MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Sixty-seventh Session
March 3, 1993
The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 1:30 p.m., on Wednesday, March 3, 1993, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
Senator R. Hal Smith, Vice Chairman
Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Dina Titus*
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Ernest E. Adler*
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick
Assemblyman P.M. Roy Neighbors
Assemblywoman Gene W. Segerblom
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dennis Neilander, Senior Research Analyst
Maddie Fischer, Primary Secretary
Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
James M. Start, Senior Auditor, State of Nevada Department of Commerce, Unclaimed Property Division
Doug Walther, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Unclaimed Property Division
Marv Texeira, Mayor, Carson City, Nevada
George Flint, Owner, Chapel of the Bells, Reno, Nevada
Stephanie Tyler, representing Las Vegas Wedding Chapels
Barbara Reed, Douglas County Clerk
David Pumphrey, Chairman, Douglas County Commission
Kirby Burgess, Assistant Director, Clark County Administrative Services, speaking on behalf of Loretta Bowman, Clark County Clerk
Mary Henderson, representing Washoe County, Nevada
Kathleen Farrell, Executive Director, Tahoe Douglas Chamber of Commerce
Ronald Zachery Sayed, Owner, The Wedding Chapel at Harvey's
* If committee members are only present for a portion of the meeting, this is noted in the body of the minutes.
Gene Lee, Owner, A Personal Touch Wedding Chapel
Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Counties (NACO), representing Austin, Nevada
Judi Bailey, Washoe County Clerk
Senator James announced the committee would hear testimony on Senate Bill (S.B.) 226, Assembly Bill (A.B.) 146, and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 44, in that order.
SENATE BILL 226: Expands provision concerning circumstances under which state may take unclaimed property held by intermediary in another state.
The first to testify were James M. Start, Senior Auditor, State of Nevada Department of Commerce, Unclaimed Property Division, and Doug Walther, State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Unclaimed Property Division. Mr. Start distributed an explanatory document to the committee members, which is set forth herein as Exhibit C. He said the purpose of S.B. 226 was to clarify the division's authority to claim certain abandoned property being held outside the State of Nevada. Mr. Start stated the specific property addressed in the bill was unclaimed dividend and interest payments, where the owner's address is unknown, but the issuer of the stock or the bond is known. He said under the above circumstances, the division feels the unclaimed dividend and interest payments should go to the state of the issuer of the stock or bond.
Mr. Walther stated the division felt the State of Nevada "...has a superior right to this type of property and wants to make sure the law reflects that right. He added he was available to answer any questions posed by the committee. Senator Shaffer asked if there were similar laws in other states. Mr. Walther answered Nevada has adopted the Uniform Unclaimed Property Act which is the law in many states and added there are a number of states moving to clarify their laws regarding this issue.
Senator Smith recalled legislation in the last session which allowed the division to "go after" some stocks and bonds in other states. Mr. Walther stated there was "a connection," since the area of the law covering this issue was "evolving as the industry handling this type of money evolves." He said since the last session of the legislature, there has been a refinement of the views on what tests should be applied in trying to distribute this type of money. Mr. Walther indicated the amendment passed in 1991 may not cover the situation and they now wish to "further refine" the legal tests. He said the final test for making distribution of this kind of money is up to the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Walther added, "When they finally announce what tests they are going to use, we want to make sure our law covers whatever tests they may adopt."
There was no further testimony on S.B. 226, and the chairman closed the hearing on the bill and opened the hearing on A.B. 146.
Senator Titus entered the room at 1:45 p.m.
ASSEMBLY BILL 146: Authorizes issuance of marriage licenses at one location outside county seat under certain circumstances.
The first to testify was Mayor Marv Texeira of Carson City, Nevada. Mayor Texeira announced passage of the bill would cost Carson City "in hard dollars" to the county the sum of $35,000, and the amount of approximately $100,000 to $150,000 annually in lost revenue. He added, "I am here to testify in support of this bill....and before you give me a saliva test...let me tell you what this is all about." Mayor Texeira stated at one time Carson City issued approximately 9,000 marriage licenses each year, and presently that figure is 4,500. He said the lessened amount of license issuances was due to the increase in licenses being sold in El Dorado County, California. Mayor Texeira stated Carson City will be the only county to suffer a "hard dollar loss" if licenses are lawfully sold in satellite offices, such as Lake Tahoe and Incline Village. However, he added, the idea is to bring revenue into the State of Nevada. Mayor Texeira concluded:
Carson City will take the hit on this...but we believe, in fact, it is in the best interests of the state. We don't want to hold back our county...it will be a big financial opportunity for Douglas County...and a healthy community to the south means a healthy community in Carson City...so we are very much in support of this bill.
Senator James asked if there was a perception at this time that people "came further into Nevada" to get marriage licenses because they cannot buy them at the border. Mayor Texeira said he believed people preferred to obtain a license in Nevada but did not want to drive "all the way down the hill" to Carson City to do so. Therefore, he said, they buy the license in California.
The next to testify were Assemblyman P.M. Roy Neighbors, Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick and Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom. Mr. Neighbors asked committee support for A.B. 146. He said he believed it was another method of taking the government to the people. Mr. Neighbors referred to his district, Nye County, and indicated satellite offices for the county clerk, treasurer, auditor and recorder have been set up in Pahrump, 180 miles from the county seat. He said the justice of the peace in Pahrump indicated to him it would be no problem to issue marriage licenses in that city.
Mr. Hettrick stated A.B. 146 was "enabling legislation" and did not mandate that any office be opened. He said a county clerk, if he or she felt it was beneficial to the county, could open a satellite office. Mr. Hettrick indicated the bill would capitalize on a source of revenue that does not require any new taxes. He stated passage of the legislation would stimulate business in several areas of the state. Mr. Hettrick said the satellite marriage license offices will bring people into the state thereby increasing sales, gasoline, room and gaming taxes.
Assemblywoman Gene Segerblom, who represents the City of Laughlin, stated 2,000 people have been married in Bullhead City, Arizona, instead of in Nevada. She indicated the county has a new building in Laughlin which can be utilized for a satellite clerk's office. Ms. Segerblom asked for committee support of A.B. 146.
Senator Titus asked Ms. Segerblom how she had arrived at the figure of 2,000 people who have been married in Bullhead City, Arizona, rather than Laughlin, Nevada. Ms. Segerblom answered she received her information from George Flint, owner of a wedding chapel in Reno. Senator Titus responded, "That doesn't impress me that much." Senator Titus asked George Flint to step forward and indicate how he arrived at the figure.
George Flint, owner, Chapel of the Bells Wedding Chapel in Reno, presented his testimony. Mr. Flint stated there were only three people present who were at the legislature "when we started this effort in 1967," those individuals being Senator Smith, Senator Jacobsen and himself. He said he believed the support was very high at this time, with only a few Las Vegas wedding chapels having some concern. Mr. Flint said, "They need to be reassured that this isn't a move to proliferate bureaus all over Clark and Washoe counties...." Mr. Flint then responded to Senator Titus' question. He said he had called the county clerk in Kingman, Arizona and asked for specific figures regarding the number of marriage licenses sold. Mr. Flint indicated the clerk told him, "I don't know what is wrong with you people up there in Nevada...but you are sure giving us a lot of free money you don't need to." He added the clerk told him they make a large amount of money, so much that they have a clerk go to a campground which is across the bridge over the Colorado River near Laughlin and sell marriage licenses out of the back of a pickup truck. Mr. Flint stated the exact number of marriage licenses sold in one year was 2,800, with 80 percent sold to tourists visiting Laughlin.
Mr. Flint referred to Mayor Texeira's testimony and said he believed the issuance of marriage licenses has decreased in Carson City for two reasons. He said 20 years ago, the yearly figure for licenses was nearly 10,000. At that time, he indicated, Washoe County closed their offices at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Flint stated in 1971 they began staying open 16 hours each day and from that day forward, the people who would have gone to Carson City because they could not have obtained a license in Reno, stayed in Reno. He said approximately 15 years ago, more chapels opened in South Lake Tahoe, California, slowing the issuance of licenses even more in Carson City. Mr. Flint added he believes more people will go to Carson City to be married if the bill is passed because, "People came to Carson City to be married, not because it was convenient...but because it was a traditional thing." Mr. Flint referred to a publication known as The California Confidentials, which promotes marriages in South Lake Tahoe. He said he believed if the bill is passed, seven or more "mom and pop" wedding chapels in that city will disappear.
Mr. Flint pointed out it was now as easy to obtain a marriage license in California, Oregon, Arizona and Utah as it is in Nevada. He added, "We have no quickie marriage advantage over those states anymore." Mr. Flint stated people continue to come to Nevada because of "the great job Nevada has done in promoting itself as a tremendous tourist destination...and wedding destination." He added he did not believe there would be any change in the number of weddings performed in Las Vegas if Laughlin were allowed to issue marriage licenses. Mr. Flint concluded, "Las Vegas doesn't have anything to worry about."
Testifying in opposition to S.B. 146 was Stephanie Tyler, representing ten marriage chapels in Las Vegas, all of which are located in major casino-hotels. Ms. Tyler stated the chapels were not in complete opposition to the bill but indicated there was a larger issue to be addressed. Ms. Tyler testified:
I represent one of the core businesses of Las Vegas. It is one of the businesses which has created what Vegas is today ...a premiere destination resort...the number one premiere destination resort in the United States. Tourism, casino gaming and the wedding capital of the United States all go hand-in-hand and that is Las Vegas. Chapels are a part of the glitter and the whole vacation experience...The wedding chapel owners are mainly concerned with maintaining the integrity of their industry. From a tourism destination standpoint, we do not want to encourage our visitors to just zip in, get married and leave the state. We want them to continue to come and bring their friends and family and get married. ... Statistics say the average wedding party is somewhere between 18 to 23 people ... they stay in our hotels...they game in our casino... they purchase things in our stores. ... The ripple effect these dollars have across all of Las Vegas in virtually every business capacity is felt and should be maintained.
Ms. Tyler indicated the industry is "very concerned" about the effects of passage of A.B. 146. She said if Laughlin is the "substation" chosen by the county commissioners, it could definitely have an effect on Las Vegas. Ms. Tyler stated the main concern was with the maintenance of the notion of "coming, gaming and playing in Las Vegas." She added, "Perhaps the time has come," and said what the industry would like to do is come back before the legislature in a few years and "look at the figures," in order to see what the impact has been. Ms. Tyler requested a 2-year sunset be placed on the bill.
Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Tyler if she had a list of the owners of the wedding chapels she represented and she indicated she did not have that information with her. She did say at least three different owners were involved in the ten chapels. Ms. Tyler indicated there were approximately 8,000 marriages performed by these chapels in Las Vegas. In response to a question posed by Senator James, Ms. Tyler indicated there were approximately 32 wedding chapels existing in Las Vegas.
Senator James stated there was an argument that even if a couple were married on the California side of the border, they would still come into Nevada for gaming. He did agree if a couple were in Laughlin, "...they probably would not drive the 90 miles to Las Vegas." Senator James referred to Ms. Tyler's comment regarding Las Vegas being the "marriage capital." He said a couple from out of the state, who wanted to book a trip to Nevada to be married, would more than likely go to Las Vegas, not to Laughlin. Ms. Tyler responded it basically "goes back to the whole image...and what has been developing over the past 100 years, that has established Las Vegas as the marriage capital of the world." She added, "Granted...you get a certain experience in Laughlin...and in Tahoe." Ms. Tyler clarified she did not "have an issue" with Las Vegas, but represented the Las Vegas chapels. She indicated she represented some Reno chapels also, but said they did not oppose the bill. Ms. Tyler stated the concern was not with "what will happen tomorrow," but with the long-term effects of beginning to "break up" the Las Vegas image. She said if you start "spreading out" by establishing satellite offices, "...you can no longer maintain that same air, which is what people bought the plane tickets for."
Senator James asked Ms. Tyler if she was proposing any type of a study which would go along with a sunset provision, if established. Ms. Tyler answered she believed there was a larger issue than just the issuance of marriage licenses, but added she hated to see that revenue "going out the window." She reiterated the issue was the "larger picture" which included sales tax revenues, together with gaming and room tax revenues. Ms. Tyler said the idea of a study was a good suggestion, but she believed "the proof would be in the pudding" and would be reflected in the marriage license numbers.
Appearing as proponents of A.B. 146 were Barbara J. Reed, Clerk-Treasurer, Douglas County, Nevada, and David Pumphrey, Chairman, Douglas County Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Reed distributed to the committee her prepared statement, attached hereto as Exhibit D, and letters in support of the bill (Exhibit E). Ms. Reed read her statement to the committee. (See Exhibit D.)
Senator Adler entered the room at 3:10 p.m.
Ms. Reed also stated for the record:
We, Douglas County, has agreed to help market Carson City. We do not want to create any loss for any county in this state. We are going to do extensive advertising for them at no cost to Carson City. We will put their hours of operation and their chapel in the Lake Tahoe Planner. About 85,000 of those are sent out about twice each year. We also will put them in the Lake Tahoe Chamber...we already are hand-in-hand with Carson City to held keep their figures up...."
Mr. Pumphrey presented to the committee Resolution No. 93-03 of the Board of County Commissioners of Douglas County, which is attached hereto as Exhibit F. He did not read the resolution, but it is entered into the record by this reference. Mr. Pumphrey stated the Douglas County seat is only 15 miles from Lake Tahoe and said statistics point out "people will not even drive the 15 miles." He said he would like to "put on another hat" he wears as Vice President of the Nevada Association of Counties (NACO) and represented to the committee that "all 17 counties have unanimously gone on record as supporting changes in the wedding license law to allow the issuance of county licenses outside of the county seat."
Senator Titus pointed to statistics set forth on Exhibit D and noted the "highest possible figure" was set out for each city, even though they were figures for different years, and "figures for a couple of years before or after were not nearly that high." She asked Ms. Reed if that did not "over-dramatically make the point...." Ms. Reed answered the statistics were calculated on 1978 figures. Senator Titus pointed out that was true for Douglas County, but that Carson City's figures were from 1977, which utilized the "highest years." Senator Titus asked if there was reason to assume those years would be "normal years." Ms. Reed answered the other years would "go higher." She also pointed out there had been a steady increase, but the years cited represented a "stopping point" if they had been allowed to continue issuing licenses at Lake Tahoe without the competition of El Dorado County. Senator Titus asked what caused the large increase between 1975 and 1976 in Douglas County. Ms. Reed stated she believed it was a pattern, which showed a steady increase, both in Douglas County and Carson City. She also pointed to the decline in later years and said they did "extensive marketing," which would explain the "up and down" fluctuation in the figures.
Ms. Reed indicated they maintain satellite county offices at Lake Tahoe, so there would be no increase in cost for the establishment of a marriage license bureau. She stated when they sold licenses at Lake Tahoe for a period of time several years ago, they maintained longer hours in the offices. Senator Titus asked Ms. Reed if she would have to hire extra personnel if the bill were passed and Ms. Reed responded, "I hope I am so busy I have to hire extra personnel." Senator Titus pointed out that would be a cost which would have to be deducted from the extra revenue. Ms. Reed stated she did not believe so, since she had personnel in Minden who could be transferred to Lake Tahoe. She added if the business generated was so large she had to hire extra personnel, it would pay for itself.
Senator James pointed to statistics set forth on Exhibit D which showed the number of licenses issued has been steadily increasing. He stated he wished to discuss Stephanie Tyler's point regarding the effect passage of the bill might have on Las Vegas. Senator James indicated he would like to see more extensive figures regarding the Las Vegas area, such as Clark County versus Bullhead City, Arizona. Ms. Reed stated her opinion was Las Vegas was "worldwide recognition." She said she did not believe passage of A.B. 146 would have any detrimental impact on Las Vegas. Mr. Pumphrey interjected that no one has suggested the Clark County totals would go down in any way. Senator James pointed out county totals would go up, since the satellite officers would be in the same counties. He said the question is whether the City of Las Vegas would lose revenue. Senator James added the bill was an interesting one in that it did not create concern in the area intended, which was marriage, but rather became a large economic issue. He added:
Las Vegas has established this industry...my concern is whether or not this would in any way cut out the legs of that industry, and whether we ought to be concerned about that.
Mr. Pumphrey stated he believed they should be looking at the picture as "a Nevada picture" or a "Clark County picture," and not Las Vegas versus Laughlin. He added if the 2,000 marriages which were done in Bullhead City, Arizona, were done in Laughlin, Nevada, "...it would be a clear enhancement to both Nevada and to Clark County."
Senator Titus stated, "If you don't think this is going to have a negative impact on Las Vegas...then you wouldn't object to a 2-year sunset...and come back with figures to see how it changes?" Ms. Reed responded she would object to a 2-year sunset, because they have already shown their figures, which reflect a decline. She added, "California has had a major impact on Carson City and Douglas County...I have provided you with those statistics." Ms. Reed stated if Senator Titus had a concern regarding Clark County, the statistics could be monitored. She added, "If those chapels in Las Vegas feel they have been hindered, they will come back on their own...I don't think a sunset will either encourage or discourage that...." Senator Titus responded, "I appreciate your figures...but they are your figures...and we know how statistics can work to present different kinds of arguments." Mr. Pumphrey indicated the Las Vegas wedding chapels had not presented any figures to support their concerns.
The next to testify was Kirby L. Burgess, Assistant Director, Administrative Services, Clark County, Nevada. Mr. Burgess stated he would speak on behalf of Loretta Bowman, Clark County Clerk. He said Clark County had "no problem" with A.B. 146, although they had some initial concerns regarding the cost of establishing an office in Laughlin. Mr. Burgess stated they no longer had that concern. He agreed passage of the bill would be in the best interest of the state. Senator James asked Mr. Burgess if Clark County's position was based on conversations with people in the wedding industry and Mr. Burgess answered they had not had discussions with industry personnel. He added Ms. Bowman believed the county commissioners would authorize a satellite office in Laughlin. On a personal note, Mr. Burgess stated he did not see where any business in Las Vegas would be diminished because of Laughlin. Senator Titus asked Mr. Burgess how the county would react to the idea of placing wedding chapels at the state line. Mr. Burgess answered Clark County had not taken a position on that issue. He added that determination would have to be made by the county commissioners.
Speaking on behalf of Washoe County, Nevada, was Mary Henderson. Ms. Henderson stated Washoe County had no current plans to open an satellite office for the issuance of licenses in Incline Village or Crystal Bay but added the county supports the legislation through NACO.
Senator Lawrence Jacobsen presented his testimony on A.B. 146. Senator Jacobsen indicated the establishment of satellite offices has been one of his projects for approximately 25 years. He said bills on the subject had been "stalled" in each session of the legislature. Senator Jacobsen reiterated Douglas County already has a satellite government office at Lake Tahoe, which provides all the services provided at the county seat in Minden, Nevada. He stated these offices "bring the government closer to the people...and it is the right way to go." Senator Jacobsen echoed Mayor Texeira's statement regarding the close relationship between Douglas County and Carson City and added, "Even though they are going to take a hit...we do a lot of things for them...." He stated Douglas County was the third largest revenue producer in the state, putting "more money in the pocket than we ever take out." Senator Jacobsen stressed the importance of the legislation and added, "If we don't take advantage of it...we are foolish...I think 25 years is long enough to wait...."
Senator James asked Senator Jacobsen to indicate his feelings regarding a sunset provision. Senator Jacobsen stated his opposition, indicating any subject can be addressed in any session of the legislature.
The next to testify was Kathleen Farrell, Executive Director, Tahoe Douglas Chamber of Commerce. Ms. Farrell indicated the chamber represents over 500 businesses on the south shore of Lake Tahoe. She said the chamber takes over 7,000 calls each year regarding the procedures involved in getting married in Nevada. Ms. Farrell stated she believes their office is called "because of the mystique and allure of being married in Nevada...which is their original intention." However, she added, "When people find out they have to drive an additional 40 to 50 mile round-trip to get their license, it is in fact a deterrent." Ms. Farrell said those people are then "lost to California." She added, "The reason I know this...the California businesses also belong to my chamber, because they are smart business people and understand it is the Nevada allure that draws...." Mr. Farrell did stress the people who get married on the California side still frequent the casinos and hotels in Nevada. She added although the chamber does represent California businesses also, the board of the chamber believes:
It is good business and good common sense that in an era where everyone is competing for the same customer...to not be able to give good customer service by making it easy for them to get their license in close proximity to where they are going to be married, doesn't make good sense in a market that becomes increasingly competitive.
Testifying individually was Ronald Zachery Sayed, an owner of chapels in both Nevada and California. Mr. Sayed said he knew from experience, "...when weather is inclement at Lake Tahoe, and you have to ask people to travel down that mountain, it is a deterrent to this state." He said he opened a chapel in California because he could see the necessity to compete on a "fair playing field" with the people in California for the issuance of licenses. Mr. Sayed stated he was 100 percent in favor of A.B. 146.
The next to testify was Gene Lee, who testified as an individual chapel owner. Mr. Lee stated he was a resident of Douglas County and owned three chapels in El Dorado County, California. Mr. Lee stated:
I am a Nevada resident who has been forced to do business in California because of the law that now stands on the books here in the State of Nevada. Frankly, I am very resentful of the fact my state has forced me to do business in a state I consider to be very business unfriendly.
Mr. Lee alluded to the fact Nevada has incentives and "allurements" to bring some of the California business to the state but added, "Here we have just the opposite circumstance." He said he desired to do business in Nevada but operated his chapels in California because it made good business sense. Mr. Lee added, "I believe this kind of service being offered at Lake Tahoe offers a better product and service to the overall enhancement of tourism...." He concluded by saying when people call him they are looking for a wedding in Nevada, but he turns them to their businesses in California. Mr. Lee indicated his support of the legislation and stated it would be in the best interests of the State of Nevada to pass A.B. 146.
The last to testify was Robert Hadfield, Executive Director, NACO, representing Austin, Nevada. Mr. Hadfield pointed to the fact the legislation was "permissive" and would enable those counties who wish to maintain a competitive advantage and provide convenient public service to do so if they wish. He added the measure will protect county and state revenue bases from being eroded by competition from California, Arizona and Utah. Mr. Hadfield added the City of Austin believed passage of A.B. 146 "...will help them immensely, if they can get five or six licenses all year."
Senator McGinness stated he represented both Austin and Pahrump and said it was "more a matter of convenience," since a local Austin resident who wished to be married there would have to drive 90 miles to obtain a license under the present law.
Senator James asked the sponsors of the bill, Assemblyman Hettrick and Assemblywoman Segerblom, if they would comment regarding the proposed sunset provision. Mr. Hettrick agreed with Senator Jacobsen's comment regarding the ability to "come back every two years and look at laws." He said he did not believe a sunset clause would "change anything" and added the Clark County chapel owners would come to the legislature if there proved to be a problem. Ms. Segerblom added she did not believe it was a problem which needed to be addressed with a sunset provision.
There was no further testimony on A.B. 146 and the chairman closed the hearing on the bill.
ASSEMBLY BILL 44:Authorizes board of county commissioners in certain counties to appoint county clerk to act as commissioner of civil marriages.
The first to testify was Mary Henderson, Washoe County, Nevada. Ms. Henderson indicated the bill would affect only Washoe County and proposed to make three changes in existing statute regarding the commissioner of civil marriages. She said the legislation would allow the board of county commissioners to appoint the county clerk the commissioner of civil marriages, to determine the number of deputy
commissioners which may be appointed, and to set the hours and dates of operation. Ms. Henderson stated:
Under existing statute, Washoe County is mandated to provide the civil marriage commissioner office under what we consider to be extremely restrictive and inflexible rules. We must be open 7 days per week, including holidays, 16 hours a day...I know of no other county operation that is so controlled by statute.
Ms. Henderson stated the number of marriages performed has declined 18 percent in the past few years, and the revenue has dropped accordingly. She said the cost to maintain the office has steadily increased, and they can no longer afford discretionary services that cannot break even. Ms. Henderson indicated the small staff in the department "keeps a 16-hour operation going, 7 days a week." She added, "You may hear concerns today that tourism will suffer because the board of county commissioners will eliminate the marriage commissioner office, and tourists will have no alternatives." Ms. Henderson stated she did not believe the commissioners would make any decision that was not a prudent management decision based on available resources, public need, a concern for our existing employees and the economic impact of their decisions on tourism. She closed by stating the county is seeking to be freed from a restrictive mandate and needs the flexibility to manage the operation.
The next to testify was Judi Bailey, Washoe County Clerk. Ms. Bailey stated she supported A.B. 44 but requested an amendment which would change the phrase, "...may appoint the county clerk...," to "...shall appoint the county clerk to act as commissioner." She added, "I would hate to see this office go under some other section of the county." Ms. Bailey indicated she felt it was very important to continue to have a commissioner of civil marriages. She said she felt the department could pay for itself if the hours were more flexible. Ms. Bailey stated she did not feel people would continue to go to Reno, if they could be married in a civil ceremony.
Senator James stated he believed the "may" in the language was a vital part of the bill and reiterated testimony of Ms. Henderson which indicated Washoe County "could get out of this business." Senator James indicated the word "shall" would mean they would "be back in business." Ms. Bailey indicated she believed the word "may" would give the county the ability to close the operation if they saw fit. Senator James indicated he believed Ms. Bailey was actually opposed to the passage of the bill. She reiterated she was in agreement with provisions regarding the number of hours of operation and the number of deputy commissioners which could be appointed.
The last to testify was George Flint, representing Chapel of the Bells, Reno, Nevada. Mr. Flint stated he "reluctantly" supported the bill and encouraged its passage. He added, however, he "hated to see Washoe County not have a tourist facility to offer like Clark County has." Mr. Flint said, "I woke up the other night and realized that by not supporting this bill I was kissing away about $50,000 a year." He said he did approximately 12 percent of the weddings in Reno and "...would get about 12 percent of those 4,000 weddings the day they close up."
Ms. Henderson returned to say the intent of the bill "was to give us the flexibility...and to get out from under the statutory mandates." She stressed the current board of county commissioners was committed to keeping the office open "as long as we make it break even." Ms. Henderson added what happens in the future will be largely determined by the market. She stated Washoe County would not support an amendment changing "may" to "shall" as requested by Ms. Bailey since it would "completely change the intent of the bill."
There was no further testimony on A.B. 44; the chairman closed the hearing on the bill and adjourned the meeting.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Marilyn Hofmann,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Mark A. James, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Judiciary
March 3, 1993
Page 1