Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
02/16/2010 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership | |
| HB208 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 2010
8:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Herron, Co-Chair
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Co-Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Wes Keller
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: ALASKA MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to taxes for certain activities on large
passenger ships; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 281
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of fish and
game and to the interest of the Board of Game in public safety
as it relates to game."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 208
SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP TAX
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRAWFORD
03/27/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/09 (H) CRA, L&C, FIN
04/07/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/07/09 (H) Heard & Held
04/07/09 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/16/10 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM MYERS, Deputy Director
Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Inc. (AMEP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Alaska
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (AMEP).
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the prime sponsor of HB 208.
KEN ALPERS, Staff
Representative Harry Crawford
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Crawford, answered questions regarding HB 208.
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of HB 208, opined that
taxing an activity doesn't make it legal.
JOE GELDHOF, Legal Counsel
Responsible Cruising in Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 208, provided
information on the cruise ship initiative, specifically the tax
on gaming.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:03:41 AM
CO-CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:03
a.m. Representatives Munoz, Herron, Harris, Keller, and Gardner
were present at the call to order. Representatives Millet and
Cissna arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Overview: Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Overview: Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership
8:03:53 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation regarding the Alaska Manufacturing Extension
Partnership.
8:04:46 AM
TOM MYERS, Deputy Director, Alaska Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, Inc. (AMEP), informed the committee that as of
December 2009, Alaska was ranked last in terms of investments
into the business community, even on a per capita basis. The
goal with today's briefing is to make [the legislature] aware of
the aforementioned and to propose a program to address the
aforementioned. He relayed that when creating a capital venture
program states have faced a problem when the program is hosted
inside an educational institution that doesn't have a business
focus. The aforementioned often causes problems with priorities
such that more funds are targeted for research than the actual
investment for start-up businesses or expansion of businesses.
Capital venture programs in other states have also faced
problems when the funds have been passed on to local venture
capital groups who then follow basic venture capital practices
in the process of disseminating funds to businesses. Often a
predatory element evolves inside a venture capital and it
doesn't allow for the best placement of the funds. Therefore,
the proposed program is a completely non predatory venture
capital practice. He explained that when venture capital groups
invest in 10 businesses they expect 1 to succeed, 5 to have some
intellectual property that can be torn from the business and
sold, and 4 to be a loss. There are ways to ensure the
aforementioned doesn't happen.
MR. MYERS related that [the Alaska Manufacturing Business
Industry & Technology (AMBIT) Venture Capital Program] seeks to
provide several types of funding opportunities to a wide range
of Alaskan businesses; provide project support, knowledge, and
management to strengthen businesses and promote success. He
emphasized that the goal is to work with these businesses as
they enter the venture capital setting and set milestones for
their success and receive funds as they meet the milestones. He
further related that [AVCF] seeks to provide an in-depth market
analysis and leverage opportunities within and outside of the
state; properly manage previously underutilized dollars and
reinvest in Alaska's entrepreneurs; promote economic growth
throughout rural and urban Alaska with "prolonged residency" as
a focus. One of the terms of the program is that for each piece
of capital a business receives, it must sign a five-year
commitment to keep that business in Alaska.
8:09:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the definition of
predatory practices since one individual's predatory lending
practice is another individual's good business.
MR. MYER explained that investors in venture capital realize
that many of the businesses in which they invest aren't
businesses they seek to take all the way to success. These
businesses are ones in which the investors hope to own the
intellectual capital at the end of the failed investment. The
aforementioned occurs frequently, particularly in high tech
industries such as software companies. For example, the
originator of the YouTube program received venture capital to
create it, but it wasn't successful. However, the intellectual
property was sold and the company that purchased it became what
is now YouTube, which then partnered with even larger companies.
In further response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Myer
specified that it's a predatory practice to specifically target
a company and place it, in terms of the amount of financing and
restrictions, in a position in which it's difficult for the
company to proceed.
8:11:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked from where one obtains the funds to
loan people funds for venture capital purposes.
MR. MYERS pointed out that the venture capital he proposes
targets an existing statute connected to the permanent fund such
that permanent fund monies are invested inside of the state. In
further response to Representative Harris, Mr. Myers clarified
that he hasn't worked through the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD)
Board. He explained that the program he is proposing become the
entity working with the PFD Board in order to target those funds
toward Alaska businesses.
8:13:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to Mr. Myers background.
MR. MYERS related that he has been with the AMEP for over four
years. The Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership is part
of the nationwide [manufacturing extension partnership] MEP
program, which is part of National Institute of Standards and
Technologies (NIST). He explained that AMEP seeks to help
businesses acquire funding, get started, and improve their
processes.
8:13:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as to why one would talk to Mr.
Myers rather than a standard lending institution. He further
inquired as to whether Mr. Myers is proposing that entities such
as AMEP are more willing to take more risk. He then requested
that Mr. Meyers explain how AMEP could loan funds at such a high
risk whereas banks can barely loan funds at all.
MR. MYERS mentioned that access to venture capital in Alaska is
severely limited. Furthermore, for many Alaskans obtaining a
bank loan is not option, regardless of their credit and assets
the applicant may have. This proposed program seeks to be the
intermediary in the market that is bridge money to allow
applicants to have some success.
8:16:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled her brother's similar situation
to what Mr. Myers described. She then asked if Mr. Myers is
proposing that this project is one in which the state should do
and then he would bid on it.
MR. MYERS explained that he's proposing that many other MEP
centers have set up venture capital programs. The funds, in
these situations, must come from the state not the federal
government. In 2008 members in Congress proposed that the MEP
system have access to about $13 billion that would allow for
matching funds to each state. The aforementioned was supposed
to become part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA) funding. The funds would be given to the states
with a 1:1 match requirement through the MEP system and the
State Science and Technology Institute (SSTI), which is a
partner with NIST. Five other states, New York, Pennsylvania,
Florida, Texas, and Utah have programs with investment capital
in excess of $600 million per state. With regard to the
scenario in which smaller businesses are scooped up by larger
organizations, such a scenario doesn't work for Alaska. He
explained that in Alaska the smaller business/technology that's
incorporated into a larger company is taken out of the state,
and therefore Alaska doesn't receive any benefits. The program
is being proposed to stop the outflow of good businesses and
intellectual capital.
8:19:49 AM
MR. MYERS, returning to his presentation, reminded the committee
of the 1980s when many investors in Alaska lost a lot, which
resulted in the view that Alaska was the "Wild West" of
business. At that time, even the in-state investors all moved
their capital to the Lower 48. Furthermore, most Native
corporations have purchased manufacturing firms throughout the
Southeast U.S. Mr. Myers emphasized that the longer a dollar is
kept in the state, the greater impact it has for the state. The
more turns that dollar does in the state's economy, the greater
amount of the increase in that dollar's value through the year.
Alaska, he related, has about a 4-7 turn per year on a dollar
coming into the state whereas most Lower 48 states have 10-12
turns of a dollar per year.
8:21:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that the fact that Native
corporations are purchasing manufacturing companies in the Lower
48 isn't relevant to this discussion because the Native
corporations aren't acting as venture capitalists.
MR. MYERS replied yes, but [it illustrates] a net capital escape
because they aren't investing in building business inside of
Alaska. The location of the manufacturing operations
experiences the benefit of the investment dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether there is any reason to
believe that those who would invest out of state would prefer to
be venture capitalists within the state as opposed to investing
elsewhere.
MR. MYERS said his presentation will address that. In response
to Representative Harris, Mr. Myers assured the committee that
he would get to the root cause of why Alaska isn't able to turn
over the dollars as much as elsewhere.
8:23:04 AM
MR. MYERS, returning to his presentation, related that Alaska
has a lot of grants from the federal government as well as bank
loans. He informed the committee that AMEP is a Community
Development Financial Institutions (CDFI) guarantor through
which a number of grant opportunities and a small amount of
investment capital are brought in. He also informed the
committee that AMEP works with the Small Business Association
(SBA) and helps folks find co-signers for businesses to bring in
capital. The difficulty is that if the amount of capital needed
is above the value of the borrower's existing assets, no one
will lend to that borrower. He then moved on to the slide
entitled "How the AVCF will Help Alaskan Businesses" and
explained that AVCF will help Alaskan businesses get ready for,
acquire, and properly manage the funds. Money, management, and
marketing are the three factors for success in Alaska. In order
to help businesses succeed AMEP has been working on those,
specifically AMEP ensures that the businesses have a proper,
fungible business plan so that the milestones for success are
established. He then directed attention to the slide entitled
"The Creation of the AMBIT Venture Capital Program". He related
that through CDFI AMEP will eventually have access to $10
million worth of capital. He further related that AMEP is
working as a throughput partner with the USDA, such that AMEP
helps clients put together their business plan, identify USDA
funds, and help the client apply for and manage USDA funds. He
then reviewed the SBA's guaranteed loan program, which has to go
through a bank. Although up to 85 percent of the bank is
guaranteed by the SBA, there have been clients that were unable
to obtain capital using the SBA grants because the banks won't
make the loans. He told the committee that AMEP is seeking to
create a $25-$50 million private capital pool by partnering with
many of the Native corporations across the state as well as
other private investors.
8:26:54 AM
MR. MYERS, in reference to Representative Harris' earlier
question regarding from where the funds will come, pointed out
that the permanent fund statute specifies that up to 5 percent
of the fund should be [reviewed] for investment in Alaska.
However, no organization was ever established to accomplish the
aforementioned. Therefore, Mr. Myers explained that he is
proposing one half of 1 percent to 1 percent be made available
over a three-year time period in order to slowly inject that
capital into businesses in Alaska. As those businesses are
successful, those businesses would eventually return funds to
the permanent fund.
8:27:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the permanent fund [corporation]
invests in Alaska.
MR. MYERS answered that in the past it has invested in Alaska,
but mainly in natural resource extraction. He related his
understanding that the investment has never been more than 1
percent. In further response to Representative Harris, Mr.
Myers confirmed that the natural resource in which [the
Permanent Fund Corporation] invested in Alaska was the oil
industry. He further confirmed that the investment was via
purchasing stocks in the oil industry, not actual projects.
8:28:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if Mr. Myers is sure the Permanent
Fund Corporation is allowed under state law to do what he's
proposing. He reminded everyone that the corporation has a
fiduciary responsibility to the citizens of the state to produce
the highest rate of return possible under a safe scenario.
Venture capital, he pointed out, is very risky.
MR. MYERS noted his agreement that venture capital is riskier
than many other investments, but the potential impacts to the
state can be very significant. In further response to
Representative Harris, Mr. Myers stated his agreement that the
belief is that the higher the risk the higher the reward, when
successful.
8:29:05 AM
MR. MYERS, returning to the slide entitled "The Creation of the
AMBIT Venture Capital Program," pointed out that on the left
side there is a list of the economic development entities that
would be able to bring projects that would be vetted to ensure
that there is a proper business plan, management is trained, a
supply chain is established, and customers are identified prior
to receiving any capital. The next level would be discretionary
funding and then first through third round of venture capital.
He highlighted that the venture capital never exceeds 49 percent
ownership in the business in order to avoid predatory practices.
He then moved on to the slide entitled "Why the AVCF will be a
Successful Solution," which relates the following:
· AVCF is Non-Predatory.
· The AVCF will provide an unparalleled level of
expertise and support for participating businesses.
· The AVCF will provide several capital-acquisition
outlets for a more individualized financing
environment.
· The AVCF is based on mentoring, not financing and then
leaving businesses to fend for themselves.
· The AVCF will educate businesses on how to succeed and
the process of business development.
· The AVCF will connect business partners in an active
way to form synergistic relationships so that all
stakeholders are truly invested in a business.
· The AVCF's network of expertise and scrutiny along
with the use of guarantors will increase opportunities
for bank loans.
MR. MYERS characterized AVCF as the bridge between traditional
financing and the leveraging of personal assets. He continued
on to the slide entitled "Languished Projects as a Result of a
Lack of Funding in Alaska," which lists projects that were
unable to acquire funding. He directed attention to the Arctic
Steel project for which he set up a partnership with Defense
Metals, which performs all the metals acquisition for the
Department of Defense. There is a law that stipulates that at
least 50 percent of metals, specifically titanium, steel, and
other metals, which are available inside of the U.S. must be
acquired from those U.S. sources. However, currently 97 percent
of all the titanium used by the federal government comes from
foreign sources. There is a huge market, he stressed. He then
informed the committee that titanium ore is often a byproduct of
the other mining industries in Alaska. However, there hasn't
been any way to turn it into a product. Mr. Myers emphasized
that he isn't referring to just mining the titanium, but is also
referring to smelting it and turning it into products that are
shipped directly to the U.S. Department of Defense for the
armoring of various military vehicles. Mr. Myers explained that
he setup Arctic Steel with a titanium smelter in Indiana, but
the individual behind Arctic Steel was unable to obtain funding
even with personal assets, credibility, and a high credit score.
The individual behind Arctic Steel only needed $15 million to
move forward with the project. Arctic Steel would've created
150 high-end jobs in Alaska and the financial impact of the
business to Alaska over a three-year period is projected to be
$750 million. Mr. Myers pointed out that the oil industry is
moving more towards titanium every day. For instance, the oil
industry located in the Gulf of Mexico is converting to titanium
as fast as possible due to rust concerns. Mr. Myers then
highlighted the Tetrajack project, which only needed $3 million
in capital. However, the university researcher who developed it
couldn't obtain funding. The Tetrajack project was an aggregate
that goes inside of concrete with a specialized shape such that
half of the amount of steel inside concrete is used.
Furthermore, using a 70 percent stack aggregate in the concrete
makes the concrete float. The Tetrajack project would've
created 25-plus jobs and would've had a financial impact of $185
million. The State of Florida is trying to get this university
researcher to Florida. The process utilized in Tetrajack uses
mining tailings that go through a process which seals in the bad
things so that they don't leach out into the soil. Mr. Myers
said that he wouldn't go through the entire list of projects,
but did highlight that the list he provided would've required
$110 million in venture capital funding, but could've created
more than 500 jobs with a total potential return of $3.25
billion to the state.
8:35:47 AM
MR. MYERS referred to the slide entitled "AMEP's Performance
Metric," which utilizes graphs to illustrate various aspects of
the projects AMEP has done in Alaska over the last four years.
In fact, AMEP has garnered over $40 million in investment,
served over 160 clients, accrued over $30 million in cost
savings, and created over 110 jobs, most of which are located in
rural Alaska. He stressed that folks in rural Alaska are unable
to obtain financing at all because they don't have assets or
homes against which they can borrow to start a business.
However, there are entrepreneurs in rural Alaska who want to
start businesses, enhance local communities, and stop the
outflow of populations from rural Alaska.
8:37:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if any of the Alaska Native
Corporations have been approached regarding investment, as well
as shareholder hire possibility.
MR. MYERS said that Alaska Native corporations have been asked
to be involved in the private equity piece. A couple of Alaska
Native corporations are interested, but they're leery because of
the fall out of the 1980s and 1990s. Furthermore, these Alaska
Native corporations have made such large and successful
investments in the Lower 48 that it's difficult for them to
consider investing in some of these small businesses. Moreover,
these Alaska Native corporations don't have the expertise to
work with small businesses in order to ensure their success.
8:39:03 AM
MR. MYERS turned the committee's attention to the slide entitled
"AK Preference Statute is Still Ineffective". He informed the
committee that a couple of years ago Department of Commerce,
Community, & Economic Development (DCCED) asked him to rewrite
the Alaska preference statute. He said he didn't know if the
changes he proposed, which were based on industry and DCCED
input, ever went anywhere. He reviewed the proposed changes to
AS 36.30.170(a) and (b). One of the changes specifies that the
bid must include the cost of shipping for out-of-state bidders.
The aforementioned has never been included in the preference.
He explained that the change attempts to avoid the situation in
which an out-of-state bidder on a cost plus contract beats an
Alaskan bidder and then adds the cost of shipping afterwards.
Another proposed change specifies that the procurement officer
must demonstrate that multiple Alaska bidders were contacted and
provided ample chance to submit bids before a contract is
awarded to out-of-state bidders. The proposed language
specifies, "If the procurement officer is unable to identify any
viable Alaska bidders, they must document their search procedure
with names of contacted entities. Any single contract over
$5,000 to be awarded to an out-of-state bidder must be reviewed
and signed by the office of the Commissioner of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development or by the State of Alaska's
Chief Procurement Officer." The proposed changes also include
increasing the Alaska bidder preference to 10 percent "and only
after the procurement officer has ensured that the solicitation
was not written in a manner that may exclude Alaska bidders
...." He informed the committee that recently the Insulfoam
company lost a multi-million dollar contract with the Department
of Defense for base housing because the state's contract officer
wrote the bid for a brand name. Furthermore, Sequestered
Solutions, the state's only data center, has lost multiple state
contracts. He told the committee that the state houses 80
percent of its data out of state. Another company, Continuous
Printing, lost a bid with the state; the bid was awarded to an
out-of-state company that does the exact forms that Continuous
Printing does in Alaska.
MR. MYERS, referring to the slide entitled "AMEP Research
Projects," informed the committee that AMEP has a number of
research projects that are coming to fruition that tie to the
venture capital proposal. One such project is the E-Commerce
project such that any business in Alaska can obtain an E-
Commerce web site and AMEP pays for the hosting of the web site
for the first year, after which the cost to the individual is
$9.95 per year. He noted that he has a research paper detailing
the impacts of such to rural Alaska. He said that another
research paper regarding the economic impacts of connecting the
Alaska and Canada railways is forthcoming. He explained that
Alaska has three deep water ports and ships can get from Asia to
Alaska seven days sooner than they can get to Long Beach.
Products that come in on boats to Alaska can be shipped via rail
to Detroit and other points East 10 days faster, at a minimum,
than going to Seattle or Long Beach, California. He recalled
that two years ago General Motors (GM) wanted to place a
transshipment warehouse in Alaska for electronics and other
products it was bringing in from Asia. At the time GM heard
rumors that the aforementioned rail connection would occur.
When GM heard that the rail connection was on hold, GM decided
to wait on the transshipment warehouse in Alaska. "There are
projects out there waiting to happen, if that rail link can be
made," he emphasized. Another research project is the high
latitude agriculture project, which would use Finland as a
model. Alaska imports 95-plus percent of all agricultural
products that are consumed in the state and rural Alaska has a
40 percent spoilage rate before the food even reaches the area.
He characterized this as a food security issue for the state.
Other research projects include enhancing rural participation in
the Alaska business environment; creating an investment
structure for venture capital in Alaska that is based on best
practices; beyond oil, gas, mining, and fishing [creating]
strategic business opportunities that make sense for Alaska;
creating economic incentives to attract companies to Alaska as
well as encouraging local entrepreneurs to start new businesses;
and creating an economic development plan for the state for the
next five years with projections for the next five more years.
He related that the State of Florida has a program in which it
will pay for the land on which [an entrepreneur] will place its
building, provide a loan for the building, and provide $6,000
for each Floridian that is hired and trained for the business.
Therefore, Florida often steals businesses from other states,
including Alaska. He noted that Utah, Montana, and Texas also
have great programs [attracting businesses to Alaska]. In
conclusion, Mr. Myers referred to the slide entitled "Summary of
Key Points," which relates the following:
· The AVCF is essential to change the course of economic
development in the state of Alaska.
· It is imperative for Alaska's economic success to
provide businesses the opportunity to acquire bank
loans, venture capital/angel investment, proper
management and technical training in order not to
languish.
· Alaska has missed out on billions of potential dollars
due to poor economic governance and capital flight out
of AK.
· The Alaska state legislature must realize the
importance of actively pursuing Alaskan businesses and
change procurement statute AS 36.30.170.
· Together, with the research accomplished by the Alaska
Manufacturing Extension Partnership and the promotion
of fiscally conscious projects by the state, Alaska
can and will be an economically powerful marketplace.
8:47:10 AM
MR. MYERS, in response to Representative Gardner, said that the
completed research papers can be made available upon request.
The papers aren't available on AMEP's web site, but that is
being requested of AMEP's technical staff.
8:47:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that a large problem in Alaska
is to accurately access and follow, which she referred to as
"the fidelity to model." Therefore, she opined that there are
pieces necessary to make the aforementioned possible. For
instance, there should be a university connection to train and
verify the process. She then expressed interest in researching
Mr. Myers.
MR. MYERS offered to provide the committee with his business
cards as well as packets that relate what AMEP has done over the
last five years. He noted that he has only been with AMEP for
last four years, prior to that time he was with the University
of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) in the College of Business. He
related that Dr. Baker, Dean of the College of Business, UAA, is
in agreement that the university needs to be more involved with
business in Alaska and that the training programs, particularly
online programs, are important. He mentioned that AMEP has an
online learning platform that allows the training programs to be
accessed by folks across the state.
8:50:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER commended the co-chairs for scheduling
this presentation. He thanked Mr. Myers for the presentation,
which he characterized as identifying something that is of a
major concern for him. He then said he would be open to the
introduction of committee legislation [that would encourage
small business development] as well as any individual
legislation.
8:50:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS remarked that there have been mixed
reviews on investments in the state. In fact, the state has
invested in projects, through AIDEA, that haven't worked. "The
state is just riddled with all kinds of government money that's
gone into so-called projects that fell on their face," he
pointed out. He noted his agreement with Representative Cissna
that [potential businesses] have to have a track record and a
way to ensure that a business proposal isn't a boondoggle.
MR. MYERS acknowledged that throughout the state there are a
number of [failed projects], including the grain silos. The
grain silo project wasn't a bad project, it was just a poorly
planned project. Furthermore, the tannery in Shishmaref is
operating at 10 percent capacity because it never connected with
its supply chain or customers. He emphasized that his goal is
to ensure that any project is fully vetted and planned so that
the aforementioned problems don't occur. He noted that many [of
the state's failed economic development projects] were funded by
the Economic Development Authority and other such entities. He
told the committee he has talked with the authority regarding
when AMEP can help make them successful by say, connecting the
business with a supply chain or a customer base. However, it
hasn't been done yet.
8:53:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS recalled that the Alaska Science and
Technology Fund (ASTF), which ultimately lost funding, was based
upon a similar notion to that which AMEP is proposing.
MR. MYERS said that ASTF wasn't managed fiscally, the projects
weren't vetted or planned properly prior to making investments.
He informed the committee that he has attended training programs
with the Coffman Foundation. Upon completion of the
aforementioned training program, he related that he would be a
certified venture fund manager. Mr. Myers specified that his
goal is to ensure that if created, the projects and money is
properly managed.
8:54:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER interjected that ASTF also had successes,
including a business that has a contract with the U.S.
Department of Defense and employs about 12 employees.
8:54:53 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ thanked Mr. Myers for his presentation and
requested that he keep the committee abreast of his work.
8:55:15 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:55 a.m. to 8:57 a.m.
8:57:53 AM
HB 208-CRUISE SHIP TAX
8:57:57 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 208, "An Act relating to taxes for certain
activities on large passenger ships; and providing for an
effective date."
8:58:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as the prime sponsor of HB 208, explained that he
doesn't want to open the door for for-profit gambling in the
state. He expressed concern that the cruise ship taxation
initiative that started taxing the cruise ship industry on its
gambling within state waters opens the door to for-profit
gambling. The aforementioned, as illustrated in court
decisions, has happened in the Lower 48. The desire to not open
the door to for-profit gambling in Alaska is why Alaska banned
Monte Carlo nights in the state in the 1990s. He then referred
to a June 30, 1997, Anchorage Daily News article in the
committee packet entitled "Tribal gambling in Alaska? Not yet,
but it's one step closer". From the following article, he read
[original punctuation provided]:
As in other areas, Congress sets the rules for
gambling in Indian country. Under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988, Native Americans can operate
casino-type gambling only in states where such
activity is legal.
In 1994, the Southeast Alaska village of Klawock
proposed a casino on a fragment of village land held
in trust by the federal government. In response, the
Legislature passed a law revoking the authority for
nonprofit groups to hold Monte Carlo nights with
roulette, cards and other casino games. That closed
the door to Klawock.
The Venetie ruling makes it possible for any tribe
that can establish Indian country to qualify for a
casino operation, but only if the Legislature votes to
make such gambling legal in Alaska. The Legislature
did not eliminate lotteries when it banned the other
games, however. The state and Klawock are still
negotiating over a tribal lottery, said assistant
attorney general Vince Usera.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD opined that since the aforementioned
article, the cruise ship initiative was passed. The initiative
taxes the cruise ship industry on its gambling profits, which
could be viewed as an implicit acceptance of Class 3 gambling
inside the state. Therefore, he introduced HB 208.
9:02:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if HB 208 would prohibit Native
villages from having casinos on tribal properties.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD clarified that HB 208 isn't an absolute
prohibition; rather it's just not opening the door [to gambling
in Alaska]. He explained that the U.S. only allows tribal
gaming in states where the same type of gaming is available to
other entities. Alaska hasn't done the aforementioned.
However, Alaska has passed the cruise ship initiative that taxed
the Class 3 gambling onboard the cruise ships. The
aforementioned, he reiterated, could open the door to casino-
type gambling in Alaska. He noted that Alaska is one of only
two states that don't allow for-profit gambling.
9:04:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised then that HB 208 would eliminate
the ability of Alaska Native tribes/corporations to participate
in a business opportunity such as gaming.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied yes.
9:04:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if the sponsor is trying to
establish a mechanism to stop Indian gaming.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related that the casino businesses use
Indian gaming operations as a door to gambling. The
aforementioned happened in Louisiana.
9:05:50 AM
KEN ALPERS, Staff, Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Crawford, explained that the legislature banned Monte Carlo
nights and associated activities in 1995 primarily to disallow
Indian gaming. The provision in the cruise ship initiative that
taxes gaming opens a loophole the legislature consciously closed
15 years ago. This legislation merely tries to ensure that
loophole remains closed.
9:06:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that the cruise ship initiative
included many things to which many people weren't aware. She
then asked if the sponsor could walk her through the current
process of a tribe opening a casino in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that there is no such process
because heretofore it hasn't been allowed.
9:07:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to the federal process for a
tribe to work with the state to open a casino.
MR. ALPERS explained that under the Indian Gaming Act of 1988,
states are allowed to enter into agreements and compacts with
tribes to regulate Class 3 gaming. The federal law requires
that the state has to allow the activity to take place. The
[law says] "If the state permits such gaming for any purpose by
any person, organization, or entity." The first step, he
further explained, is for the state to enter into a compact.
The state hasn't done so because the state doesn't permit any
such gaming for any purpose, organization, or entity.
9:07:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT requested an explanation of the exact
loophole that HB 208 addresses.
MR. ALPERS explained that that the courts could construe that by
taxing this gaming activity, the state is indirectly permitting
it.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised then that the legislation is in
response to fear of court action.
9:09:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD directed the committee's attention to a
document entitled "Why We Need HB 208; A Brief Legal History,"
from which he paraphrased from the following paragraph:
In response to the Cabazon case, Congress passed the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1998 (IGRA). This
established the three "classes" of gaming that we use
today. It also explicitly recognized the role of
tribal gaming for local economic development and self
sufficiency. The Act created a National Indian Gaming
Commission, which directly regulated Class 2 gaming
(bingo), and required state-tribal compacts to
regulate Class 3 gaming (slots, casinos, etc). Since
this act, tribal gambling revenue increased from $100
million in 1998 to $17.7 billion in 2006.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD informed the committee that prior to
IGRA few states allowed large casinos, but now casinos in the
Lower 48 have proliferated. Alaska has expressly denied
expansion into gaming, which he said he wants to continue to do.
9:11:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked which states with Class 3 gaming
have formed compacts and which haven't, but have been forced to
allow gaming due to court action. She further asked that the
delineation between those states that have willingly entered
into compacts and which have been forced into a compact be
specified.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he couldn't provide the actual
number of states or specific states. However, he said he could
provide some examples of states that have been forced to open up
to for-profit gambling.
9:12:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, in response to Co-Chair Herron, said
that he didn't know how the vessels regulate the tax collected
for the onboard gaming. However, he surmised that it is self-
reported.
MR. ALPERS explained that the initiative statute specifies
adjusted gross earnings: revenue less payouts and expenses and
so forth. He said that to the extent there is a regulatory
process, he said he wasn't aware of the details.
9:13:07 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON related his understanding that for other
bingo/pull tabs a municipality has the ability to negotiate the
local tax on gaming. However, the local operator has no ability
to negotiate with the state. Therefore, he surmised that the 33
percent tax was arbitrary and voted on by the people rather than
negotiated between the operators and the legislature or the
governor.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD confirmed that the 33 percent tax was in
the cruise ship initiative.
9:14:07 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON said that the sponsor, in reference to the
loophole the legislation is trying to close, has used examples
of land-based loopholes in other states, but this is a water-
based loophole. He asked if this water-based loophole has been
used in other states.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD informed the committee that in Louisiana
river boats were used for gambling. Those river boats with
gambling couldn't be parked, but once those river boats were
anchored in state waters gambling onshore began.
9:15:19 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON asked if the water-based example in Alaska
exists elsewhere. He pointed out that the cruise ships in
Alaska move in and out of international waters.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD acknowledged that the situation in
Alaska may be a different animal than [the Louisiana situation].
However, he reminded the committee that [taxing the gambling
onboard cruise ships] will result in the state relying on some
judge to determine whether the state allows gambling or not. He
reiterated his belief that the initiative offers a loophole
through which gambling in Alaska could take a foothold.
9:16:31 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON said that he needs more information, and
inquired as to what the loophole is.
MR. ALPERS related that the foundation lawsuit arose when the
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe of Connecticut with a small
reservation sued the State of Connecticut, which didn't have any
interest in being in the casino business. Because the State of
Connecticut allowed church Monte Carlo nights, the tribe was
able to convert its small bingo hall into what's now one of the
largest casinos in the world. Although it's impossible to say
what a judge would do, the loophole is that the state allowed
[Monte Carlo night gambling] so it had to be allowed for the
tribal entity. Therefore, the sponsor believes that by
acknowledging and collecting taxes on gaming, the state is
allowing gaming.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD then related a case in which the
Coushatta Indians in Louisiana had no traditional lands.
However, they bought several acres in an urban area and referred
to those lands as Indian lands. The Coushatta Indians went to
court and now a casino is on the lands they designated as Indian
lands, although there was no traditional use on those lands.
Therefore, Representative Crawford opined that if the loophole
in Alaska isn't closed, it will be successfully used to bring
casino gambling in Alaska. He referred to it as a back door
attempt to allow gambling. Whether the state allows for-profit
gambling is something that should require a vote of the people.
9:19:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if the sponsor is suggesting that a
tribe could sue Alaska and force the state into a compact.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded yes. In further response, he
opined that the courts could require the governor or the
legislature to sign a contract. The aforementioned is the
reason why when Klawock wanted to construct a casino the
legislature banned Monte Carlo nights in the state in order to
eliminate the basis of a lawsuit.
9:21:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that she has a copy of the
Connecticut State Compact that allows gaming and can't find
where it says a court action caused gaming to be allowed in
Connecticut.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD interjected that it's the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act of 1988 that actually caused [gaming to be
allowed in Connecticut].
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that IGRA is voluntary and
only requires that a state compact be signed. She then asked if
all the state compacts are in reaction to a lawsuit or do states
enter into the compacts voluntarily. She related her
understanding that states enter into the compacts voluntarily.
She further asked if the courts can force a state into a
compact.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied yes, a court can force the state
into a compact allowing gambling.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT requested examples in which the courts
have required the governor and the legislature to do something.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered to provide specific examples
later.
MR. ALPERS related his understanding that the Connecticut
Compact was the result of a lawsuit. The State of Connecticut
didn't want to enter into such a compact, but was forced to by
the courts. The aforementioned doesn't necessarily need to
specify such in the compact as it only makes the rules for
gaming. The legal history leading to the compact is separate
from the compact itself.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD interjected that in the case with the
Coushatta Indians, the state [of Louisiana] didn't want to
[allow gaming], but it was forced to do so by the court.
9:23:22 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON referred to the sponsor's document entitled "Why
We Need HB 208; A Brief Legal History," which says "that a
state-tribal contract must allow a particular sort of gambling
if the state 'permits such gaming for any purpose by any person,
organization, or entity.'" Since Alaska prohibits Monte Carlo
nights [and IGRA] includes the aforementioned language, Co-Chair
Herron inquired as to what he is missing.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD specified that the cruise ships allow
slot machines, roulette wheels, and other gambling games, which
is the loophole he wants to close. This legislation isn't
addressing the onshore Monte Carlo nights as those were
addressed in the 1990s.
9:24:56 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON pointed out that Alaska doesn't permit the
cruise ship gambling, the state merely taxes it.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated that the problem is that by
taxing and acknowledging the gambling, it's implicitly
permitting it.
9:25:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the initiative was written in a
manner to allow gaming in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired then as to why the initiative
includes taxing gaming.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he didn't want to assume the
motive of the initiative sponsors, but opined that they felt
that the cruise ship industry was taking advantage of the state
and not contributing to the extent they should be. He further
opined that the initiative sponsors felt that there were a
number of areas within the cruise industry that the state should
tax.
9:26:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if the law was in place that
prohibited for-profit gambling when the cruise ship initiative
passed.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that the law banning Monte
Carlo nights was in place when the cruise ship initiative was
passed. In further response to Representative Harris,
Representative Crawford said he didn't believe the cruise ship
initiative specifically says that it would tax for-profit
gambling on cruise ships in Alaska waters, but rather
characterized it as an inadvertent loophole.
9:28:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised then that Representative Crawford
was conceding that the cruise ship initiative included at least
one unintended consequence.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied yes, that's a possibility.
9:28:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT requested that Representative Crawford
provide to her the specifics of the loophole as she is still
having difficulty understanding what the loophole is.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed to do so. He then reiterated his
belief that it's not in Alaska's best interest to have for-
profit gambling in the state.
9:30:23 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ requested additional information regarding the
Connecticut example be provided to the committee.
9:30:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his understanding that in Alaska
there are many opportunities for people to participate legally
in not-for-profit gambling so long as there's no profit to the
sponsor of the games.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed that such exists, and said that
he isn't trying to outlaw that as those are situations in which
a consenting adult participates in gambling.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised then that Alaska has said it
won't allow organized for-profit gambling, but hasn't prohibited
gambling in situations in which folks get together for a poker
game that they don't advertise and for which the sponsor of the
game doesn't take a cut.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded that he isn't advocating
anything in law to prohibit non-organized gambling for which the
sponsor doesn't take a cut.
MR. ALPERS clarified the differences between Class 2 and Class 3
gaming, as follows. All of the regulated nonprofit gaming in
Alaska falls under Class 2 gaming, such as bingo, pull tabs,
etcetera. No Class 3 gaming, such as video games, table games,
or slot machines, is allowed in the state except on cruise
ships. He said that he wasn't sure of the specific status of
poker, and thus wouldn't address it. He pointed out that there
are no black jack tables or slot machines in the allowed
nonprofit gaming in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD interjected that roulette wheels and
video poker machines are outlawed in Alaska.
9:34:51 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the implementation of the tax has
impacted the location of the gambling activity and the amount of
gambling activity that occurs in state waters.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD deferred to the cruise ship industry.
MR. ALPERS informed the committee that the cruise ship casinos
aren't open while in port, but are able to open once the vessel
breaks from the port. He reminded the committee that the $6.8
million last year, including the $50 head tax, is deposited into
the subaccount to the general fund (GF). He specified that the
funds fund cruise-related impact projects.
9:36:12 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ thanked the sponsor for bringing this issue
before the committee as it's an important issue.
9:36:41 AM
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue, informed the committee that the Department of Revenue
(DOR) doesn't believe that taxing this activity makes this type
of gambling legal in the state. She related DOR has conferred
with DOL as well. Ms. Bales confirmed that Class 3 gambling is
illegal in Alaska. The only type of gambling allowed in the
state is gambling that's for charitable purposes. However,
federal law prohibits Alaska from making it illegal for cruise
ships [to allow gaming]. She pointed out that there is a
definition of the type of vessel that can conduct gambling in
Alaska waters. Basically, the only vessels that are allowed to
conduct gaming in Alaska's waters are those with a voyage that
includes a stop in Canada and or another state other than Alaska
and stops at two different ports in Alaska during its voyage.
Still, such a vessel is not allowed to conduct within three
nautical miles of any port within Alaska. The aforementioned is
specified in the federal law. Ms. Bales clarified, "The only
reason that these cruise ships are allowed to conduct gaming
activities is because the federal law prohibits the State of
Alaska from making that illegal in Alaska waters." However,
gambling in Alaska and in Alaska state waters is illegal, save
the aforementioned prohibition under federal law.
MS. BALES then pointed out that there are various illegal
activities conducted in the state and nation. For example, it's
illegal to be a drug dealer in the U.S., but the income made
from that activity is taxable under federal income tax law. The
activity isn't made legal by virtue of it being taxed.
9:39:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS inquired as how far out do Alaska's waters
reach for taxation purposes.
MS. BALES answered Alaska waters are those waters three miles
from shore. In further response to Representative Harris, Ms.
Bales confirmed that the legislation refers to three nautical
miles from the port, which could extend any direction.
9:40:19 AM
MS. BALES, in response to Representative Gardner, clarified that
under the federal law the state is allowed to prohibit gaming
three miles from a port. Therefore, [the vessel] could still be
within the three miles in Alaska waters but three miles from a
port. She further clarified that so long as the vessel is three
miles away from a port along the coast, the vessel can conduct
gambling activities.
9:41:49 AM
JOE GELDHOF, Legal Counsel, Responsible Cruising in Alaska,
began by noting that he was one of the primary authors of the
cruise ship initiative. He explained that the portion of the
cruise ship initiative related to taxing [gambling] can be
traced back to the 1980s. At that time, the Office of the
Attorney General in loose cooperation with the U.S. Department
of Justice began reviewing gambling operations in Alaska
territorial waters. Although there was never any formal
enforcement, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
became interested in the emerging cruise ship market that
included gambling it was apparent that there were more questions
than answers. He opined that the cruise industry understood the
heightened interest in the gambling activities within
territorial waters, and used the appropriate influence to
achieve the law referenced by Ms. Bales. The aforementioned law
basically prohibited Alaska from stopping [gambling activities].
The aforementioned was an unusual prohibition that raised
concerns with lawyers regarding whether the federal government
could prohibit the state from acting. He noted that the basic
doctrine is within the Tenth Amendment. During the
aforementioned discussion, former legislator Hugh Malone pointed
out that the cruise industry had created a loophole that says
the state can't prohibit [gambling on the cruise ships]. Mr.
Malone suggested that rather than continuing with litigation,
the state should tax the activity. Mr. Geldhof recalled the
discussion at the time was that [gambling on cruise ships] would
be taxed and the activity wouldn't be sanctioned.
MR. GELDHOF then turned to the 33.3 percent taxation on cruise
ship gaming was taken from existing statute for charitable
gaming. He noted that it wasn't anticipated that the 33.3
percent "takes the oxygen out of any profit." According to the
initiative, the taxation of cruise ship gambling has returned
about $6.8 million a year. Although the cruise industry may not
like the law, it does like the opportunity for its passengers to
gamble. Mr. Geldhof characterized the law as a peculiar
response to a unique set of circumstances. Furthermore, the law
highlights that geography still matters and takes the state's
fair share according to the charitable gaming statute. Mr.
Geldhof explained that the taxes collected on gambling goes into
the large passenger account, but those funds are unrestricted
and can be spent without regard to the federal law that
specifies the funds have to be spent on safety and efficiency of
the passengers and the vessel. Mr. Geldhof opined that the
concern should arise when one wants the cruise ship deal and
requests a compact.
9:48:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS thanked Mr. Geldhof, who he characterized
as a voice of reason, for being present today. He asked Mr.
Geldhof if it would be fair to say that he opposes HB 208 as
it's a dramatic departure from the intent of the sponsors of the
initiative.
MR. GELDHOF stated that in the larger concept of the cruise ship
initiative, the gambling tax was a small piece of cleanup
legislation to address something that had been around since the
1980s. The initiative seemed to bring some resolution to the
gambling issue, and he opined that the drafters of the
initiative "got it more right than wrong."
9:50:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to why the gambling tax was
included in the cruise vessel passenger tax initiative. She
further inquired as to what the authors of the initiative were
trying to gain by including the gambling tax in the initiative.
MR. GELDHOF restated the history of the issue with gambling in
state waters in which the cruise industry ultimately trumped the
state's law that gambling in Alaska is not legal with a federal
statute that prevented Alaska from saying that gambling in state
waters is illegal. In response to the aforementioned and rather
than going through litigation, it was determined to be necessary
to tax what the state still believes to be illegal activity.
The levy rate was set at 33.3 percent, the charitable gaming
provision. The thought, he opined, was that if gaming is going
on in Alaska [waters] and the state can't prevent it, then the
state should receive the same percentage as it would from
charitable gaming.
9:52:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if Mr. Geldhof believes this
taxation of cruise ship gambling is grounds to open up to Class
3 gaming in Alaska.
MR. GELDHOF said that upon reviewing the federal and the state
law, there's no easy deal to get because at best one would have
to operate a large passenger vessel in foreign carriage that has
a port outside. Mr. Geldhof opined that in Alaska there's no
opportunity to do what is done in Louisiana or Indiana with
near-shore gambling. Furthermore, Mr. Geldhof pointed out that
the gambling revenue for the cruise industry is incidental and a
full-blown seasonal business can't be built on such revenue.
9:55:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled Mr. Geldhof saying that if a
lawsuit is brought on the grounds that the sponsor fears, the
state could address it by removing the gambling tax. She asked
if it would be too late at that point.
MR. GELDHOF answered that he didn't believe so. At the point,
someone comes forward to leverage the state and the governor
desires a compact, that's when a working group would likely come
together and one of the options would likely be to remove the
tax.
9:57:45 AM
MR. GELDHOF, in response to Representative Crawford,
acknowledged that there is a scenario in which someone wants the
gambling deal and a compact is signed. He further acknowledged
that in the course of the compact, the party could agree to the
terms. However, the likelihood of the aforementioned seems to
be very remote. He opined that his experience is that whatever
the scenario, it will require deliberation and will move slowly.
10:00:11 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 208 would be held over.
10:00:38 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised that basically Alaska's law, due to the
initiative, is a fairly high hurdle, particularly for someone
who is in business to make a profit. Therefore, he questioned
whether the tax is appropriate to keep on the books.
MR. GELDHOF opined that the real issue for the legislature is
obtaining funds from taxing gambling while not allowing gambling
besides in a very peculiar fashion. "The real challenge here,"
he opined, "is spending the $6.8 [million] or whatever the yield
is for the benefit of our state in a thoughtful way."
[HB 208 was held over.]
10:02:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 208 Sponsor Statement & Sectional on Repealers.doc |
HCRA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HCRA 2/16/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 208 |
| HB 208 - Cruise initiative language 2006.docx |
HCRA 2/16/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 208 |
| HB 208 cruise initiative changes.doc |
HCRA 2/16/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 208 |
| HB 208 cruise gaming legal history.doc |
HCRA 2/16/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 208 |
| HB 208 - Kizzia article ADN june 1997.docx |
HCRA 2/16/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 208 |
| HB208-DOR-TAX-02-18-10 Cruise Ship Gambling Tax.pdf |
HCRA 2/16/2010 8:00:00 AM |
HB 208 |