Legislature(1997 - 1998)
02/18/1998 09:05 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 273
"An Act requiring that gross receipts and ideal gross
be used to account for charitable gaming activities;
requiring municipalities to provide to the state
records concerning sales taxes assessed for charitable
gaming activities; requiring that a charitable share of
charitable gaming receipts be dedicated to charitable
uses; relating to reports required for charitable
gaming activities; relating to payments to the state
from gross receipts of charitable gaming; relating to
contracts between operators or vendors and permittees;
relating to licensing of multiple-beneficiary
permittees and to the duties of a multiple-beneficiary
permittee to each holder of the permit; requiring a
person employed as a gaming manager to be certified by
the state; limiting the expenditure of amounts of gross
receipts and ideal gross required to be paid to
permittees or retained by permittees; relating to the
amount of gross receipts and prizes allowed under a
permit or a multiple- beneficiary permit; allowing
operators to pool gross receipts, prizes, and door
prizes among permittees; and providing for an effective
date."
Co-chair Sharp called SB 273 before the committee. He said
he would limit discussions to merits of the bill and the
concepts therein and not become involved in other vehicles
that may or may not be in the committee or on its way to the
committee. Any other proposals for other bills would be
dealt with at a later date. He noted some reasons for this
legislation was because last year's budget for the gaming
division was reduced by over one-third. The commitment was
made to try and streamline the workload for that division to
allow an easier auditing procedure to be established and
simplify the procedures and reporting procedures by
operators and permittees. An extensive work session was
held in Anchorage last summer wherein every participant
present testified. Most of the information received at that
time has been included in the bill as presently filed.
Co-chair Sharp noted that teleconference sites on line were
Mat-Su, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Cordova, Kenai, Ketchikan and
Kodiak. He outlined the schedule that would be followed
regarding this bill hearing. He said there would be public
testimony following testimony from his staff and the
department but he would decide then for a time limit
depending on those signed up to testify.
Senator Adams advised the committee he had no amendments and
asked if any other committee member had amendments. Co-
chair Sharp said all amendments suggested by the industry
and permittees were reviewed by the department and as soon
as they were numbered they would be distributed into the
files.
Tom Williams, staff to Co-chair Sharp was invited to join
the committee. In reviewing to the sponsor statement and
sectional analysis he referred to a letter included in the
packet from the Department of Revenue strongly supporting
this legislation. A spreadsheet also attached showed the
relative allocation of pull-tab dollars wagers and what the
mix would have been at various percentages of prize payouts
and expenses; gross rates and net proceeds rates. Also
included was a copy of the Charitable Gaming Task Force and
summary recommendations which the department will address,
as well as two computation sheets; one related to bingo
charitable share provided by the department, as well as
calculation of the vendor charitable share also provided by
the department.
Mr. Williams said the bill would ensure that out of every
dollar wagered a certain minimum portion will ultimately be
dedicated to charitable purposes. It will substantially
simplify the accounting required for the Department of
Revenue, the charities and the operators of the charities
permit. The legislation would maintain the status quo with
respect to the relative amounts available for gaming
operations collected in State fees and returned to the
charities for charitable uses.
With emphasis on results-based budgeting he explained that
this bill was results-based legislation which emphasized
dollars going to the charities, coming off the top. Maximum
amount of flexibility was given to operators and MVP
managers without State interference.
Mr. Williams explained the sectional as follows:
Section 1: changes the calculation of the State's fee
to a gross basis.
Section 2: adds gaming manager certificates to the
list of items that the department may regulate.
Section 3: adds gaming managers to the list of persons
whose books may be examined in conjunction with a
gaming investigation.
Section 4: sales tax.
Section 5: charitable receipts.
Section 6: charitable receipts.
Section 7: simplifies recording process and eliminates
duplicate reporting.
Section 8: requires an operator to permit the
permittee the charitable share due from a gaming
activity conducted the previous month by the fifteenth
of the following month. An amendment by the industry
would change this to a calendar quarter basis instead
of monthly basis.
Section 9: preference to gaming managers.
Section 10: Regulation of gaming managers.
Section 11: Deletes reference to expenses and adds
language explicitly prohibiting the charity from paying
any expenses of an operator.
Section 12: Deletes the requirement the Department
either approve or disapprove operator contracts.
Section 13: Operators to conduct gaming for minimum of
one month for each permittee.
Section 14: Revocation of license of operator who
fails to remit minimum charitable share to the
permittee, and further sets the minimum share.
Section 15: Reporting and payment requirements for
MBPS consistent with operator requirements.
Section 16: (see section 14)
Section 17: Substitutes charitable share for net
proceeds.
Section 18: Specific exemption for dog mushing
contests.
Section 19: (see section 14)
Section 20: Net proceeds.
Section 21: Net gross receipts.
Section 22: Authorization pool for prizes.
Section 23: Charitable share.
Section 24: Charitable share.
Section 25: Regulations of gaming manager
certificates.
Section 26: Repealer (proposed amendment).
Section 27: Substitute ideal gross for ideal net.
Section 28: Same vendor payment process.
Section 29: False statement in application for gaming
manager certificate.
Section 30: Local sales tax to be excluded.
Section 31: Substitute ideal gross for ideal net.
Section 32: Defines charitable share and gaming
manager.
Section 33: Repeals all sections dealing with
expenses.
Section 34: Authorizes the department to proceed with
regulation changes.
Senator Donley asked Mr. Williams about section 26 and if
there were any differences regarding the dollar amounts.
Mr. Williams deferred to the department as the section
repealed the existing limits based on net as opposed to
gross receipts. He said they were advised this would be the
equivalent of the status quo of the current limitations as
translated to gross.
Senator Adams asked the committee's recommendations on the
two amendments mentioned. Mr. Williams asked if this was on
the one year to two years? Senator Adams indicated as
mentioned in his presentation. Mr. Williams said this was
in regards to revocation and would have to be answered by
the department as to their recommendation. He said he
understood there was no objection with regard to the
revocation limitations; they should be consistent.
Senator Adams asked about expenses for administrative
manager's fees that could be charged a charity. Mr.
Williams said there were a variety of expenses that were
dealt with and would again defer to the department. He
believed, however, the limitations dealt with all sorts of
expenses.
Senator Adams said he felt there needed to be some control
on the gaming manager's fees and he was concerned that some
managers may be making as much as $100,000 per year and that
would affect the end result of the charity. Mr. Williams
said that under this legislation regardless what a gaming
manager charged or the other operating expenses the amount
distributed to the charity as their charitable share would
not be affected. Expenses would no longer play a role in
determining how much the charities get.
Senator Donley further requested explanation of the theory
behind section 26. He said existing statute had single
maximums of prizes awarded and asked what the reason for
proposing separate categories for types of activities was
and increasing dollar amounts dramatically. Mr. Williams
explained the concept of basing limitations on prize amounts
or limitations on expenses had been eliminated. That needed
to be translated to a gross receipts basis and there were a
variety of scenarios calculated.
Co-chair Sharp cautioned that the more technical questions
be asked of the department.
Senator Torgerson asked the definition of "gaming manager"
and proposed a hypothetical. Mr. Williams said that as long
as an individual received compensation for managing and
controlling the actual operation that constituted "gaming
manager".
Deborah Vogt, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue was
invited to join the committee. She introduced Bob
Bartholomew, Deputy Director, Income and Excise Audit,
Department of Revenue and noted that he also served as their
Legislative Liaison.
She thanked Co-chair Sharp and his staff for all the work
they have done on the bill and also thanked the committee
for sponsoring the bill. She said the primary objective in
the bill was budget. Due to the cuts last year, the
director, administrative clerk and all clerical support were
eliminated. With respect to these cuts, everything was
added to the duties of the top management of Income and
Excise Audit Division. She listed the primary
responsibilities of the division and said gaming as an
income generator was on the very low end of tax income to
the State. This was because the program provided a source
of funds for the charities. She felt the top management was
spending an inordinate amount of time on the gaming program
including enforcement activities. This legislation would
simplify the program so there could be some control over the
gaming industry but still get back to the real business of
collecting taxes. Any charity can negotiate a larger share
than what is required by this legislation. She further
noted the department strongly supported this bill.
Senator Phillips asked if the Governor endorsed the bill.
Ms. Vogt said the Governor knew that she was here today but
that she could not speak for him. She said as far as she
knew, however, the concept had been hammered out with the
Administration.
Senator Donley said he did not understand why the
Administration did not have a position on the bill. Ms.
Vogt said they strongly supported it. Senator Donley asked
what the difference was between the Administration
supporting the bill and the Governor supporting it. Ms.
Vogt said she supposed the fine line was in not taking away
the Governor's actual freedom to look over a piece of
legislation when it was passed and then make his decision
about what he was going to do. She reiterated that this
piece of legislation was strongly supported by the
Administration.
Senator Phillips said the reason he brought up this matter
was because in the past, departments had supported bills,
giving the impression they had no problems with them, and
then after going through the whole process the bill was then
vetoed by the Governor. Co-chair Sharp noted that the
committee could summons Pat Porchot.
Senator Adams advised that the committee knew there was no
final CS to this piece of legislation and it was in its
first version. As it passed through other bodies it could
be changed which would then subject it to veto by the
Governor if the original version were changed. He suggested
the committee continue to work on the legislation. He then
referred to page number twelve, line twenty and twenty-one
which revoked certification and asked about the language if
it were being changed. Mr. Bartholomew responded and said
for operators there was a minimum threshold for revoking
their license for one year and a maximum of five. In
drafting this legislation they had started out with a two-
year minimum suspension or revocation and by going back to
one year it makes the legislation internally consistent with
the current statute.
Senator Donley commented on the inconsistency of the
Administration over the past three years and felt the Senate
Finance Committee, in particular, had been victimized by
these inconsistencies and failure of the Governor to stand
behind what his Administration has represented to this
committee. Time again the committee has been told of the
Administration's position, only when those exact same
provisions went to the Governor they were then used as the
basis for a veto. He said this was not good public policy.
Senator Adams in response said the Governor can support
legislation at any time, remembering the end results may not
be what were started out with.
Senator Donley said he felt the committee should discuss
this matter and that the Governor had an obligation to take
a position consistent with his Administration on issues as
the legislation develops. The Governor should be able to
identify what he supports, let the Legislature know that,
and if they don't take heed, then the Governor was free to
veto that action.
Senator Phillips concurred with Senator Donley and felt also
the issue should be discussed. Co-chair Sharp referred to a
memo by the Department of Revenue indicating they strongly
support this legislation.
(pause on record)
Senator Donley said he wanted a further understanding re
section 26. This would include other sections that deal
with maximum amount of prizes and maintain the existing
dichotomy between operators and directly operated activities
by the charities. He asked what would be the public policy
reason for continuing this. He referred to past law when
operators had to be bonded, secured and licensed; now that
they were licensing managers, how far did the public policy
go? Mr. Bartholomew responded that the intent was not to
raise the limit of the amount of gaming that could take
place with a permit. Current statute would allow a
permittee, who runs their own operation, to award a million
dollars in prizes. Average prize payout for pull-tabs is
about seventy-seven percent.
(Tape #35, Side A, switched to Side B.)
Senator Donley indicated there were a lot of charities that
never got their permits in to place and asked if the
department had a position on these dollar amounts? Mr.
Bartholomew explained that it had been worked out with
Senator Sharp that they would not get into other gaming
issues. They would not deviate from the objective of going
to a percentage of gross and simplifying the reporting and
levelling of the playing field with some of the MBP
operations. He said they would like to stay within the
confines of the bill.
Senator Torgerson asked if the manager, because he received
compensation, to be fingerprinted, licensed and
certificated? Mr. Bartholomew outlined the requirements for
the "gaming manager" to pass a test. He noted the original
intent was to make sure the department regulated or licensed
the primary person running the gaming activity. However,
when the got into the MBP, the only tool available if
someone was in noncompliance was to pull the permit of a
permittee. The operation, however, would be allowed to
continue while they got another permit. This legislation
would not only include "gaming manager" but also expand it
one step further to affect the self-directed operations. He
explained that if one hired a "gaming manager" to run the
operation, they would be subjected to getting a certificate
and being regulated by the department. This would cover the
MBPS and the self-directed.
Senator Torgerson said his main interest was in a couple of
organizations that he was familiar with that hired
individuals as "gaming managers" who have the management of
the day to day operations, however, the bank accounts,
bookkeeping and the primary person in charge is not that
same person. These are not "gaming managers" as defined
here. He felt there should be an exemption for these
employees. Mr. Bartholomew said they supported that
concept. He felt a better definition should be brought
forth for "gaming manager". Their intent was not to get to
the individuals supervising the day to day activities.
Senator Torgerson said a simple suggestion was "...that has
sole responsibility for the management, control or oversight
of the gaming activities...". Just because you are called a
manager and you get paid for that position is too broad
based. He further inquired if this legislation covered
raffles. Mr. Bartholomew referred to section one and said
if they do less than $20,000 worth of gross activities there
is no fee paid to the State. The other part of this bill
would try to simplify the recording, wherein they would just
tell us their total sales and one line item for expenses.
Senator Torgerson further inquired regarding
confidentiality. He said the names and amounts of
permittees were not public information. He asked if this
would not be public information obtained from the
municipalities or was this a problem? Mr. Bartholomew said
according to their interpretation it would not be public
information. The department had strong confidentiality
statutes for taxpayer information. A municipality could
make their own decision about making this information
available to the public. Senator Torgerson asked if this
should be made specific in the bill or if it were just
standard practice? Mr. Bartholomew said it could be
clarified in the bill to come under the confidentiality
statutes for taxes. Senator Torgerson asked if this also
covered sports pools? Mr. Bartholomew said this legislation
would not address that issue.
Senator Parnell referred to section eighteen, page nine, and
quoted current law AS 05.15.150. He asked why an exception
was being made for dog mushers' associations when all other
qualified organizations are required to come before the
department. Mr. Bartholomew said dog mushing was the one
activity that consistently gives out way more in prizes than
they bring in what would be considered entry fees. They
show a big loss because they use other revenue sources such
as corporate donations and other donations to help pay the
prizes. The exception was just to allow them to use all of
their gaming proceeds to go towards prizes. No other
activity is allowed to do this. They do not feel there is
any abuse. The money goes out to prizes. Senator Parnell
asked if there were any other groups that might ask for such
an exception? Mr. Bartholomew said he did not feel there
was anyone else who fell into that category. He said the
Ice Classics and Rain Classics uses the money they earn for
scholarships. Senator Parnell asked if there was a problem
for the department as regards to work load. Mr. Bartholomew
said either an amendment needed to be made to keep them in
compliance or the department needed to decide whether to
revoke permits or not. But he did not think that was a
situation they wanted to get into.
Co-chair Sharp asked if Mr. Bartholomew had anything else he
wanted to cover. Mr. Bartholomew said he wanted to explain
the percentages of gross that were included. He explained
how they arrived at the different percentages. For bingo
the non-profit organization needed to give 1-1/2 percent of
the gross proceeds. He further referred to section 14. It
is the same percentage that appears in other sections of the
bill.
Senator Donley mentioned that this was another section that
was being repealed and reenacted and asked that the status
quo be reviewed. He noted in prior years there was a
quarterly program which created many problems and this
latest legislation provided for a year.
Mr. Bartholomew said this provision which is the "mandatory
shall revoke" is on an annual basis. If the minimum share
is not paid after one year it will be revoked. Another
section of the bill also requires a monthly payment to the
charities. However, after hearing more testimony this
morning they may go back to quarterly. He said the biggest
change taking place as they went to percentage gross was
that the statute requires a minimum payment to the non-
profits plus all profits in excess of reasonable expenses.
Current law says the non-profits would be paid monthly which
still varies based on profits and is subject to negotiation
between the non-profits and whoever runs the gaming
activity. The department only wants to regulate to the
minimum and make sure that minimum is paid.
Senator Donley recalled that in addition to the annual
provision in section 14 was that each quarter a certain goal
had to be met. Was this quarterly report done away with a
few years ago? Mr. Bartholomew explained that the current
law did still require quarterly reporting to the Department
of Revenue. It can be looked at on a quarterly basis to
make sure they are in compliance. There is, however, no
mandatory action taken if they are not.
Senator Donley noted that this was changed in 1993.
Mr. Bartholomew continued explaining the percentages. He
referred to a one-page overview in the files, which showed
how the 1-1/2 percent was calculated. This was a good faith
attempt to maintain the current statute. Pull-tabs,
however, needed more discussion because it was easy to get
confused when looking at many different numbers. Primarily,
one should keep in mind that this is driven by the amount of
the prize payout. If one used a seventy-seven percent
payout then there would be seven percent gross. Seven
percent was a good faith adjustment across the board. There
are new tools today that the gaming industry has wherein
they can play with prizes and expenses but it does not
affect what the charity gets. In the past it was hard to
pay the minimums because certain organizations were not
regulated as tightly as others. There are a number of
issues in this legislation that will strengthen the
regulation of those MBPS and that will help the over-all
industry to be more financially stable. He said it was
important to keep the pressure on the industry to give the
money to the non-profits and not to have money taken out of
the system. The last item would include other activities
such as raffles. The requirement of ten percent was being
exceeded by almost all those activities and they should not
be affected. The last fee in the bill is the one that comes
to the State of Alaska and today the law is one percent of
whatever a non-profit receives. In order to maintain
consistency, the department felt they should go to some
percentage of gross so that everything would be based on
total sales. That would be one-tenth of one percent of
gross sales. He reviewed the amount received from pull-tabs
as an example. Further he reviewed other gaming activities,
such as, raffles, rain classics, ice classics that would
probably end up paying slightly less to the State under this
legislation.
Senator Torgerson asked if there was not a three percent
gross tax on pull-tabs now? Did this go away and was it
replaced by one-tenth of one percent? Mr. Bartholomew said
the three percent tax was paid by the pull-tab distributors
and that remained unchanged. It would not be affected by
this legislation. He said it was important to note that
that fee would not affect the amount of money they get from
gaming. He said the hopes were that more charities would
receive the minimum and have the ability to pay the fees
they are having to pay today.
Senator Donley asked about the one-tenth of one percent and
was this a tax on the activity? Mr. Bartholomew indicated
this was correct. Senator Donley asked how much was
generated last year. Mr. Bartholomew responded
approximately $280,000. He said there were two overviews of
the industry taken place in the last couple of years. In
1995 the Charitable Gaming Task Force and in 1996 a
Legislative Audit. Four of the recommendations from the
task force were included in the bill presently. One
recommendation, both in the task force and the audit report,
but not included in the bill was that the department should
spend more of the money collected on running the program.
Senator Donley noted the three percent was not a program
receipt but inquired if the one tenth of one percent was
categorized as a program receipt? Mr. Bartholomew said
money from both fees did go in to funding the budget.
Enough revenue was transferred to cover the $600,000 and the
remainder stayed in the general fund. In further response
to Senator Donley he said this was not a designated program
receipt, but rather a general fund program receipt which is
appropriated annually.
Senator Adams asked about controlling undesirables from
being game managers. This had been a problem in the past.
Ms. Vogt explained briefly how this legislation would cover
that matter.
Co-chair Sharp indicated that at this time he wanted to take
public testimony via teleconference. He noted that he would
limit testimony to about three minutes each so everyone
would get a chance to testify.
Joseph Nyquist testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.
He noted for the committee that his has operator's license
rule changes and regulations. He said he supported SB 273.
Michael Slezak testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
He said the charitable gaming industry had just completed a
major overhaul of regulations and statutes for 1997. He
said the information received from the department was based
on 1995 and 1996 numbers and that as yet the changes had not
played out for 1997. He felt this did not make a lot of
sense as to why a radical new concept would be introduced
that had not been shown to work anywhere in the lower '48.
There was a lot of talk about the elasticity of the gaming
dollar, however, elasticity was removed once percentage of
gross is established. He further noted that once prize
payouts were lowered, a point would be reached that players
would stop playing. This would cause more competition
within the market place to try and attract players back. In
running their own numbers he said with respect to the
permittees he worked for every dollar was important to them.
They have also had budget cuts due to grants being reduced
both locally and on State level. He said the current
proposal on the table with regard to taxes allowed all
Federal, State and local taxes to be deducted. Since they
had no control over how taxes were set, they should come off
the top of the gross, including the pull-tab three percent
tax.
Jack Powers, operator license number 022, Anchorage,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He does
business as Tudor Road Bingo Center. He said he supported
Commissioner Wilson Condon's letter of 28 January 1998 with
a few exceptions. He was concerned with some remaining
loopholes regarding MBPS. He did not want to see SB 199 be
attached to this one. He reviewed sections of the bill that
he felt still needed some work. He specifically identified
section 13 and said he did not understand it. He said he
would be glad to come to Juneau to work with the committee
and the department regarding this section.
Shirley Montgomery testified via teleconference from Mat-Su.
On behalf of the Mat-Su Humane Society she thanked the
committee for the opportunity to give testimony regarding
this matter. She said they were very dependant on every
dollar received explained how important this was to the
Society and animals. With these funds they are able to
support senior citizens in taking care of animals and also
teach the care and safety of animals in the schools. They
do not support making their MBP manager a "gaming manager"
just so the State gaming people can control him. She noted
that if their MBP manager was not doing a satisfactory job
their MBP board could make their own decision of how to deal
with this. She felt this legislation needed more work.
Greg Peterson testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.
He said the department does need help from the Legislature
however feels that the numbers need to be looked at again.
Doug McBride testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.
He said he was a pull-tab distributor in Ketchikan. They
strongly support the concept of a level playing field. He
said gaming regulators, legislators and all participants in
the industry should be able to see what is going on so they
will have confidence the charities were getting enough
money. He felt there should be simpler filing, auditing and
regulatory compliance measures. He did not feel that
shifting from the ideal net concept to the gross net concept
was very misleading. He said the effective date should be
long enough for distributors to sell out their products and
replace them with products that comply.
(Co-chair Sharp passed the chair to Senator Phillips at
approximately 10:35 a.m.)
John Regan testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He
said he was with the Spenard Lion's Club and that their
permit was used by Tudor Road Bingo (Jack Powers). They
favoured the percentage of gross on bingo and pull-tabs. He
said he was confused with the carry-over of funds by dog
mushers. He said everyone else was required to apply for
carry-over.
(Tape #35, Side B changed to tape #36, Side A at
approximately 10:37 a.m.)
Mr. Regan continued his testimony and said he was concerned
with the department's position and the information they had
been giving the committee. He felt there should be more
interaction with the gaming managers. He further did not
understand the situation with gaming managers because in his
situation he did not control any money and any monies were
put into the MBP's account. His personal record did not
need to be looked at because all he did was draw a paycheck.
There was already enough statutes regarding undesirables not
being able to seek these positions. He was also concerned
with the increase in the one-tenth of one percent of gross
that charities would be paying. The State of Alaska should
not be going after non-profits if they need additional
funding. If a state income tax is needed that should be
discussed with the general public.
Ed Bourgeois testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
He represented Anchorage Opera. Their charitable gaming
permit was operated by Jack Powers. He concurred and
supported the testimony of Mr. Powers. He supported the
legislation and the Department of Revenue to monitor the
industry and level the playing field.
(Co-chair Sharp returned to chair the committee.)
Lanie Fleischer testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
She indicated she was executive director of Big Brothers and
Sisters, Anchorage. She said she was pleased with the
present legislation. (Concluding testimony was severely
affected by poor quality of teleconference.)
There followed miscellaneous discussion at the table amongst
the members.
Mark Griffin testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
He said he owned Alaska Bingo Supply but had not been
involved in the gaming industry for many years. He felt the
biggest problem was with the Department of Revenue regarding
enforcement. He suggested all records required should be
made public within fifteen days of the day received. He
said the gaming industry was operating in a vacuum and with
the lack of disclosed information no one was able to make
adequate and informed decisions. He suggested simpler
regulations should be enacted so there would be a more level
playing field and all their work would not be wasted.
Co-chair Sharp announced that anyone wishing to send in
written testimony could do so to the Senate Finance
Committee Secretary's office.
Rosalie Nadeau was invited to join the committee. She
indicated that she was the member in charge of the permit
for Akeela Treatment Services, Anchorage. Since she was in
Juneau she came to testify in person. She has represented
charities since 1982. She said the bill was a good move in
the right direction. A complex law could not be enforced by
minimal staff and such staff could not provide guidance to
permittees. She felt simplification was a good move,
regardless of the fact the bill still had some problems such
as addressed by Mr. Powers and others. "Gaming manager" was
a crucial area. However, she said they supported the bill
and said the drug and alcohol treatment program greatly
benefited from pull-tabs. She did feel that SB 199 should
not be "christmas treed" with this bill.
Co-chair Sharp said he would reschedule the bill for 8:30
a.m. next Tuesday. This would give committee members time
to review suggested amendments. He said different sources
had been asked to define "operator" and asked the committee
to also search out possible refinements. With that he held
the bill in committee.
Co-chair Pearce announced that the committee meeting
tomorrow morning was cancelled but the meeting tomorrow
afternoon at 4:30 p.m. was still scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-chair Sharp recessed the committee meeting at
approximately 11:00 a.m.
SFC-98 -1- 02/18/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|