There has been much debate at the Capitol and throughout Minnesota about the possibility of “expanding” gaming or finding a way to generate new revenue for the state through the existing casinos operating in Minnesota. As everyone knows from the past few budget cycles, financial times are tough, and new revenue streams are hard to tap. Generating income for the state from gaming is an idea whose time has come. The problems lie with the original gaming compacts signed between the state and Indian tribes. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Minnesota signed into gaming compacts allowing for the tribal operation of Class III games, such as black jack and video poker. These compacts were set up to have no end date and limited the types of games offered to video poker and black jack, forfeiting the right to other high stakes games such as poker and roulette. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) prohibits Minnesota from collecting taxes or imposing fees on Indian gambling that the operating tribe does not agree to. To date, the only fees agreed to are those that cover the cost of state-run inspections and other regulatory costs. This means that of the $139 million Minnesota collects each year from gaming, only $150,000 comes from tribal casinos. Currently, tribal gaming operations employ over 13,000 people with a payroll of nearly $250 million. These jobs generated $10.2 million in state taxes for Fiscal Year 2000 and gaming as a whole brought $191 million into the Minnesota economy from out-of-state visitors. These gaming facilities are an important source of employment for tribal members as well as non-tribal Minnesotans. In 2003, the House of Representatives passed a bill to add 2,000 slot machines to privately-owned Canterbury Park Racetrack and Card Club. This “racino” was expected to generate over $100 million in tax revenue in its first biennium of operation for the state. The proposal stalled in the Senate. Caesar’s Entertainment, Inc., has also expressed interest in creating a casino-style resort near the Mall of America in Bloomington. Under the proposed legislation, money generated from the resort would generate millions of dollars in taxes and fees for college scholarships. An opponent of gaming expansion, Governor Tim Pawlenty in his State of the State Address proposed a re-examination of the state’s gaming compacts with tribal groups. While the governor is vague on specifics, restructuring the gaming compacts could be difficult because both the state and the tribes must agree to re-open compact discussions for progress to take place. Casino gaming in Minnesota is contentious and evolving debate. I am an ardent supporter of finding a way for the state to share in these revenues – whether it is through newly negotiated compacts that give the state a share of the revenue, or the state opening some new gaming facilities that generate revenue for state projects. All sides of the issue are trying to find a solution that is satisfactory to the needs of Minnesota and equitable to gaming tribes already in operation.
