Location:Legislative Building,



PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA Name of Organization: TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON FUTURE STATE REVENUESDate and Time:November 29, 2016, 1:00pm Location:Legislative Building, 401 S. Carson St., Room 3137Carson City, NevadaVideo Conference Location: Grant Sawyer State Office Building555 E. Washington Avenue, Room 4412Las Vegas, Nevada 89101MINUTES Call To Order/ Roll Call Members:Bill AndersonJames R. WellsMark KrmpoticCindy JonesVic ReddingJeff HardcastleJohn ShermanOthers Present:Russell Guindon, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Fiscal DivisionSusanna Powers, Governor’s Finance Office, Budget OfficeJeremy Hayes, Department of TaxationJeff Mitchell, Department of TaxationPublic Comment ( No action may be taken upon a matter raised under public comment period unless the matter itself has been specifically include on an agenda as an action item)There was no public comment. Approval of the November 1, 2016, Minutes (For possible action)Mr. James Wells made a motion to approveal the November 1, 2016 minutes as written. Mr. Jeff Hardcastle seconded the motion. Mr. John Sherman abstained from the vote as he was not present at the meeting. The motion was passed unanimously.Review and approval of revenue forecasts for selected General Fund sources for presentation to the Economic Forum at their December 6, 2016, meeting (For possible action)Mr. Guindon detailed the 12 revenue streams noted in the revenue forecasts for selected General Fund sources for presentation to the Economic Forum at their December 6, 2016 Meeting. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Guindon to re-explain the Governmental Services Tax and asked if it would end up getting zeroed out. Mr. Guindon further explained that under the law that was approved during the 2015 Session, effective this Fiscal Yyear, it is a 50/50 split for every dollar of GST of the portion that comes from the 10% change in the depreciation factors that was completed approved in the 2009 Session. He adds, effective July 1, 2017, beginning FY 2018, 100% of the proceeds go to the Highway Fund under current law. This body, just like the Economic Forum, is required to prepare a forecast under current law. Mr. Krmpotic asked, with respect to Budget’s forecast, for an explanation regarding the downward adjustment of the Business License Fee. According to the difference sheet, Table 3 – Difference Sheet, Budget revised their forecast downward for the Business License Fee in FY ’17 by approximately $2.8 million, $1.4 million in FY ’18 and about the same amount in FY ’19. Ms. Powers with the Governor’s Finance Office noted that she was aware that it is cheaper for corporations to incorporate in Wyoming instead of Nevada and was trying to understand why the year-to-date data was weaker than forecasted. After discovering this, she reconsidered her forecast and that resulted in the downward revision. Mr. Guindon noted that this is one that was also affected by the actions of the 2015 Legislature and approved by the Governor. It was a $200 fee for all types of business entities, then effective July 1, 2015, it’s a $200 fee for all entities except corporations. Corporation fees went up to $500. He addeds that staff from the Budget Office, as well as Fiscal, are monitoring this to see what is going on, as Ms. Powers wondered if Nevada has possibly priced itself out with the $500 license fee on corporations because it is cheaper to incorporate in another state. The other point is an entity could decide to stay in Nevada and change from a corporation to an LLC. Mr. Guindon continued, stating that they still get the $200 fee but what they do not know is how many people switched from a corporation to an LLC or. t They either decided not to incorporate in Nevada or decided to leave. He pointed this out as the reference behind what Ms. Powers was discussing discussion about getting a handle on what is going on with this revenue source given that they are still annualizing against the tax changes even though they have a few months in FY ’17 compared to FY ’16. Mr. Krmpotic moved to the second revenue source- Live Entertainment – Non-Gaming. He addeds that in this case the adjustment from the Budget Division increases this revenue source for each of the three fiscal years, while in the first year of the Fiscal forecast it decreases by about $200,000. The Agency and Fiscal forecast decreases in the subsequent two years in FY 2018 and 2019. Mr. Krmpotic asked for further explanation of that adjustment. Ms. Powers stateds that she made a year-to-date adjustment on that revenue. The latest month of revenue came in much higher than forecasted, so it was just across the board revision. Mr. Guindon noted that in regard to Fiscal, it is the same thing- they have the last month, but over forecasted - this is one of the taxes that was affected by 2015 Legislationlegislation. He addeds that it is probably one that had the most substantial impact because they it went from a tax on admissions f 10% on emissions plus 10% on food and beverage. If He explained if you are under a certain C-threshold there’s and 5% tax ademissions, but there is no tax 5% on food and beverage if you are above a C-threshold. Then itthey went to a flat 9% and took food and beverage are out. He noteds that that is a pretty substantive change to a tax structure. This was effective October 1st and there has yet to be any observation year-over-year on this tax to know what is going on. Mr. Hayes noted, similar to what Mr. Guindon stated, that his previous forecast was over-forecasted as well and that it was revised down and that is what is seen in the sheets. Mr. Krmpotic asked for clarification on the Agency forecast or the Agency adjustment for Short Term Car Rental Tax, where the Agency’s adjustment in FY ’18 decreases by $2.5 million approximately and- a downward adjustment of approximately $4.8 million in FY ’19. Mr. Hayes noted it is much of the same as it was for the previous tax. He stated he felt the he overshot and chose to revise that down. Mr. Anderson had questions for the Budget Office and Department of Taxation. With respect to Business License Fees from the perspective of the Budget Office, Wyoming was mentioned and if it is understood correctly, because it’s cheaper to incorporate there, that is what is attributing to your the downward revision in your the forecast. Ms. Powers confirmed and added that that led her to believe that it could be one of the reasons to explain why her forecast was over projected than expected in the most recent month. She addeds that is not to say that that is the reason but that is what is suspected. Mr. Bill Anderson askeds, if there is access to any information which would provide insight into the flow of licensing activity from Nevada to Wyoming. It is a trend that seems consistent with the downward revision. Ms. Powers stated that she is not aware of a record that provides such data. She noted she did various web searches and came up with the information on pricing that way. Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the Live Entertainment Tax, with respect to the Department of Taxation. He stateds that Mr. Hayes made significantly larger revisions to the two out years, minus $1 million, $1.1 million, and $1.6 million. He askeds, why the out years and not the current year? Mr. Hayes stated that he felt that the forecast that he submitted for Fiscal ’17 was sufficient to pick up the revenue. He felt that he was overly bullish in ’18 and ’19, hence the revision. Mr. Wells asked in regards to the Transportation Connection Tax- it was mentioned that FY ’16 was softer than expected. Was he correct in hearing that it was the FY ’16, September revenues that decreased or was there just a softer increase than what was expected? Ms. Powers stated that she actually has some data that shows the exact year-over-year decline in Transportation Tax Revenue. It was negative 16.4% year-over-year. Mr. Wells stated, if he recalls correctly, it was not a September 1st implementation date, it was a mid-month implementation or it was predicated on the date in which Uber became licensed. It was not exactly a 09/01 start date if he recalls correctly. Mr. Guindon added that it was September 1st for taxicabs. It was actually P&A for Uber and Lyft, but it was somewhere in that second to third week that Uber and Lyft actually got approved to be operating. He explaineds that is why it is even more of a surprising month that September ‘15 should’ve been a weaek, because it was not the full 30-days. He addeds that they do get information from the Transportation Authority and the taxicab’s revenue was down about 2.1% and so, taxicabs are more than likely still having some degradation from having a competitor in the market. He thinks it really was a surprising month for them as forecasters and he thinks maybe that is where the observation is going. Mr. Wells noted that he would have expected that to go up from September ’15 to September ’16. Given that, the revisions, do you think the revisions to the forecast are sufficient given that that was weaker, or is it just not big enough of a difference or not enough data points to tell at this point? Mr. Guindon stated, for Fiscal’s forecast, that it is a tough question to answer but yes, the downward revision that they did is probably sufficient. They lowered their forecast by about $400,000 in FY 2017 from where it was. Also, they don’t know enough about any kind of special events that brought more people in that used Uber. He stateds, that is why this one is tough. Almost like Short Term Car Rental and Live Entertainment - was there something that did something to demand one month versus the same month a year ago. Mr. Wells asked, on the net proceeds of Mineral for FY ’17. There’s almost a 50% difference or 100% difference in the Agency forecast versus the Budget forecast with Fiscal coming in roughly in the middle. Where is the big difference in the Agency’s forecast being so low? Mr. Mitchell added, when they trued up the actual disbursements with their prior forecast, then with the disbursements out to the Counties, they did not see a big jump between their prior forecast and this forecast. That is where their forecast came in with those numbers. When the mines projected back in March and the difference of what the gold price is currently, they are currently projecting on what that difference is for the 2017 Fiscal Year. That is why it is a big decrease from the prior year, but they also felt between their last forecast and this one that there was not that big of a jump. Mr. Wells stateds Budget and Fiscal are up significantly from November. Fiscal was at $10.9 million and now they’re at $14.6 million and Budget was at $9.7 million and now they are at $17.2 million. The Agency really only went from $7.8 million to $7.9 million but there were very significant jumps in FY ’17 from Budget and Fiscal’s standpoint. It is probably the biggest differential of all the revenue sources between the three forecasters. He asked why there was that big of a gap. Mr. Guindon stated, with regards to Fiscal’s forecast, the forecast did not change much from last time to this time but the difference went up because the reference point went down by almost $3 million. So they more than likely only revised theirour forecast up for ’17 by about $1 million but the reference point that they had versus when Taxation gave them the stuff information reconciling to the actual amount in the Controller’s system, of. Of the $14.6 million and change, last time it would have been about $10 million. He addeds, almost $3 million of his $4 million is changing the thing we are subtracting from. Not necessarily changing my his view of the world as much. Ms. Powers added her revision was also due to the fact that she is using a different reference point. The biggest chunk of the revision comes from the reference point correction. She is actually using the actual number from Fiscal ’16, what is posted in the Controller’s system. Mr. Anderson reiterated, in the current fiscal year, in the consensus forecast that has been delivered, you they have an average, relatively speaking of, two high numbers in the mid-teens, $14 million and $17 million, along with the $9 million from the Department of Taxation. Mr. Guindon confirmed and added, when you look at it, as Mr. Wells pointed out, the $13.6 million is closer to Fiscal than the others but that is just because we were in the middle or closer to being in the middle. When Fiscal and Budget were looking at this to average, this is a relatively difficult revenue source, especially when you are forecasting a true up. It could be approximately the $9 million that Taxation has. It could be approximately $17.2 million. $13.6 million gives us a cushion on both sides. As we looked at it as Fiscal and Budget, the average gives you a little bit out on the right and left tail that you won’t get beat up too badly if it doesn’t.Mr. Redding asked about the changes in the Transportation Connection Tax and the one month, September ’16, that seems to be causing a lot of issues. Correct me if I am wrong, this is collections, not when the tax is actually earned. Do you know what the remittance period is, 30 days? 60 days? Mr. Guindon stated that this tax works like almost all our taxes. It’s for the business activity for that period,. tThe grosswth revenue that was generated for the 30 days of the month, then they are supposed to remit it. He addeds, that there can be what is called leakage in which the end of a month spills over to the beginning of another month or vice-versa. Mr. Krmpotic asked Mr. Guindon if he could repeat the total changes - the- the bottom line changes that were mentioned at the end of the presentation.Mr. Guindon explained, rather than maybe just dwelling with these 12 revenues to go to the other table. Now we’re sort of throwing away some of the others that should not be thrown away. You can see those numbers in the different TAC Table. You want to look at the total taxes before tax credits. There you can see that the net effect of the revised forecast that had been presented to the body to this day, the 12 in the table that we have been going over plus all the other ones that are in this table is the approximately $2.4 million upward revision for FY 2017 - again, looking at the Difference – Technical Advisory Committee Forecast Table. Then it’s approximately $1.5 million downward revision compared to the forecast that was presented to this body and approved on November 1st, then approximately a $1.1 million downward revision in FY 20197. The net effect of all this is really not that much when you look across the total. This body, gross before tax credits, is forecasting numbers out there in ’18 and ’19 that are approximately $526 to $537 million. We are moving things in ’18 and ’19 by approximately $1.5 million and $1.1 million. Mr. Anderson commented that he is comfortable with essentially everything he sees with one exception - that is the net proceeds forecast for this year. He mentioneds there are considerable differences amongst the three forecasting entities. He is wondering if it would be more prudent on our part to weigh the projection that goes to the Economic Forum more towards the two more consistent ones, from Fiscal and the Budget Office. Mr. Krmpotic noted he has the same concern but does not have a real comfortable level of going with higher numbers. As one who saw significant changes or variances between forecast’s and in the previous biennium, he is comfortable with the average of Budget, Agency, and Fiscal at this point in time. Mr. Wells agreed with Mr. Krmpotic. He added, he originally had thought that kind of throwing out the Agency number and using the average of Fiscal and Budget would make a little bit more sense. After hearing the discussion from the three people, he is actually more comfortable with the average of all three. Ms. Jones moved that the Committee accept the consensus forecast provided by the staff of the various agencies, Fiscal and Budget. Mr. James Wells seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.Review and approval of forecasts for various tax credit programs that may be taken against certain General Fund sources for presentation to the Economic Forum at their December 6, 2016, meeting (For possible action)Mr. Russell Guindon detailed the various tax credit programs that may be taken against certain General Fund sources for presentation to the Economic Forum at their December 6, 2016 Meeting. Mr. Wells stated, before we get to the Economic Development Credits, the New Market Tax Credits, didn’t they have a maximum amount that they could take? Wasn’t it like $200 million of investment and they got 58% of it. If we subtract out the FY ’15, ’16 and then what we’re carrying on the books for ’17, ’18 and ’19, 2020 will be the end of that tax and it will not be the whole $22 million that you see in FY ’19, it will be some creditsmaller number, is that correct? Mr. Guindon noted, he believeds that is a correct statement because of the program operating on a calendar year basis, but they operate on a fiscal year basis. He added, Mr. Naokaomoto, his colleague from the Fiscal Analysis Division is telling him that it will be half of that amount that would be out there. Around $10 million would be the truncation point of this program. Mr. Anderson stated that his inclination is to focus in on the Economic Development Transferrable Tax Credits. It is his understanding that there might be some differences amongst the forecasters. Mr. Guindon noted that Fiscal’s presentation was complete because the one that has the most outstanding issues is Economic Development. Mr. Anderson clarified, what is in here right now, the $45 million in FY ’17, those are Tesla credits, basically the maximum amount, correct? Then we go up to $52.6 million in each of the two out years. That factors in the maximum amount of Faraday tax credits, correct? Mr. Russell Guindon confirmed and added what they are is statutory maximums that can be authorized in the year, but again, if something is not taken one year, it can carry over. It would be potentially possible for Tesla to take more than $45 million in a year or for Faraday to take more than $7.6 million. It would be a hard goal to achieve, but it is statutorily possible. Ms. Powers detailed her forecast for the tax credit programs. She added that there is always some uncertainty when they forecast, but this information they have in front of them is the best information they have right now, as opposed to no information. Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on some of the figures and where they appeared in the table. Ms. Powers explained and detailed where to look and how they came to those numbers, specifically for Tesla and Faraday. Mr. Wells explained when they first started looking at tax credits and started preparing the budget,- looking at the last page for FY ’16, the $45 million, that Tesla was awarded, $20,462,000. That left $24,538,000 that was available and as Mr. Guindon said, it could be rolled forward to a future year. He addeds, in initial discussions with Mr. Hill, there was some thought that in the first year of the next biennium that they would catch up. This was months ago. They had actually started putting the $24.5 million and adding it to the $45 million that you see in FY ’18 for the Tesla credits. Mr. Wells further explained, in October when the Economic Forum had one of their information meetings, Mr. Hill mentioned that there were likely to be some revisions in the Economic Development Tax Incentive Programs. Mr. Hill gave us some gross information and then we asked him to get a break down for us. The first breakdown that he gave us seemed a little bit skewed to some of the forecasters. We went back and asked them again and he came back and unfortunately I did not get this until mid-morning this morning and forwarded it on to Fiscal staff just after I got it. I think this is a little bit more consistent with what you are hearing. While there’s development going on at Tesla, it’s not happening as fast as was originally projected when these credit programs were passed in 2014. Then Faraday, at this point there’s been some speculation. Faraday is kind of at a halt. Mr. Wells further explained to put tax credit programs in FY ’18 and ’19 at the $52.6 million, for him, is too robust for tax credits that are not likely to be redeemed at that level for those two years. Keeping in mind that they have credits at that point could be built up, but they are not hearing anything from Director Hill that would lead him to believe that these tax credits are going to be redeemed as fast as they were originally anticipated. Given that Mr. Hill is the expert and he is working directly with the companies, he would be inclined to go more toward the numbers that he has provided today thaen the full $52.6 in ’18 and ’19. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Guindon to address his concerns. Mr. Guindon noted that he does not disagree with Mr. Wells- that what they have seen in the audits and the quarterly reports is that they were not doing what was going to be done in the white paper that was presented to the legislature in September 2014. He noteds the real world and the white papers do not always match up. He further noted, as Mr. Wells stated, that they have not seen it being done at the pace that it wshould have to be done, either at 5% of their Capital Expenditure Ex or $12,500 per job to get $45 million. Mr. Guindon further noted, with regards to Faraday, the Fiscal Division struggles to get the 150 jobs for FY 2018. Their understanding is that the way the table is set up now is under the law and you can only be a qualified employeer if you employedare employed at least the last three consecutive months ofas a fiscal year. They have read in the papers that Faraday is slightly slowing down. The 150 jobs would have to be online by April 1st of 2017 to count for FY ’18 tax credits and then the other 250 people would have to be employed at least by April 1, 2018 to be employed the last three consecutive monthsquarters in FY 2018 to then generate credits awarded and taken in FY 2019. Mr. Guindon added, with regards to Tesla, the Fiscal Division is struggling with following the 92 actual number of jobs that were certified and audited for the period ending December 2015 and the 162 which is the period certified and audited for the quarter of January, February, and March 2016. Although, because those credits did not get the audit done in time and got awarded and were taken against the Gaming Percentage Fee, they did not get taken until FY ’17. They have been told the audit is completed but they do not see it on GOED’s website for the quarter of April, May, and June 2016. Under the law they are required to do a quarterly report. Based on that quarterly report, they said there would be an estimated 419 total qualified jobs. 419 subtracted by the 92 actual jobs and the 162 certified and audited jobs for the first three quarter is a total of 165. Mr. Guindon askeds where the 165 jobs are or if they are in the 996.1 9 96. He addeds that he wondereds if they are not qualified because the audit audit is done or if the audit has not been done. Mr. Guindon continued, wondering if there should be another 165 jobs in FY 2017,. aAdding that if that was for April, May, and June, with the audit done and the 165 jobs being qualified, you would presume they could obtain those credits awarded before June 2017. Then, Fiscal’s wondering, if it should actually be 165 plus 162 in FY ’17 and 831 in 2018. The way they are reading the table at Fiscal is that 996 is the number that would be employed with the last three consecutive months of FY 2017 showing the credits in FY 2018. Mr. Guindon stateds that the difficulty is keeping track of when the jobs are occurring and when they can be deemed to be qualified. He explaineds, even though you are recognizing employment for the end of this fiscal year, you cannot get an audit done and get it back in time, so credits are being awarded and taken in the next fiscal year. That’s what they believe, or at least understand. Mr. Wells stateds if he is following Mr. Guindon’s thinking, there is actually more jobs in FY ’17 so the tax credits in FY ’17, jJob rRelated for Tesla, would be higher and then lower in FY ’18. In regards to FFaraday fFuture its, Mr. Guindon is thinking that it’s more likely that the jobs that are now shown on this table under FY ’18 would fall into FY ’19. Mr. Guindon confirmed that they have been awarded and taken. Mr. John Sherman noted that there is a lot of moving pieces but it seems to him the jobs credit that Mr. Guindon described versus what is on paper related to two things. One is cash flow between the two years of the biennium and the other one is the total budget for the biennium. If he understands Mr. Guindon correctly, it doesn’t really affect the total biennium. Mr. Guindon is just saying that those credits, technically or theoretically, can get pushed off to the last year of the biennium and that he may just be concerned more about the cash flow of 2018. Mr. Russell Guindon agreed with Mr. Sherman and added for him he thinks, is the $2 million going to make or break the State? Mr. Guindon thinks thought it probably will not do either and stateds that it is about trying to get the number in the right sheets year and that they are crossing over a biennium from ’17 to ’18. He does not know that $2 million is going to necessarily damage the State’s cash flow position and the one thing that they could not figure out is where the 165 for Tesla is. He stateds that if this body wanted, the $2 million is not something they would have to worry about. Mr. Sherman stated, although he was not privy to the discussion at the November 1st meeting, he did read the minutes. It seemeds to him that the approach taken was to, notwithstanding issues maybe with Faraday that may or may not go forward or go forward as robustly, that it was looking at being conservative because this is a new program in assuming that these two companies will take advantage up to the full amounts and that seemeds to him, that not having the data, that might be a prudent thing to do. Mr. Sherman stateds that they will have another opportunity to review this before the end of session and at that time they will have the audit report that Mr. Guindon has been discussing which would relieve the benefit of the doubt. Mr. Hardcastle noted a couple of things. One is, on the Tesla numbers, for 2019 there is a 2,000 job figure. His concern would be that there is this continuing disconnect between the investment dollars and the job creation going on there, in their physical building. Earlier this year it was about 20% complete. He is not quite sure how good that number is, but the question he’s got is what’s the downside of overestimating the tax credits versus being more conservative in over estimating them versus under estimating them? What’s the tradeoff in that?Mr. Guindon explained, in regards to Mr. Sherman’s point about money on the sheets,. iIt’s not necessarily cash flow in terms of your writing checks and needing to cover them, it’s about the amount of net revenue that would be on the sheets that would be available this cycle for the Governor to build the Governor’s recommended budget, and then would be on the sheets during the Legislative Session for the Legislatively recommended budget. They had the $45 million on the sheets. Mr. Krmpotic noted he realizeds the information presented on the first page and the second page with respect to Tesla and Faraday indicated that an employee must be employed 90 days prior to the end of the fiscal year, which would be April, May and June of the end of the fiscal year. With respect to Faraday, if GOED is administering the law and awarding those tax credits similar to the way they were awarded in FY ’16 from the 92 employees then it may appear that those credits may be at least projected valid for FY ’18 and ’19, as he is reading this. A discussion ensued about the figures and how the calculations were made. Ms. Jones stated they are not sure where the 165 jobs go until they get additional information. She stateds it makes her a little uncomfortable putting it to the left side or to the right side without that additional information. She appreciated Mr. Guindon’s idea that if these are approved today, either way with the $2 million on each, whether that’s in ’17 or in ’18, that there is an opportunity to gather additional information and perhaps adjust those numbers before the Economic Forum next week. Mr. Redding stated he appreciateds theis discussion around this and particularly the aging schedule of the credits, it does a good job of tying up the discussion they started last time on the mismatch between the statutory maximum of the credits and the reality of hiring the employees, auditing, transferring and then ultimately redeeming the credits. He gives gave a lot of weight to the source that Ms. Powers cited for these numbers. Also GOED, getting them directly from the employers is weighted pretty heavily in his mind. That being said, he thinks thought what they see saw on these sheets matches what they are seeing in the bBusiness pPress and general workforce trends on kind of a slower redemption of these credits and addeds, what has been discussed is still a conservative approach, moving the Tesla money from ‘$18 million to $17’ million. In his experience, neither one of those companies would be eager to leave money on the table so he would say their projections are probably the best they have at this point. Mr. Redding moved that we they approve the numbers as presented with one change and the net effect being moving 165 x $12,500 from Fiscal ’18 to Fiscal ’17 with the request that follows along that GOED follow-up with both of the employers mentioned on this to verify one, the accuracy of the 150 employees being online by, April 1st, end of March 2017, and secondly, when the audit would be completed and when will those numbers are be available for Tesla - with the goal of having both of those answers for the full Economic Forum to consider next week. Mr. Hardcastle offered an amendment to the motiondirections. He would like to see clarification on the difference between building and equipment expenditures and also the 2019 number- 2,000 approximately. A verification of that and as more information becomes available to clarify that as well. Mr. Redding accepted the amendment for that same level of detail for the ’19 employment projections as well as the capital investment schedule. Mr. Anderson stated there was a motion by Mr. Redding with an amendment to the motion by Mr. Hardcastle. Mr. James Wells seconded the motion. Before the vote, Mr. Guindon asked to clarify the motion so it is clear for the record. The result of the motion by Mr. Redding would mean approving a tax credit projection for the Economic Development Transferrable Tax Credits of $37,575,946 for FY 2017 and $31,412,500 for FY 2018. Then it would be the $46,975,000 that’s on the last sheet. Mr. Wells added that he would like to make the adjustment to the total amount of tax credits that we they are going to approve. He does not have any issue with the request for additional information from Economic Development, but he’d like to make sure that they have what we are approving as total tax credits for FY ’17, ’18 and ’19. Mr. Russell Guindon performed calculations to determine the numbers. He itemized the numbers for the Committee. The original motion by Mr. Redding with amendment by Mr. Hardcastle was seconded by Mr. Wells and voted on. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Anderson stated, what they have done is made an adjustment to one line item within the overall tax credit package. Now they will turn their focus to approving a total tax credit number. Mr. Guindon discussed the numbers and explained the table. Mr. Wells made a motion to approve the total tax credits as outlined by Mr. Guindon for FY ’17, ’18 and ’19 for presentation to the Economic Forum, considering the previous motion about obtaining additional information if possible for the Economic Development Tax Credits. Mr. Mark Krmpotic seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Public Comment ( No action may be taken upon a matter raised under public comment period unless the matter itself has been specifically include on an agenda as an action item)There was no public comment. Adjournment (For possible action)Mr. Wells made a motion for adjournment. Ms. Cindy Jones seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Chairman Anderson called the meeting adjourned. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download