Home 
Local Aid and Finance Legislature remains stuck on casino issue
After more than 20 years of trying, proponents of casinos and slot machines appear to be on the verge of adding Massachusetts to the growing list of states that offer an array of gambling opportunities. But the months-long effort could fall short if legislative leaders can’t agree on whether slot machines should be allowed at the state’s four race tracks.
The House and Senate both approved gaming bills earlier this year, but legislative leaders and a conference committee with three members from each branch are still working to iron out differences between the two bills.
While there are some significant differences between the House and Senate bills, mainly over the issue of allowing slot machines at the state’s four race tracks, both sides were hoping to reach a compromise before the Legislature ends its formal sessions on July 31.
The House bill (H. 4619) would allow two major all-inclusive casinos, similar to those operating in Connecticut, as well as a set number of slot machines at the two horse racing tracks and the two former dog tracks (where live racing is no longer permitted). The Senate bill (S. 2530) would allow three all-inclusive casinos, but no slot machines at the tracks.
One of the tracks, Suffolk Downs in East Boston, has announced that it would seek a full casino license.
A gaming bill that had been filed by the governor is roughly in line with the Senate plan.
The main impetus behind the expanded gaming bills has been the prospect of thousands of construction jobs to build the casinos and related hotels as well as permanent jobs once the casinos are up and running. But a significant part of the debate has centered on mitigating the economic and social impact of expanded gaming as well as how to use the revenue from the tax on gaming profits.
Leaders in both the House and Senate included strong mitigation language, based on meetings with municipal officials and others. Both bills would use a portion of gaming revenue to fund mitigation programs and to offset the impact of expanded gaming on Lottery revenue, which is used to fund municipal aid. Gaming tax revenue would also be used for a variety of state purposes.
Depending on what is authorized in the final bill, gaming tax revenue could be about $500 million when all facilities are in full operation after several years. The state would also collect a smaller amount in one-time licensing fees.
There remain significant differences between the two branches on the issues of mitigation and revenue provisions that would have to be resolved by the conference committee.
The House bill would dedicate 30 percent of annual gaming tax revenue to a Gaming Local Aid Fund, 2 percent to a Community Mitigation Fund, and 7 percent to a Local Capital Projects Fund, with the balance used for state purposes, including funding state and local education programs.
The Senate bill would dedicate about 30 percent of gaming tax revenue to a State Lottery and Gaming Fund to support local aid programs and about 4 percent for community mitigation.
Local Aid and Finance Legislature remains stuck on casino issue
Legislature remains stuck on casino issue
After more than 20 years of trying, proponents of casinos and slot machines appear to be on the verge of adding Massachusetts to the growing list of states that offer an array of gambling opportunities. But the months-long effort could fall short if legislative leaders can’t agree on whether slot machines should be allowed at the state’s four race tracks.
The House and Senate both approved gaming bills earlier this year, but legislative leaders and a conference committee with three members from each branch are still working to iron out differences between the two bills.
While there are some significant differences between the House and Senate bills, mainly over the issue of allowing slot machines at the state’s four race tracks, both sides were hoping to reach a compromise before the Legislature ends its formal sessions on July 31.
The House bill (H. 4619) would allow two major all-inclusive casinos, similar to those operating in Connecticut, as well as a set number of slot machines at the two horse racing tracks and the two former dog tracks (where live racing is no longer permitted). The Senate bill (S. 2530) would allow three all-inclusive casinos, but no slot machines at the tracks.
One of the tracks, Suffolk Downs in East Boston, has announced that it would seek a full casino license.
A gaming bill that had been filed by the governor is roughly in line with the Senate plan.
The main impetus behind the expanded gaming bills has been the prospect of thousands of construction jobs to build the casinos and related hotels as well as permanent jobs once the casinos are up and running. But a significant part of the debate has centered on mitigating the economic and social impact of expanded gaming as well as how to use the revenue from the tax on gaming profits.
Leaders in both the House and Senate included strong mitigation language, based on meetings with municipal officials and others. Both bills would use a portion of gaming revenue to fund mitigation programs and to offset the impact of expanded gaming on Lottery revenue, which is used to fund municipal aid. Gaming tax revenue would also be used for a variety of state purposes.
Depending on what is authorized in the final bill, gaming tax revenue could be about $500 million when all facilities are in full operation after several years. The state would also collect a smaller amount in one-time licensing fees.
There remain significant differences between the two branches on the issues of mitigation and revenue provisions that would have to be resolved by the conference committee.
The House bill would dedicate 30 percent of annual gaming tax revenue to a Gaming Local Aid Fund, 2 percent to a Community Mitigation Fund, and 7 percent to a Local Capital Projects Fund, with the balance used for state purposes, including funding state and local education programs.
The Senate bill would dedicate about 30 percent of gaming tax revenue to a State Lottery and Gaming Fund to support local aid programs and about 4 percent for community mitigation.
Written by MMA Legislative Director John Robertson
