HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04112006 - C.33 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ct`= E L °�_ Contra
FROM: JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR _
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �` -,I�r.'�, ,�-y Costa
DATE: April 5, 2006 sTA COUK County
SUBJECT: AB 2412 (Hancock) —Advisory Vote on Urban Casinos
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
SUPPORT AB 2412 (Hancock) which would require Contra Costa and other Bay Area counties to
conduct an advisory election to allow voters to voice their opinion on the establishment of urban
casinos IF AMENDED to allow more (local flexibility on the wording of the ballot measure and
selection of the area of the county in which the ballot measure would be considered.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Would vary depending on election specifics.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
Currently local governments have limited authority in determining whether or not Indian Gaming
casinos should be sited within their jurisdiction; the terms and conditions under which the facilities
would operate and what, if any mitigation would be paid to offset the cost of.increased services.
Similarly, residents in the affected communities have no venue for voicing their opinion about
proposed casinos.
AB 2412 (Hancock) would require Contra Costa and other Bay Area counties to conduct an
advisory election to allow voters to voice their opinion on the establishment of urban casinos.
While not binding on either the State Legislature, State Governor or on the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (the permitting federal agency) such an election would allow the community a voice.
The concept of the election proposed under AB 2412 is very consistent with the County's efforts
to involve the community in siting of proposed casinos; however, the bill would be strengthened if
greater local flexibility were authorized on the wording of the ballot measure and the selection of
the area of the county in which the ballot measure would be considered. With regards to wording
it may be appropriate to be very specific about the details of a proposed casino or more generic
on urban casinos in general. Similarly, all communities within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
County may not be affected. For example, a casino proposed in West County may not have an
impact on residents in far East County and so it would more.appropriate for the advisory vote to
be conducted in the West County precincts only, not the entire County.
CONTINUED ON A"I-TACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OI'COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDAVN OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE O'MER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON dft iPPROVE AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I 1 1-117REBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES: LAOIS: SHOWN.
ABSENT: /6STAIN: I
ATTESTED D4 �•� r0 Co
CONTACT: Sara Hoffman JOHN CULLEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPFRVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CC: County Administrator
County Lobbyists
Nielsen Merksamer(via CAO)
I `
3Y DI?UTY
I