The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 1:25 p.m., on Friday, February 19, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 3142 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All Exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman.

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Bernie Anderson, Assembly District 31

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

Following roll call, Chairman Buckley noted that Mr. Arberry, Mr. Humke, and Mr. Nolan were "excused."

Chairman Buckley notified the committee the following Friday meeting might move to Thursday. She said by Monday she would notify them if the change was going to happen. The committee needed to meet three times per week in order to keep up with the pace of the bills.

Chairman Buckley asked committee members to take action to introduce Bill Draft Request (BDR) 51-44, which revised provisions governing the filling of containers and repair of appliances for use of liquefied petroleum gas.

Joan Buchanan, Administrator of the Department of Business and Industry, Real Estate Division, addressed A.B. 105. She explained it was under the Time- Share Act, Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 119a. She gave a brief background, stating in the 1983 session, the Time-Share Act was created for administration by the Real Estate Division. Real estate licensees and time-share sales agents were given the right to sell interests in Nevada.

She continued Nevada was known as a "good regulating state" and was one of the first to license time-share sales agents. Fourteen hours of pre-licensing education, generally administered by developers, was required for a time-share sales license. Her organization wanted more confidence that individuals who took the course learned proper sales presentations tactics. Although her organization did administer some of the exams, to assure that time-share sales agents were properly educated they wanted regulations established allowing them to charge for the exam. She pointed out there was a fee for real estate and appraisal exams. If the time-share exam was established by regulation it would increase the integrity of the test and would allow administration of tests on a daily basis. Real estate and appraisal exams were administered daily in Reno, Las Vegas, and Elko. She also noted that 6 hours of continuing education courses were required of time-share sales license applicants as well.

Ms. Buchanan stated in 1992 there was no developed curriculum specifically for time-share sales agents’ courses, but was in the process of being developed. She pointed out there were no provisions to charge a fee for processing the course. Fees were charged for both real estate and appraisal courses, so for the integrity of the process and to cover the costs of administering the course, she thought it would be fair to do it for time-share sales courses as well. She stated the money generated from the other course fees went into the general fund.

Ms. Berman asked if the accounting and administration of time-share exams would cost the Real Estate Division money and if it incurred out-of-pocket expenses.

Ms. Buchanan stated the administration of the exams placed a burden on education staff and was funded through the education research fund, which was financed by real estate licensees. She wanted a program manager for the time-share program in order to establish his/her own standards of practice. Ms. Berman agreed it was a good idea, since there was a great deal of time-share activity in Nevada. The fees collected from exams should cover the cost of employing a program manager.

Ms. Buchanan stated if the money generated from the fee for time-share sales exams was to cover the program manager, spending authority would be necessary.

Ms. Berman asked how many time-share units were in Nevada. Ms. Buchanan responded there were 56 projects, but did not know how many interests there were per project; she estimated it to be a very large number. She added approved projects might be from organizations outside of Nevada, but because the Nevada Real Estate Division was processing and selling those time-share units in Nevada, the out-of-state organizations were required to follow Nevada regulations.

Chairman Buckley added the large time-share industry was growing rapidly with the expansion of the casino industry.

Mr. Goldwater asked who dealt with individuals engaged in time-share activities without a license and asked what the penalties were for violating the terms. Ms. Buchanan said her first action was to notify the individual to "cease and desist" by letter. She added if a letter did not work, she would take the issue to district court but noted she had never had to do that.

With no further testimony on A.B. 105, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing.

Assemblyman Bernard (Bernie) Anderson, stepped forward to introduce A.B. 63. He stated the bill had been requested by Glenn Miers, Secretary/Treasurer of the Basketball and Football Chapters of the Northern Nevada Officials Association (NNOA), who was present. Assemblyman Anderson stated there was one amendment to be made which would make the bill considerably different from the original. The amendment was to remove section 3, lines 17 through 22, and section 4, lines 13 through18 from the bill. Workman’s compensation would continue to be paid by member schools. Without the removal of those sections it would necessitate a probable increase in the cost of providing sports officials for athletic events throughout the state.

Chairman Buckley stated Assemblywoman de Braga had sponsored A.B. 153, which was related to A.B. 63, at the request of a constituent who had a policy concern which she felt was important to bring to the committee. Ms. de Braga and her constituent was not able to attend the hearing. Ms. de Braga requested the committee not proceed with A.B. 153. Her constituent had prepared a letter setting forth his concern and wanted the committee to deal with the issue. If the committee felt the policy issue needed be addressed, it was to be considered in the context of A.B. 63. Chairman Buckley remarked she would provide a copy of the letter to Mr. Anderson and Mr. Miers. (Exhibit C). She then asked Mr. Anderson to repeat the suggested deletions on the bill.

He clarified section 3 was to be removed in its entirety, and in section 4, lines 13 through 18, and subsection 7 were to be removed. The bill drafter indicated by the removal of those sections the original intent of the requesters to remain under the workman’s compensation program would remain. The preamble of the bill needed to be modified deleting the line "excluding certain sports officials from the payment of workman’s compensation."

Mr. Miers spoke in favor of A.B. 63, and presented written testimony (Exhibit D). He stated he was only concerned with the Basketball and Football chapters of NNOA. He noted there had been many changes in the way finances were handled since 1962. In the beginning of his career, sports officials were paid by check at each game site by the member schools. Currently those schools paid them once per month for the sport’s season. He noted that NNOA covered games from Gabbs to Lake Tahoe, 28 schools in all. Because of the number of schools and the amount of money involved, NNOA pre-billed the schools for game fees, travel fees, and the premium for Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (EICN). At the end of the season Mr. Miers refunded the schools money, or they paid him the balance.

He was concerned about what would happen if an official, who was not covered by workman’s compensation, was injured while on the job. It was not clear if the injured individual would be able to sue NNOA or the school that was paying for EICN. He stated Nevada’s Industrial Insurance Act was different from industrial insurance acts of other states in that subcontractors and independent contractors were accorded status of employees by Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 616.115. However, officials were not mentioned anyplace in the NRS and that was the reason for the introduction of A.B. 63. He noted after Mr. Anderson’s amendments the main difference between A.B. 153 and A.B. 63, was A.B.153 did not include workman’s compensation. He noted NNOA wanted workman’s compensation to be covered by the member schools. An injured official could collect money if they paid additionally for an elective policy through EICN.

Chairman Buckley indicated the committee would not proceed with A.B. 153, and Ms. de Braga’s constituent’s letter (Exhibit C) was distributed to committee members. Chairman Buckley asked for clarification on three points: (1) If sports officials were currently considered to be employees, or independent contractors, (2) If they were currently covered by workman’s compensation; and (3) Who paid for the workman’s compensation.

Mr. Miers responded the schools paid for officials’ medical insurance. NNOC acted as an agent to pay insurance companies, billing the schools $3.31 per $100 of the game fees for insurance. Chairman Buckley clarified the NNOC paid for the insurance but was reimbursed by the schools.

Mr. Miers continued NNOC considered sports officials to be independent contractors but noted Nevada courts did not stipulate that. He noted NNOC required officials to wear a uniform, take a test, and sports officials paid dues to the NNOC. Chairman Buckley clarified it was unclear under current law, whether sports officials were considered employees or independent contractors. They were covered by workman's compensation paid by the schools.

Mr. Miers agreed, and quoted NRS 617.120 in (Exhibit D), page 2, and noted as soon as the official took the playing field or court, no one supervised their actions, therefore they were independent contractors. Chairman Buckley clarified the general definition of an independent contractor had been interpreted to mean sports officials were independent contractors because they had independence of judgment.

Ms. Berman asked if that changed the fiscal note on A.B. 63. Chairman Buckley indicated it did not because what A.B. 63 proposed did not cost the state money.

Mr. Hettrick noted sports officiating was not considered to be "employment" and clarified the reference to workman's compensation was eliminated in A.B. 63.

Dana Bilyeu, Operations Officer for the Public Employment Retirement System of Nevada (PERS), testified on A.B. 63 and read written testimony into the record (Exhibit E). She stated PERS opposed sections 5 and 7 of A.B. 63. She noted amateur, intercollegiate and interscholastic sports officiating seemed similar to independent contract status, which was excluded from the retirement act.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted public employees such as teachers and coaches could also act as sports officials. Ms. Bilyeu pointed out in that case, officiating was considered secondary employment and contributions could only be received on primary employment. She commented the elimination of sections 5 and 7 in A.B. 63 would not prohibit teachers and coaches from acting as a sports official on an extra-duteous basis; however, the way the language currently read it would prohibit them from doing so.

Stan Jones, Administrator for the Employment Security Division (ESD), spoke next, and stated his organization was neither for or against the bill. He introduced Nancy Samon, chief of the contributions section at ESD, and Nancy Oakley, chief of workforce development support system and the unemployment insurance section of ESD. He noted his organization was funded entirely by the Department of Labor (DOL). He testified if Nevada was in conformity with federal regulations, the employers of Nevada experienced a reduction in their Federal Unemployment Tax, which was 6.2 percent. However, he pointed out that if Nevada was in conformity with the legislation proposed in A.B. 63, the employer paid 0.8 percent. He noted that was a considerable difference. ESD sent A.B. 63 for review to DOL, which discovered there was a conformity issue, which could cause difficulty for the state, and the ESD.

Chairman Buckley asked him to elaborate on the conformity issue in question and to point out what, specifically, did not conform to federal law. He stated DOL believed that A.B. 63 amended chapter 612 of the NRS and concluded it would create a conformity issue with the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA).

Chairman Buckley asked for a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Jones by DOL, (EXHIBIT F). She asked what the difference was in A.B. 63 from the federal bill. Ms. Samon responded FUTA required states to provide coverage to certain non-profit, governmental and legal organizations. Sports officials were not exempted so they should be covered. If ESD was not in conformity with the requirements of federal law, it was possible "offset credit" would be removed for all employers in the state.

Chairman Buckley clarified the Federal Government considered sports officials as employees, and Nevada statute could not be changed to indicate they were not without creating a conflict with the Federal Government. Mr. Anderson was presumed unaware of the conflict, and Chairman Buckley recommended it be brought to his attention.

Ms. Samon stated it depended on the organization in certain instances. She noted many different types of events could be interpreted from "amateur, intercollegiate and interscholastic sports events." She gave the examples of judges for high school rodeos, officials for bobbysocks baseball, officials for Pop Warner football and noted determinations had to be made on whether or not those officials were independent contractors, depending on their relationship with the association with which they were involved.

Ms. Giunchigliani assumed sports officials acted as both independent contractors and employees in order to justify the payment of workman's compensation. Sports officials considered themselves employees, however, once they took the playing field or court to officiate, they became independent contractors. She observed sports officials were attempting to make that designation, but federal statute might not have allowed them to make that type of delineation.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Jones to provide Assemblyman Anderson with information on the conflict with DOL. After he had time to review A. B. 63, the committee would consider a further decision.

Mr. Anderson believed the conflict was an important issue and wanted to resolve it. He wanted to be certain sports officials were fairly treated and at the same time wanted to be sure the schools were able to operate legally.

He went on to add A.B. 63 resulted from a very tragic accident in which two sports officials were involved. One was killed in the accident, and one became a paraplegic. Mr. Anderson emphasized because of a lack of concern and medical coverage for those kinds of officials their medical bills were covered by money raised from an athletic event in which all the schools in the Reno/Sparks area participated. He reiterated it would be unfair to leave sports officials without workman’s compensation.

Jim Nadeau, Captain of the Patrol Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, and Debra Carr, Chief Records Clerk, Washoe County Sheriff’s Office presented A.B. 115.

Mr. Nadeau stated A.B. 115 did only one thing, it changed how often a locksmith or a safe mechanic had to purchase a workcard from the sheriff. Those cards were only obtained from the sheriff’s office of each county.

Ms. Carr presented testimony supporting the bill (Exhibit G). She stated Washoe County Sheriff’s Office wanted standardization of issuance of all work permits. Other types of work permits, such as for employees in child care and private security were issued every 5 years, but locksmiths were required to renew every year. They were working toward standardization throughout the state, as Clark County and the Reno Police Department renewed locksmith and safe mechanic licenses every 5 years.

County ordinance had changed requiring locksmiths to submit fingerprints; that allowed a national check of criminal history and thorough background checks to be done at each renewal. Washoe County Sheriff’s Department would be able to run an exception list to determine if individuals holding a locksmith permit were arrested. If the arrest was a disqualifying one, the individual’s permit would be revoked immediately.

The cost to permit a locksmith or safe mechanic was $35 every year, when other permit applicants paid $35 every 5 years; that did not seem to be fair. She pointed out Washoe County Sheriff’s Department had access to the same criminal history on locksmiths as individuals in the other fields, yet locksmiths were penalized by being required to pay a service charge every year.

Mr. Goldwater asked if all other counties in the area were in agreement with the change, to which Ms. Carr responded all of the groups they had spoken with in Reno and Las Vegas had been in agreement. The hope was to have a statewide card available. Captain Nadeau stated Stan Olsen from Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had no objections to A.B. 115.

Tom Fronapfel, Assistant Director of Planning, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT) spoke on behalf of A.B. 202. He provided written testimony (Exhibit H). NDOT requested changes to NRS 625. A literal interpretation of the statute would require survey monuments to be established in a manner that would prevent them from being disturbed or destroyed. If a survey monument was disturbed, it must be replaced and perpetuated in its original location. Mr. Fronapfel did not think such an interpretation was practical. He added A.B. 202 clarified that the relocation of survey monuments in roadways by NDOT was legal. Copies of a formal internal policy for perpetuation of monuments was included in the Exhibit H. He further stated adoption of A.B. 202 would ensure NDOT’s policies and practices were consistent with state law.

Robert J. Bryant, Deputy Attorney General, Nevada Department of Transportation, spoke next in favor of A.B. 202. He stated NDOT had discovered two statutes which had potential criminal penalties for the removal of survey monuments. According to NRS 625.550, and NRS 206.220, it was a misdemeanor to remove survey monuments; professional land surveyors were not exempt from those provisions. He emphasized even a professional land surveyor could not remove a monument once it was set. A.B. 202 would allow a professional land surveyor, under certain specific circumstances, to remove a "set" monument and to reference it, which would enable NDOT to continue to conduct construction and maintenance responsibilities. He pointed out without the amendment, NDOT surveyors could face criminal penalties with actions against their licenses.

Assemblyman Arberry asked who would determine the certain circumstances under which a surveyor could move a monument. Mr. Bryant responded in the amended draft, under section 2, NRS 625.380, the newly proposed subsection 3, delineated certain requirements, such as steep terrain, waters, existing structures, or if a monument would be obliterated as a result of construction of maintenance activities, the monument could be removed and reset using reference monuments. It would be up to the individual determination of the professional land surveyor and Mr. Bryant noted the changes would be officially recorded.

Bruce Arkell, contract employee, Clark County Public Works, spoke next in opposition to A.B. 202. The issue of when to replace a monument was still unclear and unresolved. He did not believe the recommended amendment was necessary. His organization opposed the original draft of the bill because legislation on such an issue was not necessary. The issue could be addressed outside of legislation. He added NDOT did not maintain the monuments in existing right-of-ways or existing paved sections and had left the maintenance to Clark County Public Works. It was a non-funded administrative task imposed on local government by NDOT. Fortunately the new administration in NDOT was willing to recognize that fact, and was willing to address the issue.

Jerry Higgins, State Board of Engineers and Land Surveyors spoke next. NRS 625 was the statute under which the board operated, and they supported A.B. 202 with the amendment.

Brett Jefferson, Nevada’s Governor to Professional Land surveyors, and lobbyist for the Nevada Association of Land Surveyors, stated the proposed language as an amendment to the bill was supported by his organization. It was necessary because the original language might have been useful to NDOT, but there were problems with the its application to private sector surveyors and surveyors who worked for other public agencies.

Chairman Buckley clarified the recommended amendment was contained in Exhibit H, page 5, was highlighted and previously referenced in a question from Mr. Arberry. Mr. Jefferson confirmed that was the proposed amendment and added the language was directly out of NRS 278.371, subsection 7.

Chairman Buckley clarified Mr. Jefferson and his organization supported A.B. 202 with the amendment, and closed the hearing.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Meagen Colard,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: