►
From YouTube: 5/29/2023 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor
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
And
I
am
here:
please
mark
members
present
as
they
arrive,
welcome
everyone
that
is
here
in
Carson
City,
anyone
in
Las
Vegas
and
anyone
with
us
over
the
Internet.
We
will
hear
three
bills
today
we
will
hear
assembly
Bill
167
or
let
me
rephrase
that
we
will
hear
Senate
Bill,
167,
Senate,
Bill
275
in
Senate,
Bill,
503
and
I
will
not
be
taking
those
in
that
order.
A
A
C
Thank
you,
I
have
the
baby
chair,
I
love
it.
Thank
you
very
much
chair
marzola
for
the
record
I'm
Marilyn
dondero
Loop,
representing
Senate
District
8
in
Clark,
County
and
I'm
pleased
to
present
Senate
Bill
167,
which
seeks
to
prohibit
using
step
therapy
protocols
for
prescription
drugs
to
treat
psychiatric
conditions.
C
Step
therapy
protocols
also
known
as
fail
first
policies,
are
a
cost-saving
strategy
used
by
private
and
public
insurance
companies
to
manage
the
prescription
drug
costs
of
patients.
The
concept
is
that
step
therapy
is
in
is
that
patients
must
first
try
less
expensive
generic
or
older
drugs
before
moving
on
to
more
appropriate
and
effective
treatments.
While
this
may
seem
like
a
reasonable
approach
to
control
health
care
costs,
it
is
also
it
also
hinders
the
delivery
of
quality,
personalized
health
care
for
certain
psychiatric
conditions.
C
First
and
foremost,
step
therapy
can
delay
access
to
necessary
and
effective
treatments,
which
can
be
a
danger
to
health
and
well-being
of
the
patient.
Patients
may
have
to
try
several
medications
before
they
find
one
that
works
for
them,
which
can
take
weeks
or
even
months.
Often,
these
patients
must
just
discontinue
their
treatment
altogether.
C
Research
shows
that
step
therapy
protocols
can
impede
patients
overall
health
and
increase
long-term
costs,
particularly
for
patients
who
require
inpatient
care
after
being
required
to
use
alternative
drugs
for
the
protocol.
Second
Step
therapy
protocols
can
be
particularly
burdensome
for
patients
with
complex
and
severe
psychiatric
conditions
which
require
specialized
treatment
plans.
Standard
treatment,
Pathways
built
into
step
therapy
protocols
may
not
adequately
address
the
specific
needs
of
these
patients.
C
So
today,
with
me,
and
these,
these
testimonies
will
really
tell
you
why
we
need
these
pieces.
So
today,
with
me,
I
have
Abby
and
her
mother
and
I
would
like
for
them
to
tell
you
their
story
to
illustrate
why
this
bill
is
so
important.
This
is
the
third
time
we
have
presented
this
bill
and
Abby
and
her
mother
have
been
right
here
by
my
side,
so
I
applaud
them.
Abby
is
our
current
Miss,
Virginia,
City
and
so
Abby.
Please
go
ahead.
D
Foreign
heart
I'm,
with
the
National
Alliance
on
Mental
Illness
at
three
years
old
I,
was
diagnosed
with
bipolar
disorder.
I
experienced
manic
episodes
and
Rapid
Cycling
I
had
so
much
anxiety,
sadness
and
anger
all
at
once
by
Middle
School,
the
Mania
turned
to
depression
and
I
found
myself
in
crisis.
D
My
doctor
put
me
on
medications,
hoping
one
would
work
for
me
when
one
didn't
he
added
another
until
eventually
I
was
on
10
medications
and
still
in
crisis.
Only
now,
all
of
the
medications
were
affecting
me
anxiety
and
depression.
Increased
and
I
suffered
hallucinations,
which
I
have
never
had
before
and
haven't
had,
since.
D
D
D
E
My
name
is
Erica
Abby
is
my
daughter.
Abby
was
diagnosed
with
bipolar
disorder
when
she
was
three
years
old
medications
have
always
been
a
huge
part
of
our
lives.
Insurance
companies
have
a
list
or
a
formal
area
of
medications.
They
approve
for
treatment,
Medicaid
and
other
insurance
companies
are
no
different.
They
have
all
the
control
over
your
treatment,
not
the
doctor.
E
E
I
could
not
cover
the
medications
myself,
because
the
cost
was
well
over
a
thousand
dollars
a
month
such
as
Abilify.
This
is
one
of
the
medications
she
needed
as
a
parent.
You
feel
responsible
for
providing
care.
I
watched,
helplessly
as
my
ten-year-old
daughter's
condition
deteriorated.
I
was
terrified.
I
tried
hard
to
stop
what
was
happening.
I
hospitalized
her
in
fact,
I
had
her
hospitalized
13
times
to
try
to
get
the
condition
under
control.
E
As
I
was
given
a
list
to
look
for
signs
of
suicide
one
night,
my
fear
became
a
reality.
How
could
this
happen?
It
took
her
years
to
get
to
this
point,
but
the
lack
of
the
right
medications
caused
it.
Medication
should
be
between
the
doctor
and
the
patient,
because
the
doctor
would
select
a
medication
based
on
her
specific
need,
not
the
cost.
Thank
you.
C
And
thank
you
so
much
chair
and
I.
You
I
have
heard
this
story
so
many
times,
and
every
time
I
hear
it.
It
still
makes
me
feel
the
same
way
that
as
a
mother
that
I
would
have
to
deal
with
this
and
Erica
has
been
dealing
with
this
with
our
Dear
Abby.
So
with
that
I
would
just
say:
Senate
Bill
167
prohibits
Health
insurers,
including
Medicaid
State
and
local
governmental
employee-based
plans,
amongst
others,
from
opposing
a
step
therapy
protocol
for
a
drug
that
is
appropriately
just
prescribed
to
treat
a
psychiatric
condition.
C
A
Chair
Erica
can
I.
Have
you
just
say
and
spell
your
last
name
for
the
record.
E
A
Thank
you
for
that
you're
welcome
and
before
we
go
to
questions
I
just
want
to
say
as
a
mother,
my
heart
goes
to
you,
I
can't
imagine
what
you
went
through,
and
so
thank
you
for
being
here
today
and
Abby.
It
takes
a
lot
of
strength
to
sit
in
a
room
in
front
of
strangers
and
tell
your
story
so
that
you
can
open
a
path
forward
to
others
and
so
I.
Thank
you
so
much
for
being
strong
and
being
here
with
us
today
and
with
that
we
will
move
on
to
questions.
F
A
C
G
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
Jeanette
bells
for
the
record
representing
the
National
Alliance
on
Mental
Illness
Nevada.
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
question
first
here
question
regarding
who
can
prescribe
just
wanted
to
say
that
the
bill
originally
was
extremely
Broad,
and
that
was
one
of
the
Amendments
that
brought
us
to
the
first
reprint.
G
There
is,
if
you
look,
for
example,
so
these
are
all
just
sections
of
law,
so,
for
example,
section
one
sub
four:
it
would
be
allowed
for
a
primary
care
provider
to
work
in
conjunction
with
the
other
practitioners,
if
that
patient
is
more
than
60
miles
away
from
that
care,
because
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
available
in
rural
areas
as
well
and
in
terms
of
all
of
the
various
chapters
that
this
does
amend.
I
would
probably
turn
to
legal
to
see
who
might
have
been
admitted.
G
But
I
know
that,
generally,
the
state
is
not
allowed
to
impact
the
orisa
or
erisa-like
plans,
so
those
would
be
excluded.
But
I
am
happy
to
say
that
it
does
include
Medicaid,
as
well
as
the
public
employee
benefits
program
and
the
reason
we've
made
this
presentation
three
times
is
because
we
were
able
to
work
with
PEB
on
that
fiscal
note,
and
so
when
that
was
removed,
that
included
the
public
employees
as
well.
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
coming
to
present
as
well.
I
just
had
one
quick
question
about
like
what
this
would
look
like.
If
an
individual,
if
an
individual
does
application,
the
insurance
has,
they
need
to
go
through
step
therapy.
What
does
it
look
like
for
that
patient
in
order
for
them
to
get
approved
and
get
the
medication
that
they
need.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Jeanette,
Bells
through
you
to
assemblywoman
Torres.
G
Thank
you
actually
what
this
does
is.
It
does
not
require
the
insured
to
submit
to
a
step
therapy
protocol.
So
it's
actually
it's
not
asking
permission
not
to
have
the
step
therapy
protocol.
It
actually
eliminates
the
step
therapy
protocol
as
long
as
the
drug
is
FDA
approved
in
in
a
and
and
the
or
excuse
me
or
the
use
of
the
drug
to
treat
that
psychiatric
condition
is
others
otherwise
supported
by
medical
and
scientific
evidence.
G
That's
important,
particularly
with
the
care
of
children,
because
often
there
haven't
been
enough
clinical
studies
that
are
FDA
approved
because
they
don't
study
children
so
that
actually
helps
children
get
to
the
the
medication
that
they
need,
and
we
also
have
Dr
Cole
here,
who
would
be
way
better
at
explaining
that
than.
H
Me,
thank
you
and
one
quick
follow-up
I
mean-
and
this
might
be
actually
for
Dr
Cole,
because
I
do
know
with
some
medications.
There
is
some
overlap
too
about
like
what
the
what
it
might
serve
like
it
might
help
with
one
thing,
but
it
also
helps
with
a
different
thing.
So
how
would
the
pharmacy
like?
What
does
that
process
look
like,
so
that
the
pharmacy
knows
that
this
is
something
that
is
related
to
a
psychiatric
condition
and
step
therapy
would
not
apply
there.
H
Thank
you
so
sometimes
I
know
that
there
are
like
medications
that
do
multiple
things.
How
would
the
pharmacy
know
that
this
is
a
medication,
that's
specific,
to
a
psychiatric
condition
and
not
for
something
else?.
I
Very
cool
for
the
record
b-a-r-r-y-c-o-l-e
to
the
committee
and
to
you
specifically
Ms
Torres,
normally
what
what
many
Physicians
do
is
we
will
put
the
ICD-10
code
that
says
the
diagnosis,
so
the
pharmacist
looks
at
a
medication
that
would
not
have
a
formal
FDA
approval,
but
once
they
look
at
what
the
diagnosis
is
and
we
get
we
code
it
so
that
the
Casual
reader
isn't
going
to
know.
This
is
bipolar.
This
is
schizophrenia.
We
use
the
proper
term
that
usually
tips
the
pharmacist
off.
I
If
in
doubt,
I've
receive
phone
calls
directly
from
the
pharmacist.
This
appears
to
be
off
label.
Do
you
know
that
now
the
problem
with
kids
just
for
clarification,
is
that
there
is
sort
of
a
pattern
in
pharmaceutical
companies
that
they
don't
get
their
pediatric
indications
till
late
in
their
patent
life.
So
they
can
extend
the
patent
life
and
it's
a
deliberate
Choice,
that's
made
so
so
they
don't
want
to
get
all
their
indications
up
front.
They
want
to
layer
them
on
to
keep
drawing
this
out.
J
Hi
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
today,
Senator
as
well
as
the
panel
so
I
was
reading
in
here.
Is
there
any
consequences
for
somebody
that
doesn't
allow
this
to
happen
for
the
insurance
group?
Is
there
any
consequences
they
would
have
to
pay
a
fine
or
anything
like
that
if
they
do
not
abide
by
this
statute.
G
Madam,
chair,
assemblywoman
Duran,
no,
there
there
is
no
consequence,
that's
written
into
this
bill.
If
that
doesn't
happen,.
J
G
G
A
And
I
can
have
legal
chime
in
as
well.
If
that
helps.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
samples,
committee
Council.
If
you
take
a
look
at
the
nrs680a.200,
that's
consequences
for
failing
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
insurance
code,
and
so
the
commissioner
would
be
authorized
to
suspend
limit
revoking
or
an
insurance
and
ensure
certificate
of
authority.
There's
also
an
administrative
fine
of
not
more
than
two
thousand
dollars
for
each
active
violation.
A
I
I'm
causing
confusion
again,
sorry
Barry
Cole
b-a-r-y-c-o-l-e
for
the
record
I
wanted
to
just
say
as
a
practicing
psychiatrist
how
this
step
therapy
works
out
and
what
the
implications
really
are.
It's
aggravating
for
patients,
because
we've
worked
out
what
medications
could
be
appropriate,
which
ones
are
most
likely
to
be
effective,
and
then
we
get
somebody
two
states
away,
calling
in
saying
never
mind
try
this
first.
This
try
this
first
often
breaks
down
to
it's
going
to
take
one
to
two
months
to
figure
out.
I
If
this
medicine
will
work,
maybe
it
will
maybe
it
won't
70
odds,
but
the
problem
is
once
we've
tried
it
and
it's
failed
now.
I
have
to
do
a
detox
from
that
medicine.
Sometimes
before
I
can
I
could
cross
to
another
medication,
and
that
takes
more
time.
So,
if
I'm,
following
a
protocol,
it
could
take
months,
I
mean
we're
talking
a
half
a
year
to
a
year
to
finally
get
to
what
I'm
trying
to
get
to.
In
the
meantime,
this
is
supposedly
all
about
about
cost.
I
So
we're
trying
all
these
meds
that
don't
work
they
often
wind
up
in
the
trash.
They
could
be
a
couple
of
thousand
dollars
worth
of
medicine
going
in
the
trash
for
lack
of
Tolerance.
If
someone
winds
up
hospitalized
a
day
in
a
hospital
could
be
minimally
a
thousand
twenty
five
hundred.
If
there
were
a
suicide
attempt
that
resulted
in
trauma,
this
could
be
a
half
a
million
to
a
million
dollars
after
a
month
in
an
ICU,
so
the
costs
keep
coming
back.
I
The
delay
in
treatment
is
what's
really
scary,
because
we
now
know
with
first
episode
psychosis,
if
you
don't
get
that
under
control
fast,
each
psychotic
break
takes
out
10
percent
of
the
potential
for
Recovery
ten
breaks.
You
may
never
recover
again
and
that's
to
me
the
failure
of
all
of
this
DeLay
So
I
really
want
to
support
SB
167
and
getting
our
patients
access
to
what
we
think
can
really
make
a
difference
as
soon
as
we
can
not
at
the
end
of
the
road
thanks.
Thank
you.
L
Rep
with
Ferrari
reader
public
affairs
representing
Dignity,
Health,
St,
Rose,
Dominican,
St
Rose
supported
SB
167
on
the
Senate
side
and
is
proud
to
continue
that
support
today.
Thank
you.
M
Good
afternoon
Madam,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Sarah
Adler,
with
silver
state
government
relations
today,
representing
our
clients,
Vitality,
unlimited
and
New
Frontier,
who
are
both
rural
certified
community
behavioral
health
centers
serving
rural
Nevada.
So
these
two
organizations
provide
care
to
a
wide
range
of
individuals
whose
ability
to
be
present
for
their
families
and
for
their
employers
and
in
their
communities,
depends
upon
being
able
to
be
connected
to
the
right
medication
for
their
biology
and
their
brain
characteristics.
Thus,
we
are
in
strong
support
of
SB
167.
M
My
clients
thank
the
sponsor
for
this
bill.
I
am
the
sister
of
someone
who
has
lived
heroically
with
bipolar
for
43
years,
and
I
mean
just
one
experience
when
my
sister
had
to
have
a
hysterectomy
the
if
she
had
not
been
able
to
access
the
very
best
medications
to
help
her
at
that
time.
You
know
we
might
not
have
her.
So
that's
very
important.
Thank
you.
N
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
Sarah
Watkins
representing
the
Nevada
State
Medical
Association,
as
a
physician
and
patient
patient
advocacy
organization,
we're
in
strong
support
of
SB
167.
It
ensures
a
continuity
between
the
patient
and
the
physician,
and
we
thank
the
bill
sponsor
for
this.
A
P
Good
afternoon
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record
Liz
mcmenamin
retail
association
in
Nevada,
first
of
all,
I'd
like
to
thank
Senator
Don,
Darrell
Luke,
for
bringing
this
piece
of
legislation
forward.
Our
pharmacists
are
often
frustrated
as
our
doctors,
when
we
hear
these
stories
of
patients
being
able
unable
to
access
and
get
the
medication
needed
to
treat
whatever
it
is
that
they
need
to,
and
especially
in
psychiatric
meds.
P
Pharmacists
are
at
the
front
line
of
this
and
are
often
the
ones
that
are
are
interacting
with
the
patients,
and
these
can
become
unnecessarily
antagonistic
when
we
give
the
power
to
the
insurers
and
the
pbms
out
there
to
determine
what
medications
they
think
are
necessary,
as
opposed
to
the
doctor
themselves
and
the
pharmacist
who
is
there
with
the
patient,
so
I
certainly
appreciate
the
senator,
bringing
this
forward
and
I
appreciate
this
committee
seriously.
Considering
this
piece
of
legislation
and
moving
it
Forward
Rand
is
in
total
support.
Thank
you.
Q
I'm,
the
mother
of
an
amazing
17
year
old
trans
masculine
son,
when
he
turned
13,
his
mental
health
started
declining
and
we
had
multiple
suicide
attempts
when
Max
was
hospitalized.
The
first
time
in
December
of
2018,
his
doctor
prescribed
multiple
medications
that
our
Pharmacy
couldn't
fill
and
told
me
to
contact
our
benefits
manager.
After
many
hours
on
multiple
phone
calls,
I
was
told
that
to
get
the
med
that
had
originally
been
prescribed,
we
would
need
to
try
two
to
three
other
drugs.
Q
Q
I
cannot
help
to
think
that
Max
would
have
been
had.
Max
had
been
able
to
get
the
correct
medication
at
the
time
it
was
requested.
I
would
not
have
missed
out
on
being
able
to
spend
the
entire
spring
of
2019
with
my
son,
Max
is
lucky
to
have
a
family
that
will
support
him,
no
matter
what
and
place
him
into
a
hospital
if
needed.
Q
But
there
are
many
people
in
Nevada
who
do
not
have
the
same
type
of
support
who,
while
waiting
24
weeks,
paying
playing
literal
Russian
roulette
with
their
medication,
could
have
taken
their
own
life.
Mental
health
medication
is
the
key
component
in
a
life
or
death
game,
but
other
things
were
also
at
risk.
For
my
family,
our
whole
well-being
could
have
been
in
Jeopardy.
I
was
blessed
to
be
able
to
use.
Fmla
leads
to
go
to
hours
upon
hours
of
extra
doctor's
appointments
and
spend
days
on
the
phone
with
our
insurance
company.
Q
I
was
able
to
do
this
without
losing
my
job.
Not
all
nevadans
have
that
luxury
if
FMLA
would
not
have
been
an
option
for
me,
I
would
have
lost
my
job,
my
insurance,
my
housing
and
a
result
myself
and
my
two
sons
would
have
been
put
on
public
benefits
to
survive,
and
we
would
have
started
the
whole
process
all
over
again,
not
being
able
to
get
the
medication
that
the
doctor
prescribed,
because
the
insurance
company
thinks
they
know
better.
Q
R
S-T-E-V-E-S-H-E-L-L
I'm,
the
vice
president
of
Behavioral
Health
for
renowned
health
and
the
board
president
of
the
Statewide
Nami
Nevada,
also
known
as
National
Alliance
on
Mental
Illness
I'm
in
full
support
of
Senate
Bill
167,
and
ask
that
you
move
this
bill
forward.
Let's
protect
the
mental
health
and
medication
needs
for
all
nevadans
during
this
unprecedented
time
in
our
state
when
we
have
more
mental
health
issues
than
ever
before.
S
Hello,
this
is
Dr
Leslie,
Dixon,
l-a-s-l-e-y-d-I-c-k-s-o-n
I
am
a
psychiatrist
representing
the
Nevada
Psychiatric
association
and
I'm
in
support
of
this
bill.
Sb
167.
I've
been
in
practice
for
40
years
and
I.
Remember
the
days
when
we
were
using
the
first
generation
medications,
which
are
what
frequently
is
what
is
required
or
requested
for
this
step
therapy.
S
We
are
so
glad
that
we
moved
on
this,
the
generations
too,
and
maybe
even
they
called
the
next
ones.
Three,
the
the
Improvement
in
the
the
new
medications
in
terms
of
both
treating
psychotic
symptoms
and
preventing
some
of
the
unpleasant
side
effects
that
lead
patients
to
quit,
taking
their
medications
and
lose
faith
in
their
doctors
is
significant
and
so
I
want
to
eliminate
the
need
for
doing
step
therapy
and
let
us
prescribers
go
to
the
drugs
that
we
know
will
be
the
best
for
our
patients.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
T
You,
madam
chair
for
sure,
Paul
Young
with
Tom
Clark
Solutions,
representing
pharmaceutical
Care
Management
Association
I,
want
to
thank
all
the
stakeholders
taking
time
meeting
with
us,
we're
going
through
different
proposed
amendments
with
them.
Unfortunately,
we're
unable
to
come
to
an
agreement
so
at
this
time
we're
still
in
opposition
sp-167.
Thank
you.
A
A
C
A
A
A
A
Motion
carries
but
I
also
would
like
assemblyman
O'neill
to
give
a
statement.
U
Thank
you
chair
for
the
opportunity.
This
is
a
great
bill.
It
truly
is
goes
to
the
heart
of
so
many
things,
we're
looking
at
in
a
saving
money
and
B
taking
care
of
people
but
C.
We
have
discussed
on
so
many
other
issues.
The
needs
for
mental
mental
health
to
be
addressed
and
I
feel
that's.
What
we're
doing
here
and
I
would
truly
appreciate
being
assigned
the
floor
statement
as
some
of
the
presenters
are
constituents
of
mine
and
have
just
they're
just
great
people,
so
I
would
appreciate.
U
A
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Skip
daily,
representing
Senate
District
13
here
to
present
Senate
bill.
275.
I
have
a
co-presenter
and
constituent
who
will
tell
the
story
probably
far
better
than
me.
V
So
this
bill
speaks
only
to
the
space
rental
for
mobile
home
parks,
so
mobile
home
Park's,
unique
situation
in
that
regard
where
the
people
own
the
home,
they
own,
the
mobile
home,
it's
their
property,
it's
where
they
live,
but
the
space
that
they
rent
underneath
it
is
not
theirs
and
they
it.
They
have
to
comply
with
the
rules
of
the
mobile
home
park,
but
they
also
have
to
pay
rent
on
that
space.
So
if
the
rents
go
up
higher
and
higher,
it
potentially
causes
these
people
to
not
be
able
to
afford
their
house
anymore.
V
It's
not
like
you
can
just
move
the
mobile
home
that
easily
and
it
also
impacts
resale
value
on
the
asset,
sometimes
the
only
asset
they
have.
So
these
are
the
most
generally,
not
always
generally
senior
citizens.
People
on
a
single
incomes,
Etc
people
that
are
least
able
to
adjust
to
some
of
these
inflationary
issues
and
Ms
marzan
will
be
able
to
tell
more
on
that.
So
I'll
go
through
the
bill
very
quickly.
So
section
two
defines
what
the
maximum
range
increases
section.
V
V
Section
five
conforming
information
on
where
they
place
this
into
the
statute
section:
six.
It
adds
this
new
restriction
onto
the
existing
restrictions,
118
B
0.150,
where
they
already
had
some
Provisions
in
there
for
protections
for
people
over
55
people
with
disabilities,
long-term
rental
agreements-
and
you
see
that
on
page
five,
where
they
added
in
the
maximum
increase
to
those
sections
and
then
the
landlord
just
for
clarification
or
the
person
that
Mobile
Home
Park,
for
instance,
if
they
say,
hey,
we're
gonna,
we
cover
the
water.
We
cover
the
the
garbage.
V
We
cover
the
sewer
if
they
have
actual
increases
to
those
those
are
pass-through,
they
can't
put
markups
on
them.
If
those
go
up,
it
would
not
be
subject
to
this
maximum
increase
on
the
rent
for
the
space
and
that's
the
language
of
the
bill.
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
but
I
know
the
co-presenter
can
give
you
a
little
more
actual
application
of
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish
here
and
what
the
repercussions
and
the
effects
are
on
the
people.
Constituents
in
not
only
my
district
but
I'm
sure
all
of
yours
as
well.
A
W
What
really
bothered
me
about
this
was
the
seniors
that
are
in
the
parks
that
are
living
on
fixed
incomes.
They're
looking
to
you
know,
try
to
buy
their
medication,
pay
their
space
rent
pay
their
insurance.
W
They
made
reasonable
profits,
obviously
or
they
would
have
been
in
business
since
1970
and
1980,
and
obviously
the
people
that
lived
in
the
Parks
were
getting
reasonable.
Rent
increases
today
before
I
left,
my
home
I
took
a
look
at
a
part
of
this.
I
have
the
reason
I
this
is
that
the
opposition
says
the
answer
to
the
problem
is
to
build
more
housing.
Well,
here's
the
bottom
line
statistics.
Currently
today
in
Reno
there
are
84
parks
with
92
homes
for
sale
in
Sparks,
there's,
13
parks
with
11
homes
for
sale.
W
Most
of
the
homes
that
are
for
sale
are
those
homes
that
have
a
higher
space
rent
than
those
of
a
lower
space
rent.
Unfortunately,
I
couldn't
go
through
all
of
Las
Vegas,
because
there's
quite
a
few
but
Las
Vegas
currently
has
a
hundred
parks
and,
at
the
behalf
of
what
I
looked
at,
there
were
177
homes
for
sale.
So
I
wouldn't
say
that
we
had
a
housing
shortage
in
manufactured
homes
that
we
have
a
viable
Market
of
homes
that
are
for
sale.
So
this
is
not
a
rent
control
belt.
W
As
Senator
Daley
said,
a
rent
control
is
putting
a
specific
percent
and
nothing
else
can
happen.
This
is
a
rent
standardization
bill
that
gives
flexibility
on
an
annual
basis
to
how
much
a
percentage
can
be
put
on
to
increase
the
rent.
It
gives
them
the
ability
to
pass
through
their
charges
and
it
gives
them
the
ability
if
their
expenses
are
more
to
recoup
them.
So
we're
not
saying
this
is
all
you
can
make.
W
It's
a
fair
solution,
I
believe
and
once
they
have
raised
the
rents,
there's
no
going
back.
So
if
people
are
saying
well,
we
have
to
wait
to
the
next
legislative
session
in
two
years.
It's
going
to
be
too
late
and
people
are
either
going
to
lose
their
homes
or
they're
going
to
be
in
such
financial
distress.
W
A
A
A
We
have
four
chairs
so
perfect
and
then,
as
soon
as
you're
done,
if
you
can
get
up
to
give
someone
else
a
chance
to
come
as
well.
X
Good
afternoon
my
husband
and
I,
my
husband,
Tom
and
I,
purchased
our
manufactured
home
at
the
Lucky
Lane
mobile
home
park
in
July
of
2017.
I'm,
sorry,
I'm,
very
nervous.
Before
the
current
owners
purchased
the
park
in
January
of
2020,
we
had
minimal
space
rent
increases
of
about
20
dollars
a
month.
In
the
past
two
years,
our
space
rent
has
increased
from
648
dollars
a
month
to
846
44.56
a
month
and
increase
of
30.33
percent
a
month.
X
Rent
increase
on
this
level
has
been
devastated
to
the
residents
of
the
parks,
especially
since
the
owner
home
owner
the
manufactured
owners.
They
need
Home
Improvements
desperately
and
they
can't
make
them
there's
no
money
for
it.
This
year
alone,
the
space
rent
went
up
by
16.49,
with
the
Social
Security,
raise
of
only
8.7
percent
leaves
a
lot
of
these
tenants,
an
even
worse
financial
position.
X
Those
hard-working
families
singles
disabled
and
retired
folks
count
on
Social,
Security
and
Workforce
incomes,
paychecks
retirement,
what
not
to
help
them
keep
up
with
their
increased
daily
living
expenses,
and
it's
just
not
always
happening
All
Too
Soon.
The
constituents
could
be
homeless
and
unable
to
pay
their
space
rents
as
spouses
or
roommates
either
pass
on
or
move
away
at
least
the
remaining
tenant,
with
the
full
burden
of
the
rent
of
what
fears
of
uncontrolled
rent
hikes
will
be.
X
I
am
also
convinced
that
it
is
a
real
fear
of
all
manufactured
home
parks
that,
to
their
tenants
every
day
they
wake
up
and
they
have
a
new
rent
and
all
of
a
sudden
boom
a
year
later.
There's
who
knows
what
it's
going
to
be
I'm,
asking
that
you
hear
our
statements
and
take
into
account
that
everyone
has
a
loved
one
that
may
rent
in
a
modular
home
park
and
lays
awake
at
nights
cared
for
their
financial
future.
X
Y
Madam,
chair
and
committee
members,
hello,
my
name
is
Tony
nidle
n-I-e-d-l-e
I
live
in
Reno
at
the
Donner
Springs
manufactured
home
park,
I'm
a
69
year
old,
retired
registered
nurse
that
devoted
much
of
my
life
working
as
a
nurse
at
the
VA
Hospital
until
I
was
forced
to
leave
to
take
care
of
both
of
my
parents
with
dementia.
Both
vets.
Y
This
bill
is
crucial
for
my
very
existence.
Without
it,
I
will
have
nowhere
to
live.
Currently
I
spend
30
percent
of
my
meager
two
thousand
dollar
social
security
income
on
rent,
20
percent
on
utilities
that
keep
going
up,
30
percent
on
insurance
and
10
percent,
on
my
medications
that
I'm
forced
to
take
every
other
day
so
that
I
can
continue
to
afford
them.
Y
Y
I
can
honestly
say
that
at
this
stage
in
my
life,
I'm
appalled
that
I
should
have
to
live
in
fear
of
being
homeless,
so
that
the
investors
at
the
top
of
the
Heap
can
profit
off
of
my
space.
Rent
I
understand
the
concern
that
there
is
a
fear.
This
is
the
beginning
of
rent
control
in
our
state
I'd
like
to
reiterate
that
this
is
not
rent
control
but
rent
stabilization.
Y
The
investors
will
still
be
able
to
see
a
return
on
their
investment,
but
this
bill
protects
your
most
vulnerable.
Consist
constituents,
the
ones
that
vote
for
you
against
gouging,
making
us
their
profit
Center
at
an
observe,
absurd,
unreasonable
rates.
Don't
the
seniors
and
disabled
deserve
a
little
protection
from
the
investors
that
are
invading
our
state.
Is
this
how
you'd,
like
your
grandmother
or
grandfather
to
live
in
fear,
I
paid
my
dues,
taxes
and
lived
a
life
of
service?
Y
Y
In
conclusion,
this
isn't
about
Republican
or
Democrat.
It's
about
your
constituents
that
need
your
help
to
protect
them
from
the
multi-billionaire
investors,
both
with
domestic
and
foreign
interests.
Please
keep
our
state
affordable
for
all.
Let's
not
turn
this
good
State
into
a
San
Francisco
crisis.
Z
Z
Since
we
last
testified,
we've
been
told
that
the
new
market
ran
at
Sierra.
Royal
is
now
one
thousand
ten
dollars
a
month
which
will
apply
to
any
new
owner
of
a
home
in
the
park.
We
current
residents,
who
are
paying
790
a
month,
have
not
received
anything
in
writing
to
this
date.
That's
been
five
and
a
half
months
regarding
the
new
or
existing
rents
or
fees.
So
we
really
don't
know
what
what
is
happening.
Z
We
were
told,
verbally
that
an
increase
for
current
residence
is
on
hold
at
this
time,
probably
because
they're
waiting
to
see
what
happens
with
this
bill,
we're
afraid
that
if
the
bill
does
not
pass,
we
will
get
a
substantial
rent
increase
soon,
even
though
we
did
just
have
one
of
forty
dollars
in
September,
we
have
open-ended
rental
agreements,
not
leases,
and
the
rent
can
be
changed
at
any
time
with
only
a
90-day
written
notice
from
management.
Z
These
multi-billion
dollar
investment
companies
would
have
you
believe
that
if
this
bill
passes,
they
will
be
unable
to
realize
a
profit.
No
one
is
suggesting
that
setting
some
parameters
to
help
keep
people
in
their
homes
should
keep
anyone
from
making
a
profit.
Smart
business
people
can
manage
expenses
and
make
money
and,
in
addition,
there's
the
provision
in
the
bill
that
allows
the
park
to
increase
the
pass-through
expenses
if
they
can
prove
those
expenses
have
risen.
So
much
that
the
calculator
brand
increase
is
insufficient.
Z
The
result
of
a
substantial
increase
would
be
an
extreme
financial
hardship
for
most
of
us
seniors
on
a
fixed
income.
If
we
could
even
afford
to
pay
it,
we
wouldn't
have
money
left
for
the
other
necessities
of
senior
living.
It
would
also
affect
local
businesses,
as
we
would
probably
be
unable
to
patronize
them.
If
SB
275
does
not
pass
to
make
rent
increases
at
least
manageable,
if
not
affordable
maintenance
center
homes
will
suffer,
major
purchases
will
not
be
possible
in
the
loss
of
revenue.
Z
They
would
like
you
to
believe
that
it's
necessary
for
them
to
put
our
housing
Security
in
Jeopardy
for
them
to
survive
as
companies,
no
one
seems
concerned
about
the
fixed
income
and
lower
income
people
who
are
at
risk
of
losing
their
homes
or
literally
just
trying
to
survive.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
please
pass
SB
275.
AA
Madam,
chairman
and
committee
members,
my
name
is
Dwayne
Anderson,
that's
d,
d-u-a-n-e
-a-n-d-e-r-s-o-n.
AA
But
when
the
was
sold
in
the
new
management
took
over
the
increased
the
new
members
by
a
very
new
owners
by
a
very
large
amount,
and
when
we
moved
there
eight
years
ago,
it
took
sold
our
house
in
Reno
and
used
the
excess
from
the
sail
to
pay
off
the
new
mobile
home
and
to
do
some
improvements.
AA
AA
And
we
just
just
need
this.
AA
A
A
AB
AB
K
AB
Depreciation
of
those
home
sales
has
significantly
increased
for
homes
that
were
listed
at
220
are
now
at
119..
Homes
at
100
000
are
still
stagnant,
not
moving.
When
new
inquiries
ask
for
what
the
space
rent
is
and
they're
told
it's
over
a
thousand
dollars.
People
are
saying:
no
I
am
disabled,
my
husband
is
67
68
years
old
and
I
receive
on
my
disability.
Eleven
hundred
dollars.
AB
We
are
in
a
health
worker
shortage
when
the
new
owner,
when
the
new
Property
Management
held
a
meeting
to
notify
us
of
the
requirements,
we
had
a
full
house
of
people
attending
scared
out
of
their
minds,
wondering
what's
going
to
happen
to
them,
because
there's
not
adequate
housing
for
them
to
go.
I
notified
the
city,
the
county,
the
press
and
was
this
ignored,
skip
daily
has
been
the
only
one
who
is
has
listened
and
addressed.
The
issue
and
I
want
there
to
be
protections
for
seniors
as
I
get
older,
and
it
seems
like
it's.
AB
AB
AB
AB
A
AC
The
association
is
a
small
non-profit
organization
that
focuses
on
issues
related
to
manufactured
home
communities.
The
association
stands
in
opposition
to
SB
275,
because
it
is
a
short-term
reaction
that
will
have
negative
long-term
consequences
for
the
tenants
of
manufactured
homes,
communities,
housing
prices
are
a
function
of
supply
and
demand.
The
more
housing
options
nevadans
have
to
choose
from
the
more
stable
the
housing
market
becomes.
AC
Rent
control
policies
like
SB
275
only
serve
to
limit
housing
options
by
disincentivizing
the
construction
of
new
housing
Supply
and
by
impacting
the
ability
of
Park
owners
to
maintain
and
invest
in
the
quality
of
manufactured
home
communities
manufactured
home
park.
Owners
tend
to
look
to
other
markets
and
states
that
Implement
artificial
rent
controls
and
existing
communities
in
those
States
tend
to
deteriorate
and
decline.
As
the
park
owners
see,
their
expenses
continue
to
rise
while
revenues
are
constrained.
AC
Ultimately,
the
people
harmed
in
that
scenario
are
the
tenants
who
want
reasonably
priced
clean
and
safe
communities
to
call
home.
The
association
urges
this
committee
to
consider
long-term
solutions
to
housing
prices.
Those
Solutions
should
always
center
around
policies
that
encourage
more
housing
Supply
or
provide
financial
assistance
for
fixed
income.
Tenants,
SB
275,
is
a
short-term
response
that
will
ultimately
harm
the
very
people
it
supposedly
protects
for
all
of
those
reasons,
the
association
opposes
SB
275
and
asks
the
committee
to
do
the
same.
Thank
you.
A
AD
You,
madam
chair,
in
your
testimony
and
opposition,
you
said
that
the
property
owners
in
the
mobile
home
parks
are
seeing
increased
expenses
for
themselves.
Could
you
tell
us
what
those
increased
expenses
are,
because
when
we
heard
the
testimony
from
those
in
support
those
numbers
didn't
really
seem,
they
didn't
have
a
justification
of
why
their
rent
was
going
up
and
then
how
often
are
they
going
up?
And
can
you
justify
what
that
is
because
these
are
seniors
and
people
who
are
just
disabled
and
people
on
fixed
incomes
that
can't
afford
rental
increases?
AC
Certainly
Josh
X
for
the
record,
I
I
think
for
the
first
part,
what
I
heard
among
the
testimony
there
was
that
the
rent
was
going
up
on
new
spaces,
not
necessarily
on
existing
spaces,
which
is
also
consistent
with
the
association's
clients
experience
they.
They
have
not
been
raising
revenue.
Many
Park
members
have
just
raised
revenues
or
rents,
I
mean
very
minor
amounts
on
existing
tenants,
so
I
think
that's
an
important
distinction,
but
nonetheless
any
kind
of
property
owner
who's,
providing
maintenance
and
care
of
common
areas,
paying
taxes
paying
utilities.
AC
AD
Hello,
so
one
of
the
testimony,
the
one
of
the
people
testifying
said
that
their
rent
was
22
when
they
first
moved
in
it's
gone
up
increasingly
by
like
33
percent,
and
now
it's
into
800
a
month
for
their
space
that
they're
living
in
and
then
when
the
taxes
go
up.
Are
the
tenants
informed
of
the
taxes
and
the
utilities
that
are
going
up
to
justify
the
rental
increases.
AC
AD
Thank
you,
madam
chair
last
thing,
and
if
the
rental
rates
are
increased
to
the
point
where
a
senior
or
someone
who's
disabled
cannot
afford
it,
do
you
help
that
displaced
person
find
another
place
to
stay
because
they
cannot
get
a
job
in
today's
market,
I
mean
they've.
They've
worked
they've
done
their
time,
helping
the
state
out
this
community
in
general,
but
when
the
rents
are
raised
so
high
that
their
social
security
check
or
their
retirement
check
doesn't
accommodate
that
rental
increase.
Do
you
help
that
displace
tenant.
AC
Thank
you,
Josh
Hicks
for
the
record,
I
I
think
it's.
You
know
there
was
an
interesting
study
that
I
think
answers
your
question
that
happened
in
Saint
Paul
when
they
were
looking
at
rent
control,
and
there
was
a
discussion
that
the
underlying
problem
is
not
necessarily
rental
prices,
but
it's
income
and
housing
Supply.
So
I
think
everyone
understands
that
income
is
fixed.
AC
Tenants
who
are
good
tenants
are
very
valuable
who
stay
who
pay
on
time.
In
my
experience,
in
my
clients,
experience
they're
not
looking
to
get
rid
of
those
tenants,
they're
not
trying
to
price
people
out.
You
see
the
rental
increases
on
maybe
new
spaces
and
some
of
that's
the
function
of
trying
to
catch
up
on
not
necessarily
making
as
much
revenue
on
existing
spaces.
J
Thank
you
and
my
question
is
so
when
you
said
like
some
of
these
people,
they
they're
trying
to
sell
these
mobile
homes.
So
with
this
new
price
of
a
thousand
dollars
or
the
rental
space
be
to
these
new
people
because
of
the
fact
they've
never
lived
there
before.
Is
that
what
I'm
hearing.
AC
Thank
you
so
much
Josh
Hicks
for
the
record.
Generally
speaking,
yes,
that's
a
new
tenant
that
comes
with
a
lack
of
a
history.
So
it's
a
new
space.
It's
a
new
market.
AE
Good
afternoon,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
dillian
Keith
Dylan
k-e-I-t-h
with
the
Vegas
chamber,
the
chamber
does
come
in
opposition
to
SB
275.
Today
it
is
a
principle
of
the
chamber
to
believe
in
the
free
market
of
pricing
and
remove
burden,
some
good
government
Intervention
when
determining
prices
in
a
market.
We
do
appreciate
Senator
Daley's
intent
as
there
are
nevadans
who
are
struggling
to
find
housing.
AE
However,
Nevada
has
seen
explosive
growth
in
our
population
over
the
past
two
decades
and
we
do
not
believe
this
bill
will
address
the
over
80
000
housing
units
that
are
necessary
to
truly
solve
housing.
The
housing
crisis
in
our
state,
the
chamber
believes
this
will
set
a
dangerous
precedent
for
the
future
and
we
do
ask
you
to
please
oppose
this
legislation.
Thank
you.
A
A
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
again
skip
daily,
representing
Senate,
District,
13.
and
I
appreciate
the
the
question
that
you
had
in
the
opposition.
V
People
in
mobile
home
parks
with
the
space
rental
owning
the
home,
but
not
the
space,
are
in
a
unique
disadvantage
in
that.
In
that
regard,
they
don't
have
any
place
else
to
go.
Literally.
There
are
protections,
there's
statutes
in
place
that
says
if
they
close
down
the
park,
that
they
would
have
to
move
the
mobile
home
and
various
things
up
to
275
miles
and
they
would
have
to
pay
for
that
cost.
The
problem
is,
some
of
these
homes
are
old,
cannot
be
moved.
V
Now,
don't
necessarily
want
to
see
those
people
maximize
profit
or
not
be
able
to
get
a
return
on
their
investment,
but
at
some
point
we
have
to
address
the
issue
and
look
at
the
reality
of
it
and
try
to
stabilize
it
for
the
most
vulnerable
people
in
our
society
in
these
mobile
home
parks,
when
we
started
mobile
home
parks
in
the
70s
and
the
statutes.
If
you
go
look
in
the
state
of
Nevada,
it
was
meant
to
be
the
solution
for
low-income
housing
or
or
to
have.
V
People
have
affordable
housing
and
various
things,
and
if
we
price
this
stuff
out
where
a
person
can't
sell
or
get
their
market
value
out
of
their
investment,
because
the
rent
on
the
land
is
so
high,
that
causes
their
property
value
to
go
down
and
it's
an
unfair
situation
and
what
I
can
tell
you
about
most
investors
and
and
testimony
in
the
opposition
was
that
as
an
observer
of
human
nature,
it's
consistent
and
predictable.
V
A
So
is
there
a
time
where,
if
you
don't
own
your
mobile
home,
you
would
be
paying
for
your
mobile
home
and
the
space
that
you're
renting.
V
I'm
sure
again
skip
daily
for
the
record.
Yes,
there
are
people,
so
if
someone-
the
ones
that
they
said,
are
for
sale,
someone
buys
that
mobile
home
unless
they
pay
for
it
cash
they're
going
to
have
the
payment
on
the
mobile
home
and
the
payment
on
the
space,
and
that's
where
the
problem
like
I
was
saying,
starts
to
come
in.
People
are
not
gonna,
buy
that
mobile
home
and
say:
oh,
this
is
Affordable,
or
at
least
it's
in
the
area.
V
You
know
200
300,
whatever
it
might
be
able
to
make
the
payment
on
that
plus
a
thousand
dollar
space
payment.
You
know
it's
as
much
as
if
you
were
buying
a
a
house
somewhere
and
those
are
some
of
the
issues
that
are
changing
the
affordability
on
this
and
the
people
that
are
in
there.
If
they
get
their
increase
and
they're
on
fixed
income,
they
may
not
be
maybe
in
their
mobile
home
payment,
but
the
the
space
payment,
as
you
heard
in
testimony,
is
going
to
cause
them
to
do
that
and
I
know.
V
There
was
one
thing
that
we
need
to
solve:
the
housing
crisis,
some
various
things
this
bill
isn't
designed
to
solve
the
housing
crisis,
but
it
is
designed
to
not
add
to
it.
AD
Do
mad
I'm
sure
thank
you
in
your
research
for
this
piece
of
legislation?
Did
you
find
if
the
the
property
owner
of
the
mobile
home
park
has
a
cap
on
the
property
taxes
that
they
pay
because
of
the
way
that
Nevada's
property
taxes
structure
is
or
does
it
go
up
annually?
Since
it's
a
commercial
property.
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
again
skip
daily
for
the
record,
so
your
understanding
of
the
tax
laws
in
Nevada
are
probably
better
than
mine,
but
I
do
know
quite
a
bit.
So,
yes,
they
would
have
the
eight
percent
cap
if
the
actual
value
went
up
on
the
on
the
property
that
they
have,
but
we
also
have
the
depreciation
which
applies
so
that
amount
has
already
been
reduced.
I
know
for
a
fact.
V
The
two
mobile
home
parks
are
at
least
35
40
years
old,
I
I
worked
on
them
actually,
when
they
were
built
when
I
was
still
working
in
the
field.
The
family
that
owned
it
before
was
Helen's
construction,
Robert
Elms
and
the
two
sons
when
they
had
to
sell
it.
My
understanding
it's
a
Warren
Buffett
owned
firm
now,
but
the
property
tax
works
the
same
for
them.
They
get
the
depreciation
and
they
are
kept
at
the
eight
percent
maximum.
AD
AF
Thank
you
so
much
Madam,
chair
and
I
probably
should
have
asked
this
earlier
on,
but
some
of
the
comments
that
were
made
just
kind
of
made
me
kind
of
want
to
go
through
Section
six,
which
is
already
an
existing
law
and
I'm
trying
to
understand.
AF
It
is
basically
right
now
and
I
can
understand
why
your
constituents
are
concerned
about
the
rent
increase,
because
section
six
basically
has
this
already
in
statute,
a
requirement
that
mandates
that
the
rents
across
the
board,
along
with
additional
charges,
are
supposed
to
remain
consistent
for
each
unit
size,
except
only
in
a
limited
circumstances
where
discounts
could
be
given,
and
those
would
be
for
those
that
are
handicapped
55
years
or
older,
and
those
are
only
in
selective
cases
and
I.
Think
that's
what
your
constituents
were
getting
to
is
that
right.
V
Thank
you,
madam
chair
again,
skip
daily
for
the
record.
That's
my
understanding
of
section
six
that
there
were
some
protections
that
were
put
in
I
didn't
look
up
to
see
when
those
changes
were
made
in
the
statute
for
people
with
disabilities.
55,
as
I
did
mention
on
some
of
the
information
that
I
did
look
up.
V
Mobile
home
parks
for
mobile
homes
were
meant
to
be.
You
know
an
affordable
housing
option
for
seniors
and
many
of
them
a
lot
of
the
parks.
For
instance
the
Sierra
Royal
one
is
a
senior
community,
so
no
kids,
the
other
one.
They
mentioned.
That's
in
in
my
district
here,
the
Donner
Springs
I
believe
it
was.
They
do
have
kids.
So
it's
so
it's
all
ages,
but
there's
still
a
significant
number
of
seniors
and
stuff
there.
V
So
it
is
selective
on
who
this
part
of
section
6
applies,
so
all
of
those
would
still
apply,
but
the
new
exemption
or
limit
that
we
put
in
that
applies
to
everybody.
We
just
LCB
drafted
and
made
sure
it
was
in
there
as
well.
A
A
A
AG
And
I'm
here
today,
in
my
capacity
as
an
attorney
in
the
legal
division
of
the
legislative
Council
Bureau
to
present
ab503
a
bill
requested
by
the
Legislative
Council
in
coordination
with
the
records
communication
and
compliance
division
of
the
Department
of
Public
Safety.
Before
beginning
my
presentation,
I
need
to
make
the
disclosure
that,
as
an
employee
of
the
legislative,
Council,
Bureau
I'm
prohibited
from
encouraging
the
passage
of
failure
of
legislation.
But
I
can
make
recommendations
on
legislation.
AG
The
revisions
that
you
see
in
AB
503
today
have
actually
been
in
the
works
for
about
four
years.
We
started
working
on
this
project
back
in
2019,
with
the
division
to
fix
certain
statutes
that
have
been
rejected
by
the
FBI.
Unfortunately,
we
and
we
were
going
to
bring
a
bill
last
session.
We
ran
out
of
time,
so
we
figured.
We
would
try
this
session,
cutting
it
a
little
close
in
this
one
too.
AG
AG
With
that
in
mind,
I
will
quickly
run
through
the
sections
in
the
bill
that
are
remaining
and
describe
what
we
are
fixing
and
why
section,
7,
8
and
11
of
the
bill
fix
some
statutes
that
exempt
volunteers
who
are
likely
to
have
unsupervised
contact
with
pupils
from
the
requirement
to
submit
fingerprints
and
undergo
a
background
check.
If
those
volunteers
had
already
had
a
background
check
conducted
by
another
entity
in
the
past
six
months.
AG
Sections
9,
12,
13
and
89
make
additional
changes
with
respect
to
the
same
background
checks
in
the
educational
context.
The
FBI
determined
that
these
sections
don't
meet
the
requirements
of
the
federal
law
because
they
improperly
authorize
the
dissemination
of
criminal
history
record
information
to
a
private
person.
For
that
reason,
we
removed
those
provisions
and
made
conforming
changes
as
appropriate
section
10
of
the
bill.
The
FBI
rejected
this
statute
because
it
believed
that
the
language
other
auxiliary
non-professional
Personnel
is
too
broad
a
term
for
the
purposes
of
background
checks.
AG
AG
In
section
60,
the
FBI
determined
that
one
sentence
in
the
psychology
inter-jurisdictional
compact
improperly
authorizes
dissemination
of
criminal
history
record
information
to
private
entities.
So
we
deleted
that
sentence
and
specified
that
a
compact
state
is
prohibited
from
submitting
to
the
coordinated
database.
Any
criminal
history
record
information
obtained
from
a
report
of
the
central
repository
or
the
FBI
section.
61
pertains
to
marriage
and
family
therapists
and
clinical
professional
counselors.
Currently,
fingerprinting
Authority
only
exists
for
an
expedited
license
by
endorsement,
so
we
added
specific
authorization
for
the
other
types
of
licenses
in
chapter
641a.
AG
Section
64
of
the
bill
makes
a
minor
technical
correction
relating
to
applicants
for
licenses
a
behavior
analyst
or
assistant
behavior
analyst
or
registration
as
a
registered
Behavior
technician
to
clarify
that
an
applicant
must
submit
a
complete
set
of
fingerprints
to
the
board
for
purposes
of
a
report
on
the
criminal
history
of
the
person
from
both
the
central
repository
and
the
FBI
in
section
65.
The
statute
which
pertains
to
the
Nevada
funeral
and
Cemetery
Services
Board,
was
not
approved
by
the
FBI,
because
the
specific
applicants
were
not
identified
in
the
statute.
AG
So
we
revised
the
statute
to
identify
each
type
of
license
certificate
or
permit
required.
Pursuant
to
the
chapter,
sections
81
to
84
pertain
to
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
and
Define
the
terms
board,
member
officer
owner
and
ownership
interest
for
purposes
of
background
checks
of
persons
associated
with
medical
cannabis
establishments
and
adult
use
cannabis
establishments
as
the
FBI
determined
that
those
terms
were
overly
broad.
Without
a
definition.
AG
Section
85
makes
a
conforming
change
and
section
89
of
the
bill
repeals
a
statute
relating
to
the
State
Board
of
Cosmetology.
That
improperly
authorizes
the
sharing
of
criminal
history
record
information
between
certain
entities,
there's
also
a
proposed
amendment
up
on
Nellis
from
Connor
and
Connor
that
relates
to
the
provisions
governing
the
Cannabis
compliance
board
and
my
office
does
not
support
or
oppose
those
provisions
of
the
amendment,
but
I
am
familiar
with
them
and
could
discuss
them
if
you
so
desire-
and
that
concludes
my
presentation
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
Thank.
H
Q
AG
Okay,
actually
I
believe
we
did
review
that
I
think
that
one
just
came
back
as
being
okay.
It
was
a
really
minor
technical
correction
anyway,
which,
frankly,
there
are
many
statutes
and
NRS
that
read
the
same
way
so
yeah
we
took
that
out.
H
Yeah
just
quickly
so
for
clarity
sake,
sorry,
so
we
are
keeping
it
removed
or
we
would
like
to
keep
section
64
in.
AD
AG
Thank
you
for
the
question
right
now.
Those
terms
are
not
defined
at
all,
so
adding
a
definition
certainly
gets
us
much
further
along
in
getting
it
approved.
AG
Their
proposed
amendment
actually
Narrows
the
definition
somewhat,
which
would
possibly
make
it
more
likely
to
be
accepted
by
the
FBI
than
without
the
amendment,
the
first
part
and
then
the
second
amendment,
adding
natural
person
I.
Don't
think
that
one
really
matters
much
one.
It's
clear
from
the
context
of
the
NRS
that
we're
talking
about
natural
persons,
but
it
certainly
doesn't
hurt
to
add
that
into
the
statute,
because
the
FBI
is
always
looking
at
the
statute
itself
as
a
self-contained
thing.
They
don't
want
to
go
back
and
flip
through
other
parts
of
the
chapter.
AD
A
You,
madam
chair
committee,
members
any
additional
questions.
I,
don't
see
any.
Thank
you
for
your
presentation.
We
will
begin
with
testimony
in
support
of
assembly.
Bill
503.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
Carson
City
wishing
to
testify
and
support
I,
don't
see
any?
Is
there
anyone
in
Las
Vegas
wishing
to
testify
and
support
to
assembly
Bill
503
broadcast?
Is
there
anyone
on
the
line.
A
A
A
A
The
committee
will
now
come
back
to
order
again
with
the
permission
of
the
speaker.
We
will
work
session
assembly
Bill,
503
I
will
take
a
motion
with
the
mock-up
Amendment
and
the
amendment
from
Connor
and
Connor
I
have
a
first
from
assemblywoman
Torres
and
a
second
from
assembly
woman
Monroe
Moreno.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
motion?
AH
Thank
you,
chair
I,
at
this
point,
based
on
the
testimony
given
by
the
presenter
I'm
still
a
little
concerned
about
the
FBI
on
the
Conor
and
Connor
Amendment
than
their
approval
of
the
narrowing
of
that
definition,
that
that
is
kind
of
still
a
lingering
thing.
That's
out
there,
so
I
guess
I'll
vote
Yes
out
of
committee,
but
I'm
going
to
reserve
my
right
to
go.
AH
A
A
I
will
now
open
up
for
public
comment.
Please
address
your
remarks
to
issues
that
fall
within
the
jurisdiction
of
this
committee.
Public
comment
is
limited
to
two
minutes
per
person.
Please
remember
to
State
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record.
Is
there
anyone
here
in
Carson
City
wishing
to
provide
public
comment?