The latest news about Maine lakes and ponds.

State Considers Appeal to Casino Permit

June 20, 2011 - Oxford — On June 16, state officials will rule on an appeal to the environmental permits granted to the Oxford Resort Casino.

The appeal, filed on behalf of a group of Oxford residents and the Androscoggin River Alliance (ARA), seeks to suspend the permit granted by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and halt all work on the site.

Among other things, it charges that the $6.7 million in project funding that BBD has documented is inadequate to ensure the air and water quality will be protected.

Black Bear Development (BBD), the company seeking to build the casino, filed an answer with the state that rejects the claims of the appeal.

A staff recommendation from the state finds that most of the claims are unfounded, but that BBD "failed to submit proof of adequate funding."

Impact claims

The appeal opposes the DEP permit on a variety of grounds.

It alleges that the permit was granted without properly evaluating the environmental impact on Hogan Pond and the Androscoggin River.

It says that BBD failed to demonstrate that it has the financial resources to follow through on environmental controls for the project.

The appeal also charges that the casino violates the federal Clean Water Act, the Natural Resources Protection Act, and the Site Law of Development Act.

Attorneys from Preti Flaherty Beliveau and Pachios, responding on behalf of BBD, disputed every charge made by the petitioners.

"All of the issues raised by the Petitioners were considered by [Black Bear, and/or the DEP] and addressed to the [DEP's] satisfaction," reads an answer filed with the state.

On June 16, the Board of Environmental Protection will consider the appeal, filed by attorney Stephen Hinchman.

The staff of the BEP issued a recommendation to the board finding that most of the appeal's charges lacked sufficient merit, but substantiating some of the charges with regard to demonstrating financial capacity.

"[The] appellants have not demonstrated that there is sufficient conflicting technical evidence ... to warrant a public hearing or a reopening of the record," reads the recommendation. "... [The] development will not adversely affect existing uses, scenic character, or other natural resources in the surrounding area."

The department also rejected various other claims, including that the permit was tainted by then-Commissioner Darryl Brown, who has since stepped down due to a conflict of interest related to the casino.

Financial capacity

However, the department did agree with the ARA on one finding, that casino developers have failed to demonstrate adequate funding for the project.

The law requires BBD to demonstrate that it has the financial resources to build adequate pollution controls.

As part of the permit application process, BBD did produce a letter from Key Private Bank that stated that at least $6.7 million was available in liquid assets to finance the project.

The ARA said that BBD has failed to identify enough specifics in the plan, and has also improperly excluded certain parts of the plan.

"At best, the applicant has only submitted financial information about phase one of Phase I, but even that is incomplete," charges the appeal.

Specifically, the appeal claims that BBD has failed to list the costs of a variety of required aspects of the project, including "the cost of the water treatment system and mitigation, as well as building structures, interior work, gaming equipment, off-site expenses, and other costs associated with construction of Phase I."

BBD, says the appeal, "has failed to meet its threshold obligation to provide complete information about total costs of that phase."

The appeal also has harsh words for the DEP's issuance of the permit.

"The Department, unfortunately, simply ignored the gaps in the application," reads the appeal. "... [The] Department's finding that the 'total cost of the project is estimated to be $6,746,000' is inaccurate and directly contradicted by the only competent evidence in the record."

BBD, on the other hand, claimed that the nature of the project makes it unlikely to harm the local watershed.

"The purpose of requiring an applicant to prove financial capacity is to make sure that projects can afford pollution controls as well as the costs for the development itself," reads an answer filed with the state. " ... The pollution controls in this context are integral to the site work and would be implemented at the outset of the project. Therefore, there is little risk that the project would run out of money before pollution controls can be purchased and installed."

If the board acts as the staff suggests, it will require additional financial information on the project and on BBD.

"Based upon the applicant's summary of estimated site costs, the Board finds that the applicant failed to submit proof of adequate funding for the completion of Phase I development," reads a drafted recommendation. "For this reason, the Board further finds that the Department Order should be modified to be consistent with the Site Law."

If the board approves the draft, "the applicant must submit to the Department ... additional documentation of financial capacity that includes estimated and itemized total costs for the development of Phase I of the Oxford Resort Casino and evidence that the applicant has been granted a line of credit or a loan ... . The information must be submitted to and approved by the Department prior to any additional work being done on the project."

Matt Hongoltz-Hetling, Advertiser Democrat, June 2011


Lakes: Hogan Pond
Regions: Sebago


Print this story

Email this story

return to Lake News