►
From YouTube: 5/3/2021 - 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
Good
afternoon
we
have
people
in
the
audience.
This
is
very
exciting.
I
will
now
call
the
committee
on
senate
government
affairs
to
order,
and
with
the
secretary
please
call
the
roll.
A
Here,
thank
you
very
much
and
all
members
are
present
and
I
will
not
go
over
all
the
sundries
of
meetings.
I
think,
by
the
time
you
get
to
the
3
30
meeting,
which
we're
all
we've
all
heard
it
about
10
times
today,
and
I
will
ask
we
will
have
we
have
five
bills
to
here
today,
so
I'm
going
to
ask
us
to
keep
marching
along
so
that
we
don't
get
to
what
I
will
call
the
cocktail
edition
of
this
meeting.
A
So
we
will
start
with
assembly
bill
378.
I
believe
assemblyman
watts
we're
happy
to
have
you.
Thank
you
very
much
and
please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
C
C
Nevada,
of
course,
has
had
its
fair
share
of
prominent
sagebrush
rebels
and
public
lands
conflicts
in
the
legislature,
starting
in
1979
with
an
effort
by
then
assemblyman
roads.
We
added
a
variety
of
policies
that
sought
to
establish
veto
power
over
federal
management
actions,
assert
state
claims
to
vast
swaths
of
public
lands,
set
up
processes
to
manage
the
lands
that
would
soon
be
in
the
state's
hands.
C
C
So,
working
with
this
in
the
in
the
first
house,
talked
a
lot
with
the
division
of
state
lands
and
eureka
county
and
worked
on
the
bill,
as
you
see
it
in
its
first
reprint
to
address
some
of
their
concerns
about
impacting
some
of
their
their
existing
duties
and
and
activities
both
at
the
state
and
local
levels.
C
The
the
first
is
a
legislative
declaration
that
signals
the
intent
of
the
state
to
continually
seek
the
acquisition
of
any
lands
managed
by
the
federal
government
in
the
state
sections
596-599
of
chapter
321
declare
federal
management
to
be
a
hardship
purport
to
give
the
state
management
authority
over
these
lands
and
create
the
board
of
review
as
a
regulatory
and
appeals
body
for
these
decisions,
a
table
of
boards
and
commissions,
which
was
provided
to
the
sunset
committee,
indicates
no
recent
meetings
of
the
board
of
review
and
notes
that
in
2015
lcb
legal
questioned
the
constitutionality
of
those
statutes.
C
Nrs
321.601
created
a
public
land
trust
fund
to
handle
payments
in
lieu
of
taxes
following
a
large
land
transfer
from
the
federal
government.
That
section
has
not
become
effective
since
its
passage
40
years
ago,
321.735
gives
the
division
of
lands,
the
ability
to
unilaterally
represent
state
and
local
interests
on
issues
involving
federal
lands.
C
Moving
on
from
the
repealed
sections
to
the
changes
section,
one
seeks
to
deep
prioritize
the
disposal
of
state
lands,
making
it
one
of
many
management
options
that
are
available
section
three
of
the
bill
eliminates
a
definition
of
public
lands
that,
by
process
of
elimination,
only
refers
to
lands
administered
by
the
bureau
of
land
management.
C
Section
6
modifies
language
to
promote
local
government
involvement
in
the
coordinated
management
of
public
lands.
Section
7
removes
the
requirement
that
the
state
include
local
comments
within
its
own,
although
it
would
not
be
precluded
from
doing
so
section.
8
removes
language,
prioritizing
acquisition
of
federally
managed
lands.
C
Section
10
removes
another
constitutionally
questionable
provision
requiring
the
federal
government
to
seek
consent
to
manage
lands
in
the
state
and
section
13,
let's
see,
adds
the
previously
deleted
definition
of
public
lands
to
chapter
487
where
it
is
currently
referenced
in
relation
to
abandoned
vehicles.
C
In
summary,
ab378
seeks
to
streamline
our
statutes
by
removing
language
that
is
unconstitutional
and
eliminating
entities
that
have
not
been
utilized
in
doing
so.
It
also
modifies
language
to
promote
the
responsible
and
collaborative
management
of
public
lands
here
in
our
great
state
again,
I
just
want
to
express
my
appreciation
to
the
state,
the
division
of
state
lands
and
to
eureka
county
for
working
with
me
to
address
their
their
substantive
concerns
with
the
original
bill
and
with
that
to
keep
you
moving
through
your
agenda.
That
concludes
my
presentation.
A
Stars
we
have
committee
questions
and
we
have
the
expert
on
eureka
county
with
us,
so
that
would
be
you
do
you
have
questions,
sir.
D
Not
really
a
question
as
much
the
bill
itself
and
I
know
you
howard,
you
did
a
lot
of
work,
assemblyman
watch.
You
did
a
lot
of
work
on
the
bill
with
your
county
and
getting
the
language.
My
real
concern
is
some
of
the
pieces
that
have
been
in
fact
repealed
those
repeal
sections
and,
and
clearly
I
guess
I
questioned.
D
Why
would
you
want
to
remove
the
grant
or
denial
consent,
but
from
the
governor-
and
you
know,
there's
a
number
of
things
in
in
these
repeal
sections
that
were,
even
though
in
your
mind,
they're
unconstitutional
have
never
been
proven,
unconstitutional
or
even
challenged,
and
I
don't
know
why
we're
repealing
them
like
say
I
can
support
the
bill,
but
not
those
sections
that
are
repealed.
C
Thank
thank
you
very
much
for
the
for
the
remarks.
Senator
glockenshield
howard
watts
for
the
record.
I
I
appreciate
that
and
again
I
I
did
work
very
hard
to
make
sure
that
the
substantive
issues
in
terms
of
the
state
land
use
planning
agency
and
the
state
land
use
planning
advisory
committee
were
not
negatively
impacted
by
this
bill.
I,
I
would
just
say
frankly
there
there's
probably
some
philosophical
disagreements
that
we
have
and,
and
those
are
reflected
in
some
of
the
provisions
that
I'm
proposing
for
elimination
under
the
bill.
E
My
concerns
are
very
similar
along
the
lines
of
what
senator
okeechob
mentioned,
but
I
would
just
point
out
this
people
criticize
the
sagebrush
rebellion
a
lot,
but
the
public
lands
that
you
and
I
enjoy
so
much
and
you
know
I'm
a
big
advocate
for
public
lands
access,
especially
so
much
of
that
was
because
blm
and
the
forest
service
were
aggressively
trying
to
shut
things
down
and
the
sagebrush
rebels
are
the
ones
that
help
keep
that
open.
E
So
you
should
keep
that
in
mind
when
we're
talking
about
the
sagebrush
rebellion
in
mainly
a
negative
thing,
and
I'd
also
point
out
that
you
know
we
had
last
session
huge
fights
over
the
navy
and
the
air
force
expanding
into
parts
of
nevada.
Remember
the
public
domain
in
nevada
is
owned
by
all
americans
right.
330
million
americans
there's
only
three
million
nevadans
we're
not
even
one
percent
of
the
entire
population.
E
E
We
want
to
criticize
the
sagebrush
rebellion,
fine
and
dandy,
but
you
ought
to
give
them
some
credit
for
some
of
the
great
things
that
they
were
able
to
accomplish
by
essentially
fighting
back
on
these
public
lands
closures
that
were
you
know,
frankly,
about
the
time
you
were
born.
That
was
a
huge
issue
in
nevada.
You
know
79
in
that
window
of
time.
I
don't
why
you're
reborn
hard,
none
of
my
business
but
yeah.
C
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
hansen,
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
I
I
appreciate
those
questions
and
comments
yeah.
I
I
would
share
a
few
things.
First
of
all,
certainly,
land
management,
public
land
management
has
been
rife
with
conflict
on
every
side.
C
You
know,
as
you're
aware
you
know,
the
blm
has
been
given
different
acronyms
by
different
folks,
some
who
think
they're
too
too,
amenable
to
essentially
rural
economies,
extraction
and
agriculture
and
others
who
think
that
they're,
you
know
beholden
more
to
environmental
interests
and
we've
seen
that's
the
part
of
the
struggle
of
an
agency
that
is
tasked
with
a
multiple
use
mission
and
attempting
to
balance
that
wide
range
of
uses
for
essentially
in
perpetuity
for
future
generations,
and
so
there's
there's
doubtless
going
to
be
conflicts,
and
I
think
you
know
the
the
input
and
and
activism
of
others
has
certainly
led
to
some
improved
outcomes.
C
C
And
so
I
would
say
that
I
think
I
have
a
pretty
strong
stance
that
you
know
I
want
to
keep
access
available,
but
I
also
believe
that
you
know,
particularly
our
our
state's
earlier
history,
with
some
of
the
lands
that
were
within
our
control
was,
was
not
exactly
rosy
with
some
of
our
state
trust
lands,
and
so
I'm,
a
strong
proponent
of
of
maintaining
our
our
public
lands
as
a
way
of
maintaining
access
for
future
generations
and
and
again
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
do
that
in
a
way
that
is
collaborative.
C
You
know
not
being
a
a
constitutional
lawyer
myself.
I
won't
wade
too
far
in,
but
I
do
believe
that,
while
there
is
certainly
a
role
for
state
and
local
governments
to
provide
feedback
and
be
deeply
involved
in
informing
some
of
the
decisions
that
are
made
that
ultimately
decisions
that
are
made
on
our
public
lands
that
are
administered
by
the
federal
government,
we
we
don't
have.
You
know,
veto
power
over
some
of
those
things.
C
I
think
it's
better
to
have
a
more
broad,
well-rounded
approach
in
terms
of
management
options,
and
so
that's
what
some
of
the
other
changes
seek
to
address
within
the
bill.
E
I'm
sure
real,
quick,
follow
up,
look
you
and
I
can
have
a
lot
of
fun
with
this,
and
we
can
talk
a
long
long
time
because
we've
I've
been
watching
this
now
for
six
sessions,
but
the
one
thing
where
I
think
we're
totally
in
agreement
on
the
wild
horse
issue.
I
think
that's
a
great
example
of
where,
if
we
had
the
state
involved
in
a
direct
way,
because
you
and
I
are
on
the
exact
same
page
on
that
being
a
huge
mess.
E
But
the
reality
is
when
you
have
the
other
330
million
americans
helping
determine
what
the
horse
policy
should
be
in
the
public
lands
of
nevada.
You've
learned
that
that
is
one
big
mess
when
you,
when
you
start
throwing
everybody
in
the
country
in
on
that
one-
and
I
think
you
and
I
are
on
the
exact
same
page
with
that
understanding.
A
F
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you,
someone
watts
for
bringing
the
bill.
I
appreciate
your
passion
on
this
issue.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
not
disclosing
your
date
of
birth
because
I
think
you
might
make
me
feel
very
old
for
sure
I
don't
know
about
the
rest
of
the
committee
and
I
couldn't
help.
You
know
all
the
talk
of
senator
rhodes.
When
I
served
in
the
assembly,
I
had
the
distinct
privilege
of
serving
on
the
committee
on
industrial
programs
and
senator
rhodes
and
he's
a
true
gentleman.
F
True
statesman
really
cared
about
the
state,
and
I
remember
you
know
when
I
was
a
student
at
unlv
in
my
nevada
history
class
studying
you
know,
senator
rhodes
and
how
he
was
trying
to
you
know,
stand
up
for
nevada
against
the
mx
missile
and
having
nevada,
become
just
a
huge
missile
launching
site
and
have
our
all
our
public
lands,
be
you
know
just
a
big
maze
of
missile
launching
sites
and
and
what
a
hero
he
was.
So
I
appreciate
everything
he
did.
F
C
Thank
you
and
if,
if
I
may
briefly
respond
howard
watts
for
the
record,
I
appreciate
that,
and
just
one
thing
I'd
like
to
very
briefly
reiterate
is
that
again
there
are
many
issues
that
are
contentious
and
that
we
can
have
disagreements
on.
This
is
not
to
say
that
not
to
say
that
anybody
was
necessarily
wrong
in
their
decisions.
C
This
is
just
what
I
believe
is
reflects
kind
of
the
the
position
that
most
nevadans
are
in
right
now
and
and
the
reality
of
where
things
have
gone
over
the
last
30
to
40
years
and
and
really
promoting
that
continued
collaborative
approach,
but
certainly
appreciate
those
sentiments
as
well.
As
you
know,
working
together
to
address
the
issues
of
concern.
C
I
I've
worked
on
some
previously
as
well
that
had
great
importance
to
to
eastern
nevada,
the
same
area
that
was
targeted
for
mx
missile
deployment,
also
targeted
for
large-scale
water
projects
and
have
worked
with
with
some
of
the
the
members
of
this
committee
in
a
past
life.
So.
F
Well,
thank
you
very
much,
someone
watts
and
certainly
I
think,
we've
seen
a
lot
of
your
hard
work
on
the
public
lands
committee
and
you've
distinguished
yourself
as
a
member
of
that
committee,
and
I
think
senator
rhodes
would
have
been
proud
of
you.
So
thank
you
for
the
bill
and
thank
you
chair.
A
Why
is
beyond
your
years
senator
neil?
Please
go
ahead.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
I
had
a
question
on
section
eight.
This
is
the
strikeout
provision
where
you,
this
piece
is
identifying
lands
which
is
suitable
for
acquisition.
For
and
a
b.
G
C
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
howard
watts
for
the
record.
Yes,
so
in
section
8
it
proposes
the
the
removal
of
subsection
2,
which
essentially
tasks-
and
you
can
see
in
the
original
language-
was
a
requirement
with
shal
identifying
lands
that
are
suitable
for
acquisition.
C
So
instead,
what
what
the
result
of
the
amendment
really
is
is
to
open
it
up
and
be
a
little
bit
broader.
So
it's
not
necessarily
to
preclude
any
identification
of
potential
lands
for
acquisition
or
disposal.
But
it's
trying
to
just
broaden
the
statute
out
to
make
those
not
necessarily
the
top
priority.
C
So
instead,
as
amended,
the
state
land
use
planning
agency
may
prepare,
in
cooperation
with
appropriate
federal
and
state
agencies
and
local
governments,
plans
or
statements
of
policy
concerning
the
administration
of
lands
in
the
state
of
nevada
that
are
under
federal
management
and
just
to
be
clear
for
the
record,
with
my
intent.
That
administration
would
include
a
range
of
management
decisions
and
could
potentially
include
disposal
and
acquisition
by
by
the
state
or
other
entities.
G
Please,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
and
then
my
second
question
and
final
what
it
was
following:
senator
gokache
and
senator
hansen
on
321-5983.
G
When
is
when
are
the
feds
required
to
get
authorization
from
the
state
to
use
the
land,
because
I
just
want
a
little
bit
more
context,
because
that
was
something
that
I
thought
about
too
and
then,
when
I
started
looking
up
looking
it
up
earlier,
I
mean
there's
this
whole
history
right,
there's
like
this
equal
footing,
doctrine
and
all
of
this
other
information
out
there.
So
I'm
wondering
why
was
that
in
play?
Was
that,
like
a
federalism
issue,
why
did
why
was
there
a
balancing
act
between
the
state,
giving
authorization.
C
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
howard
watts,
for
the
record.
I
would
have
to
go
deeper
into
the
legislative
history
to
give
you
a
completely
accurate
response.
C
What
my
understanding
was
is
that
you
know
essentially,
when
these
statutes
were
enacted,
there
was
widespread
dissatisfaction
with
the
way
that
federal
land,
public
lands
were
being
administered
and
so
and
a
rejection,
essentially
that
that
the
federal
government
had
the
ability
to
do
so,
and
so
many
of
these
statutes
were
an
attempt
to
assert
the
state's
interests
and
authority
and
how
those
lands
were
managed.
You
know,
there's
there's
also
been
debate.
C
You
know,
frankly,
about
the
the
turning
over
of
lands
at
statehood
to
the
federal
government,
and
so
this
was
essentially
kind
of
a
from
what
I
understand:
a
reaction
to
that
and
and
essentially
asserting
that
the
lands
were
under
nevada's
authority
and
management,
and
therefore
decisions
could
not
be
made
by
the
federal
government
without
sign
off
from
the
state.
G
So
so,
just
for,
since
simon
watts,
you're
you're,
apparently
the
the
becoming
the
expert
on
this,
what
what
then
remains
in
state
control,
waterways,
waterbeds?
What
I
mean
I
just
want
to
understand
it,
because
you
said
something
that
that
made
me
think
that
they
were
trying
to
assert
their
rights,
which
technically
in
a
constitutional
framework.
I
guess
they
would
be
right.
10Th
amendment
potentially
another
amendment,
but
I'm
just
saying
that
one
for
sure
just
so
what?
So?
C
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Howard
watts,
for
the
record.
This
might
be
something
we
have
to
ask
legal
about,
but
what
I
can
tell
you
is
it
there's
not
a
very
simple
answer.
Things
are
complex,
so
you
know
it
depends
water
rights,
for
example,
and
there's
still
some
existing
portions
of
statute.
If
you
review
the
bill,
I
don't
remember
the
section
in
the
bill
off
hand.
There's
a
change,
but
you
know
if
the
federal
government
wants
water
rights
they
need
to
go
before
the
state
engineer.
C
You
know.
Wildlife
is
another
interesting
one
where
it's
a
it's
a
public
resource
that
is
managed
by
our
state
department
of
wildlife.
So
there
are
certain.
There
are
certain
things
with
a
lot
of
the
provisions
that
this
bill
really
deal
with
are
specific
land
management
decisions
that
could
be
around.
C
Setting
the
scope
for
grazing
and
agricultural
activities,
perhaps
mining
extractive
activities
on
public
lands
that
are
managed
by
the
federal
government
and
what
this
is
essentially
working
to
do
is
to
say
the
federal
government
should
certainly
be
reaching
out
to
and
engaging
with
state
and
local
partners
to
try
and
taking
their
input
into
consideration
to
develop
a
plan
for
the
management
of
those
lands
that
that
balances
all
the
interests,
but
that
those
management
decisions
are
ultimately
made
by
the
federal
government
and
then
would
be
challenged
through
the
same
way.
A
Any
additional
questions
from
the
committee
okay!
Well
with
that,
we
will
go
to
public
support,
opposition
and
neutral.
C
Record
I
do
need
to
go
start
the
natural
resources
committee,
so
I
will
not
be
providing
any
closing
remarks.
After
testimony.
A
H
I
Hi,
my
name
is
emily
walsh,
e-m-I-l-y-w-a-l-s-h
and
I'm
here
supporting
the
nevada
conservation
league.
Today,
the
nevada
conservation
league
is
in
support
of
ab
378.
The
bill
removes
several
outdated
and
unconstitutional
sections
of
state
law
relating
to
public
lands.
Nevadans
overwhelmingly
support
our
public
lands
and
want
to
see
them
kept
open
to
the
public
and
can
serve
for
future
generations.
I
In
the
past,
our
state
has
attempted
to
seize
federal
public
lands
and
transfer
ownership
to
the
state.
The
simple
fact
is
that
nevada
does
not
have
the
money
or
the
expertise
to
manage
these
lands,
and
the
ultimate
outcome
would
be
either
to
bankrupt
the
state
or
selling
those
lands
into
private
hands.
This
bill
will
update
our
state
law
and
remove
language
that
has
proven
to
have
no
legal
basis.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
May
we
go
to
opposition.
H
J
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
jeanine
hanson
j-a-n-I-n-e
h-a-n-s-e-n.
I
am
the
state
president
of
nevada
families
for
freedom
and
I'm
representing
the
nevada
committee
for
full
statehood.
We
oppose
ab
378
and
the
deletions.
The
battle
over
control
to
obtain
control
over
nevada's
land
by
nevada
has
been
going
on
for
decades.
I
was
a
participant
in
the
sagebrush
rebellion.
What
is
constitutionally
questionable
is
for
the
federal
government
to
control
nevada's
lands
in
article
1,
section
8
clause,
17
of
the
u.s
constitution.
J
It
states
that
congress
can
exercise
like
authority
over
all
places
purchased
by
the
consent
of
the
legislature
of
the
state
in
which
the
same
shall
be
for
the
erection
of
forts
magazines,
arsenals,
dockyards
and
other
needful
buildings.
No
constitutional
authority
to
control
our
nevada
lands
exists
in
the
u.s
constitution,
nevada,
seated,
our
lands
in
our
state
constitution
under
duress,
and
it
is
invalid.
Under
the
u.s
constitution,
nevada
counties
suffer
without
a
decent
tax
base,
because
so
much
of
our
land
is
under
federal
control.
J
Lincoln
county
has
self-identified
as
a
welfare
county
because
of
the
incredible
amount
of
land
in
their
county
controlled
by
the
feds.
This
harms
the
people
in
our
counties.
Nevada,
has
an
extraordinary
burden
more
than
any
other
state,
with
some
87
percent
of
our
land
controlled
by
the
feds.
No
state
east
of
the
mississippi
has
more
than
4
percent
of
their
lands
controlled
by
the
feds
federal
management
of
nevada's
lands
has
been
disaster,
wildfires
have
devastated
and
destroyed
wildlife,
habitat
and
rangelands
by
the
millions
of
acres.
J
This
is
so
apparent
if
one
lives
in
the
rural
counties
near
my
home
in
rural
elko
county,
we
have
been
threatened
by
wildfires
repeatedly
several
fires
coming
within
a
mile
of
my
home
during
the
last
15
years.
The
feds
ignore
local
people
and
their
representatives,
the
county
commissioners,
when
blm
and
forest
service
were
planning
to
close
many
of
the
roads
which
had
been
open
in
elko
county
for
over
a
hundred
years.
J
The
feds
listened
to
the
objections
of
the
county
and
the
people
and
then
did
exactly
what
they
wanted
completely
ignoring
the
concerns
of
our
local
county
commissioners
and
the
people
we
in
nevada
are
not
the
subjects
of
the
federal
government.
We
need
to
assert
our
control
over
our
lands
and
not
acquiesce
to
the
unelected
bureaucrats
of
the
blm
and
foreign
service
oppose
ab378.
H
J
Thank
you,
I'm
jake
tibbetts,
that's
j-a-k-e-t-I-b-b
I-t-t-s
and
the
eureka
county,
natural
resources
manager
representing
eureka
county.
So,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
share
our
view
on
ab378
eureka
county
is
neutral
on
ab
378
as
amended.
We
acknowledge
and
support
the
vast
improvements
of
the
bill
from
the
first
draft.
We
wish
to
thank
assemblyman
watts
for
working
with
us
to
address
a
large
number
of
our
previous
concerns
that
are
reflected
in
the
first
reprint.
J
We
still
believe
the
bill
would
be
improved
and
it
would
move
us
to
support
if
some
of
the
statutes
identified
for
repeal
were
amended.
Instead,
we
believe
it
is
important
to
at
least
endorse
dayton.
County
coordination
and
engagement
on
public
land,
use,
planning
management
and
administration,
as
a
replacement
for
the
transfer
and
control
language
being
removed.
J
The
legislature
should
ensure
nevada
law
has
better
policy
in
place
recognizing
this
as
the
state
with
the
largest
federal
land
holding
in
the
u.s.
It
is
crucial
that
the
state
continue
to
have
strong
policy
in
place
to
ensure
the
state
and
county's
voice
in
public
land
use,
planning
and
management
are
not
diminished.
H
J
Good
afternoon,
chair
dondero
lupin
committee
members,
I
am
charlie
donahue
donahue
d-o-n-o-h-u-e
and
I
serve
as
the
administrator
of
the
division
of
state
lands.
I'm
in
the
neutral
position
regarding
assembly
bill,
378,
first
repair,
reprint
and
dsl
would
like
to
thank
the
bill,
sponsor
sembleman
watts
for
his
willingness
to
work
with
the
agency
and
address
many
of
our
concerns
with
the
initial
bill
language.
Madam
chair,
I
have
no
other
additional
comments
but
would
be
available
for
any
questions
you
or
your
committee
members
may
have.
Thank
you.
H
K
Thank
you
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
colby
prout,
c-o-l-b-y
p-r-o-u-t
and
I'm
the
natural
resources
manager
for
the
nevada
association
of
counties.
Naco
is
neutral
on
this
bill
in
its
current
reprint
and
would
like
to
thank
assemblyman
watts
for
taking
the
time
to
work
with
us
and
address
some
of
our
concerns.
K
We
also
appreciate
that
av
378
will
still
allow
for
school,
but
to
albany
county
needs
to
federal
management
agencies
and
give
counties
a
seat
at
the
table
in
federal
decision
making.
We'd
like
to
thank
the
sponsor
again
for
his
considerable
efforts
in
addressing
our
concerns.
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
committee.
For
your
time.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
our
sponsor
is
off
to
another
committee,
so
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
378
and
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
I'm
sorry
assembly
bill
and
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
87.
A
L
Local
city
of
las
vegas
city
planning
and
council
meetings,
probably
a
total
of
about
nine
hours,
to
get
some
use
special
use
permits.
For
my
thing
I
realized
do
other
people
have
to
go
through
this
kind
of
like
bureaucratic
mess,
to
get
some
of
the
procedures
in
place,
and
is
there
anything
that
we
can
do
to
help?
You
know
this
industry
in
streamlining,
but
also
maintaining
those
protections
for
the
public,
as
well
as
property
owners
that
are
adjacent,
and
so
in
working
with
the
home
builders.
L
We
came
up
with
some
provisions
that
have
now
made
their
way
into
assembly
bill
87,
and
with
that
I
will
turn
it
over.
I
don't
know
who
would
like
to
go
next,
we'll
go
to
mr
hodges,
if
that's
correct,
if
that's
okay,
hudson,
if
that's
okay
with
chair,
welcome.
M
Thank
you
very
much.
I'm
nat
hodgson
nat
n-a-t-h-o-d-g
s-o-n,
I'm
the
ceo
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilder
association.
So
good
morning,
chair,
donder,
loop
and
members
of
the
committee
ab
87
is
enabling
legislation
that
allows
allows
for
local
governments
to
adopt
an
ordinance
to
streamline
procedures
for
the
vacation
or
abandonment
of
certain
publicly
owned
or
controlled
easements
that
are
not
current
currently
eligible
for
administrative
vacation.
M
People
ask
me
all
the
time
about
affordable
housing.
I
often
have
to
remind
them
that
the
that
housing
prices
are
the
result
of
a
simple
mathematical
problem:
price
of
land,
price
material,
price
of
labor
regulatory
cost,
carry
cost
and
time
ab-87
seeks
to
speed
product
to
market,
save
time
and
ultimately,
money
for
home
buyers.
This
bill
saves
local
governments
employees
time
and
allows
their
time
to
be
spent
on
areas
of
greater
public
concern.
M
This
policy
result
of
working
of
a
working
group
with
clark,
county
commission,
chairwoman,
kirkpatrick
and
industry
representatives
to
identify
ways
to
increase
efficiencies
with
the
planning
process.
Like
many
local
governments,
county
has
had
many
retirements
and
less
experienced
hands
make
it
more
difficult
to
keep
up
the
increasing
number
of
applications.
M
M
These
applications
historically
have
been
approved,
100
percent
of
the
time,
so
it
made
perfect
sense
when
the
planning
department
attorneys
reviewed
this
process
many
years
ago,
they
found
a
statutory
obstacle.
Nrs
354
only
allows
public
utility
easements
to
be
vacated
administratively,
not
traffic,
easement
and
specify
other
types
of
easement
types
when
identifying
common
sense.
Vacation
types
for
this
bill,
it
was
important
to
protect
property
rights
and
public
participation
when,
when
an
easement
isn't
appropriate
for
an
administrative
action,
what
this
bill
does
not
do.
M
It
does
not
vacate
or
abandon
any
streets,
which,
mr
walker
will
go
into
a
little
bit
more
depth
vacation.
It
will
not
vacation
of
easements
that
are
not
supported
by
all
the
neighboring
owners
and
impact
utilities.
That
simply
means
it
goes
to
the
current
process,
vacation
of
easements
that
are
not
supported
by
the
local
government
that
owns
or
controls
the
easement,
pretty
common
sense
straightforward.
M
It's
also
this
enabling
enables
legislation,
can
save
12
to
20
weeks
in
the
approval
process
and
save
many
hours
of
the
city
and
or
county's
time.
This
law
still
has
a
key
protections
for
property
owners
and
the
public.
The
association
would
like
to
sincerely
thank
assembling
woman,
rachelle
nguyen
for
sponsoring
assembly
bill
87,
and
now
mr
walker
will
go
through
the
great
technical
parts
of
the
bill.
A
Thank
you,
mr
hodgson.
Thank
you
for
that
description
and
mr
walker.
When
you're
ready,
please
go
ahead.
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair
matt,
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilders
association,
I'll
go
very
quickly
through
a
section
by
section.
It
just
hit
some
of
the
highlights
before
we
turn
it
over
to
questions
section.
One
subsection.
Six
of
the
bill
clarifies
that
when
a
street
is
vacated
by
a
local
government,
the
local
government
must
ensure
necessary
utility.
Easements
are
recorded
prior
to
the
vacation
or
abandonment
becoming
effective
for
clarity
of
record.
This
bill
would
not
authorize
any
change
to
the
way
streets
are
vacated
under
the
current
statute.
N
Section
1
subsection
11
clarifies
that
this
new,
enabling
language
does
not
in
any
way
limit
the
existing
authority
of
nrs
278
480
for
local
governments
to
administratively
vacate
easements
for
public
utilities
it
owns
or
controls.
N
It
also
requires
that
any
local
government
seeking
to
organ
seeking
to
utilize
enabling
language
under
ab-87
must
adopt
its
own
process
via
an
ordinance
at
an
open
hearing.
This
is
a
key
feature
that
will
allow
local
governments
to
customize
the
process
to
the
needs
of
the
community.
In
an
open
forum.
N
Subsections,
1,
subsection
11
outlines
key
guard
rails
to
protect
property
owners
utilities
and
the
public
when
local
governments
adopt
an
ordinance.
Pursuant
to
this
bill,
11a
requires
local
governments
that
adopt
an
ordinance.
Pursuant
to
this
bill
require
all
applicants
to
provide
proof
of
support
from
adjacent
property
owners
and
utilities.
N
In
closing,
I
would
like
to
thank
assembly
members
nguyen
roberts
for
helping
lead
this
important
discussion
by
sponsoring
ab87.
N
I'd
also
like
to
thank
representatives
of
labor
virginia
and
clark
county,
las
vegas,
henderson,
north
las
vegas,
neco
league
of
cities,
mv
energy
southwest
gas
cox,
communications
and
att,
who
are
all
very
important,
easement
stakeholders
that
provided
feedback
to
improve
this
concept.
That's
before
you
today.
N
Lastly,
I
would
say
that
there
is
one
party
in
opposition
today,
and
I
was
hoping
that
we
could
impose
on
your
committee
council
at
the
appropriate
time
to
provide
some
clarification.
They
were
concerned
that
a
local
government
say
north
las
vegas
might
vacate
an
easement
owner
controlled
by
another
local
government
under
the
provisions
of
this
bill.
N
When
we
went
to
provide
clarification
on
the
assembly
side,
the
lcb
council
simply
could
not
draft
language
to
address
that,
because
that's
the
way
the
current
statute
reads
and
that's
the
way
the
bill
reads
so,
whether
it's
now
or
later,
during
questions
and
answers,
I
was
hoping
that
your
committee
council
might
be
willing
to
expand
on
that
a
bit.
L
L
So
if
the
easement
is
not
owned
or
controlled
by
the
governing
body,
it
does
not
appear
to
me
that
the
plain
language
of
this
bill
would
allow
for
the
governing
body
to
vacate
someone
else's
easement.
However,
if
there
is
opposition-
and
they
can
perhaps
explain
the
issue
or
point
to
some
ambiguity-
I'm
happy
to
address
that
when
the
time
comes.
A
Thank
you
very
much
any
additional
comments
before
we
go
to
questions.
Okay
with
that
we'll
go
to
questions
senator
hansen.
E
Thanks,
madam
chair,
my
my
question
on
on
easements
in
the
public
domain.
Not
so
much
obviously
in
the
city
of
vegas
or
sparks
or
whatever
about
in
the
public.
Big
concern
has
been
people
blocking
access
to
the
public
domain,
whether
the
easements
cross
private
property,
but
they
lead
the
public.
They
start
in
public
cross
private
go
to
public.
Does
this
bill
in
any
way
affect
anything
like
that.
N
Matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilders
association.
While
there
are
certain
easements
like
streets
and
pedestrian
right-of-ways,
that
cannot
be
vacated
through
an
administrative
ordinance
adopted
pursuant
to
ab-87.
N
Another
easement
type
that
may
provide
access
from
one
parcel
to
another
may
be
impacted
by
this
bill
and
that's
why
it's
so
important
that
local
governments
adopt
their
own
ordinance
customizing
it
to
their
needs
and
that
the
requirements
that
all
neighboring
utilities
and
property
owners
agree
that
this
is
appropriate
for
an
administrative
vacation
is
a
critical
protection
for
property
owners
and
folks
who
otherwise
enjoy
the
property.
E
My
god,
but
that's
my
concern-
is
that
we're
talking
in
so
many
cases
a
single
property
owner
who
can
go
to
a
county,
commission
and
say
we'd
like
to
close
this
road
that
crosses
our
property
and
there's
nobody
else
involved,
because
it
involves
the
public
domain
cross
and
private
back
to
public
domain.
So
I'm
just
wondering
if
we
need
to
add
some
checks
in
there
to
prevent
to
keep
this
limited
to.
E
You
know
the
urban
issues
that
nat
is
addressing,
for
example,
because
this
may
have
broader
implications
in
rural
areas,
simply
because
the
check
you're
talking
about
private
property
owners
protecting
themselves
from
other
private
property
owners
is
not
appropriate
in
in
so
many
of
these
cases
in
in
rural
nevada,.
N
Matt
walker,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
home
builders,
through
you
senator
nader
loop
to
senator
hanson
again,
I
would
just
reiterate
that
pedestrian
rights
away,
including
sidewalks,
but
not
limited
to
sidewalks
and
roads,
cannot
be
vacated
through
the
administrative
procedure
adopted
pursuant
to
this
bill.
But
we'd
certainly
be
interested
in
learning
more
about
some
of
the
other
recreational
easement
types
that
may
be
located
in
your
district.
Should
there
be
a
need
for
additional
clarification.
E
Absolutely
well
good
yeah.
I
understood
your
initial
point.
My
point
is
that
that
this
may
have
consequences.
Bigger
than
simply
you
know,
pedestrian
rights
away
and
existing
roads,
it
could
in
fact
impact
easements,
ironically
we're
just
talking
about
blm,
shutting
stuff
down,
and
that's
what
I'm
really
getting
at
that.
You
know
87
of
states
owned
by
the
feds
and
a
lot
of
people
on
little
blocks
of
land
out
there,
and
they
then
use
those
little
blocks
to
block
off
access
to
everybody
else
in
the
state
from
their
own
public
domain.
E
G
You,
madam
chair,
so
I
had
a
question
on
what
section
is
this?
G
I
guess
it's
section,
one
that
just
goes
on
forever:
sub
11..
It's
the
notice
provision.
Where
basically
says
the
governing
body
may
establish
by
local
ordinance,
it's
a
simplified
procedure,
but
basically
it
says
if
the
easement
is
owned
or
controlled
by
the
governing
body
that
basically
they
can
do
it
without
conducting
a
hearing
on
the
vacation
or
abandonment.
Unless
it's
for
public
utility-
and
I
guess
there
are
two
questions
there
number
one,
why
not
a
hearing
and
why
would
a
public
utility
get
a
higher
standard
than
anyone
else.
N
Thank
you
senator
neil
for
the
for
the
question
through
you,
chair,
dendera
loop
to
use
senator
neil
and.
N
Thank
you
so
much
again,
matt
walker
for
the
record.
I
think
that
this
is
an
important
item
that
you're
pointing
out
and
giving
me
an
opportunity
to
clarify
one.
Is
there
there's
existing
statute
that
allows
for
a
local
government
to
vacate
and
abandon
through
administrative
process,
a
public
utility
easement
where
the
local
government
owns
or
controls,
not
just
the
easement,
but
also
it
owns
or
controls
the
utility
being
vacated,
so
in
this
instance
of
city
of
henderson,
where
they
own
their
own
water
utility?
N
They
can
already
do
this
administrative
process
and
vacate
these
easements
in
this
manner.
So
what
this
sort
of
awkward
lead-in
to
section
subsection
11
indicates
is
that
we're
not
interfering
with
that
existing
statutory
authority?
In
fact
we're
copying
this
tried
and
true
process
and
then
applying
it
to
additional
types
of
of
easements.
G
So
I
hear
what
you're
saying,
but
I
don't
maybe
I'm
saying
it
wrong
right,
so
there's
the
other
right,
so
the
entities
that
are
not
a
public
utility
they
will,
the
local
government
or
the
the
governing
body
will
not
have
to
conduct
a
hearing.
Why
why
I
mean
if
that's
if
that,
because
that
can't
be
the
normal
process,
because
it's
an
insertion
of
new
language
right
and
then
and
then
I
have
a
follow-up
to
that.
N
Senator
neil,
thank
you
for
the
question:
matt
walker,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders,
for
the
record,
the
the.
Why
is
largely
one
all
pertinent
stakeholders
already
agree
and
we're
not
capturing
the
hundred
percent
here,
we're
capturing
the
80
percent,
where
everybody,
the
the
county
or
city
staff,
that's
processing
the
application
says.
N
Yes,
this
application
is
in
the
public
interest,
they've
verified
through
notarized
signatures
that
all
adjacent
property
owners
to
the
easement
agree
that
this
abandonment
or
vacation
is
appropriate
and
acceptable
all
the
dry
utilities
and
what
utilities
that
may
be
impacted
by
this
vacation.
All
say
this
is
okay.
N
This
is
the
way
that
some
easements
are
already
administratively
processed,
we're
just
trying
to
for
purposes
of
clearing
the
agendas
to
focus
public
conversation
on
items
that
are
actually
of
public
interest
to
reduce
and
make
more
efficient
the
number
of
hours
that
staff
needs
to
spend
on
each
application,
as
it
moves
its
way
through
the
process
and
to
the
benefit
of
developers
who,
in
an
infill
situation,
are
going
to
be
able
to
get
their
product
to
market
and
get
folks
working
faster.
N
G
Absolutely
thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
but
I'm
gonna
ask
a
broader
question,
because
when
I
was
looking
at
the
chapter
278,
so
278
4
480,
although
it's
planning
and
it
it
crosses
over
to
redevelopment,
and
so
I
really
wanted
to
get
an
understanding
of
the
application
of
this,
because
you
know
you're
talking
about
infill
development
but
you're.
Also,
these
provisions
walk
into
redevelopment
as
well
and
so
in
in
cities,
where
they're
doing
redevelopment
or
changing
changing
environments
or
or
neighborhoods,
or
where
there
could
be
older
areas
that
people
want
to
say
in.
G
In
what
happens,
and
I
know
the
developers
can
agree
and
they
can
come
to
an
agreement,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
the
people
or
the
citizens
actually
agree,
even
though
you
guys
are
going
to
move
that
move
it
through.
That
doesn't
mean
that
the
people
who
would
be
affected
agree,
and
I
and
I
guess
that's
that's
my
that's
another
concern,
because
redevelopment
areas
are
very
particular
and
there's
a
higher
interest
in
what
happens
in
the
infill
than
any
other
area.
And
so
I
really
want
you
to
address
that.
N
Matt
walker,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders.
Thank
you
again,
senator
neal
for
the
opportunity
to
expand
on
that
thought
and,
and
that's
exactly
the
type
of
example
that
I
think
is
best
when
you're
talking
about
a
redevelopment
or
infill
development,
for
instance
the
intersection
of
link
lane
and
las
vegas
boulevard.
N
There
was
a
four-way
traffic
stop
there.
There
is
no
longer
a
four-way
traffic
stop
and
never
will
be,
but
that
traffic
easement
for
that
traffic
signal
remained,
and
so
as
that
property
owner
wanted
to
come
in
and
reinvest
and
and
expand
their
investment
in
that
parcel.
It
jazz
it
up
with
some
new
signs
and
new
development
move
the
sidewalk
to
accommodate
that
new
development.
N
They
first
had
to
come
in
with
an
application
to
vacate
that
traffic
easement
and
then
that
went
to
the
town
board
and
then
that
well
first
it
waited
for
an
application
appointment.
Then
it
went
to
the
town
board.
Then
it
went
to
the
planning
commission.
Then
it
went
to
county
commission.
What
we're
trying
to
say
is
where
everybody
can
agree
in
that
scenario.
N
Let's
move
that
through
an
administrative
process
and
then
let's
focus
the
public
conversation
of
the
town
board,
planning,
commission
and
county
commission
on
what
the
project's
actually
going
to
do.
Let's
remove
this
intermediary
step
focus
the
public
conversation
on
what
the
actual
project
is
and
then
get
those
men
and
women
back
to
work
faster
in
that
infill
development
scenario.
So
we
we
feel
like
we're
striking
the
balance
here
by
not
allowing
for
administrative
vacation
of
streets
by
not
allowing
for
vacation
of
other
type
rights
away.
N
We're
striking
that
balance
between
focusing
the
conversation
on
what
the
actual
project
is
and
but
while
eliminating
some
of
these
more
technical
steps
that
clog
up
those
agendas
if
you've
ever
waited
at
city
of
las
vegas
planning,
commission
or
another
planning
commission
until
four
in
the
morning.
So
your
item
comes
up.
N
I
think
it's
hard
to
say
that
there's
meaningful
public
openness
and
input
at
that
point
at
some
point
when
you,
when
you're
there
past
midnight,
it
kind
of
feels
like
there's,
got
to
be
a
better
way
to
do
that,
and
that's
what
kind
of
sparks
some
of
these
conversations.
How
do
we
eliminate
some
of
these
more
technical
items
and
get
the
conversation
focused
on
what
the
actual
development.
N
L
And
instead
of
discussing
why
the
what
the
purpose
was
behind
the
redevelopment
project
or
what
kind
of
impact
it
had
on
the
community
or
what
kind
of
like
other
like
social
impacts,
that
it
would
have,
what
kind
of
economic
developments
and
what
kind
of
impacts
it
would
have.
There
was
like
time
dedicated
to
things
that,
in
other
aspects,
are
done
administratively,
when
every
all
parties
agree.
So
that
was
kind
of
some
of
the
thinking,
and
I
think
mr
walker
kind
of
illustrated.
L
You
know
what
the
intent
is
behind
this
bill
and
how
there
are
still
protections
for
those
bigger
policy
concerns
by
maintaining
some
level
of
efficiency
on
things
that
all
parties
can
agree
on.
G
Oh
my
god,
I
can't
believe
they
did
this
400
items
and
looks
like
it
affects
me.
It
is
something
else
that
either
shows
up
on
a
fence
or
a
gate
that
triggers
you
to
say.
I
need
to
pay
attention
to
that
particular
planning
meeting,
because
it's
affecting
me
and
my
neighborhood,
and
so
if
you're
saying
the
project
protections
exist.
G
I
guess
this
piece
in
sect
sub
11
to
me
would
open
the
door
for
them
to
do
an
activity
that
I
know
I
actively
fought
against
where
they
were
in
agreement
and
that
would
have
been
like.
Oh
it'd,
just
push
it
on
through
to
the
council
meeting
and
then
we
wouldn't
have
had
a
say
at
the
planning
stage
and
although
they
were,
they
were
like.
Oh,
this
vote
goes
whatever.
G
It
was
very
important
to
watch
the
stages
of
an
issue
that
where
we
weren't
in
agreement-
and
so
I
don't
know
how
I'm
you
know,
I'm
hearing
what
you're
saying
and
I'm
hearing
about
you
know.
Regular
people
are
just
like.
I
just
want
you
to
get
the
rest
of
the
business
done,
but
there
is
some.
There
are
some
things
that
go
on
that
people
should
be
aware
of
and
they're
not
a
public
utility,
and
I
may
be
extending
this
out.
G
But
but
I
want
I
want
notice,
and
I
want
a
freaking
hearing
on
things
that
because
they're
they
mean
something
to
someone
else.
They
don't
mean
something
to
someone
who
has
a
particular
agenda
to
just
get
through
their
stuff,
but
I've
already
encountered
just
last
year
where
this
would
have
caused
us
to
be
sitting
on
the
sideline
a
behemoth,
building
built
and
the
residents
would
have
been
like.
Oh
so
they
all
agreed.
Okay,.
O
N
Behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilders
and
senator
neil,
I
definitely
sympathize
with
you.
I
happen
to
record
every
planning
commission
meeting,
so
I'm
probably
in
the
in
a
very
small
minority
there,
but
I
would
say
that
when
it
comes
to
changing
the
land
use
when
it
comes
to
approving
individual
projects
through
a
design
review,
all
of
the
really
really
critical
conversations
that
take
place
at
those
planning
commissions
and
town
boards
in
places
across
southern
nevada.
N
We
really
want
to
clear
those
agendas
for
those
items
so
that,
because
again,
I
don't
think
that
that
community
member
on
the
west
side
having
to
wait
until
midnight
or
having
to
wait
until
one
o'clock
for
that
item
to
come
up.
I
think
that
impedes
their
ability
to
meaningfully
participate
in
the
process.
N
What
we
feel
is
the
appropriate
balance
is
taking
those
sewer,
privatizations
there's
vacations
of
traffic
easements,
those
small,
more
technical
steps
in
the
process.
We
can
take
those
off
the
table
and
fill
the
agenda
with
really
meaningful
public
conversation
about
zoning
changes,
projects,
etcetera.
A
Thank
you
very
much
vice
chair
or
intel,
please.
F
Thank
you
very
much
chair
and
thank
you.
Assemblyman
win
for
working
so
hard
on
this
legislation
and
and
mr
walker,
mr
hudson,
my
question
has
to
do
with
the
trying
to
get
the
notarized
signatures,
and
I
appreciate
you
walking
me
through
the
process
prior
to
the
hearing
of
the
bill.
Mr
walker,
but
you
know
I've
got
one
neighbor
who
he's
retired
and
he
I
see
him.
N
You'd
be
left
with
the
status
quo
and
what
the
status
quo
is
is
a
full
public
hearing
process
for
your
your
vacation
request,
so
you're
you're
going
to
be
able
to
go
through,
you
know,
have
the
notice
sent
by
the
city
or
or
county
go
through
the
town
board,
process,
etc,
whether
it's
because
you
don't
have
a
qualifying
easement,
your
neighbors
couldn't
agree
or
you
just
couldn't
track
them
down.
You'd
be
left
at
the
status
quo,
so
nobody
would
be
barred
from
seeking
an
easement.
N
F
Okay,
thank
you.
That
gives
me
a
lot
more
comfort
and
sheriff.
I
may
have
one
follow-up:
would
the
universe
of
neighbors
I'd
need
agreement
from
be
the
ones
who
were
just
geographically
contiguous
to
my
property
or,
let's
say
the
easement,
I'm
trying
to
have
vacated
goes.
You
know,
20
houses
down
down
the
hill,
would
it
be
every
neighbor
who's
touched
by
the
easement
that
I'm
seeking
to
vacate.
N
Matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders.
Everyone
who's
adjacent
to
the
easement,
including
those
underlying
the
easement
or
utilities
that
may
be
impacted
by
the
easement,
are
their
their
verification
of
approval
needs
to
be
submitted
in
order
for
an
applicant
to
take
advantage
of
this
administrative
process.
N
Should
the
local
government
adopt
an
administrative
process
by
an
ordinance,
and
we
think
that
those
are
key
protections
that
are
important,
and
that
may
mean
that
in
a
large
scale,
easement
situation
that
it's
simply
not
worth
the
trouble
to
track
down
all
these
folks,
and
we
fully
recognize
that
there
mis
may
be
some
limited
utility
because
of
that
important
property
protection,
and-
and
we
just
thought
that
it
was
the
appropriate
balance.
F
A
N
That
is
a
great
example
of
an
area
where,
but
the
developer
and
the
neighboring
property
owners,
property
rights
need
to
be
respected
and
not
interrupted
or
preempted
by
any
legislation,
and
so
we
work
diligently
with
representatives
of
the
queensborough's
homeowners,
as
well
as
representatives
of
ehb,
mr
loewy,
to
ensure
that
the
the
language
did
not
benefit
or
advantage
either
party
in
in
that
scenario
or
any
other
contentious
development
scenario.
N
Additionally,
I
would
just
add
that
drainage,
easements
and
pedestrian
rights
away
were
specifically
taken
out
of
the
the
bill
to
avoid
there
being
any
overlap
with
an
ordinance
that
may
be
adopted
by
a
local
government.
In
that
particular
scenario,.
L
Yes,
please
rochelle
win
for
the
record.
It
came
to
our
attention
that
there
were
some
concerns
that
this
was
like
an
intentional
like
decision
to
try
to
you
know
I
guess
insert
ourselves
or
insert
the
legislative
body
into
like
potential
litigation,
and
that
is
not
our
intent.
In
fact,
we've
made
very
specific
attempts
at
trying
to
make
sure
that
this
is
narrowly
tailored
to
strike
that
balance
between
maintaining
public
notice
and
efficiency
in
the
process.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I've
just
got
a
couple
of
real
brief
questions.
It
says
in
the
bill
when
you're
a
person
is
aggrieved
at
what
point,
or
how
do
you
bring
that
grievance
forward?
How
would
you
know
about
it
because
the
next,
the
next
step
is,
it's
actually
approved
and
recorded.
N
N
Similarly,
when
your
application
is
rejected
for
an
administrative
request
such
as
this
one,
the
ones
contemplated
under
this
bill,
you
then
have
the
ability
to
petition
on
on
forward.
If,
if
say
the
public
works
director
says
this,
isn't
in
the
public
interest,
you'll
have
the
ability
to
petition
and
take
that
on
to
the
county
commission
anyway,.
D
And
then,
with
that,
in
that
point,
if
I
may,
madam
chair,
would
that
trigger
a
public
hearing
or
I'm
just
concerned
at
that
point,
maybe
after
the
fact
somebody
wakes
up
and
oh
man-
I
missed
that,
but
it's
already
recorded
document
and
we
know
how
tough
it
is
to
to
get
back
up
the
hill.
So
I'm
concerned
about
that.
That's
my
only
concern
thanks.
Mr
martin.
N
And
madam
chair
m.a,
matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
home
builders.
That's
a
really
important
component
anytime.
You
have
an
administrative
process.
It's
important
that
the
appeals
process
be
really
really
clear
and
that's
something
that
we
anticipate
local
governments
defining
in
terms
of
the
number
of
days
etc.
N
In
that
ordinance
this
adopted
in
order
to
enact
the
provisions
of
this
bill.
I
wish
I
could
tell
you
that
there's
a
rule
of
thumb,
whether
it's
30
days
or
60,
days
or
10
days,
but
various
administrative
actions
is
adopted
by
local
governments,
have
different
notice
provisions
and
different
number
of
days
associated
with
them.
But
that's
some
something.
Certainly
as
a
representative
of
folks
who
own
property,
I
would
be
tracking
very
closely
as
I
participate
with
local
governments
and
when
they
adopt
this
ordinance.
A
All
right.
There
will
probably
be
some
offline,
but
thank
you
very
much
and
if
you
don't
mind
we'll
go
to
support
opposition
and
neutral.
L
And
madam
chair,
if
it's
okay
with
you,
I
do
have
to
go
back
to
cherry.
O
H
H
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
donder,
loop
and
members
of
the
committee
lindsey
knox,
l-I-n-d-s-a-y
knox
knox
with
mcdonnell
chrono
on
behalf
of
the
builders
association
of
northern
nevada
and
the
nevada
home
builders
association
in
the
construction
industry.
Time
is
money
ban
and
envy
hba
consistently
call
for
improved
efficiencies,
expedited
processes
with
our
local
governments,
the
vacation
or
abandonment
of
an
old
and
a
needed
easement
can
take
weeks
or
even
months,
even
when
there
is
no
disagreement
or
dispute
whatsoever.
I
This
bill
proposes
an
expedited
and
simplified
procedure
to
vacate
or
abandon
these
uncontroversial
and
unnecessary
easements,
allowing
construction
to
progress
without
undue
delays.
We
thank
our
colleagues
at
southern
nevada,
home
voters,
association
and
the
bill
sponsors
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
view
it
as
a
common
sense
and
useful
tool
in
the
development
and
construction
process.
Thank
you.
H
H
K
K
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that,
mr
walker,
mr
hodgson,
do
you
have
a
closing
comment.
N
Just
to
thank
the
committee
for
their
time,
matt
walker
for
the
record
and
because
you
still
have
quite
a
bit
more
business
to
get
to
we'll
we'll
leave
it
at
that.
And
thank
you
very
much.
A
L
L
Yes,
it
is
an
assembly
bill,
but
it
is
near
and
dear
to
my
heart,
because
a
public
facility's
needs
assessment
was
conducted
in
2020
by
clark
county
for
the
southwestern
portion
of
the
las
vegas
valley,
and
that
study
found
that
two
additional
fire
stations
are
necessary
to
maintain
the
four-minute
response
times
throughout
the
southwest,
including
in
district
9..
However,
the
fee
revenue
that
had
been
collected
in
the
area
for
this
purpose
was
not
adequate
to
meet
the
need.
L
Therefore,
clark
county
commissioner
jones
assembly
person,
yeager
and
I
are
happy
to
partner
with
development
community
and
first
responders,
to
bring
you
ab-139
that
will
accelerate
development
of
fire
stations
in
the
rapidly
growing
southwest.
The
bill
is
a
creative
solution
that
will
increase
public
safety,
create
prevailing
wage
construction
jobs
to
support
our
economy
recovery
and
help
all
of
those
who
live
in
the
southwest
part
of
the
valley.
Nat
hodgson
from
the
southern
nevada
home
builders
will
discuss
the
specifics
of
how
the
bill
developed
and
how
building
enterprise
funds
are
managed
by
local
governments.
A
M
Thank
you
again,
matt
hodgson
for
the
record,
ceo
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilder
association,
that's
n-a-t,
h-o-d-g
s-o-n
again,
I
guess
good.
After
good
late
afternoon,
chairwoman,
don
derelu
members
of
the
committee,
as
senator
shovel,
did
outline
about
20
years
ago.
There
was
a
facility
needs
assessment
done
that
zeroing
in
on
the
southwest
area
showed
that
they
were.
They
were
in
need
of
two
fire
stations
under
in
2019.
M
Under
chairwoman
kirkpatrick
and
commissioner
jones
leadership,
a
group
of
stakeholders
got
together
supporting
the
index
of
the
pfna
with
a
hundred
percent
increase,
which
we
did
support
a
hundred
percent
increase,
which
hope,
I
probably
won't
say
again,
and
these
dollars
still
can't
be
can't
fill
the
gap.
Though
it
was
a
twenty
plus
year
gap.
M
The
good
news
is,
we
did
index
it
for
inflation,
so
the
goal
is
hopefully
not
up
in
this
position
again,
but
there's
a
gap
that
we
believe
this
bill
fills
as
you'll
see
in
the
powerpoint
presentation,
all
developer
fees
for
permits
and
plans
are
paid
in
the
billing
enterprise
fund,
an
advisory
committee
of
county
staff
and
industry
representatives
oversee
the
fund
as
a
custodian.
These
funds,
and
as
an
industry
member
who
is
committed
to
funding
targeted
service
levels,
a
healthy
balance,
these
funds
is
critical
and
very
important
to
me.
M
I
or
a
member
of
my
staff
currently
sit
on
all
the
advisory
sit
on
the
advisory
committee
of
clark,
county
city,
henderson,
nc,
las
vegas.
I've
served
on
counties,
building
enterprise
fund,
which
this
bill
is
aimed
at
for
over
eight
years
and
still
currently
serve
as
a
residential
home
building
representative.
M
We
are
bru,
we
are
briefed
by
the
county
management
and
the
building
official
on
a
frequent
basis
and
have
meaningful
dialogue
on
ongoing
challenges
faced
by
the
industry
and
have
a
finger
on
the
pulse
of
the
large
budget
items,
staffing
levels,
infrastructure
needed
by
the
county
employees.
At
all
these
meetings,
the
powerpoint
has
been
provided
to
you
as
a
map
of
the
targeted
fire
service
levels
in
unincorporated
clark
county.
M
We
want
the
community
to
hear
from
an
expert,
so
todd
anglesby,
president
of
professionals,
firefighters
of
nevada,
will
now
walk
you
through
the
service
level
maps
and
provide
additional
comments
on
what
service
levels
mean
for
members
of
the
public
and
his
membership
afterwards,
mr
wattlock,
mr
matt
walker
will
go
through
the
section
by
section
amendment,
so
I
will
turn
it
over.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
madam
chair.
P
My
name
is
todd
inglesby
t-o-d-I-n-g-a-l-s-b-e,
I'm
the
president
of
the
professional
fighters,
nevada.
I
hope
you
all
are
doing
well
and
staying
safe
as
you've
heard
from
the
other
presenters
as
nevada
has
grown
and
continues
to
grow.
It
is
vital.
We
have
infrastructure
in
place
to
be
able
to
provide
essential
safety
services,
as
you
can
see
in
the
heat
maps
that
were
provided
behind
we're
very
behind
in
the
southwest
valley
and
in
southern
nevada.
But
this
is
an
issue
for
the
entire
state.
We
are
here
asking
for
your
help
for
this
bill.
P
This
bill
will
help
current
and
future
residents
along
with
millions
of
visitors.
We
hope
to
have
back
in
our
state
soon.
The
lack
of
fire
stations
and
personnel
creates
a
safety
concern
when
we
are
not
able
to
meet
the
national
standard
of
a
four-minute
response.
That
means
that
when
you
call
9-1-1
in
an
emergency,
you
should
have
fire
personnel
to
your
location
within
four
minutes.
If
your
mom,
dad
brother
or
sister
or
son,
are
having
a
heart
attack
or
drowning.
Four
minutes
is
a
long
time.
P
Imagine
if
it
was
six
eight
ten
minutes
before
you
had
fire
department
personnel
at
your
door
to
start
initiating
care.
I'm
not
sure
if
any
of
you
had
had
to
call
minutes
can
seem
like
an
eternity.
Everything
we
do
is
about
getting
to
the
emergency
as
fast
as
possible
for
the
best
outcome.
We
are
taught
very
early
on
our
careers
to
treat
every
person
as
if
they
are
family.
P
P
The
state
has
and
continues
to
see
massive
growth,
especially
with
our
large
master
plan
communities
when
buying
your
dream
home
people
think
to
research,
the
school
districts
and
the
proximity
of
work,
grocery
stores,
etc.
But
what
is
often
forgotten
is:
where
is
the
closest
fire
station?
Most
people
assume
that
the
city
or
the
county
is
insuring
all
those
homes
are
only
built
if
the
basic
safety
infrastructure
is
in
place.
Unfortunately,
that's
not
the
case
at
the
closet.
P
N
Thank
you,
madam
chair
matt,
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
homebuilders
association.
So
I'm
before
I
start
the
very
brief
section
by
section.
I
just
want
to
kind
of
recap
that
timeline
that
mr
hodgson
covered.
So
in
2001,
the
county
clark
county
adopted
a
fee.
N
This
this
bill
really
is
about
bridging
that
gap,
that
temporary
gap
and
so
I'll
walk
you
very
quickly
through
a
section
by
section
on
how
this
bill
addresses
that
gap,
so
section
1,
subsection
1a
makes
it
clear
that
this
bill
is
targeting
money
in
the
building
enterprise
fund.
That
is
over
and
above
the
statutory
cap
set
by
nrs
354.
N
Section
1
subsection
1b
states
that
the
local
government
must
have
adopted
the
findings
of
a
public
facility's
needs
assessment
pursuant
to
nrs
278.02591
within
the
dates
specified
in
the
bill
section.
One
subsection
two
makes
it
clear
that
the
funds
transferred
for
this
purpose
are
exempt
from
the
cap
in
nrs
354.59891,
in
recognition
that
this
temporary
authority
granted
to
local
governments
is,
is
being
granted
to
local
governments
with
the
intent
that
they
act
quickly
to
address
the
identified
need
for
fire
stations
section.
N
One
subsection
three
sets
timelines
for
the
specific
transfer
of
funds
and
return
of
all
unused
funds.
If
the
committee
adopts
the
proposed
amendment
developed
in
coordination
with
clark,
county,
local
governments
would
have
until
june
30
2021
to
transfer
eligible
funds
and
must
return
all
unspent
funds
by
january
2024.
N
Lastly,
I
would
like
to
thank
the
nevada,
resort
association,
mgm,
red
rock
resorts,
naop
and
all
the
very
important
enterprise
fun
stakeholders
that
allow
this
conversation
to
progress
forward.
I'd
also
like
to
thank
commissioners
kirkpatrick
jones
and
clark
county
building
official
jerry
stevie
for
their
leadership
and
open
communication
on
this
proposal,
as
well
as
all
the
great
state
elected
representatives
for
this
area,
assembly
members,
jaeger,
angorlo
and
senator
scheibel
for
leading
this
important
public
safety
conversation.
N
This
bill
really
is
about
the
southern
nevada
development
industry,
stepping
up
during
a
challenging
fiscal
time
for
clark
county
and
finding
an
innovative
solution
to
bridge
this
important
public
safety
infrastructure
gap,
and
with
that
I
will
close
and
take
any
questions
and
comments.
The
committee
may
have.
N
I
apologize
that
I
was
using
old
notes
again,
matt
walker,
for
the
record
this.
Those
comments
are
now
incorporated
into
the
first
reprint
that
you
see
before.
A
N
Matt
walker
for
the
record,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders,
first
I'll
I'll
say
that
this
bill
doesn't
necessarily
steer
this
money
towards
any
particular
area.
It
simply
authorizes
the
local
government
that,
where
they've
conducted
a
public
facilities
needs
assessment
and
they
have
reserves
that
are
over
and
above
the
statutory
cap
and
their
building
enterprise
fund
to
use
them
for
public
safety
infrastructure.
N
I
think
the
intent
here
in
in
working
with
clark,
county
commissioners
and
other
stakeholders
is
that
they
put
those
funds
to
use
in
the
in
the
areas
where
the
most
population
in
clark
county
is
not
covered
by
four
minute
response
times
up
at
the
current
moment,
and
that
is
as
you'll
see
on
the
map
on
nellis.
As
part
of
the
presentation
largely
focused
around
the
southwest
portion
of
clark,
county.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Questions
committee,
senator
neil.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
so
what
I?
What
I'm
super
curious
about
is
how
are
fire
stations
normally
paid
for?
Why
isn't
this
coming
out
of
capital
improvement
or
a
special
assessment
bond,
and
I
there
are
other,
but
there
are
other
ways
to
pay
for
this
rather
than
trying
to
change
the
structure
of
an
enterprise.
N
Fund
matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
home
builders.
Madam
chairman
direct
to
members
on
questions
for
this
one.
N
Okay,
senator
neal,
I
that's
a
great
question.
I'd
say
that
fire
stations
are
typically
funded
in
two
typical
scenarios
in
clark,
county
and
southern
nevada.
One
is
in
the
case
of
a
master
plan
development.
N
Typically,
a
local
government
will
anticipate
the
future
need
for
the
fire
station
and
then
assess
a
fee,
an
impact
fee
for
the
developments
as
they
come
in,
but
again
because
the
fee
wasn't
adjusted
from
2001
all
the
way
up
until
2019
that
fee,
just
simply
wasn't,
was
no
longer
reflective
of
the
true
cost
of
constructing
a
fire
station.
Today,
that's
that's
what
leads
us
to
the
gap
that's
being
addressed
by
this
bill.
G
So
but
I'm
still
not
clear
on
why
this
isn't
a
part
of
capital
improvement.
So
so
I
I
know
this
bill
was
coming
forward
and
I
was
looking
through
like
I
watched
you
guys,
hearing
on
the
other
side,
and
then
I
was
trying
to
look
through
the
clark
county
budgets
and
trying
to
get
an
idea
of
you
know
the
fire
districts
and
how
much
revenue
was
actually
operating,
and
so
I
know
that
one
of
the
second
ways
that
it
could
be
paid
for
clark
county
has
a
fire
service
district
with
a
capital
fund.
G
It,
and-
and
I
and
I
guess
I'm
super
confused,
because
when
I
saw
the
the
budget
there
was
a
transfer
that
came
from
the
general
fund
into
that
fund.
So
why
aren't
we
just
asking
for
a
transfer
from
the
general
fund
into
that
fund
and
the
reason
why
I'm
asking
that
is
because
you
can't
say
it's
great
recession
right.
G
We
we're
not
walking
back
to
2011
we're
not
going
to
do
that,
even
in
the
circumstance
of
2020,
where,
yes,
all
budgets
were
hit,
clark
county
actually
got
a
buffer
right,
so
they
were
able
to
get
a
buffer
and
try
to
offset
some
of
their
losses.
They
actually
got
a
larger
amount,
so
that
allowed
them
to
maneuver
and
and
do
some
other
things
in
2020,
and
so
I'm
just
I'm
I'm.
I
am.
G
I
need
to
be
clear
about
why
this
is
the
necessary
pathway,
because
I've
seen
enterprise
funds
used
before,
and
I
know
this
one
has
an
expiration
date,
but
I
in
another
hearing
long
time
ago,
same
thing
was
used
and
they've
never
taken
it
out
and
all
they
did
was
walk
back
with
a
whole
new
set
of
members
and
ask
for
that
expiration
date
to
to
be
removed.
So
they
could
continue
to
use
it,
and
it
is
never
returned
back
to
the
fund
that
it
was
supposed
to
be
used
for
it's
still
in
play.
G
N
Thank
you
for
the
comment,
senator
neil
matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
home
builders.
I
would
say
that
we're,
hopefully
different
from
that
other
enterprise
use
fund
use
because
we're
asking
for
permission
before
the
transfer
happens
and
not
after
the
fact,
but
nonetheless
we
we
do
think
this.
This
really
is
the
product
of
two
key
dynamics
that
would
prevent
general
fund
from
having
to
be
used
from
the
county.
N
That,
of
course,
there's
many
many
needs
for
that
general
fund,
probably
now
more
than
ever,
for
those
vital
community
services,
one
is
there's,
there's
a
need
in
a
fee
that
did
not
not
catch
up
with
inflation.
It
has
now
been
solved
and
indexed,
so
we're
really
just
trying
to
fund
the
gap.
The
other
scenario
where
those
fees
pay
for
this
fire
station
means
even
further
increase
in
those
fees
for
the
southwest
and
then
a
delay,
and
you
know
maybe
years
before
that
project
can
finally
go
to
design
the
other
key
dynamic.
N
N
I
think
that
there's
a
large
amount
of
development
stakeholders
that
are
willing
to
see
it
put
to
to
better
use
within
the
limitations
of
the
bill
and
and
with
the
appropriate
oversight
and
transparency,
and
I
apologize
I'm
out
of
chair,
but-
and
this
will
build
the
fire
stations
faster,
three
or
four
years
faster
than
allowing
for
those
fees
to
accrue,
which
is
another
huge
benefit.
For
folks
like
myself,
who
who
live
in
the
southwest
part
of
the
valley.
G
So,
thank
you
for
those
comments
of
madam
chair.
I'm
going
to
leave
this
alone
after
this
comment.
Just
because
there's
excess
doesn't
mean
that
he
gets
to
come
in
and
change
the
statute
to
reproduce
reprioritize
it
for
another
use.
It
is
set
aside
for
that
exact
purpose,
and
this
is
this
is
this
is
not
the
precedent
that
we'd
like
to
continue?
I
personally
that's
my
personal
opinion.
G
But
when
I
was
looking
at
their
there's,
their
final
tentative
final
budget,
they
I
I
think
that
there
there's
potential
there
for
them
to
rearrange
other
funds
not
to
go
into
the
enterprise
fund.
Excess
does
not
mean
raid,
that's
not
what
it
means,
and
it
certainly
doesn't
mean
just
because
stakeholders
agree
to
go
into
that
fund.
You
come
and
change
the
legal
purpose
of
it.
There's
a
whole
bunch
of
outstanding
questions
on.
G
Why
didn't
they
reduce
the
levy,
knowing
that
it
was
increasing
and
increasing,
and
they
have
this
excess
because,
ultimately,
what
they
did
they
allowed
it
to
build
and
they
knew
they
didn't
even
need
the
money.
They
could
have
lowered
that
rate
and
they
didn't,
and
that
question
has
not
been
answered.
N
I'm
out
of
chair-
if
I
might
very
briefly
respond,
I
would
say
that
matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
south
nevada,
home
builders.
We
are
very
supportive
of
protecting
these
funds
and
keeping
a
healthy
fund
or
balance
when
it
was
initially
proposed
that
fees
be
reduced.
There
was
a
a
large
agreement
among
stakeholders
on
the
building
enterprise
fund
advisory
committee.
N
That
fees
not
be
reduced,
that
these
were
simply
excess
revenues
caused
by
several
large
projects
that
came
through
the
system
and
that
reducing
fees
would
put
us
on
a
trajectory
to
then
not
meet
the
needs
and
service
levels
associated
with
the
the
building
enterprise
fund.
We
still
have
key
retirements
happening
in
that
department.
We
have
great
needs
and
difficulty
in
recruiting
engineers
and
other
key
professionals
in
those
departments.
N
So
again
we
want
to
see
a
healthy
fund.
We
think
it's.
We
strongly
believe
it's
transparently
managed,
and
we
think
that
this
is
just
a
confluence
of
two
circumstances
where
this
this
one-time
deviation
from
from
the
current
protocols
are,
is
something
that's
not
just
good
for
the
community,
but
it's
also
good
for
the
development
community
at
large
and
I'll
leave
it
at
that.
E
Thanks,
madam
chair
first
like
to
compliment
my
colleagues,
it's
very
nice
to
sit
with
somebody
who
has
so
many
years
of
experience
on
this
committee
question
in
the
beginning,
mr
walker,
you
mentioned
that
currently
big
developers
will
frequently
pay
the
expenses
to
build
a
fire
station.
Is
that
correct.
E
N
Matt
walker
for
the
record,
senator!
If,
if
you
mean
that
by
paying
by.
E
N
Senator
hanson
matt
walker
for
the
record
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada
homebuilders,
I
think
you're,
hitting
on
a
dynamic.
That
is
a
is
a
good
question.
However,
I
think
it's
because
of
the
way
that
the
southwest
is
uniquely
developed.
N
Nobody
is
skating
off
of
their
responsibility
under
this
bill
and
I
think,
if
you
look
at
the
maps
of
what's
remaining
undeveloped
in
this
portion
of
the
valley
and
where
these
fire
stations
are
proposed
to
be
located,
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
there
is
no
a
developer
swooping
into
to
with
a
project
of
regional
significance
to
save
the
day
and
we're
certainly
not
targeting
any
developer
at
all
for
relief
from
their
current
requirements
under
their
existing
development
agreements.
N
There
are
some
large
developers
in
that
area
and
they
have
stepped
up
and
followed
through
with
their
commitment
under
their
development
agreements
to
make
fire
stations
available.
So
that's
specifically
southern
highlands
and
and
howard
hughes
corporation.
A
N
That
is
a
planning
process
that
can
only
be
undertaken
by
jurisdictions
and
counties
that
are
larger
than
700
000,
and
so
we're
certainly
capturing
jurisdictions
that
have
established
a
building
enterprise
fund
are
in
what
is
now
clark
county
under
these
population
limits
and
lastly,
they
have
a
fund,
that's
funded
over
and
above
the
statutory
reserve
caps
in
354.
So
under
those
confluence
of
factors,
clark
county
is
the
only
local
government
at
the
moment
that
could
take
advantage
of
this
bill.
F
You
very
much
chair,
thank
you,
senator
scheible,
for
bringing
the
bill
and
certainly
explosive
growth.
You
have
in
your
area
in
the
southwest,
and
my
question
I
think
I
spoke
mr
walker
earlier
about.
I
appreciate
you
talking
to
me
about
the
bill
was
that
you
know
I
represent
an
area
on
the
opposite
end
of
the
town
up
in
the
northeast,
but
a
lot
of
unincorporated
clark
county
and
we're
we're
constrained
about
on
growth.
F
But
if,
if
growth
was
to,
if
we
were
to
have
a
similar
explosion
on
growth,
you
know
if
development
would
something
like
this
be
able
to
try
to
help
parts
of
you
know
air,
it's
not
just
limited
to
the
southwest
part
of
clark
county.
It
could
be
used
in
other
parts
of
the
city
in
the
county
to
help
you
know
if
growth
were
to
explode.
I
think
that's
kind
of
what
you
had
guided
me
through.
Mr
walker.
It's
not
even
though
it
it
will
immediately
help
your
area.
F
L
Melanie
sheible
for
the
record.
Thank
you
senator
orrinshaw,
for
the
question
that
is
correct.
I
will
note
that
there
is
also
the
expiration
on
this
structure,
so
that
would
have
to
happen
in
a
very
timely
fashion,
but
we
have
seen
growth
in
las
vegas
at
astounding
rates
in
the
past.
So
certainly
it's
not
limited
by
statute
to
any
particular
area.
A
Okay,
any
additional
comments
from
you,
mr
walker.
N
Matt
walker,
for
the
record.
I
I
know
that
patience
is
probably
wearing
thin
on
hearing
for
me,
but
I
just
did
want
to
mention
in
response
to
senator
neil's
question
that
joanna
jacobs
from
from
clark
county
is
on
the
line
and
available,
and
we
certainly
appreciate
their
expertise
and
they're,
obviously
much
better
folks
to
speak
to
how
those
transfers
would
take
place
etcetera.
I
certainly
didn't
mean
to
speak
for
them,
but
hope
that
my
comments
were
helpful.
H
A
Thank
you,
ms
jacobs.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
for
entering
the
phone
line
with
us.
Senator
neal
had
some
questions
for
you.
So
hang
on.
G
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
senator
neil,
thank
you
for
the
question.
You
are
correct,
senator
neil,
can
you
hear
me?
I'm
sorry,
I'm
having
connection
difficulties.
Can
you
hear
me?
I
I
As
you
noted,
there
is
a
second
way,
as
you
also
noted,
through
the
clark
county
fire
district,
which
we
it,
which
is
funded
through
property,
tax
and
sea
tax,
both
of
which
well
see
taxes
especially
took
a
hit
through
the
pandemic,
but
is
returning.
Those
fire
stations
are
also
funded,
as
senator
hansen
pointed
out
through
development
agreements,
and
so
those
are
the
three
ways
in
which
they
are
funded.
I
We
were,
we
were
approached
by
this
idea
by
the
stakeholders,
as
mr
walker
has
stated,
that
it
is
an
opportunity
to
to
fund
fire
stations,
as
he
said
quote.
I
guess
in
a
quicker
way
than
we
usually
do.
We
do
allocate
funds
from
that
capital
fund
through
the
clark
county
fire
districts,
but
that
is
not
only
for
the
capital
cost
of
constructing
a
fire
station.
It
also
goes
towards
fire
equipment
and
so
fire
trucks
and
all
of
their
equipment
that
they
need,
so
that
is
in
the
definition
of
capital
that
goes
through.
I
That
fund
clark
county,
real
property
management,
as
you
know,
from
the
bill
that
we
did
with
clark
county
that
you
approved
through
this
committee
does
manage
a
very
large
capital
program
and
we
have
quite
a
volume
that
we
have
to
maintain.
These
can
be
paid
through
our
capital
fund,
but
it
may
be
delayed.
This
is
always
subject
to
our
board
oversight
and
approval.
So
I
cannot
speak
for
the
board
and
say
that
when
they
review
a
capital
program,
what
they
may
choose
to
fund
or
not,
that
is
something
that
is
always
subject
to
our
board.
G
G
G
G
Now
you
know
what
your
balances
are,
and
so
your
projected
loss
isn't
necessarily
as
large
as
you
thought,
and
so
why
not
just
wait
and
use
the
proper
funding
to
take
care
of
the
fire
stations,
because
I
honestly
feel
it
is
your
responsibility
out
of
either
capital
improvement,
maybe
even
through
some
special
bonding
there's
that
there
are
districts
out
there
that
already
have
special
assessments
where
you
could
do
an
additional
levy.
I
just
don't
understand
why.
G
N
Matt
walker
for
the
record,
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders
and
I'll,
provide
the
initial
answer,
because
I
think
it's
definitely
fair
to
say
that
we're
requesting
the
bill
this
this
bill
would
fund
the
fire
stations
much
much
faster
than
waiting
for
any
of
those
fees
to
accrue
and
then
going
to
design
the
project.
N
Secondly,
I
think
it's
incumbent
on
growth
to
pay
for
growth,
so,
instead
of
the
it
pulling
away
from
capital
needs
of
less
fast
growing
areas
or
more
stagnant
areas
that
don't
that
are
in
need
of
services,
but
don't
necessarily
have
revenues
associated
with
their
area
that
would
specifically
pay
for
these
critical
services.
N
I
think
it's
incumbent
on
on
us
to
capture
the
revenue
from
fast
growing
areas
and
put
them
to
use
for
the
services
needed
for
those
fast
growing
areas
and
again,
that's
why
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders
association,
supported
100
increase
in
the
pfna
fee
for
the
southwest
and
indexing
the
fee
to
inflation
going
forward,
and
it's
why
we're
bringing
this
bill
to
get
the
fire
stations
built
quickly?
Have
the
response
times
reduced
and
allow
for
the
capital,
improvement
funds
and
other
revenue
sources
to
be
used
for
broader
county-wide
needs.
G
N
Thank
you,
senator
neal,
for
the
question.
Matt
walker
for
the
record.
That's
the
public
facilities
needs
assessment
fee.
So
pfna
is
a
study
undertaken
by
local
governments
under
278
to
assess
the
need
for
public
infrastructure,
whether
that's
fire
stations
or
sewer
that
are
going
to
result
as
the
as
the
anticipated
development
in
an
area
comes
in
and
it's
those
needs
are
then
assessed
through
an
impact
fee
on
those
parcels
as
they
come
in
to
develop,
and
so
that's
the
pfna
fee
that
we're
referring
to
that
was
adopted
back
in
2001.
N
A
All
right,
if
you
don't
mind,
we'll,
go
to
support
opposition
and
neutral
broadcasting
when
you're
ready,
please
go
ahead.
H
H
I
Hi
again,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
joanna
jacob
j-o-a-n-n-a-j-a-c-o-b
government
affairs
manager
for
clark
county,
I
wasn't
sure
if
I
had
to
re-log
in
madam
chair,
but
I
went
ahead
and
did
so
senator
mcgill.
We
are
in
support
of
this
bill.
I
guess
just
to
follow
up
because
it
is
limited.
I
We
are
in
support
of
this
because
of
the
needs
assessment
that
we
did.
That
was
testified
to
you
today
that
it
will
fund
a
critical
public
safety
need
in
in
our
community,
and
we
are
hoping
to
do
so.
Those
timelines
in
the
bill
are
very
tight
for
us.
We
can
transfer
the
funds
at
the
end
of
the
year
construction
timelines
within
clark
county.
I
know
that
you've
heard
our
testimony
on
this
before
in
our
previous
bill
can
go.
I
It
can
be
very
long,
and
so
we
believe
that
we
to
get
through
design
on
some
of
these
projects,
which
may
involve
blm
approvals.
Senator
hansen
as
you've
also
we've
talked
about
this
in
this
meeting
before
can
take
quite
a
bit
of
time
once
we
get
through
that
design
process,
which
can
be
a
year
or
longer
if
it
involves
blm,
then
we
have
approximately
nine
to
ten
months,
possibly
a
year
and
a
half
or
so
to
do
construction.
I
So,
under
the
tight
timelines
in
this
bill,
we
are
hoping
to
be
able
to
do
at
least
one
fire
station
and
then
to
see
the
sun
set
it,
because
we
believe
that
if
there
is
a
if
there
is
an
economic
downturn
again
that
this
may
not
happen
again,
if
we
did
want
to
see
this
controlled,
we
will
not
be
here
to
seek
the
lift
of
the
sunset.
You
will
not
see
that
from
clark
county.
We
are
in
support
of
the
bill
as
it
stands
today.
Thank
you
very.
I
H
H
J
Yeah
this
is
skip
daily
d-a-l-y
for
the
last
name,
speaking
on
behalf
of
myself,
only
in
opposition,
not
that
I'm
against
fire
stations
or
trying
to
improve
the
level
of
service
anywhere
in
the
state.
J
The
concern,
even
after
is
greater
even
after
listening
to
the
testimony
here,
I
hear
mr
walker
say
well,
we
can
get
into
this
enterprise
fund
because
we're
over
50
and
I
can
see
the
wheels
turning
the
local
government
saying:
hey.
Well,
let's
hurry
up
and
get
our
other
enterprise
funds
up
over
50,
so
we
can
also
then
fund
capital
improvements,
nothing
in
connection
with
the
enterprise
fund's
original
purpose.
J
I
hear
legislators
on
the
panel
saying,
hey
well,
this
might
be
able
to
be
used
in
my
area
and
I
see
future
legislators
starting
to
then
say
well
we're
going
to
extend
the
sunset
and
various
things,
so
the
sunset
only
lasts
as
long
as
until
it
doesn't,
and
somebody
extended
and
I've
seen
plenty
of
sunsets
in
this
building
over
the
years
they
get
extended
time
and
time
again
and
until
they
just
get
completely
removed.
This
is
a
bad
idea.
J
Whoever
was
in
the
communities
that
let
the
development
go
and
let
the
level
of
service
for
the
fire
departments
go.
Those
people
are
responsible
for
letting
that
growth
develop
without
having
a
way
to
pay
for
their
fire
stations.
You
should
look
at
278c
tax,
increment
districts.
You
can
do
a
special
assessment
district
under
there
are
a
variety
of
other
ways
to
fund
this.
J
H
L
Thank
you
so
much
shared
under
a
loop,
melanie
scheibel
for
the
record
from
senate
district
nine.
I
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
this
bill
and
for
engaging
with
us
and
let
you
know
that
I
remain
available
to
answer
questions
and
continue
to
work
through
concerns
on
the
bill.
As
do
I
well,
I'm
sure
that
mr
walk
will
speak
for
himself,
but
I'm
sure
he
will
tell
you
the
same.
N
Much
matt
walker,
briefly
manager
of
on
behalf
of
the
southern
nevada,
home
builders.
I
would
just
say
that
I
am
greatly
appreciative
of
the
great
dialogue
here
today.
I
think
that
this
is
a
creative
solution
with
representatives
of
various
levels
of
government
who
represent
an
area
that
see
a
need
and
really
wanted
to
roll
up
their
sleeves
and
solve
it,
and
we're
very
thankful
to
the
development
community
for
pitching
in
and
bring
this
idea
forward.
N
We
are
are
committed
to
having
responsible
levels
of
fees
and,
as
mr
hodgson
mentioned,
we
are
carefully
watching
the
building
enterprise
advisory
committee
funds
and
and
look
forward
to
continuing
conversations
there
to
ensure
that
fees
are
in
line
with
the
needs
of
those
various
departments.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
thank
you
all
for
your
presentation,
and
I
appreciate
your
time
today
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
139
and
we'll
open
the
next
hearing
on
assembly
bill
245,
and
we
will
welcome
assemblyman
flores.
A
A
O
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
esteemed
members
of
the
senate
government
affairs
committee,
I
am
assemblyman
edgar
flores
for
the
record
proudly
representing
assembly
district
28,
that's
northeast
las
vegas,
and
I
am
here
to
present
assembly
bill
245.,
madam
chair.
If
I
may
offer
a
quick
roadmap
of
my
intent
for
the
conversation
to
proceed,
I'd
like
to
first
just
walk
you
through
the
genesis
of
this
bill.
O
What
what
brings
it
before
you
now
and
what
we're
trying
to
address
next.
I
will
briefly
walk
you
through
how
I
believe
this
bill
addresses
that
specific
concern
and
then
afterwards
I'll
hand
over
the
presentation
to
mr
mike
draper
and
miss
gail
anderson,
who
can
provide
some
additional
information
along
with
how
we've
worked
through
some
of
the
amendments
to
get
to
the
reprint.
O
That's
before
you
today,
madam
chair,
if
I
may
take
a
quick
personal
point
of
privilege,
as
I
know,
my
little
brother
is
watching,
and
today
is
his
birthday,
just
wanted
to
say
happy
birthday
to
my
little
brother
eduardo.
I
love
you
brother,
I'm
very
proud
of
the
man.
You've
become-
and
I
just
wanted
to
do,
a
quick
shout
out
to
you,
brother.
O
O
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
the
indulgence
to
do
so.
Madam
chair
again,
assembly
medical
florist
for
the
record.
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
specifically
work
within
this
section
of
the
nrs,
namely
nrs
240
and
240a.
O
Now,
even
before
I
had
the
privilege
of
being
an
elected
member
since
2013,
I
had
the
honor
of
publishing
a
study
through
the
university
of
austin
texas
journal,
where
we
talked
about
the
axis
of
of
legal
services
within
the
legal
community.
Here
better
said
within
the
southern
nevada
community
here
in
nevada-
and
I
mentioned
that
because
this
is
a
a
specific
section
or
of
the
chapter
that
I've
been
incredibly
involved
in
for
for
for
a
lot
of
years
before
I
even
thought
of
running
for
office
and
every
year
that
I've
been
in
office.
O
I've
come
back
and
and
have
had
the
opportunity
to
work
within
this
section
from
from
2013
to
2019
the
genesis
and
the
emphasis
and
the
focus
and
the
energy
has
been
on
going
after
bad
actors.
O
We've
come
back
session
after
session,
going
after
predatory
businesses
who
take
advantage
of
good
good
old
nevadans,
who
are
just
trying
to
get
some
help
and
there's
folk
you've
heard
a
lot
of
the
notario
issues,
folk,
pretending
to
be
attorneys
and
taking
advantage
of
members
of
the
community,
and
so
I
think,
we've
done
a
great
job
collectively
as
members
of
the
assembly
and
senate
to
push
forward
that
specific
nrs.
O
Now
the
focus
is
on.
We
have
all
the
language
in
place.
We
put
a
lot
of
language
over
the
years
on
how
to
go
after
some
of
these
bad
actors,
and
now
the
emphasis
and
focus
has
been
on.
How
do
we
focus
on
helping
the
good
actors,
all
those
small
businesses
who
have
been
impacted
very
severely,
as
many
of
you
haven't,
been
impacted
in
2020?
O
So
that's
the
two
prong
approach
to
today's
conversation
and
if
I
could
do
a
quick
shout
out
to
both
dave
and
monica
from
fingerprinting
express
who
are
small
business
owners
and
they've
been,
you
know,
really
working
really
in
depth
with
me
and
if
I
could
also
do
a
quick
shout
out
to
raphael
arroyo
from
smog
plus
who
also
there's
an
amendment
in
here
that
you
will
talk
about
that
is
now
part
of
the
reprint
and
again
these
are
just
good
actors,
good
small
businesses,
doing
the
right
thing.
O
So
here's
how
I
think
we
could
help
them
like
a
lot
of
small
businesses.
I
share
how
2020
was
very
difficult.
My
business
went
through
a
very
rough
time
as
well,
and
the
bottom
line
is:
how
do
we
help
make
people
small
businesses
make
money,
and
so,
as
we
start
walking
through
the
bill,
I'm
looking
at
page
3,
specifically
section
1.5,
one
of
the
first
things
that
we
talked
about
and
I
had
an
opportunity
to
speak
with
mr
draper
on
this
particular
issue-
is
for
a
very
long
time.
O
We've
capped
how
much
they
can
charge
for
notary
fees
and
we've
capped
it
and
we
haven't
changed
that
amount,
even
though
the
fee
for
you
to
buy
a
stamp
the
fee
for
you
to
get
your
notary
book.
The
bond
everything
else
has
gone
up.
All
the
costs
for
you
to
operate
as
a
notary
in
the
state
of
nevada
have
gone
up,
and
yet
we've
had
a
stagnant,
a
number
of
what
you
can
charge,
and
so
mr
draper
will
further
go
into
more
detail.
O
O
There
may
be
some
offices
that
don't
do
it,
we're
not
saying
they
have
to
charge
us,
but
I'm
really
focusing
in
on
the
small
businesses
where
they
try
to
have
a
model
where
they
work
with
these
tiny
little
margins
and
that
they
now
can
maybe
just
charge
a
little
bit
more
so
that
they
can
actually
make
a
pencil
out
and
that
it
works
that
the
math
works
so
you'll
see
that
the
numbers
we
just
simply
triple
them
right,
so
they
could
before
charge
five
five
dollars
for
an
acknowledgement.
O
O
I'm
looking
at
page
four-
and
I
know
there
is
some
additional
language
on
page
specifically
three
right
above
that
and
I'll
come
back
to
that
in
a
second,
but
I
just
want
to
go
through
the
numbers
so
that
we
we're
on
on
the
same
page.
So
on
page
four
you'll
see
where
it
says
any
additional
fees,
I'm
looking
at
lines.
Seven,
eight,
nine
and
ten
you'll
see
under
sub
d
sub
one.
O
It
says
if
the
person
requesting
the
notorious
act
asks
for
the
notary
public
to
travel
between
the
average
of
6am
and
7pm.
They
can
now
charge
five
dollars
more
and
then,
if
we
continue
further
down
we're
looking
at
lines
11-13,
it
says
if
the
person
requesting
the
notorious
act
asked
the
notary
public
to
travel
between
the
average
of
7
pm
and
6
a.m.
It
goes
from
25
to
30.
O
again
the
purpose
of
being
able
to
do
that
is
so
that
they
can
just
charge
a
little
bit
more
and
make
it
work
on
page
five,
specifically
and
page
six.
I
want
to
get
into
the
second
prong
of
the
purpose
of
this
bill
and,
as
we've
mentioned
in
the
past
years,
we've
had
a
very
heavy
focus
on
going
after
bad
actors
and
focusing
on
creating
language
that
allows
us
to
do
that.
O
As
you
know,
you
can
create
all
the
laws
in
the
world,
but
if
we
don't
have
an
enforcement
component
to
it,
it's
very
difficult
for
us
to
really
allow
for
the
legislative
intent
to
play
out
and
that's
where
this
triggers
so
presently,
if
you're
applying
for
to
become
a
document
preparation
service
for
the
first
time,
you'll
pay
a
fifty
dollar
fee.
We
want
that
to
go
up
to
a
hundred
and
then
in
the
second
page
the
renewal
fee
is
of
25.
We
want
that
to
go
to
50.
O
The
small
business
will
make
that
within
a
few
signatures,
because
they're
going
to
be
able
to
charge
more,
but
but
the
purpose
of
wanting
to
have
that
extra
additional
cost
is
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
that
specific
money
can
only
be
utilized
for
education
and
enforcement
of
of
going
after
some
of
these
bad
actors,
and
that's
where,
where
we
think
we're
going
to
put
a
lot
of
teeth
in
this
and
give
the
opportunity
for
the
secretary
of
state's
office
to
have
an
officer
that
can
go
after
every
time.
O
A
complaint
is
raised
or
brought
forth
that
they
can
go
after
that
individual
because
we're
actually
giving
them
a
little
bit
of
resources.
Now
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
this
is
the
industry
providing
the
resources
to
keep
the
industry
in
line.
More
importantly,
because
the
the
quicker
we
get
rid
of
the
bad
actors,
the
greater
benefit
to
the
good
actors,
so
that
they're
not
competing
in
an
unfair
market
where
they're
doing
everything
right
and
the
other
players
are
not.
O
If
we
continue
with
that
conversation
and
that's
why
ms
gail
anderson
is
here,
one
of
the
other
things
that
that
we're
doing
is
ensuring
that
we
give
the
secretary
of
state's
office
the
ability
to
assess
a
a
civil
penalty.
O
O
On
top
of
that,
the
civil
penalty
fees
that
we're
talking
about,
I
will
now
then
go
back
to
page
three
lines:
nine
through
fourteen,
where
it
says
a
notary
public
who
is
registered
to
engage
in
the
business
of
a
document.
Preparation
service
may
perform
a
notorious
act
on
a
document
if
the
notorious
of
the
notary
republic
has
received,
or
will
receive
directly
from
a
transaction
relating
to
document
fear
providing
document
preparation
services
additional
to
the
authorized
pursuant
to
an
rs240.
O
That's
just
a
lot
of
verbiage,
I'll
simply
go
into
it
by
saying
miss
gail
anderson
will
further
go
into
that.
This
was
an
issue
identified
within
the
industry
where
they
realized
that
there
there
is
a
perceived
conflict
in
the
businesses
being
able
to
to
notarize
these
particular
documents
and,
and
they
couldn't
do
it
because
of
the
way
the
nrs
was
presently
written.
So
ms
gail
anderson
will
go
into
that
to
explain
specifically
how
they
found
that
middle
ground
to
to
work
with
the
stakeholders
in
that
particular
realm.
O
With
that,
madam
chair,
thank
you.
I
know
I
walked
rather
quickly
through
that,
but
I,
if
I
could
go
to
mr
mike
draper
first,
so
that
he
could
continue
to
provide
some
overarching
perspective
and
then,
if
we
could
hand
it
over
to
ms
gail
anderson,
who
obviously
is
here
to
present
it
in
a
neutral
capacity
but
she's
here
to
explain
how
all
this
works.
A
Yes,
I'm
sorry,
miss
anderson.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
and
chairman
flores,
and
before
I
start
I
think
it's
important
to
point
out
the
coincidence
that
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
this
bill
on
the
assembly
side
was
heard
on
the
chairman's
father's
birthday
and
today
is
brother's
birthday.
So
we
might
refer
to
this
bill
as
the
flores
family
birthday
bill
from
here
on
out.
P
For
the
record,
my
name
is
mike
draper
from
argentine
partners,
and
I'm
here
today
representing
fingerprinting,
express-
and
it's
always
a
pleasure
to
appear
before
this
committee,
and
I
appreciate
your
indulgence,
madam
chair
and
committee
members
also
very
much
appreciate
chairman
flora's
leadership
on
this.
This
is
something
he's
been
working
on
for
many
years
and
certainly
miss
anderson
and
the
secretary
of
state's
office
has
also
been
working
on
this
for
many
years.
P
As
the
chairman
said,
this
bill
is
really
designed
to
support
notaries
in
the
state,
many
of
which
are
small
businesses
or
even
part-time
businesses,
and
in
the
the
long
run,
we
think
this
bill
will
help
those
part-time
businesses
become
full-time
businesses
and
those
full-time
businesses
employ
more
people.
So
we
do
really
hope
that
the
significance
of
this
bill
isn't
underestimated.
P
P
Nevada
is
one
of
several
states
that
outlines
in
statute
what
a
notary
can
charge,
and
our
state
right
now
is
is
at
the
lower
end
of
what
most
states
allow
their
notaries
to
charge.
The
numbers
that
mr
flores
just
worked
through
were
not
picked
out
randomly.
They
still
keep
us
competitive
with
other
states,
albeit
in
some
areas
we're
at
the
higher
end,
but
we're
still
well
within
the
middle
of
what
other
states
allow
their
notaries
to
charge.
P
Furthermore,
we've
seen
many
many
people
come
into
this
space
that
are
notaries
that
do
get
their
license.
That
don't
do
things
the
way
they
should
be
doing,
and
it's
often
left
to
other
notaries
to
to
go
and
fix
that
mess
and
and
remedy
that
issue
for
clients.
So
we
do
see.
Not
only
does
this
bill
allow
notaries
to
charge
more,
but
we
do
see
this
as
being
very
helpful
for
small
businesses
and
many
of
the
notaries
and
businesses
we
talk
to.
P
That
would
appreciate
making
sure
that
only
the
good
actors
are
in
the
space
and
that
everyone
is
operating
on
the
same
playing
field
and
doing
things
in
an
upstanding
manner.
I
had
much
more
that
I
was
going
to
say,
but
I
know
that
this
committee
has
has
been
going
for
a
couple
of
hours
now
and
still
has
more
on
the
agenda,
so
I'm
hoping
to
also
earn
a
gold
star
from
you,
madam
chair,
and
keep
my
testimony
short.
I
think
the
chairman
did
a
very
good
job
of
presenting
the
bill.
A
Oh,
mr
draper,
you
can
get
more
than
one
gold
star
for
not
talking
any
longer.
Thank
you.
So
much
we'd
love
to
hear
from
you,
but
you're
right,
we've
been
here
two
hours.
Thank
you
so
much
and
we
still
have
another
bill
to
hear.
So
we
really
appreciate
it
and
we
will
move
to
ms
anderson
if
she
is
ready
and
ms
anderson,
you
don't
need
gold
stars
because
we
know
how
hard
you
work
all
day
too
so
you're
here
with
us.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
good
afternoon
almost
evening,
gail
anderson,
deputy
secretary
of
state
for
southern
nevada
and
as
chair
flores,
has
indicated
we're
here
in
the
neutral
position
on
this
bill,
but
certainly
can
address
some
of
the
things
that
are
covered,
and
particularly,
I
want
to
thank
assemblyman
flores
for
his
attention
and
his
work
in
this
area
of
law.
He
understands
the
practices
and
the
issues
and
the
needs
and
has
always
been
willing
to
listen
to
what
the
concerns
are,
that
come
up,
and
certainly
with
constituents
as
well
as
our
office.
B
So
I
oversee
the
document.
Preparation
services
program
for
the
secretary
of
state
and
the
program
for
the
state
has
a
staff
of
two
one
administrative
assistant
who
handles
all
of
the
registration
processing
and
the
bond
monitoring,
and
then
one
compliance
investigator
ii
who
handles
a
statewide
caseload,
usually
ranging
between
about
145
to
180
investigations
and
examinations
at
any
given
time-
and
I
think
assemblyman
has
also
mentioned-
we've
been
stepping
up
the
enforcement
aspect
of
the
of
this
law,
which
originally
was
just
get
people
registered.
B
Advertising
issues
under
the
law
of
how
advertising
is
to
be
done
and
then
practices
that
suggest
the
registrant
is
providing
advice
or
recommendation
to
a
client
about
possible
legal
rights
and
remedies
and
options,
or
the
selection
of
documents
and
strategies,
which
is
legal
advisement,
which
is
in
violation
of
this
law
and
would
require
a
licensed
attorney
to
do
those
things.
So
we
do
our
best
to
address
and
stop
those
activities
which
are
quite
rampant
in
the
community
document.
B
But
there
has
been
up
unto
this
point
since
the
inception
of
the
law:
no
fine
authority
only
outside
of
a
criminal
or
civil
proceeding
in
court,
which
is
a
long
and
more
expensive
process.
B
So,
in
section
3.6
of
the
bill,
the
fine,
the
civil
penalty
authority
in
the
bill
would
give
our
office
a
much
better
way
more
timely
and
more
get
their
attention
for
a
registrant.
To
respond
to
our
investigator.
To
address
the
concerns
that
we
have
raised,
that
need
to
be
changed
that
practices
that
need
to
be
complied
with
under
the
law
as
a
result
of
an
examination
or
a
complaint
that
has
been
filed
with
our
office,
but
the
fine
authority
also
is
for
unregistered
activity.
B
So
we
are
also
asking
for
civil
penalty
authority
for
unregistered
activity,
and
these,
both
penal
any
penalty
would
be
imposed
after
a
hearing,
so
the
that
is
the
civil
penalty
portion
of
the
law
in
section
one.
I
just
want
to
comment-
and
this
is
in
the
notary
chapter
section,
one
subsection
three
in
the
first
amended
version
of
the
bill.
B
B
The
document
preparation
service
is
a
scribe,
scribing
process
and
they
would
maybe
prepare
a
document
such
as
for
the
department
of
motor
vehicles,
a
title
transfer
at
the
direction
of
the
client
and
then
also
be
able
to
notarize
it,
of
course,
they're
prohibited
as
a
notary
from
notarizing
anything
in
which
they
would
have
a
direct,
beneficial
interest
or
be
a
party
to
the
actual
document.
Those
are
prohibitions
that
exist
already
in
notary
law,
and
you
can
see
in
the
bill
just
above
section,
3
section
2
already
in
the
law.
B
B
They
are
used
for
only
specific
purposes
and
enhanced
is
the
purpose
of
also
being
able
to
support
personnel,
and
that
is
section
3.3,
subsection
3
that
has
been
added
to
advertising
technology
needs
and
other
administrative
costs.
So,
specifically,
the
our
office
has
submitted
an
unsolicited
fiscal
note.
I'm
just
going
to
reference
that
that
is
not
this
committee
for
a
an
additional
compliance
investigator
to
position
that
would
be
funded
entirely
by
these
separately
allocated
and
fees
that
come
in
and
would
be
not
be
any
general
phone
cost.
B
It
would
all
be
supported
by
this.
So
the
intent
of
this
sections,
two
and
three
of
the
bill,
has
been
to
enhance
enforcement
of
nrs
240a
and
with
one
statewide
investigator.
That
is
quite
a
challenge.
We
do
examinations
as
well
as
investigate
complaints
statewide
to
be
able
to
handle
that
caseload
so
again
at
zero
cost
to
the
state
fund.
So
I
think
I've
addressed
the
sections
unless
there's
a
question
that
assemblyman
flores
particularly
wanted
me
to
address
and
of
course,
I'm
available
for
questions.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
this
evening,
assemblyman
flores
did
you
have
some
additional
information
you'd
like
to
give
us.
F
Thank
you
very
much
sure
and
someone
flourish.
Thank
you
for
your
leadership
in
this
area,
trying
to
make
sure
that
people
are
not.
You
know
improperly
going
to
someone
who's,
not
who
they
claim
to
be.
I
just
wondered
my
question
for
anybody
who'd
like
to
handle
it
does
either
the
secretary's
office
or
law
enforcement,
or
the
attorney
general
get
involved
very
often
right.
Now,
when
there
is
someone
you
know
who
is
not
complying
with
the
the
law
in
the
notarial
space.
O
Thank
you
for
that
question.
Senator
orrinshaw,
through
you,
madam
chair
assembly,
manager,
flores
for
the
record.
I
know
ms
anderson
will
have
some
additional
input,
but
what
I,
what
I
will
say
is,
while
you
know,
for
instance,
if
somebody
were
pretending
to
be
an
attorney
and
they
cause
irreparable
harm
to
a
particular
member
of
the
community.
O
We've
put
language
in
the
past
that
that
it
becomes
a
felony,
but
getting
law
enforcement
to
actually
go
after
them
right
getting
metro
to
get
an
investigator
out
there
put
a
case
together,
get
all
the
pieces
of
the
puzzles
in
place
has
been
almost
an
impossible
task,
and
it's
not
that
law
enforcement
doesn't
care
about
these
particular
crimes.
It's
just
honestly
that
they're
overwhelmed
with
so
many
other
things
and
them
going
after
one
particular
bad
actor
in
that
scenario
is
very
difficult.
O
The
nevada
bar
doesn't
get
very
involved
because
they're
not
attorneys,
so
we've
consistently
had
an
issue
with
the
nevada
bar
getting
involved
in
this
space
and
the
attorney
general's
office.
I
think,
while
is
well
intended
and
always
willing
to
listen.
I
think
also
has
a
limitation
in
resources
that
I'm
referring
to.
B
Thank
you,
gail
anderson,
deputy
secretary
of
state.
I
agree
with
all
that
assemblyman
flores
said
we
do
have
some
contact
with
the
state
bar.
We
are
referring
a
couple
of
things
to
them
to
see
if
they
will
perhaps
do
something
we
do
work
with
a
deputy
in
the
civil
section
of
the
attorney
general's
office.
Who
is
excellent?
B
We
do
have
a
matter
right
now
in
civil
court.
It's
been
delayed,
we
started
it
in
2017
and
there
have
been
various
legal
delays
and
then
coveted
delays
that
is
proceeding
forward
and
I
believe
there
has
been
some
action
on
that
same
matter
on
the
criminal
side,
but
that's
not
public
at
this
time.
So
I
can't
comment
on
that,
but
those
are
fairly
exceptional.
B
Large
money
well
substantiated
matters
that
if
we
take
them
that
route,
but
we
do
everything
we
can
and
our
cease
and
desist
orders,
the
fine
penalties
will
help
us
and
then
we
can
take
to
civil
court
for
actions
if
someone
doesn't
comply
with
the
cease
and
desist,
so
we'll
be
doing
that
more
often
as
well,
because
we've
lists
issued
now
over.
Oh,
I
want
to
say
20
cease
and
desist
orders.
This
calendar
excuse
me
this
fiscal
year
taking
aggressive
action
on
that.
F
A
Thank
you
very
much
additional
questions.
Senator
neil.
G
B
Gail
anderson
for
the
record,
the
intention
there
is,
if
we
have
substantiation
of
a
violation
that
occurred
during
the
time
a
registrant
was
an
active
registrant
that
we
could
take
action.
They
may
have
let
their
registration
go
expire
and
no
longer
are
active,
but
were
not
retroactive
in
the
sense,
except
for
the
time
the
actual
violation
occurred
if
they
were
registered,
they
come
under
the
jurisdiction
of
this
authority.
A
Thank
you
very
much
any
additional
questions,
all
right
with
that.
Assemblyman.
If
you
don't
have
any
more
comments,
we
will
go
to
public
support,
opposition
and
neutral
and
broadcasting.
Please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
A
D
There
are
people
who
pay
a
fee
to
have
other
people
stand
in
line,
and
now
the
lines
are
just
incredibly
long
since
covet
and
and
beyond.
So
that's
who
the
registration
services
part.
It
was
at
least
three
sessions
ago
that
mr
flores
brought
red
what
we
call
document
preparers
under
the
guise
of
or
under
the
authority
of
his
document,
preparer
legislation
that
includes
our
members.
D
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
kruger,
and
thanks
thank
you
for
joining
us
here
in
person
all
right,
I
believe
broadcasting
we
now
can
go
to
online
callers
in
support.
H
H
H
K
Testifying
in
favor
of
av-245,
on
behalf
of
our
25
notaries,
that
work
for
fingerprinting
express
and
dozens
of
notaries
that
I've
worked
with
and
spoken
to
over
the
last
10
years,
most
snowy
republics
can
only
afford
to
work
part-time
as
a
side
gig,
and
they
must
have
a
full-time
job.
By
passing
this
bill,
you
allow
people
with
many
of
them
with
limited
education,
single
parents,
the
ability
to
open
up
a
professional
service
business
with
flexible
hours
and
earn
a
livable
wage.
K
If
you
raise
this
fee,
notaries
can
get
one
client
an
hour
to
earn
at
least
fifteen
dollars
an
hour
equal
to
what
many
legislators
are
pushing
for
as
minimum
wage.
The
initial
cost
a
notary
public
must
endure
is
the
class
the
bond
eo
insurance
application
fee
stamp
professional
notary
journal
joining
the
professional
notary
association.
This
alone
adds
up
to
275,
that's
over
50
signatures
just
to
break.
Even
in
addition,
a
mobile
notary
needs
reliable
vehicle
gas
insurance
registration.
K
They
need
a
llc
pay.
State
county
and
multiple
business
licenses
additionally
need
a
website.
Digital
marketing
for
google
yelp
facebook
instagram.
All
this
cost
thousands
and
thousands
of
dollars,
while
only
charging
five
dollars
a
signature
becoming
a
notary
is
the
lowest
bar
to
become
a
professional
service
entrepreneur.
K
If
you
raise
the
fee
allowed
to
be
charged,
this
would
create
many
new
business
owners,
many
from
low
income
situations.
It
allows
them
a
flexible
time
schedule
to
work
around
their
busy
personal
lives
while
earning
a
livable
wage.
A
notary
license
stays
with
the
person.
It
does
not
belong
to
a
business.
We
employ
25
notaries.
If,
for
when,
the
employee
leaves
us
they
require
by
law
to
take
their
notary
designation
with
them.
I
really
appreciate
your
time
and
consideration
the
bill.
Thank
you.
So
much
dave
pappas.
A
H
H
A
Q
The
department
of
employment,
training
and
rehabilitation,
which
would
be
dieter,
is
probably
best
known
for
operating
the
state's
unemployment
insurance
system,
but
the
agency
has
so
much
more
to
offer
nevada
workers.
This
is
especially
true
for
those
who
have
been
dislocated
from
a
job
and
are
trying
to
re-enter
the
workforce
or
are
underemployed
and
wishing
to
move
up
the
career
ladder
assembly
bill
307
requires
deter
to
prepare
one
or
one
or
more
notices
concerning
job
training
or
employment
programs
conducted
by
the
department
and
provide
the
notices
to
the
labor
commissioner.
Q
This
program
will
also
assist
job
seekers
with
paying
job-related
expenses
such
as
certifications,
work
permits,
uniforms
and
even
small
tools
in
order
to
facilitate
their
entry
or
re-entry
into
the
labor
force.
This
is
just
one
of
the
critical
and
valuable
programs
that
already
exist,
but
I
suspect
most
people
might
not
be
aware
of
their
existence.
This
could
help
the
worker
sitting
in
the
break
room,
who
is
anticipating
that
they
may
be
dislocated
or
displaced
for
circumstances
out
of
their
control.
Q
So
with
me,
I
will
have
a
nevada
labor,
commissioner,
shannon
chambers
who
can
answer
technical
questions
related
to
the
enforce
enforcement
and
communication
aspects
of
the
bill.
I'll
also
have
with
me,
deputy
administrator
from
dieter
karlene
johnson,
who
can
answer
questions
regarding
the
existing
job.
Training
and
employment
programs
provided
by
dieter,
so
we're
open
for
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
assemblywoman.
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
I'm
going
to
have
to
duck
out
of
here
in
just
a
minute,
so
we're
going
to
start
with
questions
and
then,
while
we're
doing
questions,
I
will
excuse
myself
to
go
to
my
finance
meeting
that
I
need
to
be
at
and.
A
This
in
able
hands
with
my
other
committee
members,
so
senator
neil
did
you
have
a
question.
A
Okay
right,
I'm
I'm
actually
checking
with
chair,
brooks
so
go
ahead.
Senator
neil
thank.
G
You,
madam
chair,
so
I
just
have
one
question
which
is
like
I
guess:
business
services
for
dieter
they're
supposed
to
have
those
relationships
with
businesses,
and
so
how
are
they
tied
into
this?
Because
it's
their
role
to
actually
build
those
relationships
and
also
through
workforce
connections?
They
all
have
well
now,
it's
all
rolled
under
dieter
for
business
services
to
build
those
relationships
with
employers
and
let
folks
know
about
the
different
programs
because
they
were
trying
to
build
them
all
under
bring
everybody
under
one
house.
So
are
they?
Are
they
going
to
be
doing
this
work.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Any
additional
questions.
F
A
A
Any
additional
comments
from
the
community
all
right
with
that
broadcasting.
If
we
could
go
to
support
opposition
in
neutral.
H
F
F
F
Q
F
You
thanks
assemblywoman,
we'll
now
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
307.
The
last
item
on
our
agenda
make
sure
I'm
not
missing
anything
is
public
comment.
I
want
to
make
sure
it
wasn't
for
getting
a
bill.
Don't
see
anyone
in
the
committee
room
who
wishes
to
make
public
comment.
There's
no
one
here:
broadcasting.
Is
there
anyone
on
the
phone
lines?
It
was
just
to
make
a
statement
under
public
comment,
we're
allowing
two
minutes
per
caller.