BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 228| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ {u u} THIRD READING Bill No: SB 228 Author: Perata (D) Amended: 4/6/99 Vote: 21 {u SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE u} : 12-0, 4/13/99 AYES: Baca, Burton, Chesbro, Dunn, Hughes, Johannessen, Karnette, Knight, Lewis, O'Connell, Johnson, Perata {u SUBJECT u} : Racing associations: operation of gambling establishment {u SOURCE u} : Ladbroke/Pacific Racing Association {u DIGEST u} : This bill, with respect to Alameda County, allows a publicly traded racing association or a qualified racing association to operate only one gambling establishment if certain conditions are met. {u ANALYSIS u} : Current law authorizes a publicly traded racing association or a qualified racing association to operate one gambling establishment located on the same premises as the association's racetrack. The author is carrying this bill on behalf of Ladbroke/Pacific Racing Association. Ladbroke/PRA presently conducts horseracing at Golden Gate Fields, and owns Casino San Pablo. Casino San Pablo is a $40 million, 60-table card club located in the City of San Pablo approximately 10 miles CONTINUED {uSB 228 u} Page 2 from Ladbroke's thoroughbred racetrack at Golden Gate Fields. The Casino employs approximately 500 persons and last year generated $2.7 million in license fees to the City of San Pablo. Ladbroke's wholly-owned subsidiary, Pacific Racing Association, (PRA) currently owns Casino San Pablo and provides most of its non-gaming services such as food and beverage, security, facility maintenance, and parking. However, under current law PRA is entitled to operate a club only if it is located on its racetrack premises, otherwise they must contract with an independent third party, in this case SF Casino management, to operate the gaming tables. At Casino San Pablo, this arrangement has not worked well with revenues declining sharply due to differences in management styles and disputes over how to improve and market the club. The sponsor believes that this bifurcated management lacks accountability, and makes it difficult for patrons and law enforcement to determine who is responsible for club operations. This bill, with respect to Alameda County, allows a publicly traded racing association or a qualified racing association to operate only one gambling establishment under the following conditions: 1.The gambling establishment is located within 10 air miles of the association's racetrack. 2.The racing association held an ownership interest in the real property of the gambling establishment as of December 31, 1998. 3.Controlled gambling was lawfully conducted at the gambling establishment on or before December 31, 1998. {u Prior Legislation SB 100 (Maddy) Chapter 387, Statutes of 1995 u} . Among its provisions, enacted a "Sunset" date of January 1, 1999 pertaining to the operation of one card club on the premises of a publicly traded corporation licensed to conduct horseracing and simulcast wagering. {u SB 228 u} Page 3 {u SB 8 (Lockyer) Chapter 867, Statutes of 1997 u} . Legislation that repealed the Gaming Registration Act and enacted in its place the Gambling Control Act of 1997 to provide for the regulation and control of gambling clubs in California. Among SB 8's provision was the repeal of a January 1, 1999 "sunset" date relating to the operation of one gambling club located on the same premises as the entity's racetrack by a publicly traded racing association or a qualified racing association. {u u} {u FISCAL EFFECT u} : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No {u SUPPORT u} : (Verified 4/13/99) Ladbroke/Pacific Racing Association (source) {u ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT u} : The sponsor states that, if enacted, this bill would not expand gambling or authorize any new card clubs. Its only effect would be to permit a PRA to operate Casino San Pablo, an existing card club that it already owns, under the above described conditions. TSM:cm 4/27/99 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****