Deals, deals and more deals

Clark County is revving up to make a new deal with the Cowlitz gambling syndicate.

County Commission Chairwoman Betty Sue Morris acknowledged Jan. 29 that the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was struck before the syndicate had revealed its plans for a casino at the La Center junction, is “pretty much shot.” (It has twice been declared invalid.)

The syndicate has been working hard to mollify the county. It got the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to approve tribal ordinances containing stipulations similar to the MOU, although the NIGC then wrote that it could not vouch for their enforceability. Last week, Cowlitz Chairman John Barnett sent Morris a letter attempting to assure the county: Rest easy, the ordinances are irrevocable. Many legal minds disagree.

A few weeks earlier, though, Barnett had sent the commissioners a letter with a different tone. He insisted that the MOU is alive and well, and that the county had better not terminate it. He also said the tribe would be unwilling to negotiate a new agreement.

The fact is, the syndicate needs an MOU. Desperately. A Jan. 3 memorandum released by the Department of the Interior regarding some tribal land/casino requests says that federal decision-makers are taking note of “jurisdictional problems.” The memo says applications should include copies of intergovernmental agreements (MOUs), and, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”

Quick recap: The 2004 MOU is not in force. Section 16 of the document says it does not go into effect till the land is taken into trust—a federal action that is still a long way off. Secondly, the MOU is dead. It should stay that way. As CARS has written many times, the terms of the old MOU would not mitigate all of the damage this casino would do.

Our county commissioners are free to do the right thing for their constituents. In our view, that means leave the MOU in its grave. Commissioners Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart have already declared their opposition to the casino. Now they need to act on that. Letting go of the MOU would help ensure that the casino-resort never comes to Clark County.

An open letter to Representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.)

Dear Representative Baird:

We were pleased to read your comments in Tuesday’s Columbian acknowledging the problems faced by communities where tribes want to locate their casinos. You are quoted saying, “The deck is so stacked right now, in terms of process, against the local community.”

Later in the story, you describe the federal process: “It’s too complicated; it’s not transparent … I think it’s biased in terms of the agencies making the decisions in a quasi-advocacy role.”

We can attest to all of that and more -- including a lack of predictability and the failure to provide non-tribal citizens timely information about the so-called process.

Back in 2004, when the Board of Clark County Commissioners signed off on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe, they had no inkling that within days the Cowlitz gambling syndicate would apply for initial reservation status. That removed the federal stipulation that before approving new land for gaming, the Secretary of the Interior would have to determine that a casino would not be detrimental to surrounding communities -- and the governor would make the final decision.

Then, in 2005, the syndicate quietly applied for restored lands status -- another way to take away the no-detriment requirement and the governor’s right to decide. Although many concerned citizens submitted information, comments that ran contrary to the tribe's submissions were barely considered in the restored lands opinion written by the National Indian Gaming Commission.

In the case of the MOU, negotiators for the gambling syndicate worked with the county commissioners but did not enable public involvement in the process, as required by law. As it turns out, that has caused them no end of trouble, because the MOU has been invalidated twice due to the lack of public participation.

Other concerns

Representative Baird, your other comments reflect many of our concerns about this proposed project:

• The proposed facility is enormous.
• Gambling is addictive.
• Gambling is not an effective means of building an economy.
• The site proposed for the casino would be better used for industry.
• A casino could have serious negative impacts on north Clark County.

We appreciate and share your concerns, and encourage you to do whatever you can to give greater voice to communities facing casino proposals.

Sincerely,
Citizens Against Reservation Shopping

>> Read the full story: “Indian gambling law stacks deck against communities, Baird says”

Tribal ordinances are a faulty solution

The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) has approved the Cowlitz gambling syndicate's most recent and most feeble attempt to replace its intergovernmental agreement (MOU) with Clark County.

And our county commissioners never took a public stand.

You might recall that the 2004 intergovernmental agreement -- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) -- between the tribe and the county was invalidated in June by a state growth board, and that the decision was reconfirmed in December in Thurston County Superior Court. The syndicate then attempted to insert the language of the MOU into its federal gaming ordinance, but federal decision-makers nixed that idea.

The syndicate's latest request was for the NIGC to accept ordinances approved by the tribe. These ordinances, which the NIGC approved Tuesday, are problematic. In addition to being unsatisfactory (as was the initial MOU), they are unilateral, although the gambling syndicate claims they will protect the county.

Additionally, they might not be enforceable. Even in his approval letter the NIGC chairman writes, "the issues concerning enforceability are not properly addressed here." It is possible that new tribal leadership would not have to comply with ordinances written under its predecessors, making it a particularly bad deal for the county.

A true agreement is vital

Having an intergovernmental agreement is vital to the syndicate's request to have land taken into trust for gambling, according to guidelines issued Jan. 3 by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). To date, the gambling syndicate has only its tribal ordinances, which do not constitute an intergovernmental agreement.

Why did our county commissioners not weigh in on this issue, which could affect how Clark County interacts with the Cowlitz gambling syndicate in perpetuity?

Contact information for your Clark County commissioners:
Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
Bettysue.Morris@clark.wa.gov
Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
(360) 397-2232

Read the Longview Daily News article.

Read about the beginnings of the MOU.

Read about the county's backroom casino dealing.

Read about the June invalidation of the MOU.

Read about the county commissioners' decision to appeal the MOU's invalidation.

Read about the December MOU appeal hearing.

Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU.

Court rules casino MOU invalid … again

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has lost a vital part of its application for a casino in Clark County, and it could be a deal breaker.

Thurston County Superior Court today affirmed a June decision invalidating the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cowlitz Tribe and Clark County. The initial decision had been issued by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The growth board had determined that the county had not allowed for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the MOU in March 2004.

The county then appealed the June decision arguing that the Growth Board, an appointed body, should not be able to override a decision made by the County Commission, an elected body. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor denied Clark County's appeal.

When considering gaming-related land acquisitions, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) “requires agreements between tribes and local governments regarding jurisdictional and land use issues … ,” according to a 2005 memorandum to all regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) directors.

A top DOI official recently characterized the loss of this MOU as a potential deal-breaker.

Resuscitation attempts

Since the growth board issued its opinion in June, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate has been trying frantically to keep the contents of the MOU alive.

First it attempted to insert them into its gambling ordinance, which originally was approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in November 2005. It withdrew this proposal, however, after hearing negative feedback from DOI decision-makers.

More recently the syndicate took the contents of the MOU and made them into unilateral tribal ordinances, whose enforceability and irrevocability are debatable. We are told that these ordinances are not viewed by DOI as being comparable to an MOU.

Next steps

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate will have to decide what tack to pursue. One option would be to convince Clark County to continue its legal spending spree and appeal today’s ruling in another court. If the county commissioners agree to such a maneuver, they will have made clear their allegiance to the syndicate.

Another option would be to step back and survey the situation. So far three nearby cities, a school district and a port district have passed resolutions opposing the proposed casino, in addition to a dozen area chambers of commerce and community groups who have declared their opposition or have favored a business park at the La Center site.

If the Cowlitz gambling syndicate truly cares about getting this project under way and providing for the tribe, it will consider a different site -- one closer to its current population and in its aboriginal territory.

Read about the beginnings of the MOU.

Read about the county's backroom casino dealing.

Read about the June invalidation of the MOU.

Read about the county commissioners' decision to appeal the MOU's invalidation.

Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU.

Well done, Woodland!

Woodland has gone three for three! Last night the Port of Woodland unanimously joined the School District and the City in adopting resolutions opposing the proposed Cowlitz casino-resort.

In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:

City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)

Exaggerations, misrepresentations plague Cowlitz casino submissions

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has skewed the federal environmental review process for its proposed casino by underestimating potential revenues and overestimating the tribe’s needs—ostensibly to help ensure the selection of the site at Interstate 5’s La Center interchange.

According to a study released Thursday by ECONorthwest,[1] the misinformation stems in part from the syndicate’s failure to adjust revenue projections for changes made to the Washington state-tribal gambling compacts last spring.

The Cowlitz Tribe’s preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS), released last spring after the new compact was approved, states that the proposed casino would produce $415 million in annual revenue. However, Thursday’s ECONorthwest report, taking the new state-tribal compact into account, finds that a similar facility would have annual gaming revenues of $611 million.

Additionally, the compact changes would add significantly to the profitability of a casino at Vader, in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland.[2] The PFEIS argues that a northern site would not bring in enough revenue to fulfill the tribe’s needs.

The state-tribal compact, formalized in March 2007 after lengthy negotiations with the Spokane Tribe and extended to Washington’s other tribes, relaxes several rules—increasing the hours of casino operation, the size of some wagers and the number of video slot machines allowed, and eliminating the requirement for casinos to phase the machines in gradually. (The old compact would have limited the Cowlitz casino to 475 machines its first year, but the new compact would allow it to open with 2,500 machines.)[3] The Cowlitz Tribe has yet to finalize its compact with the state but can expect at least 3,000 video slot machines and possibly up to 4,000.[4]

The new compact also adds substantially to the amount of money that would be made by Salishan-Mohegan, the casino development and management company formed by the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut and Cowlitz Tribe member David Barnett.

Revenue understated, need overstated

While the syndicate has been understating how much revenue a Cowlitz casino would make, it has been vastly overstating how much the Cowlitz Tribe needs.

The PFEIS sets the tribe’s unmet needs at $113.6 million a year, a number that ECONorthwest writes in an April report “appears inflated especially in light of the overall affluence of Cowlitz Tribal members.” (The 2000 Census ranks the 1999 median income the highest of all tribes based in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and No. 18 among 495 tribes reporting.)[5]

The cost of the tribe’s unmet needs relies heavily on health care and social services expenses, and according to an April 17 review by ECONorthwest, the PFEIS inflates the cost to provide these services to the Cowlitz Tribe at least fourfold, compared with other groups’ measures. ECONorthwest determined the average overstatement of this unmet need to be $62.7 million.[6]

This debunks the PFEIS’s argument that income from a casino-resort at the Vader site would not fulfill the tribe’s unmet needs. According to the PFEIS, a casino in the Vader area would have an annual return of approximately $77 million. When ECONorthwest subtracted the average overstatement of unmet needs in health care from the total claimed unmet needs, it found that a casino at Vader would exceed the tribe’s unmet needs by more than $26 million.[12]

Moreover, the $77 million return cited in the PFEIS was calculated according to terms of the old gaming compact. According to ECONorthwest, with the new compact allowing Washington casinos to operate 24 hours a day and use machines similar to those at Spirit Mountain Casino in Grand Ronde, Ore., Vader’s location 20 minutes closer to Portland than Spirit Mountain would give it a competitive advantage over the Portland market.[13]

Benefit of Vader casino underestimated

The PFEIS fails to consider how a casino located farther to the north, in the tribe’s historic land base and near the majority of its current members, would benefit the tribe. ECONorthwest writes,

Vader would be a better location from which to offer tribal members good jobs and for providing government services to tribal members in greatest need—the elderly, frail, disabled, poor, and young—that have the least mobility and would benefit from the center of tribal government being nearer to their existing homes—most of which are well over an hour north of La Center.[14]

According to figures from a 2006 letter from the Cowlitz Tribe’s enrollment officer, more than twice as many Cowlitz Tribe members live within two counties of Vader as within two counties of La Center.[16]

Area impacts overlooked

ECONorthwest also takes on the PFEIS’s analysis of socioeconomic impacts and points specifically to the document’s assumption that only five new households would move to La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland, the three cities in the PFEIS primary study area—not a realistic assumption given that with 3,151 employees, the casino would be the largest employer in the county.

This led to what ECONorthwest terms “the most peculiar finding of the PFEIS”: that only two students would be added to each of the three school districts in the primary study area, La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland.[17] This conclusion does not square with trends ECONorthwest has observed at other casinos, including the Grand Ronde’s and the privately owned La Center card rooms, nor does it follow common sense.

The bottom line

ECONorthwest’s reviews find the PFEIS to be a deeply flawed document that misrepresents the actual situation to decision-makers and the public, and obscures the opportunities available at a northern site. Paired with significantly understated profits, the overstated unmet needs have been used to preclude consideration of an alternate casino site near Vader, in the tribe’s true aboriginal homeland.

Citizens Against Reservation Shopping wants the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to insist the tribe’s consultants produce a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that would provides accurate data and analyses, and consider the possibility of a casino site in the tribe’s true homeland.

[1] ECONorthwest is an economics consulting firm headquartered in Eugene, Ore., with offices in Portland, Seattle and Boulder, Colo. Its client list includes Indian tribes, casinos, government agencies, educational institutions, municipalities, private enterprises and more. These reports were funded by and submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by the card rooms located at La Center, Wash., as commentary on the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS) and submissions related to the Cowlitz fee-to-trust applications.
[2] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis of the Management Agreement with the Cowlitz Casino,” 15 November 2007.
[3] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 9.
[4] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 7.
[5] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement,” 17 April 2007, 2.
[6] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[7] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[8] Data from the American Indian Health Commission for Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[9] Data based on the spending on health care and social assistance in Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[10] Money from Oregon tribal gaming used to cover health and social services for tribal members, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[11] Funding sources include Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance and Indian Health Services, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[12] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 5.
[13] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 10.
[14] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[15] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[16] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[17] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 12.

Woodland City Council, School Board Oppose Casino

Opponents of the proposed Cowlitz casino at La Center got a “two-fer” last night in Woodland where both the city council and school board passed resolutions of opposition. That brings to three the number of municipal neighbors registering formal opposition with the federal government to the resort-casino complex.

Earlier this year both the cities of Vancouver and La Center approved similar resolutions asking the Secretary of the Interior to reject the tribe’s trust application for land in Clark County as long as plans include a casino.

The Woodland City Council approved the opposition measure by a vote of 3 to 2, while the school board’s vote was unanimous. While neither resolution is a part of the formal Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process and are regarded as position statements only, the highly politicized nature of the process could make the opposition statements increasingly important as time goes by.

In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:

City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)