Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/19/2004 09:16 AM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2004
9:16 A.M.
TAPE HFC 04 - 86, Side A
TAPE HFC 04 - 86, Side B
TAPE HFC 04 - 87, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Williams called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:16 A.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Harris, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Vice-Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bill Stoltze
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Harry Crawford; Tom Wright, Staff,
Representative John Harris; Perry Green, Perry Green
Leasing, Anchorage; Guy Warren, Stated Clerk, Presbytery of
Alaska; Make Barnhill, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, Department of Law; Bob Loescher, ANB #2, Juneau;
George Wright, Operator, Awesome Eats, Anchorage; Josh
Cozby, Gustavus; Mike Olney, Bear Track Inn, Gustavus
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
T.J. Fescher, Cornerstone Enterprises, Las Vegas, Nevada;
Richard Heacock, Fairbanks; Robert Poe, President, Anchorage
Economic Development Corporation (AEDC), Anchorage; Larry
Cash, Chairman, Anchorage Economic Development Corporation
(AEDC), Anchorage; Ed Moeglein, Alaska Non Profit Charitable
Organizations, Kenai
SUMMARY
HB 467 An Act establishing an Alaska Commemorative Coin
Commission to develop the design concepts and to
make recommendations regarding the final design of
the Alaska quarter under the 50 States
Commemorative Coin Program Act; and providing for
an effective date.
HB 467 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HB 552 An Act relating to gambling and gaming.
HB 552 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 552
An Act relating to gambling and gaming.
Co-Chair Harris explained that HB 552 is a "work in
progress", sponsored by the House Finance Committee.
TOM WRIGHT, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS, explained
that HB 552 would establish an Alaska Gaming Commission,
designed to regulate, oversee and enforce statutes
pertaining to gaming, as defined under AS 05.15 and gambling
established within the bill.
The bill would also set in place new statutes that authorize
the commission to issue a license to own and conduct
gambling games at a specified gambling facility in any
municipality within the State with a population of at least
150,000.
Mr. Wright pointed out that the commission through a new
chapter, AS 05.18 as provided in the bill, would administer,
regulate and enforce licensing for a gambling facility, the
employees and the suppliers. Fees and taxes would be
collected by the commission and placed into the State gaming
fund, consisting of all revenue received from gambling
activities. The fund would then be used to pay for any
activity conducted by the commission and other agencies as
they relate to gaming and gambling.
The State would collect a 17% tax on adjusted gross receipts
received from gambling games. The municipality where the
gambling facility was located, would be able to collect a
tax of not more than 3% of the amount of adjusted gross
receipts.
Mr. Wright continued, HB 552 establishes a new Class C
felony and Class A misdemeanor for crimes related to
associated gambling operations and activities. He added
that currently, 48 of the 50 states have some form of
legalized gambling, with over half having casino gambling.
The proposed legislation is intended to provide the tools to
ensure strict supervision of any gambling and gaming
activity authorized by the Alaska Gaming Commission.
Co-Chair Harris asked what had occurred to date on
legalizing gambling. Mr. Wright noted that Mike Barnhill
from the Department of Law was working on the legal analysis
requested by the Committee. There are communities within
the State, Metlakatla, Kake and Klawock that are eligible if
gaming and gambling is established in the State.
Representative Fate pointed out the fiscal note, questioning
the effect given Alaska population numbers. Mr. Wright
deferred those comments to the Department of Revenue.
PERRY GREEN, PERRY GREEN LEASING, ANCHORAGE, voiced his
appreciation for a scheduled a hearing of HB 552. He stated
that the bill would create the Alaska Gaming Commission and
allow them to issue a single site casino gaming license in
Anchorage. He noted that it has been his dream to develop a
world-class casino operation in the vacant Alaska Seafood
International (ASI) building that is currently owned and
maintained, at a loss, by the State.
In a recent survey by KTUU Channel 2, viewers were asked if
they favored or opposed the single site casino concept in
Anchorage. Mr. Green found the results startling, with 67%
in favor, 32% opposed and 1% undecided. He claimed that the
over 500 respondents were informed viewers, watching the
newscast; people who understand and care about the State's
economic situation. Mr. Green discussed that the State needs
new sources of revenue and good jobs for the residents.
Mr. Green pointed out that 48 states currently use gaming as
a revenue source and that new revenue and industry has been
revitalizing cities, counties, and even states. Not one
state that has established gaming has reversed their
decision. After 5 years, the State of Louisiana decided to
have a referendum to determine if they should continue
statewide gaming. Seventy-six percent of the voters
approved the referendum, sending the message that gaming had
operated successfully. Voters in that state understand that
this clean industry provides good jobs.
Mr. Green pointed out that in the very conservative State of
Mississippi, gaming began in Tunica County, an area
experiencing over 25% unemployment. Today, their
unemployment is under 4.3% as new jobs were created for many
residents who had never before had the opportunity to work.
Food stamp recipients decreased by 70%. The casino
sponsored programs that educated these people on not only
the importance of doing their jobs, but in life skills.
They learned that things like being timely for their job,
dressing properly and carrying out proper hygiene are not
complicated but necessary in order to get and keep a job.
The mayors of those cities realized that employment was far
better for the souls of their citizens than welfare, and
that the resulting benefits far out weighed any concerns
they had.
Mr. Green pointed out that it could be asked what benefits
could result with just one casino in Alaska. He offered a
projected 10-year estimate:
1. The State of Alaska would receive a minimum of $200
million dollars in revenue. The bill proposes a 17%
tax on the adjusted gross receipts, more than double
the amount currently collected by California (8.5%) and
triple that of Nevada (6.7%).
2. The Municipality of Anchorage would receive $50 million
dollars in taxes, which would include the assessed
worth of the valuable ASI property. The bill allows
the municipality to tax up to 3% on the adjusted gross
receipts. The City currently receives no revenue from
that State owned property.
3. Increased retail sales of $3 billion dollars statewide
would result. Local sales taxes and bed taxes would
increase for other communities from Ketchikan to
Barrow, when new tourists traveling statewide visit
those cities.
4. Without using any State funding, the casino would
generate millions of dollars worth of marketing value
by promoting this destination to state travelers in the
Far East and other coveted markets.
5. During the renovation of the facility, construction
jobs worth $100 million dollars would be created.
6. An education program would be created in conjunction
with South Central Foundation or established religious
organizations for many Alaskans, who currently have no
working experience. Employment would be 98% Alaskan
and those that are in need will learn life skills in
addition to job training.
7. A childcare facility would be established for working
single parents on site, which will allow Alaskans who
cannot afford to work outside of their home previously
because of concerns over the expense and quality of
childcare, to seek employment.
8. Additional work would be available for many trained
professionals, including local musicians and
stagehands, as star attractions would be performing
regularly at the facility.
9. Cost savings would be realized by local law enforcement
agencies because existing illegal after-hours clubs
will disappear with the onset of regulated legal casino
gaming.
10. Alaskan businesses will be given the opportunity to
provide services and supplies to the casino.
Mr. Green stated that one of the main reasons the ASI
facility was chosen for the project is to relieve the State
of an expensive and underutilized facility. The proposal
requires little from the State in the form of money or
government jobs, as all costs of the Commission would be
borne either by the license holder or through the taxes
collected from the facility. It would create a valuable new
tourism infrastructure that could be of great benefit to
everyone in the visitor industry.
Vice Chair Meyer asked if passage of the bill would be
contingent on the Alaska Seafood facility. Mr. Green
responded that would be a competitive process. He mentioned
Hammond, Indiana, and the changes that have occurred with
casino construction. Vice Chair Meyer asked if Mr. Perry's
company was willing to pay fair market value or go through
the competitive process to buy the Alaska Seafood Processing
facility. Mr. Green replied that they absolutely are.
Co-Chair Harris asked Mr. Green to explain how the proposed
project would be helpful to the entire State of Alaska. Mr.
Green noted an article in the Las Vegas newspaper regarding
their monorail activity associated with tourism. He pointed
out that Nevada has no oil income. By passing the
legislation for a place like Valdez, the sport fishing would
benefit from the extra tourism associated with the casino.
The casino would create one more major statewide attraction
and the industry would create many offshoot jobs. At this
time, 1.3 million visitors come to Alaska every year and the
largest percentage is brought by the cruise ship industry,
which pretty much controls their own passengers. The casino
would attract the free, independent travelers.
Mr. Perry advised that recently, the Anchorage Visitor
Bureau had to lay off three of their long time employees
because tourism and convention business was down. Putting
in a casino in Alaska would sell tourists on Alaska. He
pointed out that Palm Springs has five casinos in a city a
little larger than Anchorage. He did not think anyone in
that area was opposed to the casinos. What the casino has
done for the people of that area has brought first class
entertainment and something for people to do at night,
making it a tourist destination. He acknowledged that not
everyone would enjoy a casino but recommended that Alaska
should not throw away an opportunity to create new jobs.
The industry brings in willing taxation by more industry and
business.
Representative Stoltze pointed out that the manner in which
the bill was written would only effect Anchorage. He asked
if the affected community councils and the Anchorage
assembly had testified regarding the issue. Mr. Green
responded that in the proposed area, house values should
increase by 20%. He added that there would be a nineteen-
acre buffer zone and that it would create a $100 million
dollars in Union construction jobs.
Representative Stoltze interjected that he had asked about
the community councils and the Anchorage assembly. Mr.
Green responded that he had meetings with Mayor Begich and
that a "good majority" supports the legislation. He
maintained that it is a clean, good business and will help
Alaska's economy without any new taxation. The casino would
be widely accepted and done in a tasteful and non-intrusive
manner to any neighborhood. He predicted that workers would
buy homes in the area. Mr. Green noted that he had spoken
with members from the Anchorage Assembly, who wanted to see
the action taken by the Legislature before making their
commitment. Representative Stoltze asserted that was rare
that the Anchorage Assembly had not taken a position on the
project.
Co-Chair Harris inquired if Mayor Begich was in favor of the
project. Mr. Green replied that the mayor is not opposed
and wants a guarantee that it will be a first class
operation. Mr. Green said that having only one single
casino, the State will be able to control who the patrons
are. The casino would be the "tip of the iceberg" with
regard to what can happen when working in a legitimate
business.
Co-Chair Harris clarified that it is very important that the
Mayor of Anchorage is strongly on board. Mr. Green
commented that the Anchorage Economic Development (AEDC)
group would be testifying on the plan. Co-Chair Harris
asked if there had been any contact with the local community
councils in the affected areas. Mr. Green replied that
there has not.
Representative Hawker focused on the broader regulatory
provisions of the bill. He asked if it was intended that
the commission could regulate more than the proposed casino.
Mr. Wright responded that the commission would address any
legal and authorized gambling operations and gaming
activities throughout the State. There have been concerns
expressed about having the commission oversee the charitable
gaming industry.
Representative Hawker pointed out that initially there was a
proposal for a regulatory commission without the sidebars
proposed in HB 552. The bill before the Committee would
provide the sidebars as well as the proposed guidelines for
the casino. Mr. Wright responded he did not know other
gambling statutes and regulations from other states. He
maintained that the proposal before the Committee contains
strict guidelines for the licensing oversight. He
reiterated that there needs to be some refinement and that
the sponsors intend to meet with the Department of Public
Safety for background checks of all applicants. The
requestor intends to make the bill as tight as possible in
hopes of creating a pure industry.
Representative Hawker concurred that the bill goes in depth
regulating the industry. He asked if there was anything in
the bill that would authorize gaming activity that is not
already in statute. Mr. Wright did not think there was.
The bill lays out the type of gambling activities that may
be conducted within a State casino. The regular charitable
gaming activities continue to be in the bill.
T.J. FESCHER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CORNERSTONE
COMPANY, LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, testified in support of the bill
noting that he was part of a prominent casino family in Las
Vegas. He stated that he was looking forward to getting
into the casino business in Alaska, pointing out that the
opportunity in Alaska is great. Mr. Fescher indicated that
he owns casinos in other states and has grown up in the
industry. The economic impact has been dramatic in those
communities through the casinos. He emphasized that it
would be a wonderful opportunity for Anchorage.
Mr. Fescher projected that the initial investment would be
between $80 and $120 million dollars. He anticipated $100
million dollars in revenue generated from the slot machines,
table games and poker tables. He anticipates between 600-
700 employees hired with a starting wage of $5.50 per hour
and including tips, the hourly amount could be around $15
dollars.
Mr. Fescher spoke to the benefits of casino gaming and the
impacts of gaming on those areas, noting that a casino could
positively affect many markets statewide.
RICHARD HEACOCK, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FAIRBANKS,
testified in opposition to the legislation. He noted that
in 1960, there was a casino gambling lobby that came from
Nevada and Chicago that tried to get Alaska to legalize
casino gambling. The Alaska Association of Churches alerted
churches throughout the State and they overwhelming opposed
the expansion of gambling. Recently, churches adopted a
regulation to oppose gambling because of the social costs
associated with it. Mr. Heacock urged that serious research
be done on the issue identifying the social costs and
consequences. He foresaw big problems, including marital
problems, suicides, divorce, and alcohol and pointed out
that 75% of the respondents to the survey issued by
Representative Pete Kott were opposed to Las Vegas style
casino gambling in Alaska.
ROBERT POE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRESIDENT,
ANCHORAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AEDC),
ANCHORAGE, offered to answer questions of the Committee and
requested that Mr. Cash, Chairman for AEDC testify on the
legislation.
LARRY CASH, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD, ANCHORAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (AEDC),
ANCHORAGE, voiced support for the bill. He noted that the
Board had not taken a position on the bill and that the
following comments were his personal ones. He pointed out
that the Board would be taking the issue up at their next
meeting.
Mr. Cash thought that a casino would complement the
Anchorage economy and that there is already a substantial
tourism infrastructure developed. The casino is likely to
make Anchorage a more attractive place to visit. He noted
that gambling has become very common in America. Many
cities have benefited from the evolution of Indian gaming.
It has become one of the fastest growing aspects of a major
segment of many state's economies. With the expanse of
casinos, jobs are expanded. Generally, gaming has not
resulted in an increase for crime.
Mr. Cash concluded his testimony, stating that passage of
the bill could help improve Alaska's fiscal picture. He
offered to answer questions of the Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD commented on his own personal
experience regarding the increases in crime with the coming
of casinos and gambling. He noted that in his hometown,
when the casinos opened then came prostitution, drugs were
sold and burglaries increased. He emphasized that casinos
are associated with a tremendous amount of crime.
Mr. Poe interjected that statistics show that the per capita
percentage of crime does not go up. Population's increase
and consequently, some crime increases. He claimed that the
most important thing to consider is the negative social
impacts associated with unemployment.
TAPE HFC 04 - 86, Side B
Mr. Poe added that there are many statistics associated with
unemployment such as suicides, child abuse, marital
problems, drug abuse, and alcohol. Mr. Poe argued that it
is rare to find an industry that pays their own way, while
making a contribution to the community.
GUY WARREN, STATED CLERK, PRESBYTERY OF ALASKA, JUNEAU,
voiced opposition to HB 552. He noted that the Presbytery
of Alaska consists of 15 member churches of the Presbyterian
Church. The bill represents a significant step towards
situations, which will not be in the best interest of the
State or the citizens that it serves.
Mr. Warren knew that while approval of the legislation could
provide new funding to meet the financial gap and new
employment, the Presbytery also believes that the costs the
State would incur attempting to repair the social ills that
gambling brings will more than consume that funding and
would remove any real benefit from the employment. Those
social ills include increased domestic violence, various
psychological and social problems and an increased incidence
of suicide. He pointed out that these issues already
trouble Alaska, and that no additional encouragement is
needed.
Mr. Warren recommended that the Legislature seek detailed
and independently researched estimates on such costs. The
legislation will see serious casino gambling introduced to
Alaska prior to the research. He noted that the Presbytery
submitted a resolution approved last fall, to the members of
the Legislature expressing their specific opposition to
gambling. The reasons are provided in that resolution.
(Copy on File).
Mr. Warren strongly urged members of the Legislature to
remember who they represent, namely the people of Alaska.
The people of the State have loudly spoken on the matter of
gambling. A proposal to set up an Alaska Gambling Board was
presented in 1990 and was defeated by over 40,000 votes,
nearly a 2-1 margin.
Co-Chair Harris asked if there was any form of gaming that
the Presbytery would support. Mr. Warren responded that
what is being proposed is not gaming, but gambling. When
there is money on the table and lost that is gambling. The
Presbytery does not support any increased gambling in the
State.
Co-Chair Harris asked if the Presbytery supported the
elimination of other types of gambling such as bingo. Mr.
Warren responded that the Presbytery had not discussed that.
Representative Fate asked if Mr. Warren could qualify the
social costs associated with gambling across the State. Mr.
Warren responded that the Presbytery has not undertaken
specific research, as they do not have the resources. He
submitted that should be the work of the State.
BOB LOESCHER, (ALASKA NATIVE BROTHERHOOD) ANB #2, JUNEAU,
noted that he represented charitable gaming organization.
He indicated his support for the concept of the legislation.
Mr. Loescher commented on some provisional concerns not
impact charitable gaming as currently known. The current
status of the statutes and regulations are in the best
interests for Alaskans and charitable gaming statewide. He
noted that his group is working with the committee on
taxation issues for charitable gaming.
Mr. Loescher pointed out that the bill before the Committee
has specific provisions that would affect charitable gaming,
and he requested those provisions be excluded. The
provisions would increase the costs for background
information bonds. There are many costs that a non-profit
is not able to afford. He noted that the ANB has also been
working with the sponsor of HB 509, regarding the structure
included in the Alaska Statutes. He said that HB 509 is a
good bill and HB 552 differs in the composition of the
commission. The ANB prefers the structure written in HB
509, reiterating concern that charitable gaming be excluded
from the bill.
Representative Stoltze asked about placing the casino in
another community. Mr. Loescher elaborated on the economy
of scale concern and that only Anchorage would be big enough
to support such an endeavor. Representative Stoltze
mentioned the number of people coming off the cruise
ships in Southeast Alaska.
In response to a question by Representative Hawker, Mr.
Loescher compared the proposed legislation to HB 509. HB
509 provides for a larger commission consisting of
disinterested Alaskans and two ex-official members; HB 552
proposes a limited entry commission style in which the
commissioners would be paid.
GEORGE WRIGHT, OPERATOR, AWESON EATS, ANCHORAGE, stated that
he did not object to the casino concept, but expressed
concern with the inclusion of charitable gaming. He spoke
in support of a larger commission such as the one contained
in HB 509. He did not think that an increase in crime would
be a major problem and agreed with the importance of
creating new jobs.
JOSH COZBY, SPORT FISHING, GUSTAVUS, testified in support of
the legislation. He stated that he operates a sport fishing
business in Gustavus and addressed the importance of tourism
marketing statewide. Mr. Cozby observed that Alaska could
then be marketed in Las Vegas if it had a casino. He felt
that his business would be positively impacted.
MIKE OLNEY, BEAR TRACK INN, GUSTAVUS, spoke in support of
the legislation. He pointed out the decrease tourism has
experienced since he moved to the State in 1992. He
asserted that additional marketing would help.
Representative Crawford reiterated his opposition to the
legislation. He maintained that gambling would bring
degradation to the State of Alaska. He stress that the
intent of the operators is to "separate people from their
money" and make the owners rich. He advised that Gambling
Anonymous is a thriving business in his hometown of Tree
Port, Louisiana. In 1974, a thorough breed racetrack was
proposed in Tree Port, Louisiana and that he was supportive
at the time, but since has come to see the negative impact
of that industry. Gambling brings many social ills.
Co-Chair Harris inquired if a gas pipeline would be bringing
similar ills. Representative Crawford acknowledged that
construction of a gas pipeline might bring social ills, but
pointed out that they would go away after the construction
period was over. He maintained that gambling would rule the
Legislature once established.
Co-Chair Harris referred to horse racing and other
activities where gambling exists. He questioned where the
line would be drawn between entertainments and gambling.
Representative Crawford acknowledged the difficulty of the
issue. Las Vegas attracts people from all over the country
and world. Alaska will be a self-contained, seasonal
market, skimming all the expendable income out of Alaska.
Following the initial flurry of activity, the economy will
begin to shrink as the economy moves to other places.
ED MOEGLEIN, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA NON
PROFIT CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS, KENAI, spoke about gaming
in Anchorage. He recommended that there be an independent
study indicating both positive & negative impacts that
casino gambling involves. The negative impact could
outweigh the positive effects. He stressed that before any
informed decision can be made, a business study should be
undertaken.
Representative Stoltze asked the affiliates that Mr.
Moeglein represents. Mr. Moeglein replied that he
represents the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the American
Legion, Elks, Eagles, and the Viet Nam Veterans of America.
Co-Chair Harris acknowledged that this is "charitable
gambling", as money would be exchanging hands. He noted
that if a person was against gambling, they would probably
be against gaming as well. Mr. Moeglein commented that was
not a fair assessment because when it is benefiting the
communities and organizations and done by volunteers of the
charitable organizations, there is a difference. He
recommended that a study be done on casino gambling. He did
not know how it would affect the charitable non-profits.
The individuals do a lot of the charitable gaming from those
organizations and the money raised from the organizing goes
into community service. It is a means of continually
raising funds for the communities.
Co-Chair Williams indicated that statewide testimony would
be closed.
MAKE BARNHILL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, COMMERICAL
SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, offered to answer questions of
the Committee regarding the gaming bill.
Co-Chair Harris commented that federal law allows for
reservation status for Indian groups to have some type of
gaming, as the State would allow by law. He asked if that
would open up the opportunity for any Native groups in
Alaska to qualify to open a full-scale casino. Mr. Barnhill
replied that it would. He elaborated that the Indian
Gambling Regulatory Act provides for three types of gaming
on Indian lands. The first type is Class I gaming
consisting of traditional Indian games, social games with
prizes. That type of gaming is not subject to any kind of
regulation, federal or State. The second kind of gaming is
Class II gaming, consisting of bingo, pull-tabs and some
card games. That kind of gaming is also not subject to
State regulation but is subject to regulation by the federal
government. Everything else falls into the Class III
gaming, the kind of gaming done in casinos.
Mr. Barnhill continued, in order to conduct Class III on
Indian lands, there are several requirements. It must be
conducted on Indian lands within the definition in the
Indian Land Regulatory Act. That included Indian
reservations, trust lands or restricted lands over which the
tribe is exercising governmental power. Barrow applied
several years ago and was denied because the particular
parcel that they submitted to conduct gaming on, the Gaming
Commission found that they did not exercise federal power
over the parcel.
The second requirement is that the tribe has to authorize an
ordinance. The national Gaming Commission must approve the
ordinance. The third requirement is that the state in which
the Indian lands are situated must permit that type of
gaming. The State and the tribe must enter into a
negotiated compact to agree that the games would be
productive.
In response to Representative Stoltze, Mr. Barnhill
understood that when a question comes before the National
Commission on Gaming, they would go the Commissioner of the
Department of the Interior for legal questions, which can be
appealed to the District Court. He added that the State of
Alaska has participated in that process with the decision in
Barrow.
Representative Stoltze listed the past scandals involving
the Department of Interior and improper campaign
contributions. He commented that the proposed legislation
was not necessarily a pure process.
Representative Croft asked if under the requirements of
Indian Gaming Act, would the proposed legislation constitute
the State authorizing gaming under Class III. Mr. Barnhill
responded that the legislation does not authorize gaming and
that it is an open question. For the authorization of
purpose under the regulatory act, an argument could be made.
Representative Croft commented that passage of the
legislation may authorize Indian gaming but when the
Commission does exercise the issue of license, it is clear.
Mr. Barnhill understood that the legislation would delegate
the power to the Alaska Gaming Commission and that it is not
certain that the Commission would approve all the games.
Representative Croft thought it was indicated that only one
license could be issued. Mr. Barnhill advised that was not
correct. The State permits any person, anywhere, to conduct
gaming. If the Alaska Gaming Commission licenses the gaming
that would be enough to conduct the activities assuming that
all other requirements are approved.
Representative Croft mentioned Metlakatla, Kake and Klawock
and their "grandfathered in" status exception. Mr. Barnhill
responded that there is a difference between Indian country
and the statutory definition of Indian lands.
TAPE HFC 04 - 87, Side A
Representative Croft asked for information on the difference
between Indian country and Indian lands. Mr. Barnhill
offered to get back to Representative Croft on that concern.
He understood that the definition of Indian lands was
broader than the definition of Indian country.
Co-Chair Harris asked the Department to address the issues
regarding increased crime and the type of concerns involved
with that activity. There might be increased business for
the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Law
with criminal activity. Mr. Barnhill stated that he could
not speak for the Department of Public Safety, but thought
that since it would be only one casino, the issues are up-
front. He could not address the idea of increased crime.
Representative Fate commented on the disposition of land and
village lands. He understood that village lands are
currently under private councils and that there are 26
separate tribes in the State of Alaska. Mr. Barnhill
thought that the critical part of the definition of Indian
lands is that the tribe has to exercise jurisdiction over
the land in question. The numbers of parcels that the
tribes are actually exercising jurisdiction is small. In
most cases, the federal government is exercising that
jurisdiction. He offered to research it further.
HB 552 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 A.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|