Figure 1

Figure 1 is a timeline showing the total dollars appropriated for local mitigation grants from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund, the number of new compacts, and the number of amended compacts for each fiscal year 1999-2000 through 2015-16. Specifically, for fiscal year 1999-2000, there were 61 new compacts and the Legislature did not appropriate any funds for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2003-04, there were 3 new compacts and appropriations of $25 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2004-05, there were 2 new compacts, 6 amended compacts, and appropriations of $30 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2005-06, there were no new or amended compacts, and appropriations of $50 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2006-07, there was 1 amended compact and appropriations of $30 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2007-08, there was 1 new compact, 4 amended compacts, and appropriations of $300,000 for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2008-09, there was 1 amended compact and appropriations of $30 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2009-10, there were no new or amended compacts and no appropriations for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2010-11, there was 1 new compact and appropriations of $30 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2011-12, there were 2 new compacts and appropriations of $9.1 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2012-13, there were 3 amended compacts and appropriations of $9.1 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2013-14, there were 2 new compacts and appropriations of $9.1 million for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2014-15, there was 1 new compact, 2 amended compacts, and no appropriations for mitigation grants. For fiscal year 2015-16, there were 3 amended compacts and no appropriations for mitigation grants.

Figure 2

Figure 2 is a flowchart showing how funding from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (distribution fund) is allocated to local governments for use to award grants to mitigate the effects of tribal gaming. For fiscal year 2013–14, the total amount appropriated from the distribution fund for mitigation grants was $9.1 million. 95 percent of the $9.1 million was directed to counties with tribes paying into the distribution fund. The State allocated these funds to each county tribal casino account by the following formula: 95 percent of the $9.1 million divided by the aggregate number of gaming devices that contribute to the distribution fund in all counties multiplied by the number of gaming devices in the county for which the tribes are required to contribute to the distribution fund. The funds were then allocated by the State to individual tribal casino accounts within each county in proportion to what the tribe paid into the distribution fund during the prior fiscal year. The county allocation is awarded by county Indian gaming local community benefit committees to local governments for grants to mitigate the impact of casinos.

The remaining 5 percent of the $9.1 million was directed to counties that do not have any tribes paying into the distribution fund. The State allocated these funds to each individual tribal casino account by the following formula: 5 percent of the $9.1 million divided by the aggregate number of gaming devices in counties with no tribes contributing to the distribution fund multiplied by the number of gaming devices operating in the county. The county allocation is granted by county Indian gaming local community benefit committees to local governments to mitigate the impact of casinos with specified priorities.

Figure 3

Figure 3 is a map of California showing the allocations of funding for mitigation grants to each County Tribal Casino Accounts from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund for fiscal year 2013-14. Each county on the map is color coded based on a range of funds received. The highest dollar amount, identifying counties that were allocated more than two million dollars includes Riverside County. The second range of funds, those counties that were allocated between $750,001 and $2 million dollars includes the counties of Fresno and San Diego. The third range of funds, those counties that were allocated between $250,001 and $750,000 includes the counties of Shasta, Butte, Lake, Colusa, Amador, Kings, Tulare, and Santa Barbara. The fourth range of funds, those counties that were allocated between $25,001 and $250,000, includes the counties of Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Yolo, Placer, El Dorado, Tuolumne, Madera, Inyo, San Bernardino, and Imperial. The fifth range of funds, those counties that were allocated up to $25,000, includes the counties of Del Norte, Lassen, Modoc, and Tehama. The following counties did not receive any allocations: Alameda, Alpine, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Glenn, Kern, Los Angeles, Marin, Mariposa, Merced, Mono, Monterey, Napa, Nevada, Orange, Plumas, San Luis Obispo, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Trinity, Ventura, and Yuba.

Figure 4

Figure 4 is a flowchart that describes the methodology for allocating funds from individual tribal casino accounts to local governments for grants that mitigate tribal gaming. A circle showing funding divided into three portions—60 percent, 20 percent, and 20 percent. The first portion, or 60 percent, of the funds are designated for cities and counties that meet two or more criteria of the four nexus test criteria. The four next test criteria are (1)The city or county borders all sides of Indian lands upon which the casino is built. (2)The city or county partially borders Indian lands upon which the casino is built. (3)The city or county maintains the highway, road, or predominant access route to a casino that is located within four miles. (4) All or a proportion of the city or county is located within four miles of a casino. Of the 60 percent designated for cities and counties, 50 percent of these funds are allocated in equal proportions to cities and counties that meet all four nexus criteria. 30 percent of these funds are allocated in equal proportions to cities and counties that meet three of the nexus criteria. The remaining 20 percent of these funds are allocated in equal proportions to cities and counties that meet two of the nexus criteria.

The second portion, or 20 percent, of the funds are designated for cities, counties, and special districts, allocated at the Indian gaming local community benefit committee’s (benefit committee) discretion to address the impact of casinos.

The third portion, or 20 percent, of the funds are designated for cities, counties, and special districts, allocated at the benefit committee’s discretion to address the impact of casinos that pay into the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund.

Figure 5

Figure 5 is a bar graph that compares the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund’s revenue and transfers into the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund (distribution fund) with expenditures and transfers from the distribution fund, fund balance, and annual surplus or shortfall for each fiscal year 2012–13 through 2017–18. For each fiscal year there is one column of the bar chart showing the total revenue and transfers into the distribution fund and one column that shows four categories of expenditures from the distribution fund. These four categories are regulatory functions, gambling prevention programs, transfers into the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund, and local mitigation grants. There is also a line overlaying the bar chart showing the fund balance amount for each of the fiscal years and the annual shortfall in the distribution fund.

For fiscal year 2012–13, the bar showing revenue and transfers into the distribution fund totals $42.9 million and the bar showing expenditures and transfers out of the distribution fund totals $72.9 million. The fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year shows $60.5 million and the annual shortfall is $30 million, decreasing the fund balance to $36.5 million. For fiscal year 2013–14, the bar showing revenue and transfers into the distribution fund totals $45.2 million and the bar showing expenditures and transfers out of the distribution fund totals $65.8 million. The fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year shows $36.5 million and the annual shortfall is $20.6 million, decreasing the fund balance to $14.6 million.

For fiscal year 2014–15, the bar showing revenue and transfers into the distribution fund totals $49.9 million and the bar showing expenditures and transfers out of the distribution fund totals $47 million. The fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year shows $14.6 million and the fund balance increased by $2.9 million, to decreasing the fund balance to $17.5 million.

For fiscal year 2015–16, the bar showing revenue and transfers into the distribution fund totals $51.4 million and the bar showing expenditures and transfers out of the distribution fund totals $51.4 million. The fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year shows $17.5 million and the annual shortfall is $0 million, leaving the fund balance at $17.5 million.

For fiscal year 2016–17, the bar showing estimated revenue and transfers into the distribution fund totals $46.1 million and the bar showing estimated expenditures and transfers out of the distribution fund totals $57.7 million. The fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year shows $17.5 million and the estimated annual shortfall is $11.6 million, decreasing the estimated fund balance to $5.9 million.

For fiscal year 2017–18, the bar showing projected revenue and transfers into the distribution fund totals $46 million and the bar showing projected expenditures and transfers out of the distribution fund totals $47.7 million. The projected fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year shows $5.9 million and the projected annual shortfall is $1.7 million, decreasing the projected fund balance to $4.2 million.