MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Commerce and Labor

 

Seventy-Second Session

April 11, 2003

 

 

The Committee on Commerce and Laborwas called to order at 12:19 p.m., on Friday, April 11, 2003.  Chairman David Goldwater presided in Room 4100 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada, and, via simultaneous videoconference, in Room 4401 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 Chairman

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:

 

Assemblyman Jerry Claborn, District No. 19

Assemblyman Jason Geddes, District No. 24

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst

Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst

Wil Keane, Committee Counsel

Patricia Blackburn, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

William Harnedy, Private Citizen

Dean Hardy, Attorney, representing William Harnedy

Greg Davis, President, Local Union # 1607, North Las Vegas, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada

John Ellerton, M.D., Oncologist

Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary/Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO

Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada

Buffy Gail Martin, Government Relations Director, American Cancer Society of Nevada

Jon Pierce, Wildland Fire Fighter

Daryl Moore, Director of Human Resources, City of Henderson

Randy Waterman, Risk Manager, City of Sparks

Wayne Carlson, Executive Director, Public Agency Compensation Trust

Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst & Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas

Shari Peterson, R.D.H., M.Ed., Dental Hygiene Instructor, Community College of Southern Nevada

Fred Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, representing Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners

Tom R. Skancke, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Chiropractic Association

Craig Hudson, Community Bankers Association

Michael Alonso, Legislative Advocate, representing Toyota

Robert R. Barengo, Owner, Western Thrift and Title Company

Donal Hummer, Vice-President, Harley-Davidson Financial Services

Larry Osborne, Legislative Advocate, Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce

Timothy Hay, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection

Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Advocate, Energy Works Consulting

Joseph Johnson, Legislative Advocate, Sunrise Sustainable Resource Corporation, and Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club

Susan Fisher, Legislative Advocate, Barrick Gold Corporation

David Noble, Assistant General Counsel, Public Utilities Commission, State of Nevada

Jack Kim, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Association of Health Plans

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, representing Elko County

Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers

Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner, Department of Business and Industry, Consumer Affairs Division, State of Nevada

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Please note for the record that all members are present; a quorum is present.  We will get started, hear the bills, and then go on to work session.  We will introduce A.B. 451.

 

Assembly Bill 451:  Provides that certain forms of cancer contracted by firemen are occupational diseases under certain circumstances. (BDR 53-1197)

 

Rusty McAllister, Vice President, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada:

[Introduced himself.  Spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit C)].  On behalf of the Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada we would like to talk to you about A.B. 451.  We bring this bill before you today in an attempt to get some help and clarification of existing statute regarding cancer protections currently in place for fire fighters.  In 1987, the Legislature passed legislation to provide fire fighters protections for cancers due to the increased risk of repeated exposures to known toxic carcinogens.  This legislation was put into law and currently exists under NRS (Nevada Revised Statutes) 617.453. 

 

Currently, under NRS 617.453, the following needs to be established for a cancer claim for industrial insurance for fire fighters:  First, you must have been a full-time salaried fire fighter for five years or more; second, you have to demonstrate that you were exposed, while in the course of your employment, to a known carcinogen as defined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer or the National Toxicology Program; and third, the carcinogen that you have been exposed to needs to be reasonably associated with the disabling cancer.  If you meet these requirements, you may file your cancer claim. 

 

The reason that we bring this bill before you today is because there are several insurers that will not accept these claims even though we meet the requirements set forth in the statute.  Denial is a common practice among some insurers.  This will be more clearly exposed in later testimony.  There are some insurers that accept these claims.  We have had claims accepted for some cancers, mostly because the physician stated that the specific cancer was absolutely caused by fire fighting. 

 

[Mr. McAllister continued.]  There are those insurers out there who will claim that we cannot show a correlation between the carcinogens we have been exposed to and the type of cancer that we have, even if we produce research and physician testimony that there is a correlation between the cancers and the carcinogen.  An example of this is one recent claim that has been denied for a fire fighter with thyroid cancer.  He has been on the job for over ten years; this fire fighter has repeatedly been exposed to soot, a known human carcinogen, during the course of his employment.  This carcinogen has been shown to increase vulnerability to cancers in esophageal areas and cause thyroid cancer.  His claim has been denied and is still pending in the system.  Fortunately, this fire fighter has gotten the appropriate treatment through his health insurance trust and is back on the job protecting the public. 

 

This bill is meant to provide clarification to insurers that certain types of cancers are associated with specific types of carcinogens.  There have been many studies that show there is a greater instance of certain types of cancer in humans after exposure to certain types of carcinogens.  We have copies of these studies.  They are lengthy, and I did not want to burden you with huge amounts of paperwork because I know you already have that.  I did provide an overview of a couple of studies that have been done recently that show some of the types of cancers fire fighters are more susceptible to, a description of some of the chemicals that are known carcinogens, and the types of cancers that they cause.  These studies were done in Florida and Toronto, Canada.  They are just two of numerous studies – some 14 or 15 studies at least, on fire fighters and cancer.  This shows the increase of risk to humans and fire fighters, specifically.  These carcinogens are produced in many of the environments that fire fighters face daily during the course of their employment, whether it is a house fire, a vehicle fire, or just a simple dumpster fire. 

 

We have attempted to reaffirm the connection between certain types of cancer and certain types of carcinogens that fire fighters are routinely exposed to.  This body established that connection in 1987.  I believe the opponents of the bill will say that this will increase their costs drastically.  We don't believe that to be the case.  This bill doesn't change the number of cancer claims that will be filed.  It doesn't increase the amount of compensation that is going to be awarded.  It doesn't make this a conclusive presumption; the presumption is still rebuttable, just like it always has been.  The law, right now, is that there is a presumption, but it is not conclusive.  It doesn't change or extend the sunset clause that is already attached to the law.  It doesn't change the definition of a carcinogen or the specific agencies listed.  As a matter of fact, it outlines specific types of cancer, which narrows the scope.  It does not cover all cancers.  It will provide insurers with the ability to rebut more easily those cancers not shown to be of higher prevalence in fire fighters. 

 

[Mr. McAllister continued.]  What it does is clarify that there are some cancers that have been shown to be of a higher incidence in fire fighters after exposures to specific carcinogens.  We believe that this will not increase the cost as much as it will compel some insurers to start accepting claims they should have been accepting and paying all along.  We believe this bill will help to clarify the intent of this existing statute. 

 

Also in the packet that has been distributed (Exhibit C) are proposed amendments.  This bill did not come out of bill drafting exactly as we proposed it.  The first amendment would clarify that this new language would specifically relate to full-time, salaried, fire fighters.  The other amendment concerns page 3, lines 5 through 11 that describes "any cancer."  That was not our intent, so we wish to have those lines deleted.  We only wanted to include those cancers for which studies had shown that fire fighters had greater risk and a greater prevalence of cancer for. 

 

Assemblyman John Oceguera, District No. 16 (Clark County):

A.B. 451 has personal significance to me, not for the reasons you may be thinking, not because the bill speaks to cancers as an occupational disease for fire fighters, but for a different reason.  The reason is Bill Harnedy.  Bill Harnedy is a friend of mine.  Bill is a fire fighter who served the public in Carson City and in North Las Vegas, ensuring their safety, for many years.  In 2001, Bill Harnedy was diagnosed with cancer.  When Bill was diagnosed, he came to me with a copy of Nevada Revised Statutes 617.453, knowing I was an Assemblyman and knowing that I was pursuing my law degree.  Bill asked me, point blank, "John, am I covered?"  At that moment I read NRS 617.453.  To me, its meaning and intent are plain and clear.  To me, Bill Harnedy qualified for disability compensation under that statute.  However, the denial of Bill's claim was supported with a copy of NRS 617.453. 

 

I submit to you that you, too, would have thought the same thing had you, yourself, read the statute.  Bill Harnedy has traveled all the way from Las Vegas today, enduring the discomfort travel necessitates, given his advanced condition and subjecting himself to the stares that follow him due to his shocking appearance, in order to support this bill, even though the change A.B. 451 will bring forth will not change Bill's circumstances.  Despite Bill Harnedy's belief and the belief of his family and the belief of his doctors and my belief that he qualified for disability compensation under the statute, his disability claim was opposed, aggressively opposed.  So Bill's presence here today is truly altruistic.  With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite Bill to the witness table to sit with me for the remainder of my remarks. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Please.  Welcome to Commerce and Labor. 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Bill Harnedy's experience is not uncommon.  Despite the plain and clear meaning of 617.453, fire fighters' disability claims and death claims are routinely opposed and denied.  The approach carries over to claims of fire fighters and peace officers processed under the Heart and Lung statute of NRS 617.457.  The Heart and Lung statute is different from the cancer statute since it contains a conclusive presumption that says that heart or lung conditions are caused by the stress of the job, yet fire fighters and peace officers who make claims under the heart and lung statute are routinely denied benefits and are being forced to appeal all the way to our Supreme Court in order to receive benefits that they were wrongfully denied for them and their families.  I find this policy of oppose, deny, and force an appeal, so offensive that I have taken it upon myself to prepare an amicus brief in my capacity as a state legislator in several cases concerning peace officers who were wrongfully denied under 617.457.  Here is my research [he showed the Committee a five-inch stack of papers].  I have made a request of the Legislative Commission that it direct the Legal Division to prepare an amicus brief on this issue as well. 

 

You will note that A.B. 451 does not make any changes to NRS 617.453 that could be argued were intended to make it easier to make a claim under the statute or easier to qualify to receive benefits, or to increase the benefits available under the statute.  That is not what A.B. 451 is all about.  The concept behind this bill is simple.  Since the plain and clear meaning of NRS 617.453 is not being recognized, or furthered, in its interpretation or enforcement, let's amend this statute to make it clear under what circumstances we believe a fire fighter who develops cancer should receive disability or death benefits. 

 

If you hear any bitterness in Bill's voice during his testimony, do not mistake that bitterness for what it is not.  It is not due to the fact that he may well not see his 40^th birthday, nor is it due to the fact that his time with his family, with the passing of each day is coming to a close.  It is because the system mistreated him, and his family, in his time of need.  That is what he has asked me to speak about at his funeral.  How the system let him down when he had only a sliver of hope remaining following his diagnosis.  I have not been able to begin writing those remarks.  It is my hope that with the passage of this bill I will be able to end those remarks on a positive note and talk about how Bill changed the way fire fighters are treated in this state.  That he made the difference when it came to fire fighters and cancers.  Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and for allowing me to make my remarks part of the record. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thank you, Mr. Oceguera, for this very worthwhile bill. 

 

William Harnedy, Fire Fighter, City of North Las Vegas:

I am an employee of the City of North Las Vegas.  I moved to the great state of Nevada in December 1989 and was gainfully employed by the City of Carson City, Nevada, as a fire fighter/paramedic.  Prior to March 1993, I went down to North Las Vegas to continue my career in the fire service.  Like most fire fighters, I believe in physical fitness and we have annual medical physicals.  In April 2001, my physical was clear.  During the summer of 2001, I developed some right-sided pain.  What I am going to do is give you an overview from October 2001 to where I am today. 

 

On October 2, 2001, I was diagnosed with a mass in my right kidney.  First, it was thought it was kidney stones, which are quite common in southern Nevada with the water.  October 3, 2001, a CAT (computer axial tomography) scan showed the mass appeared to be cancerous.  On October 6, 2001, the head of urology at the University Medical Center in Las Vegas removed my right kidney in a radical nephrectomy.  On October 10, the pathology report noted that I still had active renal cells, which meant that although they got the tumor that was encapsulated in the kidney, it grew quickly enough to permeate through the kidney. 

 

On October 17, 2001, I met with an oncologist.  This doctor had no bedside manner.  He said, "You have 7 months."  It has been 16 months, and I am still fighting.  At that time I was able to talk to the doctor and we filed the C-1 claim form to get the ball rolling for the workman's comp claim.  Also at that time, we ordered a CAT scan of the chest and the abdomen.  October 24, 2001, the CAT of the chest and abdomen showed spots in the right lung.  A PET (positron emission tomography) scan was ordered at that time, but was denied three times by Sierra Health and Life as medically not necessary.  That is the confusing part. 

 

On November 10, 2001, I met with a kidney cancer specialist at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, California.  He again wanted a PET scan.  I felt it was important to get the ball rolling on my treatment; I dug into my pocket and paid the $3,300 for the PET scan out of my own pocket.  On November 21, the results of the PET scan were positive for tumors.  At that time, we decided that we needed to go into my right lung to take a tissue sample to see if it were actually renal cell carcinoma in there.  It was. 

 

[Mr. Harnedy continued.]  On December 17, 2001, I started a high-dose amino therapy.  The protocol for renal cell does not cover chemo or radiation.  This is a treatment where you are in the intensive care unit for a week at a time monitored by an ICU nurse because the body goes through such horrific effects.  I truly felt that after the second treatment, which was sometime in January, I was going to give up.  I couldn't give up; I had too much support from my family and my friends and all the support from the fire fighting community.  I continue with the battle.  This treatment continued every 21 days, one week in the hospital, two weeks at home, until the last week of February 2002. 

 

March 20, 2002, was my follow-up day.  CAT and PET scans were done.  It only showed that the disease had progressed by 50 percent.  In April 2002, I traveled to UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) for an evaluation by the Chairman of UCLA's Medical Center urology department.  He suggested a bone marrow transplant, if I had a sibling match.  By the luck of the Irish, my brother was a match.  The doctor suggested that I meet with another doctor at UCSF (University of California, San Francisco).  He had just transferred from Chicago after doing many bone marrow transplants.  It was determined that my type of cancer was 0-19; they had had no success.  I have a rare form of renal cell carcinoma. 

 

Now my back was against the wall for treatment.  I watched a news program on KBBC, Channel 3 in Las Vegas.  It was called "Miracles in Mexico."  It was a news clip that was done from the local Channel 3 news affiliate in Las Vegas.  He interviewed some patients who had traveled to Mexico for their treatment.  I interviewed a few of those patients, and I felt it would be worth my benefit to go down.  I had nothing to lose.  After talking to Dr. Vargas, he believed that low-dose chemotherapy and low-dose radiation with surgery for eradication of the tumors would be in my best interests. 

 

In May 2002, I started that treatment.  I had no ill effects from the chemo or the radiation, and after a six-week evaluation I had 60 percent tumor reduction.  In the middle of July 2002, I had surgery.  I had an open-chest aortotomy, similar to open-heart surgery.  Then they closed me up and cut my side where my kidney was to remove five tumors.  This was all done in Tijuana, Mexico.  After four months I was still cancer-free and met with my doctor to be allowed to go back to work. 

 

Unfortunately, by the end of October, I started to experience some right flank pain.  On a scale of 1-10, it was about 8.  It came out of nowhere.  The CAT scan showed a recurrence, which is common with my type of cancer.  I went back to Mexico for additional radiation and now I am at the point where my body is at the maximum dose it could take of radiation.  I was able to enjoy this past Christmas pain-free. 

 

[Mr. Harnedy continued.]  In the beginning of the year, I found a couple of trials on the Internet and consulted with doctors.  After three rounds, the most recent ending March 15, 2003, we have a 20 percent tumor reduction and we are looking to do surgery at UCLA, possibly in the next few weeks.  It seems that nobody wants to hurry up, but I do not have time to wait.  I have learned, as an individual, you have to take charge of your own health care plan and follow it through.  The doctors seem all too busy, but if you bring them the information, they will look at it and decide what would benefit the patient. 

 

That was an overview of my treatment.  That was a lot of pain and suffering.  I think, more so, the pain and suffering was [from] knowing there was an NRS statute that I thought I was covered under.  On November 1, 2001, my claim was denied, pending medical investigation.  On December 13, 2001, the claim was denied by CDS as not an occupational disease.  Monday, January 28, 2002, the state hearing officer, saying that it was not an occupational disease, affirmed the denial.  In February, I received a letter from Dr. Miner stating he had been asked to consider changing the verbiage in the claim form from renal cell carcinoma to a disease process in the lungs.  He felt agreeable to change it.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Would you review that one more time?

 

William Harnedy:

Yes.  The CDS sent a nurse down to San Francisco with me to meet with my doctor, Richard Miner, who was administering the therapy at the time, and asked them to change his wording in the claim form from a "renal cell carcinoma" to a "disease process of the lungs."  That way, they would accept this claim under a workman's comp claim under the heart lung bill, yet still deny anything that had to do with the cancer.  That is basically how the letter was written.  Any more questions on that?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I think it was the third denial letter, they said it was not an occupational disease?  Was there a basis for that? 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

If you want some help from your attorney, I think he is in Las Vegas.

 

William Harnedy:

All they did was send a long letter saying a list of occupational diseases and attached the NRS statute, 617.453.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

That is what I referred to in my remarks, where they attached the statute that is supposed to protect these folks.  They attached that as a reason for denial. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Does that clarify your question?  Please continue.

 

William Harnedy:

The doctor in San Francisco was agreeable to sign off on lung disease or a disease process of the lungs.  Therefore, I got a letter from CDS, saying they accepted the claim under the Heart and Lung Act, but any cancer aspect of it would be denied.  In July 2001, we met in good-faith bargaining with representatives from the City of North Las Vegas, Leslie Bell from CDS, and their attorney Dan Schwartz.  John Oceguera was present, along with my legal counsel, Dean Hardy, and our union president.  The meeting was in regard to seeing if we could consolidate the bill and get it covered.  We made no headway whatsoever once they found out how much the cancer aspect of this bill was going to cost.  They said they would get back to us. 

 

They got back to us by saying that we could roll this into one appellate hearing, and since July of last year until now, it has been strung out.  There is always some kind of continuation going on.  The most recent, I was evaluated by an occupational medical doctor through the law offices of Dean Hardy approximately four months ago.  CDS now wants to depose that doctor.  They were going to depose him on April 2, 2003.  I found out when I called Mr. Hardy’s office this past week that CDS had forgotten to hire a court reporter.  I know that there is a simple check list you use, even though I am not in the law field, you just can't forget to hire a court reporter.  There are many aspects.  Are you going to videotape this deposition, are you going to have it tape-recorded, along with the court reporter?  It is just an excuse to continue this.  I am here today to see that the right thing gets done.  This bill is just a clarification of the language.  No one needs to go through the pain and suffering that I have been through.  It is very unfortunate, every time you think that everything will be resolved, you get chopped at the knees.  I truly believe in my heart, they are hoping for me to die, and I will die soon.  I am here today to speak to you, and I hope the point gets across, [about] what kind of pain and suffering some insurance companies can bring on an individual during their time of need. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thank you, Bill.  We wish you the best of luck.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

This case is not about telling you all about Bill's case, but I wanted to put a face to something that we hear all the time.  We have been here several times with these issues, and, quite frankly, we hear the numbers.  I thought this was relevant to bring someone, who is not a number, who is a friend of mine, and who is deserving of better treatment.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I appreciate that.  Speaking of numbers, we addressed this last session by compiling information to help you understand the denials a little bit better.  I know you have reviewed that report.  What did you find in that report?

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Ironically, the numbers changed drastically from when they were not reported to when they were.  In the year that they were not reported, there were a number of denials.  In the year following the passage of that law, amazingly there was a lot of acceptance.  Now, we do not know what that acceptance means, because those numbers are not specifically saying "we have accepted the entire claim," so those numbers, in my opinion, are acceptance of one portion or another, so they can put that in the column of “accepted.”  Mr. McAllister might have those numbers with him as well. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

He indicates he does not at this time.  Basically, that is what I got from the report as well.  Also, a number of those denials were revised on appeal, when they are appealed or if they are appealed.  Mr. Hardy, I know you signed in to speak on this bill.  The Committee is anxious to hear your testimony.

 

Dean Hardy, Attorney, representing William Harnedy:

Mr. Harnedy and Mr. Oceguera spoke effectively about the nature of Mr. Harnedy's case and about the bill.  I am not sure that I can add much to the prospects of this particular piece of legislation, but we were discussing it down here and I am down here with Mr. Greg Davis, who is the president of the union that Mr. Harnedy is a member of.  We were talking, prior to the testimony.  We agreed that this does not add to the responsibility of the various governmental groups, but it simply clarifies and should make it simpler, you would like to think, in terms of getting these claims on.  When Mr. Oceguera suggested that there was significant and serious opposition to this claim, that is as factual as it gets.  The City of North Las Vegas has opposed this claim from the beginning, opposed it vigorously, and has spent a significant amount of money in the litigation.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

On what grounds, Mr. Hardy?  I think we are all curious.  Just because the cancer was not contracted in the course and scope of the employment?

 

Dean Hardy:

That is exactly it.  They have suggested from the beginning that we have not proven our case.  I could not remember which Assemblywoman asked the question, but her question was on point.  The first hearing was held, I don't have the date, but it was much longer than a year ago.  Mr. Davis was present at that hearing and we both walked out of there feeling very comfortable, very confident that we had prevailed by presenting the evidence that we had.  The evidence came from the National Toxicology Program, as well as the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is exactly what the statute required.  We presented evidence of what the exposures were and what the cancer was that Mr. Harnedy had contracted.  We were both surprised, and I am sure Mr. Harnedy was equally surprised, when we got the decision that we did not prevail.  We are on appeal as the appellant and we are 99.9 percent completed with the discovery on the claim.  But, for that deposition that was supposed to go forward last week and did not, we feel very confident that we will prevail in this litigation.  The City is equally confident that we will prevail in this litigation.  However, we are still in litigation and they have not shown any signs of resolution. 

 

I would like to just add that this is endemic to the entire arena of worker's compensation and not just fire fighters or cancer cases.  Worker's compensation claims now are fought vigorously from start to finish and it was not that long ago when I would see people in my office that had just filed a claim for worker's compensation and it was clearly a compensable, acceptable worker's compensation claim.  I would turn them away and tell them that the claim would be accepted, that this was not a claim that could be fought, and so they didn't need a lawyer and let them collect the benefits that were due them without the assistance of an attorney and without having to pay an attorney's fee.  Now I do not say that to anyone that comes into my office.  It is just for this reason that every claim is fought vigorously and every claim is one that, at some point, there will be an extreme difference of opinion as to the compensability or medical care, the direction of medical care, or the extent of any residual impairment.  There are a myriad of issues that we fight on a daily basis and it has gotten to a point where the entire arena needs a check. 

Assemblyman Brown:

The imposition or creation of a rebuttable presumption is fine with me, but they ought to rest on the strength of the correlation between the exposure and the likelihood of contracting the disease.  In looking at Mr. McAllister's documentation, the CBC News article, it talks about Toronto.  There were 14 deaths in 777 fire fighters, and it was found to be statistically significant.  This is existing statute that we are clarifying.  There are probably pre-existing studies that show those correlations.  I would be interested in seeing that documentation if anyone has it. 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Mr. McAllister has about 14 of those studies that he could provide you. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

[There were no further questions.]  Mr. Hardy, Mr. Oceguera, Mr. Harnedy, thank you.  Regardless of what happens with A.B. 451, I think the Committee should be updated on the progress of your appeal.  The purpose of having the Division of Industrial Relations collect data regarding denials and what the resolutions of those denials were, was to find out and be able to identify if there was a policy, or is a policy, of deny/appeal, rather than accept claims or deny on decent grounds.  If it is the purpose of these denials to simply extend litigation or have a policy of attrition in order to reduce their claims, I think this Committee is going to be very upset and this Legislature is going to be very upset.  Since you have no remedy under bad faith in the area of worker's compensation, I would like to extend to you my promise to seek out whatever remedy is possible under current statute and then fight for remedy of bad faith, if that proves to be true. 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Thank you.  I believe there are one or two other people wishing to speak.

 

Greg Davis, President, Local Union # 1607, North Las Vegas, Professional Fire Fighters of Nevada:

I just have a few brief statements to make.  I think that a lot of the responsibilities for the problems, as far as the actions that have been taken, have come from CDS, now Comp First.  On several occasions, I have had meetings with Leslie Bell.  The first meeting we had with Mr. Harnedy, Mr. Oceguera, and a few other representatives.  The statement from her was that she did not feel the fire fighters should be covered under any portion of the cancer bill.  I take offense to that.  I think, in the past, we have had conflicting statements and concerns.  The City of North Las Vegas has given CDS and Comp First direction to finish this case, and they have dragged their feet on every occasion that I have been involved in.  We have been involved for about 18 months and we are still in the appeals process.  As Mr. Harnedy has stated, the last we heard from them, they were going to have a court reporter report to the affidavit.  Their attorney came half an hour late and did not have a court reporter.  Now it has been delayed again.  Mr. Harnedy has been waiting a long time and, as you can probably see, he doesn't look like he is doing very well.  I resent the fact that they have delayed this to the extent that they have, so I don't think it falls so much on North Las Vegas, but I do feel it falls on Comp First for these delays. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Mr. Davis, any information you can provide this Committee that litigation was extended beyond what was reasonable would be appreciated. 

 

Greg Davis:

I will do that. 

 

John Ellerton, M.D., Oncologist: 

Mr. Hardy and I share a like opinion in this situation.  I will reiterate Mr. Hardy's concern about the general worker's compensation, specifically in these kinds of cases.  Several things are quite clear.  We ask the fire fighters to do something that I sure do not want to do, but I sure want it available to me.  It is clear that a number of cancers are related to occupational exposures.  I think that kidney cancer is clearly related to an occupational exposure.  It certainly is important that we define this, specifically, so that they are justly compensated.  I would say, as a physician and as a cancer specialist, that this is a most appropriate piece of legislation. 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Dr. Ellerton, I was just wondering if you ever had an opportunity to be retained by any of these folks to testify or to be an expert witness on cancer claims? 

 

Dr. John Ellerton:

Yes, I have had the opportunity.  The problem is, you look at the case, the scientific evidence exists for the causation.  You look at the exposure that the patient has, and you can say "yes, there is a direct link."  I have no doubt in my mind there is a direct link, and yet, there is a denial of responsibility by the people who are supposed to compensate the fireman in question.  I do not understand this, because the evidence is clear.  It is clearly a relationship between the carcinogen, or the substance, and the cancer.  In the cases where I have been asked, they usually decline to use my testimony because it doesn't support their denial. 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

So, you are saying that you have said it is clearly related to the job, and then you were not retained because of your opinion?

 

Dr. John Ellerton:

I do not think they want to call me if I am going to support the other side.  That is correct; I have not been asked to testify when I present the opinion that there was a causation between the exposure and the cancer that the fireman had. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I think there needs to be tougher penalties for these types of denials.  I don't see how it makes sense, just trying to wait somebody out so they don't have to pay the benefits.  I think bad faith would solve that.  I have a question for Dr. Ellerton, on page 2, concerning this language.  You talked about the cases you have looked at; you can see the relationship between the exposure and the cancer, but sometimes people will get cancer, separate and apart from their job.  How do you do that in statutory language as opposed to your individual assessment of the fires fought, the exposure, and the causation?  For example, liver cancer.  The study showed they were exposed to chloroform, soot, or vinyl chloride.  Would any exposure, regardless of the amounts, establish that causation?  Or, do you need more in terms of looking at the medical records, and that type of thing? 

 

Dr. John Ellerton:

You would need to look at the medical records to some extent.  The example you chose, liver cancer, is most commonly seen in people who have cirrhosis, particularly due to alcohol and also who are infected with hepatitis B or, even more importantly, hepatitis C.  They are at extreme risk for developing liver cancer.  Those would not be directly occupational hazards.  I suppose, from a legislative point of view, you have to create somewhat of an arbitrary standard to make the decision on.  You would have to look at the entire medical record.  In the cases I was talking about, that is what I did.  There did not seem to be another reasonable explanation for the causation in those cases, if that answers your question.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

It does, thank you.  

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I don't know about other members, but it sends chills down my spine to think that you retain a medical expert, he gives his expert opinion, and if that opinion is not suited for your interests, that it is ignored.  It has been alleged in this building since I have been here for the past five sessions that that occurs.  Proving that it occurs is difficult.  This is the most conclusive proof I have ever heard.  I do know that a lot more needs to be done. 

 

Danny Thompson, Executive Secretary/Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO:

[Introduced himself.]  In 1987, we passed a law in this Legislature that said it was conclusively presumed, in heart and lung cases, to be the cause of their condition, or the resulting condition.  That was changed [because] local government was dismissing these claims, out of hand.  After that law was passed, I believe it got better for a while.  In 1995, the law was amended.  Prior to that time, if you felt that your case was being dismissed out of hand, you had the ability to bring a bad faith lawsuit against the insurer.  In 1995, the law was amended to say that, in place of a bad faith lawsuit, in place of a trial in court, that you had to take an administrative fine.  At that time, I believe the fine was $2,000.  The law said "up to" $2,000.  This money would be given to you if you could prove your case to an administrator, which brings politics into the whole thing, and then you would get this money.  But, in the case of Mr. Harnedy, that amount of money is not going to solve his problem.  That law still exists today, and I will tell you that if you want to do something to change this, do away with the inability to bring a bad faith suit.  These people know when they are doing it.  In addition to the fact that you can't bring a bad faith lawsuit, you can't sue your employer, you can't sue the MCO (managed care organization), you can't sue the insurer.  You are stuck with the compensation and you are stuck with the bad faith penalty.  Mr. Harnedy's only recourse is to clarify that point.  The clarification of [the purpose of] this statute is very important, and I think this would be a good first step in helping future people who find themselves in the exact same circumstance. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

In addition to the fining mechanism, isn't it also possible to revoke your charter to be self-insurer? 

 

Danny Thompson:

One of the provisions of that bill was that, if a self-insurer did this more than three times, you had the ability to pull his license.  At the time, the AFL-CIO made the argument that it might not be a good thing to pull a large employer's license over one case, and that brings in another whole set of arguments.  So, while that is in the law, it is truly ineffective because the chances are that will never happen. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Mr. Keane, you have clarification on the amendment presented by Mr. McAllister?

 

Wil Keane, Committee Counsel:

On the recommended amendment to subsection 2, on page 2, the addition of "1."  Is the intent there to specify that you want this to apply to the full-time fire fighters, not the volunteers? 

 

Rusty McAllister:

Yes, the intent of adding in that Roman numeral 1 was to specify that this was full-time, salaried fire fighters, and that the new additions would be for full-time, salaried fire fighters, not volunteers, mainly with the idea being that they were at the greatest risk because of repeated exposure, as opposed to others who are at risk, but those others would still fall into the other provisions, but not this provision.  State Risk Management had some extreme concerns because they insure volunteers, and, of course, they would have attached a huge fiscal note on this bill, even though we do not feel that it increases the cost.  They were going to attach a fiscal note, and we all know what happens to bills when they get a big fiscal note put on them.  It signs the death knell for them.  We felt it was important to put that provision in there so that we could move this piece of legislation along without the fiscal note. 

 

Wil Keane:

[I have] just a couple of quick follow-ups.  So, the provisions of subparagraph 2 would still apply?  We are just trying to narrow what applies under subparagraph 1? 

 

Rusty McAllister:

Exactly.

 

Wil Keane:

Then, on the second change, would that be to delete lines 5 through 9? 

 

Rusty McAllister:

That's affirmative.  I need to change that to lines 5 through 9. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That is an important point.  Just for my own edification, don't our prisoners do a lot of fire fighting in the state?

 

Rusty McAllister:

That's true, Mr. Chairman.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

And if they contract cancer from fighting those fires, their health care is fully covered and taken care of?

 

Rusty McAllister:

I think that they would be under the correction system; their health care is provided for them under the protection of the state.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Isn't that ironic.  Is there further testimony on this bill?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I perfectly agree with the intent of this bill and I think that the people who were here last time remember that I supported people getting stuck with needles and the like in the performance of their duties.  Whether you are working in parks or cleaning out garbage, if you get hurt while you are at work, you should be paid.  Having said that, I still have concerns.  The first concern is what we have done here by saying "any."  In every single case, it says we are, essentially, covering every single cancer, no matter what.  If you have had an exposure, you are entitled to cancer coverage. 

 

Then, in the next step, say that it doesn't apply to a volunteer.  To me, the volunteers are doing this for free and fighting fires for people because there are no other people available to fight those fires.  And, we are going to turn around and say on one hand it is "any," and on the other hand, it is totally ignored.  I can't buy that.  Beyond that, an individual can contract cancer, even though they have had exposures, and they may not contract cancers when they have had exposures.  We don't know.  To say "any," you might as well say, "cancer is covered."  I don't think that is the intent; we have to do something that crafts this a little better than it is. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Mr. McAllister, a response please?

 

Rusty McAllister:

Mr. Hettrick, the amendment takes out the language that says "any cancer."  It is not our intention to cover any cancer.  On page 3, where is says "any other form of cancer that has been exposed to" has been removed language.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I understand you took out the section saying "any cancer."  But above it says “bladder cancer,” for instance, [line] 28, “bladder cancer and that he was exposed during the course of his employment to any diesel exhaust.”  You can't help but be exposed to "any diesel exhaust."  Therefore, it is mandatory coverage.  There cannot be any exception with that language, not under any circumstances.  That is where my problem comes from.  The other is the elimination.  If it is true that it is "any" bladder cancer, brain cancer, colon cancer, so on in your list – if it applies to a professional fire fighter, how can it be that the guy who fights for free doesn't have the same coverage? 

 

Rusty McAllister:

Mr. Hettrick, I would agree with you wholeheartedly.  It was certainly not our intention to deal out volunteers, by any means, but, realistically, I also know how this Legislature works . . . do you understand my situation?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I do, and that is why I said I agree with what you are trying to do, but it becomes almost the same fairness issue that Mr. Harnedy had.

 

Rusty McAllister:

With the word "any" in there, it would be clearer to say if they were exposed "during the course of their employment." 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

It does say that.  Every line says bladder cancer, in that he was exposed during the course of his employment to "any."  You see my concern.  I don't know how to fix it either.  I am trying, because I agree with your intent.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I don't think it needs fixing, necessarily. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I see what both individuals are trying to do.  In your earlier testimony, you used the term "repeated," or something along those lines.  Maybe we could come up with something that indicates that.  It is the repetition that is the exposure; one time formaldehyde, or one time some of these things, may not necessarily end up being contracted.  So, maybe we could play with some language on that part of the bill.  I would assume that is part of the case that gets made at some point.  It was not just a one-time thing.  I agree; if volunteers are included, it might affect the bill.  We could always do one for volunteers and one for this group.  In that way, we could move the one that affects the state separately from this one. 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

I do not believe that "any" verbiage is necessary.  We can take out those "anys" and say "during the course and scope of your employment to."  Please remember that this is still a rebuttable presumption, so you are going to have to prove your case anyway.  A comment on the volunteers:  we would certainly love to have the volunteers included.  However, the difference between a professional fire fighter and a volunteer in this situation is that, although we do the same job, the professionals are required to have an annual physical.  A volunteer fireman is not.  Some cancers would be caught, or should be caught, along the way.  That is one distinction between the two.

 

Assemblyman Brown:

On the list on page 2, outlining the various different cancer forms, formaldehyde is listed quite a few times.  I am wondering if all of these particular elements are found in almost every fire?  Does burning drywall or fire-retardant wood contain most of these elements?

 

Rusty McAllister:

That is true.  Vinyl chloride, as an example, is found in plastics, so the linoleum on your floor, the plastic, the plastic silverware, plastic cups, all the similar things, give off polyvinyl chloride when they burn, which is an extremely toxic carcinogen.  These are found in your household cleaners and pesticides; many things contain these chemicals.  These are the ones that are found, most prevalent, to cause these diseases.  For example, during the research on this, I went back to 1987 at the Legislative Counsel Bureau and pulled up the original bill when it was heard and the exhibits that were attached to it.  One of the exhibits was a list of carcinogens known, from this International Agency on Cancer Research, to be harmful to humans.  It was one page long.  Today, that same list is four pages long.  So, as time goes by and research is gathered, we are finding that more and more of the things we are creating are harmful to us.  These chemicals are byproducts of the combustion process in fires. 

 

Assemblyman Brown:

So, in the course of five years of employment, probably everyone serving would have some contact with this?

 

Rusty McAllister:

Yes, Mr. Brown, that would be true.  Even a dumpster fire.  Everything you throw into your garbage is in there and we go to dumpster fires every day.  The fire fighters are exposed to those chemicals every day.

 

Assemblyman Brown:

Would that be something you use a mask with?

 

Rusty McAllister:

We do wear a mask.  But, even afterwards, the residual effects of the smoke in the air are present.  You can't wear your air pack from the time you get off the rig to the time you get back on it and take it off inside the comfort of your fire engine.  The stuff is in the air.  When we overhaul a vehicle fire, which is one of the most dangerous fires because the whole inside of your car is made of plastic, foam rubber, even carpeting has rubber backing; all of those things are extremely toxic.  After you put the fire out, those vapors stay in the air for a long time.  In the summers in Las Vegas, especially at 110 degrees, you cannot wear your air pack for an extended period of time.  You are going to be exposed.  That is part of the job. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I, like Dr. Ellerton, would never do what you do, but I am certainly glad that you do it.

 

Buffy Gail Martin, Government Relations Director, Nevada, American Cancer Society:

We are in full support of this bill.  I would like to state that we often take our fire fighters and our peace officers for granted.  Unfortunately, listening to this testimony only serves to further illustrate our ingratitude, when we continue to deny them coverage.  Cancer is a fight for your life and it requires every possible ounce of physical, emotional, spiritual, and sometimes even financial energy.  By adding the struggle with the company, whether it be an insurance company or the state for coverage for your treatment, is only inhumane.  On behalf of the American Cancer Society, we urge your support on this vital and important and just bill.  Thank you.

 

Jon Pierce, Wildland Fire Fighter:

I have been a wildland fire fighter for seven years.  I have witnessed several cases where the older generations in my field of work have been faced with similar cases of lung cancer, including my father.  As a wildland fire fighter, we are not all at risk and not exposed to half the toxins as these gentlemen who sit here before you today.  I am in full support of A.B. 451. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

[There were no further proponents of the bill.]  There are some opponents signed in.  Ms. Moore, from the City of Henderson, in Las Vegas?

 

Daryl Moore, Director of Human Resources, City of Henderson:

[Introduced herself.]  I indicated [on the sign-in sheet] that I am against the bill, but I think it is important that we separate some of the issues that we have been talking about this afternoon.  I don't think any of us disagrees that cancer is a horrible disease.  The issue that we need to take a look at is whether it is a presumptive disability.  We have been addressing some of the concerns, relating to a specific case in North Las Vegas, but I would ask that we separate that from this venue and take a look at this bill.  There are a lot of reasons why cancer is caused.  It can be genetic, certainly, and I think that under the current bill, fire fighters do have a recourse.  If they can prove that there is a correlation, it would be covered as a work-related illness. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Ms. Moore?  I think in the interests of the Committee, this bill, by testimony and by my reading, does not change the ability to rebut, or does not change the presumptive status of the claim.  It is still a rebuttable presumption. 

 

Daryl Moore:

I understand that.  I share some of the same concerns that have been addressed today.  It would still be a rebuttable presumption, but I think it would be very difficult when you look, statistically, at the number of illnesses that are, as a result of cancer.  Whether it was rebuttable would be very difficult to prove.  I would also like to address separating the long-term, unfunded liability of this claim.  It would be very difficult without any further study.  However, I do know that, with the presumptive disability right now for our heart and lungs, we recently had an actuary study that indicated we would need, for full funding, about $132,000 for each of our employees for presumptive disability for heart and lung.  Because cancer and heart disease are the number 1 and number 2 leading causes of death for most age groups, we would need to fund, additionally, in excess of six figures per employee.  I would like to see more studies done before we make a determination on whether this should be presumed to be directly job-related.  I would also ask why we are not considering this for other occupations.  One of the other issues I would like to see addressed is, are the fire fighters any more at risk than certain individuals, for example, that drive trucks on a regular basis and would be exposed to diesel fuel for long periods of time. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think Mr. McAllister gave a very good outline of how a fire fighter would be more exposed. 

 

Assemblyman Griffin:

I may have misunderstood, did you say up to six figures per employee that would be affected?

 

Daryl Moore:

The only information that I have, right now, is what the actuary had determined for the heart and lung presumptive disabilities.  To fully fund that, for the number of fire fighters that we have, we would have to fund at $132,000 per fire fighter.  I don't have estimates for cancer at this point, because we have not had that study done. 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

How many claims has the City of Henderson had under the current provision of this cancer provision?

 

Daryl Moore:

We have no cancer claims right now.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Have you denied any?

 

Daryl Moore:

No, we have not.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

So you have not received any at all?

 

Daryl Moore:

No.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Further questions?  Ms. Moore is there anyone else in Las Vegas who would like to testify or voice some concern?

 

Daryl Moore:

It does not appear so. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Is there anybody here in Carson City who would like to testify, in opposition, or voice some concern to A.B. 451?

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I have just been talking back and forth with the legal counsel and Mr. Oceguera in e-mail.  I had some questions and I think they are answered.  I wanted to know if paragraph A of the bill applied, as well.  It would require that you meet all of these conditions, meaning that it manifests for someone who has been employed for more than five years, they were exposed to a known carcinogen, as defined, and the carcinogen is reasonably associated with the cancer.  I didn't know if that was contradicted by the language of "notwithstanding."  I think our legal counsel said it is not, because it specifically refers to paragraph A.  So, in response to my earlier question concerning bladder cancer, cirrhosis would not be covered, because you have to meet all those requirements and the carcinogen that you were exposed to has to be associated with the cancer.  So, my questions have now been resolved and I think it is much tighter by virtue of that interpretation. 

 

Randy Waterman, Risk Manager, City of Sparks:

Before I get started with a number of points, I would like to make it clear that we are not against the bill.  We do have some concerns with the bill as written.  I would also like to make it clear that self-insureds tend to fight every claim.  I want it to be very clear that the City of Sparks does not fight every claim.  We tend to fall into the advocate position for our employees and we tend to help them through the system, and not fight them on claims. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Have you ever hired a doctor who gave you an opinion and you didn't like the opinion, so you kept shopping?

 

Randy Waterman:

We have not.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Have you ever hired a managed care company that, to your knowledge, might have done that?  Or claims manager?

 

Randy Waterman:

We have a managed care company, but we also have a TPA (third-party administrator).  Right now, we deal with the same TPA that was brought up earlier, CDS, who has subsequently become Nevada Comp First.  They have not taken this position on fighting claims for us, at least.  I think they embrace the same philosophy, so that has not been an issue. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Have they approached you with, perhaps, taking that strategy in managing claims?

 

Randy Waterman:

They have not. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Do you know whether or not they do this on anyone's behalf?

 

Randy Waterman:

I don't know that.  We have not had any cancer claims.  We have not fought any cancer claims, and we would have to look at those claims on their merits on a case-by-case basis.  Our concern with this bill is, while it doesn't specifically state that coverage is conclusive, we do feel that, under the language that is contained in the bill, that it would be hard, if not impossible, to rebut a cancer case of a fireman.  I think of all of those things listed in the bill as exposure; every single fireman in the room, and all of my firemen at the City of Sparks, could certainly say that they are exposed to those things. 

 

[Mr. Waterman continued.]  While discussing costs seems to be cold, there obviously is a cost associated with all of this.  We would estimate that our costs would be in the $50,000 to $100,000 a year zone.  That is a lot lower than what the City of Henderson has put on the table.  We think that a lot of cancers are treatable, and we have several firemen, right now, who have various cancers and continue to work as full-time firemen.  So, it is not necessarily a totally disabling disease.  There is some language in Section 3 that talks about "full reimbursement for related expenses."  I am not sure what that means.  I think it would be clearer to have something in there that says "pursuant to fee schedules" or something along those lines.  I would urge you to look at this.  How much of an exposure creates an exposure that is going to cause a cancer?  I don't know.  I would suggest that you might want to look at that very closely before you pass this bill. 

 

Assemblywoman Leslie:

I was a little unclear when you said you estimated this would cost the City of Sparks $50,000 more.  I don’t think this legislation changes existing law, so do you think more fire fighters would be claiming benefits?

 

Randy Waterman:

Yes, I think more firemen would be claiming benefits based on national statistics alone.  Because I do not have a case history to analyze, we would have to look at general numbers on cancer.  I think about one in five people in this country develop cancer.  I would assume that firemen would be in that same realm.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie:

But you have heard the testimony; not just anybody who develops cancer automatically gets the benefit.

 

Randy Waterman:

I would disagree with that, to an extent, at least.  I think it really opens the gate to more claims.  I don't know how many more claims, but I think we would see more claims, for sure.  The other part comes into the cost factor, and I am not sure if you have heard testimony already on this, but in the situation of heart and lung, right now . . .

Assemblywoman Leslie:

Yes, I don't even want to go to heart and lung. 

 

Randy Waterman:

What I am getting to here is that the excess worker's comp market has gone fairly nuts in that respect for public entities.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie:

You really don't want to get into an argument on that with this Committee.  Trust me.  Let's not start down that path.

 

Randy Waterman:

My premium this year for the City of Sparks has gone up 400 percent and my deductibles have gone up 400 percent.

 

Assemblywoman Leslie:

Well, I don't agree with your interpretation of the changes that we are making here.  The more you talk, the angrier I am getting, and the more determined I am to pass some version of this.  The fire fighters have to prove that the cancer is related to their job.  That is the fundamental issue, and if that means that it is going to cost the City of Sparks $50,000 more to address a very real occupational hazard for their fire fighters, personally, I think it is worth it. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

You are right on, and we can't forget where we came from.  We took away their right to sue the employer a long time ago.  [They] have to prove all these things, and they [have to] be remunerated, or at least indemnified.  For taking that away, we have given a no-fault insurance system.  Now, you want to go through all these things and now we have rebuttable presumptions in a no-fault system.  We are trying to say that we are going to make it more and more difficult to presume they have cancer.  Let's not forget where we came from. 

 

Assemblyman Griffin:

A quick question to Mr. McAllister, or maybe Mr. Oceguera can answer it, on an incident report.  When you come back from the scene, do you have to fill out any exposure?  If you go to a dumpster fire, do you have to fill out that there was exposure?  I know that would be very burdensome.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

We fill out an exposure form when there is something unusual.  If I work tomorrow, I would guarantee you, I would go on three dumpster fires. 

Assemblyman Griffin:

That would have to be reported, correct? 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

The report would say, "Responded to dumpster fire, extinguished with tank water, returned to quarters." 

 

Assemblyman Griffin:

So there is a pretty deep record of what kind of exposure is going to happen, just by the presence of incidence reports, right?

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Yes.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Mr. Oceguera, you have pointed out dumpster fires are not major incidences, but is there a more detailed report for a major incident?  Looking through the literature here, there is quite a bit of discussion about when this sort of material burns, this nasty thing is put off of it.  Are there records kept of that? 

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Not necessarily.  Actually, dumpster fires and car fires are some of the most dangerous fires we go on.  I require all the people who work for me to mask up on both of those fires.  Some people don't.  You never know what is in the dumpster.  You have no idea.  That is part of the problem.  If we went to a chemical facility and put out a fire there, certainly then we would say these chemicals were involved.  We would try to list everything in our report as specifically as we could.  A normal house fire, who knows what is underneath the kitchen sink?  [With a] dumpster fire, who knows what is in the dumpster? 

 

Wayne Carlson, Executive Director, Public Agency Compensation Trust:

We provide coverage for the smaller rural governments.  We have a lot of volunteer fire fighters and a lot fewer of the paid fire fighters.  When I wrote out my original testimony (Exhibit D), I was under the impression, from reading the bill, that it was a conclusive presumption because of the nature of the exception under Section 2, and that it was lifetime, not limited to the 60 months.  Based on the testimony I have heard, I would have to revise the numbers, that is, if I can figure out a way to do that for a five-year manifestation, because it wasn't clear in the original bill.  Perhaps the drafters can further clarify if that was the intent.  In our fiscal note, as you can see, the paid fire fighters were assuming a 20 percent probability during a lifetime, again that was under the assumption that they were eligible at any during their lifetime, based on my reading of the bill.  With the volunteers, that number is substantially higher.  I just wanted to clarify the written intent, why the fiscal note was so substantial, it had a lot to do with how the bill was interpreted.  I am not clear if it is rebuttable, but I will accept that that was the intent and if the bill drafter can make sure that is the case, that would certainly reduce the fiscal impact to us. 

 

[Mr. Carlson continued.]  As with Mr. Waterman's testimony, the excess insurance markets are also affecting us in terms of both cost and the amount of retention they require us to bear.  We are facing the same kinds of problems in getting the excess to be in place.  The alternative in the market is the assigned risk.  That is much higher than our cost.  We picked up some professional fire fighting paid departments in the last year and the number of volunteer departments, because the only other alternative they had in the fully insured market was the assigned risk at even higher cost.  Again, if it is limited to the way the cancer is now, and we are just clarifying that is the intent – I am not sure the language does that; it needs to be worked on to make sure it is clear.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

Mr. Carlson, that is the most favorable you have ever been to any of my bills.  I appreciate it. 

 

Kimberly McDonald, Special Projects Analyst & Lobbyist, City of North Las Vegas:

[Introduced herself.]  I have to take a deep breath because, first and foremost, I have to let you know that it is extremely difficult to be here today.  This is a very moving issue and we are compassionate, so this is very difficult for me.  Again, we are very caring, we are sensitive regarding the testimony that you have heard this afternoon, but I must also say that we are very proud and thankful to have our North Las Vegas Fire Department, as well as all of our public safety men and women who give of themselves selflessly every day for our community.  With all due respect, we are also very appreciative to our own Assemblyman, John Oceguera, as well as Mr. Bill Harnedy.  We are very mindful and protective regarding the health, the welfare, and safety of all of our employees. 

 

Again, we are compassionate toward any employee with an occupational disease and it is our policy to do everything to approve treatment protocols that are available in the United States, in accordance with the American Medical Association.  I'm sure you realize it is very difficult for our City to be in this position.  Our concerns with A.B. 451 are merely regarding the potential significant fiscal impacts.  We have forecasted that to be $1 million per claim and then $2 million in the future biennia.  Of course, this would have a very severe fiscal impact, particularly during the state's current fiscal crisis, as well as with our City's competing needs to provide the services that we must undertake.  So, in closing, I want to thank you for hearing our position and understanding our difficulty and our concerns.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Thank you for your testimony and I know you didn't make the decision in this case.  What really bothers me is when an entity asks for a medical opinion, gets it, it says "pay the claim," and the company doesn't pay the claim and then shops for another opinion.  That is just wrong.  What would your position be if we passed an amendment that said if a company seeks out a Nevada licensed physician, gets an opinion that it cannot shop, that it has to rely on that opinion and pay the claim?  At least there would be a presumption that you pay the claim until there is an appeal hearing.  We need something to prevent this "opinion shopping" while someone needs cancer treatment, or lose their immunity from bad faith litigation.

 

Kimberly McDonald:

On the surface that sounds very logical.  In this regard, because I am not very well versed in the process that our CDS undertakes, I cannot make that type of commitment today.  On the surface, it certainly would seem to be something that we could explore.  It sounds very logical.  Again, our interest is the fairness for the employee and for their treatment and recovery, hopefully.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Kim, do you know, and we are aware that you are representing your local government – are you aware of any instances where a medical opinion was sought and then ignored because it did not serve your interests?

 

Kimberly McDonald:

Mr. Chairman, not to my knowledge.  All I know is that there are two claims currently that we are dealing with.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

You have had two claims?  [Ms. McDonald indicated “yes.”]  And, have they been accepted?

 

Kimberly McDonald:

I believe they have, but again, I am not an expert or have all the details, so I really don't want to speak on this issue.

 

Assemblyman Oceguera:

No questions.  I just wanted to make it clear, for the record, in case this bill does pass and in case a judge or someone is reading the record, and for Mr. Carlson's sake.  This bill does not, is not, was not, intended to create a conclusive presumption; it doesn't say that and it doesn't mean that. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Yes, and we will ask staff that if this bill proceeds, that that be part of the Floor statement and be read into the permanent record when the bill is taken up on the Floor of the Assembly.  I will close the hearing on A.B. 451. 

 

Speaker Perkins:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how we are going to move forward with A.B. 451 in any fashion, but, regardless of that, before the rest of the witnesses leave, I would like to make my thoughts clear on the bill, if it meets with your approval. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Please do.  Speaker Perkins has some thoughts for us.

 

Speaker Perkins:

Government cannot be all things to all people.  We ask some of our fellow citizens to provide us the safety that we, as a society, demand.  There are fire fighters, police officers and other public safety employees.  We often ask them to place the safety of our citizens above the safety of themselves.  In exchange for that, we provide wages, benefits, and health care coverage that exists as our covenant with them to provide our collective safety and to respond in the face of great personal risk.  If, and this is one of the most important things, if the argument is that we should not provide coverage and compensation for those risks and injuries, then so be it.  Let's have that debate in a separate forum.  I don't think the opponents want to go in that direction.  If that is not the argument, then the opponents have really no leg to stand on.  I am not an attorney, but I do know what the intent of this legislation was and is, in regards to this, and what the plain language in the statutes means.  Can you imagine if the City of New York would have ignored the loss of life for those public safety employees when the World Trade Center towers collapsed?  What if they had ignored the covenant they had with those public safety employees?

 

Many know that I have a son who is a cancer survivor, so I have a fairly good understanding of the importance to act swiftly in that treatment, so that when you have an aggressive cancer, you can attack it quickly and eradicate it.  Dr. Ellerton said earlier that there is a disconnect he doesn't understand, when the causation is obvious.  I understand the disconnect and I think that the disconnect is a violation of the covenant between the covering entity and the employee, and it is generally about money, probably because those decision-makers do not have to run into a fire themselves. 

 

[Speaker Perkins continued.]  There are too many heroes already walking the streets of heaven, and I think we need to do what we can do with this bill.  Mr. Harnedy, you are a hero.  I salute you and I would ask you to continue to fight this with all your remaining strength and will.  You will continue to be an inspiration to others.  I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments and would look forward to a positive action with this bill. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 451 WITH THE AMENDMENTS PROVIDED BY MR. MCALLISTER.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK AND ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT VOTING NO. 

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

My "no" is in regard to the volunteers.  I don't think this bill covers it and I don't think that is fair, and if the understanding of this Committee is that a fire fighter is entitled to this kind of coverage, then so are the volunteers and I cannot support the bill on this basis. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think the Minority Leader has the ability to make a bill draft request and I am certain the Speaker might grant him one if he wanted. 

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I join Mr. Hettrick's comment.

 

Assemblyman Brown:

I voted yes.  I do agree with this bill.  I am still quite interested in seeing whatever statistical information there is.  I appreciate that.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That motion passes.  Gentlemen, thank you for your attendance today, and, Bill, best of luck to you.  We will open the hearing on A.B. 489.

 

Assembly Bill 489:  Revises provisions relating to dental hygiene. (BDR 54-185)

 

Shari Peterson, R.D.H., M.Ed., Dental Hygiene Instructor, Community College of Southern Nevada:

[Introduced herself.]  The Dental Hygiene Association is requesting that you consider legislation that asks dental hygienists to become more accessible and accountable to the public.  Dental hygienists have evolved over the decades from cleaning auxiliaries to primary prevention professionals and committed patient advocates.  Dental hygienists want to have a greater involvement in the examination, licensure, discipline, practice, and educational standards of their profession. 

 

[Ms. Peterson continued.]  We initially approached this legislation asking for a separate Board of Dental Hygiene that would allow dental hygienists to be self-regulated.  We were approached by the Board of Dental Examiners to reconsider our bill and not separate dental hygiene from dentistry.  The Dental Hygienist Association considered and agreed that it was in the best interests of the public for us to find an alternate solution within the existing board structure that would provide us with some amount of self-regulation.  We worked hard, in a very favorable and productive atmosphere, to address the concerns of dental hygienists.  Subsequently, the Board of Dental Examiners and the Dental Hygiene Association collaboratively created and supported BDR 54-185.  Unfortunately, the bill that came out of the Legislative Counsel Bureau did not have the same language or intent that were primary to our efforts. 

 

We are submitting an amendment to A.B. 489 (Exhibit E) that will revert the bill back to its original wording or intent.  I am asking for you to consider this amendment and pass A.B. 489 as amended.  A.B. 489 proposes changes for licensure by credential for dental hygienists; clarification of what dental hygiene is; and what services dental hygienists can and should be performing for the public.  In an effort to allow dental hygienists to have a more vital role in the regulatory process, both parties agreed to propose the appointment of an additional hygiene member on the Board and establish a dental hygiene committee that would research and provide recommendations for the practice of dental hygiene, based on the collaborative input and expertise of all dental hygiene members of the Board and a dentist member that is closely collaborative with dental hygiene.  The addition of another dental hygiene member will provide the Board with further insight from the perspective of a prevention advocate.  There is no fiscal impact to the state of Nevada since the Board of Dental Examiners is self-funded and the Board is amenable to the cost of an additional member on the Board. 

 

A.B. 489 also addresses the interests to promote access to dental hygiene care for the public and clarifies the way that dental hygienist practice in private practice as well as unsupervised practice within Nevada.  The Dental Hygiene Association believes that dental hygienists who have been dedicated to the profession and have actively practiced and refined their skills over the course of five years should be recognized as having a certain level of competency that would be sufficient to pass Nevada's clinical dental hygiene examination for licensure.  Dental hygienists would then be able to receive a license in the state of Nevada in a more timely fashion.  It acknowledges experience and longevity as contributors to an individual's competency.  The Dental Hygiene Association recognizes that dental hygiene quality of care has been declining because of the increased demands on dental hygienists to become income-producers rather than patient-care advocates.  Concurrently, the practice of dental hygiene has expanded over the last ten years to allow the public greater access to dental hygiene care with authorized practice and unsupervised practice in public health settings, without the presence of a dentist.  With these responsibilities comes greater accountability.  The proposed modification to the terms "dental hygiene" and "dental hygienist" reflect the depth of this accountability.  That should be outlined for the public.

 

[Ms. Peterson continued.]  The proposed definitions describe the dental hygiene process of care that should be the standard of practice and provide a measure for ensuring that the public receives the comprehensive dental hygiene care that they are entitled to.  As mentioned in the literature packet I presented to you yesterday, these definitions were derived from the competency standards that each dental hygiene program must provide in order to become accredited.  These definitions were modified to make them more palliative to those who might object to particular territorial words.  These definitions do not expand the scope of how a dental hygienist practices, but reinforces the methods that are inherent processes that dental hygienists are educationally mandated to be competent in.  The most important feature of this bill is that the Dental Hygiene Association and the Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners collaboratively worked on A.B. 489, which demonstrates the commitment of both entities to put the public's best interests foremost in our commitment as professionals.  I know that the public will be better served by the passage of A.B. 489 and again, I thank you for your time and consideration of this bill.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Our legal staff has indicated that your suggestions to amend the bill are not substantive.  They don't necessarily change what they think you are attempting to do, and they don't necessarily comport with how we write statutes.  So, if there is disagreement in the substance and your intent, you need to share those with us.  If it is just a discrepancy in syntax or diction, then I think we will have to default to our legal counsel in our bill drafting. 

 

Shari Peterson:

In the amendment that we were proposing, when it came out of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, what we considered to be definitions were not listed as such in the bill.  We wanted those to actually be placed in definitions, and those definitions were:

• authorized by a dentist
• assessment
• dental hygiene care planning
• implementation and
• evaluation. 

 

These came out of the bill as responsibilities underneath what a dental hygienist could do.

 

Wil Keane:

I would be happy to personally be sure that we get every substantive point that you want put into the statutes and to work with you to make sure that we understand that everything you want is in there, while complying with our need that when we define a term, we actually have to use the term.  That is required when we write the statutes.

 

Shari Peterson:

I would be more than happy to work with you on that.

 

Fred Hillerby, Legislative Advocate, representing Nevada State Board of Dental Examiners:

I am here to attest to what you heard earlier.  We did work with this group in coming forward with this bill and we are in support.  I would be happy to respond to any questions.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

[There were no further testimony or questions.]  We will close the hearing on A.B. 489.

 

[There was a five-minute recess.]

 

Chairman Goldwater:

The Committee will come back to order.  We will open the hearing on A.B. 212.

 

Assembly Bill 212:  Revises provisions relating to Account for Education and Recovery Relating to Manufactured Housing. (BDR 43-462)

 

Diane Thornton, Senior Research Analyst:

[Ms. Thornton distributed the work session document (Exhibit F)]  A.B. 212 revises provisions relating to the Account for Education and Recovery Relating to Manufactured Housing.  Under Exhibit "A," Renee Diamond, Administrator of the Manufactured Housing Division, Department of Business and Industry, submitted a letter to the Committee in response to some questions brought up during the hearing.  In addition, Assemblywoman Buckley proposed that in Section 2, subsections 1 through 3 and subsection 5 be deleted.  In addition, she proposed deleting Sections 3 and 4 of the bill.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I suggested these changes after receiving the letter from Ms. Diamond.  Because the industry had agreed to the small increase, which I think is $12,000 for fiscal year 2004, and had that commitment, I thought that was okay, because the Fund was solvent.  I didn't see any reason to further restrict consumers.  I would move to amend and do pass.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 212.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 316.

 

Assembly Bill 316:  Requires owner of real property to provide security for certain works of improvement to real property. (BDR 54-646)

 

Vance Hughey, Committee Policy Analyst:

A.B. 316 is Assemblyman Claborn's "show me the money bill," which requires an owner of real property to provide security for certain works of improvement to real property.  Steve Holloway from Associated General Contractors suggested (Exhibit F) that the dollar limits in Section 4 of the bill, on page 2, be reduced from $5 million to $1 million, and from $1 million to $250,000.  He also suggested removing from subsection 3 of Section 6 the phrase "and the obligations of the subsidiary under the construction contract are guaranteed by the parent company which is a qualified publicly traded company," and removing from subsection 4 of Section 6 a similar phrase that references "private companies."  He noted that publicly owned and privately owned companies with over $50 million in assets and their subsidiaries are exempted from the requirements to provide a payment bond, set up an escrow account, or to provide a letter of credit, and that these phrases are not necessary.

 

Russell Rowe, representing the University and Community College System of Nevada (UCCSN) proposed that Section 6 of the bill be amended to exclude all UCCSN projects from the security requirements of the bill. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thoughts from the Committee? 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 316.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 280.

 

Assembly Bill 280:  Revises certain provisions governing policies of insurance for motor vehicles. (BDR 57-1090)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 280 was brought forward by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani to help insure access to medical coverage to persons injured in motor vehicle accidents.  She offered an amendment included in Exhibit "B" [of Exhibit F].  The amendment reduces the minimum coverage for medical expenses from $35,000 to $2,000.  The proposed amendment also deletes a provision that would limit the right of subrogation an insurer might wish to exercise against another person. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 280.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN GRIFFIN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Obviously, since the amounts have been made, what was the insurance companies' estimate on cost?  It is significantly lower, I see.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Yes.  If I could ask Mr. Skancke, because I think he worked on the numbers with others.

 

Tom Skancke, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Chiropractic Association:

At $15,000, the fees to the insurer were quite high, so we worked out a couple of different scenarios, one at $5,000 and one at $2,000.  We found that the impact to the insurer was much less significant on the policy than it was at $15,000, so we elected, at that time, to initiate a mandatory "med pay" of $2,000.

 

Assemblyman Brown:

Has anybody crunched any numbers, for instance, impact on UMC?  I would like to see some quantifying benefit on that end. 

 

Tom Skancke:

We have not. 

 

Assemblyman Griffin:

I thought this was a good compromise.  I think it accomplishes much of what we were trying to accomplish without too many burdens. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I agree it addresses, however you may feel on the amounts, a critical policy issue, which is the provision of health care for people.  We have that debate in this Committee frequently. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 284.

 

Assembly Bill 284:  Prohibits unfair lending practices for home loans and revises provisions governing sale of real property by trustee. (BDR 52-20)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 284 prohibits certain unfair lending practices for home loans and revises provisions governing the sale of real property by a trustee.  After working with interested parties, Assemblywoman Buckley proposed amendments and I have tried to put these amendments together in the mock-up that you see under Exhibit "C" (Exhibit F). 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

The amendments were discussed at the hearing.  The first amendment deletes the ability to finance the credit insurance, which was called the biggest rip off in America.  It clarifies, in Section 8, that we use the term "lender" instead of "person" to clarify the criminal liability.  The companies wanted a state pre-emption provision that prohibited local ordinances from working in this field, and I agreed to that and then we clarified that the judicial foreclosure is only for HOPA (Homeowners Protection Act of 1998) loans, which are those high cost loans where they are charging extraordinary expenses as defined in federal law.  So those are the amendments.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thank you for your hard work on this bill.  It is a meritorious piece of legislation.  Were there concerns that were not addressed by this amendment? 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 284.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 343.

 

Assembly Bill 343:  Makes various changes related to sellers of travel. (BDR 52-881)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 343 is designed to address concerns related to sellers of travel.  Assemblywoman Buckley and Assemblyman Carpenter working together suggested that the bill be amended to reflect the proposed changes that are included in Exhibit "J" (Exhibit F).  [Exhibit G was distributed by Patricia Jarman-Manning, but was not referenced in the testimony.]

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I see in the amendment the issue of the filing fee or the registration fee.  Is there still no way to capture other sellers of travel, other than those that are in state?  In other words, those on the Internet?  It does create a false competition.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

We did not explore that issue.  We only had a few days, and this was very tough and we are trying to fix the problems we caused last session.  We just didn't have time to explore that issue.  Perhaps Mr. Carpenter will continue to work on that.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I'll talk with him, because I do think that for our in-state it is tough competition as it is. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

My experience with the streamline sales tax committee that governed commerce over the Internet and its effect on taxation helped me learn that there is not much influence that state laws have over commerce conducted on-line. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

It was pretty difficult to work on these bills in such a short amount of time and because there was no other Senate bill in the chapter, we felt we had to come up with something quickly.  Generally, what we did was increase the fee for a company from $25 to $125.  We eliminated the bond in favor of setting up a recovery fund, like we have for the Contractors Board.  We eliminated the employee charge.  We think that this will help with the complaints of the agent.  What Mr. Carpenter was suggesting is that next week he might have an informal meeting with them and with the Commissioner to go over it a little more.  We didn't want to see our opportunity to make some positive changes fall by the wayside.  It has not had as much input as we would have liked, but we would like to do something this session. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Further discussion? 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS MADE A MOTION TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 343.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 352 (Exhibit F).

 

Assembly Bill 352:  Revises provisions relating to sale of older mobile home. (BDR 43-970)

 

Diane Thornton:

A.B. 352 requires certain disclosures to purchasers of older mobile homes.  Assemblywoman Ohrenschall proposed adding a provision to the bill that requires landlords to prepare an annual earnings statement.  In addition, Renee Diamond, Administrator of the Manufactured Housing Division, suggested changing the date from 1975, which is in the bill, to June 15, 1976, to correspond to the date of the federal Manufactured Construction and Safety Standards. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Additionally, Ms. Ohrenschall has communicated that she needs to add to subsection 3, of Section 1 of the bill, the phrase, "if known," on line 12. 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 352.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I cannot support the bill with the mandatory publishing of the annual earnings statement.  Some of these are owned by private family businesses and are not public companies, and I don't believe that it is appropriate.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Further discussion? 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BEERS, BROWN, GRIFFIN, HETTRICK AND KNECHT VOTING NO.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 389.

 

Assembly Bill 389:  Prohibits control of thrift companies by certain persons. (BDR 56-1099)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 389 prohibits control of thrift companies by certain persons.  While there was considerable testimony on this bill, both in support of the bill and in opposition to the bill, there was only one amendment that we were able to identify and that was from Dan Reaser, representing Toyota Financial Services.  He proposed that A.B. 389 be amended to grandfather in any person who, on or before, December 31, 2002 had filed an application for authority to engage in the business of a thrift company (Exhibit F, page 4). 

 

Assemblyman Jerry Claborn, District No. 19 (Clark County):

I represent the people here and I think there are some amendments to this bill, so I will turn it over to Mr. Hudson.

 

Craig Hudson, representing Independent Community Bankers of America:

There is an agreement that we have reached with Toyota and the essence of the agreement is that the existing industrial loan companies will be grandfathered as well as Toyota (Exhibit H).  In addition to that, it also means that the existing ILCs (industrial loan corporations) and Toyota, in the future, can only be purchased by other financial firms.  It cannot be purchased by another commercial firm. 

 

Michael Alonso, Legislative Advocate, representing Toyota:

We are in agreement with this language. 

 

Danny Thompson:

We concur.

 

Assemblyman Griffin:

Just a question for whomever would know.  I think this is a good compromise.  This does not prevent the expansion of anybody who meets the criteria, that is, of a company that has been grandfathered in.  Any company could grow its business in an unlimited level. 

 

Assemblyman Beers:

I was compelled by the testimony by Mr. Reaser and the Economic Development folks that this was designed as a mechanism to bring good clean relatively well-paying jobs to Nevada, so I don't think I like the legislation as it stands with or without the amendment. 

 

Robert R. Barengo, Owner, Western Thrift & Title:

I am the only person here who owns a thrift business and no one consulted me regarding this bill.  As I understand this language, it prohibits me from selling any of my stock to other individuals, not a company.  The language in the amendment that Mr. Hughey drafted – I am not sure if that language is the language we are working off of, or if there is some additional language – that language talks about applications; I am already licensed.  Does an application go back all the way? 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

It is including through purchase, merger, consolidated . . .

 

Robert Barengo:

I was just handed this amendment, it is the first time I have seen it.  I think it is abhorrent practices upon these people’s part not to include licensed people in this state, long-time residents of the state, who are employing people in the state today, to try to do this.  This is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

To try to do what?

 

Robert Barengo:

To try to put me out of business.  I cannot own a company if this bill passes as originally written.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Why not?

 

Robert Barengo:

Because I am not solely involved in financial institutions.  I have other things that I solely do.  This is a terrible piece of legislation. 

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Mr. Hudson, if the amendment is adopted, it is my understanding, and I would like you to tell me if I am wrong, that would prevent Nevada from attracting another Harley-Davidson Finance, is that correct?

 

Craig Hudson:

It would prevent Nevada from attracting another Harley-Davidson Finance?

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Another company essentially similar to that, but with a different industrial base?

 

Craig Hudson:

It would prevent any other commercial or retail firm from purchasing an industrial loan company, yes.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

Thank you, Mr. Hudson.  That is enough to cause me to vote against it, even with the amendment.  I certainly appreciate the efforts of Mr. Claborn and the parties to make this thing work, but as far as I am concerned, Harley-Davidson Finance has been a real boon to my District and my community and I think every community deserves all of those [businesses] that we can get.  Thank you.  I will be voting against.

 

Robert Barengo:

Page 2, section 3 (Exhibit H), states at line 2-7, where it says "(2) Vote: (I) Twenty percent or more of any class of voting . . ."  I currently own 50 percent of the stock and my partner owns 50 percent of the stock.  What if I find someone that wants to invest in my company with a substantial amount of money, I can only sell them 20 percent.  You are limiting me from going out and getting other individuals to come in with more capital to make this company grow.  That makes no sense.  This is a natural person, this is not Wal-Mart. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Do you own it as a sole proprietor? 

 

Robert Barengo:

I own it as an individual, as a natural person.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

What if you transferred your ownership to a corporation, your own corporation?

 

Robert Barengo:

Then you go down to 2-II, "more than 10 percent of any class of voting securities of a thrift company if exercised by a person" and that definition of a person is a corporation. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I believe that the intent of the compromise, if I understood it, Wil may have to help us, was to say that current thrift companies that exist are okay.  That the threat of the expansion of this industry is not good financial practice for this state, that it opens up a number of different concerns regarding corporate ownership of financial institutions.  We wanted to take care of thrift companies that are currently in existence, regarding the ownership of those, and the transfer of ownership of those, is your concern, it seems to me.

 

Robert Barengo:

What is the public policy to prohibit me from selling to other individuals, natural persons?

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I'll get to that, Mr. Barengo.  I don't think we wanted to prohibit selling your interests to other individuals. 

 

Robert Barengo:

That is what it says.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That is why this is called a "work session" and not a "rubber stamp," Bob.  Wil, do you have some suggestions that we might be able to craft to not unintentionally prohibit Mr. Barengo from transferring his interest to another individual?

 

Wil Keane:

Yes, I read the language so that it would not interfere with anybody's current ownership.  So anybody who currently owns, even a corporation, would continue to be able to own their business.  Now, with regard to your concern about selling or transferring your business, we could certainly provide that you could always transfer to another natural person, we could insert that and we could make that clear, that these businesses, regardless of who owns them now, could be transferred to a natural person without regard to any of the other provisions in here.  I think we could do that without too much difficulty. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Does that satisfy your concern?  Would that satisfy the concerns of the other parties at the table? 

 

Robert Barengo:

You do a very good job, Mr. Chairman.  You are much more calm than I am. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Is there further discussion regarding the proposed amendments? 

 

Donal Hummer, Vice President, Harley-Davidson Financial Services:

I testified a few days ago, so I won't go through that.  You all were here and you all were very patient with me.  A couple of things I would like to bring to your attention before you vote.  First of all, I did provide a brief (Exhibit I) to you with regard to all the legal issues and the concerns that have been raised by this Committee.  Various testimony has been given with regard to the threat that this could possibly make to any type of investors in the state, and regulatory concerns with regards to what thrifts can and cannot do.  We are subject to the same scrutiny, the same invasive procedures that banks are with regard to the FDIC.  Our audits, our call reports, [Federal Reserve] Regulation W, Regulations 23a and b, Regulation O – all the same regulations with regards to transfers . . .

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Okay, we got you.  This amendment allows your company to continue working.

 

Donal Hummer:

And I am happy about that, but I think there is a bigger issue.  Harley has always been, no matter where we have been located, a corporate citizen, and I think this legislation is bad for Nevada.  Regardless if you grant me an amendment that says, "Harley can stay," it still is a bad bill.  It hurts Nevadans who need jobs, who need to diversify.  I am here today to say you should not be passing this bill.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We appreciate your opinion. 

 

Donal Hummer:

I would like to finish.  The amendments that were proposed today already hurt one major company that is looking to come here.  John Deere Credit, who has an application in, was here to testify against the bill.  Their application wasn't filed until March 2003, so you have already cut out one exceptional company from doing business in the state.  They will go to Utah.  What happens tomorrow, when Ford, or Dillards, or Honda, or Porsche-Audi, who are looking at our model say, "we really would like to set up a bank and a thrift in a great environment," and they can't come here?  They don't pose a threat to this state; [they offer] new jobs, valuable jobs . . .

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I'm going to stop you right there, for this reason, we heard the testimony on this bill and we appreciate it.  We are in a work session.  This is a process.  You have the ability to testify on this bill again, in the Nevada State Senate, and I think your testimony, John Deere's testimony, all those would be more appropriate over there. 

 

Donal Hummer:

I appreciate that and I will stop.  I just want people to think and vote their conscience today.  This is about jobs.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think everyone here will vote their conscience, sir. 

 

Donal Hummer:

Thank you, and thank you for your time.

 

Larry Osborne, Legislative Advocate, Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce:

I appreciate the attempts of everybody to try and put an amendment together, but again, on behalf of the Carson City Area Chamber of Commerce, we do not support these amendments and primarily for the reason that Mr. Beers has brought up.  We see this as an economic development issue and will, in fact, prevent more companies from coming in.  I don't see how these amendments would solve that part of the problem.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think the outline of the amendments are as such to change the date of anybody who has control of a thrift company, as of December or has an application pending as of December 31, 2002, can remain as a thrift company and with the prohibitions of transfer of ownership as outlined and will be worked on by Mr. Keane.  Would anyone wish to make a motion?

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 389.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Griffin:

I confuse easily.  I am going to vote for this and reserve the right to change my vote on the Floor when I can talk to some of these other people.  The intention was a good one, which was to create some checks and balances in this industry, but I guess I want to find out what some of the affects are.  I will vote in favor of this bill, with that reservation.

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons:

I am in accord with Mr. Griffin, but I am going to vote no and reserve the right to vote yes on the Floor. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Further discussion?  I see none.  [The Committee voted.]

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS, AND ASSEMBLYMEN BEERS, BROWN, HETTRICK, AND KNECHT VOTING NO. 

 

Assemblyman Claborn:

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Committee.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thank you for your hard work.  We will open the hearing on A.B. 424.

 

Assembly Bill 424:  Revises provisions relating to public works and state purchasing. (BDR 28-959)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 424 makes various changes to state purchasing.  Assemblyman Geddes proposed that the bill be amended as indicated in the mock-up, which is Exhibit "F" of Exhibit F.  The amendment revises the breach of contract provisions in current law by making these provisions applicable to a contract with any agency of the state of Nevada.  The amendment also grants the Chief of the Purchasing Division authority, not only to refuse to accept a bid from a person who has not performed according to the terms of the contract, but also to refuse to award a contract to that person for not more than two years.  All the other provisions of the bill are removed.  Since there is no effective date specified in his proposed amendment, we would assume the bill would be effective on October 1.  One final comment, and I don't know if this is still true, but earlier I was advised by Committee Counsel that the title of the bill might need to be amended – a technical issue. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Any discussion from the Committee?  Mr. Geddes, would you like to come down to the table?  Can you explain to me the affect of this?  I had a lot of concerns with this bill, mainly because it was a brand new bill and didn't have the chance to be seen by the public.  It appears to me that any contractor working for any agency of the state that has not performed in terms of the contract is liable and is prohibited from bidding on state work. 

 

Assemblyman Jason Geddes, District No. 24 (Washoe County):

I am not sure how far it would reach.  The basic point is that the Public Works Board has the provision that if they had problems with a contract, that can be taken into consideration if [the contractor] was bidding on another contract.  State purchasing does not have that provision.  This would put that provision in there, so that if [Purchasing] had a project that had not been successfully completed, or if there was any dispute, Purchasing could consider that when the contractor was bidding on another project. 

 

There was an example of software that had been developed for one division of the state that didn't work and they were having a lot of problems with it.  They were trying to remedy the situation and the company came in as a low bid and won another project.  Purchasing, currently, has no clause to deal with that situation.  This is the language that came from purchasing to address that situation. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

All right, it seems very permissive to me.  It just gives the Chief a lot of discretion over what bids he can and cannot accept.  I am not uncomfortable with that, necessarily.  What is the feeling of the Committee?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Could you please give us a synopsis of what this bill would do?  What would be the impact of this and what would be the impact if we didn't pass it? 

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

The impact is, if there was somebody who had a problem with a contractor that was working for a state agency, if they bid on another project and came in as the low bid, the Purchasing Division could look at how they had performed on this other contract and what led them into default, and take that into consideration when they are putting together the performance rating on accepting that bid or not.  If we don't pass this bill, then, if the company doesn't meet its contractual obligations to the state on a project, they can still be awarded a project on low bid.  Public works, as I said, has the language and they have excluded it so they can take that into consideration.  Purchasing does not. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

And “person” would include a private sector that also was bidding, or only public agencies.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Private sector as well. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

So, they would have their performance standards rated as well as a public agency if they did not fulfill the contract and the reasons why.  There could be some legitimate reasons why, but otherwise . . .

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

Correct.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I actually think this is going to be a good bill.  Wait until you serve on Ways and Means to see how many vendors we deal with that don't do what we hoped they would do, and they are always back again to see what they can do for the state, and what they agreed to do, and can't wait to promise to do more for the state.  Motion?

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 424.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 429.

 

Assembly Bill 429:  Makes various changes relating to net metering and renewable energy. (BDR 58-779)

 

Diane Thornton:

A.B. 429 establishes a program through the Office of Energy promoting net metering.  There were several amendments to this bill.  Assemblyman Hettrick proposed retaining the language in the bill on page 4, lines 23 through 25.  Assemblyman Hettrick also proposed including a definition of waterpower that comports with the recommendation from the Nevada Renewable Energy Task Force.  That definition reads "Task Force expresses support for new projects which generate electricity solely from the kinetic energy of moving water, that are not derived from a dam structure and with the capacity up to 30 megawatts." 

 

[Ms. Thornton continued.]  Neena Laxalt, representing Natural Lighting Company, Inc., proposed amending the definition of "renewable energy system" by adding the words "a solar" to "a solar or solar thermal energy system that reduces the consumption of electricity." 

 

In Exhibit F, under tab "G," there are several amendments from Joe Johnson representing Sunrise Sustainable Resources, including:

 

• revising the definition of net metering system,
• adding a definition of waterpower,
• revising the definition of renewable energy system, and
• revising the establishment of the portfolio standard. 

 

The last amendment was from Susan Fisher, representing Barrick Goldstrike Mines.  She proposed a definition of hydropower. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Mr. Hettrick, have you had an opportunity to review the amendments?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

I have, and a question has been brought up as well, just now.  I have a concern.  When the Task Force definition was given, I was under the impression the generation facility would be a dam.  I was under the impression that that would not impact a diversion.  The reason I requested this bill was to be sure that in a farm/ranch setting, where they had a dam, which was a diversion for irrigation purposes, they were not limited in their ability to use that existing facility.

 

I prefer the waterpower definition provided by Mr. Johnson, which does not permit any increase.  It says, "no increased appropriation or diversion of water."  So, it means you could not go build a new diversion dam and then actually use it to generate power.  I don't want them to be able to do that, so I agree with that language.  But, I don't want to eliminate the dam that already exists for diversion.  I see Rose McKinney-James shaking her head, so if she can agree with that I would appreciate it, because I think she understands what I am trying to do. 

 

The only other concern I have on the proposed amendments, is, I don’t think we need to use 100 kilowatts, I think 30 is adequate.  I think Ms. Buckley has a concern with Sections 9 and 10.  It appears to me that Section 9 is not necessary and I would think that Section 10 is still appropriate if we are going to try to foster the use of net metering and move forward with trying to get more people involved in some renewable energy. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

There is concern on Sections 9 and 10 and dams.  Mr. Hay, have you had a chance to review those suggestions? 

 

Timothy Hay, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Consumer Protection:

I have been reviewing the proposed amendments. First of all, I agree with the Assembly Minority Leader that Section 9 should be deleted.  On the issue of the net metering cap, we actually believe 100 kilowatts would be appropriate.  We certainly can live with 30.  On the issue of a diversion dam for irrigation purposes, I do think it should be available for generating electricity at those times that the diversion dams are actually in use.  If there were other issues, I did not get them on my notes.  I would be happy to answer any other questions.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think that hit them all.  Rose, do you have some points of clarification?

 

Rose McKinney-James, Legislative Advocate, Energy Works Consulting:

I concur with Mr. Hay’s clarification with respect to the diversion definition.  This is something we discussed with your staff.  It is consistent with the Department of Energy and we think it works for Nevada.  As it relates to the other adjustments, we are in concurrence.  As it relates to net metering, in particular, we are looking for an increase.  We recognize that there is a concern about raising it beyond the 30 [kilowatts].  We could certainly live with the 30, and hopefully be able to identify folks to take advantage of that opportunity. 

 

Joseph Johnson, Legislative Advocate, Sunrise Sustainable Resource Corporation and Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club:

[Introduced himself.]  I would love to have 1 megawatt, but I will be satisfied with 30 kilowatts.  I had another concern that has not been mentioned.  I proposed a revision on a solar thermal energy system that reduces consumption of electricity and natural gas or propane; I would like that to be considered also.  That functionally allows the individuals who have a solar hot water heater on their roofs, to count it as a renewable energy credit.  They can presently do that if they have electric hot water heat, and I think they should if they have natural gas or propane. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Mr. Keane, on Section 9, please.

 

Wil Keane:

I would concur that Section 9 could either be taken out or left in, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone realized what that Section was intended to do.  All it does is provide that, if before the effective date of this act, which will be upon passage and approval, somebody has sold that energy that is generated by something that is going to be allowed in the bill, (whatever the waterpower definition is) if they met that definition, and they sold it before the effective date of this bill, but during 2003, then they can use it for their 2003 requirement for their portfolio standard – since the portfolio standard runs in calendar years.  That is all that Section was intended to do. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

It should be noted for the record, as well, that the definition of waterpower here was addressed in a number of different bills, including those proposed by Assemblymen Josh Griffin and Jason Geddes.  Because of their benevolence and their desire to do good for the citizens of the state of Nevada, they have been willing to forego the passage of their own bill and allowed their intent and hard work to be included in A.B. 429.  We thank you for your hard work on that issue in allowing the smoother processing of Committee business by allowing your bill to go by the wayside.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I just wanted to confirm, by going to the 100 kilowatts, the smaller groups would be able to go into the net metering business, is that correct?

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That was the testimony.  It was also my understanding that the public utilities had a great deal of concern with that.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

About going larger than that?  Okay. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I am going to support the bill, I think the amendments address my concern and with Section 9 eliminated, that helps.  I have a little concern about Section 10.  When you give money to the public, and it is not "means tested," you can collect money then from someone who is on a fixed income and give it to someone without any income.  That bothers me a little bit.  I know the goal.  I know that the competing goal is that sometimes if you don't have grants and incentives, you can't get things going and in the long run, you have more renewable energy, and possibly, costs will be stabilized for all.  I recognize both arguments.  It does give me some concern to do this, but, all in all, I think it is a good bill. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

I just wanted to make sure that with the amendments that are suggested, this would not allow Hoover Dam to be included.  Correct?

 

Chairman Goldwater:

No.  It is correct. 

 

Assemblyman Griffin:

So just to make sure, it is 30 kilowatts?  Okay.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think that is the number that we all can [tolerate].

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 429 WITH ALL THE AMENDMENTS LISTED, INCLUDING 30 KILOWATTS AND THE DELETION OF SECTION 9. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Including the outline of Mr. Hettrick's existing dams on ranches?

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Yes.  As confirmed by both Mr. Hay and Ms. McKinney-James.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Clarification Mr. Keane?  Let me get a second on that.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Wil Keane:

Could I just quickly run through the amendments to make sure that I understand which ones you want in?  [Chairman Goldwater consented.]  It would be on the yellow sheet (page 4, Exhibit F), item 1, regarding the language on page 4, lines 23 through 25 – we are doing that one.  Item 2, we are not using that definition of waterpower.  Item 3 we are doing that revision.  Item 4, we are going to the exhibit and instead of 100 kilowatts we want that to be 30 kilowatts.  In the definition of waterpower immediately below that, on Exhibit "G" (Exhibit F), we want the first three lines of that definition.  We do not want the limitation on July 1, 2003, but we do want the following two lines regarding the increased diversion.  We do want the remainder of that Exhibit "G," and then finally, we do not want the definition of hydropower that is in item 5. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think the definition of 5 would be incorporated, right Ms. Fisher?

 

Susan Fisher, Legislative Advocate, Barrick Gold Corporation:

[Introduced herself.]  You are looking at page 5, the number 5, that definition?  We are certainly fine with that. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

No.  The one accepted earlier, the change in Exhibit "G."  It is exactly the same language.

 

Susan Fisher:

Okay.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Do we have incorporated somewhere that the definition of hydro or water should not include those fueled by fossil fuels?  Is that in this definition?  Does it need to be clearer that that is not fueled by fossil fuel, or does this language, by its very meaning, preclude that? 

 

Rose McKinney-James:

I believe that the definition by itself precludes it. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Maybe we can include that in the floor statement, just to be safe.  Mr. Hay, do you agree with that?

 

Timothy Hay:

Yes, I do agree with that.  I think this definition would exclude things such as pump storage facilities, but it could be clarified I think.  The legislative intent, certainly, is clear by this discussion. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

Okay, thank you very much. 

 

Assemblyman Beers:

It sounded like amendment number 3 on page 5 of our work session document was accepted as is, the change to the definition of renewable energy systems in Exhibit "G," Mr. Johnson's work, adding natural gas or propane.  [However,] he does have a slight difference there on the solar thermal energy system, so are we combining the two of those? 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

It is the same thing.

 

Assemblyman Beers:

Okay. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

You will probably see a conflict amendment, if there is any conflict.  Mr. Keane.

 

Wil Keane:

In response to Mr. Beers, if you are referring to the fact that on the yellow sheet, in item 3, page 5, the wording is solar or solar thermal and then on Exhibit "G" it says solar (thermal) energy.  What I was anticipating doing would be to include just "solar, including, without limitation, solar thermal" and then moving on like that because, solar thermal, as I understand it, is a subset of solar. 

 

Timothy Hay:

I think it is clear, but we certainly want to include solar lighting systems that are not specifically thermal.  They are still a solar contribution to the decrease in a building's usage of energy.  I think that is the intent of Ms. Laxalt's amendment and I think that is clear. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Wil, is that all right?  [Mr. Keane agreed.]

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I have one more follow-up on that fossil fuel issue.  Do you think it would be okay if we added another sentence, after that 15 megawatts that says, expressly, that it cannot be fueled by fossil fuels if we could come up with some appropriate language?

 

Timothy Hay:

I think that would be helpful, Ms. Buckley.

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

I would like to amend my motion and put that in, if that is okay.

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 429.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Vance Hughey:

I just want to make sure, for the record, that in that list of amendments that we are deleting Section 9.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Yes, we are, in fact, deleting Section 9.  Further discussion of the motion?

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 431. 

 

Assembly Bill 431:  Establishes program to provide incentives for installation of certain solar energy systems. (BDR 53-723)

 

Diane Thornton:

A.B. 431 creates the solar energy demonstration program and establishes training necessary for solar energy system installers.  The mock-up under tab "H" (Exhibit F) shows several different amendments from Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.  In addition, she also suggested changing the terminology on page 12, lines 35 and 39, to replace the words "kilowatt hour capacity" with the words "actual or estimated kilowatt hour production."  In addition, there is the same amendment from Neena Laxalt, which, I believe, we have already addressed.

 

Assemblywoman Gibbons:

Was there an amendment offered by Ms. Stokey on Section 36? 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

No, not at this time.  We are working on some language, but with the time lines, if we agree to a change, I would bring another amendment to the Floor.  We have not resolved the issue.  I think what she suggested we take out was not resolvable yet, and I need time to work with her on that.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Is there anyone here from the PUC (Public Utilities Commission)?  There's Mr. Noble.  Requiring the Commission to adopt regulations to an established system for renewable energy – is that okay with you?

 

David Noble, Assistant General Counsel, State of Nevada, Public Utilities Commission:

That is fine with us. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Okay.  Thoughts from the Committee?

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 431.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Knecht:

I have some concerns with the renewable energy credit systems already in place and so I am going to oppose this on that basis.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Further discussion from the Committee?  There is none.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMAN KNECHT VOTING NO.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 432.

 

Assembly Bill 432:  Revises provisions concerning certain penalties against and withholdings of money from contractors and subcontractors on public works. (BDR 28-932)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 432 revises provisions concerning penalties and withholdings of money from contractors and subcontractors on public works.  Assemblyman Brown proposed an amendment, which is shown in the mock-up of the bill, which is included behind tab "I" of your work session document (Exhibit F). 

 

Assemblyman Brown:

I discussed this with a number of members of the industry.  Basically, there was a concern regarding the forfeitures that applied to instances where an employer pays less than the designated rate for any work done.  Another concern was when the certified payroll reports are not filed.  Our problem was that we had instances where they were just filed late.  There was nothing incorrect on them.  There was no failure to pay the correct amount.  They were getting these astronomical forfeiture amounts.  So, we capped that amount.  We also created a third category, which was if somebody submits it [the certified payroll report] but they intentionally submit false information on it.  In that instance, it would not fall in under the cap.  We had no opposition to those amendments. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thoughts from the Committee?  I don't recall any opposition on that.  Is Public Works all right with that? 

 

Assemblyman Beers:

This is fine legislation.  I am just curious.  Those sound like synonymous cases.  If you submitted an inaccurate certified payroll report, I think, by definition, you are underpaying . . .

 

Assemblyman Brown:

Right, and this is an "or" situation.  What we are really looking at is the failure to include all the workers, for instance you have ten workers on the jobsite and you list five.  You list all five correctly.  It is not meant to be duplicate.  If you underpay, you don't get tagged twice, and that was agreeable to everyone. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Further discussion?  Thoughts from the Committee? 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 432.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BEERS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 433.

 

Assembly Bill 433:  Makes various changes to provisions regulating persons providing check-cashing and deferred deposit services. (BDR 52-935)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 433 makes various changes to provisions regulating persons who provide check-cashing and deferred deposit services.  We have no amendments at this time.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO DO PASS A.B.433.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 490 (Exhibit F). 

 

Assembly Bill 490:  Revises provisions governing mortgage brokers and mortgage agents. (BDR 54-998)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 490 revises provisions governing mortgage brokers and mortgage agents.  Chairman Goldwater is proposing a number of amendments that are designed to address concerns that were expressed during the hearing on this bill, particularly in the areas of continuing education, license renewal, cycles, fees, the make-up of the Board, and the authority and staff support for the Board.  In addition, he has proposed new provisions to allow a licensee to put his license "on ice" if he is called to military service and to provide an opportunity for a hearing if an applicant is denied a license. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thank you.  I will discuss any of the amendments with any of the Committee members, but we tried to address all the concerns that were brought out.  I feel that we did.  I know that Wil Keane is prepared to help me discuss any of the concerns that the people from financial institutions had regarding the “joint and several” liability issue that was present in this bill.  There is a standard that was written into the bill that called for "known or should have known" and it has been explained to me what that standard is, so if they knew or should have known that they were engaging in fraudulent activities, and are still a spokesman, then they have joint and several liability.  This is a loftier standard than simply saying, "someone stole." 

 

Assemblyman Arberry:

I was looking for the language where the loan officers had to register but pay as much as the broker was going to pay.  I thought that was a concern. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That is on number 5 in the work session document.

 

Assemblyman Arberry:

So, we reduced it?

Chairman Goldwater:

Yes.  We changed it to what real estate agents pay.  That was completely arbitrary, by the way.

 

Assemblyman Arberry:

Okay.  And the classes?

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That is number 1.  We basically said we require the same amount of hours; the NAMB (National Association of Mortgage Brokers) has recognized and also we allowed the Board to recognize other programs that would count towards the education requirement.

 

Assemblyman Arberry:

Okay.  And on the class, I think they were saying 5 or 10?

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Ten hours.

 

Assemblyman Arberry:

Most of the classes that are offered, are offered at four hour increments, or four credit increments, so you would have to take three and then you would be above the ten, so how does that work out?

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That the Board will have the ability to recognize any other program.

 

Assemblyman Arberry:

Okay, but ten is just the . . . you can't get five and five.  There is no way to do it. 

 

Assemblywoman Buckley:

For lawyers, for our CLEs (continuing legal education], we can carry over.  So if you go to a CLE, an education for five and the next one is six, so you have an extra one, you can credit it for the next year.  The Board might want to consider that.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thoughts?  Questions? 

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 490.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Assemblyman Arberry:

I need to disclose that I am a mortgage broker and this bill will treat me no differently than anybody else. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 502 (Exhibit F).

 

Assembly Bill 502:  Requires certain policies of health insurance and health care plans to include coverage for certain medical treatment provided in clinical trial or study. (BDR 57-1196)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 502 requires certain policies of health insurance and health care plans to include coverage for certain medical treatments provided in clinical trials or studies.  Dr. Ellerton was working with interested parties to try to resolve some differences and submitted the proposed amendments that are included in your work session document.  In addition, this morning we received another proposed amendment, which you should have before you (Exhibit J) and I am not entirely sure where that came from. 

 

John Ellerton, M.D.:

Yes, I did work with the interested parties and I sent the proposed amendments in three parts.  The ones that are on the two extra sheets I faxed here this morning.  There is just one comment I would like to make on the last page I sent – the one that has the numbered lines on it – and the numbered lines near the bottom are 3-4 through 3-15.  I would ask that these be removed because they are duplicative of definitions that we worked on in the rest of the amendments.  Otherwise, I have no personal objections to any of the things that are there. 

 

Jack Kim, Legislative Advocate, Nevada Association of Health Plans:

We did, at the request of the Chairman, work with Dr. Ellerton on these changes.  I think the amendments that Dr. Ellerton faxed over are in reverse order.  The numbered lines go first, followed by "Assembly Bill 502."  It makes a little more sense that way.  We talked with Dr. Ellerton and he tried to address all our concerns.  We have a couple of areas that we still have some minor concerns on and we indicated to Dr. Ellerton that we would try to work with him when it gets over to the other house.  Because of the short time frame that we have, this bill being processed on Wednesday and then being heard today, we did agree that phase one trials were probably inappropriate for this bill.  There are problems with the Institutional Review Board.  We tried to address all those issues.  There are still a couple of concerns that we need to work on.  We have talked with Dr. Ellerton and we will work with him on the other side.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We really appreciate you working on this bill.  I was very compelled by the testimony and I know the limited influence legislators have over these issues, but I do think it is an important public policy statement.  I appreciate your good faith work.

 

We dropped phase one, deleted "prevention, early detection,” deleted the review board, and deleted AIDS. 

 

Thoughts from the Committee?

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 502.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Wil, do you understand where we are going with the suggested amendments outlined by Dr. Ellerton and agreed upon by Mr. Kim?

 

Wil Keane:

Did Dr. Ellerton add an additional change when he was speaking earlier, or is it just the changes here on the pink sheet (Exhibit J)? 

 

John Ellerton, M.D.:

I just asked that on the page that has the numbered lines the numbered lines 3‑4 through 3-15 at the bottom of the page be deleted because they duplicate better definitions that we put in another part of the bill. 

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We will open the hearing on A.B. 356.

 

Assembly Bill 356:  Revises various provisions relating to establishment of living wage and certain benefits for certain employees in private employment. (BDR 53-682)

 

Vance Hughey:

A.B. 356 establishes a living wage and establishes certain benefits for employees of certain large grocery stores.  Assemblywoman Giunchigliani suggested a number of amendments that are included in your work session document (Exhibit F).  Essentially, these changes eliminate the proposed immediate increase in the minimum wage, provide for future increases in the minimum wage based on increases in the Consumer Price Index, and delete the proposed changes to provisions relating to the eligibility of certain new and expanded businesses for tax abatements.  In addition, Myla Florence, Director, Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, made several suggestions that are contained in a letter she sent to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.  Her letter is included in your work session document (Exhibit F) as Exhibit "E."  Finally, Sean Gamble, representing the Clark County Health District, proposed changes to Sections 7 and 8 of the bill as reflected in your work session document (Exhibit F). 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Ms. Giunchigliani, was it the health districts that were making a determination?

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Yes.  I made a suggestion to change it to "business license" and that was acceptable.  If I might, on page 3, item 3, it should say beginning on page 4 and 5, because it is the entire deletion of that Section 5.  So, it just goes back to the original law. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

What are the thoughts of the Committee?

 

ASSEMBLYMAN ARBERRY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 356.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED WITH ASSEMBLYMEN BEERS, BROWN, GRIFFIN, HETTRICK, AND KNECHT VOTING NO.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Did I miss anything in the work session document?  We will open the hearing on A.B. 296.

Assembly Bill 296:  Excludes tires from definition of "biomass" for purposes of energy policy, public utilities, portfolio standard for renewable energy net metering and optional pricing. (BDR 58-1163)

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Mr. Hay, biomass?  Did you have an objection to what is in Exhibit "D" (Exhibit F)?

 

Timothy Hay:

I wanted to bring a couple of items to the Committee's attention.  I would like to commend Assemblyman Geddes for bringing this issue forward.  We are very supportive of the 2.4 credit multiplier for the solar energy systems.  From the testimony I heard in the Committee a few days ago, it was geared towards the microwave technology for recycling tires.  I think if the language were to be limited to the microwave technology, which is much more environmentally friendly, that would be an improvement to the amendment which is before you at this time, and with the 50 percent of the system's output used to serve the premises of the recycling facility – I think the testimony was about 40 percent of the content of the average tire is actually recyclable material – the 0.7 is appropriate for that energy that is delivered to other uses.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Yes, I think that is fine.  In the Committee hearing I understood it to be no different than that.  I have been informed that the amendment does not say that.  We may have a conflict issue here.

 

Wil Keane:

Earlier today we passed A.B. 429, which provides that there should be a 2.4 credit multiplier for solar photovoltaic systems, which I would understand to be a subset of solar systems in general.  I just wanted to make sure that we got on the record what the intent was, with regard to that.  Would the 2.4 credit multiplier apply to all energy systems or just solar voltaic systems?  Secondly, would the credit multiplier be further limited by that language at the end?  I am looking at the mock-up under Exhibit "D" (Exhibit F) of the new section that limited it to systems that are installed at a retail customer's premises, if at least 50 percent of the system's output is used to serve the customer's energy requirements for those premises.  I see that as a limiting phrase.  It would limit the systems that could get this 2.4 credit.  Would you want that limiting phrase to apply or not?  With the two bills being passed the question would be, do you get 2.4 multiplier for all systems, regardless of whether any of it is used on the premises?  All solar systems or just solar voltaic systems and just if 50 percent is used on the premises?  If that is clear.

 

Timothy Hay:

I believe the intent of this section is actually to apply the 2.4 credit multiplier to all solar energy systems, whether they are thermal or photovoltaic, and not limited by the 50 percent usage at a customer's premises.  I think that is specifically for the tire recycling operation, which, I indicated, I think should be limited to the microwave technology that was described before the Committee to support the Wells project. 

 

Wil Keane:

That's great.  We can have the premises language only apply to the tires.  I guess the final clarification I would want to have is, if we are going to have the 2.4 multiplier apply to all solar systems, would we then want to revisit our amendment to A.B. 429 so that it matches, so that we don't somehow limit it to solar voltaic in one bill and then have it apply to all our solar systems in another?

 

Joe Johnson:

I was specific in defining it as photovoltaic because, in essence, the solar thermal, in the small scale that you have accepted in the new definition, really doesn't need that large of a multiplier.  Simple, the renewable credit will bring those units into market.  Additionally, I have the concern that defining all solar systems, would that affect the existing 50 megawatt contract, if we put a 2.4 multiplier on that.  We would suddenly not need any more solar, for a significant period of time. 

 

Wil Keane:

As I understand what you are saying, Mr. Johnson, we should leave A.B. 429 as it stands, with solar voltaic, and amend the current A.B. 296 to only apply to solar voltaic? 

 

Joe Johnson:

That would be my recommendation at this time, and I think we can look at the addition of passive solar, as perhaps being useful to have the multiplier on that, but I think at this late stage, that we should stick with the definition of A.B. 429.

 

Timothy Hay:

I concur with Mr. Johnson's remarks on that.  I misspoke earlier. 

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

What you are saying, Joe, is that passive still is not included anyplace?

Joe Johnson:

I believe the passive would receive a renewable energy credit, and whether it needs the 2.4 to come into the market, I simply don't know at this time and I would certainly be open to including it, but I think that is an issue that we should address in additional study.

 

Assemblywoman Giunchigliani:

Okay. 

 

Stephanie Licht, Legislative Consultant, representing Elko County:

You should have before you (Exhibit K) a letter from one of my witnesses.  He said, "contract" when, in fact, he had a "letter of intent."  I want to correct the record on his behalf.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

That will be noted.  Mr. Geddes, thoughts?

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

It sounds great, Mr. Chairman.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN HETTRICK MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 296.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

What is the amendment, Mr. Hettrick?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

[I believe it was] 0.7 [for energy derived from tires] and stick with the 2.4.  That is what I remember, at the moment. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Then revise the definition of microwave?

 

Assemblyman Hettrick:

Correct; include the definition of microwave, for this purpose.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Wil, does that satisfy you? 

 

Wil Keane:

So, as I understand it, we are just doing the mock-up plus adding a definition for microwave? 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Yes.

 

Wil Keane:

And clarifying that the 50 percent use requirement only applies to the 0.7 credit multiplier and clarifying solar photovoltaic energy systems.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Right.  There is a Hettrick motion.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

Assemblyman Geddes:

I just want to thank this Committee for their hard work last session in getting A.B. 661 of the Seventy-First Session through and allowing the whole portfolio standard and all these changes to go forward, and I thank you, again, for accepting these refinements that I think will help develop renewable energies in Nevada. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

I think, as far as A.B. 661 of the Seventy First Session goes, this bill clarified it, which was important.  We did not want to make any significant policy changes from that bill. 

 

We will open the hearing on A.B. 489 heard earlier today.

 

Assembly Bill 489:  Revises provisions relating to dental hygiene. (BDR 54-185)

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Thoughts from the Committee?  Wil, can we trust you to work on amendments that satisfy your concern for statutory integrity?  Okay.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN LESLIE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 489.

 

ASSEMBLYWOMAN GIUNCHIGLIANI SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Goldwater:

Did I miss anything in the work session document?  Nancyann?  We will open the hearing on A.B. 495.  I will give you exactly five minutes.  If you can convince this Committee to pass this bill in five minutes, you got it, knowing that we already passed a worker's comp bill.

 

Assembly Bill 495:  Makes various changes relating to industrial insurance. (BDR 53-468)

 

Nancyann Leeder, Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers:

Okay.  Pursuant to your instructions I did discuss concerns with the people who voiced them to me and therefore, I am proposing some additional changes which are being distributed (Exhibit L).  Christi Mosher from ProGroup Management wanted some changes to Sections 7 and 8, which are written down, so they are part of my proposal now.  Rose McKinney-James agreed with those changes.  Because Bob Ostrovsky raised the question of whether Section 12 would increase benefits and, in my view it did not, I discussed that further with both him and with Leslie Bell, so I am moving to delete that from my bill.  I am proposing a word change to Section 13 in order to clarify that the individual injured worker will be able to seek an extension of his worker's comp benefits at the conclusion of his program, if it is not working.  What would remain, of the original printed bill, is Sections 5, 6, 14, the first repealer and Sections 7, 8, 11, and 13, with changes, as noted on the document you just received. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

It appears to be a pretty innocuous bill.

 

Nancyann Leeder:

But it helps.

 

Chairman Goldwater:

Okay. 

 

ASSEMBLYMAN PARKS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 495.

 

ASSEMBLYMAN OCEGUERA SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

Chairman Goldwater:

What else?  Anyone?  Ms. Jarman-Manning?  Which bill are you concerned with?

 

Patricia Jarman-Manning, Commissioner State of Nevada, Department of Business and Industry, Consumer Affairs Division:

A.B. 496. 

 

Chairman Goldwater:

We addressed that in a previous bill.  Okay.  I appreciate your patience; we got a lot of work done.  [The meeting was adjourned at 3:56 p.m.]

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Patricia Blackburn

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Assemblyman David Goldwater, Chairman

 

 

DATE: