►
From YouTube: 5/4/2021 - 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
Please
let
the
record
reflect
and
who,
who
are
we
missing?
Is
that
assembly
woman
concert
please
let
the
record
reflect
that
assemblywoman
constantine
is
absent.
Excused
and
mr
secretary
please
mark
her
present
as
she
makes
her
way
into
the
committee
members.
We
have
two
items
on
the
agenda
today
and
for
the
presenters.
A
May
the
fourth
be
with
you,
as
we
anticipate
a
lot
of
questions
for
the
committee
and
we'll
take
the
items
in
the
order
they
appear,
but
just
for
some
quick
house
cleaning
and
also
I
want
to
remind
the
members
that
we
will
be
doing
our
committee
picture
at
the
conclusion
of
today's
meeting,
we'll
be
meeting
right
outside
in
front
by
the
steps
and
then
we'll
make
our
way
to
our
designated
picture
location.
A
I
have
senate
bill
77
and
senate
bill
283.
I
do
want
to
remind
members
to
please
make
sure
that
you
are
not
logged
in
on
zoom
and
in
the
committee.
At
the
same
time,
for
those
of
you
who
will
be
testifying
today,
please
make
sure
that
you
state
your
name
for
the
record
after
each
time
to
ensure
that
you
help
our
staff
who's
behind
the
scenes
and
keeping
minutes
of
everything.
A
And
then
we'll
be
doing
public
comment
at
the
conclusion
of
today's
meeting.
As
we
typically
do
and
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
open
up
the
hearing
for
senate
bill
77
good
morning
and
welcome
sir.
F
Good
morning,
chairman
flores
members
of
the
assembly
government
affairs
committee,
my
name
is
jj
goykichi,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
eureka
county
board
of
county
commissioners.
There
in
carson
city
with
you
this
morning,
is
jake
tibbetts,
eureka,
county's
natural
resource
manager.
I'm
going
to
provide
just
a
few
introductory
remarks
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
tibbetts.
I
will
remain
on
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
guys
may
have.
F
F
Our
intent
with
this
bill
is
not
to
somehow
undermine
or
skirt
a
government
and
sunshine
policy.
If
you
will
is
to
do
just
the
opposite,
where
we're
currently
out
with
the
process
of
any
county
or
even
state
public
body
that
wants
to
participate
in
the
process
you're
unable
to
do
so.
As
a
complete
body,
you
sign
an
mou
with
the
federal
agency
and
then
it's
usually
a
non-elected
or
appointed
staff
member,
and
maybe
one
elected
official
from
that
elected
body.
That
is
able
to
sit
down
in
discussions
with
our
federal
partners.
We
share
information.
F
We
talk
about
what
our
county
policy
is
and
then,
as
that
document
is
turned
into
an
actual
public
document,
it
goes
from
being
administrative
draft
to
public.
Then
it
comes
across
the
diocese,
the
entire
body
acts
upon
it
and
it
becomes
public.
This
is
really
unfair,
quite
honestly,
to
your
elected
officials,
to
our
elected
officials
and
to
the
constituents
that
we
represent.
F
What
we
want
to
do
with
this
bill
is
be
able
to
go
into
a
closed
session
to
where
that
elected
body
can
actually
sit
down
and
discuss
amongst
the
entire
elected
body
with
staff
who
will
still
be
participating
with
our
federal
partners.
What
information
we're
sharing,
what
obstacles
we
may
see,
because
in
the
end
we
want
the
best
possible
product
that
alleviates
as
many
of
the
concerns
and
conflicts
as
we
have
with
our
county
master
plan
and
those
are
the
federal
agencies.
F
You're,
probably
gonna
hear
they're
trying
to
pull
something
shady
members
of
the
committee,
I
can
tell
you
right
now
that
that
is
farthest
from
our
intent.
We
want
to
be
open
and
transparent,
and
we
really
think
that
nevada's
open
meeting
law
in
this
regard
is
actually
having
an
opposite
effect
from
what
it
was
intended
to
do
so
you're
going
to
wonder
why
a
closed
session
that
again
is
mandated
by
the
mou
that
you
sign
with
the
federal
agency.
F
You
are
not
able
to
disclose
any
of
that
information
publicly
per
federal
regulation
until
it
becomes
a
public
draft.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to
mr
tibbetts
he'll
walk
through
some
more
nuances
of
the
actual
language
in
the
bill,
and
I
know
he'll
have
a
lot
more
information
and
then
we
will
stand
for
questions.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
so
jake
tibbetts,
again,
natural
resource
manager
for
eureka
county
and
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
travel
from
a
galaxy
far
far
away
from
eureka
today,
so
so
sb
77,
the
chairman
kokichia,
did
did
cover
the
high
points
of
it
very
well.
B
B
So
with
that
various
federal
agencies
from
department
of
defense
agencies,
land
management
agencies,
others
have
now
have
moved
forward
with
regulations
to
clarify
their
specific
regulations
in
in
adopting
that
freedom
of
information
act,
exemption,
5.,
so
federal
regulations,
as
we
sit
here
right
now
require
counties.
I'm
going
to
use
county's
example.
B
It
would
be
any
any
state
agency,
as
well
you're
required
to
sign
a
memorandum
of
understanding
to
even
be
at
the
table
and
in
that
memorandum
of
understanding
there
is
a
requirement
that
the
cooperating
agency
does
not
discuss
in
public
venues
does
not
disclose
that
pre-decisional
and
deliberative
information.
B
So,
as
chairman
gokuchiya
mentioned,
it
means
that
our
public
bodies
cannot
meet
with
the
federal
agencies
as
a
body.
So
you
end
up
selecting
one
county,
commissioner
or
a
staff
person,
and
it
it
really
diminishes
the
ability
of
of
nevada
to
participate,
we're
a
public
land
state.
We
have
a
huge
amount
of
federal
land
and
to
diminish
our
ability
to
participate
in
federal
processes,
really
hamstrings
representation
of
those
citizens
that
our
elected
officials
are
meant
to
represent.
B
So
again
we're
not
trying
to
undermine.
What's
you
know,
government
in
the
sunshine
it
does
seem
at
face
value?
I
will
fully
agree
that
it
seems
inconsistent.
It
seems
very
inconsistent,
a
knee-jerk
reaction
to
call
a
new
nepa
or
national
environmental
policy,
act,
open,
meeting,
law,
exemption
and
improvement
in
transparent
government,
but
believe
we
believe
that's
exactly
what
this
does
it
allow
as
it
stands
right
now.
So
what
happens
if
this
bill
doesn't
go
through?
I
think
that's
an
important
thing.
The
national
environmental
policy
act
has
been
around
for
a
long
time.
B
I've
been
in
eureka
county
for
for
13
years.
I
can
tell
you
the
county's
been
very
engaged
in
these
processes
and
you'll
say
well.
Why?
Now
what
what
matters?
Well,
I
I
don't
know
why
now
other
than
bringing
forward
that
we've
been
very
hamstrung
the
whole
time
I've
been
in
eureka,
it's
been
a
very
difficult
process
because
often
our
public
bodies
that
are
not
of
they're
not
the
same
person.
B
I
also
want
to
point
out
that
there's
checks
and
balances
in
place.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
the
federal
government
agencies
are
required
by
law
to
include
state
and
local
agencies
and
tribal
governments
that
have
special
expertise
or
jurisdiction
by
law.
That's
the
specific
language
from
nepa
and
every
every
single
nipa
process
that
I've
been
involved
in,
for
at
least
the
last
13
years
has
had
a
broad
array
of
other
state
agencies
and
federal
agencies
that
are
also
cooperating
agencies.
B
These
processes
aren't
being
done
in
a
vacuum:
they're
not
secretive
all
the
cooperating
agencies
are
at
the
table
so
on
every
single
nepa
process
that
I've
been
involved
in
there's
been.
The
u.s
environmental
protection
agency
has
been
a
corporation
agency.
The
nevada
department
of
of
wildlife
has
been
a
cooperating
agency
on
every
single
one
of
those
on
many
of
those
we'll
have
like
the
state
sagebrush
ecosystem,
technical
team.
B
Our
intent
again
is
not
for
boards
to
make
final
decisions
behind
closed
doors,
we're
advocating
to
be
able
to
meet
and
exchange
information.
If
you
look
at
the
bill,
it
talks
about
the
public
body
meeting
to
hold
discussions.
Okay,
so
again,
I
think
maybe
this
is
a
good
time,
mr
chair,
to
to
quickly
step
through
the
bill.
So
it's
a
fairly
simple
bill.
B
There
are
restrictions
of
when
this
can
take
place
under
the
bill
that
the
public
body
can
only
have
those
closed
meetings
during
the
period
that
that
truly
pre-decisional
and
deliberative
period
before
the
federal
agency
releases
the
product.
So
once
the
document
is
released
for
the
for
in
the
draft
form
to
the
public,
and
it
starts
that
comment
period
that
those
are
always
they're
at
a
minimum
for
like
an
environmental
impact
statement,
they're
they're,
it's
a
30-day
comment
period.
B
They
can
be
more,
but
once
that's
released,
there's
no
authority
under
this
bill
to
have
any
more
of
those
closed
meetings
and
then
these
closed
meetings
could
only
occur
if
the
federal
agency
requires
those
discussions
to
be
kept
confidential.
So
if
you
don't
have
a
memorandum
of
understanding
that
says
that
it's
required
to
be
confidential,
then
this
would
not
would
not
kick
in.
B
So
we
want
to
make
sure
our
public
bodies
are
informed.
They
can
have
the
necessary
conversations
with
their
constituents,
so
they
have
an
understanding
what's
going
on
and
especially
when
that
document
becomes
available.
So
when
the
public
gets
the
document
and
they're
coming
to
their
elected
officials
and
say
I'm
concerned
about
this,
what's
going
on
here,
that
public
body
will
have
been
informed
and
know
exactly
what
went
into
that
process.
B
We'll
note
that
you
know,
if
you
look
back
at
the
the
record
of
this
bill
in
the
previous
draft,
there
was
a
whole
section
about
the
public
records
law.
We
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
related
to
public
records
after
the
hearing
and
before
the
passage
on
the
other
side,
we
worked
with
various
constituencies.
B
Our
groups
that
came
out
in
opposition-
and
we
came
up
with
this
amendment-
I
will
note
that
even
this
bill
in
the
first
re
reprint
is
much
tighter
than
even
the
amendment
that
the
committee
passed.
The
amendment
the
committee
passed
talked
about
the
public
body
being
able
to
have
these
non-public
meetings
right
up
until
the
date.
The
federal
agency
signs
the
decision.
B
We'll
know
you
know
many
in
opposition
have
and
and
may
say
today,
they'll
point
out
to
various
other
states
that
haven't
implemented
a
similar
exemption
under
the
open
meeting
law
for
nepa
and
I'll
point
out
that
I've
done
research
into
some
of
the
other
states
as
well.
And
I
I
don't
find
a
specific
nepa
open
meeting
law
requirement,
but
I
want
to
again
point
the
committee
that
we
are
a
public
land
state
with
85
federal
land
and
the
national
environmental
policy
act
applies
much
more
in
nevada
than
many
other
states.
B
But
I'll
also
point
out
that
many
other
states,
including
some
of
those
that
neighbor
us,
do
have
clarity
within
their
public
records
law,
about
them
being
able
to
have
either
called
executive
decision
executive
sessions
closed
meetings,
whatever
their
specific
term
is
to
discuss
documents
that
are
otherwise
protected
under
federal
law,
and
I
can
point
you
to
some
of
those
states.
So
they
in
a
way
are
able
to
do
something.
I
think
that's
even
more
open
to
allow
those
documents
to
be
distributed
between
the
county
commission.
B
They
can
then
have
a
closed
meeting
to
discuss
that
specific
document,
and
we
heard
loud
and
clear
that
folks
did
not
want
to
implicate
and
and
taught
touch
the
public
records
law
in
this
bill.
And
so
we
didn't
go
that
route,
that
many
of
the
other
states
have
gone.
We
thought
the
best
way
to
do
it
was
to
having
discussions
under
an
exemption
under
the
open
meeting
law
and
in
that
on
nellis.
I
will
point
out
that
there's
some
written
testimony.
B
So
there's
the
department
of
interior
regulations
that
would
cover
everything
from
the
bureau
of
land
management,
the
u.s
fish
and
wildlife
service
and
the
national
park
service.
There's
the
forest
service
handbook
council
on
environmental
quality,
which
is
the
the
lead
that's
over
the
national
environmental
policy
act
at
the
national
level.
So
so,
if,
if
you
have
any
questions
on
that,
you
can
see
those
and
then
I've
also
pasted
put
little
screenshots
word
for
word
from
various
mous
we've
had
with
various
agencies
over
the
years.
B
Where
years
ago
our
county
commission
did
discuss
in
an
open
meeting
concerns
about
a
mining
project
that
was
being
put
forward
and
some
of
the
water
concerns
of
that
they
discussed
that
in
an
open
meeting.
It
was
picked
up
and
placed
in
a
local
newspaper,
and
we
received
this
letter
from
the
bureau
of
land
management
admonishing
us
for
discussing
that
information
and
basically
saying
you
know:
you're
you're,
breaking
the
federal
law,
you're
breaking
the
memorandum
of
understanding.
A
And
thank
you
both
for
your
presentation,
mr
tibbetts,
you
had
the
courageousness
to
say
this.
Bill
is
fairly
simple,
but
if
you
only
knew
the
power
of
the
dark
side,
I
think
you'd
realize
that
it's
going
to
be
tough,
but
I
wish
you
good
luck,
but
then
again
in
my
experience,
there
is
no
such
thing
as
luck,
so
we'll
see
so
with
that
we'll
start
off
with
the
assemblyman
matthews.
Please.
G
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
tibbetts.
Thank
you,
dr
koikichia,
for
the
presentation,
I
guess
sort
of
a
broad
question.
You
know
my
colleagues
on
the
committee
will
know
that
I'm
a
very
passionate
proponent
of
open,
transparent
government.
G
Of
course,
the
force
behind
open
government
is
always
has
been
the
open
meeting
law
in
conjunction
with
the
nevada
public
records
act.
Of
course,
in
government
there
are
always
competing
objectives
and
competing
considerations
and
things
that
are
sort
of
in
tension
with
each
other
and
government.
Transparency
is
is
no
exception.
You
know
light
darkness,
the
balance
my
question
would
be,
and
my
concern
would
be
about
precedent.
Perhaps
and-
and
you
know
you
make
one
exemption
or
you
make
an
additional
exemption.
Perhaps
it
opens
the
door
to
others
what?
G
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
through
you
jake
tibbetts,
again
for
the
record,
so
I'm
first
off.
I'm
very
glad
that
today
is
the
day
that
I
attended
in
person,
and
second
thanks
for
the
question
assemblyman.
So
you
know
in
weighing
those
interests
I
I
really
wanted
to
lay
it
out
to
the
committee
that
you
know
understanding,
there's
very
few
exemptions
under
open
meeting
law,
there's
one
to
meet
with
legal
counsel,
about
pending
litigation,
that
you
know
that
you're
in
or
pending
litigation
matters.
B
Is
that
those
we
are
those
those
that
we
are
elected
to
represent
us
as
a
body
cannot
participate
in
these
processes
without
running
a
foul
of
open
meeting
law
so
that
that's
the
interest
we're
trying
to
weigh
where
those
that
are
elected
to
represent
the
people
actually
have
a
seat
to
have
that
first
hand,
conversation
with
having
without
being
the
telephone
game
and
having
it
filtered
to
multiple
people
before
it
finally
gets
to
them.
So
we
believe
that
is
in
the
public
interest
in
eureka
county.
B
I
can
tell
you
we
are
our
proponents
of
open
government
and
transparency,
as
I
said,
it's
kind
of
odd
to
cast
this
bill
as
a
government
transparency
bill,
but
it
allows
more
eyeballs
to
be
on
the
process,
that's
going
to
be
taking
place
and
that
is
taking
place
on
our
federal
estate,
the
federally
administered
land.
So
we
believe
that
these
limited
exemptions
should
be
when
the
the
interest
for
the
general
good
of
nevada
and
the
public
interest
is
outweighed
by
any
other
type
of
non-open
meeting.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Just
a
quick
follow-up.
Please
follow
up
thanks
and
I'm
just
wondering
were
there
alternatives,
you
know
to
accomplish
the
same
objectives
without
going
the
route
of
this
exemption
or
or
for
those
just
sort
of
exhausted,
and
and
really
no
conceivable
way
to
accomplish
what
you
wanted
to
absent
this
approach.
Thanks.
B
So,
mr
chairman
jake
tibbetts,
again
for
the
record-
and
I
don't
know
if
chairman
gokuchi
may
be
stepping
over
him,
but
we
you
know
want
to
acknowledge.
We
don't
have
the
market
cornered
on
ideas
to
address
it.
So
this
is
a
real
issue
that
we're
bringing
forward.
That's
the
way
we
cast
in
front
of
the
public
lands
committee
as
well
as
this
is
a
real
issue,
and
this
is
the
way
we
feel
we
could
address
it.
B
Like,
I
said
other
states,
I
can
use
idaho
as
an
example,
and
I
can
actually
quote
you
their
their
public
records
law
that
allows
them
to
have
executive
sessions
to
discuss
documents
that
are
withheld
by
any
state
or
federal
law.
So
you
know
we
didn't
go
down
the
public
record
side.
We
felt
that
this
was
was
better
here.
I
can
tell
you
another
option
and
it's
a
very
heavy
lift
is
to
get
things
changed
at
the
federal
level,
and
so
it's
the
federal
freedom
of
information
act,
exemption
five.
B
That
really
puts
us
in
this
position
we
are
in,
and
you
know
that's
something
that
from
you
know,
like
I
said
our
our
little
neck
of
the
galaxy
that
we
can't.
B
We
can't
affect
those
changes
you
know,
and
if
that
that's
the
policy
that
the
legislature
would
like
to
move
forward
with,
you
know
we
can
go
down
that
route,
but
we're
looking
from
the
constraints
we
have
right
now
and
it's
state
and
local
law
that
that
we're
trying
to
find
that
ability.
So
thank
you.
H
H
F
Yes,
madam
assuming
women
through
the
chair
to
you,
so
I
I
can
participate
as
a
single
county
commissioner,
or
likewise
one
of
my
other
commissioners
could
participate,
but
any
conversations
that
I
have
I
am
not
able
to
share
with
those
other
board
members
in
a
public
meeting
and
we
are
a
three-member
board.
Therefore,
every
time
two
of
us
are
together
discussing
this,
it
would
be
a
violation.
A
I
I
So
I
appreciate
that
so
I
have
a
question
relative
to
this
right
and
many
of
our
constituents
will
say:
if
only
you
knew
the
power
of
the
dark
side
when
we
start
to
close
doors
and
have
meetings
without
including
them
or
you
have
failed
me
for
the
last
time
as
we
talk
about
the
importance
of
open
communication.
So
really
my
question
is
relative
to
this.
You
stated
85
percent
of
our
public
lands.
I
B
So,
mr
chairman,
through
you,
jake
tibbetts,
again
for
the
record,
so
assemblywoman
thanks
for
the
question
and
you're
digging
deep
on
many
of
those
references.
That's
very
good,
so
you
know
I'll
note
that
many,
so
85
percent
of
of
nevada's
lands
are
federally
admin
owned
the
public,
so
that
includes
department
of
defense
lands
and
things
which
aren't
really
cast
as
public
lands.
So
public
lands
are
a
bit
less
than
that,
but
but
regardless
the
the
federal
agencies
are
all
federal
agencies
are
have
to
follow
the
national
environmental
policy
act.
B
So
if
it
was
a
as
an
example,
was
the
naval
air
station
fallon
range
training
complex
the
expansion
that
was
all
done
through
a
nepa
process
when
they
were
proposing
to
do
that
sort
of
various
cooperating
agencies.
So
it's
not
just
the
land
management
agencies.
It
applies
all
across
the
board,
but
many
counties
don't
have
a
staff
member
that,
like
myself,
you
know
they
have
county
managers
or
people
that
can
be
involved.
B
It's
a
conference
call
and
it's
to
see
where
things
are
moving
along
on
the
eis.
The
substantive
meetings
are
once
or
twice
a
month
at
most,
so
the
types
of
meetings
the
county
commission
would
need
to
be
involved
in
and
to
have
discussions
with
the
board
would
be,
or
with
like
a
federal
agency
would
be.
You
know,
maybe,
as
the
beginning
of
the
process
is,
is
kicking
off
and
then
check-ins
along
the
way,
but
they
wouldn't
be.
You
know
how
they
wouldn't
be
having
these
I
at
least
in
eureka
county.
B
I
Thank
you.
I
I
sincerely
appreciate
that
and-
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
get
kind
of
on
the
record,
what
what
is
it
that
you're
anticipating
I
just
there's
one
one
other
piece
that
I
just
want
to
to,
I
think,
is
important
that
we
get
on
the
record
and
not
wanting
to
give
in
to
hate,
so
is
that
the
mou
is
officially
approved
through
a
public
meeting.
That
would
then
give
you
the
authority
to
be
able
to
have
these
types
of
conversations
off
a
public
record.
Is
that
correct.
B
So,
mr
chairman,
through
you,
jake
tibbetts,
again
for
the
record,
so
yes,
the
memorandum
of
understanding
or
agreement,
is
deliberated
on
and
approved
in
a
public
meeting
by
the
entire
body.
It's
part
of
the
record
it's
available
for
anybody
to
see
we
so
yes
and
once
that's
entered
into,
and
it's
only
under
the
bill.
B
And
then
I
do
want
to
point
out
again
that
this
doesn't
allow
any
public
body,
county,
commissioners
or
otherwise
to
engage
in
a
non-public
meeting
just
willy-nilly.
It
has
to
be
for
a
specific
project
in
which
there's
a
memorandum
signed,
the
memorandum
of
under
understanding
or
agreement
outlines
usually
the
schedule.
What
kind
of
documents
will
be
shared?
That's
all
outlined
in
the
mou.
J
It's
always
great
to
see
you
it's
great
to
have
you
here
in
the
government
affairs
committee,
and
you
know
I
think,
dr
gokuchi,
I
speak
for
everyone
when
I
say
that
that
we
definitely
do
know
who
your
father
is,
and
it's
always
a
pleasure
to
have
you
speaking
in
this
legislative
body,
in
your
role
as
well
and
obviously
you
know
we're
concerned
with
the
possible
unintended
consequences,
or
maybe
better
said
as
like
we're
just
careful
not
to
choke
on
our
aspirations
and
so
we're
we're
just
trying
to
you
know-
and
I
understand
that
this
bill
seems
to
give
counties
and
public
bodies,
perhaps
a
new
hope,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
walk
us
through
kind
of
like
what
happens
right
now
like
is
there?
J
Maybe
I'm
just
not
understanding
right
now,
but
is
there
anything
right
now
that
prevents
these
public
bodies
from
just
having
an
open
meeting
to
have
this
the
the
deliberation
and
why
couldn't
that
be
done?
Just
in
an
open
meeting.
F
Sure
so,
madame
vice
chair,
j.d
gregory
here
for
the
record
through
chair
2u,
as
mr
tibbetts
alluded
to
in
our
written
testimony,
that
is
on
nellis.
You
will
see
multiple
examples
of
the
language
in
an
mou,
an
actual
language,
from
the
regulations
that,
in
fact,
do
prohibit
us
from
discussing
any
of
this
material
in
an
open
meeting.
F
The
county
back
in
2009
did
receive
a
letter
from
the
bureau
of
land
management
after
they
had
had
a
public
meeting
discussing
information
that
was
in
a
draft
eis
document
and
and
that
that
letter
is
attached
there
as
well,
in
which
it
you
know
clearly
says
that
the
county
did
violate
that
mou
violated
federal
law
and
federal
lake
regulation.
By
discussing
that,
so
we
are
unable
to
if
we
wish
to
continue
to
participate
as
a
cooperating
agency
and
and
share
that
information
and
share
our
expertise.
We
must
do
so
privately.
J
So,
okay,
I
think
that
helps
me
and
I
don't
think
I
had
scrolled
far
enough
in
that
document,
so
I
could
find
the
find
those
that
additional
remarks
regarding
the
confidentiality
for
what
has
already
been
done
in
the
statement
from
the
united
states
department
of
interior,
which
I
think
is
super
helpful,
but
then
right
now
like,
as
is
there
a
need
for
the
entirety
of
the
public
body
to
be
present,
because
I
know
obviously
a
lot
of
that
work
is
done
with
the
like,
with
the
officials
and
some
of
those
individuals
that
are
not
public
officials.
J
F
Sure
j.j
glickachia
for
the
record,
made
a
vice
chair
to
you
through
the
chair.
Again
we
are
a
three-member
board,
so
part
of
the
concern
and
I
will
speak
for
eureka
county
at
this
time.
You
have
one
of
your
board
members
that
is
sitting
at
the
table.
If
you
choose
to
make
that
some
counties
won't
have
any
of
their
elected
board
members
there
and
then
when
this
document
does
become
final,
it
ends
up
being
I
shouldn't
say
final:
it
becomes
public.
It
goes
from
administrative
draft
out
to
public
draft
for
consideration.
F
Your
phone
starts
ringing
as
an
elected
official.
Your
constituents
want
to
know
I'm
looking
at
this
environmental
assessment,
I'm
looking
at
this
environment,
environmental
impact
statement.
Why
is
the
county
not
pushing
back
on
this
section?
Why
is
the
county
supporting
a
new
mining
road
over
here
or
a
new
solar
project
over
here?
That's
going
to
have
direct
impacts
on
our
wildlife
and
and
if
you're
not
aware
of
those
conversations,
because
you
have
not
been
able
to
participate
in
a
meeting,
you
really
aren't
doing
your
job
as
an
elected
official.
F
If
you
will-
and
I
think
that
is
probably
one
other
concern
so
while
we
may
not
know,
what's
going
on
we're,
not
going
to
be
able
to
challenge
any
of
this
or
do
anything
that
way
until
it
actually
comes
across
that
desk
and
it
has
been
made
in
public
document.
This
is
strictly
for
early
deliberation
and
to
allow
everyone
to
be
on
the
same
page
and,
quite
frankly,
with
term
limits.
When
a
county
commissioner
leaves.
J
Thank
you
and
like
is
there
a
and,
as
I
read
the
piece
of
legislation
right
now,
though,
there's
nothing
limiting
the
public
body
from
engaging
in
any
additional
discussion
during
the
during
that
meeting.
That
maybe
are
not
pertaining
to
nepal.
Like
is
there
something
specific
in
the
bill?
I'm
trying
to
try
to
find
that
just
that.
That
makes
it
very
clear
that
the
public
body
can
only
engage
in
that
conversation
and
that
they
could
not
be
additional
items
on
that
agenda.
B
Mr
chair
jake
tibbetts,
dr
gokuchi
I'll,
take
this
one
if
okay
so
jake
tibbetts
again
for
the
record,
so
you
know
the
the
terms
in
the
bill
when
it
talks
about
engaging
in
pre-decisional
and
deliberative
discussions
and
and
that
those
are
those
are
terms,
are
defined
in
various
ways
through
the
feder.
The
federal
freedom
of
information
act
as
well
as
case
law
related
to
nevada,
public
records
laws.
B
So
those
terms
mean
specific
things,
but
no
so
yes,
having
an
open
meeting
and
having
general
discussions
about,
say
a
project
or
something
that's
under
nepa.
A
board
can
do
that
today,
but
they
can't
talk
about
any
of
the
details,
because
that
would
be
then
disclosing,
so
they
can
in
generality,
say,
there's
a
project
over
here
xyz
and
we're
going
to
we're
participating
in
it,
but
sorry
public.
We
can't
tell
you
know
we
don't
even
know
because
the
three
commissioners
or
five
commissioners,
or
whatever
we're
not
all
briefed
on
it.
B
I
also
want
to
talk
that
there
are
some
con
some
concerns
about,
what's
often
termed
as
a
serial
quorum.
Where
you
know,
we
can't
do
that
either.
It's
not
like
you
know.
B
Each
individual
county,
commissioner,
there's
at
some
point
when
they're
breaking
open
meeting
law,
if
they're
doing
this
kind
of
serial
quorum
type
thing
and
so
that
that's
not
allowed
either
and
so
right
now
I'll
tell
you
one
one
issue
that
really
concerns
me
is:
if
I
have
county
commissioners
that
are
on
opposite
ends
of
an
issue
like
they
don't
agree,
and
you
know
how
do
I,
as
a
unelected
staff
member
advocate
for
that
public
body's
interest
when
they
may
be
actually
on
divided
they're,
not
of
the
same
mind
on
something
so
so
that
is
also
something
we
we
are
concerned
about.
J
If
I
answered
your
question-
and
I
think
maybe
some
clarification,
though
I
think
in
the
legislation
just
saying
that
this
would
be
limited
to
the
conversations
regarding
related
to
the
the
national
environmental
policy
act,
because
I,
as
I
read
the
bill
right
now,
there
would
be
nothing
though,
preventing
that
close
that
closed
meeting
from
then
having
additional
agenda
items
that
have
nothing
to
do
with
nepa.
J
So
I
think
that
that's
more
my
concern,
I
mean,
I
definitely
understand
the
intent
of
what
we're
trying
to
do,
but
I
think
just
something
clarified
that
it
can
only
be
to
have
conversations
regarding
the
regarding
and
deliberation
regarding
nepa
and
I
understand
like
engaging
pre-decision
deliberative
discussion,
but
there's
nothing
that
prevents
it
or
sets
those
parameters.
Saying
that
that
meeting.
That's
now
closed
can't
just
have
like
20
other
agenda
items.
B
Okay,
so,
mr
chairman,
yes,
if
I
may
just
quickly
respond
so
yes,
it
needs
to
be
clarified,
of
course,
that
that's
our
intent.
If
it's
not
clear,
you
know,
I
think,
for
the
the
record
today
too,
to
make
that
clear.
But
I
want
to
point
out
that
it's
again
when
you've
entered
into
a
memorandum
of
understanding
or
agreement
with
the
federal
agency
for
the
purpose
of
engaging
on
an
action
under
national
environmental
policy
act,
you
may
hold
the
closed
meeting
on
the
subject
of
the
memorandum
or
agreement.
B
So
I
you
know
it
is
again
the
intent,
if
that's
not
clear,
but
it's
to
to
engage
in
just
those
dis
discussions,
but
absolutely
if
we
need
to
make
that
clear,
be
very
happy
to
move
forward
with
that.
E
You
know
you
couldn't
have
picked
a
better
time
in
the
world
to
be
here.
You
guys,
because
I
tell
you
this
is
perfect
for
you.
I
just
want
you
to
know.
This
is
a
great
bill
and
I
I
was
kind
of
wondering
as
nako
come
out
and
made
a
stand
on
this
with
you
guys
or
or
have
they
did
they
taken
any
stands
on
this
at
all
and
then
the
other
thing
question
I
got
is,
is
you
know
we
don't
have
this
problem
in
over
the
states?
Is
that
correct.
B
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
jake
tibbetts
for
the
record,
so
assemblyman.
So
I'll
start
with
your
second
question.
First,
you
know
I
don't
want
to
speak
on
behalf
of
other
states.
I
do.
I
do
have
colleagues
in
other
states
that
do
similar
to
what
I
do
and-
and
I
I
would
say
they
do
have
a
similar
issue.
What
I
pointed
out
earlier
is
is
not
every
state
but
there's
a
couple
examples.
I
could
give
you,
where
states
have
some
better
clarity
in
their
public
records
laws
related
to
this
issue.
B
So
but
I
I
think
other
states
do
face
a
similar
issue
and
then
your
first
question
about
naco's
involvement.
I
believe
that
they
may
testify
today,
so
I
don't
want
to
step
on
their
toes,
but
naco
did
support
this
bill
when
it
was
on
the
other
side.
E
So
you're
saying
so
you're
saying
if
you
only
knew
the
power
on
the
dark
side,
so
they're
going
to
talk
about
that,
so
I
can't
believe
we're
having
so
much
fun
on
this.
I
have
you
failed
me
for
the
last
time
on
on
these
kind
of
things,
so
I'm
going
to
make
sure
I
get
out
and
support
this
bill
a
lot.
E
The
question
is
this:
passed
100
on
the
senate
side
and-
and
I
did
did
get
a
text
from
from
the
senate
side
and
asked
about
how
it's
going,
because
it's
such
an
important
bill
and
I
put
in
a
couple
bills
in
the
past
that
pertain
to
the
open
meeting
law
and
I
can
understand
where
we're
we're
having
problems
here,
and
so
I
I
think
this
is
a
time
we
can
maybe
adjust
this
and,
like
I
said,
we're
doomed.
If
we
don't
so-
and
I
want
jj
to
know
help
me.
E
Oh
one
kenobi
you're,
the
only
hope
so
and
I'd
rather
kiss
a
woogie
than
see
this
bill
died.
So
we're
having
fun
with
this.
But
it's
a
great
deal.
I
I'm
so
happy.
You
guys
brought
this
forward
because
we
have
issues
in
this
and-
and
I
don't
want
to
see
this-
go
to
the
dark
side.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
bringing
forward
the
language.
I
I
really
do
appreciate
it.
I'm
trying
to
keep
a
little
bit
optimistic,
but
I
also
have
to
be
realistic.
J
One
reason
why
is
possibly
because
of
the
letter
that
was
sent
in
to
the
senate
committee
from
february
10th
and
it's
similar
to
vice
chair
taurus's
concerns
at
one
point,
the
letter
references
the
bill
is
expansive
enough,
that
any
mention
of
a
project,
be
it
a
mine
or
highway
improvement
or
toxic
waste
cleanup,
would
be
exempted.
You've
made
it
very
clear
that
that
is
not
the
intent,
but
I
just
either
for
dr
gokuchiya
or
for
mr
tibbetts
walk
me
through.
J
I
don't
know,
let's
just
say
a
mine
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
somebody
from
the
federal
government
says
well,
let's
also
talk
about
this
because
we're
all
going
to
be
involved
in
this
as
well,
and
yet
there's
no
mou
or
moa
entered,
who
is
responsible
to
say
this
is
not
appropriate
and
we
just
we're
going
to
find
ourselves
in
a
dark
place.
If
we
continue
to
do
this.
B
Jake
tibbetts
for
the
record,
so
I
I
want
to
note
that
that
testimony
assemblywoman
that
you
mentioned
was
on
the
the
first
draft.
You
know,
I
think
you
will
hear
opposition
testimony
today,
so
I
don't
want
to
cast
that
you
know
everybody
came
to
support,
but
the
bill
was
substantially
amended.
It
did
clarify
that
it's
an
action
under
the
national
environmental
policy
act
rather
than
a
decision,
and
so
you
know
you
have
to
have
somewhat
of
an
understanding
of
the
national
environmental
policy
act
and
how
that
takes
place.
B
The
national
environmental
policy
act
is
something
that
federal
agencies
use
to
weigh
the
environmental
effects
of
any
federal
action.
So
it
can
be
a
private
party
proposing
to
do
something
on
f
on
the
federal
estate
and
then
the
federal
agencies
have
to
analyze
it.
They
disclose
the
impacts
and
then
they
select
from
a
range
from
an
alternative
or
a
range
of
alternatives
on
what
they
want
to
move
forward
with.
So
they're,
it's
very
structured.
It's
not!
You
know
it's
a
very
structured
thing.
It's
not
usually
it's
formal.
It
is
very
formal.
B
There's
a
process
on
how
it's
done
there.
It's
you
know,
it's
a
well-oiled
machine,
but
on
your
question
about
who,
who
you
know
if
you're
sitting
in
a
room
with
other
agencies
and
say
the
bureau
of
land
management,
says
hey
while
we're
all
here,
you
know,
I
think
that's
it's
very
similar
to
how
do
we
know
when
a
public
body
is
having
a
discussions
with
their
legal
counsel
outside
of
a
public
meeting.
So
it's
again
it's
one
of
those
things.
B
J
Well,
and
yes,
I
I
thank
you
because
I
do
think
once
you
start
down
that
dark
path,
it's
it
will
just
continue
to
dominate
both
your
destiny,
but
then
also,
unfortunately,
sometimes
the
conversations.
So
I
really
do
appreciate
the
answer.
Thank
you.
H
Good
morning
cheer
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
mr
tibbetts
and
dr
jj
my
question.
Well,
it's
actually
not
a
question.
It's
a
comment
and
I
would
like
to
comment
on
behalf
of
the
community
of
eureka
because
we're
taking
away
transparency,
we're
taking
away
their
right
to
a
public
forum.
H
And
my
fear
is
that
this
leads
to
the
path
of
darkness
of
the
dark
side,
and
we
know
that
fear
leads
to
anger.
Anger
leads
to
hate
and
hate
leads
to
suffering,
and
I
really
do
believe
that
the
public
will
look
at
this
and
feel
that
they
are
being
sidetracked,
that
the
government
is
not
being
forthright.
H
So
my
issue-
or
my
comment-
is
for
the
community
that
you
serve,
that
everything
that
we
do
as
far
as
government
should
be
public.
Thank
you.
B
Mr
chair,
may
I
respond
so
jake
tibbetts
for
the
record
and
totally
understand
that
context,
and
you
know
note
that
again,
as
I
tried
to
outline
without
this
bill,
these
these
nepa
processes
are
happening.
There's
people
at
the
table
and
we're
actually
cutting
out
our
citizens
in
nevada
by
limiting
the
ability
for
their
elected
officials
to
participate
right
now.
So
I
think
our
local
community
members
are,
and
citizens
are
not
advocated,
for
they
are
not
their
interests
are
not
being
put
forward
in
a
necessary
way
because
of
the
current
restrictions
we
have.
B
H
K
Thank
you.
I
have
a
little
bit
of
experience
with
this
from
the
city
council,
so
wouldn't
it
be
easier
to
rather
than
exempt
another
meeting
to
just
I
know
it's
more
work,
but
to
brief
each
commissioner
or
council
person,
or
whatever
they
are
individually
with
the
org
with
the
agency
and
let
them
give
their
feedback
at
that
point,
because
there
were
times
in
city
council
where
we
would
have
two
by
twos
right.
It
would
depend
how
many
were
on
your
board,
basically,
but
rather
than
exempting
another
meeting
from
open
meeting
law.
B
So,
mr
chairman
jake
told
us
for
the
record
thanks
for
the
question,
so
that
is
the
way
it
happens
right
now,
and
you
know
that
I
would
say
the
results.
The
same
is
you
have
your
your,
but
it
does
create
a
lot
of
work.
It
causes
issues
for
entities
that
don't
have
the
capacity
or
the
staff.
B
B
I
do
believe
that
that
I
I
work
for
a
lot
of
rural
nevada.
You
know
I
get.
I
draw
my
paycheck
from
eureka
county,
but
I
I
do
try
to
advocate
for
the
needs
of
rural
nevada
as
well,
but
I
can
I've
been
to
many
cooperating
agency
meetings
or
other
counties
have
signed
the
mou,
but
they
don't
have
somebody
to
be
there.
B
They
don't
have
a
staff
person
to
send.
They
don't
have
somebody
dedicated
to
that.
So
that
is
the
way
if
this
bill
you
know,
I
just
want
to
again
outline
if
this
bill
does
not
move
forward.
That
is
the
way
that
we
do
do
it,
but
again
it's
each
county.
Commissioner.
They
can't
talk
amongst
themselves.
B
What,
if
there's
differing
perspectives,
then
I
am
I
a
mediator
between
the
county
commissioners
to
try
to
have
discussions
with
both.
You
know
if,
if
we're
doing
all
these
circular
things
to
try
to
get
to
without
putting
this
exemption
forward,
you
know
are
those
discussions.
You
know
proper.
I
think
we're
just
going
down
a
road
that
there's
a
you
know.
L
B
A
Thank
you
thank
you
and,
lastly,
and
we'll
close
it
out
with
the
assemblyman
allison.
Please.
E
Thank
you,
mr
tibbetts.
You
mentioned
that
just
now.
What's
what's
kind
of
strange
about
some
small
boards
and
sitting
on
the
city,
council
and
county
commissioners,
and
here.
E
If
you
look
at
some
of
these
boards,
they're
small
and
each
individual
brings
something
different
to
the
board.
It's
not
like
we're
all
in
agriculture.
We're
all
in
everybody
brings
something
different
to
the
board
and
I
think
that's.
What
is
the
biggest
thing
about
this
bill
is
they're
there.
They
can
ask
them
questions
and
and
it's
under
the
open
meeting
law
if
they
went
back
and
there's
a
three-man
board
or
five-man
board,
you
can
only
talk
to
a
couple
of
them
unless
you
agendize
it
and
put
on
the
gen
and
talk
that
way.
E
I
think
this
this
bill
addresses
that
problem,
and
I
I
think
that
maybe
nego
can
hit
this
better
than
I
can,
but
most
of
these
these
boards
are
so
different
in
just
like
this
board.
Everybody
here
is
different:
almost
you
take
a
look
at
it.
They
they
bring
something
of
expertise
where
three-man
boards,
they
might
have
difference
of
opinion
all
of
them.
So
it's
good
to
have
that
out
there
and
be
able
to
speak
and
ask
them
questions
individually,
and
I
think
that's
a
great
thing
and
that's
why
I
support
this
bill.
A
Thank
you,
sam
lou,
nelson,
for
that,
your
insight
on
boards,
so
with
that
I'd
like
to
go
to
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
77
that
I
wanted
to
say
once
again
thank
you
to
both
for
your
presentation
and
and
indulging
us
in
that
light
humor
for
for
today.
So
thank
you
for
that
with
that
broadcast.
If
you
could
go
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill,
77.
M
M
N
M
O
O
This
law
will
encourage
and
enable
full
and
transparent
cooperation
between
counties
and
federal
land
management
agencies
and
give
county
governments
and
their
residents
full
and
fair
representation
regarding
major
plans
and
projects
affecting
their
counties.
While
it
may
seem
as
though
this
bill
encourages
secrecy
or
lack
of
transparency,
in
fact,
it
does
the
opposite.
That's
because
currently
federal
agencies
engage
in
the
planning
process
under
the
national
environmental
policy
act
or
nepa
do
not
engage
in
deliberation
of
county
board
of
commissioners.
O
Instead,
they
are
forced
to
engage
with
unelected
appointed
county
staff
out
of
view
of
the
public
and
without
accountability
to
voters
with
the
passage
of
sb.
77
federal
agencies
will
be
able
to
deliberate
with
a
fully
empowered
and
paneled
board
of
county
commissioners
with
their
varied
perspectives,
questions
and
each
representing
each
county's
region.
O
Just
as
the
open
meeting
law
was
amended
in
recognition
of
the
attorney-client
privilege
to
permit
a
closed
session
during
county
commission
meetings,
this
law
would
amend
the
open
meeting
law
in
recognition
of
the
federal
agencies,
pre-decisional
and
deliberative
communications
privilege,
to
allow
a
closed
session
during
county
commission
meetings
without
sb
77
federal
agencies
will
continue
to
avoid
deliberating
in
private
continue
to
avoid
and
deliberate
in
private,
with
unelected
staff
or
single
county
commissioners
without
the
questions,
deliberations
or
perspective
of
a
fully
empaneled
county
commission,
because
nevada's
open
meeting
law
requires
that
such
discussions
be
open
to
the
public,
which
is
in
contravention
of
that
federal
privilege.
O
M
P
Good
morning,
chair
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
this
is
marla
mcdade-williams,
m-a-r-l-a-m-c
capital,
d-a-d-e
w-I-l-l-I-m-s,
with
strategies
360
representing
churchill
county.
Today,
the
bill
president
explained
the
issue.
Well,
churchill
county
has
three
commissioners,
and
only
one
member
could
attend
at
a
time
under
a
memorandum
of
understanding
because
of
nevada's
requirements
for
when
a
quorum
is
present.
If
two
or
more
attended
it
could
be
a
violation
of
the
open
meeting
law.
P
I'm
sorry
I
had
some
feedback
there.
Having
the
ability
to
have
a
discussion
with
the
full
members
of
the
commission
and
get
direction
would
be
beneficial
to
the
process.
As
noted
in
previous
testimony,
the
mou
is
entered
into
into
a
public
meeting
and
after
the
commission
and
the
public
remaining
discussions
are
done
in
a
public
meeting.
P
Also,
I
concur
with
mr
tibbetts
about
the
information
that
comes
forward
in
a
public
meeting
after
an
mou
has
been
entered
into
it's
very
general
and
due
to
the
limitations
of
the
mlu
commissioners,
can't
share
the
deliberations.
They
can
only
generally
announce
that
the
meetings
are
occurring
and
discuss
only
the
publicly
available
information
available
at
that
time.
P
I
also
want
to
extend
our
appreciation
to
the
opponents
of
this
bill
in
the
senate.
Mr
tibbetts
and
the
bill
sponsors
worked
with
them
to
amend
the
bill
and
get
it
to
this
point.
We
recognize
the
objections
to
the
federal
process
and,
as
we've
worked
through,
this
we've
appreciated
the
understanding
of
those
barriers
for
nevada's
local
elected
officials
and,
more
importantly,
the
constituents
in
nevada
who
are
not
represented
under
the
current
system.
We
are
your
support
for
sb-77.
A
M
M
A
Q
Oh
yeah,
I
apologize
I'm
sorry
about
that.
Richard
pellets,
k-a-r-p-e-l.
Q
Right
all
right,
thank
you
thank
you,
chairman
flores,
and
the
vice
chair,
taurus
and
members
of
the
committee,
so
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
both
the
press
association
and
the
nevada
open
government
coalition,
whose
members
include
the
aclu
of
nevada,
the
nevada
policy,
research
institute
and
naacp
of
las
vegas.
Q
I
should
also
say
that
I'm
pretty
sure
that
I'm
testifying
on
behalf
of
the
light
but
have
confessed
that
I
have
not
seen
the
last
few
movies
in
these
star
wars
movies,
and
so
I
I'm
not
completely
certain
about
that.
But
so
let
me
begin
by.
We
appreciate
the
efforts
of
mr
tibbetts
and
naco
to
listen
to
our
concerns
and
engage
with
us
in
good
faith,
but
we
do
oppose
senate
bill
77.
Q
They're
not
secret
to
the
government
employees,
the
federal
and
state
government
employees
who
participate
in
the
proceedings,
but
secret
to
the
citizens
of
the
community
in
which
they're
held
citizens
of
those
counties
are
left
completely
in
the
dark
until
it
is
too
late
and
until
the
die
has
been
cast
on
the
underlying
project
and
sb.
77
asked
us
and
you
to
join
that
conspiracy
of
secrecy
to
sign
our
agreement
on
the
dotted
line.
Q
A
M
N
N
States
and
counties
are
not
merely
passive
observers.
In
these
processes
they
frequently
have
a
vested
interest
in
the
outcome
of
the
nepa.
Proceeding
counties
have
strong
economic
incentives
to
get
projects
permitted,
and
we
talk
about
this
like
it's
just
rural
counties,
but
there
are
major
projects
in
the
urban
counties
of
nevada
that
have
a
nepa
nexus.
Highway
expansions
flood
control
projects
that
goes
on
and
on
so
this.
This
affects
all
of
that.
It's
not
just
people
in
eureka
county.
N
Ultimately,
we
hear
a
story
from
these
bill
proponents
pleading
about
how
onerous
it
is
to
comply
with
transparency
laws.
Well,
yes,
governments
often
find
transparency
inconvenient
bill.
Proponents
are
saying,
there's
a
deficiency
in
federal
law,
so
we
need
to
roll
back
state
law
to
also
have
the
same
deficiency
that
doesn't
make
any
sense.
N
Furthermore,
this
bill
isn't
happening
in
a
vacuum.
Some
of
the
bill
supporters
have
a
long
record
of
fighting
against
nepa.
In
fact,
one
of
the
bill
proponents
was
at
a
signing
ceremony
at
donald
trump's
white
house
on
a
number
of
executive
orders
stripping
away
nepa
protections,
there's
an
anti-nepa
agenda
in
some
corners
of
nevada,
and
this
bill
comes
from
the
same
place.
N
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
next,
caller
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
77.
M
A
Thank
you
and
to
our
presenters
again.
Thank
you
any
clothing
remarks
you
may
have.
A
D
A
Just
wanted
to
confirm
so
to
either
one
of
our
co-presenters
any
closing
remarks
you,
you
may
have.
F
Mr
chairman,
chairman,
going
from
eureka
county
for
the
record
again,
thank
you
guys
for
hearing
this
bill
this
morning
and
and
again
reiterate
that
we
do
understand
the
need,
your
response
and-
and
we
are
all
about
transparency,
just
to
remind
everyone.
F
If
this
bill
does
not
move
forward,
we
will
continue
to
engage
the
way
we
have
for
the
last
decades
behind
closed
doors,
one
member
or
a
staff
member
meeting
with
our
federal
delegation,
or
excuse
me
with
our
federal
agencies
and
and
conducting
a
business
that
we
have
in
that
manner
to
the
vice
chair
to
the
vice
chair.
We
stand
ready
to
work
with
you
on
an
amendment
and-
and
I
do
agree
that
somehow
some
language
that
tightened
this
down
to
only
be
discussed
according
to
what
was
in
that
mou
would
be
better.
F
A
And
thank
you
again.
Thank
you
both.
I
appreciate
the
presentation
and
walking
through
that
and
again.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
indulging
the
committee
with
the
lighthearted
playfulness
this
morning
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
77
and
I'm
sure
members
will
continue
to
reach
out,
should
they
have
any
additional
questions
and
next
on
the
agenda
and
patiently
waiting
senator
brooks
please
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
283.
D
D
The
legislature
approved
assembly
bill
5,
an
act
that
provided
for
the
creation
of
local
improvement
districts
for
energy
efficiency
or
renewable
energy
improvements,
and
I
worked
on
it
with
members
of
this
committee
when
I
sat
on
assembly
government
affairs
with
under
chair
flores,
and
this
was
nevada's
version
of
commercial
pace
or
property
assessed
clean
energy
legislation
at
present
in
the
four
years
since
passage,
only
two
projects
have
been
financed
using
ab5's
provisions.
D
By
contrast
across
the
country,
over
1.4
billion
dollars
worth
of
commercial
pace,
projects
were
funded
since
assembly
bill
5
was
passed,
nebraska
financed
over
31
million
dollars
worth
and
utah
financed
over
64
million
dollars
worth
of
projects.
In
that
same
time
period
we
have
willing
property
owners
throughout
the
state
as
a
result
of
our
current
c
pay
statutes.
What
we
don't
have
are
wheeling
capital
providers
financiers
willing
to
do
business
in
nevada.
D
We
need
to
change
that,
and
sb
283
will
make
that
change
like
the
wise
words
once
uttered
a
long
time
ago
in
a
galaxy
far
far
away,
you
can't
stop
the
change
any
more
than
you
can
stop
the
suns
from
setting
senate
bill.
283
is
a
bill
that
is
consistent
with
the
best
practices
and
best
legislation
that
is
used
to
activate
commercial
pace
in
26
states
across
the
country
senate.
Bill
283
removes
the
unintentional
impediments
to
finance
senate
bill.
D
283
simplifies
the
structure
of
commercial
commercial
pace
to
allow
direct
financing
between
capital
providers
and
property
owners
secured
by
the
imposition
secured
by
the
imposition
by
local
government
of
an
assessment
and
lien
on
the
property
assigned
by
the
capital
provider
senate
bill
283
expands
the
range
of
eligibility
consistent
with
nationwide
trends,
including
water
conservation
measures
and
resiliency
improvements
like
seismic
reinforcements
and
fire
hardening
and
senate
bill.
283
gets
rid
of
the
complicated
maximum
benefit
formula.
We
originally
opposed
to
limit
how
much
could
be
financed
committee
members.
This
is
not
residential
pace.
D
This
is
commercial
pace
where
millions
of
dollars
are
at
stake.
Lawyers
are
involved
in
arm
lengths
deal
and,
most
importantly,
where
any
bank
that
has
a
stake
in
the
property
has
to
consent
to
the
deal
for
it
to
happen.
I
repeat:
this
legislation
maintains
the
requirement
to
lender
consent,
the
most
important
safeguard
to
ensure
the
that
the
use
of
pace
makes
financial
and
business
sense
to
a
property
owner.
D
That
is
why
I
introduced
this
bill.
If
it
pleases
the
committee,
I
would
like
to
hand
it
off
to
mr
michael
yaki,
the
senior
vice
president
and
senior
counsel,
to
explain
the
importance
of
this
bill
and
and
and
in
front
of
you.
You.
You
have
an
amendment,
a
proposed
amendment
that
actually
incorporates
some
of
the
comments
we've
gotten,
since
this
has
passed
out
of
the
senate
and
come
over
to
the
assembly,
and
I
believe
that
is
on
nellis
and
I
believe
all
the
committee
members
have
that.
D
But
mr
yaki,
if
you,
if,
if
it's
okay
with
the
chair,
if
he
could
walk
through
the
bill
and
the
concept-
and
he
even
has
some
slides.
A
L
L
Thank
you
very
much,
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
michael
jackie,
I'm
going
to
just
do
a
very
brief
presentation.
You'll
have
this
in
your
packets
and
we
don't
need
to
go
too
much
into
it.
This
is
again
about
sv
233.
I
want
to
thank
senator
brooks
for
his
leadership
and
his
stewardship
of
this
legislation.
It's
been
a
fun
ride
through
the
kessel
run.
Getting
to
this
place
right
now,
so
I
am
representing
petrous
based
finance,
we're
one
of
the
nation's
largest
capital
providers
of
cpas
financing.
L
L
The
droids
just
can't
get
it
to
work
and
I'm
forced
to
appear
on
this
rather
rudimentary
holograph.
So
quick
primer
on
cpace,
you
saw
that
senator
brooks
talked
about
the
form
of
financing
that
is
eligible.
Improvements
are
repaid
and
secured
by
an
assessment
that
system
in
place
on
the
property
it's
in
26
states.
There
are
2
500
projects
since
2010,
2.4
billion
financing
and
incredibly
over
25
000
direct
jobs
created
by
it
and
again
in
2017.
L
It's
found
in
the
nrs
271,
but
only
two
projects
have
been
financed
during
that
entire
period
of
time,
and
what
cinder
brooks
was
was
saying:
is
that
places
like
nevada
and
utah?
I
mean
like
nebraska
and
utah
are
now
well
over
50
and
100
million,
just
in
those
states
alone
since
that
time
period.
So
why
are
there
so
few
projects,
despite
the
attractive
markets
in
las
vegas
clark,
county,
reno,
tahoe
and
elsewhere
in
the
state
of
nevada?
Well,
as
was
stated
in
pace,
there
is
do
or
do
not.
L
There
is
no
try
and,
unfortunately
ab5
the
legislature
did
try
to
do
pace
but
didn't
quite
put
off
and
it's
and
it's
not
that
easy.
It's
like
trying
to
you
know
it's
like
trying
to
bullseye
a
womp
rat
on
tatooine
in
a
t-16.
It's
just
not
that
easy
to
do,
but
we're
going
to
try
and
we
we're
doing
it
in
this
legislative
amendment
that
we
have
before
you
we're
conforming
our
your
seed-based
statute,
the
national
standards
and
best
best
practices
required
by
rating
agencies,
securitization
standards.
And
why
is
that
important?
L
Because
it
creates
low
interest
rates
and
long
terms?
That's
sort
of
the
magic
bullet
for
how
c-pace
works
for
property
owners
because
it
enables
them
to
get
low-cost
money
manage
cash
flow,
and
we
do
this
by
by
reforming
the
statute
to
conform
to
these
national
standards
and
the
points
I
did
before
and
it's
important
to
remember
this:
this
is
a
voluntary
program
for
property
owners,
you're,
not
conscripted
into
the
imperial
storm
troopers.
You
can
only
do
this
if
you
consent
and
it's
the
same
with
local
governments.
L
It's
not
like
the
empire
is
going
to
dictate
it
to
you.
If
you're,
alderaan
or
mandalore
or
coruscant,
you
can
choose
to
offer
pace,
see
pace
or
not.
The
other
thing
is
we
wanted.
We
want
to
conform,
the
cpa
statute
to
national
standards
and
best
practices
for
eligible
and
qualified
improvements
right
now
you
only
allow
energy
efficiency,
renewal
and
renewable
energy,
which
is
great
I
mean
if
you
know,
if
you
want
to
create
a
better
hvac
system
on
your
death
star.
L
L
L
Finally,
we
want
to
make
it
easier
for
the
cpa
statute
to
conform
to
national
standards
and
best
practices,
to
make
it
easier
for
municipalities
to
offer
cpas
less
guesswork,
easier
guidelines,
better
rules
to
follow
and
liability
protection.
It's
basically,
you
know
giving
local
governments
a
little
best
car
steal
for
the
mandalorian
armor
in
case
someone.
Something
goes
wrong.
L
It's
the
risk
is
on
the
capital
providers,
not
on
municipal
government
and
again
you'll,
see
in
the
amendments,
how
we
have
done
that
and
work
with
counties
like
clark,
county,
the
national
associate,
the
nevada
association
of
counties,
las
vegas,
reno
and
others
to
make
that
happen.
L
The
amendment
that
you
have
before
you
contains
the
concerns
we've
already
addressed
from
the
nevada
bankers
association,
the
credit
union
league
in
the
cities
of
las
vegas
and
reno.
The
proposed
amendment
that
you
have
before
us
includes
more
work
with
clark,
county
and
naco
and
nevada
energy.
We
worked
with
them
together
to
ensure
that
we
did
things
to
provide
better
clarity
and
protection
for
local
governments,
first
and
foremost,
more
flexibility
and
more
control.
L
A
You
did
that
so
seamlessly
I
mean
we
are
impressed.
I
wish
you
were
in
the
room
with
us,
but
thank
you
for
that
and
senator
brooke.
Please.
D
A
G
Yes,
I
do
actually
thank
you,
chair
and
thank
you
senator
for
the
presentation
really
appreciate
it.
So
walk
me
if
you
would,
through
a
practical
example,
you
know
I
just
anticipating
you
know
talking
to
a
constituent.
I
need
someone
to
show
me
my
place
in
all
this.
Someone
comes
into
my
district
wants
to
build.
A
hotel
wants
to
go
through
pace
to
do
it.
How
would
that
work
in
a
kind
of
a
simplified
manner,
as
you
could?
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you,
assembly,
matthews,
and
I'm
glad
you
asked
that
question
because
that
really
kind
of
helps
the
light
bulb
go
off
when
you
can
walk
through
kind
of
a
process.
Mr
yucky,
would
you
would
you
give
us
an
example
of
a
project
that
you
would
worked
on
and
that
that
might
be
an
example
that
mr
or
assemblyman
matthews
could
be
relevant
to
his
district.
L
Yes,
let
me
shed
a
little
light
side
on
on
your
example,
which,
if,
for
example,
as
constituent
wanted
to
build
a
hotel
in
your
area,
what
they
would
be
able
to
do
is
they
would
probably
put
together
a
financing
package
that
financing
package
will
probably
consist
of
a
major
senior
construction
lender,
a
big
bank,
the
bank
of
nevada
whatever,
but
also
they'll,
be
looking
at
other
forms
of
financing,
because
every
lender
has
a
limit
as
a
how
much
they
will
need
to
go
on
the
property
and
pace
becomes
part
of
that,
because
pace
can
not
only
fill
that
gap
but
to
fill
the
gap
for
the
specific
improvements
in
that
property.
L
This
is
a
much
more
streamlined
and
simplified
way
to
do
it
if
they
have
they're
going
to
need
professional
engineers,
an
energy
auditor
people
who
do
water
studies
or
renewable
energy
feasibility
studies
will
be
part
of
that,
but
together
they
can
put
together
a
package
and
then
submit
it
to
the
local
government,
and
they
will
say
yes,
this
all
fits
within
the
statute,
it's
fine
and
they
will
receive
financing
from
a
company
such
as
like
our
such
as
ourselves.
L
In
return,
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
receive
the
assessment
and
lien
that
the
the
that
the
local
government
imposes
on
the
property
through
a
written
agreement
with
the
property
owner
that
is
then
assigned
to
us
and
we
will
build,
collect
and
enforce
it
ourselves.
So
the
local
government
has
only
a
very
light
touch
on
this
entire
thing.
That's
essentially
the
ecosystem
by
which
c-pace
would
work,
and
we
do
we
do
this
on
a
national
scale.
L
We
work
with
national
hotel
operators,
national
hotel
developers
across
the
country,
and
I
can
tell
you
with
great
certainty-
we
wouldn't
be
here
today
if
there
weren't
a
large
number
of
these
individuals
who
already
contacted
us
and
other
companies
wanting
to
come
in
but
unfortunate,
but
unfortunately,
because
because
a
pay
statute
here
is
not
quite,
I
don't
think
as
good,
but
it's
just
not
the
same
up
to
the
same
standard
as
other
national
programs.
We
all
hesitate
to
come
in
and
that's
why
only
two
have
been
financed
over
the
past
four
years.
E
G
L
Sure,
through
the
through
the
chair
to
the
assemblyman
michael
yaki,
one
of
the
one
of
the
key
things
in
c-pace
is
when
what
I
just
said
is
that
the
risk
is
on
the
capital
provider,
not
the
local
government.
The
local
government's
function
is
essentially
confined
to
approving
the
application
executing
the
voluntary
written
assessment
agreement
between
the
property
owner
and
the
county
assigning
that
to
us,
and
once
that
occurs,
their
responsibility
is,
is
gone.
So
anything
that
goes
wrong
with
the
property
first
and
foremost
is
ours.
L
If,
for
example,
it
goes
into
default
in
foreclosure,
the
statute,
the
the
statute
of
the
the
bill,
as
it's
been
amended
and
written
to
you-
and
this
was
worked
out
with
clark
and
other
local
governments,
makes
it
very
clear
that
the
assessment
lien
that
we
have
is
junior
to
the
lien
for
general
taxes
imposed
by
local
governments,
which
means
that
they
get
first
dibs
on
any
monies
monies
obtained
from
any
for
any
foreclosure
sale
before
we
get,
we
get
it.
We
get
a
penny.
L
A
likelihood,
then,
is
that
they
will
be
made
whole
and
we
probably
will
be
made
whole
too
as
well,
but
this
is
meant
to
provide
financial
insulation
for
them
in
that
situation.
In
addition,
there's
very
strong
prescriptive
language
that
says
that
local
governments
are
not
responsible
for
the
actions
of
their
of
of
any
employees,
nor
are
they
financially
responsible
for
these
assessments
that
they've
imposed
on
the
property?
No
public
funds,
no,
no
full
faith
and
credit
are
at
risk,
so
their
credit
rating
isn't
at
risk.
L
And
one
last
thing
is
that
any
money
that
they
put
any
any
time
and
effort
that
they
spend
in
administering
the
program
they
may
recoup
through
the
imposition
of
a
reasonable
fee
imposed
on
the
property
owner
in
the
capital
provider
for
processing
the
application.
So
fiscally
they
are
made
whole.
They
are
held
harmless
and
in
the
end,
they
are
priority
over
us
in
case
there's
any
default
or
foreclosure.
G
L
Up
through
the
chair,
michael
yackey,
to
the
to
the
assemblyman,
this
is
a
pace
will
occur
where
pace
occurs,
where
a
property
owner
wants
to
go,
whether
it's
a
small
community
or
large
community.
There
you'll
find
we
found
in
a
lot
of
states
like
nevada,
which
is
nebraska,
which
is
very
low
density.
That
you'll
find
a
lot
of
people
wanting
to
use
this
along
the
interstate
with
hotels
strip
malls.
What
have
you
that
are
along
the
way,
so
so
population
density
doesn't
matter.
L
D
And
and
mr
chair,
if
I
may,
through
you
to
assembly
matthews
this,
actually
the
language
here,
conforming
it
with
national
standards
as
well
as
setting
forth
a
lot
of
the
guidelines,
makes
it
far
more
likely
that
smaller
counties
that
might
have
less
resources
from
a
staff
standpoint
will
be
able
to
adopt
it
because
it
kind
of
lays
out
the
playbook
for
them.
R
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
senator
brooks
and
mr
yucky
for
bringing
this
forward.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
have
this
straighten
my
straight
in
my
head
and
then
ask
a
simple
question
afterwards.
If
I
have
this
process
correct,
this
is
private
investment
money
that
is
used
for
portions
of
a
project
so
like
a
certain
layer
of
a
project
and
in
exchange
for
the
low
I'm
assuming
very
low
low
interest
rates,
that
loan
is
paid
back
over
a
long
period
of
time.
R
The
loan
survives
whether
or
not
the
property
is
transferred
or
sold
to
someone
else,
because
that
loan
and
it
may
the
wording
may
be
wrong-
is
not
only
secured
to
the
property
but
also
through
through
the
county,
because
the
county
in
a
way
is
like
the
servicer
of
the
loan
because
they
pay
those
assessments
to
okay.
So
that's
that's.
I
guess
where
some
of
my
confusion
is.
Is
I
thought
this
was
a
portion
where
the
the
county
is
involved,
because
I
also
see
where
was
it
your
lo?
R
If,
if
the
property
goes
into
default,
the
investment
is
it's
a
it's
a
junior
priority
to
taxes
or
anything
that
the
county
would
require,
but
it
isn't
a
is
it
in
a
superior
priority
list
than
other
loans?
Because
of
this
I
guess
connection
to
the
county.
If
somebody
could
just
clear
that
up.
Thank
you.
D
And
through
you
chair
floors
to
assemblywoman
constantine,
if,
if
mr
yaki
could
could
answer
that,
I
was
tracking
with
you
right
to
the
very
end
and
then
that's
where
he
deviated.
L
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
record,
michael
jackie,
through
the
chair
to
the
assembly
woman,
the
the
whole
this
specifies
that
the
assessment,
the
sea
pace,
assessment
lien,
is,
is
junior
to
any
liens
for
general
taxes
by
a
local
government.
That
means
that
in
any
collection,
any
payment
any
sale
any
pro,
all
any
proceeds
must
go
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
local
government
first
before
it
goes
to
us.
L
The
other
liens
and
encumbrances
of
their
references
basically
are
referencing
mortgage
liens
d
of
trust
liens
on
the
property,
which
is
why
and
the
only
way
that
we
have
superior
position
in
that
in
that
case,
is
by
operation
of
law
and
and
following
the
statute,
and
that
means
we
need
to
have
the
consent
of
any
person
who
has
a
secured
interest
or
a
lien,
a
mortgage
or
a
deed
of
trust
on
that
property
in
order
for
the
application
to
be
approved,
but
the
county
does
not
collect
the
county
does
not
do
anything
other
than
execute
the
agreement
place
it
in
which
they
to
place
the
lien
on
the
property,
assigns
it
to
a
capital
provider
like
us,
so
they
are.
L
They
are
out,
except
in
the
unlikely
situation
I
mean
unlikely.
There
have
been
2
500,
commercial-based
assessments
across
this
country
and
not
a
single
one
has
gone
to
foreclosure
and,
as
I
explained
to
you
earlier,
the
reason
why
is
that
these
properties
are
very
tightly
underwritten
more
three
times
in
order
for
us
to
get
consent,
so
local
government
there's
no
county
role
other
than
the
initial
role
of
doing
the
putting
the
assessment
on
the
property
and
then
thereafter,
if
anything,
goes
wrong.
L
R
H
D
L
Yes,
thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
record,
michael
yaki.
Through
the
chair
to
the
assembling
woman.
It
depends
on
the
type
of
pace
capital
providers
that
are
out
there.
Some
we
have.
L
We
have
we've
worked
with
projects
as
an
industry
as
low
as
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
as
high
as
54
million
dollars
and
above
it
all
depends
on
two
things.
One
is
you
know:
can
the
property
sustain
a
pace
assessment
and
in
that
analysis,
is
any
person
who
holds
a
mortgage
on
that
property?
Will
they
consent
to
it,
because
that
if
they
believe
that
the
benefits
well
benefits
and
the
cash
flow
of
coming
from
the
benefits
of
the
of
the
pace
will
outweigh
any
risk
to
them
on
the
property?
L
So
what
we've
done
a
lot
of
times?
What
we've
seen
is
that
smaller
banks,
credit
unions
and
what
have
you
have
actually
gotten
into
the?
I
would
call
the
smaller
lower
the
lower
level
pace,
pace
lending
about
you,
know,
500,
000
and
below,
because
frequently
what
they're
doing
is
they're
going
to
use
their
own
customer
base
and
work
with
them
to
do
it,
but
it
it's
up
to
it's
up
to
the
lender
and
on
the
low
side
and
on
the
high
side,
the
sky
is
the
limit.
L
We've
already
had
interest
from
some
properties
in
nevada,
to
the
tune
of
you
know,
85
to
100
million
dollars
in
seepage,
which
means
that
they're
talking
about
a
very
significant
reconstruction
or
new
construction
of
our
property.
That's
why
we're
excited
to
be
here.
That's
why
again!
This
is
something
where
we
really
appreciate
your
time
and
effort
and
the
time
of
effort
of
everyone
of
the
stakeholders
who
work
with
us
to
get
us
to
where
we
are
today
under
senator
brooke's
leadership.
A
K
I
just
had
to
get
one,
so
I
have
a
good
friend
who
actually
has
experience
with
this
pace
program
being
implemented
in
las
vegas,
and
he
was
telling
me
that,
in
order
to
get
it
to
work,
they
had
to
expand
the
program
out
of
the
casino
corridor
into
the
individual
property
part
of
las
vegas
and
for
some
reason
it
was
opposed
by
the
individual
businesses.
K
D
Through
you,
chair
to
assemblywoman
black,
the
the
current
the
way
the
pace
statutes
were
it
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
like
hurdles
and
impediments
based
on
how
it
was
passed
in
2017
in
2017.
There
were
only
a
handful
of
examples
of
pace
and
they
were
mostly
residential.
So
there
were
a
tremendous
amount
of
protections
in
place
and
hurdles
that
that
a
property
owner
would
have
to
clear
to
even
be
able
to
take
advantage
of
it
that
really
kind
of
scared,
financing
and
capital
out
of
the
market
and
made
it
kind
of
not
worthwhile.
D
But
as
the
industry
has
advanced
and
there's
far
more
projects
and
examples
out,
there
there's
still
some
issues
surrounding
residential
pace
for
sure,
but
as
it
kind
of
moved
into
the
commercial
space
it
has
evolved
into
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
this
right
here
and
it
just
there
was.
It
was
really
difficult
to
make
a
program
that
was
worthwhile
under
the
current
existing
statutes,
and
so,
but
I
think
mr
yaki
could
speak
to
that
because
he's
in
the
business
every
day.
D
But
that
was
my
understanding
in
dealing
with
the
cities,
the
counties
and
then
some
business
owners
who
tried
to
take
advantage
of
this
over
the
last
couple
of
years
and
why?
You
know
why.
I
thought
it
was
important
to
work
with
them
to
bring
the
bill.
But,
mr
yaki,
if
you
have
some
examples
of
that.
L
Thank
you
for
the
record,
michael
yaki,
through
the
chair
to
the
assemblywoman.
To
paraphrase
someone
I
found
their
lack
of
faith
very
disturbing,
but
the
the
fact
is
is
that
it
is
a
voluntary
program.
There
were
a
lot
of
impediments
and
there
are
a
lot
of
impedance
in
the
original
bill
that
put
a
lot
of
friction
and
requirements
on
property
owners
that
properly
belonged
in
residential,
but
not
in
someone
who
understands
how
to
work
with
contractors
and
how
to
negotiate
with
their
bank.
L
So
I
can't
I
can't
I
can't
quite
say
it
other
than
people
have
a
hard
time
understanding
pace
it's.
It
is
a
very
complicated
thing.
It's
like
looking
at
the
plan
of
a
death
star
and
trying
to
find
that
one
ventilation
shaft
that
you
can
find
that
drops
on
the
end
to
blow
it
all
up.
It
is
exceedingly
complex,
but
once
you
get
them
get
the
machinery
going.
L
You
know
it's
like
an
x-wing
fighter
zooming
over
tatooine.
It
just
makes
it
a
lot
easier
to
work.
That's
what
this
that's!
What
these
amendments
by
senator
brooks
will
do,
and
I
and
I
believe
that
property
owners
who
were
perhaps
hesitant
or
resistant
will
understand
that
that,
as
a
center
said,
it's
voluntary,
it's
easy.
There
are
steps,
you'll
have
to
take.
It
require
the
consent
of
any
lender
that
they
have,
but
in
the
end
there
are
a
lot
of
improvements
that
they
can
benefit
from.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
and
with
that
again
senator
brooks
thank
you
for
the
voluminous
amounts
of
revisions
and
and
working
with
everybody.
I
appreciate
that
I
know
I
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
with
some
of
the
stakeholders
leading
to
this
hearing,
and
I
know
they
told
me
that
you
all
put
in
a
lot
of
work.
So
I
appreciate
that
thank
you
for
getting
it
where
we
are
now
so
with
that.
We'll
start
off
with
those
wishing
to
testify
and
support
who
are
here
in
person
before
we
go
to
support.
D
My
apologies-
I
I
wanted
to
to
bring
up
mr
vanderpool
to
who
had
worked
on
this
and
and
has
some
insight
into
all
the
parties
involved
to
get
to
this
this
amendment,
if,
if
he
he
could
come
up
for
a
few
minutes,
sir.
I
Please
good
morning,
chair
members
of
the
committee
nick
vanderpool,
with
capital
partners
today
working
on
behalf
on
behalf
of
petros
pace,
so
when
they
say
the
force
needs
to
be
with
you.
I
want
to
take
the
opportunity
appreciate
the
following
entities
who
provided
feedback,
input
and
suggestions
as
it
related
to
sb283
and
in
no
particular
order.
I
I
feel
what
we
went
through-
probably
eight
versions
of
sb
283
behind
the
scenes
to
get
here
today,
including
working
with
mr
sturdivant
yesterday,
who
provided
some
questions
and
feedback,
which
we
truly
appreciate
that
we
were
able
to
answer
so
to
director
bobsien
and
his
team
in
the
governor's
office
of
energy,
gov,
governor's
energy
office,
the
city
of
reno,
the
city
of
las
vegas,
the
city
of
henderson,
clark,
county
john
swinside,
at
sherman
and
howard,
and
his
team,
washoe
county
naco,
southern
nevada,
water
authority,
nevada
bankers,
association,
nevada,
credit
union
league
and
last
but
not
least,
nv
energy.
I
A
E
Sir
good
afternoon,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
chelsea
chad,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
water
authority,
first
and
foremost,
I
want
to
say
it's
very
good
to
see
all
your
faces
in
person
versus
zoom
or
teams.
We
are
in
support
of
sb283
just
want
to
say.
We
appreciate
the
sponsor
bringing
this
bill
forward,
anything
that
deals
with
water
efficiency
and
enhancing
conservation
in
the
state.
We
wholeheartedly
support,
appreciate
your
time
and
letting
me
testify
and
may
the
fourth
be
with
you.
Thank
you.
A
And
thank
you.
I
don't
see
anybody
else
in
person
wishing
to
testify
if
we
could
go
to
those
via
phone
wishing
to
testify
and
support
on
senate
bill,
283.
M
N
Good
morning,
chair
florence,
vice
chair,
torrez
and
esteemed
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
david
cherry
spelled
d-a-v-I-d
c-h-e-r-r-y
and
I
am
the
government
affairs
manager
for
the
city
of
henderson.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
today
to
testify
in
support
of
sb
238,
and
we
appreciate
senator
brooks
bringing
forward
this
valuable
legislation.
N
The
city
of
henderson
has
made
great
strides
in
our
use
of
clean
energy
and
improving
energy
efficiency
at
city
facilities.
That
has
not
only
resulted
in
a
reduction
in
conventional
pollutants,
but
also
in
slashing
our
carbon
footprint
and,
most
importantly,
in
creating
cost
savings.
We
also
have
an
active
cpas
program
already
in
place
that
was
created
in
2020
and
sb.
238
will
only
enhance
this
important
opportunity
for
qualifying
properties,
so
they
can
invest
more
easily
in
projects
that
will
enable
them
to
realize
the
benefits
of
clean
energy,
water
efficiency,
energy
efficiency
or
resiliency.
N
This
will
offer
significant
advantages
in
terms
of
increasing
potential
savings,
decreasing
the
intensity
of
resource
use,
curbing
pollution
and
enhancing
resiliency,
all
of
which
are
good
for
communities
in
the
silver
state.
Like
henderson,
we
also
appreciate
the
amendment
allowing
local
governments
to
adopt
changes
that
the
bill
will
require
via
resolution,
then
by
ordinance
and
in
the
words
of
master
yoda.
Always
in
motion
is
the
future,
so
it
is
my
hope
that
this
legislation
will
receive
the
support
from
the
committee
that
it
deserves.
Thank
you.
M
P
Chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
callie
wilsey
with
the
city
of
reno,
that's
c,
a
l
l,
I
w.
I
l
s
is
in
sam
ey.
We
are
here
in
support
of
sb
283
today,
we'd
like
to
thank
the
bill
sponsor
for
all
of
the
outreach
that
occurred
prior
to
today's
hearing.
There
are
numerous
discussions
if
you've
heard-
and
we
appreciate
the
sponsor
working
with
us-
to
understand
our
existing
cpace
program
and
how
to
improve
the
the
existing
language.
M
M
S
S
Most
importantly,
this
bill
will
aid
in
nevada's
recovery
and
foster
much
needed
job
growth
throughout
the
state.
The
financing
mechanism,
this
program
provides
supports
numerous
small
businesses
who
have
been
hit
the
hardest
over
the
last
year.
So
again,
we'd
like
to
thank
senator
brooks
for
bringing
this
type
of
legislation
forward
that
will
help
with
our
recovery.
S
M
N
N
We
would
like
to
thank
senator
brooks
and
the
bill
proponents
for
working
with
nv
energy
to
address
the
concerns
that
we
had
and
to
address
the
concerns
of
the
other
stakeholders.
The
revised
version
of
the
bill
that
was
presented
today
addresses
the
concerns
that
we
had
nv.
Energy
supports
energy
efficiency
as
one
of
the
solutions
that
will
allow
nevada
to
meet
its
decarbonization
goals.
We
offer
an
array
of
energy
efficiency,
products
and
services,
many
of
which
are
referenced
in
this
bill,
to
help
all
customers,
including
municipalities,
conserve
energy
and
lower
their
utility
bills.
N
M
N
N
I
want
to
start
by
thanking
the
sponsor
for
his
senator
mess
force
behind
this
great
concept,
but
there's
still
work
to
do
on
r2
zoning
respectively.
This
bill
can
bring
a
new
hope
to
much
needed
development,
we'll
also
improve
the
projects
offered
pos.
If
you
will,
as
the
presenter
indicated,
there
were
two
projects
offered
and
with
this
bill
we
could
even
see
three
pos
or
more.
Thank
you
and
charter
flores.
M
P
Thank
you,
mr
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
kelly
crompton
government
affairs
manager
for
the
city
of
las
vegas.
That's
k-e-l-l-y,
c-r-o-m-p-t-o-n
we'd,
like
to
thank
senator,
brooks
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
believe
it
is
a
good
piece
of
legislation
that
works
with
the
previous
bill.
From
the
previous
session,
the
city
of
las
vegas
has
one
project
of
the
two
that
were
mentioned
within
our
jurisdiction
and
are
currently
in
the
works
on
on
a
second
project.
P
M
N
Record
aaron
west
with
nevada
builders
alliance-
that's
a
rln
west
here
today
in
support
of
the
bill,
and
I
would.
O
M
M
C
Chair
flores
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
connor
kane
c-o-n-n-o-r-c-a-I-n
and
I'm
testifying
in
neutral
on
senate
bill
283
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
bankers
association
anytime,
you
have
a
financing
mechanism
that
creates
a
super
priority.
Lien
it'll
be
met
with
a
healthy
amount
of
skepticism
from
lenders
which,
which
include
the
nevada,
bankers,
association
and
others.
C
C
That's
also
why
it's
so
important
to
limit
this
to
commercial
properties,
but
if
we
look
back
at
2017
when
we
did
last
last
work
on
this,
there
were
a
number
of
concerns
about
residential
properties
and
there
were
programs
in
other
states
that
dealt
with
residential
properties.
That
did
not
have
the
best
best
outcome.
C
So
that's
that's
the
reason
for
part
of
that
that
skepticism
and
and
concern-
I,
I
will
say
we're
still
reviewing
the
latest
amendment
but
but
senator
brooks
mr
yaki,
mr
vanderpool,
have
put
in
an
unbelievable
amount
of
work
to
talk
with
various
stakeholders,
including
ourselves.
We've
we've
met
with
them
a
number
of
times.
C
They've
they've
done,
I
think
everything
they
can
to
try
to
alleviate
concerns
that
that
we
had
and
we're
very,
very
grateful
for
that.
It
sounds
like
they
they've,
as
mr
vanderbilt
said,
they're
on
their
eighth
iteration,
but
they've
they've
managed
to
to
create
a
a
great
bill
if
another
concern
were
to
arise
from
us,
we're
confident
we'd
be
able
to
work
with
them
and
communicate
with
them
and
again.
In
conclusion,
I
do
want
to
be
clear.
C
We
are
in
neutral
and
and
and
and
we're
grateful
for
the
opportunity
to
testify,
and
I
I
should
have
I
I
won't
punt
like
mr
mr
guzman
did
I
I
I
will.
I
will
say
that
the
force
is
certainly
strong
with
with
mr,
mr
yaki,
and
and
also
with
senator,
brooks
and
and
mr
vanderpool
and
and
if
and
if
mr
vanderpool
would
like
to
be
referred
to
as
as
r2d2
moving
forward.
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
satisfy
that
request.
C
No,
no
problem
for
me
from
the
bankers
association
we're
happy
to
do
that.
So
thank
you
all
again
again
for
your
time
appreciate
the
opportunity.
A
Fun
fact
I
have
an
uncle
named
arturito
and
if
you
say
it
slow
enough,
you
may
think
they're,
saying
r2d2.
I'm
just
saying
that
that
is
that
is
his
real
name
shout
out
to
my
uncle.
So
we'll
continue
with
those
wishing
to
speak
in
the
neutral
position.
We
don't
have
anybody
else
present
in
the
room,
so
we'll
go
to
those
wishing
to
call
in
neutral.
Please.
M
S
Good
morning,
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
rob
wilson
r-o-b
w-I-l-s-o-n
with
the
nevada
credit
union
league,
here's
a
neutral
on
this
bill.
We
just
want
to
align
our
comments
with
the
nevada
bankers
association
and
offer
sincere
gratitude
and
thanks
to
the
sponsor
of
the
bill,
the
author
of
the
bill,
as
well
as
the
contract
lobbyists
for
the
bill.
S
That
has
been
more
than
great
to
work
with,
and
we
appreciated
a
great
deal
looking
forward
to
the
final
iteration
of
the
bill,
but
we
believe
we'll
be
neutral
when
that
comes
out-
and
I
I
like,
like
my
predecessor,
said
I
I
don't
want
to
punt
this,
and
I
just
have
to
say
I
think
my
my
midichlorian
count
is
far
lower
than
that
of
mr
yaki's
and
some
of
the
members
of
the
committee.
S
So
I
have
no
no
more
star
wars
plans
for
you
all,
but
I
do
appreciate
the
the
healthy
discussions
that
were
offered
on
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
M
N
Good
morning
sheriff
flores
members
of
the
committee
joanna
jacob
j-o-a-n-n-a-k-a-c-o-b
government
affairs
manager
for
clark
county
cure.
For
us
we
worked
to
move
our
opposition
to
neutral
today,
we're
very
happy
to
be
neutral.
We
want
to
thank
the
proponents
for
working
through
the
county
concerns.
We
conveyed
in
the
senate
key
amendments
to
account
for
the
county
included
the
protections
for
the
county's
credit
rating
discussed
today.
The
ability
for
the
local
government
to
define
eligibility.
N
We
see
the
potential
for
use
of
this
program
to
help
further
environmental
and
sustainable
measures
in
our
community
and
the
framework
that
is
created
in
this
bill
from
senator
brooks
as
amended,
and
the
guidelines
will
allow
us
to
work
on
creating
a
program.
We
intend
to
take
this
to
our
board
for
approval,
so
we
want
to
thank
everybody.
N
This
has
been
a
ton
of
work
and
I
know,
may
the
fourth
be
with
you
and
the
important
work
that
you
do
as
it
is
every
day,
so
thank
you
senator
brooks
mr
vanderpull,
mr
yaki
and
everybody
who
worked
to
address
our
accounting
concerns.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
remember
to
be
angry
is
to
be
human,
so
we
appreciate
you
working
on
that
and
and
working
with
with
our
bill,
sponsor
to
get
to
the
neutral
position.
Thank
you.
Next,
we'll
go
to
next
caller
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
on
senate
bill
283.
M
N
D
Thank
you
chair.
I
don't
want
to
beat
a
dead
taunt
on
so
I'll.
Just
just
go
on
to
thank
the
committee
and
thank
you
for
having
the
best
committee
hearing
of
the
session.
A
Thank
you
senator
again.
Thank
you
all
in
all
sincerity,
thank
you
all
for
working
on
this
bill
and
multiple
revisions
and
finally
getting
everybody
there.
So
thank
you
for
that.
We'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
senator
bill
283
and
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
public
comment.
I
want
to
remind
those
of
you
wishing
to
testify
during
public
comment
that
it
is
not
a
time
for
you
to
reopen
a
hearing,
but
rather
for
you
to
speak
about
general
matters
that
fall
within
the
purview
of
this
committee.
A
If
you
try
to
reopen
the
hearing,
unfortunately
I'll
have
to
cut
you
off
broadcast.
Please
next,
caller
wishing
excuse
me
if
we
could
please
go
to
public
comment.
M
M
T
Ann
marie
grant
a
n
n
e
m
a
r
I
a
my
brother,
was
murdered
by
reno
police
in
washoe
county
sheriff's
office.
I
think
it's
important
for
elected
officials
to
know
about
bad
police,
washer
county
sheriff's
office,
sergeant
jason.
What
is
on
administrative
leave
after
his
second
dui
sergeant,
wood
was
arrested
for
dui
on
friday
april
30th.
He
was
booked
into
the
washoe
county
jail
shortly
before
midnight
on
friday
and
charged
with
dui
wood
was
arrested
for
dui.
T
Previously
in
march
of
2016,
he
was
sentenced
to
complete
nine
hours
of
dui
school
and
attend
a
victim
impact
panel.
He
faced
no
apparent
repercussions
from
the
sheriff's
office.
In
august
of
the
same
year,
sergeant
ward
initiated
the
traffic
stop
of
kyle
zimbleman
that
resulted
in
kyle's
death.
He
was
shot
by
multiple
agencies
in
2017
ward,
released
his
canine
on
a
man
after
he
surrendered
to
police.
The
video
of
the
attack
of
the
community
member
went
viral
and
the
taxpayers
of
waukesha
county
had
to
foot
the
bill
for
the
lawsuit
sergeant.
T
Wood
also
shot
and
killed
robert
hampton
iii
on
11
5
2014.
again
another
death
of
a
community
member.
At
the
hansa
police
at
washoe,
county
d.a,
chris
hicks
dragged
his
feet
on
releasing
his
report.
The
report
was
released,
5
26,
2016
568
days
later,
balaam
knew
of
woods
past
when
he
took
office
in
2018.
T
T
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning,
ma'am,
as
always
next
caller
wishing
to
testify
for
public
comment.
M
A
Yes,
thank
you
broadcast.
We
appreciate
you
as
always,
with
that
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
public
comment.
Members
tomorrow
may
5th
we
will
be
hearing
senate
bill
253
senate
bill
294.
Please
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
review
those
ahead
of
time
and
reach
out
to
some
of
the
stakeholders
and
familiarize
yourself
with
that,
and
I
know
we
were
originally
scheduled
to
do
our
committee
photo.
I
apologize.
A
A
So
members,
I
don't
know
when
we
will
be
rescheduling
that
we'll
just
please
be
on
the
lookout,
we'll
send
out
an
email
to
everybody
and
with
that
I'd
like
to
close
out
with
the
quote
at
this
time
in
session,
we
find
ourselves
in
a
dark
place,
but
just
with
a
little
more
lantern,
that's
going
to
light
our
way,
and
with
that
members
I
may
the
fourth
be
with.