March 15th, 2007


Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
Commonwealth Tower, Strawberry Square
303 Walnut Street, 5th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101


Doug Harbach or Richard McGarvey (717) 346-8321

Gaming Control Board To Take Legal Steps To Uphold Act 71 And Board Licensing Decisions

HARRISBURG: The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board today filed an application requesting that the State Supreme Court require losing Category 2 slots operator applicants that have filed appeals of the Board’s December 20, 2006 licensing decision to post security bonds.

Board Chairman Thomas “Tad” Decker said the loss of income occasioned through these baseless lawsuits and the subsequent delay in the opening of casinos is a detriment to all citizens of Pennsylvania who have been awaiting property tax relief and the other benefits provided by legalized slots gaming.

“The citizens of the Commonwealth should be outraged through the loss of millions of dollars per month in tax revenues that will lower their property taxes, provide valuable dollars to county and local government, and inject needed economic development that will produce thousands of jobs,” Decker stated.

Decker added that the Board has a fiduciary duty under Act 71to protect the funds and monies owed to the Commonwealth.

The special relief application to the State Supreme Court requests that the total amount for each bond, which includes the loss of interest on the license fee as well as the 55% tax assessment, would be:

  • From Station Square Gaming and IOC Pittsburgh each in the amount of $84,392,820
  • From Riverwalk the amount of $138,491,640
  • From Pocono Manor $57,959,820
In addition to the filing to the State Supreme Court, Chairman Decker also announced at today’s Board meeting that it would explore a challenge to an earlier vote by the Philadelphia City Council to place a referendum vote on the May 15th ballot to outlaw slots casino from most areas of the city. Decker said the Board would consider pursuing this legal action because it believes the Philadelphia ordinance is illegal and directly contrary to the intent of Act 71.