Interactive Gambling Bill Clears Nevada Assembly Committee
by Fred Faust, RGTonline.com
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 |
