04/07/2009 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB3 | |
| HB208 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 7, 2009
8:04 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
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Kyle Johansen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 3
"An Act authorizing an Alaska regional development organization
to use the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission as an
informational resource."
-MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to taxes for certain activities on large
passenger ships; and providing for an effective date."
-HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 3
SHORT TITLE: CFEC AS INFORMATION RESOURCE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
01/21/09 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/09 (S) CRA, RES
01/21/09 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
02/05/09 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/05/09 (S) Moved SB 3 Out of Committee
02/05/09 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/06/09 (S) NR: OLSON, KOOKESH
02/06/09 (S) CRA RPT 3DP 2NR
02/06/09 (S) DP: FRENCH, THOMAS, MENARD
03/02/09 (S) RES AT 4:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/02/09 (S) Moved SB 3 Out of Committee
03/02/09 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/03/09 (S) RES RPT 5DP
03/03/09 (S) DP: MCGUIRE, WIELECHOWSKI, STEVENS,
STEDMAN, FRENCH
03/18/09 (S) OLSON CHANGED NR TO DP ON 2/6 CRA
REPORT
03/18/09 (S) VERSION: SB 3
03/18/09 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/23/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/23/09 (H) FSH, CRA, FIN
03/31/09 (H) FSH AT 10:15 AM BARNES 124
03/31/09 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/31/09 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/01/09 (H) NR: JOHNSON, MILLETT
04/01/09 (H) FSH RPT 4DP 2NR
04/01/09 (H) DP: KELLER, BUCH, MUNOZ, EDGMON
04/07/09 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 208
SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING TAXES
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
WITNESS REGISTER
TIM BENINTENDI, Staff
Senator Donny Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 3 on behalf of the sponsor,
Senator Olson.
FRANK HOMAN, Chairman/Commissioner
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke as the sponsor of HB 208.
KEN ALPER, Staff
Representative Harry Crawford
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing of HB 208, answered
questions.
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director
Anchorage Office
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 208 and offered
to work with the sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:04:20 AM
CO-CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:04
a.m. Representatives Munoz, Herron, Keller, and Gardner were
present at the call to order. Representatives Millet and Cissna
arrived as the meeting was in progress. Also in attendance was
Representative Johansen.
SB 3-CFEC AS INFORMATION RESOURCE
8:04:33 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 3, "An Act authorizing an Alaska regional
development organization to use the Alaska Commercial Fisheries
Entry Commission as an informational resource."
8:05:04 AM
TIM BENINTENDI, Staff, Senator Donny Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor, explained that
SB 3 would benefit the state's economic development
organizations, Alaska Regional Development Organizations
(ARDORs), by simply allowing them to obtain public information
from the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission (CFEC). The
intent of SB 3 is to simply provide CFEC available public
information without charge. Under AS 16.05.815, no confidential
information would be made available. Mr. Benintendi highlighted
that the information would be of special benefit to the eight
ARDORs for which commercial fishery activities are a significant
portion of their economy. Furthermore, the information would
help these eight ARDORs anticipate regional economic trends and
development opportunities. The CFEC supports SB 3 and believes
the loss of fees is negligible. The legislation has two zero
fiscal notes, he noted.
8:06:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER questioned whether the intent of SB 3
requires legislation or is just a policy call for the CFEC. She
then related her understanding that all the information the CFEC
gathers is public information.
MR. BENINTENDI explained that by law agencies are required to
charge fees for certain public documents, and thus it's
necessary to do this in statute in order for the CFEC to be able
to give away information. Furthermore, everything contained in
CFEC isn't public information as some issues, such a fishery
information from specific permit holders, would include personal
information of a particular fisherman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER then asked if the CFEC's information,
beyond the confidential information, is public information.
MR. BENINTENDI deferred to other witness, and pointed out that
SB 3 only allows the ARDORs to receive public information
without paying a fee because of tight budgets.
CO-CHAIR HERRON, noting that the backup refers to the fees as
negligible, inquired as to what is negligible.
MR. BENINTENDI answered that he has been told by CFEC that the
fees amount to less than $10,000 per year.
8:09:25 AM
FRANK HOMAN, Chairman/Commissioner, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), related
support for SB 3. He explained that SB 3 is necessary in order
to get around the statute specifying that agencies shall charge
a fee for the production of information. The ARDORs, he further
explained, were created to help stimulate business in the region
and most often operate on a shoe string. This legislation would
provide ARDORs with available public information from CFEC
without charge. Typically, ARDORs have requested sorting data
in a manner that's specific to the ARDOR's region, which would
require an analyst or programmer to sort out the data.
Therefore, the request could cost a few hundred to a few
thousand dollars depending on the depth of the request.
However, since there are only about a dozen ARDORs and only
eight to nine of them are coastal, CFEC doesn't expect
[providing this information for free] to be a major financial
burden. He clarified that the CFEC doesn't perform economic
analysis for the ARDOR, it merely provides the information on
the ARDOR's region.
8:13:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his understanding that ARDORs and
CFEC are both sanctioned or authorized by the state.
MR. HOMAN noted his agreement, adding that both ARDORs and the
CFEC are established by the legislature. In further response to
Representative Harris, Mr. Homan related his understanding that
ARDORs receive some state funding each year while the CFEC
receives funding from licensing fees, which are authorized by
the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS characterized what SB 3 proposes as a
common sense matter. He asked if it's the fee that's the issue.
MR. HOMAN responded that's essentially correct, reiterating the
existence of the statute that specifies agencies will charge a
fee for information they have to develop.
8:15:32 AM
MR. HOMAN reiterated that SB 3 doesn't allow any release of
confidential information from individual fish tickets.
8:16:43 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
8:16:52 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON moved to report SB 3 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 208-CRUISE SHIP GAMBLING TAXES
8:19:25 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."
8:19:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature,
speaking as the sponsor of HB 208, began by reminding the
committee that Alaska has chosen not to allow gambling.
However, the 2006 Cruise Ship Initiative seems to provide a back
door to allow gaming in the state by way of taxing the gambling
that occurs on cruise ships in state waters. In 1995 the
legislature banned Monte Carlo nights, which were viewed as a
back door attempt to [allow] Indian gaming, Class 2 and Class 3
gaming. Representative Crawford then directed attention to the
document entitled, "Why We Need HB 208; A Brief Legal History,"
and from it read the following [original punctuation provided]:
In the section of the IGRA [Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act of 1988] dealing with Class 3 gaming, it specifies
that a state-tribal compact must allow a particular
sort of gambling if the state "permits such gaming for
any purpose by any person, organization, or entity."
This language was used by the Mashantucket Pequot
Tribe of Connecticut, who in 1992 expanded their small
bingo hall into the Foxwoods Casino. Connecticut, at
the time, allowed non-profit "Monte Carlo Nights."
Foxwoods is now the third largest casino in the world.
In 1995, the Alaska Legislature banned non-profit
"Monte Carlo Nights," largely in fear of the same sort
of development here. Fur Rendezvous had previously
run a large Monte Carlo night as a fundraiser.
With the exception of cruise ships operating offshore
under federal law, there is no legal authority for any
casino-style gambling in Alaska, whether for-profit or
non-profit. The state's taxation of cruise ship
gambling creates a potentially dangerous loophole.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD acknowledged that taxing cruise ship
gambling, per the initiative, would bring in $6.2 million worth
of revenue to the state. However, he related his belief that
even the sponsors of the initiative didn't think about the
ramifications of it. Furthermore, he opined that the state
simply can't afford to allow gambling in the state.
8:23:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT related her understanding that HB 208
addresses an initiative approved by the people.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD confirmed that to be the case, adding
that since it was an initiative he waited the two years before
trying to change anything in the initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT recalled that the proposed change in HB
208 would be the fourth change to the initiative. She specified
that the following portions of the initiative have been changed:
the Ocean Ranger program, disclosures, gambling tax, and
discharge.
8:24:37 AM
KEN ALPER, Staff, Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, specified that the only legislation changing the
initiative that has passed was House Bill 217 in 2008. The
other three proposed changes to the initiative are pending, but
could result in substantial changes.
8:25:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to the sponsor's thoughts
regarding whether initiatives are properly vetted and allow
enough open dialogue. She recalled that the initiative was
about a head tax.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that the initiative was about
more than a head tax as it had six major provisions. He further
remarked that although he believes in initiatives, he
acknowledged that some initiatives are written better than
others. Therefore, the two-year ban on changing initiatives
affords the ability to see how the initiative works after which
necessary changes can be proposed.
8:27:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised then that Representative
Crawford supports changing initiatives through the legislative
process after two years.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded, "If they need to be changed;
... that's what the two-year trial run is about is ... putting
it into effect and seeing if it, in fact, does work the way
people intended." He reminded the committee that the
legislature passes laws that have unintended consequences
requiring the passage of more legislation to address those.
8:27:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT inquired as to whether the sponsor would
support a more public process with hearings, including
legislative hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related his experience with initiatives,
and noted that he has always introduced legislation on the
initiative topic in order to have hearings. However, he pointed
out that most often the legislature hasn't granted hearings for
his legislation. Therefore, the initiative process allows good
ideas to move forward and not become embroiled in a legislative
process [in which] corporate interests place an inordinate
amount of power and pressure on the legislature.
8:29:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT noted her agreement that there is much
influence on initiatives, and therefore suggested that it would
be best to have more public disclosure and meetings on
initiatives.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD clarified that he was referring to the
inordinate amount of pressure companies place on the
legislature. However, when one is discussing the entire state,
the power of the corporate entity is diffused and the people of
the state can act through initiatives.
8:30:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER requested that the discussion be kept to
the topic of HB 208.
8:30:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT surmised then that Representative
Crawford believes that there aren't corporate influences on
initiatives, but there are on legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reminded the committee that initiatives
come from the people versus corporations.
8:31:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS recalled passed legislation sponsored by
Senator Elton that exempted smaller cruise ships from the
original 2006 initiative. He related his understanding that the
sponsor is concerned that any indication that the state supports
gaming would lead the federal courts to rule in favor of
allowing organized gaming in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied yes, adding that there are
several instances in which states that barely cracked the door
to gaming ultimately ended up with Indian casinos. He provided
an example of such in Louisiana.
8:34:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS related his understanding that there are
three entities in the state that are classified as tribes and as
such would qualify for Indian gaming, as is the case in other
states.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD deferred to Mr. Alper, but noted that
the Eklutna Indians have applied for status to have a casino on
its land outside of Anchorage. He suggested that perhaps they
applied to the federal government for that status.
MR. ALPER opined that the definition is potentially much broader
[than only those tribal entities] as it refers to any land
that's held communally by a tribal entity and in trust by the
federal government. In the Lower 48, the aforementioned mainly
applies to reservations. However, in Alaska there's a lot of
Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) owned land that could possibly
fit into this. The limitation is that any Class 3 gaming has to
fall under state tribal compact and there are requirements as to
what has to be included in those compacts. Because Alaska
doesn't allow slots and casino-type gambling in any other form,
there hasn't yet been a legal precedent to force anyone to allow
any of these casinos to enter Alaska. The concern, he related,
is that by taxing gambling on cruise ships [in Alaska's waters]
that it could be interpreted that the state is indirectly
allowing, permitting, or accepting gambling. He acknowledged
that Alaska does allow the Nenana Ice Classic and other such
gaming, and under the gaming for any purpose or person clause
theoretically one could open a casino where nothing but betting
on vegetable size would occur.
8:37:10 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to whether the initiative had any
[out-of-state] influences.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, clarifying that he wasn't part of the
initiative, said that he wasn't aware of any [out-of-state]
backers. He recalled that the sponsors of the initiative live
in Juneau and Haines.
CO-CHAIR HERRON recalled that the focus of the initiative was
the head tax and the discharge aspect. Therefore, he asked
whether Representative Crawford was aware of the gambling
provision in the initiative at the time [of the initiative].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied yes.
CO-CHAIR HERRON surmised then that this legislation is pre-
emptive in that it seeks to close a loophole due to the fear
that the gambling provision will lead to a Class 3 casino being
opened in the state. He asked if any interest has been
expressed in such, beyond that expressed by Eklutna.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD confirmed that he had heard that Eklutna
was interested in gambling. He then related that he has heard
rumors that Metlakatla may be interested [in gambling] as well.
He reiterated that this legislation is similar to the 1995
legislation that closed the door on Monte Carlo nights.
8:39:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS relayed that Metlakatla may be [allowing
gambling] now.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he has heard that Metlakatla
has video machines, but they're not open to the public.
8:40:16 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to the danger of [taxing gambling on
cruise ships in Alaska's waters]. He further inquired as to the
social ills HB 208 will prevent.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that [one of the dangers of
gambling] is suicide. He related that where there is for-profit
gambling, the statistics increase for suicide, foreclosures,
bankruptcies, alcoholism, child abuse, etc. He informed the
committee that a few studies in South Dakota and South Carolina
have found that for every $1 collected in gambling taxes, the
state spends $3 on social ills. Only Las Vegas and a town in
south Mississippi make a net profit from gambling. He related
the situation in Shreveport, Louisiana, where casinos came in
and said they would provide a tax base after the factories had
left. However, after the casinos had been in operation for
about 10 years, they requested their taxes be cut in half or
they would have to leave. The city cut the taxes in half for
the casinos. Representative Crawford indicated his belief that
the casinos would likely request taxes be cut in half again, in
the near future. "It's a fool's paradise opening up to
gambling," he opined.
8:43:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled that a number of pieces of
legislation related to the excise tax on [cruise ship
passengers]. Therefore, when the initiative came into
existence, the excise tax and discharge standards were the two
aspects of the initiative that she noticed rather than the
portion of the initiative related to the gambling tax.
Representative Cissna indicated concern with regard to the
possible behavioral impacts of gambling, which are particularly
important to consider in terms of the current economic
situation. She said she is opposed to gambling and would favor
something similar to HB 208. She then asked if the sponsor has
heard from folks who were aware of the gambling portion of the
initiative.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD recalled that it was a little discussed
provision of the initiative. He suggested that the majority of
Alaskans thought the initiative was only about the head tax and
ocean rangers since those were the major issues in the
headlines.
8:47:09 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ asked if the original sponsors recognize the
gambling provision as a flaw.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, recalling a conversation with one of
the sponsors, related that the thought of the sponsor was that
the gambling provision wouldn't be problematic because it's
under federal law. However, Representative Crawford opined that
he's concerned because it's a gray area.
MR. ALPER pointed out that if the majority of the legislature
and the governor wanted to allow casino gambling, it could. The
situation in Connecticut was one in which the legislature was
preempted by a lawsuit based upon a minor loophole having to do
with a charitable event. The legislation before the committee,
HB 208, attempts to close the possibility of the aforementioned.
"It seems reasonable that this loophole is large enough to allow
such a thing, and why would you take that sort of power away
from yourselves and subject Alaska to something unknown when its
sort of slipped in that way," he said.
8:48:28 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to whether the sponsors of the
initiative support the direction of HB 208.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related that the sponsors have said to
go ahead with HB 208 and that they wouldn't try and change it.
8:48:59 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON inquired as to what happens to casino facilities
on ships without a tax generator in the statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that those facilities will
continue as they did prior to the initiative. In further
response to Co-Chair Herron, Representative Crawford likened HB
208 to the 1995 legislation closing the loophole on Monte Carlo
nights. He expressed the need to close the loophole before
something happens.
MR. ALPER informed the committee that a proposal to open a
casino in Klawock was dropped after passage of the 1995
legislation banning Monte Carlo nights.
8:50:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked if HB 208 will close the gaming
loophole or only the collection of tax on gaming in state
waters.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD clarified that HB 208 addresses only the
tax collection portion because gambling on state waters is
allowed under federal law. The legislation would remove the
collection of the tax in order to close the loophole for any
expansion throughout the state.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLET surmised then that gaming in state waters
can still occur; HB 208 would only end the collection of the
tax. She asked if the aforementioned is because of an
overriding federal law regarding gaming in state waters.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted his agreement.
8:52:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER opined that the cruise ship industry
should support HB 208 because it doesn't impact their current
operations and they can keep the funds rather than pay taxes.
She inquired as to why the cruise ship industry isn't present
testifying on this legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said that he hasn't talked with the
cruise ship industry.
8:52:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS opined that the worst ill in this country
is alcoholism. Furthermore, the reality in Alaska is that there
is already an awful lot of illegal gambling in the state,
gambling from which the state just doesn't receive taxes. He
then highlighted that gaming was once a large part of Alaska.
Representative Harris discussed situations when jobs are needed
and people who have money are willing to spend it, and opined
that in such situations [jobs such as those in the gaming
industry are created]. He pointed out that if gaming was
eliminated in Nevada, unemployment would be huge as would
foreclosures and many other issues. He acknowledged that there
are ills with gaming, but opined that there are ills with
everything. If the attitude reaches the point of no gaming
anywhere, there will be large unemployment and other
ramifications.
8:57:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA highlighted that Alaska is currently
dependent on oil and gas and thus impacted by the decrease in
price and production of oil and gas. She stressed that there
are lots of other ways to make money besides gambling, although
it takes creativity to do so. Representative Cissna challenged
the negative ways in which the state and its citizens earn money
and encouraged focus on more positive ways to earn money. "We
don't need to make our money off the misfortunes of others," she
opined.
9:01:09 AM
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director, Anchorage Office, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue, informed the committee that when this
initiative passed in 2006, the Department of Revenue (DOR)
discussed the gaming issue with the Department of Law. At that
time, DOR didn't believe that the mere fact of taxing an
activity made it legal. For instance, although prostitution is
illegal in most states, the Internal Revenue System (IRS) will
tax income from that activity. Still, taxing that activity
doesn't make it legal, she said. Ms. Bales offered to work with
the sponsor in order to ensure that DOR's research is current
and that there are no court cases that would open the door to
gambling in Alaska by virtue of taxing it. She then explained
that although federal law recognizes that Alaska law doesn't
permit gambling in the state, for certain vessels Alaska isn't
allowed to make gambling illegal. Furthermore, the gambling
activities can't be conducted within three miles of a port.
Recalling discussions with the initiative sponsors after its
passage, she came to understand they were concerned that some
vessels in Alaska aren't allowed to conduct gambling while out-
of-state vessels stopping in Alaska's ports are allowed to
conduct gambling. Therefore, the initiative sponsors wanted to
tax that gambling activity. She closed by stating that DOR and
the Department of Law are both willing to work with
Representative Crawford.
9:04:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked, "The court case that we're
most worried about is the one that hasn't happened yet and that
might happen because of this situation that we have here." He
echoed his earlier statement that the [taxing gambling
provision] is a grey area that a few entities have expressed
interest in having a decision in the courts. He reiterated his
desire to close the loophole. In the two areas where revenue
generated from gambling has produced a net gain it's because
there is a large influx of people who come to gamble. However,
in other areas with gambling, such as Shreveport, the locals
gamble, the local economy declines, and the revenue generated
from gambling produces a net loss. Representative Crawford
stressed that he will fight as long as he can to ensure there is
no expansion of gambling in Alaska because the state can't
afford it.
9:07:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if manufacturing in Shreveport left
because gaming came in.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied no, adding that telephone
manufacturing and steel manufacturing left Shreveport because it
could have its work done more cheaply [elsewhere in the
country). Industries related to the steel mill left and oil and
gas was becoming depleted.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS surmised then that things would've been
much worse in Shreveport without gaming.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD answered that if nothing had come in to
Shreveport, then people would've continued to leave. Gambling
was brought in because the industry was eager to come in. For
the time of construction, the economy expanded. However, now
that no construction is occurring, the economy is shrinking and
gambling is taking all the disposable income of the area.
Therefore, the area is becoming more depressed.
9:10:15 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ informed the committee that the co-chairs would
like to continue working on HB 208, and there will be another
hearing next week. Co-Chair Munoz encouraged the sponsor to
consult with DOR and DOL, per Ms. Bales' suggestion.
9:10:38 AM
CO-CHAIR HERRON characterized it as interesting that initiative
sponsors aren't present. He expressed concern with closing the
revenue stream in place for gambling on board cruise ships. Co-
Chair Herron then questioned: "Are we playing around with
initiatives?" With regard to whether the provision creates a
loophole, Co-Chair Herron opined that a loophole can always be
found. He then posed the possibility that perhaps gambling is
an alternative for Alaskans.
9:13:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stressed that HB 208 isn't about
initiatives, rather it's only closing a loophole. He then said
that if there's the desire to have for-profit gambling in
Alaska, then legislation to that effect should be introduced.
He reiterated that he didn't believe those voting for the 2006
initiative were voting for an expansion of for-profit gambling
in Alaska.
9:14:03 AM
CO-CHAIR MUNOZ announced that HB 208 would be held and further
discussion would occur next week.
9:14:18 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:14 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB3--3.31.09Packet.PDF |
HCRA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM HFSH 3/31/2009 10:15:00 AM |
SB 3 |
| HB208-DOR-TAX-04-04-09.pdf |
HCRA 4/7/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 208 |
| 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 |