Best bet?

Best bet?
Casino issues still to be ironed out
By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

BOSTON — Beacon Hill supporters of expanded gambling expect the first slot parlor will be under construction a year from now and three casinos could be up and running in the next three years.

But before the expected frantic scramble for casino sites and gaming licenses begins, a number of major issues are left to be settled between the House, the Senate and the governor before legislation to authorize the massive expansion of legalized gambling is adopted.

The version of gambling legislation that passed the House is at odds with the Senate version in several key areas, and a six-member bipartisan House-Senate conference committee has been formed to iron out those differences and produce a compromise bill.

The Senate chairman of that committee, Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, said last week that he expects the committee will quickly resolve those differences and offer the House and Senate a compromise bill for an immediate vote before Nov. 16, when the Legislature breaks for its year-end recess.

The Senate bill requires casino developers to reach agreements not only with the host city or town, but also with adjacent towns, to mitigate or compensate for local impacts expected from casino development as a condition of getting license approval. The House limited that requirement with provisions allowing a new state gaming commission to settle impact disagreements with nearby communities to prevent adjacent cities and towns from blocking casinos.

The Senate also calls for a controversial repeal of the state’s decades-old ban on happy hour discount and free drinks at all bars and restaurants in the state, to level the competition with casinos that will be allowed to give free drinks to customers under both the House and Senate bills.

While both also provide for a 40 percent tax on gross gaming revenues from the one slot parlor that would be licensed, the House called for an additional 9 percent tax on those gross revenues to support horse racing and boost race purses at state race tracks. The Senate bill would levy a 15 percent additional tax for the horse racing fund.

The bills also differ on whether voters in Boston, Worcester and Springfield would be allowed to approve or reject casino plans in those cities. While both bills require approval by local referendums for all other communities in the state, the House would only require approval of host precincts in those cities, while the Senate would limit local approval to a host precinct vote only in Worcester and Boston.

Another sticking point is a Senate provision that would prohibit lawmakers from taking jobs in the casino industry for at least one year after leaving office The House bill contains no restriction on lawmakers taking jobs in the gambling industry.

“There are some differences, but I don’t see any overwhelming differences that would make the thing fall apart, “ Mr. Rosenberg said after the committee was formed last week.

“Happy hours is one, and what role should communities surrounding the host community have and should there be a closure mechanism,” to thwart adjacent communities from blocking nearby casino plans, or demand excessive compensation as a basis for a municipal impact agreement, he said.

“You can imagine some mischief if there is no resolution. I’m open to a closure mechanism,” he said, such as a last-best offer decision controlled by the gaming commission.

If sent to the governor’s desk in November, the legislation could also pose some difficult issues for Gov. Deval L. Patrick, who launched efforts to bring casinos to Massachusetts shortly after taking office in 2007.

From the outset Mr. Patrick had promised that host communities would get to vote up or down on any casinos proposed in their city or town. But he may have to decide whether to compromise to make it easier to build casinos in Worcester and especially Boston, if those provisions come to his desk.

On another point, the governor has insisted that if a slot parlor is included that it be competitively bid, and he rejected bills last year that provided for slot parlors at existing racetracks for that reason.

With the pending bills directing state taxes collected from slot parlor gambling to private entities controlling the existing horse racing tracks, the governor may also face a decision on the question of leveling the competitive playing field in light of the horse racing funds and benefits to track proposals for casinos or a slot parlor.

Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, who as Ways and Means chairman helped advance the bill through the Senate, said there are also some differences in allocation of state revenues from gambling taxes. A chief difference, he said, is that the Senate would direct 20 percent to local aid while the House bill would send 25 percent to cities and towns.

“Little things can sometimes get elevated to big things during these discussions as well,” Mr. Brewer said of the conference committee process. But he expects a compromise bill to emerge from those closed talks in the next two weeks.

“I expect it should get on the governor’s desk before we leave town,” Mr. Brewer said of the upcoming year-end recess.

“The slot parlor may be up and running in one and a half to two years,” he said, while the permitting, construction and establishment of a regulatory framework and the licensing competition needed before casinos could open could take several years.

Establishing the gaming commission, hiring staff, writing regulations and holding public hearings on regulations, he said, in itself could take one year to complete.