Latest news with #IndianGamingRegulatoryActof1988
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislature considers offering Wabanaki Nations more gambling revenue
Emma DavisMaine Morning Star Among the many federal laws that do not apply to the Wabanaki Nations due to a land settlement act is one that offers federally recognized tribes the right to exclusively regulate and take in revenue from gambling on tribal lands. Last month, the majority of the Maine Legislature's Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted in favor of a bill, LD 1164, that would give the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to operate internet gaming in Maine, though Wabanaki leaders say there is not much appetite from the governor for that change and the privately owned casinos are opposed, which could hamper that bill's chance of success. On Wednesday, the committee heard testimony on another proposal, LD 1851, which, rather than altering the structure of who controls gaming, seeks to provide equality among the Wabanaki Nations in how much revenue they are provided from slot machine income in the state. 'One of the primary purposes of this bill is parity,' said Zeke Crofton-Macdonald, Tribal Ambassador for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 codified that tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming on their lands, unless the state in which it operates prohibits such gaming under its criminal laws. However, the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has made it so the Wabanaki Nations are treated more akin to municipalities than independent nations, one way being that the Tribes are unable to benefit from any federal law passed after 1980, unless they are specifically mentioned in the law. In 2022, the Maine Legislature amended the Settlement Act to permit the Tribes to handle sports betting, so the legislation being considered this session would build off of that earlier expansion. Sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon (D-Biddeford) and co-sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), LD 1851 would increase the total net slot machine income to be collected and distributed by a casino from 39% to 46%, which would only impact Hollywood Casino, Hotel and Raceway in Bangor, as Oxford Casino is currently at that percentage. It would then provide 7% of that income to the tribal governments of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi'kmaq Nation. 'It is a matter of fairness and brings us a small step closer toward a more just relationship with the sovereign Indigenous nations whose land we live on,' Malon said. The bill would not change the arrangement that is currently in place between the Oxford Casino and the other two tribes of the Wabanaki Nations — the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation. Oxford Casino pays 4% of its slot revenue to those two tribes, which Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis said was a deal struck when the casino first opened as a way for the Tribes to benefit without pursuing competing gaming, an agreement he said has been helpful for economic development. 'We don't want to take from the other tribes,' Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Clarissa Sabattis said, regarding the reasoning as to why the bill doesn't pull from the same pot of revenue as the other two tribes. While the percentages are different, they equate to roughly the same revenue, around $3.5 million. The bill would also bring parity among the casinos, as Mi'kmaq Nation Chief Edward Peter Paul put it, because it would raise the slot machine income provided by both casinos to the same percentage. However, Chris Jackson, a partner in the lobby firm Mitchell Tardy Jackson in Augusta who spoke on behalf of his client Hollywood Casino, argued that change would be harmful to the casino financially because it would alter its tax rate. 'As long as our effective tax rate stays the same,' Jackson said, 'we are open to suggestions.' While both bills related to gaming revenue could be passed, Sabattis told Maine Morning Star she anticipates the slot revenue bill will not be as necessary should the Tribes gain control of internet gaming, though she sees that path as the less likely outcome. Testimony from the casinos against the online gaming bill also signal that. Steve Silver, chair of the Maine Gambling Control Board, argued that should that bill pass, Oxford Casino should no longer be required to pay slot revenue to the tribes. Another bill the committee heard on Wednesday, LD 1838, would authorize electronic wagering terminals to conduct electronic beano by federally recognized tribes, among some other changes, which Sabattis and Francis testified in support of. Overall, Wabanaki leaders argue their inability to access the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and other restrictions under the Settlement Act, has caused them to lose out on revenue and therefore hurt their ability to provide services to their citizens. This is supported by a 2022 report by a team of researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School that the comparatively lower economic growth the Wabanaki Nations have seen compared to other federally recognized tribes and the average Mainer is likely the result of the Settlement Act. 'All of our tribes have significant unmet needs and underfunded programs,' Sabattis told the committee, noting that her tribe would put revenue provided through this bill toward its wellness court, in turn reducing strain for social services on the state and towns. The Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit created in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of the Wabanaki Nations' inherent sovereignty, hasn't taken a position on LD 1851, according to executive director Maulian Bryant.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Legislature considers paths to afford Wabanki Nations more revenue from gambling
Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Clarissa Sabattis testifies in favor of a bill to provide parity in gaming revenue among the Wabanaki Nations on May 7, 2025. (By Emma Davis/ Maine Morning Star) Among the many federal laws that do not apply to the Wabanaki Nations due to a land settlement act is one that offers federally recognized tribes the right to exclusively regulate and take in revenue from gambling on tribal lands. Last month, the majority of the Maine Legislature's Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee voted in favor of a bill, LD 1164, that would give the Wabanaki Nations exclusive rights to operate internet gaming in Maine, though Wabanaki leaders say there is not much appetite from the governor for that change and the privately owned casinos are opposed, which could hamper that bill's chance of success. On Wednesday, the committee heard testimony on another proposal, LD 1851, which, rather than altering the structure of who controls gaming, seeks to provide equality among the Wabanaki Nations in how much revenue they are provided from slot machine income in the state. 'One of the primary purposes of this bill is parity,' said Zeke Crofton-Macdonald, Tribal Ambassador for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians. The federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 codified that tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming on their lands, unless the state in which it operates prohibits such gaming under its criminal laws. However, the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act has made it so the Wabanaki Nations are treated more akin to municipalities than independent nations, one way being that the Tribes are unable to benefit from any federal law passed after 1980, unless they are specifically mentioned in the law. In 2022, the Maine Legislature amended the Settlement Act to permit the Tribes to handle sports betting, so the legislation being considered this session would build off of that earlier expansion. Sponsored by Rep. Marc Malon (D-Biddeford) and co-sponsored by Sen. Rachel Talbot Ross (D-Cumberland), LD 1851 would increase the total net slot machine income to be collected and distributed by a casino from 39% to 46%, which would only impact Hollywood Casino, Hotel and Raceway in Bangor, as Oxford Casino is currently at that percentage. It would then provide 7% of that income to the tribal governments of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians and the Mi'kmaq Nation. 'It is a matter of fairness and brings us a small step closer toward a more just relationship with the sovereign Indigenous nations whose land we live on,' Malon said. The bill would not change the arrangement that is currently in place between the Oxford Casino and the other two tribes of the Wabanaki Nations — the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation. Oxford Casino pays 4% of its slot revenue to those two tribes, which Penobscot Chief Kirk Francis said was a deal struck when the casino first opened as a way for the Tribes to benefit without pursuing competing gaming, an agreement he said has been helpful for economic development. 'We don't want to take from the other tribes,' Chief of the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Clarissa Sabattis said, regarding the reasoning as to why the bill doesn't pull from the same pot of revenue as the other two tribes. While the percentages are different, they equate to roughly the same revenue, around $3.5 million. The bill would also bring parity among the casinos, as Mi'kmaq Nation Chief Edward Peter Paul put it, because it would raise the slot machine income provided by both casinos to the same percentage. However, Chris Jackson, a partner in the lobby firm Mitchell Tardy Jackson in Augusta who spoke on behalf of his client Hollywood Casino, argued that change would be harmful to the casino financially because it would alter its tax rate. 'As long as our effective tax rate stays the same,' Jackson said, 'we are open to suggestions.' While both bills related to gaming revenue could be passed, Sabattis told Maine Morning Star she anticipates the slot revenue bill will not be as necessary should the Tribes gain control of internet gaming, though she sees that path as the less likely outcome. Testimony from the casinos against the online gaming bill also signal that. Steve Silver, chair of the Maine Gambling Control Board, argued that should that bill pass, Oxford Casino should no longer be required to pay slot revenue to the tribes. Another bill the committee heard on Wednesday, LD 1838, would authorize electronic wagering terminals to conduct electronic beano by federally recognized tribes, among some other changes, which Sabattis and Francis testified in support of. Overall, Wabanaki leaders argue their inability to access the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and other restrictions under the Settlement Act, has caused them to lose out on revenue and therefore hurt their ability to provide services to their citizens. This is supported by a 2022 report by a team of researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School that the comparatively lower economic growth the Wabanki Nations have seen compared to other federally recognized tribes and the average Mainer is likely the result of the Settlement Act. 'All of our tribes have significant unmet needs and underfunded programs,' Sabattis told the committee, noting that her tribe would put revenue provided through this bill toward its wellness court, in turn reducing strain for social services on the state and towns. The Wabanaki Alliance, a nonprofit created in 2020 to advocate for the recognition of the Wabanaki Nations' inherent sovereignty, hasn't taken a position on LD 1851, according to executive director Maulian Bryant. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
13-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Meyer: Grand Forks casino proposal could emerge again this session in another form
Mar. 12—BISMARCK — A proposal that could eventually lead to a new casino and resort in Grand Forks was voted down in the state Senate last month, but it could be resurrected in another form, according to a sponsoring lawmaker. Sen. Scott Meyer told the Grand Forks Herald that discussions are happening and ideas are being considered but said more details are not yet available on its next iteration, if it does indeed reemerge during the current session of the Legislature. "Conversations are being held with leaders in both chambers to bring it back," said Meyer, R-Grand Forks. "We just haven't yet decided (how)." Senate Bill 2376 sought to add language into state law regarding the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa's current gambling abilities. At present, the law declares the band may only operate "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." SB 2376 sought to add "and on land within Grand Forks County" to the language. The bill was defeated in mid-February on a 29-15 Senate vote. SB 2376 would not have necessarily meant the casino would be built in Grand Forks, but simply would have cleared one of a number of hurdles before the casino could become reality. On Jan. 27, the Grand Forks City Council decided, in a 4-3 vote, to enter a non-binding letter of intent with the Turtle Mountain Band; the next step then would have been to amend state law to allow the tribe to operate a gaming site outside of its traditional boundaries. More approvals — from the U.S. Department of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs — would have been necessary after that. The proposal calls for an approximately $300 million casino to be built on tribe-owned land just west of Interstate 29 and just south of the current city limits. Early projections show it could draw as many as 400,000 non-local guests per year and generate gross gaming revenue of nearly $80 million in its first year. Although the casino itself would not be taxed in a traditional sense — since it would technically be operating on tribal trust land — the city and tribe have discussed annual payments to local taxing entities in lieu of typical taxes. The tribe, meanwhile, has said it seeks no funding from the city. Opponents have voiced concern about its impact on legal charitable gaming and also that it could spur other casino projects elsewhere. And just before the Senate vote on Feb. 14, Sen. Diane Larson, R-Bismarck, wondered aloud — during a speech on the Senate floor — if the tribe might be financially backed by "cartels." Although she later was apologetic and said it was a "reckless statement," Turtle Mountain Chairman Jamie Azure called the comment "a slap in the face."
Yahoo
15-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Grand Forks casino bill defeated in North Dakota Senate after 'cartels' comment by Sen. Diane Larson
Feb. 14—BISMARCK — A bill that would allow the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa to expand beyond its traditional boundaries and perhaps one day open a $300 million resort and casino in Grand Forks was defeated in a state Senate vote on Friday afternoon. The vote came after Sen. Diane Larson, R-Bismarck, openly wondered if the tribe is financially backed by "cartels" and also after she made questionable statements about the tribe's land acquisition and other background items. Senate Bill 2376 sought to add language into state law regarding Turtle Mountain's current gambling abilities. At present, the law declares the band may only operate "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." SB 2376 sought to add "and on land within Grand Forks County" to the language. It was defeated 29-15, likely killing — at least for now — the tribe's plans to build on land it already has purchased west of Interstate 29, just along Grand Forks' southern city limits. The tribe's goal was to construct a "high-end resort" at a cost of $280 million to $300 million . It would have employed some 800, according to data compiled by a 2022 feasibility study. Further, the study predicted the casino would have had upwards of 400,000 out-of-area visitors each year and gross gaming revenue of approximately $80 million in its first year of operation. Proponents — including Sen. Scott Meyer, R-Grand Forks — have stressed in recent weeks that the tribe sought no funding help from the city or county of Grand Forks and, since tribal gaming isn't eligible to be taxed in typical ways, that the tribe would make payments to local taxing entities in lieu of traditional taxes. Opponents have voiced concerns about its impact to charitable gaming — although the tribe expressed interest in keeping those organizations whole — and possible increases in gambling addiction. Sen. Richard Marcellais, D-Belcourt, represents the district that includes the Turtle Mountain Band's headquarters. He told senators Friday that "the tribe is not asking for funding. "I repeat, they are not asking for funding — just a tribal gaming compact that permits this gaming project to continue," he said. Had 2376 passed, it would have been just one of many steps needed — including federal approval — before construction could begin. On the Senate floor, Meyer spoke at length about its merits prior to Friday afternoon's vote. After it was defeated, he expressed disappointment about comments made by Larson. "(A casino) sounds like such a fun idea for a community," Larson said, apparently with sarcasm, just prior to the vote. "Maybe every major city in North Dakota should partner with a tribe and give land and we can have casinos all over our state. But when North Dakota decided to legalize gambling, it was for the purpose of charitable gaming, not for economic development. The charitable gaming was very limited in what could be used. ... This, in my opinion, and in opinion of the majority of our committee, is a very wrong way for us to go in North Dakota to add to the problems that come with major casinos that are off the reservation land and contained within that sovereign land. "And as an aside, I did ask one of the proponents where the tribe is going to get the money to build all of this. I never did get an answer for where the money is coming from," she said, referring to a committee hearing earlier this month. "Cartels, or what? I don't know where it's coming from." Larson's suggestion that cities should "give land" to tribes for casinos is contrary to the background of the Grand Forks proposal. The Turtle Mountain Band purchased 146 acres near Grand Forks for its use. The comment about "cartels" quickly drew criticism from others in the chamber, including Sen. Kristin Roers, R-Fargo. "I was incredibly offended by a statement made from one of the previous speakers," Roers said. "It felt very derogatory and I think that our chamber is better than that." She acknowledged Larson's concern about a casino's potential impact on legal charitable gaming, but claimed gambling in the name of charity has risen "almost 600%," apparently countering Larson's earlier statement before the full Senate that charitable gaming is "very limited." Another concern that should be addressed, Roers said, is visitor attraction. "How do we find people to come (to North Dakota) from the outside?" she asked. Meyer was disheartened by Larson's comments. "I was disappointed by the language of the chair of the Judiciary Committee claiming the tribe is associated with cartels in order to defeat this project," Meyer told the Grand Forks Herald after the vote. "It's hard to argue with people using incorrect data, hypotheticals and hearsay." During a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 5, Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Chairman Jamie Azure was asked by a committee member how the tribe would raise the money for the $300 million project. Larson, who said Friday that she didn't get an answer, is on the committee's chairwoman. But during the Feb. 5 hearing, Azure responded to the question. The hearing was covered by the Herald; the story's headline was " Cash for proposed Grand Forks casino would come from tribal funds, 'private bank financing,' Azure says ." "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," Azure said during the Feb. 5 hearing, in response to the question. "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. Shortly after Larson's suggestion about cartels, Sen. Ryan Braunberger, D-Fargo, rose to make a clarifying statement. "One of the things to correct from the previous speaker, regarding 'where is the money coming from?', is private banks," said Braunberger, who also is a member of the Judiciary Committee. "There was no mention of cartels. Second, the tribe has purchased the land at Grand Forks. It wasn't given to them. And they have already invested money into this." Larson later stood and apologized for the comment about cartels. The bill got "yes" votes from Grand Forks senators Jeff Barta, Claire Cory and Meyer. Jonathan Sickler was absent. Meyer said it is conceivable that SB 2376 could get new life, but that it's unlikely.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Bill seeks to open path for casino project in Grand Forks
Jan. 31—GRAND FORKS — A bill making its way through the Legislature seeks to expand the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa's reach for casino operations, an early step in a long process to possibly build a resort in Grand Forks. 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. If passed in its present form, SB 2376 will add a line to Section 54-58-03 of North Dakota's Century Code, which at present decrees that the Turtle Mountain Band may only conduct 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." The proposal came to the Legislature from the Turtle Mountain Band and was presented to the lawmakers by Mike Krumwiede, a lobbyist from Staiger Consulting Group. The four lawmakers listed as sponsors hail from the two counties that would be affected: Bahl and Meyer from Grand Forks County, where the tribe wants to build the casino; and Marcellais and Davis from Rolette County, where the tribe is headquartered. If it's built, it likely would come with construction and development costs of $280 million or more, employ some 800 and become one of Grand Forks' Top 10 employers, according to data compiled by a 2022 feasibility study. Further, the study predicted the casino would have gross annual gaming revenue of approximately $80 million in its first year of operation, a number that likely would climb to nearly $90 million by Year 5. Those figures don't include lodging, food, beverage and other amenities. All plans are still in the most preliminary stages, but no progress will happen without a change to state law, which is what SB 2376 seeks to do. "I know it's not an easy lift. The Legislature tends to abstain from gaming, but I look at it as a tourism driver for our community and an economic driver not only for the community but the state," said Meyer, also noting what he considers an economic benefit for the tribe. "I know we already might be behind the eight-ball when it comes to folks who are anti-gaming, but I'm trying to show there is a lot more to it — the tourism aspect, the spa, concerts. Hopefully, something like this also increases the retail opportunities in our community." Bahl, whose full-time job is in the hospitality industry in Grand Forks, said he signed on to the bill because he enjoys discussing big ideas. "And this is a big idea," he said. He doesn't necessarily see it as competition — at least in its earliest form. Most often, "you go to the casino for the casino. If you want a downtown vibe, then let's talk about a hotel. You aren't going to stay at the casino hotel just for fun. Now, if it's a resort, that's a different story — you're starting to compete with places downtown," he said. "That's why it needs to be crafted carefully. The city needs to be careful to ensure we're not taking people away from the businesses and entrepreneurs (that already exist)." He said city and state leaders need to be diligent about its potential ramifications, but "I look at this as a forward-thinking opportunity." Building an American Indian casino in Grand Forks has been discussed for two decades, but plans "died out because of lack of support on city and state levels," the Herald reported in the past. The idea is once again before the City Council . The latest iteration is a "high-end resort" — as worded in council documents — that would include a casino, hotel, a family entertainment center and convention space. The plan calls for it to be built on 146 acres of land on the extreme southern edge of the city, on the west side of Interstate 29. Whereas the tribe owns the land, the acreage must be put into tribal trust and identified for gaming before a casino could be erected there. At Monday's meeting of the Committee of the Whole, council members approved to move forward on a non-binding letter of intent with the tribe that requests city support and assistance, to (the) extent allowable by law, in obtaining necessary approvals for the development by state, local and federal agencies and officials. One difference between this proposal and those in the past is that the tribe now owns the land. However, it's not likely the tribe would use more than a fraction of the total acres for the actual casino/resort, City Administrator Todd Feland said earlier this week. State and federal approval will be required before the project can move forward. Feland said the tribe has met with Gov. Kelly Armstrong, who "has generally provided his support for moving forward with this, with the understanding that it will require legislative support, too." Meyer and Turtle Mountain Chairman Jamie Azure also say Armstrong has been supportive. Since tribes are sovereign nations, their casinos operate within a framework of unique rules. For example, a casino in Grand Forks County probably would be exempt from paying property and sales taxes. Feland said if the city gets behind the project, the city will require payments from the tribe in lieu of traditional taxes. "That would be an important part of the development agreement," he said. "In lieu of taxes, whether sales or property taxes, we will have to make a determination of what it would be and then put it into the agreement — that they will pay those sums of money to the community, or city, for services and infrastructure and economic impact. ... If we can't tax it in an ordinary way, we will find other mechanisms to make up the difference." Mayor Brandon Bochenski, during Monday's Committee of the Whole meeting, said the tribe isn't asking for a tax incentive. "I expect them to pay an equal amount of taxes that all the rest of us do and then some," he said. "It's some other mechanism that (will require the casino) pay what a normal facility like this would pay in taxes and then some. The whole idea is that this would benefit the schools, parks, city and county." The city's likely investment and commitment, according to Feland, would be "water, wastewater, stormwater and transportation infrastructure investments that (Turtle Mountain) has committed to paying for through upfront cash payments and or/special assessments over time." Additionally, the land would be annexed into the city. In 2022, a study by the Innovation Group — provided to the Herald by the city — showed that the casino/resort in Grand Forks could attract as many as 900,000 visitors annually (more than 400,000 from outside the local area), require staffing of 812 workers and have a payroll of some $31.7 million. It would add $71.9 million to the Grand Forks economy in direct gross domestic product, they study predicts. For comparison on visitation, approximately 280,000 attended ticketed events at the Alerus Center during the first 11 months of 2024. The study noted that "it is common for tribal casino trust applications to include agreements for the host city municipality to receive direct payments as a percentage of gaming revenue. We estimate that such a payment would result in an annual payment to the city of Grand Forks of approximately $855,000, for a total local fiscal impact of nearly $1 million." Some of the land would be "fee land" and applicable to taxation, according to the city. The portion of the land in trust (such as the casino itself) would not be subject to property taxes, but the tribe likely would pay the city through the host community agreement. Notes compiled by the city for the next council meeting notes that estimates "translate to (Turtle Mountain) paying roughly $2.4 million per year to local subdivisions through property tax and the host community services agreement." Local subdivisions include the school district, the city, the county and the park district. The 2022 study delved into the possible impact it would have on other businesses. Bahl, the supporting Grand Forks lawmaker who works in the hospitality industry, said he believes a casino will have amenities that will make it unique, but that it probably "won't be able to compete" with existing hospitality sites and neighborhoods that each have their own niche. According to the 2022 study, "casino development increases room demand at non-casino hotels, even when casino hotels are built." The study cited data from Shreveport, Louisiana, noting that occupancy in hotels not associated with a casino there went from approximately 60% prior to the casino's opening to 74% a few years later. The study said "the positive spillover effect on local hotels for one is unequivocally demonstrated in numerous jurisdictions, even in markets where casinos operate hotels for their gaming customers." Feland figures it'll be a year or two to "work through the process." If built, the Grand Forks resort will be the only American Indian casino in one of North Dakota's large cities and one of just two adjacent to an interstate highway.
