Players at odds over five-casino deal

By CHARLIE BUTERBAUGH

SULLIVAN COUNTY, NY — In a single package deal, Governor Pataki wants to settle all pending Indian land claims against the State of New York.

The sole source of land for the deal would come from Sullivan County, and five Indian-run casinos could be built at different locations if the county’s legislature moves in the governor’s favor.

Since the 1960s, Sullivan County’s leaders have supported the idea of a casino, and legislators built on that support when they signed legislation in 2001, authorizing three casinos in the Catskills. Two were scheduled to be built in Sullivan County and one in Ulster County.

Now, Pataki’s move for five is drawing everything from opposition and caution to unconditional support from local officials and groups in the county. Town and village boards in the Route 17/I-86 corridor, many of which are potential casino-host communities, have passed resolutions in favor of five casinos, while two towns in the western river corridor, Cochecton and Delaware, have opposed the expansion.

The governor’s counsel on Indian affairs, Greg Allen, told legislators on January 7 that Pataki’s proposed deal has “the greatest potential for success in Congress and will settle all Indian land claims in the state.”

But Sullivan County Commissioner of Planning and Community Development, Dr. William Pammer, said five casinos in Sullivan would be “an over-saturation of our local market.”

Pammer said gaming is “part of the mosaic” of the local economy. But, he said, “There doesn’t seem to be any indication from a market study that we could sustain five casinos.”

Chris Cunningham, chairman of the county’s legislature, reiterated his long-standing position against casinos several times Monday night before the Tusten Town Board, a meeting crowded with local residents, all critical of the potential casino growth.

“We’re trying as hard as we can to get as much public opinion as possible to make the best decision,” Cunningham said.

“I’ve not been supportive of this [casinos] all along. But as chairman, I try to build consensus.” Cunningham said no vote has been scheduled, but the state will seek state and federal approvals of the plan by spring.

John LiGreci, supervisor of the Town of Lumberland and president of the Sullivan County Supervisors Association, said the five-casino deal “makes good business sense.”

“If you allow five casinos, two could work. If you don’t allow them, you may lose out on the opportunity,” LiGreci said. Lumberland’s town board is expected to pass a resolution in favor of five casinos at its January 12 meeting.

LiGreci said approval of the governor’s package would not mean that all of the casinos would be built at the same time. “It doesn’t mean you have to put up five at once. You can spread them out. It seems to me the people who are against it [five casinos] are against putting one casino up,” LiGreci said.

Sullivan residents are currently paying $35 million in annual county taxes, LiGreci said. Taxes in Lumberland increased 14 percent after last year. With a possible $75 million coming annually from five casinos ($15 million from each), the county could pay down the $35 million tax bill, he said.

Impact fees for each proposed casino are still under negotiation, but $15 million for each has been the expressed goal of the legislature.

“Fifteen million dollars per casino is not written in stone,” LiGreci said. “It could be up to $20 million.”

If Pataki’s plan gets approved, would the county eventually get five casinos? LiGreci said it’s a 50/50 chance. He said it depends on how well the first casinos built in Sullivan County fare financially.

Pammer said that currently there is no guarantee that a casino would be built on each property that is given as payment to the tribes. And as Allen explained, once the deals are settled, the lands become inalienable Indian country.

“Any other use would be beyond local control,” Pammer said. “Assuming they have a lack of capital to construct a casino, they could do anything they want.

“These questions aren’t being answered. They were asked last week and were not addressed in detail [by Allen],” Pammer said.

“My impression of the presentation was that a significant amount of emphasis was placed on having leverage on Congress to approve the land claims, not on the impacts to Sullivan County,” he said.

The county’s superintendent of schools, Dr. Martin Handler, said a sufficient impact study still needs to determine how to “make the school districts whole,” no matter how many casinos come to Sullivan.

“Indian casinos do not pay taxes and they draw on services,” he said. The only school district in the county with excess capacity for students is Sullivan West.

Asked about school districts’ abilities to maintain quality public education in the face of the population growth that five casinos would spur, Handler said, “We’ll do the job. That’s not the issue. We have excellent boards, administrators and teachers. The question is if we get the resources.”