Valley racing takes 2 tracks

By Elise Franco | February 1, 2011 at 12:10a.m.

Quorum at forum raises legal issues

YOUNGSTOWN

Can residents place their bets on two competing racetracks in the Mahoning Valley?

Officials of Penn National Gaming Inc., which owns two Ohio racetracks, met privately Monday with Mahoning County commissioners and representatives of the Youngstown/Warren Regional Chamber to discuss relocating a horse racetrack to the county.

This would represent the second horse-racing venture to target the Valley in recent weeks. On Jan. 18, the Mahoning Valley Development Group announced plans for its racetrack project.

Penn National has told the state it was looking to move one or both of its racetracks. The company owns Beulah Park outside Columbus and Raceway Park in Toledo.

Commissioner John McNally said he and commissioners Anthony Traficanti and Carol Remidio-Righetti met with the gaming corporation, chamber staff and other undisclosed participants.

“The folks from Penn National are exploring potential opportunities in Mahoning and Trumbull counties,” McNally said. “They came to tell us what they do with their racetrack operations.”

McNally said he wouldn’t comment on Penn National’s intentions or say if a location was discussed.

In January, members of the state Legislature from the Mahoning Valley revealed they had talked with the owners of one of the state’s seven racetracks about relocating to this area.

“It’s easier and quicker to move an established track than [to apply for a license for a new one],” said state Rep. Robert F. Hagan of Youngstown, D-60th.

Hagan said the racetrack owners asked that the facility looking to move not be disclosed.

Meanwhile, Rick Lertzman of the Mahoning Valley Development Group, has proposed a $300 million complex in the Mahoning Valley also with a horse racetrack.

Lertzman’s company is interested in as many as 700 acres, reportedly near Vienna, for a racetrack, resort, golf course, a 400-bed hotel with a 2,000-seat arena on the first floor, an indoor water park and possibly a casino.

Lertzman said Jan. 19 that he had heard that Raceway Park in Toledo was looking to move to Mahoning County.

Bob Tenenbaum, spokesman for Penn National, said his company is looking at possibly relocating because if the state OKs video slot machines there, the track will be in competition with the casino — owned by the same company.

“If you have racetracks with slot machines located close to where you’re also going to have casinos you’ll wind up cannibalizing your own business,” he said.

Tenenbaum, who said he wasn’t at the chamber meeting, said he wouldn’t comment on any meetings having to do with the project, but said the company will announce a decision soon.

“If they were to request permission to move the track, they would look at areas of the state that are underserved,” he said.

The Monday meeting at the Chamber’s offices downtown — and its purpose — was not announced to the public.

Ohio open-meeting law states that any meeting where a majority of a public body — Mahoning county commissioners, in this case — is present and discussing public business should be considered public. Chamber representatives said the meeting was closed.

Walter Good, chamber vice president of economic development, retention and expansion, didn’t return calls for comment Monday. A Vindicator reporter was asked to leave the offices by Tom Humphries, chamber executive director.

McNally said the commissioners believe, because they were invited to attend the chamber’s meeting to hear Penn National’s pitch, they weren’t in violation of open meeting laws.

“Information gathering sessions are permissible under the public records act,” said McNally, a lawyer. “I think the commissioners attending and hearing the Penn National folks out is perfectly legal.”

Dave Marburger, an attorney who practices open-government law in Ohio, said it’s unlikely the commissioners attended the meeting and refrained from discussing the potential gambling operation.

“I understand their argument is they were just guests at a meeting of the chamber ... But they wouldn’t have been invited but for the fact that they hold the position of county commissioner.”

Marburger said the commissioners should “know better” and should have announced that they would be attending the meeting and why.

“Thinking they could discuss information pertaining to their public duties and not have it affect [Ohio open meetings laws] is ludicrous,” he said.