►
From YouTube: 4/22/2021 - Senate 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
A
Here
and
that
makes
a
quorum,
and
we
have
three
bills
on
for
hearing
today.
B
Ab284
good
afternoon,
everybody
chair
for
the
record,
I'm
assemblywoman,
susie
martinez
and
I
represent
assembly
district
12.
with
me
today-
is
sofia
romero,
she's
going
to
be
on
zoom
and
also
I
have
bailey
with
the
legal
aid
center
of
southern
nevada
and
let
me
just
go
ahead
and
get
started
on
the
bill,
so
this
bill
is
intended
to
include
in
statute
a
mechanism
to
challenge
storage
and
repair
liens
for
motor
vehicles.
B
As
we
know,
second,
to
a
home,
a
person's
a
person's
vehicle
is
the
most
expensive
purchase
that
they
will
make
as
some
as
some
background.
Currently,
if
a
person
takes
their
car
to
a
mechanic,
the
mechanic
is
required
to
provide
a
written
estimate
for
the
cost
of
the
repairs
which
the
consumer
must
sign.
If
the
repair
ends
up
being
more
than
100
to
or
20
percent
over
the
amount,
then
the
repair
shop
is
required
to
get
additional
prior
authorization
from
the
customer.
B
B
So
when
a
customer
cannot
pay
or
if
there
is
a
dispute
over
the
amount,
the
shop
will
put
a
repair
or
storage
lien
on
the
vehicle
and
then
sell
the
vehicle
right
now.
There
is
no
formal
way
to
challenge
this
specific
type
of
lien.
The
bill
will
put
in
place
a
statutory
mechanism
to
challenge
frivolous
liens
in
order
to
protect
people
from
losing
their
vehicles
improperly.
B
C
Good
afternoon,
chair
vice
chair
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
sophia
romero
and
I
am
a
staff
attorney
with
the
glade
center
of
southern
nevada.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
help
present
ab2a4
here
today,
and
I
would
like
to
start
out
by
thanking
assemblywoman
martinez
for
bringing
this
legislation
and
for
all
her
hard
work
with
the
stakeholders.
C
So
with
that,
let
me
walk
you
through
the
bill
so
section
one
of
the
bill
mirrors
the
process
already
found
in
statute
to
challenge
a
frivolous
mobile
home
lien.
It
gives
the
person
challenging
the
lien
the
right
to
file
a
notice
of
opposition
in
the
justice
court
and
requires
it
to
be
served
on
the
dmv.
C
Once
the
notice
of
opposition
is
filed,
the
court
will
set
hearing
within
14
calendar
days
after
service.
This
time
frame
is
important
because,
similar
to
the
unlawful
toe
issue,
we
are
trying
to
get
a
court
decision
on
whether
the
lien
or
the
amount
of
the
lien
is
valid
prior
to
the
vehicle
being
sold.
This
section
also
makes
it
clear
that
it
does
not
affect
the
rights
of
the
lender.
C
Section
three
sets
forth
the
requirements
of
the
notice,
a
lien
which
is
similar
that
to
that
on
mobile
homes.
In
addition
to
what
is
already
required
by
statute,
it
requires
notice
to
the
consumer
of
the
amount
necessary
to
satisfy
the
lien
and
a
description
of
the
process
to
challenge
the
lien
and
then
section
four
sets
forth
the
vehicle.
Lean.
Excuse
me
so
forth
that
the
vehicle
expires
within
six
months
after
it's
filed
with
the
dmv.
This
time
frame
is
important.
C
It's
shorter
than
mobile
home
liens,
because
when
a
lien
is
placed
on
a
mobile
home,
the
owner
is
still
in
possession
and
using
it
which
is
different
than
vehicles,
because
when
a
vehicle
is
in
the
possession
of
a
mechanic
shop
or
a
repair
shop,
the
owner
is
not
in
possession
and
if
it's
and
vehicles
depreciate
much
more
quickly
than
mobile
homes
do
especially
if
it's
just
sitting
in
a
lot
not
being
used.
The
value
of
the
vehicle
is
going
to
depreciate
very
very
quickly.
C
So,
finally,
throughout
the
bill,
there's
language
excluding
tow
cars
as
they
have
a
certificate
of
public
convenience,
our
government
by
nrs
706-4463,
their
fees
are
set
and
they
are
governed
by
the
nevada
transportation
authority
and
are
routinely
used
by
law
enforcement
and
store
evidence
and
such
like
that.
So
with
that,
we
are
available
to
address
any
questions
you
may
have.
Thank
you.
A
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
so
much
martinez
for
bringing
the
bill
I
had.
I
was
under
the
impression
after
reading
some
notes
and
the
exhibits
that
this
really
had
to
do
with
chop
shops
and
and
trying
to
make
it
harder
for
them
to
pressure
the
owner
to
sell
or
otherwise
disposal
property
or
to
make
money
off
of
it.
D
D
This
was
a
an
administrative
objection
to
the
bond
and
so
dmv
took
it
because
they
have
jurisdiction
over
the
bond
and
then
they
move
forward
with
the
litigation.
We
were
able
to
demonstrate
that
the
repairs
were
actually
requested,
performed
and
the
balance
due
and
but
they
also
filed
an
injustice
court
to
prevent
the
sale
of
the
the
automobile
and
even
though
he
had
gone
to
the
point
of
perfecting
the
lien,
we
went
through
that
process,
and
so
it
was
a
two-step.
D
I
mean
they
had
two
remedies,
one
at
the
dmv
level
and
one
at
the
justice
court
level.
So
there
is
a
process
for
doing
this.
My
concern,
though,
is
that
these
expire
by
operation
of
law
after
six
months
and
the
process
that
we
went
through
took
near
nearly
a
year.
So
unless
there's
a
provision
that
allows
for
tolling
of
that
statutory
period
during
active
litigation,
they
lose
their
rights
after
six
months
and
unless
we
significantly
increase
the
size
of
the
justice
courts
to
be
able
to
take
things
within
a
timely
fashion.
D
I
think
we
end
up
leaving
the
mechanic
shops
without
remedy.
So
how
is
it
that
or
am
I
missing
something?
Is
there
a
mechanism?
That's
not
expressly
stated
in
the
bill
that
would
allow
a
mechanic
shop
to
preserve
their
lien
through
the
course
of
the
litigation,
or
does
this
bill
mean
that
they
only
have
six
months
and
if
it
takes
more
than
six
months
to
resolve
it,
they
just
lose
their
lean
rights.
C
For
the
record,
sofia
romero
threw
the
chair
to
the
senator.
So
with
this
so
you're
absolutely
correct.
C
You
can
file
a
justice
court
lawsuit
now,
but
the
problem
is
is
that
that
is
a
much
more
intensive,
because
because
this
specific
statutory
lien
doesn't
have
the
process
in
place
similar
to
that
of
mobile
homes
or
to
mechanically
on
one
residential
property
that
becomes
a
much
more
drawn
out
and
contentious
litigation
process
with
this,
what
we're
doing
is
we're
limiting
the
time
frame
so
once
somebody
files
that
notice
of
objection
to
the
lien
they
have
for
the
justice
court
has
14
days
to
set
a
hearing,
it's
one
hearing
you
go,
they
figure
out
whether
the
lien
is
valid
or
not,
or
if
the
amount
is
valid
or
not.
C
You
know,
maybe
let's
say
it's
five
thousand
dollars
and
they
say:
okay,
you
didn't
really
do
this
much
repairs
or
you
charge
storage,
liens
prior
to
doing
the
repairs
and
those
get
knocked
off
so
so
it
would
really
be
one
hearing
and
it's
much
quicker
and
the
hearing
would
be
done
within
14
days
of
filing
the
notice
of
objection
to
the
lien.
So
it
would
not
be
a
long,
drawn-out
process,
it
wouldn't
take
months
and
months
and
months
like
current,
like
it
would
currently.
C
So
this
is
actually
set
in
place
in
order
to
avoid
a
situation
like
you
were
describing
and
in
order
to
really
streamline
and-
and
I
kind
of
kind
of
get
this
lean
situation-
kind
of
nipped
in
the
bud
quickly.
D
All
right-
and
so
is
it
do
I
understand
you
correctly,
that
this
would
preclude
a
an
administrative
remedy,
then
that
they
couldn't
go
after
the
bond
for
the
same
purpose
or
would
that
leave
that
piece
in
place,
because
the
justice
court
in
in
my
case
is
if,
if
I
recall
correctly,
the
justice
court
refused
to
hear
the
matter
until
the
administrative
remedies
were
exhausted,
and
so
they
wouldn't
and
and
quite
honestly,
as
much
as
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
dictate
how
quickly
a
case
is
heard.
D
The
courts
will
regularly
ignore
these
torts,
these
sorts
of
time
constraints
if
they
cannot
handle
them
right.
If,
if
the
justice
court
is
backed
up
for
a
month,
even
though
it
says
14
days,
and
we
have
to
prioritize
this,
they
may
take
criminal
matters
over
this,
because
constitutionally
they'll
be
required
to
do
so,
and
they
may
not
be
able
to
meet
the
14-day
requirement.
I'm
just
thinking
that
I
mean
I'm
not
antagonistic
to
the
concept
of
the
bill
at
all.
D
I
think
that
there
are
many
reasons
why
this
should
go,
but
I'm
concerned
that
what
we're
doing
is
we're
going
to
cut
the
knees
off
of
the
mechanics
shops,
who've
done
legitimate
repairs
and
now
have
a
customer
who
just
doesn't
want
to
pay
them
anyway.
I
I
think
I
have
raised
this.
I
don't
want
to
occupy
too
much
time,
but
with
a
sponsor's
permission,
I'd
love
to
work
with
you
on
maybe
tightening
up
some
of
the
language
to
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
making
these
unavailable
in
practical
terms
to
the
to
the
repair
shops.
A
All
right
any
other
questions
from
members
of
the
committee,
not
seeing
any
is
there
anybody
here
to
testify
and
support
in
person
if
I
could
just
really
fast
bailey
borderland
for
the
record.
Andy
mckay
asked
me
to
put
on
the
record
that
he
couldn't
be
here,
but
the
auto
franchise
is
supportive
of
the
bill.
Fantastic.
Thank
you.
Anybody
else
to
give
in-person
support
testimony
all
right,
then
we
will
go
to
testimony
by
phone
in
support
of.
E
A
A
E
F
F
We
noticed
that
it
was
to
require
a
a
process
or
a
notification
of
a
process
which
seemed
very
reasonable
to
us.
We
subsequently
learned
from
some
of
the
folks
that
helped
us
process
liens
that
the
six
month
portion
is
potentially
problematic
for
us
again.
I
have
spoken
with
the
sponsor
and
the
proponents
and
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
them
appreciate
their
efforts.
So
far
we
have
a
little
bit
of
a
different
business
model
than
what
your
average
tow
companies
have.
F
We
don't
we
don't
pursue
the
the
money
in
the
lean
we
we
pursue
the
vehicle
as
part
of
the
pick
apart
industry
so
that
we
can
repurpose
those
and
process
them
for
selling
used
parts.
So
so
we're
very
different
in
terms
of
what
we
do
in
pursuing
liens.
F
So
we
will
go
into
the
lean
process
on
this
and
try
to
perfect
that,
and
we
are
subject
to
the
same
law
enforcement
holds
and
the
other
things
that
the
tow
industry
testified
to,
and
so
we
we
just
look
forward
to
the
opportunity
to
continue
to
talk
to
the
sponsor.
I
apologize
for
being
late
to
the
game
on
this
I've
apologized
to
the
sponsor
for
that
and
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
her.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
B
G
Good
afternoon,
chair
shy
bowl
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary.
I
am
mike
morton
for
the
navada
gaming
control
board
for
the
record.
The
first
reprint
of
assembly
bill
number
seven,
proposes
five
changes
to
the
gaming
control
act
for
the
ease
of
the
members
following
along.
I
will
present
each
subject
from
the
bill
and
the
proposed
amendment
that
the
board
is
submitted
as
an
exhibit,
rather
than
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill.
In
chronological
order.
G
The
first
proposed
change
is
a
change
to
the
specific
type
of
license
currently
in
statute.
Section
seven
of
the
bill
contains
the
existing
definition
of
a
non-restricted
license.
The
definition
of
non-restricted
license
lists
the
four
types
of
non-restricted
licenses
currently
issued
by
the
nevada
gaming
commission.
A
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
you
when
you
haven't
even
started
your
presentation
yet,
but
could
you
just
clarify
the
committee
has
access
to
the
first
reprint
of
the
bill
and
then
this
document
that's
uploaded.
As
an
amendment
is
to
the
first
reprint.
G
G
G
Section
seven
deletes
the
required
licensure
for
or
the
operation
of,
an
inter-casino
link
system.
Instead,
section
2
amends
the
definition
of
associated
equipment
to
include
intercasinolink
systems
pursuant
to
nrs463
665
manufacturers
and
distributors
of
associated
equipment
currently
register
with
the
board,
rather
than
seek
licensure
sections.
1.5
4
6
through
8
10
through
13
15-19,
21
and
23,
make
conforming
changes
by
removing
other
references
to
inter-casino
link
systems,
as
the
term
is
now
just
included
in
the
definition
of
associated
equipment.
G
The
board
is
proposing
this
change
for
registration
of
inter-casino
linked
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
with
the
operation
of
inter-casino-linked
systems
no
longer
poses
any
potential
danger
to
the
gaming
industry.
That
would
require
the
full
investigation
that
is
involved
in
the
issuance
of
a
gaming
license.
G
This
will
allow
for
quicker
deployment
of
new
or
modified
intracasino
link
systems
onto
the
gaming
floor.
The
last
piece
of
the
change
related
to
intracasino
link
systems
is
in
section
20..
This
section
requires
the
registration
of
those
associated
with
the
manufacture
and
distribution
of
associated
equipment.
The
board
is
proposing
changes
to
section
20
that
mirror
other
registration,
the
boards,
the
board
currently
issues.
G
Additionally,
the
definition
of
game
and
gambling
game
currently
contain
terms
that
are
racially
offensive,
while
the
board
has
traditionally
deferred
policy
decisions
related
to
gaming
to
the
legislature,
the
board
also
has
a
duty
to
ensure
that
regulated
gaming
in
nevada
is
not
offensive
to
its
own
residents.
Section
3
proposes
removal
of
these
certain
terms
in
nrs,
463.0152.
G
G
In
practice,
business
entities
were
created
to
pool
individuals
money
in
hopes
of
a
return
on
the
quote.
Unquote.
Investment,
however,
since
becoming
effective
in
2015
entity,
wagering
has
proven
to
be
a
black
mark
on
the
industry,
leading
to
federal
investigations
and
indictments
related
to
entity
wagering.
As
ponzi
schemes,
the
board
is
proposing
full
repeal
of
this
provision.
G
Lastly,
and
this
is
where
you'll
turn
to
the
amendment
document
deals
with
the
live
entertainment
tax,
as
discussed
in
both
the
hearing
and
work
session
for
the
bill
in
the
assembly,
the
board
has
continued
to
work
with
the
department
of
taxation
on
an
issue
that
affects
gaming,
licensees
and
certain
large
third-party
ticket
sellers.
G
The
board
is
proposing
that
subsection
3
of
nrs
368a
0.200
be
amended
to
remove
the
requirement
to
display
the
admission
charge
on
a
ticket
for
an
event
that
is
subject
to
the
live
entertainment
tax.
On
the
surface,
the
term
admission
charge
appears
to
be
a
simple
number.
However,
in
practice,
admission
charges
become
very
complicated
and
can
be
comprised
of
many
components
involved
in
the
ticket
price,
multiple
service
charges
and
other
fees
due
to
the
limitations
of
some
ticketing
systems.
G
The
categorization
becomes
even
more
challenging
when
service
charges
and
fees
are
split
between
parties.
The
taxability
of
that
split
will
depend
on
who
implemented
the
fee
and
what
parties
retain
a
portion
thereof,
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.
Licensees
state
statute
requires
that
the
board
and
the
nevada
department
of
taxation,
collaborate
on
the
collection
of
the
live
entertainment
tax
and
the
department
has
informed
the
board
that
it
supports
this
proposal.
G
This
proposal
does
not
change
the
calculation
or
collection
of
the
live
entertainment
tax
in
any
way.
Rather,
it
simply
removes
the
requirement
to
display
the
technically
defined
admission
charge
on
the
face
of
a
ticket.
This
concludes
the
board's
presentation
of
assembly
bill
number.
Seven-
and
I
am
prepared
to
answer
the
committee's.
A
H
Thank
you
very
much
sharon.
Thank
you,
mr
mortensen.
I
appreciate
all
the
work
you
do
over
there
and
that
everyone
does
they're
trying
to
keep
nevada
as
the
the
gold
standard
for
gaming
regulation
in
the
country
and
the
world.
My
question
on
section
one
in
terms
of
the:
if
there's
inaction
by
the
commission
on
a
new
game,
is
that
going
to
be?
Is
that
like
a
major
sea
change
in
terms
of
the
current
policy
and
what
happens
now
when
there's
a
a
new
new
game
or
new
something
new,
that's
come
to
market.
H
G
Church,
I
will
do
my
permission
to
go
directly
to
members
mike
morton
for
the
record
senator
orrinshaw.
Currently
the
way
the
process
works
is
when
a
an
application
for
a
new
game
is
submitted
to
the
board,
the
technology
division,
reviews,
the
application
reviews
the
technology
and
then
it's
submitted
for
a
field
trial.
So
then,
under
the
supervision
of
the
technology
division,
the
game
is
deployed
onto
certain
gaming
room
floors,
usually
one
or
two
in
different
casinos,
and
then
the
technology
division
tracks.
The
performance
of
that
machine.
G
Make
sure
that
the
game
is
working
properly
according
to
the
application,
and
then
the
technology
division
will
submit
that
information
to
the
board
and
the
board
will
make
its
recommendation
to
the
commission
and
then
the
application.
The
application
for
a
new
game
will
then
go
to
the
next
commission
agenda.
In
practice,
all
new
games
for
the
past
many
years
have
been
on
the
consent
agenda
for
both
the
board
and
the
commission.
G
D
Thank
you,
mr
chair
good,
to
see
you,
mr
morton.
I
just
have
a
couple
of
questions.
I
understand.
I
think
I
understand
the
bill
as
to
I'm
on
page
four.
This
is
section
two
anyway,
it's
cc,
so
I
guess
it's
section.
1
cc.
D
This
seems
to
be
a
pretty
broad
catch-all,
you're
moving
from
enumerated,
people
that
are
or
persons
that
are
identified,
employees,
I'm
not
sure
why
we
need
all
these
different
classes
of
employees.
My
guess
is,
there
are
other
types
of
employees
that
don't
that
we
don't
want
this
to
apply
to.
So
that's
fine,
but
why
do
we
need
this
broad
catch-all?
Who
are
we
trying
to
catch
with
this.
G
Mike
morton,
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record,
senator
pickered,
my
apologies,
I
think
you're
looking
at
assembly
bill,
eight.
A
Early,
did
you
have
a
question.
I
Harris
thank
you.
Thank
you
chair,
mr
morton.
I
guess
I'm
hoping
you
can
tell
me
a
little
bit
about
the
the
necessity
for
the
bill.
What
is
it
that
prompted
the
board
to
come
forward
and
request
these
changes.
G
G
Sometimes
not
you
know
it's
not
even
the
casinos
owned
by
the
same
the
same
licensee
and
at
that
point,
technology
in
the
gaming
industry
was
quite
nascent,
so
we
we
sought
full
license.
We
required
full
licensure
of
those
full
licensure
at
the
board
is
an
arduous
process.
G
The
application
and
the
investigations
cost
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars,
on
average,
sometimes
upwards
of
six
figures
to
be
granted
a
privileged
nevada
gaming
license
and
over
the
past
years,
as
the
board
has
both
the
board
and
the
industry
have
improved
their
technological
standards.
G
This
technology
no
longer
poses
a
quote-unquote
threat
that
it
would
need
that
an
applicant,
for
you
know,
a
new
intricacy
link
system
or
a
modified
inter
casino
link
system
would
need
to
you
know,
expend
that
amount
of
money
to
become
licensed
and
enter
the
market
for
new
game
approvals.
G
A
very
similar,
a
very
similar
stance
that
you
know
as
as
the
board
and
the
industry
have
advanced
technologically
we
can
now
approve.
We
can
now
study,
review
and
approve
new
games
much
faster,
so
these
are
ways
to
get
new
products
on
to
the
casino
floors
and
make
sure
that
the
industry
still
remains
the
gold
standard,
as
gaming
expands
both
nationally
and
internationally.
G
From
an
end
from
the
entity
wagering
perspective,
this
was
definitely
in
2015.
This
was
definitely
a
new
concept
in
full
disclosure.
The
board
had
concerns
about
this
concept,
then,
and
then
upon
regulating
this
concept
and
this
industry
and
then
subsequently
the
fbi,
stepping
in
and
you
know,
indicting
people
and
businesses
for
for
doing
entity
wage
during
illegally
and
making
it
into
you
know
into
a
ponzi
scheme.
G
The
board
felt
that
it
was
best
to
repeal
this
section
to
make
sure
that
nevada
is
held
to
the
highest
standards
and
then
the
live
entertainment
tax.
It
is
we're
trying
to
streamline
the
processes
both
for
licensees
and
for
consumers,
especially
now
that
most
tickets,
almost
all
tickets,
are
bought
online
on
your
phone.
You
know
exactly
what
you're
paying
when
you,
you
know
you
press
purchase,
and
so
we
are
trying
to
ensure
that
the
board
is
not
citing
licenses
for
technical
violations,
that
they
cannot
fix
and
I'll
stop.
There.
I
I
Thank
you
so
much
I
and
please
let
me
know
if
this
is
out
of
order,
because
I
know
this
is
not
the
the
fiscal
finance
committee,
but
I
noted
that
the
the
fiscal
note
on
on
this
is
zero.
Although
it
sounds
like
from
what
I'm
hearing
you
expect
to
streamline
some
processes
based
on
this,
do
you
estimate
that
there
would
be
some
savings
from
from
this
legislation
and,
if
so,
why?
Why
is
that?
Not?
On
the
fiscal
note.
G
G
The
board
is
required
to
raise
about
a
third
of
its
own
budget
in
investigative
fees
for
licensure,
and
those
can
be
done
through
investigative
fees
for
new
applicants
or
investigative
fees
for
current
applicants
that
are
current
licensees
that
hold
a
revolver
account
with
the
board,
as
we
do
our
regular
investigations
and
working
with
the
board
fiscal
staff,
the
difference
between
licensure
and
registration
for
the
amount
of
licensees.
There
are
there's
only
seven
inter-casino
link
system,
licensees
and
all
those
licensees
hold
other
non-restricted
gaming
licenses.
E
Actually,
I
was
doing
the
same
thing:
keith
was
following
assembly
bill
8
for
a
while
they're
kind
of
related
question
I
have
was
actually
similar
because
we
had
a
bill
on
esports
and
I
was
kind
of
wondering.
Does
this
I
see
some
music,
you
know
has
nothing
to
do
whatsoever
with
esports
or
anything
like
that.
A
Okay,
if
there
are
no
other
questions,
I
do
have
one
clarification
that
I
was
hoping
you
could
elucidate
for
us
in
section
three
on
page
five
with
the
definition
of
game,
can
you
help
us
understand
what
makes
something
a
whole
new
game,
as
opposed
to
just
maybe
a
new
brand
or
a
new
format?
And
specifically
what
I'm
thinking
of
is
like?
A
I
will
admit
to
having
sat
down
at
a
bar
with
video
poker
before
and
it's
not
just
like
one
video
poker
option,
there's
double
and
hold'em
and
deuces
are
wild
and
the
you
know
themed
cards
and
stuff
like
that,
and
I
don't
see
those
listed
here.
So
what
makes
something
actually
a
new
game
versus
a
subset
of
an
approved
game.
G
Cherish
eyeball
mike
martin
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record,
so
the
easiest
way
to
explain
it
is
if
you're
sitting
in
front
of
a
video
poker
machine.
The
actual
machine
is
the
game
box.
G
Nowadays,
a
game
box
can
have
multiple
games
loaded
onto
it.
Just
as
you
explained.
Sometimes
you
know
up
to
30
different
games
all
of
those
different,
whether
it's
you
know
hold'em
deuces,
wild,
double
double
those
are
all
different
games,
so
those
will
come
forward
for
a
new
application.
A
So
those
that
we
specifically
mentioned,
like
I'm
sorry
to
pick
on
deuces,
I
don't
know
who
their
lobbyist
is
like
that's
not
listed
in
section
three,
so
they
will
have
to
apply
for
one
of
these
approvals.
G
Correct
so
mike
morton
for
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record,
the
definition
of
game
or
gambling
game
is
a
very
historical
definition.
You
know
reading
that
definition,
all
the
ones
that
are
specifically
called
out.
Some
of
them
are
still
played
some
of
them
you've,
probably
never
heard
of
before.
G
This
is
a
definition
that
was
actually
used
across
multiple
states
when
gaming
started
to
become
legalized.
A
lot
of
these
games
were
the
illegal
gambling
games
that
were
done
in
the
in
the
early
in
the
early
20th
century.
G
G
Morton
for
the
record,
so
the
only
thing
this
bill
changes
related
to
new
game
approvals
is
the
efficiency
at
which
the
approval
happens.
So
right
now
the
board
makes
a
recommendation
just
like
for
all
different
types
of
approvals
and
licenses,
and
it
goes
to
the
commission.
The
commission
has
to
get
final
approval
before
anything
can
happen
based
on
board
efficiencies.
We
believe
that
it
is
safe
enough
for
upon
the
recommendation
of
the
board.
The
game
can
be
deployed.
A
Got
it
okay,
thank
you,
and
that
I
know
that
that
was.
It
was
clear
in
your
presentation
and
it
just
took
me
a
minute
to
catch
up,
so
I
appreciate
it
my
pleasure
any
other
question.
Senator
pickard.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I
apologize.
I
guess
we
missed
a
revision
to
the
agenda
and
this
was
not
on
my
radar
screen.
So
I
will
take
a
couple
of
questions
offline
because
they're
just
for
my
edification,
but
can
you
explain
how
the
interlinked
systems
were
problematic,
specifically
and
and
why
we're
taking
those
out.
G
Mike
morton
for
the
record
senator
pickard,
they
were
never
necessarily
problematic,
but
when
they,
when
the
technology
was
created,
they
were
new
and
the
board
wanted
to
ensure
under
its
statutory
duties,
that
the
that
this
new
technology
was
was
going
to
be
safe
for
the
patron
safe
for
the
resident
of
nevada
and
safe
for
all
of
our
visitors.
In
the
in
the
ensuing
years
that
we
have
received
new
applications
for
inter-casino
systems,
applications
for
modifications
to
those
systems.
D
G
Mike
morton
for
the
record,
so
instead
of
in
full
licensure,
they
will
register
with
the
board.
So
there
is
a
list
of
equipment
and
it
would
be
section.
2
is
the
definition
of
associated
equipment,
which
is
equipment
that
is
associated
with
with
gaming
but
tangentially,
and
so,
though,
all
of
those
different
types
of
associated
equipment
register
with
the
board
go
through
a
much
more
streamlined
process
for
that
registration,
and
we
still
regularly
inspect
and
review
all
of
those
just
like
a
full
anything
with
a
full
license.
A
E
E
A
E
A
E
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much,
mr
kyle.
After
all
that
riveting
testimony,
thank
you,
mr
morton,
and
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
ab7.
I
will
open
up
the
hearing
on
ab8.
Please.
A
Please
go
ahead.
Oh,
I
think
senator
picker
might
have
a
question
on
this
bill,
but
we'll
let
you
do
the
presentation.
First.
G
Cherish
all
members
of
the
senate
committee
on
judiciary
again,
I
am
mike
morton
for
the
nevada
gaming
control
board
for
the
record.
The
first
reprint
of
assembly
bill
number
eight
also
proposes
six
changes
to
the
gaming
control
act
for
the
ease
of
members
following
along.
I
will
present
each
change
from
the
bill
and
the
proposed
amendment
as
a
subject,
rather
than
go
through
the
sections
of
the
bill.
In
chronological
order
sections
one
and
five
of
the
bill
allow
for
the
use
of
electronic
signatures
on
credit
instruments
issued
by
gaming
licensees.
G
Currently,
the
definition
of
credit
instrument
in
chapter
463
of
nrs
requires
the
instrument
to
be
evidenced
by
a
writing.
Changing
the
word.
Writing
to
record
will
allow
the
electronic
will
allow
four
electronic
credit
instruments,
specifically
what
are
known
in
the
industry's
markers
additionally,
section
5
provides
authority
to
the
nevada
gaming
commission
to
adopt
regulations
relating
to
the
use
and
validity
of
electronic
signatures
on
credit
instruments
used
in
gaming.
G
Section
2
of
the
bill
amends
the
definition
of
gaming
employee
in
nrs
463
.0157
to
include
those
employees
who
won
or
register
are
required
to
register
with
the
board
to
operate.
As
cash
access
and
wagering
instrument,
service
providers
and
two,
those
who
the
commission
determines
by
regulation
are
required
to
register
while
this
appears
to
be
an
expansion
of
those
persons
who
have
to
register
with
the
board
the
cash
access
and
wagering
instrument
service
provider.
Employees
already
have
to
register
with
the
board,
but
it
was
never
included
in
the
definition
of
gaming
employee.
G
G
The
fourth
subject
of
the
bill
relates
to
board
employment.
Section
4
of
8
removes
a
long-standing
and
inadvertent
conflict
within
nrs
463.080
from
the
creation
of
the
gaming
control
board
in
1955,
the
board
has
been
required
to
create
its
own
comprehensive
plan
of
employment
pursuant
to
subsection
6
of
nrs
463.080.
G
G
The
proposal
in
section
4
fixes
that
issue
the
fifth
subject
matter
deals
with
the
definition
of
gross
revenue.
Section
3
amends
the
definition
of
gross
revenue
to
clarify
the
types
of
entry
fees
for
contests
and
tournaments
that
are
included
in
the
calculation
of
a
licensee's
monthly
gross
revenue.
The
proposed
amendment
to
aba
will
make
a
small
change
to
this
definition
to
ensure
that
all
types
of
casino
payment
are
captured
for
entry
fees
to
contests
and
tournaments.
G
D
Thank
you
manager
again.
My
apologies
all
right,
I'm
on
section
2
sub
1
cc.
This
is
a
broad
catch-all
that
seems
to
try
to
catch.
I
mean
we've
spent
a
great
deal
of
time.
You
know
a
couple
of
pages
here
going
over
the
different
types
of
employees
and
then
we
have
this
catch-all
provision
in
cc
that
covers,
presumably
somebody
that
we
know
about,
but
is
missed.
D
So
this
just
seems
like
a
really
broad
catch-all
that
could
ultimately
not
only
apply
to
all
these
but
every
other
employee,
and
I
know
that's
not-
or
I
suspect,
that's,
not
the
intent.
So
can
you
tell
me
who
we're
trying
to
anticipate
here
that
we
haven't
specified,
but
we
need
this
broad
catch-all.
G
A
potential
example
in
this
bill
actually
is
as
technology
advances
and
credit
instruments
are
expanded
within
casinos
and
we're
proposing
that
those
are
allowed
to
be
done
electronically.
A
nascent
industry
may
pop
up
for
the
specific
issuance
of
electronic
markers,
and
so
this
provision
would
give
the
commission
the
ability
to
well
the
bill
gives
the
commission
ability
to
adopt
regulations
regarding
electronic
markers.
This
specific
session
section
would
allow
the
commission
to
potentially
register
employees
if
they
discover
that
wow
this
employee
does
have.
D
I
appreciate
that
I
guess
that
might
my
thought
was,
and
you
kind
of
hit
on
it
a
little
bit
is
that
we
have
given
the
board
or
the
commission
a
great
deal
of
authority
to
regulate
who
and
who
isn't
under
its
purview,
and
this
seemed
to
me,
as
I
read
it,
not
understanding.
You
know
the
conversations
that
have
gone
on
behind
the
scenes,
that
this
is
a
catch-all
that
gives
the
commission
the
ability
to
pretty
much
pick
and
choose
who
they're
going
to
without
eliminating
any
of
the
others.
D
Rather
than
just
saying
here,
commission
here's
the
authority
to
essentially
cc
could
replace
the
entire
prior
list,
and
so
I
was
just
trying
to
understand
why
we're
doing
this
in
statute.
Rather
than
granting
the
board
ostensibly
the
authority
that
sub
cc
now
grants
them.
Does
that
make
sense.
G
I
do
understand
the
question
senator
pickard,
mike
morton,
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record.
I
think
a
good
example
of
how
this
has
worked
and
I
do
not
intend
to
speak
for
former
legislative
legislatures
here,
but
section
2
also
includes
a
new,
a
new
specific
type
of
employee
for
cash
access
and
wagering
service
providers.
G
D
All
right
that
that
does
make
sense,
so
this
gives
them
the
ability
to,
in
the
short
term,
identify
those
that
may
need
to
be
licensed,
and
then
the
intent
is
to
come
back
in
a
subsequent
legislature
and
add
them
into
the
express
inclusions.
That's
correct,
okay
and
then
finally,
well
not
finally,
but
I'll,
take
the
other
ones
offline.
D
In
section
three,
I'm
looking
at
sub
d,
we're
excluding-
and
you
touched
on
this
in
your
testimony,
but
I
want
to
understand
it
better,
we're
removing
or
deleting
a
contest
or
tournament
in
conjunction
with
interactive
gaming
from
the
the
from
this
subsection.
Are
these
aren't
synonymous
typically,
so
why
are
we
removing
these?
Is
it
because
was
it
your
testimony
that
they
don't
exist
or
or
why
what's
the
distinction
and
if
they're
not
synonymous,
why
are
we
taking
it
out.
G
Senator
pickard
mike
morin
with
the
gaming
control
board
for
the
record,
the
definition
of
gross
revenue
has
been
amended
a
few
times
in
subsequent
sessions.
Interactive
gaming,
currently
in
statute,
is
dealt
with
in
a
different
way.
From
a
tax
perspective,
those
licensees
pay
a
very
large
upfront
cost
and
when
interactive
gaming
was
introduced
in
statute,
this
was
never
removed,
and
so
they
are,
they
are
regulated
in
tax
in
a
different
way
than
the
gross
revenue
definition
that
goes
to
the
percentage
fee
that
licensees
pay
every
month.
G
That's
never
happened,
but
yes,
that
is,
that
is
what
this
would
fix
and
then,
if
I
may,
just
in
the
amendment
document
that
only
deals
with
section
three,
the
change
from
cash
to
both
cash
and
cash
equivalents
deals
with
patrons
that
may
pay
with
chips,
a
digital
wallet
or
something
else,
but
the
greenbacks.
H
H
I
guess
my
question.
My
concern
is:
if
this
passes
and
if
there's
no
longer
a
writing
or
someone
signing
for
a
marker
to
get
credit
and
it's
easier
for
someone,
you
know
to
get
credit
and
get
deeper
in
debt
at
a
casino
if
they
just
have
to
press
their
finger
on
an
x
or
something
like
that
on
a
computer
screen
does
do
you
think
the
board
or
the
commission
is
going
to
adopt
any
new
precautions
for
the
problem
gambler?
H
Who
now
may
find
it
easier
to
to
rack
up
markers
and
get
deeper
in
debt,
as
opposed
to
you
know
before
if
they
had
to
sign
a
paper
to
to
get
that
credit
from
the
casino?
I
just
wondered
what,
if
the
board
of
the
commission
had
any
position
on
that?
Thank
you.
G
Senator
orrin
shaw
mike
morton,
for
the
record
in
general.
Yes,
the
board
doesn't
tend
to
adopt
regulations
surrounding
the
electron
electronic
credit
instruments,
but
from
a
like
a
practical
point
of
view,
the
way
that
the
law
is
written
now
and
that
case
law
surrounding
signatures
in
general
has
evolved.
G
This
would
not
so
it
would
actually
require
a
wet
signature.
So
what
this
would
allow
for
would
be
a
customer.
G
You
know
signing
an
ipad
or
and
there's
new
technology
that
licensees
have
deployed
that
would
allow
for
contactless
markers
and
credit
instruments.
The
application
and
approval
for
credit
is
not
changing
the
the
licensee.
It's
still
up
to
the
licensee,
whether
or
not
to
grant
that
credit
to
that.
To
that
patron.
A
E
E
A
E
A
E
E
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much,
mr
kyle.
Unless
you
have
any
closing
comments,
mr
morton,
all
right,
then
that
concludes
the
hearing
on
ab8.
That
hearing
is
now
closed.
That
concludes
our
hearings
for
today,
which
leaves
us
with
one
more
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
comment.
Is
there
anybody
present
in
person
to
give
public
comment?
A
E
E
E
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
kyle.
That
concludes
our
meeting.
For
today
we
will
be
back
here
again
tomorrow.
I
know
it's
friday,
but
we
have
a
lot
of
bills
to
review,
so
we
have
three
bills
on
the
agenda
for
tomorrow.
That
starts
again
at
1
pm,
and
until
that
time
we
are.