Davis Asks for a Bigger Cut From Casinos

Seeking to increase California’s share of fast-growing Indian casino revenues, Gov. Gray Davis formally asked 61 Native American tribes Monday to renegotiate their gambling agreements with the state.

The request follows the governor’s February notice to tribes that he wanted to rewrite their 20-year gambling agreements to address the off-reservation environmental effects of Indian casinos.

In his latest notice, issued on the March 31 deadline, Davis said the growth of Indian casinos had created “impacts on the state of California, its counties and the citizens” that exceeded tribal payments to address these issues. “Accordingly, further revenue sharing with the state is a matter which should be discussed and negotiated in good faith,” he wrote.

The California Nations Indian Gaming Assn., which represents the state’s casino-operating Indian tribes, declined to comment on Davis’ notice.

The governor said earlier this year that he would be willing to raise the existing cap on slot machines -- 2,000 per tribe -- in exchange for a larger cut of casino revenue, which the state estimates is $5 billion a year.

“The tribes have said they would like more slot machines and the state would like more revenue sharing,” said Amber Pasricha, the governor’s spokeswoman for Indian gambling. “Now we have to sit down at the table and see how we get to those two things and how we can compromise.”

Sixty-one of California’s 107 federally recognized Indian tribes have gambling agreements. An additional 37 are seeking agreements, Pasricha said.

The governor’s negotiators -- former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, retired San Diego County Superior Court Judge Anthony Joseph and San Francisco attorney Frederick Wyle -- have already met once with more than 20 tribes that have agreed to discuss possible changes to their agreements. But the leaders of some of the most financially successful tribes, such as the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, say they are content to continue with their existing agreements, which run until 2020.

California’s larger gambling tribes share 7% to 13% of their casino revenues with the state. Davis has cited Connecticut -- which collects 30%, or $80 million a year in casino revenue from its tribes -- and New York -- which receives 18% to 25% of casino revenue -- as models for California. Some Indian leaders say those aren’t valid comparisons, primarily because the greater number of casinos in California means much stiffer competition.

Larger California tribes contribute a portion of their casino revenues to two funds: a trust for non-gambling and smaller gambling tribes and a fund to address the social and environmental effects of casino gambling.

Under the existing agreement, tribes are required to consult the state and local governments to minimize the off-reservation environmental effects of casinos -- increases in traffic and pollution, for example -- and “make good-faith efforts to mitigate” any casino-related problems. Indian leaders say most tribes have done this.

Davis and local government officials, however, say the so-called compact language needs to be clarified.