Fees

In 2011, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and the Gaming Commission issued a reply to 25 CFR,
Part 514 Fees Rates. As you can see, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) finally
came around to determine one rate changes of each year commencing in November 1 of each
year at the beginning of the tribes fiscal year, which is more reasonable. We agree with this

proposal.

Fees and worksheet: We have noticed the annual payment which may be based on the previous
preliminary approved rate is in line with the quarter worksheets which is reconciled accordingly
throughout each quarter. Shoshone-Bannock Gaming applies a lump sum annual payment each

year and reconciles each quarter based on the NIGC approved rate.

The NIGC is interested in receiving comments on whether part 514 is in need of revision. In
particular, the Commission is interested in receiving comment on whether the Commission
should consider revising this part to base fees on the gaming operation’s fiscal year. Currently,
the fee is calculated based on the calendar year. The Commission understands that it may be
difficult to accurately calculate fees based on the calendar year, which may lead to frequent audit
adjustments. The Commission is asking for comments on whether this issue may be resolved by

changing “calendar to fiscal”.

The Shoshone-Bannock tribal government and Gaming Operations use a “fiscal year”. If
changed to the fiscal year, then the fee assessment periods would not need changing as in
previous years notices, pointed out in the January 22, 2010, Bulletin No. 2010-1 “Annual Fees
Payable by Indian Gaming Operations: New Rules”.

In addition, NIGC asks, “Should the Commission consider amending this part to define gross
gaming revenue consistent with GAAP definition of this term?” Yes, we agree the NIGC should
consider amending the definition of gross gaming revenue. For this reason, that the calculation of
the NIGC fee should be based Gaming Operation’s fiscal or annual reporting year and on the
numbers from a GAAP audited financial statement for the same fiscal year. The definition of

“gross gaming revenue” should also be used consistently with GAAP and the AICPA audit guide


Sincerely,

Co. (i (Swe

Marvin Osborne, Executive Director

i

Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Commission

Ce: Chairman Nathan Small and Member of the Fort Hall Business Council

Chairman Plentywounds and Members of Gaming Commission


employment at gaming and to seek the opportunity to better one’s self worth and live up to the

integrity as all casinos seek to hold.

The Gaming operations and regulatory operations welcomes more onsite training due to the
rising cost of travel, hotel lodging and high cost of expenses offered by big cities such as the east
and west coast, including Las Vegas. We encourage NIGC to offer more on-site training
opportunities and locations where it is accessible for staff and other gaming tribes that are unable

to attend travel to higher cost locations.

Management Contracts

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes and Gaming Commission do not support the management
contract language and have on prior occasions provided the following comments to the NIGC
question: “Should the definition be expanded to include any contract that pays a fee based on a
% of gaming revenue?” We would say “NO”, since the requirements have never been changed
up until now. This would be an improper and unauthorized expansion of the NIGC’s approval
powers. Further, fees paid, as a % of gaming revenue does not by itself constitute a management

contract. The NIGC should not unilaterally expand its role in this area.

NIGC has asked: “Should the calculation include reimbursement of expenses and development
and other nongaming management fees — “acceptable compensation?” Again we say, “NO”.
This proposal makes no sense because the reimbursement of expenses would not qualify as
compensation under GAAP and general business principles. The jurisdiction of the NIGC to
approve agreements does not extend to agreements that are not collateral to a management

contract. The NIGC should not arbitrarily change existing business practices.

We highly recommend a review by a “TRIBAL ADVISORY GROUP” because of the need for
many tribes to include their experience in dealing with management contracts.

Technical Standards for Mobile Gaming Devices

At this time, the Gaming operation has no plans to utilize mobile gaming devises for gaming

purposes. We, therefore, have no comments on this section.

3


for casinos making it much simpler to reconcile and document. These changes would prevent
continuous adjustments to the fees calculated because the fees would be based on a well-
documented and easily identifiable audited number. If the gross revenue definition was
consistent with the American Institute of Certified Public Accountant (AICPA) definitions for
casinos, then revenues from fingerprinting or other miscellaneous items would not be applicable

with regard to fee calculations.

In answer to NIGC considering amending this part to include fingerprint processing fees? Yes,
consider amending the FBI finger printing process. The Shoshone-Bannock Gaming
Commission processes our finger printing fees (payments) through a tribal budgeting process and

pays the FBI finger printing cost separately from the fee calculation process.

With regards to the Notice of Violation for late payments, the Shoshone-Bannock Gaming
Commission would rather have NIGC consider a late payment fee in lieu of a Notice of Violation
(NOV). NIGC needs to take into consideration the tribe’s overall economic factors including,

the adverse impact of NOV results in Credit ratings; the overall appearance of non-compliance;
the closing of a casino doors over late fees is an excessive measure and draws a negative impact
to the economy on an Indian reservation. Yes, NIGC needs to amend the regulations to allow for

a due process building its way to warnings and into negligence for failing to comply.

547 Grandfathered Class II Gaming Systems

On May 25, 2017, the Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Commission replied to 25 CFR Part 547 the
Grandfathered Class II Gaming System. The National Indian Gaming Commission seeks
comments to the following questions: (1) any information related to the steps tribes have taken to
comply with the grandfathering provision and any difficulties in implementing those provisions;
(2) what risks, if any, the grandfathered games may pose to a gaming operation or the gaming
public; (3) how those risks may be mitigated by means other than Part 547; and (4) what impacts,

if any will the November 10, 2018 deadline have on your operation?

Whereas the Grandfathered gaming systems of any Class II gaming system manufactured before

November 10, 2008, that is not already certified pursuant to this sub-section or compliant with


SOA Visaticn Otani cas COLANACAS RMA am eK aNeaL SS
FORT HALL INDIAN RESERVATION cS GAMING COMMISSION

PHONE: (208) 237-8778 Ext. 3024
FAX: (208) 637-6623
FAX: (208) 637-6622

P.O. BOX 306
FORT HALL, IDAHO 83203

A.
<TD

SESS

June 30, 2017

Jonodev Oscelola Chaudhurt, Chairman
National Indian Gaming Commission
1441 L Street NW, Suite 9100
Washington, DC 20005

Subject: NIGC Consultation Comments

Dear Mr. Chaudhurt:

The Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Commission of Fort Hall, ID submits comments
regarding the NIGC proposed changes to the Proposed Guidance; Developing a
Strong Tribal Workforce; Management Contract Regulations and procedures; Fee
Rates; Technical Devices for Mobile Devices; and, 547 Grandfathered Class II
Gaming Systems.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office at (208) 237-8774,
ext. 3025.

Sincerely,

Clinton Plenty wotinds, Chairman
Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Commission
File

Attachment

Cc: FHBC



paragraph (c) of this section may be made available for use at any tribal gaming operation

providing compliance are approved.

However, Shoshone-Bannock Gaming cannot submit for an operation system because it does not
have Class II Gaming Devices. Bingo systems are govern by a contract vendor providing their
own server system and equipment. Tracking of financial records are thru the internal financial
system for accountability. The Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Commission is not in a position to
submit the Class II Gaming system software that affects the play of the Class II Games, together
with the signature verification required by §547.8(f) to a testing laboratory recognized pursuant
to paragraph (f) of this section within 120 days after October 22, 2012. The Shoshone-Bannock
Gaming does not have Class II Gaming Devices at any of the three casinos on the Fort Hall

Reservation, Idaho.

No testing laboratory tests have been conducted by Shoshone-Bannock Gaming and no risk are
involved for the submission to the standards established by §547.8(b), §547.8(f), §547.14, and
any additional technical standards adopted by the Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Commission other
than the Tribal Internal Control System and internal regulatory requirements of the Shoshone-

Bannock Gaming Commission are in place at this time.

The Shoshone-Bannock Gaming Commission does not conduct any Class II Gaming system
devices and equipment on the Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho. If we have over looked any criteria
that may change our view to Class II Gaming in the near future, the Shoshone-Bannock Gaming
would certainly not want to close its doors to Class II Gaming Devices, we would allow the
opportunity to explore the opportunity if the economic condition are certain to conduct Class II
Gaming on the Fort Hall Reservation. As of now, there is no attraction to Class II Gaming here at

the Shoshone-Bannock Gaming.

In conclusion, thank your for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed revisions to

regulations.


June 30, 2017

Chairman: Jonodev Oscelola Chaudhurt
National Indian Gaming Commission

Dear Chairman and Commissioners:

On behalf of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, Idaho, we write to submit comments on
the recent National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) consultation request. The Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes is comprised over a Tribal membership of approximately 5,100, and has a land
base of 550,000 acres with three casinos located within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Hall
Reservation. We hold 98% of our land in trust with jurisdiction extending into four state counties
within our reservation. We operate Class III gaming machines and bingo at our gaming facilities,

which employ about 250 employees.

Class IT MICS

The draft Class III Minimum Internal Controls are very similar to some of the Tribal Internal
Controls that are established by the Tribal Gaming Commission. It is our position that the Tribal
Internal Controls should control and regulate such gaming as we are in the best position to
regulate the particular gaming at our casinos. The proposed MICs should be limited to instances
to fill the gap where a tribe does not have established TICs. We respectfully reserve the right to
provide further comments on the draft Class III MICS.

Rural Outreach

The Fort Hall casino operations have no local gaming competitors, except for Nevada casinos
located over 200 miles away. Despite this fact, the gaming market is very limited because of the
general public’s anti-gaming values. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes has always been in uphill
battle to be in a competitive market place which seems to be less favorable to Indian Gaming
marketing conditions. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have two gaming operations that generate
less than $25 million per year in gross gaming revenue and one main casino generating above the

$25 million.


Rural areas have its own concerns. In our region Indian Gaming is sometimes blamed for unfair
advantages by certain non-Indian political segments whom have state wide political ties
challenging tribal gaming for its own advantage. Tribal Governments and Tribal Gaming have to
monitor, educate and persuade state legislators to not to seek legislation that tries to undo Indian
gaming compacts. As it was pointed out in the Portland Consultation process, tribes would
greatly support NIGC’s help to provide an understanding with Non-Indian Legislators to become
more aware of Indian gaming and massive gaming regulatory requirements our Tribes must

comply with and provide on our Fort Hall Reservation.

Many times we read or have been made aware of litigation that have impacts to tribes by law that
can undermine the governance of gaming far from the location where the legal action has taken
place. Case in point, employees unionized in Indian Casinos in many California tribal casinos
causing a wide spread precedence impacting our Tribes. We propose that NIGC should support
tribes in such instances rather than simply permitting another federal agency such as the National

Labor Relations Board to take adverse action.

The NIGC’s proposal to add another regulatory agency in the northern states closer to better

serve rural communities is a plus. We support such action.

Developing a Strong Tribal Workforce

During one of many Tribal Annual Meetings of the General Membership of the Shoshone-
Bannock Tribes, the general membership passed a resolution requiring that all positions shall
employ “qualified” tribal members to work at the casinos on the Fort Hall Reservation. If there is
no “qualified” tribal member for any position, then gaming will seek out a “qualified” person to
fill that particular position.

Training is an integral part of the employment process and most importantly, continuing
education for its tribal member employees is an added plus. While employees are employed at
the Casino, they have the opportunity to apply for educational benefits during permitted

scheduled times. It strengthens the workforce and sets examples for other tribal members to gain