No Casino in Plymouth

Index of PAST Government Positions
4) County Supervisors Ltr to Gov. Davis (May'03) May'03
3)Original Plymouth Letter to Tribe expressing Conditional Support for Casino Sep'03
2) Letter from Plymouth City Council to Gov. Davis Jun'03

1) Letter from Plymouth City Council (Mayor Scanlon) to Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton Oct'03

CURRENT Government Positions

California Supreme Court denies Appeal of invalidated MSA

BACKGROUND ON MSA

The old Municpal Services Agreement was invalidated in Amador County Superior Court in January’05 and the City was given 30 days (until Feb. 7th) to take “the appropriate action to render the MSA void” and were “enjoined from implementing all provisions of the MSA”. The City of Plymouth filed an appeal of the Court’s decision on 7 April’05. The MSA contained provisions that permited the Tribe to control litigation concerning challenges to the MSA. The Tribe chose the lawyers and controlled the defense during the ultimately unsuccessful trial and also during the initial appeal.

On 9 June'05, the Plymouth City Council voted to drop the appeal and ordered the lawyer representing the City to comply with that position. The lawyer of record received conflicting orders from the Tribe (who was paying his legal fees) and as a result withdrew from the case due to conflict of interest. The City filed the both a request to change attorneys and to withdraw the appeal.

In an attempt to save the invalidated MSA, the Tribe went back to Amador Superior Court and first filed an Intervention to represent the City and then filed a motion for a new trial on July 01, 2005. Amador County Judge Patrick Riley issued a ruling in late August denying the motion for a new trial but granted the Tribe which was not a defendant in the original trial legal status in the case. The Tribe then filed an appeal with the California Third District Court.

SYNOPSIS OF THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APEALS RULING ON MSA

The California State Court of Appeals, Third Appellate District, in validated the Plymouth MSA in a ruling issued April 17, 2007. They stated in part that the Tribe has miscast the project as the acquisition of Trust lands and gaming development. The Plymouth’s construction of public works and the vacation of a City road to the casino hotel do require the City’s approval. It is these activities that constitute a project within the Scope of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the MSA that constitutes an approval of the project. The Law provides that if any decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with CEQA, the court shall enter an order that the decision be voided by the public agency. Accordingly, the decision of the City to enter into the MSA without complying with CEQA is void. For this reason the MSA and it’s support of the Trust Application of the Tribe is invalid.

COMPLETE COURT DOCUMENT

The complete ruling published by the Third District Court of Appeals can be accessed by the following link (in PDF format) Court of Appeals Opinion published April 17,2007

SYNOPSIS OF SUPREME COURT RULING

The following synopsis is a verbatim replication of the Amador County press release concerning the California Supreme Court decision. It should also be recognized that the No Casino in Plymouth Group (NCIP) was a co-plaintiff along with Amador County in the legal proceedings opposing the now defunct MSA.

Amador County Press Release

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court denied a Petition for Review filed by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians that sought to overrule a unanimous decision by the Third District Court of Appeal that the Municipal Services Agreement (MSA) between the Ione Band and the City of Plymouth is illegal and void because it violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The effect of the Supreme Court’s action is to leave the Court of Appeal decision intact. With this action by the Supreme Court, all avenues of appeal are now exhausted.

The County filed suit in 2004 against the City to block the MSA on the grounds that the MSA was approved without complying with CEQA. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the County, declaring the MSA illegal and void. The Ione Band intervened and appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that the MSA was legal or alternatively that any illegal portions should be “severed” and the MSA preserved. The Court of Appeal rejected both claims, voiding the entire agreement. The Court found the MSA “included public works and a road transfer and other activities that are subject to CEQA” and enjoined the MSA’s implementation in its entirety.

”This decision by the Supreme Court comes as no surprise. The MSA between the Ione Band and Plymouth is now officially dead,” said Louis Boitano, Chairman of the Amador County Board of Supervisors.

Return to INDEX

Amador County Measure “I” Results

Measure I appeared on the Amador County November 2005 Election ballot as a simple “yes” / “no” question. Do you support any more Casinos in Amador County?

The November 8th election gave voters of Amador County a golden opportunity to send an unequivocal message to both their State and Federal Representatives. While not legally binding as law, the strong NO VOTE on Measure “I” will have an immense future political impact. The Department of the Interior now requires Municipal Service Agreements with all locally effected communities. The lack of community support has recently become a huge roadblock to any proposed casino. In light of Governor Schwarzenegger’s proclamation requiring an advisory vote demonstrating local community support, the No VOTE on Measure “I” is a deal killer. You, the citizens of Amador County made abundantly clear your views on whether or not any additional Casinos with all their accompanying negative impacts will be allowed in Amador County.

Precinct	% Yes Votes	% No Votes
CP1 Jackson South	17.14%	82.86%
CP2 Jackson West	11.74%	88.26%
CP3 Jackson East	12.38% 8	7.62%
CP4 SE of Jackson	10.24%	89.76%
CP5 NE of Jackson	15.25%	84.75%
CP6 North Ione	17.27%	82.73%
CP7 South Ione	21.09%	78.91%
CP8 North of Ione to 16	20.59%	79.41%
CP9 West of Ione	9.64%	90.36%
CP10 Commanche J.Valley	27.81%	72.19%
CP11 Amador City	7.92%	92.08%
CP12 Volcano	11.85%	88.15%
CP13 East of Pine Grove	17.26%	82.74%
CP14 West of Pioneer	17.34%	82.66%
CP15 NE of Pioneer	17.34%	82.66%
CP16 Pioneer	14.66%	85.34%
CP17 South Sutter Creek	14.47%	85.53%
CP18 North Sutter Creek	10.87%	89.13%
CP19 East of Sutter Creek	11.88%	88.13%
CP20 Clinton Bar	12.73%	87.27%
CP21 Pine Grove	13.59%	86.41%
CP22 Plymouth	25.30%	74.70%
CP23 North of Shake Ridge	16.21%	83.79%
CP25 Fiddletown	13.80%	86.20%
CP26 East of Amador City	15.77%	84.23%
CP27 Shennandoah Valley	20.00%	80.00%
CP28 Drytown	9.63%	90.37%
CP29 North of Pine Grove	11.91%	88.09%

Return toINDEX

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issues Proclamation on Indian Gaming

P R O C L A M A T I O N by the Governor of the State of California

WHEREAS, the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) authorizes federally recognized Indian tribes to conduct class III gaming on Indian lands, as defined by IGRA, to the extent such games are permitted by state law, and pursuant to a gaming compact negotiated between a tribe and the State; and

WHEREAS, IGRA requires the State to negotiate in good faith for the conclusion of tribal-state gaming compacts with Indian tribes that request such negotiations when those tribes have eligible Indian lands located in the State; and

WHEREAS, in 1998, California voters approved Proposition 5, a statutory measure designed to allow for the operation of slot machine and house banked card gaming by California Indian tribes on Indian lands in accordance with federal law; and

WHEREAS, in 2000, California voters approved Proposition 1A, a measure that amended the California Constitution to authorize the Governor to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature, for the operation of slot machines, lottery games and banked and percentage card games by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California in accordance with federal law; and

WHEREAS, during the campaigns to approve Propositions 5 and 1A, California voters were assured that approval of these measures would not result in tribal casinos being located in urban areas; and

WHEREAS, the constitutionality of tribal exclusivity over the forms of gaming authorized by Proposition 1A is premised upon the limitation of these activities to Indian lands; and

WHEREAS, there are over 100 federally recognized Indian tribes in California and many of those tribes already have Indian lands within the meaning of IGRA that are eligible for class III gaming; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code section 12012.25, subdivision (d), designates the Governor as the state official with authority to negotiate and execute tribal gaming compacts on behalf of the State; and

WHEREAS, California Government Code section 12012.25, subdivisions (c) and (e), provide that tribal-state gaming compacts negotiated by the Governor are subject to ratification by the Legislature; and

WHEREAS, in 1999, Governor Gray Davis concluded, and the Legislature ratified, compacts with 57 tribes, in anticipation of the voters' approval of Proposition 1A; and

WHEREAS, since 1999, seven additional tribes have concluded compacts that have been ratified by the Legislature, seven tribes have amended the terms of their 1999 compacts, which amendments have been ratified by the Legislature, and one tribe with Indian lands in an urban area concluded a compact that was not ratified; and

WHEREAS, in the general election of 2004, two initiative measures, Propositions 68 and 70, that would have expanded gaming activities in urban areas were placed before the California voters; and

WHEREAS, Proposition 68 was defeated with 83.8 percent of the electorate voting against it and Proposition 70 was defeated with 76.3 percent of the electorate voting against it; and

WHEREAS, events demonstrate increasing public concern over the location and expansion of tribal gaming enterprises in California; and

WHEREAS, the State of California exercises jurisdiction over land within the territorial boundaries of the State, except to the extent such jurisdiction is expressly reserved by, or ceded to, the federal government or is preempted by operation of federal law; and

WHEREAS, IGRA generally prohibits Indian gaming on lands acquired by the federal government in trust for Indian tribes after October 17, 1988, the effective date of IGRA; and

WHEREAS, exceptions exist that authorize class III gaming on lands acquired in trust after October 17, 1988, (1) if the lands are taken into trust as part of (i) a settlement of a land claim, or (ii) the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to federal recognition, (2) if the lands are taken into trust as part of the initial reservation of an Indian tribe acknowledged by the Secretary of Interior under the federal acknowledgement process, or (3) if the Secretary of Interior determines that a gaming establishment on lands acquired after October 17, 1988, would be in the best interest of the Indian tribe and its members, would not be detrimental to the surrounding community, and the Governor of the State in which the land is situated concurs in the Secretary's determination that such land can be used for gaming (a Section 20 concurrence); and

WHEREAS, an increasing number of Indian tribes are seeking to take new land into trust for purposes of conducting class III gaming activities pursuant to the provisions of IGRA, often in urban areas; and

WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of all Californians that there be a clear statement of policy identifying the Governor's positions with respect to Indian gaming on newly acquired trust land located in urban areas.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, do hereby proclaim the following statements as my general policy on the specified matters related to tribal gaming:

1. I shall oppose proposals for the federal acquisition of lands within any urbanized area where the lands sought to be acquired in trust are to be used to conduct or facilitate gaming activities.

2. I shall decline to engage in negotiations for tribal-state gaming compacts where the Indian tribe does not have Indian lands eligible for class III gaming.

3. I shall consider requests for a gubernatorial concurrence under section 20(b)(1)(A) of IGRA, that would allow a tribe to conduct class III gaming on newly acquired land, only in cases where each of the following criteria is satisfied:

a) The land that is sought for class III gaming is not within any urbanized area.

b) The local jurisdiction in which the tribe's proposed gaming project is located supports the project.

c) The tribe and the local jurisdiction demonstrate that the affected local community supports the project, such as by a local advisory vote.

d) The project substantially serves a clear, independent public policy, separate and apart from any increased economic benefit or financial contribution to the State, community, or the Indian tribe that may arise from gaming.

4. In order to ensure adherence to the foregoing policies, I will direct the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to provide to the Attorney General and the following departments, boards, and commissions copies of every notice of a tribal application to have land taken into trust by the federal government:

a) The Department of Parks and Recreation
b) The Department of Water Resources
c) The Department of Fish and Game
d) The Native American Heritage Commission
e) The Department of Transportation
f) The California Highway Patrol
g) The Air Resources Board
h) The Department of Conservation
i) The appropriate regional office of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

I will further direct the Resources Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, and Health and Human Services Agency to distribute a copy of the notice to any of their respective departments that may be able to provide input on a particular application. The departments referenced above will be directed to promptly review the notices and provide comments to the Legal Affairs Secretary for a determination as to whether any comment on an application to have land taken into trust should be provided to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The boards and commissions listed above will be invited to provide comments on said notices to the Legal Affairs Secretary.

5. I shall support legislative ratification and Department of Interior approval of each compact or amended compact negotiated by my administration, including the one compact for a casino in an urban area that is not yet ratified by the Legislature.

6. For purpose of this Proclamation, "urbanized area" means the definition of that term as defined in Public Resources Code section 21071, subdivision (a). A list of the cities meeting this definition as of the date of this Proclamation is attached hereto.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this the eighteenth day of May 2005.

/s/ Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor of California

Return toINDEX

County response to Judicial Ruling on the CEQA Lawsuit

The Amador County Board of Supervisors responded to The Judicial Ruling that invalidated the Plymouth MSA by sending letters to the following Governmental Officials:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton
Counsel Dept. of Interior, Michael Rossetti
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bill Allen
Superintendent, Central CA Agency, BIA, Dale Risling
Chairman, national Indian Gaming Commission, Philip Hogan
Regional Chief, NGIC, Greg Bergfeld

A copy of the letter mailed is reproduced below.

November 30, 2004

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Casino for Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Plymouth, Amador County)

Dear Governor:

The Ione Band of Miwok Indians has proposed to have 228 acres of land placed into trust for the purpose of constructing a “world class” casino. Twelve of the 228 acres are located in the city of Plymouth, California (population 400); the remainder is in the non-incorporated area of Amador County, a rural area with a total County population of 36.000 nestled in the Sierra Nevada foothills. This letter is an update on the status of the relationship between the City and the Tribe.

In early 2003, the City Council of Plymouth began discussions with the Ione Band concerning development of the casino on the proposed 228 acres of non-trust lands. After almost a year of discussions, punctuated by the vehement opposition of a decisive majority of Plymouth residents and by neighboring local governments, The Plymouth City Council and the Ione Band executed a “Municipal Services Agreement” in February 2004. In the Municipal Services Agreement the City of Plymouth agreed both to provide various municipal services to the Casino project and to support the Ione Band’s application to have the land taken into trust status in return for compensation from the Ione Band.

The County of Amador, which had objected to the Casino project throughout the negotiations between Plymouth and the Ione Band because of the unexamined environmental and other consequences of the Casino project upon the unincorporated rural area, filed suit against the City of Plymouth. The County alleged that Plymouth had wrongfully entered into the Municipal Services Agreement 3without complying with California’s environmental protection laws. A similar lawsuit was brought by “No Casino in Plymouth,” an unincorporated association, and several individual Plymouth residents.

On November 23, 2004 Superior Court Judge Glenn A. Ritchie agreed with Amador County that Plymouth had illegally entered into the Municipal Services Agreement in violation of California’s environmental protection laws. In his ruling, he declared the Municipal Services Agreement illegal and enjoined Plymouth from performing under that Agreement. The judgment and other concluding documents are being drafted. Any letter of support by the City Council for the taking of land into trust for the casino flowing from the MSA is voided by the court’s ruling. The City is enjoined from providing municipal services and support pursuant to the illegal MSA. Coupled with a new majority of the City Council’s being opposed to the trust application and the casino project itself, first by recall and second by election this Board of Supervisors feels that you should be aware of these changes of circumstances.

Yours truly,

Richard M. Forster
Vice Chairman of the Board of Supervisors

Return toINDEX

Accusation of Breach of MSA between Plymouth and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians

Background

The Tribe sent a letter to the City of Plymouth claiming a breach of contract by their failing to continue the appeal of the invalidated MSA. As a result, the Tribe demanded repayment of all funds given the City under the terms of the MSA as well as repayment of all attorney fees spent by the Tribe defending the MSA for a total sum of over $340,000.

The City disputes the Tribe’s argument that it is obligated to continue litigation until every conceivable motion has been brought. Further more the City contends that the MSA itself gives the City the right to choose which challenges to respond to. This would mean that there has been no breach of contract and that the Tribes claims and request for reimbursement of expended funds are groundless.

The Tribe sent a copy of their letter to numerous State and Federal officials concerned with this fee to trust application. The City of Plymouth responded by sending a letter to those same officials. A copy of the Plymouth letter will soon be available for your viewing on this website.

June 1, 2005

The Honorable Michael O’Meara
Mayor, City of Plymouth
P.O. Box 429
Plymouth, CA 95669

Re: MSA between City of Plymouth and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians

Dear Mr. Mayor:

The Tribal Council of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (“Ione Band”) has received a copy of the City’s letter dated May 27, 2005 addressed to Scott Shapiro of the law firm of Downey Brand directing him to withdraw the City’s appeal in the CEQA lawsuit brought by the County of Amador and others to invalidate the Municipal Services Agreement (“MSA”) entered into by Ione Band and the City of Plymouth. The letter also purportedly attempts to withdraw the delegation of authority contained in the MSA, at Section 17, subsection H, which authorizes the Ione Band to control any litigation, among other things. Please be advised that the Ione Band’s Tribal Council views the actions taken by the City Council to be a breach of the MSA which makes it impossible for the Ione Band to shoulder the responsibilities imposed under the MSA from the date of the City Council’s action, May 26, 2005, including but not limited to the payment of $25,000 to the City quarterly and the indemnification of the City in the CEQA lawsuits.

Although the Tribal Council is disappointed by the City’s actions, we understand that the City Council’s rationale for breaching the MSA was based on meetings with high ranking officials in the Interior Department that represented to yourself and other members of the City Council that the MSA and the letter of support called for therein would be viewed as local support in the Ione Band’s Fee to Trust Application and the Coty did not want the MSA to be viewed as such. Further, it is our understanding from the minutes of the City Council meetings of April 14, 2005 and April 28, 2005, respectively, that residents of the City and the County also met with the same high ranking officials of the Department of Interior and recommended that the City breach the MSA because these high ranking DOI officials had represented to them that without local support our fee to trust application would in all likelihood be denied. For the record, the Ione Band is proceeding with its project understanding that your version of the facts, even if true, does not represent the law and preced4ent under which the Department of Interior is required to act in evaluation Fee to Trust Applications.

The Tribal Council respects the decision of the City Council to breach the MSA and understands the political pressure that prompted it. This should in no way be interpreted as a waiver of any of the Band’s rights under the valid MSA or in any way limit the damage claims of the Band resulting from the City’s breach. However, in light of this breach by the City of Plymouth, the Ione Band requests immediate repayment of the funds to the City pursuant to the terms of the MSAS. The sums are $205,000 paid directly to the City and the amount of $135,636.29 dollars paid to the Downey Brand law firm to defend the CEQA lawsuits. For the City to accept these sums would be unconscionable and result in an unjust enrichment to the City. Consequently, please remit the sum of $340,639.29 to the Ione Band within 60 days of the date of this letter or the Band will take all appropriate legal action to recover this sum and any other resulting damages.

In closing, I want to represent to you and the City Council that the Ione Band negotiated and consummated the MSA in an effort to give the City of Plymouth the resources to review and comment on the environmental impact statement that is required under the National Environmental Policy Act prior to the DOI acting on the Ione Band’s fee to trust application. The MSA also attempted to address certain impacts on the City that the Band’s proposed development on the lands that we are requesting be taken into trust by the United States, would have on the City and the City services. Although the City has chosen to breach the MSA, the Ione Band will continue with its fee to trust application and will submit the application to our “trustee,” the Department of Interior.

I want to personally thank you, Mr. Mayor, for all the hard work you and the City Council have done to try to make the MSA work. I and the Tribal Council look forward to working with you and the City Council as our project progresses.

Very truly yours,

Matthew Franklin Chairman, Ione Band of Miwok Indians
Tribal Council

Return toINDEX

Reply to accusation of Breach of MSA by Plymouth Mayor Mike O'Meara<

Background

This is the City of Plymouth’s official reply to the Tribe’s accusation of breaching the contractual requirements of the MSA. That accusation resulted when the City dropped its appeal of the invalidated MSA. Please note that while the MSA remains technically in effect throughout the duration of the appeal process, the City has taken the opportunity of this reply to inform State and Federal officials that despite the “support letter” from former Mayor Scanlon, there is no support for this project in our community. The need for that support is a requirement of IGRA’s two-part determination for fee to trust applications. The only other avenue available is a “landless and restored” Tribe determination and that fraudulent claim is extensively dealt with in the BASIS FOR OPPOSTION section of this website

June 27, 2005

Honorable Mathew Franklin, Chairman,
Ione Band of Miwok Indians
P.O. Box 1190
14 West Main Street
Ione, CA. 95640

Re: MSA between City of Plymouth and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Thank you for your letter of June 1, 2005.

Unfortunately I believe your letter somewhat mischaracterizes both the provisions of the Municipal Services Agreement (“MSA”) between the City of Plymouth and the Ione Band, as well as the actions that have been taken by the City to date with respect to the lawsuits brought by both the County of Amador and the No Casino in Plymouth group challenging the validity of the MSA. I am therefore responding in order to address those matters.

As you note, section 17 of the MSA permits the Tribe to control litigation that has been tendered to it for defense. It does not, however, obligate the City to tender defense of every case challenging the MSA to the Tribe, nor does it prevent the City from revoking such a tender should the City’s view of the case vary from that of the Tribe.

In this instance, when the cases by the County of Amador and No Casino in Plymouth were filed in the spring of 2004, the City tendered the defense of both to the Tribe. Thereafter, the Tribe completely controlled the defense of the consolidated cases, with counsel chosen by the Tribe, through the ultimately unsuccessful trial. Following the unsuccessful defense, the City determined that it is not appropriate to further litigate those cases, and it therefore has acted to both revoke the tender of defense to the Tribe and to dismiss the appeal brought in its name.

The City does not believe that this breaches the MSA, which does not obligate the City to have tendered the defense in the first instance, nor prevent the City from retaking control of the litigation once tendered, nor obligate the City to continue to litigate until every conceivable motion has been brought. The City has litigated through to judgment in good faith using counsel chosen and directed by the Tribe. It is not obligated to do more.

Further, contrary to your assertion, the City’s action to revoke the tender and withdraw its appeal has not prejudiced the Tribe nor prevented it from continuing to litigate in its own name. In fact, since your letter was sent, the Tribe has actually intervened into the case as a party defendant, and has filed its own appeal in its own name. The City was quite careful in doing so to permit the Tribe time in which to intervene. As a result, we do not understand the Tribe’s claims of damage or prejudice.

Your letter states that the tribal Council is well aware of the intense political pressure under which the City Council has operated for the last two years as a result of your casino proposal and the overwhelming local opposition to it. It also indicates that you understand that high ranking officials of the U.S. Interior department have indicated to the City that the MSA could be viewed as local support for the casino project. You have personally indicated to me in the past that you are well aware that no such support for the casino project exists on the City Council at this time. Indeed no such support could exist given the history of the last two years.

The last two years have seen a referendum of City residents in which 72% of those voting voiced disapproval of the casino project: a special recall election in which all pro-casino council members were recalled: and a general municipal election at which only anti-casino council members were elected following a campaign in which the casino project was the primary election issue. While the MSA was supported by the then incumbent City Council in early 2004, despite the referendum, the successful recall and the results of the recent general municipal election are fairly dramatic evidence that such support was contrary to the view of the vast majority of Plymouth residents.

The willingness of the City Council to litigate in support of the MSA through the trial stage in the face of these pressures is, I believe dramatic evidence of the City’s good faith.

The Tribe, as a sovereign, is not subject to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. The City, on the other hand, is subject to CEQA. The trial court – after a trial conducted by attorneys chosen and directed by the Tribe – determined that the MSA was invalid as having been adopted in violation of CEQA. The trial court’s order directed the City to immediately repeal its resolution adopting the MSA. Despite this, since the Tribe’s own appeal has resulted in an “automatic stay” of the trial court decision, the City Council recognizes that the MSA currently remains in place, and it has not taken any action to formally repeal its adoption of the MSA. The City understands that the Tribe may continue to defend that MSA in the Tribe’s own name.

Your letter indicates that the Tribe will continue its fee to trust application process with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The City recognizes the Tribe may choose to work with the BIA and the Interior Department towards this end even in the face of local opposition. The City is confident that those entities understand that, regardless of the “support letter” from former Mayor Darlene Scanlon, the support expressed in that letter never actually existed among Plymouth residents even at the time it was written, and that it does not exist on the City Council today.

Certainly, it is possible that the Tribe will obtain BIA and Interior Department approval of its project. Should that occur, the Tribe should rest assured that the City will cooperate with the Tribe on a government to government level in an effort to ensure the best possible project from the perspective of both the Ione Band and the City of Plymouth.\\Please note that, inasmuch as your letter to me indicated that copies had been sent to a great many individuals(and indeed, was read aloud by former Mayor Darlene Scanlon during one of our City Council meetings, and hence must have been copied to other parties not indicated on the letter as having received copies), I have taken the liberty of sending copies of this response to those same individuals.

Finally, I wish to personally thank you for the courtesy you have shown over the past many months. It is greatly appreciated that you have taken a positive approach to this critical and difficult issue. I look forward to continuing our dialogue in a positive and constructive manner.

Very truly yours,
Michael O’Meara
Mayor, City of Plymouth

Copies to:
Members of the Plymouth City Council
City Administrator, Gene Albaugh
City Attorney, Michael F. Dean
Hon. Senator John S. McCain
Hon. Senator Diane Feinstein
Hon. Senator Barbara Boxer Hon. Congressman Richard Pombo
Hon. Congressman Daniel Lungren
Hon. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Hon. Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior
Sue Ellen Wooldridge, Solicitor, DOI

Return toINDEX

House of Representatives Republican Leadership voices concern to the Secretary of the Interior on off-reservation casino development

The Honorable Gale A. Norton
Secretary
United States Department of Interior
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20240

Dear Secretary Norton:

We write to express our concerns over recent attempts of certain Indian tribes to develop off-reservation casino sites. We strongly believe that these attempts run counter to Congressional intent and pose a serious threat to the current regulatory scheme that governs Indian gaming.

When Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") in 1988, they did not intend to authorize "reservation shopping" by Indian tribes. Indeed, IGRA presumptively prohibits gaming on all after-acquired lands and only as permited off-reservation gaming under extremely limited circumstances. However, some Indian tribes are apparently attempting to take advantage of IGRA's provisions and move into lucrative casino markets far from their reservations and lands where they have a historical connection.

This problem is not new to the Interior Department. During the negotiation for the tribal-state compact between the State of New York and the Seneca Tribe, you stated, "Tribes are increasingly seeking to develop gaming facilities in areas far from their reservations, focusing on selecting a location based on market potential rather than exercising governmental jurisdiction on existing Indian lands...IGRA does not envision that off-reservation gaming would become pervasive...I am extremely concerned that the principles underlying the enactment of IGRA are being stretched in ways Congress never imagined when enacting IGRA." We agree with your statement; "Congress in enacting IGRA, struck a delicate balance between State and tribal interests that did not create an absolute right to off-reservation gaming."

The delicate balance of which you spoke is now being tested. We strongly urge the Department of Interior to enforce IGRA and to carefully scrutinize all efforts to acquire off-reservation land to acquire a favorable casino location. This matter has received a great deal of attention recently because of the ongoing attempt by the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians to take off-reservation land into trust for gaming, but there are many similar attempts already in force across the country with more certain to come.

If the Department of Interior permits Indian tribes to establish a reservation, take lands into trust and build a casino in areas with little or no present or historical connection, the Department of Interior will effectively sanction reservation shopping. This would establish a dangerous precedent whereby tribes could, and would, locate casinos in any state where gaming is allowed.

We strongly urge you to consider the consequences of allowing tribes to construct gaming facilities in areas where they have no historical connection. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

House Speaker Dennis Hastert
Majority Leader Tom DeLay
Roy Blunt (R)MO

Return toINDEX

Letter from Sen. Oller to Gov. Davis

May 13, 2003

The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor of the State of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Davis:

I understand your office is in the process of negotiating a compact with the Ione Band of Miwok Indians to operate an Indian gambling casino near Plymouth in Amador County. Amador County frankly does not have the room or the resources to absorb all the impacts of another casino. I write to respectfully request that you not approve a gambling compact with this tribe.

Amador County is a geographically small rural county, and has a population of approximately 31,000 people. Plans to build another casino in the Ione area of Amador County were recently announced -- this is in addition to the proposed Plymouth casino and the already existing Jackson Rancheria Casino. While the Ione proposal is presently on hold, even two casinos is excessive for such a small county, and three major casinos would virtually destroy the quality of life in Amador County.

A Plymouth casino would be a mere fifteen minutes from the expanding and very busy Jackson Casino. Plymouth lacks the basic infrastructure to handle the traffic and commerce that a casino attracts. First, Highway 49 in Plymouth is a twisty, two-lane road that is not equipped to handles the traffic a large casino would generate. Second, water resources in the Plymouth area are already strained. In fact, Plymouth is presently under a building moratorium due to inadequate supply of water. Finally, a new casino will only add to the large costs presently incurred by several County departments in providing additional services due to the impacts of these casino developments, including all facets of law enforcement (Sheriff, Jail, District Attorney, Probation, Courts), public health, public works and roads, emergency medical services and fire. Furthermore, the increased traffic generated from such development impacts the entire county, not just the specific casino sites.

As an additional matter, I understand that there is a membership dispute within this tribe. Further, it appears that there is a question regarding the band's historic ties to the land being considered for the casino site. At a minimum, compact negotiations should be halted until these fundamental issues are resolved.

Please consider these concerns as you consider authorizing a gambling compact with the Ione Band of Miwoks. I would be happy to speak with you about this matter to help clarify any of these issues as you move toward a decision.

Sincerely,

Senator Rico Oller
1st Senate District

Capitol Office:
State Capitol, Room 5064
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-5788

To visit Sen Oller's websiteclick here.

Return toINDEX

Letter from Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi to Gov. Davis

June 20, 2003

The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor, State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Governor Davis:

I am writing you in regards to the gaming compact that your office is negotiating with the Ione Band Of Miwok Indians, and their proposed casino in Plymouth, which lies in my Assembly District.

My office has received a plethora of letters and phone calls from constituents and local governments on this issue. I would like to inform you that not one of them is supportive of this proposed casino.

I have consistently been supportive of the issues of Indian sovereignty, and have toured many Indian gaming sites. In this case, the Ione Band of Miwok Indians are seeking to take land into trust that is not theirs for the sole purpose of building a casino. This I cannot support, and respectfully hope that you would agree.

Please consider the concerns of your constituents in Amador County on this matter. I would be more than happy to meet with your office at any time regarding this issue.

Sincerely,

Alan Nakanishi
Assemblyman, 10th District

Return toINDEX

Contents of Resolution

PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 2O MAY

BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Amador, State of California, that said Board does hereby oppose the State of California’s and the United States Government’s permitting of a casino in the City of Plymouth on land proposed to be purchased by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians or any other tribe (“Casino”) for the reasons herein set forth.

1. The Casino itself is located within the City of Plymouth (“Plymouth”) with most of the remaining tribal activities proposed to be in the surrounding unincorporated portion of Amador County (“County”), so that both Plymouth and the County are impacted by the Casino.

2. There is already in existence in the County one very large casino, on the Jackson Rancheria, and another planned for the Buena Vista area in the County. Three casinos in a county with a population of 31,000 people (excluding State inmates and wards) create cumulative impacts that adversely affect County citizens and the County government.

3. Plymouth is located at the threshold of the Shenandoah Valley, an increasingly popular tourist destination because of its world-class vineyards and wineries. On weekends particularly State Highway 49 and State Highway 16, together forming the route to the Casino and to the Shenandoah Valley, will be clogged with traffic, with the vehicle trips estimated for the Casino alone to be ten times the total population of Plymouth. Said Casino traffic will cause gridlock on Highways 16 and 49. Air pollution from grid locked vehicles will significantly alter air quality in and around Plymouth.

4. Neither Plymouth nor the County can supply the Casino with water. Plymouth’s water supply consists of a 17 mile open ditch that often fails to deliver water and wells on which the State Department of Health has declined to base Plymouth’s growth.

5. Sewage treatment and disposal is inadequate for Plymouth currently and there is no capacity or space to add the Casino’s sewage to it.

6. The County’s experience with the Jackson Rancheria casino is that the casino attracts patrons some of whom commit crimes both on and off the casino premises so that the County’s law enforcement facilities are over burdened. That includes the Sheriff’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, the Amador County Detention Facility (which is already generally at 100 percent capacity), and the Public Defender’s Office. The County Government estimates that County taxpayers subsidize the Jackson Rancheria casino by nearly a million dollars annually for just those services. An additional casino in Plymouth will add to that subsidy by local taxpayers.

7. The County is not guaranteed any income from the Casino to offset the financial impacts therefrom.

8. The County has not been able to demonstrate that the Jackson Rancheria casino’s patrons spend money in the County except at the casino, so that there is no benefit to County businesses from the presence of one casino, let alone two more. In fact, the Casino has plans for substantial commercial development around the Casino, which will devastate local businesses because tribal businesses don’t collect sales tax and are not subject to the same labor laws as competing local businesses.

9. The Ione Bank of Miwok Indians has no connection to the land in and around Plymouth it has proposed to acquire on which to put the Casino and other tribal facilities. This is a blatant attempt to open a Casino on non-tribal land for the benefit of the Casino’s promoters at the expense of County taxpayers and residents.

10. Crime has risen in Amador County as a result of the Jackson Rancheria casino. The addition of the Buena Vista casino and this Casino will geometrically increase the danger to County and Plymouth residents from crimes committed by Casino patrons.

11. It is simply not fair for Amador County, a rural foothills county, to be designated as the home of three Indian casinos when casinos are being systematically kept out of the State’s urban areas so that the impacts of casinos fall on small counties such as Amador which are least able to absorb those impacts.

12. The compacts between the State of California and other tribes relating to their casinos leave counties such as Amador without an effective voice as to where casinos are located, eliminating their adverse impacts, and with their residents having to subsidize tribes with casinos who, with their out of State promoters, are removing money from the counties and the State.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to sign this resolution on behalf of the County of Amador.

The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Amador at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 20th day of May, 2003, by the following vote:

AYES: Richard P. Vinson, Louis D. Boitano, Richard Forster, Mario Biagi, and Rich F. Escamilla

NOES: None

ABSENT: None

Chairman, Board of Supervisors

ATTEST: MARDELL ANDERSON, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Amador County, California

Return toINDEX

Amador County Board of Supervisors Letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger opposing Casino

November 12, 2003

Governor Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger
Schwarzenegger Transition Office
770 L. Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-3325

Subject: Casino For Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Plymouth, Amador County)

Dear Governor Elect Scharzenegger:

A group of Indians alleging to represent the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (ATribe@) has proposed, primarily through an out-of-State promoter, to acquire approximately 208 acres of land in Amador County not now owned by the Tribe on which to place a tribal casino, retail businesses, a hotel, non-tribal housing, and other facilities (collectively the “Casino”). Ten acres of the proposed acquisition are located in the City of Plymouth and 198 in the adjacent unincorporated area of Amador County. The Board of Supervisors of Amador County has taken a position that the establishment of the Casino would have significant, adverse impacts on the County and opposes the acquisition.

The Board of Supervisors urgently requests that you refuse to enter into a compact with the Tribe in order to prevent the Tribe’s acquisition of the land and the construction and operation of the Casino. The information the Board has received and transmits herein is quite damning to the Tribe’s application and the Board of Supervisors requests that you aid the Board of Supervisors in ascertaining its truth and in stopping the Tribe’s proposal. The reasons are set forth herein.

1. The Board of Supervisors has never seen any evidence that the land proposed for the Casino has ever been Indian land or that there has ever been a historical connection between the Tribe and the Plymouth area. The Tribe has (at best) acquired options to purchase land for this allegedly landless Tribe. The Board has been informed that many if not most of the Tribe=s members are not Amador County residents but were recruited by the promoter to vote for the Casino. The Tribe and some of its members own land in Amador County in another location; the Tribe is not landless. The Board of Supervisors believes that the lack of historic connection bars the Tribe from acquiring the proposed land.

2. Some long-time local Tribal members are not affiliated with those who seek to open the Casino and do not support it. Thus, the Board believes, there is an internal dispute over the membership of the Tribe and support for the Casino. The Board of Supervisors understands that there is even a conflict as to who composes the governing body of the Tribe and may speak for it. The Board asks that you not accede to the Tribe’s request for a compact or process the Tribe’s application until that dispute is settled.

3. Amador County already has one very large Indian casino, the Jackson Rancheria casino, located about 12 miles from Plymouth. Another Indian casino has been approved for the Buena Vista area of the County near the Amador-San Joaquin County line also about 12 miles from Plymouth. Amador County has a population of 31,000 people (excluding State inmates and wards); Plymouth has a population of about 950. Amador County and certainly Plymouth are simply too small to accommodate another casino. The attraction of having two or even three casinos within such a short driving radius will have an overwhelming and obviously negative impact on the people who live here.

4. Amador County taxpayers are currently subsidizing in direct hard costs the Jackson Rancheria casino through the County=s general fund in the amount of approximately $680,000 annually. That is because the Jackson Rancheria casino has on-site impacts borne by the County for which the casino does not pay, such as increased costs for the Sheriff=s Office, District Attorney=s Office, Public Defender, Probation Office, and Social Services. That amount does not include indirect costs from off-site arrests, crimes, prosecutions and social services required to service the casino’s patrons. The addition of the second and third casinos would geometrically increase that taxpayer subsidy. The District Attorney reports that eleven percent of the District Attorney’s entire 2002 criminal caseload and 27 percent of felony cases resulted from crimes committed at the Jackson Rancheria (which does not serve alcohol to its gaming patrons; the Casino plans to serve alcohol to all of its patrons).

5. Public safety resources will be severely strained by the Casino. Drawing from the County’s experience with the existing Jackson Rancheria casino, the Sheriff states that there were a total of 98 Jackson Rancheria casino on-site arrests between December 1, 2001 and November 30, 2002, of which 82 people served a total of 740 days in the already over-crowded County jail. That does not count off-site arrests related to casino patronage or crimes for which no arrests were made. The Sheriff’s Office made 188 medical dispatches to the existing casino during that same period, an average of one call every other day. Additionally, the Casino’s requirement for officer responses has caused an adverse impact on staffing levels for the rest of the County. The high demand for officer response to the existing casino has reduced the number of officers that are available to respond to emergencies elsewhere in the County and frequently leaves residents in the rest of the County in jeopardy. Another casino will exacerbate the strain on public safety resources.

6. The traffic impacts of the proposed Casino will be enormous and onerous. Access to Plymouth from the west (Sacramento) is by State Route 16, terminating at its junction with State Route 49 south of Plymouth, and from the north by State Route 49. Additional traffic will come north from Stockton on State Routes 88 and 124 through the City of Ione which highways intersect with State Route 16 west of Plymouth which intersects with State Route 49. The Casino proposes to have its only public road access from State Route 49 in Plymouth. State Highways16 and 49 are almost entirely single lane in each direction including all of State Route 49 inside Plymouth. The traffic impacts alone from the proposed Casino will gridlock Plymouth and make unsafe all State highways for miles around Plymouth.

7. Any letters or resolutions of support for the Casino from Plymouth’s City Council transmitted to the BIA represent only the support of the City Council. The Board of Supervisors, which has governmental authority over 198 of the 208 acres of the Tribe’s proposed acquisition, strongly opposes the Tribe’s acquisition of trust land in and around Plymouth as do the city councils of all of the other cities in Amador County as well as the Amador County Unified School District and the Amador Air District.

8. The City Council not only doesn’t speak for Amador County, it doesn’t speak for a majority of the residents of Plymouth. A recent survey authorized by the City Council showed that overwhelmingly, by 73% to 27%, the residents of the City answering the survey opposed the placement of the Casino in Plymouth. Any indication of public support by the City Council (the members of which are currently involved in a recall over this issue) should be rejected out of hand.

9. Recently, the City Council undertook deliberation over an agreement with the Tribe by which the Tribe would pay fixed amounts of money for specific impacts which the Tribe believes the Casino would create in the City. There are two major problems with that proposed agreement: (a) Not the City, the Tribe, nor the BIA has analyzed the impacts of the Casino on the City. The City Council is willing to buy off on the amounts proposed by the Tribe to mitigate the impacts on the City, but the City Council has no idea what those impacts are or how much money it will take now and in the future to mitigate them. (b) Worse, as far as the Board of Supervisors is concerned, is that the mitigation amounts don’t include funds to mitigate impacts on the County government and therefore on the County’s taxpayers. To be sure, the Board of Supervisors opposes the placement of the Casino in and around Plymouth whether the financial impacts on the County are mitigated by the Tribe or not; nevertheless, no analysis has been made of the projected costs of the Casino to the County government and the County taxpayers.

10. The Board of Supervisors believes that the Sacramento office of the BIA should not participate in the processing of the Tribe’s request for the acquisition of trust status land. The Board is informed that many staff members of the Sacramento office are also members of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and consequently stand to profit substantially from the Casino if the BIA approves the Tribe’s application for trust status. If true, that should bar at the very least those members of that office from participating in the processing and decision making on the Tribe’s application.

11. The Board has received information that the Tribe was reaffirmed as a Tribe years ago in order to achieve the right to receive federal benefits only but not for acquisition of land. The Board requests that evidence be produced that shows that the Tribe has the power under federal law to acquire trust land before you and the BIA further process the application.

12. The Board of Supervisors and the tribal council of the Jackson Rancheria have a long history of working together to attempt to solve mutual problems. The Board of Supervisors has entered into a mitigation agreement with the Buena Vista Band of Miwok Indians for a second casino located in the unincorporated area of the County. The Board of Supervisors did not oppose that second casino. The current proposal is quite different. The Tribe has neither a compact or trust status. The Board believes that Plymouth is a terrible place for a Casino which will vitally and adversely affect the quality of life for all the people in the County. Offsite traffic and crime will increase geometrically. Neither impact can be mitigated. The impact on local businesses from tribal retail operations, which pay no taxes and are subject to no regulations, cannot be quantified but is potentially huge and cannot be mitigated.

In summary, the Board of Supervisors wants you to know that Indian gaming has had mostly adverse impacts on the County’s people and government. The Board of Supervisors asks that this Casino not be built and operated so close to homes, churches, and schools. The Board of Supervisors believes that the Tribe should not be allowed to acquire land simply to put the Casino in the middle of a small, vibrant town and surrounding countryside.

The Board of Supervisors strongly opposes the BIA’s approval of this land grab by a Tribe without historical roots in the neighborhood, without the neighbors’ knowing that the Casino could appear in their neighborhood because the Tribe had no historical connection to it, and because the federal action could cause the unwarranted destruction of the Casino’s neighbors’ quality of life. We urge you to inform the BIA and the Tribe that you will not sign a compact for the Casino while we work together to get all of the facts behind this grotesque misapplication of federal law.

Thank you for your consideration. Yours very truly,
Louis Boitano
Chairman

Return toINDEX

County Supervisors Leter to Mr. Gregory of the BIA

November 12, 2003

Mr. Clay Gregory Acting Regional Director, Pacific Region
Bureau of Indian Affairs
ROOM 4160
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240

Subject: County of Amador’s Scoping Comments on Ione Band of Miwok Indians’ Proposal for Acquisition of Trust Land and Operation of a Casino (Plymouth, Amador County)

Dear Mr. Gregory:

The Ione Band of Miwok Indians (ATribe@) has proposed to acquire approximately 208 acres of land in Amador County not now owned by the Tribe on which to place a tribal casino, retail businesses, a hotel, non-tribal housing, and other facilities (collectively the “Casino”). Ten acres of the proposed acquisition are located in the City of Plymouth and 198 in the adjacent unincorporated area of Amador County. The Board of Supervisors of Amador County has taken a position that the establishment of the Casino would have significant, adverse impacts on the County and opposes the acquisition. The Board of Supervisors’ comments for the scoping process preceding BIA’s compliance with NEPA for the project follow.

1. The Board of Supervisors has never seen any evidence that the land proposed for the Casino has ever been Indian land or that there has ever been a historical connection between the Tribe and the Plymouth area. The Tribe has (at best) acquired options to purchase land for this allegedly landless Tribe. The Tribe and some of its members own land in Amador County in another location; the Tribe is not landless. The Board of Supervisors believes that the lack of historic connection bars the Tribe from acquiring the proposed land.

2. Some long-time local Tribal members are not affiliated with those who seek to open the Casino and do not support it. Thus, the Board believes, there is an internal dispute over the membership of the Tribe and support for the Casino. The Board of Supervisors understands that there is even a conflict as to who composes the governing body of the Tribe and may speak for it. The Board asks that the BIA not process any NEPA document until that dispute is settled.

6. The traffic impact of the proposed Casino will be enormous and onerous. Access to Plymouth from the west (Sacramento) is by State Route 16, terminating at its junction with State Route 49 south of Plymouth, and from the north by State Route 49. Additional traffic will come north from Stockton on State Routes 88 and 124 through the City of Ione which highways intersect with State Route 16 west of Plymouth which intersects with State Route 49. The Casino proposes to have its only public road access from State Route 49 in Plymouth. State Highways16 and 49 are almost entirely single lane in each direction including all of State Route 49 inside Plymouth. The traffic impact alone from the proposed Casino will gridlock Plymouth and make unsafe all State highways for miles around Plymouth.

9. Recently, the City Council undertook deliberation over an agreement with the Tribe by which the Tribe would pay fixed amounts of money for specific impacts which the Tribe believes the Casino would create in the City. The City, the Tribe, and the BIA have not analyzed the impacts of the Casino on the City; this is just the beginning of that process. As far as the Board of Supervisors is concerned, the proposed mitigation amounts don’t include funds to mitigate impacts on the County government and therefore on the County’s taxpayers. To be sure, the Board of Supervisors opposes the placement of the Casino in and around Plymouth whether the financial impacts on the County are mitigated by the Tribe or not; nevertheless, no analysis has been made of the projected costs of the Casino to the County government and the County taxpayers.

The Board of Supervisors strongly opposes the BIA’s approval of this land grab by a Tribe without historical roots in the neighborhood, without the neighbors’ knowing that the Casino could appear in their neighborhood because the Tribe had no historical connection to it, and because the federal action could cause the unwarranted destruction of the Casino’s neighbors’ quality of life. We urge the BIA to stop processing any NEPA document for the acquisition of the land and the operation of the Casino on it before getting all of the foundational facts behind this grotesque misapplication of federal law.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours very truly,
Louis Boitano
Chairman

Return toINDEX

Resolution from Amador County Independent School District

AMADOR COUNTY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

AMADOR COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Resolution No. 02/2003-19

Re: Proposed Casino in Plymouth

WHEREAS, the proposed Plymouth gambling casino would be located less than one mile from Plymouth Elementary School; and,

WHEREAS, many of the streets and roads students use to go to and come from Plymouth Elementary School do not have sidewalks; and

WHEREAS, the dramatic increase in traffic would present a significant danger to an area that does not have stop lights or crossing guards for students;

WHEREAS, a significant increase in families moving to the area as casino employees would likely result in a dramatic impact on educational services with restricted funding; and,

WHEREAS, this increase would likely result in overcrowding at a school site that already shares space with the Amador County Fairgrounds to meet the needs of the current student population; and,

WHEREAS, a number of new housing units that would accompany a casino would not be subject to the developer fees that help offset the costs of needed additional classrooms; and,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Governing Board of Amador County Unified School District and Amador County Office of Education opposes any plans to build the proposed gambling casino due to serious safety and educational concerns.

Approved this 28th day of May, 2003

Return toINDEX

Letter from Board of Directors, Amador Air District to Gov. Davis

June 26, 2003
Governor Gray Davis
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, California 95814

Subject: Tribal Gaming will Increase Motor Vehicle Emissions in the Amador Air District

Dear Governor Davis:

The Board of Directors of the Amador Air District is opposed to the increase in motor vehicle exhaust emissions that will be released in this rural area if the State of California allows a third tribal gaming facility to be developed within the boundaries of this air pollution control district.

One tribal gaming facility already exists in our rural District near the City of Jackson and is in the process of doubling its size. That expansion alone will result in 7,000 to 10,000 additional car trips per day in the District. The State and the Bureau of Indian Affairs have approved a second facility that will be located in the Buena Vista area of Jackson Valley near the city of Ione. Now a third facility is proposed for the city of Plymouth and if approved the combined facilities will generate over 30,000 additional car trips per day in our traffic corridors.

The Amador Air District is located within the Mountain Counties Air Basin, designated a "Moderate" non-attainment area for the state 1-hour ozone standard. We are currently in jeopardy of being designated non-attainment for the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. These designations are the result of "Overwhelming Transport" of ozone from the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. If the state encourages additional vehicle trips into this air district by permitting additional tribal gaming facilities without any corresponding mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of these additional emissions then you will have contributed to our air quality problem. A problem we didn’t create-but one which we must however resolve.

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Amador Air District, we request that the state take all appropriate steps to prevent the establishment of additional tribal gaming facilities within this air district’s boundaries. Your cooperation on this issue would reduce unnecessary vehicle emissions in our area, help the air district protect the public’s health and enhance our efforts to achieve and maintain compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Sincerely,

Richard Forster, Chairman
Board of Directors
Amador Air District

Return toINDEX

Letter from Ione City Council to County Supervisors

Louis Boitano, Chairman
Amador County Board of Supervisors
500 Argonaut Lane
Jackson, CA 95642-9534

Subject: Proposed Casino in Plymouth

Dear Chairman Boitano and County Supervisors:

Thank you for your letter of May 21, 2003 and a copy of Amador County Resolution Number 03-236, a Resolution Opposing Casino in Plymouth.

Your letter requesting the City of Ione to join other public agencies in opposing the casino along with the above noted Resolution were matters on the City Council agenda June 3, 2003.

After reviewing the issues, offering the public the opportunity to speak on the item, and deliberation, the City Council unanimously directed staff to prepare this letter expressing the Ione City Council's opposition to the proposed casino in Plymouth.

Please contact me if additional information is needed.

Sincerely,

Gene Albaugh, City Administrator

Return toINDEX

Letter from Jackson City Council to Gov. Davis

The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor of the State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Opposition to a Compact for a Casino Operations for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians City of Plymouth, Amador County

Dear Governor Davis:

The purpose of this letter is to join the Amador County Board of Supervisors in its opposition to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians’ proposal for a new casino in the City of Plymouth and the adjacent unincorporated area of Amador County.

Unlike most other Indian casino operations in the state, this Tribe is proposing to purchase approximately 300 acres of non-Tribal owned property to establish this new gambling facility. This lamd is not now and never has been Indian land. Approving a compact for this project would set dangerous precedent for construction of new gambling facilities virtually anywhere within california.

The City of Jackson already experiences additional traffic and related casino impacts from the Jackson Rancheria. The rural nature of Amador County’s roadway system is incompatible with casino-generated traffic and the addition of another gambling facility within such a short distance of the Jackson Rancheria would exacerbate this impact within our county.

The Jackson City Council urges you to limit Indian casino gaming to Indian Trust property and refuse proposals for compacts on non-Tribal land. For the reasons stated above, please do not enter into a compact with the Ione Band of Miwok Indians for a gambling facility in Plymouth.

Sincerely,
Gene Taylor
Mayor

Return toINDEXorSTATUS

Letter from Sutter Creek City Council to Gov. Davis

The Sutter Creek City Council voted 4-1 to send a letter to Gov. Gray Davis supporting Amador County's opposition to the proposed Plymouth casino. The actual resolution has not yet been written but will be posted as soon as a copy is received.

Return toINDEX

Resolution from City of Amador to Gov. Davis

CITY OF AMADOR CITY
Resolution No. 426

A RESOLUTION AGAINST AN INDIAN GAMING CASINO IN THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH

WHEREAS traffic is expected to reach 7000 vehicle trips per day, part of which will impact Amador City by way of Highways 88, 49, and 16. The increased traffic will result in air pollution, pedestrian danger to both residents and non-residents and will place added stress on our historic buildings, and

WHEREAS Amador City has limited funds for law enforcement and with an additional casino bringing more people into North Eastern Amador County, more police services will be required.

THEREFORE The City of Amador City will be negatively effected by an Indian Gaming Casino in the City of Plymouth which would be detrimental to the quality of life in Amador City,

IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the City of Amador City opposes Governor Davis approving a gambling contract for the proposed casino in the City of Plymouth.

The forgoing resolution was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Amador city on June 19, 2003 by the following vote.

AYES: Stevens, McKenna, Luxemberg, Lynch, Knox

NOES: none

ABSTAIN: none

Hope M. Luxemberg, mayor

ATTEST: Joyce A. Davidson

Return toINDEX

Letter from Plymouth City Council (Mayor O'Meara) to Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton

City of Plymouth California
June 14, 2004

Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior 1849 C Street N.W. Room 6140 MS 7229
Washington, DC 20240

Re: Application of Ione band of Miwok Indians - Status of Plymouth City Council

Dear Secretary Norton:

You have previously received a letter from Darlene Scanlon, Mayor of the City of Plymouth, submitted on behalf of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, supporting the application submitted by the Ione band of Miwok Indians to have lands placed into trust on behalf of the Tribe. As current Mayor of the City, I have been directed by the Council to inform you that, since the letter from Ms. Scanlon, the City Council of the City of Plymouth, consisting of five persons, has undergone a change in personnel.

On may 4, 2004 a recall election was held. At the recall election, incumbents Mayor Darlene Scanlon, Vice Mayor Rich Martin, and Councilmember Gary Colburn were recalled. New members of the City Council, elected at that recall are Vice Mayor Patricia Shackleton, Councilmember Elida Malick and myself as Mayor.

In addition, immediately following the recall election, but prior to seating new councilmembers elected at the recall election, Councilmember Ryan Gillaspie resigned from office and the City Council appointed Patricia Fordyce to fill the remainder of his term.

The fifth seat on the City Council, held by Councilmember Raymond Estey remains unchanged since Ms. Scanlon’s letter to you.

A City initiated survey concerning the voter’s positions on a proposed casino in our community, was taken prior to any action by the City council. The Council’s failure to be guided by that survey was the main factor in the recall election.

Their were two scoping sessions held one on November 19, 2003 where approximately 150 people attended and another held on February 20, 2004 with approximately 130 people attending.

If I can answer any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to inquire.

Very truly yours,
Michael O’Meara, Mayor

Return toINDEX

Letter from Burke Ranch to Gov. Davis

BURKE RANCH PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 261, Plymouth, CA 95669

Dear Governor Davis:

June 13, 2003

We are a small community adjacent to the village of Plymouth in rural Amador County. I am writing to you to address our concerns over the proposed Indian gaming casino in Plymouth. The Ione band of Miwok Indians has purchased an option on over 200 acres fronting Highway 49 in Plymouth, with a plan to build a 120,000 square foot casino-much larger than Thunder Valley. This is not ancestral land, but might eventually be transferred into trust with your support. This county already has one nearby casino in Jackson, and another one eventually to be built in Buena Vista, both within 20 miles of Plymouth. We hold strongly that a casino is totally incompatible with life in a quiet community of 800 persons.

Neighborhoods such as Burke Ranch, Shenandoah Valley, Willow Springs and Fiddletown, all near Plymouth, are not protected by the City of Plymouth, but our water, sewer, traffic, crime level, environment, and aesthetics will be directly impacted by a project of this magnitude. No amount of financial mitigation can offset the impact. The planned casino cannot go forward without your approval. Our fervent hope is that you will disapprove this proposal.

In addition to the items of concern already listed we are very concerned about the future availability of the ground water our wells depend on. Many of our wells have already recently gone dry. We fear that the proposed development and casino will deplete the aquifer.

We have canvassed our 67 homeowners, 97% of whom are opposed to the casino, and 3% of whom are undecided. Our informal poll of the residents of Plymouth found 80% opposed. Our County Supervisors are on record as opposed to this project, as is Jackson and Ione City Councils, the Amador School Board, and Senator Rico Oller. The letter you are reported to have received from the Miwoks stating that there is no local opposition is inaccurate and dishonest. Our City Council is waffling, lured by the blandishments of the developers and the excitement generated by Thunder Valley. We desperately hope for your protection from this.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We hope to hear from you.

Jill DeCou, Chair
Burke Ranch Board of Directors
For The Board of Directors and Property

Return toINDEX

PAST Government Positions

The following is both the Amador County Board of Supervisors cover letter addressed to Governor Gray Davis and the text of the Resolution opposing the Casino in Plymouth

Contents of Cover Letter OF 21 MAY

The Honorable Gray Davis
Governor of the State of California
State Capitol
Sacramento, Ca 95814

Subject: Compact For Casino For Ione Band of Miwok Indians (Plymouth, Amador County)

Dear Governor Davis:

A group of Indians calling themselves the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (“Tribe”) has proposed, primarily through a promoter, to acquire approximately 300 acres of land not owned by the Tribe both in the City of Plymouth and in the adjacent unincorporated area of Amador County on which to place a tribal casino, retail businesses, housing, and other tribal facilities. The Casino itself will be located in the City. Yesterday the Board of Supervisors of Amador County adopted a resolution stating its opinion that the establishment of the Casino would have significant, even grotesque, adverse impacts on the County. The resolution is attached.

The Board of Supervisors urgently requests that you do not allow the Casino to proceed by entering into a compact with this Tribe. The reasons are set forth in the resolution but let me highlight a few.

1. The land proposed for the Casino is not now and has never been Indian land. The Tribe has (at best) acquired options to purchase land for this allegedly landless Tribe. Most of the Tribe’s members are not Amador County residents. The Board of Supervisors has received information that the Tribe and some of its members own land in Amador County in another location and that some tribal members are not affiliated with the portion of the Tribe which seeks to open the Casino and that they do not support the Casino. Thus, the Board believes, there is an internal dispute over the membership of the Tribe and support for the Casino.

2. Amador County already has one very large Indian casino, the Jackson Rancheria casino, located about 12 miles from Plymouth. Another Indian casino has been proposed in the Buena Vista area of the County near the Amador-San Joaquin County line also about 12 miles from Plymouth. Amador County has a population of 31,000 people (excluding State inmates and wards); Plymouth has a population of about 950. Amador County and certainly Plymouth are simply too small to accommodate another casino.

3. Amador County taxpayers are currently subsidizing the Jackson Rancheria casino through the County’s general fund in the amount of approximately $1,000,000 annually. That is because the Jackson Rancheria casino has on- and off-site impacts borne by the County for which the casino does not pay, such as increased costs for the Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney’s Office, Public Defender, Probation Office, and Social Services, and state cost of courts. The addition of the second and third casino would geometrically increase that subsidy.

4. Crimes both on- and off-site have been committed by some of the patrons of the Jackson Rancheria casino. The Board of Supervisors is convinced that a second or third casino in the County will geometrically increase crime in the County. That is not a matter of money but of public safety.

5. The traffic impacts of the proposed Casino will be enormous and onerous. Access to Plymouth from the west and south is by State Route 16, terminating at its junction with State Route 49 south of Plymouth, and from the north by State Route 49. The Casino proposes to have its only public road access from State Route 49 in Plymouth. The two State highways are almost entirely single lane in each direction including all of State Route 49 inside Plymouth. The traffic impacts alone from the proposed Casino will gridlock Plymouth and make unsafe both State highways for miles around Plymouth.

6. At a public hearing on the subject yesterday, May 20th, the Board of Supervisors heard from many of its constituents almost all of whom opposed the proposed Casino in the strongest possible terms. The minutes of that meeting are attached.

7. The Casino’s promoter has written to you stating that there was no local opposition to the Casino at least at that time. There is County-wide opposition to it now, which opposition developed immediately after the proposal was made known to County residents.

Representatives of the Board of Supervisors stand ready to meet with you or your staff at any time to review this matter with your office. In the meantime, the Board urges you in the strongest possible terms to prevent this unmitigatable disaster from occurring in Amador County.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours very truly,

Louis Boitano
Chairman

Return toINDEX

original Plymouth Letter to the Tribe expressing Conditional Support for Casino

September 23, 2003

Matthew Franklin
Tribal Chairman
Ione Band of Miwok Indians

RE: Letter of Conditional Support for Indian Gaming casino In or Near the City of Plymouth, California

Dear Mr. Franklin:

The City Council of the City of Plymouth ("the City") has been advised that the Ione Band of Miwok Indians ("the Tribe") has proposed that the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs ("the BIA") take land into trust for the purpose of permitting the Tribe to establish a casino either within or near the City of Plymouth. The Tribe has also proposed that the Governor of the State of California enter into a compact with the Tribe, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("the IGRA", 25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). The City understands that the Tribe is represented in such proposal by Ikon, LLC, a Biloxi, Mississippi limited liability company which proposes to supply the financing for the casino project and to operate the casino for a period of time.

On September 11, 2003 the City Council voted to conditionally support your proposal. The City Council’s support is conditional, in that it is based upon certain understandings and representations that have been made to the City.

The City has been advised that the Tribe has agreed to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City, under the terms of which the Tribe will pay for all of the City’s costs (including, but not limited to the planning, engineering, economic consultant, and legal costs) incurred in independently reviewing the environmental, economic, and social impacts of the casino project ("the Reimbursement Agreement"). It is also the City’s understanding that the Tribe has agreed, following the City’s independent review of the casino proposal, to enter into negotiations with the City (the cost of which negotiations would also be covered by the Reimbursement Agreement) regarding the terms of a permanent Memorandum of Understanding. In the Memorandum of Understanding the Tribe would agree to fully mitigate the adverse impacts of the casino project (whether environmental, economic, or social) on affected local governments and communities, including the City. The City understands as well that the Tribe has agreed that the Memorandum of Understanding would include certain economic incentives to the City beyond mere mitigation of adverse impacts, including but not limited to payments in support of both infrastructure improvements and economic development.

Finally, it is understood by the City that the Memorandum of Understanding would provide that, to the extent necessary to enforce its terms, the Tribe would waive its sovereign immunity.

The City Council recognizes the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, as an Indian Nation, has certain sovereign rights. It therefor wishes to acknowledge that the Tribe has stated a willingness to go beyond the minimal terms of the various compacts previously entered into with the State by other tribes, and that The Tribe has similarly expressed a willingness to be counted among those tribes who desire a true partnership with local jurisdictions. The Tribe’s desire to be a good neighbor to the City of Plymouth, as well as a good steward of the land, is appreciated.

By the same token, the City Council anticipates that the Ione Band of Miwok Indians will recognize and acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the City of Plymouth and of the citizens of the City, a very large majority of whom do not support this casino proposal, and many of whom oppose it quite vociferously. A casino is frankly not the preferred alternative for economic development within the City. Further, there is no doubt in the mind of the City Council that the casino will have the potential for significant adverse impacts on the environment, economy and social fabric of the City. Nonetheless, the City Council believes that with time, and most importantly, with a good faith effort by the Tribe, that the citizens of the City will come to see that the casino project will beneficial to the City, and that its adverse impacts will be either eliminated through good planning or mitigated to a less than significant level.

The City Council looks forward to a mutually respectful and beneficial government to government relationship.

Very truly yours,

Richard Martin
Vice Mayor, City of Plymouth

Return toINDEX

Letter from Plymouth City Council to Gov. Davis

June 17, 2003

Hon. Gray Davis
Governor
State of California
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Indian Gaming Casino Proposal in Plymouth, California

Dear Governor Davis:

The undersigned is the City Attorney of the City of Plymouth, California. I have been requested by the City Council of Plymouth to express the city’s concerns regarding a currently pending proposal for an Indian gaming facility in Plymouth which has been or will be submitted to yu for approval of a compact by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians ("the Tribe").

The City of Plymouth is a very small community of approximately 800 persons, located in Amador County in the foothills above Sacramento. It is located on California State Route 49, approximately 15 miles north of the Jackson Rancheria casino which is currently undergoing extensive expansion. It is within approximately 20 mises of the City of Ione, in which another tribe of Miwok Indians is currently seeking approval of a gaming facility.

The City has been approached within the last several months by the Tribe, and by its Biloxi, Mississippi financial partners, Ikon, LLC, with respect to a proposed casino project to be located on what is currently non-Indian trust property partially located within the City and immediately adjacent to the City. The project has been represented to the City as potentially including extensive associated ancillary development such as Tribal residences, commercial establishments, clinics and community centers. To say that the casino proposal has caused concern within the community, and in the surrounding unincorporated area, would be a vast understatement.

The Plymouth City Council has not yet taken a position either in favor of or in opposition to the project. The City Council’s response to the Tribe to this point has been that, if the Tribe can explain what the full, ultimate extent of the casino project and its ancillary development would be, and if the Tribe were willing to fully mitigate the impacts, then the City might be willing to enter into a so-called "memorandum of understanding" with the Tribe in which the City would support the project and would support the transfer of the property into trust and the execution of a compact by you with the Tribe. Unfortunately, the City is not yet in a position to lend its support to the project.

In large part, this is due to the nearly complete lack of information that has been forthcoming regarding just what the proposal would entail, and what the impacts of the project might be. It is clear that the casino and any ancillary development will entail a great deal of increased traffic not only within the City itself, but also on the small, two lane country reads surrounding the City and on State Highway 49, which is already severely impacted by traffic demands. It is similarly clear that there will be a great deal of demand for water, in a community which is already laboring under a building moratorium imposed by the California Department of Health Services which has declared area wells to be undependable. Likewise, there will be a great deal of demand for sewage treatment, in a community already laboring under an order from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board to construct expensive improvements to its publicly owned treatment works, but not having the financial resources to accomplish the task. Finally, it is clear that there will be a great deal of additional demand for law enforcement, prosecution, defense, incarceration facilities, fire protection and ambulance services to be provided either by the City or by the County of Amador. Unfortunately, it is currently not at all clear just how extensive these impacts will be, nor how they will be mitigated. This is, of course, not to mention the economic and social impacts of such a project.

The City has requested that the Tribe and Ikon provide a more detailed project description, but thus far this has not been forthcoming. The City has requested that the Tribe and Ikon execute a reimbursement agreement with the City, which would enable it to retain the professionals necessary to analyze the proposals and advise the City Council about the impacts it might generate. At this point, the request has been rebuffed, and Ikon has instead suggested that it would be willing to pay certain sums of money to the City on an annual basis as mitigation. Of course, not knowing either the extent of the project nor the extent ofthe impacts the project might cause, the City has no way of knowing whether the offer is generous of not, nor of judging whether the project is appropriate for the City even if the mitigation is adequate.

The City of Plymouth is aware that several of our sister local government agencies, including the County of Amador, the City of Ione, and the Amador County Unified School District, have already taken a position in opposition to this project. The City Council of Plymouth is concerned that its silence to this point not be construed by the Governor’s Office as consent, or worse as support, for the Tribe’s and Ikon’s proposal. Rather the City is trying very hard to be fair to the Tribe and Ikon, to permit them to make their case for the porposal prior to taking a position. However, the City frankly anticipates that it will formally oppose the project unless it can be assured that it will understand the project and the project’s impacts, and that those impacts will be fully mitigated by the Tribe and Ikon.

In the interim, I have been requested by the Council to advise you that the City conditionally opposes the proposed casino unless and untio those conditions are met, and it urges you not to execute any compact with the Tribe until such time as the memorandum of understanding, fully mitigating all impacts, is executed.

Thank you for your attention.

Very truly yours,

MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON

Michael F. Dean

Return toINDEX

Letter from Plymouth City Council (Mayor Scanlon) to Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton

CITY OF PLYMOUTH, CALIFORNIA
CITY HALL
9426 MAIN STREET
PLYMOUTH, CA 95669

Honorable Gale Norton
Secretary of the Interior

Dear Secretary Norton:

It is with great pleasure that I, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Plymouth, California (“City”), submit this letter supporting the application submitted by the Ione Band of Miwok Indians (“Tribe”) to have lands placed into trust on behalf of the Tribe. The lands are located in and adjacent to the City of Plymouth. The City and the Tribe have worked together on a Municipal Services Agreement (“MSA”) that we believe will benefit both parties.

The City Council conducted a public meeting on July 2, 2003 and a City Council meeting on October 16, 2003 to allow the public to comment and address their concerns regarding the development of the Project proposed on the lands. During this process, both those opposed to and supporters of the development of the project were given the opportunity to express their opinions and all opinions were considered by the City prior to the approval of the MSA.

After reviewing all of the verbal and written testimony, the City Council has determined that the Municipal Services Agreement mitigates the potential adverse impacts that could be caused by proposed development and provides considerable economic incentives that will benefit residents throughout the City. As mayor of the City of Plymouth, California, I respectfully request your favorable consideration of the application of the Ione Band of Miwok Indians to have the twelve parcels of land taken into trust.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (2029) 245-6941.

Sincerely,
Darlene Scanlon, Mayor

Return toINDEX

< p>HOME