FROM THE ARCHIVE
Tribes asked to consider casino fee increase
Facebook Twitter Email
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 2003

Federal regulators seeking to bolster oversight of the $12 billion Indian gaming industry will have to wait awhile before a proposal to increase their budget is accepted.

The omnibus appropriations act that cleared Congress last week directs the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to consult with tribes before seeking more funds. Only an additional $2 million is at stake but the federal government needs to seek the input of Indian Country first, said an industry leader.

"We feel there needs to be time for consultation and NIGC needs to do its job in getting out to Indian Country," said Mark Van Norman, executive director of the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA), which represents more than 150 tribes with casino facilities.

The bill funds the NIGC at $8 million, the same level as 2002. The Bush administration was seeking an extra $2 million, money that regulators and the tribes agree is needed in order to police a rapidly growing industry. Currently, nearly 200 tribes in more than two dozen states offer some sort of gaming.

The views diverge on the source of the new money. Tribes want Congress to appropriate the funds while NIGC chairman Phil Hogen and the commission want to eliminate a cap on the tribal fee structure.

NIGC's entire budget is derived from the fees, which are divided into two tiers based on the amount of revenue a tribe generates. Since the industry as a whole is pulling in more money, tribes are actually paying a smaller percentage under the capped structure, established in 1997, according to Hogen.

"The industry has once again outgrown everything our ability to do everything we are assigned to do under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act," Hogen told tribal leaders recently. Casino revenues jumped by 50 percent in the past five years alone, according to NIGC data.

Increasing the fees will lend "credibility" to an already scrutinized industry, Hogen argued. There is just one investigator who covers revenue-rich casinos from Massachusetts to Florida, he said.

Hogen's proposal would set a flat percentage rate of 0.1 percent., "As the industry grows, so will NIGC's resources," he said. "As the industry retracts, so will NIGC's resources."

The budget bill, which President Bush is expected to sign, appropriates no more than $120,000 to the NIGC to determine whether Indian Country will accept the idea. The bill doesn't suggest a time-line for consultation but expects it to be completed in time for approval of the 2004 budget.

Tribes have argued that their facilities are triply-regulated -- by federal, state and tribal governments. The proposal would increase NIGC's budget to $12 million.

The Congressionally-directed consultation effort is to include more talks on a change to the way certain Class II games are defined. Final regulations were published last summer but have not cleared up disputes between tribes and the NIGC.

Relevant Links:
National Indian Gaming Association - http://www.indiangaming.org
National Indian Gaming Commission - http://www.nigc.gov

Related Stories:
Tribes seek positive portrayal of Indian gaming (02/05)
Stevens files Alaska Native gaming rider (01/24)
Hall hits 'home run' on C-SPAN (12/18)
Norton: Indian gaming raises 'concerns' (12/20)
Jodi Rave Column: TIME's dirty dealing (12/17)
'We're going to do it right' (12/13)
Column: Answers needed on Indian gaming (12/12)
Hogen sails through Senate hearing (9/26)
Hogen gets his Senate hearing (9/25)
Hogen tapped to oversee gaming (9/4)
Bush creates new gaming panel (9/4)
Deer leaves Indian gaming post amid changes (8/22)
Casino game policy scrapped (7/12)
Chickasaw Nation 'followed the law' (6/28)
Objections to casino rules overruled (6/14)
Tribes seek limited federal role (6/13)
Tribe's land approvals questioned (6/11)
NIGC overturns gaming decision (6/6)
Authority of NIGC placed in doubt (5/10)
Chickasaw Nation 'followed the law' (6/28)
Objections to casino rules overruled (6/14)
Tribes seek limited federal role (6/13)
Tribe's land approvals questioned (6/11)
NIGC overturns gaming decision (6/6)
Authority of NIGC placed in doubt (5/10)