Casino News Source: http://www.grandforks.com
GRAND FORKS CASINO: Study: 'Substantial' benefits for the city
Turtle Mountain Band releases figures from its economic impact study
By Tu-Uyen Tran
Herald Staff Writer
Grand Forks can expect more jobs, more tourists and more tax revenue if a tribal casino is built nearby, the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa said Thursday.
The proof is in the long-awaited economic impact study that Tribal Chairman Ken Davis unveiled at a press conference. The numbers, he said, show that the casino would bring "substantial" benefits to the area, and he hoped the city would support the tribe.
Specifically, the study said the community would gain 446 jobs, 1.1 million visitors a year and $18 million in revenues for government entities within the county. With 700 slot machines planned, the Grand Forks casino would be the second largest one in the state, just behind the Dakota Magic Casino in Hankinson.
Annual wages at the complex would total about $10.5 million, according to the study, an average of $27,500 per job.
Miscommunication
All of which might have helped sway city leaders to offer stronger support for the project - had any been at the meeting.
City Council member Doug Christensen, who has served as a liaison with the tribe, said he and other elected officials were unaware that Davis would release the study that day. In fact, it was a little more than a week ago that he called for the tribe to update the council, which hadn't received an update in quite some time.
"I think I can speak for most council persons I've spoken to," Christensen said. "We find it interesting, to say the least, they chose to do this (go to the press) rather than come to us and give us the report."
Bill Johnson, the tribe's lead casino consultant, said he felt there was a lot of questions about the casino beyond the council. He cited the Chamber of Commerce's survey which showed many members of the business community wanting more information.
He and Davis also said the city received notice at the same time as the media, which was May 26.
Johnson said he's kept several council members, including Christensen, abreast of developments as recently as April, so it was surprising that Christensen said he hadn't gotten an update.
Opponents of the casino, anticipating the tribe's economic argument, have gathered their own data from studies on other casinos. According to the Grand Forks Casino Petition Committee, every $1 in revenue the city gets from having the casino in town will cost $3 in spending to fight crime and gambling addiction.
Jim Klas, one of the authors of the tribe's study and a principal at Minneapolis-base KlasRobinson Q.E.D., said he doesn't expect substantial impact on crime or gambling addiction because there already is gambling in Grand Forks.
Trouble above
But economic impact is just one aspect of the proposed Turtle Mountain casino. The biggest issues for the tribe continue to be on the regulatory side.
At the federal level, the tribe faces a Congress hostile to expansion of off-reservation Indian gaming.
Davis said Turtle Mountain is still in the running despite new laws in the works because it had put in an application for trust land, land under tribal jurisdiction, before a proposed Senate deadline. However, he said, the House Indian gaming bill doesn't leave that loophole.
At the state level, the tribe also faces a governor and Legislature not supportive of a new off-reservation casino. In fact, state law specifically says that Turtle Mountain is only allowed an off-reservation casino in Rolette County.
Davis said his understanding is the restriction applies only to casinos with slot machines, and the tribe could decide to go with just electronic bingo machines, which might not earn as much money as slot machines. He said the tribe would still need to consult the governor and attorney general, but a change of state law is not required.
Referendum
Given hostility at the top, the tribe's strategy, as Johnson has laid out in the past, is to win support at the bottom. The reasoning is if local governments, such as the City Council, say the casino will be a benefit, it would be hard for state and federal governments to say no.
But many council members, Christensen included, would rather let voters decide.
Given that sentiment, Davis said, the tribe considered seeking a referendum on the casino during the June elections but there simply wasn't enough time.
For one thing, the council has yet to hear how much the tribe would pay the city in lieu of property taxes or how much land would be under tribal jurisdiction. Council members have said they need to know that if they're going to ask the public to vote on the casino.
Davis said the information would be available in two to four weeks.
More than this, Johnson said, the tribe needs about 90 days to inform voters about the stakes. He said a November referendum is a possibility.
Asked if the tribe would come back with a different proposal if the referendum fails, as casino opponents fear, Davis said: "If the referendum fails, we'd get the message."
He said there are other opportunities that the tribe could pursue, meaning other communities that might prove more welcoming to a tribal casino.
|
|
