Panel weighs AB180 to allow multi‑jurisdiction licensing for food trucks, sidewalk vendors and cottage foods

CARSON CITY — Assembly Bill 180 drew competing testimony Thursday as lawmakers debated a sponsor amendment that would create a multi‑jurisdictional business license for certain mobile and sidewalk vendors and expand the sidewalk‑vendor definition to include merchandise and cottage‑food producers.

Assemblymember Ruben DeSilva (D-Assembly District 28) presented the bill and said it responds to license duplication that hinders small, mobile enterprises in Southern Nevada. "One of the key components of the bill is to create multi‑jurisdictional business licensing for four business models: food trucks, mobile food units, sidewalk vendors, cottage food license holders, and those who have a producer certificate with the Department of Agriculture," DeSilva said.

Provisions described by the sponsor and co‑presenters would: - Permit large counties and municipalities (population threshold amended during negotiations) to adopt a uniform, multi‑jurisdictional license for covered vendor types so vendors need not complete separate local licensing in each city or unincorporated area they visit; - Add cottage food license holders and Nevada Department of Agriculture producer‑certificate holders (farmers) to the class of mobile vendors eligible for multi‑jurisdictional licensing; and - Broaden the sidewalk‑vendor definition to include nonfood merchandise (the sponsor said the amendment removes Washoe County from the population threshold and also removed a prior restriction preventing sidewalk vending adjacent to parks).

Supporters — including Make the Road Nevada, Libre Initiative Nevada, Americans for Prosperity Nevada, small‑business advocates and many individual vendors — said the measure would reduce redundant fees, shorten permit timelines and help entrepreneurs in low‑income communities expand without repeatedly paying licensing costs. Food‑truck operators said they had to repeat inspections, background checks and pay multiple fees when operating across Clark County, Las Vegas, Henderson and North Las Vegas; one vendor estimated lost revenue of $8,000–$10,000 from a paperwork delay when they remodeled their truck.

"This bill would allow us to expand our business into different areas of the city without having to repeat the same steps over and over again," one small food‑truck operator said through a translator. Make the Road and community organizations emphasized that many vendors rely on small, part‑time earnings and that fines and duplicative costs can be ruinous.

Opponents included municipal governments (City of Henderson, Clark County, City of Las Vegas), business groups and public‑health officials. Henderson and Clark County officials said local business licensing departments already are working on coordinated multi‑jurisdictional processes following last year's SB 92 and a statewide task force; they urged the Legislature not to preempt or disrupt ongoing local implementation work. Clark County and the City of Las Vegas voiced particular concern about the bill's merchandise expansion, noting the statute lacks a definition of "merchandise" and could complicate enforcement around counterfeit or prohibited items.

Joelle Gutman Dodson of Northern Nevada Public Health said the cottage‑food amendment was introduced without sufficient public‑health engagement and that cottage foods were not a consensus recommendation from the SB 92 task force. Retail and resort‑industry groups opposed the measure on equity grounds, arguing brick‑and‑mortar stores face higher regulatory costs and that the bill could create an unfair advantage for mobile sellers.

Sponsors said the bill was developed with community feedback and that they had removed certain provisions (distance restrictions near parks and including Washoe County in the population threshold) after stakeholders raised concerns. DeSilva said local jurisdictions in Southern Nevada are not uniform in how they treat mobile vendors and that a one‑stop process would reduce confusion and barriers for entrepreneurs who operate across adjacent jurisdictions.

No committee vote was held at the hearing. Committee members probed enforcement and zoning questions — for example, how jurisdictions would allocate revenues, apply hours or distance limits, and define prohibited merchandise. Municipal representatives asked for additional detail on enforcement authority, definitions and zoning exclusions.

Why it matters: Supporters framed AB 180 as regulatory streamlining that would expand economic opportunity for small entrepreneurs and immigrant communities; opponents described potential public‑safety, consumer‑protection, zoning and equity problems and urged more local collaboration before statewide mandates.

What happens next: Sponsors expect to continue negotiations with local governments and health officials; any statutory change would need to reconcile local ordinance work already underway and address the open questions about merchandise definitions, enforcement, and public‑health safeguards.