►
From YouTube: 4/29/2021 - 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
Present,
thank
you,
mr
secretary.
Please
let
the
record
reflect
all
members
are
present
and
we
have
a
quorum
good
morning.
Members.
As
always,
I
want
to
remind
you
to
please
make
sure
that
you
are
not
logged
in
to
zoom
if
you're
sitting
in
the
committee
room
as
that
will
create
some
chaos
for
our
it
department
members.
I
want
to
remind
you
to
please
silence
your
cell
phones.
I
am
doing
that
myself
now,
for
those
of
you
joining
us
this
morning.
A
Welcome
to
your
committee
on
government
affairs
very
hard
working
committee
on
government
affairs
today
on
the
agenda.
We
have
senate
bill
12
and
senate
bill
138.
We
intend
to
take
it
in
that
very
order
for
those
of
you
who
are
hoping
to
join
us
for
public
comment,
we'll
be
doing
that
at
the
conclusion
of
today's
meeting
and
with
that
senator
ratty
good
morning
welcome
and
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
12.
A
D
Thank
you
for
your
patience
good
afternoon.
Everyone.
My
name
is
senator
julia
ratty
and
I
represent
senate
district
13
in
the
heart
of
reno
and
sparks
very
good
to
be
with
you
today
today.
I
am
here
because
I
am
the
lucky
one
who,
when
we
refreshed
the
advisory
committee
on
housing
last
session,
so
we
had
legislation
to
recreate
the
advisory
committee
on
housing
and
one
legislator
was
appointed
to
that.
I
was
the
lucky
one
who
gets
to
be
on
the
advisory
committee
of
housing,
and
I
was
very
honored
to
be
elected
the
chair.
D
So
today
I
am
here
representing
the
advisory
committee
on
housing
and
I
have
with
me
the
vice
chair,
who
is
bill
brewer
from
the
nevada,
renal,
nevada,
rural
housing
authority,
as
well
as
steve
across
from
the
housing
division.
And,
of
course,
the
housing
division
provides
the
staffing
for
the
committee.
The
committee
was
also
privileged
with
having
one
bill
draft,
and
this
is
the
bill
draft
that
the
committee
recommended
bringing
forward.
D
D
At
this
point,
we
are
talking
about
subsidized,
affordable
housing
that
has
primarily
been
built
with
federal
tax
credits
or
federal
programs
where
a
developer
takes
a
tax
credit
or
some
other
incentive
and
then
commits
to
keeping
that
unit
affordable
for
a
period
of
time,
and
so
the
whole
point
of
this
conversation
is
talking
about
preserving
the
units
that
we
have
today.
So
with
that
I'm
going
to
jump
in
maybe
there
we
go
so
again,
because
I
know
that
this
committee
has
heard
a
lot
about
affordable
housing.
D
So
again
we
have
these
contracts
between
the
government
and
private
owners
and
in
that
contract
the
what
happens
is
there's
a
time
limit.
So
you
as
the
developer,
you
accept
this
incentive,
which
is
usually
in
the
form
of
a
tax
credit
which
then
gives
you
this
extra
money
that
you
can
put
towards
building
your
project
and
then
in
exchange,
for
that
you
agree
to
keep
that
unit
or
those
units
affordable
for
a
period
of
time
and
so
that
period
of
time
once
it
expires.
D
D
The
reason
why
this
is
important
is
it
is
significantly
more
cost
effective
to
save
units
that
have
already
been
built
than
it
is
to
build
new
units,
and
that
just
makes
sense
right.
If
you're
talking
about
keeping
a
project,
that's
already
been
affordable
for
multiple
years,
we've
already
invested
tax
dollars
in
it.
We
already
have
land
use,
restrictions
and
other
safeguards
in
place.
We
already
have
people
living
in
those
units
who
meet
the
affordability
criteria
and
so
by
far,
the
most
efficient
path
forward
towards
keeping
affordable
units
is
by
preserving
the
ones
that
we
have.
D
D
So
if
you
look
at
the
ones
that
we
built
new
and
the
ones
that
we
renovated,
we
either
built
or
saved
755
new
units
in
2011.
everybody,
following
that,
unfortunately,
the
net
increase
in
inventory
that
year
was
only
273
units
and
the
reason
that
there
was
only
a
net
increase
of
273
units,
even
though
we
built
755
or
renovate
or
renovated.
755
is
because
of
the
units
that
expired.
D
D
These
are
contracts
that
were
approved
30
years
ago
15
years
ago,
and
we
will
continue
to
have
these
problems
as
we
continue
to
build
new
contracts,
they're
going
to
expire
eventually,
and
we
just
it's,
it's
there's
the
greek
myth
of
the
man
who's
rolling,
the
rock
up,
the
hill.
D
D
6
500
are
30-year
tax
credits
who
are
exiting
through,
what's
known
as
the
qualified
contract
process,
and
I
pride
myself
on
understanding
a
lot
about
affordable
housing,
but
I
am
going
to
defer
the
explanation
of
a
qualified
contract
process
to
the
housing
division
because
it's
complicated
and
nuanced
and
I'm
just
going
to
let
them
do
that
300
units
or
rental
assistance
contracts
that
aren't
renewing
and
400
are
just
deteriorating
to
the
point
that
we
can't
certify
them
for
occupancy
anymore.
Okay,.
D
D
E
E
The
development
of
affordable
housing
is
difficult
and
it
comes
with
very
little
support
in
terms
of
large
dollars
and
those
kinds
of
things,
and
so
we
need
lots
of
tools
in
our
toolbox
to
be
able
to
meet
the
needs
that
are
out
there,
and
preservation
is
one
of
those
very
important
tools.
As
senator
ratty
just
demonstrated,
we
lose
almost
as
many
units
each
year
as
we
build,
and
so,
if
we
can
hang
on
to
those
units
we're
miles
ahead.
E
E
E
It
does
not
excuse
me,
provide
additional
funding
for
preservation,
as
I
said,
there's
no
funding
attached
to
this
bill
and
it
doesn't
mandate
that
the
local
governments
do
anything.
It
does
mandate
that
we
notify
the
local
government,
but
that's
all
and
and
that's
on
the
owner.
It
doesn't
force
an
owner
to
offer
rent
subsidies
or
to
relocate
tenants
or
anything
like
that,
and
it
doesn't
take
any
property
rights.
All
we're
asking
is
for
notification
so
that
we
can
potentially
put
together
a
deal
that
will
keep
that
housing
property
affordable.
F
Bill
welcome
senator
ratty,
chair
floors
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
steve
across
the
administrator
of
the
nevada,
housing
division
and
it's
my
pleasure
to
walk
you
all
through
the
bill.
Mr
brewer,
I
do
or
senator
ratty.
I
don't
have
access
to
see
what
slides
you're
you're
pulling
up.
So
if
you
could
follow
along
that
would
be
certainly
helpful.
Thank
you.
D
But,
mr
across
julia
ready,
I
have
you
on
definitions.
F
Perfect
section
two
does
list
the
definitions
applicable
to
the
affordable
affordability
of
housing,
and
I
would
like
to
focus
in
on
one
definition
as
it's
key
to
understanding
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here,
and
that
is
the
qualified
contract.
F
It
allows
for
a
property
to
actually
leave
the
affordability
period
before
that
defined
30
years.
It
allows
the
division
a
year
time
frame
to
locate
a
purchaser
and
once
that
contract
is
obtained,
the
existing
residents
of
that
property
that
is
exiting
have
a
three-year
period
of
affordability
before
all
the
affordability
restrictions
are
removed.
F
So
to
better
understand
this
and
its
relations
to
the
bill.
I'd
like
to
go
over
the
high
level
timelines
related
to
affordability,
and
that's
on
the
next
slide
that
says
30-year,
affordability,
timeline.
F
We
look
at
this
as
sort
of
two
15-year
buckets
and
the
first
buckets
the
first
bucket
everybody
goes
and
and
moves
down
the
same
path
until
you
hit
that
red
bar
that's
15
years
after
15
years.
Some
things
can
happen
and
what
we're
really
trying
to
do
is.
Should
it
follow
the
path
in
red
with
all
the
red
arrows?
F
So
we
wanted
to
get
all
the
way
through
30
years,
so
the
you're
going
to
hear
two
terms,
expiration
and
termination
expiration-
represents
the
fulfillment
of
the
30-year
obligation
and
is
indicated
by
the
green
arrows
to
the
right
termination
is
basically
going
to
be
that
red
arrow
path
and
the
the
qc
process
is
eligible
anytime
during
the
second
15-year
period.
So
from
that
red
white
bar
on
down,
it
doesn't
just
occur
at
15
years.
F
Any
time
after
that,
we
are
able
to
potentially
issue
additional
tax
credits
during
the
second
year
second
15-year
term,
which
in
turn
will
extend
the
affordability
another
30
years,
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
preservation
in
the
past
five
years
to
obtain
any
tax
credits
through
the
division,
whether
for
new
construction
or
preservation,
when
those
tax
credits
are
allocated,
the
owner
has
to
waive
their
rights
to
exercise
this
qc
process.
F
So
should
an
owner
exercise
their
qc
option,
the
division
is
notified
by
the
owner
and
the
owner
is
on
and
the
onus
is
on
us
as
the
division.
We
have
one
year
to
locate
a
purchaser
most
times.
This
is
extraordinarily
difficult
due
to
the
difference
between
the
irs,
determined
price
and
the
actual
market
rate
value
of
the
property.
F
Due
to
the
increase
in
rent
so
sort
of
with
that
background,
we
can
turn
to
section
three
section:
three
provides
the
requirements
when
an
owner
is
going
to
exercise
their
termination
rights
and
going
back
to
the
timeline.
This
is
the
path
indicated
with
the
red
arrows
when
an
owner
submits
a
request
to
obtain
a
qualified
contract
for
a
property
to
the
division,
they
must
also
provide
written
notice
to
the
local
jurisdiction
and
each
tenant
of
the
property.
F
F
Section
4
provides
the
requirements
when
an
owner
is
going
to
exercise
their
expiration
rights
and
going
back
to
the
timeline.
This
is
the
path
indicated
by
the
green
arrows
and
the
balance
of
section
four
effectively
mirrors
the
requirements
of
the
notices
established
in
section
three,
but
with
some
subtle
differences,
as
this
is
the
expiration
process,
not
the
termination
process,
while
the
division
will
receive
notice
of
at
least
a
year
from
the
expiration
date.
F
In
some
cases,
the
affordability
restrictions
go
on
longer
than
what
is
prescribed
in
the
tax
credit
process,
because
there
might
be
an
additional
funding
stream
which
supports
affordability,
which
goes
on
past
that
30-year
mark
and
the
last
the
language.
In
section
four
couple
contemplates
the
situation
section:
five
contemplates
the
requirements
when
a
property
is
exercising
voluntary,
voluntary
affordability.
F
Many
of
our
partners,
particularly
our
mission
driven
and
non-profit
developers,
for
various
reasons,
may
continue
to
the
extent
they
possibly
can
the
affordable
restrictions
on
the
property
without
the
federal
overlays
and
here
the
notification
requirements
are
very
similar
to
those
that
have
been
discussed
in
the
previous
sections,
but
because
they're
doing
this
voluntarily,
both
the
division
and
the
affordable
housing
community
are
interested
in
making
sure
the
tenants
are
notified.
Should
those
affordability
restrictions
cease
and
that
the
division
is
notified,
so
we
can
hopefully
find
another
part
of
partner
and
keep
our
affordable
housing
intact.
F
The
next
slide
demonstrates
the
requirements.
Thank
you
of
the
notifications
to
local
jurisdictions
in
the
tenants
in
section
three
form.
Five
requires
the
notification
to
local
governments
to
include
details
about
the
property
expiration
of
affordability,
restrictions,
contact,
information
of
the
owner
to
the
tenants.
It
describes
the
timeline,
the
protections
for
the
tenants
and
the
description
of
housing
resources
available
to
them
in
the
penalties
which
only
occur
in
sections
three
and
four,
both
the
termination
and
expiration
section.
F
In
both
cases,
the
division
can
impose
up
to
a
ten
thousand
dollar
administrative
fine
for
failure
to
notice,
in
addition
to
what
is
shown
here
in
section
three
in
termination,
those
who
go
out
for
the
qc
those
well,
not
those
folks
will
not
be
able
to
apply
for
any
tax
credit
program
for
five
years.
F
We
did
not
include
these
penalties
in
section
five,
those
who
are
providing
voluntary
affordability,
as
we
felt
it
would
be
punitive
to
those
who
are
really
good
actors
in
this
space.
F
I
think,
in
the
simplest
terms,
with
the
most
convenient
definitions,
I'd
like
to
think
have
you
think
of
this
as
a
timeline
as
the
affordable,
housing
freeway,
and
it's
30
miles
long.
It
goes
from
carson
to
the
reno
airport
you're
all
familiar
with
that
each
mile
representing
a
year
in
the
timeline
and
this
affordable
housing
freeway,
is
full
of
developers,
local
jurisdictions,
property
managers,
estate,
housing,
stakeholders
and
residents.
F
When
we
issue
tax
credits,
we
want
every
development
to
get
to
the
reno
airport
to
go
the
full
30
miles.
However,
the
irs
allows
an
off-ramp
after
15
miles
so
right
up
there
at
the
north
end
of
washoe
valley,
and
when
the
developer
takes
that
exit
the
second
they
are
on
the
off
ramp.
They
have
to
hit
their
turn
signal
effectively.
D
Thank
you
so
so
I
would
just
say
it's
complex
because
there
are
these
qualified
contracts
or
they
go
to
full
expiration
or
they're,
a
non-profit
who
stays
affordable
forever,
but
this
bill
does
a
very
simple
thing.
It
just
requires
that
we
get
notification
12
months
before
whatever
the
situation
is
those
units
expire,
and
we
think
that
that
is
a
very
light
ask
for
a
developer
that
has
accepted
tax
dollars
in
order
to
achieve
affordability,
no
property
rights
taken
away,
no
takings.
D
D
D
It
gives
tenants
who
are
in
subsidized
units
12
months
notice,
because
if
you
are
a
senior
citizen
on
who's
living
on
850
a
month
from
your
social
security
and
you're
in
a
unit
where
you're
paying
450
or
500
a
month
when
you
go
to
market
rate
now-
and
it's
1200-
you
can't
do
that
overnight
right,
so
that
those
two
things
are
critically
important.
Chair
again
julia
ready
for
the
record.
A
A
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
I
really
appreciate
all
how
much
thought
went
into
this.
My
question
has
to
do
with
section
six,
I'm
so
sorry,
section
3.6
it's
on
page
4
line
39.
in
particular.
It's
it's
the
permissive
language
where
it
says
prohibited
the
division
may
so
that
doesn't
mean
it
necessarily
will
happen.
Is
this
going
to
be
lined
out
for
somebody
or
I
guess
I'm
just
asking?
Will
it
be
consistent
because
the
word
may
has
me
a
little
bit
concerned.
F
F
I
can
tell
you
that
that
looking
at
360
prohibiting
an
owner
who
has
terminated
affordability,
that
person
will
not
be
able
to
apply
for
tax
credits
for
five
years
and
really,
I
think
it
it
has
to
go
with
b
and
the
penalties,
because
we
know
that
as
we
implement
this,
there
are
probably
going
to
be
some
misuse
and
some
missed
opportunities,
but
we're
going
to
work,
as
I
mentioned,
with
the
create
regulations
regarding
exactly
how
those
administrative
fines
will
be
handled.
So
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
G
Thank
you,
it
does
so.
I
think
that
those
regulations
are
incredibly
important
to
have
so
that
way,
they're
consistent,
because
the
other
issue
that
again-
and
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear-
I
really
appreciate
this
because
you
are
seeing
a
problem
that
could
occur
soon
and
having
this
notice
is,
I
believe,
very
important,
but
we
want
to
make
sure
that
everything
is
really
clear
on
it.
You
mentioned
that
there
will
be.
The
owner
shall
also
hold
at
least
one
meeting
for
tenants
to
discuss
it.
G
E
F
Yeah
stevie
steven
across
the
administrator
of
the
nevada
housing
division
for
the
record
bill
is,
is
spot
on.
As
I
read
it
again,
that
could
be
something
that
could
be
addressed
through
regulation.
Exactly
what
those
administrative
penalties
would
be.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Thank
you,
mr
brewer,
for
that
a
great
presentation
and
a
lot
of
information.
I
have
two
questions
and
senator
raddy
noted
that
we've
lost
5
000
units
since
2012..
I
just
want
to
confirm
that
that
is
statewide
and
then
my
second
question
would
be
relative
to
the
number
of
affordable
units.
Do
we
currently
have,
or
are
we
at
capacity
in
each
of
the
17
counties?
The
document
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
is
clark
in
washoe
county,
but
I'm
curious
to
know.
E
A
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
very
much
for
bringing
this
bill.
Senator
raddy
said
this
is
like
this
is
a
light
ask,
and
I
think
this
is
an
incredibly
light
ass,
considering
the
situation
that
we're
in
in
this
state.
I
do
have
a
few
questions
and
some
of
them
are
just
for
me
to
get
numbers
on
the
record.
H
My
first
well,
actually,
let
me
go
back.
My
first
one
is
going
to
jump
off
from
where
assemblywoman
anderson
asked
about
three
section:
three:
six
subsection
cis,
the
division.
May
my
question
is
specifically
about
six
a.
Is
there
a
federal
reason,
or
is
there
a
reason
where
it
says
that
you
can
prohibit
an
owner
from
applying
for
the
to
the
division
for
a
period
not
to
exceed
10
years?
I'm
sorry,
five
years
as
opposed
to
10
years
or
15
years.
H
E
F
No
stevie
croft
administrator
of
the
nevada
housing
division
for
the
record,
no
there.
That
is
absolutely
as
bill
explained,
that's
not
federal
statute
regulation
or
anything.
That
is
something
that
the
advisory
committee
deemed
as
an
appropriate
response.
E
And
bill
brewer
again
for
the
record,
you
have
to
look
at
the
whole
timeline,
as
steve's
slides
pointed
out
the
15
to
30
years
once
we're
down
that
highway
15
years
or
20
years.
Another
five
year
penalty
on
that
effectively
takes
the
developer
out
of
the
loop
for
any
further
affordable
housing
development
in
nevada.
H
Thank
you,
then,
are
there
sort
of
a
pool
of
developers
to
or
could
this
be
any
developer?
I'm
just
wondering
if
one
of
the
reasons
is
that
they're
only
sort
of
a
finite
amount
of
developers
who
will
build
these
type
of
buildings.
E
Bill
brewer
for
the
record.
There
are
a
finite
number
of
developers
who
do
these
because
it's
a
difficult
process,
a
lot
of
brain
damage
occurs
to
get
all
of
these
financing
sources
lined
up,
as
mr
across
has
explained
in
other
occasions,
it's
a
financing
lasagna
and
each
one
of
those
financing.
Resources
has
different
requirements
and
different
requirements
in
terms
of
of
keeping
those
units
affordable,
and
so
it's
difficult
and
most
developers
just
don't
mess
with
it.
And
so
that's
why
it's
so
important
for
us
to
hang
on
to
those
units
when
we
can't.
H
Thank
you
chairman.
I
ask
a
couple
more
questions.
Please
thank
you,
okay
and
on
slide.
Oh,
I
don't
know
if
it
has
a
number,
but
it
says
in
here
that
you're,
probably
I
understand,
there's
7
500,
affordable
units
that
are
at
risk
over
the
next
five
years,
6
500
or
30-year
tax
credit
properties,
potentially
potentially
exiting
of
those
6
500.
Are
they
all
at
the
30-year
or
are
some
of
these
at
that
50-year
call
I'm
sorry
15-year
qualifying
where
the
developer
is
asking
to
exit
there.
E
H
F
Steve
acrob
for
the
record.
We
do
have
that
basically
6
500
units
to
sort
of
directly
answer
the
question
or
somewhere
between
that
15-year
period
and
that
30-year
period
where
there
are
they
are
eligible
to
exit
through
the
qt
process.
H
Thank
you
and
then
I
was
trying
to
read
the
chart
that
shows
the
new
construction,
the
renovations
and
I
might
just
be
misreading
it,
but
what
I'm
not
sure
of
is
how
many
units
do
we
have
right
now.
I
know
that
we
need
96
000
more.
I
know
that
we're
potentially
losing
7
500.,
but
how
many
do
we
have
in
let's
say
2021.
E
F
Steve
across
nevada
housing
division
for
the
record-
I
don't
have
that
right
at
my
fingertips.
I
can
obviously
get
that
and
provide
that
to
the
committee.
H
Thank
you
would
really
appreciate
to
have
these
numbers
in
the
record
and
then
just
my
last
one
is
how
many,
if
you
have
this
number
or
if
you
can
provide
it
to
the
committee,
how
many
are
currently
being
built
right
now.
E
F
Steve
across
administrator
of
the
nevada
housing
division,
I
think
we
have
the
better
part
of
about
about
600
to
1000,
currently
under
construction.
But
again
I
can
get
that
number
to
you.
C
Good
morning,
and
thank
you,
mr
brewer,
mr
across
my
only
question
on
this-
would
have
to
do
with
a
potential
compliance
costs.
You
know
to
owners.
Do
we
know
what,
if
any,
expected
compliance
costs.
F
Yeah
steve
steve
across
for
the
record:
we
already
do
compliance.
We
have
a
compliance
team
in
these
properties,
so
they
regularly
annually
visit
these
properties.
So
there
really
shouldn't
be
any
additional
compliance.
The
notifications
that
we
have
to
do
to
our
stakeholders
can
all
be
done
via
email,
so
we
don't
anticipate
any
significant
additional
costs
to
this.
A
I
don't
believe
we
have
any
additional
questions
at
this
time.
Thank
you,
members.
So,
at
this
time,
we'll
invite
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
12..
Are
there
any
members
in
the
audience
that
we
should
testify
and
support?
So
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
go
first
with
those
who
are
here
in
person
next
we'll
go
to
those
in
zoom,
followed
by
those
on
on
phone.
Good
morning,
sir.
I
Welcome
good
morning,
chair
chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
nick
vanderpool
from
capital
partners
representing
the
nevada
rural
housing
authority,
the
nevada
rural
housing
authority
would
like
to
thank
senator
giuliorati
for
sponsoring
sb12
nevada.
Rural
housing's
mission
is
to
work
together
as
one
cohesive
team,
with
the
shared
goal
of
enhancing
the
quality
of
life
in
rural
nevada.
As
a
member
of
the
housing
task
force,
nevada,
rural
housing
authority
appreciated
our
ability
to
share
the
unique
challenges
that
rural
nevada
has.
I
Sb
12
will
provide
a
housing
preservation
strategy
that
will
enable
the
state
of
nevada
to
plan
for
the
future
as
we
work
together
on
affordable
on
the
affordable
housing
crisis.
We
thank
you
and
urge
your
support
for
sb12
and
chairman
four.
Is
this
my
first
time
testifying
in
person
in
the
committee?
I
would
like
to
thank
you,
the
committee
and
committee
manager,
judy
bishop
and
their
staff
they're
they're
great.
I
appreciate
everyone.
Thank
you.
J
Good
morning,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
nicole
rourke,
representing
the
city
of
henderson,
again
great
to
be
here
with
you
in
person
today.
Finally,
and
just
echo,
the
comments
of
my
colleague
from
fernley,
the
city
of
henderson,
is
here
to
support
the
concept
of
affordable
housing
and
the
tools
light
as
they
might
be.
We
certainly
think
this
is
progress
in
the
right
direction,
so
thank
you.
J
Good
morning,
mr
chairman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
christine
hess
and
I'm
the
executive
director
for
the
nevada
housing
coalition,
and
this
is
also
my
opportunity
to
thank
you
so
much
for
your
commitment
and
service.
I
appreciate
you
all
so
much
and
wish
to
express
our
strong
support
of
sb12.
Today,
the
nevada
housing
coalition
is
a
statewide
nonprofit
established
to
advance
and
promote
affordable
housing
for
all
nevadans.
Our
members
represent
the
public
and
private
sectors.
Urban
and
rural
across
nevada.
J
We're
all
reading
about
how
housing
in
some
of
our
largest
markets
is
out
of
reach
for
so
many
right
now,
whether
you're,
a
homeowner
or
a
renter
record
high
home
prices
record
high
rents.
This
morning,
however,
I
want
to
dig
in
deeper
to
our
affordability
crisis
and
speak
to
the
housing
that
is
built
with
affordability,
restrictions
for
our
most
vulnerable
nevadans
and
those
in
the
workforce
that
aren't
making
a
housing
wage.
J
We
have
an
extreme
shortage
of
affordable
housing
in
nevada
and
although
we
are
fortunate
to
have
mission-driven
developers
that
are
adding
new,
affordable
units
every
year,
we're
losing
them
as
quickly
from
2014
to
2020.
Our
affordable
housing
stock
remained
flat.
29
000
units
in
2014,
29
000
units
in
2020.
J
sb12
is
a
critical,
proactive
policy
solution
to
support
efforts
to
preserve
our
existing
affordable
housing
stocks.
So
we
can
actually
begin
to
really
build
our
inventory
in
nevada.
We
have
7
500
units
that
are
at
high
risk
of
going
to
market
rate
in
the
next
five
years,
and
rising
property
values
may
increase
the
likelihood
of
these
affordable
units
to
exit
the
near
term,
take
significant
capital
investment
and
committed
buyers
to
preserve
the
property's
affordability
and
the
12-month
notification
requirements
of
sb12
allow
time
for
collaboration
among
communities
and
stakeholders.
J
I
want
to
thank
the
nevada
housing
advisory
committee,
including
senator
ratty
bill
brewer
and
steve
across
for
their
leadership
and
stewardship
of
this
bill.
Sb12.
If
sb12
is
practical
in
its
implementation,
not
overly
burdensome
and
yet
respectful
of
our
existing
public
investment
and
our
private
investment
from
the
development
community,
the
bill
establishes
a
roadmap
which
provides
a
balanced
approach
to
our
ability
to
address
our
affordable
inventory
issues.
A
K
Good
morning,
chairman
flores
and
distinguished
members
of
the
assembly
government
affairs
committee,
my
name
is
walden
swenson
and
I'm
speaking
to
you
today,
as
the
vice
president
of
nevada
hand,
nevada
hand
is
the
state's
largest
non-profit
developer
of
affordable
housing.
We
operate
34
communities
in
southern
nevada,
offering
high
quality
homes
and
supportive
services
to
over
7
900
residents,
which
include
working
families
and
seniors
on
a
fixed
income.
Nevada
hand
has
over
4
600
units
in
our
housing
portfolio
and
another
700
currently
under
construction.
K
I'd
like
I'd
like
to
thank
senator
ratty
for
her
advocacy
and
hard
work
on
senate
bill.
12
and
leading
the
advisory
committee
on
housing.
Nevada
hand
proudly
serves
on
the
advisory
committee,
which
recommended
this
legislation.
Affordable
housing
is
a
key
component
of
our
community
and
we
are
happy
to
provide
guidance
on
best
practices.
K
Nevada
hands
supports
senate
bill
12,
which
provides
residents
with
sufficient
and
proper
notice
if
their
home
will
no
longer
be
subject
to
affordability
standards
like
many
affordable
housing
developers,
we
rely
on
the
federal,
low-income
housing,
tax,
credit
and
other
governmental
services
to
finance
our
projects.
However,
our
non-profit
mission
is
dedicated
to
providing
clean,
affordable
housing
even
after
these
affordability
terms,
expire
senate
bill
12,
proactively,
engages
with
owners
to
preserve,
affordable
housing
communities
when
possible.
K
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
I
do
see
miss
elliot
on
zoom.
Were
you
hoping
to
also
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
12.
B
Thank
you,
chairman
flores,
mr
vanderpool
testified
on
behalf
of
nevada,
rural
housing,
so
the
federal
housing
authority.
So
I
am
fine.
Thank
you
very
much,
sir,
and
I
was
also
here
for
support
in
case
there
were
questions
about
the
bill
and
if
I
could
have
provided
any
kind
of
technical
expertise.
Thank
you.
A
K
B
Chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
callie
wilsey
with
the
city
of
reno,
the
c-a-l-l
w-I-l-s,
is
in
sam
ey.
We
are
here
today
in
support
of
sb12.
Affordable
housing
is
a
critical
issue
in
our
community
and
supporting
the
creation
and
maintenance
of
affordable
units.
One
of
our
highest
priorities.
B
Preserving
existing,
affordable
housing
units
is
a
key
component
of
this
strategy
and
we
thank
senator
roddy
raddy
and
the
bill
sponsor
for
bringing
forward
this
bill.
That
will
help
us
monitor
those
units
and
work
proactively
with
property
owners
and
other
stakeholders
prior
to
losing
them
to
see.
If
we
can
find
solutions
to
save
those
units
and
or
support
tenants,
we
urge
the
committee
support
of
this
bill
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
testify
today.
Thank
you.
A
K
Caller,
with
the
last
three
digits
of
zero
zero,
three,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes,
and
maybe
chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
eric.
Novak
spelled
e-r-I-c-n-o-v-a-k.
K
It
takes
us
several
years
and
lots
of
public
subsidy
to
plan
and
construct
new,
affordable
properties.
However,
however,
over
the
last
several
years,
we've
been
losing
units
almost
as
fast
as
we
are
creating
new
units
due
to
properties
expiring
out
of
their
affordability,
risk
restrictions
or
owners
exercising
loophole
in
the
regulations
to
opt
out
early
in
a
process
called
qualified
contract.
K
The
notification
provisions
in
sb12
will
give
the
nevada
housing
division
and
local
governments
advance
notice
of
properties
exiting
of
the
affordable
housing
program.
It
will
buy
us
some
time
to
connect
properties
for
sale
with
good,
affordable
housing
stewards
and
to
assemble
the
resources
to
preserve
some
of
these
developments.
Just
yesterday,
we
went
before
the
reno
city
council
for
private
activity
bonding
authority
in
order
to
renovate
and
preserve
south
southwest
village,
a
332
unit,
family
development.
Next
to
the
pepper
mill,
the
project
will
go
before
the
state
board
of
finance.
K
In
a
couple
weeks,
apart
from
the
tax
exempt
bonding
authority,
all
the
financing
to
purchase
and
rehabilitate
this
property,
almost
60
million
dollars,
is
coming
from
private
sources,
including
equity
from
the
sale
of
four
percent
federal
tax
credits
and
private
mortgage
debt,
all
new
funds
to
nevada.
This
is
one
of
the
success
stories
of
a
local
government
and
the
state
working
in
partnership
with
a
private
developer
to
maintain
a
desperately
needed
workforce
housing.
K
K
B
B
K
B
Good
morning,
chair
flores
and
members
of
the
committee
joanna
jacob
j,
o
a
n
n
a
j,
a
c
as
in
cat
o
b
b,
as
in
boy
government
affairs
manager
for
clark
county.
We
are
here
in
support
this
morning
to
senate
bill
12,
as
amended.
We've
also
supported
the
original
bill.
The
board
clark
county
commission
supports
efforts
to.
B
K
Caller,
with
the
last
three
digits
of
zero,
eight
seven,
please
slowly
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
You
will
have
two
minutes
and
may
begin
good
morning
sheriff
flores
vice
chair
torres
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
jared
luke
j-a-r-e-d-l-u-k-e
government
affairs,
director
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas,
calling
in
support
of
sb12,
would
like
to
thank
senator
ratty
and
the
other
presenters
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
K
Affordability
of
housing
is
is
a
priority
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
We
hope
that
this
bill
and
the
conversation
that
it
starts
and
other
programs
that
may
come
from
it
down
the
road
further
further
the
ability
to
ensure
affordable
housing
for
our
more
vulnerable
residents.
We
urge
passage
of
sb12.
Thank
you
chair
for
the
time.
A
K
K
B
A
Yes,
thank
you
ma'am.
Please
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
record
reflects
that
we
are
in
support.
Please
continue.
B
Yes,
I'm
so
sorry,
I
tried-
and
I
couldn't
find
my
button
good
morning
to
everyone.
My
name
is
tora
martinez.
I
support
the
nevada
disability
peer
action
coalition,
mr
brewer
and
mr
stephen,
I'm
sorry.
I
cannot
pronounce
your
last
name,
mr
stephen,
but
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
compliance
team
of
the
housing
authority
here
in
reno
housing
authority.
They
were
able
to
help
our
friend
who
lives
in
one
of
the
apartment,
to
make
a
compliance
for
her
wheelchair.
A
Great
and
thank
you
for
joining
us,
we
understand
that
sometimes
there's
issues
with
technology,
so
no
worries.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
At
this
point,
we'll
go
back
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
senate
bill
12
broadcast.
Please.
K
A
E
E
A
Great
and
thank
you
with
that,
we'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
12
and
again
thank
you
to
the
co-presenters
for
joining
us
this
morning
and
at
this
point
we'll
open
up
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
138
good
morning.
Senator
welcome
to
your
committee
on
government
affairs.
Whenever
you're.
A
G
G
G
G
G
My
bill
only
offers
the
option
for
the
city
or
the
county
to
use
a
more
streamlined
process
in
evaluating
whether
or
not
to
approve
minor
modification
requests
and
senate
bill.
138
does
not
apply
to
any
residential
pud
or
mixed
use,
pud
that
contains
residential
housing.
When
it
comes
to
minor
modifications.
G
The
version
of
the
bill
that
you
have
before
you
today
reflects
that
stakeholder
input
and
substantial
changes
that
made
were
made
to
sb
138
via
amendment
to
narrow
its
scope.
It
is
my
pleasure
to
introduce
to
you
the
city
of
henderson
government
affairs
affairs
manager,
david
cherry,
who
will
continue
the
bill
presentation.
L
Nrs278A
065
defines
a
planned
unit
development
as
an
area
of
land
control
by
a
landowner
which
is
to
be
developed
as
a
single
entity
for
one
or
more
planned
unit.
Residential
developments,
one
or
more
public,
quasi-public,
commercial
or
industrial
areas,
or
both
a
city
or
county,
does
not
require
a
landowner
to
use
a
pud
when
developing
a
property.
Rather,
it
is
a
tool
that
the
landowner
selects
on
their
own
to
utilize
development
in
a
pud
is
guided
by
a
plan
that
must
be
approved
by
a
local
government
through
a
public
hearing
process.
L
This
streamlining
would
mirror
the
process
for
how
minor
modifications
are
generally
handled
outside
of
pud,
where
they
are
already
done
administratively.
In
most
cases,
for
the
purposes
of
our
discussion
today
about
sb-138
examples
of
a
minor
modification
include,
but
are
not
limited
to
applying
a
new
color
of
paint
or
using
new
building
materials
on
an
existing
commercial
building,
adding
a
new
roll-up
door
to
an
existing
commercial
building,
increasing
the
size
or
height
of
an
existing
commercial
building
by
a
minimal
amount
or
refreshing.
L
What
these
examples
demonstrate
is
that
requesting
even
small
changes
in
a
pud
most
often
involves
a
large
process
because
of
the
way
that
nrs
278a
is
currently
written.
That
means
a
hearing
before
a
planning,
commission,
city,
council
or
county
commission,
or
a
combination
of
the
two
which
requires
a
significant
commitment
of
time
and
can
also
mean
a
significant
expense
to
an
applicant
and
a
delay
in
his
or
her
project.
L
For
this
reason,
sb
138
proposes
to
allow
our
city
or
county
the
option
to
pass
an
ordinance
that
defines
what
a
minor
modification
is
and
establishes
a
process
for
approving
or
denying
a
minor
modification
request.
The
ordinance
adoption
process
would
require
one
or
more
public
hearings,
and
a
minor
modification
allowed
by
ordinance
would
be
subject
to
appeal
to
a
governing
body,
such
as
a
city,
council
or
county
commission,
and
could
also
involve
an
initial
review
by
a
local
planning.
L
Commission,
since
138
is
permissive,
cities
and
counties
would
not
be
required
to
change
the
current
process
they
use
for
approving
a
minor
modification
in
a
pud
if
they
did
not
want
to
use
the
new
tool
included
in
the
bill.
The
bill
also
restricts
the
type
of
modern
modifications
that
can
be
improved
using
the
administrative
process.
L
Sb
138
does
not
apply
to
a
vacation
or
abandonment
or
a
modification
that
would
necessitate
a
vacation
or
abandonment
of
any
street
public
sidewalk,
pedestrian,
right-of-way
or
drainage
easement.
Both
of
these
restrictions
were
added
by
amendment
to
the
bill
to
reflect
stakeholder
input.
In
addition,
the
bill
contains
two
more
provisions
in
section
13
that
act
to
narrow
its
application.
L
The
first
is
that
the
proposed
modification
must
be
considered
minor,
as
defined
in
the
city
or
county's
pud
ordinance,
and
the
second
is
that
the
proposed
modification
must
substantially
comply
with
the
original
pud
plan.
If
either
of
these
requirements
is
not
met,
then
an
application
for
a
minor
modification
using
the
sp
138
tool
cannot
proceed.
L
L
Existing
statute
requires
that
city
or
counties
provide
only
a
tentative
approval
of
a
pud
after
the
public
hearing
and
that
developers
then
submit
a
final
plan
later
for
staff
level.
Approval
the
option
available
under
sb
138
would
eliminate
the
use
of
a
tentative
approval
step
so
that
final
approval
could
be
granted
immediately
after
the
public
hearing.
If
a
city
or
county
elects
to
use
the
authority
that
would
be
granted
under
the
bill,
because
sb-138
is
permissive.
This
change
to
a
one-step
approval
process
is
not
required,
but
would
be
at
the
discretion
of
a
local
government.
L
L
Section
three
of
the
bill
sets
out
requirements
for
what
must
be
contained
in
an
ordinance.
Addressing
puds
enacted
by
a
city
or
county
requires
notif
modification
provisions
of
any
ordinance
to
comply
with
nrs
278
410,
which
I
will
cover
in
detail.
When
we
reach
section
13
of
the
bill,
section
4
adds
clarifying
language
in
section
4
sub
3.
Regarding
the
tentative
final
pud
plan
approval
process,
section
5
was
deleted
by
amendment
section.
6
contains
one
small
change
to
nrs278a130
that
was
added
by
lcb.
L
L
L
L
L
Three
section,
13
sub3a
also
requires
that
a
minor
modification
is
minor
in
nature,
as
defined
in
the
ordinance
and
substantially
complies
with
the
approved
pud
plan.
In
order
to
be
eligible
for
the
process
that
sb
138
clarifies.
This
section
also
removes
confusing
language
regarding
the
criteria.
Cities
and
counties
must
use
to
evaluate
all
modification
requests.
L
Section
14
makes
clear
that
if
a
city
or
county
passes
an
ordinance
laying
out
how
a
pud
is
approved,
then
it
does
not
need
to
include
the
tentative
approval
step.
However,
if
the
ordinance
does
include
both
tentative
and
final
approval
requirements,
then
it
must
be
done
in
accordance
with
the
existing
procedures
set
forth
in
this
chapter
for
tentative
approval,
section
15
adds
the
words
or
final
in
order
to
clarify
that
both
applications
for
tentative
and
for
final
approval
have
to
be
filed
by
or
on
behalf
of
the
landowner
section
16
in
subsection
1.
L
Section
17
was
a
clarifying
change
made
to
the
bill
by
lcb
and
adds
the
word
additional
in
subsection,
10
and
strikes.
The
word
final
section
18
makes
changes
regarding
the
tentative
final
approval
process
to
make
it
clear.
We
are
preserving
the
option
to
use
a
two-step
process
for
cities
or
counties.
L
The
new
language
in
subsection
3
deals
with
consent
for
modifications
to
uncompleted
puds.
The
city's
intent
specific
to
this
section
will
be
the
slightly
revised
statute,
so
that
a
modification
to
a
pud
that
is
not
fully
completed
would
require
consent
only
from
those
landowners
in
the
pud
affected
by
the
modification.
L
A
A
H
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
forward.
Thank
you,
mr
cherry,
for
meeting
with
me
yesterday
and
talking
through
this
and
the
emails
that
followed
up.
I
still
have
some
concerns.
H
My
concerns
are
just
about
the
broad
nature
of
the
order
in
every
city,
in
every
county
being
able
to
draft
their
own
ordinance
and
defining
some
of
these
terms,
but
I
guess
to
start
off
with.
Could
you
walk
me
through
a
hypothetical
if
this
were
to
pass
and
an
entity
under
a
pud
wanted
to
do
a
a
minor
minor
modification?
Could
you
walk
me
through
that
process
of
how
it
would
go
at
each
step
so
that
I
understand
what
what
it
will
look
like.
L
Good
morning,
assembly
woman
and
thank
you
for
that
question
and
the
opportunity
to
give
you
the
example
that
you've
requested,
with
your
permission
and
the
permission
of
the
chair,
I'd
like
to
ask
our
staff
at
city
hall
at
the
city
of
henderson.
If
they
could
please
help
in
in
providing
the
assembly
woman
with
that
example,
maybe
director
tassie
you'd
like
to
take
that
question.
M
Absolutely
for
the
record
for
the
record
michael
tassie,
I'm
the
director
of
community
development
services
for
the
city
of
henderson,
chairman
flores,
members
of.
K
M
Opportunity
and
thank
you
for
the
question
and,
and
so
just
a
simple
example
of
this-
that
we've
used
in
the
past
is
a
car
wash
it's
a
smaller
plant
unit
development,
it's
a
c-store
and
a
car
wash
and
the
car
wash
wanted
to.
It
was
approved
20
years
ago
and
they
wanted
to
increase
the
size
of
the.
A
M
Wash
and
bring
it
in,
you
know
to
a
more
modern
technology,
and
so
they
would
submit.
If
this
were
approved,
they
would
submit
a
an
application
to
amend
that
pud
and
with
a
minor
modification,
and
we
would
look
at
that
based
against
an
ordinance
that
we
would
write
identifying
what
those
minor
things
would
be
and
for
in
this
example,
they
would
increa
they
were.
M
They
proposed
to
increase
the
size
of
that
building
by
less
than
10
or
or
actually
they
wouldn't
propose
to
increase
the
building
so
that
it
wasn't
exceeding
any
of
our
current
code
standards.
Then
we
would
approve
that
as
a
minor
modification.
M
If,
from
a
staff
level
perspective,
we
will
write
the
letter
of
approval
for
that
minor
modification.
We
would
post
it
with
our
city
clerk's
office,
and
then
we
would
have
nine
days
before
that.
Well,
they
haven't.
There
was
a
nine-day
appeal
period.
If
somebody
did
not
agree
with
that
approval,
then
they
would
have
nine
days
for
which
to
appeal
that
to
our
planning
commission,
the
next
step
would
be
filing
the
appeal
for
to
our
planning.
Commission
planning
commission
would
conduct
a
public
hearing.
We
would
send
out
notices
in
a
determined
radius.
M
We
would
post
that
on
the
property
as
well
and
then
we
would
hold
that
public
hearing.
If
there
was
still
not
satisfaction
on
behalf
of
the
appellant,
they
would
have
an
opportunity
to
then
appeal
that
decision
of
the
planning
commission
to
city
council
using
those
same
steps.
I
hope
that's
answered
your
question.
H
Yes,
thank
you.
It
does
just
a
follow-up
question
on
that
when
you
said
that
after
the
letter
of
approval,
it
would
be
posted
where-
and
I
know
this
is
difficult
to
answer,
because
I'm
asking
in
a
larger
context
of
any
city
and
county
in
the
state,
but
since
this
week
will
be
driven
by
individual
ordinances.
H
M
That
is
correct
and
for
the
city
of
henderson,
we
post
that
with
our
city
clerk's
office,
we
could
post
that
online
as
well,
since
that
is
really
the
new
new
wave.
A
H
Thank
you,
and
one
of
the
things
that
you
mentioned
in
that
hypothetical
was
also
another
question
that
I
had
it
was
mentioned
today
that
size
and
height
would
be
a
quote,
unquote
minimal
amount.
What
what
you
expressed
in
this
situation
was
ten
percent
of
what
the
building
is
again.
This
goes
back
to
in
every
ordinance,
every
county
or
city
that
does
this
will
be
drafting.
What
that
minimal
amount
is.
Is
there
any
rule
of
thumb?
H
L
Do
thank
you
assemblywoman
for
the
record
david
cherry
with
the
city
of
henderson.
I
guess
I
would
preface
this
by
saying
you
know
to
go
back
to
what
the
premise
of
the
bill
is:
it's
really
to
give
that
flexibility
to
the
local
communities,
to
customize
their
ordinance
to
really
reflect
what
works
best
for
their
practices.
L
We
have
professionals
on
staff
at
the
city
of
henderson,
like
director,
tassie,
whose
job
it
is
day
in
and
day
out,
to
really
make
decisions
about
planning
and
what's
best
in
our
community
when
it
comes
to
making
those
decisions
about
land
use
and
other
things
that
fall
under
the
purview
of
his
department.
When
you
talk
about
things
that
are
like
size
and
height,
you
can
quantify
those
and
yes,
an
ordinance
could
contemplate
adding
something
like
a
percentage.
That
would
say.
L
Yes,
the
percentage
in
the
case
of
a
height
increase
or
a
increase
in
the
size
of
a
of
a
building
could
be
quantifiable.
In
that
case,
however,
you
often
get
into
things
like
aesthetics,
where
you
can't
really
quantify
those,
and
so
that's
one
of
the
reasons
we
wanted
to
leave
it
up
to
the
individual
ordinance
to
really
define
what
a
minor
modification
is,
so
that
you
get
into
situations
where
you
have
things
like:
building
materials,
color
palettes,
signage,
other
things
that
really
aren't
as
easy
as
to
be
quantified.
L
So
I
guess
the
answer
to
your
question
is
yes,
you
could
include
a
percentage
in
an
ordinance,
but
you
wouldn't
have
to
include
a
percentage.
You
could
just
simply
say
that
a
minor
modification
would
qualify
at
the
discretion
of
the
director
of
the
department
to
really
determine
whether
or
not
it
meets
that
threshold,
and
I
would
invite
director
tassie
or
a
member
of
his
staff,
that's
their
present
or
or
our
city
attorney
amanda
curran.
M
This
is
michael
tasker,
director
of
community
development
services,
for
the
record
and
just
to
add
to
that
we're
also
guided
by
our
local
ordinances
and
so
any
any
modification
increase
that
would
go
beyond
a
setback
or
beyond
a
building
height
or
beyond
the
building
envelope
or
whatever
is
established
in
that
ordinance
would
not
be
minor
in
nature,
and
and
so
if
it
was
a
c
store
versus
a
winco.
Those
both
have
specific
guidelines
in
terms
of
their
height
and
in
terms
of
their
setback,
requirements
and
code.
M
If
an
increase
in
the
pud
still
allow
them
to
conform
with
code,
then
that
could
be
minor
in
nature
if
an
increase
exceeded
those,
then,
of
course,
would
not
be
minor
in
nature.
H
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
your
answers.
I
guess
my
what
I'm
uncomfortable
with
is
that
every
we
have
so
many
different
cities
and
counties,
and
if
each
one
of
them
write
an
ordinance
in
each
one
of
them,
have
a
definition
of
what
minor
is
or
what
all
of
you
know.
The
things
in
the
ordinance
would
be
defined
without
any
caps
in
statute
on
amounts
or
a
list
that
isn't
exclusive
in
the
statutes.
H
L
If
I
may,
chairman,
with
your
permission,
may
I
respond
one
more
time
to
the
assembly
woman.
Thank
you
again,
assemblywoman
for
the
record
david
cherry
with
the
city
of
henderson,
two
things.
First,
I
would
say
that,
right
now,
if
a
modification
is
made
outside
of
a
pud,
we
do
the
administrative
process
and
statute
does
not
put
into
nrs
or
there's
not
in
nrs
a
list
of
all
the
things
that
qualifiers
are
modern
modification.
L
L
The
second
thing
I
would
say
is
that
you
know
we
we
could
list
an
ordinance,
can
list
a
certain
number
of
things,
but
at
some
point
it's
just
impossible
to
list
every
single
idea
that
somebody
may
come
forward
with,
and
we
wouldn't
want
to
have
to
come
to
the
legislature
every
two
years
and
to
say:
well,
we
had
a
situation
where
an
applicant
came
to
the
city
of
henderson.
They
asked
for
a
minor
modification.
L
The
or
the
statute
did
not
say
this
was
to
kind
of
met.
That
test.
Therefore,
can
we
ask
you
to
please
amend
this
chapter
of
nrs
to
include
that
in
there
and,
of
course
somebody
would
have
to
wait
every
two
years
for
that
to
happen
to
be
able
to
use
the
minor
modification
process?
And
finally,
I
guess
I
would
say
right
now:
any
of
these
modifications
can
be
requested.
H
No
and
I
appreciate
your
response-
and
I
don't
disagree
for
the
minor
things
that
that
you've
mentioned
those
are
great
examples
of
minor
things,
and
I
appreciate
those,
but
the
bigger
thing
that
this
bill
is
doing
is
it's
taking
it
out
of
a
public
body
review
which
can
be
longer
for
minor
things,
and
I
completely
like,
like
I've,
said,
understand
that,
but
again
my
my
uncomfortableness
is
the
same
with
I.
Your
examples
are
non-exhaustive
and
and
right
on
point,
but
there's
nothing
in
statute
that
lists
those.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
next,
we'll
go
to.
Madam
vice
chair.
N
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
senator
mr
cherry
and
I
know
we
were
able
to
have
a
pretty
good
conversation.
Mr
cherry
in
my
office
a
couple
days
ago,
and
so
I
just
want
to
like
have
some
clarification
about
whether
or
not
there's
language
in
here
that
allows
for
the
public
body
to
engage
with,
with
whatever
this
minor
infraction
might
be.
Some
of
my
concerns
right
now,
I'm
gonna.
N
I
look
through
the
bill
again
and
there's
nothing
in
here
saying
that,
like
the
administrative
process
once
it's
approved,
the
business
can
then
immediately
the
next
day
go
and
make
those
changes.
But
then
the
public
body
wouldn't
be
able
to
respond
to
that
until
perhaps
in
some
cases,
maybe
after
that
change
has
been
made
right.
So
let's
say
it
is
something
as
simple
as
a
paint
color
right
once
that
that
change
has
been
made.
N
The
there
might
not
be
an
appeal
for
that
until
after
the
fact,
so
something
that
delays
it
so
that
the
public
still
does
have
that
chance
to
engage,
even
if
it's
just
a
short
time
frame
requiring
that
there's
that
public
hearing,
and
even
if
it's
as
simple
as
like
just
reading
it
into
the
record
the
decisions
of
the
this
administrative
body.
Just
so
the
public
does
have
that
opportunity
to
engage
and
I'm
just
not
seeing
it
in
the
legislation.
N
And
so
I'm
wondering
if
there
is
maybe
one,
maybe
I'm
not
noticing
it
or
if
there's
been
conversations
about
how.
We
can
add
that
in
just
requiring
that
the
public
can
have
some
type
of
notice
before
those
changes
can
be
made.
L
Mr
tassie
did
speak
to
that
a
little
bit
in
in
his
first
response,
and
I
know
he,
it
was
a
lot
of
information
he
provided
in
response
to
assemblywoman
consonants
question,
but
at
the
city
of
henderson
our
practices,
there
would
be
a
period
of
time
if,
in
once,
an
application
was
let's
say,
for
instance,
either
approved
or
denied,
and
someone
wanted
to
avail
themselves
of
the
appeal
process.
L
Notification
would
be
given,
and
during
the
time
period
at
which
the
the
an
individual
would
have
the
right
to
make
that
appeal,
there
would
be
a
prohibition
on
the
property
owner
being
able
to
make
the
modification
that
had
been
approved,
so
they
couldn't
go
forward.
So,
in
other
words,
if
you
had
been
the
applicant
madam
vice
chair,
and
we
gave
you
the
approval
to
change
the
color
of
the
building,
you
couldn't
go
out
the
next
day
and
do
it.
L
You'd
have
to
wait
until
the
number
of
specified
days
elapsed
before
you
could
go
ahead
and
make
that
modification.
That
is
in
order
to
ensure
that
an
individual
could
avail
themselves
of
the
opportunity
to
exercise
their
right
to
to
undertake
an
appeal.
Of
course,
if
there's
a
denial,
an
applicant
can
also
appeal
that
denial.
So
the
the
the
appeal
kind
of
goes
both
ways.
It's
for
somebody
who
feels
an
approval
may
not
have
been
in
keeping
with
what
they
believe
is.
L
The
best
decision
or
an
applicant
may
have
had
a
decision
denied
and
they
feel
like
it
was
unfair
that
that
application
was
denied
and
therefore
they
would
be
able
to
avail
themselves.
Of
that.
I
can't
speak
to
the
process
that
every
city
or
county
uses
statewide,
but
I
would
again
offer
my
my
colleagues
the
opportunity
to
expand
upon
my
answer.
If
any
of
the
folks
back
at
city
hall
have
anything
more
that
might
help
illuminate
this
question
for
the
vice
chair.
I
would
welcome
that.
M
M
Currently
it
states
in
the
letter
that
they
have
there's
a
nine-day
appeal
period
and
it's
not
effective
until
that
nine
day
appeal
period
is
up
and
nobody
has
appealed
that
particular
decision
that
isn't
in
our
code.
It
is
reflected
code
for
other
processes,
but
we
do
include
it
in
all
of
our
letters
that
we.
N
Write,
I
think,
and
is
that
something
required
like
for
in
the
nrs
or
is
that
going
to
be
different
for
every
city
and
municipal
government.
B
B
L
Yes,
my
apologies
for
interrupting
you
miss
kern,
and,
if
I
may,
madam
vice
chair,
one
more
thought
to
offer,
I
don't
think
we
want
to
add
a
third
step
to
what
is
already
a
two-step
process.
If
the
current
the
current
status
quo
would
be
that
you
would
have
a
two-step
process
for
evaluating
a
modification
request
if
we
were
to
go
back
to
and
place
a
requirement
for
a
public
hearing
for
this
appeals
process.
L
In
addition
to
the
first
decision
being
made
at
the
administrative
level,
then
you've
actually
created
sort
of
more
what
is
like,
like
a
three-step
process
in
some
ways.
Right
so
I
mean,
if
every
time
somebody
exercised
that
right,
it
would
seem
like
it
would
potentially
just
add
you
know-
would
take
away
from
the
flexibility
that
we're
seeking
in
the
bill
we're
really
seeking
to
be
able
to
do
this
administratively
without
having
to
have
the
requirement
for
the
public
hearing
every
single
time,
unless
there
is
the
appeal.
L
So
I'm
sorry,
let
me
make
sure
I
was
just
clear
in
my
in
my
the
way
I
was
trying
to
state.
That
is
that
we
wouldn't
want
to
add
the
requirement
that
there
be
a
public
hearing
every
single
time.
There
is
a
modern,
minor
modification
request
because
then
we're
just
at
the
status
quo.
What
we
want
to
make
sure
is
that
the
minor
modification
authorized
under
sb
138
can
happen
at
the
at
the
administrative
level
at
the
staff
level.
And
then,
if
there
was
an
appeal,
then
it
would
go
through
the
public
hearing
process.
N
And
I'm
just
wondering
if
maybe
our
legal
could
chime
in
whether
or
not
we
know
that
the
appeals
process
is
like
already
in
our
nrs
aaron's.
N
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
if
there
is
no
process,
while
the
city
of
henderson
might
have
that
in
code
already,
that
might
not
necessarily
be
true
for
other
local
governments,
and
so
that
I
guess
my
discomfort
right
now
is
that
there
should
be
something
in
this
legislation
requiring
that
there
is
that
appeals
process,
so
that
if
there
is,
if
the
public
does
have
an
issue
with
it,
that
they
can
respond
to
it,
just
to
ensure
consistency
for
all
public
bodies.
B
David,
if
I
could
just
jump
in
on
that
point-
yes,
oh,
this
is
amanda
current-
is
that
okay.
B
L
And
again,
if
I
may,
just
with
the
indulgence
of
the
committee
in
the
chair,
just
offer
up
the
perspective
that
again
we're
doing
the
vast
majority
of
administrative
modifications
outside
of
puds
through
this
process
and
that
people
are
able
to
avail
themselves
of
the
appeal
if
they
so
choose.
So
we
do
have
a
a
a
very
good
example
of
how
this
would
work
in
practice
because
it
it
happens
all
the
time
at
the
city
of
henderson,
if
you're
making
a
minor
modification
outside
of
a
pud.
L
So
we
kind
of
think
that
we
have
a
parallel
process.
We
would
just
basically
adopt
that
process
to
be
pretty
much
mirroring
what
we
do
outside
of
the
pud
now.
So
we
have
experience
the
po.
I
think
the
public
is
comfortable
with
the
way
we
do
it
outside
the
pud
process.
I
don't
want
to
speak
for
every
member
of
the
public,
but
I
don't
think,
and
director
tassie
you
deal
with
this
on
a
daily
basis
or
mr
victor,
you
know,
would
it
be?
L
Would
you
be
comfortable
in
saying
that
you
feel
like
the
process
works
now
as
it
as
it
as
we
utilize
it
outside
of
the
pud
context,
for
the
minor
modification
done
at
the
administrative
level
that
we're
seeking
to
mirror
in
the
bill.
M
For
the
record,
michael
tassie,
director
of
community
development
services
for
the
city
of
henderson
and,
of
course,
I'm
biased,
but
yes,
I
do
think
our
process
works
quite
well.
We
we
have,
on
occasion,
had
appeals
that
have
gone
both
through
planning,
commission
and
city
council
on
administrative
decisions.
M
We
advise
our
applicants
of
their
of
their
ability
to
do
that
when
we
deny
something-
and
we
feel
like
that's
as
part
of
the
the
planning
profession
that
engagement
and
that
that
level
of
community
engagement
and
looking
out
for
what
is
best
for
the
city
is,
is
kind
of
ingrained
in
in
that
in
our
profession,
and
so
that's
something
that
that
is
important
to
us.
At
least.
I
know
that
from
the
city
henderson,
I
understand
that
as
well
for
most
jurisdictions
that
we
work
with.
N
Again,
I
do
just
a
quick
follow-up
because
I'm
looking
at
nrs278.3195
right
now-
and
I
I
see
that
there
is
an
appeals
process
in
place,
but
it
doesn't
require
that
there's
a
wait
time
between
the
change
and
the
appeal
and
so
eve,
and
my
understanding
from
this
conversation
right
now
is
that
there
is
a
nine
days
in
the
city
of
henderson
between
the
change
but
between
when
that
land
owner
would
be
able
to
make
that
change.
N
And
so
I'm
just
saying
that
there
should
be
something
in
statute
that
says
that
there
must
be
at
least
10
business
days
or
10
days,
whatever
it
is
for
there
to
be
an
appeal,
and
I
I
think
that's
that's
the
disagreement
that
I'm
having
and
you
know
I
understand
that.
Maybe
the
current
process
for.
N
A
C
And
I
really
like
this
bill
and-
and
I
think
it's
been
a
long
time
coming,
because
you
know
a
code
book
in
in
in
ordinance
and
stuff
it
is-
is
something
to
work
with.
It's.
You
have
to
everything's
different
in
construction.
Everything.
It's
not
every
thing
in
the
book
is
going
to
go
together
in
the
puzzle
just
correctly.
C
I
so
I
think,
that's
so
important
and
you
still
have
a
building
department
that
has
to
go
through
the
permit
process,
no
matter
what
they
do.
So
if
they're
putting
in
a
garage
door
or
whatever
the
building
department,
is
still
going
to
see
that
they'll
have
take
out
a
permit,
they'll
build
it
according
to
what
the
county
or
the
city
wants.
So
I
think
that's
a
good
deal
and
the
other
thing
that
I
had
was.
C
L
And
so
we
appreciate
your
insight
and
I
would
defer
to
the
staff
back
at
henderson
city
hall
if
they
would
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
how
the
permit
process
interacts
with
the
the
minor
modification
process
that
is
envisioned
in
the
bill
and
and
how
the
two
would
work
side
by
side
when
you
were
evaluating
a
request
and,
more
importantly,
if
a
project
were
given
the
right
to
go
forward,
how
you
know
what
the
permits
would
be
required
and
all
those
different
things
that
your
department
deals
with
on
a
daily
basis.
M
Michael
tassie,
director
of
community
development
services
for
the
record,
thank
you,
assemblyman
nelson,
for
the
question.
So
our
permanent
process,
of
course,
is,
is
different.
Depending
on
the
type
of
change
it
was
made,
for
example
the
example
I
used
with
the
car
wash.
That
would
take
some
time.
They
couldn't
do
it
next
day,
after
the
approval
they
could
submit
for
permits
and
that
can
start
the
review
process
oftentimes
with
construction
permits.
M
We
have
a
three
two
one
processor
in
the
city
henderson,
which
is
fairly
quick-
that
the
first
review
gets
done
in
three
weeks.
That
said,
there
are
other
permits
that
are
over
the
counter
and
there
are
permits
that
are
that
are
a
little
bit
quicker
than
the
three
week
process,
and
so
there
is
the
potential
for
there
to
be
something
done
next
day
if
they
were
just
to
apply
paint
color.
M
However,
that
applicant
would
have
to
come
into
the
city
and
they
would
have
to
submit
their
permit
and
that
permit
would
then
have
to
be
reviewed
by
staff
at
the
counter,
and
if
they,
the
letter
that
that
they
would
review
to
make
sure
the
modification
was
approved,
would
have
that
nine
year
old,
peer
period
in
city
henderson.
That
would
prevent
it
from
happening.
The
next
day.
A
C
M
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
senator
lange
as
well
as
mr
cherry
for
bringing
it
forward
and
for
our
conversations
I
just
wanted
to.
I
do
echo
the
concerns
expressed
from
from
assembly
member
constantine
about
just
the
lack
of
a
definition
for
minor.
I
understand
what
the
with
the
information
brain
brought
forward.
It
is
not
it
the
paint
color
comfortable
with
that
a
few
other
items
comfortable,
but
it
is
all
relative.
G
I
also
understand
the
difficulty
with
those
items,
but
I
think
you've
heard
that
pretty
clearly.
My
question
has
to
do
with
what
I
talked
with
you
about
just
on
the
way
in
I
spoke
with
some
of
senator
lang's
colleagues
has
the
golf
course
concern
been
fixed
because
there
were
some
individuals
who
expressed
concern
that
this
could
actually
be
utilized
as
well
for
a
golf
course
also
to
be
changed
without
so
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
concern
has
in
fact
been
fixed
and
we
can
get
that
on
record.
L
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
anderson
for
that
question.
I'm
going
to
begin
by
answering,
but
then
I'll
also
ask
my
colleagues
to
chime
in
once.
I'm
done
with
regard
to
a
golf
course.
I
know
in
the
city
of
henderson.
We
don't
approve
golf
courses
through
the
pud
process,
but
I
suppose
there
could
be
a
golf
course
out
there.
That
is
a
part
of
a
pud
because
of
the
definition
of
the,
because
the
bill
restricts
it
from
use
anything
having
to
do
with
residential.
If
that
golf
course
community
had
any
residential
component.
L
Of
course,
it
wouldn't
be
eligible
for
the
minor
modification
process.
Beyond
that
it
would
have
to
be
subject
to
what
the
ordinance
would
define
minor.
As
I
think
I
would
envision
it,
something
like.
Let's
say
you
had
a
golf
course.
The
golf
course
had
a
clubhouse.
You
wanted
to
do
some
kind
of
a
change
to
the
clubhouse.
That
would
be
probably
a
minor
modification.
If
you
were
again
redecorating
the
the
clubhouse.
Maybe
you
wanted
to
put
a
sports.
You
know
a
golf
theme.
L
Some
thematic
golf
elements
on
there
that
weren't
there
now
and
you
asked
for
that
permission
to
do
that
as
part
of
the
pd
modification.
What
you
couldn't
do
was
take
the
entire
golf
course
and
turn
it
into
a
shopping
center.
That
in
no
way
would
meet
the
minor
modification
definition.
That
would
be
a
major
modification.
It
would
never
qualify
under
this
process
would
have
to
go
through
the
normal
modification
process,
with
the
with
the
public
hearing
before
planning,
commission
and
a
city
council
or
a
county
commission.
L
So
we
feel
as
though,
by
narrowing
the
bill
through
the
amendments
that
were
done
in
the
senate,
that
we
really
addressed
the
issues.
I
think
that
some
people
brought
forward
really
had
to
do
more
with
the
golf
course
communities
where
they
had
a
residential
component.
I
don't
think
anybody
came
to
us
and
just
said
we're
concerned
that
somebody
would
take
a
golf
course
and
turn
it
into
something
else
if
it
didn't
have
a
residential
element
to
it.
L
But
with
that
being
my
response,
director,
tassie
or
any
of
the
folks
at
city
hall,
do
you
have
anything
that
you'd
like
to
add
that
will
help
with
answering
the
assemblywoman's
question.
M
D
M
Director
of
community
home
services
for
the
record,
that
was
a
fairly
complete
answer
david
and
then
that
is
correct
when
we
were
going
through
the
drafting
of
this
bill
through
the
senate
process.
Listening
to
the
various
stakeholders
that
we
engaged
with
the
concern
regarding
the
golf
courses
in
their
minds
in
our
in
our
minds
were
addressed
through
the
prohibition
of
doing
this
with
any
residential
component,
and
we
believe
that
that
has
addressed
that
concern.
B
L
L
Yes,
that
is
correct-
and
I
probably
should
have
emphasized
this
earlier
in
the
hearing-
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
question
back
again,
because
I
think
it's
very
important
to
let
everybody
know
that
if
a
city
or
county
exercise,
the
authority
that
was
granted
under
sb-138,
the
first
thing
they
would
have
to
do
would
have
to
be
to
create
a
new
ordinance
that
would
be
done
with
public
input.
That's
through
a
public
hearing
process.
L
So
before
we
got
any
further
into
the
question
about
what
a
minor
modification
would
be
under
the
ordinance,
you
would
have
the
public
having
the
right
to
come
forward
and
to
participate
in
that
process.
They
would
be
able
to
review
what
that
ordinance
would
look
like
to
say
to
the
to
the
elected
body.
Yes,
we
think
that
that's
comprehensive.
No,
we
think
that
there
are
elements
lacking
to
your
point
assembly,
woman.
L
It
would
it
would
set
out
in
the
process
in
the
ordinance
itself,
a
process
if
there
were
a
denial
and
how
that
appeal
would
be
handled
per
se
and
other
elements
that
we
think
would
be
important.
So,
yes,
there
would
be
public
input
on
that
and
it
would
be
done
at
the
public
hearing
level.
B
So
I
asked
that
I
obviously
knew
the
answer,
but
I
want
to
ditto
what
assemblyman
ellison
said.
There
are
people
that
are
elected
in
cities
and
counties
to
make
these
calls,
and
if
we
want
to
micromanage
every
little
thing
in
every
little
city
and
county,
maybe
you
should
run
for
a
commission
or
a
city
council.
That
would
be
my
comment
to
that.
G
I
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and,
although
I
respect
my
peer,
I
disagree.
If
information
is
being
brought
forward
to
us
it's
for
a
reason,
it
is
because
we
are
not
dealing
only
with
one
county
and
or
one
city.
We
are
dealing
with
an
entire
area,
and
I
believe
that
the
questions
that
were
asked
earlier
were
attempting
to
explain
that.
G
So,
although
I
I
respect
the
line
of
questioning
that
my
peer
just
stated,
this
is
our
job
is
to
ask
questions
and
although
it
is
being
brought
forward
from
the
county
or
from
the
city
of
henderson,
this
is
something
that
could
impact
all
of
our
communities,
so
we're
trying
to
get
this
information
as
clear
as
possible.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman,
so
with
that
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
138,
we'll
start
off
with
those
who
are
here
in
carson
city.
I
see
mr
walker
please
good
morning
and
welcome.
B
B
That
may
sound
odd
to
you,
because
residential
development
has
been
excluded
from
this
bill,
but
we
support
it
for
three
main
reasons:
one:
it
will
increase
the
amount
of
overall
applications
per
planing
staff
at
local
jurisdictions
that
choose
to
take
advantage
of
this
bill
as
with
some
other
bills.
Before
this
body
this
session,
we
were
in
full
support
of
that
concept,
where
it
makes
sense
two,
it
does
again
match
the
existing
process.
The
ap,
the
american
planning
association,
recommends
minor
deviations
like
a
five
percent
deviation.
B
I
think
that
this
is
in
line
with
that,
where
you
have
a
business,
changing
out
its
sign
and
it's
within
the
already
approved
overall
square
footage,
but
just
has
different
colors
and
shape.
B
Lastly,
again,
we
think
we
think
that
it
strikes
the
balance
and
and
frees
up
space
for
the
public
to
really
input
on
public
hearing
items
that
they
have
that
are
of
interest,
and
so,
as
we
have
communities
going
forward,
waiting
in
line
for
those
planning,
applica
planning
spots
before
the
planning
commission,
this
will
clear
out
some
of
those
minor
administrative
items
and
keep
keep
the
economy
churning.
We
think
that's
really
important
right
now
and
we
really
appreciate
your
support.
I
So,
as
the
city
council
looks
at
the
tools
in
the
toolbox,
as
assemblyman
ellison
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
with
this
is
a
great
tool
to
look
at,
especially
as
we
look
at
commercial
expansion
but
not
overly,
and
as
mr
cherry
from
city
of
henderson
pointed
out,
we
do
have
to
go
through
a
public
process
to
adopt
the
ordinance
of
what
we
can
do
and
the
public
is
involved.
And
so
we
appreciate
that
and
to
assemblywoman
anderson's
point.
If
we
took
out
the
golf
course
and
firmly
it
will
bring
out
the
hatfields
and
mccoys.
I
So
we
ain't
going
to
touch
that
so.
But
I
do
want
to
to
assemble
a
woman
considine.
You
know
infernally.
We
have
to
work
closely
with
the
north
lyon
county
fire
department
and
we
have.
We
have
to
take
into
consideration
height
restrictions
because
of
the
the
fire
trucks
that
they
have,
and
so
we
try
to
limit
the
height
that
we
go
into
infernally.
So
we
take
that
in
consideration.
I
So
again,
every
jurisdiction
jurisdiction
is
different,
but
this
is
a
tool
in
our
toolbox
and
we
really
support
this
bill
and
and
appreciate
working
with
the
city
of
henderson
and
we
urge
your
support.
So
thank
you.
A
And,
thank
you.
Is
there
anybody
else
wishing
to
testify
in
person?
I
don't
believe
we
see
anybody
else
so
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
the
phone
line
broadcast
please
for
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
senate
bill
138.
K
K
K
K
The
league
is
in
support
of
sb
138
and
we
appreciate
the
work
of
the
sponsors
to
bring
this
bill
forward
and
the
distinguished
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
government
affairs
for
hearing
it.
This
bill
is
a
thoughtful
and
permissive
adjustment
to
existing
law.
The
city
of
henderson
and
other
nevada
jurisdictions
have
many
existing
and
old
plan
unit
developments
that
are
often
amended
with
relatively
minor
changes,
but
the
current
statute
can
make
the
process
burdensome
both
for
the
applicants
and
for
the
municipal
planning
departments
under
sb
138.
K
Each
jurisdiction
would
be
empowered
to
set
their
own
standards
for
amending
puds,
but
basic
requirements
are
left
intact.
If
approved,
jurisdictions
would
be
able
to
outline
their
own
approval
processes
through
ordinance
and
would
not
have
it
would
not
have
statute
outline.
It
would
not
have
the
statute
outline
the
approval
process,
particularly
for
amendments
to
puds.
A
K
K
Chair.
Flora
is
vice
chair
torres
and
members
of
the
committee.
This
is
jared
luke
j-a-r-e-d-l-u-k-e
government
affairs,
director
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
In
the
interest
of
the
of
time
for
the
committee
members,
I
want
to
just
throw
our
support
behind
sb,
138
and
echo.
The
comments
that
have
made
have
been
made
before
me.
Thank.
A
K
A
K
A
G
Sandra
lang
for
the
record,
I'm
chair
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
so
much
for
having
us
here
today
and
listening
to
senate
bill
138.
Thank
you
for
your
questions
and
we
always
like
hard
questions
because
they
make
a
better
bill
and
we
appreciate
the
support.
G
This
bill
simply
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
update
a
50-year-old
regulations
to
make
a
more
streamlined
process
that
will
help
cities
and
counties,
and
so
as
we
make
modifications
to
puds.
So
I
urge
your
support,
we're
happy
to
work
with
you
after
committee.
If
you
have
any
further
questions,
I
invite
you
to
the
second
floor
and
I'd
love
to
come
to
the
third
or
fourth
floor.
A
And
thank
you
again
for
the
presentation
and
thank
you
all
who
called
in
to
testify
and
support
co-present
to
help
us
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
purpose
and
intent
of
this
bill.
A
With
that
we'll
close
out
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
138
again,
thank
you
senator
for
joining
us
and
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
public
comment.
I
want
to
remind
those
of
you
wishing
to
participate
during
public
comment
that
this
is
not
a
time
to
reopen
a
hearing.
It
is
a
time
for
us
to
speak
about
general
matters
that
fall
within
the
purview
of
this
committee.
A
We
want
you
to
call
in
and
we
encourage
you
to
do
so,
but
if
you
try
to
reopen
a
hearing,
unfortunately
we're
going
to
have
to
cut
you
off
with
that
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines,
as
I
don't
believe
we
have
anybody
in
person
here
wishing
to
testify
for
public
comment,
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines.
Please.
A
A
N
N
And
I
think
he
dances
a
lot
better
than
most
of
us
knew
so
with
that
we
just
wish
you
a
happy
birthday.
Assemblyman.