Lawmakers finalizing plan for land-based casinos

The conference committee for House Bill 1540 focused primarily on issues involving live dealers at the two central Indiana horse track casinos, tax relief for the French Lick casino and cannibalism concerns among Ohio River casinos in its only public meeting prior to the private negotiations that next week will produce a compromise proposal.

That measure must then be re-approved by the House and Senate to go to the governor for his signature or veto.

The panel, led by state Rep. Tom Dermody, R-LaPorte, seemed unanimous in supporting a provision, previously endorsed by both chambers, permitting Indiana's permanently docked riverboat casinos to relocate onto adjacent land.

Peter Liguori, CEO of Gary's Majestic Star casinos, reminded lawmakers that once land-based gaming is approved, his company plans to construct a new casino and event space near its existing hotel.

Liguori said the $95 million to $135 million, 36-month project is expected to support up 1,500 Gary construction jobs, open Buffington Harbor for future development and position Majestic Star to better compete against expected new Illinois and tribal casinos.

"We believe this is vital for our organization," he said.

The threat — and opportunity — associated with a proposed South Bend casino, to be operated by the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians lurked in the background of committee discussions. The new Pokagon casino is set to be the largest casino in the state if approved by the federal government.

The legislation requires the mandatory tribal-state compact that must be negotiated by the governor before the tribal casino can open also be reviewed and approved by the General Assembly.

That process is off to a rocky start after the National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Gaming Association recently sent letters to Dermody and state Rep. Jim Arnold, D-LaPorte, objecting to their warnings that Indiana needs to prepare for tribal casino competition.

The Indian groups suggested the lawmakers' remarks were derogatory. Dermody and Arnold both insisted that was not the case.

They said their comments merely served to alert others in the Legislature that tribal casinos cannot be compelled to pay the same wagering tax rates as state-licensed casinos, and likely will gain a competitive advantage if the state does not negotiate a satisfactory tribal rate.

"I think it's important that everybody pay the same fair, competitive tax rate," Dermody said. "I'm looking to forward to hearing that they're willing to do that as well in Indiana."