MINUTES OF THE meeting
of the
ASSEMBLY Committee on Judiciary
Seventy-First Session
April 16, 2001
The Committee on Judiciarywas called to order at 8:50 a.m. on Monday, April 16, 2001. Chairman Bernie Anderson presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, 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
Ms. Barbara Buckley
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:
Mr. Tom Collins (excused)
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, District 27
Assemblywoman Merle Berman, District 2
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Deborah Rengler, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division
Kevin Higgins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Fraud Control Unit for Industrial Insurance, Reno office and Las Vegas office
Michael McCormick, District Attorney, Douglas County, former Executive Director of the Advisory Council for Prosecuting Attorneys
Myra Sheehan, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), Reno
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association (NDAA), Las Vegas
Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification & Planning, Nevada Department of Prisons, Carson City
John Morrow, Chief Deputy, Washoe County Public Defender, Reno
Madelyn Shipman, Assistant District Attorney, Civil Division, Washoe County District Attorney, Reno
Jack Jeffrey, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company, Carson City
Victoria Riley, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), Carson City
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director-Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Carson City
Dennis Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, Carson City
Stan Olsen, Lieutenant, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NSCA), Las Vegas
Jim Nadeau, Captain, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff, Reno
Harvey Whittemore, Attorney, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), Reno
Robert Faiss, Attorney, MGM Mirage, Las Vegas
Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board, Carson City
Sam McMullen, President, McMullen Strategic Group, representing the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers, Reno
John Sande, Attorney, International Game Technology (IGT), Reno
Pat Cashill, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), Reno
David Watts-Vial, Washoe County District Attorney, Reno
Chairman Anderson made opening remarks and noted a quorum was present.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 548.
Assembly Bill 548: Revises provisions governing agencies eligible to receive distribution of proceeds of administrative assessments. (BDR 14-1438)
Don Hataway, Deputy Director, Budget Division, said there was one amendment on page 4, line 1, adding the Advisory Council for Prosecuting Attorneys as one of the eligible agencies to receive district court assessment allocations under the statute. The Advisory Council was established during the 69th Session, operating on gifts and grants with a one-time appropriation from the 70th Session. With the enactment of A.B. 548 a permanent funding source would be created for the program. The purpose of the Advisory Council was to provide training to city, county and state prosecuting attorneys operating in the court system. Currently the courts were receiving 51 percent of the court assessments, the Executive branch was receiving 49 percent. For the 2002-2003 biennium the total estimated revenue would be $13.2 million and $14.2 million. The largest recipient of funds from The Executive Budget would be the Criminal History Repository and the Department of Motor Vehicles and Public Safety with $4.2 million; other recipients included the Victims of Crime Program with $1.3 million, the Post Organization with $1 million, and the Prosecuting Attorneys Council with $100,000 a year.
Kevin Higgins, Chief Deputy Attorney General, felt it was appropriate that the education and training program was paid for out of court assessments. Defendants paid the assessments as the result of criminal convictions.
Michael McCormick, District Attorney, Douglas County, former Executive Director of the Advisory Council for Prosecuting Attorneys, believed it was one of the most successful state programs around.
Chairman Anderson related he had chaired an interim study between the 69th and 70th Sessions relative to administrative assessments by the courts. One of the major concerns was that assessments were not collected at the same rate as in the past. Mr. Hataway reported history showed a steady growth. The Supreme Court had put estimates together projecting a 7 percent growth in revenue that corresponded to what had been experienced in recent years.
Chairman Anderson asked if there were any questions from the committee and he also asked for further testimony. There being none, Chairman Anderson closed the hearing on A.B. 548. Chairman Anderson entertained a motion of do pass.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 548.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS AND MR. OCEGUERA ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Claborn to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson turned his attention to the work session document, a four-volume set and its summary (Exhibit C).
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 37 summary from the work session document, volume 2 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 37: Increases maximum monthly amount that parent may be required to pay for support of child. (BDR 11-1051)
Risa Lang, Committee Counsel, said the amendment would increase the monthly amount of child support a court could order from $500 to $550 per month per child if the parent had a gross annual income less than $150,000 per year; and it increased child support from $500 to $785 per month per child for parents whose gross annual income was $150,000 or more per year. The increases would become effective on October 1, 2001. There would also be an automatic annual increase in the maximum authorized amount of child support corresponding with any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The court would order a parent to pay the maximum authorized amount of child support without specifying a dollar amount, referring to the statutory maximum amount; the amount of child support would automatically increase each year instead of requiring the person to go back to court to have the child support adjusted each year.
Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned about increasing the child support for those with low incomes. Chairman Anderson agreed but asked how long it had been since the child support amounts had been raised.
Assemblywoman Buckley noted the obligation for support of one child was defined in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 125B.070 as 18 percent of the parent’s gross income, but not more than $500 per month. Would the amendment change the percentage or just the cap? Chairman Anderson said the amendment would change just the cap. Assemblywoman Buckley said the amendment would really affect those with incomes in the range of $33,000 to $150,000 per year.
Myra Sheehan, President, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, agreed the amendment did not change the percentage. It affected those with incomes between $33,300 and $37,000 per year, and of course, those over $150,000 per year.
Assemblyman Manendo reiterated that by including the automatic increase, there would be no need to come back to the legislature every session. Ms. Sheehan replied that was the intent, although there was a statutory requirement that the statute be reviewed every four years.
Chairman Anderson said this was a subtle approach that would reduce the workload for the court system. Ms. Lang agreed with the CPI increase; there would be no need to discuss the issue again.
Assemblyman Carpenter recommended a higher sliding scale:
|
PARENT’S GROSS INCOME |
CHILD SUPPORT AMOUNT PER CHILD/PER MONTH |
|
Up to $74,000 |
$500 + CPI |
|
$74,001 to $100,000 |
$550 + CPI |
|
$100,001 to $125,000 |
$600 + CPI |
|
$125,001 to $150,000 |
$650 + CPI |
|
$150,001 to $175,000 |
$750 + CPI |
|
$175,001 and over |
$800 + CPI |
Assemblyman Manendo clarified for a person who made $50,000 a year, $500 was only one-eighth of their monthly income. It would seem like that person could afford more than one-eighth of their income for their child.
Assemblyman Carpenter did not disagree but he was concerned about the second family.
Assemblyman Oceguera said he had received calls from his constituents regarding the child support issue. He agreed with the existing amendment but would like to see the cap remain at $500 for the second, third or fourth child. Ms. Sheehan explained for a person to cap out at the $500 maximum per child for four children, they would need to be making $77,500 before the statute would affect them.
Assemblywoman Buckley commented child support was always a tough issue because the relative income of the spouse and the second family was not considered. Assemblywoman Buckley believed some sort of increase was necessary especially where an impoverished spouse had the children. Assemblywoman Buckley agreed with Assemblyman Carpenter’s step approach.
Chairman Anderson also agreed with Assemblyman Carpenter’s approach but felt allowing those earning $74,000 to pay only $500 was too low. Chairman Anderson believed the income level should start at $50,000.
|
PARENT’S GROSS INCOME |
CHILD SUPPORT AMOUNT PER CHILD/PER MONTH |
|
Up to $50,000 |
$500 + CPI |
|
$50,001 to $74,000 |
$550 + CPI |
|
$74,001 to $100,000 |
$600 + CPI |
|
$100,001 to $125,000 |
$650 + CPI |
|
$125,001 to $150,000 |
$700 + CPI |
|
$150,001 to $175,000 |
$750 + CPI |
|
$175,001 and over |
$800 + CPI |
Assemblyman Brower pointed out that unlike a revenue-raising scheme where those best able to pay paid the most and those that were least able to pay were left alone, those most affected would be those with incomes between $33,000 to $37,000 per year.
Ms. Sheehan stated 13 years ago the legislature put into place the 18 percent in their wisdom saying that was what it took to raise a child - and then it was capped. If the 18 percent were followed today, someone earning $82,000 would pay $1,232 a month. She felt the legislature needed to look back at the wisdom of what had been done, understand what and why it was done 13 years ago, and “not be afraid to raise it today to give our children a cost of living raise.”
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 37 WITH THE FOLLOWING STEP APPROACH:
|
PARENT’S GROSS INCOME |
CHILD SUPPORT AMOUNT PER CHILD/PER MONTH |
|
Up to $50,000 |
$500 + CPI |
|
$50,001 to $75,000 |
$550 + CPI |
|
$75,001 to $100,000 |
$600 + CPI |
|
$100,001 to $125,000 |
$650 + CPI |
|
$125,001 to $150,000 |
$700 + CPI |
|
$150,001 to $175,000 |
$750 + CPI |
|
$175,001 and over |
$800 + CPI |
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Ohrenschall to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst, read the A.B. 125 summary from the work session document, volume 2 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 125: Prohibits business from employing, allowing or using person less than 21 years of age to distribute promotional materials that include offer for alcoholic beverages. (BDR 15-131)
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Manendo if he had seen the amendments. Assemblyman Manendo said he had seen the amendments and believed it was a good first step.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if the amendment included changing the age on line 9? Chairman Anderson said yes.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 125 WITH THE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE AGE TO 18.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN McCLAIN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MS. BUCKLEY VOTING NO AND
MR. COLLINS ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Manendo to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 306 summary from the work session document, volume 2 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 306: Revises provisions concerning interception and disclosure of wire, radio or oral communications. (BDR 15-1303)
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, reported the amendment had been carefully reviewed by the law enforcement community, but did not believe the amendment preserved what would be necessary for effective law enforcement work. Mr. Graham was willing to work on the bill over the next interim, if the committee chose not to go ahead with the bill. There was not an agreement on the language.
Chairman Anderson had been informed by Assemblywoman Giunchigliani that a compromise had been reached. Mr. Graham said a compromise had been reached but it only satisfied the press association.
Chairman Anderson said he would hold the bill for discussion during work session, volume 4.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 330 summary from the work session document, volume 2 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 330: Makes various changes concerning prisons and offenders. (BDR 16-662)
Assemblyman Nolan reported opposition to random drug testing of prison employees. Consequently, an amendment was prepared to remove Sections 3, 10 and 11 of the bill, which took out all the provisions on random drug testing of prison employees. Assemblyman Nolan also spoke with the Attorney General’s Office regarding the assignment of private attorneys and was convinced that provision would not be needed, so that section was deleted. That left the appropriation for drug sensing equipment for each of the prisons and the provision for tightening the assessment of visitors and employees.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked what was in A.B. 330 that was not in current law? If it was not in current law, were the prisons already doing it? Assemblyman Nolan understood that it was a matter of practice, but it was not in the current law.
Chairman Anderson asked Glen Whorton, Chief, Classification & Planning, Nevada Department of Prisons, to approach the witness table. Chairman Anderson said visitors to the prison were screened to ascertain if they were carrying any contraband. If A.B. 330 was to be passed without Sections 3, 10 and 11, how would that affect the operations of screening visitors?
Glen Whorton said each visitor was initially screened based on their application to enter the department as a visitor. When that person entered the facility, the items brought in were searched. Visitors would be searched for cause, if there was reason to believe they were bringing contraband into the institution. A.B. 330 would not substantially change the existing practice. With the ion scanners mentioned in the bill, prison staff would be able to do a better job determining whether an individual was bringing contraband into the department; the scanners would enhance the department’s activities.
Assemblyman Nolan asked if Sections 4 and 5 would make a difference; if it did not change the practice, there may not be a purpose for those two provisions. Mr. Whorton said the major issues that would make a substantial impact on the department were the testing and the scanners. Chairman Anderson stated that since the scanners were included in the appropriations section of the bill, A.B. 330 still needed to go to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if Section 12, where the scanners were mentioned, was an important part of the bill. Assemblyman Nolan replied yes. Assemblywoman Buckley supported Section 12 but was concerned about Section 2 dealing with the treatment of sex offenders.
Mr. Whorton said Section 4 would affect current practices because it dealt with probable cause; it provided an opportunity to search an individual without probable cause based upon the signed consent to enter the institution.
Chairman Anderson reviewed the proposed amendments, what was being kept and what was being deleted.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if the prison staff could restrict access to a person who would not consent to a search? Mr. Whorton said staff could restrict access to anyone coming into the department, if it was believed they were bringing in contraband. With probable cause, anyone could be restricted from entering. If there was no probable cause to base a search upon and a visitor did not want to be searched, there might be some legal difficulty as to whether staff had the authority to carry out the search; but the visitor would not be allowed on the property. Assemblywoman Buckley said if the existing policy was working, she was loath to change that.
Assemblyman Nolan said he believed Section 4 could also be applied to the use of the ion scanners in the parking lots, for visitors and vendors. Mr. Whorton said that was the intended use of the scanners - scanning vehicles, interiors of vehicles, and interiors of delivery vehicles, similar to the use of metal detectors for visitors.
Chairman Anderson again reviewed the proposed amendments.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS AND RE-REFER A.B. 330 LEAVING SECTION 8 AND 12 AND A FURTHER AMENDMENT TO USE ION SCANNERS WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE.
Chairman Anderson verified the amendments to be made to the bill.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Manendo asked what the prison did when drugs were confiscated? Was there any funding available within the prison budgets now to purchase the scanners? Mr. Whorton said the prison did not obtain any economic benefit from confiscated drugs; the drugs were considered evidence and destroyed as evidence in the legally prescribed manner. There was no funding available in the existing budgets for the scanners that would cost $22,000 each.
Assemblyman Nolan pointed out that Section 2, covering the sex offender treatment programs, was simply an effort to make sure sex offenders had treatment before being released from prison. Chairman Anderson asked if Assemblyman Nolan’s comments meant he felt Section 2 should be left in the bill, making additional amendments to A.B. 330. Assemblyman Nolan wished to see Section 2 included in the bill, but would vote for the motion. Chairman Anderson relayed the request to Assemblywoman Buckley to include Section 2 as part of her original motion. Assemblywoman Buckley did not agree to include Section 2 in her motion.
Chairman Anderson repeated the motion for the committee.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. OCEGUERA AND MR. COLLINS ABSENT.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 550 summary from the work session document, volume 2 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 550: Revises provisions governing rights of clients of mental health facilities and procedures for detention and civil commitment of mentally ill persons. (BDR 39-1479)
John Morrow, Washoe County Public Defender, said there were a number of agreements not reflected on the document received from Mr. Cashill.
Madelyn Shipman, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, said there had been a meeting on April 13, 2001, regarding agreements and changes to the document, but those agreements were not reflected on the document from Mr. Cashill.
Chairman Anderson encouraged Ms. Shipman and Mr. Morrow to contact Mr. Cashill to determine what was needed in order for A.B. 550 to go forward. A.B. 550 would be held for work session, volume 3 or 4.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 576 summary from the work session document, volume 2 (Exhibit D).
Assembly Bill 576: Revises provisions concerning stay of execution and appeal of certain judgments. (BDR 2-1153)
Jack Jeffrey, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company, said the amendment did three things: (1) made the legislation tobacco specific; (2) did away with the sliding scale that was objected to by the trial lawyers; and (3) raised the cap from $25 million to $50 million. It was tied to the master settlement agreement.
Chairman Anderson asked for clarification on wording. Ms. Lang said the suggestion was to add some language to the preamble indicating the legislature’s intent to ensure its constitutionality.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 576 WITH AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Buckley verified the Attorney General’s Office had approved the amendment. Mr. Jeffrey had not spoken to the Attorney General directly, but it was his understanding that the Attorney General agreed. Assemblywoman Buckley would support the motion but wanted to check with the Attorney General before the bill got to the floor.
Chairman Anderson understood the trial lawyers had somewhat agreed with the amendment; but they were not entirely comfortable with it.
Victoria Riley, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said the trial lawyers were always opposed to any type of cap. They were also concerned about the precedent of giving that to one industry. However, with the master settlement agreement and the fact that millennium scholarships were triggered by it, the trial lawyers felt they should not oppose the bill vigorously.
Assemblyman Brower’s law firm did represent at least one tobacco company; upon making that disclosure he would vote.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall made a similar disclosure that she was on the board of a corporation that dealt with the distribution of tobacco; she would abstain from voting.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 12-0 WITH MS. OHRENSCHALL ABSTAINING AND MR. COLLINS ABSENT FROM THE VOTE.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Manendo to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Ben Graham as he approached the witness table to complete the discussion on A.B. 306.
Assembly Bill 306: Revises provisions concerning interception and disclosure of wire, radio or oral communications. (BDR 15-1303)
Mr. Graham reported there were no objections to the bill moving in its current fashion with the understanding that work would be completed on the law enforcement exceptions on “the other side of the hill.”
Chairman Anderson understood the Nevada District Attorney’s Association, while still having some concerns about the bill, was willing to allow the bill to proceed with the amendments believing that technical additions could be taken care of in the other house.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO
PASS A.B. 306.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Brower believed if there was a problem, the bill should not go forward; he would vote no.
Assemblyman Carpenter would not support the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION FAILED TO RECEIVE AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF 8. VOTE WAS 7-4 WITH MR. BROWER, MR. CARPENTER, MR. NOLAN AND MR. OCEGUERA VOTING NO, MS. BUCKLEY, MR. COLLINS AND MR. GUSTAVSON ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson said the bill would remain on the board.
Chairman Anderson called a five-minute break.
Chairman Anderson reconvened the meeting and noted a quorum was present.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 27 summary from the work session document, volume 1 (Exhibit E).
Assembly Bill 27: Prohibits person or entity that supervises juvenile ordered to perform work or community service from placing juvenile on highway or other dangerous situation. (BDR 5-671)
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director, Operations Division, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), said the way the bill was currently written it would affect two groups that work on the highway doing litter removal: (1) Adopt-a-Highway Program, where churches and volunteer groups worked four times a year; and (2) Community Service Program with the juveniles through the county. Mr. Edgington explained a NDOT Right-of-Way Grid (Exhibit F) that showed where those two groups would be allowed to work.
Chairman Anderson believed the bill only covered those children ordered by the court. Mr. Edgington understood that, but stated if juveniles were not allowed in certain areas, the NDOT could not allow them with the other programs either. The NDOT currently allowed juveniles 12 to 16 years old in the Adopt-a-Highway Program.
Chairman Anderson did not believe it was the intent to prevent participation in the Adopt-a-Highway Program; the concern was raised as a result of the situation on July 15, 2000, in Judicial District 2, that led to the death of several children. Chairman Anderson read the amendment that included “safety” language. Mr. Edgington said the state employees used vehicles with flashing lights and all traffic control met the national standard.
Chairman Anderson showed the amendments to Speaker Perkins and he felt they would fit.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the bill would affect the honor camps. Chairman Anderson said the proposed amendment dealt with the juvenile programs, but the NDOT would deal with the other programs administratively on their own. Mr. Edgington said the NDOT had new requirements for the honor camp program.
Assemblyman Carpenter had not seen any changes with the honor camps in Elko County. Mr. Edgington said the NDOT was in the process of retrofitting all the Nevada Division of Forestry (NDF) vehicles that transported workers to the highway. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the state was responsible for the Adopt-a-Highway Program vehicles. Mr. Edgington said the NDOT was responsible and those standards would be included in the agreements with the Adopt-a-Highway agencies. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the NDOT would handle the groups that worked on weekends and holidays. Chairman Anderson said if A.B. 27 was enacted mandating the courts did this with the juvenile programs, NDOT would draft their regulations for the Adopt-a-Highway Program to adopt the same standard of safety for anyone participating in the program. Mr. Edgington agreed, most of the Adopt-a-Highway Program groups did not have vehicles with yellow lights on them; the NDOT would supply lights or vehicles for their use and set up traffic control.
Assemblyman Manendo asked what would be the penalties for those who did not follow the new standards. Assemblywoman Buckley replied failure to follow the statute would be negligence and could be introduced into any subsequent court proceeding. Chairman Anderson said the state would also be open to a tort suit up to the level of $50,000 per incident.
Assemblywoman Buckley was concerned about the lack of a speed limit written into the bill. Chairman Anderson said speed limits had not been discussed, but being hit by a car at any speed hurt. Assemblywoman Buckley felt it was different when children worked on the side of a freeway where cars were going 65 miles per hour. She did note that the bill included parental supervision. If guardrails were considered effective, she could support that; but guardrails were not in the bill.
Chairman Anderson and Ms. Lang discussed including “guardrails” or “off roadway” or “highway with low speeds and clear zone” in amendments. This would apply to Highway 50, Highway 95, and Highway 93 in the rural areas. Assemblywoman Buckley did not know how to legally differentiate between those areas; the rural areas would not have guardrails but they would not have the volume and speed of traffic that Interstate 15 did. Chairman Anderson was not willing to limit the provisions of the bill to the one area of Interstate 15; he believed it was a statewide potential problem.
Chairman Anderson put A.B. 27 to the end of the discussion of work session, volume 1; he closed the hearing on A.B. 27.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 448 summary from the work session document, volume 1 (Exhibit E).
Assembly Bill 448: Provides for licensing and operation of railroad gaming and makes appropriation to White Pine County for repair of trains and purchase and renovation of track. (BDR 41-1066)
Dennis Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, had tried to draft an amendment that resolved questions and concerns from the original hearing. Chairman Anderson asked if the amendments had been shown to Assemblyman Carpenter and Assemblywoman de Braga. Mr. Neilander had a discussion with Assemblyman Carpenter and had provided the amendment to Assemblywoman de Braga, but had been unable to speak with her.
Chairman Anderson asked if A.B. 448 was restricted to one historic railroad, or could it be expanded to the potential historic railroad being developed in southern Nevada. Mr. Neilander provided a definition of “historic railroad train” that could capture any historic trains brought up during previous discussions including the V&T and the train in Ely, excluding major commercial transportation facilities that did not have historic value and would not be tourism based. The bill would limit activities to restricted gaming allowing the operation of 15 or fewer slot machines, without the ability to have table games.
Assemblyman Carpenter believed the amendment was acceptable; it would provide a chance to see how it would work. Assemblyman Gustavson asked about the provision for a nonprofit foundation, which the V&T was not. Mr. Neilander said the operator of the train would form a nonprofit foundation.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 448 with amendments as discussed.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 448.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS AND MRS. ANGLE ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson assigned Assemblywoman de Braga to present the bill on the Assembly floor, with Assemblyman Carpenter as backup.
Chairman Anderson said there were problems drafting potential amendments for A.B. 296 and A.B. 578. These bills would be held for discussion later during the work session, volume 1.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 466 summary from the work session document, volume 1 (Exhibit E).
Assembly Bill 466: Provides for issuance of statewide work permits for gaming employees. (BDR 41-244)
Chairman Anderson asked Dennis Neilander, Assemblywoman Leslie, Lieutenant Stan Olsen, Government Liaison, Office of Intergovernmental Services, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, Nevada Sheriffs and Chiefs Association (NSCA), and Captain Jim Nadeau, Detective Division, Legislative Liaison, Washoe County Sheriff, to approach the witness table.
Chairman Anderson reviewed the amendments, said A.B. 466 would eliminate a major problem that had existed in the state for a long time and would put Gaming Control in a better position to regulate people operating in the industry. Mr. Neilander agreed.
Chairman Anderson asked what the effect of the amendment from law enforcement would be. Lieutenant Olsen said the amendment was worded in such a way to accommodate increases in costs from the FBI or the Criminal History Repository (CHR). Ms. Lang said it would be necessary to remove the $75 fixed fee, which would impose a fee without specifying a limit. Lieutenant Olsen clarified it was a service charge, not a fee, for hard costs to run the operation. Ms. Lang said the current language was “a fee for the permit” that included administrative and investigative costs. Assemblywoman Leslie was agreeable to a cap so that it would not be a “runaway cost”; possibly language “limited to the amount of the actual operation of the program.” Lieutenant Olsen said there were hard costs applied by the Las Vegas Metro Police plus the costs from the CHR and the FBI.
Assemblywoman Buckley was uncomfortable not having a hard cap “not to exceed” an amount and wanted to be assured those people paying for the gaming cards were not paying more than was needed. Chairman Anderson clarified the bill would pertain to the actual costs and would not exceed a flat dollar amount. Captain Nadeau said Washoe County and Clark County were currently charging the same amount: $35 administrative costs, $24 FBI investigation and $15 CHR investigation for a total of $74. Assemblywoman Leslie was willing to have a cap of $74 as originally written in the bill. Ms. Lang verified there were no other costs to be taken into consideration.
Assemblyman Gustavson was concerned that other counties did not charge as much as Washoe and Clark Counties, the level of investigative work was not the same, and there were different expiration dates allowed; was a higher burden being placed on people who might not be able to afford it? Chairman Anderson said it was not the intention to increase fees in the other counties, but it was hoped the standard of investigation would improve somewhat. Mr. Neilander agreed the standards were not uniform, A.B. 466 would mandate both the Nevada check and the FBI check.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass with the amendments as discussed.
Ms. Lang said currently the law read that a county might issue a 90-day temporary work permit and asked if the amendment would change it from a discretionary to a mandatory requirement. Lieutenant Olsen said that was to allow time to get the FBI investigation report back before a permanent permit was issued. If negative information came back, which would be a disqualifier under normal circumstances, the temporary permit would automatically expire until the person came back and addressed the issue. The intent was to allow the person to go to work without waiting the 90 days; if negative information came back, both the employer and employee would deal with it. Chairman Anderson asked what was the typical turnaround time for an application. Lieutenant Olsen said it was between 60 and 90 days; the FBI took the most time.
Assemblywoman McClain clarified that the 90-day temporary permit was mandatory. Lieutenant Olsen said the intent was to make it mandatory. Assemblywoman McClain asked what would happen if a known felon applied. Lieutenant Olsen said the applicant would automatically be denied; if there was nothing up front in Nevada records then the person would be given the temporary permit. If a person came in and it was known that the person would be disqualified, the person would be told right away. Chairman Anderson agreed with Assemblywoman McClain that the 90-day work permit “may” be issued. Ms. Lang said language was missing in the amendment and felt the original language included “the board’s discretion.” Assemblywoman Leslie, Mr. Neilander and Lieutenant Olsen agreed. Chairman Anderson clarified the amendment and entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 466.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 466 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked what the problem was that A.B. 466 was trying to solve. Chairman Anderson said in the north, gaming employees frequently had several jobs in a short period of time in Reno, Sparks, at the Lake, and in the county, etcetera; that person would be required to pay numerous application fees. Since most were low-income workers, that became an unreasonable burden. A.B. 466 would mandate a permit good statewide, but at the same time allow the local entities to carry out their function to process the permit initially.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. GUSTAVSON VOTING NO, MR. COLLINS AND MS. BUCKLEY ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Leslie to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 296 summary from the work session document, volume 1 (Exhibit E) and noted a new amendment (Exhibit G) dated April 16, 2001, was distributed for discussion.
Assembly Bill 296: Enacts provisions governing licensing and operation of interactive gaming. (BDR 41-706)
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Berman to approach the witness table. Harvey Whittemore, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), and Robert Faiss, MGM Mirage, were also asked to come to the witness table.
Assemblywoman Berman, District 2, said two amendments came out of the original hearing dealing with small hotels in the state and asked Mr. Whittemore to discuss the amendments. Mr. Whittemore said the April 16, 2001, amendment draft included a new definition of “resort hotel” for counties whose population was between 100,000 and 400,000, and for any other counties.
Mr. Faiss said any debts arising from interactive gaming were valid and would be enforced by legal process (Section 1, subsection 8).
Chairman Anderson clarified that Section 1, subsection 4c(3) required only one of the criteria, not both. Mr. Whittemore agreed. Chairman Anderson asked why Section 1, subsection 4b, was so specific in its criteria. Mr. Faiss said that language was required for “resort hotel” and at the same time some well-known destinations could meet the standards as set forth in subsection 4b, but not those of a “resort hotel.” Mr. Whittemore asked if it was the Chair’s intention that matters of license fees and/or other financial matters would be left for A.B. 578. Mr. Faiss wanted the record to show that some of the amendments were prompted by the research done by Roger Steggerda, Gaming Law Policy Course, Boyd’s School of Law, UNLV. Chairman Anderson said Mr. Steggerda deserved an “A” for his efforts.
Assemblyman Brower believed the specificity of subsection 4b would lead to a list of “who’s in and who’s out in Washoe County” and asked for a summary. Mr. Whittemore said it was their intent in respect to the definition of subsection 4b(1-5) not to exclude any major properties in Washoe County.
Chairman Anderson asked what effect subsection 8, page 3, had on debts outside the state borders, if any. Mr. Faiss said subsection 8 ensured that Nevada law would apply; it strengthened Nevada’s position to collect the debt by adopting that language.
Assemblyman Carpenter questioned the provision of Section 1, subsection 4c(1), where it stated a resort hotel had to hold “a non-restricted license for the operation of games and gaming devices for at least ten years….” What if an existing hotel changed owners and the new owner did not have a gaming license for ten years? Mr. Faiss said it would not affect the new owner if the hotel had an existing license for the required ten years. The new owner must qualify for a gaming license under existing regulations, but the hotel would not be disqualified from Internet gaming.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked again if any hotels in Washoe County would be excluded based on the definition on page 2. Mr. Whittemore said no hotels would be excluded. Chairman Anderson said the language actually broadened the scope to include all existing properties. Mr. Whittemore said the original definition of “resort hotel” was located at NRS 463.01865; the language in subsection 4b was duplicative and comparable to that definition.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if there were any hotels in Washoe County that fell short of the definition “with between 120 and 200 rooms.” Mr. Whittemore believed not; the room number was dropped from 200 to 120 to include the smaller resort hotels and was less restrictive. Mr. Whittemore believed that subsection 4b(5) might be more restrictive than originally intended; he asked for 15 minutes to make a phone call and verify his information.
Assemblyman Nolan asked if the criteria in subsection 4b(5) were comparable to that in the original definition of a “resort hotel”? Mr. Faiss said the original definition of “resort hotel” included the 200 rooms and no specified square footage, number of machines, tables, etcetera. Mr. Whittemore believed that subsection 4b(5) might be unnecessary and might be problematic.
Chairman Anderson said the Gaming Control Board and the Gaming Commission needed to approve the regulations with the proper fees and programs in place or A.B. 296 would not happen.
Assemblywoman Buckley, referring to Section 1, subsection 2(a), asked for Mr. Faiss’ interpretation of “all applicable laws.” Mr. Faiss said the language meant what it said; if the Department of Justice took a position, it would be based on law. Assemblywoman Buckley asked what was the status of the laws on the books, not the Department of Justice’s position, with regard to this particular sentence; did Mr. Faiss believe that Internet gaming was legal based on all applicable federal laws? The most recent federal law that came out of the federal district court in Louisiana said casinos were not illegal under federal law.
Mr. Neilander and Scott Scherer, Board Member, State Gaming Control Board, explained the Gaming Board’s concerns and how they were incorporated into the April 16, 2001, amendment.
Assemblywoman Buckley addressed her question regarding “all applicable laws” to either gentleman. Mr. Scherer said the Federal Wire Act prohibited the interstate transmission of wagering information on any sporting event or contest. The question that had arisen was whether “contest” was a sport contest or any contest. The Department of Justice had taken the position so far that it did include gambling games, not just wagering on sports. The federal district court in Louisiana took the position that the word “sporting” modified both event and contest.
Assemblywoman Buckley would like Nevada to be first to engage in Internet gambling, if it worked out. If the position was taken that Internet gambling could not be safely done under the Federal Wire Act, could a suit result? Mr. Scherer said it was not the intention of the Gaming Control Board to put Nevada licensees in jeopardy of being prosecuted by federal prosecutors; that would give the industry a “black eye.” It was possible that upcoming appeals might clarify the situation, resulting in a higher comfort level for the Gaming Commission that the Federal Wire Act did not apply.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if Mr. Scherer believed the language in A.B. 296 allowed the Gaming Commission, upon the advice of the Gaming Control Board, the discretion to determine the best time to go ahead. Mr. Neilander reiterated that was the key issue; the Gaming Commission must make a finding of fact, it must be determined the activity was in compliance with all applicable laws.
Assemblyman Brower asked if the Federal Wire Act was the only law of concern for A.B. 296. Mr. Neilander said it was the law the Gaming Commission had been most focused on. Chairman Anderson commented that it was important to maintain the integrity of the Gaming Control Board within the state.
Mr. Whittemore reported the results of his phone call; it was discovered that one entity had only 18,900 square feet of gaming but would otherwise meet the definitions in Section 1, subsection 4b. It was suggested that subsection 4b(5) be changed from 50,000 square feet to 18,000 square feet.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 296.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 296 WITH AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED.
ASSEMBLYMAN NOLAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED WITH MR. COLLINS ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Berman to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 578 summary from the work session document, volume 1 (Exhibit E).
Assembly Bill 578: Revises various provisions relating to gaming. (BDR 41-531)
Chairman Anderson, Assemblywoman Buckley, and Speaker Perkins agreed to look at this bill in relationship to A.B. 296. A.B. 578 would also look at the manufacturers of interactive gaming. Since the original printing of the bill, additional agreements needed to be reviewed. Mr. Whittemore was directed to change the annual license fee of $500,000 to a biennial license fee of $1 million, which would be paid in advance. That would result in technical changes to the proration of the fee as well as the two-year period for the license. There would also be an application fee of $100,000 so that the Gaming Control Board was not covering any up-front costs. Mr. Whittemore read into the record the following language:
The application for a license to operate interactive gaming is $100,000. The application fee must accompany the application for a license to operate interactive gaming when it is filed with the Board. The application fee is non-refundable. Subsection 2. An application for a license to operate interstate gaming may be filed with the Board on a form approved by the Board, either (a) prior to the 91st day following the effective date of this act, or (b) following the 180th day after the first license to operate interactive gaming has been issued by the Commission pursuant to A.B. 296.
Mr. Whittemore checked with Mr. Bible of the Resort Association and other members and they were prepared to fund any work on this by virtue of the non-refundable application fee. Chairman Anderson said the actions of A.B. 578 should not endanger the Gaming Control Board’s bill A.B. 296. Mr. Whittemore said it was the intent that the state received money in case someone got started with an operation and failed, thus there would be significant license fees of $100,000.
Chairman Anderson said that in order to provide component parts, hardware or software used in interactive gaming, a person must hold an interactive gaming manufacturer license, which required the same level of security as a non-restricted license. The fee for a license to manufacture interactive gaming components was $250,000 with the renewal fee of $50,000 per operator that the manufacturer had a participating agreement with. A monthly fee of 20 percent would also be collected.
Assemblyman Carpenter was concerned the up-front fees would eliminate any Internet gaming in the rural areas. Mr. Whittemore said there was a commitment to go ahead with the fee structure, but he would not oppose working out a lesser fee for smaller organizations. Assemblyman Carpenter felt a lesser amount could be worked out based on rural areas or size. Chairman Anderson appreciated the intent to allow the rural areas to do the same as everywhere else; but interactive gaming was a new venture, old rules did not apply, it might not be open for everyone in the state. Assemblyman Carpenter believed the way it was written, if the rurals could not participate, it was very discriminatory.
Assemblyman Oceguera understood the commitment to the license fee structure and asked how much had been estimated to be raised with the fees, anticipating “who’s in and who’s out”? Mr. Whittemore said although the Resort Association was committed to the fees, it could not say that any member would agree to pay the fees. Whether interactive gaming became a reality was problematic, but there should be at least five to ten people who would be willing to pay the fee to start to develop the process. Long-term, it was too early to estimate the level of participation; but Nevada had always taken a leadership role in passing legislation, which had allowed Nevada business opportunities. Mr. Whittemore thought it would be a mistake if Nevada was not at the forefront of the issue.
Assemblyman Brower asked Mr. Whittemore if his clients did not mind having to pay this kind of fee. Mr. Whittemore made a commitment not to oppose the imposition of the fee, but they were aware that the amount of money was significant. Assemblyman Brower asked where did the numbers come from. Chairman Anderson said the numbers came from him. Assemblyman Brower asked how those numbers compared to typical licensing fee numbers. Mr. Whittemore responded that these were multiples of ten and twenty times the normal fees; it was a very significant proposal that Speaker Perkins, Chairman Anderson, and Assemblywoman Buckley were advancing.
Assemblyman Nolan asked where the money was going; what was the money earmarked for? Chairman Anderson replied the money would go to the General Fund; the initial filing fee would go to the Gaming Control Board to set up regulations and conduct the investigations.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if the 6¼ percent fee was in addition to the $1 million fee. Mr. Whittemore understood the 6¼ percent fee would remain in effect and would be in addition to the license fee. This was a very significant business venture.
Assemblyman Brower said a barrier to entry might actually undermine the anticipated gross gaming tax revenue that might be realized by the state. Mr. Whittemore said the Resort Association was not opposed to the biannual license fee as proposed by Chairman Anderson.
Chairman Anderson believed the gaming properties recognized this was a new venture area, with potential problems for the state. Anyone who entered into this venture must meet the dollar requirements to move forward. This venture might not be open for everybody.
Chairman Anderson read the amendment regarding the monthly license fee of 20 percent of all revenue received as a result of participation in interactive gaming.
Sam McMullen, Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers, reported the association had not discussed the amendments to A.B. 578, but from those members he had recently talked to, they were opposed to all the fees. Mr. McMullen believed Chairman Anderson’s policy decision was destructive in terms of the opportunity for Nevada to participate in interactive gaming. He reported there were more than 1,400 Internet gaming activities on the Web having nothing to do with Nevada. Mr. McMullen said the bill was unnecessary and premature; it could be as much as 18 months before regulations were formulated or a declaration that interactive gaming would be in compliance with applicable laws. He appreciated that an existing manufacturer would be “grandfathered” in, but it had created a barrier to Nevada’s licensees entering the Internet gaming market. It should be remembered there were other states and other countries and other opportunities for Internet gaming that did not have those kinds of fees attached. Mr. McMullen asked whether it was the intent of A.B. 578 to place Nevada licensees at a disadvantage in a field that was already opening up and one that could affect revenue for the state of Nevada.
Chairman Anderson asked what was currently being paid by manufacturers to the state through the profit margin. Mr. McMullen said they paid the license, based on the recognition of margin and practicality of the industry. Between the manufacturer and the gaming operator, there was indirectly an amount paid on the profit from the gaming revenues.
Chairman Anderson said the question of the 20 percent monthly fee could be dealt with, but he was not sympathetic that the manufacturers did not have any up-front costs. They had research and development costs that were offset by other costs within the process. Chairman Anderson said the committee could not process any kind of a bill without reaching to the manufacturer; the manufacturer must step up to the line.
Mr. McMullen agreed this was entering into a new world, but believed there had not been any economic data or analysis of what the impact would be. Setting fees without knowing if they were appropriate was an inaccurate way to pass policy.
John Sande, International Game Technology (IGT), also opposed A.B. 578 because it called for speculation to guess what effect the proposed license fee and tax would have upon manufacturers and whether it would be good for the state of Nevada.
Chairman Anderson said the work session would continue at 6 p.m. and A.B. 578 would be the first bill to be discussed.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged Pat Cashill, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, John Morrow and David Watts-Vial, Washoe County District Attorney’s Office, and asked them to approach the witness table to complete discussion on A.B. 550.
Assembly Bill 550: Revises provisions governing rights of clients of mental health facilities and procedures for detention and civil commitment of mentally ill persons. (BDR 39-1479)
Mr. Cashill said, through the efforts of Kathleen O’Leary, David Gibson, David Watts-Vial, Judge Scott Jordan, Lynne Bigley, Dick Lewis, and Richard Siegel, a consensus was reached with procedural and subtenant safeguards for mentally ill persons who would be involuntarily committed (Exhibit H).
Mr. Morrow presented two documents (Exhibit I and Exhibit J), which should have been included in the work session document, volume 2 (Exhibit D).
Chairman Anderson asked if Section 8 was being deleted from the bill. Mr. Cashill said there was no consensus regarding Section 8.
Chairman Anderson read the amendments and asked for verification from the witnesses.
Mr. Watts-Vial had two concerns with the district attorney order provision. The new language would unnecessarily restrict those persons who were relatives of a person who was alleged to be mentally ill who would apply to either a district attorney or a judge. The current version of NRS 433A.160 allowed for “any person” to apply to a district attorney. There was fear the significant transient population would not be able to get help, for example, someone who was passing through or was new to the area, there would be no practical way to have that person seen. Also under the current provision, district attorneys were available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Watts-Vial had received no assurance of that sort of availability from the judges, or within the rural communities. Mr. Watts-Vial asked the committee to consider leaving in the district attorney order.
Chairman Anderson said Nevada was rather unique in this regard; it was the only state in the United States where the district attorney order was a common practice. Mr. Watts-Vial did a survey of 30 states; Nevada was the only state that had the district attorney order. There were provisions for an administrator of a mental health division to issue the same type of a pickup order.
Mr. Cashill said the order provision had been discussed with Judge Jordan; it was his view that it would be like receiving an application for a search warrant. It would be a paper process where a district judge would evaluate the merit of the application for the order. Judge Jordan was concerned about the workload but not the process.
Chairman Anderson entertained an amend and do pass motion with the amendments being those submitted by Mr. Cashill, Mr. Morrow, and those from Assemblywoman Buckley and Chairman Anderson.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 550.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to know how the amendments would work; he would vote no.
Assemblyman Gustavson would support the bill in committee but wanted to reserve the right to review the amendments also.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 10-1 WITH MR. CARPENTER VOTING NO,
MRS. ANGLE, MR. CLABORN AND MR. COLLINS ABSENT.
Chairman Anderson accepted the assignment to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman recessed the work session until 6:30 p.m.
The Committee on Judiciarywas reconvened at 6:30 p.m., on Monday, April 16, 2001. Vice Chairman Mark Manendo presided in Room 3138 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman
Mr. Mark Manendo, Vice Chairman
Mrs. Sharron Angle
Mr. Greg Brower
Ms. Barbara Buckley
Mr. John Carpenter
Mr. Jerry Claborn
Mr. Tom Collins
Mr. Don Gustavson
Mrs. Ellen Koivisto
Ms. Kathy McClain
Mr. Dennis Nolan
Mr. John Oceguera
Ms. Genie Ohrenschall
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst
Risa B. Lang, Committee Counsel
Cindy Clampitt, Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ruedy Edgington, Assistant Director-Operations, Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), Carson City
Ben Graham, Legislative Representative, Nevada District Attorney’s Association (NDAA), Las Vegas
James Jackson, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Las Vegas
Harvey Whittemore, Attorney, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), Reno
Sam McMullen, President, McMullen Strategic Group, representing the Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers, Reno
Michael Trudell, Manager, Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Association, Reno
Robert Crowell, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), Carson City
Mark Fiorentino, Attorney, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada (ACEC), Las Vegas
Jim Wadhams, Attorney, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association (SNHA), Las Vegas
Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, Reno
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 308 summary from the work session document, revised volume 1-2 (Exhibit K).
Assembly Bill 308: Revises provisions concerning waiver by juveniles of right to counsel. (BDR 5-464)
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 308.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Buckley believed A.B. 308 was important legislation. She was aware of circumstances where children had been sent to Caliente without ever talking to an attorney. The foster parent waived their right to a lawyer for them, and they were incarcerated. That scheme had been declared unconstitutional about 30 years ago; it was time to pass A.B. 308.
There was some concern from the Juvenile District Attorney’s Office regarding those juveniles in Clark County that were diverted; they did not have to go before a judge. It was not necessary that those juveniles be put into the system. Assemblywoman Buckley agreed and hoped that A.B. 308 would not cause that result.
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if A.B. 308 included an unfunded mandate or a fiscal note that should be of concern. Vice Chairman Manendo said there would be a fiscal impact on the local government but not the state.
Assemblywoman Buckley emphasized the counties should have had lawyers speaking to the children for the past 30 years.
Assemblywoman McClain clarified the other amendments on pages 2 and 3 were being taken out and only the amendment on pages 38 through 42 (Exhibit K) was to be considered. Vice Chairman Manendo nodded in the affirmative.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MR. ANDERSON, MR. COLLINS AND MR. OCEGUERA ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Vice Chairman Manendo opened the hearing on A.B. 429.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 429 summary from the work session document, revised volume 1-2 (Exhibit K).
Assembly Bill 429: Makes various changes concerning protection of children from abuse and neglect. (BDR 38-294)
Assemblywoman Buckley commented her amendment clarified that a child had legal standing to be heard in any challenge regarding any determinations or decisions in regard to the child. If an attorney represented the child, that attorney had the same legal authority as any other attorney. Ms. Buckley brought the amendment based on a case where the defense attorney challenged an attorney representing a child in Clark County where the mother had killed the sibling and was trying to get custody of the live child back. A.B. 429 “levels the playing field” and would apply to all NRS 432B proceedings as well as other proceedings involving the child. Assemblywoman Buckley also reviewed Assemblyman Hettrick’s amendments and believed they were good for the bill.
Assemblyman Nolan asked if in cases of civil litigation or action between parent and child, since the parents were not acting on behalf of the child, was the attorney acting on the child’s behalf and directing their action in that civil litigation, were they on equal footing? Assemblywoman Buckley replied no, A.B. 429 only covered abused and neglected children; it did not pertain to custody. There was no intent to amend NRS 125 or NRS 125B.
Chairman Anderson asked if A.B. 429 would need to be referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means? Vice Chairman Manendo nodded in the affirmative.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 429 WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS FROM MR. MORROW, ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY AND LEGAL DIVISION.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MR. OCEGUERA ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 306 summary from the work session document, revised volume 1-2 (Exhibit K).
Assembly Bill 306: Revises provisions concerning interception and disclosure of wire, radio or oral communications. (BDR 15-1303)
Chairman Anderson said there remained some unanswered questions raised by Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association.
CHAIRMAN ANDERSON MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 306 WITH AMENDMENTS ON THE YELLOW DOCUMENT.
Vice Chairman Manendo noted there was no second.
Vice Chairman Manendo relinquished the chair to Chairman Anderson.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 27.
Assembly Bill 27: Prohibits person or entity that supervises juvenile ordered to perform work or community service from placing juvenile on highway or other dangerous situation. (BDR 5-671)
Risa Lang read the A.B. 27 amendment proposed by Ruedy Edgington, NDOT, which proposed two exceptions with different requirements: (1) subsection 2 allowed a child to perform community service on or near a “controlled access highway” that meant not in the median, behind a guardrail or safety barrier, with appropriate signs placed at least 100 yards in front of the location in both directions, a vehicle with an amber light placed on top of the vehicle at the site and the vehicle shielding the child from traffic, and children were required to wear reflective vests and orange hats; and (2) on a highway that did not have controlled access where the highway had a clear zone at least 30 feet off the highway where a vehicle could drive into for safety reasons and the children worked outside of the clear zone. All other safety requirements were the same as in exception 1. Chairman Anderson believed the amendments worked.
Assemblywoman Buckley believed the amendments were better than first proposed, but the clear zone concept would be impossible on rural roads. Ms. Lang said the “clear zone” language could be taken out.
Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Edgington to approach the witness table. Assemblywoman Buckley restated her concern about the clear zone on rural roads, while remaining tough on the busy highways. Mr. Edgington said the intent with the clear zone, 30 feet from the pavement or travel way, allowed a vehicle to recover if it strayed off the road and gave the people working on the highway an area to escape if a car did come. If work in the clear zone was excluded, it would delete work in the rural areas.
Chairman Anderson formed a scenario with a child walking on a sidewalk, who would not be able to work on that sidewalk if assigned to a work crew. Mr. Edgington agreed.
Assemblywoman Buckley said that was why the “clear zone” language needed to be deleted. Ms. Buckley believed the child needed the same safety precautions as listed for the “controlled access highways” with the exception of the guardrails, which would apply to the controlled access highways only. Mr. Edgington agreed.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the flashing lights and barricades met the NDOT standards? How specific was the notification to the parent or guardian? Did it state out picking up trash or working at mile marker 123? Chairman Anderson said those questions had been presented in previous discussions because whatever standards A.B. 27 set would apply to all other programs supervised by the NDOT. Mr. Edgington responded when a group got their permit to work on a NDOT route, they would pick up the signs, vests, and orange hats at the district office.
Assemblyman Gustavson asked about the quarter-mile-wide median on Interstate 80 between Reno and Lovelock. Mr. Edgington said the Adopt-a-Highway and juvenile programs would not work that far out of the urban area, they worked much closer and did not waste the time driving. NDOT staff or someone who was paid would clean those areas.
Chairman Anderson clarified the amendments and noted a drafting error.
Assemblyman Brower liked the original intent of the bill to get juveniles off the road altogether. A letter from Lyon County indicated juveniles were used to upkeep cemeteries and state parks, etcetera. There were other things that juveniles could be doing. He recognized the realities of the rural counties, and he supported the bill.
Chairman Anderson believed the specifics of A.B. 27 had been cleanup so that the courts would not be quite as limited and statutorily placed provisions into law, including parent notification, that would be helpful.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 27.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN ANGLE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 27.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Chairman Anderson and Ms. Lang clarified the amendments.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Anderson noted the committee was still waiting for compromise language on A.B. 578.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 259.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 259 summary from the work session document, volume 3 (Exhibit L).
Assembly Bill 259: Revises provisions governing warrantless arrests and requires prosecuting attorney to prepare report concerning disposition of cases involving certain acts of violence. (BDR 14-212)
Chairman Anderson said his notes indicated only Section 1 was needed. Assemblywoman McClain concurred. Chairman Anderson asked if it was necessary to change the explanation of the bill due to the redraft, would that be done automatically? Ms. Lang said the summary and the title would automatically be amended during the revision.
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to amend and do pass A.B. 259 retaining Section 1 of the bill and deleting Section 2.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 259 DELETING SECTION 2.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN KOIVISTO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman McClain said Section 2 of A.B. 259 was vitally important. She had commitment from the District Attorney’s Office that they were willing to work with her on it.
Ben Graham, Nevada District Attorney’s Association, understood the desire and need for the information, and invited Assemblywoman McClain to spend time with the Special Victims’ Unit. If there was an indication legislation was needed for the next session, they would help draft the language.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 327.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 327 summary from the work session document, volume 3 (Exhibit L).
Assembly Bill 327: Revises provisions governing capital punishment. (BDR 14-1082)
Chairman Anderson said the heart of the bill was Section 2.
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 327 DELETING SECTION 3.
Assemblyman Brower said even with the proposed amendment, he opposed the bill. Mr. Brower did not believe there should be any change in the process where the state goes first and last, since it had the burden of proof; that was the way it had always been done.
Assemblyman Carpenter believed whoever would lose their freedom should be able to speak last.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Nolan was inclined to support the motion but asked if there were any other jurisdictions that conducted cases, as proposed in the bill, where the defendant would have the last opportunity to present.
Chairman Anderson acknowledged the groups from the defense bar and district attorneys in the audience.
James Jackson, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, noted procedural aspects such as these were left to the discretion of the courts as to whether or not to allow surrebuttal. Ben Graham agreed with Mr. Jackson.
Ms. Lang said A.B. 327 was taken from a California Supreme Court case; that was the way they did it in California.
Assemblyman Brower asked for clarification. By deleting the age provision, would the bill change the order of argument for all death penalty cases, just juvenile cases, or defendants of certain ages? Chairman Anderson said it would apply to all cases.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 11-3 WITH MRS. ANGLE, MR. BROWER, AND MR. CLABORN VOTING NO.
Chairman Anderson assigned the bill to Assemblywoman Giunchigliani.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 331.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 331 summary from the work session document, volume 3 (Exhibit L).
Assembly Bill 331: Makes various changes concerning dissemination of records of criminal history by central repository for Nevada records of criminal history. (BDR 14-304)
Assemblyman Nolan said, although rather lengthy, the amendment attempted to clean up language in the Nevada Revised Statutes with respect to providing clear direction to nonprofit organizations and others accessing this section of the statute. There were also federal requirements regarding accessing the FBI database. Concerns brought up during the committee hearing were also addressed in the amendment.
Ms. Lang reviewed the changes involved in the amendment, page-by-page and section-by-section; the changes were mostly clean up language.
Chairman Anderson said there was also a suggestion from Lucille Lusk to maintain the protection for small nonprofit organizations and churches who used volunteers on a short-term or one-time basis. Ms. Lang said that language would be kept in the amendment.
Assemblyman Gustavson verified the bill included private schools as defined in NRS 394.103. What about faith-based schools?
Assemblyman Nolan said private schools were included only in the respect that they would be given the same opportunity to do background research on volunteers. The bill did not change the definition of private schools.
Chairman Anderson clarified that this was a voluntary program, not a required program. Assemblyman Nolan replied in the affirmative.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the volunteer aspect of the bill was in regard to allowing access to the criminal record; the employee or volunteer signed a release. Chairman Anderson said during the original hearing the Criminal History Repository (CHR) indicated volunteer groups were scoped narrowly regarding just sexual offenses. The amendment would give the CHR the opportunity to provide criminal history information, if the volunteer group or school asked for the information.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 331 WITH AMENDMENTS AS DISCUSSED.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblyman Nolan to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 484.
Nicolas Anthony read the A.B. 484 summary from the work session document, volume 3 (Exhibit L).
Assembly Bill 484: Revises provisions governing disclosure statement required upon sale of unit in common-interest community. (BDR 10-584)
Chairman Anderson clarified the amendment from Mr. Trudell (Exhibit M) and the oral amendment from Assemblywoman Koivisto. Ms. Lang believed Ms. Koivisto’s amendment might not be necessary. Chairman Anderson asked Ms. Koivisto to review the amendment language.
Assemblywoman Buckley verified when an association received a written request, the association had to furnish certain information. Paragraph 6 of the Trudell amendment did not make sense.
Michael Trudell, Manager, Caughlin Ranch Homeowners Association, said paragraph 6 was a disclosure dealing with situations where an owner transferred property by contract of sale or deed without the use of a title company and there was no assurance the owner had given the buyer the required information about the property. Paragraph 6 relieved the association of any liability associated with not providing the information, but did not relieve the new buyer of the liability associated with unpaid fees or fines and the correction or repair of any undisclosed violations.
Chairman Anderson asked if this also included those instances where an owner did request information but due to the lengthy time between the association providing that information and the sale of the unit, further information should have been disclosed; would this also protect the association in those instances? Mr. Trudell responded in the affirmative.
Assemblywoman Buckley believed the language was vague; she was concerned about the intent.
Assemblywoman McClain asked when would a sale not go through a title company? Mr. Trudell said it happened when done by contract of sale or quitclaim deed.
Ms. Lang said paragraph 6(b) might not be necessary. Chairman Anderson asked Mr. Trudell to justify why paragraph 6(b) was necessary. Mr. Trudell answered because the bill was in two parts: (1) seller responsibilities and (2) purchaser responsibilities, a buyer beware notice.
Assemblywoman Buckley did not want to make the purchaser liable for the failure of the seller to address a letter to the homeowners’ association; she would oppose that. Why was paragraph 6(a) not sufficient?
Assemblyman Brower believed subsections (a) and (b) covered different aspects of liability and both made sense. Mr. Trudell said it also covered instances where other unit owners might have an interest in a buyer correcting a defect. It was not just the homeowners’ association being protected; it was also the other unit owners.
Ms. Lang believed the language in paragraph 6(b) mirrored language in paragraph 3 where the difference was what was disclosed. Chairman Anderson said he would place A.B. 484 on the Chief Clerk’s desk after amendment, which would allow Assemblywoman Buckley a chance to further investigate that one section.
Assemblyman Carpenter did not understand why a purchaser should be liable for unpaid assessments or correction/repair of a violation when it was not the purchaser’s fault; it was the responsibility of the owner. Mr. Trudell reiterated when a sale did not go through a title company and the association was not informed of the sale, there could be circumstances where the owner sold to a buyer a unit that was in default with existing deficiencies that needed to be corrected. After the sale the owner was gone, leaving the association without recourse. Chairman Anderson said Assemblyman Carpenter asked the question the bill intended to address; purchasers ended up with a liability they did not know about. A.B. 484 required associations to inform buyers of problems and assessments; the amendments should apply only to those sales that did not go through a title company. Mr. Trudell clarified it covered “known” deficiencies; the amendment language was a “fail safe” to protect the association and other unit owners.
Mr. Anthony said paragraph 6(b) may not be completely necessary; paragraph 6(a) protected the association, paragraph 6(b) put the responsibility on the purchaser. Assemblyman Brower said 6(a) protected the association against a third-party suit for failure to disclose, while 6(b) protected the association from being left “holding the bag” if there were unpaid assessments or fees.
Assemblywoman Buckley queried why the person, who did not use a title company, was now liable for unpaid assessments, fees, and correction of repairs for seller’s failure to obtain the certificate from the homeowners’ association. Ms. Buckley did not want to change the substantive rights of the buyer based on the failure of the seller to request a certificate.
Chairman Anderson asked if paragraph 6(b) should be dropped from the bill. Assemblywoman Buckley agreed. Mr. Trudell stated there were responsibilities that went with the properties as outlined in the contract with the association. If someone purchased a property with an existing defect, it went with the property.
Assemblywoman Buckley was not arguing with other existing law, but now it made the purchaser automatically liable by the “failure of a seller to request a piece of paper.” Mr. Trudell believed the intent of the law was for the seller to disclose the information to the buyer in all cases.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 484 WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT PARAGRAPH 6(b).
ASSEMBLYMAN CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 13-0 WITH MR. COLLINS ABSTAINING.
Chairman Anderson asked Assemblywoman Chowning to present the bill on the Assembly floor.
Chairman Anderson was waiting for draft language on A.B. 133. The meeting was recessed for five minutes.
Chairman Anderson reconvened the meeting; a quorum was present. He opened the hearing on A.B. 578 and asked Mr. Whittemore to approach the witness table.
Assembly Bill 578: Revises various provisions relating to gaming. (BDR 41-531)
Mr. Whittemore reported there were three components to the proposed amendment: (1) the license fee, a biennial fee of $1 million, which was discussed in the morning session, (2) the $100,000 application fee, as discussed on page 2 of the proposed amendment (Exhibit N), and (3) a license fee, annual renewal fee and monthly participation fee for gaming manufacturers as outlined on page 1.
Chairman Anderson said it would be necessary to rescind the actions to pass A.B. 296, to further amend A.B. 296 and delete the application fee section. Mr. Whittemore said the Legislative Counsel Bureau was already aware of this dilemma and believed a technical conflict amendment could handle the situation between A.B. 296 and A.B. 578 without rescinding the action on A.B. 296, assuming A.B. 296 was drafted before A.B. 578.
Chairman Anderson verified what the amendments would be to A.B. 578. Mr. Whittemore cautioned the committee, in regard to the tiered monthly participation fees (page 1 of the proposed amendment), that believing any manufacturer would receive revenue in excess of $500,000 per month was purely speculative. The proposed rate structure would cover all eventualities. Chairman Anderson hoped whoever participated would have great success.
Assemblyman Carpenter wanted to see an amendment for the rural areas to reduce the license fee in half, $250,000 per year; it would provide more revenue for the state. Ms. Lang said it was the opinion of the Legislative Counsel Bureau that it would be an inappropriate use of population breakdown since the Internet itself was the same throughout the state regardless of where it was located. Assemblyman Carpenter asked if it was possible to have a sliding scale? Ms. Lang said the Legislative Counsel Bureau could not think of a way it would work. Assemblyman Carpenter asked the Chair if he would be adverse to a sliding scale if the Legislative Counsel Bureau came up with a solution. Chairman Anderson said something might be possible in the future after the regulations were approved.
Sam McMullen, Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers, presented an amendment (Exhibit O). Chairman Anderson asked if the proposed amendment had been discussed with his clients; Mr. McMullen said he had discussed it with those available within the last hour. The amendment proposed to have the manufacturers pay the same gaming tax as the operator, similar to the current system with a maximum of 6¼ percent, without the tiered system; an initial license fee of $100,000; and a renewal fee of $50,000.
Assemblyman Gustavson verified Mr. McMullen’s proposed amendment was different than that previously discussed. Chairman Anderson clarified that Speaker Perkins, Assemblywoman Buckley, and he brought forward the amendments discussed by Mr. Whittemore. If the committee remembered, the monthly participation fee was originally proposed at 20 percent, but developed into the tiered system.
Mr. McMullen said an estimate of the amount of revenue that might be received had never been made. Before the rates were set too high, there ought to be a “rule of reason”; he was willing to pay the 6¼ percent.
Assemblyman Collins asked for clarification regarding the renewal fee of $50,000 per operator. Mr. Collins did not understand the dollar value of an operating contract. Chairman Anderson said part of the bill already addressed the fees required to get into the business. Manufacturers would pay the initial fee of $250,000 and then $50,000 for each customer (property). The manufacturer would not enter into a contract unless it could make a profit.
Mr. McMullen said the bill was not clear identifying that every contract would be for a full system. The language would require $50,000 for every operator. Chairman Anderson recognized it would be a cost passed on to the operators. Mr. McMullen also proposed to pay an initial application fee of $25,000 for manufacturers. Chairman Anderson verified with Ms. Lang that this “manufacturers” application fee was not included in the original bill.
Chairman Anderson clarified the choice was between the Perkins, Buckley, Anderson amendment with the graduated revenue fee or Mr. McMullen’s language, which was close conceptually, and the amendments for the $1 million biennial license fee and the $100,000 application fee.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 578 WITH THE SUGGESTIONS AND AMENDMENTS (Exhibit K).
ASSEMBLYWOMAN OHRENSCHALL SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins asked if the amendments would impact the shared costs passed two years ago? Chairman Anderson said, “Absolutely not.” It did not change any existing participation other than manufacturing and those who wanted to get involved in interactive gaming.
Assemblyman Gustavson made a disclosure he had been employed by a resort hotel but the bill would not affect him any more than anyone else; he would be voting on A.B. 578. The disclosure applied to A.B. 296 as well.
Assemblyman Brower disclosed he practiced law with John Sande, who testified on the behalf of a client earlier; to avoid any potential appearance of a conflict, he would abstain from voting.
Assemblywoman McClain would vote for the bill out of committee but reserved her right to change her vote after seeing the amendments and final draft.
Assemblyman Carpenter opposed the motion; he had a real problem with the rates established for the gaming properties.
Assemblyman Nolan opposed the motion; A.B. 578 set unprecedented policy in gaming, which had not been addressed properly.
Assemblywoman Buckley supported the motion although she was cognizant of Assemblyman Nolan’s concerns, especially those regarding whether now was the right time to proceed before it was known if interactive gaming could be done safely. The committee had unanimously agreed to allow the Gaming Commission and the Gaming Control Board to conduct hearings to resolve the issues. The committee did need to make policy about how interactive gaming would be taxed, and needed to include manufacturers in this new endeavor. The committee needed to make the right choices now at the same time this new endeavor was being authorized. “If we are going to do it, we ought to do it right.”
Chairman Anderson believed it was an important policy; Nevada needed to step forward into this area. Chairman Anderson agreed with the issues that had been raised by all those present.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 8-4 WITH MRS. ANGLE, MR. CARPENTER, MRS. KOIVISTO AND MR. NOLAN VOTING NO, MR. BROWER AND MR. CLABORN ABSTAINING.
MR. COLLINS, MR. MANENDO, MS. McCLAIN, AND MS. OHRENSCHALL RESERVED THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE ON THE FLOOR.
Chairman Anderson opened the hearing on A.B. 133.
Assembly Bill 133: Revises various provisions regarding claims against contractors for constructional defects and against design professionals for professional negligence. (BDR 3-667)
Robert Crowell, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association (NTLA), submitted a proposed amendment (Exhibit P) which represented an agreement in concept. The amendment spoke to the pre-litigation right of a homebuilder to make repairs. The builder would have 45 days to make non-complex repairs or repairs to four or less homes; for complex matters, the builder would have 90 days. The amendment also discussed “reasonable times” and “proper notice to the homeowner” as well as “properly licensed, bonded and insured contractors” and a report of the repairs made with methods used. Mr. Crowell said if the amendment was adopted, the NTLA wanted to view the amendment to work out the details.
Mark Fiorentino, American Consulting Engineers Council of Nevada (ACEC), submitted a second proposed amendment (Exhibit Q), which addressed Section 6 of A.B. 133. The amendment met the second goal for the legislation, which was early identification of the proper parties in the disputes. Chairman Anderson asked if there was agreement on the amendment. Mr. Fiorentino believed that was the case.
Jim Wadhams, Southern Nevada Homebuilders Association (SNHA), supported the amendment but felt it was important to see the language the bill drafters prepared.
Chairman Anderson said if A.B. 133 moved forward, it would be his intent to put a priority on the amendment and then place the bill on the Chief Clerk’s desk where it would “reside for an indefinite period of time.”
Assemblyman Carpenter asked if after it was amended, could A.B. 133 be re-referred to the committee to be reviewed by the committee. Chairman Anderson said the committee would be finished with assembly bills in two-and-a-half hours, by midnight, and the bill could not come back to the committee. Individual amendments could be placed on the bill, but the committee could not put forth any more amendments. Ms. Lang agreed.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked Mr. Fiorentino for clarification on his amendment, specifically regarding reference to subsection 3. Mr. Fiorentino responded that subsection 3 of Section 6 of A.B. 133 was on page 4 beginning at line 6.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked how many malpractice statutes required affidavits be filed before suits. Neither Mr. Fiorentino, Mr. Crowell, nor Mr. Wadhams were aware of any statutes.
Assemblywoman Buckley was concerned about “any barriers to the courthouse steps” such as an affidavit from an expert, the expert’s résumé, and copies of non-privileged documents. How did a person get those documents?
Mr. Fiorentino said those questions were at the heart of why the amendments had been suggested. In a case where a homeowner sued a design professional directly and was unable to obtain reports at the time of the suit, the amendment allowed the homeowner time to file the necessary papers. The real purpose of the bill was to take what happened later in the case and move it to the beginning.
Chairman Anderson suggested to amend and do pass the bill and place it on the Chief Clerk’s desk in order to answer those “nitty-gritty” questions. Chairman Anderson understood that Mr. Wadhams and Mr. Crowell had agreed if the bill did not work out to the general satisfaction of the committee, the bill would remain on the Chief Clerk’s desk.
Assemblywoman Buckley asked if lines 23 to 29 on page 4 of the bill were “in or out.” Mr. Fiorentino said the amendment would not delete those lines. Assemblywoman Buckley queried if a homeowner’s attorney filed suit and lost, would they have to pay attorney’s fees and costs for the action? Mr. Fiorentino answered in the negative. The lines Ms. Buckley were referring to applied only to the complainant and would not include a homeowner’s suit directly against a design professional. Ms. Buckley asked who was a complainant? Mr. Fiorentino said it was anyone other than a claimant as defined in Chapter 40 as the homeowner. A complainant would be a third party who brought the design professional into the suit. Ms. Buckley asked if it was like a “cross complainant”? Mr. Fiorentino replied yes.
Assemblywoman Buckley had questions about the technical amendments to existing A.B. 133, but in regard to the concepts about the right to repair before litigation. Ms. Buckley thought it was an excellent effort by both the homebuilders and the trial lawyers.
Chairman Anderson commented that an amendment, with an individual sponsor rather than a committee sponsor, could be discussed in committee to look at the existing law and any additional amendments.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS A.B. 133 WITH THE TWO AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblyman Collins said because he was a subcontractor, he would abstain from the vote.
Assemblyman Carpenter said “with a little faith” he would vote for the bill.
ROLL CALL VOTE WAS CALLED.
MOTION PASSED 13-0 WITH MR. COLLINS ABSTAINING.
Chairman Anderson said he would ask Speaker Emeritus Dini to present the bill on the Assembly floor, after it had been amended and placed on the Chief Clerk’s desk.
Chairman Anderson indicated that it was the intention of the committee Chair to inform the committee members of bills still residing “on the board” which were listed on the work session document, volume 4 (Exhibit R). There were no attachments to the document.
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked the Chair to consider A.B. 436 and a recent amendment (Exhibit S) drawn up by the Nevada District Attorneys’ Association.
Chairman Anderson opened the work session on A.B. 436.
Assembly Bill 436: Revises provisions concerning admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings involving domestic violence. (BDR 4-987)
Gemma Waldron, Deputy District Attorney, Criminal Division, Washoe County District Attorney, said there had been opposition to A.B. 436 because it was unclear whether procedural safeguards were in place. Paragraphs 4 and 5 were added to set forth procedural safeguards in writing.
Mr. Jackson, Nevada Attorneys for Criminal Justice, said the amendment did not remove concerns previously discussed. Assemblywoman McClain asked what Mr. Jackson’s concerns were. Mr. Jackson said the concerns were that A.B. 436 was not needed with the current evidentiary code.
Chairman Anderson asked for questions or comments from committee members. Seeing none, the bill remained “on the board.”
Assemblywoman Ohrenschall asked for consideration of A.B. 437.
Assembly Bill 437: Makes various changes related to sentencing of certain offenders and community notification of sex offenders. (BDR 14-1285)
Chairman Anderson asked for questions or comments from committee members. Seeing none, the bill remained “on the board.”
Chairman Anderson entertained a motion to adjourn for the day.
ASSEMBLYWOMAN BUCKLEY MOVED TO ADJOURN.
ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO SECONDED THE MOTION.
Assemblywoman Angle asked for consideration of A.B. 168. Ms. Angle submitted an amendment to exclude smaller convenience stores, so A.B. 168 would apply to only large grocery stores.
Assembly Bill 168: Makes various changes related to smoking and selling tobacco. (BDR 15-91)
MOTION TO ADJOURN PASSED WITH MS. ANGLE
VOTING NO.
Chairman Anderson adjourned the meeting at 10:01 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Deborah Rengler
Committee Secretary
Cindy Clampitt
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman
DATE: