MINUTES OF THE
SENATE Committee on Human Resources and Facilities
Seventy-second Session
March 5, 2003
The Senate Committee on Human Resources and Facilities was called to order by Chairman Raymond D. Rawson, at 1:40 p.m., on Wednesday, March 5, 2003, in Room 2135 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
Senator Barbara Cegavske, Vice Chairman
Senator Maurice E. Washington
Senator Dennis Nolan
Senator Joseph Neal
Senator Bernice Mathews
Senator Valerie Wiener
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
H. Pepper Sturm, Committee Policy Analyst
Patricia Vardakis, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Janice C. Pine, Lobbyist, Saint Mary’s Health Network
Michael Johnson, Manager, Outreach Program, Saint Mary’s Health Network
Alex Haartz, M.P.H., Deputy Administrator, Health Division, Department of Human Resources
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Nevada Foot Institute
Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board
Richard Lisle, Lobbyist, Mechanical Contractors Association of Nevada
Dwight Perkins, Regional Manager, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials
Philip J. Campbell, Training Coordinator, Pipe Trades Joint Apprentice and Journeyman Training Committee for Southern Nevada, U.A. Local No. 525
Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Robert Nard, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building Trades and Construction Council
Bob Lopes, Business Manager/Financial Secretary, U.A. Local 350
Robert V. Miller, Western Regional Manager, National Fire Protection Association
Len Savage, Concerned Citizen
John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Mechanical Contractors
Judith Nagle, Lobbyist, SMACNA of Southern Nevada
Ronald L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Clark County, Nevada Organization of Building Officials
Richard Wilkie, Lobbyist, City of Henderson
Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas
Larry S. Farr, Fire Marshal, City of Reno
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Association of Builders and Contractors
Doyle G. Sutton, State Fire Marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Public Safety
Ex-Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas and Lyon Counties
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 96.
SENATE BILL 96: Removes certain mobile units from requirement of being regulated as medical facility. (BDR 40-744)
Janice C. Pine, Lobbyist, Saint Mary’s Health Network:
Senate Bill 96 is a cleanup bill. The intent was mobile units operated by a Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization (JCAHO) approved facility should be exempted from being regulated as a medical facility. The exemption language in the bill was placed there incorrectly. Senate Bill 96 resolves the issue.
Michael Johnson, Manager, Outreach Program, Saint Mary’s Health Network:
I manage the St. Mary’s caravans. Currently, there are three mobile units: two dental units and one medical unit. In the future there will be a fourth unit of combined medical and dental services. Our purpose is to provide medical and dental services to the underserved in the community. The medical unit and half of our fourth medical unit would be affected by this regulation. We are JCAHO‑accredited, follow the guidelines, and comply with those requirements. It is important for us to deliver quality care at the lowest price possible.
Our dental units are locations where medical services could be provided because of the contact with the underserved population. This regulation would require us to be accredited for the dental units or we will not be able to provide services such as immunization, assessments, and referrals.
We are often involved with community partnerships to provide these services. These units are great portals to provide care for people who do not seek care. In those situations we work with the Health Division that provides immunization services and maintain the records. This presents a problem on how we would maintain records and become the provider of services under the regulations. When a facility is JCAHO-accredited and follows regulatory statutes, they should be exempted from this legislation. I urge the committee to vote in favor of S.B. 96.
Alex Haartz, M.P.H., Deputy Administrator, Health division, Department of Human Resources:
Senate Bill No. 483 of the 71st Session created the concept of State licensure for mobile medical facilities. The intent was never to require licensure of a mobile medical facility. It is in the bill with two other exemptions provided by a federally qualified health center and an emergency medical vehicle. The Health Division is in support of S.B. 96.
Chairman Rawson:
There are dental vans in the State that are not operated by a hospital. Are they currently exempt or does S.B. 96 address them?
Mr. Haartz:
Dental vans operated by a private dentist are not subject to licensure. It is an extension of their practice.
Chairman Rawson:
Would it be the same for the university system or the dental school?
Mr. Haartz:
Yes.
Gary E. Milliken, Lobbyist, Nevada Foot Institute:
Senate Bill No. 483 of the 71st Session established mobile units. The bill included the St. Mary’s Health Network. It was never our intent to include them.
Senator Neal:
Why would you not want this to be regulated as a medical facility?
Mr. Milliken:
The intent was that a unit attached to a hospital, such as St. Mary’s Health Network, was excluded from the regulations. A podiatrist who provided services in the rural areas of Las Vegas originated the bill.
Chairman Rawson:
When a van is used as a private office for medical, dental, or podiatry, they are not licensed. St. Mary’s Health Network goes through an accreditation process. The van is inspected by accreditation agencies; therefore, it would be a redundancy.
Senator Neal:
Are you saying the State would not have authority to oversee these vans?
Mr. Milliken:
We have been working with the State for 2 years, and in 3 weeks we will be getting the final approval.
Senator Neal:
How often will the State do an inspection?
Mr. Milliken:
There is a regular inspection cycle.
Senator Neal:
What about the safety requirements of the mobile unit?
Mr. Milliken:
The mobile unit was inspected by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). They imposed many restrictions on the unit.
Senator Neal:
Would the DMV be inspecting the medical equipment?
Mr. Milliken:
The DMV was concerned with the vehicle’s safety due to the strange size.
Senator Neal:
Is there documentation of a vehicle’s requirements?
Mr. Milliken:
I will provide you with the regulations the State imposed on medical mobile units.
Senator Neal:
What agency imposed the regulations?
Mr. Haartz:
The regulations are adopted by the State Board of Health and implemented by the Health Division. The Health Division inspects and makes sure both the supplies and equipment contained in the vehicles are appropriate and maintained correctly. The intent was when a mobile vehicle was attached to a hospital it was an extension of the facility, which is required to be licensed. It would be duplicative licensure to have the mobile vehicle licensed too. As long as it was JCAHO‑accredited, the mobile unit would be covered under the current facility license.
Senator Neal:
Does the health agency inspect the hospital and mobile units? How many mobile units are there?
Mr. Haartz:
At present none. The inspection would occur every 3 years based on a federal requirement. If there is a complaint or if an investigation is required, the agency would inspect the unit many times throughout the year.
Senator Neal:
What experience do you have to inspect the units?
Mr. Haartz:
National standards have been adopted and utilized. Our staff would survey the vehicle checking whether the insurance, materials, equipment, policies and procedures were appropriate. I will provide you with a copy of the regulations.
Senator Neal:
Can the mobile unit perform all services of the hospital?
Mr. Haartz:
Yes. At the facility’s discretion, based on policy and procedures.
Senator Neal:
A mobile hospital would then exist?
Mr. Haartz:
The intent is not to provide surgical procedures in a mobile capacity.
Senator Neal:
How could you prevent it?
Mr. Haartz:
There may be language in the regulation precluding certain procedures being provided in a mobile unit.
Senator Neal:
Can we postpone this bill until the regulations are provided?
Chairman Rawson:
There is no reason to postpone the bill. The issues you are raising have been covered. There is dental and podiatric surgery performed in the mobile units, but it is minor surgery. A mobile hospital may not be practical or economical, but could be beneficial in certain areas. Mr. Haartz, it would be helpful to provide us with the regulations today.
Mr. Haartz:
I will provide your committee staff with the regulations.
Chairman Rawson:
I will close the hearing on S.B. 96 and open the hearing on S.B. 115.
SENATE BILL 115: Provides for designation of State Plumbing Code by State Public Works Board. (BDR 40-540)
Daniel K. O’Brien, Manager, State Public Works Board (SPWB):
I have provided the committee with a copy and will be reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit C. Original is on file in the Research Library.). The State Public Works Board is the sponsor of this bill. The bill’s intent is to remove the adoption of a State plumbing code from the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS)and place it into the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). By placing the adoption within the NAC, amendments to the code can be better facilitated and the State policy regarding uniformity can be better implemented.
I have provided you with a copy of NRS excerpts and the Uniform Plumbing Code, pages 3 and 4 (Exhibit C). The Health Division in their regulationsadopted the Uniform Plumbing Code of the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical officials.
Chairman Rawson:
Can you only get a waiver on geographic and climatic conditions?
Mr. O’Brien:
There are three. Further in the statute, “Duties of the Public Works Board,” it states, “changes have to be deemed warranted by geographic, topographic, and climatic conditions.” We are proposing amendments to make both paragraphs consistent.
I have provided a copy of the Clark County proposed amendments pages 7 through 27 (Exhibit C). Their amendments appear to be well thought out, coordinated with the other local jurisdictions and the building community; however, many of them are not related to geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions.
Senate Bill 115 is about developing a process allowing amendments to the plumbing code to be proposed, discussed, modified, and adopted on a statewide level to meet the State’s policy defined in NRS 444.340.
Senator Cegavske:
What inspired this bill?
Mr. O’Brien:
The City of Fernley requested the adoption of the International Plumbing Code. There is a series of codes being produced that combine codes across the nation into one code. I denied their request because most changes in the International Plumbing Code are not related to climatic, topographic, or geographic conditions. One concern is the apprenticeship programs in trade organizations are based upon the Uniform Plumbing Code. Changing the code would cause significant problems. We are proposing a better process through regulations rather than waiting 2 years to change a code or provisions of a code through statute.
Senator Cegavske:
Is this a problem in the small areas?
Mr. O’Brien:
It will be a problem in the future. You may hear testimony from other jurisdictions looking to adopt the International Plumbing Code. If the process stays in statute, there would be no ability to have hearings or testimony in a regulation-type process. Clark County is trying to keep the Uniform Plumbing Code intact and adopt the other International Plumbing Code to make them work together.
Chairman Rawson:
The Legislature has reserved the right to make these major changes. Are they asking for regulatory authority to make changes?
Mr. O’Brien:
Yes. The three conditions are restrictive. A number of the amendments proposed by Clark County are not related to those conditions but are good amendments.
Chairman Rawson:
We will ask other testifiers if your ability is amended to do this on the basis of geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions; or, add, “community consensus of need” would give access to changes in the code through a regulatory process.
Senator Neal:
What is the plumbing code referred to on page 5, lines 21 through 24?
Mr. O’Brien:
In the future there is the possibility of additional codes the State or local jurisdictions may want to adopt. One is the International Plumbing Code. The intent was not to be limited when it comes to regulations. We should allow for future input and changes if the statute is going to be amended.
Senator Neal:
Are the codes for the purpose of safety?
Mr. O’Brien:
Yes.
Senator Neal:
Are there any safety measures not covered in the present code?
Mr. O’Brien:
The Uniform Plumbing Code has been around for 70 years and is a good code.
Senator Neal:
If there is no difference in the safety requirements, why change the code?
Mr. O’Brien:
We are looking for the ability to change as time changes.
Senator Neal:
Does the Uniform Plumbing Code apply to entities across the country?
Mr. O’Brien:
Yes, a number of them.
Senator Neal:
If the Uniform Plumbing Code has worked effectively, why change it?
Mr. O’Brien:
The International Plumbing Code and other model codes are being adopted throughout the country.
Senator Neal:
Is there a need to change for safety reasons?
Mr. O’Brien:
No.
Richard Lisle, Lobbyist, Mechanical Contractors Association of Nevada:
I represent the Coalition of Plumbing Code Users and Manufacturers. We are concerned about the proposed change. It will have a great impact on our industry. We have a number of issues to discuss. Mr. Perkins will explain the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Dwight Perkins, Regional Manager, International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO):
Our association has been in existence since 1926 developing codes and the Uniform Plumbing Code. In 1969 the State adopted this code into statute. Our association is composed of plumbing inspectors, contractors, manufacturers, homebuilders, journeyman plumbers, consultants, engineers, government academia, suppliers, and consumers. All have helped to promulgate the Uniform Plumbing Code. The code is widely adopted and used in 8000 cities in 34 states. The Uniform Plumbing Code is updated every 3 years and republished. It is a turnkey document which contains everything for plumbing systems and is superior to the International Plumbing Code. To back up our code, we offer a full range of support services such as toll-free code interpretations, educational seminars, publications, training programs for inspectors, the industry’s inspector certification, and Internet-based information access. The codes are available in many languages. We have offices throughout the world. Through the World Trade Organization’s efforts our organization was the first to sign an agreement with the People’s Republic of China. It is a major step for United States businesses that develop and manufacture plumbing supplies and fixtures.
Philip J. Campbell, Training Coordinator, Pipe Trades Joint Apprentice and Journeyman Training Committee for Southern Nevada, U.A. Local No. 525:
The proponent of S.B. 115 stated there was no change to the plumbing code. There is language in the bill to change the plumbing code which would have a drastic affect on our training and the plumbing systems. The International Plumbing Code is vastly different from the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Chairman Rawson:
Is the International Plumbing Code a lesser code?
Mr. Campbell:
Yes, it is. The third point in my letter to the committee (Exhibit D) explains code experts have concluded the Uniform Plumbing Code is superior for safety and protection. In the documents I have provided, pages 3 through 13, the officials in southern Nevada created the Southern Nevada Building Officials, a committee to look at the Uniform Plumbing Code and the International Plumbing Code. Pages 12 and 13 of are their conclusions. They have determined the Uniform Plumbing Code is a better code for the safety and welfare of citizens. The graphic on page 2 illustrates the cost of the Uniform Plumbing Code 2002 Edition is$65, but there would be a need for seven books at a cost of $265 if the International Plumbing Code was adopted. I represent over 1500 journeyman and apprentices in southern Nevada which would equate to over $300,000 just to change codebooks. It would cost $72,000 to provide training in the new code. There are over 4000 nonunion plumbers in southern Nevada as well as inspectors and building officials. I urge you to reject S.B. 115 and allow the Uniform Plumbing Code to remain in effect.
Chairman Rawson:
Is the Universal Plumbing Code adaptable and will it grow with our needs? Is there any reason we could be charged with not adapting to what is a reasonable practice?
Mr. Campbell:
No. The code process change that is done with International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) represents all of the industry. Under the International Plumbing Code only building officials can comment and vote on changes. With IAPMO anyone can submit and comment on a code adoption. Anyone can apply to IAPMO for membership.
Senator Mathews:
Has IAPMO met with the sponsor of S.B. 115?
Mr. Lisle:
We have met.
Senator Wiener:
Does adding the category of topography cause problems?
Mr. Campbell:
The current process allows this to be done. The memorandum on page 3 (Exhibit D) created a committee to report and suggest amendments needed. The City of Las Vegas has adopted the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code with the amendments agreed upon by the seven municipalities in southern Nevada.
Danny L. Thompson, Lobbyist, Nevada State AFL-CIO:
We oppose S.B. 115. This is a matter of public safety. A regulatory body should not make this decision. There have been many bad experiences caused by a regulatory body and ultimately the Legislature is responsible.
Robert Nard, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Building Trades and Construction Council:
On behalf of the Southern Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council and our 19 affiliated local unions, which include Local 525, we oppose S.B. 115.
Bob Lopes, Business Manager/Financial Secretary, U.A. Local 350:
We oppose S.B. 115 and ask you to reject thebill. Senate Bill 115 does not enhance the safety in the plumbing industry. The expense of changing codes would be great for all parties concerned.
Senator Neal:
Are there any additional costs associated with changing the code? What would be the affect on the person working with new standards? How long would a person need to learn the new standards?
Mr. Campbell:
I believe the training could be accomplished with a 40-hour class. This would affect plumbers, apprentices, inspectors, plumbing engineers, and architects.
Senator Neal:
Would existing plumbers need training too?
Mr. Campbell:
Yes. Who will pay for the costs?
Robert V. Miller, Western Regional Manager, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA):
We oppose S.B. 115. In the interest ofpublic safety, our codes and standards for every city and state establish a safety net for our community. On pages 4 and 5 of the bill is a list of the adopted codes. These should only be changed when safety would be improved or would be in the best interest of our people. The Electric Code is adopted by all 50 states. Other agencies have adopted the Propane Gas Code. The National Fuel Gas Code is companion to the Uniform Plumbing Code. Over the last few years there has been an explosion and change over codes throughout the nation. By converting from statutory to regulatory administrative rule you would increase the politicization of this process. I urge you to keep the codes at the State level.
Len Savage, Concerned Citizen:
I am from Savage and Son Plumbing and Heating and am representing many contractors who are here today. We were established in 1893 with Nevada Business License No. 10. We oppose S.B. 115 and recommend no changes.
John Madole, Lobbyist, Nevada Association of Mechanical Contractors:
We wish to register our objection to S.B. 115.
Judith Nagle, Lobbyist, SMACNA of Southern Nevada:
I represent the sheet metal contractors in southern Nevada. In addition to sheet metal, many of our contractors do projects that are mechanical, including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and plumbing. We use the Uniform Mechanical Code in southern Nevada. All six jurisdictions met and adopted the Uniform Mechanical Code and the Uniform Plumbing Code. This bill will not create uniformity in the codes being used. I oppose S.B. 115.
Ronald L. Lynn, Lobbyist, Clark County, Nevada Organization of Building Officials:
We applaud Mr. O’Brien’s attempt to change this process. There are some flaws. We have reviewed the process and the Uniform Plumbing Code is desired in southern Nevada. We realize a flexible system can be an advantage. A regulatory rather than a statutory process may be better for the evolution of the codes. I am concerned our amendments will be disallowed under this process. I do not want to be subject to the State public works director’s ruling on the adequacy of our amendments.
I have been with the department for 22 years and until recently we never submitted these amendments. Some of the provisions, if limited solely to climatic, topographic or geographic conditions, would make it difficult to build our more complex, large, and notable structures. We have adopted the Uniform Plumbing Code. We support the process. Both codes are attempting to address the minimum standards for safety. Buildings are complex. They are holistic in nature and are not a line-by-line or code-by-code evolution. There is a need to have flexibility for engineering, architecture, and other sciences to be used. To be subject to arbitrary overruling is very challenging. Our buildings are state‑of‑the-art in southern Nevada.
Senator Neal:
What is your understanding of the language stricken on lines 37 through 40 on page 3?
Mr. Lynn:
The chairman of the State Public Works Board or his designee shall review each amendment to the Uniform Plumbing Code and approve or disapprove of the amendment for use in Nevada.
Senator Neal:
How has the language been applied?
Mr. Lynn:
I do not believe it has been applied.
Senator Neal:
Does the language give the chairman of the State Public Works Board the authority to amend or change the codes?
Mr. Lynn:
Yes.
Richard Wilkie, Lobbyist, City of Henderson:
I wish to submit to the committee a letter (Exhibit E) from Michael W. Bouse, Building and Fire Safety Director, City of Henderson to express concerns regarding S.B. 115.
Senator Mathews:
For the record, I am the mother of a plumbing business owner in the Reno area who has expressed concern about changing the present plumbing code; therefore, I will not vote on this bill.
Chairman Rawson:
We will open the hearing on Senate Bill 118.
SENATE BILL 118: Revises provisions governing ability of State Fire Marshal to regulate construction, maintenance and safety of buildings and structures in certain counties. (BDR 42-850)
Mr. Lynn:
I am representing Clark County and the Nevada Organization of Building Officials. I have provided an amendment to the language on page 4, lines 1 and 2 (Exhibit F). Legal authorities have recommended the change identifying the appropriate person in this section of the bill.
Clark and Washoe Counties’ concern is to have the ability to regulate and adopt codes and standards which fit our circumstances, while maintaining the standards of life, safety, and consideration for the public and industry. The bill is written to be voluntary in nature. Jurisdictions within large counties of over 100,000 people may, if they choose, have the State fire marshal involved at any aspect and sign agreements. I have met with the State fire marshal and other organizations. This bill will make a more efficient and effective process. I do not believe the present structures could have been built without the appropriate, safe, and scientifically valid amendments which may not have been accepted under different authorities.
Chairman Rawson
Would any other counties be affected by the 100,000-population exception?
Mr. Lynn:
No.
Senator Neal:
Would you explain the importance of the new language on page 3, lines 37 through 44, and page 4, lines 1 and 2 of S.B. 118?
Mr. Lynn:
It would be inappropriate for me to propose anything to State-owned or State‑occupied buildings.
Senator Neal:
Are we eliminating the fire marshal’s authority to deal with State-owned buildings in the population of 100,000 or more?
Mr. Lynn:
We are not. The language states it will not affect it and will remain under the auspices of the State fire marshal. The language removes structures such as the MGM Grand Hotel, the Luxor, non-State-owned or non-State-occupied buildings in a county whose population is 100,000 or more.
Senator Neal:
Why are you removing those structures?
Mr. Lynn:
The Luxor could not have been built under the restrictions imposed at that time by the State fire marshal. Many of our large structures could not have been built. As code officials, we work with codes every day in the construction process as well as with local fire departments, architects, and engineers.
Senator Neal:
Are you aware of the reasons these provisions became law?
Mr. Lynn:
No.
Senator Neal:
Do you recall the MGM Grand fire?
Mr. Lynn:
Yes.
Senator Neal:
Senate Bill No. 214 of the 61st Session was passed to curtail the type of disasters such as the MGM and Hilton fires. Are you saying Clark County has reached the level where buildings will no longer be constructed with the minimum of safety and protection of life?
Mr. Lynn:
No. We far exceed those standards. The provisions are either equivalent or exceed the minimum standards in many of these buildings and structures. The State fire marshal has the staff to review those large hotels and casinos.
Senator Neal:
Are you telling the committee that by passing this bill and eliminating the large hotels from inspection by the fire marshal there will not be a recurrence of the 1981 disasters?
Mr. Lynn:
Yes. I believe the current process far exceeds what was in place in ‘80s, ‘70s or ‘60s.
Senator Neal:
Under what authority are you speaking?
Mr. Lynn:
I am speaking as the building official for Clark County and chairman of the Nevada Organization of Building Officials.
Chairman Rawson:
We have a number of small counties who do not have the resources to hire the expertise of Clark and Washoe Counties. The State fire marshal is still important to the small counties. Senator Neal was a pioneer in this area and wanted the record to reflect your intention is not to deteriorate anything previously accomplished. Does the language on page 3, line 43, refer to Carson City?
Mr. Lynn:
Yes.
Chairman Rawson:
Would school districts have the ability to contract with either the State fire marshal or someone else?
Chairman Rawson:
Could they also contract with the county?
Mr. Lynn:
Yes.
Kami Dempsey, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas:
I would like to echo the comments of Mr. Lynn. From the MGM Grand and Hilton disasters, we have learned to have superior standards even higher than the fire marshal has implemented. The City of Las Vegas feels it is important to have minimum standards because our fire and police officers go into other municipalities or areas. Even though the City of Las Vegas has a higher standard, we know we are protecting the safety of our fire force. With the State fire marshal there is a minimum standard and it should be maintained.
Mr. Wilkie:
The City of Henderson supports S.B. 118 and concurs with previous comments. There is a letter (Exhibit G) from the building and fire safety director for the City of Henderson highlighting the reasons for our support of the bill.
Larry S. Farr, Fire Marshal, City of Reno:
I would like to clarify references made to the current statute. Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 477.030 gives authority to the fire marshal to impose regulations throughout the State. They have the right to adopt regulations, but the ability to enforce those regulations does not apply in counties whose population is over 100,000.
I have been with the fire department for 33 years. Thirty years have been spent in fire prevention and safety. Senate Bill 118 is imposing the regulations of the State fire marshal apply throughout the State. What they want is the State fire marshal to adopt the building and fire codes. They do not want the regulations of the building code to apply. Currently, the State fire marshal does not have the ability to enforce those codes. Reno, Washoe and Clark Counties enforce those codes.
It was the legislative intent when it was passed years ago. When Senator Lamb reorganized the fire marshal’s office, the intent was the State fire marshal’s office should serve the people of rural Nevada. The counties who have a large staff and the ability to serve their communities could do so without imposing costs to the State. Many conflicts arise in the larger counties when there are multiple authorities trying to impose regulations. There will be fewer conflicts if a school district, builder, or contractor can go to one regulatory agency to get an answer. We support S.B. 118.
Irene E. Porter, Lobbyist, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association:
I support S.B.118. The large counties of Nevada have the finest fire and building department personnel and our codes are superior to any in the country. After the MGM fire, I served on the Clark County Fire Mediation Retrofit Board that retrofitted all the structures due to the 1981 Legislation. Because of limited funding and budgets, we should use the resources such as the office of fire marshal for the communities in Nevada who have no other option. We should use the expertise of the fire and building officials in the large counties. This would make the best use of our resources.
Randy Robison, Lobbyist, Association of Builders and Contractors:
The Association of Builders and Contractors supports S.B. 118.
Doyle G. Sutton, State Fire marshal, State Fire Marshal Division, Department of Public Safety:
I have major concerns with S.B. 118. In the past the fire marshal had the responsibility to adopt the State minimum code regardless of the population cap. One concern is the ability not to have authority in the larger counties and therefore a lesser code would be adopted. The codes in our State set a national standard. The fire marshal does not have or want authority over the casinos in southern Nevada or Washoe County. We do not have the resources to be involved. Our objective is to see at least the minimum standard is utilized. The larger counties have the ability to adopt any code as long as they are equal to or more stringent than our codes.
Another concern is how S.B. 118 affects the fire marshal’s ability to interact in the counties with a population of over 100,000. We have cooperative agreements in some consolidated municipalities and other State agencies. We wish to maintain those agreements. The agreements we have with schools are a major revenue source to us. Sixty-five percent of our budget is generated from the plans section of the plans review from Clark County, and the school district. The school districts are satisfied with the process we have provided. The loss of those revenues would be devastating to the office of the fire marshal.
Chairman Rawson:
Senate Bill 118 would not preclude the school districts from contracting with the State fire marshal’s office. I have checked with the school districts and they are satisfied with the services. I do not detect the large counties want to take on this responsibility. It does put pressure on the State fire marshal to perform because the school districts could contract elsewhere.
Mr. Sutton:
Any local agency that wants to assume the responsibilities of the fire can be delegated through a local agreement. The Governor’s steering committee and fundamental review will be looking at the State fire marshal’s office and developing recommendations on funding and necessary changes to the NRS. There is a proposed Assembly Bill which clarifies Chapter 477 of NRS and incorporates the recommendations of that committee. The committee was representative of fire service, building officials, architects, and engineers in the State. There were numerous meetings throughout the State to gather input for the recommendations. It was confusing to see S.B. 118 when there is another bill rewriting the NRS. Most of the fire service did not have input into S.B. 118. I believe S.B. 118 should be set aside until the impacts of such changes are evaluated.
Senator Neal:
I asked the county representative to read the language and what it meant in terms of the regulations you would have to enforce. This section goes to the heart of whether we will have a uniform regulation or the counties with populations of 100,000 or more could develop standards less restrictive than those from the State fire marshal’s office. We need the fire marshal to review the codes to make sure they are on the State level. Clark County could be influenced to have a lesser code than would be required by the fire marshal’s office. This concerns me. The language has served us well until this point. It has not stopped hotels being built. I would hope the committee will not diminish the fire codes to a point of having problems as in the past.
Chairman Rawson:
On page 4, section 2, of S.B. 118 it states, ”After May 15, 1981, the governing body of a local government may not adopt an ordinance requiring changes to existing structures that are less stringent,” it would not pertain to new buildings, only existing structures.
Senator Neal:
The new buildings could have fewer restrictions.
Chairman Rawson:
It is not likely a sophisticated county would do something less restrictive.
Mr. Sutton:
There are numerous codes being adopted. We have reviewed other codes and have found them to be passive and less restrictive in many areas. In reviewing the 2000 code with modifications, we recommended 18 items that were less restrictive than the 1997 code. We have not reviewed the 2003 code. We must be careful all codes meet the State’s minimum standard. Clark County building and fire officials do an excellent job. They have the resources and expertise; however, we must be careful about code adoption.
Senator Neal:
How long have you been with the fire marshal’s office?
Mr. Sutton:
One year. I have been in fire service for 25 years.
Senator Neal:
In this state?
Mr. Sutton:
Yes.
Senator Neal:
Are you aware there are sprinkler systems and sprinkler heads on the market that do not measure up to the proper standards of this State?
Mr. Sutton:
There has been a recall. We inform local jurisdictions of such matters.
Senator Neal:
Are you aware some of the major hotels in southern Nevada had such sprinkler heads?
Mr. Sutton:
I am.
Chairman Rawson:
Will they be found and replaced?
Mr. Sutton:
Yes. At this point they have not failed.
Mr. Miller:
I am speaking in opposition to S.B. 118. I have reviewed this bill and it raises many questions. It states there is no fiscal impact on local government. As the fire marshal testified, there are a number of codes out there and pressure to move these codes. In the Clark County study there were many areas where the new codes were less stringent. We have a model building code on the market, the NFPA building code. I am not aware of any studies to determine when and what portions of codes are less or more stringent than the current code. The 1997 Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code are excellent. There has been testimony concerning the codes being old. The structures could not be built today using those codes. Every model code in this nation says the local jurisdiction has the ability to be flexible, add new technologies, and receive alternate methods. A performance-based code is the only way many of the large facilities are built in Nevada. One testifier said, “This does not remove the State fire marshal’s ability to adopt building codes statewide. In the preface of the bill on page 1, it states, “building codes do not apply in a county whose population is 100,000 or more.”
The NFPA has been the keeper of the nation’s fire statistics for over 100 years. After the MGM fire, Nevada was upheld as a prime example for the nation. There is nothing wrong with the codes in Nevada. There is political pressure to change the codes. Who enforces the codes? Who adopts the minimum life safety regulations? Uniformity is critical.
The NFPA maintains a full-time fire investigation staff. Our staff investigated the fires in high-rise buildings which occurred here and the World Trade Center. We have a team in Rhode Island investigating the nightclub fire. We look at codes and fires to determine how people exit or could not exit a building. The committee should take a conservative approach. Before changing the codes, make certain an analysis is done to determine the impact the minimum statewide codes will have.
Ex-Senator Lawrence Jacobsen, Lobbyist, Carson City, Douglas, and Lyon Counties:
I have been an active member of the Douglas County Engine Company for 56 years. I am in favor S.B. 118. As the fire marshal testified, the bill may be questionable in certain areas, but we are concerned with the health and safety of the general public. Douglas County has 14 fire departments of which 13 are volunteer fire departments. We are interested in the seriousness of the fire, not in the code when we respond to a call. Last month we responded to 235 calls. We have a paramedic district with 33 members operating four ambulances. I am in favor of anything that strengthens the fire marshal’s office. The fire marshal’s office has been a controversial issue since day one. We volunteer to fight fires and we need someone to follow up. The fire marshal’s office is responsible for our training. We have the first training center in the area located in Carson City. I would ask the committee to consider S.B. 118 carefully. Life and safety are our number one concern. Lake Tahoe is the biggest fire threat in this area.
Mr. O’Brien:
I have provided the committee with my written testimony (Exhibit H). I am not for or against S.B. 118, but I do have concerns regarding its passage until some issues are addressed. Under the proposed bill the State-owned and State‑occupied property is still under the jurisdiction of the State fire marshal who adopts all the appropriate codes. My understanding of the proposed language on lines 37 through 44, page 3, and lines 1 and 2, page 4 is, will it exclude a county whose population is 100,000 or more, or one that has been converted into a consolidated municipality, including the cities within that county, from being subject to the minimum codes adopted by the State. Those jurisdictions include Clark County, North Las Vegas, Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City, Mesquite, Carson City, Washoe County, Reno, and Sparks. It is good public policy not to apply the minimum code requirements the State fire marshal has adopted across the State. This issue relates to the State Public Works Board because the State fire marshal performs nonstructural life-safety plan reviews on school district projects for the SPWB. They receive authority for this review from the SPWB, who has plan review authority only, not inspection authority. The State fire marshal currently performs inspection services of school district projects as part of its duties to enforce its provisions under NRS 477.030 of the, subsection 1, paragraph (c).
It was stated the school districts could contract with the State fire marshal. I have not found language in the statute giving school districts that authority. If S.B. 118 were passed, the State fire marshal does not have inspection authority. My concern is, since the SPWB has delegated the nonstructural life-safety review of school district projects to the State fire marshal, and the inspection of nonstructural life-safety provisions under this bill, personnel from another jurisdiction such as the local fire department would perform those inspection services. This will create conflicts and delays adversely affecting the school districts in time and money. School districts build many prototype plans and want to deal with one jurisdiction’s requirements. Further, work needs to be done on how this type of change can be implemented. I am recommending a study be made, bring the parties together, and work out how the State fire marshal can pass authority over to the locals, not adversely affect the school districts, and clarify the SPWB’s role in all these matters.
Chairman Rawson:
We will schedule a work session on these issues. I have instructed staff to obtain opinions on the concerns raised. We have Bill Draft Request (BDR) 40‑702 for committee introduction.
BILL DRAFT REQUEST 40-702: Requires the Department of Human Resources to establish a statewide information and referral system for health, welfare, human and social services. (Later introduced as Senate Bill 239.)
This bill refers to the 2-1-1 number. It has a fiscal note affecting the State. I will review the fiscal note to see whether it should go to the Senate Committee on Finance or return to this committee.
SENATOR WIENER MOVED TO INTRODUCE BDR 40-702.
SENATOR CEGAVSKE SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATOR WASHINGTON WAS ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.)
*****
Chairman Rawson:
There being no further issues before us today, I adjourn this meeting at 3:24 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patricia Vardakis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Raymond D. Rawson, Chairman
DATE: