►
From YouTube: 2/23/2021 - Assembly Committee on Judiciary
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
D
C
E
A
A
I
think
you're
probably
sick,
of
hearing
these
already,
but
I
want
to
go
over
them
just
in
case
we
have
new
folks
joining
in
or
watching
the
proceedings
so
for
members
on
the
zoom
make
sure
that
you
mute
yourself
when
you're,
not
speaking,
that'll
help
with
the
audio
feedback,
and
then
we
do
expect
courtesy
and
respect
in
our
interactions
with
one
another.
In
this
committee
we
don't
always
agree
on
everything.
A
That's
perfectly
fine,
that's
what
the
legislative
process
is
for,
but
we
need
to
make
sure
we're
being
respectful
to
one
another
and
to
those
who
are
presenting
or
testifying
on
bills
and
then
finally,
many
members
are
using
multiple
devices
to
participate
in
the
zoom
meeting,
including
phones,
laptops,
extra
monitors,
desktop
computers.
So
please
don't
take
it
as
a
sign
of
disrespect
or
inattention
if
a
member
appears
to
be
looking
away
during
the
meeting,
they're,
probably
looking
at
exhibits
or
trying
to
process
other
information
on
other
monitors
as
we
navigate
this
virtual
environment.
A
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
formally
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
7.
assembly
bill
7
revises
provisions
relating
to
gaming.
I
will
note
for
the
members.
There
is
a
proposed
amendment
by
the
gaming
control
board
that
should
be
up
on
nellis,
and
I
tried
to
I
sent
that
to
you
all
last
night,
but
it
was
pretty
late.
A
I
think
it
was
last
week
it
might
have
been
the
week
before.
But
gentlemen,
I
want
to
welcome
you
to
the
committee
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
review
assembly
bill
7,
get
through
your
presentation
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions.
So
when
you're
ready,
please
proceed
with
assembly
bill,
7.
F
Okay,
well,
thank
you
for
that
good
morning,
chair,
morgan,
sorry,
jerry
jaeger,
bad
habit,
old,
heaven,
good
habit.
Members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
I'm
phil
catsarus,
I'm
one
of
the
board
members
with
the
nevada
gaming
control
board.
As
you
mentioned,
this
is
my
first
time
presenting
to
the
members
of
the
legislature,
and
I
just
want
to
say
it's
an
honor
for
me
to
be
here
today.
F
I'd
just
like
to
recognize,
firstly,
the
great
folks
we
have
at
the
gcb,
we
do
have
a
remarkable
team
and
as
it
concerns
our
proposed
changes
here,
that
I'll
be
running
through
today,
there
were
numerous
individuals
within
the
gaming
control
board
that
contributed
to
crafting
these,
and
I
want
to
thank
everybody
at
the
gaming
control
board
for
their
part
in
this
process.
The
central
theme
here
is
simply
to
continue
to
improve
upon
and
modernize
nrs
463
for
the
betterment
of
the
state.
F
I
do
want
to
recognize
one
other
individual
specifically
and
chair
yeager
just
mentioned
him,
but
he
was
central
in
coordinating
all
our
efforts
here
today.
He's
he's
the
glue
in
this
process,
and
some
of
you
already
know
him.
It
seems
that's,
mr
morton
he's
our
senior
research
analyst
and
his
total.
F
His
title
is
essentially
it's
woefully
underwhelming
frankly
for
what
he
does
he's
a
rock
within
our
organization
and
a
go-to
person,
for
whatever
is
needed
he's
here
to
provide
support
anything
I
need,
and
also
to,
I
guess,
somewhat
elbowing
in
case
I
go
off
message
which
I
tend
to
do
sometimes
will
thank
you,
michael
and
with
that
chair,
morgan
or
sherry
yeager.
Sorry
about
that.
With
your
permission,
I
can
get
into
the
specifics
of
our
proposals.
A
F
F
I've
been
at
her
side
for
about
75
percent
of
that,
so
so
assembly
bill
number
seven
is
written,
proposes
six
changes
to
the
gaming
control
act
for
the
ease
of
the
members
following
along
I'll
present,
each
change
from
the
bill
and
the
proposed
amendment
that
the
board
has
submitted
as
an
exhibit,
rather
than
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill
in
chronological
order,
so
inner
casino
link
systems
this
the
first
is
the
first
proposed
change
here.
It's
a
change
to
a
specific
type
of
license.
Currently
in
statute.
F
The
only
other
specific
reference
to
inner
casino
link
systems
is
in
section
9,
and
this
section
of
statute
gives
the
nevada
gaming
commission
authority
to
regulate
inner
casino
link
systems.
So
we
need
that
in
there.
Of
course,
the
board
is
proposing
this
change
for
registration
of
intercasinolink
systems
as
associated
equipment,
rather
than
full
licensure
as
a
recognition
of
technological
advancements,
both
in
the
industry
and
at
the
board
that
have
assured
the
board
that
the
technology
involved
within
your
casino
link
system
no
longer
poses
a
potential
danger
to
the
gaming
industry.
F
F
The
last
piece
of
the
change
related
to
inner
casino
link
systems
is
in
section
20.,
and
this
section
requires
the
regis
that
the
registration
of
those
associated
with
the
manufacturing
and
distribution
of
associated
equipment,
the
board
is
proposing
changes
to
section
20
that
mirror
other
registrations
that
the
board
currently
issues,
such
as
service
providers,
for
instance.
F
With
respect
to
the
changes
related
to
inner
casino
link
systems,
the
board
has
offered
a
proposed
amendment.
The
the
amendment
document
proposes
a
slight
change
to
section
eight
and
that's
to
ensure
that
all
information
and
data
submitted
to
the
board
regarding
technology
continues
to
remain
confidential.
F
F
The
next
area
would
be
our
new
games.
Approval,
as
written
section
3
of
ab7
would
change
the
definition
of
game
or
gaming
or
gambling
game
to
require
games
to
be
approved
by
the
board,
rather
than
the
commission
upon
further
internal
discussions
that
it
occurred
between
the
pre-filing
of
this
bill,
and
today
the
board
is
proposing
further
changes
to
section
3,
as
well
as
a
new
section
associated
with
the
approval
of
new
games.
F
While
the
board
traditionally
defers
these
sort
of
policy
decisions
to
the
legislature,
we
do
take
it
upon
ourselves
to
identify
such
issues
and
attempt
to
correct
them
if,
when
they're
noted,
so
in
this
regard,
the
amendment
document
proposes
the
removal
of
these
certain
terms
contained
in
nrs.
It's
4630152.
F
The
next
section
has
to
do
with
updating
some
of
the
technology
language
and
that's
in
sections
two,
three
and
five
of
this
bill,
we'll
we'd
like
to
remove
the
word
electromechanical
from
various
portions
of
the
definitions
in
chapter
463
of
nrs,
as
the
word
is
frankly
obsolete,
relating
to
the
specific
definitions
where
we're
deleting
them
live.
Entertainment
tax.
F
F
However,
in
practice,
admission
charges
become
very
complicated
and
convoluted
and
can
be
comprised
of
many
different
components
involved,
involving
the
sale
or
the
ticket
price,
because
we've
got
multiple,
the
service
providers
or
service
charges
and
other
fees
as
you've
probably
experienced
so
due
to
the
limitations
of
some
ticketing
systems,
for
instance,
ticketmaster,
for
example,
the
ticket
price
service
charges
and
fees
must
all
be
displayed
as
individual
line
items
on
the
ticket.
In
order
for
the
system
to
properly
classify
each
item
into
the
proper
category.
F
On
the
accounting
reports,
therefore,
these
components
may
not
be
lumped
together.
In
one
admission
charge
number
for
for
ticket
display
purposes,
the
categorization
becomes
even
more
challenging
when,
when
service
charges
and
fees
are
split
between
parties,
the
taxability
of
that
split
will
then
depend
on
who
implemented
the
fee
and
what
parties
retain
a
portion,
because
only
a
portion
of
that
fee
is
taxable
and
therefore
part
of
the
total
admission
charge.
Displaying
this
split
charge
is
sometimes
impossible
for
gaming
licenses
to
to
cope
with.
F
Therefore,
rather
than
requiring
some
of
these
legacy
systems,
as
I
mentioned
ticketmaster,
which
is
used
globally
and
others
to
rework
their
ticketing
systems
in
order
to
comply,
the
board's
proposing
a
change
in
the
requirement
to
to
display
and
to
display
the
requirement.
Sorry
to
change
the
display
requirement
to
just
display
the
tax
that
is
paid,
that'll,
clear
up,
everything
patrons
would
still
be
aware
of
how
much
they're
paying
in
live
tax,
and
it's
a
simple
number
to
display
the
amount
of
tax
imposed
and
collected
is
not
affected.
F
It's
just
the
display,
however,
when
the
board
submitted
this
legislation
for
drafting
the
language
it
submitted
was
changed
to
rightly
reflect
the
bifurcation
of
authority
between
the
taxation
department
and
the
gaming
control
board.
The
board
is
currently
working
with
department
of
taxation
to
make
this
language
work
universally,
as
the
bifurcation
would
not
alleviate
the
burden
of
legacy
ticketing
systems,
but
only
create
a
separate
display
requirement,
based
on
where
the
taxable
event
is
is
taking
place.
F
The
board
plans
on
submitting
additional
amendments
to
this
section
prior
to
any
work
session
on
eb7
event,
wagering
section
23
it
repeals
nrs
463.800.
F
This
was
enacted
in
2015
to
authorize
entity
wagering
as
written
463,
800
authorizes
a
race
book
or
sports
pool
to
accept
wagers
from
a
business
entity
that
has
established
a
wagering
account
in
practice.
Business
entities
would
crea
were
created
to
pull
individuals
money
together
in
hopes
of
creating
return
on
their
investment.
F
However,
since
2015
entity
wagering
has
proven
to
be
somewhat
of
a
stain
on
the
industry,
it's
been.
It's
led
to
several
in
federal
investigations
and
indictments
relating
to
relating
entity
wagering,
sometimes
in
certain
cases,
to
ponzi
schemes
and
so
forth,
and
for
this
reason
the
board
is
proposing
full
repeal
of
this
provision.
F
If
we
go
on
to
section
also
in
section
23,
with
respect
to
labor,
employee
labor
organizations,
section
23
repeals
the
entirety
of
chapter
463a
of
nrs,
which
regulated
the
personnel
of
labor
organizations
for
casino
gaming
employees,
the
chapter
was
enacted
in
1975
and
never
substantially
amended
and
a
wellspring
of
employee
labor
organizations.
The
gaming
industry
never
really
materialize.
F
This
change
is
reflected
in
the
amendment
document
that
we
have
recently
submitted,
and
that
really
concludes
the
the
presentation.
The
board
has
for
assembly
bill
number
seven
here,
but
mr
morton
and
I
are
prepared
to
any
questions
to
answer
any
questions
the
committee
may
have
at
this
time.
A
Thank
you
for
the
presentation,
mr
katsuros
and
I
have
a
couple
questions
I'll,
just
kind
of
ask
right
out
the
gate
and
then
I'll
hand
it
over
to
members.
So
you
had
talked
quite
a
bit
about
inter-casino-linked
systems
and
I
think
I
understand
what
you're
trying
to
do
in
the
bill.
I
just
wondered
if
you
could
provide
an
example
or
two
of
what
an
intra-casino-linked
system
is
just
in
the
real
world,
so
remember
to
have
a
sense
of
what
we're
regulating
here.
F
Sure
so
an
inner
casino
link
system,
it's
an
important
piece
of
equipment
in
the
game
in
the
gaming
industry,
but
essentially
it's
a
calculator.
It's
a
glorified
metering
device,
so
it
it
links
progressives,
for
instance,
that
you
may
see
on
casinos
floors
and
calculates
the
amount
of
activity
that
is
occurring
so
that
it
can
display
the
proper
amount
of
funds
that
are
being
metered
and
incremented
to
those
meters
that
you
would
traditionally
see
in
the
casinos.
F
It
doesn't
determine
the
outcome
of
the
patrons
win.
It
doesn't
have
involvement
in
that
respect.
F
It's
it's
essentially
a
what
I
would
call
a
glorified
metering
device
and
I
think
at
the
onset
of
this,
just
like
many
things
in
the
industry
when
it's
new,
the
the
inclination
and
I
think
it's
the
right
inclination
is
to
grab
hold
of
it
and
make
sure
you've
got
control
of
whatever
it
is
we're
regulating
first
and
as
we
become
comfortable
with
it
and
understand
it
more
over
time,
we
realize
whether
or
not
that
was
the
appropriate
amount
of
sort
of
regulatory
oversight
or
not
and
we're
adjusting
accordingly.
In
our
view,.
A
Thank
you
for
that
response.
So
let
me
just
give
an
example
and
tell
me
if
I've
got
it
right,
so
I'm
thinking
about
you
know
the
slot
machines
and
casinos,
and
particularly
the
mega
bucks,
progressive
jackpot
or
the
wheel
of
fortune
progressive
jackpot
when
you're
in
the
casino
you
sort
of
see
that
meter,
that's
increasing
in
value,
presumably
based
on
play
at
all
the
properties.
A
A
Now
I
certainly
understand
that
there
have
been
some
issues-
hopefully
not
in
nevada
but
around
the
country,
but
I
just
wondered:
if
you
could
give
me
a
sense
like
did,
did
that
entity
wagering,
just
not
really
pan
out
in
nevada
the
way
that
folks
thought
it
would,
because
I
think
the
the
testimony
was.
You
know
they
really
thought.
This
would
be
sort
of
the
next
big
thing,
but
did
that
just
not
come
to
pass
here
in
nevada.
F
Yeah
you're
absolutely
right,
it
did
not
necessarily
flourish
to
the
extent.
I
think
many
had
hope
this
was
not
a
gaming
control
board
bill
at
the
time.
I
believe-
and
I
wasn't
around-
I
was
sort
of
on
the
other
side
of
the
aisle
in
the
industry
at
that
moment
at
that
time,
but
as
I
recall,
it
was
an
industry
effort
and
a
push
and
look.
I
I
have
the
luxury
of
hindsight
to
say
yeah.
It
didn't
really
pan
out
at
the
time.
F
I
think
the
notion
was
that
you'd
be
able
to
pull
funds
together
in
nevada
sort
of
reaching
into
the
investors
and
pockets
of
others
outside
of
nevada,
pull
that
money
into
nevada
and
then
create
incremental
revenues
and
growth
with
the
sports
wagering
industry
and
by
all
accounts.
That
didn't
necessarily
happen.
F
I
think
at
one
point,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
over
since
that
time,
there
was
only
one
sports
book
that
was
actually
accepting
wagers
from
these
type
of
business
entities
and
there
was
less
than
a
dozen.
I
believe
that
were
formed.
Don't
quote
me
on
that,
but
I
think
it
would
have
been
less
than
even
10.
A
Thank
you
for
the
response,
and
the
last
comment
I
wanted
to
make
was
just
to
thank
you
for
recognizing
the
offensive
terms
that
were
in
the
bill
and
suggesting
to
take
those
out.
I
had
noticed
that
in
my
read
of
the
bill
2-
and
I
think
you
know
as
legislators
and
all
of
us
involved
in
this
process,
I
think
we
have
a
responsibility
to
sort
of
clean
some
of
those
things
up.
Relics
of
the
past
that
are
certainly
no
longer
appropriate
and
probably
never
were
in
the
first
place.
A
But
I
want
to
thank
you
for
suggesting
that
in
the
amendment
and
now
I
have
questions
from
members,
so
I
know
there's
probably
a
lot
of
questions
out
there,
but
so
far
here's
the
order,
we're
going
to
go
in
we'll
start
with
assemblywoman
summers.
Armstrong
then
go
to
assemblyman
wheeler,
followed
by
assemblywoman
cohen,
so
assemblywoman
summers
armstrong
when
you
want
to
please
go
ahead
and
ask
your
question.
D
Good
morning,
cherry
yeager
and
thank
you
so
much
mr
caceres,
for
the
presentation-
and
I
just
have
a
one
question,
and
that
is
help
me
understand-
that
the
requirement
for
the
background
investigation
of
or
licensor
of
those
who
create
games.
You
want
to
make
some
changes
there,
and
are
you
implying
that
just
explain
why
why
you
want
to
make
that
change?
Please.
F
Certainly
so
I,
if
I,
if
I'm
understanding
the
question
correctly,
where
we're
relegating
the
the
inner
casino
link
systems
from
a
category
that
requires
full
licensure
to
one
that
will
be
a
registration
so
we're
not
letting
loose
or
or
letting
go
of
the
reins
for
an
inner
casino
link
system.
We
would
still
register
those
entities
a
background
investigation
is
done
not
to
the
extent,
however,
that
a
full
investigation
would
entail
as
you
you
may
be
familiar.
F
The
investigative
process
for
full
licensure
in
nevada
is
not
for
the
faint
of
heart
and
in
order
to
obtain
licensure
it's
a
lengthy
and
expensive
process.
So
we
hold
the
these
standards
for
what
I
would
consider
to
be
the
more
significant
aspects
of
our
of
our
industry,
those
being
the
manufacturers
of
gaming
devices,
operators,
sports
betting
operators,
etc,
etc.
But
for
this
sort
of
finite
category
of
product
we
don't
feel
it's
any.
F
D
A
chair
follow-up
question:
so,
if
you're
not
going
to
require
that
they
have
the
full
licensure,
how
deep
do
you
go
to
ensure
that
code
and
and
other
things
are,
are
protected
and
are
fair?
I
mean
you're
talking
about
interlinked
games,
which
is
you
said
this
is
calculator.
Someone
is.
Is
writing
the
code
for
that
right?
So
do
we
don't?
We
need
to
be
assured
that
those
who
are
involved
in
that
process
are
deeply
investigated
so
that
we
don't
have
the
calculator
missing
digits
so.
F
Great
great
question-
and
I
didn't
I
didn't
answer
your
question
fully
and
that's
my
apologies
there,
because
on
the
technology
side,
both
both
in
the
investigative
background
side
of
it,
we
have
the
discretion
to
conduct
as
lengthy
of
investigation
as
needed.
F
However,
again,
given
the
fact
that
this
is
a
what
we
term
to
be
sort
of
a
lower
lower
tier
type
of
product,
here,
we
are
suggesting
it
be
relegated
to
a
registration
just
like
we
have
with
other
categories
of
licenses,
for
instance,
the
service
provider
licenses
that
are
that
are
outlined
within
regulation.
F
But
on
the
technology
side,
we
still
do
test
as
well,
and
that's
where
I
didn't
explain
fully.
So
thank
you
for
redirecting
me
on
that.
We
do
fully
test
that
still
to
ensure
that
it
is
calculating
properly
and
we
have
discretion
to
test,
just
as
we
would
any
other
gaming
device
and,
in
fact
would
still
be
testing
to
the
exact
same
level
of
testing
that
we
would
do
even
if
they
were
required
to
have
a
full
license.
So
thank
you
for
that.
E
And
can
you
justify
for
me
what
the
extra
500
would
be
and
then
my
other
question,
which
I
believe
is
related
in
section
20,
subsection,
2
d,
the
new
d?
You
are
removing
the
section
that
says
that
the
registration
requirement
must
not
exceed
1
000
per
application.
Does
that
give
you?
You
know
open
season,
basically
through
regulation
I
understand,
but
to
just
charge
whatever
you
want
for
the
application
fee,
ten
thousand
two
thousand
buck
and
a
half.
You
know
I'm
just
trying
to
figure.
F
It
out
here
so
what
we'd
be
doing
on
that
last
question
is
aligning
it
with
what
we
have
in
regulation.
Now
I
wouldn't
use
the
word
open
season.
The
oversight
there
is
would
still
be
at
the
commission
level.
We've
run
into
a
situation
over.
You
know
the
past
many
decades
where
fees
haven't
been
adjusted
for
30
40
years
and
at
the
same
time,
obviously
inflation
has
occurred
and
you
know
something
that
cost
a
hundred
dollars
50
years
ago.
F
Still
being
you
know,
100
isn't
necessarily
relevant
anymore,
but
it
is
not
open
season.
We
still
would
have
to
go
to
the
commission.
The
commission
would
have
to
ratify
any
change
in
in
fee
structure
with
respect
to.
If
I,
which
fee
are
we
talking
about
again,
it
was
the
thousand
dollar
fee.
I
believe.
E
F
Okay
and
that
would
have
to
be
ratified
by
the
commission.
Anything
in
red
would
have
to
be
ratified.
The
commission,
if
there's
an
administrative
fee,
that's
a
different
story.
The
the
first
question
that
you
had
there
assemblyman
wheel.
E
Well,
what
I'm
looking
at,
I
can't
find
it
in
the
bill,
but
I'm
seeing
it
in
the
digest
here.
Okay-
and
it
says,
transistor
requires
an
annual
fee
in
addition
to
the
other
fees.
So
I'm
trying
to
justify
that
annual
500
fee
right
now,
a
lot
of
our
gaming
companies.
You
know
we're
hurting,
they're,
hurting
bad
and
I
just
hate
to
see
us
adding
more
fees
and
more
fees
and
more
fees.
F
So
now
that
we're
talking
about
a
registration
fee
in
this
regard,
we're
nowhere
even
in
the
realm
of
the
the
same
neighborhood,
and
it
would
then
bring
it
in
line
with
the
other
types
of
registrations
that
we
have.
Anybody
who
wants
to
get
an
inner
casino
link
system
would
be
thankful
for
this.
Frankly,.
E
Okay
and
just
to
follow
up
mr
chair,
if
it's
okay,
please.
E
Just
a
quick
question:
any
of
these
normally
would
go
through
our
interim
finance
committee
during
you
know
the
interim.
Would
all
these
fees
also
be
subject
to
that
or
just
approval
by
the
gaming
control
board.
G
G
B
Thank
you.
I
am
appreciate
that
chair
just
one
though
I
think
the
others
were
answered,
and
thank
you
for
the
presentation,
gentlemen
and
section
20
sub
2
b,
there's
reference
to
a
person
having
significant
involvement
in
manufacturing
or
distribution
of
associated
equipment
etc.
Do
we
have
a
definition
for
significant
involvement.
G
F
And
just
to
add
a
bit
more
on
that
when
we're
dealing
with
technology
and
more
and
more,
these
things
become
nuanced,
because
there's
numerous
entities
or
developers
involved
or
having
a
hand
in
the
development
of
that
product.
So
this
would
give
us
the
tools
we
need
in
order
to
ensure
we
can
capture
whoever
it
is.
We
may
deem
to
have
a
significant
sort
of
involvement
in
that
process
of
developing
and
manufacturing
these
products.
B
A
And
if
I
can
remind,
I
should
have
done
this
earlier,
mr
morton
and
mr
katsaros,
if
you
could
remember
to
state
your
name
before
you
speak,
that
will
help
our
committee
secretaries
when
they
prepare
the
minutes.
There
are
only
two
of
you
but
I'll.
Try
to
remind
you
to
do
that
because
I
know
it's.
It's
not
natural
and
I
think
mr
katsara
said
this
is
your
first
time
presenting.
So
it's
super
awkward
to
do
that.
A
A
B
A
So
let
me
repeat
that
so
she
was
referring
to
section
23
of
the
bill
which
details
the
sections
of
nrs
that
are
to
be
deleted,
and
I
think
she
was
asking
about
you
know
essentially
what
those
sections
do
that
are
proposed
to
be
deleted
and-
and
I
think
before
you
answer
mr
katsaros
I'll
note
for
members-
that,
through
the
amendment
presented
by
the
the
gaming
control
board,
there's
a
number
of
those
sections
that
are
now
proposed
to
not
be
deleted.
A
F
Thank
you,
chair
yeager,
phil,
katzarus,
nevada,
gaming
control
board
member
you're,
exactly
correct
on
one
piece
of
section:
23
it.
It
basically
leaves
463a
of
nrs
untouched,
the
other,
the
other
main
sort
of
change
there
has
to
do
with
repealing
anything
to
do
with
entity
wagering
so
that
it
is
no
longer
an
allowable
practice
within
nevada.
F
Those
are
the
two
main
ones,
mr
morton.
If
there
was
something
else
included
that
was
noteworthy.
If
you
wouldn't
mind
chiming
in.
G
I
know
you
explained
it
perfectly
so,
yes,
the
bill
as
written
repeals
provisions
relating
to
gaming,
employee,
labor
organizations,
but
the
amendment
would
know
if
the
proposed
amendment
were
adopted.
It
would
no
longer
repeal
those
sections.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
any
other
questions
at
the
moment.
So
what
I'm
going
to
do
at
this
time
is
thank
the
two
of
you
for
presenting
and
we'll
we'll
have
a
chance
for
you
to
give
concluding
testimony
on
the
bill
after
we
take
other
testimony
on
the
bill.
So
at
this
time
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
for
testimony
in
support
of
assembly
bill
7..
I
don't
believe
we
have
anyone
on
the
zoom
with
us
in
support
bps.
C
C
Chair
there
isn't
anyone
in
the
queue
to
testify
in
support
of
ab7.
A
A
C
We
have
been
in
contact
with
the
gaming
control
board
to
assure
that
provisions
of
the
live
entertainment
tax
are
are
the
same
for
businesses,
whether
the
tax
is
administered
and
audited
audited
by
the
gaming
control
board
or
the
department
of
the
taxation
or
the
department
of
taxation.
We
are
prepared
to
continue
to
work
with
the
gcb
on
forthcoming
amendments
relative
to
this
matter
mentioned
earlier
in
the
hearing.
A
A
C
Jeremy,
chairman
yeager,
I'm
sorry,
we
are
neutral
on
the
provisions
that
are
not
related
to
the
lap.
We
are
in
support
of
the
provisions
relative
to
the
lep.
If
that
makes
sense.
A
Thank
you,
mr
duncan.
I
think
it
does
make
sense
for
now
we'll
keep
you
in
the
the
neutral
position.
Since
it
sounds
like
you,
don't
have
a
position
on
the
other
parts
of
the
bill
and
good
to
hear
from
mr
duncan,
and
thank
you
for
calling
in
to
provide
testimony
today.
C
F
Phil
katzaris
nevada
gaming
control
board.
Thank
you
again,
chair
yeager
members
of
the
committee.
I
didn't
have
any
closing
comments
prepared.
We
just
asked
for
your
support
of
the
provisions
and
proposed
changes
that
we've
submitted
to
this
committee.
A
Thank
you
so
much.
I
will
go
ahead
and
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
7
and
we'll
move
on
to
the
second
bill
on
our
agenda
assembly
bill
8.
So
at
this
time
I
will
formally
open
the
hearing
on
assembly
bill
8
assembly
bill
8
makes
various
changes
relating
to
gaming
and
I'll.
Welcome
back
to
the
committee,
mr
kotzaros,
mr
morton,
we'll
give
you
a
chance
to
present
the
bill
and
then
I'm
sure
we'll
have
some
questions
for
you.
So
please
go
ahead
when
you're
ready.
F
Chair
jager
members
of
the
committee
again
for
the
record
I
am
phil.
Katzar
is
a
member
with
the
nevada
gaming
control
board
assembly.
Bill
number
eight,
as
written,
proposes
six
changes
to
the
gaming
control.
F
F
Changing
the
award
from
writing
to
record
will
allow
for
electronic
credit
instruments,
specifically
markers
additionally,
section
5
provides
authority
to
the
nevada
gaming
commission
to
adopt
regulations
relating
to
the
use
and
via
validity
of
electronic
signatures
on
credit
instruments
used
in
gaming
gaming.
Employee
definition,
section
two
of
this
bills
amends
this
definition
of
gaming
employee
found
in
4630157
to
include
those
employees
who
are
required
to
register
with
the
board
to
operate
as
cash
access
and
wagering
instrument.
Service
providers
and
two
the
commission
determines
by
regulations
by
regulation
who
are
required
to
then
register.
F
While
this
appears
to
be
an
expansion
of
the
persons
who
must
require
or
must
register
with
the
board
the
cash
access
and
wagering
instrument
service
provider.
Employees
already
have
to
register
with
the
board,
but
it
was
simply
never
included
within
the
definition
of
gaming
employee
in
chapter
463
of
in
our
oh
sorry,
the
the
same
catch-all
provision
is
found
in
gaming,
employee
within
chapter
463
of
nrs
463a.
Excuse
me,
therefore,
this
change
to
the
portion
of
the
bill
is
only
making
definitions
more
similar
between
the
chapters
sections
six
and
eight.
F
These
amend
the
definition
of
slot
machine
wagering
voucher
to
account
for
the
facts
that
wagering
vouchers
are
utilized
in
more
than
just
slot
machines.
These
days
table
games,
for
instance,
they
could
be
used
on
card
games
and
counter
games
and
two
the
vouchers
can
be
in
the
form
of
digital
forms.
Digital
represent
representations
such
as
qr
codes,
perhaps
a
digital
form
of
the
physical
tickets
that
you
see,
microsoft,
tags
and
other
forms.
F
F
F
A
I
have
a
couple
questions
on
section
three,
which
relates
to
gross
revenue,
and
I
guess
the
first
thing
that
jumped
out
on
me
is:
if
we
look
at
that
section,
you
know
subsection
a
mentions,
cache
subsection
b
mentions
cache,
subsection
c
mentions
cache,
and
then
in
subsection
d
we
have
compensation
instead
of
cash
and
then
later
on,
in
that
same
provision,
we're
striking
the
phrase
compensation
and
we're
putting
cash
there.
A
So
I
was
just
trying
to
get
a
handle
on
what
the
difference
is
really
in
in
your
mind,
between
those
two
and
why,
in
most
of
the
provisions,
were
saying
cash,
but
then
in
sub
the
beginning
of
subsection
d
we
say
compensation,
so
if
you
could
maybe
illuminate
on
that
that
a
little
bit
more,
I
think
it
would
be
helpful.
F
Sure
so
the
the
the
purpose
and
concept
of
these
changes
here
are
to
properly
align
an
inadvertent
sort
of
oversight.
I
believe,
from
last
session
that
inadvertently
included
funds
received
on
on
behalf
of
interactive
gaming
operations
that
were
part
of
contests
or
tournaments.
F
Those
funds
are
not
included
in
the
calculation
of
monthly
gross
revenue
and
therefore
the
intent
here
is
to
remove
that
from
the
calculation
here
to
properly
align
how
it
should
be.
It
needs
to
be.
G
Sure
yeah,
so
to
your
specific
question
about
cash
and
compensation,
compensation
is
used
in
paragraph
d
of
subsection
one
because
it's
referring
to
interactive
gaming,
which
is
entirely
done
online.
So
it's
actually
not
cache
changing
hands.
A
That
makes
sense.
Thank
you
for
that,
and
then
you
know
my
other
question
on
section
three.
It's
kind
of
a
broader
question,
and
that
is
here's
the
question.
So
changing
this
definition
of
of
gross
revenue.
Do
we
think
that's
going
to
have
a
positive
or
negative
impact
on
the
amount
of
gross
revenue
that
would
be
reported
by
gaming
licensees.
F
I'm
phil
cadsar's
nevada
gaming
control
board.
I
I
haven't
actually
looked
at
what
the
fiscal
impact
statement
would
say.
I'm
going
to
defer
to
mr
morton,
but
I
would
say,
in
my
personal
view,
minimal
if
nothing
interactive
poker
at
this
point,
it's
not
as
it's
not
as
if
it's
been
a
a
flourish
flourishing
sort
of
product
out
there
right
now,
there's
middle
minimal
activity
out
there
any
benefit
that
we
get
from
interactive
gaming
right
now,
ultimately
would
very
likely
flow
down
to
the
actual
brick
and
mortar
locations,
as
it
were
anyway.
G
This
is
mike
morton
for
the
record.
The
changes
that
we're
making
to
what's
included
in
the
calculation
are
things
that
are
already
not
included
in
gross
revenue
in
practice,
because
they're
not
supposed
to
be
we're
just
changing
the
definition
to
make
that
clear
in
statute.
A
Thank
you,
and
you
know,
I
think,
we're
all
crossing
our
fingers
that,
in
terms
of
online
poker,
that
pennsylvania
hopefully
comes
online
soon
and
signs
a
compact
and
maybe
michigan
and
some
other
states.
So
you
know,
hopefully
when
we
have
this
conversation
two
years
from
now
we're
talking
about
the
boom
in
internet
poker
around
the
country.
I
I'm
hopeful,
although
I've
been
hopeful
for
about
six
years
now
and
we're
still
here
so
we'll
we'll
see
how
things
play
out
in
those
other
states.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
two
for
answering
my
questions
on
section
three.
Other
committee
members
have
questions
on
assembly
bill
eight.
If
you
could
raise
your
hand
or
get
my
attention
in
some
fashion.
If
you
have
a
question.
A
Okay,
I
don't
see
questions
so
I
want
to
thank
the
two
of
you
for
presenting
and
we'll
ask
you
to
stand
by
while
we
see
if
there's
any
additional
testimony
on
this
bill,
so
I
don't
see
anyone
I'll
open
up
supportive
testimony
there
isn't
anybody
on
the
zoom
who
wishes
to
testify
and
support
bps?
Could
we
go
to
the
phone
line
to
see
if
there's
somebody
there
who'd
like
to
testify
and
support.
A
C
A
C
Queue
chair:
the
line
is
open
and
working,
and
there
is
nobody
to
testify
in
the
neutral
position
on
the
bill.
A
Thank
you
bps.
I
appreciate
that
so
I'll
close
neutral
testimony,
mr
katsaros,
mr
morton.
Before
we
go
to
concluding
remarks,
I
did
have
one
other
question
that
I
failed
to
ask
in
the
initial
presentation
of
the
bill
and
so
I'll
ask
it
now,
and
that
was
about
the
slot
machine.
Wagering,
voucher,
change
that
you
are
making
in
the
bill,
and
I
don't
recall
what
section
it
was,
but
I
think
the
explanation
was
obviously
you
can
have
wagering
vouchers.
A
I
guess
is
section
six
wagering
vouchers
that
cover
more
than
just
slot
machines.
So
what
I'm
curious
about
is,
do
we
think
the
dollar
value
of
expired
wager
vouchers
will
increase
due
to
the
change,
and
you
know
the
reason
I
ask
that
is:
there's
a
provision
in
statute
that
there's
a
basically
a
sharing
of
monies
from
expired
vouchers.
So
do
we
think
that
that
amount
is
going
to
increase?
And
if
so,
are
you
able
to
provide
any
conclusions
on
whether
that's
going
to
be
a
substantial
increase
or
a
minimal
increase.
F
Well,
thank
you
for
that
question
again:
phil
katsar's
nevada
game
and
control
board
yeah
that
section
six
and
I
believe,
eight.
That's
where
we're
making
the
definition
change.
It's
largely
a
naming
convention
issue,
but
it
does
get
to
the
heart
of
what
you're
suggesting
chair
yeager,
which
is
that
at
the
at
the
time.
At
the
point
in
time
when
slot
machine
wagering
voucher
was
sort
of
instituted
into
law
and
regulation,
their
the
use
of
tickets
really
weren't
used
outside
of
slot
machines.
F
There
are
now
able
to
be
used
across
the
floor,
although
not
necessarily
seamlessly
just
yet.
That's
a
hope.
I
would
have
in
the
future
that
we
have
a
more
seamless
flow
of
cash
throughout
a
casino
floor,
and
so
that
patrons
have
easier
access
to
to
to
move
freely
as
they
wish,
without
it
being
a
clunky
process
which
it
has
been
for
many
years.
We
moved
from
coins
a
long
time
ago
or
tokens
to
coins
to
tickets,
eventually
maybe
cards,
but
we
would
probably
see
an
increase
in
the
expiration
of
tickets
in
the
future.
F
They're
still
not
widely
used
as
part
of
the
slot
wagering
system
just
yet,
but
as
as
the
gaming
floor
continues
to
change.
Yes,
we'll
see
an
increase,
I'm
not
certain
it's
going.
I
would
not
characterize
it
as
anything.
Notable
though-
and
I
don't
have
any
data
to
be
able
to
for
provide
you
on
that,
simply
because
it's
an
unknown
at
this
time,
what
amount
that
might
be
in
the
future.
A
B
Thank
you,
chair
no
problem.
Actually
I
just
wanted
to
I'm
asked
this
before.
Maybe
you
you
leave
I'm
a
little
bit
mystified
that
we've
not
had
any
testimony
and
support
opposition
per
se
to
particularly
87,
which
is
a
30
page
bill.
B
I
understand
some
of
its
cleanup
updating
language,
but
I
know
this
virtual
legislating
session
is
makes
it
maybe
a
little
bit
more
cumbersome
and
I
don't
know
that
you
can
speak
on
behalf
of
gaming,
of
course,
you're
an
oversight,
I'm
just
really
just
a
little
bit
mystified
that
we
haven't
had
any
any
correspondence
today
about
this
just
curious.
B
If
anybody
else
has
had
had
any
feedback,
and
sometimes
these
bills
look
very
simple
or
not
going
to
do
anything
but
maybe
clean
up,
but
I'm
just
at
a
loss
to
understand
why
nobody
from
industry
that
this
impacts
hasn't
called
in
or
maybe
they're.
Having
trouble
just
curious
and
mainly
just
a
comment.
I'm
sure
you
don't
have
an
answer
for
them,
because
you
don't
speak
for
them.
But
thank
you
for
being
here
and
thank
you
for
your
presentation
today.
G
We,
as
you
know
the
you
know,
all
executive
branch
agency
bills
by
statute
have
to
be
pre-filed
by,
I
think
the
third
wednesday
in
november,
so
the
bill,
our
two
bills,
have
been
public
since
november
18th
of
2020
since
publication
of
those
bills
on
the
legislative
website,
we
have
had
conversations
with
the
industry,
mainly
just
their
questions,
seeking
clarification
on
either
why
we
were
doing
something
or
how
this
might
affect
regulation,
and
so
we
received
no
no
concern
from
the
industry
and
any
clarifications
have
been
cleared
up
prior
to
these
hearings,
but
as
to
why
no
and
testified
in
support
or
opposition.
A
And
I'll
just
note
for
the
record
too,
it
doesn't
look
like
we
had
really
anybody
sign
up
on
the
website
to
provide
testimony
which,
which
makes
me
think
that
it's
it's
not
a
technical
issue.
I
don't
know
it's
interesting
right.
I
mean
some
of
you
are
probably
asking
why
we
started
at
eight
o'clock.
A
Well,
we're
gonna
finish
up
here
at
nine
o'clock,
but
sometimes
it's
just
hard
to
predict
if
these
bills
are
going
to
generate
interest-
and
it
doesn't
look
like
these
ones
generated
too
much
interest
outside
of
the
gaming
control
board
and
and
just
so
it's
clear,
I
haven't
had
anybody
reach
out
to
me
to
really
express
concerns
about
either
of
these
bills
either.
So
maybe
that
maybe
that
means
we
just
got
it
right
this
time,
which
is
a
good
feeling,
because
we
don't
always
do
that.
F
If
I,
if
I
could
interject
go
ahead,
certainly
so
phil
katsarus
have
had
a
gaming
control
board
again,
as
mr
morton
had
stated,
we
worked
on
these
a
long
time
ago.
I
could
run
through
just
high
level
each
one
of
the
sections
again,
but
if
I
wanted
to
simply
summarize
it
is
a
lot
of
what
you
suggested,
which
is
clean
up
for
the
betterment
of
the
state,
and
perhaps
we
did
get
it.
You
know
right
time
will
tell.
F
Obviously
I
have
had
conversations
as
had
you
know:
gaming
control
board
staff
with
folks
outside
of
our
agency.
It's
always
good
to
double
check.
You
know
what
it
is
you're
producing
here,
so
I
can
say,
for
instance,
I've
spoken
to
miss
valentine
at
the
nra,
as
well
as
numerous
other
folks
within
the
industry
as
well.
Just
to
again
double
check
ourselves,
make
sure
we're
not
always
perfect.
We
recognize
that
we
want
to
make
sure
there's
nothing
that
we
maybe
could
have
missed.
Or
what
have
you.
A
Thank
you,
mr
cutsaross,
and
I
do
see
you
there.
Assemblyman
wheeler
I'll,
go
to
you
in
a
moment.
I
just
wanted
to
make
clear
for
the
members
that
the
nra
that
mr
katsaros
references,
the
nevada
resort
association,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
there
wasn't
confusion
about
which.
A
Because
there
is
another
nra
that
doesn't
involve
gaming,
so
thank
you.
F
You're
watching
for
that
clarification,
I
mean
we're
continually
communicating
with
the
public
as
well
as
the
industry
right
always
soliciting
feedback
and
understanding
great,
getting
gaining
a
greater
understanding
of
the
industry
that
we
regulate.
E
Just
a
quick
comment,
mr
chairman,
I
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
that
next
time
this
happens,
let
me
know
I'll
get
on
and
tell
everybody
how
simple
a
bill.
This
is
and
we'll
get
50
or
60
comments.
A
That's
a
true
statement
as
well
of
mr
katsaros.
I
don't
know
if
you've
watched
legislative
hearings
but
saying
a
bill
is
simple-
is
normally
the
kiss
of
death.
It
means
anything
anything
but
simple.
So
I
made
the
mistake
of
saying
that
last
week
or
the
week
before
and
we
had
all
kinds
of
technical
problems,
we
all
got
kicked
off
the
zoom.
So
we're
not
going
to
say
that
about
any
bills
in
this
committee
anymore.
A
F
Phil
katsar's
nevada
gaming
control
board
again
didn't
have
any
other
concluding
comments,
other
to
simply
say
it
again.
We
would
hope
that
we
would
have
support
of
the
the
very
noteworthy
changes
that
we're
proposing
here,
a
lot
of
cleanup
again
for
the
betterment
of
the
state.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
we'll.
Let
you
off
the
hook.
Normally,
if
it's
your
first
bill
presentation,
we
do
require
a
song
and
dance
in
inclusion
of
bills,
but
we'll
relieve
you
of
that
obligation
this
morning,
and
I
want
to
thank
you,
mr
katsaros
and
mr
morton
for
being
here
and
presenting
this
morning,
and
if
we
have
any
additional
questions,
we'll
be
sure
to
reach
out.
Thank
you.
It's
been
our
pleasure
have
a
great
rest
of
the
day.
A
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
assembly
build
eight
that
takes
us
to
our
last
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment
as
a
reminder,
we'll
have
up
to
30
minutes
of
public
comment.
Speakers
will
have
two
minutes
to
provide
their
public
comment.
I
think
we
might
have
one
or
two
on
the
line.
Bps.
Could
we
go
to
the
public
comment
line
and
see
if
there's
anybody
there
wishing
to
testify.
C
H
Anne-Marie
grant
a-n-n-e-m-a-r-I-e
g-r-a-n
sister
of
thomas
purdy,
who
was
killed
by
reno
police
and
washer
county
sheriff's
office
october
8
2015
during
the
mental
health
crisis.
Today,
I'd
like
to
talk
to
you
about
christopher
paul
towncon
aka
kidders.
He
was
30
years
old
when
he
was
associated
to
death,
10
15
2016
by
sparks
police
officers.
H
H
When
sparked
police
arrived
that
day
for
an
unwarded
person,
they
were
well
aware
of
chris's
mental
illness
and
the
fact
chris
was
involved
in
a
medical
call
less
than
24
hours
prior
the
officers
immediately
escalated
the
scene
that
was
calm
and
non-violent
before
their
arrival
due
to
chris
reaching
into
his
car
crawford,
who
is
now
the
chief
of
police
of
sparks,
decided
that
they
should
go
hands-on
and
handcuff
chris
to
gain
control.
The
three
officers
applied
their
full
weight
to
chris
for
four
to
five
minutes.
Witness
katrina
t
stated
officers
had
chris
by
the
neck.
H
Four
bush
in
his
report
acknowledges
the
knee
strikes
and
stated
he
noticed
chris
wasn't
breathing,
and
then
they
rolled
him
onto
his
side.
That
should
have
happened
immediately
throughout
the
video.
My
brother,
hogtied
at
the
peppermill
they
kept
thomas
face
down
and
in
the
in
his
back
and
never
rolled
him
over
to
his
side,
christopher
was
declared
brain
dead.
Upon
arrival
to
the
hospital,
no
officer
attempted
cpr
on
chris.
They
waited
caremsa
to
arrive.
H
C
A
A
Have
you
all
on
my
screen?
You
all
look
happy
that
we're
ending
a
little
early,
so
you
can
get
some
work
done
and
prepare
for
your
next
committee
meetings
so
seeing
nothing
else
from
the
members.
Let
me
just
give
you
kind
of
the
lay
of
the
land
of
where
we're
going
the
rest
of
this
week.
Tomorrow
we
will
have
a
meeting
at
8am.
A
A
I
believe
we're
probably
going
to
have
a
work
session
and
consider
some
of
the
bills
that
we've
heard
so
far,
but
I'm
checking
on
that
and
we
may
have
a
bill
or
two
as
well.
I
just
don't
know
yet
so,
hopefully
by
the
meeting
tomorrow,
I'll
be
able
to
tell
you
what
friday
looks
like.
So
that's
where
we
are
going
from
here
again.
Committee
members
appreciate
your
attention
and
your
questions
this
morning.