Two commissioners at odds over retroactive ‘tavern’ regulations

Does it make sense that Clark County's standards and definitions of a "tavern" where gaming is "incidental" would be different than the state's standards?

Not to me. Not to Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani. But it makes sense to Commissioner Steve Sisolak. Once again, the two strong-willed commissioners are at odds.

Recall Dotty's Gaming & Spirits, the chain of "taverns" designed for women who like to gamble and smoke. Last year, it was so successful that gaming companies catering to locals sought regulation changes from both the Clark County Commission and the Nevada Gaming Commission.

Station Casinos, Boyd Gaming and the Nevada Resort Association first obtained one set of new regulations from the County Commission, then a different set from the Nevada Gaming Commission. The gaming companies wanted Dotty's and similar operators to be required to provide more amenities.

The worst aspect? The regulations were retroactive, an outrageous precedent for businesses.

After the regulations passed, Dotty's sued the county and the Nevada Gaming Commission.

These were the same Dotty's operations that had been licensed as taverns with restricted gaming all over the state since 1995. Suddenly the state said they had to be retrofitted if they were built since Feb. 1, 2000. And this applied to all taverns with 15 slots or less, not just Dotty's.

In the county version, taverns licensed before Dec. 22, 1990, were grandfathered in.

In February, willing to live with the new state regulation, Dotty's dropped its lawsuit again the Nevada Gaming Commission. The company is installing bars with nine seats in 34 Dotty's across the state and asked gaming regulators for waivers in only two Dotty's out of the 93 it operates. (More on that in Monday's column.)

In July, County Commissioner Giunchigliani took the commonsense approach that the county's regulations should be identical to the state's.

But Sisolak, the most vehement anti-Dotty's commissioner, moved to table the proposal so the lawsuit against the county could play out. He also thought the Governor's Gaming Policy Committee would address the issue. It didn't.

At that time, neither commissioner was aware the lawsuit against the Gaming Commission had been dropped.

Giunchigliani told me major players in this farce said they would be happy to also drop the lawsuit against the county if it adopted the state regulations.

"It's a waste of money to pursue this legal case," Giunchigliani said. Like me, she's uncomfortable with the retroactive aspect of the county regulations. "I've researched it, and I've never found a retroactive regulation in the county."

She contends the state regulations are more fair than the county's. Sisolak contends the county's stricter regulations are superior to the state's.

One key difference is that the state mandated a nine-seat bar and the county mandated bars with eight embedded slot machines, which are more expensive to install.

There's a difference in how long kitchens should be open. Big whoop. There's a difference between whether the public space should be 2,000 or 2,500 square feet. Another big whoop. There are different dates involving retrofitting and grandfathering, which is simply confusing.

Reminded that technological changes could make slots embedded in bars obsolete, Sisolak said the county could change it later.

That would be after the expenses were incurred.

Every city and county could have its own set of regulations on how taverns with gaming should operate, creating more headaches for people trying to do business in Nevada.

The issue is headed for the Legislature, becoming one more burden on lawmakers. They should have better things to do than debate how many hours a kitchen should be open, how much public space a tavern should have, how many seats a bar needs and whether slots should be embedded.

The substantive question for legislators is whether any law that doesn't involve public safety should be retroactive.

Obvious answer: It shouldn't.

Jane Ann Morrison's column appears Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Email her at Jane@reviewjournal.com or call 702-383-0275. She also blogs at lvrj.com/blogs/morrison.