Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
05/12/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB201 | |
| SB204 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 201 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 204 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 12, 2022
1:34 p.m.
1:34:41 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Sara Rasmussen
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Mia Costello, Sponsor; Emma Torkelson, Staff,
Senator Josh Revak.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Claire Radford, Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal
Services; Katrine Mitchell, Charitable Gaming Program,
Department of Revenue; Colleen Glover, Director, Tax
Division, Department of Revenue; Eddie Grasser, Director,
Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and
Game.
SUMMARY
SB 201 am
USE OF INTERNET FOR CHARITABLE GAMING
SB 201 am was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
CSSB 204(RES) HUNTING PERMIT/TAG AUCTIONS/RAFFLES
CSSB 204(RES) was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda. She did not
intend to move the bills out of committee.
SENATE BILL NO. 201 am
"An Act relating to charitable gaming online ticket
sales and activities; relating to charitable gaming
proceeds; and providing for an effective date."
1:35:31 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that SB 201 was previously heard
in committee on May 3, 2022. She commented that
Representative Johnson joined the meeting.
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS1509\A.A.1 (Radford, 5/2/22) (copy on file):
Page 4, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) A permittee, operator, or holder of a multiple-
beneficiary permit conducting a raffle or lottery
under (d) of this section shall advertise the maximum
number of available raffle or lottery tickets at the
beginning of the raffle. The maximum number of
available raffle or lottery tickets may not be
increased after advertisement."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained that under current statute
when an organization sold paper tickets there had to be a
finite number and each ticket had to be numbered. He wanted
the same type of system for online raffle or lottery
tickets and the language in the bill was not explicit. The
amendment required the organization to advertise the
maximum number of tickets so people can determine the odds.
In addition, the bill uses the words raffle or lottery
since that was the language used in statute. He noted that
classics, like the Nenana Ice Classic was specifically
defined in law.
1:37:26 PM
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
1:37:37 PM
Representative Carpenter MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS1509\A.A.2 (Radford, 5/3/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 2, following "proceeds;":
Insert "establishing the Kenai River Freeze-Up
Classic;"
Page 2, following line 31:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 05.15.l00(a) is amended to read:
(a) The department may issue a permit to a
municipality or qualified organization. The permit
gives the municipality or qualified organization the
privilege of conducting bingo, raffles and lotteries,
pull-tab games, freeze-up classics, ice classics, race
classics, rain classics, goose classics, mercury
classics, deep freeze classics, canned salmon
classics, salmon classics, king salmon classics, dog
mushers' contests, snow classics, snow machine
classics, fish derbies, animal classics, crane
classics, cabbage classics, Calcutta pools, big bull
moose derbies, and contests of skill.
* Sec. 3. AS 05.15.l l S(c) is amended to read:
(c) A permittee may not contract with more than one
operator at a time to conduct the same type of
activity. For the purposes of this subsection, bingo
games, raffles, lotteries, pull-tab games, freeze-up
classics, ice classics, race classics, rain classics,
goose classics, mercury classics, deep freeze
classics, canned salmon classics, salmon classics,
king salmon classics, dog mushers' contests, snow
classics, snow machine classics, fish derbies, animal
classics, crane classics, cabbage classics, big bull
moose derbies, and contests of skill are each a
different type of activity."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. AS 05.15.l 80(b) is amended to read:
(b) With the exception of raffles, lotteries, bingo
games, pull-tab games, freeze-up classics, race
classics, rain classics, goose classics, mercury
classics, deep freeze classics, dog mushers' contests,
snow classics, snow machine classics, canned salmon
classics, salmon classics, animal classics, crane
classics, cabbage classics, Calcutta pools, big bull
moose derbies, and king salmon classics, a permit may
not be issued for an activity under this chapter
unless it existed in the state in substantially the
same form and was conducted in substantially the same
manner before January 1, 1959. A permit may not be
issued for a snow machine classic under this chapter
unless it has been in existence for at least five
years before the permit is issued. A permit may not be
issued for an animal classic under this chapter unless
it was in existence before November 1, 2002."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, following line 21:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 8. AS 05 .15 .690 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read: (50) "freeze-up classic" means a
game of chance in which a prize of money is awarded by
the drawing of lot among persons who correctly guess
whether a body of water or watercourse in the state
freezes by the date determined by the administrator of
the game and is limited to a Kenai River Freeze-Up
Classic operated and administered by the Kenai Rotary
Club, the Soldotna Rotary Club, or jointly by the
Kenai Rotary Club and the Soldotna Rotary Club."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 10. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: REGULATIONS. The Department of Revenue may
adopt regulations necessary to implement secs. 2, 3,
6, and 8 of this Act. The regulations take effect
under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act), but not
before the effective date of the law implemented by
the regulation.
* Sec. 11. Sections 2, 3, 6, and 8 of this Act take
effect January 1, 2023.
* Sec. 12. Except as provided in sec. 11 of this Act,
this Act takes effect immediately under AS
0l.10.070(c)."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Carpenter explained that the amendment that
would add freeze-up classics that was the opposite of when
the ice thawed and happened when the ice froze. The
amendment specifically addressed and would enable the Kenai
River Ice Classic.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked how freeze up was defined.
Representative Carpenter had no idea. He thought there were
likely multiple ways to create an understanding with the
public. He was not entirely sure what the criteria for
winning was but the concept was similar to a thaw classic.
1:39:20 PM
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
1:39:31 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 32-
LS1509\A.A.3 (Radford, 5/3/22) (copy on file):
Page 3, line 21, following "lottery":
Insert "that are not derived from online ticket sales
under AS 05.15.640(d)"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained the amendment. He indicated
that amendment 3 would close a loophole. He pointed to page
3, line 21 of the bill and noted that the language would be
inserted after subsection (3) and affected the subsections
(A) through (C). He delineated that currently, it was legal
to hold a raffle or lottery to aid candidates for public
office, or for groups that support or oppose candidates, or
for political parties or groups. He deemed that since
online sales were offered nationwide and globally, if
online tickets were used for such purposes, it could bring
in thousands or millions of dollars and could open the
floodgates for political contributions in the guise of a
lottery. He believed that paper tickets limited such
outcomes, and it was not the intention of the legislation.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. He asked if the bill
sponsor supported the amendment.
SENATOR MIA COSTELLO, SPONSOR, had not previously seen the
amendment but based on the explanation she was supportive.
Representative Carpenter WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
1:42:47 PM
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 32-
LS1509\A.A.5 (Radford, 5/11/22) (copy on file):
Page 4, following line 21:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(g) A permittee, operator, or holder of a multiple-
beneficiary permit conducting a raffle or lottery
under (d) of this section shall advertise the maximum
number of available raffle or lottery tickets at the
beginning of the raffle. The maximum number of
available raffle or lottery tickets may be unlimited
if the maximum number is advertised as unlimited. The
maximum number of available raffle or lottery tickets
may not be increased after advertisement."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment. He
communicated that Amendment 4 was almost identical to
Amendment 1 except for the following language : may be
unlimited if the maximum number is advertised as
unlimited. He exemplified a fifty percent to fifty percent
(50/50) raffle that were common at school sporting events
where the number of tickets sold was unlimited because the
pot grew as more tickets were sold. A player of 50/50
raffles wanted as many tickets sold as possible so the
winnings would increase. He commented that the amendment
would allow that type of raffle and agreed it should be
advertised as unlimited ticket sales.
Representative Wool agreed with Representative LeBon about
the 50/50 raffle. He noted that it was already addressed in
regulation where it was called a split the pot. He added
that the limitation on a split the pot was that in had to
happen over a single day and sold only at the event. He
maintained that there was already uncodified law that
covered split the pot raffles and other types of chance
games like pull tabs and bingo. He thought the amendment
was unnecessary. He noted that Alaska lacked a state
lottery that operated on the same concept. He worried that
the amendment would open the door to state lotteries
because it lacked limiting language.
1:46:58 PM
CLAIRE RADFORD, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL
SERVICES (via teleconference), confirmed that split the pot
raffles currently existed in regulation. She was not sure
that split the pot raffles would be exempted with the
language in Amendment 5. She advised that the unlimited
language be added to the amendment.
Representative Wool was confused by Ms. Radfords comments.
He asked for clarification. Ms. Radford responded that she
had been speaking to Amendment 4. She clarified that
without the language, the maximum number of available
raffle or lottery tickets may be unlimited was included
she was not confident a split the pot raffle would not fall
under the new subsection without the language included.
Co-Chair Merrick referenced Amendment 1 and noted that Ms.
Radford had drafted the amendment. She asked if the
Amendments 1 and 4 were basically the same without the
"unlimited" portion. Ms. Radford answered in the
affirmative.
Vice-Chair Ortiz deemed that the amendment did not only
speak to 50/50 raffles and applied to many types of raffles
and lotteries. The distinction with Amendment 4 was that it
was legal to market them online as long as it was
advertised as unlimited.
1:50:13 PM
Representative LeBon asked to hear an opinion from the
sponsor. He was not trying to hold up the bill. He
attempted to make it clear that sometimes the goal was to
sell unlimited tickets.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if a 50/50 split the pot raffle
ticket could be sold online if the bill passed. Ms. Radford
replied that the regulations required a split the pot
raffle be conducted at a single event at a single time with
all players present. She deduced that it was not possible
to conduct a split the pot raffle online.
Co-Chair Merrick asked whether a person who was not present
won or if a new number would have to be redrawn.
1:51:48 PM
Ms. Radford responded that she was uncertain how it worked
in practice. She deemed that it may mean all players must
be present to purchase the ticket. She deferred the answer
to the department. She offered to investigate the issue and
report to the committee.
Representative LeBon offered a lighthearted comment.
1:53:09 PM
Representative Johnson stated her understanding of the
amendments. She ascertained that due to the adoption of
Amendment 1, potentially the unlimited split the pot raffle
tickets would not be allowed. She asked whether she was
correct. Ms. Radford answered that the organization could
offer a split the pot raffle but would need to set a
maximum number of tickets and the number would need to be
advertised. Representative Johnson stated her understanding
was the unlimited language was necessary to conduct a split
the pot raffle. She asked if the committee adopted the
amendment with the intent to allow split the pot raffles
could it result in a broader effect of allowing a raffle
awarding prizes to sell unlimited tickets. Ms. Radford
answered in the affirmative.
1:55:18 PM
Representative Johnson liked the idea of the split the pot
and liked the idea of Amendment 4 but did not like the idea
of unlimited tickets for all raffles. She hoped there was a
hybrid compromise that would work.
Representative Wool pointed out that currently lottery or
raffle tickets had to be numbered and also unlimited split
the pot raffles were allowed, therefore, split the pot
raffles were already covered under law. He summarized that
currently simultaneous unlimited split the pot and numbered
tickets were allowed. He was confused by Amendment 4 since
the bill dealt with online raffles or lotteries and split
the pot was conducted in person. He wondered how split the
pot raffles would work online, but if it happened it would
likely need to follow the same regulations. He was willing
to amend the amendment to specify it covered a split the
pot or 50/50 raffle. He felt that it would cover the issue.
He did not want to complicate the bill any further by
allowing language that might be interpreted as allowing a
state lottery.
1:57:38 PM
AT EASE
2:09:48 PM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon explained that the committee was
discussing Amendment 4 that would allow for raffle or
lottery tickets in an unlimited number to be sold if the
raffle or lottery was advertised as unlimited. He wondered
whether the Department of Revenue (DOR) had an opinion on
whether that would satisfy disclosure for the player.
KATRINE MITCHELL, CHARITABLE GAMING PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE (via teleconference), introduced herself. She
responded that currently under raffle rules there was no
limit. She asked if there was a limit proposed under the
legislation.
Senator Costello replied that the version that was referred
to the committee did not have a limit; however, the
recently adopted Amendment 1 required that the maximum
number of available tickets were advertised.
2:12:06 PM
Ms. Mitchell asked Representative LeBon to repeat the
question.
Representative LeBon repeated his question and elaborated
on the issue of split the pot raffles where sales were
unlimited. He reiterated that Amendment 1 would require
some disclosure if the number of sales were unlimited. Ms.
Mitchell asked if Representative LeBon was asking her
opinion about disclosing the number of raffle tickets sold
as unlimited.
Representative LeBon asked to hear from Representative Wool
who had deduced that Amendment 4 may be unnecessary.
Representative Wool explained Amendment 1. He understood
that lottery and raffle tickets in Alaska had to be
numbered. He considered that perhaps they only had to be
numbered and there was no limit. He furthered that by
moving to an online raffle market, the market became much
larger and theoretically worldwide. He believed that people
wanted to know how many tickets were being sold so they
could deduce the odds of winning. He asked if raffle
tickets had to be numbered.
2:15:08 PM
Ms. Mitchell answered that currently tickets had to be
consecutively numbered but there was no limit and there was
not a requirement to specify the ticket was some number out
of the total number available. Representative Wool
explained that Amendment 1 required the seller to specify
the maximum number of raffle tickets. He stated that
Representative LeBon had mentioned split the pot raffles.
He thought Amendment 4 was unneeded for a split the pot
raffle because it was already covered in regulation. He
asked whether he was request. Ms. Mitchell answered that
with a standard raffle the tickets must be consecutively
numbered; however, there was a carve out for split the pot
or 50/50 raffles. She stated that if the 50/50 raffle was
held at one location at one time with all players present,
the seller was not required to print out raffle tickets,
they merely used roll tickets.
2:17:29 PM
Representative Wool referenced the introduction of online
sales. He asked how the seller would satisfy the numbering
requirement. He guessed that there would be a receipt with
a number. He asked if Amendment 1 would change the current
law to say raffle tickets were not unlimited. Ms. Mitchell
apologized that she did not have the amendments on hand.
She addressed a split the pot raffle and confirmed that it
required the raffle to be held at one event, at one time,
with all players present. She did not see how a 50/50
raffle could be held online. She ascertained that for a
regular raffle, if the proposal was to state the total
number of tickets it was possible. Representative Wool read
Amendment 1 that passed earlier. He pointed out the
Amendment 4 allowed unlimited ticket sales if advertised as
such. He guessed that the two amendments could coexist, and
it would be up to the raffle holder how they wanted to
carry out the raffle.
2:20:31 PM
Senator Costello appreciated the discussion. She understood
that stating the number of tickets was common practice and
Amendment 1 would place that in statute. She noted the
carve out for 50/50 raffles in existing regulation,
therefore; it was her understanding Amendment 4 would be
unnecessary because it was already handled in regulation.
Ms. Mitchell clarified her understanding of the two
amendments and asked whether she was correct.
Senator Costello ascertained that if the committee wanted
the unlimited scenario to apply to all raffles Amendment 4
would apply and if it wanted the unlimited scenario to only
apply to 50/50 raffles that was currently handled in
regulation.
Representative LeBon maintained that it was unnecessary to
limit the sales opportunity if there was full disclosure to
the ticket purchaser the raffle was open to unlimited
sales. He relayed a situation from personal experience
where the prizes were costly, and the organization wanted
to sell as many raffle tickets as possible.
2:23:34 PM
Representative Wool saw both sides of the issue. He
countered that there were raffles that had a high dollar
value and he believed that it was fair for the purchaser to
be aware of the odds of winning. He asked if Amendment 4
were adopted, whether it would only apply if it was a one
day closed event and the pot could not extend over multiple
days.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if it would be helpful for Ms.
Mitchell to see the amendments.
Ms. Mitchell stated that she had just received the
amendments. She answered that Representative Wool's
statement was correct and added that ticket sales would
apply to the one event on one day.
2:26:07 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked if a person was considered present
at an event if they were on a Zoom call. Ms. Mitchell
answered that it was not addressed in statute
Representative Wool ultimately decided that he preferred
Amendment 1.
Representative LeBon asked if Representative Wool
maintained his objection.
Co-Chair Merrick clarified it was her objection. She
WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
2:27:41 PM
AT EASE
2:34:08 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick noted conceptual Amendment 5 was sponsored
by Representative Johnson and Representative Wool.
Representative Johnson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment
5:
Page 4, line 22
delete "2024" and following "July 1," insert "2023."
Page 4, line 6
following "used" insert "for humanitarian aid."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Johnson explained the amendment. She pointed
to Section 3, page 4, lines 4 through 7, of the bill that
related to online gaming for the purpose of sending aid to
benefit the people of a country that had been invaded by
another country. She cited Section 5, line 22, and noted
the repealer date of July 1, 2024. She noted that the
current language in the bill was added specifically for aid
to Ukraine. The amendment shortened the date window from
2024 to 2023.
Representative Wool explained the second part of the
amendment. He had spoken with [lobbyist] Thor Stacey who
supported the amendment. He learned that the added language
was specifically for an event to send humanitarian aid to
the Ukraine. He indicated that the amendment clarified the
raffle was not to purchase ammunition or weapons but was
specifically for humanitarian aid. He added that the
amendment inserted the language for humanitarian aid on
page 4, line 6, after the word, used.
2:36:50 PM
Co-Chair Merrick asked Representative Wool to state who
Thor Stacey was.
Representative Wool clarified that Thor Stacey represented
Safari Club International, a group that wanted to raise
funds for the people of Ukraine.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked why the amendment would reduce the
time window. Representative Johnson stated that originally,
she had wanted to delete the paragraph altogether due to
her concern that the paragraph did not specify Ukraine. She
observed that it was hard to oversee what the funding would
actually be used for once the money left the state. She
shared that her first concern was about what kind of help
the organization was sending. She stated that making the
sunset date a little over one year made it clearer that it
was from the people of Alaska. She stated that shorter was
better for matters of international politics.
2:39:05 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the amendment presumed that the
war would be resolved in Ukraine by the date.
Representative Johnson clarified that the bill did not
specify the Ukraine and could apply to any number of places
such as Venezuela or North Korea. She did not want to make
the amendment too broad. She reiterated that she wanted the
language removed but offered the amendment as a concession
to allow the Safari Club fund raiser. Vice-Chair Ortiz
understood there may be a concern because the bill language
did not specifically speak to Ukraine. He asked if there
had to be some sort of trust between the purchaser and the
organizer whether the funds would go to Ukraine. He did not
understand the reason for shortening the window. It was his
understanding that a purchaser or seller of a lottery
ticket would specify the purpose of the lottery. He deemed
that the disclosure would cover the concern. Representative
Johnson stated that in the perfect world, yes. She
reiterated that once the money was out of Alaska or the
United States (U.S.) it was difficult to track. She opined
that it set a dangerous precedent to have lotteries that
benefitted anyone outside of Alaska.
2:42:31 PM
Representative LeBon clarified that the reference to the
Safari Club International was incorrect and should be made
to the Alaska Professional Hunters Association and Wild
Sheep Foundation.
Representative Carpenter asked how the administration would
enforce the proposed amendment.
Ms. Mitchell responded that they would need to have a
definition of invaded. She did not know how it would be
enforced without a clear definition.
2:44:34 PM
Representative Carpenter restated his understanding of the
amendment and his question. Ms. Mitchell restated her
previous answer. She thought it would be difficult if
invaded country and humanitarian aid were not defined.
Representative Carpenter asked if the amendment specified
the Ukraine, how the state would enforce the statute.
COLLEEN GLOVER, DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE (via teleconference), answered that the department
would have to implement regulations and define the concepts
therefore, it was difficult to say exactly what the
department would do until the bill had passed. She
furthered that the amount going to the state was small and
the department had limited resources to perform audits or
quality compliance for charitable gaming.
2:47:10 PM
Representative Carpenter stated that if he made a donation
to the American Cancer Society, he would have an
expectation the funds would go to the American Cancer
Society. He was not assured under the current scenario, it
was possible to guarantee the funds directed to
humanitarian aid would be used for that purpose only. He
believed that it was not enforceable. He wondered how the
restriction was enforceable. He deduced the answer was that
the matter was unenforceable.
Senator Costello appreciated the questions. She had been
told by the legislative legal drafters not to specify the
country. She had followed up on a question of whether the
proceeds could go through another organization like the Red
Cross or UNICEF and discovered that was allowable. She
recommended specifying an organization the Safari Club
would be working with to further focus the amendment on the
explicit event.
2:49:12 PM
Representative Thompson deduced that someone trying to
raise money for humanitarian aid for the Ukraine would
specify how the funds would be used on the tickets. He
reasoned that no one would by the tickets if specific
information was not listed on the tickets. He was in favor
of the amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick stated her office would reach out to the
Safari Club on its objective on how the funds would be
used.
2:50:58 PM
AT EASE
2:52:35 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick reiterated the proper names of the groups
that would be performing the raffles as stated earlier by
Representative LeBon.
Vice-Chair Ortiz spoke to the enforceability question. He
asked if there was currently any online raffle tickets or
gambling in Alaska. Ms. Mitchell replied that the
department had received many complaints about online
gambling in Alaska.
Vice-Chair Ortiz surmised online gambling was illegal. He
mentioned enforceability and guessed that there was not
much the state could do about it. Ms. Mitchell answered
that selling raffle tickets online was permissible under
the Charitable Gaming Act. She added that online gambling
was illegal and against the criminal code in Alaska.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if lotteries were currently
happening online. Ms. Mitchell answered that organizations
with charitable gaming permits could hold raffles or
lotteries online.
2:55:18 PM
Ms. Glover clarified that the bill made online gaming
permanent, which was currently allowed under temporary
legislation that expired in June 2022.
Senator Costello relayed that the action was currently
allowed and there were over 800 organizations holding
online charitable gaming. She furthered that they would
lose the ability to hold online gaming at the end of the
fiscal year. She reminded Representative Ortiz that the
temporary authorization happened in response to the COVID
pandemic. The bill would make online charitable gaming
permanent. The section about Ukraine was added on the
Senate floor.
Representative Wool returned to the issue about support of
another country. He determined that a country invading
another country was very broad. He discussed the entities
currently organizing a raffle for Ukraine. He had suggested
that its members donate to UNICEF but the organizers wanted
to hold a raffle. He agreed that the provision was
unenforceable, and he was torn on the issue. He was not
convinced it was for the best. The amendment shortened the
provision to one year. He did not believe there would be a
lot of raffles related to the provision in that amount of
time. He believed that the language was concerning.
Representative Carpenter CALLED the PREVIOUS QUESTION.
2:59:05 PM
AT EASE
2:59:28 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
SB 201 am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:59:54 PM
AT EASE
3:04:28 PM
RECONVENED
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 204(RES)
"An Act relating to auctions or raffles for hunting
harvest permits and big game tags; and providing for
an effective date."
3:04:35 PM
Co-Chair Merrick indicated that the committee previously
heard the bill on May 10, 2022, and the committee would
take up one amendment. She asked for a review of the fiscal
note.
EDDIE GRASSER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION,
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (via teleconference), reviewed
the published zero fiscal note for the Department of Fish
and Game (DFG) (FN1 (DFG) appropriated to Wildlife
Conservation He relayed that there would not be a drain on
the state's coffers as a result of the bill. The department
expected to bring in significant revenue with the
legislation. He furthered that in the prior year the raffle
brought in over $1 million, and the department had received
revenues of $1 million so far for the current year.
3:06:04 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS1319\W.3 (Bullard, 5/11/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "permits":
Insert ",bear viewing permits,"
Page 1, following line 3:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Section 1. AS 16.05.130 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(h) Money accruing to the state from the auction or
raffle of bear viewing permits under AS 16.05.343(c)
shall be deposited in a separate account known as the
nongame conservation account in the fish and game
fund. Money n the account shall be allocated to
programs relating to wildlife sanctuaries and refuges,
fish and wildlife diversity, wildlife viewing,
educational programs, and related outreach efforts."
Pate 1, line 4:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Representative LeBon OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained the amendment. He
indicated that the purpose of the amendment was to direct
the proceeds of the raffle to a new account within the
existing DFG fund. Funds from the new account could only be
spent on programs related to state wildlife sanctuaries,
refuges, wildlife viewing, and educational programs. He
stated that the sponsor and Mr. Grasser supported the
amendment. He noted that the goal of the bill was to
increase the fund raising capacity to match federal funds.
He reasoned that the amendment would advance the goal
because it appealed to raffle customers that wanted to win
a permit to view bears at the McNeil River State Game
Sanctuary and Refuge. He believed that the amendment would
result in increased ticket sales and more revenue. He
reported that similar sub-accounts in the Fish and Game
Fund in Title 16, AS 16.05 currently existed in statute
that directed proceeds to waterfowl, fur bears, and general
hunting trapping and fishing. He asked for the committees
support.
Representative Johnson asked if the fund would be
dedicated. Representative Josephson answered in the
negative and surmised that it was a designated fund. He
added that the language in the amendment mirrored AS
16.05.130 pertaining to the diversion of funds. He restated
that similar language currently existed for waterfowl
conservation, the sale of resident trapping licenses and
general hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses, and the
Intensive Management (IM) surcharge. The amendment was
aligned with the corollary programs he listed.
3:08:29 PM
Mr. Grasser stated that Representative Josephson was
correct, and the amendment would add language to the
existing statutes for the diversion of funds for management
projects. He responded that the Fish and Game Fund was
dedicated and was protected by the Constitution and the
Statehood Act. He elaborated that the money put into the
fund could be used for a diverse number of activities. He
noted that the first activity adopted under AS 16.05.130
was for a waterfowl stamp program. He concurred that the
amendment aligned with the diversion of funds statute.
Representative Johnson asked if the proposed new account
would be a subaccount under the dedicated fund. Mr. Grasser
answered in the affirmative and added that it would be a
dedication of a dedicated fund.
Representative LeBon asked to hear from the bill sponsor's
staff to confirm the senator was amenable to the amendment.
EMMA TORKELSON, STAFF, SENATOR REVAK, confirmed that
Senator Revak was supportive of Amendment 1.
3:10:57 PM
Representative Josephson reiterated that the division and
sponsor supported the amendment. He did not mean to create
confusion when he stated it was a designated fund. He
maintained that pre-statehood funds were allowed under the
Constitution as dedicated funds. He elucidated that the
additions to the original Fish and Game Fund statute were
made in 1979. 1984, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2005, and 2016.
He concluded that the proposal was not prohibited.
Representative Carpenter agreed that the fund itself was
dedicated. He believed that some of the additional funds
into the account were not protected from the sweep.
Mr. Grasser was unsure that Representative Carpenters
comment was correct. He understood that the Fish and Game
Fund was protected in the Constitution and not allowed to
be swept.
Representative LeBon WITHDREW his OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
SB 204 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
morning.
ADJOURNMENT
3:13:56 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 201 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051222_.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| SB 204 Amendment 1 Josephson 051222.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 204 |
| SB 201 Amendments 1-4 051222.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| SB 201 Amendment 5 Johnson Wool 051222.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 201 |
| HB 66 Public Testimony Rec'd by 051222_.pdf |
HFIN 5/12/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 66 |