Gaming
smaller text tool icon medium text tool icon larger text tool icon

Issue Summary (Updated January 2010)

 

The Impact of Gaming Money in Allegheny County

 

The Issue:  

 

Legalized slots machines in Pennsylvania will result in the redistribution of close to $700 million for various economic development and general government purposes in Allegheny County in the coming years. 

 

What We Know:  

 

Under two state statutes-one creating legalized slots (Act 71 of 2004)-and the other setting the distribution of gaming money from the Tourism and Economic Development Fund (Act 53 of 2007), we can pinpoint the amounts, recipients, and purposes of gaming money.  Here is a rundown of what exists in legislation at the present time:

 

Act 53

 

Ten Year Amount

Recipient

Purpose

$60 million

City of Pittsburgh

Retirement of obligations of Pittsburgh Development Fund

$150 million

Allegheny County

Airport debt and economic development

$30 million

Allegheny County

Retirement of obligations of Economic Development Fund

$80 million

Allegheny County

Infrastructure Fund

$20 million

Sports and Exhibition Authority*

Debt for Convention Center

$20 million

Sports and Exhibition Authority*

Operating Deficits for Convention Center

$225 million

Sports and Exhibition Authority*

New Hockey Arena

$44 million

Sports and Exhibition Authority*

Convention Center Hotel Construction

 

 

                                                       Act 71

 

Annual Amount

Recipient

Purpose

$10 million

Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority for Pittsburgh

Debt, pension funding for City of Pittsburgh

2% of gross terminal revenue

Allegheny County

General Government purposes

 

 

*Recipient not yet identified, but expected to be SEA due to its ownership of the convention center and the future hockey arena

 

Initial returns for the lone casino in Allegheny County, the Rivers Casino, have been disappointing.  As indicated in the table above, Act 71 guarantees Allegheny County two percent of gross terminal revenues to be used for general government purposes.  Rivers' owners had forecasted first year gross revenues at $427 million while the Gaming Board estimated them at $362 million.  If these estimates were accurate, the County would receive at least $7.3 million in host fees.  However, through the first five months of operations (August through December 2009) gross terminal revenues at the Rivers Casino have been well below either projection.  The casino has been averaging $3.8 million in weekly gross terminal revenues and is on pace to earn only $196 million-45 percent of management's initial projections.  At this rate the County will only receive $4 million as a result of Act 71. 

 

But the County is not the only claimant on money generated at Pittsburgh's casino.  The casino, as a condition of its license application, is responsible for paying a $7.5 million per year for the new hockey arena.  The Rivers Casino was not able to make the first payment in whole by the October 2009 deadline, instead opting to make a partial payment with the rest due in the spring of 2010.  Further casting doubt on the success of the casino, its bond rating had been downgraded twice since its opening and at the end of 2009 stood at CCC.  This reflects pessimism among credit agencies that the casino will be able to meet its own debt obligations, let alone its community related obligations. 

 

In early January 2010, the state approved table games legislation authorizing games such as poker and blackjack to be added to the video slot machines at casinos around the state.  According to the legislation each host municipality and county will each receive one percent of the revenues generated by these games.  As expected, the management at Rivers Casino welcomes this change.  Whether or not the added games will reverse the fortune of the underperforming casino remains to be seen. 

 

Recommendations:

 

The gaming money can be viewed as a "fix it program" for some of the mistakes of the past: an airport that is now too big, a convention center that was too big and failed to generate the spinoff development its proponents promised, development funds that diverted tax revenue, etc. 

 

Many officials have viewed the money as "manna from heaven", but that has not stopped fierce competition over the money.  For instance, the first two installments of gaming money for airport debt were instead used by the County.  All along, officials seem convinced that the $150 million would be used to pay down the close to $600 million in debt held by the Airport Authority, but the County, thanks to an amendment to the bill, swooped in and got the first call on the money.  Despite claims that the County itself had a $42 million debt stemming from what they put into construction of the airport, the debt did not show up on the Authority's books as a debt owed and one as they intended to repay.  Now the County will receive the entire $150 million under the law, but promises to forward $108 million to the Authority for debt service purposes.

 

 

 

 

Gaming Revenue Impact on Government Spending Allegheny Institute
 

Resource Center
Help Us
Click on the link
below to donate
to the Allegheny Institute


Get Involved

Fill out the form below to subscribe to our Policy Brief

 
 
  
 
 
Join Us
Join today, and take full benefit of all of the
services we offer.

reg
Contact
Allegheny Institute
305 Mt. Lebanon Blvd.,
Suite 208,
Pittsburgh, PA 15234.
Phone: (412) 440-0079
Fax: (412) 440-0085
RSS / Subscribe
rss Click here to add RSS Feed to your Reader.