The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 7:39 a.m., on Tuesday, May 11, 1999, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Room 4401, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Maurice Washington

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

Senator Terry Care

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Laura Adler, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Lora Myles, Attorney, Carson and Rural Elder Law Program, stated she was the author of A.B. 517, with input from public guardians, elder law attorneys, judges, and other persons involved with seniors and guardianship for seniors. She iterated the bill clarifies the type of attorney to be appointed for the ward, including attorneys and legal aides other than public defenders. The bill also addresses funeral costs.

Assemblywoman Vivian L. Freeman, Washoe County Assembly District No. 24, communicated that from experience with the way the public defender in her district had handled things for several elderly, she felt strongly about supporting the issues addressed by A.B. 517. She concluded that many elderly need partial or full assistance with their affairs and urged the committee’s support of the bill.

Ms. Myles continued the bill clarifies the differences and needs between minor wards and elderly wards. It defines the process should a minor continue to need a ward once the minor has reached maturity. She said the bill allows additional time to locate family members who have not been in contact for years. She said the bill would allow for background checks on potential guardians who have been accused of child or elder abuse in the past in order to reduce the potential for continued abuse.

Senator McGinness asked if judicially determined is a hearing before a judge. Ms. Myles answered judicially determined would be under the provisions provided for child or elder abuse prosecution, and under a report of charges brought by child protective services or elder protective services. She went on to say the bill would allow the ward to have assets up to $5,000, which is 1 month’s care in a nursing home at today’s rates.

Senator Wiener wanted to know what prompted the section on abuse. Ms. Myles stated there were some questions about guardians taking wards out of the country for treatment or using alternative therapy that was not in the ward’s best interest. She said that section follows language in other statutes regarding involuntary commitment and alternative medical treatments.

Chairman James noted it is not made clear as to the standard of judicial determination under section 9, line 17. He wanted to know if it is a criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is a misdemeanor or a felony, or is it a civil standard of a preponderance of evidence.

Ms. Myles claimed that as she understands, it is the same as any other misdemeanor or felony charge. It is under child or elder abuse criminal statutes.

Chairman James remarked that section is unclear. He stated if there is to be a beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, it must be made clear, so there is no doubt.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 517 and opened the hearing on A.B. 397.

Assemblyman David E. Goldwater, Clark County Assembly District No. 10, noted he represents a district with many apartments and has been a strong advocate of tenants' rights. He said this bill addresses the good tenants who are experiencing difficulties with landlords attending to problems with apartment units that affect quality of life, safety, and health. Assemblyman Goldwater stated that a lot of people on both sides of the tenant/landlord issues cooperated to bring this bill forward (Exhibit C). He said essentially the bill requires landlords to be attentive to the necessities of life such as heat, air-conditioning, and running water. It allows the tenant to withhold rent without penalty, if they are not in arrears, until the landlord has addressed the tenant’s problem.

Senator Care asked what affect would section 5, subsection 1, paragraph (c) have on the standard landlord/tenant agreement relating to no set-offs. Assemblyman Goldwater stated there would be a negligible affect, if any.

Senator Porter wanted to know how "good faith" as used in the bill would be applied. Chairman James explained that "good faith" is a discernable legal standard.

Ernest K. Nielsen, Lobbyist, Washoe County Senior Law Project, testified he was there as an advisory board member for Truckee Meadows Fair Housing (TMFH) who supports A.B. 397. He said TMFH is 1 of 3 fair housing organizations in the state, charged to educate the public, landlords, developers, and tenants about fair-housing laws, and to see that the fair-housing laws are adequately enforced. He elucidated that over the years fair-housing issues have come to deal more with the evictions process. Mr. Nielsen pointed out that the bill addresses evictions by defining the process. The TMFH believes the bill will increase the effectiveness of the enforcement of fair-housing laws in Nevada.

David Olshan, Directing Attorney, Nevada Legal Services, reading from prepared testimony (Exhibit D), said he has practiced landlord/tenant law for 7 years, and there is the lack of a meaningful remedy when a tenant has essential services problems. He said the problem lies in the remedy unfairly being the sole responsibility of the tenant. He supports A.B. 397 in that it distributes the burden of essential services fairly. He said another important aspect is the bill closes the gap in Nevada’s retaliation law. Mr. Olshan iterated the bill would also provide protection from possible eviction of tenants who complain about criminal activity on or near the premises.

Chairman James asked for clarification of "another essential service." Mr. Olshan replied it could be lack of snow removal limiting egress or entry; or non-removal of trash causing an unhealthful condition; or a broken railing that creates an unsafe situation.

Assemblyman Goldwater maintained these examples represent the types of issues tenants are confronting, including bearing the burden of additional costs to seek remedies. He emphasized that A.B. 397 will provide that needed remedy.

Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Apartment Association, said he was also speaking for the Nevada Association of Realtors, and both organizations support A.B. 397 in its current form.

Jon L. Sasser, Lobbyist, Senior Law Project, submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit E). He added that the purpose of the bill is not to expand or contract existing definitions, but to add an additional remedy if there is a failure to supply essential services. That remedy would be the ability to withhold rent until the services are provided.

Hearing no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 397 and opened the hearing on A.B. 71.

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8, explained there is a conflict between her bill and S.B. 69, which was sponsored by Senator William J. Raggio, Washoe County Senatorial District No. 3. She asked that Senator Raggio’s name be added to her bill, since he has put a hold on his bill to resolve the conflict. Assemblywoman Buckley stressed that stolen identities are becoming more prevalent. She emphasized the devastation to the victim in trying to prove a negative that the other person is not who the social security number says they are. Assemblywoman Buckley read an e-mail from a Reno resident about the experience (Exhibit E). She concluded by suggesting section 8, which allows the consumer to put a freeze on their credit, be omitted from the bill, since she learned the credit bureaus are now flagging the accounts.

Senator Wiener inquired how actual damages would be determined. Assemblywoman Buckley responded actual damages would be anything the victim can prove, such as telephone costs incurred. She added that punitive damages, by law, are already capped at three times the amount of actual damages.

Senator Care noted a specific fine of $100,000 in the bill, and wanted to know how the penalty for a particular offense is determined. Assemblywoman Buckley answered that the attorney general’s office and the bill drafters determined the amount based on similar criminal offenses.

Senator Care asked for an explanation of section 2, subsection 2, paragraph (b). Assemblywoman Buckley clarified it was the good brother/bad brother type of situation, in which one person uses another person’s identification to avoid prosecution for an unlawful act. She added that presently there is no law against it.

Ben Graham, Lobbyist, Clark County District Attorney, and Nevada District Attorneys’ Association, elaborated on the good brother/bad brother, good roommate/bad roommate identity fraud. He stated that almost every week the police have someone tell them there is a warrant out for the friend or relative’s arrest, and they did not do it. He conveyed there is not a lot of leverage now, but the bill will help law enforcement to better serve the victims.

Stan R. Olsen, Lobbyist, Lieutenant, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro), Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NSCA), emphasized that both organizations are strongly behind A.B. 71. He said identity fraud is a devastating crime that law enforcement has seen firsthand. He urged everyone to use a paper shredder. He said this is not theft of an item, identity fraud is the theft of someone’s life, and Metro has documented one that went on for 10 years.

Senator Care said the bill could be interpreted to prosecute a series of crimes or as a single crime. Lieutenant Olsen concurred that there could be multiple charges, but most likely a plea to one charge.

Patty Moody, Concerned Citizen, said she is a victim of identity theft. She said she was living in Argentina from 1987 to 1998. When she returned she wanted to purchase a car, and found three cars in her name had been repossessed in New Hampshire, Texas, and California. The credit bureaus listed her as writing bad checks for 4 years. She said she still cannot open a bank account. Ms. Moody explained it cost her $200 to obtain copies of her records and letters from the American Embassies in Argentina, Chile, and Peru. She even produced her tax returns to social security for a new number, and social security responded that she must have loaned her number to someone. She said she contacted all the service bureaus, credit collection agencies, check systems, social security, and other institutions with negative information under her name.

Chairman James stated the information concerns him, because of the amendment requiring credit agencies to rectify the records of victims of identity theft. Ms. Moody declared that in her case the credit bureaus do not flag accounts. She added that social security said she would have to prove inconvenience, such as bankruptcy before they would issue a new number.

Robert Goldberg, Concerned Citizen, said he supports the bill, and the removal of section 8, because it will only hurt the victim further. He said his daughter, Natalie Madden, had her identity stolen by a woman in Texas, and the whole family has gone through 5 months of turmoil trying to rectify the situation. He said the woman is now in jail on a light sentence, but the repercussions of identity theft can haunt the victim for many years. He observed from personal experience that it would help if the red flag on credit is identified as being for identity theft and not for poor credit, otherwise its another difficulty for the real person to overcome.

Natalie J. Madden, Concerned Citizen, submitted prepared testimony (Exhibit F) in favor of A.B. 71, including copies of documents. She expounded that the experience of identity theft is shattering to a person’s life. She still gets letters asking her to prove it was not she who utilized the credit cards, etc. She stated that social security is very unsympathetic and will not issue a new number.

Chairman James inquired if the credit card companies and reporting agencies have been helpful in rectifying the fraudulent activity showing on her records. Ms. Moody replied the credit card companies ask for a notarized letter. She said the reporting agencies have done minimal; they just red flagged her report. She commented the reporting agencies use cloaking devices to cover the flag; so a year or two later, the bad credit could pop back up. She said this minimal handling by reporting agencies requires the victim to keep meticulous records, because the victim has to keep defending and proving who they are.

James J. Jackson, Lobbyist, Associated Credit Bureaus (ACB), stated the credit bureaus support legislation that criminalizes identity theft, since it is a cost everyone bears. He presented a sample of a credit report that has been flagged for a fraud victim (Exhibit G). He stated the credit industry is doing everything it can on identity theft. He said a national task force has been established by ACB. He noted federal law requires that a consumer has the right to enter a 100-word statement into their credit report, which must be included. Mr. Jackson continued the credit bureau industry is heavily regulated by federal law, and if authentication of an item cannot be readily achieved within 30 days, then by law it has to be removed. He concluded that the industry has taken a proactive stance regarding identity theft because it hurts everybody.

Senator Care observed that section 8 is in question, and wondered if there was anything in that section that would be in conflict with existing law should section 8 remain in the bill. Mr. Jackson replied that he was not familiar with section 8 in relation to federal law and could not respond at that time. He said the industry is concerned that the section might create more problems for the consumer than it would solve.

Alfredo Alonso, Lobbyist, Citibank of Nevada, said Citibank is in favor of the bill, and their fraud department is vigilant to identity crimes since it has become one of the more prevalent crimes today. He said picture identification cards have helped, and the industry is continuing to investigate and develop other methods to combat credit card fraud.

Amy Halley Hill, Lobbyist, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, and Retail Association of Nevada, said all the entities she represents support A.B. 71 to recognize identity fraud as a felony crime. She pointed out the retailers are also the victims of identity fraud. She said she is in favor of removing section 8 from the bill, since it is the perpetrator who needs to be stopped, not the victim.

Hearing no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 71 and opened the hearing on A.B. 462.

Assemblywoman Barbara E. Buckley, Clark County Assembly District No. 8, stated there are two sections in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) dealing with eviction law resulting in confusion for tenants. She said the law provides for a 5-day eviction notice if a tenant fails to pay their rent. If there is no rent by the fifth day, then the landlord can apply for an order of eviction from the justice court. The order of eviction is served on the sixth day, and the tenant is locked out on the seventh day. She divulged a scam between some landlords and some attorneys to refuse the rent unless the tenant pays attorney’s fees of $75. She said this practice is illegal, but since it is not in chapter 40 of NRS, there is confusion. She said the bill would make it illegal to evict a tenant who is willing to pay their rent and late charges, but does not want to pay an extortion fee. Assemblywoman Buckley expounded the investigation has identified one law firm with 25 apartment complexes, which involves over 5,000 people, and it seems to be growing. She added the law firm and its attorneys have been reported to the State Bar of Nevada.

David L. Howard, Lobbyist, Northern Nevada Apartment Association, and Silver State Apartment Association, said the associations are in full support of A.B. 462, and urged its passage.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 462, and called for a motion.

*****

Chairman James opened the hearing on A.B. 522, with reference made to Senate Bill (S.B.) 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Don Sneider, President, Boyd Gaming Corporation (BGC), said he was there to appeal to the committee’s sense of fairness regarding an inadvertent omission. He stated that in the hectic last days of the 1997 Legislative Session, they lost track of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session (Exhibit H) when the bill was concluded and passed. He noted sections of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session that BGC strongly supports. However, BGC also agrees with the testimony of Scott Nielsen, Lobbyist, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Station Casinos Incorporated, before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, July 2, 1997 (Exhibit I). He pointed out that on page 21 Mr. Nielsen testified that S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session was "a work in process," and that it "would likely be revisited by future legislative sessions for fine-tuning." Mr. Sneider stated it is the fine-tuning that BGC would like to address. He urged the committee to support passage of A.B. 522, which was unanimously approved by the Assembly. This bill, by amending S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session, would create two specifically identified parcels of land, similar properties to those created by the passing of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session. He expounded that it was believed the properties in question were covered, but the Boulder Highway property seems to be in question. He provided maps and documentation showing the Boulder Highway property (Exhibit J), and the Rancho Drive property (Exhibit K). He elucidated that where lines are drawn has caused confusion for everyone. He pointed out that both properties are adjacent to active gaming areas, and those prior to S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session were included.

Chairman James disclosed that Boyd Group lobbyist Helen A. Foley helped with his campaigns, and she has testified on a variety of legislation on which he has worked. He explained that S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session contained two types of exceptions when it was enacted. The bill contained specific exemptions for properties that may not be in the enterprise gaming district where it was decided gaming ought to be. The other exemption dealt with existing gaming properties under the gaming enterprise district law enacted in 1989. He said if those properties were developed in such a way that local approval was given by December 31, 1998; and were licensed, functioning gaming establishments by December 31, 2001, then they would also be exempt.

Mr. Sneider affirmed that was his understanding of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session. He continued that A.B. 522 would help clarify some of the confusion that existed for Boyd Gaming upon passage of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session. He said the properties in question have been owned since 1982 and 1993, respectively, with specific intent to develop the properties for gaming. Mr. Sneider concluded with an overview of his background and a brief introduction of William Boyd.

William S. Boyd, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Boyd Gaming Corporation, recited his background of many years in Las Vegas and his support of community projects. In summary, he asked the committee to approve A.B. 522 as the proper and right thing to do.

Mr. Sneider added that he submits the testimony of Daniel C. Musgrove, Lobbyist, Office of Intergovernmental Relations, City of Las Vegas, and of Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, at the April 2, 1999, meeting of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, in support of A.B. 522 (Exhibit L).

Chairman James noted that S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session does allow for development of new gaming projects through new procedures, and the property cannot be within 500 feet of an existing residential area. He asked why BGC could not simply apply to local government under the new procedures in S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session. Mr. Sneider acknowledged that BGC could already apply, but the 500 feet was the impediment.

Courtney Alexander, Senior Research Analyst, Culinary Workers Union, Local 226, pointed out that one of the negative results of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session is the stifling of competition by existing gaming properties. She expounded on the exemptions, such as master-planned communities, properties adjacent to interchanges, and pockets of properties along Boulder Highway. Some exemptions seem to favor Station Casinos Incorporated, now the largest neighborhood casino company dominating the local gaming market. For example, S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session exempted one parcel owned by Station Casinos Incorporated across from Boyd’s Sam’s Town, while not exempting a similar parcel owned by BGC across from Boulder Station. She said both properties are on the Boulder strip, in commercial districts, across from resort casinos. She believed that was not the intention of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session. She emphasized A.B. 522 would correct this oversight, while not allowing casinos to spring up in the heart of neighborhoods, and does not give one company special treatment. She concluded that the Culinary Workers Union supports passage of A.B. 522, because BGC has been a fair and responsible employer to thousands of casino workers, and the Boulder Highway and Rancho Drive properties would not injure the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhoods.

Senator Porter asked if this information was shared with other members of the gaming industry prior to this session. Mr. Sneider stated that it was not discussed at any meetings he attended, but as a normal part of the legislative watch the information was shared with members of the Nevada Resort Association (NRA).

Senator Care disclosed that his law firm has done work for Station Casinos Incorporated, and does not know if Station Casinos Incorporated is still a client. He said he would check on the status, and also check with the Legislative Counsel Bureau. Senator Care then asked some questions about the two properties.

Mr. Boyd responded that BGC owns one parcel, and a multi-partnership owns the other property. He said BGC went public in 1993. His staff and others were tracking S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session, while his company was going through some management changes. He said he was shocked when, after the fact, it was realized the ball had been dropped.

Helen A. Foley, Lobbyist, Boyd Group, said that Assemblyman Wendell P. Williams, Clark County Assembly District No. 6, worked closely with BGC to develop the language for A.B. 522, and continues to be supportive.

Erin Kenny, Board of Commissioners, Clark County, said that, initially, based on the information available at the time, the Southern Nevada Regional Planning Coalition took a neutral position. Since that time, additional information has emerged, and the Clark County commission is adamantly opposed to local zoning being regulated from the state level. From that point of view they believe A.B. 522 undermines the intent of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session.

Ron Long, Concerned Citizen, said S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session was a great step forward in preserving neighborhoods, while A.B. 522 is viewed as a step backwards. The bill should not be used as a competition tool by gaming properties, nor to lobby public officials to undermine community master plans.

Linda Myers, Concerned Citizen, representing Northwest Area Residents Association, Inc. (NARA), Las Vegas, said NARA consists of approximately 700 properties with one of the borders being Rancho Drive. She cited many costs to a community that most people do not consider, which put added burdens on property owners and services that are not fully borne by gaming enterprises. She stated that A.B. 522 contains inconsistencies and should not be passed.

Judie Brailsford, Concerned Citizen, said she was surprised that the Assembly fully supported the bill. She said she helped gather over 8,000 signatures on petitions in favor of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session who believed they were drawing the line on gaming’s encroachment into neighborhoods. She declared that passage of A.B. 522 would open the floodgates for gaming everywhere.

Carroll Varner, President, Northwest Citizens Association, Las Vegas, pointed out that S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session offered the citizens a feeling of confidence, and support in the development of their communities. He said Las Vegas may be the fastest growing city in the nation, but that should not give anyone permission to make a shambles of residential areas. He said it was not that many years ago that the northwest area of Las Vegas was far away from the gaming district, now there are numerous casinos throughout the area. He said A.B. 522 will do nothing to address the existing neighborhood problems, and may add to them.

Harry J. Furey, President, Mountain Shadows Homeowners Association, said Mountain Shadow Estates consists of 316 homesites. He said within a short distance of the homes are four casinos, plus two under construction along Rancho Drive. He urged a no vote on A.B. 522.

Bob Schulman, Concerned Citizen, said he represents entities that own approximately 500 acres of commercial property in the town center in the northwest area of Las Vegas. He said he is concerned that A.B. 522 will confuse the development of the area as a nice, well-planed community by muddying already difficult issues regarding community planning and development.

Larry Brown, City Council, Ward 4, City of Las Vegas, said he is against A.B. 522. He stated that the Boyd Group is the city’s strongest corporate citizen, and his position on the bill does not reflect on BGC. He went on to say S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session has protected the neighborhoods, and it helped in consensus building that created a public trust. He stressed that the integrity of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session is at stake.

Marvin A. Leavitt, Lobbyist, City of Las Vegas, expressed concern that a precedent would be set regarding allowing exceptions. He said city planning is difficult enough without being surprised by exceptions. He urged a no vote.

James J. Spinello, Lobbyist, Clark County, said he echoes the testimony of others, and does not support A.B. 522.

Edward Martin, Fiesta Hotel Corporation, stated the companies he represents depend a lot on the growth of the gaming industry, but do not support A.B. 522.

Robert A. Ostrovsky, Lobbyist, Fiesta Casino, pointed out that businesses made crucial decisions based on S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session, and cannot support A.B. 522.

Scott M. Nielson, Lobbyist, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Station Casinos Inc., said their opposition to A.B. 522 is based on the guidelines set in S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session, which has provisions for changes in land use.

Eva Paulussen, representing Timberlake Homeowners, said the 378 homes development is surrounded by commercial zones, and may have been an accident, but it is there to stay. Because of the location, the homeowners have interacted with the city regarding new development in the area. She said A.B. 522 would not help their residential area. She submitted a letter signed by several residents (Exhibit M).

Carol Leduc, Vice President, Sheep Mountain Homeowners Association, stated A.B. 522 is seen as a back door for gaming to come into residential areas, and opposes the bill.

James F. Mulhall Jr., Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, elucidated that recently several members raised concerns, and the NRA voted in opposition to A.B. 522.

Elizabeth N. Fretwell, Lobbyist, City of Henderson, said that initially they were neutral towards the bill. However, after hearing proposed amendments allowing other gaming enterprises as part of the bill, the City of Henderson is now opposed to A.B. 522.

Chairman James read into the record an e-mail (Exhibit N) from Michael L. Montandon, Mayor, City of North Las Vegas, in opposition to A.B. 522.

Paul L. Moffat, Concerned Citizen, said he does not want A.B. 522 to become a pattern for gaming to believe they can go anywhere they want, including into residential neighborhoods. He concluded that the intent of S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session has to be protected by not approving A.B. 522.

Marta Golding Brown, Lobbyist, City Manager’s Office, City of North Las Vegas, submitted a letter in opposition to A.B. 522, from Stephanie S. Smith, City Council, City of North Las Vegas (Exhibit O).

Mr. Sneider rebutted the testimony by saying BGC is also concerned about gaming’s encroachment into residential areas, and town center projects. He said the properties in question are not in residential neighborhoods, but in gaming areas where it can be concentrated, thereby, protecting movement into residential areas. He pointed out local zoning is already influenced from the state level by S.B. 208 of the Sixty-ninth Session. He explained that local governments must still give their approval and issue permits, thereby, providing residents the opportunity to be heard. He noted that A.B. 522 requires that local approval must be granted.

Assemblyman Tom Collins, Clark County Assembly District No. 1, said he has opposed neighborhood gaming for years, and if it were up to him there would be no gaming properties on Rancho Drive. He articulated that on the Assembly side no one spoke in opposition to the bill, and so it passed.

There being no further testimony, Chairman James closed the hearing on A.B. 522. Chairman James brought Senate Bill (S.B.) 121 to the committee’s attention.

Chairman James said the amendments of the Assembly committee were technical in nature, and had not redefined the term "seller." He said he would

accept a motion to rescind the action by which we sought not to concur in the Assembly Amendment No. 728.

*****

*****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Laura Adler,

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Senator Mark A. James, Chairman

DATE: