HomeMy WebLinkAboutS4- City Attorney a
CITY OF SAN BERNA-: HNO — REQUEST FOR 'OUNCIL ACTION
From: James F. Penman, City Attorney Subject: Resolution Calling a Special
Election and Submitting to the
Dept: City Attorney Electors a Measure To Allow Card
Date: October 10, 1995 Clubs Within the City.
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
None.
Recommended Motion:
Adopt Resolution.
Signature
Contact Person: Phone:
Supporting Data Attached: Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
SDE tim,actform
STAFF REPORT
i State Business and Professions Code § 19819 provides that gaming by way of card clubs may
be allowed in cities only upon a vote of the electorate. The proposed resolution would call an
election for February 6, 1996, to place the issue before the voters of whether card clubs would be
allowed in the City of San Bernardino. The election would be conducted by all mail ballot unless at
the same time there is a regular run-off election for City officers.
SB 100 which, among other things, adopted Business and Professions Code § 19819.5
provides that no gaming can be authorized by the electorate or by City Councils for a period of four
years. The proposed resolution provides that if the ballot measure were successful that the gaming
would not be authorized until the moratorium period specified in SB 100 either expires or is repealed.
There may be those who will challenge the ability of the City to conduct such an election in light of
the language of SB 100, however since it is clear that the authority to conduct gaming would not be
effective until the expiration of the state moratorium, the ordinance would have a good chance of
being upheld.
Legislative Advocates
Government Relations Consultants
HAL MINTZ
President
SAN BERNARDINO CITY COUNCIL
San Bernardino City Hall cc: City Attorney
San Bernardino, California San Bernardino Sun
October 13, 1995
Dear Mayor, and City Council :
I appreciated the opportunity to speak at your Council Meeting, on the issue of
the proposed Special Election.
That Council Meeting ended with a 3-3-1 (Tie) vote, thus no Special Election could
be held in 1995. The SB 100 Moratorium, as you all know, takes effect on
January 1, 1996.
Reports in your San Bernardino Sun suggest that there are now four votes in favor
of still ordering a Special Election, reportedly for February 6, 1996. This matter
appears for Agenda on October 16, 1995.
As before, I have no clients on either side of this issue, but I wish to address
the issue with some personal observations, based upon sixteen years of experience.
I believe that you will do great harm to your city if you vote to set the proposed
Special Election. There is a good reason why other cities do not attempt to set
Special Elections during the Moratorium. Their City Attorneys properly advise them
that the Election would be challenged in Court, and most likely lose in Court.
Further, win or lose, you can easily predict that you will be challenged by a huge
array of attorneys, both government and private. It is quite possible that the
legal processes could reach the Supreme Court, and could take as long as the
likely life of the SB 100 Moratorium!
In addition, the costs to the City of San Bernardino, just in defending the City
Council action, would probably considerably exceed $100,000! Remember - the City,
not the promoters, would be the defendants in lawsuits.
It is easy for developers, who are expected to be "dreamers" , to request actions by
a city. But such dreams can be "nightmares" for the city, if it is left holding
the bag. I also read recently, in the San Bernardino Sun, that similar dreams of
the same developer became a nightmare for the City of IncWstry. According to the
article, the developer went bankrupt and the city held the bag.
Si cerely,
AL MINTZ
i
T 1613 Chelsea Road, Suite 327 • San Marino, California 91108 S