Legislature(2005 - 2006)
04/21/2005 04:28 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB272 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 2005
4:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act relating to card rooms and card operations."
- MOVED HB 272 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 272
SHORT TITLE: CARD ROOMS & OPERATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOTT
04/18/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/18/05 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
04/21/05 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL O'HARE, Staff
to Representative Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 272 on behalf of
Representative Kott, sponsor.
ED MOEGLEIN
Alaska Charitable Nonprofits Organizations
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 272.
PERRY GREEN
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 272 and answered
questions regarding the bill.
BRETT FRIED, Economist
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 272.
LARRY MEYERS, Deputy Director
Tax Division
Department of Revenue
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 272.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 4:43:21 PM. Representatives
Anderson, Crawford, Lynn, Kott, LeDoux, Guttenberg and Rokeberg
were present at the call to order.
HB 272-CARD ROOMS & OPERATIONS
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 272, "An Act relating to card rooms and card
operations."
4:44:27 PM
MICHAEL O'HARE, Staff to Representative Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 272 on behalf of Representative Kott,
sponsor. He remarked that popularity of poker has grown
significantly in recent years. He stated:
Due to this growth in interest, the intent of HB 272
is to allow social card games to be played in a
tightly controlled public environment. Alaska can
address the trend and bring this popular pastime in to
compliance with the safety and revenue laws of the
state. The types of games allowed to be played are
nonbanking card games, which means games where players
play against each other, not against the house. ...
Games are played for tokens or chips, not negotiable
currency. And the games we're talking about are
poker, pan, rummy, bridge, and cribbage. The limited
number of licenses for card room operations would be
only for municipalities of 30,000 people or more, and
may not exceed the total population divided by 30,000
people.
The licensee is required to pay a nonrefundable
application fee of $25,000 with the Department of
Revenue. They are also required to post a $500,000
cash bond at least 60 days in advance of commencement
of a card room operation. They are required to pay an
annual fee of $10,000 for each card table in the
establishment. They are required to be fingerprinted.
They are required to pay all investigative costs
incurred over the initial $25,000 application fee for
investigation of background. They are required to
host quarterly tournaments with proceeds to be
distributed to a nonprofit educational institution or
group designated by the owner. The license is good
for five years. An individual cannot get a license if
they're convicted of a felony, knowingly falsify their
application, or are currently a manager or owner or
director or managerial employee of an existing
operation, or the employer of a manager or owner or
director or managerial employee of an existing
operation.
MR. O'HARE continued:
[House Bill 272] allows for the Department of Revenue
to strictly enforce regulations imposed on card room
operations, allowing card players to enjoy a safe,
regulated playing environment. It also gives back to
the community by creating jobs, supporting nonprofit
educational charities, and again bringing revenue to
the state. There is a fiscal note as well as
sectional analysis in your packets. There's a legal
opinion with regards to the effect of this bill with
regards to Indian gaming. And there's also an example
spreadsheet giving the example of possible gross sales
per number of card tables in the establishment as well
as an estimated employee hiring information.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that poker has become very
popular. He reiterated that there would be a $25,000
nonrefundable application fee for the license, which means that
if the department decides not to issue the license, the money
stays at the department. He noted that there would also be an
advisory board consisting of five members appointed by the
governor, and that board would make recommendations to the
department regarding the operation of the facilities.
4:51:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT also pointed out that there would be a
$10,000 fee required for each card table in the facility. He
alluded to recent newspaper articles about "the amount of
activity that's occurring around the state in these card rooms."
4:52:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX noticed that Section 05.18.030 on page 2,
lines 11-23, required that the wagering may not be conducted
with money or negotiable currency. She said, "I assume at the
end of the day, though, you can cash in the chips."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that this assumption was correct.
He said that the rules would be like those used in 40 other
states where people cannot actually take cash to the table.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented, "Just because something is
popular and 'everybody does it,' does that mean we should
legalize it? ... Should we legalize everything that we might
possibly get revenue from?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded that it is up to the legislature
to determine what activities it wants to license and make legal.
He said that it's a policy call.
4:56:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that if the bill was limited to
boroughs with a population of 30,000 or more, and allowed one
card room per 30,000 people, this would mean that eight or nine
parlors could be in operation in Anchorage, two or three in
Fairbanks, and one in Juneau. He asked, "But why are we doing
this? Are we not discriminating against the people who live in
the Bush? Why can't they have [a card room]? ... Why do we
think that people who live in the villages are less responsible
than those who live in the city?"
4:57:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied:
If you do the numbers, you can probably conclude that
there could be upwards of 13 card rooms throughout the
state. I think you have to recognize that it's going
to take a certain population base to provide the
revenue that's needed to run these card rooms. [A
population of] 30,000 was a number that we felt ...
could support a card room. ... I think it depends on,
number one, how many card tables are in each card
room, and number two, whether or not you have an
entity out in rural Alaska ... that can post a
$500,000 cash bond plus the $10,000 per table on an
annual basis. ... In addition to that, it would be
extremely burdensome on the department to do the
required checks periodically, which in this bill, the
doors are open to [the department].
4:58:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said, "Basically you won't let competition
take its own course.... Why not have a certificate of need?
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that it is relatively risky for a
company to come up with the initial revenue to get a card room
opened, and he didn't think there was anyone in rural Alaska
with that kind of upfront cash. He commented that if this idea
proved to be successful, the legislature could make additional
changes to the law. He said, "Right now, since this is kind of
a trial, we should allow for the best degree of success to
occur."
5:01:07 PM
ED MOEGLEIN, Alaska Charitable Nonprofits Organizations,
commented that his organization was formed last year to "put
things together to make sure of protecting our rights in
charitable nonprofits and our ability to earn funds." He asked
if this bill would pave the way to allowing Native corporations
to operate casinos in Alaska.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if Mr. MOEGLEIN's concern was that if
casinos were legalized in Alaska they might take from nonprofit
charitable earnings.
5:03:35 PM
MR. MOEGLEIN replied that this was incorrect. He clarified,
"It's more that if gambling is legalized, will Native
corporations then be able to have casinos on their land?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that Legislative Legal Services had
issued the opinion that the bill would not impact Indian gaming
operations in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked, "Is that exclusive of Type 2
Games? Would that not be allowed in Indian lands if they were
permitted under this statute?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT responded, "On Type 2, yes."
5:04:19 PM
GUY WARREN, Stated Clerk, Presbytery of Alaska, explained that
the Presbytery of Alaska consists of 15 member churches. He
stated:
We believe that this bill represents a significant
step towards situations will not be in the best
interest of the state government or the citizens it
serves. It will increase the social problems we face
as a state and it will results in decreased state
control through the introduction of increased Indian
gaming. ... Our research into this would clearly
indicate this would permit Class II gaming under
Indian control, and I think it's important to note
that that would be under Indian control. The various
protections this bill provides for fees, licenses,
etcetera ... would not apply to Indian gaming, as we
read that. The only oversight of that would be at the
federal level, at the Indian Gaming Commission. ...
The people of the State of Alaska have spoken on the
issue of gambling. In 1990, a measure came before the
people to expand gambling and this measure was
defeated by over 40,000 votes, a two-to-one margin. I
would hope that the legislature would think very
carefully before attempting to override the vote of
the people on that.
MR. WARREN remarked that he is aware of the popularity of the
poker television shows, but he noted that the viewer is not
seeing the hundreds of players who lost substantial amounts of
money during the course of the tournament. He agreed with the
earlier comment that just because something is popular is not
enough reason to legalize it.
5:07:39 PM
MR. WARREN continued:
Our state's problems with illegal gambling is not
nearly so desperate as to take the significant gamble
this bill proposes. As a means of encouraging
tourism, it should be remember that the natural
attractions we already have for bringing tourists to
our state are unmatched and provide a few better
reason for traveling to Alaska than any card room ever
could.
5:07:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked Mr. Warren, "You said your
opinion differs from the legal analysis that we have from
[Legislative Legal Services]. I was wondering if you had that
in writing and who that was from."
MR. WARREN replied that the material that he had distributed to
the committee included several excerpts from the Indian Gaming
Commission web site, where Class II gaming is defined as
including nonbanked card games that are played exclusively
against other players. Reading from the web site printout, he
said, "Tribes retain the authority to conduct, license, and
regulate Class II gaming so long as the state in which the tribe
is located permits such gaming for any purpose." He noted that
he had also referenced two opinions issued by the General
Council of the Indian Gaming Commission, in which a poker club
and nonbank poker are deemed to be Class II games. He
reiterated his conclusion that under this bill, [Native
corporations] would be allowed to open card rooms that the state
wouldn't control.
5:09:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Warren had any legal advice
when he [assembled the material that he had distributed to the
committee.]
MR. WARREN replied that he did not seek legal advice. However
he said that the information he found on the web site was easy
to understand.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed that it appeared that the games
listed in the bill would be considered Class II games. He
stated, "The question is whether or not we have to enter into a
tribal-state compact, and what the terms of those would be. ...
That's certainly something the committee needs to look into.
There seems to be more unanswered questions here than
answers...." He asked Mr. Warren if he was aware of any
professional-type illegal poker games going on in the Juneau
area.
MR. WARREN replied that he doesn't gamble and therefore he isn't
aware of any gambling activities.
5:11:43 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON commented that there were a lot of legal
questions, but the commerce issues were pretty straightforward.
PERRY GREEN explained that Class II gaming, in this case, refers
to bingo and pull tabs, and he said, "The Natives could have
been doing this many weeks, months, years ago had they wanted
to." He said pointed out that the recent issue of the Alaska
Airlines magazine had an article on poker. He commented that in
the Palm Springs area, retirees play for hours at a time during
the day and young people go out and play at night. He said,
"Everybody enjoys playing poker; to deny them that in this state
seems foolish since it's already allowed in 44 other states."
MR. PERRY explained that there are poker games that now have
prizes of up to $800 million. He commented that poker leagues
are forming around the country.
5:15:35 PM
MR. GREEN commented:
What benefit would be to the municipality that
institutes a poker game? Well, they wouldn't have to
go to the after-hours places where ... you can buy
drugs, where you can pay a lot more to play, and
that's where you can get robbed. In the past six
months we've had two armed robberies of after-hours
places in Anchorage. ... The problem is what we have
now. By regulating it, by having a good operation, by
somebody being a card operator to facilitate an honest
game in an honest enterprise: that's what people want
and seek.
5:16:35 PM
MR. GREEN commented that many Alaskans play poker on the
Internet and therefore the money is leaving the state. He said
that money should stay in Alaska to "enhance the economy of
Alaska."
CHAIR ANDERSON remarked that the National Conference of
Legislative Gaming States reported last year that there's likely
over $100 million spent on Internet gaming, and he speculated
that that number has tripled now because of the popularity.
MR. GREEN replied that that money doesn't stay within the United
States but instead goes to Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,
England, and the Jersey Islands. He continued, "The question is
"Why not in Alaska? What not create some jobs? Why not put it
into an environment where people can enjoy it?" He noted that
he is not advocating for casinos.
5:19:12 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON commented that he has been told that the average
expenditure on pull tabs for regular players is over $100 each
session. He noted that there are concerns that some individuals
might have gambling problems and ultimately gamble their money
away.
MR. GREEN remarked:
Let me talk about who plays poker and who plays
rippies [pull tabs]. People who play poker are
usually employed. ... They're looking to do some
recreation; they're not able to ski anymore, they
don't have the time to go hunting or fishing, ... so
they go down and play a few hours of poker and relax.
... But the pulltab player is a different player. You
don't play poker and keep on losing and losing and
losing, and then say, "I'm going to get it all back."
You say, "Well, I'm not a good poker player." And you
don't find the problem gamer as a poker player; you
find losers and winners, but you find losers and
winners when you invest in the stock market.
5:21:01 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON said, "I don't think you're here to counter the
morality of [gambling]; you're here ... to state that probably
the majority of Alaskans, 51, 52, maybe 60 percent or more,
would support this with regard to like a state poll, certainly
would frequent these establishments."
MR. GREEN estimated that about 80 percent of the population
would think that it was fine to have card rooms.
5:22:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD turned to Section 05.18.230 on page 12,
lines 5-13, which require that the holder of an owner's license
hold quarterly card tournaments to benefit a nonprofit
educational institution or group. He asked who these
educational institutions are and how are they chosen.
MR. GREEN replied that each individual operator would choose the
institution, and he listed examples such as the University of
Alaska, Alaska Pacific University, a church-sponsored Sunday
school, or for a scholarship for a Native group. He said that a
smart operator would be able to pick a different institution
each time.
5:24:54 PM
MR. GREEN recalled that he ran a card tournament for the chamber
of commerce about 10 years ago during which he raised $60,000.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT pointed out that the bill says that the
beneficiary could only receive funds once a year, and so the
operator would be required to alternate beneficiaries.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD applauded Mr. Green for the good work
that he has done for the state over the years, but he stated, "I
have just never been a fan of for-profit gambling."
MR. GREEN opined that there are have to be the opponents, but he
has a right to play what he enjoys as long as he doesn't hurt
anybody else.
5:27:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated:
We're the last state in the union that doesn't have
for-profit gambling of some form or shape. I don't
want to go there; I don't want to get to that point,
because I think that it eventually shrinks the
economy. ... We have [an] apparatus for charitable
gaming in this state. Why couldn't we do all of these
things that you want to do and set it up as a
charitable gaming operation.... The profit, rather
than going to the state, should go to our local
charities, and run it just the same way as we run our
charitable gaming operations today.
MR. GREEN replied that under the very heavy burden of $10,000
per table, some operators will lose money.
5:29:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD mentioned that he has an amendment to
lower the fees to the same level as the charitable gaming fees.
5:29:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented, "[Charitable gaming] is one
of the most corrupt, messed up, unfair systems probably in the
United States." He stated surprise that Representative
Crawford, as an opponent of gaming, would suggest this. He
said:
The whole system is broken right now but for the fact
that the charities lobbied to support it, it's almost
impossible for this legislature to take on this big
gorilla we have in this state, which I think is an
awful system. The state benefits very little, and the
operators drive it, and the charities suffer from it
and don't get equitable treatment. So I think if we
are looking at an expansion gaming, I think we've got
to make sure it doesn't come under the same umbrella
of corruption that that system.
5:31:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that he does not want to expand
gambling, but he thinks it will probably happen whether he likes
it or not and so he was trying to make it have the least affect
on the state. He said that he doesn't like the charitable
gaming situation as it is either, and he would encourage its
reformation. He said, "I don't want to have legalized for-
profit gambling."
5:33:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned attention to Article 3 on page 9
of the bill, and said that he was concerned that if there were
limitations on the number of licenses, there would be great
competition for those. He asked how the state would choose who
receives the licenses.
BRETT FRIED, Economist, Tax Division, Department of Revenue,
deferred to the deputy director of his division.
LARRY MEYERS, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue, pointed out that Section 05.18.210 on page 10, lines
12-29, lists the factors considered in granting owner's
licenses. He said that it is his understanding that based on
these considerations the department would determine who were the
best qualified to receive owner's licenses.
5:35:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned to page 12, lines 5-13 regarding
tournaments held where the proceeds go to charities. He asked
if there was a definition of what proceeds are. He then turned
to page 8, lines 6-17 regarding the transfer of licenses, and he
commented that this would presumably create a property right and
a value for the license, similar to that of a liquor license.
He asked if that assumption was correct.
MR. MEYERS replied, "It does appear that there is ... transfer
and there should be a right. I can say that this bill gives the
department extensive privileges to right regulations, and I
think that we would partake in that."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented:
It's troubled me over the years that we have created
property rights and all kinds of things, like limited
entry permits for fisheries, liquor licenses, all
kinds of benefits that grow in value, and the
licensees end up profiting by selling those licenses,
and the state gets nothing. So I think we ought to
consider that we're going to create a personal
property right and evaluation in these licenses, and
if there's any alienation or transfer that ... the
state share at least 50-50 in the new proceeds, or
something.
5:37:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked the department to expand on how
it would choose between two applicants to determine which one
would receive the license.
MR. MEYERS replied that the only thing he could do would be to
read what's provided for in the bill on the criteria. He
reminded the committee that there is an oversight commission
that would "help in the policy matters."
5:38:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the rationale is behind the
limited entry.
MR MEYERS responded that he wasn't sure if he could address that
because the department didn't draft the bill. He suggested that
perhaps Representative Kott or Mr. Green could answer that
question.
5:38:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX restated her question, "Why are we just
saying that there can only be one [card room per population of
30,000]? Why aren't we letting market forces regulate it? And
if more than one can make a living, that's fine."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that he established this as a
threshold because he assume there would need to be a minimum
population base of about 30,000 to support a card room. He
noted that if after a while "it looks like there's others that
are interested and if the numbers justify it, then we could also
revisit the issue: amend the section of the bill that calls for
a minimum of 30,000 people."
5:40:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX again reiterated her question, clarifying
that she wasn't questioning the minimum population requirement,
but the limited number of licenses.
CHAIR ANDERSON answered, "I think Representative Kott's saying,
because they wanted to make this on a trial basis and prove
their legislative intent correctly, and so they wanted to fix an
amount."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented, "I don't believe that if you had
a population base less than 30,000 it would support multiple
card rooms in that location."
CHAIR ANDERSON asked, "But what about over 30,000? Why can't we
have any amount?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said:
It's based on what we projected; that you need to have
a 30,000 base population for one [card room] and you
just layer that. ... In Anchorage, for instance, you
could have I think upwards of eight card rooms. I
don't envision that happening. ... I think the most
you'd probably have is three or four ... because the
market forces would tend to take over.
5:42:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX clarified:
When you have a limited number of licenses being
granted by the state, ... those licenses take on a
value unto themselves, which ... could be worth a lot
of money on transfer. And we don't say, when we issue
a license for a restaurant, for example, that we're
going to limit it so that there can only be one
restaurant per every 30,000 people.
CHAIR ANDERSON replied, "We do with liquor licenses."
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that over the years, because
of limited permits, he has seen gaming change from being
controlled by the nonprofits to being controlled by the gaming
operators. He asked, "What has happened to enforcement over the
years and funding for enforcement? ... Because any time we open
up gaming in this state, ... you're liable to see those same
issues come up."
MR. MEYERS pointed out that the fiscal note provides for four
investigators currently and one head investigator, depending
upon the number of operations. He noted, "It is an unknown at
this time because we really don't know the owners we will be
licensing or how many card tables."
MR. FRIED clarified the question for Mr. Meyers.
MR. MEYERS explained that there are two investigators in the
state dealing with bingo and raffles. He said that with the
funds from the new tobacco tax, there are currently five
investigators that are able to go out in the field and conduct
both tobacco and gaming investigations simultaneously. He
noted, "We have seen a marked increase in our ability to have
oversight in charitable gaming."
CHAIR ANDERSON commented that if there were an increase in
investigators and only three or four card rooms in the state,
those investigators could actually spend part of their time
investigating pull tab, bingo, and raffle operations.
MR. MEYERS responded that this is a possibility; it would be at
the discretion of the legislature whether there would be an
increase in staff or not.
5:46:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there was any relationship
between a license such as this and any kind of Title 4 license
for alcoholic beverages. He said, "It seems to me there
typically would be a desire on the part of an operator to have
some type of a beverage dispensary or ... restaurant-eating
place type license to serve; in terms of enforcement,
prohibitions of either, or any correlation."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT replied that right now he doesn't see any
correlation. He noted that each operator could apply for a
liquor license through the local controls. He stated that
because playing poker takes strategy, a lot of the people who
play it don't drink much alcohol. "This is not like slot
machines or pull tabs," he remarked. He said that a card room
may get a liquor license so that people who are waiting to play
can buy a drink.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned to Article 4 on page 17 of the
bill, which addresses crimes. He noted that on page 18, line
13, it says that it would be a class C felony to cheats at card
games. He inquired as to how the state would deal with this.
5:51:00 PM
MR. GREEN commented that the phrase "cheats at a card game" is
referring to marking the cards or something of that nature. He
commented that this should not occur in the card rooms that are
being proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he is particularly concerned
about the Indian gaming ramifications of this bill.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that he will relay these concerns to the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
CHAIR ANDERSON closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows
(original punctuation provided):
Page 9, Line 15;
Delete, "$25,000"
Insert, "$250"
Page 11, Line 1;
Delete, "$10,000"
Insert, "$100"
Page 11, Line 3;
Delete, "$10,000"
Insert, "$100"
CHAIR ANDERSON objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that this amendment would
change the license fees to approximately what it would be if it
were under the charitable gaming statutes.
5:54:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented, "I think when you look at the
license applications, it's important to recognize that a
substantial portion of that license [application fee] is going
to go to the department during the investigation of the
potential licensee. I can envision, with fingerprinting [and]
background checks that the $25,000 is going to be eaten up
substantially." He said that if an applicant is willing to pay
the $25,000 application fee, that person is a legitimate
contender.
CHAIR ANDERSON added that the enforcement officer's salary and
the other salaries and fees that this would be applied to might
be affected adversely [if the application fee were lowered.]
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that he has a second amendment
that would address this; the second amendment would provide the
state with revenues under the charitable gaming statutes to have
on going revenues pay for regulation and enforcement. He said
that his main reason for offering these amendments is because he
doesn't want the state to become addicted to gambling money. He
remarked, "It's going to cause enough of a disruption in enough
people's lives as it is without getting the state hooked on this
money for our general fund."
5:56:15 PM
CHAIR ANDERSON maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Guttenberg and
Crawford voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representatives LeDoux,
Kott, Rokeberg, and Anderson voted against it. Representative
Lynn was absent for the vote. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by
a vote of 2-4.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 24-
LS0916\A.1, Kurtz, 4/21/05, as follows:
Page 9, line 9, following "person":
Insert "that is a charitable organization, a
civic organization, or a service organization, as
those terms are defined in AS 05.15.690,"
Page 9, lines 19 - 21:
Delete "if the applicant is an individual, two
sets of the individual's fingerprints;
(3) if the applicant is not an individual,"
Page 10, line 6, following "information;":
Insert "or"
Page 10, lines 7 - 9:
Delete "is an officer, a director, or a
managerial employee of a person described in (1) or
(2) of this subsection; or
(4) employs an individual described in (1),
(2), or (3)"
Insert "employs an individual described in (1) or
(2)"
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that Amendment 2 would put
card rooms under the charitable gaming statutes and "takes us
away from the for-profit gambling." He commented, "That way
there won't be ... the impetus to make this continue to grow."
He shared with the committee that his hometown in Louisiana
started with only a racetrack and now it has seven large
casinos, which he doesn't want to happen in Alaska. He said, "I
think this is a bad road to go down because it's a downward
spiral and it shrinks the economy rather than grows the
economy." He commented that in one town the whole economy is so
hooked on gambling that the local residents can't get away from
it; "there's no way to extricate themselves from that tar baby."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Guttenberg and
Crawford voted in favor of Amendment 2. Representatives LeDoux,
Kott, Rokeberg, and Anderson voted against it. Representative
Lynn was absent for the vote. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by
a vote of 2-4.
6:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 3, as follows
(original punctuation provided):
Page 12, Line 6;
Following; "with"
Insert; "all of"
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated that he has long been concerned
about the effect of gaming on nonprofits. He explained that
Amendment 3 would ensure that all of the proceeds of a
tournament would go to the designated nonprofit. He said, "If
we don't say, 'all of,' I'm not sure where it's going."
CHAIR ANDERSON maintained his objection and stated that there
has to be a fee that goes to the person establishing and
managing the game.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if the committee could get a
definition of "proceeds" to see if this is gross or net revenue.
MR. MEYER relayed his understanding that a certain amount of
money would be designated at the front end to go to the charity.
CHAIR ANDERSON concluded, "And that's a proceed."
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Rokeberg,
Guttenberg, and Crawford voted in favor of Amendment 3.
Representatives LeDoux, Kott, and Anderson voted against it.
Representative Lynn was absent for the vote. Therefore,
Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-3.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HB 272 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Anderson,
LeDoux, and Rokeberg voted in favor of HB 272, as amended.
Representatives Crawford and Guttenberg voted against it.
Representative Lynn was absent for the vote. Therefore, HB 272
was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee by a vote of 4-2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
6:04:15 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|