Cash for proposed Grand Forks casino would come from tribal funds, 'private bank financing,' Azure says
Feb. 5—BISMARCK — Tribal economic funds and "private bank financing" would be utilized to build a proposed casino in Grand Forks, the chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa told a state Senate committee on Wednesday.
The project is being pursued in the "spirit of partnership," he added, hoping it can help attract visitors and capture a portion of the traffic on Interstate 29.
Jamie Azure was among several who testified Wednesday at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the Capitol in Bismarck, hoping to successfully push forward Senate Bill 2376, which seeks to allow the Turtle Mountain Band to expand beyond its traditional borders and build a casino along Grand Forks' southern edge.
Meanwhile, three meeting attendees spoke against the proposal, with one saying construction of a casino in a large North Dakota city — a first in state history — sets a precedent and increases the chance of problem gambling near a major university.
The committee did not vote on SB 2376 but took testimony.
The tribe seeks "to capture a market that has been bypassing Grand Forks and leaving the state and which will help revitalize a community," Azure said.
Pressed on who, exactly, would be raising the money to build the proposed $280 million to $300 million resort and where its proceeds would go, Azure said the tribe has worked hard in recent years to not only build its capital but also to use funds to make improvements to infrastructure and various reservation entities and amenities.
"With the casinos that we have in place now, there is a percentage that automatically goes back to the tribe from each casino ... (that goes) into an economic development fund. So we would utilize a lot of our economic development funds," he said. "In the last 10 years, Turtle Mountain has really turned the corner on economic development with other strategies that we have implemented. If there was a credit score for a tribe, we are doing very well right now."
The funds to build the proposed casino thus would come from "private bank financing and self-financing — that would be a large majority of how we would move forward," he said.
Enrolled Turtle Mountain members do not receive a per-capita payout from casino proceeds, he said, but the funds are instead used to provide myriad services, ranging from ambulance and bus purchases, youth sports facilities, food pantries and supplementing wages for social workers.
In short, he said, revenue goes back into the community. A new revenue stream — from a Grand Forks casino, for instance — would likely "mean we are able to start building up infrastructure underneath," he said.
Senate Bill 2376 was introduced by Sens. Scott Meyer, R-Grand Forks, and Richard Marcellais, D-Belcourt, along with Reps. Landon Bahl, R-Grand Forks, and Jayme Davis, D-Rolette.
It seeks to add a line to Section 54-58-03 of North Dakota's Century Code, which at present limits the Turtle Mountain Band to gaming "on land within Rolette County held in trust for the band by the United States government which was in trust as of the effective date of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988." If SB 2376 passes, it will add to the end of that section the following sentence: "and on land within Grand Forks County, if approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988."
Without SB 2376, the proposed resort cannot move forward.
The idea of an American Indian casino has been discussed for years in Grand Forks
but surfaced again last month when the latest plan was presented to the City Council
. It includes a resort with a Class III casino, approximately 200 hotel rooms, forms of family entertainment and space for conferences.
The City Council has approved a nonbinding letter of intent to help move the process forward. The Grand Forks County Commission gave its support in a 4-1 vote Tuesday.
Grand Forks Mayor Brandon Bochenski spoke during Wednesday's committee meeting in Bismarck and noted that the tribe is not asking for economic aid.
"This is my second term and this is the first time a $300 million project has come to us that isn't asking for anything. Every time somebody comes in, they want an incentive. Quite frankly, (other projects) want the moon and we have to try to deliver that or they will find greener pastures. That's not the case with this one," he said. "On top of that, the economic impact numbers speak for themselves."
The resort could draw as many as 900,000 guests per year, according to a 2022 study, half of which would be from outside of Grand Forks. It would require 800 workers, with a payroll of $31 million, and add $71.9 million to the Grand Forks economy in direct gross domestic product, the study predicted.
Since tribal trust land cannot be taxed in a traditional sense, the tribe and the city have discussed annual payments in lieu of typical taxes — probably somewhere around $855,000 to $1 million annually. The school, county and park district would be included in other payments as well, according to early documents.
The tribe already owns more than 140 acres just south of city limits and west of Interstate 29 and would only need a fraction of that land to be in trust for its casino. The remainder of the land likely would be taxable.
During Wednesday's meeting, Bochenski said the tribe does not want to hurt existing businesses, including charitable gaming operations.
"We have 33 charitable gaming sites currently in Grand Forks. That number has doubled or tripled in recent years," he said.
The tribe wants "to find a way to work together not just with the charities that are in charitable gaming, but the other charities."
Committee member Sen. Janne Myrdal, R-Edinburg, told Bochenski she had heard the city-owned Alerus Center has "been kind of struggling to keep up."
Bochenski countered: "We had a record year in 2023 and that was even better in 2024 ... and we are short on hospitality."
A Grand Forks Herald report from late December
showed the Alerus Center had ticketed attendance of nearly 280,000 heading into the final four weeks of 2024, nearly 81,000 more than in 2023 and 45,000 more than in 2022. The facility's to-date profit in November 2024 was $1.12 million. The economic impact it generated for the first nine months of 2024 was estimated at more than $19 million.
Also speaking in favor of the proposal during Wednesday's meeting were Meyer, Bahl and Marcellais, along with Mark Rustad, a member of the Grand Forks County Commission. City Council member Mike Fridolfs was in attendance but didn't speak when the other testimony ran long. His written testimony was entered into the record in favor of the casino.
Three people spoke against SB 2376, including Bill Colonick, representing the Charitable Gaming Association of North Dakota; Jacob Thomsen, representing North Dakota Family Alliance Legislative Action; and Connie Osowski, a Grand Forks resident.
Thomsen voiced concerns about building a casino so close to a major university — UND is just a few miles away, he noted — and worries about its potential to add to compulsive gambling issues in the state.
"Adding a casino near a major city in North Dakota sets a precedent for all the other major cities," he said. "It sets the potential to radically expand gambling in our state, which we see as a major problem as it can drastically increase problem gambling in our state. We have to encourage our citizens toward financial security and responsibility rather than encourage wild spending on games of chance."
Colonick's concern centers on the potential economic impact to charitable gaming organizations and Osowski raised questions about tribal sovereignty and the rules associated with it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
From celebrating Juneteenth to the erasure of Black history: Charles M. Blow on America today
The political analyst and former New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow shares his thoughts about our nation's newest federal holiday, Juneteenth: Last month I visited Emancipation Park in Houston, a park established in 1872 by the formerly enslaved as a space to celebrate Juneteenth, the day in 1865 that the news of emancipation was proclaimed in Galveston, Texas. Ramon Manning, the board chair of the park's conservancy, told me that his corporate sponsors had grown skittish about supporting Juneteenth-related activities and anything with words like "culture," "heritage" or "Black History" – words nearly impossible to omit in this park. This, for Manning, is a bit of a whiplash. Four years ago, in the wake of the massive protests following the killing of George Floyd, and in a Senate riven by partisanship, the bill to make Juneteenth a national holiday passed unanimously. Biden signs bill making Juneteenth a federal holidayWhat is Juneteenth? Learn the history behind the federal holiday's origin and name A year before that, in the closing months of his reelection bid, Donald Trump himself had proposed making it a national holiday in his so-called Platinum Plan for Black America. In fact, in 2019, Trump's statement commemorating Juneteenth ended by saying that on Juneteenth, "... we pay tribute to the indomitable spirit of African Americans." Now, the mood of the country has shifted. Pluralism and racial justice have been demoted in the zeitgeist, as Trump has returned to office on a mission to purge the government, and much of society, of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts. Trump administration threatens public schools' federal funding over DEI initiativesTrump's DEI undoing undermines hard-won accommodations for disabled peopleCompanies could face Trump repercussions over DEI This has spurred an erasure of Black history and Black symbols in some quarters, a phenomenon that I call "The Great Blackout" – from an executive order condemning the direction of the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History and Culture, to the National Park Service removing - but being forced to restore - Harriet Tubman's image and quote to a page about the Underground Railroad. There are, unfortunately, countless examples. That chill is having a dampening effect on the upcoming observation of Juneteenth, far beyond Emancipation Park, as multiple cities have cancelled Juneteenth celebrations altogether. 2025 Indianapolis Juneteenth parade canceled San Luis Obispo Juneteenth event canceled In this sad new reality, America's youngest national holiday is now caught in the crossfire of America's raging culture wars. For more info: Charles M. Blow on Instagram Story produced by Robbyn McFadden. Editor: Chad Cardin. See also: Passage: The story of Juneteenth ("Sunday Morning")Decades after a mob destroyed her house, Opal Lee is returning home ("Sunday Morning") Dad says son "may never be the same" after alleged hazing Nature: Mating grebes From celebrating Juneteenth to the erasure of Black history: Charles M. Blow on America today
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump ally stands firm against 'big, beautiful bill' despite pressure: 'It'll completely backfire'
EXCLUSIVE — One of the leading opponents of President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" declared not even the commander in chief will be able to deter him from speaking out against what he sees as a bill that falls short of Republicans' goal of cutting government waste. "It'll completely backfire on him," Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital of any attempts by Trump to sway him on the current legislation. Johnson has become a prominent voice of opposition against the House GOP's offering to the budget reconciliation process. Senate Republicans finally began the tedious process of parsing through the bill this week. Lawmakers in the upper chamber, Johnson included, are determined to make changes to the bill, with most wanting to make reductions to Medicaid and food stamps more palatable. Trump has made it clear his bill must pass but has acknowledged the Senate will need to make a few changes. Trump's directive has been to deliver a bill that can survive the razor-thin majorities in both chambers. Johnson, however, wants to see spending returned to pre-pandemic levels, cuts that are trillions of dollars deeper than what House Republicans could stomach. And he is ready to vote against the bill unless he sees the changes he wants. And he believes that a pressure campaign from the president against him and other like-minded fiscal hawks will fail. He said a better approach would be to work with lawmakers and fiscal hawks like him to gain a better understanding of the reality of the country's fiscal situation, a reality that "is grim," he said. Johnson has been up front about his disdain for the bill but has so far avoided public retribution from Trump. In fact, the two have spoken twice this week, once on Monday and later during a Senate Finance Committee meeting at the White House Tuesday. The lawmaker has told Trump he's in Trump's corner and that he wants "to see you succeed," but he has been steadfast in his position that the bill does not go far enough to tackle the national debt. And the debt continues to climb, nearing $37 trillion and counting, according to Fox News' National Debt Tracker. The House's offering set a goal of $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade, which lawmakers in the lower chamber have pitched as a positive step forward to righting the country's fiscal ship, an offering Johnson panned as falling drastically short of the GOP's promises to cut deep into government spending. "What's so disappointing about what happened in the House is it was all rhetoric. It's all slogans," Johnson said. "They picked a number. Literally, they picked a number out of the air." Johnson views this attempt at the budget reconciliation process as a rare opportunity to "do the hard things" when it comes to spending cuts, but others in the GOP have been more hesitant to cut as deep. Johnson said a main reason Republicans have so far fallen short of meeting the moment for the most part is that lawmakers don't understand just how much the federal government shovels out the door year in and year out. The lawmaker recalled a moment roughly three years ago during a debate over another year-end omnibus spending bill, when each of the dozen appropriations bills is crammed into one, bloated package that is universally reviled and almost always passes. He asked his colleagues if they really knew just how much the government spends, and no one "volunteered to answer." "Nobody knew. I mean, think of that. The largest financier in the world. We're supposedly, in theory, the 535 members of the board of directors, and nobody knew," he said. "Why would they? We never talked about it." Johnson has been busy trying to better educate his colleagues, putting together his own charts and graphs that cut out the "noise," like the latest nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that found the legislation would add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over a decade. The GOP has universally panned that projection. "We can't accept this as a new normal," Johnson said. "We can't accept — you can take pot shots of CBO, but you can't deny that reality. [It] might be off a little bit, but that is the trajectory, and that's undeniable."
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's palace coup leaves NASA in limbo
When President-elect Donald Trump nominated Jared Isaacman to become NASA administrator, it seemed like a brilliant choice. Business entrepreneur, private astronaut, Isaacman was just the man to revamp NASA and make it into a catalyst for taking humanity to the moon, Mars and beyond. Isaacman sailed through the confirmation process in the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), by a vote of 19 to 9. He was poised to be confirmed by the full Senate when something so bizarre happened that it beggars the imagination. The White House suddenly and with no clear reason why, pulled Isaacman's nomination. After months of a confirmation process, NASA was back to square one for getting a new leader. Ars Technica's Eric Berger offered an explanation as to why. 'One mark against Isaacman is that he had recently donated money to Democrats,' he wrote. 'He also indicated opposition to some of the White House's proposed cuts to NASA's science budget.' But these facts were well known even before Trump nominated Isaacman. Trump himself, before he ran for president as a Republican, donated to Democrats and was close friends with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Berger goes on to say that a source told the publication that, 'with Musk's exit, his opponents within the administration sought to punish him by killing Isaacman's nomination.' The idea that Isaacman's nomination is being deep-sixed because of Musk runs contrary to the public praise that the president has given the billionaire rocket and electric car entrepreneur. Trump was uncharacteristically terse in his own social media post. 'After a thorough review of prior associations, I am hereby withdrawing the nomination of Jared Isaacman to head NASA,' he wrote. 'I will soon announce a new nominee who will be mission aligned, and put America First in Space. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' CNN reports that Isaacman's ouster was the result of a palace coup, noting that a source said, 'Musk's exit left room for a faction of people in Trump's inner circle, particularly Sergio Gor, the longtime Trump supporter and director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office, to advocate for installing a different nominee.' The motive seems to be discontent about the outsized influence that Musk has had on the White House and a desire to take him down a peg or two. Isaacman was profoundly gracious, stating in part, 'I am incredibly grateful to President Trump @POTUS, the Senate and all those who supported me throughout this journey. The past six months have been enlightening and, honestly, a bit thrilling. I have gained a much deeper appreciation for the complexities of government and the weight our political leaders carry.' The idea that a man like Isaacman, well respected by the aerospace community, who was predicted to sail through a confirmation vote in the full Senate, could be taken down by an obscure bureaucrat in White House intrigue, motivated by petty spite, is mind boggling. Even Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has not been fond of Trump's space policy, was appalled. He posted on his X account that Isaacman 'ran into the kind of politics that is damaging our country.' 'Republicans and Democrats supported him as the right guy at the right time for the top job at NASA, but it wasn't enough.' NASA is in for months more of turmoil and uncertainty as the nomination process gets reset and starts grinding its way through the Senate. The draconian, truncated budget proposal is certainly not helpful, either. Congress, which had been supportive of Trump's space policy, is not likely to be pleased by the president's high-handed shivving of his own nominee. Whoever Trump chooses to replace Isaacman as NASA administrator nominee, no matter how qualified, should face some very direct questioning. Trump's NASA budget proposal should be dead on arrival, which, considering the cuts in science and technology, is not necessarily a bad thing. China must be looking at the spectacle of NASA being mired in political wrangling, a leadership vacuum and budget uncertainty with glee. Beijing has its own space ambitions, with a planned crewed lunar landing by 2030. It's possible that the Chinese will steal a march on NASA, with all the damage that will do to America's standing in the world. It didn't have to be this way. Isaacman could be settling in as NASA administrator, deploying his business acumen and vision to lead the space agency to its greatest achievements. Instead, America's space effort has received a self-inflicted blow from which it will be long in recovering, Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled 'Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon?' as well as 'The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently, 'Why is America Going Back to the Moon?' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
