PIERRE - A legislative committee on Friday rejected two measures that would have changed the way Deadwood gambling is regulated.

HB1199 would have defined the word "building" in Deadwood gambling statutes. That definition can be a contentious issue because state law allows 30 slot machines or other gambling devices per building in Deadwood.

The other bill, HB1166, would have allocated more Deadwood gambling revenues to historic preservation projects throughout the state. Deadwood would have received a slightly smaller percentage.

The House State Affairs Committee voted to send both measures to the 36th legislative day, effectively killing them in a 35-day session.

The building-definition issue was raised by a company called Deadwood Resorts, which is suing the South Dakota Commission on Gaming.

The commission denied the company's proposal for a complex that would have included a hotel, a convention center and 10 separate casinos. State law allows 30 slot machines per building, but the commission ruled that Deadwood Resorts' design did not meet its criteria.

The argument is a common one. Since 1990, the Gaming Commission has heard 58 contested cases about what should and should not qualify as a separate building.

Many of those disputes were about whether existing structures should be treated as more than one building, but Deadwood Resorts proposed a mall-like structure that the company said should qualify for 300 gambling devices.

Currently, the definition of a building, for Deadwood gambling purposes, is up to the Gaming Commission, which also decides whether projects meet the criteria.

Deadwood Resorts lobbyist Jeremiah Murphy of Rapid City said the definition should be set by law. "Usually, speed limits are set by legislators," Murphy said.

HB1199 would have used the International Building Code to define a Deadwood building - a code the commission already uses for safety standards.

Gaming Commission Executive Secretary Larry Eliason said the bill would remove the decision-making process from "a state agency that conducts its business in public" to a city building inspector. "City building inspectors don't conduct their business in public," he said.

He also said it would be unfair to existing casinos that followed the old rules. He picked up Murphy's speed-limit analogy. "What this does is let a couple of guys with a new Ferrari drive down the interstate as fast as a Ferrari will go, and everybody else puddles down the highway in a 1990 Volkswagen."

Rep. Charles Turbiville, R-Central City, said most people he talked to supported the Deadwood Resorts proposal, but he said the rule shouldn't be changed.

"We're trying to make a new law for just one individual," he said.

The committee agreed and rejected the bill.

The committee also rejected a bill sponsored by Rep. Mary Glenski, D-Sioux Falls. HB1166 could have raised from $100,000 to $250,000 the amount historic-preservation money other South Dakota communities receive from Deadwood gambling.

"The dollars to the city of Deadwood would only change two-tenths of 1 percent," Glenski said.

But Kevin Kuchenbecker, historic-preservation director for Deadwood, said the town already provided $250,000 to communities throughout the state, over and above the $150,000 set aside for the State Historic Preservation Office.

Jason Dilges, director of the state's Bureau of Finance and Management, said the bill could short the state's general fund by about $105,000.

Again, the committee rejected the legislation.

Contact Bill Harlan at 394-8424 or bill.harlan@rapidcityjournal.com