July 5, 2006 - Top Stories
The Pauma tribe has suddenly become a BIG player in Indian gaming.
The Mashantucket Pequots, a Connecticut tribe that owns Foxwoods, the largest casino in the world, will be partnering with the Pauma Tribe to build something not quite so big, but plenty big enough.
Wednesday the Pequots announced that they will build a $300 million casino resort that will have at least 2,000 slot machines. This will replace the existing casino on Pauma Reservation. It is planned to open in the spring of 2009. Construction will begin after completion of talks with the County. Construction is expected to take about two years.
Note: The announcement was made by the Pequots not Pauma, and a phone call to the Pauma tribal administration office on Thursday was unable to obtain a confirmation as to whether it was accurate.
The Pequots’ Foxwoods Development Company will oversee the project that includes a proposed 500-room hotel, 2,000 slot machines and 50 gaming tables. The resort will include an entertainment venue, retail stores, and a variety of restaurants, from fast-food eateries to fine dining establishments.
In 2004 the Pauma tribe was one of five that renegotiated its charter with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. That new charter gave the tribe the ability operate without a limit on the number of slot machines. This was in exchange for a larger percentage of the profits going to the state, and for abiding by the state’s environmental laws. Casinos that were part of the original state gaming compact were only required to abide by federal environmental regulations. The five tribes also agreed to binding arbitration with local governments and to allow civil suits by injured casino patrons. The Rincon Band of Mission Indians unsuccessful sued in federal court to prevent these agreements from going forward. Harrah’s Rincon, which is governed by the original compact, is limited to 2,000 slots, although it actually operates about 1,600.
However, up until this point, Pauma hasn’t been able to find the right partner. Last year the tribe announced that it was partnering with the Hard Rock Cafe, which was also going to build a $300 million resort and casino. The year before that Pauma was supposed to have partnered with the company that operated Caesar’s Palace. But then Harrah’s which owns Harrah’s Rincon Casino, bought Caesar’s, and that deal fell through.
Casino Pauma, which operates just off Hwy 76, has always been the poor relation to the other area casinos that opened shortly after the voters of California voted to approve Las Vegas style gaming for Indian casinos in 2000.
That’s very likely to change. Although a popular favorite with many local residents, Casino Pauma is considerably smaller than its neighbors. Especially Harrah’s Rincon Casino & Resort, just four miles away, and Pala Casino and Resort and Spa, a dozen miles away with a 500-room hotel.
The Mashantucket Pequots are the owners of Foxwoods Resort Casino, which opened in 1992.
In a statement issued Wednesday by the tribe, Michael Thomas, chairman of the Mashantucket Pequots commented, “We are fortunate to have the financial resources and gaming expertise to help other tribal communities to achieve economic self sufficiency. This agreement is about Native solidarity. Its also about Native peoples reaching out to build solid tribal economies.” In the same statement Pauma Chairman Chris Devers commented, “Our reasons for partnering with the Pequots on this project involves more than the fact that they bring with them a spectacularly successful track record with their own gaming enterprise in Connecticut. The Pequots respect Native sovereignty and have a long history of struggle and perseverance, and we can relate to that.”
“Pre-development work will begin immediately, and that will include negotiation of an agreement with the County of San Diego to address off-site impacts, including the question of traffic,” said Gary Armentrout, the chief development officer of Foxwoods Development Company.
Pedro Johnson, chairman of the Foxwoods Development Company Board of Directors commented, “As a tribal elder I know the importance of bringing two tribes together on important projects such as this. We always welcome the opportunity to partner with another tribe, and we look forward to sharing the expertise we have gained by operating Foxwoods.”
According to the announcement, the existing casino will remain open during construction, and close when the new project is completed. The Pauma Reservation consists of four parcels of about 5,800 acres total. It opened Casino Pauma in 2001.
The impact of casinos on local law enforcement is as if the populations of Valley Center and the surrounding communities were twice as big as they are, according to a report issued this week by Sheriff’s Lt. Sean Gerrity. Because the State has not reimbursed the County for the impact of gaming, its gaming compacts have created an “unfunded mandate,” according to Gerrity.
The report by the commander of the Sheriff’s substation serving Valley Center, Pauma and five area casinos concludes that staffing levels should be geared towards a larger population because the transient population of employees and visitors creates the effect of a population of more than 44,000, even though Valley Center’s population is actually only about 22,000. In other words, when the impact of gaming is factored in, local deputies are serving a community whose “adjusted population” is twice the size of the community it is staffed to serve.
The 12-page report is entitled “Impact of Tribal Gaming in the Valley Center/Pauma Sheriff’s Substation (VCS) Command Area.”
It looked at the effect on crime in the area since 1999, when tribal governments from five reservations in the area signed gaming compacts with the state. The money that many local jurisdictions expected to get from the compacts has failed to materialize up and down the state. No community more so than Valley Center, which has been estimated to be the community most affected by Indian gaming in California, and possibly the United States.
According to Gerrity: “Because the VCS command area is uniquely impacted with four (soon to be five) gaming operations of varying but significant (and growing) size, the impact is unusually significant—especially compared to other larger stations or sub-stations with only one or two gaming operations.”
In his report Gerrity writes: “The rather generic 1999 gaming compacts had provisions for special funding, meant to offset financial impacts on local governments. A certain percentage of profit from gaming devices, existing at the time the compacts were signed [Gerrity’s italics], was to be paid to the State of California periodically for a special fund (essentially intended to offset impacts on local governments), and then distributed locally with tribal and local governmental input. However, none of the tribes in the VCS command area had active gaming operations or devices at the time their compacts were approved, so no percentage of gaming machine profit for this special fund is required from these tribes. In other words, the State of California, in negotiating these agreements, failed to provide for funding for impacts on local law enforcement needs (and other local government needs) in the VCS command area, though significant revenue provisions funding the State of California were certainly agreed to then, and also in a later 2004 compact amendment for some tribes.”
He adds, “Absent the State’s voluntary diversion to the County of some of their agreement revenues (or even the direct or indirect state income and sales tax revenue increases realized from these operations), the County of San Diego has effectively been left with an unfunded mandate to provide the additionally needed law enforcement services resulting from these gaming operations.”
Between 1999-2005, the number of deputies assigned to the VCS has remained the same, as has the funding. However, since 1999 two tribes have voluntarily contracted and paid for “tribal deputies.” There are now two such deputies in Pala and three in Rincon. The contracted deputies are not normally responsible for crime, arrests or emergencies off the reservations, although the provide support for the substation’s “baseline” deputies.
“They have also had some impact relieving some of the workload that would otherwise be the responsibility of the station’s baseline patrol and investigative staff on these reservations (excluding casino activity). Though tribal deputies have mitigated some of the gaming impact on the overall station’s baseline staffing workload, the remaining impact on the baseline staffing workload is still somewhat significant,” wrote Gerrity.
The San Pasqual and La Jolla tribal governments have signed contracts with the Sheriff’s Dept. to provide additional deputies for special events and security needs, and pay for the extra cost. The Rincon tribe provided $100,000 recently to the Sheriff’s Dept. to help pay for additional staffing that was needed in February when two people were slain on the reservation.
Gerrity’s report concludes, “When analyzing the gaming impact on the entire community within the VCS command area, it is clear that all typical measures of law enforcement-related activity indicate a very significant impact. It is evident from these measures that the impact requires a fairly significant increase in law enforcement and support personnel at VCS (in addition to the contracted tribal deputies), thus resulting in the gaming-related ‘de facto’ unfunded law enforcement mandate arising from the State of California and its gaming compact agreements.”
Authorities quickly arrested a suspect last week in connection with a fire that burned Thursday and Friday near Old Castle Road.
Garrett Gifford, 30, a resident of Pauma Valley, was arrested on Friday, while the Castle Fire was still burning.According to a statement released by CDF, “Gifford, who resides in Pauma Valley, was witnessed in the area of the origin of the fire when it started. . . Gifford surrendered to authorities at the Valley Center Sheriff substation Friday June 30 at 3:15 p.m.”
Gifford was booked into the Vista Jail early Friday evening and charged with 451(c) of the Penal Code—arson of structure and/or burning of forest lands, in relation to the Castle Fire.
The fire began Thursday around 3:30 p.m. a mile east of I-15 near Old Castle and burned 100 acres before it was contained. It burned uphill, and some structures were in its path, however firefighters were able to keep it from threatening any residences.
CDF quickly dispatched 20 engines, four fire crews, four airtankers, four helicopters and two bulldozers. Crews were brought in from Riverside to help cover the blaze. By the time the fire was 100% contained, by Friday morning, 75 firefighters and equipment were on the scene.
A question remains as to whether the suspect arrested Friday is the “second arsonist” that CDF investigators have been looking for since last fall when an arrest was made of a 22-year old VC man, Shane McClung, who was sentenced recently for setting several fires over a five day period in VC, Rincon and Pauma. At the time of those fires investigators said that it was impossible that all of the fires could have been set by the same person.
The VC fire board Thursday night very deliberately opened the mouth of the County’s grant to pay for an extra firefighter for each engine and gave its teeth a close examination. In common parlance, that’s called “looking a gift horse in the mouth.”
The County Board of Supervisors voted for the extra funding at Tuesday’s board meeting. It didn’t set an actual amount at the time. It approved providing for an extra CDF (California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection) firefighter for each engine at the VC and Deer Springs fire districts, with the actual amount to be agreed upon later.
Fire Chief Kevin O’Leary, who was absent Thursday night, has spent several years lobbying the County to get this money. Nevertheless, directors worry that the grant, which could be as much as $650,000 a year, might create more problems for the district than it would solve. One felt it would be better just to get an outright grant, say, to buy a new fire engine. A three year funding source that might not be renewed creates expectations on the part of the public, he said.
Two concerns of directors:
• That the County will pay for the extra firefighter for just a few years, and then yank the funding, leaving the district hanging.
• Residents will feel that because the County has provided some funding, there won’t be a need for an election next year to raise benefit fees.Director Weaver Simonsen commented that since the money will come from the County’s general fund “that means there’s no guarantee that money will be there. They can walk away from those contracts, just like they did in 1979-80.” He added, “The problem is that we have is that we raise expectations, and create a service level and then say we can’t do that anymore.” The district is going forward to find a “permanent funding solution,” he said.
San Diego CDF Unit Chief Chuck Maner, who heads all CDF units in San Diego County, stood in for Chief O’Leary at Thursday night’s meeting. He conceded that if at the end of three years the County doesn’t reauthorize the funding that could create a problem. CDF contracts are normally for two years, he noted.
Maner said he had the same misgivings about the other districts CDF has contracts with, and who have been promised the same grant by the County. “I’m not convinced that it’s a hundred percent funded after the three years,” he said. “I’d feel better if they gave us $200,000 one time to buy a fire engine,” said Simonsen. “To me that makes more sense than to fund a position.” “On the other hand, we’ve always felt that more was better than less,” commented Board Pres. Mel Schuler.
Director Dan Thornton was concerned for another reason. “We’ve talked about the need for a full time chief. The comment was made that even adding one firefighter would bring us to the point where we could have a full-time chief. We are stretched now. If we add another staff member it’s asking for a management nightmare or crisis.”
Maner said his ultimate goal is for Deer Springs and Valley Center to share a single chief. “Our concern is that they are not asking us and it’s our fire district,” said Schuler.
Thornton added, “Throwing money at a problem is not always the solution. Throwing money wisely is the way to do things. This money may come with additional problems that haven't cropped up yet.”
Maner countered that the additional firefighter per engine would probably not create additional headaches for the chief. “You haven’t changed the work load per se.” The potential problem he saw that the money will be given in a three year grant, whereas CDF contracts are for two years. “If the costs go up on the CDF contracts, will the County roll that over?” he wondered.
O’Leary, who was not at Thursday’s meeting, told The Roadrunner Monday that he thinks the board’s concerns can be addressed once the County approves an actual amount on July 10. “The County is going to come talk to the board and after July 10 they will finalize with CDF how much money there is going to be,” said the chief.
“Our primary goal for the safety of the firefighters has been to add a second paid firefighter to each engine. This will meet that need. And even if I have it for six months I see it as being ahead of the game,” said O’Leary.
The district’s reserve program continues to be a problem, he said. “We have recruitment every three months. If this funding comes through my goal is not to lay off any of the the reserves. Currently we have four reserves per day and we would reduce that to two per day. But with our turnover there won’t be any layoffs of reserve firefighters.”
He said, “With the goals we’ve established we can’t turn our back on funding that the citizens of Valley Center are paying in taxes that are originally supposed to be for fire protection.”
He added that the fire district will still need to get an additional funding source, even with the extra paid firefighters. “What this will do is probably make it possible for the board to go to the voters for a smaller amount,” he said.
The 300-unit Orchard Run project, which the planning group tried to stop or delay in March, is apparently going to be delayed after all.
“Rumors are circulating that D.R. Horton has pulled the plug on the Orchard Run development,” planning group Chairman Keith Simpson told The Roadrunner last week. “But we haven't got any official confirmation about that. Our subcommittee will provide a report on this issue at our July 10 meeting.”
Simpson added, “The planning group is not anti-development. We are anti-bad development. If this can help the planning group to improve this development then this is a positive development.”
The County recently sent a letter to the owner of the property, John Belanich, informing him that the tentative map for the property had been extended three years until June 17, 2009.
Sources close to the develop say that developer DR Horton “may or may not continue on with the project due to the remaining uncertainties with the County of San Diego on the full map. This would include site plan approvals and the affordable housing agreement.
This could mean that the Valley Center Municipal Water District’s agreement with D.R. Horton might have to be renegotiated by whomever replaces that developer. However, it’s not entirely certain that D.R. Horton will be withdrawing.
According to Water District Gen. Mgr. Gary Arant “DR Horton worked very hard and spent a lot of money with us and the County to get the map to the point of securing it for another three years, so it is hard for me to imagine them just walking away. However, as I understand the situation, they, or someone, will have to negotiate a new deal with John Belanich, who I still don’t think has the resources to do the project.”
According to Arant, “Essentially everything is on hold while all the parties figure out their next move. The focus was to get the map extended, which has been completed. “From the Water District’s perspective, the agreements state what needs to be done to proceed and provide provisions should the parties change for assignment of those agreements. If changes to the agreements are requested beyond what is provided for in the agreement, then whatever party is involved would have to start over and renegotiate with the district.”
* * *
In other business, the planning group at its July 10 meeting will also hear the latest about the Lilac Ranch development, which has been inactive for a little while.
The Valley Roadrunner
P.O.B. 1529, Valley Center, CA 92082
Tel. 760.749.1112 Fax 760.749.1688
Website: www.valleycenter.com
Email: editor@valleycenter.com
Copyright © 2006, Palomar Community Newspapers, dba Valley Roadrunner. All rights reserved. This content may not be archived, retransmitted, saved in a database, or used for any commercial purpose without the express written permission of the Valley Roadrunner.