You are on page 1of 46

GEORGE A.

BORDEN
(202) 434-5563
gborden@wc.com

December 21, 2015


By FedEx Priority Overnight
New York State Gaming Commission
One Broadway Center
Schenectady, New York 12305
Philip G. Spellane
Harris Beach PLLC (as counsel to Lago)
99 Gamsey Road
Pittsford, NY 14534
Re:

Lago Resort & Casinos Application for a Gaming Facility License

Dear Commissioners and Mr. Spellane:


We write to provide notice that our clients, including Turning Stone Resort Casino LLC
and James and Desiree Dawley, will be filing a court challenge to todays unlawful award by the
Gaming Commission of a casino license to the Lago Resort & Casino, LLC (Lago). For
reasons detailed in our letters to the Gaming Commission dated April 1, 2015, July 17, 2015,
October 23, 2015, November 19, 2015, and December 18, 2015, which are attached hereto
(without exhibits), the award should be vacated. Any construction by Lago on the casino is done
at its own peril.

Sincerely,

George A. Borden

New York State Gaming Commission & Thomas C. Wilmot, Sr.


December 21, 2015
Page 2

cc:

John A. Crotty, Gaming Commissioner


Peter J. Moschetti, Jr., Gaming Commissioner
John J. Poklemba, Gaming Commissioner
Barry Sample, Gaming Commissioner
Todd R. Snyder, Gaming Commissioner
Mark C. Holscher, Esq., Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Shawn M. Griffin, Esq., Harris Beach PLLC
Peter D. Carmen, Oneida Indian Nation
Meghan Murphy Beakman, Esq., Oneida Indian Nation
James and Desiree Dawley
Daniel F. Katz, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP

EXHIBIT A

LAW OFFICES

WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY LLP


725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W.
GEORGE A. BORDEN

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-5901

(202) 434-5563

gbordenwc.com

ED'WARD BENNETT WILLIAMS (1920-1988)


PAUL R. CONNOLLY (1922-1978)

(202) 434-5000
FAX (202) 434-5029

April!, 2015

By FedEx
Mark D. Gearan
Chairman
New York State Gaming Commission
One Broadway Center
Schenectady, New York 12305

Dear Chairman Gearan:


We write on behalf of the Oneida Indian Nation ("Nation") to respectfully request that
the Gaming Commission ("Commission") deny Lago Resort & Casino's ("Lago") 1 application
for a gaming facility license. Multiple independent grounds support denial. Lago does not
satisfy the statutory selection criteria, is subject to disqualification for failing to include material
information in its application, and only has reached this point because of a deeply flawed
decision-making process.
The Gaming Facility Location Board ("Location Board") selected Lago "to apply to the
Commission for a gaming facility license."2 But the Commission has the exclusive authority to
determine whether to award a license to Lago. Under the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and
Breeding Law (the "Act"), the Commission alone has the power to "approve or disapprove" any
application for a license and may "deny an application ... for any cause that the commission
deems reasonable. " 3

"Lago," as used herein, includes all persons and entities associated with the Lago casino
application.
2

Report and Findings of the Location Board (Feb. 27, 2015) ("Board Report") at 11 (emphasis
added).

Act 1305(3) & (6).

WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April1,2015
Page2

While the Commission is empowered to deny an application for any reasonable cause, it
is required to deny a license to an applicant that is not "qualified under the criteria set forth in
4
this article." Section 1314(3) of the Act provides that, "[w]ithin any development region, if the
commission is not convinced that there is an applicant that has met the eligibility criteria ... , no
gaming facility license shall be awarded in that region." !d. That is a determination for the
Commission-not the Location Board-to make.
Separately, Section 1318(1) of the Act provides that "[t]he commission shall deny a
license to any applicant who the commission determines is disqualified." !d. The grounds for
disqualification under the Act include: "(a) failure of the applicant to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the applicant is qualified in accordance with the provisions of this
article" and "(b) failure of the applicant to provide information, documentation and assurances
required by this article or requested by the commission, or failure of the applicant to reveal any
fact material to qualification, or the supplying of information which is untrue or misleading as to
a material fact pertaining to the qualification criteria." !d.
The Commission not only has extremely good cause to deny a license to Lago, the
Commission is required under the Act to deny a license to Lago, for two reasons. First, Lago
does not satisfy the selection criteria enumerated in the Act. Most importantly, Lago has not
provided substantial evidence that it will offer meaningful value to either the State or Region 5
(the Eastern Southern Tier Region) because the majority of its revenue will be cannibalized from
existing New York gaming facilities. Second, Lago's application should be disqualified because,
based on the information released by the Location Board, Lago failed to provide critical
information reqnired by the Act and requested in the Request for Applications ("RF A"}--independent environmental studies concerning the impact of the proposed casino on nearby
protected species and habitats. In addition, based on the information released by the Location
Board, it appears that Lago may not have updated its application with material information
concerning (i) an environmental lawsuit filed with respect to the proposed casino and (ii)
significant tax concessions Lago received from Seneca County.

Act 1314(1).

WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 3

The Commission also should deny Lago a license because the Location Board acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in recommending Lago for a gaming license. The Location Board
did not apply the same standards to Lago that it applied to other applicants, particularly with
respect to the issue of cannibalization. The Location Board also failed to engage in the required
quantitative analysis of applicants based on the Act's enumerated weighted selection criteria,
relying instead on a subjective, qualitative evaluation that resulted in differential treatment of
applicants with respect to the statutory factors. Moreover, no license should be issued to Lago
because the Location Board has now opened the entirety of Region 5 to new applicants. The
Commission should wait until the Location Board has made its final recommendation regarding
the new applications before awarding any license in Region 5.

I.

The Nation Has a Significant Interest in the Commission's License Determination.

The Nation has a significant interest in the Commission's license determination with
respect to Lago.
In 1993, the Nation and the State of New York entered into a gaming Compact under the
authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"). The objectives ofiGRA and the
Compact include "promot[ing] tribal economic development, tribal self-sufficiency, and strong
tribal governments" and "protect[ing] the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of the Nation
and the State." 5 Pursuant to the Compact, the Nation at its own considerable expense opened the
Turning Stone Resort Casino ("Turning Stone") in Verona, New York in 1993.
Turning Stone is a destination resort featuring world-class golf, gaming, entertainment,
dining, spas, and accommodations. Since opening in 1993, Turning Stone has been the
economic engine of the Nation and an economic boon to central New York as a whole, with the
Nation infusing more than $5.7 billion into the economy in direct spending. Turning Stone also
is a leading employer in the region, with nearly 4,000 employees-most of whom are nonNative-American-who earned in excess of$140 million in wages and benefits during the 2014
fiscal year. In 2013, Nation employees paid $20.6 million in federal payroll taxes and $4.3
million in state income taxes.

25 U.S. C. 2701; Nation-State Compact Between the Oneida Nation of New York and the
State ofNew York at 2.

WILLIAMS!\ CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 4

The revenue generated by Turning Stone has allowed the Nation to be self-sufficient at a
time when many other Native American tribes are mired in poverty. Proceeds from Turning
Stone fi.md essential services for Nation Members, such as a comprehensive health clinic,
affordable housing, education scholarships, tuition assistance programs, cultural education
initiatives, and numerous programs benefitting Nation children and Elders.
The landmark settlement agreement reached in 20!3 between the Nation and the State
was intended, in part, to protect these myriad benefits to the Nation and the State. The
agreement already is generating millions of dollars per year in new revenues to the State and
. 6
severa! counties.
Yet, as discussed in greater detail below, licensing the Lago casino will place the
economic health of Turning Stone at grave risk. Lago is projected to cannibalize the majority of
its business from existing New York gaming facilities, much of it from Turning Stone, which is a
mere 75 miles away (nine exits on the New York State Thruway). Indeed, the proposed Lago
site is only 45 miles from Syracuse, Turning Stone's largest market. Lago would undermine the
shared prosperity that both the Nation and the State have worked so hard to cultivate in central
New York, and would have a devastating effect on the Nation.

II.

There Are Compelling Reasons for the Commission To Deny a License to Lago.
A.

Lago Will Significantly Cannibalize Revenue from Turning Stone and Other
Upstate Casinos.

Lago's application should be denied because it fails to achieve the goals of the Act.
Lago has not provided substantial evidence that it would generate significant new state and local
revenue or recapture revenue currently lost to other states. Contrary to the Act's express
objectives, Lago will draw the majority of its projected revenue from nearby existing New York
State gaming facilities, while failing in any meaningful way to recapture gaming revenue
currently generated outside of New York, as even its own market analysis shows. By
cannibalizing revenue from highly-taxed Video Lottery Terminal ("VLT") revenue at existing
racinos, Lago may actually decrease state gaming tax revenue.

See Ex. I (Dan Guzewich, County's share of sales tax grows, settlement cash adds to revenue,
Rome Sentinel (Mar. 21, 20 15)).

WILLIAMS 0\ CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 5

The purpose of the Act is to "boost economic development, create thousands of wellpaying jobs[,] ... provide added revenue to the state" and "attract non-New York residents and
bring downstate New Yorkers to upstate."7 One of the most important application criteria
specified by the Act is "maximizing revenues received by the state and localities."8 The RFA
required each applicant to describe how it planned "to succeed ... while limiting the impact on
revenues at other New York gaming establishments. " 9 The Location Board reiterated the
importance of generating new revenue (as opposed to merely redistributing existing revenue) in
its Questions and Answers for applicants: "The language that is quoted from the RF A is clear
that what is required of the Applicant is to describe how it intends to expand the relevant market
by bringing in new visitors, as opposed to merely shifting visitors from existing gaming venues in
the region. " 10
The Location Board rejected numerous applications in Region 1 (the Catskill/Hudson
Valley Region) based solely on their potential for cannibalization. Indeed, the Location Board
decided to exclude categorically all applicants in Orange County, expressing concern that those
applicants would cannibalize revenue from two downstate racinos located outside of Region 1.
See Board Report at 14 ("[B]ecause of the proximity to New York City ofthe Orange County
proposals, each resulted in a high level of cannibalization of existing downstate gaming
facilities.").
The Location Board also rejected all Orange County applicants because they would have
cannibalized a potential, fUture casino selected by the Board for the Catskill region:
The Board determined that to fulfill the intent of the Act, the one gaming facility license
in [Region 1] should be awarded to a qualified and desirable Applicant in Sullivan
County or Ulster County. The Board recognized that an Orange County casino could
generate substantial revenues as a result of proximity to New York City, however, review
of various internal modeling scenarios found an additional facility in Orange County or a
second facility in Sullivan County could destabilize that single project in the traditional
Catskill area. Therefore, the Board has determined not to recommend the award of a
license to any proposal in Orange County or a second facility in the Catskill counties.
7

Act 1300(5) & (6).

Act 1320(l)(b).

RFA (Mar. 31, 2014) at 44 (emphasis added).

10

Round 1 Q&A (Apr. 23, 2014) at 49-50, Question 173 (emphasis added).

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April1, 2015
Page 6

Board Report at 14; see also id. at 21 (proposed location of Live! in Orange County "made the
Board's concern about adversely affecting the economic need of the Catskill region particularly
acute in that this location would have had a pronounced cannibalization effect on a potential
Sullivan County casino.").
In Region 1, the Location Board was far more concerned about preventing
cannibalization than about the very significant new state revenue it acknowledged a new casino
in Orange County would generate. When it came to Lago, however, the Location Board
inexplicably and utterly disregarded its pronounced concerns about cannibalization of existing
gaming facilities. The LQcation Board justified its selection of Lago by claiming that Lago
would generate more revenue than the other applicants in the region 11-reasoning that the
Location Board expressly rejected with respect to the Orange County applicants in Region 1, all
of which were projected to generate far more gaming and state tax revenue than the selected
applicant (Montreign). 12 There is no lawful justification for the Board to subject upstate,
primarily Native American, casinos to cannibalization deemed intolerable for downstate, nonNative American, casinos.

11
12

Board Report at 32.

Montreign was projected to generate $301.6 million in gaming revenue and $103.4 million in
tax revenue. Board Report at 12. By contrast, all of the Orange County applicants projected
significantly higher numbers: Caesars ($738 million in gaming revenue and $188.7 million in
tax revenue); Grand Hudson ($568.9 million in gaming revenue and $172.6 million in tax
revenue); Hudson Valley ($559 million in gaming revenue and $137.1 million in tax revenue);
L,ive! ($662 million in gaming revenue and $149.9 million in tax revenue); Resorts World ($758
m'illion in gaming revenue and $201.4 million in tax revenue); and Sterling Forest ($1.133 billion
in gaming revenue and $264.1 million in tax revenue). Id. at 18, 19, 21, 22, 23 & 24. Similarly,
the expected job creation at Montreign (1,209 full time and 96 part time), id. at 12, was dwarfed
by that at the Orange County casinos-Caesars (2,129 full time and 703 part time), Grand
Hudson (2,310 full time and 269 part time), Hudson Valley (2,412 full time and 530 part time),
Live! (3,264 full time and 1,444 part time), Resorts World (2,662 full time and 765 part time),
and Sterling Forest(3,129full time and 1,614 part time). Jd. at 18, 19,21, 22,23 &24. And the
Orange County casinos were far better positioned to recapture spending from out-of-state casinos
than Montreign; two Orange County applicants each projected recapturing hundreds of millions
of dollars in revenue from New York residents currently leaving the State to gamble. Jd. at 111
(Live!) & 198 (Sterling Forest).

WILLIAMS 0\ CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 7

Governor Cuomo has described the Location Board's selection of Lago as an "anomalous
situation" and has observed that a new casino in the economically ailing Southern Tier "was the
intent" of the Act. 13 In selecting Lago, the Location Board disregarded the selection criteria
enumerated in the Act, the instructions in the RFA, the Location Board's Questions and
Answers, and the Location Board's own logic for rejecting all Orange County applicants. As
described below, the Location Board was presented with voluminous information showing that
the vast majority ofLago's revenue would be cannibalized from current gaming facilities in the
State. Instead of rejecting Lago on this basis as it did for all Orange County applicants, however,
the Location Board glossed over Lago' s undeniable cannibalization.
Analyses conducted by independent economists that were submitted to the Location
Board projected that the vast majority ofLago's revenue will come from existing New York
gaming facilities. In a June 2014 report, Union Gaming Analytics estimated nearly 90% of
Lago's gaming revenue would be cannibalized from existing New York gaming facilities and
that Lago would only grow the gaming market by a mere $16 million. 14 Indeed, the report states
that "virtually all of [Lago' s] potential revenue will come at the expense of revenue from other
operations in the market." 15 A May 2014 analysis by Pyramid Associates, LLC (the "Pyramid
Report") projected a 67% cannibalization rate. 16 Although both of these analyses were submitted
to the Location Board, 17 the Board completely failed to address them in its report.

13

Ex. 2 (Joseph Spector, Region needs better casino plan for license, Cuomo says, Press & SunBulletin (Jan. 19, 2015)).
14

Ex. 3 (Union Gaming Analytics Market Analysis (June 27, 2014)) at 36-37.

15

Ex. 3 (Union Gaming Analytics Market Analysis (June 27, 2014)) at 35.

16

Ex. 4 (Pyramid Report (May 2014)) at 39.

17

On September 29,2014, the Finger Lakes Racing Association submitted both the Union
Gaming and Pyramid Reports to the Board. See Ex. 5 (Finger Lakes Racing Association Letter
(Sept. 29, 2014)) at 4; see also Verified Petition, Finger Lakes Racing Association, Inc. v. New
York State Gaming Facility Location Board, et al., Index No. 1235-15 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 6,
2015) 48 & Ex. 4.

WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April1,2015
Page 8

Even Lago's own market analysis reveals that most of its projected gaming revenue will
be drawn from existing New York gaming facilities. 18 Lago concedes that more than $30 million
of its first-year revenue will be drawn from Turning Stone alone. 19 The Lago market analysis
also reveals that other Native American gaming facilities are likely to be materially impacted by
Lago. Lago's own projected cannibalization of existing facilities will be significantly greater
than that of Orange County applicants rejected by the Location Board on cannibalization
grounds. Compare Lago Application Exhibit V (Executive Summary) at 3 (projecting 51%, or
$134 million, in cannibalized revenues for Lago) with Live! Hotel & Casino Application Exhibit
VIII.A.3 (Market/Revenue Study) at 62 & Exhibit 13 (projecting $79.8 million in cannibalized
revenues for Live!) & Caesars New York Application Exhibit VIII.B.3.a AI (Market Analysis)
at 32, Appendix C (projecting $104.6 million in cannibalized revenues for Caesars).
Lago's cannibalization of existing facilities will undermine the Act's goals. First, Lago
would force existing facilities like Turning Stone, which have invested heavily in building the
New York gaming market, to reduce their workforces, thereby eliminating, rather than creating,
well-paying jobs. The Pyramid Report estimates that existing New York gaming facilities will
have to decrease direct employment by I ,040 jobs, nearly as many jobs as Lago purports to
create 20 The Pyramid Report projects that Turning Stone alone would lose approximately $59
million in revenue to Lago in 2018 and that 445 direct employees would lose jobs, resulting in
approximately $9.7 million in lost direct wages. 21 Second, Lago's cannibalization from existing
racinos and casinos will lead to a net decrease in tax revenue to the State. VLT winnings at
racinos are taxed at an overall rate of nearly 66%, while Lago winnings will only be taxed at a
rate of approximately 30%. 22 The Union Gaming Analytics Report submitted to (but not
addressed by) the Location Board concluded that Lago' s cannibalization would cause total State
gaming tax revenue to decrease. 23 Similarly, revenue cannibalized from Native American
18

Lago Application Exhibit V (Executive Summary) at 3.

19

Lago Application Exhibit VIII.A.3 (TMG Consulting Gaming Market Assessment) at 61.

20

Ex. 4 (Pyramid Report) at 48, Table 19.

21

Jd.

22

Lago would be taxed 37% on slot machine revenue and 10% on all other gaming revenue. Act
1351. According to analyses submitted by Lago to the Location Board, Lago's expected
blended tax rate will be approximately 30%. Lago Application Exhibit VIII.B.3.b (CGR Report:
Impacts of Wilmot Casino on Primary Impact Area) at 39.

WILLIAMS B CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 9

gaming facilities would decrease gaming revenues paid to Oneida and Madison counties. The
Nation currently pays the County of Oneida 6.25% of its gaming revenue from slot machines
(plus a total of $6 million per year in fixed payments to Oneida and Madison counties)?4 Under
the State Finance Law, other central New York counties within the Nation's gaming exclusivity
zone-including Onondaga, Oswego, Cayuga, Cortland, Chenango, Otsego, Herkimer, and
Lewis counties-also receive a portion of the Nation's Turning Stone revenues? 5
Cannibalization of Turning Stone gaming revenue will reallocate revenues from those counties to
other counties, which is not the purpose of the Act
Lago clearly is not what the New York Legislature had in mind when it passed a law
seeking to "attract non-New York residents" and "maximiz[e] revenues received by the state and
26
localities. " Lago is located more than a 90-minute drive from the nearest state border, and it is
surrounded by existing New York gaming facilities. It is thus unsurprising that Lago itself
(optimistically) predicted that only 14% of its revenue will be recaptured from out-of-state
casinos? 7 The selection of Lago turns the objective of the Act on its head-cannibalizing
existing New York casinos while attracting precious little business from out-of-state casinos.

B.

Lago Does Not Meet the Eligibility Criteria Under the Act.

The Commission should not award a license to Lago for the additional reason that Lago
does not meet the eligibility criteria under the Act As discussed above, the Commission must
deny a license to an applicant that is not "qualified under the criteria set forth in this article."28
Lago failed to satisfY the Act's eligibility criteria for several reasons.

23

Ex. 3 (Union Gaming Analytics Market Analysis) at 37-38 & Figure 29.

24

Ex. 6 (Excerpts of the Settlement Agreement by the Oneida Nation, the State of New York, the
County of Madison & the County of Oneida) III. B.

25

See N.Y. State Finance Law 99-h(3-a).

26

Act 1300(6) & 1320(l)(b).

27

Lago Application Exhibit V (Executive Summary) at 3.

28

Act 1314; see also id. 1318 ("The commission shall deny a license to any applicant who
the commission determines is disqualified.").

WILLIAMS Iii CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April1,2015
Page 10

First, based on the information publicly disclosed by the Location Board, it appears that
Lago may have failed to update its application with important information-a lawsuit filed in
July 2014 alleging that the Town ofTyre failed to comply with New York environmental laws
and regulations in issuing a Negative Declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review
29
Act ("SEQRA") with respect to the Lago project Because of the Negative Declaration, Lago
was not required to complete a full environmental impact statement under SEQRA. The Petition
asserted several causes of action: (1) failure to hold a hearing on a complete SEQRA application
pursuant to Municipal Home Rule Law 20(5) and Town Law 264(1); (2) failure to comply
with 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617(6)(a)(2); (3) failure to reasonably identifY relevant environmental
impacts as required by 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617(7)(b)(2); (4) failure to take a "hard look" at identified
environmental impacts as required by 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617(7)(b)(3); (5) failure to set forth the
determination of significance in written form containing reasoned elaboration under
6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617(7)(b)(4); (6) failure to publish a required notice of the Negative Declaration;
and (7) failure to make records relating to the casino project available prior to or at the various
public hearings concerning the project.30 The trial court dismissed the Petition on September 18,
2014, and it is now the subject of an expedited appeal. 31

Lago was required to inform the Location Board about the lawsuit and pending appeal.
The governing regulations required Lago to provide information about any "pending legal
actions ... to which the applicant is a party and a brief description of any such actions."32 The
RFA required the same information. 33 The Location Board emphasized the importance of
providing information about lawsuits in its Questions and Answers: "[t]he Board may consider
pending or threatened litigation in its siting evaluation. Once the Board selects an applicant to
present to the Commission for licensure, the Commission may consider pending or threatened
litigation in its suitability determination."34 At a public hearing, the Location Board showed a
keen interest in learning about lawsuits that the Tyre Town Supervisor mentioned. 35
29

See Ex. 7 (Verified Petition (July 11, 2014)).

30

Ex. 7 (Verified Petition (July 11, 2014))

31

Ex. 8 (Order, Appellate Division, Fourth Department (Feb. 25, 2015)).

32

9 N.Y.C.R.R. 5300(1)(c)(8)(i).

33

RFA (Mar. 31, 2014) at 39-40.

34

Round I Q&A (Apr. 23, 2014) at 48, Question 167.

35

Public Hearing Transcript (Sept. 24,2014 Morning Session) at 9-10.

43-81.

WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 11

As to three other applications that the Location Board rejected, the Board cited litigation
risk as a serious concern. 3 In two instances, the litigation about which the Location Board
expressed concern involved environmental issues. See Board Report at 23 (expressing concern
that "the potential litigation risk over environmental issues would jeopardize the realization of
the project"); id. at 27 ("[T]he Board notes that due to legal and environmental challenges there
might have been delays in this tirneline."). Lawsuits involving alleged SEQRA violations are
particularly significant, because the award of a gaming license is subject to SEQRA. 37
The Board Report contains no reference to the Lago SEQRA suit. If Lago failed to
inform the Location Board of the SEQRA lawsuit and appeal, it violated the governing
regulations. The regulations provide that "[u]pon completion of an application prescribed in
[this regulationJ and prior to the award of a gaming facility license, an applicant has a
continuing duty to disclose to the New York Gaming Facility Location Board promptly, in
writing (and electronically), any changes or updates to the information submitted in the
application or any related materials submitted in connection therewith."38 An applicant may be
disqualified under the Act for "failure ... to provide information, documentation and assurances
required by this article or requested by the commission, or failure of the applicant to reveal any
fact material to qualification, or the supplying of information which is untrue or misleading as to
a material fact pertaining to the qualification criteria. " 39

36

See Board Report at 18, 23-24, 27 (Caesars, Sterling Forest, and Capital View).

37

See Applicant Conference Q&A (May 2, 2014) at 4, Question 339. The Location Board
clearly contemplated that applicants would submit complete environmental impact statements
under SEQRA. See SEQR Environmental Impact Statements Guidance (June 20, 2014) at l
(referencing Board's expectation that each applicant would submit a full environmental impact
statement). Both of the other casinos selected by the Board prepared environmental impact
statements. See Montreign Resort Casino Application Exhibit VIII.C.l.f (Environmental Impact
Statement); Rivers Casino & Resort Application Exhibit IX.A.02.b Attachment B (Excerpt of
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement).
38

9 N.Y.C.R.R. 5300(4)(a) (emphasis added). The recently-issued supplemental RFA for


Region 5 applications reiterates the importance of updating applications: "[ a]s a general rule, it
is better to err on the side of over-reporting changes than to fail to report a change."
Supplemental Region 5 RFA (Mar. 23, 2015) at 17.
39

Act l318(l)(b).

WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
Aprill,2015
Page 12

Second, based on the information publicly disclosed by the Location Board, it appears
that Lago may have failed to inform the Location Board that it was seeking, and ultimately
received, millions of dollars of tax relief from the Seneca County Industrial Development
Agency ("IDA"). On October 2, 2014, the IDA accepted and began considering Lago's
40
application for tax relief. On February 12,2015, the IDA approved an accord with Lago,
granting Lago tax relief that we estimate could save Lago, and cost the relevant municipalities,
approximately $45 million in taxes over the next 20 years. 41 That is highly material information,
particularly given the fact that a Wilmot representative represented at a public forum in 2014 that
"[t]he Wilmot family plans on being a property and sales tax payer and not asking for a tax
break" from the IDA. 42

A central goal of the Act is to "provide added revenue to the state."43 The governing
regulation required applicants toJrovide substantial evidence of the economic benefit their
project would bring to the State. As the Location Board explained in its Questions and
Answers, "a factor for the graded RF A evaluation is economic impact and a subsidized
application will likely illustrate diminished economic impacts when competitively evaluated." 45
If Lago failed to provide important information concerning its tax relief application to the
Location Board (or the Commission), that is a further reason for disqualifying Lago under the
Act.
40

Ex. 9 (Seneca IDA Meeting Minutes (Oct. 2, 2014)) at 2-3.

41

See Ex. I 0 (Seneca IDA Press Release (Feb. 12, 2015)) (announcing approval of tax relief).
We estimate that the tax relief totaled $90 million, including sales tax and mortgage recording
tax abatement (which Lago estimated totaled approximately $20 million, see Ex. II (Lago IDA
Application) at 2), and property tax abatement, which we estimate is worth approximately $70
million. The property tax estimate assumes that Lago's property is assessed at $150 million
(75% ofLago's acknowledged hard construction costs, id. at 3), that the county and school
district tax rates remain constant, and that Lago is eligible for an exemption under N.Y. Real
Property Tax Law 485-b. In return for these savings, Lago agreed to pay $45.3 million over 20
years, resulting in a net overall savings to Lago of approximately $45 million.
42

Ex. 12 (Town of Fayette Town Board Meeting Minutes (Mar. 13, 2014)) at I.

43

Act 1300(5).

44

9 N.Y.C.R.R. 5300.l(d).

45

Round I Q&A (Apr. 23, 2014) at 39, Question 139(b) (emphasis added).

WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 13

Third, based on the information publicly disclosed by the Location Board, Lago failed to
submit required independent expert studies with respect to environmental issues. The governing
regulations provide that "[a]n applicant shall ... provide completed studies and reports showing
the proposed gaming facility's impact on, among other things, local and regional social,
environmental and traffic infrastructure." 46 The RF A required applicants to "[s]ubmit as Exhibit
IX.A.2.b. studies completed by independent experts showing the local and regional impacts of
the proposed Gaming Facility in each of the following areas: traffic and roadway infrastructure;
water demand, supply and infrastructure capacity; waste water production, discharge, and
infrastructure capacity; storm water discharge and management; electricity demand and
infrastructure capacity; protected habitats and species; and light pollution."47 The Location
Board made clear in its Questions and Answers that the RF A required the submission of
independent expert studies, and that an applicant's SEQRA submission would not suffice if it did
not meet the requirements of the RFA. See Round 1 Q&A (Apr. 23, 2014) at 66, Question 228
("The RF A requires the submission of a number of studies. It is incumbent upon the Applicant
to determine if a completed environmental impact statement satisfies each requirement.").
The proposed Lago site is located approximately 3.5 miles from the Montezuma National
Wildlife Refuge ("Refuge"), which is home to a number of threatened and endangered species
such as the bald eagle and the federally-protected Indiana bat 48 Despite the Lago site being
directly connected to the Refuge by the White Brook, the Lago application completely failed to
address the local or regional impacts of the proposed casino on nearby "protected habitats and
species," as required by the RF A. Lago did not submit any independent studies on this subject,
as expressly required by the RF A. Instead, Lago merely looked at an online environmental
resource mapper, which showed no endangered species or protected habitat on the Lago site and
performed a cursory survey of the Lago site. 49 Lago's apparent failure to include independent
studies addressing local or regional impacts of the proposed casino on protected habitats or
species is a clear violation of the requirements of the RFA, and a further ground for Lago's
disqualification.
46

9 N.Y.C.R.R. 5300.1()(2) (emphasis added).

47

RFA (Mar. 31, 2014) at 58 (emphasis added).

48

See Ex. 13 (Species and Habitats of Conservation Concern at Montezuma National Wildlife
Refuge) at Al-AS.
49

See Lago Application Exhibit IX.A.2.b (Protected Habitats and Species Report) at 3.

WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 14

Fourth, as discussed in detail elsewhere in this Letter, the proposed Lago casino fails to
meet the fundamental goals of the Act: to "boost economic development," "provide added
revenue to the state," and "attract non-New York residents and bring downstate New Yorkers to
upstate." 50 The Commission should deny Lago a license for this reason as well.

C.

The Location Board Employed a Flawed Selection Process.

The Commission also should deny Lago's application for a license because the Location
Board did not evenhandedly apply the statutory criteria to Lago. The Location Board's selection
ofLago was, in sum, deeply flawed.
I.

The Location Board Applied a Different Standard to Lago.

As discussed above, the Location Board cited cannibalization of existing New York
facilities as a compelling reason to reject applicants from Orange County, but did not apply the
same standard to Lago. That is merely the most glaring example of the Location Board failing to
apply its standards uniformly. With respect to other statutory factors, the same deficiencies the
Location Board cited as concerns regarding other applicants were minimized or outright ignored
when it came to Lago:

50

51

Local opposition: In rejecting the application for Capital View, the Location Board
noted the substantial level of local opposition. Board Report at 27. Yet the Location
Board green-lighted Lago despite fmding that "there is a well-organized and
community-driven grass roots opposition to the project." Jd at 285.

Lawsuits: For three unsuccessful applicants, the Location Board highlighted its concern
that pending litigation threatened the realization of the project. Jd at 18, 23, 24 & 27.
Yet as to Lago, even though a suit brought by local opponents was disclosed in Lago' s
application, the Location Board did not even mention that suit. 5 1

Act 1300(5) & (6).

The Lago application disclosed one lawsuit, which the Location Board did not address in its
evaluation of Lago. As discussed above, it appears from the materials that the Board has made
available to the public that Lago may not have disclosed a second lawsuit involving SEQRA
compliance. The Board Report contains no reference to the SEQRA suit.

WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April1, 2015
Page 15

Player Reward Program: With respect to three other applicants, the Location Board
identified the absence of an established player reward program and/or player database as
a significant concern. !d. at 17, 19, 20, & 30. For example, in the case of Grand
Hudson, the Location Board found that the absence of a player reward program "would
hinder the creation of a secure and robust gaming market in the Region and State." !d.
at 19. Lago lacks both a player reward program and a player database, but the Location
Board expressed no concern about it. !d. at 32.

Environmental Issues: The Location Board noted as to several applicants that the
project could have an adverse impact on environmental resources. See, e.g., id. at 24.
Yet, as to Lago, the Location Board raised no such concern, despite the proximity of the
Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge 3.5 miles from the project. As discussed above,
the Refuge is home to numerous endangered and threatened species, such as the bald
eagle and the federally-protected Indiana bat. Additionally, numerous regulated
wetlands are present on and immediately adjacent to the project site, according to
drawings prepared by Lago's engineers. See Ex. 14 (Surface Water Features) at 2.

Inconsistent application of standards is the sine qua non of an unreasonable or arbitrary decision.
The Location Board's summary of its reasoning regarding the Orange County
applications underscores the different standard applied to Lago. The Location Board
acknowledged that the Orange County applications evidenced "strong casino operators,
established loyalty programs and supplemental license fees," but explained that the proposals
"also had weaknesses, including (depending on the Applicant) local opposition, environmental
concerns ... that threatened to delay their speed to market, traffic issues and uncertainties about
the financial condition of the sponsor and/or proposed financing gackage" in addition to "a high
level of cannibalization of existing downstate gaming facilities." 2 Based on that reasoning, the
Location Board could not possibly have selected La go. Lago's application included almost none
of the positives noted about Orange County, lacking a loyalty program or a supplemental license
fee, among others, and virtually all of the negatives, including strong local opposition, heavy
cannibalization, and potential traffic issues.

"2

' Board Report at 14.

WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April 1,2015
Page 16

2.

The Location Board Employed a Purely Qualitative Analysis, in


Violation of the Act.

The Commission should not defer to the Location Board's selection ofLago for the
additional reason that the Board failed to comply with a critical requirement of the Act-a
quantitative analysis of the applicants based on weighted statutory factors. Section 1320 of the
Act requires a 70% weighting for economic activity and business development factors, a 20%
weighting for local impact and siting factors, and a I 0% weighting for workforce enhancement
factors. 53 The Board indicated in its Questions and Answers for applicants that it would score
the applicants based on the statutory factors. See Round 2 Q&A (May 14, 2014) at 11, Question
370(c) (answering "Yes" to the question whether the Board's analysis and scoring of factors
included within the evaluation criteria will be made public); id. at 18, Question 384 (asserting
that "[a]pplicants will be scored based upon the total revenue generated by the gaming
operation"). In its Report, however, the Location Board asserted that it had decided not to score
applicants, electing instead to "reach its conclusions based on a qualitative judgment," "giving a
54
qualitative weight to categories of factors. "
The Location Board's decision to rely exclusively on a qualitative evaluation, rather than
employing the quantitative weighting required by the Act, or any numerical scoring of
applications, violated the Act. The result of the Board's purely qualitative analysis is a
subjective and unreliable decision-making process in which, as discussed above, Region 5 was
treated very differently than Region I and Lago was selected despite numerous factors that
weighed heavily against it. 55

53

Act 1320.

54

Board Report at 8-9.

55

In addition to failing to employ the quantitative analysis required by the Act, the Location
Board improperly created a new fourth factor-providing economic assistance to disadvantaged
areas and enhancing upstate New York tourism-that by necessity would cause one or more of
the other three factors to receive less than the statutorily mandated weighting. See, e.g., Board
Report at 14-15,27-31,33,35,36-37. Indeed, the Location Board stated that it gave
"considerable weight" to this new criterion in Region 1. Id at 14. This marked another unlawful
departure from the mandated process.

WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 17

3.

The Location Board's Selection Process Was Infected With Conflicts


of Interest.

The Location Board's process also was flawed because ofthe central role played by a
consultant with past ties to all three successful applicants. The Location Board engaged an
outside consultant "to provide the [Location Board] with analysis ofthe gaming industry and
assist with the comprehensive review and evaluation" of the applications. !d. at 46. That highly
paid consultant, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, signed a one-year $4.9 million contract to
conduct its comparative analysis. 56 According to press reports, Taft had prior connections with
five ofthe fifteen applicants (one applicant applied for two different facilities) 57 All three of the
successful applicants had such ties. 5 The statistical odds ofthat result are exceedingly low.
Serious questions arise as to whether this consultant provided independent advice; those
questions are only magnified by the inconsistent application of critical factors by the Location
Board, and its exclusive reliance on qualitative analysis, as enumerated above.

D.

Region Five Should Be Reopened Entirely.

The Commission should deny a license to Lago for the additional reason that the
Location Board has re-opened bidding in Region 5. In a December 26, 20141etter to the
Commission and the Location Board, Governor Cuomo observed that the Board had selected an
applicant (Lago) in "a narrow band of land" created by "the construct of the exclusivity zones of
the Seneca Nation ofindians and Oneida Indian Nation," "despite being hundreds of miles north
ofthe counties that comprise New York's economically ailing Southern Tier." 59 Based on the ..
Governor's December 2014letter, the Location Board has opened bidding in the entirety of
Region 5 to new applicants, while inexplicably asserting that its selection of Lago remains set in
stone.

56

See Ex. 15 (Jon Harris, Casino industry: deep relationships, potential conflicts, Democrat &
Chronicle (Feb. 23, 2015)) at 1.
57

!d.

58

!d.

59

Ex. 16 (Letter from Andrew M. Cuomo to Gaming Commission and Location Board Chairs).

WILLIAMS B CONNOLLY UP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 18

The Location Board's decision to reopen bidding for Region 5, while refusing to
reconsider its selection of Lago, is improper. The Location Board previously explained that it
did not select a fourth applicant because "a second competing new gaming facility in any of the
regions would make it significantly more difficult for any gaming facility to succeed in that
region." 60 In light of that finding, awarding a license to both Lago and a second facility in
Region 5 would be arbitrary and capricious. The Location Board has recognized that a region
should be analyzed holistically. See Applicant Conference Q&A (May 2, 2014) at 3, Question
334 (promising to "be sensitive to intra-Region competition in evaluating the Applications"). If
a new bid is now submitted for the Southern Tier that would have been selected as the only new
casino in Region 5 had it been submitted initially, it would be arbitrary to preclude that result
now. Lago has not yet been awarded any license and should not be treated as if it has. 61 The
Board needs to reopen the application process for the Region ab initio.

60

Board Selection Document (Dec. 17, 2014) at 8. Although the reasoning in the Board
Selection Document is incorporated nearly verbatim into the Board Report, the Board Report
notably omitted the Location Board's earlier finding that a second gaming facility in any region
would jeopardize the success of a new casino in the region. Instead, the Location Board inserted
a new explanation for its decision, claiming that it "declined to select a fourth [a]pplicant"
"[b ]ased on the 16 proposals received during this RF A process." Board Report at 11. This post
hoc shift in reasoning cannot erase the Board's earlier finding about viability.
61

The Board Report incorrectly asserts that the Act requires "at least one gaming facility located
in each of three defined regions." Board Report at 4. To the contrary, the Act makes clear that a
facility need not be authorized in a region if there are no qualifying bids. Act 1314(3 ). Based
on public comments, it appears that the Board's selection ofLago was infected by its mistaken
belief that it needed to select at least one applicant from Region 5. Location Board Meeting
Transcript (Jan. 13, 2015) at 2 ("We simply said and thought that Lago was the strongest
application of the three received, and thus I think that decision of Lago should stand as well.").
That provides an additional reason why Region 5 should be reopened in its entirety (as discussed
infra).

WILLIAMS l'l CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
Aprill,2015
Page 19

E.

No License Should be Issued Because Region Five Has Been Reopened.

Regardless of how the new bidding for Region 5 is structured, the Commission needs to
await completion of the new RF A process before awarding any license. The Location Board
previously stated that "[t]he Commission anticipates that licenses will be awarded
concurrently." 62 But that is not subject to the Commission's discretion. All licenses must be
awarded simultaneously; otherwise the Commission must wait seven years after the first license
is awarded before awarding any additional licenses. "As a condition oflicensure, licensees are
required to commence gaming operations no more than twenty-four months following license
award. No additional licenses may be awarded during the twenty-four month period, nor for an
additional sixty months following the end of the twenty-four month period."63 The Commission
thus lacks authority to issue any additional licenses during the seven-year period following the
award of the .first license. See Board Report at 39 (seven-year bar runs "from the issuance of the
first license").

III.

Conclusion.

For the many reasons discussed herein, La go does not satisfy the criteria enumerated in
the Act for the receipt of a gaming license. Any evenhanded assessment of the factors that
caused the Location Board to deny every application in Orange County would lead to the same
result for Lago's application. We respectfully submit that the Commission should exercise its
authority to correct the Location Board's mistake and deny Lago's application for a license.
Sincerely,

George A. Borden

62

Round 1 Q&A (Apr. 23, 2014) at 50, Question 175; but see Round 2 Q&A (May 14, 2014) at
8, Question 360(e) ("Whether the Commission awards licenses to more than one Applicant at the
same time will depend on the facts and circumstances of the selected Applicants.").
63

Act 1311(1) (emphasis added).

WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP

Mark D. Gearan
Chairman, New York State Gaming Commission
April!, 2015
Page 20

cc:

John A. Crotty, Gaming Commissioner


Peter J. Moschetti, Jr., Gaming Commissioner
John J. Poklemba, Gaming Commissioner
Barry Sample, Gaming Commissioner
Todd R. Snyder, Gaming Commissioner
Peter D. Carmen, Oneida Indian Nation
Meghan Murphy Beakman, Esq., Oneida Indian Nation
Daniel F. Katz, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

GEORGE A. BORDEN
(202) 434-5563
gborden@wc.com

December 18, 2015


By FedEx Priority Overnight
New York State Gaming Commission
One Broadway Center
Schenectady, New York 12305
Re:

Lago Resort & Casinos Application for a Gaming Facility License

Dear Commissioners:
We write to provide an update to our letter dated November 19, 2015, which apprised
you of the filing of a Verified Petition under SEQRA seeking to nullify the negative declaration
issued on October 1, 2015 with respect to the proposed Lago Resort & Casino (Lago) by the
Town of Tyre Town Board. See Casino Free Tyre, et al. v. Town Board of the Town of Tyre, et
al., Index No. 49749 (Sup. Ct., Seneca Cnty.). On account of the SEQRA violations, and the
pending litigation regarding those violations, we respectfully submit that Lago should be
disqualified from consideration for a gaming license or, at a minimum, no licensure award
should occur while the SEQRA challenge remains pending.
As you are aware, the Town Boards first negative declaration for Lago, issued in June
2014, was nullified. On July 10, 2015, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, annulled that
negative declaration and all related resolutions concerning Lago. Dawley v. Whitetail 414, LLC,
130 A.D.2d 1570 (4th Dept 2015). On October 1, 2015, the Town Board issued its second
negative declaration with respect to Lago. Like the first negative declaration, it too should be
nullified.
Yesterday, at the conclusion of a merits hearing on the SEQRA challenge to the new
negative declaration, the Seneca County Supreme Court stated its intention to render a decision

New York State Gaming Commission


December 18, 2015
Page 2
forthwith. 1 As detailed in the Verified Petition and related papers that we attached to our
November 19 letter, the case presents a substantial number of independent grounds for nullifying
the negative declaration, including, inter alia:

The Town Board improperly predetermined the result of a negative declaration despite
its legal duty of objectivity in its quasi-judicial role of making a SEQRA determination
of significance;

The Town Board applied the wrong legal standard more than 150 times during the
deliberation of and voting on the SEQRA issues, improperly elevating the standard for
requiring an environmental impact statement (EIS) from whether the casino
development may include the potential for at least one significant adverse
environmental impact to whether it will do so;

The Town Board arbitrarily and capriciously determined that the loss of 45 acres of
agricultural land in a Town and County Agricultural District did not constitute a
moderate to large impact necessitating a significance determination under SEQRA,
even though that loss was 18 times greater than the threshold amount deemed likely to
constitute such an impact under New York law;

The Town Board arbitrarily and capriciously determined that this colossal project
especially massive when measured against its local environswould not have even a
potential significant impact on the character of the tiny rural community of Tyre;

The Town Board arbitrarily and capriciously determined that this destination-resort
casino, which Lago represented to the Gaming Commission would generate hundreds
of millions of dollars in projected revenue each year, would not attract a large number
of people for more than a few days (one of the expressly-stated indicators of a potential
environmental impact under SEQRA);

Relying on speculative extensive proposed off-site road improvements that require


land dedication to the State of private property that Lago does not own, the Town
Board determined that such improvements would clearly negate the significant

On December 8, 2015, the Court denied a preliminary injunction motion to bar ongoing
construction on Lago, finding that Petitioners would not suffer irreparable harm in part because
the merits hearing was scheduled for only nine days later. The Court did not express a view on
the merits of the SEQRA challenge to the 2015 negative declaration and reserved on that issue
until after the December 17, 2015 hearing.

New York State Gaming Commission


December 18, 2015
Page 3
adverse impacts from traffic generated by the 9,000 daily casino visitors each day and
more than 3 million a year to a Town with approximately 950 residents; and

The Town issued an unlawful conditioned negative declaration because it relied on


mitigation measures in a community mitigation plan that it only first considered after
issuing the negative declaration and that remains subject to future private negotiations
between the Town and Lago.

The issues are squarely discussed not only in the previously provided Verified Petition and other
filings but also Petitioners reply in support thereof which is attached hereto.
The Gaming Commission was clear that it expected that its applicants would prepare an
EIS. SEQRA Environmental Impact Statements Guidance (June 20, 2014) at 1. Both Montreign
and Rivers did just that. Lago and the Town have defied that expectation, improperly rushing the
first negative declaration through only to have it nullified by the Fourth Department and then
doubling down with a second pre-ordained negative declaration rather than prepare an EIS. This
flagrant disregard for the Gaming Commissions expectations and the environmental laws
provides further grounds for disqualifying Lago.
On a related front, Lago on December 10, 2015 finally renounced the benefits it obtained
in February and June this year from the Seneca County Industrial Development Authority. Local
petitioners had challenged those benefits in court on numerous grounds, including that they were
the product of an obvious conflict of interest, as the law firm representing Lago before the
Seneca County IDA also is counsel to the Seneca County IDA. In addition, the decision in
Dawley nullifying the Towns June 2014 negative declaration resulted in the nullification of the
IDA benefitswhich are a SEQRA actionas a matter of law. Although the Seneca County
IDA awarded a new set of benefits to Lago on December 10, 2015 based on the second negative
declaration, the new IDA award did not cure the numerous grounds for invalidating this grant of
public benefits. A legal action challenging the new IDA award to Lago will be filed shortly. The
IDA benefits awarded to Lago are relevant to any licensure decision because Lago claimed to the
IDA that those benefits are a critical-path item for its financing.
For all the reasons set forth above, as well as in our April 1, 2015, July 17, 2015, October
23, 2015, and November 19, 2015 letters, we respectfully submit that Lago should be
disqualified from consideration for a gaming license. At a minimum, the Gaming Commission
should not award any licenses while the significant SEQRA challenge to the second negative
declaration awarded to Lago remains pending before the Seneca County Supreme Court. The
public interest would not be served by the confusion generated due to the award of a gaming
license that is subsequently rendered a nullity under SEQRA.

New York State Gaming Commission


December 18, 2015
Page 4
Sincerely,

George A. Borden
cc:

John A. Crotty, Gaming Commissioner


Peter J. Moschetti, Jr., Gaming Commissioner
John J. Poklemba, Gaming Commissioner
Barry Sample, Gaming Commissioner
Todd R. Snyder, Gaming Commissioner
Peter D. Carmen, Oneida Indian Nation
Meghan Murphy Beakman, Esq., Oneida Indian Nation
Daniel F. Katz, Esq., Williams & Connolly LLP

You might also like