Opinion ID: 852257
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: What Was the Nature of the LDA?

Text: In our earlier cases, we considered the regulatory scheme as it stood before Section 302 was added. In Zoeller v. East Chicago Second Century, Inc ., we concluded that the funding arrangements memorialized in the local development agreements and incorporated into the riverboat license have always been subject to alteration, through the administrative processes of the Gaming Commission. Speaking specifically to the local economic development agreements, we said: [T]he agreement is not like an ordinary commercial contract at all. This agreement was a mode of implementing the casino's obligation to contribute to local economic development. Its terms were intended to control the rights and duties of East Chicago and the casino licensee in relation to each other; they were not intended to control the rights of any non-parties. Zoeller, 904 N.E.2d at 221. We also observed that gaming revenue flows, ultimately, as a result of decisions made by the Indiana Gaming Commission in the course of issuing, transferring, or revoking a license: The Commission's role in these events is a central one. Indiana's Riverboat Gambling Act provides: A license to operate an excursion gaming boat: (1) is a revocable privilege granted by the state ... ... The Code also provides that any sale or transfer of a license is subject to the approval by the Gaming Commission, requires that a proposed acquirer must meet the same criteria applicable to any initial applicant, and directs the Commission to adopt rules reflecting the standards applicable to transfers. East Chicago, 908 N.E.2d at 623. Moreover, we concluded: While the Foundations and Second Century are correct that the agreements imbedded in the license do not appear terminable at will, the City is correct that they are subject to periodic alteration (through the administrative processes of the Gaming Commission). As the city's motion for summary judgment sought a court order to turn over to the City all funds that Second Century and the Foundations had received and would receive from the riverboat operations, the trial court was warranted in denying the motion. Id. at 624. Lastly, this Court declared, the City alone could not redirect gaming revenue presently flowing to the private entities by means of the ordinance it adopted in 2005, or by other means, for that matter. Id. at 623.