MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
May 15, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 7:30 a.m. on Tuesday, May 15, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and by videoconference to Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, Las Vegas, NV. 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. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark Senate District 5
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Scott Rasmussen, Nevada Subcontractors’ Association
Scott Craigie, Southern Nevada Subcontractors’ Association and
Farmer’s Insurance
Dick Peck, subcontractor
Russell Rowe, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada
Maddie Fischer, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada
Doreen Coddington, Nevada Subcontractors’ Association
Margi Grein, Nevada State Contractors’ Board
Dennis Haney, Counsel for the Nevada State Contractors’ Board
Ron Lynn, Clark County Building Department, Nevada Organization
of Building Officials
Chairman Anderson called the meeting to order at 8:23 a.m. A quorum was present. The Chair informed the committee of a bill draft request for committee introduction. He noted it was nicknamed the “Reviser’s Bill.”
VICE CHAIR MANENDO MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR S-1071.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. ASSEMBLYMAN BROWER AND ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
The Chair opened the hearing on S.B. 83.
Senate Bill 83: Changes homestead exemption from exemption based on equity to an exemption based on acreage and provides that homestead exemption extends to certain liens pertaining to common-interest communities and condominiums. (BDR 10-4)
Senator Ann O’Connell, Clark County Senatorial District 5, testified the intent of the original bill was to simply raise the homestead exemption from $125,000 to $160,000. The First Reprint of S.B. 83 changed the language to add the major portions of the bill currently before the committee. The Second Reprint of S.B. 83 added homeowners’ associations to the Homestead Act.
Senator O’Connell stated she was not a part of the discussions that determined current language in the bill. The current form of the bill did not set a specified amount on the exemption. The total value of a home filed under the Homestead Act would be allowed as an exemption. She noted several states had adopted a similar approach. Texas had provided a homestead exemption based on the amount of acreage. The Texas Constitution specified a rural area, not encompassing a town or city, was limited to not more than 200 acres of land and in a city, town, or village, a homestead was limited to not more than 10 acres of land.
S.B. 83 limited the exemption to one acre of land. Other states with similar exemptions included:
Sections 2 and 3 of S.B. 83 defined everything included in the homestead exemption. Section 4 gave the county assessor the final authority of determining if a property fell under the agricultural chapter. Section 5 repealed the old definition of homestead. Section 6 related to the acreage limitation of 1 acre or not to exceed 159 acres. Sections 7, 8, and 9 referenced the various sections of law requiring change to allow the exemption. Section 10 related to the Federal Fair Labor Standards, the federal law that recognized state homestead law acts in cases of bankruptcy.
Senator O’Connell recapped S.B. 83 and stated it allowed a home to be totally protected from the law in the case of any outside indebtedness, with the exception of mortgage obligations.
Chairman Anderson asked if the filing of a homestead exemption was limited to only one piece of property. Senator O’Connell replied the law limited the filing to that of the primary residence. The Chair clarified if a person owned a home in Carson City and a condominium in Lake Tahoe, they could only make a homestead exemption claim on the Carson City property, even though the other property might hold a greater value. Senator O’Connell concurred.
Chairman Anderson asked who made the determination of a homestead exemption in the case of agricultural land. Senator O’Connell replied the county assessor had final authority for determining if property qualified for the exemption and which property qualified as a primary residence. She stated it was specified in Section 4 of the bill.
Chairman Anderson asked for clarification that the exemption applied up to $125,000 of limited equity. Senator O’Connell replied that was specified under the old law, and the bill removed any specific dollar amount from consideration.
Assemblyman Carpenter referred to page 3, lines 3 and 4 of S.B. 83, which stated, “does not extend to any buildings, structures, or other improvements other than the dwelling and its appurtenances.” He asked if the land was agricultural property, should the exemption include a barn and other out buildings. Senator O’Connell explained appurtenances were defined as anything that could not be moved; so a barn would be included. The same would apply to a block wall or a concrete patio.
Chairman Anderson asked if properties that were currently covered by a homestead exemption would have to refile for their exemption. Senator O’Connell replied once a property was homesteaded, it remained in effect until the home was no longer in the name of the person who had filed the exemption.
Chairman Anderson asked what happened in the case of agricultural property currently covered by a homestead exemption that as increasingly engulfed by urban sprawl. Would that cause the homeowner to lose the homestead status? Senator O’Connell responded she assumed if the property shrunk, so would the homestead claim. The Chair noted in Sparks, there had been a gentleman who owned a piece of agricultural land for many years, and the city was developed around his land. He continued to hold onto his property, but after his death, the land was sold. Senator O’Connell deferred to one of the attorneys present.
Assemblyman Collins noted S.B. 83 limited land size to one acre. He pointed out many of the custom-built homes in southern Nevada were on 2.5-acre parcels. He asked how that land would be assessed if an action was taken against the Homestead Act. Senator O’Connell replied she did not have the answer. She surmised if the assessor restricted the homestead to one acre, it would seem the remainder could not be homesteaded.
Mr. Collins explained in one area of North Las Vegas, Decatur Boulevard was reduced from a width of 120 feet to 100 feet so all of the people whose adjacent property was just under one acre gained enough to allow them to own land of just over one acre. As a result, it allowed them to qualify for a homestead exemption. Senator O’Connell replied she did not have the answer but would ascertain the answer for the committee.
Assemblywoman Buckley stated one reason there had always been a dollar limit on homestead exemptions was to deter creditors from taking a person’s home away. She noted increases in the dollar amount were common based on fair market values; however, the intent was that a protected primary residence was expected to be modestly priced. She noted in the O.J. Simpson case, he had been sued, and his creditors had a lien judgment in their favor resulting in Mr. Simpson having to sell his $3 to 5 million estate. She asked, in a case like that, was the purpose of the homestead exemption not to shield $3 to 5 million of assets in their home and she asked if that issue was deliberated in the Senate.
Senator O’Connell replied her initial request for S.B. 83 had been to raise the homestead amount from the current $125,000 to $160,000. None of the questions raised in the Assembly had been brought forward in the Senate. She stated the Senate Chairman had asked what other states were doing in the area of homestead exemptions, and that whole deliberation had taken place without her involvement. She concurred with Ms. Buckley’s assessment of the public policy in Nevada concerning homestead exemptions.
Assemblyman Nolan stated he had built a home on a one-half-acre lot, and there was a gap between the time of occupancy and the point when all debts to the contractors and subcontractors were honored. He asked if, in the case of the larger custom homes, S.B. 83 would provide a financial shelter for some people. He asked, if someone took occupancy of a home and then immediately filed for a homestead exemption, would the builders have to file liens for nonpayment of their contracts or would they no longer be able to file a lien against the property. Senator O’Connell replied it was her understanding that any indebtedness outside of the home could not be attached; thus, if payments had not been made on the home, they would not be exempt under the bill.
Assemblywoman Angle asked if S.B. 83 would exempt the payment of property taxes on a home. She commented some people in their senior years paid off their homes, only to find they could not afford the property tax payments. Senator O’Connell reiterated it was her understanding that indebtedness on the home would not fall under the homestead exemption. There was no protection to avoid payment of a debt owed on the home, including the Internal Revenue Service.
Chairman Anderson noted the issue was covered in existing statute on page 3, Section 6, subsection 3 of the bill. “Any mortgage, deed of trust, any lien to which prior consent had been given through acceptance of property . . .” Senator O’Connell stated when she had requested the bill at the end of the 1999 Legislative Session, she had requested the homestead exemption be raised from $125,000 to $135,000. By the time S.B. 83 was drafted, the average cost of a home had inflated to $160,000.
Assemblyman Claborn noted Senator O’Connell had testified the bill only applied to the permanent residence. He asked if the bill language should be changed to “your domicile.” He explained at one time he had a situation where he had to deal with neighboring states regarding the difference between “residence” and “domicile.” Chairman Anderson responded the question was better directed to a bill drafter.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked if S.B. 83, in any way, would affect indebtedness, not in the form of a second mortgage for home improvements. She gave the example of someone who purchased a new air conditioner for the home with a credit card and the air conditioner subsequently became an attachment to the home. Senator O’Connell replied she assumed the situation would not be covered under the homestead exemption. The Chair noted it would likely depend upon whether the house was used as collateral for the air conditioner.
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 83 and opened the hearing on S.B. 516.
Senate Bill 516: Requires affidavit in support of action for professional negligence against certain design professionals. (BDR 3-1452)
Mr. Scott Rasmussen, Nevada Subcontractors’ Association stated his association was the primary force behind the bill, and he commenced testimony in support of S.B. 516.
Chairman Anderson asked if the exhibit labeled “Scott Canepa” was being presented by Mr. Rasmussen. Mr. Rasmussen stated a number of exhibits had been submitted for the committee to review.
Mr. Scott Craigie, representing the Southern Nevada Subcontractors’ Association and Farmer’s Insurance, offered to clarify. He stated the exhibit, “Scott Canepa” (Exhibit C), was submitted by Mr. Craigie and Mr. Rasmussen. The Chair confirmed there were four additional documents from the witnesses.
Mr. Rasmussen began his presentation of the bill. On page 2 of S.B. 516, Sections 1 through 6 added definitions to Chapter 40 of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). The codified definitions were needed for clarity, and it was noted they also affected NRS Chapter 624, which pertained to the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. At the request of the Executive Director of the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, Mr. Rasmussen read NRS Chapter 624 in its entirety to illustrate the plight of the Board. Mr. Rasmussen requested Sections 7 and 8 of S.B. 516 be removed, and he provided proposed amendment language to the bill (Exhibit D). He stated the amendment reduced the role of the Nevada State Contractors’ Board down to the “bare bones,” including the issue of their funding.
Mr. Craigie explained, after testimony in a previous hearing from both sides of the issue, the subcontractors had tried to craft a system that would clearly ensure that notice would be made to all necessary parties. He emphasized the bottom line of the whole process would be to give homeowners an opportunity to have the home assessed to determine if deficiencies existed or parts of the workmanship did not meet the building code. An independent entity would provide the evaluation. In no way was the process intended to limit the ability of a homeowner to petition the courts for redress. The amendment was drafted to be neither a hearing nor an adjudicatory process at the administrative level. It was modeled after the process used by the Consumer Division of the Public Utility Commission. The Division consisted of professionals who knew the system well, and it provided a place for consumers to find answers to their questions on complicated utility matters.
Mr. Craigie noted, in the case of a construction defect, the work might begin with an attorney having an expert assess the home and provide guidance to the homeowner. S.B. 516 was designed to establish a quick and straightforward system for those cases. He reviewed the process for the committee, noting that the timelines were specified in the bill. The operational process included, in order:
1. Before a claimant could commence any action they must provide a written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the contractor’s last known address as listed in the records of the Nevada State Contractors’ Board.
2. The notice shall describe the defect in some detail and if an expert opinion was involved, then all written opinions of the experts must be sent to the contractor.
3. The contractor was required within five days to take the entire package to the Contractors’ Board.
4. Every subcontractor, design professional, and supplier who was reasonably known to be responsible for the workmanship alleged to be defective was to be given written notice. The contractor was responsible to send a notice to each of those entities. Additionally, a copy of the list of subcontractors would be sent to the Contractors’ Board.
5. The Nevada State Contractors’ Board would assign an investigator to the claim. The investigator would be someone on staff at the Board with the responsibility and the training to determine whether work being done was up to the building code. Mr. Craigie noted that portion of S.B. 516 would have an impact on The Executive Budget.
5(a). The person was assigned.
5(b). A concurrent inspection by local government building departments. That would also have an effect on The Executive Budget. Constructional defects that included variances from locally adopted construction codes and standards would be inspected. Any finding by building department officials shall be submitted to the Nevada State Contractors’ Board.
5(c). The Nevada State Contractors’ Board informed all the people involved in the construction work, in detail, what the findings were.
5(d). The contractor must officially notify the claimant and the Nevada State Contractors’ Board within 10 days if it will move forward with repair of each workmanship issue.
Mr. Craigie stated that was an overview of the operational process defined in the amendment (Exhibit D).
Chairman Anderson commented the Public Utilities Commission seemed to have a somewhat different role than that proposed for the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. The Commission was more of a “rate setter” and established the parameter and delivery of a product from utility corporations on a regular basis. He asked if the Nevada State Contractors’ Board had the same day-to-day contact with each of its contractors. Mr. Craigie replied, in terms of workmanship issues, that was their primary responsibility. He added the building inspectors from the municipalities were a double-check to the state system.
Chairman Anderson stated he was under the impression that the Nevada State Contractors’ Board took the application of a contractor, examined his suitability for the profession, examined his professional credentials, and made sure he had the expertise and financial backing to go into business. Once a license was issued, there was no further review unless a complaint was made. Mr. Rasmussen replied the Nevada State Contractors’ Board had two purposes. They had oversight of all contractors in the state, and they were a consumer protection organization designed to protect homeowners from bad workmanship. He explained the amendment dealt with those issues, and it only required an investigator who would typically handle any complaints under current law.
Chairman Anderson said he viewed the Nevada State Contractors’ Board as similar to other kinds of professional boards that had oversight for a variety of licenses to ensure a profession and those who practiced it met certain criteria. Mr. Rasmussen stated it was his understanding that the Board had completed 5,000 home inspections in the past two years.
Mr. Craigie testified the amendment to S.B. 516 would expand the responsibilities of the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. The bill sponsors had selected a group of people who had actual on-the-job experience and expertise to establish the new program, and they performed as the administrative hub of the preliminary program.
He stated it was important to note that the cost of insurance for contractors and subcontractors, given the current litigation and availability of insurance, was somewhat threatened without the legislation. He considered the bill as a response to a state emergency. Early in the process the sponsors had tried to propose a reasonable process utilizing an appropriately selected government agency to serve as an “umpire” and to help subcontractors get the right to repair unsatisfactory work.
Chairman Anderson questioned the validity of making a comparison between the Public Utilities Commission, responsible for four or five electrical suppliers, two railroads, and five or six telephone providers in the state, and the Nevada State Contractors’ Board with numerous contractors. Mr. Craigie stated whenever a professional oversight was to be provided by government, there were certain procedural responsibilities. He had used the example of the Public Utilities Commission because their processes were not taken to a hearings level or adjudicated. The responsibilities were more administrative, serving as a clearinghouse and a point of primary review. He noted S.B. 516 provided for the Nevada State Contractors’ Board to adopt regulations.
Chairman Anderson stated he had been an advocate of licensing for local jurisdiction home inspectors. He asked if the Nevada State Contractors’ Board would establish a fitness test for home inspectors at the municipal and county levels to assure their rules and regulations would be followed. He asked if the local inspectors would be at the job sites on a day-to-day basis and if the contractors would also be present to assure payment for those inspectors. Mr. Rasmussen replied there were four or five inspections required under current law during the building process of a home. Permit fees were utilized with the hope of having a home constructed “right” the first time. S.B. 516 addressed the next step, specifically when someone said a home was not built “right” the first time. The intent was to have a building inspector go to the site to see if the work fell below Nevada standards and to allow the work to be corrected.
Chairman Anderson asked if the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, mentioned in S.B. 516, would assure that the local building inspector had a certain level of expertise and was knowledgeable about more than the local building code and the slump size of the concrete, for an example. Mr. Rasmussen replied under the current form of NRS 624 there were requirements and qualifications listed for all the inspectors used by the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. Additionally, local building departments had trained inspectors who had expertise and knowledge in every one of the fields for which they inspected. The same inspectors would perform the ongoing inspections during construction, and they would return if a claim of a construction defect was filed.
Chairman Anderson asked for assurance that the inspectors would be required to meet national criteria. Mr. Rasmussen replied whatever qualifications were currently necessary for a building inspector under current law would be the same under S.B. 516. The Chair commented that meant the inspectors would not meet the national testing standards.
Mr. Craigie stated it was important to note that the decision of the building inspector would not impede the ability of the homeowner to file a lawsuit with the court. The bill provided an opportunity for a homeowner, who truly wanted nothing more than to have his home repaired, to have an independent person review his case with a level of expertise that was trusted. He added if anyone still had a disagreement, the homeowner still retained the right to move forward with a lawsuit. The intent of S.B. 516 was to establish a process to allow contractors and subcontractors an opportunity to get their repair work done.
Mr. Craigie stated the proposal was not dissimilar to that of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in terms of regulations and workers’ compensation. He added there were imperfections in every review system; however, providing a consumer a place to go with a complaint inside state government was the only method free of massive cost.
Assemblyman Collins stated he agreed a procedure was needed and noted he was a subcontractor and had never been sued. He recalled a situation where a person called him regarding a power outage on a well. He had received the call the previous week, and upon inspection at that time, he noted the well contractor had dug into the wiring for the well. He stated if he had to first notify the Nevada State Contractors’ Board within five days, it would seem to slow down the process, because he would have a complaint listed against him with the Board, and it would take longer. Previously, he could go to the homeowner and review the defect or solve the problem. He commented most subcontractors followed up on construction defect complaints. Mr. Collins referred to Exhibit C and asked if those were contractors’ names and, if so, there were some on the list for whom he would not work. Mr. Craigie replied the list was that of attorneys who were handling some of the construction defect cases currently before district courts.
Mr. Craigie stated the “notice requirement” in S.B. 516 pertained to the general contractor. There was a difference between the situation where work that was covered by warranty and cases of consumers who were preparing to go forward with a lawsuit. If a request received from a homeowner had the potential for a lawsuit, based on all the information Mr. Craigie had heard, it would behoove Mr. Collins to provide the information to the general contractor and follow the process established by the bill so that he had an opportunity of avoiding a lawsuit. Good communication would have saved a lot of heartache on the part of the homeowner and all parties from the construction industry.
Mr. Collins asked if S.B. 516 would actually put the subcontractors through more hoops than were necessary. Mr. Craigie suggested Mr. Collins speak with some of his clients and homeowners who were practical, hardworking, good people. He emphasized some of their stories were horrific.
Mr. Rasmussen stated Mr. Collins was fortunate to have been able to resolve the situation easily for his customers. In most cases, there was no subcontractor list provided to homeowners so here was no way for the homeowner to contact the subcontractor directly. S.B. 516 addressed communication between the builder, the developer, and the homeowner. An example was in Section 4 where the subcontractors were to be notified concerning defects. Under current law there was no way for a subcontractor to know anything about a problem until a lawsuit was filed. By that time the subcontractor stood to lose his insurance.
Mr. Rasmussen indicated that currently the first time a subcontractor heard about a problem was when a lawsuit was filed, tests were done, and inspections were completed. It was then the subcontractor learned of a defect complaint.
Assemblywoman Buckley stated she understood the concerns being expressed and supported a right to repair. She agreed one of the problems identified was that of the homeowner not knowing the names of all the subcontractors, making it impossible to reach them. Also, homeowners did not have the right to sue subcontractors because the contract they signed was with the contractor.
Ms. Buckley noted she had concerns about the Nevada State Contractors’ Board being any part of the solution. She opined the Nevada State Contractors’ Board had been extremely ineffective until the last two years. Due to a change in leadership and statutory improvements, as well as a great deal of work by the legislature, the Board was finally doing its job. She added it would seem to be a step backward to reward those efforts by adding a new responsibility and placing them as a “middle man” between the homeowner and the “courthouse steps.”
Mr. Rasmussen replied S.B. 516 only required an investigation. The Board would only have to determine if a defect was a workmanship issue only or state it was a maintenance issue in favor of the subcontractor or contractor. They did not have to review codes or constructional defects. Section 9 of the bill also impacted the Board through an inspection after the repair had been made. They would simply determine if the workmanship was good or if only a “band aid” fix had been made and the homeowner had a right to sue. He stressed there was no hearing and no formal decision to be made. The bill would provide timelines to ensure work was done quickly and the homeowner was made whole as rapidly as possible.
Mr. Craigie stated the work that the Nevada State Contractors’ Board did in the proposed system would be nearly identical to the work they were already performing when a consumer complaint was received. He concurred with Ms. Buckley regarding the improvements in the Board. He noted, under the bill, a complaint would be received and an inspector would inspect the work. They might find patterns of poor workmanship and might decide to have a follow up conference with the subcontractor who performed the work. Mr. Craigie stressed the proponents of the bill had tried to parallel as closely as possible, the practical workload of the current Board.
Ms. Buckley stated currently, if a consumer wanted to file a complaint with the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, it was a voluntary issue. That was in contrast to the mandatory action proposed under S.B. 516. Secondly, testimony indicated nothing would be very different than what the Board was currently doing. In those cases, where the Board could currently spend time putting bad contractors out-of-business, the Board instead would be involved in “fights” between contractors, subcontractors, and angry homeowners. Lastly, testimony had revealed the bill only required an inspection, similar to current practices; however, the investigation as outlined in page 3, paragraph 9(c) of the amendment (Exhibit D) stated the Board would perform an investigation and the results of that investigation determined someone’s legal remedies.
Ms. Buckley contended if the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, for some reason, turned “bad” again, someone’s legal remedies would be determined by a court-appointed board instead of a trial-by-jury. She opined that seemed to deviate from the good parts of the issue, namely the right to repair and the right of subcontractors to know early in the process when a complaint was made.
Mr. Craigie replied Exhibit D, page, 3, paragraph 9(c) and 9(d) did provide for some practical result of a decision by the Board inspector. Under 9(c) the legal remedies were not changed. It did provide that if a claimant went forward with legal proceedings and then lost, the court costs would not be required from the contractor. Paragraph 9(d) stated nothing in the bill prevented a claimant from pursuing legal remedy for his construction defect.
Mr. Rasmussen added that Section 9 only pertained to repaired work. If it was something the contractor or subcontractor never fixed, the homeowner still had a legal remedy, even if the inspector concurred with the contractor or subcontractor that the work was properly done. If a jury also agreed with the contractors and the inspector, it would be the only time the homeowner was required to pay court costs.
Assemblyman Brower stated Ms. Buckley raised a good point. He added in his reading of S.B. 516 and the amendment, the Board investigator’s opinion meant nothing, unless under paragraph 9(c), a jury agreed with the conclusion. In that case, it would be the only time there would be an adverse effect on the homeowner. Mr. Rasmussen concurred. Mr. Brower suggested the wording might need to be clarified.
Chairman Anderson asked if the provision would have a “chiller” effect on the homeowner to pursue a lawsuit. He explained the homeowner took a risk of being ruled against and subsequently being required to pay all court costs. Mr. Rasmussen replied the Nevada State Contractors’ Board were experts in its field. The inspectors met certain standards, and the next step was a jury, people who were not experts but agreed with the experts stating the repair was good.
The Chairman asked if there was a similar quid pro quo for the contractor if a lawsuit was carried forward which mandated that all those costs would be covered if the lawsuit was ruled in favor of the claimant. Mr. Rasmussen replied NRS 40.655 guaranteed every claimant who brought a lawsuit had certain remedies available including; the cost of repair, attorney fees, expert fees, and costs.
The contractor paid those costs. The Chair asked if payment of the fees was at judicial discretion. Mr. Rasmussen responded that was currently in law.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the Nevada State Contractors’ Board was required to be involved in every defect resolution. Mr. Craigie replied, if a lawsuit was being considered, the contractor would need to be notified and subsequently give the subcontractors the opportunity to repair. Mr. Carpenter asked for assurance that there was nothing to prevent the homeowner from going directly to a contractor with a defect and requesting repairs be made. Mr. Craigie provided there was a requirement for a written notice. He went on to say that in the subdivision where he lived, all the contractors and subcontractors were still working on the subdivision when he moved in. Even after the warranty he could talk to the contractor and get the problem worked out. He stressed, if a lawsuit was being planned, the first notice requirement would come into effect.
Chairman Anderson referred to page 11 of S.B. 516, Section 26 where it authorized attorney fees to be awarded, and provided a “spelled out” list of the damages claimed. He noted the language did not mandate those provisions. On page 12 of the bill, the court must approve the amount of any attorney fees awarded pursuant to the section. Mr. Rasmussen replied, in his experience from practice in that area of law, those “Chapter 40 damages” were generally awarded.
Mr. Craigie asked permission to review the remainder of Exhibit D. Chairman Anderson stated he could complete the review if it pertained to the interaction with the Nevada State Contractors’ Board.
Mr. Craigie stated paragraph 7, on page 2, Exhibit D required the same contractor or subcontractor who performed the defective workmanship to be used to effect the repairs. It was reasoned that the person who was a subcontractor or design professional would be the person who would otherwise be drawn into a lawsuit, and therefore, would be the most motivated to complete the repair properly. In some cases, general contractors failed to return to the subcontractor who performed the original work and the repair might fail. As a result, the lawyer, the insurance agent, and the contractor were in the office trying to find a way out of a bad situation.
Paragraph 12 of Exhibit D dealt with the issue of the fiscal impact on the Nevada State Contractors’ Board and on local governments. The Board inspectors and the local building inspectors would be asked to perform additional duties. The paragraph provided that the contractor would be responsible prior to the inspection for payment of a $200 home inspection fee to the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. It would provide a direct revenue stream for the additional work to be provided. The contractor would be responsible for paying a permit fee to the local government or municipality building department for inspecting the clients’ home. The contractor would receive reimbursement for all inspection fees from the subcontractor, so that the contractor could contact the entity that had performed the work. Mr. Craigie exclaimed the proponents of S.B. 516 had tried very hard to find a way to pay for the requirements of the bill.
Chairman Anderson provided a scenario of a new homeowner who loved his new home and the location. It met all his desires; however, once he moved in, he found several problems. The homeowner approached the contractor and reported, “the garage door sticks and won’t come up because the concrete pad was poured improperly and snow kept flying under the door.” The gutters did not drain properly”. He continued to bring all the problems to the attention of the contractor. The contractor came out and fixed the gutters and concrete pad, and straightened out the garage door; however, two other repairs simply did not get done. Chairman Anderson asked what happened if the homeowner approached the contractor again and said the items had not been repaired, and the contractor’s reply was that he was working on the items. More time passed; and by that time, the homeowner was dissatisfied. Would it be at that point the homeowner had an obligation to send by certified mail a notice of intent? It should be noted it would take three days for the mail to reach the contractor. At that point the contractor would have the obligation to send the description of the problems, statements by any experts who had inspected the defects, and add a list of the subcontractors who were involved. The contractor would have five days to mail a notice to the Nevada State Contractors’ Board (probably certified mail). By then eight days had passed. The Nevada State Contractors’ Board would have 15 days to ensure the inspection was done.
Mr. Rasmussen stated the homeowner would send the written notice to the contractor, who then had 5 days to send the required information to the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. In turn, the Board had 15 days to determine what subcontractors were involved and notify them of the problems. The State Contractor’s Board had 15 days to conduct the inspection. Mr. Rasmussen and the Chair agreed that total elapsed time, at that point, would be approximately three weeks.
Chairman Anderson asked how long it would be before the contractor would be required to repair the defect. Mr. Rasmussen replied the written response from the Nevada State Contractors’ Board would be expected within 15 days for a total of 30 days. The Chair asked if S.B. 516 referred to calendar days or work days. Mr. Rasmussen replied the reference was to calendar days. The contractor would have 60 days to make the repairs, because the contractor would not be the one actually performing the work; rather, it would be the original subcontractor. The Chair asked what the total time frame for the homeowner would be, prior to repairs being made. Mr. Rasmussen replied the total time elapsed would be 90 days.
Mr. Rasmussen reminded the committee that another bill passed by the committee allowed 90 days for complex home repairs. The Chair noted the repairs in the example he had cited were not complex matters. Mr. Rasmussen stated the other bill had allowed 45 days for simple repairs so S.B. 516 would extend the time frame by 15 days. The Chair noted the extension was made necessary by involvement of the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. Mr. Rasmussen replied the Board’s involvement accounted for 30 days of the total time frame.
Mr. Craigie stated homeowners or subdivisions that were launched into the legal process of a lawsuit would be looking at three years for completion of a repair process. He added many people in such cases were stuck in that three-year time element and could not sell their homes.
The bill added to the time frame at the front end of the process, but it would still be preferable to a three-year wait. Significant numbers of homeowners were involved in severe expense. If they had a good system at the front end of the process, whether it was that provided in the bill or not, it could have saved a great deal of time and aggravation.
Chairman Anderson stated the contractor and the subcontractor could conceivably be caught up in a construction defect for each home they had built in a specific subdivision, and none of the issues might be complex in nature. He asked if the total number of buildings involved would escalate simple repairs to a complex level and timeframe structure. He asked if the bill would send the homeowner to his lawyer immediately, instead of simply calling his contractor or subcontractor to ask them to make the repairs. Mr. Rasmussen stated some date had to be specified, so proponents had settled on 60 days. In the drafting of S.B. 516 there was no distinction made between simple and complex repairs. He noted it was 15 days longer than the time frame established in the other bill, but was 30 less than established in the other bill for complex repairs.
Vice Chair Manendo called attention to the fiscal note addressed by inspection and permit fees in S.B. 516, yet the bill had not been sent through the Finance Committee. He asked if the $200 fee would cover all fees incurred by the Nevada State Contractors’ Board. He noted the fiscal note was fairly substantial. Mr. Craigie replied Exhibit D provided for a fee that would pay for each action; $200 for the inspection. He opined that was a reasonable amount, although it might not pass the money committees because they might suggest it was either too much or too little, but it was a reasonable starting point. The permit fees on the local government level were already based on the costs of the local person who would be involved. He agreed the bill had not been presented to the Senate Finance Committee, but review would be required before final passage of the bill.
Chairman Anderson questioned if the burden was going to local government through fees already paid for building permits. He asked, if more inspectors would be required, could the public expect the cost of housing to increase. Mr. Craigie responded that the crafting of the amendment would cover costs of any additional staff required, and that was the intent of the provisions. He added the costs provided in the bill paled alongside the costs currently being paid by a subcontractor to work through a lawsuit.
Chairman Anderson asked if the costs would not be passed onto the consumers when a home was built. Mr. Craigie replied the skyrocketing cost of insurance for contractors was already driving up home costs in every city in the state.
Assemblyman Brower clarified in the context of disputes, whether repairs were complex or simple, 90 days would not be a long time frame. He stated the timing was really within the homeowner’s control. If a homeowner wanted to informally negotiate with his contractor over several months, he could. Upon the first call to the contractor that resulted in no satisfaction, the homeowner could send the certified letter at that point and start the process as well. Mr. Rasmussen replied that was absolutely correct.
Chairman Anderson stated that would seem to break the bond with the homeowner. A homeowner should be able to go to the contractor or subcontractor and have a problem repaired. Pride of workmanship was involved. The contractors and subcontractors would return before the committees saying they did not have a right to repair because the homeowner filed on them immediately.
Chairman Anderson stated, in his view, there were three steps in the process. The homeowner would approach the contractor with the problem, and, if the problem was not repaired, the homeowner could begin the legal process. Mr. Rasmussen replied he had no problem with that. The proponents were only asking for a chance to make the repairs. The Chair exclaimed that was not the testimony he had just heard. He stressed what he had heard was that the homeowner could choose to approach the contractor or start the legal process.
Assemblyman Carpenter referred to Exhibit D, page 1, paragraph 5(a), “examine within 15 days after receiving a notice from the claimant.” He asked if the Nevada State Contractors’ Board would receive the notice from the contractor, not the claimant. Regardless, the exhibit specified inspection of each workmanship issue disclosed must be inspected within 15 days. That seemed to be a short period of time for inspectors to get all the claims inspected, especially in the rural areas. Mr. Rasmussen replied the Nevada State Contractors’ Board had jurisdiction over the entire state so their investigators could respond anywhere in the state within 15 days to make an inspection. Even if there were several workmanship issues in one home, all of them should be able to be inspected within one day.
Mr. Rasmussen mentioned a complex matter in which he was currently involved. Typically, it took no more than a week to do the initial destructive testing which included tearing down walls, looking in crawl spaces, and pulling out permanent walls. He noted S.B. 516 only requested an inspection of workmanship which could be readily seen. As such, he opined the maximum amount of time needed for a Nevada State Contractors’ Board inspector to make the inspection would be one day.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Craigie and Mr. Rasmussen to make their closing remarks on the bill. Mr. Rasmussen referred to Exhibit D, paragraph 11, which dealt with the statute of limitations issues of NRS Chapter 624. A four-year statute of limitation already existed and proponents cited a situation where a home was eight years old when it was purchased or before a problem surfaced. The intent was to ensure that the four-year statute of limitations would not become an obstacle for homeowners. Paragraph 11 also provided for a situation when an irate homeowner had been threatened or was already in a legal proceeding with the contractor. Paragraph 8 provided that, “any claimant who failed to allow a contractor, subcontractor, design professional or supplier to perform a repair shall be precluded from bringing a claim, pursuant to NRS 40.600, except as otherwise provided in Section 9 of this act.” If there was a determination that a repair was needed, the repair could be handled; however, under Section 9, if there had been a threat of violence or a contractor or a subcontractor committed any violent act, the homeowner could proceed directly to a lawsuit.
In S.B. 516, Section 11 mandated that each contractor provide each homebuyer with a list of every subcontractor who worked on his home, so that homeowners would know who to contact for specific repairs.
Assemblyman Brower asked for clarification on Exhibit D, paragraph 11. He stated S.B. 516 did not seem to tie to that portion of the exhibit. He stated, as he read the summary, there would be no statute of limitations for bringing a construction defect lawsuit provided the preliminary Nevada State Contractors’ Board inspection revealed a problem. Mr. Rasmussen concurred.
Mr. Brower continued that, if the preliminary inspection did not reveal a problem and if the statute of limitations had passed, the lawsuit would be barred. Mr. Rasmussen explained under NRS 624 the Nevada State Contractors’ Board had a four-year window to investigate complaints. The only intent was that, if a homeowner had a legitimate problem, and even if the home was six years old, the owner would still qualify to begin the process.
Mr. Rasmussen explained that NRS Chapter 11 allowed the following statutes of limitation:
Mr. Brower asked where that information was contained in the bill. Mr. Rasmussen referred Mr. Brower to S.B. 516, page 4, line 37, Section 11 which spoke to disclosures of subcontractors to every homeowner in the state at the time of purchase of the residence.
Mr. Brower asked if the statute of limitation information was contained in the bill. Mr. Rasmussen stated that language was contained in the amendment, (Exhibit D) in paragraph 11.
Chairman Anderson noted the amendment language in Exhibit D had been drafted for A.B. 133, which had already passed out of the committee. Mr. Craigie stated it had been his decision to submit the amendment language to have it pertain to S.B. 516.
Chairman Anderson asked if A.B. 133 had also contained a requirement for a list of subcontractors to be provided to new homeowners. Mr. Rasmussen replied affirmatively, noting the language had been added in the second reprint of that bill.
Mr. Rasmussen explained the history of the subcontractor list was that it had begun as a part of S.B. 516 and, upon review, it had been accepted in both Houses of the legislature.
Mr. Dick Peck, subcontractor, testified he had been a contractor for 39 years. He noted most of the subcontractors in the association had the same concerns. He explained the provisions of the bill, which included the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, were like a double-edged sword. If the Board ruled against a subcontractor, the subcontractor could lose his license. He added someone had to direct the contractors and subcontractors in working through a construction defect claim. He gave an example of a large legal case, Rock Springs Vista 3 Owners Association vs. Rock Springs Vista Development Corporation, which had been settled for $16 million plus. The units in the development contained soft plaster because it had been over-sanded. He explained it was a situation where repairs could not be made, and a lawsuit had to provide a solution. If a contractor abused his license, there needed to be a third party to negotiate a settlement.
Mr. Peck noted his insurance premiums just kept increasing, and he had several lawsuits filed against him. He stated he had been served 11 lawsuit notices in one day. He added his insurance was fairly good because he had no Montrose exclusions, and he had an umbrella that was “worth the paper it was written on.” He had already been notified that beginning in July 2001 his premiums would be increased. He stated if no help was forthcoming from the legislature, he would be forced to dissolve his company in June 2001 and lay off his 250 employees.
Mr. Peck commented that another plastering contractor had called him, who reported half his work was lost, because his insurance company would not cover him to do work on condominiums. Another company was moving to Texas, North Carolina, or Florida. He stated in southern Nevada, when a building inspector walked a property, he seldom missed anything. He stated it was human nature for mistakes to be made.
Mr. Peck added there was a need for the attorneys and lawsuits in those cases where a contractor would not make a homeowner whole. He added, the sad part was that homes were not being fixed. Testimony from Mr. Canepa in the Senate revealed the homeowners in the Rock Springs case had only gotten $8 million in the lawsuit and that it had been settled for over $16 million. The homeowners in that case could not afford to have their units fixed for the amount they received from the award. He noted the real losers were the residents of Nevada. Mr. Peck stated Mr. Canepa had been a defense attorney for the contractors before switching his practice to the side of the homeowners.
Mr. Peck asked what would be fair to the 1.4 million people in Nevada who could not make needed repairs, even after “winning” a lawsuit. He noted homes could not be sold, if it was known they contained a construction defect that had never been repaired, and those defects were required to be disclosed.
Mr. Peck concluded subcontractors had nowhere else to go, and without a remedy they would be going out of business.
Mr. Carpenter referred to Section 13, of S.B. 516 where it required “a contractor who had been in business less than five years and any contractor who had been disciplined by the Board to provide a performance bond for each new contract in an amount equal to a percentage of the contract price determined by the Board.” He asked if that language meant a small contractor who was doing a small one- or two-day job would have to request the Board inspector to go to each job to determine the percentage. He opined if so, that would seem to be a little extreme. Mr. Rasmussen stated Section 13 was a part of NRS Chapter 624 dealing with more stringent guidelines for new contractors in the state.
Mr. Rasmussen stated the provision would help poor workmanship issues at the very beginning of the process. If a new contractor was licensed, the intent was to ensure the contractor had adequate funds if defects occurred. He added there was no “track record” on new contractors to know what the quality of their work would be. If the contractor came in and built a development and then quickly left town, a surety bond would help protect those homeowners. He explained the requirement would ensure the contractor would be licensed with a better bonding company, and they would have a larger bond to include a set-aside.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Carpenter to restate his question and directed Mr. Rasmussen to answer to the point. Mr. Carpenter reiterated his question was whether an inspector from the Nevada State Contractors’ Board would have to go out to the jobsite for each new contract to compute the percentage rate required for bonding. If that was the case, he could not agree to that provision. Mr. Rasmussen concurred and stated the proponents would review that requirement.
Chairman Anderson recalled the last time construction defect legislation was heard, some very contentious dialogue ensued. As a result of that experience, he had thought very seriously of requiring witnesses to be sworn in, but he chose not to do so.
Mr. Russell Rowe, representing the American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada, introduced Ms. Maddie Fischer, also representing the American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada.
Mr. Rowe submitted amendment language (Exhibit E) to S.B. 516, which he noted was nearly identical to that submitted and passed in A.B. 133. All concerned parties to S.B. 516 had agreed to the language of the amendment. He asked the committee to consider the amendment in their deliberations.
Chairman Anderson clarified that the amendment language had already been passed by inclusion in A.B. 133, but in the event that legislation died and S.B. 516 was passed in its place, Mr. Rowe wanted the amendment included.
Ms. Fischer concurred with Mr. Rowe’s concerns.
Ms. Doreen Coddington, representing the Nevada Subcontractors’ Association and Cedar Roofing, testified from Las Vegas in support of S.B. 516. She explained that the company had been involved in approximately 56 lawsuits, and it had affected the company tremendously. The lawsuits, some of which were bogus, had adversely affected the company’s insurance rates. The company felt S.B. 516 would give them a better opportunity to make the homeowners whole with regard to their construction defect(s).
Chairman Anderson asked if the roofing subcontractor had ever had lawsuits where the homeowner had been proven to be correct. Ms. Coddington replied the company had never actually had a lawsuit that went to trial, because they had settled the suits prior to court.
The Chair clarified that, although the company had never been taken into court, their insurance rates had been raised. Ms. Coddington conceded their cases had been worked out in settlements. They had only gone to court one time, and even that had been settled before the trial convened.
Chairman Anderson asked if company representatives had settled the cases or if had been settled by the insurance company. Ms. Coddington replied the insurance company had settled the claim.
Ms. Margi Grein, Executive Officer, representing the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, introduced Mr. George Lyford, Director, Special Investigations, Nevada State Contractors’ Board and Mr. Dennis Haney, Counsel for the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, who were present in Las Vegas.
Ms. Grein clarified Section 6 of S.B. 516 stated a subcontractor had the meaning ascribed to in Section 20 of the act. She noted Section 20 actually defined attorneys, and she asked if it was the intention of the bill to make attorneys into subcontractors. Mr. Craigie spoke from the audience noting that the section in the bill was different than in the sections in Exhibit D, the amendment.
Chairman Anderson noted that Exhibit D had been prepared to stand with A.B. 133 so the numbers were not synchronized. Bill drafters may have already taken care of some of the cross-references. Ms. Grein stated her reference was in page 2 of S.B. 516, Section 6.
Ms. Grein noted that upon review of the bill, the intent appeared to have the Nevada State Contractors’ Board deciding whether a defect existed or damage had occurred, and the amount of that damage. The Nevada State Contractors’ Board felt those were judicial functions and not those of a licensing board. Current statute allowed the Board to investigate claims of workmanship and code issues and other types of complaints.
S.B. 516 had incorporated the definitions from NRS Chapter 40 into NRS Chapter 624. “Claimant” had the meaning ascribed in NRS 40.610 that could include a representative of a homeowners’ association or an owner of a resident acting within the scope of his duties under NRS 116 or NRS 117. There was no definition of “claimant” in NRS 624. “Injured person” and “owner” were defined in NRS 624 for purposes of the recovery fund.
Section 4 of S.B. 516 defined the meaning of “constructional defect,” as ascribed in NRS 40.615, to include a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair, or landscaping of a new residence or of an alteration of a residence. She asked if the Nevada State Contractors’ Board had the legal authority to regulate the design and manufacture of a construction project. The definition of “contractor” had also been changed to read, “a person with or without a license.”
Ms. Grein declared that the Nevada State Contractors’ Board regulated and represented licensed contractors only. She asked why it would be appropriate for the Board to exercise authority over an unlicensed contractor. She explained the changes in definitions might work in NRS Chapter 40 for judicial purposes, but they did not apply in NRS Chapter 624 that established the licensing board. She stressed the bill requested an agency of the Executive Branch of government to make a pre-determination of a problem for the Judicial Branch and opined it would be a breech of the separation of powers.
Ms. Grein stated the process drafted in S.B. 516 was very complex. The procedure would require a homeowner to seek an attorney or an expert witness for clarification, when what they really wanted was to have his home repaired. The Nevada State Contractors’ Board received over 4,300 complaints in 2000 and had resolved over 90 percent of those at the staff level. No attorneys or hearings were involved. An investigator went to the site of the complaint, made his review, and issued a “notice to correct.” The contractor either complied or was brought before the Nevada State Contractors’ Board for a hearing of disciplinary action.
Ms. Grein noted many of the contractors on the list of southern Nevada litigation (Exhibit C) had already had their license revoked. Until 1999 the Board was prohibited from taking disciplinary action on a contractor who was involved in litigation. That prohibition was repealed in the 1999 Legislative Session, because the Board had not wanted anything to stop its process from going forward. She stated both sides (homeowners and contractors) used that provision to go to court rather than to go before the Board.
Currently when a complaint was received, it was reviewed for any apparent violations. She asked how the Board would decide whether a complaint was a standard complaint or one that might go to litigation. She reminded the committee that the purpose of the Board was to protect the public from fraudulent contractors. The purpose was not to protect contractors or subcontractors from attorneys.
The bill would delay the process and place more burdens on the consumer who might not wish to litigate. Ms. Grein stressed the Nevada State Contractors’ Board firmly opposed S.B. 516, although she acknowledged there were problems in the area of construction defects. Complaints were investigated, and licensees were disciplined.
Ms. Grein noted a recent case in Pahrump, Nevada, where the elderly homeowners had a home that was structurally unsound and unfit to inhabit. The Board invoked a hearing, and the contractor agreed to fix the problems. The contractor had two engineers’ reports stating the home was properly built, and the problems were caused through over-watering. The home had 10 feet of concrete around it with xeriscape desert landscaping, and there was no way the problems could have been created by the owners watering. The contractor had also wanted to turn the claim over to his insurance company, and he did not want to take responsibility. At the hearing the contractor was represented by an attorney while the homeowners were not. The homeowners simply wanted their home repaired. The contractor had agreed to make the repairs, and the Board had given him additional time to make the repairs; however, the contractor never made the repairs. A subsequent hearing had to be held, and the Board revoked the contractor’s license. The homeowners still had a home that was not fit for living. It was later reported to the Board that the contractor had turned around and worked for another contractor under his license number.
Ms. Grein stated if the process created in S.B. 516 had been in place, the case would have been delayed an additional six months, and the homeowners would be encouraged to sue as their last recourse. The couple had spent $250,000 for the home three years previously, and they could not live in it.
Ms. Grein concluded by stressing the purpose of the Nevada State Contractors’ Board was to protect the public.
Dennis Haney, Counsel for the Nevada Contractor’s Board and testifying from Las Vegas, stated the Board supported the right to repair; however, the provisions of S.B. 516 confused and delayed the process of allowing repairs to be made. He reiterated the Chair’s comment at the beginning of the hearing, that the purpose of the Nevada State Contractors’ Board was to license contractors and ultimately discipline contractors if they were found to be in violation of the law. It was neither a policing agency nor an agency like the Public Utilities Commission that provided on-site daily review.
Mr. Haney stated the Board vehemently opposed S.B. 516, but he had been working with Mr. Ferraro, of the Nevada Homebuilders’ Association to amend A.B. 133 as a more appropriate venue to address construction defects and subcontractor notification.
According to Mr. Haney, currently, homeowners had a right to file any complaint on their home with the Board. The Board investigated promptly, and the Board established the time frames in which work must be completed, if the workmanship was in violation of the standards of current code. If the defect was a simple issue, such as a screen door that had come loose, three to six months were not needed to complete the repair. More complex matters took a longer period of time. By specifying stringent time frames, it only blocked the Board investigator.
Mr. Haney clarified the Nevada State Contractors’ Board had investigators, not inspectors. Inspectors were the local government entities who inspected the home while it was under construction to determine if it conformed to local building codes and requirements. The investigators from the Board conducted an investigation after the home was completed and a complaint was filed. S.B. 516 would simply delay the process.
Ms. Grein showed slides of home defects the Board had investigated. Chairman Anderson asked if the slides being shown were all from one home, and Ms. Grein stated they were.
Mr. Haney clarified his comments were generic and not specific to the home in the pictures. The current process was for a homeowner to file a complaint with the Board. Lawyers and engineers were not required to be involved. He gave a few examples of visible defects that could involve filings. The Board investigator would go to the site and identify the damage or defect and advise the contractor to make the repair. The contractor had a right to bring in a subcontractor.
Mr. Haney stated the initial portions of the bill requiring a contractor to notify a subcontractor of defects would help; however, the remainder of the bill involving the Nevada State Contractors’ Board did nothing but confuse the issue. The investigator gave a written notice to the contractor to fix a valid problem and, the contractor had an opportunity to make the repairs. It was only when a contractor refused to make repairs or failed to make repairs correctly that the matter then went forward to a hearing. Evidence could be provided at the hearing, and the Board would take disciplinary action against the licensee.
Mr. Haney noted the slides being shown in Carson City were of a home in Pahrump, Nevada, cited by Ms. Grein in earlier testimony. He noted the damage and defects were very evident. The contractor had been told to make the repairs, and the contractor had agreed to make the repairs. It was only after the Board had heard that the contractor intended to turn the claim over to his insurance company, that the Board revoked the contractor’s license. That was the greatest authority that the Board held.
Vice Chair Manendo announced the committee was out of time for further testimony.
Ms. Grein asked Mr. Lynn, of the Clark County Building Department, to explain the damage that was being shown in the slide presentation.
Chairman Anderson resumed the Chair and he observed there were still a number of witnesses whose testimony had not been heard. He noted Ms. Grein’s points had been made. He observed Mr. Lynn had signed in as neutral on the bill, and it had not been the intent of the Chair to hear neutral testimony due to time constraints.
Mr. Ron Lynn, Clark County Building Department and representing the Nevada Organization of Building Officials, testified that the amendments proposed to the bill imposed a significant burden. His organization had been actively working with the Nevada State Contractors’ Board, and S.B. 516 would have a severe economic impact on the rural communities, especially the smaller incorporated towns.
Chairman Anderson stated the testimony by Mr. Lynn had precluded the ability of anyone wishing to speak against the bill due to time constraints. The Chair stated it was his intent to not process the bill without a full opportunity for testimony, and he would not extend the time of the committee by meeting on Saturday, because of the disrespect shown to the committee in previous questions. He expressed concern over S.B. 516 and stated he would attempt to schedule additional time in the next week to complete the hearing on the bill.
Other exhibits submitted without testimony for S.B. 516 included:
Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 516 and adjourned the meeting at 10:56 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Cindy Clampitt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: