Automated reporting--Licensed establishments would be categorized in one of three tiers
Pub Date: 1/1/2003
Can you wire your machines to a site controller, automatically download data and send it to the state electronically? Or can you gather data manually, key punch it into a tax program on your business computer, then send the data to Gambling Control over the internet? Or do you prefer to stay with pencil and paper?
As currently envisioned, licensed establishments would be categorized in one of three "tiers" depending upon the sophistication of equipment at the premise and data collection and reporting capabilities.
A GAC Audit Subcommittee met Jan. 19 prior to the general council meeting the following day. John Tooke, a licensee from Miles City and a CPA, chairs the subcommittee and told the council, "We're slowly but surely getting to a reasonable approach with industry and government rowing in the same direction. This is gratifying. The result should be most beneficial to both."
Tooke said the design of the system should be such that operators are helped to move up in the sophistication of their reporting practices, rather than forced downward.
The main council question seemed to hinge on whether the various reporting tiers could be mixed and matched at a single location. It appeared that could be done but would entail another series of complications, mostly centered on a resultant mixed and matched set of record keeping requirements for each machine.
Record keeping requirements will be tied to the tiers, with minimal requirements for the top tier, to the current maximums for the bottom tier.
A Tier I location would ideally have all modern multi-game machines using a SAS communications protocol capable of automatically downloading play and event data. The information would be collected by a site controller computer on-premise which could then report to a business office central computer, which would then send to the state via the internet one report for the location or all the locations on a vendor route.
Tier I establishments would be required to report weekly but no manual record keeping would be required and tape rolls would need to be retained less than one year. These reports would rely on electronic or "soft" meter readings.
Councilman Tim Carson of Summit Gaming, said the chief incentive for moving into Tier I is ongoing real-time access to all machine data, which should prove valuable as a business management tool.
Tier II is seen as viable for establishments with some older machines that cannot be wired to a site controller, requiring data to be manually collected, then entered into a tax program and forwarded electronically to the state weekly or bi-weekly.
Data could be acquired from soft meters, but hard meter data would still need to be recorded, particularly for bi-weekly reporting. Tape rolls would be required to be kept for at least one year.
There was an additional proposal calling for machine printers to produce data in a bar-coded format that could be read and downloaded via a scanner. The idea was to reduce key-punch errors that can occur with manual data entry.
Industry representatives feared such a requirement would make operators think twice about any automation since bar-coding could involve expensive software and printer upgrades and could nevertheless remain prone to printer quality problems and further errors. The Council agreed to delete that requirement.
Tier III is for locations that require a large amount of manual data input and a high rate of bi-weekly reporting. Mechanical "hard" meters would be reported but taxes would be paid from soft meters. Tape rolls would be retained for two years.
All web-based reporting would entail one-way communication from a business computer to a central state computer.
According to a GCD issue paper, "the tiered concept assumes that as older machines are replaced, operators would move to higher tiers."
Some business owners and association representatives advanced the notion that it should be possible for a single establishment to use Tier I reporting methods for its newest equipment, but also Tier II or III for the older gear. They also pointed out some locations use multiple vendors, who might each prefer to report in different tiers.
GCD project manager Al Arvish said, too, it would be possible for a location to be classified as Tier II but utilize Tier I-type reporting practices (site controllers) for its latest equipment.
GCD Administrator Gene Huntington seemed resistant to the idea, but conceded it could probably be done but with different record keeping requirements for groups of machines and additional administrative complications.
Huntington also said his agency needed authority to test accounting systems that might be developed or employed to process machine data, to license the entities that produced them and to pilot-test systems in the field before they were approved.
In response to a question from Montana Tavern Association attorney Mark Staples, Arvish said he thought most route operators would be inclined to adopt Tier I or II status and that, if costs were reasonable, as many as 80 percent of machines could be reporting via the internet.
Carson summed up the status of the initiative when he said, "We understand as much as we can today. This is a work in progress. We need to be able to adapt as we go.