The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, May 3, 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.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mrs. Gene Segerblom (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Bill O’Donnell, Senate District 5

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

OTHERS PRESENT:

After roll call, Chairman Buckley noted S.B. 460 would be withdrawn. She then opened the hearing on S.B. 351.

Ed Allison, representing Avis, Alamo, Budget, and Thrifty Rent-a-Car, noted S.B. 351 was an act relating to limited licensure for rental car business insurance. The Nevada statute was not clear as to whether the incidental sale of personal insurance on a rental motor vehicle should be licensed by the state or not. The bill clarified car rental companies, who offered personal insurance products to their customers in connection with the car rental transaction, should obtain a limited license to sell such insurance. The bill was important because it ensured the continuation of personal insurance to consumers by rental car companies. S.B. 351 removed any ambiguity on the issue of the sale of optional insurance products in connection with a vehicle rental.

Many companies that rented motor vehicles offered their customers the option of purchasing personal insurance to cover customers while they were operating rented motor vehicles. For many consumers, the optional insurance was the only insurance available for protection from financial liability when they rented motor vehicles. Customers not covered by existing insurance because they did not own vehicles, or customers whose insurance did not cover rental transactions found the type of insurance offered by the rental companies desirable. The Nevada statutes needed clarification in order for the rental companies to continue to offer the important coverage to consumers.

Bob Ostrovsky, representing the Hertz Corporation, noted support for S.B 351. He explained he worked with the Division of Insurance on the language to ensure it was satisfactory to them and provided for limited licensing. He noted the bill also ensured that at each location, where someone purchased the insurance, there was a trained licensed individual who could answer questions for customers. The bill did not require licensing of every employee but required a licensed employee be available. Mr. Ostrovsky thought the bill was a good consumer piece and said it was inappropriate to come to the legislature and ask to be unregulated. It was better to work with the commissioner of insurance on the basis of a limited license, which would provide necessary protection for the consumer and ensure the insurance commissioner that the products sold were clear and understandable to the customer and appropriate to Nevada insurance law.

Chairman Buckley asked Mr. Ostrovsky to point out where it was required the entity itself have a limited license and where employees were exempted. She noted section 1, where the bill referred to Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 482.363, and she inquired if such was the section.

Mr. Ostrovsky referenced section 1, beginning on line 7, which said, "if the solicitation and sale of such insurance is done on behalf of, and under the supervision of, the short-term lessor." Employees at the rental counter would be under the supervision of the short-term lessor. The intent was each individual would not have to be licensed.

James R. Jeppson, Chief Insurance Assistant, Department of Business and Industry, Division of Insurance, cited section 4, subsection (c), which said, "Who is a short-term lessor of passenger cars licensed pursuant to NRS 482.363 whose insurance activities are limited to the solicitation and sale of insurance requested by a lessee pursuant to NRS 482.3158, where the insurance is offered within an agreement to lease a vehicle as optional insurance which is in effect only during the term of the lease of the vehicle." Mr. Jeppson noted section 4 allowed the commissioner to issue a limited agent’s license to an applicant qualified under the chapter and pointed out the above referenced section identified the short-term lessor of passenger cars as qualifying for a limited license. There were other entities in the state who were also issued a limited license, such as banks and car companies.

Mr. Jeppson stated in section 1, lines 3 through 9, and in section 2, subsection 8, was the exemption for employees of a short-term lessor of passenger vehicles. Section 2 excluded a certain class of people from the requirement for a license.

Chairman Buckley asked about current law.

Mr. Jeppson explained currently the division required anyone selling insurance to have an agent’s license. For the type of insurance in question, such an individual would need a property and causality license. The individuals proposed to sell a number of products and some of the products had been filed by insurance companies for approval in the State of Nevada. The obstacle was the licensure of the counter people at rental car companies.

Chairman Buckley asked if the state currently took the position that everyone at a rental car counter had to be licensed.

Mr. Jeppson said the state took the position that anyone who sold insurance, who was not exempted, had to be licensed.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked specifically what the bill would change in the law.

Mr. Jeppson said the industry approached the division noting they were attempting to get an exemption from licensure or an allowance for a limited license because they wanted to sell the product to their customers. The products were available for sale by companies in Nevada, but the agent licensing law was an obstacle.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if Mr. Jeppson could provide an example as to what the "products" might be.

Mr. Jeppson said when a car was rented, individuals were offered collision damage waivers, which were authorized by the motor vehicle code under which rental car companies were licensed. He was not speaking of the collision damage waiver; he was discussing excess liability insurance where an individual could buy high limits of liability insurance. There was also personal effects coverage, which was coverage for property in the car. Another coverage was accident and health insurance.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted under the bill, employees of a short-term lessor would be able to sell excess liability, personal effects, accident, and health insurance.

Chairman Buckley said if the Division of Insurance took a strict interpretation of the law, everyone at a car rental counter, who would sell the insurance as it related to the rental car, had to be licensed. She noted what was desired was the company be licensed, not every single agent at every single counter.

Mr. Jeppson affirmed Ms. Buckley’s statement noting the division would still review the products and the materials used to solicit the insurance. He pointed out the rental car companies had a large number of counter personnel.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if individuals would have to sign-off on waiving the products.

Mr. Ostrovsky said the products were not on the waiver list but were sold as an extra product. Corporations often instructed employees to purchase the product. For a small amount of money for the term of the lease period, the corporation could walk away from all liability.

There being no further questions or testimony on S.B. 351, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 351.

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on S.B. 128.

Robert Barengo, Attorney and Counselor at Law, Nevada State Board of Contractors, explained S.B. 128 was a simple bill constituting a cause of disciplinary action with regard to advertising of projects of construction beyond the scope of a license, which was a disciplinary action. He noted if the board had a hearing on a disciplinary action, after giving notice, they may have the telephone company turn off the telephone after advising the Public Utilities Commission.

Section 1 added a new cause of action, which was advertising projects of construction beyond the scope of the license.

Section 2 included in the provisions advertising beyond the scope of the license and said, "all advertising by a licensed contractor must include the number of his license. If, after giving notice and holding a hearing pursuant to NRS 624.310, the board determines that a person has engaged in advertising in a telephone directory in a manner that violates the provisions of this section, the board may, in addition to any penalty, punishment or disciplinary action authorized by the provisions of this chapter, issue an order to cease and desist the unlawful advertising and to disconnect any telephone number included in the advertising. If a person who is issued an order to cease and desist pursuant to subsection 3 fails to disconnect any telephone number included in the advertisement within 5 days after the date that he receives the order, the board may request the public utilities commission of Nevada to order the appropriate provider of telephone service to disconnect any telephone number included in the advertisement."

Mr. Barengo noted the next section discussed provider telephone services, which was found in the public utilities section of NRS 707. The substance of the bill was section 4 and considered NRS 703. He noted the section said, "Within 30 days after the date that the commission receives a request from the state contractors’ board to disconnect a telephone number pursuant to NRS 624.307, the commission shall issue an order to the appropriate provider of telephone service without holding a hearing."

Section 4, subsection 2, provided an indemnity to providers of telephone service if they terminated pursuant to the order.

Section 5, subsection 2, noted a provider of telephone service shall not forward or offer to forward telephone calls or shall not provide or offer to provide a recorded message for the unlawful advertiser.

The bill was an attempt to deal with contractors who were acting beyond the scope of their license or were not licensed.

George Lyford, Director, Special Investigations, Nevada State Contractors Board, explained in the course of a month, the board encountered 10 to 20 individuals who advertised and were unlicensed. He noted an individual who had 10 different company names with different telephone numbers all call forwarded to one central location. Mr. Lyford pointed out Exhibit C and explained the exhibit was a full one-page advertisement. The owner of the company had been dead for 3 years, the bond was suspended in 1995, and the wife of the contractor had a warrant out for her arrest for being an unlicensed contractor. A cease and desist letter was sent with no result. The telephone company could do nothing because no one had been convicted.

Mr. Hettrick was concerned about a telephone advertisement being used with only a pager number, which would not be considered telephone services. He thought language might be considered terminating pager service.

Mr. Barengo directed the committee’s attention to page 2, lines 16 through 19, which specifically held the language to the most abundantly utilized type of advertising, which was the telephone directory.

Ms. Giunchigliani reiterated Mr. Hettrick’s concerns regarding pager numbers. Whereas, Mr. Barengo asked if Ms. Giunchigliani wanted the board to ensure "provider of telephone service" had a broad enough meaning.

Mr. Perkins stated he did not think NRS 707 considered cellular service. It was viewed as a different entity. The local telephone provider was a public utility and cellular services were judged differently. He thought such should be considered.

Chairman Buckley asked why language was being deleted on page 2, lines 35 and 36, which said, "All advertising by a licensed contractor must include the number of his license."

Mr. Barengo explained the language was being included on page 2, lines 14 and 15. The language was added to a disciplinary cause.

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced section 2, subsection 2, which said, "all advertising by a licensed contractor must include the number of his license." She noted there had been discussion on the issue for many years, and she was told they could not tell anyone they had to include the license number. Ms. Giunchigliani asked if it was the responsibility of the advertiser to screen the legitimacy of a license number.

Fred Hillerby, representing the Nevada State Contractors Board, explained they could not control the advertising telephone directory, but they could control the unlicensed or licensed contractors. The contractors had to put the number in the advertisement, and if they did not, the board could go after the individual.

Ms. Giunchigliani explained the perspective was taken from the board’s point of view. If a contractor placed an advertisement, the license number must be on the advertisement rather than the other way around. She noted advertisers did not want to be the policing agency. If someone used a false license number, such would give the board an opportunity to act.

Mr. Lyford noted if someone used a false name or number, the board would go after the individual for fraud instead of contracting without a license.

Don Soderberg, Commissioner, Public Utilities Commission, stated the commission did not take a position on the bill but there were a number of concerns raised by fellow commissioners when they saw the first draft. Mr. Soderberg said the concerns were addressed in the amendments in the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor. The bill before the committee addressed the issue of due process, how the hearings would proceed, and who would be responsible for issuing an order for the utilities.

Mr. Soderberg said it was his understanding if an individual, who was prosecuted under the bill, was to file for judicial review in the court system, the action would be a contractors’ board action. Therefore the contractors’ board would be defending the action and not the Public Utilities Commission. He noted such was the conversation he had with the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the representatives of the contractors’ board.

Chairman Buckley stated such language might be added to the floor statement if the committee processed the bill. There was a legal ruling from the Supreme Court that legislative history in a committee was not legislative history because the entire body had not acted. She referenced page 3, lines 19 and 20, which said, "the commission shall issue an order to the appropriate provider of telephone service without holding a hearing."

Mr. Soderberg said the commissioners did not want to get into a situation where a fiscal note had to be prepared because they would not be able to estimate how much of a burden would be created for the Public Utilities Commission. Their hearing system was a long due process procedure, and if the contractors’ board issued an order, it could take 6 months before there was a resolution. The Public Utilities Commission was an intermediary. Those who would take the numbers off were jurisdictional to the commission’s agency and not the contractors’ board, which was the concern.

Senator O’Donnell, Senate District 5, thought S.B. 128 was a quality bill.

Chairman Buckley noted the committee would clarify the issue of pagers and cellular telephones. There being no further testimony or questions, she closed the hearing on S.B. 128 and opened the hearing on S.B. 132.

Ed Flag, President, Nevada Correctional Association, explained S.B. 132 clarified a problem within the existing NRS with regard to worker’s compensation and correctional peace officers. Current language stated if a correctional peace officer responded to an altercation and was exposed to a blood born pathogen, the correctional officer was not covered under existing state industrial insurance laws. The statutes in question were NRS 616A.035 and 616A.265. He explained because they were not covered under the laws, correctional officers were not tested for the blood born pathogens. The bill would allow for the testing.

Walter Tarantino, Attorney at Law, Nevada Correctional Association, was aware of four state correctional officers who were involved in altercations or tried to stop altercations and were contaminated with blood born pathogens and other bodily fluids. The officers were checked for hepatitis C, received blood chemistry panels, submitted a claim, and were rejected by worker’s compensation. They were rejected because of the language in NRS 616A.265, subsection 2b, which said the exposure of an employee to a contagious disease while providing medical services, including emergency medical care, was considered in the course and scope of employment. State correctional workers were not considered first responders for medical care. At the time of an altercation, correctional officers were compelled to act. Like police officers and fire fighters, they could not stand back and wait for an emergency medical responder. Correctional officers were obligated to break up fights.

The genesis of the legislation was to define in statute that state correctional officers, who were engaged in the normal course of their duties and were contaminated by bodily fluids or contracted a contagious disease, would not only be covered but also be able to obtain the chemistry panels to ascertain whether or not the correctional officer did contract a contagious disease. When the issue was first addressed in the Senate, it was realized the problem was broader than just state correctional employees. At such time, friendly amendments were offered by police associations and state firefighters. The language in the bill was not limited to just state correctional officers but all peace officers and state fire fighters, as defined by statute.

Raymond McAllister, Southern District Vice President, Professional Firefighters of Nevada, spoke in support of S.B. 132. The bill before the committee was the amended version passed by the full body of the Senate. In the Senate hearings, it was identified that not only correctional officers were at risk but also police officers and firefighters who regularly performed duties that did not necessarily constitute the administration of emergency medical services. The bill was amended to include those groups. There was also a sunset clause in the original bill without a realistic coverage timeframe. Mr. McAllister explained he worked with the Legislative Counsel Bureau in writing the amendment that would appropriately provide coverage and treatment for anyone who had positive antibodies to the contagious diseases.

The sunset clause amended into the bill would provide for testing of police officers, correctional officers, or firefighters when they left the job to ascertain whether they had positive antibodies to the more prevalent contagious diseases. If officers or firefighters showed positive antibodies to any of the diseases, they would be covered under worker’s compensation for treatment of those diseases or any associated diseases from that point forward. Currently, there were no testing procedures in place to check for the diseases unless a specific exposure could be identified. The problem was many public safety workers could be carrying positive antibodies and not know about it because it was not symptomatic. By the time workers showed symptoms, they might not be employed and probably not be able to identify a specific exposure during their careers.

Mr. McAllister referenced Exhibit D, page 3, which was a newspaper article stating many individuals had hepatitis C and carried the disease around for decades without showing symptoms. During such time, the liver was slowly being destroyed. Common diseases caused by hepatitis C were cirrhosis, liver failure, and liver cancer. Currently there was no cure for hepatitis C except for a liver transplant.

Testing when an officer or firefighter left the job would allow the individual to know if they had a clean bill of health. It also provided a timeframe for diagnosis that was inline with current information from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC stated Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) antibodies should manifest themselves within 12 months and usually within the first 6 months. The bill would cover the timeframe for diagnosis.

Mr. McAllister again referenced Exhibit D and noted the survey on page 4 stated that for firefighters, 1 in every 25 was exposed to a contagious disease in 1997. The survey also showed a breakdown of percentages of the types of diseases to which firefighters were exposed. Exhibit D also contained copies of e-mails from various sources showing timeframes for some diseases to show positive antibodies. The documentation was to justify the requested timeframes for testing.

Exhibit D also contained a breakdown of costs for tests. The example showed the cost of the test if someone "walked in off the street," but Mr. McAllister was assured, with contract prices negotiated by entities, the cost could be greatly reduced. He noted a conversation with Mr. Tarantino who received information from the Department of Prisons stating a full hepatitis A, B, and C profile would cost $80, which was about half the price of what was listed in Exhibit D.

Mr. McAllister recently talked with the infectious disease officer from the Phoenix, Arizona, fire department. The officer informed him recent testing of their firefighters revealed 10 to be hepatitis C positive. After further tests, 5 of those individuals were placed on treatment. Mr. McAllister noted there were 2 Clark County firefighters who were hepatitis C positive and one was in need of a liver transplant. There was also a Henderson firefighter who was hepatitis C positive whose claim for worker’s compensation was denied because the disease could not be pinned to a specific exposure.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if a fiscal note was requested.

Mr. Tarantino said the information was requested of the Department of Prisons, but no information had been forthcoming as far as a fiscal note was concerned.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked if there was an attempt in the bill to expand the definition of police officer. She also asked who would be included in NRS 616.135.

Mr. Tarantino noted section 5, subsection 2(b) referred to employment with the Department of Prisons. He said the association would be more comfortable if employees of the state Department of Prisons were included in sections 1 and/or 2 where police officers and firefighters were defined so there would be no question as to whether or not there was coverage.

Ms. Giunchigliani said there had been a number of bills presented that tried to expand the definition of a police officer. She wanted to make sure S.B. 132 did not attempt to do such.

Mr. McAllister assured Ms. Giunchigliani such was not the intent of the bill.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked a member of the panel to explain voluntarily or involuntarily terminated employment that would still be entitled to testing.

Mr. McAllister said a person involuntarily terminated might be someone who was fired. He noted the person should still be entitled to worker’s compensation rights for coverage. If someone was exposed to a disease, carried around positive antibodies, and was fired after years of service, such did not mean they should leave a job with the rest of their life damaged because of the work they performed.

Ms. Giunchigliani read the section to mean upon termination and up to 12 months past such time period the individual would be entitled to the testing.

Mr. McAllister explained when S.B. 132 was reprinted and passed out of the senate in its amended version, all of the lines the amendment said to delete were not deleted. The lines to be deleted were on page 3, lines 37 through 43 and page 4, lines 1 through 6. The way the bill was written, without the deletion, would conflict with the sunset clause, which was mentioned in a previous section. The testing would cover the timeframes when an employee realistically could show positive antibodies, which was 6 to 12 months. The original language stated an employee could be covered for a period of 4 months for every year of service.

Mr. Goldwater asked if the bill would solve the problem of a professional who contracted a disease and then there being a dispute over where the contact occurred.

Mr. McAllister said the language in the bill would allow an employee who left a job the right to a blood test for hepatitis A, B, and C, tuberculosis, and HIV antibodies. The clause would almost be presumptive. There were numerous states that already considered the above diseases to be presumptive from the course of employment as a public safety worker. If a person was exposed on the job, an exposure report could be filled out, and the person would be allowed to be tested.

Mr. Perkins asked if in the course of annual physicals, such testing was performed.

Mr. Tarantino explained with regard to police officers, there was no obligation to conduct tests for infectious diseases during annual physicals.

Mr. Perkins said there was no presumption in the bill. Even if an employee had a test after or during employment showing positive antibodies, it still had to be shown there was an exposure. He thought it would be prudent to have the testing on an annual basis so as to more closely proximate when an exposure occurred. Such would protect both the employee and the system.

Mr. Tarantino explained the original intent of the bill was to cover actual traumatic events. The language was still in section 4, which required documentation by the public entity noting an exposure. Such did not address the amendment offered in the Senate stating when an employee left, either voluntarily or involuntarily, they be tested. He noted the original intent indicated if there was an actual documented incident, the person would be covered for preventive measures, and if the disease was contracted, for further care.

Mr. Perkins understood exposures occurred all of the time that were not documented because individuals did not realize there was an exposure. He noted those in the fire service had more medical training than those in the police service.

Mr. Dini wondered if volunteer firemen were included in the NRS chapters.

Mr. McAllister said there was no specific statute that separated firefighters out as it did with police officers, such as NRS 617.135.

Crystal Lesbo, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, Research Division, explained for the purpose of the bill, volunteer firefighters were not included. However, under the heart and lung provisions, volunteer firefighters were covered. The bill referred back to the definition under section 135.

Chairman Buckley noted as per the definition referenced in NRS 617.125, volunteer firefighters were left out.

Ms. Lesbo affirmed Chairman Buckley’s statement and stated the definition of firemen was brought in on page 2, line 3, which said, "preventive treatment administered as a precaution to a police officer or firemen who was exposed to a contagious disease." She noted a police officer was defined in NRS 617.125.

Chairman Buckley asked if a firemen was similarly defined.

Ms. Lesbo said there was no definition for firemen under NRS 617.

Chairman Buckley asked how it was known that firemen were not included.

Mr. McAllister stated it was not his intent to exclude voluntary firefighters. He desired to include them but found no separation where they could be included in a specific NRS. He used a "coverall" of "firemen" as opposed to separating them out.

Mr. Dini thought staff should look into the issue and see if there was an easy way of putting the language into the bill. He noted voluntary firemen were exposed to the same diseases as those who were not voluntary.

Chairman Buckley referenced Exhibit D, which said, "Currently, testing is not done for the above mentioned diseases unless a person can show a specific significant exposure." She noted testimony stating benefits could not be covered because the person was not a medical responder.

Mr. Tarantino explained a spokesman for The Employers Insurance Company of Nevada represented over 30 claims were initially controverted despite the fact the individuals were exposed, sent to the doctor, and given blood tests. The employee was responsible to pay for testing because the insurance company refused to pay for the claims. To his knowledge three employees appealed, and at the appeal level, the claim was overturned. The employees were subsequently reimbursed. The reason they were controverted by the Employers Insurance Company of Nevada was because the company did not consider the employees first medical responders.

Chairman Buckley stated the testing protocol was not at issue; the issue was clarification as to whether or not the employee was a medical responder.

Mr. Tarantino affirmed Chairman Buckley’s statement noting the bill would define the course and scope of employment and thus enable the Employers Insurance Company of Nevada to pay for the testing process.

Mr. Parks inquired as to the initial screening process when an employee commenced employment. He noted a person could have a disease when they started working in a public safety capacity.

Mr. McAllister explained the tests were part of medical standards for firefighters when they received their entrance level physical exam. After such a time, the physical was not as extensive.

Mr. Tarantino noted state correctional employees received a physical and a urinalysis but did not receive blood work during the application process.

Mr. Parks asked if volunteer firefighters were screened.

Mr. McAllister understood when a volunteer firefighter signed on, they were given a physical, but he did not know what the physical entailed.

Mr. Tarantino noted if section 5, subsection 2 (a) and (b) were to be deleted, as they were amended in the Senate, then if NRS 617.135 did not specifically delineate state correctional officers, the association would like an amendment in sections 1 through 4 with language including state correctional employees so as to not allow for confusion by the department.

Colonel Mike Hood, Chief, Nevada Highway Patrol Division, noted support for S.B. 132 in its entirety.

There being no further testimony or questions, Chairman Buckley closed the hearing on S.B. 132, and noted S.B. 460 was withdrawn at the request of the sponsor and she would entertain a motion to indefinitely postpone the bill (Exhibit E).

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 460.

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley opened the hearing on S.B. 464.

Nancy Samon, Chief of Contributions, Nevada Employment Security Division, noted S.B. 464 was proposed in response to recommendations made by legislative auditors in their 1997 legislative audit report on management and collection of the state’s accounts receivable.

Section 2 of the bill provided for a $25 handling charge for dishonored checks. Currently the division had no penalty for such.

Section 3 strengthened the division’s garnishment procedures and addressed the offset of payments to debtors. When the division currently issued a notice to withhold through the Nevada Employment Security Division, the holder of the assets must advise them if he or she were holding assets. The division must then arrange with the sheriff to execute a summery judgment that they had in place against the debtor to obtain the withheld assets. The bill would require the assets be transmitted to the division. If such did not occur, the holder of the assets could be held liable for the debt.

Section 4 increased the interest rate on past due taxes from one half percent per month to 1 percent per month. The audit report noted that penalty and interest rates were not consistent between state agencies and they should be set at sufficient levels to assist in deterring taxpayers from becoming delinquent. In keeping with the intent of the auditor’s report, the interest rate was the same as the Department of Taxation, which would become effective July 1, 1999.

Ms. Samon again noted the changes were in keeping with the audit report since the proposed language was consistent with the withheld language currently used by the Department of Taxation. Since the completion of the audit, Ms. Samon had been a member of the management taskforce convened by the attorney general and the director of the Department of Administration. The taskforce, representing many state agencies, worked together to develop plans and procedures to enhance debt management and collection efforts statewide.

Ms. Giunchigliani asked about the standard fee for a dishonored check. She noted the language did not say "up to" $25.

Ms. Samon said the language was in regulation not in statute, and the Department of Taxation had the same wording. The fee was a flat $25 fee for handling and returning the checks.

Mr. Hettrick referenced section 2, subsection 2, which said, "The administrator may charge an additional fee of. . ." He thought the language was broad enough, even if it did not say "up to."

Chairman Buckley noted NRS 597.960, which considered the collection of fees for dishonored checks. She noted the language said, "a seller may collect a fee of not more than $25 for each check, which was accepted for payment of goods and services which was not honored." Chairman Buckley reiterated the language of "may not collect a fee of more than $25" and noted the language was used for private merchants. She thought the language should be consistent.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 464

WITH THE CHANGE BEING TO CONFORM SECTION 2, LINE 8 TO EXISTING NRS 597.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley began work on the work session with S.B. 16.

Ms. Lesbo noted the proposed amendment deleted subsection 2 of section 1, which appeared on page 1, lines 16 and 17 and page 2, lines 1 through 7. She explained Guy Perkins from the Division of Insurance testified during the hearing that the proposed amendment would remove the provisions allowing "post-claim underwriting." Ms. Lesbo noted Senator Mark James, sponsor of the bill, also agreed to the amendment (Exhibit F).

Chairman Buckley stated Mr. Perkins thought the exceptions currently were not allowed under existing law.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS

ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Vance Hughey, Principal Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, noted there was one amendment proposed, which was presented by Bruce Robb, representing the Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (Exhibit F, attachment A). The amendment provided the new provisions regarding licensing of professional land surveyors be effective July 1, 2010, if a land surveying curriculum of 4 years or more approved by the board was offered by an institution of higher education located in the State of Nevada.

Chairman Buckley questioned why the legislature was legislating land surveying curriculum and licensing becoming effective in the year 2010. She thought it might be better to wait than putting another law on the books.

Ms. Giunchigliani noted an individual’s opposition to section 12 of S.B. 103, which dealt with the definition of engineer.

Mr. Hughey said there was concern about inserting the term professional engineer and registered engineer. He thought the concern was the board already used its discretion with the current wording, and the specific language under consideration would be too tight.

Mr. Nolan noted discussion during testimony and said it was not the intent of the individual who testified to redefine domestic engineers. However, he noted the term engineer had been discussed with relationship to locomotives as well as fire department engineers. He understood the intent was not to "meddle" in other professions, and he wanted assurance that the bill would not do such.

Chairman Buckley referenced page 10. She thought the language "registered engineer" was added, but did not know if it was going to cause any particular problems. She said the individual in question was a board member or former board member.

Ms. Giunchigliani said the only reason she raised the issue was to ensure they were not creating an entire new category, which would cause another licensing debate. She noted page 10, which only referred to a professional engineer, and she did not see where it was defined what a registered engineer was or if there were new fees.

Chairman Buckley stated the word register was added on page 2. Instead of saying the board may require a firm to obtain a license, what was being said was "register with." She thought the terminology was all that was being changed, and a new class was not being created.

Ms. Giunchigliani referenced page 11, line 31, noting language was retained stating "registered engineer or licensed engineer" even though the term licensed was eliminated on page 2.

Chairman Buckley noted she would hate to create another class in the language by mistake. She asked committee research staff to contact the board and clarify why the language said registered on one page and licensed on another page. Chairman Buckley considered the motion withdrawn and noted she would hold S.B. 103 until the next work session.

Mr. Hughey explained Senator Rawson submitted an amendment, which was included as attachment B to Exhibit F. The amendment eliminated a requirement that a person seeking a restricted license to practice dentistry in the State of Nevada have at least 5 years of clinical experience, which was obtained after receiving a degree. The proposed amendment also increased from 1 year to 3 years the time allowed for a person who received a restricted license to pass the board’s examination.

Mr. Hughey pointed out Ms. Giunchigliani questioned whether the provision on page 6, lines 5 and 6, regarding reinstatement to active status, applied to both dentists and dental hygienists. According to Kimberly A. Morgan, Chief Deputy Legislative Counsel, the reinstatement provision applied to reinstatement of inactive, retired, or disabled dental hygienists, as well as to reinstatement of inactive, retired, or disabled dentists (Exhibit F, attachment C).

Ms. Giunchigliani understood Ms. Morgan’s position, and she did not believe it was necessary to amend the section. If there had been a different fee, then she would have wanted it segregated. Since all were grouped together for the same dollar amount, there was no need. She thought the bill was a big step forward and began to capture some of the shortages.

Mr. Dini thought there was a proposed amendment noting if someone did not have all of the qualifications to pass the test in Nevada but could pass the test in another state, the person could serve for 5 years in an underserved area and then go and work anywhere in the state.

Chairman Buckley thought the only downside of the suggestion was the individuals had not gone to the board or voted on the suggestion. There was nothing in writing. Chairman Buckley noted Senator Rawson expressed concern with the amendment being offered so late. She said she would be willing to look into the issue and obtain additional information.

Mr. Dini asked if the board could be contacted and the issue discussed. He noted there would be a dental school in the state in a number of years, and there were underserved areas other than the reservation that were having major problems.

Ms. Giunchigliani said Senator Rawson was not necessarily opposed to the suggestion but thought removing the restriction might open up the door. If there was a problem, the issue could be considered in the next session of the legislature.

Chairman Buckley agreed with Ms. Giunchigliani’s comment noting the desire to take one first step. She suggested taking a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 181 with a letter of intent to continue the work with the tribe to ensure better services in underserved areas.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 181.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 462.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Chairman Buckley noted the desire of Mr. Hettrick to place S.B. 462 on the consent calendar.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO PLACE S.B. 462 ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.

ASSEMBLYMAN DINI SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mr. Hughey noted there were no amendments proposed to S.B. 465.

ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 465.

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

THE MOTION CARRIED.

There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Buckley adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Jane Baughman,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, Chairman

DATE: