Casino questions anyone? Albany has 94 pages of answers

Daily Point

Answers finally come ... a year later

More than a year after potential applicants for the state’s three downstate casino licenses filed their second round of questions regarding the application process, they finally got answers.

The state’s Gaming Facility Location Board unveiled a 94-page document Monday that answered a host of questions about everything from the technical details of what applicants should submit to how many meetings the Community Advisory Committees should have. (Answer: At least two.)

Among the most interesting answers was a chart noting the lead agencies for "known additional casino license proposals" within the state environmental review process.

When it comes to Las Vegas Sands, which is hoping to build a casino resort on the land surrounding Nassau Coliseum, the chart lists the Town of Hempstead’s town board as the "lead agency" in the state environmental review process, known as SEQRA.

But that’s incorrect. After a state Supreme Court judge’s ruling, the Nassau County Legislature took on the lead agency role, a status it has held for months.

Nonetheless, the chart sheds light on 10 potential Sands competitors that are undergoing environmental reviews: Avenir, a Silverstein Properties proposal on Manhattan’s West Side; Bally’s Casino in the Bronx; Caesars Palace Times Square; The Coney, by Thor Equities, in Coney Island; Freedom Plaza, by Bjarke Ingels Group, on Manhattan’s East Side; Metropolitan Park, proposed by New York Mets owner Steve Cohen, at Citi Field; MGM Empire City in Yonkers; Resorts World at Aqueduct; Saks Fifth Avenue Casino; and Wynn New York City at Hudson Yards.

In a separate answer, the board notes the importance of environmental review timing.

"Applicants should have already commenced an environmental review," the response said. "If an Applicant has not, an Applicant should take quick action."

The deadline for applying for a license is still June 27, 2025.

All environmental reviews, the board said, should be completed by the time the Community Advisory Committees are expected to vote, by Sept. 30, 2025.

The gaming board took more than six months to answer the first round of questions — responses were provided in September 2023. Follow-up questions were due by early October 2023. The gaming board did not set a deadline, but observers hoped answers would be provided in a similar six-month time frame. But spring came and went with no responses filed. The Gaming Commission and the Facility Location Board then approved a change in the broader timetable — bidders won’t submit applications until next year, and licensing decisions won’t be made any earlier than the end of 2025.

As a result, potential bidders like Las Vegas Sands have been moving forward with other parts of the process, including environmental reviews and zoning approvals, as they wait to file full applications.

The new answers shed light on the process, and spotlight the Community Advisory Committees. A committee will be established for each applicant, made up of members chosen by the local state senator, state Assembly member, governor, county executive and the locality’s top official. In the case of the Nassau Hub, committee members would be appointed by incoming State Sen. Siela Bynoe, Assemb. Edward Ra, Gov. Kathy Hochul, Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, and Hempstead Town Supervisor Don Clavin.

The expected September 2025 vote will come just weeks before Blakeman and Clavin seek reelection. A Community Advisory Committee is required to approve an application with a two-thirds threshold — four of the five votes. (New York City applicants have six-member boards, as the mayor, borough president and city council member each have picks, but also require four "yes" votes.)

Without the committee’s approval, the Gaming Facility Location Board will not consider an application.

The state will not set criteria for committees to make their decisions, according to the board’s answers. Instead, each member should determine "if, in the member’s opinion, public support has been evidenced and an application should advance for Board consideration."

Committee meetings will follow state open meetings law and no private meetings between committee members and applicants can be held, the board said. The middle of its answers contained a passage all in bold, capitalized letters.

"During the application process, no applicant, agent of the applicant, qualifier or other associated individual shall contact a board, commission or (after the return date) CAC member directly concerning the subject matter of this RFA," the board wrote of its request for applications.

A committee is, however, permitted to suggest modifications to an application in the course of its public process.

— Randi F. Marshall randi.marshall@newsday.com

Pencil Point

Just-in, not ready

For more cartoons, visit www.newsday.com/1120nationalcartoons

Final Point

A response from NUMC

Is it time to talk at NUMC?

In response to an item in The Point Monday that noted that Civil Service Employees Association leaders hope to reopen contract negotiations at Nassau University Medical Center, a NUMC spokesman told The Point that hospital officials are "presenting them with dates for negotiation."

But the spokesman added that newly appointed chief executive Megan Ryan wants the union to work with hospital officials to advocate for restoring what the hospital has said is a state funding cut. Those state funds, he said, could then be earmarked for a new contract.

Ryan and NUMC chairman Matthew Bruderman have blamed some of the hospital’s past financial difficulties on what they say are cuts in state funding. More recently, the hospital filed a notice of claim saying that the state separately owes the hospital $1 billion from 20 years of payments that are part of a federal matching program.

The hospital spokesman also pointed to the role of the Nassau Interim Finance Authority, saying that The Point item should have mentioned that NIFA "would also have to approve any contract."

That’s a very different message than the one NUMC recently emphasized when it sued NIFA, saying the authority lacks jurisdiction over the hospital and should not have to approve NUMC contracts.

"We’re continuing to give them information, but NIFA doesn’t have any authority over our contracts," Bruderman recently told The Point.

— Randi F. Marshall randi.marshall@newsday.com

Subscribe to The Point here and browse past editions of The Point here.