Error fixed in highway measure

Tuesday, April 4, 2000 | 11:52 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A legislative bill-writing error that could have cost Nevada highway contractors millions of dollars in lost business has been corrected by the Legislative Commission.

Steve Holloway, executive vice president of the Associated General Contractors of Nevada in Las Vegas, said the mistake made during the 1999 Legislature would have had a "catastrophic impact" on those construction companies that specialize in building highways.

Senate Bill 298, which dealt with requiring bidders on public works projects to meet certain qualifications, was amended by the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee in the closing days of the session. Through a misnumbering of sections in the law, the Nevada preference was wiped out.

Nevada contractors are given a 5 percent advantage on bids if they have paid sales taxes and motor vehicle privilege taxes for the past five years, according to John Madole of the Associated General Contractors. Otherwise if a Nevada contractor and an out-of-state company bid the same price of $100,000 on a job, the in-state firm would be judged as if the price was $95,000.

Although the law became effective last year, apparently few noticed. Christy Leonard, deputy attorney general for the state Transportation Department, said it didn't find out until recently that the Nevada preference had been scrapped.

Dan Reaser, an attorney representing Staker Construction and Paving Co. of Utah, asked that the Legislative Commission make the correction so it applies only from this date forward. Staker won a contract for highway work in the Elko area without the in-state bidding preference coming into play.

But Garth Frehner, owner of Frehner Construction Co. of North Las Vegas, said if a mistake was made in the law, then any correction should be retroactive. The commission, which meets between legislative sessions to conduct the housekeeping business of the Legislature, unanimously agreed with Frehner.

Brenda Erdoes, the chief of bill drafting for the Legislature, said the commission had the authority to correct typographical errors. In this case the number 7 should have been in the law instead of 11 in referring to sections of the bill.