►
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
D
E
E
D
E
A
We
only
have
one
member
that
will
be
joining
us
a
little
later,
that
will
be
assemblyman
yeager
and
as
soon
as
he
joins
us.
Madam
secretary,
I
will
let
you
know
that
he
has
joined
the
meeting,
I'd
like
to
welcome
everyone
to
today's
meeting
for
the
assembly
committee
on
growth
and
infrastructure.
A
Before
we
get
started
just
a
few
housekeeping
things.
We
are
still
the
building
is
still
closed
and
the
meetings
remain
by
zoom.
Today.
We
hope
to
hear
the
following
measures
this
afternoon
and
that
will
be
presented
in
this
order:
assembly
bill,
413,
followed
by
assembly,
bill
429
and
then
assembly
bill
377,
following
up
with
abe
388.
A
We
must
recess
today,
because
we,
I
think
everyone
on
our
committee,
has
a
four
o'clock
meeting
that
they
need
to
attend.
We
will
reconvene
this
meeting
at
the
call
of
the
chair
and
it
is
my
hopes
that
we
will
not
go
past
seven
o'clock
to
reconvene
tonight
and
at
that
time
we
will
hear
assembly
bill
4,
11
and
4
12.
A
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
with
that
I
will
now
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
413,
which
is
being
presented
by
our
chair,
monroe,
moreno
chair.
Whenever
you
are
ready,
you
may
begin
your
presentation.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
I
am
assemblywoman
danielle
monroe
moreno,
representing
assembly
district
one
today
I
am
here
to
present
assembly
bill
413,
which
requires
the
nevada
department
of
transportation,
otherwise
known
as
indot,
to
establish
a
working
group
to
study
the
sustainability
and
equitability
of
funding
solutions
for
the
state's
transportation
system.
A
Throughout
the
interim,
I
worked
with
a
group
of
stakeholders
representing
local
and
state
transportation
agencies,
labor
organizations,
clean
energy,
environmental
agencies
and
organizations,
the
trucking
association
and
many
other
interested
parties.
We
began
identifying
goals
and
outcomes
for
fiscal,
a
fiscally
and
environmentally
sustainable
transportation
system.
A
We
know
the
traditional
funding
model
is
not
keeping
up
with
the
cost
of
maintaining
our
infrastructure.
New
vehicle
technologies
are
having
an
effect
on
our
gas
tax
revenue
and
the
sustainability
of
our
state's
highway
fund.
During
the
interim,
we
reviewed
alternate
funding
models
that
included
how
electric
vehicle
owners
can
equitably
apply
and
pay
for
our
roads.
However,
the
stakeholders
noted
that
more
time
should
be
given
to
analyzing
these
models
and
considering
the
benefits
of
electric
vehicles
and
the
cost
of
transportation
related
pollution
before
any
recommendations
can
be
made
to
the
legislature.
A
The
bill
summary
ab-143
sets
forth
the
membership
of
the
advisory
working
board
working
group.
It
includes
representatives
of
the
metropolitan
planning
organizations,
environmental
organizations
and
agencies,
clean
energy,
local
county,
tribal
state
and
federal
agencies,
with
expertise
in
transportation
and
clean
energy,
chairs
of
the
senate
and
assembly
committees
on
growth
and
infrastructure,
labor
organizations
and
other
interested
persons
and
entities.
A
A
The
working
group
must
collect
and
maintain
and
monitor
data
related
to
and
develop
preliminary
plans
for
sustainable
transportation
funding
system.
The
department
must
submit
a
report
on
or
before
december,
31st
2022,
with
details
of
the
working
groups,
activities,
findings,
conclusions
and
recommendations
to
the
director
of
the
legislative
council
bureau
for
the
transmission
to
the
2023
legislature.
A
G
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
presentation.
Vice
chair
with
that,
we
will
now
open
it
up
to
any
questions
from
members.
I
don't
see
any
in
the
chat.
Folks
can
also
wave
me
down
on
video.
If
you
have
any.
E
I
am
was
curious
about
section
seven
or
subsection,
seven
and
eight
in
the
bill
related
to
salary
and
per
diem
and
compensation,
and
I
know
in
my
experience,
working
in
our
rural
communities
and
sometimes
in
our
urban
communities
as
well.
Having
people
come
to
the
table
from
a
variety
of
backgrounds.
Not
just
the
professional
backgrounds
can
be
limited
by
the
fact
of
missing
a
day
of
work
or
not
having
access
to
transportation
to
get
to
wherever
the
meeting
is
so.
My
question
is
whether
this
is
open.
E
This
committee
would
be
open
to
having
this
kind
of
digital
meeting
and
whether
that
would
be
considered
for
this
upcoming
interim
outside
of
the
recovery
from
the
pandemic,
as
we
move
forward
in
order
to
help
address
that
kind
of
potential
need
from
some
stakeholders
who
may
be
included
in
this
working
group.
A
Through
you
vice
chair
watts,
to
assemblywoman
peters,
this
is
assembly,
woman,
danielle,
monroe
moreno,
and
that
would
be
a
yes.
Due
to
the
pandemic.
Our
stakeholder
meeting
started
out
in
person
we
held,
I
want
to
say
seven
or
eight
stakeholder
meetings
discussing
the
subject
matter.
We
started
with
meetings
in
person
with
groups
in
north
and
south,
and
we
we
used
zoom
long
before
we
had
to,
but
then
once
the
pandemic
hit.
All
of
our
meetings
were
conducted
by
zoom
and
because
of
the
adjustment
of
taking
out
the
pay.
A
G
G
All
right
see
here,
seeing
none
with
that.
We'll
move
on
to
testimony
on
assembly
bill
413
as
a
reminder
we'll
be
limiting
testimony
in
support
opposition
and
neutral
to
15
minutes
and
we'll
ask
each
caller
to
limit
their
remarks
to
two
minutes
and
to
please
clearly
state
and
spell
their
name
before
beginning
with
that.
We'll
turn
it
over
to
broadcast
production
services
to
see
if
there
are
any
callers
in
the
queue
wishing
to
testify
in
support
of
ab413.
H
H
E
A-L-E-X-I-S-M-O-T-A-R-E-X,
the
nevada
chapter
associated
general
contractors
representing
the
commercial
construction
industry
in
northern
nevada.
We
are
here
in
support
of
av-413.
The
agc
has
been
an
advocate
for
equitable
and
sustainable
highway
funding
for
years
we've
participated.
We
participated
in
scr3
committee
during
the
interim
and
although
we
would
have
liked
to
see
something
come
of
the
committee's
work
other
than
another
study,
we
would
rather
continue
the
conversation
than
risk
the
issue
being
ignored.
Further,
we
respectfully
ask
that
a
representative
contracting
community
be
listed
as
one
of
the
ndot
appointees.
E
H
F
E
H
B
Good
afternoon
vice
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
this
is
dylan
keith,
d-y-l-a-n,
k-e-I-t-h
quality
analyst
with
the
vegas
chamber.
The
chamber
is
in
support
of
ab413
and
would
like
to
thank
the
committee
chair
for
bringing
this
bill
forward
today.
B
B
We
also
have
strong
working
relationships
with
the
nevada
department
of
transportation
and
the
regional
transportation
commission
and
have
collaborated
over
the
years
supporting
a
strong
and
reliable
transportation
system.
From
our
perspective,
this
means
economic,
economic
stability,
job
creation
and
business
growth
for
southern
nevada.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
consideration.
H
F
F
We
are
in
support
of
ab413
and
I
won't
repeat
what
other
callers
have
said
about
the
importance
of
transportation,
but
we
are
in
support
of
the
bill
and
very
much
appreciate
the
the
chairwoman
accepting
the
amendment
that
was
proposed
by
the
chamber.
That
would
include
the
resort
association
and
the
chamber
in
the
study
group.
Thank
you
very
much.
H
E
Thank
you
vice
chair
watts
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
amanda
brazzo
with
roe
law
group
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
chapter
of
the
american
council
of
engineering
companies,
that's
amanda,
last
name:
brazo
b-r-a-z-e-a-u,
the
nevada
chapter
of
the
engineers
supports
assembly
bill
413
because
of
the
need
to
modernize
how
we
fund
our
highways
as
increasing
mileage
standards
and
advancing
technology
have
continued
to
eat
away
at
our
existing
funding
model.
E
H
G
Thank
you
with
that.
We'll
go
on
to
testimony
in
the
neutral
position,
we'll
start
with
phone
calls,
and
then
I
believe
we
have
some
folks
from
agencies
and
we'll
give
that
on
museum
and
we'll
give
them
an
opportunity
after
we
check
the
phone
so
eps
can
we
see
if
we
have
anyone
in
the
queue
to
testify
in
neutral
on
ab413.
G
Thank
you
very
much
broadcast
production
services
with
that
I'll
turn
it
over
to
anyone
who
is
on
the
zoom,
particularly
from
our
agencies.
If
they
would
like
to
offer
testimony
in
the
neutral
position,
I
believe
we
have
the
department
of
transportation.
Would
you
like
to
go
first.
E
Thank
you
very
much.
Vice
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
sandra
rosenberg
from
the
nevada
department
of
transportation.
We
are
neutral
on
this
bill.
We
look
forward
to
continuing
this
analysis
to
continuing
the
conversation,
obviously
we're
very
interested
in
a
sustainable
transportation
funding
source.
E
I
E
This
bill
and
the
timeline
we
would
hope
it
would
be
amenable
to
this
committee
to
move
the
land
use
and
sustainable
development
conversation
to
a
future
phase
of
this
analysis.
We
know
it's
absolutely
critical
to
this
conversation.
We
look.
E
The
funding
shortfall
and
mechanisms
first
and
then
going
on
to
the
to
the
land
use
piece.
However,
no,
you
know,
regardless
of
of
whether
or
not
that's
that's
acceptable
to
this
committee.
We
look
forward
to
working
on
this
and
whatever
this
bill
includes,
we
are
happy
to.
G
Thank
you
for
your
testimony.
I
believe
we
also
have
mr
sever
with
the
dmv
and
I'd
like
to
offer.
If
the
dmv
would
like
to
provide
any
testimony.
G
G
All
right
seeing
none,
madam
chair,
are
there
any
closing
remarks
that
you
would
like
to
make.
A
Thank
you
vice
chair
watts,
assemblywoman
danielle,
monroe
moreno
for
the
record.
The
only
thing
that
I
would
add
is
that
we
have
a
responsibility
to
work
with
everyone
together
as
we
come
to
a
sustainable
and
equitable
solution
of
how
we
fund
our
highways.
I
think
we've
heard
in
numerous
testimonies
in
in
this
committee
and
others
of
how
we
are
we're
falling
behind
and
to
do
what
we
need
to
do
for
infrastructure,
especially
for
our
highways.
So
I
encourage
your
support
for
this
piece
of
legislation.
A
It
had
lengthy
discussions
in
the
interim
with
all
of
the
the
stakeholders
mentioned.
I
think
we
had
up
to
42
individuals
at
some
of
our
meetings
virtually
so
it's
a
very
important
topic
as
we
move
forward
in
the
state
of
nevada.
So
I
encourage
your
support
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
bill
today.
G
A
A
J
J
J
J
And,
first
of
all,
just
for
some
background,
I
I
do
want
to
thank
you,
chair
for
bringing
ab429
in
order
to
create
a
regulatory
framework
for
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
in
the
state
of
nevada
and,
as
you
know,
we've
all
spent
a
lot
of
time
with
stakeholders
and
yourself
on
putting
this
framework
together.
J
I'm
gonna.
Have
mr
wilson
walk
the
committee
through
the
bill.
We
have
submitted
an
amendment
that
is
on
nellis,
that's
intended
to
address
drafting
issues
that
came
out
of
the
bill
and
when
you're
ready,
mr
wilson
can
start
walking
the
committee
through
the
bill.
K
K
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
appear
before
you
today
and
help
present
assembly
bill
429
and
more
than
just
supporting
ab429,
I'm
here
to
express
our
support
for
smart,
tailored
and
consumer-minded
regulation
of
peer-to-peer
car
sharing.
I
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
chairwoman,
moreno
and
everyone.
Who's
worked
on
this
piece
of
legislation
for
a
very
deliberative
and
collaborative
process.
K
They
earn
extra
income
to
help
cover
their
rising
cost,
car
ownership
and
student
loans,
while
at
the
same
time
allowing
for
more
and
more
drivers
or
guests.
As
we
like
to
call
them
to
forego
car
ownership,
all
together,
guests
can
choose
from
hundreds
of
different
makes,
and
models
and
price
points
to
find
the
perfect
car
for
their
specific
needs.
K
So
I'll
now
quickly
run
through
at
a
pretty
high
level,
an
outline
of
ab429
and,
as
mike
suggested
I'll,
be
working
off.
The
amendment
that's
available
on
on
nellis.
K
That
amendment
really
is
designed
to
kind
of
fix
a
couple
of
things
and
kind
of
bring
it
back
in
line
with
some
language
that
that
we
had
and
our
coalition
and
stakeholders
had
had
initially
been
working
off
of,
and
I
know
we're
on
a
limited
time
frame,
so
I
will
be
as
efficient
as
possible
hitting
on
major
issues
and
themes
within
the
bill.
K
But
please
let
me
know
with
any
questions
that
that
you
all
may
have
okay,
so
sections
three
through
twelve
in
the
amended
version,
the
amend
version
does
change
sort
of
the
numbering
off
by
one
after
section
eight,
I
believe
it.
It
defines
the
car
sharing
period,
the
car
sharing
start
time.
The
car
sharing
termination
time
another
a
number
of
other
definitions
that
ensure
that
there
are
no
gaps
in
insurance
coverage
and
they
clearly
dictate
insurance
coverage.
That's
applicable
during
the
car
sharing
period.
K
Section
14
is
the
predominantly
the
insurance
provision,
albeit
there
are
a
number
of
sections
that
that
do
deal
with
insurance
within
this
bill.
Specifically
excuse
me
section:
14,
establishes
insurance
requirements
and
mandates
that
a
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program
or
company
assume
the
liability
of
a
shared
vehicle
owner.
K
K
Specifically
section
14
sub
4
reads
that
a
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program
shall
ensure
that
during
each
car
sharing
period,
both
the
shared
vehicle
owner
and
the
shared
vehicle
driver
are
insured
under
a
motor
vehicle
liability
insurance
policy
meeting.
All
requirements
is
set
forth
in
nrs
in
the
name
of
efficiency,
and
perhaps
brevity
I
I'll
kind
of
move
on
from
the
insurance
pieces.
K
It
requires
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
programs
to
collect
and
maintain
and
provide
access
under
certain
conditions
to
transaction
records,
including
the
exact
times
locations
and
and
fees
paid
applicable
to
any
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
transaction
sections
21-25
deal
with
licensure
and
regulation
by
the
department
of
motor
vehicles.
K
K
Section
26
relates
to
disclosures
specifically
requiring
a
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program
to
disclose
to
program
participants.
That's
shared
vehicle
owners
and
shared
vehicle
drivers,
the
daily
rates
and
fees
and
any
insurance
or
protection
package
costs
that
are
charged
to
the
shared
vehicle
owner
or
the
shared
vehicle
driver,
as
well
as
provide
disclosure
for
emergency
roadside
assistance.
Phone
numbers,
section,
27
deals
with
driver
licensure,
specifically
states
that
the
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program
may
not
enter
into
a
car
sharing
program
agreement
with
the
shared
vehicle
driver.
K
Section
30,
specifically
sub
2
pertains
to
airports
and,
in
particular
clarifies
that
nothing
in
the
bill
prohibits
or
restricts
an
airport's
ability
from
setting
terms
and
conditions,
including
fees
of
agreements
entered
into
with
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
programs.
K
I
will
stress
that
we
are
currently
working
with
airport
representatives
on
further
language
aimed
at
addressing
adding
the
terminology
of
of
the
shared
vehicle
driver
to
that
provision
and
specifically
as
well.
I
do
want
to
thank
the
all
the
representatives
from
both
major
airports
for
playing
an
active
role
and
very
collaborative
role
in
developing
ab429
and
its
framework.
K
We
stress
the
importance
of
smart
tailored
regulation
of
peer-to-peer
car
sharing,
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
everyone,
vehicle
owners
and
drivers
feel
safe
while
safe
and
protected,
while
sharing
their
car
or
driving
a
shared
vehicle
with
passage
and
enactment
of
ab429.
We
are
confident
that
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
will
continue
to
provide
safe
and
affordable
transportation
options
to
nevadans
all
across
the
state.
K
To
reiterate,
we
are
thankful
for
the
opportunity
to
provide
input
during
this
process.
Together
with
just
the
awesome
group
of
stakeholders
that
we've
had
in
this
process,
we
can
ensure
the
safety,
efficiency
and
accessibility
of
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
in
nevada
for
years
to
come.
We
at
toro
view
nevada
as
our
partner
and
our
partner
increasing
mobility
options
within
the
state
and
our
partner
ushering
in
a
new
era
of
connected
sharing.
K
So
with
that,
oh
thanks
thank
the
thank
the
committee
and
thank
everyone
for
for
their
help
in
working
on
this
and
and
continuing
over
over
the
next,
rather
short
period
of
time,
to
continue
to
fine-tune
some
of
this.
Thank
you
for
your
time
today
and
for
the
opportunity
to
present
ab4
29.
J
And
madam
chair,
this
is
mike
alonso
again.
I
thought
it
would
be
important
to
share
with
the
committee
that
there
is
a
companion
bill
to
this.
It's
in
the
senate
senate
bill
389,
which
is
the
revenue
side
of
this
and
chair
you're.
J
Well
aware
of
that,
but
I
wanted
to
share
for
the
committee
if
it
makes
sense
there's
what
that
bill
would
do
is
is
to
require
that
the
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
platforms
would
collect
and
remit
the
10
government
services
charge
on
the
the
gross
receipt
at
the
of
the
sharing
of
revenue
as
well
as
there
are
two
special
acts
under.
A
E
We
are
here
today
in
support
of
assembly
bills
329
regarding
the
regulatory
contract
for
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
as
a
companion
to
senate
bill
389,
which
provides
for
the
taxation
framework
for
peer
repair,
car
sharing
the
basis
of
assembly
bills.
329
codifies
the
concepts
of
the
model
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
legislation
created
by
the
national
council
of
insurance
legislators
commonly
referred
to
as
incoyle
enterprise,
participated
in
those
important
negotiations
and
has
participated
in
conversations
across
the
nation
as
state
after
state
works.
On
this
important
issue.
E
We
want
to
in
particular
thank
chairman
moreno
for
her
leadership
throughout
the
interim
on
this
important
legislation.
We
also
want
to
thank
senator
neal
for
her
leadership
on
summit
bill
389.
We
want
to
thank
our
partners
at
turo,
for
the
many
conversations
that
we
have,
which
we
believe
have
culminated
in.
An
appropriate
response
is,
as
a
result
of
three
two
nine
in
every
state
of
the
nation
and
table
and
coil
enterprises
supported
the
in-coil
insurance
model,
as
companion
legislation
to
taxation
legislation.
E
We
believe
this
is
a
positive
step
forward
for
appropriate
regulation
and
taxation
here
in
nevada
again,
I
also
want
to
once
again
thank
chairman
ro
moreno
and
mike
alonzo
and
ethan
wilson
for
their
professionalism
and
throughout
this
process,
and
we
look
forward
to
working
together
and
getting
this
bill
passed.
A
Thank
you
so
much
so
with
that
members.
Is
there
anyone
with
questions?
I
know
I
have
two
people
that
have
asked,
so
we
will
start
with
assemblyman
levitt.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
This
is
just
kind
of
a
clarification
issue,
because
sometimes
I
don't
speak
lcb
so
well
in
section
13,
sub
sections,
five
through
11..
L
So
when
we're
talking
about
the
insurance
that
the
that
the
peer-to-peer
car
would
need
when
they're
renting
out
the
car,
so
that's
a
that's
an
insurance
policy
above
and
beyond,
whatever
the
insurance
policy
is
on
the
car
currently
right
when
the
so
when
the
person
is
driving,
when
the
person
will
be
the
person
who
owns
the
vehicle
is
just
driving
their
car,
they
have
to
have
insurance,
but
there's
a
separate
insurance
policy.
On
top
of
that,
correct.
K
K
You
can
look
at
insurance
through
the
the
shared
vehicle
owner's
lens,
and
that
is
to
your
point,
an
individual
who's
not
actually
driving
that
car
right
while
it's
being
shared
and
you
can
look
at
insurance
through
the
shared
vehicle
driver
lens
who's,
the
individual
who
will
be
sharing
that
car
during
the
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
period,
and
so
what
happens
is
when
these
events
are
triggered.
K
Like,
let's
say
the
beginning
of
the
car
sharing
period,
which
is
defined
in
this
bill,
we
operate
under
the
assumption
that
the
individual's
car
or
excuse
me
the
individual
who
owns
that
car
his
or
her
policies
not
covering,
and
so
what
happens
is
at
that
moment
in
time.
There's
no
gap
that
this
insurance
policy
covers
that
now
what
it
what
it
could
operate
as
is
either
the
individual
who's
driving
that
car.
K
If
his
or
her
policy
covers
it
or
a
policy,
that's
provided
by
the
the
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
program
and
at
no
time
is
there
a
gap
in
in
any
type
of
insurance
coverage.
L
Thank
you,
follow-up
chair,
so
so
the
let's
just
call
it
the
extra
insurance
policy,
while
the
the
person's
essentially
renting
the
vehicle.
L
So
it's
either
it's
it's
if
they,
if
they
can
use
their
own
insurance
policy,
that
would
be
obviously
dependent
on
the
on
the
driver
if
they
can't
use
their
own
insurance
policy,
who
picks
up
the
tap
with
that
extra
insurance
policy,
because
the
the
the
the
insurance
on
the
vehicle
currently
is
not
gonna,
they're,
not
gonna,
just
stop
it
and
then
start
it
back
a
week
later,
when
they're
not
sharing
the
car
anymore,
so
who
who's
responsible
for
that
insurance
policy,
while
the
the
peer.
A
K
Sure,
absolutely
through
the
chair,
this
is,
and
for
the
record
this
is
ethan
wilson
with
turo.
So
that's
an
excellent
question.
So
what
what?
How
it
works
with
the
pricing
of
the
through
the
transaction
is
that
that
policy
that
of
course
meets
all
all
requirements
in
nrs
is
part
of
the
policy
at
no
added
cost
so
that
that
policy
that
you're
talking
about
that
takes
the
place.
If
you
will
of
that
owner's
policy,
that
is
part
of
the
trip
fee.
K
I
suppose
you
you
could
you
could
call
it
it's
a
part
of
the
cost
of
that
transaction
and
that's
not
waivable
that
that
policy
will
always
be
there.
But
I
also
will
stress
that
the
individual,
who
is
who's
driving,
that
car
has
the
opportunity
to
increase
coverages
if
they
would
like
and
increase
damage
coverages
for
that
vehicle
itself.
So
at
no
point
will
an
individual
be
able
to
actually
waive
entirely
the
insurance
coverage
that
satisfies
all
the
requirements
of
nrs
and
nor
they
charge.
Let's
say
extra
for
that.
K
That
is
part
of
the
the
trip
fee
that
the
individual
who's
driving.
That
car
will
will
pay
for
as
a
part
of
that
transaction.
L
K
For
the
record,
this
is
ethan
wilson
through
the
chair.
Yes,
that's
exactly
correct.
K
Yes,
that's
correct,
so
it's
for
the
record.
This
is
ethan
wilson,
there's
no
delineation
of
of
that
policy
that
covers
that
transaction,
no
matter
what.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair
and
section
27
of
the
amendment.
What
do
we
got?
1B
2
when
you
it
says
the
sharing
program
shall
keep
a
record
of
name
and
address
of
each
shared
driver.
Number
of
the
driver's
license
be
shared
driver.
Another
person
any
will
operate
the
vehicle.
Where
are
those
records
kept?
How
are
they
kept
and
who
are
they
available
to.
K
So,
of
course,
excuse
me
for
the
record:
this
is
ethan
wilson
through
the
chair
assemblyman,
so
these,
of
course
we
are
as
as
a
platform,
I
can
only
speak
on
behalf
of
turo,
but
as
a
platform
we
comply
with
any
applicable
state
privacy
laws,
so
that
will,
depending
on
the
state
and
of
course,
nevada
that
will
dictate
when
that
information
is
available.
But
that
information
is
maintained,
collected
and
maintained
through
the
turo
platform.
E
With
regard
to
licensing,
so
if
I
look
at
the
amendment,
it's
section
21
or
section
20
in
the
original
bill
identifies
that
a
person
shall
hold
a
valid
license
issued
by
the
department.
Pursuant
to
this
chapter.
To
do
this.
My
question
is
relative
to
the
license
and
what
exactly
does
that
mean
am
I
do
I
need
to
apply
to
the
secretary
of
state
and
become
a
small.
E
K
Absolutely
for
the
record,
this
is
ethan
wilson
through
the
chair,
assemblywoman
yeah.
So
I
think
to
your
question.
It's
more
of
the
latter
part
of
that
this
is
a
license.
That's
designed
to
be
specific
for
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
through
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
and
that
the
department
of
motor
vehicles,
you
know,
of
course,
has
regulatory
authority
and
rule
making
capacity
to
promulgate
rules
that
sort
of
more
fully
flesh
out.
If
you
will
the
requirements,
the
specific
application
requirements
for
these,
for
this
particular
license.
I
F
I
E
Do
we
currently
have-
and
I
guess
I
really
would
be
interested
to
hear
from
the
dmv
relative
to
what
workload
this
is
going
to
put
on
them?
Is
this
a
new
license,
or
is
this
something
that
they
already
manage
in
a
different
way.
M
Madam
chair
jd
decker
for
the
record
chief
of
nevada,
dmv's
compliance
enforcement
division
in
order
to
answer
the
assemblywoman's
question.
This
is
a
new.
This
establishes
a
new
license
in
law,
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
the
department.
M
We
spent
about
the
last
three
years
working
with
mr
alonso
on
on
the
requirements
and
the
regulatory
authority
that
we
would
need
in
order
to
regulate
the
peer-to-peer
car
sharing
sharing
business
because
there
doesn't
exist
an
applicable
license
in
law.
Currently
we
have
dealer
licenses,
we
have
short-term
lesser
licenses.
M
This
business
model
doesn't
really
fit
very
neatly
into
either
of
those,
so
this
would
establish
the
department's
jurisdiction
and
a
new
license
type
and
and
we're
prepared
to
to
execute
that
on
behalf
of
the
state.
A
Okay,
seeing
them,
then
I
will
ask
our
broadcasting
staff
to
open
up
the
lines
for
callers
wishing
to
testify
and
support
in
colors.
I
will
remind
you,
you
have
two
minutes
and
we'll
be
doing
testimony
15
minutes
for
support
opposition
and
neutral
bps.
Do
we
have
anyone
on
the
line
to
testify
and
support.
H
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
For
the
record.
My
name
is
kyle
davis,
that's
k-y-l-e,
d-a-v-I-s,
and
I
appear
today
on
behalf
of
fluid
truck
fluid
truck,
is
a
truck
sharing
platform
focused
on
connecting
small
businesses
with
the
right
size
truck
for
their
needs
and
to
give
them
access
to
electric
trucks?
D
A
H
E
Good
afternoon
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee
joanna
jacob
j-o-a-n-n-a-j-a-c-o-b
clark
county
government
affairs
manager,
madam
chair,
I'm
testifying
neutral
today
on
assembly
bill
429.
As
mr
wilson
and
mr
alonzo
stated,
we
have
been
participating
in
the
discussions
on
this
bill
on
behalf
of
clark
county.
E
Of
aviation
under
which
mccarran
airport
operates
it's
very
important
for
the
airport
to
regulate
to
safe
the
safety
of
the
access
to
the
airport
grounds.
We
appreciate
the
flexibility
that
mr
alonso
and
mr
wilson
have
given
us
in
the
amended
version,
and
also
mr
wilson's
acknowledgement
that
we
are
continuing
to
work
on
section
30..
E
We
think
that
that
amendment
is
very
important
to
the
airport
and
wanted
to
put
that
on
the
record
today,
we
will
continue
to
work
with
them
as
this
bill
moves
forward,
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
making
sure
that
the
clark
county
department
of
aviation
is
at
the
table
and
that
our
concerns
are
heard.
Thank
you.
H
D
Yes,
this
is
matthew
sharp
for
the
nevada
justice
association
and
we
are
speaking
in
a
neutral
position.
My
colleague,
allison
brazer,
will
be
dealing
with
some
other
substantive
issues.
My
my
primary
issue
is
in
relation
to
the
insurance
aspect,
and
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
the
once
the
owner
of
the
vehicle
rents
the
vehicle
to
a
person
over
the
platform,
the
personal
auto
policy
on
that
vehicle
will
not
provide
coverage.
D
You
don't
get
coverage
under
your
personal,
auto
policy
for
engaging
in
a
business
type
transaction.
In
addition,
there
is
federal
immunity.
That's
provided
to
the
owner
of
the
vehicle,
so
the
point
of
increasing
the
insurance
is
to
increase
the
insurance
to
5100
for
the
provider
of
the
service,
the
toro
in
our
example.
D
A
A
J
Thank
you
chair.
This
is
mike
alonso
for
the
record
and
we
are
having
discussions
with
nja
and
we'll
continue
to
have
those
discussions
as
well
on
the
issues
that
mr
sharp
raised
as
well
as
we've
had
discussions
with
alison
frazier.
I
do
want
to
just
say
just
just
for
the
record.
I
I
I
it's
technical
insurance
stuff.
So
if
I
need
help,
I
don't
know
if
mr
wilson
is
still
on
the
line,
but
I
don't
think
he
was
saying
that
the
dr
the
owner's
policy
is
covering
at
the
same
time.
J
I
think
what
he's
talking
about
in
response
to
a
question
was
that
their
the
platform's
policy
and
or
the
drivers
policy,
one
of
them
will
be
there
all
of
the
time.
We
understand
the
issues
with
the
owner's
policy,
but
this
is
intended
to
make
sure
there
isn't
a
gap
so
that
either
the
platform's
policy
or
the
drivers
policy
is
covering
at
all
times
and
with
that
I
just
want.
J
I
do
want
to
again
thank
you,
chair
and
we'll
continue
to
work
with
clark,
county
and
and
the
nja
and
get
back
to
you
and
again.
I
appreciate
all
of
your
efforts
on
this
bill
and
I
do
want
to
say
mr
wilson
covered
it
and
thanking
everybody,
but
I
do
want
to
thank
alyssa
maeve,
appreciate
her
team
and
all
the
work
that
they
did
and
their
professionalism
and
working
with
us
as
well.
A
C
Good
afternoon,
chair
moreno
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
the
record.
I'm
assemblywoman
b,
duran
representing
assembly
district
11
in
clark
county.
I'm
pleased
to
introduce
assembly
bill
377
for
your
consideration
today.
Assembly
bill
377
helps
low-income
households
with
their
monthly
broadband
goals.
C
C
C
Telecom
carriers
pay
a
quarterly
assessment
to
the
public
utilities,
commission
of
nevada
or
pucn,
based
on
a
percentage
of
their
in-state
revenues.
The
assessments
are
placed
in
a
fund
to
maintain
the
availability
of
telephone
service.
The
carrier
gives
low
income
customers
a
reduced
rate,
and
the
carrier
then,
is
then
reimbursed
from
the
fund
the
revenue
they
would
have
made.
C
Although
the
commission
retains
some
authority
over
providers
that
are
public
utilities
in
conversation
following
the
introduction
of
ab377
pucn
staff
offered
alternative
language
that
recogni
that
recognizes
the
deregulation
while
still
carrying
out
the
intent
of
the
bill.
I
have
submitted
that
language
as
a
conceptual
amendment,
and
that
is
posted
on
alice
joining
us
today
is
breah
wiggler.
C
I'm
sorry
if
I
messed
your
name
up,
miss
brea,
okay
assistant
general
counsel
at
the
pucn
who
will
discuss
the
sections
of
the
amended
bill
before
I
turn
things
over
to
her.
I
want
to
highlight
a
few
things
in
section
3
of
the
amendment.
There
is
a
new
definition
of
broadband
service
offered,
as
the
existing
definition
adopted
in
2003
is
obsolete.
C
C
In
addition
to
the
amount
of
support
available
from
the
federal
universe
service
fund,
the
pucn
must
consider
both
the
number
of
persons
in
the
household
that
need
the
broadband
service
and
the
type
of
online
activity
that
people
in
the
household
will
need
to
do
to
do.
Every
family's
needs
are
different,
a
household
may
have
several
school-aged
children
and
adults
working
remotely
or
it
may
have
one
person
working
out
of
the
home
who
needs
a
minimum
internet
connect
connectivity
connectivity,
connect
connectability
to
send
emails
and
schedules.
C
C
I
The
intent
of
this
term
is
to
ensure
that
broadband
providers
can
provide
elig
can
become
eligible
to
provide
lifeline
discounts
to
their
customers,
including
by
receiving
nevada
universal
service
support.
Section
3
is
a
definition
of
broadband
service.
As
mr
ann
mentioned,
the
current
definition
of
broadband
service
is
a
little
bit
outdated.
This
definition
will
require
the
puc
annually
to
revisit
minimum
speeds
for
broadband,
and
those
speeds
might
be
different
for
wired
or
wireless
service.
I
Section
5
clarifies
that
a
lifeline
broadband
service
provider
is
not
the
public
utility
as
assemblywoman
duran
mentioned,
and
it
accomplishes
a
lighter
touch
regulation
for
these
types
of
providers.
Although
we
will
require
some
oversight,
given
that
they
will
be
receiving
funds
from
the
nevada
universal
service
fund
section
six,
the
proposed
modifications
to
this
section
makes
it
clear
that
lifeline
broadband
service
providers
are
not
subject
to
the
mill
assessment
and
instead
pay
an
annual
registration
fee
like
the
wireless
or
cmrs
providers.
I
Section
6
of
section
seven
is
a
cleanup
item
in,
in
the
sense
that,
right
now,
lifeline
eligibility
is
determined
at
the
federal
level
by
the
national
verifier,
which
is
usac
and,
as
such,
nevada
no
longer
employs
an
amen,
an
administrator
to
determine
lifeline
eligibility.
I
Section
7
of
that
section
confirms
the
deletion
of
section
6
of
the
regarding
the
national
verifier
and
the
eligibility
for
life
in
section
8.
This
section
generally
provides
the
poc
does
not
regulate
broadband
service,
with
some
exceptions
in
section
2e.
The
language
provides
a
new
exception
to
the
general
rule
that
the
puc
does
not
regulate
broadband
service
and
it
would
permit
the
puc
to
regulate
broadband
services
for
the
purpose
of
ensuring
that
the
lifeline
program
can
be
used
to
reduce
broadband
rates
for
eligible
customers.
I
In
section
4
of
section
8,
the
language
deletes
the
prior
definition
of
broadband
service,
which
had
a
minimum
outdated
speed
threshold.
As
I
mentioned
earlier
section
9,
similar
to
the
changes
to
section
8.
This
section
ensures
that
the
puc
has
the
appropriate
regulatory
authority
over
ip
enabled
service,
as
it
concerns
lifeline
discounts.
I
Other
changes
to
this
section
ensure
that
the
high
cost
fund
have
kind
of
a
couple
of
components:
the
nevada
universal
service
fund.
In
addition
to
providing
lifeline
support,
it
also
provides
high
cost
support
and
it
ensures
that
the
high
cost
fund
can
only
be
utilized
for
voice
services
at
this
time
and
that's
to
ensure
the
role
providers
who
get
high
cost
support
can
maintain
that
that
support
that
they're
getting
right
now
through
the
fund
in
section
11.
The
changes
to
nrs
704.
I
are
meant
to
establish
new
reporting
requirements
that
will
assist
the
puc
in
determining
the
broadband
speeds
annually.
This
will
also
help
the
puc
provide
additional
data
to
the
legislature
as
to
the
availability
of
broadband
in
nevada
and
the
reach
of
the
lifelong
funding
in
terms
of
providing
broadband
service
to
eligible
customers
in
section
12.
I
This
begins
some
changes
to
chapter
7
of
chapter
7
of
7
of
the
nrs
and
they're
meant
to
conform
with
the
changes
in
chapter
704,
which
would
permit
lifeline
broadband
service
providers
to
receive
funds
from
the
nevada
universal
service
on
service
fund.
There
also
is
a
cleanup
item
and
that
we
are
adding
crs
to
the
list
of
providers
that
are
eligible
for
funds
for
that
about
a
universal
service
fund,
section
13..
I
I
One
of
those
factors
is
this:
to
the
extent,
there's
is
a
available
federal
funding
at
that
time
for
any
particular
lifelong
eligible
lifeline
provider.
As
assemblywoman
duran
mentioned,
there
is
a
federal
subsidy
going
on
right
now.
It's
called
the
emergency
broadband
benefit
for
eligible
customers
that
will
be
up
to
50
per
household
on
non-tribal
lands
and
75
per
household
on
non-tribal
lands.
I
The
last
provision
in
section
13
makes
it
clear
that
lifeline
broadband
service
providers
are
only
eligible
to
receive
funding
from
the
nevada
universal
service
fund
for
the
purposes
of
broadband
service,
in
other
words,
lifeline
broadband
providers.
Broadband
service
providers
are
not
eligible
for
any
funds,
funding
to
support
voice
or
high
cost
service
from
the
nevada
universal
service
fund,
and
that's
the
section
by
section
walkthrough,
I'm
available
to
answer
any
questions
that
might
come
up.
Thank
you.
C
A
H
L
Somebody's
somebody's
somebody's
asking
my
question
for
me,
so
you
so
the
lifeline
program's
already
the
currently
funded
god,
damn
as
it
currently
exists,.
C
I
Answer
that
okay,
chairman
roman,
reigns
through
you
to
assemblyman
assemblyman
levitt.
This
is
debri
twilliger
for
the
record.
The
the
lifeline
fund
there's
a
federal
assessment
that
shows
up
on
customer
bills
for
a
variety
of
providers,
telecommunications,
voip
or
voice
over
internet
protocol
providers,
wireless
cmrs
providers
and
for
the
nusf.
We
we
do
an
assessment
rate
that
also
sometimes
gets
passed
on
to
customers,
and
that
assessment
also
shows
up
on
customer
customer
bills
and
that's
an
assessment
on
intra
state
revenues.
I
It's
a
mix
if
we're
talking
about
the
federal
lifeline
program,
that's
federally
funded.
If
we're
talking
about
the
nevada
universal
service
fund
that
is
funded
through
an
assessment
on
carriers
who
provide
service
in
nevada
and
an
assessment
on
interstate
revenue.
I
Assemblywoman
in
rome,
and
right
now
through
you
to
assemblyman
levitt,
this
is
to
bridge
wilger
for
the
record,
so
currently
the
folk,
the
folks
who
fund
the
nevada,
universal
service
fund
or
the
carriers
who
provide
that
are
competitive
suppliers.
Those
are
att
centurylink,
the
small
scale
providers
of
last
resort,
who
are
the
rural
providers?
There's
rural
telephone,
humboldt
telephone,
also,
the
wireless
carriers.
I
You
know
verizon
t-mobile
we
currently
do
not
assess
because
we
do
not
regulate
broadband.
We
do
not
assess
drop-in
providers
and
they
do
not
pay
into
the
nevada
universal
service
fund.
But
the
conceptual
amendment
submitted
by
assemblywoman
duran
would
assess
any
lifeline
broadband
service
providers
who
were
getting
a
discount
for
their
customers,
so
it
wouldn't
assess
all
broadband
providers,
only
those
who
become
life,
lifeline
broadband
service
providers.
L
L
Okay,
so
the
lifeline
program
is
so
these
these
broadband
service
providers
that
fund
this
lifeline
program
to
allow
for
the
discounts
are
they
is
that
something
that
they
opt
into?
Are
they?
Are
they
required
to
do
it,
and,
and
on
top
of
that,
if,
if
they,
if
they
decide
that
they
want
to
seek
federal
grants
or
whatever
it
is
that
that
they're
eligible
for,
would
they
would
that
be
on
top
of
whatever
they've
funded
so
far,
or
would
would
that
potentially
eliminate
their
burden
to
fund
the
lifeline
program
locally?.
I
Chairman
roman
reigns
for
you
to
assemblyman
levitt.
This
is
debris.
I
Okay,
thank
you
all
right,
we'll
do
that.
This
is
dabriah
for
the
record.
I
think
there's
two
questions
there.
Let
me
make
sure
I
get
both
of
them.
If
a
broadband
provider
would
only
have
to
contribute
to
the
nevada
universal
service
fund,
if
they
voluntarily
became
a
lifeline
broadband
service
provider,
so
they
would
not
be.
Broadband
providers
generally
would
not
be
required
to
contribute
to
the
fund,
but
if
they
became
a
lifeline
broadband
service
provider
they
would
have
to
contribute
to
the
fund
based
on
the
conceptual
amendment.
I
The
second
question
you
had
is
the
fcc
benefit
the
way
that
the
fcc
is
structured.
Its
emergency
broadband
benefits
is
that
you,
the
folks
who
are
the
carriers
who
are
eligible
to
give
that
discount
to
their
customers
either
are
designated
by
the
states
as
an
eligible
telecommunications
carrier.
So
we've
designated
several
carriers
as
eligible
telecommunications
carriers
or
if
they
get
us,
the
fcc's,
the
federal
communications
commission's
approval
to
provide
that
emergency
broadband
benefit.
They
can
also
provide
the
discounts
to
the
customers.
I
was
on
the
fcc's
website
earlier.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you,
assemblyman
duran
for
the
presentation
and
just
a
quick
question
for
miss.
Let's
see
orlando,
I
can
say
it
right.
So
there's
a
limited
amount
of
money
in
the
nevada
universal
service
fund.
I'm
assuming
you
had
the
federal
subsidy
that
you
talked
about
and
now
we're
we're
changing
it
to
include
other
providers.
B
I
I
If,
if,
via
the
commission's
regulations,
an
additional
benefit
is
provided
through
the
of
for
broadband
services
provided
to
eligible
customers
that
we
would
have
to
increase
the
amount
of
the
state
interest
state
assessment
for
purposes
of
the
nevada
universal
service
fund.
So
we
reset
that
interstate
rate
each
year.
Our
administrator
for
the
nevada
universal
service
fund,
which
is
solix
inc,
makes
a
filing
once
a
year
and
tells
us
how
much
money
they
need
for
the
high
cost
fund
for
lifeline.
B
Thank
you
just
a
quick
follow-up,
and
so
it
would
be
the
choice
of
the
provider
to
either
pass
that
through
to
the
consumer,
or
they
would
just
take.
Take
up
the
slack
correct.
I
Assemblyman
roberts,
dabria
twilliger
for
the
record.
Yes,
I
mean
the
assessment's
done
on
the
carriers
themselves
and
oftentimes.
The
assessment
is
passed
on
to
the
customer.
It's
often
lumped
in
you
know.
If
you
look
at
your
wireless
bill,
for
example,
in
a
government
fees,
it's
linked
in
with
other
fees
like
for
the
federal
universal
service
program,
it
could
be
lumped
in
for
911
fees.
You
know
for
other
fees
that
are
assessed
on
also
the
tdd
fee,
which
is
the
service
for
the
deaf
it's
often
lumped
in
there.
I
So
it's
hard
to
call
out
what,
specifically
for
the
customer's
perspective,
what
specifically
is
increased
in
their
bill.
But,
yes,
the
carrier
would
decide
whether
to
pass
that
along.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chairman,
and
I
think
all
my
questions
is
kind
of
got
asked,
but
is
that
the
last
presenter
missed?
Was
it
tweening
or
I
don't
see
her
name
up
here,
but
she
I
got
a
couple
questions
for
her.
D
I
I
D
I
I
I
I
I
should
the
the
fcc
is
also
making
wireless
broadband
providers,
sometimes
they're
a
fixed
wireless
product,
which
is
a
little
bit
different
than
like
your
mobile
phone
available
for
for
the
discount.
I
think
this
is
something
the
commission
would
take
up
in
the
rule
making.
There
are
some
areas
where
wireless
is
the
best
or
an
only
option,
and
it
depends
on
if
it's
fast
enough
and
it
meets
the
minimum
speed
threshold
that
it
can.
It
can
provide
broadband
and
that
depends
on
the
type
of
wireless
service
available.
I
So
it
would
not
just
be.
It
may
not
just
be
landline
type
of
like
cable
or
dsl
type
of
service.
F
A
H
H
F
Thank
you
chair
monroe,
moreno
and
committee
members.
Misty
grimmer,
g-r-I-m-m-e-r
with
the
ferraro
group
representing
cox.
Communications
cox
is
very
supportive
of
the
goal
of
making
sure
all
low-income
families
have
access
to
high-speed
internet
access.
Our
actions
throughout
the
pandemic
and
actually
for
well
over
a
decade
now
have
proven
this
during
the
pandemic.
Cox
was
instrumental
in
the
design
and
implementation
of
the
connecting
kids
program
that
came
through
the
governor's
coven
19
task
force.
F
This
will
provide
subsidies
to
internet
providers
to
households
that
qualify
on
their
internet
service
bill.
However,
cox
didn't
need
a
pandemic
to
happen
in
order
to
make
low-income
access
to
high-speed
broadband
a
priority
for
well
over
a
decade,
cox
has
been
offering
our
connect
to
compete
program
which
offers
high-speed
internet
service
to
any
family
that
qualifies
for
free
and
reduced
lunch
for
only
ten
dollars
a
month
and
no
cost
for
equipment
or
connections.
F
I
say
all
this
chair
and
committee
members
to
make
the
case
that
ab377,
the
well-intentioned
is
not
necessary.
I
know
other
providers
have
similar
programs
in
their
territories.
The
industry
has
very
much
stepped
us
up
to
the
plate
throughout
this
crisis,
but
was
already
doing
so
beforehand
as
well.
F
Broadband
is
a
competitive
service
which
is
part
of
why
the
federal
government
has
stipulated
that
it
can
only
be
very
minimally
regulated
at
the
state
level
and
it
cannot
be
taxed
at
the
state
or
local
level.
This
would
put
broadband
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
puc
in
ways
we
don't
believe
is
necessary.
F
H
B
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
david
dazlich
d-a-z-l-I-c-h,
director
of
government
affairs
for
the
vegas
chamber,
as
you've
just
heard
from
my
colleague
from
cox.
We
are
in
opposition
to
377
and
I
would
just
like
to
echo
the
concerns
that
she's
brought
forward.
Thank.
H
H
A
C
Yes-
and
I
want
to
thank
you,
chair
moreno
and
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
a
lot.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
present
ab
377.
C
The
issue
is
not
these
companies
providing
the
service,
it's
the
the
amount
of
services
per
household.
So
that's
my
goal
and
I
appreciate
all
these
providers
helping
out
our
low-income
housing.
But,
as
you
know,
each
household
doesn't
have
the
same
amount
of
of
people
in
them
so
or
the
amount
of
necessity.
C
So
I'm
just
hoping
that
we
can
support
this
bill
because
of
the
fact
that
it's
not
just
in
my
district,
it's
in
every
district
across
the
state
about
the
number
of
people
in
the
household
that
needs
service,
and
I'm
just
looking
to
make
sure
that
nevada
is
on
on
the
road
to
get
our
broadband
up
to
speed
and
have
access
for
our
low-income
families.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
hope
you
support
ab377
and
would
like
to
thank
all
eucn
for
working
on
this
with
me.
A
Thank
you
so
much
for
joining
us
here
today.
I
think
it
was
your
first
time
in
growth
and
infrastructure
this
session.
So
thank
you
and
with
that
we
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
377
and
we
will
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
388,
which
will
be
presented
by
one
of
our
fellow
committee
members,
assemblyman
miller.
Whenever
you
are
ready
assemblyman
the
floor
is
yours:.
O
O
I've
previously
spoken
to
this
committee
regarding
how
the
covet
19
pandemic
has
brought
into
clarity
the
stark
differences
between
differences
between
the
nevada
sectors
of
society
and
broadband
was
no
different.
Last
year
when
schools
had
to
go
strictly
online,
the
pandemic
showed
us
just
how
large
that
divide
was
in
our
state,
the
digital
divide
that
can
be
defined
as
the
gulf
between
those
who
have
ready
access
to
computers
and
the
internet
and
those
who
do
not
essentially
the
haves
and
the
have-nots.
O
Furthermore,
households
that
do
not
have
ready
access
to
reliable
internet
may
suffer
economic
and
educational
setbacks
like
those
that
have
been
highlighted
throughout
the
pandemic
and
communities.
Without
the
proper
infrastructure
to
accommodate
high-speed
internet
may
be
economically
left
behind
now,
as
our
state
makes
bold
moves
to
advance
our
standing
as
a
leader
in
technological
advancements,
we
must
do
our
best
to
ensure
that
no
nevadan
is
left
behind
due
to
a
lack
of
adequate
internet
accessibility,
especially
our
youth,
whose
future
will
be
increasingly
dependent
upon
high
a
reliable
high
quality
high
speed
internet
in
their
homes.
O
Now
this
is
not
only
a
problem
for
students
who
are
negatively
impacted
by
issues
with
slow
internet,
but
many
individuals,
working
from
home
must
make
a
schedule
on
who
uses
the
internet
and
when,
like
back
in
the
days
when
people
had
just
one
tv-
and
I
know,
there's
a
few
of
you
on
this
community
that
know
exactly
what
I'm
talking
about.
O
But
this
forced
families
to
make
a
schedule
in
order
to
not
see
in
interruptions
or
extreme
lag
times
when
needing
to
access,
telehealth
services
or
individuals
wishing
to
safely
attend
worship,
services
remotely
or
even
just
socialize,
with
family
and
friends.
Many
of
them
found
themselves
prevented
from
fully
participating
in
any
remote
activities
that
are
routine
for
those
who
have
decent
internet
connectivity.
O
This
was
even
more
of
a
problem
in
our
historically
economically
challenged,
neighborhoods,
where
infrastructure
doesn't
always
support
the
best
internet
access
available
and
in
nevada's
more
rural
areas.
The
infrastructure
required
for
broadband
simply
may
not
be
available
yet
or
it
would
require
a
large
capital
investment
to
purchase,
right-of-ways
and
dick
trenches
and
do
all
of
those
things
for
with
lines,
installation
and
all
of
that
nevada
made
progress
to
improve
its
infrastructure
and
ensure
more
people
could
experience
the
benefits
of
reliable
internet
access.
O
Even
throughout
this
pandemic,
we
went
from
nearly
one
in
four
students
not
being
connected
to
confirming
that
all
nevada
students
were
connected
in
january.
That
is
progress,
but
we
still
have
a
long
way
to
go
and
what
we
hope
will
continue
to
come
out
of.
The
federal
government
in
the
future
will
get
us
much
closer
to
an
always
totally
connected
nevada,
but
we
can't
wait
on
them.
Our
time
to
act
is
now,
and
we
nevadans
must
ensure
that
we
have
our
own
mechanism
in
place.
That
is
forward.
O
In
short,
the
amendment
repeals
the
definition
of
broadband
previously
proposed
in
the
in
my
bill
and
that
is
actually
captured
as
you've
heard
in
assemblywoman
duran's
bill
ab377.
Our
bills
were
intended
to
complement
each
other,
not
be
one
or
the
other
and
not
be
duplicated
duplicative.
O
Can
these
funds
will
be
submitted
through
customers,
monthly
bills
on
an
opt-in
voluntary
basis,
through
something
similar
to
what
I
like
to
call
a
round-up
program
where
wireless
and
broadband
providers
will
opt
into
this
program,
which
would
then
allow
the
customers
to
opt
in
and
round
up
their
bills
to
the
nearest
dollar,
knowing
their
goodwill
donations
are
going
into
nevada's
universal
services
fund
and
earmarked
to
expand
and
maintain
the
availability
of
reliable
broadband
service
for
those
who
have
the
most
difficulties
accessing
it
around
our
state.
O
Additionally,
the
amendment
would
require
that
osit
who
will
map
will
create
what
would
crop
would
require
osit
to
map
the
state
to
determine
locations
where
internet
service
does
not
meet
the
definition
of
broadband
and
to
provide
a
report
biannually
to
the
to
the
governor
and
legislature
that
summarizes
broadband
availability
throughout
the
state
identifies
communities
with
broadband
service
that
meet
the
state's
statutory
definition
of
broadband
service
and
those
that
do
not
and
provides
recommendations
for
the
deployment
of
broadband
infrastructure
to
underserved
communities.
O
O
O
I
thank
you
committee
members
for
your
time
today
and
I
urge
you
to
support
this
measure
to
ensure
nevada
continues
to
close
the
digital
divide
and
ensure
equitable
access
to
the
benefits
of
broadband
for
every
nevadan,
regardless
of
their
socioeconomic
status
or
zip
code.
I
was
able
to
work
closely
with
director
brian
mitchell,
from
the
office
of
science,
innovation
and
technology
within
the
office
of
the
governor
and
debria
terwilliger
counsel
for
the
public
utilities,
commission
of
nevada
to
develop
the
amended
language.
O
They
are
both
here
and
available
to
answer
more
technical
questions
related
to
them,
and
I
was
also
able
to
work
with
our
broadband
and
wireless
stakeholders
on
clearance
clarifying
the
voluntary
nature
of
the
program.
With
that,
I
am
ready
for
questions.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
assemblyman
miller,
will
the
others
that
you
mentioned?
Will
they
be
adding
anything
to
testimony
or
just
here
to
provide
answers
to
questions.
O
In
the
interest
of
time,
I'm
sorry
assemblyman
cameron,
c.h
miller,
for
the
record
in
the
interest
of
time.
They
will
not
make
any
additional
remarks.
They'll
just
be
here
to
answer
questions
and
I'm
sure
they
have
any
thoughts
that
they'd
like
to
add.
They
can
work
out
around
the
questions
that
they
answer.
Thank
you.
A
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair
link
for
the
presentation,
simon
miller,
so
from
what
I
hear.
It's
contingent
upon
current
willingness
to
round
up
their
bill
to
help
fund
this
effort.
L
So
if
so,
if
they
don't
get
enough
funding
through
that
effort,
how
do
you
choose
who
gets
the
higher
internet
rate,
or
you
know
bit
rate
whatever
they're
calling
it
and
who
doesn't?
If,
if,
if
the
funding
doesn't
come
through
in
its
entirety
to
service
everyone
who
is
requesting
that
increase,
how
would
you
choose,
assuming
that
some
people
at
all
would
be
willing
to
do
that?
How
do
you
choose
who
gets
it
and
who
doesn't.
O
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Assemblyman
levitt,
that's
assemblyman,
c.h
miller
for
the
record,
so
this
particular
bill
does
not
give
or
deal
with
direct
payments
or
discounts
on
bills.
This
deals
directly
with
creating
grants
for
broadband
infrastructure.
O
So
in
those
areas
where
there
are
slow
lag
times,
and
it's
due
to
it
being
an
infrastructure
issue
or
the
rural
areas
that
just
don't
have
the
infrastructure
or
the
right
infrastructure
to
get
the
best
speeds,
the
providers
would
be
able
to
apply
to
ocit
through
the
grant
program
to
attain
a
grant
to
support
their
efforts
in
bringing
broadband
infrastructure
in
those
areas.
O
And
I'm
sorry
cameron
c
h
miller
for
the
record
I'll
add
to
that
that
the
the
funding,
so
the
reason
that
it's
grants
is
because,
if
there's
higher
or
lower
amounts
that
come
into
the
account
into
the
fund,
the
grants
can
then
be
determined
based
on
what
is
in
the
account.
So
if
we
don't
run
into
a
place
where
there
can
be
more
requests
than
what's
available.
O
Works,
thank
you
assemblyman
miller,
for
the
record.
That
would
be
something
that
will
be
determined
in
the
grant
program
that
oset
will
develop.
So
I
would
imagine
that,
like
any
other
grant
programs,
you
would
you
know
you'll
have
a
set
parameters
that
you
have
to
meet
and
then
there
would
be
an
evaluation
to
determine
which
providers
would
would
get
those
grants
or
which
projects,
I
think,
would
get
those
grants.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
don't
know
if
this
question
should
be
directed
to
osit,
perhaps
so
I'll
ask
whoever
is
appropriate,
feel
free
to
chime
in.
I
do
know
that
I
think
it
was
the
under
the
governor's
office
of
economic
development.
There
was
recently
a
broadband
study,
so
I
was
just
wondering
if
you
could
speak
to
what
what
do
we
currently
know
about
the
needs
for
this
infrastructure
and
then
how
would
the
the
report
and
evaluation
that's
in
this
envisioned
in
this
legislation,
support
that?
G
So
that's
one
I'll
start
with
that,
just
the
evaluation
of
the
infrastructure.
I
have
a
very
brief.
P
Good
afternoon
committee
members
and
vice
chair
watts,
brian
mitchell,
director
of
osit,
for
the
record,
and
thank
you
for
the
question,
the
edo
osa.
We
maintain
a
a
list
of
projects
and
needs
throughout
the
state
based
on
our
work
with
telecommunications
providers
and
communities.
We
regularly
work
with
communities
around
the
state
to
determine
what
the
needs
are
for
broadband
infrastructure
and
certainly
as
as
demands
for
data
and
and
faster
internet
speeds,
continue
to
grow
infrastructure
that
was
sufficient
years
ago.
P
So
certainly
the
the
mapping
effort
that
is
proposed
as
a
part
of
this
bill
is
a
part
of
a
federal
effort
to
to
understand
needs
throughout
the
throughout
the
state,
and
so
oset
would
be
joining
that
federal
effort
in
order
to
provide
better
data
to
inform
our
infrastructure
development
projects
that
go
on
throughout
the
state
and
and
so
to
to
be
clear,
we
wouldn't
be
requesting
any
additional
information
from
providers
beyond
what
is
going
into
the
federal
mapping
project.
P
However,
the
understanding
the
the
needs
that
we
have
throughout
the
state
would
be
very,
very
important
to
our
work
to
understand
where,
where
to
best,
deploy
new
infrastructure
as
well
as
if
there
was
ever
a
another
shelter
in
place
event
such
as
the
kovid
19
pandemic.
G
Thank
you
for
that.
I
appreciate
that
and
on
the
along
the
lines
of
the
federal
project,
it's
underway,
we
know
that
there's
already
been
some
federal
funds
approved,
and
I
understand
this
is
a
policy
committee.
So
I'm
just
looking
high
level
to
understand.
You
know
ways
that
this
voluntary
grant
program
to
support
infrastructure
you
know
is
that
something
that
would
be
envisioned
as
being
able
to
support
or
help
leverage
additional
federal
dollars
to
help
complete
some
of
these
projects
and
close
the
digital
divide
in
the
state.
O
Assemblyman
miller
for
the
record,
assemblyman
watts.
Thank
you
for
the
question
I
just
need
to
be.
O
I
guess
if
you
can
clarify
a
little
more
of
what
you
are
addressing,
because
I
think
that
in
your
question,
the
way
it
sounded
to
me,
it
was
like
it
was
addressing
two
different
things,
and
so,
if
you're
referring
to
the
mapping
portion
and
the
data
that's
collected
from
that,
I
would
lean
to
or
point
to
director
mitchell
to
answer
that
question
and
then,
if
you
have
on
the
top
part
of
your
question,
if
you
could
re-ask
that
I'll
do
my
best
to
answer
it.
Thank.
G
You
sure
thank
you
and
yeah.
The
first
part
was
about
the
mapping
and
the
the
follow-up
question
was
about
the
funding.
So
I
was
just
wondering
how
the
that
voluntary
program
that
would
be
established
to
help
gather
additional
resources
to
support
in
broadband
infrastructure
projects
in
the
state.
How
that
may
be
able
to
work
in
tandem
with
or
help
leverage
additional
federal
resources
that
are
specifically
targeted
for
improving
broadband
service
in
the
state.
O
Yes,
it
is
my
intent
that
that
funding
would
be
able
to
in
the
in
the
program
would
be
able
to
be
in
addition
to
to
supplement
or
be
on
top
of
what
the
federal
government
provides
for
us,
and
then
I
imagine
that
having
the
data
of
the
mapping
along
with
that
would
also
make
it
make
you
know
more
grants
that
they
develop,
make
us
more
available
for
the
grants
that
they
develop,
but
I
will
lean
to
director
mitchell
to
provide
some
additional
clarity
there.
Thank
you.
P
Brian
mitchell,
director
of
osit
for
the
record,
thank
you,
assemblyman
watts
for
the
question
and
I
think
you've
hit
the
nail
right
on
the
head,
where
the
the
funding
that
would
come
into
this
account
would
support
the
state,
broadband
development
plan
and
infrastructure
deployment
plan
and
there,
while
the
the
grants
that
are
coming
or
the
funding
that's
coming
from
the
federal
government
through
the
biden
administration's
coveted
relief
bill,
do
not
require
a
match.
P
But
as
in
the
short
term,
I
think
we
would
use
it
to
supplement
other
investments
that
we
make
through
other
other
dollar
amounts
and
and
one
of
the
prior
one
of
the
conversations
we
had
with
assemblyman
miller
is
that
is
that
the
fund,
any
funding
that
would
come
in
through
this
project,
would
be
prioritized
for,
in
particular,
for
underserved
communities.
Certainly,
that's
a
big
priority
and
an
overarching
priority
of
the
state
broadband
plan,
but
in
particular
we
would
make
sure
that
the
funding
is
directed
in
that
way.
G
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
mitchell,
for
that
clarification
and
madam
chair
for
the
indulgence
I
just
wanted
to
try
and
get
that
on
the
record
and
as
we
know,
this
is
something
we
struggle
with
in
terms
of
being
able
to
generate
matching
funds
to
pull
down
significant
additional
federal
resources
to
meet
the
state's
needs,
and
I
just
want
to
applaud
some
of
the
miller,
because
I
think
this
is
an
innovative
approach.
G
That
again
is
a
voluntary
program
that
can
help
us
bring
in
the
resources
and
multiply
them
by
by
potentially
bringing
in
additional
federal
support
and
meeting
some
of
the
needs
that
our
existing
resources
are
not
able
to.
So.
Thank
you.
A
N
Thank
you,
chair
monroe,
moreno
and
assemblyman
miller
for
a
wonderful
presentation
out
of
the
box,
thinking
forward
thinking,
and
I
would
just
like
to
note
that
in
my
other
life,
we
have
a
we
collect.
We
receive
dollars
through
the
dmv
for
complete
street
projects
that
are
dispersed
throughout
southern
nevada
for
two
communities
who
are
trying
to
implement
these
types
of
projects.
N
N
I
participated
in
a
senior
voluntary
one
dollar
a
month
to
help
seniors,
keep
their
bill
cost
down
for
many
years
and
it
has
helped
numerous
people,
and
this
is
a
way
for
us
to
begin
and
a
way
for
us
to
also
receive
grant
dollars
and
to
vice
chair
watts
and
chair
monroe.
Moreno's
heart
songs
have
money
for
for
matching.
N
I
would
just
ask
one
question,
and
that
is:
has
there
been
any
discussion
with
nevada
department
of
transportation
and
whether
or
not
since
we're
talking
about
the
expansion
of
broadband,
if,
as
part
of
their
highway
projects,
especially
in
rural
areas,
are
they
laying
any
conduit
so
that
when
money
comes,
and
you
all
can
pay
for
the
expansion
of
broadband,
that
the
the
piping
is
there
and
then
the
wire
just
needs
to
be
pulled?
N
I
think
that
might
be
a
conversation
that
you
might
want
to
have
with
them
to
sort
of
think
ahead
on
this
kind
of
thing,
in
preparation
of
the
expansion
of
your
broadband
by
being
able
to
pull
the
high,
I
can't
think
of
the
word,
but
you
know
the
the
wire
so
anyway,
you
know
what
I
mean.
Thank
you
great
idea
appreciate
it.
O
Thank
you,
a
sibling
summers,
armstrong
assemblyman,
c.h
miller
for
the
record.
I
have
not
had
those
conversations
I
think
they
are
advantageous
to
have,
but
I
would
also
ask
director
mitchell
to
weigh
in
here
he
may
already
know
if
that
is
the
conversation,
that's
being
had.
P
Thank
you,
assemblywoman
summers,
armstrong
brian
mitchell,
director
of
ocean
for
the
record
and
the
the
comment
that
you
made
was
music
to
my
ears.
In
2017,
we
proposed
in
the
legislature
enacted
sb-53,
which
gave
the
nevada
department
of
transportation
the
authority
to
during
road
projects
when
they
had
the
road
already
dug
up.
P
I
gave
ndot
the
authority
to
lay
extra
conduit
that
could
be
used
for
private
providers,
and
so
the
the
concept
of
joint
trenching
and
is
is
one
that
is
already
on
the
books
here
in
nevada
and
it's
been
and
is
being
used
in
to
great
success
in
in
many
of
the
rural
areas
of
the
state.
A
A
D
Yeah,
I
turned
it
off
and
it
went
right
back
on.
I
know
that
that
the
ndot's
been
working
on
I-80
all
the
way
down,
and
it's
going
across
the
state
now
and
it's
doing
a
great
job.
The
question
I've
got
is
some
of
these
real
real
rural
areas
like
healy
and
some
of
these
that
that
you
know
that
is
jackpot,
and
some
of
these
that
are
having
a
hard
time
getting
internet
through
high-speed
internet.
D
O
The
thank
you
for
the
question:
assemblyman
ellison
assemblyman
c.h
miller,
for
the
record.
Yes,
that
would
be
that's
the
that
would
be
the
goal,
so
the
providers,
the
ones
that
are
actually
going
to
do
the
development
or
put
the
infrastructure
in-
would
be
able
to
apply
for
the
grants.
For
those
you
know,
communities
that
are
very,
very
rural.
A
H
B
This
is
jared
luke,
j-a-r-e-d-l-u-k-e
government
affairs,
director
for
the
city
of
north
las
vegas.
Thank
you,
chairman
roe
moreno
and
vice
chair
watts
and
the
committee
members
for
hearing
this
bill.
I
I
want
to
give
a
a
loud,
I
should
say
quiet
round
of
applause,
to
assemblyman
miller,
for
bringing
this
bill.
B
I
could
go
on
and
on
about
what
north
las
vegas
has
seen
and
done
in
this
area,
but
in
the
interest
of
time
I
know
you
have
a
hard
stop.
I
will
share
this
quick
story.
During
the
height
of
the
pandemic,
when
ccsd
went
to
a
distance
learning
model,
there
was
a
broadband
bus
parked
across
the
street
from
the
office
here
in
the
the
smith's
parking
lot,
and
it
was
there
until
about
11
30
in
the
morning
and.
N
B
B
This
is
the
example
textbook
example,
or
one
of
many
textbook
examples
of
systemic
inequity.
So
I
commend
the
assemblyman
for
bringing
this
bill
starting
this
conversation,
and
I
hope
that
some
of
the
other
conversations
that
are
going
on
right
now
and
in
this
this
session
about
grants
and
things
like
that-
can
point
the
nose
towards
you
know
doing
something
about
these
systemic
inequities
that
we're
facing
so
round
of
applause.
Thank
you
and
I
hope
that
the
committee
will
will
take
that
into
consideration
and
pass
this
bill
along.
Thank
you.
A
H
F
We
appreciate
the
multiple
conversations
we
had
with
assemblyman
miller
working
on
the
details
of
this
bill
and
cox
is
in
support
of
ab388,
as
amended
in
the
interest
of
time.
I
won't
repeat
my
testimony
from
the
previous
bill
about
what
cox
has
done
and
continues
to
do
for
the
expansion
of
high-speed
internet
access
for
low-income
families,
but
many
of
those
details
are
relevant
to
ab-388
as
well.
This
bill
sets
up
a
mechanism
for
long-term
funding
assistance
to
occur
in
a
voluntary
manner.
F
That
is
cognizant
of
the
ways
the
private
industry
is
also
helping
solve
this
chop.
This
challenge.
We
also
support
the
portions
of
this
bill
that
recognize
the
efforts
of
local
governments
to
support
the
expansion
and
build
out
of
systems
for
high-speed
internet
access.
Thank
you,
chair
and
committee
members,
and
we
encourage
the
passage
of
this
bill.
H
H
B
Thank
you
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record.
My
name
is
david
dazlich
d-a-z-l-I-c-h,
director
of
government
affairs
with
the
vegas
chamber,
I'd
just
like
to
thank
the
bill
sponsor
for
his
constant
work
with
the
stakeholders
and
addressing
the
concerns
of
the
broadband
members
of
the
chamber.
We
do
appreciate
the
work
that's
been
done
and
the
amendments
that
have
been
made
to
ab388,
which
mitigate
the
concerns
that
we
had
we'd
like
to
be
recorded
in
the
neutral.
Thank
you.
A
O
I
thank
you
assemblyman
ch
miller,
for
the
record,
I'd
just
like
to
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
hear
the
bill
and
thank
the
director
mitchell
and
miss
tur,
willing,
williger,
as
well
as
the
stakeholders
that
I
was
able
to
speak
with
on
getting
things
as
close
as
we
possibly
could
to
get
this
bill
moving.
So
with
that,
I
urge
your
support
and
thank
you.