Editorial

CASINO LAWSUIT RAISES MORE QUESTIONS

This article comes from our electronic archive and has not been reviewed. It may contain glitches.

This newspaper has raised many questions about Missouri gambling in general in recent months and has had a number of concerns about riverboat casinos and their operations. For example, we are still befuddled by the whole boats-in-moats issue, and we continue to oppose eliminating the $500 loss limit and the limit on the amount of time a gambler is permitted to stay at a casino.

At the same time, we have been highly critical of the Missouri Gaming Commission, whose decisions have left some casino companies in limbo regarding future operations. These companies have made multimillion-dollar investments based on the commission's decisions, only to have the rules change following lawsuits.

Now two casino companies, including Aztar Missouri Gambling Inc., which operates Casino Aztar at Caruthersvile, have sued the gaming commission. They allege that the commission is charging twice for expenses related to the costs of regulating riverboat gambling in the state.

Missouri casinos pay a $2 fee for each gambler who boards a Missouri riverboat. Half goes to the state, and the other dollar goes to the host city or county. The casinos maintain that the portion sent to the state was intended to cover the cost of regulating the riverboats.

Part of the regulation includes posting Missouri State Highway Patrol officers on the riverboats to monitor the activities of the casinos and their customers. The gaming commission also bills the casinos for the cost of the patrol officers.

The lawsuit says the state received $31.9 million in the fiscal year that ended last June 30 from the admission fees. And the gaming commission also billed the casinos $7.4 million for the highway patrolmen, even though the commission's actual regulatory expense, including the patrolmen, was $11.3 million.

Casino Aztar alone paid $1.6 million in admission fees to the state -- plus another $1.4 million for the patrolmen.

From a distance, it appears the casinos have a good point in their lawsuit. Why should they pay twice? More than that, there appear to be millions of dollars in surplus collections by the state that are used for purposes unrelated to regulation of casinos. Is that money being spent of yet more state bureaucracy?

This lawsuit should answer some of the questions about the gaming commission's regulatory involvement and the cost of keeping track of the casinos. The end result should be something that is fair, and it certainly seems like the casinos are paying twice to be regulated -- haphazardly at best -- by the state.