►
From YouTube: 4/2/2021 - 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
Resin,
thank
you,
madam
great.
Please
let
the
record
reflect
all
members
are
present
and
we
do
have
a
quorum
good
morning.
Members
happy
friday.
I
want
to
remind
everybody
to
please
keep
your
microphone
on
you
unless
you
are
speaking
and
that
you
please
keep
your
camera
on
at
all
times.
Should
you
have
to
turn
it
off?
Just
please
give
us
give
us
a
quick
heads
up
so
that
we're
aware
of
what's
happening.
A
We
have
three
items
on
the
agenda
for
those
of
you
following
us.
Virtually
please
know
that
we
intend
to
take
them
in
the
order
they
appear
so
we'll
take
assembly
bill,
304,
first
assembly
bill,
333,
second
and
then
lastly,
assembly
bill
385,
for
those
of
you
wishing
to
speak
for
during
public
comment,
know
that
we'll
do
that
at
the
very
end
of
the
meeting
and
lastly,
just
out
of
respect
know
that
you'll
often
see
us
looking
in
multiple
directions.
That's
just
because
we
have
a
very
unique
setup
in
our
own
office.
A
C
Good
morning,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
well-known
hard
working
committee
on
government
affairs,
my
name
is
jason
fryerson
for
the
record
assemblyman
for
district
eight
and
about
a
speaker
of
the
valley
state
assembly
here
to
present
ab304.
C
C
This
bill
was
originally
an
effort
to
make
sure
that
law
enforcement
was
trained
on
dealing
with
mental
health
issues,
and
it
became
obvious
to
me,
in
speaking
with
other
law
enforcement
organizations
that
they
were
already
implementing
some
form
of
this,
but
their
terms
of
art
and
law
enforcement
community
that
need
to
be
taken
into
account
and
it's
not
a
one-size-fits-all
type
of
of
issue.
So
a
larger
law
enforcement
agency
may
have
a
more
extensive
program
and
they
may
also
provide
that
education
to
smaller
law
enforcement
agencies.
C
So,
in
speaking
with
law
enforcement,
community
and
post,
it
became
apparent
that
the
better
way
to
do
it
would
be
to
incorporate
what
some
are
already
doing
into
law
that
is
currently
in
regulation
and
and
and
so
that's
kind
of
a
background
of
how
we
got
here
today.
C
Ab304
again
deals
specifically
with
crisis
intervention.
According
to
data
from
the
national
conference
of
state
legislators,
legislatures
at
least
27
states
and
the
district
of
columbia,
have
laws
requiring
officers
to
be
trained
to
respond
to
mental
health,
substance
use
and
behavioral
disorder
issues.
In
theory,
the
role
of
our
criminal
justice
system
seems
simple
enough.
On
its
on
the
surface,
enforce
your
approved
laws
and
penalize
those
who
break
the
laws.
C
However,
in
practice
the
responsibilities
we
placed
on
our
criminal
justice
system,
in
particular
our
peace
officers,
has
only
expanded
individuals
experiencing
mental
health
crises
are
more
likely
to
encounter
law
enforcement
than
receive
medical
assistance.
When
someone
is
experiencing
a
mental
health
crisis,
family
friends,
good
samaritans
typically
call
9-1-1
first.
This
means
that
many
of
our
law
enforcement
officers
by
no
fault
of
their
own
are
responding
to
calls.
They
frankly
lack
the
knowledge,
support
and
resources
to
effectively
handle
peace.
Officers
are
trained
law
enforcement,
not
mental
health
providers.
C
Crisis
intervention
training
can
vary,
but
in
general,
the
overall
goals
of
crisis
intervention
training
are
to
improve
peace
officers,
understanding
of
mental
illness
and
available
community
resources,
increase
an
officer's
confidence
in
managing
incidents
involving
a
person
with
a
mental
health
with
a
mental
illness
and
develop
skills
related
to
verbal
de-escalation,
to
diffuse,
a
mental
health
crisis
and
reduce
use
of
force.
This
training
criteria
promotes
diversion
to
mental
health
services
rather
than
arrests.
C
Again,
ab304
is
rather
short,
the
peace
officer
standards
and
training
commission
shall
establish
well,
they
already
established
minimum
standard
for
continuing
education
requirements
for
peace
officers
to
be
completed
annually.
Currently,
training
related
to
mental
health
is
already
required.
Section
1
c
2
of
this
bill
expand
the
continuing
education
requirement
on
mental
health
to
include
crisis
intervention.
C
Specifically,
I
want
to
be
clear
that
currently
in
regulation
that
things
chapter
289
of
the
administrative
code
crisis,
intervention,
training
is
already
listed,
av
304
will
ensure
that
the
intent
of
the
legislature
is
clear
that
crisis
intervention
should
be
a
priority
for
law
enforcement
officers
and
part
of
their
continual
education.
That
concludes
my
introductory
remarks.
I
originally
had
prepared
to
have
taylor
allison,
who
serves
in
many
roles,
but
is
the
chair
of
the
douglas
county,
behavioral
health
task
force
and
chair
of
the
northern
regional
behavioral
health
policy
board.
C
She
actually
had
a
couple
other
titles.
She
was
unable
to
be
here
today,
but
I
have
coordinated
with
law
enforcement,
both
metro
and
and
post
on
this
issue,
and
and
really
what
brought
this
home
to
me
was.
I
saw
a
story
of
a
mental
health
call
where
law
enforcement
showed
up
and
there
was
someone
having
a
mental
health
crisis
and
they
were
sitting
down.
C
I
believe
it
was
in
a
store
and
the
officer
remarkably
about
10
feet
away,
sat
down
on
the
floor
across
and
completely
de-escalated
the
situation,
and
there
was
no
violence
and
and
that
individual
was
able
to
get
the
mental
health
assistance
that
that
person
needed
and-
and
I
think
that
is
what
we're
trying
to
do-
we're
trying
to
think
outside
the
box
and
make
sure
that
officers
are
trained
to
deal
with
this
situation
when
de-escalation
or
or
intervention
otherwise
is
a
better
way.
And
so
with
that.
C
That's
assembly
bill
304,
and
I
would
welcome
any
questions.
A
A
I
don't
think
you
jinxed
yourself
when
you
said
it
would
be
a
quick
hearing,
but
one
more
time,
if
I
accidentally
skipped
anybody
feel
free
to
mute
yourself
and
stay
training
for
the
record
at
this
time.
D
D
E
A
D
F
F
A
D
E
Good
morning
sheriff
flores
and
the
assembly
committee
on
government
affairs,
my
name
is
christopher
reese
r-I-e-s
on
behalf
of
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police
department.
I'd
first
like
to
thank
speaker
for
ryerson
for
bringing
for
assembly
bill
304
and
offer
our
support.
Ovmpd
has
been
at
the
forefront
regarding
crisis,
invention
training
and
each
new
officer
received
cit
training
during
their
academy
experience
crisis
intervention
techniques
continue
to
be
an
important
part
of
de-escalation
strategies.
E
This
continuing
training
is
a
significant
portion
of
being
able
to
identify
a
person
in
crisis
quickly
and
effectively
and
getting
that
person
the
resources
they
need
safely
and
efficiently.
We
agree
with
this
training
being
codified
into
the
law.
Again,
thank
you,
speaker
freyerson,
and
we
send
our
support
of
ab30304.
A
D
D
B
After
watching
many
hours
of
body
cam,
I've
seen
officers
respond
very
well
to
mental
health
crises
and
I've
seen
officers
respond
not
so
well
to
mental
health
crises.
So
I
think
codifying
some
training
is
going
to
help
all
of
us,
because
a
large
portion
of
what
we're
seeing
down
south
relates
to
mental
health
and
the
inadequacies
in
our
mental
health
system,
where
that's
forcing
police
to
have
to
respond
to
things
that
perhaps
they
shouldn't
be
forced
to
respond
to.
B
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us,
sir.
Next
caller
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
us
304.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
again
members
of
the
committee.
I
think
I'll
count
my
blessings
before
it
happens,
and
I
I
thank
you
all
for
your
time
and
attention
and
interest
in
this
very
important
issue.
A
Thank
you,
speaker
verizon,
and
I
really
do
believe.
That's
the
fastest
hearing
we've
had
in
this
committee
this
entire
session.
So
thank
you.
We
appreciate
that
at
this
time,
we'll
close
out
the
hearing
on
assembly,
bill
304
and
next
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
and
assembly
build
333
assemblywoman
krasner
good
morning
welcome
and
whenever
you're
ready.
G
G
H
Good
morning,
mr
memphis
of
the
committee,
michael
ponti
mcdonald,
toronto,
representing
heinz
ranch
land
company,
thank
you
to
assemblywoman
krasner
for
the
introduction
assembly
bill.
333
involves
local
government
land
use,
planning
matters
and
essentially
has
two
components.
The
first
section
one
addresses
the
procedures
for
seeking
judicial
review
of
local
government
land
use
decisions
and
seeks
to
improve
the
efficiency
and
timeliness
of
judicial
review.
When
a
current
law,
an
agreed
person
may
seek
judicial
review
by
filing
a
petition
within
25
days
of
the
final
decision.
H
These
actions
are
in
the
nature
of
an
appeal
and
are
decided
by
submission
of
briefs.
However,
nothing
in
the
current
law
addresses
when
those
briefs
must
be
filed,
which,
in
practice
has
led
to
considerable
delay
in
ensuring
the
important
constitutional
property
rights
at
issue
are
submitted
to
courts
in
a
timely
fashion.
H
In
fact,
it's
not
uncommon
for
it
to
take
one
or
more
years
for
judicial
decisions,
leaving
the
development
status
of
land
in
limbo
and
creating
an
opportunity
for
abuse
by
opponents
seeking
to
delay
a
project.
Section
1
adds
time
frames
for
when
briefs
must
be
filed.
40
days
for
the
opening
brief
30
days.
For
the
answering
brief
and
30
days
for
a
reply,
the
forms
of
the
briefs
must
comply
with
the
forms
for
appellate
briefs
under
nevada
rules
of
appellate
procedures.
H
Within
seven
days
of
completing
the
briefs,
any
party
may
request
a
hearing
two
items
to
note
about
these
procedures.
First,
the
proposed
briefing
schedule
is
identical
to
the
briefing
schedule
already
codified
in
the
administrative
procedures
act
under
nrs
233b
133,
which
governs
judicial
review
of
state
agency
decisions.
H
H
H
H
A
simple
example
to
think
of
is
the
development
of
a
parking
lot
when
it's
dirt,
some
of
the
rain
soaks
into
the
ground.
Some
collect
some
puddles
some
drains
off,
but
once
that
lot
is
paved,
the
rain
which
used
to
puddle
or
soak
into
the
ground
now
hits
the
pavement
and
all
of
it
runs
off
to
the
property
next
door.
H
H
H
While
we
agree
with
and
support
the
state,
engineer's
historic
approach
to
these
issues.
There
is
some
concern
that,
without
explicitly
recognizing
the
exemption
in
statute,
chapter
533
could
be
construed
as
requiring
a
water
right
appropriation,
which
would
have
significant
unintended
consequences.
H
You
could
also
put
local
governments
in
basins
where
no
new
water
rights
are
available
in
the
untenable
position
of
choosing
between
managing
stormwater,
responsibly
or
being
exposed
to
takings
claims,
since
their
stormwater
management
plan
would
necessarily
require
taking
someone
else's
water
right.
It
could
also
give
rise
to
speculators
filing
blanket
permits
on
nuisance.
Stormwater
flows
to
leverage
payoffs
from
developers
unnecessarily
increasing
the
price
of
housing
and
other
development.
H
H
It's
worth
noting
that
nothing
in
this
bill
would
affect
other
storm
water
permits
that
are
required
for
construction,
such
as
ndep
construction,
storm
water
permits,
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plans
or
similar
permits
related
to
water
quality.
It
would
simply
allow
local
governments
to
continue
responsible,
stormwater
management
on
new
development
without
implicating
any
new
water
right
appropriations.
H
We
have
discussed
this
bill
with
the
state
engineer
and
while
there
was
no
concern
with
the
intent,
the
state
engineer
believes
the
language
could
be
narrowed
and
clarified
to
avoid
unintentionally
encompassing
other
types
of
waters
that
are
currently
regulated
by
the
state
engineer.
So
we
intend
to
continue
to
work
with
stakeholders,
including
the
state
engineer,
city
of
reno
and
eureka
county
and
hope
to
have
a
consensus
amendment
soon
that
addresses
their
issues,
including
a
population
cap
that
will
exclude
the
rural
counties.
I
Thank
you
michael
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
don
padlock,
I'm
the
general
manager
of
heinz
ranch
land
company
and
we're
the
developers
of
a
5000
home
master
plan
community
within
the
city
of
reno
and
a
little
bit
of
history.
I
I
don't
intend
to
retrace
mr
pawney's
testimony
did
a
tremendous
job
just
going
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
background
as
to
why
we're
here
and
why
this
is
coming
forward.
I
I
From
our
perspective,
as
a
developer
of
a
large
project,
we
believe
we
have
one
chance
to
get
flood
control
done
correctly
and
to
be
able
to
protect
public
safety
in
the
future
which,
through
this
effort,
you
know
the
focus
turned
to
the
statute
and
how
we
manage
stormwater
and
state,
and
that's
where
533030
came
to
light
for
us
and
the
unintended
consequences
that
resulted.
I
I
However,
the
exclusion
from
the
exemption
implies
that
all
other
jurisdictions
would
require
water
appropriation
for
the
storm
water
facilities
now,
historically,
and
currently,
the
state
engineer
does
not
require
a
water
appropriation
for
storm.
Water
management
and
ab-333
simply
seeks
to
close
a
loophole
that
was
created
in
0-3-0
and
codified.
The
existing
practice
of
the
state
engineer
as
it
relates
to
stormwater
management
facilities
resulting
from
a
local
government's
flood
control
policy.
I
Mr
pawnee
detailed,
the
the
minimus
flows
we're
talking
about
here.
These
are
not
water
rights
created
for
beneficial
use,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
these
are
nuisance
oils
and
they
are
managed
for
public
safety.
I
There
have
been
stakeholders
involved
in
the
initial
conversations
here
and
the
language
is
being
refined,
so
in
closing,
I'd
just
like
to
thank
assemblywomankrasner
for
taking
leadership
on
this
important
issue
for
public
safety
within
the
state
and
the
division
of
water
resources
and
the
state
engineer
for
their
time
and
help
crafting
this
language
and
and
getting
it
right.
City
of
reno
is
heavily
involved
in
this,
as
as
washoe
county
metal,
water
authority
has
provided
input
and
as
well
as
eureka
county.
I
J
Thank
you,
chairman
flores,
thank
you,
assemblywoman
kresner,
mr
pagne
and
mr
padalock.
I
appreciate
all
of
this
information.
I'm
trying
to
I
guess,
conceptualize
or
understand
this
in
a
in
a
practical
matter.
Is
there
a
way
that
you
could
kind
of
walk
me
through
how
this
happens
is
because
I
guess
I
get
it
a
little.
A
little
hung
up
with
some
of
the
wording
in
one
of
the
one
of
the
attachments
so
storm
water,
runoff
generated
by
the
development.
H
So
the
local
governments,
when
they
approve
a
development
project.
This
is
one
of
the
things
they're
looking
at.
They
want
to
make
sure
that
when
that
water
flows
off
it
doesn't
harm
any
of
the
other
properties,
and
so
there's
engineering
techniques
where
you
create
basins.
If
you
will,
you
may
have
seen
some
of
these
on
the
side
of
the
road
where
they
can
collect
that
water
and
either
slow
it
down.
H
So
it
cools
off
the
property
kind
of
in
the
same
manner
it
used
to
do
before
you
built
the
parking
lot
or
it
just
holds
it
on
site
in
kind
of
a
pond
and
just
lets
it
evaporate
off
or
soak
into
the
ground
on
site
so
again,
you're
not
harming
the
neighboring
properties
because
you're
building
it.
The
question
is
when
those
local
governments,
as
a
matter
of
public,
safe
health
and
safety,
are
trying
to
manage
these
storm
water
flows.
These
nuisance
flows
to
prevent
harm.
H
Historically,
the
state
engineer
has
not
required
that
water
right
permit
and
we're
just
trying
to
codify
that
historic
practice,
because
if
you
were
to
have
to
go
out
and
try
to
secure
a
water
right
permit,
every
time
you
put
in
a
parking
lot,
you're
taking
water
that
should
be
available
for
beneficiaries
for
drinking
water,
for
irrigation
and
now
sun,
you're,
just
kind
of
capturing
and
holding
it
to
sit
in
a
detention
basin
for
storm
water,
which
really
doesn't
serve
good
policy
purposes.
J
Thank
you.
Thank
you
that
hearing
that
again
kind
of
now
contextualizes
all
of
it
for
me.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
that
example.
So
I
guess
my
question
is
just
using
this
example
say
that
there's
for
some
reason
a
homeowner
and
the
property
next
to
this.
J
Next,
to
this
parking
lot
development,
if
that
homeowner
captured
that
water
and
wanted
to
use
it
for
their
own,
is
this
where
this
issue
of
litigation
comes
in,
like,
as
I
know,
it
might
be
a
crazy
example,
but
if
you
can
maybe
give
me
an
example
of
that
where
that
litigation.
H
Yes
and
through
the
chair,
michael
pony
again,
so
that
the
litigation
concern
that
we
have
there's
a
number
of
different
aspects,
one
there's
just
the
litigation
aspect
of
discharging
new
water
onto
that
neighbor's
property
and
causing
damage
from
the
stormwater
flooding.
So
that's
what
the
local
government
engineering
requirements
avoid
they're
managing
that
storm
water,
so
it
doesn't
harm
the
neighboring
property.
H
The
second
issue
is:
do
I
have
to
actually
secure
a
water
right
permit
to
hold
that,
so
this
keep
in
mind
that
the
type
of
water
we're
talking
about?
Isn't
water
that
you
could
today
go
get
an
appropriation
on?
This
is
not
like
water
off
of
a
riverbed
or
where
you
drill
a
a
well
pull
it
out
of
the
ground.
H
These
are
new
nuisance
flows
that
are
only
created
because
we've
put
pavement
down
on
the
land
if
you
will-
and
so
the
concern
with
that
I
raised
with
the
takings,
is:
if
you
have
a
basin
where
all
of
the
water
rights
have
been
appropriated,
they're
all
being
used
for
municipal
use
or
irrigation
use.
There's
none
available
to
just
go
to
the
state
engineer
and
say:
hey.
H
Will
you
give
me
a
new
water
right
if
this
were
to
be
construed
to
say,
yeah
every
time
you
put
in
a
parking
lot,
you
need
a
new
water
right,
there's
none
available
so
by
the
by
implementing
responsible
storm
water
management
practices.
The
local
governments
in
essence
would
be
effectuating
and
taking
because
they
would
be
requiring
you
to
take
someone
else's
water
right
that
might
be
used
for
irrigating
a
farm
just
to
build
that
parking
lot.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
The
only
question
I
had
was
for
michael
michael,
you,
you
talked
about
the
amendment
by
eureka.
County
is,
is
that's
still
going
to
be
an
amendment
to
this
bill.
A
If
I
could
just
ask
a
question-
and
if
you
could
just
walk
me
through
how
this
normally
happens
say
I
there
is
a
vacant
lot
and
we'll
call
that
la
a
and
I
I
I
own
the
adjacent
lot
b
and
because
the
vacant
lot
a
has
been
there
consistently
for
x
amount
of
years,
and
there
there's
been
a
runoff
from
a
lot
from
that
lot.
Bacon
lot
a
coming
on
to
lot
b.
A
That
benefits
me
in
some
way
either
because
I
have
some
type
of
of
a
irrigation
system
that
is
being
partially
fed
from
what
I
consistently
see
happening
in
lotte
coming
out
to
be.
Is
there
ever
a
weird
dynamic
in
that
relationship
where,
once
that
new
development
is
coming
into
place,
that
there
has
to
be
some
type
of
relationship
structure
so
that
I
can
see
still
continue
to
reap
that
benefit
that
I
was
getting
before
or
because
I
never
had
any
type
of
control
over
lot
a
it.
A
H
Mr
chairman,
mike
piney,
again
great
question,
so
if
the,
if
that
water,
that's
coming
off
of
your
lot,
eight
a
lot
b
is
a
consistent,
perennial
source
of
water.
You
know
it's
one,
that's
flowing
all
the
time
such
that
you
could
go
to
the
state
engineer
and
ask
to
get
a
permit
to
put
that
to
beneficial
use
this
bill
and
that
development
would
not
affect
that
whatsoever.
You
cannot
develop
the
land
in
a
way
that
would
impair
your
ability
to
continue
to
use
that
permitted
water
right
for
a
beneficial
use.
H
What
we're
talking
about
here
is
a
different
kind
of
a
water
right,
a
different
type
of
water.
It's
that
nuisance
flow,
the
increase.
So
what
what's
flowing
to
lot
b
right
now,
the
development
of
lot
a
is
going
to
increase
that,
and
so
the
local
governments
have
to
manage.
It's
basically
a
do
no
arm
approach.
They
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
putting
more
water
onto
your
lobby
than
exist
than
is
flowing
there
right
now,
and
so
we're
trying
to
talk
about
how
do
we?
I
Yeah,
mr
chair,
if
I
may
you
it's
it's
a
great
question
and
we
deal
with
this
all
the
time
in
the
development
world.
The
way
we
manage
stormwater.
Now
we
are,
if
I'm,
the
owner
of
parcel
a
and
you're
the
owner
of
parcel
b,
and
I
come
in
and
I
develop,
you
know,
say
a
charter
school
and
I
have
a
parking
lot
on
rooftops
and
playgrounds.
I
The
development
of
my
project
is
not
permitted
to
increase
the
amount
of
runoff
that
now
impacts
your
property
and
we
handle
that
through
all
the
jurisdictional
codes,
we
are
required
to
slow
the
water
down
and
release
it
on
a
normal
basis,
as
it
would
flow
or
what
normally
happens.
We
are
required
to
hold
the
water
that
we
create.
I
So
in
terms
of
let's
say
there
was
you
know,
one
acre
foot
of
water
that
normally
flowed
off
our
property
onto
yours
and
with
the
new
project
and
now
became
two
acre
feet
of
water
because
of
the
hard
surfaces
would
be
exiting
our
property.
We
are
required
to
hold
on
our
property
that
one
acre
foot
of
water,
and
that
is
where
it
comes
in
the
issue.
I
Do
we
require
a
water
appropriation
to
hold
the
water
that
we've
created
by
our
hard
surfaces,
so
by
code
we
are
not
allowed
to
impact
your
property,
and
this
is
how
we
manage
it.
It's
not
a
beneficial
use.
We
are
not.
You
know
irrigating
out
of
this.
We
are
not
serving
municipal
use
out
of
this.
This
is
not
a
stock
water
right.
This
is
purely
a
storm
water
management
and
that
water
either
infiltrates
into
the
ground
or
evaporates
out
of
the
pond.
A
Absolutely
thank
you
and
again,
and
that
sets
the
record
to
clear
that
this
is
not
a
scenario
where
a
parcel
will
in
any
way
get
less
than
what
they're
already
getting,
but
rather
what
happens
when
there's
a
nuisance,
because
they're
getting
more
and-
and
I
think
that
makes
it
abundantly
clear
for
everybody.
I
appreciate
that
members
any
additional
questions.
A
Seeing
none
at
this
time
I'd
like
to
invite
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
30,
333
assembly,
women
crashers,
do
we
have
anybody
else
joining
us
via
zoom?
That
was
hoping
to
testify
and
support?
I
don't
believe
we
do,
but
I
just
want
to
double
check
with
you.
G
No,
those
are
my
two
co-presenters.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you
so,
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
333.
Thank
you.
D
K
Good
morning,
chair
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
this
is
lindsey
knox,
l-I-n-d-s-a-y
knowx
with
mcdonald
carano
on
behalf
of
nevada,
home
builders
association.
The
nvhba
is
a
statewide
advocacy
organization
for
the
home
building
industry
and
is
governed
by
the
builders
association
of
northern
nevada
and
the
southern
nevada
home
builders.
Association.
K
Ab-333
codifies
and
clarifies
a
long-standing
unwritten
rule
that
no
water
right
appropriation
is
necessary
for
surface
storm
water
retention
and
attention
as
part
of
a
local
government's
flood
water
control
policy.
This
type
of
de
minimis
retention
and
detention
has
no
real
impact
on
downstream
users,
but
is
important
to
protect
the
community
from
significant
stormwater.
Events
like
we
experienced
in
nevada
in
2017.
K
Ab-333
also
provides
an
established
briefing
schedule
for
land-use
appeals,
ensuring
that
builders
and
local
governments
can
obtain
prompt
judicial
review
and
that
much
needed
building
projects
are
not
unnecessarily
delayed
in
court.
Overall
ab333
aligns
with
nvhba's
goal
to
promote
policy
that
reduces
and
controls
the
cost
of
building
homes.
K
The
bill
removes
any
uncertainty
over
de
minimis
water
issues
and
creates
a
more
efficient
land
use
appeal
process.
These
types
of
policies
mean
homes
can
be
built
faster
and
with
less
cost,
the
sale
price
of
a
home
is
always
in
direct
correlation
to
the
cost
to
build
it.
Ab333
helps
our
builders
community,
bring
more
affordable
homes
to
market.
We
thank
assembly,
woman
krasner
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
are
proud
to
stand
and
support.
Thank
you.
A
D
E
D
L
J-A-M-I-E-R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z,
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county.
I
wanted
to
thank
the
bill
sponsor
for
bringing
forward
the
bill.
We
do
support
the
intent
behind
the
legislation,
understanding
the
concerns
of
some
of
the
other
jurisdictions
that
were
mentioned
during
the
bill
hearing
and
wanted
to
direct
the
committee
to
a
letter
submitted
on
nellis
from
my
director
of
engineering
in
washoe
county,
believing
that
we
believe
that
this
is
a
good
policy
that
should
move
forward.
Thank
you.
D
E
Good
morning,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
dan
morgan
d-a-n-m-o-r-g-a-n,
ceo
of
the
builders
association
of
nevada
of
northern
nevada.
I
would
like
to
thank-
and
we
would
like
to
thank
assemblyman
woman
krasner
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
As
the
presenters
and
several
others
have
stated,
ab-333
codifies
and
clarifies
the
long-standing
rules
that
no
water
appropriation
is
necessary
for
surface
storm.
E
D
D
E
Good
morning,
chair
flores
and
committee
members
for
the
record,
I
am
steve
walker,
s-t-e-v-e
w-a-l-k-e-r,
I'm
representing
eureka
county
eureka
county
is
opposed
to
ab-333
for
the
following
reasons:
allowing
storm
water
bases
to
capture
and
consumptively
evaporate
water.
Without
some
analysis
of
impact
to
existing
rights,
we
believe
is
inconsistent
with
existing
water
law,
particularly
when
capture
exceeds
twenty
thousand
gallons
recognized
as
de
minimis
use
for
nrs
533.027
for
wildlife
gundlers.
E
Additionally,
if
this
occurs
in
designated
basins,
examples
hydrographic
basins
around
urban
and
agricultural
areas,
where
new
permit
permits
are
not
allowed
the
water
evaporation
needs
to
be
accounted
for
via
a
water
right.
Eureka
county
would
welcome
continued
dialogue
with
the
bill's
sponsors
to
see
if
our
issue
can
be
addressed.
Thank.
E
A
And
thank
you
next,
caller
in
opposition
to
assembly,
bill
333.
D
F
Chair
floor
is
the
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
callie
wilson
with
the
city
of
reno.
That's
I
c-a-l-l-I-w-I-l
s
and
sam
e
y.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
information
as
part
of
the
hearing
on
av
333.
Today
we
are
neutral
on
this
bill
and
appreciate
the
bill
sponsor
reaching
out
to
the
city
of
reno,
with
their
goals
and
intent
in
advance.
In
advance
of
today's
hearings,
the
city's
zoning
code,
which
was
adopted
in
january
2021
after
a
multi-year
public
engagement
process,
includes
development
requirements
for
areas
that
are
subject
to
flooding.
F
In
our
closed
basins,
development
plans
must
include
on-site
detention
retention
basins
that
are
adequately
sized
to
mitigate
the
increase
of
storm
water
runoff
as
a
result
of
the
development
to
a
minimum
mitigation
ratio
of
1
to
1.3
during
the
100-year
10-day
storm.
These
mitigation
measures
are
directly
focused
on
ensuring
we're
able
to
protect
the
health
and
safety
of
our
residents
as
our
community
grows
and
evolves.
F
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us.
We'll
continue
with
those
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
for
assembly
bill
333.
D
E
C-H-R-I-S-T-H-O-R-S-O-N
and
I'm
a
deputy
administrator
with
the
division
of
water
resources,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
division
of
water
resources
to
testify
neutral
on
av-333,
as
you
heard
from
the
bill's
sponsor,
the
division
is
committed
to
continue
working
with
the
bill
sponsors
toward
language
that
that
is
mutually
acceptable.
Thank
you.
A
Great
and
lastly,
if
we
could
have
our
assembly
woman
come
back
and
any
closing
remarks
you
may
have.
G
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman,
and
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out.
The
hearing
on
assembly
build
333
and
next
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
assembly
build
385..
We
have
our
majority
leader
benitez
thompson
here
good
morning,
whenever
you're
ready.
N
Thank
you
so
much
chair.
Thank
you
so
much
members
of
government
affairs
committee
for
entertaining
the
notion
that
I'm
bringing
to
you
today
the
concepts
and
values
in
assembly
bill
385.
N
This
bill
is
being
brought
because
of
certain
trends
that
I'm
starting
to
see
in
public
gorgeous
boards
and
how
they
negotiate
contracts
for
employment
and
when
the
contracts
are
negotiated
for
employment
at
the
beginning
of
at
the
beginning
of
employment,
we're
just
seeing
a
trend
where
some
conversations
around
fringe
benefits
some
conversations
around
around
automatic
severance
pay
are
negotiated
in
on
the
front
end
and
then
on
the
back
end.
N
We
see
public
boards
having
their
hands
tied
and
their
ability
to
talk
about
perhaps
the
best
and
highest
use
of
public
dollars
as
people
are
exiting,
but
they've
already,
you
know
kind
of
walked
themselves
into
a
corner
on
the
front
end
with
some
of
these
contractual
obligations.
N
So
really
that
is
the
heart
of
what
this
bill
is
looking
to
get
at.
If
you
look
at
to
the
conceptual
amendment,
I
will
go
ahead
and
walk
you
through
it.
N
The
conceptual
amendment
two
section,
one
one
that
this
bill
will
only
apply
to
employees
whose
contract
is
approved
by
a
public
body,
not
including
contracts,
subject
to
collective
bargaining.
So
I
really
am
looking
to
get
at
specific
sets
of
employees
here.
So
these
are
not
people
who
are
classified
positions.
N
These
are
not
people
who
are
living
within
a
structure
of
steps
and
grades,
because
you
kind
of
have
a
predictable
path,
that's
very
transparent
to
the
public,
to
follow
or
how
that
pay
is
working
or
how
that
pay
flows
out
for
employees,
groups
and
classes
or
specific
management
groups
that
have
collective
bargaining
for
for
certain
management
groups
in
there.
These
are
really
individual
contracts
for
individual
employees
that
rise
to
the
level
of
being
presented
to
the
public
body
for
approval.
N
What
this
is
referring
to
is
in
section
one
one,
that
when
a
when
employees
like
this
are
leaving
an
organization
and
if
they
happen
to
be
in
a
process
of
investigation,
then
the
board
cannot
at
that
point
award
any
additional
pay
or
bonuses
until
the
completion
of
an
investigation,
and
this
is
to
prevent
once
again
a
trend
where
we
see
a
high-level
person
exiting
and
the
board
committing
additional
pay
past
the
date
of
employment
to
that
person,
kind
of
a
severance
pay
and
then
finding
out
that
we
have
the
results
of
an
investigation
that
are
unfavorable
towards
that
person
and
have
the
public
wondering
why
in
the
world
that
person
got
to
exit
with
additional
pay
when
they
were
found.
N
When,
when
we
didn't
know
the
outcome
of
the
investigation,
it
just
seems
best
to
have
public
bodies
really
wait
to
see
what
that
outcome
is
before.
They
have
to
award
a
severance
pay
or
bonuses
that
were
con
negotiated
in
the
beginning
of
a
contract.
N
Three
clarify
that
an
employee
may
receive
a
retirement
buyout
or
a
partial
buyout.
So
what
I'm
really
looking
to
get
at
is
nothing.
That's
merit-based,
nothing
that
this
particular
employee
might
have
accrued
or
earned,
or
that
would
otherwise
be
given.
So
a
good
example
of
this
would
be
in
some
local
governments.
During
the
recession
we
saw
them
offer
buyouts
to
large
employee
groups
in
order
to
reduce
the
amount
of
their
payroll
to
help
meet
their
balance
out
their
general
fund
obligations.
N
Those
kind
of
large
those
kind
of
packages
that
are
offered
to
employee
groups
are
not
the
ones
that
I
am
targeting.
These
are
really
once
again
contracts
that
are
negotiated
with
specific
individuals
and,
what's
negotiated
at
the
front
end
of
a
contract
that
ties
the
hand
of
a
public
body
when
that
person
leaves
under
certain
circumstances,
number
four
would
be
clarify
that
an
employee
is
entitled
to
payment
of
any
type
of
accrued
leave
in
addition
to
annual
leave,
compens,
compens
or
sick
leave
authorized
by
law.
N
So
once
again,
this
was
something
that
the
local
governments
were
asking
for.
More
clarity
on
that
anything
that
has
been
earned
by
the
employee
during
the
time
of
their
employment
is
theirs.
This
would
be
when
I
talk
about
severance
pay
or
severance
bonuses
that
those
are
additional
pots
of
money
that
the
employee
has
not
otherwise
earned.
Can
you
say
there
were
pots
of
money
negotiated
in
at
the
front
end
of
a
contract,
so
that
was
just
trying
to
draw
a
better
line
of
distinction
for
folks
about
what
the
intent
of
this
bill
was.
N
Section
two
is
deleted,
except
to
provide
the
compensation
set
by
a
negotiated
contract
shall
not
include
fringe
benefits,
not
otherwise
made
available
to
other
employees.
So
once
again,
this
is
just
a
head
off
at
the
pass,
a
new
trend.
What
that
we
are
seeing
from
the
front
end
of
these
contracts,
you
see
fringe
benefits,
above
and
beyond
what
other
public
employees
might
be
offered
being
negotiated,
and
I
just
personally
feel
like
that.
Such
you've
got
to
kind
of
tell
public
bodies
here.
N
Are
things
that
you're
not
going
to
be
allowed
to
contract
and
negotiate
on
here
that
that
these
kind
of
things
perhaps
aren't
the
best
and
highest
use
of
taxpayer
dollars
in
taxpayer
money?
And
so
we
should
probably
just
say,
you're
prohibited
from
doing
this,
because
otherwise
boards
will
have
the
pressure
and
have
been
getting
the
pressure
to
kind
of
negotiate
infringe
that
you,
you
might
see
in
a
corporate
environment,
but
you
typically
don't
see
in
a
public
environment,
and
so
I
think
we
want
to
get
away
from
that
practice.
N
Section
three
remains
a
state
the
same
with
a
enactment
date
of
october.
First,
so
all
existing
contracts
that
are
out
there
are
fine
and
will
continue
to
go
on
it's
any
new
contracts,
contract
amendments
or
renewals
after
october.
First.
So
the
way
that
I
think
of
this
is
if
you're
you've
got
a
contract
that
expires
in
the
next
year,
and
then
you
you've
got
a
re-up
in
a
new
contract
and
you're
someone
who's
subject
to
this,
then
that
contract
would
have
to
be
renegotiated
with
these
principles
being
considered
by
that
public
body.
N
A
Thank
you,
majority
leader,
and
with
that
we'll
open
up
for
questions,
I
am
now
reviewing
the
chat
and
we'll
start
off
with
assemblywoman
anderson.
Please.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
majority
leader
benitez
thompson
for
bringing
this
forward.
G
I
have
a
few
questions
my
first
has
to
do
with
is
this
only
for
the
the
I'm
just
gonna
use
my
rope,
my
world
of
let's
just
let's
just
say,
school
districts,
so
this
would
would
this
only
be
for
a
superintendent,
or
would
this
be
for
any
member
of
a
leadership
team
that
is
not
that
has
to
be
approved
by
the
governing
body.
N
I
thank
you
so
much
for
the
question,
so
the
intent
would
be
really
for
when
you
say
leadership
team.
I
believe
that
you
mean
people
who
are
not
otherwise
in
a
class
and
also
not
in
a
management
group
that
is
collectively
bargained.
So
then
that
typically,
is
where
you
get
to
your
management
team.
So
if
they
have
individual
contracts
that
are
going
to
be
approved
by
a
board,
then
I
would
say
yes.
G
So,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
clear,
oh
sorry,
mr
chair,
may
I
have
a
follow-up.
G
Thank
you
so
just
to
clarify.
So
let's
say
that
it
is
the
and
I'm
just
going
to
again
make
up
a
a
position.
Let's
just
say
that
it's
the
city
of
sparks,
and
it
is
their
communications
director
that
has
a
a
separate
contract
that
is
not
being
followed
by
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
because
it
is
such
a
very
specific
area
that
it
has
that
different
contract,
that's
kind
of
what
you're,
what
you're,
referring
to
to
anything
at
all
when
it
comes
to
these.
N
I
am,
and
the
good
thing
is,
is
there's
no
specific
reference
to.
I
know
you
mentioned
the
city
of
sparks
just
for
example,
but
there's
no
specific
example
from
that
public
body,
but
but
I,
but
to
the
question
that
you
are
asking-
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
just
to
make
sure
that
no
one
thought
we
were
pointing
a
finger
at
them,
but
but
it
would
be
so
it's
these
individual
contracts
that
are
negotiated
and
brought
to
a
public
body
for
contemplation
and
approval,
and
they
typically
don't
fall.
N
There's
typically
just
a
handful
of
these
within
these
public
bodies,
because
otherwise
you
have
employment,
salary
and
benefit
structures
that
are
that
are
dictated
and
so
you've
got
some
boundaries
around
that.
But
within
these
contracted
positions,
hypothetic
hypothetically,
the
board
can
put
in
almost
anything
that
a
person
requests,
and
so
that's
where
we're
trying
to
put
in
some
boundaries
to
say
here
are
certain
things
that
the
board
ought
not
to
be
able
to
entertain.
G
G
Let's
say
that
there's
a
budget
cut
and
all
employees
have
to
take
a
a
cut
of
some
sort.
Would
this
also?
Is
there
a?
I
know,
there's
some
clauses
sometimes
that
if
you're
the
executive
level,
you
are
basically
excused
from
that.
Would
that
be
a
part
of
this
as
well?
Would
that
still
allow
that
or
would
it
is
it
trying
to
address
that
that
all
employees
are
equal
and
if
there's
a
five
percent
cut
at
the
custodial
position,
there
should
also
be
a
five
percent
cut
at
the
highest
person
position.
N
N
So
essentially
you
have
one
person
who
can
negotiate
a
recession-proof
contract
and-
and
I
think
that's
that's
fair
to
contemplate
as
it
stands
right
now
in
this
amendment,
and
it
doesn't
contemplate
that,
but
I
think
it
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
hear
from
I
I
I
think
that
within
the
set
of
principles
and
values
that
I'm
trying
to
get
at
with
that,
it
makes
sense
to
say
that
you
ought
not
to
build
into
negotiated
contract
a
clause
that
says
that
the
board
could
never
contemplate
or
have
public
deliberation
over
a
reduction
of
that
pay.
G
N
And
I
think
the
good
thing
is
most
you
know:
I've
had
lots
of
conversations
with
lots
of
different
public
boards
around
this
bill,
as
you
can
imagine,
and
that
that
really,
I
think,
seems
to
be
a
very
new
trend.
So
I
don't
think
that
there's
a
majority
of
contracts
out
there
of
public
boards
who
have
entertained
such
an
idea,
but
I
think
there's
been
at
least
one
public
case
more
recently
that
has
been
discussed
in.
G
Thank
you,
I'm
more
than
happy
to
work
with
you
on
that.
If
you,
if
you're
open
to
that
and
then
the
other
question,
I
promise
you
is
my
last
question,
chair
flores
when
it
comes
to
the
bonuses
that
are
sometimes
mentioned
in
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
understanding.
This
correctly,
I
believe
it's
in
section
2.4,
point
b,
roman
numeral,
free
wow
organizational
skills
are
coming
in
on
that
one.
When
there's
an
increase
in
salary
based
on
merit,
including
without
limitation
bonuses,
are
you?
G
Are
you
saying
that
a
bonus
has
to
be
tied
to
a
goal
or
metrics
that
has
been
decided
upon
in
an
open
meeting,
or
is
there
a
goal
or
metrics
that
has
been
discussed
in
private?
I
guess
I'm
I'm
asking
for
a
little
bit
more
clarification
on
that
specific
section
as
to
how
bonuses
should
be
awarded
when
it
comes
to
public
bodies
and
the
taxpayer
money.
N
I
think
that
that's
a
wonderful
question
so
right
now
as
it
stands,
I
struck
out
most
of
section
two,
but
I
think
that
once
again,
the
the
amendment
we
the
con,
the
conversation
about
bonuses,
has
been
really
interesting,
because
many
public
organizations
will
will
tell
you
that
in
order
to
get
a
really
qualified
candidate,
you
kind
of
have
to
offer
some
kind
of
a
bonus.
N
Fine.
I
I
think
that
I
I
get
that
that.
Why
that's
a
reasonable
argument
to
make,
I
think,
where
it
becomes
unreasonable,
though,
or
where
I
think
it
becomes
contrary
to
a
good
use
of
good
stewardship
of
our
public
dollar
dollars
is
when
those
bonuses
are
automatic
and
without
any
other
qualifiers
there's.
So
the
public
body
hasn't
put
in
place
specific
goals
or
metrics
to
say:
hey
high
level
management,
leadership
person.
N
You
know
if
you
can
help
us
reach
these
goals
for
our
organization
and
we
can
successfully
meet
them.
Then
we
can
have
conversations
as
a
public
body
about
a
bonus
to
you,
but
on
the
front
end
we
have
seen
a
trend
where
those
bonuses
are
are
automatically
built
into
the
pay
structure
without
any
type
of
tied
to
to
goals
or
to
to
merit
conversation.
N
N
I
think
that
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
continue
to
talk
about
bonuses
and
how
they
are
written
into
contracts.
I
don't
think
that
it's
anything
to
be
contrary
to
bonuses.
I
think
that
it's
bonuses,
within
the
context
of
a
board
setting
public
record
and
dialogue,
around
goals
and
metrics
for
those
bonuses
which
I
think
most
do.
N
I
think
that
once
again,
I
I
like
your
question,
because
I
think
it's
highlighting
a
more
recent
example
that
we've
seen
play
out
in
the
media,
where
you
have
a
contract
without
any
reference
to
goals
or
to
measures,
and
it's
you
know,
can
be
a
hundred
thousand
dollar
bonus.
So
I
think
most
of
us
would
reasonably
think
you
should
tie
that
to
something.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
I
was
going
to
have
you
asked
this
question
for
me
when
I
looked
over
the
bill
and-
and
I
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill.
One
question
I
I
got
is:
is
the
distinction
between
cause
and
and
and
no
cause
it,
and
I
was
trying
to.
I
thought
that
was
in
section
two:
could
you
answer
that.
N
I
can
yes,
and
so
typically
right
now,
these
kind
of
contracts
public
boards
build
in
language
that
says,
if
you
are
terminated
for
cause,
then
you're
not
entitled
to
these
additional
severance
pay
or
bonus
severances
bonuses.
N
But
what
we
see
is
a
trend
is
that
if
a
person
resigns
then
they're
not
being
terminated
for
cause,
and
so
what
I
was
hoping
to
capture
in
my
amendment
to
section
one
and
what
my
legislative
legislative
intent
would
be
is
if
that
person
resigns,
but
they
are
in
an
investigation
process
kind
of
like
a
and
they
resign,
then
that
board
would
have
to
pause
and
could
not
award
additional
pay
and
when
I
say
severance,
I
want
to
make
sure
I
don't
mean
anything
that
is
merit-based,
but
I
I
mean
an
additional
chunk
of
money
after
the
last
day
worked,
so
that
that
additional
pay
severance
could
not
be
awarded
until
the
outcome
of
that
investigation
is
known.
M
Good
morning
cheer
and
thank
you
majority
leader
vanessa
thompson
for
bringing
assembly
bill
385
to
the
forefront.
M
My
only
question
is
or
concern
is
that
you
said
that
you
are
deleting
all
of
section
two,
but
I
was
looking
at
where
it
looks
like
you
have
dentists
and
physicians
and
officers
and
employees
of
nevada
system
of
higher
education
exempt.
Are
you
planning
on
keeping
that
or
deleting
that
provision.
N
Thank
you
so
much
so
the
piece
I'm
leaving
in
on
section
two
refers
to
fringe
benefits
and
how
fringe
benefits
are
negotiated.
But
what
section
two
ended
up
doing?
Was
it
it?
It.
N
If
section
two
were
to
remain
in
it,
it
would
probably
not
otherwise
be
a
great
idea.
So
what
it
is
is
within
state
government.
You
have
a
a
rule
that
no
employee
can
make
more
than
95
of
what
the
governor
makes
right.
N
So
our
director
of
health
and
human
services,
you
know
all
of
our
director
positions,
make
less
than
what
the
governor
makes,
and
so
you
kind
of
have
an
established
pay
structure
within
there,
and
so
I
I
was
seeking
to
try
to
in
in
in
working
on
this
bill
for
the
past
year.
N
I
was
looking
for
a
way
to
get
a
better
reference
to
some
of
the
contracts
that
I
was
start
thinking
about
or
holding
in
mind,
and
I
thought
that
making
a
salary
reference
might
work,
but
this
came
in
to,
but
this
worked
differently
than
I
thought.
So
that's
why
I
want
to
strike
section
two
and
only
only
keep
in
the
conversations
about
fringe
benefits.
A
I
am
looking
through
the
chat
at
this
time.
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
questions.
Thank
you,
majority
leader,
and
at
this
time
we
will
go
to
those
wish
you
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
385
majority
leader.
I
don't
see
anybody
else
joining
us
via
zoom,
but
I
wanted
to
confirm
that,
in
fact
you
did
not
have
somebody
wishing
to
testify
be
a
zoo.
N
I
do
not
this
is.
This
is
kind
of
my
thing.
D
D
L
J-A-M-I-E-R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z,
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
for
washoe
county,
and
I
want
to
thank
assemblywoman
benitez
thompson
for
reaching
out
to
us
on
this
bill
and
working
with
us
the
bill
as
originally
drafted.
We
had
concerns
that
it
would
loop
in
a
multitude
of
employees
unintentionally
and
so
very
much
so
appreciate
the
conceptual
amendment
and
helping
address
that
so
that
we
don't
have
staff
who
are
part
of
public
boards,
primarily
just
because
of
the
position
or
not
primarily
solely
because
of
the
position
that
they
have
at
the
county.
L
The
one
thing
that
I
do
want
to
put
on
the
record
is
is
point
number
four
for
the
conceptual
amendment
to
section
one
does
talk
about
accrued
leave
as
authorized
by
law
and
just
want
to
put
on
the
record
that
compensatory
leave,
whether
that
is
paid
out
to
an
individual
or
not,
is
actually
not
set
by
law,
and
that
is
at
the
discretion
of
the
jurisdiction.
So
appreciating
that
this
is
a
conceptual
amendment
and
I'm
sure
that
lcd
will
be
able
to
draft
that
in
a
way
to
reflect
that.
L
A
D
D
M
M-A-R-Y-P-I-E-R-C-Z-Y-N-S-K-I
representing
the
nevada
association
of
school
superintendents,
and
we
are
opposed
to
the
bill
as
it
it
has
been
originally
written.
We
so
much
appreciate
assembly,
woman,
benitez
thompson
meeting
with
us
to
discuss
our
concerns
and
we're.
We
will
continue
to
work
with
her.
We
appreciate
the
amendment,
but
we
still
have
questions
regarding
applicability.
M
Bonus
questions
benefit
questions,
some
key
issues
that
we
need
to
make
sure
we
understand
fully
before
we
can
come
forward
and
support.
Thank
you.
D
J
J
I
would
like
to
say
we
are
working
with
the
majority
leader
on
the
amendment
at
this
time,
still
waiting
to
see
how
the
language
comes
out,
which
is
why
I
am
testifying
in
neutral.
Mr
chairman,
we
do
have
some.
We
did
have
some
concerns
with
the
original
language.
The
majority
leader
has
worked
with
us
on
this
conceptual
language.
J
Clark
county
will
continue
to
work
with
majority
leader
just
because
of
the
size
of
our
organization
and
the
and
the
fact
that
we
have
many
many
agreements-
bargaining
units
managers
we
did
take
a
during
the
last
year.
We
did
do
voluntary
separation
program.
The
original
bill
would
have
prevented
us
from
doing
that.
We
appreciate
the
majority
leader
from
with
the
conceptual
language.
I
think
that
that
is
now
out
of
the
bill.
The
other
thing
that
we
still
need
to
work
on
is
probably
on
the
french
benefit
piece.
J
We
do
have
managers
and
employees
that
the
categories
of
benefits
that
are
extended
to
our
department,
heads
and
our
and
beyond,
just
the
employees,
so
we
want
to
continue
to
work
with
the
majority
leader
on
on
that
conceptual
language
and
the
actual
amendment
that
will
be
written
up.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
wanted
to
get
those
on
the
record.
We
do
thank
the
majority
leader
for
working
with
us
on
this
bill.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
mary
walker,
m-a-r-y
w-a-l-k-e-r,
representing
carson
city
douglas
lyon,
and
story
county.
I
want
to
thank
madam
majority
leader
for
working
with
the
counties
on
this
bill.
We
sincerely
appreciate
it
we're
happy
to
continue
to
work
with
her
on
this
important
legislation
for
further
clarification
on
the
fringe
benefit
piece
and
others.
M
M
City
and
county
managers
are
some
of
the
hardest
working
people
I
have
ever
met,
and
this
compensation
excesses
in
some
areas
unfortunately
reflects
on
them
all.
I
want
to
thank
the
majority
leader
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
I
look
forward
to
continuing
working
with
her.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee.
I
hope
you
are
well.
D
D
E
Hello
members
of
the
committee,
my
name,
is
vincent
dethro.
I
serve
as
the
deputy
director
of
the
nevada
association
of
counties
or
naco.
My
name
is
spelled
z,
like
victor
I-n-s-o-n.
Last
name
is
guthro
g-u-t-h-r-e-a-u
nick.
I
wanted
to
testify
in
the
mutual
position
today
to
thank
the
sponsor
of
this
legislation.
E
We
appreciate
the
majority
leader's
intent
of
this
bill.
We
echo
the
previous
comments
of
the
neutral
testimony
and
again
thank
her
for
working
with
counties
to
understand
our
perspectives.
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
allowing
me
to
testify
today.
A
Thank
you.
Next,
we'll
go
back
to
our
majority
leader
and
any
closing
remarks
you
may
have.
N
I
thank
you
so
much,
mr
chair.
No,
I
I
I
appreciate
the
comments
and
I
think,
though,
one
area
where
we've
been
working
with
I've
been
working
with
local
government
is
because
of
some
of
the
trends
we've
seen
emerge
around
this.
They
actually
haven't
been
coming
from
the
county
levels
and
mostly
you
see
our
county
boards.
N
Our
elected
county
boards,
be
really,
you
know,
have
very
good
practices
about
how
they
consider
fringe
and
bonuses
and
severances
for
their
employees,
and
so
that's
why
you
see
that
ongoing
conversation,
because
this
bill
is
not
about
penalizing
good,
solid
government
practices.
It's
about
reigning
in
some
trends
that
we
see
playing
out
in
in
other
types
of
governments,
and
I
appreciate
their
feedback
and
ultimately,
I
think
that
this
is
good
good
policy.
A
Thank
you,
majority
leader,
and
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
and
assembly
bill
385.
I
trust
that
our
majority
leader
will
work
with
all
the
stakeholders
and
get
them
to
a
comfortable
place.
So
with
that
next,
on
the
agenda,
we
have
public
comment
and
I
want
to
remind
those
of
you
wishing
to
testify
during
public
comment.
We
want
you
to
do
it.
We
encourage
you
to
call.
I
just
want
to
remind
you
of
the
quick
ground
rules.
A
This
is
not
a
time
to
reopen
the
hearing,
so
please
ensure
that
you
keep
your
comments
brought
in
any
general
matter
that
falls
within
the
purview
of
our
committee.
I
just
don't
want
you
to
try
to
reopen
the
hearing
and
then
have
to
cut
you
off
so
with
that
we'll
go
to
public
comment
broadcast.
Please.
D
D
D
O
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
about
a
old
joseph
michael
justin
on
august
22
2007,
joseph
joseph
justin
was
identified
as
a
burglary,
suspect
and
apprehended
by
lvm
pd
officer,
splinter
and
nicothodays
within
45
seconds.
Justin
was
gunned
down.
Witnesses
on
the
scene
stated
they
never
saw
justin
with
the
firearm
in
his
hand,
splinter
who
shot
first
claimed
that
she
saw
justin
hold
a
pistol
to
his
temple
and
then
point
the
gun
at
her,
prompting
her
to
shoot.
O
Nikolaes
followed
her
and
fired.
Justin
was
shot
in
the
leg
and
in
the
back
and
died
from
his
wounds.
Splinter
is
currently
captain
and
the
bureau
commander
of
the
office
of
internal
oversight
and
constitutional
policing,
which
oversees
internal
investigations
of
police
homicides.
We
believe
police
should
not
be
able
to
investigate
themselves,
but
since
they
do
investigations
shouldn't
be
led
by
someone
who
has
taken
someone
from
the
community.
O
O
Thank
you.
Please
do
not
support
bills
that
protect
police
further.
Please
support
bills
that
promote
transparency
and
accountability.
Thank
you.
Have
a
nice
weekend.
A
Thank
you
and
next
we'll
go
to
the
next
color
wishing
to
testify
during
public
comment.
A
Time,
thank
you.
Members.
Thank
you
for
powering.
Through
this
week.
I
appreciate
everybody
coming
in
prepared,
so
next
week
we'll
proceed
in
one
of
two
ways
and
really
it's
up
to
the
the
committee
how
we
we
go
about
it.
A
As
you
all
know,
we
have
an
incredibly
heavy
agenda
next
week,
where
we're
hearing
three
or
four
bills
per
day
and
we'll
use
monday
start
time
of
nine
am
as
a
indicator
of
whether
or
not
we
can
continue
to
do
that.
Obviously,
I
understand
the
benefit
of
giving
everybody
that
additional
hour.
I
think
we've
reaped
the
benefit
of
that.
A
So
if
monday,
we
cannot
do
the
three
hearings
effectively
and
the
the
presentation
then
we'll
have
to
move
starting
on
tuesday
to
an
8
a.m
or
7
30
a.m,
depending
on
how
slow
we're
we're
working
through
that
start
time,
if
we
do
our
homework,
I
know
this
weekend
we're
going
to
be
with
family,
but
if
we
do
our
homework
and
we
prep
ahead
of
time,
there's
no
reason
why
we
can't
have
three
or
four
hearings
within
the
allotted
time,
starting
at
9
00
a.m,
so
that
our
questions
are
very
focused
and
very
narrow
to
the
point,
and
we
could
continue
to
reap
the
benefit
of
a
9
8
9
a.m
start
time,
but
if,
for
whatever
reason,
monday
serves
as
the
opposite,
and
we
realize
that
we
in
fact
can't
do
that,
then
the
rest
of
the
week,
we'll
just
move
to
it.
A
Eight
a.m,
start
time,
which
is
completely
fine,
so
we'll
let
the
the
committee
dictate
what
it
is
that
we
need
to
do,
but
for
monday,
we'll
start
at
nine
and
depending
on
how
that
day
goes
that
will
determine
how
the
rest
of
the
week
goes.
I
want
to
remind
you
that
on
monday
we
have
a
presentation
by
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
A
They
will
also
be
presenting
their
charter
bill
assembly
bill
55,
then
we'll
have
a
assembly
bill,
271
and
then
lastly,
assembly
bill
437,
we'll
likely
take
that
out
of
order,
we'll
we'll
and
we'll
engage
assembly
bill,
271
first
followed
by
assembly,
bill
437
and
then
we'll
do
the
presentation
followed
by
the
assembly
bill.
55
committee.
Excuse
me
a
charter
hearing,
so
that
way
they
can
have
their
presentation
immediately,
followed
by
their
bill
presentation
and
hopefully
that
will
be
a
good
segue
into
why
they
need
to
do
that
again.
A
I
want
to
thank
you
all
for
those
of
you
who
are
following
us
and
are
questioning
when
we'll
be
doing
work.
Sessions
know
that
we
plan
to
do
multiple
work
sessions
next
week.
So
just
because
you
don't
see
a
particular
item
on
work
session
does
not
mean
it
won't
get
one.
We
just
have
to
parse
it
out,
as
we
have
a
lot
of
them
that
we
need
to
get
on
there.
So
with
that
members,
I
appreciate
everybody's
work
this
week.
I
hope
you
have
a
great
time
this
weekend
and
enjoy
your
family.