►
From YouTube: 5/3/2021 - Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Here,
thank
you
very
much.
We
do
have
a
quorum,
please
mark
the
other
members
present
as
they
arrive.
I
know
they
are
finishing
up
other
committee
meetings.
It's
that
time
of
session,
I'd
like
to
welcome
everybody
in
the
audience,
both
in
person
and
online
to
committee.
Today,
I'll
go
through
just
a
couple
of
quick
housekeeping
announcements
as
usual
in
order
to
participate
either
in
person
or
remotely
you
must
register
on
the
nevada,
legislature's
website.
You
can
find
information
on
how
to
do
so
on
the
website
or
on
any
meeting
agenda
for
this
committee.
A
A
With
that
we
are
going
to
move
on
to
our
agenda
today
we're
going
to
start
with
our
work
session.
We
have
four
bills
up
for
work
session
today.
The
first
build
that
we're
going
to
do
is
sb
23,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
state
conservation
commission.
A
Just
as
a
reminder,
we
don't
typically
take
testimony
during
our
work
session.
However,
we
may
call
upon
bill
sponsors
or
others
to
clarify
any
questions
that
arise.
So
with
that,
mr
stenisbeck,
our
policy
analyst
will
walk
us
through
the
work
session
document
for
sb
23.
Please
proceed
whenever
you're
ready.
C
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
record
jan,
should
inspect
the
research
division
of
lcb
as
senator
nonpartisan
staff.
I
cannot
advocate
for
or
against
any
metric
accounts
before
this
committee
senate
bill
23
was
hurt
in
this
committee
on
april
21st.
It
provides
the
boundaries
of
the
areas
from
which
certain
members
of
the
state
conservation
commission
are
appointed.
C
A
A
A
C
Thank
you
chair
for
the
record
johnson
spec
with
the
research
division
senate
bill
52
was
hurtness
committee
on
april
26th.
C
It
requires
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
outdoor
recreation
to
establish
by
regulation,
a
program
for
awarding
a
dark
sky
designation.
The
relation
must
include
categories
and
standards
for
awarding
such
as
a
designation
and
procedures
for
applying
for
such
a
designation
for
viewing
and
suspending
or
revoking
such
a
designation.
Thank
you
chair.
D
D
I'm
going
to
be
voting
no
on
this,
I'm
hoping
that
each
county
individually
creates
their
own
based
on
securities
around
buildings
and
stuff
like
this.
They
get
around
the
ranch
area.
They
they
could
say,
hey,
no
lights,
no,
nothing,
and
I
think
that
might
be
a
problem.
It
might
be
able
to
something
to
be
worked
out,
but
until
that
gets
worked
out,
I'm
going
to
be
a
no
thank
you.
A
Thank
you
and
I
believe
it
was
discussed
in
this
presentation
that
this
would
be
left
up
to
each
local
agency
and
does
not
prohibit
the
use
of
lights
for
security.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that's
clear
for
the
record
assemblywoman
titus.
E
I
was
going
to
make
the
comment
that,
during
the
testimony
we
did
indeed
hear
that
it
was
going
to
be
up
to
a
vote
of
the
local
areas,
whether
they
wanted
to
do
this
or
not,
but
a
vote
means
that
it's
the
majority
of
a
certain
air
group
in
an
area
and
perhaps
individual
property
owners
may
not
want
it,
although
the
majority
in
their
neighborhood
may
so,
I'm
worried
about
individual
property
owner
rights,
and
so
I
will
be
and
know
when
we
do
get
to
the
to
the
vote.
Thank
you.
A
A
A
That
motion
does
carry
with
that.
We'll
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
work
session,
which
is
senate
bill
53,
which
makes
various
changes
relating
to
the
division
of
state
parks
of
the
state
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources.
Mr
stenisbeck,
would
you
please
lead
us
through
this
work
session
document.
C
As
thank
you
chair,
you
know
for
the
record
again
youngster
inspect
senate
bill
53
was
certainly
committed
april
21st.
It
authorized
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
state
parks
to
organize
the
areas
under
the
jurisdiction
of
division
into
regions.
If
such
regions
are
established,
fees
collected
in
each
region
must
be
accounted
for
separately
and
be
used
for
certain
purposes.
In
the
region
in
which
the
money
was
collected,
the
authorized
use
of
such
fees
is
expanded
to
include
the
repair,
operation
and
maintenance
of
communication
systems.
C
D
A
E
Thank
you
for
that
clarification.
I
I
actually
wondered
about,
and,
and
maybe
legal
could
help
us
if
they're
available
or
willing-
I
and
I'm
sorry-
I
missed
this
during
the
hearing,
but
it
and
I
appreciated
your
comment-
it
expanded
where
what
areas
could
perhaps
charge
a
fee,
but
under
that
section
two
of
this
bill
it
talks
about.
We
could
charge
a
fee
for
repair,
operation
and
maintenance
of
sewer
water
and
communication
that
new
language-
that's
not
the
separate
fee.
It's
just
that
these
fees
could
be
used
for
for
communication
purposes.
E
A
Thank
you
for
that
question
assemblywoman.
I
think
that
particular
question
may
be
best
answered
by
the
agency.
I
believe
it
was
indicated
during
testimony
that
that
is
a
specific
amount,
but
that
it
is
rolled
into
the
fees
that
are
already
charged
and
the
intent
that
the
agency
provided
was
that,
yes,
this
is
not
adding
any
new
fees
anywhere
that
this
is
already
incorporated
into
the
existing
fee
schedules
for
the
division,
and
I
turned
over
to
the
division.
If
there's
anything
that
they'd
like
to
add.
G
Chair,
what's
jonathan.
F
H
Added
to
our
park
visitors
again
we're
already
collecting.
F
This
fee
and
that
surcharge,
if
you
will,
the
one
dollar
for
entry,
goes
into
account
that
is
used
for
the
infrastructure
of
the
parks.
The
electrical.
H
The
water,
sewer
and
communications
is
typically
used
to
repair
existing
infrastructure
with
that
those
funds
are
collected.
A
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
will
vote
this
measure
out
of
committee,
but
reserve
my
right
to
change
on
the
fly.
A
A
C
C
The
measure
creates
four
divisions
within
the
department
as
follows:
division
of
administrative
services,
division
of
animal
industry,
division
of
food
and
nutrition
and
division
of
plant
health
and
compliance.
The
name
of
the
existing
fifth
division
has
changed
from
the
division
of
consumer
credibility
to
the
division
of
measurement
standards
and
finally,
bill
assigns
the
title
of
state
veterinarian
to
the
existing
position
within
the
department
that
is
responsible
for
activities
related
relating
to
the
protection
and
promotion
of
the
livestock
industry
and
revise
the
minimum
qualification
for
the
position.
Thank
you.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
know
we
got
an
expert
here
in
the
room,
but
but
the
appoint
the
appointees
of
administrator
does.
How
does
he
pick
these
individuals
that
that'll
be
sitting
on
this
board?
I
J
Thank
you
chairman,
and
I
I
wasn't
here
for
the
hearing,
but
I
did
watch
it,
and
so
I
had
a
couple
questions,
so
I
apologize.
This
is
when
you're
going
to
get
my
questions.
J
I
just
want
to
clarify,
based
on
the
testimony
I
heard
from
you
director
ott
that
in
striking
some
of
the
verbage-
and
I
think
it
was
section
nine
that
had
to
do
with
yeah,
with
section
nine
that
that
is
now
regarding
range
issues,
it's
going
to
fall
under.
Let
me
flip
to
it.
It's
gonna
fall
under
the.
J
I
I
Okay,
so
thank
you
assemblywoman,
yes,
so
the
feral
livestock
issue
will
remain
underneath
the
animal
industry
where
it
has
existed
and
plant
health
and
compliance
is,
will
be.
The
the
natural
resources
portion
is
normally
handled
under
the
plant
industry,
we're
changing
it
to
plant
health
and
compliance
or
changing
the
name
there,
but
it's
in
pretty
serious
collaboration
with
the
animal
industry.
Obviously,
so
we
we
do
collaborate
within
the.
J
Divisions,
thank
you
for
that
and
then
regarding
the
state
veterinarian.
I
know
there
had
been
some
discussion
that
you're
not
going
to
require
it
you're
when
you
go
to
recruit.
J
I
I
Apologies,
I
didn't
mean
to
cut
you
off
jennifer
out
for
the
record.
I
I'm
happy
to
consider
amendment.
I
I
sent
an
email
to
the
chairman
that
I'm
happy
to
consider
amendment.
If
there's
concerns
on
this,
you
know
we
don't
see
it.
I
mean
the
veterinarian,
because
the
state
veterinarian
because
of
the
work
they
do
does
obviously
have
to
be
licensed.
There
were
some
questions
about
putting
the
licensure
requirement
in
statute
and
the
reason
why
we
opted
not
to
do.
I
That
is
because
we
wanted
to
be
able
to
recruit
out
of
state
or
even
out
of
country,
for
a
state
veterinarian
with
really
great
experience,
and
that,
then
you
know
as
part
of
accepting
the
job
or
within
a
certain
timeline
of
accepting
the
job
that
they
would
have
to
pass
everything
that
needs
to
be
in
place
to
receive
licensure
by
the
state
of
nevada
to
be
a
veterinarian
licensed.
So
that
is
why
we
opted
to
do
that
this
way,
but
I
will
follow
the
direction
of
the
chair.
As
far
as
the
amendment.
J
And
I'm
sorry,
I
know
we're
not
supposed
to
rehear
a
bill
that,
maybe
would
just
be
maybe
be
my
request,
chair
that
maybe
we
could
talk
offline
of
I
get
the
whole
purpose
in
the
recruitment
process
or
in
the
hiring
verbiage,
but
maybe
to
have
it
in
statute,
might
just
be
give
us
some
comfort.
So
thank
you
for
the
consideration.
J
And-
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
but
if
you're
going
to
act
as
a
veterinarian
in
this
state,
you'd
be
out
of
your
scope
of
practice.
If
you
didn't
become
licensed,
so
it's
kind
of
a
chicken
in
an
egg
sort
of
thing
I
mean
we
don't
want
to
require
a
license
to
to
recruit,
because
we
we
want
to
give
people
time
to
comply
once
they
get
here.
But
if
they're
going
to
do
the
function
they
would
have
to
become
licensed
in
the
state.
J
A
Thank
you
for
that.
Someone
carlton,
and
I
would
just
also
add
that
hearing
the
the
intent
from
the
agency,
I
think
is,
is
satisfactory.
If
there
are
any
issues
that
come
up,
I
I
believe
that
we
could
address
them
moving
forward,
but
the
agency
has
been
quite
clear
on
their
record
about
the
intent
to
ensure
that
whoever
is
hired
for
this
position
does
end
up
licensed
and
that
the
intent
is
to
assist
us
in
recruiting
the
most
qualified
possible
candidate,
which
we
have
seen.
A
Other
bills
modify
some
of
the
requirements
in
order
to
attract
diverse
and
qualified
hires
assembly.
Women
titus
go
ahead.
E
E
You
know
obstacles
to
licensure
and
the
time
it
takes,
and
you
know
as
a
physician
it
can
take
six
months
and
sometimes
longer,
and
we
know
that
in
other
professional
organizations
or
agencies
or
license
your
process,
that
there's
a
delay
and
being
able
to
recruit
somebody
who
otherwise
make
to
be
sure
that
they
they
meet
all
the
other
qualifications
for
a
licensure
that
then,
ultimately
they
can
get
licensed
in
the
state.
I
think
I
I
certainly
had
my
reservations,
but
I'm
reassured
to
get
the
legislative
intent
on
record.
So
thank
you,
director,
ott.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
questions
and
the
clarification
that
was
provided.
Are
there
any
additional
questions
on
sb65.
D
Yes,
paul.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
for
calling
on
me
twice
when
I'm
looking
through
here.
Maybe
I'm
getting
confused
and
and
that's
pretty
often
lately
is
when
I'm
looking
through
section
two.
But
I
look
back
here
and
I
look
through
section
number,
12
and
13..
It
says
measurement
standards
and
then
it
says
the
department
of
ag
is
them.
Division
still
stay
in
the
department
of
ag
and
are
they
still
a
minister
in
all
these
programs
or
is
that
being
changed.
A
A
I've
got
a
motion
from
assemblywoman
martinez
and
a
second
from
assemblywoman
gonzalez.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Hearing
none
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
passes
unanimously
if
the
member's
pres,
and
with
that
I
have
neglected
to
assign
floor
statements.
So
with
that,
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
on
sb
65
to
assemblywoman
brownmay.
A
I'll
assign
the
floor
statement
on
sb
52
to
assemblywoman
anderson
and
I'll,
assign
the
floor
statement
on
sb
53
to
assemblywoman
gonzalez
all
right.
Thank
you.
Everybody
with
that.
That
concludes
our
work
session.
For
today,
we'll
now
move
on
to
our
bill
hearings.
We
have
three
bills
up
and
I
think
we'll
just
take
them
in
order
today.
A
G
G
This
bill
makes
revisions
to
nrs,
472
and
528,
which
are
two
statutes
that
provide
ndf's
primary
work,
focus
and
define
its
mission
of
providing
natural
resource
and
wildland
fire
management
services
to
nevada
citizens
and
visitors
to
enhance,
conserve
and
protect
forest
rangeland
and
watershed
values,
endangered
plants
and
other
native
flora
senate
bill
33
provides
better
statutory
alignment
for
ndf
between
the
work
staff
perform
and
the
landscapes
in
which
they
work.
Nevada
is
the
most
arid
state
in
the
u.s.
G
G
Ndf's
natural
resource
managers
provide
assistance
to
landowners,
regardless
of
vegetation
type,
improving
conditions
in
forests,
rangelands
deserts,
wetlands
and
other
vegetation
types
has,
and
will
continue
to
be,
the
focus
of
ndf
senate
bill.
33
clarifies
that
ndf
is
not
solely
focused
on
forest
management,
but
that
ndf
manages
all
the
varied
renewable
natural
resources
found
across
nevada.
G
In
addition,
senate
bill
33
expands
the
identified
uses
for
ndf's
nursery
produced
plants
to
include
practices
like
xeriscaping
water
conservation,
providing
wildlife,
habitat
and
sustaining
local
economies.
Ndf
has
a
conservation
plant
material
program
that
enhances
its
ability
to
provide
conservation,
plant
materials
and
technical,
natural
resource
assistance
and
support
to
nevada
citizens.
G
Ndf
operates
two
plant
nurseries,
one
in
las
vegas
and
one
in
washoe
valley
and
a
seed
bank
in
washoe
valley
in
this
program.
Statute
requires
ndf
plants
to
be
used
for
conservation
purposes.
Since
the
establishment
of
the
program,
the
science
of
natural
resource
conservation
has
evolved
and
to
include
values
previously
not
considered.
G
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
quick
rundown
of
the
language.
I
I
have
a
question
regarding
an
item.
That's
being
taken
out.
It's
on
page
eight,
it's
section
10.
It
looks
like
10
1g
and
it
it
specifies
very
the
lake,
the
lake
tahoe
basin,
as
well
as
the
lake
mead
basin,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that
is
still
going
to
be
regulated
in
a
different
area
at
the
state
level
or
is
it
at
the
county
level?
G
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblywoman
anderson
through
you
chair,
are
you
looking
at.
There
were
two
areas
where
it
took
out.
The
lake
tahoe
beast
in
lake
tahoe
and
the
lake
mead
basins
first
was
on
the
cooperation
with
the
state
fire
marshal
of
enforcing
laws
and
adopting
regulations,
and
so
that
would
just
be
applicable
across
the
state
rather
than
just
in
those
two
basins,
and
then
the
codes
and
regulations
under
j
those
will
still
be
managed
across
the
state.
G
So
that
was
just
talking
about
the
areas
where
originally
it
was
the
state
forester
fire
warden
having
those
enforcement
abilities,
and
I
don't
have
the
enforcement
capabilities
that
is
either
handled
at
the
state
level
through
the
state
fire
marshal
or
at
local
county
jurisdictional
levels
for
enforcement.
So
we
would
still
all
work
in
cooperation
and
coordination
just
across
the
entire
state.
So
hopefully
that
answers
your
question.
B
E
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
along
the
same
line
on
section
10.
I
too,
I
too
looked
at
this
bill
and
went
well
who
will
be
responsible
for
this
on
section
10
number
d,
when
it
talks
about
you're
no
longer
going
to
designate
boundaries
of
each
area
of
the
state
where
the
construction
of
buildings
unfortunately
create
a
fire
hazards
and
the
particular
material
for
like
roofing
standards,
etc,
and
so
who
does
that?
E
Well
so,
with
that
explanation,
you're
going
to
leave
it
up
to
local
ordinances
and
local
cor
county
codes
and
those
kind
of
things
to
determine,
what's
appropriate,
roofie
and
et
cetera
and
you'll,
be
out
of
that
entirely.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman
titus
chaired
through
you.
Yes,
we
don't.
We
would
still
work
together.
The
state
fire
marshal
has
the
authority,
through
his
statutes
and
he's
here
to
answer
any
questions
from
an
adoption
standpoint
for
some
areas
of
the
state,
adoption
and
enforcement
for
some
areas
around
the
state.
In
addition,
local
government
does
have
that
jurisdictional
responsibility,
so
adopting
building
codes
enforcing
the
wildland-urban
interface
codes.
G
So
I
don't
have
that
ability
to
to
designate,
I
could
say
where
they
are
and
we
do
work
together
on
the
designation
of
say,
wildland
urban
interface
areas,
but
this
just
talks
about
the
construction
materials
which
I
don't
have
any
jurisdictional
responsibility
over
now
that
I
no
longer
have
all
risk
fire
departments,
so
that
would
be
local
governments
in
conjunction
with
the
state
fire
marshal.
K
Thank
you
chair.
My
question
is
in
in
section
five,
the
definition
of
urban
forestry
and
adding
on
the
third
line
and
water
quality
to
air
quality.
Can
you
give
us
an
example
of
how
urban
forestry
does
impact
and
promote
water
quality
in
the
state.
G
Thank
you
for
the
question
vice
chair,
cohen,
chair
through
you.
The
water
quality
is
affected
by
urban
trees.
There
have
been
many
studies
done
on
the
amount
of
urban
tree
canopy
cover
in
urban
areas
and
its
effects
not
only
on
human
health,
but
air
quality,
I'm
taking
in
the
bad
for
making
them
better
as
also
water
quality,
though
it
does
take
water
to
water
some
of
these
plants.
G
If
the
right
plants
are
planted,
it
shouldn't
be
a
ton
of
water
and
it
filters
some
of
the
bad
things
through
the
roots
and
the
root
systems,
and
so
it
allows
for
better
water
quality
coming
into
and
takes
some
of
the
runoff.
When
you
have
these
large
incidents
of
flood
conditions,
so
there's
a
lot
of
benefits
for
urban
trees,
they're
they're
kind
of
similar
to
what
you
would
see
in
a
forest
just
at
a
much
smaller
scale.
G
A
A
And
we'll
start
with
the
room,
seeing
none
in
the
room
coming
forward,
we'll
move
to
testimony
and
support
remotely
broadcast
production
services.
Can
we
see
if
anyone
wishes
to
provide
testimony
and
support.
A
L
L
L
F
F
F
A
A
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
We
will
close
the
hearing
on
sb
33,
we'll
move
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
sb
43,
which
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
advisory
board
on
outdoor
recreation.
I
see
we
have
mr
robertson
joining
us,
mr
robertson,
you
may
proceed
with
the
presentation
whenever
you're
ready.
H
Thank
you
so
much
chair
watts
good
afternoon,
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
assembly
committee
on
natural
resources.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
colin
robertson
and
I
am
the
administrator
of
the
new
nevada
division
of
outdoor
recreation
in
the
nevada
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources.
H
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
introduce
and
provide
testimony
in
support
of
the
first
reprint
of
senate
bill
43.
Today,
existing
law,
nrs
407
8.575,
establishes
the
advisory
board
on
outdoor
recreation,
which
consists
of
11
voting
members
who
advise
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
outdoor
recreation
on
matters
concerning
outdoor
recreation
in
nevada,
sb
43
proposes
a
simple
change
to
nrs
407.
H
H
Together,
the
u.s
department
of
the
interior
and
the
u.s
department
of
agriculture
managed
the
majority
of
public
lands
in
nevada
totaling,
some
57
million
of
the
state's
70
million
acres
overall,
so
many
of
nevada's
best
recreation
opportunities
exist
on
lands
managed
by
one
of
these.
Two
agencies,
therefore,
these
three
perspectives
are
crucial
to
ensuring
the
advisory
board
broadly
and
effectively
advises
the
nevada
division
of
outdoor
recreation
on
all
matter
on
all
matters
concerning
outdoor
recreation
throughout
the
state.
H
A
D
H
Share,
what's
through
you,
thank
you
for
the
question
assembly,
assemblyman,
ellison
colin
robertson,
for
the
record.
Yes,
sir.
The
advisory
board
on
outdoor
recreation
is
a
currently
an
11-member
board.
Seven
of
the
seats
on
that
advisory
board
are
named
by
statute
and
four
of
the
the
four
additional
seats
are
gubernatorial
appointments
representing
four
sectors:
four
key
areas
of
outdoor
recreation
topics:
they
include
conservation
and
stewardship
education
and
workforce
training,
health
and
wellness
and
economic
development
or
outdoor
recreation,
oriented
economic
development.
H
The
seven
seats
that
are
a
point
that
are
named
by
statute
represents
state
the
division
of
state
parks,
the
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources,
the
department
of
wildlife,
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
the
department
of
tourism,
and,
let's
see
who
am
I
missing,
the
lieutenant
governor,
kate
marshall
and,
I
believe,
that's.
I
believe,
I've
named
seven.
A
Thank
you,
mr
robertson.
That
is
impressive,
listing
them
off
the
top
of
your
head,
and
I
believe
you,
you
laid
them
out
exactly
as
they
are
in
statute.
So
thanks
for
that,
any
additional
questions
vice
chair,
cohen,.
K
Thank
you
chair,
mr
robertson.
I
have
a
question
on
one
sub:
a
sub
eight
roman
numeral,
two,
so
the
the
one
member
who
has
professional
expertise
or
possesses
a
demonstrable
demonstrated
knowledge
of
outdoor
recreation,
natural
resources,
management
and
economic
development
in
the
state
that
sounds
kind
of
like
a
big
order.
What
what
profession
would
that
person
have?
Or
I
mean
I
get,
I
understand,
having
a
knowledge
of
outdoor
recreation
and
and
resources
as
well,
because
those
kind
of
go
hand
in
hand,
but
then,
with
economic
development.
H
Thank
you
vice
circle
for
the
question
I
the
intent
here
is
to,
as,
as
you
may
know,
from
the
2019
session,
the
division
of
outdoor
recreation
has
a
broad
and
diverse
mission
and
purpose,
and
it's
a
very
small
agency,
currently
an
agency
of
one
and
as
a
result,
I
think
that
positions
need
to
be
very
kind
of
very
broad
and
encompassing,
and
the
importance
of
nevada's
outdoor
recreation
economy
to
the
overall
economy
of
the
state
is
something
that
ties
very
closely
to
those
public
lands
to
the
state's
public
lands
and
to
the
natural
resources
that
are
in
play
when
it
comes
to
outdoor
recreation
because
of
well
for
conservation
needs
and
so
forth
so
ideal.
K
Things
all
right,
thank
you
for
that.
So,
if
so,
if
you
had
someone,
for
instance,
who
had
an
outdoor
recreation
business
that
would
cover
the
economic
development
portion,
they
wouldn't
need
to,
for
instance,
be
a
member
of
a
chamber,
or
you
know,
having
had
work
for
good
or
anything
like
that,
that
just
kind
of
being
in
that
field
would
would
cover
it.
H
Chair
watts,
through
you
colin
robertson,
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
follow-up
question.
Vice
chair,
cohen,
yeah,
that
being
yes,
the
intent
is
not.
H
A
Thank
you,
and
just
a
brief
follow-up
on
that
for
you,
mr
robertson.
Looking
at
the
the
way
this
is
laid
out
under
the
proposed
bill,
you
know
this
would
likely.
I
would
think
that
many
of
our
rural
county
commissioners
often
are
dealing
with
many
decisions
related
to
all
of
these
areas
in
terms
of
natural
resources,
management,
land
management,
economic
development
and
outdoor
recreation,
so
likely
with
the
involvement
of
naco.
A
H
Cheer
watts
colin
robertson
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Yes,
that
that
is
very
much
what
the
spirit
has
been
and
to
ensure
that
the
pillars
of
the
creation
of
the
division
of
outdoor
recreation,
which
I
outlined
with
the
gubernatorial
appointments,
is
something
that's
considered
in
in
every
representative
of
on
the
advisory
board.
A
L
M
M
We
understand
the
vision
behind
the
advisory
board
on
outdoor
recreation,
to
support
outdoor
recreation,
the
recreation
economy
and
conservation
related
to
recreation
in
nevada
and
knowing
that
a
significant
portion
of
outdoor
recreations
happens
after
recreation
happens
in
rural
communities.
Our
members
agree
that
having
representatives
from
rural
nevada,
whose
local
economies
and
livelihoods
interface
with
outdoor
recreation
and
who
are
familiar
with
many
of
the
recreation
opportunities
and
natural
resources
out
in
nevada,
is
very
important
because
nako's
board
is
made
up
of
a
representative
from
each
county
commission,
including,
of
course,
our
50
in
rural
counties.
M
M
Our
rural
commissioners
are
very
connected
to
their
communities.
It
can
help
seek
out
candidates
who
have
the
qualifications
outlined
in
the
bill,
including
expertise
and
knowledge
and
outdoor
recreation,
natural
resources,
management
and
economic
development.
I
just
want
to
thank
dcnr
and
administrator
robertson
for
the
conversations
over
the
interim
on
this
and
for
working
with
us
and
seeking
our
input
on
the
bill
thanks
so
much.
A
F
F
This
bill
will
include
a
diverse
partnership
that
will
oversee
our
recreation
needs
in
nevada,
including
the
additional
representatives
will
provide
an
opportunity
for
more
support
and
discussion
concerning
outdoor
recreation.
We
urge
the
committee
to
support
this
bill.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
have
a
good
afternoon.
A
A
Thank
you
and
with
that
we'll
move
on
to
testimony
in
neutral
on
sb43,
seeing
none
in
the
room
bps.
Can
we
see
if
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
provide
testimony
remotely.
A
Thank
you
with
that
administrator
robertson.
Is
there
anything
else
that
you'd
like
to
say
in
closing.
A
I
I
I
I
I
Supplemental
nutrition
is
defined
as
the
food
provided
to
a
person
or
family
augmenting
any
food
that
they
might
have
to
create
a
full
and
nutritious
meal.
The
department
works
with
many
federal
programs
to
distribute
supplemental
nutrition
to
food,
insecure
populations,
92
percent
of
the
overall
budget
of
the
department
in
fiscal
year
21
was
the
responsibility
of
the
food
and
nutrition
division,
who
has
no
board
representation
further
in
fiscal
year,
20
nevada
food
security
organizations
received
food,
valued
at
approximately
47
million
dollars,
and
almost
none
of
it
came
from
nevada.
I
Food
manufacturing
and
processing
also
has
no
board
representation,
and
yet
the
economic
impact
for
food
and
beverage
manufacturing
sector
counts
for
83
percent
of
the
agriculture
industry
in
nevada.
Much
of
that
is
the
manufacturing
or
processing
of
agriculture
products
sourced
outside
of
the
state.
I
The
board
is
not
required
to
have
any
member
with
manufacturing
and
processing
experience,
despite
the
growth
and
importance
of
this
sector
on
nevada's
agricultural
economy,
which
is
why
this
position
is
important.
We
do
not
have
a
connection
between
the
production
of
plants
produce
and
livestock
and
the
processing
and
manufacturing
of
the
same.
We
need
to
connect
these
groups.
I
At
the
hearing
of
the
senate
committee,
the
board
of
agriculture
presented
an
amendment
we
also
heard
from
the
industry
about
the
importance
of
having
a
cattle
industry
specific
and
a
sheep
industry
specific
position
after
the
hearing.
I
worked
with
the
board
chairman
on
the
amended
language
that
you
have
before
you
today
and
at
this
time,
I'll
pull
up
a
slide
for
everyone,
because
the
changes
can
be
confusing.
I
I
I
We
kept
a
livestock
position
to
offer
representation
to
those
industry,
members
that
raise
other
livestock,
such
as
chickens,
hogs
or
goats.
The
total
livestock
positions
are
three
members.
We
have
two
representatives
and
growing
crops
providing
representation
to
our
specialty
crop
industry,
but
also
the
hemp
industry
and
hay
in
alfalfa
industry
I'll
go
ahead
and
stop
sharing
there.
I
In
conclusion,
this
bill
seeks
to
promote
diversity
and
provide
a
voice
to
those
at
the
end
of
the
supply
chain,
those
that
process
and
manufacture
from
agriculture,
goods
and
those
that
represent
the
food
insecure
population
that
receive
agriculture
goods
in
the
form
of
food.
The
bill
also
ensures
that
the
current
industries
continue
to
be
represented.
On
the
board,
so
they
can
continue
to
speak
on
important
issues.
I
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
concise
presentation
and
the
slide,
highlighting
the
the
changes
with
that
we'll
open
it
up
to
questions
from
members.
I
believe.
First,
we
have
a
question
from
assemblywoman
anderson.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
again
for
the
quick
presentation.
I
have
a
few
questions.
The
first
is:
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I've
got
this
correct,
that
it's
going
to
be
expanded
to
13
members,
and
yet,
when
you
take
a
look
at
number
two,
there
cannot
be
more
than
two
members,
maybe
residents
of
the
same
county.
B
Is
that
still
accurate
that
because
I'm
just
a
little
bit
worried
about
being
able
to
actually
fill
the
board,
if
only
two
members
with
such
with
that
being
that
large
can
be
from
from
the
same
counties.
I
B
So
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
May
I
continue
mr
chair.
Thank
you.
My
second
question,
although
I
do
see
the
piece
of
the
letter
and
support
from
chair
worthington
from
the
senate
committee
on
natural,
I'm
so
sorry
from
the
board
of
agriculture
that
was
dated
january
8th
has
has
that
committee
or
has
that
board
actually
had
a
thorough
discussion
regarding
this
and
are
have
they
also
been
involved
in
the
discussions
around
this.
I
Thank
you,
jennifer
ott,
for
the
record
the
board
met
in
march.
Well,
let
me
back
up
the
the
bill
was
released
at
the
end
of
november.
It
was
presented
to
the
board
at
the
december
9th
board
meeting,
and
that
was
a
board
meeting
where
the
board
did
have
discussion
on
that.
I
It
was
decided
that
the
board
did
want
to
vote
to
not
support
the
original
bill,
and
that
is
what
was
included
at
the
senate
committee
is
that
the
the
board
did
not
support
and
that
they
put
forth
an
amendment,
and
the
amendment
was
to
reser
return,
the
board
to
the
original
makeup,
just
adding
the
two
positions
for
supplemental
nutrition
and
for
food,
manufacturing
and
processing
that
didn't
accomplish
the
goals,
and
so,
like
I
said
in
testimony,
I
met
with
the
chairman
of
the
board.
I
After
the
testimony
of
the
senate
committee
and
the
department
put
forth
the
amendment
that
we
were
hoping
addressed,
many
of
the
concerns
of
the
feedback
that
we
received
during
that
hearing,
and
there
you
go
so
yes,
they
met
on
december,
9th
and
also
again
in
march.
B
And
and
thank
you
and
I
realize
thank
you
for
that
clarification
because
I
realize
you're
in
a
difficult
position
because
you're
the
director
and
yet
you
also
have
to
bring
forward
and
work
with
according
to
nrs
561,
you've
got
to
work
with
the
board,
and
the
board
is,
if
I'm,
taking
a
look
at
that
language.
B
Nrs
561.1051c
shall
advise
and
make
recommendations
to
the
governor
of
the
legislature
related
to
the
policies.
So
that's
where
I'm
kind
of
concerned
about
the
additional
individuals
being
added,
and
yet
the
board
is
not
fully
vetted
in
this,
and
so
I
don't
know
if
there
are
representatives
from
the
board
that
will
be
speaking
later.
But
just
thank
you
for
that
clarification,
but
just
also
want
to
bring
that
into
the
room.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
E
Thank
you,
and,
and
basically
along
the
same
line
of
questioning
that
my
colleague
was
just
on
regarding
the
interaction
of
the
director
and
the
board.
First,
I
want
to
acknowledge
director
ott
that
you
did
add
back
my
sheep
people
that
were
very
concerned
about
being
eliminated
entirely
from
from
the
position
on
the
board,
as
they
were
promised
that
position
decades
ago,
through
some
other
legislative
process
and
period
of
time
on
that
same
nrs,
561.105,
the
duties,
rules
and
regulations.
E
So
I
I
continue
to
have
folks
reach
out
to
me
and
and
a
number
of
us
that
are
concerned
about
policy
versus
board
regulations
and
who's
in
charge
of
what
and
are
you
following
directions
from
your
board,
which
you
are
that
I
can
see
the
board
is
to
establish
the
policy
and
I'm
not
not
sure,
I'm
seeing
that
in
this
particular
bill.
So
I
I
guess
that's.
I
just
want
more
assurance
that
indeed,
this
policy
that
your
department
is
following
the
policy
of
the
ag
board.
A
Yes,
please
do,
although
I
would
just
note
briefly
a
couple
of
things.
One
is
that
again,
the
policies
are
ultimately
set
by
the
legislature
by
the
legislative
body
to
be
carried
out,
as
well
as
the
fact
that,
in
these
the
executive
branch,
the
governor's
office
and
the
the
department
have
the
ability
to
bring
forward
bill
draft
requests
for
our
consideration.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
that's
something
for
all
the
members
to
keep
in
mind
as
we
have
this
discussion,
but
with
that
directorate.
A
If
you
would
like
to
add
some
additional
context
and
perspective
on
the
conversations
and
that
have
been
had
with
regards
to
this
bill,.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
jennifer
ott
for
the
record
through
you
to
assemblywoman
titus.
I
think
that
you
know
in
in
talking
about
that
portion
where
the
board
sets
the
policy
for
the
department.
I
think
that
that
actually
is.
The
point.
Is
that
they're?
You
know
the
board
is
charged
with
this,
and
not
all
areas
of
the
agriculture
industry
or
areas
of
the
under
the
purview
or
regulation
or
funding
of
the
department
are
not
represented,
and
I
think
that
you
know.
I
If
the
board
has
this
weighty
responsibility,
then
it
is
important
to
receive
feedback
and
and
representation
from
a
diverse
audience.
If
you
do
look
back
as
far
as
you
know,
policy
and
bringing
that
forward,
the
board
does
vote
on
policies
that
the
department
requests.
If
you
go
back
and
look
at
board
minutes,
that's
that
does
occur.
I
I'd
also
just
note
that
the
department
does
not
set
the
agenda
for
the
board
meetings
that
that
the
board
does,
and
so,
when
it
comes
to
policy
discussions,
we
wait
for
the
direction
and
the
inclusion
of
those
in
the
agenda
from
the
board.
Thank
you.
E
Follow
mr
chair,
so
I
thank
you
for
that,
and
and
thank
you
chair
watch
for
the
question
just
to
acknowledge
that
the
department
of
ag
is
not
the
department
of
ag
of
my
grandparents,
and
I
understand
that
ag
as
in
this
nation
and
in
this
state
has
changed,
and
I
understand
that
that
my
grandparents
would
have
never
thought
that
we
would
be
engaged
in
the
food
manufacturing
or
be
engaged
in
the
field
of
supplemental
nutrition
in
our
schools
and
all
of
that
the
department
of
ag
has
expanded
to,
and
so
I
appreciate
you
they're
trying
to
bring
it
up,
bring
us
up
to
the
21st
century.
E
At
the
same
time,
remembering
the
you
know
the
the
20th
century,
so
it
because
it's
a
difficult
mix,
and
so
I
appreciate
what
you're
trying
to
do.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
A
Thank
you
for
that,
and
I
think
it
is
timely
that
we
are
hearing
this
bill
after
the
work
session
on
the
previous
bill,
making
some
adjustments
to
the
department
where
we
got
to
see
all
of
the
different
divisions
and
activities
that
the
department
is
undertaking
and
now
seeing
some
of
those
roles
and
responsibilities
being
reflected
in
the
proposed
editions,
as
well
as
the
expansion
of
the
board
to
to
include
those
perspectives,
while
also
maintaining
the
perspectives
that
are
currently
established
in
statutes.
I
appreciate
those
remarks
any
other
questions
from
members.
A
All
right,
seeing
none.
Thank
you
very
much
again
for
the
presentation
directorate.
With
that
we'll
move
on
to
testimony
on
senate
bill
52,
we'll
begin
with
testimony
in
support,
seeing
none
in
the
room
we'll
go
over
to
broadcast
production
services
to
see
if
anyone
wishes
to
provide
testimony
and
support
remotely.
A
N
N
The
board
also
supported
the
two
additional
seats
that
the
director
wanted
to
add:
the
nutritionist
and
the
representative
for
food
manufacturing
or
animal
processing
acting
contrary
to
the
direction
given
by
the
board
and
the
amendments
they
supported.
The
director
supported
changes
to
the
language
in
the
bill
to
what
you
see
now.
N
We
believe
that
the
actions
in
sb
54
bring
us
to
a
point
which
operate
contrary
to
the
authority
and
responsibility
of
the
board
of
agriculture.
The
department's
efforts
to
restructure
the
board
is
opposite
to
the
role
the
board
has
in
setting
policy
direction
in
all
its
forms
over
the
activities
of
the
department
of
agriculture.
A
N
A
Thank
you,
additionally,
can
you
provide
an
example
of
a
regulation?
That's
been
adopted
by
the
department
with
which
you've
had
issue
and
the
administrative
procedures
act
has
failed
to
provide
an
adequate
remedy,
requiring
board
action
on
all
regulations.
N
Mr
chairman,
again
for
the
record
doug
busselman
nevada
farm
bureau,
we
have
not
had
an
experience
to
this
point.
With
that
type
of
thing
we
do
see
where
there
are
conflicts
and
existing
statutes,
primarily
the
example
that
I
would
give
is
in
the
brand
inspection
section
of
statute
where
the
the
law
says
that
that
the
director
shall
develop
regulations.
N
We
believe
that
should
go
back
to
the
board
as
the
board's
coverage
of
their
regulative
authorities
are
covered
in.
In
this
other
section,.
A
Thank
you
any
other
questions
for
mr
busselman.
I
have
mr
ellison
and
then
assemblywoman
anderson.
D
D
Okay,
and
is
that
letter
somewhere
or
is
that
request
somewhere
here
on
nellis.
N
Mr
chair,
through
you
to
assemblyman
ellison,
again
doug
busselman
from
nevada
farm
bureau,
I
don't
know
that
there
was
a
letter.
It
was
a
formal
action
taken
by
the
board.
It's
a
board
motion
that
was
that
was
adopted.
D
That
requested
that,
so
that's
what
I
was
referring
to,
but
I
understand
where
you're
coming
from
and
I
I
do
support
the
requests
I
just
I
just
didn't
see
anything
in
here
of
that
request.
N
You
there
was
testimony
given
by
the
vice
chair
of
the
board
of
agriculture
at
the
hearing
that
was
held
and
he
expressed
what
the
board's
actions
were.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
for
the
for
for
staying
for
questions
as
well.
Mr
besselman
quick
question.
I
realize
that
you
do
not
serve
on
the
on
the
board.
Is
that
correct?
So
I
see
you
shaking
your
head
now.
Do
you
remember,
though,
seeing
an
agenda
item
where
the
review
of
policies
and
procedures
as
director
odd
had
brought
up?
That
is
the
responsibility
of
the
chair
has.
Do
you
ever
remember
seeing
that
as
an
item
that
has
been
agenda
for
the
department
for
the
committee
to
be
able
to
discuss.
N
Again
for
the
record
doug
wesselmann
nevada
farm
bureau,
there
have
been
agenda
items
that
have
been
put
on
for
discussion
and
for
action,
especially
more
recently
than
before,
but
there
have
been
times
where
they
have
included
those
kinds
of
agenda
items.
The
department
also
for
a
number
of
meetings
presented
policies
that
they
felt
that
the
board
should
consider
and
those
were
also
identified
on
the
agenda
in
the
past.
J
N
Cattle
producer
being
reinstated
and
the
veterinarian
being
brought
on
were
all
presented
as
part
of
a
work
session
amendment
that
was
adopted
in
the
senate.
There
was
no,
there
was
no
opportunity
for
any
testimony
or
anything
like
that.
It
was
brought
forward
in
the
work
session
and
was
adopted
there.
J
J
N
N
N
A
And
for
your
testimony,
we'll
go
on
to
the
next
person
in
the
room
wishing
to
provide
testimony
in
opposition.
O
O
O
Their
position
on
this
bill
has
not
changed
for
my
testimony,
though,
if
I
could
I'd
like
to
take
a
little
leeway
and
give
you
a
little
history
about
the
department
of
agriculture
and-
and
you
know
what
has
transpired
over
the
years
without
going
through
every
single
year,
the
board
was
created
in
1961.,
so
that
was
a
few
years
ago,
and
for
some
of
us
that
were
still
alive
or
were
alive,
then
it
was
60
years
ago
and
in
that
time
there
are
a
few
things
that
have
remained
consistent
and
there
are
a
few
things
that
have
changed,
and
that
happens
with
any
course
of
legislation.
O
O
They
did,
I
believe,
participate
when
the
board
took
the
position
against
adding
two
more
members,
and
they
also
did
not
want
to
lose
any
members
throughout
this
process.
The
catalans
association
has
not
been
approached.
O
O
I
will
do
that
senate
bill
senate
hearing
was
laced
with
opposition.
Some
of
those
concerns
were
addressed.
The
cattlemen's
concerns
were
not
addressed,
and
with
that
I
will
say
that
the
cattlewoods
association
strongly
urges
your
opposition
to
this
bill.
We
have
no
problem
going
back
talking
it
over
and
being
part
of
the
actual
discussions
that
have
taken
place
in
this
bill,
but
for
now
60
years
of
status
quo,
no
input
we'd
like
to
appreciate
part
of
that
process.
Thank.
A
A
Seeing
none
broadcast
production
services
can
we
see
if
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
provide
testimony
and
opposition
remotely.
L
F
You
good
afternoon
this
is
jake
tibbetts,
j-a-k-e,
t-I-b-b
I-t-t-s
and
I'm
the
eureka
county
natural
resource
manager
representing
eureka
county,
so
chairman
watts,
members
of
the
committee.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
share
our
view
on
sb
54..
Eureka
county
remains
opposed
to
sb
54..
We
acknowledge
the
improvement
in
the
first
reprints
that
partially
addresses
some
of
our
concerns
on
the
original
bill.
F
F
We
won't
belabor
the
issue,
but
we're
also
very
concerned
with
the
process
on
how
this
bill
came
to
effect,
and
we
want
to
note
that
even
without
recasting
of
the
board
of
agriculture,
as
proposed
the
board
and
the
department
can
and
should
address,
the
topics
identified
under
the
seats
proposed
to
be
added,
but
we
don't
feel
this
is
the
way
to
do
it
in
this
bill.
So
please
do
not
move
sb
54
forward.
Thank
you.
A
F
Good
afternoon,
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
this
is
marta
mcgade
williams,
m-a-r-l-a-m-c
capital,
d-a-d-e
w-I-l-l-I-a-m-s,
with
strategies
360
and
representing
churchill
county.
Today,
I'm
not
disputing
any
of
the
remarks
put
forward
by
director
ott.
However,
it
seems
if
there
are
going
to
be
changes
to
the
state
board
of
agriculture
makeup
and
move
it
into
an
additional
realm
of
policy
making.
Then
that's
a
process
that
needs
to
be
thoroughly
vetted
and
it
hasn't
been
up
to
this
point.
F
This
bill
draft
was
not
brought
before
the
board
members
for
consideration
before
it
was
submitted
to
the
legislative
council
bureau
at
the
bill
draft.
Therefore,
the
board
was
not
able
to
weigh
in
as
required
by
nrs
561.105,
which
states
the
board
shall
advise
and
make
recommendations
to
the
governor,
the
legislature
or
the
legislature
relating
to
the
policies
of
the
state
concerning
livestock
and
agriculture.
Clearly,
the
director
has
authority
over
department
activities,
but
the
board
is
responsible
for
establishing
the
policies
of
the
department,
and
I
think
that
goes
beyond
administrative
policies.
F
We
oppose
sb
54
because
we
believe
it
needs
to
be
fully
vetted
before
the
board
during
the
interim
and
in
a
public
setting
to
allow
the
various
constituencies
to
weigh
in
and
understand
and
then
move
forward.
If
that
is
what
is
ultimately
determined,
I
think
there
are
a
lot
of
changes
that
need
to
be
made
in
statute
to
really
gel
this
all
together
with
a
new
board,
and
I
thank
you
for
your
consideration.
A
P
Many
in
the
committee
might
be
wondering
why
somebody
with
the
petroleum
industry
would
be
addressing
you
on
this
bill,
we're
in
the
neutral
position,
and
the
reason
is
that
the
petroleum
marketers
and
the
petroleum
industry
enjoy
a
seat
on
the
agriculture
board
and
have
for
more
than
30
years.
It's
an
important
role
that
I
think
many
people
are
unaware
that
the
department
of
agriculture
plays
in
fuel
quality
and
they
in
fact
a
director
ott's
agency
tests
and
determines
fuel
requirements
specifications.
P
So
our
position
in
on
while
this
bill
is,
doesn't
change
our
seat
or
our
position
there.
It
is
of
extreme
interest
to
us
as
we
go
forward.
There
will
be
a
number
of
hearings.
P
Ab-411
that
is
coming
from
this
house
that
has
to
do
with
ethanol
will
be
heard
in
the
department
of
agriculture
so
that
having
a
viable
and
consistent
board
that
understands
business
understands
and
listens
to
the
both
sides.
In
the
case
of
the
ethanol
industry,
both
us
and
the
others
will
really
duke
it
out
on
whether
15
ethanol
should
be
permitted
in
nevada.
P
So
we
think
that-
and
I
and
I
was
very
pleased
to
hear
that
director
ott
said
that
she
understands
and
is
fully
supportive
of
all
the
provisions
of
nrs
561
105..
P
That's
good,
because
we're
going
to
be
really
with
her
department
of
thick
of
things
not
only
on
the
ethanol
bill,
but
several
other
bills.
Just
to
let
you
know
how
important
this
is.
In
the
last
six
or
eight
months,
a
some
kind
of
a
contaminant
has
entered
the
diesel
fuel
chain
in
northern
nevada.
P
We
think
it's
temperature
related,
but
the
department
and
through
the
hopefully
will
become
weights
and
measures
again,
as
opposed
to
the
consumer
of
equitability,
which
is
not
a
word,
has
been
been
very
involved
in
trying
to
get
to
the
bottom
of
this.
So,
for
those
reasons
we're
pleased
to
be
neutral
on
the
bill,
because
it
doesn't
fish
our
position
but
are
very
pleased
that
director
ott
understands
and
supports
561-105.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
remarks,
mr
krueger.
Seeing
no
one
else
in
the
room
broadcast
production
services.
Can
we
see
if
we
have
anyone
wishing
to
provide
testimony
in
the
neutral
position
on
sb54
remotely.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Actually,
the
question
is,
for
you
just
wondering
if
we
can
get
together
and
try
to
resolve
the
issue,
if
we
get
everybody
together
and
try
to
see
if
we
can
come
up
with
a
workable
solution
to
this
bill
and
and
propose
an
amendment
and
bring
it
back
to
you
and
see
what
you
think.
A
Thank
you
for
that
assemblyman
ellison.
As
with
any
other
bill,
I
encourage
folks
that
have
concerns
to
continue
to
bring
those
forward
to
the
sponsor
of
the
legislation,
feel
free
to
include
me
in
that
correspondence
as
well
and
we'll
take
things
from
there.
A
You
thank
you
with
that
directorate.
Are
there
any
closing
remarks
that
you'd
like
to.
A
A
All
right,
it
looks
like
the
director
is
having
some
technical
difficulties
director.
I
just
want
to
reiterate
if
you
can
hear
us
our
appreciation
for
the
presentation
and
answering
questions
today.
I
think
with
that
we'll
just
close
the
hearing
on
sb
54,
and
that
brings
us
to
the
last
item
on
our
agenda
for
today,
which
is
public
comment.
As
a
reminder,
you
must
register
to
make
public
comment.
We
ask
you
to
limit
your
remarks
to
two
minutes
and
on
matters
not
related
to
today's
agenda
but
relevant
to
the
committee's
work.
A
Thank
you
very
much
bps
for
all
your
support,
thanks
for
those
that
came
and
joined
us
in
person
today
and
members
for
all
of
your
time,
attention
and
questions
our
next
meeting
will
be
on
wednesday
cinco
de
mayo,
alas,
cuatro.