Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Standards Broadband Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill tying labor standards to state broadband grant scoring
Summary
Senate Bill 93 would give up to a 30% scoring preference to broadband grant applicants that certify to meet specified labor standards — including prevailing wages, OSHA safety training, health benefits and local‑hire targets — when the state awards certain federal broadband funds.
Senate Bill 93, presented April 30 to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs, would direct the state agency that awards certain federal broadband grants to apply a relative weight of up to 30% in favor of grant applicants that commit to specified labor standards or that are party to a collective‑bargaining agreement.
Sen. Skip Daley (Senate District 13), the bill sponsor, said the measure responds to federal guidance tied to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the American Rescue Plan Act encouraging states to promote prevailing wages, training and project‑labor standards when allocating federal broadband funds. Daley said the 30% scoring incentive is intended to favor applicants that provide training programs, safety instruction, prevailing wages (as determined under NRS 338.030), health benefits that cover employees and dependents, and a qualified local workforce. He said the bill was revised from a prior session and that the sponsors attempted to address concerns raised previously.
The bill’s text and testimony described three categories of entities involved in a grant application: the applicant (which may be a public body or other entity seeking funds), the broadband service provider (typically responsible for first‑mile/last‑mile service), and contractors (often performing middle‑mile construction). Testimony from sponsor representatives and labor leaders said all three categories, if performing work under the grant, must meet the labor standards to qualify for the scoring preference.
Sen. Daley and labor witnesses defined or elaborated the scoring elements the committee heard: a bona fide training program (with instructor, outreach and evidence of operation), safety training including OSHA 10 (and OSHA 30 for supervisors), payment of prevailing wages per NRS 338.030, provision of health benefits that may include dependent coverage, and a “qualified local workforce” with at least 50% of employees being state residents and active outreach/hiring efforts. The sponsor said applicants may meet the standard either by satisfying the enumerated elements or by being signatory to a collective‑bargaining agreement, in which case the applicant would qualify for the 30% weighting.
Labor organizations and construction trades testified strongly in support. Mark Ellis of Communication Workers of America Local 9413, who identified himself as a technician in rural Austin, said local, well‑paid jobs are an intended outcome and criticized out‑of‑state contractors that bid without local hiring. Laborers’ representatives and the Building and Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada also voiced support and said the bill would help ensure broadband grant dollars create local careers.
Some business representatives expressed concern in earlier drafts; after sponsor amendments the Vegas Chamber moved to a neutral position and told the committee it appreciated changes that addressed some of its concerns. Supporters and the sponsor said the measure was intended to incentivize workforce development, training and in‑state hiring while allowing any applicant to pursue the grant.
No final action was recorded at the hearing. Senators and witnesses urged timely legislative action so broadband projects may proceed under federal funding windows and to ensure Nevada’s workforce can compete for the jobs the grants create.
