Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato says the completion of the North Shore casino and all the commitments Don Barden made depends on the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, which must now deliver an owner who is "legitimate and financially sound."

In a news conference that also touched on the drink tax referendum and the Steelers ownership, Mr. Onorato, who was out of town when Mr. Barden negotiated a deal to turn majority ownership of the casino over to a financial group spearheaded by Chicago billionaire Neil Bluhm, said he will oppose plans to delay the project.

"I want a face-to-face meeting with the gaming board," Mr. Onorato said. "We want them to tell us who holds the [casino] license and if they can live up to the commitments [Don Barden made]."

Mr. Bluhm's group would own 75 percent of the casino if the gaming board approves the transaction.

Yesterday, Mr. Onorato sidestepped questions of whether the gaming board should re-open bidding for the casino's license and if Mr. Barden and the financial group he brought into the deal should keep the license.

"That's something for the gaming board to decide," he said.

In addition to a phone conversation with Mr. Bluhm, Mr. Onorato said he is making plans to go to Harrisburg to talk with members of the gaming board because "[the licensing] process has not worked the way it was supposed to work."

"Every moment the casino is delayed, it delays the host fee," said Mr. Onorato, who has consistently said that the county's share of revenue from the North Shore casino, expected to open in May, will be a critical part of the county's budget in the future. The county will receive 2 percent of gross revenues from the casino as a host fee, which could be as much as $10 million a year.

Asked about the referendum question proposed by the anti-drink tax group Friends Against Counterproductive Taxation, Mr. Onorato said the proposal to ask voters to approve a reduction of Allegheny County's drink tax from 10 percent to 0.5 percent is illegal.

Mr. Onorato, who proposed the levy, together with a $2-a-day tax on car rentals, as a funding stream for the county's $30 million subsidy of the Port Authority, said the reduction proposed by the group would throw the county's budget out of balance.

"Their budget amendment is not valid. They haven't proposed how they would balance the budget," he said, adding that he has not yet ruled out challenging the proposal in court.

Mr. Onorato is pushing another referendum question, one that would ask voters if they would support increasing property taxes instead of levying the drink tax.