►
From YouTube: 4/9/2021 - 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
A
A
Here
I
see
all
members
present,
so
thank
you
very
much.
We
have
a
quorum
and
with
that
we
are
going
to
jump
right
into
our
agenda
today,
and
so
if
we
can
get
started
with
senate
bill,
67
I'll
open
the
hearing
on
this
bill
and
this
measure
revises
provisions
relating
to
public
works
and
if
the
bill
presenters
will
go
ahead
and
get
ready
and
proceed.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
good
afternoon
to
you
and
the
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
joanna
jacob
j-o-a-n-n-a-j-a-c-o-v,
I'm
the
government
affairs
manager
for
clark
county,
and
we
are
very
happy
to
be
here
before
you
this
afternoon.
With
me,
madam
chair,
on
this
bill,
I
have
the
privilege
of
having
commissioner
tick
sega
bloom
with
me,
a
face
that
I'm
sure
you
all
will
recognize
and
one
of
your
former
colleagues
who
will
help
me
support
this
bill.
D
D
So,
madam
chair
first
I'd
like
to
see
if
commissioner
secret
bloom
would
like
to
say
a
few
moments,
a
few
things
about
why
we
are
proposing
this
bill
senate
bill
bill
67
today,
and
the
importance
of
getting
some
of
this
maintenance
work
that
we
are
trying
to
address
in
senate
bill
67
out
onto
the
street
and
done
in
our
district.
So,
commissioner,
I
don't
know
if
you
are
ready.
E
E
I
love
what
you're
doing
anyway
not
to
digress,
but
so
I
used
to
be
a
senator
and
I
could
make
things
jump
so
I
thought
well
I'm
going
to
get
into
the
county
commission
and
things
will
jump
there,
but
the
truth
is
you.
We
have
tied
the
hands
of
local
government
so
much
that
it's
really
difficult
to
get
anything
to
jump.
E
E
How
hard
is
that
it
took
two
years
to
get
my
windows
cleaned
because
of
the
way
we
have
to
anything
that's
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars.
We
have
to
put
it
out
to
bid
it's
it's
a
huge,
complicated
process
you
know
other
have.
I
also
have
a
lot
of
old
parts
of
town.
We
have
streets
that
I
want
to
get
repaved.
I
say
well,
let's
repay
that.
Well,
that's
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollars!
Well,
let's
just
pay
the
portion
and
then
we'll
pay
for
another
person.
E
Well,
that's
that's
a
violation
of
the
rule
because
we're
just
trying
to
get
around
the
rule.
The
truth
is
we
just
need
an
expedited
process
to
get
local
get
contracts
and
get
workers
going
that
don't
work
for
us
and
this
bill
tries
to
get
there.
So
it's
not
going
to
be
the
be
all
end-all,
but
I'm
just
telling
you.
I
can't
tell
you
how
much
this
will
mean
to
me
to
be
able
to
just
call
real
public
public
works
or
real
property
management
and
say
do
this
and
they
don't
say
well.
E
We
have
to
put
out
the
bid
and
it's
going
to
take
whatever
we
already
have
a
contract
in
place.
We
have,
you
know
prevailing
wage
employees
and
we're
ready
to
go
so
this
is
this.
Is
a
dream?
Come
true
for
me.
D
To
go
I'll
go
very
quickly,
madam
chair,
I
I
want
to
just
I
wanted
to
have
commissioner
sacra
bloom
here.
He's
we've
been
watching
this
bill
very
carefully.
It
is
a
priority
for
our
commissioners
and
I
because
of
some
of
the
issues
that
he
identified
and
just
wanted
to
have
the
opportunity
to
have
him
go
first
because
it
is
friday
afternoon.
So
I
will
go
ahead.
Madam
chair
and
just
say,
I
would
like
to
present
the
amended
version
that
is
on
nellis.
D
D
Those
sections
have
been
deleted
in
that
amendment
and
a
couple
of
other
critical
things
that
you
will
see
in
the
bill
in
with
the
amendment
is
that
the
bill
has
now
been
changed
through
the
products
of
months
of
discussion
with
stakeholders
to
a
pilot
program,
and
that
is
in
the
new
section
two
in
the
amendment
that
you
can
see
that
we
are
now
proposing
to
try
a
pilot
program
and
see
if
we
can
get
some
of
these
jobs
out
to
work.
D
So
just
a
few
few
things
before
I
go
through
the
bill
for
our
chairwoman,
marilyn
kirkpatrick,
she
asked
me
to
start
working
on
this
when
I
first
joined
the
county.
Our
commissioners
in
the
county
of
this
bill
is
about
jobs.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
we
can
get
work
out,
especially
now
as
we
recover
from
the
pandemic,
especially
for
the
construction
sector,
which
is
the
driver
for
our
southern
nevada
economy.
D
D
Our
goal
at
clark
county
is
to
hire
multiple
contractors
and
to
try
and
spread
the
work
out
to
the
fullest
extent
that
we
can.
Madam
chair
chair
kirkpatrick
many
of
my
commissioners.
We
started
working
with
labor,
the
labor
community
and
industry
when
we
first
pre-filed
this
bill.
D
The
amendment
that
you
have
before
you
is
the
result
of
those
discussions
so
under
the
pilot
program
that
we're
producing
moving
into
the
amendment,
we
are
going
to
do
a
four-year
pilot
for
clark,
county,
the
clark
county
reclamation
district
and
the
three
large
cities
in
southern
nevada
over
100
000,
so
that
is
las
vegas,
henderson
and
north
las
vegas.
The
reason
that
that
is
limited
is
at
the
request
of
some
of
the
stakeholders.
D
We,
this
is
a
new
process
and
we
want
to
take
the
time
to
see
how
it
works
and
for
us
for
the
larger
agencies
and
then
bring
it
back
to
you
at
the
end
of
four
years,
hopefully
with
the
data
that
we
are
generating
through
the
reporting
in
the
amendment
to
see
if
it
works
and
bring
it
back,
hopefully
extend
it
or
fix
the
things
that
we
need
to
fix.
D
The
goal
of
job
order
contracting
under
the
pilot
program
is
to
get
the
exactly
the
kind
of
work
that
commissioner
sega
bloom
noted
done
it,
for
it
is
really
for
maintenance,
repair,
demolition,
remediation,
very
minor
construction.
Minor
construction
are
small
jobs
things.
This
is
not
meant
for
new
construction
in
the
sense
that
it
is
not
meant
for
building
a
new
building
up
and
because
it's
an
alternative
to
low
bid
construction
when
job
order
contracting
is
at
its
heart,
on-call
contracting,
so
think
of
it
as
on-call.
D
The
intent
is
to
hire
multiple
general
contractors
through
a
competitive
solicitation,
and
then
the
awarded
contractors
will
be
on
call
to
do
work
that
comes
up
during
the
course
of
that
fixed
contract
period.
It
is
indefinite
quantity
indefinite,
because
we,
the
work
as
it
comes
up,
will
go
out
through
a
job
order.
D
During
the
course
of
that
period,
the
price
is
negotiated
up,
front
materials
and
labor
are
determined
by
a
concept
known
as
unit
pricing,
whereas
the
specific
prices
per
unit
are
set
up
front
for
both
the
agency
and
the
contractor,
and
that's
why
it
goes
fast.
The
reason
why
this
will
help
is
because
we
will
not
have
to
put
out
these
smaller
jobs
individually,
one
by
one
through
through
procurement.
When
commissioner
segerblom
spoke
about
the
delay,
the
delay
for
clark
county
is
just
more
based
on
the
volume
that
we
have
to
maintain
job
order.
D
Contracting
is
has
been
successfully
used
for
many
years.
It
first
started
with
the
army
corps
of
engineers
and
has
grown
and
expanded
since
then
for
at
least
35
years
now,
it's
used
by
public
agencies,
local
governments,
housing
authorities
and
then
states
and
municipalities
across
the
nation,
because
it's
been
around
a
long
time,
madam
chair,
we
can
learn
from
best
practices
and
from
the
research
we
did
on
this
bill.
We
learned
it's
very
important
to
note
that
it's
best
used
when
it
is
limited-
it's
not
meant
to
rip
but
to
replace
low
bid
contracting.
D
Nor
is
it
right
for
the
new
construction
other
types
of
jobs
that
I
noted.
We
are
not
going
to
use
it
for
ground
breaking
new
building
a
new
building,
and
that's
why
you
will
see
that
there
is
a
limit
in
the
bill.
Public
agencies
under
the
pilot
can
only
put
out
25
million
per
year
under
this
method,
to
demonstrate
our
intent
to
keep
the
jobs
small
and
keep
these
jobs.
Our
goal
is
multiple
contractors,
multiple
jobs
going
out.
D
You
can
see
that
I
filed
a
list
of
proposed
sample
projects.
These
are
the
types
of
projects
that
our
clark
county,
real
property
management,
has
to
do
when
we're
doing
maintenance
and
repair
clark.
County
is
responsible
really
for
500
public
buildings
or
covering
over
6
million
square
feet
of
space
and
120
parks,
totaling
5200
acres.
D
The
25
million
dollars
for
us
is
a
fraction
of
what
we
deliver.
We
do
on
average,
501
million
in
total
project
costs
through
our
real
property
management
per
year.
These
are
some
of
our
most
critical
repair
jobs.
I
will
also
note
madam
chair.
I
would
like
to
put
on
the
record
in
the
list
that
we
put
out.
There
was
one
mistake:
I
apologize
we
in
the
haste
of
getting
these
amendments
filed
and
getting
ready
for
the
the
the
hearing.
D
There
is
one
job
on
our
list
that
was
not
supposed
to
be
there,
and
that
is
something
that
is
a
project
at
ccdc
or
south
tower.
It's
a
14
million
dollar
job,
that's
not
one
that
we
are
considering
for
job
order
contracting.
You
can
see
that
the
rest
in
that
list,
the
rest
of
the
jobs
are
about
a
million
dollars
or
under,
but
it's
just
kind
of
recurring
work
that
we
have
to
do
is
the
problem
that
we're
trying
to
solve.
D
Madam
chair,
because
it's
a
new
amendment
and
there's
a
lot
of
changes.
I
thought
I'll
just
go
briefly
through
the
sections.
I
won't
read
them
line
by
line,
but
just
briefly
kind
of
an
outline
of
of
the
amendment
and
also
I
do
feel
like
it's
important
to
talk
about
some
of
the
things
that
we
negotiated
with
labor
when
we
were
coming
to
an
agreement
on
this
bill.
I
will
tell
you
that.
D
Okay,
thank
you.
I
hope
that
you
I
I
believe
that
we
will
have
people
in
support
today,
and
it
was
really
important
to
us
to
reach
out
to
labor
to
get
their
agreement
on
this
on
this
and
also
the
agreement
of
industry.
We
should
have
industry
here
as
well.
D
I'd
just
like
to
say
as
a
point
of
personal
privilege,
I
actually
am
thankful
for
the
discussion
that
we
had,
because
I
think
it
makes
it
a
stronger
bill
where
job
order
contracting
really
works
is
where
there's
a
partnership
between
the
agencies,
the
contractors
and
everybody
involved.
So
very
thankful
for
our
southern
nevada.
Construction
community
has
come
forward
to
partner
with
the
county
on
this
bill
so
section
one,
madam
chair
is
our
limit
and
that's
where
we
have
our
pilot
project
and
it
can
only
be
used
by
certain
agencies.
D
I
also
note
that
public
agencies
will
be
tasked
in
addition
to
the
bill
with
com,
ensuring
compliance
with
the
apprentice
standards
that
apply
to
other
public
work.
That
is
nrs
33801165
that
you
will
see
in
the
amendment
section.
Three
subsections,
two
and
three
are
have
our
further
limits.
We
are
going
to
do.
The
25
million
threshold
is
in
section
three.
We
also
are
going
to
do
a
two-year
contract
period
under
section
8..
The
original
bill
had
proposed
three
optional,
one-year
extensions
to
that
two-year
period.
D
We
narrowed
this
down
in
response
to
stakeholder
concerns
to
a
single
one-year
extension,
and
we
want
to
ensure
that
the
project
that
this
system
works
and
we
want
there
to
be
opportunities
to
access
these
contracts
because
we're
going
to
be,
we
may
be
delayed
in
getting
this
up
and
running
it's
a
new
process.
We
worked
with
stakeholders
on
the
language
in.
D
We
worked
with
stakeholders
on
the
language
that
says
that
we
may
be
able
to,
because
we're
in
a
two-year
period
use
any
unused
funds
that
aren't
used
in
the
first
year
of
the
two-year
period
in
the
second
year
of
the
period.
I
would
like
to
say
there
was
some
concern
on
this
section,
and
so
I
feel
it's
important
to
put
on
the
record.
This
is
not
meant
that
agencies
will
be
able
to
sit
on
the
money
and
then
put
out
one
big
job
again.
D
This
is
meant
for
repetitive
jobs,
and
the
goal
is
to
get
these
out.
Small
repetitive,
recurring
work,
sections
four
to
five
state:
the
requirements
for
the
procurement,
including
the
requirement
that
public
agencies
advertise
the
bid,
like
any
other
public
work,
job,
there's
specific
requirements
for
the
solicitation,
including
qualifications
that
will
be
sought
from
the
contractor,
requiring
the
agency
to
put
out
the
details
about
the
method
of
pricing
in
this
job,
so
that
it's
very
clearly
set
forth
for
the
contractor
so
that
they
are
able
to
bid
in
section
7.
This
was
also
important.
D
D
Section
8,
the
general
contractor
will
contract
as
needed,
because
it's
in
definite
quantities
we
can't
identify
what
may
come
up
at
the
beginning
and
the
outset
of
the
contract.
So
we've
given
the
power
of
we've,
given
the
the
ability
for
the
general
contractor
to
to
go
out
and
get
the
subcontractor
suppliers
or
professionals
needed
to
complete
the
job
order.
I
will
note
one
change
here
in
the
amendment
that
I
did
not
catch
as
I
was
filing
cleaning
up
this
amendment.
D
This
was
a
request
from
southern
nevada
building
trades
that
we're
changing
the
term
in
section
eight
on
the
ability
to
to
procure
subcontractors
and
suppliers,
it
says
independent
contractor.
We
would
like
to
change
that
to
professional
that
was
based
on
feedback
that
we
received
from
building
trades
would
like
to
make
that
change
for
the
record
in
section
9
before
the
job
order
issues.
A
job
order
is
the
work
that
goes
out
under
the
umbrella
contract.
D
The
reason
that
this
works
is
this
job
order
process.
This
is
actually
where
you
see
the
alternative
to
putting
these
out
one
by
one.
It
changes
the
timeline
from
months
to
weeks
that
we
can
get
jobs
out
in
per
week
in
weeks,
as
opposed
to
months
to
go
through
the
full
solicitation
process
at
the
county.
D
D
We've
agreed
to
quarterly
reporting
to
our
governing
body,
so
that
would
mean
it
for
clark,
county
or
for
any
of
the
cities
who
decide
to
use
this
method.
They
would
do
quarterly
reports
for
each
year
of
the
contract
to
their
governing
board.
These
will
be
publicly
available
and
they
will
be
for
all
job
orders
that
issue
under
these
contracts,
the
cost
and
the
subcontractors
used.
D
We
will-
and
we
put
in
some
language
there
to
empower
the
local
governing
boards,
if
there's
other
things
that
they
want
to
track
that
they
can
add
to
that
report
and
the
governing
body
can
can
dictate
what
they
want
in
that
report.
We
also
have
added
in
here
that
the
legislature
should
get
these
reports.
D
Copies
of
these
reports
under
the
amendment
will
be
transmitted
annually
to
the
legislature.
I'm
almost
done,
madam
chair,
it's
the
section
12
to
14
of
the
original
bill.
That's
where
we
had
the
self
performance
change
and
we
have
deleted
those.
Those
were
that's
in
resp,
that's
really
a
request
from
northern
nevada
agc
and
both
northern
nevada
building
trades
southern
nevada
building
trades.
There
were
some
concerns
on
the
impacted,
small
business.
We
looked
into
those
concerns
and
we
we
have
agreed
to
delete
those
sections
from
the
bill.
D
The
at
the
very
very
end
of
the
bill
is
new
section
14,
and
that
is
our
sunset
provision.
This
was
also
a
request
from
our
labor
partners
that
we
sunset
it
so
that
we
have
a
way
to
come
back
to
the
legislature
if
there
are
changes
and
fixes
that
we
need
to
make
so
that
is
at
the
very
last
page
of
our
amendment
and
you'll,
see
that
we
sunset
it
from
four
years
of
the
effective
date.
D
We
know
that
legislation
is
rarely
perfect
on
its
first
try,
especially
when
you're
proposing
something
new.
We
want
we're
committed
to
come
back
and
work
on
this
in
four
years
as
needed.
So
I
think
that's
about
it.
Madam
chair,
just
a
few
comments
in
closing.
It
seems
really
long
ago,
but
in
late
january,
governor
sislek
had
asked
local
governments
to
try
to
get
work
out.
That's
sitting
on
our
shelves.
We
had.
D
We
had
pre-filed
this
bill
because
it
is
a
priority
for
clark
county,
but
I
this
would
help
the
local
governments
who
are
identified
in
this
build
to
do
just
that
to
try
and
get
work
out
that
is
sitting
on
our
shelves.
I
want
to
thank
the
southern
nevada
labor
community
for
working
with
clark
county
on
this
bill,
the
southern
nevada
construction
industry
and
their
willingness
to
partner
with
us.
D
As
I
said,
their
input
made
this
a
stronger
bill
and
the
success
of
this
initiative
will
depend
on
the
collaboration
and
support
from
labor
alike
at
its
heart.
This
is
a
jobs
bill.
I
I
would
like
to
say
these
are
our
parks.
These
are
our
parking
lots.
These
are
our
bathrooms
in
our
public
parks
that
are
closed
and
the
public
can't
access
them
as
we're
getting
close
to
the
summer.
D
These
are
splash
pads
if
the
splash
pads
at
our
public
parks
need
maintenance
or
repair
they're,
not
working,
and
so
this
is
really
an
important
bill
for
clark
county,
because
we
want.
We
believe
that
this
will
help
benefit
our
community.
We
have
projects
planned
in
almost
every
single
commission
district
in
southern
nevada
and
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
I
know
that
you
have
many
more
bills
stuck
here,
so
I
will
end
the
presentation
there
and
again.
I
have
my
colleagues
here
to
answer
questions
that
you
may
have.
F
D
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
joanna
jacob,
for
the
record
and
through
you,
madam
chair
to
senator
goykichia.
The
importance
on
the
of
the
project.
Description
at
the
front
in
the
solicitation
cannot
be
overstated.
I,
when
we
looked
at
some
other
projects,
I'll
give
you
an
example.
I
looked
at
like
a
similar
program
that
the
city
of
austin
put
out
in
austin
texas
and
when
they
went
out
to
the
rfp,
they
described
their
project
description
and
it
said
everything
that
could
come
up
in
real
property
management.
So
they
listed
it
out.
D
It
could
be
electric
vehicle
charging
stations,
it
could
be
electric,
it
could
be
root,
repair
and
so
the
public
agencies
doing
this
have
to
define
it
up
front
very
succinctly,
because
the
contractors
need
to
know
how
to
bid
the
job
because
the
general
contractors
are
kind
of
taking
on
that
risk
under
at
the
beginning
of
the
at
the
beginning
of
the
year.
So
the
goal
would
be
to
look
at
what
our
needs
are.
D
As
you
can
see
in
the
project
list
that
I
have
filed,
it
could
we'd
cover
a
lot
of
territory,
so
we
would
have
to
spend
some
time
in
giving
the
universe
of
work
that
could
come
up
in
a
very
succinct,
descriptive
way.
So
then,
as
the
job
order
comes
up
the
it's
not
a
surprise
right,
because
we
really
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it
encompasses
the
type
of
work
that
can
come
out
and
needs
to
give
certainty
the
contractor-
and
I
I
hope
that
that
answers
your
question.
D
I
guess
I'm
hoping
it
could
mean
anything
that
comes
up
in
our
parks
and
then
the
job
order,
then
would
be,
for
example,
go
out
and
and
resurface
a
tennis
court
right.
So
then
we
would,
it
would
be
within
the
scope
of
the
types
of
work,
there's
usually
also
a
pre
pre-bid
meeting
with
the
contracting
community
to
kind
of
go
over
in
very
detailed
when
I've
seen
how
other
agencies
do
this.
It's
very
detailed
to
talk
about
the
type
of
work
that
we
will
put
out
and
it's
important
to
invest
in
time
in
that
process.
F
A
quick
follow-up,
madam
chair,
if
I
may
so,
the
job
order
itself
will
determine
what
the
what
the
job
is
going
to
be,
and
so
you,
you
anticipate.
You
could
issue
a
job
order.
Every
month
one
would
be
for
parks
and
one
we
would
be
for
a
piece
of
sidewalk
or
something
like
that.
D
Thank
you
senator
joanna
jacob,
for
the
record,
exactly
sir,
I
think
we'd
have
to
look
at
subject
to
the
threshold.
You
know,
we'd
have
to
really
prioritize
we'd,
have
to
look
and
see
how
we
want
to
structure
this
program,
and
I
I
will
also
I
know
I
have
my
experts
on
the
phone
on
on
the
line
too.
So
if
they
need
to
jump
in
please
let
me
know
if
I
misspeak
so
we
could
put
out,
we
could
put
out
one
a
month.
D
The
goal
is,
and
we
actually
I'll
give
you
another
example.
We
talked
to
the
city
of
long
beach,
california,
they're
using
this
program
there.
They
hire
multiple,
multiple
people
to
be
on
call
and
what
they
do
is
they
rotate.
So
you
could
send
out
contractor
a
over
here
to
do
this
job,
then
we
send
out.
The
next
thing
that
comes
up
goes
to
contractor
b
c
d,
so
it
depends
on
the
frequency
really
and
the
availability
and
how
many
we
hire
really
on
how
quickly
we
can
get
it
out.
It's
a
priority.
D
I
don't
know
if
I
can
say
one
per
month,
but
really
that's
why
we
have
a
two-year
contract
period,
so
we're
hoping
to
get
it
out
subject
to
the
annual
threshold
right,
but
we'll
hope
to
get.
We
certainly
have
a
lot
of
projects
on
backlog
that
we
think
that
we
can
get
through
we.
Actually,
the
partial
list
that
I
filed
is
really
just
a
fraction.
D
When
we
looked
at
our
global
list
of
projects,
we
think
under
the
two-year
period
we
identified
about,
like
maybe
49,
projects
that
we
could
get
out
on
the
street,
so
it'll
depend
on
some
factors.
How
many
we
hi?
How
many
general
contractors
we
hire
the
availability
of
subcontractors
suppliers
that
type
of
thing,
but
the
goal
is
to
get
them
out.
D
Thank
you
and
I
guess
to
answer
your
question
about
job
order:
contract
versus
job
order,
the
contract,
the
contract
would
be
the
global
umbrella
contract,
and
then
we
would
issue
job
orders
and
that's
where
the
savings
are
right,
because
we're
not
putting
them
out
individually
to
bid,
we
would
put
them
under
the
scope
of
that
contract.
F
A
G
G
I
got
some
real
heartache
because
there
are
qualifications
in
there
for
contractors
that
would
exclude
small
contractors,
which
I'm
one
of
and
I've
done,
a
fair
amount
of
work
for
for
the
cities,
reno
sparks
and
so
forth,
and
so
I
I
didn't
catch
the
amendment,
though
you
said
agc
and
some
of
the
northern
building
groups
and
so
forth,
have
added
an
amendment,
and
you
mentioned
several
sections:
can
you
I'm
sorry
just
real
quickly
go
on
over
those
sections
again,
but
you
know
what
I'll
talk
to
you
later.
I
don't
want
to.
G
We
got
so
much
to
do
here.
My
concern
is
is
just
simply
by
by
raising
the
bars
who
can
qualify
as
a
contractor
and
be
involved
in
the
bidding.
You
eliminate
a
lot
of
the
smaller
contractors
with
the
current
language,
so
I'll
have
to
take
a
look
at
all
the
amendments,
but
that's
some
good
adventure.
D
Madam
chair,
I'm
sorry
I
don't,
I
know
senator
hansen,
I'm
certainly
willing
to
actually
follow
up
with
you,
sir,
after
the
hearing,
but
I
will
also
tell
you
the
amendment
really
for
northern
nevada
was
to
write
northern
nevada
out.
They
wanted
us
to
pilot
it
in
the
south
and
the.
D
I
also
point
you
to
the
language
there's
language
in
here
that
we
are
mandating
that
50
of
the
work
needs
to
be
subcontracted
out,
sir,
because
of
exactly
those
concerns,
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
can
spread
the
work
out
and
that
when
we
put
multiple
people
at
work,
so
I
certainly
am
happy
to
follow
up
with
you
after
this
today.
Thank
you.
G
Thanks
for
kind
of
running
up
against
the
deadline,
so
my
apologies
for
not
being
able
to
have
more
advanced
questions
for
you
thanks,
madam
chair.
C
Thanks,
madam
chair,
I
just
had
one
quick
question.
It
was
on
the
adjustment
factor
that
supply
unit
prices
just
wondering
how
that
worked,
because
I
did
see
the
50,
but
you
do
have
some
general
contractors
that
will
be
allowed
to
do
some
of
the
work.
So
I'm
wondering
how
does
this
adjustment
factor
work
for
the
pricing.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
neil
through
you,
madam
chair,
two
senator
neil
adjustment
factor
is
kind
of
the
how
the
contractor
will
bid
their
profit
and
overhead.
If
that
makes
sense.
So
because
we
have
a
unit
price,
that's
going
to
be
for
every
material
labor
it's
going
to
be
set.
So
then,
and
then
we
know
what
the
work
is,
so
how
it
works
is
because
you
have
this
line,
item
pricing,
you
have
a
unit
right
and
then
you
have
the
quantity
and
then
it's
the
pricing
works.
D
They
say
we'll
do
it
as
a
coefficient
as
like
100
of
the
price
book
or
105
or
97
of
the
price
book.
That
type
of
thing,
one
thing
that
we
received
some
feedback
from
other
public
agencies
using
this
is
that
we
have
to
be
wary
about
under,
like
people
coming
in
low
on
that
price
book,
because
it's
really
you
need
to
be
able
to.
D
Obviously
it
needs
to
be
profitable
for
the
contractors
and
it
needs
to
be
able
to
pencil.
So
that's
how
it
works.
Is
that
and
the
way
that
it
flows
and
why
it's
good?
And
it's
fast:
it's
because
you
have
your
unit
price
and
then
everything
gets
adjusted
by
that
by
that
multiplier.
Think
of
it
as
a
multiplier
that
gets
applied
to
the
unit
price
and
then
the
quantity
and
then
a
multiplier
on
each
job
order,
and
that's
that's
how
the
adjustment
factor
works.
I
I
have
a
sample
of.
D
A
Thank
you
very
much
other
questions
from
the
committee.
A
Just
one
quick
clarification
miss
jacob,
so
this
bill
will
allow
more
work
to
be
done
by
sub
contractors
instead
of
the
city
and
the
county
workers
that
are
already
there
that
do
some
of
this.
D
Madam
chair
great
question
joanna
jacob
for
the
record,
and
I
may
actually
ask
lisa
cramer
or
randy
tarr
to
help
me
with
this
question.
This
is
what
this
this
is,
please
randy
or
lisa.
If
I
misspeak,
we
don't
have
in-house
crews,
who
do
a
lot
of
the
work
that
we're
proposing
here.
So
this
is
actually
what
this
is
doing
is
taking
it
out
of
the
low
bid
and
doing
it
one
by
one.
These
are
the
smaller
jobs
that
sometimes
it's
cost
per
it
just
they
line
up
right
and
so
what
it's?
D
What
we're
doing
is
saying
we're
going
to
take
this
category
of
jobs
that
are
on
the
shelf
and
we're
going
to
put
them
out
to
general
contractors,
and
then
general
contractors
in
turn,
do
the
work
that
a
general
contractor
does
they're
going
to
in
turn
put
it
out
to
subcontractors.
We
think
the
southern
nevada
labor
market
is.
We
think
the
type
of
work
will
probably
exceed
that
50
threshold
easily
on
some
of
these
jobs
because
of
the
specialty
work
that
and
the
subcontractor
market
here
in
southern
nevada.
D
But
this
is
that's
what
we're
doing
it.
It
might
have
been
work
that
would
have
been
traditionally
gone
out
a
little
bit
but
we're
taking
it
it's
sitting
on
our
ship.
The
point
is
it's
not
going
out
right
now,
it's
it's
sitting
on
our
shelf,
so
we're
getting
jobs
out
and
we're
prioritizing
the
small
dollars
work
that
that
is
important
to
our
community.
So
this
is
the
maintenance
work
that
we
need
to
do
to
maintain
our
public
buildings
and
grounds
correct.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
just
wanted
clarification
all
right,
any
additional
questions
to
from
the
committee
and
I'm
sorry
if
you
feel
like
I'm
pushing
us
along,
but
I
don't
want
to
be
here
at
10
o'clock,
so
we're
moving
along.
I
see
no
more
questions
so
with
that
we'll
go
to.
Unless
commissioner
sigron
did
you
have
one
more
thing
you
wanted
to
add
there.
E
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
so
much.
This
is
really
important,
but
mainly
just
it
was
great
to
see
everybody
and
working
hard
on
a
friday
afternoon.
That's
right!
Okay,.
A
A
Much:
okay:
okay:
we
will
go
to
support
so
broadcasting
if
you'd
like
to
queue
up
the
caller.
H
H
H
B
Madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
maili
larcon
and
I'm
a
void
law
student,
external
nevada.
I
am
calling
on
behalf
of
the
mechanical
contractors,
association
of
las
vegas
and
the
sheet
metal
and
air
conditioning
contractors.
National
association
of
southern
nevada,
mca
and
sma
cna
believe
that
sb67
will
help
local
entities
escalate
some
much
needed
improvements
and
simultaneously
provide
some
much-needed
work
opportunities
for
the
construction
industry.
We
thank
commissioners
kirkpatrick
and
sacred
bloom
for
their
foresight
and
ms
jacobs
for
her
tireless
efforts
to
get
the
bill
just
right.
H
B
We
submitted
an
exhibit
for
the
committee's
review
that
includes
a
sample
of
potential
projects
for
job
order
contracting
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
So
again
we
thank
clark
county
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
and
urging
the
committee
support
and
passage
of
this
bill.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
H
B
Good
afternoon,
jennifer
lazovich
l,
a
z
o
v,
as
in
victor
ich,
representing
gordian
we'd
like
to
thank
claire
county
and,
in
particular
joanna
for
working
with
a
number
of
different
parties
to
amend
this
bill
in
a
way
that
I
think
works
for
everyone.
It's
a
great
bill.
It's
a
great
amendment.
We
appreciate
and
applaud
the
county
and
her
efforts
and
we
stand
in
support
of
the
bill.
H
I
Just
to
make
sure
that
this
bill
is
was
just
right,
it's
never
easy
dealing
with
the
entire
labor
community,
but
we
thank
you
for
your
tireless
efforts.
We
thank
you
for
getting
this
bill
to
a
place
where
we
think
it's
gonna
bring
much
needed
jobs
in
the
very
short
term.
So
thank
you
and
we
stand
in
support.
H
I
Thank
you
good
afternoon,
chair
brian
reeder
b-r-I-a-n-r-e-e-d-e-r
with
ferrari
public
affairs
representing
the
nevada
contractors.
Association
mca
is
made
up
of
general
and
subcontractors
and
affiliated
businesses
throughout
southern
nevada,
and
we
support
sb
67
and
want
to
thank
jericho,
patrick,
miss
jacob
and
the
county
for
working
with
the
industry
on
the
bill.
We
urge
your
support.
H
H
I
Good
afternoon,
andy
doni
for
the
record
a-n-d-y
hue,
with
southern
nevada,
labrum
soldiers,
cooperation,
education,
trust
in
support
of
this
innovative
concept.
Thank
you.
H
H
A
Thank
you
very
much,
we'll
go
to
opposition.
H
E
Oh
yeah,
this
is
the
skip
daily
representing
the
labors
union
in
northern
nevada,
and
I
do
want
to
thank
joanna
and
the
others
for
helping
trying
to
work
on
this
work.
Some
of
the
things
out,
but
a
couple
of
things
listening
to
the
testimony
here
today,
I
would
point
out
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
did
talk
about
was
limited
to
southern
nevada
as
a
pilot
program
and
that
part
of
our
problems
with,
but
we
also
asked
to
have
something
in
there.
E
That
said,
there
was
no
third
party
administration,
so
you
couldn't
have
a
person
who
operates
as
a
group.
You
know
getting
up
all
of
the
work
and
then
having
his
own
stable
of
contractors
that
they
did.
I
don't
see
that
in
there,
with
all
due
respect
to
my
my
good
friend
mr
sagerbloom
window,
cleaning
is
not
a
public
works
job.
So
that's
a
purchasing
issue.
If
you
had
trouble
cleaning
your
windows,
your
your
this
bill
wouldn't
fix
that
problem.
E
Substantial
problems
I
have
in
the
part
where
it
says
you
can
substitute
subcontractors.
I
know
that's
not
allowed
under
regular
construction
and
the
reason
that
you
don't
want
to
be
able
to
substitute
contractors
is
a
prime
contractor
or
a
higher
tiered
contractor
selects
their
subs
builds
their
job
puts
in
their
bid
and
everything
based
on
that
contractor
and
the
pricing
that
they
receive
from
that
contractor.
If
they're
able
to
substitute
it,
creates
a
potential
for
a
bid,
shopping
issue
that
could
come
up.
E
I
also
I
know
I
talked
to
joanna
at
the
very
beginning
about
who's
on
the
committee.
The
selection
committee
you're
going
to
have
several
different
selection
committees.
There's
no
makeup.
No
number
of
people
on
the
committee
could
be
one
person
on
doing
that,
and
so
there
needs
to
be
some
definition
around
that
the
list
of
49
projects-
and
I
understand
if
all
of
those
projects
are
such
priorities
and
we
can
get
them
out
there.
E
Sessions
been
in
60
days
and
apparently
none
of
them
have
been
advertised,
so
I
don't
know
why
people
are
letting
the
grass
grow
and
the
final
thing
that
I'll
say
is
the
exact
reason
that
we're
opposed
and
have
general
concerns
with.
This
is
something
that
the
senator
rokuchiya
said
was
oh
you're,
going
to
fight
through
this
and
it'll
be
expanded.
We've
never
wanted
to
be
expanded.
We've
been
opposed
to
it
in
northern
nevada.
E
That's
why
it's
limited
to
the
south,
and
if
this
is
a
pilot
program
to
extend
it
statewide,
we
remain
and
we'll
be
startly
opposed
to
any
such
idea
in
the
future.
Appreciate
your
time
look
forward
to
hearing
from
you
joanna.
Thank
you.
H
H
B
A-L-E-X-I-S-M-O-T-A-R-E-X
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada,
we
are
neutral
on
sd-67.
Agc
has
opposed
efforts
to
include
job
order
contracting
as
a
delivery
method
in
the
past,
but
since,
as
amended,
sc
67
is
limited
to
clark
county,
we
have
removed
our
opposition.
B
We
appreciate
miss
jacob,
taking
the
time
to
meet
with
us
and
address
most
of
our
concerns,
including
limiting
the
scope
and
removing
changes
to
self-performance
threshold.
However,
in
our
meetings
we
also
discussed
our
concerns
with
third
parties
administering
these
contracts.
We
have
that
language
be
included
in
the
bill
prohibiting
third
party
administration
and
requiring
these
contracts
to
be
directly
managed
by
the
local
government
themselves.
Oftentimes
third-party
administrators
of
this
type
of
work
charge
more
than
10
percent
of
a
gross
cip
budget
for
their
services.
B
H
I
Good
afternoon
rob
benner
r-o-v-b-e-n-n-e-r
with
the
northern
nevada
building
trades.
We
do
have
concerns
with
the
bill,
as
stated
by
mr
daly
and
the
aged
northern
agc,
but
due
to
the
fact
that
it
is
not
affecting
northern
nevada.
H
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
with
that
miss
jacob,
do
you
have
any
closing
thoughts.
D
Explain
that
why
we're
bringing
this
is
because
of
the
volume
of
contracts
that
clark
county
must
do,
and
we
have
a
lot
on
our
shelf
that
and
it
is
a
product
of
the
volume
that
we
do.
They
listened
to
us
and
worked
with
us,
but
really
they're,
not
ready,
because
their
agencies
in
northern
nevada
don't
really
handle
the
volume
that
clark
county.
Does
that's
why
we
agreed
to
take
them
out
for
right
now.
It
is
a
pilot.
Madam
chair.
I
I
think
that
the
question
about
the
third
party
administration
of
contracts.
D
We
do
hire
people
at
clark
county
to
help
us
administer
the
contracts.
But
when
I
talked
about
the
best
practices,
because
its
delivery
method
has
been
in
place
and
has
been
used
around
this
nation
for
35
years,
there
are
best
practices
that
have
evolved,
that
we
have
studied,
and
that
includes
very
close
administration
of
this
program,
and
we
are
committed
to
doing
that.
D
I
am
hoping
that,
under
the
pilot
that
we
will
have
some
data
and
that
we
will
bring
back
and
show
what
it
looks
like
in
nevada,
and
we
can
bring
that
to
you
in
four
years.
So
thank
you
for
hearing
the
bill.
I
know
that
it
is
deadline
day.
I
have
committed
to
working
with
everybody
on
this
bill,
I'm
going
to
ask
hopefully
that
we
can
keep
this
alive
and
moving
in
the
process
and
that
you
might
be
able
to
support
getting
it
out
today,
so
that
we
can
continue
to
work
on
this
bill.
D
A
Thank
you
very
much,
miss
jacobs.
We
appreciate
that
and
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
67
and
we
will
go
to
senate
bill
286.
A
J
Well,
thank
you
ma'am
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
rick
mccann.
I
am
the
executive
director
of
the
nevada
association
of
public
safety
officers
and
a
member
of
the
nevada
law
enforcement
coalition
with
me
here
today
will
be
mr
mike
snyder
from
pace,
and
he
will
be
addressing
section
one
of
this
bill
and
a
little
bit
more
particularity
in
a
few
moments,
but
I'll
try
to
rush
through
this
as
quickly
as
possible.
Let's
start
with
section
one.
J
So
it's
a
nice
place
to
start
section
one
by
way
of
background
and
by
the
way,
the
amendment
that
incorporates
incorporates
everything
we've
done
is
now
on
dallas.
So
if
you
need
to
take
a
look
at
that
by
way
of
background,
this
portion
section
one
deals
with
the
definition
of
a
supervisory
employee
for
purposes
of
describing
who
can
and
cannot
be
in
a
collective
bargaining
agreement
prior
to
the
2019
session.
J
J
While
the
regular
supervisor
is
out
on
sick
leave
on
vacation,
perhaps
in
lengthy
training
or
observing
an
extended
leave,
such
a
temporary
assignment
could
require
the
new
temporary
supervisor
to
step
out
of
his
or
her
bargaining
unit
in
syria.
For
that
temporary
for
a
period
of
time.
We
believe
that
was
an
unworkable
process,
so
in
2019
senator
harris's
bill
resolved
that
issue.
J
J
So
the
only
thing
left
now
in
section
one
is
section
one,
a
four
that
adds
a
category
to
the
exclusions
which
in
this
case
is
very
directly
one.
It's
the
las
vegas
metropolitan
police,
protective
association
for
civilian
employees.
We
call
it
p-pace,
they
provide
civilian
support
services
to
metro
under
a
para-military
command
structure
like
metro
without
this
amendment
that
we're
proposing
to
include
these
folks.
J
There
are
certain
factions
out
there,
unfortunately,
who
are
seeking
to
raid
p-pace
of
its
members
under
the
definition
of
nrs
288.138,
which
we
kind
of
think
is
a
form
of
union
busting.
We
don't
like
that
by
adding
these
civilian
law
enforcement
support
service
people
to
this
statute.
They
are
exempted
under
their
own
paramilitary
command
structure
and
they
can
stay
in
their
own
bargaining
unit
where
they
want
to
be
without
fear,
being
pulled
out
as
part
of
a
union
busting
campaign.
J
J
However,
the
new
collective
bargaining
bill,
also
in
its
original
form,
as
signed
into
law,
it
described
a
specific
bargaining
unit
as
including
all
category
2
peace
officers.
Cool.
That's
fine
problem
is
we
we
myself
my
organization,
we
represent
state
gaming
control
officers
of
which
they're
about
95,
I
believe
in
the
state
they
are
unclassified
employees
and
thus
do
not
qualify
for
collective
bargaining
on
that
basis
alone.
J
So
while
they
are
category
2
peace
officers
and
placed
into
a
specific
bargaining
unit
by
the
law,
they
are
not
defined
as
officers
or
excuse
me
as
employees,
because
they're
not
classified
this
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
of
an
inconsistency.
We
felt
and
it's
a
little
unfair
to
our
gaming
control
agents
who
deserve
to
be
in
collective
bargaining.
J
J
J
As
you
can
see
from
the
amendment
in
a
showing
of
good
faith
to
other
stakeholders,
we
have
restricted
again
section
two
to
include
only
gaming.
That
means
category
two
gaming
control
peace
officers,
the
rest
of
the
bill's
easy.
Why?
Because
we
took
it
out
section
three,
as
you
will
see
from
the
proposed
amendment,
we
are
striking
the
changes
in
section
3..
J
J
J
J
J
J
Suffice
it
to
say
finally
that
any
national
office
that
opposes
protecting
members
from
being
rated
which
this
bill
does
for
p-pace
or
tries
to
prevent
members
from
being
included
in
collective
bargaining,
which
this
bill
does
for
gaming
control.
People,
in
my
opinion,
is
taking
a
position
completely
contrary
and
antithetical
to
the
best
interests
of
these
workers.
J
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
mccann
pleasure
hearing
from
you,
mr
snyder.
Please
go
ahead.
K
Okay,
thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
and
honorable
senators
of
the
of
the
committee.
I
assume
I'm
clear
and
the
audio
is.
K
All
right
very
well
introducing
myself
I
am
mike
schneider.
I
am
I
k
e
s
n
y
d
e
r
and
I
do
consulting
work
for
the
las
vegas
police,
protective
association,
civilian
employees,
as
ricketts
stated
commonly
referred
to
as
p-pace.
K
K
As
I
think
rick
said,
they
represent
all
of
the
civilian
support
pass
support
staff
of
lvmpd.
As
all
of
you
were
well
aware,
las
vegas
metro
operates
as
a
paramilitary
organization.
K
As
a
civilian
association,
we
represent
over
83
different
classifications
from
custodians
to
forensic
scientists.
We
represent
almost
1500
employees,
of
which
1200
are
active
association
members,
giving
us
an
80
membership
rate
very
significant
current.
We
have
20
supervisor
classification
with
90
employees
in
those
classifications,
a
77
percent
membership
rate
within
that.
K
We
want
the
the
committee
to
understand
who
want
legislative
help
to
include
us
in
the
statute.
K
We
sppace
would
not
want
our
supervisors
or
those
employees
acting
in
supervisor
capacity
for
a
day
a
week
or
longer
to
be
forced
out
of
our
association,
especially
since
it
would
leave
them
with
no
option
of
representation
being
a
paramilitary
structure.
As
a
civilian
employee,
they
meet
even
less
of
the
criteria.
That's
listed
in
nrs
288
138,
less
than
a
sergeant,
for
example,
and
therefore
our
acting
supervisor
would
be
like
the
rank
of
rank
and
file
police
officer,
stepping
into
a
supervisory
capacity
specifically
being
a
paramilitary
organization.
K
K
As
mr
mccann
stated,
there
have
been
other
groups
that
have
attempted
to
split
split
d-pace
into
two
groups
in
an
attempt
to
bust
the
union
and
limit
representation
for
employees.
In
this
group,
we
wish
only
to
maintain
status
quo,
we're
not
looking
to
create
any
any
new
bargaining
units.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
from
from
my
perspective
and
looking
at
this,
I
have
experience
on
both
sides
of
the
table.
K
There's
no
negative
impact
to
this
change
with
respect
to
how
it
would
impact
pace
wouldn't
have
a
negative
impact
on
metro
would
be
a
positive
impact
for
employees
in
that
civilian
association
and
would
limit
potential
litigation,
the
future
with
respect
to
arguments
over
supervisory
status,
which
is
a
costly
factor
not
only
for
our
association
but
a
costly
factor
for
las
vegas,
metro
and
other
employers.
That
would
be
impacted
by
this.
With
that.
K
A
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
snyder.
We
appreciate
your
information.
Mr
mccann,
do
you
have
any
additional
information.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much,
then
we'll
go
to
questions
from
the
committee.
Senator
neil
no
questions.
A
A
Thank
you,
sir.
All
right,
mr
mccann,
just
as
senator
neal
noted,
I
mean
a
lot
of
this
has
been
deleted,
and
I
mean
I'm
assuming
you
and
mr
snyder
are
in
agreement
that
this
is
a
good
place
to
be
with
this
bill,
and
you
would
like
it
to
move
forward.
J
We
would
love
it
madam
chair,
to
move
forward.
We
would
certainly
ask
not
that
I
have
any
ability
to
ask
for
anything.
That'd
be
work
session
and
vote
out
of
here
and
get
through
and
go
under
the
floor
or
go
on
to
the
assembly
and
everything
else.
I
think
it's
an
excellent
bill.
It
started
out
as
a
good
bill.
J
Well,
I
drafted
it
so
I'm
obviously
I'm
kind
of
biased,
but
you
know
what,
in
talking
to
the
stakeholders,
they've
convinced
me
that
I
was
wrong
in
certain
areas
and
my
own
union
has
convinced
me
in
certain
areas
we're
wrong,
but
the
two
areas
that
are
left
dealing
with
95
people
trying
to
get
into
collective
bargaining
they're
already
on
my
members.
They
just
want
collect
bargaining
what's
wrong.
J
A
H
B
H
B
H
I
I'm
here
to
express
my
support
for
sb
286,
with
the
amendments
that
it
has
written.
I
know
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
back
and
forth
with
mr
mccann
and
the
stakeholders
in
this
and
getting
this
bill
amended
as
it
is,
and
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
we
should
be
holding
out
our
gaming
control
officers
from
having
the
ability
to
collectively
bargain
as
category
two
police
officers
in
the
state
as
it
pertains
to
p-pace.
I
I
La
a
26-year
law
enforcement
veteran
and
I'm
currently
active
in
the
state
of
nevada
as
well.
So
thank
you
again.
I
hope
we
can
get
the
bill
passed
and
move
it
along.
Thank
you.
H
H
I
H
H
H
H
E
Thank
you.
This
is
carter,
bundy
c-a-r-t-e-r
b-u-n-d-y,
with
asks
me
for
the
record.
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
We
want
to
thank
the
sponsor
and
leadership
for
meeting
with
us
multiple
times
about
this
bill.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
a
couple
of
things
that
have
come
up.
First,
we
in
no
way
oppose
anything
related
to
local
government,
there's
one
small
piece
of
this
bill
that
relates
to
local
government
and
we
certainly
agree
with
the
sponsor
that
rating
is
inappropriate.
E
E
That
unit
would
have
been
split
in
half
by
section
three,
so
we're
glad
that's
gone,
and
there
was
also
a
part
of
section
one
that
would
have
siphoned
off
workers
in
the
supervisory
unit
state
employees
in
the
supervisory
unit,
who
would
have
gone
to
other
units
so
we're
glad
to
see
those
gone
because,
frankly,
those
were
straight
up
raids.
E
So
we
are
very
much
against
raiding,
and
this
initial
bill
did
that,
even
with
respect
to
section
two,
however,
dealing
only
with
game
control
agents
that
breaks
an
agreement
between
afscme
and
cwa
about
the
important
parameters
of
bargaining
units
in
state
employees,
there
can
be
all
kinds
of
unintended
consequences
and
certainly
it
is
of
paramount
importance
to
both
afscme
and
cwa
that
union
agreements
be
adhered
to.
While
we
deeply
respect
rick
mccann
and
certainly
the
workers
involved,
we
cannot
support
legislation
that
bridges
our
union's
mutual
agreements
over
bargaining
units
without
reaching
agreement.
H
I
Ma'am
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
liz
sorensen,
liz,
lid
last
name
s-o-r-e-n-s-o-n,
I'm
the
political
director
for
cwa
district
9.,
cwa
district
9
is
an
opposition
of
sb-286
for
the
following
reasons.
We
believe
this
is
a
new
law
and
simple
legislative
changes
can
have
unintended
consequences
before
bringing
these
matters
before
this
body.
Cwa
district
9
believes
that
we
should
first
should
have
exhausted
all
administrative
remedies.
I
We
may
be
back
before
you
asking
for
this
at
some
time
in
the
future
date,
but
presently
we
do
not
think
it's
prudent
to
move
this
legislation
because
of
those
possible
unintended
consequences.
More
importantly,
obviously
some
members
of
the
house
of
labor
are
not
united
on
this
matter.
So
before
we
cause
more
division,
cwa
district
9
believes
we
should
continue
discussions
and
exhaust
all
remedies
among
our
union
brothers
and
sisters.
We
ask
that
the
committee
not
move
this
bill
forward
at
this
time.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
H
H
I
Sorry,
I
pressed
pound
six
instead,
apologies.
My
name
is
cameron
hopkins
for
the
record.
I'm
a
local
union
member
state,
employee
of
ask
me
we're
not
here
union
busting,
that's
absolutely
not
what
we
do.
We're
also
a
union
for
state
employees.
The
changes
in
section
one
four,
both
great
support,
though,
but
splitting
off
tap
two
peace
officers,
breaking
agreement
between
aspen
and
cwa.
I
We've
already
had
cwa
and
afscme
callers
already.
We
deeply
respect
mr
mccann
representing
p
base,
but
we
cannot
stand
by
the
bargaining
unit
parameters
that
have
been
set
up
between
the
unions
at
to
start
display.
The
changes
so
made
so
far
have
been
phenomenal,
but
I'm
hoping
that
the
committee
finishes
the
process
of
removing
the
last
remaining
changes
left
in
this
almost
already
deleted
bill.
No
one
here
wants
union
writing,
but
this
bill
is
going
to
open
up
an
agreement
between
you,
two
unions,
right
when
we
have
bargaining
units
certifying.
I
H
H
H
B
S-T-E-P-H-A-N-I-E-D-U-B-E,
I
am
an
asme
member
of
local
40-41
and
I'm
here
to
oppose
sb
286.
We
are
actively
organizing
and
building
our
union
carter.
Bundy
spoke
eloquently
to
the
reason
why
we
oppose
it
and
I
so
thank
you
so
much
if
you
could
please
support
not
support,
oppose
senate
bill
286.
Thank
you.
H
B
S-O-N-J-A-W-H-I-T-T-E-N,
I'm
the
vice
president
of
ask
me
local
4041
and
I'm
speaking,
opposed
to
senate
bill
286
as
everyone
who
spoke
in
opposition
previous
to
me.
All
of
those
reasons
made
it.
I
feel
very
strongly
that
this
bill
should
not
be
moving
forward,
and
I
thank
the
committee
for
their
time
and
I
in
no
way
want
to
prevent
workers
from
having
the
ability
to
organize
and
have
collective
bargaining
rights.
I
just
don't
feel
that
this
is
the
correct
bill
to
do
that.
Thank
you.
H
A
Thank
you
very
much,
we'll
go
to
neutral.
H
E
Good
afternoon,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
government
affairs,
my
name
is
bruce
snyder
b-r-u-c-e-s-n-y-d-e-r,
no
relation
to
mike
snyder.
I
am
the
commissioner
of
a
state
agency
called
the
government,
employee
management
relations
board
or
emrb,
which
regulates
labor
relations
between
nevada's
governments
and
the
employee
organizations
that
represent
their
employees.
E
I
offer
my
comments
today
in
the
neutral
position.
I
would
like
to
speak
on
sections
two
and
three
first
section
two
would
allow
unclassified
category
two
peace
officers,
namely
gaming
control
agents,
to
have
collective
bargaining,
along
with
the
classified
category
two
peace
officers,
which
have
now
had
collective
bargaining.
Since
2019.
E
E
The
board's
order
stated
at
the
end
of
that
section
of
the
order
quote
if
the
legislature
wanted
to
include
certain
exceptions
in
individuals,
they
would
have
done
so.
As
such,
it
is
up
to
the
legislature
to
change
the
statute.
Unquote
with
respect
to
section
3,
which
I
now
understand
is
being
amended
out.
E
E
The
board's
order,
in
this
particular
instance
stated
quote:
it
is
the
legislature's
duty
and
role
to
change
or
amend
the
language
of
the
statute
and
not
this
board
unquote.
In
summary,
I
speak
today
to
affirm
the
board's
deference
to
the
legislature
as
the
duly
elected
body
to
make
such
policy
decisions.
E
H
H
H
I
L
I
A
All
right,
well
with
that,
mr
mccann
or
mr
snyder,
do
you
have
any
follow-up
to
finish
up
that
particular
bill.
K
J
I
would
agree
with
that.
The
other
thing
I
would
offer,
madam
chair,
is
that
when
we
talk
about
the
exhaustion
of
the
remedies
well,
that
would
be
the
mrb.
I
think
you
just
heard
that
that
was
an
attempt
that
was
made
a
year
and
a
half
ago
or
whatever
it
was,
and
they
deferred
to
you.
The
last
thing
is
that
there
was
a
comment
made
that
this
opens
up
section
three
essentially
section
two
of
the
gaming
control
opens
up
bargaining
units.
J
I
have
to
remind
everybody,
they
are
already
category
2
officers.
They
are
part
of
our
group,
we're
not
out
there
in
the
wind
we're
not
trying
to
grab
them,
there's
not
a
wrestle
to
get
who's
going
to
get
them.
They
are
already
part
of
the
tattoos
which
we
represent.
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear.
Thank
you.
J
I'm
sorry,
maybe
I'm
out
of
order
and
please
throw
something
at
me.
If
you
need
to
may
we
anticipate,
we
could
have
a
work
session
to
vote
this
bill
out
today.
A
We
will
be
doing
the
work
session,
sir,
when
we
were
done
listening
to
all
the
bills
and
then
we
will
do
the
work
session.
Thank
you.
Ma'am
you're
welcome,
sir,
all
right
with
that.
We
will
move
to
senate
bill
298
and
I'm
just
trying
to
move
us
all
along.
So
we're
not
here
for
breakfast
lunch
and
dinner
tomorrow.
So
we'll
start
with
senate
bill
298
and
we
have
senator
keith
keffer,
who
has
joined
us
here
in
good
old
government
affairs
today
and
senator
keith
gabbert.
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
ben
kiekefer.
I
represent
senate
district
16..
I'm
gonna
go
for
a
gold
star
in
brevity
today,
madam
chair
and
I'm
going
to
present
very
briefly
senate
bill
298
and
it's
intent.
I'll
then
turn
it
over
to
lino
america,
with
the
northern
nevada
development
authority
and
another
testifier
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
we're
trying
to
do,
and
then
I
will
walk
through
the
bill.
M
So
the
committee
is
aware
I
have
prepared
and
submitted
and
is
uploaded
on
nellis,
I'm
a
conceptual
amendment
to
the
bill.
That
is
an
attempt
to
address
the
concerns
of
a
couple
of
different
parties
that
had
reached
out
to
me
for,
for
the
purposes
of
clarity
for
for
the
committee.
This
also
incorporates
recommended
amendments
proposed
by
goed,
and
I
hope
that
I
have
encapsulated
them
appropriately.
So
the
bill
before
you
updates
our
inland
port
laws.
Nevada's
history
is
plentiful.
M
With
the
importance
of
freight
and
railroads
our
state,
it
was
founding
the
founding
need
behind
the
city
of
las
vegas,
which
is
as
a
way
station
for
a
new
railroad
going
through.
It's
obviously
a
critical
port
of
northern
nevada's
economic
development,
history
and
infrastructure,
and
I
think
the
general
consensus
is
that
braden
rail
will
be
a
critical
part
of
our
future
as
well.
So
this
is
a
bill
to
primarily
update
our
inland
port
laws,
which
were
put
into
statute
in
2011,
and
since
that
time
there
have
been
no
inland
ports
created.
B
A
A
A
A
A
We
are
unmuted,
go
ahead
chair.
Thank
you
very
much,
sorry
for
the
delay
coming
back
in
from
recess,
it
does
look
like
miss.
O'mara
is
muted,
but
we
will
see
if
maybe
she
can
work
that
out
in
the
meantime,
senator
keith
kepper.
Would
you
mind
going
through
the
bill
and
giving
us
giving
us
some
overview
so
that
we
can
keep
moving
here.
M
Absolutely
I
appreciate
it,
madam
chair
again
ben
key
covford
for
the
record
and,
as
I
had
indicated
in
the
opening
remarks,
this
is
an
update
to
our
existing
inland
port
statutes.
M
That's
included
in
chapter
277b
of
nrs,
so
the
bill
before
you
is
is:
are
those
updates
and
what
I'm
gonna
do,
madam
chair,
to
try
to
make
it
clean
is
walk
through
the
bill,
while
referencing
the
conceptual
amendment
that
I've
proposed
so
that
we
can,
we
can
just
walk
through
it
once
and
you'll
be
clear
about
what
I'm
trying
to
trying
to
do.
That's.
A
M
For
so
thank
you
manager,
section
two
creates
some
additional
powers
for
the
executive
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
This
creates
a
regulatory
power
for
goed
to
prescribe
the
requirements
for
operating
an
inland
port
for
the
application
of
creating
an
inland
port
and
all
of
those
various
factors
and
subsections
one
and
three
two
of
section
three.
M
So
as
you
move
through
the
build
we're
making
big
changes,
section
six
I'd
like
to
point
out
in
particular,
because
it
really
is
two
of
the
main
changes
that
are
being
proposed
and
what
it.
What
it
indicates
is
that
we're
going
to
take
out
the
requirement
that
an
inland
port
be
in
a
contiguous
land
area.
So
you
could
create
an
inland
port
that
is,
that
is
non-contiguous
for
the
purpose
of
potentially
creating
a
multi-regional
inland
port
dynamic.
M
Another
major
change
that
you
would
see
in
section
6,
where
the
strikethrough
in
subsection
b,
I'm
sorry
subsection,
1,
paragraph
b.
It
also
strikes
out
that
it
can't
include
any
residential
property.
So
the
idea
here
is
that
there
are.
There
are
some
areas,
particularly
in
the
northern
part
of
the
state,
that
an
inland
port
may
want
to
capture
some
residential
property,
and
that
would
be
disallowed
by
the
current
statute.
Then
it
would
make
sense
to
allow
that
at
the
will
of
those
of
those
property
owners.
M
So
as
as
you
look
at
section
six,
I'm
going
to
propose
one
of
the
proposed
amendments.
Number
one
would
be
to
retain
the
language.
That's
currently
being
struck
out
in
section
three
paragraphs,
a
and
b,
and
that
is
in
response
to
a
request
from
municipal
airports
to
ensure
that
they
remain
a
part
of
the
process
if
their
land
is
being
incorporated
into
the
boundaries
of
a
finland
port.
M
As
you
continue
walking
through
the
bill.
Madame
chair
and
committee,
the
section
7
continues
to
you
know,
incorporate
some
of
the
authority
of
the
executive
director
of
goed
and
makes
some
of
those
those
powers
more
explicit
with
the
executive
director
rather
than
the
rather
than
the
office
generally
section.
8
is
another
area
that
is
being
proposed
for
amendment
in
the
conceptual
amendment
I've
outlined
for
you.
M
This
is
in
response
to
a
suggestion
from
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
which
makes
sense
to
me
that
says
that
as
a
an
inland
port
is
created,
it
should
be
done
so
in
a
way
that
retains
all
of
those
descriptions:
a
boundary
of
the
inland
ports,
the
location
of
the
principal
office
of
the
authority,
the
name
of
the
the
name
of
the
port
and
the
authority,
and
then
the
number
of
directors
that
are
going
to
serve.
M
This
is
also
in
response
to
a
suggestion
by
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
to
ensure
that
when
local
governments
participate
in
the
creation
of
inland
ports
that
they
retain
their
appointing
authority
to
the
boards
of
directors.
So
that
is
the.
That
is
the
proposal
to
keep
in
all
of
the
language
that
you
see
between
lines,
ultimately
11
and
on
the
end
of
that
page.
On
page
5
of
the
bill
down
to
line
45.
M
When
you
get
to
page
6
of
the
bill
section
nine
subsection
four,
there
was
an
insertion
of
language
that
would
have
exempted
inland
ports
from
the
public
meeting
law.
I
propose
that
we
strike
subsection
four
in
its
entirety.
M
That
is
amendment
number
four
that
you
see
in
the
conceptual
amendment
that
would
ensure
that
inland
ports
continue
to
comply
with
open
meeting
laws,
they're
required
to
do
under
the
current
statute.
There
are
some
conforming
changes
to
ensure
that
that
happens.
M
I
outlined
a
couple
of
them
in
the
proposed
amendment,
such
as
striking
section
15
and
retaining
one
of
the
lead
lines
of
the
repealed
sections
at
the
end
of
the
bill.
There
may
be
others.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
intent
is
clear
so
that,
if
the
bill
proceeds
that
lcb
in
drafting
the
amendment
can
incorporate
any
other
changes
that
might
be
necessary
to
capture
that
intent
to
make.
M
Then
finally,
man,
I'm
sure,
if
you
look
at
one
of
the
one
of
the
other
requests
from
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
that
I
think
is
really
important
would
be
for
them
to
create.
Do
an
updated
study
on
inland
ports
of
nevada
that
specifically
addresses
each
of
the
threes
each
of
the
state's
three
megapolit
regions
that
are
delineated
in
the
nevada
plan
for
recovery
and
resilience
created
by
sri.
That
was
just
released
as
the
updated
state
plan
for
economic
development.
M
There's
been
a
lot
of
work
put
into
freight
and
rail
service
in
the
state.
Just
recently,
in
march,
the
state
released
the
nevada
plan
for
the
the
nevada
state
rail
plan,
and
the
freight
plan
is
upcoming.
M
There
was
recently
a
conference
on
on
this
plan
that
outlined
a
lot
of
the
possibilities
that
come
forward
and
believe
that
this
bill
is
designed
primarily
to
update
our
statutes
to
make
sure
that
if
people
decide
to
proceed
with
creating
an
inland
port
as
a
component
of
rail
development
and
economic
development
in
our
state
that
they're
able
to
do
so-
and
I
do
have
one
additional
person-
I
believe
who
was
on
to
testify-
that's
mr
justin
lichter
with
industrial
realty
group
and
he's
working
on
a
proposal
for
for
service
in
in
northern
nevada
and
the
firmly
area
and
your
indulgence.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Senator
ki
kever
and
ms
amara
has
joined
us
via
phone,
so
miss
amara.
I
don't
know
what
you
heard
of
senator
key
keffer,
but
he
did
go
over
the
bill.
So
if
you
want
to,
you
know
shorten
your
comments,
you
probably
don't
need
to
do
that
piece
again.
If
you
want
to
do
that.
We'd
love
to
hear
from
you.
B
B
We
are
happy
to
be
here
today
in
support
of
senate
bill
298,
which
we
did
assist
with
developing
some
of
the
language
based
on
feedback
from
our
stakeholders,
and
what
we
do.
I
do
have
a
short
presentation.
I
it's
not
necessary.
I
have
my
entire
testimony
has
been
uploaded
to
nellis
and
provides
a
lot
of
the
background
information
as
to
the
evidence
for
this
bill.
However,
I'd
be
happy
to
go
through
anything
in
a
little
more
detail
or
simply
to
answer
questions
at
the
pleasure
of
the
chair.
A
Senator
keith
keffer
I'm
going
to
let
you
weigh
in
on
that
because
you
know
what's
coming
and
I
don't.
If
you'd
like
the
presentation,
I'm
happy
to
see
it.
If
you
think
we
can
move
on
and
just
let
me
know.
M
G
A
Have
your
name
so
just
go
ahead!
Please
and
give
your
testimony.
G
G
For
example,
we
took
over
mcclellan
air
force
base
in
sacramento
california
vacant.
We
now
have
15
000
jobs
on
the
site.
250
companies
operate
the
airport
and
a
lot
of
rail
infrastructure
there
as
well.
So
we
do
a
lot
of
reuse
projects,
value-add
projects
and
really
focus
on
growth
and
communities
and
and
job
creation.
We
see
this
build
as
a
really
positive
bill
for
the
area
and
the
whole
state
of
nevada.
G
A
Thank
you
very
much,
senator
keith
for
any
follow-up.
Before
we
go
to
questions.
M
No
man,
I'm
sure
I'll
I'll,
leave
it
there
to
allow
the
community
to
ask
questions
I'll
point
I'll
just
point
out
as
well
that
mr
sanchez,
with
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
for
questions,
obviously
as
part
of
the
executive
branch
she's
not
testifying
in
support.
But
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
had
some
subject
matter.
Expertise
available
from
going.
A
Perfect,
thank
you
very
much
and
thank
you,
mr
lichter,
and
thank
you
miss
amara,
as
we
work
through
these
virtual
problems
that
we
sometimes
encounter
with
that
I'll.
Ask
the
committee.
If
anybody
has
any
questions.
C
So
I'll
start
off
with
this,
I
understand
in
the
ports.
I
was
here
when
marilyn
kirkpatrick
had
it
as
her
legislation,
and
we
were.
We
were
thinking
about
how
to
do.
You
know
the
cross
boundaries
so
getting
commerce
moving
between
utah
and
nevada,
california
to
nevada
oregon
to
nevada,
so
it
makes
sense.
C
However,
the
part
where
you
guys
are
adding
residential,
where
basically
we're
talking
about
freight
we're
talking
about
truck
routes
where
now
you're,
including
the
residential
areas
as
being
a
part
of
the
inland
port
zone.
I
have
like
a
huge
problem
with
that
and
how
you
you
you're,
no
longer
confining
it
to
be
inside
of
a
county,
which
means
it
could
be
all
over
the
place
and
then
my
third
issue
is
the
private
ability
to
create
the
inland
port.
C
Where
to
me,
that's
that's
the
the
scope
of
that
power
and
the
expansion
of
that
power
is
problematic.
For
me,
I
I
see
the
combination
thereof,
but
creating
an
inland
port
is
to
me.
Is
a
government
function,
not
a
private
company
function,
so
those
are
my
concerns
I
just
trying
to
condense.
It.
C
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair
to
you
through
you
to
mr
senator
neil.
I
know
that
there
are
a
incredible
number
of
these
types
of
sports
throughout
the
country.
I
can't
speak
to
their
entire
government's
governance
structure.
Perhaps
mr
sanchez
could
weigh
in
as
to
his
his
knowledge
on
that
subject
as
whether
we're
sort
of
creating
something
that's
entirely
new
or
whether
this
is
something
that
works
well.
Okay,
in
other
jurisdictions,.
N
Madam
chair
chris
sanchez,
deputy
director
of
governor's
office
of
economic
development
for
the
record,
thank
you
cinderneal
for
the
question.
A
couple
of
points.
Yes,
so
one
of
the
the
ports
to
look
at
is
the
kansas
city,
smart
port
and
in
fact
they
have
much
a
structure.
N
That's
public
private
partnership
where
they've
got
private
industry
represented
as
well
as
government
entities
and
in
doing
so
ensure
that
the
port
operations
meet
the
demand
of
industry,
as
well
as
the
concerns
of
local
government
and
and
the
jurisdictions
that
are
included
and
represented
by
the
the
port
authority.
With
respect
to
the
the
residential
component.
One
of
the
things
that
this
bill
does
is
that
it
allows
for
a
non-contiguous
nature
of
a
port.
N
That's
important
in
that,
if
you
think
of
southern
nevada,
for
instance,
the
inclusion
of
apex
and
the
south
valley,
south
of
the
m
resort,
could
be
included
in
one
inland
port
authority
and
as
we
look
at
as
we
move
forward
with
infrastructure
development
in
nevada,
we're
very
much
focused
on
ecosystem
and
networks
and
as
as
you
astutely
pointed
out,
those
networks
extend
beyond
state
borders
and
so
we're
trying
to
align
or
the
thought
is
anyway.
As
we
looked
at
this
through.
The
sri
excuse
me,
research
that
was
done.
N
Senator
kikefor
had
mentioned
as
those
megapolitan
regions
in
the
state,
and
if
we
do,
if
there
is
the
desire
of
the
committee
to
allow
for
non-contiguous
port
authorities
by
the
way
that
those
boundaries
would
be
delineated
out,
residential
areas
would
be
included
because,
if
we
included,
for
instance,
apex
and
the
south
valley,
for
instance,
if
there
were
to
be
development
out
there,
then
we
would
have
that.
That
would
be
the
case.
N
However,
I
would
say
that
the
actual
facilities
that
are
included
in
the
report
and
those
that
are
moving
freight
around
would
be
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
the
board
and
the
board
would
have
representatives
of
the
localities
and
the
jurisdictions
represented
there.
So,
hopefully,
that's
helpful
in
answering
the
question.
C
Thank
you
for
that,
madam
chair,
just
really
quick.
So
if
it
goes
through
a
residential
process
not
pulling
up
this
the
statute
right
now
from
2011,
but
so
it
was
excluded
right
for
all
of
these
years
now
you're
plugging
it
back
in.
So
what,
then
is
are
the
appeal
rights
or
the
objections
of
residents
where
now
this
they
are
now
being
included
in
this
kind
of
inland
port,
because
we
are
talking
about
rail,
we're
talking
about
moving
freight
or
the
at
least
expansion
of
it.
C
So
so
you
know
in
20
and
2011.
We
didn't
have
to
deal
with
it
because
it
was
excluded
right,
residential
was
not
a
part
of
it.
So
what
and
I
didn't
see
the
provisions
in
this
version
that
allowed
some
kind
of
objection
or
appeal
process
right,
because,
typically,
if
it
is
housed
at
goed.
N
Madam
chair
chris
sanchez
for
the
record
yeah
thanks
again
for
the
the
questions
in
there
neil,
you
know
it's
one
of
those
things
we're
happy
to
work
with
the
committee
and
with
you
senator
neil
on
on
making
sure
that
we've
got
those
interests
represented
and
making
sure
that
there's
no
negative
impact
on
our
our
residents
of
our
communities.
N
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
that
is
important
is
how
freight
flows
as
you're
as
you're,
hinting
on
through
our
communities
and
making
sure
that
those
freight
flows
are
efficient
and
that
we
are
not
a
weak
link
in
the
chain
so
to
speak,
and
so
one
of
the
things
that,
without
you
know,
we're
very
much
looking
into
is-
is
how
freight
is
flowing
through
the
state
where
we
have
bottlenecks,
where
we
need
to
improve
and
enhance
our
infrastructure
to
ensure
that
those
freight
flows
are
seamless
and
add
value
to
the
shippers.
N
A
Okay,
don't
go
anywhere,
we
got
more
to
do.
Thank
you
very
much
additional
questions
from
the
committee
senator
gokuchi.
Please.
F
F
Technically
I
was
just
a
case
in
point:
we've
got
rail
and
at
palisade
we've
got
an
airport
at
in
diamond
valley.
It's
only
70
miles
in
between
you
know.
Is
that
truly
an
england
port,
so
yeah,
I
think
we're
going
to
have
to
along
senator
de
nils
line.
You
know
there
has
to
be
at
least
some
sideboards.
That's
one
municipality
eureka
county,
so
you
know
you've
got
the
rail,
you've
got
the
got
the
airport
and
a
municipal
airport
and
definitely
over
4
500
feet
so
yeah.
F
I'm
kind
of
I
like
to
build.
I
understand
the
con
where
you're
headed
with
it,
but
when
it
gets
to
be
non-contiguous,
then
do
we
get
the
rail
infernally,
the
airport
in
reno
and
the
highway
system
clearly
would
be
80
but
I'm
kind
of
concerned
about
you
know
you
only
have
to
have
two
of
the
three.
So
maybe
you
don't
need
the
airport.
We've
got
the
80
corridor.
Everything
that
can
head
east
out
of
a
rail
junction
in
fernley
is
that
kind
of
the
thoughts.
M
I
think
that's
right.
It
should
be
better
for
the
record.
I
think
that's
right.
Senator
the
the
original
statute
only
required
the
two
of
the
three,
as
I
recall,
as
I
recall,
assuming
I'm
reading
it
correctly
and
yeah.
So
the
current
statute
only
requires
two
of
the
three.
I
think
all
three
would
probably
be
a
little
burdensome
and
you
know
maybe
mr
electric
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
he
envisions
out
in
the
firmly
area
but
yeah,
I
think,
look
and
miss.
M
Neil
will
certainly
make
certain
important
points
about
the
need
for
protection
of
residential
communities
as
a
part
of
this,
and
it's
certainly
not
the
intent
to
override
residents.
G
I
know
you
love
to
hear
from
me,
but
actually
I
don't.
I
here's
my
thoughts
on
this
thing.
I
hate
these
last
minute
bills.
I
realize
we're
doing
the
best
we
can
normally.
I
just
don't
know
on
this
particular
bill.
I
I'm
going
to
end
up
voting
if
you
bring
it
to
work
session
he
asked
but
with,
but
with
the
understanding
that
the
the
requirements
that
senator
neil
has
been
promising,
that
the
bill's
people
will
take
care
of
will
in
fact
happen.
G
A
L
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
appreciate
the
sponsor
working
with
the
open
government
coalition.
I
know
in
the
prior
version
there
were
some
concerns
about
transparency
and
open
meeting
law.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
working
with
that
and
I
applaud
go
ed
for
all
the
tremendous
work
it's
doing
to
try
to
attract
business
to
the
state
and
I
think
I'm
ditto
with
my
colleague
from
sparks
I'll,
follow
senator
neil's
lead
if
she's
happy
with
it
on
the
floor
I'll
be
happy,
and
so
let's
keep
her
happy.
A
G
Great
thank
you.
This
is
justin
lichter
again
for
the
record.
I
just
wanted
to
mention,
based
on
the
residential
concerns
related
to
how
things
could
lay
out
that,
typically
in
in
local
zoning
code,
there
would
be
a
cause
about
residential
adjacency
to
an
industrial
property
with
what
they
can
do
so
in
in
most
areas.
A
A
H
H
I
Yes,
good
afternoon,
madam
chair
of
donderloop
and
honorable
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
derek.
Hemmed
last
name
is
spelled
h-e-m-b-d,
I'm
president
of
six
code,
nevada.
We
support
senate
bill
298
and
have
submitted
a
letter
of
support
to
the
committee.
However,
I
don't
see
it
listed
in
the
exhibit
online.
Thank
you.
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
H
I
Good
evening,
madam
chair,
my
name
is
brian
wachter
b-r-y-a-n-w-a-c-h-t-e-r
I
serve
as
the
senior
vice
president
of
the
retail
association
of
nevada.
We
are
in
strong
support
of
this
measure
senate
bill
298.
We
believe
it
is
going
to
help
diversify
our
economy
and
provide
us
new
tools
going
forward.
We
were
in
support
of
this
when
the
last
time
the
legislature
considered
this
policy,
and
we
are
happy
to
support
it
again
today
and
we
urge
your
committee
to
do
so
as
well.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity.
Ma'am.
H
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
paul
moradkin
m-o-r-a-d-k-h-a-n
with
the
vegas
chamber,
the
vegas
chamber,
is
in
support
of
this
bill
as
well.
We
were
supported
this
initiative
several
let's
say
sessions
ago.
We
do
believe
that
this
bill
will
provide
another
tool
to
our
state
and
our
in
our
efforts
and
economic
diversity,
different
certification,
job
creation,
as
we
worked
to
recover
from
the
economic
impact
of
the
kelvin
19
pandemic.
I
H
I
H
H
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
members
of
the
committee,
nick
vanderpool
with
capital
partners
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
reno
sparks
chamber
of
commerce.
As
stated
by
many
of
my
colleagues,
sb
298
is
a
very
good
bill
in
terms
of
economic
development,
commerce,
jobs,
diverse
economic
diversification.
We
encourage
your
support.
Thank
you.
H
I
P-A-T-R-I-C-K-D-O-N-N-E-L-L-Y,
I'm
nevada
state
director
with
the
center
for
biological
diversity.
Thank
you,
madam
sharon
committee
members.
We
are
opposed
to
sb
298.
I
sent
a
letter
to
committee
members
this
morning
detailing
our
opposition,
but
it's
on
nellis
labeled
as
a
support
letter
for
some
reason
just
want
to
clarify
it's
an
opposition
letter.
Just
a
word
about
england
ports.
They
are
dirty
and
polluting
dramatically
increasing
truck
and
train
traffic
to
the
areas
that
are
sighted
and
this
huge
amount
of
traffic
negatively
impacts,
air
quality
and
significantly
increases
overall
carbon
emissions.
I
Inland
ports
are
sweetheart
deals
for
industry
that
can
have
negative
environmental
impacts.
However,
with
that
aside,
nevada
already
has
legislation
for
inland
ports
nrs277b.
The
law
already
gives
the
inland
port
authority
boards
expansive
powers
related
to
inland
port,
designation
and
rulemaking.
There
really
is
no
need
for
this
legislation.
I
Sb
298
puts
extraordinary
powers
into
the
hands
of
inland
port
authority
boards
and
the
executive
director
of
goet
right
now,
a
county
municipality
has
to
approve
an
inland
port
designation
through
ordinance.
Sb298
would
allow
the
inland
port
authority
board
to
summarily
nominate
an
inland
port
and
it
would
allow
it
to
be
approved
by
the
director
of
goeth,
bypassing
the
formal
ordinance
process.
Also,
this
bill
would
allow
areas
designated
inland
ports
to
include
private
residences.
I
Can
you
imagine
waking
up
one
day
and
a
board
of
industry?
Insiders
had
nominated
your
house
to
be
a
shipping
and
logistics
center
and
it
was
approved
by
an
unelected
political
appointee.
This
is
not
how
we
want
to
do
business
in
the
data.
We
do
appreciate
the
bill
sponsors
amendment
addressing
the
open
government
concerns.
I
admit.
The
reason
you
didn't
hear
about
this
from
me
earlier
is:
I
just
was
alerted
to
this
bill
last
night,
but
now
here
it
is
deadline
day,
you're
just
hearing
about
the
bill
now
and
how
it
may
be
extremely
problematic.
A
Thank
you,
mr
donnelly,
we'll
make
sure
that
your
letter
gets
in
the
right
opposition,
and
this
bill
has
been
online
on
nellis
listed
as
senate
bill
298
for
quite
a
bit.
We
did
agendize
that,
but
that
is
not
unusual.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
we'll
go
to
the
next
caller.
Please.
H
A
A
Thank
you
very
much,
then
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
298
and
that
my
committee
takes
us
to
work
session.
So
if
you
will
open
up
your
binders
or
folders
to
work
session,
I
will
let
miss
keller
start
us
off
and
we'll
move
forward.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Elisa
keller
committee
policy.
Analyst,
the
work
session
document
for
the
bills
under
consideration
are
posted
as
exhibits
to
today's
meeting
on
nellis
and
the
first
bill
for
the
committee's
consideration
is
senate.
Bill
4
revises
provisions
relating
to
the
imposition
of
certain
penalties
by
ordinance
or
violations
relating
to
fireworks,
sponsored
on
behalf
of
clark,
county
and
heard
by
this
committee
on
march
3rd
senate
bill
4
clarifies
the
criminal
or
civil
penalties,
or
both
may
be
imposed
for
violation
of
an
ordinance
that
regulates
the
sale,
use,
storage
and
possession
of
fireworks.
O
The
bill
also
provides
that
a
civil
penalty
imposed
may
not
exceed
fifty
thousand
dollars
for
a
single
violation.
Subsequent
to
the
hearing
on
the
bill.
A
conceptual
amendment
was
proposed
by
clark
county
and
is
included
in
the
work
session
document,
and
the
amendment
makes
the
following
changes
to
the
bill.
A
C
Adam
chair,
I
just
have
yes,
yes,
ma'am.
I
support
the
changes
in
here,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
exemption
for
persons
under
18
also
applied
to
the
criminal
charge.
B
A
B
A
D
Thank
you,
chair
dondero
loop
through
you
to
senator
neil.
We
can
agree
to
to
that
change.
We,
when
we
looked
back,
it's
very
rare
that
we
that
we
penalize
minors
on
this.
So
we
can
make
that
clear
with
the
amendment
and
happy
to
make
that
verbal
amendment
and
change.
C
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
jaron,
just
just
a
quick
clarification,
so
we
have
a
ten
thousand
dollar
maximum
penalty,
but
again
by
ordinance
they
will
establish.
You
know
kind
of
the
parameters
of
those
civil
and
criminal
penalties
still
have
the
ability
to
if,
if
it's
only
a
box
of
firecrackers
versus
a
truckload,
so
we
would
hope
that
the
ordinance,
if
you
had
a
box
of
them,
you're
not
going
to
get.
D
Madam
chair,
would
you
like
me
to
address
that
joanna
jacob
for
the
record
government
affairs
manager
for
clark
county
through
you,
chair
to
senator
gorkache?
That's
the
intent
of
that
language,
it's
very
similar
to
the
language.
That's
in
nrs
today,
under
nrs
477,
allowing
the
fire
marshal
to
tier
at
the
regulatory
level
so
that
he
can
make
those
distinctions,
and
that
would
be
the
intent
of
that
language,
senator
kagia,
that
we
could
take
testimony
at
the
local
level
and
and
determine
the
tears
within
that.
So
we
can
continue
under
the
language
proposed.
D
We
can
consider
the
factors
as
the
severity
of
the
violation
that
would
address
your
issue
about
box
of
fire
crackers
versus
large
quantities
of
fireworks
and
addition
the
number
of
prior
violations-
and
that
was
something
that
we
that
we
added
in
in
response
to
concerns
at
the
hearing.
So
thank
you.
F
Madam
sharon,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that's
the
intent
of
the
bill
or
the
way
I
read
the
bill.
It
is
the
ordinance
that
would
impose
it.
It's
not
the
fire
marshal.
D
Madam
chair,
through
you
to
senator
goykicha,
yes,
that's
correct.
The
we
are
talking
about
the
board
of
county
commissioners
shall
have
power
and
jurisdiction
to
pass
ordinances,
and
that
is
the
existing
law,
so
the
ordinance
would
set
forth
the
tears.
That
is
correct,
senator
gorthya!
Thank
you.
A
L
L
Additionally,
information
was
given
to
me
that
for
the
bureau
of
land
management
in
the
winnemucca
and
battle
mountain
districts
between
2016
and
2021,
they
had
eight
fireworks
related
fires
in
those
districts.
Those
fires
consumed
439,
238
acres,
the
related
fire
suppression
cost
reached
11
million
300
208
dollars.
L
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
I'll
entertain
a
motion.
Oh
senator
hansen,
sorry.
G
G
Burned
you
know
almost
a
half,
a
million
acres
was
because
they
hadn't
raised
it
properly
for
years
they
cut
back
on
livestock
grazing
and
the
fuels
had
built
up
and
built
up
and
built
up.
So
while
the
while
this
actual
start
of
the
fire
was
fireworks,
the
reason
it
burned
so
many
acres
was
because
of
some
frankly,
some
range
mismanagement
by
the
blm,
but
anyway
just
want
to
get
that
on
the
record.
A
L
A
L
F
G
A
Yes,
motion
passes
and
vice
chair
and
shell,
would
you
like
the
floor
statement
on
this.
A
All
right,
thank
you
very
much
and
with
that,
if
the
committee
doesn't
mind
I'd
like
to
jump
to
work
session
bill,
297.,
senator
spearman
has
another
appointment
and
so
or
another
meeting
that
she
needs
to
get
to.
So
if
I
could
jump
to
297,
I
would
do
that.
I
believe
she's
waiting
for
us
to
do
this
bill.
A
So
with
that,
ms
keller,
would
you
jump
the
agenda
and
do
that?
Please.
O
Thank
you.
Madam
chair
alisa
keller
committee
policy,
analyst
senate
bill
297
revises
provisions
relating
to
agriculture,
sponsored
by
senator
spearman
and
was
heard
by
this
committee
on
april
7th
senate
bill
297
requires
the
urban
agriculture
element
of
a
master
plan
prepared
by
a
planning
commission
to
include
a
plan
to
inventory
vacant
buildings
and
blighted
structures
in
the
city
or
county
and
requires
the
council
on
food
security
to
research
and
develop
recommendations
on
community
gardens
and
urban
farms.
O
The
bill
also
authorizes
a
board
of
county
commissioners
to
approve
a
tax
credit
equal
to
10
of
a
parcel's
property
taxes.
If
the
property
owner's
application
to
allow
the
property
to
be
used
as
a
community
garden
or
urban
farm
for
a
period
of
not
less
than
five
years
is
approved,
the
bill
authorizes
a
city
or
county
to
use
vacant
or
blighted
land
or
other
real
property
owned
by
the
city
or
county
for
urban
farming.
O
O
Men
section
6
to
move
the
new
provision
from
chapter
321
of
nrs
to
chapter
322
and
authorize
all
public
water
authorities,
districts
and
systems
in
the
state
of
nevada
and
all
private
entities
with
which
any
county
in
the
state
has
an
agreement.
Regarding
the
planning,
development
or
distribution
of
water
resources
or
any
combination
thereof,
to
provide
water
at
a
wholesale
or
reduced
rate
for
community
gardens
and
urban
farms.
O
So
that
concludes
my
summary
of
the
conceptual
amendments
submitted
by
senator
spearman.
But
also
recently,
a
conceptual
amendment
was
proposed
by
the
nevada,
nevada,
division
of
state
lands,
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources,
and
that
amendment
is
available
to
the
committee
on
nellis.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I've
got
a
couple
pieces
in
here
that
I'm
a
little
concerned
about,
especially
in
the
conceptual
amendment
to
section
three
sub
five.
You
know
again
our
is
it
the
plan
that
even
a
private
water
company
would
have
to
provide
water
at
a
wholesale
rate
and
then
again
do
they
have
to
provide
the
infrastructure
to
get
it
there.
P
Yes,
ma'am,
madam
chair,
through
you
to
senator
gorkachia.
F
Well,
thank
you
senator
spearman,
I
you
know,
and
all
private
cities
yeah.
That
really
does
concern
me.
You
know
again
we're
mandating
and
then
again
the
other
question
would
be
do
they
have
to
deliver
the
water.
It's
one
thing
at
a
rate,
but
it's
another
if
they
have
to
provide
the
infrastructure.
P
I'm
sorry
senator
gok,
you
were
going
in
and
out
said
something
about
water.
F
Senator
spearman,
yeah
and
again
I'll
get
off
mute.
Sometimes
my
space
button
seems
to
come
apart.
Yeah,
I'm
concerned
about
it,
says
all
private
entities
in
the
state
in
any
county
or
in
the
state
or
distribution
of
for
water
resources.
I'm
just
concerned
about
you
know
the
private
sector
having
to
provide
water
at
a
reduced
rate
and
or
the
infrastructure
to
deliver
that
I'm
just
kind
of
concerned
about
just
how
far
reaching
that
would
be.
F
I
I
definitely
support
the
concept
of
urban
gardens,
especially
in
you
know,
in
the
inner
city,
but
that
could
almost
take
you
out
to
the
point
where
an
irrigation
district
would
have
to
supply
water.
Thank
you.
P
Thank
you,
madam
sure,
to
you
to
senator
gordon.
The
intent
is
not
to
be
far-reaching
into
private
lands.
I
believe,
and
I
was
looking
for
the
that
part
of
the
amendment
I
believe
what
we
were
looking
at
is
once
they,
when
the
city
or
the
county
sets
the
ordinance.
They
said
everything
else
that
follows
if
that,
if,
if
that
portion,
there
is
an
issue
like
I
said,
I
can
certainly
get
with
our
legal
team
and
with
nako,
and
we
assuming
we
can
tighten
up
the
language.
F
And
that's
fine
as
long
as
it
still
has
to
be
approved
through
the
the
county
ordinance.
You
can
hear
me
I'm
going
to
figure
out
where
the
mic
is
on
this
computer.
One
of
these
days.
P
Yeah,
you
know,
and
that's
there's
and
I
can't
remember
where
it
is,
but
I
know
it's
above
everything
else
that
you
just
mentioned
whatever
the
city
or
the
county,
because
the
city
didn't
want
to
be
bound
by
something
that
the
county
would
do
county-wide
they
wanted
the
they
wanted
the
leeway
to
be
able
to
determine
how
or
if
they
were
going
to
do
something
like
this.
P
So
everything
else
that
falls
under
that
is
really
determined
by
the
by
the
governmental
entity
that
prescribes
the
that
prescribes
the
ordinance.
F
Thank
you
senator
spearman.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
L
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
a
second
second
senator
neil
second,
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Yes,.
A
Yeah,
yes,
senator
spearman
is
not
in
your
head,
it
is
both
amendments
and
with
that,
can
we
take
a
roll
call
vote.
Please.
G
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
passes
and
I'll
ask
senator
spearman
to
do
the
floor
statement
and
thank
you
very
much
for
allowing
us
to
go
out
of
order,
and
so
with
that.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
for
the
committee.
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
with
that.
We'll
go
back
to
senate
bill
57.
O
O
Two
conceptual
amendments
were
proposed
at
the
hearing
park
county
proposed
an
amendment.
It
is
included
in
the
work
session
document
to
retain
the
requirement
that
the
amount
of
the
uncollected
civil
penalties
must
be
greater
than
five
thousand
dollars,
and
the
city
of
las
vegas
and
the
nevada
league
of
silk
of
cities
proposed
a
friendly
amendment,
adding
two
new
sections
to
the
bill
to
additionally
amend
nrs,
268.4122
and
268.4124
to
eliminate
the
requirement
the
180
days
or
12
months,
as
applicable,
passed
for
a
special
assessment
to
be
imposed.
A
Chair
you
very
much
and
with
that
any
questions
from
the
committee
senator
hanson.
A
G
Just
real
quick,
you
know,
one
thing
I
think
clark
county
better
realize
is
airbnbs
are
exceptionally
popular
and
even
getting
more
popular.
It
kind
of
reminds
me
of
the
debate
we
were
having
years
ago
between
the
taxi
cab
authority
and
lyft
and
uber
I
mean
they
need
to.
They
need
to
come
up
with
a
plan
to
tax
the
airbnb
for
the
roon
tax,
just
like
they
do
with
the
other
ones.
G
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
maybe
I
don't
understand
the
full
issue,
but
given
the
testimony
in
the
hearing,
I
can't
support
this
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
and
with
that
I
will
ask
for
a
real
call
vote.
L
Yes,
but
reserving
it
right,
I
still
have
some
concerns.
I
appreciate
all
the
word
clark
county
has
done,
but
I
I
still
have
some
concerns.
Yes
reserve.
My
right.
F
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
passes
three
to
two
and
I
will
take
the
floor
statement
on
that.
O
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Elisa
keller
committee
policy,
analyst
senate
bill
77
was
heard
by
this
committee
on
february
10
and
is
sponsored
on
behalf
of
the
legislative
committee
on
public
lands
senate
bill
77
exempts
from
the
requirements
of
the
open
meeting
law
certain
meetings
conducted
by
a
public
body
that
is
entered
into
a
memorandum
of
understanding
or
other
agreement
with
a
federal
agency
regarding
a
decision
under
the
national
environmental
policy
act
bill.
A
C
Section
two:
the
deletion,
because
that
was
my
understanding-
that
that
was
that
was
kind
of
offering
the
exception
so
that
yeah,
if
it
was
closed,
they
could
court
order,
then
go
in
and
try
to
request
the
information
that
was
exchanged
and
now
that's
deleted.
So
that
means
that
there
is
no
access
to
get
the
information.
I
I
It
would
withhold
the
information,
any
information
exchanged
in
these
non-public
meetings
from
the
public
records
act
and
that
the
intent
and
striking
section
2
was
based
on
testimony
from
folks,
including
those
in
the
open
government
coalition,
as
well
as
some
follow-up
conversations
with
folks
that,
based
on
some
case
law
already
in
nevada,
related
to
records
that
are
withheld
because
of
being
pre-decisional
and
deliberative,
that
we
felt
it
best
to
just
allow
that,
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
based
on
those
public
records,
requests,
there's
already
a
standard
on
when
those
would
be
released.
I
C
A
L
Thank
you,
chair
from
the
hearing.
I
had
concerns
that
were
brought
up
by
the
the
open
government
coalition
and
I
appreciate
the
amendment
I
think
that's
addressed
some
of
my
concerns.
You
know
there's
still
some
concerns.
I
have
about
the
exemptions
from
the
open
meeting
law,
but
I
will
I
will
vote
to
support
it
out
of
committee
and
reserve
my
right.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
I
don't
think
I
see
any
additional
questions
with
that.
I'll.
Take
a
motion,
I'll
move,
so
move
from
senator
hanson
that
would
be
on,
amend
and
do
pass.
Senator
hanson
and
second.
A
Second,
from
goku
senator
gokuchiya
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
F
A
Motion
passes
and
I
will
ask
senator
gokuchi
to
play
this
for
statement.
Please.
O
Subsequent
to
the
hearing.
A
proposed
conceptual
amendment
was
submitted
on
behalf
of
the
state
contractors
board
to
delete
the
changes
to
subsection
4
of
section
4,
thereby
maintaining
the
requirement
that
all
advertising
by
a
licensed
contractor
must
include
the
name
of
the
contractor's
company
and
the
number
contractors
license.
C
Madam
chair,
yes,
senator
neil,
I
the
problems
that
I
had
with
the
bill.
I
understood
about
the
advertising
piece,
but
the
issue
I
had
with
section
three
where
the
false
alarm
could
be
attributed
to
a
regular
citizen
and
the
concern
of
you
know
if
a
minor
triggers
it.
You
know
somebody
that
has
alzheimer's
ends
up
triggering
the
house
alarm.
You
know
the
family
is
now
going
to
get
that
fee.
A
So
I
believe
I
saw
senator
settlemyre
in
the
queue
senator
settlemyre.
Would
you
answer
that
question?
Please.
I
C
A
A
Amendment
do
pass
amending
you
pass
from
senator
neil
second
from
vice
chair,
orrin
shaw.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion
we'll
take
a
roll
call
vote.
Thank
you.
L
G
A
A
O
Lisa
keller
committee
policy,
analyst
senate
bill
368
requires
the
issuance
of
bonds
for
environmental
improvement
projects
in
the
lake
tahoe
basin,
sponsored
on
behalf
of
the
legislative
committee
for
the
review
and
oversight
of
the
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
and
the
marlette
lake
water
system
and
heard
by
this
committee
on
april
7th
senate.
Bill
368
requires
the
state
board
of
finance
to
issue
not
more
than
four
million
dollars
in
general
obligation.
O
L
A
L
F
G
A
Yes,
motion
passes
and
I
think
I
maybe
could
ask
senator
hansen.
Would
you
be
interested
in
that
for
statement?
Sir?
Okay,
great
I'm
right
next
to
you
if
something
happens,
I'll
take
over
all
right.
Thank
you
very
much.
All
right,
I
am,
I
think,
we're
at
senate
bill
373.
O
O
senate
bill
373
establishes
collective
bargaining
rights
for
certain
unclassified
state
employees,
including
nevada
system
of
higher
education,
faculty
and
professional
staff.
The
bill
also
expands
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
government,
employee
management
relations
board
to
include
hearing
and
deciding
disputes
between
state,
professional
employers
and
professional
employees.
F
A
Fair
enough,
sir,
any
additional
comments
from
the
committee
senator
hanson,
please.
G
G
I
understand
from
a
former
member
of
our
body
that
there's
bill
coming
up
with
an
extensive
audit
that
is
coming
coming
to
the
floor.
At
some
point
I
realize
this
has
to
do
with
individuals,
but
the
whole
collective
bargaining
process,
especially
for
those
guys
just
it
financially
it's
out
of
control.
I
think
we
need
to
do
some
serious
reigning
in
of
how
they
how
they
behave
thanks.
Man.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Senator
hansen,
any
additional
comments.
A
Yes,
thank
you
vice
chair
and
shaw
do
pass
second
senator
neal
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
If
not
we'll
take
a
roll
call
vote.
E
A
Yes,
motion
passes
four
to
one
I
will
assign
the.
I
will
take
the
floor
statement
on
that
one
and
we
will
move
on
to
three
bills
that
we
heard
today
and
the
first
one
will
be
senate
bill
67.
Ms
keller,.
O
A
G
G
I'm
also
concerned
that
there
is
going
to
be
some
impacts
to
the
non-union
contractors
in
southern
nevada.
I
know
a
lot
of
them
do
a
lot
of
these
small
things
and
some
of
the
provisions
in
the
bill
that
may
have
been
amended,
but
some
of
the
provisions
in
the
bill
make
the
requirements
it's
very
difficult
for
smaller
contractors
to
qualify
to
even
get
in
this
whole
this
whole
process.
So
I
will
be
enough.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
will
be
supporting
the
measure
again
because
it
is
a
pilot
program
and
in
a
test,
run
nevada.
You
know
if
you
talk
northern
nevada
and
25
million
dollars,
you're
talking
a
couple
three
years
budget,
so
I
will
support
it.
L
A
L
F
A
Yes
and
motion
passes
and
I'll
ask
senator
neil.
Will
you
take
that
floor
statement
for
me,
please
sure.
C
A
O
A
L
Yes,
chair,
I
I
am
going
to
make
the
motion
to
get
it
out
to
the
floor
and
I
will
I
do
want
to
reserve
my
right
when
the
boat
comes
I'll
vote,
support
it
to
get
it
out
to
the
floor.
I
still
have
some
questions,
but
I'd
like
to
to
make
the
the
amended
new
pass
motion.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Second,
second,
second,
from
senator
neil
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Senator
hanson.
G
Real
quick,
I'm
gonna,
I'm
gonna,
be
a
null
frankly,
I'm
just
confused
as
though
what
unions
were
for
and
what
unions
were
against,
and
so
I
can
change
my
vote
later,
but
I
I
was
uncomfortable
with
this
one,
so
I
will
be
a
no
at
this
point.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
just
because
we
really
didn't
get
really
a
lot
of
opportunity
input
on
the
bill.
I
also
am
concerned
with
some
of
the
infighting
that
seemed
to
be
occurring
down
south,
so
I
will
support
the
bill
out
but
reserve
my
right
to
let's
get
it
to
the
floor.
I'm
sure
we're
going
to
hear
from
a
lot
of
people
before
it
comes
to
the
floor.
Thank
you.
A
Great,
thank
you
very
much
and
with
that,
if
there's
no
just
further
discussion,
we'll
take
a
roll
call
vote.
L
Yes,
but
my
right.
G
A
Yes,
and
with
that
it,
the
motion
passes
four
to
one
and.
A
Senator
neil,
would
you
take
the
floor
statement.
I
may
have
to
move
some
of
these
around,
but
if
you'll,
if
you'll
jump
in
there
for
me
again,
I'd
appreciate
it.
Okay
and
the
last
and
final
bill
for
today
is
senate
bill
298,
and
if
we
could
hear
that
ms
keller
we'll
move
forward,
thank
you.
A
G
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
the
bill
sponsors
work
with
senator
neil.
I
think
she
raised
some
very
legitimate
points.
I
will
support
it
just
to
get
it
out
of
committee,
but
I'm
going
to
follow
her
lead
on
the
floor,
so
I
hope
that
make
her
happy.
A
L
C
A
Okay,
see
no
more
comments.
I'll,
take
a
motion.
A
L
F
G
A
Yes,
with
that,
the
bill
passes
and
I'll
hand
the
floor
statement
over
to
senator
keith
keffer.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
today
and
with
that,
I
think
believe
it
or
not.
We
have
finished
work
session
so
trying
to
get
everything
through,
so
everybody
can
get
on
their
way
home
those
that
are
going.
I
want
to
thank
the
staff.
A
You
know
these
are
always
a
lot
of
work
for
everybody,
but
we
forget
how
much
organism,
organizing
and
legal,
our
policy,
people
our
office,
people,
everybody
just
pitches
in
and
gets
everything
done.
So
I
I
so
totally
want
to
make
sure
that
you
are
you
realize
how
much
we
thank
you
and
appreciate
you
and
committee
members
thanks
for
hanging
in
there
with
us
today
and
I
have
scheduled
a
meeting
on
monday,
but
we
it
could
be
that
we
don't
do
one.
It
depends
on
that
floor.
A
I
have
got
one
there,
but
I
may
be
asked
by
leadership
to
delay
so
that
decision
will
probably
be
made
tonight.
I
don't
know
so
I'll
reserve
my
right.
How
about
that,
but.
A
A
meeting
and
it'll
probably
be
a
short
one.
I
appreciate
that
have
a
nice
weekend
if
you're,
traveling,
travel,
safe
and
we'll
see
you
all
on
monday.
Thank
you
good.