AgdaPkt 2004-10-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Proposition 70: Tribal Gaming Compacts• Exclusive Gaming Riglits• Contributions to State. Page 3 of 4 54�� Changes Under the Measure. In comparison to the existing compacts� the compacts authorized under this measure would generally offer tribes the following: . More Games. Like the 2004 compacts, this measure's compacts would not restrict the number of allowable slot machines. In addition, this measure would allow tribes to offer additional casino games, like craps and roulette. . Likely Lower Payments. Rather than the per machine payments to the state required under the 2004 compacts, this measure's payments would be based on the income generated by the machines (and other games). The amount of payments received by the state, therefore, would vary among tribes, depending on their gambling operations. Consequently, it is difficult to determine the exact amount that would be paid to the state. We have reviewed the payments required by the 2004 compacts and those required under this measure. For any given level of tribal gambling activity, the payments to the state would tend to be lower under this measure. . Fewer Regu/ations, Tribes under this measure would not be subject to several provisions in the 2004 compacts, such as the requirements for more extensive environmental reviews and negotiations with local governments. . Longer Length. Under the measure, tribes' compacts would last 99 years. This would provide tribes with greater long-term stability for their gambling operations. Given these provisions compared to existing compacts, we would expect many tribes to request amendments under this measure. In this case, tribes would be able to add additional slot machines and other games to their operations. Consequently, tribal gambling across the state under this measure would likely be higher than otherwise would have been the case. Estimated Gambling Revenues. Although the measure could lead to an increase in overall gambling in the state, it is unclear what impact that would have on payments to the state. This is because, as noted above, the payments for any given level of gambling activity would tend to be lower than under current law. If the increase in gambling income were to more than offset the lower payments, the state would experience an increase in annual payments. On the other hand, if the increase in gambling income did not offset the lower payments, the state would experience a reduction in annual payments. The change in revenues from current law would depend on a variety of factors including (1) the extent to which tribes agreed to the measure's provisions, (2) the extent to which new slot machines and games were added at gambling establishments, (3) the income generated from gambling, and (4) how the state enforced the collection of required payments based on the net income of each tribe. The change in payments—whether an increase or decrease—could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred million dollars annually. Payments to Local Governments. To the extent that tribes opted to accept this measure's provisions rather than those of the 2004 compacts, they would not be subject to the requirement for negotiations with local govemments conceming community impacts. As a result, local governments would likely receive less in payments from tribes. The amount of any such reduction is unknown but would likely be in the millions of dollars annually. http://www.lao.ca.gov/ba11od2004/70_11_2004.hhn 10/15/2004 ,