BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2515
Page 1
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 2515 (Hall)
As Amended August 21, 2012
Majority vote
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 10, 2012) |SENATE: |35-0 |(August 23, 2012) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |15-0 |(August 29, 2012) |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
|(G.O.) | | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: G.O.
SUMMARY : Strengthens procedures governing the awarding of grants
from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (SDF) to ensure
that the funds are properly used to mitigate costs associated with
tribal gaming. In addition, appropriates $9.1 million from the SDF
to the California Gambling Control Commission (CGCC) to provide
grants to local agencies for the purpose of mitigating the adverse
impacts of tribal gaming.
The Senate amendments :
1)Delete a requirement that an Indian Gaming Local Community
Benefit Committee adopt and approve a Conflict of Interest Code
and provides that any existing conflict of interest code must be
reviewed and amended as necessary to bring it into compliance
with these requirements.
2)Appropriate $9.1 million from SDF to the CGCC to provide grants
to local agencies for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Creates the SDF in the State Treasury for the receipt of revenue
contributions made by tribal governments pursuant to the terms of
the 1999 model Tribal-State Gaming Compacts.
2)Authorizes the Legislature to appropriate money from the SDF for
AB 2515
Page 2
the following purposes:
a) Grants for programs designed to address gambling addiction.
b) Grants for the support of state and local government
agencies impacted by tribal government gaming.
c) Compensation for regulatory costs incurred by California
Gambling Control Commission (CGCC) and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) in connection with the implementation and
administration of compacts.
d) Payment of shortfalls that may occur in the Indian Gaming
Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF).
e) Disbursements for the purpose of implementing the terms of
tribal labor relations ordinances promulgated in accordance
with the terms of the 1999 compacts.
f) Any other purpose specified by law.
3)Establishes a method of calculating the distribution of
appropriations from the SDF for grants to local government
agencies impacted by tribal gaming. This method includes a
requirement that the State Controller, in consultation with the
Commission, deposit funds into County Tribal Casino Accounts and
Individual Tribal Casino Accounts based upon a process that takes
into consideration whether the county has tribes that pay, or not
pay, into the SDF. The distribution formula "sunsets" on January
1, 2021.
4)Establishes an Indian Gaming Local Community Benefit Committee in
each county in which gaming is conducted, specifies the
composition and responsibilities of that committee, and requires
that committee to make the selection of grants from the casino
accounts. Among other things, the committee is responsible for
establishing all application policies and procedures for grants
from the casino accounts.
5)Requires the State Auditor to conduct an audit every three years
and report its findings to the Legislature regarding the
allocation and use of SDF grant monies.
6)Creates in the State Treasury the RSTF for the receipt and
deposit of moneys derived from gaming device license fees that
AB 2515
Page 3
are paid into the RSTF pursuant to the terms of specified
tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of making
distributions to non-compact Tribes (i.e., federally-recognized
non-gaming and tribes that operate casinos with fewer than 350
slot machines). Revenue in the RSTF is available to CGCC, upon
appropriation by the Legislature, for making distributions of
$1.1 million annually to non-compact tribes.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill modified the procedures
governing the award of local mitigation grants from the SDF to
require grant applications to the Indian Gaming Local Community
Benefit Committee to clearly show how the grant will mitigate the
impact of the specified casino and requires the Indian Gaming Local
Community Benefit Committee to adopt and approve a Conflict of
Interest Code.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
appropriates $9.1 million from the SDF (Special fund) to the CGCC
to provide grants to local agencies for the purpose of mitigating
the adverse impacts of tribal gaming.
COMMENTS : In February of 2011, the Bureau of State Audits issued a
report on the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (Report
2010-036). Existing law requires the State Auditor to conduct an
audit every three years regarding the allocation and use of SDF
moneys by grant recipients. The report examined the allocation and
expenditure of grants from the funds. It concluded that local
benefit committees have difficulty in complying with grant
requirements and related law. In many instances, grant recipients
were unable to quantify, or provide evidence of, the impact of the
casino. Some counties failed to award local governmental entities
that were proximate to the casino operation, the minimum amounts
that the law specifies for those entities. Some members on the
benefit committees in four of seven counties reviewed also failed
to file required statements of economic interests.
Purpose of the bill : According to the author, this bill is in
response to a Bureau of State Audits report from February 2011,
titled "The Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (Report
2010-036).
The author states that the intent of this bill is to address one of
the Auditor recommendations stemming from its review of the SDF and
the benefit committees, relating to: "More rigorously review
applications that are to be administered and spent by an entity
AB 2515
Page 4
other than the local government that applies for the funds."
Specifically, benefit committees should require that each grant
application clearly show how the grant will mitigate the impact of
the casino on the applicant agency.
In addition, this bill ensures a statewide appropriation of $9.1
million from the SDF for local mitigation monies for fiscal year
2012-2013. The author points out, that under current law this
appropriation is made via a Special Fund (SDF) not the General
Fund.
According to the author, "as a function of the original 1999
tribal-state compacts, these local mitigation funds are important
to many local communities and counties throughout the state, as
they support critically important allowable purposes such as public
safety, fire and transportation. In this lean budgetary year,
local governments are depending on this money to mitigate the costs
associated with having casinos within their jurisdictions."
The author further states, "this appropriation represents a
reasonable request to provide local mitigation funds to communities
surrounding the 21 tribes who still pay into the SDF as provided by
the existing 1999 compacts - pursuant to a longstanding statutory
allocation formula.
Background :
Local benefit committees : Existing law establishes Indian Gaming
Local Community Benefit Committees with specified local government
and tribal representation that are responsible for establishing SDF
grant application policies and procedures, determining grant
eligibility, and selecting grants from Individual Tribal Casino
Accounts or County Tribal Casino Accounts based on "nexus test
criteria" that mainly takes into consideration the geographical
proximity of an applicant local government jurisdiction to the
tribal casino.
All grants from Individual Tribal Casino Accounts are required to
be made only upon the affirmative sponsorship of the tribe paying
into the SDF from whose Individual Tribal Casino Account grants are
available for distribution. Priority uses for the receipt of grant
money from Individual Tribal Casino Accounts are as follows: law
enforcement; fire services; emergency medical services;
environmental impacts; water supplies; waste disposal; behavioral;
health; planning and adjacent land use; public health; roads;
AB 2515
Page 5
recreation and youth programs; and, childcare programs.
SDF contributing tribes : (1) Barona Band of Mission Indians; (2)
Big Sandy Band of Mono Indians; (3) Big Valley Rancheria; (4)
Bishop Paiute Tribe; (5) Cabazon Band of Mission Indians; (6)
Cahuilla Band of Indians; (7) Chicken Ranch Rancheria; (8) Colusa
Indian Community; (9) Hopland Band of Pomo Indians; (10) Jackson
Rancheria Band of Miwuk Indians; (11) Mooretown Rancheria; (12)
Redding Rancheria; (13) Robinson Rancheria; (14) Santa Rosa
Rancheria; (15) Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians; (16) Soboba
Band of Luiseno Indians; (17) Sycuan Band of Kumeyaay Indians; (18)
Table Mountain Rancheria; (19) Tule River Indian Tribe; (20)
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians; and, (21) Tyme Maidu
Tribe Berry Creek Rancheria.
SDF budget actions : The Budget Act of 2003-04 appropriated $25
million from the SDF to local jurisdictions impacted by Indian
gaming. The Budget Acts of 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07, each
appropriated $30 million from the SDF to local governments impacted
by Indian gaming. The Budget Act of 2007-08 included a $30 million
appropriation from the SDF to local governments impacted by Indian
gaming; however, the Governor blue-penciled that appropriation. In
2008, AB 158 (Torrico), appropriated $30 million from the SDF to
counties for mitigating Indian casino impacts. In 2010, SB 856
(Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), appropriated $30
million from the SDF to restore $30 million in funding vetoed by
the Governor in the 2007-08 Budget Act. The bill required the
funds to be divided amongst the locals based on the amounts paid
into the SDF in the 2006-07 fiscal year. In 2011, AB 1417 (Hall),
Chapter 736, Statutes of 2011, appropriated $9.1 million from the
SDF to the CGCC to provide grants to local agencies for the purpose
of mitigating the adverse impacts of tribal gaming.
In May 2012, the Department of Finance projected that at the end of
fiscal year (FY) 2012-13, the SDF fund balance will be $23.7
million (excluding any reserve and funding for mitigation grants to
local government agencies). Under the 2007 compact amendments, the
state is obligated to cover any shortfall in the RSTF if the SDF
cannot.
Prior legislation : AB 1417 (Hall), Chapter 736, Statutes of 2011.
Appropriated $9.1 million from the SDF to the CGCC to provide
grants to local agencies for the purpose of mitigating the adverse
impacts of tribal gaming.
AB 2515
Page 6
SB 856 (Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee), Chapter 719,
Statutes of 2010. Appropriated $30 million from the SDF to restore
$30 million in funding vetoed by the Governor in the 2007-08 Budget
Act. The language would require the funds be divided amongst the
locals based on the amounts paid into the SDF in the 2006-07 fiscal
year.
SB 357 (Ducheny), Chapter 181, Statutes of 2009. Extended the
sunset date to January 1, 2021 for the law governing the method of
calculating the distribution of appropriations from the SDF for
grants to local government agencies impacted by tribal gaming.
AB 158 (Torrico), Chapter 754, Statutes of 2008. Enacted several
recommendations proposed by the State Auditor relative to the
allowable allocation and uses of grants to local government
agencies to mitigate the impact of tribal gaming in local
jurisdictions. Appropriated $30 million from the Indian Gaming
Special Distribution Fund to be allocated by the California
Gambling Control Commission for local projects that mitigate the
impacts of tribal gaming.
SB 621 (Battin), Chapter 858, Statutes of 2003. Established
priorities and procedures for funding to local governments from the
SDF for the purpose of mitigating impacts from tribal casinos.
Analysis Prepared by : Eric Johnson / G. O. / (916) 319-2531
FN: 0005816