Gaming picture sees many developments

While the resort casino picture in Massachusetts got muddier in November, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission made progress toward the award of the state’s sole slots-parlor license, which is expected in late January.

Slots parlor applications are under consideration for sites in Leominster, Plainville and Raynham, and voters in each municipality have approved the proposed project in a local referendum.

The three applicants appeared before the commission at an early November meeting to provide an update on the status of their surrounding community agreements and negotiations.

The commission also heard from representatives of communities that have petitioned for the “surrounding community” designation.

Under the state’s 2011 gaming act and related regulations, a municipality may achieve surrounding community designation either through direct agreement with an applicant or through a successful petition to the commission. After designation is received, municipalities and applicants then negotiate a mitigation agreement. Factors to be considered in determining surrounding community status include geographic proximity to the development and significant and adverse impacts within the community derived from the construction or operation of the gaming facility.

At its Nov. 21 meeting, the commission took several votes on surrounding community petitions, granting the status to Bolton as a surrounding community to the proposed Leominster slots-parlor facility and to Bridgewater as a surrounding community to the proposed Raynham slots-parlor facility. Both petitions were granted on the basis of likely traffic impacts.

The commission considers an applicant’s surrounding community designations and executed agreements with those communities as it evaluates slots-parlor applications.

Executed surrounding community agreements, in addition to host community agreements, may be found on the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s website, www.massgaming.com.

On the resort-casino front, proposals were rejected in November by voters in Milford, Palmer and East Boston, though voters in Revere supported a planned resort at Suffolk Downs, which straddles the Boston-Revere boundary.

On Nov. 21, the commission heard arguments about the ability of Sterling Suffolk to pursue an application to build a resort-casino entirely in Revere, following the East Boston defeat, but the commission did not immediately make a determination.

The Gaming Commission scheduled suitability hearings for December for the remaining resort-casino applicants: Wynn Resorts in Everett (Region A) and MGM in Springfield (Region B). Both municipalities approved the proposed resort casino in local referendums, and final applications are due Dec. 31.

Region C (southeastern Massachusetts) was designated under the gaming act for a tribal resort-casino, but the commission has the discretion to issue a commercial license in the region if it determines that the tribal development process is unlikely to succeed. To date, KG New Bedford has submitted a Phase I application to develop a commercial resort casino in the region.

On Nov. 15, Gov. Deval Patrick signed a renegotiated tribal gaming compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which was approved earlier by the Legislature, for a proposed $500 million casino in Taunton. The compact must now be approved by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, which rejected the original compact on the grounds that its revenue-sharing model was overly generous to the state.

Increasing the complexity of the gaming landscape in Massachusetts, the Wampanoag Tribe of Aquinnah on Martha’s Vineyard announced on Nov. 12 that they have the authority to construct a slots parlor on tribal land on the island, citing a National Indian Gaming Commission legal analysis of the tribe’s rights. The state is disputing that analysis on the grounds that the Aquinnah ceded its right in a 1988 agreement.

The gaming law permits the licensing of up to three full commercial resort casinos in three different regions of the state and one slots facility to be located anywhere in the state.

More than $150 million in revenue anticipated from the awarding of the two casino and one slots parlor licenses is included in the state’s fiscal 2014 operating budget ($65 million for each casino and $25 million for the slots parlor), so the state could face a shortfall if the licenses are not granted on schedule this fiscal year.