Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/01/1997 08:03 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 156 - CHARITABLE GAMING The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 156, "An Act relating to charitable gaming; relating to the percentages of gross receipts from charitable gaming that are required to be devoted to charitable uses; requiring managers of charitable gaming activities to be licensed; removing the authority for operators to conduct charitable gaming; prohibiting permittees, members in charge, and gaming managers from having certain financial interests or associations with persons who have been convicted of certain crimes; and providing for an effective date." Number 0440 CHAIR JAMES explained that the subcommittee addressed percentage of gross in order to get away from lengthy and expensive audits conducted by the Charitable Gaming Division. Number 0556 DENNIS POSHARD, Director, Charitable Gaming Division, Department of Revenue, was the first person to testify in Juneau. The committee substitute changed the system of deriving benefit to the charities to a percentage of gross. The division was very much in favor of going to a percentage of gross system in order to get away from lengthy and expensive audits. MR. POSHARD further explained the committee substitute also licensed gaming managers which the division supported. The division frequently found a manager's indiscretion during an audit. Unfortunately, the only recourse was to take action against the charity's permit. It would be nice to have a tool to do something to the responsible individual rather than the charity. MR. POSHARD further explained the committee substitute set the percentage of gross at 10 percent for pull-tabs, 5 percent for bingo, and 10 percent for all other activities - multiple beneficiary permittees (MBPs), operators, and self-directed permitees. Currently, pull-tabs returned about 9 percent of gross to the charities, and bingo returned about 4 percent to the charities. MR. POSHARD further stated the language in Sec. 23, according to the sponsor, was supposed to read "not less than 16 percent of" rather than "not less than 10 percent of". Ten percent was the current statewide average for vendors. The sponsor did not intend to decrease the return the vendors gave to the charities. MR. POSHARD noted the language in Section 1, "one-half of one" percent was an increase in the tax that the state received. The state received a tax equal to about one-tenth of one percent, not one-half of one percent. The new language was an increase of around $700,000 or $800,000. Number 0916 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Poshard who paid the tax? Number 0920 MR. POSHARD replied the tax was paid by the charities. It was paid on the net profits received from their gaming activities. The committee substitute proposed to pay it on the gross receipts. For example, the net proceeds on the gross of $1 million would be $100,000 or a tax of $1,000 - one-tenth of one percent of the gross, not one-half of one percent. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Poshard if the language should read one-tenth of one percent to get the same number? Number 0965 MR. POSHARD replied to get roughly the same amount that was going to the state you would need to pick a figure closer to one-tenth of one percent. Number 0985 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON stated he appreciated what the sponsor wanted to accomplish, but setting the margins for a business was an unfortunate road to start down. We must be telling the charities that they were not sophisticated enough to make these types of judgements or that the industry was so slick that it could hood wink some of the charitable gaming. He asked Mr. Poshard if it was impractical to require the gaming organizations to have their books audited by an accountant, to allow the charities access the books, and to guarantee a minimum percentage of return? Number 1115 MR. POSHARD replied there was currently a minimum percentage return for operators. There was also a maximum amount of expenses that a charity could incur. In addition, the operators and MBPs were required to have a certified public accountant (CPA) review, submit it to the division, and make it accessible to the charities that they had a contract with. A CPA review, however, was different than an audit. A review was a rough check. Number 1190 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Poshard if the approach he suggested was impractical? Number 1214 MR. POSHARD replied it was not necessarily impractical. An audit would be expensive and difficult to perform. The expense would be attributed to the charities. Number 1256 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated by addressing the legislation we were saying that charitable organizations were not sophisticated enough to protect their own interests. Number 1278 MR. POSHARD stated that was part of the reason for the legislation. The bigger part, according to the division, was relieving the audit burden. The division's budget had been cut by one-third so it had one-third less of its resources. Number 1316 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Poshard if the operator would pay the one-half of one percent of the gross receipts? Number 1336 MR. POSHARD replied, "No." It was a tax or fee that the charity paid. It was called "a net proceed fee" in statute. The charity paid 1 percent of the net proceeds or the profits of their activities when they filed their annual financial statement with the division. The committee substitute would not change the process. It would change how the fee was assessed - gross rather than net. Number 1394 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Poshard what would be the amount that the division would need to operate with the budget cuts? In other words, what kind of tax would we have to include to not affect the division's budget? Number 1410 MR. POSHARD replied adding a new tax did not have anything to do with the division's budget. The division currently took in about $2.2 million. The division's budget request was $913,000, while the division received only $601,000. In addition to being cut, the division was being moved to the Income and Excise Audit Division as a program. A new tax would not change the budget picture for the division, it would only bring in more money for the state. Number 1446 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS stated he wanted to make sure that the state was receiving the appropriate dollars for the General Fund. He also wanted to make sure that the gaming industry was not being subsidized. Number 1464 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Poshard, if 16 percent was a conflict when 5 percent went to charities from bingo, and 10 percent went to charities from pull-tabs? REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS further asked Mr. Poshard to explain what was "other activities" referenced in Sec. 14. Number 1502 MR. POSHARD replied other activities included anything except bingo and pull-tabs such as raffles and classics. MR. POSHARD explained in 1993 the legislature enacted the vendor arrangement at 70 percent of the ideal net. It was paid up front to the charities. Operators were required to return 30 percent of the adjusted gross which was usually less than the ideal net. It was enacted because the activity for the vendor was ancillary so it could return a higher percentage. Currently, the vendors returned around 16 percent of the gross. There was no conflict; they were two different entities. Number 1649 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Poshard if the operators had the 5 percent annual return for bingo and the 10 percent annual return for pull-tabs? Number 1654 MR. POSHARD replied it was the operators, MBPs, and self-directed charities. Vendors were only allowed to sell pull-tabs, not bingo or any other type of activity. Number 1666 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Poshard if other activities included food sales? Number 1671 MR. POSHARD replied, "No." Number 1679 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Poshard if the bill actually got more money to the charities? Number 1690 MR. POSHARD replied there would be debate based on whether or not a business could achieve a level of return as a result of the changes. If an operator went out of business then obviously the charities would get less money. If the number was set at a revenue-neutral number then you would see more money going to the charities over time. But it would be hard to determine a revenue- neutral number. The structure would be great for the charities because it would simplify their reporting and accounting requirements. Number 1793 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Poshard if more money would go to the charities if a dollar amount was set? Number 1807 MR. POSHARD replied if people stayed in business the answer was, yes. Number 1814 CHAIR JAMES stated the reason for charitable gaming was to provide money to the charities, not to create a gaming industry. The industry was not the goal. The charities were the goal. There would be fall out because of the changes that would affect the charities. The legislation did not prevent the charities from operating the permits in another way, however. She would be happy to take the average - 9 percent and 4 percent. Number 1917 MR. POSHARD stated there were others that would be willing to take over as a result of the fall out. MR. POSHARD announced the arguments for the fiscal note were still valid. However, because of the committee substitute, the new fiscal note would most likely be zero. Number 1975 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN stated he respected the intent of the legislation. However, the bill targeted the few who did not abide by the regulations. There were honest operators trying to do their best to get money to the charities. He asked Mr. Poshard to describe the licensing requirements for the managers. He was concerned how it would affect the small communities. Number 2052 MR. POSHARD replied the managers would be required to take a test similar to the operator's test. A fee would probably be required followed by the issuance of a certificate. There was no intent for them to be bonded, for example. Number 2118 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said he saw the intent of one individual being responsible for the entire operation. It was done in the smaller communities. Number 2134 CHAIR JAMES stated she really supported that part of the legislation. Number 2185 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated there were different types of charitable operations. He asked Mr. Poshard if it would be preferable to treat each of the operations differently? Number 2205 MR. POSHARD replied it would force or encourage the different operators to become whatever was the most lucrative for themselves and the least lucrative for the charities. He would not suggest establishing a system based on an operator, MBP, or self-directed charity, for example. There was merit to establishing a system based on the type of gaming activity, however. Number 2318 CHAIR JAMES stated, if she was an operator giving 5 percent to charity and then was required to give 10 percent, she would look at the payback to make up the difference. The volume of players would be more if the payback was higher. In addition, we had not discussed basing the percentage of return on the volume of business. TAPE 97-54, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. POSHARD stated he had tried to determine the elasticity of the dollar for the different levels of return. There were too many variables involved, however. Number 0081 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented this issue would have been the perfect opportunity to use the negotiated/regulation process that Chair James introduced by including the industry to help determine the figure. The industry was needed to develop revenue for the charities. He would have preferred an approach that incorporated the concerns of the industry at the ground floor rather than hearing them at the intermediate level in the process. Number 0118 CHAIR JAMES stated the committee process was exactly what he was talking about. The sponsor of the bill was here, the committee members were here, and we were about to hear from the industry. CHAIR JAMES reiterated her biggest interest was the charities as opposed to the industry. She understood the role of the industry so she would balance the issues. Number 0170 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS noted that the 5 percent for bingo and the 10 percent for pull-tabs was the "minimum" amount of return to the charities. Some operators would be able to return more. The most popular operators would be the ones that gave the highest payback to the customer and the most popular operators would be the ones that gave the most to the charities. There was a market test at work. Number 0209 CHAIR JAMES asked the sponsor, Representative Terry Martin, if he wanted to amend the committee substitute to include "16 percent" rather than "10 percent"? Sixteen percent was the intent of the subcommittee. Number 0225 REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN, Alaska State Legislature, replied he had learned to let the task force do its very best without any pressure from the sponsor. He believed a minimum of 12 percent was fair. CHAIR JAMES explained the changes were on page 12 to Sec. 22 and Sec. 23. The language "10" should be changed to "16". Number 0303 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the committee substitute (0- LS0180/F, Luckhaupt, 4/29/97) be adopted with the noted language change. There was no objection, CSHB 156(STA) was so adopted. Number 0328 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated that the major reason for gaming was for charity, not the industry. Alaska was one of the few states that used gaming for charity, while the rest of the states used gambling for charity or state revenue. The discussion in regards to "whetting the appetite" to get more volume was related to the addictiveness to gambling. Number 0379 CHAIR JAMES stated she did not have a problem with bingo parlors selling pull-tabs because it was a community game. She did not have a problem with a bar selling pull-tabs either because most people went to a bar to socialize. However, she did have a problem with pull-tab parlors because they were set up strictly for gambling. Number 0508 J.J. "JACK" POWERS was the first person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. As an operator, he was not opposed to the discussion on percentages of gross and revenue-neutral bills, but more homework was needed to be done. He cited the Governor's task force and the forgotten recommendations. There were existing loopholes in the statutes and regulations. There were the political issues. Let's address these in other forms of legislation. As an operator, he was not getting rich. He was concerned about the non-profits. What about the non-sufficient funds (NSF) checks? he asked. The operator was penalized for NSF checks, not the non-profits. In conclusion, he could live with 6 percent of gross for pull-tabs and 1.5 percent for bingo, but not with 16 percent of gross. Number 0669 ED BOUGEOIS, Representative, Anchorage Opera, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The Anchorage Opera had realized over $100,000 in revenue over the past three years from the gaming industry - four times what it had received from the states' arts council. Gaming was a necessary and alternative means of funding at a time when the arts was being cut drastically. He declared, "If we lose this funding we risk going out of business ourselves as do many non-profit organizations that derive a good amount of their revenue from this source." Number 0752 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Bougeois if there was community support for opera or were people just buying pull-tabs for the return potentials? Number 0791 MR. BOUGEOIS replied opera and many other art forms were important to the development of the youth and for the entertainment of adults. The price of a ticket for the opera would be very expensive and not available to more citizens if it was not subsidized. He believed, personally, that people would gamble no matter what. Therefore, he preferred that the money derived from gambling went to charitable organizations rather than elsewhere. Number 0892 JOHN LOPEZ, Representative, Alaska Bow Hunters Association, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He urged for additional studies on this topic. A 1995 report by the Charitable Gaming Division indicated that the commercial halls for the operators and the MBPs would not meet the 10 percent of gross receipts test on pull-tabs - operators were at 5.82 percent, and MBP's were at 7.98 percent. In addition, 10 percent would raise the profitability requirement from 25 percent to 30 percent creating an additional burden of either controlling expenses or cutting the number of prizes. A study by the National Association of Fundraising Ticket Manufactures indicated that there was no elasticity of the dollar and the recommendation was to stay away from the approach in the bill. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Lopez who sold the pull-tabs for the Alaska Bow Hunters Association? MR. LOPEZ replied Jack Powers. Number 1005 MIKE SLEZAK was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. Lowering the percentage of payout would drive players away. We had already seen a number of high tier players drop out because of the reduction in the payouts. They were going to Las Vegas or illegal gaming activities in the state. "If they're not going to spend their money on charitable gaming, they're going to find some place to spend it to find that gaming activity that they want to participate in." he declared. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Slezak what his connection was to charitable gaming? MR. SLEZAK replied he was a life member of the Susitna Valley Humane Society, and the general manager of Rippie World One in Anchorage. Number 1085 DAVE LAMBERT was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. The bill would create a slow and agonizing death for the gaming industry. Testimony had indicated that 78 percent was being returned to charitable organizations. The figure was higher than any where else in the country. "If it's not broke why try to fix it?" he asked. The division's budget was being cut so it was trying to eliminate organizations to reduce its work load. If the one-half of one percent would be a user fee that went directly to the division, it could go after and deal with the bad guys rather than hurting every body else. Moreover, in North Pole there was a 5 percent sales tax and a .3 percent tax on pull-tabs. The bill called for another .5 percent and 10 percent tax while the average pull-tab had an 18 percent payback leaving a 2 percent margin for business. "Were do we go from there?" he asked. Number 1265 CHAIR JAMES explained there was a 3 percent sales tax in the city of North Pole and a 5 percent sales tax in Juneau. The 3 cents and 5 cents were eaten because it was not convenient to sell a pull-tab for $1.03 or $1.05. In addition, rather than claiming the winnings, most players bought more pull-tabs with their winnings. A tax was not paid on the winnings, and every time the player used his or her winnings to buy more pull-tabs the tax was eaten. It should be a consideration when determining the percentage. She was still open to the amount, but she would still like to have a percentage of the gross. Number 1341 TABER REHBAUM, Executive Director, The Greater Big Brothers/Big Sisters Fairbanks Area, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. Her agency held a gaming permit played through an operator in town. It derived a significant portion of its budget from pull-tabs. Her agency was opposed to the bill because its annual fee would increase about 500 percent placing an undue burden on the folks charitable gaming was established to support. It would endanger reputable operators when non-profits did not have the time to run a pull-tab operation themselves. Number 1478 PAUL BLAIR, Representative, American Legion, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Glennallen. He was absolutely opposed to the gross receipt or high percentage concepts. It was obvious the committee was on a one-way street towards gross receipts when it would destroy the gaming industry in Alaska as it was known today. It would hinder the small operations like the ones in Glennallen that did not deal with operators. It was obvious that Representative Martin and James did not like gaming. He would like to see the bill killed. Number 1639 CHAIR JAMES stated that she put her personal belief on the table, but she did not necessarily vote the way she personally believed. She listened to the testimony. Number 1664 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Blair if there were operators in the Glennallen area or were the non-profits conducting their own gaming activities? Number 1681 MR. BLAIR replied all of the non-profits conducted their own gaming activities. There were no operators. Number 1698 GARY LANGILLE, Representative, Small World Day Care Center; Kodiak Chamber of Commerce; and Kodiak Liquor License Association, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kodiak. Seventy-eight percent of the revenue went to prizes while 22 percent went to expenses leaving a low percentage for the non-profits to begin with. Without killing the attractiveness of the game itself by lowering the payout to the customer, he wondered if the committee had looked at video gaming. Video gaming would give non-profits a better chance of higher revenue because it would cut down on the expenses, allow for easier audits, and take care of the fraud. He did not understand the idea of the additional tax revenue, especially since the Charitable Gaming Division's budget was being cut. Number 1835 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Langille if he would suggest replacing gaming with videos or add to the existing games? MR. LANGILLE replied he was not suggesting that pull-tabs should be taken away. Reports indicated that people liked video gaming better so that pull-tabs eventually fell away. The Charitable Gaming Division would prefer to deal with a computer print out every month rather than having to track down pieces of paper from everybody. Number 1880 EARL MICKELSON, Representative, American Legion Post Number 17, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kodiak. The American Legion sold only to its members. Therefore, it should be treated differently. Vendors and operators should be treated differently as well. In addition, he wondered what the concept of "ideal gross" meant in Sec. 22 and Sec. 23. He agreed with using gross receipts for auditing for the division, but not for the charities. The ideal net was the only thing that really counted because a gross percentage took away the ability of an operator to determine the payout to the customers. Number 2065 CHAIR JAMES stated she understood because the only room to make up for the additional percentage was in the payout. Number 2099 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS explained the ideal gross was the amount of money left over after the payout. Number 2126 MR. POSHARD explained Sec. 27 defined ideal gross - "(23) `ideal gross(NET)' means an amount equal to the total amount of receipts that would be received if every individual pull-tab ticket in a series were sold at face value". For example, 4,000 tickets at $1 a piece would equal an ideal gross of $4,000. CHAIR JAMES stated there was a problem because not every pull-tab would be sold. She wondered if pull-tabs could be pulled and counted differently. Number 2258 MR. POSHARD replied there was a prohibition on pulling games. The gross would be reduced if the games were discounted, for example. Number 2339 KEVIN HARUN, Representative, Trail Side Discovery Camp Program, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. In reality the gaming industry was a lot less than a $220 million industry because of the prize payouts. In addition, it was a diverse industry ranging from a pull-tab parlor to the American Legion. Legislation was needed, therefore, to meet the needs of each sector. TAPE 97-55, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. HARUN further stated the fee of one-half of one percent was a very big increase for charities. It was a tax increase. It did not make sense when the industry already was bringing in enough money to cover its cost. In conclusion, he would go back and look at some of the recommendations from the Governor's task force. Number 0141 LANIE FLEISCHER, Executive Director, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Anchorage, Inc., was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. Big Brothers Big Sisters over the last six years had been making between $50,000 to $60,000 every fiscal year on its pull-tab and bingo permit played by Jack Powers. As a result of the money from its permit, it had been able to double the number of kids matched with an adult mentor. The goal was to increase that number by 150 percent by the year 2000. "We definitely need the money from our charitable permit in order to reach that goal," she declared. She did not see how the money could be replaced. The operators in Alaska were reputable compared to other states, and they returned a significant amount of money to the charities. Number 0359 CHAIR JAMES asked Ms. Fleischer if she had a position on licensing managers? Number 0379 MS. FLEISCHER stated any rules that applied to operators should apply to MBP holders and self-directed operations. Number 0422 TUESDAY SMITH was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. She was testifying today as a customer, even though she held an operators' license. The winnings from a pull-tab shop were being re-spent over and over. She could play a total of 3,000 to 4,000 tickets with a $300 winning, for example. This was forcing the games to turn into a 35 percent ideal net rather than a 25 percent ideal net. Therefore, they would just get her money 10 percent faster by decreasing the gross and what she could re-spend with her winnings. Number 0572 WAYNE STEVENS, Executive Director, Kodiak Chamber of Commerce, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kodiak. The chamber ran a self-directed game using its own employees. Operators were not allowed in Kodiak by ordinance. He appreciated the work of the subcommittee. The committee substitute was a much improved version. However, an increase from 1 percent of ideal net to .5 percent of the gross was an increase by a factor of five decreasing the amount of money that went to the charities. Number 0653 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Stevens what a factor of five would be in real dollars? Number 0662 MR. STEVENS replied the 1 percent fee paid last year was $771, while one-half of one percent of the gross as proposed in the committee substitute would have been $3,855. REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Stevens what was the volume in gross receipts? MR. STEVENS replied the gross receipts was roughly $700,000. Number 0723 ASHLEY REED, Lobbyist, Alaska Charitable Gaming Association, was the next to testify in Juneau. There was no testimony today from the public that supported the bill. The goal to eliminate auditing was laudable, but the bill was not designed to accomplish that. The bill was designed to discourage gaming and ultimately the amount of money that would go to charities. It was not a good piece of legislation and contradictory to the goals articulated around the table. In addition, the committee substitute was not the result of the discussions at the subcommittee hearing. The gaming industry was complex and this bill was not going to resolve the issues. He suggested keeping the bill and working on it. The gaming industry was not opposed to satisfying the concept but, the legislature needed to recognize the various operations and the various associated expenses. If the simplification of auditing was the purpose, why wasn't there a machine bill, for example. There were other ways to accomplish the goal. Representative Martin moaned and groaned when he heard the suggestion because it would probably increase gaming. He reiterated this was a complex issue. He encouraged the committee to hold on to the bill and work on it. There was not one person from the public that testified in favor of the bill. Number 0917 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Reed to suggest some of the other ways to eliminate auditing. Number 0930 MR. REED replied the easiest way would be a machine bill. A machine would produce a computer printout. CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Reed if a machine should replace what there was already? MR. REED replied a machine could either replace or supplement what there was already. In addition, there were various types of gaming activity so that different gross percentages should be applied. Increasing the averages would only put charities out of business. Number 0975 CHAIR JAMES stated the issue was creating a constituency that would eliminate the possibility of taking a different approach. She cited the permanent fund dividend as an example. There was a pot of money that could not be touched because of the pressure from the created constituency. She liked the idea of a computer gaming system, but she would not want to add it to the current system. She would want to replace it otherwise the problems would not be eliminated. Number 1067 MR. REED stated a machine system would control the cost because it did away with operation costs for example. If the goal was to put more money into the charities it was an approach to consider as well as legislation that would allow for larger prizes to increase playing, for example. He did believe that the legislature should take on the issue with the support of the industry, but not with this piece of legislation. The bill was not designed to help the industry; it was designed to discourage gaming. Number 1113 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Reed if a tier system was possible with the current volume of business? Number 1142 MR. REED replied she would have to ask the industry. There were different types of expenses associated with the industry. For example, selling pull-tabs in a hall was cheaper than a stand-alone store in a strip mall. Therefore, both volume and operation costs would need to be considered. Number 1190 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Reed what was his position on licensing managers? MR. REED replied he had not talked to his client about that because the bill was so bad. He would get back to her later. Number 1207 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he was afraid of the impact on the small communities. Number 1249 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan if he had a problem with licensing the mangers? REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied he had not addressed that issue with his constituents yet. Currently, in the small communities the whole government was accountable to the citizens through its budget process in which reports were included on the gaming proceeds. Number 1285 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan if he had any pull-tab parlors in the rural districts that he represented? REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied pull-tab parlors occurred in the larger communities such as Bethel. He had not heard of any complaints from his constituents, otherwise he would be the first one to include licensing managers in the bill. Number 1303 CHAIR JAMES explained she had problems in her district with managers. Number 1317 REPRESENTATIVE MARTIN stated video gaming would absolutely wipe out any small people. Individuals that would control video gaming would also control gambling. The National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) for three consecutive years had ruled out and asked Congress to prohibit video gambling statewide because it was addictive. Number 1359 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked what was the payout limit on a single prize? MR. POSHARD replied the limit was $500 per ticket. Number 1384 MR. REED stated, for the record, that he was not advocating the passage of machine legislation. If accountability was the goal, it was an example of the easiest way to get there. Number 1403 CHAIR JAMES stated there used to be pull-tab parlors that sold other items such as shirts. However, in the audit process for the Charitable Gaming Division the sales were based on the inventory rather than the actual sales. She would prefer that the pull-tab parlors sold other items, but belied the audit process was the reason why they did not sell other items. CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held over until a later date yet to be determined.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|