BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 213
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   July 8, 2009

                   ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
                                 Joe Coto, Chairman
                     SB 213 (Florez) - As Amended:  June 18, 2009

           SENATE VOTE  :   32-3
           
          SUBJECT  :   Gambling: licenses

           SUMMARY  :   Extends the moratorium on the issuance of new  
          gambling licenses for card rooms from January 1, 2015 to January  
          1, 2020, and makes other related changes regarding the  
          regulation of gambling.  Specifically,  this bill  :  

             1)   Prohibits a governing body of electors representing a  
               city, county, or city and county from authorizing or  
               expanding any legal gaming beyond those licenses that were  
               permitted on January 1, 1996, and, extends the sunset date  
               from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2020 [Business and  
               Professions Code Section 19962].

             2)   Limits the California Gambling Control Commission (CGCC)  
               from issuing a gambling license for a card room that was  
               not licensed to operate on December 31, 1999, unless an  
               application to operate that establishment was on file with  
               the Department of Justice (DOJ) before September 1, 2000,  
               and, extends the sunset date from January 1, 2015 to  
               January 1, 2020 [Business and Professions Code Section  
               19963].    

           EXISTING LAW   

             1)   Establishes the Gambling Control Act (Act) and provides  
               for the licensure of certain individuals and establishments  
               involved in various gambling activities, and for the  
               regulation of those activities, by the CGCC.

             2)   Provides for the enforcement of those activities by DOJ.

             3)   Provides that any violation of the Act for which a  
               penalty is not provided is punishable as a misdemeanor.

             4)   Prohibits, until January 1, 2015 the governing body and  
               the electors of a county, city, or city and county from  








                                                                  SB 213
                                                                  Page  2

               authorizing or expanding any legal gaming beyond that  
               permitted on January 1, 1996.

             5)   Prohibits the CGCC, until January 1, 2015, from issuing  
               a gambling establishment that was not licensed to operate  
               on December 31, 1999, except as specified.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   Unknown

           COMMENTS  :    

           Background  .  The Gambling Control Act of 1998 (Act) was  
          established to provide a comprehensive scheme for statewide  
          regulation of legal gambling.  Among several things, the Act  
          provided that no new gambling establishment may be opened in a  
          city, county, or city and county, in which a gambling  
          establishment was not operating on and before January 1, 1984,  
          except upon the affirmative vote of the electors of that local  
          jurisdiction.  Local jurisdictions may adopt a gambling  
          ordinance governing items such as the hours of operation of  
          gambling at those premises, patron security, location of  
          premises, wagering limits and the number of tables permitted in  
          those premises and in the jurisdiction as a whole. 

          There are currently two statutory moratoriums that restrict the  
          growth of controlled gambling in California.  One moratorium  
          prohibits the state from issuing licenses for new gambling  
          establishments.  The other limits the amount that controlled  
          gambling can expand in local jurisdictions to no more than 24.99  
          percent compared to the amount that was authorized on January 1,  
          1999.  Most local jurisdictions have modified their gambling  
          ordinances to realize the maximum amount of growth authorized by  
          law. 

          According to sources who broadly support this bill, they say  
          that "California has had a longstanding policy against the  
          proliferation of gambling establishments."  They went further by  
          saying "Since 1995, California has discouraged and precluded  
          additional cities and counties from adopting ordinances  
          providing for the expansion of gambling.  The Governor adopted  
          an executive order discouraging casinos in the urban area.        
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            








                                                                  SB 213
                                                                  Page  3

                                                                            


          "Dormant" licenses are those that have been surrendered,  
          withdrawn, or were temporary and have not been renewed.   
          However, those licenses are still eligible to be reactivated  
          pending regulations by the California Gambling Control  
          Commission.

           In Support  .  The Cities for Self Reliance Joint Powers  
          Authority, in support of this bill, say some cities receive over  
          80% of their total revenue from their card club, providing  
          programs and services essential to [their] community.

          Also in support, Hawaiian Gardens Casino say that extending the  
          sunset date to 2020 "will give city governments like Hawaiian  
          Gardens and other cities that are highly dependent on revenue  
          from licensed card rooms sufficient advance warning if their  
          city revenues are to be jeopardized."  A recent Los Angeles  
          Times Article applauded the Hawaiian Gardens City Council for  
          using the proceeds from the Hawaiian Gardens Casino for funding  
          summer school for four schools that serve students who live in  
          this city. 

           In Opposition  .  In opposition, Sutter's Place Inc., doing  
          business as Bay 101 Casino, says that "extending the moratorium  
          an additional five years, from 2015 to 2020, this bill would  
          prohibit any additional growth of existing card rooms."   
          Sutter's Place Inc. also maintains that if they did not have the  
          "ability to grow over the next eleven years, normal overhead  
          costs would increase to a point where many small and mid-size  
          card rooms would be forced out of business."

           Taking no position  .  The California Gambling Control Commission  
          says they are taking "No Position" on this bill based on the  
          language contained in this bill, as amended June 18, 2009.  

           Policy concerns  .  Will extending the sunset to this policy  
          result in good competition among small and medium-sized card  
          rooms and their large-sized counterparts?

          What is the effect of those dormant licenses that would be  
          impacted by this extension of the sunset moratorium?  Will this  
          have an indirect impact that could result in a monopoly of  
          larger card rooms in urban areas?








                                                                  SB 213
                                                                  Page  4


          Will card rooms be forced to move to other jurisdictions if  
          local ordinances are located in areas where the rope extended to  
          card rooms are not as long as other jurisdictions? 

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          California Cities for Self-Reliance Joint Powers Authority
          California Gaming Association
          Commerce Club
          Hawaiian Gardens Casino
          Hollywood Park Casino
          Lucky Chances Casino
          Lucky Lady 
          Village Club
           
            Opposition 
           
          Sutter's Place Inc. (aka Bay 101 Casino)

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Rod Brewer / G. O. / (916) 319-2531