Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/17/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB108 | |
| HB19 | |
| HB61 | |
| HB88 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | HB 108 | ||
| = | HB 19 | ||
| = | HB 61 | ||
| = | HB 88 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 61
An Act relating to licensing for a Calcutta pool as a
game of chance.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-
LS0281\F.1, Luckhaupt, 3/17/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for
the purpose of discussion.
Vice-Chair Stoltze explained that the amendment would narrow
the scope of the bill.
SHALON SZYMANSKI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE,
agreed that was a fair calculation of the amendment.
2:33:12 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if there was a prohibition on
participants engaging in wagering. Ms. Szymanski pointed
out that Section 8, Page 3, mentions that the competitors
must be 18 years or older. She thought language could be
added to address that the person placing the wagers also be
18 years of age or older.
Vice-Chair Stoltze reiterated his question regarding whether
the participants should be prohibited from wagering. Ms.
Szymanski replied that in many Calcutta pools, the
competitors also have the ability to place wagers. Vice-
Chair Stoltze suggested that should be a regulatory issue.
REPRESENTATIVE LESIL MCGUIRE, SPONSOR, explained that there
must be written regulations in that area. She provided a
brief history of the bill, advising that the overall intent
is to make law-abiding citizens of those people that have
been putting together these type activities for the
charities. Over the years, there has been a sort of
"chilling effect" on them.
2:37:26 PM
Co-Chair Meyer asked if a title change could be made.
Representative McGuire replied it could.
Representative Foster OBJECTED to Amendment #2. He did not
know of any golf course in Southwest Alaska. He asked why
only urban Alaska would benefit from the bill.
Representative McGuire intended that today's meeting be a
"work session". Originally, the language was broader to
reflect the reality existing in Alaska. Things like this
exist on in rural and urban areas. The problem is that the
Department of Revenue has testified that the bill would be
the largest change in gaming regulations since pull-tabs.
She indicated her frustration. She pointed out that an
Alaskan Native Corporation that provides pools to benefit
scholarships brought the original bill forward.
Representative McGuire stated that she did not want to get
into a situation in which she was at odds with the
Department of Revenue.
2:40:47 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that that the Legislature does
not want to visit the gaming statute each time a new game of
chance comes forward.
Representative Hawker shared Representative Foster's
concerns. He thought that the bill could legitimize
activities in the State. He thought that the legislation
could legitimize various contests of chance statewide. He
did not arrive at the same implications as the Department of
Revenue. Representative Hawker questioned likening the
legislation to pull-tabs. He reiterated that he did not see
the Calcutta pools in the same light as pull-tabs. He
endorsed the sentiment of Representative Foster and asked to
continue dialogue.
Representative McGuire asked to get testimony on the record
to that effect. She added that there is an incredible
amount of latitude that the Department of Revenue could have
establishing regulations regarding charitable bowls.
2:44:37 PM
Representative Hawker noted that in the context of the law
as a whole, the legislation would not allow just anyone to
execute a Calcutta pool. Representative McGuire agreed and
said that any type of gaming done for charity would continue
that spirit. Regarding who would put together a Calcutta
pool, a list of those people would be made. She stressed
that for the regulations, it would not be a commercial
enterprise but would instead be for charitable reasons.
Page 2, Line 9, notes that the Department "may" issue a
permit to the municipality, etc. That portion of Statute
defines the only boundaries and the Department of Revenue
has established some "wild scenarios".
2:47:12 PM
Representative Croft asked if a qualified organization would
have to be a non-profit. He referenced the definition in
Section 9; currently, it would be a sporting event in the
State. Representative McGuire replied that it would have to
be in the State and the idea considered was that the person
organizing it would have to be a participant. On Page 3,
Section 8, elementary, secondary, or post secondary school
sporting events would be excluded.
2:48:48 PM
Representative Croft wanted it to be clear each time what
was authorized, making sure that there was a cost benefit.
Representative McGuire replied that the original request was
from the Seri Native Corporation golf classic and they offer
for scholarships.
Representative McGuire pointed out that Page 2, Line 14,
does reference dog-mushing contests. As long as the goals
are charitable and the activities are in State, it would be
okay. She pointed out Section 8 exclusion of the
elementary, secondary and postsecondary events.
2:51:02 PM
Representative Croft questioned why it was considered a game
of chance rather than a game of skill.
LARRY MEYERS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, ANCHORAGE,
explained that the term "game of chance" is a term of art
that is used to describe almost every event. The term "game
of skill" is defined in Statute.
2:52:17 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that in the 1980's, the pull-
tab issue was a very small enterprise in the State. It has
become over a $300 million dollar industry. He thought it
would be important to keep a handle on the activities; there
are scopes of gaming that people are comfortable with. As
public policy, he did not know what Calcutta pools would
encompass and thought that the legislation would be a
"policy" start to begin the discussion.
2:55:04 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze pointed out the Attorney General's
report, which disallows these activities. Representative
McGuire offered follow up on that information.
2:55:40 PM
Representative Hawker added that if the law was passed and
there were abuses found, and then the State could pass
another law to address the concerns. He recommended erring
on the side of supporting the non-profit organizations.
Representative McGuire stated that a wager or bid would have
to occur in an auction. Co-Chair Meyer requested that
discussion be addressed toward Amendment #2.
Co-Chair Meyer MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to the amendment.
Representative McGuire recommended that the discretion of
the Committee play out and added that it was okay either
way. It must remain in State, while being a contest of
skill and additionally, it must be a non-profit organization
doing it.
Representative Kelly noted that he favored a title change
and did not think it should be limited.
3:00:18 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW Amendment #2. Representative
McGuire recommended a conceptual amendment to tighten the
title, being more reflective of the charitable goals.
3:01:13 PM
Representative Kelly MOVED a conceptual amendment to tighten
the title, stating to "authorize golf events as the Calcutta
pools as a charitable game of chance". Co-Chair Meyer
OBJECTED for discussion purposes. Representative Hawker
asked if Representative Kelly intended to include golfing.
Representative Kelly replied that he did not. He restated
the intended conceptual amendment: "Authorizing Calcutta
pools as a charitable game of chance". Co-Chair Meyer
OBJECTED.
Representative Croft pointed out that the title would be
changed. Co-Chair Meyer WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There
being NO further OBJECTION, the conceptual amendment was
adopted.
3:03:14 PM
Co-Chair Chenault voiced support for the legislation. He
pointed out that most of the situations are for a good cause
and that the intent is to help children.
Vice-Chair Stoltze commented that he wanted a product that
serves the State while helping the charitable events.
Representative McGuire advised that she would not be
"hostile" to anything that would help to tighten HB 61.
Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-
LS0281\G.1, Luckhaupt, 3/16/05. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED for
discussion purposes.
Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that the amendment would change
the title of the bill and that it would benefit a public
radio station in Talkeetna.
Co-Chair Chenault asked if the animal classics would cover
concerns in Amendment #1 and if it should be a Department
decision.
Mr. Meyer responded that the history of each classic has
been added by specific name and would need to be added in
that format.
3:09:03 PM
Representative Croft pointed out that the only definition of
animal classics was defined in AS 05.15.692.
Representative McGuire suggested on Page 2, Line 13,
deleting "bird classics" and inserting "goose classics",
broadening the category. Vice-Chair Stoltze cautioned the
way in which that language is being handled. He thought
that cock fighting could result.
Co-Chair Meyer noted that he did not want to spend a lot
more time on the amendment.
SUZANNE CUNNINGHAM, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER,
addressed AS 05.15.180, limitations on authorized activity.
With the exception of raffles, lotteries, pull tabs and
numerous other items, activities may not be licensed under
st
that chapter unless it was licensed before January 1, 1959.
She referenced a bill presented by Vice Chair Stoltze, which
rd
passed the 23 Legislature, and added a sentence replacing
st
the timeline to November 1, 2002.
Ms. Cunningham advised that she had spoken with Legal
Services about incorporating all the bird classics under
animal classics but because of the time perimeters, it
cannot be done. The Kenai Goose Classic is already listed.
Representative Kelly referenced Page 2, Section 4©, and
asked about the Calcutta pool. Co-Chair Meyer recommended
that questions now only be directed to the amendment.
Representative Holm recommended language of migratory bird
classics.
3:14:21 PM
Co-Chair Meyer indicated concern with the way the bill was
moving.
Co-Chair Meyer MAINTAINED his OBJECTION to Amendment #1.
3:15:41 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Croft, Foster, Kelly, Moses, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Hawker, Holm, Meyer
Representative Weyrauch, Representative Joule and Co-Chair
Chenault were not present for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (5-3).
RECESS: 3:16:49 PM
RECONVENE: 3:17:46 PM
3:17:51 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that passage of Amendment #1
would change the title. He gave his permission to the legal
drafters to make the necessary changes. Representative
Croft advised that the intent was to make the title as tight
as possible.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CS HB 61 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HB 61 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" and with indeterminate note #1 by the
Department of Revenue.
3:19:00 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|