# Summit Township Industrial & Economic Development Authority v. County of Erie

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · August 10, 2009 · 980 A.2d 191

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751863

## Case

- **Full name:** SUMMIT TOWNSHIP INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY; Summit Township; Summit Township Sewer Authority; Summit Township Water Authority; And Perry Hi-Way Hose Company v. the COUNTY OF ERIE, Pennsylvania; Erie County Gaming Revenue Authority; Millcreek Township; Millcreek Township Sewer Authority; Millcreek Township Water Authority; McKean Township; McKean Township Sewer Authority; McKean Township Water Authority; Waterford Township; Waterford Township Sewer Authority; Waterford Township Water Authority; And Greene Township Appeal Of: The County of Erie, Pennsylvania and Erie County Gaming Revenue Authority
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 10, 2009
- **Citations:** 980 A.2d 191; 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1073; 2009 WL 2423993
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pellegrini
- **Judges:** Leadbetter, McGinley, Pellegrini, Jubelirer, Simpson, Leavitt, Butler
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751863

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.
The central issue in this appeal is whether under Section 1403(c)(2)(v) of the Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1403(e)(2)(v), the County of Erie can take grants from restricted gaming funds to fund activities in municipalities that are not either the municipality in which the gaming facility is located or contiguous thereto.
Under the Gaming Act, monies are available as either unrestricted or restricted funds. Under Section 1403(c)(2)(ii)(D) of the Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1403(c)(2)(D), restricted gaming revenue must be used for the purposes of municipal grants. Section 1403(c)(2)(v) of the Gaming Act, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1403(c)(2)(v), clarifies how the restricted revenue may be used. That provision provides:
Unless otherwise specified, for the purposes of this paragraph money designated for municipal grants within a county, other than a county of the first class, in which a licensed facility is located shall be used to fund grants to the municipality in which the licensed facility is located, to the county in which the licensed facility is located and to the municipalities which are contiguous to the municipality in which the licensed facility is located and which are located within the county in which the licensed facility is located. Grants shall be administered by the county through its economic development or redevelopment authority in which the licensed facility is located. Grants shall be used to fund the costs of human services, infrastructure improvements, facilities, emergency services, health and public safety expenses associated with licensed facility operations. If at the end of a fiscal year uncommitted funds exist, the county shall pay to the economic development or redevelopment authority of the county in which the licensed facility is located the uncommitted funds. (Emphasis added.)
Under this provision, as long as a cost relates to the human services, infrastructure improvement, facilities, emergency services, health and public safety expenses associated with the effects of the gaming facility, direct grants to address those concerns can be made from unrestricted gaming funds to the host municipality, contiguous municipalities and to the county itself. Obviously, a grant made to the county would be to an entity whose territory encompasses more than merely the host and contiguous municipalities.
The question then is whether the county may apply for a grant from restricted gaming revenues for a purpose that is associated with the effects of a licensed facility that is in a municipality or authority other than the host or contiguous facility — for example, for a road, traffic signals or airport improvements or more bus service, if such a need is caused by gaming traffic. Under the relevant provisions of the Gaming Act, as long as the cost is for one of the above-specified areas and relates to gaming activity, the county has the discretion to decide which grants it wants to fund in a particular year.
There is no question that the county can decide to take those corrective actions because it is eligible for grants from restricted gaming activities. It is also clear that it can take grant monies for those purposes and enter into cooperative agree *215 ments with other municipalities or authorities to take corrective action of the sort mentioned above. 4 Pa.C.S. § 1403(e)(2)(ix), a subsection of the above-quoted subsection, provides:
Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent any of the above counties which directly receive a distribution under this section from entering into intergovernmental cooperative agreements with other jurisdictions for sharing this money.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion upholding the trial court’s order that limits spending from initial grants from restrictive gaming revenues to the host municipality and contiguous municipalities.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9751863. Public record. Not legal advice.