|
|
INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
|
|
TAPES 11-12 A,B |
JANUARY 25, 2005 9:00 AM STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
Members Present: Senator Ryan Deckert, Chair
Senator Charles Starr, Vice Chair
Senator Gary George
Senator Rick Metsger
Senator Floyd Prozanski
Witnesses Present: Dale Penn, Oregon State Lottery
Staff Present: Paul Warner, Legislative Revenue Officer
Mazen Malik, Economist
Barbara Guardino, Committee Assistant
TAPE 11, SIDE A
|
004 |
Chair Deckert |
Calls meeting to order at 9:06 a.m.
|
|
INFORMATIONAL MEETING |
||
|
020 |
Mazen Malik |
Begins slide presentation on Oregon State Lottery (EXHIBIT 1), laying groundwork for this week’s discussion. Lottery Commission will take up the issue of approving line games.
|
|
030 |
Malik |
Discusses Lottery Terminology – Revenue and prizes, net receipts, expense, net proceeds, page 2.
|
|
057 |
Malik |
Discusses Lottery History, created in 1984 by initiative petition.
|
|
070 |
Malik |
Continues discussion on Lottery History beginning with 1999 legislature action, page 3.
|
|
088 |
Malik |
Discusses Traditional Lottery Games, 2003-04 Net Receipts, pie chart breakdown.
|
|
102 |
Malik |
Discusses Traditional Game Revenue, page 4. Examines Traditional Game Revenue in percentages.
|
|
127 |
Sen. George |
Asks why prize spread keeps getting broader.
|
|
130 |
Malik |
Responds, this is done partly to maintain public interest. Also, video lottery has a higher threshold for prizes.
|
|
150 |
Malik |
Resumes discussion on Video Lottery Revenue and revenue percentages, page 5.
|
|
164 |
Malik |
Discusses Total Lottery Revenue, page 6, combining traditional and video. Growth in prizes has defied all logic and models. Discusses percentages of total lottery revenue including net revenue, prizes and expenses. Revenue continues to decline while prizes increase.
|
|
203 |
Malik |
Discusses Lottery Transfers. In particular, bonds continue to increase, page 7.
|
|
219 |
Malik |
Explains 2003-05 Lottery Distributions, pie chart.
|
|
234 |
Malik |
Discusses Issues, which legislators will address this week, page 8. These include line games, video payout percentage, retailer compensation and lottery expense. Projects intake from line games for next biennium.
|
|
266 |
Chair Deckert |
Did the state anticipate the lottery would grow as it has?
|
|
270 |
Malik |
Responds, the state did not expect the growth. That is true for all of gambling.
|
|
290 |
Paul Warner |
Agrees, growth exceeded expectations, but the going has not all been smooth. It is possible to over-estimate it, as occurred in the 1995-97 session.
|
|
315 |
Malik |
Discusses Video Prize Percent, page 9.
|
|
324 |
Malik |
Discusses Annual Growth: Video, trends since 1993.
|
|
346 |
Malik |
Discusses Compensation Rates (old rates), page 10.
|
|
363 |
Malik |
Discusses Video Compensation Rates (new rates 2004), for an overall blended rate of about 28.8%. Looking at year to date through December 2004 runs approximately 30.3 percent.
|
|
396 |
Malik |
Discusses Retailer Compensation, one view of revenue, page 11. Debate ensuing on who gets the better deal, the state or the retailer.
|
|
426 |
Malik |
Discusses another view of revenue, two points of view in the debate. Compares the two views, page 12.
|
TAPE 12, SIDE A
|
031 |
Malik |
Concludes presentation of Oregon Lottery with discussion on Lottery Expense Percents, page 12. With introduction of video games expenses dropped considerably from 16%.
|
|
059 |
Dale Penn |
Gives brief definition of line games. They are similar to slot machines but don’t have arms and don’t pay out in cash. Begins slide presentation, Overview Presentation to Senate Revenue Committee (EXHIBIT 2). Most slot machines can be adjusted to offer line games.
|
|
080 |
Penn |
Mission Statement, page 3. Goal is to maximize profits. Integrity is of utmost importance.
|
|
101 |
Penn |
Explains Organizational Structure of lottery, page 4.
|
|
129 |
Penn |
Skips to page 7, Game Development. Discusses changes that have occurred over the years.
|
|
146 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks why Oregon does not expand lottery to sports action. Follow-up questions.
|
|
156 |
Penn |
Responds, Oregon was sued by National Football League. Oregon is the only state with a program that allows for betting on games. As punishment, NFL will not allow any professional football team to come here.
|
|
176 |
Penn |
Discusses Game Timeline, page 8.
|
|
193 |
Penn |
Explains Planning/Budget Process, page 9.
|
|
198 |
Penn |
Reviews FY04 Revenue and Expense Distribution, Traditional Games, page 10. Compares this with Video Lottery, page 11. Prize payouts for traditional games is at 64.8 %; video lottery prize payout is 93.82%. It is important to be precise about what is an appropriate payout. Commission will examine this issue for line games.
|
|
240 |
Penn |
Discusses Contingency Reserve & Administrative Savings, page 12.
|
|
265 |
Penn |
Discusses 05/07 Capital Requirements, page 13. This includes replacing obsolete equipment. The software on the old machines cannot support line games.
|
|
335 |
Sen. Metsger |
Asks if commission is satisfied with past negotiations with manufacturers for lease or purchase of machines in regard to support and replacement.
|
|
364 |
Penn |
Responds, organization looks at this now. Oregon is the only video lottery that confines itself to poker. Other states have line games. Most manufacturers get a percentage of the take. Not so in Oregon, which owns its machines.
|
|
425 |
Penn |
Discusses Update of Oregon Lottery Audits, page 14. Oregon’s lottery meets or exceeds best practices.
|
|
441 |
Chair Deckert |
Comments, it sounds as though past audit problems have been dealt with.
|
|
448 |
Penn |
Responds affirmatively.
|
|
464 |
Penn |
Discusses Forecast 05/07, page 15. Governor’s budget requests $933 million in transfers from the Oregon Lottery. This biennium lottery will transfer $770 million, although $813 million is projected.
|
TAPE 11, SIDE B
|
041 |
Penn |
Continues discussion on forecast with a comparison to income spent on video retail network games in West Virginia minus its casino operation.
|
|
075 |
Penn |
Discusses Video Lottery, Net Sales, page 16, shows growth of video lottery sales.
|
|
082 |
Penn |
Concludes with discussion on 20 Years of Doing Good Things for Oregon. The lottery has produced over $4 billion since its inception. Anticipates lottery could transfer $1 billion every biennium.
|
|
106 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks questions and makes comments concerning the issue of retailer compensation. What is the rationale behind a 26.5% recommendation?
|
|
137 |
Penn |
Responds, Oregon is being sued over commission rates, which are a blended rate between 28 and 29%.
|
|
174 |
Penn |
Expresses concern that the video product is projected to produce $660 million for state budget without discussing line games. If line games come into play, that number rises to $780 million as base. Over the last 2 years this retail network produced $600 million, and state would reduce that by 10%, while requiring retailers to produce additional revenues. All this and they would also take a 50% cut in returns. Line games will increase sales. Problem is to identify how much. Retailers are the lottery’s sales force.
|
|
247 |
Penn |
Continues comments on retail compensation. Oregon has the lowest commission rates in the United States. Difference is other states purchase their machines. Compares Oregon’s rates to Canada. Rate will be under debate over the next two months.
|
|
305 |
Chair Deckert |
Agrees, Oregon Lottery is trying to find proper compensation. Would argue that Oregon has guessed high. Given this, he questions the wisdom of signing 6-year contracts.
|
|
326 |
Penn |
Responds to question of 6-year issue.
|
|
414 |
Sen. Prozanski |
Asks, how does the lottery define a reasonable rate of return? Expresses concern on state’s increasing dependence on lottery funds. Asks Penn to provide information on how many retail licenses exist. Understands higher-end restaurants such as Elmer’s and Shari’s are getting into the lottery. Believes the lottery is helping the hospitality industry make a greater profit.
|
TAPE 12, SIDE B
|
030 |
Penn |
Responds to Sen. Prozanski’s points. Does not have a good definition of a reasonable rate of return. Hopes a definition will come out of the upcoming litigation.
|
|
078 |
Sen. Metsger |
Believes it is important to indicate that there are arguments that counter Mr. Penn’s arguments. The original intent of the lottery was not to create state support of gaming organizations, but to help support restaurants as well as the state. Other issue is deciding a reasonable percentage. If someone starts an enterprise and predicts smaller revenues, then a greater return will be needed.
|
|
109 |
Sen. Metsger |
Asks how the governor will get around the constitutional limitations of the lottery.
|
|
116 |
Penn |
Responds, Ways and Means Committee has asked for attorney general’s opinion on this issue. Governor’s office sees state police as connected to ability to support economic development.
|
|
149 |
Chair Deckert |
Asks what role the legislature can play in setting commission rates. Follow-up questions.
|
|
159 |
Penn |
Encourages legislators to participate on the issue of line games.
|
|
198 |
Warner |
Provides information requested in January 24 involving the local option issue. See School Local Option Property Tax (EXHIBIT 4). Refers to research report pages 6-8.
|
|
251 |
Chair Deckert |
Adjourns meeting at 10:45 a.m. |
Tape Log Submitted by,
Barbara Guardino, Committee Assistant Reviewed by Kim Taylor James
Exhibit Summary:
1. Oregon Lottery, 2005 presentation, Malik, 12 pp.
2. Oregon Lottery Overview Presentation to State Revenue Committee, Penn, 17 pp.
3. Oregon Lottery Handouts, Penn, 60 pp.
4. Research Report, School Local Option Property Tax, Warner, 8 pp.