The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)


STATE OF MICHIGAN

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL

CASINOS:

GAMBLING:

Authority for temporary casinos under Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act

Under the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, a casino licensee may be authorized to operate from a temporary location pending the development and completion of a more permanent casino complex.


Opinion No. 7008

March 2, 1999


You have asked whether, under the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, a casino licensee may be authorized to operate from a temporary location pending the development and completion of a more permanent casino complex.

At the general election held November 5, 1996, the voters approved an initiative proposal designated as Proposal E, the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, MCL 432.201 et seq; MSA 18.969(201) et seq (Act). On July 17, 1997, the Governor signed into law 1997 PA 69, which amended several sections of the Act. The Act governs casino gaming, establishes the Michigan Gaming Control Board (Board), and vests it with expansive licensing and regulatory authority over casino gaming operations.

As a result, casino gaming is now authorized to the extent that it is conducted in accordance with the Act. Section 3(1). A person who seeks to operate a casino gaming facility must apply for and obtain a license from the Board. Section 5(1). In addition to the application, a person or entity seeking a casino license must submit all required development agreements and other documentation from the governing body of the city where the casino will operate. Section 5(3). The term "city" is defined so narrowly that it presently includes only the City of Detroit (City). See, section 2(l). The term "casino" is defined as "a building in which gaming is conducted." Section 2(g). The terms "temporary" casino and "permanent" casino are neither defined nor mentioned in the Act.

The Act also grants the City of Detroit primary authority over a host of subjects that are uniquely municipal in nature. The Act's section 2(r) definition of the term "development agreement" identifies some of these subjects:

“Development agreement” means a written agreement between a city and a person naming the person as the designated developer of a casino in the city and covering certain subjects including, but not limited to: approval by the city of the location of the casino; certification by the city that the applicant has sufficient financial resources to construct and open the casino which it proposes to develop; zoning and site plan requirements; utility connection fees; infrastructure improvements; requirements to utilize local businesses and small businesses as suppliers; employment issues; compulsive gambling programs; insurance requirements; conceptual design approval; reimbursement for predevelopment and infrastructure costs, traffic engineering, and other transportation costs; plans for completion of destination attractions either within or outside the casino facility and ancillary development rights.

(Emphasis added.)

In order to accommodate municipal goals for casino development, the City is granted the authority, through the development agreement process, to review and approve casino locations.1

The Act does not require that casino structures, operations, or locations be "permanent" in nature. If the Act were so interpreted, then any modification of a casino facility, including those modifications intended to further crucial state or local interests, would be prohibited. Such a rigid interpretation of the Act would inhibit legitimate regulatory activity and would be inconsistent with both the spirit and letter of the Act. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that if an interpretation of a statute would lead to an absurd result, a court may deviate from such an interpretation in order to conform with the purposes and policies of the statute. Salas v Clements, 399 Mich 103, 109; 247 NW2d 889 (1976).

The City has exercised its authority under the Act to negotiate development agreements authorizing three licensed casino operators to initially operate at approved temporary locations within the City, pending completion of more permanent casino complexes. Nothing in the Act prohibits the City from approving a temporary casino location and subsequently allowing that casino to relocate to another location.2 Similarly, nothing in the Act prevents the Board from issuing a casino license to an applicant with plans to operate from a temporary location pursuant to its development agreement with the City.

It is my opinion, therefore, that under the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, a casino licensee may be authorized to operate from a temporary location pending the development and completion of a more permanent casino complex.



JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
Attorney General

1 Under the Act, the Board also retains substantial control over casino locations and all casino gaming operations. Sections 4(17)(i) and 4a(l).

2 Under section 6(3) of the Act, the Board is prohibited from issuing more than three casino licenses in any city. Each license will authorize a single casino. As is noted above, section 2(g) defines a casino as "a building in which gaming is conducted." Accordingly, a licensee is prohibited from operating more than one casino at a time.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM, ATTORNEY GENERAL

CASINOS:

GAMBLING:

Authority for temporary casinos under Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act

Under the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, a casino licensee may be authorized to operate from a temporary location pending the development and completion of a more permanent casino complex.


Opinion No. 7008

March 2, 1999


You have asked whether, under the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, a casino licensee may be authorized to operate from a temporary location pending the development and completion of a more permanent casino complex.

At the general election held November 5, 1996, the voters approved an initiative proposal designated as Proposal E, the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, MCL 432.201 et seq; MSA 18.969(201) et seq (Act). On July 17, 1997, the Governor signed into law 1997 PA 69, which amended several sections of the Act. The Act governs casino gaming, establishes the Michigan Gaming Control Board (Board), and vests it with expansive licensing and regulatory authority over casino gaming operations.

As a result, casino gaming is now authorized to the extent that it is conducted in accordance with the Act. Section 3(1). A person who seeks to operate a casino gaming facility must apply for and obtain a license from the Board. Section 5(1). In addition to the application, a person or entity seeking a casino license must submit all required development agreements and other documentation from the governing body of the city where the casino will operate. Section 5(3). The term "city" is defined so narrowly that it presently includes only the City of Detroit (City). See, section 2(l). The term "casino" is defined as "a building in which gaming is conducted." Section 2(g). The terms "temporary" casino and "permanent" casino are neither defined nor mentioned in the Act.

The Act also grants the City of Detroit primary authority over a host of subjects that are uniquely municipal in nature. The Act's section 2(r) definition of the term "development agreement" identifies some of these subjects:

“Development agreement” means a written agreement between a city and a person naming the person as the designated developer of a casino in the city and covering certain subjects including, but not limited to: approval by the city of the location of the casino; certification by the city that the applicant has sufficient financial resources to construct and open the casino which it proposes to develop; zoning and site plan requirements; utility connection fees; infrastructure improvements; requirements to utilize local businesses and small businesses as suppliers; employment issues; compulsive gambling programs; insurance requirements; conceptual design approval; reimbursement for predevelopment and infrastructure costs, traffic engineering, and other transportation costs; plans for completion of destination attractions either within or outside the casino facility and ancillary development rights.

(Emphasis added.)

In order to accommodate municipal goals for casino development, the City is granted the authority, through the development agreement process, to review and approve casino locations.1

The Act does not require that casino structures, operations, or locations be "permanent" in nature. If the Act were so interpreted, then any modification of a casino facility, including those modifications intended to further crucial state or local interests, would be prohibited. Such a rigid interpretation of the Act would inhibit legitimate regulatory activity and would be inconsistent with both the spirit and letter of the Act. It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that if an interpretation of a statute would lead to an absurd result, a court may deviate from such an interpretation in order to conform with the purposes and policies of the statute. Salas v Clements, 399 Mich 103, 109; 247 NW2d 889 (1976).

The City has exercised its authority under the Act to negotiate development agreements authorizing three licensed casino operators to initially operate at approved temporary locations within the City, pending completion of more permanent casino complexes. Nothing in the Act prohibits the City from approving a temporary casino location and subsequently allowing that casino to relocate to another location.2 Similarly, nothing in the Act prevents the Board from issuing a casino license to an applicant with plans to operate from a temporary location pursuant to its development agreement with the City.

It is my opinion, therefore, that under the Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act, a casino licensee may be authorized to operate from a temporary location pending the development and completion of a more permanent casino complex.



JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
Attorney General

1 Under the Act, the Board also retains substantial control over casino locations and all casino gaming operations. Sections 4(17)(i) and 4a(l).

2 Under section 6(3) of the Act, the Board is prohibited from issuing more than three casino licenses in any city. Each license will authorize a single casino. As is noted above, section 2(g) defines a casino as "a building in which gaming is conducted." Accordingly, a licensee is prohibited from operating more than one casino at a time.