A representative of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma commented on the plans for establishment of a casino venue in Arkansas and said that for the time being, the process has been brought to a standstill and most probably the state authorities will have to give the nod to the eventual casino construction.
Currently, tribal leaders are willing to acquire 160 acres of land into federal trust. It is located in Pulaski County but in order to obtain it the tribe has to get the approval of Sally Jewell, the US Secretary of the Interior.
In case the tribe receives officials’ nod and acquires the land into trust, it will not be supposed to pay any local taxes. Plus, it will not be obliged to comply with the existing state laws.
The tribal representative also commented on the agreement inked between Oklahoma officials and Quapaw leaders. According to the clauses it contains, the tribe is allowed to manage casinos within the state but instead of the regular taxes, it pays certain compact fees and the amount generated is transferred to the state Education Department.
As for the casino establishment on the territory of Arkansas, the tribal representative said that most probably the process will be the same but there was a major setback. Arkansas authorities need to review the law related to the areas where gambling activities can take place.
In case they agree on signing a compact with the Quapaw Tribe, the following issues need to be figured out. Quapaw officials should be informed about the games they are allowed to provide, how many hours the casino venue can stay open and how the fees will be utilized.
Although the tribal leaders neither confirmed nor denied their intention of establishing a casino in Arkansas, this does not mean that they have abandoned their plans. In point of fact, namely the lack of official information made room for speculations that they gave up on the casino project.
A few weeks ago, the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Nashville submitted a letter to Barry Hyde, the Judge of Pulaski County and asked him to shed light on the financial aspects or to be more precise, they wanted to receive more information about the consequences from “removing the property from the tax rolls”.
Although the Judge was given a 30-day period to answer these questions, no response has been received so far but he said that he wanted to discuss the matter with other county officials before sending an answer.
