Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would raise rural counties' construction threshold and allow county crews to perform work after two failed bids; labor and contractors oppose
Summary
Assembly Bill 84 would update a long-standing $250,000 limit and let rural counties (population under 52,000) self-perform road projects if two consecutive bids fail. Supporters said it fixes a practical gap for maintenance; contractors and unions warned of safety, quality and policy concerns. No vote was taken at the committee hearing.
Assembly Bill 84, presented Tuesday to the Assembly Committee on Growth and Infrastructure, would revise provisions governing county road projects by applying an inflation adjustment to a long-standing $250,000 threshold and by permitting county road departments to perform work with county forces if a project receives no bids after being advertised twice.
Assemblymember Greg Koenig (sponsor) said the $250,000 threshold, set about 15 years ago, no longer buys meaningful construction in rural counties. “Today, dollars $250,000 can only pave about 1,200 feet of road,” Koenig said. The bill would index the original $250,000 to the National Highway Construction Index to reflect current costs and would apply the adjustment only to counties with populations under 52,000.
Joseph Sanford, legal counsel for Churchill County, and Gary Fowkes, Churchill County road supervisor, told the committee rural jurisdictions sometimes receive no bids for planned projects and therefore lack an option to keep roads maintained. Sanford said the combined effect of the two provisions — the inflation adjuster and the ability to perform work in-house after two unsuccessful bid solicitations — would let counties maintain chip-seal and other recurring upkeep projects.
Sanford cited recent examples in the City of Fallon where projects estimated between about $1.4 million and $3.3 million received one or no bids when advertised under the existing procurement process; one project was rebid after consolidation with another and later received bids. He said indexing would raise the $250,000 threshold to roughly $547,570 based on the National Highway Construction Index and current prices.
Opposition testimony came from construction and labor organizations. Craig Madole, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of Nevada, said the 2013 law that originally limited county self-performance was adopted to prevent counties from taking complex construction work away from licensed private contractors. Bart Hyatt, president of A & K Earth Movers in Fallon, said contractors in the county do bid work and described cases where schedule constraints or specification problems — not contractor refusal — affected bidding outcomes.
Labor representatives — including the Nevada State AFL-CIO, Laborers Local 169, Ironworkers, Operating Engineers and other unions — urged rejection of AB 84, saying counties do not have the workforce or equipment to self-perform larger public projects and that public dollars should go to licensed contractors and prevailing-wage work. Committee members asked whether prevailing wage applied when counties self-perform projects; Joseph Sanford said county employees would be paid at their regular county rates when the county performs the work itself.
Koenig said the bill’s intent is narrow: to preserve road maintenance in rural counties while still giving private contractors two opportunities to bid. He offered to remove day-labor language if it eased concerns. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing; sponsors and opponents were encouraged to continue negotiations.
