MINUTES OF THE

SENATE Committee on Judiciary

 

Seventy-second Session

April 1, 2003

 

 

The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark E. Amodei, at 9:11 a.m., on Tuesday, April 1, 2003, in Room 2149 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file at the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau.

 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman

Senator Maurice E. Washington, Vice Chairman

Senator Terry Care

Senator Mike McGinness

Senator Dennis Nolan

Senator Dina Titus

Senator Valerie Wiener

 

STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:

 

Nicolas Anthony, Committee Policy Analyst

Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel

Ann Bednarski, Committee Secretary

 

OTHERS PRESENT:

 

Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board

William Bible, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association

Sondra Condron, Chief Deputy Clerk, Clerk-Treasurer’s Office, Douglas County

Peter Sidlow, Las Vegas Antique Bottles and Collectibles Club

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, North, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

 

Chairman Amodei stated the first order of business was Senate Bill (S.B.) 266. He asked testifiers to come forward to discuss the bill.

 

SENATE BILL 266: Revises various provisions pertaining to gaming. (BDR 41‑1280)

 

Senator Care announced he had requested a committee introduction of this bill and since then had engaged in conversations with Dennis Neilander. He said the changes he was proposing included a name change, with section 2 of S.B. 266 revising Nevada Revised Statute (NRS) 463.01646terminology, “international gaming salon” to “gaming salon.” He said gaming salon was what it was, but there were, naturally, international customers. He said his understanding was these salons were open to all who met the entry requirements.

 

In section 3 of S.B. 266, he said he recalled discussing the possibility of disclosing to the public what goes on in gaming salons, despite the fact members of the public were not permitted in such salons. Senator Care said his impression was that not much had been made of gaming salons and section 3 could be obsolete.

 

Senator Care then said section 4 of S.B. 266 required immediate release of information as opposed to a time lapse from when the information became available and when it was released. He said he wanted a presentation from Mr. Neilander with regard to the status of gaming salons since last session.

 

Dennis K. Neilander, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, came forward and said gaming salons now are governed by some regulations setting forth financial criteria and other limitations. He said there were only three licenses issued thus far with no applications pending; only one of the salons has had any activity.

 

Mr. Neilander said the gaming control board would represent to the committee financial information with regard to those salons when it could be conducted on a confidential basis, in accordance with State law. Because of the few licenses issued, Mr. Neilander said currently, with only one active salon and three licensees, it would be difficult to report and maintain confidentiality. He said, “We pledge to provide that information to the extent that we can.” Mr. Neilander explained there were a variety of ways to present information, one being an abstract prepared specifically for the Legislature. He said this legislative abstract contained tax appraisals for real property and other information not included in the public abstract.

 

 

Senator Care clarified he was not interested in proprietary information but referenced January 24, 2002, when the Nevada Gaming Commission adopted the regulations on gaming salons. He said he wondered if the effect of September 11, 2001, had influenced or changed the thresholds or bet minimums. He asked if September 11 had any impact on gaming salons, stating he had believed there would be several licenses issued and that was not the case. Senator Care added now the war was affecting gaming as well in Nevada.

 

Mr. Neilander responded:

 

Yes, I think there was a tremendous impact because of September 11. The places where you saw it most severely was in the high-end market. The international gaming salons were designed to attract patrons who might not have otherwise gambled in Las Vegas because they enjoyed private gaming in other parts of the world.

 

Mr. Neilander said after September 11, there was a significant drop-off in high‑end play. He clarified it was not only because of September 11, but also because the economy was beginning to soften at that time. He said his sources said the high-end players were not afraid to fly, but afraid instead they would not be able to leave Las Vegas because of airport closures. Mr. Neilander added some high‑end players were in Las Vegas on September 11, and could not depart as scheduled. He added the companies who would have spent capital on gaming salons instead chose to repay debts and buy back stocks. He said their focus became limited to existing operations.

 

Senator Care asked Mr. Neilander to describe the presence of the gaming control board and what happened in gaming salons. Mr. Neilander said he was happy to report the physical setup of the rooms and the surveillance was very good, what they thought it would be. He explained the use of a digital cable that gave the gaming control board the ability to direct the surveillance cameras.

 

Chairman Amodei asked Mr. Neilander if he was comfortable with the information requested in sections 2, 4, and 5 through 10. Mr. Neilander responded, “You tell us what you want us to regulate and we will go do it.”

 

William Bible, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association, said with the proposed amendment to strike section 3 of S.B. 266, the resort association could support this legislation. He said the concern rested in the compilation and release of information, specifically, that confidential information would be released with only the three salons licensed and with only one salon actively operating, this critical information could be problematic. He said changing the name from international gaming salon to gaming salon was more reflective of the character of the salons. He added, “At this point, we’d just like customers whether they be international or domestic.”

 

SENATOR CARE MOVED TO AMEND BY DELETING SECTION 3 AND DO PASS S.B. 266.

 

SENATOR WIENER SECONDED THE MOTION.

 

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

 

*****

 

Chairman Amodei opened the hearing on S. B. 432 and asked Mr. Neilander to testify on this legislation.

 

SENATE BILL 432: Makes various changes pertaining to regulation of gaming. (BDR 41-490)

 

Mr. Neilander came forward with Todd Westergard and Marc Warren, senior research specialists on the gaming control board staff, who worked extensively on S.B. 432. Mr. Neilander said every session the gaming control board comes forward with legislation to streamline some processes and address problems that have arisen. He described S.B. 432 as the board’s omnibus bill.

 

Mr. Neilander said there were four areas of discussion included in S.B. 432. One of them dealt with going to the board twice, found in sections 1through 5 and sections 15 through 18 of S.B. 432. Mr. Neilander explained when the entire gaming control act had one term change, wording had to be modified throughout. He said for a person to grant an option to purchase a security in a gaming licensee, the Nevada Gaming Commission had to give prior approval. He said with respect to that option, submitting it for administrative approval without going before the full board and commission would spare the expense of a review. Currently, Mr. Neilander explained, the issuance of the option needed approval, but then a second appearance was necessary upon exercising the option. He said the process could be streamlined, particularly for private corporations who might grant stock options to employees, but currently the expense was prohibitive. He said sections 1 through 5 of S.B. 432 provided a mechanism simplifying the process and sections 15 through 18 deleted language that was inconsistent with sections 1 through 5. Mr. Neilander added this change affected corporations, limited liability companies, and limited partnerships which were the forms of business entities eligible to hold a license.

 

Mr. Neilander moved on to the next subject area where a change was proposed. He said section 6 of S.B. 432 requested the adoption of regulations which describe the method and manner in which tax payments were made. He said, “Eventually we would like to adopt regulations that accommodate electronic filing of taxes. At some point we may even mandate that taxes be filed electronically.” He said now was the time to study the feasibility and begin the regulatory work for this eventual change. Mr. Neilander added one of the benefits of electronic filing was the speed of the automated input of information, and he said electronic filing was cost-effective as a budget issue.

 

Mr. Neilander said the third area of discussion dealt with the sale of antique gaming devices. He explained section 19 of S.B. 432 allowed someone to sell a true antique gaming device without having to hold a distributor’s license. He explained by definition, these devices would have to have been manufactured prior to 1951.

 

The rest of the changes proposed in S.B. 432 dealt with work permits, Mr. Neilander said. In sections 7 through 14 and sections 20 through 23 changes were made to existing law. Mr. Neilander explained currently cities and counties had primary jurisdiction for issuance of work permits but if they did not issue gaming work permits, the gaming control board was required to. The proposal now was to enact uniform criteria and standards for the work permits. This, Mr. Neilander explained, allowed gaming employees to move from job to job and jurisdiction to jurisdiction without refiling an application.

 

Mr. Neilander said during last session, the authority to establish regulations for a uniform state gaming work permit was granted and during the interim, criteria and standards were established in many hearings and meetings. Now, he said the purpose of S.B. 432 was to activate these regulations.

 

Mr. Neilander said the standards, regulations, and criteria established were very good for the gaming control board and for gaming employees. However, during the interim, Clark County and the City of Las Vegas had decided to discontinue issuing gaming work permits and repealed their ordinances regarding these permits. He continued, as a matter of law, the gaming control board must issue these permits. He said the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department had agreed to continue issuing work permits through calendar year 2003. He explained the reason for this agreement was sensitivity to the gaming control board’s position; it was not equipped or prepared to take over a program of such magnitude.

 

Therefore, Mr. Neilander said, the board had developed a proposal to take over the gaming work permit program from Clark County and the City of Las Vegas. He said the process of getting the work card was a walk-in situation, where the applicant went to the sheriff’s office, filled out an application, had fingerprints taken, was photographed, and a card was issued. This process, he said, required clerks and personnel to do the fingerprinting. Then, the information on the permit was sent to the criminal repository and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for a background check. The clearance came back to the sheriff’s office and the work card was issued. A $75 fee was charged to applicants for a gaming work permit.

 

Mr. Neilander said if the gaming control board handled this process, it would be impossible to have it be revenue-neutral. He said it would be necessary to impact the General Fund. Therefore, the board had developed a new card system. He explained, “Everyone who already has a work permit is automatically registered.” Registrations were valid for 5 years and good in all jurisdictions and gaming establishments in the State of Nevada. With the new system, the licensee of the gaming establishment would supply an application for a work permit to applicants for employment. He said the applicant was responsible for having fingerprints taken and the licensee would submit the application and fingerprints to the gaming board.

 

Mr. Neilander said with the amendments proposed after S.B. 432 was drafted, Exhibit C, the gaming board could accept information directly from the applicant. Hopefully, he added, the information could be submitted electronically at some point. Until the background check was returned, the person would be temporarily registered and able to work.

 

Mr. Neilander said these changes would make registrations valid Statewide, require no appropriation from the General Fund, and streamline the process. He described it as a “good concept.” He added the reason the bill was so lengthy was the language was changing from “work permit” to “registration.”

 

Senator Wiener asked if currently there was a temporary work permit issued. She wanted to know how long the background check took and if, before expiration, the temporary permit holders would be notified.

 

Mr. Neilander said until last session, each county decided the expiration dates of the gaming work permits, some, indeed, had no expiration dates, he said, and some required a renewal on a yearly basis. Under this proposal, a work card had 5-year validity and, if employed, the renewal expired on the holder’s birthday. Currently, the board did not notify permit holders when their cards were about to expire, but, he continued, it was an issue they would consider.

 

Regarding the security clearance of an applicant, generally, he said, if no word was received within 30 to 90 days, it was assumed the applicant had cleared the background check. He added, however, the FBI currently was experiencing a significant backlog and clearances were taking longer. The time limit for background checks was 120 days. Mr. Neilander said if no objections were heard within 120 days, the applicant was deemed registered.

 

Senator Wiener asked what would happen if an FBI report was received at 150 days with a questionable history. Mr. Neilander responded the applicant was entitled to an informal hearing and if the hearing examiner objected, then the applicant could appeal to the full Nevada Gaming Control Board. If the board also found an objectionable history, the next step was an appeal to the Nevada Gaming Commission. If the objection continued, the applicant then had the option of going to court.

 

Mr. Neilander said if the background check revealed a theft charge against an applicant, the revocation process began. He said there were many safeguards in place in the gaming industry.

Senator Titus said she favored the idea of standardizing the gaming work permits and said the gaming control board seemed an appropriate agency to provide the service. However, she said, she wanted some assurance this new system was not making it more difficult for a person to obtain a gaming work permit. Senator Titus also mentioned the suspension of the $75 cap and also wanted assurance this new system would not be more expensive. Her final concern was that the current requirement for gaming work permits for specific positions in the gaming industry was not eroded or lost in the new system.

 

Mr. Neilander said though the cap was lifted, the fee for registration would be the actual costs in the process of becoming registered. He said the criminal repository raised the fee for fingerprints to $26. He explained the gaming board had to consider costs in the process that were out of their control. Mr. Neilander said the costs could be established by regulation. He also reminded the committee, although the cost of registration increased, it was now valid for 5 years. He said the objective was to make the registration process revenue-neutral and to avoid requesting an appropriation.

 

Regarding Senator Titus’ question about who needed to be registered, Mr. Neilander said, “We are not amending the definition of gaming employee.” He said the registration applied to the very same people who already had gaming work permits. He said there might be some confusion because Clark County issued nongaming work cards and the gaming control board had nothing to do with that work permit.

 

Mr. Neilander said the applicant’s process did not change with the registration process; the same responsibilities existed. He said the gaming licensees would have the added responsibility of checking the registration list and providing the application forms to applicants.

 

Senator Wiener asked what the current renewal time was in Clark County for a gaming work permit and inquired about the cost of the permit. Mr. Neilander said the permit was good for 3 years and the cost was $74.

 

Mr. Neilander asked to clarify some information on fees. He said when the repository raised their fees for services, several agencies met and decided, on a temporary basis, not to increase fees. But, the cost, he said, had increased.

 

Senator McGinness asked how this central registration would affect counties and stated he had messages from some smaller counties concerned this centralization would represent a loss of revenue to them.

 

Mr. Neilander responded the gaming control board spent 18 months meeting with counties and cities to meet its obligation under A.B. No. 466 of the 71st Session to create uniform standards and criteria for work permits. He reported the counties expressed displeasure because it was costly and required them to deviate from their usual procedures. He said, however, he had not heard the loss-of-revenue concern Senator McGinness mentioned. Rather, Mr. Neilander said, he had the impression the counties wanted out of the gaming work permit business. He added some sheriffs said they were in the business of law enforcement and the gaming permits were an employment issue.

 

Chairman Amodei asked if Mr. Neilander knew if sheriffs were willing to share information with the gaming board regarding applicants. Mr. Neilander said the database for the gaming board consisted of a person’s name and where they were employed. However, he said, under chapter 179 of Nevada Revised Statutes, which was not being amended, the confidentiality provisions as codified remained the same. Regarding sharing of information, law enforcement agencies had access to the gaming board’s information, for purpose of conducting investigations. He said there was no change in that agreement between the agencies; the sharing of information would continue.

 

Senator Care, referring to the applications for the gaming registration, asked how much information on approvals or denials was made public knowledge. Mr. Neilander said currently, an administrative approval was not made public, but it could be. He said if, at the administrative level, there was any inkling something was questionable they sent the application to the full board. He said at that point, the information became a matter of public record.

 

Senator Care returned to his concern about the language, for “any reasonable cause” approval was denied, and asked what the standard would be. Mr. Neilander said there was an existing list of grounds for denial, including failure to disclose and criminal convictions. Mr. Neilander said occasionally someone reported an illegal activity for which they were not convicted and the gaming board knew of the activity only because the applicant disclosed it. Those situations, he continued, were considered to allow the board some discretion. He said in some states, anyone who had committed a felony was excluded from employment. He said, “If you’ve committed a felony in most states, you simply are not eligible to work in the gaming industry. That is not true in Nevada.” The position in Nevada regarding felons was if a person could demonstrate he or she was rehabilitated, the criminal act was an isolated incident, or their employment history was good, there was some flexibility in considering these people. He said decisions were made on a case-by-case basis.

 

Senator Care then asked about the legality of negotiating stock options as a contingency for having someone come on board. Mr. Neilander said existing law would not prohibit negotiations, but would prohibit the actual issuing of the stock option. He said it could not be exercised either.

 

Chairman Amodei verified the proposed amendments to S. B. 432, Exhibit C, were compiled by the State Gaming Control Board. Mr. Neilander responded the amendments addressed the situation where the applicant would eventually file information with the board, as opposed to going through the licensee. He said in the future, that was something the board would have the ability to accommodate. Currently, he explained, the board did not have the facility or the resources to service applicants; the only way this could be accomplished would be by mail or electronic mailing of applications. Mr. Neilander summarized the amendments were designed to adopt regulations at a future time to address the use of electronic filings. The other amendments, he said, allowed conformity in the law. Finally, he said the effective date was corrected.

 

Chairman Amodei asked why Clark County chose to stop issuing gaming work permits. Mr. Neilander said he did not know the reason.

 

Mr. Bible, voiced support for the portion of S.B. 432 pertaining to the sale of antique slot machines. He also said there was no problem with filing applications electronically. However, Mr. Bible said, there were concerns about the work registration procedures. He said because counties were no longer doing the work permits, the gaming licensees were becoming more involved with the registration process. Mr. Bible said he had not totally reviewed the proposals, but felt it could be necessary to amend the amendments for clarification of the licensees’ responsibilities. He said currently, the licensee had no exposure to the work permit process, but with the proposed changes to the law, would now be required to send the application to the State Gaming Control Board. He asked what would become standard procedure if the licensee inadvertently failed to send the application. He asked the committee to hold the bill for consideration until the resort association had an opportunity to meet with the gaming control board. Mr. Bible suggested S.B. 432 be considered during a committee work session.

 

Senator Wiener asked, if licensees were now going to be participants, could someone from out-of-state apply and register before seeking employment in Nevada.

 

Mr. Bible said, as he understood the bill, a person would need to have an employer to submit an application for registration with the gaming control board. He did not know if the gaming control board would accept an unsponsored application. Mr. Bible said several gaming operations conducted their own checks on the backgrounds and histories of potential employees. He said there needed to be some flexibility in issuing permits.

 

Chairman Amodei said he could accommodate Mr. Bible’s request to discuss this issue with the gaming control board. However, he said, Mr. Neilander had indicated the board had already spent 18 months researching and discussing changes, therefore, any other input should be submitted to Bradley Wilkinson, Committee Counsel, by Friday, April 4. Mr. Bible acknowledged the chairman’s time limit and said it was acceptable to him.

 

Sondra Condron, Chief Deputy Clerk, Clerk/Treasurer, Douglas County, came forward and announced she worked for Barbara Reed, Clerk/Treasurer of Douglas County, who was unable to attend this meeting. Ms. Condron said Ms. Reed prepared notes about several concerns to be presented to the committee, Exhibit D.

 

Ms. Condron said Ms. Reed was adamantly opposed to S.B. 432 because the work card program was being taken away from the counties. Ms. Condron said Douglas County Sheriff Ronald Pierini was also opposed to S.B. 432 for the following reasons. She said there would be a loss of revenue on the work permits of approximately $79,000 annually. Ms. Condron said the county issued approximately 4000 work permits yearly. In addition to lost revenue, it would impact the sheriff’s department. She said often felons who failed to register with the county had come in to secure work permits and were tagged at that time. In addition, Ms. Condron said often deputies arrest someone with an outstanding warrant because information was made available while running the Criminal Justice Information Service (CJIS) check for a gaming work permit. The CJIS checks had also provided useful information for criminal investigations and such reports were a resource for law enforcement. In addition, the casinos would be monitoring gaming employees, a situation she likened to the fox guarding the hen house.

 

Ms. Condron offered some concerns about who would take fingerprints for this registration service, which agency would run a CJIS, how a sheriff could access the database for law enforcement reasons, and forms for child support and alien registration. Many of these concerns required a law enforcement agency request and the gaming control board was not such an agency, Ms. Condron said. She said several issues were not covered in S.B. 432. Ms. Condron said Ms. Reed suggested allowing each county to decide if it wanted to continue the practice of issuing work cards.

 

Ms. Condron said Douglas County had been unaware of this bill, learning of it from a short article in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, a California newspaper. She said no formal information was sent to Douglas County and said this legislation would affect Douglas County. Ms. Condron said perhaps other small counties had not been informed about this legislation.

 

Senator Nolan said Ms. Condron raised some salient issues and said he would like Mr. Neilander to address some of these issues and report how the State Gaming Control Board had dealt with them in their deliberations regarding S.B. 432. He said child support issues and alien registration were important issues that tied employment to law enforcement.

 

Mr. Neilander said, “As I testified to earlier, there are no changes in the law in respect of the sharing of records among law enforcement agencies.” He said in regard to child support, the amendment to section 7 provides the information would be passed on to the district attorney’s offices in the appropriate jurisdictions. Mr. Neilander said he was not in a position to comment on the loss of revenue to counties. He explained he prepared this legislation because, according to law, when a county decided to discontinue the work permit program, the responsibility was shifted to the State. He said the board considered mandating the work permit program as a county responsibility. But, the county that generated over 60 percent of the State’s work cards decided not to issue them anymore. Mr. Neilander said there were options, but currently if a county discontinued the work permit service, the State must, by law, take over the service. He said what was presented was a good plan that was also revenue-neutral for the State. He said it met the goal of offering another plan and not requesting financing from the State.

 

Mr. Neilander said the counties were not notified because the concept was finalized only 2 weeks ago. He said there was not enough time to sit down and discuss this change with everybody. He added, the change was a new concept to the casino licensees, too.

 

Senator Nolan commented there was no fiscal note attached to S.B. 432. He asked how many staff would be needed to take on the gaming registration program. Mr. Neilander said there was loan money through the State that could be repaid during the biennium and the estimate on the number of employees needed to start up the registration system was eight, but he said with no additional space available, these employees would work in three daily shifts. He said the plan was to remodel an existing portion of the enforcement division.

 

Senator Titus offered, “If Douglas County is worried about loss of revenue, they might want to look into charging business license fees.” She referenced the industrial explosion in Douglas County in 2001 that became a problem for the State to handle.

 

Mr. Neilander said he had failed to answer a question posed earlier and announced the fingerprinting for gaming work permits would most likely be done at the sheriff’s or police office. He said there were also private firms that took fingerprints.

 

Peter Sidlow, Las Vegas Antique Bottles and Collectors Club, came forward and announced he was a partner at Victorian Casino Antiques located in Las Vegas, an antique auction company. Mr. Sidlow voiced support of the antique slot machine section of S.B. 432 and submitted written testimony, Exhibit E. Included in the exhibit were photographs of the types of items Mr. Sidlow sold; he said these were added to his testimony to verify these gaming devices could not be used in a meaningful gambling venture.

Senator Care referred to a demolished Washoe Valley barn where several old slot machines were found and asked how often that happened. Mr. Sidlow said occasionally antique things were found hidden away and added most of the gaming pieces or slot machines he auctioned came from other states.

 

James F. Nadeau, Lobbyist, Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Association, North, and Washoe County Sheriff’s Office, voiced support for S.B. 432. He said there had been considerable debate over several months about whether the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office wanted to continue to provide work cards for gaming employees. He said if the two incorporated cities located within Washoe County, Reno and Sparks, elected to discontinue issuing these permits, the county would have to take over that responsibility. Mr. Nadeau said with the limitation on what fee could be charged for the service and the cost of CJIS, FBI, and the central repository checks, there was already a cap in place. He said when the fees increased, Washoe County had to amend the county code regarding work cards to meet the statutory limitations.

 

Mr. Nadeau said, “We have no problem with gaming control taking over the issuance. We will still have access to the information contained within their files. It’s one less pass-through that we had to do.”

 

Senator Nolan, referring to Ms. Condron’s testimony, questioned the immediacy of information if the State Gaming Control Board took over the work card registration process. He said it seemed there would be a time factor involved in getting law enforcement information to law enforcement agencies. He asked if that kind of time delay presented a problem.

 

Mr. Nadeau said he agreed with many of the concerns raised by Ms. Condron. He explained currently, if someone with an outstanding warrant came in for a work card, the situation could be remedied immediately. But, he said, “We don’t make the determination on who gets a card and who doesn’t. Those decisions are made by gaming control.” Mr. Nadeau said the fee collected was supposed to be revenue-neutral, that is, at actual cost. From the perspective of the sheriff, the work card program did not generate revenue and the sheriff’s office simply did the work, but the decision was with the gaming control board. The ability to recover the costs involved was becoming more and more limited. The choices were either to raise the statutory cap or give up the service, he said.

 

Chairman Amodei asked, “Do you see this as some ‘reverse unfunded mandate’ and that comes along very rarely, so you kind of like that?” Mr. Nadeau said the service was performed at cost and it was not so easy to recover those costs. He added the charge was $10 for fingerprints and that service would likely continue.

 

Chairman Amodei asked Mr. Bible to come forward and inquired whether Mr. Bible knew why Clark County wanted to stop issuing work cards. Mr. Bible said Clark County debated a lot regarding the classifications of employees that were required to have work cards and the numbers of employees required to have these work cards were reduced substantially. Mr. Bible explained there were maids and janitors who needed nongaming cards. He said he thought the decision was made at the county level and only learned of this change when he heard Mr. Neilander testify before the Senate finance committee.

 

Chairman Amodei asked Mr. Bible to talk to members of the resort association at Lake Tahoe in regard to Ms. Condron’s testimony on behalf of Ms. Reed and report the position those licensees had on this issue. He asked Mr. Bible to complete this by Friday, along with the other input promised by that day. Mr. Bible agreed to contact those members.

 

Chairman Amodei closed the hearing on S. B. 432. He announced there had been some feedback on S.B. 282, the bill on alcohol use in parks. The chairman had requested Senator Nolan to act as committee representative and coordinate with law enforcement and State parks and report back to the committee.

 

Chairman Amodei said he planned to present amendments to various bills during regular meetings to avoid a backlog of business. Chairman Amodei said his goal was to finish committee passage as first House prior to May 11.

Chairman Amodei adjourned the meeting at 10:33 a.m.

 

 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

 

 

 

                                                           

Ann Bednarski,

Committee Secretary

 

 

APPROVED BY:

 

 

 

                                                                                         

Senator Mark E. Amodei, Chairman

 

 

DATE: