►
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
A
Here
please
note:
there
are
three
members
present,
please
mark
senator
spearman
and
hammond
present
as
they
arrive.
Given
we
do
not
have
all
of
our
members.
We
will
start
off
with
the
hearing,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
open
the
hearing
for
senate
bill
442
and
welcome
the
governor's
office
of
energy
to
the
senate
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure.
Go
ahead
and
begin
when
you
are.
C
Thank
ready,
chair
harris
members
of
the
committee
david
boxing
for
the
record
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
energy
and
I'm
joined
today
by
robin
yocum,
who
is
the
program
manager
overseeing
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
sb
442,
which
prospectively
eliminates
the
program
to
provide
the
partial
abatement
of
property
taxes
for
certain
buildings
and
structures
which
meet
certain
energy
efficiency
standards.
We
are
talking
about
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program.
You
will
often
you
hear
the
shorthand
gbta.
C
Robin
yoakam
will
walk
us
through
sort
of
the
logic
and
the
rationale
behind
our
recommendation
to
essentially
retire
the
program.
I
will
say
that
this
is
a
prospective
retirement.
Existing
abatements
certainly
will
continue.
I
will
also
flag
that
jumping
to
the
end
of
the
bill,
the
effective
date
of
this
legislation
is
upon
passage.
C
You
will
be
hearing
testimony
later
from
the
nevada
resort
association
indicating
an
interest
in
exploring
a
later
effective
date.
We
have
started
a
conversation
with
the
organization
and
have
not
come
to
an
agreement
just
yet,
but
we
look
forward
to
working
with
them
to
see
if
we
can
figure
something
out
on
that
front.
So
with
that,
madam
chair,
I
would
like
to
turn
it
over
to
ms
yocum
to
walk
us
through
the
slide
deck
that
she's
prepared,
providing
the
rationale
behind
this
legislation.
C
D
Thank
you,
director,
bob
zion
and
good
afternoon,
chair
harris
and
members
of
the
committee
robin
yocum
for
the
record
program
manager
with
the
governor's
office
of
energy.
Thank
you
again
for
allowing
us
to
present
this
bill
to
you
today
before
we
review
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program.
I
would
like
to
give
you
some
context
about
the
international
energy
conservation
code
or
iucc
nrs
701.220
directs
the
goe
to
adopt
the
most
recently
published
version
of
the
iecc
every
three
years.
D
D
D
Now
I
would
like
to
dive
into
the
gbta
program
and
how
energy
codes
have
a
role
in
awarding
the
abatements
in
2005.
The
gbta
program
was
enacted
to
address
an
energy
market
substantially
different
than
today's.
It
provided
an
incentive
to
business
owners
to
increase
the
efficiency
of
the
built
environment
in
the
state
in
an
effort
to
bring
new
businesses
and
jobs
into
nevada.
D
D
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
abatements
are
awarded
for
achieving
certification
through
either
the
lead
or
green
globe's
rating
systems
per
current
statute
and
out
of
221
projects
receiving
an
abatement
or
that
have
received
an
abatement.
85
have
been
awarded
an
abatement
utilizing
the
lead
rating
system
and
136
projects
have
utilized
the
green
gloves
rating
system.
D
D
This
analysis
was
emailed
to
the
committee
yesterday
and
is
uploaded
in
nellis
as
one
of
the
attachments
in
a
few
slides
I'll
show
you
a
graph
that
shows
this
comparison
during
the
analysis
performed.
It
was
noted
that
upon
adoption
of
the
2018
iecc,
the
first
tier
for
the
abatement
for
new
construction
was
simply
compliant
with
the
required
codes
again
I'll
show
you
this
comparison
in
just
a
few
slides.
D
The
energy
points
dictate
the
term
of
the
abatement
which
are
calculated,
based
on
a
percentage
of
improvement
over
the
baseline
of
the
2012
iecc
or
ashrae
90.1-2010
standard,
to
receive
at
least
five
points
depending
on
the
project
type.
The
project
must
achieve
an
improvement
somewhere
between
seven
percent
to
fourteen
percent.
Over
that
baseline
seven
points
would
require
an
eleven
to
eighteen
percent
improvement
above
the
baseline
and
11
points,
which
is
the
top
tier,
require
19
to
26
improvement
above
the
baseline.
D
D
So
this
graph
is
showing
the
comparison
of
the
baselines
and
the
adopted
codes.
This
graph
depicts
the
minimum
and
maximum
required
percentage
of
improvements
over
the
baseline
to
achieve
the
required
points,
as
you
can
see
in
the
green
bar,
the
minimum
percentages,
depending
on
the
points
range
from
7
to
19,
and
the
dark
blue
bar
ranges
from
14
to
26
again,
depending
on
the
points
achieved.
D
The
percentages
do
differ
between
project
types,
which
is
why
there's
an
overlap
in
the
five
and
seven
oep
points
awarded
currently
in
the
adoption
of
the
2018.
Achieving
five
points
awards
an
abatement
for
being
less
efficient
than
the
2018
iecc,
as
shown
in
this
graph,
which
again
is
only
fifteen
percent
of
the
projects.
D
The
seven
points
represent
sixty
one
percent
of
the
project,
which
is
either
slightly
below
the
2018
or
slightly
higher
and
upon
adoption
of
the
2021
energy
codes.
These
projects
are
going
to
be
about
8
percent,
less
efficient
than
the
2021
iecc,
so
achieving
11
points
or
higher,
which
represents
again
a
small
portion
of
it,
which
is
only
about
19
of
the
projects,
achieves
a
higher
level
of
efficiency
over
the
2018.
D
But,
as
you
can
see
upon,
adoption
of
the
2021
iecc.
Achieving
the
11
points
awards
an
abatement
for
being
compliant
with
the
state
adopted
code
and,
again
that's
depending
on
the
percentage
improvement
over
the
life
of
the
program.
Less
than
15
percent
of
the
projects
eligible
for
an
abatement
have
achieved
a
26
savings
over
the
2012
iecc.
D
Lastly,
we
would
like
to
review
some
of
the
challenges
with
the
with
the
gbta
program,
since
the
enactment
of
nrs701a
in
2005.
Both
new
construction
and
existing
product
building
projects
could
participate
in
the
program.
However,
in
2011
existing
buildings
were
taken
out
and
only
new
construction
projects
could
apply.
D
The
program
was
drastically
modified
during
the
2007
session
to
address
concerns
that
had
arisen
after
the
enactment
of
the
program
so
prior
to
2013,
there
was
no
cap
on
the
abatement
awarded
for
existing
buildings.
However,
after
the
2013
session
and
the
enactment
of
ab33,
a
cap
of
100
000
per
year
was
implemented,
and
that
was
per
project.
D
D
So
there
have
been
multiple
challenges
with
this
program
since
inception,
ranging
from
a
potential
drain
on
the
local
government's
budget,
which
was
addressed
in
ab33,
awarding
abatements
to
condominium
projects
without
requiring
the
owners
to
continue
or
improve
the
efficiency
of
the
condo
and
allowing
a
single
building
to
receive
multiple
abatements
increasing
the
amount
of
abated
taxes
beyond
the
established
cap.
Both
of
these
challenges
were
addressed
through
regulation
in
2019.
D
If
this
bill
does
not
pass
upon
adoption
of
the
2021
iecc,
the
state
will
award
abatements
to
building
owners
for
complying
with
the
building
code
or
even
being
less
sufficient
than
the
adopted
code
in
2024
goe
and
local
governments
will
adopt
the
2024
iecc,
which
will
again
increase
the
efficiency
of
the
code.
Perpetuating
the
cycle
goe
has
concluded
that
the
original
intent
of
the
program
is
no
longer
being
met
with
increased
adoption
of
required
energy
codes,
and
with
that
we
thank
you
for
your
time
and
we'll
stand
for
any
questions.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I'm
trying
to
make
sure
I
understand
what's
happening
so
just
to
simplify
or
summarize
it
sounds
like
the
as
the
iecc
improves
and
more
jurisdictions
adopt
the
iecc
as
a
minimum
standard.
E
C
Chair
harris
for
the
record
david
bob
saying
through
you
to
senator
pickard
and.
E
Okay
and,
and
so
as
I
understood
and
mind
you-
I
came
from
the
development
world
before
I
went
to
law
school,
so
I'm
very
familiar
with
green
globes
and
and.
E
You
know
we
used
to
hire
professionals,
you
know
architects
and
engineers
that
were
leed,
certified
and,
and
I've
been
part
of
those
kind
of
projects,
so
I'm
pretty
familiar
with
it.
E
But
my
understanding
of
the
in
the
the
purpose
of
the
abatement
was
to
incentivize
better
than
standard
construction,
and
so,
unless
you're
saying
that
the
iecc
is
currently
hitting
it
at
absolute
maximum
efficiency
that
we
could
not
expect
to
get
better
than
that.
Why
wouldn't
we
continue
to
incentivize
better
than
standard
development?
E
Instead,
what
you're
doing
is
you're
removing
the
financial
incentive,
because
I
can
tell
you
it's
more
expensive
to
build
to
higher
than
standard
construction
than
standard
construction,
it
just
it
costs
more,
and
so,
if
we
don't
give
a
developer
an
incentive
to
spend
that
money
on
the
development,
knowing
that
he
can
still
be
profitable
or
she
can
still
be
profitable
in
that
development,
aren't
we
kind
of
undermining
the
whole
move
towards
efficiency
and
merely
saying
okay?
Now
everybody
has
to
just
meet
the
standard
and
we're
doing
away
with
an
incentive
to
to
do
better
than.
C
Standard,
thank
you
senator
picker,
for
the
question
david
bobzin
for
the
record.
That
is
the
conversation
that
is
in
the
future,
and
it's
a
very
important
one.
I
think
what
you
have
before
you
with
this
bill
is
a
recognition
that,
yes,
the
current
program
is
quickly
going
to
become
obsolete.
C
As
these
later
editions
of
the
iecc
are
adopted
and
are
more
efficient,
I
am
an
optimist
that
that
trajectory
of
ever
more
efficient
code
versions
has
not
hit
a
ceiling,
and
we
will
see
over
time
further
gains
and
to
the
the
point
about
incentivizing
high
performance
buildings,
we're
very
much
interested
in
having
that
conversation
and,
of
course,
the
nevada
climate
strategy
certainly
recognizes
the
very
large
share
of
our
greenhouse
gas
emissions
profile.
C
The
built
environment
takes
up
so
at
some
point
we
are
going
to
have
to
ask
what
do
we
do
to
go
beyond
and
partner
with
developers
in
the
development
community
to
make
sure
that
we
are
creating
a
space
where
people
can
really
excel
and
go
beyond
and
and
and
really
strive
for
for
for
high
performance
buildings?
C
That
said,
we
did
not
believe
that,
given
the
history
of
the
program,
the
challenges
that
ms
yogam
laid
out,
that
this
office
has
repeatedly
tried
to
get
out
ahead
of
with
different
regulatory
changes
that
we
really
kind
of
had
to
do
a
level
set,
stop
the
current
program,
and
then
we
could
set
the
stage
for
a
subsequent
conversation
about
what
is
next
and
so
senator.
We
look
forward
to
working
with
you
and
other
members
of
the
legislature
in
the
future
to
revisit
this
topic.
E
Usually
we
get
a
dodge
on
when
we're
talking
about
eliminating
what
has
been
a
very
successful
program,
but
I
I
just
I
I
wonder:
if
we're
putting
the
cart
before
the
horse,
my
you
know,
I,
I
can
tell
you
as
a
developer
and
you
know
particularly
rep,
where
I
was
working
with
those
where
we
were
trying
to
build
better
than
standard
construction
from
the
start.
E
It
still
came
down
to
a
money-making
proposition.
If
we
couldn't
make
a
profit,
we
couldn't
do
it,
and
so
there
were
many
things
that
we
elected
not
to
do,
because
we
simply
couldn't
afford
it
now,
you're,
making
it
even
harder,
and
so
rather
than
saying
okay,
we
recognize
that
under
the
current
regs,
this
program
ultimately
would
be
too
expensive
to
the
localities.
E
So
why
not
come
up
with
a
new
standard
to
beat
and-
and
you
know,
tag
this-
you
know-
maintain
the
abatements
future
abatements
to
those
that
are
still
better
than
standard
we're
going
to
adopt
a
higher
standard,
but
will
still
incentivize
better
than
standard.
Instead
of
just
saying
we're
eliminating
the
incentive
altogether,
because
that
will
I
will
guarantee
it
that
will
slow
the
progress
so
you're,
essentially
putting
the
brakes
on
green
development
without
having
a
new
standard
to
to
move
toward.
So
you
know
I.
C
C
The
point
is:
if
the
legislature
doesn't
act
on
this
legislation,
we
will
essentially
be
providing
in
very
short
order
incentives
for
construction
that
is
meeting
the
minimum
standard,
and
I
think
that
that
is
not
a
situation
that
any
of
us
would
want
to
be
in.
C
I
agree
with
the
hope
for
the
future
that
we
can
revisit
this
and
move
the
goal
posts
if
you
will
to
make
sure
that
there's
some
sort
of
incentive
package
that
is
available
to
partner
with
the
development
community,
so
that
we
can
incentivize
higher
performing
buildings,
but
I
would
argue
that
moving
those
goal
posts
is
not
a
matter
of
just
okay.
Do
we
pick
10
yards
down
the
field
and
just
move
it?
C
I
think
it's
gonna
be
a
far
more
complex
conversation
than
just
us
coming
to
the
legislature
as
an
agency
and
saying
hey
here
are
the
goal
posts
and
we
think
we
should
move
them
forward
this
far.
That
said,
like
I
said,
we
stand
ready
to
have
that
conversation
with
the
development
community
with
those
that
are
interested
in
green
building
to
see
if
there
is
a
a
future
program
that
we
can
look
at,
particularly
in
the
context
of
meeting
our
state's
clinicals.
A
Any
additional
questions:
okay,
not
seeing
any,
we
will
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
testimony.
Is
there
anyone
in
the
room
who'd
like
to
testify
in
support
of
this
bill,
not
seeing
any?
I
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom,
but
I'll
just
quickly.
Ask
anyone
on
zoom
want
to
turn
the
camera
on
and
testify
in
support
of
this
bill.
A
Okay,
bps!
Could
you
please
see
if
there's
anyone
on
the
phone
who'd
like
to
testify
and
support.
F
F
G
Good
afternoon,
chair
harris
vice
chair,
brooks
and
members
of
the
of
the
committee,
I'm
a
senior
scientist
at
the
natural
resources.
Defense
council
nrdc
works
to
safeguard
the
earth,
its
people,
its
planet
and
its
plants
and
animals,
and
the
natural
systems
on
which
all
life
depends.
We
have
around
25
000
members
and
online
activists
in
the
state
of
nevada.
G
Nrdc
supports
centerville
442
for
for
a
couple
of
reasons.
First,
the
green,
building's
tax
abatement
program-
you
know-
might
have
served
a
purpose
in
the
past,
but
right
now
is
not
providing
good
bang
for
the
buck.
G
Second
continuously,
updating
and
strengthening
building
energy
codes
is
a
better
way
to
ensure
that
nevada's
new
buildings,
large
and
small,
are
built
right
the
first
time.
This
is
because
these
codes
apply
to
all
buildings
and
are
designed
at
the
outset
to
ensure
that
builders
install
cost-effective,
energy-efficient
appliances
and
building
insulation.
G
Every
building
today
that
is
not
built
efficiently
is
a
costly
retrofit
that
we're
going
to
have
to
make
down
the
road
as
we
further
reduce
greenhouse
gas
emissions
to
address
climate
change,
we
strongly
urge
you
to
support
senate
bill
442
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to.
G
F
H
The
program
resulted
in
higher
energy
efficiency
and
sustainability
standards
and
many
large
projects
in
nevada,
and
we
are
proud
to
work
with
this
body
to
adjust
these
abatements
in
the
2007
session.
However,
it
is
clear
that
the
program
has
outlived
its
usefulness.
The
clear
path
forward
is
to
adopt
higher
energy
conservation
standards
that
take
advantage
of
all
cost-effective
energy
efficiency
members
measures
and
start
to
move
towards
net
zero
building
in
the
near
future.
H
We
would
like
to
see
local
governments
move
forward
with
adopting
the
most
recent
version
of
the
international
energy
conservation
code
and
add
provisions
to
make
buildings
electrification
ready,
including
charging
infrastructure
for
electric
vehicles.
We
must
reduce
our
carbon
pollution
from
buildings
if
we
are
to
meet
our
state's
climate
goals
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
this
body,
the
governor's
office
of
energy
and
our
local
governments.
To
make
this
happen,
we
urge
your
report
on
sb
442.
F
F
I
I
Cosmos.
The
oklahoma
director
of
the
end
were
explaining
when
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program
was
started
in
2005,
it
was
to
reward
properties
for
leed
certification
or
sustainable
building
practices
above
and
beyond
required
building
codes,
and
while
we
definitely
support
energy
efficiency
measures
in
sustainable
buildings,
the
gbta
program
has
read
its
course
and
it
no
longer
promotes
the
very
goals
that
it
was
designed
to
achieve.
I
The
program
was
first
started.
Properties
received
tax
abatements
for
showing
that
they
built
to
standards
above
and
beyond
the
adopted
code
at
the
time
that
was
the
2009
iecc,
but
over
the
years
as
the
governor's
office
of
energy
has
adopted,
the
latest
version
of
the
iecc,
something
of
which
we're
very
supportive.
I
The
green
building
rating
system
just
did
not
keep
up,
and
today
we
have
a
program
that
is
unfortunately
rewarding
multi-million
dollar
companies
for
essentially
building
their
properties
to
the
current
required
code,
the
2018
iecc
or,
in
some
cases,
actually
less
efficient
than
the
current
code.
These
tax
dollars
should
be
kept
in
the
communities
and
used
for
essential
services,
rather
than
given
away
as
multi-million
dollar
tax
abatements
to
properties
that
haven't
proven
sustainable
building
practices
above
and
beyond
the
current
requirements
of
law.
F
F
F
J
We
greatly
appreciate
their
collaboration
with
us
as
we
work
together
to
reach
the
state's
climate
goals.
Nevada's
resort
industry
has
a
proud
history
of
leadership
and
environmental
sustainability.
The
strong
advocate
for
a
sustainable
future.
The
industry
has
created
world-class
programs
to
protect
the
planet
and
promote
clean
energy.
J
Our
members
continually
review
and
refine
their
operations
to
identify
further
ways
to
reduce
greenhouse
gases
and
carbon
emissions,
lower
energy
and
water
consumption,
and
divert
more
waste
when
developing
new
projects,
our
members
put
sustainability
and
renewable
energy
at
the
forefront
through
sustainable
design
and
construction.
The
resort
industry
leads
the
way
in
green
building.
J
Many
resort
projects
have
received
leed,
certification
or
other
prestigious
environmental
awards
and
accolades
just
as
one
example
of
the
industry's
many
innovations,
mgm
resorts
built
america's
largest
contiguous
rooftop
solar
array
on
top
of
the
mandalay
bay
convention
center.
I
could
cite
many
more
examples
of
our
members
work,
but
that
would
take
much
longer
than
my
two
minutes.
J
Many
of
these
best-in-class
developments
in
the
resort
industry
built
were
only
possible
because
of
the
green
building
tax
abatement
program.
In
fact,
this
successful
program
has
helped
make
nevada
a
leader
in
green
building.
We
recognize
that
times
have
changed
and
this
program
may
no
longer
provide
the
benefits
of
the
senate.
It
first
did
so.
We
understand
the
intent
behind
sb442,
we're
here
in
neutral
to
ask
for
clarification
on
the
timing
of
the
effective
date
to
ensure
that
those
projects
already
approved
or
in
development
pipeline
be
allowed
to
participate
in
the
program.
J
As
you
know,
the
planning
and
design
phase
of
a
project
can
involve
a
substantial
investment,
maybe
project
already
in
the
pre-submittal
phase.
That
would
be
heard
by
the
proposed
timeline
to
eliminate
the
program.
We
ask
that
you
consider
an
extended
effective
date
to
protect
those
projects
and
investments
underway
two
weeks,
given
that
this
passes
and
which
it
looks
like
it
will
two
weeks
effective
date,
wouldn't
be
a
lot
of
notice
for
projects
that
may
have
spent
months,
if
not
years
in
development.
J
F
F
A
C
Thank
you,
chair
harris
members
of
the
committee,
david
bobson,
for
the
record
again
no
you're
very
busy,
and
we
appreciate
the
opportunity
this
afternoon
to
put
this
before
you.
We
will
be,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
outset,
having
a
conversation
with
the
federal
resort
association
to
clarify
the
project
pipeline,
the
intake
process
and
what
impacts
there
may
be
given
the
effective
data
in
the
bill,
and
we
will
update
you
as
soon
as
we
can
on
those
conversations.
A
B
You,
madam
chair,
and
this
may,
mr
bobby-
this
may
be
more
of
a
statement
than
a
question,
but,
as
I
was
listening
to
the
presentation,
one
of
the
things
that
is
important
in
nevada
is
that
we
only
meet
every
other
year,
and
so,
if
something
doesn't
happen
with
this
legislation
during
this
legislative
session,
I
imagine
that
puts
us
pretty
far
behind
the
power
curve
and
what,
if
anything,
could
that
mean
for
meeting
our
future
goals?.
C
Thank
you
senator
spearman,
david
bobsien,
for
the
record.
I
am
also
acutely
aware
of
that,
and
that's
definitely
the
spirit
behind
this
bill,
recognizing
that,
because
we're
about
to
enter
this
era,
where
the
iecc
will
eclipse
what
is
being
abated
with
the
incentives,
the
concern
being
that
local
governments
in
particular,
could
find
themselves
in
a
very
unwelcome
position
in
the
next
two
years
of
of
having
to
give
out
abatements
for
construction.
That's
already
the
base
standard
that
that
is
a
very
untenable
position.
B
C
Local
governments,
david
bobson,
for
the
record,
thank
you,
senator
spearman
local
governments,
including
municipalities,
county
governments
as
well.
Those
that's
where
the
the
majority
of
the
impact
is
from
the
the
loss
of
tax
revenue
through
these
abatements.
A
A
A
Okay
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
miss
scully
to
walk
us
through
the
rest
of
the
items.
Oh,
what's
no
we're
gonna!
Do
it
up?
K
Thank
you,
chair
harris
for
the
record
susan
scully,
with
the
research
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
The
first
bill
would
be
then
assembly
bill
32
in
its
first
reprint.
This
was
sponsored
by
the
assembly
committee
on
judiciary,
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
supreme
court,
and
this
bill
had
a
hearing
on
may
5th
assembly
bill.
32
creates
a
process
for
filing
a
complaint
for
expedited
relief
in
justice.
Court
related
to
the
towing
or
immobilization
of
a
motor
vehicle
complaint
must
be
filed
within
21
days,
and
the
appropriate
parties
must
be
named.
K
If
a
complaint
fails
to
meet
the
criteria,
it
must
be
dismissed
by
the
court
without
prejudice.
Although
dismissal
does
not
affect
the
right
of
the
parties
to
pursue
the
vehicle
owner
to
pursue
civil
damages,
the
court
will
determine
if
the
vehicle
was
lawfully
or
unlawfully
towed
or
immobilized
and
enter
a
declaratory
order
regarding
possession
and
costs.
K
K
You
will
recall
that
at
the
hearing
an
amendment
was
submitted
by
the
tow
operators
of
northern
nevada
and
agreed
to
by
the
bill's
sponsor
the
attached.
Amendment
submitted
by
the
tow
operator
removes
the
requirement
in
subsection
7
to
mail,
the
written
notice
within
24
hours
and
instead
adds
a
requirement
that
information
on
the
availability
of
assistance
from
legal
aid
programs
be
added
to
signage,
currently
required
to
be
posted
at
these
facilities.
K
A
A
K
K
Thank
you,
chair
harris.
This
is
susan
scully
for
the
record,
with
the
research
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
assembly
bill
301
in
its
first
reprint
was
sponsored
by
assemblyman
miller
and
others,
and
heard
in
this
committee
on
may
5th
assembly.
Bill
31
requires
tow
car
operators
to
immediately
release
vehicles
to
their
owners
at
no
charge
if
the
tow
is
from
a
residential,
complex
for
lack
of
registration
or
an
expired
registration
and
the
owner
provides
evidence
of
registration
that
predates
the
tow.
K
A
private
property
owner
requesting
a
tow
from
a
residential
complex
with
designated
parking
must
make
reasonable
efforts,
such
as
emailing
or
calling
to
notify
the
vehicle
owner
that
it
may
be
towed
and
may
not
tow
the
vehicle
until
five
days
after
such
notice.
Further
the
bill
requires
tow
operators
to
independently
verify
the
registration
status
before
towing
a
vehicle
and
to
retain
proof
of
this
verification
in
electronic
or
physical
form.
If
the
vehicle
owner
is
unable
to
provide
proof
of
registration,
storage
charges
will
start
to
accrue
only
after
48
hours.
K
K
Essentially
this
would
remove
the
provisions
relating
to
towing
of
a
vehicle
from
a
residential
complex
due
to
expired
registration.
Instead,
it
would
clarify
that
only
law
enforcement
in
governmental
units,
such
as
cities
or
counties,
doing
code
enforcement
would
have
the
authority
to
tow
a
vehicle
based
solely
on
an
expired
registration.
K
A
E
Thank
you,
man,
I'm
sure,
I'm
just
I'm
trying
to
process
the
amendments
the
and
I'm
on
the
second
page,
the
proposed
conceptual
amendments.
E
How
number
three
doesn't
conflict
with
number
one?
I
thought
that
number
one
made
it
possible
for
common
interest
communities.
It
says
it
would
not
be
a
violation
for
them
to
allow
more
than
and
it
would
not
prevent
them
from
having
an
unregistered
vehicle
towed
and
then
three
says,
but
they
can't
tow
it.
How
does
one
and
three
not
conflict
with
each
other.
A
And
senator
pickard
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
answer
that
question.
Actually,
we
cannot
do
three
without
doing
one.
So
I've
told
common
interest
communities
they
cannot
tow
for
lack
of
registration.
However,
if
I
do
not
make
the
amendment
in
one,
they
would
then
possibly
be
in
violation
of
of
that
section
and
so
I've,
given
them
an
exemption
from
that
section
which
will
allow
them
to
to
to
not
have
to
tow
folks
for
not
being
registered.
E
Okay,
but
that
really
doesn't
clarify
the
the
conflict
because
it
says
this
addition
would
not
prevent
them
from
having
an
unregistered
vehicle
towed
if
they
chose
to
do
so
and
then
in
three,
I
recognize
we're
changing
different
sections
of
law,
but
so
this
is
kind
of
sleight
of
hand.
In
my
view,.
A
Senator
pickard,
I
misunderstood
your
question.
Let
me
give
it
one
more
shot.
What
we're
looking
at
is
unregistered
versus
expired
registration,
and
so
an
unregistered
car
completely
can
still
be
towed,
but
they
cannot
be
towed
for
expired
registration.
E
E
Of
nrs
116
because
we're
putting
the
prohibition
in
116,
but
in
487
we're
saying
that
they're
not
prevented
from
an
unregistered
vehicle.
E
The
reason
I
say
that
is
because
in
particularly
in
apartment
complexes
we
see
people
pull
their
plates
all
the
time,
and
so
the
the
owner
or
the
tow
operator
would
have
no
way
of
knowing
without
running
the
vin,
whether
or
not
it
was
expired,
or
it
was
truly
unregistered,
because
unregistered
suggests
it
was
never
registered
in
the
state
of
nevada,
whereas
if
it's
an
expired
registration
or
I'm
sorry
if
they
were
previously
registered
in
nevada,
but
they
didn't
renew
it
now,
it's
expired,
there's
no
way
for
the
operator
or
the
owner
to
know
if
they
pulled
the
plates,
which
happens
on
a
routine
basis.
A
H
H
E
Sure
and-
and
I
don't
think
anybody's
worried
about
if
the
car
is
broken
down,
if
it's
on
jacks
or
something
they're
going
to
yank
that
car,
that's
fine,
I'm
just
as
I'm
just
trying
to
work
through
the
practical
side
of
this.
E
H
Correct
yeah,
if
there's
no
plates
on
it,
I
don't
know
how
they'd
know
it
was.
It's
expired.
Registration.
A
Thank
you
and
senator
pickard
I'll,
put
the
my
intention
on
the
record
that
there
is.
It
is
not
my
intent
to
create
an
entrapment
situation
where
a
tow
operator
tows
a
car
that
doesn't
have
plates
on
it.
I
would
not
expect
them
to
know
that
the
like
that
it
was
expired
and
and
have
them
in
violation.
E
Well,
that's
great,
and
I
appreciate
getting
that
on
the
record,
because
if
that's
clear-
and
this
goes-
you
know
if
they
somebody
does
get,
you
know
charge
against
them
now
they
have
at
least
the
legislative
history
to
to
back
them
up.
Thank
you.
Any.
A
A
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
the
motion
isn't
amended
to
pass
with
amendments
two
and
three,
not
one
discussion
on
the
motion.
Senator
hammond.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and,
and
I've
had
discussions
with
you
on
the
on
on
the
proposed
amendments,
and
you
know
I
you
know
at
first
blush.
I
didn't
have
a
problem
with
them.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
going
to
support
the
measure
as
written
right
now
with
the
amendments
and
given
time
you
know
the
next
24
hours,
I'm
sure
some
people
will
come
by
and
say
this
is
what
it
might
do.
L
A
A
Not
two
not
on
one
through
three
as
part
of
amendment
number
three.
So
if
you
go
back
to
the
first
page
of
the
work
session
document,
you
will
see
that
there
were
three
amendments
proposed.
We
are
not
going
to
senator
spearman
has
withdrawn
the
first
amendment.
E
A
E
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
seeing
no
further
discussion.
We
have
a
motion
on
the
on
the
table,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion,
passes
unanimously
I'll,
take
the
floor
statement
on
that
bill,
ms
scully,
if
you
could
take
us
to
the
next
to
the
next
bill,
I
believe
we
are
now
on
ab320.
K
This
bill
revises
the
definition
of
large
all-terrain
vehicle
to
include
to
mean
any
atv
that
has
non-straddle
seats
and
seating
for
at
least
two
people.
This
bill
also
authorized
the
operation
of
large
all-terrain
vehicles
on
a
street
within
a
city
or
township,
with
a
population
less
than
25
000.
If
they
are
in
compliance
with
the
equipment
and
registration
requirements
applicable
to
large
atvs,
it
also
adds
maine
county
roads
to
the
list
of
designated
highways
upon
which
a
person
may
operate
a
large
atv.
K
The
as
introduced
version
made
no
changes
to
the
definition
of
a
large
all-terrain
vehicle
and
instead
required
action
on
the
part
of
a
city
under
25
000
in
population
or
a
county
to
permit
large
atvs
to
operate
on
a
city
street
or
a
maine
county
road.
The
assembly
vote
was
unanimous
on
the
first
reprint
version.
Thank
you.
A
K
Thank
you,
chair
harris
assembly,
bill
388
in
its
first
reprint
sponsored
by
assembly
members
c
h,
miller
and
duran
heard
in
this
committee
on
may
5th
assembly.
Bill
388
requires
the
public
utilities
commission
to
enact
regulations
establishing
a
program
enabling
providers
of
broadband
or
commercial
radio
service
to
participate
in
a
voluntary
contribution
program
for
broadband
infrastructure.
K
K
The
bill
also
requires
osit
on
a
biennial
basis
to
collect
and
map
data
and
submit
a
report
on
the
availability
of
broadband
service
in
nevada
to
the
governor
and
legislature.
Finally,
the
bill
requires
osa
to
establish
a
broadband
ready
community
certification
program
to
advance
the
expansion
of
broadband
infrastructure
to
underserved
communities.
K
K
K
Six
delete.
The
requirement
for
mapping
of
broadband
access
by
osit
is
currently
required
in
section
7.6
sub
1
of
the
bill
and
finally,
number
7
amend
section
7.7
as
generally
set
forth
below,
which
is
to
set
a
deadline
for
the
office
for
osit,
in
consultation
with
local
governments,
broadband
providers
and
other
stakeholders
designated
by
the
office
to
establish
the
broadband
ready
community
certification
program.
A
Thank
you
so
much
miss
scully.
Are
there
any
questions
from
members
senator
picker.
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
What
was
interesting
was-
I
was
all
stoked
for
this
because
I
understood
this
to
be.
It
was
going
to
expand
broadband
to
everyone,
particularly
given
the
pandemic,
and
how
we
discovered
pretty
quickly
that
a
lot
of
people
didn't
have
it.
E
Since
then,
I've
had
several
of
the
counties.
Mostly
rural,
tell
me
that
section
7.7
was
created
without
their
input
that
much
of
it
conflicts
with
existing
ordinance
in
many
counties
that
they
can't
meet
the
60
days.
Some
can't
meet
the
60-day
application
approval
process
and,
and
some
of
the
application
processes
exceed
cost
of
a
hundred
dollars.
So
they
simply
cannot
absorb
this
as
written,
however,
have
have
you,
mr
miller,
had
the
opportunity
to
talk
to
these
counties.
E
E
A
It
is
in
on
the
work
session
document.
It
is
different
than
the
version
that
you
may
have
in
front
of
you
today,
I'll
kick
it
over
to
ms
scolie
to
explain
and
before
I
do
so.
I
just
want
to
put
on
the
record
that
this
is
an
amendment
that
was
submitted
in
conjunction
with
some
of
those
cities
and
municipalities.
K
Yes,
susan
scully
for
the
record
regis,
who
do
I
work
for
the
research
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau?
The
amendment
proposed
in
the
conceptual
amendment
you'll
see
that
section
7.7
there
on
the
bottom
of
that
page.
It
stops
after
as
used
in
this
section.
Local
government
means
so
the
sections
you're
talking
about
are
removed
from
the
bill
under
the
proposed
conceptual
amendment
with.
E
B
B
Several
people
were
out
literally
going
door
to
door
trying
to
make
sure
that
people
had
not
just
computed
but
make
sure
they
had
broadband
and
again
covert
covert
made
us
realize
some
stark
realities,
and
I
guess,
with
relationship
to
this
bill.
The
digital
divide
is
just
not
a
saying
it's
real.
So
thank
you.
A
All
right
any
further
questions
or
comments.
Okay,
at
this
time,
I
will
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
assembly
bill.
388
motion
from
senator
spearman,
a
second
from
senator
hammond.
Any
discussion
on
the
motion,
seeing
none
of
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
all
right
passes
unanimously.
Congratulations,
assemblyman,
senator
spearman
I'll
assign
the
floor
statement
to
you.
K
Ab412,
thank
you,
chair
harris
for
the
record
assembly
bill
412
in
its
original
version,
and
I
would
also
ask
that
you
check
that
you
have
the
revised
work
session
page.
It
has
a
red
revised
at
the
top
of
the
page
with
the
date
of
may
12th.
Thank
you.
You're
welcome,
assembly
bill
412
provides
that
a
neighborhood
occupantless
vehicle
defined
as
a
low-speed
vehicle
not
intended
for
human
occupancy,
may
be
operated
on
roadways
with
speed
limits
greater
than
35
to
45
miles
per
hour.
K
In
addition
to
highways
with
speed
limits
less
than
35
miles
per
hour,
the
bill
also
adds
operator
to
the
statute
governing
low
speed
vehicles
or
slow
moving
vehicles.
In
addition
to
drivers,
the
measure
provides
that
a
fully
autonomous
vehicle
that
is
exclusively
operated
by
an
automated
driving
system
is
exempt
from
requirements
for
equipment
to
illuminate,
with
multiple
beams
mirrors,
to
reflect
to
the
driver,
windshield
wipers
and
a
muffler
unless
the
vehicle
has
an
internal
combustion
engine.
K
K
K
E
E
If
liability
is
ever
attached
to
the
the
or
I'm
sorry
if
fault
is
ever
attached
to
the
occupantless
vehicle
state
law
does
require
that
we
determine
who
the
driver
is
in
order
to
be
operative,
and
this
does
not
address
that.
But
it's
my
understanding,
correct
me.
A
Senator
hammond,
I
can
confirm
that
that
is
what
was
said
at
the
hearing.
That's.
E
A
Any
additional
questions
on
this
one
all
right
I'll,
go
ahead
and
accept
a
motion
to
amend
and
do
pass
motion
from
senator
spearman.
Second,
from
senator
brooks
any
discussion
on
the
motion,
seeing
not
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
I,
I
any
opposed
all
right
motion
passes
unanimously.
Senator
brooks.
Would
you
like
to
take
the
floor
statement
all
right
I'll?
Kick
it
back
to
you?
K
The
bill
also
addresses
which
excise
tax
applies
to
limousine
services
provided
pursuant
to
a
contract
with
the
transportation
network
company
proposed
amendments
were
submitted
by
captain
a
limousine
service
at
the
hearing.
After
the
hearing,
further
amendments
were
submitted,
based
on
the
submitted
amendments,
discussions
with
captain
and
other
parties
and
in
consultation
with
the
chair
committee.
Legal
counsel
has
prepared
the
attached
mock-up
and
I
have
indicated
the
assembly
vote
there,
I'm
going
to
quickly
go
through
the
main
changes
in
the
market,
but
any
questions
should
be
directed
to
committee.
K
On
page
four,
you
will
see
that
instead
of
language
terminating
the
contract,
which
is
deleted
on
page
three
at
the
top
of
page
four,
the
new
green
language
simply
requires
the
tnc
to
notify
requires
the
limousine
carrier
to
notify
the
tnc
of
a
change
in
the
status
of
their
certificate
of
public
convenience.
K
K
Moving
to
page
eight,
you
will
see
a
number
of
changes
simply
clarifying
the
limo
drivers
being
subject
are
being
subject
to
tnc's
when
operating
under
a
contract
with
the
tnc.
So
there
is
are
some
conforming
changes.
There
continues
on
the
next
page
and
then,
finally,
on
page
10,
there
is
an
effective
date.
Added
of
july
1
2021,
which
was
added
at
the
request
of
captain
with
that
eileen
o'grady,
would
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
E
A
All
right
do
we
have
a
second
motion:
presenter
picker.
Do
we
have
a
second
second
from
senator
brooks
vice
chair,
brooks
any
discussion
on
the
motion,
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay
motion
passes
unanimously.
Senator
pickard.
Would
you
like
the
floor
statement?
Okay,
we'll
assign
it
to
you
miss
schooly
I'll,
kick
it
back
to
you.
I
believe
we
are
now
on
senate
bill
4
30..
K
Thank
you,
chair
harris
for
the
record
susan
scully,
with
the
research
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
This
bill
is
senate
bill
430.
It
was
sponsored
by
this
committee
on
behalf
of
the
office
of
the
governor.
It
was
heard
in
this
committee
on
may
10th.
This
bill
revises
the
governance
and
scope
of
the
nevada
infrastructure.
Bank
governance
is
expanded
to
include
the
director
of
the
office
of
energy.
K
Looking
at
the
proposed
amendments,
it
removes
the
words,
transmission
and
sale
from
the
definition
of
renewable
energy
infrastructure,
clarifies
in
section
12
that
a
qualified
borrower
is
a
private
non-profit
entity
created
for
charitable
or
educational
purposes.
A
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
just
quickly.
I
appreciated
the
addition
of
nonprofit
entity
because
I
thought
that
that
might
open
this
up
really
substantially
to
for-profit
organizations.
So
that's
good.
I
still
think
that
we
are
going
to
see
a
problem
that
75
million
will
be
grossly
under
capitalized.
I
understand
that
is
seed
money,
but
it's
going
to
take
another
session
to
ultimately
appropriate
enough
money
to
make
it
worth,
and
so
I
I
I'm
going
to
be
a
yes,
but
with
some
reservations.
Thank
you.
A
So
or
any
any
other
discussion,
okay,
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
all
those
opposed,
nay
motion
passes
unanimously,
and
I
will
take
the
floor
statement
on
senate
bill.
430.
mascoli.
Stop
me
if
I'm
being
too
hasty,
but
I
believe
that
concludes
our
work
session
for
the
day
fantastic.
A
I
also
believe
that
concludes
the
committee's
work.
Up
to
this
next
deadline.
Well
done
everyone.
I
want
to
give
a
special
shout
out
to
miss
scolie
and
miss
o'grady.
I
know
they
have
been
working
feverishly
today
on
behalf
of
all
of
the
members
who
had
bills
on
work
session,
miss
shope
as
well.
I
believe
we
have
the
best
committee
staff
in
the
building
and
I
will
say
that
unabashedly.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
for
your
hard
work.
The
state
of
nevada
is
much
better
off
for
you
being
here.
A
F
F
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
barring
any
unforeseen
circumstances.
We
will
be
adjourned
until
monday
may
17th
at
3
30.
have
a
great
rest
of
your
deadline
week.
Everyone
we're.