Bill would require many Nevada government units to accept electronic payment options; sponsors propose clarifying amendment
Loading...
Summary
Senate Bill 358 would require certain state and local government entities to accept multiple electronic payment methods to improve convenience for citizens and small businesses; sponsors are preparing a conceptual amendment to allow agencies flexibility to accept other forms such as cash where appropriate.
Senator Angie Taylor presented Senate Bill 358, which would require certain units of government in Nevada to accept specified forms of payment — including electronic transfers, credit and debit cards — to make transactions more convenient for businesses and residents.
"This bill aims to enhance the efficiency and accessibility of payment methods for governmental entities in our state," Senator Taylor said, framing the change as a modernization and small-business support measure.
Paul Meratkin of the Las Vegas Chamber (Vegas Chamber) testified in favor, saying the measure would standardize payment options and improve cash-flow and administrative efficiency for government entities. "Faster payment processing leads to better cash flow management for government agencies, allowing them allocate resources more effectively," Meratkin said. He and other supporters described electronic payments as more secure and efficient and said a conceptual amendment would clarify that agencies are not barred from accepting other methods such as cash or money orders.
Supporters included chambers of commerce, the Retail Association of Nevada, municipal representatives and rural business groups. Clark County staff described an amendment to include language such as "including but not limited to" the listed payment methods so local jurisdictions with large transaction volumes could continue accepting cash when necessary; Clark County stated it would be neutral on the bill as amended.
Witnesses said some state and local offices still require in-person payments for registrations or licensing, creating burdens for small businesses and rural residents. Testimony did not record opposition; no committee vote occurred during the hearing.
The sponsor and stakeholders noted a conceptual amendment to clarify the bill's language and exempt certain agencies by necessity. The committee proceeded after testimony with no recorded action in the transcript.
