economic development

RAND Report on Sole-Source 8(a) Native American Contracts

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

The description:

Some participants in the federal 8(a) Business Development Program, including Alaska Native Corporations, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian Organizations, face no limit on the value of sole-source contracts they can receive. Concerns over the rising number of these contracts led to requirements for justification and approval of contracts above $20 million. This raised other concerns regarding the effects of the new requirements on Native American-owned firms and contracting personnel. The new federal requirement may delay the award of these contracts but have little impact on the number of such contracts awarded.

Kake Cannery on List of 11 Most Endangered Historic Places

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

KakeCannery_619x350

H/t Property Profs Blog.

ND Tribe Plans to Launch Riverboat Gambling Yacht

Victoria Sweet

The Three Affiliated Tribes plans to dedicate a yacht next month that eventually will be used for a riverboat gambling operation on the Missouri River in North Dakota.

The tribe earlier this year reached an agreement with the state to allow for the expansion of gambling on the Fort Berthold Reservation, which straddles the Lake Sakakawea reservoir on the Missouri. A yacht currently is being assembled at the tribally owned 4 Bears Casino and Lodge west of New Town, the Minot Daily News reported.

Here.

N.Y. Appellate Division Concludes Tribal Enterprise Formed under Tribal Law Not Immune From Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Sue/Perior Concrete and Paving Co. v. Lewiston Golf Course Corp.:

Sue Perior v Lewiston Golf

An excerpt:

Other factors, however, including what the Court of Appeals has characterized as the “[m]ore important[]” financial factors, weigh in favor of a determination that LGCC does not share in the Nation’s sovereign immunity (id.). With respect to whether LGCC’s “purposes are similar to or serve those of the tribal government” (id.), we conclude that this factor supports the denial of sovereign immunity to LGCC. In minutes from its August 2002 meeting approving the creation of SGC, the Council declared that “it is . . . the policy of the Nation to promote the welfare and prosperity of its members and to actively promote, attract, encourage and develop economically sound commerce and industry through governmental action for the purpose of preventing unemployment and economic stagnation,” and that “the Gaming industry is vitally important to the economy of the Nation and the general welfare of its members.” To that end, the Council created SNFGC for the purpose of “developing, financing, operating and conducting the Nation’s gaming operations on its Niagara Falls Territory at the Niagara Falls Gaming Facility.” In creating the LGCC, the Council declared that, “in furtherance of the economic success of the Nation’s gaming operations, [SNFGC] has commenced development of a . . . golf course located in the Town of Lewiston, New York[, which] will be developed and operated as an amenity to . . . SNFGC’s casino operations, . . . the purpose of which amenities is to enhance the overall success and profitability of the casino’s operations” (emphasis added). In that manner, the Council believed that the golf course project “may reasonably be expected to benefit, directly or indirectly, the Nation” (emphasis added). Thus, the Council’s own statements reflect that the purpose of LGCC – to develop a golf course as an “amenity” to the Nation’s gaming operations – is several steps removed from the purposes of tribal government, e.g., “promoting tribal welfare, alleviating unemployment, [and] providing money for tribal programs” (Gristede’s Foods, Inc., 660 F Supp 2d at 477; cf. Ransom, 86 NY2d at 560).

These common law tests to decide whether a tribal enterprise is under the cloak of tribal immunity are baffling, generating far too many unpredictable results like this one. It’s fairly clear to me that the wide majority of courts would conclude a tribally-owned enterprise chartered under tribal law is immune without looking toward subjective factors such as what the purpose of the corporation is — tribes just aren’t for-profit entities. They’re governments.

Buy Indian Act, Final Rule

Victoria Sweet

The Department of the Interior is finalizing regulations guiding implementation of the Buy Indian Act, which provides Indian Affairs (IA) with authority to set aside procurement contracts for Indian-owned and controlled businesses. This rule supplements the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Department of the Interior Acquisition Regulation (DIAR).

Federal Register here.

Press Coverage here.

Shakopee Mdewakanton Gives $10 Million to 18 Tribes

Victoria Sweet

The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community announced Tuesday that it would be donating more than $10 million to 18 American Indian tribes across 18 states.

The Shakopee Mdewakanton have donated more than $270 million since 1992 and made more than $500 million in loans to other tribes for economic development projects.

Here.

D.C. Circuit Decides “Old Section 81” Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Quantum Entertainment Limited v. Department of the Interior:

Quantum Entertainment v Dept of Interior

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials are here.

Guest Post: Indian Country Completely Shut Out of New Markets

ilpc6 Comments

INDIAN COUNTRY COMPLETELY SHUT OUT OF NEW MARKETS TAX CREDITS

Gavin Clarkson

Not a single Native Community Development Enterprise (NCDE) was selected for an award in the most recent round of New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) allocations (just announced by the CDFI Fund of the US Department of the Treasury) despite at least one Native-sponsored applicant and one non-Native applicant totally dedicated to Indian Country deployment. These two CDEs’ allocation requests were peer reviewed and ranked ‘highly qualified’ to be eligible for an allocation.

The NMTC program, which annually allocates about $3 Billion in Federal Tax credits that are sold to private investors for investing in low income communities’ economic development projects, has allocated over a $100 Billion in tax credit authority since the program’s inception in 2003. Indian Country NCDEs have only just started to receive a small portion of the annual allocations, in recent years. In total, Native CDEs have received about $250 Million in tax credit authority, or about 0.25% of total investment authority. While small in proportion to total NMTC allocation, this amount has made the NMTC program a significant source of Indian Country investment capital in only a few short years. Until this year, that is.

The failure to allocate ANY NMTC to Native CDEs in the most recent competition puts hundreds of millions of dollars of Indian Country pipeline projects at risk and highlights the need for the Federal Government to more directly address Indian Country’s rapidly expanding capacity to utilize NMTC. There is precedence at the CDFI Fund to solve this problem: Carve Out a portion of each NMTC allocation for competitive allocation just among Native CDEs similar to the already existing carve out that exists in the Native American CDFI Assistance (NACA) program, which reserves other elements of the CDFI Fund’s programs just for Indian Country. Without such a carve out, Indian Country will continue, in any given year, to be at risk of being crowded out of the intense competition for NMTC by other low income communities, whose larger populations support the formation of more CDEs that can enter, and potentially, win in the annual NMTC competition.

Continue reading →

Medical Freedom Zones on Tribal Lands?

Ann Tweedy1 Comment

I happened across this libertarian-oriented article advocating (among other things) that tribes allow less-regulated medicine within their borders. I don’t tend to agree–personally I think the medical profession should be regulated, but I wanted to pass this along anyway.
SSRN-id1726074[1]

Ninth Circuit Rules against Grand Canyon Skywalk Challenge to Hualapai Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here.

From the court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s judgment in an action concerning a dispute over a revenue-sharing contract between a Nevada corporation and a tribally chartered corporation of the Hualapai Indian Tribe for the building and operation of the Grand Canyon Skywalk, the panel held that the Nevada corporation must exhaust tribal court remedies before proceeding in federal court on its claims challenging the Tribe’s authority to condemn its intangible property rights in the contract.

The panel concluded that the bad faith and futility exceptions to the exhaustion requirement did not apply. It held that where a tribal court has asserted jurisdiction and is entertaining a suit, the tribal court must have acted in bad faith for exhaustion to be excused; bad faith by a litigant instituting the tribal court action will not suffice. The panel held that the submitted evidence did not establish that the tribal court operated in bad faith or was controlled by the tribal council in its decision making. The panel also affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the evidence did not meet the narrow futility exception, which applies where exhaustion would be futile because of the lack of adequate opportunity to challenge the tribal court’s jurisdiction.

The panel held inapplicable the exhaustion exception for cases in which the tribal court plainly lacks jurisdiction. The panel stated that the main rule of Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), that generally Indian tribes lack civil authority over the conduct of nonmembers on non-Indian land within a reservation, was unlikely to apply to the facts of this case. The panel held that the district court correctly relied upon Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area, Inc. v. LaRance, 642 F.3d 802 (9th Cir. 2011), which recognizes that a tribe’s inherent authority over tribal land may provide for regulatory authority over non-Indians on that land without the need to consider Montana. Moreover, even if the tribal court were to apply Montana’s main rule, the Nevada corporation’s consensual relationship with the tribal corporation, or the financial implications of their agreement, likely would place the case squarely within one of Montana’s exceptions and allow for tribal jurisdiction.

Briefs are here.