April
18
2001
Interactive
Gambling Bill Clears Nevada Assembly Committee
The Nevada bill that authorizes
interactive gambling cleared a major hurdle this afternoon, when
the Judiciary Committee of the Nevada Assembly passed the bill
unanimously. The entire Assembly now has until April 27 to approve
the bill and send it to the state Senate.
If the state Senate passes the bill
before the legislature adjourns in early June and Gov. Kenny Guinn
signs it, Nevada will become the first U.S. state to legalize
interactive gambling. The bill, AB 296, is an “enabling bill,”
however. It would permit Nevada regulators to issue regulations
and licenses for interactive gambling only if they conclude that
it conforms with “all applicable laws” and can be properly
regulated.
Guinn won’t say whether he will
sign the bill, which is supported by the state’s major
hotel-casino operators and their trade group, the Nevada Resort
Association. Its sponsor is Assemblywoman Merle Berman, a
Republican from Las Vegas.
Two amendments were discussed and
then passed by the Committee this afternoon. One broadens the
definition of companies that can be licensed to offer interactive
gaming. As originally written, the bill would have only applied to
already licensed hotel-casinos in Nevada’s two largest counties,
Clark (Las Vegas) and Washoe (Reno).
As amended, the bill would apply to
businesses that hold a non-restricted gaming license, have a bar
that can seat at least 30 people, have at least 120 hotel rooms,
have a restaurant with a capacity of at least 60, are open 24
hours a day, seven days a week, and have a gaming area that
contains at least 18,000 square feet with at least 1,600 slot
machines.
That language was used to ensure
that no “major facilities” in Washoe County are excluded,
Whittemore stated.
The other amendment approved by the
Committee stipulates that manufacturers of interactive gambling
systems must go through the same licensing process that Nevada
requires of manufacturers of real-world gaming equipment, and that
the Gaming Control Board will be able to assess fees to covers its
costs for investigating applicants.
Tonight is the deadline for
committee action in the Assembly or Senate. Any bill that dies in
committee is dead until the legislature meets again in 2003.
The Judiciary Committee is
scheduled to resume work tonight on another bill (AB 578) that
deals with gaming licenses, fees and taxes.
Proposed amendments to that bill
include stiff fees for interactive gaming licenses. Operators
would have to pay a nonrefundable application fee of $100,000. The
license itself would cost $1 million for two years, payable in
advance.
An assemblyman from a rural
district complained that smaller companies could not afford such
hefty fees, and would be unfairly excluded from offering
interactive gambling.
The high fees were the idea of
Committee chairman Bernie Anderson, a Democrat from Sparks, who
said he wanted to make sure that state regulators’ costs in
developing and enforcing rules for “this new form of gambling”
were covered by those who may be licensed to offer it.
“Maybe this is not open for
everybody in the state,” Anderson said.
In response to a question, Harvey
Whittemore, a lobbyist and partner in the Nevada law firm of
Lionel, Sawyer & Collins, said the proposed licensing fees are
10 to 20 times the fees for bricks-and-mortar casinos. Whittemore,
representing the Nevada Resort Association and MGM Mirage, the
state’s largest employer, said his clients had promised Anderson
that they would not oppose the high fees.
Slot machine manufacturers are
opposing a tax proposed for manufacturers of interactive gambling
equipment. Under an amendment to AB 578, they would have to pay a
20 percent tax on the revenue they receive from online casino
operators.
|
