Lakewood’s Gambling Moratorium History
(Copies of the following Resolutions and Ordinances are available)
Note: The
City of Lakewood became incorporated effective February 28, 1996
Resolution/
Ordinance
# Date Purpose
Res.1998-36 10/19/98 1st Moratorium on the filing of new applications for licenses,
permits and approvals for gambling activities and setting a
public hearing. In this document it is acknowledged that
9.46.285 RCW “that cities may absolutely prohibit
gambling establishments within their jurisdiction”;
and, “the need to study the City’s position is
heightened”; and, this moratorium shall not affect
any existing businesses in their current level of operations,
nor shall it effect any applications for new or modified
gambling activities which have been vested prior to the
effective date of this Resolution.”
11/2/98 Public
Hearing on Moratorium
Res.1999-13 4/5/1999 Public
Hearing and Moratorium extension (effectively the 2nd moratorium) on new applications for gambling activities.
Reason? “the City is not yet completed with its study
of issues and questions relating to the location of gambling
activities within the City”.
Res.1999-33 10/4/1999 Public Hearing and Moratorium Extension (effectively the 3rd moratorium) on the filing of applications for gambling licenses and permits for gambling activities within the City as “the City needs further study. . . relating to the location of gambling activities within the City (and) particularly in light of the possibility of changes in the regulation of certain gambling activities by the State of Washington, the need to study the City’s position is heightened”.
Res.
2000-10 4/3/2000 Public Hearing and extension of the “moratorium
on the filing of applications for licenses, permits, and
approvals for gambling activities within the City.” Purpose: “the City needs further study” –
“heightened” study in fact. (This is now effectively
the 4th moratorium.)
10/5/2000 Expiration
date - according to Res. 2000-10 enacted on April 3, 2000 -
ending the moratorium on the filing of applications “for
licenses, permits and approvals for gambling activities within
the City of Lakewood”.
Note:
Between the expiration of moratoriums (10/5/00) and the
establishment of a single new moratorium (7/29/02) there is
nearly a two-year gap (1 year, 10 months) of no activity at all
with regards gambling according to a late July, 2007 Public
Disclosure Request (see appendix). Once that new moratorium
established 7/29/02 expired the end of January, 2003, there
follows once again another near-two-year gap (again 1 year, 10
months – to when a new series of moratoriums/extensions
begin on 11/21/05) of minimal gambling concern of an official
nature by the City other than a Council resolution expressing
zoning-control concerns to the legislature (Resolution 2002-03
on 2/3/03). A second Public Disclosure Request was submitted
the end of August, 2007 (appendix) to verify that these gaps
existed (see letter from the city indicated a careful search for
all documents requested had been completed).
Ord.283 7/29/2002 Establishes
the 5th six-month moratorium on the filing of gambling
applications. In this document is the statement: “the
City has insufficient evidence to establish a cause and effect
relationship between gambling as it currently exists in the City
and crime in the City” which is followed immediately by “tax revenue from gambling is currently a critical
piece of the budget of the City of Lakewood”; and then “businesses within the City that offer gambling
provide employment opportunities which benefit the City in both
direct and indirect ways”; and, “the City Council
believes that the study and evaluation of . . .considerations
relevant to the impact of gambling on the welfare of the City
will ultimately benefit the City” and, “the
City needs time to consider properly and carefully all of the
factors involved in determining the appropriate role of gambling
in the City”.
8/19/2002 Public
hearing on Moratorium
1/5/2003 Public
hearing on Gambling
Res.2003-03 2/3/2003 “Strongly encouraging legislative action that would allow local control over the location, type and number of gambling businesses.”
Interesting in this document are the ‘Whereas’ statements:
“the state has elected to take from cities typical zoning control in the case of enhanced card rooms
“local zoning authority over business location is a traditional, local government function and responsibility
“Washington State law has further preempted all other local authority over the regulation of gambling
“Lakewood citizens have indicated their concern on this issue as well as their frustration with the City for not being able to exercise local control over an issue affecting our community
“this preemption prevents any exercise of local control, which is one of the main objectives of incorporation
“the regulatory authority the (State Gambling) Commission has been given infringes on local government home rule principles
“current legislation leaves the City with only two options: absolutely ban gambling, which would incur significant potential liability to the City, most likely beyond its ability to pay, or allow unrestricted gambling, which raises significant concern due to the potential problems and social issues that can be attendant to these businesses”
According to Dave Bugher,
Lakewood’s assistant city manager and community development
director, in a report to the Planning Advisory Board (PAB) on July
25, 2007, the following series of Ordinances, Resolutions, Public
Hearings, and Moratoriums were precipitated by “neighboring
communities. . .expected to enact a full ban on gambling at the
beginning of 2006 (which) may result in those businesses
moving to the City of Lakewood because the City of Lakewood does not
have such a ban and gambling establishments. . .have contacted the
City to inquire about moving their establishments to Lakewood” (Ord.398).
Ord.
398 11/21/05 6-mon. moratorium (6th) on gambling licenses,
& permits for card rooms to allow City Council time to
conduct “additional study of the issues and
consequences involved in such a moratorium”
Res.2006-02 1/17/06 Public hearing after which the Council received “a review of case law from the City’s legal staff” and thereupon enacted Resolution 2006-02 to enable the City to study “possible legislative action and the. . .suitability of regulations that might limit or ban gambling within the City.” There is the first reference here that “additional study should be conducted on this issue at the staff level or before the City’s Planning Advisory Board to determine. . whether a ban or limit upon gambling is a viable legislative alternative.”
There
is also a first reference that “the Council has been
advised. . .of the litigation reported within the . . .State
Courts”.
4/5/06 PAB
public hearing
5/1/06 Another
public hearing
Ord. 415 5/15/06 Another 6-mon. moratorium, (7th) extending #398 “for the purpose of study that might limit or ban gambling”
There is a reference in this document that “the City Council has conducted additional study of the issues and consequences involved in this moratorium”.
There is also this: “additional study should be conducted on this issue at the staff level or before the City’s Planning Advisory board”.
And
finally it is made clear that the Council received legal advice
– including State Court decisions - regarding the “requirements of limiting. . .or initiating a ban upon
gambling”.
10/16/06 Another public hearing – City reviews case law; wants more time to study “possible legislative action and. . .the suitability. . .that might limit or ban gambling”
Ord. 427 11/6/06 Another 6-mon. moratorium (8th) based on concern “regarding the consequences of additional gambling establishments relocating to Lakewood and how that might impact the public safety and welfare. . . .therefore. . .additional study should be conducted on this issue at the staff level or before the City’s Planning Advisory Board. . . .”
There
is yet another reference to the Council having been advised of
the legal consequences of limiting or banning gambling with the
result that more study is needed.
3/19/07 Another public hearing at which the Council heard “a status report of the study engaged in by the City regarding the impact of gambling on the City” (Ord.446)
There
is yet another reference that the City Council rec’d “a
review of case law”
Ord.
446 4/16/07 Yet another six month moratorium (9th) “while the City continues to study. . .the suitability
of regulations that might limit or ban gambling. . . .”
July 25, 2007 Planning
Advisory Board public hearing on gambling
According to documents prepared by City of Lakewood Development Director and Assistant City Manager Dave Bugher: “If a city has allowed one or more mini-casinos established within the city and it wants to prevent any more from being established, it cannot prohibit new mini-casinos while grandfathering existing ones” i.e. once in, the city cannot limit the number.
Zoning
– debatable. Washington State Gambling Commission (WSGC)
does not agree. Ditto the city attorney. Lakewood has zoned
casinos - in the C1 & C2 zones -under ‘amusement and
recreation.’ Legislation has been introduced to address
this in the past few legislative sessions, but nothing has passed,
leaving it possibly to the courts to decide. Lakewood’s
zoning remains unchallenged and has been honored by the WSGC as a
‘partial ban.’
Summary
of Lakewood’s Moratorium Ordinance/Resolution History:
Span of years in which moratoriums, etc. were declared (as of 9/12/07):9 (1998-2007)
# of public hearings: 11 (by council); 2 by PAB
# of six-month moratoriums: 6
# of moratorium extensions: 3
# of resolutions: 6
1998-36 October 19, 1998
1999-13 April 5, 1999
1999-33 October 4, 1999
2000-10 April 3, 2000
2003-03 February 3, 2003
2006-02 January 17, 2006
# of ordinances: 5
283 July 29, 2002
398 November 21, 2005
415 May 15, 2006
427 November 6, 2006
446 April 16, 2007
# of times “the City needs further study” is mentioned: 12
# this “study” should be that of staff/Planning Advisory Board: 4 (1st time 1/17/06)
# times PAB held public hearings on gambling: 2 (April 5, 2006; July 25, 2007)
# of times the Counsel received legal and/or case law updates: 7
(1st time case law update was reportedly received: January 17, 2006)
