►
From YouTube: 3/30/2021 - 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
E
A
A
Please
let
the
record
reflect
all
members
are
present.
We
have
a
quorum
morning,
members
as
always
housekeeping.
I
want
to
remind
everybody:
please
keep
your
microphone
on
mew
unless
you
are
speaking
and
if
you
got
to
shut
off
your
camera
for
any
reason,
just
give
us
a
quick
heads
up,
so
we
understand
what's
happening
for
those
of
you
following
us.
Virtually
welcome
to
your
committee
on
government
affairs,
as
always
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
A
We're
going
to
take
the
agenda
slightly
out
of
order
and
we'll
be
hearing
assembly
bill,
340
first
followed
by
7378
and
then
lastly,
assembly
bill
249
for
the
sake
of
accommodating
folks
who
have
multiple
presentations
simultaneously
happening,
so
we're
going
to
switch
that
order
around
apologies
to
anybody
who
didn't
get
a
heads
up
earlier
on
that
and
then
at
the
very
end,
we'll
be
doing
public
comment.
A
So
with
that,
I
will
start
off
with
the
assembly
bill.
340
assemblyman
matthews
good
morning
welcome
and
good
morning.
F
Good
morning,
thank
you,
chair
flores.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
media
government
affairs,
I'm
andy
matthews.
I
represent
district
37
in
the
nevada
assembly.
Today
I
have
the
pleasure
of
presenting
assembly
bill
340.
F
I'll
start
with
a
brief
introduction
and
overview,
and
then
I've
got
two
other
co-presenters
with
me
today
who
will
make
some
remarks
of
their
own.
The
objective
of
this
bill
is
to
bring
a
greater
legislative
oversight
for
the
process
of
writing
regulations
here
in
our
state.
F
So,
under
this
bill
for
any
new
proposed
regulation,
an
economic
analysis
would
have
to
be
conducted
to
determine
the
regulations
likely
economic
impact
and
then
regulations
with
an
estimated
impact
over
10
million
dollars
could
be
enacted
only
through
a
vote
of
the
legislature
now
you'll
notice
that
the
bill
as
written
has
provides
for
the
agency
itself
conducting
that
analysis.
F
But
I
have
a
conceptual
amendment
which
should
be
posted
on
nellis.
I
believe
it
is.
That
would
actually
require
that
analysis
to
be
done
by
an
independent
entity,
and
I
feel
that
this
independence,
in
that
analysis
is
really
crucial.
F
From
the
standpoint
of
accountability,
the
10
million
dollar
figure
is
consistent
with
the
one
other
state
in
the
country
that
currently
has
this
law
in
place,
and
that
is
the
state
of
wisconsin.
F
I'm
anticipating
a
likely
question
from
committee
members
regarding
how
many
regulations
here
in
nevada
would
be
subject
to
that
threshold,
and
the
answer
is
that
we
really
don't
know.
I've
worked
with
our
lcd
staff
on
this
and
the
the
challenge
you
know.
The
bottom
line
is
that,
because
this
law
has
not
been
in
place
to
this
point,
the
data
that
would
be
needed
to
determine
you
know
the
answer
to
that
question
has
not
been
collected,
however,
going
forward.
F
If
this
bill
were
to
become
law,
we
would
of
course
start
collecting
that
data
and
we'd
be
in
a
position
to
know
how
many
regulations
are
subject
to
that
threshold
and
also
to
know
whether
that
10
million
dollar
threshold
is
appropriate
and
practical,
or
whether
an
adjustment
would
need
to
be
made
going
forward
and
along
the
way.
Of
course,
we
would
have
the
tremendous
benefit
from
the
inherent
value
of
actually
getting.
F
These
analyses
done
regarding
how
much
these
regulations
are
costing
our
citizens
and
our
businesses,
which
is
information,
that's
good
for
us
to
know
in
any
case,
so
the
bottom
line
on
ab
340
is
that
it's
not
about
you
know
stopping
necessary
regulations
from
being
put
in
place.
It's
simply
a
way
to
make
sure
that
the
agencies
aren't
allowed
to
be
on
sort
of
autopilot.
F
During
that
process,
smaller
regulations
would
still
be
implemented
as
under
the
current
process,
but
for
those
more
costly
and
impactful
regulations,
at
least
we,
the
people's
elected
representatives,
should
and
now
would
be
able
to
be
at
the
table
and
have
the
authority
to
review
them
before
deciding
whether
they
truly
serve
the
interests
of
those
we
are
elected
to
represent
navy
340
would
accomplish
that
important
goal.
So
I
thank
you
for
considering
this
bill.
I'd
now
like
to
turn
things
over
to
marcos
lopez,
who
is
the
legislative
liaison
for
americans
for
prosperity
of
nevada?
G
Thank
you,
assemblyman,
chair
flores
members
of
the
committee,
so
fundamentally,
what
ab
340
is
it's
it's
building
upon
and
strengthening
the
legislative
review
provisions
that
we
already
have
under
our
nevada
constitution
that
we
already
have
in
the
nevada
administrative
procedure
act,
but
it
just
strengthens
that
fundamentalist
bill
is
about
transparency.
Fundamentally,
this
bill
is
about
checks
and
balances.
G
You
know
we
in
recent
decades
there's
been
a
phenomenon
across
the
entire
nation
at
every
level
of
government
that
the
law-making
authority
of
the
legislature.
It
keeps
getting
pushed
off
to
the
executive
branch
and
its
agencies.
So
what
we
believe
is
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
legislative
bodies
have
input
and
review
it
to
make
sure
they're
according
to
the
intent
of
the
legislation
that
you
guys
pass,
and
there
there's
real
effects
to
all
of
this.
G
G
These
are
real
effects
that
real
nevadans
are
having
to
deal
with,
so
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
are
reigning
this
and
we're
keeping
an
eye
on
what
effect
these
are
having
on
people
and
the
evidence
strongly
suggests
that
nevada
needs
some
reforms,
and
this
is
a
big
problem
when
we
can't
quantify
the
cost
of
many
of
these
regulations.
G
The
fact
that
we
weren't
able
to
get
an
answer
on
how
many
regulations
this
would
affect
or
how
many
rules
would
be
affected
by
this-
shows
that
we're
kind
of
grasping
in
the
dark
in
terms
of
our
cost
benefit
analysis
and
we're
making
decisions
that
affects
millions
of
nettings,
and
that
is
slowing.
You
know
our
growth,
that
is
putting
more
burdens
on
low-income
families
and
when
we
see
other
jurisdictions
that
have
engaged
in
red
tape,
reduction
in
the
u.s
and
canada
and
other
states,
we
don't
see
any
diminished
protection
for
health.
G
We
don't
see
any
diminished
protections
for
safety.
Instead,
what
we
see
is
increaming
increasing
economic
success
and
we
look
at
our
ranking
in
a
lot
of
different
scales
of
our
our
ability
for
business
and
our
friendliness.
We
are
increasingly
sliding
down
in
our
rank
as
a
state
and
as
we're
looking
to
post
pandemic.
So
looking
at
postcovid,
we
should
be
doing
everything
we
can
to
make
sure
that
we
are
getting
back
to
where
we
were
prior
to
the
pandemic,
which
was
a
top
performing
state.
We
have
extremely
low
unemployment.
G
I
also
have
with
me
eric
bolt,
who
is
state
director
for
americans,
for
prosperity
in
wisconsin,
which
is
currently
the
one
state
that
has
implemented
this,
but
we're
also
working
in
other
states
like
montana,
to
get
this
passed
and
we're
exploring
these
options.
I
know
if
eric
wants
to
share
a
little
bit
about
the
wisconsin
experience.
H
Thank
you
and
thank
you,
committee
members
and
mr
chairman,
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
briefly
with
you
today.
My
name
is
eric
bott.
I
am
the
state
director
of
americans
for
prosperity,
wisconsin,
and
I
had
the
pleasure
over
about
a
five-year
period
to
help
craft
and
ultimately
see
through
enactment.
H
The
nation's
first
state
level
reigns
act
in
state
of
wisconsin.
It
was
enacted
in
august
2017
and,
as
as
the
other
speakers
have
mentioned,
the
real
goal
here
is
to
restore
legislative
authority
to
the
legislature
that,
over
time
in
many
states
has
been
seated
to
the
executive
branch,
and
in
doing
so,
we
feel
it
should
better
connect
the
citizens
to
their
democracy.
H
We
think
that
the
legislators
that
you
all
have
more
accountability
to
the
public
and
that
there's
more
transparency
when
you're
involved
in
significant
laws
that
have
the
the
the
ability
to
impact
the
laws
and
livelihoods
of
those
people
that
you
represent
in
wisconsin.
There
was
a
particular
regulation
that
really
sparked
interest
in
the
legislature
and
the
executive
branch
in
in
regulatory
reform
for
this
of
this
nature,
and
that
was
a
2010
phosphorus
discharge
regulation
that
ultimately
had
a
seven
billion
dollar
impact
on
key
industries
in
our
state
in
wisconsin.
H
The
the
the
need
for
a
reigns
act
really
was
highlighted
by
that
that
regulation,
the
idea
that
we
would
ever
pass
a
tax
hike,
for
instance,
of
seven
billion
dollars
without
the
legislature
getting
to
have
a
say
on
it
seems
absurd,
but
something
similar
happened
here
to
the
detriment
of
our
economy
and
into
the
detriment
of
thousands
of
family,
supporting
in
many
cases,
union
jobs
and
so
interest.
H
Interest
grew
in
the
legislature
to
regain
some
of
the
authority
they
had
previously
seeded
to
the
agencies
and
and
in
doing
so,
the
legislature
passed
a
law
requiring
an
independent
economic
impact.
Analysis
of
that
regulation
I
mentioned,
and
I
think
it's
worth
noting
when
the
state
agency,
the
dnr
in
wisconsin
promulgated,
that
regulation
they
did
their
internal
economic
review
and
determine
the
rule,
would
have
a
net
positive
impact
of
18
million
dollars
in
the
state's
economy.
H
When
an
independent
economic
analysis
was
conducted,
it
was
determined
that
the
rule
would
have
a
cost
of
seven
billion
dollars
to
the
state.
A
wide
disparity
and
that
does
meisha
need
an
importance
of
an
independent
review
to
be
included
in
the
consideration
of
such
a
proposal.
H
Thus
far,
we've
had
we've
been
operating
under
this
rule
for
about
three
years
has
not
been
triggered.
The
act
has
not
been
triggered
yet
in
wisconsin.
Our
feeling
is
that
it
has
improved
the
quality
of
rule-making
in
the
state.
It
has
improved
transparency
and
the
level
of
communication
between
regulators
and
the
regulated
community
and
the
legislature
as
regulators
seek
to
avoid
triggering
additional
process
in
the
implementation
of
their
rules.
So
it
hasn't,
I
think,
had
a
very
positive
impact.
H
F
Thank
you,
mr
lopez,
and
thank
you,
mr
bot.
Just
as
a
for
the
benefit
of
the
committee,
you
heard
mr
bhatt
refer
to
the
term
the
reins
act
and
that's
sort
of
the
becomes
sort
of
the
name
for
this.
This
concept
and
that's
reigns
r-e-I-n-s,
it's.
You
know
an
acronym
of
course,
and
it
kind
of
stems
from
the
initial
concept
for
this,
which
I
believe
was
at
the
federal,
the
federal
level
and
obviously
the
the
use
of
the
term
reigns.
F
Referring
to
you
know
reigning
in
the
executive
branch
on
this.
So
thank
you
both
co-presenters
and
you
know
we're
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
all
might
have.
Thank
you.
A
And
thank
you
assemblyman
and
thank
you,
mr
lopez
and
mr
bot
for
joining
us
this
morning.
Look
forward
to
the
dialogue,
members,
we'll
start
off
with
questions
and
we'll
start
off
with
the
assemblywoman,
considering.
I
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
assemblyman
matthews,
for
for
bringing
this
bill
yeah.
Actually
I
actually
found
the
reigns
act
last
night
when
I
was
reviewing
this
bill
and
it
seems
like
it's
something
that's
been
in
congress
for
like
over
a
decade
but
hasn't
passed,
but
I
was
able
to
do
a
little
bit
of
research
on
it
to
kind
of
try
to
understand
it.
I
But-
and
I
know
that
you've
already
talked
about
this
question,
but
my
big
question
is
you
know
what
regulations
do
cost
10
million
dollars,
and
I
understand
that
you
know.
Maybe
there
has
to
be
some
sort
of
a
study
to
find
out
what
necessarily
those
are,
but
there
has
to
be
like
some,
I'm
just
wondering
when
you
work
with
lcb
or
whatever.
If
you
had
like
two
three
five,
you
know
that
are
good
examples
to
show
us.
You
know
what
would
that
10
million
regulation
level
would
be.
F
Yeah
andy
matthews
district
37
assemblyman
for
the
record.
I
thank
you
so
many
woman
for
the
question
and-
and
it
is
an
important
question
and
that
that
has
been
the
challenge
is
to
try
to
hone
in
on
you
know
what
types
of
regulations
would
be
subject
to
this
and-
and
you
know
my
apologies
for
not
being
able
to
provide
that.
That
is
really
the
challenge,
because
this
hasn't
been
in
place
because
that
information
and
data
has
not
been
collected.
F
We're
really
left
in
a
situation
where
we
we
truly
don't
know,
and
I
don't
want
to
kind
of
do
a
disservice
here
by
guessing
or
speculating.
You
know
you
to
some
extent
you
can
bring
a
a
common
sense
test
to
a
particular
regulation
and
determine
this
is
a
larger
one
that
may
trigger
it,
but
absent
that
data.
It's
hard
to
know
with
certainty,
and
I
do
think
you
know
the
reason
I
like
I
said
in
my
opening
remarks.
The
reason
I
set
the
threshold
at
that
10
million
level
is
to
be
consistent.
F
You
know
with
the
state
that
has
this
in
place.
I
do
think
it's
important
that
where
this
to
be
implemented,
we
would
begin
to
get
that
information
and
that's
extremely
value
and
of
itself
to
know
to
be
looking
at.
You
know
what
are
these
regulations
costing
our
economy,
and
then
we
can
make
that
determination
of.
F
How
often
is
that
this
being
triggered,
how
many
of
these
regulations
would
be
subject
to
it,
and
then
lawmakers
going
forward
could
make
an
assessment
on
whether
that
10
million
threshold
really
is
you
know
the
appropriate
and
practical
level
of
whether
an
adjustment
needs
to
be
made.
So
I
wish
I
had
that
information
and
I
did
spend
a
lot
of
time
working
with
our
staff
on
that,
and
it's
not
their
fault
by
the
way
either
yeah.
They
can't
provide
access
to
information
that
simply
doesn't
exist.
F
G
Chair
floors
to
the
assemblywoman
through
you,
one
piece
of
information
can
help
us
guide
this.
I
put
some
supplemental
information
from
the
mercado
center,
which
they
did
a
snapshot
of
the
regulatory
regime
in
nevada
and
we
can
kind
of
start
getting
a
picture
of
which
industries
and
what
chapters
include
the
most
regulations,
and
I
would
feel
that
you
know
that's,
probably
a
good
gauge
to
start
looking
at
what
issues
we
will
be
talking
about.
If
this
legislation
is
passed
and
the
agencies
start
doing
these
economic
impact
analysis.
I
Thank
you,
so
I
guess
my
next
question
would
be
then,
if
we
are
considering
wisconsin
sort
of
the
same
level
as
us,
if
we're
going
to
do
the
10
million
and
this
law
is
already
in
effect
in
wisconsin,
do
you
have
like
three,
four
or
five
examples
of
regulations
in
wisconsin
that
would
hit
that
have
hit
this?
This
10
million.
F
H
Sure,
as
I
said
thus
far,
the
last
three
years,
we
have
not
had
a
new
regulation
that
triggered
the
10
million
threshold.
However,
during
the
the
mid
to
late
2000s
and
into
the
early
2010s,
wisconsin
saw
a
number
of
very
high
cost
regulations
proposed
and
many
implemented,
predominantly
through
our
department
of
natural
resources,
water
and
air
rules.
H
Primarily
in
recent
history,
we've
seen
a
water
rule
with
a
nine
figure
estimated
cost
proposed,
but
it
was
ultimately
withdrawn
by
the
agency,
and
so
in
recent
times
we
haven't
seen
it,
but
I
think
you
know,
in
terms
of
our
state
rules
that
could
potentially
exceed
a
10
million
threshold,
we're
probably
talking
about
natural
resources
issues,
potentially
health,
potentially
transportation.
H
I
A
You,
I
don't
think
you
have
a
response
to
that
correct
understood.
So
next
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
thomas.
J
Good
morning
cheer,
thank
you
so
much
for
this
opportunity
and
thank
you
so
much
matthews
for
your
presentation.
J
F
Andy
matthews
district
37,
summon
for
the
record
yeah.
We
really
want
to
make
sure
that
that
we're
not
creating
an
undue
burden
in
terms
of
this
analysis,
analysis
itself
is
very
important.
I
think
one
of
the
ways
and
I'll-
let
mr
lopez
speak
to
this,
but
I
think
it's
the
state
of
montana
that
is
exploring.
F
You
know
the
best
mechanism
for
for
that
analysis,
and
I
think
what
they're
looking
at
doing
in
montana
is
actually
having
the
university
system
perform
that
analysis
where
to
sort
of
control
those
costs
it's
again
hard
to
determine
exactly
what
the
cost
of
the
analysis
itself
would
be.
It
would
depend
to
some
extent,
of
course,
on
the
scope
of
the
of
the
regulation,
that's
being
analyzed,
but
I
think
mr
bot
and
mr
lopez
may
have
some
more
detail
to
to
add
to
that,
and
I
wanted
to
just.
F
I
did
want
to
touch
briefly
on
assemblywoman
ponzinine's
follow-up
question
about
you
know:
do
we
need
this
bill,
given
we
don't
know
to
what
extent
it
would
trigger
or
what
excel
would
be
triggered.
As
I
said
in
my
opening
remarks,
there'll
be
an
inherent
value
along
the
way
to
start,
you
know
requiring
these
independent
analyses
so
that
we
can
get
a
good
grip
on
the
cost
of
these
regulations
and
determine
if
there
is
in
fact
a
problem.
F
I
think
it's
really
a
less
than
ideal
situation
when
so
many
of
these
things
are
being
done
in
the
dark,
where
there
really
is
no
analysis
of
what
the
cost
of
these
regulations
are
going
to
be.
But
mr
bonus
lopez,
if
you
want
to
speak
to
the
the
issue
of
the
of
some
woman
thomas's
question,.
G
Chairman
flores,
the
assembly,
women,
3u,
marcus
lopez,
americas
for
prosperity,
nevada
for
the
record,
so
yeah.
So
in
montana
you
know
that's
one
of
the
main
things
that
kind
of
came
up
was:
how
do
we
handle
the
cost
of
this?
G
Their
approach
is
to
partner
up
with
universities,
to
actually
engage
in
these
studies
to
engage
in
cost
savings
through
the
universities,
and
you
know
that's
something
that
we
can
kind
of
explore
in
the
same
route
and
going
back
also
to
these
former
family
women's
question
on
the
cost
and
this
problem
it's
this
is
about
getting
a
complete
picture,
getting
all
the
information
relevant
at
the
end
of
the
day.
G
If
the
legislative
body
agrees
that
you
know
this
is
the
right
way
or
maybe
it
needs
to
be
done
a
little
bit
tighter
or
even
more
restrictive
or
less
restricted.
That's
just
about
getting
more
information
and
more
transparency
to
to
your
committee
and
to
members
of
the
legislature
to
be
able
to
make
better
informed.
J
Thank
you,
sir.
So
as
some
of
the
women
matthews,
I
would
like
a
dollar
amount,
an
estimate.
You
know.
I
believe
that
the
university
I'm
assuming
that
you
would
have
university,
las
vegas
and
or
reno
something
is
costing
the
universities
for
these
analysis
and
it
sounds
like
it
would
be
an
extensive
analysis,
rather
audits
for
for
what
you
are
asking
for.
J
So
I
would
like
to
know
you
know
we
had
not
mentioned
montana,
but
since
you
mentioned
montana,
and
you
mentioned
wisconsin,
somebody
has
a
dollar
amount.
If
you
could
please
expound
on
that.
F
Yeah,
what
I'll
do
I
think,
andy
matthews
district
37
settlement
for
the
record?
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
continue
to
work
with
stakeholders,
look
at
some
of
the
experiences
from
other
states
and
and
have
to
work
with
our
staff
here
to
get
as
precise
as
we
can.
You
know
regarding
what
what
the
cost
of
those
impact
analyses
might
be
and
as
soon
as
I
have
that
information
I'll
happy
to
share
that
with
with
committee
members.
F
You
know
a
lot
of
this
is
sort
of
new
territory
and
we're
all
working
through
the
best
ways
to
approach
these
things,
and
I'm
also
going
to
explore
potential
alternatives
to
the
university
system.
You
know,
I
think,
that's
a
great
way
to
go,
but
there
may
be
other
entities
that
may
be
well
situated
to
provide
some
of
these
analyses,
so
we're
working
through
a
lot
of
the
different
possibilities
here,
the
main
the
main
goal.
F
I
think,
and
the
key
objective
of
all
of
this
is,
like
mr
lopez
said,
greater
transparency
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
doing
these
things
in
the
dark
and
that
you
know
when
we're
going
to
write
new
regulations,
we
do
have
an
understanding
of
what
that's
going
to
be
because
a
lot
of
times
there
will
be
tremendous
costs
to
our
economy,
down
the
road,
and
it
may
well
be
worth
it
I
would
argue,
would
be
if
there
is
an
initial
upfront
front,
cost
to
at
least
understand
what
that's
going
to
be
before
we
go
too
far
down
that
road.
B
Thank
you,
chair
flowers.
Thank
you,
assemblyman
matthews.
I
have
just
a
couple
of
questions.
I've
had
an
opportunity
over
the
years
to
work
very
closely
with
some
of
our
self-advocates
out
of
wisconsin
in
particular,
and
it's
my
understanding
that
that
legislative
body
meets
all
year
long
and
and
functions
very
differently
than
we
do
in
nevada,
and
I
just
want
to
verify
that
that
is
in
fact
the
truth.
B
B
For
me,
these
regulations
would
be
relative
to
medicaid
and
how
medicaid
is
administrated
and
regulated
within
the
state,
as
the
state
often
rolls
out
regulations.
So
that's
health
and
human
services.
For
me
and
I'm
curious
to
know
if
you
see
that
as
well
now
those
contracts
and
those
regulations
are
always
over
10
million
dollars
and
it
directly
deals
with
the
health
and
human
services.
Is
the
population
that
we're
here
to
serve
with
the
legislative
body
that
meets
every
other
year?
For
me,
that's
an
issue
of
concern.
B
F
Andy
matthews
district
37
assemblyman
for
the
record
to
your
to
your
first
point.
Yes,
as
I
believe
one
of
my
co-presenters
mentioned,
this
would
oftentimes
you
know
involved.
I
believe
I
would
anticipate
regulations
involving
medicaid
and
hhs
I'll.
Let
mr
bot
speak
to
your
question
on
the
wisconsin
legislature
and
the
frequency
with
with
which
they
meet.
My
understanding
is
that
they
are
an
annual
legislature
that
they
do
meet
annually.
F
Unlike
us,
one
way,
I
think
that
would
be
beneficial
to
to
address
that
here
in
nevada,
and
I
believe
that
this
is
what
they're
doing
in
in
montana
or
the
way
they're
looking
at
this
in
montana,
which
is
also
a
legislature
that
meets
every
other
year.
I
think
that
they
are
looking
at
a
provision
and
I'll.
F
Let
mr
lopez
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
they're
looking
at
a
provision
through
which
a
regulation
that
would
come
up
in
the
off
year
and
when
the
legislature
is
not
in
session,
since
it's
not
practical
for
the
legislature
to
come
into
session,
all
the
time
to
review
and
vote
for
against
these
these
regulations
under
under
what
they're
doing
in
montana,
the
the
regulation
would
be
allowed
to
take
effect
at
the
outset.
And
what
would
happen
is
when
the
legislature
does
come
back
in
the
session.
F
The
legislature
would
then
have
to
approve
it,
so
the
regulation
would
come
with
basically
a
sunset
provision
and
it
would
be
allowed
to
temporarily
take
effect
subject
to
later
approval
from
the
legislature
when
they're
back
in
session-
and
I
think
something
like
that-
and
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
way
to
to
amend
this
or
to
add
to
this
bill
would
be
to
have
a
similar
provision
for
here
in
nevada.
Mr
lopez,
correct
me:
if
I'm
wrong
on
that
or
feel
free
to
add
to
that.
G
Marcos
lopez
for
the
record
yeah,
so
that
is
what
they're
looking
at
in
montana,
because
they
also
meet
the
same
schedule.
We
do
so
in
particular,
you
know
if
a
federal
rule
comes
down
and
the
agency
has
to
comply
with
the
federal
rule.
If
there
comes
with
money
attached,
then
the
reins
act
would
not
kick
in
in
montana.
G
If
it
does
not
come
with
money
attached
down
from
the
feds,
then
it
would
go
into
effect
with
the
sunset
on
the
approval
and
the
reins
act
would
kick
in,
and
you
know
the
legislation
when
they
get
back
into
the
regular
session
would
meet
on
that
and
if,
at
the
end
of
the
regular
session
there
is
no
agreement
or
approval,
then
the
sunset
clause
would
kick
in.
On
that
said,
regulation
or
rule.
F
B
It
was
an
unfunded
federal
mandate
that
requires
transition
services
for
school
high
school
students
with
individualized
education
plans
and
is
a
four
to
one
match
out
of
the
federal
government,
but
it
would
be
well
over
10
million
dollars,
so
you're
you're,
under
what
you've
just
presented
that
even
handed
in
down
in
an
off
year
when
we
have
not
met,
you
would
expect
the
department
to
implement
a
new
regulation
and
then
come
back
and
seek
approval
for
federal
mandate.
Is
that
is?
Am
I
understanding
this.
F
Andy
matthews
district
37
assembling
for
the
record
and
again
mr
lopez,
you
can
you
can
because
you've
got
more
familiarity
with
how
they're
exploring
this
in
the
montana
example
to
deal
with
this,
but
my
understanding
would
be
again
this
isn't
in
the
current
bill,
but
I
think
this
is
something
that's
worth
exploring
here
would
be
that
if
there's
a
federal
regulation,
that's
mandated
that
does
come
with
with
funds.
F
Then
you
know
the
the
this
act
would
not
kick
in,
and
you
know
the
legislation
agency
could
go
ahead
and
implement
the
regulation,
but
if
there
is
an
unfunded
mandate,
it
would
be
subject
to
the
legislature
having
to
you'll
go
ahead
and
approve
that,
and
the
legislature
may
well
you
go
ahead
and
approve
it.
I
think
in
a
situation
like
that,
the
the
argument
in
favor
of
doing
that
you
know
under
that
sort
of
situation
like
you
described
assemblywoman,
would
be
extremely
powerful.
F
You
know
and
would
clearly
probably
be
in
the
interest
of
the
state
to
do
that.
So
again,
I
want
to
be
clear.
This
does
not
mean
these
regulations
would
not
take
effect.
This
simply
means
that
when
you're
talking
about
these
significant
dollar
amounts,
the
legislature
should
have
a
seat
at
the
table
and
have
a
voice
in
that
discussion.
Thank
you,
mr
lopez.
Anything
to
add
to
that.
G
No,
I
think
you
pretty
much
summed
it
up
perfectly
again.
The
way
that
they're
exploring
in
montana
is,
if
it
comes
down
with
federal
money,
then
they
would
not
kick
in.
If
it
does
come
with
an
unfunded
mandate,
then
you
know
the
legislature
would
have
a
say
and
there's
nothing
in
this
bill
to
stop
them
and
stop
you
guys
from
approving,
said
regulation
rule
or
putting
input
to
either
strengthen
it
or
or
put
it
more
in
line
with
you
know
what
you
believe
is
the
best
interest
for
the
state.
B
Thank
you,
mr
lopez.
Thank
you.
Assemblyman
matthews,
and
just
I
just
want
to
leave
with
this
one
last
comment
that
there
are
often
unfunded
mandates
that
come
down
from
the
federal
government
that
do
draw
a
four
to
one
match.
That
is
a
general
fund
expenditure
that
would
be
over
10
million
dollars,
but
would
pull
in
well
over
40
million,
and
so
I
just
want
to
leave
it
leave
it
at
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
J
Thank
you
chair,
thank
you,
assemblyman
matthews
and
mr
lopez
and
mr
bots
for
your
presentation.
So
there's
a
couple
questions
that
I
have
so
has
anyone
in
nevada
that
we
know
that
has
been
hit
with
a
10
million
dollar
regulation
or
fine
or
anything,
is
my
first
question,
and
can
you
give
me
some
examples
how
this
regulations
would
impact
the
low-income
communities.
F
Andy
matthews
district
37
from
the
record
so
to
your
first
question,
that's
part
of
the
challenge
I
spoke
to
earlier
because
we
have
not
because
the
state
has
not
tracked
this
data,
because
these
analyses
have
not
been
done.
It's
very
difficult
to
know
you
know,
and
we
don't
have
that
information
on
how
many
agencies
how
many
regulations
would
be
subject
to
this.
I
think
it's
really
important
information
for
us
to
start
collecting
going
forward
and
that's
part
of
what
this
would
accomplish.
F
Your
second
question
you
know:
I
think
that
the
best
way,
one
of
the
best
ways
to
help
our
lower
income
communities
is
to
identify
and
and
stop
onerous
regulations.
You
know,
regulation
over
regulation
is
so
often
you
know
one
of
the
great
impediments
to
economic
growth
and
job
creation
and
opportunity,
and
this
is
a
mechanism
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
you
know
putting
up
these
these
barriers.
F
That
would
help
contribute
to
that
problem
and
at
the
very
least,
if,
if
we
are
not
seeing
regulations
proposed
that
would
you
know
trigger
this,
the
there
would
be
that
inherent
value
in
starting
to
get
information.
What
the
cost
of
these
regulations
would
be
so
that
lawmakers
could
you
know,
take
it
on
themselves.
To
start,
you
know,
removing
regulations
that
are
in
place
and
that
are
found
to
be
really
prohibitive.
F
You
know
when
it
comes
to
to
people
getting
access
to
to
a
good
job,
and-
and
so
often
you
know
some
some
regulations,
some
of
the
regulations
we
have
in
place,
whether
it's
occupational
licensing
or
something
else
really
do-
have
a
disproportionate
negative
impact
on
lower
income
citizens,
because
they
really
do
end
up
serving
as
a
barrier
to
entry
into
the
workforce,
and
I
think
this
could
end.
F
This
should
end
up
being
extremely
valuable
in
terms
of
really
getting
a
good
grip
and
more
transparency
into
what
our
regulatory
apparatus
is,
where
some
of
the
challenges
may
be
in
making
sure
that
we're
not
over
regulating
to
the
point
that
we
are
making
it
difficult
for
people
to
be
successful
to
earn
an
earn
a
good
living
here.
Thank
you.
J
But
don't
we
already
have
regulations
concerning
basically
for
employment
and
stuff,
like
that,
already
that
you
know,
with
the
disparities
there'll
be
eeoc
and
stuff
like
that,
for
people
to
file
complaints
on
on
stuff,
like
that,
if
it's
you
know
trying
to
get
the
impacts
of
employment
or
any
other
type
of
disparate
treatment,
there's
already
places
that
people
can
go,
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
regulations
are
really
impacting
people
without
some
of
the
state
agencies.
We
already
have.
F
Andy
matthews
district
37,
someone
for
the
record
and
yes,
of
course,
yeah.
There
are
a
lot
lots
of
regulations
that
are
already
in
place,
and
I
think
that
this
isn't
covered
in
this
bill,
but
I
think
there'd
be
a
lot
of
value
in
getting
more
of
a
grasp
on
what
the
impact
of
those
regulations
may
be.
F
This
bill,
you
know,
would
pertain
to
new
regulations
going
forward
new
proposed
regulations
making
sure
we
understand
the
economic
impact,
making
sure
that
if
these,
if
the
impact's
going
to
be
very
significant,
that
we,
the
people's
representatives,
have
a
say
in
that-
and
I
do
like
I
said-
I
think
that
it's
important
to
know
because
a
lot
of
times
these
regulations-
many
of
them,
make
sense.
F
Of
course,
may
them
are
necessary
and
practical,
but
in
a
lot
of
cases
they
can
serve
as
an
impediment
to
economic
prosperity
and
job
growth,
and
we
just
want
to
have
a
better
sense
of
what's
going
on
and
again
in
those
significant
cases,
just
making
sure
that
that
you-
and
I
and
others
in
this
legislature
have
a
chance
to
speak
on
behalf
of
our
constituents.
On
those
questions.
Thank
you.
G
If,
if
I
may
kind
of
build
on
that
chair
to
the
assembly
woman,
marcus
lopez,
americas
for
prosperity,
I
mean
we
know
that
there
is
an
association
of
higher
regulations
with
negative
effects
in
terms
of
poverty,
income,
inequality,
lower
entrepreneurship,
higher
consumer
prices
and
all
that
disproportionately
affects
low
income
communities,
because
they're
spending
more
of
their
money
than
they
might
have
less
of
on
higher
prices.
It's
harder
for
them
to
climb
the
economic
ladder.
I
mean.
G
This
is
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
always
talk
about
occupational
licensing
reform,
tackling
the
fact
that
we
are
the
second
most
widely
regulated.
Ordinarily
regulated
life,
occupational
licensing
regimes
in
the
country
and
a
lot
of
those
are
for
lower
income
occupations
or
people
trying
to
start
off
in
a
new
career
path.
Even
looking
at
this
covid
crisis,
when
the
first
things
we
did
at
the
beginning
of
the
crisis
was
ease
health
care
regulations,
so
we
had
the
ability
to
increase
the
supply
of
medical
professionals
in
our
state.
G
They
are
real
impacts
that
stand
in
the
way
of
us
being
able
to
deliver
quality
services
and
quality
goods
in
our
state,
and
you
know
sometimes
it's
kind
of
begging.
The
question
when
we
ask
you
know
what
is
this
going
to
affect
when
we
don't
even
have
anything
in
place
that
they
have
to
do
these
analysis
in
the
first
place,.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
math,
at
assemblymember.
Matthews.
Excuse
me
for
bringing
this
forward.
It's
also
nice
talking
with
you,
mr
lopez
and
mr
bot,
about
this
information,
so
I'm
still
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
it,
and
so
I'm
going
to
go
directly
to
the
to
the
bill
and
ask
for
a
what-if
situation.
L
I
realize
it's
a
what-if
situation,
but
if
you
look
at,
let's
just
say
section
1.1-
and
there
is
somebody
who
is
utilizing
regulations
for-
let's
just
say,
hazardous
materials
because
based
upon
mr
lopez's
exhibit
that
he
entered
that
seemed
to
be
one
of
the
higher
regulations.
L
Before
they
can,
even
the
department
can
even
bring
people
together
to
discuss.
Based
upon
this,
the
department
is
supposed
to
figure
out,
I'm
so
sorry,
not
the
department.
An
independent
entity
is
supposed
to
figure
out
how
much
the
possible
regulation
could
cost.
Am
I
understanding
that
correctly
or
have
I
muddied
the
process.
F
L
Thank
you
so
just
to
make
sure,
then,
let's
say
that
again
we're
using
the
hazardous
material
instead
of
being
able
to
reach
out
to
individuals
who
might
be
in
the
middle
of
being
a
small
small
business
that
utilizes
the
hazardous
materials
before
being
able
to
figure
out
what
is
realistic
for
that
small
business.
L
The
the
regulatory
department
must
figure
out
how
much
it
would
cost.
I
just
I
I'm
getting
caught
up
in
the
minutia
of
this,
and
I
realize
I
am
but
there's
some
really
my
new
details
that
have
a
big
impact
on
some
of
our
smaller
businesses.
F
Andy
matthews
district
37,
solomon's
record.
I
see
that
mr
lopez
is
unmuted,
so
hopefully
maybe
you
have
something
to
to
add
to
that.
G
Yeah,
thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
you
to
the
assembly
woman.
I
don't
think
the
intention
is
that
before
they
progress
on
any
rule
or
if
they're
before
they
take
input
from
the
community,
it's
more
of
before
the
final
product
is
kind
of
implemented.
They
have
to
do
an
economic
study
of
it
while
they
take
input-
and
you
know
maybe
reach
out
to
parties
that
might
be
affected.
I
think
this
is
part
of
the
process
of
the
rulemaking.
They
have
to
do
the
economic
study.
G
L
Okay,
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
just
I
I'm
having
a
problem
with
with
this.
I'm
not
gonna
lie.
I
I
think,
based
upon
my
experiences
before
conducting
a
workshop,
the
workshops
are
not
always
with
the
regulations
already
figured
out
many
times
it's
with
people
that
are
in
the
middle
of
items
and
they're
able
to
kind
of
have
those
discussions
as
to
what
is
the
best
way
to
move
forward
when
there's
a
regulation
that
is
being
triggered
by
a
law,
and
so
I
just
that.
L
That's
one
element
that
I
have
a
bit
of
an
issue
with.
I
think
another
thing
that
is
very
concerning
to
me
has
has
already
been
up
been
brought
up,
but
it
is
how
will
the
independent
auditor
be
paid
for?
Well,
let's
just
say
that
it's
a
nevada
system
of
higher
ed
or
even
a
a
a
k-12
school,
a
regulation
or
one
of
our
medicals,
because
again,
based
upon
the
exhibit
that
was
brought
forward,
our
medical
facilities
have
many
regulations.
L
F
Everyone
andy
matthews
district
37
for
the
record
yeah
thanks
to
the
question
as
you
as
you
noted
that
something
that
did
come
up
earlier
and
something
that
I
think
is
really
important
to
get
more
of
a
firm
grip
on
and,
as
I
said,
you
know,
one
of
the
things
about
this
concept
is
because
it
is,
you
know,
relatively
new
and
not
and
not
in
place
in
a
lot
of
in
a
lot
of
places.
F
I
think
this
kind
of
feedback
is
is
extremely
helpful
as
we
craft
this
and
work
to
get
this
in
place
and
get
it
just
right
for
our
state,
and
I
think
that
you
know
it
will
be
an
ongoing
process.
Mr
bot,
I
don't
know
you
know
some
of
these.
Some
of
these
questions
that
are
being
asked.
I
I'm
assuming
that
these
were,
you
know
considered
in
wisconsin,
while
this
was
being
worked
or
talked
through
and
analyzed
there.
F
I
don't
know
if
mr
baugh,
you
could
speak
to
assemblywoman,
anderson's
questions
and
and
how
those
may
have
been
considered
or
addressed
in
your
state,
not
to
put
you
on
the
spot.
H
Oh
certainly
thank
you
for
thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
A
couple
couple
comments
here:
first,
off
the
way
that
our
act
is
crafted
with
wisconsin,
it
is
only
triggered
if
there
is
a
10
million
cost
on
the
regulated
community
for
a
two-year
period,
and
so
the
act
has
no
impact
on
the
state
implementing
state
or
federal
programs
such
as
medicaid.
H
It
would
only
be
impacted
not
by
spending
not
by
implementing
a
program,
but
by
creating
a
new
regulation
that
will
have
a
burden
on
the
regulated
community
rather
than
the
state
or
local
government.
I
think
that's
that
that's
an
important
approach,
because
you
don't
want
to
in
some
ways
unintentionally
strangle
the
implementation
of
necessary
government
services,
and
it's
it's
quite
you
know
possible
to
do
that
if
crafted
appropriately
in
in,
I
think
I've
lost.
H
L
Well,
I
think
one
thing
also:
I
want
to
make
sure
this
is
clear,
so
it's
10
10
million
over
a
two
year
period,
so
it's
actually
5
million
per
year,
is
a
possibility.
Is
that
accurate
it
could
be,
it
could
be.
L
A
L
F
Sorry
I
had
a
challenge
on
muting
myself:
andy
matthews,
district
37,
summoned
for
the
record,
as
I
read
it,
yes,
and
that
was
my
intent.
Yes,.
L
Thank
you
thank
you
for
your
response
and
I
appreciate
the
the
response
as
illumi
matthews,
but
perhaps
I'm
a
little
bit
more
fiscally
conservative,
but
I
just
find
this
a
liberal
use
of
our
taxpayers
money.
You
know
when
I,
when
I
came
up
to
the
session,
I
left
my
community
and
I
serve
a
predominantly
low-income
community.
I
work
in
a
predominantly
low-income
community
and
hard-working
nevada.
Families
have
been
hit
hard
by
this
pandemic
and
I
can't
imagine
us
passing
a
piece
of
legislation
that
is
going
to
be
costly
to
nevada
taxpayers.
L
I
mean
I,
I
think
about
like
this
idea
of
having
the
entire
legislature
approve
something
like
this.
It
either
requires
multiple
special
sessions
or,
as
you
mentioned,
perhaps
giving
them
the
temporary
ability
for
that
to
take
effect,
and
that
just
seems
costly
to
nevada,
and
so
I
I
I
don't
know
that.
There's
any
way
that
this
bill
can
be
amended.
That
will
not
be
costly
to
hard-working
nevada
families,
and
I
just
don't
know
how
I'm
going
to
get
there
on
this
legislation.
Quite
honestly,.
F
Andy
matthews
district
37
is
summoned
for
the
record.
Thank
you,
madam
vice
chair
for
the
question.
The
comment
regulations
themselves,
I
think
it's
worth
remembering
are-
are
very
costly.
You
know
in
terms
of
our
our
economy-
and
you
know
yes,
when
you,
when
you
implement
something
like
this,
there
is
a
cost
the
government
government,
but
I
think
in
the
interest
of
your
term,
I
guess
fiscal
conservatives,
obviously
fiscal
accountability.
F
It's
making
sure
that
you
know
we
know
what
the
impact
on
our
our
private
citizens,
our
private
economy,
our
job
creators,
is
going
to
be
of
these
regulations,
because
there
is
a
very,
very
significant
cost
to
that
as
well,
and
given
that
the
the
cost
of
an
analysis
on
the
front
end
would
be
a
one-time
thing,
and
these
regulations,
if
put
in
place,
would
be
you
know
permanent,
so
that
we're
you
know
we're
having
the
cost
of
these
regulations
year
after
year.
F
It
becomes,
I
think,
very
obvious
and
very
clear
that
the
cost
of
those
regulations
over
time
would
far
exceed.
You
know
the
the
initial
cost
to
perform
the
analysis
and
put
this
into
place,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
putting
an
undue
burden
on
our
citizens
again,
especially
like,
like
I
and
mr
lopez,
both
said
already,
the
low-income
nevadans,
who
are
so
often
disproportionately
affected
by
owner's
regulation,
that
having
a
better
grasp
of
what
that
impact
is
going
to
be,
I
think,
is,
is
very,
very
important
anyway.
L
Yeah,
thank
you
chair,
and
you
know.
I
just
think
you
know
if
we
can't
even
provide
examples
of
regulations
or
how
often
this
type
of
thing
would
occur,
you
know
we're
being
blindsided
by
a
piece
of
legislation.
If
this
legislation
were
to,
perhaps
you
know,
have
ltv
look
at
regulations
that
were
over
10
million
dollars,
perhaps
that's
something
we
could
entertain,
but
rather
this
is
going
to
put
a
play
in
play,
something
that's
going
to
be
a
financial
burden
to
nevada
taxpayers,
and
you
know
at
this
time
you
know
in
the
midst
of
pandemic.
A
C
Oh,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Most
of
my
questions
were
answered
and-
and
I
got
those
good
questions-
good
answers
out
of
there,
but
one
of
the
questions
I
I've
got
and-
and
you
might
already
hit
on
this-
but
most
of
the
agencies
that
that's
dealing
with
that
kind
of
money.
They
have
an
audit
every
year.
C
Can't
you
use
that
I
mean
is
something
to
base
on
what
they've
already
done
in
their
audits.
You
just
review
it.
F
That's
something
for
the
record
yeah
I
didn't
want
to
want
to
cut
you
off.
These
analyses
would
be
specific
to
a
particular
regulation
that
is
proposed
before
it
takes
effect.
You
know
to
understand
what
is
going
to
be
proactively
on
the
front
end,
so
I
think
that
would
be.
That
would
be
a
distinction
distinction
there.
So
yeah
again,
I
don't
know
if
mr
lopez
or
mr
bot
has
anything
to
add
to
that.
H
I
I
suppose
I
could
add
in
wisconsin
again
this.
This
proposal
applies
only
to
prospective
regulations
and
it
applies
to
regulations
that
will
have
a
significant
cost
impact,
the
regulated
community,
so
it
it
doesn't
have
an
impact
on
current
agency
spending
or
regulations,
and
so
such
an
approach
may
not
be
applicable
here.
This
is
really
looking
at
bringing
more
transparency
to
prospective
regulations,
getting
a
better
understanding
through
either
an
internal
economic
impact
analysis
with
an
agency
which
wisconsin
does
or
in
some
rare
instances,
an
independent
review.
H
If
the
legislature
deemed
that
an
agency
may
not
have
conducted
a
thorough
or
appropriate
review,
and
I
think
in
those
instances
it's
a
very
wise
investment
if
you're,
if
your
state
is
faced
with
the
potential
for
a
rule,
that
will
have
a
cost
impact
in
the
tens
or
even
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
or
more
the
impact
of
such
a
regulation
on
tax
revenues,
the
state
is
very
likely
to
far
exceed
the
de
minimis
cost
of
certainly
an
internal
analysis,
which
should
really
be
a
part
of
any
regulating
any
administrative
rule
process,
but
also,
even
in
independent
analysis.
C
Okay,
and
and
and
just
for
follow-up,
if
I
met
mr
chair,
please
follow
yeah
yeah,
an
audit
of
that
magnitude
of
10
million
dollars
that
could
be
anywhere
from
20
to
50.
000
per
audit
depends
on
the
size
of
it
and
the
length
of
it.
So
that's
the
ones
that
I've
run
across
in
that
size
and
and
so
it
can
be
very
costly.
C
B
Thank
you,
chair,
flores,
vice
chair
tour
is
pretty
much
hit
on
the
same
thing,
the
same
questions
that
I
had.
I
too
feel
like
at
this
point.
You
know
nevada's,
we
we
can't.
We
can't
afford
to
be
spending
money
like
this
and
really,
I
feel
like
the
companies
that
do
the
analysis,
they're,
the
ones
who
are
going
to
be
making
out
on
this,
and
I'm
not
sure
that
I
can
come
on
board
with
this.
But
thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
taurus.
I
really
don't
have
a
question.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
assemblywoman
next,
we'll
go
to
back
to
the
assemblywoman
consonant.
I
Thank
you,
chair
flores.
Actually
I
think
my
question
had
been
and
asked
earlier,
but
I
will,
I
guess,
take
this
opportunity
if
possible.
Can
you
tell
me
the
genesis
of
this
bill
because
in
like
I
said
in
doing
my
research,
it
looks
like
these
bills
have
been
going
around
in
different
states
and
it
started
like
a
decade
ago
as
a
congressional
bill.
So
can
you
tell
me
like
to
me
it
doesn't
seem
like
this
was
a
nevada
created
bill.
So
where
did
this
idea
or
this
bill
actually
start.
F
Andy
matthews
district
37
solomon
for
the
record,
the
history,
my
understanding
of
it
I'm
pretty
clear
on
this,
but
the
others
can
jump
in
if
I'm
wrong
yeah.
I
think
the
genesis
of
this
was,
I
believe,
a
federal
piece
of
legislation
called
the
reigns
act.
F
You
know
again
with
the
nod
toward
the
idea
of
reigning
in
executive
branch
agencies
and
over
time,
one
state
in
particular,
wisconsin
decided
to
adopt
this
concept
for
the
state
level
and
I
believe,
at
the
federal
level,
the
proposed
threshold
was
regulation
for
100,
100
million
dollars
and
obviously
with
state
economies
being
you
know
much
smaller
regulations
being
not
as
far
reaching
you
know,
wisconsin
adopted
the
concept
at
the
state
level
with
a
10
million
dollar
threshold.
F
I
believe
that
remains
the
only
state
that
actually
has
this
in
law
and,
as
mr
bot
said,
it
took
effect
just
a
few
years
ago
and
so
yeah.
This
is
an
example
of
of
looking
at,
what's
being
done
elsewhere
and
seeing
something
that
looks
like
a
good
idea,
something
that
could
work
for
our
state
and
trying
to
adopt
that
or
just
like.
We
do
with
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
different
bills
and
ideas.
F
You
know
we'll
look
at
an
idea
from
another
state
and
see
that
something
looks
like
it
would
be
effective
here
and
and
try
to
adapt
that
for
our
own
state
and,
as
mr
lopez
said,
you
know,
montana
is
another
state
that
is
in
the
process.
I
think
of
advancing
legislation
to
implement
this,
and
I
think
I
think
the
state
of
florida
is
also
giving
this
cons
some
consideration,
although
I'm
not
sure
exactly
where
they
are
in
the
process.
I
Thank
you,
assemblyman
matthews.
I
appreciate
that
answer
it
just
from
my
perspective.
It
feels
like
this
is
something
we're
trying
to
shoehorn
in
to
the
state
of
nevada,
without
having
any
data,
to
show
that
it's
necessary,
but
it
coming
with
all
those
costs
of
the
analysis
and
everything
that
would
have
to
be
done.
I
If
you
know
someone
thought
okay,
if
I
add
all
this
up,
it's
potentially
10
million
dollars,
then
we
have
to
lay
out
all
of
this
money
and
without
data
to
show
that,
and
without
this,
like
kind
of
percolating
up
through
nevada,
that's
kind
of
my
issue
with
this
bill,
it's
just
sort
of
that
excess
taxpayer
money
that
we
may
or
may
not
need
to
spend.
Thank
you,
though,.
A
F
Bill
a
chair,
this
is
assemblyman
matthews.
I
believe
that
daniel
honshu
from
the
nevada
policy
research
institute
intended
to
provide
testimony-
I
don't
know-
and
I
believe
he
is-
has
joined
us
via
zoom.
I
don't
know
if
you'd
like
him
to
do
so
now
or
wait
until
we
get
to
the
the
that
that
portion.
A
No
perfect,
we
can
have
him
join
us
now
and
we'll
open
it
up
for
those
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
340.
N
Thank
you,
chair
flores,
vice
chair
torres
for
the
record
daniel
honcheru,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
policy
research
institute.
Npri
strongly
supports
ab340
and
urges
each
member
of
this
committee
to
do
the
same.
This
bill
from
a
taxpayer's
perspective
is
desperately
needed.
The
status
quo
suffers
from
a
lack
of
legislative
oversight
regarding
some
of
us
regarding
some
of
our
state's
most
costly
expenditures.
N
Assemblyman
matthew's
proposal
seeks
to
remedy
this
by
prohibiting
state
agencies
from
implement
from
implementing
the
most
costly
of
these
measures
unilaterally,
essentially
injecting
a
legislative
and
gubernatorial
check
against
an
ever
expanding
administrative
state
by
requiring
both
the
legislatures
and
the
governor's
explicit
authorization
of
any
regulatory
appropriation
in
excess
of
10
million
dollars.
This
bill
will
curb
the
rate
at
which
the
administrative
state
has
grown
in
recent
years
and
promote
cost
efficient
solutions,
while,
unfortunately,
the
federally
the
federally
proposed
rains
act
after
which
ap
340
is
modeled,
has
not
been
enacted.
N
The
state
of
wisconsin
has
implemented
its
own
rains
act
in
2017..
In
other
words,
this
concept
is
neither
novel
nor
untested
government
has
a
fundamental
obligation
to
its
taxpayers
to
limit
wasteful
and
unaccountable
spending
wherever
possible.
Av-340
simply
provides
an
appropriate
tool
for
that
purpose.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
Again,
I
am
looking
through
to
our
signed
in
folk
to
ensure
that
none
of
you
were
hoping
to
testify
and
support.
I
don't
believe
we
have
anybody
else.
So
at
this
time,
broadcast
will
go
to
those
on
the
phone
line
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
book
reform.
O
O
K
A-L-E-X-I-S-M-O-T-A-R-E-X
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada,
we
are
here
in
support
of
ab340
as
an
industry
that
is
heavily
regulated.
We
believe
it
is
solid
public
policy
to
have
a
better
understanding
of
the
economic
impact
regulations
will
have
on
private
industry
and
government
agencies.
K
Over
burdensome
regulations
can
be
costly
to
business
owners
which
directly
impacts
their
ability
to
grow
and
hire
employees.
A
thoughtful
analysis
on
the
cost
of
implementation,
or
possibly
where
savings
may
be
realized,
would
be
benefic
beneficial
to
both
governmental
agencies
and
private
industry.
We
appreciate
assembling
matthews,
bringing
this
forward.
O
K
K
Therefore,
it
is
only
appropriate.
The
cost
of
regulations
exceeding
10
million
dollars
be
reviewed
before
implementation
by
the
governor,
who
submits
the
budget
and
the
legislature
which
approves
them.
The
high
cost
of
government
regulations
implemented
by
unelected
government
agencies
are
part
of
the
hidden
taxes
which
drive
up
the
cost
of
doing
business
and
therefore
drive
up
costs
to
all
consumers.
K
Regulations
are
one
of
the
main
drivers
of
these
hidden
taxes.
According
to
the
institute
for
policy
innovation
in
the
united
states,
the
total
u.s
tax
burden,
including
federal
state
and
local
taxes,
and
hidden
taxes,
these
equal
to
56
of
annual
personal
consumption
spending,
in
other
words
taxes
consume
56
of
all
the
average
person
spends.
There
are
many
hidden
taxes.
Regulations
are
a
major
part.
My
brother
had
a
roofing
company
in
sparks.
He
would
tell
people
if
the
roof
would
cost
ten
thousand
dollars.
That
half
of
that
was
in
taxes,
fees
and
regulations.
K
E
O
D
Barry
excuse
me
barry
duncan
b-a-r-r-y-d-u-n-c-a-n,
mr
chairman
members
of
the
committee
barry
duncan
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
taxpayers
association.
We
call
in
support
of
ab340
and
the
concept
of
conducting
economic
analysis
on
regulations.
D
Should
the
committee
opt
to
move
the
bill
forward,
we
we
stand
prepared
to
work
with
the
sponsor
the
committee,
members
and
other
stakeholders
on
any
amendments
that
may
be
considered
for
the
legislation.
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
We'll
continue
on
with
the
next
caller
in
support
of
assembly
bill
340.
O
K
L-Y-N-N-C-H-A-P-M-A-N
are
in
support
of
ab340.
Taxpayers
should
expect
accountability
and
responsibility
in
their
government,
but
unfortunately
that
doesn't
seem
to
always
happen.
We
hear
the
words
transparency
in
government
a
lot,
but
I
don't
think
we
really
see
it
as
much
as
we
hear
of
it.
People
are
becoming
more
wary
of
regulations.
K
After
all,
we
are
the
ones
who
are
greatly
impacted
by
the
regulations
themselves.
Regulations
should
be
scrutinized
closely,
especially
when
it
concerns
large
amounts
of
money
attached
to
them.
Citizens
need
accountability,
responsibility
and
transparency,
and
that
should
not
be
too
much
to
expect
from
our
government.
O
E
D
E
E
A
O
D
Thank
you.
It's
wiz
rizard
w,
I
z,
r,
o,
u
z,
a
r
d,
calling
the
alpha
americans
for
prosperity,
nevada.
As
the
director
of
grassroots
operations.
D
I
asked
to
support
ab340,
see,
there's
a
quote
saying:
seeing
is
believing
and
as
much
as
everybody
is
shared
here,
transparency
is
key
and
making
sure
that
government
is
operating
rightfully
to
and
for
the
people
and
there's
no
better
way
to
make
sure
of
that
than
to
support
ab-340
and
making
sure
that
anything
above
10
million
dollars
is
assessed
diligently
so
that
we,
the
taxpayers
the
constituents,
are
able
to
see
what
it
is
our
government
spending.
So
we
can
direct
to
our
lawmakers.
D
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
E
Hi
this
is
luis
vega,
I'm
calling
on
behalf
of
concerned
veterans
for
america.
I
am
actually
calling
in
support
of
the
reigns
act.
I
just
believe
this
is
not
just
going
to
help
veterans,
but
overall,
it's
a
tie
that
lifts
all
boats
in
regards
to
giving
the
voters
more
say.
This
reform
is
forward-looking.
It
not
only
applies,
or
I
mean
it
only
applies
to
any
proposals,
so
this
gives
lawmakers
the
opportunity
to
prevent
the
implementation
of
overly
burdensome
regulations.
E
O
F
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
and
I'll,
be
very,
very
brief,
and
I
appreciate
all
the
time
a
lot
to
this
by
you
and
the
committee
this
morning,
just
like
to
mention
in
closing
that
regulations
can
and
often
do
have
a
profound
impact
on
our
communities,
including
our
businesses,
our
job
creators
and
our
workers.
In
many
cases,
those
regulations
may
well
be
justified,
but
before
we
put
them
in
place,
it's
important
that
we
first
take
the
steps
to
understand
what
precisely
that
impact
will
be
when
the
impact
is
especially
significant.
F
P
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
howard
watts
representing
assembly
district
15
in
clark
county
and
I'm
glad
to
present
assembly
bill
378
for
your
consideration
today
on
behalf
of
the
hard-working
committee
on
natural
resources,
with
the
chair's
indulgence
I'll,
provide
brief
background
for
the
measure
before
stepping
through
the
sections
of
the
bill,
after
which
I'll
stand
for
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have.
I
also
want
to
just
bring
to
the
committee's
awareness.
P
I
was
having
conversations
with
some
of
the
interested
parties
on
this
and
compiled
a
conceptual
amendment
which
I
sent
to
all
the
members
late
last
night.
So
I
will
be
referencing
that
as
well
and
apologies
for
not
getting
it
out
sooner
to
understand
assembly
build
378.
P
I
first
have
to
provide
a
little
bit
of
context
about
the
sagebrush
rebellion.
This
was
a
movement
that
started
in
the
1970s
in
the
western
united
states
that
objected
to
the
federal
management
of
our
public
lands
and
sought
significant
mass
scale
transfers
of
management
authority,
if
not
an
outright
transfer
of
ownership
to
state
and
local
governments.
P
P
In
conversations
with
others,
I
understood
that
a
few
of
these
proposed
changes
swing
a
little
too
far
in
the
opposite
direction,
and
after
talking
with
our
division
of
state
lands
and
representatives
from
eureka
county,
I've
proposed
an
amendment
that
I'll
I'll
walk.
You
through
eureka
county's
also
submitted
a
letter
of
opposition
and
a
proposed
amendment.
I
did
not
accept
all
of
their
proposed
changes,
but
I
do
appreciate
their
feedback
and
will
remain
in
conversation
to
make
sure
that
we
get
this
too
to
a
balanced,
reasonable
place.
P
First,
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
start
with.
What's
not
in
the
bill,
I
direct
your
attention
to
section
14,
which
notes
the
sections
of
statute
that
are
being
repealed.
The
first
legislative
declaration
signals
that
is
reference
signals.
P
The
intent
of
the
state
to
seek
the
acquisition
of
any
lands
managed
by
the
federal
government
in
the
state
chapter
321.596
through
599
declares
federal
management
of
public
lands
at
hardship,
gives
the
state
claims
to
give
the
state
management
authority
over
these
lands
and
creates
the
board
of
review
as
a
regulatory
and
appeals
body
for
these
decisions,
a
table
of
boards
and
commissions,
that's
prepared
and
provided
for
the
sunset
committee
of
the
legislature
indicates
that
no
recent
meetings
have
been
held
of
the
border
review
and
notes
that
in
2015
lcb
legal
questioned
the
constitutionality
of
these
statutes,
nrs
321.601
created
a
public
land
trust
fund
to
handle
payments
and
following
a
massive
land
transfer
from
the
federal
government.
P
The
amendment
that
I
have
provided
clarifies
this
by
adding
the
word
disposal
back
in,
but
not
having
selection
and
disposal
be
the
only
pieces
of
language,
including
management
as
well
sections
two
and
three
of
the
bill
eliminate
language
related
to
the
designation
of
areas
of
critical
environmental
concern.
P
These
state
acecs
are
a
separate
designation
from
those
who
are
familiar
with
federal
areas
of
critical
environmental
concern,
and
this
statute
hasn't
been
used
by
the
state
since
enactment,
however,
in
conversations
with
stakeholders,
there
is
interest
in
in
putting
this
authority
to
use.
So
my
proposed
amendment
leaves
this
language
in
place.
It
undues
that
it
undoes
the
changes
that
are
proposed
in
the
original
bill.
P
Section
5
is
simplifying
language
regarding
the
state's
technical
assistance
to
local
governments,
and
my
proposed
amendment
changes
the
shall
to
may,
because
this
work
is
dependent
upon
available
resources.
So,
as
amended,
it
provides
broad
statutory
authority
for
the
division
of
state
lands
to
provide
technical
assistance
requested
by
local
governments
depending
on
available
resources.
P
Section
6
deletes
language,
promoting
the
increased
local
management
of
public
lands.
Section
7
removes
the
requirement
that
the
state
include
local
comments
in
any
comments
it
makes
to
the
federal
government,
though
it
would
not
be
precluded
from
doing
so,
it
would
just
become
optional
section.
8
removes
language,
prioritizing
the
acquisition
of
federally
managed
lands
and
eliminates
language
around
planning
that
I
had
originally
interpreted
as
dictating
federal
land
use
plans.
P
Section
10
removes
another
unconstitutional
provision
requiring
the
federal
government
to
seek
consent
to
manage
lands
in
the
state
and
section
13
adds
the
previously
deleted
definition
of
public
lands,
I.e
blm
lands
to
chapter
487
where
it
is
referenced
for
statutes
related
to
abandoned
vehicles,
but
I
am
going
to
do
some
additional
research
and
see
if
that
definition
should
be
modified
further.
P
In
summary,
assembly
bill
378
streamlines
our
state
statutes
by
removing
language
that
is
unconstitutional
and
and
eliminating
accounts
and
bodies
that
have
never
been
utilized.
In
doing
so,
it
promotes
the
responsible
and
collaborative
management
of
public
lands
in
our
great
state.
I
ask
for
your
support
and
with
that
I
conclude
my
presentation
and
we'll
take
any
questions.
The
committee
may
have.
A
Thank
you
assemblyman
and
appreciate
you
walking
us
through
the
sections
to
help
us
grasp
what's
happening
members
at
this
time,
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions.
I
am
now
looking
through
the
chat.
C
Mr
chair
born
and
raised
in
rural
nevada
all
my
life-
and
this
is
probably
the
worst
bill
I
ever
seen
of
a
taking
and
I'm
hoping
that
the
the
sponsors
of
this
bill
will
take
a
look
at
it.
But
I
this
is
a
bill
that
if
it's
crossed
the
line
and
I've
been
involved
and
remember
when
the
sagebrush
rebellion
was
there
also
remember
when
the
taking
in
south
canyon
road.
A
P
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
and
assemblyman
ellison
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
I
just
say
that
I
respectfully
disagree.
This
is
not
takings.
This
is
clarifying
existing
authority
where
the
federal
government
manages
our
our
public
lands,
it
is
not
seeking
to
reduce
the
role
of
local
feedback
and
participation
in
those
processes
that
occurs
to
this
day.
P
So
if
you
have,
if
the
assemblyman
ellison
has
specific
recommendations
as
eureka
county
did
and
which
I
incorporated
in
the
proposed
conceptual
amendment,
I'm
I'm
more
than
interested
in
in
seeing
those.
However,
I
just
will
note
that,
when
nevada
entered
statehood,
title
to
most
of
these
lands
was
transferred
to
the
federal
government
for
management
for
future
generations.
A
Thank
you
both
next
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
anderson.
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you,
mr
assembly
member
watts,
for
bringing
forward
the
bill.
I
have
two
questions.
The
first
is
on
section
five.
The
language
is
being
removed
for
section
5.2.
L
Does
this
mean
that
these
activities
will
no
longer
be,
will
no
longer
be
a
consideration
of
this?
The
state
land
use
planning
agency,
or
does
this
mean
that
it
will
be
transferred
over
to
a
different
agency
to
or
entity
to
oversee
these
items?
And
that's
my
first
question.
I've
got
a
second
one.
It's
in
a
different
section.
P
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
anderson,
howard
watts,
to
the
record.
Essentially
under
the
proposed
conceptual
amendment
section
5,
subsection
2
will
read
the
state
land
use
planning
agency
may
provide
technical
assistance
to
a
county
or
city
in
areas
where
such
assistance
is
requested.
P
P
What
we
did
was
just
simplify
this,
so,
instead
of
designating
in
statute
particular
priorities,
we
maintain
the
authority
for
the
division
of
state
lands,
which
is
our
planning
agency,
to
provide
technical
assistance
to
local
governments
in
the
in
any
areas
where
that
assistance
is
requested,
as
long
as
they
have
the
resources
to
do
so.
So
the
intent
is
really
to
streamline,
on
this
section
not
to
create
a
functional
change.
L
That's
why
I
thought
that
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
about
that.
Thank
you
for
that
answer
and
then
section
seven
wait.
Let
me
share
with
section
seven.
So
sorry,
oh
no
section,
seven
section!
Eight
excuse
me,
I
don't
know
how
to
use
my
numbers.
I
guess
section.
Eight
subsection
two
is
that
the
same
reasoning
for
for
removing
the
language
of
of
considering
these
items
is
that
the
same
reasoning
was
just
to
try
to
streamline
it
or
is
it
addressed
in
other
statutes
or
codes.
P
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
anderson
for
the
record
howard
watts.
The
reason
for
addressing
the
language
in
subsection
two
of
section
eight
was
that
in
preparing
the
plans
or
statements
of
policy,
the
state
land
use,
planning,
authority
or
agency
was
required
to
identify
land
suitable
for
acquisition.
P
P
We
are
keeping
the
final
element
of
that
subsection
in
the
proposed
amendment,
which
is
that
those
plans
must
not
include
matters
concerning
zoning
or
the
division
of
land
and
must
be
consistent
with
local
plans
to
ensure
that
there's
not
conflict
between
what
the
state
land
use
planning
agency
is
putting
forward
and
local
plans.
L
Thank
you
so
much
for
that
clarification,
because
there's
no
way
I
would
have
been
able
to
to
make
the
connection
of
of
how
this
was
allowing
the
the
county
plans
to
take
precedence
over
the
state
land
use
plan.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that
clarification
and
thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
next,
we'll
go
to
assemblywoman
dickman.
J
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
appreciate
the
opportunity
and
thank
you
assemblyman
watts.
My
question
is
just
about
you
talked
about.
Was
it
section
321
is
unconstitutional?
Is
it?
Is
it
the
nevada's
constitution
that
is
unconstitutional
or
federally?
Could
you
just
expand
a
little
bit
on
that
and
maybe
explain
why
it's
unconstitutional.
P
Certainly,
thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
dickman
for
the
record
howard
watts.
I
was
referring
to
specific
sections
of
statute
within
chapter
321
of
the
nevada,
revised
statute.
P
In
particular,
I
referenced
in
my
remarks
at
the
repealed
sections,
particularly
sections
596
through
five
sub.
I
guess
sections
596
through
599
of
chapter
321,
which
established
the
board
of
review
and
essentially
create
statutes
dictating
to
the
federal
government
how
management
actions
would
occur
and
requiring
consent
from
the
state
for
any
federal
land
management
activity
to
occur.
That
is
unconstitutional
because
those
lands
are
held
by
the
people
of
the
united
states
and
managed
by
the
federal
government.
P
P
There
are
multiple
ways
where
local
and
state
entities
can
participate
in
the
the
land
planning
development
process,
but
we
do
not
have
final
say
veto
power,
the
ability
to
give
consent
for
any
decision
that
the
federal
government
makes
on
its
land
use
decisions.
P
So
we
essentially
have
a
role
of
providing
feedback,
providing
advice
and
then,
in
certain
areas
we
do
have
some
some
leeway,
but
we
do
not
get
a
blanket
say
over
how
to
manage
lands
that
are
not
owned
by
state
or
local
governments.
P
A
O
K
K
K
K
This
bill
will
eliminate
existing
unconstitutional
and
anti-public
land
provisions
in
law
and
better
align
the
roles
and
responsibilities
of
the
division
of
state
lands.
There
have
been
numerous
efforts
in
the
past
to
seize
federal
lands
and
transfer
ownership
to
the
state
or
local
government,
which
would
have
created
negative
impacts
on
conservation
and
public
access.
K
Nevadans
are
lucky
to
have
access
to
public
lands.
The
state
does
not
have
the
financial
resources
to
effectively
manage
these
lands,
and
any
large-scale
transfer
will
result
in
more
privatization
of
these
public
resources.
Thanks
for
your
time,
hard
work
and
dedication
to
the
citizens
of
nevada
and
we
hope
you'll
vote
in
favor
of
ab378.
Thank
you.
O
D
Hello,
my
name
is
kyle
davis,
that's
k-y-l-e,
d-a-v-I-s,
and
I'm
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league,
the
nevada
conservation
league
is
in
support
of
ab378.
The
bill
removes
several
outdated
and
unconstitutional
sections
of
state
law
relating
to
public
lands.
Nevadans
overwhelmingly
support
our
public
lands
and
want
to
see
them
kept
open
to
the
public
and
conserved
for
future
generations.
D
In
the
past,
our
state
has
attempted
to
seize
federal
public
lands
and
transfer
ownership
to
the
state.
The
simple
fact
is
that
nevada
does
not
have
the
money
or
the
expertise
to
manage
these
lands,
and
the
ultimate
outcome
would
have
been
to
either
bankrupt
the
state
or
sell
these
lands
into
private
hands.
D
O
Q
Q
This
bill
cleans
up
a
lot
of
unnecessary
and
unconstitutional
language,
as
currently
in
nevada,
and
has
been
shown
time
and
time
again
that
states
do
not
have
the
financial
or
the
human
personnel
capacity
to
manage
all
of
the
land
in
nevada.
If
a
federal
transfer
were
to
happen,
and
that
is
why
the
nevada
wildlife
federation
is
in
support
of
ab378.
O
O
O
R
You
I'm
jake
tibbetts,
that's
j-a-k-e-t-I-b-b
itts
and
I'm
the
eureka
county,
natural
resources
manager
representing
eureka
county,
so
chairman
flores
and
members
of
the
assembly
government
affairs
committee.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
share
our
view
on
ab378.
Eureka
county
opposes
ab
378.
As
written
we've
provided
more
detailed
written
testimony.
That's
on
nellis.
We
do
appreciate
the
discussions
with
the
sponsor
assemblyman
watts,
and
the
conceptual
amendment
put
forward
addresses
many
of
our
concerns.
R
While
we
understand
the
angst
many
have
in
the
current
statutory
language
related
to
the
state
policy
on
public
lands,
it
is
crucial
to
retain
certain
provisions
being
proposed
for
change
or
removal.
We've
included
a
potential
amendment
in
our
written
testimony.
The
amendment
is
intended
to
restore
the
crucial
elements:
the
related
role
of
the
state
land
use
planning,
agency,
related
to
assistance
to
counties
and
public
land
use
and
management.
R
It's
also
meant
to
honor
the
intent
to
shift
from
the
current
focus
of
transfer
and
control
over
public
lands
by
amending
to
instead
endorse
state
and
county
coordination
and
engagement
on
public
land
use,
planning
management
and
administration
as
the
state
with
the
largest
federal
land
holding
in
the
u.s.
It's
crucial
that
the
state
continue
to
have
strong
policy
in
place
to
ensure
county's
voice
and
local
communities
and
voice
in
public
land
use,
planning
and
management
are
not
diminished.
R
These
coordination
and
consistency
requirements
are
absolutely
imperative
to
providing
that
what
I
call
a
healthy
tension
and
balance
that
gives
the
necessary
recognition,
consideration
and
incorporation
of
state
and
local
interests.
The
legislature
should
ensure
that
nevada
law
has
policy
in
place.
Recognizing
this,
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
find
common
ground
on
ab378
with
the
sponsors
and
other
interested
parties.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
And
thank
you
next
caller
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
378.
O
K
Good
morning
this
is
janine
hansen
state,
president
of
nevada
families
for
freedom.
We
oppose
ab
340.
The
battle
to
obtain
control
of
nevada's
land
by
nevada
has
been
going
on.
For
decades.
I
participated
in
the
sagebrush
rebellion.
This
blows
up
the
sagebrush
rebellion.
The
control
of
nevada's
lands
by
the
federal
government
is
unconstitutional.
K
In
article
1,
section
7
clause,
17
of
the
u.s
constitution.
It
states
congress
shall
exercise
like
authority
over
all
places
purchased
by
the
consent
of
the
legislature
of
the
state
in
which
the
same
shall
be
for
the
erection
of
forks
magazines,
arsenal,
dockyards
and
other
needful
buildings,
not
to
control
the
whole
state
of
nevada.
87
nevada
has
an
extraordinary
burden
of
more
than
87
percent
of
our
land
controlled
by
the
feds.
No
state
east
of
the
mississippi
has
more
than
four
percent
controlled
by
the
feds.
Why?
K
K
We
have
been
threatened
by
wildfires
repeatedly
in
the
last
15
years
since
I've
been
there
fires
coming
within
a
mile
of
my
home,
the
feds
ignore
local
people
and
their
representatives,
the
county
commissioners,
when
the
blm
and
forest
service
were
planning
to
close
many
roads
which
had
been
open
in
elko
county
for
over
100
years.
The
feds
listened
to
the
objections
of
the
county
and
the
people
and
then
did
exactly
what
they
wanted.
They
completely
ignored
the
concerns
of
the
people.
They
don't
care
what
we
think
they
don't
care.
K
What
our
needs
are
they
don't
care
about
the
need
to
use
some
of
the
resources
of
our
own
state
in
elko
county.
We
try
to
participate.
They
don't
want
to
cooperate
with
us.
It's
absurd
to
assume
they
do
if
you've
never
been
a
part
of
this.
We
object
to
this
bill
as
destroying
our
heritage
of
the
sagebrush
rebellion
and
destroying
the
statement
that
nevada
should
have
our
lands
back,
not
controlled
by
the
federal
government.
K
A
Oh
thank
you
assemblywoman
and
thank
you
we'll
go
to
the
next
caller
wishing
to
testify
in
opposition
to
assembly
bill
378.
O
R
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
colby
prout,
ceo
p-r-o-u-t,
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
the
nevada
association
of
counties
and
that
nako's
members
are
all
17
of
nevada's
counties.
R
First
naked
would
like
to
thank
assembling
watts
for
his
work
on
this
bill
and
taking
the
time
to
meet
with
us
and
hear
concerns
and
as
well
as
his
willingness
to
put
forward
a
conceptual
amendment
which
we
appreciate.
Looking
looking
over
and
continuing
to
work
on
with
him.
R
To
that
end,
requiring
the
state
ladies
planning
agency,
to
include
comments
of
the
affected
counties
in
their
own
comments
submitted
to
the
federal
government,
encourages
cooperation
and
coordination
through
all
levels
of
the
planning
and
regulatory
process,
because
so
much
of
nevada's
lands
is
managed
by
the
federal
government
in
some
counties
over
90
percent.
This
coordination
and
cooperation
is
oftentimes.
R
The
most
the
county
can
hope
for
going
forward.
We
hope
that
sloopa's
role
in
advancing
county
plans
and
priorities
forward
can
be
retained
and
continue
to
provide
support.
That's
become
so
important
to
so
many
of
nevada's
counties.
Again.
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you
to
the
sponsor
for
for
working
with
us
going
forward
on
the
balanced
approach
to
this
bill.
O
O
S
Good
morning,
chairman
flores
and
committee
members,
I
am
charlie
donahue
donahue
d-o-n-o-h-u-e,
and
I
served
as
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
state
lands.
The
division
of
state
lands
is
neutral
on
assembly
bill
378.
However,
we
are
concerned
that
the
bill,
as
currently
worded,
could
result
in
some
fiscal
impacts
and
unintended
negative
policy
consequences
as
background.
S
A
recent
example
is
when
the
nevada
division
of
forestry
shifted
from
an
all-risk
program
to
a
more
focused
wildland
fire
protection
program.
This
shift,
which,
which
was
supported
by
the
legislature,
required
the
disposal
and
transfer
of
a
number
of
ndf
fire
stations
from
the
state
to
local
governments
to
fold
into
their
programs.
S
This
is
not
a
unique
example.
As
over
the
years,
the
state
has
transferred
properties
originally
acquired
from
the
federal
government
to
local
governments
in
order
to
most
efficiently
serve
the
public.
As
such,
we
are
concerned
that
striking
the
word
dispose
at
the
very
beginning
of
the
bill,
removes
the
necessary
and
essential
tool
for
a
land
office.
S
Requiring
the
agency
to
provide
planning
assistance
whenever
requested
is
beyond
the
agency's
staffing
and
budget
capacity
and
will
require
an
additional
staff
person
with
the
appropriate
operating
budget.
Ndsl
has
assembled
and
provided
the
information
to
lcp
fiscal
staff,
and
I
believe
the
approximate
dollar
value
is
143
000
per
year.
S
The
agency
has
identified
two
state
properties
worthy
of
that
designation
and
the
additional
protection
it
may
afford.
As
I
testified
during
that
hearing,
I
believe
the
council
has
both
the
technical
expertise
and
political
wherewithal
to
evaluate
a
proposal
before
them
provide
for
public
participation
through
noticing
in
workshops
and
make
a
final
recommendation
to
the
governor.
S
Mr
chairman,
I'd
like
to
recognize
assemblyman
watts,
opening
comments
regarding
his
conceptual
amendment,
and
I
appreciate
his
time
yesterday
to
discuss
this
bill.
I
would
be
more
than
willing
to
work
with
the
assemblyman
and
his
staff
on
the
conceptual
amendments
he
discussed.
Thank
you,
chair,
flores
and
committee
members.
I
would
happy
I
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
of
your
questions
or
other
committee
members
might
have.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
I
don't
see
any
thank
you
again,
we'll
go
to
the
next
caller
wishing
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position.
P
Yes,
thank
you
very
much,
mr
chair
again,
I
want
to
appreciate
the
comments
that
were
provided
in
opposition
and
neutral.
P
P
My
understanding
is
that
the
the
contents
of
that
proposed
amendment,
including
adding
the
word
disposal
back
into
section,
one
changing
the
shell
to
may
in
section
five
and
restoring
the
reference
to
plans
throughout
the
bill
address
most
of,
if
not
all,
of
the
substantial
concerns
about
the
bill
and
maintain
state
and
local
governments
ability
to
participate
in
collaborative
land
management
planning
with
the
federal
government
if
any
additional
adjustments
are
needed.
I
look
forward
to
working
those
out
and
bringing
them
back
to
the
committee
for
consideration
in
a
work
session.
P
Our
our
first
and
founding
document,
the
third
item
listed
in
that
ordinance,
is
that
the
people
inhabiting
said
territory
do
agree
and
declare
that
they
forever
disclaim
all
right
and
title
to
the
unappropriated
public
lands
lying
within
said
territory
and
that
the
same
shall
be
and
remain
at
the
sole
and
entire
disposition
of
the
united
states
and
that
lands
belonging
to
citizens
of
the
united
states
residing
without
the
said
state
shall
never
be
taxed
higher
than
the
land
belonging
to
the
residents
thereof,
and
so
on.
P
P
A
And
thank
you
assemblyman
for
that
presentation.
I'm
sure
that
you
will
work
with
the
opposition
and
continue
to
answer
some
of
the
concerns
they've
raised
and
I
encourage
the
opposition
reach
out
to
him
and
I'm
sure
that
you
all
could
have
a
round
table.
So
thank
you
at
this
time
I'll
go
ahead
and
close
out
the
hearing
assembly
build
378
and
next
we'll
go
to
assembly
bill.
249,
assemblywoman,
howdy,
welcome.
M
Thank
you
so
much
chair,
flores
vice
chair
torres
and
members
of
government
affairs
committee.
It's
so
nice
to
be
back
with
you
guys
in
front
of
you
guys
to
present
a
bill
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblywoman
sandra
haudegee,
proudly
presenting
assembly
district
41,
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
assembly
bill
249
for
your
consideration
in
2019.
M
I
worked
on
a
bill
with
the
very
same
people
at
this
virtual
table
here
with
me
today.
Our
mission
in
2019
was
creating
a
safer
work
environment
on
construction
sites.
We
were
successful
in
passing
ab290,
which
created
the
osha
registry
to
help
combat
the
growing
problem
of
fraudulent
osha
car.
We
are
here
before
the
same
committee,
again
tackling
a
new
and
growing
problem
on
construction
sites,
one
less
tangible,
the
problem
of
heat
exhaustion
and
heat
stroke.
M
M
The
risks
are
obvious
when
these
individuals
are
working
with
hammers
power
saws,
nail
guns,
welding
and
propane
torches
and
doing
so
suspended
several
stories
in
the
air
or
on
the
roof
of
a
home.
While
everyone
is
effective,
cement
masons
are
most
at
risk.
They
are
10
times
more
likely
to
die
than
the
average
construction
worker,
followed
by
roofers,
who
are
seven
times
more
likely
to
die
than
the
average
construction
worker.
M
According
to
the
federal
agency
national
institute
for
occupational
safety
and
health,
one
of
the
most
effective
ways
to
combat
this
is
to
schedule
higher
risk
jobs
for
cooler
parts
of
the
day,
and
that
is
exactly
what
ab249
aims
to
do.
With
your
permission
chair.
I
would
now
like
to
walk
the
members
through
the
bill
you
should
have.
You
should
have
all
received
the
proposed
amendment
on
nellis,
where
I
am.
M
So
if
a
city
start
time
is
7,
am
then
a
cic
must
allow
work
in
their
community
to
begin.
At
the
same
time,
this
bill
is
just
the
start
of
a
conversation
that
I
look
forward
to
having
during
the
interim
to
address
this
issue.
Other
cities
and
counties
and
other
states
with
similar
weather
have
already
recognized
this
problem
and
passed
local
ordinances
allowing
for
5
am
start
times
during
the
extremely
hot
summer
months.
M
Here,
with
your
permission,
I
would
now
like
to
turn
it
over
to
victoria
carrion,
with
a
division
of
industrial
relations,
osha
department,
to
speak
about
the
issue
and
growing
number
of
complaints
that
their
office
is
receiving,
followed
by
kelly
gaines.
The
president
of
the
nevada
subcontractors
association.
T
M
T
So
to
address
this,
since
this
is
a
concern
of
our
agency
as
well,
we
do
have
a
proposed
regulation
that
we
have
been
working
on.
We
held
a
workshop
on
it
on
march
4th
and
the
adoption
hearing
will
be
held
on
april
20th,
so
it
requires
employers
with
employees
subject
to
certain
high
temperatures
to
do
the
following
and
I'll.
T
Then
the
regulation
would
require
the
employer
to
relieve
the
employee
from
duty,
provide
the
employee
with
sufficient
means
to
reduce
their
body
temperature
and
monitor
the
employee
to
determine
whether
medical
attention
is
necessary.
So
that
concludes
my
my
remarks
and
we
are
happy
to
be
of
assistance
in
helping
be
a
compliment
to
ab249.
Thank
you.
M
Thank
you
so
much
miss
carrion
for
being
here
today.
Chair
with
your
permission,
I
would
like
to
go
to
miss
kelly
gaines
next.
B
Good
morning,
chairman
flores
and
vice
chair
torres
and
committee
members
for
the
record,
my
name
is
kelly.
Gaines,
I'm
the
president
of
the
nevada
subcontractors
association.
I
am
here
alongside
virtually
with
assemblywoman
haudegee
and
victoria,
in
support
of
av-249,
the
nevada
subcontractors
association
represent
150
residential
contractors,
subcontractors,
construction,
vendors
and
suppliers
and
businesses
alike.
These
companies
employ
ten
thousands
upon
thousands
of
southern
nevada
residents
for
us.
Our
number
one
priority
in
the
construction
space
is
to
create
and
adhere
to
safety
standards
to
protect
employees
and
still
have
a
positive
impact
in
our
economic
development.
B
So
that's
kind
of
concludes
really
what
I
have,
but
I'll
still
be
on
the
call
for
any
questions.
So
I
just
wanted
to
thank
you
guys
for
hearing
that.
M
Thank
you,
chair
flores.
We
are
now
ready
for
questions.
I
did
want
to
point
out
that
we
did
work
with
local
governments
and
one
of
the
reasons
we
restructured
the
bill.
M
This
way
is
that
throughout
nevada,
some
local
governments
don't
have
restrictions
on
start
times
and
constructions,
and
some
do
and
that's
why
this
is
something
that
I'd
like
to
continue
the
conversation
on
moving
moving
forward
into
the
interim,
with
our
virtual
setting
it
just
kind
of
made
it
difficult
to
do
it
during
this
legislative
session,
but
something
that
I
do
want
to
work
on
during
the
minimum
interim
and
what
I
feel
that
ab249
accomplishes
is
that
lisa
gets
the
needle
moving
so
that
during
the
interim
during
the
next
few
summer
months,
construction
workers
can
get
the
earlier
start
times
in
the
local
governments.
M
Where
start
times
could
be
7
a.m
or
6
a.m,
without
without
the
restrictions
of
cics,
where
they
might
say.
You
know,
construction
can't
start
here
until
nine.
Well,
if
you
know
if
a
crew
is
getting
there
at
night
to
set
up
in
august
and
they're,
not
starting
on
the
roof
until
10
a.m,
after
they're
fully
set
up,
we
all
know
that
at
10
a.m.
M
In
august,
in
las
vegas,
we
can
already
be
facing
temperatures
in
the
triple
digits,
and
so
my
my
intent
with
carrying
ab249
has
always
just
been
from
a
viewpoint
of
worker
safety
and
making
sure
that
we
are
providing
the
safest
work
environment
for
all
nevadans
throughout
the
state.
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
and
appreciate
your
work
on
this
bill
with
that,
we'll
open
it
up
to
questions
and
we'll
start
with
our
very
passionate
assemblymen
ellison.
Please.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
miss
haddagey.
I
I
really
like
the
bill
yeah
and
as
we're
we're
down
visiting
las
vegas.
I
couldn't
believe
some
of
the
people
working
in
that
that
heat,
but
in
in
rural
nevada,
you
know
our
our
construction
season
is
totally
different
than
in
southern
nevada
versus
northern
nevada.
C
Is
we
have
harsh
winters,
so
sometimes
we've
got
to
get
in
and
get
a
lot
of
this
work
done
and
the
seven
o'clock
a.m
and
on
a
lot
of
these
projects,
I
think,
is
great
because
a
lot
of
people
say
don't
come
in,
but
I
think
that's
a
great
idea
the,
but
with
this
gonna
stay
for
northern,
this
will
be
the
whole
state.
Laws
is
attended
right
now.
Is
that
correct.
C
Okay-
and
we
appreciate
it-
we
don't
have
the
the
heat
that
you
have
in
that
in
the
summer
months
and
in
in
our
business,
where
you're
handling,
conduit
and
stuff
you
know
down
in
vegas.
I
don't
know
how
they
do
that
without
gloves,
because
I
tell
you
what
it's
it's
miserable
in
a
couple
of
the
months
where
we
have
maybe
100
100
at
the
worst
conditions
at
most
times
in
in
the
summer.
So
I
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
bringing
the
bill.
A
A
O
O
D
D
Nico
specifically
wants
to
thank
seminole
and
for
working
with
local
government
stakeholders
and
understanding
our
perspective
and
presenting
this
amendment
that
recognizes
the
importance
of
each
community
deciding
at
the
local
level
what
works
best.
So
thank
you,
mr
chair,
for
allowing
me
to
testify
on
ab249.
A
O
Q
Good
morning,
mr
chair
committee,
members,
my
name
is
matt
walker,
m-a-t-t
w-a-l-k-e-r
and
I'm
pleased
to
be
calling
in
in
support
of
assembly
bill
249
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
home
builders.
This
morning,
as
the
sponsor
mentioned
reasonable
and
predictable
start
times
are
an
important
protection
for
worker
safety.
Q
This
bill
recognizes
that
there
are
several
components
to
what
constitutes
those
start
times.
We
think
this
is
a
great
start
to
the
conversation
and,
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
the
sponsor
and
the
continued
conversation
in
the
nrm.
Q
In
addition
to
what's
already
been
placed
on
the
record
about
worker
safety,
there's
also
some
tasks
that
can't
be
performed
like
concrete
pours
and
air
conditioning,
recharge
air
conditioning
charge,
coolant
charge
in
high
heat
environments
and
so
having
that
reasonable
start
time
isn't
just
super
important
for
worker
safety,
but
also
for
achieving
the
tasks
within
manufacturer's
specifications
as
we
need
to
during
the
course
of
standard
construction
projects,
so
again,
really
positive
conversation
and
look
forward
to
continued
evolution
of
these
proposals.
Thank
you.
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
this
morning.
Next,
caller
in
support
of
assembly
bill
249.
O
S
Good
morning
my
name
is
jordan:
crainbull
j-o-r-d-a-n,
k-r-a
h-e-n-b-u-h-l.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
plumbing
heating
cooling
contractors
of
nevada.
I
am
speaking
in
favor
of
ab249
this
bill
and
allowing
earlier
start
times
is
goes
a
long
way
to
protect
our
workers.
Many
times
our
workers
are
out
in
the
expo,
sunlight
doing
undergrounds
and
getting
on
roofs
things
like
that,
so
we
we
are
in
favor
of
this
bill
and
for
the
protection
of
our
workers.
Thank
you.
O
K
With
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada,
we
are
here
in
support
of
ab249,
as
presented
with
the
amendment
we'd
like
to
thank
the
sponsor
for
taking
the
time
to
meet
with
us
and
listening
to
our
concerns.
And
we
look
forward
to
participating
in
the
ongoing
conversations
on
the
matter.
A
And
thank
you
for
joining
us
next
caller
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
assembly
bill
249.
O
A
O
O
E
E
Upon
review
of
the
current
and
proposed
amendment
language
of
ab249,
I
offer
the
following
comments
on
behalf
of
ndot:
indot
delivers
millions
of
dollars
of
transportation
related
projects
statewide
every
year.
These
projects
include
improvements
to
interstates
rural
roads
and
local
city
streets
throughout
our
communities
and
ndot
coordinates
of
local
governments,
groups
and
citizens
to
plan
and
construct
these
projects.
E
The
nevada
contracting
community
prepares
bids
for
these
projects
based
on
many
variables,
including
allowed
work
zone
length
and
allowed
working
hours.
There
may
be
cost
impacts
to
end
up
projects
by
reducing
allowed
working
hours.
The
time
it
takes
to
construct
projects
may
be
extended
due
to
restricted
working
hours
evening
night
time
and
early
morning.
Work
also
allows
traffic
reduced
traffic
restrictions
during
the
day,
reducing
delays
for
the
traveling
public.
E
Most
importantly,
we
believe
and
agree
that
safety
for
workers
and
the
traveling
public
is
increased
during
evening
night
time
and
early
morning
work
while
there
are
fewer
drivers
on
the
road.
That
concludes
my
comments.
Thank
you
again
for
the
opportunity
to
testify
and,
as
always,
ndot
is
available
to
answer
any
questions
and
provide
any
information
that
is
requested.
A
A
A
Thank
you
assemblywoman
and
howard.
Any
closing
remarks
you
may
have.
M
Just
brief
ones,
chair
flores
again,
I
just
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
hearing
assembly
bill
249.
My
intent
again
has
always
been
worker
safety
for
our
construction
workers
who
have
to
work
during
the
extreme
summer.
Heat
summer
is
often
peak
construction
season,
especially
with
it
being
the
busiest
time
during
the
housing
market.
So
sometimes
there
is
no
choice
but
to
continue
work
working
even
on
the
hottest
days.
I
think
the
amended
ab249
helps
us
target
the
two
biggest
dangers
of
working
in
summer:
heat
exhaustion
and
heat
stroke.
A
A
A
I
don't
want
to
discourage
anybody
from
calling,
but
if
you
try
to
reopen
the
debate,
the
previously
heard
matter
we're
going
to
have
to
ask
you
to
be
cut
off
at
this
time.
Public
comment
please
broadcast.
A
Thank
you
members.
I
appreciate
the
thoughtful
dialogue
today,
we'll
continue
with
the
somewhat
of
a
busy
schedule
for
the
remainder
of
the
week.
As
I
have
indicated,
we'll
have
three
four
or
five
hearings
per
day
tomorrow
march
30th.
Please
make
sure
you
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
review
assembly
bill
249
assembly,
bill,
340
and
assembly
bill.
378.
A
Excuse
me,
I
just
read
over
today's
agenda
for
tomorrow
we
have
I'm
going
to
the
agenda.
Now
we
have
assembly
bill
313,
336
and
357..
Please
give
yourself
an
opportunity
to
review
those
documents
again.
Thank
you
for
the
thoughtful
dialogue
this
morning
and
I
will
see
you
all
tomorrow.
This
meeting
is
adjourned.