MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
February 5, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:07 a.m. February 5, 1993, in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda, Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Robert M. Sader, Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. John C. Bonaventura
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John C. Carpenter (excused)
Mr. Ken L. Haller (excused)
Mr. Gene T. Porter (excused)
Mr. Michael A. Schneider (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Western Nevada Senatorial District
Ms. Gene W. Segerblom, Assembly District 22
Mr. Lynn C. Hettrick, Assembly District 39
Mr. P. M. Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36
Mr. Peter G. Ernaut, Assembly District 37
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau
OTHERS PRESENT:
Judge Steven D. McMorris, Tahoe Township Justice Court
Mr. Kevin G. Higgins, Senior Deputy Attorney General
Ms. Beverly Saucedo, Extradition Coordinator, Office of the Attorney General
Mr. Larry Beck, Chairman, Washoe County Board of County Commissioners
Mr. David G. Pumphrey, Chairman, Douglas County Board of County Commissioners
Ms. Judi Bailey, Washoe County Clerk
Ms. Barbara J. Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer
Ms. Mary Henderson, Washoe County Administrative Analyst
Mr. Kirby Burgess, Clark County Clerks Office
Mr. Robert Anderson, Tahoe-Douglas Chamber of Commerce
Ms. Paula Treat, Nevada Judges Association
Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney's Association
Mr. Jeffrey P. Zucker, Chairman, Nevada State Bar, Business Law Section
Mr. Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties
Mr. John Sande, Nevada Banker's Association
Mr. George Flint, Proprietor, Chapel of the Bells Wedding Chapel
Mr. Dewane Foulk, Proprietor, Silver Bell and Wedding Bell Wedding Chapels
Mrs. Minnie Foulk, Proprietor
Mr. Don Summo, Proprietor, Victoria Wedding Chapel
Mrs. Eileen Summo, Proprietor
Mr. Ronald Z. Sayed, Owner/Operator, The Wedding Chapel, Harvey's Hotel and Casino
Ms. Stephanie Tyler, Representative, Las Vegas Wedding Chapels
Mr. Gene Lee, A Personal Touch Wedding Chapel
Mr. Scott Doyle, Douglas County
Following the roll call, Chairman Sader opened hearings on several bills scheduled to be presented before the committee and a Work Session to follow.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 60 Provides consequences of environmental impairment or real collateral.
Mr. Jeffrey P. Zucker, Chairman of the Nevada State Bar, Business Law Section, testified in favor of A.B. 60. The Nevada One Action Rule generally required if a loan was secured by real estate, the lender's only remedy was foreclosure on that property. The exercise of any other right by the lender might be considered the waiver of the lien. As environmental issues have grown in importance, lenders have tried to require borrowers to abide by environmental laws. Mr. Zucker continued, if the statute was strictly construed, a lender could not compel a borrower to clean up an environmental problem except by foreclosure and taking over the contaminated property. As the statute was presently written, the lender could not go to the property to inspect for environmental violations if the borrower refused to let him.
Mr. Zucker continued, even if property was contaminated, and thus substantially impaired in value from what the parties anticipated, the lender could be required to go against the contaminated property in order to collect what was owed. This choice, in certain cases, could lead a lender to abandon the property. In all cases, it increased the lending costs and led to the reluctance of lenders to lend monies.
Mr. Zucker believed A.B. 60 provided a workable solution to the problems. The bill allowed a lender to inspect the property for environmental contamination. If a problem was found, the bill allowed the lender to compel the borrower to clean up the pollution, or allowed the lender to clean up the property and recover the damages from the borrower. In cases of substantial environmental contamination, the statute allowed the lender to avoid having to foreclose on the contaminated property if the lender was not aware of the contamination at the time it made the loan.
Mr. Zucker added the Nevada State Bar Business Law Section supported A.B. 60. On the attachment to these remarks, Exhibit C, certain areas were noted wherein the language might have been clearer, or where changes had been recommended. As so modified, A.B. 60 would introduce certainty and clarity in the legal field where both had been scarce. Hopefully, by providing lenders a meaningful way to enforce environmental cleanup provisions, it might lead to more environmental cleanup without governmental action. Finally, Mr. Zucker added, by protecting innocent lenders from the risks of environmental liability, A.B. 60 would eliminate one cause of anxiety for lenders whose anxieties were already too high for a reasonable lending climate.
Mr. Sader addressed Mr. Zucker and stated this was a complicated area of the law, particularly when it dealt with the One Action Rule. He noted the committee had passed various provisions of the One Action Rule over the years. Mr. Sader used a scenario for clarification in which a lending institution lent money to an individual, took a promissory note and the deed of trust on the individual's land. If the individual defaulted on the payments, the lending institution could sue the individual in a contract action as the individual did not pay on the promissory note, or the lending institution could foreclose on the land. In this case, the lending institution could not do both. Mr. Zucker confirmed Mr. Sader's clarification of the One Action Rule.
Mr. Sader surmised, with the increasing sensitivity to the environment and hazardous substances on real property, lenders were placed in a difficult position. In a situation where environmental problems existed on a property, an individual was forced to walk away from the deed of trust because the consequence of foreclosure would be to inherit these problems. Mr. Zucker confirmed this.
According to Mr. Sader, the passage of A.B. 60 avoided the One Action Rule problem by giving more flexibility to the lender. Suing for the cost of the environmental cleanup would not result in the loss of the right to foreclose on either all or part of the property. Mr. Zucker confirmed Mr. Sader's summary of A.B. 60.
Mr. Sader stated he had reviewed the language and understood the several proposed changes to the bill and the rationale. Mr. Scherer as chairman and Mr. Gibbons were appointed to work on the subcommittee with Mr. Zucker on a viable solution.
Mr. Anderson asked if the contamination was known, would one be disadvantaged by selling the property under the One Action Rule. Mr. Zucker responded by stating the One Action Rule probably would not have affected the sale because, in most cases, lenders have the provision which allows them to be paid off in connection with sales. Mr. Sader interceded and stated the bill would make it easier to make loans. Without the legal flexibility, the lenders would be less likely to loan on property that had any hint of contamination.
Mr. Sader indicated A.B. 60 would be in a Work Session on Friday, February 12, 1993 in Las Vegas.
Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 60.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 146 Authorizes issuance of marriage licenses at one location outside county seat under certain circumstances.
Assemblyman Roy Neighbors, Assembly District 36, requested support of A.B. 146. The major change requested in this bill, in compliance with Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 122.040, would commence on page 1, Section 1, line 5, wherein the language stated "the board of county commissioners may, at the request of the county clerk, designate one branch office of the county clerk at which marriage licenses may be issued, if the designated branch office is established in a county office building which is located outside of the county seat." Mr. Neighbors stated it was a function of the County Clerk to sell marriage licenses and the service must be conducted in an office building of the county. Nye county might be the only county with a satellite clerk's office.
A.B. 146, page 2, Section 2, lines 15 through 22, referred to the times the Clerk's office must remain open. Mr. Neighbors noted, under the present law, in the two larger counties with a population of over 100,000 people, the Clerk's office must remain open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. In the case of a satellite office, the time would be at the discretion of the county commissioners. Having a satellite office in the town of Pahrump would provide service to the citizens of that community as Pahrump was the third fastest growing town in the state.
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick, Assembly District 39, testified in support of A.B. 146. He stated the bill contained enabling language which would allow those counties who choose to issue marriage licenses to do so. He did not perceive a negative impact on any county. Due to the liberalization of the marriage laws in states which surround the state of Nevada, it had become apparent a significant loss of income had been experienced in the state due to the loss of marriage license sales, particularly at the border communities. The state not only lost thousands of dollars in direct revenue, but perhaps millions of dollars were lost to businesses that would otherwise benefit from the revenue if the marriages license sales occurred in Nevada.
Mr. Sader stated it was important to understand the economic realities under which A.B. 146 was drafted. Douglas County, because of the growth in the Lake Tahoe area, was the border area that might be targeted for a branch office. Mr. Hettrick noted Douglas County was not the only county under consideration as the same situation existed in Laughlin, and potentially in Wendover and Jackpot. Mr. Hettrick addressed this concern, and as he understood, Carson City had opposed this legislation in the past. However, six of the seven wedding chapels had disappeared. While opposition to this legislation could continue, the lack of revenue into the state was detrimental to Nevada. Mr. Hettrick felt Carson City would support A.B. 146.
Mrs. Gene Segerblom, representing Assembly District 22, spoke on behalf of Laughlin, Nevada which was one of the fastest growing communities in the state. Mrs. Segerblom stated there was no way to issue marriage licenses in Laughlin. Couples contemplating marriage had to travel 90 miles to Las Vegas to obtain marriage licenses. An estimated 2,000 people a year cross into Bullhead City, Arizona to get married. Last year, Bullhead had 4.5 million visitors. Ms. Segerblom submitted a letter to committee members from the Executive Director of the Laughlin Chamber of Commerce, Exhibit D, which outlined statistics in support of her argument for the passage of A.B. 146.
Ms. Smith asked why only one optional place to locate an office was offered each county. Assemblyman Neighbors replied, in most towns, such as Laughlin and Tonopah, where the county seats were a long distance away, county buildings to house a new office would be an additional cost to the taxpayer. Ms. Smith noted concern toward the possibility of communities vying for the same services. Mr. Neighbors argued it was the function of the County Clerk's office to sell marriage licenses. He had no objection to opening the prospect of more than one location per county. Mr. Hettrick interjected the major reason one branch office was stipulated would be to minimize the impact on existing businesses. The intent, according to Mr. Hettrick, would be to allow movement in a direction that would benefit more people.
Assemblyman Peter Ernaut, Assembly District 37, testified in full support of A.B. 146. This bill impacted one portion of Washoe County, Incline Village and Crystal Bay. Mr. Ernaut distributed a letter from the Executive Director of the Incline Village/Crystal Bay Chamber of Commerce, Exhibit E. The Chamber was concerned with the problems of losing business to California due to the inconvenience of couples driving to Reno or Carson City to obtain marriage licenses. One example cited was of one local wedding chapel in Incline Village which attributed the loss of 630 weddings to California due to the inconvenience of driving such distances to obtain marriage licenses. This issue would be an added revenue source for Incline and Crystal Bay.
Mr. Gibbons informed Chairman Sader he had a conflict of interest because he was in the wedding chapel business. This would be in direct conflict with A.B. 146 as well as A.B. 44. Mr. Sader noted Assemblyman Gibbons would not participate in discussion or vote on either bill.
Mr. George Flint, owner and operator, Chapel of the Bells wedding chapel, testified in support of A.B. 146. As a lobbyist for the wedding chapel industry, Mr. Flint recapped the importance of the industry to the state. In 1992, 125,000 marriage licenses had been sold in Nevada. Of this total, 79,000 marriage licenses had been sold in Clark County and 29,000 in Washoe County. Almost 5,000 marriage licenses had been sold in Carson City, and 4,200 in Douglas County. The balance of marriage licenses sold in the entire state was 4,500. Of this, 3,000 marriage licenses had been sold in Elko County. Counties such as Esmeralda, Lander and Nye had sold as few as 11 and 12 licenses per year. Each year, the 125,000 to 130,000 couples who came to Nevada to be married brought with them 1.5 million friends and relatives. The approximate 2 million people who had visited spent $1.5 billion in Nevada.
Mr. Flint estimated 15 percent of the tourist economy was tied to the couples and their friends who had come to the state for marriages. The couples paid $35 for a marriage license and $100 for the marriage, whereas the friends of the bride and groom were estimated to have spent $2,000 to $5,000 each while in the state. Mr. Flint noted the financial impact of the inadequate number of marriage license offices had affected Douglas County and now affected the southern part of Clark County. Due to the adverse economy, it was necessary to increase revenues by attracting potential marriage couples to the state.
Mr. Flint stressed Douglas County formerly sold 8,000 to 9,000 marriage licenses per year, whereas recently 5,000 licenses were sold. At the same time, across the state line in Eldorado County, California, 9,200 marriage licenses had been sold in 1992. If Douglas County had been able to keep the bureau open at South Shore, 6,000 to 7,500 marriage licenses sold in Eldorado County would have been purchased in Nevada instead.
Mr. Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties, testified in support of A.B. 146. This issue had been a concern of the members for a number of years. The organization had promoted legislation in previous sessions to provide enabling legislation to recapture lost wedding industry business. This bill would enable counties to provide a convenient service to tourists and residents, as well as promote marriages and therefore protect county and state revenues. Mr. Hadfield stressed it was not a matter of county revenues, but state revenues as well. Part of the revenues went to the victims of Domestic Violence program. The impact of A.B. 146 would not affect individual counties, but the state of Nevada as a whole. Mr. Hadfield noted this enabling legislation allowed the ability to deal with local circumstances and needs.
Ms. Barbara J. Reed, Douglas County Clerk-Treasurer, submitted two handouts which presented testimony and supporting documentation (Exhibit F) including a packet of letters in support of A.B. 146, Exhibit G. Ms. Reed presented her testimony in favor of the bill as outlined in Exhibit F.
Not addressed in the handouts, Ms. Reed advised marriage license fees for Douglas County were $16 designated for the general fund, $13 for the county clerk, and $3 for the county recorder which went into the general fund. She hoped the members of the committee would review the statistics provided in Exhibit F and consider the passage of A.B. 146.
Mr. David G. Pumphrey, Chairman, Douglas County Board of Commissioners testified in support of A.B. 146. He was also the First Vice President of the Nevada Association of Counties, which had unanimously supported A.B. 146. Mr. Pumphrey entered into the record Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, Resolution No. 93-03, Exhibit H. He urged the passage of legislation which would provide each county with the authority to issue marriage licenses at branch offices outside the county seat.
Mr. Bob Anderson, President of the Board of Directors, Tahoe-Douglas Chamber of Commerce, testified in support of A.B. 146. He pointed out the Chamber of Commerce was the primary visitor services agency for the South Shore on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. One issue, he stated, which did come up during the winter months was the question of safety. Couples who had wanted to obtain marriage licenses had to travel over Spooner Summit and Kingsbury Grade during the winter months, which subjected them to hazardous driving conditions. Mr. Anderson and the 500 members thanked the committee for their consideration.
Judge Steven D. McMorris, Justice Court Judge, Tahoe Township Justice Court, and Special Master to the Judicial District Court testified in favor of A.B. 146. As a full-time judicial officer, he explained he was not involved in competition with the wedding industry. He had been involved in one wedding ceremony and did not have any scheduled in the future.
Judge McMorris stated the reason for testifying in favor of the bill was because the Nevada Judge's Association would appear before the committee to oppose the passage of A.B. 146. Judge McMorris stated he was a member of the Nevada Judge's Association. According to Mr. McMorris, the Executive Committee of the Nevada Judge's Association had decided to take an opposing position on A.B. 146. The Nevada Judge's Association membership did not take that position, as of the last meeting in January 1993. He noted there existed a fragmented approach to the issues under this legislation as several members supported A.B. 146 which included Judges McMorris, Mancuso and Struthers.
Mr. Scott Doyle of Douglas County, supported the passage of A.B. 146.
Mr. Gene Lee, proprietor of three wedding chapels in South Lake Tahoe, California, stated he was a resident of Douglas County, Nevada. According to Mr. Lee, he had been forced by Nevada statutes to operate his business in the state of California. He arranged and performed over 3,000 weddings per year at Lake Tahoe. As a California chapel owner and a resident of the state of Nevada, he supported A.B. 146.
Mr. Ronald Z. Sayed, owner and operator of The Wedding Chapel at Harvey's Hotel and Casino, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, testified in support of A.B. 146. He maintained it had been necessary to operate on the California side to compensate for the revenue lost in Nevada.
Mr. Donald Summo and Eileen Summo, owners and operators of the
Victorian Wedding Chapel in Carson City, Nevada testified in opposition to A.B. 146. In 1989 when Douglas County opened up the satellite substation at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, Carson City lost 50 percent of its wedding industry to Lake Tahoe. Carson City processed 4,795 marriage licenses and the revenue from sales was approximately $76,000. The Victorian Wedding Chapel conducted 1,114 weddings. Mr. Summo urged the committee to take into consideration the number of small businesses that would be negatively affected should A.B. 146 pass.
Ms. Stephanie Tyler, representing eight different free-standing wedding chapels (Exhibit I) in Las Vegas, Nevada, including the Imperial Palace and the Union Plaza's wedding chapels, testified in opposition to the passage of A.B. 146. The wedding chapel owners were primarily concerned with maintaining the integrity of this business. Ms. Tyler suggested an amendment to allow substations within the Justice Courts.
Mr. Kirby Burgess, representing Ms. Loretta Bowman, Clark County Clerk, stated having another facility in Clark County which issued marriage licenses would cause a deficit of $1 million dollars for Las Vegas. Clark County sold approximately 80,000 marriage licenses per year. According to Mr. Burgess, another site location would not substantially increase revenues.
Mr. Sader surmised, if the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) unanimously approved the bill, then conceivably the Clark County NACO representative would have voted in favor of it as well.
Paula Treat, Nevada Judge's Association (NJA), opposed the passage of A.B. 146. The NJA would oppose the sales of marriage licenses in the Justice Courts as the calendars were overburdened and the costs would exceed the budget allocations.
Mr. Sader questioned why the Judges had taken an interest in the bill. He pointed to the fact many judges were involved in the marriage business. Ms. Treat responded the judges did not spend much time in these efforts.
Assemblyman Segerblom presented a closing comment. She stated Laughlin was not competing with Las Vegas in the marriage industry, rather Laughlin was competing with Bullhead City, Arizona. Ms. Segerblom said it was imperative to retain prospective marriage couples within southern Nevada and not lose revenues to Arizona. The Justices of the Peace in jurisdictions outside Las Vegas did not make enough money on marriage ceremonies to make an impact.
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen testified in favor of passage of A.B. 146. It was imperative the bill passed as Douglas County was an example wherein substantive revenues had been lost to California. He exhibited concern over the revenues lost for domestic violence funding as well as county revenues. An added concern was the need for couples to travel down Kingsbury Grade to Minden to obtain marriage licenses which was not feasible.
Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 146.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 44 Authorizes board of county commissioners in certain counties to appoint county clerk to act as commissioner of civil marriages.
Mr. Larry Beck, Washoe County Commissioner, appeared before the committee in support of A.B. 44. Ms. Mary Henderson, Washoe County Administrative Analyst, stated A.B. 44 would authorize the Board of County Commissioners, in counties under 400,000 population, to appoint the County Clerk as the Commissioner of Civil Marriages, to determine the number of Deputy Commissioners that could be appointed, and to set the hours of operation. Under the existing law, the county was mandated to provide the Civil Marriage Commissioner function under what was considered to be extremely restrictive and inflexible rules which provided the service of civil marriages must be 7 days a week including holidays, 16 hours a day, from 8:00 a.m. to midnight. No other mandated function, with the exception of marriage licenses, which was also in the Clerks Office, was so controlled by the statute.
According to Ms. Henderson, the number of marriages had steadily declined. In fiscal year 1987/1988, Washoe County performed 5,150 marriages and collected $144,000 in revenues. Fiscal year 1988/1989 the number of civil marriages performed dropped to 4,791 marriages and the revenues dropped as well. In 1989/1990 4,562 marriage ceremonies had been conducted and another decrease in revenues occurred. In 1990/1991, 4,431 marriages were performed and revenues had dropped to $123,000. In 1992 the number of marriages dropped again to 4,200, although the revenues had increased to $150,000 because of the increase in the fees passed the previous session. For the present fiscal year, Washoe County has budgeted for an estimated $154,000 in revenues and projected expenditures in excess of $260,000. There was a shortfall in the budget of $100,000. All attempts had been utilized to make budget cuts, and further budgetary reductions were not feasible. Washoe County could not cut personnel as the county was not over staffed.
Ms. Henderson elaborated the average marriage took 30 minutes. The county performed approximately 4,200 marriages. The staff utilized 2,100 man hours to perform the work. One full time position used approximately 2,100 hours. Mandate directed the office remain open 5,840 hours per year. Ms. Henderson recognized the public was entitled to alternatives although she did not feel the taxpayers should have to subsidized the $100,000 per year shortfall as only 10 percent of the marriages performed were local residents. What was sought in A.B. 44 was to provide the flexibility needed to manage the operation and make budgetary and operational adjustments when necessary as was done in other departments.
Chairman Sader asked how the bill would get Washoe County out of the business of conducting marriages. Ms. Henderson replied A.B. 44 would provide the option to the board to decide whether or not the county should be in the marriage business, how the office was to be run, and the hours of operation. The Washoe County Commissioners requested flexibility in setting the hours, appointing the Deputy Commissioners and providing the function during tight budgetary times. Mr. Sader recapped by changing the statute to enabling language, the bill would allow county commissioners to say no or to restrict activities of the Clerk as a Marriage Commissioner. Ms. Henderson confirmed.
Ms. Bailey, Washoe County Clerk, spoke in support of A.B. 44. She proposed an amendment to A.B. 44, page 1, Section 1, Subsection 2, line 10. She suggested where the phrase "may, by ordinance, appoint the county clerk" be amended to read "the commissioners by ordinance shall appoint the county clerk as marriage commissioner." The Deputy Commissioners and the clerks did other work for the department which raised the productivity in the department. According to Ms. Bailey, the hours needed to be flexible to enhance this productivity. She referenced page 2, Section 3, Subsection 2, line 23 wherein the hours of operation were determined. Ms. Bailey would like to see language provided in A.B. 44 wherein the office would not be abolished without legislative action.
Ms. Bailey addressed the argument presented by Washoe County in respect to revenues lost from maintaining an office. According to Ms. Bailey, the passage of A.B. 44 would save the taxpayer money as the county would not operate at a loss provided the office hours were decreased during the evening hours.
Chairman Sader asked for a response from the representative of Washoe County as to the proposed amendment made by Ms. Bailey which changed the word "shall" in A.B. 44, page 1, line 10. Ms. Henderson, in concurrence with Commissioner Beck, stated the language "shall" would be acceptable.
Mr. John Polk, owner and operator of several wedding chapels, testified in favor of A.B. 44.
Washoe County Commissioner Beck and Ms. Henderson approached the witness table to clarify a misunderstanding which surfaced in reference to A.B. 44. They were opposed to the suggested amendment and requested time for consideration. Commissioner Beck reconsidered the language discussed by Chairman Sader which substituted the word "may" for "shall" in A.B. 44, Section 1, Subsection 2, line 10. Commissioner Beck understood discussion on the word "may" had been referenced to A.B. 44, Section 1, Subsection 2, line 12. In effect, changing the word "may" to "shall" in A.B. 44, Section 1, Subsection 2, line 10 was contrary to the intent of the bill. Mr. Sader clarified the change would allow the commissioners to regulate the office hours but would require the office to remain open. Commissioner Beck stated the issue needed to be evaluated as to whether this service would be cost-effective to the public.
There being no further testimony Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 44.
******
Chairman Sader opened the Work Session on preceding bills and bills not voted on during the previous week.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 44.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Sader stated the staff did other work in the Clerk's Office although the primary job responsibility was with the Marriage Commissioner. The issue should be decided by the Board County Commissioners as they operated the budget. The taxpayers should have the options A.B. 44 would provide.
Mr. Anderson stated he would vote against A.B. 44 due to concern with the alternative for couples who did not elect to marry under traditional circumstances. He felt the County Commissioners having the discretion to close a Marriage Commission office would be detrimental to a major function of the state. The cost of operating a Marriage Ccommission fell on the county although the net tax effect to adjacent businesses was unappreciated.
Mr. Petrak opposed A.B. 44 without an amendment to support the testimonies which addressed couples who marry in Nevada. Mr. Petrak noted 10 percent of couples were local couples, wherein the other 90 percent of couples who married were from out of state who contributed to the local economy. Mr. Petrak contended, if marriage license services were eliminated, it would be detrimental to the state and local economy.
Mr. Sader felt persons visiting Nevada came for other reasons than utilizing the services of the Commissioner of Civil Marriages. Tourists would continue to visit the state for other reasons.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN ANDERSON, REGAN AND PETRAK VOTED NO. ALL OTHERS PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR BY AN 8 TO 3 VOTE.)
Mr. Sader would handle A.B. 44 on the floor of the Assembly.
******
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED DO PASS ON A.B. 146.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMEN GREGORY, BONAVENTURA AND PORTER VOTED NO. ALL OTHERS PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR BY AN 8 TO 3 VOTE.)
Mr. Regan would handle A.B. 146 on the floor of the Assembly.
Assemblyman Gibbons, because of a conflict of interest, had not been present, nor had he voted on A.B. 44 or A.B. 146.
******
Chairman Sader noted A.B. 80 had been held in subcommittee. Mr. Ben Graham, Legislative Representative for the Clark County District Attoryney's Office, stated the bill had been submitted to the bill drafter with the language required to make it legislatively correct although there remained some consternation. On behalf of the trial lawyers and District Attorney's office, Mr. Graham asked consideration for delay for further work. A Work Session would be conducted on Friday, February 12, 1993 in Las Vegas during which time A.B. 80 would be presented before the committee. Chairman Sader directed the amendment to be reviewed by the bill drafter.
*****
Mr. Anderson reported the subcommittee action taken on A.B. 55. The subcommittee had reached a compromise with Ms. Treat and representatives of the County Commissioners. A.B. 55 was in the Bill Drafter's office. A.B. 55 would be presented before the Work Session scheduled for Friday, February 12, 1993 in Las Vegas.
******
ASSEMBLYMAN SCHERER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 142.
As stated by Mr. Scherer, the amendment would be to add sexual offense against a child, as defined in the current bill, to the current list of offenses for which a court order could be obtained under NRS 179.460. Chairman Sader recapped, in effect, A.B. 142 would be gutted and sexual offense against a child with the definitions contained in Section 2, Chapter 179 would be inserted. Mr. Scherer confirmed this.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Scherer explained the amendment to A.B. 142. Currently, in Chapter 179 there was a procedure for obtaining a court order to record a telephone conversation. According to Mr. Scherer, there had to be a written application and other procedures which had to be followed. The court had to find probable cause, among other things, to grant the order. Currently, sexual abuse or sexual offenses against children were not included in offenses for which that kind of court order might be issued. A.B. 142 would add those offenses to the existing statute but maintain the existing procedure.
It was Chairman Sader's concern all committee members understand the amendment to A.B. 142. All members confirmed their understanding.
Mr. Scherer justified the motion to A.B. 142. The offenses contained in Chapter 179 included robbery and other offenses. He strongly felt sexual offenses committed against children were as serious as some of the offenses listed in the statute. This did not change the procedure or the need for a court order.
Mr. Sader clarified, the existing law NRS 179.460 enumerated the offenses for which a wiretap could be obtained with a court order prior to the tap, not afterwards. Mr. Porter understood this statute contained crimes such as murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion, bribery, destruction of property by explosives, or the commission of any offense which was a felony by the provisions of NRS 453 or NRS 454. The amendment to A.B. 142 would add to that list the sexual abuse of a child. Chairman Sader confirmed Mr. Porter's statement and noted Section 2 of A.B. 142 defined sexual offense against a child and the enumerated list. Mr. Porter supported the amendment to A.B. 142.
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Anderson was appointed to handle A.B. 142 on the Assembly floor.
******
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE A.B. 53.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mr. Porter stated he did not condone the issues alluded to in A.B. 53. He presented his concern with Section 2 of the bill, particularly with the language referenced to as "annoying" and the amendment which would raise the charge to a felony status. Mr. Porter stated, with the testimonies presented, he was not clear as to the definition of the language. The concern was with prosecution conducted ten years after the fact, which Mr. Graham had alluded to. Mr. Porter was not in favor of an unlimited, open-ended statute, or the non-existence of a Statute of Limitations in a civil context wherein suits could be filed 20 or 25 years after the fact.
Mr. Sader opposed the bill and supported the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 53. He felt the penalties would be significantly increased for sexual abuse, which was not the intent. The bill did not reveal the other statutes which made it a felony to have open, gross lewdness with any child under 14 years of age. This was not provided in Section 1, but was addressed in another statute as was the statute which made it a felony for anyone over 21 years of age to have sexual intercourse, as defined in the statute, with a child the age of 14 to 16 years.
Mr. Sader agreed with Mr. Porter, should A.B.53 pass as languaged in its current form, Section 2 would result in poor public policy. He also felt because of the vagueness of the language such as "annoying," problems would be created. These Statutes of Limitations would be a detriment in the long term, rather than a benefit. Should A.B. 53 pass as currently worded, elongating these statutes would encourage people to wait. Mr. Sader would support the motion.
Mr. Regan had concern in reference to Section 2 and the vagueness of the language "annoyance and molest." He concurred with Mr. Sader's analysis.
Ms. Smith would not support the motion on A.B. 53 because of the section regarding civil actions. She felt a necessity for victims to have some kind of recourse and to establish some sense of control back to their lives. Section 3 of A.B. 53 was the part of the bill Ms. Smith alluded to.
Mr. Scherer concurred with Mr. Porter's comments in regard to Sections 1 and 2 in A.B. 53. He stated not providing a Statute of Limitations was a bad idea as there were legitimate policy reasons. Mr. Scherer would support having some lengthening of the current Statute of Limitations if it was not open-ended. For that reason alone, Mr. Scherer opposed the motion to indefinitely postpone A.B. 53.
THE MOTION PASSED ON A.B. 53. (ASSEMBLYMEN SCHERER AND SMITH VOTED NO. ALL OTHERS PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR BY A 9 TO 2 VOTE.)
******
A.B. 76 had not been voted on for two reasons. Question arose among committee members as to whether the volumes of dollars and economic impact could be ascertained. Secondly, a legal question arose as to whether assessment of the fee would be considered a tax or a fee under legal concepts which had some significant legal ramifications.
Mr. Kevin Higgins, Attorney General's Office, in discussing this with Ms. Beverly Saucedo, Extradition Coordinator, felt the numbers compiled would most likely be more misleading than informative. According to Mr. Higgins, in the Reno Justice Court last year, the total fines seized in cash bail were slightly in excess of $1 million. Reno Justice Court could not ascertain how much of this figure was bail or what percentage was in fees or fines. The Sparks Justice Court had $58,000 in cash bail in 1992 and approximately 2,500 people had posted bail bonds; those bonds ranged from $100 to $300,000. The Washoe County Jail had reported a total in excess of $10 million in jail bonds posted. They could not provide an exact number. Mr. Higgins contacted numerous surety companies which insured bail bondsmen but they required 6 weeks to compile the information and required a letter from the Attorney General requesting that information.
Mr. Higgins responded to the second question as to whether or not it was a tax. The tax attorneys did not believe it was a tax. It was believed to be a user fee based upon the use of a government service. The tax attorney's definition of tax would be a general measure designed to raise revenue across the board for either county or state government. They provided examples of business taxes, sales taxes, and ad valorem taxes. The tax attorneys distinguished it by saying it was a user fee likened to a business licensing fee which helped pay for the service provided by the agency. In answer to the question directed to the Attorney General and the Assistant Attorney General a possible amendment was prepared although Mr. Higgins did not believe it was appropriate to discuss this at the time.
Mr. Sader asked if the $2 fee was paid on the bail, would the sheriff collect the fee. Mr. Higgins replied the Clerks of the Justice Courts or District Courts deposited the fees once a month and the county deposited the monies quarterly to the state.
Mr. Sader noted the Attorney General would be the individual who would have to defend the law. He was comfortable with it. The clarifications on A.B. 76 were made and Chairman Sader opened the meeting for a motion on the bill.
ASSEMBLYMAN GIBBONS MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 76.
The amendment would add a sunset provision to bring the bill back in two years, after a determination had been made of the effects of the bill and the amount of money raised. Because of the variation in numbers of dollars raised on bails and fees, the amount of revenue was questionable. Whether revenue would cover or exceed the costs was something the committee, as a policy matter, should determine at some point.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Gibbons if a sunset provision were used to analyze the financial impact, would he want this to be effective July 1, instead of October 1. Mr. Gibbons replied yes.
Mr. Sader stated the motion on A.B. 76 was amend and do pass with a sunset provision and a provision that the bill become effective on July 1 rather than October 1.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Sader explained a sunset provision would bring the bill back the following session. If the committee failed to enact the bill again, then the bill would die. All bills become effective on October 1 of the year of the legislative session, unless specified otherwise. In this case, the amendment would specify a July 1 effective date so the statistics would start earlier.
Mr. Collins noted the previous testimony by Judge Willis of Carson City which pertained to the extradition costs for each county. Although the revenues and expenditures had been proportionate, the remaining costs to taxpayers would still be a burden to the citizens, therefore, he would vote against the amendment.
Mr. Porter stated he would oppose the motion to amend and do pass A.B. 76 as he felt the amendment was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds. Two separate classifications of those persons accused of crimes had been created: the classification of people who were fortunate to know a judge to obtain an "O-R" release and not have to post bail, and the classification of people who did not know someone and could not obtain an "O-R" release and must post bail to secure their freedom. Those people were charged $2 which would denote a serious equal protection problem.
Mr. Sader asked the committee whether the opinion of the Legislative Counsel should be pursued as to the constitutionality of the proposed amendment to A.B. 76. He noted the issue of fees and taxes had been addressed by the Attorney General, but equal protection had not been brought up as an issue. It was suggested the Attorney General provide some input on this issue as well.
Mr. Sader asked Mr. Gibbons, the maker of the motion on A.B. 76 to rescind this motion to provide further consideration on the constitutionality of the bill.
Mr. Gibbons rescinded the motion to amend and do pass on A.B. 76. Mr. Regan withdrew his seocnd.
Mr. Regan asked if the possibility existed to charge a $2 fee for "O-R". Mr. Sader stated this could create an administrative issue.
Chairman Sader stated further discussion on A.B. 76 would be heard on February 12, 1993 at the Work Session in Las Vegas.
Mr. Sader requested a written opinion on the issue of the constitutionality of A.B. 76 from the Attorney General's Office. A written opinion would be requested of the Legislative Councel as well.
There being no further testimony or business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JESSIE A. CAPLE
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
February 5, 1993
Page: 1