MINUTES OF MEETING
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
April 1, 1993
The Assembly Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Robert M. Sader at 8:09 a.m., April 1, 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. Gene T. Porter, Vice Chairman
Mr. Bernie Anderson
Mr. John C. Bonaventura
Mr. Tom Collins, Jr.
Mr. James A. Gibbons
Mr. William D. Gregory
Mr. Ken L. Haller
Mr. William A. Petrak
Mr. John B. Regan
Mr. Scott Scherer
Mr. Michael A. Schneider
Ms. Stephanie Smith
Mr. Louis A. Toomin
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John C. Carpenter
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Denice Miller, Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Secretary Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State
Mr. Larry D. Struve, Director, Nevada Department of Commerce
Mr. Mark J. Griffin, Deputy Secretary of State, Securities Division
Ms. Cindy Woodgate, Corporation Deputy, Secretary of State's Office
Mr. Jim Wright, Chief Deputy Recorder, Washoe County
Ms. Nancy M. Carr, Lyon County Recorder
Mr. Lewis E. Laughlin, CEO, Laughlin Associates, Inc.
Mr. Steven F. Stucker, General Counsel, Laughlin Associates, Inc.
Mr. Samuel McMullen, Self
Mr. Frank W. Daykin, Attorney
Mr. Kirk S. Schumacher, Attorney
Mr. Mark H. Goldstein, Attorney
Mr. Andrew MacKenzie, Attorney
Mr. John P. Fowler, Attorney
Mr. Thomas J. Brorby, Attorney
After roll call, Chairman Sader called the meeting to order. He informed the committee A.B. 345, A.B. 350 and A.B. 362 were Uniform Acts bills.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 345 Adopts Uniform Foreign-Money Claims Act.
Mr. Frank W. Daykin introduced A.B. 345. He explained the purpose of A.B. 345 was to insure international foreign monetary transactions would be uniform among the states.
To clarify the intent of A.B. 345, Mr. Daykin explained, in respect to international transactions where contracts required payment to be rendered in specified currencies, when either contracts would be breached, A.B. 345 would resolve the differences in the international currencies. He stated this act was designed to make this issue uniform from state to state.
Mr. Sader presented a historical background on the Uniform Acts. He stated Uniform Acts were the product of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. The commissioners were assigned to review those aspects of the law which pertained to commercial transactions or other issues with effects across state boundaries. It was pertinent the laws be equivalent in every state as cases could be severely prejudiced if statutes did not apply equally in every state.
Mr. Larry D. Struve, Director, Nevada Department of Commerce, testified in favor of A.B. 345. He presented summarized copies of his presentation, Exhibit C. He advised the committee of the involvement Nevada had in international trade. Future projections indicated increased transactions involving foreign businesses and foreign currencies in the state. A.B. 345 would guide not only the courts, but businesses and arbitrators involved in arbitrating claims and disputes which would be expected to arise in international transactions.
Mr. Struve perceived the most important aspect of A.B. 345 was Section 17 which allowed involved parties to determine their own rules pertaining to specific transactions. The Uniform Act allowed for this flexibility. He stated the Nevada Department of Commerce had been involved in promoting international trade for several years.
Mr. Regan questioned A.B. 345, Section 20, Subsection 4, and focused on the phrase "The determination of the proper money of the claim is a question of law". He asked if the phrase was redundant. Mr. Daykin responded by stating the purpose of the specific language would clarify the fact judges, rather than juries, would make determinations.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 345.
Chairman Sader opened the hearing on A.B. 350.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 350 Conforms Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act fully to latest revision by Uniform Law commissioners.
Mr. Sader informed the committee the state of Nevada already had the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act in place. A revision had been passed by the Uniform State Law Commissioners. A.B. 350 updated the act to comply with the revisions.
Mr. Sader noted the context in which this statute generally arose was with Internal Revenue Service liens although there were other federal liens such as pension laws and the Super Fund Act.
Mr. Daykin presented information on the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act, Exhibit D. He informed the committee A.B. 350 was a revision of a Uniform Act which was already in effect. According to Mr. Daykin, issues had been raised since the original act had been adopted in approximately 1967 and would be solved under the proposed statute.
Mr. Sader noted comments made by county recorders which pertained to the existing language. He stated legitimate issues had been raised relating to the responsibilities of the recorders which appeared to be different from custom and facts within the state.
Ms. Nancy Carr, Lyon County Recorder, testified in opposition to A.B. 350. She appeared on behalf of the county recorders in the state. Her testimony was contained in Exhibit E.
As Mr. Sader understood, the existing language in A.B. 350 was acceptable. The issues of concern for the recorders in the state were the new italicized items in A.B. 350, lines 8 through 10. Ms. Carr said it was the consensus of the recorders from the counties in the state the language contained within the italics be eliminated.
Mr. Sader focused on the second issue which pertained to the permanent attachment of refile notices or certificates to the original notices of the liens. He asked what the rationale was for the change. Mr. Daykin responded by stating persons researching the original notices in the indexes would be made immediately aware of requirements.
Ms. Carr stated, when refiling or referencing the original documents, the records stated in the index that the refiling referred to the original refiling and the document file number was noted. Mr. Daykin noted the entries were made in the indexes where the refilings were indexed. He asked if the recorders went back to indexes where the original filings were shown and showed the refiles. Ms. Carr replied the names would automatically come up in the indexes for any documents on file under specific names. The original documents and the refilings would show in the indexes.
Mr. Sader summarized the deletion of the new language in A.B. 350, page 2, lines 8 through 10 and lines 22 through 25 as requested by the county recorders. He stated the deletions would not damage the intent of the bill. Mr. Daykin noted what he felt the real substance of the bill was contained in page 1.
Mr. Sader stated there appeared to be no fiscal note on A.B. 350. As Mr. Toomin understood, if A.B. 350 passed, there would be a fiscal impact on local government. Mr. Sader contended there would not be a fiscal impact on local government if the proposed language regarding recorders was deleted.
Mr. Jim Wright, Chief Deputy Recorder, Washoe County, referenced A.B. 350, page 2, line 28 where the word "active" would be deleted on the lien searches. He asked how far back lien searches would need to be conducted. He added federal tax liens appeared to be active for 10 years. According to the wording on the liens, if liens were not refiled within the 10 years, the liens could be considered discharged. He contended it would not be necessary to search further back than 10 years. If the word "active" were deleted, the recorders would be required to show any liens which occurred during any period, whether discharged or otherwise.
Mr. Daykin suggested inserting the word "active", but noted this change would place the recorders in the position of making legal judgments.
Mr. Wright stated the Washoe County Recorders Office did not have access to the federal statute of limitation. He pointed out the following information was inscribed on the back of the federal lien forms: "In the case of any notice of lien, the term "required refiling period" means one-year period ending 30 days after the expiration of ten years after the date of the assessment of the tax, and in one-year period with the expiration of 10 years after the close of the proceeding, required refiling period for such notice of liens." He noted the liens documented the last day for refiling. The liens were also documented in the event a refile was not made during that period, the liens could be considered discharged.
Secretary Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, testified in favor of A.B. 350. She stated the bill would not have a major administrative effect on the Secretary of State's Office as the department filed federal tax liens in the same manner as described in the text of A.B. 350. However, she elaborated, the Secretary of State's Office would experience a two-fold storage impact by the proposed requirement referenced on page 2 of the bill. She noted A.B. 350 would require all liens to remain on file, active or inactive. Files for only active liens were currently maintained. Secondly, she added, all lien filings would become permanent records.
Secretary Lau stated the Secretary of State's Office currently had approximately 8,000 active liens on file and received approximately 800 new liens per year. She stated the liens were maintained in hard copy only. If A.B. 350 passed, she maintained, the Secretary of State's Office would need to modify the mainframe of the computer system at undisclosed costs. Secondly, to maintain permanent files, the files might have to be maintained under microfilm.
Mr. Sader asked Secretary Lau if the issues considered previously would be addressed if the deletions discussed pertaining to A.B. 350, page 2 were made. Secretary Lau responded by stating the problems would be solved and referred to page 2, lines 8 through 10 and lines 21 to 25, as well as adding the word "active" on line 28. She concluded a few additional filings would continue to come in, however, the changes would not impact them.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 350. He opened the hearing on A.B. 362.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 362 Adopts Uniform law on Notarial Acts.
Mr. Daykin presented facts regarding the Uniform Notarial Acts, Exhibit F. He informed the committee A.B. 362 was a statute which dealt with the recognition of notarial acts, primarily notarial acknowledgements, before notary publics, which were taken in other states or foreign countries. He added, A.B. 362 complimented Nevada's foreign-money claims act as the bill recognized the importance of the international trade.
Mr. Daykin stated the act was the compilation of two former acts which addressed foreign nations and other states. Primarily, the bill would specify the formalities required by the foreign officers and those who were permissible such as the foreign officers, as well as who might take acknowledgement in this state.
Secretary Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, testified in favor of passing A.B. 362. She stated the bill would provide the clarifications needed, particularly with the definitions for the notaries. With the passage of the bill, there will be a slight fiscal impact for the Secretary of State's Office of approximately $3,000 as mandated changes would be mailed to the 19,000 active notaries in the state. She pointed out the $3,000 was a minimal cost for cleaning up the law.
Mr. Sader informed the committee the passage of A.B. 362 would change the requirements on all real estate documents. He pointed out there would be a transition period where individuals would be signing old notary certificates.
Mr. Sader stated the Uniform Act required acknowledgement in substantial conformity. He asked about situations where persons completed the old notary certificates, which had all the same information as the new forms, and asked if these certificates would be in substantial compliance with the new forms. In reply, Mr. Daykin confirmed the old notary certificates would be in compliance because the Uniform Act, like the present act, was worded in positive language and not in negative language.
Mr. Daykin stated the Uniform Act noted certificates would be sufficient if they met the requirements of one of the short forms. A.B. 362, page 4, paragraph D, stated this would be sufficient if the certificates set forth the actions of the notarial officers and were sufficient to meet the requirements of the designated act. It did not matter how long specified entities continued to use the old forms as long as the forms met the requirements of the new act. Mr. Sader noted there would not be problems with the legal sufficiency under the new statute.
Mr. Sader requested the legislative history to clearly reflect the previous statements so the validity of the documents based on the different notary forms from the new forms would not be disputed.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 362.
******
Chairman Sader asked for committee consideration of A.B. 345, the foreign money claims act.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER OPPOSED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT.)
Mr. Petrak would handle A.B. 345 on the Assembly Floor.
******
Chairman Sader requested committee action on A.B. 350, the Uniform Federal Lien Registration Act. The proposed amendments would delete the new language contained in A.B. 350, page 2, lines 8 through 10 and the new language contained in lines 22 through 25. The brackets around the word "active" would be deleted.
Mr. Anderson asked if there was a need for the ten-year lien requirement discussed earlier as the language in NRS 108.835, which required the records be kept for older liens. Mr. Sader stated the statute could not impose a 10-year limitation on liens as federal law preempted state statutes. The committee should adopt the term "active" or some other applicable term as the federal statute of limitations could change.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN MOVED AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 350.
ASSEMBLYMAN TOOMIN SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER OPPOSED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT AT TIME OF VOTE.)
Mr. Regan would handle the bill on the Assembly floor.
******
Chairman Sader called for committee vote on A.B. 362, the Uniform Law on Notarial Acts.
ASSEMBLYMAN ANDERSON MOVED DO PASS.
ASSEMBLYMAN SMITH SECONDED.
THE MOTION CARRIED. (ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER OPPOSED. ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER WAS ABSENT AT TIME OF VOTE.)
Assemblyman Smith would handle A.B. 362 on the Assembly floor.
******
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 349 Makes various changes in
regulation of securities.
The bill was requested by Secretary of State Cheryl Lau. She informed the committee A.B. 349 would amend Chapter 90. She said the state securities division actively pursued enforcement of Nevada's securities laws. This activity protected the citizens of Nevada and provided substantial revenues to the state. She pointed out A.B. 349 enhanced these efforts.
The Deputy Secretary of State, Mark Griffin, presented Exhibit G which outlined his testimony. He acquainted the committee with the important features of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Haller asked if persons who submitted advertisements in newspapers suggesting they were financial advisors come under the regulation of the Secretary of State as to licensing and regulations? In response, Mr. Griffin stated those individuals advising clients as to the advisability of investing in securities, such as stocks and bonds, must be registered under A.B. 349 as investment advisors. However, he added, if the individuals were dealing with insurance matters, they would not have to register with the Secretary of State's Office.
Mr. Haller asked what would be the situation in cases where the individuals were lawyers or certified public accountants. As Mr. Griffen understood, those individuals would be covered under a professional exemption as those professions would be licensed.
Mr. Porter addressed A.B. 349, page 5, line 10. He asked what other Nevada agencies were allowed to recover investigative costs. Mr. Griffin had not performed a study of this issue. Secretary of State Cheryl Lau stated her office would supply the requested data to Mr. Porter.
Mr. Bonaventura referenced the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act, and the Commodities Exchange Act and inquired as to whether or not these acts would determine if individuals could advertise securities. Mr. Griffin noted the Secretary of State's Office had joint responsibility with the federal government in the securities area. He noted most of the securities registered in the state were also registered with the federal government. However, there were exemptions. He stated perhaps these individuals had one registration in the state. The Secretary of State's Office constantly coordinated with federal authorities.
In response to Mr. Bonaventura's concern, Mr. Griffin noted, in many instances, there was exclusive regulation on either the state or federal level. For example, investment advisors were registered with both Nevada and the federal government although the entities might do business across the state line.
Mr. Bonaventura asked if the state would be hiring investigators to enforce the law if the fund were created. In reply, Secretary of State Cheryl Lau stated the agency had considered this and no new funding had been placed into the budget. There would not be any new jobs created at this time, however, as the violators were brought in, additional assistance might be considered. Mr. Griffin noted A.B. 349 was a clarifying measure designed to clarify the existing language.
There being no further testimony to come before the committee, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on A.B. 349. He opened the hearing on A.B. 387.
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 387 Makes various changes concerning corporations and similar entities.
Chairman Sader noted A.B. 387 followed extensive revisions made on the corporate laws during the previous legislative session. The requestor of A.B. 387 during the last session and the current session was the Secretary of State.
Secretary Cheryl Lau, Secretary of State, noted A.B. 387 made various changes pertaining to corporations. She presented background information on the bill and noted during the 1991 legislative session, A.B. 655 had been passed which made changes in the corporate laws. The changes were done as a product of an interim study using the combined efforts of the Office of the Secretary of State and the Committee of the Business Law Section of the Nevada State Bar. She noted since the 1991 Legislative Session, the Secretary of State's Office and the subcommittee had been striving to see how the law worked. A.B. 387 would perfect the ministerial procedures in the Secretary of State's Office.
Chairman Sader advised the committee A.B. 387 was a technical and lengthy bill. He appointed a subcommittee which would be comprised of Mr. Scherer as Chairman, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Regan. Mr. Sader noted he had been asked by some of the larger businesses in the state to not process the bill quickly as it contained many issues. The corporate counsel had expressed interest in testifying at a later time.
Ms. Cindy Woodgate, Corporation Deputy, Secretary of State's Office, testified in favor of A.B. 387. She advised the committee of the intent to combine repetitive sections of the corporation law, one section being the filing of the annual list of officers. The section asserted the list of officers had to be filed within 60 days and the requirements were provided. Another section requested the annual list with the same requirements. The two lists were combined for clarity.
Ms. Woodgate noted during the last session the Limited Liability Companies Act was passed and alterations would be made. Requests had been made for annual filings of members to be filed with the Secretary of State's Office. There were proposed changes in the new non-profit law to make in line with the profit corporations procedures. She noted some individuals had been filing under profit corporations instead of under non-profit corporations, which was costing the state time and money.
Mr. John P. Fowler of the Vargas and Bartlett law firm, informed the committee he was a member of the Corporate Law Subcommittee of the Business Law Section of the Nevada State Bar. He presented copies of his presentation under the Remarks in Support of Assembly Bill 387, Exhibit H. He stated there were three major portions of A.B. 387 which were substantive. One section of the bill dealt with a number of sections contained in the non-profit corporation law. During the 1991 legislative session, a new non-profit corporation law passed. There were some problems the new statute created for non-profit corporations, particularly private foundations.
Mr. Fowler noted the provisions in the former statute required a minimum of five directors for Nevada non-profit corporations. Very few other states mandated such a high number of directors as a minimum. He proposed reducing the number of mandatory directors to one. The former statute restricted many private foundations wishing to do business in Nevada which would bring assets into the state. He noted another item of concern under the former statute was the restriction which mandated only one director could receive a salary. The chairmen of the boards could not receive salaries. According to Mr. Fowler, these restrictions did not permit some charities and foundations from retaining professional staff. This was not the intent of the previous bill. He felt the chairmen should receive salaries if the charities or foundations wished it to be so. This would allow the charities or foundations to retain professional staff to administer their holdings.
Mr. Thomas J. Brorby, an attorney from Austin, Texas, represented several large foundations operating within the state, including the Conrad Hilton Foundation. Mr. Andrew MacKinzie, the local counsel for the foundations, was also in attendance in support of passage of A.B. 387. Mr. Brorby stated he introduced several large foundations to Nevada. According to Mr. Brorby, other states excessively regulated foundations and charitable organizations.
Mr. Brorby stated in 1991 the legislature inadvertently enacted provisions to the statute without consideration. He brought to the attention of the Attorney Generals Office and the Secretary of State's Office the inadequacy of the new provisions. After mutual deliberation, the state representatives and attorneys concurred the addressed provisions should be deleted. The statutes mandated five directors be represented on charitable foundations. Mr. Brorby noted some of the foundations he represented were created by trusts and decreed the foundations were to have a maximum of 3 trustees. He noted these foundations were presently in violation of the law and had been for the last two years if the statute was not passed retroactively. Mr. Brorby maintained the only remedy to the issue was for the foundations to exit the state.
Mr. Brorby stated the effect as the result of the issues was one foundation maintained $100 million dollars in a custodial account in a bank in Reno. A foundation had presented grants to the Reno Medical School in excess of one quarter of a million dollars with intent to donate generously in the future. The Hilton Foundation rented space in Reno. The foundations provided employment, utilized banking services and law firms. The passage of A.B. 387 would enable the foundations to continue to operate in the state. Should the proposed bill fail to pass, the assets of the foundations would be moved out of state.
Mr. Lewis E. Laughlin, CEO, Laughlin Associates, Inc., testified in support of A.B. 387. He stated the provisions testified to earlier were needed. He was in support of the Business Law Committee's position on the bill.
Mr. Steven F. Stucker, General Counsel, Laughlin Associates, Inc., spoke in favor of A.B. 387. For informational purposes, he stated Laughlin Associates, Inc. was the resident agent for 5,000 corporations in Nevada. The firm provided other corporate services. He provided copies of the handout referenced to during his presentation, Exhibit I.
The concern Mr. Stucker had with A.B. 387 was contained under Section 13. He stated suggested amendments proposed to mandate all officers and agents be natural persons, which was objectionable to the firm he represented. An additional proposed provision amended the joint modifications which Laughlin Associates, Inc. concurred with. He understood the proposal would merely require officers of the corporations be natural persons, not require agents be natural persons.
Mr. Kirk Schumacher, represented Pacific Telesis Corporation and Sierra Pacific Resources. He testified in opposition to A.B. 387. He stated the bill was technically complex and proposed sweeping changes in the Business Combination Act. Because issues would be addressed in the subcommittee, he would raise the policy changes at that time. Mr. Schumacher would coordinate with Mr. Scherer and the members of the subcommittee.
Mr. Mark Goldstein presented his opinions on A.B. 387 briefly as the decision to go to subcommittee was made. He stated he was in opposition to the stand taken by the large public utilities represented by Mr. Schumacher. He believed the Business Combination Act discriminated against smaller public, or privately held businesses in Nevada as the provisions were hard on companies failing in the state. According to Mr. Goldstein, the bill, in its current form, was driving jobs out of the state. He presented his desire to participate in the appointed subcommittee to debate policy differences.
Mr. Samuel McMullen, represented himself. He addressed Mr. Porter's earlier statement which related to private foundations. He deduced the restrictions had been placed into the bill during the last session based on motivation from United Way of Northern Nevada which he had represented at no cost. It was believed if the ability to incorporate was restricted, a scandal-proofing mechanism would be in place. The effect proved to be minimal. He noted the guidelines for the bylaws had been included in the bill. This resulted in major operating restrictions, even on charities. He stated it was important the operating restrictions be reviewed, since they were imprudent and overbroad. The impact A.B. 387 had on public or private foundations or technical assistance groups was not comprehended at that time.
There being no further testimony to be heard on A.B. 387, Chairman Sader closed the hearing on this bill. He referred A.B. 387 to the subcommittee. He appointed Mr. Gibbons as an additional member to the subcommittee. Chairman Sader confirmed the subcommittee would be comprised of Mr. Scherer, Mr. Regan, Mr. Schneider and Mr. Gibbons.
******
Chairman Sader informed the committee action on A.B. 349 would be withheld until a response from the Secretary of State addressing Mr. Porter's concern was received.
******
Chairman Sader advised the committee correspondence on A.B. 304 regarding the Walker River Irrigation District's concern over Topaz Reservoir had been received in committee the previous week. Committee action was held until concerned parties resolved the issues.
Mr. Sader noted the issues in A.B. 304, Section 4, had received opposition from the Nevada Department of Wildlife, as well as the Nevada Division of Parks. He advised the committee correspondence had been received from Mr. DePaoli, Attorney for the Walker River Irrigation District, Exhibit J. The correspondence noted the Nevada Department of Wildlife and the Nevada Division of Parks decided the Nevada Department of Wildlife would post warnings at Topaz Reservoir. In addition, Douglas County would move forward with an ordinance to deal with the concerns. Mr. Sader noted, since this was a local issue and did not require state law, and Section 4 would adversely apply to other areas of the state where smaller reservoirs would be impacted, the departments recommended deleting Section 4.
Commenting on the provisions contained in A.B. 304, Mr. Porter noted many groups appeared before the legislature asking for immunity for their activities. He stated every group presented the same scenario which was some day they would be in a position where they would be exposed to litigation. Entities should be held accountable for their actions, he stated. The concept of negligence was a duty imposed by the government, or by common law, upon an individual to conduct himself in a proper manner. Mr. Porter did not feel, because an individual was being paid by a governmental agency, that person should be free to ignore or abrogate that responsibility or duty which was imposed upon him. He noted he had voted against every immunity bill and would stay consistent with the theme. He alleged there was no evidence in the record the Walker River Irrigation District had been sued. He felt granting immunity was bad public policy and was the reason for his position on the bill.
Ms. Smith stated the main function of the Walker River Irrigation District was irrigation although they allowed recreation on Topaz Reservoir. She maintained they offered an additional service with no benefit to the district other than to the public. She understood the request and concurred with it.
Mr. Sader noted A.B. 304 presented a sympathetic party providing a public service for nothing. On the other hand, the language contained in the bill was rather broad and sweeping. There were no provisions presented to narrow the language to pertain to Topaz Reservoir exclusively. As worded, A.B. 304 would provide immunity for any governmental entity arising from any recreational activity or recreational use of land. This would include the parks, theme parks, open space, etc. He continued, all governments provided recreational opportunities, which was a large part of their job. He felt A.B. 304 was an open-ended bill which would not specifically pertain to Topaz Reservoir. In the past, bills had been passed to solve problems and it was discovered later to have intended results.
Mr. Gibbons presented his concerns with A.B. 304. He noted when immunity statutes were proposed, they eliminated the need for parties to take measures to protect the public and pay attention to safety measures. He felt it would take away the incentive to take those acts which would provide measures of safety for those individuals who used the parks and waters. Mr. Gibbons did not support the concept which would eliminate an act or obligation on behalf of individuals simply out of the threat or fear of litigation. Eliminating their duties or motives to take those safety measures was an improper one and a policy issue which he thought the committee should not undertake.
Mr. Collins recapped the Nevada Wildlife Department was not funded enough to maintain the property and the local entity wanted the recreation and tourism gains. Passage of A.B. 304 would affect every park in the state, although he agreed the interstate boundaries of Topaz Reservoir had to be addressed to resolve other issues.
Mr. Regan concurred the issues at Topaz Reservoir should be handled at the local level and not in a way which would affect the other agencies throughout the state.
Mr. Gregory asked if it was state law which required the Walker River Irrigation District to open Topaz Reservoir to recreational use. Mr. Sader responded it was not a state law as Topaz Reservoir was private property. He added the reservoir had been a recreational opportunity for local residents for many years since it was built in the 1930's.
Mr. Sader noted the issues alluded to regarding Topaz Reservoir arose due to the drought situation, which exposed rocks and sandbars to levels that had not been evident before. He recalled Mr. Dini had testified future plans were to submit legislation which would make Topaz Reservoir a state park. Mr. Sader felt Douglas county had more responsibility in the operation of the recreational activities at Topaz Reservoir than they had taken in the past. Douglas County now appeared willing to step up their participation on the safety issues.
ASSEMBLYMAN PORTER MOVED INDEFINITELY POSTPONE.
ASSEMBLYMAN REGAN SECONDED.
THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT.
There being no further business to come before the committee, Mr. Sader closed the hearing at 10:55 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
Jessie A. Caple
Committee Secretary
??
Assembly Committee on Judiciary
April 1, 1993
Page: 1