The lawsuit concerning annexations by the City of Mulvane for casino developments will be heard in Sumner County District Court today.
    Sumner County District Court Judge Scott McQuin will again hear arguments by attorneys for the City of Mulvane to dismiss charges stemming from an amended lawsuit filed in the case.
    Since the last hearing in Sumner County, Mulvane officials have annexed the casino properties using a different method in hopes of complying with state annexation statute’s definitions of tracts and land.
    Attorney David Cooper, who has been hired by the County to address all casino-related issues, said he expects an argument that the suit is now a moot issue after the re-annexations, and since the MGM Mirage and Foxwoods Development Company have dropped their proposal for a Sumner County casino.
    “That’s a non-argument because the public policy was still violated,” Cooper said.  “What motivated the County in filing the lawsuit was not the casinos, but bad public policy and these annexations need to be undone.”
    Cooper said they will continue to argue the proper annexation method to the potential casino sites near Mulvane — island annexation — was purposefully avoided by the Mulvane city officials in an attempt to eliminate the participation of the Board of Sumner County Commissioners in the process.
    A hearing in the casino case has been set for 2 p.m. this afternoon.
    A hearing has also been set for the lawsuit filed by Mulvane city officials against the Sumner County Commissioners and the Kansas Lottery Commission in Shawnee County District Court.      That case will be heard Tuesday, June 17 at 1:30 p.m.
    In this case, Mulvane attorneys argue the Sumner County Commissioners’ endorsement of two centrally-located casino proposals in Dec. 2007 was, “a wrongful and intentional act of bad faith and misconduct.” 
    They also ask the judge to nullify the endorsements by the Commissioners for the centrally-located casino proposals they selected be passed to the Kansas Lottery Commission in December.
    Cooper’s reply to the motion states, “Mulvane’s true objective is to obtain judicial override of a decision made by a local governing body six months ago in another County.  Kansas law provides a mechanism for such judicial review, but Mulvane failed to pursue it.  Creating legal theories from whole cloth and spinning fact allegations to support them is not enough to cure this fundamental failure.”
    According to Cooper’s reply, Mulvane officials had 30 days to file a notice of appeal with the Sumner County Clerk against the Commissioner’s decision on the casino proposal endorsement process.
    The lawsuit filed by Mulvane also centers on a Request for Proposal policy, or agreement, signed off on by Mulvane City officials and created, “purportedly to establish a uniform policy and procedure by which to evaluate and determine whether to endorse specific proposals.”
    The suit by Mulvane alleges the Commissioners violated this agreement and did not consider the proposals for the Mulvane exit of the Kansas Turnpike.
    “Sumner County’s breech of the agreement was intended to deprive the City of Mulvane and its citizens of any meaningful opportunity to enjoy the direct and indirect economic benefits from the construction and operation of a $425 to $500 million lottery gaming facility enterprise in its immediate vicinity,” the attorneys for Mulvane state in their suit.
    “Sumner County worked in concert with the City of Wellington to ensure denial of all proposals for gaming facilities not otherwise located in close proximity to the City of Wellington,” the suit further charges.
    The suit also claims the Sumner County Commissioners are in violation of Senate Bill 66 for not endorsing the Mulvane proposals, and brings the suit to Shawnee County District Court for a determination on the state law, which does not define a procedure for the local body in endorsing casino proposals.
    The attorneys for Mulvane take issue with the ability of the local governing body to “choose the specific location and proposal, if any, that it desires in its gaming zone, thereby dictating to the Lottery Commission which lottery gaming facility manager will be chosen, even if it is not the best choice for the State of Kansas.”
    The suit alleges this interpretation of Senate Bill 66 would allow the county or city to “nullify the statutory process and the State’s authority.” 
    Instead, they argue the intent of Senate Bill 66 was to leave the power to choose the casino developer to the state.
    “They thwarted and frustrated the specific power and discretion reserved to the Lottery Commission and the Review Board to choose the proposal that best serves the State of Kansas,” the suit alleges.
    Cooper argues in response, “This is difficult to credit given the power reserved to private citizens in Senate Bill 66.  SB 66 required in the first instance an election — a vote by the citizens of each county in a gaming zone to determine whether a gaming facility may be located within the county.  Clearly, the legislation gave great weight to local control.”
   
    lawsuit mulvane sumner county