According to published reports, the parent company of the Rivers Casino has filed a lawsuit seeking to end the local share assessment that it pays to Pittsburgh under the terms of Act 71 of 2004.  That lawsuit is with the Supreme Court, which is curious in and of itself since it does not appear the lower courts got to consider the lawsuit as is customary.

There is some complexity due to the fact that the law established three categories of slot machine recipients (1, 2, and 3) and local share assessments (host fees) have to be paid to both the county and the municipality where the slot machine facility would be located.  Rivers is a category 2 facility, located in a county of the second class and a city of the second class.  There are three other category 2 facilities as of June 30, 2015 (see page 17 of this report).  A successful lawsuit against the municipal share in Pittsburgh would probably have an effect on the other category 2 facilities in the state.

Rivers isn’t seeking to end the local share to Allegheny County (the law says a category 2 facility in a county of the second class pays 2% of gross terminal revenue, and Allegheny County is budgeting $5.5 million for 2016) but wants to target what would be considered the municipal share.  The Act spells out requirements for facilities located in second class cities, second class A cities, third class cities, boroughs, and townships and, by and large, the requirement is for 2% or $10 million, which ever is greater (Pittsburgh, the only second class city in the state, has its money intercepted by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority for specific purposes outlined in the Act).  If Rivers had gross terminal revenue of $500 million, $10 million would be 2%.  However, last year’s revenue was $272 million, so $10 million represents 3.7%, whereas 2% would be $5.4 million.  Then original projection for Rivers was $427 million in gross terminal revenue in 2009.