MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor
Seventy-Second Session
May 31, 2003
The Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order at 2:12 p.m., on Saturday, May 31, 2003. Chairman David Goldwater presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Las Vegas, 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.
Note: These minutes are compiled in the modified verbatim style. Bracketed material indicates language used to clarify and further describe testimony. Actions of the Committee are presented in the traditional legislative style.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. David Goldwater, Chairman
Ms. Barbara Buckley, Vice Chairwoman
Mr. Morse Arberry Jr.
Mr. Bob Beers
Mr. David Brown
Mrs. Dawn Gibbons
Ms. Chris Giunchigliani
Mr. Josh Griffin
Mr. Lynn Hettrick
Mr. Ron Knecht
Ms. Sheila Leslie
Mr. John Oceguera
Mr. David Parks
Mr. Richard Perkins
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Bob Coffin, Senatorial District No. 10
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vance Hughey, Principal Research Analyst
Wil Keane, Committee Counsel
Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst
Sharee Gebhardt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Steve Holloway, Legislative Advocate, Associated General Contractors
Helen Foley, Legislative Advocate, Clark County Health District
Pete Allen, Chairman, Registered Environmental Health Specialists Board
Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary/Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Margi Grein, Legislative Advocate, Nevada State Contractors’ Board
Chairman Goldwater:
We’ll call the meeting to order. A quorum is not present but we’ll get started anyway. [Opened the hearing on S.B. 132. Invited Senator Coffin to testify.]
Senate Bill 132 (2nd Reprint): Requires licensure of persons engaged in certain activities relating to control of mold. (BDR 53-235)
Senator Bob Coffin, Clark County, Senatorial District No. 10:
[Introduced himself.]
Chairman Goldwater:
A quorum is present.
Senator Coffin:
Senate Bill 132 passed around in the Senate for quite awhile. It had a lot of visual inspection, as is one of the terms in mold remediation. Essentially, [we had] a hearing in front of the full Commerce Committee, a hearing in front of a subcommittee of Commerce, and then a hearing in front of the Senate Finance [Committee], as well as numerous discussions in the hallways and in the Committee room. One thing that was not really up for discussion, except as amazement, was how bad the mold problem is and how dangerous the situation is with mold in our environment and in our homes, whether they be 5 years old, 50 years old, or 5 months old. Someone needs to address this [problem]. That’s why I brought it to the Legislature for your consideration.
[Senator Coffin continued.] I have had personal experience with mold in my house. I literally had to tear it apart from top to bottom to get it out. It wasn’t easy. What came to mind during the process of fixing the mold was that everybody had a different approach on how to fix my problem, everything from soup to nuts in terms of the approach. Everybody had gone to a little school or a big school. Everybody had a certification or had attended a seminar. But [the question never arose], “Are you state-certified? Do you have a license?” Some did have contractor’s licenses or subcontractor’s licenses, because some people have done this as a sideline business in order to help make ends meet between jobs. On the other hand, many people are not licensed as contractors. A real problem occurred when our insurance was canceled after we fixed the problem, despite the fact that the insurance company never paid a dime on the claim.
Previously, mold had been an expense, which had been covered [by insurance]. Then it became a marginally recoverable item. As of May 1, 2003, the last constituent in your district lost their coverage. [The insurance industry] had been doing it over the last 12 months and its rates had been approved by the Insurance Commissioner. That means that unless you can catch the water flowing somewhere in your house reasonably quickly and see it happening, most likely you will never be reimbursed for anything except perhaps some superficial water damage. In fact, all of us who have a home, which has water and wood and some organic product like drywall, are going to get mold if we have a leak.
A slow leak of water [is] the most insidious thing. You will get mold. If you have a sudden gusher, you will get mold if you do not take care of it fast, depending on the temperature. [On] a good, hot summer day, it only takes a day to get it started and in 48 hours you’re overgrown. Insurance will cover that water damage if you know and can prove it, and if you file a claim immediately. But if you don’t, and you don’t know you have it, you’re out of luck and all of your constituents are out of luck officially.
We have billions of dollars of assessed value in our property. In Clark County alone, $8 billion worth of assessed valuation, not market value, is wrapped up in houses that are ten years old or more. These are typically the houses that are beyond the statutes of repose for construction defects. So homeowners have nowhere to go now. They don’t have their insurance; they don’t have the builder. Nor should they; eventually at some time those things have to end. The insurance companies were kind of our safeguards because, since they had to pay the bill; they had to make sure that the people who did the work did it right. They had certain protocols to follow. The companies had, and still have, experts because they still will be on the look out for some commercial coverages. But in any event, we lost our last line of defense because we, being ignorant of how mold works, lost our expert help. We are on our own now. All of our constituents are on their own. We are at the mercy of people who say they can fix it and who may or may not be qualified.
[Senator Coffin continued.] It’s time for the state to step into the breach and provide a corps of people who can be reasonably qualified, who can pass reasonable examinations. [We need] laboratories that are trustworthy in their analysis of the results. [We need] technicians who are honest and competent in their handling of samples of mold. And of course, at the very beginning, [we need] the people who can fix it. Can they be trusted to do it right? Can they be trusted not to take shortcuts in their work? Would they have a price to pay? Would they have something to lose if they cut any corners or did not do a job right? All of these are part of our licensing process, which this Committee is very familiar with, and which the public is not very familiar with because, as you know, many people have complaints about something having to do with their home or a person who fixed it. They don’t realize that many [workers] are not licensed; they are not registered; they are not whatever terminology their state might affix upon a particular profession. Really, we can’t do anything about that. But those who are registered and licensed, and hold themselves out to be, if not experts, competent in a field [can] lose their license if they do not perform their duties according to how they advertise. That’s what this bill proposes to do.
Members of the contracting profession felt that the best board to handle these duties was the Division of Industrial Regulations or the Contractors’ Board and the Environmental Commission people, scientists, non-scientists, people who were involved in the day-to-day work because the people who do this work are generally honest, and, from personal experience, generally trying their best. With my own problem, I secured six bids. People who had known them recommended all six people, and yet I received six different methods of solving the problem. This was based upon the protocol that I gave them, which was established by the insurance company. Later on they turned it down and after examining the home, they [agreed I had mold]. They did say, “Here’s what you need to do to fix it.” Rather than trying to cut corners myself, I followed the insurance company’s protocol. I received six different proposals. [There was] a wide variation in prices. I realized there really was no place to go. I couldn’t find someone to say, “This is really what you need to do,” [nor would] I look at the proposals and say, “This is the best one.” I had to choose, based upon recommendations, based upon personalities, based upon what I thought were qualifications. Even the people I chose had to be watched carefully. I spent six months in my house helping to tear it out and put it back together again.
[Senator Coffin continued.] While this was going on, I realized this was a problem, so I requested the bill draft. You have before you the modified version of our bill, greatly trimmed down in terms of its scope, but, nevertheless, an important tool to start the process by which we get this industry under control. You all recall the billions of dollars that were earned across this country by people posing as asbestos remediators. “Mold is gold” is the new terminology. Since our constituents are going to be suckered if we don’t step into the breach, we’ve got to find some minimum standard regulations and people with good reputations with the backing of the state, and I’m speaking of the boards mentioned in this bill. We must have them watching these people. We must have them setting some standards. Fortunately, around the country, others are beginning to recognize this and standards are being accepted. The federal government is working on this problem, as are New York, Texas, and even California. Places that have had not only a loss in insurance for all of their constituents but who have had [mold] problems have tried to determine who can really fix this problem.
The reason I brought up the assessed valuation earlier is because I can tell you from personal experience the catastrophe that will occur to assessed valuations for local and state government if home values drop. Every time a home is traded, the question is asked, “Did you have mold? Do you have mold?” You have to answer that truthfully; you are liable as a seller. But can you really prove that it is gone? What if the buyer finds out and determines that the house is worth $40,000 or $50,000 less or [you have to] take 20 percent or 30 percent less than it was? They have a cause of action against you. I see real estate values on resales dropping dramatically if we do not step into this because every sharp real estate broker and every sharp purchaser is going to grind the potential seller until they find out, and they may require them to have testing in the house, and that testing had better be done by a licensed mold remediator in order to assure both buyer and seller that they really have a deal.
My house dropped in value $40,000 during the interim. That was about 20 percent. After it was fixed and after we had invested $90,000 in the repairs, it regained its former value. We did it for the health of our family and our children, especially. One or two of them were affected by this mold. Many people are not affected by mold. You and I may have totally different reactions to the worst kinds of mold, and yet we might be very harshly affected by what some people call mild or non-toxic molds. There are so many thousands and they’re in the air and everywhere. It’s only when they hit the water, and they’re bound to, that they become really dangerous. Once they dry out again and spread throughout your house in the form of microscopic spores, you cannot imagine the chaos that ensues.
[Senator Coffin continued.] The Senate Committee passed this bill unanimously. It did receive a fiscal note, either just before or just after its vote, from the Contractors’ Board. It proceeded ahead because it did not have any General Fund impact. All boards affected here do not touch the General Fund. They are fee-based boards. One of the boards, the Contractors’ Board, has substantial reserves. It is the lead board here and as of yesterday had reserves of $1.4 million after all of their obligations. However, it’s not our intent at all to try to invade the financial underpinnings of the State Contractors’ Board. The fiscal note provided did not have any detail, and as you will notice, if the fiscal note has been provided to you over here, there was no detail. You cannot tell from this. That’s all we had to go on and I don’t know if that’s all you have in front of you. It would not be a satisfactory fiscal note in many fiscal situations. Nevertheless, you must consider all of these things. I urge you to do that.
Again, we could be facing the loss of billions of dollars of real estate value and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxes if we don’t act. I really find it very hard to recount the personal tragedy of our family, but your constituents and maybe some of you have felt this yourselves. It is not something to wish on anybody. We must take the first step to remedy the problem for all of us.
Chairman Goldwater:
We are sorry for your tragedy, but we appreciate your efforts to correct this. [He referenced others who had experienced a mold problem.] Are there questions from the Committee?
Assemblyman Brown:
You had mentioned two boards. I know the one would be the Contractors’ Board. What was the other board?
Senator Coffin:
[The other board is] the Environmental Health Specialists. It’s a very small board and practically unfunded. [It is] served by volunteers. Also, the State Environmental Commission is involved. So [there are] two boards, one commission.
Assemblyman Brown:
I think you mentioned the Contractors’ Board had a fund balance of $1.4 million. That doesn’t touch the recovery fund as far as you know. Do you know what that is?
Senator Coffin:
Yes, I do, and no, it does not touch the recovery fund.
Assemblyman Brown:
The only mold [on the list] that I’m familiar with is [Section 3.1] (i) Stachybotrys chartarum, which I think receives a lot of attention. That I know can be a dangerous one. Are all of these others dangerous health risks as well? Or just in the presence of water? Why are they all listed?
Senator Coffin:
I think that the important thing is that bill drafting felt these were, and experts will agree, that these seem to contribute more to the dangers that have been witnessed. But not all are dangerous to all people. I think I always throw that caution out to people so that they don’t immediately jump off the roof of their house if they find out they have Stachybotrys in their home. All of these things can be cleaned. Why they are [included]? To add all molds that can and are in your home, would more than fill the bill we have here. There are thousands. They come from the soil; they come from the air; they come from other communities; they literally float around the world. [These] are among those that have been considered more toxic than others, and have been found in some cases to cause severe behavioral disorders, bronchial problems, and have even been associated with what could also be diagnosed as chronic fatigue syndrome. The list of molds is obviously endless.
Assemblyman Brown:
You mentioned asbestos before, and I think the certification process is through the DIR [Department of Industrial Relations]. Is there a reason why we wouldn’t use the same procedure here?
Senator Coffin:
Yes. The original bill, the first printing, was done with an eye toward trying to match the process by which asbestos is removed from the environment. Most asbestos is in a commercial area. This bill is primarily targeted at residential areas, although people who do this will become registered or certified and could work in a commercial environment or an industrial environment. But the asbestos problem was much more complex than the mold problem. What we are trying to [address] is simply the persons who fix the problem. Not those necessarily who diagnose it, although we will want to have some clarity of language on the issue of the tests and who does the lab work. So it’s like a three-part system. The DIR felt that this was out of their range, as did all of the other agencies. There isn’t one state agency that wants to do this. It’s an embarrassment to me, but it is a fact.
Chairman Goldwater:
When that happens, do you know what we do? Tell local governments to do it.
Senator Coffin:
Unfortunately, we must set an example. We will receive the cooperation of local governments on this. We will take advantage – you see the bill has been drawn so loosely to avoid costs to these boards that they can take a lot of time to do the regulations. We’ve given them 15 months from the effective date of the bill. I don’t mind if you add another 3 months to make sure that they have time to do it right. If you want to make it January 1, 2005, that’s satisfactory with me. All they have to do is borrow, beg, and steal data where it exists. Federal sources exist; other state sources are there. We do not intend to try to enforce any of these boards to plow new ground in science or in behavioral or – setting standards by which they would determine one level of spores per cubic foot is dangerous and another isn’t. We don’t want them to go there. We don’t want them to have to go there. We’re too small. We can’t afford it.
Assemblyman Beers:
I’m looking up mold remediation on the Web. I found one entity out there, the Indoor Air Quality Association (IAQA), which has a mold remediators’ certification program. The sense I get is that no state has done this yet. We’re kind of blazing some new ground. Is that correct?
Senator Coffin:
Yes, that is true. IAQA is a very well-known organization.
Assemblyman Beers:
Is it possible that we would rely on them for testing and certification?
Senator Coffin:
We can rely upon what they consider to be good protocols.
Assemblyman Beers:
They actually have an actual certification that lasts for two years and has to be renewed through continual professional education. They may reduce some of the fiscal impact on it. But you are familiar with IAQA?
Senator Coffin:
Yes, I am. But you can’t name a group like that in a bill, nor would you want to tell your agencies here the boards that they must use IAQA or any industrial health organization or even labor unions. Let them decide what’s best; let them pick the ones they feel are good.
Assemblyman Beers:
Is this a division of plumbing?
Senator Coffin:
No, I think it’s scientists, professional and industrial hygienists, and IH (Industrial Hygienist) people. Unfortunately, we cannot just [require] certain educational qualifications. Suppose you are an IH person or a microbiologist; not all IH people know about mold. They may know about asbestos, but nothing about mold. We had people testify in the Senate on that very point. We have people without a high school diploma who can do this work quite well. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do this work as long as you do it honestly and follow the protocols that can be set by the state. The state may adopt protocols that are used elsewhere or already follow generally accepted scientific principles. IAQA sets some.
Assemblyman Beers:
When you were going through the qualifications of the six respondents to your request for proposals, how many different certifications were you presented with? Did they fall into two camps? Or worse, was it six?
Senator Coffin:
There were probably six. They all had gone to some school or another. I can’t remember exactly. If I had all the proposals with me, I could tell you. Some of them were very polished in their approach and some were folks in blue jeans and T-shirts, and yet they had good referrals from people they had done work for. That’s why we have to be careful not to set minimum standards of formal education, and why we can be as broad as possible in the application of what kind of tests we consider to be good. Yes, we are the only state so far that has really gone this far, and bravo for us. Others will follow our lead. Hopefully at some future date we might be able to refine our process. We will learn from our mistakes and we will learn from our successes as we move forward with this.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
This is a question on Section 4 and I don’t know if you want to answer it or maybe our staff can. I’m confused about the language [in Section 4] where it says that Sections 3 to 17 do “not apply to remediation done by a person in his residence or by the developer, contractor or any sub-contractor who constructed the residence.” Aren’t those the people we’re trying to get?
Senator Coffin:
There are a couple of sections where law is talked about here. I’m not a lawyer, but I do understand the reason for this. The first part really concerns a person in his own home. We cannot tell them to attack their own problem. They may choose to live with it and suffer the consequences later. Or they may choose to do it over a period of a year or two or three, and actually take the risk, if they sell the house. If it passes, it passes. If it fails, they lose 20 or 30 percent of their value, whatever it costs to fix it. So we can’t tell people what to do in their own home. [For the second part,] the developer, contractor or subcontractor building a residence fixes the problem immediately because it would not pass occupancy if he didn’t. They do it while the timbers are bare. When they see green lumber with mold on it, they quickly remediate. It’s very easy to do when there’s a skeleton of a house; it’s very difficult to do once the walls are up. That’s why it’s make common sense to exclude the people in the process of building a house, because they already have to fix it to pass inspection. It’s relatively easy to do.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
So there’s no loophole there. I think I understand your logic. It looks strange though, the way it’s written.
Speaker Perkins:
I just sold my home a couple of months ago and during the inspection a small amount of mold was found. Having gone through the remediation process, I can submit to the Committee that I think buying some sort of certification and some sort of regulation is very important. I had estimates anywhere from $1,500 from somebody who probably didn’t know how to remediate mold, to some estimates as high as $25,000 for a very small project. The estimates were all over the board and there was no consistency whatsoever in the approach to taking care of the problem.
We did look to California to some degree for guidance and also New York had some sort of certification or environmental protection regulations that provided us with direction. There was no certification in our state, and it was basically just walking through the yellow pages to try to find somebody to deal with it. It is a scary thing for a new buyer not knowing how toxic the mold may be to his family. We need to get a handle on what has become a real cottage industry and provide some protections to those consumers who need to utilize that service. For those consumers who are purchasing a home that has been remediated, we need to make sure that it has been done properly. I think then we will have accomplished something beneficial.
Assemblyman Knecht:
If we adopt this remediation and certification and regulation proposal, do you have some idea a year from now how many firms might be certified and in the business? How vigorous or not vigorous the competition would be?
Senator Coffin:
It is growing by leaps and bounds. There will be a lot of work done well, and some done shoddily. I cannot tell you how many people would be licensed. The competent people out there, as they have heard of this bill, have welcomed it with open arms because they know it’s going to provide protection to them. I do not foresee very many being licensed in the next 12 months unless the Board would perhaps move faster than the law allows. In order to help them out we stretched the period for them to go through the right process. Of course, regulations can be changed, but we need to give them time.
Assemblyman Knecht:
Perhaps the choice of a year was an optional time frame. What I’m concerned about is that we not develop a certification and regulation process that results in too little competition and too few firms able to get certified and offer the services. I’m looking for some reassurance on that point.
Senator Coffin:
I will try to give that to you. We have innumerable bodies come to us and want to be protected. They sometimes want to raise the ladder after they have found a way to get themselves qualified. You insert the verb “certify.” In this particular case we need a lot of people doing this. We’re not going to set their fees. We’re going to let that be the market process. The Board has time and will have meetings so that they can hear people complain or make suggestions. We are all invited to go to those hearings if we choose to go. So I don’t think that this will be something that restricts competition. I think we are going to welcome with open arms the people who want to handle this problem for us. All we ask is that they be qualified. That’s why I suggested that we should not be hung up on whether or not they have a master’s degree or a Ph.D. or a high school diploma, for that matter. The more important thing is whether they can do the work. It’s dirty work; it’s ugly under a house and in the walls.
Assemblyman Knecht:
I certainly agree that the more important thing is their competence and fitness to do the job.
Chairman Goldwater:
Revisiting Section 4, as Ms. Leslie had mentioned, is there anything in Section 4 we’re not applying in this bill that would somehow indemnify or protect a contractor from construction defect? Liability?
Senator Coffin:
At least the original version of this bill had the support of the Trial Lawyers. In fact, it was quite remarkable; it was the only bill that was presented to the Senate that had trial lawyers, homebuilders, and contractors at the same table. In the iteration you’re looking at now, I really doubt that there would be a problem.
Chairman Goldwater:
Let me just quickly have Mr. Keane discuss your interpretation of Section 4 and what it does to this bill so we can get that on the record.
Senator Coffin:
I wish I had Mr. [Renny] Ashleman with me who helped draw this up. He had it read by other attorneys and bill drafters too to make sure we didn’t get into some sort of tort reform, the last thing we’d want to get tangled into.
Wil Keane, Legal Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau:
[Introduced himself.] I think the point is that with regard to the developers, contractors, or any subcontractors who construct a residence, all of those parties would not need to have this special remediation license and they would be able, at any point in the future, to come back, do remediation on any house in which they participated in construction without getting this license.
Assemblywoman Leslie:
As a follow-up then, they would still be held responsible if, in the process of constructing, they caused the mold. That’s a little different than the interpretation you gave before. What you’re saying now is that this means they don’t have to get the license and go through all the other provisions of the bill.
Senator Coffin:
Yes. The idea is that they don’t need to have a remediator’s license unless they also, as contractors, subcontractors, plumbers, or whatever, hold themselves out to be mold remediators and say they can fix a problem. Then they should be licensed under that chapter. But they want very much to have a corps of people out there who they can call upon who are licensed to assist them in the process of construction, of accidents that occur, because they are liable for their defects for a good long time. This does not shorten or alter the liability that they have and/or are contemplated to have in any legislation in this session that I know of, or any common law doctrine.
Assemblyman Beers:
On page 14, Section 38, there is a discussion of fines for violating these provisions. That’s for inspecting and testing. This has separate licenses for remediation and inspection and testing? [Received confirmation.] Are those $15,000 first offense, $25,000 the second [offense] comparable to the construction board violation fines? Let me ask a broader question. This was originally drafted to follow the asbestos model and, for some reason, in the Senate was turned over to the Contractors’ Board? Is that correct? If all they did was change the name of the entity that’s going to run this, I’d be concerned that this is a foreign language to the Contractors’ Board if it’s DIR talk.
Senator Coffin:
Actually, it’s LCB (Legislative Counsel Bureau) talk, which probably borrowed from DIR talk. What we’re talking about is probably the dollar size of fines, if that’s the issue. I should address that with you. The issue is health and the issue is separation of duties. You’ll find in the bill separation of duties. A person who does remediation cannot do the testing and the person who does the testing cannot do remediation. The laboratory cannot be involved in this process either. There need to be firewalls between these three stages, which are very necessary in the course of remediating mold. The penalties should be commensurate with the dangers of the toxins and the size of the problem. If someone fails – and of course they may do it intentionally or unintentionally – they need to be put on notice. The industry needs to be put on notice that this is what happens if you cheat on the health of the citizens. The person who purports to fix your problem and merely seals up the wall after having done shoddy work – the homeowner doesn’t know that until, perhaps, they try to sell it and someone drills a hole in the wall with a little boroscope and looks around and finds the mold that the [remediator] should have caught. That person would be very lucky if they only had to pay $15,000 because the damage to the home would be considerable. It would be well beyond $15,000.
There may be other proponents of the bill who want to step up and, at least, put their blessing on it. In the iterations of the bill, sometimes people change their minds or have second thoughts or have trepidations. At one point we had all the contractors, homebuilders, and trial lawyers in support of the bill. I don’t know if anything has changed. Also, there may be some friendly amendments offered.
Steve Holloway, Legislative Advocate, Associated General Contractors:
[Introduced himself.] We in the AGC and most of the construction industry that have been involved in developing this bill do support it. We would also support the friendly amendment that will be offered by Helen Foley. We would like to see the charlatans off the street; they’re helping to give our industry a bad name. That’s why we’ve worked with Senator Coffin and Senator O’Connell and a number of others on the other side to develop this bill. We think it will do it. It’s very clear that it does not develop health standards for mold. We will wait for the federal government to promulgate those standards. It does require the state EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) to license the testers and the labs to analyze the test for mold. It would require the State Contractors’ Board to license the contractors who go out to remediate the problem. There are protocols for the remediation of the problem for insurance companies and other groups such as the one pointed out by Assemblyman Beers. There are also protocols and procedures promulgated that are generally accepted by the scientific community for the testing of mold that the EPA could utilize. We don’t see this as a major endeavor, but we do see it as a necessary one, and we do support it.
Helen Foley, Legislative Advocate, Clark County Health District:
[Introduced herself.] This issue was just brought to my attention the other day. The organization that is most appropriate to regulate the licensure of the inspectors is the Board of Registered Environmental Health Specialists for the state of Nevada so that there is one standard, one examination, and a procedure for registration. Unfortunately, that board is a small board with very limited funds. As you mentioned earlier, maybe the local government should step up to the plate and help, and that’s what we are looking to do today. I have proposed an amendment (Exhibit C) for you and it starts with Section 26, which is Chapter 625A [Nevada Revised Statutes]. That is the chapter for the Board of Registered Environmental Health Specialists. On the second page, Section 28, we have simply stated, “the Board in consultation with local health authorities in counties with a population of 100,000 or greater shall adopt regulations.” We believe that there are individuals within both the Clark and Washoe County Health Districts who have expertise who can assist the Board in developing those regulations.
On the last page, in Section 29, we further believe that we can process those applications, that we can proctor the examinations, and that we can do other administrative duties for this board as people are coming forward to be licensed. We think that it’s an excellent idea that people must be licensed to go into someone’s home and inspect the mold, and to give them an expert opinion after an investigation and examination and laboratory results, that show they do have mold and where it’s located in the home. Then the responsibility would go over to the Board of Contractors and people who are licensed to remediate the problem. It seems that with Speaker Perkins, as well as Senator Coffin, one of the major problems was that someone came in and said, “Oh, I see mold in your house here. Let me tell you how we can get rid of it.” It’s a dangerous thing. People are very vulnerable and we need to have that firewall as Senator Coffin was describing.
Section 30 caused me [some] concern. It talks about how this person who does the inspection and testing of the mold cannot then have the remediation done by a member of his or her family or a business associate. But it doesn’t say that that individual could not do the remediation. We certainly need to make sure we have that firewall. So if you are inspecting, then you cannot do the remediation. We believe that the fees that will be collected from people who will then hold themselves out to be inspectors and testers of mold will be sufficient so that the Board can work with the local health districts and reimburse them for the costs of proctoring exams.
Assemblyman Brown:
On the last page of the handout, you’re talking about having the local health authority – it’s a “shall” – the Board shall utilize the local health authority. I can see assisting in the development of these regulations, but processing the applications? I’m just wondering how the duties would fall. Either it’s the Board’s responsibility, or it isn’t, perhaps even the same with regard to proctoring the examinations. What are you foreseeing there?
Helen Foley:
The Board does not even have an office. If they do, then it is very small. Pete Allen, who is the chairman of the Board, can answer more questions. People from northern and southern Nevada can simply go to the Health District and take the examinations, pick up applications, and understand what the requirements are, but we do have that higher being, that state Board, that would be the final determination as to whether or not someone was qualified to receive this special certification. It should be one board, not the health districts that are doing that. What we’ve become is the facilitator to help do all of the administrative work. They would be the final group that determines someone’s appropriate eligibility for licensure. There may also be some people who work within the health districts that get this certification and we would not want the health districts, themselves, licensing them. That would be inappropriate. We do want the state Board to have that authority. I think they have a budget of $1,000 a year, so they have not taken on these types of responsibilities in the past, and we didn’t want them to fail because of the weight of this burden, but we wanted to make sure that we could lend a hand.
Pete Allen, Chairman, Board of Registered Environmental Health Specialists:
[Introduced himself. Provided Exhibit D.] I learned of this bill on Thursday evening. We have made an attempt to address the issue. As was stated, we are a very small board; maybe we are the smallest board in the state. We represent some 150 environmental health specialists. Unfortunately we do not have mandatory registration, and we are representing directly some 30 to 35 registrants at any point in time. We had intended to come to this Legislature to remedy that, to vote for mandatory registration, but the point is that we do represent environmental health practitioners throughout the state, and as such, we are very much concerned about it. In fact, the secretary to our board, Daniel Maxson, is currently in the process of drafting regulations for public housing and there is a section in there on mold remediation with respect to public housing. When we heard about this and looked at the fiscal note from Industrial Relations, we were rather shocked. Our main concern is that we are not sure, since we have four out of five people that NRS 625 places on our board, we do not operate out of an office. We have no staff. We are all volunteers on this board, so we are very limited in what we can do. My presence here is to find out how we can facilitate this. I do have a personal acquaintance with people who had this problem and we know how serious it is. I checked yesterday and the one family is still out of their house after 13 months with no end in sight. We know that there is a lot of pain involved here. Our concern – and I did register as neutral – is how we would accomplish this with a budget of $1,000 a year.
Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary/Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO:
[Introduced himself.] [I speak] in favor of this bill. Currently the Laborer’s Union in Nevada does this kind of work. We have a training program in place where we train workers to remove mold in the same way [as our] asbestos abatement program where there are certified asbestos removers. We have a program where prisoners who have learned that in prison end up at that local union. I believe we have twelve people who were trained in prison who work there now. We have the entire training program in place. In the asbestos side of it, DIR was charged with adopting the regulations and the licensing. I would offer our training program to you, and Skip David, who was unable to be here today, offered that training program to Senator O’Connell. I don’t have that, but I will get a copy for the record of this Committee.
[There were no further proponents testifying.]
Margi Grein, Legislative Advocate, Nevada State Contractors’ Board:
[Introduced herself.] We understand the concern and we are concerned as well; however, we do not believe the proper agency or regulatory body is the State Contractors’ Board. We license and regulate contractors, not environmental issues or health issues. I have submitted some material (Exhibit E, Exhibit F, Exhibit G, Exhibit H, and Exhibit I) that I am not going to read into the record, but I would like it entered in lieu of my testimony.
One thing that I would like to address is the fiscal note that Senator Coffin mentioned. We also have a copy of the amendment on Thursday and, at that time, I quickly prepared a fiscal note based on Amendment 908 and submitted it to budget and the LCB. The attachments are there, whether Senate Finance received them – I submitted it as quickly as possible, explaining how we came up with the cost. The way we determined the cost of this is – I know absolutely nothing about mold other than my minor experience with it recently. I found more out by reading the fiscal notes from DIR than I ever knew. I also went online. Some of that material, as far as what the other states are doing, if they are regulating it or attempting to regulate it, it’s going with their health divisions. It’s not going to a contractors licensing board.
Chairman Goldwater:
I think Senator Coffin’s contention was that the effective date of this bill might help you reconcile some of your concerns. Did you hear his testimony in that regard?
Margi Grein:
I did. I would still have to say that I do not believe that this is something that belongs with the Contractors’ Board. If it were something like the asbestos where they get a certification at DIR and they have to have that certification to deal with asbestos abatement or mold remediation, it would be fine. But for us to be the regulatory authority that would adopt the regulations and the enforcement and the licensure program, which is totally separate than what we do with contractors, I don’t think we would be doing the public any justice. The certification portion of it, as asbestos is, would be perfectly fine.
Senator Coffin:
The people who the Contractors’ Board regulates actually recommended and thought that they would have the expertise and desire to undertake this on behalf of the public. They have been a little chagrined to learn that people who they thought could do it have engaged in such a large fiscal note, which looks very similar to DIR’s, who told me personally and the other members of the Committee that they didn’t want to do it. It was also perfectly conveyed to me, by Ms. Grein and also Buzz Harris, their lobbyist. You may have a fiscal note now that looks a good deal different than the one the Senate had. Although it has the same numbers, it actually now has detail – so many personnel, so many staff hours, so much travel. On the other hand, the Senate fiscal note conveyed to us both from Ms. Grein by e-mail and in person by Mr. Harris –
Chairman Goldwater:
What about what Ms. Grein said regarding the certification by DIR that that was more analogous to the asbestos program?
Senator Coffin:
I will have to leave that up to the wisdom of this Committee and, as it amends the bill, perhaps a conference committee, to iron out some of these difficulties in the next 48 hours. We have friendly amendments, so I would suggest you amend. I think Ms. Foley touched on something that was important about the firewall with three different sections to divide the three professions. Look and see why we would need to not have one board do it, if they can do it. I think they can. They are allowed, in this legislation, to seek from others who have expertise the ability to do it. That’s how they would write their regulations. They don’t have to hire people to go out and do that. They simply ask the AFL-CIO what they do, the environmental health people what they recommend, what their nation [organization] recommends, and you put it together and you create and you look at the tests that are done. You put it together in one package. It can be done with the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
Chairman Goldwater:
So, Ms. Grein, it’s not that you can’t do it; it’s that you don’t want to do it?
Margi Grein:
No, I wouldn’t say that exactly. Certainly if this body decided that this was something the Contractors’ Board would have, we would give it our all and do the research. But is it the appropriate agency? Contracting is an occupation and yes, there are some professionals in that occupation.
Chairman Goldwater:
I’m guessing that Senator Coffin did a little research and some background on this bill to figure out where it would best fit. He’s given a good explanation. He went to the people in the industry; they said probably the Contractors’ Board. He knows state government as well as anybody. Why not place it on the Contractors’ Board?
Margi Grein:
I don’t know who submitted the recent amendment last week, but I do know that our Board has been talking about this since March, and one of the pieces of information I gave you would be if this went under [NRS] 624. This was dated March 10, [and conveyed] our thoughts that we felt it wasn’t the appropriate body. Just because we’re not part of the General Fund doesn’t mean that we can regulate anything that comes up. None of our staff has the expertise to start digging into what constitutes mold remediation or putting the definitions of mold in the contractors’ statute. We would definitely do our best, but on the other hand, is it the appropriate agency? We think not.
[Chairman Goldwater asked Senator Coffin to summarize.]
Senator Coffin:
I cannot summarize anything more than we can discuss in the hallways between all of the meetings that are going on.
[Chairman Goldwater asked the legal counsel to clarify the amendment.]
Wil Keane:
We want to make clear on Ms. Foley’s amendment the additional provisions of Section 29 regarding the Board utilizing a local health authority for assisting and doing a variety of other things. Was that meant to apply only in the larger counties, the counties with 100,000 or more? [Received confirmation.] And was that “shall” –
Helen Foley:
Actually, if there were people who live or reside in Lincoln County or Nye County [for example], they may want to come down to Las Vegas to take their examination. [Las Vegas] would have the space and the facility. The same thing would happen in northern Nevada. I wouldn’t want to restrict it entirely to just that county, but they could help the Board out in those situations if it were mutually agreeable to all parties, and I think that we have that agreement.
Wil Keane:
Just to clarify, this is at least something that the Board would agree to do and would work out with the local health authorities?
Helen Foley:
That’s right. It would be something that would be mutual.
Senator Coffin:
Her second suggestion is also agreeable and sensible, and that is to make sure that they put in the additional firewall and those other parts of the statutes.
Chairman Goldwater:
I’m not going to take a motion on this. I’m going to call probably a Floor meeting or if we meet again. I’d like to do a little bit more legwork in research.
Margi Grein:
I wanted to state that during the last three months several agencies worked very hard to avoid having the responsibility of this bill. They all decided that the Contractors’ Board was a great place to put it. That’s my summary.
Chairman Goldwater:
The meeting is adjourned [at 3:20 p.m.].
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sharee Gebhardt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman David Goldwater, Chairman
DATE: