by Lisa A. Rasmussen, Associate

In Nevada, our Legislature meets every other year for approximately 120 days beginning in February.  The 2007 legislative session brought several changes related to construction and the obligations of contractors.

Determining The Applicable Building Code

Senate Bill 56 revises Nevada Revised Statute section 224.368 by clarifying which building codes apply to a project that is located in two jurisdictions or, in some instances, near a second jurisdiction.  In keeping with the Nevada tradition, counties with a population of less than 400,000 may impose different requirements than counties with greater populations.

Thus, the new rule is that in a county with a population of more than 400,000, any building located within a city must comport to the city’s building code if that code is more stringent than the county’s building code.  The same is true for counties with populations less than 400,000, but in those locales, a more stringent city code applies to buildings located within the city as well as to buildings within a one mile radius of that city.  These provisions do not apply to farm or ranch buildings in existence prior to March 30, 1959.

This law became effective on July 1, 2007.

Subdivision Certification Requirements

Senate Bill 84 amended Nevada Revised Statute section 278.325.  This amendment addresses the requisite certification pertaining to the subdivision of existing industrial or commercial buildings.

Anyone wishing to subdivide an industrial or commercial building must obtain a certificate prepared by a professional engineer or registered architect certifying (a) compliance with the applicable law of the State in effect at the time the preparation of the certificate and (b) compliance with the building code in effect at the time the building was constructed.  Additionally, if the proposed subdivision is located in a county with a population greater than 400,000, the certificate must be reviewed, approved and signed by the building official having jurisdiction over the location of the building.

This law becomes effective October 1, 2007.

Penalties for Contractors Who Contract With
Unlicensed Contractors

Contractors operating without a license, or outside the scope of their license, continue to be a hot focus in Nevada, particularly in Clark County.  Aside from the criminal penalties imposed upon unlicensed contractors, the State has revved up its system for penalizing licensees who hire unlicensed contractors.

If the Nevada State Contractor’s Board is able to establish that a licensee knowingly entered into a contract with an unlicensed subcontractor, the penalties that it must impose are as follows: (1) for a first offense, an administrative fine not less than $1,000 and not greater than $50,000; (2) for a second offense, an administrative fine not less than $5,000 and not more than $50,000; and (3) for a third or subsequent offense, an administrative fine not less than $10,000 and not greater than $50,000.  The Board may, but is not required, to suspend the license of any licensee for up to six months for a first offense and up to one year for a second offense.  Third time offenders may be subject to revocation.

These penalties can also apply to those who knowingly bid to contract with unlicensed contractors and/or those who contract with a contractor for work in excess of the scope of another’s license.  The other remedies available to the Board, such as the right to order remedial work, remain unchanged.  There does not appear to be any time limit to the new three-strike penalty scheme.

This law becomes effective October 1, 2007 and is codified at NRS §624.3015.

Subsurface Installations

Senate Bill 396 modified the requirements for excavation or demolition proximate to a subsurface installation.

Prior to commencing an excavation or demolition within 24 inches (formerly 30 inches) of a subsurface installation, a contractor must notify the appropriate operator at least two working days, but not more than 28 calendar days before excavation or demolition.  The new law allows courts to issue a temporary restraining order prior to holding an evidentiary hearing if there is an allegation that the proposed excavation or demolition may cause death, serious physical harm or serious property damage.  Serious property damage is not defined.

This law, codified at NRS §455.082, 110, 160 and 170 becomes effective October 1, 2007.  The 24 inch requirement, however, will not become effective until July 1, 2008.

Requirements For Public Works Projects Exceeding $10,000,000

Senate Bill 201 authorizes public entities to enter into a contract with a construction manager at risk for the preconstruction and construction of a public work project.  The bill sets forth the method for selecting a construction manager at risk (CMAR) and authorizes the public body to hire the CMAR to oversee the construction.

The bill as enacted also sets forth requirements that must be fulfilled before a local government may advertise for bids for a public work.  Specifically, local governments will be required to perform a review of the approved plans and specifications to determine if the plans and specifications are complete and contain all of the necessary information and specifications to construct the public work if the public work has an estimated cost exceeding $10,000,000.  The details of the requisite review are quite specific and are to be codified at Chapter 338 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.  For example, the review shall include a determination of whether a competent contractor would be able to construct the public work based on the approved plans and specifications as well as review of the same with regard to completeness, clarity and economic feasibility.

This new statute becomes effective October 1, 2007.

Penalties for Employers Regarding Employees Summoned to Jury Duty

The enactment of Senate Bill 208 adds a criminal penalty to Nevada Revised Statute section 6.190.

Formerly, employers were prohibited from terminating an employee summoned for jury duty or from dissuading them from jury service.  The new law makes it a misdemeanor if an employer commits any of the following: (a) requires an employee to use sick leave or vacation time while serving as a juror or (b) requires an employee to report to work within 8 hours of the time he is to appear for jury duty.  With regard to the latter, employers are specifically prohibited from requiring employees to report to work between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. if the employee has provided jury service exceeding four hours (including travel time) on any given day.

This law became effective on May 17, 2007.  As a side note, Clark County is now holding special court sessions for jurors who fail to appear when summoned.  The penalties for failing to report when summoned can include fines and community service.


The information or opinion provided in this article is the author's own and not necessarily that of Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald, LLP. The author is solely responsible for the information and opinion that he or she has provided. The information contained herein does not replace seeking specific legal counsel to directly address individual client needs.

Watt, Tieder, Hoffar & Fitzgerald is one of the largest construction law firms in the world, with a practice that encompasses all aspects of construction contracting, claims and disputes resolution, and transactional legal services. WTHF principally represents large general contractors, design firms, and sureties throughout the country and internationally.