THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO EVERYBODY
WHO'S WHO'S ATTENDING TODAY'S
JOINT INFORMATION. INFORMATIONAL
HEARING ALSO WANT TO TAKE A
MOMENT TO THINK CHAIRMAN DODD,
UH FOR BEING HERE ON OUR SIDE OF
THE HOUSE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
REQUIRED, BUT WE APPRECIATE YOU
COMING COMING OVER HERE AND
JOINING US. UH HUH. AND I WANT
TO GO AHEAD AND BEGIN THE
MEETING THIS JOINT INFORMATIONAL
HEARING OF THE ASSEMBLY AND THE
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
COMMITTEES IS CALLED TO ORDER.
GOT IT. SOME HOUSEKEEPING THINGS
TO SAY AT THE BEGINNING AND I'LL
REPEAT THE NUMBERS A COUPLE OF
TIMES. THE CALL NUMBER FOR THE
PUBLIC COMMENT IS 877692895.
87769. AND THE ACCESS CODE WILL
BE 185. 01100 AGAIN THAT NUMBER.
THE ACCESS CODE IS 185. 01100
THIS NUMBER WILL BE FOUND ON THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE AND ALSO
DISPLAYED ON YOUR SCREENS. UM
FOR THOSE CALLING IN PLEASE MUTE
YOURSELF WHILE IN THE QUEUE TO
ELIMINATE THE BACKGROUND NOISE
WILL ALSO BE PLACED IN THE KEY
UNTIL YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT.
WHEN IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO
PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT? PRESS
ONE. THEN PRESS ZERO AND A MUTE
YOURSELF. NO, THAT WAS KIND OF
QUICK, SO I'LL SAY IT ONE MORE
TIME WHEN IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT ZERO
SORRY. PRESS ONE, THEN ZERO,
THEN A MUTE YOURSELF IN ORDER TO
SPEAK. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR
COMMENTS TO YOUR NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ONLY,
AND FOR THE RESPECT OF
PROPOSITIONS. I'M GONNA SAY THIS
ANOTHER TIME, EVEN THOUGH IT'S
NOT, YOU KNOW, IN MY NOTES,
BECAUSE I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT
WE'RE GONNA TRY TO BE AS FAIR AS
POSSIBLE. AND SO ANY PUBLIC
COMMENTS OR THEY'RE JUST FOUR
AGAINST ON ANY OF THE
INITIATIVES. WE WILL LIMIT TO
NAME ORGANIZATION AND POSITION
ONLY ON THE RESPECTIVE
PROPOSITION THAT WE ARE WORKING
ON. SO WE WANT TO STATE THOSE
GROUND RULES IN ADVANCE. SO THAT
WE GET ADHERE TO THOSE TODAY'S
PURPOSE OF THE JOINT
INFORMATIONAL HEARING IS TO FILL
PHYLLIS STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
FOR THE APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES
TO CONVENE IN PUBLIC. A JOINT
PUBLIC HEARING ON RELATED BALLOT
MEASURES. THE TWO BALLOT
MEASURES BEFORE US TODAY.
PROPOSITIONS 26 27 ARE SET TO
APPEAR ON THE GENERAL ELECTION
BALLOT ON NOVEMBER 8TH THIS YEAR
22. THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION
WILL TREAT EACH PROPOSITION AS A
SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM. TODAY
WE'LL HEAR FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE WILL PROVIDE
MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND
THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL ACKGROUND
AND AN OVERVIEW OF PROPOSITIONS
AND FISCAL IMPACTS. ADDITIONALLY
DURING TODAY'S AGENDA WILL ALLOW
FOR DESIGNATED INDIVIDUALS TO
TESTIFY AND SUPPORT HER
OPPOSITION OF RESPECTIVE
PROPOSITIONS AND WILL LIMIT THE
THOSE COMMENTS THAT 10 MINUTES
AND I WANT TO SAY THAT AGAIN, 10
MINUTES SO THAT WE'RE FAIR TO
EVERYBODY PROCEEDING FOR THAT WE
WILL SAY 10 MINUTES IS UP.
LASTLY WE'LL HAVE PUBLIC
COMMENTS FOR EACH INITIATIVE ON
THE RESPECTIVE AGENDA ONCE AGAIN
WHEN WE GET THE PUBLIC COMMENTS
, AND I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL OF
EVERYBODY, BUT WE WANT TO LAY
THOSE GROUND RULES IN ADVANCE.
WE WILL ASK THAT YOU SIMPLY
STATE YOUR NAME, ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION ONLY, AND THAT'S TO
ENSURE FAIRNESS ON EVERYONE.
WE'RE STATING THOSE UH, THE WERE
STATING THAT IN ADVANCE. AH! I
ALSO WANT TO REMIND ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES THAT NORTH
FORMAL VOTE CAN BE TAKEN TODAY.
UH, AND TODAY'S JOINT
INFORMATIONAL HEARING ON THE
RESPECTIVE COMMITTEES TO THE
PUBLIC WILL BE WILL BE ON THE
BRIEFINGS OF PROP 26 27. I'D
LIKE TO THINK THAT WITNESSES IN
ADVANCE FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF
YOUR BUSY SCHEDULES TO BE WITH
US. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'D
LIKE TO ASK CHAIRMAN DOT IF HE
HAS ANY OPENING COMMENTS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. CHAIR SANTIAGO.
I WANT TO BEGIN BY ALSO THANKING
ALL THE WITNESSES THAT TOOK
THEIR TIME TO BE HERE TODAY AS
SOMEONE WHO HAS HAD FIRSTHAND
EXPERIENCE ON SPORTS WAGERING
LEGISLATION. I'M FULLY AWARE OF
THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ISSUE AND
SOME OF THE VERY STRONG OPINIONS
ON BOTH SIDES. WITH THAT BEING
SAID, I LOOK FORWARD TO THE
INFORMATIONAL HEARING AND
LEARNING MORE ABOUT THE
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS ON BOTH OF
THESE INITIATIVES. NOW, UNLESS
ANY MEMBER HAS SOMETHING THEY
FEEL LIKE THEY WANT TO SAY NOW,
I'D LIKE TO GET INTO THE PROGRAM
. BUT IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO
SAY SOMETHING, I WILL ALLOW THAT
TO HAPPEN. SEEING THOSE
SPEAKERS, MR CHAIR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO THE
AGENDA. THE AGENDA FOR
PROPOSITION 26, WHICH IS TITLED
ALLOWS IN PERSON ROULETTE, DICE
GAME SPACE SPORTS WAGERING ON
TRIBAL LANDS INITIATIVE,
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND
STATUTE. FIRST ON THE AGENDA IS
THE NEED TO LEAVE. PRINCIPAL
FISCAL AND POLICY ANALYST FOR
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE. MISS LEE WILL
PROVIDE WITH AN OVERVIEW THE
PROPOSITION 26 PLEASE FEEL FREE
TO BEGIN. GREAT GOOD MORNING
MEMBERS AND USUALLY WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE. WE
HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE AN
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSITION 26. OUR
UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU HAVE A
COPY OF THE HANDOUT THAT WILL BE
USING AS A GUIDE FOR OUR
COMMENTS TODAY. IT'S ALSO
AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR ANY FOLKS
WHO'D LIKE TO FOLLOW ALONG THAT
WAY. SO IF YOU TURN TO PAGE ONE
OF YOUR HANDOUT, WE FIRST
THOUGHT WE'D START OFF BY
PROVIDING A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF
THE LEO'S ROLE IN THE INITIATIVE
PROCESS. SO BEFORE INITIATIVES
GO OUT FOR SIGNATURE. STATE LAW
ACTUALLY REQUIRES OUR OFFICE TO
WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE TO PREPARE A JOINT
IMPARTIAL FISCAL ANALYSIS OF
EVERY INITIATIVE, AND THIS
INCLUDES FISCAL IMPACTS ON THE
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. A
SUMMARY OF THAT FISCAL IMPACT IS
INCLUDED AT THE TOP OF THE ANY
CIRCULATION PETITIONS THAT GO
OUT. ONCE MEASURES COLLECT
SUFFICIENT SIGNATURES, AND THEY
ACTUALLY QUALIFY FOR THE BALLOT.
STATE LAW, THEN REQUIRES OUR
OFFICE PREPARE ANALYSES FOR ALL
OF THE STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS
FOR INCLUSION IN THE STATEWIDE
VOTER INFORMATION GUIDE. SO THE
ANALYSIS DOES INCLUDE A
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE
PROPOSITION WOULD DO AS WELL AS
ITS FISCAL EFFECTS. IF YOU TURN
TO PAGE TWO OF YOUR HANDOUT,
WE'RE FIRST GOING TO START WITH
SOME KEY BACKGROUND, WHICH WE
WHICH MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT
HELPFUL. SO THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW
CURRENTLY LIMITS GAMBLING IN
CALIFORNIA. SO FOR EXAMPLE,
SPORTS BETTING ROULETTE AND
GAMES OF DICE ARE CURRENTLY NOT
ALLOWED. IT DOES ALLOW SOME
GAMBLING AND THAT ICLUDES
23,000 STORES THAT OFFER STATE
LOTTERY PRODUCTS. 84 CARD ROOMS
, OFFERING CERTAIN CARD GAMES
SUCH AS POKER. ABOUT 33 RACE
TRACKS AND FACILITIES THAT OFFER
BETTING ON HORSE RACING. AND
THEN 66 TRIBAL CASINOS THAT
OFFER SLOT MACHINES, LOTTERY
GAMES AND CARD GAMES ON TRIBAL
LANDS. IF YOU THEN TURN TO PAGE
THREE OF YOUR HAND OUT WHEN
WE'RE THINKING ABOUT TRIBAL
GAMING, ALSO IMPORTANT TO THINK
ABOUT TRIBAL STATE COMPACTS. SO
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES HAVE
CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LAW
TO GOVERN THEMSELVES. THIS IS
ALSO A CONCEPT KNOWN AS
SOVEREIGNTY. SO WHAT THIS MEANS
IS THAT STATE REGULATION OF
TRIBAL GAMING IS GENERALLY
LIMITED TO WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER
FEDERAL LAW OR BY FEDERALLY
APPROVED AGREEMENTS BETWEEN A
TRIBE AND THE STATE, ALSO KNOWN
AS A TRIBAL STATE COMPACT. WHEN
A TRIBE WANTS TO OFFER GAMBLING
ON ITS LANDS. FEDERAL LAW
REQUIRES THAT THE STATE
NEGOTIATE A COMPACT WITH THAT
TRIBE. THE TRIBES CAN ALSO ASK
FOR THESE COMPACTS TO BE CHANGED
LATER ON. CALIFORNIA CURRENTLY
HAS COMPACTS WITH 79 TRIBES.
THESE COMPACTS DICTATE WHAT
GAMES CAN BE OFFERED HOW IT
WOULD BE REGULATED AS WELL AS
WHETHER ANY PAYMENTS SUCH AS TO
THE STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
WOULD BE REQUIRED. CALIFORNIA'S
STATE AND LOCAL GAMBLING LAWS
GENERALLY ARE ENFORCED IN
VARIOUS WAYS. SO FOR EXAMPLE,
REGULATORY AGENCIES CAN REVOKE
LICENSES, ISSUED FINES OR FILE
CIVIL LAWSUITS IN COURTS. UM
ALSO CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OR DOJ,
AS WELL AS PUBLIC PROSECUTORS
CAN ALSO FILE CRIMINAL ACTIONS
AS WELL. FINALLY PROPOSITION 98
REQUIRES THAT THE STATE SPENDS A
MINIMUM AMOUNT ON K THROUGH 12
SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES
EACH YEAR. THIS MINIMUM AMOUNT
GROWS OVER TIME. BASED ON THE
GROWTH AND STATE TAX REVENUES,
THE ECONOMY AND STUDENTS
ATTENDANCE. IF YOU TURN TO PAGE
FOUR OF YOUR HAND OUT, WE'RE NOW
GOING TO SHIFT OUR ATTENTION TO
THE KEY PROVISIONS OF
PROPOSITION 26. THEY REALLY CAN
BE SPLIT INTO TWO CATEGORIES.
PROVISIONS THAT RELATE TO SPORTS
BETTING AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT
RELATED TO SPORTS BETTING. AND
SO FIRST WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON
THOSE THAT RELATE TO SPORTS
BETTING. SO THE PROPOSITION
WHICH CHANGE THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW. TO
ALLOW THE STATES FOR PRIVATELY
OPERATED RACETRACKS AS WELL AS
THE TRIBAL CASINOS TO OFFER IN
PERSON SPORTS BETTING. HOWEVER
BETTING WOULD BE BANNED ON
CERTAIN SPORTS SUCH AS HIGH
SCHOOL GAMES. THE REQUIREMENTS
ON RACETRACKS IN THE TRIBAL
CASINOS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
UM, FOR THE RACETRACKS IN PERSON
SPORTS BETTING COULD BE OFFERED
TO INDIVIDUALS, 21 YEARS OF AGE
AND OLDER. BUT THE RACE TRACKS
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO THE PAY THE
STATE 10% OF SPORTS BETS MADE
EACH DAY AFTER SUBTRACTING ANY
PRICE PAYMENTS FOR DEPOSIT INTO
A NEW FUND THAT WOULD BE CREATED
AND THIS IS THE NEW CALIFORNIA
SPORTS WAGERING FUND. FOR TRIBES
THAT WOULD LIKE TO OFFER SPORTS
BETTING. UM THEY'RE COMPACT. WE
NEED TO BE AMENDED TO ALLOW THEM
TO DO SO. THAT AMENDED COMMENT
WOULD LAY OUT THE REQUIREMENTS.
IT WOULD THEN FOLLOW, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE MINIMUM AGE TO
PLACE BETS, WHETHER ANY REQUIRED
PAYMENTS WE NEED TO BE MADE AS
WELL AS WHETHER ANY OF THOSE
PAYMENTS WOULD GO INTO THAT NEW
SPECIAL FUND. IF PAYMENTS ARE
NOT MADE INTO THAT NEW SPECIAL
FUND. THE PROPOSITION DOES
REQUIRE THAT THE TRIBES AT LEAST
PAY THE STATE FOR THE COSTS OF
REGULATING SPORTS BETTING IN THE
TRIBAL CASINOS. MOVING DOWN THAT
PAGE. THE PROPOSITION ALSO
REQUIRES SPECIFIC USE OF THE
MONEY THAT ARE DEPOSITED INTO
THAT NEW SPECIAL FUND. AT FIRST
REQUIRES THAT THE MONIES BE
CONSIDERED TAX REVENUES TO
CALCULATE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
SPENDING ON K THROUGH 12 SCHOOLS
AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES EACH
YEAR. SO THAT DOES MEAN THAT THE
FIRST USE OF THE MONEY WOULD BE
TO HELP MEET THAT OBLIGATION.
AFTER THAT THE MONIES WOULD BE
USED JUST SUPPORT STATE
REGULATORY COSTS. ANY REMAINING
MONEY IS LEFT OVER WOULD BE USED
IN THREE WAYS. 1ST 15% WOULD GO
FOR GAMBLING ADDICTION AND
MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS AND
GRANTS 15% FOR SPORTS BETTING
AND GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT COSTS
AND THEN 70% TO THE GENERAL
FUND. TURNING TO PAGE FIVE OF
YOUR HAND OUT. THEN THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF KEY NON SPORTS BETTING
RELATED PROVISIONS. AND SO THE
FIRST ONE THERE IS THAT IT WOULD
CHANGE THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW TRIBES TO
OFFER ROULETTE AND GAMES AT THE
TRIBAL CASINOS IF THE COMPACTS
ARE UPDATED TO ALLOW THEM TO DO
SO. THE SECOND KEY PROVISIONS
THAT PROPOSITION 26 WOULD ADD A
NEW WAY TO ENFORCE CERTAIN STATE
GAMBLING LAWS, SUCH AS LAWS THAT
BAN CERTAIN TYPES OF CARD GAMES.
SPECIFICALLY IT WOULD ALLOW
PEOPLE OR ENTITIES THAT BELIEVES
SOMEONE IS BREAKING THESE LAWS
TO FILE A CIVIL LAWSUIT IN STATE
TRIAL COURTS TO ASK FOR
PENALTIES OF UP TO $10,000 PER
VIOLATION OR TO STOP THE
BEHAVIOR. THESE CIVIL LAWSUITS
WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IF THE
PERSON OR ENTITY FILING IT FIRST
ASKED DOJ TO ACT AND DOJ EITHER
DID NOT FILE A COURT CASE WITHIN
90 DAYS OR THE COURT REJECTS THE
CASE THAT DOJ FILED WITHOUT
PROHIBITING IT FROM BEING FILED
AGAIN. ANY PENALTY MONIES THAT
COME IN THIS ROUTE WOULD ALSO BE
DEPOSITED INTO THAT NEW SPECIAL
FUND. TURNING TO PAGE SIX OF
YOUR HAND OUT. WE'RE NOW GOING
TO FOCUS ON THE FISCAL EFFECTS.
BROADLY SPEAKING THE ACTUAL SIZE
OR THE MAGNITUDE OF THE FISCAL
EFFECTS ON STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT REVENUE AND COSTS ARE
UNCERTAIN AND WILL DEPEND ON HOW
THE PROPOSITION IS INTERPRETED
AND IMPLEMENTED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE
, IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER THE
COMPACTS WOULD BE AMENDED TO
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. ALSO UNCLEAR
HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY
SPORTS BET OR HOW MANY PEOPLE
WILL MAKE USE OF THAT NEW CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT TOOL. KEEPING THAT
IN MIND. WE'VE REALLY IDENTIFIED
UM FIVE KEY FISCAL EFFECTS. THE
FIRST IS INCREASED STATE
REVENUES, WHICH COULD POSSIBLY
REACH THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS ANNUALLY FROM RACETRAC
AND TRIBAL SPORTS, PENDING
PAYMENTS AS WELL AS THOSE CIVIL
PENALTIES. SOME OF THIS REVENUE
WOULD BE NEW, BUT SOME WOULD
NOT, AND WOULD BE A SHIFT FROM
EXISTING STATE REVENUES. SOME OF
THIS NEW REVENUE WOULD GO INTO
THAT NEW SPECIAL FUND THAT WAS
CREATED, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A
HIGHER MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
PROPOSITION 98 SPENDING THAN
WHAT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN
REQUIRED. SO ABOUT 40% OF ANY
MONEY IS DEPOSITED INTO THAT NEW
SPECIAL FUND WOULD THEN BE
NEEDED TO KIND OF MEET THAT
OBLIGATION. THAT LEAVES 60% FOR
STATE REGULATORY COSTS. UM
PROBLEM GAME GAMBLING RELATED
COSTS AS WELL AS OTHER STATE
SPENDING PRIORITIES. TURNING TO
PAGE SEVEN OF YOUR HAND OUT. THE
SECOND FISCAL EFFECT IS THAT
THERE ARE VARIOUS POTENTIAL
IMPACTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REVENUES. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, CARD
ROOMS MAY EARN LESS REVENUE IF
THEY ARE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY
THAT NEW CIVIL ENFORCEMENT TOOL
, WHICH COULD MEAN THAT THEY PAY
LESS IN TAXES AND FEES TO THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN WHICH
THEY'RE LOCATED. SO THE EFFECTS
ON MOST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD
LIKELY NOT BE LARGE. HOWEVER
THERE COULD BE LARGER EFFECTS ON
A FEW LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT
RECEIVED A LARGER SHARE OF THEIR
REVENUE FROM THESE TYPES OF
PAYMENTS FROM CARD ROOMS. SO FOR
EXAMPLE, ONE CITY ESTIMATES THAT
CARBON PAYMENTS ARE ABOUT 70% OF
ITS GENERAL FUND REVENUES. ON
THE FLIP SIDE, THE COMPACTS
MIGHT ACTUALLY BE AMENDED TO
ALLOW, UM FOR SPORTS BETTING,
AND THOSE COULD REQUIRE
ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS TO LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS. THE THIRD FISCAL
EFFECT IS THAT THERE WOULD BE
INCREASED STATE COSTS FOR STATE
AGENCIES SUCH AS DOJ TO REGULATE
THE IN PERSON SPORTS BETTING,
WHICH COULD POSSIBLY REACH THE
LOW TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
ANNUALLY. THE COSTS WOULD
GENERALLY DEPEND ON HOW SPORTS
BETTING IS REGULATED, SUCH AS
WHAT TYPES OF BETS ARE NOT
ALLOWED. SOME OR ALL OF THESE
COSTS WOULD BE OFFSET BY THE
MONIES DEPOSITED INTO THE NEW
SPECIAL FUND OR FROM PAYMENTS
DIRECTLY FROM THE TRIBES THAT
DON'T GO INTO THAT SPECIAL FUND.
THE FOURTH FISCAL EFFECT IS THAT
THERE WOULD BE INCREASED STATE
COSTS FOR DOJ AND THE STATE.
COURTS RELATED TO THE NEW CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT METHOD. UM WHICH IS
NOT LIKELY TO EXCEED THE LOW
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ANNUALLY.
DOJ WOULD HAVE THESE INCREASED
COSTS FROM HAVING TO REVIEW AND
RESPOND TO THESE SUITS AS WELL
AS FOR THE COURTS TO ACTUALLY
PROCESS THEM, AND SO THE TOTAL
COST WILL REALLY DEPEND ON HOW
FREQUENTLY THIS TOOL IS USED.
SOME OF THE COSTS IN THAT NEW
SPECIAL FUND COULD ALSO BE USED
TO HELP SUPPORT. UM THESE COSTS
AS WELL. TURNING TO THE FINAL
PAGE OF YOUR HAND OUT. THERE IS
ALSO AN UNKNOWN NET EFFECT ON
VARIOUS OTHER FISCAL EFFECTS ON
THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, STATE AND
LOCAL REVENUES COULD INCREASE
FROM PEOPLE COMING FROM OUT OF
STATE AND SPENDING MORE THAN
THEY OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE. AT
THE SAME TIME, STATE AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS COULD ALSO HAVE
INCREASED COSTS, AND THIS COULD
OCCUR IF YOU'VE GOT MORE PEOPLE
VISITING RACETRACKS OR TRIBAL
CASINOS, WHICH COULD THEN
REQUIRE INCREASED STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CLASS. SO
WITH THAT WE'RE GOING TO
CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION AND
ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR BEING HERE, MISS LEE.
UM NOW WE'RE GONNA GO ANY
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I WOULD HOPE THAT WE
CAN LIMIT QUESTIONS AFTER EVERY
PANEL 20 MINUTES IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. THEN, UM SEEING AND
OUTPUT. I'LL CONTINUE. I WOULD
WITH THE NEXT PANEL, WHICH BE
THANK YOU, MISS LEE FOR
ATTENDING TODAY. AL ANNOUNCE,
AND THEN IF YOU CAN MAKE YOUR
WAY UP, WE'D BE WE'D BE
APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. FOR
SUPPORTERS OF PROP PROPOSITION,
26. WE WOULD A LOT THE SAME 10
MINUTES. AND WE HAVE THREE, UH
INDIVIDUALS WERE COMING UP. THE
CHAIR OF YOKA, DAIICHI WINTON
NATION. THAT WOULD BE ANTHONY
ROBERTS. CHAIR OF SANTA ROSA
BAND AQUILA INDIANS, LEVINA
SAUL. WHEN I READ NEAR AND IF I
MISPRONOUNCED THE NAME, I AM
GONNA APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. AND
THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE GENERAL
COUNSEL FOR US TO DICKIE WENT IN
NATION, JEFF BUTLER. AND WILL A
LOT JUST TO BE FAIR 10 MINUTES
IN THE ARGUMENT FOR UM AND THEN
I'LL REMIND YOU WHEN WE'RE
GETTING CLOSE. AH AH AH, AND
THEN WE'LL GO TO 20 MINUTES.
POTENTIAL QUESTION AND ANSWER BY
COMMITTEE MEMBERS IF THERE
SHOULD BE QUESTIONS ON THAT
PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY
WERE GREATLY HONORED. THANK YOU.
AND HE MAY BEGIN. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR DODD CHAIR
SANTIAGO AND RIVERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ANTHONY
ROBERTS. I'M THE CHAIR TRIBAL
CHAIRMAN OF THE OECD. HE WENT TO
NATION. UH JUST AGAIN WANT TO
THANK YOU GUYS FOR HAVING US
HERE TODAY. UM I THINK THE
TRIBAL LEADERS FROM ALL CORNERS
OF THE STATE TO COME IN THE
SPIRIT OF MUTUAL PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN OUR SOVEREIGN TRIBAL
NATIONS AND A CALIFORNIA STATE
LEGISLATOR. TO SAY THANK YOU FOR
STANDING BY US IN OUR PURSUIT OF
INDIAN SELF RELIANCE. IN THE
SAME VEIN, WE WOULD CRUSH YOUR
SUPPORT OF PROP 26. AS AN
ELECTED TRIBAL LEADER FOR OVER
22 YEARS, I'VE EXPERIENCED
FIRSTHAND THE TRANSFORMER
TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACTS GAMING
HAS HAD ON MY TRIBE AND OUR
PEOPLE. THESE IMPACTS ARE FELT
BY TRIBES ACROSS THE STATE, BOTH
GAMING AND NON GAMING. WE DON'T
NEED TO RECOUNT THE HISTORY OF
OPPRESSIONS OF OUR PEOPLE. BUT
OUR PURSUIT OF SELF RELIANCE OF
SOVEREIGN NATIONS HAS NEVER
WAVERED AND WILL NEVER BE TAKEN
FROM US. THANKS TO THE CONTINUED
SUPPORT OF THE VOTERS OF
CALIFORNIA TRIBAL GAMING ON OUR
LANDS HAS HELPED PULL US OUT OF
POVERTY AND PUSHED US ON A PATH
OF ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY. WE
ARE PROUD OF THE GAINS WE'VE
MADE, BUT NOT JUST FOR OUR
TRIBAL CITIZENS FOR ALL TRIBES,
GAMING AND GAMING AND NON GAMING
ALIKE. TRIBAL GAMING HAS
PROVIDED MORE THAN $1.6 BILLION
TO LIMITED AND NON GAMING TRIBES
ACROSS THE STATE OVER THE LAST
20 YEARS. 26 IS A LOGICAL
EXTENSION OF GAMING ON OUR
TRIBAL LANDS. IT'S THE ONLY
MEASURE ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT
THAT HAS SPONSORED AND WRITTEN
BY TRIBES AND FOUR TRIBES. MOST
IMPORTANTLY, THIS INITIATIVE
CONTINUES THE PATH OF HELPING
TRIBES BUILD WHAT PROP ONE A
STARTED LONG TERM ECONOMIC SELF
SUFFICIENCY FOR INDIAN PEOPLES.
26 HONORS THE COMMITMENT
CALIFORNIA VOTERS MADE TO INDIAN
TRIBES DECADES AGO BY CREATING
NEW JOBS AND ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRIBAL
COMMUNITIES AND ALL OF
CALIFORNIA. 26 WILL UPLIFT
TRIBAL AND NON TRIBAL
COMMUNITIES ALIKE. ACROSS THE
STATE BRICK AND WATER, TRIBAL
GAMING AND LICENSED TRACKS
DIRECTLY SUPPORT WELL OVER
170,000 GOOD PAYING JOBS EVERY
SINGLE YEAR. THIS INCLUDES
THOUSANDS OF WORKERS REPRESENTED
BY 12 LOCAL UNIONS ACROSS THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND JUST A
FIVE YEAR PERIOD FROM 15 4019.
BRICK AND MORTAR AND LICENSED
HORSE TRACKS GENERATED A
WHOPPING $128 BILLION IN
ECONOMIC IMPACT. WITH 59 BILLION
, REPRESENTING WAGES TO
EMPLOYEES. DURING THAT SAME
PERIOD, TRIBAL GAMING
CONTRIBUTED NEARLY $24 BILLION
IN TAX REVENUES TO THE STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ANNUALLY.
IMPORTANTLY INDIAN CASINOS ARE
LARGELY LOCATED IN RURAL AREAS.
UM KIND OF LIKE YOURS, MR CHAIR.
WHICH MEANS TRIBAL GAMING BRINGS
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY AND
PROSPERITY TO REGIONS OF THE
STATE THAT ARE TOO OFTEN
OVERLOOKED AND ECONOMICALLY
UNDERSERVED. THE GOVERNMENT.
THOUGHTFULLY WROTE PROP 26 TO
ENSURE SAFE, RESPONSIBLE AND
WELL REGULATED SPORTS SPORTS
WAGERING. YOU WILL LIKELY HEAR
NEXT FROM OUR OPPONENTS OF PROP
26 FOR MAKING RIDICULOUS CLAIMS
ABOUT OUR MEASURE. WE TAKE GREAT
OFFENSE TO THE DECEPTIVE
OPPOSITION CAMPAIGN BEING WAGED
BY THE CARD ROOM CASINOS AND
THEIR FINANCIAL BACKERS. THEY'RE
CALLING A SPECIAL INTERESTS.
DISPARAGING US AND HAVING
DISPARAGING US AS HAVING
MONOPOLIES. MINIMIZING THE
IMPORTANCE OF TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
AND CLAIMING WE DON'T BENEFIT
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. BUT I
GUESS WE SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED
. UH, THESE ARE THE SAME
DIVISIVE ATTACKS OR PEOPLE HAVE
ENDURED FOR GENERATIONS. HOWEVER
I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR OUR
MEASURE WILL NOT PUT A SINGLE
LEGAL GAMBLING OPERATION OUT OF
BUSINESS. WE HAVE INCLUDED A
RESPONSIBLE ENFORCEMENT
PROVISIONS TO ENSURE THE STATE'S
GAMING LAWS ARE BEING FOLLOWED.
PROP 26. ON THE ONLY THE CARD
ROOMS AT RISK OF ENFORCEMENT
UNDER PROVISIONS OF PROP 26 OR
THOSE FOUND BY THE COURTS TO BE
REPEAT VIOLATORS OF CALIFORNIA'S
GAMING LAWS. IT'S HARD TO ARGUE
WITH THE NEED TO ENFORCE GAMING
LAWS. I THINK YOU CAN AGREE WITH
THAT. 26 INCLUDES EXPLICIT
DISINCENTIVES FOR LAWYERS TO
FILE MERITLESS AND FRIVOLOUS
LAWSUITS, MOST NOTABLY, ANY
PENALTIES FROM ENFORCEMENT
ACTIONS WILL GO TO THE STATE
FUND TO TREAT AND PREVENT
PROBLEM GAMBLING NOT TO LINE THE
POCKETS OF TRIAL LAWYERS. I
THINK FORMER A G, BUT SARAH SAID
IT BEST GAMBLING RACE
REGULATIONS ARE ABOUT PROTECTING
THE PUBLIC AND MAKING SURE THE
WRONG PEOPLE DON'T PUT THEIR
THUMB ON THE SCALE AND THAT IS A
DIRECT QUOTE FROM HIM. THE
GAMBLING INDUSTRY IS BUILT ON
TRUST. AND IF BAD ACTORS BREAK
THE LAW AND UNDERMINE THAT TRUST
, LAW ABIDING BUSINESSES ARE
OFTEN THE ONES THAT SUFFER. 26
HAS ALREADY GARNERED SUPPORT
FROM BIPARTISAN COALITION OF
CIVIL RIGHTS, LABOR BUSINESS,
PUBLIC SAFETY, FAITH LEADERS.
AND DOZENS OF CALIFORNIA INDIAN
TRIBES. IT ALSO HAS THE SUPPORT
OF THE STATEWIDE DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION. 26 WAS
WRITTEN BY TRIBES AND PROMOTE
SELF RELIANCE. BY AUTHORIZING
SAFE, RESPONSIBLE GAMING ON OUR
VERY LAND OUR ANCESTORS WORKED,
LIVED, LOVED AND THRIVED FOR
CENTURIES. SO I ASK YOU PLEASE
STAND WITH CALIFORNIA INDIAN
TRIBES AND VOTE YES, ON PROP 26.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR, DODD. GOOD
AFTERNOON, SANTIAGO. MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS THE
VENUS ALREADY IN ER I AM THE
TRIBAL CHAIRWOMAN OF THE SANTA
ROSA BAND OF KUWAIT INDIANS
LOCATED IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IT IS
WITH GREAT PRIDE THAT I
TESTIFIED BEFORE YOU TODAY FOR
THE FIRST TIME. NEVER UM. ON
BEHALF OF THE 153 ADULTS AND 60
YOUTH MEMBERS OF MY TRIBE FOR
SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE. SIMILAR
TO CHAIR ROBERTS. I TOO, HAVE
SEEN THE TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACTS
GAMING HAS HAD ON MY TRIBE. BUT
THE CENTER IS A BAND ACQUIA
INDIANS DOES NOT OPERATE A
CASINO. MY TRIBE IS AMONG THE 47
, CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES THAT
DO NOT OPERATE GAMING. BUT HAVE
BEEN ABLE TO MAKE GREAT STRIDES
TOWARDS SELF SUFFICIENCY THROUGH
TRIBAL ENTERPRISES BUILT WITH
FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE. TO US
THROUGH THE REVENUE SHARING
TRUST FUNDS. THE REVENUE SHARING
AGREEMENT OUTLINED AND TRIBAL
STATE GAMING COMPACTS, LIMITED
AND NON GAMING TRIBES LIKE MINE.
HAVE RECEIVED. MORE THAN $1.6
BILLION IN REVENUE TO HELP
PROVIDE OUR MEMBERS WITH VITAL
SERVICES LIKE HOUSING, HEALTH,
EDUCATION AND CULTURAL
PRESERVATION. TODAY TRAVEL
GAMING HAS PROVIDED MY TRIBE
WITH OVER $24.5 MILLION IN THE
VALUE OF REVENUE SHARING CANNOT
BE OVERSTATED. THE REVENUE
SHARING HAS BEEN USED IN MY
TRIBE TO HELP RUN OUR ELDERS
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. TO BUILDING
MAINTAINING AND REPAIRING
HOUSING. OUR YOUTH ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS. TO HELP SUPPORT OUR
INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT
PROGRAMMING. HIGHER EDUCATION
SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL MEMBERS THAT
ARE ATTENDING UNIVERSITIES AND
TRADE SCHOOLS. OUR CULTURAL
PRESERVATION IN OUR LAND
STEWARDSHIP. TO HELP WITH THESE
UM FORCES OF NATURE. THE LIST
CAN GO ON AND ON. THE TRIBES
SUPPORTING PROP 26 HAVE MADE AN
UNPRECEDENTED UNPRECEDENTED
COMMITMENT TO CONTRIBUTE 15% OF
ALL PROFITS TO THE REVENUE
SHARING TRUST FUND. AS A RESULT,
PROP 26 WOULD NEARLY DOUBLE THE
FUNDING. PROVIDED TO SMALL
TRIBES AND NON GAMING ARE STF
TRIBES ANNUALLY. UNLIKE PROP 27
, WHICH DOESN'T PROVIDE A SINGLE
OPINION TO THE ARTIST, EF AND
DOESN'T GUARANTEE A PENNY TO THE
TRIBES. 26. HELPS SMALL TRIBES
LIKE MINE. THAT'S WHY PROP 26 IS
SUPPORTED BY BOTH GAMING AND NON
GAMING TRIBES FROM ALL CORNERS
OF THE STATE. INCLUDING CIENAGA
, THE STATE'S LARGEST
ASSOCIATION OF TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS. REPRESENTING MORE
THAN 40 TRIBAL APARTMENTS.
BYASSING PROP 26, THE
CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA HAS THE
HISTORICAL OPPORTUNITY TO UPLIFT
TRIBAL COMMUNITIES OR GENERATING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS. PLEASE STAND WITH
CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES AND
VOTE YES, ON PROP 26. FEMA.
THANK YOU, CHAIRWOMAN. USED TO
HAVE REMAINING ABOUT A MINUTE
AND A HALF. GENERAL COUNSEL
WOULD LIKE TO USE IT OR JUST AS
I MENTIONED BEFORE WE MENTIONED
ITS NAME IS JEFF BUTLER. MY NAME
IS JEFF AND I REPRESENT THE UTD
. HE WENT TO NATION, BUT I'M
HERE TO HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS
SHOULD ANY ARISE I DON'T HAVE A
STATEMENT PREPARED. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. NOW WE'RE GOING TO
OPEN IT UP AND THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR COMING TO PRESENT IT
OVER VERY HONORED. AND NOW WE
PASSED IT OVER TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS AND JUST REMIND AGAIN
LIMITED TO 20 MINUTES OF
QUESTIONS. COMMITTEE MEMBERS
THAT THERE ARE ANY COMMITTEE
QUESTIONS. REMEMBER QUESTIONS?
TAKE ANOTHER QUICK LOOK AROUND.
I'M NOT SEEING ANY SO WE'RE
GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO
NOW. OPPONENTS OF THANK YOU VERY
MUCH FOR COMING IN. UH
PARTICIPATING WILL MOVE ON TO
THE NEXT PANEL. WE'RE GONNA MOVE
ON TO OPPONENTS OF PROPOSITION
26. AGAIN WILL ALLOW 10 MINUTES.
FOR THE OPPONENT'S LIMITED AGAIN
TO 20 MINUTES. FOR Q AND A IF
THERE ARE ANY AND I'LL JUMP OVER
TO SOME NAMES HERE, TWO OF WHICH
WE BELIEVE ARE ON WEBEX AND I'LL
PRINT AND I'LL SAY THAT IN A
SECOND, BUT FIRST IS THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES
ASSOCIATION ARE MARCEL RODARTE.
AND IF I MISPRONOUNCED THE NAME
I WANT TO APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE.
I WANT TO SAY THAT AGAIN. AND
THEN FROM ASKED ME DISTRICT
COUNCIL 36. EVEN MORE CAGE AND
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
CITIES FOR SELF RELIANCE G P A.
JUAN GARCIA. TWO OF THEM AGAIN.
UM WOULD BE ON WEBEX. AND. YEAH.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. I BELIEVE
WE HAD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR
CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES
ASSOCIATION. UM I HAVE ON MY
NOTES WOULD BE HERE IN PERSON.
PLEASE COME FORWARD. IF NOT,
I'LL BEGIN WITH THE WEB X AND IF
THAT PERSON COMES FORWARD, THEN
WE'LL PLUG HIM IN, OKAY? AND
WE'LL BEGIN WITH STEPHEN MOORE
CAGE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON
. CAN YOU HEAR ME? JUST JUST AS
A COURTESY. I'LL TAP YOU AT
ABOUT FIVE MINUTES AND I SHOULD
HAVE DONE THAT BEFORE TO GIVE
PEOPLE KIND OF A WARNING, YOU
KNOW? THANKS. THANK YOU SO MUCH
. UM SO GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN.
I'M SURE EVEN MORE CAGE. I AM A
PROUD MEMBER OF THE LOCAL 36
PAST VICE PRESIDENT AND I ALSO
REPRESENT ESMIE DISTRICT COUNCIL
36, WHICH IS A COALITION OF 60.
LOCAL EPPS, ME UNIONS AND WE ARE
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO PROPOSITION
26. UM WE'RE OPPOSING PROP 26
BECAUSE OF A POISON PILL THAT IS
HIDDEN IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. IT
ATTACKS LOCAL CARD ROOMS AND
THREATENS OVER 32,000 JOBS AND
$500 MILLION IN LOCAL TAX
REVENUE FROM MINORITY
COMMUNITIES THAT THESE CARD
ROOMS SERVE AND WHAT THAT
TRANSLATES IS INTO HIS 5.6.
BILLION DOLLARS OF ECONOMIC
OUTPUT. UM. IF THESE LOCAL CARD
ROOMS ARE CLOSED, IT IS
DETRIMENTAL TO THE QUALITY OF
LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS IN
MINORITY COMMUNITIES THAT THESE
LOCAL CART ROOM SERVES. AND SO
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT
THESE CARD ROOMS ALLOW
COMMUNITIES TO HAVE VITAL
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PROGRAMS.
SUCH AS THE YOUTH ACTIVITIES, UM
AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS SO THAT
PARENTS CAN GO TO WORK AND THEIR
CHILDREN ARE PROPERLY CARED FOR,
AND THEIR CHILDREN ARE DOING
THINGS PRODUCTIVE WHILE THEY'RE
STILL WORKING IN THESE AFTER
SCHOOL PROGRAMS, THEY CAN
PARTICIPATE IN GROUP SPORTS AND
ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER CODING
PROGRAMS. UM IT CATERS TO PUBLIC
SAFETY PROGRAMS. UM ARE MOST
VULNERABLE COMMUNITY WHICH IS
OUR SENIORS, UM, THIS TAX
REVENUE SUPPORTS TRANSPORTATION
FOR THEM TO AND FROM THE DOCTORS
, ARTS AND CRAFTS PROGRAM, FOOD
PROGRAMS. UM EVERYONE KNOWS
RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE IN A
HOMELESS CRISIS. AND IT WILL
TAKE AWAY HOMELESS SERVICES. AND
SO I HAVE SPOKEN TO AND I'M JUST
GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CITY OF
HAWAIIAN GARDENS, AND THE
ANALYSTS SPOKE EARLIER OF THAT
CITY WHOSE TAX REVENUE WAS AT
LEAST 70% OF THEIR GENERAL FUND.
AND THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE
CITY THAT I WORK IN. IT'S THE
CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS, AND SO
I'VE SPOKE TO LIFELONG RESIDENTS
IN THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS
AND OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES,
THERE HAS BEEN AN AMAZING
TRANSFORMATION. OF THIS CITY. AS
A DIRECT RESULT OF THE TAX
REVENUE THAT COMES IN FROM OUR
LOCAL CARD ROOM. AND SO LET ME
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT? LET ME
TELL YOU WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. SO
I'M NOT SPEAKING FROM, YOU KNOW
, JUST WHAT I HEARD. I'M
SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE. SO THE
PANDEMIC WHAT THE PANDEMIC DID
FOR THE CITY OF HAWAIIAN GARDENS
. IT IS. IT GAVE US A LIKE A
SNEAK PREVIEW OF WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IF THESE ARE LOCAL CAR
ROOMS ARE CLOSED BY THESE
FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS THAT IT WOULD
BE, UM, SUBJECT TO AND SO WHEN
THE PANDEMIC HIT IN THAT CART
ROOM CLOSED. OVER 60. PEOPLE IN
OUR CITY GOT A LAYOFF NOTICE I
WAS ONE OF THEM. I DON'T WANT
THIS TO HAPPEN TO MY UNION
BROTHERS AND SISTERS. UM IF THIS
IF THIS PROPOSITION PASSES SO
WHAT WE NEED AND WHAT WE ALSO
NEED TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE
REVENUE FROM LOCAL CARD ROOMS IT
GIVES THE UNION WORKERS LIKE
GREAT BARGAINING POWER TO
NEGOTIATE STRONG CONTRACTS WITH
THE GOOD JOBS AND GOOD BENEFITS
, AND THIS MAKES COMMUNITY
STRONGER AND YOU ALSO NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE NOT
ABSOLUTELY NOT ANTI NATIVE
AMERICAN TRIBES. WE WANT THEM TO
REMAIN SECURING THEIR
SOVEREIGNTY. THE ONLY PROBLEM IS
THAT PROVISION AND THAT IS
INSIDE THIS PROPOSITION THAT
THREATENS THESE 32,000 JOBS IN
THAT $500 MILLION IN LOCAL TAX
REVENUE. RIGHT NOW. THERE'S
ANOTHER PROPOSITION. THAT IS
ENOUGH THAT IS IN CIRCULATION,
AND THAT PROPOSITION WAS CREATED
BY THE SANDMAN. WELL BAND OF
MISSION INDIANS, AND WHAT
THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE
COLLECTING SIGNATURES RIGHT NOW
, AND THAT PROPOSITION COULD
POSSIBLY GO ON THE BALLOT FOR
2024. AND SO THAT IS A BETTER
MEASURE. IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT
POISON PILL THAT CAN POSSIBLY
CLOSE OUR CARD ROOMS. THERE'S
OVER. CAN I JUST ASK YOU TO
STAY? THE PROPOSITIONS THAT WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT? NOW THAT
WOULD BE THE FAIREST WAY TO DO
THAT. I HOPE THAT THAT'S OK WITH
THE COMMITTEE, OKAY, AND I
TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. AND SO
THIS PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 26.
IT IS EVEN DIVIDING THE
COMMUNITY, THE NATIVE AMERICAN
TRIBAL COMMUNITIES, IT'S EVEN
CREATING DIVISION IN THE
COMMUNITY, SO I JUST WANTED TO
POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE WE ARE
NOT ANTI NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
. UM AND SO I JUST WOULD LIKE
EVERYONE TO SUPPORT UNION
WORKERS SUPPORT MINORITY
COMMUNITIES GONNA FULFILL MY
COMMITMENT TO TELL YOU THAT
YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OVER
FIVE MINUTES, BUT YOU MAY
CONTINUE, BUT YOU GOT A TOTAL OF
10 MINUTES. OKAY WELL, I DON'T
WANT TO, UM, INFRINGE UPON MY
PARTNER, SO I'M GOING TO LET HIM
UM, SPEAK. THANK YOU. SURE IS MR
GARZA ON. I AM HERE. OKAY LET'S
UH IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED UNTIL
MARCEL RODARTE, THE EXECUTIVE
RETRO CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES
ASSOCIATION COMES UP. YOU MAY
PROCEED. THANK YOU, SIR. I
WANTED TO THANK YOU. CHAIR IN
OBVIOUSLY CHAIR DODD AND MEMBERS
OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY
TODAY. MY NAME IS JUAN GARZA AND
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR SELF
RELIANCE DURING PART OF
AUTHORITY. UH THAT J P A. IN
SHORT IS A J P A COMPRISES OF
FIVE MEMBER CITIES ALL IN L, A
COUNTY, BUT NONETHELESS, UH,
MONITORING THESE ISSUES THAT
AFFECT, UM NOT ONLY ARE FIVE
MEMBER CITIES BUT CITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AGAIN THANKS FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS
PART. 26 LET ME START OFF BY
SAYING THAT WE ARE NOT OPPOSED
TO ANYONE. WITHOUT WISHES TO
FULFILL SELF SUFFICIENCY WERE
ABSOLUTELY FOR THAT. UM BUT
NONETHELESS THE IMPACT THAT CARD
ROOMS HAVE ON OVER 78 CITIES AND
COUNTIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE IS
UNDENIABLE IN PROP 26 YOU HAVE,
UH THE, UH, THE CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT TOOL THAT MISSING
ITALY REFERRED TO BEFORE THE
PLACARD PROVISIONS THAT WE ALL
CALL WHICH, UNFORTUNATELY, UM,
IF PUT INTO EFFECT WILL HAVE AN
EFFECT ON JOBS AND WILL HAVE AN
EFFECT ON OUR COMMUNITIES,
ESPECIALLY MY MEMBER CITIES. IN
TERMS OF JOBS. WE'RE LOOKING AT
OVER $1.6 BILLION IN WAGES THAT
WOULD BE LOST, UH, OVER 10,000
JOBS. DIRECT JOBS IN L, A COUNTY
ALONE OVER 32,000 JOBS STATEWIDE
AGAIN AFFECTED BY PROP 26
POTENTIALLY AND AN UNKNOWN
NUMBER OF INDIRECT JOBS. IN
TERMS OF THE EFFECTS ON
COMMUNITIES LIKE MINE. THAT
DEPENDS ON TRAVEL REVENUE YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT. MILLIONS AND
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER $500
MILLION BILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT
WOULD BE LOST POTENTIALLY IN
LOCAL TAX REVENUE ALONE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THEN THAT
TRANSLATES TO REDUCTIONS. OF OUR
ABILITY TO HAVE PUBLIC SAFETY IN
OUR COMMUNITIES. IT WOULD AFFECT
OUR SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAMS ARE
CLEAN PARTS YOUTH PROGRAMS,
EVERYTHING THAT EVERY COMMUNITY
IN OUR STATE LAW DESERVES
QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES AND AGAIN
WE ARE CITIES CANNOT TAKE THAT
RISK. SO IT'S CRUCIAL THAT YOU
AND THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF THE
EFFECT THAT PROP 26 WOULD HAVE
ON OUR CITIES. AND I WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT IT'S THE ONLY
PROPOSITION THAT WILL HURT LOCAL
COMMUNITIES AND AGAIN. LET ME
RESTATE THAT. IT'S THE ONLY
PROPOSITION IN NOVEMBER THAT
WILL HURT LOCAL COMMUNITIES. SO
WITH THAT UH, JUST TO IN MY
COMMENTS WITH AGAIN WE JUST WANT
WHAT THE TRAVEL NATIONS WANT AND
WHAT OTHER INTERESTS WANT, WHICH
IS JUST THE ABILITY TO BE SELF
SUFFICIENT. AND WITH THAT, I
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY CHAIR
AND THANK YOU FOR THE
OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND
MOVE ON TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS
QUESTIONS BECAUSE I DON'T SEE
THE LAST UH, UM, PRESENTER
COMING. HOWEVER, TO BE FAIR, YOU
STILL DO HAVE A MINUTE AND A
HALF IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTINUE
OR THE OTHER PRESENTED WOULD
LIKE TO CONTINUE YOU CAN IF YOU
WISH, OTHERWISE, I'LL MOVE ON.
WHAT WOULD BE HER? THANK YOU
AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK
YOU. I'M GONNA MOVE IT OVER TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. UM ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE
YOU KNOW, UH. YES MISS
AGUIAR-CURRY. YOU HAD A
QUESTION? I HAVE A COUPLE OF
QUESTIONS. UM IT WAS BROUGHT UP
BY THE LST NOT THE LAST
SPEAKER. BUT, UM I BELIEVE IT
WAS YVONNE. UM MY CONCERN IS, UM
AND I MIGHT NEED THE ATTORNEY TO
ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR ME. UM
SHE BROUGHT UP ABOUT FRIVOLOUS
LAWSUITS, BUT THERE'S MENTIONED
IN THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER THAT
THERE WAS SOME SAFEGUARDS BUILT
IN AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU
COULD CLARIFY WHAT THOSE MIGHT
BE. THAT'S OKAY. WELL, THERE WAS
THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER, UM
MENTIONED ABOUT THERE'S THERE
COULD BE SOME PRIVILEGE LAWSUITS
, AND IT WAS ALSO STAYED
SOMEWHERE ONE OF THE SPEAKERS
THAT THERE ARE SOME SAFEGUARDS
THAT WERE BUILT IN. CAN YOU JUST
CLARIFY? SURE THERE'S NO SUCH
THING AS A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT.
THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT AND I'M
A LAWYER. I KNOW THAT LAWYERS
HAVE A BAD RAP WITH RESPECT TO
CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE KNOW
ABOUT 80 A SUITS, AND SOMETIMES
PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT BEING
BROUGHT FRIVOLOUSLY. THE SAME
THING HAPPENS WITH PROP 65
LAWSUITS. THE SAME THING HAPPENS
WITH POLKA LAWSUITS, WHICH IS A
LABOR CODE PROVISIONS POCKETS
SPECIFICALLY LABOR CODE
PROVISIONS. WHY IS THAT BECAUSE
THEY CONTAIN ATTORNEY'S FEES
PROVISION, SO THEY BASICALLY
ENCOURAGE LAWYERS TO BRING THOSE
LAWSUITS, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE
THE DAMAGE THE PLAINTIFFS
THEMSELVES GET VERY LITTLE OUT
OF IT. AND WHAT YOU HAVE IS
ATTORNEYS MAKING MONEY. THERE'S
NO SUCH PROVISION IN THIS CIVIL
ENFORCEMENT TOOL. THERE'S
NOTHING EVERY PENNY THAT COMES
BACK FROM ANYONE IN THE LAWSUITS
GOES DIRECTLY TO THE FUND THAT'S
CREATED THROUGH THE THROUGH THE
PROVISION, SO AND THAT'S ONE
THING. I JUST WANT TO REMIND ONE
THING THAT I SAID EARLIER AND I
FELL DOWN FORCE, BUT I SHOULD
NOW IS THAT WE WOULD STICK TO
THE QUESTIONS. UH TO THE TO THE
TO THEQUESTIONS TO THE PANEL
MEMBERS WHO JUST PREVIOUSLY
WENT. I SAID THAT AT THE
BEGINNING, I WANT TO TRY TO
ENFORCE THAT AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE. MAKE IT FINISH THIS.
AND THEN IF THE COMMITTEE WOULD
BE OKAY. WE JUST STICK TO THE
QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT TO THOSE
WHO ARE OPPONENTS OF 26 TO AVOID
HAVING TO PULL YOU BACK AND SO
FORTH. I JUST I JUST WANT TO
CLARIFY. I DIDN'T HAVE A
QUESTION UNTIL THAT WAS BROUGHT
UP. SO IT JUST KIND OF BROUGHT
THAT TO MY ATTENTION, AND THAT'S
WHY SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BUT
THERE'S ONE MORE IMPORTANT POINT
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROVISIONS
IN PROP 26, WHICH IS THAT THERE
IS A OPPORTUNITY FOR THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STEP IN.
SHOULD THERE BE CONDUCT THAT IS
SOMEBODY RAISES AS ILLEGAL. SO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS THE
ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT
THAT CONDUCT IF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL BELIEVES THAT IT'S
NECESSARY TO DO SO. SO THAT'S
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT GENERALLY
AND OTHER PROVISIONS, AND THE
OTHER PART ABOUT PHYLLIS LAWSUIT
IS SIMPLY WELL. IT'S NOT
ENFORCING ANY NEW LAWS. IT'S NOT
CREATING LAWS. IT'S SIMPLY
TRYING TO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT
HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE 18
72. BUT IF MR CHAIRMAN. BUT IF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT
RULE AGAINST. THEY CAN STILL
TAKE THIS PRIVATE RIGHT OF
ACTION PRIVATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ACT LAWSUIT IS THAT CORRECT ON
INDIVIDUAL COULD IF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL CHOOSES NOT TO FILE AN
ACTION THEN AND THAT WHATEVER
INDIVIDUAL IT IS, THAT'S THAT'S
BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN FILE A
SUIT? YES, IT'S A CIVIL SUIT.
OKAY AND IF IT'S OKAY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS, MAYBE MAYBE WE CAN GO
BACK TO ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT
OPPONENTS, AND I HATE TO DO THAT
ONLY BECAUSE WE SAID IT AT THE
BEGINNING. I WANT TO TRY TO STAY
TO WHAT WE SAID. YEAH. IF
THERE'S ANY OTHER. THANK YOU, MR
SPEAKER. THERE'S ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS TO THE OPPONENTS OF
PROP 26. THANK YOU. AND THE
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M NOT
SEEING ANY SO I'M GOING TO GO
AHEAD AND LET'S GET FORWARD TO
THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE'RE GONNA
HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS IN TWO
FORMS. UH I'M GONNA GO TO THE
PHONES FIRST, IF THAT'S OKAY
WITH EVERYONE HERE. COMMITTEE
MEMBERS OKAY WITH THAT. UH HUH.
AND UH, MADAM OR MR MODERATOR,
BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO'S ON UH
, IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH
PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND I'LL JUST
REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE HAD
AGREED TO NAME ORGANIZATION IN
POSITION ONLY. AND I HAVE TO
REMIND EVERYBODY OF THAT, IF IT
NEED BE. YEP ANYBODY WISHING TO
GO? UH MR OR MRS MODERATOR, IF
YOU COULD HELP US WITH THAT. MM
HMM. CERTAINLY THE QUEUE UP FOR
A QUESTION. PLEASE PRESS ONE AND
FOLLOWED BY 01 AND THEN ZERO. WE
COULD TRY AGAIN AND HEARING NONE
OF THEM WILL MOVE ON. THAT WAS
IN THE ROOM. OKAY LOOKS LIKE
THERE'S ONE THAT'S QUEUED UP. WE
JUST HAVE TO GET THE LINE
NUMBER. IT'LL IT'LL BE A MOMENT.
YES, SIR. OKAY LINE NUMBER 53,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. IT'S MR CHAIR.
THIS IS BRIAN LINGERING ON
BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITIES,
CALIFORNIA CARD ROOMS AND
OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITION 26.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WAS TOLD
THERE WAS ONE. SO I'M GONNA SKIP
NOW THROUGH THROUGH THE PHONE,
UM, PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION TO IN
PERSON. UM PUBLIC COMMENT
PORTION AND I'LL AGAIN I'LL ASK
AGAIN THAT ITS NAME ORGANIZATION
AND POSITION ONLY UM. THE
COMMITTEE BE OKAY. UM LET'S
START OFF WITH US. LET'S START
OFF WITH SUPPORT, AND THEN WE'LL
GO TO OPPOSITION. NIELSEN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
CALIFORNIA NATIONS INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT. RETREAT
ON BEHALF OF THE COLUSA INDIAN
COMMUNITY AND THE TAILBONE
INDIAN COMMUNITY IN FULL
SUPPORT. AND OPPOSED ON 27.
JAMES KINTER, YAZIDI TRIBAL
COUNCIL SECRETARY HERE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF 26. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON. CATALINA CHIKAN
COUNCILWOMAN PECHANGA. I AM IN
SUPPORT OF 26. THANK YOU. ANY
ADDITIONAL, UM MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC AND SUPPORT AND THEN. IF
I MISS SOMEBODY WILL BRING HIM
BACK TOWARDS THE END SOME BUT
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I'M GOING
TO MOVE TO OPPOSITION. UM YOU
MAY PROCEED FOUR AND AGAIN NAME
ORGANIZATION AND POSITION ONLY,
PLEASE. THE OPPOSITION. UH
PUBLIC COMMENTS. I'M NOT SEEING
ANY UM. SO THAT CONCLUDES THIS
PORTION UH, OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING AND THEN I'LL HAND OVER
THE GAVEL. UH, MR. CHAIR MR DODD
TO PROCEED WITH THE NEXT PORTION
OF THIS HEARING. OKAY. THANK
YOU. EVERYONE APPRECIATE, UH, UM
, MR CHAIR THE WAY THAT HEARING
WET WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE
INFORMATIONAL HEARING ON CAN YOU
HEAR ME? YEAH, THANK YOU. YEP
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO THE
INFORMATIONAL HEARING ON
PROPOSITION 27, WHICH ALLOWS FOR
ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS
WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS.
WE BEGIN WITH MISS LEE WITH THE
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE.
WELCOME BACK. THANK YOU SO MUCH,
UM. WE HAVE ASKED SIMILAR WE
HAVE BEEN ASKED ABSOLUTELY TO
PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF
PROPOSITION 27. UM IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME. A LOT OF
MEMBERS. UM WE'RE ALREADY HERE
FOR THE INITIAL PART OF OUR
PRESENTATION, SO WE WON'T MAKE
YOU SIT THROUGH THAT AGAIN. BUT
FOR SOME OF THE NEWER MEMBERS IF
YOU'RE LOOKING IN YOUR PACKET OR
FOR THOSE WHO ARE FOLLOWING
ALONG, WE WILL BE USING THIS
HAND OUT AS A GUIDE. SO PAGE
ONE, WHICH WILL SKIP OVER, UM
WAS AGAIN AN OVERVIEW OF THE
LEO'S ROLE IN THE INITIATIVE
PROCESS. IF YOU TURN TO PAGE
TWO, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE
START WITH OUR KEY BACKGROUND.
UM JUST AS A HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY.
WE TALKED ABOUT SPORTS BETTING
CURRENTLY NOT BEING PERMITTED IN
CALIFORNIA. BUT THERE ARE
CERTAIN TYPES OF GAMBLING THAT
ARE PERMITTED TRIBAL GAMING
STATE LOTTERY CARD ROOMS AND
HORSE RACING BETTING. AS PART OF
THE PRIOR PANEL. WE ALSO TALKED
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TRIBAL GAMING
AND TRIBAL STATE COMPACTS. I
WON'T GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN, BUT
JUST REMIND YOU THAT CALIFORNIA
CURRENTLY HAS COMPACTS WITH 79
TRIBES. THOSE COMPACTS DICTATE
WHAT GAMES CAN BE OFFERED HOW
THEY'RE REGULATED AS WELL AS
WHETHER ANY PAYMENTS ARE
REQUIRED, SUCH AS TO THE STATE
OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. IF YOU
LOOK AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE
PAGE, THERE IS ONE PIECE OF NEW
INFORMATION THAT IS IMPORTANT
FOR UNDERSTANDING PROPOSITION 27
. THAT IS THAT THE STATE HAS A
PROGRAM CALLED THAT WOULD BE
HOMELESS HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND
PREVENTION PROGRAM, ALSO KNOWN
AS HAP. WHICH PROVIDES FUNDING
TO LOCAL ENTITIES AND TRIBES TO
HELP THEM ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS
RELATED TO ADDRESSING
HOMELESSNESS. CURRENTLY 80% OF
THE HAP FUNDS GO TO LOCAL
ENTITIES GENERALLY BASED ON
THEIR SHARE OF THE STATE'S
HOMELESS POPULATION. 2% 2 TRIBES
AND 18% TO THE STATE TO PROVIDE
BONUSES. TO UM LOCAL ENTITIES
AND TRIBES WHO MEET THOSE GOALS.
THE PROGRAM RECEIVED ONE BILLION
IN STATE FUNDS THIS YEAR. SO IF
YOU TURN TO PAGE THREE OF YOUR
HAND OUT, WE'RE NOW GOING TO
HIGHLIGHT SIX KEY PROVISIONS
THAT ARE INCLUDED IN PROPOSITION
27. SO THE FIRST IS THAT IT
WOULD CHANGE THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAW TO
ALLOW ONLINE SPORTS BETTING OVER
THE INTERNET AND MOBILE DEVICES.
PEOPLE 21 YEARS OF ASIAN OLDER
IN CALIFORNIA, WHO ARE NOT ON
TRIBAL LANDS WOULD BE ABLE TO
PLACE BETS NO LATER THAN
SEPTEMBER OF 2023. THAT'S WOULD
BE ALLOWED ON ATHLETIC EVENTS
SUCH AS FOOTBALL, BUT ALSO NON
ATHLETIC EVENTS. LIKE AWARD
SHOWS THE ENDS WOULD BE, UM NOT
PERMITTED ON CERTAIN OTHER
EVENTS SUCH AS HIGH SCHOOL
GAMES. THERE ARE TWO GROUPS,
TRIBES WITH TRIBAL STATE
COMPACTS AS WELL AS CERTAIN
GAMBLING COMPANIES WHO WOULD BE
ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR A FIVE
YEAR LICENSE TO OFFER ONLINE
SPORTS BETTING. LICENSED TRIBES
OR THEIR CONTRACTORS COULD OFFER
SPORTS BETTING UNDER THE TRIBES
NAMES. UM THE TRIBES TO GET A
LICENSE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
GIVE UP SOME OF THE RIGHTS THAT
THEY HAVE UNDER FEDERAL LAW AND
WOULD AGREE EFFECTIVELY TO A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STATE
REGULATION. LICENSE TO GAMBLING
COMPANIES WHO MUST PARTNER WITH
THE TRIBE THAT HAS A COMPACT
COULD OFFER SPORTS BETTING UNDER
THEIR OWN NAME OR BRAND. UM WE
WOULD NOTE THAT THE LICENSES
WOULD GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO
LARGER COMPANIES SUCH AS THOSE
THAT HAVE ONLINE SPORTS BETTING
LICENSES AND AT LEAST 10, OTHER
US STATES OR TERRITORIES. IF YOU
TURN TO PAGE FOUR OF YOUR HAND
OUT, UM THE SECOND KEY PROVISION
IS THAT THE PROPOSITION WOULD
REQUIRE VARIOUS PAYMENTS TO THE
STATE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE. TRIBES
AND GAMBLING COMPANIES THAT HAVE
LICENSES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
PAY 10% OF SPORTS BEDS MADE EACH
MONTH TO THE STATE AFTER
SUBTRACTING CERTAIN EXPENSES.
THESE EXPENSES INCLUDE ANY BETS
MADE WITH CREDITS FROM
PROMOTIONAL OFFERS PRICE
PAYMENTS AND FEDERAL GAMBLING
TAXES. LOSSES WOULD BE ELIGIBLE
TO BE USED TO OFFSET THESE
PAYMENTS. IN ADDITION TO THAT
THE PROPOSITION WOULD REQUIRE
THAT A PORTION OF THESE MONTHLY
PAYMENTS BE MADE IN ADVANCE WHEN
THE SPORTS BETTING LICENSE IS
APPROVED OR RENEWED. THIS WOULD
REDUCE THE ACTUAL MONTHLY
AMOUNT. THAT'S A SPECIFICALLY A
TRIBE MUST PAY $10 MILLION WHEN
IT RECEIVES ITS, UM, LICENSE
WHEN IT'S APPROVED AND ALSO $1
MILLION EACH TIME THAT LICENSE
IS RENEWED. THE GAMBLING
COMPANIES, ON THE OTHER HAND,
MUST PAY $100 MILLION WHEN IT'S
FIVE YEAR LICENSES APPROVED AND
THEN $10 MILLION EACH TIME THAT
LICENSE IS RENEWED. MOVING DOWN
THE PAGE. THE THIRD KEY
PROVISION IS THAT THE
PROPOSITION WOULD REQUIRE
DEPOSIT OF ALL OF THESE STATE
PAYMENTS INTO A NEW SPECIAL FUND
. THIS ONE IS CALLED THE
CALIFORNIA ONLINE SPORTS BETTING
TRUST FUND. THE REVENUES WAS
FIRST BE USED FOR STATE
REGULATORY COSTS. AND THEN AFTER
THAT, THEY'RE GENERALLY USED FOR
TWO KEY PURPOSES. 85% WOULD GO
TO ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS OR TO
SUPPORT GAMBLING ADDICTION
PROGRAMS WITH THE MONEY FOR
HOMELESSNESS GENERALLY GOING OUT
IN THE SAME WAY AS THE HAP
FUNDING. AND THEN THE REMAINING
15% WOULD GO TO TRIBES THAT ARE
NOT INVOLVED IN ONLINE SPORTS
BETTING, AND THOSE MONIES COULD
BE USED FOR TRIBAL GOVERNMENT,
ECONOMIC AND OTHER PURPOSES.
TURNING TO PAGE FIVE OF YOUR
HAND OUT. THE FOURTH PROVISION
IS THAT THE PROPOSITION WOULD
EXEMPT THE STATE REVENUES FROM
CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS
RELATED TO THE STATE SPENDING
LIMIT AS WELL AS PROPOSITION 98
MINIMUM EDUCATION SPENDING
LEVELS. THE FIFTH PROVISION IS
THAT THE PROPOSITION WOULD
CREATE A NEW UNIT WITHIN
CALIFORNIA. DOJ TO REGULATE
ONLINE SPORTS BETTING. THE UNIT
WOULD SET THE REQUIREMENTS TO
GET A LICENSE. UM, DECIDE WHAT
TYPES OF EVENTS AND BETS ARE
ALLOWED AND ALSO TO INVESTIGATE
ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER SOME
OF THE ACTIVITIES WOULD ALSO BE
LIMITED. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE
UNIT COULD NOT LIMIT THE AMOUNT
OF PROMOTIONAL CREDITS THAT WERE
OFFERED THE BETTER. AND THEN
MOVING TO THE BOTTOM OF THE
BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE. THE SIXTH
AND FINAL PROVISIONS IS THAT IT
WOULD CREATE NEW WAYS TO REDUCE
ILLEGAL ONLINE SPORTS BETTING.
SUCH AS REQUIRING PEOPLE WHO
PLACE ONLINE SPORTS BETS WITH
ANY UNLICENSED ENTITY TO PAY THE
STATE A PENALTY, WHICH IS EQUAL
TO 15% OF THE AMOUNT THAT THEY
BET AUTHORIZING A $1000 PENALTY
FOR EACH DAY. THIS MONEY ISN'T
TO PAY AND ALL OF THESE MONIES
WOULD BE DEPOSITED INTO THE NEW
SPECIAL FUND. TURNING TO PAGE
SIX OF YOUR HAND OUT. WE ARE NOW
GOING TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO
THE FISCAL EFFECTS. UM SIMILAR
TO OUR OUR PRIOR DISCUSSION. THE
ACTUAL SIZE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF
THE FISCAL EFFECTS ON STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND
COSTS ARE UNCERTAIN AND WOULD
DEPEND ON HOW THE MEASURE WAS
INTERPRETED AND IMPLEMENTED. SO
FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS UNCLEAR
WHETHER TRIBES WOULD ASK FOR
CHANGES TO THEIR COMPACTS, SUCH
AS TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT THAT
THEY PAID TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
TO REFLECT POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON
TRIBAL CASINOS. FROM THIS
EXPANSION IN GAME BEING
ADDITIONALLY, THE FISCAL IMPACT
EFFECTS WOULD ALSO DEPEND ON HOW
MANY ENTITIES SEEK TO BE
LICENSED. HOW MANY EXPENSES ARE
DEDUCTED OR SUBTRACTED FROM THE
AMOUNT THAT IS OWED TO THE STATE
, AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO MAKE SPORTS
BUT. KEEPING THAT IN MIND. WE
IDENTIFIED THREE MAJOR FISCAL
EFFECTS, THE FIRST WOULD BE
INCREASED STATE REVENUES,
POSSIBLY IN THE HUNDREDS OF
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, BUT LIKELY
NOT MORE THAN $500 MILLION
ANNUALLY FROM SPORTS BETTING
PAYMENTS AND PENALTIES. SOME OF
THIS REVENUE WOULD BE NEW.
HOWEVER, SOME OF IT WOULD NOT,
AND WOULD BE A SHIFT FROM
EXISTING, UM FROM EXISTING STATE
REVENUES. THE MONEY'S WOULD GO
INTO THIS NEW SPECIAL FUND. THE
FIRST USE OF THAT MONEY WOULD BE
TO SUPPORT STATE REGULATORY
COSTS, AND THEN THE REMAINDER
WOULD GO TO SUPPORT THE
HOMELESSNESS PROGRAMS, GAMBLING
ADDICTION PROGRAMS AND THEN
TRIBAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND
OTHER PURPOSES. TURNING TO PAGE
SEVEN. THE FINAL PAGE OF YOUR
HAND OUT UM THE SECOND FISCAL
EFFECT IS THAT THERE WOULD BE
INCREASED STATE COSTS TO
REGULATE ONLINE SPORTS BETTING,
WHICH WOULD POSSIBLY REACH THE
MID TENS OF MILLIOS OF DOLLARS
ANNUALLY. THE INCREASE WOULD
DEPEND MOSTLY ON HOW SPORTS
BETTING IS REGULATED, SUCH AS
THE NUMBER OF LICENSES THAT ARE
APPROVED THE TYPE AND NUMBER OF
BETTING OPTIONS AND EVENTS THAT
ARE OFFERED AS WELL AS HOW THAT
STATE ENFORCEMENT IS DONE.SOME
OR ALL OF THESE COSTS WOULD BE
OFFSET BY THOSE INCREASED
REVENUES. AND THEN FINALLY,
THERE IS AN UNKNOWN EFFECT OF
VARIOUS OTHER FISCAL EFFECTS ON
THE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU CAN'T HAVE
STATE AND LOCAL REVENUE INCREASE
FROM PEOPLE SPENDING MORE THAN
THEY OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE. SOME
OF THE LOCAL REVENUE MIGHT BE
OFFSET, FOR EXAMPLE, BY COMPACTS
THAT REQUIRE LESS PAYMENTS, UM,
DUE TO KIND OF EXPANSION IN
GAMING. AND THEN, ADDITIONALLY,
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
COULD ALSO HAVE INCREASED COSTS
. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ONLINE SPORTS
BETTING CAN MAKE IT DIFFICULT
FOR PEOPLE WITH GAMBLING
ADDICTIONS TO AVOID PLACING THAT
THOSE BETS AND SO THAT COULD
INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE
WHO MIGHT NEED GOVERNMENT
ASSISTANCE. SO THAT WAY, WE WILL
CONCLUDE OUR COMMENTS HAPPY TO
ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THE
APPROPRIATE TIME. THANK YOU,
MISS LEE. APPRECIATE THAT. I
KNOW THAT WE HAVE A QUESTION
FROM SENATOR GLASER. THANK YOU,
UH, WORKING CHIP. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YOU HEAR
ME? I DID. OKAY ALL RIGHT. CAN
YOU HEAR ME? THANK YOU. CHAIR
DOT IT'S LEAH. TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE YOU MENTIONED THE SPECIAL
FUND FOR HOMELESS THAT REVENUE
WOULD BE PUT INTO UH, DOES THAT
, UH, THERE ANY LIMITATION ON
HAVING THAT MONEY SUPPLANT
EXISTING STATE FUNDS FOR THE
HOMELESS? I'M SORRY. COULD YOU
REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? I JUST
MISSED A PORTION OF IT. I HEARD
THAT DOES THE MONEY THAT GOES
INTO THIS THIS HOMELESS FUND
UNDER THE PROPOSED MEASURE? IS
THERE ANY PROHIBITION AGAINST
ITS PLANNING EXISTENCE THAT WE
SPEND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THE
HOMELESS TODAY? YES THERE. THERE
IS LANGUAGE, THE INTENT WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT IT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE. IN ADDITION, IT
IS NOT SUPPOSED TO SUPPLANT.
FUNDS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING
SPENT. IT HAS TO BE A NEW
PROGRAM BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE
HAVE LOTS OF PROGRAMS THAT
SUPPORT THE HOMELESSNESS. WELL I
THINK THERE'S FLEXIBILITY AND
HOW THE MONEY IS OFFERED. SO ONE
OF THE KEY THINGS THAT IS LAID
OUT IN THE MEASURE IS THAT THE
FUNDING WOULD GENERALLY GO OUT
THE WAY THE HAP FUNDING GOES OUT
. UM AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE. AT PAGE TWO OF YOUR HAND OUT,
UM THE CURRENT METHODOLOGY FOR
THAT IS BASICALLY 80% OF THE
FUNDS TO LOCAL ENTITIES BASED ON
THEIR SHARE OF THE POPULATION,
AND THEN THEY HAVE THEY USE THAT
TO MEET KIND OF GOALS THAT THEY
HAD, UM, THERE TO MEET THE GOALS
THAT THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS
HOMELESSNESS AND THEN 2% OF
TRIBES AND THEN 18% TO THE STATE
OR BONUSES. FOR THOSE THAT MEET
THOSE GOALS. THE STATE WAS
PROVIDING THAT BUNNY EXISTING
TODAY. AH, THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE
ON TOP OF THAT. SO IN OUR
READING OF THE LANGUAGE, THE
SPORTS BETTING MONEY THERE IS
NON SUPPLEMENTATION LANGUAGE SO
IT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THAT.
SO EVEN IF THE STATE WAS DOING
WHAT WAS REQUIRED IN THAT REGARD
THEY WOULD HAVE TO ENHANCE IT
WITH THESE ADDITIONAL FUNDS. YES
I THINK I THINK WHAT I WAS JUST
TRYING AND I'M SORRY IF I CAUSED
SOME CONFUSION. WHAT I THINK I
WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY IS
THAT ALSO IN THE LANGUAGE IS, UM
THE PROPOSITION REQUIRES THAT
THE MONEY GENERALLY GO OUT IN A
SIMILAR MANNER AS THE HELP
FUNDING SO THERE IS SOME
GUIDANCE THERE. AND SO I
APOLOGIZE IF I CAUSED ANY
CONFUSION LIKE THERE'S SOME
CONFUSION, BUT I'LL GO INTO MY
SECOND QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED
THAT THE MEASURE REQUIRES A 10%
TAX RATE. HAVE YOU RELATED THAT
TO OTHER? LEVELS OF TAXATION FOR
SIMILAR AH AH! ACTIVITIES AND
OTHER STATES. SO YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT SPORTS SPENDING AN ACT?
OKAY UM, PERCENT IS WHAT THE
MEASURE WOULD REQUIRE. SO HOW
DOES THAT RELATE TO OTHER STATES
WHERE SPORTS BETTING IS
LEGALIZED? YES SO WE CERTAINLY
DID. UM WHEN WE CAME UP WITH OUR
FISCAL MODEL, WE CERTAINLY
LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL DATA. UM
THAT WAS REPORTED BY OTHER
STATES, UM THEY'RE SPEAKING TO
THE RATE. NOT THE AMOUNT RAISED
. OKAY I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT
PROJECTIONS ON HOW MUCH ACTIVITY
. THERE WOULD BE THEREFORE
REVENUES. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE
10% RATE. IN OTHER STATES. THEY
HAVE DIFFERENT TAX RATES FOR
THIS ACTIVITY. DID YOU LOOK AT
THAT? WE DID. THEY RANGE. UM SO
SOME ARE FURTHER ALONG THAN
OTHERS. THE RATES DIFFER
SOMETIMES BETWEEN IN PERSON
VERSUS ONLINE. SPECIFICALLY I'M
ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE ASKING
ABOUT ONLINE RATES. UM THEY VARY
AND THEY CAN RANGE FROM 10.
ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT UNDER
THAT. THERE'S ONE STATE THAT I
THINK IS AT 6.75% BUT THEN THEY
ALSO GO AS HIGH AS 51. SO THEN
THEY THIS CALIFORNIA RATE IS ON
THE LOW END OF THE TAXATION
SCALE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING? I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S A
LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO DO THAT
ANALYSIS BECAUSE, UM, YOU WOULD
HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT FAMILIAR
WITH THE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS.
WHO'S WHO'S THAT? 51. SO UH, IF
I'M LOOKING AT THIS LIST, UM NEW
HAMPSHIRE IS AT 51% IN NEW YORK
IS AT 51, AS WELL AS RHODE
ISLAND. SO THEY'RE CHARGING 51%
IN TAXATION IN THOSE STATES AND
IN CALIFORNIA, THEY'RE PROPOSING
TAX 10% THAT RIGHT? I THINK THE
KEY THING THAT I WOULD, UM BRING
TO THIS COMMITTEE IS THAT
DEFINITIONS MATTER AND SO I
THINK ONE OF THE KEY
DISTINCTIONS OF THIS PROPOSITION
IS WHAT THE TAX RATE IS ACTUALLY
APPLIED TO WHICH IS ACTUALLY
IMPORTANT AS WELL. AND SO IN THE
PRESENTATION THAT THAT GOES TO
THE EXPENSES THAT ARE DEDUCTED.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE BETS THAT
ARE MADE WITH PROMOTIONAL
CREDITS. AND THE PRICE PAYMENTS
AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL EXCISE
TAXES. GOT IT, AND I'M JUST
CLOSING. MR CHAIRMAN. I'M JUST
TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF
FAIRNESS AND HOW WE'RE TAXED
UNDER THIS PROPOSAL VERSUS OTHER
STATES. IT CAN'T BE FULLY
ANSWERED TODAY. I WOULD JUST ASK
HIM AND FOLLOW UP THAT WE
ENTERED THE DEFINITION OF IS
THIS A FAIR TAX? AH GIVEN WHAT
IS HAPPENING IN OTHER STATES,
I'D LIKE TO TRY TO ANSWER HAVE
THAT BE ANSWERED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, SENATOR GLASER. I
THINK I THINK THAT'S A GREAT
QUESTION. AND IN THE IN THE
PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAD BACK
UM THREE YEARS AGO. UH ON THIS
ON THE VERY ISSUE OF SPORTS,
SPORTS GAMING. THE DIFFERENCE
IS, UH YEAH, WHILE WE'RE
CHARGING BIG UPFRONT FEES, A LOT
OF THESE STATES THAT ARE
CHARGING MORE NOT DOING THAT,
BUT I THINK IT'S STILL I'M NOT
APPOINTING WHETHER IT'S FAIR OR
NOT FAIR. THAT'S PROBABLY THE
DIFFERENCE. AND SO IT IS. I
THINK. MS LI'S COMMENTS ABOUT
BEING HARD TO YOU KNOW, ANSWER
THAT QUESTION STRAIGHT, AT LEAST
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S
FAIR. UH, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
THOMAS.THANK YOU, MR CHAIR, AND
MY QUESTION IS ALONG THE
HOMELESSNESS ALSO SO IS 85% TO
ADDRESS HOMELESSNESS, BUT IN
ACCORDANCE AND GENERALLY THE
SAME WAY THAT THAT HAVE THE
FUNDING IS, UM IS ALLOCATED OUT
. SO IS THAT ALL THE CITIES IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTIES
OR IS THAT LIMITED TO CERTAIN
JURISDICTIONS THAT WOULD RECEIVE
FUNDING? OR ADDITIONAL FUNDING,
AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE SENATE
HAS POINTED OUT. SO MY
UNDERSTANDING AND IN THE
DISTRIBUTION OF CURRENT HAT
FUNDINGS IS THAT UM CITIES,
COUNTIES AND THEN GROUPS OF
CITIES AND COUNTIES AND
BASICALLY WHAT THEY CALL
CONSORTIUMS ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE
FUNDING. I THINK MORE DETAILS.
BEYOND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO TAKE
IT BACK TO THE OFFICE AND
CONSULT WITH OUR ANALYSTS WHO
HANDLES HOUSING ISSUES. THANK
YOU. SO WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT IS,
UM IN TOTAL, ALL THE DIFFERENT
JURISDICTIONS IN THE STATE. IT
COULD BE LIMITED BASED ON THIS
TYPE OF FUNDING. WE DON'T HAVE
THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US.
WAIT TO GET THAT FROM YOU. I
JUST DON'T KNOW THAT THE
SPECIFIC AND THIS IS JUST ME
PERSONALLY, BECAUSE HOUSING IS
NOT MY AREA, AND SO I WOULD JUST
NEED TO TAKE IT BACK TO MY
COLLEAGUE AND WE'RE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO FOLLOW UP WITH WITH YOU
ON THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
FOR THAT. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
THANK YOU ANY OTHER MEMBERS
WISHING TO ASK QUESTIONS THIS
TIME? THANK YOU. MISS LEE REALLY
APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. WE'LL
NOW MOVE TO SUPPORTERS OF PROP
27 WILL BEGIN WITH CHAIRMAN JOSE
MOKE SIMON. HERMANN SIMON.
OKAY, SO I'M ASSUMING THAT MISS
FRIEND, ARE YOU YES, YES. AND
YOU ARE THIRD PERSON, MR CHAIR.
MY NAME IS COLONEL NATO. I'M
COUNSEL TO THE YES. ON PROP 27
CAMPAIGN. I'M HERE TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO DO WE HAVE
CHAIRWOMAN DUSKY HERE AS WELL.
WELL, THAT'S THE POINT. EXCUSE
ME. I WENT TOO FAR DOWN THE
LIST. OKAY, SO YOU'VE GOT 10
MINUTES. I APOLOGIZE. I JUST
WANTED TO MAKE SURE AS THE IN
THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE THAT WERE
FAIR AND GIVE EVERYBODY THE
RIGHT AMOUNT OF TIME. PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CHAIRMAN DODD AND CHAIRMAN
SANTIAGO AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS
SO APPRECIATE TO BE HERE IN
FRONT OF YOU TODAY. I COME AS A
TRIBAL CHAIRMAN OF THE
MIDDLETOWN RANCHERIA, POMO
INDIANS AND CALIFORNIA, LOCATED
IN LAKE COUNTY. MOST OF YOU
PROBABLY KNOW LAKE COUNTY'S NAME
BECAUSE OF THE HORRIBLE
WILDFIRES WE'VE EXPERIENCED OVER
THE LAST SIX YEARS. MIDDLETOWN
CENTURY IS A SMALL TRIBE,
LOCATED IN THE SOUTH END OF LAKE
COUNTY ABOUT 250 TRIBAL MEMBERS
. WE ARE CURRENTLY A NON GAMING
TRIBES UNDER THE 99 COMPACT, WE
HAVE LESS THAN 349 CLASS THREE
GAMES. WE'VE OPERATED OUR
FACILITY FOR GOING ON 27 YEARS.
JUST AT THIS TIME. WE'RE ABOUT
200 EMPLOYEES IN OUR AREA, ONE
OF THE LARGER EMPLOYERS AS WE
MOVE THROUGH THIS PROPOSITION.
TALK TODAY. I JUST WANT TO LET
YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE HERE IN
SUPPORT OF IT. MIDDLETOWN,
RENTERIA HAS LOOKED AT THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO GROW FOR
THE NEXT SEVEN GENERATIONS AND
WERE LIMITED. WE ARE CURRENTLY A
SMALL, LAND BASED TRIBE OF 80
ACRES. WE ARE CURRENTLY ON OUR
COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM OR
COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM BECAUSE
THE LAND THAT WE HAD HAD NO
WATER WHEN IT WAS GIVEN TO US.
OUR EXPANSION OPPORTUNITIES. WE
MOVE FORWARD INTO AN E COMMERCE
AGE. IS WITH MOBILE SPORTS
BETTING FOR THE MIDDLETOWN
RANCHERIA AS AN OPTION. THE
SOLUTIONS ACT GIVES US AN
OPPORTUNITY NOT ONLY TO ADDRESS
OUR HOMELESSNESS, LANDLESS
ISSUES AS WE'RE BUYING OUR LAND
BACK, BUT ALSO GIVES US AN
OPPORTUNITY TO HELP THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA EACH CITY EACH COUNTY
DEAL WITH THE HOMELESSNESS,
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES THAT WE'RE
ALL DEALING WITH LIVING IN A
SMALL RURAL COMMUNITY OF LAKE
COUNTY. LAST PIT COUNT. I THINK
WE WERE OVER 300 HOMELESS FOR
OUR SMALL 64,000. YOU KNOW
COMMUNITY THAT'S IN LAKE COUNTY.
AS THE YEARS OF ATROCITIES HAVE
HAPPENED TO NATIVE AMERICANS IN
CALIFORNIA, BEING SEPARATED FROM
YOUR LAND IS THE MOST HORRIBLE
THING YOU CAN DO TO AN INDIAN
PERSON. AND WE WERE ALL
SEPARATED HERE IN CALIFORNIA
FROM OUR ANCESTRAL LANDS, AND
NOW IT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY IS
LEADERS TO LOOK AT WAYS THAT WE
CAN BUILD OUR ECONOMIES. NOT
ONLY STRENGTHEN IT JUST FOR OUR
ECONOMY'S SAKE, BUT ALSO TO LOOK
AT PURCHASING BACK. OUR LAND
BUILDS, BUILD HOUSING THE BILL
OF TRIBAL PROGRAMS AND WE'VE
DONE THAT THE 1999 COMPACT LAID
OUT THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO
MAKE OURSELVES MORE PROFITABLE
TO PUT OURSELVES IN A BETTER
POSITION NOT ONLY TO HELP OUR
TRIBAL PEOPLE BUT TO HELP OUR
SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. AND THIS
IS JUST ONE MORE STEP IN THAT
GROWTH. WE TALK ABOUT THE
SOLUTIONS ACT. IT'S ABOUT US AS
A PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER, NOT
JUST FROM A TRIBAL STANDPOINT,
BUT FROM EVERY RACE, AND THIS
SOLUTION GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY
TO HELP IT MOVE FORWARD. MOBILE
SPORTS BETTING IS COMING. YOU
ALREADY HEARD THAT THERE'S
SOMETHING COMING IN 24 FOR DON'T
PASS NOW. GETTING OURSELVES
POSITIONED TO MOVE FORWARD HERE
IN CALIFORNIA IS A VERY
IMPORTANT THING THAT WE NEED TO
REALLY LOOK AT HARD. IT'S GOING
TO GO TO THE VOTERS. AND I STAND
ALONE. I'M PART OF CIENAGA
CIENAGA STOOD UP HERE AND
OPPOSED HERBS, 4 26 AND PROBABLY
WILL STAND UP FOR 27. SOME FOLKS
HAVE TRIED TO SAY TO THAT. IT'S
BUILDING A DIVIDED THE TRIBES.
THIS IS ONE ISSUE WE STAND
SEPARATE ON AND I'M ON ONE OTHER
SIDE, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE. I'M A
TRIBAL LEADER IN TRIBAL PEOPLE
IS WHAT I COME FROM. SO WHEN
WE'RE THROWN INTO THIS ARENA AS
WE WALK IN BOTH WORLDS FROM A
TRIBAL STANDPOINT AND FROM A
UNITED STATES STANDPOINT. THERE
ARE SOMETIMES IT WILL BE DIVIDED
, BUT ON MANY OTHER ITEMS WE
STAND TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, UM SO
HEARD THAT TODAY DIVISION.
THERE'S NO DIVISION. THIS IS
JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ONE
TRIBE TO MAKE A DECISION A
SOVEREIGN DECISION ON HOW
THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE THEIR
PEOPLE FORWARD. AND I'LL
CONTINUE TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW,
IT'S NOT ALWAYS EASY TO DO THE
RIGHT THING FOR YOUR PEOPLE. BUT
WHEN YOUR PEOPLE ASKED YOU TO
ACT. THEN YOU GO TO WAR OR YOU
GIVE YOUR LIFE IF THAT'S WHAT
YOU'RE NEEDED, AND AS A TRIBAL
LEADER, THAT IS JUST SOMETHING I
TAKE THE HEART OF DONE THAT FOR
MY ENTIRE CAREER IN THE TRIBAL
CHAIRMAN SINCE 1997, YOU KNOW,
NEGOTIATED THE 99 COMPACT, AND
TODAY I SAID HERE IS AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MIDDLETOWN
RANCHERIA. AND I KNOW I SAID
HERE ALONE AT THIS TABLE, BUT
THERE ARE OTHER TRIBES THAT WILL
BE COMING OUT THERE. LOOK AT
THIS OPPORTUNITY IS A WAY TO
MOVE FORWARD AS WE DO IT
TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, I WON'T TAKE
THE WHOLE 10 MINUTES. UM, YOU
KNOW, I SAY WHAT I MEAN. I'M
HERE FOR QUESTIONS. UH PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN ASKING A LOTOR TRY TO
ANSWER THOSE, BUT IT IS FIRE
SEASON. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A
SMALL FIRE IN LAKE COUNTY RIGHT
NOW. DO VEHICLES JUST STARTED UP
. SO I'M HERE DOING YOU KNOW
BOTH DUTIES, BUT I WILL HEAD
BACK THERE AND SEE WHERE WE'RE
AT, YOU KNOW, AND FOR ALL
CALIFORNIANS TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY. IT'S FIRE SEASON.
PLEASE PROTECT YOURSELF. DO WHAT
YOU NEED TO DO. VEGETATION. AND
CONTINUE TO BE DILIGENT DURING
THESE TIMES THAT WE'RE DEALING
WITH CLIMATE CHANGE. SO SORRY TO
GO OFF TOPIC THERE, BUT I GOT A
MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF ME. SO
I'D LIKE TO ALSO SAY I COME FROM
THIS IN A DIFFERENT WAY BECAUSE
I ALSO AM THE FIRST NATIVE
AMERICAN IN LAKE COUNTY'S
HISTORY TO BE ELECTED TO THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SO I
WORKED FROM BOTH SIDES. AS I SAY
WHEN I WALK IN BOTH WORLDS TO
LOOK AT SOLUTIONS. TO HELP
EVERYONE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY OF SOVEREIGN LEADERS
TO REALLY SHOW THAT SOME OF THE
ANSWERS THIS COUNTRIES ARE
LOOKING FOR ARE GOING TO COME
FROM THE NATIVES, THE ANCESTORS
THAT HAVE BEEN HERE IN THE
INDIGENOUS PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE
FIRST. SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO
SAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIRMAN. MS. FRIEND.
YOU'VE GOT 4.5 MINUTES. PLEASE
PROCEED. THANK YOU. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN DODD AND
SANTIAGO AND MEMBERS. MY NAME IS
JENNIFER FRIEND AND I AM THE CEO
OF PROJECT HOPE ALLIANCE, AND
I'M HERE TO EMPHASIZE THE
CRITICAL NATURE OF CREATING
RENEWABLE AND PERMANENT REVENUE
STREAMS LIKE THAT PROPOSED AND
PROP 27, THE CALIFORNIA
SOLUTIONS TO HOMELESSNESS. AND
MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT ACT.
PROJECT. HOPE ALLIANCEIS A
NONPROFIT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
WORKING TO END THE CYCLE OF
HOMELESSNESS, ONE CHILD AT A
TIME WE IMPLEMENT TRAUMA,
INFORMED CARE PRINCIPLES AND
STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE
EMOTIONAL PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL
WELL BEING ACADEMIC SUCCESS AND
OVERALL HEALTH OF KINDERGARTEN
THROUGH AGE 24 STUDENTS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. IN MY
WORK AT PROJECT HOPE ALLIANCE, I
HAVE THE PRIVILEGE AND JOY. TO
SHARE WITH OUR KIDS THAT WHILE
I, TOO EXPERIENCED HOMELESSNESS
GROWING UP I KNOW THAT THEIR
FUTURES ARE FULL OF LIMITLESS
POSSIBILITY, WHETHER IT IS
BECOMING A LITIGATION PARTNER BY
THE AGE OF 38, AS I DID, OR
GRADUATING HIGH SCHOOL, GOING TO
TRADE SCHOOL AND STARTING A
SMALL BUSINESS AND BECOMING
SUCCESSFUL AS SO MANY OF THOSE
THAT WE WALK ALONGSIDE DO EVERY
YEAR. ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE FOR
OUR KIDS IF WE ELIMINATE THE
BARRIERS AND FILL IN THE GAPS
THAT HOMELESSNESS CAUSES IN
THEIR LIVES. FUNDING THROUGH
PROP 27 WILL ALLOW MY
ORGANIZATION TO EMBED MORE CASE
MANAGERS ON PUBLIC SCHOOL
CAMPUSES, PROVIDING MORE
SUPPORTIVE SERVICES AND
RESOURCES TO STUDENTS ENSURING
THEY GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL THAT
ONE THING MAKING THEM 346% LESS
LIKELY TO BE HOMELESS AS AN
ADULT. PROJECT. HOPE ALLIANCE.
WE'VE SEEN 95% OF OUR STUDENTS
GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL, ALMOST 30%
POINTS ABOVE THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE. NOW THIS WORK, WHICH IS
LONG TERM RELATIONAL AND
REQUIRES A COMMITMENT. IT IS
DISRUPTIVE IN THAT IT ENDS
GENERATIONAL AND POVERTY THAT
MANY OF OUR FAMILIES IN
CALIFORNIA FACE. BUT WE CAN'T DO
THIS TYPE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL
WORK WITHOUT PERMANENT AND
RENEWABLE FUNDING STREAMS. OFTEN
OUR BEST INTENDED STRATEGIES
FAILED TO END HOMELESSNESS
BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIANT ON
SHORT TERM AND ONE TIME FUNDING
AND AS A RESULT, THE WORK THAT
NEEDS TO BE DONE TO END
HOMELESSNESS CAN'T BE DONE.
WITHOUT SUSTAINED FUNDING
STREAMS. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR
ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MINE TO SOLVE
LONG TERM PROBLEMS AND SCALE
BECAUSE THE FUNDING IS NOT
GUARANTEED YEAR AFTER YEAR.
CALIFORNIA NEEDS A PERMANENT
SOURCE OF FUNDING TO END
HOMELESSNESS. AND HELP SUPPORT
MENTAL HEALTH SOLUTIONS.
PERMANENT FUNDING LIKE THAT,
CREATED BY PROP 27 IS A BIG DEAL
FOR ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MINE AND
THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE SERVE.
IT ALLOWS FOR US TO BE PROACTIVE
, PREVENTATIVE AND MOST OF ALL,
ENSURE THAT OUR KIDS
EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS TODAY
ARE NOT ADULTS WHO EXPERIENCE
HOMELESSNESS TOMORROW. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MRS.
MS. FRIEND DO ANY MEMBERS HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS? SOMEBODY MEMBER.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND PROBABLY
GO RIGHT TO THE LEGAL COUNSEL.
SO WE HAVE A HOMELESS AND
HOUSING CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA,
BOTH URBAN AND RURAL
COMMUNITIES. OPPOSITION SAYS
THAT THE FORMULA FORMULA USED IN
PROP 27 WELL ONLY PROVIDE
FUNDING FOR CALIFORNIA'S LARGEST
13 CITIES. AND THEY'RE STAYING
AT CALIFORNIA LEGAL CITIES AND
THE IS OPPOSING THIS MEASURE.
WILL THE FUNDING GENERATED BY
PROP 27 FOR HOMELESS AND MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES? HE BE DISPERSED
EQUALLY TO ALL CALIFORNIA
CITIES. THANK YOU
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S. I CAN ANSWER
THAT QUESTION FOR YOU AS THE AS
MISS LEE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYST'S OFFICE POINTED OUT.
THE MEASURE PIGGYBACKS ONTO THE
EXISTING HALF FORMULA WHICH WAS
ADOPTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. AND
IT FOLLOWS THAT THAT ALLOCATION
FORMULA WHICH IS BASED UPON THE
AREA. THE MONEY FLOWS TO THE END
OF THE STATES WITH THE HOMELESS
POPULATION IS GREATEST. THAT'S
THE WAY IT'S ALLOCATED, HOWEVER.
THAT THE MEASURE EXPRESSLY
STATES THAT THE FUNDING SHALL
CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE A CHAP
PROGRAM FORMULA. EVEN IF THAT
FORMULA IS AMENDED BY THIS
LEGISLATURE, SO THIS LEGISLATURE
HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REALLY
DIRECT WHERE THE MONEY GOES
FOLLOWING THAT FORMULA, SO
THERE'S IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT
LOCKED IN TIME AS IT HOMELESS
YOU KNOW NEEDS, UM RISE AND FALL
AROUND THE STATE. THERE'S A
FLEXIBILITY IN THE MEASURE FOR
THIS BODY TO DIRECT THE MONEY TO
BEST SOLVE THIS, THIS
GENERATIONAL PROBLEM THAT WE
FACE SO WE WILL NOT BE DISPERSED
TO EVERY CITY EVENLY. THEN IT'S
ON THE HOMELESS POPULATION.
COUNT THAT IT'S THE CURRENT FROM
IT. YES, SIR, IS BASED UPON THE
HOMELESS POPULATION COUNT THAT
WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY
THE LEGISLATURE. AND THEN, UH,
CALIFORNIA'S NATIVE AMERICAN
TRIBES CURRENTLY PROVIDE 200,000
JOBS. THROUGH THE GAMING
OPERATIONS. HOW MANY JOBS DO YOU
ANTICIPATE? PROP 27 ANTICIPATING
IN CALIFORNIA, BECAUSE I KNOW
IT'S GOING TO BE UNIVERSAL ON
THEIR PHONES. JUST THANK YOU.
THE CHIEF BENEFIT OF PROP 27 FOR
CALIFORNIA IS HE UP TO HALF OF
HALF A BILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY
IN, UM IN FUNDING FOR
HOMELESSNESS THAT YOU KNOW THAT
THERE'S JOBS? AS SOON AS YOU
THAT WE'RE CREATING HOUSING AND
SERVICES THERE ALSO BE MARKETING
AND PARTNERSHIPS. ASSOCIATED
ONLINE SPORTS WAGERING THAT THE
TRUTH, THE BENEFIT, UM OF PRIME
27, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT
INTENDED AS A JOBS PROGRAM, IT'S
INTENDED AS A HOMELESSNESS
SOLUTIONS PROGRAM. OKAY AND ONE
LAST QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE
INTERNET. HOW ARE WE GOING TO
MAKE SURE THAT CHILDREN UNDER 18
AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE
THEIR DEVICE TO START GAMBLING?
BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN I'M ASKING,
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SIGN UP FOR A
CERTAIN THING, YOU JUST PUSH A
BUTTON AND SAY, YEAH, I'M ABOVE
18 AND KIND OF A ROBOT KIND OF A
QUESTION. BUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO
HAVE THOSE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE.
GREAT QUESTION. THANK YOU, UM
ALL LINE SPORTS WAGE. WE'RE
GOING TO PROP 27 WILL BE SETTLED
TO JUST STRENUOUS REGULATION BAR
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY OUR
ELECTED ATTORNEY GENERAL. ALL
AND OFFERS WILL BE REQUIRED TO
USE STATE OF THE ART AND KNOW
YOUR CUSTOMER TECHNOLOGY SIMILAR
THAT TOOK THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS USE. AND, UM I
THINK THE BEST EXAMPLE I CAN
PROVIDE YOU THERE'S THE REAL
WORLD DATA IS THERE IS 23 OTHER
STATES WHERE ONLINE SPORTS
BETTING IS CURRENTLY LEGAL, AND
THERE'S NOT AN EPIDEMIC OF
UNDERAGE BETTING IN THOSE
STATES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
BRIAN THANK YOU. CHAIR DODD
FIRST. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN FOR
COMING AND SPEAKING WITH US AND
FOR TRAILBLAZING AND ALL THE
DIFFERENT ROLES AND HATCH THAT
YOU PLAY FOR THE TRIBE. I WAS
LOOKING AT SOME OF THE STATE
REVENUES AND HOW THEY WOULD GO
TO HOMELESS PROGRAMS, GAMBLING
ADDICTION PROGRAMS AND THEN
THIRD TRIBAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER PURPOSES,
AND I'M WONDERING, IS THERE ANY
KIND OF COST BENEFIT? ANALYSIS
TO WHAT THIS IMPACT MIGHT HAVE
ECONOMICALLY ON ACROSS TRIBES
ARE THERE SOME TRIBES WILL HAVE
ADVERSE ECONOMIC OUTCOMES AS A
RESULT OF THIS KIND OF A
PROPOSITION, OR WILL IT ALL BE
NET? POSITIVE? I'M CURIOUS IF
ANYBODY HAS LOOKED AT THAT. I
CAN I CAN ATTEMPT OUTSIDE IF
YOU'D LIKE, IN TERMS OF THE
CUSTOMERS THAT MAY PARTICIPATE
IN ONLINE SPORTS WAGERING VERSUS
TRADITIONAL GAMING THAT'S
OFFERED BY THE BRICK AND MORTAR
CASINOS. UM, THERE ARE CURRENTLY
CALIFORNIA ON TRIBAL NATION
LANDS. DATA SHOWS THAT THE
CUSTOMERS OF THE PATRONS ARE
REALLY DIFFERENT PEOPLE. ONLINE
SPORTS BETTORS ARE MORE LIKELY
TO YOUNGER MALE AND HAVE HIGHER
INCOMES. THAT'S A DIFFERENT
DEMOGRAPHIC THAT TYPICALLY
FREQUENCY THAT THE TRIBAL, UM,
THE PERSON CASINOS HERE IN
CALIFORNIA, THAT'S SORT OF 1 TO
50% OF THE MONEY IS ALLOCATED
FOR TRIBES OF DON'T PARTICIPATE
IN ONLINE SPORTS. WAGING NOT
THAT'S ABOUT PROJECT TO BE 75 TO
$80 MILLION A YEAR. SO THAT'S
THAT'S EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT THAT
CURRENTLY GOES INTO THE REVENUE
SHARING TRUST FUNDS, SO WE
ESSENTIALLY ARE DOUBLING THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY AVAILABLE FOR
NON NON GAMING TRIBES IN THE
REVENUE SHARING TRUST ON PROP
27. SOMEBODY MEMBER RAMOS. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR AND STILL AND
ASKING THE QUESTION THROUGH
ILLEGAL AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
WORDS. CHAIRMAN UM AS FAR AS THE
CITIES ARE JURISDICTIONS IN THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THROUGH UM
, THIS THIS FUNDING. IT'S BEEN
SAID THAT IT'S GONNA BRING A
SOLUTION TO HOMELESSNESS. BUT
CAN YOU, UM LEAD IN TO HOW MANY
ACTUALLY JURISDICTIONS WILL BE
ENTITLED TO MONEY COMING OUT OF
THIS, UM, FUND. YEAH THANK YOU,
SAMUEL RAMOS, THE NUMBER OF
CITIES THAT WOULD BE ENTITLED TO
IT. IT CURRENTLY GOES TO
COUNTIES CITIES AND CONTAINS OF
CARE, AND THAT'S THAT'S THE
CURRENT FORM THAT THIS
LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED. THE
MONEY WILL PIGGYBACK ONTO THAT.
THAT'S THE CURRENT FORMULA. THE
MAJOR EXPRESSLY STATES THAT IF
THE LEGISLATURE CHANGES THE HALF
FORMULA. THIS MONEY WILL FOLLOW
THAT NEW FORMULA. SO AT THIS
TIME, I BELIEVE I'M NOT SURE.
BUT I THINK THERE'S 13
JURISDICTIONS THAT WOULD THEN
QUALIFY UNDER HALF FUNDING. 13
CITIES, ALL 58 COUNTIES, PLUS
THE CONTINUUM OF CARE. 13 CITIES
IS NOT THE ENTIRE CITIES
THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. I JUST WANT TO BE
CLEAR BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO
GET ADEQUATE INFORMATION OUT TO
THOSE THAT ARE LISTENING TO THIS
HEARING. THAT WHEN WE MAKE THE
STATEMENT THAT IT WAS SOLVED
HOMELESSNESS, IT'S ACTUALLY
GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
BUT IT WILL BE 13 JURISDICTIONS
THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE, NOT
THE ENTIRE CITIES IN THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA. YES, SO THAT'S
CORRECT BECAUSE THE HOMELESSNESS
POPULATION IS NOT DISTRIBUTED
EQUALLY OR PRO RAD ACROSS ALL
480 CITIES IN CALIFORNIA,
THEY'RE CONCENTRATED IN CERTAIN
AREAS. THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTED
THE HAT FORMULA. TO FOCUS THE
RESOURCES WERE THE HOMELESS
POPULATION IS GREATEST IN PROP
27. WHAT WAS THAT THAT THAT
FORMULA WE WERE ON THE COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. IF I CAN'T
MR CHAIR. HOMELESSNESS IS THE
NUMBER ONE ISSUE FOR MANY OF OUR
JURISDICTIONS THAT WE REPRESENT
SO THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT WAS CLEAR THAT IT'S
NOT IN ENTIRETY THAT IT'S
ACTUALLY GOING TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM, BUT IT'S NOT IN ITS
ENTIRETY IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR.
WE DID JET WITH THE LEGISLATIVE
ANALYSTS ON THIS, UH BY TEXT
JUST BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE
ANSWER THAT QUESTION THE HAVE
FUNDING. I THINK THAT THE
WITNESS DID SAY IT FOLLOWS THE
SAME FUNDING SOURCE THAT WE HAVE
ALREADY APPROVED HERE FOR
HOMELESS FUNDING IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, SO THAT MEANS ALL
COUNTIES PARTICIPATE THE 13
LARGEST CITIES DIRECTLY
PARTICIPATE IN ALL CONTINUUM OF
CARE THAT ARE FEDERALLY
RECOGNIZED IN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. UH YEAH, I GET IT AS
WELL. AND THEN THROUGH THE
COUNTIES, THE CITIES PARTICIPATE
AS WELL. UH ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S
AGUIAR-CURRY. DID YOU HAVE A
QUESTION? YES I DO. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH. UM SO EDUCATION PROP
98. IT APPEARS THAT YOU CHOOSE
TO EXEMPT YOURSELVES FROM THE
PROP 98 GUARANTEE FOR OUR
SCHOOLS. WHY SO THAT'S CORRECT
SOME MEMBER AGUIAR-CURRY. THE
PURPOSE OF PROP 27. IS THERE
JUST HOMELESSNESS? IT IS A
GENERATIONAL PROBLEM IN OUR
STATE RIGHT NOW. SO EVERY DOLLAR
THAT IS RAISED THROUGH THE TAX
ON ON OPERATIONS ASIDE FROM FROM
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE IN THE
15% FOR TRAVEL FUNDING GOES TO
ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS PANEL
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. TODAY.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE NEXT
PANEL. THANK YOU.
OKAY? WHAT I'VE GOT HERE IS
WE'VE GOT FOUR PANEL MEMBERS,
BUT IS ONE OR TWO. JUST LET ME
KNOW WHATWHO YOU ARE. AND IF
YOUR TECHNICAL INFORMATION JUST
SAY THAT, AND THEN WE'LL DIVIDE
THE TIME UP ACCORDINGLY. WELCOME
TO ALL OF YOU. THANK YOU. HI,
CHAIRMAN. I'LL GET THINGS
STARTED FOR OUR SIDE. I'M DAN
LITTLE. I'M THE I'M, THE CHIEF
INTER GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICER
FOR SEMINAL BAND EMISSION
INDIANS. I'M HERE WITH CAROLYN
CHAIRWOMAN SARAH DUTCH KEY FROM
THE I OWN BAND OF ME WALK
INDIANS AND MISS KENDRA LEWIS
FROM THE SACRIFICE SACRAMENTO
HOUSING ALLIANCE. JEFF BUTLER IS
ALSO HERE, AND WE'LL BOTH
PREPARE SET WILL BE PREPARED FOR
REMARKS AND THE TWO OF YOU GET
FIVE MINUTES EACH. IS THAT WHAT
I'M HEARING? YES. THREE. YES
SIR. TEACH WE'LL BE REALLY QUICK
. YEAH THEY CAN FIND FIVE
MINUTES EACH FOR THE TWO, UH,
SPEAKERS HERE. I'LL TURN OVER TO
SHARE NGUYEN. DUTCH KEY. PERFECT
THANK YOU. WELCOME. THANK YOU
FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU FOR HAVING ME CHAIRS DODD
AND SANTIAGO AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. I AM HONORED TO SPEAK
WITH YOU TODAY. I'M SARAH. DUTCH
KEY. I'M THE ELECTED CHAIRPERSON
pINDIANS. YOU MIGHT KNOW WHERE
WE'RE LOCATED. WE'RE NOT TOO FAR
AWAY JUST OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN OF
PLYMOUTH IN AMADOR COUNTY, SO
SUGGEST DOWN THE STREET. UH AND
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU
ABOUT WHY MY TRIBE AND THE VAST
MAJORITY OF TRIBES IN CALIFORNIA
STRONGLY OPPOSED PROPOSITION 27.
I'VE MENTIONED TO YOU WHERE MY
TRIBES FROM RURAL AMATEUR
COUNTY. WE'VE CALLED THAT AREA
HOME FOR THOUSANDS. AND
THOUSANDS OF YEARS. WE ARE A
SMALL, NON GAMING TRIBE, MUCH
LIKE MY FELLOW CHAIRWOMAN FROM
SANTA ROSA, WHO YOU HEARD FROM
EARLIER TODAY. BUT LIKE MOST
TRIBES IN CALIFORNIA, WE
STRUGGLE STILL. TO RECLAIM OUR
ANCESTRAL LANDS SO WE CAN
SUPPORT OUR PEOPLE. PROPOSITION
27 BREAKS THE PROMISE THAT
CALIFORNIA VOTERS MADE TO MY
TRIBE AND OTHER TRIBES IN
CALIFORNIA OVER 20 YEARS AGO.
NOT ONCE BUT TWICE. THE VOTERS
OF THE STATE OVERWHELMINGLY
STOOD WITH US AND ENTRUSTED
INDIAN GAMING. EXCUSE ME AND
TRUSTED INDIAN TRIBES WITH THE
EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO OPERATE
GAMING. SINCE THAT TIME AND IN
CLOSE COLLABORATION WITH THE
STATE. WE HAVE WORKED TO DEVELOP
AND OPERATE A HIGHLY REGULATED
ENVIRONMENT FOR CASINO STYLE
GAMING IN CALIFORNIA. INDIAN
GAMING HAS SUPPORTED ALL TRIBAL
COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING NON
GAMING TRIBES LIKE MY OWN.
INDIAN GAMING IS GENERATED $1.6
BILLION FOR NON AND LIMITED
GAMING TRIBES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE THROUGH THE REVENUE
SHARING TRUST FUND ALONE, AND
THIS DOESN'T ACCOUNT FOR OTHER
PROGRAMS THAT TRIBES OPERATE, UM
TO SHARE THEIR GAMING REVENUE
WITH NON GAMING TRIBES. INDIAN
GAMING ALSO GENERATES.
SIGNIFICANT REVENUE AND ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY FOR THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AS A WHOLE. WE
ESTIMATE THAT TO BE ROUGHLY $25
BILLION ANNUALLY, AND ECONOMIC
IMPACTS AND SUPPORT FOR LOCAL
BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
NOW THE OUT OF STATE ONLINE
GAMING CORPORATIONS WANT TO
UNDERMINE THIS CAREFULLY,
CAREFULLY CRAFTED POLICY. AND
PROGRAM THAT HAS SERVED BOTH
TRIBES AND THE STATE EXTREMELY
WELL FOR OVER TWO DECADES.
PROPOSITION. 27 IS A MASSIVE
EXPANSION OF ONLINE GAMING,
THREATENING OUR SOVEREIGN RIGHT
TO OPERATE GAMING IN THE STATE.
THIS IS SALT IS SADLY NOT
SURPRISING, HISTORICALLY. WHEN
INDIAN TRIBES HAVE EXERCISED OUR
SOVEREIGNTY AND WORK TO SECURE
GREATER SELF DETERMINATION. OUR
EFFORTS HAVE BEEN STYMIED. AND
OUR MEANS TO SELF RELIANCE TAKEN
FROM US. NOW THESE OUT OF STATE
CORPORATIONS ARE LAUNCHING A
DIRECT ASSAULT ON OUR RIGHT TO
OPERATE GAMING. THE PROPONENTS
OF PROP 27 WOULD HAVE YOU
BELIEVE THAT IT SUPPORTS TRIBAL
GAMING. THAT'S NOT TRUE. 27 GOES
BEYOND THE FRAMEWORK OF TRIBAL
GAMING AND VIOLATES THE PROMISE
MADE TO INDIAN TRIBES BY
PROPOSITION FIVE AND WON A AGAIN
OVER TWO DECADES AGO. THE OTHER
STATE OPERATORS HAVE WRITTEN
PROPOSITION 27 WITH THE ILLUSION
OF PARTNERING WITH TRIBES. BUT
THE REALITY IS THAT ONLY A
HANDFUL OF TRIBES WILL HAVE
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THESE ONLINE
GAMING OPERATORS LEAVING MORE
THAN 100 TRIBES, INCLUDING MY
OWN OUT. AND THOSE FEW TRIBES
THAT DO CHOOSE TO PARTNER WITH
ONLINE CORPORATIONS MUST GIVE UP
THEIR SOVEREIGN RIGHTS TO DO SO.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE
VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA TO
UNDERSTAND JUST WHAT GAMING
MEANS FOR US AND HOW WE PUT HIM
IN REVENUES TO GOOD WORK TO
SUPPORT OUR TRIBAL COMMUNITIES.
FOR INSTANCE, AGAIN, MY TRIBE
THE I OWN BAND RELIES ON REVENUE
SHARING FROM TRIBES TO FUND OUR
GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS ARE
PEOPLE HAVE SPENT OVER A CENTURY
FIGHTING FOR LAND WHERE WE CAN
LIVE, PRACTICE OUR TRADITIONS
AND FEEL SAFE AND SECURE. AND WE
RELIED ON THE PROMISE OF GAMING
EXCLUSIVITY IN CALIFORNIA WHEN
WE EMBARKED, EMBARKED ON A
FORMAL FEDERAL PROCESS TO
RESTORE LANDS TO SOVEREIGN
STATUS OVER 20 YEARS AGO. AT
THAT TIME WE INITIATED FEDERAL
PROCESS FOR ACQUIRING THESE
LANDS UNDER OUR SOVEREIGN
JURISDICTION. AFTER NEARLY 20
YEARS AND MANY, MANY MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS LATER, WE ARE FINALLY
ABLE TO RESTORE A VERY FIRST
HOMELANDS OF VERY MODEST 220
ACRE PARCEL OF LAND THAT WILL
USE FOR FUTURE GAMING, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING TO
SUPPORT OUR CITIZENS. I'D ADD
THAT THE LAND THAT WE RESTORED
IS ALSO SEVERELY CONTAMINATED
FOLLOWING GOLD MINING IN
CALIFORNIA, WHICH WAS REALLY
DESTRUCTIVE TO MY PEOPLE AND MY
TRIBE. GAMING IS THE ONLY OPTION
AVAILABLE TO US TO PAY BACK OUR
DEBT TO ENSURE WE CAN SUPPORT
OUR PEOPLE AND TO MAKE SURE THE
LAND IS CLEAN AND SAFE FOR THE
HEALTHY AND WELL BEING OF OUR
MEMBERS. THE PROPONENTS OF
PROPOSITION 27 COULD NOT BE MORE
DIFFERENT THAN INDIAN TRIBES
THEIR CORPORATE INTEREST
CONCERNED WITH PROFITS AND NOT
PEOPLE. WHILE THEY WITHDRAW
THEIR PROFITS FROM CALIFORNIA
BACK TO NEW YORK. BOSTON VEGAS,
EUROPE, OTHER JURISDICTIONS.
CALIFORNIA INDIAN TRIBES WILL
NEVER LEAVE THIS STATE AND
NEITHER WILL THE BENEFITS THAT
TRIBAL GAMING BRINGS. WE HAVE
KEPT OUR PROMISE TO THE PEOPLE
OF THE STATE, AND WE NOW RELY ON
THE VOTERS TO KEEP THEIR PROMISE
TO US PROPOSITION. 27 IS BAD FOR
TRIBAL NATIONS AND BAD FOR
CALIFORNIA. THANK YOU. THANK
OU, CHAIRWOMAN. MA'AM, YOU'VE
GOT FOUR MINUTES. OH, FROM THE
FIRST TIME WE CAN ACTUALLY HEAR
YAHOO! AFTERNOON CHAIR DODD AND
CHAIR SANTIAGO. UM AND MEMBERS
OF THE COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS
KENDRA NOEL LEWIS, AND I'M, THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE
SACRAMENTO HOUSING ALLIANCE AND
A BOARD MEMBER OF HOUSING
CALIFORNIA AS AN ADVOCATE FOR
THE HOMELESS AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND AN ACTIVE MEMBER OF
THE HOUSING MOVEMENT IN
CALIFORNIA. I COME TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF PROP 27. OUR
ORGANIZATION HAS GUIDED BY PRINT
PRINCIPLES THAT HOUSING IS A
HUMAN RIGHT AND THAT SOUND
POLICY MUST ADDRESS SYSTEMIC
RACISM AND SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
STRUCTURES THAT DEEPEN
NEIGHBORHOOD INEQUALITIES. THIS
INCLUDESRESPECTING TRIBES AS
SOVEREIGN ATIONS. ADDRESSING THE
HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS CRISIS
IN CALIFORNIA IS OUR TOP
PRIORITY, AND WE ARE AND I'M
VOTING NO ON PROP 27. PROPONENTS
OF 27 ARE CLEVER AND MARKETING
THIS MEASURE AND SOLUTIONS AND
CAME TO SOME OF OUR
ORGANIZATIONS VERY EARLY IN THIS
PROCESS. UM, ABOUT HOW THIS WAS
GOING TO HELP SOLVE THE HOMELESS
ISSUE, BUT THE TRUTH IS PROP 27
WOULD SEND 90% OF CORPORATE
PROFITS OUT OF THE STATE TO OUT
OF STATE CORPORATIONS WHO WROTE
AND ARE PAYING FOR THE MEASURE.
AT THE SAME TIME, UM, LEGALIZING
MASSIVE X EXPANSION OF ONLINE
GAMBLING PROP 27 WHEN INTRODUCED
OTHER RISKS THAT WE IN
CALIFORNIA CAN AFFORD. THE
BOTTOM LINE IS ONLINE GAMBLING
IS NOT THE SOLUTION TO
HOMELESSNESS IN CALIFORNIA.
PROPONENTS ARE USING THIS VERY
REAL HUMANITARIAN CRISIS THAT
THAT IS IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTY
AND CITY IN OUR IN OUR STATE TO
SELL ONLINE, THIS VERY DECEPTIVE
MEASURE. IT WOULDN'T BE THE
FIRST TIME THAT OUT OF STATE
CORPORATIONS USED THE CRISIS TO
MAKE BILLIONS. ONE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES THAT WE HAD,
WHEN WITH WITH THIS, UM MEASURE.
I'M SORRY. WHAT THIS PROPOSITION
IS THAT THE HOUSING COMMUNITY
WAS NOT UM, A PART OF THIS
PROPOSITION AS IT RELATES TO THE
DETAILS, SO SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP
TODAY ARE VERY MUCH TIED TO THE
FACT THAT WE WERE NOT, UM, A
PART OF THIS PROCESS AND MANY OF
YOU IN THIS ROOM AND, UM IT AS
PART OF THE LEGISLATURE WORKED
WITH MANY ORGANIZATIONS, HOUSING
ORGANIZATIONS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE. UM THE ROADMAP. 2020 IS
ONE OF THOSE THAT WE'VE ALL
AGREED THAT IS GOING TO HELP AND
BE PART OF THE SOLUTION FOR THE
HOUSING CRISIS IN CALIFORNIA.
AND THE ONLINE GAMING
CORPORATIONS BEHIND 27 HAVE
LOOPHOLES IN OTHER STATES TO
MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS, RIGHT,
REDUCING THE TAXES THEY PAY. IN
VIRGINIA. THEY DEDUCTED 54% OF
THEIR ONLINE SPORTS BETTING
PROFITS TO LEARNING JUST HAS
HAVE TWO OF FORECASTED TAX
REVENUE. IF THESE OUT OF STATE
GAMING CORPORATIONS REALLY CARED
ABOUT SOLVING THE HOMELESSNESS,
THEY WOULD HAVE MADE HIM EFFORT
TO UNDERSTAND THE GAPS AND
CHALLENGES AND ADVOCATES
EXPERIENCE AND EVERY DAY IN THE
GROUND, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES
TO THE HAT PROGRAM AND HOW OFTEN
MANY TIMES CITIES EVEN
SACRAMENTO CANNOT COMPETE WITH%
THE BIG CITIES, UM, FOR
RESOURCES, AND MONEY IS NEEDED
TO BUILD MORE PERMANENT,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO
ADDRESS THE HOMELESSNESS ISSUE.
INSTEAD OF TRYING TO USE THE
PUBLIC'S CONCERN ABOUT
HOMELESSNESS TO SWEETEN THEIR
ATTEMPT TO LEGALIZE SCAMMING
SPORTS GAMING. THESE
CORPORATIONS HAVE A TRACK RECORD
OF MARKETING AS A SOLUTION AND
THE CRY MARKETING THE SOLUTION
TO A VARY OF CRISIS AND ON THE
NATION AND FAILING TO DO DELIVER
RESULTS. CAN YOU CLOSE, PLEASE?
THANK YOU. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME
IN FRONT OF ME. SORRY PROP 27 IS
EMPLOYEE THAT FALLS FAR OUTSIDE
OF HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS IN
CALIFORNIA, AND WE STRONGLY
OPPOSED PROP 27. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH TO BOTH OF YOU. UM
APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO
MOVE NOW TO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO
WE HAVE A QUESTION? EXCUSE ME ON
THE PANEL. MORNING. YES
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S MAYBE GO AHEAD
AND DIRECTED WRECK TO THE LEGAL
COUNSEL LIKE I DID ON MY LAST
QUESTION. HOW DOES PROP 27
IMPACT TRIAL, TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY
AND SELF RELIANCE? I MEAN,
THAT'S THAT'S THE KEY QUESTION,
RIGHT? BECAUSE BASICALLY IF YOU
LOOK AT THE PROPOSITION IT TRIES
TO IT PURPORTS BUT TO LOSE, RITA
HELP TO GROUPS TRIBES ONE. YOU
CAN BE A GAMING TRIBE, WHICH CAN
PARTICIPATE IN THE IN THE
GAMING. BUT THE PROBLEM WITH
THAT IS THAT TO DO SO THE TRIBE
EXPRESSLY MUST WAIVE ITS
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. IT'S GONNA
ALLOW ITSELF TO BE SUED. UM AND
THAT IS A IT'S A NONSTARTER WITH
RESPECT TO TRIBES, BUT THERE'S A
VERY INTERESTING THING THAT
PROVISION THAT PROVIDES FOR THE
WAIVER SOUTHERN IMMUNITY. IT'S
19 769 19 7 16. I BELIEVE IT IS.
IF THAT PROVISION IS FOUND IN A
COURT OF LAW TO BE
UNENFORCEABLE. THEN THE 15% THAT
IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO TRIBES. THE
OTHER TRIBES, THE ONES THAT ARE
NOT PART OF THE ONLINE GAMING.
THEY DON'T GET ANY OF IT. IT
GOES AWAY. IT DISAPPEARS. SO
THIS THING YOU NOT ONLY DOES IT
REQUIRE THE TRENDS WANT TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE GAMING TO
GIVE UP THEIR SOVEREIGN
IMMUNITY. IT DOESN'T HELP THE
OTHER TRIBES EITHER BECAUSE
THERE'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE
TO THAT PROVISION. 1976 9, THERE
IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE TO
IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEE
NONE. THANK YOU. WE DO
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S PLEASE. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR IN REGARDS TO
OTHER STATES THAT HAVE ONLINE
GAMBLING. DID THEY USE OTHER
THINGS SUCH AS WE'RE USING
HOMELESSNESS, THE MONEY GOING
THERE HAVE THEY USED OTHER
STATES? WHAT DID THEY USE?
PERHAPS IT WAS SOMETHING FOR
EDUCATION OR SOMETHING FOR
HOMELESSNESS. AND I'M JUST
CURIOUS IF THEY DID. WHERE WAS
THE ACCOUNTABILITY? DID WE FIND
OUT LIKE AN AUDIT? HOW MUCH
MONEY ACTUALLY CAME AND WENT TO
THE CALLS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT
QUESTION. GOOD QUESTION. SO WHAT
THESE COMPANIES DO IS THEY GO TO
A JURISDICTION THEY WANT TO
LEGALIZE. THEY DO POLLING. THEY
FIND OUT WHAT'S POPULAR AND THEN
THAT'S WHAT THEY TARGET THEIR
INITIATIVE TOWARDS. AND IN THE
RECENTLY FAILED ATTEMPT IN
FLORIDA, THEY USED EDUCATION IN
COLORADO. THEY USE CLEAN WATER
HERE, HOMELESSNESS AND THAT'S
WHAT THEY DO, AND THEY USE A
VERY AGGRESSIVE ACCOUNTING
TACTICS. SO WHILE THEY SAY 10%
THEY CAN DEDUCT THE LICENSING
FEE, THEY CAN DEDUCT MARKETING
REPLAY ALL THESE THINGS THAT
WILL ULTIMATELY COME OUT OF THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WILL BE
USED THAT WILL GO TO
HOMELESSNESS. SO IF YOU LOOK IN
STATES LIKE COLORADO,
PENNSYLVANIA, VIRGINIA, IT'S
GENERALLY ABOUT HALF OF WHAT THE
TAXES WHAT THEY ACTUALLY PAY.
THEY ARE VERY AGGRESSIVE IN
THEIR ACCOUNTING, AND THEY
PROVIDE ALL KINDS OF DEDUCTIONS
FOR THEMSELVES. THEY EVEN HAVE A
DEDUCTION FOR THE FEDERAL EXCISE
TAX WRITTEN INTO THIS THE AND
ONE LAST THING THEY THE, UM, ONE
OF THE C. E. O. S FOR ONE OF THE
LEADING ONLINE COMPANY ACTUALLY
WAS BOASTING ABOUT HOW IN
CALIFORNIA THEY GOT TO WRITE
THEIR OWN PROPOSITION WITHOUT
LOW TAX RATE OF 10% SO IT IS THE
LOWEST AMONGST THE, UM IN THE
COUNTRY YORK IT'S OVER 50%
PENNSYLVANIA'S IN THE 30% WHY
DOES CALIFORNIA GETS SO LOW? WHY
ONLY 10% IN CALIFORNIA? AND WITH
THAT SAID, UM, ARE THERE ANY
STATES THOUGH, THAT OBVIOUSLY IT
HAS PASSED AND WE'VE SEEN
RESULTS OF YOU KNOW HOW MUCH
MONEY IS ACTUALLY GONE TO THE
CAUSE, AND AS IF THE CAUSE
ACTUALLY HAD GOOD RESULTS WHERE
THE MONEY WAS GOING, AND I MEAN,
SOMETIMES WE SEE THINGS WHERE WE
HERE. I THINK WE ALL TALK ABOUT
IT. SOMETIMES YOU KNOW, WHERE
DID THE MONEY FROM THE LOTTERY
CO? WHERE'S THE ATTACKS? GO FROM
THE CIGARETTES FOR EDUCATION,
THINGS LIKE THIS. AND THESE ARE
JUST THINGS I HEAR. SO THAT'S
WHAT I'M ASKING IS IF THEIR
STATES THAT HAVE SAID LISTEN,
WE'VE DONE THIS AND WE'VE HAD
SOME GREAT RESULTS. AND THIS IS
THE MONEY JUST TO SEE YOU KNOW,
PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING. SOME
STATES ARE EVEN LOOKING AT
RAISING THE TAX BECAUSE THEY'RE
NOT RECEIVING WHAT THEY WERE
PROMISED. WE'VE GOT A LOT MORE
INFORMATION AS WELL. SHARE WITH
YOUR OFFICE. THANK YOU FOR
ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS. ALL
RIGHT, SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE.
REMEMBER COOPER JUST TO FOLLOW
UP ON THOSE TAPES THAT THEY WERE
PROMISED WHETHER IT WAS
EDUCATION OR WATER, WHATEVER IT
NEVER ACHIEVED THAT GOAL. THE
STATED GOAL. I WON'T. I WON'T
SAY WHETHER THEY ACHIEVE THE
GOAL OF CLEANING. YOU KNOW, THE
WATER ARE PROVIDING WHAT I WILL
SAY IS THE TAX RATE THAT THEY
PROMISED DOESN'T REALIZE THAT
I'M WE'VE LOOKED AT JUST A
HANDFUL OF STATES. BUT WE KNOW
IN COLORADO, VIRGINIA, THEY
DON'T ACTUALLY, UH BECAUSE OF
THE DEDUCTIONS. THEY'RE
AGGRESSIVE ACCOUNTING. IT NEVER
IS. WHAT THE PROBLEM THE TAXES
THAT THEY PROMISE AND THANK YOU
ON THAT AND HOMELESSNESS RIGHT
NOW I'M PULLING, HAVING JUST
WENT THROUGH JUNE ELECTION, THE
NUMBER ONE ISSUE IN CALIFORNIA
UP UNTIL THE ECONOMY WENT SOUTH
IS HOMELESSNESS. THAT'S THE
NUMBER ONE ISSUE POLLING ISSUE
WHATSOEVER. SO OBVIOUSLY FOR
SOME FOLKS, IT'S KIND OF SEXY
AND ATTRACTIVE, BUT THE STATE OF
SPENT 15 $15 BILLION ON
HOMELESSNESS, AND IT'S GOTTEN
WORSE. SO I MEAN, THIS IS THIS
MONEY THAT WILL SUPPOSEDLY GO
TOWARDS HOMELESSNESS? UM IN MY
OPINION, WON'T REALLY FIX IT. SO
THAT'S THAT'S INTERESTING TO
FIND OUT. UM THE PROMISES MADE
I'VE NEVER REALLY BEEN ACHIEVED
. ONE THING I WOULD JUST POINT
OUT IS, THEY WILL SAY, UM 85% OF
THE 10% IS ACTUALLY 8.5% 90% OF
THE PROFIT WILL GO TO THE
COMPANY'S 8.5% TO HOMELESSNESS
AND THEN 1.5% OF TRIBES. SO
LET'S JUST BE KIND OF REALLY
CLEAR ON THE NUMBERS THERE.
THANK YOU. OKAY WE ARE NOW GOING
TO PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU.
ALL THE PANEL MEMBERS. THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND
TESTIMONY.
SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE
PHONE LINES. FIRST MODERATOR.
COULD YOU PLEASE SEE IF THERE'S
ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF. ROB 27 OPPOSITION?
YES MR CHAIR IF YOU WOULD LIKE
TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY
, PLEASE PRESS 10. THAT COMMAND
AGAIN ONE THEN ZERO. AND MR
CHAIR. WE HAVE NO PUBLIC
COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. IS THERE
ANY IS THERE ANY TESTIMONY IN
OPPOSITION TO PROP 27?
MODERATOR. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
TESTIFY AND OPPOSITION, PLEASE
PRESS SOMEONE THAN ZERO. THAT
COMMAND AGAIN, ONE THAN ZERO.
AND NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. AT THIS
TIME. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO
THIS ROOM HERE. WE'RE GOING TO
CALL ON WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF
PROPOSITION 27. PLEASE COME
FORWARD. SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION
27. PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING
NOBODY COMING FORWARD. WE'RE
GOING TO GO NOW TO OPPOSITION OF
PROPOSITION 27. NAME. TITLE AND
WHETHER YOU SUPPORT I MEAN YOUR
OPPOSITION. SUSAN JENSEN,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. CALIFORNIA
NATIONS INDIAN GAMING
ASSOCIATION OPPOSED. APOLLO
TREAT ON BEHALF OF THE TOÀN
INDIAN TRIBE AND THE CALUSA
INDIAN COMMUNITY OPPOSITION.
JESSICA NARDI ALKALINITY TRIBAL
COUNCIL. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE
MICHAEL VAZQUEZ. PECHANGA TRIBAL
COUNCIL OPPOSES. JAMES KINTER,
TRIBAL COUNCIL SECRETARY. HE
STRONGLY OPPOSED. AVON PERKINS.
YOU'RE READY. HE COUNCIL MEMBER
STRONGLY OPPOSES. ANTHONY
ROBERTS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN YOSHIDA
. HE STRONGLY OPPOSES OPPOSITION
27 OPPOSITION 27. GLENDA NELSON
, CHAIRWOMAN ENTERPRISE
RANCHERIA STRONGLY STRONGLY
OPPOSES. LET'S RECORD THAT
STRONGLY STRONGLY ALRIGHT? JACOB
HERE FOR THE TRIBAL ALLIANCE OF
SOVEREIGN INDIAN NATIONS OPPOSED
TO PROP 27 TRIPLE THE STRONGER I
LOVE UNA SAW REDNER'S TRIBAL
CHAIRWOMAN OF THE STANDARD IS A
BANDIT QUEEN INDIANS IS I OPPOSE
THANK YOU. FRANK SIZEMORE, CHIEF
OF STAFF FOR THE SAN MANUEL
BANDED MISSION. INDIANS
VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED. JANET K.
BILL THE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE
PICAYUNE, RANCHERIA, THE CHUCK
CHANCE THE INDIANS AND THE TRIBE
OPPOSES PROP 27. THANK YOU. OKAY
WELL, THAT CONCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY THAT WE'RE TAKING
TODAY. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY
. ALL THE ALL OUR WITNESSES.
PEOPLE THAT CAME AND SPOKE TOOK
TIME OUT OF YOUR BUSY SCHEDULES
AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT YOU
KNOW. ADDED THEIR ME TOOS AS
WELL AND HANGING IN THERE WITH
ALL OF US, MR CHAIRMAN SANTIAGO.
DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL WORDS? AH
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND ALL
COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND ALL WHO
TOOK THE TIME TO COME TO
PRESENT. OR STATES OR POSITION
TOWARDS THE END. THANK YOU. AND
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY EVEN MORE
IMPORTANT TO, UH JUST SAY I DO
APPRECIATE THE, UH THE TONE OF
THE MEETING AND JUST THE FACTS,
AND, UH NO RANCOR OR ANYTHING
ELSE. I THINK THIS WAS HANDLED
FROM THE AUDIENCE STANDPOINT,
AND THAT TESTIMONY VERY, VERY
FAIRLY TO BOTH SIDES. THANK YOU
ALL VERY MUCH. MEETING'S
ADJOURNED.