The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 1:15 p.m. on Friday, April 9, 1999. Chairman Barbara Buckley presided in Room 4100 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.

Ms. Barbara Buckley, Chairman

Mr. Richard Perkins, Vice Chairman

Mr. Morse Arberry, Jr.

Mr. Bob Beers

Ms. Merle Berman

Mr. Joe Dini, Jr.

Mrs. Jan Evans

Ms. Chris Giunchigliani

Mr. David Goldwater

Mr. Lynn Hettrick

Mr. David Humke

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. David Parks

Mrs. Gene Segerblom

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Assembly District 6

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Cleone Bujalski, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

James. L. Wadhams, Attorney at Law, Wadhams and Akridge,

Representing Nevada State Board of Architecture

Susan Hobbes of Nevada State Board of Architecture

John C. Breternitz, Executive Vice President, Q & D Construction, Inc.

William Turbay, Owner, Rock and Turbay Design Group

Tricia Lincoln, Interior Designer, A Very Fine House Interior Design

Nancy K. Wolff, Founder and President, Interior Design Institute

Doreen Mack, Owner, Lofty Expressions

Gloria Armendariz, Executive Director, Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design

Vickie Gonzales, Legislative Representative, Community Affairs, Mirage Resort

Walter Harman, Interior Designer, Interior Affairs, Inc.

Margie Grein, Executive Officer, State of Nevada Contractors Board

Fred L. Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, Hillerby and Associates

George J. Lyford, Director, Special Investigations, Nevada State Contractors Board

Matthew L. Sharp, Attorney at Law, Leverty and Associates Law

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, The Hertz Corporation

Sam McMullen, Lobbyist, Retail Association of Nevada

Jim Jeppson, Chief Insurance Assistant, Division of Insurance,

State of Nevada

Following roll call Chairman Buckley noted there were three bills on the agenda, long work documents, and the last date bills would pass out of the Assembly without fiscal notes. She opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 609.

Chairman Buckley asked the proponents to come forward.

James L. Wadhams, Attorney at Law, Wadhams and Akridge, represented the Nevada State Board of Architecture introduced Susan Hobbes who also represented the Nevada State Board of Architecture. They were accompanied by John C. Breternitz, Executive Vice President of Q and D Construction, Inc. Mr. Wadhams remarked it was not a technical bill. In the 1997 session the design professionals requested that a corporate form of ownership practice be allowed. A corporation could be formed in which licensees could operate. The bill allowed the board to register and track corporations by name in order to know the people who were individually licensed. That should have been done in the past and in the 1997 session the law was amended to allow corporations to be formed by combined professionals of architects, residential designers, and registered interior designers.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked how many corporations had been formed under the statute since the 1997 session. Susan Hobbes responded that about
6 corporations were registered at every board meeting and estimated about a total of 24.

Ms. Giunchigliani questioned why a statute was necessary to keep an official register. She queried whether or not that was already done by regulation and wondered if fees were assessed to register. Ms. Hobbes answered it could be done by regulation. A fee was assessed for the certificate. The fee was imposed for the corporations with partners that had nonregistrants as allowed by the 1997 Legislative Session.

Ms. Giunchigliani confirmed they did certify corporations and a fee was charged for certification. The bill allowed creation of a registry for the secretary and an additional fee was charged. Ms. Hobbes responded renewal was required for the corporations on an annual basis.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked why the renewal was annual rather than biennial.
Ms. Hobbes asserted there was a bill in which the Nevada State Board of Architects requested annual renewal as opposed to biennial for registration of architects, interior designers, and residential designers. Currently the cost was $220 for 2 years. The corporations paid $300.

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired as to what the purpose of the bill was and suggested perhaps it was merely to raise more money. Mr. Wadhams contended that the professions involved requested mixed corporations, between licensees and nonlicensees, be identified and that A.B. 609 would fulfill the request.

Ms. Giunchigliani stated since corporations were registered it would appear the organization would know who they were.

Gloria Armendariz, Executive Director, Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design, divulged that it was strictly "house keeping" because the statute allowed official recordkeeping for the registrants. There was no provision in statute for corporations. There was a statute that covered registration requirements including the amount of the fee. That was to keep an official roster and to issue a certificate to hang on the wall and had not been addressed in statute. It could have been addressed in the regulations, but she felt it should also be addressed in the statutes for corporations as it was for designers and architects.

Ms. Giuchigliani asked what was issued when they applied.

Ms. Armendariz articulated they were granted registration, notified by letter, and charged according to existing statute. The Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design, was not mandated to keep an official record of corporations, although a database was kept.

Mr. Wadhams referred to lines 7 and 8 on page 1, of the bill as a key provision. Corporations were engaged in a regulated business and it was important to have parallel requirements so the information list could be open for public inspection. Legal advice was given to the board to take that action.

Ms. Giunchigliani wondered if anyone was currently prevented from being inspected. Mr. Wadhams replied negatively, and stated that the bill created a clean and clear statute that registration would be maintained.

Ms. Giunchigliani declared she would look at Assembly Bill 632 for clarification.

Mr. Beers suggested it be amended to state the annual licensing fee was no more than half the biennial licensing fee. Mr. Wadhams replied A.B. 632 addressed the fee structure and would be addressed in that context. A.B. 609 placed a parallel requirement to maintain a registry for corporate licenses that could be inspected. That kept the statutes consistent.

Chairman Buckley commented a lot of testimony had been heard on the bills in that area. All would be resolved according to what the committee decided. She asked for testimony against A.B. 609.

William A. Turbay, Owner of Rock and Turbay Design Group International, LTD., was in the process of becoming a registered interior designer and was opposed to the bill (Exhibit C). He observed it was another hidden form of taxation. Fees were collected from a registered interior designer. To take the test of
29 questions one must pay a $550 fee. When several people joined together to form a business, fees were paid as an individual and paid again collectively as a corporation. Those additional fees were, in effect, another hidden tax and another way to regulate business.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on A. B. 609 and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 610 by asking the primary proponents to come forward.

Tricia Lincoln, Interior Designer, A Very Fine House Interior Design, stepped forward to support A.B. 610 as amended (Exhibit D) because it met the goal and provided another tier of regulation in the field of interior design and protected the public regarding health safety and fire code concerns. With the amendment designers could be certified by the fire marshal who had agreed to that. She only requested permission to exclude items in section (g) of
NRS 623.330 in commercial as well as residential. It was not intended to cover partition walls, 20-minute fire doors, or stamp plans for the building department. The small businessperson could find it advantageous to contact a certified interior designer or fire marshal regarding fire codes resulting in better fire safety for their small project.

Chairman Buckley summarized for the committee that the amendment to create an exemption was addressed by Nevada Revised Statute 623.330 (Exhibit D).

Ms. Lincoln complied with Ms. Buckley’s request to read section (h) of the amendment aloud.

Chairman Buckley inquired about discussions with the fire marshal. She stated interior designers had a place, a great occupation, and there should not be an attempt to remove them from the business world. Her concerns were directed to the questions regarding the involvement of the fire marshal and whether they had the capacity and desire to comply with the amendment She wondered if it was workable.

Ms. Lincoln responded, in conversations with the fire marshal the response had been in support of the proposal. He assisted them with the wording, provided the code governing the issue and expressed the opinion that it would be helpful to him to have a list of qualified interior designers. He had changed his mind and the fire marshal currently had a neutral position and had expressed the opinion they would comply with the legislative decision.

Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether the key part was that the interior designer would be able to do the shades, draperies, and those kinds of things and what the educational requirements would be.

Doreen Mack, Owner, Lofty Expressions, provided a list of local interior designers from the telephone directory (Exhibit E). She said that a course would be taken through a community college with curriculum approved by the fire marshal, and a certificate issued. The fire marshal regulated existing requirements so it was appropriate to place the oversight with his office.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked what title would be used upon completion of those requirements. Ms. Mack answered the title did not change from interior designer, but they would have a code and regulation certificate.

Ms. Giunchigliani clarified they were called interior designers although she thought there had been a problem with that title. Ms. Mack revealed originally there had been a problem, but the name had been reinstated in the public domain in 1995. The word interior designer was accepted but differed from registered interior designer.

Mr. Dini asked what were the consequences if the bill passed without the amendment.

Ms. Mack expressed her personal opinion that the board would come back every session to address the issue as a public safety issue. The issue was addressed directly by going to the fire marshal who regulated it originally.

Ms. Lincoln concurred it was needed to solve existing problems.

Mr. Dini expressed the opinion something had to be done once and for all.

Nancy K. Wolff, Founder and President, Interior Design Institute, provided background information and referred back to 1995 when all designers were able to work with an exemption. However, they were prevented from doing things regulated by code and the reality was all things were regulated by code and that effectively prevented them from doing any work The accountability required had been met by the designers and they were capable of working in the exempted situations. The ramifications of not having that rectified were that many businesses died.

Ms. Mack pointed out in Exhibit E listed the Reno, Carson City, and Douglas County, telephone book yellow pages for interior designers. Not included were the rural areas nor Lake Tahoe. There were 183 designers in one area and
300 designers in Las Vegas in the same situation. There were only 38 registered designers in the State of Nevada. The bill was to protect all small business owners.

Vickie Gonzales, Legislative Representative, Community Affairs, Mirage Resort, proposed a friendly amendment to A.B. 610 (Exhibit F). It was intended to allow a person to prepare plans, drawings, or specifications for buildings owned by that person or his employer when a registered architect, interior designer, residential designer, and or a licensed professional engineer was also engaged by that person or his employer for work on the same building. She had spoken with the sponsors of the bill proponents, and the Nevada State Board of Architecture and found agreement.

Mirage Resort had a full service, design and architecture department and within the department were licensed designers, engineers, architects, and a few unlicensed individuals. As the law was interpreted, it created an awkward situation. An unlicensed designer was not able to supervise a licensed designer although the unlicensed designer had 15 to 20 years of experience in the corporation.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted the bill seemed to address the situation. There were individuals who were not registered and still able to do the work. The bill was the proper format and was superior to past considerations.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Wadhams to step forward to answer a few questions. She suggested two different issues were being addressed at the same time, a large number of interior designers who had no desire to move walls or infringe into other areas of architecture and registered designers.
Ms. Buckley asked Mr. Wadhams for his reaction to the proposed amendments.

Mr. Wadhams responded on behalf of the State Board of Architecture. The amendment offered on behalf of Mirage Resorts was not a problem and attempted to clarify an ambiguity that might not exist. The request was not in any way objectionable. In view of the critical life safety issues, the Mirage Resort recognized the need for qualified professional involvement. The amendment offered by Ms. Lincoln and Ms. Mack acknowledged that life safety was the issue. Persons involved with fire rated material, in commercial establishments frequented by the public, must have the level of knowledge necessary to protect the public. Mr. Wadhams observed it was curious to have placed it with the fire marshal, and he acknowledged that the life safety factor was realized.

Chairman Buckley articulated for the new committee members there were categories of architects, registered interior designers, and residential designers. She invited Mr. Wadhams to explain the categories, where they were regulated, and the different requirements for each.

Mr. Wadhams replied architects were responsible for the structure, could be involved in everything down to the minutest detail, and were under jurisdiction of the board. The residential designer was a category for those professionals with education and training focused on designing residences. In 1995 the category of registered interior designers was created that authorized the interiors of commercial spaces and design layout of office suites including placement of the walls and fire exits. It was recognized by everyone involved that the requirements had to include an increased knowledge and understanding. Over the following 8 years training was made available for professionals to achieve the necessary higher level of skill. As a result there were registered interior designers and unregistered interior designers. The amendments offered attempted to maintain the professional status of unregistered interior designers. Unregistered interior designers did not want to design floor space but rather wanted to deal with wall coverings, floor coverings, and drapes. The designation of registered interior designer, more commonly known as space planners, resulted in others feeling disenfranchised by that designation. The State Board of Architecture talked about creating another level of licensure. The state agency set and executed the policy. The important issue agreed upon by proponents of the amendments was one of life safety.

Ms. Giunchigliani suggested creation of another category of interior designers who were recognized and allowed to design the interior of both residences and commercial enterprises and were not involved with moving walls and life safety issues. Mr. Wadhams replied he believed that was the intent of the amendment offered to A.B. 610.

Ms. Giunchigliani concluded a person could just call themselves interior designers. Mr. Wadhams agreed there were no restrictions on the use of that name. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if the board had fined people for calling themselves interior designers. Mr. Wadhams replied negatively. Clarification language was required to insure the name of interior designer remained in the public domain. There may have been individuals that used the name interior designer that were fined for other activities beyond the use of the name. They might have done space planning, architecture, or residential design as opposed to residential interior design which would have been a violation of law.

Mr. Turbay reiterated it was the names of the professions causing the problems. It was easier to understand there were architects, and there were specialties. There were general architects. There were also interior architects that were called registered interior designers. The title of registered interior designer was similar to a degree to interior architecture. Residential designers were really residential architects. Those terms were not used which caused confusion. The general public thought of an interior designer as a person who assisted in decorating a home or office which resulted in confusion.

Walter Harman, Interior Designer, Interior Affair, Inc. testified that on November 4, 1998, he had been informed by registered letter that he had committed some violations (Exhibit G). He contacted his attorney and then met with the architectural board. He was advised he had committed some violations, and beginning in the year 2000 he would not be able to work unless he became a registered interior designer with the architectural board. He was penalized $7,850 for having a business card that read interior designer. Unless the judgement was paid it could be turned into a civil case, resulting in arrest and jail.

Chairman Buckley asked what the work Mr. Harman did in the course of his activities. Mr. Harman responded he had been decorating for 33 years in residential and very light commercial. He had done esthetics, soft light, decorative products, wall coverings, flooring, prepared drawings to illustrate his proposals for interior design, and also custom art work.

Mr. Beers wondered if the drawings that Mr. Harman had prepared were renditions of the esthetics of what it would look like or were they a blueprint of the facility. Mr. Harman replied the drawings indicated where plants would go, what type of draperies would be used, the type of decorative materials used, and the location of televisions. The drawings were visual descriptions for the client.

Chairman Buckley asked if anyone from the board wanted to respond.
Mr. Wadhams stepped forward and announced he would be acting in his role of attorney. Under the statute those matters were confidential. The person’s confidentiality was protected.

Chairman Buckley suggested Mr. Wadhams responded hypothetically with regard to someone using interior designer on a business card. Mr. Wadhams related the issue was not the use of the business card. The issue was the activity. The committee questions had focused on issues that were appropriate. The complexity and similarity of names that were and were not subject to licensure created confusion. The job of the regulatory board was to establish parameters that designated the practice of architecture. The design of walls of interior spaces constituted architecture and required the designation of registered interior designer. That was where the issue was. He assured the committee the board would not fine anyone for use of a business card.

Chairman Buckley closed the public hearing and opened the hearing on Assembly Bill 632.

Mr. Wadhams began by stating the measure was a housekeeping bill.

• The information located on page 1 was the definition of responsible control that had been an issue of professional control.

• Section 3 clarified the definition of residential design.

• Section 4 addressed the confusion between registered interior designer and residential designer. Each was a different category, which required a different license.

• Section 5 changed the licensing cycle to annual rather than biennial and cut the fees in half.

• Section 6 deleted a phrase.

• Section 7 applied to the architecture program of accreditation.

• Section 8 removed the requirement for completion of the written exam prior to having taken the oral interview and allowed applicants flexibility.

• Subsection 4 in section 8 required that a registered interior designer must complete an oral interview.

• Section 9 dealt with fees for license renewal.

• Section 10 imposed a civil penalty rather than a fine for specified action.

• Section 13 was a word change from direct supervision to direct control.

• Section 14 raised the cost of the fines imposed by the board.

• Sections 15 and 16 addressed the combination of licensed and nonlicensed personnel.

Susan Hobbes, representing the Nevada State Board of Architecture, commented that section 17 corrected former language errors.

Mr. Wadhams drew attention of the committee to previous testimony and a letter that had been sent to the committee regarding NRS Chapter 89 amendments.

Ms. Giunchigliani declared the language regarding cutting fees in half could not be found in the bill. Mr. Wadhams related he was not sure that the language was in the bill, but he had conferred with board members and that was their intent.

Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to know the maximum fee allowed Ms. Armendariz, Executive Director, Nevada State Board of Architecture, Interior Design and Residential Design, revealed the maximum fee allowed was $300 for 2 years. The fee was currently $220. The intent was that the fee be $110 each year.

Ms. Giunchigliani inquired about the amount of renewal fees addressed in section 18 as one and one half times the annual fee established by the board.

Gloria Armendariz responded one of the reasons for an annual fee was the budget was prepared for a fiscal year, and the state board of architecture had been operating under a calendar year. It was difficult to do a budget every
2 years. Cash flow would be easier to manage with everything under the same timeframe. The 1.5 percent fee increase was meant to cover 1.5 years to cover an interim timeframe.

Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to know if other professional organizations had staggered payment periods. Ms. Armendariz replied that it varied from yearly, biennially, and once every 3 years.

Mr. Hettrick observed most boards charged their applicants unfairly by not prorating fees. A bill should be passed that applied to all boards and prohibited them from charging a person a license fee that was not prorated. The procedure was punitive and prevented a small businessperson from getting involved in business.

Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to know if the elimination of section 4, subsections 5 and 6 would allow residential designers to participate in grading their own application or certification. John C. Breternitz, Executive Vice President, Q and D Construction, and State Board of Architecture, replied it was unnecessary to have that language. The registered interior designers and architects were past that point, and it applied to a time prior to the existence of registered interior designers.

Mr. Wadhams added each member of the board had full voting authority and their vote was not limited to just one area. All board members voted on all issues, and the deletion of that section made it a public policy for the board.

Ms. Giunchigliani continued with questions regarding page 4, section 6, that allowed for an oral interview for an architect or registered interior designer. She wondered if everyone else was required to sit for a test. Ms. Hobbes replied everyone had to sit for the test. The oral interview consisted of going before the board on the date they were sworn in. It was a formalization of procedure without possibility of passing or failing.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked the meaning of "must successfully complete." The language did not accomplish what was intended. Additionally she wanted to know if there were charges involved.

Mr. Wadhams acknowledged there were no charges involved, and the language could be changed to "must appear before the board for the granting of the certificate."

Ms. Giunchigliani avowed that would be appropriate. She inquired whether each exam must be taken separately and what fees were charged. Ms. Armendariz disclosed the exam was for residential designers only and the cost had been $300 for the entire exam. The architectural section was a computerized, national exam and fees were collected by the national organization. The total cost was $890 for all nine sections. For interior designers the Nevada specific exam was given regarding fire ratings and moving partitions. Prior to the Nevada exam the interior designers had passed the national exam and the cost was $550 for each exam.

Ms. Giunchigliani wanted to know why someone who had fewer requirements had to pay more than someone who had more requirements. Ms. Armendariz related that the cost was a reflection of the expenses involved in creating the exam.

Ms. Giunchigliani requested an explanation of "responsible control" in section 1.

Ms. Hobbes responded that direct supervision implied that the only way to know the progress of a project was to have the person supervised within the physical location of the supervisor. With existing technology it acknowledged that direct supervision of a project was effected without having the person in the same physical location. The language of "responsible control" was substituted for the old language of "direct supervision."

Mr. Turbay objected to the bill because the practice of residential architect and residential interior design had no requirements for education. However, a person who practiced architecture under the supervision of another architect and passed a state test could practice both residential architecture and residential interior design without any formal education. Requiring education from an accredited school penalized the residential interior designer who was also required to pay more for testing than an architect. The bill eliminated reciprocity in Nevada of interior designers who met the test of the National Council of Interior Design Qualifications (NCIDQ) because they had not attended a 5-year accredited school. The major question clarified by the committee regarded the examination’s oral criteria. Fines were raised from $10,000 to $15,000 which were higher than those judges imposed on civil and criminal cases. Architects were allowed to practice residential interior design without any education in interior design nor were they required to pass the NCIDQ test.

Ms. Wolff pointed out in section 12 the title, registered interior design, was used and sometimes it was not. It was important the title, registered interior design, be used consistently throughout the bill. The standards adopted in July 1995 had not been in place for 8 years as intended and were being phased out. NCIDQ had required 2 to 3 years of education and the organization had not changed those standards.

Chairman Buckley closed the public hearing on A.B. 632. She declared all the bills would be considered as a group. The next order of business was the work session documents. (Exhibit H).

Chairman Buckley communicated the testimony on the bill was confusing. The Board of Oriental Medicine was asked to summarize the board’s goals in writing. They provided the information with suggested amendments. The amendments were still confusing and were sent back to the board for clarification. They were returned to the committee and the definitions were still in dispute between the Trial Lawyers’ Association and the Board of Oriental Medicine. Chairman Buckley stated she was not comfortable the amendments were adequate to present to the committee. At the pleasure of the committee the bill died for lack of time. No action was taken on A.B. 114.

Assemblywoman Marcia de Braga, Assembly District 35, drew attention to the work session document and explained the original bill presentation was not clear. The work session document corrected those omissions. She proceeded to comment on each of the eight paragraphs on page H-4 and elaborated on background information for the formation of each paragraph.

Chairman Buckley asserted it was her belief that items 1, 3, 5, and 6 were already in existing law. A.B. 156 addressed those items in the 1997 session. Items 2 and 4 were not covered and item 7 had been deeply debated. She asked Ms. de Braga why those items should be reviewed by the committee or was it that she wanted to make them available in the self-funded plan.

Ms. de Braga responded she intended they be available in the self-funded plan because there was no regulation, compliance, or cooperation from the self-funded plans. There were minimal, if any costs to the bill. It was the right time to consider those issues to provide services people could reasonably expect to have. Regulations were required to ensure the self insured plans did business in a timely manner.

Chairman Buckley informed the committee the Committee on Benefits was being dissolved and controls completely revamped in the system and she asked committee members to make recommendations for future legislation.

Ms. de Braga expressed concern that people had the right to expect certain items from an insurance policy, and it was not happening. The more quickly that point was reached the better for all concerned.

Chairman Buckley did an informal poll of the committee to determine the direction they chose to consider. Self-funded, usual and customary charge, and women’s direct access to obstetrician and gynecologist (OB-GYN) were the three items that would be considered. She asked for a show of hands to determine the issues to be covered having heard that some committee members felt self-insured was very important but should be considered in the total package of things. Enough members supported consideration of the direct access question in paragraph 7. The suggestion was to allow a woman to receive health care services without receiving primary authorization or referral from a primary care physician.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 515.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY ASSEMBLYWOMAN SEGERBLOM.

Mr. Hettrick voiced his concern the language should be modified so it was clear the gynecologist was not intended to be the primary care physician.

Chairman Buckley suggested it be made part of the motion, which was made in concept form, and gave everyone the opportunity to look at the amendments. Her understanding was the bill granted direct access but not designation of primary care.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst, introduced A.B. 486 by explaining

there were a number of amendments proposed to the bill and Assemblyman Goldwater had another amendment (Exhibit I). He referred to the work session document (Exhibit H) that had several proposals for changes as well.

Jan Christopherson, Administrative Services Officer, Department of Transportation, provided a letter from Jeff Fountain, Deputy Director (Exhibit J) for committee consideration.

Mr. Goldwater suggested the mockup from Ardel Jorgensen who represented the Clark County Business Licenses should be discarded because it did not represent the intent of the bill. Mr. Ray Bacon, Lobbyist for the Nevada Manufacturers Association’s suggested amendment would put a big fiscal note on the bill. The proposed amendments submitted to the committee suggested that number 1 of (Exhibit H) be applied to all businesses so they did not have to figure out what businesses had 150 people or less. Ardel Jorgensen and Carole Vilardo, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, agreed with that provision. It required action had to be taken within 90 days and included the right to petition within 90 days of implementation. Implementation was an important dimension to be added to prevent a filibuster for regulations. If the governing body of a local government was prohibited by federal law or state law regulations, interpretations, or instructions from taking action, or if the governing body of the local government had no discretion over the specific content of a regulation, then they were exempt from the requirement. The structure of the language came from A.B. 12. Mr. Goldwater requested the committee vote to amend and do pass with the three issues identified. Because NRS Chapter 233B was amended gaming, prisons, and some other state institutions were exempt and would not be affected by the bill.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 486.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Beers expressed his concern with the 90 day requirement in the second amendment. A new regulation would be announced and implemented in 60 days that functionally resulted in a window of 150 days, which conflicted with the 90 days mentioned in the amendment. He did not want the amendment to restrict filing a petition only upon implementation.

Mr. Goldwater said the bill allowed a person to file at any time but they could not file after 90 days of implementation.

Mr. Beers expressed his displeasure to have Mr. Bacon’s amendment removed. The issue of fiscal expense was discussed.

Mr. Goldwater agreed Mr. Bacon’s amendment was desirable. It dealt with public agencies and were public records. The burden was on the petitioner to figure out why something did not happen rather than on the agency to explain why it did not happen. It diverted the fiscal impact to put the burden on the petitioner.

Mr. Beers asserted there were two separate ideas under consideration One was that the agency had to report to the petitioner regarding the action or inaction within a certain period to time. Secondly that a report be prepared for the legislature which was probably the one with the fiscal impact.

Chairman Buckley remarked in an effort to kill a bill some attempt could be made to put fiscal notes on bills even though, in the opinion of the committee, there was no fiscal on the bill. The rationale might have been to add amendments to kill the bill.

Mr. Goldwater suggested that with passage of the bill a dialogue would be created between the petitioners and the agencies. Making a formal report a requirement might inhibit that opportunity.

Chairman Buckley announced she preferred the amendment to be applicable to businesses with 150 employees or less thus ensuring small businesses were addressed, as they had been overlooked in the past.

Mr. Goldwater clarified the 150-employee limit still applied to the state agencies that were affected by the bill. The exemption for the 150 only applied to the local portion. In the 17 counties it was the local people that did not have the required resources to differentiate between the businesses. He had no problem in leaving that section in rather than taking it out of the amendment. As a matter of state policy the 150-employee threshold was in effect in the bill as amended.

Chairman Buckley found it hard to believe that a county official could not just ask how many employees a business employed. She indicated it was not a major concern however, and she would concur with the decision of the maker of the motion.

Ms. Giunchigliani said she would be amenable to changing her motion to reflect the additional changes.

Mr. Perkins, as make of the second, remarked he would be agreeable to the changed motion.

Chairman Buckley clarified the motion was to amend and do pass with amendment numbers 2 and 3.

THE NEW MOTION WAS TO AMEND AND DO PASS WITH NUMBERS 2 AND 3 AS SET FORTH IN THE AMENDMENT.

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Hughey observed there were a number of amendments to the bill. Background information had been provided to the committee that stated the family and medical act had no impact on the bill provisions.

Assemblyman Wendell Williams, Assembly District 6, presented an amendment (Exhibit K) to the committee and reviewed the work session material (Exhibit H). He attempted to address Mr. Hettrick’s concern that the bill was limited only to public employees. Ms. Giunchigliani expressed the opinion the employee should have the option to take educational meeting time with or without pay. Proof the 1 hour leave had been granted for that specific purpose as well as proper notification to the employer were concerns expressed by committee members and were included in the proposed amendment. Mr. Williams’ intent was to have agreement between employers and employees regarding parental school visits. The amendment applied to both public and private employees. Authority was given to grant leave with or without pay and provided for a 3-day advance notice. It also allowed for the employee to provide documentation that the visit actually occurred. One correction elaborated upon was to confirm the amendment said with or without pay. The intent was to give the employer the option of granting leave with or without pay. The intent of the legislation was to effect a viable and cooperative relationship between employers and parents regarding parental school visits.

Ms. Giunchigliani clarified the bill applied to parents of students in grades 1 through 12. She wondered if there was a way to exempt businesses that currently allowed for flexible leave. It was conceivable that some businesses might currently allow more leave than the amendment required.

Mr. Hettrick noted that proof of attendance language seemed to be missing.
Mr. Williams stated he intended to have that included in the language of the bill. Ms. Giunchigliani opined that would not be a problem and would not have a fiscal impact.

Mr. Williams expressed his hope that parents would use the option when a student was in trouble, or when a scheduled parent-teacher conference was set. Documentation of attendance would be required after the meeting and not before.

Mr. Nolan interjected that without funding the fiscal note must be discarded or the bill did not have a chance of being passed. Removing public employees from the bill would result in a bill that was not fair and equitable to all citizens, and he could not support the bill.

Mr. Williams contended that it was more equitable to cover both public and private employees, but currently the bill included an option to grant leave with or without pay. There was no fiscal note if the employee chose the hour without pay.

Chairman Buckley hypothesized what would happen if a fiscal note was attached, and the bill went to the Committee on Ways and Means. Mr. Williams could advance his argument and there would be an opportunity to take a vote on the floor. Mr. Beers noted the Committee on Ways and Means could be avoided if the bill specified that the leave was without pay. Mr. Williams answered that was not a problem with him. The overall intent was to reduce the conflict between employers and parents and facilitate the meetings.

Mr. Dini questioned the expansion to include all public employees because then the impact on cities and counties must be considered. He wanted to know what that cost would be. Mr. Williams had contacted one local government that had no problem with the amendment since it could be done without pay.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A. B. 214 BY EXEMPTING BUSINESSES THAT ALREADY GRANTED LEAVE THROUGH CONTRACT OR OTHER POLICIES, TO MAKE THE CORRECTION IN SECTION 1 TO READ " WITHOUT PAY FOR EACH YEAR KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE 12", ADD TO SECTION 2 THE PARENT MUST RETURN VERIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE TO THE

EMPLOYER.

THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MR. PERKINS.

Mr. Hettrick called attention to Mr. Dini’s questions and Mr. Beers’ suggestions and wondered if the amendment should require leave without pay. In that way the public entity was not affected and the option was left with the private entity. Removing the possibility that it affected government and with the requirement of a 3-day notice included the bill would be workable.

Chairman Buckley questioned whether or not the public employers already had the option to pay or not pay the person by virtue of the existing language. She asked if the intent was for a governmental entity who had the money and was inclined to pay a person for the time to have that option. Mr. Hettrick stated that choice should not be mandated. Chairman Buckley suggested that it be voluntary on the part of the public employers.

Ms. Berman wanted to add a sunset clause to the bill to determine how successful the program actually was. She maintained it would be ridiculous to have such a bill without knowing how many parents actually used the option.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded the issue was more one of policy, and bills of that nature were not given a sunset clause.

Mr. Beers confirmed an employer may require that an employee present proof of attendance leaving it up to the employer.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley stated that Assemblywoman Freeman had withdrawn
A.B. 491.

Mr. Hughey summarized A.B. 634 as it was in the work session document (Exhibit H).

Margie Grein, Executive Officer, State of Nevada Contractors Board, offered an amendment to address additional concerns (Exhibit L).

Chairman Buckley instructed the committee to disregard the attachment in the work session identified as attachment I. The latest version of the bill provided additional information requested from the Southern Nevada Homeowners’ Association. Mr. Hillerby had met with that organization. Ms. Buckley requested the high points not already covered in the mockup be described along with results of that conversation.

Fred L. Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, Hillerby & Associates, representing the State Contractors Board, disclosed that a meeting had taken place to address the concerns of the Southern Nevada Homeowners Association (SNHA). All the changes they sought had been made except for one. The one item that remained unchanged addressed limiting audited financial statements to residential contractors. Most of the complaints received by the State Contractors Board applied to residential contractors. The conclusion was the State Contractors Board and the Southern Nevada Homeowners Association agreed to disagree on that one issue.

Ms. Grein referred the committee to:

• Page 9, section 15 narrowed the provisions that constituted unlawful criminal conduct, page 11, section 19 required the address and physical location of the applicant, and page 12, section 21, which was the financial responsibility section noted by Mr. Hillerby. The change was that upon renewal of the contract the residential contractor must provide a reviewed or audited statement in response to the problems experienced with residential contractors.

• Section 22 on page 13 allowed the board to impose a minor form of restitution.

• Section 23(b) on page 15 deleted the section on violation of tax laws.

• Section 25, number 2 on page 16 added the words "a plea of no contest and found guilty."

• Section 27, pages 16 to 17, tightened up the notification of complaints. No major changes were to be found in the document.

Mr. Dini inquired about the change that allowed a licensee to make corrective work observing that sometimes the homeowner did not want to see the contractor again. Ms. Grein replied the purpose for adding the section into the amendment was to address exactly that issue. There was a problem when there was a lot of tension on the job between owner and contractor. It would be at the discretion of the board to decide how to handle the problem.

Chairman Buckley referred to page 12, section 21 and queried how someone demonstrated their future solvency. Ms. Grein explained that could be done by looking at assets of the business, past track record, personal indemnification of license, and financial statements to assure the board that the contractor could meet the demands of the business.

Chairman Buckley turned to page 9 and noted the misdemeanor fine had been raised to $2,000, but she was of the opinion that a misdemeanor fine could not exceed $1,000 under Nevada Revised Statutes 193.120. Mr. George Lyford, representing the Nevada State Contractors’ Board responded that it had been a long time since he had read NRS 193.120.

Chairman Buckley suggested that the misdemeanor fine should be $1,000 so that a new threshold of misdemeanor charges was not created. Mr. Lyford responded that the current fine was $500 and if the fine were raised $1,000 the purpose was served.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 634.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Buckley indicated the amendments were contained in Exhibit L with the change on page 9, making the misdemeanor not more than $1,000. The fine could be less but could not be more, consistent with the current misdemeanor law.

THE MOTION CARRIED

Mr. Hughey explained the bill by advising the committee there were several amendments proposed. The Commissioner of Insurance had proposed three of the amendments. The work session document (Exhibit H) contained information on proposed amendments.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 635.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Parks questioned whether the Trial Lawyers’ Association supported the bill as amended.

Matthew L. Sharp, Attorney at Law, representing the Trial Lawyers’ Association, addressed the question and stated the association did support the amendments as well as the newly proposed amendment contained in Exhibit M Mr. Wadhams had approved the following amendment suggested by the Trial Lawyers’ Association. The amendment stated "The provisions of Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) Chapter 686A which are applicable to an insurer shall apply to an agency captive insurer, rental captive insurer and association captive insurer." The captive insurer bill was deemed good for the insurer as long as it was controlled. However, concerns were expressed about the possibility of fraudulent insurance practices. The amendment provided assurance to the consumer that it applied to those rental captives and others that dealt with the public.

Mr. Beers his belief that the captive concept was akin to self-insurance and the point of the captivity was there were no consumers involved. Mr. Sharp replied to a certain degree that observation was correct. In a technical sense the bill went beyond self-insurance. It allowed associations to form to fill a niche in the market place. If insurance was not available or affordable in the market, businesses were allowed to form associations to provide insurance. The concern was there was a possibility for abuse The Trial Lawyers’ Association trusted the insurance commissioner would regulate the market effectively and the provisions of NRS 686A were in place to protect the public from any fraudulent activity.

Chairman Buckley requested Mr. Sharp to provide an example of what type of fraudulent practice the amendment would protect against.

Mr. Sharp identified the possibility of going into a specific area, creating a company, running that company, getting the premiums and leaving the state. The law was intended to prevent that from happening. The concern was that the bill would allow for some of that to occur. By applying NRS Chapter 686A the insurance company was required to be truthful in advertisements. The insurance commissioner was given added authority to shut down the captive insurer if it had conducted fraudulent practices. That could be done immediately without a hearing. The consumer would be protected.

Mr. Wadhams noted he had no objections to the amendment.

Chairman Buckley offered the opportunity to others desired to comment on the amendment.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist for Hertz Corporation, said he had not realized there was an amendment proposed that the captured rental car industry in the bill and he expressed the desire to have the opportunity for time to discuss it with his client regarding their position.

Mr. Wadhams called attention to the fact the bill had nothing to do with rental cars and did not affect Mr. Ostrovsky. Mr. Ostrovsky replied that he withdrew any objections.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT AS PROPOSED BY MR. SHARP IN EXHIBIT M TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 635.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI, AS MAKER OF THE ORIGINAL SECOND, AGREED.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Hughey explained there were several amendments proposed including those from The Retail Association of Nevada represented by Sam McMullen. Jim Jeppson, Division of Insurance, had also offered an amendment. Either the motor vehicle dealer or manufacturer would back the service contract or they were exempt from regulation. The bill regulated only motor vehicle service contracts issued by an entity that did not actually sell or manufacture the covered automobile. The additional amendment made that section consistent with existing law and did not require the Division of Insurance to regulate motor vehicle service contracts in a different manner.

Mr. Jeppson referred to a past discussion regarding the service agreement offered by new or used car dealers underwritten by an insurance company. Those agreements were submitted for review. As a general rule the service contracts referred to in A.B. 673 would not be reviewed.

Chairman Buckley disclosed her concern was that a service contract by a car dealer did not fall within Title 57. Mr. Jeppson replied that was correct. Currently it was reviewed only if an insurance company had submitted it for review. If a new or used car dealer developed a contract or used one from the manufacturer it would not be reviewed.

Chairman Buckley articulated there was some confusion regarding who was affected. Mr. Beers wondered if it was a preventive measure.

Mr. McMullen noted under the current theory a manufacturer or retailer that sold a service contract was exempt from any regulation in that regard. The industry requested rules, regulations, and legal standards. A system was desired to make sure that everyone knew the rules. The goals were to establish confidence, avoid scandals, and avoid the requirements and regulations of an insurance company. The industry believed the measure prevented future problems and therefore, in that sense, it was preventive.

Mr. Beers questioned if the provision for a large capital network requirement was still in the bill. Mr. McMullen replied there were three ways to provide security: 1) Contract with an insurance company to provide coverage;
2) Reserve 40 percent of the premiums in an account; or 3) Have a sufficient net worth to fulfill the contract to the extent needed Mr. Beers asked if that amount was currently $100 million. Mr. McMullen responded that was correct.

Mr. Beers was concerned about the computer repair service typically owned by those that did not have the net worth required. Although it was not the intent of the bill to impact those individuals he felt they would be impacted.

Mr. McMullen answered that repair work provided on equipment on a case-by-case basis was not covered and never would be under the bill or under insurance law. The question arose when risk was covered over a period of time. The interest of the state was that the contract could be fulfilled, risks covered, and payment rendered when agreed upon. The bill did not cover repair work but did cover service contracts on computers.

Mr. Dini commented an additional hearing was needed to address the complexity of the issue.

Mr. Perkins disclosed the bill was not in effect, and if it was not put in place at the present time everything would go on. The consequences of the shortened session were that some things would not be processed. He was not comfortable processing the bill late in the afternoon on the last day possible. Perhaps the bill should be processed in the next legislative session.

Mr. Humke thought the bill could be further examined in the current session.

Chairman Buckley concluded the bill was meritorious and deserved further consideration. Committee members were not against the idea, but concerned about not having time for a thorough review.

Mr. McMullen informed the committee that due to the fiscal note attached to the bill, it would be considered by the Ways and Means Committee. He advised them they had worked for months with the insurance division to satisfy all of its concerns. He regretted the committee did not think it had adequate time to spend on the bill and apologized for the delay in bringing the amendment forward. The fiscal impact required another review. Due to the inherent merit in the bill together with the consumer protection issue, he suggested the bill could be an effective piece of legislation. He was of the opinion all questions had been answered.

Chairman Buckley decided to hold the bill and if the committee was interested there could be a meeting behind the bar of the Assembly to decide if they wanted to process the bill.

Mr. Dini suggested a motion be made without recommendations but to amend it, take it to the floor, and continue to work on it from there.

Mr. Perkins commented that sections 1 through 10 were merely definitions. There was no policy involved. The bill could be amended with definitions left to provide a vehicle for further discussions. He did not favor leaving the policy issues in because they might not be correct. His concern was there would not be enough time in the following week to consider the bill on the floor of the Assembly.

Ms. Giunchigliani supported the recommendations and recognized it was the policy considerations that created the concerns of the committee. The effect was to get the bill moving and access it later.

Chairman Buckley informed the committee that she would talk to them individually about the bill and moved on to consider the next bills. There were five bills remaining to be considered regarding architecture and interior design. Discussion was opened on all of them collectively.

Ms. Giunchigliani said that she had reviewed A.B. 116.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 116.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Hughey read from the work session document provided to all committee members (Exhibit H). He noted Ms. Giunchigliani suggested a change to A.B. 434 to read "Each program of interior design must be accredited by the Foundation for Interior Design Education Research or approved by the board or an accrediting body recognized by the United States Department of Education."

Ms. Giunchigliani observed more flexibility was allowed with the usage of the proposed language.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 434.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Buckley clarified the amendment was to remove the deletion on lines 11 and 12 and insert the word "or" after the word "board" on line 12 on page 2 (Exhibit N).

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHILIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

A.B. 610 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY EXHIBITS D AND F.

.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Buckley expressed her concern was whether the existing statute would make it clear there was a profession of interior design practiced by individuals that did not move walls.

Ms. Giunchigliani responded it would be desirable for the infighting to end and return next session with recommendations.

MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED THAT THE APPROPRIATE BOARDS BE

NOTIFIED THROUGH A LETTER OF INTENT FROM THE LEGISLATIVE

COUNSEL BUREAU SIGNED BY CHAIRMAN BUCKLEY THAT THE INTENT OF THE COMMITTEE WAS FOR BOARDS WORK TOGETHER TO

FIND A COMMON GROUND FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION OR TO

ESTABLISH NEW AND SEPARATE BOARDS.

ASSEMBLYMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Ms. Giunchigliani remarked that A.B.609 did not accomplish what was intended. All that was required was to amend NRS 623.185 by amending
NRS 623.349 into it. A certificate of registry with the seal and the design on it could then be issued.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND A.B. 609 BY

TAKING NRS 623.349 AND AMENDING IT INTO NRS 623.185 OR SIMPLY LISTING THE PHRASE "BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS WITH PERSONS OUTSIDE THE FIELD OF PRACTICE" WITH UNREGISTERED OR UNLICENSED INTERIOR DESIGNERS INTO THE CATEGORY OF THOSE THAT CAN BE ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION WITH A SEAL.

THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

********

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUCHIGLIANI MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 609.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BERMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley re-opened the work session on A.B. 632.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was something in the bill that had to be processed during the current legislative session. Perhaps it would be preferable to let the board work on it to avoid conflicts.

Mr. Wadhams replied the bill was a technical housekeeping bill. He said the Nevada Board of Architecture did not know with what board to communicate during the interim.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS
A.B.632 TO ALLOW WITH RESPONSIBLE CONTROL AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BOARD FOR GRANTING OF THE CERTIFICATE.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

Chairman Buckley noted section 10 regarding the fine, NRS 623.365, contained the $10,000 fine.

Ms. Giunchigliani had no problem with supporting the motion provided it did not conflict with NRS.

Mr. Nolan expressed his support of the motion but reserved the right to reconsider it on the floor when he could read the draft.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley closed the hearing and adjourned the meeting at 4:22 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

______________________

Cleone Bujalski,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: ___________________________________