
from
the
gaming
control
board
and
the
department
taxation
here,
but
senator
kiker,
as
senator
neil
was
saying
yeah
that
it
we
have.
E
Okay,
as
a
result
of
that
change
in
2015
did
we
did.
We
see
a
decline,
a
decline
in
revenue
or
anything
like
that,
or
do
you
think
we're
you
think
we're
going
to
capture
a
lot
that
we're
not
collecting
right
now,
or
I
say,
not
capture
a
lot
that
we
are
collecting
right
now
with
the
additional
government
back
in.
G
It's
hard
to
say
from
your
staff's
point
of
view,
because
clearly
we
know
there's
a
few
of
these
smaller
events,
but
the
than
the
rural
counties
that
are
being
sponsored
and
others,
but
who
we
did
pick
up
by
taking
them
out
in
2015.
I
don't
have
that
information
available
to
me.
G
It's
possible
that
the
department
of
taxation,
because
the
this
would
be
under
the
non-gaming
side,
more
of
the
tax
administered
by
the
department
taxation,
but
with
all
the
changes
that
were
made
in
2015,
it
would
have
been
hard
for
us
to
sort
out
any
gain
that
would
have
been
due
to
picking
up
governmental
entities
compared
to
the
other
changes
that
were
made
in
the
bill.
Because,
again
we
don't
get
information
on
the
events
we
just
get.
The
tax
that's
collected
reported
to
us.
E
Okay,
I
appreciate
that-
I
guess
just
finally
on
this
on
this
point
is:
is
the
language
that
we're
reinserting
sort
of
the
exact
duplicate
of
what
was
changed
in
15.
G
Senator
neil,
if
you'd
like
I
can
take
that
so
no,
it
is
not
senator
kepper.
The
effect
is
the
same,
but
the
structurally
it's
statutorily
a
little
different
that
you
can
see,
as
senator
neal
pointed
out,
we're
adding
the
new
paragraph
p
on
page
five
to
the
list
of
things
that
are
not
deemed
to
be
included
in
the
live
entertainment
tax
prior
to
2015.
This
comes
out
of
the
when
the
bill
was
when
the
live
entertainment
tax
was
originally
created
in
the
2003
special
session
that
you
can.
G
It
still
actually
exists
in
chapter
368a,
there's
a
definition
of
business
entity
and
the
business
entity
term
says
it
does
not
include
a
governmental
entity
and
then
that
term
governmental
and
business
entity
was
utilized
in
in
section
368.200,
which
is
where
the
nine
percent
tax
is
actually
being
attached
to
live
entertainment,
and
so
what
we
believe
is
in
2015
that
when
the
changes
were
being
made
in
senator
liparelli's
bill,
I
believe
was
sb
266
in
the
2015
session.
G
The
phrasing
and
the
term
business
entity
was
inadvertently
taken
out
of
368
a
200
which
then
left
taxation.
The
position
of
the
the
exemption
for
governmental
entities
was
removed
because
of
the
removal
of
the
term
business
entity
from
368
a
200..
So
thus,
as
we
talked
through
this,
your
fiscal
staff
and
legal
staff,
the
decision
was
made
to
statutory
to
construct
it
this
way,
because
we
think
it
makes
it
much
clearer
where
the
definition
is
for
a
governmental
entity
in
the
statute
and
potentially
avoid
an
inadvertent
striking
of
it.
D
No,
do
you.
E
B
C
Yes,
so
the
original
three
six
seven
had
that
struck
out,
and
so
we
were
replacing
it.
B
One
so
when
someone
makes
a
reservation
and
they
pay
to
make
a
reservation,
they
don't
necessarily
get
a
ticket,
and
I
don't
know
if
all
reservation
funds
are
refunded
after
that.
So
if
you
have
to
pay
fifty
dollars
to
make
a
reservation
and
then
when
the
time
for
ticketing
comes
up,
you
aren't
able
to
get
a
ticket
so
and
I'm
just
not
quite
sure
if
how
that
works,
because
I
know
I've
signed
up
safer
like
an
event
more
more
like
an
athletic
event
and
you
have
to
go
into
a
lottery.
B
C
So
senator
dina
neal
for
the
record,
so
this
particular
situation
was
or
what's
going
on,
or
what
we're
trying
to
prevent
currently
and
in
the
future
is
that
they
are
establishing
a
reservation
to
go
in
and
buy
a
ticket,
and
that
reservation
is
holding
your
place
in
line,
and
so
the
rationale
here
was
that
you're
gonna
charge
twenty
five
hundred
dollars
to
get
in
line
to
then
buy
the
ticket.
C
But
that
is
being
seen
as
an
actual
admission
charge,
and
so
we
had
dealt
with
this
well,
not
well
something
similar
to
this,
where
you
would
then
have
a
fifty
dollar
ticket
and
then
have
maybe
a
five
500
fee
that
then
attached
to
it.
So
then
you
could
go
and
get
that
ticket.
So
those
two
things
are:
the
idea
is
that
you're
still
you're
still
charging
that
individual
to
get
to
that
event,
even
if
they
don't
get
access
to
that
ticket.
C
It's
still
in
a
price
of
admission,
and
so
I
it's
concerning,
because
if
the
individuals
were
not
trying
to
use
it
or
the
company
was
not
trying
to
use
it
to
then
get
gain
access,
then
it
might
be
different.
But
they
are
setting
it
up
and
in
this
case,
for
the
the
issue
that
we
ran,
into
which
I
might
as
well
just
put
on
the
record.
It
was
an
issue
with
burning
man.
C
It's
non-refundable
so
they're
charging
you
2
500
to
just
be
in
the
pool
to
get
in
line
to
then
go
and
buy
this
ticket
and
in
the
view
of
department,
this
is
a
taxable
event
for
led
number
one,
because
the
amount
I
think
that
amount
triggered
a
whole
lot
of
conversation
and
whether
or
not
this
was
a
price
of
admission,
because
technically
it
is.
B
G
G
Sorry,
senator
neil
I
apologize
for
having
to
do
this
live
since
you
don't
have
your
laptop
there.
We
can't
I
am,
but
I
think
we
can
possibly
have.
We
have
melanie
young,
the
executive
director,
and
so
it's
your
staff.
We're
looking
at
this
is
that
you're
adding
clarification
to
the
definition
of
admission
charge.
G
Thus,
the
department
of
taxation,
the
gaming
control
board,
would
administer
payments
made
and
the
tax
collected
as
admissions
charges
and
the
tax
collected
on
admission
charges
as
they
would
any
other
mission
charges,
but
I
think
perhaps
melanie
young,
as
the
executive
director
of
taxation,
might
be
able
to
provide
the
response
to
the
specific
question
that
senator
receivers
ganchard
is
asking
if
you're,
okay
with
allowing
that.
H
Young
good
afternoon,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
taxation
to
senator
sivers
cancer.
Your
question,
if
I
can
restate
the
question
to
make
sure
I
have
it
correctly,
if
a
person
is
paying
a
reservation
but
does
not
actually
purchase
the
ticket,
will
the
led
tax
be
refunded
and
the
way
the
department
of
taxation
looks
as
that
is.
If
the
reservation
charge
is
non-refundable,
then
lat
would
not
be
front
refunded
pursuant
to
nac
368.170
subsection
4..
B
B
You
have
to
pay
a
hundred
dollars
to
get
into
the
lottery,
but
you
may
or
may
not
prevail
and,
and
those
are
usually
non-refundable
too
so
so
what
happens
with
with
that
and
those
are
typically
the
ones
I've
seen
are
out
of
state,
but
they
do
charge
you
a
fee
to
get
into
the
lottery
and
then
the
I
mean
the
odds.
Are
you
aren't
going
to
get
it,
but
so
what
happens
with
something
like
that?.
H
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record
to
senator
sivers
cancer's
question.
It
would
be
the
the
same
answer
if
that
refunded,
if
that
reservation
fee
to
get
into
the
event,
is
non-refundable,
the
department
would
look
at
that
the
same
way.
Okay,
thank
you.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
I'm
not
necessarily
seeing
this
as
a
clarification.
I
I
see
this
as
a
change
or
an
addition
to
what
we
are
considering
an
admission
charge.
So
maybe
you
could
indicate.
Are
there
other
systems
or
other
reservation
systems,
or
you
know,
seat
privileges
or
whatever?
It
might
be
that
you
currently
tax-
and
this
is
really
just
clarifying
in
statute
and
you're,
already
applying
this
tax
in
other
areas
like
this.
H
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record
to
senator
keith
keffer's
question
the
way
we're
looking
at
this
is
in
the
language
of
nrs
3688.020
under
subsection
4.
H
It
expressly
excludes
licenses
or
rental
fees
unless
any
other
fee.
That's
not
expressly
excluded
from
the
statute.
We
would
fall
under
subsection
2
of
that
statute
and,
as
a
result,
we
would
find
that
the
reservation
fee
is
currently
taxable
and
that
the
language
in
sp
267
is
just
clarifying
the
language
and
to
explain
a
little
bit
further.
E
E
H
So,
thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
question
from
senator
keith
keffer.
If
back
into
the
previous
answer
to
the
question,
if
it's
not
expressly
identified
as
an
exemption,
then
we
would
have
it
fall
under
that
subsection
to
where
it
would
be
included.
E
So
if,
if
and
I'll
use
an
example,
I
used
with
ms
neal
earlier
right,
if
there's
a,
if
there's
a
section
in
the
smith
center
right,
that
requires
you
to
be
a
sponsor
in
order
to
buy
tickets
to
the
event.
And
so
you
have
to
pay
you,
you
have
to
be
a
25
000
member.
In
order
to
access
those
tickets.
Is
that
25
000
taxable
under
the
led.
H
C
Senator
dean
o'neill
for
the
record,
so
I
I
he
dr
director
young,
said
senator
kiker
asked
me
this
earlier
and
I
took
it
as
if
there
was
someone
who
was
a
donor
right,
which
means
that
it's
act
they're,
acting
in
the
role
of
kind
of
that
complimentary
or
they're
doing
a
donation
in
order
to
gain
access
that
it's.
This
is
entirely
different
circumstance
to
to
donate,
to
be
a
part
of
versus.
I
am
paying
a
fee
to
then
attend
because
I
think
a
donation
and
a
fee.
C
I
think
we
have
defined
them
differently
within
statute,
and
then
I
also
saw
the
a
similar
connection
when
you
look
at
the
the
in
section,
the
36368a
0.20,
when
we're
talking
about
the
fee
that
someone
may
charge
in
order
to
get
a
box
seat
whether
or
not
if
there's
a
if
someone
pays
and
it's
a
donation,
how
that's
treated
within
the
non-profit
framework
that
that
would
be
excluded.
C
But
you
know
we
can
let
brian
fernley
talk
about
it,
because
I
I
think
I
think,
when
we
look
at
those
definitions,
an
entertainment
be
a
cover
charge,
a
required
minimum
purchase
for
food
beverages
or
merchandise,
or
membership
fee
or
service
charge,
or
any
fee.
That's
paid
to
reserve
or
guarantee
the
right
to
pay
at
the
same
time
or
in
the
future
is
very
different
than
a
donation
which
is
gratuitous
to
me
for
the
person
who
receives
the
benefit.
It
is
not
for
them,
it
is
for
the
benefit
of
someone
else.
C
So
that's
how
I
interpreted
it.
So
when
I
answered
senator
keith
keffer
earlier,
I
made
the
distinction,
though,.
D
Okay,
before
we
go
to
mr
fernley,
I
believe
that
senator
ganstern
has
a
question.
B
I
mean
just
a
follow-up,
so
thank
you
senator
dennis.
So
I
was
thinking
about
you
know
the
u.s
tax
law
changed
around.
What's
a
charitable
donation
versus
a
fee
for
access,
and
so
when
you,
when
you
look
at-
and
I
know
we-
I
don't
think
we
covered
in
here
but
but
like
athletic
events.
B
So
if
you
have
season
tickets
for
football
games
at
one
of
the
universities,
it
used
to
be
a
donation
to
get
into
the
category
to
get
certain
types
of
tickets
and
then
they
basically
just
made
it
a
fee
because
those
aren't
tax
deductible
anymore.
So
I
don't
know
what
else
is
out
there,
like
charitable
organizations
where
you
actually
pay
pay
money
or
non-profits
I'll,
say
you,
you
pay
money
to
get
access,
but
it's
it's
not
a
charitable
donation.
C
I
think
director
young.
Can
you
speak
to
that,
because
I
think
we
we
had
that
conversation
not
not
this
month,
but
when
we
were
talking
about
like
box
seats
and
the
different
things
they
charge
for
sporting
events
and
how
folks
are
getting
access.
So
how
is
that
currently
being
treated
now?
Because
we
we
currently
have
that
activity
going
on
now,
where
somebody
will
get
a
box
seat
at
nascar
or
somewhere
else,
and
they
pay
extra
money
in
order
to
have
that
box
or
luxury
advantage.
B
C
So
I
think,
but
director
young,
because
I
think
the
rule
applies
to
both
but
because
I
think
it
came
up
in
2015
but
director
young.
Can
you
speak
to
that.
H
Thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
to
senator
sivers
cancer's
question.
I
would
have
to
look
into
the
interest,
but
I
believe
there
is
a
specific
exemption
named
for
box
seats
and
that
is
found
in
our
expenditure
report
and
identified
specifically
as
as
an
exemption
to
lit.
C
So
senator
I
could
have
stepped
that
up,
so
senator
neil
for
the
record
is
that
in
that
exemption
step,
four,
where
it
says
acceptance
otherwise
provided
in
subsection.
This
term
does
not
include
the
license
or
rental
fees
for
luxury
suites
boxes
or
similar
products
at
facilities
with
a
maximum
occupancy
of
at
least
7
500
persons.
Or
is
that
speaking
to
something
else?
C
Because
that's
in
sub
4
on
in
section
1
right
before
you
get
to
step
two?
Because
I
thought
that
that
that
spoke
to
those
events
or
things
that
could
be
going
on
where
they
could
be.
It
could
be
a
non-profit,
that's
doing
it
or
it
could
be.
But
we
had
that
specific
exemption
has
been
in
play
for
a
really
long
time.
C
H
H
B
D
Before
that,
so.
B
So
my
question
yeah,
my
question
was
even
it
was
broader,
so
say
that
you
wanted
to
get
good
seats
to
a
basketball
game
at
unlv
and
they're
they're,
not
box
seats,
they're
they're,
you
know
mid-court
lower
seats
and
the
venue
that
they're
in
is
over
7
500
people,
but
you
to
get
access
to
those.
You
actually
pay
a
fee.
It
used
to
be
taxable
tax
deductible,
but
it's
not
anymore
because
the
u.s
tax
code
changed.
B
So
it's
actually
a
fee
for
access
to
tickets
near
the
floor
in
a
in
a
basketball
arena
or
a
football
stadium,
or
something
like
that
and
I'm
reading
through
this
and
and
I
think,
with
the
change
from
5
000
7,
500
you're
still
picking
all
those
up.
So
I
I'm
not
sure
and
again
it
used
to
be
tax
deductible
contribution,
but
now
they're
fees,
because
the
tax
code
changed.
I
believe.
C
So
I
I
think
well
in
your
dean,
senator
dean
o'neill
for
the
record
for
an
example.
So
if
you
go
to
sub
2
well,
section
2
sub
4,
where
the
tax
imposed
by
section
1
does
not
apply
to
that,
had
the
athletic
contest
or
exhibition
provided
by
institution
of
inchi
or
students,
etc.
So
there
it
was
my
understanding
that
athletic
contests
period,
whether
or
not
they
were
amateur
or
professional,
were
not
in
nor
were
they
a
part
of
the
led
scheme
because
of
the
sub
4,
where
it
said
the
attacks
imposed
by.
C
Let
does
not
apply
to
those
exclusions
which
are
listed
in
section
2,
sub
4,
a
b
c
and
d,
and
then
it
goes
on
so
on
and
so
forth.
C
D
H
So,
thank
you,
melanie
young
executive
director
for
the
record,
and
they
might
have
to
defer
to
shelly
hughes
on
some
of
these
as
it's
it's
getting
into
some
areas
where
I
would
need
to
bring
in
legal
counsel
on
some
of
these
questions.
If
that's
all
right.
D
I
Shelly
hughes
for
the
record:
yes,
it
would
be
if
it's
more
than
75
100,
it
would
be
considered
a
fee.
We
do
have
a
regulation,
it's
an
ac368a.143.
I
That
discusses
the
computation
of
the
tax,
and
so
it
does
indicate
there
that
when,
when
they're
you're
buying
a
luxury
suite
or
box,
it
would
be
for
the
lowest
price
admission
charge.
So
usually
those
box
seeds
are
bought
in
a
with
a
bolt
charge.
So
I
hope
that
answers
the
question.
D
I
I
think
the
question
that
was
had
to
do
with,
if
you're
at
a
unlv
basketball
game
and
you
pay
a
fee
to
get
seats
that
are
closer
to
the
floor.
That's
an
arena,
that's
more
than
7
500!
I
Right,
shelly
hughes
for
the
record.
Yes,
we
would.
We
would
see
that
as
a
fee
that
would
be
taxable.
I
I
would
have
to
defer
to
our
deputy
director
of
compliance,
terry
upton.
She
is
on
the
phone
she
oversees
our
compliance,
but
I
would
assume
that
it
is
being
done.
D
E
For
example,
I
like
to
buy
tickets
to
broadway
goes
you
know
and
or
whatever
it
is
at
the
pioneer
center
right
say
they
have
like
a
platinum
club
or
something
like
that,
and
in
order
to
get
seats
for
the
for
the
season
or
something
like
that,
I
have
to
pay
a
sort
of
surcharge
or
whatever
it
is
up
front
in
order
to
be
at
to
be
able
to
access
seats
in
a
certain
area.
Maybe
it's
just
so
it's
not
a
donation.
It's
a
fee
that
gets
charged
those
sorts
of
things
happen
now.
I
Shelly
he's
for
the
record:
I'm
not
positive
about
that
either.
I
would
have
to
talk
with
our
staff
to
see
how
how
that
is
taxed
and
we
we
do
for
for
taxpayers
out
there
that
do
have
questions
such
as
that
we
do
have
an
advisory
opinion
process
and
they
can
write
in
and
to
find
out
if
their
those
types
of
fees
are
taxable
and
we
do
address
those
in
writing
and
those
writings
are
binding
on
on
the
department.
I
C
So
miss
senator
dina
neal
for
the
record,
so
miss
upton.
Can
you
address
that?
Because
when
I
look
at
section
1
sub
3
b,
which
was
the
charge
for
the
right?
Because
it
says
the
term
does
not
include
the
charge
for
the
right
or
privilege
of
entering
or
having
access
to
a
particular
portion
within
the
facility
that
is,
in
addition
to
the
charge
described
in
subsection
one
or
two
without
limitation,
a
charge
for
food
beverage.
Access
to
table
seats
particular
areas
near
a
swimming
pool.
D
Could
you
address
that.
J
Yes,
I'm
sorry
for,
for
some
reason
I
cannot
start
my
video,
but
I
don't
have
any
specific
situation
where
I
know
that
that
has
occurred,
but
from
the
viewpoint
of
an
auditor
this
would
be
exempted
from
statute,
especially
if
it
were
any
kind
of
athletic
event
from
an
elementary
school
or
a
or
a
high
school
or
higher
education,
because
those
are
specifically
exempted
within
that
statute
and
if
they
are
buying
or
purchasing
access
to
a
cabana
or
a
box,
or
anything
like
that.
C
So
senator
dean
and
neal
for
the
record
miss
upton
can
can
you
refer
to
the
existing
language
on
the
exclusions,
which
is
in
section
one
sub
three
a
b
one
and
two,
because
I
think
those
those
speak
to
the
latter
question.
J
That
is
yes,
thank
you,
terry
upton,
deputy
director
for
the
department,
nrs
368,
a
.200,
the
sub
section,
four,
the
live
entertainment
is
on
for
athletic
is
a
and
b
and
c,
and
for
the
box
seating
that
would
be.
J
C
Senator
dean
o'neill
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
ms
upton,
but
I
was
referring
to
the
term
not
including
the
value
of
admission
to
the
facility
and
that
charge,
which
is
three
sub
three
b
charge
for
the
right
or
privileges
of
entering
and
then
without
limitation,
a
charge
for
the
food
beverages
or
access
to
tables,
seats,
lounges
chairs
or
particular
areas
near
a
swimming
pool,
because
I
think
the
example
by
senator
kikever
kind
of
fit
into
that
kind
of
scenario,
because
you
may
pay
extra
to
get
a
cabana
to
be
closer
to
the
pool.
J
Yes,
thank
you,
terry
upton,
deputy
director,
for
the
record.
My
apologies.
I
misunderstood,
you
are
correct.
That's
what
we
would
look
at
is
that
they
are
gaining
access
to
be
closer
to
the
event.
It
is
in
statute.
C
D
E
Think
we
strike
it
from
the
record,
though
yeah
right
I
just
I'm
having.
I
think,
I'm
having
a
hard
time
recognizing
this,
as
as
simple
clarification,
I
think
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do,
but
I
I
think
that
even
you
know
based
on
the
fact
that
we're
adding
this
new
category
to
section
one
subsection,
two
of
368
a
2020,
I
think
I
think
it
indicates
that
we're
doing
something
new
and
I
think
that's
just
I
think,
that's
a
policy
choice.
I
don't
I
don't.
D
Okay,
I'm
not
hearing
any
other
questions.
Let's
go
to
those
that
wish
to
give
testimony
and
support
anyone
wishing
to
get
testimony
support
come
forward.
We
don't
have
anyone
here.
So
let's
go
to
the
lines
bps.
Is
there
anyone
online
that
wish
to
give
comment
and
support
our
testimony
and
support?
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Senator
dennis
the
lines
are
open
and
working.
However,
there
are
no
callers
to
testify
in
support
of
sb367
at
this
time.
Okay,
let's
go
to
those
in
opposition.
Anyone
wishing
to
give
testimony
in
opposition
here
or
no
one's
here.
D
K
K
D
K
H
K
Burning
man
project
is
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
on
sb367
bring
that
project
is
strenuously
opposed
to
the
proposed
amendment
that
may
have
significant
impacts
on
our
event.
There
is
a
perception,
maybe
that
a
recent
effort
to
raise
programmatic
funds
through
a
fundraising
campaign
would
apply
to
the
state's
ongoing
effort
to
generate
revenue.
K
From
specific
events,
you
will
see
this
campaign
simply
gave
interested
individuals
the
opportunity
to
get
access
to
buy
a
ticket
to
a
future
burning
man
event.
This
can
be
viewed
as
a
contribution
to
the
nonprofit's
programming,
just
as
one
might
contribute
to
the
nra,
sierra
club
or
nevada
museum
of
art.
It's
an
opportunity
to
buy
a
ticket
and
that
opportunity
can
be
waived
if
they
choose
not
to
attend.
Let
me
share
more.
Like
so
many
in-person
event,
producers
burning
man
has
been
hard
hit
by
the
pandemic.
K
As
a
non-profit
organization,
we
have
weathered
the
storm
in
large
part
by
the
generosity
of
our
community
to
help
bring
back
nevada's
outdoor
events.
We
initiated
an
advisory
group
consisting
of
large-scale
outdoor
event,
producers,
regulators
and
health
officials,
and
we
consulted
with
governor
sistel
x,
cover
19
task
force.
We
received
bipartisan
support
from
the
nevada
delegation
for
this
work,
we're
proud
to
be
a
part
of
nevada
and
would
like
to
remain
so
into
the
future,
and
yet
burning
man
project
is
different
from
any
other
organization.
K
Unlike
sports
teams
and
long-running
show
producers,
we
have
one
primary
gathering
one
time
per
year,
while
actual
cities
throughout
the
state
may
be
reopening
this
summer.
Black
rock
city
remains
shuttered,
however,
we're
working
hard
to
get
our
organization
to
the
moment
when
we
can
sell
tickets
for
2022
sb
367,
potentially
impacts
burning
man
by
purporting
to
tax
the
monies
paid
to
support
the
programs
of
the
nonprofit,
while
also
reserving
a
place
in
line
to
purchase
a
ticket
in
2022
or
2023..
K
Reservation
holders
may
ultimately
choose
not
to
purchase
the
ticket
to
the
actual
event.
These
registrants
may
be
entitled
to
tax
deductions,
depending
on
whether
they
ultimately
purchase
a
ticket
or
whether
they
donate
in
excess
of
the
reservation
amount
to
levy
attacks
on
a
reservation
where
actual
purchase
of
an
event
ticket
is
not
guaranteed
does
not
make
sense.
The
led
will
be
paid
in
full,
as
always,
if
and
when
the
individual
buys
an
actual
ticket
to
blackrock
city.
But
the
reservation
is
an
opportunity
to
purchase
a
ticket
to
a
future
event.
K
How
will
the
state
allocate
the
tax
on
a
reservation
when
it
is
impossible
to
determine
which
year
the
ticket
would
be
for
or
whether
a
ticket
will
even
be
purchased?
They
could
be
paying
a
tax
without
ever
purchasing
a
ticket
to
an
event
in
the
state.
An
opportunity
to
possibly
attend
an
event
is
not
the
same
as
attendance
at
an
event.
D
I
can
pick
up,
it
looks
like
I'll
go
ahead.
Yeah
we
lost
you
again
yeah,
you
want
to
pick
up
from
there
and
then
just,
but
you
need
to
identify
yourself
for
the
record.
K
Marnie
benson
burning
man
project
for
the
record.
I'm
almost
done
and
I
will
just
go
back
a
little
bit
because
you
lost
me
there.
The
live,
entertainment
tax
will
be
paid
in
full,
as
always,
if
and
when
the
individual
buys
an
actual
ticket
to
blackrock
city.
But
the
reservation
is
an
opportunity
to
purchase
a
ticket
to
a
future
event.
How
will
the
state
allocate
the
tax.
K
Paying
a
tax
without
ever
purchasing
a
ticket
to
an
event
in
the
state,
an
opportunity
to
possibly
attend
an
event
is
not
attendance
at
an
event.
This
is
a
unique
fix
for
burning
man
project
to
help
bridge
the
gap
of
two
years
without
an
event,
a
scenario
that
has
never
happened
before
and
likely
will
not.
K
Would
have
yielded
very
little
money,
a
drop
in
the
bucket
for
state
budgets,
but
a
crippling
amount
for
our
nonprofit.
That
brings
more
than
75
million
dollars
in
revenue
to
nevada
each
year
as
burning
man.
Project
is
no
longer
making
these
reservations
available.
The
program
has
run
its
course,
so
the
passage
of
this
bill
would
likely
bring
no
additional
revenue
to
the
state
from
burning
man.
It
would,
however,
be
an
unfortunate
commentary
on
nevada's
support
for
burning
man.
We
thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration
and
urge
you
to
vote
no
on
sb
367's
amendment.
D
Thank
you.
Okay.
Let's
go
to
the
next
person
on
zoom.
Do
you
have
additional
comment,
or
were
you
just
there's
backup?
I
was
just
here's
backup,
no
additional
comment
at
this
time.
For
me,
ruben
allen,
great!
Thank
you!
Okay,
let's
go
then
to
I
don't
think
we
have
anybody
else
on
zoom,
let's
go
to
phones
bps.
If
the
next
person
in
opposition.
D
D
Thank
you,
senator
dennis
no
callers
wish
to
voice
opposition
at
this
time.
Okay,
thank
you.
I
just
need
one
clarification.
I
think
the
comment
because
she
was
cutting
in
and
out
she
made
the
comment
that
the
something
about
the
fee.
Having
run
its
course,
does
that
mean
you're?
Not
that
was
just
the
temporary
thing
you
were
doing
and
you're
not
doing
that
in
the
future.
K
D
Okay,
thank
you
all
right.
Let's
go
then
to
testimony
for
those
in
in
neutral
anyone
wishing
to
get
testimony
in
neutral.
Don't
have
anyone
in
the
room.
I
don't
think
anybody's
on
zoom
about
on
online
on
the
phones.
D
L
Good
afternoon
chris
bailey
d-a-l-y
nevada
state
education,
association
speaking
in
neutral
on
fb
367.
On
the
amendment,
however,
nsca
has
previously
taken
a
position
in
support
of
sb
367
as
introduced.
D
D
All
right.
We
have
want
to
come
up
and
get
some
closing
comments.
C
Okay,
thank
you,
senator
dean
o'neill
for
the
record.
I
think
it's
super
super
important
to
understand
that,
although
I
use
the
burning
man
example,
the
the
policy
change
to
expand
the
admissions
charge
language
because
I
do
see
it
as
an
expansion-
is
to
make
sure
that
indiv
that
companies
or
entities
that
want
to
engage
in
this
behavior
in
the
future
that
the
state
is
taking
the
public
policy
position
that
that
we
want
this
to
be
included
in
the
led.
C
But
yet
the
led
will
only
attach
to
the
25
and
not
the
475,
that
that
is
not
the
envision
policy
of
the
the
state,
and
we
would
want
that
to
be
included
in
the
led,
because
it
seems
it
seems
odd
to
to
allow
that
tax
behavior
to
occur,
where
you
only
want
the
led
to
be
charged
to
a
lesser
amount
versus
a
higher
amount,
and
so
the
reservation
which,
which
is
giving
you
access.
It
is
in
admissions
because
they
are
trying
to
pay
something
for
the
right
to
purchase
a
ticket.
C
So
if
any
other
entity
minus
burning
man
chose
to
do
this,
it
is
of
the
opinion
of
the
tax
department
that
or
really
me
that
that
the
led
should
be
should
be
applied
to
the
actual
reserve
charge,
because
it
is
giving
them
access
to
the
event
and
therefore
admissions
in
this
particular
situation.
And
I
was
listening
to
the
testimony.
C
We
had
went
to
the
burning
man
site
and
it
was
non-refundable
and
non-transferable,
and
so
that
means
that
it
was
not
anything
that
could
be
given
to
someone
else.
It
was
literally
somewhat
some
a
fee
that
was
then
reserved
for
that
individual
to
be
used
and
could
not
be
transferred
to
another
person.
I
clearly,
I
guess
it's
been
taken
down
off
of
their
website,
but
we
did
check
that
like
three
hours
ago.
So
those
are
my
closing
comments.
It's
it's
an
expansion.
I
I
understand
that
it's
not
a
clarification.
C
D
C
Okay,
so
sb
367
is.
C
All
right,
so
we
will
so
that
finishes
our
business
for
today
and
then
we
will
go
ahead
and
adjourn
senate
revenue.
D
L
L
As
you
know,
our
own
funding
commission
has
recommended
increasing
education
by
two
billion
dollars
a
year
for
us
to
reach
an
adequate
funding
level
to
get
us
near
the
national
average.
This
increase,
while
very
much
appreciated,
is
only
about
12
percent
of
the
recommended
amount.
So
we
need
to
continue
to
invest
more
in
education
system.
L
Reaching
the
school
will
not
happen
overnight,
but
we
have
a
great
opportunity
to
move
us
even
more
forward
by
passing
ajr
one
and
allowing
nevadans
to
vote
on
whether
they
feel
an
increase
in
the
money
tax
is
appropriate
to
help
fund
education,
health
care
and
other
government
agencies.
Lawmakers
should
be
applauded
for
their
current
push
to
protect
the
voting
rights
of
nevadans,
so
it
makes
sense
that
lawmakers
would
be
considering
taking
the
opportunity
away
from
nevadans
to
vote
on
mining
taxes.
L
If
democrats,
republicans
and
independents
don't
want
to
increase
the
money
tax,
then
they
can
vote
no.
That
should
be
our
decision
as
tax-paying
citizens.
Lawmakers
are
elected
public
servants
whose
job
it
is
to
carry
out
the
will
of
their
constituents.
So
please
let
your
constituents
priorities
be
heard
by
letting
us
vote
on
ajr1
educators,
their
families,
community
supporters
of
education
are
watching
closely.
So
it's
important
that
lawmakers
on
both
sides
of
the
aisle
stay
true
to
their
promises
to
support
our
education
system.
L
Education
organizations
will
continue
to
be
active
in
bringing
awareness
to
the
dire
issues
plaguing
our
public
education
system.
We
will
take
to
the
streets
organize
and
use
all
communication
outlets
to
get
our
message
out
there,
because
the
community
needs
to
know
the
realities
facing
our
education
system
and,
as
they
do
lawmakers,
who
continue
the
status
quo
of
underfunding.
Our
education
system
will
feel
more
and
more
pressure
from
their
constituents.
The
imagines
are
done,
allowing
our
public
education
system
to
fail.
This
issue
is
too
important.
L
D
I
For
the
record,
my
name
is
susan,
kaiser
k-a-I-s-e-r
and
I'm
a
national
board
certified
educator
health
and
human
services.
Staffing
ratios
of
300
patients
to
one
psychiatrist
is
alarmingly
below
what
would
really
help
nevadans
who
need
this
critical
service.
Our
state
parks
are
not
staffed
adequately
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
increasing
numbers
of
users.
I
I
I
I'm
asking
you
to
create
a
consistent
long-term
revenue
stream,
which
will
provide
funding
to
fill
the
gap
in
all
our
public
services,
those
industries
who
have
grown
and
flourished,
such
as
real
estate,
development,
mining
and
other
services
and
events.
They
could
surely
pay
a
greater
share
of
this
burden
to
improve
the
economy
for
all.
Just
because
I
can
teach
13
different
science
concepts
using
dried
beans
doesn't
mean
that
I
should
have
to
I'm
asking
you
to
invest
in
nevada
and
show
it
by
increasing
state
revenues.
Please
support
ajr1.