New casino PILOT law violates consent order with county, judge rules - Press of Atlantic City
ATLANTIC CITY — The state violated the terms of a 2018 consent order between itself and Atlantic County when it enacted a new casino payments-in-lieu-of-taxes law, according to a decision Friday by Superior Court Judge Joseph Marczyk.
In his order, Marczyk did not enjoin the state from implementing the new PILOT law "except to the extent they are subject to sanctions and/or damages" to be determined in a March hearing before Judge Michael J. Blee.
"What this means is they are going to decide now what damages we can collect and how we are harmed by this," said Atlantic County Executive Dennis Levinson.
No one from Gov. Phil Murphy's office responded immediately to a request for comment.
The county sued the state to stop the amended PILOT law, which passed quickly in December and was signed by Murphy days before Christmas, from taking effect.
The new law drastically lowered casinos’ PILOT payments from what they would have been had the original PILOT law continued. It did so mainly by removing sports and internet gaming from calculations of gross gaming revenue.
The changes in the law violate a 2018 consent order settlement of the county’s lawsuit against the original 2016 PILOT, the county argued and the judge agreed.
Under the consent order, the county was to get about 13% of PILOT funds calculated under the 2016 law. That law was interpreted as including sports and internet gaming under gross gaming revenues.
"All we want them to do is keep their agreement, honor their commitments," Levinson said.
The amendments will provide the county with $15 million to $26 million less through 2026 than following the consent order under the original law, according to the county.
In a hearing earlier this month, John Lloyd, the lawyer for the state, argued the Legislature had the right to define “gross gaming revenue” in any way it saw fit, at any time, in spite of the 2018 consent agreement between the county and the state.
Lloyd also argued that nowhere in the original PILOT law or consent order is the definition given for “gross gaming revenue,” other than to say it is determined by the state Division of Gaming Enforcement.
County attorney Ron Riccio made the county’s presentation, arguing the consent order was based on the understanding that all gaming revenues — including brick and mortar, internet and later sports gaming — would be included in PILOT calculations and had been so included for the first several years of the PILOT.
This story is developing. Please check back for updates.
source: https://pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/new-casino-pilot-law-violates-consent-order-with-county-judge-rules/article_c02088e2-9666-11ec-b2de-3fd32fbede18.html
Your content is great. However, if any of the content contained herein violates any rights of yours, including those of copyright, please contact us immediately by e-mail at media[@]kissrpr.com.