MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-First Session
March 26, 2001
The Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order at 3:45 p.m., on Monday, March 26, 2001. Chairman Joe Dini, Jr. 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:
Mr. Joseph Dini, Jr., Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Ms. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. David Goldwater
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. David Humke
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard D. Perkins
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Terry Care
Assemblyman Bob Price
Assemblyman Jerry Claborn
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst
Margaret Judge, Recording Committee Secretary
N. Jolene Jones Miley, Transcribing Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mary Walker, Lobbyist, Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects
Vern Krahn, President, Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects
Michelle Tibbels-Stewart, Executive Director, Nevada State Board of Landscape Architecture
Cecilia Schafler, President, Southern Nevada Chapter, American Society of Landscape Architects
Danny Thompson, Secretary/Treasurer, Northern Nevada AFL/CIO
John Jeffrey, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council
Mark Ladouceur, Member, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Edward Goodrich, Member, Stagehands Local 363
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America
Stephanie Tyler, Area Manager, External Affairs, Nevada Bell
Margaret McMillan, Director, Government Affairs, Sprint
Bill Anderson, Business Manager, Plumbers and Pipe Fitters United Association, Local 525
Phillip Campbell, Training Coordinator, Pipe Trades Joint Apprentice and Journeyman Training Committee, Southern Nevada
Richard Lisle, Lobbyist, Mechanical Contractors Association of Southern Nevada
Bob Barengo, Lobbyist, Nevada Board of Contractors
Chairman Dini called to order at 4:22 p.m. Following roll call, Chairman Dini stated that A.B. 304 would not be heard.
Assembly Bill 304: Limits amount of money that certain resident agents may receive as commission for countersigning policy of insurance. (BDR 57‑580)
Chairman Dini stated that A.B. 461 did not belong in the Commerce and Labor committee. He said that he had been requested to rerefer A.B. 461 to the Assembly Committee on Government Affairs.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO RE-REFER A.B. 461 TO THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS WITHOUT A HEARING.
MRS. GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini opened the hearing on A.B. 310.
Assembly Bill 310: Makes various changes to provisions governing landscape architects. (BDR 54-576)
Mary Walker, Lobbyist, representing the Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects, testified in support of A.B. 310. She introduced Vern Krahn, President, Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects, and Cecilia Schafler, President, Southern Nevada American Society of Landscape Architects. Ms. Walker stated the bill was lengthy because the intent was to conform and be consistent with other design professions. She said the landscape board took Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) where there was some question as it related to landscape architecture to craft A.B. 310. Ms. Walker said that A.B. 310 would change the professional standards for all Nevada licensed landscape architects; she said many of the changes were for clarification only. Ms. Walker stated other changes incorporated the current regulations into law for clarity and consistency with other design professionals. She noted the state of Nevada had a shortage of landscape architects and A.B. 310 would help in the resolution of that shortage by making testing requirements easier for new applicants. Ms. Walker stated many college graduates who majored in landscape architecture often chose to pursue a different career after college. A.B. 310 would entice new graduates to remain in the field by providing a career path and an intern program. A.B. 310 also allowed the new graduate to pay the fees for the intern program over a period of time in order to make the entrance into landscape architecture easier. Ms. Walker said there would be no fee increase in A.B. 310, but they would be establishing the landscape architect intern fee. That fee would be prorated to make it easier for applicants to participate in the intern program. Ms. Walker stated that some of the amendments would require board members to be actively engaged in the practice of landscape architecture and would need to be licensed. She said the amendments allowed for the removal of board members by the Governor for good cause. She said many of the NAC requirements that were being placed into Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) would include delineation of the qualifications for certification, examination and renewal. Chairman Dini asked if that was a common provision for that type of bill.
Vern Krahn, President, Nevada State Board of Landscape Architects, asked Chairman Dini if he was referring to the entire section or a particular section. Chairman Dini said he was referring to Section 16 of A.B. 310.
Michelle Tibbels-Stewart, Executive Director for the Nevada State Board of Landscape Architecture, responded to Chairman Dini, stating that Section 16 was added to A.B. 310 to bring it into line with other practicing professions such as the contractor’s and the engineer’s board. She said the language was taken directly from the NRS.
Mr. Krahn introduced letters supporting A.B. 310 (Exhibit C). He said the landscape board, had spoken with the faculty at University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) and Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) in Reno. He said both colleges supported the idea of establishing an intern or apprentice program. Mr. Krahn said that was the genesis of A.B. 310.
Mr. Beers asked what dangers A.B. 310 would protect the consumer from. Mr. Krahn replied the intent behind the original legislation was to protect health, safety and welfare of the consumer and worker. Mr. Krahn said that landscape architects must possess knowledge on structural loads, irrigation pressures and building codes. He said by knowing those things the public was protected.
Cecilia Schafler, President, Southern Nevada Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects (SNCASLA), she said the changes clarified and enhanced the statute. She said that graduates could take the exam administered by the State of Nevada Landscape Architect Board upon graduation and would immediately have the credentials for high paying positions. Chairman Dini asked if regular engineers had interns also. Ms. Schafler replied, “Yes.”
Mr. Krahn said that according to existing law, in order to practice the art of landscape architecture the board must certify a person as qualified and that they had met all the criteria for licensure. Mr. Krahn said with the proposed intern program, the candidate would be licensed to practice as a landscape intern only under the direct supervision of a registered landscape architect.
Ms. Buckley asked if under current law it was unlawful for a person to use the title of landscape architect without being licensed. Mr. Krahn replied, “Yes.” Ms. Buckley asked where in statute that was stated.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 310 and opened the hearing on S.B. 53.
Senate Bill 53: Repeals provisions establishing criminal penalties for certain acts in derogation of bank. (BDR 55-639)
Senator Care testified in support of S.B. 53, and said that the penalties for derogation of banks should be repealed. He said that in 1971 the Nevada Legislature recodified some statutes as they dealt with financial institutions. He said no one should be charged as a criminal for exercising his or her First Amendment rights. Senator Care stated that was the basis for S.B. 53, to repeal NRS 668.105 (Exhibit D). Senator Care submitted a memo for the record from L. Scott Walshaw, Commissioner, State of Nevada Financial Institutions Division (Exhibit E).
MR. HUMKE MOVED TO DO PASS S.B. 53.
MR. NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE.
Chairman Dini opened the hearing on A.B. 355.
Assembly Bill 355: Provides for establishment of minimum standards for education, training and certification of electricians. (BDR 53-714)
Assemblyman Price testified in support of A.B. 355 and said the prime purpose of A.B. 355 was to set up a procedure that would provide more safety to the citizens of Nevada as it related to construction and electrical areas. It was the intent of A.B. 355, to look at the initial electrical construction and the issuance of a license certifying a person as qualified to perform electrical work (Exhibit F).
Ms. Giunchigliani asked how A.B. 355 differed from past bills. Mr. Price responded that the purpose of A.B. 355 had not changed. He said he had not compared language; however, the purpose was the same.
Chairman Dini asked if electricians from out of state still had to report to the local unions and confirm they had completed and received their electrician rating for the unions. He also inquired about Section 7, which concerned suspension of licenses and certification as it related to the nonpayment of child support by the licensee.
Danny Thompson, Secretary/Treasurer, Northern Nevada AFL/CIO, testified that Section 7 of A.B. 355 was designed to require persons who were licensed to pay child support. He said that section is placed into any law that is proposed forcing the licensee to comply with NRS 425.520 to forfeit their license.
Mr. Nolan asked if A.B. 355 was the first attempt to define an electrician. John Jeffrey, Lobbyist for the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, responded “yes,” and said A.B. 355 made the licensing easier and would be covered by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). Mr. Jeffrey said any person working with electricity should be licensed. The intent of A.B. 355 pertained to new construction, not the maintenance of existing structures.
Danny Thompson referred to the document that was distributed to the committee (Exhibit F). He said California had passed a law requiring electricians be licensed in order to perform new construction. Mr. Thompson said that was viewed as a public safety issue because persons that could not get licensed in California would be traveling to Nevada for work because Nevada did not require a license for electricians.
Mr. Beers said that Section 3 was vague and he could not vote in favor of A.B. 355. He said that clarification was needed in what constituted appropriate training and testing. John Jeffrey said the training standards were the responsibility of DIR. He said the training standards for the apprenticeship program was also established by DIR. Mr. Jeffrey stated the two-thirds majority was required because of the required fee. He said that General Fund monies were not being requested to fund the program. He said the licensing fee should support the operation.
Ms. Buckley asked if the applications were public record. Mr. Jeffrey responded that he did not know.
Mark Ladouceur, Member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), testified in support A.B. 355 and said he had developed the exhibit for the committee (Exhibit F). He spoke from his prepared text. Mr. Ladouceur said that the IBEW was concerned because the unlicensed electricians who migrated to Nevada for work because they could not pass the test in another state would create a real health and safety issue for construction workers in this state. He said that 30 percent of the fires in Reno during 1999 were directly related to electrical deficiencies. Mr. Ladouceur responded that most consumers were not aware the electricians were not licensed. He said that the IBEW regulated themselves; however, the state had no licensing criteria or regulations. He said that A.B. 355 should not have any fiscal impact on the state as the fees charged for registration and licensing would fund the program.
Chairman Dini asked if DIR handled the money received from licensing and registration. Danny Thompson responded that DIR would be the agency that controlled the money. He said DIR was chosen because of their expertise on the electrical codes. Mr. Thompson stated that DIR had staff “in-house” that knew the codes and requirements needed for licensure.
Danny Thompson reiterated that A.B. 355 was intended to apply only to new construction. It was never the intent of A.B. 355 to include other groups of electricians outside the construction industry, i.e., theatrical electricians. However, he said there was an agreed amendment to A.B. 355 that would exclude those electricians that performed theatrical electrical work. Mr. Thompson said he would make that amendment available to the committee (Exhibit G).
Edward Goodrich, member Stagehands Local 363, supported A.B. 355.
Richard Daly, Lobbyist, Laborers International Union of North America, Local 169, testified in opposition to A.B. 355 as written. He said the language did not address the problems of unlicensed and unregistered electricians. Mr. Daley stated he would try to develop an amendment that all entities concerned could accept. He said he was concerned with Section 3 on page 2, which addressed the implementation of the programs for education and training. Mr. Daley said in the California law there was a board that governed the training and licensing of electricians. He continued, stating that laborers did not generally work with electrical contractors. He said if there was to be an amendment that addressed the laborers’ concern then his local could support the bill.
Stephanie Tyler, Area Manager, External Affairs, Nevada Bell, testified in regard to the language in A.B. 355. She said that Nevada Bell did not have any specific objections to A.B. 355 other than they would like to work with the sponsors regarding clarifying the language, specifically the language on page 1, line 14. She said Nevada Bell requested that telecommunication companies be included in A.B. 355.
Margaret McMillan, Director, Government Affairs, Sprint, testified in opposition to A.B. 355 and said that Sprint requested they be excluded, as other utilities would be.
Chairman Dini appointed Assemblymen Oceguera, Nolan and Goldwater to form a subcommittee with Assemblyman Oceguera to serve as chairman. Chairman Dini gave the subcommittee an eight-day time limit to complete their study.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 355, and opened the hearing on A.B. 379.
Assembly Bill 379: Provides for establishment of minimum standards for education, training and certification of plumbers. (BDR 53-1154)
Mr. Jerry Claborn, Assemblyman, District 19, said he brought A.B. 379 before the committee at the request of the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters United Association. Mr. Claborn said A.B. 379 was a very complicated piece of legislation. He stated that there were experts present to answer questions from the committee.
Bill Anderson, Business Manager, representing the Plumbers and Pipe Fitters United Association, Local 525, Las Vegas, testified in support of A.B. 379. He said A.B. 379 was directed toward safety and health as illustrated in the handout given to the committee (Exhibit H). He referred to the photographs in the handout stating Richard George Franklin, Licensed General Contractor in Nevada, made them available to the committee. Mr. Franklin’s contact information was on page 1 of the handout. Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Franklin had indicated to him that he would be happy to respond to any questions from the committee concerning his photographs of the home inspections depicted in the photographs. Mr. Franklin was not present at the hearing. Mr. Anderson continued his testimony from prepared text. He said A.B. 379 was not a union or nonunion issue; he said it was a safety issue. Mr. Anderson stated A.B. 379 prohibited no person from taking the plumbing licensure test. If a candidate could pass the code test they could still receive their plumbing license, membership in a union would not be a factor in the licensing process.
Mr. Beers said that he was concerned because A.B. 379 did not spell out specifics in the testing procedures for licensure. Danny Thompson responded that DIR had the expertise to determine what testing procedures would be appropriate for testing and licensing, and that knowledge of building and plumbing codes would be a large part of the testing procedures.
John Jeffrey said he could understand Mr. Beers’ reluctance, but he asked Mr. Beers to keep in mind that the procedures would be adopted through regulation with public hearings and workshops. Mr. Jeffrey stated that it would be an impossible task to place all standards into statute.
Mr. Hettrick said he was concerned about the rural areas. He asked how often would these trainings take place in the rural areas. Mr. Jeffrey stated that DIR has representation in most Nevada counties. He said that DIR would determine how the testing would proceed. Mr. Hettrick stated he did not think it was the function of the DIR to proctor tests. He said he would like clarification inserted into A.B. 379 as it pertained to test schedules to include rural counties.
Chairman Dini asked if the licensure would extend to licensed contractors. Mr. Jeffrey responded that he believed it depended on the county where the work was being done. He said he did not know if the rural counties required a license.
Phillip Campbell, Training Coordinator, representing the Pipe Trades Joint Apprentice and Journeymen Training Committee for Southern Nevada. Mr. Campbell stated that the contractor that received his license would have taken the plumbing test and the contractor’s portion of the test. He said it was the journeyman licenses that were not being addressed, and A.B. 379 would remedy that.
Mr. Nolan asked what the national acceptable levels of training were. He asked if the committee could reference those standards in A.B. 379. Mr. Campbell said, “Yes.” He said there were four plumbing programs with training standards in existence both union and nonunion. He said the state of Nevada followed the Uniform Plumbing Code as published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials. Mr. Nolan asked if the standards that Mr. Campbell had referenced mirrored each other. Mr. Campbell said, “Yes.”
Mr. Beers stated that if there was a national plumbing code that a plumber must know to become licensed, there must be a national examination that could be worked into A.B. 379 that would address his concerns. Mr. Campbell said that could be done.
Richard Lisle, Lobbyist, representing Mechanical Contractors Association of Southern Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 379.
Richard Daly testified against A.B. 379. He said that A.B. 379 failed to define what constituted plumbing work. He said that laborers had been laying pipe for years. He also said that it had been a jurisdictional dispute since 1903. Mr. Daly said that A.B. 379 was just the extension of that jurisdictional dispute. He said the safety and health issues that were alluded to in previous testimony did not exist. He said that General Engineering Contractors did not use plumbers to lay pipe, they used laborers. Mr. Daly stated it was purely an economic issue because of the pay difference between plumbers and laborers. Mr. Daly stated that it was not the work performed inside a building but the work performed outside the building that was in dispute.
Bob Barengo, Lobbyist, representing the Nevada Board of Contractors, addressed Section 7 of A.B. 379, which states the Contractors’ Board cannot issue a license unless the individual board member or members holds certificates as plumbers.
Chairman Dini closed the hearing on A.B. 379 and assigned the bill to the subcommittee on A.B. 355.
Senate Bill 45: Provides remedy for dilution of marks. (BDR 52-256)
Chairman Dini asked if there was any person present to testify to S.B. 45. There being no persons present to testify on S.B. 45, the bill was placed in the committee file. Chairman Dini closed the hearing on S.B. 45.
Chairman Dini opened the hearing on A.B. 290.
ASSEMBLY BILL 290: Revises provisions relating to osteopathic medicine. (BDR 54-570)
Chairman Dini stated that A.B. 290 simply brought up to date the statute that pertained to osteopathic medicine.
MR. PARKS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 290.
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
********
MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO DO PASS ON A.B. 310.
MR. HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Dini adjourned the meeting at 6:03 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
N. Jolene Jones Miley
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Joe Dini, Jr., Chairman
DATE: