Contributing Member States: Summer Meeting 2017 Westin Downtown Denver, CO Contributing Member States: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania & Texas Save the Date: NCLGS Winter Meeting 2018 January 5-7, Hyatt Regency, Miami, FL

Presented by: Steve Bodmer State-Federal Relations Committee: Tribal and State – New Administration … new outlook? Presented by: Steve Bodmer 11/18/2018

Expectations Richard M. Nixon – Donald Trump – Policy of Self-Determination without Termination Donald Trump – Many unknowns remain - There has been a lot of discussion regarding “Privatization” of different sectors and industries within this administration. This immediately brings to mind for most tribes the “Termination Era” within Indian history from the 1950s. The hope is that this administration is simply less artfully describing more of a self-determination strategy where tribes with the means to appropriately manage certain assets are able to do so rather than a termination strategy. 11/18/2018

Land into trust Secretary of Interior April 6, 2017 Memo Requires all off-reservation land applications be submitted through his office for increased scrutiny This means they will go to Jim Cason, who served in a senior role at that department under George W. Bush. Many off-reservation gaming projects were denied under the Bush Administration. - This is certainly a departure from the previous Administration’s positions on off-reservation gaming land acquisition. 11/18/2018

Tribal Gaming and Commercial Gaming Until recently, these entities did not work together and sometimes worked in direct opposition of each other. Until about 2013, AGA was headed by someone many of you may know, Frank Farenkopf. I know from my own personal debates with Mr. Farenkopf that he simply outright opposed tribal governmental gaming and would prefer to have nothing to do with the industry. However, after his departure, and the installment of Mr. Jeff Freeman, there has been significant thawing of the once very chilling relationship. This is not to say NIGA and AGA are working hand in hand on all gaming policies, however there is certainly a much stronger understanding of each others’ roles. NIGA represents tribal governments that engage in gaming activities – that means something far more significant than casino ownership. It means that when decisions are made by NIGA members they are contemplated on tribal governmental terms not necessarily on commercial terms. Decisions are made based on the longevity of the industry and the longevity of the tribal programs supported by tribal governmental gaming. AGA historically represented the commercial casino owners and approached its issues from a more narrow position of what is best for the owners in the commercial gaming industry. Under Mr. Freeman, the representation by AGA has expanded to include not only casino owners but now vendors and even tribal governmental gaming operations across the US. The expansion of members allows the AGA to more effective in Washington, DC as a representative of a broad industry rather than a narrow ownership group. The 2 organizations early experience of working together has been fruitful. Recently the IRS made an attempt to consider rules that would lower taxable gaming winning amounts as well as require player game tracking technology to obtain information for tax reporting purposes and both NIGA and the AGA worked in conjunction on their respective fronts to have this rulemaking consideration dropped. NIGA argued that no consultation with sovereign tribes had occurred and this would be significantly detrimental to governmental programs due to increased labor costs. Meanwhile, the AGA argued this rulemaking should raise the reportable limits not lower them otherwise the rulemaking could devastate marginal commercial operations. 11/18/2018

Tribal Gaming and Commercial Gaming NIGA: Tribal Gaming Industry Trade Group Represents Tribal Governmental Gaming, not necessarily the commercial industry of gaming operations AGA: Commercial Industry Trade Group Historically represented commercial gaming owners Until recently, these entities did not work together and sometimes worked in direct opposition of each other. Until about 2013, AGA was headed by someone many of you may know, Frank Farenkopf. I know from my own personal debates with Mr. Farenkopf that he simply outright opposed tribal governmental gaming and would prefer to have nothing to do with the industry. However, after his departure, and the installment of Mr. Jeff Freeman, there has been significant thawing of the once very chilling relationship. This is not to say NIGA and AGA are working hand in hand on all gaming policies, however there is certainly a much stronger understanding of each others’ roles. NIGA represents tribal governments that engage in gaming activities – that means something far more significant than casino ownership. It means that when decisions are made by NIGA members they are contemplated on tribal governmental terms not necessarily on commercial terms. Decisions are made based on the longevity of the industry and the longevity of the tribal programs supported by tribal governmental gaming. AGA historically represented the commercial casino owners and approached its issues from a more narrow position of what is best for the owners in the commercial gaming industry. Under Mr. Freeman, the representation by AGA has expanded to include not only casino owners but now vendors and even tribal governmental gaming operations across the US. The expansion of members allows the AGA to more effective in Washington, DC as a representative of a broad industry rather than a narrow ownership group. The 2 organizations early experience of working together has been fruitful. Recently the IRS made an attempt to consider rules that would lower taxable gaming winning amounts as well as require player game tracking technology to obtain information for tax reporting purposes and both NIGA and the AGA worked in conjunction on their respective fronts to have this rulemaking consideration dropped. NIGA argued that no consultation with sovereign tribes had occurred and this would be significantly detrimental to governmental programs due to increased labor costs. Meanwhile, the AGA argued this rulemaking should raise the reportable limits not lower them otherwise the rulemaking could devastate marginal commercial operations. 11/18/2018

Tribal Gaming and Commercial Gaming MGM Massachusetts vs. Connecticut Tribes Defending markets Sports Betting Online Gaming/DFS 11/18/2018

Questions/Answers CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT - DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY 11/18/2018