Pennsylvania: Food Fight Over Mitigation Funds

Control of casino funds key issue in Montgomery County commissioners race
By Jeremy Roebuck

Inquirer Staff Writer

For a political race to control Montgomery County's future, the election contest between commissioner candidates Bruce L. Castor Jr. and State Rep. Josh Shapiro has become strangely fixated on a set of votes in the past.

The scuffle over who will control the local share of profits from the soon-to-open Valley Forge Resort Casino and who is to blame for the current arrangement - which takes the county's share and deposits it into a state-controlled account - sparked over the weekend the most contentious back-and-forth between the candidates since the start of the race.

Shapiro, a Democratic state legislator who represents the Abington area, condemned Castor for letting partisan bickering get in the way of doing what's right for the county.

Castor, meanwhile, blamed Shapiro for casting a vote in 2009 that he says took control of the money away from local officials.

As is often the case in politics, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Since casinos opened in Philadelphia, Bucks, and Delaware Counties, each has paid a 2 percent share of all profits from slots and table games to local governments to mitigate the impact of the gaming halls in the area. However, under state gaming laws, Montgomery County's share for Valley Forge - set to open in the spring - has been slated for diversion into state-controlled entities.

Originally, the county's local share was to be funneled into an entity run out of the Governor's Office, the Department of Community and Economic Development. A 2009 revision to gambling laws changed that, directing the money to another agency - the Commonwealth Financing Authority.

Montgomery County officials have called on their 23-member delegation in Harrisburg to change that law to give them direct access, like all the other neighboring counties with casinos.

Amid this background, Shapiro introduced a series of amendments last week that would hand control of the local share of revenue to county commissioners. He maintained he "led the fight" in 2009 against the bill that changed how the money was distributed.

But according to transcripts of the legislative record, Shapiro, while outspoken on his opposition to gambling, never spoke on the House floor for or against the distribution of the Valley Forge local share.

When pressed on the issue Monday, Shapiro reiterated his "no" vote on the overall bill, while defending another vote in support of the specific amendment that moved control of the local share from the Governor's Office to the CFA - a bipartisan panel made up of gubernatorial and legislative appointees.

"To characterize any of my votes as being anti-Montgomery County is not only wrong, it's a lie," he said.

Castor, meanwhile, has publicly insisted that Shapiro voted to take the money away from commissioners. But no version of the law ever gave Montgomery County complete control of the Valley Forge local share.

When confronted with the distinction, the incumbent commissioner argued that DCED approval for how the funds are spent gave local officials more say than the setup with the CFA, a body prone to become bogged down in partisan debate.

Castor has also challenged Shapiro's current amendments to give the local share directly to the county. The idea, he says, was his first and one Shapiro once described as "laughable."

In truth, a Shapiro campaign representative was specifically talking about Castor's proposal to use the local share to fund improvements to Route 422 when he was quoted using the term "laughable."

The estimated $1.5 million the county is expected to receive annually from hosting the Valley Forge casino would hardly cover a fraction of the total $800 million price tag for fixing the highway, the representative argued.

(Castor maintains he meant the money could be used to pay debt service on public bonds for highway improvement.)

"It sounds to me like the guy got caught flat-footed and is spinning to get his way out of a tight situation," Castor said Monday.

In many ways, the issue - based in bureaucratic intricacies and political machinations in Harrisburg well off the radar of the average local voter - is an odd one to take such prominence in the debate.

But it is one of the few issues with direct county impact on which both candidates have a crystallized record - Shapiro for his votes in Harrisburg, Castor for his statements. What's more, each candidate points to the matter as indicative of why his opponent would be wrong for county leadership.

From the start of the campaign, Castor has painted Shapiro as a tax-happy Democrat. The 2009 gaming vote is just another example of his wrongheaded fiscal decision-making, Castor said.

"We support the efforts of our entire legislative delegation in Harrisburg in making sure Montgomery County receives its fair share of casino revenues so that the next administration . . . can undo the financial damage created by the borrow-and-spend policies of the past four years," Castor's campaign said in a statement Monday.

For his part, Shapiro has criticized Castor's often contentious relationship with his colleagues. Arguing with Shapiro over who voted for what and when, even though both agree on the changes the legislator proposed to state gaming law, is only the latest example.

"Instead of embracing an idea that's good for Montgomery County, Bruce has resorted to what he does best," Shapiro said. "Bickering."