An Act Requiring The Renegotiation Of Certain Agreements With The Mohegan Tribe.
SB 1165 would require the Governor to enter into discussions with the Mohegan Tribe about amending the 1994 agreement that resolved the tribe’s land claim against the state. The bill specifically directs the parties to consider deleting a provision in that agreement, section 1F, which requires the tribe to make payments in lieu of taxes on certain real property to the Town of Montville.
The bill also requires the Town of Montville to begin discussions with the Mohegan Tribe on a revised agreement that recognizes the tribe’s sovereignty. In practical terms, the measure does not itself rewrite the existing compact or settlement, but it would compel the state and the town to negotiate over the tax-payment provision and the broader relationship reflected in the agreement.
If enacted, the bill would affect the state’s obligations under the 1994 Mohegan land-claim settlement by mandating renegotiation rather than leaving the agreement unchanged. It could lead to changes in the tribe’s payments in lieu of taxes to Montville and potentially alter the legal and financial arrangement governing tribal-owned real property. The bill would also create a formal state and municipal role in discussions with the Mohegan Tribe regarding sovereignty and the terms of the existing agreement.
No committee transcript or vote record is available for this bill, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded vote to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a negotiation directive rather than a punitive or expansive regulatory change, suggesting an intent to reopen discussions on a long-standing tribal-state-local agreement. The overall sentiment cannot be determined from the available record.
The main point of contention is likely the proposed deletion of the tax-related provision requiring payments in lieu of taxes to Montville, since that would directly affect municipal revenue and the terms of the 1994 settlement. Another likely issue is the bill’s reference to recognizing Mohegan sovereignty in a revised agreement, which may raise questions about the scope of tribal authority, the state’s leverage in renegotiation, and the town’s interests. Because no discussion transcript is available, the specific positions of supporters and opponents are not documented in the record provided.