A previously delayed hearing on the proposed casino at the Nittany Mall is scheduled for next week, according to a document posted to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board’s website.
The board will hear arguments on a petition to intervene in developer SC Gaming OpCo’s casino license application during its meeting at 10 a.m. on Dec. 14 in Harrisburg. The meeting will be livestreamed on the PGCB website.
Cordish Companies, which operates as Stadium Casino in Pennsylvania, filed a petition to intervene in August and has separately filed a still-pending parallel lawsuit in Commonwealth Court last year arguing SC Gaming OpCo owner Ira Lubert’s winning $10 million bid in a September 2020 auction to apply for Pennsylvania’s fifth Category 4, or mini-casino, was improperly awarded.
Stadium’s lawsuit and petition allege Lubert, who was eligible to bid because of his ownership interest in Rivers Casino Pittsburgh, violated PGCB rules by subsequently partnering with Bally’s and other individuals who would not be eligible to bid on the casino to develop the venue in the former Macy’s property at the College Township Mall.
Local developer Robert Poole and real estate executive and Penn State Trustee Richard Sokolov are listed as vice presidents for SC Gaming OpCo. Stadium alleges that they contributed to the payment of the bid and that they and others now have control interests in the three LLCs established by Lubert for development and operation of the casino. SC Gaming OpCo, the company contends, is substantially different from Lubert because of those alleged interests.
Lubert has flatly denied the allegations. In filings with the PGCB and Commonwealth Court, his attorneys wrote that Lubert paid for the bid from his personal bank account and remains the sole owner of SC Gaming OpCo. While Poole and Sokolov are officers of the LLCs, they, nor anyone else, has ownership or control interests, according to the filings. All three men have applied for applicable licenses that require extensive disclosure, documentation and investigation of ownership interests in any business.
In responses filed in Commonwealth Court, counsel for the PGCB also denied any violations of the rules in awarding the bid.
Stadium is seeking the right to intervene in the licensing proceedings along with discovery of documentation related to the bid payment and ownership interests and finances of the casino-related LLCs.
In Commonwealth Court, Stadium has contended the alleged violations mean Lubert’s bid should be set aside and Stadium Casino awarded the right to apply for the casino license, or for a new auction to be held.
A hearing officer in July tentatively scheduled arguments on motions to intervene in SC Gaming OpCo’s license application for October, but the hearing ultimately did not appear on the agenda for that board meeting.
“There have been numerous documents filed in this matter which need to be reviewed by all parties, including the Gaming Control Board,” PGCB spokesman Doug Harbach said at the time. “As a result, the Board is not comfortable moving forward with a hearing this month.”
A separate hearing to vote on license approval can only come after those arguments are heard and the board decides on intervention status, so PGCB’s January meeting would be the earliest a decision could be rendered on whether to approve the license.
The proposed casino would have 750 slot machines, 30 table games and sports betting along with a restaurant and bar, entertainment venue and a multi-outlet quick-serve food and beverage area. In announcing the company’s partnership with Luberty in 2021, Bally’s estimated the project would total $123 million and would take a year to complete pending regulatory approvals.
Since an August 2021 public input hearing on the proposed casino, a vocal contingent of community members have opposed the casino, citing concerns about crime, gambling addiction and strain on resources and infrastructure. They sent myriad letters to the PGCB during the public comment period, which closed in June, and called on College Township and Penn State leaders to speak out against the casino.
College Township Council elected not to opt out as a casino host site when given the opportunity in late 2017 and approved a land development plan for exterior improvements to the former Macy’s building last fall.
After multiple public meetings this year in which opponents urged council to take some action to derail the casino, township solicitor Louis Glantz advised in September that the opportunity to opt out as a casino host site expired in 2019 and that council can’t arbitrarily rescind approval for a land development plan that met township ordinances.
On Oct. 6, council also declined to take up a proposed letter to the PGCB that would suggest the casino license should be denied because of community opposition. Glantz wrote in an opinion that doing so would likely result in the township being sued in federal court for deprivation of due process rights and it would risk liability for at least the $20 million already spent by the developer predicated on prior council decisions.
Council further voted 4-1 against forwarding correspondence about the casino received by the township since the state’s public comment period closed. The correspondence appears on the township website and Glantz said the council sending it would be futile at best, since the public comment period has closed and anyone can send a link to the letters to the PGCB. At worst, it could also be construed as interfering with the developer’s due process rights.
Following numerous letters from opponents urging Penn State to take a stance because of its proximity, the chair of the university’s Board of Trustees said in September that it’s not the university’s place to take an official position on the casino and the school is not involved in the decision about whether it moves forward.
Since their inception, the only Category 4 casino to be denied a license was in Beaver County, and that was because developers acknowledged they did not acquire the needed funding to move forward.
