PROPOSITION 26
Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering
on Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
ANALYSIS OF MEASURE
BACKGROUND
Gambling in California. The California Constitution and state law limit gambling in California. For example, state law bans sports betting, roulette, and games with dice (such as craps). However, it allows some gambling. This includes:
• State Lottery. About 23,000 stores in all 58 counties sell state lottery games. Lottery sales—after prizes and operation costs—support education. About $1.9 billion in lottery revenue supported education last year.
• Cardrooms. Currently, 84 cardrooms in 32 counties can offer certain card games (such as poker). Cardrooms pay state and local fees and taxes. For example, cardrooms pay the state around $24 million each year (annually) generally for regulatory costs. Cardrooms also pay around $100 million each year to the cities they are located in.
• Horse Racing Betting. Four privately operated racetracks as well as 29 fairs, publicly operated racetracks, and other facilities in 17 counties offer betting on horse racing.
The horse racing industry pays state and local fees and taxes. Last year, the industry paid the state around $18 million in fees primarily for state regulatory costs. • Tribal Casinos. Tribes operate 66 casinos in 28 counties under specific agreements between certain tribes and the state (discussed below). These casinos offer slot machines, lottery games, and card games on tribal lands. Last year, tribes paid around $65 million to support state regulation and gambling addiction programs. Tribes also pay tens of millions of dollars to local governments each year. Additionally, tribes operating larger casinos pay nearly $150 million each year to tribes that either do not operate casinos or have less than 350 slot machines.
Tribal-State Compacts. Native American tribes have certain rights under federal law to govern themselves, such as certain rights to offer gambling. This means that the state generally
7.F.a
Packet Pg. 727
Attachment: Prop26-Legislative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
cannot regulate tribal gambling except as allowed by (1) federal law and (2) federally approved agreements between a tribe and state (known as tribal-state compacts). When a tribe wants to offer gambling on its lands, federal law requires that the state negotiate a compact with the tribe.
If the tribe and the state cannot agree, the federal government may issue a compact instead. In California, compacts allow tribal casinos to offer slot machines and other games on tribal lands.
These compacts lay out how gambling will be regulated. They also require certain payments, such as to the state and local governments. California currently has compacts with 79 tribes.
Tribes can ask for these compacts to be changed, such as when new types of gambling become legal in the state.
Enforcement of State and Local Gambling Laws. California’s state and local gambling laws are enforced in various ways. For example, regulatory agencies can take back licenses, issue fines, or seek penalties through civil lawsuits filed in state trial courts. The California Department of Justice (DOJ), county district attorneys, and city attorneys can file criminal cases in state trial courts against those breaking certain gambling laws.
Annual Required Education Spending. The California Constitution requires the state to spend a minimum amount on K-12 schools and community colleges each year. This minimum amount grows over time based on growth in state tax revenues, the economy, and student attendance. The state’s current budget includes $110 billion to meet this requirement. The state General Fund currently provides more than $80 billion towards this amount. (The General Fund is the state’s main operating account, which pays for education, prisons, health care, and other public services.) Local property taxes also are used to meet this minimum amount.
PROPOSAL
Proposition 26 allows in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos. It requires that racetracks and casinos that offer sports betting make certain payments to the state—such as to support state regulatory costs. The proposition also allows additional gambling—such as roulette—at tribal casinos. Finally, it adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws.
Allows In-Person Sports Betting at Racetracks and Tribal Casinos. Proposition 26 changes the California Constitution and state law to allow the state’s privately operated racetracks and tribal casinos to offer sports betting. However, the proposition bans bets on certain sports—such as high school games and games in which California college teams participate. Figure 1 shows the locations that could choose to offer sports betting.
7.F.a
Packet Pg. 728
Attachment: Prop26-Legislative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
• Requirements on Racetracks. The proposition allows the state’s four privately operated racetracks to offer sports betting to people 21 years of age and older. All bets must be made in person at the track. The proposition also requires the racetracks pay the state 10 percent of sports bets made each day—after subtracting any prize payments. These payments would go into a new California Sports Wagering Fund (CSWF).
• Requirements on Tribal Casinos. The proposition includes specific requirements for tribal casinos that choose to offer sports betting. For example, sports betting can be offered on tribal lands only after a tribe changes its compact with the state to allow it.
Each tribe’s compact would lay out the requirements it must follow. For example, the compact could specify the minimum age to place a bet, required payments to the state and local governments, and whether tribal payments would go into the new CSWF. If
7.F.a
Packet Pg. 729
Attachment: Prop26-Legislative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
payments do not go into the new CSWF, the proposition requires tribes at least pay the state for the cost of regulating sports betting at tribal casinos.
Requires Specific Use of CSWF Revenues. Proposition 26 requires CSWF revenues be considered state tax revenues to calculate the minimum amount of spending on K-12 schools and community colleges each year. This means CSWF monies would first be used to help meet this required spending level on education. The proposition requires that monies next be used to support state regulatory costs. Remaining monies would be used in three ways: (1) 15 percent for gambling addiction and mental health programs and grants, (2) 15 percent for sports betting and gambling enforcement costs, and (3) 70 percent to the state General Fund.
Allows Additional Gambling at Tribal Casinos. Proposition 26 changes the California Constitution to allow roulette and games played with dice at tribal casinos. Before offering these games, tribal compacts with the state would need to be changed to allow them to do so.
Adds New Enforcement Method. Proposition 26 adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws, such as laws banning certain types of card games. Specifically, it allows people or entities that believe someone is breaking these laws to file a civil lawsuit in state trial courts.
This lawsuit can ask for penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. It can also ask for the court to stop the behavior. These civil lawsuits would be allowed only if the person or entity filing it first asks DOJ to act and either (1) DOJ does not file a court case within 90 days or (2) a court rejects the case filed by DOJ and does not prohibit it from being filed again. Penalties collected would go into the CSWF for the purposes laid out above.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 26 would impact both state and local government revenues and costs. The actual size of these effects, however, is uncertain and would depend on how the proposition is interpreted and implemented. For example, it is unclear if tribal-state compacts changed to allow for sports betting would require additional payments to local governments. The fiscal effects would also depend on the number of people who choose to make sports bets and how often the new civil enforcement method is used.
Increased State Revenues. Proposition 26 would increase state revenues from racetrack and tribal sports betting payments as well as civil penalties. The size of this increase is uncertain, but could reach tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of this revenue would be new. For example, the state currently does not receive any share of illegal sports bets. This means the state would receive new revenue when people make sports bets legally rather than illegally. However, some of this revenue would not be new. For example, the state currently receives revenue when people spend money on certain things, such as lottery games or shopping. This means the state might not receive new revenue when people spend less on those things so they could make sports bets.
Some of the increased revenue would go into the CSWF. This would result in a higher minimum amount of spending on K-12 schools and community colleges than would otherwise be required. About 40 percent of CSWF money would likely be used to meet this higher minimum spending amount. The remaining 60 percent would be used for sports betting and gambling- related costs as well as other state spending priorities.
7.F.a
Packet Pg. 730
Attachment: Prop26-Legislative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
Effects on Local Government Revenues. Proposition 26 could impact local government revenues. For example, cardrooms may earn less revenue if they are negatively impacted by the new civil enforcement method. This could reduce the taxes and fees they pay to the cities where they are located. The effects on most local governments would likely not be large. However, there could be larger effects on a few local governments that receive a large share of their revenue from cardrooms. For example, one city estimates cardroom payments are about 70 percent of its General Fund revenues. At the same time, tribal-state compacts changed to allow for sports betting could require additional tribal payments to local governments.
Increased State Regulatory Costs. Proposition 26 would create more work for state agencies (such as DOJ) to regulate sports betting. The amount of work would depend mostly on how sports betting is regulated, such as what types of bets are not allowed. Total costs for this additional work could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by CSWF revenues and tribal payments to the state that do not go into the CSWF.
Increased State Enforcement Costs. The new civil enforcement method would create more work for DOJ and the state courts. DOJ would need to review and respond to claims that gambling laws are being broken. State courts would also need to process any civil lawsuits filed.
Total state enforcement costs would depend largely on how often the new civil enforcement method is used. However, these increased costs would not likely exceed the low millions of dollars annually. This amount is less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. Some of these costs could be offset by CSWF revenues.
Other Fiscal Effects. Proposition 26 could result in other fiscal effects on the state and local governments. For example, state and local revenue could increase from people coming from out of state to place sports bets and spending more than they otherwise would. Additionally, state and local governments could have increased costs. For example, more people visiting racetracks or casinos could increase state and local law enforcement costs. The net effect of the above effects on the state and local governments is unknown.
7.F.a
Packet Pg. 731
Attachment: Prop26-Legislative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
YES/NO STATEMENT
A YES vote on this measure means: Four racetracks could offer in-person sports betting.
Racetracks would pay the state a share of sports bets made. Tribal casinos could offer in-person sports betting, roulette, and games played with dice (such as craps) if permitted by individual tribal gambling agreements with the state. Tribes would be required to support state sports betting regulatory costs at casinos. People and entities would have a new way to seek enforcement of certain state gambling laws.
A NO vote on this measure means: Sports betting would continue to be illegal in California.
Tribal casinos would continue to be unable to offer roulette and games played with dice. No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT
• Increased state revenues, possibly reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from racetrack and tribal casino sports betting payments and gambling penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues. • Increased state costs to regulate in-person sports betting, possibly reaching the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increase in state revenues.
• Increased state costs to enforce gambling laws, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually. Some of these costs could be offset by the increase in state revenues.
BALLOT LABEL
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
7.F.a
Packet Pg. 732
Attachment: Prop26-Legislative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
PROPOSITION 27
Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
ANALYSIS OF MEASURE
BACKGROUND
Sports Betting. State law currently bans sports betting in California. However, state law allows some gambling, such as tribal gambling, the state lottery, cardrooms, and horse racing betting.
Tribal Gambling. Native American tribes have certain rights under federal law to govern themselves, such as certain rights to offer gambling. This means that the state generally cannot regulate tribal gambling except as allowed by (1) federal law and (2) federally approved agreements between a tribe and state (known as tribal-state compacts). When a tribe wants to offer gambling on its lands, federal law requires that the state negotiate a compact with the tribe.
If the tribe and the state cannot agree, the federal government may issue a compact instead. In California, compacts allow tribal casinos to offer slot machines and other games on tribal lands.
These compacts lay out how gambling will be regulated. They also require certain payments, such as to the state and local governments. Tribes can ask for these compacts to be changed, such as when new types of gambling become legal in the state.
California currently has compacts with 79 tribes. Tribes currently operate 66 casinos in 28 counties. Last year, tribes paid around $65 million to support state regulatory and gambling addiction program costs. Tribes also pay tens of millions of dollars to local governments each year (annually). Additionally, tribes operating larger casinos pay nearly $150 million each year to tribes that either do not operate casinos or have less than 350 slot machines.
State Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program (HHAPP). HHAPP provides funding to local entities (such as cities) and tribes to help them achieve their goals related to addressing homelessness. Currently, 80 percent of HHAPP funds go to local entities generally based on their share of the state’s homeless population, 2 percent to tribes, and 18 percent to the state to provide bonuses to local entities and tribes who meet their goals. The program received $1 billion in state funds this year.
7.F.b
Packet Pg. 733
Attachment: Prop27-Leiglative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
PROPOSAL
Proposition 27 allows tribes or gambling companies to offer online sports betting. It requires tribes and gambling companies that offer online sports betting to make certain payments to the state for specific purposes—such as to support state regulatory costs and to address homelessness. The proposition also creates a new online sports betting regulatory unit. Finally, it provides new ways to reduce illegal online sports betting.
Allows Tribes or Gambling Companies to Offer Online Sports Betting. Proposition 27 changes the California Constitution and state law to allow online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices. People 21 years of age and older in California, who are not on tribal lands, would be able to place bets no later than September 2023. The proposition allows bets on athletic events (such as football games) and some non-athletic events (such as awards shows and video game competitions). However, it bans bets on certain other events such as high school games and elections.
The proposition allows the following groups to apply for a five-year license to offer online sports betting:
• Tribes With Tribal-State Compacts. Licensed tribes, or their contractors, could offer sports betting under the tribe’s name. The proposition requires tribes to give up some of their rights under federal law to get a license. For example, tribes must agree to a certain amount of state regulation.
• Certain Gambling Companies. Licensed gambling companies could offer sports betting under their own name or brand. These companies must partner with a tribe with a tribal-state compact. The proposition limits licenses to larger companies, such as those that have online sports betting licenses in at least ten U.S. states or territories.
Requires Payments to State. Proposition 27 requires various sports betting payments to the state. For example, tribes and gambling companies with sports betting licenses must pay 10 percent of sports bets made each month to the state, after subtracting various expenses. These expenses include: (1) any bets made with credits from promotional offers, (2) prize payments, and (3) federal gambling taxes. Losses, which result when expenses are more than bets, may be used to offset these payments. A portion of these monthly payments must be made in advance when the sports betting license is approved or renewed. This reduces the actual monthly amount owed. Specifically, a tribe must pay $10 million when its five-year license is approved. It must also pay $1 million each time its license is renewed. A gambling company must pay $100 million when its five-year license is approved. It must also pay $10 million each time its license is renewed.
Creates New Fund. The above payments to the state would go into a new California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund (COSBTF). Proposition 27 requires COSBTF revenues first be used for state regulatory costs. The rest would be used for two major purposes:
• 85 percent to address homelessness and for gambling addiction programs. The money to address homelessness would be provided to local entities generally in the same way as HHAPP funding.
7.F.b
Packet Pg. 734
Attachment: Prop27-Leiglative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
• 15 percent for tribes that are not involved in online sports betting. Tribes could use these funds for tribal government, health, economic development, or other purposes.
Exempts Revenues From State Spending Limit and Minimum Education Spending Levels.
The California Constitution includes various rules that impact the state budget. These rules include a state spending limit and require a minimum amount of spending on K-12 schools and community colleges each year. Proposition 27 changes the California Constitution to exempt sports betting revenues from these rules.
Creates New State Online Sports Betting Regulatory Unit. Proposition 27 creates a new unit within the California Department of Justice to regulate online sports betting. This unit would set the requirements to get a license. It would also decide what types of events and bets are allowed.
Additionally, this unit would investigate illegal activities (such as the “fixing” of events).
However, the proposition puts limits on the unit. For example, the unit could not limit the amount of promotional credits offered to bettors. The proposition also creates a 17-member group to provide advice and recommendations to the unit, including written feedback on any potential regulations.
Provides New Ways to Reduce Illegal Online Sports Betting. Proposition 27 creates new ways to reduce illegal online sports betting. When people place online sports bets with any unlicensed entity, the proposition requires those people pay the state a penalty. This penalty equals 15 percent of the amount that they bet. The proposition also allows for a $1,000 penalty for each day this money is not paid. These payments would go into the COSBTF. Additionally, the state’s new regulatory unit could take certain enforcement actions. These actions can include requiring unlicensed entities provide the names of people placing bets with them and blocking online access to these entities.
FISCAL EFFECTS
Proposition 27 would impact both state and local government revenues and costs. The actual size of these effects, however, is uncertain and would depend on how the proposition is interpreted and implemented. For example, this proposition expands legal gambling. In response, it is unclear whether tribes will ask for changes to their tribal-state compacts (such as to reduce the amount paid to local governments) to reflect potential impacts on tribal casinos. The fiscal effects would also depend on how many licensed entities offer sports betting and the amount of expenses they subtract from the monthly amount owed to the state. Finally, the fiscal effects would depend on the number of people who choose to make sports bets.
Increased State Revenues. Proposition 27 would increase state revenues from sports betting payments and penalties. The size of this increase is uncertain. The increase could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, but likely would not be more than $500 million annually. Some of this revenue would be new. For example, the state currently does not receive any share of illegal sports bets made online. This means the state would receive new revenue when people make sports bets legally rather than illegally. However, some of this revenue would not be new. For example, the state currently receives revenue when people spend money on certain things, such as lottery games or shopping. This means the state might not receive new revenue when people spend less on those things so they could make sports bets.
7.F.b
Packet Pg. 735
Attachment: Prop27-Leiglative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
State revenues from sports betting payments and penalties would go into the COSBTF. The monies would first be used for state regulatory costs. The rest would support (1) homelessness programs, (2) gambling addiction programs, and (3) tribal economic development and other purposes.
Increased State Regulatory Costs. Proposition 27 would create work for the state to regulate online sports betting. The amount of work would depend mostly on how sports betting is regulated. Key examples of this include: the number of sports betting licenses approved, the type and number of betting options and events offered, and how much state enforcement is done.
Total costs for this work could reach the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by COSBTF revenues.
Other Fiscal Effects. Proposition 27 could result in other fiscal effects on the state and local governments. For example, state and local revenue could increase from people coming from out of state to place sports bets and spending more than they otherwise would. However, some or all of this increased local revenue could be offset. For example, tribes might ask for their tribal-state compacts to require less payment to local governments to reflect potential impacts sports betting has on their casinos. Additionally, state and local governments could have increased costs. For example, online sports betting could make it more difficult for people with gambling addictions to avoid placing bets. This could increase the number of people who might need government assistance. The net effect of the above effects on the state and local governments is unknown.
7.F.b
Packet Pg. 736
Attachment: Prop27-Leiglative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) November 8, 2022 Ballot
YES/NO STATEMENT
A YES vote on this measure means: Licensed tribes or gambling companies could offer online sports betting over the Internet and mobile devices to people 21 years of age and older on non-tribal lands in California. Those offering online sports betting would be required to pay the state a share of sports bets made. A new state unit would be created to regulate online sports betting. New ways to reduce illegal online sports betting would be available.
A NO vote on this measure means: Sports betting would continue to be illegal in California.
No changes would be made to the way state gambling laws are enforced.
SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT
• 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 these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues. • Increased state costs to regulate online sports betting, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenues.
BALLOT LABEL
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but not likely to exceed $500 million annually. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually.
7.F.b
Packet Pg. 737
Attachment: Prop27-Leiglative Analysis (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) RESOLUTION 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CATHEDRAL CITY EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S
SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 26 ON THE NOVEMBER 2022
BALLOT
WHEREAS, California’s Indian Tribes have been responsible stewards of gaming for the last two decades, operating highly regulated casinos on their tribal lands, helping promote Indian self-sufficiency; and
WHEREAS, through formal state compacts and agreements with local governments, tribal governments partner with neighboring cities and counties to address issues important to their communities and to provide direct funding to cities and counties; and
WHEREAS, as an industry, tribal gaming creates and sustains nearly 150,000 jobs statewide and, generates $26.9 billion for the California economy; and
WHEREAS, Proposition 26 on the November 2022 ballot would authorize in-person sports wagering at tribal casinos and 4 licensed horse racetracks and allow Indian tribes to offer craps and roulette at their casinos; and
WHEREAS, Prop 26 is the safest and most responsible way to legalize sports betting because it establishes safeguards to ensure safe, responsible sports wagering by limiting participation to adults over 21, prohibiting advertising to minors, and requiring individuals to be physically present to place bets, with ID and age verification checks to prevent underage gambling; and
WHEREAS, if passed, the legalized sports wagering under Prop 26 will generate new jobs and create additional economic opportunities that uplift tribal and nontribal communities alike—strengthening partnerships between tribes and municipalities.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cathedral City hereby supports Prop 26 on the November 2022 ballot; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cathedral City can be listed as a member of the Yes on Prop 26 coalition.
We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to Kyle Griffith of the Yes on Prop 26 campaign at [email protected].
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
7.F.c
Packet Pg. 738
Attachment: Resolution Prop 26 (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27)
___________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Tracey R. Hermosillo, City Clerk Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
7.F.c
Packet Pg. 739
Attachment: Resolution Prop 26 (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) RESOLUTION 2022-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CATHEDRAL CITY EXPRESSING THE CITY COUNCIL'S
OPPOSITION FOR PROPOSITION 27 ON THE NOVEMBER 2022
BALLOT
WHEREAS, Proposition 27 on the November 2022 ballot would authorize a massive expansion of online gambling for the sole benefit of out of state corporations while masquerading as a “solution to homelessness”; and
WHEREAS, the National Council on Problem Gambling found that online gambling is far more addictive than in-person gambling and leads to more problem gambling; and
WHEREAS, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst warns that under Prop 27, local governments could incur increased costs associated with increases in individuals with gambling addictions that require additional government support; and
WHEREAS, Prop 27’s language only guarantees funding allocations for cities with populations over 300,000, excluding 97% of California’s cities, leaving the remaining cities to apply for grants with no guarantee of funding; and
WHEREAS, as an industry, tribal gaming creates and sustains nearly 150,000 jobs statewide and generates $26.9 billion for the California economy; and
WHEREAS, Prop 27 competes directly with tribal casinos, threatening the nearly $1.2 billion in revenues tribal casinos provide to the state and $489 million to local governments and communities annually; and
WHEREAS, Prop 27 is opposed by the League of California Cities, more than 50 Indian tribes, and dozens of local elected officials, public safety leaders, social justice advocates, business groups, educators, labor unions and more; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cathedral City hereby opposes Proposition 27 on the November 2022 ballot; and
THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cathedral City can be listed as a member of the No on Prop 27 coalition.
We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to Kyle Griffith of the No on Prop 27 campaign at [email protected].
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 24th day of August, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
7.F.d
Packet Pg. 740
Attachment: Resolution Prop 27 (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27) ___________________________
Ernesto Gutierrez, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Tracey R. Hermosillo, City Clerk Eric S. Vail, City Attorney
7.F.d
Packet Pg. 741
Attachment: Resolution Prop 27 (3374 : Resolution Regarding Propositions 26 and 27)
Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/23/2022
Staff Report
City Council
Item No. 7.G
Meeting Date: August 24, 2022
From: Charles McClendon, City Manager
Title: Update on Emergency Actions Related to COVID-19
City Council
RECOMMENDATION:
Update on Status of Emergency Proclamation. Possible action to continue or rescind Resolution 2020-06.
Update on Emergency Actions taken by City, County, State of Federal Agencies.
Possible consideration of additional measures to be taken. Council may add items not listed on the agenda pursuant to Government Code section 54954.2 by majority vote.
7.G
Packet Pg. 742