When I sat down to write about this topic, each time it kept going into multiple pages and caused me worry that it was too lengthy and wordy for even me to get to the end. It is difficult to work through all of the interconnections and thought processes for budgeting. So, breaking it down to more than one part seems best. What I hope is this answers or better illustrates what has been said before, but in a way that is digestible, not one, big, fat, turkey-dinner-of-a-piece that sends folks to the couch for a nap.
So, focusing on what I would like for understanding on this Part One is the historical perspective of per capita income, how that budgeted amount is determined, and how the actual amount comes into play, which is more complicated and will be part of future writings.
Starting off with a handy dandy little chart of the history of per capita payments. The most important thing to remember is the compact for gaming has a limit placed on the amount of per capita from gaming that we are allowed to pay out to the members. Since that number is stated as a percentage of gaming dollars, which is 45% of the annual dividend received from the casino, I will speak in terms of percentages as well. If a tribal member would like more information on the dollars, please contact me.
| Year | Annual Percentage | Total Members |
| 1999 | 25% | 4507 |
| 2000 | 25% | 4526 |
| 2001 | 25% | 4653 |
| 2002 | 25% | 4758.67 |
| 2003 | 30.0% | 4824.24 |
| 2004 | 33.0% | 4880.51 |
| 2005 | 31.4% | 4938.19 |
| 2006 | 31.7% | 5004.09 |
| 2007 | 32.6% | 5067.51 |
| 2008 | 33.4% | 5090.37 |
| 2009 | 26.0% | 5162.10 |
| 2010 | 23.8% | 5202.20 |
| 2011 | 22.3% | 5250.40 |
| 2012 | 21.0% | 5275.60 |
| 2013 | 20.2% | 5314.87 |
| 2014 | 31.0% | 5314.87 |
| 2015 | 34.2% | 5348.63 |
| 2016 | 32.0% | 5386.63 |
| 2017 | 43.8% | 5405.85 |
| 2018 | 38.8% | 5449.27 |
| 2019 | 35.8% | 5506.81 |
| 2020 | 40.9% | 5576.12 |
| 2021 | 43.4% | 5609.57 |
| 2022-Q1 | 33.9% | 5614.26 |
| 2022-Q2 | 28.0% | 5619.39 |
| 2022 YTD | 30.4% | |
| All Years Total | 30.9% |
Some quick notes on the above. As you can see, our early leaders did not want to pay out more than 25%. The reasoning was along the lines that there was still so many needs unmet that it would not be prudent to be paying out more to the members. Eventually, we moved away from this strategy. I am very aware that we still have unmet needs such as housing, mental health facilities, expansion of elder care, a crumbling local education system, and economic development diversification to name a few.
Total Members includes a decimal amount when we went to quarterly payments since each quarter the population is different and based on the moment the dividend is declared.
The years from 2009 to 2013 were clearly a challenging time with a regression in percentages.
As this will form the basis of later posts, there are some things everyone must understand prior to moving on to the next posts.
- The casino management team and the Board of Directors for Spirit Mountain Casino set their budget every year. It is based on what they expect in revenues and expenses, based on historical trends, the market share they anticipate capturing, and the overall conditions of the economy. Those above challenging years included projections that did not reflect the overall economy of the nation and the state. That resulted in tribal budgets based on dividends that were not met by the casino. I was not on Tribal Council in those years so someone better than myself could explain. Most likely there were budget cuts at the Tribal Government. It also resulted in the bad practice of delaying necessary equipment and property maintenance at the casino in order to maximize the cash available for dividend. That practice has ended.
- Once the budget is completed, they are able to determine a budgeted dividend to the Tribe. The key word is budgeted.
- That budgeted dividend forms the basis of the Tribal Government budget for Gaming Dollars. Again, we are still talking budgeted numbers.
- The first step we take is to budget 28% of that amount to be distributed to the members as a per capita payment. It is the remaining 72% of budgeted dividend that finds its way to the various programs that serve our members. While I am speaking in percentages, the 72% are actually hard dollars and specific in the budget and they cannot be adjusted. Any increase of dollar amounts for these programs and services after the budget is approved requires an amended budget with public notification and a comment period. As a note, that 72% still includes all other benefits outside of per capita payments that are not grant funded or federal and state funded including enhancements to healthcare and housing.
- The casino projects their budget on a month-to-month basis. Not every month is the same and historical patterns show that there are high revenue months and low revenue months. For example, historically, the period from December to February results in lower revenues and a lower dividend available for the March per capita payment. The point being that one could never take the annualized amount and simply divide by 12 to get a monthly expected dividend amount.
- These are all budgeted dollars that we are speaking of. The casino hits their budget or they do not. However, it is a much easier process when the casino is above budget. That means there is no need to cut anything out of the approved department budgets and it is much easier to share that surplus with the members. Indeed, that is why you usually all see a higher percentage on an annual basis.
- This year, we settled on paying $1000 to the members when the 28% of actual is lower than $1000 and paying the flat 28% when it is above that $1000 amount. As has been done every year in my experience and certainly others, the December per capita reflects the certainty of meeting budget expectations and a sharing of the actual amounts over budget. A more aggressive quarterly payment structure in the preceding months has the possibility of members not having the funds available for when that Christmas time need. Remember, the 45% is an annualized amount. If the numbers go south in the last quarter, we may not even be able to pay that $1000 since that would take us over the 45% threshold for the year.
- The amount of increase of per capita since 2017, if paid out at the maximum 45% is not as much as one would expect. For example, paying to the full 45% in 2017 would have resulted in $152.54 additional paid out to the members. In 2021 it would have been $321.24. However, the new grant programs far exceeded this amount in benefits. Speaking of those popular grant programs, here is my final bullet point.
- Per capita payments are taxable. Programs designed to meet the needs of our people and which qualify through the General Welfare Exclusion Act are not. The emergency preparedness and other recent grant programs as well as Elder’s Pension are examples of those that qualify.
I think that is enough to digest in this outing. There is still much more to discuss and I hope members stay engaged in the process. Hopefully, this serves as a starting point for conversations that are better informed.
Be well and walk in a good way.
Michael A. Langley 