SACRAMENTO, Calif. – With the compact re-negotiations in full swing it is unclear whether or not tribes will capitulate to Gov. Davis’ proposal that they share a much greater part of their casino proceeds to make up for the state deficit.
California, like much of the nation has been embroiled in a budget shortfall. Though the actual amount is in dispute depending on which political party any given source is affiliated with, it is estimated that the state is in debt anywhere between $21 billion and $34 billion.
Whatever the actual amount, it is clear that the state is in debt and is looking to lucrative Indian casinos to help bridge the budget shortfall.
While the negotiations are still underway on the statewide level, it is clear that some local governments are now attempting to take revenue from tribes by looking to local Indian casino operations to provide additional funding in terms of taxation.
The question is whether or not these local governments are actually gaining any ground in their attempts to wrest tribal funds. How similar are these cases and what has their role been in the re-negotiation process?
One example is the case of the Picayune Rancheria who operates the Chukchansi Gold Casino in Madera County. The county is claiming that the tribe needs to pay property taxes on their gaming operation and have threatened a lawsuit to force the tribe to pay the tax, estimated to be $1.5 million in annual revenue.
Santa Barbara County has also asked that the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians also contribute to the county coffers and have drafted a letter to Gov. Davis asking for tribal funds during the re-negotiation process.
Additionally Imperial County in the southeastern portion of the state has also sent a letter to Gov. Davis requesting a voice in the compact re-negotiations.
The question that needs to then be addressed is whether or not these cases have made any headway into the compact re-negotiation process and if they will indeed be successful in their bids for further funds.
Jake Coin, executive director of CNIGA says that the issues between the local governments and the state are actually two different animals and that tribes do not owe anything to local governments directly because that fund is actually handled through the state.
The reasoning behind this is that the tribes are already paying into a fund that goes to mitigate local impacts and it is up to the state to distribute the funding to local communities.
The problem, says Coin from a tribal perspective is that the counties and the municipalities are not actually sovereign entities on par with a tribal government. Whereas the tribes believe that their authority rests solely in dealing with the state government as equals, the question of what the tribes actually agree to with local governments is another issue.
Coin says each of the local cases are usually unique and should be done on a case by case basis. He points out that often tribes will forge agreements with local jurisdictions and usually wish to avoid any local problems.
However, Coin finds it ironic that local governments are now coming to the tribes for money.
“Where were they (local governments) when tribes were impoverished?” questions Coin. “Were they volunteering to share with us?”
Not all of the local cases are the same. Coin particularly points to the Picayune Rancheria case and says that this is the only case of a county actually seeking a tax and not a revenue sharing agreement.
In that case Madera County is arguing that the casino does not sit on trust land and is therefore eligible for taxation, whereas in the other cases, the counties are hoping to force increased revenue sharing from the compact re-negotiations.
What role then, are local governments playing all this?
Amber Pasricha, a spokeswoman for Gov. Davis, says that her boss arranged for local governments from around the state to meet with his three-member negotiation team prior to the negotiations that commenced at the end of March.
“The governor thought that it was important for the state negotiators to know the point of view of the cities and counties when doing the re-negotiations,” says Pasricha.
Additionally Pasricha said that local governments often forge Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between the local governments and the state and appeal directly to the tribes.
Many counties have already signed MOUs or other agreements with local tribes. Most notable among these agreements are Placer County’s agreement with the United Auburn Community to provide funding for services related directly to their as-yet-built casino and Rumsey Rancheria’s agreement with Yolo County.
