The view of our organization on gambling (lottery and charitable gaming) in general has not changed. As noted in pre-liminary material on page 306, "A significant portion of Virginians believe that there is a negative impact on morality associated with gambling. The introduction and use of electronic pull tabs will very likely increase at least the dollar value of gambling in Virginia. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to compare the benefits of increased business for manufacturers and suppliers of electronic games of chance and the benefits of increased revenue for charitable organizations to use for their charitable purposes to the potential negative moral impact of increased gambling. That is intrinsically a subjective value judgment."

I wish to empahsize my concerns on expansion in the pull-tabs and electonic gambling and doubt the benefit to charitable organizations is as great as the benefit to the industry which enables it. While I am not specifically speaking against the current changes, as these changes are needed to properly regulate this industry, it is my intent to carefully follow the end result of these changes. 

If it is determined that greater negative impact is occurring, we will do all in our power to curb charitable gaming activities. Our economy must empasize work over chance for producing income.

As a long term member of a medium to small size bingo operation, I am all for any new regulation that would help bingo operations increase its customer base, and improve charitable gaming for our customers. I believe the use of electronic pull tab, instant bingo machines would help us all, but probably the bigger operations much more than the medium to small operations. As a smaller operation, I do have, and has always had a concern with the CGC's regulation governing the payment of reasonable fees for the preparation of the quarterly and annual financial report. It states under Section 11 VAC15-40-50 'Conduct of Bingo' that:

N. Individuals who are not members of an organization or are members who do not participate in any charitable gaming activity may be paid reasonable fees for the preparation of the quarterly and annual financial reports.    

Our interpretation of that paragraph is that we can only pay reasonable fees for financial report preparation to someone outside of our membership (i.e, bookkeeper or CPA at a much higher cost) or to someone inside our membership (who don't participate in the operation of bingo).  Why?   We suggest the regulation should read:  

N. Individuals who are not members of an organization, or members of the organization who provide the accounting functions for the organization may be paid reasonable fees for the daily accounting, and preparation of the quarterly and annual financial reports.

CGC allows a member of an organization to receive a reasonable fee for being a caller, for providng security, and for managing the game, but not for doing the difficult job of daily, quarterly, and annual accounting. Small to medium operations do not necessarily have the funds to hire this function out, nor do we have enough individuals who are not a part of the operation of bingo who have this skill set.  Financial reporting is very important and smaller operations need someone to consistently provide this service to thems at a low cost. Thanks for your consideration.   

I call in Va beach i think eliminating the winner take all and cutting the prize limit to 1   1000  dollars jackpot had an extreme impact on the game of bingo and its players.I hear everyday about players leaving the game of bingo,saying it was fun knowing you had a pretty good chance winning 1000 dollars with 3 pots that can reach 1000.Now they have 1 chance to do that.the fun is not there anymore and as a caller we have heard about every word in the book about us and several groups. I believe if you made it where you can add another 1000 to the program for jackpots making it total of 2000 would help alot.the 55 game was great and i hear very little about that.Or propose to bring back the winner take all would be ok that what plyers would love. 

I just given this onto a friend who was doing a little research on that. And he in fact bought me dinner because I found it for him. So let me rephrase that: Thnx for the treat! But yeah Thankx for spending the time to talk about this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. 

11VAC15-40-300. Player device general requirements. Line 1704-1707:

H. 1704 The number of player devices, other than those player devices that are handheld,
1705 present at any premise at which charitable gaming is conducted shall be limited to one
1706 device for every 50 permissible occupants under the maximum occupancy as
1707 determined pursuant to the Uniform Statewide Building Code.

This should also limit the number of handheld pull-tab devices as well as non hand held- used exclusively for pull tabs. The concern voiced by charities is that the non-bingo operations in clubs, which are not bound by the same licensing hours of operation limitations as charitable bingo, will begin to take players away from their games just as the sweepstakes slots did last year. The charities have requested that the handheld devices used for session bingo not be limited for electronic session bingo or electronic pull tabs.

In reference to the comment from the caller Mark Mckenney, I do believe a modified version of the old winner-take-all game would be beneficial to a number of the bingo operations in the State. The old form in which the game winner received the total amount collected up to $1000.00 was great for the player but not good from a profit perspective for the gaming operation when normal collections were less than $1000.00. Eliminating that game and increasing the progressive games to me made sense, and has helped our attendance. However, I do believe that allowing a limited number (i.e., two or less) of regular games like winner-take-all to pay more than $100.00 would be good. For example, reinstating the winner-take-all game with the same rules but a maximum payout of $500.00 would help attendance and provide a much better profit margin for small to medium sized operations. To help stem the decline of those (small to medium sized) bingo operations in Virginia, I hope the suggestions posted on this board concerning payment of reasonable fees, two-year registration, winner-take-all, etc. be given consideration. Thanks for allowing me to voice my opinion.       

1. 11 VAC 15-40-10. Definition of "flare"

a. Issue – "Flare" is defined as "a piece of paper, cardboard, or similar material that bears printed information relating to the name of the manufacturer or logo, name of the game, card count, cost per play, serial number, the number of prizes to be awarded, and the specific prize amounts in a deal of instant bingo, pull-tab, or seal cards."

b. Comment/Question – "Electronic game cards" are not contemplated in the definition of "Flare" and should be added.

2. 11 VAC 15-40-10. Definition of "serial number"

a. Issue – "Serial number" is defined as "a unique number printed by the manufacturer on each bingo card in a set; each instant bingo, pull-tab, or seal card in a deal; each electronic bingo device; or each door prize ticket.

b. Comment/Question – The definition of "serial number" should include "electronic game card."

"

3. 11 VAC 15-40-50(W) – Conduct of bingo, instant bingo, pull-tabs, seal cards, event games, and raffles

a. Issue -- Subsection W provides that "A qualified organization selling instant bingo, pull-tabs, seal cards, or electronic game cards shall post a flare provided by the manufacturer at the location where such cards are sold. All such sales and prize payouts shall be in accordance with the flare for that deal.

b. Comment/Question – Can the flare provided for electronic game cards be posted electronically on the screen of the electronic game card dispenser?

4. 11 VAC 15-40-270(A)(a) – Validation system and redemption

a. Issue – Subsection A(1) provides that

"A distributed pull-tab system may utilize a voucher validation system to facilitate gaming transactions. The validation system may be entirely integrated into a distributed pull-tab system as a separate entity.

"1. Payment by voucher printer as a method of redeeming unused game plays and/or winnings on a player device is only permissible when the device is linked to an approved validation system or distributed pull-tab system that allows validation of the printed voucher."

b. Comment/Question – We had thought from the second stakeholders meeting that validation systems would be optional, not required. Subsection A(1) appears to require a validation system for paper vouchers. We do not believe it is necessary to burden charities such as fraternal clubs that may have only one or two dispensing devices in their social quarters with the expense of a validation system for paper vouchers. There are many states (e.g., Idaho, South Dakota, Louisiana, Oregon, Iowa, etc.) that have allowed dispensing of player credits on a printed voucher without requiring a validation system. Several of these states have allowed dispensing of paper vouchers without validation for over 20 years without any problems. Requiring a validation system for one or two machines in a fraternal club will make the program too expensive for many charities to participate in the program. Validation systems are more applicable to casinos or large bingo halls where more devices are placed. Virginia’s proposed program is for charities, and requiring a validation system in most charitable locations will not justify the cost. Requiring a validation system for paper vouchers can also create confusion when a charity has more than one manufacturer’s system placed in its facility. To which system do the players go? Utilizing water-marked paper for printed vouchers, which is required by the proposed regulations, provides ample security and safeguards against counterfeit. If there ever is a question regarding a certain printed voucher, the manufacturer’s central computer system that monitors each site can be used to further investigate and authenticate printed vouchers that are in question. This is done at the expense of the manufacturer and does not require the charities to incur the expense of having their own validation systems.

5. 11 VAC 40-300(F) – Player device general requirements (first issue)

a. Issue -- Subsection F provides that "A player device shall not have any of the following attributes: spinning or mechanical reels, pull hand, sounds other than an audio effect to simulate the opening of a paper pull-tab or instant bingo card, flashing lights, tower light, top box, coin tray, ticket acceptance, hopper, coin acceptor, enhanced animation, cabinet or payglass artwork, or any other attribute identified by the department."

b. Comment/Question – Although we fully understand the need to address this issue, we believe that the proposed language is too restrictive. There are certain sounds that are needed to accommodate federal Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. For example, when a player touches a button on the playing device screen, there needs to be audio feedback indicating a command was received. These sounds are not used for the purpose of entertainment or to entice a person to play a game, but to respond to the player who has touched certain areas on the screen. Furthermore, since certain audio and video animations are needed and can be subjective, we would suggest that the following added at the end of subsection F: "All audio and video animation shall be subject to approval by the department."

6. 11 VAC 15-40-300(H) – Player device general requirements (second issue)

a. Issue – Subsection H provides that "The number of player devices, other than those player devices that are handheld, present at any premise at which charitable gaming is conducted shall be limited to one device for every 50 permissible occupants under the maximum occupancy as determined pursuant to the Uniform Statewide Building Code. The department shall determine whether a player device is handheld."

b. Comment/Question – We agree and understand that there needs to be some limit on the number of player devices that can be placed in any one facility. However, the Office of Charitable Gaming repeatedly stated to stakeholders, including at its two stakeholder meetings, that the regulations it would propose would not discriminate against, or favor, any one form of electronic gaming. Unfortunately, the proposed regulations appear to provide an advantage to those companies that provide handheld products on which the player may play the games authorized by the regulations. For example, with the proposed limit of one non-handheld player device for every 50 permissible occupants, if the average occupancy of fraternal clubs in Virginia is less that 200, sites could not have more than 3-4 non-handheld devices, but could have an unlimited number of handhelds. This is not equitable and creates an unfair advantage for handhelds in the marketplace. There should be some limitation for handhelds if there are limitations on other devices. Limitations of handhelds are being considered in other states where electronic pull-tabs are being considered. We would recommend that the same limit be placed on handheld devices on which players can play the games authorized by the regulations as is placed on non-handheld devices on which those games can be played. For example, if the limit for a given facility is 3 non-handheld player devices, then the limit for handheld devices that can play the games that are authorized by the regulations also should be 3. This would in no way limit the number of handheld devices that could be used to play bingo itself.

Furthermore, the limit of one device for every 50 permissible occupants is too restrictive. We would suggest allowing 2 devices for every 50 occupants or decreasing the amount of occupants to 25 for every device. Suppliers of the devices will not place more devices than what is cost effective. Because of the economic realities, the number of devices placed is self regulated.

Finally, whatever the limit is, the proposed regulations need to clarify the various cut-off points for the number of player devices permitted – e.g., we would recommend that if the limit is one device per 25 permissible occupants, the cut off points should be one device for 1-24 permissible occupants, 2 devices for 25-49 occupants, 3 devices for 50-74 occupants, etc. If the limit remains at one device for every 50 permissible occupants, then we would recommend that the cut-off points should be one device for 1-49 occupants, 2 devices for 50-99 occupants, 3 devices for 100-149 occupants, etc.

7. 11 VAC 15-40-410(A)(6) – Game play requirements

a. Issue – Subsection A(6) provides that "The results of the electronic game card shall be shown to the player using a video display. No rolling, flashing, or spinning animations are permitted. No rotating reels marked into horizontal segments by varying symbols are permitted. No entertaining sound or music is permitted other than an audio effect to simulate the opening of a paper pull-tab or instant bingo card. Any sounds present used to simulate the opening of a paper pull-tab must not be played at a level sufficient to disturb other players or patrons."

b. Comment/Question – [Same as Comment 5] Although we fully understand the need to address this issue, we believe that the proposed language is too restrictive. There are certain sounds that are needed to accommodate federal Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. For example, when a player touches a button on the playing device screen, there needs to be audio feedback indicating a command was received. These sounds are not used for the purpose of entertainment or to entice a person to play a game, but to respond to the player who has touched certain areas on the screen. Furthermore, since certain audio and video animations are needed and can be subjective, we would suggest that the following added at the end of subsection A(6): "All audio and video animation shall be subject to approval by the department."

8. Section 18.2-340.34 of the Code of Virginia – Manufacturer’s License

a. Issue – Section 18.2-340.34 of the Code of Virginia provides that "no manufacturer shall distribute electronic games of chance systems for charitable gaming in the Commonwealth unless and until such person has made application for and has been issued a permit by the Department."

b. Comment/Question – The proposed regulations do not address the manufacturer’s permit required by § 18.2-340.34 of the Code. A provision addressing this issue needs to be added to the proposed regulations.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations.  Our major concern with the proposed regulations is the lack of any requirement or criteria for the issuance of a permit to manufacturers of electronic gaming systems.  Section 18.2-340.34 (A) of the charitable gaming statute requires that before a manufacturer may sell, offer to sell, or otherwise provide an electronic gaming system in Virginia, the manufacturer must obtain a permit from the department.  Section 18.2-340.34 (B) authorizes the department to prescribe in regulation criteria, consistent with the statute, for the issuance of such a permit.  Subdivision (B) contains minimal criteria for the issuance of a permit, but we would recommend that the department amend the proposed regulation to add additional criteria comparable to that required for suppliers in 11 VAC 15-31-20 (B), 1-7.  Moreover, we recommend that manufacturers be subjected to a background investigation prior to the issuance of a permit, similar to that required for suppliers under 11 VAC 15-31-20 (F).

We believe that these modifications to the proposed regulations are necessary to maintain the integrity of charity gaming in Virginia.  The proposed regulations contain very detailed and specific requirements for the electronic gaming systems, but no requirements for the companies and individuals that manufacture them for sale or lease in the Commonwealth.  Modifying the regulations to subject manufacturers to the same or similar requirements imposed on suppliers is reasonable and will not cause any hardship to the manufacturers.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.  If you have any questions, or if you would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

January 4, 2012

Ms. Erin Williams

Acting Program Manager

Department of Charitable Gaming

Post office Box 1163

Richmond, Virginia 23218

Dear Ms. Williams:

On behalf of the Virginia Charitable Bingo Association (VCBA) I am pleased to forward the following comments in regards to proposed regulations 11VAC 15-40. I have also posted this letter to the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website.

Our leadership has expended much time considering these proposed regulations. As a result we are very concerened that if certain portions of the regulations are left as is the document could create a new unintended and almost identical new business similar to interent cafe style gaming which would take away significanctly from the intended purpose of assisting charities playing bingo. As you are aware we are very sensitve to this issue as we have just spent considerable energy defeating that industry.

Given the above we recommend several criticaly important additions to 11VAC 15-40:

1. Clear definitions must be established for both a "stand alone device," and a "hand held device." It is our suggestion that a "stand alone device," be defined as, "any electronic terminal that is used at any time solel for electronic pull tabs at a time other than a regularly scheduled bingo game," and that a "hand held device," be defined as, "any electronic terminal that plays the session game of bingo concurrent with electronic pull tabs."

2. The number of stand alone devices must be strictly limited. We suggest changing the number from one to every fifty (50) permisable occupants under the Uniform Statewide Building Code to one per every one hundred (100) occupants, with consideration that every location be allowed at least one.

3. The number of hand held devices must also be strictly limited. We suggest that electronic pull tab hand held devices may only be played if purchased along with a bingo package during a regulalry scheduled bingo session.

We applaud you and Mr. Alverez for your continued high level of customer service and exceptional inclusion of everyone throughout this process. Thank you for your attention to this matter and if you have any questions please feel free to contact me at anytime.

Sincerely,

Matthew Benka

CC: The Honorable Memebers of the Board of Charitable Gaming

Mr. Andy Alverez

Reason: The proposed text allows for unlimited portable devices.During discussions over the past two years it was always contemplated and purported by the department that the number of player devices utilized by a distributed pull-tab system would be restricted, but that this restriction would not impact existing charitable organizations utilizing electronic bingo devices. The proposed text maintains the intent of the restrictions as they were discussed.