The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, in a 7-0 vote late this morning, turned down the proposal submitted by local attorneys Jerome Finefrock and James Nettleton Jr.
The board cited deficiencies in the application, namely the absence of a signed bond for $50 million — the cost of a slots license.
The gaming board has allowed the two attorneys 10 days to challenge today’s ruling. Finefrock and Nettleton must show that their application was, in fact, complete on the day it was due, Dec. 28.
Finefrock, reached this afternoon, confirmed the ruling and said he is uncertain of the investment group’s next move.
“I can’t make a decision until I’ve read the transcript,” he said. “They may well have done this all wrong — in fact, I think they have. Since they’ve denied the application, this is clearly a matter of potential litigation.”
Finefrock serves as the spokesman for the group of investors, Pennsylvania Gaming Group LLC, seeking to open the casino in the Bulova Building at North Queen and East Orange Streets.
The proposal had been fraught with problems from the time it was made public in mid-December, and most of them were over finances. It also faced significant opposition from anti-gambling groups and all but one of the county’s state lawmakers.
Today the opponents were unsurprised the slots application had been shot down.
“Among the criteria was you had to have a $50 million bond. It’s the first thing. And they didn’t have it,” said state Sen. Gibson E. Armstrong of Refton, a chief gambling opponent.
“I’m just glad that the gaming commission did the right thing. Obviously (the casino investors) weren’t qualified, and that’s good news for the residents of Lancaster,” Armstrong said.
During this morning’s meeting, some board members were sharply critical of the incomplete state of Pennsylvania Gaming Group’s application; some would say they even ridiculed it.
“We’re not denying this application, we’re saying that no application was ever submitted,” said board member William P. Conaboy.
The board members said the state would even return the investor group's $21,050 application fee.
“This submission does not reach the level of an application for which non-refundable fees apply,” said Susan Hensel, the board’s director of licensing. “We’re not denying it, we’re returning it.”
Thomas Decker, the board chairman, likened the unsigned $50 million bond to an unsigned personal check.
“The deficiency in this application ... relates to the fact that a bond which accompanied the application was unsigned by any bond company," he said. "An unsigned check ... does that work?”
Talkback on LancasterOnline
Welcome to the new TalkBack on LancasterOnline. Please use the comment box below to share your opinion on this
article. If you would prefer to use the previous TalkBack forums instead, please use this link.
