►
From YouTube: 4/7/2021 - Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure
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
Just
a
couple
reminders:
everybody
please
be
courteous,
respectful
with
others
during
the
meeting,
even
if
you
disagree
with
another
person's
position
for
those
participating
on
zoom,
go
ahead
and
remember
to
mute
yourself
when
you
are
not
speaking
a
couple
ways
to
participate,
although
I
hope
everyone's
familiar
with
those
at
this
point,
you
can
submit
an
opinion
poll
on
nellis.
A
You
can
call
in
for
public
comment.
You
can
submit
your
written
public
comment,
information
on
that
will
be
on
the
agenda
and
if
you
have
any
issues
you
can
contact
our
committee
secretary,
whose
information
is
also
on
the
agenda.
A
D
Good
afternoon,
chair
harris,
I'm
members
of
the
senate
growth
and
infrastructure
committee
for
the
record
james
oranshall.
I
represent
state
senate
district
21
as
parts
of
henderson
and
unincorporated
clark
county
senate
bill.
315
is
a
bill
that
came
out
of
a
lot
of
requests
and
complaints.
I've
had
from
neighbors
neighborhood
associations
and
constituents
who've
been
concerned
about
what
they've
seen
in
the
last
year.
D
A
lot
of
very
late
night
drag
racing
and
very
very
loud
sounds
coming
from
from
the
vehicles
that
are
doing
this
late
night
racing
senate
bill
315
does
not
address
the
issue
of
street
racing
or
drag
racing,
but
it
does
address
the
issue
of
modifications
to
the
muffler
exhaust
system
on
a
vehicle
that
are
intended
to
make
that
produce
a
lot
more
sound
than
it
originally
did.
That,
certainly
is
it
can
be
harmful
to
people's
hearing
and
it
can
be
disruptive
to
their
quality
of
life.
D
In
my
research
on
this
legislation,
what
I've
also
learned
is
that
there
is
a
causal
connection
very
often
when
these
modifications
are
made
in
terms
of
trying
to
increase
the
the
volume
and
the
sound
produced,
either
by
a
modified
muffler
or
by
bypassing
that
muffler
completely,
so
that
there
is
no
muffler
and
that
the
the
causal
connection
is
with
air
pollution
and
emission
control,
and
that
what
I've
learned
is
that
many
of
these
vehicles
that
are
modified
to
make
this
this
increased
sound
also
would
no
longer
pass
smog,
a
small
check
and
would
be
polluting
at
a
level.
D
That
is
certainly
not
not
what
we
would
want
or
what
is
permitted.
It's
a
it's
a
brief
bill
and
I've
looked
around
at
a
lot
of
other
states
in
terms
of
trying
to
come
up
with
this
legislation.
D
D
Chair
on
the
zoom,
I
do
see
chief
jd
decker
of
the
enforcement
division
of
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles
he's
here
in
the
neutral
position,
but
he
is
a
tremendous
resource
as
to
the
issues
that
come
up
when
there's
modifications
made
and
in
terms
of
the
the
air
pollution
that
can
result
and
how
certain
things
are
handled
now
at
dmv
and
how
they
could
be
handled
if
legislation
like
this
were
to
pass.
D
Additionally,
I
also
see
christian
robinson
from
washington
dc
of
the
specialty
equipment
manufacturers,
association
called
sema
they're,
a
group
of
an
organization
that
represents
automotive
enthusiasts
and
I've
been
very
fortunate
to
have
input
from
mr
robinson
and
his
organization
on
this
legislation.
D
I
believe
that
he
submitted
a
letter
that
was
sent
around
to
all
committee
members
and
he's
a
resource
on
on
legislation
like
senate
bill.
D
315,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
bills
like
this
around
the
country
in
the
last
few
months
that
that
he
and
I
talked
about-
and
there
is
an
amendment
on
nellis
which
actually
proposes
to
amend
the
legislation
so
as
to
allow
a
45-day
grace
period
where
someone
could
repair
this
and
there
would
be
no
fine
imposed
and
in
addition
to
that,
another
point
that
I've
had
a
chance
to
discuss
with
some
of
the
different
stakeholders
is
the
idea
of
possibly
allowing
any
any
other
regulations
to
be
set
by
department
of
motor
vehicles
as
to
whether
what
would
be
the
appropriate
maximum
decibel
level.
D
But
I
am
certainly
open
to
any
suggestions
from
any
of
the
other
stakeholders
and
with
your
permission
chair,
I
wonder
if
I
could
turn
it
over
to
either
chief
decker
or
mr
robinson,
then
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
think
they've
got
a
lot
more
information
and
expertise
on
this
than
I
do.
Of
course,.
A
Mr
decker
welcome
just
please
state
your
name
for
the
record
as
you
speak,.
E
Sure
harris
nice
to
see
you
committee
members
j.d
decker
for
the
record
chief
of
the
compliance
enforcement
division
for
the
department
of
motor
vehicles.
We
are
the
state
agency
that
is
tasked
with
regulating
motor
vehicle
emissions
in
nevada,
and
we
find
generally
that
exhaust
system
performance
modifications,
often
defeat
bypass
or
alter
factory
exhaust
systems
and
can
lead
to
compromising
vehicle
emission
standards.
In
fact,
generally
gains
in
performance
are
accomplished
in
exactly
that
way.
E
We
feel
this
bill
would
be
a
great
tool
for
us
to
use
in
enforcing
the
emission
standards
in
nevada
by
helping
us
to
identify
vehicles
that
have
been
modified
and
are
likely
to
be,
or
maybe
violating
vehicle
mission
standards
and
and
the
penalty
structure
is
set
up
like
our
administrative
process
for
handling
smoking
vehicles
and
emissions
violators.
So
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
The
committee
may
have
to
the
extent
that
my
technical
knowledge
will.
A
Allow
did
we
want
to
go
to
mr
robinson.
First
senator
ornshaw.
A
All
right,
mr
robinson,
welcome
to
the
committee:
go
ahead
and
just
state
your
name
for
the
record.
As
you
speak,.
F
F
Our
member
companies
manufacture,
market
and
sell
specialty
automotive
parts,
including
exhaust
components,
but
also
restoration,
parts,
appearance
parts,
anything
having
to
do
with
performance
or
comfort
or
convenience
or
technology
for
motor
vehicles
and
we're
probably
best
known
as
an
association
for
our
trade
show
or
annual
trade
show,
which
is
typically
outside
of
2020
first
week
of
november
at
the
las
vegas
convention
center,
and
we
attract
about
160
000
individuals
per
year.
F
To
that
event,
you
know,
as
senator
orangehall
mentioned
at
the
top
one
of
the
trends
that
we've
seen
nationwide
this
year
in
terms
of
automotive
loss,
definitely
would
be
dealing
with
both
illegal
street
racing,
which
I
know
this
bill
doesn't
handle,
but
also
modifications
to
a
vehicle
that
that
make
them
unnecessarily
loud.
This.
This
really
stems
from
the
quarantine
periods
that
we
saw
due
to
covid.
Roads
were
clear.
People
behaved
badly.
F
You've
had
a
lot
of
people
at
home.
Furthermore,
doing
doing
work
during
the
quarantine
periods
and
lockdowns
they're
much
more
attuned
to
the
noises
in
their
neighborhoods.
I
said
to
the
senator:
I've
got
a
15
month
old
child
at
home,
and
it's
something
that
I've
been
dealing
with
locally
here
in
maryland,
the
suburbs
of
dc
as
well
at
nights,
and
it's
not
a
lot
of
fun.
F
But
really
these
actors
are
give
a
black
eye
to
true
enthusiasts,
and
it's
not
something
that
sema
condones.
You
know
often
times
what
these
folks
have
done,
which
the
senator
alluded
to
with
mr
decker
alluded
to
is
gone
with.
What's
called
a
straight
pipe
where
they've
deleted
the
muffler
they've
deleted
emission
components
like
the
catalytic
converter
and
o2
sensors
and
made
the
car
just
obnoxiously
loud,
it
almost
can
sound
like
gunfire,
which
I
know
other
municipalities
and
states
have
had
issues
with.
I
was
able
to
speak
with
the
senator.
F
I
think
I
wouldn't
provide
him
with
my
feedback
and
concerns
with
the
bill
as
it's
currently
written,
but
it
became
clear
in
our
discussions
that
we're
really
not
far
apart
on
what
the
the
aims
of
the
bill
are,
and
I
think
a
reasonable
solution
can
be
reached
through
the
regulatory
process.
F
Now
our
biggest
concern
with
was
a
blanket
modification
ban
and
the
reality
is
that
not
all
mufflers
are
created
equal.
You
might
have
a
honda,
civic
that
puts
out
75
decibels
and
then
a
porsche
911
gt3
that
puts
out
over
95
an
enthusiast
might
want
to
modify
his
exhaust
system
legally
with
emission
parts
still
in
place.
F
F
F
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
the
committee
may
have,
and
I
thank
everyone
for
giving
me
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
senator
oran
shaw.
Are
you
ready
for
questions,
or
did
you
have
more
on
your
presentation.
D
Certainly
I,
after
conversations
with
chief
decker
and
with
mr
robinson,
I
believe
that
the
the
statutory
scheme
in
california
seems
to
be
working
in
terms
of
giving
people
a
chance
to
correct
the
problem
and
avoid
any
fines
or
any
registration
suspension,
and
I
think
that
you
know
the
only
thing
that
that
I
would
hope
might
be
done
differently
in
nevada
in
a
statute
is
leaving
any
maximum
decibel
level
for
vehicle
noise
up
to
dmv
to
set
by
regulation
rather
than
putting
that
in
statute
in
california.
D
It's
put
in
statute
at
the
95
decibels
and
I
believe
that's
something
that
talking
to
certainly
talking
to
mr
robinson
of
sema.
I
believe
we
agree
on
so
if,
if
there's
any
possibility
of
of
you
know
of
considering
that,
I
think
that
might
be
a
wise
way
to
go,
because
it
seems
to
be
a
workable
solution
in
our
state
to
the
west
in
terms
of
trying
to
deal
with
the
vehicle
noise.
And
here
I
believe,
much
of
the
problem
is
not
so
much
the
enthusiasts
who
are
modifying
their
vehicles.
A
Muffler
all
right,
thank
you.
It
looks
like
we
have
a
question
from
sandra
pickard.
G
Amen
chair
and
I
didn't
see
the
amendment.
Mine
is
a
practical
question.
I
mean
we're
talking
about
a
fairly
sizable
industry.
G
Glass
packs
have
been
around
since
I
was
a
kid
and
they
are
common,
and
so
I'm
wondering
not
only
is
this
a
question
about
the
scope
of
the
effort,
but
then
how
do
we
enforce
it
right?
So
we're
gonna
have
to
take
thousands
of
these
off
the
street,
we're
going
to
have
to
train
law
enforcement
because
currently
we
have
noise
statutes
that
prohibit
the
kinds
of
things
that
were
described
in
terms
of
you
know
sustained
loud
noises
in
neighborhoods,
particularly
late
at
night.
G
There
are
noise
ordinances
in
in
both
clark
county
and
at
least
in
henderson.
I
assume
the
other
local
jurisdictions
have
them
as
well
and
police
regularly.
You
know,
they're
they've
got
more
important
things
to
do.
They
don't
show
up
for
these
things
unless
there's
street
racing-
or
you
know,
there's
been
an
accident.
At
least
that's
been
my
experience.
G
G
Do
they
have
the
proper
training
to
be
able
to
do
this
and
have
we
talked
to
them
to
see
if
they're
even
inclined
to
do
it?
I
mean
personally,
I
have
no
problem.
I've
never
put
a
glass
pack
in
my
car
there
I
find
them
incredibly
annoying,
but
currently
they're
legal,
and
so
I'm
just
I'm,
I'm
wondering
how
do
we
implement
this
plan
without
it
being
like
the
you
know,
the
the
unlawful
lifting
of
a
truck
without
the
the
proper
equipment
we
don't
enforce.
It.
D
Being
through
you
chair
harris
to
senator
picker,
I
think
a
good
example
to
look
at
right
now
are
nevada's
penalties.
We
have
on
cars
that
are
are
not
up
to
snuff.
On
the
smog
check,
there
are
ways
that
citizens
can
report
smokers.
Cars
that
are
are
excessively
putting
out
pollution,
and
certainly
I
understand,
law
enforcement
has
so
much
else
to
worry
about
that
this.
D
This
is
not
near
the
top
of
the
list,
but
still
there
are
negative
effects
of
this,
both
in
terms
of
people's
quality
of
life
and
in
terms
of
air
pollution
nevada.
The
research
I've
done
is
one
of
the
few
states
that
does
not
set
any
any
decibel
maximum
decibel
level
as
to
vehicle
noise
or
have
any
state
statutes
about
modifying
or
bypassing
the
muffler
exhaust
system.
So
that
creates
a
particular
problem
for
us.
D
Certainly,
there
are
patchworks
of
local
ordinances
in
the
in
the
local
jurisdictions,
but
I
believe
that,
if
something
like
this
passes,
then
you
know
whether
someone
is
given
a
ticket
or
reported
to
the
dmv.
D
There
would
be
a
way
to
try
and
have
that
vehicle
brought
in
perhaps
for
an
inspection
make
sure
that
it
it
the
muffler
exhaust
system
has
not
been
modified,
make
sure
that
it
does
pass
smog
and
that
that
the
effort
to
make
it
a
loud
vehicle
has
not
also
made
it
a
an
air
pollution
vehicle
on
wheels.
D
So
certainly,
I
believe
there
are
ways
to
implement
this.
The
states
around
the
country
do
implement
this
and
I,
I
think,
there's
a
lot
of
benefit
both
for
our
constituents
and
for
the
environment,
for
something
like
this
to
pass,
and
if
mr
chief
decker
or
mr
robinson
care
to
jump
in
about
what's
happening,
you
know
either
in
other
states
or
what's
what
we
do
currently
with
our
smog
enforcement.
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you.
E
E
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
other
law
enforcement
agencies,
necessarily
writing
tickets
for
smoking
vehicles,
let's
say
even
though
it
is
currently
illegal.
So
what
we?
What
my
agency
does?
Is
we
try
to
educate
or
work
with
agencies
that
target
street
racing
and
other
violations
that
are
associated
with
that
and
we've
established
our
smog
spotter
program,
which
allows
both
members
of
the
general
public
and
law
enforcement
agents,
agencies
to
report
smoking
vehicles
or
emissions
violators,
or
in
a
case
of
a
bill
like
this
noise
complaints
to
my
emissions
labs?
E
F
This
is
christian
robinson
for
the
record
yeah.
What
we've
seen
in
several
states-
and
I
can
speak
specifically
to
what
california
does
if
an
officer
suspects
that
a
car
has
surpassed,
the
95
decibel
limit.
F
What
he
or
she
will
do
is
issue
the
ticket
to
the
motorist,
instruct
them
to
go
see,
what's
called
the
referee,
essentially
an
inspection
station,
where
the
inspection
station
will
carry
out
a
society
of
automotive
engineers
tests
to
determine
if
the
vehicle
has
gone
over
the
95
death
spell
limit.
It's
very
scientific.
The
organization
sae
has
been
around
for
over
100
years,
takes
into
account
ambient
noise
wind
weather
conditions.
F
It
just
prescribes
the
angle
on
the
rev
of
the
engine.
They
will
determine
if
you're
over
95,
if
you're
under
you're,
given
what's
called
a
certificate
of
compliance,
it
allows
to
the
the
ticket
to
be
dismissed
if
you're
found
to
be
too
loud.
You
have
30
days
to
bring
the
vehicle
into
compliance
and
have
it
rechecked
so
that,
ultimately,
the
mission
is
accomplished
to
bring
the
vehicle
under
the
95
decibel
threshold.
F
What
we've
seen
in
other
states-
and
I
can
only
speak
broadly
to
this-
is
yes,
there
have
been
proposals
in
other
states
to
equip
officers
with
decibel
readers.
I
think,
in
my
opinion,
you'd
run
you'd
run
into
issues
of
noise
of
roadside
noise,
potentially
skewing
it,
and
we've
seen
proposals
in
other
states.
Do
it
at
with
their
annual
safety
inspection
on
a
vehicle.
G
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
and
mr
robinson,
this
is
a
question
for
you
specifically.
I
can't
imagine
that
this
is
a
tiny
industry.
It's
probably
not
a
huge
industry
either.
G
My
guess
is,
if
you're
coming
in
in
support
of
this,
they
don't
have
a
big
presence
in
your
organization
or
they
won't
anyway
after
this.
But
what
you
know,
how
many
people
are
we
putting
out
of
business
here
by
not
allowing
these
kind
of
modifications.
F
Well,
I
so
at
this
point
I
would
describe
our
position
as
as
neutral
on
this
bill,
hoping
to
work
something
out
with
the
senator.
I
think,
there's
definitely
a
pass
pathway
for
this
sema
itself
is
a
46
billion
dollar
trade
association
in
terms
of
annual
sales
and
exhaust
manufacturers
are
certainly
you
know,
one
of
our
our
primary
segments,
not
the
largest.
I
believe
it's
a
couple
of
billion
dollars.
G
All
right,
I
appreciate
that,
I
just
you
know
anytime.
Somebody
gets
up
as
part
of
a
presenting
crew.
They're
gonna
be
viewed
as
supportive,
if
not
officially
so
I
just
I
I
mean
I'm
fascinated
by
this.
I
haven't
seen
this
kind
of
active.
G
D
And
manager,
if
I
might
just
respond
to
senator
pickard's
question,
I
certainly
am
open
to
a
potential
conceptual
amendment.
D
If
the
committee
is
interested
that
would
mirror
california's
vehicle
noise
statute,
I
believe
that's
a
california
code,
27
150
27
150.2,
that
I
think
the
only
thing
that
I
would
hope-
and
I
discussed
this
with
mr
robinson-
is
that
any
maximum
decibel
level
not
be
put
in
statute
that
dmv
be
allowed
to
set
that
by
regulation,
where
dmv
could
have
the
expertise
to
set
that
rather
than
us,
putting
a
maximum
decibel
level
on
statute
in
california.
D
It's
set
at
95
decibels
and
in
california
enthusiasts
under
the
statute,
are
allowed
to
make
modifications
so
long
as
it
is
within
that
maximum
decibel
level,
and
I
think
that
would
be
a
good
compromise,
because
that
would
protect
automotive
enthusiasts,
but
it
would
not
allow
this
complete
bypass
or
deletion
of
the
muffler
exhaust
system,
which
is
very
hard
on
our
constituents
on
their
quality
of
life,
on
their
hearing
and
on
our
clean
air
as
we
found
out,
because
it
often
leads
to
bad
emission
control.
But
I've,
certainly
you
know
I.
G
And
madam
chair,
I
don't
want
my
comments
to
sound
like
I'm
asking
for
any
modifications
to
this
to
use
to
overuse
a
term,
but
you
know
I
just
I'm
surprised
just
because
I
think
the
magnitude
is
a
little
larger
and
I'm
concerned
about.
You
know
what
is
this
going
to
cost,
whether
we're
doing
this
at
smog
or
we're
doing
this
in
a
inspection
station
or,
however,
we're
doing
it?
It
sounds
like
we're.
G
D
And
madam
chair,
I'm
I'm
sorry
to
belabor
the
point,
but
if
I
could
respond
to
that
conversations,
I've
had
with
chief
decker.
Certainly
I
think
that
there
is
an
option
of
requiring
a
new
smog
test,
because
once
the
the
motorist
has
tried
to
repair
the
muffler
exhaust
system,
a
smog
check
could
actually
be
the
check
that's
needed
rather
than
some
new
equipment.
E
Jd
decker
for
the
record,
through
your
share
harris
to
senator
orange,
that
is
correct.
We,
the
dmv,
has
emissions
labs
with
trained
technicians
and
we
currently
in
order
to
adjudicate
emissions
citations,
the
administrative
citations
that
that
are
issued
or
the
complaints
of
the
smog
spotters.
The
vehicle
is
brought
to
the
dmv
admissions
lab
and
we
have
text
that
will
determine
whether
the
vehicle
is
actually
in
violation
or
not.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
So
senator
orrinshaw
question
I
heard
you
say
something
about
the
environment.
Is
that
physical
environment
is
that
clean
air
around
places
where
low
wealth
communities
are
at
this
time.
D
Thank
you,
chair
harris
tuning
through
to
senator
spearman.
D
What
I
have
learned
in
working
on
this
legislation
is
that
when
someone
it
oftentimes
modifies
their
muffler
exhaust
system
or
deletes
it
or
bypasses
it,
that
the
emissions
controls
which
should
be
controlling
the
air
pollution
in
that
vehicle,
often
are
defeated
and
the
car
is
now
putting
out
a
lot
of
air
pollution
beyond
what
would
pass
at
a
smog
check
that
there
is
a
connection
between
the
loud
noise
that
my
constituents
reached
out
to
me
about
for
this
bill
and
air
pollution
which,
when,
when
they
first
contacted
me,
I
wasn't
aware
of
that
connection.
D
E
Jd
decker
for
the
record
chair
through
through
to
senator
orangehall.
Thank
you
for
the
question,
so
we
know
that
exhaust
modifications
have
the
potential
high
potential
for
defeating
or
bypassing
emissions
control
devices
in
order
to
either
increase
performance
or
increase
the
sound.
E
I
think
I
think
in
answer
to
senator
spearman's
question
the
the
noise
pollution
through
a
muffler
that
is
modified
to
be
illegal
or
excessively
loud
or
excessively
emitting
exhaust
for
for
performance
reasons
is
it
impacts
the
both
the
physical
environment,
but
also
our
clean
air
and
violates
emission
standards,
and
I
think
overall,
there's
there's
a
there's
impact
to
both
for
people
that
reside
in
areas
where
these
vehicles
might
be
racing
up
and
down
the
street,
or
even
you
know,
driving
past
an
open
air
restaurant
on
the
strip.
B
Madam
chair
follow
up
so
here's
here's
my
deeper
concern.
B
B
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
study
now,
but
there
was
a
study
I
wanted
to
say
it
was
maybe
three
or
four
years
ago
that
looked
at
incidents
of
asthma
with
children
who
lived
in
suburbs,
where
there
was
hardly
no
traffic
around
their
home
and
then
children
who
lived
in
densely
populated
areas
that
also
had
high
traffic
around.
So
my
concern
for
this
would
would
be
if
it
is
contributing
at
all
to
some
of
the
illnesses
that
made
that
made
people
susceptible
and
the
results
were
more
fatal
or
coveted
19..
B
It's
probably
something
we
should
look
into.
I'm
I'm
concerned
because
you
know,
as
we
keep
talking
about
the
environment,
it's
not
just
the
air,
but
it's
what
it
does
to
the
people.
So
I'd
be
curious
to
know
you
may
not
have
this
information,
but
I'd
be
curious
to
know
if
there,
if
this
were
to
pass,
is
there
a
cost
avoidance
that
we
could
claim
or
reclaim
and
then
use
that
someplace
else
on
health
care?
Does
that
make
sense
to
you.
D
D
I
I
don't
know
how
much
you
know
might
contribute
to
asthma
or
other
respiratory
problems
that
people
might
have.
I
guess
is
there
probably
would
be
if,
if
you
know
cars
are
polluting
more
than
they
should
under
our
current
epa
guidelines.
I
think
this
bill.
The
bill
is
carefully
crafted
the
original
bill
to
make
sure
that
any
fine
would
be
a
civil
fine.
It's
not
a
criminal
offense
and
it's
not
considered
a
moving
violation.
D
A
So
I
guess
my
question
circles
around
is:
is
there
already
a
violation
of
law
that
occurs
when
you
modify
your
vehicle
and
circumvent
the
smog
system.
E
Jd
decker
for
the
record
chief
of
compliance
enforcement
division
to
you,
chair
harris.
There
is
currently
a
violation
of
state
law
and
federal
law.
If
an
emission
system
that
comes
from
the
factory
on
a
vehicle
is
modified
to
bypass
or
defeat
any
mission
control
device,
there
isn't
anything
that
relates
to
sound.
So
for
enforcement,
we,
you
know
the
compliance
enforcement
division
and
other
law
enforcement
agencies
are
looking
primarily
for
vehicles
where
we
can
prove
at
this
point
in
time
a
criminal
violation.
E
So
if
the
vehicle's
smoking
we
know
that's
illegal,
the
standard
of
proof
on
an
administrative
citation
like
senator
orrinshaw
has
included
in
this
is
a
preponderance.
So
if
you
see
a
vehicle,
it's
outrageously
loud,
you
can
write
an
administrative
citation
and
take
it
through
the
administrative
process
where
the
person
has
30
days
to
for
45
days
to
fix
or
whatever
it
is
and
can
get
it
fixed
in
admissions
lab.
E
A
D
Well,
I
think
they're
there
too
senator
hammond,
I
believe,
they're
they're,
putting
out
a
lot
of
of
smoke
oftentimes,
because
the
muffler
exhaust
system
has
been
bypassed
or
deleted,
and
hopefully
this
bill
will
will
cure
that
problem.
Make
the
air
a
lot
cleaner
and
lead
to
less
smokers
out
on
the
road
totally.
A
H
H
H
I
My
name
is
emily
walsh,
e-m-I-l-y
w-a-l-s-h-
and
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
conservation
league
in
support
of
sb
315.
studies
have
shown
that
modifying
or
tampering
with
exhaust
systems
makes
it
more
likely
that
those
vehicles
will
fail
smog
tests.
The
number
one
contributor
to
pollution
in
our
state
is
the
transportation
sector
and
we
are
supporting
other
efforts
this
session
to
get
a
handle
on
vehicle
pollution.
This
bill
would
be
a
good
addition
to
those
efforts.
We
thank
the
chair
and
the
sponsor
for
bringing
this
forward.
Thank.
H
H
B
My
name
is
greg
esposito,
e-s-p-o-s-I-t-o,
testifying
in
support
of
this
bill.
I
appreciate
how
everyone's
been
focused
on
the
pollution
issue
of
this.
I
want
to
bring
it
slightly
more
into
a
human
perspective.
Imagine
you're
a
parent.
You
had
a
rough
day
been
going
since
6
a.m,
and
your
time
of
solitude
is
going
to
be.
B
Now
when
one
of
these
cars
drives
down
the
street,
it's
not
just
one
house
that
they
invade
it's
every
house
on
the
street,
hundreds
of
houses,
if
the
streets
long
enough
and
I'm
not
being
I'm
not.
You
know,
I'm
not
exaggerating
here
those
cars
invade
our
houses
with
no
good
reason.
There's
no
community
standard
that
is
improved
by
this
one
person
wanting
to
act
out
their
fast
and
furious
fantasies.
B
Okay,
you
know
we
regulate
when
construction
crews
can
begin
work
because
of
noise,
and
that
is,
that
is
a
beneficial
that
has
a
community
benefit
to
doing
road
work.
B
But
yet
these
people
as
individuals
because
they
decide
that
they
want
to
disrupt
the
the
the
solitude
and
sanctuary
of
a
neighborhood
they
get
to
do
it
and
everybody
else
has
to
suffer
one
more
anecdotal
evidence,
and
I
I
care
for
women
who
have
ptsd
and
you
you
don't
know
anger
until
you've
been
having
a
pleasant
day
with
a
person
you
care
for
you
know
at
home
it
has
ptsd
and
suddenly
one
of
these
cars
goes
by
and
that
noise
jars
them
and
now
they're
not
going
to
have
such
a
pleasant
afternoon
now
their
day
is
ruined
because
people
who
have
trauma
and
ptsd
they
get
triggered
by
loud
noises
like
that
and
I've
seen
it
happen.
B
I've
had
it
that
might
happen
to
my
loved
ones.
So,
just
because
one
person
decides
they
want
to
have
a
loud
car,
everybody
gets
affected.
There's
plenty
of
paces
in
statute,
where
that's
not
legal,
where
that's
already
been
addressed,
and
it's
time
to
address
these
vehicles
that
are
disrupting
people's
lives.
Thank
you
for
your.
B
H
I
Good
afternoon,
chair
harris
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
ariel
edwards
a-r-I-e-l-l-e
e-d-w-a-r-d-s
on
behalf
of
the
city
of
north
las
vegas,
testifying
in
support
of
senate
bill
315.,
the
city
of
north
las
vegas,
supports
this
measure
and
thanks
to
bill
sponsor
for
bringing
it
forward.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
Consideration.
H
H
H
H
A
D
D
I
certainly
have
learned
a
lot
about
the
issue
since
working
on
this
bill
and
I
believe
that
there
there
is
a
way
to
protect
automotive
enthusiasts,
who
are
trying
to
be
responsible
yet
also
strike
a
balance
so
that
our
neighborhoods
are
protected
and
our
air
is
protected,
but
that
we
we
are
trying
to
make
sure
that
that
modifications
above
a
certain
decibel
level
and
bypassing
or
deleting
the
muffler
exhaust
system
would
not
be
permitted,
and
I
believe
that
the
model
in
california
that
I
spoke
about
that,
I
believe
mr
robinson
has
emailed
the
committee
about-
is
a
good
model.
A
I
see
we
have
assembled
peters
with
us
to
present
scr8
and
sjr12,
so
I
hope
the
puc
doesn't
mind,
but
we
will
go
slightly
out
of
order
and
allow
her
to
present
her
bill,
so
she
can
get
on
with
her
business
of
the
day.
Assemblywoman
peters,
welcome
to
the
senate
growth
and
infrastructure
committee.
I'll
now
open
up
the
hearing
on
scr8.
J
Thank
you
chair,
and
I
okay,
I
have
my
co-presenter
on
here.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblywoman,
sarah
peters
representing
assembly
district
24
in
reno,
I'm
here
to
present
senate
concurrent
resolution
8
today
for
your
consideration.
J
Simply
building
more
roadways
in
the
area
surrounding
lake
tahoe
is
not
an
economically
or
environmentally
viable
solution
to
address
the
problems
of
traffic
congestion,
with
an
estimated
25
increase
in
visitation
by
2035,
which,
for
that
basin
is
a
huge
amount.
Transportation
around
the
lake
tahoe
area
will
become
an
increasingly
important
issue
to
address
and
a
more
difficult
problem
to
solve
the
longer.
We
wait
having
lived
in
this
area
all
of
my
life.
I
can
attest
to
the
impact
that
congestion
has
had
on
the
visitation
capacity
for
the
lake.
J
My
family
goes
much
less
today
than
we
did
previously
when
I
was
a
child
where
we
would
go
a
couple
of
times
every
summer
and
not
have
to
be
back
to
back
with
people
on
the
roads
or
on
the
beaches
senate
concurrent
resolution
8
requests
that
the
existing
bi-state
working
group
and
on
transportation
work
collaboratively
to
develop
a
list
of
transportation
priorities
and
projects
for
the
lake
tahoe
basin
to
be
accomplished
over
the
next
five
years
or
more.
This
list
will
be
presented
at
the
committee's
first
meeting
during
the
2021-2022
legislative
interim.
J
A
All
right
does
the
committee
have
any
questions
for
assemblywoman,
peters
or
mr.
G
It'll
start
with:
do
we
really
need
this,
but
I
understand
the
desire
so
no
questions.
Thank
you.
H
H
H
I
E-M-I-L-Y-W-A-L-S-H-
and
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
the
league
to
save
lake
tahoe
in
support
of
scr8
increasing
traffic
in
the
lake
tahoe
basin
has
negative
impacts
on
the
visitor
experience
and
quality
of
life
of
residents.
Most
importantly,
though,
the
pollution
from
these
cars
impacts
the
lake
clarity
and
quality
of
air.
I
The
league
has
been
involved
in
a
discussion
on
transportation
improvements
for
a
number
of
years,
and
our
executive
director
has
served
on
the
bi-state
working
group.
We
support
the
continued
efforts
by
the
two
states
to
craft
real
transportation
solutions
that
will
reduce
vehicle
miles
traveled
in
the
basin
and
protect
the
lake.
Thank
you.
H
B
B
This
item
is
important
and
we
appreciate
the
legislative
support
in
helping
tahu
arrive
at
the
action
it
needs
to
take
to
make
serious
advancements
in
transportation
in
the
90s.
The
big
emphasis
for
transportation
at
the
lake
was
to
address
the
retrofitter
roadways
for
water
quality
treatment
and
the
protection
of
lake
clarity.
B
B
B
B
H
I
I
I
am
the
chief
of
external
affairs
and
deputy
director
of
the
tahoe
regional
planning
agency,
and
today
I
am
speaking
on
behalf
of
trpa
to
support.
Scrh
trpa
would
like
to
thank
assemblywoman
peters
for
bringing
this
item
before
you
today,
as
well
as
the
leadership
of
senator
ratty
and
other
members
of
trpa's
legislative
oversight
committee
for
working
through
transportation
issues
during
the
interim
session.
As
the
preceding
member
of
my
team
here
in
tahoe
carl
hastie
just
suggested.
I
As
you
know,
lake
tahoe
is
the
backyard
for
northern
nevada's
growing
population
and
the
covet
19
pandemic
demonstrated
the
importance
of
public
recreational
opportunities
for
the
region.
While
many
resort
destinations
were
empty
because
of
closures,
lake
tahoe's,
beaches,
trails
and
roadways
were
crowded
with
visitors
seeking
refuge
in
the
great
outdoors
congested
hot
spots
around
the
tahoe
basin
underscored
the
vital
need
for
improved
transportation
infrastructure
to
enhance
safety,
environmental
protection
and
economic
vitality.
I
Acting
in
our
capacity
as
a
federally
designated
metropolitan
planning
organization
or
mpo
trpa's
governing
board
is
scheduled
to
vote
in
april
this
month.
On
the
update
of
the
regional
transportation
plan,
the
plan
calls
for
investment
in
transportation
projects
to
improve
transit
trails
technology
and
community
corridors
around
the
basin.
A
bi-state
consultation
working
group
is
actively
engaged
in
driving
consensus
around
funding
solutions
to
implement
this
plan.
I
H
H
H
A
J
You
I'm
glad
that
we
could
keep
that
short
and
sweet
for
you
all
this
week.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
appreciate
all
the
callers
and
support.
I
know
that
the
team-
I'm
sorry
assemblywoman
peter's
for
the
record.
I
know
that
the
team
in
the
lake
tahoe
basin
has
been
really
working
hard
to
come
up
with
solutions
for
this
large
and
somewhat
saiyan
problem
for
an
area.
J
That's
so
beautiful
and
pristine
that
we'd
like
to
keep
that
wave
while
also
addressing
equity-
and
I
just
want
to
say
that
the
interim
committee
was
presented
with
an
option
that
became
unviable
due
to
the
budget
issues
related
to
that
pandemic,
which
is
why
we
decided
to
request
this
continued
effort
despite
the
financial
challenges,
because
the
issues
of
transit
and
transportation
and
the
related
social,
economic
and
environmental
impacts
continue
to
be
to
need
our
attention
and
creativity.
A
J
You
this
has
been
my
favorite
place
today
so
far
good
afternoon
committee
members
for
the
record,
I
am
assemblywoman-
sarah
peters
representing
assembly
district
24
in
reno,
I'm
here
to
present
senate
joint
resolution
12
today
for
the
committee's
consideration,
similar
to
other
measures
I
presented
before
the
other
measure
I
commit
I
presented
before
this
committee
senate
joint
resolution.
12
is
a
result
of
the
work
accomplished
by
the
legislative
committee
for
the
review
and
oversight
of
the
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
and
the
marlette
lake
water
system
during
the
most
recent
interim,
which
we
unanimously
supported.
J
Introducing
this
measure,
the
revitalization
of
the
three-mile
section
of
the
tahoe
east
shore
trail
concluded
in
2019
and
attracted
more
than
a
1
000
daily
visitors,
as
those
who
live
in
the
area
may
have
already
appreciated
the
improvements
to
summer
transit
services
and
parking
availability
has
already
reduced
parking
along
along
the
side
of
the
road
and
the
subsequent
safety
issues
that
may
arise
from
on-street
parking.
I
did
also
get
to
experience
this
this
last
year
and
it
really
has
made
a
huge
difference.
J
This
project
began
as
collaborative
efforts
between
13
local
state
and
federal
agencies
and
resulted
in
the
2013
state
route
28
national
scenic
byway
corridor
management
plan.
In
addition
to
parking
spaces
and
improved
transit
options,
the
project
will
ensure
that
all
can
enjoy
the
stunning
scenery
by
making
trails
ada
compliant.
J
In
addition
to
requesting
the
81st
nevada
legislature's
support
of
the
prior
for
the
priority
of
the
project,
sjr
12
urges
the
united
states
congress
to
provide
the
federal
funding
necessary
for
implementing
the
remaining
elements
of
the
state
right
state
route,
28
national
scenic,
byway,
corridor
management
plan.
Completion
of
this
plan
will
provide
additional
safety
improvements.
Parking
transit
stops
emergency
pullouts,
visitor
amenities
and
environmental
improvements,
in
addition
to
offering
a
potential
opportunity
for
the
ivgid
to
conserve
resources
while
replacing
critical
infrastructure.
That
is
the
at
the
end
of
its
useful
life.
J
With
the
recent
amount
announcement
of
the
federal
infrastructure
plan
to
invest
two
trillion
dollars
in
americans,
infrastructure
sgr
12
could
go,
could
not
be
more
timely.
With
me
today
is
jim
lawrence
deputy
director
for
the
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources,
who
has
additional
information
to
share
concerning
this
measure.
I'm
available
for
questions
after
his
statements.
B
I
have
the
pleasure
of
serving
as
a
deputy
director
for
the
nevada
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources,
and
in
that
capacity
I
do
represent
the
department
on
the
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
governing
board.
I
am
I
I'm
mindful
of
your
time
and
I
know
which
week
it
is
so
I
don't.
I
won't
take
too
much
of
your
time.
I
will
add
a
little
bit
to
selling
one
peter's
testimony.
B
She
did
a
great
job
of
really
laying
it
all
out
and
the
challenges
we
have
here,
but
real
briefly,
you
know
the
east
shore,
that's
called
up
in
lake
tahoe.
It's
really
an
11
mile
stretch
between
at
the
south
end,
the
intersection
at
spooner
summit,
intersection
of
highway
50
and
28
in
the
north
end
incline
village.
B
B
B
B
B
We
have
a
lot
of
success,
so
the
71
peter
said
we
got
the
three
first
three
miles
of
the
east
shore
trail
done
it's
extremely
popular.
It
is
great
for
outdoor
recreation,
but
if
we're
really
going
to
make
a
change
regarding
transportation,
we
need
that
multi-use
path
for
the
entire
11
miles
along
with
the
parking
no
parking.
So
we
can
remove
the
off
highway
parking
and
we
need
a
shuttle
transit
service
in
place.
So
people
can
park
on
one
end
and
a
shuttle
can
take
them.
B
You
know
up
and
down
to
the
beaches
that
they
want
to
go
to
and
it's
absolutely
critical.
We
can't
widen
the
road
in
the
basin,
there's
just
nowhere
to
be
built
out
and
I
would
say
one
of
the
challenges
we
have
with
transportation
in
the
basin.
Regarding
recreation,
there's
not
a
real
good
model
for
us
to
look
at
across
the
country.
I'm
not
aware
of
any
place
as
beautiful
as
tahoe
as
popular
as
tahoe,
but
still
has
two
states.
B
Five
counties,
one
incorporated
city,
a
federal
agency
is
the
biggest
land
manager.
So
it's
the
coordination
and
collaboration
that
is
really
essential,
whether
it's
for
the
bi-state
or
for
the
seashore
trail
here.
So
we
do
think
that
there's
opportunities
coming
up
with
possible
federal
spending
packages
and
most
of
the
parking
lots
and
most
of
the
trail
work.
That's
remaining
is
on
forest
service
land.
So
supporting
this
resolution
I
think
would
be
very
helpful
to
securing
some
additional
federal
funds
needed
to
get
this
important
project
completed.
B
A
H
H
H
I
The
build
presenters
have
done
an
excellent
job
of
discussing
the
process
and
outcomes
of
the
state
route
28
corridor
management
plan.
The
east
shore
trail
has
already
become
the
crown
jewel
of
the
trail
system
in
the
lake
tahoe
basin,
and
it
is
a
great
alternative
to
the
automobile
on
the
east
side
of
the
lake.
We
support
efforts
to
complete
complete
those
trail
systems.
Thank.
H
H
B
B
B
B
H
I
Thank
you
again,
chair
harris
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
the
chief
of
external
affairs
and
deputy
director
of
the
regional
planning
agency
and
speaking
today
on
behalf
of
prpa
in
support
of
sjr
12..
The
tahoe
east
shore
trail
is
one
of
the
highest
priority
environmental
improvement
program
projects
in
the
entire
basin
and
is
also
part
of
the
transportation
action
plan
identified
by
the
bi-state
consultation
on
transportation.
I
A
H
H
A
J
Thank
you.
I
just
would
like
to
thank
my
co-presenter
and
the
committee
for
your
time
today,
and
I
urge
you
to
support
this
measure.
This
measure
may
ensure
that
the
good
work
that's
already
underway
in
the
basin
does
not
stop
now,
and
then
the
lake
tahoe
area
will
continue
to
be
a
welcome
and
and
beautiful
place
for
all
visitors.
Thank
you
guys.
A
All
right,
thanks
for
joining
us
members,
given
where
we
are
at
this
time
in
the
session,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
adopt
senate
concurrent
resolution,
eight
and
senate
joint
resolution,
12.
E
E
G
B
A
Yes
and
I'll
ask
that
we
hold
that
open
for
senator
spearman
to
record
her
vote
when
she
returns.
Thank
you
so
much.
We
will,
if
I
didn't
already
officially
close
the
hearing
on
sjr12
and
I
will
open
the
hearing
on
sb405
and
welcome
mr
weir
from
the
public
utilities.
Commission
go
ahead
and
begin
when
you're
ready.
A
Yeah,
it's
not
the
projecting.
You
know
what
we
might
have
you
do
is
call
in
and
use
the
audio
on
the
phone.
The
committee
will
be
in
recess
for
just
a
moment
to
the
call
of
the
chair
and
I'll
ask
mr
mays
and
mr
dombrowski
either
one
to
jump
on
and
assist
you
in
calling.
A
I
I
I
I
would
like
to
reiterate
that,
regardless
of
what
the
mill
cap
is
set
at
or
whether
it
is
removed,
the
legislature
will
continue
to
have
the
same
oversight
of
the
pucn
budget,
as
the
legislature
does
now.
In
fact,
this
bill
would
actually
restrict
the
pucn's
authority
by
not
allowing
us
to
set
a
rate
that
would
generate
more
revenue
than
necessary
to
fund
the
legislatively
approved
amount.
I
The
pucn
proposes
to
remove
the
mill
assessment
cap
for
several
reasons.
The
cap
is
mentioned
established
in
1981
did
not
contemplate
reductions
in
accessible
revenues
due
to
major
changes
to
the
utility
landscape,
such
as
telecommunication
customers,
transitioning
from
traditional
landline
service
to
mobile
and
internet-based
services
that
are
not
accessible
or
prolonged
reductions
of
natural
gas
prices.
I
These
reductions
and
accessible
revenues,
combined
with
the
potential
economic
effects
of
unpredictable
circumstances,
such
as
the
coven
19
pandemic,
create
uncertainty
as
to
whether
the
existing
law
will
provide
adequate
funding
for
the
bcp
and
pucn
to
perform
their
statutory
duties
and
regarding
statutory
duties.
The
pucn
performs
critical
functions:
ensuring
safe,
reliable
and
affordable
utility
service
throughout
the
state.
A
strong
and
healthy
pucn
protects
the
health
and
safety
of
nevadans
and
also
saved
ratepayers
money.
I
Over
the
last
decade,
rates
have
been
steady
or
have
declined,
making
nevada
one
of
the
lowest
rate
states
in
the
country.
An
adequately
funded
pucn
ensures
resource
adequacy,
so
nevada,
never
experiences.
Events
like
what
we
recently
saw
happen
in
texas,
where
its
legislature
restructured
its
puc
to
have
less
authority
and
oversight.
I
A
strong
and
healthy
pupn
also
ensures
that
state
policy
objectives
are
being
met.
We
are
proud
to
implement
and
enforce
policies
that
promote
renewable
energy
and
reductions
in
carbon
emissions,
and
we
can
only
continue
to
carry
out
these
duties
in
an
efficient
and
effective
manner
if
we
have
adequate
funding
and
staff.
I
The
existing
cap
is
an
unnecessary
ceiling
against
overspending,
because
the
budgets
for
the
pucn
and
the
bcp
must
be
approved
by
the
legislature.
The
pucn's
budget
is
also
subject
to
the
executive
budget
act
and
the
governor's
review
and
approval
removal
of
the
mill
cap
ensures
that
the
pucn
and
the
bcp
will
have
adequate
funding
moving
forward.
I
I
We
want
to
be
able
to
fund
and
carry
out
the
important
policies
the
legislature
passes
in
any
given
session.
As
we
have
been
and,
as
you
all
know,
there
are
very
few
assumptions
that
are
made
when
building
the
budget.
Information
used
to
create
a
budget
is
based
off
actual
expenditures
from
the
base
year.
I
I
The
mill
assessment
is
set
in
june
of
each
year,
unlike
when
a
budget
is
built
setting
the
mill
assessment
rate
is
full
of
assumptions
and
best
guesses.
The
pucn
must
reassess
the
mill
assessment
annually
to
adjust
what
it
will
collect
based
on
the
previous
year's
utility
revenue,
because
public
utility
companies
revenues
fluctuate
from
year
to
year.
I
E
Gotta
mute
myself
there
so
good
to
see
you
again
as
mullins
we,
I
know,
we've
discussed
the
bill
and
I'm
grateful
that
I
was
able
to
talk
to
you
a
little
bit
about
it
before
you
have
the
hearing
today.
Just
out
of
curiosity,
you
had
said
that
that
you
had
set
that
currently
the
caps
are
at
3.5,
mil
and
0.75
mil,
as
they're
currently
stated
here
I
know.
E
E
Is
that
one
of
the
reasons
I
know
that
yesterday
we
may
have
discussed
a
couple
other
things
too,
and
I
understand
that
maybe
you
can
explain
to
us
and
put
it
on
the
record
that
one
of
the
other
things
that
you're
trying
to
get
at
is
other
agencies.
Don't
have
the
same
sort
of
restrictions
that
you
do
and
so,
therefore,
lifting
this
would
help
you
be
in.
E
You
know
well
basically
comparable
to
everybody
else,
but
I
was
just
wondering
if
you've
actually
reached
these
caps
and
that's
one
of
the
biggest
obstacles
as
well
it.
You
know,
given
the
fact
that
you
know
a
lot
of
the
a
lot
of
the
other
agencies
out.
There
are
basically
reducing
their
expenditures
or
being
being
asked
to
reduce
their
budgets.
E
So
if
you
could
just
explain
to
me
where
we're
at
with
the
cap
and
the
the
genesis,
I
guess
behind
the
the
overall,
what
is
the
goal
that
is,
I
think,
to
be
comparable
to
everybody
else.
Is
that
is
that
correct.
I
Chair
harris
threw
you
to
senator
hammond
for
the
record
stephanie
mullen
yeah.
Thank
you
for
that
question.
While
our
agency,
the
public
utilities
commission,
has
not
currently
reached
its
cap,
the
budget
submitted
for
this
biennium
the
cap
is
set
at
free
or
I'm
sorry.
Our
assessment
rate
is
set
at
three
to
fund
our
agency
for
the
upcoming
biennium.
I
I
do
know
that
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection
has
hit
its
cap
and
is
currently
at
its
cap
at
0.75
and
has
been
for
at
least
as
long
as
I
can
remember
over
the
last
six
years
of
my
tenure
at
the
public
utilities,
commission
and
then
for
the
second
question.
I
E
It
does
thank
you
very
much
for
kind
of
making
that
more
clear.
I
think
it's
important
to
understand
both
of
those
things
right,
the
the
you're
not
at
your
cap,
but
then
again
it
may
not
be
about
being
at
the
cap
and
maybe
about
a
parody
with
other
agencies
and
making
sure
that
you
have
the
right
funds.
I
think
it's
important
to
put
that
on
the
record.
H
H
H
B
B
I'm
aware
that
both
agencies
have
increased
caseload
and
we
really
need
to
make
sure
that
they're
able
to
oversee
utility
companies
and
protect
consumers
over
the
years
that
I
have
worked
with
both
of
these
agencies.
Aarp
has
developed
a
solid
working
relationship
with
both
the
pucn
and
the
attorney
general's
bureau
of
consumer
protection,
and
we
often,
I
will
repeat,
we
often
work
collaboratively,
whether
it
be
on
regulations
or
legislation.
B
The
best
way
to
put
it
is
both
of
these
agencies,
pay
close
attention
to
the
needs
and
issues
affecting
residential,
ratepayers
I'll,
say
the
little
guy,
and
that's
really
important
that
they
do
that.
So,
for
those
reasons,
aarp
on
behalf
of
our
345
000
members
across
the
state
support
sb
405
and
urge
the
committee
to
pass
this
legislation
to
enable
both
of
these
agencies
to
continue
to
protect
residential
consumers.
Thank
you.
H
I
The
pucn
is
absolutely
the
venue
for
these
concert
conversations
to
occur
and
the
commission
is
the
regulator
for
our
state
utilities
that
will
be
responding
to
this
policy
direction.
Effective
regulation
that
protects
the
consumer,
the
environment
and
utilities,
shareholders
isn't
free.
We
support
this
bill
so
that
the
pucn
has
the
tools
they
need
to
do
their
job.
Thank.
I
H
I
Tara
harris
invites
chair
brooks
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
angie
beckman
a-n-g-I-e-d-y-k-e-m-a
and
I'm
calling
in
today
representing
the
southwest
energy
efficiency
project
to
voice
support
for
sc
405,
as
many
of
you
probably
seen
from
some
of
the
energy
bills
already
heard
in
this
committee
and
still
yet
to
be
heard.
The
world
of
energy
is
very
complex
and
it's
important
to
recognize
that
the
regulatory
environment
in
which
the
puc
operates
has
also
become
increasingly
complex
over
the
years.
I
The
number
of
policies
that
have
come
before
the
puc
has
grown
with
issues
ranging
from
rooftop,
solar
and
net
metering
to
electric
vehicles,
and
it's
important
to
allow
the
puca
the
ability
to
fund
their
legislatively
approved
budget
in
order
to
keep
up
with
these
matters
and
ensure
they
have
the
ability
to
hire
the
needed
expertise
to
knowledgeably
address
these
important
matters.
Thank
you
and
urge
your
support
for.
I
H
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
today.
My
name
is
elspeth
cordova
c-o-r-d-u-a
and
I'm
here
today
representing
the
sierra
club
and
our
more
than
forty
thousand
members
and
supporters.
Statewide
sierra
club
strongly
urges
this
committee
to
support
senate
bill
405.
I
We
often
find
ourselves
in
front
of
the
public
utilities
commission
and
also
working
with
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection
and
various
proceedings.
We
fully
support
both
the
puc
and
bcp
increasing
their
funding
to
sufficiently
fund
the
critically
important
duties
of
their
offices.
I
urge
the
committee's
support
of
sb
405.
thank.
B
H
B
B
I
am
the
consumer
advocate
and
chief
deputy
attorney
general
and
the
executive
head
of
the
bureau
of
consumer
protection.
The
bcp
supports
sb
405.
I
worked
before
the
public
utilities.
Commission
has
increased
over
the
number
of
years.
As
previously
explained,
we
can
use
the
additional
resources
to
enhance
and
ensure
adequate
funding
to
protect
our
ratepayers
in
these
complex
utility
proceedings.
H
B
H
H
H
H
H
B
Afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
this
is
dylan
keith,
d-y-l-a-n
k-e-I-t-h
policy,
analyst,
with
the
vegas
chamber.
The
chamber
initially
had
concerns
about
the
bill
regarding
transparency
and
oversight
of
how
the
mills
tax
would
be
handled
with
the
proposed
changes.
But
after
discussions
with
the
puc
it
will
still
be
legislative
oversight,
so
we
are
neutral
on
this
bill.
Thank
you
very.
H
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
matt
morris
m-a-t-t-m-o-r-r-I-s
for
the
record,
representing
nevada
resort
association.
We
are
neutral
on
senate
bill
405..
Our
membership
includes
some
of
the
largest
rate
payers
in
nevada,
who
frequently
appear
before
the
public
utilities
commission.
We
recognize
the
important
and
expanding
role
of
the
puc
in
utilities
regulation
and
protecting
the
public
interests.
B
We
also
recognize
the
important
role
of
the
attorney
general's
bureau
of
consumer
protection
and
the
role
that
it
plays
in
representing
the
interests
of
residential
rate
payers
in
utility
matters.
While
we
agree
that
these
agencies
should
be
adequately
funded,
we
are
working
with
the
bill
sponsors
to
address
concerns
with
lifting
the
mills
cap
under
nrs704.
B
H
A
Okay,
thank
you
I'll,
go
ahead
and
turn
it
back
to
you,
ms
mullen.
If
you'd
like
to
make
any
closing
comments.
I
Thank
you,
chair
harris.
I
have
no
additional
closing
comments,
but
to
thank
you
for
your
time
today.
A
All
right,
thank
you
with
that,
we'll
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
405
and
again,
given
where
we
are
in
the
session,
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
do
pass
senate
bill.
405.
B
A
Second,
from
senator
hammond
any
discussion
on
the
motion:
senator
pickard,
yes,.
G
Hey
man
chair,
I
know
you
just
asked
if
I
was
willing
to
move
the
bill
and
I'm
not
able
to
lift
it.
I
I
just
want
to
say
that
originally,
when
I
spoke
to
miss
mullen
and
and
to
mr
weir,
I
expressed
some
concerns
and
I
still
have
those
concerns
that
where
we
seem
to
be
shifting
the
burden
from
you
know
many
different
funding
sources
to
fewer
funding
sources,
and
I
think
that
that
might
have
an
effect
of
concentrating
the
responsibility
on
fewer
people.
G
Now
they
assured
me
that
we're
talking
about
the
same
population,
if
you're
paying
a
bill
for
electricity
you're,
not
paying
a
phone
bill
anymore,
but
you're,
probably
still
paying
for
electricity
under
the
present
circumstance,
I'm
okay
with
it.
I
just
it
doesn't
sit
right.
So
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
and
hope
that
they're
spot
on
correct
and
that
mr
weir
is
is
smarter
than
he
was
in
law
school.
G
So
I'm
kidding
of
course,
but
that
I
I'm
okay
with
this
as
it
is,
I'm
just
left
a
little
uncomfortable
with
that.
So
just
wanted
to
say
that,
but
I'm
prepared
to
support
the
measure
out
of
committee.
A
All
right,
thank
you
and
senator
pickard
I'll
note.
For
the
record.
A
huge
portion
of
the
public
utility
commission's
job
is
to
ensure
that
rate
payers
are
not
unfairly
and
unduly
burdened
with
their
rates,
and
so
I
believe
that
that'll
be
at
the
forefront
of
their
mind
as
they
move
forward.
G
B
A
Yes
and
again,
I'd
like
to
leave
that
open
for
senator
spearman
to
record
her
vote
when
she
arrived.
Okay,
we
closed
our
hearing
on
senate
bill
405.
The
last
thing
on
our
agenda
is
a
work
session,
but
we
are
still
awaiting
one
of
our
members
to
return,
and
so
we
will
be
in
a
oh
look
at
that.
You
put
it
out
there
and
there
she
is.
I
love
it.
Senator
spearman,
coming
through
right
on
time,
speak
of
an
angel.
That's
right!
Thank
you!
C
Thank
you,
chair
harris
for
the
record
susan
scully,
with
the
research
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
Before
we
begin
on
senate
bill
328.
I
want
to
be
sure
that
everyone
has
the
revised
version
of
the
work
session
document
and
the
revised
amendment.
C
C
Alright,
this
bill
was
sponsored
by
senator
lang
and
heard
in
this
committee
on
march
29th
senate
bill
28
revises
targets
for
energy
storage
capacity
and
requires
electric
utilities
to
include
a
plan
for
the
achievement
of
those
targets
and
sets
forth
the
conditions
under
which
the
pucn
may
waive
or
defer
a
target
or
elect
not
to
adopt
a
target.
The
bill
also
adds
certain
qualifications
in
chapter
624
governing
contractors
applicable
to
persons
who
install
these
systems.
C
The
revision
includes
for
section
three
of
the
bill
proposed
language
for
reassessment
of
the
energies
storage
targets
in
subsection,
one
which
is
a
minor
clarification
to
the
original
conceptual
amendment,
but
it
also
proposes
the
deletion
of
subsections
three
and
four
in
section
three
of
the
bill.
The
second
amendment
would
carve
out
energy
storage
installations.
In
connection
with
defined
residential
projects,
so
they
would
not
be
subject
to
the
new
certification
requirements
and
then
number
3
provides
an
effective
date
for
the
new
certification
for
commercial
installations.
Only.
C
G
Madam
chair,
just
a
brief
comment.
I
I'm
supportive
of
of
the
bill
generally,
but
given
the
neutral
testimony
where
a
bunch
of
people
said
they
needed
to
digest
the
amendments
and
we
I
haven't
heard
from
them,
so
I'm
not
going
to
hold
this
up,
but
I
do
want
to
reserve
my
right
to
change
if
they
come
back
with
anything
concerning,
I
don't
think
they
will,
but
I
just
wanted
to
just
put
that
on
the
record.
Looks
like
senator
lang
may
be
trying
to
allay
my
fears
here.
A
Senator
lang,
please
great,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
I'm
senator
pickard,
we've
had
lots
of
conversations
and
the
conversations
with
the
people
that
spoke
out
against
the
bill
predominantly
dealt
with
residential
and
that's
why,
at
this
time
we
dropped.
A
And
I
think
also
we,
instead
of
having
the
goals
and
specific
goals.
I
We
tied
it
to
the
irp
report
and
that
seemed
to
make
everyone
feel
as
long.
A
G
I
appreciate
that.
Thank
you
very
much.
I
find
you
to
be
particularly
trustworthy,
so
I'll
just
run
with
it.
A
All
right,
senator
hammond,
yes,.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
you
know
I
I
hold
the
same
reservations
after
having
the
hearing,
because
of
that
I
guess
the
discussion
over
residential
versus
commercial.
I
understood
senator
lang's
testimony
just
now
her
her
trustworthiness
not
withstanding.
I
I'm
just
gonna,
be
you
know,
just
a
little
hesitant
I'll,
say
I'll
support
the
measure
now,
but
just
kind
of
reserve,
my
right
to
make
sure
I
understand
better
after
digesting
this
and
going
over
some
other
folks
as
well,
but
good
job.
A
All
right
with
that,
the
secretary
could
please
call
the
role
senator.
G
A
A
Fyi
all
assigned
the
floor
statement
of
senate
bill
328.2
senator
lange,
the
sponsor
miss
goalie.
C
C
It
is
a
two-page
document
dated
april
5th
and
before
we
go
on,
I
would
like
to
turn
over
the
microphone
to
eileen
o'grady,
our
legal
counsel,
to
address
the
digest
issue.
Thank
you.
A
Hi,
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
there's
an
error
in
both.
C
A
G
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure,
and
not
so
much
a
question
as
a
comment.
I
certainly
appreciate
miss
mellon
and
mr
weir
and
and
their
willingness
to
debate
this
issue.
I
just
can't
get
past
the
idea
of
robbing
a
judge
who
thinks
they
need
more
information,
the
ability
to
get
it.
So
I
will
be
a
no.
I
think
it's
a
mistake
to
remove
this
discretion
entirely
from
the
court.
Thank
you.
A
A
G
A
Yes,
and
with
that
the
motion
passes,
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
senator
spearman
all
right.
Mrs
golia
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
you
to
walk
us
through
senate
bill
288.
C
C
This
bill
defines
the
term
monitored
autonomous
vehicle
as
one
with
a
safety
engineer
who
is
physically
present
in
the
vehicle
when
it
is
in
operation.
The
bill
authorizes
tnc's
transportation
network
companies
to
enter
into
agreement
with
a
provider
of
monitored
autonomous
vehicles
to
provide
services
to
the
tnc.
C
Unlike
tnc
drivers,
safety
engineer
may
be
controlled
by
the
mav.
I
can
use
the
acronym
provider
and
only
the
mav
provider
may
compensate
the
safety
engineer.
The
tnc
that
is
entered
into
an
agreement
must
provide
reports
on
crashes
to
the
nta,
the
nevada
transportation
authority,
maintain
insurance
and
maintain
other
re
records,
as
spelled
out
in
the
bill.
The
nta
will
compile
a
report
on
coverage
limits
and
aggravate
aggregated
information
on
crashes,
to
submit
to
the
legislative
commission
and
the
legislature
in
odd
and
even
numbered
years
respectively.
C
The
bill
also
prohibits
a
mav
provider
from
deceiving
passengers
or
taking
them
to
a
different
destination
and
requires
them
to
be
given
a
license
plate
before
the
passenger
enters
the
vehicle.
The
nevada
transportation
authority
may
only
impose
an
administrative
fine
if
the
violation
is
unrelated
to
chapter
482,
a
which
governs
autonomous
vehicles.
Also
local
governments
are
prohibited
from
imposing
a
tax
or
fee
on
a
monitored
autonomous
vehicle.
C
The
bill
makes
a
number
of
other
conforming
changes
to
the
nrs,
incorporating
all
these
changes
at
the
hearing,
motional
inc
submitted
proposed
amendments
and,
after
the
hearing
in
consultation
with
the
legal
division,
further
amendments
were
discussed
with
the
intent
of
facilitating
the
incorporation
of
the
mav
concept
into
the
existing
transportation
network
company's
statutes.
C
A
conceptual
amendment
is
attached,
which
is
dated
april
6th
and
basically
explains
how
the
original
provisions
of
the
bill
will
be
translated
into
the
existing
statutes,
and
if
there
are
questions
I
there
are
others
here
better
able
to
answer
them
than
me.
A
Thank
you,
miss
scully,
it
does
look
like.
We
have
a
question
from
senator
pickard
I'll
note
that
we
have
mr
walker
on
as
well
as
maybe,
hopefully
he
might
be
able
to
tag
in
miss
o'grady
of
things.
Get
too
rough.
Senator
picker.
G
I
hope
they
won't
be
too
rough.
We
addressed
this
in
the
hearing
and
I'm
looking
at
the
conceptual
amendment,
paragraph
three
and
I'm
wondering
if
we're
maybe
introducing
some
ambiguity
again
during
the
hearing.
The
testimony
was
that
the
whatever
we
call
them
the
safety
engineer,
the
monitor
whatever
we
want
to
call
him
for
purposes
of
of
liability.
G
If
one
of
these
things
gets
in
a
wreck,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
other
person
in
the
wreck,
if
they're,
not
at
fault,
is
protected,
and
so
we
they
testified
that
they
are,
for
all
intents
and
purposes,
the
driver
of
the
vehicle,
because
the
designation
driver
is
important
under
three.
It
looks
like
the
tnc
is
going
to
maintain
the
insurance
coverage,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
not,
you
know
grounds
to
circumvent
the
policy.
G
If
the
insurance
company
comes
back
and
says,
hey,
that's
not
our
employee,
we're
not
responsible
for
them.
This
is
not
a
covered
incident,
and
now
we've
got
somebody
potentially
without
that
kind
of
liability
coverage,
that's
required
by
law.
G
So
I
want
to
make
sure
we
have
a
very
clear
record
here
that
the
third
party
is
going
to
be
protected
and
that,
whether
it's
the
mav
or
the
tnc
that
there's
going
to
be
proper
insurance
coverage
in
place
and
not
not
something
that
can
be
skirted
by
the
the
insurance
company.
I
mean
insurance
companies,
don't
become
the
largest
financial
institutions
in
the
world
by
paying
a
lot
of
claims.
So
I
want
to
make
sure
they're
protected.
A
Senator
pickard
I'll
make
one
note
for
the
record
and
then
I'll
turn
it
over
to
mr
walker
for
further
explanation.
In
in
current
operations,
tncs
mostly
have
their
drivers
as
independent
contractors,
and
so
the
employee
relationship
doesn't
exist,
and
so
anytime,
a
tnc
has
insurance.
That
is
well.
You
know
kind
of
well
established
in
practice,
but
all
sure.
G
And
that's
typically,
my
understanding
is:
that's,
typically,
an
umbrella
policy
in
case
the
the
driver
or
the
the.
In
this
case
the
independent
contractor
is
underinsured,
so
it
keeps
them
out
of
trouble,
but
that's
not
the
primary
source
of
liability
protection
and
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
not
creating
a
loophole
that
these
guys
are
going
to
be
on
the
hook.
K
Thank
you,
chair
harris
and
thank
you
for
the
question.
Senator
picker,
matt
walker,
on
behalf
of
motional,
for
the
record.
As
the
as
the
amendment
indicates,
we
sort
of
came
at
the
initial
draft,
squeezing
a
round
peg
into
a
or
square
peg
into
a
round
hole
in
terms
of
the
tnc
making
this
service
available
and
offering
this
service
when,
in
fact,
the
contractual
relationship
simply
allows
for
the
monitored
autonomous
vehicle
service
to
have
this.
K
Similarly,
and
as
you
were
able
to
draw
out
on
the
record
in
this
case,
the
monitored
autonomous
vehicle
service
is
going
to
perform
the
function
and
role
of
the
the
driver
in
terms
of
the
the
required
insurance,
and
so
I
think
that
this
amendment
will
much
more
cleanly
capture
that
concept
and
ensure
that
the
monitored
autonomous
vehicle
service
provides
vehicle
coverage
for
the
vehicles
it
uses
and
offers
on
these
platforms.
K
Additionally,
the
policies,
while
similar
in
nature,
will
not
be
underwritten
on
a
safety
engineer
by
safety
engineer
basis,
but
will
absolutely
fully
serve
this
function
as
they
currently
do
with
other
drivers
on
the
road
under
706.
A
I
think
this
will
be
a
much
cleaner
construct
once
you
see
the
final
language
and
appreciate
you
allowing
me
to
make
the
record
on
that,
and
since
I'm
interrupting
and
chiming
in,
I
just
also
wanted
to
add
that.
K
So,
while
where
the
original
bill
considered
the
tnc
controlling
and
managing
the
safety
engineer,
this
will
more
cleanly
show
that
the
chain
of
custody
of
the
folks
employed
by
these
types
of
services
and
their
management
by
the
monitored
autonomous
vehicle
service
provider
and
also
provide
that,
whether
it's
for
business,
regulatory
or
other
safety
reasons,
the
transition
between
706,
a
and
706
b,
is
going
to
be
based
on
whether
there's
a
monitored
autonomous
vehicle,
a
safety
engineer
in
the
vehicle
and
not
the
trigger
under
the
previous
iteration
of
the
statute,
where
the
capabilities
of
the
vehicle,
whether
it
was
a
level
four
level,
five
we're
going
to
dictate,
whether
it
transitioned
back
and
forth
from
706a
to
706p.
K
So
again,
I
think
we're
closing
a
lot
of
loopholes
and
again
want
to
give
my
sincere
appreciation
to
astr
killian
and
the
folks
at
lcb
who
had
a
long
conversation
with
us
over
the
weekend
that
allowed
us
to
get
where
we
are
on
this
amendment.
Today.
G
A
E
A
Yes,
motion
passes
unanimously.
I
will
go
ahead
and
kick
it
back
to
you.
Miss
goalie,
to
walk
us
through
senate
bill.
A
C
C
This
bill
addresses
the
regulation
of
contractors
installing
photovoltaic
systems
for
residential
use,
the
bill,
details,
qualifications
required
to
perform
installations
of
these
systems
and
who
may
solicit
or
advise
upon
receipt
of
a
down
payment
or
a
deposit
of
one
thousand
dollars
or
ten
percent
of
the
aggregate
contract
price.
Whichever
is
less
the
bill
requires
a
contractor
to
begin
work
within
30
days
of
issuance
of
all
permits
unless
the
owner
agrees
to
a
different
period.
C
C
At
the
hearing,
the
bill
sponsor
submitted
a
proposed
amendment
which,
if
I
can
summarize,
after
talking
to
the
state
contractor
board
attorney,
it
clarified
definitions
and
the
role
of
the
lead
generator.
The
proposed
amendment
that
was
heard
at
the
hearing
removed
some
specificity
regarding
matters
to
be
adopted
and
regulations,
and
it
removed
provisions
relating
to
financing
due
to
the
complexity
of
the
issue.
C
After
the
hearing,
this
amendment
was
revised
and
that
revision
is
the
one
attached
to
the
work
session
cover
sheet
going
through
that.
The
major
changes
from
the
original
proposed
amendment
are
the
addition
of
single-family
residence
after
owner
to
better
clarify
who
is
covered
number
two.
There
are
several
appropriate
references
added
to
chapter
598,
the
sections
relating
to
deceptive
trade
practices,
as
they
pertain
to
distributive
generation
systems.
C
G
G
A
A
A
A
E
G
A
Yes,
motion
passes.
I
will
assign
the
floor
statement
to
sandra
hammond
yay
all
right
miss
skull.
If
you
could
walk
us
through
senate
bill
383,
I
can
see
the
end
of
I
can
see
the
proverbial
light
at
the
end
of
the
proverbial
tunnel.
We're
almost
there
guys.
C
C
This
bill
revises
definitions
applicable
to
electric
bicycles,
which
I
will
call
e-bikes
from
here
on
out.
It
creates
three
classes
of
e-bikes
and
makes
conforming
changes
to
statutes
throughout
the
nrs
referencing
bicycles.
The
measure
also
clarifies
that
e-bikes
can
ride
where
other
bicycles
are
permitted,
except
as
otherwise
specified
or
prohibited
in
state
or
federal
law.
It
allows
a
local
government
or
a
state
agency
to
prohibit
the
use
of
e-bikes
or
classes
of
e-bikes
on
shared
use
paths
as
needed
to
protect
the
health
and
safety
or
to
comply
with
other
laws
or
legal
obligations.
C
It
allows
a
local
government
or
state
agency
to
regulate
the
use
of
e-bikes
on
natural
surface
trails
designed
for
non-motorized
use.
The
bill
also
prohibits
a
person
15
years
of
age
or
younger
from
operating
a
class
3
e-bike.
It
requires
operators
and
passengers
of
a
class
3
e-bike
to
wear
a
bike.
Helmet
requires
compliance
with
federal
manufacturing
and
equipment
standards
and
certain
labeling
by
manufacturers
and
distributors.
C
It
requires
certain
equipment
and
prohibits
tampering
with
that
equipment.
It
also
adds
bikes
to
provisions
relating
to
property
owners,
liability
for
recreational
bicycling
on
their
property
as
set
forth
in
chapter
41
of
the
nrs
and
adds
e-bikes
to
the
list,
which
also
includes
bikes
and
e-scooters
for
crimes
against
property.
In
chapter
205.,
there
were
several
amendments
proposed
at
the
hearing
at
the
hearing.
People
for
bikes
coalition,
who
were
the
genesis
of
the
idea
for
the
bill,
submitted
two
proposed
amendments
to
section
nine.
C
C
A
C
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
goalie
and
I
just
want
to
clarify
for
the
record
that
people
for
bikes
does
find
the
first
piece
of
that
last
amendment
friendly.
Just
not
the
label
portion,
is
that
correct
for
the
record
susan
fisher.
Yes,
oh
great,
thank
you.
Miss
fisher,
all
right
with
that
I'll,
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
senate
bill
383
with
all
of
the
amendments
as
discussed,
except
for
the
labeling
provision.
A
E
I
find
my
mute
here,
so
you
know,
after
reviewing
I
remember
sitting
through
the
testimony.
The
biggest
reservation
I
had
was
when
we
got
to
the
differences
between
the
tiers,
the
I
guess.
It's
just
a
lot
of
regulation
and
sometimes
I
look
at
the
regulation
and
I
try
to
figure
out.
Is
it
necessary
or
not
and
when
we're
looking
at
whether
or
not
somebody
could.
E
Ride
on
a
tier,
3
bike,
I
believe
it
was
that
was
about
eight
miles
an
hour
faster
than
a
tier
two
or
tier
one.
I
just
at
that
point.
I
start
to
wonder
how
much
regulation
do
we
need
in
this
area,
and
for
that
reason
I
just
I'm
not
I'm
not
that
comfortable
with
the
bill.
So
I'm
just
going
to
be
a
no
today,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
put
that
on
the
record.
G
They.
They
even
testified
that
there's
zero
data
to
support
the
need-
and
you
know
I
can
just
imagine
a
police
officer,
stopping
this
kid
and
saying
you
know.
Let
me
look
at
the
label.
Is
this
a
class
two
or
a
class
three?
And
I
mean
it's
just.
I
think
this
is
totally
unnecessary.
It's
an
overreach
by
government
to
get
into
that.
The
heads
of
the
the
parents
that's
their
job,
I'm
a
no
on
this.
A
J
A
Yes,
and
with
that,
the
motion
carries
senator
pickard.
I
was
gonna,
let
you
in
on
the
fun
for
the
floor
statement,
but
given
that
you
were
a
no,
I
will
double
up
on
senator
brooks
if
that's
okay
with
you
vice
chair.
A
H
A
All
right,
thank
you
before
we
close
it
out,
I'd
like
to
offer
senator
spearman
the
opportunity
to
put
your
vote
on
the
record.
We
voted
out
scr,
eight
sjr12
and
sb405
in
your
absence.
If
the
secretary
will
walk
us
through
we'll
start
with
scr8
sandra
spearman,.
A
Yes,
all
right
scr,
12,
that's
jr12!
Excuse
me
yes
and
sp405.
Yes,
okay,
I
will
assign
the
floor
statements
for
those
senate
bill
405.
I
will
take
scr8.