HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3.H 09/18/2017Agenda Item #3.H
� a
DATE: September 18, 2017
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: John C. Brown, City Manager
SUBJECT: Letter Opposing HR 597 (Denham)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider, and if appropriate, approve and sign the
attached letter opposing H.R. 597
BACKGROUND
House Resolution (H.R.) 597, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2017, was introduced in
the House of Representatives on January 20, 2017, by Representative Jeff Denham, Mr. Denham
represents the 101x' California Congressional District, which encompasses portions of San Joaquin
and Stanislaus counties. The Bill is very similar to one introduced by Representative Huffman
two years ago, the Lytton Rancheria Homelands Act of 2015, which was not enacted.
H.R. 597 would tale into trust and make part of its reservation, for the benefit of the Lytton
Rancheria of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe, certain lands owned by the tribe and
adjacent to the City of Windsor. The bill prohibits gaming on lands taken into trust north of the
intersection of Highways 101 and 12. The Bill also provides gaming will be prohibited until
March 16, 2037 on other lands taken into trust for the benefit of the tribe after enactment of H.R.
597, which is consistent with a memorandum of understanding executed between the tribe and
the County of Sonoma in 2015. The Bill would preempt the authority of the State and local
governments to tax land taken into trust for the Lytton Rancheria. H.R. 597 was passed by the
House on July 11, 2017, received in the Senate on July 12, 2017, and referred to the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs. A copy of H.R. 597 is included as Attaclnnent 2,
On September 9, 2017, three members of the Petaluma City Council directed a letter opposing
H.R. 597 to Senators Feinstein and Harris (Attachment 3). At the City Council's September 11,
2017 meeting, Councilmember Healy shared that letter and asked if the Council would be
interested in adding an item to the September 18, 2017 meeting agenda to allow other members
of the Council to sign onto the letter. The Council agreed to add the item to the September 18,
2017 meeting agenda.
DISCUSSION
Provided as Attachment 1, for the Council's consideration, approval, and execution as
appropriate, is a revised version of the September 9, 2017 letter to Senators Feinstein and Harris.
The revised version is dated September 18, 2017 and includes a signature block for each member
of the City Council.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
The only cost associated with this item was the staff time required to prepare, review and process
it.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter opposing H.R. 597
2. Bill Text, H.R. 597
3. September 9, 2017 Letter of Opposition
2
September 18, 2017
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
RE: HR 597 — Oppose
Dear Senators Feinstein and Harris:
ATTACHMENT 1
Honorable Kamala Harris
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
We write in opposition to HR 597 (Denham), which would take into federal
trust lands in Sonoma County adjacent to the Town of Windsor on behalf of the
Lytton Rancheria of California. As you know, legislation is necessary because the
Lytton Rancheria, which was not a federally recognized tribe in 1934, faces what
appears to be an insurmountable Carcieri problem.
HR 597 represents another unsavory step in the reservation shopping saga in
the North Bay. The North Bay counties in general, and Petaluma in particular, are
highly sensitized to reservation shopping efforts by both newly recognized and long
established tribes. The Graton Rancheria, established by Congress in 2000, after
being pressured to abandon its original Highway 37 site, eyed Petaluma before
settling on Rohnert Park. Every single Rohnert Park councilmember who supported
bringing the Graton casino there was defeated in their next election.
In Petaluma's case, the Dry Creek band, which operates River Rock casino in
northern Sonoma County, purchased a ranch adjacent to Highway 101 on our
southern boundary shortly after the Graton Rancheria announced plans for Rohnert
Park. The Dry Creek band has agreed, in negotiations with the County of Sonoma
centered on River Rock, not to seek for several more years to have the Petaluma
parcel taken into federal trust. But that agreement will expire, and we are faced with
the prospect of another potential casino or, at the least, intensive development on
lands zoned for agriculture outside our Urban Growth Boundary in a highly visible
community separator.
The County of Sonoma has negotiated a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Lytton Rancheria obligating it to support the Lytton's land -to -trust efforts. The
County apparently felt it negotiated the best deal possible under the legal
circumstances, although we note that it mistakenly contemplated that the land might
be taken into trust by the Department of the Interior without congressional action.
Because of this MOA, we understand that Sonoma County supervisors are being told
by their legal counsel that they cannot oppose efforts to take the land into trust for the
Lytton, even if that is their personal viewpoint. Similarly, our colleagues on the
Windsor Town Council are apparently still hopeful of obtaining funding from the
Lytton to build a community pool.
A particularly troublesome aspect of HR 597 is Section 5. Section 5(b)(1) provides that
additional lands taken into trust for the Lytton in Sonoma County will not be gaming eligible
until after March 15, 2037. Section 5(b)(2) makes the prohibition on gaming permanent for
future trust lands in Sonoma County located north of the intersection of Highways 12 and 101.
The two largest cities in Sonoma County located south of the intersection of Highways 12
and 101 are Rohnert Park and Petaluma. No new casino would want to locate in Rohnert Park
because the Graton casino is already there. Conversely, locating in or near Petaluma would be
attractive — as the Dry Creek investment demonstrates — because it would leapfrog the Graton
casino and be closer to the central Bay Area. Section 5 of HR 597 paints a big bull's eye on the
City of Petaluma.
Section 5 is even more problematic because it could be construed as overriding IGRA
and making lands taken into trust for the Lytton in or near Petaluma gaming eligible, even
though such lands would not otherwise be gaming eligible under IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. §
2719(a) &(b).
For the above reasons, we respectfully request that HR 597 not be approved.
David Glass
Mayor
Chris Albertson
Councilmember
Gabe Kearney
Councilmember
Kathy Miller
Councilmember
Teresa Barrett
Vice Mayor
Mike Healy
Councilmember
Dave King
Councilmember
4
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION
GPO
ATTACHMENT 2
IIB
115Trr CONGRESS He �• 1sT SESSION 597
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JULI 12, 2017
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian iVfairs
AN ACT
To take lands in Sonoma County, California, into trust a,s
hart of the reservation of the Lytton Ra,ncheria of Cali-
fornia, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of* Rep resenta-
2 tives of the United States of Ainevica, in Cmi.gress assembled,
2
I SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
2 This Act inay be cited as the "L)Iton Rancheria
3 Homelands Act of 2017 ".
4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
5 CongT ess finds the follo«ri1g:
6 (1) The Lytton Rancheria of California is a fed-
7 erally recognized Indian tribe that lost its homeland
8 after it was unjustly and unlawfully terminated in-
9 1958. The Tribe was restored to Federal recognition
10 in 19911 but the conditions of its restoration have
11 prevented it from regaining a homeland on its origi-
12 nal lands.
13 (2) Congress needs to take action to reverse
14 historic injustices that befell the Tribe and have pre -
15 vented it from regaining a viable homeland for its
16 people.
17 (3) Prior to European contact there were as
18 man .)r as 350,000 Indians living in what is noAv the
19 State of California. By the turn of the 19th centur�)T,
20 that number had been reduced to approximately
21 157000 indiA�duals, many of them homeless and HAT -
22 ing in scattered bands and communities.
23 (4) The Lytton Ra,ncheria's original homeland
24 Arras plrchased by the United States M 1926 pu rsu-
25 ant to cong- ressiornal authority designed to remedy
26 the unigne tragedy- that befell the Indians of Cali-
HR 597 RFS
3
1 forma and provide them Avith reserNTations called
2 Ralucherias to be held in trust by the United States.
3 (5) After the Lytton Rancheria lands were piur -
4 chased by the United States, the Tribe settled on
5 the land and sustained itself for several decades by
6 farming and ranching.
7 (6) By the mid- 1950s, Federal Indian policy
8 had shifted back towards a police of terminating In-
9 dian tribes. In 19587 Congress enacted the
10 Rancheria Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 619), which slated
11 41 Rancherias in California, including the L.)4ton
12 Rancheria, for termination after certain conditions
13 were met.
14 (7) On August 1, 1961, the Lytton Rancheria
15 was terminated by the Federal Government. This
16 termination was illegal because the conditions for
17 termination under the Rancheria Act had never been
18 met. After termination was implemented, the Tribe
19 lost its lands and was left without any means of sup-
20 porting itself.
21 (8) In 1987, the Tribe joined three other tribes
22 in a laws[-Lit against the United States challenging
23 the illegal termination of their Rancherias. A Stipu-
24 laced Judgment in the case, Scotts ATalley Band of
25 Porno Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria V.
HR 597 RPS
4
1 United States, No. C -86 -3660 (N.D.Cal. March 22,
2 1991), restored the Lytton Rancheria, to its status
3 as a federally recognized Indian tribe.
4 (9) The Stipulated Jtiulgment agreed that the
5 Lytton Rancheria «could have the "individual and
6 collective status and rights" which it had prior to its
7 termination and expressly contemplated the acgtitisi-
8 Lion of trust lands for the Lytton Rancheria.
9 (10) The Stipulated Judgment contains provi-
10 sions, included at the request of the local county
11 governments and neighboring landoAvners, that pro -
12 hibit the Lytton Rancheria from exercising its fiill
13 Federal rights on its original hoineland in the Alex -
14 ander ATalley.
15 (11) In 2000, approximately 9.5 acres of land
16 in San Pablo, California, Alias placed in trust stat is
17 for the Lytton Rancheria for economic development
18 pti poses.
19 (12) The Tribe has since acquired, front willing
20 sellers at fair market valne, property in Sonoma
21
Connt3T near the Tribe's historic
Rancheria.
This
22
property, «vhieh the Tribe holds in
fee status, is
8uit-
23 able for a new homelalid for the Tribe.
24 (13) On a portion of the laud to be taken into
25 trust, JAVhich portion totals appro matehr 124.12
HR 597 RFS
5
1 acres, the Tribe Mails to build housing for its mem-
2 bens and govermnental and eomnnulity facilities.
3 (14) A portion of the land to be taken into
4 trust is being used for «niculture, and the Tribe in-
5 tends to develop more of the lands to be taken into
6 trust for - 6nniculture. The Tribe's investment in the
7 ongoing viniculture operation has rein6gorated the
8 - neyards, * Avhich are prochucing high - quality Amines.
9 The Tribe is operating its -6iieyards on a sustainable
10 basis and is working toAvard certification of sustain-
11 ability.
12 (15) No gaining shall be conducted on the lands
13 to be taken into trust by this Act.
14 (16) No gaining shall be conducted on any
15 lands taken into trust on behalf of the Tribe in
16 Sonoma. County after the date of the enactment of
17 this Act north of a lisle that runs in a cardinal east
18 and Avest direction from the point Where High«vay
19 Route 12 crosses Highway 101 as they are phys-
20 ically on the ground and Used for transportation on
21 JanuaKy 1, 2016, and extending to the ffirtliest ex-
22 tent of Sonoma Comity.
23 (17) Any agreement, 110«7 or in the fntu re, re-
24 garding gaming restrictions bet�reen Sollonla County
HR 597 RFS
6
1 and the Tribe will be effective without filrther review
2 by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
3 (18) By directing that these lands be taken into
4 trust, the United States «gill ensure that the Lytton
5 Rancheria will finally have a permanently protected
6 homeland on which they can once again live
7 communally and plan for f -ittu e generations. This
8 action is necessary to fully restore the Tribe to the
9 status it had before it was AAa°ongfiilly terminated in
10 1961.
11 (19) The Tribe and County of Sonoma, have en-
12 tered into a Memorandum of AgT eement in which
13 the County ag1 ees to the lands in the County being
14 taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe in con -
15 sideration for commitments made by the Tribe.
16 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
17 For the purpose of this Act, the following definitions
18 apply:
19 (1) COUNTY. —The term "County" means
20 Sonoma County, California.
21 (2) SECRET UM —The term "Secretary" means
22 the Seeretal.)r of the Interior.
23 (3) TRIBE. —The term "Tribe" means the
24 Lytton Rancheria of California.
HR 597 RFS
7
1 SEC. 4. LANDS TO BE TAKEN INTO TRUST.
2 (a) IN GENERAL. —The land oAAo7ed by the Tribe and
3 generally depicted on the map titled "Lytton Fee OAviled
4 Property to be Taken into Trust" and dated Allay 1, 2015,
5 is hereby taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe, sub-
6 ject to valid existing rights, contracts, and management
7 agT eements related to easements and rights -of -gray.
8 (b) LAl DS To BE i1121DE PART OF THE RESER\TA-
9 TION. —Lands taken into trust tinder subsection (a) shall
10 be part of the Tribe's reservation and shall be adnlinis-
11 tered in accordance AA ith the laAvs and regulations gen-
12 erally applicable to property held in trust by the United
13 States for an Indian tribe.
14 SEC. 5. GAMING.
15 (a) LANDS TAI�EN INTO TRUST UNDER THIS AcT.-
16 Lands taken into trust for the benefit of the Tribe under
17 section 4 shall not be eligible for gaining under the Indian
18 Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.).
19 (b) OTHER LANDS TIUu EN INTO TRUST. -
20 (1) TIME- LII1IITED PROHIBITION. —Lands taken
21 into trust for the benefit of the Tribe in Sonoma.
22 Coa 7t)r after the date of the enactment of this Act
23 shall not be eligible for gaining under the Indian
24 Wining- Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.)
25 until after AIarch 15, 2037.
HR 597 RFS
I
1 (2) PERMANENT PROHIBITION.— Noti6th-
2 standing paragraph (1), lands located north of a like
3 that runs in a cardinal east and west direction and
4 is defined by California State Highway Route 12 as
5 it crosses through Sonoma County at Highway 101
6 as they are physically on the gTou nd and used for
7 transportation on January 1, 2016, and extending to
8 the fiuthest extent of Sonoma County shall not be
9 eligible for ganning under the Indian Gaming Regu-
10 latory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710 et seq.).
I 1 SEC. 6. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LAW.
12 Notwithstanding any other provision of la'Av, the
13 AIemorand- un of Agreement entered into by the Tribe and
14 the County concerning taping land in the Counter into
15 trust for the benefit of the Tribe, which was approved by
16 the County Board of Supen isors on 11lareh 10, 2015, and
17 any addenda and supplement thereto, is not subject to re-
18 view or approval of the Secretary in order to be effective,
19 including re -\view or approval under section 2103 of the Re-
20 wised Statintes (25 U.S.C. 81).
Passed the House of Representatives July 11, 2017.
Attest: KAREN L. HAAS,
Clerk;.
HR 597 RFS {
i
Nlike Healy
Councilmember
Petaluma City Hall
11 English Street
Petahona, CA 94952
Phone (707) 775 -4345
Fax (707) 778 -4419
E -mail
Cit),Council ei)ci.petahona.ca.its
oi•
redhawks @sonic. net
CITY OF PETALUMA
POST OFFICE; Box 61
PETALUMA, CA 94953 -0061
September 9, 2017
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re.: HR 597 — Oppose
Dear Senators Feinstein and Harris:
ATTACHMENT 3
Honorable Kamala Harris
United States Senate
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
We write in opposition to HR 597 (Denham), which would take into
federal trust lands in Sonoma County adjacent to the Town of Windsor on
behalf of the Lytton Rancheria of California. As you know, legislation is
necessary because the Lytton, which was not a federally recognized tribe in
1934, faces what appears to be an insurmountable Carcieri problem.
HR 597 represents another unsavory step in the reservation shopping
saga in the North Bay. The North Bay counties in general, and Petaluma in
particular, are highly sensitized to reservation shopping efforts by both newly
recognized and long established tribes. The Graton Rancheria, established by
Congress in 2000, after being pressured to abandon its original Highway 37
site, eyed Petaluma before settling on Rohnert Park. Every single Rohnert
Park councilmember who supported bringing the Graton casino there was
defeated in their next election.
In Petaluma's case, the Dry Creek band, which operates River Rock
casino in northern Sonoma County, purchased a ranch adjacent to Highway
101 on our southern boundary shortly after the Graton announced plans for
Rohnert Park. The Dry Creek band has agreed, in negotiations with the
County of Sonoma centered on River Rock, not to seek for several more years
to have the Petaluma parcel taken into federal trust. But that agreement will
expire, and we are faced with the prospect of another potential casino or, at
the least, intensive development on lands zoned for agriculture outside our
Urban Growth Boundary in a highly visible community separator.
The County of Sonoma has negotiated a memorandum of agreement
with the Lytton obligating it to support the Lytton's land -to -trust efforts. The
County apparently felt it negotiated the best deal possible under the legal
N
circumstances, although we note that it mistakenly contemplated that the land might be
taken into trust by the Department of the Interior without congressional action. Because
of this MOA, we understand that Sonoma County supervisors are being told by their legal
counsel that they cannot oppose efforts to take the land into trust for the Lytton, even if
that is their personal viewpoint. Similarly, our colleagues on the Windsor Town Council
are apparently still hopeful of obtaining funding from the Lytton to build a community
pool.
A particularly troublesome aspect of HR 597 is section 5. Section 5(b)(1)
provides that additional lands taken into trust for the Lytton in Sonoma County will not
be gaming eligible until after March 15, 2037. Section 5(b)(2) makes the prohibition on
gaming permanent for future trust lands in Sonoma County located north of the
intersection of Highways 12 and 101.
The two largest cities in Sonoma County located south of the intersection of
Highways 12 and 101 are Rohnert Park and Petaluma. No new casino would want to
locate in Rohnert Park because the Graton casino is already there. Conversely, locating
in or near Petaluma would be attractive — as the Dry Creek investment demonstrates —
because it would leapfrog the Graton casino and be closer to the central Bay Area.
Section 5 of HR 597 paints a big bull's eye on the City of Petaluma.
For the above reasons, we respectfully request that HR 597 not be approved.
Mike Healy
Councilmember
Kathy Mille
Councilmember
/,, w�G� /ji
Dave King
Councilmember