►
From YouTube: 5/5/2021 - Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
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,
thank
you,
madam
secretary.
Please
let
the
record
reflect
the
assemblyman.
Ellison
is
absent
excused
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning.
Members.
I
want
to
remind
everybody
to
please
make
sure
your
cell
phones
are
on
silent,
that
you
are
not
logged
in
on
zoom
and
in
the
committee
room.
At
the
same
time,
we're
going
to
take
the
agenda
out
of
order
we'll
be
doing
senate
bill
294
first
followed
by
senate
senator
bill
253.
A
I
want
to
remind
everybody
wishing
to
testify
this
morning
to
please
state
your
name
for
the
record
and
that
the
first
time
you
speak
make
sure
you
spell
your
name
for
the
record
so
that
we
can
help
our
staff
who's
working
behind
the
scenes.
C
C
Good
morning,
chair
flores
and
committee
members,
it
is
again
an
honor
to
be
here
with
all
of
you.
This
morning
I
am
nicole
canazzaro.
I
represent
senate
district
six
in
the
northwest
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
I'm
here
today
to
introduce
to
you
senate
bill
294,
which
makes
revisions
regarding
collective
bargaining
between
local
government
employers
and
employee
organizations.
A
C
Thank
you
chair.
So
by
way
of
background.
Currently,
if
an
organization
that
represents
local
government
employees
other
than
educational
support,
personnel,
firefighters,
police
officers
and
teachers
fails
to
resolve
an
issue
in
negotiating
a
collective
bargaining
agreement
with
an
employer,
the
dispute
can
be
submitted
to
an
impartial
fact,
finder.
C
However,
before
doing
so,
the
parties
need
to
agree
to
make
the
recommendations
of
the
fact
finder
on
certain
issues
final
and
binding,
when
the
local
government,
employer
and
employee
organization
cannot
agree.
Either
party
may
request
the
formation
of
a
panel
to
determine
whether
the
findings
and
recommendations
of
the
fact
finder
on
certain
issues
will
be
final
and
binding.
C
Currently,
the
process
for
police
fire
educational
support,
personnel
and
teachers
in
local
government
is
different
from
other
local
government
entities,
and
this
bill
seeks
to
create
some
parity
among
those
groups.
I
would
note
for
members
of
the
committee
that
I
did
submit
a
mock-up
amendment
to
senate
bill
294,
which
I
believe
was
made
available
on
nellis
and
I'm
hoping
that
everybody
has
had
a
chance
to
take
a
look
at.
It
does
make
one
small
change
with
respect
to
the
process
for
some
of
these
provisions.
C
Section
2
clarifies
the
provisions
applied
to
labor
disputes
other
than
police
fire
teachers
and
educational
support
personnel.
In
addition,
section
2
outlines
that
the
parties
may
agree
to
make
the
findings
and
recommendations
of
a
fact
finder
final
and
binding,
and
that
either
party
may
submit
those
findings
and
recommendations
to
that
second
arbitrator.
C
If
the
decision
is
submitted
to
a
second
fact
finder,
that
decision
would
be
final
and
binding
on
the
parties.
Section
2
further
provides
for
the
process
to
select
the
fact
finder
in
the
amendment
submitted
to
the
committee
section.
2
also
provides
that
the
procedure
for
an
arbitration
is
subject
to
the
provisions
of
nrs
288.215.
C
section
4
eliminates
the
authorization
for
expenditure
of
funds
for
expenses
related
to
those
panels.
At
this
time,
mr
chair,
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
introduce
mr
horvath,
who
has
a
brief
presentation
for
the
committee.
A
D
D
So
288
is
the
collective
bargaining
law
in
the
state.
It's
managed
by
the
employee
management
relations
board
and
employee
organizations
must
provide
notice
to
local
governments
by
february
1st
of
a
given
year
if
they
are
interested
in
bargaining,
something
that
involves
monetary
budgeting.
D
Impasse
process
is
the
reason
we're
here
and
the
impasse
process
within
280
288
is
mediation
first
and
it's
got
prescribed
time
frames
to
keep
the
process
moving
along
fact.
Finding
follows
mediation,
there's
very
specific
statutory
requirements
that
the
fact
finder
must
follow,
specifically
to
ability
to
pay
establishing
that
first.
D
D
So
the
current
employee
organizations
under
nrs
288
that
have
a
binding
arbitration
statutory
right
are
police
and
firefighters
under
288-215
under
217
it's
teachers
and
support
professionals
and
then
with
collective
bargaining.
In
the
last
session,
state
employees
have
access
to
final
and
binding
arbitration,
and
that
leaves
everyone
else
and
we
represent
a
lot
of
those
people
in
southern
nevada.
D
So
288
201
is
the
process
for
a
panel,
and
the
panel
is
an
interesting
challenge
and
I'll
going
to
defer
to
commissioner
schneider,
who
I
think
will
be
speaking
to
you
later
about
the
challenges
it
creates
for
him
and
his
organization.
But
the
panel
is
one
attorney.
D
Maybe
there's
really
no
statutory
requirement
for
them
to
actually
make
any
decision
whatsoever
which
creates
its
own
set
of
challenges,
and
this
is
a
very
time
consuming
process
and
does
not
bring
collective
bargaining
to
closure
in
any
way,
shape
or
form
so
similar
to.
What's
in
the
statue
around
binding
arbitration,
very
specific
dates
and
time
frames
for
results.
D
D
D
You
can
agree
in
advance
that
if
you
have
six
issues
that
are
going
in
front
of
the
fact
finder,
you
can
agree
in
advance
that
three,
these
three
we
will
accept
as
final
and
binding
the
other
three
will
take
under
advisement
and
could
go
to
the
arbitrator
that
provision
doesn't
apply
and
that
change
does
not
apply
to
police
and
fire
or
teachers
and
support
staff,
or
obviously
the
state
employees,
that's
just
a
sprint
through
the
process
and
what
senate
bill
294
attempts
to
achieve
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
You
may.
A
A
And
thank
you
for
the
for
the
presentation,
appreciate
that
and
and
thank
you
for
walking
us
through
that
we'll
open
up
for
questions
but
prior
to
doing
that.
If
we
could
just
one
one
more
time,
have
you
go
through
the
amendment
just
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
there's
an
understanding
by
the
committee
members
exactly
yeah.
Thank.
D
You
for
that
chairman
flores.
The
amendment
just
provides
absolute
clarity,
that
the
process
for
arbitration
will
follow
the
the
language
in
288,
215
and
specifically
sections
8-13,
and
that
is
the
selection
of
an
arbitrator
what's
in
front
of
the
arbitrator
that
there
are
last
best
and
final
options
put
in
front
of
the
arbitrator
from
each
party
and
the
arbitrator
must
select
one
of
those.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
fact
finder
in
here
an
awful
lot.
How
do
we
find
the
fact
finder?
How
do
you
get
a
fact
finder?
Who
is
it.
D
Sorry,
fred
horvath
for
the
record,
there's
very
clear
language
in
288
that
says:
there's
a
list
of
seven
fact:
finders
or
arbitrators.
It's
the
same
and
actually
there's
a
list
of
mediators
prescribed
in
the
act
and
you
get
that
list
from
the
federal
mediation
and
conciliation
service
or
the
american
arbitration
association,
one
of
the
other,
and
then
the
parties
just
strike
alternating
strike
till
they
get
to
the
final
name.
It's
prescribed
in
288.
D
Oh
they're
they're
mostly
attorneys,
and
they
just
make
application
to
the
fmcs
and
aaa,
as
we
call
american
arbitration
association
to
be
listed
on
the
panel.
D
One
of
the
important
things
that
the
parties
look
for
is
experience
in
interest
arbitration,
which
is
the
arbitration
for
the
end
of
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
which
involves
local
government
finances.
There
are
lots
and
lots
of
arbitrators
who
do
disciplinary
processes,
contract
interpretation,
but
really
looking
for
someone
who
has
specific
experience.
F
Good
morning,
chair
and
thank
you
for
this
opportunity
to
ask
questions
on
sb
294,
and
I
appreciate
senator
casanoro
for
bringing
this
forward
and
to
you,
mr
harvey.
My
question
actually
is
just
to
for
you
to
let
the
panel
know.
The
committee
know
right
now
that
when
you
are
picking
a
fact,
finder
both
sides
have
an
opportunity
to
just
like
you're
picking
a
jury
so
and
they
can
disqualify
for
whatever
reason,
and
then
they
come
down
to
that
one
person
that
they
want.
D
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Fred
horvath
for
the
record,
assemblywoman
thomas,
that's
the
really
the
most
important
piece
of
it
is
is
that
we
are
given
a
list
of
names
and
I
would
say
the
biographies
and
experience
are
five
to
six
pages,
long,
detailed
decisions
that
have
been
made
and
both
parties,
the
local
government,
employers,
and
I
did
that
for
11
years
at
the
city
of
henderson,
representing
the
management
side
of
it,
and
so
it
it's
really
an
important
piece
to
do
your
homework.
D
But
then
it's
very
much
a
strike
process.
Where
you
eliminate
the
person
that
you
want
to
see.
First
off
the
list,
the
local
government
would
go
next
and
you
just
continue
down
to
the
bottom
of
the
list
and
I've
seen
situations
where
the
parties
agree
that
there
there
isn't
someone
on
this
list
that
they're
comfortable
with
and
they
can
ask
for
a
new
list.
F
Okay-
and
mike
crux
of
my
question
today
would
be.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
understand
that
sb294
wants
to
restore
binding
arbitration
with,
so
that
we
have
the
same
opportunity
as-
and
I
say
we-
that
local
entities
have
the
same
opportunity
as
police,
firefighters,
state
employees
when
it
comes
to
binding
arbitration.
D
Fred
horvath
for
the
record
to
you,
chairman,
flores,
to
assemblywoman
thomas.
I
wish
it
was
restore,
but
in
fact
this
group
has
never,
since
the
creation
of
288
in
1967
has
never
had
binding
arbitration.
They've
always
had
this
panel
process,
which
has
been
used
sparingly
just
because
of
the
time
it
takes
and
the
potential
ambiguities
and
what
that
panel
actually
can
do.
So.
This
would
be
the
first
time
to
get
everyone
on
the
same
page
under
288
relative
to
binding
arbitration.
D
F
I
appreciate
that
explanation
and
thank
you,
chair.
A
G
Good
morning,
chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
committee,
nicole
rourke,
I'm
the
director
of
government
and
public
affairs
for
the
city
of
henderson,
and
I
really
appreciate
working
with
senator
canozzaro,
mr
horvath,
on
this
bill.
We
support
sb
294,
as
amended
by
proposed
amendment
33-51.
G
This
amendment
will
apply
the
same
processes
used
by
public
safety
members
when
they
are
unable
to
reach
an
agreement
after
negotiations
with
their
employer
as
to
members
of
steemster's
local
14..
This
aligns
the
process
so
that
everyone
knows
how
it
works
and
what
the
possible
outcomes
are.
Non-Binding
fact-finding
is
a
useful
next
step
in
negotiations
for
employers
and
employee
organizations
to
utilize
to
obtain
a
third
party
objective
opinion
regarding
matters
in
which
both
parties
have
genuine,
though
differing
beliefs
or
opinions.
G
Each
party
may
change
its
belief
or
opinion
on
a
certain
fact
or
consequence
based
on
the
finder's
decision.
This
creates
an
opportunity
for
one
or
both
parties
to
appreciate
the
other
party's
proposal
in
a
different
light
or
to
agree
to
a
modification
or
compromise
of
a
contested
matter.
In
other
words,
non-binding
fact-finding
is
an
opportunity
to
help
the
parties
reach
a
mutual
resolution.
G
Most
people
would
agree
that
if
two
sides
can
reach
a
mutual
agreement,
it
is
better
received
than
a
decree
that
is
imposed
on
the
parties
by
an
outsider.
However,
when
resolution
cannot
be
achieved
through
non-binding
fact-finding,
the
second
fact-finder
should
be
required
to
choose
between
the
best
and
final
offers
submitted
by
one
of
the
parties
as
reflected
in
288-215.
G
A
H
H
I
We
believe
that
this
process,
or
will
this
bill,
will
allow
the
process
to
be
a
more
fair
and
equal
process
that
will
help
speed
up
the
negotiations
and
hopefully
come
to
a
more
equitable
resolution
in
a
timely
fashion.
I
For
a
long
time
now,
there's
been
an
unequal
process
that
the
teamsters
have
not
been
able
to
access,
and
this
would
help
clarify
and
clean
that
up
and
make
it
a
more
timely
manner
or
timely
process
to
move
forward.
So
with
that,
mr
chairman,
we
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
Thank
you.
H
J
H
K
Good
morning,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
dagny
stapleton,
d-a-g-n-y
s-t-a-p-l-e-t-o-n,
I
am
the
executive
director
of
naco,
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
We
are
in
support
of
the
bill
this
morning.
We
appreciate
the
changes
from
the
first
draft
of
the
bill
that
the
majority
leader
made
as
well
as
the
amendment
3351
that
being
discussed
today.
We
had
actually
requested
the
same
change
and
so
very
much
appreciate
the
incorporation
of
that
that
the
arbitrator
would
work
off
the
last
best
offer
in
the
second
fact.
K
A
H
L
Good
morning
sheriff
flores
majority
leader,
council
and
committee
members,
this
is
kent:
irvin
k-e-n-t
e-r-v-I-n
for
the
nevada
faculty
alliance
representing
faculty
at
colleges
and
universities.
The
nfa
represents
collective
bargaining
units
under
energy
code
at
the
college
of
southern
nevada,
truckee
meadows,
community
college
and
western
nevada
college
in
solidarity
with
our
local
government
union
partners.
We
fully
support
sb
294
for
the
reasons
that
have
been
stated.
L
Having
best
and
final
binding
arbitration
to
settle
an
impasse
is
an
efficient
and
rapid
way
to
come
to
a
conclusion
in
negotiations
and
is
fair
to
both
sides.
I
would
point
out
that,
with
passage
of
sb
294,
that
ng
faculty
will
be
the
largest
group
of
public
employees
in
the
state
without
this
kind
of
provision
in
collective
bargaining,
but
we
hope
to
fix
that
this
session
with
sp
373..
H
M
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
committee
members
for
the
record
justin
norton
j-u-s-t-I-n-n-o-r-t-o-n,
I
am
the
treasurer
of
the
washoe
county
employees
association,
which
is
a
collective
bargaining
unit
in
reno
that
covers
more
than
fifteen
hundred
employees,
washoe
county.
M
It
really
is
something
that
is
just
about
equality
and
parody
with
the
other
collective
bargaining
associations
to
be
able
to
have
that
sort
of
binding
arbitration
which
it
basically
can
be
pro-union.
It
can
also
come
anti-union,
so
it's
not
necessarily
something
that
is
automatically
gonna
swamp,
any
of
the
local
governments
with
unexpected
expenses,
or
anything
like
that.
M
A
A
H
H
N
Good
morning,
chair
flores
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
bruce
snyder.
I
am
the
commissioner
of
a
state
agency
called
the
government,
employee
management
relations
board
or
emrb,
which
regulates
labor
relations
between
nevada's
governments
and
the
unions
that
represent
their
employees.
The
emrb
is
neutral
as
to
whether
effect
findings
should
be
binding
or
non-binding.
N
N
Rather,
the
sole
purpose
of
a
fact-finding
panel
was
to
determine
whether
the
upcoming
fact-finding
will
be
binding
or
non-binding,
when
the
two
parties
at
impasse
cannot
agree
on
this
issue.
In
essence,
the
purpose
of
a
fact-finding
panel
is
to
determine
the
role
of
the
fact
finder
impasse
resolution
proceedings
are
meant
to
be
timely
so
that
the
parties
can
get
to
a
final
contract.
N
However,
the
fact-finding
panel
process
is
anything
but
that-
and
that
was
previously
explained
in
the
hearing
before
the
senate
committee
on
government
affairs,
for
example,
the
fact-finding
members
are
composed
of
a
member
from
the
state
bar
of
nevada
and
the
state
board
of
accountancy
those
organizations.
Each
must
submit
five
names
of
their
members,
which
is
done
only
after
educating
them
as
to
why
they
are
involved
in
a
labor
dispute.
N
N
Finally,
when
the
two
members
have
been
finalized,
they
must
then
appoint
a
third
member.
Only
only
until
this
is
done.
Can
the
agency
then
submit
a
work
program
to
obtain
the
funds
to
pay
the
free
panel
members,
along
with
their
travel,
then
the
three
panel
members
must
register
as
employees
like
any
other
member
of
a
board
on
the
state.
N
A
A
And
thank
you
again
senator
for
your
presentation
with
that.
We'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
294
and
at
this
time
we'll
invite
our
senator,
who
I
believe,
is
not
in
the
room
presently,
but
I'm
sure
he'll
make
his
way
into
the
room
so
that
we
can
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill.
253.
A
A
A
The
assembly
committee
on
government
affairs
will
come
back
to
order
good
morning,
senator
welcome
back
and
at
this
time,
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
253
whenever
you're
ready.
O
O
O
The
bill
is
seeking
to
make
sure
that
the
individual
who
causes
the
alarm
to
be
triggered
is
the
person
who
would
be
fined
rather
than
the
alarm
company,
because
as
it
stands
now
we
had
situations
in
douglas
county
where
that
trigger
and
paying
of
the
alarm
company
dynamically
reduce
the
amount
of
individuals
who
got
false
alarms
in
that
respect.
If
I
could
turn
it
over
to
our
lineup
and
I'll
try
to
catch
my
breath,
sorry,
I've
run
around
too
much
I'll
turn
it
over.
O
P
Good
morning,
chair
flora,
as
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jimmy
lau,
I'm
a
senior
associate
with
ferrari
public
affairs
and
I'm
here
representing
adt.
So
thank
you,
settler
senator
settlemeyer
for
giving
a
brief
overview
of
what
the
bill
is
looking
to
do.
P
I
know
in
this
committee,
especially
you
often
don't
get
bills
that
are
less
than
five
sections,
and
especially
less
than
five
pages
so
with
that
I'll.
Just
continue
with
a
very
brief
overview
and
then
give
you
some
extrapolations
about
what
this
bill
does
and
does
not
do
so.
Like
senator
settlemyre
said,
the
bill
ensures
that
if
a
municipality
or
county
chooses
to
impose
a
fine
for
false
alarms
that
fine
is
directed
towards
the
individual
who
is
responsible
for
triggering
the
false
alarm.
P
So
with
that,
with
that
in
mind,
I'd
I'd
like
to
point
out
that
the
bill
does
not
require
a
municipality
or
county
to
impose
a
fine
that
remains
within
their
discretion.
So
if
they
choose
to
do
that,
this
bill
is
simply
giving
them
the
parameters
in
which
they
can
impose
the
fine
or
penalty.
P
This
bill
does
not
prohibit
alarm
companies
from
being
fined.
If
the
alarm
company
is
at
fault
for
triggering
the
false
alarm,
and
some
municipalities
and
counties
have
chosen
to
impose
other
restrictions
on
alarm
companies,
this
bill
does
not
touch
that
at
all.
So
that's
that's
about
all.
I
have
for
my
part
of
the
presentation
so
chair.
If
you
don't
mind,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
holly
borgman,
with
adt.
Q
D
Q
Q
In
fact,
most
cities
in
america
right
now
have
adopted
some
sort
of
false
alarm
management
system,
which
these
programs
are
all
locally
designed
and
administered.
Each
one
is
a
little
bit
different
and
they're
meant
to
encourage
proper
use
of
alarm
systems.
Many
of
these
programs
include
a
provision
that
allows
municipalities
to
find
users
for
excessive
false
alarms.
This
is
because
studies
have
shown
that,
in
general,
80
of
false
alarms
are
generated
by
just
20
of
the
users.
Most
people
never
have
a
false
alarm
in
their
home
during
a
year.
Q
Finding
chronic
misusers
of
false
alarms,
I
want
to
stress
chronic
misuses
of
false
alarms.
Alarm
systems
can
dramatically
reduce
the
number
of
false
alarms.
Unfortunately,
some
municipalities
in
recent
years
in
the
interest
of
expediency
have
enacted
programs
that
find
the
alarm
company
for
the
customer's
false
alarms,
as
opposed
to
the
user,
generating
the
false
alarm.
Q
The
alarm
company
is
then
forced
to
recoup
the
money
from
the
user.
Now
we
found
that
this
is
the
equivalent
of
sending
an
individual
speeding
ticket
to
general
motors.
It
does
little
to
change
the
user.
Behavior
denies
the
user
the
right
to
confront
their
accuser
and
access
to
due
process
and
finds
an
innocent
party
for
the
actions
of
another.
When
cities
adopt
these
types
of
policies,
residents
lose
their
ability
to
appeal
the
fine
to
the
city
and
must
instead
direct
their
appeals
to
private
businesses
who
have
no
obligation
to
hear
or
respond
to
their
appeal.
Q
So,
for
instance,
if
somebody
opens
a
window
and
then
the
wind,
the
alarm
goes
off
and
the
window
drops
the
person
might
say
there
was
not
a
false
alarm.
If
the
company
is
given
the
fine,
then
what
we
do
is
we
pass
it
on
to
the
user,
usually
with
an
administrative
fee
and
there's
no
appeals
process.
Q
The
city
of
fontana
california
adopted
such
an
ordinance
years
ago
and
after
many
months
in
court
and
thousands
of
dollars
spent,
the
ordinance
was
overturned
and
ruled
unconstitutional,
and
while
the
industry
won
our
alarm
industry,
we
won
in
court
our
relationships
with
law
enforcement
with
city
leadership.
They
were
strained
tremendously
and
little
headway
was
made
during
that
time
to
actually
reduce
the
number
of
false
alarms.
Q
Q
Since
then,
a
number
of
states,
including
california,
florida,
georgia,
texas,
new
jersey,
tennessee
iowa,
louisiana
georgia,
was
just
signed
yesterday,
enacted
similar
legislation
to
guide
local
governments
as
they
consider
how
to
best
address
this
issue.
Senate
bill
253
provides
much
needed
clarification
that
fines
can
only
be
issued
to
the
party
at
fault
for
the
false
alarm.
The
user
generated
the
false
alarm
through
misuse
of
his
or
her
system.
Q
The
fine
would
be
sent
to
that
person
and
if
an
alarm
company
installed
faulty
equipment
or
did
not
follow
a
proper
protocol,
the
fine
would
be
sent
to
the
alarm
company
as
it
happens
today
in
nevada.
It
doesn't
require
any
municipality
in
nevada
to
change
an
existing
ordinance
and
does
not
impose
any
new
fees.
It
simply
preserves
the
status
quo
and
ensures
that
any
locally
administered,
false
alarm
reduction
program
will
actually
produce
meaningful
results.
Q
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
We'll
come
back
to
the
committee
room.
Any
additional
comments,
please.
P
Thank
you
chair.
I
think
that
concludes
our
presentation
and
we're
available
for
any
questions
perfect
at
this
time.
A
R
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
mr
lao.
Thank
you,
ms
bergman.
I
just
wonder
if
you
could
speak
to
what
would
happen
in
the
event
of
what
there's
a
dispute
or
contention
you
know
about
about
who
really
is
responsible,
whether
it's
the
individual
or
the
company
and
and
how
and
where
and
by
whom,
that
that
question
of
fact
is
is
determined
if
you
could
just
flesh
that
out
a
little
bit
more.
Thank
you.
Q
So
I'm
happy
to
to
answer
that
question.
If
I
can
so
around
the
country,
every
local
government
deals
with
this
differently,
but
generally
when
the
police
respond
to
the
alarm,
they
determine.
Is
this
something
where
someone
forgot
to
give
the
passcode
to
the
sitter?
Or
has
the
system
been
going
off
for
a
while
and
they
determine
the
police
department
when
they
respond?
They
determine
which
party
is
at
fault
and
right
now,
they're
the
ones
who
determine
who
would
get
the
fine.
Q
A
Thank
you,
members.
Any
additional
questions
we'll
go
next
to
assemblywoman,
considering.
S
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
this
bill,
so
I
guess
just
to
follow
up
on
assemblyman
matthew's
question,
where
right
now
in
nevada,
so
the
police
arrive,
the
police
determine
who
gets
the
fine
in
nevada?
Is
there
anything
that
says
currently
in
statute
or
ordinance
that
the
fine
must
go
to
the
alarm
company
or
right
now?
Are
those
fines
going
to
the
the
users.
P
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
for
the
question
chaired
through
you
to
you
and
through
you
to
assemblywomanconstant9,
there's
nothing
currently
in
statute
that
would
require
the
fine
to
go
in
either
direction.
So
the
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
establish
those
parameters
for
the
municipalities,
who
may
choose
to
implement
fines
or
penalties
for
the
response
to
false
alarms.
A
A
T
T
They
will
in
fact
pick
up
moisture,
they'll,
pick
up
dust,
they'll
pick
up
heat
they'll
pick
up
carbon
monoxide
with
some
of
the
combination
systems,
and
they
are
in
fact
doing
what
they're
supposed
to
do.
They're
warning
occupants
that
there
is
a
problem,
a
perceived
problem
within
their
technical
limitation.
T
Our
crews
believe
these
are
false
alarms.
They
are,
in
fact,
not
false
alarms.
They
are
what
we
refer
to
as
nuisance
alarms,
and
so
we
have
identified
time
and
time
again
that
it
is
more
about
the
operations
going
on
in
the
building
itself
or
the
lack
of
turning
off
an
alarm
system
when
there's
construction
activity
rather
than
the
alarm
system.
T
And
finally,
what
I'd
like
to
point
out
is:
it
is
very,
very
difficult
whether
it's
a
burglar
alarm
or
a
fire
alarm
when
the
alarm
company
is
doing
a
an
annual
inspection,
let's
say,
and
they
say
hey.
This
is
broken,
it's
worn
out
it's
out
of
time.
We
can't
get
parts
for
it.
We
have
to
replace
it
and
the
building
owner
says:
well,
I'm
not
going
to
do
that
and
those
are
the
kinds
of
cases
that
I'm
dealing
with
now
up
in
lake
tahoe.
The
building
owners
are
just
saying:
we've
had
a
miserable
year.
T
I
don't
have
the
capital
to
upgrade
the
system
in
this
particular
casino,
and
so
I'm
not
going
to
spend
the
money.
So,
in
my
view,
and
in
the
view
of
all
the
fire
marshals
that
I've
talked
to
statewide,
we
had
a
pretty
vigorous
debate
about
this
issue.
We
feel
it
is.
There
is
already
a
sufficient
regulatory
scheme
that
can
investigate
criminally
prosecute
or
civil
civilly,
prosecute
against
alarm
companies
against
sprinkler
companies
against
other
fire
protection
service
firms,
if
there's
a
problem.
T
So
that
is
why
we
as
a
group
there
I
was
authorized
to
come
here
and
support
senators
settlements
bill
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
them.
Otherwise,
I
wanted
you
to
know
that
your
fire
departments
and
your
fire
prevention
people
believe
that
we
have
the
necessary
tools
right
now
that
if
we
have
a
problem
with
an
alarm
system,
we
can
identify
whether
the
problem
belongs
on
the
alarm
company
side
or
on
the
homeowner
or
property
owner
side
and
take
appropriate.
A
Action
and
thank
you
for
bringing
that
insight.
We
appreciate
it
members
any
questions.
Seeing
none
again.
Thank
you
for
providing
that
insight
this
morning.
We'll
continue
with
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
253.
We
don't
have
anybody
here
in
the
committee
room,
so
we'll
go
to
the
phone
line
broadcast.
Please.
H
A
H
A
H
E
Mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee
warren
hardy
w-a-r-r-e-n
last
name
hardy
h-a-r-d-y,
calling
in
today
on
behalf
of
the
urban
consortium
which
is
made
up
of
the
cities
of
las
vegas,
reno
henderson
and
sparks.
E
We
initially
had
objections
concerns
with
this
legislation
with
regard
to
how
they
might
impact
our
current
processes
for
what
was
described
by
one
of
the
testifiers
as
nuisance
alarms.
However,
we
spent
some
time
working
with
and
having
conversations
with
the
proponents
and
have
explained
to
them
our
process
for
for
dealing
with
these
nuisance
alarms
and
excuse
me,
and
we
are
assured
by
them
that
there
is
nothing
in
this
legislation
that
would
interfere
with
our
with
our
efforts
and
our
our
current
processes
for
dealing
with
these.
E
So
we
we
are
in
neutral
in
a
neutral
position
on
the
legislation
and
we'll
be
and
we'll
continue,
our
our
current
processes.
So
thank
you
for
that
opportunity
to
get
that
on
the
record.
Mr
chair.
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning,
we'll
we'll
stay
on
the
phone
lines,
just
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
anybody
else
on
the
neutral
position.
Next,
caller,
please
broadcast.
R
It'll
make
sure
that
the
proper
people
are
the
ones
that
will
actually
change
their
behavior
by
making
sure
that
they
are
the
ones
that
define
with
that.
I
appreciate
your
time.
If
you
have
any
concerns
or
issues,
please
do
not
hesitate
to
reach
out
to
me
and
I'll
try
to
address
them
as
quickly
as
possible.
Thank
you,
chairman
and.
A
Again,
thank
you
with
that.
We'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
senate
bill.
253
members
make
sure
you
reach
out.
Should
any
additional
questions
arise.
Lastly,
on
the
agenda,
we
have
public
comment.
I
want
to
remind
those
of
you
wishing
to
speak
during
public
comment,
that
this
is
not
a
time
to
reopen
a
hearing,
but
rather
to
speak
on
general
matters
that
fall
within
the
purview
of
this
committee
broadcast.
Please.
If
we
could
go
to
the
phone
lines
for
public
comment.
A
Thank
you
members.
I
want
to
remind
you
that
tomorrow
will
be
meeting
again
at
9
00
a.m
and
we
have
senate
bill
150
and
senate
bill
254.
Please
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
all
folk
involved
in
that
conversation.
I
know
some
of
these
bills
do
have
some
opposition
and
support,
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
become
familiar
with
that
and
engage
in
that
conversation
ahead
of
time
with
that
members,
before
we
adjourn,
I
will
say,
happy
cinco
de
mayo,
and
I
hope
that
we
can
all
get
together
later
on
tonight
with
that
this
meeting's.