MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session June 6, 1995 The Senate Committee on Judiciary was called to order by Chairman Mark A. James, at 8:30 a.m., on Tuesday, June 6, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman Senator Jon C. Porter, Vice Chairman Senator Maurice Washington Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator Dina Titus Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Robert D. Faiss, Attorney, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association Jack Godfrey, Attorney, Cocounsel, Nevada Resort Association William A. Bible, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board C. Brian Harris, Member, State Gaming Control Board A. Scott Bodeau, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Gaming Division, Office of the Attorney General Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada Society of CPAs. Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Land Title Association The chairman called witnesses for the matter to be heard. SENATE BILL 497: Clarifies provisions governing nature and circumstances of entertainment subject to casino entertainment tax. Robert D. Faiss, Attorney, Lobbyist, Nevada Resort Association (NRA), brought the bill to the committee. He provided a copy of his prepared testimony (Exhibit C). Mr. Faiss made extensive introductions of the various casino representative present in support of the bill. In the course of Mr. Faiss' testimony, he directed the committee's attention of section J of Exhibit D (Original is on file in the Research Library), noting it is a copy of Attorney General's Opinion 85-17. This, he stated, is considered by NRA to be the definitive statement of the attorney general's office on casino entertainment taxes. He then resumed his prepared testimony. Next, Jack Godfrey, Attorney, Cocounsel, Nevada Resort Association, offered an overview of the bill and the proposed amendments outlined in Exhibit E. He also provided a copy of the bill, as it would appear with the proposed amendments incorporated into it (Exhibit F). Mr. Godfrey explained Senate Bill (S.B.) 497 is not a true amendment to the casino entertainment tax because it does not change the law regarding the tax. Actually, he told the committee it clarifies the original scope of the Nevada Casino Entertainment Tax, similar to the effort made in that vein during the 1993 legislative session. Additionally, the bill resolves an ongoing dispute over certain types of facilities. Mr. Godfrey pointed out the language contained in the bill is taken from the legal authorities normally cited to control the interpretation and application of the casino entertainment tax. Such authorities include the current entertainment tax statute, Nevada Gaming Commission Regulation 13, official opinions of the Nevada attorney general, the federal cabaret tax (the original basis for the casino entertainment tax), as well as interpretation of that federal tax as "set forth in ruling of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)." As this demonstrates, S.B. 497 does not actually amend the casino entertainment tax but merely clarifies what has been the actual scope and applicability of the tax, since it was originally enacted in 1965, he declared. The bill also attempts to head off potential disputes over certain facilities, he added. Mr. Godfrey turned to the bill itself, noting section 2 adds a definition of auditorium, which is based on seating capacity. This definition is needed because the bill proposes entertainment in an auditorium, as defined, will not be subject to the entertainment tax. The capacity level of 2,750 represents a capacity that is 1000 seats larger than the current largest showroom in the state, he reported. Section 3, Mr. Godfrey indicated, adds the definition of a casino showroom, also based on seating capacity. This definition is necessary because cabaret-type entertainment in a casino showroom will be subject to the tax. There is one amendment not shown on the exhibits, Mr. Godfrey explained. On line 13, page 1, there will be an addition to the definition. At the term "fire code" will be inserted "at an event," he said. Mr. Godfrey continued his overview of the bill with sections 4 and 5 which are terms already defined in regulation. Both mechanical speech and mechanical music have always been excluded from the casino entertainment tax, he reported. He offered a television set as a source of both electronic music and electronic speech, which was not considered by the IRS to be subject to the federal cabaret tax. The witness explained that section 7, subsection 1, delineates the types of entertainment that are not subject, and have never been subject, to the casino entertainment tax. Mr. Godfrey noted the additions of subsection 1(h) and 1(I) to section 7 also clarifies areas that have never been considered subject to the casino entertainment tax. Subsection 2 of section 7 tells which facilities are not subject to the tax, as is currently the case, Mr. Godfrey stated. The changes are simply an attempt, he reported to create "better organization and enhanced clarity." He outlined for the committee the various sources of authority for the provisions in subsection 2 of section 7. Some of these provisions were arrived at in agreements with the State Gaming Control Board and the Nevada Gaming Commission, Mr. Godfrey stated. Referring to section 7, subsection 2(d), Senator James asked if the capacity number of the auditorium was set at a high enough level to be greater than the largest existing showroom. Mr. Godfrey agreed, stating the number seemed to be a rational number to provide for some growth. Moving to section 8, Mr. Godfrey explained the section addresses the entertainment tax on admission tickets to cabarets. He pointed out this section in no way implies there is no entertainment tax on such situations as "a two-drink minimum" or similar payment situations. Section 9 of the bill, Mr. Godfrey explained, clarifies which types of entertainment are covered by the casino entertainment tax, noting that forms of entertainment not subject to the federal cabaret tax in 1965, as codified under 26 U.S.C.  4231(6) or those that might have been subject to taxation under 26 U.S.C.  4231(1), (2), (3), (4), or (5) are not subject to the casino entertainment tax. Subsection 3 of section 9 provides that merchandise purchased outside the facility where the entertainment is being presented is not subject to the entertainment tax, unless its purchase entitled the purchaser to admission to the entertainment, he explained. Senator Adler asked if merchandise sold inside the facility would be subject to entertainment tax as well as sales tax. Mr. Godfrey agreed that is the case. Finally, "section 10 specifically sets forth that the intent of the bill is to affirm and adopt the Attorney General's Opinion, 85-17, written in 1985, as an interpretive guide to the tax," Mr. Godfrey stated. Thus, Mr. Godfrey summarized, the bill does not make changes to the scope or applicability of the tax, it is revenue- neutral, and it should have no impact on cases pending before the Nevada Gaming Commission. These pending cases, he stated, would have to be resolved "in the normal course." Senator Adler said referencing an attorney general's opinion in statute causes him some concern. This arises from experiences he had with the taxation committee, he explained, where one attorney general's opinion was subsequently reversed by a later opinion. There is more than one case of this happening, he asserted. The senator suggested describing the content and intent of the opinion, but he said he is not anxious to simply reference the opinion. Mr. Godfrey told the senator the 1985 attorney general's opinion simply analyzes and states facts that have always been true (i.e., the casino entertainment tax is based on the federal cabaret tax). There have been no changes since the opinion was issued, he stated. The 1993 Legislature has been clarifying the intent of the law as to what was covered by the casino entertainment tax since its inception in 1965. This, in his opinion, makes the situation different than those the senator pointed to. Senator Adler asserted it is possible to put the legislative intent in the record, without putting the opinion in the statute. Mr. Faiss stated the committee knows best. The committee's actions have precedence in the federal cabaret tax, he said, and the U.S. District Court case of Gere v. Birmingham, 88 Fed Supp., 189, 1950. The U.S. Congress cited the Gere case as a basis for its action in clarifying the federal cabaret tax. The intent is to show that the principles in that case affirm the intent of the tax, he reported. Mr. Faiss read into the record the principles the gaming industry representatives think would be adopted by the Legislature, if the language in section 10 of the bill is adopted. 1) Reference to the origins in history of the casino entertainment tax is essential in analyzing whether a particular form of entertainment is covered by the tax. 2) Any ambiguities in the casino entertainment tax are to be construed in favor of the taxpayer. (This a repeated decision of the Nevada Supreme Court, he added.) 3) Any ambiguities in the casino entertainment tax are to be interpreted by reference to judicial interpretations of the federal cabaret tax. 4) An administrative body cannot impose the tax unless there is a clear provision in law authorizing it. (Mr. Faiss opined not only is this the law of the state, it is also articulated by the Nevada Supreme Court, and emphasized by the actions of this committee.) 5) The legislative history of the casino entertainment tax dictates that the tax is to be narrowly defined, and it applies to activities outside showrooms and lounges and nightclubs, only if those activities are well within the federal cabaret tax. 6) Any entertainment activities not covered by the old federal cabaret tax are not subject to the casino entertainment tax unless there is a specific amendment by the Legislature. (This, he added, is a declaration of the Nevada Supreme Court.) 7) The findings and analysis of the United States District Court, in Gere v. Birmingham, apply to cases concerning the casino entertainment tax. Among other things, Gere found that the term "nightclub" is customarily used as a synonym for cabaret. (Mr. Faiss stated this opinion relies heavily on Gere v. Birmingham, which the U.S. Congress relied on, also.) 8) Finally, the federal cabaret tax, and therefore, the casino entertainment tax applies to a certain type of entertainment and entertainment setting that depends on the character of the entertainment provided or a certain dominant aesthetic or emotional effect or appeal associated with the concept of cabarets and nightclubs, as set forth in the Gere decision. Mr. Faiss reiterated that these are the principles as seen by the gaming industry representatives. Additionally, he opined they are important as future guidance and that they reflect what the Legislature said in 1993. Senator Porter asked the witness to give examples of how the tax's application has evolved since 1965; things that have been taxed differently over the years, which point out the need for the changes. Mr. Faiss referred the senator to Nevada Revised Statutes 463.401 where there is clarification that certain types of facilities and entertainment are not subject to the tax. They never were subject to the federal cabaret tax, but they are in the Nevada statutes because attempts have been made to tax such facilities or entertainment. As a result, the Legislature was made to clarify that the tax was still the same as adopted in 1965, Mr. Faiss testified. Also, he stated, the committee's actions over time have testified to the fact that they remain the same, and any amendments to the law were the result of attempts by the state to tax things the industry felt were not taxable. Senator Porter asked if the amendments to the law have caused the problem, or the interpretation of those amendments. Mr. Faiss responded it is the interpretation of the law. The amendments, he maintained, were an attempt to clarify the law as each of the disputes arose. The senator asked for specific examples of these attempts to improperly tax the industry. The witness responded that strolling musicians are an example. There, he explained, was an attempt made by the audit division of the gaming control board to tax these musicians. The scenario went like this, he told; the musicians would come to a table and ask if they could play a song for the diners, the diners replied negatively and the musicians moved to another table. The audit division attempted to tax the meal of the diners for entertainment, he stated, but the Legislature corrected this misunderstanding. Movie theaters and museums are other examples, Mr. Faiss added. Senator Porter asked if the industry and gaming commission had come to an agreement and whether the bill is a result of that agreement. Mr. Faiss told the senator there has been an "accommodation" worked out which seems to satisfy the commission's goal to have a clear statute. Senator Titus asked to m a k e a s t a t e m e n t f o r t h e r e c o r d ; It deserves repeating, as a point, that even though you've tried to make the definition more specific, and perhaps it's been narrowed down in being made more specific, the amount of revenue that has been generated has steadily increased. Mr. Faiss agreed, noting this is especially true since the clarification made in 1993. William A. Bible, Chairman, State Gaming Control Board, and C. Brian Harris, Member, State Gaming Control Board, came to the witness table. Mr. Bible stated clearly that he agrees this is a revenue-neutral measure, as represented by Mr. Faiss. At the time of the interim study chaired by Senator Titus, Mr. Bible stated, he had only requested two things: that the language would create certainty, so it is understood both by the agency that is the tax collector, and by the licensee, that is a collector in the sense that they apply the tax to the patrons; and that the measure be revenue neutral. He emphasized this bill meets those two objectives. Mr. Bible explained the old federal cabaret tax was repealed in 1965 and there has not been any continuing or growing body of law. This makes it increasingly difficult, as the nature and scope of entertainment has changed, to make certain of the applicability of the casino entertainment tax. Mr. Bible explained there are situations where the tax is not appropriately applied: in situations where the casino is not certain if the tax should be collected or not, and in situations where, in an "abundance of caution," licensees have made the decision to collect the tax and remit it to the state. Then when other licensees call the commission to ask what is appropriate, with the uncertainty that has prevailed in the past, this abundance of caution that carries over in the advice the commissions passes on, the witness explained. He opined the bill will clarify the boundaries of the tax and make it more easy to apply uniformly. Mr. Harris stated some of the problems in the casino entertainment tax will be taken a long way toward solution by the bill and its proposed amendments. It should provide the clarity and certainty the commission needs to determine where the tax should be assessed. One of these problems is, he told, in 1965 when the law was passed, all the showrooms and lounges were "pretty much the same" and every hotel had one showroom and one lounge. Since that time the industry has changed dramatically and there has been a huge flux in the types of entertainment offered by the casinos. These changes, he testified, have made it difficult to determine when the tax should be assessed. Senator James opined the amendments are a "reasonable evolution of [the law]," especially since the time the cabaret tax was in effect. Things have changed dramatically, he stated. Mr. Bible referred to Senator Adler's question regarding section 10 of the bill. He told the committee the section would be addressed by a representative from the attorney general's office. The chairman asked Mr. Bible his view of this provision, and Mr. Bible replied he would defer to the attorney general. He referred to his knowledge of one court case that would provide precedent that is somewhat different than the Naylor opinion. The chairman stated it is his opinion that such a court case is "all the more reason to make some kind of a legislative affirmation that that opinion is an appropriate analysis to adopt." Mr. Bible responded the only "mischief" he could see is in a portion of the opinion there is the discussion of ambiance and atmosphere, which are very subjective areas. Thus, the bill attempts to provide objective criteria that would give a clear guideline for these determinations. Senator James voiced his hope that the proposed definitions, contained within the bill, will be the appropriate means to resolve the many pending court actions in the area of the casino entertainment tax. He also opined the attorney general's opinion could be used as "a lodestar" for interpretation of the inevitable issues that arise in the few remaining grey areas. Mr. Bible agreed there is some grey area left, but it has been reduced through this legislation. The representatives of the gaming commission stepped down. A. Scott Bodeau, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Gaming Division, Office of the Attorney General, addressed the committee next. Mr. Bodeau presented to the committee a packet of exhibits which he asked to be incorporated into the record (Exhibit G. Original is on file in the Research Library.). Mr. Bodeau addressed his remarks to section 10 of the bill, which Senator Adler had questioned. Mr. Bodeau stated he felt he would "be remiss if he did not inform the committee that the continued viability of the Naylor opinion written in 1985, is questionable." He stated there have been discussions within the attorney general's office which reveal the Naylor opinion is dated and may no longer embrace what is currently engaged in in the entertainment arenas and showrooms in the industry. Codifying this opinion, Mr. Bodeau pointed out, does not remove the potential that the opinion will be withdrawn by the attorney general. He stated the committee would be misled if they are advised the opinion will be available as guidance for the indefinate future, because it could be withdrawn. Senator James said he understands that is a possibility, which would be addressed, if and when, the withdrawal occurs. He speculated the adoption of the opinion by the Legislature would ineffectuate the opinion's withdrawal, in any event. Mr. Bodeau added the draft of the bill (Exhibit F) the attorney general's office received just prior to the hearing goes a great distance in clarifying the areas that have presented concern in the past. Those areas of concern, he offered, are questions as to which areas of the gaming establishment the entertainment tax should be applied. He opined section 10 of the bill becomes unnecessary, with the amendments proposed to the original draft of the bill. He suggested the section could be removed and the effectiveness of the legislation would remain intact. Senator Adler asked Mr. Bodeau if he heard the list of principles held in the Naylor opinion, as presented by Mr. Faiss. The senator asked the witness if he disagreed with any of the principles listed. Mr. Bodeau stated he did not disagree with the items he could recall, but the opinion speaks of "nebulous concepts or very subjective concepts, such as the ambiance or aesthetic appeal of a particular type of entertainment." The casino entertainment tax statutes have continually been amended in an attempt to get away from these very types of concepts which constitute the grey areas of the law, he affirmed. Senator Adler asked the witness if his chief objection to the opinion is the subjective language, not the objective criteria set out in it. The witness agreed. The senator asked Mr. Bodeau if the objective criteria, as set out in the opinion, is currently the law. Mr. Bodeau stated the attorney general's office would prefer to have the casino entertainment tax assessed and determined based on "very objective criteria, as opposed to subjective criteria." The opinion referenced in section 10 of the bill does contain subjective criteria, he emphasized. Senator Adler asked the witness if he would be satisfied with language that stated the Legislature affirms the objective principles of the opinion. This language would move the statute outside the ambiance issue, he opined. Mr. Bodeau could not guess how that language might be crafted, but he agreed the senator had identified the problem the attorney general has with incorporating the opinion into the statute. Again, the witness suggested the section be deleted, as unnecessary. Senator James interjected if the committee attempted to pick which principles would be incorporated into the bill from the opinion, and which ones would not be incorporated, the result would be a greater ambiguity than already exists. It is his opinion, he stated, the changes made will eliminate a lot of the need to look to those subjective principles, but it can be a guide in the other criteria it sets forth. Because of this, he stated, he is not inclined to support removal of section 10. Howard Barrett, Lobbyist, Nevada Taxpayers Association, spoke next, noting he had waited a long time this morning to be able to voice support for the bill. Mr. Barrett told the committee he had worked with Governor Sawyer when the casino entertainment tax was originally introduced. This bill, he stated, brings the federal cabaret tax and the entertainment tax much closer together. He stepped down. There was no further testimony and the chairman closed the hearing on S.B. 497. Before moving to a work session, Senator James voiced appreciation for the cooperative method and attitude displayed in the drafting of this piece of legislation. The work session began and the chairman moved to the first bill to be considered. SENATE BILL 372: Revises provisions governing immunity from liability and action for persons associated with commission on judicial discipline. Senator James explained that S.B. 372 contains provisions that are duplicative of provisions in another bill. Because of the passage of the other bill, this one becomes unnecessary. He called for a motion to indefinitely postpone S.B. 372. SENATOR ADLER MOVED TO INDEFINITELY POSTPONE S.B. 372. SENATOR McGINNESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** ASSEMBLY BILL 427: Requires notification of certain persons before release of offender convicted of specified crimes related to children. Allison Combs, Senior Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau, explained the bill to the committee, stating it provides for notification of release of an offender from prison. She reported she was asked to compare this bill with another bill already passed from the committee. SENATE BILL 373: Revises requirement for giving notice of application for parole to victims of crime. Ms. Combs told the committee that S.B. 373 and Assembly Bill (A.B.) 427 affect different chapters of Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). A.B. 427 requires the warden of the prison to notify the victim and members of the immediate family of a victim in situations of child abuse or sexual assault of a victim under 14. The notification would occur upon the release of the offender, whether on parole or at completion of sentence, she explained. Senator James noted there were no proposed amendments to the bill, but when the fiscal office was asked about the fiscal note indicated on the bill, they reported there was none. There was no discussion of the bill and the chairman called for a motion to do pass A.B. 427. SENATOR McGINNESS MOVED TO DO PASS A.B. 427. SENATOR ADLER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** SENATE BILL 347: Provides additional means of limiting liability of business organizations. Fred Hillerby, Lobbyist, Nevada Society of CPAs, came to the witness table to explain the amendments to this bill. This bill adopts the Limited-liability Partnership Uniform Act to Nevada's existing Uniform Partnership Act, he explained, and it also amends all (certified public accountants) CPA statutes to allow for limited-liability companies as a form of business. The committee has Amendment No. 804 (Exhibit H) to the bill, the witness noted, which is an attempt to reclaim the original intent in the bill, inadvertently lost through a bill drafter's error. The amendment provides the same standard to the CPA limited-liability companies as is applied to other professional corporations. Senator James asked if the amendment addresses the fact that foreign limited- liability partnerships should register with the secretary of state, just as a domestic partnership would. Mr. Hillerby affirmed this is addressed. The chairman asked if there is any change made to the key liability provision. Mr. Hillerby stated there are no such changes. Finally, the senator asked if the bill is consistent with limited- liability companies as for professional partnerships defined in chapter 89 of NRS. Mr. Hillerby concurred. Senator Washington asked the witness about page 2 of the amendment (Exhibit F), under subsection 3. He wondered if the fee would remain at $125. Mr. Hillerby stated the fee is consistent with the fee charged for a limited-liability company and the limited-liability partnership. This has been the amount proposed in the bill, since its original drafting. The chairman noted the committee has already voted on the bill and thanked Mr. Hillerby for bringing the amendment back for the committee's review. SENATE BILL 434: Makes various changes to provisions governing statutory liens. Pat Coward, Lobbyist, Nevada Land Title Association, came forward to explain the changes made to S.B. 434. He told the committee of the subcommittee's efforts to resolve the conflict between parties interested in the bill. At the hearing, chaired by Senator Adler, the witness said, the entire bill was reviewed, item by item. There were extensive changes made to the bill, he reported. Primarily, the pre-lien notification was removed, as was the bonding aspect of the bill. Mr. Coward said it was his opinion there is a resolution to all other problems with the bill and the various parties are satisfied. Senator Adler also reported to the whole committee on the results of the subcommittee hearing. He stated sections 2, 3, 9, and 12 were deleted from the bill entirely. There were other minor changes made, including line 19, page 2 of the bill, which changed "15" to "20 days after the court...," and the filing fee on line 26 was changed from $35 to $85 dollars. The chairman asked if there was a change made in subsection 4 of section 4 from "shall" to "may." This would give the court discretion to award fees in a frivolous lien hearing, but not requiring it, he said. This is consistent under the rules of civil procedure, he stated. Senator Adler opined that section 4, the frivolous lien section, is one of the most important provisions of the bill, because it provides a means to get liens off houses in an expeditious fashion. He continued his report noting that section 7, lines 18- 22 (page 4) was reworded. He read the change to the committee: For the purpose of this section, if a work or improvement consists of the construction of more than one separate building, and each of these buildings is constructed pursuant to a separate contract, [that is the important language, he interjected], each building shall be deemed to be a separate work or improvement.... Senator Adler explained the attempt is to address big developments where one contractor or subcontractor may only work on a single building in that development, under a single contract. The contractor or subcontractor cannot lien the entire development, but can only lien the building for which he has the separate contract. If, however, the contract is to put in roofs on 10 buildings, he can lien all 10 buildings, the senator explained. The attempt is to remove some of the ambiguity in the law about when it is possible to put a lien against an entire development or project. Senator Washington wondered if the project would have to be completed before the lien could be placed. Senator Adler replied it could be an ongoing project. Mr. Coward interjected the contract would identify where the lien rights would fall. Senator Porter asked what happens when a subcontractor places a lien and then leaves town. If the property owner is willing to pay the amount of the lien, how are they to release the lien if they cannot find the lienholder to sign-off. Senator Adler speculated it would be possible to file a frivolous lien action to clear it, but that would be more expensive. Senator Porter continued to explain the situation was even more complicated because the lien impacted the home owners credit rating. Senator Adler opined it would be possible to pay the lien amount into an escrow account. Unfortunately, this was a cash transaction, Senator Porter explained. Senator Porter asked to be able to review the amendments to the bill before a vote is taken because he has a number of constituents who are very concerned about the bill. Senator Adler concurred with the request. Mr. Coward reported there is another housekeeping bill coming to the committee which might be a vehicle to address Senator Porter's concerns. Senator Adler offered to insert language into S.B. 434 which might say "once the lien amount is paid in full, the title must be cleared." The chairman reminded the committee members it is important to get these changes drafted "expeditiously" or the bill will not get out of committee in time to pass out of the Legislature. Senator Adler asked to make a motion to amend and do pass, but the chairman declined to accept the motion, based on Senator Porter's request to see the amendment prior to a vote. He then moved to the next bill. SENATE BILL 155: Revises certain provisions governing unclaimed property. S.B. 155 was explained by Ms. Combs. The Assembly amended this bill to require the administrator, once the property from a safe deposit box is delivered, to hold it for 1 year; to hold wills or other like documents for 10 years. The second amendment requires banks to hold the property from a safe-deposit box for 5 years, rather than the 6 months required by existing law. After the 5 years, she reported, the property is to be taken to the division of unclaimed property. This amendment addresses banks and other financial institutions, Ms. Combs explained. Senator James asked if there is any concern about the amendment. Senator Adler opined that in the case of a will, the survivors should be notified about its existence, as soon as possible. He admitted this is already required by law, and thus, it seems unnecessary to include the requirement here. The chairman called for a motion to concur in the Assembly amendment. SENATOR ALDER MOVED TO CONCUR IN THE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT TO S.B. 155. SENATOR LEE SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Finally, the chairman asked if the committee has any further questions regarding the casino entertainment tax or the changes made in S.B. 497. He called for a motion to amend and do pass the bill. SENATOR LEE MOVED TO AMEND AND DO PASS S.B. 497 AS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT E. SENATOR WASHINGTON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ***** Senator James explained there will be a hearing scheduled for the coming Saturday. He requested that the committee members examine their own bill dockets to determine whether there are bills needing the committee's attention. There was no further business and the hearing adjourned at 10:25 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lori M. Story, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Mark A. James, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Judiciary June 6, 1995 Page