►
From YouTube: 3/29/2021 - Senate 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
Thank
you
very
much
good
afternoon
and
welcome
to
the
senate
committee
on
government
affairs
and
and
thank
you
to
all
of
you
who
are
joining
us
online.
We
appreciate
your
participation
members.
Please
remember
to
mute
your
microphone
when
you're,
not
speaking,
and
the
secret
will
the
secretary
please
call
the
rule.
C
A
Here
and
please
mark
mr
or
senator
settlemyre
present
when
he
arrives
and
thank
you
members
for
all
being
present
today
before
we
begin,
I
will
just
remind
our
audience.
Our
virtual
environment
is
open
to
you
and
you
can
do
this
by
signing
on
to
the
legislative
website
to
nellis
and
it
will
provide
you
with
many
ways
to
participate.
A
So
you
just
click
that
participate
button
and
it
will
link
you
in
just
a
note.
While
the
meeting
registration
is
required
to
participate.
Your
testimony
and
public
comment
may
be
limited
due
to
the
time,
so
we'll
have
a
period
of
comment
at
the
end.
Public
comment
will
be
at
the
very
end
and
remember
just
as
a
reminder
that
you'll
be
invited
to
speak
about
anything
but
the
bills
that
we
are
about
to
hear.
A
Today.
The
committee
will
be
hearing
four
bills
in
the
order
shown
on
the
agenda.
I'm
sorry
three
bills
and
the
first
one
is
senate
bill
294
and
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
294..
This
measure
revises
provisions
governing
collective
bargaining
by
our
local
government
and
senator
cannizzaro.
Welcome
to
government
affairs,
we're
happy
to
have
you
and
please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
F
Nope,
I'm
on
you
just
kidding.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
it's
so
great
to
be
here
with
the
committee
on
government
affairs.
It
being
my
first
visit
with
you
all
this
legislative
session.
So
I
appreciate
you
having
me
here
today
all
right,
we'll
get
started.
Thank
you,
chair,
dondero,
loop
and
committee
members.
F
I'm
here
today
to
present
to
you
senate
bill
294,
along
with
me
today,
is
also
mr
fred
horvath,
who
madam
chair,
if
it
pleases
you
in
the
committee,
I
would
appreciate
allowing
for
him
to
give
some
testimony
just
as
soon
as
I'm
finished,
and
then
he
I
think,
is
also
going
to
assist
with
questions
from
the
committee
as
being
someone
who
is
a
little
more
well-versed
than
I
and
some
of
the
subject
matter.
If
that
is
okay
with
you
for
those
of
you
here
today,
my
name
is
nicole
cannazzaro.
F
Again,
as
I
mentioned,
we
do
have
fred
horvath,
who
is
the
treasurer
for
teamsters
local
14
with
us
today,
and
he
will
be
giving
some
testimony
once
I've
completed
mine,
and
then
we
will
be
able
to
stand
ready
for
questions
from
members
of
the
committee
by
way
of
background.
Currently,
if
an
organization
that
represents
local
government
employees,
other
than
educational
support,
personnel,
firefighters,
police
officers
and
teachers
fails
to
resolve
an
issue
in
negotiating
a
collective
bargaining
agreement
with
an
employer,
the
dispute
can
be
submitted
to
an
impartial
factfinder.
F
However,
before
doing
so,
the
parties
need
to
agree
to
make
the
recommendations
of
the
fact
finder
on
certain
issues
final
and
binding,
when
the
local
government,
employer
and
employee
organization
cannot
agree.
Either
party
can
request
the
formation
of
a
panel
to
determine
whether
the
findings
and
recommendations
of
the
factfinder
on
certain
issues
will
be
final
and
binding.
F
This
bill
this
bill
repeals
the
provisions
relating
to
such
panels
and
provides
that
the
findings
and
awards
of
the
fact
finder
are
final
and
binding
on
the
parties
in
labor
disputes
involving
local
government
employers
senate
bill
294
provides
that
unless
the
parties
agree
to
make
the
findings
of
fact
binder
final
and
binding.
The
fact
finders
report
must
include
recommendations
for
settlement
of
the
dispute
in
lieu
of
an
award
and
the
findings
and
recommendations
of
the
fact-finder
are
not
binding.
F
Section
3
makes
the
changes
that
are
only
applicable
to
labor
disputes
involving
firefighters,
police
officers,
section
4
eliminates
the
authorization
for
expenditure
of
funds
for
expenses
related
to
the
panels
and
madam
chair.
At
this
point,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
mr
horvath
to
give
his
testimony
before
we
stand
ready
for
questions
from
the
committee.
G
G
In
the
interest
of
brevity
and
b
direct
all
employee
groups
governed
by
nrs288,
with
the
exception
of
one,
have
binding
arbitration
available
to
them.
They
are
unable
to
reach
a
satisfactory
conclusion
among
the
parties,
police,
firefighters,
teachers,
school
support
staff
and
the
2019
state
of
nevada.
Employees
have
access
to
fact
finding
and
binding
arbitration
county
local
government
and
other
political
subdivisions.
G
This
panel
consists
of
an
attorney
an
accountant,
and
these
two
individuals
select
a
third
member
who
is
either
an
attorney
or
an
accountant.
I
believe
commissioner
bruce
snyder
may
be
testifying.
I
will
leave
it
to
him
and
to
describe
the
process
and
the
challenges
that
exist
in
putting
these
panels
together.
G
G
An
interest-based
arbitrator
is
someone
who's
been
selected
from
the
american
arbitration
association,
the
federal
mediation
conciliation
service
and
the
professionals
in
the
area
of
interest
arbitration,
which
is
defined
as
the
arbitration
to
resolve
a
collective
bargaining
agreement,
a
labor
contract
or
economic
terms
and
conditions
very
different
than
discipline
and
those
type
of
things
when
the
parties
request
the
list
of
seven
they
require
people
on
the
list
have
interest
arbitration
experience.
This
experience
includes
labor
law
and
clearly
established
financial
acumen
with
emphasis
on
public
sector
organizations.
G
G
G
G
G
2019
legislature
embraced
this
rationale
and
they
provided
collective
bargaining
rights
for
state
employees
and
provided
for
arbitration.
Only
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
address
you.
I
urge
you
to
support
sb294
and
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
you
may
have.
A
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
horvath,
we
appreciate
your
attendance
here
today
and
thank
you
senator
canezero.
I
think
we
have
a
couple
questions
and
we'll
start
with
senator
neil.
H
I
just
omg
okay,
mr
horvath.
I
I
have
to
ask
a
question
because
you're
talking
about
the
the
panel
members
that
have
the
interest-based
arbitration,
that
that
would
be
seven
seven
individuals
is.
Is
this
bill
contemplating
replacing
the
existing
number
of
the
panel
members
with
a
number
of
seven?
Because
I
don't.
G
I
apologize
it
wasn't
very
clear
so
for
everybody,
both
police
fire
school
teachers,
they
all
have
access
to
the
american
arbitration
association,
federal
reconciliation,
mediation,
reconciliation.
We
do
not,
we
being
local
government
employees
county.
There
is
a
panel
of
three
in
the
statute,
a
panel
of
three
in
the
statue
of
an
attorney,
an
accountant
and
another
attorney
or
account.
That
is
the
panel
that
we're
trying
to
eliminate
and
just
go
with
the
professionals
from
the
list
of
seven.
H
H
Help
me
understand
if
you
look
at
lines
23
through
28,
which
say
that
the
panel
should
consider
actions
by
the
parties
in
previous
fact,
finding
best
interests
of
the
state
and
all
of
its
citizens
and
talk
about
the
potential
fiscal
effect
on
within
and
outside
of
the
political
subdivision
and
danger
and
safety
to
people.
Why?
Why
are
we
striking
that
out?
Even
if
you
choose
to
go
to
the
experts,
it
seems
that
this
language
is
also
pertinent
to
considerations
that
should
be
made
for
groups.
G
I
G
H
Okay,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
know
if
you're
trying
to
get
this
other
body,
that
those
considerations,
I
think
matter
because
they
they're
unique
to
nevada.
But
if
you
go
to
page
five
section
10
in
so
in
section
2
10,
it
references
section
6..
So
I
don't
know
if
that
is
a
typo,
because
section
6,
the
time
period
in
section
six
is
struck
out.
H
Or
if
I'm
reading
it,
you
know
I
don't
or
if
it's
referencing
the
sub
six
on
with
the
45
days
of
the
receipt
of
the
report,
it's
not
clear
what
what
that
time
period
is
referencing,
except
except
for
the
period
prescribed
by
subsection
six,
any
time
limit
prescribed
by
the
section
and
there's
two
time
limits.
In
section
six
one
is
struck
out,
and
then
one
is
a
new
section.
Six
with
45
days.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
that
was
one
of
my
questions
was.
I
was
looking
at
that
section,
subsection
10,
where
it
said
any
time
limit
and
I
was
going
to
ask
what,
if
that
meant
any
time
limit
or
if
there
was
actually
some
at
some
point.
That
would
end.
F
And
madam
chair,
if
by
may,
I
believe
that
that
does
reference
on
page
four,
what
would
now
be
the
renumbered
version
of
the
bill,
the
new
sub
six,
where
you
can
see
on
line
17
on
page
four,
it
says
within
45
days
after
the
receipt
of
the
report
from
the
fact
finder,
the
governing
body
of
the
local
employment
employer
shall
hold
a
public
meeting
in
accordance,
and
I
believe
that
that
is
the
time
period
for
which
they're
referring
to
it
could
be
extended,
except
as
provided
there.
A
Senator
cannizzaro,
with
your
permission,
I'll
call
a
friend
I'll
ask
our
legal
counsel
to
weigh
in
with
miss
clarkson
if
you're
available.
Could
you
weigh
in
on
that?
Please.
D
Yes,
for
the
record,
this
is
heidi
clarkson,
with
the
legislative
council
bureau.
So
on
page
three
of
the
bill,
starting
with
line
11,
the
existing
subsection
six
language
is
deleted
and
then,
on
page
four
of
the
bill,
senator
cannizzaro
is
correct
that
what
is
currently
existing
subsection
eight
is
change
to
subsection.
Six,
therefore
page
five
of
the
bill
when
subsection
ten
references,
subsection
six,
it's
referencing,
the
new
subsection
six,
that
is
on
page
four
of
the
bill
that
under
existing
law,
would
be
subsection.
D
A
H
It
seems
to
remove
the
point
where
folks
can
agree
when
you
have
recommendations
and
that
time
period
is
30
days,
and
so
the
new
subsection
6
says
this
is
the
report
after
the
I
guess
now
the
award
and-
and
so
I
get
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
like
I
need
real
life
like
you
need
to
walk
me
through
like
this.
If
it
happened
today,
what
would
we
understand
the
collective
bargaining
process
to
look
like
with
these
changes?
H
G
Out
no,
I
would
be
I'd
be
happy
to
again.
This
is
not
police
fire
teachers,
support
staff
or
state
employees,
just
everybody
else,
local
government
employees.
What
would
happen
is
the
parties
would
attempt
to
negotiate
a
contract
and
reach
a
voluntary
agreement
if
they
are
unable
to
do
that?
The
act
provides
for
mediation
and
a
report
from
the
mediator
within
30
days.
G
If
that
is
unsuccessful,
you're
off
to
fact-finding
and
you
use
the
fact-finding
process
and
with
this
bill
the
fact
finder's
decision
is
final
and
binding
for
this
group
of
employees.
Only
one
thing
I
did
not
cover-
and
I
was
remiss
in
not
doing
so
the
current
panel
of
three
there
is
no
time
frame
dictated
for
a
decision
as
there
is
with
police
and
fire,
where
there's
a
very
clear
10-day
mandate
for
decisions
to
take
place
and
there's
actually
real
life.
G
A
You're
welcome
senator
neil
all
right
other
additional
questions.
Senator
hansen.
C
The
big
change
is
that
when
the
fact-finder
cur
under
current
law
goes
and
presents
it
to
the
public
body,
the
public
body
currently
sees
it
as
recommendations
with
the
with
the
sentence
on
section
section
two
lines:
let's
see,
I'm
sorry
page
three
line.
Sixteen
it
says
the
award
is
final
and
binding
on
the
parties.
So,
even
though
you
go
back
to
the
public
body,
currently
you
go
back
to
the
public
body
with
recommendations
from
the
panels
and
now
you're
going
back
to
the
the
public
body.
To
basically
say
it's
a
done
deal.
C
Am
I
reading
that
correctly?
Mr
horvath.
G
C
F
Yes,
please
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
was
interesting,
at
least
in
my
conversations
that
mr
horvath
had
discussed,
because
I
think
to
senator
hansen's
point
about
there
being
the
back
fighting
process
and
then
referral
to
a
panel
was
that
the
differences
between
what
is
ultimately
determinate
fact-finding,
regardless
of
whether
it's
binding
or
not
binding,
and
then
what
ends
up
happening
at
the
panel
often
are
the
exact
same
results.
And
so
I
don't
know
if
mr
horvath
would
want
to
elaborate
on
that.
F
But
to
me
I
thought
that
was
compelling
in
that
when
we're
talking
about
taxpayer
dollars
and
how
do
you
ensure
we're
getting
to
the
right
res
without
unnecessarily,
wasting
taxpayer
dollars,
something
that's
not
requiring
for
them
to
go
through
the
process
twice
to
ultimately
come
to
the
same
decision
would
be
a
way
in
which
we
can
assure
the
taxpayers
that
their
dollars
are
being
spent
wisely,
and
mr
horvath
wanted
to
elaborate
on
that.
C
Thank
you
ma'am
chair,
because,
well
I'm
glad
you
both
agree
that
you
could
save
some
tax
dollars.
In
some
cases
these
panels
tend
to
be
redundant.
It
sounds
like,
but
from
a
taxpayer
perspective,
I
don't
mind
having
a
couple
of
layers
that
you
have
to
hoops.
You
have
to
jump
through,
because
the
amount
of
dollars
involved
for
the
taxpayers
is
substantially
larger
than
any
savings
we
had
by
eliminating
one
of
these
steps.
C
So
to
me
I
mean
it's
kind
of
a
red
herring
to
suggest
that,
well,
it's
actually
in
the
taxpayers
interest
to
reduce
some
of
the
checks
and
balances
that
exist
under
current
law.
So
just
don't
see
that
as
a
taxpayer
savings
in
the
type
that
the
taxpayers
really
want.
If
they're
looking
for
savings,
it's
going
to
be
on
the
big
big
dollars
involved
in
the
salary
and
benefit
packages
that
would
be
being
negotiated
in
these
type
of
arrangements.
A
Senator
kacia
no
questions.
Okay,
all
right!
No,
more
questions,
senator
cannizzaro!
Unless
you
had
additional
comments,
I
will
go
ahead
and
go
to
support
opposition
and
neutral
okay.
I
will
start
with
support
and
broadcasting
when
you're
ready.
Please
go
ahead.
I
L
W-I-L-L-A-D-L-E-R
representing
silver
state
government
relations
representing
the
las
vegas
city,
employees,
association,
las
vegas
city
employees
association
would
like
to
add
our
names
in
support
of
this
bill
and
all
of
its
measures
and
what
it
wishes
to
do.
We
see
that
the
bill
has
a
few
changes
needed
in
that,
when
those
are
done,
that
it
will
provide
a
proper
structure
to
reduce
redundancy
in
the
state
of
nevada.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
L
Good
afternoon
chris
bailey
d-a-l-y
nevada,
state
educational
association,
the
voice
of
nevada
educators
for
over
120
years,
nfta
affiliates,
negotiate,
28
collective
bargaining
agreements
across
the
state.
We
appreciate
how
important
it
is
for
collective
bargaining,
including
fact-finding
and
bonding
arbitration,
to
be
fair
to
all
parties.
We
believe
this
is
the
best
system
to
decide
critical
workplace
issues
and
to
continue
labor
peace.
Messiah
supports
sb
294,
revising
provisions
relating
to
collective
bargaining
between
certain
government,
employers
and
employee
associations.
L
I
L
L
I
O
L
I
I
I
P
M-C-A-L-L-I-F-C-E-R,
I'm
the
executive
secretary
treasurer
for
the
nevada
state,
fl
cio,
and
we
stand
in
support
of
sb
net
296..
Madam
chair
member
of
the
committee.
This
bill
simply
evens
the
playing
field
for
all
public
employees.
Certain
groups
have
the
ability
to
go
to
a
binding
facts
finder,
whereas
local
government
employees
do
not.
We
represent
a
large
number
of
those
public
employees.
P
We
certainly
agree
that
everybody
should
have
a
chance,
but
what
we
have
found
over
the
course
of
time
is
that
many
local
governments
will
use
this
process
to
delay
and
stall
because
they
have
nothing
to
lose
the
longer.
They
delay
this
process,
the
longer
they
keep
from
having
to
pay
out
on
a
contract.
P
So
if
you
can
delay
through
the
fact-finding
process
and
and
or
then
go
to
a
binding
arbitration
process,
you
just
double
the
time
of
which
to
solve
the
contract
with
the
same
result.
At
the
end
you
just
didn't
have
to
pay
for
it.
So
from
that,
madam
chair,
we
believe
that
this
saw
saves
time.
We
believe
it
solves
fairness
or
provides
fairness,
and
it
still
allows
for
those
groups,
police,
fire,
other
groups
to
have
both
binding
arbitration
and
fact-finding
process
available
to
them.
So
with
that,
madam
chair,
we're
in
support
of
sb296.
I
Q
D-A-G-N-Y-S-T-A-P-L-E-T-O-N
nevadas
counties
are
concerned
about
the
proposal
in
this
bill
to
make
fact-finding
final
and
binding.
We
believe
that
the
current
structure
regarding
fact-finding
is
preferable
for
local
government
employees
final
and
binding
fact.
Finding
could
create
a
disincentive
for
both
sides
to
reach
an
agreement
as
either
side
could
perfunctorily
go
through
the
motions
and
then
declare
impasse
in
the
hopes
of
getting
a
better
outcome
through
arbitration.
Q
This
is
opposed
to
non-binding
fact,
finding
which
incentivizes
counties
and
labor
to
receive
outside
recommendations
from
fact
finding
and
then
together
consider
these
to
reach
an
agreement
voluntarily.
We
are
concerned
that,
if
passed,
sb294
could
lead
to
increased
arbitration
and
arbitration
costs
and
an
overall
increase
in
personnel
costs.
This
could
could
be
true
for
all
counties,
both
large
and
small,
and
for
these
reasons
we
do
oppose
and
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
comments.
I
M
F-I-O-R-E-N-T-I-N-O
and
we
represent
nye
county,
and
we
share
the
concerns
that
were
just
expressed
by
naco
and
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
record
reflected
that
and
happy
to
work
with
the
sponsor
and
the
committee,
if
there's
any
room
for
something
in
between.
So
thank
you
for
your
time
this
afternoon.
I
I
I
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
and
committee,
nicole
rourke
representing
the
city
of
henderson.
We
are
here
in
neutral
today
simply
because
we
don't
see
the
need
for
this
bill.
We
appreciate
the
clarity
that
the
bill
provides
on
non-binding
fact-finding
for
public
safety
in
section
three,
but
it
is
not
apparent
to
us
as
to
why
section
2
of
the
bill
makes
fact-finding
now
binding
for
non-public
safety
groups.
If
non-binding
fact
finding
is
a
good
process
for
bargaining
with
public
safety
unions,
then
it
should
also
be
a
sufficient
tool
to
bargain
with
non-public
safety
unions.
I
I
O
O
I
am
the
commissioner
of
the
government,
employee
management
relations
board,
more
commonly
known
as
emrb,
which
regulates
labor
relations
between
nevada's
governments
and
the
unions
that
represent
their
employees.
I
want
to
speak
today
on
sb
294
and
in
particular
the
issue
of
fact
finding
which
has
generated
a
number
of
questions.
Today,
the
process
of
getting
into
a
new
contract
starts
with
negotiations.
O
If,
if
either
party
after
meeting
so
many
times,
believes
that
they
are
at
impasse,
they
can
declare
an
impasse.
O
If
the
two
parties
cannot
agree
if
it
is
to
be
final
and
binding
or
advisory,
then
the
case
takes
a
detour
to
what
is
known
as
a
fact-finding
panel.
It's
unfortunate
that
the
term
fact-finding
panel
is
used
because
it
equates
somewhat
to
the
issue
of
fact.
Finding
the
only
purpose
of
a
fact-finding
panel
is
to
determine
whether
an
upcoming
fact
finding
is
to
be
final
and
binding
or
whether
it
is
to
be
only
advisory.
It
does
not
decide
what
the
terms
of
the
new
collective
bargaining
agreement
are
to
be
fact.
O
O
The
law
is
written,
presumes
a
speedy
convening
of
effect
finding
panels,
so
the
parties
may
actually
get
to
the
fact-finding
itself.
However,
the
process
is
anything
but
speedy,
and
this
is
likely
why
it
is
seldom
requested
and
when
requested,
seldom
used
in
the
end
it.
The
process,
for
example,
involves
contacting
the
state
bar
of
nevada
and
the
state
board
of
accountancy
to
ask
that
each
of
these
agencies
submit
five
names
of
their
members,
which
is
done
only
after
educating
them
as
to
why
they
are
involved
in
a
labor
dispute.
O
The
names
are
then
stricken
by
the
parties,
until
only
one
name
remains
on
each
list.
I
then
contact
the
people
who
were
selected
often
they
are
unwilling
to
serve
or
have
a
conflict.
Finally,
when
two
members
have
been
finally
selected,
they
must
then
appoint
a
third
member.
Only
until
this
is
done.
Can
the
agency
then
submit
a
work
program
to
obtain
the
funds
to
pay
the
three
panel
members
along
with
their
travel,
then
the
three
panel
members
must
register
as
employees
like
any
other
member
of
a
board
in
the
state.
O
O
A
Thank
you,
sir.
Thank
you
additional
neutral.
I
I
Q
Q
Madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
marlene
lockhart
l-o-c-k-a-r-d,
representing
seiu
1107..
We
are
calling
in
support
of
the
bill.
I
recognize
this
as
the
neutral
testimony,
but
I
was
not
able
to
get
in
the
queue
fast
enough,
so
we
support
the
comments
previously
made
by
those
in
support.
Thank
you.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
The
one
thing
I
would
just
sort
of
reiterate
with
respect
to
senate
bill
294
that
hopefully
we
have
articulated
properly
to
this
committee-
is
that
this
is
a
process
proposed
here
that
is
very
similar
to
the
process
used
by
not
only
state
employees
but
by
other
public
employee
sectors
and
will,
in
fact,
I
think,
make
for
a
clearer
process.
F
As
you
heard,
just
as
an
explanation
from
the
emrb
from
commissioner
snyder
is
that
this
is
not
something
that
is
utilized.
It
is
something
that
is
costly
and
very
time
consuming,
and
I
think
that
this
provides
a
much
clearer
pathway
forward
for
the
resolution
of
those
negotiations
where
needed,
and
so
I
just
wanted
to
again
thank
the
committee
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
having
me
today,
we'll
definitely
reach
out
to
all
of
the
folks
who
have
voiced
their
comments
and
concerns
over
the
bill
and
see
if
we
can
find
some
resolution.
A
R
R
A
fireworks
are
an
exciting
part
of
celebrations
in
our
country,
not
the
least
of
which
is
independence
day.
However,
according
to
the
united
states,
consumer
product
safety
commission,
on
average
280
people
go
to
the
emergency
room
with
firework
related
injuries
in
the
month
around
july.
4Th
daily,
our
state
fire
marshal
here
in
nevada,
is
tasked
with
enforcing
all
laws
and
adopting
regulations
relating
to
the
storage
and
use
of
fireworks.
R
Currently,
the
board
of
directors
of
a
county
fire
protection
district
and
the
board
of
fire
commissioners
are
required
to
adopt
and
enforce
all
rules
and
regulations
necessary
for
the
administration
and
government
of
the
county
fire
protection
district.
The
board
of
county
commissioners,
organizing
each
county
fire
protection
district
is
ex-officio.
R
1
2,
5-7
and
section
9
require
and
authorize
these
governmental
entities
that
I
mentioned
earlier
to
regulate
or
adopt
ordinances
concerning
the
manufacture,
sale,
use,
storage
and
possession
of
fireworks
so
long
as
those
regulations
and
ordinances
are
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
regulations
concerning
fireworks
that
are
adopted
by
the
nevada
state
fire
marshal.
This
language
is
consistently
applied
to
the
various
governmental
entities
throughout
the
bill.
R
These
sections,
as
well
as
section
3,
include
language
also
applying
to
these
entities
specifying
that,
if
someone
who
stores
or
uses
fireworks
in
violation
of
existing
law
or
regulations
that
are
administered
by
the
state
fire
marshal
that
they,
they
would
be
subject
to
reimburse
that
state
fire
marshal
or
the
appropriate
government
governmental
entity
for
the
direct
and
indirect
costs
resulting
from
such
a
violation.
R
This
would
include
the
costs
associated
with
any
investigation
into
such
violation,
suppressing
a
fire
resulting
from
the
sales
storage
or
use
of
such
fireworks
and
the
confiscation
and
disposal
of
fireworks,
sold,
stored
or
used
in
violation
of
existing
laws
or
regulations
of
the
bill.
Further
authorizes
the
state
fire
marshal
and
certain
agencies
of
state
and
local
government
to
institute
a
legal
proceeding
to
enforce
these
provisions.
R
Chair
with,
we
certainly
have
heard
a
lot
of
testimony
this
year
about
some
of
the
incidents
that
have
been
originated
with
fireworks
in
in
some
of
our
counties,
whether
they
be
reports
of
property
fires
down
in
southern
nevada
or
of
wildland
fires
in
the
northern
part
of
our
state
and
senate
bill.
227
is
a
measure
aimed
at
public
safety
aimed
at
trying
to
bring
uniformity
and
a
minimum
standard
as
to
what
kind
of
fireworks
would
be
permitted.
R
Certainly
if
a
county
wanted
to
go
farther
and
to
not
allow
fireworks
that
would
be
within
the
purview
of
the
bill.
The
effective
date
of
the
bill
at
the
very
last
page
is
october
1
of
the
following
year,
and
so
that
is
meant
to
address
any
concerns
that
had
been
relayed
to
me.
I
do
believe
that
there
are
some
potential
amendments
that
I
discussed
with
the
fire
marshal
and,
with
your
permission,
chair
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
former
assemblyman
vaughn
chowing.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
assemblywoman
challenge.
If
you
would
like
to
jump
in
here,
you
are
welcome
to
join
us.
A
A
J
Thank
you
very
very
much
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
government
affairs
committee.
I
really
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
able
to
speak
with
you
today.
J
I
am
former
assemblywoman
of
district
28
and
for
many
terms
I
did
address
this
important
issue
and
the
issue
is
no
less
relevant
today
than
it
was
many
many
years
ago
in
nevada.
We
still
do
not
have
a
state
fireworks
control
law.
We
are
the
only
state
in
all
of
our
united
states
to
not
have
a
uniform
law.
J
J
Almost
all
of
the
counties
do
not
allow
any
type
of
sale
or
use
of
fireworks,
but
in
southern
nevada
in
nye
county
they
are
allowed
to
sell,
year-round,
dangerous
explosive
exploding,
projectiles
along
with
firecrackers,
safe
and
sane
fireworks.
Also,
sometimes
they
do
sell
sparklers
and
safe
and
sane,
but
they
also
sell
they.
J
I,
of
course,
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
clark
county
because
we
are
the
ones
that,
year
after
year
after
year,
have
to
endure
the
the
terrible
terrible
time
of
it
should
be
a
nice
holiday
of
the
fourth
of
july.
J
J
We
have
to
have
a
a
hose
with
water
to
make
sure
that
our
homes
don't
burn
down.
So
you
tell
me:
how
is
that
able
to
enjoy
our
holiday
now
many
many
years
ago,
we
only
had
safe
and
sane
fireworks.
We
did
not
have
any
of
the
dangerous
exploding
fireworks
in
our
county,
so
we
were.
We
were
able
to
enjoy
the
holiday
and
to
this
day,
if
we
only
had
safe
insane
fireworks,
that
would
be
a
much
safer
alternative
to
be
able
to
enjoy
our
holiday.
J
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Vice
chairman
charles
did,
you
have
anything
else
to
say
before
we
go
to
committee
questions.
R
Your
honor,
I
know
that
bob
you're
on
chair
terry
taylor,
who
has
been
an
arson
investigator
for
many
many
years,
has
a
wealth
of
experience.
I
believe
he's
on
the
phone
and
he
may
have
some
more
background.
I
don't
know
whatever.
If
it's
your
preference
to
have
him
speak
now
or
later,
he
might
be
able
to
give
a
little
more
background.
But
I'm
happy
to
answer
questions
whenever
it's
your
pleasure,
chair.
H
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
had
a
question,
of
course,
on
indirect
and
direct
cost,
which
is
on
well,
it's
all
throughout
the
bill.
So
on
page
four,
it
looks
like
the
indirect
and
indirect
costs
could
roll
in
the
cost
of
a
legal
proceeding,
because
on
line
six
sub
b,
one
c
c3,
it
says
the
district
may
institute
a
legal
proceeding
to
enforce
the
provisions
of
the
reg.
Is
that
something
that
you're
going
to
roll
into
the
costs
and
basically
have
someone
paying
for
the
legal
cost
for
I'm
assuming
illegal
fireworks?
R
Thank
you,
chair
to
you
and
through
you
to
senator
neil.
I
believe
that
that
that
would
be
a
potential
cost
if
illegal
fireworks
have
been
found,
and
certainly
I
know
that
we've
got
some
experts
on
the
line
who
might
be
able
to
provide
some
more
information.
In
terms
of,
I
believe
that
our
state
fire
marshal
is
here
to
testify
in
neutral
on
the
measure,
but
I
think
he
might
be
able
to
give
a
little
more
background
chair
with
your
permission
as
to
the
kind
of
efforts
that
go
into
some
of
these
investigations.
S
Ahead
hi,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
I
am
mike
d'zak
and
I
am
your
state
fire
marshal
and
I'm
here
to
try
to
help
answer
any
questions.
I'm
certainly
again,
not
the
author
of
the
bill,
but
on
on
certain
topics
I
can.
I
can
help
out
I've
been
with
the
fire
marshal
for
20
years.
S
We've
seen
fireworks,
legal
and
illegal
throughout
my
career,
I
was
the
investigations
chief
and
I
was
lucky
enough
that
we
we
didn't
have.
We
didn't
have
to
go
to
any
legal
route
to
deal
with
like
a
civil
suit
or
anything,
and
I
I
think,
the
the
clarity
there
is
to
say
it's
going
to
cost
the
state
money
or
the
or
the
city
or
the
county
is
going
to
cost
the
money
to
do
the
investigation
to
you
might
need
expert
witnesses.
S
You
have
the
confiscation,
you
have
the
disposal.
If
it's
determined,
you
have
the
storage,
you
have
to
find
a
place
to
store
some
of
these
and
depending
on
the
amounts
and
the
quantities
can
be
fairly
substantial.
H
So
so
my
question
on,
like
the
it
spells
out
the
direct
and
indirect
costs,
but
my
my
huge
concern
is
the
dollar
amount
to
this,
because
it
says
without
limitation,
why?
Why
would
the
benefits
for
employees
be
rolled
into
this,
and
then
also
the
interstate
compact
or
any
other
agreement
for
firefighting
support
rolled
into
the
cost
that
you
would
attribute
to
an
offender
that
it
seems
excessive,
because
that
that's
that's
not
a
cost
that
anyone
contemplates,
nor
is
it
necessarily
triggered
by
an
act
that
may
have
happened
in
a
city.
R
And
and
chair
to
you
and
three
to
center
neal,
the
goal
here
was
to
try
and
make
sure
that
that
the
cost
can
be
recovered,
that,
when
fireworks,
that
are
not
legal
in
a
certain
county
are
brought
into
that
county
that
you
know
this
bill
would
look
at
civil
fines
and
at
recovering
the
cost
as
the
penalty
and
that
those
costs
which
sometimes
can
be
very
hefty,
would
be
recovered
and
I'll
be
happy
to
turn
over
to
the
chief.
If
there's
any
further
explanation,
you
know
you'd
like
to
give.
S
Yes,
madam
chair,
or
through
the
chair
to
senator
neil,
I
I
did
not
again,
I
didn't
author,
the
the
bill,
any
costs
that
we
can
get
you.
You
really
would
have
to
prove
that
you
encountered
those
anyway,
it's
my
understanding,
looking
at
it.
So
I
don't
think
it's
unfair
to
say
we
we
should
be
able
to
whatever
whatever
it
costs
us
to
get
the
investigation
on
to
get
whatever.
S
If
it's
a
civil
matter,
if
it's
a
criminal
matter
to
get
that
all
hashed
out,
it's,
I
don't
think
you
could
make
anything
up
you
you
have
to
just
show
that
hey
we
incurred
the
costs
for
this.
A
C
R
To
you,
and
through
you,
chair
to
senator
hansen
with
my
discussions
with
our
legal
division,
I've
been
told
that
there
is
no
jurisdiction
that
we
can
have
over
what
our
our
friends
on
on
on
the
native
lands
can
sell.
So
what
I
have
been
told
is
that
some
states
have
entered
into
compacts
or
treaties
with
some
of
the
the
the
indian
nations
to
try
to
restrict
sales
of
fireworks,
but
that,
through
the
an
act
of
the
nrs,
that
that's
not
something
that
that
can
be
accomplished.
C
Okay,
well,
that's
kind
of
what
I
thought
honestly
and
the
reason
I
brought
it
up
is:
I
represent
about
oh
geez
at
least
10
different
indian
colonies
and
the
reservations
pyramid,
lake
shers
and
they
all
sell
firewood
and
the
reason
that's
critical
is
because
the
northern
counties,
while
several
counties
have
in
fact
outlawed
it
most
of
the
counties,
have
full.
You
know
any
person
that
wants
fireworks,
get
them
right
away,
just
like,
if
you
guys
have
seen
you
know
like
cigarette
sales
anywhere
where
you
have
a
an
indian
colony
or
indian
anything.
C
Frankly,
they
can
sell
all
sorts
of
things
and
the
real
problem
I've
got
is
in
lander
county,
which
I
represent.
They
have
legalized
that
and
even
if
you
took
their
right
away
to
do
that
right
in
the
heart
of
battle,
mountain
is
an
indian
colony
that
sells
fireworks.
So
when
you
restrict,
if
you
were
to
pass
this
law,
all
you
would
really
be
doing
is
restricting
anybody.
That's
not
an
indian
from
being
able
to
compete
and
have
an
opportunity
to
have
a
fireworks
store.
C
One
of
the
biggest
firework
stores
in
nevada
is
in
fact
in
battle
mountain.
So,
and
also
as
far
as
the
northern
areas,
you
know
you
have
washoe
county
with
pyramid
lake
tribe,
who
sells
fireworks.
C
So
while
I,
I
think
the
intention
is
good,
I
think
it
just
ignores
the
reality
that,
as
long
as
we
allow
the
sovereignty
of
the
indian
nations
to
sell
their
own
fireworks,
which
they
do
under
their
under
their
sovereignty,
you're
you're
not
going
to
really
restrict
or
help
anything
by
restricting
the
the
the
county
citizens
who
also
want
to,
for
example,
in
lander
county.
C
R
And
madam
sheriff,
may
I
briefly
respond.
Thank
you
to
you
and
through
you
to
senator
hansen,
certainly
the
way
I
ever.
I
agree
with
everything
you
say.
However,
I
believe
that
senate
bill
227
would
be
a
first
step
in
terms
of
trying
to
ensure
that
nevadans
safety
is
a
priority.
Fireworks
are
great
in
the
hands
of
certain
fireworks
in
the
hands
of
professionals
who
know
how
to
safely
handle
them,
and
this
bill
would
set
a
minimum,
safe
and
sane
standard.
R
R
I
know
I've
heard
that
there
have
been
talks
here
in
nevada
and,
yes,
that
will
take
some
time
because
they
are
sovereign
nations,
but
I
believe
that
the
first
step
would
be
nevada,
setting
the
standard
that
that
safe
and
sane
fireworks
would
be
the
minimum
standard
and
that
the
non-safe
and
sane
fireworks
would
only
be
safe,
considered,
safe
in
the
hands
of
professionals
for
professional
displays.
So
I
certainly
believe
that
that
would
be
the
next
step
after
enactment
of
a
statewide
uniform
fireworks
safety
law.
A
Thank
you,
senator
gokuchiya.
Please
go
ahead.
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and,
and
I
just
need
to
back
clear
up
and
start
back
through
this,
just
to
point
that
to
senator
hall
was
just
banking
if
in
fact
they
were
purchased
on
on
us
from
sovereign
nation.
P
The
way
I
read
the
bill,
then,
at
the
point
that
person
carried
those
off
outside
the
jurisdiction
of
that
sovereign
nation,
then
they
would
be
in
line
for
all
the
direct
and
indirect
clock
costs
that
could
have
been
brought
forward
by
chief
de
deissec
and
the
fire
marshal's
office
and
I'm
concerned
also
in
those
areas,
whether
it
be
battle
mountain
or
perhaps
where
there
are
people
selling
these
fireworks.
At
the
point,
it
is
legal
in
ny
county
at
the
point,
someone
from
clark
county
buys
some
fireworks.
P
R
Them
to
you
and
through
you,
a
chair
to
senator
gokuchiya,
my
intent
with
the
bill
is
that
it's
it's,
the
the
fine
would
be
on
the
person
who
brings
them
into
the
county
that
that
that
would
be
the
person
who's
either
in
possession
or
who's
using
them.
So
that
would
be
that
would
be
dependent
on
the
investigation.
If
this
bill
became
law-
and
I
could
certainly
turn
it
over-
I
think
either
to
our
state
fire
marshal
or
to
I
believe,
we've
got
the
arson
investigator
on
the
line
as
well.
P
R
And
to
you,
and
through
your
chair
to
senator
gokuchiya,
that's
certainly
not
my
intent.
However.
Senate
bill
227
was
enacted.
There
would
be
a
statewide
uniform
fireworks
loss
only
safe
and
sane,
or
a
stronger
fireworks
law
set
by
county
standard
again.
The
the
native
american
nations
they're
sovereign,
so
state
law
could
not
affect
those,
but
but
their
state
law
would
be
uniform,
so
anyone
in
possession
would
be
subject
to
this
civil,
fine
and
the
recovery
of
costs.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Vice
chair
and
shaw,
additional
questions
from
the
committee
senator
hansen.
Did
you
raise
your
hand
or
were
you
just
okay,
all
right?
Well
with
that
vice
chair
and
shaw,
I
don't
see
any
additional
questions.
I
L
L
Fb
227
promotes
freedom
from
fear
and
distress
around
every
independence
day
in
new
year's
eve,
there's
a
spike
in
missing
pets
directly
attributable
to
fireworks.
Pet
owners
are
responsible
for
sure
ensuring
that
their
animals
are
both
confined
within
their
property
and
microchipped
or
wearing
tags.
L
L
Responsive
governments
should
have
the
power
to
consider
and
address
the
burden
on
pets,
their
owners,
animal
control,
officers
and
shelters
caused
by
fireworks.
They
should
also
consider
the
risk
to
animal
to
wildlife,
habitat
caused
by
the
same
sp
227.
Again,
we
feel
does
both
and
we
therefore
stand
with
pets,
their
humans
and
the
professionals
tasked
with
ensuring
their
welfare
and
asking
that
fb
227
be
enacted.
Thank.
I
E
E
It's
food
horses
and
dogs,
as
well
as
other
animals,
and,
as
mr
dixon
has
always
already
pointed
out,
many
dogs
are
lost
from
their
homes
during
this
time
period.
The
last
figures
I
heard
from
the
animal
foundation,
which
only
covers
the
city
of
las
vegas,
north
las
vegas
and
unincorporated
clark
county,
were
from
2019,
and
that
was
that
more
than
500
dogs
were
picked
up
by
animal
control
in
the
days
after
july
4th,
but
only
about
10
of
those
dogs
were
returned
to
their
owners.
E
I'd
also
point
out
that
las
vegas
valley
is
home
to
more
than
2
million
people.
Now
it's
a
large
metropolitan
area,
and
I
will
personally
testify
to
the
fact
that
july
4th
is
absolutely
terrifying.
It's
unbelievable
the
amount
of
rockets
that
you
see
overhead,
it's
it's
absolutely
crazy,
so
I
just
want
to
also
support
sb
227.
I
I
E
E
I
am
the
deputy
director
of
the
nevada
conservation
league
and
I'm
here
in
support
of
sb227
around
90
of
wildfires
in
the
united
states,
are
caused
and
are
caused
by
illegal.
I'm
sorry.
Over
90
percent
of
all
fires
in
the
united
states
are
human
caused
and
illegal
fireworks
are
a
common
culprit.
Human-Caused
fireworks
combined
with
climate
change,
to
make
the
west
hotter
drier
and
are
leading
to
larger
and
even
more
intense
wildfires.
E
Last
year's
fire
season
set
a
new
record
in
terms
of
geography,
geographic
scale,
fire
intensity
and
rates
of
the
spread
in
2020
alone,
humans
caused
over
540
wildfires
in
nevada
that
was
burning
over
222
thousand
acres.
We
know
that
these
wildfires
have
disastrous
impacts.
The
natural
areas
and
wildlife
habitats
and
the
population
is
affected
from
the
smoke
and
dust
smoke
is
very
hazardous
to
our
health
senate.
E
I
M
F-I-O-R-E-N-T-I-N-O,
testifying
today
on
behalf
of
both
nye
county
and
red
apple
fireworks.
I
know
that
you've
received
information
from
both
of
those
entities
regarding
the
impact
that
sp
227
will
have
on
them.
So
I'll
be
brief
and,
and
summarize,
sb227
imposes
a
substantial
cost
on
the
state
to
implement.
M
That's
revenue
that
the
county
can
ill
afford
to
lose
and
will
have
probably
little
to
no
capacity
to
replace,
and
I
would
submit
to
you
that
the
will
not
result
in
any
measurable
impact
on
safety,
as
senator
hanson
pointed
out.
Really.
What
you're
going
to
do
is
shift
sales
of
these
fireworks
to
the
black
market
and
to
the
tribal
nations
who
will
be
exempt
from
the
laws
now.
M
Having
said
all
that
both
of
my
clients
fully
support
and
understand
the
need
for
more
education
and
more
enforcement,
you'll,
remember
that
I
testified
in
your
committee
on
sb4
and
I
said
the
same
thing
and
I'll
say
it
again.
We
remain
committed
to
working
with
senator
orangehall
with
the
committee
and
other
stakeholders
to
improve
capacity
in
these
areas
in
enforcement
and
education,
and
we're
imploring
the
committee
to
to
do
that
to
take
that
route,
because
it's
far
more
effective
to
address
the
concerns
that
have
been
raised
today.
I
L
L
L
L
Data
fireworks
has
operated
in
nevada
for
19
years,
gone
through
two
renovations
and
expansions,
and
we
are
currently
planning
another
we've
been
a
good
corporate
citizen
supporting
our
community
leaders
and
regulators.
We've
enjoyed
a
positive
and
productive
relationship
with
our
local
government
and
we
have
supported
local
initiatives
such
as
hosting
a
halloween
trunk
or
treat
for
area
children
each
of
the
last
seven
years
we've
spent
millions
of
dollars
investing
in
our
business
and
community
and
created
more
than
a
thousand
jobs
during
our
time
in
nevada.
L
The
thought
of
being
pushed
out
by
the
will
of
a
single
person
is
at
best
unfair
and
at
worst
it
is
a
perversion
of
the
policy
process
phantom,
as
well
as
other
ny
county
fireworks.
Retailers
have
reached
out
to
the
state
fire
marshal
various
clark
county
fire
services
and
the
nevada
fire
prevention
association.
L
We
strongly
urge
the
committee
to
vote
no
on
senate
bill
227,
for
the
simple
reason
that
this
is
not
how
the
policy
process
was
meant
to
work
below.
I've
listed
a
number
of
nevada-based
businesses
that
fandom
has
a
long-standing
relationship
with
that.
Also
urge
you
to
vote
no
and
do
the
same.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
E
E
E
I
K
K
K
K
I
I
N
dmt
is
a
local
company
named
after
two
friends
who
went
into
business,
doug
and
tim,
and
they
have
done
a
tremendous
amount
for
the
county
with
their
operations.
They
have
also
identified
successful
ways
to
work
with
local
governments,
creating
what
they
call
the
shoot
site
they're
in
parent,
if
you've
ever
been
there
you're,
probably
familiar
with
it.
There's
a
great
community
partnership
developed
over
many
years
and,
unfortunately,
seven
senate
bill
227
would
push
these
decisions
up
to
the
state
level
and
disincent
the
ability
of
local
government
to
work
with
businesses.
N
N
Dnt
is
also
embarking
on
one
of
the
most
significant
economic
development
projects
in
nye
county,
part
of
which
will
be
expanding
its
fireworks
operation,
but
it's
also
going
to
include
housing,
retail,
etc,
and
they
have
they
are
underway
with
earthwork
and
other
you'll
see
on
nellis
a
letter
in
opposition
to
this
measure
from
just
some
of
their
contractors,
but
they
include
landscapers
engineers,
architects,
contractors
and
a
whole
slew
of
different
folks
from
both
nia
and
clark
counties,
so
creating
a
monopoly.
N
I
E
E
The
fireworks
companies
in
our
community
have
worked
with
local
government
law
enforcement
and
proactively
reached
out
to
state
and
local
fire
administrators
to
open
lines
of
communication
on
how
they
can
partner
with
our
community,
to
demonstrate
a
shared
concern
and
interest
in
safety
and
is
already
called
to
your
attention.
Sb
227
proposes
that
only
fireworks
certified
by
the
american
fireworks,
standard,
laboratory
or
afsl
can
be
sold
in
nevada
and,
as
already
pointed
out
to
you,
please
note
that
afsl
is
a
private
corporation
and
they
do
not
represent
the
industry.
E
Safety
standard
standards
as
a
whole
passage
of
this
non-competitive
language
is
the
equivalent
of
adding
to
a
statute,
a
law
which
states
that
all
cars
sold
in
the
state
of
nevada
must
be
certified
by
ford
motor
company
and
additionally,
as
written,
it's
the
equivalent
of
me
going
to
walmart
buying
a
bag
of
potato
chips.
Having
a
choking
incident
and
now
being
told
that
I
can
go
sue
walmart
because
how
dare
they
sell
me?
A
bag
of
potato
chips,
the
companies,
the
stores
in
pahrump
area,
are
good
community
members.
The
employees
live
and
work
here.
E
At
a
time
when
we're
seeing
an
unprecedented
number
of
restaurants
and
other
businesses,
closing
we
ask
that
you
do
not
add
to
the
burden
of
our
community
by
destroying
the
competitiveness
of
these
firework
businesses
and
closing
the
doors
on
yet
another
business.
With
all
due
respect,
we
ask
you
to
please:
please
reject
sb
227.
Thank
you.
I
I
K
K
We
employ
14
full-time
employees
and
over
100
seasonal
employees.
Over
the
years
we
created
our
own
product
line
and
we
re
we
sell
retail
and
wholesale.
We
distribute
our
product
across
the
united
states.
Sb227
would
change
what
consumer
fireworks
that
could
be
sold
and,
as
a
result,
put
us
out
of
business
in
the
last
15
years.
More
and
more
states
across
the
nation
are
changing
laws
to
allow
full
line
of
consumer
fireworks,
the
same
fireworks
as
what
we
sell
in
nye
county.
K
K
We
are
currently
working
with
nike
county
and
the
town
of
perum.
This
would
be
the
largest
shopping
center
in
nye
county,
with
all
three
phases
done
on
this
shopping
center
would
employ
over
a
thousand
people
that
we
estimate
and
bring
in
30
to
40
new
businesses.
The
passage
of
this
bill
would
stop
this
project
in
its
tracks.
K
K
I
I
Q
Q
Q
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Then
we
will
go
to
neutral.
I
L
I
Q
Q
Earlier
this
session,
you
heard
about
our
concerns
from
clark
county
about
the
impacts
that
were
seen
in
our
community,
including
43,
total
fireworks
incidents
that
our
clark
county
fire
had
to
respond
to
the
there
was
a
note
about
trying
to
plan
for
the
impacts
in
clark
county.
That
is
what
we
set
up
with
our
I
spy
tool
that
we
detailed
to
the
committee
earlier
that
helps
us
to
plan
our
enforcement
efforts.
The
number
of
reports
coming
into
that
tool
are
increasing
from
16541
in
2019
to
22
559
in
2020..
Q
I
know
you
already
said
through
our
presentation,
so
you're
well
aware,
with
our
concerns.
The
reason
that
we're
neutral,
madam
chair
is
because
we
do
allow
safe
and
sane
fireworks
in
clark
county
that
is
determined
by
a
local
process
and
testing.
We
define
dangerous
fireworks.
Also
in
our
clark
county
code,
we
would
have
to
work
out
how
a
state
standard
would
impact
our
local
standard.
This
is
something
that
we
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
and
the
the
regulation
of
safe
and
sane
products
in
clark
county
undergo
a
testing
process
every
year.
Q
They
must
meet
certain
labeling
requirements
and
things
that
we
do
to
ensure
that
there
is
clarity
for
our
community.
That
is
something
that
we
do
at
the
county
level.
We
are
in
support
of
stronger
enforcement.
We
actually
that's
why
we
asked
for
our
bill
to
because
we
do
need
some
assistance
and
I'm
happy
to
hear
the
testimony
here
and
everybody
who
would
like
to
partner
with
us
on
that.
We
are
committed
to
working
with
senator
orrin
shaw
and
the
stakeholders
on
this
bill
as
well.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
testify.
I
Q
Q
I
am
actually
employed
with
dnt
imports
and
I
am
blessed
to
be
employed
at
his
time,
especially
in
the
wake
of
kovid.
Again
I
am
especially
blessed
to
have
the
an
opera
an
employer.
Excuse
me
who
pays
100
of
my
medical
bills
in
health
care
of
myself,
as
well
as
my
coworkers,
because
of
my
employer.
I'm
also
afforded
a
401k
and
again
in
the
time
of
covid.
I
want
to
remind
everyone
how
valuable
that
is
myself
again,
as
well
as
my
co-workers.
Q
My
company
worked
very
hard
in
the
community
to
support
the
community
and
not
only
that
but
educate
consumers
about
safety
and
regulations
on
a
daily
basis.
Again,
I
also
want
to
remind
everyone
about
the
issuance
of
the
launch
site
that
we
use
to
safely
and
securely
have
a
place
to
enjoy
fireworks
again.
Education
is
a
huge,
huge
factor.
Q
Community
support
is
a
huge,
huge
factor
in
my
in
my
business,
and
I
also
want
to
remind
everyone
of
the
hard
work
and
diligence
that
my
company
puts
into
nye
county,
creating
new
jobs
and
supporting
the
economy
and
working
people
in
nevada.
Thank
you.
A
S
S
This
was
you
know
something
that
that
when,
when
I
looked
at
I
said
okay,
if
we're
gonna
do
this,
then
I've
been
adopting
standards
as
long
as
I've
been
here
and
state
fire
marshals
before
me,
we
adopt
minimum
standards,
whether
they're
the
icc
codes,
whether
they're
nfpa
standards,
whether
they're,
if
sac,
training,
standards,
we
we
say:
okay,
these
are
good
and
there's
your
minimum
and
we
adopt
the
minimum
codes
throughout
the
state.
That
says
you
can
be
more
stringent,
but
you
can't
be
less
stringent
and,
I
believe
that's.
S
The
intent
of
this
is
to
is
to
have
some
base
platform
to
say
you
can
do
these
things,
but
they
can't
be.
You
can't
be
less
stringent
than
what
that
base
regulation
is
the
I
don't
I
don't
I'm
not
a
big
fan
of
fireworks.
There's
someone
in
the
in
the
fire
service
and
law
enforcement
community,
consumer
fireworks
cause.
S
You
know
a
lot
of
fires
and,
and
senator
hansen
was
correct-
is
that
you
know
whether
they're
coming
from
from
tribal
nations
or
whether
they're
being
sold
in
prompt
or
up
in
humboldt
county.
The
effects
are
the
same.
We
deal
with
them
the
same.
I
don't
have
numbers
for
you
to
say
this
is
how
much
we
spend
as
a
state
in
fighting
fire
wildfires
that
were
started
with
illegal
fireworks.
S
I
would
put
forth
that
you
know
we
can.
We
can
adopt
regulations.
The
enforcement,
in
my
opinion,
especially
in
a
place
like
clark
county,
should
you
know,
remain
in
clark
county
for
the
most
part.
If
I'm
asked
to
do
this
and
I'm
given,
you
know
the
reasonable
resources
to
do
this
I'll
do
my
best,
you
know
apply
things
fairly.
That's
that's
what
we
do
with
the
building
codes
and
it's
the
same
thing.
I
didn't
write
those
I
didn't
write
those
building
codes.
S
I
didn't
write
the
american
fireworks
standards
laboratory.
If
you
want,
I
guess
a
reference,
look
at
underwriters
laboratory.
We
accept
their
stamp,
then
they
test
it
and
they're
they're
an
individual
company.
If
you
have
a
ul
listing,
then
it's
legal
as
far
as
the
fire
marshal
goes
for
sale
in
nevada.
A
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
today,
sir,
and
with
that,
I
believe
that
we
have
finished
all
the
testimony
vice
chair,
any
additional
comments
and
then
we'll
move
on.
R
Thank
you
very
much
chair.
Thank
you
for
hearing
senate
bill
227.
I
appreciate
your
in
the
committee's
time
as
you've
heard,
nevada
has
a
checkerboard
of
different
laws
and
ordinances
about
fireworks
county
to
county.
Some
counties
do
not
allow
them
at
all.
Other
counties
like
clark
county
require
that
only
what's
called
safe
and
sane
fireworks
can
be
sold
and
then
some
other
counties
have
much
broader,
looser
ordinances
about
fireworks.
R
As
to
the
issues
with
our
brothers
and
sisters
on
the
native
tribes,
I
believe
that
we
as
a
legislature
need
to
take
the
first
step
in
terms
of
requiring
that
the
minimum
standards
be
safe
and
sane,
fireworks
for
private
individuals
to
own
and
use,
and
then
once
nevada
has
taken
that
step.
We're
safe
and
sane
is
the
minimum
standard.
R
Then
certainly
we
can,
I
think,
have
a
much
stronger
argument
to
our
brothers
and
sisters
on
the
tribes
that
they
that
they
should
enter
into
contacts
with
us
in
terms
of
trying
to
make
sure
that
only
safe
and
sane
are
sold
across
nevada.
Again,
thank
you
for
your
time
chair.
Thank
you.
Committee
members.
A
T
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
committee
on
government
affairs,
sorry
to
keep
you
here
so
late,
so
I'll
try
to
make
this
quick
and
easy
the
bill
comes
about.
You
know.
I've
had
a
couple
experiences
with
individuals
where
sometimes
they
don't
utilize
their
alarm
correctly,
and
it
goes
off
and
interesting
enough.
There's
a
concept
that
boards
county
commissioners
can
actually
impose
a
penalty
on
the
alarm
system.
T
That's
the
first
part
of
the
bill
within
sections
one-
and
you
know
three
perspectively
within
the
last
portion
under
four.
The
concept
is,
is
again:
if
there's
an
error
with
the
alarm,
you
know
system
program
whatever
you
should
be
probably
trying
to
call
that
service,
rather
than
the
contractor's
number.
That
is,
you
know,
currently
being
told,
needs
to
be
on
it.
T
So,
in
that
respect,
they're,
trying
to
state
that
the
advertising
or
contractor
install
system
is
not
required
to
include
the
number
of
the
contractor's
license
if
the
advertisement
includes
it
in
entered
website
or
somewhere
else,
and
that
suggested
the
bill
be
okay
with
you,
madam
chair
would
probably
be
best
to
have
holly
bergman
real
quick,
give
a
quick
rundown
of
some
of
the
issues
and
concerns
before
we
broke
into
questions.
Unless
you
wish
speaking
questions
at
this
time.
Madam
chair.
A
Your
call,
sir,
however,
you
want
it
to
proceed.
A
All
right
broadcasting,
would
you
please
do
that.
B
All
right,
thank
you,
everyone
and
thank
you,
chair,
dondero,
loop
and
members
of
the
committee
for
this
opportunity
to
express
our
strong
support
for
this
legislation.
My
name
is
holly
borgman
and
I'm
the
vice
president
of
government
affairs
for
adt
security
services
with
more
than
145
years
of
experience.
Adt
is
the
leading
provider
of
security
systems.
We
have
about
20
of
the
market.
The
next
biggest
has
maybe
4
and
then,
after
that,
you
have
a
whole
lot
of
mom
and
pops
in
the
business.
B
So
on
behalf
of
our
7
million
customers,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
this
opportunity.
False
alarms,
they're
a
big
issue
for
our
industry
for
our
first
responders
for
our
alarm
customers,
and
because
of
that,
we
support
efforts
to
reduce
false
alarms,
they're
an
unnecessary
strain
and
we're
doing
everything
we
can
to
drive
those
numbers
down.
B
Part
of
that
is
encouraging
people
to
use
their
systems
properly.
The
studies
have
shown
that
80
of
false
alarms
are
caused
by
20
percent
of
users.
Unfortunately,
some
of
these
users.
It
takes
a
little
bit
of
time
and
they
have
different
thresholds
where
things
convince
them
to
use
their
systems
properly
and
what
we've
found-
and
we
support
is
that
local
governments
that
issue
a
series
of
escalating
fines
to
people
who
chronically
misuse
their
system
encourage
customers
to
use
their
systems
a
little
bit
better.
B
So
most
of
the
alarms
tend
to
come
from
commercial
facilities,
maybe
where
staff
hasn't
been
trained
or
maybe
someone
has
a
sitter
and
they
haven't
taught
them
how
to
use
the
system,
and
so,
if
a
city
starts
finding
chronic
misusers,
they
will
change
their
behavior.
Unfortunately,
some
municipalities
in
recent
years
in
the
interest
of
expediency
have
enacted
programs
that
actually
find
the
alarm
companies
as
opposed
to
the
users
for
the
users,
false
alarms.
This
is
like
sending
a
speeding
ticket
to
general
motors.
It
does
little
to
change
the
user's
behavior.
B
It
denies
the
users
the
right
to
confront
the
city
and
the
accuser,
so
it
denies
them
due
process
if
it
was
an
alarm,
a
genuine
alarm,
but
they're
accused
of
a
false
one.
They
have
no
way
to
appeal
this
and
it
is
up
to
the
alarm.
Companies,
many
mom
and
pops
to
foot
the
bill
for
these
false
alarms
and
attempt
to
get
reimbursed
by
their
users
senate
bill
253.
Also
modernizes
rules
requiring
the
listing
of
license
numbers
on
advertisements,
so
adt
will
cut
one
ad
and
we
run
it
in
every
market
nationwide.
B
There
are
30
some
states
that
require
us
to
list
our
license
number
each
time.
So
what
happens
is
when
we
cut
an
advertisement?
We
also
have
to
list
30
different
state
license
numbers
sometimes
license
numbers
and
addresses,
and
it's
gotten
to
the
point
where
the
information
isn't
usable
for
the
customers.
We
would
so
much
rather
be
able
to
modernize
this
law,
which
was
likely
drafted
before
the
internet,
existed
to
be
able
to
say,
visit
adt.com
for
license
information,
as
opposed
to
listing
all
of
our
licenses.
B
We
support
the
requirements
that
we
be
licensed
and
that
we
provide
license
numbers.
We
just
want
to
modernize
the
way
that
we
deliver
that
information
to
our
customers
and,
in
closing
I
especially
like
to
ask
the
committee
to
vote
in
support
of
senate
bill
253.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
A
Thank
you
very
much
all
right
questions
from
the
committee.
H
H
I'm
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
like
super
multitasking
right
now
so
mine
is.
I
have
two
questions
but
senator
settlemeyer.
What's
going
to
be
the
effective
date
for
the
bill.
T
H
Okay
and
then
my
second
question
is
on
the:
what
is
it
it's
section,
four
on
the
advertising
for
the
contractor
for
the
advertising
by
the
contractor?
What
was
what
was
the
reason
for
for
this
language?
It's
trying
to
get
a
better
understanding.
T
Absolutely
this
is
senator
settlement
and
I'll
take
the
first
dab
of
it
at
it.
Rather,
however,
I
may
ask
holly
to
be
a
lifeline
and
answer
it
correctly.
If
I
mess
it
up,
but
the
impetus
that
I've
run
across
is
that
a
situation
occurs
where
there
is
a
problem,
and
so
then
you
automatically
are
trying
to
figure
out
who
to
call
well.
T
If
you
have
a
contractor's
license,
very
few
people
know
how
to
turn
that
into
a
phone
number
to
call
so
in
that
respect,
it'd
make
more
system
or
make
more
sense
to
include
a
phone
number
rather
than
the
particular
contractor's
license
or
a
web
link.
Since
so
many
people
now
are
so
used
to
basically
breaking
out
their
smartphone
and
then
figuring
out,
you
know
going
to
an
internet
website,
so
we
felt
that
was
a
better
way
to
get
them
to
the
correct
person
to
try
to
resolve
any
potential
issues.
B
Thank
you
senator.
If
you
sometimes
see
our
billboard
advertisements
you'll,
look
at
the
bottom
and
you'll
see
a
list
of
all
of
the
license
numbers
and
it's
just
too
hard
to
find
your
individual
state's
license
number
in
all
of
the
text,
or
we
actually
submitted
for
the
committee's
reference
an
example
of
one
of
our
commercials,
where
you
can
see
the
license
number
scrolling
through
at
the
bottom,
because
to
get
through
30
state
license
numbers
in
the
30-second
spot.
It's
difficult
to
do.
B
We
want
to
make
sure
that
customers
can
find
the
information
and
can
actually
access
it.
So
it's
not
like
one
of
these
pharmaceutical
commercials,
where
it's
just
going
through
a
list
of
symptoms
that
you
or
other
other
things
that
you
might
get
as
a
result
of
the
medication.
We
want
people
to
be
able
to
find
our
information
and
we
just
think
it's
more
meaningful
if
we
can
tell
them
visit,
adt.com
or
adt.com
licenses
or
call
one
eight
hundred
adt
asap
for
that
license
information.
H
B
H
Thank
you
for
that.
I
don't
know
I'm
kind
of
working
backwards,
because
I
had
a
question
on
section
one
because
find
and
feed
where
you're
saying
the
county
shouldn't
impose.
It
is
this
because
you
know
the
police
will
come
out
and
if
there's
like
a
false
alarm
and
what's
what's
the
what's
the
current
fee
that
they're
charging
to
go
out
on
a
false
alarm
from
the
the
county.
T
This
is
senator
settlement
for
the
record,
I'm
going
to
pass
that
one
off
to
holly,
because
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
it
happening
in
my
cow
counties,
to
say
the
least,
not
many
cow,
tripping
alarm
issues
so
I'll
turn
that
over
to
her.
B
So
each
program
is
locally
designed
and
administered
to
reflect
the
individual
needs
or
the
the
character
of
that
particular
area.
So
in
some
areas
the
fees
might
be
ten
dollars,
twenty
dollars,
thirty
dollars
and
some
it
might
be
two
hundred.
It
really
depends
on
what
the
local
government
has
decided
to
do
for
us
we're
sort
of
agnostic
about
what
the
fee
should
be.
B
We
feel
like
the
city
is
best
equipped
to
determine
how
to
move
the
needle
within
their
community,
but
we
found
based
on
studies
that
the
best
way
to
curb
customer
behavior
to
change
customer
behavior
and
curb
these
false
alarms
is
to
find
the
user
in
some
meaningful
way,
and
so
we
leave
it
up
to
the
cities
to
determine
how
much
or
how
that
money
is
used.
But
we
want
to
make
sure
that
any
program
that
is
enacted
is
meaningful,
and
so
this
type
of
legislation
which
assigns
the
blame
to
the
party
at
fault.
B
So
if
we
install
a
bad
alarm,
then
you
can
find
adt,
but
if
it's
the
user,
the
fine
goes
to
the
user.
This
legislation
is
actually
passed.
Nearly
I
think
in
almost
every
case
unanimously
in
california,
new
jersey,
florida,
texas,
tennessee,
louisiana
iowa,
and
it's
pending
right
now
in
georgia.
So
we
we've
found
that
it
is
it's
meaningful
guidance
that
helps
the
local
governments,
but
still
will
help
to
drive
down
the
number
of
false
alarms.
We
want
to
make
sure
these
programs
remain
meaningful.
H
B
You
currently
would
get
charged,
so
it
depends
on
your
your
city.
If
you
are
in
some
areas
in
southern
nevada,
they
require
video
verification
or
on-site
verification
that
an
alarm
event
has
occurred
before
the
police
will
come
out
to
respond
in
other
areas
in
the
state
they
will
come
out,
regardless
of
if
it's
been
verified
by
a
video.
What
we're
saying
is
that,
if
we
had
nothing
to
do
with
generating
the
false
alarm,
the
fine
shouldn't
be
sent
to
adt.
B
A
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
actually
have
one
right
now,
while
we're
on
this
subject.
So
I
don't
know
I
I
think
you
said
where
you
were
located,
but
I,
if
you're,
not
here
in
nevada.
Let
me
just
tell
you
about
the
winds
here
in
nevada.
A
So
when
the
wind
blows,
you
could
actually
have
your
alarm
go
off
and
through
no
fault
of
your
own
and
by
the
way
I've
had
it
happen.
So
I
just
struggle
with
we're
going
to
be
charging
for
something
that
you
cannot.
You
know
I
mean
I
need
to.
I.
My
parents
aren't
alive
anymore,
but
I
need
to
train
my
parents
better.
I
don't
know,
maybe
it's
just
a
little
bit
rotten.
I
don't
know.
T
This
is
the
center
of
settlements.
Let
me
get
a
track
crack
getting
into
trouble.
First
with
you,
madam
chair,
I
think
that
maybe
she
could
provide
information
from
other
states
that
sometimes
have
winds
that
are
a
little
bit
more
strenuous
than
us,
such
as
florida,
I
believe,
passed
similar
legislation,
and
maybe
we
could
ask
her
for
some
information
in
that
respect.
It's
a
very
valid
concerning
question
when
the
wind
goes
off,
I
understand
what
you're
indicating
and
I
think
it's
really
comes
down.
T
It's
not
a
question
of
penalizing
it
just
comes
down
to
how
best
can
we
ensure
to
reduce
the
numbers
of
false
alarms,
and
the
concept
of
the
bill,
in
my
opinion,
is
to
try
to
figure
out
what's
the
best
way
to
do
that
and
finding
a
corporation
continually
when
the
problem
may
fall
within
something
you
may
have
more
control
of.
However,
I
remember
my
parents
and
I
had
no
control
of
them
using
technology
correctly,
but
nothing
finding
if
a
particular
county
develops
a
program
to
find
the
company.
T
Well,
then,
the
company
may
just
decide
to
no
longer
allow
those
individuals
to
have
that
product.
You
know
they
may
institute
a
policy
and
for
some
of
these
products
they
also
provide
a
degree
of
security
for
aging
parents,
and
we
don't
necessarily
want
them
withdrawing
those
items,
at
least
that's
my
opinion,
but
I'll
allow
adt
to
follow
up
on
that.
With
more
details.
B
Thank
you
senator
and
chairwoman.
You
raised
an
excellent
point:
I'm
based
in
south
florida,
where
our
company
is
headquartered
and
we
do
have
substantial
wins
as
well.
So
it's
of
concern,
but
of
all
of
the
local
ordinances
that
I've
seen
I've
not
seen
one
that
doesn't
exempt
what
they
call
acts
of
god.
So
if
there
is
a
storm,
if
there's
a
fire,
when
there
are
tornadoes
that
sort
of
thing
we
we
know
that
that
is
outside
of
anyone's
control
and
the
local
ordinances
seem
to
have
planned
for
this
and
reflect
those.
R
Oh,
thank
you
and
my
question
for
probably
ms
borgman,
or
maybe
the
sponsor,
but
in
nevada
are
the
the
kind
of
fines
that
alarm
companies
get
charged
in
line
with
other
states.
Are
they
hired?
I
just
wonder,
are
they
vary
by
county.
B
So
it's
it's
you
in
nevada
there.
There
are
tough
alarm
response
laws
on
the
books
in
the
las
vegas
area.
They
are
stricter
than
most
in
the
country
in
terms
of
requiring
verification
before
the
police
will
respond
or
before
fire
departments
will
respond.
So
they
need
to
have
a
guard
go
out
and
ensure
that
someone
is
breaking
into
a
house
or
a
house
is
on
fire
before
first
responders
send
service
which
is
outside
of
the
the
norm.
B
I
would
say,
but
in
terms
of
fees
I
would
say
that
they're,
on
par
with
larger
cities
in
nevada,
are
on
par
with
the
larger
cities
in
the
u.s
rural
are
on
par
with,
with
rural
generally
there's
a
little
bit
of
a
discrepancy
there,
but
I
would
say
that
they're
they're
on
par
and
there
are
currently
no
municipalities
in
nevada
that
are
levying
false
alarm.
Fines
against
alarm
companies.
So
no
local
government
would
need
to
change
the
ordinance.
R
B
A
Thank
you
very
much
further
questions.
B
I'm
so
sorry
holly
borgman
with
adt.
It
is
my
understanding
that
this
is
a
state
level
requirement.
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
the
clarification
additional
questions
from
the
committee.
A
All
right
well,
not
seeing
any
senators
settlemeier.
Would
you
like
to
make
any
comments,
or
would
you
like
me
good
to
go
to
support.
T
A
I
I
N
Thank
you,
chair
donderloop,
for
the
record
chris
ferrari
f-e-r-r-a-r-I
here
on
behalf
of
av
adt,
in
support
of
senate
bill
253.,
coming
in
to
bat
a
little
cleanup
here
on
some
of
the
questions
raised,
and
I
want
to
thank
all
of
you
and
senator
neil
center
danderelu
for
the
question.
So
it's
important
to
clarify
what
the
bill
is
and
isn't
doing
so
it
does
not
impact
raise,
create
any
fees,
alter
fine
structures.
All
of
those
things
are
things
that
exist
and
I'll
give
a
personal
example.
I
live
in
reno
and
I
have
an
alarm
system.
N
I
have
a
door
that
blows
open
here
and
there
I
have
come
home
to
find
cops
in
my
house
a
couple
of
times
because
they
do
dispatch
the
police
department,
and
for
that
I
am
charged
a
fine.
So
as
a
consumer,
I'm
aware
of
that
fine,
it's
part
of
my
contractual
agreement
with
the
company
and
it's
the
city,
the
municipality's
choice
as
to
how
they
levy
that
fine,
the
as
as
ms
borgman
indicated
as
well,
want
to
clarify
and
to
chair
to
the
chair's
comments
about
wind
and
natural
issues.
N
There
are
exclusions
for
that
and
again,
all
of
this
is
at
the
local
level.
The
bill
is
really
about
preserving
the
consumer
choice
for
services,
and
I
want
to
share
one
example
with
you
that
ms
borgman
has
shared
with
us
the
reason
for
the
bill
if
the
current
process
is
altered
and
to
the
example
about
finding
somebody
who
purchases
a
gm
vehicle
and
finding
gm
for
their
speeding
ticket,
what
would
happened
in
one
georgia
county
is
that
there
were
several,
as
ms
bergman
indicated,
small
mom-and-pop
style
alarm
companies.
N
N
Those
companies
had
to
move
out
of
that
county
and
that
limited
consumer
choice
and
increase
the
cost
for
security
services
passage
of
senate
bill
253
will
preserve
that,
while
retaining
all
local
control
at
the
municipal
level.
If
to
senator
ronshall's
questions,
they're
concerned
about
the
level
of
fees
raised
for
false
alarms,
that's
certainly
a
question
that
can
be
had
with
local
municipalities.
I
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Opposition.
I
N
I
E
Thank
you,
chair
dondero,
loop
and
members
of
the
committee.
This
is
nicole
willis-grimes
with
the
ferraro
group.
That's
n-I-c-o-l-e,
last
name:
willis
grimes,
w-I-l-l-I-s,
hyphen
g-r-I-m-e-s
and
I
am
testifying
in
opposition
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
state
contractors
board
in
its
efforts
to
help
protect
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
nevada
citizens.
The
nevada
state
contractors
board
is
responsible
to
ensure
that
all
licensees
are
compliant
with
nrs
624.720..
E
The
contractors
board
strives
to
educate
homeowners
and
urging
them
to
use
licensed
contractors
to
do
work
on
their
homes.
In
doing
so,
homeowners
have
more
options
for
recourse.
Should
there
be
issues
with
the
quality
and
completion
of
the
work
product.
We
encourage
consumers
to
always
ask
for
verification
of
the
license
number.
They
should
not
have
to
call
an
office
or
track
down
a
website
to
get
the
number
or
verify
whether
a
contractor
is
even
licensed.
E
Advertising
of
a
contractor's
license
in
nevada
lets.
The
consumer
know
that
the
business
they
contract
with
is
regulated
by
the
contractor's
board
and
that
the
contractor's
board
is
a
resource
for
homeowners.
In
case
they
have
issues.
There
are
currently
over
16
000
licensees
and
41
primary
classifications
and
approximately
130
sub
classifications,
a
licensee
who
installs
alarms
would
most
likely
hold
a
c2c
and
or
a
c2d
license.
There
are
currently
76
c2c
licensees
and
501
c2d
licensees
in
nevada.
This
total
number
accounts
for
approximately
3.6
of
all
licensees
in
nevada.
E
Additionally,
the
board
estimates
that
of
the
over
16
000
licensees,
approximately
5946
or
35
percent
hold
licenses
in
other
states.
The
proposed
legislation
under
sb
253
provides
an
extension
for
licensed
alarm
companies
in
nevada.
This
exemption
represents
for
only
a
small
percentage
or
3.4
percent
of
its
licenses
and
a
small
percentage
of
licensees
that
hold
licenses
in
other
states.
The
bill
also
provides
an
unfair
exemption
to
the
law.
Additionally,
advertising
includes
multiple
number
of
platforms
to
include
print
radio,
television,
internet
billboards,
flyers,
work,
trucks
and
business
cards.
E
The
requirement
of
displaying
or
providing
a
license
number
in
a
licensee's
advertisement
is
for
public
protection.
The
exemption
provided
in
the
bill
is
not
to
the
benefit
of
consumer
protection,
as
the
consumer
would
have
to
call
the
business
or
visit
websites
determine
whether
the
contractor
is
even
licensed.
Much
less
try
and
find
their
license
number.
E
A
Thank
you
very
much
additional
callers
in
opposition.
Yes,.
I
L
Hi,
madam
chair
members
of
committee,
this
is
warren
hardy
w-a-r-r-e-n
last
name
hardy
h-a-r-d-y,
calling
today
to
represent
the
urban
consortium
which
is
made
up
of
the
cities
of
reno,
sparks
las
vegas
and
henderson.
We
we
stand
in
opposition
to
the
bill.
As
written,
I
was
able
to
speak
with
the
with
the
proponents
of
the
bill
today
and
appreciate
their
time.
This
creates
a
unique
situation
for
us
and
that
we
have
a
private
sector
business
that,
in
part,
makes
has
their
business
model
based
on
on
services
that
are
paid
for
by
by
taxpayers.
L
We
understand
that
concern
here.
We
understand
the
issue,
that's
happening.
We
we
feel
like
the
better
venue,
perhaps
to
deal
with
this,
would
be
in
conversations
with
the
local
government
agencies
that
provide
those
services
or
the
city
councils
or
county
commissions
that
represent
those
police
departments
that
respond
to
these
calls,
we're
willing
and
happy
to
continue
these
discussions
with
with
the
proponents
of
the
bill
and
appreciate
senator
settlemyre
for
being
open
to
our
concerns,
but
as
written
we're
opposed
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Can
we
go
to
neutral.
A
Thank
you
very
much
closing
comments.
Senator
settlemyre.
T
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
appreciate
your
time.
I
appreciate
miss
borgman
weighing
in
with
us
and
with
that
I'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
253
and
we
will
go
to
public
comment.
Remember
you
have
two
minutes
and
please
listen
to
broadcasting.
They
will
give
you
the
instructions
on
how
to
access,
and
you
can
discuss
anything
that
we
did
not
discuss
in
a
bill
today.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
with
that
we
are
finished
with
our
meeting
today.
Thank
you
all
for
hanging
in
there
we're
going
to
be
having
a
little
bit
longer
meetings
as
we
move
forward,
because
we
do
have
a
deadline
of
april
9th.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
appreciate
everybody
staying
and
we'll
adjourn
and
we'll
see
you
on
wednesday
at
3
30..
Thank
you
very.