State-tribal agreement paves way for new casino near Phoenix

But even a few successful casinos won't be enough to solve the many problems of the tribe, President Ivan Makil says.

A deal signed Tuesday by the state and the tribe allows the tribe a total of 700 slot machines in two casinos on its suburban reservation. Proceeds will pay for housing, jobs and health care for tribal members, as well as to build a school to help fight a disappointingly high dropout rate, Makil said.

"When you only have 700 machines, there's only so much you can make, even if you have them running 24 hours a day," Makil said in an interview after the ceremony.

The first slot machines allowed under the 10-year deal could be available within a month or two at the tribe's new Casino Arizona near Scottsdale, Makil said.

"It's been a long time coming," said Makil, whose tribe made its first request for a casino pact with the state in 1994.

Then-Gov. Fife Symington repeatedly refused to sign a casino deal with the Salt River tribe, saying its casinos would be too close to the populous Phoenix suburbs of Scottsdale, Tempe and Mesa.

Symington had signed agreements allowing slots with 16 other tribes in Arizona, although two tribes in remote areas have had to close their casinos for lack of business.

The Salt River tribe responded with a series of lawsuits against the state and backed a successful 1996 ballot measure requiring the state to give the tribe a slot machine deal. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ballot measure last year and last month threw out a lawsuit from Scottsdale gambling opponents seeking to block a Salt River casino.

Gov. Jane Hull took over after Symington was convicted of bank fraud and resigned last year. She said the law gave her no other choice but to agree to allow slots on the Salt River reservation.

"The folks in Arizona voted in 1996 to allow it. The bottom line is, the people voted and the compact should be signed," Hull said after signing the pact in a ceremony with Makil and other Salt River tribal leaders.

One of the state's most prominent gambling opponents said Mrs. Hull should have used the opportunity to go to court to challenge the legality of slot machines in Arizona tribal casinos. State House Speaker Jeff Groscost, R-Mesa, said the casino would lure students from nearby Arizona State University and could help pave the way for off-reservation casinos.

"Most of the people in this state, if they had wanted statewide gambling, would have moved to Las Vegas, not Arizona," Groscost said. "We are picking up the worst of Las Vegas without the minimum protections of Las Vegas."

The agreement includes several "side letters" meant to clarify the state's role in overseeing Salt River casinos. The Arizona Department of Gaming has repeatedly clashed with several other tribes in the state over different interpretations of federal law, state law and the casino agreements.

Under those side letters, the tribe agrees to have the state license all employees involved in gambling operations at their casinos, as well as all off-reservation vendors doing more than $4,500 per month in business with the casinos. The tribe also agreed that machines with stations for multiple players will be counted as if each play station is one machine.

Patrons with safety-related claims also could sue the tribe up to the limit of the tribe's $1 million insurance policy. As with the other state-tribal agreements, however, patrons would have to settle jackpot disputes with the tribe and the state would have no say.

The tribe also agreed to have the state license all poker dealers who are not tribal members.

But the agreement leaves unresolved the question of whether Salt River or any other tribe can legally offer poker in its casinos at all.

Arizona's tribes and the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission say that federal law allows Indian casinos to offer poker without state oversight or consent. Mrs. Hull and other state leaders say poker is illegal in tribal casinos under both state and federal law.

The issue probably will have to be decided through arbitration or a federal lawsuit, Mrs. Hull and Makil said Tuesday.

archive