►
From YouTube: 09/16/2020 - Legislative Committee on Energy
Description
This is the fourth and final meeting of the 2019-2020 Interim and the Committee's work session. Please see 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.
A
Good
morning,
everyone
and
welcome
to
the
fourth
and
final
meeting
of
the
legislative
committee
on
energy,
and
I
promise
today,
will
not
be
a
nine
hour
meeting
members
before
we
begin,
please
be
sure,
to
mute
your
microphones
when
you
are
not
speaking
to
minimize
any
background
noise.
Miss
thomas.
Could
you
please
call
the
role.
A
I
am
here
looks
like
we
have
everyone
in
attendance.
Thank
you
all
for
being
here.
As
I
said,
this
is
our
last
and
final
meeting.
I
want
to
say
thank
you
again
for
everyone
who
was
able
to
stick
it
out
for
the
entire
nine
hour
meeting
we
had
for
our
third
meeting.
It
was
a
lot
of
information
covered,
but
it
was
definitely
necessary
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
make
several
housekeeping
announcements.
A
Anyone
who
would
like
to
receive
electronic
notifications
and
access
to
the
committee's
agendas
minutes
and
final
report
can
do
so
by
signing
up
on
the
nevada
legislative
website,
we
will
have
a
public
comment
period
at
the
beginning
and
end
of
the
meeting.
This
virtual
meeting
format
is
important
to
keep
everyone
safe
during
the
covet
19
pandemic.
Members
of
the
public
may
provide
comment
in
four
different
ways,
all
of
which
are
listed
on
the
agenda.
You
can
provide
public
comment
by
calling.
A
775-684-6600,
finally,
I
would
like
to
remind
members
to
turn
off
your
electronic
devices,
especially
cell
phones
and
laptops,
or
put
them
in
a
silent
mode
during
this
meeting
with
that
we'll
move
to
the
first
item
on
our
agenda.
That
first
item
is
public
comment.
Public
comment
will
be
limited
to
three
minutes
per
speaker
staff.
A
A
C
C
C
C
D
D
A-L-E-X-I-S-M-O-T-A-R-E-X
the
agc,
as
opposed
to
both
items
four
and
five
on
today's
work
session
document
egc,
along
with
our
labor
partners,
request
that
you
adopt
the
recommendation
we
submitted
to
the
sar
three
committee
based
upon
the
utah
model.
We
do
not
feel
that
waiting
four
more
years
to
address
this
crisis
is
the
correct
approach.
The
issue
has
been
studied
over
and
over
again,
and
we
no
longer
have
the
luxury
of
time.
We
need
to
take
action.
We
are
also
adamantly
opposed
to
any
proposal
to
amend
or
remove
the
constitutional
protections
of
highway
funding.
D
A
C
E
Good
morning,
madam
chair,
this
is
brian
reader.
That's
b-r-I-a-n-r-e-e-d-e-r,
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
contractors,
association
ncaa
represents
construction
contractors
throughout
southern
nevada,
who
are
responsible
for
building
and
maintaining
a
road
and
highway
infrastructure,
and
this
morning
ncaa
is
speaking
in
opposition
and
asking
the
committee
not
to
advance
the
bdr
listed
under
item
number
five
of
the
work
session
document
to
change
the
constitution
to
allow
fuel
tax
revenue
to
be
used
for
purposes
other
than
road
and
highway
infrastructure.
E
Under
our
current
funding
structure,
fuel
tax
revenue
is
critical
to
the
highway
fund
and
making
sure
our
roads
and
highways
and
bridges
are
safe
and
can
handle
the
state's
growing
highway
capacity
needs.
We
do
recognize.
The
transportation
in
nevada
is
evolving
and
changing
and
will
continue
to
do
so
in
the
future.
But
currently
we
still
need
roads
and
we
currently
don't
have
enough
money
to
maintain
and
build
the
roads
we
need.
We
also
want
to
point
out
that
we
appreciate
the
good
work.
E
This
committee
has
done
during
the
interim
to
begin
discussing
alternative
methods
of
funding
our
transportation
infrastructure,
and
we
do
look
forward
to
continuing
those
discussions,
but
until
we
have
a
reliable
source
of
revenue
to
ensure
that
our
transportation
infrastructure
is
properly
funded,
we
urge
you
to
oppose
diverting
fuel
tax
revenue
away
from
roads
and
highways.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
C
E
Hi,
this
is
patrick
boyle,
with
the
operating
engineers,
local
3,
p,
a
t
r,
I
c
k
b
o
I
l
e
a?
U
I'm
calling
to
express
my
concern,
along
with
many
of
our
labor
brothers
and
sisters
about
agenda
agenda
items
four
and
five
on
the
committee's
agenda.
E
Road
construction.
Highway
maintenance
puts
quite
a
few
of
our
members
to
work
every
year
as
a
large
part
of
our
work
picture
and
it's
badly
needed
in
the
state
of
nevada.
E
F
E
C
C
E
I'm
not
507.,
I'm
waiting
by
once,
okay
good
morning,
madam
chairwoman,
this
is
danny
thompson,
d-a-n-n-y
thompson,
t-h-o-m,
I'm
representing
the
operating
engineers,
local
12.,
we're
testifying
today
in
opposition
to
the
work
document,
item
number
five,
which
would
draft
a
bill
to
amend
the
constitution
as
it
relates
to
the
repair
and
construction
of
roads,
public
highways
in
nevada.
E
We're
opposed
to
this.
We
know
that
gasoline
tax
is
failing.
It's
not
keeping
up
with
the
costs
that
we
need
to
cure
the
problems
we
have
both
in
road
construction
and
other
issues.
We
understand
that
transit
needs
or
something
badly
needed,
certainly
in
southern
nevada
and
northern
nevada
reno
and
las
vegas
in
particular,
but
we
feel
that
changing
the
constitution
to
remove
the
guard
rails
on
the
spending
of
highway
construction
money
is
not
the
right
way
to
go.
E
We
believe
that,
if
you
want
to
dedicate
money
for
transit,
you
need
to
pass
something
that
would
be
earmarked
for
transit
and
take
care
of
those
problems.
That's
why
you
know
the
nevada
state
afl-cio,
which
is
comprised
of
120
different
unions
in
the
state
of
nevada
at
their
political
convention
last
month,
passed
a
resolution
in
opposition
to
making
these
changes.
E
C
G
M-C-A-L-L-I-S-T-E-R,
the
nevada
state
flcio
also
echoes
the
comments
of
our
previous
of
your
previous
public
speakers
in
opposition
to
items
four
and
five
on
the
proposed
agenda.
We
have
concerns
item
four.
I
submitted
a
document,
but
our
concerns
with
item
four
are
that
there's
no
representation
from
labor
with
discussion
of
anything
changing
the
funding
structure
of
the
highway
fund,
which
labor
depends
tremendously
on
those
funds
to
provide
jobs
for
working?
G
Nevadans
item
number
five
we're
in
opposition
to
because
we
don't
believe
that
we
should
be
looking
to
change
the
state
constitution
in
such
a
drastic
change
without
having
something
already
in
place,
because
without
something
already
in
place,
we
stand
the
risk
of
nothing
to
replace
the
funds
that
will
be
taken.
Take
it
out
of
the
fund,
as
we've
seen
during
the
last
special
session.
We've
already
allotted
70
million
dollars
out
of
that
highway
fund
for
other
purposes.
G
Concern
is
that
this
would
be
a
more
common
occurrence
going
forward
if
there
was
nothing
in
place
in
the
constitution
to
prevent
it.
So
for
those
reasons-
and
we
are
in
opposition
to
items
four
and
five
on
your
current
agenda.
Thank
you.
Madam
chair.
C
C
C
E
E
Again,
as
we
all
know,
nevada's
mining
is
nevada's
original
stem
industry
and
was
at
one
point,
nevada's
largest
industry,
but
over
the
years
we
have
through
diversification
of
the
of
nevada's
education
and
nevada's
industry.
We
are
now
the
12th
largest
industry.
However,
mining
is
uniquely
nevada
and.
F
C
E
E
Education
will
only
allow
our
industry
to
become
that
much
better
and
also
allow
for
our
state
to
become
that
much
better
and
provide
new
opportunities
and
communities
that
maybe
have
not
previously
thought
about
mining
as
career
paths.
So
again
we
stand
in
support
of
this
particular
bill
and
we
look
forward
to
working
with
both
inchi
the
department
of
education
and
dieter
in
order
to
effectuate
the
goals
and
the
aims
of
the
legislature.
Thank
you.
So
much
for
this
opportunity
have
a
great
day
bye.
C
C
C
E
We
are
calling
in
to
concur
with
the
nevada
state
afl-cio.
We
strongly
oppose
item
agenda
number
five
gas
tax
revenue
was
intended
to
be
used
exclusively
for
construction,
maintenance
and
repair
of
the
public
highways
of
this
state.
Our
highway
spending
is
one
of
the
best
investments
we
can
make
in
our
state.
Every
dollar
invested
in
infrastructure
as
3.70
in
economic
growth
and
is
a
primary
economic
driver
for
highway
construction
jobs
in
the
state
of
nevada.
E
C
C
C
C
C
C
G
G
We
we
were
part
of
the
scr
meetings
over
the
last
eight
months
and
many
of
those
discussions
involved
the
shortfalls
with
highway
funding,
and
we
were
looking
at
ways
to
increase
the
revenue
on
that
and
surprisingly,
there's
a
proposal
here
to
utilize
that
money
elsewhere-
and
I
don't
believe,
that's
the
solution.
We
we
do
know
there's
a
shortage
and
the
proposals
in
number
four,
we
sent
a
letter
of
support
for
the
utah
plan,
but
we
are
strongly
opposed
to
changing
the
constitution.
G
The
monies
generated
from
that
are
the
main
source
of
income
for
many
of
our
members
and
matter
of
fact,
many
of
our
members
that
may
be
the
only
jobs
that
they
have
around
those
highway
jobs,
and
we
don't
see
rearranging
that
money
to
allow
to
go
elsewhere
is
going
to
be
a
solution
for
these
people
and
it's
definitely
not
going
to
solve
the
problem
for
our
highways,
and
so
therefore,
we
are
strongly
opposed
to
that
and
madam
chair
and
the
committee
we
thank
you
for
your
time.
Thank
you.
C
D
Good
morning,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
sarah
steinberg
s,
a
r,
a
h
s,
t
e,
I
n,
b
e
r
memo
policy
principle
with
advanced
energy
economy.
Habi
is
a
non-profit
industry
association
comprised
of
businesses
dedicated
to
making
the
energy
we
use,
secure,
clean
and
affordable.
We
represent
companies
that
span
the
industry
in
its
value
chain
when
used
together,
their
technologies
and
services
create
and
maintain
an
energy
system
that
is
reliable,
resilient,
diverse
and
cost-effective,
while
also
improving
customer-facing
services.
D
Awa
also
manages
the
advanced
energy
buyers
group,
which
represents
large
electricity
customers
with
significant
clean
energy
and
sustainability
goals.
First,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
support
of
an
integrated
western
energy
market
agenda
item
one,
as
you
mentioned
in
the
work
session
document.
The
benefits
include
the
ability
to
integrate
more
cost-effective,
renewable
energy
and
increased
grid
and
planning
efficiencies,
all
of
which
will
lower
energy
bills
for
nevada
ratepayers.
D
D
D
C
E
H
H
F-R-O-M-M-E-R
sweep
supports
nrdc's
proposal
to
index
the
gas
tax
to
inflation
and
fuel
consumption,
but
we
also
understand
that
this
may
require
some
more
study.
So
I'm
testifying
in
supportive
item
for
within
the
amendment
had
a
fifth
research
question
for
the
study
to
include
the
role
of
land
use
and
smart
growth,
smart
growth
strategies
in
reducing
transportation
emissions
and
improving
system,
efficiency
and
equity,
which
I
also
proposed
in
written
comment.
H
This
vmt
growth
will
largely
offset
much
of
the
progress
achieved
to
improvements
in
fuel
economy
and
electrification
over
the
next
10
years.
Nevada
needs
to
think
critically
about
future
growth,
which
includes
a
set
of
policies
that
incentivize
more
efficient,
climate-friendly
communities,
vehicle
travel
and
car
dependency
are
a
necessary
by-product
of
sprawl
and
continued
investments
in
road
roads.
H
Sprawling
land
use
is
not
only
an
inefficient
use
of
undeveloped
lands,
but
it's
expensive
and
it
requires
new
infrastructure
to
serve
including
new
roads
which
need
to
be
maintained,
maintained
and
repaved.
Periodically.
Nevada
continues
to
spend
billions
of
dollars
on
roads
and
every
new
mileage,
millions
of
dollars
in
annual
maintenance
and
repair
costs.
H
When
we
allow
sprawl
and
direct
all
the
transportation
spending
toward
roads,
we
create
a
reinforcing
feedback,
loop
of
more
driving
congestion
pollution
and
all
the
high
costs
that
come
with
it.
In
order
to
reduce
vehicle
trips,
we
need
to
put
housing
closer
to
jobs,
grocery
stores
and
other
important,
daily
amenities.
H
Better
land
use
will
also
enhance
transit,
nevada's,
rtt,
rtc,
transit
services
are
growing
and
the
best
way
to
increase
ridership
and
reduce
car
congestion
and
pollution
is
to
add
housing
along
transit
lines.
In
addition
to
less
pollution.
There
are
also
many
other
benefits
to
smart,
smart
growth,
including
housing,
affordability,
equity,
walkability,
better
health
and
access
to
services,
and
so
the
new
transportation
study
should
examine
the
relationship
between
transportation
and
land
use,
planning
and
develop
a
set
of
smart
growth
recommendations
to
support
climate
friendly
living
that
improves
mobility
for
all
nevadans.
H
We
support
items
four
and
five
on
the
work
session
document.
I
also
support,
perhaps
moving
the
study
deadline
to
december
2022
so
that
we
can
address
these
issues
a
little
more
quickly.
Thank
you.
B
A
C
A
Thank
you
so
much,
and
thank
you
to
all
the
callers
that
called
in
to
express
your
comments.
We
truly
appreciate
that,
and
that
takes
us
on
to
the
next
item
on
our
agenda,
which
is
item
three
our
work
session
members.
You
should
have
the
work
session
documents
and
it
is
posted
on
the
committee
meetings
page.
The
work
session
document
contains
a
list
of
proposed
recommendations
related
to
integrated
western
energy
market
geological
mapping
and
lidar,
promoting
mining
education
and
funding
the
transportation
infrastructure.
B
Thank
you,
chairwoman,
margie
thomas
with
the
research
division
of
the
legislative
council
bureau.
The
work
session
document
has
been
uploaded
to
the
committee's
website
or
your
reminder.
The
work
session
document
is
used
to
assist
the
committee
in
determining
which
legislative
measures
it
will
request
for
the
upcoming
legislative
session,
as
well
as
other
actions
that
the
committee
may
endorse.
B
The
members
of
the
committee
do
not
necessarily
support
or
oppose
the
recommendations
in
this
work
session.
Document
staff
has
compiled
and
organized
the
proposals
so
that
the
committee
members
can
review
them
and
decide
whether
they
want
to
accept,
reject,
modify
or
take
no
action
on
the
recommendations.
B
The
work
session
document
has
the
topics
listed
and
are
not
preferentially
ordered.
Also,
the
committee
is
limited
to
10
legislative
measures,
send
as
many
statements
or
letters
of
recommendations
or
support
as
it
chooses
and
include
statements
in
its
final
report.
So
the
first
recommendation
is
a
integrated
western
energy
markets.
It
is
to
draft
a
letter
to
the
governor
of
nevada,
the
office
of
energy,
the
public
utilities,
commission
of
nevada
and
envy
energy,
supporting
an
integrated
western
energy
market.
B
The
benefits
of
an
integrated
western
energy
market
include
lower
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases,
lower
energy
prices
and
improved
grid
efficiency.
The
letter
should
include
support
of
the
principles
developed
by
the
advanced
energy
economy,
to
inform
and
guide
decision
discussion
among
western
states
about
options
to
create
a
broader
regional
wholesale
market
and
a
more
coordinated
transmission
grid.
So
there
is
a
proposed
sorry,
a
copy
of
the
letter
proposed
by
sarah
steinberg
principal
with
ae
as
attachment
a.
A
F
If
I
could
chairwoman,
this
is
senator
hammond
I
want.
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
I
think
if
I
recall,
during
their
presentation,
we
we
talked
to
talk
about
this
at
length.
They
talked
about
the
autonomy
of
every
state
that
joins.
This
is
mostly
to
kind
of
review
and
come
up
with
best
practices
come
together
and
then
and
then
implement
a
program
jointly.
That
would
benefit
all
those
western
states
that
are
in
this,
but
it
still
allows
our
town.
You
know
the
individual
state
autonomy.
Is
that
correct?
A
That
would
be
correct
as
my
understanding
ms
thomas,
any
additional
comments.
E
I
Go
ahead,
so
man,
I'm
sure
I
just
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
think
this
is
really
timely,
because
the
pandemic
that
we're
experiencing
right
now,
I
believe,
is
going
to
push
us
in
the
direction
of
more
collaboration
and
cooperation
regionally
as
opposed
to
just
state
by
state.
So
I
think
this
is
a
very
timely
piece
of
legislation.
I
B
J
Madam
chair,
the
senator,
brooks
I
I
I
echo
the
comments
of
senator
spearman.
J
We
we
have
a
unique
opportunity
in
the
state
of
nevada
to
because
of
our
geographic
location
and
and
investments
made
70
80
100
years
ago
or
80
years
ago,
to
really
take
the
lead
in
the
western
united
states
as
far
as
a
transmission
hub
for
clean
energy,
and
if,
if
these
resource
and
transmission
constraints
over
the
last
couple
of
weeks
in
the
western
united
states
haven't
haven't,
shown
us
anything
about
where,
where
we
are
constrained,
we
should
also
be
looking
at
the
opportunities
economically
for
the
state
of
nevada.
A
A
You,
it
doesn't
seem
like
anyone
else
wants
to
make
another
comment.
So
with
that
I
will
move
for
a
motion
or.
J
B
E
B
B
The
lidar
systems
allow
scientists
and
mapping
professionals
to
examine
both
natural
and
man-made
environments
with
accuracy,
precision
and
flexibility.
Applications
in
nevada
include
fault
patterns
related
to
geothermal
resources,
lithium
exploration
and
solar
and
wind
farm
siting.
This
was
discussed
at
the
august
24th
meeting.
K
A
B
B
A
Thank
you.
Miss
thomas
in
we've
heard
conversations
over
the
interim
about
mining
and
education
and
in
doing
research
for
this
particular
agenda
item.
I
I
ran
across
an
article
from
the
elko
daily
about
my
needs:
partnership
with
the
department
of
education
on
digital
learning.
So
I
encourage
everyone
out
there.
That's
listening
and
members
on
this
committee
to
look
at
that
article.
A
It's
what
we'd
like
to
see
moving
forward
with
mining
and
education
partnering
in
our
state,
so
it's
a
very
interesting
article
and
with
a
2.2
million
dollar
investment
in
digital
education
and
their
partnership
with
the
department
of
debt.
So
just
wanted
to
encourage
that.
Remember
any
discussions
before
we
call
for
the
vote.
A
I
Share
I'd
just
like
to
say
I
I
fully
support
this.
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
it
will
do
is
to
help
everyone
in
the
state
to
understand
mining
and
through
a
whole
different
lens,
not
just
the
monetary
value,
but
the
value
added
that
they
bring
to
communities
even
even
down
to
and
to
include
supporting
three
square
and
many
of
the
food
banks
during
the
early
part
of
this
pandemic.
I
The
other
thing
that
reason
I
support
this
is
because,
if
we're
going
to
expand
our
renewable
energy
opportunities
here,
it's
imperative
that
we
begin
to
integrate
geothermal,
and
this
will
be
an
opportune
time
for
people
to
learn
more
about
that
industry
and
to
understand
the
benefits
that
it
can
bring
to
nevada
and
our
long-term
recovery.
J
Comments-
madam
chair,
I
just
I
I
want
to
I.
I
agree
with
senator
spearman
about
our
clean
energy
future
and
how
it's
so
interrelated
with
mining,
and
I
think
that
mr
gray
from
the
mining
association
brought
up
a
really
great
point
that
that
mining
was
one
of
the
first
stem
industries
in
our
state
and
continues
to
be
a
highly
educated
workforce
and
and
and
requires
quite
a
bit
of
stem
training
and
and
to
make
that
industry
succeed
in
our
state.
J
And
so
I
I
would
I
support
this
and
and
would
love
to
see
more
collaboration
between
higher
ed
k-12,
all
the
counties
in
the
state
and
mining
on
what
they
do
for
our
communities.
As
far
as
education
goes
and
and
workforce
development.
As.
C
J
As
national
security
and
and
what
they
do
for
our
clean
energy
economy,
so.
C
J
Is
a
great
a
great
measure.
J
F
A
Thank
you,
it's
been
moved
and
second
members
will
call
for
a
vote.
Ms
thompson.
B
B
It
would
be
to
draft
a
bill
to
require
nevada's
department
of
transportation
to
establish
a
working
group,
beginning
in
july
21
and
ending
december
24
to
study
one
the
needs
of
all
transportation
mode
users,
including
bicyclists
pedestrians
and
transit
users,
to
the
social
and
user
transportation
equity,
three,
the
reduction
of
greenhouse
gas
emissions
and
four,
the
sustainability
of
the
highway
fund.
That
would
include
an
analysis
of
that
is
not
limited
to
the
natural
resources,
defense,
council
funding
model
and
utah's
road
usage
charge
program.
B
The
working
group
must
collect
and
monitor
data
and
develop
preliminary
plans
for
a
suitable
or
sorry
sustainable
transportation
funding
system.
The
department
must
submit
a
report
to
the
23
and
25
legislature
concerning
the
activities,
conclusions
and
recommendations
of
the
working
group.
This
was
proposed
by
the
director
of
the
governor's
office
of
energy,
the
director
of
dmv,
the
director
of
the
state
department
of
conservation
and
natural
resources
and
the
director
of
ndot,
and
a
copy
of
that
letter
is
behind
attachment
b
and
as
a
reminder,
there
were
a
few
amendments
offered
during
public
comment
for
this.
A
Thank
you
miss
thomas
and
in
response
to
the
comments
that
we've
heard
in
item
number
seven.
As
you
look
at
the
committee
breakout
when
it
said
other
interested
parties
and
entities,
I
I
guess
should
not
have
assumed
but
assumed
that
that
would
include
representatives
from
our
from
labor.
So
members.
I
would
suggest
that
we
go
ahead
and
add
to
the
list
at
a
number
eight,
which
would
be
representatives
from
labor
I'd.
A
In
my
mind,
hadn't
included
them
in
the
other
interested
parties,
and
so
we
can
make
sure
that
representatives
of
labor
are
there
listed.
So
I
would
before
we
take
a
motion
want
to
add
that,
as
well
as
the
addition
of
the
study
for
land
use
and
growth
studies.
So
with
that,
I
will
open
it
up
for
a
discussion
to
our
body.
J
Madam
chair,
I
I
have
a
few
a
comment
and-
and
I
I
completely
support
the
edition
clarifying
that
labor
is
part
of-
is
delineated
as
part
of
that
conversation
and
as
well
as
land
use,
and
I
in
one
of
our
comments,
one
of
the
comments
earlier.
They
had
proposed
that
that
they
we
changed
this
ending
date
to
2022,
as
opposed
to
2024
and
many
of
the
commenters
and
under
public
comment,
and
I
brought
up
that
we
don't
have
time
and
that
four
years
is
far
too
long.
J
I
made
I
made
my
my
feelings
on
that
very
clear
during
the
the
interim
committee
meeting
on
this,
as
well
as
the
working
group
meetings.
J
I
agree
with
those
those
commenters
that
we
don't
have
time
and
that
this
is
a
funding
issue
that
needs
to
be
addressed
first
before
a
potential
legislative
or
excuse
me
a
potential
constitutional
amendment,
and
so
I
believe
that
that
we
should-
and
I
would
propose
that
we
should
change
that
to
december
2024
and
then
later
in
the
the
proposal
that
we
have
the
report
to
the
2023
legislature,
not
the
2023
and
2025
legislature.
J
I
think
if
we
wait
till
2025
we're
not
seeing
revenues
until
2026,
and
I
think
that
there
was
much
discussion
over
the
interim
that
led
that
really
shined
a
light
on
the
fact
that
this
is
a
problem.
Yesterday,
not
five
years
six
years
from
now,
and
so
I
that
that
would
be
a
proposal
that
I
would
make
based
upon
the
public
comment
and
my
own
beliefs.
J
I
I
I
think
there
are
some
economists
who
are
saying
it
will
be
18
months
to
maybe
even
two
years
before
our
economy
gets
back
to
where
it
was
and
so
making
sure
that
we
get
this
information
by
2022
and
it's
in
front
of
the
legislature
and
23,
I
think,
helps
to
undergird
our
efforts
to
come
back.
We
look
at
gaming
as
our
largest
employer
in
the
state
and
and
you
see
that
that
for
many
of
the
casinos
and
hotels
they're
either
laying
off
or
workers
are
being
indefinitely
furloughed.
I
This
is
one
of
the
ways
that
we
can
make
sure
we
are
doing
everything
that
we
are
consciously
doing.
Everything
that
we
possibly
can
to
ensure
all
the
opportunities
for
employment
are
there
and
we
are
pursuing
them
with
all
deliberate
speed,
because
I
don't
think
we
can
wait.
As
my
colleague
senator
brooks
has
said,
we
cannot
wait
for
four
or
five
more
years.
People
will
need
jobs,
asap.
L
H
L
Of
that
to
the
legislative
session
in
23
and
then
adding
sweeps
recommendations,
number
five
to
the
list
of
of
items
studied,
which
I
fully
agree
with
in
terms
of
smart
growth,
I
appreciate
that
recommendation
and
then
adding
number
eight
labor
after
item
number,
seven,
which
is
other
interested
persons
and
entities.
Is
that
correct?
Okay,
great!
Thank
you
so
much.
Yes,
I
just
want
to
make
sure-
and
I
agree
with
all
those
recommendations
and
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
to
continue
to
work
on
this
live
and
in
action
in
this
committee
work
session.
L
I
think
the
only
other
comment
that
I
would
make
is
that
I
understood
that
the
frustration
of
pushing
it
out
so
far.
I
think
we've
helped
mitigate
that
by
pulling
that
deadline
back
I'd,
love
to
see
that
additional
time
spent
and-
and
perhaps
we
have
the
mechanism
to
do
this-
to
really
engage
in
more
citizen
education
around
the
the
reason
for
this
discussion.
L
The
fact
that
this
is
not
oftentimes
there's
accusations
that
you
know
government
is
being
inefficient
and
and
and
frittering
away
dollars,
and
that's
not
the
reason
for
this
discussion.
It's
there's.
There's
changes
in
fuel
efficiency.
L
There's
changes
in
use,
there's
changes
in
the
kinds
of
vehicles
we
we
drive
and
those
impacts,
and
so
I
I
know
that
in
conversations
with
my
constituents
that
it's
you
know
it's
a
process
to
try
and
educate
people,
and
I
think
that
we
would
do
ourselves
a
great
service
to
utilize
the
time
of
this
study
to
also
be
thoughtful
and
creative
about
how
we
engage
in
more
public
awareness
and
education
around.
Why
we're
doing
these
studies?
L
A
You
I
I
agree
with
you
that
the
public
needs
to
know
what
we're
doing
and
to
be
totally
open
and
transparent
and
and
how
all
of
these
decisions
that
we
make
affect
the
everyday
lives
of
the
citizens
that
we
all
represent.
So
thank
you
so
much
for
those
comments.
I'm.
I
Sure,
if
I
could
just
make
one
quick
enough
based
upon
what
assemblyman
trolls
just
said,
I
think,
including
in
that
public
education,
is
being
very
intentional
to
let
the
public
know
how
this
benefits
nevadans
as
whole,
and
it's
not
just
one
more
bureaucratic
rhythm,
so
making
sure
that
in
the
education,
we're
we're
showing
the
public
and
telling
the
public
that
this
is
beneficial
to
all
nevadans,
not
just
something
not
just
an
exercise
of
fertility
for
another
government
ribbon.
So.
F
I
could
yes,
I
I'm
looking
at
the
proposal
and
I
wanted
to
comment
on
some
of
the
changes.
I
don't
think
that
these
will
probably
be
the
last
look.
I
think
that
the
discussion
that
we're
having
is
is
probably
a
discussion
that
started
many
years
ago.
We've
talked
about
this
several
times
the
legislative
building.
F
I
think,
if
you're
talking
about
education,
it's
not
just
the
education
of
the
public.
I
think
education
of
other
legislators
has
to
happen
as
well.
I'm
not
sure
everybody
understands
what
the
need
is
and
why
we
need
this
for
our
transportation
needs.
So
I'm
kind
of
looking
forward
to
this.
I
look
at
this
proposal
that
we're
putting
out
here.
I
know
that
maybe
some
people
are
thinking
it
has
some
deficits.
F
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
and
if
there's
any
other
groups
out
there
that
want
to
participate
like
we
heard
today
from
some
of
the
unions,
some
of
the
labor
groups,
I
think
that'll
come
out
during
the
legislative
hearings
that
we
have
and
I'm
sure
we'll
have
a
much
better
piece
of
legislation
in
the
end.
But
as
far
as
this
the
proposal,
we
have
right
now,
I'm
in
support
of
putting
this
out
there,
so
we
can
get
it
into
the
legislature
in
the
next
session
and
and
then
start
that
discussion
with
other
people.
F
A
Thank
you,
senator
hammond,
and,
and
during
this
interim
I
like
the
entire
community
committee
to
know
and
those
that
are
watching,
that
there
have
been
a
number
of
discussions
and
it
included
a
number
of
the
callers
that
called
in
today.
I
believe
that
we
have
representatives
from
ndot
listening
if
they
are
in
the
the
room
could
broadcast
bring
them
on
I'd
like
to
know
if
they
believe
that
they
can
do
this
study
within
the
time
frames
that
this
committee
has
come
up
with
to
have
it
completed
by
2022.
M
Them
good
morning,
members
of
the
committee,
thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
address
this.
I
did
want
to
before
I
answered
that
question
I
did
want
to
say
on
on
behalf
of
myself
directors,
bossian,
crowl
and
butler.
We
apologize
for
the
oversight
of
labor
not
being
listed
and
welcome
and,
of
course,
look
forward
to
their
participation
as
well
as
some
of
the
other
groups
that
we've
heard
from
today,
and
that
we
need
to
engage
in
terms
of
the
time
frame.
We
will
do
what
we
can
to
certainly
deliver
in
that
time
frame.
M
One
of
the
things
we
were
really
hoping
to
do
and
why
it
was
a
two-phased
approach.
Was
we
really
wanted
to
do
that
robust
community
engagement,
education
and
engagement
during
the
first
part,
while
we
also
learned
what
other
opportunities
might
be
so
that
we
could
come
forward
in
advance
of
the
2025
session,
with
a
well-supported
recommendation
that
did
look
at
the
broader
implications
and
broader
needs
of
the
transportation
system?
M
That
said,
we
fully
recognize
that,
and
we've
we've
acknowledged
that
we
currently
have
a
530
million
dollar
annual
shortfall
for
our
program
that
doesn't
include
the
urban
transit
shortfalls.
That's
outside
of
that.
So
we
will
do
what
we
can
to
deliver
something
by
in
advance
of
the
2023
session.
I'm
just
concerned
we
it
it
will
be
time
constrained
and
we
may
not
be
able
to
have
as
robust
of
a
community
conversation
and
education
process,
that
we
were
really
looking
forward
to
doing,
to
bring
the
community
on
board.
A
M
Yes,
sorry,
it's
christina
swallow
k-r-I-s-t-I-n.
A
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
for
sharing
your
comments
with
us.
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
I
know
that
you
had
a
plan
and
this
will
condense
it.
I
think
it's
incumbent,
it's
going
to
be
incumbent
on
all
of
us
on
this
committee
to
share
the
information
and
make
sure
that
the
public
is
aware
of
what's
going
on
and
involved.
So
it's
going
to
be
us
working
together
to
to
get
this
done
because
we've
heard
it
is
a
it's
a
situation
that
we're
behind
on
on
so
many
levels.
A
So,
thank
you
so
much
and
I
am
committed
to
helping
you
in
any
way
that
I
can,
as
I
I
can
say
that
my
co-chair
and
are
my
vice
chair
and
a
number
of
the
members
on
this
committee
to
make
sure
that
we
are
successful
in
this,
because
if
this
is
successful,
then
the
state
as
a
whole
is
successful.
So
thank
you
so
much
so
with
that
members.
D
K
Trying
to
get
a
comment
in
here
for
a
second
I
have
this
is
assemblywoman
peters.
I
have
two
one
clarification
and
one
potential
edition.
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
in
point
two
of
the
working
group,
representatives
of
environmental
agencies
and
organizations
will.
M
K
An
emphasis
on
those
who
represent
environmental
justice
issues
and
all
on
number
five
representatives
of
local
county
state
federal
agencies.
K
I
would
also
suggest
we
include
tribal
agencies
because
of
their
nexus
with
rights
of
ways
and
easements,
within
with
partnerships
with
ndot
and
other
entities
and
their
tarot
offices,
which
is
an
employment
office
based
on
tribal
lands
that
helps
get
tribal
members
and
jobs
with
those
projects,
those
highway
projects.
So
those
are
my
two
suggestions
or
comments.
A
Thank
you.
I
completely
agree
with
the
addition
of
tribal
agencies
and
as
far
as
representatives
from
environmental
agencies
and
organizations,
I
believe
that
could
be
open
without
specifically
listing
any
particular
organization.
I'm
making
sure
that
ms
follow
who's
on.
This
call
has
heard
that
members
of
justice,
environmental
justice
organizations
would
need
to
be
included
when
that
that
group
is
made
up.
So
assemblywoman
tools
add
tribal
to
that
list
of
what
you
have
for
the
additions
to.
J
B
Senator
brooks
yes
senator
hammond,
yes,
senator
spearman,
yes,
assemblywoman
peters,
yes,
assemblywoman
tolls.
Yes,
chairman
romarino,
yes,.
A
A
So
it
is
the
chair's
intention,
as
we
look
at
this
amendment
to
our
constitution,
to
simply
add
in
transit
and
transportation
infrastructure
and
that
it
would
not
open
the
entire
amendment
so
the
constitution,
so
that
money
could
go
to
anti
entity.
It
would
only
be
for
the
construction
and
maintenance
of
transportation
infrastructure.
A
K
Chair
this
is
december.
Woman-
peters,
I'm
wondering
if
we
have
endo
on
the
line,
if
we
could
ask
them
for
some
examples
of
projects
that
haven't
not
been
eligible,
so
we
have
an
idea
of
what
the
limitations
are
that
we're
trying
to
overcome
with
this,
though,.
M
Have
miss
walla
with
us
yes
good
morning,
I
didn't
know
if
I
should
start
talking
or
if
there
was
a
transition
happening
behind
the
scenes.
So,
yes,
christina
swallow
for
the
record
director
of
the
nevada,
d.o.t
and
one
of
the
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
with
the
funding
as
it
is,
is
that
we
are
unable
to
fund
transit
urban
transit,
so
that
is
that
is
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
in
terms
of,
and
then
there
are
other.
M
So
it's
specifically
for
the
construction
and
maintenance,
but
doesn't
include
operations
of
the
system
it
also
because
transit's
not
included
there
are
occasionally
and
other
users
other
modes
bike
and
pedestrian.
There
are
some
times
where
we're
unable
to
put
provide
the
additional
infrastructure,
specifically
for
those
uses.
We
have
gotten
interpretations
over
the
years
and
and
have
implemented
the
flexibility
we
can
in
terms
of
the
actual
amendment,
I
think
if,
if,
if
you're,
limiting
the
opening
of
it
to
remaining
within
the
transportation
space,
that
is
something
we
could
support.
M
One
challenge
we
do
have,
though,
is,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
are
currently
facing
an
annual
shortage
of
530
million
outside
of
the
urban
transit
needs,
and
so,
if
we
were
enabled
to
start
spending
it
on
other
uses,
it
would
be
prudent
for
us
to
also
be
considering.
How
do
we
increase
that
the
fund,
overall,
which
is
part
of
the
other
question
and
other
bdr
that
was
discussed
earlier.
I
L
L
Thank
you.
So,
if
I,
if
I
heard
correctly,
then
it
would
open
up
to
potentially
adding
urban
transit
operations
bike
and
pedestrian
pathways.
L
I
also
heard
that
there
was
a
concern
that
by
essentially
expanding
you
know,
unless
we
are
able
to
expand
the
pie,
we'll
further
be
dividing
the
pie,
which
would
have
the
net
effect
of
taking
some
funds
away
from
bridges
and
public
highway
construction
and
diverting
that
over
to
bike
pathways,
municipal
infrastructure
and
so
forth.
Unless
we're
expanding,
the
pie
did.
M
I
hear
that
correctly,
christina
swallow
for
the
record.
That
is
one
of
our
concerns,
part
of
what
we
were
hoping
to
do,
as
the
study
in
the
previous
item
is
to
look
at
where
additional
funding
sources
may
come
from
to
help
fund,
specifically
urban
transit
and
some
of
these
other
issues.
Other
concerns
in
nevada.
M
We
have
a
fairly
limited
pool
of
resources
that
fund
the
highway
fund,
other
states,
access,
other
other
resources,
and
so
part
of
the
study
was
to
really
look
at
and
identify
where
additional
revenue
could
come
from
outside
of
perhaps
those
traditional
uses
of
fuel
tax
driver's
license
fees,
registration
fees
that
may
enable
us
to
expand
the
pie
without
changing
the
constitution,
but
a
change
in
the
constitution
may
still
be
required.
L
M
Follow
for
the
record,
unfortunately,
it
is
very
clear
and
I
I
think
the
only
way
if
we
wanted
to
expand
use
of
the
funds
for
urban
transit.
The
only
way
we
would
be
able
to
do
that
is
by
changing
the
constitution.
M
M
M
What
some
of
it
is-
and
I
I
don't
I'm
not
particularly
familiar
with
all
of
their
funding
sources,
but
their
sales
tax
involved.
There
is
a
separate
federal
funding
source
that
they
get
via
the
fta.
Obviously,
it's
fair
box
revenue.
We
are
at
times
able
to
help
fund
portions
of
the
infrastructure,
but
in
terms
of
the
overall
operations
of
their
system.
M
That
is
something
that
we
aren't
able
to
fund
and
I
believe
that
they
are
also
challenged
to
fund,
as
the
one
of
the
public
callers
spoke
mentioned
max
when
he
called
in
one
of
the
critical
pieces
of
ensuring
that
we
have
a
sustainable
funding
source
for
our
hard
infrastructure.
M
That
the
cars
use
is
is
making
sure
that
we
have
alternate
opportunities
for
folks
to
commute
via
transit
bike
head
and
also
it
helps
provide
some
equity
in
that
you're
no
longer
required
to
own
a
phone
and
operate
a
car
to
use
this
system.
So
transit
is
a
key
part
of
this.
It's
just
not
able
to
be
funded
via
our
constitution
and
it
is
generally
funded
via
local
revenue
sources.
K
Afo
off
manager
do
we
have
a
representative
from
rtc.
K
Available,
I
have
a
I
have
a
tax
question
related
to
the
funding
for
rtc
and
whether
it
includes
a
portion
of
property
tax.
There's
a
component
of
rtc
funding
that
includes
property
taxes.
A
And
I
know
they're
funded
differently
in
russia
and
in
clark
county.
So
I
am
not
sure
if
we
have
anyone
from
the
rtc's
that
are
in
our
waiting
room
that
could
join
the
conversation.
K
An
answer
to
those
things
that
that's
an
additional
curiosity
I
have,
as
we
talk
about
funding
issues
and,
and
while
I'm
on
madame
chair,
I
just
want
to
to
clarify,
I
support
the
funding
and
development
of
transit
and
transportation.
K
It's
a
huge
component
of
equity
and
how
reduction
of
greenhouse
gases
and
how
we
generally
as
a
state,
connect
to
each
other
within
our
communities.
My
concern
echoes
some
of
those
on
the
who
called
in
earlier
about
the
language
here,
written
in
point
five
to
remove
the
prohibition
of
using
proceeds.
K
I
think
that's
a
little
too
broad
for
me
to
get
to
get
on
board
with,
because
I
do
fully
believe
that
the
highway
funds
need
to
be
maintained
for
exclusively
transportation
infrastructure,
particularly
within
the
construction
and
maintenance
areas,
because
those
tend
to
be
the
most
dismissed
as
we
address
funding
issues
down
the
line,
and
we
have
seen
historically
maintenance
put
on
the
back
burner
over
and
over
again,
and
it's
just
it's
really
a
public
crisis
to
not
be
funding
those
areas,
equity
equitably
and
consistently
to
ensure
that
we're
taking
care
of
our
roads
that
keep
people
connected.
J
Yeah
thank
thank
you.
I
I
am
looking
at
this:
the
constitution
and
and
looking
at
the
way
we
we
fund
highways
and
the
way
we
fund
transportation
as
a
whole,
far
beyond
just
road
construction
and
far
beyond,
where
we
are
today
on
this,
this
constitutional
amendment
that
restricted
how
we
could
use
highway
funding
or
any
vehicle
fee
funding
was
proposed
in
1937..
J
It
was
adopted
by
the
nevada
legislature
in
1940,
and
I
I
mean
the
the
one
of
the
most
popular
cars
in
1937
was
a
packard
120.
show
me
a
packard
120
anywhere
on
the
road.
Today,
things
have
changed
and
and
and
we
have
a
a
responsibility
to
to
make
both
our
funding
formulas
and
how
we
view
transportation.
J
We
have
a
responsibility
to
bring
those
up
into
this
century,
let
alone
2020.
that
was
80
years
ago.
What
about
transportation
is
the
same
today
as
it
was
80
years
ago,
the
las
vegas
strip
did
not
even
exist.
J
The
the
economic
engine
that
drives
our
entire
state
did
not
even
exist
when,
when
this
constitutional
amendment
limited
the
way
that
we
could
spend
any
highway
funds,
so
we
need
to
look
at
transportation
in
our
state
holistically
and,
and
we
need
to
look
at
it,
we
need
to
travel
less
miles
and
we
need
to
provide
options
for
transportation
for
those
who
can't
afford
a
car.
Every
great
civilization
on
the
planet
today
and
every
state
that
we
want
to.
J
We
want
to
copy
and
their
economic
prosperity,
has
a
robust
public
transportation
system
and
moves
goods
and
services
and
people
around
the
state
in
a
much
more
efficient
way
than
we
do.
We
we.
It
should
be
our
number
one
responsibility,
as
legislators
and
policy
makers
to
deliver
tourists
from
the
the
airport
to
a
place
where
they
can
spend
money
and
enjoy
las
vegas
in
the
most
efficient
manner
possible.
J
We
should
make
the
the
transportation
around
our
urban
centers
as
across
and
across
rural
nevada
as
efficient
and
transportati
as
efficient
and
affordable
as
possible
and
in
1937
when
this
constitutional
amendment
was
first
proposed.
J
Those
considerations
weren't
even
something
that
that
they
could
even
fathom
and
and
and
we
should
not
to
mention
pollution
in
in
the
washoe
valley
and
or
excuse
me
in
the
reno
valley
and
pollution
in
the
las
vegas
valley
are-
are,
are
dangerously
high
and
and
in
some
cases
out
of
attainment
with
with
air
pollution
standards,
as
they
currently
exist,
not
even
where
we
want
them
to
go.
J
And
so,
for
all
of
these
reasons,
we
really
need
to
look
at
a
fundamental
change
and
how
we
view
transportation
and-
and
we
had
robust
conversations
and
and
working
groups,
that
every
member
of
this
this
committee
was
invited
to
and
all
the
stakeholders
we
heard
on.
The
phone
were
present
at
and
invited
to
where
we
talked
about
how
how
this
interplays.
With
tax
policy,
we
had
a
wonderful
presentation
from
russell
gandon
from
lcb
on
the
history
of
the
highway
fund
and
the
history
of
the
taxes
that
we
got
to.
J
We
had
conversations
with
all
the
different
rtc's
and
and
stakeholders
and
community
groups,
and
we
kept
hitting
a
roadblock.
The
roadblock
was
the
very
strict
and
narrow
language
of
the
constitution,
as
it
was
proposed
83
years
ago,
and
so
I
I
think,
it's
just
time
for,
for
a
reboot
and
and
wow.
J
I
am
very,
very
understanding
of
the
concern
that
exists
out
there
with
the
legislature's
ability
to
to
raid
any
funding
for
for
necessary
services
and-
and
it
was
even
brought
up
about
you-
know
what
we
did
in
the
legislative
session
this
special
session
and-
and
I
am
completely
understanding
of
those
concerns
and
and
and
I
would
also
say
I
can't
think-
of
a
dollar
we
spent
in
the
special
session
that
didn't
save
lives
and
help
our
children
and
those
in
our
state
that
need
it.
The
most.
J
So,
unfortunately,
we
had
to
make
those
tough
decisions
and.
J
To
make
them
many
times
in
the
future,
including
about
four
months
from
now,
and
so
I
I'm
understanding
of
that
concern
and
for
those
reasons
I
I
support
very
narrow
and
specific
language
in
the
constitutional
amendment
that
limits
it
to
transportation
and
transit
infrastructure.
J
And
so
I
I
I
believe
that
that
the
concerns
are
valid,
that
the
nevada
legislature
will
be
forced
for
to
protect
the
lives
and
safety
of
nevadans
to
look
for
money
anywhere.
We
can,
and
I,
and
and
without
those
those
clarifications
and
guardrails
we
most
certainly
future
legislatures-
will
most
certainly
look
to
raid
those
funds
to
to
pay
the
essential
other
essential
services
of
our
state.
So
I
I
I
think
this
is
so
necessary.
J
It
is
decades
overdue
and,
and
it
is,
it
is
necessary
for
the
economic
prosperity
of
our
state
for
equity
and
transportation
across
all
types
and
members
of
our
communities,
and
and
also
to
lower
air
pollution
and
greenhouse
gases.
And
so,
for
those
reasons,
I
I'm
very
passionate
about
this,
obviously
and
support
it
and
and
it's
and
keep
in
mind
it's
five
year
process
and
that's
why
it
would.
It
would
have
to
coincide
with
us,
increasing
funding
and
and
and
diversifying
funding
as
well.
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
You
know
I've
been
thinking
about
this
quite
for
quite
a
while
very
impassioned
plea
by
senator
brooks,
but
I
look
at
it
as
he
said
it
several
times
and
his
comments
are,
you
know,
sort
of
locking
it
away.
Yes,
these
decisions
were
made
put
in
the
constitution
many
years
ago,
ironically,
about
the
same
time
that
we
were
talking
about
social
security
at
the
national
level.
F
You
know-
and
you
know
I
look
at
what
they've
done
with
social
security
over
the
years,
opening
up
that
lock
box
spending
that
money
and
hurting
the
future
of
a
of
an
issue
we
thought
was
really
vitally
important
back
then
still
today,
if
you
listen
to
most
people
every
election
time,
they
talk
about
this,
we
damage
it
every
time
we
repurpose
or
talk
about
repurposing
the
money.
If
we
need
to
come
up
with
some
other
way
funding,
I
think
then
we
need
to
have
that
discussion.
F
I
I
still
look
at
the
couple
the
first
couple
of
years.
I
was
in
the
legislature
and
we
talked
about
fuel
indexing
and
what
it
would
do
for
the
state
and
making
sure
our
roads
were
maintained.
I
remember
getting
phone
calls
from
folks
all
over
the
country,
including
texas,
saying
how
did
you
guys
manage
to
do
this?
You
know
highway.
F
I
I
don't
like
to
make
too
many
changes
that
would
jeopardize
what
we
have
and
jeopardize
the
ability
we
have
to
continue
to
maintain
the
highway,
the
highway
funds
or
the
highways
the
way
they
are.
As
you
can
see,
crumbling
infrastructure
across
the
united
states.
It
inhibits
us
from
actually
maintaining
the
abilities
to
move
our
goods
and
services,
and
I
don't
want
to
see
that
happen.
F
If
we're
talking
about
some
other
funding
coming
up
another
funding
source
and
putting
that
towards
this,
I
go
right
with
that,
but
the
way
we
have
it
written
right
now,
I
I
can't
support
it.
I'm
not
going
to
you
know
rate
any
more
funds.
I
don't
want
to
do
that.
I
don't
want
to
open
it
up
for
potential
abuses.
F
That
way,
even
though
we
talk
you
know,
if
we
talk
in
terms
of,
I
think
sometimes
we
have
these
lofty
ideas,
but
unless
we're
really
talking
about
you
know
making
sure
this
is
going
to
these
projects
or
this
project
and
then
making
sure
that
that
funding
stream
is
dedicated
to
it.
I
have
a
hard
time
with
it.
I've
seen
what's
happened
in
the
past,
so
I
think,
as
it's
worded
today,
I'm
going
to
be
voting
no
on
it.
Thank
you.
A
A
We
also
recognize
that
as
a
state
we're
moving,
as
have
been
mentioned
by
some
of
the
members,
not
everyone
in
the
state
has
it
the
luxury
of
owning
a
vehicle,
and
they
have
to
use
what
we
consider
mass
transportation
and,
as
you
heard,
from
ndot
and
you've
heard
from
other
members
on
this
committee,
as
we
look
to
bring
our
transit
and
transportation
system
in
this
state
into
the
modern
era
that
we're
living
in
our
hands
are
tied
as
to
what
our
highway
funding
can
be,
whether
it's
a
light
rail
or
what
have
you
it's
on
the
roads
of
our
state
and
those
that
are
the
least
of
these
in
in
our
communities,
are
the
ones
that
are
using
that
mass
transportation
and
that
mass
transportation
is
still
on
the
highways.
A
A
It
would
simply
be
to
add,
in
the
verbiage,
where
transit,
transportation
and
transit
infrastructure,
where
the
construction,
maintenance
and
repair
would
be
added
to
the
constitution,
along
with
public
highways,
not
opening
up
to
anything
else,
but
our
public
highways,
our
transportation
and
our
transit
infrastructure,
and
that
way
we
all
of
the
users
of
our
highways
and
all
economic
situations
and
moving
and
helping
moving
our
state
forward
into
the
modern
economy
and
and
the
modern
usage
of
the
roads
that
we
are
living
in
now
and
hope
to
be
living
in
and
five
to
ten
years
from
now,
and
when
we
talk
about
additional
funding
sources
and
streams.
A
A
This
is
a
very
layered
subject
matter
and,
and
it's
very
serious
as
as
director
swallow
said,
you
know
we
are
underfunding
our
highways
as
it
is
right
now,
but
looking
forward,
there's
we've
got
to
come
up
with
other
revenue
sources,
and
even
if
we
came
up
with
those
additional
revenue
sources,
we
would
still
be
kind
of
handcuffed
at
what
we
could
do
with
those
additional
revenue
sources
with
the
constitution
as
it's
written
now.
A
So
I
believe
the
simple
language
change
to
add
in
transportation
and
transit
infrastructure
would
help
move
us
towards
the
future.
Yes,
senator
spearman.
I
I
We
we
are
living
in
an
unprecedented
time
and
there
was
no
way
for
us
to
even
fathom
the
situation
economically,
socially
or
any
other
way.
There
was
no
way
for
us
to
fathom
that.
We
would
be
here
today
and-
and
we
didn't
do
that,
because
it
was
something
that
that
we
never
even
thought
of.
It
would
be
like
trying
to
ask
somebody.
Sarah
brooks
says
it
was.
I
It
was
added
to
the
constitution
in
1937,
so
like
trying
to
ask
somebody
in
1937
describe
for
me
what
a
microwave
does
there's
no
way
to
do
that,
but
but
what
we
have
to
do
is
to
make
sure
as
legislators,
I
think
it
is
incumbent
upon
us,
especially
since
every
time
we
bring
up
annual
sessions,
we
can
never
get
it
through
the
legislature
if
we
had
if
we
had
annual
sessions.
Some
of
the
consternation
about
moving
forward
with
this
idea
would
probably
not
be
there
because
we'd
be
able
to
fix
it
very
quickly.
I
But
as
long
as
people
are
against
annual
sessions
and
we're
only
going
to
meet
every
other
year,
I
think
that
it
is
incongruent
with
the
reality
of
the
times
and
reality
of
the
time
suggests
to
us
that
we
are
going
to
have
by
this
time.
Next
year
we
will
still
have
probably
about
47
to
52
of
unemployment.
I
We,
as
we
continue
to
look
at
gaming
as
our
main
economy,
as
as
we
look
at
entertainment,
hospitality
is
our
main
economy.
I
People
right
now
are
losing
their
jobs
and
because
they're
losing
their
jobs,
they're
losing
their
cars,
they're,
losing
their
method
of
transportation
and-
and
it's
not
even
as
simple
as
calling
uber
or
calling
lyft.
So
the
means
and
methods
of
transportation
have
already
been
affected
by
this
pandemic.
I
would
suggest
that
we
look
at
everything
that
we
do
through
the
lens
of
things,
that
things
have
changed.
I
Nothing
is
the
same,
and
if
we
don't
look
at
this
through
the
lens
of
a
very
fluid
process,
and
that's
what
I
see
this,
this
particular
bill
doing
looking
at
it
through
a
fluid
process
and
incorporate
all
of
the
things
that
have
already
happened.
I
Recognizing
that
we
as
legislators,
hey
y'all,
we're
the
ones
that
write
the
law,
and
if
there
are
some
parameters
or
some
guardrails
that
we
need
to
put
in
place,
then
we
put
that
in
place
with
the
legislation,
but
the
one
thing
we
cannot
do
is
we
cannot
continue
to
to
tie
our
hands
when
we
see
that
transportation
is
changing.
There
is
a
there
is
a
book
by
a
couple
of
authors.
I
One
is
from
pennsylvania,
state
is
from
auburn
and
it's
called
transportation
as
a
global
supply
chain
perspective
and
and
and
what
it
really
talks
about.
Is
it's
not
just
automobiles
anymore.
We
have
to
look
at
it
from
the
standpoint
of
automobiles
mass
transit.
You
have
to
look
at
it
from
the
standpoint
of
of
delivery.
We
have
to
look
at
it
from
the
standpoint
of
airline
services,
all
of
those
sorts
of
things,
and
so
I
think
that
just
adding
this
language
in
makes
us
actually
more.
I
It
increases
our
ability
to
be
to
to
respond
to
very
fluid
situations.
That's
what
it
does
in
1937.
Nobody
knew
anything
about
a
microwave,
nobody
and-
and
we
don't
even
know,
what's
going
to
happen
in
the
year-
2037,
okay,
but
until
we
have
our
legislation
and
make
sure
that
our
constitution
is
nimble
enough.
I
Yes,
there
have,
there
have
to
be
some
some
things
that
stay
the
same
in
their
bedrock,
but
we
also
have
to
look
at
this
from
from
a
a
perspective
of
we've
got
to
keep
moving
along
because
times
are
changing,
and
so
I
don't.
I
don't
see
this.
I
don't
see
this
as
incongruent
at
all,
with
our
our
duties
and
our
responsibilities.
I
I
agree
with
with
senator
hammond
when
he
talked
about
social
security.
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
has
happened
each
time
that
that
conversation
has
come
up
in
congress,
the
people
who
do
it
never
do
it
from
the
standpoint
of
the
people
who
are
making
less
than
a
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
dollars
a
year,
and
and
so
they
open
it
up
and
and
they
do
things
with
it-
that
hurt
ordinary
citizens.
I
Okay,
just
like
the
proposal,
that's
on
the
table
in
congress
right
now
to
do
away
with
the
payroll
tax.
So
you
are
right
about
that.
We
need
to
do
things
in
a
more
judicious
way.
This
particular
idea
that
we're
talking
about
right
now
allows
us
the
fluidity
to
respond
to
changing
situations,
because
our
economic
situation
today,
if,
if
all
of
the
economists
that
continue
to
talk
about
this,
we
haven't
even
seen
the
worst
of
it,
and
so
we
continue
to
just
rely
on
cars.
I
Automobiles,
we're
going
to
be
out
of
luck,
we'll
be
up
the
creek
without
a
paddle,
whatever
creek
that
is
okay.
So
I
I
think
we
have
a
responsibility
to
make
sure
that
we're
looking
at
the
situation
as
it
stands
right
now,
but
it
is
also
fluid
and
we,
as
a
legislature
if,
if
the
voters
approve
this
particular
measure,
we
as
a
legislature
have
the
responsibility,
we'll
have
the
responsibility
of
writing
the
laws
in
a
way
that
protects
whatever
the
objections
might
be
today.
I
But
I
believe
that
if
we
don't
look
at
this
through
the
lens
of
a
2030
economy,
we're
always
going
to
be
behind
always
always
and
we'll
be
in
2037.
We'll
still
be
talking
about
this.
How
do
we
get
it?
And
somebody
look
back
and
say:
well,
didn't
they
talk
about
that
in
2020
yeah
they
did
what
happened
nothing
so
anyway,
I'm
done.
A
Thank
you
senator
experiment,
so
madam
chair
hold
on
one
second
well,
you
know
what
go
ahead
go
ahead
and.
L
A
Yes,
okay!
No!
So
what
I
was
going
to
say
from
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
members
on
this
committee
that
what
we,
if
we
were
to
move
forward
with
this
this
vote
today,
that,
instead
of
saying
prohibiting,
we
could
would
better
represent
what
the
intent
of
this
committee
would
be,
would
be
that
the
exclusive
the
the
excise
tax
on
gasoline
or
other
motor
vehicle
fuel
exclusively
for
the
construction,
maintenance
and
repair
of
the
public
highways
transportation
and
transit
infrastructure
of
the
state
of
nevada
would
be.
A
A
better
way
to
articulate
what
the
intent
of
this
constitution
amendment
would
be,
and
it
would
limit
any
activity
with
the
money
only
to
be
used
for
our
public
highways
transportation
and
our
transfer
transit
infrastructure.
A
That's
what
I'm
getting
from
the
conversation,
assemblywoman
tolls.
L
So
if
I
heard
you
correctly,
it
would
be
to-
and
I
and
I
do
agree
that
I
think
using
the
word.
Removing
the
prohibition
is
is
what
certainly
caused
the
most
questions
so
you're
stating
to
instead
reword
item
number
five
in
the
work
session
to
say
draft
a
bill
to
amend
article
9,
section
5
of
nevada
constitution,
to
to
add
that
the
imposition
of
an
excise
tax
or
gasoline
or
other
motor
vehicle
fuel
exclusively
for
the
construction,
maintenance
and
repair
of
public
highways
of
the
state
and
the
construction
and
maintenance
of
our
transportation
infrastructure.
A
Pretty
much
yes,
so
it
would
would
read
the
public
highways
transportation
and
transfer
transit
infrastructure
of
the
state.
M
May
I
this
is
christina
swallow,
may
I
add
something
or
clarify
yes,
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
both
for
our
system
and
for
transit
is
operations,
and
that
is
one
of
the
key
terms
that
it's
missing.
Construction,
maintenance
and
repair
doesn't
include
operations.
So
you
may
want
to
consider
that
term
being
included.
A
Thank
you
for
sharing
that.
Thank
you,
okay
members,
so
we
will
be
looking
at
three
additions
to
the
constitution
for
the
construction,
maintenance
and
repair
and
operations
of
our
public
highways
transportation.
Infrastructure
of
this
state.
L
It's
I
think
it's
important
that
we
flesh
these
things
out
and
hear
all
the
different
perspectives
and,
as
I've
listened
to
the
discussion
today
it
it
seems
to
me
that
we've
we've
found
ourselves
almost
this
either
or
discussion
that
either
we
expand
this
or
essentially
we
we
leave.
These
urban
needs
unfunded,
and
I
really
see
this
more
as
a
both.
B
B
L
As
we
look
at
the
state,
it's
extremely
important
that
we
look
at
our
highway
funding
for
the
purpose
of
our
economic
development.
Knowing
that
manufacturing
and
distribution
is
a
growing
and
important
part
of
our
economy,
an
important
part
of
jobs
and
knowing
that
those
highways
are
always
going
to
be
used
as
we
are
a
distribution
hub
for
our
neighboring
states.
L
Taking
a
look
at
other
other
infrastructure
proposals
that
are
being
considered
in
regards
to
energy
and
new
solar
plants
across
our
state
and
and
being
able
to
get
construction
workers
out
there,
we're
going
to
be
using
those
highway
funds
and
then
also
our
rural
communities,
and
seeing
that
there's
a
changing
demographic
as
a
result
of
covet
as
more
people
are
starting
moving
out
into
some
other
other
regions
to
relocate
and
still
work
remotely.
And
so
our
highway
funds
are
incredibly
important
for
that.
Overall.
L
State
infrastructure
and
I've
also
heard
that
we
have
some
real
urban
infrastructure
needs
and
some
innovation
that
we
need
to
continue
to
pursue
in
the
urban
areas.
There's
some
equity
issues
that
are
important
for
people
to
get
to
work,
get
to
school,
get
to
their
lives
and
those
things
are
very
important
as
well
and
and
so,
instead
of
the
either
or
that
we
have
to
go
this
direction
of
the
constitutional
amendment
or
we
abandon
those
urban
needs.
L
I
would
just
feel
more
comfortable
if
we
continued
the
conversation
about
ways
to
be
able
to
meet
those
urban
needs,
and
I
don't.
I
don't
believe
that
we
have
fully
vetted
out
all
those
other
options.
I
know
that
in
our
area
we
have
a
business
improvement
district
where
we
have
businesses
that
have
a
special
like
special
improvement,
district
or
general
improvement
district,
where
they
tax
themselves
to
help
pay
for
some
specific
urban
needs.
L
B
L
I
had
a
little
bit
more
time
to
chew
over
this
and
a
little
bit
more
time
to
to
be
a
part
of
those
discussions,
and
you
know
maybe
I
I
would
have
been
able
to
flesh
out
a
few
more
questions,
but
as
it
stands
right
now,
I
think
making
a
constitutional
amendment
is
a
is
a
huge
heavy,
lift
and.
C
L
Comfortable
with
supporting
it
at
this
point,
however,
I
am
comfortable
with
so
many
of
the
things
that
we've
talked
about
and
the
need
for
continuing
to
pursue
both
and-
and
I
do
appreciate
the
discussion.
I
appreciate
being
educated
a
little
bit
more
on
the
purpose
here,
and
you
know
it
has
shifted
my
thinking
about
what's
being
proposed
today,
but
I'm
just
still
not
comfortable
supporting
it.
A
Well,
thank
you
for
that
and,
as
director
swallow
said,
even
if
we
as
it
stands
now,
they're
still
their
hands
would
still
be
tied.
If
this
constitutional
amendment
did
not
happen,
some
of
the
things
that
they
would
like
to
do
as
a
state
level
as
a
local
level
and
because
of
the
the
way
the
constitution
was
written,
they
their
hands
would
still
be
tied.
So
this
is
a
conversation
whether
it
happens
now
or
down
the
road.
A
It's
a
conversation,
that's
going
to
have
to
happen
and
a
decision
is
going
to
have
to
be
made
and
that's
what
came
out
of
all
of
the
conversations
during
this
interim
with
all
of
the
stakeholders
in
this
industry.
A
A
K
A
A
That
brings
us
up
to
our
last
item
on
our
agenda,
and
that
would
be
public
comment
we'll
give
our
it
division
just
a
few
minutes
to.
A
D
C
E
E
If
we're
going
to
make
progress
on
reaching
our
state's
greenhouse
gas
reduction
goals,
transit
needs
to
be
a
really
big
part
of
the
discussion
and
the
the
other
thing
that
is
important
about
transit
is
it
provides.
It
provides
options
for
people
that
are
that
don't
have
a
vehicle,
it
provides
provides
options
for
them
to
be
able
to
get
around
our
community
and
by
expanding
transit
in
the
future
and
electrifying
that
transit
we're
going
to
be
able
to
reduce
pollution
in
our
neighborhoods.
E
So
while
I
look
forward
to
the
discussion
on
whether
the
proposed
constitutional
amendment
is
the
correct
course
to
move
in,
I
think
it's
very
clear
that
we
need
to
expand
the
use
of
these
dollars
that
come
in
from
these
sources,
so
that
we're
better
able
to
meet
a
transportation
system
that
that
we
need
for
for
our
future,
so
again
want
to
thank
the
committee
for
their
discussion
today.
E
I
want
to
thank
them
for
taking
steps
to
to
change
this
this
reality,
so
that
we
can
so
we
can
build
a
transportation
network
that
effectively
reduces
pollution
so
that
we
can
reach
our
greenhouse
gas
reduction
goals
and
continue
to
fight
climate
change.
Thank
you.
C
C
Sorry,
madam
chair,
there
are
no
more
participants
in
the
public
comment
line.
A
Thank
you
so
much
and
I'd
like
to
thank
the
members
of
this
committee
and
everyone
that's
out
there
watching
and
has
shared
their
opinions
been
a
part
of
all
of
our
meetings
over
this
interim
period.
I
look
forward
to
us
continue
to
work
together
in
the
next
legislative
session.
As
you
can
heard
from
the
the
conversation
today,
we
have
much
work
ahead
of
us
as
we
move
forward
with
energy
and
transportation
needs
in
our
state,
and
with
that,
this
meeting
is
adjourned.