►
From YouTube: 4/8/2022 - Legislative Commission
Description
This is the fifth meeting of the 2021-2022 Interim. Please see the agenda for details.
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.
C
E
F
F
A
Assemblywoman
hadiki's
here-
and
I
am
here
as
well-
I
think
that
means
everyone
is
present,
so
we
do
have
a
quorum
and
again
just
want
to
welcome
those
who
are
joining
us
here
in
las
vegas,
those
in
carson
city
and
those
who
might
be
watching
on
the
internet.
It
feels
a
little
strange
to
be
back
in
person
so
bear
with
us
as
we
get
through
this
new
experience
for
the
time
being,
just
a
few
quick
housekeeping
matters.
A
Many
of
these
will
sound
familiar,
but
I
like
to
go
over
them
just
in
case
we
have
new
people
in
attendance.
Anyone
who's
going
to
testify
today.
Could
you
please
state
and
spell
your
name
for
the
record
before
you
testify
and
then,
if
anybody
would
like
to
receive
a
copy
of
the
commission's
agenda
minutes
or
reports,
you
may
be
added
to
our
mailing
list
by
following
the
links
on
the
legislature's
website
or
by
providing
information
to
our
staff
contact
information
for
staff
is
also
listed
on
the
legislative
website.
A
In
addition,
we
accept
written
comments
which
may
be
emailed
or
mailed
before,
during
or
after
the
meeting.
The
information
regarding
where
to
send
written
comments
is
also
on
the
website
and
listed
on
the
agenda
for
this
meeting.
Before
I
get
to
public
comment
today.
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
note
a
couple
of
things
for
members
and
really
for
members
of
the
public
who
might
be
interested
in
today's
meeting
and
might
be
intending
to
provide
public
comment.
A
So
those
two
will
formally
be
deferred
when
we
get
to
them
on
the
agenda.
But
I
want
to
let
folks
know
just
in
case
that
impacts
anybody
who
is
intending
to
give
public
comment
on
one
or
both
of
those.
Now
they
could
come
up
at
future
agendas.
We
never
know,
but
if
so
that
they
would
be
posted
like
they
were
on
this
agenda,
so
you'd
have
ample
notice
for
that.
So
with
that
being
said,
we're
gonna
go
to
our
next
agenda
item,
which
is
agenda,
item
2
public
comment.
A
So
we
have
three
different
ways
to
give
public
comment
from
folks
who
want
to
give
public
comment.
Live.
We
have
here
down
at
the
grand
sawyer
building
those
up
in
carson
city
and
then
we'll
take
some
public
comment
from
those
wishing
to
give
public
comment
on
the
phone.
As
a
reminder,
there
is
a
second
period
of
public
comment
at
the
end
of
the
agenda.
So
if
you
want
to
hold
public
comment
until
then,
you
certainly
can
do
that.
A
public
comment
will
be
limited
to
two
minutes
per
speaker
and
I
will
be
up
here.
A
Timing
just
to
be
fair
to
everybody,
and
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
start
here
in
las
vegas.
Take
some
public
comment,
then
we'll
go
to
carson
city.
Take
some
public
comment,
then
we'll
go
to
the
phones
and
so
we'll
see
where
we're
at
so
we're
going
to
start
here
in
las
vegas.
So
if
there's,
anyone
who
would
like
to
give
public
comment
here
in
the
room
in
las
vegas
would
ask
you
to
come
forward
to
the
table.
A
I
think
we
have
two
seats,
so
we
can
go
ahead
and
fill
both
of
those
from
anyone
wanting
to
give
public
comments.
So
if
you
like
to
do
that,
please
come
up
now
and
then
just
a
reminder
when
you're
going
to
give
public
comment
to
turn
the
microphone
on
and
state
and
spell
your
name
before
providing
public
comment
good
afternoon,
please
go
ahead.
B
Again
good
afternoon
my
name
is
ann
barnett,
I'm
the
ceo
for
the
nevada
contractors
association,
the
nevada
contractors
association
represents
close
to
500
companies
and
that's
general
contractors.
Subcontractors
suppliers.
We
are
certainly
diverse,
representing
most
influential
small
to
large
businesses
and
signatory
companies,
I'm
here
to
be
on
record
that
the
nevada
contractors
association
opposes
regulation,
r017-22.
B
That's
regarding
the
state
infrastructure
bank
fund,
a
regulation
mandating
project
labor
agreements,
also
known
as
plas,
certainly
limits
competition
limiting
what
the
state
infrastructure
bank
was
intended
for.
Pla
will
also
impact
budget
goals
that
are
set
within
the
regulation,
making
it
difficult
for
any
contractor
to
be
successful.
B
I
want
to
thank
our
state
treasurer
zach
conan,
for
meeting
with
us
and
listening
to
our
concerns,
but
ncaa
requests
that
the
legislative
commission
either
vote
no
or
delay
action
on
these
regulations
to
give
stakeholders
time
to
address
remaining
challenges.
So
thank
you
again
for
taking
my
comments
into
consideration
today.
A
C
Hello,
chair
yeager
vice
chair
interim
legislative
commission.
My
name
is
gil
lopez
g-I-l-l-o-p-e-z
for
the
record,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
charter
school
association
of
nevada,
represented
over
60
000
students
in
our
public
school
system.
We
are
here
in
support
for
regulations
r017-22,
specifically
the
charter,
the
public
charter
facility
loan
program.
I
do
want
to
thank
treasurer
conan
and
also
mr
jimenez
on
their
leadership.
In
this
area.
C
We
had
an
opportunity
to
have
a
stakeholder
meeting
in
early
january,
where
we
brought
school
leaders,
business
leaders
and
advocates
to
discuss
the
program
and
provide
feedback.
This
program
will
allow
access
to
capital
for
our
public
charter
schools
and
allow
for
the
development
of
new
and
existing
facilities
with
the
ultimate
goal
of
improving
outcomes
for
our
students.
C
G
You,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
commission,
warren
hardy
w-a-r-r-e-n
last
name
hardy
h-a-r-d-y,
I'm
here
as
well,
to
express
some
concerns
with
regulation.
R017-22,
understand
the
importance
of
the
infrastructure
bank
and
what
it
means
to
our
community.
However,
there
is
a
provision
in
section:
20
mandating
a
project.
Labor
agreement
be
used
in
conjunction
with
these
funds.
G
This
is,
as
far
as
I
know
in
my
30
years
is
the
first
time
a
project.
Labor
agreement
would
be
mandated
in
a
regulation.
We
have
concerns
over
that.
I
do
appreciate
the
treasurer
for
for
meeting
with
us
and
helping
us
understand
the
reason
he
thinks
they
need
to
be
included.
I
would
submit
that
they
don't
need
to
be
included
in
the
legislation
if
there's
federal
requirements,
they
can
certainly
be
added
after
I'll.
G
Just
quickly
remind
you
that
the
concerns
we
have
on
behalf
of
the
open
shop
construction
industry,
which
represents
85
percent
of
the
industry,
including
almost
100
percent
of
women,
minority
and
small
businesses,
is
that
they
put
us
at
a
competitive
disadvantage
in
in
terms
of
the
our
ability
to
use
our
own
workers.
So,
under
the
provisions
of
a
project
labor
agreement,
a
company
may
only
use
seven
of
their
own
workers
on
an
alternating
basis.
G
Then
they
have
to
hire
the
remaining
from
the
hall,
so
you
hire
one
from
the
hall
one
of
your
own
one
from
up
to
a
total
of
seven.
That
means,
if
you're,
a
company
of,
say,
25,
you're,
you're,
a
minority
or
small
business
with
who
has
25
employees
and
you're
awarded
one
of
these
contracts.
You
get
to
a
form
your
25
employees,
that
only
seven
of
them
get
to
work
and
the
rest
of
them
will
be
replaced
by
somebody
from
the
labor
union
hall.
G
A
A
I
don't
see
anyone
coming
forward
in
las
vegas,
so
let's
go
up
to
carson
city.
If
anyone
would
like
to
give
public
comment
in
carson
city,
would
you
please
come
to
the
table
up
there
and
I
can
see
through
the
reflection
that
there
is
at
least
one
person
coming
to
the
table
so
when
you're
ready,
please
go
ahead.
H
Thank
you,
chairman
yeager,
and
members
of
the
legislative
commission.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
mack
bybee
m-a-c-b-y-b-e-e,
I'm.
The
president,
ceo
of
the
associated
builders
and
contractors
of
nevada,
more
often
referred
to
as
abc
abc,
is
a
trade
association
primarily
comprised
of
open
shop
contractors.
H
I'm
here
to
express
my
opposition
to
draft
regulations
from
the
state,
nevada,
state
infrastructure
bank
lcb
file.
Number
r017-22
in
particular
abc,
is
opposed
to
the
requirements
in
the
regulation
to
utilize
project
labor
agreements
at
the
most
basic
level
plas
require
all
contractors
degree
to
hire
through
a
union
hall
for
bid
eligibility
instead
of
utilizing
their
own
employees
in
nevada.
Union
workforce
in
construction
is
less
than
16
percent.
According
to
the
u.s
bureau
of
labor
statistics,
the
vast
majority
of
construction
workforce
in
nevada
chooses
to
work
without
union
affiliation.
H
Pla
mandates
are
not
about
equity
and
opportunity;
they
are
exclusionary.
It
is
a
system
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
who
is
best
trained
or
qualified.
It
is
a
political
tool,
not
a
construction
management
tool.
For
these
reasons,
I
humbly
request
that
the
legislative
commission
oppose
this
regulation.
Thank
you.
A
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
My
name
is
alexis
motorix
with
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors,
representing
both
signatory
and
non-signatory
companies
in
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada,
and
we
too
are
opposed
to
regulation
r017-22
as
it
is
currently
drafted
due
to
the
project
labor
agreement
mandates
in
section
20..
We
have
no
objection
to
the
pla
mandate
when
using
the
afl-cio
funds
for
the
affordable
housing
component.
As
those
are
private
dollars,
rules
should
be
adopted
to
honor
the
wishes
of
the
donor.
I
While
agc
has
participated
in
the
workshops,
there
was
no
request
for
industry
input.
As
these
regs
were
being
developed.
Had
the
commercial
construction
in
had
commercial
construction
been
consulted,
we
may
have
been
able
to
to
discuss
our
concerns
and
find
language
that
accomplished
the
goals
of
the
infrastructure
bank,
while
minimizing
the
unintended
consequences
we
are
fearful
of
now.
The
language
approved
by
the
state
infrastructure
infrastructure
bank
in
january
encouraged
the
use
of
project
labor
agreements,
but
stopped
short
of
mandating
them.
I
I
The
federal
interim
final
rule
guidelines
only
encourage
plas.
It's
our
understanding
that,
through
through
our
national
office,
that
the
final
regs
will
not
be
released
until
june
and
earliest
and
will
not
be
finalized
until
late
this
year,
early
early
next
year
at
the
soonest
inconsistent
policy
decisions
seem
to
have
been
applied
to
this
regulation.
We
request
the
language
be
returned
to
its
original
draft.
If
the
regs
adopted
by
the
federal
government
require
additional
action
by
this
body,
there
will
be
time
to
do
so
in
the
interim.
I
A
Thank
you
for
your
public
comment.
In
addition,
we
wanted
to
wish
you
a
happy
birthday,
miss
motorex,
we
hope
you're
having
a
very
good
birthday
and
we're
sorry.
We
you
had
to
spend
a
couple
of
minutes
with
us
here
at
legislative
commission
anybody
else
in
carson
city
who
would
like
to
provide
public
comment
right.
I
see
a
few
people
there,
but
I
don't
see
anybody
coming
forward.
A
So
at
this
time
we'll
go
to
the
phone
lines
and
if
you've
called
in
and
you'd
like
to
speak
during
this
meeting,
I
believe
broadcast
and
production
services
will
advise
you
about
how
to
do
that.
Just
please
remember
that
if
you'd
like
to
provide
comment
to
state
and
spell
your
name
before
you
speak
and
then
you'll
be
limited
to
two
minutes
so
bps,
could
you
check
to
see
if
there's
anybody
who
is
called
in
on
the
phones
would
like
to
give
public
comment?
Please.
D
Hi,
my
name
is
valerie
white
v-a-l-e-r-I-e,
white
w-h-I-t-e.
I
know
that
r-088-20,
the
baby
blood
samples
was
removed
from
today's
agenda,
but
I'd
still
like
to
give
public
comment
on
that
number
one.
I
believe
that
taking
these
blood
samples
from
babies
is
an
absolute
infringement
of
privacy,
and
I
don't
understand
why
it's
necessary
from
birth.
D
Two
I'm
I'm
concerned
about
the
privacy
of
the
dna
that
will
be
collected
from
those
blood
samples
and
how
much
public
access
will
there
be
to
that
and
three
who
and
what
is
going
to
control
who
has
access
to
that
information?
I
just
I'm
really
opposed
to
it.
Taking
privacy
away
from
a
baby
from
their
first
breath
is
just
wrong.
I
would
just
remind
all
the
legislators
on
this
call
that
I
don't
believe
you
would
be
comfortable
with
having
your
blood
samples
and
dna
information
available
on
public
records
for
who
knows
who
to
access.
D
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps
and
again
by
way
of
reminder,
we
will
have
a
second
opportunity
for
public
comment.
It
is
the
last
agenda
item,
but
for
now
we
will
go
ahead
and
close
agenda
item
number
two,
which
was
public
comment
and
that
will
take
us
to
agenda
item
number
three
approval
of
the
minutes.
Committee
members.
You
will
have
found
in
your
packet
the
draft
minutes
from
our
february
28
2022
legislative
commission
meeting
they're
also
available
on
the
legislature's
website.
A
So
let
me
first
ask
if
there's
any
changes
or
corrections
to
the
minutes.
Let
me
just
look
here:
I
don't
see
anyone
here
in
las
vegas,
my
screen's
dark
for
carson
city.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
someone
has
any
corrections,
please
just
unmute
yourself
and
let
me
know
otherwise,
I'd
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve.
A
A
A
A
Oh
okay,
great,
mr
several!
Please
come
forward
to
the
there.
You
go
it's
a
little
tricky
because
the
camera
was
not
on
the
audience.
So
I
apologize
for
not
seeing
you
but
mr
cyrus,
if
you
have
anything
you'd
like
to
say
initially
on
the
update,
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
do
that
and
then
we'll
have
a
chance
for
commission
members
to
ask
questions.
So
thanks
again
for
joining
us
and
please
proceed.
A
L
You
chair
good
afternoon
and
chair
and
committee
commission
members,
sean
sever
s-e-a-n-s-e-v-e-r.
L
L
More
than
61
000
business
refunds
were
issued
for
a
total
of
2.,
almost
2
2.2
million
dollars
more
than
36
000
business
refunds
have
cleared
through
march
31st
for
a
total
of
more
than
1.36
million
dollars
or
62
percent
of
the
business
checks.
L
L
L
A
trial
test
period,
trial
test
run
for
the
customer
refund
program
was
conducted
starting
on
march
23rd
with
dmv
employees,
because
they
are
our
customers
too,
to
make
sure
everything
was
running
well
and
it
is
over
1.
000
of
those
refunds
have
been
issued
through
march
31st
and
we
haven't
not
seen
any
issues
thus
far.
L
A
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
simple
question:
if
a
person
buys
a
car
at
a
dealership
and
the
dealer
says
I'll,
go
get
your
registration
done
for
you.
How
does
that
one
dollar?
I
think
it's
still.
One
dollar
come
back
to
the
person,
or
does
the
person
go
separately
and
distinctly
to
get
the
one
dollar
refund.
L
Sean
sever
for
the
record
from
the
dmv,
the
all
of
the
individual
refunds
the
customers
have
to
come
in
and
pick
those
up
from
us.
So,
for
example,
I
I
registered
three
cars
last
or
during
the
time
period.
So
I
went
into
a
dmv
office
physically
and
got
my
three
dollars
cash
back.
So
it's
up
to
the
up
to
the
customers
to
go
through
that
process.
A
L
Yes,
sean
sever
from
the
dmv.
We
are
not
offering
refunds
for
people
online
or
any
of
our
satellite
offices
such
as
aaa
or
kiosks.
L
L
L
A
A
Okay,
commission
members,
that
takes
us
through
agenda
item
number
four
and
we
are
now
on
agenda
item
number
five,
which
is
administrative
regulations
and
chief
deputy
legislative
council.
Asher
killian
is
with
us
in
carson
city
at
the
end
of
the
teleconference
line
today
to
assist
us
with
this
item
and
just
by
way
of
reminder,
we
have
two
types
of
proposed
approvals
for
regulations
under
item
five.
Today,
we're
going
to
start
with
item
5a,
which
is
a
request
for
early
review
pursuant
to
nrs233b.0681.
A
The
board
of
directors
of
the
nevada
state
infrastructure
bank
submitted
regulation
r017-22
for
early
review
at
this
meeting
copy
of
that
proposed
regulation
is
posted
on
the
nevada
legislature's
website.
Under
the
tab
for
this
meeting,
which
you
will
find
by
hitting
the
button
in
the
upper
right
corner
of
the
home
page,
which
says
view
events,
commission
members,
you
should
have
a
copy
of
that
proposed
regulation
on
your
desks
and
I
believe
we
have
eric
jimenez,
who
is
chief
policy,
deputy
treasurer
and
secretary
to
the
nevada
state
infrastructure
bank
board
of
directors
up
in
carson
city.
A
F
Okay,
thank
you,
and
I
think
we
have
mr
jimenez
is
there
at
the
table.
I
guess
I
would
put
my
glasses
on
to
make
sure
good
good
afternoon.
Mr
jimenez,
the
question
I
have
you
know
again.
You
heard
a
lot
of
early
testimony.
F
F
My
question
is
yesterday
we
were
at
ifc
and
there
was
a
letter
submitted
by
the
building
and
construction
trade
council
of
northern
nevada,
and
in
that
they
talked
quite
plainly
about
the
intent
of
the
treasury
department
at
the
federal
level.
F
Talking
about
the
need
for
as
they
put
in
here,
treasury
encourages
the
recipients
to
ensure
that
water,
sewer
and
broadband
projects
use
strong
labor
standards,
including
project
labor
agreements
and
community
benefit
agreements
that
offer
wages
out
or
above
the
prevailing
weight
rate
and
include
local
higher
provisions,
and
it
goes
on
and
on
the
language
that
they
use
was
encourages,
and
so
my
question
then,
is
when,
when
we're
putting
the
language
in
our
regulation
that
we're
going
to
be
using
going
forward,
which
is
very
strong
language-
I
mean
we
don't
have
that
anywhere
else
where
it
says,
must
have
a
project
labor
agreement.
F
One
might
assume
that
it's
because
we
need
to
have
it
in
there
in
order
to
get
the
money
from
the
federal
government.
And
yet,
when
I
read
this,
it
just
says
that
it
seems
to
be
more
of
a
factor
that,
if
you
have
the
language,
it
increases
your
chances,
but
may
not
be
the
way
that
you
get
the
money.
We
could
probably
do
without
that.
J
J
Initially,
you
would
refer
to
the
the
treasury
final
rule
on
american
rescue
plan
dollars.
No
dollars
from
this
bank
are
being
used
from
the
the
american
rescue
plan,
so
the
the
treasury
guidance
there
doesn't
really
apply
in
this
situation.
J
There
is
75
million
dollars
which
was
approved
bipartisan
with
bipartisan
support
from
the
legislature
in
general
obligation
debt,
so
the
state
can
set
requirements
there.
Regarding
the
the
pla
requirement
in
section
20.,
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
there
are
two
sections
in
this
that
we
are
not
requiring
plas
on.
After
talking
with
the
charter
schools
and
in
a
general
infrastructure
account
as
well,
so
there
would
be
an
off-ramp
in
a
circumstance
where
we
weren't
talking
about
a
federal
match
of
infrastructure
dollars
contained
within
the
investment
infrastructure,
investment
and
jobs
act.
J
We
know
that
there
are
going
to
be
massively
competitive
operations
that
are
needed
going
to
need
to
take
place
very
very
rapidly,
which
is
why
the
governor
appointed
a
new
infrastructure,
czar,
nelson
or
who's
coming
on
board
next
monday,
and
we're
trying
to
set
ourselves
up
with
this
particular
40
million
dollar
fund,
which
was
approved
by
the
board
of
finance
on
march
8th
to
leverage
as
much
federal
dollars
into
this
state.
J
For
far
too
long,
we
have
left
billions,
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
just
regular
budget
enhancements,
but
when
it
comes
to
infrastructure,
we
leave
billions
of
dollars
on
the
table
because
we
are
not
competitive.
We
do
believe
this
is
a
necessary
factor,
and
we
do
believe
that
the
biden
white
house
is
going
to
use
to
to
prioritize
organizations
that
that
emphasize
strong
labor
standards,
strong
working
conditions
for
people,
dignified
wages
for
people
who
have
been
out
of
work
for
too
long
in
order
to
get
those
grants.
F
Thank
you.
If
I
could,
mr,
I
can't
tell
you
because
there's
a
reflection
I
can't
tell
he
could
be
telling
me
no
cutting
me
off,
but
I
just
want
to
follow
up
so
again
it
the
regular.
The
requirements
you
saw
here
for
upper
money
may
not
apply
but
you're,
indicating
through
your
testimony
that
you
believe
that
we
need
the
language
in
order
to
be
more
competitive
because
other
states
are
going
to
put
it
in
there
again.
The
question,
though,
is
without
it
again.
I
come
back
to
the
word
factor
right.
J
Eric
jimenez
for
the
record,
thank
you
senator
for
the
question.
I
would
refer
you
to
and
we're
happy
to
submit
it
for
the
record.
The
executive
order
on
use
of
project
labor
agreements
for
federal
construction
projects,
which
was
signed
by
the
president
on
february,
4th
2022.
J
There
is
a
requirement
that
all
federal
projects
over
35
million
dollars
have
a
project
labor
agreement.
So
in
order
to
ensure
that
we
have
the
ability
to
to
compete
for
those
grants
which
I
imagine
most
are
going
to
be
over
35
million
dollars,
we
believe
it's
going
to
be
a
requirement,
which
is
why
it
was.
It
was
put
in
this
section.
F
You
have
to
include
a
pla
in
that,
and
so,
if
we
were
to
get
the
money
without
the
language
in
the
regulation,
as
it
is
right
now,
many
of
the
projects
that
would
go
forth
but
still
need
a
pla,
and
that
would
you
know,
I
think
that
there
would
be
an
agreement,
then
between
the
the
contractor,
who
bid
out
and
the
labor
than
that
would
be
brought
in.
F
My
concern
is
that
in
northern
nevada
in
particular,
you
have
many
of
the
contractors,
both
signatory
and
non-signatory,
or
especially
the
ones
who
are
union
who
are
telling
us
that
it's
not
easy
to
find
those
workers
who
would
actually
be
used
or
fit
the
the
need
or
fit
the
the
contract,
and
there
therefore
you'd
have
to
go
out
of
state
to
probably
get
them
which
again
would
in
in
the
way.
F
I
look
at
a
lot
of
the
contracts
out
there
that
increases
the
cost
of
whatever
project
we're
talking
about,
and
that
was
one
of
the.
If
not
mistaken,
the
language
that
was
used
in
the
letter
was
to
make
sure
that
we
keep
the
cost
down
as
much
as
possible.
A
B
Thank
you
chair
and
thank
you,
mr
jimenez,
for
being
here,
and
I
had
a
question
too,
along
the
same
lines
as
senator
hammonds,
and
so,
but
it
was
my
understanding.
As
I
read
through
the
regulation
that
there
there
was
an
off-ramp
right
for
say
areas
where
we
couldn't
find
people
like.
I
think
the
example
that
was
used
was
glaciers
and
roofers,
and
so
that
was
one
of
my
concerns
too.
B
Does
this
mean
that
we'd
have
to
go
out
of
state
instead
of
putting
the
vatins
to
work
right,
because
the
priority
is
always
to
put
nevadans
to
work
first,
and
so,
if,
in
the
case
that
there
isn't
anyone
here
in
nevada
to
fill
that
role
in
the
union,
there's
an
off-ramp
built
in
where
the
bank
can
then
decide
that
there
doesn't
have
to
be
a
pla
correct.
J
Correct
thank
you
for
the
question
assemblyman.
I
think
this
is
an
incredibly
important
point.
There
are
a
couple
of
different
off-ramps.
First,
I
would
direct
you
to
section
17,
which
is
the
apprenticeship
and
local
hire
requirements.
We
worked
really
really
hard.
We
started
this
journey
in
developing
these
regs.
In
january,
we
held
months
of
meetings.
We
held
an
additional
30-day
public
comment
period
for
industry
representatives
to
give
us
feedback.
J
I
told
assemblywoman
carlton
this
and
when
you
tell
assemblywoman
carlton
something
you
better
hold
true
to
your
word
that
we
were
going
to
do
everything
we
could
to
make
sure
that
local
residents
were
hired
on
this
job,
to
correct
to
to
ensure
that
we
had
some
flexibility.
We
felt
the
right
number
was
50
of
local
residents
to
meet
that
exact
situation
that
miss
motor
x
was
describing
if
there
wasn't
individuals
within
a
specific
trade
that
we
could
potentially
use
out
of
state
workers
to
meet
that
that
one
example
the
second
off
ramp.
J
I
would
refer
you
to
section
21
of
the
regulation,
which
is
a
catch-all
section
to
fund
eligible
projects
which
this
body
and
the
legislature
approved
through
senate
bill
430
last
session.
Expanding
the
use
of
eligible
projects
in
the
un
under
the
the
the
guys
that
of
a
pla
couldn't
be
reached
on
a
particular
project
or
the
the
number
of
workers
that
needed
to
be
required
to
to
perform
work
under
a
given
craft
or
trade
couldn't
be
reached.
J
We
could
the
board
could
decide
to
divert
funds
into
that
account
within
section
21
and
then
the
pla
requirements
wouldn't
apply.
So
we've
done
a
lot
of
work
to
create
off-ramps
here,
but
I
think
at
the
same
time
also
balancing
that
the
workers
deserve
a
dignified
wage
and
good
working
conditions
as
well.
So
I
hope
that
was
long-winded,
but
I
hope
that
answers
your
question.
M
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
again
that
section
20,
subsection,
2
and
subsection
3..
What
I
I
mean
I
heard
the
word
billions
of
dollars,
so
I
I'm
curious.
If
this
40
million
dollar
I'll
call
it
a
teaser,
is
put
in
there
really
not
as
a
limit,
but
actually
because
the
next
verbiage
is,
unless
they
justify
a
larger
loan
or
financial
assistance
is
more
so.
The
40
million
dollars
obviously
isn't
a
billion
dollars.
M
So
what
what
is
the
is
there
a
max
and
is
there
a
project
that
is
envisioned
now
or
are
there
projects
envisioned
now
that
could
take
advantage
of
this
in
order
to
get
that
quick
start
that
you're
talking
about
so
we
don't
leave
billions
of
dollars.
J
Thank
you
for
the
question
senator
hardy
air
commenced
for
the
record.
We
use
the
the
dollar
amount
thresholds
that
you'll
see
in
sections
18,
19
and
20
are
mirrored
after
the
approval
from
the
state
board
of
finance
in
this
first
tranche
of
money,
which
is
why
they
they
match
the
corresponding
dollar
amounts.
The
state
board
of
finance
approved
an
issuance
of
bonds
for
20
million
dollars
to
support
affordable
housing.
J
We
can
talk
about
what
the
structure
of
that
program,
the
leveraging,
might
look
like
a
15
million
dollar
slug
for
charter
school
capital,
construction,
which
is
the
largest
investment
in
charter
school
capital,
needs
from
the
state
in
history,
and
then
also
this
40
million
dollar
slug,
which
we
can
spend
a
bit
of
time
on.
We
know
that
it's
not
going
to
be
enough,
but
I
think
there's
a
couple
mechanisms
that
the
board
is
planning
on,
employing
to
make
sure
it
goes
as
far
as
possible.
J
All
of
these
funds
are
designed
to
serve
as
revolving
funds
senator
so
when
a
loan
goes
out,
whether
that's
for
a
dollar
or
20
million
dollars,
the
intention
is
that
they
are
paid
back
with
interest
into
the
account
for
the
for
the
case
of
the
federal
infrastructure
matching
account
under
section
20.
We're
really
contemplating
applicants
here
being
local
governments,
tribal
governments
and
state
agencies.
So
the
idea
here
is,
in
the
interest
rate,
setting
methodology
that
will
be
adopted
by
the
the
board
figuring
out
a
way
for
those
loans
to
be
repaid
quicker,
much
shorter
term.
J
So,
if
I'm
an
agency-
and
I
need
five
million
dollars
to
come
up
with
a
match,
how
do
we
figure
out
a
structure
to
have
that
agency
get
the
dollars
that
they
need
up
front
to
leverage
the
match,
then
pay
them
back
over
a
shorter
period
of
time?
So
the
matching
account
continues
to
exist
in
perpetuity
in
the
iija.
You'll
know
that
the
prod
the
projects
are
outlined
over
a
five-year
time
horizon.
So
the
idea
here
was:
how
can
we
create
a
structure
that
would
allow
us
to
use
these
dollars,
continue
to
use
them?
M
J
I
I
think,
that's
a
misrepresentation,
senator
hardy
air,
committed
to
the
record.
You
may
recall
that
the
governor
in
his
state
of
the
state,
address,
asked
local
governments
to
submit
lists
of
projects
that
could
be
accelerate
accelerated.
The
bank
has
a
list
of
hundreds
of
projects
valued
at
billions
of
dollars
that
could
be
accelerated.
We've
also
matched
those
projects
within
funding
within
the
the
iija.
J
I
had
a
call
two
days
ago
for
a
water
treatment
plant
out
in
elko
county
that
they
need
to
to
help
build
some
some
housing.
We
have
not
launched
the
application
period
yet
so
I
don't
want
to
go
into
specific
projects,
but
we
have
hundreds
of
projects
from
local
governments
directly
that
could
utilize
this
fund.
J
J
J
There's
the
electrification
of
school
buses
that
the
green
bank
is
working
on
as
well,
that
they
need
additional
match
dollars
for,
and
there
is
a
major
project
with
the
the
individuals
that
wrote
the
state
rail
plan
and
ndot
and
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development
to
do
about
a
million
dollar
award
from
the
bank
that
could
be
used
to
leverage
again
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
rail
investment
as
well.
So
I
hope
that
if
you'd
like
to
list
senator
I'm
happy
to
send
it
to
you.
A
N
Thank
you,
chair,
hey
you
just
mentioned
about
you
haven't
opened.
The
application
process
up
is.
Is
that
waiting
for
these
rags
to
be
published
before
you
do
that.
J
Thank
you,
assemblyman
air,
condensed
for
the
record,
absolutely
we're
in
a
chicken
in
the
egg
situation.
After
consulting
with
the
legislative
council
bureau
and
the
attorney
general's
office,
it
was
determined
that
the
bank
needed
to
promulgate
regulations
to
make
investments
in
qualified
projects,
since
the
the
statute
itself
sets
forth
that
the
bank
must
establish
a
criteria
for
that.
So
we
cannot
loan
without
the
approval
of
these
wrecks.
J
Very,
very
soon,
eric
mendez
for
the
record.
Our
board
will
meet
assuming
the
legislative
commission
promulgates
this
regulation.
We
will
meet
on
monday
to
formally
adopt
it.
We
are
planning
to
do
a
bond
issuance
on
april
27th
or
28th,
and
the
application
is
ready
for
final
approval
at
the
next
board
meeting.
So
I
would
say,
within
the
next
30
days,
would
be
we'd,
be
ready
with
dollars
ready
to
come
in
the
bank
and
applications.
Gone
live
for
a
cube
projects.
A
All
right
do
we
have
further
questions
in
las
vegas.
All
right,
I
don't
see
further
questions
down
here,
we'll
go
up
to
carson
city,
I
know
so
far.
We
have
assemblywoman
dickman
and
senator
settlemyer,
so
assemblywoman
dickman.
If
you
want
to
lead
off
and
then
we'll
go
to
senator
suttelmeyer
and
anyone
else
who
might
have
a
question.
C
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
chair,
so
thank
you,
mr
jimenez.
I
just
wondered:
if
you
a
lot
of
people,
don't
understand
what
a
pla
is.
So
could
you
explain
exactly
what
a
project
labor
agreement
is
and
why
it's
in
the
best
interest
of
nevada
taxpayers
for
us
to
be
mandating
this.
J
Sure
and
plas,
which
are
def
air
commanders
for
the
record,
are
defined
in
section
three
of
the
regulation
which
references
29
us
code,
158
f,
they
are
a
pre-construction
agreement
for
the
labor
on
a
particular
project
why
they
are
important
for
our
purposes.
J
We
have
put
some
requirements
in
these
regs
in
section
five.
The
project
should
be
completed
three
years
after
the
the
financing
decision
is
made
from
the
bank.
One
thing
that
that
project
labor
agreements
do
a
very
good
job
in
is
making
sure
that
there
are
clear
decisions
and
guidelines
and
agreements
on
labor
within
a
particular
project.
That
means
the
projects
get
done
on
time.
That
means
projects
get
done
on
budget.
It's
very
important
for
the
financial
stability
of
this
bank.
C
You,
and
is
it
okay?
If
I
do
one
quick
follow-up,
yes,
please
go
ahead.
Thank
you
so
my
other
question
is:
it
doesn't
seem
to
be
very
specific
that
the
bank
can
waive
the
pla
and,
if
we're
okay
with
an
off-ramp,
why
don't?
We
just
include
the
biden
exemptions,
because
I
think
50
is
a
ridiculously
low
number
to
requirement
for
nevada
employees.
J
The
off-ramp
for
the
the
pla
well
on
on
section
18.
This
is
a
requirement
based
on
an
organization
that
we
are
leveraging
funds
on.
So
you
all,
or
the
interim
finance
committee,
approved
500
million
dollars
in
housing
to
build
about
3
000
units
yesterday.
This
is
a
separate
bucket
of
funds
that
pla
requirement
is
leveraging
20
millions
of
dollars
of
general
obligation,
debt
to
leverage
200
million
dollars
in
private
pension
fund
capital
to
build
about
the
same
number
of
units
in
multi-family,
affordable
housing.
J
So
on
section
18,
we
believe
that's
a
requirement
to
leverage
those
funds
on
section
20
the
pla
requirement.
Again,
as
I
stated
with
senator
hammond,
we
do
think
it's
going
to.
We
think
it's
going
to
be
a
requirement
and
we
think
the
federal
government's
going
to
going
to
expect
applicants
to
adhere
to
the
standards
that
they've
set
forth
in
the
executive
order.
J
K
I
guess
I
disagree
because
you
don't
have
a
crystal
ball.
You
can't
guarantee
it.
So
why
not
just
say
we
will
follow
the
federal
requirement
so,
and
I
won't
make
you
repeat
your
answer.
So
let
me
ask
you
another
question
of
the
31
states
that
currently
have
infrastructure
banks.
How
many
of
them
have
this
mandatory
pla
requirement.
J
J
Again,
eric
mendes
for
the
record,
I
think
the
31
states
that
have
infrastructure
banks
most
of
those
are
defunct.
So
we
talked
about
this
during
the
the
legislative
session
as
well.
There's
really
three
states
that
are
doing
incredible
work
with
their
infrastructure
banks,
california,
florida
new
jersey.
K
A
Okay,
do
we
have
any
other
questions
up
in
carson
city
and
I
actually
no.
I
take
that
back.
I
know
that
you
have
a
question
to
somebody
when
krasner,
but
I
just
remember:
we
only
have
two
members
in
carson
city
and
they
both
ask
questions
already
so
we'll
go
next
to
assemblywoman
krasner
on
zoom.
Please
go
ahead.
B
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
thank
you,
mr
jimenez.
So
I've
heard
from
multiple
persons
in
the
building
and
construction
industry
and
they're
very
concerned
they're,
saying
that
these
project,
labor
agreements
are
plas,
are
just
political
tools
to
funnel
taxpayer
fund
and
construction
projects
to
labor
unions
number
one
and
number
two
they're
saying
that
this
will
exclude
more
than
84
percent
of
the
construction
workforce
from
access
to
these
projects,
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
could
please
comment
on
that.
Thank
you.
J
Yeah,
thank
you
for
the
question
assemblywoman,
it's
so
nice
to
see
you.
I
think
it's
important
to
note.
Despite
what
was
said
in
some
of
the
public
comment,
there
is
no
union
requirement
union
membership
requirement
in
this
regulation.
In
the
plaintext
of
this
regulation
there
is
no
union
requirement
for
the
completion
or
the
signing
of
a
project
labor
agreement,
so
a
non-union
contractor
could
could
commit
to
a
project
labor
agreement,
a
union
contractor
a
signatory
contractor-
could
could
commit
to
that
those
same
things.
So
I'm
just
I'm
not
really
sure
how
to
address
that.
J
In
that.
I
would
disagree
on
the
premise
that
this
was
just
a
union
facilitated
tool.
A
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
I
do
appreciate
the
work
that's
gone
into
this
believe
me.
I
we
passed
this.
My
name
was
on
the
bill
when
we
created
the
infrastructure
bank,
so
I
was
really
interested
in
getting
funding
in
there
and
some
structure
to
it,
because
I
think
it
does
have
the
potential
to
help
out
and
really
put
some
dollars
into
our
infrastructure
here
and
effort.
So
I
do
like
it.
F
I
like
the
the
charter
portion
of
it,
and
I
understand
the
afl
cio
putting
in
money
in
the
the
pla
agreement
in
that
section
of
it
as
well.
I
just
cannot
get
myself
to
to
go
to
a
place
where
we
already
have,
I
think,
senator
meyer.
F
You
know
he.
He
mentioned
the
the
statutes
that
we
have
now
that
really
guarantee
the
ability
to
go
to
a
pla
when
it's
neces
when
it's
needed
and
then
when
it
makes
sense,
and
so
I
think
we
already
have
that
in
a
while
we're
not
doing
the
reverse
or
you
know
trying
to
trying
to
make
sure
we
have
competitive
advantage
and
then
bring
a
pla
in
when
it's
needed.
I
think
that
that
might
be
the
avenue
to
go
to.
F
We
don't
have
to
worry
about
the
off-ramps
and
we
don't
have
to
worry
about
the
language
that
might
come
from
the
federal
government
because
I
can't
get
there.
I
just
I
I
really
like
all
the
other
stuff
I
like
this
too.
I
just
wish
we
could
get
rid
of
the
language.
That
says,
must
have
the
pla
in
there
and
change
that
language,
and
you
know
for
that
reason,
I'm
just
not
going
to
be
able
to
vote
yes
on
the
on
the
on
the
measure.
Thank
you.
N
N
The
other
thing
that
I
I
thought
was
very
compelling
in
today's
testimony
is
that
we
we
passed
this
infrastructure
bill.
You
know
almost
a
year
ago,
and
you
know
we're
still
not
up
to
the
point
where
we're
able
to
leverage
those
dollars
and
and
start
projects.
We
have
a
bunch
of
people
that
have
submitted
them
and
if
we
hold
this
up
any
longer,
we
could
miss
matching
funds,
and
I
just
I
just
believe
that
we're
going
to
be
behind
the
eight
ball
and
we
need
to
be
competitive.
N
I
think
they
put
together
a
competitive
regulation
and
I
really
am
impressed
with
the
charter
school
portion.
I
know
there's
federal
dollars
that
we
could
leverage
that
we
could
actually
multiply
the
amount
of
money
that
we're
going
to
put
into
charter
schools
by
maybe
ten
to
one
or
even
more,
and
I
I'd
like
to
be
competitive
moving
forward.
So
therefore,
I'm
going
to
support
this.
B
Thank
you
chair
and
I
had
I
had
concerns
after
meeting
with
stakeholders
about
the
possibility
of
bringing
in
other
state
workers
into
nevada.
My
goal
is
always
to
put
nevadans
to
work
first
and
after
conversations
with
the
treasurer's
office
and
them
walking
me
through
the
off
ramps
that
were
available
and
knowing
that
nevadans
will
always
get
the
priority
and
always
be
put
to
work
first,
I
am
comfortable
with
voting
for
this
semester,
so
I'm
going
to
be
happy
to
support
it.
A
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
appreciate
that.
It's
always
from
the
testimony
that
we
have
the
ability
to
just
utilize
language,
saying
that
we
will
follow
federal
requirements,
which
would
give
us
far
more
flexibility
to
go
either
direction,
depending
on
how
the
rules
change
or
potentially,
how
congress
changes
in
upcoming
elections
or
how
the
rules
change,
and
I
think
that
flexibility
would
be
the
best
way
to
ensure
that
nevada
is
competitive.
By
doing
this,
we
have
set
ourselves
on
a
path
that
will
not
allow
that.
K
A
Thank
you,
senator
settlemyre,
assemblywoman
dickman.
Do
you
have
any
discussion
on
this
item
before
we
vote.
C
Yes,
please
just
quickly
the
50
number,
you
know
if
we're
putting
roadblocks
in
the
way
of
getting
more
than
50
percent
of
our
workers
on
these
jobs.
C
A
Okay,
thank
you.
So
I
think
we
have
what
was
let's
go
final
discussion
point
from
senator
dennis
down
here
in
las
vegas.
B
F
Issue
that
we
can't
do
much
more
than
50.
B
K
B
A
Thank
you
senator
dennis.
So
again
we
have
a
motion
and
we
have
a
second
we'll
go
ahead
and
take
the
vote,
and
I
know
assemblywoman
krasner,
maybe
just
raise
your
hand
when
it's
the
appropriate
time
and
that'll
help
with
the
count.
A
Thank
you
committee
members
for
that
robust
discussion.
I
do
believe
that's
going
to
be
the
longest
agenda
item
today,
so
things
should
speed
up
a
little
bit
from
here.
So
up
next
is
agenda
item
5b
and
we
have
19
regulations
submitted
pursuant
to
nrs233b067
and
one
regulation
submitted
pursuant
to
nrs233b0675.
A
These
regulations
are
all
posted
on
the
legislature's
website
under
the
tab
for
this
meeting,
which
you'll
find
by
hitting
the
view
events
button
in
the
upper
right
corner
of
the
home
page,
as
is
our
usual
practice.
I'm
going
to
let
you
know
the
regulations,
I
have
been
asked
to
hold
for
questions
and
after
we
identify
those
I'll
ask
commission
members.
A
If
there
are
additional
regulations
you
would
like
held
for
further
discussion
once
we
pull
all
those
out,
we'll
take
a
motion
and
approve
what
remains
and
then
we
will
come
back
to
those
regulations
that
we
pulled
one
at
a
time
to
discuss
those
and
before
we
get
started
on
that
list.
I
did
mention
this
at
the
beginning
of
today's
meeting,
but
I
wanted
to
formally
mention
it
now
that
we're
under
the
correct
agenda
item
that
there
are
two
regulations
that
I'm
going
to
defer
and
the
first
deferral
is
r0888-20.
A
That's
the
state
board
of
health,
a
regulation
establishing
provisions
relating
to
newborn
screening,
so
that
will
be
deferred
to
sometime
in
the
future,
will
not
be
discussed
or
voted
on
today
and
then
the
second
regulation
is
the
very
last
one
listed
that
will
be
deferred.
That's
r053-20,
that's
a
division
of
industrial
relations
of
the
department
of
business
and
industry,
a
regulation
requiring
employers
to
provide
employees
with
certain
protections
against
heat
related
illnesses.
So
those
two
will
not
be
considered
now.
A
A
Again,
that's
r025-21!
That's
a
state
board
of
pharmacy
regulation
relating
to
senate
bill
408
and
the
next
one
is
the
the
very
next
regulation
listed
on
the
agenda
list.
The
regulation
list
r031-21
from
the
public
utilities,
commission
of
nevada.
So
those
are
the
only
two
that
I
have
been
asked
to
pull
for
discussion,
but
I
want
to
give
commission
members
a
chance
if
there
are
other
regulations,
you'd
like
to
have
pulled
and
discussed
we'll
start
here
in
las
vegas.
A
A
K
Mr
chairman,
the
senator
settlemeyer,
I
believe
that
I
had
been
requested
earlier
in
this
doc,
has
no
longer
has
a
question
on
3120.
A
A
Okay,
let
me
make
sure,
let
me
let
me
make
sure
I
get
this
right,
so
I'm
going
to
give
the
2
again
that
we
are
pulling
r025-21,
which
is
a
state
board
of
pharmacy.
That's
num,
the
number
one,
the
first
one
we're
pulling
in
the
second
one
is
r031-21,
which
is
the
public
utilities
commission
of
nevada.
Mr.
A
K
A
Please,
if
you'd
be
willing
to
make
a
motion,
I'd
appreciate
it
senator.
K
K
A
A
That's
a
public
utilities,
commission
of
nevada,
a
regulation,
reviving
provisions
relating
to
operator
reports
on
subsurface
installations.
I'm
not
entirely
sure
who
we
have
here.
It
looks
like
there
might
be
somebody
at
the
table
in
carson
city.
So
who
would
like
to
ask
a
question
on
this
one?
Senator
settlemeyer.
Did
you
have
a
question
on
this?
One.
K
A
A
Okay,
I
don't
I
don't
see,
I
don't
see
a
question,
so
I
would
would
take
a
motion
to
approve
this
one.
I
think
we
have
a
motion.
I
think
it
was
senator
sutton.
My
related
motion,
assemblywoman
rome
reyna-
will
give
you
the
second
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
A
Okay,
seeing
no
discussion
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
anyone
opposed,
nay,
all
right
motion
carries
so
r031-20
is
adopted.
That'll
take
us
next
to
the
second
regulation
that
we
pulled
and
that's
r025-21
from
the
state
board
of
pharmacy.
This
is
a
regulation
implementing
requirements
of
senate
bill,
408
relating
to
applicants
and
licensing,
and
I
believe
senator
hardy
has
a
question
on
this
one.
So
please
go
ahead.
M
M
Executive
director,
secretary
of
the
board
of
pharmacy
and
yeah
these
these
are,
we
have
just
a
handful.
B
Of
them
and
they're
for
animals
and
we're
just
clarifying
the
drugs
that
they
could
be
able
to
have.
A
B
A
M
I
did
thank
you,
mr
chair,
if
I
may
so.
My
question
basically
is
we're
looking
at
as
I
understand
that
new
businesses
having
a
utility
break
in
their
costs,
so
my
my
simple
question
is:
if
we
recognize
that
coming
out
of
covid,
for
instance,
and
having
all
of
the
challenges
that
we've
had
with
businesses,
is
this
something
that
this
discounted
rate
could
be
applied
to
or
should
be
applied
to
other
businesses
that,
in
essence,
have
to
reinvent
themselves
in
our
thus
new
businesses?
H
H
H
I
don't
want
to
give
unsolicited
legal
advice.
So
at
this
point
the
statute
defines
new
business
and
I
don't
think
that
that
scenario
would
fit,
but
I
don't
see
why
it
couldn't
be
if
the
statute
were
changed.
Thank
you.
M
So
if
I
could
go
after
mr
chair,
if
I
could
go
after
your
unsolicited
legal
advice,
I
would
say
to
a
business
that
has
struggled
and
needs
to
reinvent
themselves.
They
changed
their
logo.
They
changed
their
affiliation
in
some
way
with
the
secretary
of
state.
Do
they
come
become
a
new
business,
or
do
they
have
to
go
through
hoops
to
qualify
for
the
business
development
arm
of
the
state
to
qualify.
H
Again,
sam
crano
public
utilities,
commission,
it's
probably
a
better
question
for
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development,
but
I
would
think
they
might
need
to
be
a
new
legal
entity
form
a
new
llc
or
something
like
that
again,
I'm
not
a
corporate
lawyer-
and
you
know
this
legal
advice
is
worth
everything
you're
paying
for
it,
which
is
nothing
so
just
wanted
to
make
that
clear.
H
A
I
think
we
have
mr
killian
available
somewhere,
not
not
in
las
vegas,
either
in
carson
city
or
or
online.
So
we
can
throw
that
question
over
to
him.
B
Thank
you,
miss
chair,
asher,
killian,
chief
legislative
counsel,
so
the
relevant
requirement
is
an
nrs
704
704-7876,
which
requires
for
a
business
to
be
eligible
to
receive
this
kind
of
incentive.
B
It's
difficult
to
speculate
on
whether
particular
changes
of
form
of
business
would
be
sufficient
to
satisfy
that
requirement.
The
statute
pretty
plainly
expresses
an
intent
that
this
is
supposed
to
be
an
incentive
to
encourage
new
businesses
to
come
to
this
state.
So,
in
the
absence
of
any
precedent,
I
wouldn't
want
to
speak
for
what
the
courts
may
conclude,
but
the
intent
of
this
section
seems
to
be
to
solicit
new
business
rather
than
to
encourage
existing
businesses
to
go
through
arcane
reorganizations
to
qualify.
A
A
O
Good
afternoon,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
commission
for
the
record
dan
crossman
legislative
auditor
under
agenda
item
6a
you'll,
see
a
letter
from
assemblywoman
haudegee
chair
of
the
audit
subcommittee,
indicating
that
on
march
22
of
2022,
a
meeting
of
the
audit
subcommittee
of
the
legislative
commission
was
held
in
which
four
reports
were
presented
and
accepted
by
the
subcommittee.
O
During
that
meeting,
we
presented
a
summary
of
the
audits
to
the
subcommittee.
We
answered
questions
of
the
subcommittee
members
representatives
from
agencies
provided
remarks
and
answered
questions
as
well
today,
in
the
interest
of
time,
I'll
briefly
go
over
the
key
findings
from
those
reports,
and
I
want
to
note
that
our
full
reports
are
available
on
our
website.
As
you
all
know,
where
there's
many
more
details
and
additional
information
on
our
findings
and
recommendations.
O
Additionally,
if
any
of
the
members
of
the
commission
desire
to
have
us
discuss
in
greater
detail,
any
of
these
reports
we'd
be
happy
to
meet
with
you
at
any
time.
We're
also
available
to
present
any
of
these
reports
to
any
of
the
interim
committees
if
desired.
O
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
evaluate
whether
the
division
adequately
ensured
the
safety
and
welfare
of
children
for
certain
division
activities,
including
maltreatment
report
response
and
the
supervision
of
medical
care
of
children
in
state
custody.
We
found
that
the
division
did
not
completely
process
certain
maltreatment
reports
and
one
was
unaware.
Some
reports
lacked
supervisory
review.
O
Furthermore,
the
division
could
enhance
its
processes
by
assessing
comprehensive
medicaid
claims
of
children
in
state
custody,
to
identify
injuries
or
medical
conditions
or
evaluations,
indicating
potential
abuse
and
neglect.
Effective
management
of
the
maltreatment
reports
and
incidents
is
critical
to
ensuring
the
safety
of
children.
We
also
found
that
the
division
could
improve
its
monitoring
of
health
care
for
children
in
state
custody.
O
O
Turning
to
the
next
page
in
the
packet
is
the
summary
of
our
review
of
governmental
and
private
facilities
for
children.
This
report
includes
the
results
of
our
work
at
20,
different
children's
facilities
in
five
of
the
20
facilities.
We
identified
certain
health
safety
and
our
welfare
issues
and,
as
a
result,
contacted
their
respective
licensing
agency
to
share
our
concerns.
O
O
During
this
last
year,
our
processes
included
remote
surveys
of
facilities
due
to
the
coveted
restrictions.
In
most
cases,
we
followed
up
those
surveys
with
in-person
observations
once
the
safety
restrictions
associated
with
covet-19
were
eased.
The
combination
of
the
surveys
and
observations
equate
to
what
we
consider
to
be
an
inspection
of
the
facility.
O
Additional
details
on
this
report
are
available
on
our
website.
Turning
to
the
next
page
is
our
summary
of
the
audit
of
the
department
of
corrections
entitled
use
of
force.
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
evaluate
the
department's
processes
over
use
of
force,
reporting
and
certain
related
activities.
O
We
found
the
department
needs
to
enhance
processes
over
the
review
and
investigation
of
use
of
force
allegations
and
incidents.
For
instance,
inmate
grievances,
alleging
excessive
use
of
force,
were
not
always
adequately
reviewed
by
the
inspector
general's
office.
In
addition,
review
panels
were
not
always
convened
to
determine
if
the
use
of
force
was
appropriate
and
justified
when
convened
review
panels
were
often
untimely.
O
Next,
we
found
that
prospective
officers
worked
in
the
department's
facilities
without
adequate
training
or
supervision
prior
to
completing
post
training,
peace
officer
standards
in
a
training
academy.
Additionally,
better
tracking
is
needed
to
ensure
refresher
and
weapons
training
for
certain
peace
officers
is
up
to
date.
O
Finally,
the
department
needs
to
routinely
review
administrative
regulations
to
ensure
that
changes
in
legislation
are
being
incorporated
into
their
regs.
Proper
training
and
accurate
regulations
are
necessary
to
ensure
officers
only
use
force
in
the
appropriate
circumstances,
to
both
protect
peace
officers
and
inmates
and
to
ensure
compliance
with
state
and
federal
laws.
O
Finally,
we
noted
that
the
department
spent
about
192
000
on
a
body
camera
program
that
has
not
been
implemented.
As
a
result,
the
department
did
not
collect
and
report
incident
data
or
develop
performance
measures
which
were
requested
by
the
legislature
regarding
the
effectiveness
of
this
monitoring
equipment.
O
Based
on
our
findings.
In
this
report,
we
issued
16
recommendations
to
the
department
which
they
accepted
and
are
active
and
are
actively
working
on
last
we
on
the
next
page,
we
included
in
the
packet
the
information
security,
audit
of
the
department
of
health
and
human
services,
division
of
health
care
financing
and
policy.
O
The
purpose
of
this
audit
was
to
determine
if
the
division
has
adequate
controls
to
ensure
user
access
controls,
protect
its
sensitive
information
and
monitor
its
mmis
change
management
process.
We
found
that
back.
We
found
a
background
investigation
process
at
the
division
could
be
strengthened,
specifically
non-division
state
employees
and
division
information
technology
contractors
were
given
access
to
mmis
without
verifying
or
documenting
a
background
check
was
completed.
O
In
addition,
some
fiscal
agent
employees
users
accounts
were
enabled
before
the
division
received
background,
check,
investigation
information.
Finally,
new
hired
division
employees
also
were
given
access
to
mmis
prior
to
submitting
their
background
check
packet
background
check.
Investigations
are
important
to
reduce
the
risk
of
sensitive
data
being
accessed
by
disreputable
individuals.
O
The
division
can
also
improve
how
it
actively
manages
mmis's
user
controls.
Specifically,
the
division
does
not
ensure
that
mmis
access
is
still
needed
for
division
for
non-division
state
employees.
In
addition,
the
division
does
not
ensure
that
user
accounts
of
former
state
employees
and
its
fiscal
agent
are
disabled,
timely.
O
On
a
positive
note,
we
found
that
the
division's
medicaid
management
information
system
or
mmis,
if
I've
been
using
that
acronym
the
enhancement
process,
is
effective
in
ensuring
that
changes
to
the
system
are
prioritized
and
completed.
A
document
change
management
plan
is
utilized
and
monitored.
In
addition,
the
division
monitors
hours
charged
to
individual
enhancement
projects.
O
For
this
audit
we
issued
six
recommendations
and
they
were
accepted
by
the
division
of
health,
care,
financing
and
policy.
So,
as
a
reminder,
we're
available
anytime
to
meet
and
discuss
many
of
these
in
more
detail
as
needed.
That
would
conclude
my
summary
of
the
audit
reports
that
we
issued
on
march
22
of
this
year.
O
A
N
Sorry,
thank
you.
A
little
cough
hey
on
the
on
the
follow-ups
that
are
recommended
by
lcb
on
these
on
these
reports.
What
is
the,
what
is
the
process
for
when
they
return
their
recommendations
and
when
will
we
be
briefed
on
their
completion
of
those
recommendations?.
O
Assemblyman
roberts,
dan
crossman
for
the
record,
there's
actually
a
rather
robust
process
for
follow-up
I'll,
just
quickly
run
through
that
60
days
after
the
reports
have
been
issued,
the
agencies
are
required
to
submit
a
plan
of
corrective
action,
the
details
in
some
cases,
what
they've
already
done
and
what
the
long-term
plans
are
and
timelines
for
completing
that
information
and
correcting
those
findings.
O
Six
months
after
that
60-day
plan
is
due
the
governor's
finance
office,
their
division
of
internal
audits
is
required
to
go
out
and
to
review
the
the
status
of
implementation.
They
do
issue
a
report
to
our
office.
We
then
review
that
and
then
we'll
provide
that
information
to
a
future
audit
subcommittee
meeting
where
we
then
brief
them
on
the
status
of
those
recommendations.
O
N
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
explanation.
I
probably
should
already
know
that,
but
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
get
an
idea
for
the
timeline
so
for
the
department
of
corrections.
Report
specifically,
is
what
I'm
concerned
about.
There's
some
alarming
things
in
it.
So
we
should
hear
back
something
in
the
next,
because
that
that
report
was
released
probably
three
weeks
ago,
roughly
so
maybe
four
or
five
months,
we
should
be
hearing
back
on
the
completion
of
those
roughly.
O
For
the
record
dan
crossman,
we,
the
the
schedule
for
the
60-day
plan,
is
60
working
days,
and
so
it
actually
falls
on
june.
15Th
is
when
that
plan
is
due,
and
then
six
months
after
that
would
take
us
to
december
of
22
for
the
six-month
report.
O
A
B
Thank
you,
chair
yeager.
I
just
wanted
to
say
to
mr
crossman.
Thank
you
so
much
for
your
thorough,
deep
dive
and
and
audits
and
sharing
your
findings
with
us.
I
can't
tell
you
how
much
I
appreciate
the
work
that
you
do
so
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
krasner,
any
additional
questions
on
item
6a.
A
O
Thank
you,
chair
for
the
record
dan
crossman
legislative
auditor
under
agenda
item.
6B
you'll
see
another
letter
from
assemblywoman
hautege,
chair
of
the
auto
subcommittee,
which
indicates
that
10
six-month
reports
were
reviewed
at
our
last
meeting
on
march
22nd.
O
The
letter
shows
the
implementation
status
of
those
recommendations,
noting
that
72
of
81
recommendations
were
fully
or
partially
implemented
as
assessed
by
the
division
of
internal
audit
on
the
following
page:
there's,
a
schedule
that
shows
an
update
to
those
recommendations.
As
of
march
of
22
prior
to
our
meeting,
we
re-evaluated
and
followed
up
with
those
agencies
you'll
see
that
a
few
more
of
those
recommendations
were
fully
implemented.
O
We
will
continue
to
monitor
the
status
of
every
recommendation
until
it
is
successfully
remedied
and
that's
one
of
the
things
we
we
enjoy
doing
and
following
up
with
agencies,
because,
like
you,
when
we
put
our
effort
into
making
constructive
changes,
we
want
to
see
results
eventually
and
so.
O
And
with
that
I'll
note
that,
on
that
the
cover
letter,
the
audit
subcommittee
does
recommend
that
these
10
six-month
reports
be
accepted
by
the
legislative
commission.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
any
questions,
commission
on
the
six
month,
reports
under
agenda
item
6b,
okay,
I
don't
hear
questions
before
I
take
a
motion
to
approve.
I
did
want
to
repeat
the
comments
of
assemblywoman
krasner,
I
think,
are
our
audit.
Our
legislative
auditor
in
our
audit
department
does
an
incredible
job.
So
just
thank
you
for
the
work
you
do.
I
remember
when
I
was
first
elected.
I
would
get
the
email
with
those
reports
and
frankly
I
didn't
really
know
what
they
were,
but
now
that
you
know
I've
had
a
little
more
time
behind
me.
A
So
I
want
to
thank
you
for
the
work
that
you
do
and
then
wanted
to
recognize
the
members
of
our
legislative
commission
audit
subcommittee
because,
as
was
noted,
assemblywoman
houdigi
is
the
chair
of
that
subcommittee
and
also
on
the
committee,
our
assemblywoman
brittany
miller,
assemblywoman
jill
dickman,
senator
marilyn,
dondera
loop
and
senator
scott
hammond,
and
you
know
they
meet
when
we're
not
meeting
to
get
these
reports
approved
and
sent
over
to
us.
A
I
want
to
recognize
them
and
thank
them
for
the
work
that
they
do
to
make
this
happen
and
make
sure
our
state
government
is
working.
The
way
that
we
intend
with
that
being
said,
I
would
be
looking
for
a
motion
to
approve
the
reports
presented
under
items.
Six,
a
and
b.
A
We
have
a
motion
from
assemblywoman,
krasner
and
I'll,
give
senator
dennis
the
second.
On
that
any
discussion
on
the
motion.
Okay,
I
don't
see
further
discussion.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
okay,
motion
carries
those
items
are
approved
and
again.
Thank
you,
mr
crossman,
and
thank
you
assemblywoman
haui
for
your
work
chairing
the
audit
subcommittee.
A
D
D
This
particular
resolution
highlights
the
the
contributions
that
taiwan
made
during
to
to
the
coveted
19
pandemic,
both
globally
and
ancient
nevada
of
a
lot
of
equipment
and
other
things
that
really
helped
out
in
that
during
that
time,
and
also
there
was
a
recent
taiwan
and
u.s
initiative
on
education,
so
that
is
that
is
highlighted
here,
as
well
as
including
the
resolution
also
includes
the
history
of
this
of
the
sister
state
relationship.
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
about
it
before
you
approve.
A
Thank
you,
mr
urdose
and
members.
You
do
have
a
copy
of
that
legislative
resolution
on
your
desk.
At
least.
I
think
we
we
have
them
down
here
in
las
vegas
and
hopefully
up
in
carson
city
as
well.
Assemblywoman
krasner
might
be
online
if
you
want
to
take
a
look
at
that,
but
it
has
been
vetted
to
be
in
line
with
what
we've
done
in
the
past
and
so
before.
We
take
a
motion
we'll
just
asking
any
questions
from
committee
members
on
this
particular
item
and
just
you
know
as
well.
A
I
think
the
the
plan
is
if
we
approve
this,
we'll,
probably
myself
and
probably
senator
hammond
who
has
in
the
past,
we
will
present
this
to
the
appropriate
officials
probably
later
this
month.
They
wanted
to
be
here
today,
but
could
not
be
here
in
person,
so
we're
going
to
find
a
time
to
do
that,
probably
later
in
april.
E
A
We
are
almost
to
the
end
of
this
agenda,
so
we're
gonna
go
next
to
agenda
item
eight,
which
is
a
report
from
our
general
counsel,
kevin
powers
regarding
litigation,
as
you
can
see
on
the
screen,
mr
powers
is
joining
us
virtually
today
to
present
this
item.
Mr
powers
will
give
you
a
chance
to
present
and
then
I'm
sure
there'll
be
some
questions.
So
thanks
for
joining
us
and
please
proceed.
E
E
The
court
held
that
ab458
was
not
subject
to
the
two-thirds
majority
requirement.
Specifically,
the
court
determined
that
ab458
did
not
create
generate
or
increase
public
revenue
for
the
purposes
of
that
requirement,
because
the
total
public
revenue
collected
under
the
modified
business
tax
had
not
changed.
Instead,
the
bill
just
simply
re
redirected.
Existing
funds
previously
designated
for
one
specific
use:
the
state,
the
nevada,
educational
choice,
scholarship
program
and
rejected
those
funds.
E
Back
to
the
state
general
fund,
so
therefore
the
court
found
that
there
was
no
increase
in
public
revenue
that
required
a
two-thirds
super-majority
vote
on
october
25th
2021,
the
plaintiffs
filed
a
petition
for
rehearing
with
the
nevada
supreme
court
on
october.
I'm
sorry
on
december
23
2021,
the
nevada
supreme
court
denied
plaintiff's
petition
for
rehearing,
and
the
case
is
now
closed.
E
The
next
case,
involving
the
super
majority
requirement,
is
legislature
of
the
state
of
nevada
versus
settlemyre.
That's
nevada,
supreme
court
case
81924
and
nevada
supreme
court
case
83597
in
the
underlying
litigation.
The
national
court
found
that
senate
bill
542
and
senate
bill
551
parts
of
senate
bill
551
in
particular,
were
unconstitutional
because
they
were
passed
without
the
required
two-thirds
vote
under
the
super-majority
requirement.
E
after
the
national
court's
decision,
the
case
returned
to
the
carson
city
district
court.
The
district
court
awarded
the
plaintiffs
attorney
fees
and
costs
against
the
department
of
taxation
and
department
of
motor
vehicles.
The
departments
appealed
the
ward
of
attorney
fees
and
costs
to
the
radish
room
court.
While
that
appeal
was
pending,
the
parties
agreed
to
a
stipulation
dealing
with
the
refund
procedure
for
the
dmv
technology
fees
and,
as
the
commission
heard
later
in
today
earlier
in
today's
meeting,
the
dmv
is
proceeding
with
the
refund
of
those
technology
fees.
E
E
In
the
settlement
agreement,
their
parties
agreed
to
reduce
the
amount
of
the
attorney
fees
to
150
000
dollars
and
to
dismiss
the
appeal
on
march
8
2022,
the
state
board
of
examiners
approved
the
payment
of
the
attorney
fees
under
the
settle
agreement
and
on
march
twenty
fifth,
twenty
twenty
two,
the
rationing
court,
dismissed
the
appeal.
So
this
case
is
now
closed.
E
The
next
cases
the
report
on
are
the
ones
involving
challenges
to
state
legislators,
holding
positions
of
public
employment,
with
the
state
executive
branch
and
with
local
governments.
Those
cases
are
state
of
nevada
versus
eighth
judicial
district
court,
plumly
case
number
82236
and
state
of
nevada
versus
eighth
judicial
district
court.
Mullin
case
number
82249.
E
The
other
case,
involving
that
same
issue,
that
the
state
legislators
are
being
alleged
to
be
prohibited
by
the
separation
of
powers.
Provision
from
holding
positions
of
public
employment
with
the
state
executive
branch
and
local
governments
is
nevada
policy.
Research
institute
versus
canazarro
nevada
supreme
court
case
number
82341.
E
E
E
The
petitioners
filed
a
petition
for
declaratory
relief,
challenging
the
validity
of
the
annual
use
fees
in
the
district
court.
Lcb
legal
filed
an
amicus
brief
on
behalf
of
the
legislature
defending
its
approval
of
the
regulation
and
the
annual
use
fees
against
several
constitutional
and
statutory
challenges.
E
On
october
19
2021,
the
district
court
upheld
the
regulation
and
the
annual
use
fees.
The
petitioners
filed
an
appeal
with
the
nevada
supreme
court.
Their
opening
brief
on
appeal
is
due
on
april
11
2022
pursuant
to
its
authorization.
In
this
case,
lcb
legal
will
be
filing
an
amicus
brief
on
appeal.
On
behalf
of
the
legislative
commission,
arguing
in
favor
of
affirmance
of
the
district
court's
decision,
the
next
case
to
report
on
is
nevada,
hospital
association
versus
state
of
nevada.
This
case
is
in
the
first
judicial
district
court
in
carson
city.
E
The
plaintiffs
filed
a
motion
for
a
preliminary
injunction
and
the
state
defendants
and
the
legislature
filed
motions
to
dismiss
on
march
10
2022.
The
district
court
upheld
the
challenge
provisions
of
sb,
329
and
granted
the
state
defendants
and
the
legislature's
motions
to
dismiss
plaintiffs
now
are
in
the
period
of
determining
whether
or
not
to
file
a
notice
of
appeal
with
the
nevada
supreme
court.
They
have
not
done
so
yet,
but
they
still
have
time
to
file
such
an
appeal,
and
it
is
likely
that
the
plaintiffs
will
file
such
an
appeal
with
the
nevada
supreme
court.
E
Final
case
to
report
on
is
a
new
case
that
we
have
not
reported
on
in
the
past.
It
is
konig
k-o-e-n-I-g
versus
state
of
nevada
in
the
first
judicial
district
court,
carson
city.
In
this
case
the
plaintiffs,
challenged
the
constitutionality
of
sb
1
of
the
33rd
special
session
held
in
november
of
2021.
E
Lcb
contracted
with
attorneys
for
the
law,
firm
of
wolf
rifkin,
shapiro,
shulman
and
rabkin
to
provide
such
legal
representation
on
behalf
of
the
legislature
after
entering
into
the
contract
outside
legal
counsel,
filed
a
motion
to
intervene
on
behalf
of
the
legislature.
The
plaintiffs
in
the
case
filed
a
motion
to
disqualify
outside
legal
counsel
from
representing
the
legislature.
E
Those
motions
are
still
pending
before
the
district
court.
In
the
meantime,
the
plaintiffs
also
filed
a
motion
for
preliminary
injunction
to
enjoin
the
state
from
using
the
new
legislative
districts
enacted
by
sb1
in
the
2022
election
cycle
on
march
24th
2022,
the
district
court
denied
the
plaintiff's
motion
for
preliminary
injunction
as
a
result.
Unless
the
plaintiffs
seek
and
obtain
appellate
relief,
the
new
legislative
districts
enacted
by
sb1
will
govern
during
the
2022
general
election
cycle
and
the
preliminary
election
as
well
on
the
primary
election.
Sorry,
so
that
covers
the
legislative
report
for
those
seven
cases.
A
A
A
A
I
will
note
that
we
don't
appear
to
have
anybody
left
here
in
las
vegas
other
than
legislators
and
legislative
staff.
I
don't
know
if
we
have
anyone
in
carson
city,
but
I
will
open
it
up
for
public
comment.
So
if
there
is
somebody
here,
if
there's
somebody
in
carson
city
like
to
give
a
public
comment,
please
come
to
the
table
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
phones
to
see.
If
there's
any
public
comment.
So
if
someone
up
there
could,
let
me
know
if
there's
anyone
coming
to
the
table,
that
would
be
helpful.
A
I
don't
think
anyone's
with
us
still
this
late,
so
I
don't
see
any
in-person
public
comment.
Bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
lines
to
see
if
there's
anybody
on
the
phone
who'd
like
to
give
public
comment.
D
Yes,
hello,
I'm
a
registered
voter
in
nevada
here
been
in
washoe
county
since
the
1970s,
and
I'm
calling
to
comment
on
this
legislative
issue
regarding
newborn
screening
of
blood
samples,
and
I
want
to
oppose
this.
I
just
joined
the
meeting
I
just
learned
about
this
meeting
and
I
believe
there
needs
to
be.
D
This
does
not
need
to
be
legislation.
This
should
be
an
optional
choice
for
parents
and
we
do
not
need
to
be
collecting
dna
samples
of
all
the
babies
born
in
nevada.
This
is
an
outrage
to
me,
and
especially
since
there
is
no
real,
satisfactory
opt-out
clause.
There's
nothing
clear
in
it.
That's
an
opt-out
clause.
D
There
should
at
least
be
religious
and
philosophical
exemptions
at
the
least.
However,
I'm
opposed
to
making
this
any
kind
of
mandatory
issue
whatsoever
keep
out
of
our
babies
lives
when
we
need
your
help,
we'll
ask
for
it.
It'd
be
great
to
have
it
as
an
option
if
parents
so
desire
to
have
their
baby
tested
for
genetic
issues
or
whatever
may
be,
but
why
does
the
state
need
to
mandate
this
kind
of
an
issue?
This
is
pure
overreach.
D
You
people
need
to
get
a
clue
and
get
out
of
our
lives,
get
out
of
our
you,
have
no
right
to
reach
into
our
bodies
and
extract
our
baby's
blood,
it's
appalling
that
you
would
even
consider
such
an
issue
as
a
law.
Thank
you.
A
A
Thank
you
so
much
bps
before
we
adjourn.
I
just
wanted
to
recognize
that
it's
it's
been
a
long
week
and
many
of
the
members
on
this
committee
have
had
long
meetings.
We
had
ifc
yesterday,
but
many
of
us
were
there
but
wanted
to
recognize
senator
harris
who,
I
think
maybe
has
had
the
worst
schedule
of
all
of
us
with
a
marathon
ifc
yesterday
flight
delays
on
the
way
home
judiciary
most
of
today
and
then
capping
it
off
with
legislative
commissions.
Thank
you
senator
harris
for
your
service.
It's
a
pleasure.