Casino panel’s first meeting fraught with confusion

Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2000 | 10:58 a.m.

A new board appointed to hear the appeal of a controversial casino approval in Spring Valley struggled Monday to define the procedures and rules that the untested body will use during the two-month appeal process.

Watching the parties involved wrestle with ambiguities in the new state statutes was a bit like watching a dealer and players make up blackjack rules as the deal unfolds.

The five-member review panel, meeting for the first time, heard initial arguments from attorneys for Clark County and Triple Five Nevada Development Corp. on one side, and attorneys for Citizens of Spring Valley on the other.

The appeal is based on Senate Bill 208, passed by the Legislature in 1997, which was designed to make it more difficult to establish casinos in residential areas.

Overruling objections from nearby residents, Clark County commissioners, on a 3-1 vote Jan. 19, decided to approve a zoning change needed to build the casino. Those residents, using the process established in SB208, appealed the decision.

The appeal meant that the review panel, a subset of the long moribund Gaming Policy Committee, would meet for the first time.

Neither side speaking before the panel won every argument.

The review panel rejected a challenge from the county and Triple Five to the legal standing of those appealing the decision, deciding that all those in the "surrounding community" could be an "aggrieved party" under the law.

Rob Warhola, deputy district attorney, challenged the standing of the Citizens of Spring Valley, arguing that the unincorporated group didn't own property, wasn't an individual and therefore couldn't be an aggrieved person.

Although the association itself was not considered as a party, Deputy Attorney General Kirk Hendrick and panel Chairman Brian Sandoval agreed that SB208 allows the panel to determine who, as an aggrieved party, can appeal local government decisions allowing casinos in residential areas.

The board allowed petitioners listed in the appeal, especially those who were notified of the zoning change when the issue was before the county. The panel also appeared to leave the door open for others associated with the citizens' association to be included as aggrieved parties.

The issue was only one of several procedural matters raised by both sides in the dispute.

Citizens of Spring Valley attorney Gary Hayes argued for more time in the legally mandated process, but attorney Mark Fiorentino, representing Triple Five, countered that his clients have the right to a speedy resolution of the appeal.

"We're not going to waive that protection," he said.

Hayes said following the panel's meeting that the company is trying to rush the process.

Without a stipulation of more time from Triple Five, the board will move forward under the timeline dictated in SB208. The county, Triple Five and the citizens' group will each have an hour to present oral arguments Feb. 25, submit written briefs by March 8 and hold a final hearing March 17.

The panel's final decision should come on or before March 27, Sandoval said.

The board quashed a request from the attorney representing the Spring Valley group that the full Gaming Policy Committee meet and establish full rules and procedures for the appeal process.

"This agency will be trying to figure these out as we go ..." Hayes argued. "My clients deserve better than this."

Deputy Attorney General Hendrick said the panel was not a subcommittee of the Gaming Policy Committee, which before SB208 was enacted hadn't met in years. Instead, Hendrick said, the review panel was an independent body that didn't depend on the larger committee for direction.

Sandoval pointed out that without extending the time frame for the panel to judge the appeal, it would be impossible for the full committee to meet and pass on rules and regulations to the panel.

The citizens' group also lost a bid to get equal time to argue its case. Attorney Ron Madsen argued that since the county and developer's arguments are parallel, they would essentially get twice as much time to argue the same case.

But Warhola said he would follow Triple Five's attorneys at the March 17 oral arguments and may cut his arguments short if his points overlap with the Triple Five argument.

The panel also agreed to allow Triple Five the final rebuttal during the oral arguments since the law stipulates that it is the developer's responsibility to prove in a "clear and convincing" manner that the casino will not hurt the surrounding community.

"The developer has the burden under the clear and convincing standard," Hendrick said.

Hayes said the citizens' group has a number of other procedural issues that they will try to address in the coming weeks.

One issue raised by Madsen was the outside lobbying that Spring Valley citizens say influenced the County Commission's decision.

Madsen sought, and was granted, a promise that the review panel members will not talk about the case with the principals outside the hearing process.

Several members of the board are familiar with gaming issues. The members include Sandoval, who also serves as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, and state Gaming Control Board Chairman Steve DuCharme.

Also on the board are Dr. Dayananda Prabhu Rachakonda, a Las Vegas physician specializing in lung disease, and Carroll Johnston, a retired Clark County schoolteacher and principal.

The fifth member of the board is Arlan Melendez, a tribal representative from Reno. He could not attend the Monday meeting because of a schedule conflict, Sandoval said.

The last three members were all recently appointed by Gov. Kenny Guinn.

Sandoval said the panel will strive to be evenhanded in its deliberations.

"I think we decided on a process that is fair to all parties involved," he said.

Notably absent at Monday's meeting were speakers from two organizations that have a stake in the outcome of the casino issue. Boyd Gaming Corp. announced last week that it will seek to buy the rights to develop the casino from Triple Five.

Boyd Gaming, which already runs Sam's Town on Boulder Highway and other casinos downtown and on the Strip, was bitterly disappointed when the Nevada Legislature failed to "grandfather" in exemptions for their proposed casinos when SB208 was passed in 1997.

And opposing the Triple Five/Boyd Gaming casino has been competitor Station Casinos, which runs a string of "neighborhood" casinos in the Las Vegas Valley and has several other sites grandfathered into the law. That company also avoided the fray at the meeting.

Launce Rake covers growth issues for the Sun. He can be reached at (702) 259-4127 or by e-mail at lrake@lasvegassun.com.