Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies Litigation. The Company is a party to various lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of business. Estimated losses are accrued for these lawsuits and claims when the loss is probable and can be estimated. The current liability for the estimated losses associated with those lawsuits is not material to the consolidated financial condition and those estimated losses are not expected to have a material impact on the results of operations. Ohio Gaming Referendum Challenge. On October 21, 2011, the Ohio Roundtable filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio against a number of defendants, including the Governor, the Ohio Lottery Commission and the Ohio Casino Control Commission. The complaint alleges a variety of substantive and procedural defects relative to the approval and implementation of video lottery terminals as well as several counts dealing with the taxation of standalone casinos. As interveners, we, along with four of the other racinos in Ohio, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings to supplement the position of the Racing Commission. In May 2012, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case; however, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and oral arguments were held on January 17, 2013 in the 10th District Court of Appeals. In March 2013, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The decision of the Appeals Court was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court by the plaintiffs on April 30, 2013 and the Ohio Supreme Court has elected to accept the appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court temporarily stayed the appeal until it first ruled on a matter with similar procedural issues. A decision was issued on that case on June 10, 2014. In response to a motion to dismiss as improvidently granted which was filed jointly by Appellees, the remaining propositions of law were briefed by the parties and oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court was held on June 23, 2015. A decision on this case was issued by the Ohio Supreme Court on March 24, 2016 finding that the parties did not meet the threshold for standing to challenge the installation of video lottery terminals, but a single plaintiff was permitted to proceed with his challenge against the casinos under an equal protection claim. Accordingly, this case has been concluded as it relates to the race track defendants. Environmental Remediation. In October 2004, the Company acquired 229 acres of real property, known as the International Paper site, as an alternative site to build Presque Isle Downs. In connection with the acquisition of the International Paper site, the Company entered into a consent order and decree (the “Consent Order”) with the PaDEP and International Paper insulating us from liability for certain pre‑existing contamination, subject to compliance with the Consent Order, which included a proposed environmental remediation plan for the site, which was tied specifically to the use of the property as a racetrack. The proposed environmental remediation plan in the Consent Order was based upon a “baseline environmental report” and management estimated that such remediation would be subsumed within the cost of developing the property as a racetrack. The racetrack was never developed at this site. In October 2005, the Company sold 205 acres to GEIDC who assumed primary responsibility for the remediation obligations under the Consent Order relating to the property they acquired. However, the Company was advised by the PaDEP that it was not released from its liability and responsibility under the Consent Order. The Company also purchased an Environmental Risk Insurance Policy in the amount of $10.0 million with respect to the property, which was renewed in October 2015 for a period of one year. The Company believes that the insurance coverage is in excess of any exposure that we may have in this matter. Regulatory Gaming Assessments. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (the “PGCB”), the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the Pennsylvania State Police (collectively “the Borrowers”), were required to fund the costs they incurred in connection with the initial development of the infrastructure to support gaming operations in Pennsylvania as well as the initial ongoing costs of the Borrowers. The initial funding of these costs was provided from a loan from the Pennsylvania General Fund in the amount of $36.1 million, and further funding was provided from additional loans from the Pennsylvania Property Tax Reserve Fund in the aggregate amount of $63.8 million. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue will assess all licensees, including Presque Isle Downs, their proportionate share of amounts represented by the borrowings, which are in the aggregate amount of $99.9 million, once the designated number of Pennsylvania’s slot machine licensees is operational. On July 11, 2011, the PGCB issued an administrative order which established that payments associated with the $63.8 million that was borrowed from the Property Tax Reserve Fund would commence on January 1, 2012. The repayment allocation between all current licensees is based upon equal weighting of (1) cumulative gross slot revenue since inception in relation to the combined cumulative gross slot revenue for all licensees and (2) single year gross slot revenue (during the state’s fiscal year ending June 30) in relation to the combined single year gross slot revenue for all licensees; and amounts paid each year will be adjusted annually based upon changes in the licensee’s proportionate share of gross slot revenue. We have estimated that our total proportionate share of the aggregate $63.8 million to be assessed to the gaming facilities will be $4.1 million and will be paid quarterly over a ten‑year period, which began effective January 1, 2012. For the $36.1 million that was borrowed from the General Fund, payment is scheduled to begin after all fourteen licensees are operational. Although we cannot determine when payment will begin, it has considered a similar repayment model for the General Fund borrowings and estimated that its total proportionate share of the aggregate $36.1 million to all fourteen gaming facilities will approximate between $2.0 million and $2.1 million, which has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015. The recorded estimate relative to the Property Tax Reserve Fund is subject to revision based upon future changes in the revenue assumptions utilized to develop the estimate. The estimated total obligation at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, was $4.1 million and $4.3 million, respectively, of which the residual total amount, both current and long-term, of $2.1 million and $2.2 million at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, are appropriately accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The Company paid $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. Agreements with Horsemen and Pari-mutuel Clerks. The Federal Interstate Horse Racing Act and the state racing laws in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania require that, in order to simulcast races, we have written agreements with the horse owners and trainers at those racetracks. In addition, in order to operate slot machines in West Virginia, we are required to enter into written agreements regarding the proceeds of the slot machines (a “proceeds agreement”) with a representative of a majority of the horse owners and trainers and with a representative of a majority of the pari‑mutuel clerks. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, we must have an agreement with the representative of the horse owners. We have the requisite agreements in place with the horsemen at Mountaineer until December 31, 2018. With respect to the Mountaineer pari‑mutuel clerks, we have a labor agreement in force until November 30, 2016 and a proceeds agreement until April 14, 2018. We are required to have a proceeds agreement in effect on July 1 of each year with the horsemen and the pari‑mutuel clerks as a condition to renewal of our video lottery license for such year. If the requisite proceeds agreement is not in place as of July 1 of a particular year, Mountaineer’s application for renewal of its video lottery license could be denied, in which case Mountaineer would not be permitted to operate either its slot machines or table games. Scioto Downs has the requisite agreement in place with the OHHA until December 31, 2023, with automatic two‑year renewals unless either party requests re‑negotiation pursuant to its terms. Presque Isle Downs has the requisite agreement in place with the Pennsylvania Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association until May 1, 2019. With the exception of the respective Mountaineer, Presque Isle Downs and Scioto Downs horsemen’s agreements and the agreement between Mountaineer and the pari‑mutuel clerks’ union described above, each of the agreements referred to in this paragraph may be terminated upon written notice by either party.

Note 10. Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation. The Company is a party to various lawsuits, which have arisen in the normal course of business. Estimated losses are accrued for these lawsuits and claims when the loss is probable and can be estimated. The current liability for the estimated losses associated with those lawsuits is not material to the consolidated financial condition and those estimated losses are not expected to have a material impact on the results of operations.

Ohio Gaming Referendum Challenge. On October 21, 2011, the Ohio Roundtable filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas in Franklin County, Ohio against a number of defendants, including the Governor, the Ohio Lottery Commission and the Ohio Casino Control Commission. The complaint alleges a variety of substantive and procedural defects relative to the approval and implementation of video lottery terminals as well as several counts dealing with the taxation of standalone casinos. As interveners, we, along with four of the other racinos in Ohio, filed motions for judgment on the pleadings to supplement the position of the Racing Commission. In May 2012, the Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case; however, the plaintiffs filed an appeal and oral arguments were held on January 17, 2013 in the 10th District Court of Appeals. In March 2013, the Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The decision of the Appeals Court was appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court by the plaintiffs on April 30, 2013 and the Ohio Supreme Court has elected to accept the appeal. The Ohio Supreme Court temporarily stayed the appeal until it first ruled on a matter with similar procedural issues. A decision was issued on that case on June 10, 2014. In response to a motion to dismiss as improvidently granted which was filed jointly by Appellees, the remaining propositions of law were briefed by the parties and oral argument before the Ohio Supreme Court was held on June 23, 2015. A decision on this case was issued by the Ohio Supreme Court on March 24, 2016 finding that the parties did not meet the threshold for standing to challenge the installation of video lottery terminals, but a single plaintiff was permitted to proceed with his challenge against the casinos under an equal protection claim. Accordingly, this case has been concluded as it relates to the race track defendants.

Environmental Remediation. In October 2004, the Company acquired 229 acres of real property, known as the International Paper site, as an alternative site to build Presque Isle Downs. In connection with the acquisition of the International Paper site, the Company entered into a consent order and decree (the “Consent Order”) with the PaDEP and International Paper insulating us from liability for certain pre‑existing contamination, subject to compliance with the Consent Order, which included a proposed environmental remediation plan for the site, which was tied specifically to the use of the property as a racetrack. The proposed environmental remediation plan in the Consent Order was based upon a “baseline environmental report” and management estimated that such remediation would be subsumed within the cost of developing the property as a racetrack. The racetrack was never developed at this site. In October 2005, the Company sold 205 acres to GEIDC who assumed primary responsibility for the remediation obligations under the Consent Order relating to the property they acquired. However, the Company was advised by the PaDEP that it was not released from its liability and responsibility under the Consent Order. The Company also purchased an Environmental Risk Insurance Policy in the amount of $10.0 million with respect to the property, which was renewed in October 2015 for a period of one year. The Company believes that the insurance coverage is in excess of any exposure that we may have in this matter.

Regulatory Gaming Assessments. The Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (the “PGCB”), the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and the Pennsylvania State Police (collectively “the Borrowers”), were required to fund the costs they incurred in connection with the initial development of the infrastructure to support gaming operations in Pennsylvania as well as the initial ongoing costs of the Borrowers. The initial funding of these costs was provided from a loan from the Pennsylvania General Fund in the amount of $36.1 million, and further funding was provided from additional loans from the Pennsylvania Property Tax Reserve Fund in the aggregate amount of $63.8 million.

The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue will assess all licensees, including Presque Isle Downs, their proportionate share of amounts represented by the borrowings, which are in the aggregate amount of $99.9 million, once the designated number of Pennsylvania’s slot machine licensees is operational. On July 11, 2011, the PGCB issued an administrative order which established that payments associated with the $63.8 million that was borrowed from the Property Tax Reserve Fund would commence on January 1, 2012. The repayment allocation between all current licensees is based upon equal weighting of (1) cumulative gross slot revenue since inception in relation to the combined cumulative gross slot revenue for all licensees and (2) single year gross slot revenue (during the state’s fiscal year ending June 30) in relation to the combined single year gross slot revenue for all licensees; and amounts paid each year will be adjusted annually based upon changes in the licensee’s proportionate share of gross slot revenue. We have estimated that our total proportionate share of the aggregate $63.8 million to be assessed to the gaming facilities will be $4.1 million and will be paid quarterly over a ten‑year period, which began effective January 1, 2012. For the $36.1 million that was borrowed from the General Fund, payment is scheduled to begin after all fourteen licensees are operational. Although we cannot determine when payment will begin, it has considered a similar repayment model for the General Fund borrowings and estimated that its total proportionate share of the aggregate $36.1 million to all fourteen gaming facilities will approximate between $2.0 million and $2.1 million, which has been accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

The recorded estimate relative to the Property Tax Reserve Fund is subject to revision based upon future changes in the revenue assumptions utilized to develop the estimate. The estimated total obligation at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, was $4.1 million and $4.3 million, respectively, of which the residual total amount, both current and long-term, of $2.1 million and $2.2 million at March 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, are appropriately accrued in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. The Company paid $0.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016.

Agreements with Horsemen and Pari-mutuel Clerks. The Federal Interstate Horse Racing Act and the state racing laws in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania require that, in order to simulcast races, we have written agreements with the horse owners and trainers at those racetracks. In addition, in order to operate slot machines in West Virginia, we are required to enter into written agreements regarding the proceeds of the slot machines (a “proceeds agreement”) with a representative of a majority of the horse owners and trainers and with a representative of a majority of the pari‑mutuel clerks. In Pennsylvania and Ohio, we must have an agreement with the representative of the horse owners. We have the requisite agreements in place with the horsemen at Mountaineer until December 31, 2018. With respect to the Mountaineer pari‑mutuel clerks, we have a labor agreement in force until November 30, 2016 and a proceeds agreement until April 14, 2018. We are required to have a proceeds agreement in effect on July 1 of each year with the horsemen and the pari‑mutuel clerks as a condition to renewal of our video lottery license for such year. If the requisite proceeds agreement is not in place as of July 1 of a particular year, Mountaineer’s application for renewal of its video lottery license could be denied, in which case Mountaineer would not be permitted to operate either its slot machines or table games. Scioto Downs has the requisite agreement in place with the OHHA until December 31, 2023, with automatic two‑year renewals unless either party requests re‑negotiation pursuant to its terms. Presque Isle Downs has the requisite agreement in place with the Pennsylvania Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association until May 1, 2019. With the exception of the respective Mountaineer, Presque Isle Downs and Scioto Downs horsemen’s agreements and the agreement between Mountaineer and the pari‑mutuel clerks’ union described above, each of the agreements referred to in this paragraph may be terminated upon written notice by either party.