California 2017-2018 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1508

Introduced
2/17/17  
Introduced
2/17/17  
Refer
3/27/17  
Refer
3/27/17  
Report Pass
3/28/17  
Report Pass
3/28/17  
Refer
3/29/17  
Refer
3/29/17  
Failed
2/1/18  

Caption

Horse racing: advance deposit wagering.

Impact

The bill's modifications could have significant implications for local municipalities that host horse racing events. By mandating that the California Horse Racing Board assess whether cities receive appropriate compensation from wagers placed through advance deposit systems, the bill seeks to enhance fiscal responsibility and strengthen local government finance based on horse racing activities. This could potentially lead to increased revenue for cities, improving their capacity to provide essential services linked to these events. Additionally, the amendment aims to ensure that local governments don't levy additional taxes on racing associations benefiting financially from these agreements, which may further enhance their financial standings.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1508, introduced by Assembly Member Chau, aims to amend existing provisions within the California Business and Professions Code concerning horse racing and parimutuel wagering. The bill focuses on advance deposit wagering, which allows bettors to place wagers electronically in advance, and includes provisions for the California Horse Racing Board to enforce regulations surrounding these activities. A notable change proposed by the bill is the requirement for the board to review and ensure that cities receive fair distributions from the additional funds generated through parimutuel wagers. This includes an evaluation of payments made in relation to advance deposit wagers, providing transparency and accountability in the distribution process.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding AB 1508 appears positive, particularly among those who advocate for increased transparency and financial responsibility in state-regulated activities like horse racing. Stakeholders, including racing associations and local governments, may welcome the improved oversight and potential increase in revenue. However, there may be some contention from local governments that fear losing flexibility in managing additional funds from racing activities, especially if they become heavily reliant on this income. Discussions reveal a general agreement on the necessity for regulations that enhance accountability without imposing undue burdens on local administrations.

Contention

While the bill seeks to provide necessary amendments to existing horse racing provisions, there are underlying tensions regarding local control and financial dependence on parimutuel wagers. Some legislators and localists worry that frequent changes to the distribution mechanisms could hinder municipalities' ability to manage these funds effectively. The legislation's focus on oversight might lead to debates regarding the balance of authority between state regulations and local governance, particularly when it comes to the financial well-being of the cities involved.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB460

Horse racing: satellite wagering facilities: fairs: funding.

CA AB2284

Horse racing: out-of-state or out-of-country harness or quarter horse races.

CA AB1974

Horse racing: welfare and safety of racehorses and jockeys.

CA SB274

Administration of taxes: notice of deficiency assessment.

CA AB924

Indian tribes: commercial cannabis activity.

CA AB1174

Horse racing: minisatellite wagering facilities.

CA AB1526

Horse racing: minisatellite wagering facilities.

CA AB2139

Horse racing: minisatellite wagering facilities.