ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

MINUTES OF THE meeting

of the

ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary

Seventy-First Session

May 11, 2001

The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:06 a.m. on Friday, May 11, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to Room 4401 of the Grant Sawyer Office Building, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Guest List. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman

Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman

Mrs. Sharron Angle

Mr. Greg Brower

Mr. John Carpenter

Mr. Jerry Claborn

Mr. Don Gustavson

Mrs. Ellen Koivisto

Ms. Kathy McClain

Mr. Dennis Nolan

Mr. John Oceguera

Ms. Genie Ohrenschall

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT:

Ms. Barbara Buckley (Excused)

Mr. Tom Collins (Excused)

GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:

Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal, Jr., Clark Senate District 4

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Clark Senate District 8

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel

Sandra Albrecht-Johnson, Committee Secretary

OTHERS PRESENT:

Scott Scherer, Member, State Gaming Control Board

Michael Alonso, Jones Vargas

John Slaughter, Washoe County

Chairman Anderson declared that a quorum was present. He encouraged testimony before the committee and requested persons to sign-in at the door.

Senate Bill 101: Authorizes certain facilities for senior citizens to conduct bingo games under certain circumstances. (BDR 41-330)

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 101 and called upon Mr. Scott Scherer, Member, State Gaming Control Board, to introduce the bill. The Chair recognized that the issues addressed by S.B. 101 were very similar to issues that were brought before a subcommittee during the 66^th Legislative Session. Mr. Scherer recalled the subcommittee issues were charitable lotteries and charitable bingo.

Mr. Scherer explained that some for-profit organizations and non-profit entities, but not qualified as 501(c)(3) organizations, wanted to conduct recreational bingo games where prizes were available, but only the players would make money. He clarified that since they were not qualified charitable organizations, those organizations did not qualify to conduct such bingo games for prizes without a gaming license. He stated the purpose of S.B. 101 was to allow certain senior citizen organizations to conduct bingo games, as long as the players were the only ones to profit from the games.

Assemblywoman Angle referred to Section 5, subsection 3 of the bill, and pointed out that it did not address whether a person under 21 years of age was allowed to participate in the bingo games. Mr. Scherer clarified that it was an oversight in the bill; however, he noted that it was already established in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 463.350 that it was illegal for persons under 21 years of age to gamble, resulting in a misdemeanor offense. As such, charitable organizations and establishments included in S.B. 101 would have to ensure that the games were limited to persons 21 years of age and older.

Chairman Anderson inquired if the bingo games conducted by the Knights of Columbus to raise money would still be allowed under S.B. 101. Mr. Scherer stated that the Knights of Columbus would qualify as a charitable organization. Charitable organizations would still be allowed to conduct bingo games to raise money, but groups that did not qualify as charitable organizations would only be able to conduct recreational bingo games from which there would be no profit. Chairman Anderson clarified that an amendment would be necessary to prohibit persons under 21 years of age from participating in bingo games within establishments where it would be likely that they would be present, such as hospitals and nursing homes.

Assemblywoman Koivisto inquired if the bill ensured that the establishment complied with gaming laws and if it contained a stipulation to prevent gaming organizations from stepping in and running the games. Mr. Scherer referred to NRS 463.4094 through 463.4096 which prohibited organizations from paying someone to run the game for them. It would force the organizations to run the games themselves with their own employees or to use unpaid volunteers to run them. They could not hire somebody to run the games. The references to the NRS were to prevent the abuse of the games to illegally produce a profit.

Chairman Anderson inquired if the bill would pose a particular problem for the Gaming Control Board. Mr. Scherer stated the board’s strong support of the bill, saying it did not pose any particular problems, since it contained provisions to allow them to step in when organizations were in violation S.B. 101. He noted they had previously advised citizens who inquired about the laws that they could not hold games for senior citizens in their facility. He asserted that they would rather permit those facilities to hold games in the same manner as charitable organizations, as long as they were low stakes games and not for profit. Chairman Anderson requested clarification of the criteria of the of a low stakes game. Mr. Scherer stated the latest limitations to low stakes games were $2,500 in prizes per calendar quarter, and that did not require any action on the part of the organizations. For prizes up to $50,000 per calendar year, the organizations were required to register with the Gaming Control Board. Finally, for prizes up to $250,000 per calendar year, there was a requirement for the organization to obtain an approval from the Gaming Control Board.

Assemblywoman McClain inquired if parks and recreational facilities were included in S.B. 101. Mr. Scherer explained that the facility could be qualified under Section 2, subsection 1 of the bill if it was, “A bona fide senior citizens’ center that is not operated for profit and provides social or recreational activities for senior citizens.” He pointed out that nursing homes, facilities that provided intermediate care, and residential facilities for groups of senior citizens would qualify under Section 1, subsection 2 of the bill.

Chairman Anderson called for any persons to testify either in support of, against, or neutral to S.B. 101. In recognition that Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal, Jr., Senate District 4, was on his way to testify on behalf of the bill, the Chair held the hearing open on S.B. 101.

Senate Bill 419: Requires Gaming Policy Committee to study certain issues. (BDR S-1184)

Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on S.B. 419. He called for any persons to testify on behalf of the bill. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 419 and indicated that he would accept a motion to indefinitely postpone it.

assemblywoman ohrenschall motioned to indefinitely postpone s.b. 419.

assemblywoman mcclain seconded the motion.

Assemblyman Carpenter inquired if the Chair was a member of the Gaming Policy Commission. Chairman Anderson indicated that he was and informed the committee that the Governor could bring together the Gaming Policy Commission at his call. He pointed out that the Governor had not called it to come together over the last six years. Chairman Anderson explained that he did not want to force the Governor to call a meeting against his will as suggested by the bill. He asserted that nobody had discussed the bill with him, and he recognized that its sponsor was not present.

Senator Michael (Mike) A. Schneider, Senate District 8, appeared to testify on behalf of S.B. 419. Chairman Anderson informed the Senator that a motion was made on the bill to indefinitely postpone. He inquired if the committee wished to withdraw the motion. Since there was no objection, the motion was withdrawn, and the Chair reopened the hearing on S.B. 419.

Senator Schneider explained that several timeshare resort hotels were being constructed in Las Vegas, making it the number one location for timeshares. He described that several of the timeshare hotels were built in conjunction with the existing casino property; however, he explained the law did not permit timeshare hotels, that were not physically attached to an existing gaming establishment and hotel, to contain a gaming area. He stated that the original form of the bill would allow timeshare resort hotels to permit gaming, limiting locations to areas within the resort corridor. The casino portion of the timeshare resort would be leased out to local gaming operators, to relieve the timeshare developers and owners from the responsibility and liability of running the casino and the necessity to obtain gaming licenses by each individual timeshare owner. He asserted there was a large demand for gaming in timeshares.

Chairman Anderson inquired why S.B. 419 called for the study to be done by the Gaming Policy Commission. Senator Schneider stated that the original form of the bill was logical and reasonable. He explained that when the bill was originally heard in the Senate Committee on Judiciary, the Senate Chairman was uncomfortable with approving the bill without a study being conducted by the Gaming Policy Commission. Senator Schneider stated the gaming industry was well-regulated. He stated the timeshares that were being built in Las Vegas were larger than the hotel casinos in Reno, and they would contribute several million dollars to the economy. He illustrated his point saying the Hilton Corporation was going to construct a timeshare resort consisting of approximately four or five towers; however, the Hilton would not be allowed to have gaming on those premises. He stressed the importance to permit the timeshare resorts to have gaming on the premises for the continued growth of Nevada.

Senator Schneider noted that he had been a member of the Gaming Policy Commission in 1993, during which time no meeting was ever called. Chairman Anderson explained that the meeting of the Gaming Policy Commission was dependent upon the Governor. He stated that the last Governor to ever call the Gaming Policy Commission together was former Governor Richard Bryan. He indicated that nobody had contacted him as to whether or not the committee should be pulled together to study the issue. Senator Schneider requested that the committee amend S.B. 419 back to its original form and resubmit it to the Senate for a concur/not concur. He asserted that gaming should be permitted in the resort corridor of large timeshare properties. He stated that the timeshare properties with gaming on the premises should pay the same taxes as the regular gaming industry. Chairman Anderson stated that he had hoped the taxes on the regular gaming industry would be raised.

Chairman Anderson inquired if the bill was amended back to its original form, would the closed timeshare community be required to allow access to the public. Senator Schneider responded in the affirmative. He stated that the timeshares provided excellent amenities, but not amenities such as showrooms or convention spaces. He pointed out that they were a different type of hotel resort. He anticipated that the persons staying at the timeshare resorts would go to the casinos and nice restaurants in town and then return to the timeshare resorts for after dinner drinks and to put their change in the slot machines. He foresaw the casinos not exceeding 15,000 square feet in size and having a bar and lounge.

Chairman Anderson inquired what extra steps would be necessary for the timeshare resorts to meet normal gaming license requirements. Senator Schneider explained the resorts would need to have full restaurants and bars that operated 24 hours a day. He pointed out that the rooms in timeshares usually included kitchens, which decreased the need for restaurants to be located inside the timeshare complex. He noted that going out to restaurants was usually an incentive for a person to leave the timeshare community and experience the area. Chairman Anderson clarified the intention of S.B. 419 would be to make the timeshare resort hotels qualify as resort hotels for gambling purposes under NRS 463.01865. The exception would be to have a snack bar or delicatessen that would be open 10 hours each day as opposed to having a restaurant that would be open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Mr. Gustavson inquired if there was a possibility of jeopardizing the timeshare owners if there was a financial problem with the casino area of the resort hotel. Senator Schneider anticipated that the casino area would be leased to a local Nevada gaming operator, therefore removing the liability from the timeshare owners. Chairman Anderson inquired if it would be similar to a slot route operator program. Senator Schneider responded that it would be very similar.

Mr. Carpenter inquired if the Senate hearing on S.B. 419 had any additional testimony as to what was being provided. Senator Schneider indicated that there was a hearing in the Senate Judiciary, but noted that the Chairman of that committee was under significant pressure at the time. Senator Schneider disclosed that he had an ownership in a timeshare operation that was granted a grandfathered gaming license for a 100,000 square foot casino. He stated that it was a logical step for Nevada to allow gaming in timeshare resort hotels.

Chairman Anderson called for any testimony in support of, against, or neutral to S.B. 419. There being none, he closed the hearing on S.B. 419. He indicated that he was not yet comfortable with either form of the bill, and he would hold it for consideration.

Senate Bill 101: Authorizes certain facilities for senior citizens to conduct bingo games under certain circumstances. (BDR 41-330)

Chairman Anderson reopened the hearing on S.B. 101. He summarized the introduction given on the bill by Mr. Scherer. Senator Joseph (Joe) M. Neal, Jr., Senate District 4, stated that he had nothing further to add to the testimony, except to show his strong support of the legislation as its primary sponsor. He explained he was approached with the bill by the Gaming Control Board to clarify that senior citizen centers could legally hold bingo games and could limit the participants of the games to those persons 21 years of age and older. He explained that several constituents had contacted him and Senator Valerie Wiener with regard to allowing the senior citizens to hold their bingo games without a gaming license. He opined that the senior citizens should be allowed to have their bingo games without being exploited.

Chairman Anderson informed Senator Neal that the Knights of Columbus held several bingo games in veterans’ facilities. He inquired what effect the bill would have on the charitable games. Senator Neal stated that if it was not illegal before, the practice would not be affected by the bill. It was his understanding that, as a church activity, it would be legal for them to hold their bingo games. Chairman Anderson explained that the issue was explored with Mr. Scherer, who confirmed that S.B. 101 would not affect the Knights of Columbus. The Veteran’s Hospital, itself would also be able to hold the bingo games as long as only the players profited. The Chair also informed the Senator that the earlier discussion involved the need for financial limits of monetary prizes before they obtained approval and licensure by the Gaming Control Board. Senator Neal responded that the intent of the bill was to treat the bingo games for senior citizens solely as a recreational activity.

Vice Chair Manendo inquired if the bill would also apply to manufactured home communities with clubhouses. Senator Neal stated that if the clubhouse was an area where senior citizens met frequently, then it would qualify under S.B. 101. Mr. Manendo pointed out that the persons to whom he referred were not primarily senior citizens congregating at a mobile home park clubhouse; however, he stated they regularly held bingo games in the clubhouse early in the evening and then went to play bingo at local gaming establishments. Senator Neal concluded that the clubhouse described would not qualify as a senior citizen center and therefore would not be covered by S.B. 101. He also noted that if the persons were under the age of 21 years, they would not be allowed to play unless the game was strictly recreational.

Mr. Manendo expressed his concern that the persons in mobile home parks would not be able to continue holding their weekly bingo games in their clubhouses. He wanted to ensure that they would not be adversely affected by being specifically excluded from the bill. Senator Neal stated that the purpose of the bill was to prevent the arrest of large groups of senior citizens for playing bingo.

Chairman Anderson recalled Mr. Scott Scherer, Member, State Gaming Control Board, to reassure Mr. Manendo that the mobile home parks in his district could still hold their weekly bingo games. Mr. Scherer stated that the Gaming Control Board had no intention to arrest senior citizens for conducting bingo games, which was why they requested the legislation. He clarified that he could not effectively reassure Mr. Manendo without knowing all of the details. He stated that if an organization conducting a bingo game for money was not a qualified charitable organization, it would be required to have a gaming license. Failure to obtain a gaming license would be a criminal act. He stated that the Board did not typically seek out such illegal bingo games, but had received calls from citizens attempting to follow the rules to have a bingo game for money. He pointed out that S.B. 101 did not specify what age a person would have to be to qualify as a senior citizen. He stated that the age specification was purposely avoided in the bill to permit flexibility for interpretation and was the reason the limitation was included to allow only persons 21 years of age and older to participate in the games.

Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on S.B. 101. He indicated that it would remain in committee while further issues were explored. Chairman Anderson called for any additional business to be brought before the committee. There being none, he opened the work session and requested Mr. Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, to explain the work session document (Exhibit C). Mr. Anthony indicated there were six bills contained in the work session document. He began by stating that the first two bills were assigned together to a subcommittee chaired by Assemblyman Oceguera that met on Friday, May 4, 2001.

Senate Bill 33: Revises various provisions governing probate. (BDR 12-853)

Senate Bill 49: Adopts Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (BDR 59-258)

Mr. Anthony referred the committee to the subcommittee report along with the proposed amendments to S.B. 33 and S.B. 49. Chairman Anderson then recommended that the Chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Oceguera, explain the subcommittee report. Mr. Oceguera summarized that S.B. 33 revised various provisions governing probate. He explained that Mr. Michael Alonso, who represented Mr. Matthew E. Woodhead, had presented a proposed amendment to allow electronic signatures for wills and trusts. He stated there was some opposition, but, after lengthy discussion, it was determined by the subcommittee that the proposed amendment would be a step forward to bring Nevada into the technology age. He mentioned that Ms. Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel, was going to work with Mr. Alonso on the preparation of the proposed amendment.

Mr. Oceguera stated that S.B. 49 was designed to adopt the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). He explained Assemblywoman Buckley had expressed concerns that the bill should include consumer protections. In an effort to address that concern, the subcommittee accepted language provided by Ms. Lang and Mr. Frank W. Daykin, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), former Legislative Counsel, Legislative Counsel Bureau, that incorporated portions of the federal Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) with consumer protections.

Mr. Oceguera added that after the subcommittee meeting, he discovered a letter from Mr. John Paul Deley, Nevada State Library and Archives, who had requested the committee accept the proposed amendments from the Nevada Electronic Records Committee (NERC) that were submitted during the original hearing of the bill on May 1, 2001. Those amendments would provide definitions that the State Library and Archives Administrator established for procedures and guidelines for the use, retention, and disposition of electronic transactions and records, which would have to be established by January 1, 2003. Mr. Oceguera stated that there was some concern about the specific language of the proposed amendment, but Ms. Lang indicated the language could be streamlined and presented to the full committee for review.

Chairman Anderson inquired if the proposed amendment from the NERC would stop state agencies that were already prepared to accept electronic transactions from doing so. Ms. Lang clarified that it was the intent of the proposed amendment to not have any electronic transactions permitted by the state until it could be determined the manner in which the electronic records would be used, stored, and maintained. She stated that it would not allow the state to participate in electronic transactions until the procedures would be set in place. Chairman Anderson indicated there were already some state agencies accepting electronic transactions. He stated the Governor had already requested the state agencies to setup Web sites to perform electronic transactions in an effort to reduce paperwork. He inquired if it would prevent such actions from happening. Ms. Lang explained she was not knowledgeable of what the state agencies were doing, but Mr. Deley had assured her that no state agencies were yet accepting such electronic transactions. She noted there were forms available online to download and to complete. She reiterated she was not aware of whether there were electronic transactions occurring on any of the state agencies Web sites.

Mr. Oceguera stated that it was the intent of the subcommittee to prevent such a delay in permitting electronic transactions. He explained he had interpreted the proposed amendment from the NERC to be a definition of how the electronic transactions would occur. He asserted he would not be in favor of delaying the ability of the state agencies to participate in electronic transactions and stated that it was the intent of the subcommittee to prevent such delays. He clarified the proposed amendment accepted by the subcommittee was one that defined steps of recording electronic transactions. It was the one that was recommended by Assemblywoman Buckley and Mr. Daykin that incorporated provisions from the ESIGN.

Chairman Anderson requested Ms. Lang to guide the committee through the proposed amendments to S.B. 33 and S.B. 49. Ms. Lang explained the proposed amendment that was submitted by Mr. Daykin removed language from the bill that would make the UETA not applicable to trusts, and it provided consumer protections by incorporating language from the ESIGN. She clarified the proposed amendments from Mr. Daykin were prepared pursuant to a conversation between the Legal Division of the Legislative Counsel Bureau, Mr. Daykin, and a consumer rights advocate group.

Assemblywoman McClain inquired how either of the bills would impact the Department of Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV&PS). She explained the DMV&PS Web site allowed electronic transactions to renew vehicle registrations and licenses. She inquired how the E-signatures would affect the DMV&PS transactions. Ms. Lang explained the bills would apply to both governmental and private agencies. Chairman Anderson clarified both S.B. 33 and S.B. 49 were sweeping legislation that would apply to any transaction that previously required a physical presence and signature to complete. The transaction could then be completed electronically if one had the proper equipment to do so. Ms. Lang explained there was already a federal electronic signature act that governed electronic transactions, and, that by enacting S.B. 49, it would replace the federal act.

Chairman Anderson clarified the proposed amendments to S.B. 49 from Mr. Daykin were necessary to make the bill applicable to all electronic records throughout the state, not just to federal records.

Assemblyman Gustavson inquired what protections would be set to prevent electronic changes to wills and trusts that would be made by persons who were incompetent or under duress. Mr. Oceguera explained that there were no more protections to the changes made electronically than there were for changes made physically. He stated that it was difficult to discern such matters whether the changes were made electronically or physically, and the argument would have to be addressed in court.

Ms. Lang explained that the UETA specifically excluded itself from being applicable to wills and trusts on page 3 of the bill, subsection 2, paragraph A. Chairman Anderson inquired if the proposed amendment to S.B. 49 would allow the UETA to apply to electronic wills and trusts. Ms. Lang clarified the proposed amendment to S.B. 33 dealt with electronic wills and trusts.

Mr. Oceguera inquired where the January 1, 2003 date appeared in the original amendment proposed by Mr. Deley. He did not recall the date being included. Ms. Lang responded the language that was provided in the proposed amendment was not appropriate for definitions. She contacted Mr. Deley directly for an explanation of the intent so that the language could be appropriately drafted. She said Mr. Deley explained that various representatives from state agencies needed to meet with him with regard to setting up the procedures. She added Mr. Deley stated that the date was a deadline of when the procedures needed to be in place, but indicated they would probably be completed sooner.

Chairman Anderson inquired what delays would occur with the bills if the proposed amendments from Mr. Deley and Mr. Guy Rocha were not accepted. He stated his concern that electronic information gathered by state agencies might be destroyed, thus jeopardizing the historical documentation of the state. Ms. Lang explained she had indicated to Mr. Deley that Sections 33 and 34 of S.B. 49 dealt with governmental agencies to set the guidelines for their acceptance and transmittal of electronic records and electronic signatures. She asserted that Mr. Deley wanted to be able to oversee the guidelines and instruct the state agencies on how to accept and transmit electronic records and signatures.

Chairman Anderson inquired if postponing state agencies from allowing electronic transactions until January 1, 2003, would be inappropriate. Ms. Lang responded she could not answer the question, but explained the intent of the proposed amendment was to ensure that the procedures and guidelines for the acceptance and transmittal of electronic records and signatures were uniform throughout the state. Mr. Oceguera added that if the procedures and guidelines were included in the proposed amendment with the definitions, it would be acceptable; however, he stated the deadline date would defeat the purpose of the bill, which was to expedite the authority and ability of the state agencies to utilize electronic transactions. Mr. Carpenter stated that he shared Mr. Oceguera’s opinion. He did not think it was appropriate to delay the state agencies from utilizing electronic transactions.

Assemblywoman McClain stated that different local agencies had varying levels of sophistication and electronic capabilities. She pointed out that there already was a book that contained guidelines for records retention. She opined that it would not have to be drastically changed to incorporate electronic records, because they would just be retained via electronic media under the same guidelines as other records. She added her agreement with Mr. Oceguera and Mr. Carpenter, that the inclusion of the delayed date of January 1, 2003, would halt progress for the state agencies, and she did not feel that it was appropriate.

Chairman Anderson recognized that many historic records had been lost due to various public agencies putting them up for public auction. He did not want the demand for technology to be detrimental to the state’s ability to maintain the proper records; however, he expressed the same concern as the other committee members, specifically that the state be able to move into the technology age and be allowed to utilize electronic transactions.

Chairman Anderson called for any discussion from Mr. Daykin about the proposed amendment to S.B. 49. He then called for discussion on the proposed amendments to S.B. 33.

Ms. Lang explained that the proposed amendments to S.B. 33 incorporated provisions from the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act and holographic wills and applied them so that people could create electronic trusts and wills. She explained the language would have to be adjusted to meet drafting standards. She added that electronic wills would have to go through the same investigations and signature verification as applied to holographic wills. She stated that the language would have to be made more specific.

Chairman Anderson inquired if Assemblyman Brower had any comments on the bills and their proposed amendments. Mr. Brower responded that he felt the issues of the bills were well addressed by the subcommittee. He noted that, although his practice as an attorney was not actively in the areas of law addressed by the bills, he would abstain from voting on S.B. 33 and S.B. 49.

Chairman Anderson called for an amend and do pass motion on S.B. 33. He also called for an amend and do pass motion for S.B. 49 with only the first amendment.

Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if the language on the last page of the proposed amendment to S.B. 33, Section 8, was the alternative proposal or inclusive. She pointed out that there was not an “or” between the paragraphs. Mr. Michael Alonso, who represented Jones Vargas, responded that the language was contained in the alternative, and either of the subsections would accomplish the intent of Section 8. Chairman Anderson inquired if there was any further information that members of the subcommittee wished to submit on S.B. 33 and S.B. 49.

assemblyman oceguera moved to amend and do pass s.b. 33.

assemblywoman angle seconded the motion.

Chairman Anderson called for any questions or discussion on the bills. Mr. Brower stated that he would abstain from voting on both S.B. 33 and S.B. 49. Chairman Anderson recognized the disclosure to apply to both pieces of legislation. He called for a vote on the motion.

the motion passed. assemblyman brower abstained from the vote.

Chairman Anderson assured the committee it would have the opportunity to review the final language of the proposed amendment to S.B. 33 before it would be presented on the Assembly floor.

assemblyman oceguera moved to amend and do pass s.b. 49 with the proposed amendments from assemblywoman buckley and mr. frank daykin.

assemblywoman angle seconded the motion.

Chairman Anderson indicated to the committee that upon clarification from the state archives, there might be an additional motion on S.B. 49. He clarified that the motion would only include the amendment to the bill proposed by Ms. Buckley and Mr. Daykin.

Ms. Ohrenschall disclosed that she was a member of the Nevada State Bar, and neither bill would affect her any differently than it did other attorneys or any person who had a will or made electronic transactions. As such, she would still vote on the bills. The Chair called for a vote on the motion.

the motion passed. assemblyman brower abstained from the vote.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Mrs. Angle to present on the Assembly floor and assigned the amendments to Mr. Manendo.

Senate Bill 51: Makes various changes pertaining to business associations. (BDR 7-255)

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, summarized testimony the committee heard on S.B. 51 on May 9, 2001. He stated that Ms. Renee L. Lacey, Chief Deputy Secretary of State, and Mr. Fowler, an attorney, had spoken in support of the bill. He explained there was no opposition to the bill, and there was only one minor amendment offered by the Secretary of State’s office.

Chairman Anderson inquired if Assemblyman Brower and/or Assemblyman Gustavson wished to place a motion on the bill. He recalled that Mr. Gustavson had been active in the discussion with regard to the proposed amendment that would correct the fees in certain sections of the bill. Chairman Anderson stated the bill appeared to add new fees that the Governor would need to take into consideration. After calling for questions or discussion of the bill, he called for a motion to amend and do pass S.B. 51. He clarified that the Nevada State Bar Association was not affiliated with the bill.

assemblywoman angle moved to amend and do pass s.b. 51.

assemblyman gustavson seconded the motion.

the motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Gustavson to present on the Assembly floor. Mr. Gustavson indicated the bill contained an increase in fees with which he agreed. He pointed out that it added fees for new services, but those fees were consistent with fees that were already in place, and the increase from $15 to $20 was reasonable.

Senate Bill 179: Revises provisions governing admissibility in criminal proceeding of certain statements made by child. (BDR 4-472)

Mr. Anthony summarized the highlights of the two hearings on S.B. 179. He explained there was concern the bill would interfere with a similar Assembly bill that had already been passed by the committee. He also noted that Mr. Graham submitted an excerpt from a Nevada Supreme Court case, Felix vs. Nevada, wherein the Nevada Supreme Court referenced a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the case Idaho vs. Wright, which listed some of the factors that were added to the bill. He stated that bill drafting had highlighted the specific portions of the excerpt that were added to the bill.

Chairman Anderson stated the committee had compared S.B. 179 with A.B. 396 that had already been passed by the committee, and he voiced concerns that the bills would provide the State Bar with material to challenge. He clarified they were assured that would not be the case; however, the committee reluctantly moved forward with the bills, at which time specific information from the Felix case was requested. The Chair recognized that persons who would be involved with cases utilizing S.B. 179 would already be familiar with the Felix case and would not need to reference S.B. 179. He observed that the bill would not be as controversial as was previously thought by the committee.

assemblyman carpenter moved to do pass s.b. 179.

assemblyman nolan seconded the motion.

the motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Nolan to present on the Assembly floor.

Senate Bill 474: Revises provisions of Uniform Commercial Code governing secured transactions. (BDR 8-453)

Mr. Anthony summarized the highlights of the earlier hearing on S.B. 474 and noted that Mr. Daykin, Mr. Rabkin, and Mr. Wehking testified in support of the bill. He added there had been no opposition, and there were no proposed amendments to the bill.

Chairman Anderson called for any discussion with regard to the bill. He noted that he had originally been concerned about the bill permitting contracts of adhesion that removed certain rights; however, his concerns were unfounded.

assemblyman carpenter moved to do pass s.b. 474.

assemblywoman koivisto seconded the motion.

the motion passed unanimously.

Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Mr. Carpenter to present on the Assembly floor.

Senate Bill 482: Establishes prohibited and required conduct of person who uses skateboard park. (BDR 40-415)

Mr. Anthony summarized the earlier hearing on S.B. 482 and noted there had been several witnesses that testified in support, including representatives from parks and recreational entities. He noted that Mr. Bill Bradley, of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), had expressed opposition to the bill. Mr. Bradley had submitted a proposed amendment to delete Section 16 of the bill and all references therein, with regard to liability.

Chairman Anderson inquired if the language in the bill compared to the language found in similar statutes with regard to swimming pools and other recreational facilities. Mr. Anthony responded that the language was not commonly found in similar statutes.

Assemblyman Claborn inquired if the bill limited the liability to the skateboarders or to the park itself. He illustrated his question with an example of a person who was walking through the skateboard park, not utilizing it as a skateboard park, and tripped and broke his leg. He inquired if the skateboard park would be liable or if the innocent bystander, who was doing something other than skating, would be liable in that situation. Chairman Anderson inquired if Mr. Claborn’s question was in reference to the bill with Section 16 or without it. Mr. Claborn responded that his question was for either form of the bill. Assemblyman Brower explained that S.B. 482 with Section 16 would place the liability on the owner of the skateboard park, whose liability would be eliminated by the bill. He stated that without Section 16, as was agreed by all parties, the liability of the park would not be affected. As such, an injured skateboarder would be able to sue the county or the owner of the park and go to court, unaffected by the bill.

Chairman Anderson inquired who would be liable if a person unwittingly followed the steps into a skateboard corral and was injured. Mr. Brower quoted the bill, “injury of person arising from use of the skateboard park if the person who sustained injury was voluntarily using the skateboard park when the injury occurred and knew or should have known that using the park created a substantial risk of injury.” He stated that even with Section 16 in S.B. 482, the limitation of liability would not be applicable to a passerby who was not utilizing the skateboard park. Ms. Lang, Committee Counsel, stated that without Section 16 in the bill, the liability would be unaffected by the bill. She noted that the liability would be determined based upon the demonstration of negligence involved or some other act. In addition, as a governmental entity, it would have limited liability under NRS Chapter 41, which capped the amount at $50,000, regardless of any alleged negligence.

Assemblywoman McClain pointed out that Section 16 of S.B. 482 contained two separate liability issues. She explained the first part of Section 16 could probably be removed without any difficulties due to the already limited liability of government entities; however, she was weary of removing the second part of Section 16 of the bill. She did not want to have the government entity be liable for design issues of the skateboard park. Chairman Anderson reiterated that parties in support of the bill and in opposition to the bill agreed to remove Section 16 in its entirety. Ms. McClain withdrew her objection to the removal of the second part of Section 16 of the bill. Assemblyman Nolan explained he had similar concerns as Ms. McClain.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall inquired who would be liable if a skateboarder lost control and injured the parent of a child using the skateboard park, but the parent himself was not using the park. Ms. Lang clarified that Section 16 of the bill would only apply to the skateboard park and not to any other person that happened to be there. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if the park would have any liability. Ms. Ohrenschall stated that, through her interpretation, the parent could be construed as using the park, because they were walking in the park and a reasonable person would know that there would be a chance of somebody losing control of his skateboard. Chairman Anderson responded that in the situation described, the issue would be resolved in court. The parent could file a tort action against the skateboarder who lost control of his skateboard; however, the government entity would not be at any greater risk than it was for having an attractive nuisance. He disclosed that his summation was his interpretation, and it might not be accurate.

Mr. Brower offered to share his expertise in the particular area of the law. He explained that without Section 16 in S.B. 482, it would allow lawsuits to move forward. He explained that, with Section 16 in the bill, the concern was the county would not be liable at all, which would deviate from the general statutory scheme. With the removal of Section 16 in the bill, a person could sue the owner of the park, and the person would have to prove that the owner of the park was negligent. He compared S.B. 482, without Section 16, to the skier’s statutes, which all interested parties opined would be appropriate.

Vice Chair Manendo inquired if the NTLA and the counties had attempted to work out the differences of opinion with regard to Section 8 of the bill, language which prohibited persons with limited skills from utilizing the skateboard park. He expressed his concern with the language of Section 8 and noted that no persons from the counties had spoken with him in regard to the bill. He stated that without modification and clarification of the language of that section, he would not be able to vote in favor of the bill.

Chairman Anderson recognized Mr. Michael Alonso, who represented Mr. Matthew E. Woodhead. Mr. Alonso indicated there were some problems with the proposed amendments to S.B. 49. Chairman Anderson indicated the measure was already passed; however, his concerns would be heard after the hearing on S.B. 482 was completed.

Chairman Anderson indicated the only information he had received from the NTLA and the counties was that they would all be comfortable with the removal of Section 16 of S.B. 482. He stated that a large portion of the concerns expressed by Mr. Bill Bradley and the NTLA related to a person with limited skateboard skills who would not always recognize that they had limited skills.

Assemblyman Carpenter echoed the concerns of Mr. Manendo with regard to Section 8 of the bill. He did not believe it would be fair to prevent beginning skateboarders from utilizing the park. He stated that they had to be able to learn to become skilled skateboarders. Chairman Anderson called upon Mr. John Slaughter, who represented Washoe County, to testify with regard to the bill. Mr. Slaughter explained that Section 8, subsection 1 of the bill, was similar to the statutes that governed skiers and ski parks. He stated that as a beginning skier, a person should know that they were not to go on the black diamond runs. Just as a beginning skier, a novice skateboarder should know that he was not capable of going on the steep slopes of the skateboard park before he mastered the shorter skateboard slopes.

Assemblyman Claborn inquired who would be liable for injuries to spectators at the skateboard park or to persons who simply passed through the skateboard park. Mr. Slaughter stated that the removal of Section 16 from the bill would allow victims in such instances to bring legal action against the owner of the park in court. Chairman Anderson clarified that the scenarios brought forth would be unaffected statutorily by S.B. 482. He summarized that even if Section 16 was kept in the bill, it would not affect the liability of the individuals involved in the scenarios provided.

Assemblywoman Ohrenschall inquired if the skateboard park was operated in a manner similar to vacant tennis courts or if expert staff would be present to oversee the usage of the skateboard parks. Mr. Slaughter explained that the parks would not be staffed. He stated it was the testimony of the users of the skateboard parks to have the parks unsupervised. Ms. Ohrenschall inquired if the owner of the skateboard park would be liable for an injury inflicted on a skateboarder as a result of another skateboarder’s lack of skill or if it would be an open question for the court. Mr. Slaughter responded that it would be an open question for the courts to decide.

Chairman Anderson stated that according to the testimony from the original hearing on S.B. 482, even though the parks and recreational entities might run instructional programs relative to skateboarding, they did not anticipate having credentialed expert skateboarders on-site.

Mr. Brower clarified that S.B. 482 would simply impose certain duties upon the users of the skateboard park. If a user of the skateboard park did not follow the duties and responsibilities set forth in the bill, he probably would not win his lawsuit. He stated that the bill provided the county with issues that could be raised in his defense, but did not preclude the lawsuit from being brought forth by a skateboard park user or passerby. He stated that S.B. 482 was very similar if not identical, to the skier’s statute.

Assemblyman Nolan pointed out the purpose for the construction of the skateboard parks was to give the skateboarders an alternative place to skateboard, rather than skateboarding on the grounds of public buildings where numerous injuries were occurring to both the skateboarders and innocent passersby. He stated the intent was to shift the exposure and liability to a more controlled and safer environment.

Assemblywoman Koivisto reiterated Mr. Nolan’s comments. She pointed out that the skateboarders were going to continue to skateboard whether there were skateboard parks or not, and, if the legislators made it more difficult for the parks to be built, the skateboarders would go back to skating wherever they could. She felt the focus was being shifted away from the need for the young people to have a place to ride their skateboards.

Mr. Manendo agreed that people needed a place to use their skateboards as well as a place to learn how to ride their skateboards. He quoted part of Section 8 of the bill that stated, “A person shall not use any facility of a skateboard park if he knows that he has insufficient knowledge, skill, or physical ability.” He stated he would be excluded, even if he wanted to try to learn how to skateboard. He agreed that there was a need for the skateboard parks; however, he did not believe that it was right to exclude persons from using the parks just because they were not already skilled. He also inquired how Section 8 of the bill would be enforced.

Chairman Anderson summarized that the removal of Section 8 of S.B. 482, subsection 1, lines 5 through 6, would limit the ability of the owner or operator of a skateboard park to inform somebody that he did not have the skill level to utilize the facility. He referred to an attaché who frequently skated throughout the outside grounds of the legislative building and, when asked why he skated there, the attaché responded, “Because it’s pretty.” He pointed out that even though skateboard parks gave skateboarders a place to skate, it would not eliminate all skating on public grounds. He stated that the intent of that particular section of the bill was to give the counties that operated the skateboard parks the statutory authority to tell unskilled skaters that they did not have the right to use the parks. That was analogous to instructing kids who could not swim to not use the deep areas of the pool.

Mr. Claborn stated that he had no intention of shutting down the skateboard parks, and he acknowledged the need for such facilities. He asserted that his only concern was the liability. He did not want to remove the liability of the owner of the park, which would usually be the county or other municipal entity.

Mr. Nolan commented that his son used the skateboard parks, and he had observed users of the park of varying levels of skill. He stated that it was self-determination of whether people had the proper level of skill to use the parks or not. He pointed out that it would not become an issue unless the person was injured.

Mr. Brower stated that the purpose of the legislation was not to set enforcement standards, but rather to set a standard by which a county could defend a lawsuit. He stated the intent of Section 8 of the bill, subsection 1, was for the event that a person became injured due to his lack of skill and carelessness and then sued the county. He summarized that the bill gave the county a set of standards by which skateboarders should abide, and it provided the county with a line of defense in court if those standards were not followed.

Mrs. Angle agreed with Mr. Brower’s statement that the bill was just a way for the county to protect itself and provide the skateboard parks for the youth to utilize. She stated her strong support of S.B. 482.

Mr. Carpenter inquired if the counties could pass their own ordinances to regulate the skateboard parks. He opined counties should be able to regulate the parks themselves rather than imposing statewide regulations for the benefit of just a few areas. Ms. Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County, stated the county had the ability to set an ordinance, but not to set a separate standard, because that would make it challengeable in court. She pointed out there were ordinances for ski hills, and the bill would set a statewide standard for what was expected from the users of the skateboard parks. She stated the county and city ordinances were required to be in accordance with state laws. She described skateboarding as an inherently risky sport and one that should be treated similarly to skiing in the statutes. Mr. Carpenter responded that perhaps the bill could give the authority to the counties to regulate the parks rather than to set a statewide law to regulate them. He pointed out that each skateboard park would identify its own special needs. He wanted the counties to be able to regulate the parks themselves so that the laws would be tailored to the local need rather than just one blanket law to govern all of the skateboard parks.
Ms. Shipman stated they had been given the impression that the state did not want to give the counties more authority. She indicated that she did not object to the approach to give the counties the authority to set the standards and regulations for the skateboard parks, but she did not want the bill to die if that approach could not be agreed upon.

Mr. Manendo pointed out that there was no testimony that suggested skateboard parks would not continue to be built if S.B. 482 was not passed. He stated his concern that the bill would restrict persons from use of the skateboard parks. He acknowledged there were the occasional law enforcement officers that would attempt to enforce Section 8 of the bill, subsection 1, to not allow kids to use the parks or to harass others that were just observing, because they did not have the “proper skills” to use the park. He stated that the bill would give the court too much authority to decide who could or could not utilize the parks based upon the determinations of skill-level.

Chairman Anderson called for an amend and do pass motion on S.B. 482 with the removal Section 16.

assemblywoman koivisto motioned to amend and do pass s.b. 482 with the removal of section 16 of the bill.

assemblywoman angle seconded the motion.

Ms. Ohrenschall stated that she had the same opinion as Mr. Manendo, and she was weary of issuing the courts full jurisdiction with regard to the determinations of skateboarder skill levels. She did not believe the courts should have so much power in advance. She stated the skateboard parks would continue to be built and used, and a vote against the bill would not put a stop to that progress. She informed the committee that she would be voting in opposition to the bill.

Mr. Claborn disclosed that he would abstain from the vote. Chairman Anderson requested that a roll call vote be taken.

the motion passed. assemblyman manendo, assemblyman carpenter, and assemblywoman ohrenschall voted against the measure. Assemblyman claborn abstained from the vote.

Chairman Anderson announced that he would present the bill on the Assembly floor.

Senate Bill 49: Adopts Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. (BDR 59-258)

Chairman Anderson recalled Mr. Michael Alonso, who represented Mr. Matthew E. Woodhead, to testify with regard to S.B. 49. Mr. Alonso stated that part of the proposed amendments from Mr. Daykin should have included the removal of Section 2, subsection C, of S.B. 49. It regarded the application of inter vivos trusts and the Uniform Transfers To Minors Act. He recalled that the subcommittee had approved the removal of that section as part of Mr. Daykin’s proposed amendments, but stated that he did not see that removal included in the proposed amendment as it appeared in the work session document (Exhibit C).

Chairman Anderson inquired if the referenced passage appeared in the original form of the bill. Mr. Alonso stated that it was, and he called the committee’s attention to Section 2 of S.B. 49, subsection C, which included references to NRS Chapters 162 through 167 inclusively. He stated that Mr. Daykin had acknowledged he did not intend for inter vivos trusts and the Uniform Transfers To Minors Act to be included in the bill.

Chairman Anderson referred Mr. Alonso to the first page of the subcommittee report, where it stated Mr. Daykin suggested that “line 8 on page 3 of the bill be deleted.” Mr. Alonso apologized for his oversight.

Chairman Anderson called for any additional information to be brought before the committee. Discussion ensued with regard to upcoming legislation and the tentative schedule for the committee. There being no further discussion, Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Sandra Albrecht-Johnson

Committee Secretary

APPROVED BY:

Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman

DATE: