MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Sixty-seventh Session
May 12, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs was called to order by Chairman Val Z. Garner at 8:05 a.m. Tuesday, May 12, 1993, in Room 330 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Val Z. Garner, Chairman
Mr. Rick C. Bennett, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Kathy M. Augustine
Mr. Douglas A. Bache
Mrs. Marcia de Braga
Mrs. Vivian L. Freeman
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mrs. Erin Kenny
Mrs. Joan A. Lambert
Mr. James W. McGaughey
Mr. Roy Neighbors
Mrs. Gene W. Segerblom
Mr. Wendell P. Williams
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. Pete Ernaut - Excused
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Chris Giunchigliani, District No. 9.
Assemblyman Robert Price, District No. 17.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, District No. 33.
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mrs. Dana Bennett, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Rett Jesse, State Water Planning Division; Mr. Jeffrey A. Fontaine, State Health Division; Mr. Joseph Rufo, Chairman of Skyland General Improvement District; Mr. Cam Walker, Las Vegas Valley Water District; Mr. David Broxterman, Administrative Manager Clark County School District; Mr. Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas; Mr. Roger Means, Washoe County School District; Mr. Tom Stephens, Manager State Public Works Board; Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association; Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards; Mr. Jerry Ash, President, Nevada Hospital Association; Dr. Donald Kwalick, State Health Officer; Mr. Harvey Whitemore, R.J. Reynolds; Mr. Pat Horgan, Commercial Hardware; Mr. Ray Blehm, State Fire Marshal; Mr. Gene Williams, Assistant State Fire Marshal.
ASSEMBLY BILL 535 - Expands class of publicly owned water systems eligible for grant for capital improvement.
Assemblyman John Carpenter, Assembly District No. 33, testified as a proponent of AB 535 indicating it would make eligible many small water systems which presently could not participate in the grant program for community water systems. He remarked some of the projects which would be eligible upon passage of AB 535 included Gardnerville, Glenbrook, Midas, Jarbidge, Lamoille, Mountain City, South Crestview, Devils Gate, Panaca and Midas; these were some of the ones which had been identified as needing immediate work and there were other communities which would also benefit from the bill.
Mrs. Lambert referenced the word "nontransient" on line five of the bill and asked if there was a definition listed.
Mr. Rett Jesse, State Water Planning Division, answered a nontransient water system was one which was occupied more than six months per year.
Mrs. Lambert and Mr. Jesse further discussed nontransient and transient water systems.
Mr. Jeffrey A. Fontaine, State Health Division, testified in favor of AB 535 (Exhibit C).
Mr. Joseph Rufo, Chairman of Skyland General Improvement District, testified in favor of AB 535 indicating the GID was an entity of about 245 homes which paid one of the largest water bills in the area, and stressed an affirmative vote on AB 535 would help them immensely.
Mr. Cam Walker, Las Vegas Valley Water District, testified in support of AB 535 and had a question to be answered for the record, "As to the intent of the legislation so it does not preclude us from obtaining grants for taking water systems over when they are asked to by the district. For example, if Blue Diamond, one of the small systems that we operate, were a for-profit business and we were to take them over, we question as to if we would be allowed to obtain grants, and we would like Rett to answer that for the record as to the legislative intent, so that the district would not be precluded from this."
Mr. Rett Jesse replied, "Right now, the statute NRS 349.980 through .986 allows for a purveyor of water, which is a political subdivision of the state of Nevada, such as the Las Vegas Valley Water District, to take over a private water company that could have been for-profit, take over that water system and allows them into the grant program. They still have to go through the same procedure we have already outlined in our regulations to apply for the grant, but they are allowed to do that."
Discussion ensued on the Blue Diamond system.
Chairman Garner asked for a motion to do pass AB 535.
ASSEMBLYMAN BENNETT MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 535.
ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED. Assemblymen Ernaut and Augustine were not present.
Chairman Garner requested Mr. Neighbors handle AB 535 on the floor.
ASSEMBLY BILL 543 - Allows state public works board, upon request of board of trustees of school district, to waive requirements of submitting certain plans for approval that relate to school buildings.
Mr. David Broxterman, Administrative Manager Clark County School District, testified in support of AB 543 and submitted a proposed amendment which had been worked on with Legislative Counsel (Exhibit D). He indicated the overall purpose for the amendment was to enable the Department of Public Works to delegate certain responsibilities in small plans checks to the Clark County school district to enable them to rapidly react to different situations. Mr. Broxterman said other state agencies such as UNLV and UNR were allowed this under NRS 341; however, Clark County school district was not a state agency but a political subdivision and the State Public Works Board had to be enabled to grant to the school district certain responsibilities.
Mr. Broxterman stated the other portion of the amendment was essentially to add to the language in the bill specifying the school district did some other aspects of inspections and supervising and managing the construction of buildings.
Mrs. Lambert asked if, on projects delegated to the school districts, the projects would be supervised and inspected by the district. Mr. Broxterman indicated the school district presently supervised and inspected projects within Clark County school district and the Department of Public Works did some in-house expertise that handled plans check examinations. Other aspects such as mechanical and electrical were contracted out to other firms.
Mr. McGaughey questioned if the school district submitted all plans checks to Public Works for inspection, or just some of them. Mr. Broxterman replied the school district submitted all school plans to the Department of Public Works and to the State Fire Marshal.
Further discussion ensued.
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani, Assembly District 9, testified she was opposed to AB 543 as written as well as the suggested amendments. She stated what had occurred within the Clark County school district was indicative of a waste of tax dollar money. Ms. Giunchigliani said bonding programs went out to construct buildings but the school district chose to create internal divisions and departments to do inspections which should be done by other city, county or state public works agencies. She stated the school districts in the state submitted plans to public works boards for review; however, another statute required plans checks, and Washoe County complied but Clark County did not.
Mrs. Lambert said she understood the last large bond issue passed in Clark County was unable to build as many schools as had been promised to the voters in the bond issue.
Mrs. Giunchigliani indicated that was correct, and while she had not followed it exactly, she thought it was somewhere around $30 million less they were able to accomplish with the funds.
Mr. Doug Dickerson, City of Las Vegas, testified in opposition to AB 543, indicating there were some conflicts in the law. He referenced NRS 278 which said all political subdivisions shall comply with appropriate city and county building codes. Under AB 543 there was no assurance the school district was complying with city building codes. Mr. Dickerson said one of the concerns of the city was, if there happened to be an accident, there would be lawsuits and the law would be cited as meaning the city should inspect and make sure the buildings met city code, and the city would possibly be liable. He also pointed out NRS 339 stated the Public Works Department should do the reviews, therefore, there was a conflict involved and the city would like to make sure it was clarified who would be the responsible entity.
Mr. Roger Means, Washoe County School District, testified he was neutral on AB 543 and gave a review of the process of building schools as handled by the Washoe County school district.
Chairman Garner asked Mr. Stephens to respond to what the bill was requesting and what kind of problems it would create for the Public Works Board.
Mr. Tom Stephens, Manager State Public Works Board, testified he did not believe the bill would create any problems for the Board. The Board had previously considered similar legislation and voted not to oppose this type of legislation and were neutral on AB 543. He indicated as written AB 543 would allow the Board to delegate to Washoe County full authority for plans checking with the requirement they submit their plans to local building departments and have them plan checked. Mr. Stephens stated the Board acted as the building official for school districts throughout the state. He said there was an oversight in the law which the Board was somewhat concerned with in that the Board only did the plans checks, not the inspection, but local building officials for private developers did both plans checks and inspections.
Mr. McGaughey asked if Clark County submitted all of their plans to the Public Works Board for plans checks and review. Mr. Stephens replied they did.
Further discussion ensued between committee members and Mr. Stephens.
There being no further testimony Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 543 and stated he and Mr. McGaughey would be meeting with those concerned to address the questions raised.
ASSEMBLY BILL 440 - Revises provisions restricting smoking in public buildings.
Assemblyman Robert Price, Assembly District 17, testifying as a proponent of AB 440, gave a brief background of the bill. He stated after the initial bill on designated smoking areas in public buildings had been passed, there was a dispute at the Las Vegas Convention Authority over whether the various conventions would have to follow the law as it applied to public buildings. An opinion from an Attorney General indicated a leased public building would still have to comply with the law. Even with the opinion from the AG and legal counsel, the Las Vegas Convention Authority continued to allow private contractors to ignore the law, saying when a public building was leased to private parties it then became a private building. Mr. Price said the initial purpose of AB 440 was to clarify these matters. Mr. Price stated there were proposed amendments to the bill and also an amendment requested by the Health Department in Clark County to prohibit smoking in grocery stores under 5,000 feet.
Mr. Lawrence Matheis, Nevada State Medical Association, testified in favor of AB 440 suggesting if the proposed language was deleted and new language added under Section 1, subsection 1(b) "and any leased portion thereof," he felt that would alleviate the problem.
Mr. Matheis indicated another issue dealt with a request from Assemblyman Price to recommend the inclusion of language in Senate Bill 421 which would make clear Nevada's public policy was all public areas were non-smoking unless specifically designated as a smoking area. He said SB 421 would change the signs to indicate "smoking" areas rather than "non-smoking" areas. Mr. Matheis remarked SB 421 would also prohibit cigarette vending machines in areas where minors were permitted. Mr. Matheis offered proposed amendments to AB 440 and literature on the hazards of smoking (Exhibit E).
Mrs. Freeman asked if SB 421 had been heard in the Senate. Mr. Matheis indicated it had not but would be heard that afternoon in the Senate Judiciary committee.
Mrs. Freeman inquired who had requested the Senate bill. Mr. Matheis replied it had been requested by the Nevada State Medical Association.
Mr. Henry Etchemendy, Executive Director, Nevada Association of School Boards, testified in favor of AB 440 but had a concern with recommended language (as written in SB 421 and recommended to be amended in AB 440), "shall not designate an area which may be used by pupils who are minors to smoke." indicating the words "who are minors" should be deleted because it was already illegal for minors to smoke or buy cigarettes.
Mr. Jerry Ash, President, Nevada Hospital Association, testified in support of AB 440, stating according to statistics, only 30 percent of Nevadans smoked, which should give an indication of where signs should be located. He also pointed out research in the benefit field had shown among the actively employed workforce, annual health care benefits for individuals with three behavioral risk factors such as obesity, drinking and smoking, were 80 percent higher than the annual benefit costs for individuals without those risk factors. Mr. Ash stressed personal lifestyle choices did have public consequences, and the Nevada State Medical Association was to be commended for their initiatives in that regard.
Dr. Donald Kwalick, State Health Officer, testifying in favor of AB 421 stated one of the major things regarding existing legislation was the lack of enforcement authority. He proposed several amendments, one of which would change the county board of health to the health authority and police authority in order that there be some enforcement at the local level (Exhibit F).
Mr. Harvey Whittemore, R.J. Reynolds Company, declared his concern with respect to Section 1 was to ensure the intent was to require that in a public building there should continue to be a designated smoking area. As Assemblyman Price had indicated that was the intent, and when the amendments came back from the bill drafter with that stipulation, he would not have any major disagreement with the proposed bill.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 440 indicating his intent to establish a subcommittee on the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 544 - Excludes certain fire extinguishers from licensing requirements.
Mr. Pat Horgan, Commercial Hardware, testified in favor of AB 544 indicating he felt the bill as originally written for a license to be issued by the state Fire Marshal for maintenance or installation of fire extinguishers, use of explosives in commercial construction, etc. cast too wide a net and included all sellers of portable fire extinguishers. He stated the bill had been passed in 1978 and ignored ever since then. Mr. Horgan pointed out a license would make it uneconomical for small businesses to sell fire extinguishers and introduced two letters indicating reaction to the requirement to purchase a license to sell fire extinguishers (Exhibit G).
Mr. Horgan noted all the fire extinguishers he sold were licensed by the Underwriters Laboratories, Factory Mutual Laboratory, Coast Guard, or OSHA, and felt anyone who would sell a fire extinguisher which was not approved was taking a chance on losing his store if a fire extinguisher did not work. Mr. Horgan pointed out the Fire Marshal checked the fire extinguishers by reading the label, which would not guarantee the extinguisher would work. He also felt it was redundant for the state Fire Marshal to come in and check the fire extinguishers as the city fire marshall was required to check them every year.
Mrs. de Braga asked if fire extinguishers could be refilled. Mr. Horgan replied the small portable units were not refillable.
Further discussion ensued.
Assemblyman Joan Lambert, District No. 29, testified on behalf of Randy Roget, Northwest Builders Supply, in favor of AB 544 (Exhibit H). Mrs. Lambert said Mr. Roget mentioned Reno inspected fire extinguishers and it should be simple for them to check the stock of extinguishers and report to the Fire Marshal if there were problems. Mr. Roget wondered why he would have to license at the state level when the local level was already charging for inspection and looking at the fire extinguishers they had for sale in addition to the fire extinguishers they had in the building to put out fires.
Mr. Ray Blehm, State Fire Marshal, testifying in opposition to AB 544 indicated his office had received at least 12 consumer fraud cases so far this year, one of which involved several other states and had cost about $5,000 in staff time, travel and phone calls. He stated the $25 license fee was to be used to fund the investigations. Currently there were 210 licensed fire extinguisher outlets in the state which raised about $5,200. Mr. Blehm remarked fire extinguishers for sale at retail would also include those sold door-to-door and people who manufactured systems and sold at retail with false labels. He said another point was a UL listing on a fire extinguisher might only apply to certain parts and not to the entire extinguisher. Mr. Blehm pointed out most disposable extinguishers were a throwaway type and rarely had an expiration date, and most of the commercially refillable ones had expiration dates and there was a requirement that the cylinder be hydrostatically retested periodically to be sure it maintained structural integrity.
Mr. Gene Williams, Assistant State Fire Marshal, testified in opposition to AB 544 and stated when people see a UL listing they assumed that approved a product for material use. He pointed out a UL sticker on a fire extinguisher might say the valve was approved or the gauge had been tested but it did not mean the extinguisher would put out a fire. He said there were UL and Factory Mutual approved fire extinguishers available to the market which were not available to the retail market because of efforts of State Fire Marshals throughout the United States as they were special application and health hazards. If they were not used in the hands of a trained professional they could kill the user. He indicated those were available through the wholesale and retail market, and without review of licensed companies it was difficult to keep them off the market. He referenced hydrofluorocarbons which were going to be taken off the market and would create another area of illegal sales fire marshals nationwide would have to become involved in as the materials would still be available.
Mr. Williams stated there were many different types of illegal fire extinguishers which had been sold on the retail market on display at the Fire Marshal's office including glass bulbs with a thermocouple, baggies of baking soda with UL labels on them, flour shakers with sodium bicarbonate in them with UL labels, and there were several fire extinguishers which had been cut away to show the parts inside had been used and could not possibly work. He indicated those were the basic efforts the money from the licensing program would address.
Mr. McGaughey asked how the investigations the Fire Marshal had conducted related to the licensing of a retail store.
Mr. Blehm answered the investigations he had referenced dealt with interstate consumer fraud and were not the type of investigation which would deal with a retail outlet. He indicated he had not listed investigations which dealt with those retail outlets who sold fire extinguishers and had stated they were not going to buy a license.
Mrs. Freeman questioned if it would be possible for local government to do what was necessary rather than the State Fire Marshal. Mr. Blehm replied he hoped the local governments did inspections, and oftentimes he received calls from local officials when they would spot something wrong.
Mrs. Freeman asked if there was any chance of lowering the cost of the inspection. Mr. Blehm replied that could be done, one way was to possibly differentiate between different types of sales and perhaps charge more for one type of license than another. He indicated there was more problem with door-to-door sales than from standard retail outlets. Further discussion followed.
The question was raised about the possibility of tracking manufacturers of fire extinguishers and only allowing acceptable extinguishers to be sold. Mr. Blehm and Mr. Williams both felt it would be a very difficult process as there were many manufacturers both national and international as well as many different types and sizes of extinguishers.
Extensive discussion ensued between committee members, Mr. Blehm and Mr. Williams.
Mr. Bennett stated this seemed very similar to a number of other issues this year and previous sessions where over a period of time the legislature had mandated certain responsibilities to the Fire Marshal's office which were possibly initially funded out of the general fund; then in tight budget times the general funding had been cut and indicated revenues would have to be generated from other sources. He felt this was the key issue, if the legislature was concerned about public safety and consumer fraud, was it important enough that it continue to be funded from the general fund and if so then the license fee would not be necessary.
Mr. Blehm replied Mr. Bennett's comments went to the heart of one of the issues of general public policies which affected all agencies and that was how would agencies go about funding these types of things. He stated from the standpoint of licensing activities, the licensing became the mechanism which regulated who would be allowed to participate in a particular activity, and the question was should the people generating the activity pay the price or should the general public pay. He felt fire and public safety were broad issues which people tended to feel the general public should pay for, but it was not done in many areas.
Chairman Garner reiterated the basic concerns expressed primarily by Mr. Bennett and felt the Fire Marshal's office was in a "Catch 22 situation, you have identified here to us today that this problem is very large, and if you pursue the licensing of all the people that ought to be licensed it is going to require more staff for you to effectively do that. I think there is a real public safety issue at the root of this, and it just seems to me that from a public policy point of view, that we ought to be expanding it to include items of safety and in order to do that because you have such a small amount of funding from the general fund, that you have to go into a user type thing or a license structure to generate those funds. This is a real dilemma for us with this bill." Chairman Garner asked for a report from the Fire Marshal if AB 544 were enacted what kind of negative effect would it have on the resources available.
There being no further testimony, Chairman Garner closed the hearing on AB 544.
There being no further business to come before committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
LINDA FEATHERINGILL
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Government Affairs
May 12, 1993
Page: 1