Legislative History for Connecticut Act
SA 15-7 SB1090 House 5849-5922 73 Senate 1659-1685 27 Public Safety & 1197-1376, 1379-1601 403 Security 503
Transcripts from the Joint Standing Committee Public Hearing(s) and/or Senate and House of Representatives Proceedings
Connecticut State Library
Compiled 2017
H – 1218
CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE
PROCEEDINGS 2015
VOL.58 PART 17 5588 -5927
005849 /dm 384 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 CLERK: c House Bill 6749, as amended by House "A"
Total Number Voting 146
Necessary for Passage 74
Those voting Yea 134
Those voting Nay 12
Absent and not voting 5
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
The bill, as amended, is passed.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Will the clerk please call Calendar 627?
CLERK: c On page 43, House Calendar 627, Favorable Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Planning
and Development, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th) :
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I move
acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable
Report and passage of the bill in concurrence with
the Senate.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: c The question is on acceptance of the Joint 005850 /dm 385 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the
0 bill in concurrence with the Senate. Representative
Dargan, you have the floor.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Before I
actually call the amendment, which strikes and is
the underlying bill, I'd like to just take a moment
and talk about the historic perspective of Native
American gaming and our two tribes. Let me start
very· quickly. From the 1600s when the two tribes
that are Native American, federally recognized
tribes right now, the Mohegans and Mashantuckets,
C· were located within our state. Let me move forward,
Madam Speaker, and talk about in the 1980s when the
first tribe in the country from California, which
ran a high-stakes bingo facility, and the State of
California took them to court, and in Federal
Court, Supreme Court, the tribe won and that's the
beginning of tribal gaming within our country. When
President Clinton was elected president, he formed
what's called the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. And
during that time, our two Native American tribes
here, first the Pequots and then the Mohegan Tribe,
were recognized. And during that time, I had an 005851 /dm 386 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 interest, a hobby, into Native American gaming, not c only in our state but throughout the country. And
I've had the opportunity to meet with dozen of
tribal leaders and elders throughout this fine
country of our and the sovereign immunity that
those tribes have. I met a gentleman that
represented the Mohegan Tribe. His name was Chief
Ralph Sturges. His Native American name was
G'tinemong. It meant "he who helps thee." He who
helps thee. When the Mohegans were recognized in
1994, Ralph, and I quote, "We are no longer the
little old tribe that lives upon the hill. We are
now the nation that lives upon the hill." And I
bring that forward because these two Native
American tribes have been good neighbors to us.
They have been good corporate citizens. And for
those past 20 years the Pequots and Mohegan tribe
have dominated the gaming and tourism industry not
just in Connecticut but throughout New England.
They have provided immeasurable opportunities for
entertainment, sporting, and gaming within our
state, and for over those last 20 years, they have
built and expanded and contributed immensely to the c Connecticut economy in unimaginable ways. Our state 005852 /dm 387 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c has benefited by a virtue of permanent, stable employment for thousands of our residents, not just
in Southeastern Connecticut but the vendors that
supply personal vendors, and there's a lot
throughout our state. While the two casinos have
contributed millions of dollars annually to the
state coffers, we've relied on this direct stream
of revenue, and it's included in a formula that
spreads to each of the 169 communities that we all
represent. As successful as they have been, the
competition from neighboring states threaten their
business and present a challenge to which they have c asked our help. These casinos have joined forces to protect Connecticut jobs and their stronghold as a
world-class entertainment and gaming destination.
The bill today is one step in a pragmatic approach
to support a world-class institution. This bill
will allow the two tribes to simply - the ability
to approach municipalities in the State of
Connecticut through an RFP process to locate a
facility off the current Indian reservation. As of
yesterday, Speaker Sharkey received a letter from
our Attorney General, and I just take a part of it c out just to make it clear to members of this body 005853 /dm 388 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c that Senate Bill 1090, as I get ready to call the amended version, does not authorize casino gaming
at this time. As a result, it will have no impact
on the current agreements between the tribes, and
the State of Connecticut would not increase or
otherwise affect the likelihood of the state being
obligated underneath federal law to negotiate
gaming compacts with the tribes that may gain
federal recognition in the future. This is a letter
that was dated May 27th to our Speaker Sharkey from
our Attorney General, George Jepsen. I further
would like to point out, at the present time, c Foxwoods Casinos employs in Southeastern Connecticut approximately 7500 jobs, down from its
peak in the year of 2006 of 12,800. The Mohegan Sun
employs approximately 7200 jobs, down from its peak
in the year 2006 of 10,500. It's important to also
point out that I heard from a number of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle about their
concerns about compulsive gaming. According to the
council, which is somewhat unique that these two
tribes, when they were entered into agreement into
this compact agreement that they agreed that there c was an issue with problem gambling. And those two 005854 /dm 389 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c tribes submitted substantial amount of monies towards that. Also, our Connecticut Lottery
Corporation for the first time last year
outperformed our two Native American tribes, which
approximately brought in a little over 300 million
into the state coffers. The two tribes brought in
about $292 million. So by law, right now our
Connecticut Lottery Corporation, which is a quasi-
public agency, gives $2.3 million to chronic
gamblers within our state. And I know that's a
concern for a number of the colleagues here. So
with that quick overview, Madam Speaker, the Clerk c is in possession of Senate Amendment "A," LCO No.
7752. May he please call and I be allowed to
summarize.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Will the Clerk please call LCO No. 7752, which
has been previously designated as Senate Amendment
"A."
CLERK:
Senate Amendment "A," LCO 7752, as offered by
Senators Looney, Duff, Larson, and Osten.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: c The representative seeks leave of the Chamber 005855 /dm 390 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c to summarize the amendment. Is there objection? Is there objection? Hearing none, Representative
Dargan, you have the floor, sir.
REP. DARGAN (llSth):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. So just
briefly I just give quick overview on the
amendment. We had a more comprehensive bill within
Public Safety but the process - we're slowing down
the process immensely so Tribal Business Entity
issues in RFP note that Tribal Business Entity is
registered with the Secretary of State and known
exclusively by the Pequot and Mohegan Tribes. c Department of Consumer Protection will post that RFP on the web site. Municipalities if, in fact,
they have interest can respond to the RFP. The
Tribal Business Entity and municipality may enter
into a development agreement. The development
agreement is contingent upon amendments to state
law that provide for the operation of such casino
underneath the Tribal Business Entity. If there, in
fact, there is a development agreement, it is
submitted to the AG's office for review. The
governor may execute an amendment to the compacts c with the tribes. Any amendments to the compact must 005856 /dm 391 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 be approved by this General Assembly, which it
would have to come back to us next year in order
for additional vote and approval by the U.S. Bureau
of Indian Affairs. Furthermore, the Tribal Business
Entity may only establish a casino if this body
amends state law to provide for the operation of
casino by the Tribal Business Entity and the law is
effective, which also needs an additional vote. So
this legislation would happen in the next session,
of course. So this amendment before us is basically
a first step. Other provisions, if the Tribal
Business Entity issues an RFP, then that Tribal c Business Entity shall submit a monthly report regarding the status of RFP to the six leaders of
the General Assembly, the Public Safety Committee,
and the Attorney General. And finally, there is a
non-severability clause, which means that if any
part of this legislation is found unconstitutional,
the remaining provision will have no effect, and I
move for adoption.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will
you remark further on the amendment before us? c Representative Zupkus. 005857 /dm 392 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c REP. ZUPKUS (89th): Thank you, Madam Speaker. A few questions for
the proponent of the bill please.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
You may proceed, madam.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you. Through you, Madam Speaker, in
lines of the bill, Lines No. 5 through 8, it talks
about a Tribal Business Entity. And it defines what
that is by saying it's exclusively by both the
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Sun,
Mohegan Tribe. Is the intent of this to mean that c they could not bring on another tribe, for instance, the Schaghticokes or another tribe, into
this entity? Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, I would say that answer would be
no at this present time, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th): c Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if any of these 005858 /dm 393 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c tribes gained federal recognition, am I to understand that they could still not be a part of
this entity, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan?
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, presently I would
say they would not, that is correct, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, c would they be able to create their own Tribal Entity, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, I think with approval with
respect to the General Assembly that's why I think
we're slowing somewhat the process down because
there are some legal questions that still might
need to be answered, but this bill just simply
gives them the opportunity to submit or go talk to c communities that have an interest in the RFP 005859 /dm 394 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c process, through you. DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And if I may,
Sportech is a gaming facility that is around today,
and they have some facilities in the Hartford area
with 100 employees or so, and it's my understanding
that some of the locations that have been talked
about could be possibly minutes away from these
facilities. And there, I believe I'm under, I am
under the understanding that some of the talks - c they've been in discussions with possibly maybe Sportech might host some of these gaming
facilities, maybe share parking lots, be somewhere
in close proximity. And with the definition of this
exclusivity clause in here, does that prohibit them
from being a part of this? So does that mean they
do not meet that definition, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th): c Through you, Madam Speaker, just to clarify. 005860 /dm 395 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c Sportech, which operates our off-track betting facilities, have 18 licenses around the state. They
are currently in Mohegan Sun that runs our off-
track betting facility there, which is controlled
by NYRA. The Mashantucket Pequots are - also have
an off-track betting facility there where you could
wager on horse racing. That is run by Las Vegas
Disseminating Company, which is owned by the
Gaughan family from Las Vegas so, through you,
those are two type of separate entities. Off-trac~
betting just really deals with sports wagering and
comes underneath the exclusive federal law as far c as dealing with horse racing, through you. DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
So through you, Madam Speaker, that would mean
they could not enter in this? That would mean no,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, if I understand the question c right, if, in fact, that they try to do some form 005861 /dm 396 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c of gaming that they would be, it would put us in violation of the compact that we have with the two
tribes and we'd end up in State and Federal Court
and have the opportunity to losing the $290 million
that we receive from the two tribes at this time,
through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP ZUPKUS (89th) :
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, if
I may, on Lines 14 through 21, on Line 17 it says a
description of the needs of the Tribal Business c Entity, through you, Madam Speaker, could you, could the proponent please describe what the needs
are, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, if she could rephrase that
question that was what the needs are of the Tribal
Business Entity. Is that - through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus. c REP. ZUPKUS (89th): 005862 /dm 397 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c Thank you. Yes. On line, it starts on Line 16. It says the request sha11 include, but need not be
limited to, a description of the needs of the
Tribal Business Entity for the purpose of carrying
on the business of a casino gaming facility. And
I'm curious as to what is the description of needs?
What does needs mean, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN ( 115th) :
Through you, Madam Speaker. I think but not
need to be limited to a description within that c Tribal Business Entity that they would have the right to submit, get RFPs from a community that
might have an interest on the future of gaming
within our state, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I guess that
brings me to Line 23 where it says may enter into a
development agreement. So through you, Madam
Speaker, could the proponent please then explain to c Me what the development agreement is, through you, 005863 /dm 398 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c Madam Speaker? DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (llSth):
Sure. Through you, Madam Speaker, that would
be within that RFP process that within this Tribal
Business Entity that they might have more than one
developer that might have a proposal that they
would like to bring to this Tribal Business Entity
and/or the Pequots and Mohegan Tribe in order for
their consideration to do that development within
that respective town, through you. c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
So through you, Madam Speaker would the
development agreement and I apologize. I didn't
quite understand. Would that be details of what
this facility or facilities may or may not look
like? What is involved with it, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan. c REP. DARGAN (llSth): 005864 /dm 399 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c Through you that would be a fair assessment that - that developer or developers would make a
specific proposal to this Tribal Business Entity
again, which is the Pequots and Mohegan. And then
this Tribal Business Entity would have to make a
decision of what development, one they want to go
with, with the understanding that if, in fact, they
choose a specific town, that there would be that
local control and/or through a referendum of some
sort, to come back to us next year with that
proposal, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: c Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, madam. And through you, and I guess
my question is leading to when it does come back to
us, so for example, if it came back to us next
session, what would we actually be looking at,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILR:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, it would at that time I'm c assuming that some of the questions that are asked 005865 /dm 400 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 here tonight and some that were asked to me by my c colleagues, it would be a comprehensive bill that
we would actually vote on, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you,
Madam Speaker, when you say comprehensive, am I to
understand that that does mean how many casinos?
What they're going to look like? How many slot
machines, restaurants, where? All of those details?
Through you, Madam Speaker. c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, that's a fair
assessment, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you. So through you, Madam Speaker, we
would be voting on the actual development plan,
through you, Madam Speaker? c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: 005866 /dm 401 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c Representative Dargan. REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, yes. It would be
that comprehensive. Basically, what's before us
tonight is just a really a shell of what the bill
will look like. It gives them the opportunities to
form that Business Entity and then enter into
agreement with a host community if, in fact, you
know, they go forward with that and then we, as the
legislature and our Attorney General in the
meantime will have to make sure that, that
everything, is, from a legal standpoint from, not c only the state, but from the BIA that the tribes could do that, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'm just gonna
go back for one second to, on Line 20 in Lines 14
through 21 it talks about the request for proposals
will be under the Department of Consumer
Protection, and they will post these on their web
site. Is there a fiscal cost to this, through you, c Madam Speaker? 005867 /dm 402 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, none that I'm
aware of as of yet, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Through
you, on Lines 47 and 48, it talks about how this
section shall not be construed to authorize
formation of more than one Tribal Business Entity. c So it's my understanding that one Tribal Business Entity can be created. It does not speak to how
many casinos to be built. So through you, Madam
Speaker, the Tribal Business Entity, is it one
casino that they can create, through you, Madam
Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, that is a fair
assessment. Yes. c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: 005868 /dm 403 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c Representative Zupkus. REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you,
what - so they would come back next session,
possibly. We would vote on the one casino. Could
they come back the following session and have
another casino in the plan for us to vote on,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (llSth):
Through you, Madam Speaker, as my good ranking c member is aware, people come back every year looking for something, so I'm sure they could,
through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and yes, I am aware
of that. So through you. Just so I understand this,
and for clarification, this Tribal Business Entity
can, for one session, request one casino, but in
essence, they could come back year after year, and c we could be opening two, three, four, five casinos 005869 /dm 404 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 in Connecticut, through you, Madam Speaker?
0 DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (llSth):
Through you, Madam Speaker, if that's the will
of this body, yes.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. Just to go back to a
point about the Attorney General, if I may, through
you, Madam Speaker? c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: You may proceed, madam.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you. Is it - the Attorney General, is it
anticipated - I know that he does get a copy of the
RFP with along with the leaders and the Public
Safety Committee, but would he be assisting or
advising the Tribal Business Entity of any
constitutional issues that would be - happen to be
taking place, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: c Representative Dargan. 005870 /dm 405 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 ·
REP . DARGAN ( 115 th) :
0 Through you, Madam Speaker. I don't know if
he'll advise the two tribes in reference to the
Tribal Business Entity, but as you're well aware,
the AG's office does sign off on all contractual
obligations that impact the state, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you, so
he would have - I'll say jurisdiction. He would
have the authority to say yea or nay, through you, c Madam Speaker? DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP . DARGAN ( 115 th) :
Through you, Madam Speaker, yes as we move
forward, the Attorney General is a good tool for
not only this General Assembly but for our state,
and a number of times when you have the uniqueness
of a local jurisdiction, a state jurisdiction, a
federal jurisdiction, and a sovereign nation, such
as the tribes do have, yes there are complicated
matters that always need to be resolved legally in 005871 /dm 406 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 order to move forward, through you. c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. If this bill would
not, perhaps, pass tonight, would - is there
anything that would prohibit the tribes to - from
negotiating with towns for possible developments,
through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th): c Through you, Madam Speaker, the original bill that was in Public Safety was, you know, more
comprehensive, more - answered a number of issues.
No, I think what we're doing tonight, it shows a
message - whether or not you're for gaming, Native
American gaming, or lottery, or off-track betting
facilities that we, as a General Assembly,
sometimes don't take sides with what type of jobs
we want within our state - whether it's bioscience
or higher education field. I think the message by
us voting in a favorable way tonight shows that c this body knows the importance of what these two 005872 /dm 407 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c corporate Native American tribes have done with the track record over the past 20 years. And it shows
that we as a state, like every other state, is in
direct competition for jobs. And I think the issue
of jobs, we all could agree in here, is not a
Republican or Democrat issues. We might disagree
on what type of jobs we would like to see within
our state, but when you have over 14,000 jobs
within Southeastern Connecticut - and what the two
tribes, they haven't been the first five, they
haven't been the last five, they haven't' been the
middle five. They paid, when they got recognized, c they didn't come looking for any tax breaks. They paid 100% cost of our state police when they did.
They paid Consumer Protection. We can't say that
about too many businesses within our state - that
they paid their own way. Back to what Ralph said,
"He who helps thee." They didn't come looking for
anything. For anything from the state. So I think -
my personal opinion - is that's the message, and
I'm sorry for the long windedness of my answer, but
I think that's the message that we send here
tonight. Through you, Madam Speaker. C: DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: 005873 /dm 408 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 Representative Zupkus. c REP. ZUPKUS (89th) :
Thank you, Madam Speaker. So with your long-
winded answer, my good representative, it is
symbolic in saying we're open for business;
however, if it did not pass, they could still
continue to do this, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
You could say that, Madam Speaker, but I think
this is the start. This is the start of a process c that the General Assembly's saying, okay. Let's slow it up. Let's let them have the opportunity to
go out in this Tribal Business Entity. Let us, as
the legislature, vet the process. Let us understand
the legalities of it from the Attorney General's
office, and from the BIA. Some people might say
we're not doing anything here tonight. I disagree
with that. I think we're taking a strong position
on stating how important that jobs are in our state
and how they've been, these two Native American
tribes, have been good corporate citizens to our c state. Through you, Madam Speaker. 005874 /dm 409 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
0 Representative Zupkus.
REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And thank you for
that answer. My last question is, the good
representative did mention about public and
referendums and I am curious. This bill does not
talk about public input or public or a hearing, and
I'm curious to know if that would be part of the
process, through you, Madam Speaker?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
0 REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker. If, in fact, that
this Tribal Business Entity enters into some
agreement with whatever that local community is,
whether they have a City Manager form of
government, Selectmen, Mayor, or Council form of
government, that that local community one will have
input. Number two, they could make that decision
if, in fact, they want to hold a referendum or some
public hearing, and/or some public vote. Through
you, Madam Speaker. c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: 005875 /dm 410 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 0 Representative Zupkus. REP. ZUPKUS (89th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. 'Cause I do feel
that that is extremely important. A piece of this
whole process is to hear from the public. Because
as we know there are towns that are interested and
there are towns that are definitely not interested,
so I appreciate that. And just to end. I was
looking at a Quinnipiac poll on March 11th. And it
says that voters do think that gambling in
Connecticut is good for the state as it is; 62% say
the current legal gambling in Connecticut is good
0 for the state. But voters say 75% of the voters
have said that there should not be more casinos. So
with that, I thank you, and I thank the good
representative for his answers, and I am looking
for further discussion on this debate. Thank you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, madam. Will you remark further?
Will you remark further on the amendment?
Representative Zawistowski.
REP. ZAWISTOWSKI (6l~t)! c Thank you, Madam Speaker. I must express deep 005876 /dm 411 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 concern about this proposal. Under this amendment,
0 the most likely location of a casino would be, as
it, according to most of the proposals I've heard,
along the I-91 corridor north of Hartford. That
seems to be the target area for most of the
proposals. I represent the Towns of Suffield, East
Granby, and a portion of the Town of Windsor. And
the residents that I have heard from are deeply
opposed to this proposal. To the extent that even
the Town of Windsor, the Town Council, had a
bipartisan, unanimous vote, a resolution to oppose
any new casino expansion in their town. Even though
0 it's unlikely that a casino would be located
directly within the towns of my district, the
likelihood that they would be in surrounding towns
is fairly high under this proposal. And even though
they wouldn't receive any of the supposed benefits,
they would also - they would be subject to some of
the public safety costs and also the social costs,
especially to our elderly, to our poor, and those
who can least afford to lose. The other thing is,
I'm not convinced of the rosy projections of
employment that I've heard other than perhaps some c construction jobs. We're in - the city decline in a 005877 /dm 412 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 casino income over the past recent years in
0 conjunction with the proposed new casino that's up
in Springfield really doesn't bode well, as far as
I'm concerned, for the long-term future of this. I
just don't see this as a growth industry for this
area. There's also talk about possibly using one of
the vacant buildings along I-91 to redevelop as a
casino, and I would love to see some long-term use
of these buildings. Unfortunately, my fear is that
we're going to wind up there with another empty
building in another few years, and this time an
empty casino. So I would ask my colleagues on both
0 sides of the aisles to think about this very
carefully and think about their impacts on
surrounding towns to the areas that are proposed
for casinos, and I will be opposing this amendment.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you madam. Will you remark further?
Representative Wilms.
REP. WILMS (142nd):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to oppose
this amendment and this bill. I'm gonna focus my c comments on a different part of the discussion. 005878 /dm 413 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 And, you know, we've heard a lot about how
additional casinos or additional gaming facilities
might generate more revenue - and or protect the
loss of revenue - and so sort of in the balance
sheet ledger, if you will, if we expand we'll -
there'll be more money. And there really hasn't
been, Madam Speaker, I believe, a discussion of
what costs there may be. And I wanna focus
specifically on one part of the costs that are
intangible, but they have a very tangible impact
and that's those are social costs. Madam Speaker,
what's interesting is, our own state, the
0 Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services,
if you go to their web site and you look, you click
under the Problem Gambling tab and then if you go
further, you know, March 2015. March was the
Problem Gambling Awareness Month. And if you go to
Bulletin No. 4, it says an Expansion of Legalized
Gambling Fact Sheet. And certainly, if anyone wants
to look at that, that's certainly available.
Madam Speaker, my comments are based on
personal experience. Sadly, a member of my family
who I care about very deeply has been a gambling c addict for the last 30 years. And our family has 005879 /dm 414 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 had to live with that, and so I want to, my
0 comments are gonna be based on that experience and
also facts that are on the Department's web site.
One of the things that we have to understand when
someone becomes an addict, and Madam Speaker,
supply does create demand, I'm afraid, for
addiction. As a matter of fact, the Department of
Mental Health and Addiction Services says in the
site that I was referring to, "Rates of problem
gambling," and I'm quoting directly, "are twice as
high among persons who live within 50 miles of a
casino relative to those who do not." And sadly,
0 where it is more accessible, it creates a problem.
What kind of problems are created from gambling
addiction? Well, I think, as we know, those who
become an addict or have a problem with gambling
have other issues. They may have emotional issues.
They may have anxiety or depression issues. There
may be other forms of addictions that are present.
But the fact is is that for a number of individuals
when they go and gamble, it does something for
them. It meets a need. And unfortunately, it ends
up in a destructive way, but whether they feel like c their anxiety's been addressed or the depression's 005880 /dm 415 HOUSE,QF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 been addressed, that's what, why they have, you
0 know, these types of, these types of issues.
One of the things that the site points out is
that right now, here in Connecticut, 66,867 adults
are classified as having a gambling disorder.
That's 2.4% of all Connecticut adults that have
this issue. And then it says another 4%, or roughly
109,615, are currently at risk for developing
serious gambling problems. And as I pointed out
earlier, in the case of gambling, supply creates
its own demand. And where there is more supply,
there'll be more demand and there'll be more c gambling types of issues. What are the social costs? And I'm gonna switch now to other
information that's available on the Internet; 60%
of gambling addicts will commit crimes; 20% will
commit or attempt to commit suicide; 63% are
alcoholics; 20% file for bankruptcy; 50% abuse a
spouse or abuse their children; 20% are homeless;
50% will divorce. The average gambling debt is
between 60,000 and 110,000.
Madam Speaker, as we know, as we go through
our budget, our state budget, and we look at the c Social Services part of our budget, a lot of these 005881 /dm 416 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c social costs end up in our budget. And the point that I wanna make, Madam Speaker, is that when we
make a calculation as to how much revenue we may
get from an additional location or additional two
or three locations, we also need to look at what
the social costs are gonna be and the real dollar
impact that they're gonna have and how it's gonna
affect us on the liability side of things. For
those who think that gambling may be as confined to
a specific part of the state, I would invite them
to look under Gamblers Anonymous. And what's
interesting is you can find out where meetings are c held here within Connecticut. So right now, Madam Speaker, there are two Gamblers Anonymous groups in
the Bloomfield-Hartford area. There's one in
Branford. There's one in Thompson. There are two in
Norwich, one in Stanford, one in Meriden, one in
Milford, one in Old Saybrook, one in Pawtucket, one
in Coventry, one in Darien, one in Hamden, one in
Quaker Hill, one in Waterbury, one in Danbury, two
in Middletown, one in Vernon, one in Seymour, and
one in Waterford.
And so, Madam Speaker, getting back to the C' other statistic that I said where roughly 67,000 of 005882 /dm 417 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 all - 67,000 adults here in Connecticut have a
0 gambling disorder, it's showing up throughout the
entire state. And Madam Speaker, I sincerely
believe that if we expand gambling here, the number
of individuals who are impacted will be severely
impacted. One last item that I would like to point
to, and again, I am referring back now to the
Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
sheet, they make an interesting point. They say
that in the United States, prior to 1870 gambling
was prevalent. And then around that time, gambling
become prohibited in the United States because of
0 abuses that I think we're experiencing today, and
then of course, in the last few decades it become
legalized. What they're finding is that just, to
wrap up, in terms of considerations, and I'm gonna
quote from their fact sheet. The first
consideration is this: "Greater access to popular
types of gambling, i.e., slot machines or Keno, is
likely to increase the proportion of the population
who gamble and develop problems, especially in
high-risk, heavy Social Service-utilizing groups."
The second point they make is that "increases c in gambling problems will require greater need for 005883 /dm 418 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 Social Services in Connecticut, including police to
0 assist with gambling-related crimes and violence;
economic support for those experiences gambling-
related divorce, job loss, and bankruptcy; and
treatment for medical and psychiatric problems
associated with gambling problems." And finally,
Madam Speaker, they make the point that "gambling
problems disproportionately affect youth,
minorities, the indigent, and individuals with
mental health problems." So Madam Speaker, based on
my, sadly, my personal experience and that of our
family, numerous Gambling Anonymous meetings that c we have been to, people that we've worked with, the information that's on our own state web site for
the State of Connecticut Department of Mental
Health and Addiction Services is saying about the
problems that we have right now, Madam Speaker, I
rise in opposition to this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will
you remark further on the amendment before us?
Representative Scott. c REP. SCOTT (40th): 005884 /dm 419 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 Thank you, Madam Speaker. I come from Eastern
0 Connecticut, the Towns of Groton and Ledyard, and I
certainly was experiencing the full-on press that
we were receiving in the hallway earlier today from
the lobbyists who were encouraging us to support
the bill. And it's been interesting living in the
shadow of the casinos. I had not been hearing from
my constituents in either direction on this bill.
So I posted a quick comment on Facebook several
hours ago asking - or basically saying, I'm getting
a lot of pressure from the lobbyists to support the
Casino Expansion Bill but I'm not hearing from c people in my district. Should I support this or shouldn't I support it? And in the six or seven
hours since that post has been up, I've received
about 20 responses. All but two are saying don't
support it, which I think is very interesting.
You know in Eastern Connecticut we've been
fat, dumb, and happy with Electric Boat and Pfizer,
and then the casinos. We've never really had to do
economic planning or economic development because
we've just been lucky. Electric Boat for years
would employ 30,000 people and then when Electric c Boat started laying people off, they went from 005885 /dm 420 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 about 30,000 people to about 8,000 people. Foxwoods
0 magically appeared and they hired a ton of people.
They may not have been making $40 an hour building
a submarine but they were making maybe $15 or $20
an hour working in the casino business. But now the
world has changed again. You know, business up at
those casinos is already down, and it has nothing
to do with the fact that Massachusetts has opened
up a casino. Articles have appeared in the paper
that the number of slot machines that they've taken
out of both of those casinos is the equivalent of
the closure of three Atlantic City casinos. And I c think that's an important fact. Tons of people have been laid off. We've already heard the proponent of
the bill talk about the fact that their employment
numbers at both casinos is down. It's plus or minus
10,000 people. Foxwoods already closes during the
week sections of their building because they don't
have enough gamblers to keep sections of the casino
floor open.
And I think it's also important to point out
that technology is replacing people. Remember the
good old days of listening to the coins drop out of c the machines? Now we have this computer noise and a 005886 /dm 421 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 ticket pops out, and I think we'll see more of that
0 with automated computerized gambling tables and
things like that. So less people are gonna be
involved if we're pushing this as a jobs bill. You
know, I've lived all my life in Eastern
Connecticut, and I've lived in the shadow of those
casinos, and I've always had a fundamental problem
with casino gambling. I don't think it's a
sustainable way to support our economy. I have seen
firsthand how it destroys families. I own an
insurance business. We've been selling insurance to
businesses and families for over 100 years, and
0 right after those casinos opened we immediately saw
the effects of problem gambling and the families
that were destroyed because one spouse decided to
blow the life savings of the family at one of those
casinos. I've seen businesses, business after
business, ripped off by their bookkeepers or other
people that have access to cash because they spent
that cash up at the casinos. Municipalities,
Stonington, Ledyard, they both were ripped off by
people who had access to cash that spent that money
at the casinos. I think it also creates a problem c for our municipalities. 005887 /dm 422 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 In the Town of Groton, we had to invest in our
0 Board of Education a significant amount of money in
having teachers that spoke the Asian languages
because we had a ton of Asian people move into our
communities, and now we have to properly educate
those people and be able to communicate with them,
and that was a cost to our community. I'm not
convinced that expanding casino gambling in other
parts of the state is going to help Eastern
Connecticut where I come from. And I too have a
very personal story to tell with respect to
addictive gambling. A very close personal friend of c mine came out to me several years back that he was an addicted gambler. And he fortunately was
participating in the gambling - addictive gambling
programs that are offered by the casino - and by
coming to me, he asked me to join him in his
therapy sessions, and ultimately I was to join him
and hold his hand as he signed himself out of those
casinos.
Now, ladies and gentleman, we all know people
who have an addiction, whether it's drugs or
alcohol. Ask, you know, those people, the people
who have an addiction like that are they cured in 005888 /dm 423 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 five years? They're not. And if you sign yourself
0 out of Foxwoods you have a choice of signing
yourself out for five years or for your lifetime.
Unfortunately, my friend chose five years, and he's
back in that casino gambling. Mohegan Sun was a
very different signing-out experience. They took a
Polaroid picture of him. They stapled that Polaroid
picture to a form that he filled out and that was
thrown in a three-ring binder, and he was almost
immediately back in that building gambling. They
just don't enforce, neither one of those casinos,
at least Mohegan Sun doesn't enforce that tossing
0 people out process if you signed yourself out. I
had actually prepared an amendment tonight that I'm
not gonna call that was looking to study improving
the rules and regulations with respect to
compulsive gamblers, and I don't think it's apropos
to this bill so I'm not gonna call it but I
encourage people to look at. It's online. I'm not
gonna support this amendment. I'm not gonna support
the bill. I think it's chasing bad dollars. I think
we should be looking to invest in other economic
development and I don't see casinos doing the trick c for us. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 005889 /dm 424 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
0 Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will
you remark further on the amendment before us?
Representative Bumgardner.
REP. BUMGARDNER (41 8 t):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. If I may ask a
couple questions to the proponent of the bill?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
You may, sir. You may proceed.
REP. BUMGARDNER(41 8 t):
So, the Connecticut State Constitution
prohibits the State of Connecticut from granting 0 any special privileges to any given entity or
group. If we are going to allow the tribes to
operate outside of the reservation, how would that
not be violating one the Constitution, when yes,
they may not be violating the compact if they will
have exclusive rights to operate outside of the
reservation, but how could we at all possibly
mitigate the significant potential for litigation
that our state will be facing? Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan. c REP. DARGAN (llSth): 005890 /dm 425 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 Through you. Thank you very much, to the good
0 representative. That's why this process is being
slowed up because there are some still outstanding
issues that might have to be resolved that I stated
earlier in reference to state and federal law - and
that's why this is just an initial step that the
tribes could at least have that opportunity to go
talk to communities about the possibility of
expansion of gaming, through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Bumgardner.
REP. BUMGARDNER (418 t): c Thank you. And through you, Madam Speaker. The Attorney General did issue extensive opinions and
thoughts on what would happen if the original bill
as it was proposed, the impact it would have on our
state and the, again, the potential for significant
litigation on our state. Did his new letter address
any of those concerns - if we come, you know, the
bill comes before the legislature next year that
would highlight which municipality would be granted
this municipality by the tribe so I guess my
question is, who would potentially - again, if the c tribes provide the opportunities for, you know, say 005891 /dm 426 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 three municipalities to open a casino. What does
0 the new opinion that was given by the Attorney
General - did he make any statements
about what the potential for litigation would be?
Through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN ( 115th) :
Through you, Madam Speaker, the letter that
was dated yesterday to our good Speaker talks about
the amended version of this - of 1080, and this
bill that's before us tonight does not authorize c the expansion of casino gaming within our state. It just - and he goes on to say that it will have no
impact on the current agreement between the tribes,
the state, and the Federal Government, through you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Bumgardner.
REP. BUMGARDNER(41 8 t}:
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And through you,
Madam Speaker, what jobs in Southeastern
Connecticut would be protected even though most of c those jobs would be shifted hypothetically to 005892 /dm 427 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 different regions of the state. So what number of
0 jobs would be protected under any given scenario?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (llSth):
Through you, Madam Speaker, the - some of the
information that was shared to me - would - that
stated that there would not only be more jobs that
would be developed and they wouldn't necessarily
come from the two Native American tribes but they
would be new opportunities for jobs. I don't have
0 the actual number because we actually don't have a
proposal on one, the square footage, the size of
it. We just have a broad-based, you know, figures
of how many VLTs better known as slot machines
and/or table games that might be there, so I can't
give you an accurate number of jobs but they'll be
a substantial increase of jobs within our state,
through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Bumgardner.
REP. BUMGARDNER (41 6 t): c Through you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate those 005893 /dm 428 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 questions, but again, what jobs would be saved in
0 Southeastern Connecticut by passing this
legislation? Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (llSth) :
Through you, Madam Speaker, I don't know -
necessarily know if there'd be an increase of job
but what I could submit to you, if, in fact, we
don't take any action and MGM looks at their market
share, which comes from the Waterbury line down,
the jobs in Southeastern Connecticut and the
0 figures I gave you earlier that are already
decreased will decrease even more. And the revenue
share that we receive from these two tribes will
decrease even more. And the monies that go back to
each one of our 169 communities - that are all
struggling - will decrease more with us not taking
any action and starting the process tonight.
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Bumgardner.
REP. BUMGARDNER (41 8 t):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And again I 005894 /dm 429 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 appreciate the Chair's question. I do have one last
0 question. If the market is continuously being
saturated by casinos all throughout New England
now, casinos and expanded gambling in
Massachusetts, the potential for new casinos - say
here in Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, how is
it at all possible that any jobs will be saved if
the supply of problem gamblers is not increasing?
Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Garden. Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
0 Through you, Madam Speaker. I heard the first
part but the second part referencing problem
gambling - I wasn't sure where the proponent of the
question. Sir, if you could just repeat it, please?
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Could you repeat your question again, please,
sir.
REP. BUMGARDNER (41 8 t):
So through you, Madam Speaker. If the market
of the supply of casinos throughout New England or
the Northeastern United States region is increasing c exponentially with the with expanding gambling and 005895 /dm 430 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 three casinos that are going to be built in
0 Massachusetts, more slots, you know systems or you
know structures in Rhode Island and New York, if
that market is now being saturated by more and more
casinos or slots machines, and the, yet the supply
of problem gamblers is not increasing, what jobs
will be grown in a sustainable way for Connecticut
for the next ten years down the road? And I know
that was an addition to the question I first
proposed so, through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan. 0 REP. DARGAN (llSth):
Through you, Madam Speaker. Thank you very
much for the question. I can't really look into the
crystal ball and say how many jobs will be
impacted. How many new jobs will develop the issue
of problem gambling. But I could submit, if MGM has
a casino six miles north of our border and their
market share comes into Waterbury, we're gonna have
problems with problem gambling, folks, and you know
what? We might not know who they are because they
might not be gambling within our state, but they'll c come back and we'll have, we'll have concerns as ~·····~--·~~---~---~------005896 /dm 431 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 the two good representatives spoke early about the
0 issue of problem gambling. We realize that it's a
major issue and a concern, but the two tribes have
been very proactive dealing with gambling issues,
and they've done it by putting monies up. Nothing
that the state told them to do but monies that they
put up along with the Connecticut Lottery
Corporation. Whether it's gambling, drug addiction,
alcohol abuse, any addiction. We, I think that it's
a pretty fair assessment to say that we all take
that very seriously, and we need to look at that -
but my concerns are the loss of revenue, the loss c of jobs, and we are in competition with our neighbors from Massachusetts. And the good
representative did point out the saturation level -
and the two tribes who've been the most successful
tribes in the Western Hemisphere, private or Native
American, they've really done a lot to our state in
a lot of positive ways. There's been issues with
alcohol, issues with people driving - with drunken
driving, and there's been other issues, but every
time that I've had the opportunity to reach out to
the tribes and to meet with them, never been
negative. Always let's try to figure it out. Let's 005897 /dm 432 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 be proactive. And they never came to the state
0 looking for any handouts. And they put their monies
where their mouth is on a number of issues. Through
you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Bumgardner.
REP. BUMGARDNER (41 8 t):
Through you, Madam Speaker. I want to take the
opportunity to thank the good Chairman of the
Public Safety Committee for working on these
issues. Not just this year but for many, many
years. It's certainly a tough Committee that I c don't know I would ever want to serve on, given the nature of having conversations about expanding
gambling, but the only number I care about right
now is the amount of jobs that will be saved in
Southeastern Connecticut. And not one person can
tell me the amount of jobs in ten years down the
road, 25 years down the road, that will be saved in
Southeastern Connecticut.
Popular opinion shows that people in the State
of Connecticut do not want expanded gambling, and I
think it's very unfortunate that this legislature
is debating this issue, yet we're also debating 005898 /dm 433 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 whether or not we're going to increase taxes on the
0 folks who are working very hard on our small
businesses, and it just seems like we're living in
a very backward state right now. So I will be
voting no on this amendment. I implore all of my
colleagues to vote no on this amendment. This is
bad legislation for Southeastern Connecticut.
People are tired of the consequences that we're
facing of having more and more gambling all
throughout the United States and especially in
Southeastern Connecticut. Those jobs are not going
to come back. They never will come back. There are c people who are coming up here who have jobs at these casinos, and it's unfortunate to mislead
these individuals in telling them that their jobs
will be saved in Southeastern Connecticut. So I
implore all of my colleagues to vote no on this
amendment and I thank the good Chair, again, for
engaging in a very respectful colloquy. So I thank
you very much.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will
you remark further on the amendment before us? c Representative Kupchick. 005899 /dm 434 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 REP. KUPCHICK (132nd):
0 Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise in opposition
to this amendment. I appreciate the good work of my
colleague, Representative Dargan, and I understand
the need or the desire to want to expand casinos in
the State of Connecticut because some people
actually still believe that that makes a real
difference, or that will bring jobs, or prosperity,
to the State of Connecticut. But I had the
opportunity of working in a congressional office
from the years that they were, this state was
fighting against tribal recognition expansion in
0 the State of Connecticut. And as an employee for
Congressman Chris Shays, who worked closely with
Senator Blumenthal who was then the Attorney
General of our state, they worked hand in hand
against expansion of casinos in the State of
Connecticut - and as a matter of fact, in 2014, in
October, our two United States Senators, Senator
Murphy and Senator Blumenthal, wrote a letter to
the Department of Interior, a seven-page letter,
requesting they not relax the standards of
expansion of tribal recognition because they fear c the expansion of casinos in our state. 005900 /dm 435 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 The statistics are so clear. We don't need to
0 ask any questions. The data is right there for all
of us to see. Move a casino into a depressed area,
and it depresses it further. Atlantic City is a
prime example. I live in Fairfield, Connecticut,
and we border Bridgeport, which borders Trumbull
and Stratford. Those three suburban towns are
terrified of a casino moving in to Bridgeport. Why?
Because all the communities around casinos have
increased police costs, increased Social Service
costs, increased crime, increased gambling
problems. This is not what we want in Connecticut. c Three million people in the State of Connecticut. We have two casinos. How many casinos do three
million people need?
Madam Speaker, I understand that people think
this generates income. This doesn't generate
income. It costs communities income. It costs them
taxpayer dollars. So I would ask this Chamber to
think long and hard before they make a decision
about opening the door to expand casinos in our
state. And remember, I just wanna remind, that our
two United States Senators are against casino c expansion in our state, and I hope, I really hope 005901 /dm 436 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 that you think long and hard about it. Thank you,
0 Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, madam. Will you remark further?
Representative France.
REP. FRANCE (42nd):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise this evening
too in strong support of Senate Amendment "A."
The - I came to Ledyard 10 years ago after retiring
from the Navy, and for the three years preceding my
election to join this august House, I served on the
Town Council in the Town of Ledyard. In that time, c I came to understand the relationship between the Town of Ledyard, the casinos, and the tribes.
Twenty plus years ago when this started, there
were a lot of issues. And as with any relationship,
it started off rocky. I would argue that many of
that was caused by the fact that the municipalities
were not involved in the discussions for the
starting of those casinos. They were negotiated
between the Federal Government, the state, and the
tribes themselves, and the towns were basically set
upon, and that led to a very rocky relationship, c which came down to communication. But I will tell 005902 /dm 437 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 you, over the last several years that those
0 relationships have improved dramatically. You do
not have the same things that you had happening in
the towns with crime and other activities that
happened at the beginning when these casinos
opened. They have become, over time, much better
stewards in our communities and become partners
with our region. There was a study done by Dr.
Barrow that, who has done studies across the United
States and across the world, that looked at the
impact of the opening of the casino in Springfield.
It is estimated that conservatively approximately
0 6000 direct jobs at the casino and another 3000 or
so indirect jobs in the region would be lost. And I
say conservatively because there are number of
factors that were not factored into that study, not
the least of which is the plan that we have to
expand our transportation network from New Haven up
to Springfield, which would then lead, just like we
see buses coming from New York and from Boston and
other areas to the casinos of Southeastern
Connecticut, we would now see - likely - that the
casino in Springfield would subsidize travel for c the New Haven corridor up the railway. And leaving 005903 /dm 438 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 aside - I would say that the this is the single
0 issue that I receive the most communication from my
district. As it happens, both casinos happen to be
in my district. Almost unanimously in support of
the casinos and allowing them to maintain a greater
presence within the state, you might ask why that
is. We've heard a lot of discussion tonight about
the jobs and the revenue within the state. And the
question's been raised about jobs in Southeastern
Connecticut. Is it, will we lose jobs in
Southeastern Connecticut? Is there a net gain for
the state? What is the question? [crowd noises and
0 ' gavel]
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Will you please take your conversations
outside in the hall. It's getting difficult to hear
the speaker.
REP. FRANCE (42nd):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. The reality is that
these 9300 jobs, and I've had people talk about the
proverbial low-quality, low-paid job at the casino.
The facts don't bear that out. I've had numerous
residents in my district write to me about that the c casinos gave them an entry-level job and over 5, 005904 /dm 439 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 10, 15, 20 years of a career there they have
0 progressively moved up into areas of greater
responsibility that came with a greater salary. So
they are very happy with their jobs that they have
with the casinos and see them as good employers
that take care of them.
The challenge we face today is twofold. And I
would encourage my colleagues to consider two
things. One is jobs and the other is revenue.
According to Dr. Barrow, the, between.the two
tribes there will be approximately $700 million in
lost revenue to the tribes, which accounts for 0 about $100 million or more of revenue to the state.
You ask about 6000 direct jobs. What are those
other indirect jobs? Well, those are small
businesses that are predominantly in Southeastern
Connecticut. They bring the food to the casinos.
They take care of the laundry. Other industry,
other small businesses that would be dramatically
affected, including the restaurants in the area.
For all these reasons, I think this is the decision
that needs to be made today. I encourage my
colleagues to seriously consider the jobs and the c revenue to the state and the benefit that it brings 005905 /dm 440 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c as good stewards to our state over the past several years. Thank you, Madam Chair.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will
you remark further on the amendment before us?
Representative Davis.
REP. DAVIS (57th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand conflicted
on this bill. I certainly understand my colleagues'
concerns and the concerns that I have heard about
the social issues that come along with casino
expansion, especially casino expansion into the c area of the state in which I live and represent. As we know, Springfield is getting a casino despite
some efforts by local residents there. And I am
fearful that those social woes will impact my
community whether or not we open a casino in or
around East Windsor or not. But it is quite clear
that East Windsor has been targeted as one of the
communities to potentially host one of these
facilities. What's unclear is what those benefits
would be to the Town of East Windsor.
And a vote in favor of this bill is not c necessarily a vote in favor of casinos, 'cause 005906 /dm 441 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c quite frankly I don't know if I agree with expanding casinos here in the State of Connecticut,
and I probably would've voted no on the bill
without this amendment. But a vote on this
amendment, which will become the bill, is a vote
for the first step in that direction, but it's also
a vote in hearing out what the benefits to a
potential community, host community, will be. So if
I do, in fact, vote in favor for this amendment and
this bill, it perhaps will be simply to find out
what the benefit to my home Town of East Windsor
will be. Not that I necessarily agree with hosting c a casino there or that I necessarily agree with expanding casinos at all, but simply to have that
conversation to find out why it would be in the
benefit of East Windsor to host that casino -
because as we have just heard from Representative
France and from some other representatives
throughout this entire process that there are
benefits to the communities that host these casinos
and there are benefits to the State of Connecticut
for having these casinos here in our state.
Now there was some serious concerns about the c legality of what we're attempting to do here, 005907 /dm 442 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 especially with the anti-trust and the ability to c grant privileges to one entity. I agree with those
concerns, and quite frankly I'm not sure if we'll
ever be able to build another casino here in the
State of Connecticut under these conditions. But I
look forward to the continued debate, and I will
certainly make my decision, unfortunately here this
evening, and hopefully it will benefit everybody
here in the state if it does, in fact, pass. So
thank you Mr. - Madam Speaker. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? c Representative Carney. REP. CARNEY (23rd):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. And just a
comment through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
You may proceed, sir.
REP. CARNEY (23rd):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. You know I
rise again with some of my colleagues from
Southeastern Connecticut, Representative Scott and
Representative Bumgardner, in opposition to this c bill. Being a new legislator, I asked my district a 005908 /dm 443 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c lot of questions about how they felt about various issues. And constituents of mine came up to me,
without me even asking about it, and said, "We
don't want more casinos." I've been approached by
lobbyists just like these other - very pushy
lobbyists, I might add. That's a little bit
discouraging as a very new legislator to see that.
I'm working here for the people of Connecticut for
the people of my district. Not for any special
interests. I just wanted to point out a recent
Quinnipiac poll stated 75% of the people in this
state don't want more casinos. That's 75%. If any c of us won an election by 75% we would consider that a landslide. This bill is not working for the
people of Connecticut.
Casinos such as this breed crime and
addiction. Look at Atlantic City. Atlantic City
felt the Revel Casino was going to be the next big
thing for the boardwalk. It closed after two years.
People lost their jobs. You go one block down from
Atlantic City, it's impoverished. Casinos don't
help the people of Atlantic City. Look at Resorts
World Casino in Queens. A brand new casino. Back in c April, there was a brawl. Just last week there was 005909 /dm 444 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 a shoo - a murder. A woman was killed outside the
0 casino. In a casino, that would be very similar to
the one that I have heard is being proposed.
Gambling also promotes the idea that luck will
prevail and one can get rich without working. This
erodes our American ideal. This erodes our
Connecticut ideal. I'd argue that your most
addictive folks will use this. The weekenders and
the corporations will go to Springfield one, the
Springfield casino or the original two. The one in
Ledyard and the one in Montville. We are getting
into promoting disruptive behavior. And I don't c think that looks good for the children of this state, for folks of this state, to be perfectly
honest. And we're supposed to be a model. Are our
moral and ethical values worth this? I don't think
SO!
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to think about this. Think about the
Connecticut that could be. The Connecticut that was
- with manufacturing. With good paying jobs from
the wonderful universities we have in this state:
Yale, Trinity, Central, UConn, that breed the c brightest people in this country, in this world, 005910 /dm 445 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 and we are settling. We are settling for a quick c fix, and I would urge you all to vote no on this.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further?
Representative Byron.
REP. BYRON (27th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do rise for the -
offer a question for the proponent of the -
amendment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
You may proceed, sir. c REP. BYRON (27th): Thank you, Madam Speaker. With two casinos
already in our state, why is there a need to create
new casinos in Connecticut? That's my first
question. Through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, I think in any
free market society if there's growth, which there
still is growth, people in private development see c the opportunity for development, and that's the 005911 /dm 446 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 best way I could answer that question, through you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Byron.
REP. BYRON (27th):
Okay. This is true and I believe in that as
well. The two casinos that are that currently exist
in Ledyard, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, they're
losing money. So how do you justify the expansion
of satellite casinos? In fact, if I'm not mistaken,
one casino, in fact, defaulted on one of its
payments. I believe it was December of 2013. So c again, my question is, how do you justify the expansion when they've been losing revenue
consistently each and every year? Through you,
Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker. I guess the best
way that I could answer that is I don't realize how
they're losing monies because with the 25% slot
revenue at the height of it in 2007, which was over c $400 million and last year's OFA's figures were a 005912 /dm 447 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 2B, 2015 little under $300 million. Now is there a decrease c in revenue to the state? Yes. But as far as loss of
revenue, I would say not because the state, with
the Pequot formula that was submitted underneath
Governor Weicker, the cost share, we're still
receiving a lot of monies from the two tribes,
through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Byron.
REP. BYRON (27th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I, you know, I
always, I've been hearing about this resort and c casino being built in Mass. It's consisting of a variety of restaurants and entertainment and
glorious night spots and comedy clubs that people
like to go to. Very similar, as a matter of fact,
to the casinos that we have at Mohegan Sun and
Foxwoods. So I guess my question is, it's to my
understanding that Connecticut will have these
satellite casinos that are strictly table games and
slot machines. What kind of data do you have that
will support that these satellites will intercept
those who are planning a full night at a resort and c 005913 /dm 448 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 casino destination? 'Cause it seems like apples and c oranges, through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REPRESENTATIVE DARGAN (llSth) :
Through you, Madam Speaker, thank you very
much for that question. I don't know if you wanna
call it a satellite casino and that's why I think
that the way that we have it set up - the RFPs will
actually show us what they're going to present. And
it's not just table games. There was restaurants
proposed - and again, I don't know what the final c product is because that's why we have this Business Entity structure, so they could submit that to us
next year and show us what that plan is at that
time, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Byron.
REP. BYRON (27th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. And just one final
question to the proponent of the amendment. Is
there any guarantee that a Connecticut contractor
will actually have the contract for the c construction of this new casino should it get 005914 /dm 449 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 built?
0 DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, that's a very
thoughtful question because the two tribes in this
business entity have worked with the UAW, another a
number of labor organizations. They said that they
would conform with a PLA agreement. So I'm glad
that the good representative asked that question
because there is a good working relationship with
the tribes, and also in that, they stated if, in c fact, this new casino was built, that they wouldn't be any smoking at all. So they have been working in
a very positive way with our labor friends within
our state, through you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Representative Byron.
REP. BYRON (27th):
And thank you, Madam Speaker. And I'd also
like to thank the good Chairman of Public Safety. I
really appreciate his answers here at this late
hour. Thank you and thank you, Madam Speaker. c DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: 005915 /dm 450 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Representative Candelaria.
DEPUTY CANDELARIA (95th) :
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to share
some brief comments, through you, on this bill.
Sportech is currently located in my district. And
they currently employ 150 people in my district.
And they contribute about $11 million to the local
economy. My concern is that, as we move forward
with this first step, that we ensure that our pari-
mutuels are part of those conversations. They are
critical to our economy, and if the goal is to c protect jobs, we need to protect those jobs as well. So I just urge my colleagues and my friends
to really think about this. I am concerned that we
may lose jobs, although I understand the need to
conserve jobs in the State of Connecticut. Thank
you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further?
Representative Dillon.
REP. DILLON (92nd):
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I met c with people outside, and I know that they're 005916 /dm 451 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 terribly worried about their jobs. There are many c measures before this General Assembly that put jobs
in New Haven at risk too. Most of them are in
health sector but some of the jobs in New Haven are
at Sports Haven, and their North American
headquarters is on Long Wharf. And I would simply
request that those people who are pushing for jobs
in other parts of the state recognize that a job in
New Haven is just as important to us as a job
somewhere else. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, madam. Will you remark further on c the amendment before us? Representative Godfrey. REP. GODFREY (110th):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. A couple of
concerns. Of course, in Western Connecticut, I'm
from Danbury, we have had in the recent past quite
a bit of debate, angst, and more than a little
concern when the Schaghticokes, whichever one of
the two groups that claim to be the tribe, had been
trying to get federal recognition because they
wanted to own - open their own casino - and
certainly in our neck of the woods, and certainly c we have fought that and continued to fight that 005917 /dm 452 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 with the help of our federal officials and
0 certainly all of the state and municipal officials
in Western Connecticut, and we continue to fight
that. We simply don't want a facility in Western
Connecticut. And indeed, when I looked at the
original bill that this amendment is changing, my
fears were that we're talking about three and we
could've been talking about one in Western
Connecticut, and I, as I said, I remain opposed to
that.
But in listening to those - some of the
discussion here tonight, particularly
0 Representative Zupkus' questions to Representative
Dargan, there's a couple of points I'd like
Representative Dargan to clarify that came out of
that, and plus one additional one. So if I may,
through you, Madam Speaker, when Representative
Dargan was answering one of Representative Zupkus'
questions regarding what next year's bill would
contain, she said a number of casinos. He agreed
but then they had a colloquy dealing with whether
or not the entity could come in or another entity
could come in the future. Of course, anything can c happen in the future, but it's my understanding and 005918 /dm 453 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c belief that this bill only talks about one period that it - and then there is the concern I have
about any abridgement of the State Constitutional
Equal Rights and Equal Protection clauses in our
Constitution, but I note that there is a
severability clause in this so that if a court
finds any part of this to be unconstitutional that
means no casinos. The whole thing goes away. So if
Representative Dargan can assure me that I'm
correct on that I'd appreciate it, Madam Speaker,
through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
0 Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
Through you, Madam Speaker, to my good
representative from Danbury, his assessment is
correct, through you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Representative Godfrey.
REP. GODFREY (llOth):
Thank you, Ma'am. I trust future legislatures.
This one and any that come after us to be able to
deal with the details - that are - that will be our c duty under the provisions of this bill. This is 005919 /dm 454 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c setting up a process. It's gonna have to come back here. We're gonna have another shot at it. That's
always a good thing. My biggest concern tonight is
that we, I don't think we provided enough
specificity on public involvement, but I think we
can, we can fix that when we come back next year,
whether its referendum or through public hearings
or whatever. So with that, tonight I will support
this amendment, and I will support, which it
becomes the bill, and see what happens. Thank you, l Madam Speaker. I DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: iQ Thank you, sir. Will you remark further? Will
Ii you remark further on the amendment before us? If
Il not, I will try your minds. All those in favor
please signify by saying aye.
REPRESENTATIVES:
Aye.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Opposed?
REPRESENTATIVES:
No.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE.: c The ayes have it, and the amendment 1s 005920 /dm 455 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 c adopted. [gavel] Will you remark further on the bill as amended? ·Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN (115th):
I thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I know
the hour's late. I'd just like to thank everyone in
this Chamber for his and her input and to really
understand this - our sovereign friends, which are
our two tribes. Collectively over the years,
they've been a positive corporate good citizen to
the State of Connecticut. They haven't asked for
anything from us. They're asking tonight for them
to have the opportunity - through this Business
0 Entity - to come back to us in a comprehensive bill
next year so we, as a legislature, with concerns of
individuals in here with problem gambling, we can
look at that issue and many other issues. So once
again, Madam Speaker, I thank you for the dialogue
tonight. And I ask you for the support of this
bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Thank you, sir. Will you remark further on the
bill? Will you remark further on the bill as
amended? If not, will staff and guests please come c to the well of the House. Members please take your 005921 /dm 456 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 seats, and the machine will be opened. [bell c ringing]
CLERK:
The House of Representatives is voting by
roll. The House of Representatives is voting by
roll. Will members please report to the Chamber
immediately.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Have all members voted? Have all members
voted? Will members please check the board to
determine if your vote is properly cast? If all
members have voted, the machine will be locked, and
0 the Clerk will take a tally.
Will the Clerk please announce the tally.
CLERK:
Senate Bill 1090, as amended by Senate "A," in
concurrence with the Senate
Total Number Voting 143
Necessary for Passage 72
Those voting Yea 88
Those voting Nay 55
Absent and not voting 8
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: c The bill, as amended, is passed in concurrence 005922 /dm 457 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES May 28, 2015 with the Senate. [gavel] Representative
0 Aresimowicz.
REP. ARESIMOWICZ (30th):
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Madam
Speaker, I move that all items requiring further
action in the Senate, excluding House Calendar No.
370, be immediately transmitted to the Senate
pursuant to House Rule 11-2(f).
I DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: l Is there objection? Is there objection?
I Hearing none, so ordered. Is there any business on j the Clerk's desk? jo CLERK: I Yes, Madam Speaker. Favorable Report,
Substitute Senate Bill 1051, AN ACT STRENGTHENING
THE STATE'S ELECTIONS.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE:
Tabled for the Calendar, sir. Any
announcements? Any announcements or introductions?
Representative Tong.
REP. TONG (147th):
For an announcement, Madam Speaker.
DEPUTY SPEAKER GENTILE: c ' Please proceed, sir. S - 684
CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE
PROCEEDINGS 2015
VOL. 58 PART 6 1656 – 1970
001659 /kj/dm 194 SENATE May 20, 2015
On Page 41, calendar 306, .senate Bill No. 1090, AN ACT 0 CONCERNING GAMING, Favorable Report of the Committee on Public Safety. There are amendments.
THE CHAIR:
Good evening, Senator Larson.
SENATOR LARSON:
Good evening, Madam President. Thank you very much. Madam President, I move acceptance of the Joint Committee's Favorable Report and passage of the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Motion is on acceptance and passage. Will you remark, sir?
SENATOR LARSON:
Yes, I will. Madam President, the bill has a Senate Amendment 7752, and I'd ask the Clerk to call that 0 amendment. This amendment is a strike all and will become the bill.
THE CHAIR:
Mr. Clerk.
CLERK:
LCO No. 7752, Senate "A" offered by the Senators Looney, Duff, et al.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Larson.
SENATOR LARSON:
Thank you, Madam President. For the past 20 years -
THE CHAIR: 0 On adoption, sir. 001660 /kj/dm 195 SENATE May 20, 2015
c SENATOR LARSON: I move adoption.
THE CHAIR:
Motion's on adoption. Will you remark, sir?
SENATOR LARSON:
Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON:
For the past 20 years, the Mashantucket Pequot, Mohegan Tribes have dominated the tourism industry not only in Connecticut but in New England. They've provided immeasurable opportunities for entertainment, sporting, and gaming, and over the past 20 years, 0 they've built and expanded and contributed to the Connecticut economy in numerous ways. Our state has benefited by virtue of permanent, stable employment for thousands of our residents while the two casinos have contributed millions of dollars annually to the state coffers.
We've relied on this direct stream of revenue and included in the educational formula spread out to every town throughout the State of Connecticut. As successful as they have been, competition from our neighboring states threaten their business and present a challenge.
In response to this, they've asked for our help. These two casinos have joined forces to protect Connecticut jobs and their stronghold as a world-class entertainment and gambling destination. This bill today is one step in a pragmatic approach to support a world-class institution. This bill will allow the two tribes the ability to approach municipalities in the state through a request for a proposal process to 0 locate a facility off the current Indian reservation. 001661 /kj/dm 196 SENATE May 20, 2015
By forming the tribal business entity, filing with the Secretary of State, and working through the Department of Consumer Protection, they will offer an RFP on the DCP website which cities and towns may respond accordingly. They will be required to report on a monthly basis to the General Assembly their progress. Once a site has been determined and a business deal is arranged, the agreement will be reviewed by the Attorney General to determine its content and to ensure that the business arrangement would not interfere with the existing gaming compact. This bill would then be passed to the Governor for final approval and negotiations with regards to state share of revenue and contribution to the problem gambling fund.
Finally, this bill will come back to the General Assembly for a final vote. If at any point during the terms of this fall outside the constitutional framework, the deal will be void. There have been several hours put into negotiating the final language or this language of this bill. There have been agreements with unions in regards to project labor agreements and card check availability. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark on this amendment? Will you remark on this amendment? Senator Formica.
SENATOR FORMICA:
Thank you, Madam President. Good evening.
THE CHAIR:
Good evening, sir.
SENATOR FORMICA:
Thank you. I rise in support of this amendment this evening. I had the good privilege of beginning a business in Southeastern Connecticut in 1983 and, since that time, have seen many changes in the economic environment in Southeastern Connecticut. 0 Coming off one of the recessions in the early 90s, 001662 /kj/dm 197 SENATE May 20, 2015 Electric Boat was dropping down to about 7000 people, and they came and spoke to our Chamber and talked 0 about the opportunity that Electric Boat may not survive at a point in time any less than that.
It was approximately that time that the Mashantuckets decided to open their casino, and without that opportunity to provide the jobs in Southeastern Connecticut and balance the loss of jobs that Electric Boat was doing at the time, we would be in serious trouble. Shortly thereafter, the second tribe, the Mohegans, also opened a casino, and through hard work and popularity and providing a product that people wanted to support, they grew those two resorts into the largest casinos in the world. They also provided diversity with shopping, restaurants, and other opportunities for economic development.
I support this opportunity for the protection of the jobs in and around Southeastern Connecticut but certainly throughout the entire state. If these tribes did not develop these resorts and did not do the best that they could do, we would have a serious issue in Southeastern Connecticut.
Today, we're in the midst of an uneasy recovery. Southeastern Connecticut lags behind most every region not only in the state but in the country. This is not the time for another hit; this is a time that we need to protect the 14,000 jobs that the two combined resorts provide, and we need to have the opportunity to see how we can move forward and protect those jobs.
Now, do I believe that casinos are the answer to the economic woes in the State of Connecticut or certainly in any other state? No, I do not. But I do believe that they are a piece, and they are a piece that needs to be preserved. They are a piece that has currently 14,000 jobs, and they are under siege from competition around New England. I think that by providing an opportunity for the satellite location, we would be able to provide the opportunity to protect those jobs and move into the next, move into the next phase of our recovery. So I stand in support, and I thank you, Madam President. 0 THE CHAIR: 001663 /kj/dm 198 SENATE May 20, 2015
0 Thank you, Senator. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Linares.
SENATOR LINARES:
Thank you, Madam President. I rise in support of this amendment and this bill. The casinos Foxwoods and Mohegan have created over 20,000 direct jobs, many of which are jobs created for the constituents in my district. Over $6 billion has been contributed to the State's bottom line over the past 20 years thanks to the casinos and the revenue that they've generated. Not to mention the small businesses like Senator Formica had spoke about that have started and been successful on Main Street America thanks to the success of our casinos.
When I speak to friends that live outside of state, they always mention Foxwoods or Mohegan, and it seems like that's one of the destinations that they always wanna head to after they come visit. And it's understandable. There's fine dining, there's plenty of things to do, and I think it's an excellent, I think it's an excellent addition to the State and, you know, at the end of the day, it's more than just job retention, it's also about job creation, and that's what this bill will allow us to do. And a job is better than no job, and right now, economic activity and job creation should be our primary focus.
So I commend the work that has been done on this bill. I commend the work of the tribes of the casinos, and I support this legislation. Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR MCLACHLAN: 0 001664 /kj/dm 199 SENATE May 20, 2015 Thank you, Madam President. I stand in opposition to 0 this bill for a number of reasons. One that is my primary concern is the current situation that the United States is facing with changes in regulations at the Bureau of Indian Affairs as it relates to Indian gaming compacts and the recognition process.
In the United States, we have a pretty tightly controlled process for acknowledgement of an Indian tribe. There are several Indian tribes in the State of Connecticut that are still seeking official recognition as a tribe. This process is up in the air right now. The changes that are being proposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs appears to be allowing the tribes who are currently not recognized in Connecticut another opportunity to seek that recognition that otherwise is not and has not been made available to them.
Should they be successful in the process of the new recognition regulations that are pending now, it throws, frankly, a big wrench, a total quagmire into all agreements that the State of Connecticut has with the two tribal casinos today. We need to set this idea 0 aside and await the final changes of acknowledgment of Indian tribes proposed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. And once those changes are settled, then we can appropriately go after all of the laudable ideals that are being proposed with casino expansion this evening.
But we can't effectively, legally, efficiently address those issues that are forthcoming - may be forthcoming - where tribes such as the Schaghticokes of Kent, the Golden Paugussetts in the Bridgeport Area, and others will be seeking tribal recognition.
Let me remind this legislative body that the Golden Paugussetts threw the entire real estate industry in the State of Connecticut into a nightmare quagmire by filing gray titles essentially on property across the State of Connecticut when they were seeking recognition in the past. Let me remind you that the Schaghticoke tribe in Kent applied for recognition many years ago, was denied, reapplied, was granted 0 recognition, and then the recognition was repealed on 001665 /kj/dm 200 SENATE May 20, 2015 appeal because they were not able to cross all the 0 hurdles of the current recognition process. These kinds of intricate problems in the recognition process will create major problems for the State of Connecticut in negotiating with new Indian tribes for further expansion of casino gambling should they be successful. We cannot now put this idea on the table until that very important matter is settled. And for that reason, Madam President, I urge rejection of this proposal.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you.
Will you remark further? Senator Osten?
SENATOR OSTEN:
Thank you very much, Madam President. Madam President, I stand in support of the amendment and the underlying bill. This amendment provides a process and essentially establishes a framework for us to move c forward in protecting real living-wage jobs in Eastern Connecticut. I received literally hundreds of email messages and met with constituents over the last year concerned about what they were going to be doing should they lose their job. Their jobs pay for their homes, their mortgages, their children going to college, and many of the people have worked at the two casinos for the last two decades. These are not merely jobs, they are career opportunities.
Not only have I met with constituents who work directly for the casino and received their emails, I have also met with the vendors who have workers that have jobs as a result of the activities that their business, such as ACL Linen in Norwich, one of the largest employers in the Norwich Industrial Park, cleaning the linens, providing, again, unionized wages for workers at their plant as a direct result of the establishment of both entertainment venues.
I know that there are ills that are associated with gambling just as there are ills associated with 0 smoking and a variety of other things. As Senator 001666 /kj/dm 201 SENATE May 20, 2015 Formica said, quite frankly, we in Eastern Connecticut lag behind the rest of the state in job creation and 0 cannot afford to lose a single job. We need good living-wage jobs that provide an environment for people to be successful. We have taken many hits over the years, and as we in Connecticut have worked very hard to stop our base from closing, to make sure that we're building submarines at Electric Boat, to make sure that Pratt & Whitney is successful up here in East Hartford.
We work hard to save jobs all over this state. This is another environment where we are going to show that Connecticut will do what it can to save our residents' jobs that provide them a place to live, that provide them a way to support their families, that provides them a way to send their children to college. Essentially, there is nothing that we should not do to support these two business entities who have helped the State of Connecticut out by providing good living wage jobs for its employees. I stand in strong support of the amendment, and I wanna thank the good Senator for bringing this up, and I look forward to its 0 passage. THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Kissel. Oops. Sorry. Senator - Sorry. He came first, so Senator Kissel.
SENATOR KISSEL:
Madam President, at this time, I'd like to yield to Senator Hwang.
THE CHAIR:
Senator Hwang, will you accept the yield, sir?
SENATOR HWANG:
Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. It's a hard act to follow, Senator Kissel. 0 THE CHAIR: 001667 /kj/dm 202 SENATE May 20, 2015 Please proceed.
0 SENATOR HWANG:
Thank you, Madam President. I think the first thing I wanted to address is to acknowledge the good Senator taking this bill out and Senator Osten's passionate advocacy. I have great respect for their advocacy of their community and their residents. I truly do. At the same time, I also understand and appreciate the unique collaborative relationship that the tribal gambling institutions have with the State of Connecticut. They're a part of our state.
But our challenge is that we are looking at this as an expansion beyond tribal land, and that is something that is extremely important that we have to understand. And I think what the Attorney General has offered in looking at this decision and this approach is the fact that we have made a decision to move beyond tribal land, the sanctity of that relationship, the independence of that relationship that allowed our state to interact in this unique compact and the MOOs. That is a huge concern that I have, and I know that 0 this amendment is a reaction to the Attorney General's input in regards to that monumental change, but I do not believe it goes far enough in addressing the fundamental shift. It is a major, fundamental shift on the dynamics of gambling in our state.
Now, I think when people think of my passionate advocacy against the expansion, people think that I don't like the issue of gambling, that I frown upon it. The reality is I understand it is a facet of our lives, but the biggest challenge I have to this issue is the fact that we are, as a state, as an entity that represents the interest and the good graces of our people have now decided to engage in a collaborative relationship outside of tribal land. We are taking it potentially into our neighborhoods, and I oppose that because we are creating a potential Pandora's box that we cannot close. We may be creating a situation in which we do not know what happens 5 years, 10 years from now.
I think one of the basic tenets and the basics 0 strength of advocacy of the proponent of this bill is 001668 /kj/dm 203 SENATE May 20, 2015 about jobs. I understand that. But what we have heard 0 in testimony and engagement in this is it is at best a job-neutral opportunity. It is a potential where we don't know where this industry is going. As we have seen by slot revenue and by the general decline of the gambling industry, it is reaching a level of maturity. It is reaching a level of saturation. All across the board, it is not the duopoly that we enjoyed 20 years ago. Unfortunately, we are encountering into a mature gambling marketplace, a mature business in which we may be on a downward cline, and I hope not a downward, sharp trajectory because one of the biggest questions I have in the case that we do build this one casino and the possibility of others down the street, down the road.
Here's my question: What if it fails? What happens if it fails? I think there's a cautionary tale that we all have to look to - The plight of Atlantic City. The city, when it began the foray into gambling as an economic remedy for the challenges of our ability to compete as a marketplace, what happens? Have we seen what happened to Atlantic City? Atlantic City had a boom in which people were building, developers were going in, there was that economic rush, but what we have seen in the past years has been a demise of a community, a demise of an economic initiative to really try to improve the lots of the people in the community.
I think that that is something that we have a responsibility as a legislative body to account for. That if we go down this road, and if it is the wrong one, are we able to pick up the pieces of the lives shattered?
We talked about jobs, and we talked about the economics. You know, I have to tell you, we don't do enough to bring real faces of addiction. I think that's a second major component that we have not really addressed. I know people speak of the ills, but the reality is gambling addiction is a medical illness. It is no different than substance abuse, alcohol. It is an affliction that has uncontrollable behavior and requires support. And when we combine this with a marketplace that is mature, flat, or 0 declining and the only possible growth in that 001669 /kj/dm 204 SENATE May 20, 2015 marketplace is to bring more, active, addicted gambling populations into our fold, what are we doing? 0 What are we doing as a state to empower this type of initiative. And I look forward to further discussions, further debate down the road. But as we say this down the road, I appreciate and applaud the advocacy of my good colleagues on this issue but I think as a broader body has a legislative responsibility, I think we have to think further about what decisions we're making. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Now will you remark, Senator Kissel?
SENATOR KISSEL:
Thank you very much, Madam President. I do respect the hard work that has gone into this amendment that becomes the bill, but it's my position that should we go down this path and adopt this amendment that becomes the bill, all bets are off.
We've been real lucky here in the State of Connecticut 0 since we hammered out the agreement with the two tribes in the beginning of the 1990s. I have seen, as I've been in this Chamber for 23 years, we have done everything humanly possible to uphold that agreement which has rendered us the beneficiaries of so many millions of dollars. And I will grant the folks from Southeastern Connecticut that it has helped them. It may have hurt some of the smaller businesses down there, but as a whole, it's been good economically for those folks, and I can understand them wanting to support the two tribes.
But this proposal is going to change the entire landscape. And one of the things that has been touted in support of this is that we need to rush into this breach to compete with the casinos being planned for Springfield. Between Hartford and Springfield, there's about three of us senators that represent that territory. I represent North Central Connecticut - Enfield, Somers, Suffield, Windsor, Windsor Locks, East Granby, and Granby. The proponent of the amendment which becomes the bill, Senator Larson, 0 represents towns that adjoin my district, and then 001670 /kj/dm 205 SENATE May 20, 2015 there's also Senator Coleman who has Hartford and 0 towns there. My guess is, if this is being told to us, that one of us is going to have one of our municipalities targeted. Well I can tell you the folks in North Central Connecticut in my district want none of this. The vast majority say bad economic construct. You're not gonna win in the State of Connecticut. Build your economic strength on a stronger underpinning than competing in a war over an every dwindling gambling dollar. We've been blessed with these two casinos. They are the largest casinos, I believe, in the United States, and I think two of the top four in the world. They are what's called destination casinos. They've got it all. And I don't believe that we can replicate them in North Central Connecticut in the 91 Corridor or anywhere else in the State of Connecticut.
We had a head start, and we rode it for as long and as hard as we could, and those days are gone. So what are you gonna put in that 91 Corridor between Hartford and Springfield to compete with a destination casino that is full steam ahead in Springfield? Are they going to 0 try to create a destination casino between Hartford and Springfield to compete? I don't believe it'll work. I don't believe it can get up in time, and I don't believe it'll be on the scale of the two casinos that we already benefit from.
The other concern I have in my neck of the woods is we have off-track betting right near Bradley International Airport. They have invested tens of millions of dollars - Sportek - creating good jobs for the offtrack betting, expanding restaurant and entertainment opportunities. It is not a destination, but it is good regional for our neck of the woods. You build another casino a few miles from there, you're cannibalizing those jobs. You're undermining someone who's already a corporation that's already plowed millions into our neck of the woods. That's a fine how-do-you-do.
Now I've gone up and down every day, 91, whether I'm coming here or somewhere else, looking at the spots where this may land. There's a cinema as you go south from Enfield down towards Hartford; it's been 001671 /kj/dm 206 SENATE May 20, 2015 abandoned for about a decade, right overlooking the 0 highway in East Windsor. And East Windsor people have said they're happy to have a casino -maybe there.
There's a Walmart site. They moved. They expanded. They went further away from the highway. Maybe that footprint there.
I've also heard Windsor Locks wants it, but then the question with Windsor Locks is you're not overlooking 91 because there's a connector between 91 and the airport, and if you're gonna build it near the airport, you're not gonna see it from the highway.
But it's probably gonna be one of those three spots if not the one in East Hartford that I've heard about as well, but it doesn't necessarily have the visibility.
But again, what are you gonna get at the end of the day? I understand the folks from Southeast Connecticut, but those jobs, people aren't gonna commute from their neck of the woods to my neck of the woods. It's not gonna happen. Building something in North Central Connecticut's not gonna drive dollars 0 into their neck of the woods. It doesn't happen. And I served on that task force to study destination casinos and enhancing slot machines and other kinds of gambling opportunities because we were concerned about Massachusetts and New York and the competition, but the gambling dollar is dwindling, not growing. And people want convenience.
And they're not gonna come from Upstate New York to East Windsor or Enfield or Hartford. They're just not going to. If they're not going to leave portions of New York State and Massachusetts for the two beautiful casinos we already have that have been golden, wonderful destinations casinos, whatever we build now is not going to help the situation. We need to think differently now. The world has changed. We got as much out of it as we can. That's one thing.
Two. I'm concerned about the legal Pandora's box that we are opening. And I understand the amendment says, "Well, if this is found to be unconstitution, all bets are off," but I think by the time you go down the 001672 /kj/dm 207 SENATE May 20, 2015 road, then you're open yourselfs to all types of legal 0 exposure. What about personal or corporate emoluments? That's disallowed. What about due process and equal protection? Who are we to say that these two tribes get special treatment if they go outside of their footprint of territoriality because it's always been my understanding that the footprint is what, is the thing that anchors the situation.
If I'm Steve Winn or some other private enterprise and I say you're cutting this deal for these two folks to go anywhere in Connecticut, I want in. And if you don't allow me in, that's unfair, that's unequal, and that's not due process.
This is a bad idea. This is not going to be good for Connecticut's long-term fiscal health. We need to think differently now. The world has changed. I have no problem doing what we can to help the folks with the casinos in that neck a the woods try to remain prosperous. But to now replicate that all over the state and open yourself for all sorts of lawsuits and 0 all sorts of challenges. And oh, by the way, as Senator McLachlan said, Board of Indian Affairs all of a sudden says we're gonna recognize other tribes too, what are we livin' in? Pottersville? That's not a moral stigma, it's just saying it's bad economically.
I acknowledge gambling is a part of our everyday life. You can't go to a 7-Eleven. You can't get gas without a scratch ticket or, you know, Powerball or whatever, but at some point - and my constituents tell me this all the time - at some point, you've reached the saturation point and there's not anything more you can do.
So if the proposal was what can we do to help out what we have and make it even more attractive, that makes sense. To start multiplying this all over the place, that doesn't make sense to me. And for those reasons, Madam President, I oppose this amendment that becomes the bill, and I oppose the underlying proposal. Thank you.
0 THE CHAIR: 001673 /kj/dm 208 SENATE May 20, 2015
0 Thank you. Will you remark further? Senator Frantz. SENATOR FRANTZ:
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. I think everybody in the circle tonight gets exactly what's goin' on here. We're looking at a dynamic situation where we have competition entering the marketplace north of us and potentially in other areas east, west, and in other points north of us. And this is really, at the end of the day, all about jobs regardless of our opinions of what gambling is to us as a population, whether it's good or bad personally.
I'm not a big fan of it. I see certain regressive aspects to the revenue scheme in the business plan, but nonetheless, at the end of the day, it's really all about jobs, and that's why this is before us here today, and I think it does merit a discussion. But after hearing all of the legal arguments from attorneys and also from Senator McLachlan and Senator Kissel here tonight, who I think very articulately summed up exactly what the State of Connecticut is 0 gonna be faced with if this moves forward, I think we have to really think about this hard and long before we do anything about it.
I think all of us met with people over the last couple of days outside the Chamber, and these are wonderful, normal, hardworking people working either as dealers or somewhere in middle management or senior management in the two different casinos, and they're scared for their jobs. And we should be listening to'm, and I gave them as much time as I possibly, humanly could today, and I totally understand where they're coming from.
But I also think we as a state have to very much pay attention to the ability to adapt. So yes, you have a free-market system - thank God - that does work and has created the greatest economy in the history of mankind. It's creating a situation where there is a I competitive environment now. It's no longer a duopoly, and we need to, as a state, be able to, Madam President, react more quickly so that we can create 0 the 2 or 3 or 4000 jobs that are at stake here by 001674 /kj/dm 209 SENATE May 20, 2015 having a match-up in between the people who need those jobs and what the opportunities are. And that's one of 0 the biggest, ironically biggest issues that the State of Connecticut faces today. So we need to focus on that. We need to create a better business environment so we get into another situation like this or perhaps this one in particular because there may still be time to rectify the situation that we have opportunities for the people who might get displaced by the fact that there's more competition in the market.
So again, focus on the business environment, focus on job opportunities, focus on the ability to train people. If they're not trained specifically for a particular career, they're in another one. Be able to quickly retrain them so that they could take on jobs in other industries that are growing and flourishing in a hopefully better business environment going forward. So I stand against the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Cassano.
SENATOR CASSANO:
Thank you, Madam President. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment. When this first came forward with three casinos, I was a little concerned and, quite honestly, not really excited about the whole proposal. But as you get into this and look, it reminds me of responding as I did as a mayor. Senator Larson, Senator Formica, many of us around this circle have been in that position where a simple decision had to be made in many cases. Do we put up a stoplight? Do we put a stop sign here because there's a danger that has to be addressed?
We're talkin' about jobs. Job losses. That's a danger. We're talkin' about revenue and revenu~ losses. That's a real danger. We are going to try and adopt a budget next week, and we're havin' a real rough time because revenues are down. If you look at those casinos over the last five years, overall income is down $80 0 million - $80 million. That's a loss. That's a loss 001675 /kj/dm 210 SENATE May 20, 2015 due to the construction of new casinos in New York and 0 Massachusetts and so on. No casino will be built in a place that doesn't want it. Number one. That's important. We have towns that want the casinos. That is significant. Number two: Municipalities - 169 towns, and we're all from one of'm - are all been losin' money over those last five years because that's a big part of their revenue is the steady flow of revenues.
But perhaps most important, what bothers me and what turned me around is that when I look at the MGM proposal and I look at the financials of that casino, 81 percent of their revenue is expected to come from this state, the State of Connecticut. Not from Springfield, not from Westfield or the little, small towns surrounding Springfield. Connecticut. Central Connecticut. This area. And that's why I'm gonna support this, and the wisdom of tryin' to put something that'll keep that revenue in Connecticut is most important because our budget can't afford the loss. Families who have workers that are workin' at the casinos can't afford this loss, and so we must 0 move forward on it.
Due diligence. We have plenty of time to address the situation that we have as far as the casinos being owned by the Indians. That will be worked out. It was a concern years ago when they first built the casinos, and it's lasted well. So let's move forward. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Duff?
SENATOR DUFF:
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment and certainly very much appreciate the comments so far on this legislation.
This is - the bill is very simple in what it does and what we expect, but it's not an easy piece of 0 legislation and a bit complicated at times because of 001676 /kj/dm 211 SENATE May 20, 2015 the fact that, as Senator Cassano said, it takes people just a little bit of time to get there. It 0 makes people a little uncomfortable in the sense of decisions we have to make in order to protect the jobs, the thousands of jobs that we have here in the State of Connecticut.
From day one, we looked at this as all about saving 9000 jobs in the State of Connecticut. Whether people are pro gambling, anti gambling, the casinos are here. They produce lots of jobs as we said. Those jobs are middle income jobs. Everyday folks. Average Americans who are out there who have kids, have health benefits, have retirement benefits, who count on those jobs each and every day.
There's been numerous reports out there that because of the fact that other casinos that have already opened up in our region have taken away a lot of the traffic that we had relied on for years; however, we know that the amount of revenue or amount of potential is still there to support the jobs that we can have here in the State of Connecticut.
0 So while I know this is not the end, this is really a first step of a two-step process, I believe that we have worked hard to listen to many people in the building who've had a lot of concerns about this. We have gone from three potential sites to one site. We've said that municipalities have to be in, have to have their legislative body approve the plan. It has to conform to planning and zoning requirements. That the tribes have to work with those communities first, then they have to come back to us. We've worked very hard to protect the State of Connecticut's interests as it relates to our compact and working through the issues of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
So I think we have, because of the fact that we have listened so much and worked so hard to hear concerns out there that we have purposely made this process a little bit longer of a process than we had originally thought, but I think that is probably a healthier process that's out there.
So I want to extend my thanks to Senator Larson for his really stalwart support of this legislation. 001677 /kj/dm 212 SENATE May 20, 2015 Certainly Senator Osten whose district the two tribes, the two resorts are in, the tribes, and really what I 0 know, it's an uncomfortable vote for some folks, but I think in the end of the day this is really, again, about jobs and saving the jobs in the State of Connecticut.
I wanna thank Senator Looney for his efforts as well, Senator Formica for his words also, and again, everybody who has worked on this, including those in the House as well. We work on these things. If the answers were easy, we, the Legislature wouldn't have to decide these kinds of things. But in the end, I think this is right for Connecticut. This is right for saving jobs, and we should pass this legislation. Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark? Will you remark? Senator Fasano?
SENATOR FASANO:
0 Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I understand that some folks feel this is about jobs. I don't know one way or the other. Clearly, some reports issued by the very folks who wanna create this new place off tribal land suggest it's gonna create jobs. I don't know. The MGM facility is supposed to be a huge facility that's gonna be bigger than what we currently have, and maybe that has a bigger effect and is not factored into that study. I don't know one way or the other. I don't know if this was like a Pratt & Whitney who needed to open up another facility whether we would all be cheering it and bipartisanly support it. I don't know that either.
But let me tell you what I do know. I know we don't really need this bill. There is nothing that prohibits these people to start talking. There's nothing that prohibits the tribe to go out and talk to municipalities about what they wanna do, where they wanna do it while we determine if we can do it. Nothing prohibits them. These are two private entities who can get together and discuss proposals and put 001678 /kj/dm 213 SENATE May 20, 2015 plans and do projections and write-ups and be ready to 0 go. But what this bill does is says we as a Legislature are asking you as a Tribe and you as municipalities, if you're interested, to get together and work hard with the Department of Consumer Protection, I believe, to review proposals to put forth a project that we don't know if we can pass. That we don't know if we can legally do. That we don't know if we have the legal right or should do.
So what do we know? We know that our lawyer, the Attorney General, has said there are significant problems. He said I don't know if they're overcomable. And everyone in this Chamber knows there's been plenty discussions with the AG's office to say can we craft some language to get around it? The bottom is we can't. And he says something that's really interesting in here. In his opinion dated April 15 of this year, he says that the Secretary of Indian Affairs must approve all compact agreements and amendments thereto. Absent that, the validity is challengeable. Now you have to have standing to challenge, I get that, but it's challengeable.
What we did back when in the Weicker years, is they went to court, and it said, "Look, you can't do such and-such gambling unless a few things happen, one of which is you get permission from the State." And thus came the memorandum that gave permission to allow the video gambling, the slot machines, to be achieved on the tribal land.
Now neither the casinos - the tribes - nor the State went to the Federal Government to seek approval. For whatever reason, good or bad, right or wrong, they decided not to. Question is, should they? Question is, now when we do something that's in contradiction of the compact and move it off site, can someone challenge that issue? The fact that this bill has been raised and then the Attorney General says, "Be cautious, be careful, the uncertainty is the only thing that's certain." The proposed legislation being the underlying bill which is taken away by this 0 amendment. The proposed legislation poses several 001679 /kj/dm 214 SENATE May 20, 2015 legal issues that cannot be resolved with high degree 0 of certainty. Red flag. As a lawyer, if I tell my client I'm telling you this is not a good idea because if it is challenged, the certainty of your defense is uncertain and it's a gamble, I hope my client doesn't risk going forward when they have a lot to lose. Well what do we have to lose?
We have to lose the 25 percent that we're currently getting. Secretary could say 10 percent, 5 percent. Could say 30 percent I suppose. Could say no slots. I have no idea. Could say it is invalid and someone could say well then I get to do slots. It doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. What matters is we have now taken a bill that we were told by our lawyer is not a good idea, and obviously some people heeded that because they said, "Let's do something else. We gotta do something.
So look, I know what we could do. Let's go tell people start thinkin' about it. Start planning it and then come back to us and then we'll let you know if we can legally do it or not." That's like telling my, telling a guy who wants to buy my house, "I am not gonna sell you this house. I don't think it's a good idea. I'm not gonna sell it to you, but negotiate the deal with my wife." And then my wife sits down and negotiates a deal and then they come to me and they say thanks for getting the mortgage commitment, you did the contract, you got everything in line, by the way, I'm not sellin' you the house. Is that fair? Is that right? Is that what we really should be doing?
Why don't we just stay silent. Let the AG and others figure this out. If there's a way- which I don't think there is, but I don't represent the State - and let parties go do what it is that they have to do. But for us to suggest to them that you go plan, spend the money, do the town resources, do the planning. Heck, even if you want to, go do zone changes and have public hearings, and then they turn to us and say, "Hey, we're all done, we got a perfect location. This and this tribe likes it. This is where it's gonna go. 0 Town wants it. We've done the zoning. We've got the 001680 /kj/dm 215 SENATE May 20, 2015 money in line,'' and we say, "Sorry. We can't legally 0 do it." I don't understand that. That's why I don't understand the purpose of the bill. I understand how we got here. I understand that there was some push to do this. But when a lawyer comes out and says, ''Be really careful." And I understand about jobs. I understand that in those areas in which legislators represent, I would be focusing on this bill and voting in favor of it. No question. You have to do that. I get that obligation.
But on the other hand, for the rest of us, there is a position that we have to know we have the lawyer, our, the person who advises us, who met with leaders and the Governor's office and said, "This is not a good idea." You have to ask then why are we doing it. Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark? Senator Looney. Good evening, sir.
0 SENATOR LOONEY:
Good evening, Madam President. Madam President, speaking in support of the amendment, which, in fact, becomes the bill, first I wanted to commend Senator Larson, the Chair of the Public Safety and Security Committee, for his hard work in bringing this forward; our Majority Leader, Senator Duff, who has been, done so much to help convene and coordinate the effort in this area; Senator Osten as an advocate; and others.
This is a bill that provides a framework for a potential creation of an additional casino in Connecticut, but it takes into concern all of the possible problems that might occur, and that's why it does proceed slowly in two stages to make sure that the State's interests are properly protected at every stage.
It is an effort, first and foremost, to try to secure and protect jobs in the State and also, in effect, to protect an industry, which has become an important 0 industry in our state. The two casinos in Eastern 001681 /kj/dm 216 SENATE May 20, 2015 Connecticut have been a very, very substantial source of employment for the people of this state for the 0 last two decades. And the process that's laid out in this bill, or in this amendment, does provide that there will be a mechanism for the tribal entity, which is the two tribes working together in partnership where previously they had been in competition. They will be in a position to solicit requests for proposals from municipalities that might be interested in hosting a facility that would be run by the tribal entity, namely the two tribes operating together, and the tribal business entity shall submit any such request for proposals to the Department of Consumer Protection. The Department would post the request on its Internet website.
So the state is not going to be picking a winner or picking a resolution to this process, it is only setting up a framework here to enable its development so that any, it is up to the tribal entity to pick, if it chooses, which municipality it chooses to partner with in terms of advancing this proposal and then enter into a development agreement. And any development agreement shall be contingent upon amendments to state law enacted by the General Assembly that provide for the operation of and participation in a casino gaming facility by such tribal business entity.
So it is this careful and prudent process to take into consideration the concerns raised by the Attorney General in his letter and to make sure that the State's rights are protected and not compromised at every stage. And again, the tribal business entity may not establish a casino gaming facility in the State until the General Assembly has amended state law to provide for the operation of and participation in a casino gaming facility and such law has taken effect. And that is why this process is laid out here. That information has to be submitted to various standing committees of the General Assembly, the leaders, and to the Attorney General.
And again, if a final judgment of a court finds any provision unlawful or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions would be inoperative. So I think that this 0 amendment and, therefore, the bill, is framed in a way 001682 /kj/dm 217 SENATE May 20, 2015 to try to protect an important industry and important jobs in the State but to do so in a way that threads 0 the needle to protect all of the interests of the State that under certain circumstances, under certain scenarios, and the Attorney General's opinion could be questioned.
And, but there is nothing in this bill that, in fact, makes the State liable to those questions or to those possible negative ramifications. So we don't know for sure whether an agreement will be entered into with any town and what will happen when it is submitted thereafter to the General Assembly, but it does lay out a process that I think creates at least an option for Connecticut to continue to compete in an area that has become an important source of employment for us in the last couple of decades and is now, in many ways, threatened on all sides. So I would urge approval of the amendment. Thank you, Madam President.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark 0 further? Senator Larson? SENATOR LARSON:
Thank you, Madam President. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I ask that the vote be taken by roll call.
THE CHAIR:
A roll call vote will be taken. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, Mr. Clerk, will you call for a roll call vote? The machine will be open.
CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. Immediate roll call on Senate Amendment Schedule "A" has been ordered in the Senate.
[pause] 0 THE CHAIR: 001683 /kj/dm 218 SENATE May 20, 2015
All members have voted. All members have voted. The 0 machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will you call a tally, please.
CLERK:
On Senate Amendment Schedule "A"
Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 20 Those voting Nay 16 Absent/not voting 0
THE CHAIR:
The amendment passes. Will you remark further? Senator McLachlan.
SENATOR MCLACHLAN:
Thank you, Madam President. I have been very concerned about this proposal in another way, and that is that
0"/ our process here in the Connecticut General Assembly has committees of cognizance. The Committee of Cognizance for Tribal Compacts is the Government Administration and Elections Committee. And I've been perplexed, frankly, that the worthy co-chairs of this committee and, frankly, me as the, one of the ranking members, have been reading all about this proposal in the press, and nowhere has any of the proponents reached out to a committee who ultimately is gonna have an important part of the process should the compacts with the tribes have to be changed.
So Madam President, with that thought in mind, I make a motion to refer this bill to the Government Administration and Elections Committee, and I ask that the vote be taken by roll. Thank you.
THE CHAIR:
Will you remark further? Will you remark further? Senator Looney. 0 SENATOR LOONEY: 001684 /kj/dm 219 SENATE May 20, 2015
Thank you, Madam President. Speaking in opposition to 0 the motion, I think that perhaps, should this bill result in a proposed agreement that might in fact impact the compact, that indeed could be a substantial argument for that referral. But since gaming itself is under the cognizance of the Committee on Public Safety and Security, and that is really what has been concerned here and there is no amendment to the compact or alteration to the compact pending as part of this bill, I believe that that referral is not necessary and would oppose the referral at this time.
THE CHAIR:
Thank you. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, I call for a roll call vote. Mr. Clerk, will you please call for a roll call vote, and I'll open the machine. Thank you.
CLERK:
J_mmediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. 0 Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. THE CHAIR:
Ladies and gentleman, would you hold for a moment? We're waiting for some technical assistance so that the vote will be put on the board, the proper vote will be put on the board. Please hold your votes.
[pause]
THE CHAIR:
Please continue voting, and we'll fix the board. Everybody knows that the vote is on, a referral to a ccommittee. Please continue the vote.
[pause]
All members have voted. All members have voted. The machine now will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the tally. 0 CLERK: 001685 /kj/dm 220 SENATE May 20, 2015
0 On the Motion to Refer Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Adoption 19 Those voting Yea 13 Those voting Nay 23 Absent/not voting 0
THE CHAIR:
The motion fails. Will you remark further? Will you remark further? If not, I will call for a roll call vote on the bill. Mr. Clerk, the machine is open.
CLERK:
Immediate roll call has been ordered in the Senate. finmed.fate roll call has been ordered in the Senate.
[pause]
THE CHAIR:
Q Will the members in the Hou - in the Senate please vote. Those that are in the Senate, please vote. All members have voted. All members voted. The machine will be closed. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the tally.
CLERK:
Senate Bill No. 1090
Total Number Voting 36 Necessary for Passage 19 Those voting Yea 20 Those voting Nay 16 Absent/not voting 0
THE CHAIR:
rhe bill passes.
[pause] 0 Senator Duff. JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE HEARINGS
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY PART 3 1052 – 1632
2015 001197 3 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c keep those strong as you go forward, to keep those with your families.
So with that said, Mr. Larson, as two Irishmen of this committee, we should get this hearing started.
Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative Dargan.
And it wouldn't be less of us. I started the, our committee meeting, which was not so well attended by the audience.
But a friend of mine from one of the beverage industries sent me this Irish text message: Mary I'm just having one more pint with the lads. If I'm not home in 20 minutes, read this message again.
With that, we'll call on our first speaker, Rodney Butler; Mr. Butler. And we're also c joined by Kevin Brown. If you could both introduce yourselves, that would be great.
Thank you.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Absolutely. We, let me start by S~ID90 saying Wuyeekeekeesuk, which is good day in our, in our Pequot language. And as you're you're well attuned to history in this region and throughout this region; the first point of -- of contact with both our nations-goes back several hundred years. So there's been many, many years of -- of commingling and intermarrying of -- of such, and so the long story short, my mother is actually half-Irish. So I want to share with the fellow Irishmen today the Happy St. Patrick's Day; so -- c 001198 4 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
KEVIN BROWN: Along those same lines, as you've seen here today, I am the son of -- like I like to, like I like to tell folks -- an Indian Princess Warrior and an Irish Paratrooper Warrior. My father served this country in three wars, an Irishman from way back in Norwich, Connecticut. And so I, too, welcome you to St. Patrick's Day -- Happy St. Patrick's Day -- and -- and share that lineage with you as well.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Thank you.
So Chairman Dargan, Chairman Larson, Senator Guglielmo, and -- and Rep. Zupkus -- and I don't see him here yet -- but members, and members of the Public Safety and Security Committee, my name is Rodney Butler, and I am the Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, proud owners of Foxwoods Resort Casino.
I am present today, as noted, with Kevin Brown, Chairman of the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, to speak about S.B. 1090.
The State of Connecticut and its citizens and the two federally recognized tribes and their citizens are confronted with a challenge. Just as we have worked together for the past 20 years for the benefit of all, we feel we have an opportunity and an obligation to confront this challenge together.
As has been clearly demonstrated with the expansion in Rhode Island and New York, it has cost Connecticut thousands of jobs. Unless addressed, the advent of casino gaming in Massachusetts will cost Connecticut thousands more. The revenue of all three entities resulting from gaming in Connecticut has already been substantially reduced and will be 001199 5 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c radically reduced in the future if we don't act together now.
The drafters of. House Bill 1090 have come up with a solution not to expand gaming in the State of Connecticut but rather to minimize the states' loss of jobs and revenue which will occur if nothing is done. We would urge the passage of this legislation. If it is enacted, the two tribes will pool our resources and experiences to construct one or more gaming facilities in locations which will best encourage garners in Connecticut not to bring their business to Massachusetts or other states but retain it at home where we will, where it will provide Connecticut jobs and limit the erosion of amounts paid to state, to the State of Connecticut from the tribes' existing facilities.
Massachusetts had debated casino gaming for years, and its support by the voters, the Legislature, the Executive Branch was based c upon a realization that Massachusetts' citizens interested in gaming were, in fact, spending their money in Connecticut. The authorization of new casinos in Massachusetts reflected the reality that those wishing to game would game. The net effect was simply to retain that revenue in Massachusetts rather than have it leave the state for Connecticut or perhaps Rhode Island.
Likewise, the design of this bill is simply to encourage Connecticut garners to spend their money here in Connecticut rather than competing jurisdictions. If it encourages some Massachusetts residents to visit here, all the better. c 001200 6 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
·The people of Connecticut have a choice. We in this room have a choice, should we sit back and permit their jobs and revenue to be exported to other jurisdictions or be proactive in the most responsible manner possible, the manner possibly protect the economy of the State of Connecticut and its residents.
We feel this bill is a credit to our State Government in attacking a serious economic challenge in the most responsible way possible. We urge its passage.
Kutaputush mun; thank you all for listening today.
KEVIN BROWN: Aquy taput ni, hello and thank you to all the members of the commission. Good afternoon.
My name is Kevin Brown; I'm the Chairman of the Mohegan Tribe. I grew up in Montville, went to high school and played sports there. And then I left and went to West Point, in 1983, where after graduation I served our country for 24 years before cycling back home again and landing back in Uncasville.
And when I got back there, I was pleased to learn that nearly ten percent of the regions' residents no longer were underemployed or unemployed or were dependent upon the important defense industry in that region of the state but, in fact, were employed by the Mohegan Sun.
I'm here today with my counterpart, Mashantucket Pequot Chairman Rodney Butler, to talk to you about why and how Connecticut must take steps to compete with an $800 million gaming resort that will open 5 miles from our border in just five, just two years. 001201 7 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE For both the Mashantucket Pequot Chairman and Mohegan Chairman to appear here together today demonstrates that even though our tribes have a long history of fierce competition, and even though we are competitors in business today, this threat is serious. It creates a common ground for everyone in this room, Democrat and Republican, sovereign tribe to sovereign state, tribe to tribe, union to nonunion. There's a common denominator and it is the jobs that stand to be lost.
We're here to urge you to pass S.B. 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING, to protect thousands of jobs for our, that our two resorts employ. These jobs, these jobs include world-class chefs, entertainment managers, dealers and hosts, and many other in the hospitality, food and beverage and gaming industry who provide service to 50,000 patrons who visit our two resorts every day. c There've been a lot of questions about this legislation since it, since it was first annDunced last week. Are the jobs at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods valuable enough to protect? Is the gaming industry approaching equilibrium? Will strategically placed, alternative-gaming entertainment sites appeal enough to consumers to bring in business and save jobs? And do the Connecticut, the people of Connecticut really want alternative gaming sites in the state?
The short answer to all those questions is yes. Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are two of the most successful gaming resorts in the world, in the world, in your state. In addition to premier gaming floors at Mohegan Sun, we have some of the finest dining in New England, and our c 001202 8 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
entertainment arena is recognized as one of the best in the country and, again, in the world.
The reason for our success at Mohegan Sun is our employees, many of whom have been with us since our doors opened in 1996. If you want an answer to the question, are these good jobs, consider the fact that 75 percent have been with us for more than five years, and 75 percent of them have matriculated through the system to positions of leadership, management, and supervision.
This is an important industry and this is an investment in human capital that we believe is worthy of sustaining, people with livelihoods that come from the investment and commitment on their part in the job that they stand to lose. They're trained and experienced and they're the best in what they do. That's what makes us world-class.
The gaming industry is changing. The number of gaming sites in New England, as you know, has doubled in the past decade and is, and the result has been the loss of jobs at both of our facilities over that time. Our success in Connecticut is exactly the reason other states are entering into the gaming industry, and those states are now passing laws that will make them even more competitive with Connecticut.
There are those who suggest that this alone doesn't create a compelling enough reason to compete and that we should just realize that we're going to lose a portion of our business, jobs, and state revenues to those states on the boundaries. Apparently those who take this position don't recognize that with a competitive market approaching equilibrium, the 001203 9 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c government really has no other role than to ensure that the market remains competitive, whether through action or inaction. And in this case it's by taking action; that's what S.B. 1090 does.
They'll always be a market for gaming and entertainment, and so why wouldn't Connecticut fight to remain competitive and successful and protect thousands of jobs for people who live, pay taxes, and raise families here? Mohegan Sun has been successful because we know our customers, and our employees provide the high quality service those customers want and have come to expect. While there will certainly be a draw for a bright and shiny object positioned in an out-of-state casino, the fact of the matter is our customers that we know so well recognize brand loyalty, and they'll want to keep coming back to a Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods' facility. New England's customers have come to enjoy a first-class experience at both of c those facilities. And, finally, I'd like to ask you to look deeper at the recent Quinnipiac Poll than the often-quoted and singular response that suggests that 75 percent don't see the need for another casino. Keep in mind and keep reading the questions and answers, that according to that same poll, 62 percent of voters think gaming is good for Connecticut, and an even higher percentage, 68, believe -- 68 percent believe that it is better for gaming business and the jobs that gaming generates for it to stay in the state. You have to read the entirety of the poll; you have to put those questions together, and you have to find the logical consistency. And if you can't find it through those two-or-three questions, then simply go to this one other question that was c 001204 10 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
asked in that poll: What is the single - single, most important thing to you in the state of Connecticut right now? And the answer is jobs.
The poll numbers tell me that the people of Connecticut consider the tribes their partners and that they support the industry, the economic development that it promotes, and the thousands of jobs that Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods provide.
I'd like to close my testimony by making a very clear statement that Mohegan Sun is not going anywhere. And, in fact, you may have seen we are fully engaged in diversification and development on our property in Uncasville to ensure that we are ready to meet and fight the competition for Massachusetts with significant new investments on our home site.
With or without this legislation, Mohegan Sun will survive, but by not passing S.B. 1090, we will likely be forced to right size our -·· business and eliminate thousands of jobs, an impact that will be significant on those great employees, not to mention vendors from throughout the entire state of Connecticut. If we do pass this legislation and Connecticut joins with the Mohegan-Pequot Partnership, we will not only protect those precious jobs but Connecticut can and will retain its place as a premier New England tourism destination.
The decision is yours to make, but we are here to tell you that we can help you help us protect Connecticut jobs and revenue from the direct assault on our industry and on our state by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New York. We look forward to your questions. 001205 11 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE Taput.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your testimony.
Any questions?
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank both the Tribal Chairs very much for being here. And this might not be a question for you, it might be for Jackson that's sitting back there, and he might be able to answer it, the issue of antitrust laws and what the exclusivity of the two Native American tribes have exclusivity on gaming within our state, the uniqueness of reopening the compact with two tribes coming together to form a third casino in our state. c And a lot of these questions are dealing with the legal component of how the Legislature, if in fact if they move forward, how that this would work, because as you're well aware, the lottery last year was the first year the lottery outperformed the two tribes as far as revenue that came back into the State of Connecticut. The height was 2007, which was about 417 million; last year, that -- that revenue figure was first time underneath 300 million, with the compact agreement that the state has with the two tribal nations of the 25 percent slot revenue/Blt revenue. And understanding the last time that we looked to expand gaming in our state was when Governor John Rowland was the sitting Governor and there was RFPs that were submitted and the Wynns and the Trumps of the world came and testified, but c 001206 12 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
what was finally said was that the Mashantucket Pequots won that bid because they said they would give a letter of intent of the revenue that we were, we were going to lose. So it's, for people that haven't been around, it's kind of hard to understand the complexity of the agreements that we have as a state and you as a sovereign nation have.
So those are some of my concerns, Jackson. I know Jackson has been around forever, and I've also known Jackson for a number of years. But I was wondering, Jackson, if you can just comment on some of the, some of the comments that I made and how the Legislature will deal with that?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: As Jackson comes up, we'll say that we've started to start to -- to frame that out by engaging Attorney General Jepsen as well a·s Jackson King on our side, and Helga Woods on the Mohegan side, and they've started that early dialogue to look at all the complexities surrounding that, because there are; right? And/or it's something that we're going to have to -- to work through as we, as we move through this through this legislation. But Jackson?
JACKSON KING: Well, thank you.
Yeah, my name is Jackson King; I'm General Counsel for Mashantucket. And, yes, those are all questions that we've been thinking about and talking about; in fact, we had a very good meeting yesterday with input from the attorneys for the various caucuses, the Speaker's office, and the Attorney General's office, and we talked about all those issues. I don't think antitrust is anything we're -- we're very concerned about, but we are concerned about any, many issue relating to limiting these 001207 13 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c opportunities to the tribes. And -- and we're all very comfortable that there's a legal basis for it, because there's a strong economic basis to do it on the part of the State of Connecticut. The whole Federal, the way it's set up on the federal level is the tribes have opportunities that others don't have.
So we do have to work out the details of that. We have to make sure there's an MOU or other agreement that's in place that assures all parties that your existing stream of revenue is not going to be adversely affected and from the legal point of view. From business point of view, it's whatever happens, happens. But these are very good questions; we're working on them. And I -- I know that neither, none of the parties, particularly the state will go forward until they are very comfortable, the attorneys and the Attorney General is very comfortable that those issues are addressed. c KEVIN BROWN: Yeah, I just close that out, Representative Dargan, by saying, sort of reiterating what Jackson just ended with. This is the start of the conversation; there, there's a lot to be worked out. But at the top level of this entire conversation, the compact is a -- a structure within which we think we can work an arrangement and an agreement.
REP. DARGAN: I, too, thank you, Mr. Chair.
SENATOR LARSON: I have just a, in addition to Steve's comments, first of all, thank you for coming. Thank you for testifying and thank you for what you do for the industry here in Connecticut.
I think it's very easy sometimes when things are running very well to take advantage of that c 001208 14 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
and pooh-pooh that. Well, you know, when things are good in Connecticut, things are good in Connecticut. When they go south, people I think sometimes forget how long it takes and the energy it, it's, it and the commitment both of the tribes have put into making your industry worldwide leading and in Connecticut. I said this at the press conference: If I had a dollar for every time someone told us that Connecticut wasn't business friendly, if we can't at least entertain this opportunity for the two of you, then shame on us. My -- my feeling is this is a logical first step in order to at least understand a little bit better what your industry does.
And with that, I don't know if you could just quickly sort of frame your combined effort with regards to your total employees, what you, what you commit to revenue in the state, and the number of vendors. And then, thirdly, I've committed to supportive of this is with the, with the understanding that commitments to problem gambling are going to be at the top of the list, that should a town decide to invite this opportunity in, that they would be required, that particular town would have to have a, oh, you know, a public hearing or forum in their community, and that they would have some host-town sort of benefit that would endear to that community, and then, you know, the State of Connecticut would certainly need to realize some additional' revenue at some point and how that get, gets worked out.
Catriona Stratton is our LCO and she drafted what I thought was a very, very fair bill for us. It was very dynamic. It speaks to your joint venture. It speaks to the Office of Consumer Protection handling, as they typically would, you know, the fundamental, I'll call 001209 15 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c business transactions, et cetera, and that, in fact, the Attorney General would hold sort of the -- the say on, you know, the amounts divvied back to problem gambling, host town, and state revenue, et cetera.
And so if you could just sort of make some comments on that, I think it would be helpful to frame, for folks who are in the audience and listening, how big of an enterprise this is. And it was rather interesting that through the Connecticut Sports and Convention and Tourism Bureau we toured the Mohegan Sun on the same night that the women's, UConn Women's Basketball Team won the tournament for their, for their university. And it was also interesting that back in the day it was sort of taboo, that you couldn't, you know, coordinate these two. And so what, so to that notion that we've -- we've come a long way and that we are holding even high school venues at this place, and I think it -- it just speaks to the integrity of your organizations and -- and the c breadth of this. And we've come to understand that this is an integral part of our industry in Connecticut, and I promise I won't get into my Massachusetts' rant, but that may come later on. But if you could just sort of frame that out for the committee, I would, I would appreciate that.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Well, Chairman, if you wouldn't mind.
So at Foxwoods we have currently around 7,000 employees, down from just over 12,000 in the mid-2000s. And -- and, Rep, you mentioned earlier -- the Representative, the Chairman Dargan -- 'referenced, he discussed earlier the peak of the revenue; well, that was a peak of our employment as well. And that's simply due c 001210 16 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
to the increased competition in surrounding states that's cost us those jobs. So from a peak of 12,000 to just over 7,000 today, we have roughly 240 million in payroll and benefits for our employees, just within the state of Connecticut, and overall we have about 330 million in payroll to total employees.
Our vendors, we have 645 vendors in the state that we do business with, just at -- at Mashantucket, and over $116 million were spent with Connecticut vendors. And this doesn't include the 120, $110 million dollars that's being constructed today that will provide, the Tanger Mall that's being constructed today, that will open in May, that current, a couple hundred construction jobs as well as 900 permanent jobs once that opens on May 21st.
With regard to the -- the project in general, I'll touch on that briefly, and then I'll turn it over to Chairman Brown to speak about his employee, his employment stats. But -- but clearly we want to be, we want to locate the facility in a location that is receptive to to working with -- with both tribes in the state, and that will be the most beneficial to -- to everyone. And so we do believe that we've -- we've substantially overcome the integrity issue by our years of experience, our years of operation, our world-class facilities that we've been able to -- to run and operate, world-class employees, which we've been able to employ for -- for tens, twenty years, in many cases.
In fact, at -- at Mashantucket we have our, we had our Employee of the Year reception, our Employee Service Awards' reception a few months ago. We had employees that had been with us for over 30 years, going back to the Bingo 001211 17 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c days, and so quite an accomplishment. And, again, to the earlier point about the value of those jobs, ask an employee that's been working with us for 30 years and put their kids and their grandkids through school based on those jobs at Mashantucket.
With regard to state revenue, I -- I do want to, I do want to coach expectations with this, just -- just slightly, because the reality is - - and -- and we have Dr. Clyde Barrow is coming in later today to do a presentation -- we, we've contracted third-party because we didn't want it to be our numbers; we wanted to have them assessed by a professional outside of, outside of both Mashantucket and Mohegan. And this individual actually did the work for - for Massachusetts that led to them enacting their legislation. So we felt there was no better expert to -- to provide information to - - to everyone here today.
But the anticipation is we're going to see c millions, tens of millions in revenue loss. And so step one is preserving as much of that as possible. Are we going to preserve it all? Probably not; let's all be realistic about this. Are we going to, are we going to preserve every job? That's going to be difficult. They're putting 800 million in the ground, you know, as -- as the Chairman said, 20 minutes away. That's going to be difficult, but we're going to preserve as much as we can, working together, collectively on that.
And so I -- I don't want to, I don't want to misstate that this is a revenue growth or a revenue enhancement initiative; this really is about preserving and protecting the -- the gaming economy that we have here in this state, c 001212 18 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
this incredible economy that we have here in the state.
KEVIN BROWN: Thanks. Thanks, Chairman.
To your point about the bill and the language, I'd-- I'd just like to start by saying that - that I concur. Senator Larson, it's -- it's fairly done, and it also leaves room for us to continue the negotiations to land at what it, what is ultimately the right place for both the State and our tribes and -- and how we sort out the various fees and -- and revenue streams that will come from the project.
To -- to walk down the path of the employee numbers, I'll, I will just simply say ditto; I mean it's our, the size and structure and magnitude of both of our facilities has been the same and experienced the same change. Chairman Butler said from 12 to 7; we've gone from 11 to 7. A lot of that is the same.
And a thing that I'd like to highlight, too, in addition to Chairman Butler's points about the vendors, we have very similar numbers as well, about 600 vendors. But the point is throughout the state of Connecticut, and -- and for us that -- that results in about $250-$300 million worth of spend for those vendors, people and businesses. And, again, 140; I -- I believe the number is from 140 of the 169 towns and municipalities in the state of Connecticut, those businesses are throughout the state. This isn't a regional thing. This isn't an Uncasville thing or a New London County thing; it reaches far throughout the state.
And clearly if there is a -- a reduction in the revenues through our front door and a concomitant reduction in the number of 001213 19 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c employees, then those vendors -- we're not simply just talking about those casino jobs those vendors who, you know, sustain their livelihood through the business that they provide to us are also going to feel that impact. And if we, if we sort of extrapolate at -- at a one-third reduction, you're talking about 600 businesses, then what, that in whatever way they might feel it are going to have a 30 percent reduction in revenue, employees that they can sustain on their small business payroll or wherever the case might be.
Your comments about responsible gaming, look, what -- what better time to have that conversation than here in the month of March, which is the month responsible gaming, the month of recognizing responsible gaming. We get it. We understand and -- and as you highlighted and as -- as Chairman Butler reiterated, we know how to run a facility that will ensure that the way things occur keeps the -- the problem gaming framework in mind at all c times.
Because of our recent pursuit in Massachusetts, we're very familiar with what it takes to establish an agreement with a community where this facility might ultimately reside. We understand there has to be a revenue stream back to that community, but there has to be revenue steam, stream back to the State, and we recognize that that will be a part of our business model so that we gain both at the State and in the casino business.
I think to the point about Massachusetts that you said we weren't going to necessarily step off on, I'll just, I wish I had the quote in front of me. You may have seen it, Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, but the timing c 001214 20 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
couldn't, the timing couldn't be better in my mind. You know, that -- that $800 million casino in Springfield looms large in this conversation; it's certainly a conversation starter, but lest anybody think this is all about casino giants waged in a battle for a patron, there are state Legislators in the Commonwealth of Mass, Commonwealth of Massachusetts saying things like if we do not reduce our taxable jackpot number from 1,200 to 600, meaning that a -- a winner on the floor, if they win a $600 jackpot has to claim a 1099 and be taxed on that winnings, if we don't change our current approach to that --,this is Massachusetts talking -- from having that - that high bar, currently at 1,200 in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's regulations down to 600 -- their words -- if elected officials in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, then we are going to drive customers out of our state.
Their -- their Commonwealth, their elected officials in their Commonwealth clearly get it that this is not just an industry-to-industry, the gaming magnate conversation. This is a state-to-state, revenue to the state conversation, so we -- we absolutely recognize that -- that we must develop something that though potentially not recapturing all of the potential loss revenue will at least ensure - let's get back to the bottom line of this whole conversation -- retains jobs for those that are vested in the casino industry in the state of Connecticut right now. That's the important point.
REP. SREDZINSKI: Thank you for being here today and taking the time to testify. 001215 21 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c Just I know it's very early in the process and I know that this is step one in which could be a multi-year endeavor between the State and your two businesses; however, is it possible for you to offer. any vision for these potential facilities? I know the location is probably a given, but if you could just touch upon your vision, your preliminary vision about what you think these facilities will entail, size, scope, whether or not you want to discuss, and is it going to be an entertainment destination with restaurants and -- and entertainment venue or is this simply going to be a gaming site?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
KEVIN BROWN: Representative, I'd like to start by answering that question in terms of what this is not, because every time -- although you did not ask the question this way -- every time I've been asked that question, I get asked: Is this going to be a slot parlor? Is this going to be a slots-in-a-box? Back to our prepared c testimony, we run world-class gaming facilities, and this will be a first-class gaming facility. We aren't -- we aren't looking to just get by and have this be some low-quality environment that -- that it doesn't meet the same level of -- of a first-rate, premier gambling casino that we would operate.
Now, inside of the details of your point, one of the other distinctions that often gets asked is: Will this be, will this include entertainment? I can only speak for myself at this point, but I believe we are joined in saying that we have entertainment at our host locations in Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Sun. We are not looking, necessarily, for this to be so large as to include something like a cabaret theater or an arena or any of those c 001216 22 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
sorts of things. The primary purpose of a facility like this, it's all about the convenience game, that gamer who does not necessarily want to drive into the heart of Springfield in order to engage in gambling.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah. And -- and to follow along with that, the -- the first part of your statement, Representative, that this could take years, if it takes years, then we lost; right? We don't have years. The time is now. They are under construction. They're breaking ground this month, next week, in Massachusetts. They have an incredible plan, you know, from a casino perspective. We -- we know what -- what a great casino is, and their plan is a, is a well-rounded resort facility that will drive business up there, and it will be open in the next two years. So if we're still debating this two years from now, then we've all failed.
A VOICE: We're going to lose our jobs.
SENATOR LARSON: Senator Formica.
SENATOR FORMICA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony, both you Chairmen, and welcome here.
I would like to just ask a -- a question but first make -- make a statement. Though I'd been serving the last few years as an elected official, hospitality has been my life's work. And for, I can testify firsthand of the quality of jobs that are provided. We've had many people in my business that have been with me 15 and 20 years and now have grown and been able to buy homes and raise their families in our community, so I understand the value of the jobs that you're -- you're providing. 001217 23 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c· SECURITY COMMITTEE I also like to put it on the record that back in the early nineties when these casinos first came on the scene, we were facing Electric Boat significantly downsizing and the need to diversify our economy. So I think the jobs play a very important role as EB is beginning its ramp up and -- and in the hospitality industry through tourism, and specifically Southeastern Connecticut has increased the the awareness of -- of Southeastern Connecticut around the country and around the world.
My question had to do with a statement that the attorney made about the compact. We know that the compact has to be relooked at, perhaps opened. Would that be limited to addressing the issue of partnering, both with each other and the State? Is there a way to do that or once you open the compact is -- is that something that is open entirely or is it premature to talk about it at this hearing? c RODNEY A. BUTLER: Senator, as of now we don't believe we need to open the compact: right? We think that we can work within the -- the current agreement. And, again, the -- the discussions were preliminary; but, Jackson, if you have anything.
JACKSON KING: Just -- just as when Mohegan first came on board, we opened up the memorandum of agreement relating to slots so that it didn't interrupt the State's flow of revenue, and it allbwed Mohegan and -- and Pequot to -- to come in on the same level. We -- we think it can be done with the same manner so that all it needs is the approval of the State of Connecticut, including the Legislature and the two tribes, including the Tribal Councils. c 001218 24 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Now at the meeting yesterday, one of the attorneys did mention the need for an amendment to the compact. There's differences of opinion whether that's required, but it would be a very, very simple amendment; it would not open up any other issues. And with given the fact that if it's done at all, it would be done with the consent of the three parties, we think it can be done readily. But, again we're -- we're thinking it's not necessary. If it is necessary, it -- it can be done in a very limited fashion.
SENATOR FORMICA: Thank you. Thank you, very much.
And, Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I'd like to say that in the past my company has done business with the casinos, so for full disclosure, I'd just like to have that on the record.
Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Senator.
Representative Giegler.
REP. GIEGLER: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And just stay a -- a couple of questions. Is the expansion aside from the compact agreement; would that, would that allow the State to negotiate for Keno again or no?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: So they're they're a separate issue.
REP GIEGLER: Uh-huh.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: But we negotiated with the State, well, successfully I guess and then later 001219 25 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c unsuccessfully. But there was a negotiation that took place a couple years ago that actually both sides, both tribes signed off on, along with the -- the lottery was -- was involved as well, that we were, we were okay with the, with the proposal to, that was enacted to expand Keno throughout the state. And so it.•s --it's a separate entity, in itself, but we've already agreed to that structure for Keno, and it was the -- the Legislature that -- that took it off the table later on by -- by, through -- through further legislation. But it was originally approved at one point with our agreement.
REP. GIEGLER: And several years ago, the -- the casinos were exploring online gaming, such as online poker. Are you still reviewing that option, and why is it not part of this discussion?
KEVIN BROWN: Completely separate discussion, and and because of federal regulations, that's c something that we have to essentially put in the back burner, stay attuned to, because of its possibilities, but it is not part of today•s conversation which is simply about brick-and-mortar locations.
REP. GIEGLER: I also was wondering, you know, most -- most of us -- and I have to say I'm from Danbury, so this I know is one of the areas that you were looking at, that could be impacted by a state-line casino -- but most in my area go to Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods because it is a flagship casino and for everything that it has to offer. So if by building on the versions of the casinos in other parts of the state, are we not just distributing the -- the number? Is it just a redistribution of the c 001220 26 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
income? Because then if it's there, then we•re not going to drive to Uncasville.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Well, so the, what we found with -- with Twin River being 45 minutes away from us in Rhode Island, is that we•re still seeing those same patrons visiting, albeit they're - they're less, they're coming less, right, as - as you point out, but they're still coming. And they're coming for the great entertainment, the -- the hospitality that they're not getting at these small facilities, the -- the dining experiences and so forth. And so, and as the Chairman pointed out earlier, there's also an affinity to the -- the marketing programs that we have, so their -- their rewards program, our rewards program, and just to brand themselves; so, again, they're still, they're still visiting.
What we anticipate with a, something in the Northern Region of Connecticut, as again, that's recapturing what we•re certainly going to lose -- to your point -- to -- to Springfield. The facilities that would be proposed in -- in Western Connecticut, there is competition coming on the line in New York; right? And those have been approved. There's been several licenses approved throughout the state. They're moving forward in their process. Who knows if they're going to take as much time as Massachusetts did to move forward from -- from license awards, awarding to -- to construction. But they're certainly going to impact the -- the portion of the state that now is visiting us from -- from your beautiful region that are going to go more conveniently to those facilities in -- in New York.
REP. GIEGLER: Wouldn't that hold true even for those on the Rhode Island border and also 001221 27 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c Massachusetts' border, as well, because they have other options that aren't that far away?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Well, no, it does. And that's, it -- it certainly holds true, and but that's where, what we've been able to create, the - the brand, the -- the experiences, their rewards programs. That's where it now becomes, you know, hand-to-hand combat in getting those folks. But certainly the convenience factor plays a big role.
KEVIN BROWN: Just -- just, and just to reinforce this conve~sation, I'll share with you our - our outgoing CEO·Mitchell Etess' favorite vignette to -- to describe this entire dynamic. Yonkers Raceway, you may or may not be familiar, you know, it is nowhere near·the sort of first-class facility that we might put together, I would contend. And Mitchell did focus groups with some of our gamblers and asked them: What is your favorite place to game? And they said, Oh, Mohegan Sun, hands c down. Where do you go? Yonkers. They go to Yonkers because it's proximate. In this instance with what we're talking about, with everything that Chairman Butler just said, not only are we creating a proximate location to game but it's a proximate location that is also within our marketing database and our loyalty and rewards programs. So we're -- we're sustaining our customer base; we're not just simply trading off those visits.
And then one more level deep in this conversation, it doesn't mean nor suggest that they will only then go to that convenience location. They will ultimately then cycle back to the flagship property at either of our locations. That, that's how we see it from a marketing standpoint. c 001222 28 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
REP. GIEGLER: It seems beyond New York; I mean, we have really easy access to Pennsylvania, as well, and Pennsylvania I know has put in gaming facilities too, I mean not to the standards that you have currently at Foxwood and Mohegan, but I don't know what kind of a draw, if that has been part of the what's happened to Atlantic City, where people are starting to go leave Atlantic City and go to Pennsylvania.
KEVIN BROWN: Well, we're -- we're, I really, this is a continuation of -- of the entire conversation, and that is -- and -- and I like to dissect the words here -- I -- I think that when we begin to talk about saturation, we're, we're using the wrong word. That -- that would suggest that there are too many facilities. We're reaching equilibrium and we're all in the fight to -- to get our share of that equilibrium.
I can tell you firsthand that, you know, we have a commercial property at Pocono Downs in Pennsylvania; that is a Mohegan Sun property there. And for those who might wonder about how we might even venture off the reservation and have a commercial gaming facility, we have experience in it. This is not new ground for us. And it has done exactly what you've suggested, and that is it's taken some of the Atlantic City garners. But, interestingly, we also have an ownership and operating agreement for a resorts casino -- Mohegan Sun does -- a resorts casino on the Boardwalk in Atlantic City.
And you might be interested to know that while all of the headlines are dire about the situation for Atlantic City, there's at least one property on the Boardwalk that is moving in 001223 29 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c the upward direction, and it•s Resorts. And it•s because we can drive our customer base to that facility; they can gain from -- from gaming at any of our facilities. This facility would -- would present that same, that same possibility for the both of us here.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: And -- and I think what you'll see later from -- from Mr. Burrow is that that impact of Pennsylvania and New York is exactly what we're speaking to, where people in the Western part of the state has found it easier to -- to get there. I mean, we have some very challenged roads is another issue that -- that you all are dealing with, and it's not the easiest location to get to, especially at Mashantucket, because you come off the highways and -- and do Route 2 as well.
But the other thing that many don't realize is that Pennsylvania is now the second-largest gaming market in the country; right? And so they've -- they've siphoned that from c Connecticut. They've siphoned it from New Jersey. They're in heavy competition with with Maryland at this point. It it•s a formidable competitor that's had an impact on our industry here in Connecticut.
REP. GIEGLER: And just one, final question if I might is: In the State of Massachusetts when individuals were bidding for locations to host casinos, you had, like, Suffolk Downs and you had some of those locations. Now in the state of Connecticut, I mean, do you have land that's along the borders there? I know the Schaghticokes are in Kent. I know they have land up -- up. there, but where do you potentially see -- I know you don•t have a location chosen -- but I'm just talking about where we're looking at where, where it has said c 001224 30 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
along borders, you know, where it impacts Mass., you know, to take it away from Massachusetts
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah.
REP. GIEGLER: Pennsylvania, Connecticut, into New York State. I mean, I'm looking at those locations and we don't have facilities like Suffolk Downs or -- or Yonkers Raceway or any of those kinds of things. So what do you foresee as potential locations that you could house, because we don't know what the size --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Right.
REP. GIEGLER: of the facility is as well, but, you know, what kind of --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah.
REP. GIEGLER: you foresee in your planning --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Well -- well --
REP. GIEGLER: for a location?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: And -- and that's a great question, and that's still, you know, under development; right? But what we do know is that convenience and easy access are -- are the top three drivers for -- for gaming. And so having something on 91 or 84 or 95, for that matter, directly off the highway will -- will provide the opportunity for success for that facility as opposed to having it further off, inland, off the highways. And so we also know that based on the -- the, geographically I would state that. And something in the Northern Hartford area, no particular parcel 001225 31 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c have we identified, as well as, again, in in the Western parts of the state.
And so when you look at construction, of course an existing facility would be convenient, although that would probably have challenges, in itself, using an existing structure and trying to recreate what we, what we've been good at creating and in both of our brands. So, most likely, we'd be looking for new construction.
REP. GIEGLER: Okay. Well, thank you, so much, for your answers.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Thank you, Representative.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative Giegler.
We'll now hear from Representative Zupkus, followed by Senator Gomes, followed by ~epresentative Ferraro, followed by c Representative Verrengia. REP. ZUPKUS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you for coming today, Chairmen.
I have a question about jobs. The number that I'm hearing out there is 20,000 jobs will be lost. Can you tell me how that number, you arrive at that number? When I came in, I believe, Chairman Butler, you were talking about at Foxwoods at peak you were at 12,000 and --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Uh-huh.
REP. ZUPKUS: -- you're at 7,000 now.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Uh-huh. c 001226 32 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
REP. ZUPKUS: Okay. And I -- I apologize, Chairman, I missed yours.
KEVIN BROWN: They're generally the same. We -- we were approaching 11,000 at the high point, at the peak, and we are right at 7,000 now.
REP. ZUPKUS: So that would be 14,000 in total; right? So where does the 20, the loss of 20,000 jobs come from here?
KEVIN BROWN: It's a, it's a combination of both the direct job losses and the indirect job losses. And you'll hear from Dr. Barrow, later, to get into the details of -- of how that might be modeled. You know, economists use, unfortunately, not just one approach to this, so I would set for you an upper and lower bound and say that if we were to each lose 3,000 direct jobs. And I think that comes from extrapolating the experience of the last two decades. I mean, look, for the last two decades we have lost a combined, 8,000-or-so jobs over the last ten years when the gaming industry doubled. The gaming industry doubled; we lost 8,000 jobs.
The gaming industry is going to probably double down once moreover, so I would say that it's safe to say we'll lose between us about half of our current jobs, maybe just a little under. So that's the, that's the core of the conversations, those 6,000. Then depending, I think, on which economist you talk to, there's a, there's generally an understood two-to-one ratio of indirect to direct jobs that are lost when any industry -- and I have a lot of, experienced this from base realignment and closure in my 20 years in the Army, and -- and I will tell you that though I never understood 001227 33 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
what was going on under the hood, that two-to one ratio always worked for me and it always worked for Congress when we were talking about base realignment and closure. A two-to-one ratio for 6,000 jobs lost adds 12,000 on top of that. You're at 18,000, which probably-- and in this conversation over the last few weeks - has been rolled to an approximation of 20,000, the high end.
REP. ZUPKUS: Okay. Thank you, very much.
SENATOR LARSON: Senator Gomes.
SENATOR GOMES: Good afternoon. First, I'm going to preference my remarks and some of the questions I'm going to ask with some of the (inaudible) seems to be a statement of facts from me. I'm from Bridgeport. Back in the early nineties, we were entertaining a casino in Bridgeport. And I was a city councilman then, and I was one
~· of the lead persons that was for it, a casino in Bridgeport. And at the same time, I was an L international representative for the United Steel Workers, a labor, a labor union. And I had, at that time, I had 23 locals throughout the state, and about ten of them were in -- in the greater Bridgeport area. And I had, I represented 3,000 people then, for those ten locals.
Those jobs are gone now. Everything is gone. Bridgeport is in hard times. Now, when I talk about whether there should be a casino or not, I look around and I look at these people with the blue shirts on here. It's no secret up here that I am considered their guy, and I'm proud to be that, because we•re looking for jobs for Bridgeport. We're looking for jobs in this, in the whole state of Connecticut. c 001228 34 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Now, having said all of that, I want to know about Bridgeport. Is Bridgeport considered one of the sites that you would, that, put a casino in, to begin with? And if you do, what are going to•be the hiring practices, because Bridgeport, Bridgeport's citizens need jobs; is there going to be a preference or whatever?
I've sat here and I've looked at some of the proposals that they made. Some of the proposals are not definitely for casinos; some have been, you know, put slot machines and some pari-mutuels, and so on and so forth. I have to, because I'm a labor representative or have a history of being a labor representative, for, like, the last 40-to-50 years, I am looking for jobs. If your entity will create jobs for the City of Bridgeport, if your entity will create jobs anywhere in the state of Connecticut, then undoubtedly I would probably be for it.
But I'd just like to know a few statistics, how Bridgeport and Fairfield County area is going to be impacted, although we'd say Fairfield County is the richest county in -- in the damn country or whatever, it doesn't resonate with a lot of my citizens in Bridgeport, because they aren't making it like other people are. So that's where I am at.
KEVIN BROWN: Senator Gomes, I'm -- I'm going to take the, take the out, the easy out here and rely on the fact that the way the language has been written in the bill right now, it provides us the opportunity for up to three locations, were it to get passed in its current form, and tell you that we have not yet done the full blown analysis to determine where those three, if we were to do all three, would be the, be the right locations. However, as Chairman Butler said earlier, there are the obvious 001229 35 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c arteries into the state, 91, 84 and 95, and so certainly it's realistic to believe that - that somewhere along the 95 corridor, if the legislation were to get passed as it stands, the possibility is there, subject to whatever economic model we do to see if it makes sense.
Regardless of where they land, what I can promise you is and I, and I believe it's driven by the, by the language in the proposed bill, but even if it's not -- it's -- it's at least in -- in my mind from -- from the Mohegan side, informed by our experience in Massachusetts, working with host communities, we made sure that local job hires was a part of how we went about this approach to -- to putting a casino in a, in a municipality. That -- that would be certainly one of the things that we would make sure of is some percentage of local hires. I can't recall if the proposed bill language sends us down that path regardless. c RODNEY A. BUTLER: And -- and, Senator Gomes, on the, on the job front and -- and, again, I, you know, really quickly, back on -- on the Bridgeport issue, you know, we were, we were right there in lockstep at Mashantucket then, but I personally wasn't at the time. I was still at, in college at the time, but I followed it from afar. And so I know how much effort and energy was put into that, and it was, it was a great loss for -- for everyone at that time.
But following on the Chairman Brown's points, well as it relates to employment, being two of the largest MBEs, Minority Business Enterprises, in the country, we certainly follow those practices through and through, above and beyond what most enterprises would c 001230 36 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
do. And we would certainly follow that in any of these facilities from an employment perspective for preference, that we would have the opportunity to do so.
SENATOR GOMES: Bridgeport is going through some transitions now, and anything that would be of any immense improvement.to bring jobs into would -- would certainly be amenable to us, so we're looking for that.
Thank you.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Senator Gomes.
Representative Ferraro.
REP. FERRARO: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, joint-Chairmans of the casinos and tribes. I have some questions pertinent to the, those, the actual jobs that will be created. First, we talked today about how many jobs will be lost. Assuming three casinos are built, what do you see as the eventual jobs created by all three casinos?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Again, it's -- it's early on. Some of the estimations that we're looking at would be in the, in the line of a couple thousand at each; right? And it's -- it's hard to pinpoint exactly where that will fall out because, you know, the -- the economies will drive the size of those facilities and the number of employees that will be there. But we're certainly speaking several thousand additional jobs through those three facilities. 001231 37 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c KEVIN BROWN: As well as the construction jobs, obviously, that for a
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Right.
KEVIN BROWN: -- short term would be in place, looking at 1,500 construction jobs in play for -- for any one, for a short period of time.
REP. FERRARO: And as well as vendors who will be
KEVIN BROWN: Yeah; absolutely.
REP. FERRARO: out of there.
Flushing out the jobs a little bit further, who, assuming the casinos are being built in three towns, and this is the Public Safety Committee, who's going to be policing the casinos, the towns or -- or would that be a cooperative agreement between the towns and the, and the casino? c RODNEY A. BUTLER: Well, we at that point, we would be commercial facilities and subject to the local jurisdictions. And so we have our own jurisdiction at -- at Mashantucket for policing, Mohegans as well, and thank you all for that. This committee was integral to that, so we're very appreciative of that. So wherever these facilities reside will be subject to that local jurisdiction and that local policing, and it goes back to Senator Larson's comment about coming up with some - some host agreement with that, with that town where that facility is going to reside.
REP. FERRARO: So we're not really talking about a sovereign nation police force
KEVIN BROWN: No. c 001232 38 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
REP. FERRARO: -- some kind of cooperative venture; we're talking about a police force specifically run by the towns
KEVIN BROWN: Yes.
REP. FERRARO: -- involved.
KEVIN BROWN: Yeah.
REP. FERRARO: Okay. And who's going to pay the - the police for policing the casinos? Will that, will the payment be on the towns or will that be some sort of reimbursement from the casino to the towns?
KEVIN BROWN: I -- I think it will, it will be a combination of the two, obviously, and -- and that'll be part of the economies of scale of what we develop that, you know, as we've already been required to commit to funding problem gaming, this would be a component part of that. And so there'd be some revenue stream, obviously, from -- from what goes back to the municipality that could then be directed by the municipality to shore up police in whatever numbers they might determine are required.
REP. FERRARO: Okay. And then I'm the same line, you talked about the unprecedented combining of the two tribes to move forward into this business venture, and we just talked about 6,000 employees, potentially, at three locations. Are we going to, are you going to create a -- a third entity, business entity that will hire these employees and pay these employees or will half the employees be employed by Foxwoods and the other half be employed by the Mohegan Sun? 001233 39 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE A VOICE: Yeah. No, we'll -- we'll set up a -- a separate entity, you know, a separate LLC that is owned equally amongst the Mashantucket and - - and Mohegan that will do its own hiring and all the administration of those facilities.
REP. FERRARO: So then this third entity that's set up, this LLC, funds will be taken in by the casino directly into the LLC and then expenses will be paid out from that --
A VOICE: Yeah.
REP. FERRARO: including the employees' salaries and benefits?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yes.
REP. FERRARO: Okay. And just one last question, moving away from the jobs. I know you haven't picked your locations yet but I would, I would think there's probably been some prerequisite c infield study or polling regarding where you might do these -- these locations. Is there any feedback regarding the support level from the prospective towns? Because I don't see any testimony here today from, you know, various towns supporting or objecting.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: There -- there have been some. As -- as the news broke, there have been some towns that have expressed interest in us working with them, but nothing that's been - been formal that, to report out on.
REP. FERRARO: Okay; so no, like, polling? And the -- the interest you've had so far is from the town, itself, the administration's or the, or the officials, but not from the residents, themselves? c 001234 40 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Right; correct.
REP. FERRARO: Okay; thank --
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative Ferraro.
REP. FERRARO: And thank you, Chairman.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Rovero.
REP. ROVERO: My question has been pretty well answered, but I -- I did have to say one -- one thing, on a different note. And I know today is St. Patrick's Day, and I want to remind our two Irish Chairmen that Saint Patrick was born in Italy.
Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR LARSON: And he was of Irish descent.
REP. ROVERO: Yeah.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Vail.
A VOICE: Let me have it, Vail.
REP. VAIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm going to follow up on some of Representative Ferraro's questions. So you're thinking roughly -- I know this is the beginning stage of this -- around 2,000 per casino for employees?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Those are very, very rough estimates. 001235 41 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c REP. VAIL: And the -- the first place you're looking at is Northern Connecticut, I assume, to --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Right.
REP. VAIL: -- combat. Now, either way, you're still going to have a hit financially down at, in the areas that you're at currently, so there's still going to be some job loss.
KEVIN BROWN: That -- that is really what this is about, I mean, and -- and I think for us to speculate how this is all going to land, it's going to take us some time to -- to think through this. You know, there's -- there's a tipping point in this equation --
REP. VAIL: Uh-huh.
KEVIN BROWN: Where what -- what we know we're not doing, we're not simply building another facility to completely recapture revenue, as c Chairman Butler pointed out, to a 100 percent level and to replace or displace jobs one for one to that location. But I think we need to be realistic about this. Chairman Butler's realistic estimate was we'll probably lose some revenue. Look, there is always two -- I'm the eternal optimist -- there always is the possibility that what we create here generates such a symbiotic relationship from a marketing standpoint that people -- if I can just use the word -- get captured within the model of what they can do when they game in the state of Connecticut; and, in fact, it could end up on the high side. We don't, we don't really know whether or not that might turn out, but to safe side it, they'll be some level of revenue potentially that we're going to lose.
c 001236 42 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
RODNEY A. BUTLER: That's why we balance (inaudible) .
REP. VAIL: Well, and so although there may be some job loss, if that is to occur, do you expect a net gain growth by opening the new casino and having new jobs
KEVIN BROWN: And --
REP. VAIL: -- available?
KEVIN BROWN: -- all I simply said, Representative, is I'm hopeful that we could actually get to a net gain, but at a minimum we're going to minimize the losses.
REP. VAIL: Okay. And when you talked about your rewards program earlier and driving business to the different places, are you going to consolidate your rewards programs?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah. That's -- that's in the detail. We'll certainly figure out a mechanism to work together; like, so we worked with other casinos over the years through what they call "affiliation agreements," and you work with their points. And -- and they can work with your reward program, and you can send them players to their properties; they could send them back and forth. And so the framework is there. That's in the details that we'll work out as -- as we progress, but it's really, at this point it's about the legislation and - and getting this initiative moving. And then the -- the finer deal points, we'll continue to work on and figure those out.
REP. VAIL: And, well, just one last one. And - and you talked about a partnership in a -- a 001237 43 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c commercial facility because it's separate, it's not on a
KEVIN BROWN: -- reservation.
REP. VAIL: -- sovereign --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Right.
REP. VAIL: -- land. Will you be the only two partners in that LLC?
KEVIN BROWN: We are; we are the two partners in the agreement. We will have to -- because of just the nature of doing business, as we form the board -- have to create some sort of a, an advisory board that can break the ties between the two of us. So they'll be a third party pulled in, in some way, shape or shape or form, and -- and clearly we're going to have to good out, go out for some financing in -- in this venture. And so it would make sense that we -- c RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah.
KEVIN BROWN: -- might have someone from that entity involved in the board decision-making for that separate, new company.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah, I -- I think based on the - - the constructs of the law, that we would always have to maintain a majority ownership.
REP. VAIL: Uh-huh.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: But where it goes from there, I think we have to see where -- where the projects, where the, where the economics lie.
REP. VAIL: Okay. c 001238 44 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative.
REP. VAIL: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Kiner, followed by Representative Verrengia.
REP. KINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Chairmen, for your testimony.
I believe most of my questions have been at least addressed, but I would like to have you elaborate on some of them. So my first one is a follow-up to Representative Giegler's questions regarding location, and I'm going to ask you to elaborate on her question about the use of existing buildings or new construction.
So I represent about half of Enfield and a little bit of East Windsor, which both towns are North Central Connecticut. You look at Windsor Locks, there's an existing facility there; they have off-track betting, a fairly sizable facility there. East Windsor, again the town where I represent, has a -- a couple vacant buildings. Are you looking to renovate or is this solely going to be new construction?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah. It could, it could be either. I mean, it's really about, again, proximity and access; right? The -- the better it is, the better the the better chance that the facility is going to have to perform.
REP. KINER: Okay.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: And so we're -- we're open in that aspect. 001239 45 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c REP. KINER: You're open to that. How about open to building hotels or is that out of the question?
KEVIN BROWN: That's not, that's not --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah.
KEVIN BROWN: -- part of the model. And -- and sort of back to their earlier question about the - the rough order of magnitude of what this facility is, we're not looking to -- to develop a destination resort with hotels or extensive entertainment options; so no, no hotels.
REP. KINER: Not looking to be a destination resort, but it's still going to be a destination; right? So I've, I have, oh, quite a few hotels in Enfield that would benefit from a --
KEVIN BROWN: Yeah, that
REP. KINER: A casino in c KEVIN BROWN: That's an indirect
REP. KINER: -- North Central.
KEVIN BROWN: That's --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yeah. Yeah.
REP." KINER: Sure, so
RODNEY A. BUTLER: In proximity to hotels would be a benefit; right? So if the -- the location that ultimately gets chosen is adjacent to a hotel or a hotel was within, you know, a quarter-mile or so, that would be beneficial to the property and things to take into consideration in site selection.
c ------~~-~------~ 001240 46 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
REP. KINER: Right; thank you. Last question: The bill states there's going to be up to three casinos. I had a question about how that was going to work out with the two tribes, but I hear that you're going to form your own LLC. Will anybody else have a, any other tribes or entity have the option to build a casino in one of those three locations or is this you guys are the only game in town?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Well, the simple answer to that one, Representative, is the current compact is exclusive to the Mohegan Tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe.
REP. KINER: Right. Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Verrengia, followed by Representative Orange.
REP. VERRENGIA: Good afternoon.
You know, it's funny; I'm -- I'm sitting up here looking out at the, both Chairmen, and I'm thinking of the Red Sox-Yankee rivalry, the two GMs. As we know, it's a heated rivalry, and after years of fierce competition, now we see you together in the same room, joining a partnership. It's somewhat odd but it's - it's good.
I -- I have a question. Essentially, we're here today talking about expanding gaming in the state of Connecticut as a result of competition, particularly to the west of us, the Springfield, just over the line, in Mass. And the, I guess what's resonating with me relative to your testimony is the importance of jobs. We've heard jobs, jobs, jobs, and I'm 001241 47 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c I'm sure part of it as well is revenues, revenues to both tribes and protecting those revenues.
But my question is: It's -- it's my understanding, and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, that both tribes were in competition or -- or competitively bidding in Massachusetts for those licenses. Is that correct?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Yes.
KEVIN BROWN: Yeah.
REP. VERRENGIA: So let's just say -- and I don't even know who -- who the winner was, and I don't know the name of the casino that's coming in -- but let's just say Casino X wins the bid and is building a new $800 million casino in Springfield. And what I'm hearing is that potentially we're going to lose all these jobs and all -- all this revenue. What is the difference between Casino X, who actually won c the bid, the difference between their business model, and had you prevailed, your business model? Would we have seen the same loss of jobs and revenues had you been successful?
KEVIN BROWN: I am, I'm going to channel my Massachusetts' energy from Senator Larson in the answer to this question, and -- and it's very specific to our pursuit of the license in Massachusetts. But I can tell you, Representative, that it was our intention and our goal, and it was explicitly stated to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission that our approach is going to ensure a successful and steady revenue stream for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts while simultaneously protecting our revenue stream here in state of Connecticut
c 001242 48 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
through a creative marketing scheme that would ensure that both casinos would thrive.
Why would we pursue a license in Massachusetts with the idea in mind that it was going to tank our prospects in the state of Connecticut? We -- we had a business model that would have ensured success in both locations.
Now -- now, frankly, now that we are not in the state of Massachusetts -- and now I'm channeling a little bit -- this is all about the state of Connecticut. And we want to ensure that the state of Connecticut remains successful in -- in, for all of the reasons that we've been stating today, certainly to ensure that our businesses continue to thrive but ultimately, but ultimately so that Connecticut residents maintain those Connecticut jobs.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Right. But I -- I would repeat exactly what Chairman Brown just stated. I mean when you own both facilities, you're able to work in a way collaboratively that -- that helps both facilities as supposed to if it's owned by, you know, casino management Company X. Now you're in, now you're in direct competition with them, and they're trying to take everything that they can from you; you're trying to do the same for them, and it's a, it's a downward spiral for both facilities.
KEVIN BROWN: And -- and maybe one last thing, just to the core of your question, what makes us different. And -- and I think in some ways you're probably in the, in the realm of the subjective. We are intensely proud of our organizations and the, and the brand loyalty that we've generated and created. And, you know, when we were in that Massachusetts gaming 001243 49 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12,00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
C. pursuit, we couldn't reiterate enough for folks up there that all you have to do is look at the gross gaming revenue that's generated by our casino. And I can speak, I think, for Rodney as well; we approach, collectively, $2 billion in gross gaming revenue. There's not a -- a casino on planet Las Vegas that approaches us; we are the best. And -- and so sort of subjectively, but -- but simply, I would say to you the reason we believe we can do this and do it right is because we think we're the best (inaudible).
REP. VERRENGIA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
Representative Orange, do you have a question?
REP. ORANGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, gentlemen, it's nice to see you c here. This has been quite an enlightening subject with many good questions from my colleagues, but as I sit here, all I can, all that's going through my mind is the woman pumping gas and the guy that comes over with a lotto ticket saying, can you cash this for me; I'll give you part of the proceeds.
And I'm not one for gaming. I visit both of your facilities. I enjoy the shows, with either family or friends or both. You have a lot of great restaurants at each facility. But I -- I do have a problem with people that are of addictive behavior and become addicted to - to gaming. So I do approach this with some reservation, understanding what you're trying ·to do on the other hand in retaining your good c 001244 so March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
standing in the state and creating new jobs, as well as retaining the jobs that you already have.
I have friends and family that work at your facilities. I wouldn't want to see them lose their jobs or anyone sitting in this room to lose their jobs, but -- but as I say, I -- I do have some reservation with gaming, and had you won the Massachusetts contract, there would be no revenue or we wouldn't be discussing revenue loss from the casino in Massachusetts at all. Your gaming money from Massachusetts would have gone to Massachusetts, so I -- I just wanted to bring that up.
Representative Dargan is listening to Irish music up here, so it's a bit of a distraction - - thank you, Mr. Chairman.
But getting back to this, this whole venue, you said that you weren't going to, that there would be no hotels, which I could certainly see, that it, we wouldn't need them anyway 0 because it's not the destination. The destination is down in Southeast Connecticut.
We talked about policing. So I know at one point -- and Representative Dargan was there, not playing his Irish music -- where we went through security and we watched who's watching the cameras and who's watching those people watching cameras, and it goes all the way to the end, where they say this is the end but there's, I still noticed a camera up on the top. So would you have that kind of security in this facility?
KEVIN BROWN: Absolutely; it would be required. Under whatever provisions the -- the licensing and regulation of this facility might come to 001245 51 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c be, we certainly would expect that to be a requirement. We would, just -- just as a matter of good, responsible gaming, we would do that, yes.
REP. ORANGE: So that -- that would be, then, your responsibility to provide those jobs for that activity?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: Surveillance and security; absolutely, yeah. And just --
REP. ORANGE: And what
RODNEY A. BUTLER: If I, if I could, Representative Orange, you know, we just went through this exercise with our -- our mall that we're partnering with, Tanger, on; right?
REP. ORANGE: Oh, I can't wait to go and see.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: (Inaudible) can't wait to -- c REP. ORANGE: I'll, I'll --
RODNEY A. BUTLER: -- see you
REP. ORANGE: -- be there
RODNEY A. BUTLER: -- again.
REP. ORANGE: -- to check it out.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: The 21st, we'll see you all there; right?
REP. ORANGE: But I won't be gaming.
RODNEY A. BUTLER: But what we find is that we hold ourselves to such high standards with regard to security and surveillance, compared to other c 001246 52 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12 :·00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
industries, that -- that, that•s where our patrons feel, you know, their number one priority is being safe on -- on our, on our campuses.
And by way of example, working with -- with our new mall facility, what they•re used to is having, you know, a -- a camera, you know, sporadically placed around the facility, just to help capture people who might be exiting and entering stores. I mean all in, it might be, for a 3,000 square-foot, 300,000 square-foot facility, looking at maybe 10 surveillance cameras. Well, after we did our review of it, we -- we decided that not only does it need that and then some, but -- but triple that, so that it needed 30 cameras to ensure that - that the patrons are protected to the level that we expect them to be. And so we -- we don•t take that lightly; security is utmost priority with us.
And, also, just your -- your comment on -- on problem gambling, you know, we•re right there with you; right? We have concerns about that. When -- when it moves from an entertainment opportunity to -- to an illness, that•s a problem, and that•s why we•ve partnered with the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling for the past two decades, working with them hand in-hand to -- to assist with that, identify those folks and have them excluded from the properties.
REP. ORANGE: Okay. So I•m not a gamer, although I•ve been known to maybe spend twenty bucks on a machine and lose it within five seconds, so I don•t do it anymore. But what would give me the incentive as a nongamer to come to one of these, I 1 m going to call them 11 mini-casinos? 11 Is there an incentive for me to visit? 001247 53 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE KEVIN BROWN: First, my first response to that, Representative, is no, not necessarily. I mean this is about the -- the person that you are not. This is about the person that is a, as we've called them in this hearing, convenient, "convenience gamer," someone who's looking for a close facility.
And -- and it's interesting. I made a couple of notes here as you were making your remarks, because I can see how that might suggest that what we're really talking about is problem garners. Let's keep in mind that the percent - and I, and I am not diminishing the problem in the least -- but the percentage of our patrons who are truly problem garners is -- is a very, very small number, under ten percent. This facility would not simply draw those folks there. And -- and, if anything, your -- your remarks have -- have given me pause to make me think, okay, will, this is not going to be the problem garners' facility, as I think you're c concerned. However, I do appreciate your remarks because it does give me pause and make me reflect on the fact that we probably need to double down on our responsible gaming framework and how we look at things in this facility, because of your concerns, and then we can do that.
We, you know, Chairman Butler and I could share any number of vignettes with you about what responsible gaming framework means in action. We've seen it happen on our floor. We have employees who are trained in recognizing these problems and have the self-discipline and - and good, you know, good stewardship to pull someone off the floor that is a problem gamer and not just let it run. We -- we understand the importance of this. Your remarks, for me, c • 001248 54 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
are -- are helpful in just sort of maybe guiding how we look at what we would do at a facility like this.
That said, I would just tell you th~t, you know, don't fear. This is not the -- the problem garners' facility. That's not really what we're creating here, even though it's not the one that we would suspect that you would go to, because I think you'll come to the Mohegan Sun and watch New England Black Wolves' lacrosse game in the arena. I know you have dinner at Michael Jordan's Sports Cafe and that we know where you're at.
REP. ORANGE: Well, that's only if Dargan buys.
A VOICE: That's fair.
REP. ORANGE: Now, what -- what I also see coming out of this is, you know, and -- and I'm happy to hear that you have trained people on the floor that will pull someone off if they really recognize a problem and they, I only wish the Connecticut lottery would have that same kind of vision but there's no way that they could know who's buying numbers and how many numbers they're buying and how their family is tragically impacted because of their -- their gaming problems. But I -- I foresee that the - - the Lottery Corporation will probably get jealous over this and want something anyway. But that aside, that's -- that's how strongly I feel about, actually not just gaming but any addictive type, you know, whether it be alcohol, drugs, whatever, and it's disappointing that we don't put the money where it really should be going to help these types of people. 001249 55 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c So, with that, I'm -- I'm going to say that this is the beginning of the conversation, and I find it very valuable to listen to this. I am keeping an open mind, and I'm certainly aware of the jobs and the impact that job loss has already had from your casinos in Southeastern Connecticut, since that's where I'm from, so, you know, we -- we have to keep the jobs, and regardless. We need jobs. We need jobs in the state of Connecticut. We need people employed by both of you, because you're -- you're huge businesses in our area, and plus the attractions, you know, you don't only attract the gaming-type people but you're also attracting families to Southeast Connecticut, visiting other tourist attractions. So, you know, I applaud you for all that. And I also applaud you for the fact that you do have trained people on the floors watching for - for the addiction disease.
So I look forward to continuing our c c.onversation, and I thank you for your time. SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative Orange.
Thank you. I have one more comment and then we're going to be moving into our public segment, as we're over the additional hour. Thank you, both, for your -- your commitment to the state of Connecticut, and I -- I want to thank Representative Orange for her comments about addictive gaming. And, frankly, I can speak for most of us, not all of us, but clearly any addiction is -- is something that is of concern to most or all of us here in - in the state of Connecticut, regardless what - what that addiction is.
Sunday morning I sat with 35 package store owners in Eastern Connecticut about, you know, c 001250 56 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
some -- some goings-on with another bill. You know, and we talk about whether it's cigarettes or alcohol or gaming or other addictions I -- I think that most of us in the General Assemb.ly appreciate the effort that the State puts together. We can always do more but I think that they're -- they're a separate issue, and I would commend you on your efforts as a business for not only your -- your customers but the - the people who work for you and the people in your respective tribes going forward, your efforts to be mindful of that and supportive of that.
I don't think that you need to be blamed for those sort of addictions, although there are consistencies and -- and so forth. And the lottery certain is mentioned, et cetera, but I think I -- I speak for most folks that we understand that any addiction certainly needs to be addressed and not necessarily carried by a particular organization or company.
Thank you, very much, for your testimony. I may ask you to stick around; you may have some additional questions if some of the Legislators may have. And then from the legislative perspective, in order to move this along, we have a rather lengthy list, so I'd prefer, if you ask, just limiting your questions to two, and then if you had a second round, we'll come back.
So, gentlemen, thank you, very much.
I'd like to call up a Julie Kushner. Julie?
RODNEY A. BUTLER: And thank -- thank you, Chairmen and -- and committee; thank you for your time today. 001251 57 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c KEVIN BROWN: Thank you. SENATOR LARSON: Good afternoon; if you could just state your name for the record. Julie, you have to put the mic on.
JULIE KUSHNER: (Inaudible?)
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
JULIE KUSHNER: Good afternoon, Senator Larson and Representative Dargan, who was here a minute ago, and members of the Public Safety Committee.
My name is Julie Kushner, and I am the Director of UAW Region 9A. Our union has more than 50,000 members in all of the New England states, New York City, and Puerto Rico.
I'm not going to read from my testimony because you will have that as part of the record, but I do want to talk about, specifically, the c dealers that we represent at Foxwoods. I've been working with the dealers since 2007. If you had asked me 20 years ago what I thought about gaming, I would have said I don't know very much about it, and I might have even had a very negative opinion, mostly based on the kinds of kinds of things that Representative Orange just raised. But my understanding of these jobs and of these workers has changed tremendously, as I've worked with them now for, you know, many, many years.
They, these -- these are really good jobs. They're highly skilled, highly intelligent. To become proficient as a dealer, I'm -- trust me; I doubt if any of us could do that, except for the dealers in the room -- it's incredibly difficult work. They're responsible for the c 001252 58 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
integrity of the game. They're responsible for customer service. They're on every minute that they're on the gaming floor. And I really appreciate that a lot of these workers have come -- in Southeastern Connecticut -- have come from other industries where they have gone out of business. And so they've come to these jobs looking for a future and they found a good future. So UAW Region 9A is urging you to support this bill. We know that this is about creating, maintaining and creating good jobs.
There is one piece of this legislation that I want to draw your attention to that is missing, and so we do want to offer substitute language today. One of the really serious concerns, that I've spoken before committees like yours in the past, is about the smoke in the casinos. We are not in favor of smoking in the casinos, because we know that it's hurting our members, it's hurting the workers, it's hurting the patrons. You will note that in Massachusetts the casinos will be smoke-free, as well as in New York, so we are offering substitute language -- I believe the tribes will support this language -- that will advance that these new casinos will be smoke-free, and we'll have that here for you today.
But I think that, you know, we -- we have seen something really tremendous here today, with both the Chairmen of both tribes present, and then not just the Chairman of the tribes but to see them together with their workers and with our unions. And it is a tremendous coalition, and we're in it together because we know this is about protecting jobs and growing jobs in Connecticut.
So we urge that you support this legislation, that you pass it out of this committee, and we 001253 59 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c are confident that working together, the unions, the, and -- and the Legislature and the tribes, that we'll be able to make a better Connecticut and -- and deal with the concerns but go forward with more good jobs.
Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
How many employees do you represent at the casino?
JULIE KUSHNER: We represent 1,500 dealers. I will point out that at the time of the Election in 2007, we, there were 2,600. So we've already seen, based on the -- the expansion of -- of gambling and expansion of casinos in New York and Rhode Island, we're already suffering some from the competition. And we know that it could get far worse if Massachusetts opens and we haven't done something about it. c SENATOR LARSON: Thank you. Are there any further questions?
Senator Guglielmo.
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Just -- just a quick question: Are the dealers the only group that's organized at the casinos?
JULIE KUSHNER: At Foxwoods, you, there are dealers; there's operating engineers, represents the skilled trades, and we have UFCW represents the bartenders and servers.
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Okay. Thank you.
JULIE KUSHNER: Uh-huh. c 001254 60 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: So what is your part; what percentage of that would be of the total or just guess, just a guesstimate?
JULIE KUSHNER: Well, the dealers are the big group, and --
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Uh-huh.
JULIE KUSHNER: I, so I believe the dealers is probably the largest employee group at any casino, so I'm guessing it's probably about 25 percent.
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Total; okay.
Thank you.
JULIE KUSHNER: Okay.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
Any further questions?
Representative Orange.
REP. ORANGE: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon to you; it's good to see you here. It -- it seems like just yesterday that we were fighting to unionize
JULIE KUSHNER: That's right.
REP. ORANGE: in the casinos, so at least we got that battle
JULIE KUSHNER: That's right.
REP. ORANGE: -- done; yeah. And -- yeah -- and the employees still struggle with the smoking in 001255 61 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c the casinos. But I've noticed that there's, there are less and less areas to smoke
JULIE KUSHNER: That's correct, uh-huh.
REP. ORANGE·: in the, in the casinos. So -- so it seems to be moving in the right direction, anyway.
JULIE KUSHNER: We have been addressing this through collective bargaining and we have negotiated for an expansion of the non-smoking areas at Foxwoods, and so it is an issue that we're working with the casinos on daily. We've also worked with Foxwoods about the ventilation systems to improve ventilation to ensure that we can do as much. The only true way to solve the problem is to be smoke-free, but we are, you know, very much working with the tribe.
I think that your comments about. how we struggled to organize, it's true. You know, a few years ago you never would've seen us up c here together, but it shows that workers and their employers can work together, especially through the unions, to establish a good working relationship. And I think that, you know, we've all learned a lot through this process and we're very proud to be here with the tribes.
REP. ORANGE: Well especially, too, on such a -- a large business climate. You know, the -- the employers depends on the employees and the employees dependent on good employers.
JULIE KUSHNER: Absolutely.
REP. ORANGE: So, yeah.
Thank you for coming. c 001256 62 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
JULIE KUSHNER: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative Orange.
Any further questions?
Thank you for your testimony.
JULIE KUSHNER: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Anne Noble. Anne?
ANNE NOBLE: Good afternoon. Happy St. Patrick's Day, Chairman Dargan, Representative [sic] Larson, Ranking Members Zupkus and Guglielmo, and other distinguished members of the panel.
My name is Anne Noble; I'm the President of the Connecticut Lottery, and I very much appreciate your time this afternoon. I'm here today to speak on Senate Bill 1090, which as we all know permits the expansion of casino gambling off of tribal land.
As you consider and debate gaming policy, we respectfully ask that you consider the impact on the Connecticut Lottery Corporation, its employees, our retailer network across the state. We very much ask that you preserve the Connecticut Lottery's exclusive right to sell lottery products off of the reservation and clearly preserve that in any gaming expansion legislation.
Second, I want to bring to your attention the very real and important issue of cannibalization of lottery sales by the expansion of casinos off of the tribal reservations. Both Maryland, the State of Maryland, as well as the State of Pennsylvania 001257 63 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c and Ohio, have ·all seen their lottery revenues decline as casinos have expanded in their jurisdictions.
Notably, to the north, in Massachusetts, the Gaming Expansion Act requires their commercial casinos to be lottery retailers, and the statute, in fact, requires the, that the casinos not, and I quote, create, promote, operate or sell games that are similar to or in direct competition with the Massachusetts Lottery.
And, again, as you consider expanded gaming in the state of Connecticut, we ask that modernization of the Connecticut Lottery be supported, as well, including permitting the lottery in order to compete to broaden - broaden its offering and its distribution channels.
The Connecticut Lottery, like the casinos, cannot maintain the important revenues to the c General Fund if we can't offer an up-to-date portfolio, one that's relevant and attractive to millennials and innovative in -- in today's changing marketplace. Last year alone, the Connecticut Lottery contributed close to $320 million to the General Fund; that's more than any gaming entity in the state of Connecticut, combined or alone.
We partner with approximately 2,900 retailers with thousands of employees across the state of Connecticut. Over 2,000 of those retailers are small businesses. Lottery income is a significant source of revenue for each of those retailers; it can be an additional $20,000 to a small business. To a high-traffic location, it can be $100,000. We gave out, we paid out over $63 million in commissions in 2013. c 001258 64 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
In closing, I want to address some of what the, our tribal partners talked about in terms of responsible gambling. According to a 2013 survey that included 29 United States Lotteries, the Connecticut Lottery contributes more money to problem gambling than any other state lottery, regardless the population. We're credited by the World Lottery Association in this area at Level 2; we have our Level 3 application pending.
We support and applaud the casinos' position that they'll be contributing more to responsible gambling, as expansion is considered, and we welcome the opportunity to collaborate with all of the stakeholders including our tribal partners as you debate this important issue.
Thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions that you might have.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much.
How many employees are at the Connecticut Lottery?
ANNE NOBLE: We have approximately 140 employees, Senator.
SENATOR LARSON: One of my next-door neighbors is your best employee, and she has a -- a wonderful knack of picking everyone's number except mine. But she does a great job. I think we fully appreciate the impact that the Connecticut Lottery has on our, on our revenue stream and, certainly, your far reach, as well, with some of our smaller businesses.
Representative Rovero, do you have a question? 001259 65 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE ANNE NOBLE: Thank you, Senator.
REP. ROVERO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A quick question, Commissioner. Could you explain to me what do you mean by $63 million were given out in commissions? Where did this go and
ANNE NOBLE: We pay our retailers to sell our lottery tickets. We pay them between five and six percent, and that's how much we pay in retailers. We do over a billion dollars in lottery sales on an annual basis, and that represents the figure that we compensate our retailers for, for selling our products.
REP. ROVERO: Well, I -- I couldn't imagine it was that amount, because I can't imagine what these retailers would be doing or how many would go out of business if they didn't have that $63 c million coming in as a little extra revenue. ANNE NOBLE: The brick-and-mortar retailers, they're our partners. Regardless of the future of the Connecticut Lottery, they will always be the backbone of what we do, and we very much appreciate their efforts, lots and lots of small businesses.
REP. ROVERO: And 319 or $320 million to the General Fund; the only thing that could make me happier if it was about a -- a million-and-a-half.
But, anyways, we thank you, very much, for your job.
And -- and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ANNE NOBLE: Thank you. c 001260 66 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Orange, followed by Representative D'Amelio.
REP. ORANGE: Good afternoon, Anne.
ANNE NOBLE: Good afternoon, Representative.
REP. ORANGE: Nice to see you. You already sell lottery tickets in the two casinos now; isn't that correct?
ANNE NOBLE: We're presently selling them at Mohegan Sun, and we we've had some conversations with the other casino.
REP. ORANGE: And how are you doing with selling them at The Sun? What --
ANNE NOBLE: They're a, they're a great retail partner; we really appreciate the collaboration. It's worked out well for
REP. ORANGE: Well -- well, what are
ANNE NOBLE: -- both parties.
REP. ORANGE: -- you making for the State off of that?
ANNE NOBLE: I believe that we're doing approximately between five and six million dollars a year of sales with them. I'd have to double-check that; I don't have it right at my fingertips.
REP. ORANGE: (A) That leads back into my problem gambling type thing. If -- if you were to partner in these new casinos and be able to offer the sale of lottery tickets at their, at these three locations, what percentage of those I 001261 67 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c sales are you going to personally, the lottery sales, going to put into problem gambling?
ANNE NOBLE: We give right now $2.3 million --
REP. ORANGE: But I --
ANNE NOBLE: -- to· the Chronic Gamblers --
REP. ORANGE: But the --
ANNE NOBLE: Rehabilitation Fund.
REP. ORANGE: percentage of sales is what I'm asking.
ANNE NOBLE: Our --
REP. ORANGE: For just these three new casinos, should you have the availability of selling your tickets there.
ANNE NOBLE: Our contribution to problem gambling statutorily is not based on our percentage of sales; it's a fixed amount. And then on top of that, we work with our ad agency and the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling to do more. But it's not currently based on a --
REP. ORANGE: So basically
ANNE NOBLE: -- percentage of sales.
REP. ORANGE: -- you could put, you could put it toward, you could put a, some of your monies from this new venture could be written into legislation that you do give it to problem gambling. And so that's something that, you know, I certainly would consider if Lotto sales are going to be part of this. c 001262 68 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
I think that as it stands now, that these two casinos have a problem. They' r·e looking to save jobs and that kind of thing, and I hope that they don't put the Connecticut Lottery in, into their new facilities. I hope that they focus primarily on their own jobs and their own futures, at least to start.
Thank you.
ANNE NOBLE: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative Orange.
Representative D'Amelio.
REP. D'AMELIO: Thank you, Senator.
Commissioner, a quick question: When the two gaming facilities opened in the state of Connecticut, what happened with lottery revenues; did they go up or did they drop once we allowed casino gambling in the state?
ANNE NOBLE: It's a really good question, and I was not at the Connecticut Lottery at that time.
When the -- the Connecticut Lottery was founded in 1972; we're now a little bit over 40 years old. So it's, the Connecticut Lottery revenues did not necessarily decline when the casinos were first introduced, but that's because -- I like to say -- the Connecticut Lottery was in its infancy. Now we're a very mature lottery, and there are not a lot of new products for us to offer, so the impact would be much more substantial and detrimental now than it would be a time when we could take our instant game portfolio from 2 games to 15 or 20 games. So it's a couple of, it's -- it's the fact that we're a mature organization that makes it much 001263 69 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c more detrimental now than it would've been back in the mid-1990s. And, again, I refer you - and we're happy to provide it -- to a study that was recently done in Maryland, where the Maryland Lottery sales dipped dramatically, based on the proximity of the casino gambling.
REP. D'AMELIO: And if I may, Mr. Chairman, you you mentioned that we generate a billion dollars in lottery sales in the state of Connecticut.
ANNE NOBLE: Yes, sir.
REP. D'AMELIO: And 320 million is given to the State. Is the rest of that for operations or the six, you know, five, whatever million is left?
ANNE NOBLE: We give out over $600 million to our players on an annual basis. We pay five to six percent of our revenues to the retailers. We pay about one percent for the operation of our c gaming system, and -- I'm leaving someone out of this -- our regulatory fees are between one and two percent.
So, actually, the overhead for the Connecticut Lottery is very, very small in proportion to the amount of sales that we do. We are -- I, I'll blow our own horn -- we are one of the most efficient lotteries in the country because of our quasi-public structure. So the players get, as they should, get the vast majority of that money.
REP. D'AMELIO: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you. c 001264 70 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Representative Nicastro.
REP. NICASTRO: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Followed by Representative Vail.
REP. NICASTRO: I just wanted to commend you for the job you've been doing. I've been watching it very closely, and I know it's a lot of pressure and a lot of explaining, but you've been doing an outstanding job. I just wanted to give you that credit.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair
ANNE NOBLE: Thank you, Representative.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Vail.
REP. VAIL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What percentage of your total proceeds do you pay out to the winners?
ANNE NOBLE: I would say roughly between 60 and 62 percent.
REP. VAIL: Okay. And you said a percentage, five . to six percent goes to the retailers?
ANNE NOBLE: That's correct.
REP. VAIL: And there's two-point or a certain percentage goes to, you said
ANNE NOBLE: Regulatory fees.
REP. VAIL: -- there's a fixed amount? 001265 71 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE ANNE NOBLE: Chronic Gambling (inaudible) --
REP. VAIL: And how much is that percentage?
ANNE NOBLE: Regulatory and problem gambling is probably one to two percent, maybe three percent. I don't have the exact figures in front of me. I apologize.
REP. VAIL: And then the rest?
ANNE NOBLE: There is
REP. VAIL: And then, and then
ANNE NOBLE: something paid to, about one percent to operate our gaming system.
REP. VAIL: Uh-huh.
ANNE NOBLE: Commissions to the retailers, commissions to the retailers, operator gaming c system, regulatory fees, prizes to players. I'm going through our income statement in my mind. I think I've gotten, I think I've gotten
REP. VAIL: Employees.
ANNE NOBLE: Our operating
REP. VAIL: At what percentage?
ANNE NOBLE: -- costs are about one percent.
REP. VAIL: Okay.
ANNE NOBLE: And that includes our compensation to employees. c 001266 72 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
REP. VAIL: So --
ANNE NOBLE: That's roughly about --
REP. VAIL: around --
ANNE NOBLE: I believe it's
REP. VAIL: 70 percent
ANNE NOBLE: -- about $15 million a year --
REP. VAIL: Okay.
ANNE NOBLE: Just to compensate our employees.
REP. VAIL: All right. Thank you; that's all I have.
ANNE NOBLE: And I'm happy to give it to you in more detail and --
REP. VAIL: Okay.
ANNE NOBLE: -- afterwards.
REP. VAIL: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
ANNE NOBLE: Thank you, sir.
SENATOR LARSON: Next up we have Andrea Goodrich. Andrea?
ANDREA GOODRICH: Senator Larson and the members of the Public Safety Committee, my name is Andrea Goodrich.
I have been a table games dealer at Foxwoods Resort Casino for eleven years, and I'm the 001267 73 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c President of the UAW Local 2121, the union for casino dealers at Foxwoods. We currently have 1480 dealers and assistant floor supervisors that we represent. I am here to thank you for raising S.B. 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING, and I am urging committee members to vote yes on this important proposal.
Many of my coworkers have been at Foxwoods since it opened in 1992; when we, in 2010, when we became members of UAW; our jobs got better. We were able to improve our health care, wages, and working conditions, and have an avenue for ongoing communication with our employer about issues that arise on the job.
We are here today in support of this proposal because if passed we know the jobs to build the casinos and the jobs to operate the casino will be union jobs, and this is incredibly important to us. We also want to support the substitute language that has been presented to the committee to ban smoking in the three new c ca.sinos. Our members understand all too well the dangers of working every day exposed to secondhand smoke, and we have come before you with our concerns in the past. We feel very strongly that these new casinos must be smoke free and urge you to ensure the health and safety of workers in any new casinos built in Connecticut.
Due to increased competition from other states, we believe Connecticut must act quickly to build new casinos to retain business. Keep Connecticut's loyal casino patrons here in our state and protect State revenue.
Thank you for your consideration and support of S.B. 1090. c 001268 74 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
Are there any questions?
Thank you, very much.
Next up would be Chief Richard, I'm not sure if it's Yelky or Velky.
RICHARD VELKY: Velky. For the record, Mr. Chairman, it's Velky.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Mr. --
RICHARD VELKY: Okay.
SENATOR LARSON: -- Velky (inaudible).
RICHARD VELKY: V, as in Victor, e-1-k-y.
Good afternoon, Chairman, Senator Larson and ranking members, and all Public Safety and Security Committee members.
My name is Richard Velky and I am the Chief of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation of Kent, Connecticut, a tribe duly recognized by the State of Connecticut, with a dedicated reservation, located in Kent since the early colonial times.
I was elected Chief in 1987, along with the duly elected, active, eight-member Tribal Council. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on Raised Bill Number 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING. I will raise several concerns and questions that appear to be shortcomings in the proposal.
First, with respective to free trade, does this legislation as drafted restrain free trade? 001269 75 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
·C How does Connecticut protect against time and money-consuming lawsuits from commercial gaming companies who would see this bill as restraining interstate commerce and potentially being anti-trust in nature? Or is this a tribal-gaming oriented law? Will it automatically accommodate other tribes as they become federally recognized, or will that just lead to latent litigation?
Second, as to economic development, in this legislation, is this legislation really about jobs or about maintaining the wealth of some very protective gaming companies? What guarantees do Connecticut residents have that our citizens will be the majority of the employees hired? Will all employees be new hires or just shifting excess personnel from existing casinos? If the two tribes seeking off-reservation gaming were so motivated to create Connecticut-based employment, why were they actively seeking licenses in multiple Massachusetts' locations that would have c potentially reduced employment and tax revenues here in Connecticut? Has your committee performed any studies to determine an impact of gaming across the borders of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island and potential revenue loss? Are there any demographic, economic or employment studies that have been prepared relating to any proposed gaming locations?
There is little if any indication that any highway traffic, public safety, police, fire, healthcare or any impact on residential and existing commercial businesses' studies have or are to be performed; if not, why not? Will the proposed enactment date of mid-October provide sufficient time for thoughtful revenue and input of such studies? c 001270 76 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Finally there are significant questions and uncertainties as to whether these would be tribal casinos, commercial casinos or quasi casinos or quasi-commercial casinos and the legal ramification that would result therefrom. There is little if any definition relating to the template of the state taxation protocol, expectation and/or projects of tax revenue, but as proposed there is a pronounced lack of guidance relating to the authority and responsibility of the Department of Consumer Protection and other agencies.
In conclusion, some may ask about STN's past and its future. There are proposed regulations pending before the Department of -- of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs and would serve to promote federal recognition. How can Raised Bill 1090 be crafted before a final BIA rules on recognitions are published and a serious concern? If the State of Connecticut currently is in possession of information concerning the control of those BIA's rules, will it share them with the public now to provide a clearer basis for the thinking of this legislation with regards to having only two specific tribes, when the upcoming BIA rules are allowed several more federal recognition of Connecticut tribes this year?
Federal recognition would provide education, healthcare, elderly housing, and economic opportunities. Clearly enabling two tribes seeking ancillary venues would adversely impact those tribes' economic alternatives.
Finally, it should be noted that regardless of what you may have heard on TV, radio or read in the newspapers, as Chief of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, I state emphatically, for the record, STN neither seeks nor would we 001271 77 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c construct a gaming facility of any sort on our ancestral reservation in Kent.
Thank you for your time. And I anticipate following up at the end of the week with a few other questions.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your testimony.
Do you have any questions?
Thank you, very much.
RICHARD VELKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SENATOR LARSON: Next up will be Dave Roche. Dave?
DAVID A. ROCHE: Good afternoon, Senator Larson, members of the Public Safety Committee. My _$(? \090 name is Dave Roche, President of the Connecticut State Building Trades and Business Manager for Sheet Metal Workers. And my great c Representative Frank Nicastro, over here, happens to be my Representative, good friend of mine.
SENATOR LARSON: You admit that in public?
DAVID A. ROCHE: What's that?
SENATOR LARSON: You admit you're a friend of Frank Nicastro's?
DAVID A. ROCHE: I -- I admit it, proudly admit it.
And -- and for Senator [sic] Rovero, now I know why we boil potatoes, because when we, because Saint Patrick was Italian, and you guys boil it with all the spaghetti; right? So I figured it out; thanks. c 001272 78 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Listen, this is about the jobs for us, but it's a little bit more than that, it's also about the careers. I want to show you a group of people, my guys over here. They're first-year apprentices for the Sheet Metal Workers; there's about eight of them. That represents about 25 percent of our first-year apprentice class. If I came in here four years ago and pointed over to 100 percent of my first-year apprentice class, there'd be empty seats over there. Connecticut's come a long way in the last four years for jobs, for construction jobs.
These guys, their careers aren't going to be 30 years in the casinos, they're not going to be 30 years in Jackson Labs, they're going to be from the time we put a backhoe into the ground until we hand over the keys, and there may be some maintenance work in and out. So these jobs are important to these guys. They're their futures, their careers; this is their training ground right now. And to be able to keep these jobs and keep them coming and -- and this job is going to be under a project labor agreement, which means we're going to have apprentices on these jobs, we're going to have local hiring on these jobs, and that's a commitment that the building trades make.
And we've done this with the casinos, with the tribes, and we've had a great partnership with them, because they've always stood up to their end of the bargain, and that's what it takes.
But these guys future and their training over the next four years is so vitally important that these projects continue to come so that they can go out and earn a living and career 001273 79 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c and be building buildings around Connecticut for the next 30, 35 years.
So we support this. We, and-- and I'll speak as a sheet-metal worker, I support the -- the chains for the smoke-free that the, Julie Kushner kind of presented to you earlier. And as an HVAC man, a ventilation guy, you know that's a big, it's a big pro for me right there, but you know what? People's health is more important than me putting in an extra couple pieces of ductwork into a building, you know, for a little bit more work. So I do support that.
And I thank you for your time. And I'm going to be honest; I got visions of a few pints dancing in my head right now, so I think I'm going to have to take off and enjoy, and everybody have a nice St. Patrick's Day.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
c DAVID A. ROCHE: You're welcome. We good?
SENATOR LARSON: Next we have Senator McLachlan, McLachlan? A Tony Sheridan; Tony Sheridan?
TONY SHERIDAN: Good afternoon. Thank you for for the opportunity to say a few words.
SENATOR LARSON: Could you say your name please, for the record?
TONY SHERIDAN: Oh, Tony Sheridan and I'm President and CEO of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut.
Our chamber has approximately 1,600 member companies, and we take seriously our mission, which is to support and promote our members in c 001274 80 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Eastern Connecticut and beyond. It's for that reason I'm here to express our serious concern confronting are Native American Tribes, the Mohegan Tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe.
I believe finding a way for the State to work with our Native American Tribes as they plan appropriate responses to the unprecedented, upcoming competition is critical to protecting jobs in our regiqn of the state, as well as protecting the significant revenue that results from the long-established compact that benefits the State treasury.
Any business when confronted with major competition would redesign their strategy to effectively compete. The tribal nations are no different; they need the flexibility to do so. Simply stated, this is about jobs and State revenue, and it makes good business sense. But we need to act now. Both tribes need to be provided the flexibility to move forward with planning for what is coming. Timing is of the 0 essence.
There's much to be done in a short period of time. I ask that you support this bill and do, and to do everything in your power to help the tribes maintain their economic competitiveness and status as the major, as a major employer in the state.
In quoting the editorial in yesterday's Day paper, quote, If nothing happens to change the current equation, the number of gamblers frequenting the Foxwoods Resort and Mohegan Sun Casinos will continue to drop as, and so will jobs. The hundreds of business that service the casinos will take a hit, and the revenue the casinos send to the State -- which as you 001275 81 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c all know, 25 percent of slot revenue -- will continue to decline.
And just one further comment: You know, what both casinos have done over the years is they've really made Eastern Connecticut, the casinos are now what I would call the, this the -- the center of entertainment for Southern New England. So it's not just gaming; it's -- it's a, the whole venue of activities that attract people from all over the country.
So thank you for your time. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
I have a very quick question: Of your members, how many do you think -- either by number or by percentage -- do you think vend at both of these casinos? c TONY SHERIDAN: Have been at -- SENATOR LARSON: No. How many of your members are actual vendors, supply goods and services to --
TONY SHERIDAN: Oh, I -- I have, that would be very hard to to give you a reasonably accurate figure, but I will tell you it's a lot.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
TONY SHERIDAN: And the ripple effect throughout the region and actually throughout the state of Connecticut is very, very significant.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much.
TONY SHERIDAN: Thank you. c 001276 82 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
We're going to go back to Senator McLachlan.
A VOICE: McLachlan.
SENATOR LARSON: McLachlan; I'm reading phonetically.
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you, the real Senator -· se, loso Larson.
I'm Senator Mike McLachlan. Greetings, Senator Larson, my dear friend, ranking members, and - and the Danbury delegation so properly represented on this committee, Representative Giegler, Representative Arconti. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding expansion of casinos in Connecticut.
First and foremost, I would like to say no to Danbury. I don't think a casino is right for the Danbury economy. We have consistently the lowest unemployment rate in the state of Connecticut. I don't believe that it's a good fit for our economy, and although we are grateful for all that the two tribes have done in Connecticut over the last 20 years, I -- I would respectfully request that Danbury be taken off the list for consideration.
I furthermore believe that casinos, as casino expansion that's being discussed, I -- I think there seems to be some confusion. We're not talking about, as I understand, a casino like we see at Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun; we're talking about a gambling parlor. It's basically a supermarket-size casino, something around 100,000 square feet, your Super Stop & Shop in your neighborhood, something along that lines. 001277 83 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE If you travel across the country, you'll see in one of the other 35 states and in America that have casinos, that they dot the landscape and they're very small. They're not casinos like we have in ·connecticut. And along the interstate highways you can go 50 miles down the road and find another gambling parlor; they call them casinos. And that's really, I think, what we're hearing is what's going to be proposed for perhaps north of Hartford.
I frankly don't think that's a good fit for the State's economy. I, I'm not sure that 100,000 square-foot casino facility is really going to save thousands of casino jobs in Connecticut. Thousands of jobs seem like it's more appropriate for discussion for a great big casino, like is being proposed in Massachusetts.
So I just ask you to approach this carefully and deliberatively and be sure that it's c appropriate for our state. I respectfully disagree with expansion of casinos. And with all due respect to the Mashantuckets and the Mohegans and everything that they've done in Connecticut, I would like to see us help them remain successful in their existing facilities.
I will tell you that we've been spoiled by the monopoly that they have enjoyed for some 20 years now. The monopoly is broken; you can't unbreak a monopoly, and we need to come to that reality. And -- and that reality is an uncomfortable one, but it is a reality, and so I respectfully request that you reject expansion of casinos in Connecticut.
Thank you. c 001278 84 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Senator.
I want to just make a quick comment. I was quoted in the paper about where casinos might be located, and although we are allowing them up to three, I referred to your city, because when I think of Western Connecticut, I think of Danbury. And I meant no intention nor was there any discussions of specific locations, but rest assured that, you know, if -- if this does come to pass, that any local community that wished -- wished to take this on would have to have specific town hearing-type activities before would be, it would be implemented. So I apologize for being so specific about Danbury; that was just my vision of Western Connecticut.
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you. I'd actually had attributed that comment to Representative Dargan, so you're off the hook until just now.
SENATOR LARSON: Well, thank you. And I know, like me, you -- you think of Eastern Connecticut --
A VOICE: (Inaudible) Dargan.
SENATOR LARSON: -- you only think of East Hartford, because you know we take credit for the sun coming up on this side of, on the other side of the river.
Thank you. Any questions?
Representative Giegler. Now, understand that we've limited to two questions in this round and we can always come back.
REP. GIEGLER: Thank you.
Thank you, Mike, for -- for coming. ··-··-····------1------001279 85 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE Earlier today we heard from both the tribes about the, their intention is to have a commercial property rather than a -- a flagship casino so that it would be subject to local jurisdiction with a, some revenue stream to the municipality. And I know you having been part of your municipal government in the City of Danbury, I was wondering if you could just say to us what kind of impact such a facility would have on the economy of Danbury.
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Well, if we're talking about a - - a gambling parlor where there is no restaurant, there is no hotel, then surrounding businesses can -- can benefit; no question about it. But I guess what I'm hearing is their going to pay property taxes, which they would have to because they're not on the reservation. And I don't believe that they can expand their reservation to this new site, wherever it should be.
c So first first would be availability to the local government of collecting property taxes on the facility. What also comes into play, though, is law enforcement. Law enforcement currently at the casinos in Connecticut are self-enforced, essentially. Now you're going to have local police that have to participate in the law enforcement. There is a burden there; we don•t know what that is, but that's certainly something that should be taken into consideration. And I'm sure that point will come up loud and clear in any public hearing that occurs in the local municipality that•s being considered for this site.
REP. GIEGLER: And just a second question and final question: If I remember years ago, I think it was when I first got in -- and I was sorry that c 001280 86 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
I missed Chief Velky, from the Schaghticokes, in Kent -- but wasn't there an issue that we had discussed about claiming potential tribal land that may have been located in the within the City of Danbury?
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Well --
REP. GIEGLER: Specifically thinking of over by the Union Carbide properties.
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Yeah. This -- this is how I've got to be so well-informed, if you can call it that, on the casino industry. Because when I first came to the mayor's office, as Chief of Staff to Mayor Mark Boughton, in 2001, soon after, we were told that the Schaghticoke Tribe of Kent was soon to be recognized as a federal, federally recognized tribe and that could mean that a, that a casino could come to Danbury.
Well, we were all scratching our head; how could that happen? The -- the Schaghticoke Tribe State Reservation -- and that's the difference; they're a state-recognized tribe and not a federally recognized tribe -- their reservation is in Kent, and how could they just move their reservation to Danbury. And the concern became and is now still an existing concern that a tribe can move their reservation or expand it to certain other properties, as we have seen in Southeastern Connecticut where the original reservation is now expanded to much larger in size and scope than the original reservation.
So the, that's the long answer. The short answer is that should the Schaghticoke Tribe gain federal recognition, this state and Western Connecticut will have to deal with the issue of them qualifying for a casino, and it 001281 87 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c could be in our backyard in Danbury. And, once again, I think our community will oppose that idea.
REP. GIEGLER: All right. Thank youi so much.
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Any further questions? Second round, Tony? Representative.
REP. D'AMELIO: Thank you, Senator.
Very quickly, Senator, in your testimony you - you thought that, like, the casino wouldn't be a good fit in Danbury because of your unemployment, high unemployment rate and --
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Well, it's
REP. D'AMELIO: the effects c SENATOR McLACHLAN: low unemployment rate. REP. D'AMELIO: Oh, you have a low unemployment; okay. I'm sorry; I heard that wrong.
I'm looking at my community, Waterbury, and actually about 20 years ago we entertained a thought of setting up a casino with the Schaghticokes if they did gain federal recognition. And the thought back then was, you know, a community like Waterbury, where we had a very high unemployment rate, that it could come in and actually benefit our community and provide jobs. Do you believe that? Because this is a gaming parlor and I'm not really sure.
You know, I -- I heard the testimony from the two tribal leaders that everything they do is c 001282 88 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
going to be, you know, top-notch and magnificent, and you describe pretty much like a, you know, a Stop & Shop-size facility and it kind of, you know, it didn't set well in my mind. Do -- do you think this can be beneficial to a community, like, with a high unemployment rate in, you know, an area like Waterbury, for example?
SENATOR McLACHLAN: Well, listen. I -- I would be the first to say that the Mashantuckets and the Mohegans don't do anything second-class; there's no question about it. However, we're not talking about either one of those two facilities; were talking about taking over, let's say, on Wolcott, out on Wolcott Street, in Waterbury, one of the supermarkets or the old Caldor or whatever, one of those stores or one of those sites, and having a roughly hundred-thousand square-foot facility. Will the local restaurants gain some business from the traffic from this facility? Yeah, they will; no question about it.
They don't have a hotel that goes with the facility, is my understanding, although I haven't seen a plan yet, but this is what I'm hearing. It is just a -- a big room, essentially, with -- with table games and slot machines. If that's the case and they're not serving food, that means someone is going to leave the facility and go to the restaurant in the neighborhood and eat, and if they're going to stay over, they're going to use a local hotel. That -- that does help; no question. about it. I just don't think that's right for my community, where I live, and I can't dispute that -- that Waterbury may or may not benefit from it; that would be your opinion, not mine.
REP. D'AMELIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ------~------1------001283 89 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE And thank you, Senator; I appreciate it.
SENATOR LARSON: Any further questions?
Senator, thank you for your testimony.
John Lurate. John Lurate.
JOHN LURATE: Good afternoon. I'm a .business representative from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, members of the Public Safety Committee, my name is John Lurate. I live at 6 Chester Drive, in Manchester. I'm in support of S.B. 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING.
I would also like to thank Senator Looney and Senator Duff and the leadership of this committee for bringing this bill forward. This bill will help ensure that some of these gaming dollars will be spent in Connecticut at a time c when Connecticut residents and their families need to ensure that as many tax dollars and jobs are for residents of our state.
These good union jobs in construction and tourism will also help the economy of our state. Once again, keep Connecticut competitive and support S.B. 1090.
I'd also like to make a comment that I thought the two Chairmen did a wonderful job in answering your questions and a lot of your concerns today, and that a lot of these, both casinos, and right now you have the Mohegans they're doing high school basketball tournaments; they did college basketball tournaments' they have the Women's NBA. There's many people that go down there. They c 001284 90 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
enjoy the restaurants. They enjoy the basketball. It's just not gaming.
And I thought both men did a wonderful job today, and, you know, any concerns that you may have about gaming were well thought of there, on their, on their answers, I guess I would say.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your testimony. Are there any questions?
Representative Rovero.
REP. ROVERO: Quick question, John. You said you were a representative of electrical workers?
JOHN LURATE: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, IB
REP. ROVERO: So it was
JOHN LURATE: EW.
REP. ROVERO: no shock to you then when I announced that Saint Patrick was born in Italy; correct?
JOHN LURATE: So I'm half-and-half, so I got the (inaudible).
REP. ROVERO: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, Representative Rovero for that question.
Thank you for your testimony.
JOHN LURATE: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Ronald McDaniel; Ronald McDaniel? 001285 91 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE RONALD McDANIEL: Good afternoon, Senator Larson. Representative Dargan is still out, apparently listening to Irish music. The members of the Public Safety and Security Committee, good afternoon.
My name is Ronald McDaniel -- excuse me -- and I am mayor of the Town of Montville. I'm here today in support of S.B. 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING. By way of background, I have lived in Montville for the past 21 years with my wife and two sons. My work history includes two years as a legislative budget analyst for the Office of Fiscal Analysis here in this building, and since 1997, I've been the owner of Common Grounds, a condominium management firm.
As a chief elected official, small business owner, and budget analyst, I know firsthand just how critical it is to pass the legislation before you today. As the chief elected c official for the host town to the Mohegan Tribe, it is important to note that we have built a strong and enduring relationship together, based on regular and ongoing communication about issues that affect both the Town of Montville and the Mohegan Tribal Nation. I believe that we have been good neighbors to one another, and our mutual respect and communication has only served to strengthen that relationship.
Today we are in a crisis mode, searching for ways to position our state for the impending competition that we face in the coming months. We must act responsibly to stem the tide of patrons who will bypass Connecticut for the newly planned casinos in New York and Massachusetts. Our neighbors have witnessed c 001286 92 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
the shared success of the Native American gaming operations in Southeastern Connecticut and are ready to get in on the action, specifically targeting Connecticut's patrons.
With almost ten percent of Montville's working population directly employed by Mohegan Sun and thousands more connected to its success and that of Foxwoods, I do not believe that we can just stand by and jeopardize these quality jobs or economic stability they afford our town, our region, and our state. When the future of electric bug, Electric Boat hung in the balance, our elected officials at the local, state, and federal levels stood together to protect jobs, while today the future of another industry in Connecticut is being threatened and we must again stand together to protect our constituents and their livelihood.
By passing 1090, we will take an important step towards preserving the jobs and financial benefits that exist in our region as a direct result of the success of Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. Failure is simply not an option. I hope we can stand together as elected officials, knowing that we have done everything in our power to ensure the best possible future for our constituents. This bill will help achieve that goal.
Thank you for your consideration. And I have to say that to see two Montville graduates sitting shoulder to shoulder here, who have been fierce competitors both in sports in their lives and in, now in business, standing together shows exactly how important this is.
And this is not a Mohegan/Mashantucket thing; this is not a Democrat/Republican thing; this is a Connecticut thing. And unfortunately, 001287 93 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c like, unlike one of the previous speakers, Southeastern Connecticut has a seven-and-a-half percent unemployment rate, according to the labor statistics out yesterday. Eastern Connecticut has 11 of the 25 distressed communities in that section of the state. It's critically important that we continue to protect those jobs and help grow Southeastern Connecticut at the same time.
Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your . testimony. If you can hold for a moment, we have a few questions.
RONALD McDANIEL: Sure.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Giegler.
REP. GIEGLER: Thank you; thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you for coming today; I just have one c question for you: If Montville, say, was to get a, one of the designated casinos and it's a commercial property which is subject to local jurisdiction with some revenue stream to the Town of Montville, what kind of impact would it have on your community?
RONALD McDANIEL: Well, we have Mohegan Sun in Montville right now, so we will not be getting the benefit of any (inaudible).
A VOICE: (Inaudible) Uncasville.
RONALD McDANIEL: Yep, Uncasville is part of Montville.
REP. GIEGLER: Oh, okay; didn't realize that.
c 001288 94 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
RONALD McDANIEL: Yes.
REP. GIEGLER: Okay. Well, then that question doesn't apply to you.
RONALD McDANIEL: Well, we're -- we're always willing to accept any more host money that the State is willing to give us.
REP. GIEGLER: Oh-huh.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
I'm -- I'm interested with regards to, you know, local employment and also, you know, your interaction with the casino from a policing perspective. And -- and what are you seeing with regards to problem gambling; any -- any, just feedback on that?
RONALD McDANIEL: Well, Senator, I'll start with the problem gambling. I think that's -- that's a statewide issue; it's -- it's not necessarily geographically located around the casinos. Anecdotally, you do seem to see a lot more larceny and embezzlement cases that have been high profile since the opening of the casinos. Whether or not they're directly related to that I -- I could not say.
From a policing perspective, when the casino first opened up they had their own security force, but we did have a lot of motor vehicle activity along the Route 32 corridor and in the entry, entrances in and out of the casino. As they developed their security force, our activity has gone down quite a bit. Now that they're a completely recognized police force, we just have our mutual aid compacts with them at this point. 001289 95 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c SENATOR LARSON: Okay; thank you, very much. RONALD McDANIEL: You're welcome.
A VOICE: Thanks, very much.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
RONALD McDANIEL: Thank you for your time.
SENATOR LARSON: Next up, Donna Zaharevitz. Donna Zaharevitz.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Excuse me; can I (inaudible) over your feet? Good afternoon.
SENATOR LARSON: Good afternoon. If you could just state your name --
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Uh-huh.
SENATOR LARSON: -- for the record. Thank you.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Chairman Larson, Chairman Dargan, SB 'oqo and distinguished committee members, my name is Donna Zaharevitz, and I work for the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling. Before I give my statement, I want to make perfectly clear I am not for nor am I against gambling.
In 1962, through 1992, I had lead a normal, pristine life, mother, wife, career woman, pillar of the small town in which I live in, even ran for, to the political, top political office in my town. I was always the caregiver at home, and as my children started to leave the nest and my husband, a funeral director in our town, worked 24/7, I had no one to really care for anymore. I was involved with town activities but that did not seem to fill the c 001290 96 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
void I was used to, as the giver, caregiver for my family.
I played the lottery, a dollar a day, went to church Bingos with my neighbors, and casually attended the casinos. I started going to the casinos more often. There were people to talk to, if I chose to do so. The sounds, the excitement, and the possibility of a big win, I became a different person, someone I didn't know anymore.
I was a slot player and in the mind of a slot player, the more money you put into a machine, the machine has to hit. And I had played this particular machine for quite some time, put a lot of money into it and knew it was going to hit but ran out of money.
I had been watching a neighbor's house, a friend of mine for 30 years, and I helped myself to three of her checks and also took three deposit slips, because when I won, I was going to put that money back. And, unfortunately, that didn't happen and four weeks later I was arrested.
During that time and when the police came to my house, it was devastating, and I, unfortunately, was the one that woke up the next morning in a psych unit of a local hospital and when released turned myself in to the police department and started my court appearances for a year and was given accelerated rehabilitation, because I was a first-time offender and two years' probation.
During that time, I've tried to commit suicide three times, and upon my last release from the psych unit of the hospital, my husband of 36 years informed me we were getting a divorce. I 001291 97 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c started treatment at a Better Choice Family Treatment Program, in Hartford, and completed that program and have been gambling-free, 18 years, as of August 28th of this year.
I make no excuses for my actions. I have made some pretty bad choices, and there are consequences for those choices. And no one forced me to do what I did. But a gambling addiction is no different than a drug or alcohol addiction and, in fact, it is much worse. We, as gamblers, keep this addiction hidden for a very long time and only give it up when we are caught. We have no physical signs, so no one really knows what is going on. Only we know something terrible is happening in our life.
Today I work with gamblers and family members who have been impacted by the gambler in the community, as well as gamblers who are incarcerated due to gambling-related crimes in c our correctional facilities in Connecticut. I have presented at the U.S. House of Representatives, local television, radio, and also national TV, and on -- on the addiction. I'm not telling you this because I want praise for what I do now, but to tell you if it were not for the Better Choice Gambling Treatment Program that I had attended, I would either be incarcerated today or I would be dead; I would have completed the suic-ide act.
Funding is needed to continue these programs. It is much less expensive to fund these programs than it is to fund a -- a person who has been incarcerated due to a gambling-related crime. You, as committee members have the power and authority to recommend funding for prevention education and treatment to save the, c 001292 98 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
this devastation of families and possibly the life of a problem gambler.
I thank you, and I will answer any questions.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your testimony. I'm very proud of you. I'm sure that this is very, very intimidating to come up here and to testify, but you seem to have committed yourself to a -- a great cause and making sure that you stay on track, and for that I'm -- I'm grateful that you're doing that.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you, so much.
SENATOR LARSON: You're welcome.
Representative Orange.
REP. ORANGE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will echo the -- the remarks of the Chairman; I was going to say the same thing to you. And you're very brave to come here and to tell your story, and I'm sure it helps you and it also helps others by encouraging them to tell their stories as well. And I applaud the work that you're doing today.
And I'm, we all make bad choices. There's not one human being that walks around anywhere that hasn't made a few bad choices, and you are doing very well with, shall we say, correcting your bad choice by helping others.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you. Thanks.
REP. ZUPKUS: Representative Nicastro.
REP. NICASTRO: Thank you, Madam Chair. 001293 99 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE You testified in front of us a couple weeks ago, did you not?
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: I did.
REP. NICASTRO: You know, I went home and I told a bunch of my friends how you came up and were so forthright and, you know, very, it takes a lot of courage to do what you did. And then to come a second time really, it really says something about you. You know, you've got some very great, well, qualities.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you.
REP. NICASTRO: Please -- please remember that, if you're ever feeling not. You've got great qualities to do what you're doing.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you. c REP. NICASTRO: And I respect you for that. DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you.
REP. NICASTRO: Thank you --
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: I appreciate
REP. NICASTRO: Madam Chair.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: that.
REP. NICASTRO: Okay.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: The difference is this is what a gambler looks like; we look normal. So you can look in the audience today, and I bet, I know there are some problem gamblers or recovering gamblers that are sitting there, and I bet none c 001294 100 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
of you can pick them out. But this is what we look like; we are normal people that make bad decisions and choices in our lives.
REP. ZUPKUS: Any other questions?
Great; well, thank you, and thank you, again.
REP. ROVERO: (Inaudible.)
REP. ZUPKUS: Oh, I'm sorry.
Representative Rovero.
REP. ROVERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Once again, Donna, congratulations.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you.
REP. ROVERO: ·you should be very proud of yourself. And I want to tell you what I told other people with other, I should say habits, bad habits, one day at a time. Enjoy 0
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you.
REP. ROVERO: -- life, because we're only here for a short period of time.
Thank you, very much, again, for your testimony.
A VOICE: Thanks.
DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you, so much.
REP. ZUPKUS: Thank you; thank you for coming today.
Next is Deb Hinchey. 001295 101 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c: DEB HINCHEY: Good afternoon, Senator Larson -- who stepped out -- and Representative Dargan, and distinguished members of the Public Safety and Security Committee.
My name is Deb Hinchey, and I am the Mayor of the City of Norwich. I'm here today to testify in support of S.B. 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMBLE, GAMING.
The debate about gambling in our state was decided long ago when the compact was signed by the tribes and the State of Connecticut. Since that time, we have all shared in the success enjoyed by both the Mashantucket Pequots and the Mohegan Tribe. Many communities and organizations throughout the region have benefited from their generosity as well.
The issue we face today is about competition from our neighbors who have witnessed the financial success of the tribes and the economic stability that success has provided c: the State through yearly slot revenues and job creation. With the decline in defense jobs in Southeastern Connecticut, our region would have been devastated without the thousands of good paying jobs created by the casinos, not to mention the thousands of jobs provided through ancillary services, businesses, and vendors connected to the casinos.
Norwich, alone, has almost 3,500 residents working at the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. This does not include all of the Norwich residents who are employed by vendors, restaurants, hotels, shops, and other businesses outside the casinos whose jobs are directly tied to that business. We are talking about thousands of taxpayers in Norwich, alone, who will likely be at risk unless we step up to the plate to- c: 001296 102 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
protect their jobs. The legislation before you today does just that. By creating opportunities for individuals to easily patronize Connecticut's casinos, we will continue to share in the success of these world-class destinations. Without this bill we will surely lose business to the new operations outside of Connecticut, putting our constituents at risk.
As elected officials, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to protect our citizens. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the new competition that is on the horizon, but we can do everything possible to ensure that we have a fighting chance. We should not gamble with the livelihoods of our residents who depend on the casino operations in Connecticut. I urge your passage of S.B. 1090. I want to thank you for your consideration.
I wanted to tell you that as the Mayor of Norwich, I proudly sit between both of these tribal nations. They have brought a breadth of wealth to our community, both culturally from the people who have come to work in these casinos, and with the jobs that they've provided a very distressed area. These casino jobs are important to us, and I come before you to let you know that and to ask you to help our area by passage of this bill.
Thank you, very much.
REP. ZUPKUS: Great; thank you. Any questions? (Inaudible. )
Thank you, very much --
DEB HINCHEY: Thank you, very much. ----'------~------001297 103 March 17, 2015 rnhr/rncr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE REP. ZUPKUS: -- for corning today.
Next I'd like to call Ted Taylor, please.
TED TAYLOR: Senator Dargan, distinguished members -SB l(J qQ of the committee, my name is Ted Taylor; I'm the President of Sportech Venues, based in New Haven, Connecticut. Sportech Venues is more commonly known to many people as "off-track betting."
My written testimony is before you, so rather than repeat that verbatim, what I'd like to do is just to try and reinforce or expound upon some of the main points. Firstly, when we bought the business, four years ago, we bought that business with a -- a good idea of future competition. That competition included the fair competition that we were going to expect from any new casino venture in Massachusetts.
Since buying the business, we've updated what c was a fairly shabby business that had been underinvested in over a number of years, and we continue to do that. That includes an investment just this year of approximately $10 million to improve venues and open a new one in Stamford.
Many of our existing venues are quite capable - - capable of being expanded or extended to accommodate new gaming. Windsor Locks is one of those venues; it's only 3.4 miles from I-91, less than 5 minutes, 10 miles from the Massachusetts border. Any large, new betting establishments in Connecticut, especially of the quality that we know that the tribes will build -- because what they do is an exceptional job -- will devastate our business. And it will also have a dramatic effect on other c 001298 104 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
leisure and entertain, entertainment businesses in the vicinity. That's obvious, and I think anybody with that knowledge does, whereas extending existing locations, perhaps in some sort of partnership, at least gives me and my employees, of whom there are 400 in the state, a chance to survive and maintain their livelihoods.
And that brings me to what I think is my most important point, that my 400 employees, almost all of whom are residents of Connecticut, are just as important as anybody else's employees. Those jobs are just as important as everybody else within the state. That's all I'd like to say.
Thank you, very much, for your time and consideration.
REP. ZUPKUS: Thank you. Any questions? No?
A VOICE: (Inaudible. )
REP. ZUPKUS: Yes, Representative Rovero.
REP. ROVERO: You know how many local towns are you in?
TED TAYLOR: We've, we -- we are licensed for 18 venues. At the moment, we have 14 venues open.
REP. ROVERO: Well, how many dollars do you contribute to the local towns? You give the local towns a, certain percentage as
TED TAYLOR: Yes. The -- the State takes a tax of 3.5 percent of every dollar, and then that is divided up so that 1.6 percent of every dollar goes back to each, individual town. 001299 105 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c REP. ROVERO: You have any idea how many dollars that is?
TED TAYLOR: Five-and-a-half million dollars last year, something like that, total to the State. So it's 1.6 of about 180 million, so three and a half to the towns.
REP. ROVERO: Because I believe you have a, you have one of your operations in Putnam?
TED TAYLOR: Yes, we do have a -- a busy location up in Putnam.
REP. ROVERO: And they, and they -- they get a percentage of every dollar that's bet?
TED TAYLOR: Yeah. I -- I would imagine that the the leadership in Putnam gets something like 80 or $90,000 per year in -- in the town.
REP. ROVERO: The town gets that?
TED TAYLOR: Yeah, direct to the town, and the State keeps another portion as well.
REP. ROVERO: Oh, okay.
TED TAYLOR: It's one of the ways that the -- the localities benefit from us being there. Sometimes it's been one of the ways that a town has accepted us, for want of a, of a better word.
REP. ROVERO: Okay. And you -- you, you're -- I think you're in a regular restaurant business in the one in Putnam, if I remember right. I'm not much of a gambler.
TED TAYLOR: It's -- it's a partnership. So one of the ways that we've evolved the business from c 001300 106 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
the old OTB, ropy facility is to try and partner with local business people. And the - the venture in Putnam is one that's been successful.
REP. ROVERO: Okay.
TED TAYLOR: So we -- we rent space from a local restauranteur, have converted that space to become an off-track betting location where you can also drink and eat and a little bit like you would at the casino; it's combining leisure with betting.
REP. ROVERO: Okay. Thank you, very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
SENATOR LARSON: Any further questions?
Representative Orange.
REP. ORANGE: Hello; I'm over here.
TED TAYLOR: Sorry.
REP. ORANGE: Good afternoon to you -- thank you Mr. Chairman -- good afternoon to you.
So you are Sportech Incorporated?
TED TAYLOR: Yes.
REP. ORANGE: And you have what kind of a facility?
TED TAYLOR: We have what -- what historically has been called the off-track betting facilities within the state of Connecticut. We do that elsewhere --
REP. ORANGE: So that's 001301 107 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE TED TAYLOR: -- and --
REP. ORANGE: -- basically horses?
TED TAYLOR: Horses, jai alai, and greyhounds, at the moment, yes.
REP. ORANGE: And so you're afraid that in furtherance of gaming, that this will hurt your
TED TAYLOR: Oh, yes.
REP. ORANGE: Facility?
TED TAYLOR: A great example would be within the last two years we've invested $5 million in Bradley, at our venue, which is quite a large venue, to counter the impending threat of what will happen in Massachusetts. We did this before we knew whether it was going to be MGM or Mohegan or anybody else. But opening c another facility, let's say five miles down the road from us, will just extract leisure and entertainment revenues from us to another employer.
REP. ORANGE: So in in another words, you're thinking that gaming is going to be gaming no matter what kind it is or I -- I, don't people like --
TED TAYLOR: It -- it --
REP. ORANGE: Like the horses and that's
TED TAYLOR: Yeah, it's not quite
REP. ORANGE: -- all that -- c 001302 108 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
TED TAYLOR: -- the same.
REP. ORANGE: they'll do?
TED TAYLOR: But it -- it would be a long way from the truth to say that somebody who plays a video lottery terminal or a slot machine also bets on horses. But we're -- we're also now, both, all of us, we're in the. entertainment business. So if I invest in a sports bar and restaurant to provide people with food and drink and entertainment and somebody else does that down the road and they have gaming of different forms, there's going to be a natural progression of revenue and also jobs from one town to another.
REP. ORANGE: Well, thank you for bringing in your point of view.
TED TAYLOR: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Kiner.
REP. KINER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for your testimony.
And just so I, I'm on the -- right page - thank you, Representative -- and that I'm understanding you correctly, so you are opposed to the casinos being broadened if they were away from the Windsor Locks' area. But if they were in your area, you have a building, can your building facilitate what is being talked about here; do you have the room for --
TED TAYLOR: It would depend on which -- which location we were talking about, and different venues have got different facilities in size and the ability to expand -- expand. 001303 109 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE REP. KINER: Have you had any conversations with the Town of Windsor Locks; are they agreeable to
TED TAYLOR: I -- I know that the first selectmen in Windsor Locks would be agreeable, because we've been open there since, I think, 1990, a little bit before my time. And the town is now used to not just the revenue that they derive from the business but they know that we're great tenants; we are very good neighbors. We contribute with parts of the community, and they don't have any problems for anybody within the town, the police, et cetera.
REP. KINER: Okay.
TED TAYLOR: It's an it's a, it's an existing gaming facility.
REP. KINER: I live in Enfield and Bradley is the airport I use, and I, I've never been in your facility or or the new restaurant, but I, c I've driven around there.
TED TAYLOR: Uh-huh.
REP. KINER: Is there room in that, your complex or whatever that area for what, the gaming that they're talking about?
TED TAYLOR: It -- it would have to be extended.
REP. KINER: It would have to be extended, and but there's room to extend?
TED TAYLOR: Yes, there is; yeah.
REP. KINER: There is. c 001304 110 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
TED TAYLOR: And much of that actually depends on the scale of the proposed investment or the number of new gaming machines.
REP. KINER: So if -- if you -- I'm kind of just thinking out loud here -- so if you did get, if the -- the casinos went there, would you partner with them? I haven't heard of any off track betting; I've heard slots and table games. Is that your understanding that the --
TED TAYLOR: We're --
REP. KINER: -- proposed, three --
T.ED TAYLOR: We're not --
REP. KINER: casinos would also have off-track betting in their facilities?
TED TAYLOR: In a new facility of theirs, we don't know. That would really, really kill us.
REP. KINER: Right.
TED TAYLOR: Okay? If -- if we were able to partner, to provide land, buildings, and services, then that would be on a, on almost a landlord's-type basis, because we're obviously not party to any of the compact and the ability to --
REP. KINER: Sure.
TED TAYLOR: -- run slots; that's not what we do. But there is that transfer of what I call the "gaming dollar" that would go from my venues - and I have three within 12 miles of Enfield that would devastate the business. That's, it's quite simple, that argument. 001305 111 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c REP. KINER: Got it; all right. Thank you, very much, for your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
SENATOR LARSON: Any further questions?
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chair.
Although your gaming interest is different than a full-fledged casino, with the understanding that Sportech within Mohegan is underneath NYRA, which you guys have the contract for; Mashantucket Pequots is underneath the Las Vegas Dissemination Company.
TED TAYLOR: Uh-huh.
REP. DARGAN: It's owned by the Gaughan family, out of Vegas, which owns approximately four-to-six casinos and a number of off-track betting c facilities or simulcasting facilities.
So with that said, has there been any conversations between Sportech, knowing that you, as a big English company and one of the biggest gaming interests in the world, have you had any conversations with the two tribes?
TED TAYLOR: We -- we've had conversations, yes, over the last couple of years, more in the last six months. Yes, we do provide what's, I call, technical services for the Mohegan Sun race book, and another company, as you say, LVDC, provide those to Foxwoods. But that's the limit of that technical relationship; we're a vendor for them. And yes, we -- we have talked, but they've been just general conversations about whether or not there would c 001306 112 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
be the opportunity for us to work together so that my business survives.
REP. DARGAN: Right.
Thank you, very much, Mr. Chair.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
TED TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Santiago. I don't see Peggy Sayers.
REP. DARGAN: You got to go back and forth, yeah. Okay.
SENATOR LARSON: Tamaro [sic] Petro. Tamaro Petro?
TAMARA PETRO: Good afternoon.
SENATOR LARSON: Good afternoon.
TAMARA PETRO: My name --
SENATOR LARSON: If you could state your name.
TAMARA PETRO: -- is Tamara Petro --
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
TAMARA PETRO: -- half Irish, half Italian. _S~ \o9o First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm the Director of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, and you probably have heard a lot from our staff in recent weeks, because of all of the bills coming up dealing with gambling. 001307 113 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c One thing is I would like to remind or inform people that our mission at the Connecticut Council is to reduce the prevalence and impact of problem and pathological gambling. We are neutral on the stance of gambling, and actually Donna Zaharevitz, who gave her testimony, also said the same thing.
I'd also like to say that we're an affiliate of a National Council, located in Washington DC, and we do work in partnerships with the community, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services' Problem Gambling Services who provide treatment and recovery services. We also run the state's only 24/7 helpline, which you may have seen advertised. And we educate on the risks and on responsible gambling and refer people to interventions, such as the treatment and recovery services.
To be transparent, we're also members of partnerships with the gaffiQling industry, and we help create essential supports to prevent and c mitigate gambling problems and therefore full blown addiction.
To add to the discussion today, I'm here primarily for two reasons: One, to advocate on behalf of the council but for those with gambling problems, their families, and loved ones who may be affected; and two, to inform you of our expectations if this were to go forward to ensure safeties if the legislation is passed, out of responsibility for the first reason that I gave. So these, what I'd like to propose are for your strong consideration in deciding the bill.
We're very aware of the economic arguments and justifications for the expansion regarding the upcoming casino resort in Springfield. To c 001308 114 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
note, this would also expand the range of communities in Connecticut that would be affected by the expansion now in both states, from both sides. Some studies report that with increased access and also associated with proximity, rates of pathological and problem gambling increase and sometimes double. Now, we're not sure what would happen statistically with the overlap, but that might be an interesting thing.
Sadly, the last economic and social impact study was done in 2008, and it is now slated for 2018. So part of what I would like to put out there is that regardless of the outcome of this bill, and in light of possible other expansions, that the timeline of that legislatively conducted study, that the timeline be moved to occur as soon as possible. It has not happened as ideally it would have to appropriately inform the decision-making process of these issues. But if it could be moved up, the council would love to be involved in planning an implementation of the study, given our scope of work and also our access to researchers in the field.
In that last economics study, it found that an estimated 32,000 to 40,000 adults were probable pathological gamblers in Connecticut, and another 192,000 were at risk for developing possible gambling problems. The effects of problem and pathological gambling range from troubling to devastating, to gamblers, families, and their communities. These have ripple effects and they're well documented. They range from, but not exclusively, a decreased quality of life, troubled or broken relationships, missed days of work, which have an economic impact to employers, financial losses, crime, anxiety, depression, and an 001309 115 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c increased usage of public services for physical and mental health, and suicide, at the extreme end. And you've heard that in one of the testimonies today.
It's very similar to other addictions with the extra.added risk of a quicker, negative financial downslide. Now 7 does everyone who face, who gambles face the consequences? Of course not but for those who develop problems or addictions, these can be quite significant and have ripple effects. So these are the types of considerations that we'd like to bring for --
SENATOR LARSON: If you --
TAMARA PETRO: -- you today.
SENATOR LARSON: -- could sort
TAMARA PETRO: And then -- c SENATOR LARSON: -- of summarize, that would be great.
TAMARA PETRO: Sir?
SENATOR LARSON: If you could summarize.
TAMARA PETRO: Sure. Another thing we'd like to bring to your attention are that slot machines have a significant activity that have inherent qualities in the way they operate that has a specific impact on the brain, and therefore it leads to frequent use and therefore, also, can lead to addiction.
One of the things that I'd like to also add to this is that given the numbers and scope of our prevention, education, treatment, and recovery c 001310 116 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
research work and services between us and the state's Problem Gambling Services, we would require an increase in adequate resources and an adequate percentage of the revenue, if this were to pass, towards our work. And we would also like to request a clear and active role in that consumer protection language for our counsel to help facilitate responsible gambling procedures and policies.
And thank you, Senator Larson, because I heard you earlier say that commitments should be to problem gambling first, at the top of the list, if I heard you correctly.
So thank you, very much.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
Is your organization just Connecticut-based?
TAMARA PETRO: Yes. We're affiliated with the National Council and therefore we do work with other states closely, but we are Connecticut based in terms of the scope of our work.
SENATOR LARSON: Was your organization involved at all in any of the public hearings in Massachusetts?
TAMARA PETRO: Good question. I can turn to my colleagues only because I returned to work after ten years of being away from the council, just last week. I believe we have been involved, but I can get a head nod.
VOICES: (Inaudible.)
TAMARA PETRO: Okay.
SENATOR LARSON: Okay, no. 001311 117 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE TAMARA PETRO: Not directly, but we liaison with them --
SENATOR LARSON: Yeah.
TAMARA PETRO: -- for part
SENATOR LARSON: I'm not trying to put you on the spot.
TAMARA PETRO: -- (inaudible) --
SENATOR LARSON: I just didn't know if you
TAMARA PETRO: That's fine; I wish I could answer.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you. Thank you, very much.
Any further questions?
Thank you for your testimony. c TAMARA PETRO: Okay; thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Jamie, are we at three o'clock for our committee meeting? So --
A VOICE: Votes are closed.
SENATOR LARSON: Votes are closed for that meeting?
VOICES: (Inaudible.)
SENATOR LARSON: Do we need to adjourn the committee meeting?
A VOICE: We can make a motion to join in.
VOICES: (Inaudible.) c 001312 118 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
A VOICE: Recess this and then make a motion, and we'll go back --
SENATOR LARSON: Okay.
A VOICE: -- to this.
SENATOR LARSON: Move to recess this public hearing for -- for a moment.
A VOICE: Second.
SENATOR LARSON: Move is seconded to recess, although I don't think you need a motion to recess. And I would, I would just like to put a motion forward to adjourn our -- our committee meeting of this morning.
A VOICE: So moved.
A VOICE: Second.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
(Recess.)
SENATOR LARSON: Now I would like to reconvene our - - our public hearing on this topic or the topics proposed for the public hearing.
And, with that, I'd like to call on Representative Santiago.
REP. SANTIAGO: Thank you, Chairman Larson and the rest of the members of the committee for this opportunity to speak on S.B. 1090. My name is Representative Ezequiel Santiago.
I'm here in favor of this bill moving forward. This legislation will -- will allow our state's two tribal casinos to compete in a very 001313 119 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c aggressive and growing gaming market. New York's gaming market has successfully siphoned off almost 35 percent of casino, of Connecticut's casino market. This has come about chiefly by expanding their aqueduct in Yonkers pari-mutuel facilities to allow slots.
Once MGM opens up in Massachusetts, Connecticut's gaming market will be further eroded; however, I am very disappointed that Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods' representatives have decided to build three, stand-alone casinos instead of utilizing Connecticut's existing pari-mutuels located at Bradley Teletheater, in Windsor Locks, Sports Haven, in New Haven, and Shoreline Star Greyhound Park, in Bridgeport, which is in the district I represent.
For the past three years, all discussions I have heard include those, including those coming from a legislative study committee, headed by my former Bridgeport colleague, Senator Andres Ayala, recommended that we c determine a way to formulate an agreement with the two tribes to utilizing the existing pari mutuels and their Connecticut operator, Sportech, to fight off the onslaught of competition coming from nearby border states, New York and Massachusetts.
The study also found that the gaming industry was retooling there pari-mutuels throughout the country with great success, because the market showed that people liked convenient gaming instead of long trips to -- to new -- New Jersey, instead of long trips to Connecticut or New Jersey casinos, people would rather travel 20 minutes versus the hours it may take to drive to a traditional casino.
c 001314 120 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
S.B. 1090 reflects none of these trends which are gaming market facts. It also makes the most logical sense to do this for the following reasons: The existing pari-mutuels have been licensed gaming facilities for almost 40 years in this state; they are zoned for gaming; there is plenty of adequate parking; there is room for expansion, if needed; they are operated by Sportech, a Connecticut company whose headquarter is based in New Haven; it would secure the 500 Connecticut jobs already employed by the pari-mutuel industry and would assure many more, if all parties agree on this concept; it will help the urban areas of New Haven, Bridgeport, throughout the, a thorough, increased revenue, jobs, and economic, and - and activity -- I'm sorry -- through increased revenue, jobs, and economic activity; it would pay property tax to all its host communities. The revenues from these facilities could begin generating for -- for the tribes, the State of Connecticut, Sportech, and the host towns within 90 days, with very little capital outlay, plus they could lease the machines for 0 greater operational economic efficiency.
All of the above would create a unique cooperation between all parties, a true win for all, and perhaps a model for future cooperative endeavors. Connecticut's legislative debate of 1991 and 19, and '92, put the -- the Connecticut-owned-and-operated jai alai and dog tracks out of business, because the state's tribes wanted an exclusive on gambling.
The 1995 casino debate was detrimental to Bridgeport because of tribal exclusivity on gaming arrangements. Bridgeport, by the way, has no casino. As we offer a win~wins for tribal gaming, we should include a Connecticut industry that has operated successfully for 40 001315 121 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
years and has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the State coffers throughout the years.
The state's, the state's tribes' plan to build three casinos in unnamed municipalities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars will have significant hurdles to overcome. They will need local zoning, licensing, parking, traffic studies, public hearings, and more, and may result in lawsuits now that they have decided to build off of sovereign land, tribal lands. It will potentially take years to build these facilities, if they are ever actually built at all, plus they will continue to lose all the anticipated yearly revenue until they open; that is, if they are ever opened.
The tribes are basing their future on a maybe proposition. I suggest amending this bill so that it will place the slot machines in existing facilities. This will create win-wins for all parties and encourage future c cooperation ventures down the road that will benefit many of the municipalities across the state.
This just makes sense to me; it really does. It's going to take a long time, you know, for us to get this off the ground if we start, if we start from scratch. We have the facilities in place, the resources that we need; we just have to invest in them a little bit more to make this possible.
Thank you for your time.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
REP. SANTIAGO: You're welcome. c 001316 122 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR LARSON: Next up we would have Dr. Steven Coan.
~SSt09D STEVEN COAN: Thank you, very much, members of the committee. I've submitted -- Steve Coan, President of Mystic Aquarium and also a member of the State Advisory Council on Tourism - I've submitted written testimony, and I'll just try to briefly summarize the -- the key points in that testimony.
The first is that casinos are -- are absolutely critical to driving the needle in terms of bringing tourists to Connecticut. The State has made major investments over the past several years in promoting tourism. We've made good progress. Our casinos are a key part of the attraction and a key part of promoting Connecticut. Tourism and the casinos, themselves, have a multiplier effect, as has been pointed out many times here. They have a positive impact on all sorts of revenue to the State, including rental car revenue, hotel taxes, sales taxes, and of course income tax in the way of jobs created.
The second thing I want to stress -- it's pointed out in my testimony -- is that both of the casinos have been incredibly good neighbors to folks in -- in institutions in Southeastern Connecticut and also throughout the state. I could think of no other business, no other two, no two other businesses in the state that do as much for others in the community as Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun do for the institutions throughout Connecticut, not just in Southeastern Connecticut but throughout the state. They have a great reputation. They've done a great job. They have world-class facilities as been, as has been pointed out many times today, and we can only expect that 001317 123 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c to continue if they operate other facilities in the state.
The debate today, the discussion is really not about the efficacy of casinos. It's not about whether we should have casinos or not. It's not about whether casinos are good or bad. It's about whether Connecticut will remain competitive in this key industry and, in fact, remain competitive in the tourism industry. People come to casinos not just to gamble, as has been pointed out many times today. They come for the nightlife. They come for dining. They come for shows. They come for the experience, entertain, total entertainment experience; that's key to marketing the state. It's just as important as having the wonderful natural resources that we have, as well as our historical sites, our museums, the two aquariums, the zoo, the seaport, and other venues that make us an extraordinary place to visit.
c So I strongly encourage you to support this bill. It will keep us competitive. It will keep our jobs here in Connecticut, and it's a, it's really critically important as we try to build out, as you know we are, Bradley International Airport. And the question is if someone comes into Bradley, lands at night, is looking for a place to go, are they going to drive 30 minutes north to Springfield or are they going to stay in Connecticut and spend their money in Connecticut dining, having some entertainment, staying overnight. That is going to be repeated hundreds of thousands of times every year, with millions and millions of dollars at stake, so I strongly support this bill and I appreciate the good work of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. c 001318 124 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Thank you for the time today.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor.
Are there any questions?
Thank you for your testimony.
Peggy Sayers is next on the list; I don't see Peggy. So I do see Senator Hwang. Would you like to come forward, sir?
A VOICE: (Inaudible.)
SENATOR LARSON: Very good. Yeah; Clyde Barrow is next, and then we'll, we got to go back to Peggy.
SENATOR HWANG: Thank you, Mr. Chair and -- and the esteemed members of the committee. My name is Tony Hwang; I'm a State Senator from the 28th District. But I will give up the remainder of my time to former-Congressman Bob Steele addressing the -- the casino bill, through you.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
SENATOR HWANG: Okay.
SENATOR LARSON: Welcome, Mr. Steele.
ROBERT STEELE: Thank you, very much
SENATOR LARSON: Good to see you.
ROBERT STEELE: -- Mr. Chairman. Nice to see you again.
Chairman Larson and Chairman Dargan and the members of the committee, we appreciate the opportunity to testify on S.B. 1090, a bill to
0 001319 125 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c permit the tribal owners of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun to establish and operate up to three satellite casinos in the state.
According to supporters, the purpose of the proposed, convenience casinos is to shore up Connecticut's casino industry by keeping state gamblers from traveling to casinos in Massachusetts and New York and, as a result, slow the decline in Connecticut casino jobs and in casino revenue coming to the State.
Based on the increasing data on the social, public health, and economic impact of casino gambling, we respectfully believe that the proposal is a bad one for Connecticut. First, it's a bad economic bet. Casino jobs and revenue are falling in states like Connecticut that once enjoyed casino monopolies but now face growing cross-border competition. And the situation is projected to continue to deteriorate as casinos fight over smaller shares of the regional casino pie. Opening c additional casinos in Connecticut would presumably result in a temporary uptick in jobs and revenue, but why Connecticut would want to double down on a rapidly declining state industry is difficult to understand when we have so many other pressing economic needs and opportunities.
Second, while supporters have been quick to cite the positive impact the proposal would have on the jobs and the revenue, in their view, they've said little about the costs. While opening convenience casinos would help encourage Connecticut gamblers to stay in Connecticut to gamble, it would also encourage them to gamble more frequently and attract thousands of additional Connecticut residents to gamble, with a corresponding increase in c 001320 126 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
gambling addiction, debt, bankruptcies, broken families, and crime. Indeed, based on the testimony that we've already heard here this afternoon, it's clear that this proposal would only even begin to work if we created thousands of new gamblers in the state of Connecticut.
Research, it should be noted, shows that living within ten miles of a casino more than doubles the chance of developing a gambling addiction. Moreover, we're learning more and more about the downside of our current casinos. For starters, they've created a pervasive gambling culture in Southeastern Connecticut; they've produced chiefly low-wage jobs, and they were followed by a steep increase in the number of Connecticut residents seeking treatment for gambling addiction.
Despite a sharp drop in crime in Connecticut as a whole over the past two decades, a 2014 study from Western Connecticut State University concludes that the number of violent crimes increased in nearby towns after Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun arrived, while the number of theft crimes or rather the value of those theft crimes in terms of prope·rty stolen actually skyrocketed by nearly 40 percent.
Looking at the impact of casinos nationally, a recent landmark report from the Nonpartisan Institute for American Values, in New York, concludes that they drain wealth from communities, weaken nearby businesses, hurt property values, and reduce civic participation, family stability and other forms of social capital that are at the heart of a successful society.
Finally, there's another important reason to oppose allowing the two tribes to build more 001321 127 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c casinos in Connecticut. Just over a decade ago, a broad-based coalition of towns, businesses, civic organizations, Chambers of Commerce, religious groups, and individual citizens mounted a grassroots effort to stop the opening of more casinos in Connecticut. The coalition persuaded the Legislature at that time to repeal the Las Vegas Nights' Law that had opened the door that, to the state's two Indian casinos. And working through the Legislature and the state's congressional delegation, the coalition succeeded in persuading the federal government that the state's remaining tribes did not qualify for federal recognition and the accompanying right to build casinos.
But more recently the federal government has issued d~aft regulations that would lower federal tribal recognition standards and again raise the possibility of more tribal casinos in Connecticut. As a result, towns from Kent to North Stonington have joined with Governor c Malloy, the Legislature, and the congressional delegation to fight the proposed federal changes in order to keep additional casinos out of Connecticut. To allow the two tribes now to build commercial casinos would not only fly in the face of the state's hard-earned casino victories but would destroy the credibility of Connecticut's fight against the proposed federal regulatory regulation changes.
Thank you, very much, for your time and for your thoughtful consideration.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you. Senator, do you have anything further to add to that or --
SENATOR HWANG: No. We've taken our time and we'd be happy to take any questions. c 001322 128 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
And I thank for the committee's indulgence on the -- the time.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
Representative Ferraro.
REP. FERRARO: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to know if we have a copy of that testimony anywhere. I don't --
SENATOR HWANG: We --
REP. FERRARO: -- have it.
SENATOR HWANG: We had provided it in advance, yes.
REP. FERRARO: Okay. I would be grateful to get one, a copy of that.
Thank you.
SENATOR HWANG: Absolutely.
And -- and what's not reflected in the testimony is a straight-on address of -- of the initial proposal, has it addressed jobs. I think we all misstate our very concern and focus on creating more jobs, but as we have heard in this testimony that this is an effort not only to, not to possibly create more jobs, to retain the jobs that we have. And I think that is a point of -- of contact that we need to address.
I think the other real point is the fact that are as a state looking to engage in gambling as a means of a revenue generation to solve our shrinking pie. I -- I think one of the biggest 001323 129 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c questions that we need to address when we address gambling is the fact that people need to recognize that gambling addiction is a disease. It is a disease that has a symptomatic -- and -- and the physicians' guides have addressed it as an illness -- and for us to increase the opportunity and increase access throughout our communities outside of the tribal land is a serious legislative consideration that we need to address.
And -- and the third point that I want to address in regard to that is the fact that we have not done a serious societal cost study on how gambling has created some tremendous impact on our social and societal costs. We are looking at possibilities of a short-term revenue stream in a declining economy, but we have not truly measured the potential escalating cost of societal impact. We -- we have seen that from testimonies of problem gambling advocates in -- in our state that gambling, gambling is the biggest symptom, the c biggest cause of suicide in our state. We need to address these societal issues before we can look at a short-term financial solution that may be a mirage.
SENATOR LARSON: Senator Guglielmo.
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just a quick question: I know there've been, in the last decade or so there's been a proliferation of casinos across the country. Could -- could you address that a little bit?
SENATOR LARSON: Congressman.
ROBERT STEELE: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that question? c 001324 130 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Yeah, just that there's been a proliferation of new casinos opening up in the last decade, and I just wondered if you had some statistics for us on that.
ROBERT STEELE: Yes, I do, as a matter of fact. I brought with me the new landmark study that I referred to from the Institute for American Values, and I'd be happy to give you a copy of that which -- which provides an in-depth answer to your question.
SENATOR GUGLIELMO: Okay; I'd appreciate that. Thank you.
SENATOR HWANG: And -- and to follow up on that, Senator, I -- I think your point is -- is taken because in listening to the past testimonies, their real concern about potential growth in casinos being built in our bordering states and -- and the concern that if -- if we don't build it, they will; that money will leave our state. But I -- I think people need to understand and take a look that those potential casinos are looking at a declining economic model of a business and that potentially in three to five years those casinos could experience the same downward trends that our casino experiences. And, again, I don't think they also have addressed the societal cost.
One only needs to look at the potential perils of casinos being thought as a panacea, but to only see Atlantic City and the faltering social infrastructure of those municipalities, the possibility of Detroit that allowed casinos to -- to grow and to be built in their communities; it was not a solution. 001325 131 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c I think when we look at a state, a state with a reputation in Connecticut as being an innovative, manufacturing magnate in the past, that we could produce jobs and grow our business economy supporting biosciences, custom manufacturing, and even our arts and culture; those are tangible industries that we have a proven track record in this state of growing value, adding to the quality of life in our communities, and it's sustainable, value-added growth. We are potentially shortsighted in looking at it, the industry that may promise the riches of revenue flow but may potentially be a significant societal cost.
I -- I think when you talk about those states, what happens in those states two or three years later when they have fallen on the downside, like Atlantic City, who picks up the pieces? Are we really in a race to get to the bottom of the barrel or should we not focus our meetings and discussions and building up our growing biosciences, building up our -- our c manufacturing prowess? That is really the engine that we should focus on to grow jobs, to grow construction jobs that people are clamoring for. That is what we should focus on, not gambling as a solution.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
I just have one, sort of, I don't want to debate this with you, but it's clear that between the Connecticut Lottery and the revenue arrived out of 20 years of casino gambling in the state of Connecticut and tourism and jobs, my calculation is there's some almost $800 million and close to 15,000 jobs. How would we replace that? c 001326 132 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR HWANG: I thank you, Senator. I want to wish you a Happy St. Patrick's Day.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
SENATOR HWANG: But no, I -- I think, I think your point is very valid on those jobs. But I think, as Congressman Steele had said and lived in those communities and have seen, that those are jobs that are at a scale that are not truly that -- they're important jobs; they're life sustaining opportunities -- but those are not jobs that we are looking to grow our state, to create a revenue pot, to create an industry. And as we've seen, over a period of time there has been a dramatic decline in those employment opportunities. And -- and truly what we're looking to do right now in adding these casinos is to just maintain.
So I believe and I agree with you that it's been a tremendous jilt in the arm, but I truly believe that in this day and age it's unsustainable. Let us look at biosciences, software technology, really the innovations that really could carry us to the 22nd Century and not be dependent on all the jobs you talked about but really have no high-growth value potential. So it's comparison between apples and oranges, but my hope is that we focus on opportunities and industries that could grow and build rather than be unsustainable because, as you said, the jobs that we're talking about, that you've seen the casinos have built -- and -- and Congressman Steele could offer some of his viewpoints -- those are jobs that from a construction basis they're great being there, but once the construction is done, look at the pool of employment opportunities; they're relatively stagnant. 001327 133 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c And the cost truly, Senator, the cost that has on those communities has never been, has not been measured in over ten years. And I truly believe if you·ask the municipal extensions in that area, the need of societal costs are incredibly high. And Congressman Steele could offer some of the employment, you know.
ROBERT STEELE: Senator, if I just may add, I don't think anybody's talking about abolishing casinos in Connecticut. The issue is whether or not we are now going to plow new resources into increasing them.
And as far as your question, which obviously deserves long, long debate and we'll require it in the future, I would say that the Governor's proposal and the proposal from a number of members of the Legislature simply to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure of the state could provide thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs for years to come. c SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN: Thank you, very much.
I like that last remark, Congressman Steele, about our infrastructure, but when it comes to the point of actually funding it, we never actually fund it because there's only two ways to do it, increase revenue or increase taxes.
So let's get on to the issue of gaming in our state. And whether you're for it or against it, I don't think it's a fair assessment for DECD or a state agency to actually do a growth assessment on every particular business within our state. c 001328 134 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Two years ago, we had this same debate when we had the gun issue. And some of the people that are having this debate and discussing it were concerned about putting more restrictions on gun owners and manufacturers in the state that were going to lose jobs, and some of the manufacturers were going to leave. Now, my point of view is I don't real~y care what type of business that it is, as long as it meets the standards of the State of Connecticut and it's viable and produces jobs and revenue and taxes to the state, we on this Legislature should at least look at that. Whether you like whatever the dynamics of that business model is or what type of business that it is, we as a Legislature should not make that decision; gaming, no; more gun manufacturing, yes; less lottery, more investment to the top five.
So we could agree, as Senator Larson said. We could probably be here all day having that discussion. But it's fair to say in the years that the two tribes have been not only sovereign nations and been good corporate citizens to the State of Connecticut, that's a fair statement.
And they've been -- just hold on, then you guys could speak -- with -- with the, with the two tribes this year giving about 300 million, with the lottery giving 300 million, and off-track betting giving a little less than 10 million, where do we come up with 610 million? So that's my question to you, because we have gaming in-state; it's not going to go away. We could agree on that. If we didn't have any gaming at all, then I would be into, be, I could understand the philosophical debate on gaming. 001329 135 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c But when the Georgia Lottery started, it started for education. The 169 communities that all of us represent receive funding from that Mashantucket Pequot (inaudible) to help offset our local selectmen, mayor, town manager, form of government, and that has to decreased. I know the bigger communities have received a lot of monies, but my committee, community, a midsize community, received over a million dollars. That was, that's a lot of revenue, especially when the feds are cutting back. The State is cutting back. So I'm not going to stay here, be here, and beat up on what I think has been some of the best corporate citizens, not just in gaming, but they offer not just for Southeastern Connecticut but for the whole state of Connecticut.
I learned last week the grammar school I went to, St. Lawrence School, received a grant that -- and I had, for full disclosure, never even knew about this -- that Mohegan Tribe puts out c a grant application, and the schools apply. And if they're, if they win, they receive a grant. They learn about Native American, about Mohegan, and they go visit. Mashantucket Pequot has a fine museum up there, that I've been to, that really teaches about the cultural, about their tribes, not just in Southeastern Connecticut but for the whole state. So they been, they been pretty good corporate neighbors for 20 years. They submitted more monies then UTC, that last year that we gave millions of dollars -- no disrespect to my good Senator from East Hartford -- to keep them here in the state. So I'm not going to bang two sovereign nations that I think have been strong neighbors to the State. c 001330 136 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
And I respect your opinion about the problems of gaming. And, listen, if they build up the casino in West Springfield, we're going to have people in this corridor going up there, and maybe we won't even know about those issues, about problem gambling; because, you know, sometimes it's about convenience where you gamble. So if there's a four-hour debate and Representative Orange is talking to me and Senator Larson, Senator Coleman could run up to Springfield, play those Blts very quickly and get back before that debate is over.
So with that said, I appreciate your point of view and I appreciate you being here.
SENATOR HWANG: And -- and, Mr. Chairman, as you know, I always appreciate your point of view and -- and thank you. And having served as a committee member, I appreciate your fair handedness.
Let me address your first point. I -- I think what you hear from both of us is an 0 understanding that our two tribes have been an integral part of our state's economy and our .communities. I think the point that we're, I'm addressing is the fact that we are now looking to move it out of tribal land. And I think you reflect, actually, a sentiment of -- of the general public. The Q-Poll actually provided some results in which a great majority of the people said that they were okay with the current gaming structure, and I'd be happy to provide that poll number for you. But when they were asked as a whole state of whether they were comfortable with expansion of new casinos outside of tribal land or expanding casino gambling outside, new gambling, it was a four-to-one ratio that said no more. So I think that's one of the things you want to 001331 137 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c consider is if were truly representing the will of the people, let us look at different ways and let us look at ways how we can support those two casinos that are struggling and competing, but let's keep it on the tribal land. Let's not encroach it and bring it to our neighborhoods.
And -- and I say that with all due respect that this is a very important conversation. I wish that we were in an economy and a tax revenue base that was growing and we had choices to make, but I do believe before we proceed with any expansion of gambling, that this state, along hopefully with the partners and gambling, undertake a significant study in our state about the economic as well as societal cost. We have not had one in over ten years. How can we in good conscience expand the parameter of gambling in our states, bringing expansion of gambling to people's communities without a full understanding of the cost to those municipalities and the people residing in there?
So I -- I would beg the indulgence of this committee that maybe we're moving a little bit too quick; maybe we should undertake a study to find out what the impact of those communities will be. We may be in a -- in a trade-off ratio where we make X mount and potentially lose X amount, but its potential cost of social services that need to undertake. Gambling is an illness; gambling addiction, rather, is an illness. We need to recognize that and respect that.
SENATOR LARSON: Congressman Steele.
ROBERT STEELE: Well, I, I'd just like to say that with all the new information we now have on the c 001332 138 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
social and economic and public health costs of casino gambling, and with the industry in decline here in Connecticut, the benefits based on the data no longer justify the cost.
But thank you very much for your --
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
ROBERT STEELE: -- points.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
Next up we have a Dr. Clyde Barrow. Dr. Barrow? Doctor, thank you very much. I've I've had the privilege of looking through your testimony, and I'm just wondering if you might try to hit some of the brights, bright spots on this. I mean, I see you've sat here and listened to some of the concerns, and I don't want to, I don't want to lead you through your testimony; I just try to guide this along.
Thank you. 0 se, lo9o CLYDE W. BARROW: Is that on now? There we go. Dr. Clyde W. Barrow; I'm currently a Professor of Public Policy and Chai~ of the Department of Political Science at the University of Texas - Rio Grande. I previously directed the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass Dartmouth for about 22 years, until just this last summer. I've been studying the gaming industry now for over -- over 20 years, and I was asked by Mashantucket Pequot Enterprises and the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority to prepare an analysis and an estimate of potential impact of the new casinos that will be opening in New York and Massachusetts. 001333 139 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c And I would add that all of these casinos are presently slated to open sometime in 2017, not to break ground in 2017, but to actually be open and operating in 2017. ·And my analysis is -- is based on that assumption.
I want to thank you for having me here today. I just basically want to review a lot of numbers, and I -- I did submit written testimony as well as a copy of our New England Casino Gaming Update, which actually focuses on Connecticut this year. So I'll just try to hit some of the more salient points, rather than reading that entire testimony. But I do want to start looking at -- at what has happened over the last eight years, because I think it provides some guidance as to what is about to happen in Connecticut over the next five years.
Just to start with, total -- total gross revenue including gaming and non-gaming revenues for the two casinos in Connecticut has declined by 39 percent or by $1.2 billion in c the last eight years. That's a decline from a peak of 3.2 billion in 2006, to 1.9 billion in 2014. The decline has resulted in a significant workforce reduction at both casinos. As was pointed out earlier, our estimate is that Foxwoods Resort employed about 12,800 people at its 2000 peak but currently employs seven hundred, 7,558 or a decline of nearly 41 percent in its workforce. Mohegan Sun at its peak in 2006 employed about 10,500 people; it is now at 7,205, a decline of about 31 percent. That's a combined loss of 8,537 Connecticut jobs since 2006; although, in fact, many of those jobs have actually been transferred to new gambling revenues in New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and even Maine.
c 001334 140 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
That process is about to be -- be repeated over again over the next five years, and I would add at the same level of magnitude with the potential additional loss of more than 9,300 jobs and $354 million in wages statewide, if nothing is done to stem the flow of gaming revenues and jobs, in particular, the four n~w, gaming resorts that will open in Massachusetts and New York, beginning in 2017.
I would add that that 9,300 j.ob estimate is very conservative; we haven't yet completed that part of the study. There are more jobs that we need to look at, such as lessees at the facilities whose jobs are reported independently, contract employees and -- and general impact on the tourist industry, so 9,300 is a very conservative estimate.
Now, what's just happened? What I will just say is that you've heard a lot of talk about the Empire City Raceway in -- in Yonkers, the Resorts World, in Queens, New York, Twin River, in Lincoln, Rhode Island. Much of the impact 0 that I just documented has occurred as a result of new competition from what are essentially slot parlors.
However, in contrast to what's about to happen, I would point out that what is being talked about in New York and Massachusetts are at least four, new, resort destination casinos. Those facilities will have a combined 9,300 slot machines, 377 table games, over 1,400 hotel rooms, spas, retail shopping, gourmet dining outlets, an indoor water park, golf courses, and live entertainment venues. Every one of the four, planned, new casinos will be a direct competitor with Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort, which both draw a significant number of their customers from Massachusetts, New York, 001335 141 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c Rhode Island, Northern New Jersey, and Northern New England, and they will be in a very fierce competition to retain these customers.
Now, once these new resorts open in Massachusetts and New York, our revenue displacement analysis indicates several things, and I'll just summarize the number. Our number between the two casinos is estimated that they will suffer another further revenue reduction of about $702 million; that's, well, that will be about 570 million in lost gaming revenues, 132 million in non-gaming revenue, including lost food and beverage sales, lost hotel revenue, lost retail entertainment, and other revenues.
Those figures indicate that the opening of resort casinos in Massachusetts and New York is about to catalyze one of the largest interstate transfers of gaming revenue in recent U.S. history, second only to the transfer that occurred from New Jersey's casinos to c Pennsylvania's casinos, from 2006, to two thousand --
SENATOR LARSON: Could you --
CLYDE W. BARROW: -- and fourteen.
SENATOR LARSON: -- repeat that?
CLYDE W. BARROW: That this is about to be the largest interstate transfer of gaming revenue in recent U.S. history, second only to the transfer that occurred from New Jersey's casinos to Pennsylvania's casinos, from 2006 to 2014.
I would add, further, that our model indicates that about $253 million or 36 percent of the c 001336 142 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
revenue displaced from Connecticut's two casinos to the four new ones in Massachusetts and New York will be spent by Connecticut residents living in Northern and Western parts of the state who will likely find MGM Springfield to be a comparable but more convenient gaming facility. That revenue, at least, is certainly up for grabs, depending on Connecticut's response or lack of response to Massachusetts.
And when you actually model this out -- and we will be, trying to give you some visual representations when we release our final report -- it is actually closer to, Waterbury is closer to Springfield than it is to Foxwoods. And when you start moving out further, MGM Springfield, in particular, has very deep penetration into the Connecticut market, particularly because of its ability to attract people from the Western part of the state, which I'm sure everyone here knows is the most populous part of the state.
Now, aside from -- from the revenue loss to the two casinos, there are two additional impacts that one needs to examine. It means that Connecticut as the State of Connecticut will lose nearly $100 million annually in revenue sharing payments from the two casinos, by 2019. They'll also generate a total job loss, as I mentioned, of at least 9,300 jobs, but I think it's important to understand the particularities of that job loss.
First, about 5,800 of that job loss will be direct job losses by employees at the two casinos; however, there will be further ripple effects, as we've talked about multipliers in the parlance, because as those, the former casino employees lose their jobs and lose that 001337 143 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c purchasing power, that lost purchasing power will generate about another fifth, sixth, nearly $1,600 -- excuse me -- another 1,600 additional lost jobs in other sectors of the economy.
And this, I would add, ripples not only geographically throughout the entire state, it ripples, it ripples throughout every sector of the economy, because you think of where do individual consumers spend their money. They spent it on cars, on gasoline, on houses, on education, on healthcare, on clothing; it's - it's a very wide ripple effect.
And in my testimony I've tried to at least give you a sense of -- of this by mapping the actual distribution of employees at Mohegan Sun, to give you a sense of just how widely this ripples across the entire state. The same applies when we talked about local non-payroll purchases. As was pointed out, the, each of the two casinos does business with about 600 c vendors located in the state of Connecticut. Our -- our model indicates that they will be making about $336 million less in purchases from those vendors going forward, should this revenue displacement take place.
I've just, I've also mapped out the Mohegan Sun vendors to show you just how widely dispersed that is across the state. Those reduced purchases will generate another loss of 1,890 jobs is what our model indicates at the present time. But as I have also mentioned, one of the things we haven't yet accounted for is the fact that there are many employers who lease space at the two casinos whose employment is not reported as part of Mohegan Sun's or Foxwoods' employees, because they're employed by those companies. The same is true of contractors, c 001338 144 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
and the same is true of -- of tourist facilities, such as the Mystic Aquarium that - that testified earlier.
In conclusion I'll simply say that it is possible to mitigate or offset this revenue transfer. There're examples of states that have successfully done this, Delaware and Rhode Island probably being two of the best examples, and to a lesser degree, West Virginia, who are also part of this 13-state competition that's going on in the Northeast today.
However, the time for response is very short, as has been pointed out before. The sooner Connecticut responds to the threat at its border, the more it may be possible not just to mitigate potential losses but to actually restructure and downsize the plans of its new competitors who will now have to take into account Connecticut's response by preempting them.
Thank you for your attention. I'll gladly 0 answer any questions.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
Any questions?
Representative Dargan.
REP. DARGAN: Thank you, Dr. Barrow, for being here. Over the years, I've read a number of your - your overviews on gaming, and I know some of those states that you mentioned, Delaware, Virginia, the more -- I'm over here; I'm in front of you, Doc --
CLYDE W. BARROW: I was looking over here. 001339 145 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c REP. DARGAN: -- are more racinos that are at actually horse tracks.
And I guess my question is that people always want to know when you reach or when you might reach the saturation point of gaming dollars. We know that when Foxwoods first opened in '92, there wasn't much competition in the greater New England area. We also know that years before that, only two states, Nevada and New Jersey, really had gaming. Now if you look at it, the growth potential in the number of states that are looking for additional revenue dollars have expanded some form of gaming. So maybe in your years dealing with gaming and non-gaming revenue, if you might be able, give an overview of when the gaming dollars for the saturation point might come to fruition.
CLYDE W. BARROW: I'll do my best. That's a -- a question a lot of people have been talking about all over the United States at this point. And I'll say, first off, as a concept, what was c pointed out is that the concept of saturation in economic terms really means that there's an equilibrium between supply and demand. It doesn't mean that there's too much of it; it means that there's an equilibrium. Is there too much of it in the Northeast? Our data shows that --
REP. DARGAN: Doc, that's very good, because my equilibrium has never been even.
CLYDE W. BARROW: Yeah.
REP. DARGAN: So that's -- that's a good point that you made.
CLYDE W. BARROW: Well, alas here we are. c 001340 146 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Our data shows -- and we collect data on every gaming venue in the 13 states of the Northeast, which we define as Maryland to Ohio to Maine - that data indicates that the gaming industry in the Northeast has actually expanded from 12.2 billion in 2009, the trough of the recession, to 14.7 billion, as of December 2014. That's a growth of about $2.5 billion over the period of the current economic recovery; that's an increase of nearly 21 percent in the size of the gaming market. So the reality is the gaming market in the Northeast has continued to increase with the addition of more supply.
Now, as I also point out in the report that I submitted as part of my testimony, much of that growth has come at the expense of states such as New Jersey and Connecticut, but within that context there are other legacy states, as I call them, such as Rhode Island, which has seen its gaming revenues nearly double since 2006. Places like Delaware and West Virginia have at least been able to more or less keep a large percentage of the market. How have they done that? They've expanded their facilities. They've improved their facilities. All of them have now added table games. But all of that has been as a direct effort to try to countermand the efforts of places like New Jersey and Connecticut. Every one of these gaming expansion policies in these states has been aimed at capturing a larger and larger share of the market from the two destination states which historically have been New Jersey and Connecticut, although New York and Massachusetts are now moving into that market.
So is the market saturated? Well, right now the data indicates no it's not. When do we reach that point? We won't know till we get there, and the measure in my mind will be when 001341 147 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M: SECURITY COMMITTEE c you add supply and you get no net increase in additional revenue. And that would pretty much be the measure in any industry.
VOICES: (Inaudible.)
REP. VERRENGIA: Just a follow up, through you, Mr. Chair, the follow-up question I had asked earlier. In your analysis and in your business model here, it -- it didn't take into consideration a particular branding of a hotel, of a casino in Massachusetts, it just took into consideration its, the expansion of gambling to the west of us. Is that correct?
CLYDE W. BARROW: Well --
REP. VERRENGIA: You didn't look at a particular brand.
CLYDE W. BARROW: Yeah, let me, I didn't spend a lot of time here because of the -- the shortness of time that we have explaining the methodology c behind this. What our model looks at and tries in the, in terms of the metrics is first of all we look at the demographics of the market; the adult population over 21; the disposable personal income; the propensity to gamble, which is the number of people who will visit a casino in a year; their average spin; what percentage of their disposable income are they likely to spend on casino gaming. We have data from all over the country on those things. And then we will essentially put that in, you know, do all the equations and try to get an estimate .
.In addition to that, what we look at is what we call the "gravity" of different facilities, and the gravity partly depends on the size. It's the number of slot machines; the number of c 001342 148 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
table games; the number of hotel rooms; do they have additional amenities, such as dining outlets, water parks, live entertainment venues, and so forth, to give a competitive profile.
There is beyond that a certain subjective element in the sense that we're obviously going to give more weight or gravity to an MGM or a Wynn facility than to one that's operated by Rush Street Gaming, which is operating one of those in -- in Upstate New York, a good company that -- that has a good brand that, but one that people aren't going to recognize as much and that doesn't also have the player rewards network that somebody like an MGM will have, where it can seminally attract players.
In the case of Wynn, I might add that we also did look at their own estimates of their market and where they were competing. That was submitted to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and the New York State Gaming Commission, but we did have some insight into what they thought their market was. Wynn is a little less competitive than we thought, primarily because they're looking to bring in international visitors from Asia more so than to compete in the local market, though they'll certainly compete in it. So, yes, we do take brand into account, but we've, the model is, is basically weighted primarily toward the actual, quantifiable data.
REP. VERRENGIA: So in taking the brand into consideration, in your opinion, would you say had one of the tribes here in Connecticut prevailed in the State of Mass., that the numbers we're looking at today would be similar had they prevailed? 001343 149 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c CLYDE W. BARROW: They would possibly look similar because it is a name brand in the context of New England, but I will say that a lot of the discussion in Massachusetts among Legislators and -- and even the media, there was a concern about granting a license to either of the two tribes in that state out of fear that they would use that opportunity to really bolster and protect their home facilities in Connecticut rather than maximize revenues in the State of Massachusetts, so that was a discussion. Whether it played a factor in the final decision, I can't say, but it was certainly a consideration.
REP. VERRENGIA: And through you, Mr. Chairman, the last question: Had they prevailed, based on your model would you think it would be feasible for them to be building additional or expanding casino gambling, particularly in the area where we're looking at? c CLYDE W. BARROW: Right now? REP. VERRENGIA: Right; right now.
CLYDE W. BARROW: There wouldn't be the incentive to do it, I don't think, because they would have captured and retained that market anyway, with -- with the new facilities, either in Western or Southeastern Massachusetts. So those new facilities would have served the same purpose.
REP. VERRENGIA: Just the shift, the -- the, Connecticut wouldn't have seen the benefit?
CLYDE W. BARROW: Well not --
REP. VERRENGIA: The financial
CLYDE W. BARROW: just the shift. c 001344 150 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
REP. VERRENGIA: -- benefit.
CLYDE W. BARROW: Not just the shift but you would, there would certainly be some increase in growth in the size of the market, and even Massachusetts and -- and New York both anticipate that while they expected to capture a large amount of -- of traffic that was going to Connecticut, they're also anticipating that there will be some new growth in the market as a result of increased convenience and proximity.
REP. VERRENGIA: Okay; thank you for that. Thank you, sir.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much. I have a few questions. Are there any further? Just I had mentioned to both of the Chairmen that they may want to stay, not indicating that they had to, but
VOICES: (Inaudible.)
SENATOR LARSON: If you need to go you got to go.
Well, thank you for your testimony, Mr. Barrow.
I have a couple of questions. And, you know, we've heard from a -- a broad range of folks today, so I'd like to sort of get your stroke on some of their issues, if it's at all germane. But first of all, you know, the notion, critics will say that both gaming institutions have -- have had you do this work, so how valid is it that? You know, is there, is there a test; should I take this someplace and check these figures or thereabouts? 001345 151 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c CLYDE W. BARROW: Well, first let me say that - that my -- my working relationship with -- with the two tribes has been at arm's length. Yes, I was commissioned to produce this study. I was asked to look at the potential impact, partly because they were looking for an outside, an outside, independent opinion as to whether their own internal estimates were in anyway accurate. I don't know what their internal estimates are because they were never shared with me; I was never told to produce a particular result, and -- and that would not be the way that -- that we work anyway.
Now, as to the data, itself, when we release the full report, which will probably be within the, sometime within the next week, all the source of the data are documented. Most of the sources of the data are public, independently verifiable. The model that we use is -- is a gravity model that is of the type that is used by the gaming industry analysts all over the United States. So I think, yes, this is c accurate, and I think if anyone else did the same analysis they would come to a similar result.
SENATOR LARSON: We heard testimony from area entertainment facilities that if, in fact, this proposal was to go through in any given area this would detract from ongoing concerns in Connecticut. Any comment on that?
CLYDE W. BARROW: If I understand your question correctly, I know there was something about why aren't, why isn't the state concerned with other types of industries, and -- and that's frequently an argument that's made all over the United States with respect to gaming. But the reality is there's no reason you can't do both or all of those things. c 001346 152 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
You know, building these facilities doesn't stop the State of Connecticut from entering the bioscience industry, although I'd say if you're getting into it now, you're getting into it pretty late. It doesn't stop you from supporting your manufacturing facilities and attempting to grow those industries. In fact, of the ten so-called high-tech states in the United States, nine of them have gaming. Most states managed to pursue economic development strategies that incorporate a multiplicity of industries across different sectors of the economy.
I would say this: What is unique, however, about the gaming industry, with respect to the types of jobs that it produces, I know there are some people, you know, who will sort of suggest that these are low-wage jobs. I think, first of all, that's not accurate when you look at these. This is one of the only areas of the service sector that offer full-time employment with -- with good wages and benefits as well. I would also point out that in most casinos about 70 percent of the employees at least have a high school diploma. This is one of the - the few, large-scale, service-sector industries in the United States today where you can get a good job, build a career, earn a wage, and have benefits with a high school diploma.
I know it's certainly, you know, more glamorous to focus on high-tech industries that provide a few jobs to people with college degrees, but the fact remains two-thirds of our population still do not have college degrees. And I think this is an employment opportunity that targets that -- that sector. 001347 153 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c SENATOR LARSON: With regards to the problem gambling initiatives that Connecticut is putting forward, with respect to, I believe, Representative Hwang was talking about some sort of a metric or study and based on our, I don't, I don't know how relevant or how large the problem gambling is to a person or to effect, but would you say that we're -- we're at least fairly trying to address that problem or where are we in that sort of --
CLYDE W. BARROW: And I'll say two or three things to it. But first, yeah, I think Connecticut probably does more in that area than most states of the United States doing, there can never be anything wrong with doing more, but I think Connecticut is certainly trying to address the problem. Will the problem get worse as a consequence of these facilities? I don't think so. I mean, anyone who potentially has a, a gambling problem in New England already has is or has had it simply because of its availability and in multiple forms, though c as was pointed out, the chief form, source of problem gambling in the United States today is the scratch tickets.
With respect to doing a study -- something I've heard two or three times before -- I've been a little bit perplexed by that testimony, because if I recall, the Division of Special Revenue actually did commission such a study, within the last few years. I forget exactly which, but it was very recent. That was done by Spectrum Gaming Group after a competitive bid, so that study is out there; it's at the Division of Special Revenue.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you. c 001348 154 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
I' m -- I'm deeply concerned about the shock value of losing close to $100 million in revenue in the next few years. And, you know, I've been on a little bit of a personal toot with regards to the State of Massachusetts. I am, my full-time job, I'm the Executive Director of the Tweed New Haven Airport Authority. It irritates me a little bit that the FAA and the tourism industry has indicated that when you buy an airline ticket in Connecticut, we advertise Hartford and Springfield, and we should be advertising Hartford and New Haven, but that's for another day. My point is -- is I don't believe that the State of Massachusetts is contributing any revenue to the operations of Bradley International Airport but for passenger, you know, it being a, the closest avenue for that. I'm concerned about that.
I'm concerned about the fact that monies to a large industry like travel, people flying into Bradley International to go to an out-of-state casino only put more of a burden on our -- our systems where people are coming into Connecticut and then easily traveling over to a a surrounding state, taking revenue with it.
Do you contemplate any of that loss revenue in any of your lost jobs or any -- any of your studies?
CLYDE W. BARROW: No.
SENATOR LARSON: Okay.
CLYDE W. BARROW: That's a, it's a good point; that's one I hadn't thought of. But yeah, if MGM is bringing people in on junkets or if there's a free fly-in there to visit the 001349 155 March 17, 2015 .mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c casino, they will be landing at Bradley and not at Logan.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much for your testimony.
Any further questions?
Representative Adams.
REP. ADAMS: Yes, more of a comment, I mean, I guess -- I guess to you. So basically, what I look, what I see the problem is that either we sit by and let Massachusetts take away our resident who visit the casinos or -- or do we let the tribe compete against Massachusetts, Jersey City, Pennsylvania, New York, for the resident that do visit casino.
So basically what I'm saying is either we sit by and let Massachusetts, Pennsylvania take away the revenues from our State or do we let our tribe combine their ability to compete c against the interest of -- of our resident who decided to go and visit casino. So basically if -- if they come in line and -- and able to agree to get this casino up and going, all they, all they would be competing -- competing against, Massachusetts and the, and the lower states from taking our resident from the, from Connecticut for people that visit the casinos.
CLYDE W. BARROW: That's, that's the question.
REP. ADAMS: That's the base we
CLYDE W. BARROW: And that's that's what it comes down to, and what we're really talking, that's what it comes down to. And we're talking about a fundamentally different model gaming policy, c 001350 156 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
at this point, that I've referred to as "competitive growth."
I think what is being talked about now is how do you best compete in this new market structure that has effectively been defined by what other states have done and are you going to play in that new structure or simply be a passive recipient of -- of the consequences.
REP. ADAMS: And, you know, I guess, you know, a follow-up is the way I look at it, either way the State win -- wins. It's a win-win for the State of Connecticut because if the tribe or industry would be paying revenue to the State of Connecticut at their new site and -- and also not losing as many job that they -- they anticipate but because of Massachusetts and and Pennsylvania states taking away some of our job. So I, it look like a win-win to me.
CLYDE W. BARROW: I think it's also important to emphasize that this is, what's being proposed is a commercial gaming operation. It is not on sovereign tribal land; it is not what out in the West or Midwest are discussed as, quote, off-reservation casinos. This is a commercial facility and if you sort of wanted an example of how that operates, Mohegan Sun operates Pocono Downs in Pennsylvania as a commercial facility. It's not a tribal facility, as you understand that in Connecticut, subject to the same taxes, same regulation, including, by the way, local property taxes.
SENATOR LARSON: Right and save the gambling perspective of this. If an entertainment venue came to the State of Connecticut and said they were going to provide somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,500 to 2,000 jobs and pay local property taxes, firsthand, I was the 001351 157 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c Mayor of the Town of East Hartford and I put together the -- the tax agreement for Cabela•s. And we fought to get ING to come to Rentschler Field, and they ended up in Windsor. So we fight like dogs for each other•s property and we shift property tax equivalents around the state; suffice it.to say I don•t know of a-- a city that wouldn't be looking to increase their grand list, alone, on that, on that proposition.
CLYDE W. BARROW: I think if you substituted any industry name for the, for 11 Casino, 11 you would be hard pressed to say it•s only 10,000 jobs.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your testimony; appreciate it.
CLYDE W. BARROW: You•re welcome.
SENATOR LARSON: I was looking for Peggy Sayers to round out The Legislators• list, but not seeing c her, a Steven White. STEVEN WHITE: Senator Larson, members of the committee, thank you, very much. It's been a long aft~rnoon and I very much enjoy listening to the points of view and debate.
I'm, I am Stephen White, CEO and President of Mystic Seaport, the Museum of America and the Sea. Since 1929, Mystic Seaport has been attracting tourists to the state of Connecticut and leading the way in cultural destinations. In the seventies and eighties, a great deal of competition grew up around the state, and the state of Connecticut began to really succeed as a destination state. But I can say that we, like the casinos, have experienced our fair share of competition around New England as other cultural destinations have cropped up and c 001352 158 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
-- and deluded tourism, so we face the same challenge.
And I think I might surprise you by saying that the casinos and Mystic Seaport share a lot in common. You might not consider as you put in your mind's eye what Mystic Seaport is, but we are both high-quality institutions. We both exist in Southeastern Connecticut. We are both synonymous with the name Connecticut and Mystic. We're threatened by competition in the region. We are both very good for Connecticut. And as I've listened to the testimony today, to me this debate is what is good for Connecticut.
I am not here to comment on whether gaming is good or bad, but I run a nonprofit institution, a $14 million budget. We rely on contributions for 50 percent of that budget, and I'm worried about our institution remaining strong for another 85 years. And I can say that the casinos have been remarkably good partners in Southeastern Connecticut, because we are both invested in -- in the success of the region and of Connecticut, so I support this.
And I suspect some of our members in Mystic Seaport might wonder why does Mystic Seaport support this bill. It's because I believe we must do this from what we just heard from from this professor, that we have to take action before it's too late and before we risk what has been at the heart of our -- our state's success, and that is innovation. So I don't believe it's either/ or; it's not either innovation or gaming or tourism or history. I believe in history but I also have to run a business, and -- and so I think we need both. We have to figure out a way to work together, just as we see and saw the two Chairmen sit here together today willing to put their Red 001353 159 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c Sox hat on and Yankee's hat; whoever did that analogy, I think it was, it was apropos. And if Steve Cohen from the aquarium was sitting here next to me, Steve White of the Seaport, we all have to collaborate, and we have to figure out ways in which to make Connecticut rise up above the competition that surrounds us.
Rhode Island is doing a great job. I used to live in Massachusetts before coming to Mystic Seaport, and my friends in -- in Worcester County went two places if they went south; they went to Cape Cod or they went to Mystic Country. And why did they go to Mystic Country? Because there was so much to do; the sea, the woods, the casinos, the museums, Southeastern Connecticut it is a jewel. And I really believe that the, that -- that the casinos are offering their own investment in the future of our state; they aren't asking for a handout. They're asking for the ability to make an investment to strengthen our state. c So I support this bill and I encourage and urge you to do so as well.
Thank you for your time.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you; any further questions? Thank you for your testimony.
STEVEN WHITE: You're welcome.
SENATOR LARSON: Joan Masot; Joan? And then Carrie Hoehne will be after her.
JOANIE MASOT: I won't touch (inaudible); good afternoon.
My name is Joanie Masot. I'm here to share my concerns about the Raised Bill 1090. I sit c 001354 160 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
here before you today as a recovering recovering problem gambler. Over ten years ago I made horrible choices and decisions with my gambling that led my son, who was nine years old at the time -- and today he's twenty -- and my family and myself down a path of distraction.
In short, my problem gambling addiction led me to prison, losing my home, my 16-year marriage, and almost losing my son, saying -- saying nothing of the shame and guilt that I lived with and still sometimes today do.
I was a casino gambler who began the journey with playing Bingo innocently, and before long, I was not able to leave the casinos after sitting there for days. Although I, if I wasn't able to get to the casinos, I found my high in many other ways, whether it be the OTBs or the scratch tickets. I didn't just only gamble when I was at the casino.
But when I was at the casino, it didn't matter if I was winning, losing, I left without a dollar in my pocket or to my name. Once I came to the reality that I have a huge gambling problem and knew there was no other choice, just to turn around my, and be the mom my son needed or he would be attending my funeral. I reached out for help in programs and support in our state, and I was able to begin treatment and therapy, which I did for many years.
I ask you please to factor in while considering this bill to have funds set aside from the beginning for advocacy, treatment, peer support in our state. This is a must for problem gambling people in Connecticut; it's such a hidden addiction. Without the advocacy, peer support, and treatments, we're only setting our 001355 161 March 17, 2015 rnhr/rncr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c up for more successful suicides in our state, more embezzlement, crime, and many more hopeless citizens.
I am proud to tell you today, as I sit here in front of you, that my recovery is strong because of the -- the peer support and advocacy that is out there. Without this, I would not be able to sit here today because I would not be alive.
Today I am a law-abiding citizen, a registered voter, and the morn that I'm supposed to be to my son. I have my family back in my life, and I have a new husband today who's very supportive. I am also ve.ry blessed and fortunate to be an employee of Advocacy Unlimited, which is where I, through Recovery University, I'm a state-certified, Recovery Support Specialist.
JOANIE MASOT: And if I may just add that with the c casinos, if -- is it my time? A VOICE: Keep going.
JOANIE MASOT: I was just referring to what Dr. Barrow -- Barrow said, that the problem gamblers are already out there, which would be myself. But if my recovery didn't, if I don't work it and those casinos are brought into the state -- which this is my doing, my choices that'd be a huge trigger for me because I'd be curious to -- to see what they look inside. And I know the consequences if I did that today.
But I don't think it matters if you're a problem gambler ten years ago, ten days ago or ten minutes ago, it's -- it's going to be , c 001356 162 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
it's going to get worse. And that -- that's just my opinion, but --
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you --
JOANIE MASOT: -- thank you for
SENATOR LARSON: -- very much, for
JOANIE MASOT: -- allowing me --
SENATOR LARSON: -- for your testimony. I, again, I applaud you, for this is very difficult to come down to this building and -- and testify. It's, can be very,. very intimidating, but I'm very proud of you for coming forward. It's important for us as we make these kinds of decisions to listen to folks just like you.
And I've said this before; I said, regardless what the addiction is, I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure that that's in the forefront of some of these decisions that we're making. And I, and I speak for all of the Legislators, but we're all mindful of that. You know, that's not just saying we're going to throw some money at it, you know, because we understand. We understand your -- your issue.
So thank you for coming.
Any questions?
JOANIE MASOT: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Giegler.
REP. GIEGLER: Hi. Thank you so much for coming. I really appreciate your --
JOANIE MASOT: Thanks. 001357 163 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE REP. GIEGLER: coming here today.
I just have one question for you: In your group, what's the youngest age that you have that participates in Advocacy Unlimited for gambling? Do you have teenage-aged people?
JOANIE MASOT: The majority was adults in that, with our group? Yeah; we won, run one problem gambling group on Saturdays and it's adults. But if -- if we're brought into this realm of treatment and advocacy and peer specialists, I can guarantee you they'll be some youth in treatment.
REP. GIEGLER: Okay. Thank you, so much.
JOANIE MASOT: Okay; t Thank you. And this is very difficult; it makes me feel -- feel like I'm sitting in front of a judge, but I'm not.
.SENATOR LARSON: You don't have to worry about that c with me.
Thank you, very much for your testimony.
Keri Hoehne; am I pronouncing that right?
A VOICE: (Inaudible); that's okay.
SENATOR LARSON: H -- H-o-e-n-e.
A VOICE: (Inaudible.)
SENATOR LARSON: It doesn't make you a bad person.
KERI HOEHNE: Good afternoon.
SENATOR LARSON: Could you turn that mic on please? c 001358 164 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
KERI HOEHNE: Okay; good afternoon. Senator Larson ~ \090 and Representative Dargan and members of the ' Public Safety Committee, thanks for sitting in this long and -- and waiting to hear my testimony. My name is Keri Hoehne; I'm an Organizing Director with the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 371. We're located in Westport, Connecticut, but we represent about 8,000 members throughout Connecticut and Western Massachusetts.
Our members work in all sorts of industries, retail, food processing, health care, social service agencies, and also pertinent to this hearing, they are beverage servers, bartenders, and bar porters at Foxwoods Casino.
I'm here to thank you for raising this proposal to allow up to three casinos to be built in Connecticut and I urge your support. Our members at Foxwoods have worked hard to build up the casino and to contribute to its success. Most of them have worked there since it opened, 23 years ago, and many of those members not only enjoy an income that can support their families but strong benefits and safe working conditions. As a result of their union casino jobs, they have raised families, built homes, and contributed to their communities.
While bargaining a first union contract in these difficult economic times was challenging, our members stood together, and now in addition to increased wages and protected benefits, they have job security and a process for standing up for themselves and their coworkers; however, we have already begun to witness the loss of good, benefit-level positions as a result of reduced income to the casino. If we do not do something to slow the exports of casino and related hospitality jobs to our neighbors in 001359 165 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c Massachusetts and New York, we stand to not only lose thousands more good union jobs ~ith strong wages, but also a large part of Connecticut's tax base.
More casinos are being built. We're going to have more competition; that we know. But the question is: How do we as leaders and citizens of Connecticut react to that reality?
For our members and for the thousands of workers just like them, taking this step is not only bold, it's necessary. In order for our good union jobs to continue, our employers must grow and prosper, and this is the best way to ensure that that happens.
Thank you for your time.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, very much. c· Next up, Val Chamberlain. Glen Marshal; Glen Marshal?
Deron Drumm.
DERON DRUMM: Good afternoon; thank you, very much.
SENATOR LARSON: If you could just state your name.
DERON DRUMM: My name is Deron Drumm; I'm the Executive Director of Advocacy Unlimited, have the privilege of working with Joanie Masot, .who just testified. We're an organization that supports people with psychiatric and addiction histories by doing the advocacy and providing some ways to heal and -- and to learn from their difficulties and find ways to -- to transform their lives and move forward. And we run a mind-body center in Hartford. c 001360 166 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
Our organization has 17 employees who have experienced incarceration, time in psychiatric hospitals, homelessness, addiction and mental health, and then many other different sufferings and true sufferings in life and found ways to to move forward and -- and give back and be of service in such amazing ways.
I, personally, am someone who struggled as a kid a lot with my emotional health and struggle to -- to degrees where I, suicide was always on my mind. When I got older and I was 19, I reached a point where I was either going to kill myself or ask for help, and I found the courage to ask for help. And -- and help wasn't great for me, but I -- I found kind of ways to -- to move forward. And -- and I went to college and -- and I went to law school. And -- and my desire was to help other people that experience what -- what is commonly called "mental illness."
And I remember my, the -- the pride and -- and my parents had and my family had that I was able to kind of get through these things and find a way to be a lawyer and -- and help some people. Unfortunately, my demons didn't stop and -- and I found my way to -- to race tracks and to off-track betting's facilities. And I found that casinos, I found that gambling, for whatever reason, quieted those demons for a little while.
And I went from a -- a little boy who was really afraid to hurt one of God's creatures and that was one of the struggles I had -- and I was so afraid to hurt even insects, as someone who went down a dark road of addiction and hurt every single person in my life. I 001361 167 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c destroyed the law firm that I worked so hard to build. I hurt my employees. I hurt my family. And, you know, I found ways to heal and ways to move forward, and -- and I, and I'm so grateful for the people at the Problem Gambling Services who -- who let me know this addiction and how serious it was and -- and found ways to -- to heal from it.
It's hard. I -- I testify a lot here. I've testified in front of the Sandy Hook Commission. I speak on my theories on a, on mental health around the country. But talking about these experiences is hard, and being here today is hard for me. Seeing the uniforms of - - of the workers is hard for me.
I I work with people who have gone, you name it, they've experienced it, with drugs and alcohol and mental health. And -- and I watch and in -- in rooms when people tell they been, say they've been sober or free of -- of heroin or cocaine for years and people will cheer. c It's just a very different experience for us with gambling addiction. They're so much misunderstanding of what it is, and -- and then that's really hard; it makes the problem so much harder for a lot of us.
And I think, I think we need to remedy that. Louisa Moller, from FOX News do you want me
A VOICE: No (inaudible).
DERON DRUMM: Louisa Moller, from FOX News has been really great, generous in -- in letting our voice be heard on the mental health side and I think in a very fair way. She saw me here and she asked me to ask a few questions, and -- and she's, shares my position on this. And -- and c 001362 168 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
I think we have enough gambling in Connecticut, honestly. But then she asked me, you know, if. they really do fund a place like the Connecticut Counsel for Problem Gambling, which does great work and -- and fund treatment through Problem Gambling Services, which does amazing work. I just pause. I just don't know.
What I know is this addiction hurts a lot of people, and it is a hidden addiction. There's a lot of people that aren't in those stats you see before you; they're just not there. You know, "The Hartford Courant" did an article on my narrative and -- and so many people called me that their sister, their brother, their son, their daughter will not stop gambling. So it's not, you -- you talk, will hear the embezzlement experiences, and you hear those kind of things, but it's the lost time away from their family, lost time away from education and -- and adding to the fabric of our society. It's those things you don't see in those stats, and those are the people that call me.
And I meet with their family members. Their family members are like, huh; I don't have a problem. You know, two bankruptcies, divorces, they don't have a problem, because as you know, with alcohol we get DUis. We have things that happen that kind of force us in front of places that make us change our lives or else. It's just not happening in gambling. There's not (inaudible) versions; there's not this awareness.
So I -- I do hope this goes forward; you, we really fund this treatment and advocacy and support. You heard the number 2.3 million, which is great that Connecticut Lottery does 001363 169 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c that. I think it's at low estimate; it takes more than 2-to-300 million spent in drugs and alcohol. I think it's got to be a lot more on gambling, a lot more in awareness to get some people that just lives are coming apart into treatment.
Thank you, so much.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, again. And you know it's -- it's not lost on anyone here, your effort to get here.
DERON DRUMM: Uh-huh.
SENATOR LARSON: And we appreciate your integrity and understand how difficult it is to come out and testify. But, again, we need to hear from folks like you, our residents, on -- on the impact that this may have going forward.
So thank you very much for your testimony. c A VOICE: I'm impressed.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much.
DERON DRUMM: Okay; thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Linda Lentini.
A VOICE: She's not here.
SENATOR LARSON: Charlie Aspinwall; Charlie? No Charlie? Shirley Hoak.
SHIRLEY HOAK: Hoak.
SENATOR LARSON: Hoak. If you could just state your name and keep your mic on. c 001364 170 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SHIRLEY HOAK: Red light needs to be on, okay .
Good afternoon. My name is Shirley Hoak, and I .S'e>lo90 want to thank Chairmen Larson and Dargan and the rest of the members of the committee and on the panel this afternoon for your attention and your interest.
I'm also a person who is a recovering, compulsive gambler, so I guess you got us all in -- in one step here for the afternoon. So it did the same thing to me as it did to the others that you heard from, took away my reputation, my career, my self-esteem. It took away my freedom. It took me ten years to rebuild my life.
But I sit here today as someone who works with other people who are affected by this disorder; and it is called now a "gambling disorder" in the "DSM-5." It's in there with the other addictions of drugs and alcohol, finally, as of May of last year, so that it is recognized as an addiction.
And I sit here today as someone who works with people who were like me ten years ago, and I'm now a Nationally Certified Gambling Counselor. I work with the Better Choice Program at, out of the connection, and our funding comes from Problem Gambling Services which is the treatment arm of gambling services, Problem Gambling Services here in Connecticut. The Connecticut Council -- I think -- think sometimes it's confusing -- is the advocacy prevention arm of gambling, Problem Gambling Services here.
So as I've sat here today, it's been a long afternoon for all of us. I, I've thought about what I wanted to say, because you've all heard 001365 171 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c most of what I was going to say. So I thought I might tell you some stories of people that I work with now, because I've heard a lot about how this is about jobs.
And it is about jobs; we all, we all are in favor of jobs. But there's also jobs for the folks who'd run into trouble with gambling who end up losing their jobs. So this particular product, "gaming," as they like to call it, has a cost that we have just not really talked much about today. I know it's been mentioned but there are jobs that are lost because of increases in gaming. There are, there are people who suffer economic losses, like business people and people whose families are devastated. They can't buy cars. They can't go out to dinner. They can't do the things that other people do because they've spent all of their money in a casino or on other gambling that's available in our state.
That doesn't mean that I think that it's c gambling, it's the fault of gambling; it means that this is an addiction, just like drugs and alcohol. It's not a risk-free activity. This is something that we need to be very conscious of and very thorough and that I would ask my State Representatives to thoroughly consider the ramifications of going forward with anything like this. So and -- can I continue?
A VOICE: It's only time.
SHIRLEY HOAK: Thank you.
So, for me, it, this is something that I, I'm neither for nor against it; however, I can say that I feel that it does not address anything about the cost and the hidden costs. c 001366 172 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
And I'd just like to tell you a couple of stories. Right now I have several clients that I'm working with who are incarcerated. They're fine people. They are law-abiding, you know, just like you, just like me, and we're paying $56,000 a year for them to be incarcerated. They're there, though if you read their file, it won't say they're there for gambling; gambling is not illegal. But they're there for stealing or for embezzling or for bad checks or something else. So we're not capturing who has this problem in the state, and we need to do a better job of that. We need to do a better job of letting the state know about our services.
I heard the casinos this morning talk about how they have the finest gambling establishments; we have one of the finest treatment systems for problem gamblers in the whole country, and people don't even know we're here. We need more money to get the message out. We need more funds to raise awareness. We need to have an informed citizenry, so that they can make decisions about whether to gamble or not to gamble, and that they can start to recognize the risk before they get to the point where they lose everything, like I did and like Deron and Donna and Joan, who have come before you, and like my clients who are in prison now. For years they're going to prison.
I have a 68-year-old man who's never had a prior offense; in, for a couple years he's in prison. For what? I have a mother of an eight-year-old who's in prison for years because of a crime she committed in the service of addiction. And there are others like that.
These people lose their jobs and they can't get a job when they get out. I have somebody who the first, one of the biggest punishments, they 001367 173 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c -- they made everything. They paid restitution; they were a good employee for 20 years. If they had a drug or alcohol problem, they would have been given a second chance or a third chance; they would've been sent to treatment. And when they came in front of the Courts, they would have had diversionary options; we have none of that for problem gamblers, for people who suffer from a gambling disorder in this state. And we're working hard to make that happen.
So as these bills come up and as there's more expansion, you know, we want those things to be considered. We want to see something in that bill that recognizes that this harm is real.
And it•s not like going -- with all due respect -- to the Mystic Museum. People don't get addicted to the Mystic Museum; people get addicted to this product -- well maybe they do. Maybe they go; maybe they
c SENATOR LARSON: Understood.
SHIRLEY HOAK: spend their whole lives there. But, you know, they don't
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
SHIRLEY HOAK: But this product has a danger to it like cigarettes, like alcohol.
SENATOR LARSON: Unde.rstood.
SHIRLEY HOAK: You know, so we need to be more careful about how we just decide we•re just going to do more of it and more of it and - and to just really take a look at what we're doing.
c 001368 174 March 17, 2015 rnhr/rncr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
So I've heard people say maybe it's going too fast. I had that same reaction as a citizen, you know, that maybe it's going too fast and also just that maybe gambling is not always the answer. I tell that to my clients; gambling is not always the answer.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
SHIRLEY HOAK: So, for me, I'm asking you all to think about these costs. That's why we want a study.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
SHIRLEY HOAK: We want to see those costs.
SENATOR LARSON: We have a couple of questions, so I don't want to --
SHIRLEY HOAK: Okay.
SENATOR LARSON: -- cut you off, but I want to --
SHIRLEY HOAK: I'm sorry.
SENATOR LARSON: -- get to some
SHIRLEY HOAK: You know I --
SENATOR LARSON: -- good questions.
SHIRLEY HOAK: -- could talk forever, so go ahead.
SENATOR LARSON: Representative Giegler.
REP. GIEGLER: Thank you, so much, and thank you for corning before us today. I just, one quick question: You mentioned that gambling addiction is now, is listed in the DSM manual. 001369 175 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c SHIRLEY HOAK: Yes. REP. GIEGLER: Are you able to get reimbursed for treatment, if you seek it?
SHIRLEY HOAK: Well, supposedly; and, there's supposed to be mental· health parity. So if it's in there -- and we're trying; we're trying that.
But we also, through the lottery, have a grant. We are one of the few states in the whole country that has a grant that allows people to get treatment regardless of their ability to pay. It's unheard of across the country, and we're grateful that we get that money, but as others have said we could use so much more. So it's a very small percentage of the gambling revenues that are generated in the state that go to treatment, very small.
It costs $56,000 to incarcerate someone; it cost 7,200 to treat them. So where are we c spending our monies?
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you for your testimony.
SHIRLEY HOAK: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: Robert Colburn, and then Adam Osmond. Adam?
Are there any other individuals out there that wish to testify? Adam, you're the last person on my list, so I just want to make sure. Thank you.
If you could state your name for -- for the record, we'd appreciate it.
ADAM OSMOND: Adam Osmond. c 001370 176 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
ADAM OSMOND: Good afternoon. I wasn't planning to testify today and I just came in. I just got out of work and I just saw it, that we'll still be going in, so I just want to say it in.
Please do not bring more casinos on myself, a former gambler, gambling addict, as six years ago I lost everything. I lost two businesses. I lost everything I owned and I work on my life. I built my life back since then, and I've seen a lot of people suffer. Some of my friends here testified and tell you about that.
And it's just sad to see that year after year. I came here a couple of times before, testify against the Keno. It's really sad for me to see that every year you guys come back here and want to open it in another casino, another Keno, and you want to balance the budget on the back of addicts.
I'm not involved with any organization. I don't work none of the organization; I'm just here on my own, my own experience, and I paid a lot. I pay a high price, even testifying the last two times, because, you know, the Deputy Commissioner of DAS went out and Google my name and sent an article about me testifying and into my current job. I work for the State right now, so I just want to tell you that on the record, and you should, you really should investigate that, because that was used against me for testifying. And that's why I wasn't even planning and to testify in here.
And I didn't submit anything. It's just the heat of the moment; it just happened when I came in. I want to testify today. If you 001371 177 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
think gambling is going to solve a problem, why didn't solve it here before? We have two, two biggest casino in the state and still have a budget problem. We have the biggest lottery in the, in the country, one of the biggest; I think Massachusetts only bigger per capita.
I'm a, I'm a data person; I've been studying the data for, since I stop gambling. And why we still have budget problem? You want to put a, two casinos in the corner around here, especially close to Hartford. And as you might know, the Citgo right here, Blue Hills, 06106 is, it's the number one lottery sales. And it's the poorest ZIP Code in this state, and it's number one lottery sales. And, again, you want to put it in another casino. It's really sad for me to hear that.
And what it has done to my family and my three kids and my wife, every penny I work for, the Connecticut Lottery. Last time I came here I brought it in, almost a million dollars, a c lottery ticket, and I show you guys.
And -- and they let me gamble on credit. And you should investigate that, too, because they knew, year after year. And by the end of this year is going to be a movie come out about me, a documentary, and it's going to be nationally. It's called "Out of Luck," and you really should watch that, because you will see a disaster. You guys approved this project; you guys approved this lottery, and it really destroys people because no one telling you about it even, because no one have the heart to tell you because most addicts is ashamed to - to tell you that.
And, also, we came in here; it was used against me a lot of times for testifying it in. And c 001372 178 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
you should really investigate it and the Deputy Commissioner of DAS for doing that, to trying to retaliate against me for testifying at Keno. I'm, I testified on my own time. I came here on my own time, and I pay a high price, lose everything, and I want to tell, when I wanted to tell you about it in, I have to hear from people using that against me.
My point is: I just want to say they didn't want to. I just read it in -- Governor Weicker said it in, you know, with, about a gambling expressions. He said, The hell with that. Please, the hell with that. It's not going to solve any bu~get problem. All you're going to do is retake in money from people, what they would have spent it in another area.
If you brought casino in this room right here, you know what's going to happen? It's -- it's going to take some money from you, some money from me, and maybe one person's going to win. And then the house always wins in the casinos, the only ones that will benefit this. Because history tell you we haven't benefit from the casino.
SENATOR LARSON: I appreciate your testimony.
ADAM OSMOND: Thank you.
SENATOR LARSON: And could you just sort of summarize?
ADAM OSMOND: Basically, I just, you know, some reactions; I'm a little bit nervous because I wasn't planning
SENATOR LARSON: They don't
ADAM OSMOND: -- to testify. 001373 179 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. c SECURITY COMMITTEE SENATOR LARSON: Don't worry about that, just
ADAM OSMOND: Basically, my -- my whole point is that one thing you should do to these, please don't expand any gambling.
Another thing you should do with it is you should get, you should get the Connecticut Lottery out of and of funding gambling funds, because what they do is they directly fund the gambling addicts' addiction programs. Basically, then they control. You should take that money out of their hand and the State should directly fund the programs. Because it was disaster for me when I turned it in, a, yeah, gambling addiction programs, because Connecticut Lottery in fault directly. They fund directly and then they control the programs. If you want to fund gambling addiction, the State should fund it directly, not the Connecticut Lottery. I mean they - they in a business to sell lottery only, not to c fund gambling addicts' addiction programs.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you.
ADAM OSMOND: So please do not expand, and please have Connecticut Lottery out of the hands of the gambling addiction programs. And the State should directly fund that.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your testimony.
ADAM OSMOND: You're welcome.
SENATOR LARSON: Appreciate it.
One question, is Representative Dargan. c 001374 180 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
REP. DARGAN: So I I just one question: I know that you stated, where -- where or when does the Connecticut Lottery let you gamble by credit?
ADAM OSMOND: I used to own two stores.
REP. DARGAN: Oh, so that's
ADAM OSMOND: Yeah. So -- so when
REP. DARGAN: So so did you have an issue at the end of each month or week?
ADAM OSMOND: They don't --
REP. DARGAN: When you had a, so you were gambling when you were in the store.
ADAM OSMOND: I was gambling in my own store.
REP. DARGAN: And then when the Connecticut Lottery Corporation looked at your balance, it wasn't there because you had the addiction that you talked about. So really it wasn't credit --
ADAM OSMOND: Yeah, well
REP. DARGAN: Right?
ADAM OSMOND: Well, it's not a credit, directly credit, but it's indirect credit. What happened is if you have a nonsufficient funds five times a year, first time they -- they warn you. Second time, they give you $20, a fee. Third time, they suspend your license. Four time, you lose your license.
I have so many of them. What they used to do with it is -- is they just waive the first two. And then, and -- and I will, you know, if you wanted the record, it's it will be in the movie 001375 181 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE c and it'll be a, the movie you'll see. They will falsify the record and then waive the first two, so I never had a four strikes.
And eventually what happen, they said that I was gambling on credit because they kept waive it. And then at the end what happen is when I was out of control, the first week they supposed to shut your light off if you don't pay for it. They let me continue a second week, a third week, and that's a, that's a credit.
REP. DARGAN: Yeah. I'd like to talk to you afterwards, just to get the name of the establishment to see if that's actually true. So you had a gambling issue --
ADAM OSMOND: I had
REP. DARGAN: -- in the store -- c ADAM OSMOND: I had I had -- REP. DARGAN: -- and they had nonsufficient funds.
ADAM OSMOND: I gamble; I -- I brought in tickets in here, almost a million-dollar tickets. How else would somebody can gamble a million-dollar ticket unless it's a credit? And I'll show you the pictures, and it will be in the documentary. And the, you know, the world will see, because for six years I lost everything. Until this day, I live in a house with no heat, with no nothing in it. My family is suffering because they have to live out of the state.
And I work for the State. But the same state that I'm working for it is the one that destroying me; it•s still six years later. c 001376 182 March 17, 2015 mhr/mcr/gbr PUBLIC SAFETY AND 12:00 P.M. SECURITY COMMITTEE
And you should also investigate DAS and Deputy Commissioner who did Google my testifying and in an article about me and addiction and send it into my state, where I work right now.
REP. DARGAN: Thank you, very much.
ADAM OSMOND: You're welcome.
REP. DARGAN: Mr. Chair.
SENATOR LARSON: Thank you, very much, for your testimony.
ADAM OSMOND: You're welcome.
SENATOR LARSON: I believe that wraps up our public hearing today.
Any other folks in the audience wish to testify? So being, I'm going to close the public hearing and thank you all, very much, for your attendance and your questions. 001379 c Good Morning.
My name is James Griffin. I am a retired Captain from the Waterbury Police Department and I currently serve as the Director of Public Safety & Police at Capital Community College located on Main St. in downtown Hartford. I am here to support Manchester Community College and SB1013 which will make MCC a recognized Police Department and give officers the proper tools and necessary legal structure to protect their college. It is my sincere hope that Capital Community College will be added to the bill. There have been several incidents on and near campus which create an indisputable argument to arm the POST certified Police Officers that work here. One incident included a situation in which a student already out on bond fc;>r a Felony firearms violation entered the college with another firearm. The student was disarmed after a violent physical struggle just outside a classroom. The recovered firearm had been reported stolen in a burglary in Meriden. Campus Police are state mandated to train with firearms annually but are not allowed to carry them on duty.
This bill has potential to save lives and money for the state. A Professor at Capital c Community College sponsored an event that was the subject of threats of physical violence. I was advised Management agrees there is 11A need for an armed presence". I was then told over my protests to 11 Hire a Hartford Police Officer for the event." I and another POST certified campus Police officer watched as the Hartford Police Officer worked the one hour event at a cost of $600.00 out of my already slim budget. Hartford Police have an 8 hour minimum pay rate.
We have a responsibility to protect our students and to maintain a safe workplace for our employees. There is great liability in having unequal protection and inconsistent policy's between colleges in the same state system. I ask that you pass this important legislation to protect our most valuable resource-our students. There is no other step that can be taken that serves to protect our colleges as much as providing certified, well trained, compassionate Police officers with the proper tools to do their job. Thank You.
Respectfully, Master Sergeant James Griffin c 001380
c Price, Richard From: Edward Ackell
I say no to more casinos if a city does not want .... Hartford could put one in next to the ball park,Brigeport on the water front, ... That is enough .. but you now drop the toll idea .. since more people will be on the road to the casinos all revenue will go to road and highway improvement..and no body gets wage increases .. With NO tolls the feds must still payup our yearly maintance fee .... .WELFARE CARDS ·CANNOT BE USED TO GAMBLE. .. EDWARD F. ACKELL,4 HITCHING POST LANE,DANBURY,CT 06811-2709
c
c 001381 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 10:02 AM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Senate Bill 1090
I am in favor of the gambling expansion. I feel a great many seniors enjoy the few hours a week they can entertain themselves. Both my parents and inlaws travel to Norwich each week and will certainly go to Springfield when it opens. They are from Enfield. I also heard the Mayor of Enfield talk about increased traffic but traffic is going to increase to Mass anyway. Bob Alaimo
c
c 001382
c Price, Richard From: Paul Amenta
Seems to me the ones we have are starving for customers. Most of the time you hear that the money from slot machines is down so the harvest for the state is down. Then you hear they are going to lay off people.
How can more casinos be better for the state?
I think high speed tolls with Easy-Pass would bring more money to the state. Just went to Florida down I-95. One of the tolls was $8.00.
Thank you, Paul Amenta c
c 001383 c Price, Richard From: Lori&Joe
We don't need any more casinos. NO MORE CASINOS!!!
Lori and Joe Annis 22 Hamilton Court Enfield, Ct. 06082
c
c 001384 c Testimony on S-1 090
I would like to point out the difficulty and possible illegality of naming the Pequot's and Mohegan's to run casinos off their reservation. 1) This action requires the approval of the B.I.A. which is obligated to hold hearings on the impact of this action on the environment and community impact. 2) Any group who opposes this action may weigh in to the Department of The Interior, requiring further hearings. 3) The impact of this decision will have National impact which may involve law suits against the State of Connecticut by other States and Federally recognized tribes and those who will be under the new proposed Federal Recognition laws. 4) The lack oflocation for these casinos is unfair to the areas where they are proposed to be located, giving these areas limited time for opposition. 5) I believe the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is ignored by dictating that these casinos on non reservation are to be run by Indian Tribes. This ignores DUE PROCESS and FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT.
Charlie Aspinwall c Derby, Ct
c 001385
c Price, Richard From: Lois Barber
We do not want casinos along new casinos along I-91, I-95 and I-84. We already have too much traffic, they do not attract a high quality of people and personnel, and they fail - look at all the casinos in Atlantic City closing down, and the have the added attraction of the Jersey shore and Atlantic ocena.
Keep Connecticut beautiful!
Lois Barber 33 Zoar Rd Sandy Hook, CT 06482
c
c 1 001386 c STATEMENT OF: CLYDE W. BARROW, PH.D. 1
CHAIR AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS- RIO GRANDE VALLEY
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY & SECURITY
2015 REGULAR SESSION OF THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Held in the Legislative Office Building, Room 2C, Hartford, Connecticut, March 17, 2015
Co-Chairman Dargan, Co-Chairman Larsen, and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to address the Committee of Public Safety and Security on an issue that will soon affect that economic safety and security of literally thousands of Connecticut workers and small business owners, as well as the state's 2 million taxpayers. Connecticut's two tribal casinos- Mohegan Sun Casino and Foxwoods Resort Casino- have experienced a decline in gross gaming revenue every year for the last eight years.
Total (gross) revenue, including gaming and non-gaming revenue for the two casinos combined has declined by 39%, 6r by $1.2 billion in the last eight years, from $3.2 billion in CY 2006 to $1.9 c billion in CY 2014. Total revenue at Foxwoods Resort Casino declined by 43%, or by $685 million in the last eight years, from $1.6 billion in CY 2006 to $892 million in CY 2014. Total revenue at Mohegan Sun Casino declined by 35%, or by $545 million in the last eight years, from $1.6 billion 2 in CY 2006 to $1.0 billion in CY 2014 (see Figure 1).
The revenue decline at Connecticut's two casinos has resulted in a significant workforce reduction at both casinos. Foxwoods Resort Casino employed 12,800 persons at its 2006 peak, but currently employs 7,558 persons (-40.9%). Mohegan Sun employed 10,500 persons at its 2006 peak, but currently emploYs 7,205 persons (-31.4%). This is a combined loss of 8,537 Connecticut jobs since 2006, although in fact many of these jobs have actually been transferred to new gambling venues in New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Maine.
This process will be repeated again over the next five years, and at the same level of magnitude, with the potential additional loss of more than 9,300 jobs and $354 million in wages statewide, if nothing is'done to stem the flow of gaming revenue and jobs to the four new resort casinos that will open in Massachusetts and New York beginning in early 2017.3
1 Dr. Clyde W. Barrow is also a Partner and General Manager of Pyramid Associates, LLC, a registered Massachusetts company specializing in feasibility analysis (gravity modeling), economic and fiscal impact analysis, and survey research. He is Project Manager for the Northeastern Gaming Research Project. 2 All data in Figures 10-15 is tabulated from the Northeastern Casino Gaming Updates, 2004-2015. 3 The economic impact estimates of 'conservative' estimates insofar as they do not take into account the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts on contract employees, on-site lease holders, and the impact on other regional tourist industry establishments (e.g., recreation and amusement. food and beverage, retail, and lodging, among others. c - 1 - 001387 c ------~igl!_r_~_-1______Total Revenue at Foxwoods Resort Casino & Mohegan Sun Casino, CY 2004 to CY 2014 (Millions)
$3,500.0 $3,151.3 $2,856.4 $2,989.~---..._ -$2,952.2 $3,0:!0.0 _c :·;;;;.;c.;o;~~,··------~--~--- -$2;679.5------~- -._ $2,443.7 $Z 395.1 52,500.0 .. ~--.. - 'I! $2,214.6 ----·---.-,.__ $1,921.2 S2,COO.O -,.... ,~."o.....:,A $1,577.0 $1,500.0 Sl.49.2.~_$l,3SZ.S... S1~2.5~:a· :=r,12.S.S ;"" .. =; 51,57.!.3 --·-- .5 $:,C29.1 $1,459.8__ $l,322.G ~ $1,000.0 s:.:~12.1 - $1,188.9 $1,169.3 $1,064.1 ssoo.o ------______$892.1
$- CY 2004 CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 C/2014
-9--Fox\·:oods Resort .....,..Mohegan Sun -~--crrotal
The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority & Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise are obviously concerned about the potential competitive impact of these new gaming facilities and, consequently, my company was retained to conduct a revenue displacement analysis and an estimate of the potential employment and revenue losses to the State of Connecticut that may occur as a result of competition from four ne\V casinos in Massachusetts and New York. While the preparation of this report is still underway, I am in a position to provide the Committee with preliminary results as we expect to complete and release the full final report within the next week. c Background However, before reviewing our preliminary findings, let me offer a few words about my professional background and expertise in the gaming industry for members of the committee who may be unfamiliar with my work. I am a Professor of Public Policy and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Texas - Rio Grande Valley (2014-present) and previously served as Director of the Center for Policy Analysis at UMass Dartmouth for 22 years. I have supervised or conducted research on nearly 400 policy reports, both as an academic and as an industry and government consultant, including numerous reports on the leisure and hospitality sector of the New England economy, which includes casino gaming.
I have been studying casino gaming, in particular, its impact on New England and the Northeast since 1995. In 2004, I launched the Northeastern Gaming Research Project, which was established to provide policymakers, the general public, and the media with independent and objective research on the economic, fiscal, and social impacts of gaming in the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. In addition to articles published in scholarly journals, the project publishes an annual Northeastern Casino Gaming Update, which most recently was released just two weeks ago. I regularly follow trends and developments in the gaming industry, publish original academic research on the industry, and analyze proposals for expanded gaming - most recently in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Texas, and Wisconsin. I previously testified before the Connecticut Legislative Task Force on Expanded Video Gaming (September 26, 2013).
CONNECTICUT GAMING: WHAT JUST HAPPENED? c - 2 - 001388 c
To understand what may happen to Connecticut's two casinos over the next five years, it is instructive to examine what just happened over the last five years. Gross gaming revenue in the Northeast, including both tribal and commercial casinos reached a trough of $12.2 billion in CY 2009 - the same year as the trough of the Great Recession - and then began a recovery in CY 201 0 ($12.3 billion) to reach $14.7 billion in CY 2014. Gross gaming revenue in the Northeast increased by $2.5 billion (+20.5%) in the five years from CY 2009 to CY 2014 (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 Gross Gaming Revenue of Northeast Casinos, CY 2008 to CY 2014
516.0
515 0 '
$1-!.0
513 0
$12.0
$l!.O
2WS 20J9 2010 ~011 201::! 2013 2C14
Sources: State regulatory agendes ~no ?yr
As Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate, many states, including New York (2004), Maine (2005), Pennsylvania (2007), Maryland (2010), and Ohio (2012) saw their share of the Northeast gaming market increase by several percentage points as they introduced casino gaming for the first time, expanded gaming supply in the form of new venues, and/or added table games aimed at recapturing gamblers from states such as Connecticut (1992), Delaware (1995), New Jersey (1978), and West Virginia (1994) that had entered the market earlier.4 Delaware and Rhode Island mitigated or completely offset this negative impact on its gaming venues by adding table games to their casinos early in the emerging casino arms race (see Figure 3). Thus, new entrants to the market have successfully recaptured gaming revenue from adjacent states, particularly from Connecticut and New Jersey, but they have also increased the total size of the gaming market by generating new demand or by meeting underserved local demand for casino gaming.
However, new and organic growth in the Northeastern gaming market has not meant that all boats are lifted by a rising tide as also demonstrated by the period from CY 2009 to CY 2014. Even though the total Northeastern gaming market increased by $2.5 billion during this time, there was an on-going dynamic shifting of market shares on a state-by-state basis primarily at the expense of Connecticut and New Jersey.
Figure 3
• Dates in parentheses are dates of first casino opening in the state, see, AGA (2013, 11-22).
,., c -.) - 001389 c Northeast Gaming Market: Gross Gaming Revenue, CY 2008 to CY 2014
$5,000,000,00:)
$4,000,000,000 --ll1------$3,000,0W,OOO ...... , ...... *,.. ·d·,.·· . $2,000,000,0CO 51.. 000,000,000 i ·.. · A.I ... j ·_j. .f EdD.. ·· ·.···· $· BJ!ll. __ ~·
ll!CYOS iliCY09 :.l:CY10 i~CYll •CY12 il!CY13 •CY14
·············-···········):Cig':lre__ ~----·········--··· Northeastern Gaming Market Shares by State, cr zoos & CY 2014
.:10% 3596
30%
25% l ...... c 20'% · lS% E%~L=~--
lG"''e
The end of the revenue and jobs erosion at Connecticut's two casinos remains elusive. As reported in previous Northeastern Casino Gaming Updates, visitors from Pennsylvania to Connecticut's two casinos almost completely disappeared after that state opened 12 casinos beginning in late 2006. Similarly, New York has opened 9 racetrack casinos since 2005 and, as New York has steadily expanded its presence in the Northeastern gaming market, casino expenditures in Connecticut by New Yorkers have declined from a peak of $420.9 million in CY 2006 to $213.7 million in CY 2014 (-49.2%).
Similarly, spending by Rhode Island residents at C9nnecticut's two casinos has dropped from a peak of $322.5 million in CY 2005 (a year before the first Twin River expansion) to $133.1 million in CY 2014 (-58.7%). During the same period, spending by Rhode Island residents at Twin River has increased from $257.4 million in CY 2005 to $297.5 million in CY 2014 (+40.1%). Moreover, given its geographic location, Rhode Island's Twin River Casino was well positioned to intercept casino patrons from central and eastern Massachusetts before they reach Connecticut. Their c - 4 - 001390 c expansion and marketing strategy has been quite successful in this regard as expenditures at Twin River by Massachusetts residents have increased from $182.2 million in CY 2006 to $334.5 million in CY 2014 (+83.6%). During the same period, expenditures by Massachusetts residents at Connecticut's two casinos fell from a peak of $889.3 million in CY 2005 to $475.6 million in CY 2014 (~46.5%). 5
CONNECTICUT GAMING: WHAT IS ABOUT TO GET CHANGE?
While expanded gaming in the Northeast has exerted significant negative revenue and employment impacts on Connecticut's two casinos, these negative impacts have largely been generated by a proliferation of slot parlors or in some cases slot parlors with a few table games (e.g., Pennsylvania and Rhode Island). For the most part, these states' gaming facilities do not have hotels and none of them offers the array of dining options, retail shopping, golf, and live entertainment venues that can be found at Mohegan Sun Casino or Foxwoods Resort Casino. However, the Northeastern gaming market is about to change significantly and in a direction that will further erode Mohegan Sun's and Foxwoods Resort's competitive advantage as the region's premier destination resort casinos.
By early 2017, however, Massachusetts and New York will be opening four destination resort casinos with a combined 9,300 slot machines, 377 table games, 1,415 hotel rooms with spas, retail shopping, gourmet dining outlets, an indoor water park, golf courses, and live entertainment venues. Every one of the four planned new casinos will be a direct competitor with Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort, ,which both draw a significant number of their customers from Massachusetts, c New York, Rhode Island, northern New Jersey, and northern New England. 6
Table 1
Foxwoods Mohegan River Newport Hollywood Oxford Massachusetts 32.2% 18.3% 51.9% 44.1% 2.0% 2.0% Connecticut 39.8% 59.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% Rhode Island 11.0% 3.4% 45.1% 52.1% 0.1% ------0.1% New Hampshire 2.6% 1.1% 0.5% 0.2% 2.0% 9.9%
Maine 1.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.0% 87.8% ----86.2% Vermont ----·0.5% -----0.4% ------0.0% -----0.0% ----0.3% ----0.5% New York 9.3% 12.7% 0.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% New Jersey 1.7% 1.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% Other 1.7% 2.5% 1.0% 2.2% 6.9% 1.1% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: Pyramid Assoc1ates, LLC. Note: The statistical margin of error for the Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, Twin River, Newport, Hollywood, and Oxford surveys is+/-< 1%. Once these four new resort casinos open in Massachusetts and New York, our revenue displacement analysis indicates that:
5 See, Clyde W. Barrow, Northeastern Casino Gaming Update, 2015 (Westport, Massachusetts: Northeastern Casino Gaming Research Project and Pyramid Associates, LLC, 2015). 6 Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. c - 5 - 001391 c • the combined competitive impact of the planned new casinos in Massachusetts and New York will displace approximately $570.0 million in gross gaming revenue from Mohegan Sun Casino and Foxwoods Resort Casino by CY 2019, the first full fiscal year of stabilized operations for four casinos modeled in this analysis.
• the combined competitive impact of the planned new casinos in Massachusetts and New York will displace approximately $132.7 million in non-gaming revenue at Connecticut's two casinos, including $39.1 million in lost food and beverage sales, $26.5 million in lost hotel revenue, and $67.0 million in lost retail, entertainment, and other revenue.
Estimated Gross Revenue for Foxwoods Resort Casino, CY 2014 Thru CY 2019: Competitive Impact of Massachusetts & New York Casinos CY 2014 CY 2015 CY 2016 CY2017 CY 2018 CY 2019
Connecticut Casinos (w/o MA & NY) $ 1,921,202,996 $ 1,921,202,996 $1,921,202,996 1,921,202,996 $ 1,921,202,996 $ 1,921,202,996 Total Displacment of GGR $ $ $ $ 399,072,095 484,587,544 570,102,993 Total Displacment of NGR $ $ $ $ 92,870,076 $ 112,770,806 $ 132,671,537 Total Revenue Displacement $ 5 491,942,171 $ 597,358,350 $ 702,774,530 Connecticut Casinos (w IMA & NY) $ 1,921,202,996 $ 1,921,202,996 $1,921,202,996 1,429,260,825 $ 1,323,844,646 $ 1,218,428,466 Displaced Gross Revenue from CT Residents $ $ 5 177,245,372 s 215,226,524 $ 253,207,675 Reduction in 5 tate Revenue S baring $ $ 69,837,617 s 84.802,820 $ 99,768,024
Note: 1. Revenue in 2014 constant dollars. 2. Assumes January 1, 2017 start date for MGM Springfield, Wynn Everett, Rivers Casino & Resort, and Montreign Resort Casino. 3. Assumes zero percent (0%) annual real growth in GGR through CY 2019. c • The combilted displacement of gross gaming and non-gaming revenue from Connecticut to Massachusetts and New York will thus reach $702.8 million in CY 2019.
• These figures indicate that the opening of resort casinos in Massachusetts and New York is about to catalyze one the largest inter-state transfers of gaming revenue in recent U.S. history-- second only to the transfer from New Jersey's casinos to Pennsylvania's casinos from 2006 to 2014.
Furthermore:
It is estimated that $253.2 million (36.0%) of the revenue displaced from Connecticut's two casinos to the four new resort casinos planned for Massachusetts and New York will be spent by Connecticut residents living in the northern and western parts of the state, who will likely find MGM Springfield to be a comparable, but more convenient gaming facility. This revenue is certainly up for grabs depending on Connecticut's response or lack of response to Massachusetts' and New York's incursion into its gaming market.
c - 6 - 001392 c • It is also estimated that the State of Connecticut will lose nearly $100 million annually by CY 219 in revenue sharing payments from Mohegan Sun Casino and Foxwoods Resort Casino?
Finally, lower gaming and non-gaming revenues at Connecticut's two casinos will immediately and directly translate into additional layoffs and lower employment levels at the two casinos. It is estimated that total job losses due to inter-state revenue displacement will be at least 9,300 jobs. 8
It is estimated that revenue losses of the magnitude discussed earlier will require Connecticut's two casinos to shed an additional5,812 employees for a loss of $193 million in annual wages (see Table 2). As Figure 5 illustrates, Connecticut's casinos employ individuals who reside in virtually every corner of the state and, consequently, the impact of these projected layoffs will be felt across the state of Connecticut.
In addition, lost wages by former casino employees will mean less spending by those former employees and this will induce the loss of an addition 1,598 jobs statewide at a cost of $73.9 million in lost wages (see Table 2).
Table2 Employment & Wage Losses in Connecticut Generated by New Massachusetts and New York Casinos (by CY 2019) Direct Indirect Induced Total 5,812 1,890 1,598 9,300 c 192,947,268 86,636,843 73,940,044 353,524,155 Source: llvlPLAN (2015); Pyramid Associates (2015).
Figure 5
7 This estimate assumes that slot machine revenues will account for seventy percent of gross gaming revenues and that both tribes will continue to share twenty-five percent (25%) of slot machine revenues with the State of Connecticut. This figure does not include other tax revenue that will be lost as a result of reduced purchases by the casinos from local vendors, reduced local purchases by former employees, and increased soda! spending on unemployment insurance and public assistance generated by higher unemployment. These estimates will be included in the final report. · 8 The economic impact estimates of 'conservative' estimates insofar as they do not take into account the direct, indirect, and induced economic impacts on contract employees, on-site lease holders, and the impact on other regional tourist industry establishments (e.g., recreation and amusement, food and beverage, retail, and lodging, among others. c -7- 001393 c
Finally, as Figure 6 illustrates, Connecticut's two casinos make local purchases from Connecticut vendors throughout the state. The revenue displaced by the new Massachusetts and New York Casinos will result in a reduction of local non-payroll purchases from Connecticut vendors of approximately $336.1 million. This reduction in local purchases from Connecticut vendors will result in the loss of an additional 1,890 non-gaming jobs and $86.6 million in lost wages in Connecticut (see Table 2).
Figure 6 c Sun Vendors in Connecticut
It is possible to mitigate this inter-state revenue transfer, and the resulting jobs losses that will result from it, but 2017 is not far away, so the time for a response is very short; and the sooner Connecticut responds to the threat at its border, the more it may be possible to not just mitigate potential losses, but to restructure and downsize the plans of its new competitors by preempting them.
Thank you for your attention. I will gladly answer any questions. c - 8 - 001394 c Price, Richard From: Joan Bernard
My message, below, didn't specify '~Senate Bill 1090" in the subject line. I am forwarding it again.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joan Bernard
The viral effect of casinos is a sad statement oftoday's society. While drawing those who seek to get rich quick, gambling is an addiction that not only dulls the mind and spirit with false hopes and promises with frightening rapidity, it also desecrates Connecticut's beautiful landscape at the same time. (As it is, the land has been ravaged enough.) Is this the definition of a long-term benefit?? c Please-just say NO!! J Joan Bernard
1 001395
c Price, Richard From: Christa Berthold
Please, do not build another casino. The present ones are not as profitable as they once were and a new one is being built in Massachusetts. Why would you want to build another one, which is going to be impacted by the ones we have already. Better to have two doing well, then having three doing poorly. I am totally against gambling anyway. That is no way to get money for the State. We were at one time told that the casino money was going strictly for education. Well, we know that didn't happen. What are we to believe?
Respectfully,
Christa Berthold.
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. c www.avast.com
c 001396
c Price, Richard From: Wayne Blackman
To all legislatures in The State of Connecticut there are two issues I'd like to address.
Simply The State of Connecticut doesn't need any new Casinos, like the lottery, they are simply dedicated to taking money from people who dream of winning big but, are only depleting their bank accounts and making their lives more difficult. People with money to spend don't waste it gambling.
At the same time I'm also opposed to any scheme that would add tolls to Connecticut's highways. Where does the state waste all the monies that are collected in the fuel taxes imposed on us? I'm sure the money trail leads direct to the general fund instead of the highway fund. The legislature should be ashamed of the foolish spending that is done throughout the state and use the funds for which they were supposed to be ear marked for!
Sincerely, Wayne Blackman 30 Crestway New Fairfield, CT 06812 c
c 1 001397
c Price, Richard From: Karen Blanchard
1 believe the job creation alone is worth investing in new casino business in the Ct. area near the Mass. line. Why give up the tax revenue and jobs to Massachusetts? I vote YES!
KB Sent from my iPhone
c
c 001398
c Price, Richard From: Elizabeth Bontempi
Creating more gambling casinos is not the way to bring Connecticut back to financial health. Thriving manufacturing and service businesses, innovations in science and industry build prosperity -more casinos just bring trouble.
Betty Bontempi
c
c 001399
c Price, Richard
From: Ginny Cenatiempo
Another casino is not the answer for our state. Leam to live within your means like I have to.
Thank you. A.E. Bruggemrum & Co. 187 Danbury Rd #3E Wilton. CT 06897 203-866-4600 [email protected] c
c 1 001400
Price, Richard
From: Peter Bakker Jr.
I urge the State of Connecticut to reject any further expansion of Casino Gambling as considered under the above referenced bill or any future bill proposed.
I believe the gambling market has reached its saturation limit and we are seeing multiple venues chasing the same customers-building more casinos merely spreads the issues connected with them to more locations rather than increase overall revenues.
If more casinos are permitted it seems realistic that the existing locations will see fewer customers and fall into disrepair - much like what happened to Atlantic City.
We need real economic growth proposals and projects not additional gambling locations.
Peter M. Bakker Jr. IVice President Peter M. Bakker Agency, Inc. 860-379-8555 ext.3101
This e-mail is intended ollly for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or c privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this message in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from your computer.
c 1 001401 c Price, Richard From: Chip Berry
As a long time resident of Old Lyme I am strongly Opposed to any more casinos in CT. We have lived the traffic congestion and accidents caused by increased traffic flow to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. CT's aging roads and infrastructure can not take more traffic Chip Berry Stuart, FL Old Lyme,Ct
Sent from my iPad
c
1 001402
c Price, Richard From: ROBERT BOSE
Regarding the subject proposal, this is the wrong way to go! An expansion of the collaboration with the casino industry and the Unions will continue the downward spiral of Connecticut into a debt ridden, unattractive place to do business and signal a continuing inability and unwillingness to address serious issues for opportunity and economic growth .. In addition, it will continue to promote the approach of the State of Connecticut as predator on its own people
Yours Sincerely, Robert A. Bose Danbury, Connecticut
c
c 001403
c Price, Richard
From: Christine Boyer
I am not in favor of this bill. It will add more congestion to the roads.
Christine Boyer Windsor
Sent from my iPad c
c 1 001404
C Price, Richard
From: Mike Brouillette < [email protected] > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 2:36 PM To: pstestimony Subject: "Senate Bill1090"
NO MORE CASINO'S
d'f.il c 1 001405 c Price, Richard From: Schaeffer, Edward Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 2:13 PM To: pstestimony Subject: Testimony from Constituent of Rep Ziobron Hello, Please see the below email. Charles Brown, a constituent of Rep Ziobron would like to have it submitted as testimony in opposition to SB 1090 An Act Concerning Gaming. Best, Ed Schaeffer House Republican Office 860-240-8725 From: Charles Brown [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 8:53AM To: zRepresentative Melissa Ziobron Subject: Upcoming Bills c I would encourage you to oppose an expansion of casinos in Connecticut. Gambling exploits those in society that are least able to afford it. In the hope of improving their situation they gamble away their future against statistical odds that are always heavily against them. It is immoral for the state to promote this exploitation. Maybe the decrease in casino attendance is due a raising public awareness of the no win game that gambling is. With the building of casinos in neighboring states, how will building more here in Ct. improve revenue? Please oppose this. I also heard of a bill that would change rules and penalties regarding pets and animal mistreatment. Please be careful with this one. If not carefully worded this could seriously restrict agricultural practice in the state. I consider many of the animal rights groups well-meaning but too extreme. Please don't give them a tool to attack others for violating their extreme views. Courts need flexibility in sentencing for animal cruelty. Mandatory sentencing is almost always a bad idea, similar to "no tolerance" rules in schools that end up with absurd senseless punishments. Rather than focus on animals, why don't we focus on restoring the cuts in programs and failures of the safety net for our most vulnerable special needs citizens. Thanks, Charlie Brown c 1 001406 c My name is Kevin Brown, and I am Chairman of the Mohegan Tribe. I grew up in Montville, went.to high school and played football there. I left Montville to attend West Point in 1983 and served my country for 24 years after graduation, and returned home in 2013 to see that nearly ten percent of the people in my hometown are no longer unemployed or dependent on the defense industry, but employed by Mohegan Sun.. I am here today with my counterpart, Mashantu<;ket Pequot Chairman Rodney. Butler, to talk to you about why and how Connecticut must take steps to compete with an $800 million gaming resort that will open five miles from our border in just two years. For the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Chairman to appear here together today is a first. Our Tribes have a long history of fierce competition, and today, we are competitors in business. · But the competition on the horizon is threateni~g, and not just to us but to the state c of Connecticut, that we are here to urge you to pass SB1090, An Act Concerning Gaming to protect thousands of jobs our two resorts employ. These jobs include world-class chefs, entertainment manage,rs, dealers, hosts and many others in the hospitality, food & beverage and gaming industry who provide service to the 50,000 patrons who visit our two resorts every day. There have been a lot of questions about this legislation since it was announced last. week Are the jobs at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods valuable enough t.o protect? Is the gaming industry approaching equilibrium? Will strategically placed alternative gaming entertainment sites appeal enough to consumers to bring in business and save jobs? And do the people of Connecticut really want alternative gaming sites in the state? The short answer to all those questions is yes. Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods are two of the most successful gaming resorts in the world ... in the world ... In addition to premier g!lming floors at Mohegan Sun, we have some of the finest dining in New England and our entertainment Arena is recognized as one of the best in the country and the World. The reason for our THE MOHEGAN TRIBE c 13 Crow Hill Road • Uncasville, CT 06382 • Telephone (860) 862-6100 001407 c Page2 success at Mohegan Sun is our employees- mab.y of whom have been with us since our doors opened in 1996. 75% have been with us more than 5 years, and 75% of our managers and supervisors ,have been promoted from within -this is an investment in human capital that is worthy of sustaining. People with livelihoods that come from an investment and commitment on their part, that they stand to lose. They are trained and experienced and the best at what they do. Without them, our business would not have achieved its' worlds best status and without them CT stands to lose significant contributors to our rich communities and o·ur economy. The gaming industry is changing. The number of gaming sites in New England has doubled in the past decade. Our success in Connecticut is exactly th.e reason other states are entering the gaming industry. And those states are now passing laws that will make thel,ll even mQre competitive with Connecticut. There are those who · suggest that alone doesn't create a compelling reason to compete and that we should just realize that we're going to lose a portion of our business, jobs and state revenues to those states on our boundaries. Apparently those who take this position don't understand that in a competitive market approaching equilibrium, government re.ally has no role other than to make the market more competitive - and that's what.SB1090 does. There will always be a market for gaming and entertainment Why wouldn't Connecticut' fight to remain competitive and successful, and to protect thousands of c jobs for people who live, pay taxes and raise families here? Mohegan Sun has been successful because we know our customers, and our employees provide the high quality service those customers want and.have come to exJlect. While there will certainly be interest in the bright shiny object represented by new out-of-state casinos, the fact is that our customers understand and believe in brand loyalty. Given the opportunity to build strategically located alternative gaming sites New England's customers will come to enjoy the first class experience they've come to expect at Mohegan or Foxwoods at a convenient location. And finally, I would ask you to look deeper at recent Quinnipiac Pol~ then the ofteri quoted and singular response that suggest 75% don't see a need for another casino. According to that same poll, 62 percent of voteFs think gaming is good for Connecticut, and ari even higher percentage, 68 percent, believe that it is better for gaming business and the jobs that gaming generates to stay here in the state. Let's · look at ALL of the answers to the poll, not just the one answer that makes for an easy decision - and on that note, let's take into account the question about their number one concern - the overwhelming answer was jobs. Allowing the development of alternative gaming sites will preserve and create jobs. c 001408 c Page 3 The poll numbers tell me that the people of Connecticut consider the Tribes their partners, and that they support the industry, the economic development it promotes, and the thousands of jobs at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods provide. I would like to close my testimony by making the very clear statement that Mohegan Sun is not going anywhere, and in fact you may have seen recently we are fully engaged to meet and fight competition from MA, with significant new investments at our property at Mohegan Sun in Uncasville. With or without this legislation, Mohegan Sun will survive. But by not passing _SB1090 we will likely be forced to right size our business and eliminate thousands of Jobs, and the impact will be significant on those great employees, not to mention our vendors from throughout the State and the other entertainment and tourist destinations in our region with whom our patronage is often shared. If we do pass this legislation and Connecticut joins with the Mohegan- Pequot partnership we will not only protect those precious jobs but Connecticut can and will retain its place as New England's-premier tourism destination. The decision is yours to make but we are here to tell you that we 'can help you help us protect Connecticut jobs and Connecticut t;evehue from the direct assault on our industry c and our state by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and New York. c 001409 c Public Safety and Security Committee Public Hearing Testimony of Rodney A. Butler, Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation SB 1090 AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING March 17,2015 Wuyeekeekeesuk Chairman Dargan, Chairman Larson, members of the Public Safety and Security Committee. My name is Rodney Butler and I am the Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, proud owners of Fox woods Resort Casino. I am present today with Kevin Brown, Chairman of the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut to speak about SB 1090. The State of Connecticut and its citizens and the two federally recognized Tribes and their citizens are confronted with a challenge. Just as we have worked together for the past twenty years for the benefit of all we feel we have an opportunity to confront this challenge together. As has been clearly demonstrated the expansion in Rhode Island and New York, has cost Connecticut thousands of jobs. Unless addressed the advent of casino gaming in Massachusetts will cost Connecticut thousands more. The revenue of all three entities resulting from gaming in Connecticut has already been substantially reduced and will be radically reduced in the future if c. we don't act together now. The drafters of Senate Bill 1090 have come up with a solution, not to expand gaming in the State of Connecticut, but rather to minimize the State's loss of jobs and revenue which will oceur if nothing is done. We would urge the passage of this legislation. If it is enacted the two Tribes can pool their experience and resources to construct one or more gaming facility in locations which will best encourage garners in Connecticut not to bring their business to Massachusetts or other states but retain it at home where it will provide Connecticut jobs and limit the erosion of amounts paid to the State of Connecticut from the Tribes' existing facilities. Massachusetts had debated casino gaming for years and its support by the voters, the legislature, and the executive branch was based upon the realization that Massachusetts citizens interested in gaming were in fact spending their money in Connecticut. The authorization of new casinos in Massachusetts reflected the reality that those wishing to game would game. The net effect was simply to retain that revenue in Massachusetts rather than have it leave the State for Connecticut or perhaps Rhode Island. Likewise, the design of this Bill is simply to encourage Connecticut garners to spend their money here in Connecticut rather than competing jurisdictions. If it encourages some Massachusetts residents to visit here all the better. c 001410 c The people of Connecticut have a choice. Should they sit back and permit their jobs and revenue to be exported to other jurisdictions or be proactive and in the most responsible manner possible protect the economy of the State of Connecticut and its residents. We feel this Bill is a credit to our State Government in attacking a serious economic challenge in the most responsible way possible. We urge its passage. Kutaputush. c c 001411 c To Whom It May Concern; I am writing regarding Ra~t:r!_.?en_ate Bill No. 1090 Session Year 2015- AN .ACT CONCERNING GAMING. To protect Connecticut jobs and to encourage tourism by allowing the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut to operate casinos in the state. Introduced by: Public Safety and Security Committee I wish to state that after doing some research online, to back up my beliefs or prove me wrong, I am convinced that more gambling is not good for our state for many reasons. All one has to do is read a few studies to see that you are trying to create a revenue source, but which, in most likelihood, will only be creating much bigger problems. You cannot keep looking for a fix to your spending problems by creating more problems. Let's try balancing our budget and decrease some unnecessary spending instead of wasting more of our taxpayer's dollars. I have posted links here to three articles I found on gambling and they confirm what I already thought: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/187679.pdf http://www .casi nowatch.org/studies research/New%20Casinos%201 mpact. pdf c This one is a great informational resource. http://uss-mass.org/communities.html Here's what I found out by reading these articles. • Crime rates go up in some areas and down in others. I would suspect that the closer you get to the casino the higher the crime rate is as there would be more easy victims there. Crime rates further out may drop as the bad elements leave those areas to scavenge closer to the casinos. • Small businesses lose customers and close creating less jobs. • Divorce rates may or may not drop but suicide rates increase. Perhaps, those victims feel their families might reap insurance benefits which would not be there if they just divorced. • Gambling addictions increase which affects families, friends and communities. • Other tourism is hurt in areas where casinos are. • Family·time is disrupted as is money for family activities. • Increased traffic problems. • Increased children in schools when low wage workers are imported for jobs and their children need to be educated. • Lottery revenues drop. • Property values drop. • Environmental impact problems increase. c 001412 c It seems our legislators feel adding more vices to our state is a good thing. Increasing hours that package stores can remain open and allowing them to open on Sundays does nothing but increase the moral decay of an already burdened society. You are killing the small package store owners and now you want to hurt more small businesses. Keno was introduced at the same time as the changed liquor laws. You just keep taking money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it and who may be under the influence and have no will power over their spending. http:/!ctmirror.org/2013/09/26/connecticut-bets-keno-maybe-more-slots/ "The fact of the matter is the state of Connecticut is in the gaming industry, and we've been seeing revenues continue to drop," said Sen. Andres Ayala, 0-Bridgeport, as lawmakers began their public look at video slots. Do you maybe think revenues at the casinos we already have here might have dropped because people have no jobs? It is my understanding that income from Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods is already down. So now you want to add more casinos because you think it will bring more people in? I think it will just mean people can gamble closer to home and you will spread the same money to a larger area. Instead of bringing the standard of living up in the state of CT you try to find solutions to bring us down. Whatever happened to raising the bar instead of sinking to the lowest common denominator? J c Perhaps you folks who think increased gambling and vices are such a great idea should stop trying to find an easy fix and start looking for ways to increase our economy by making CT a family oriented destination spot where they can find good moral values at an affordable price. Start looking for ways to increase the jobs market without paying out huge sums of money to entice companies to locate here. Try giving them good tax incentives to locate here. Better jobs means more tax dollars. I know, that might require some hard work but that's why you took the job, right? Not for an easy retirement package and benefits after your term. Hey, they only thing I have yet to see introduced is legalized prostitution. Perhaps we should try that. It might make more customers for the medical faCilities which could add people onto the ACA programs. My final thought is that all of you voting on this issue need to watch the movie Little Nikki. Seems to me to portray the moral decay in this country pretty well. May God bless you all with making the right decisions for our community and state rather than always looking for another badly raised dollar. Warmest Regards, Margaret Budny, New Hartford, CT c 001413 c Price, Richard From: Aircraft Engravers < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:08 AM To: pstestimony; Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Senate Bill1090 Please vote NO for the proposed Senate Bi111 090. Connecticut doesn't need another casino. Even if we do get it, it would disrupt the town where ever it's built. So if you want it so much build it in your town, close to your house, school or church. Who's to say the Massachusetts or New York won't build one close by the Connecticut border and take away many of the intended gamblers. Are the current casinos at full capacity? Aren't the current casino having many poor years in a row with less revenue coming in? So allowing more casinos to be built you would be hurting the current ones in operation. Who's going to be paying for the new roads, police, fire and any other cost associated with the casino, us tax payers? Please vote NO for the proposed Senate Bi111090. Wayne Cahoon 151 N. Granby Rd c Granby, CT c 1 001414 c Price, Richard From: Tony Camilleri Bill1090 New casinos along 1-91, 1-95 and 1-84 This is not going to raise more revenue for the State of Connecticut. What will happen is the current casino's revenue will drop and no longer attract more players. The players will still go out of state. The current Casino's need a new marketing plan do draw people into the state. The Casino Marketing should promote and pay for promoting all of Connecticut's arts, museums, historical sites, theaters and destinations. This will bring more tax dollars. to the State and more revenue to the Casino's by being an ambassador to the States fine arts and history. Anthony Camilleri 17 Celtic Court Enfield, CT 06082-5778 860-741-6019 [email protected] c c 1 001415 c Price, Richard From: mike casinghino < [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:52 PM To: pstestimony Subject: senate bill1090 No more casino's, where is all the money going from the other casino's?We have more than enough as it is. Michael Casinghino. This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com c c 1 001416 c Val Chamberlain 333 Northwood Drive Guilford, CT 0437 Senate Billl 090 March 17, 2015 Thank you for this opportunity to state my concerns about this bill. It is rriy understanding that the essence of this bill is to allow for the expansion of casino gambling in the State of Connect,icut by· allowing the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut to expand their casino operations. The stated rational is that this would create jobs and tax revenue. While both of those goals would benefit the state, the question is at what cost. My concern is that the passage of this bill would expand the footprint of gambling in the state, and while it may benefit some, it would also increase the number of problem gamblers through increase opportunity. How big a problem would that be? For most people, none. While gambling can be an entertaining pastime for many people, for some it can quickly become an overwhelming disorder. And for those problem gamblers and their families and friends, it is often a devastating problem with life-altering consequences. I was born and raised in Connecticut. When I was a child, the public morality was that gambling was a bad thing and should be avoided. But when states recognized that a state lottery could generate revenue, slowly but surely it seems that public morality has changed. We now have a state lottery and we have 'casino gambling in the southeastern part of the state. c So the question is, do we sacrifice some for the benefit of others? I say no, from a humanitarian standpoint, I hope that this bill concerning the expansion of gambling in Connecticut is defeated. Why · expose more people to the potential problems associated with gambling. Thank you for your time. ·. c 001417 c PUBLIC SAFETY and SECURITY COMMITIEE HEARING MARCH 17, 2015 Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and members of the committee, my name is Cam_~_C?n Cha~nn, I represent Plumbers and pipe Fitters Local Union 777. This testimony is in support of SB-1090. This bill would certainly be a win win for the State of Connecticut and it's citizens. It would provide employment opportunities and tax income for the state, not only from employees but also increase income revenue from gaming which we are fotunate enough to enjoy presently. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue. Please vote to move this bill forward. If any more information is neede please contact me at [email protected] or cell (860) 287-0020. c c 001418 c Price, Richard From: Elizabeth Chandler I would like to state my opposition to any new casinos in Connecticut. We already h_ave two casinos, which is more than enough. Our state needs economic activity that carries more inherent value than gambling establishments can provide. Thank you for the opportunity to send you my input. Elizabeth G. Chandler 88 East Road Melrose CT 06016 c c 001419 Price, Richard From: Henry Chapman the reason why people are against more casinos is that after ten or so years - like adlantic city they go broke. As for assisted susside -really I mean really.!!! And last but not least when hasn't a school budget been on the table- its an education in its self. HChapman c c 1 001420 c Price, Richard From: Ryan Clancy I'll keep this short and sweet: please no casinos in western Connecticut. It's a simple, absurd, short term idea built to try and fix complex, long term problems. Thank you. Sincerely, Ryan Clancy Sandy Hook, CT c c 1 001421 c 1 TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF SB 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING TESTIMONY TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY COMMITIEE SUBMITIED BY: DR. STEPHEN M. COAN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, SEA RESEARCH FOUNDATION MARCH 17, 2015 Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. My name is Steve Coan and I am the President and CEO of Sea Research Foundation which operates Mystic Aquarium. I also serve on the State of Connecticut Tourism Advisory Council and have been closely involved with efforts to improve the promotion of Connecticut as a world class tourism destination. 1am here today to support the addition of a third casino in the State of Connecticut close to the Massachusetts border. Connecticut is investing heavily in tourism. Some of us would like to see more investment, consistent with or greater than other states, including many in New England. Investment in marketing the state has been proven to have a multiplier effect on the economy through the following key indicators: sales taxes generated to the state, jobs, income taxes and local property taxes. Tourism is a multi-pronged industry that has, at its core, entertainment experiences, and we know that casino experiences are increasingly a core entertainment experience that tourists want and expect. In Southeastern Connecticut we believe that we can compete with international destinations c such as Orlando, New Orleans and Las Vegas because ofthe quantity, quality and diversity of our attractions. Key to this is the "nightlife" experiences that Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun bring to the region with world class dining, shopping, clubs and shows. The experiences that can be found at either of these facilities on any given night rivals what can be found in any other destination of the nation and the world. We value the presence of the two casinos in Southeastern Connecticut. They have been good neighbors to the region and to the State of Connecticut. As important as they are to one region of the state, the casinos play a critical role in attracting out-of-state visitors to Connecticut. They are key to bringing conferences and conventions to Connecticut that would likely go elsewhere. In the present discussion we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the State of Connecticut is highly dependent upon the two casinos as sources of revenue and jobs. Our state budget is directly dependent upon the monthly earnings at both casinos as well as other direct and indirect sources of tax income generated by them. In turn, our cities, towns, schools and people benefit from these revenue sources which contribute exponentially to the state when compared to any other two businesses in the state. The two casinos in Southeastern Connecticut are already experiencing the deleterious impact of new casinos in the State of New York, expanded gaming in the State of Rhode Island and the c 001422 c 2 growth of online gambling opportunities. The discussion today is not about the merits of casino gambling. It is not about whether these casinos are good or bad for Connecticut. The discussion today is about an industry and two businesses whose well-being is intrinsically linked to the economic well-being ofthe State of Connecticut and who are being threatened by external factors that can and should be mitigated by the intervention of state government. There are many examples of other industries that have benefitted from state assistance to keep them competitive and to assure that jobs remain in the State of Connecticut. This is by no means a precedent setting request. In essence, the question i$ whether or not we level the playing field with other state governments, specifically Massachusetts, and directly compete for customers who will go to or stay in Massachusetts rather than come to Connecticut. We know that Connecticut is the target market for casino customers in Massachusetts, especially for the proposed casino in Springfield. Why would we let them take our customers and our jobs? In Connecticut we have tremendous resources that differentiate us from other places that only have casinos. We have natural, cultural and historic beauty, art museums, aquariums, a zoo, a wonderful science museum, beaches, lakes and mountains. We want people to know and visit Connecticut for these resources, but we cannot and should not let others take away a key market niche in entertainment and experience that we also benefit from and that adds to the attractiveness of our state. J c Imagine someone landing at Bradley International Airport, a transportation hub that we are actively trying to grow as an economic engine for Connecticut. Will that weary traveler head 30 minutes north to a new casino complex in Springfield for dinner and a game of chance? Or, will we seek to have that same traveler stay within the borders of the Nutmeg State and spend money here? This is not about one traveler. It is an example that will be repeated hundreds of thousands of times annually by people coming to or traveling through Connecticut in one form or another. My hope is that you will approve this Bill and that travelers from everywhere in the world will come to Connecticut via plane, rail and car to spend money in our state, support employment, provide for better schools, roads and bridges, and contribute to a quality of life with history, culture and natural resources that we all cherish as citizens ofthis great state. c 001423 0 Price, Richard From: Dan Colby As a retired Connecticut resident who visits Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos regularly, I would not recommend the approval of additional casinos for Connecticut. As it is, at least one of the existing casinos is not doing very well anyway. When they open casinos in Massachusetts, chances are pretty good that one of the Connecticut casinos will have to .close or certainly curtail its offerings substantially. I have to drive almost two hours to get to the Connecticut casinos. That said, I wouldn't be happier if there was another closer casino. Gamblers have many, many choices for their entertainment already. I would much rather see Connecticut more famous for its insurance industry, its national defense research, development and manufacturing, and its awesome education opportunities. Casinos are fine, but too many isn't a good thing in my view. Daniel R Colby 7 High Fields Dr Danbury, Ct 06811 c c 1 001424 Price, Richard From: Richard Collins < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:46 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Senate Bill1090 Connecticut does not need more Casinos! It needs manufacturing jobs. I am opposed to adding additional casinos in Connecticut period. Casinos adversely affect not only the towns they are located in but the surrounding towns as well. Please vote no on this bill. Richard J. Collins, Jr. 54 A very Road Somers, CT06071 860-749-2351 c c 001425 c Price, Richard From: Fred More casinos are a mistake. The money they make comes out of the pockets of many CT residents. Often from those could least afford to lose the money. Many people never know you have a gambling problem until a Casino opens nearby. Alfred Costanzo New Fairfield, ct Sent from my iPhone c c 001426 c Price, Richard From: Bruce Coviello Please vote against this bill! We have enough traffic congestion on our interstates as it is! Thank you. c c 001427 c Price, Richard From: Thomas Curtis Please vote no to additional casinos. Two casinos are enough. This is not a way to build the economy. Just look what the numerous casinos have done for Atlantic City. Thank you, Karin Curtis Enfield c c 001428 c Price, Richard From: george cushing I strongly oppose now casinos in Connecticut. George Cushing New Fairfield c c 1 001429 c Price, Richard From: Art Davis I am against more Casinos in Connecticut. This will just add to our traffic issues we already have. Let's focus on businesses that are already here in the state, especially small businesses I vote NO for Senate Bill1090 and will vote against anyone that votes yes for this in the next election. Thank you, Art Davis c c 1 001430 c Price, Richard From: Bo Dealba < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:14 PM To: pstestimony SBl090 Subject: Casino It is crazy to ad more gambling to the state. We going to depend on people on social security. To put money into these casinos we need to keep the money in there pocket. Not make it easier to get in the habit I would vote no. Between lottery an casino's. Its just to easy to get caught up in a bad habit. Thanks for listening. c c 001431 c Price, Richard From: Nancy Foley < [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 5:34AM To: [email protected]. Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: More casinos Hello, I am opposed to more casinos in Connecticut. I live in Enfield, and I think another casino in the area will have a negative effect on our quality of life. Nancy Dembek Enfield, CT c c 001432 c Price, Richard From: Phyllis D'Ettore < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:41 PM To: pstestimony. Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: Senate Bill 1090 My name is Phyllis D'Ettore, and I live in New Fairfield. I am totally against expanding casinos in the state of Connecticut. All that would do is bring more congestion and crime. Please do not expand the number of casinos in our state. P~~V'Ettore-- c c 001433 c Price, Richard From: AI DePolt Why would anyone go a slot room in CT when 15 to 20 miles up the road you will have a full casino with all the amenities such as shows, buffet, hotel rooms and much more. What a cheap way to try and raise taxes. How much will it cost the town in increased expenses such as police fire social service from people going broke and needing social services, food bank, soup kitchen, fuel assistance, and many other problems including medical and addiction to gambling. c c 1 001434 c Price, Richard From: Tim Dineen I find it most discouraging to learn that the Legislature is considering building additional Casinos along our Interstates. No, No, No!!! Casinos are not the answer for resolving Connecticut's financial issues. Please ---NO c c 001435 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:39 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Bill1090 From: Gertrude Dorous, 57 Old King Street, Enfield, CT 06082 I am AGAINST any more casinos in the State of Connecticut. Thank you. Gertrude Dorous c c 001436 c Statement Opposing Sen..~!_e_ _?iii1090-Expanding Casinos in Connecticut Michael Dowling Fairfield, CT I oppose expanding casinos in Connecticut. Instead I suggest the Legislature and Governor invest its efforts and our tax dollars improving business climate to attract new and support existing businesses. I was born in 1953 in Norwalk, raised in Ridgefield, and have lived in Fairfield since 1983. I have worked as an attorney in private practice in downtown Bridgeport from 1980 to 1994. In 1994 my law firm moved to Fairfield when the State and City of Bridgeport renovated the downtown Mall that is now occupied by Housatonic Community College. I have been to the casinos in Eastern Connecticut for conferences. I am against expanding casinos. I believe they lure those least able to gamble to gamble when the odds always favor the house. The benefits promised fall short of projections. The casinos and other gambling activity, such as dog tracks (Bridgeport), Jai Lai/"Hi-Li" (Milford), or Off-Track-Betting parlors eventually fail here, and wind up wasting millions spent by the State. Currently the high-touted casinos Atlantic City are bankrupt. I am against spending my tax dollars on purported "fast-buck" schemes including casinos. I request that you vote down Bill1090, and instead support legitimate businesses that develop products and services. Thank you. c Michael Dowling , 1375 Kings Highway Fairfield, CT 06925 c 001437 c Price, Richard From: Pat Droney < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 9:07 AM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Senate Bill1090 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in stark opposition to this bill. Once again, legislators in Connecticut are trying to take the "easy" way out to try to raise funds to quench their unrelenting desire to spend taxpayer money. Connecticut is already home to two casinos. Many others are being proposed throughout the northeast. Casino income is a zero sum game. Precisely where do you think the patrons for such a casino would come from? Most people from Northern CT go to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun. They would merely stay closer to home. So whatever revenue you gain from that transfer of gambling would be lost at the other two. Would you gain some people from Western Mass? Probably .... and it would be those who can least afford to lose money. Most people who gamble do so because they are looking to make a quick buck. Along with that, you will see increased crime, increased traffic and an increased burden on municipalities and our infrastructure. Gimmicks such as this are an attempt to blow smoke to taxpayers. Every time the legislature comes up with an idea like this, which is supposed to be "directed" toward something, it ends up in the general fund as a perpetual slush fund to spend money on projects such as FastTrak, which will be in mothballs likely within a few years. c As a lifelong Connecticut resident, I am opposed to this bill. Patrick Droney Enfield, CT c 1 001438 c Price, Richard From: ddubanoski Dear Sir, In regards to bi111090, I do not want to see any more casino's in CT. Sincerely, Donna Dubanoski 23 Betty Rd Enfield, CT Sent lfom my Verizon Wireless 4G L TE smartphone c c 001439 c Price, Richard From: Donna Dubanoski Dear Sir, In regards to Senate Bill 1090 I am opposed to any additional Casinos in Connecticut ! Sincerely, Steven Dubanoski 23 Betty Road Enfield, Ct c c 1 001440 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:39 PM To: pstestimony Subject: No casinos SJ? l090 I will be voting NO towards the idea of putting more casinos in Connecticut. Sent from my iPhone c c 001441 c FOUNDATION FOR FAIR CONTRACTING OF CONNECTICUT, INC. 1268 Main Street, Suite 202, Newington, CT 06111 Office: 860-667-7727 Fax: 860-667-9949 www.ffcct.org TESTIMONY of Cindy Dubuque, MSW Executive Director SB 1090: AN ACT CONCERING GAMBLING March 17, 2015 Honorable Senator Larson, Honorable Representative Dargan, and esteemed members of the Public Safety Committee: The Foundation for Fair Contracting of Conaecticut ("FFC") submits this letter in support of SB 1090 AN ACT CONCERNING GAMBLING. The FFC is an industry-sponsored organization. Our mission is to promote compliance with laws and regulations relating to public works construction. Specifically, we focus on issues concerning wages, classification of workers and apprenticeship standards. The building of new casinos in the state of Connecticut will provide a number of benefits to the state including increased revenue, jobs and tourism. This is evidenced by the previous job creation and c revenue brought into the state with Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, which, together, created more than 32,000 jobs through the construction processes of casinos and within casinos operations (UMASS, 2011, p. 5). In fact, according to the UMASS Boston College of Management Report (2011), "over the years, the two casinos contributed $416.7 million in revenue to the state and $139.8 million to the local government, and created an estimated total of $340 million payroll for their employees" (p. 7). Furthermore, for every dollar spent on construction, $1.57 is reinvested in the economy (Zandi, 2010). Massachusetts recognized the potential for gambling revenue and subsequently decided to build a casino in Springfield, MA as a means of attracting tourism from neighboring states, including Connecticut. This means a reduction of monies being invested in our state and more dollars traveling out of state. The building of these casinos enables CT to compete with the new MGM casino just over the border while keeping monies in CT and bringing in more tourism into other areas of the state. In addition to supporting the construction industry and creating construction jobs, this endeavor will create more hospitality and tourism sector employment. This ultimately creates more payroll and tax revenue for the state. These jobs are good paying jobs and as noted by MASS Boston, "casino workers in Massachusetts could be expected to earn an average of $36,000 to $44,000 per year" (p. 9) and should be expected in Connecticut as well. These are not low paying jobs, these are good middleclass jobs. Please support 1090 AN ACT CONCERNING GAMBLING and the growth of Connecticut's economy. Cindy Dubuque, MSW Executive Director c 001442 c Price, Richard From: Scott Duncan We have enough casinos, enough gambling... enough! Scott Duncan 504 Cider Barrel Way North Granby, CT, 06060 c c 1 001443 c Price, Richard From: Sterling Durgy I am writing against adding new casinos in the state of Connecticut. (1) Our major roads are burdened way beyond the maximum amount they were designed to handle; and this is without full employment in Connecticut. Accidents cause major thoroughfares to come to a standstill now. Further casino traffic will cause problems for employees and customers to have access to local businesses. (2) History shows that casinos take money out of the local economy, away from local businesses. We need to grow conventional businesses in Connecticut, not further burden them. (3) Lately, attendance at Connecticut casinos has been down. Other places are envisioning competitive casinos, taking some "gaming" away from Connecticut. This argues against spreading casino customers across more Connecticut casinos. Look at what has happened to Atlantic City. This is not a good long-term plan for Connecticut, which needs to create a competitive business environment with a diversity of business offerings to have a truly robust economy. Respectfully, Sterling M. Durgy 126 Sunnyside Court c Milford, CT 06460 c 1 001444 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 8:14 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Guglielmo, Anthony; [email protected] Subject: Bill1090 --··-~ .. -- I want to voice my opinion on this bill, allowing more casinos in Conn. REALLY!!!!!!!!!! I think NOT ! Sounds like the State of Connecticut is looking for more revenue to me ... ENOUGH!! NO MORE.!! Have you folks learned nothing ? Michele Eddy Vernon. c c 1 001445 c Price, Richard From: Ronald Eleveld To the Committee considering more legalized gambling in CT. I would just ask legislator to consider that in the past year I believe 1/3 to 112 of Atlantic City Casinos have closed because of competition [see several links below]. Our own casinos are having issues and are making efforts to try to become more attractive because of the increased competition in MA, RI, NY, to name just our close neighbors. Contrary to some peoples belief, the amount of available money to gamble with is finite, and the more casinos, the less each casino will garner of those dollars. Furthermore world wide casinos are having issues, and with our anti money laundering laws, and banking rules, international visitors find friendlier gambling climates in Macau, Monaco, and other exotic ports of call. Lastly it is the poor that are most negatively effected by casinos believe that a quick play at the Lottery, or the casino, is a sure way to get rich, and most educated people understand that is just not the case for 99.9% of them. c Ronald Eleveld http:/I darkroom. baltimoresun.com/20 14/09/closing-the-atlantic-city-casinos/# 1 Last call for Atlantic City's casinos Atlantic City's casinos have been losing their glitz and gambling dollars to the more than 40 new rivals that have opened in neighboring states, with gaming revenue nearly halving from its 2006 peak of$5.2 billion. Three of the 12 casinos in the city closed earlier this year, and a fourth, one of the Trump Entertainment properties, closed its doors Sept. 16. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/and then there were 8 atlantic city could lose another casino by years end.html Then there were 8: Trump Plaza shutdown marks a bad summer for Atlantic City casinos http://nj 1015 .com/whv-are-atlantic-city-casinos-closing/ Since the beginning of the year, four casinos have shut their doors in Atlantic City. The Atlantic Club shuttered its doors in January. Showboat closed on Aug. 31, Revel went dark on Sept. 2 and Trump Plaza closed on Sept. 16. Slot machines William Thomas Cain, Getty Images Now only eight casinos remain, from a high of 12 in January, and almost 8,000 people are jobless. Meanwhile a fifth casino, Trump Taj Mahal, could close down in November. c 1 001446 So why are so many casinos closing at once? c "If you think back to the correction that took place when the financial markets and the housing market dropped, a lot of these things happen very, very quickly when there's a correction in the market- so I don't think that's terribly unusual," said Israel Posner, executive director of the Lloyd D. Levenson Institute of Gaming, Hospitality & Tourism at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. Posner said anyone who follows the market in Atlantic City and in the region understands there is now a very different landscape when it comes to casino gaming in the mid-Atlantic region. "There are now 25 casinos in the region. A decade ago the only casinos that existed in this region were in Atlantic City. The casino market transformed from a destination market to a convenience market, and at this point in time it's clear that if all you want to do is gamble, there are places closer to home," Posner said. Ronald C. Eleveld Home Address: 880 Palisado Avenue Windsor, CT 06095 • J c Busmess Telephone: 860-688-8849 Ext. 201 (best place to call (24/7)) Facsimile Machine: 860-688-8849 ·Home Telephone: 860-285-8856 (Please use Business Phone) E-mail: [email protected] Social Networking Sites: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/releveld?ref=name http://www.eleveld.org c 2 001447 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] on behalf of Don Fabrizio-Garcia Please support Senate Bill1090. Don Fabrizio-Garcia 21 Walnut Ridge Rd New Fairfield, CT 06812 c c 001448 c Price, Richard From: Shawn P. Flynn Hi Senator Kissel, Thank you for your email about Senate Bill1090. Opening more casinos in CT is an absolutely terrible idea! Yeah, that's all we need, more people gambling away little Johnny's college fund, more traffic and transients, more drug and alcohol use and abuse, more prostitution, higher crime rates, and lower property values, just like in Atlantic City! According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, only about 20% of residents are in favor of these additional casinos. For once the politicians in this state should be more concerned about their constituents instead offocusing on lining their pockets. While it appears that you are not in favor of additional casinos, it is important that we keep the other politicians from turning this state into a cesspool. Thank you. Shawn Flynn Enfield, CT c On Wed, 3/11/15, John A. ~issei On Tuesday, March 17, a public hearing will be held on Bill 1090. Bill1090, if passed into law, could result in the creation of new casinos along 1-91, 1-95 and 1-84. One of those casinos would be built in a yet-to-be-named town in north-central Connecticut. Here's flow you can teffshite legislators how you feel about this proposal: c 1) Email your testimony on Bill 1090 as soon as possible to [email protected] . 001449 c Price, Richard From: David Fredrick No more casinos! Try to preserve the Yankee mystique. Sent from my iPad c c 1 001450 C· Price, Richard From: Charlie Fritz < [email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 12:30 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A.; zRepresentative Tami Zawistowski Subject: Senate Bill 1090 Please register my opposition to this bill permitting additional casinos in Connecticut. I note from recent news reports both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are losing out-of-state gamblers. It doesn't make sense to add another casino to an already declining business segment. Best regards, Charles Fritz 3852 Old Mountain Road West Suffield c 001451 c THE CITY OF GROTON Mayor Marian Galbraith 295 Meridian Street, Groton, CT 06340 (860) 446-4103 (860) 445-4058 FAX March 17,2015 Testimony of Marian Galbraith, Mayor of the City of Groton, in support of SB 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming On behalf of the City of Groton, I am pleased to provide testimony in favor of. SB 1090. This act would authorize the Commissioner of the Department of Consumer Protection to issue up to three gaming facility licenses to the Mohegan Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe to jointly establish and operate facilities in this state. As the mayor of a nearby municipality, I understand the impact the current gaming facilities have on our economy. Likewise, I understand the role future gaming facilities will play in keeping jobs and revenue in Connecticut. Many of the resideJ}ts of the City of Groton are employed at Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort c and Casino. They and their families pay taxes in our communities, their children attend our schools, they shop and spend their earnings at local businesses. The Mohegan Tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, because of these gaming facilities, are able to support countless community development initiatives. They also provide philanthropic support to non-profit organizations which provide human services, organizations which continually feel the sting of budget cuts. Numerous small businesses owe their success to their contracts with these facilities and the tourism they generate. Both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun provide valuable revenue to our state, revenue which needs to be kept in this state. At a time, when both the state and municipalities are struggling to balance budgets in light of dwindling revenues, we cannot afford to let competition in nearby states drain those revenues over state borders. A vote in support of SB 1090 is a vote to protect this valuable industry, preserve jobs, and enhance revenues. I urge you to support SB 1090. J1au;,;_~""-«-- Marian Galbraith Mayor, City of Groton c 001452 c Price, Richard From: Patricia Goble < [email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 7:34AM To: pstestimony Subject: Bill1090 I would like to express my opinion regarding Bill1090 and the creation of new Casinos along 1-91, 1-95 and 1-84. I am totally against this proposal. The state of CT is in a fiscal crisis and building casinos in "hope" that new revenue will come into the state as a result, is an absolute irresponsible way of thinking. The State of CT has very large casinos and during this last recession, the revenues of those casinos plummeted and hurt the state because of its reliability of that revenue. The very idea that our State depends on those casinos for income lacks a sense of financial responsibility of our leaders. I cannot support any action that capitilizes on money brought in to this state by gambling. It is ethically reprehensible to capitalize off of individuals who will gamble their hard earned money to "try" and make a buck. Thank you, Patricia Goble Danbury, CT c c 001453 JUUE KUSHNER OlREO"OR REGION 9A UAW c 111 SOUTH ROAD FAR.VIINGTON, CONNECfiCUT 06032-2560 PHONE: (860! 674-0143 FAX: (860)674-1164 PRINTED IH USA INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMER!CA-UAW DENNIS WILLIAMS, President GARY CASTEEL, Secretary· Treasurer Public Hearing Public Safety Committee Testimony Presented by Andrea Goodrich Support SB 1090 AAC Gaming Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and Members of the Public Safety Committee, my name is Andrea Goodrich. I have been a table games dealer at Foxwoods Resort Casino for 11 years and am the President of UAW Local 2121- the union for casino dealers at Foxwoods. We currently have 1,480 dealers and assistant floor supervisors. I am here to thank you for raising SB 1090 An Act Concerning Gaming and I am urging committee members to vote yes on this important proposal. Many of my co-wo~kers have been at Foxwoods since it opened in 1992. In 2010, when we became c members of UAW, our jobs got better. We were able to improve our healthcare, wages, and working conditions and have an avenue for ongoing communication with our employer about issues that arise on the job. We are here today in support of this proposal because if passed, we know the jobs to build the casinos and the jobs to operate the casino will be union jobs and this is incredibly important to us. We also want to support the substitute language that has been presented to the committee to ban smoking in the three new casinos. Our members understand all too well the dangers of working every day exposed to second hand smoke and we have come before you with our concerns in the past. We feel very strongly that these new casinos must be smoke free and urge you to ensure the health and safety of workers in any new casinos built in Connecticut. Due to increased competition from other states, we believe Connecticut must act quickly to build new casinos to retain business, keep Connecticut's loyal casino patrons here in our state, and protect state revenue. Thank you for your consideration and support of~ SB 1090. cg/opeiu494 c 001454 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:49 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: Senate Bill 1090 Please do not establish any more casino's in Connecticut. This is very important to the image of Conn. It can cause a decrease in the higher economic population, not to mention the damage to middle and lower economic groups that are always looking for a silver lining. There are enough casino's in Connecticut. Gamblers always find a way to a casino, if that is their desire. Is the State that desperate for money that we need to increase gambling? Be creative, find other ways. Create more artistic arena if it is the shows that are desired at the casino. Marjorie Guerin, Danbury Resident c c 1 001455 c I am disappointed that many of our legislators wish to see more casinos in our state especially at the State's borders. The results of numerous studies have shown that casinos of any size lower property values and the impact of gambling is worse on the poor and lower income people. This is evident by looking at Atlantic City and Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods where many of the jobs they initially created are no longer there. Also, the overall attendance is down, revenue is down and the gambling addiction is up. I ask that you don't approve change in our laws just so we can get a little more revenue from these casinos. I would like to see our elected officials cut costs by reducing the number of State employees or on the flip side, reduce business taxes/fees so CT is more business friendly which will in turn generate the additional revenue you're looking for. Thank you. c Michael Hall Granby,CT c 001456 c Price, Richard From: Joan Hancock As a resident of Ctplease vote against this gambling bill. We are already close to gambling areas. We don't need the additional crime and addiction that go with it. Keep the families together Nothing good happens for the children in Ct at casinos Sent from my iPhone c c 1 001457 Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 4:36 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Bill1090 Please put a casino in Windsor Locks ... Perfect! It won't cost the taxpayers any money. It will be done right, by Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Thank you! Patricia E. Hargrove [email protected] c c 001458 c Office of the Mayor Testimony of Deb Hinchey Deberey A. Hinchey Mayor, City of Norwich Before the Public Safety & Security Committee In Support of SB 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming March 17, 2015 Good afternoon, Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and distinguished members of the Public Safety and Security Committee. My name is Deb Hinchey and I am the Mayor of the City of Norwich. I am here today to testify in support of SB 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming. The debate about gambling in our state was decided long ago when the compact was signed by the tribes and the state of Connecticut. Since that time, we have all shared in the success enjoyed by both the Mashantucket Pequots and The Mohegan Tribe. Many communities and organizations throughout the region have benefited from their generosity as well. The issue we face today is about competition from our neighbors who have witnessed the financial success of the tribes and the economic stability that success has provided the state through yearly slot revenues and job c creation. With the decline in defense jobs in Southeastern Connecticut, our region would have been devastated without the thousands of good-paying jobs created by the casinos. Not to mention the thousands of jobs provided through ancillary services, businesses and vendors connected to the Casino. Norwich alone has almost 3500 residents working at the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. This does not include all of the Norwich residents who are employed by vendors, restaurants, hotels, shops and other businesses outside of the Casinos whose jobs are directly tied to that business. We are talking about thousands of taxpayers in Norwich alone who will likely be at risk unless we step up to the plate to protect their jobs. The legislation before you today does just that. By creating opportunities for individuals to easily patronize Connecticut's Casinos, we will continue to share in the success of these world-class destinations. Without this bill, we will surely lose business to the new operations outside of Connecticut, putting our constituents jobs at risk. As elected officials, it is our responsibility to do everything we can to protect our citizens. Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about the new competition that is on the horizon, but we can do everything possible to ensure that we have a fighting chance. We should not gamble with the livelihoods of our residents who depend on the Casino operations in Connecticut. I urge your passage of SB 1090. Thank you for your consideration. City of Norwich lVIayor's Office 100 Broadway, Room 330 • Norwich, CT 06360 Phone: (860) 823-3743 • Cell (860) 334-2549 • F<1.."<: (860) 885-2914 c [email protected] • www.norwichcr.org 001459 c Price, Richard From: Ed Hodgson I strongly oppose any action to create or allow any new casinos in Connecticut. All data consistently show the high social cost of gambling and we have seen in Atlantic City and elsewhere that it is a poor and unreliable contributor to local economies. Connecticut already has more gambling embedded in our economy and social fabric than makes any sense. Please be aware that I will be backing up my opposition with the votes I casrt in future elections. Thank you for your attention. Ed Hodgson c c 001460 c Public Hearing Public Safety Committee Testimony Presented by Keri Hoehne, Organizing Director, UFCW Local371 SB 1090 AAC Gaming- Support Good afternoon Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Keri Hoehne and I am the Organizing Director an of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 371, which represents over eight thousand members in Connecticut and Western Massachusetts. Our membership works in many industries, including retail, food processing, healthcare, transportation, and as bartenders, bar porters, hosts, and beverage servers in beverage department at Foxwoods Resort and Casino. I am here to thank you for raising this proposal to allow for up to three new casinos to be built in Connecticut and to urge your support. Our members at Foxwoods have worked hard to build up the casino and contribute to its success. Most of them have worked there since its opening over 23 years ago. Many of those members enjoy not only an income that can support their families, but strong benefits and safe working conditions. As a result of their union casino jobs, they have raised families, built homes and contributed to their communities. While bargaining a first union contract in these difficult economic times was challenging, c our members stood' together and now, in addition to increased wages and protected benefits, have job security and a process for standing up for themselves and their coworkers. However, we have already begun to witness the loss of good, benefit level positions as the result of reduced income to the casino. If we do not do something to slow the export of casino and related hospitality jobs to our neighbors in Massachusetts and New York, we stand to not only lose thousands more good union jobs with strong wages, but also a large part of Connecticut's tax base. More casinos are being built. We are going to have more competition. That we know. The question is how do we, as leaders and citizens of Connecticut, react to that reality? For our members and the thousands of workers just like them, taking this step is not only bold- it is necessary. In order for our good union jobs to continue, our employers must grow and prosper, and this is the best way to ensure that happens. Thank you for your time and your consideration. c 001461 c Price, Richard From: Kathleen Hodgson As a resident of North Central Connecticut, I think that this is a terrible idea! Gambling is a sickness for many people, and even for those who are not addicted, the money spent on gambling may be money needed for family needs. Surely a state with as many bright people as Connecticut can come up with better industries to promote! Kathleen A Hodgson c c 001462 c Price, Richard From: Mary Ann Turner Dear Senator Kissell Hmmm. It hadn't occurred to me (and wasn't reported this way} that an Enfield mini casino was about the state protecting its income stream, but it makes sense now that you mention it. I vaguely get why the Casinos might want to cover their flank. Either way and for whatever reason- I am deeply opposed to imposing the social pathologies of even more CONVENIENT gambling anywhere in North Central. This seems like a real NIMBY issue to me- and while I suppose Norwich and the Thames region would be a little worse off today without all that casino business- I can't say or see that they are really better off and the state, forget it. We are not better off. There has NEVER been an honest cost benefit analysis- (as promised back in Weicker's day if I understand correctly} of the Casino industry. We took a fat bite out of that apple 20 years ago. How's it working out for us-= when you factor in the social pathologies- which absolutely matter in every way including economic. Whether it was Jeff Benedict or Robert Steele more recently- a strong case can be made against reliance on c this industry. We hold our nose and put up with it- but its not been a joy to watch the cradle of the industrial revolution, insurance capitol reduced to a gambling mecca where poverty is the 3rd or 4th largest "industry" in our Capitol City! It embarrassing. This picture below- not in Enfield- but just over the border in Springfield says it all. This WAS the Board of Trade building on Main St. Today it is the Christian Hope Ministry. Hope is what we're down to with gambling. Bill Hosley 30 Old Abbe Rd Enfield, CT 06082 860-944-8349 c 1 001463 c ~tate of (!Connecticut SENATOR TONY HWANG SENATE ASSISTANT MINORITY LEADER TWENTY-EIGHTH SENATE DISTRICT RANKING MEMBER LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING HOUSING COMMITTEE 300 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 3400 LABOR & PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COMMITTEE HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 CAPITOL: (800) 842-1421 MEMBER E-MAIL: [email protected] COMMERCE COMMITTEE WEBSITE: www.SenatorHwang.com VETERANS' AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Joint Testimony by Sen. Tony Hwang and Former U.S. Rep. Robert Steele before the GA's Public Safety and Security Committee in opposition ofS.B. 1090 On March 17,2015 Mr. Chairman and esteemed members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S.B. 1090, a bill to permit the tribal owners ofFoxwoods and Mohegan Sun to jointly establish and operate up to three satellite casinos in the state. According to their supporters, the purpose of the proposed commercial "convenience" casinos is to shore up Connecticut's casino industry by keeping state gamblers from traveling to casinos in Massachusetts and New York and, as a result, slow the decline in Connecticut casino jobs and in casino revenue coming to the state. I c Based on the increasing data on the social, public health, and economic impact of casino gambling, we believe the proposal is a bad one for Connecticut. Therefore, we strongly oppose the bill. First, it is a bad economic bet. Casino jobs and revenue are falling in states like Connecticut and New Jersey that once enjoyed casino monopolies but now face growing cross-border competition, and the situation is projected to continue to deteriorate as casinos fight over smaller shares of the regional casino pie. Opening additional casinos in Connecticut would presumably result in a brief uptick in jobs and revenue, but why Connecticut would want to double down on a declining state industry is difficult to understand when we have so many other needs and opportunities in the state. Second, while supporters have been quick to talk about jobs and revenue, they have said little about the costs. While opening convenience casinos would encourage current Connecticut gamblers to stay in Connecticut to gamble, it would also encourage them to gamble more frequently and attract thousands of additional Connecticut residents to gamble with a corresponding increase in gambling addiction, debt, bankruptcies, broken families and crime. Moreover, we are learning more and more about the downside of our current casinos. For starters, they have created a pervasive gambling culture in southeastern Connecticut, they've produced chiefly low-wage service jobs, and they were followed by a steep increase in the number of Connecticut c residents seeking treatment for gambling addiction. EASTON, FAIRFIELD, NEWTOWN, WESTON, WESTPORT 001464 Despite a sharp drop in crime in Connecticut as a whole o~er the past two decades, a 2014 study from Western Connecticut State University shows that the number of violent crimes (including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) increased in nearby towns after Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun arrived. While the number of c theft crimes declined modestly, the value of property stolen skyrocketed by nearly 40 percent. Looking at the impact of casinos nationally, a recent landmark report from the non-partisan Institute for American Values in New York concludes that they drain wealth from communities, weaken nearby businesses, hurt property values, and reduce civic participation, family stability, and other formers of social capital that are at the heart of a successful society. Finally, there is another important reason to oppose allowing the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes to build more casinos in Connecticut. Just over a decade ago, a broad-based coalition of towns, businesses, civic organizations, religious groups, and individual citizens mounted a powerful grassroots effort to stop the opening of more casinos in Connecticut. The coalition persuaded the legislature to repeal the Las Vegas Nights Law that had opened the door to the state's two Indian casinos and, working through the legislature and the state's congressional delegation, the coalition succeeded in persuading the federal government that the state's remaining tribes did not qualify for federal recognition and the accompanying right to build casinos. But more recently, the federal government has issued draft regulations that would lower federal tribal recognition standards and again raise the possibility of more Indian casinos in Connecticut. As a result, towns from Kent to North Stonington have joined with Governor Malloy, the legislature, and the congressional delegation to fight the proposed federal changes in order to keep additional casinos out of the state. To allow the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans to build commercial casinos would not only fly in the face of the state's hard-earned casino victories, but would destroy the credibility of Connecticut's fight against the c proposed federal regulatory changes. For these reasons, we encourage you to join us in opposing SB 1090. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Tony Hwang Bob Steele 28th District State Senator Former U.S. Representative c 001465 c Price, Richard From:· Rod Jaros < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:56 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael; Richard Marnicki Subject: Senate Bill 1090 TWHIMC: Enough already with casinos in Connecticut. Do we really want CT to become the Las Vegas of the East? Do we need years of law suit wrangling with presumptive native American tribes who will feel entitled to a stake in every venture? The state needs money? How about cutting some spending? Hey, that's a new concept. Rod Jaros Danbury, CT c c 001466 c Price, Richard From: Eunice Johnson I am an Enfield citizen, and I am adamantly opposed to the building of a casino on the 91 corridor in the northern part of Connecticut. There are a dozen reasons why I oppose this idea, all which I suspect my state legislators have heard repeatedly. The rationale for building seems to be to pull consumers away from the new casino being erected in Springfield. Speaking with friends who frequent casinos, I asked which, if a competing casino was to be built in northern CT, they would patronize: the one in northern CT, or the Springfield facility. Without fail, they responded, "Whichever one was bigger and nicer!" They are not going to stay in CT through any sense ofloyalty to our state, so unless we plan to "out-do" the facility being built in Springfield (and then we are running the gamble that two huge facilities can be supported within a few miles of each other), even the rationale for the business plan is suspect, in addition to all the negative implications of a new casino in northern CT. PLEASE do not pass BILL 1090 into law. c 1 001467 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:01 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: Senate bill 1090 I am writing to express my dismay that our State is considering allowing additional casinos to be built within our borders. Gambling has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It ruins lives and families. How can you justify balancing the budget with money that comes from such a destructive source? If you care about Connecticut's residents, you will drop this very bad idea. Lisa Jolley 54 Redwood Lane East Berlin, CT 06023 c c 1 001468 c Price, Richard From: Harry Jones We are opposed to new casinos in CT regardless of what happens in MA. To use this for income to the State is no different than using the police to earn income for a community. We already have enough. No more casinos. Harry and Sally Jones Sent from my iOpa c c 001469 c Price, Richard From: Sandra Jones 1am totally opposed to additional casinos in CT! Additional taxpayer costs will eventually include: increased crime, statistically people residing within 75 miles of Casinos are at much higher risk of developing a gambling problem. More youth exposure to alcohol in locations like OTB parlors. And many oth.er reasons! Sandra L. Jones, LCSW, Ph.d Public Safety Personnel Selection 3050 Phelps Road West Suffield, CT 06093 860-883-8996 FAX 1-775-414-7026 ***CONFIDENTIALITY***This message is only for use of the addressee and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication other than by the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy all copies of the communication. Thank you.*** c This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www .avast.com c 1 001470 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:12AM To: pstestimony Subject: Bill1090 Sent from Windows Mail say NO to_ Bill1090. I do not more casinos in Connecticut. c c 001471 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 11:43 AM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: SENT ATE BILL 1090 Hello, I live in Danbury CT. I am very concerned about this law- which if passed, would increase the number of casinos in CT. Instead of passing this Bill, I believe that every effort should be made by state legislators to IMPROVE AND ASSIST the existing casinos in CT, as well as increase and expand the number of tourists to casinos in Connecticut perhaps by offering attractive travel packages? I don't see any long term advantages for CT residents should this Bill pass; only an increase in gambling addictions. Thank you very much. Nancy Keilty c c 001472 0 Price, Richard From: barbara Ct has enough casinos. Casinos bring crime and cost a community in decreased property values, more police etc. The money never filters down to the original purpose. Some Casinos are closing., casinos were laying off . casino revenue is down. People are gambling on line. Vote No Barbara [email protected] c c 1 001473 JULIE KUSHNER DIRECTOR REGION 9A UAW 111 SOUTH ROAD c FARMINGTON, CONNECTICUT 06032-2560 PHONE: (860) 674-0143 FAX: (860) 67 4-1164 PRMEDINUS.A. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA-UAW DENNIS WILLIAMS, President GARY CASTEEL, Secretary-Treasurer Public Hearing Public Safety Committee Testimony Presented by Julie Kushner, Director, UAW Region 9A SB 1090 AAC Gaming- Support Good afternoon Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Julie Kushn'er and I am the Director of UAW Region 9A which has more than 50,000 members in all of the New England states, New York City, and Puerto Rico. Our membership is very diverse including legal aid attorneys and staff, technical and office professionals, childcare workers, employees at institutions of higher education, light manufacturer workers, and casino dealers_ Most relevant to this proposal is UAW's representation of more than 1,500 dealers at Foxwoods Resort and Casino- I am here to thank you for raising this proposal which would allow for up to three new casinos to be built in Connecticut and to urge your support. With increased competition from neighboring states, we believe it is impera}ive for Connecticut to act quickly to retain both direct and indirect casino business c and jobs, give Connecticut's loyal casino patrons more options for gambling in their state, and protect state revenue. In 2008, you may remember, UAW and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe reached a historical agreement to bargain a first contract under amended tribal law without waiving any of the worker's rights under federal labor law. In January of 2010, wo'rkers voted by a 3 to 1 margin to ratify their first contract establishing the country's first casino dealer contract negotiated under Tribal law. Union membership has allowed Foxwoods dealers to significantly improve their wages, benefits and working conditions. The~e dealers are highly sr You may also remember, however, that one of the biggest issues faced by these dealers, and all of Foxwoods workers is that of exposure to second hand smoke. In 2010, in fact, we passed a bill in the State Senate that would have banned smoking in the state's two casinos. Unfortunately, we were unable to pass it in the House, but were successful in raising awareness about the dangers of second hand smoke exposure to workers in this industry. We supported casino development in Massachusetts and demanded that those casinos be smoke free- and they are- as are casinos in New York and increasingly in other states across the country. We have tried to address second hand smo~e exposure in collective bargaining, but we know the only way to truly protect casino c workers is by banning smoking entirely from their places of employment. 001474 c To that end, we are providing the committee chairs with substitute language that would require these three new casinos be smoke free. The UAW would be loathe to support any casino expansion proposal that does not fulfill this requirement because we know the harm it causes the workers and the customers. The state's casinos have not been spared from the downturn in the economy. In the last five years, the Foxwoods dealer workforce has decreased by more than a thousand workers. There is no question in our mind, that without expansion in Connecticut, the casinos to be built in Massachusetts will further negatively impact direct and indirect casino jobs in our state. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you, members of the two Tribes and other allies because I think we can all agree that Connecticut Jobs Matter. Thank you. JK/cg opeiu494 c c 001475 c SB 1090 -An Act Concerning Gaming Robert Kwasnicki Enfield, CT Re: Senate Bill1090 (An Act Concerning Gaming) I am opposed to the state granting permission for the opening of new casinos along the northern corridor of I-91. The town of Enfield, in collaboration with surrounding towns, should be left to decide the issue of new casinos in our communities without interference from the state, if so decided by our communities. As it is widely discussed within the state House and Senate, revenues from casinos are dropping and new casinos are being planned in neighboring states. Adding more supply to an already bloated supply chain will not generate enough new revenue to off-set the soft costs associated with gambling and casinos, such as gambling addiction services and additional stress on our transportation infrastructure. Furthermore, we will face the real probability that the gaming market will reach a point of saturation with regards to casinos. This will likely result in closures and vacant facilities. J c Finally, I would ask members of the House and Senate to reflect on what is fundamentally being considered with this bill, which along with other legislation is cause for concern. Our state continues to face serious budget challenges. Sharpening our pencils on the spend-side of the ledger has not received enough serious attention. The concern is where our state elected representatives turn to for solutions: Gambling, alcohol and marijuana. We have increased access to alcohol for revenue, knowing that many people struggle with alcoholism. We then turned to marijuana as another revenue source knowing that many in our state struggle with substance abuse and, although that may have been marketed as other than a revenue source, it being a source of revenue was an important factor. Now, today, we are looking at expanding access to gambling with full knowledge that people have gambling addictions and that the state will be pressured to invest more for gambling addiction services. We pontificate about the dangers of alcohol, drugs and gambling, but when it comes to addressing the lack of fiscal discipline from our representatives, we find the legislative body running towards those revenue sources, forgetting the concerns involving activity around the three and forgetting that those most impacted by alcohol, drugs and gambling, are also those that can least afford it. I strongly advise voting against this bill and any similar bills in the future. I recommend more disciplined attention on the spending side of our state ledger. c 001476 c Price, Richard From: Paul La gel < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 10:10 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Please vote NO NEW CASINO'S for Connecticut. The casino business is SATURATED across the country. The new proposed casino's will only take business away from the two existing casino's. Very few net jobs will be added, once the two existing casino's lay off workers as their business goes down because of the new casino's. Where will the need to add casino's end? A casino in every town? Paul Lagel 6 Jefferson St Enfield, CT c c 1 001477 c Price, Richard From: Gerald Ledger Bill 1090, if passed, will allow new casinos to be built in Connecticut I am opposed to any new casinos and would be in favor of shutting down the present two whenever that is possible. Casinos attract people addicted to gambling and are regressive institutions that rob those least able to loose the money. Gerald Ledger 89 Bushy Hill Rd Granby, CT 06035 860-653 3042 c c 1 001478 c Price, Richard From: George Lee Yet another lamebrain idea. CT does not need another casino and you all know it. It's just an attempt to keep every last dollar here in the state so that it can be added to the coffers and spent. Enough was enough a long time ago. Get a clue. It's recently been proven that the vast majority of citizens do not want any more casinos, so do the right thing for once ...... do what the people want. We will take note of how you all vote on this issue. Want to get re-elected? Thank you. George Lee, Ashford c c 1 001479 c Price, Richard From: Yvon Lemieux We support the bill which in essence would create jobs in Connecticut. The ideal location would be near Bradley Airport. That location has adequate roads and hotels are nearby that can support the added traffic. This area can support this venue without disturbing the character of the nearby communities. This area could also support a baseball team - but that would not come right away, only after the Hartford team fails and is ready to move. Yvon Lemieux East Granby 0 ,.------ c "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers it can bribe the public with the public's own money." -Alexis de Toqueville, 1835 c 1 001480 c Price, Richard From: Drronlinden < [email protected] > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 11:45 AM To: pstestimony Cc: zRepresentative Laura Devlin Subject: Casino bill I am COMPLETELY opposed to further casinos in Connecticut. First, this goes against the original casino bill, limiting casinos to Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. second" the entire region will soon be over saturated with casinos, each one stealing patrons from the other. How are more casinos supposed to solve that problem? Third, I do not want all the associated problems of additional casinos, with increased traffic and increased illicit activity spreading to southwestern connecticut. Finally, this state is not in the bailout business for existing faltering casinos. Please do not allow further casino expansion in this state Ronald Linden 13 Frenchtown Road c Trumbull, CT Sent from my iPad c 1 001481 c Price, Richard From: charles Iongo < [email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 10:14 PM To: pstestimony Subject: NO MORE CASINOS Please vote against Bill1090, Charles Longo 33 Katie La Waterbury c c 1 001482 c ~tate ®f QComtrcttcut SENATE STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT06106-1591 TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COJVlMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY . Senators Martin M. Looney and Bob Duff March 17, 2015 In support of: Senate Bill1090, An Act Concerning Gaming Thank you Representative Dargan, Senator Larson and members of the Committee on Public Safety and Security for allowing us to submit testimony in support of Senate Bill 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming, which would allow the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes to jointly operate a new gaming facility in Connecticut. Thousands of Connecticut jobs are being threatened by the impending opening of resort casinos . . c near the Massachusetts and New York borders, which would significantly impact the existing casinos in Connecticut. According to a recent market study, Connecticut residents represent 29.2 percent of the prospective Massachusetts gaming market. The same study estimates the market share for the Springfield casino from Connecticut residents is between $114 ·million and $134 mill~on per year. Senate Bill1090 represents a proactive move to protect jobs in Connecticut. The casinos are two of our state's major employers- Mohegan Sun employs workers from 139 Connecticut towns, and the casino spends $249 million on 760 vendors located in 141 Connecticut towns. Foxwoods Casino's roughly 5,500 employees come from 134 Connecticut towns. Additionally, the casinos also drive much of the tourism and hospitality business in Southeastern Connecticut. We go to great lengths in Connecticut to protect and grow jobs in aerospace, defense, manufacturing, biotech and cable media. We must now do the same for tourism, entertainment and gaming. Also, over the last 20 years, the bottom lines of cities and towns have benefitted greatly from Pequot ~ant payments, totaling roughly $2 billion. Throughout our state, that funding has helped m:unicipalities hold the line on property taxes, hire teachers, police officers and firefighters, and provide critical services. This legislation seeks to protect jobs - not only at our casinos, but in our cities and towns throughout Connecticut as well. Make no mistake; Massachusetts and New York are going to fight for Connecticut's gaming dollars. If they win, it will be a body blow to Connecticut's gaming industry, and jobs and economic well-being not only in Eastern Connecticut but throughout our entire state. We believe Senate Bill 1090 is critical to Connecticut's economic future. We hope you will join us in c supporting it. Thank you. 001483 c Public Safety and Security Committee Public Hearing International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 35 Testimony In Support of SB 1090 AAC Gaming March 17, 2015 Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, and members of the Public Safety Committee, my name is John Lurate and I live at 6 Chester Drive in Manchester. I am in support ofSB 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming. I would like to thank Senator Looney and Senator Duff and the leadership of this committee for bringing this bill forward. This bill will help ensure that some of these J c gaming dollars will be spent in Connecticut at a time when Connecticut residents and their families need to ensure that as many tax dollars and jobs are for residents of our state. These good union jobs in construction and tourism would also help the economy in our state. Once again, keep Connecticut competitive and support SB 1090. Thank you, John Lurate c 001484 c Price, Richard From: Joan McCarthy To whom it may concern: I am writing to inform all of you of my strong disapproval for any additional casinos or gambling institutions to be developed in CT. I am against all forms of gambling including the state's lottery games. While teaching, I learned of children's lives that were negatively impacted because a parent spent too much time, and lost too much money gambling. It is very easy to keep betting, believing that the next times/he will surely win the big prize. Addiction happens without one realizing it. Before a gambler is aware of his/ her mental illness, it has already begun to ruin his/her life and the lives of those he/she loves. It is too great a temptation for those who are struggling to make ends meet, including senior citizens. IF YOU CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENS OF CT YOU WILL DEFEAT SENATE BILL 1090. If you support it and vote yes, then you must realize that you are partly responsible for the gambling addictions that will develop. Proximity to casinos makes it easier to get caught up in the excitement and hope that you will win, and then all your troubles will disappear. The state doesn't need to create more victims of addictions. You have already created more pain than you can imagine when you allowed the first two casinos to open. Eventually, when gamblers hit bottom, they will need state assistance as a result of their addictive mental illness. Thus, passing this bill is ultimately a set-up for the citizens of CT to have to provide for an increase in welfare costs that will surely happen as an increased number of people have the opportunity to gamble in their own neighborhoods. What happened to the stated concerns about supporting citizens mental health? Have you forgotten the voices that cried out requesting betterJtreatment services for the mentally ill and the promises that were made after the tragedy in c Newton? Promises that Gov. Malloy has already broken by cutting back money for mental health services in his budget. I URGE YOU TO DEFEAT SENATE BILL1090 AND CREATE HEALTHIER OPPORTUNITIES OF RECREATION FOR ALL OF CT'S CITIZENS TO ENJOY! Sincerely yours, Joan S. McCarthy Vernon, CT Sent from my iPad c 1 001485 c Price, Richard From: Ken McCartney I completely understand that you clowns are completely out of ideas and have no intention of cutting spending or creating a business friendly environment in this state. I don't care if 70% of CT residents are against it. Go ahead and build the casinos. I will watch them burn from the state that I will be moving to. Warm regards. Ken Mccartney Grass Helperlawn Care Inc. c c 1 001486 TOWN OF MONTVILLE Office of the Mayor 310 Norwich-New London Turnpike Uncasville, Connecticut 06382 Testimony of Ronald McDaniel Mayor, Town of Montville Before the Public Safety & Security Committee In Support of SB 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming March 17, 2015 Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and members of the Public Safety and Security Committee, good afternoon; my name is Ronald McDaniel and I am the Mayor of the Town of Montville. I am here today in support of SB 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming. c By way of background, I have lived in Montville for the past 21 years with my wife and two sons. My work history includes two years as a legislative budget analyst for the Office of Fiscal Analysis here in Hartford, and since 1997, I have been the owner of Common Grounds, LLC, a condominium management firm. As a chief elected official, small business owner and budget analyst, I know first hand just how critical it is to pass the legislation before you today. As the chief elected official for the host town of the Mohegan Tribe, it is important to note that we have built a strong and enduring relationship together, based on regular and ongoing communication about issues that affect both the town of Montville and the Mohegan Tribal Nation. I believe we have been good neighbors to one another, and our c (860) 848-3030 Ext. 301 www.townofmontville.org (860) 848-4534 Fax 001487 c mutual respect and communication has only served to strengthen that relationship. Today, we are in crisis mode, searching for ways to position our state for the impending competition that we face in the coming months. We must act responsibly to stem the tide of patrons who will bypass Connecticut for the newly planned casinos in New York and Massachusetts. Our neighbors have witnessed the shared success of the Native American Gaming operations in Southeastern Connecticut and are ready to get in on the action, targeting Connecticut's patrons specifically. With almost 10% of Montville's working population directly employed by Mohegan Sun, and thousands more connected to its success and that of Foxwoods, I do not believe we can stand by and jeopardize these quality jobs or economic stability they afford our c town, region and state. When the future of Electric Boat hung in the balance, our elected officials at the local, state and federal levels stood together to protect jobs. Well today, the future of another industry in Connecticut is being threatened and we must again stand together to protect our constituents and their livelihood. By passing SB 1090, we will take an important step toward preserving the jobs and financial benefits that exist in our region as a direct result of the success of Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods. Failure is simply not an option. I hope we can stand together as elected officials knowing that we have done everything in our power to ensure the best possible future for our constituents. SB 1090 will help achieve that goal. Thank you for your consideration. c 001488 c Testimony of Marlene F McGann, Executive Director South Central CT Substance Abuse Council concerning expansion of gaming in CT S.B. 1090 An Act Concerning Gaming Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, Senator Coleman, Representative Verrengia and members of the Public Safety and Security Committee my name is Marlene F McGann, the Executive Director of the South Central CT Substance Abuse Council, one of 13 regional action councils (RACs) on substance abuse and addiction and a member of the CT Prevention Network of RACs. I am offering testimony concerning the proposed expansion of gaming venues in CT. Regional Action Councils work directly with the DMHAS Problem Gambling Services Unit in every CT municipality to assess the need for treatment services, raise community awareness of problem gambling, and educate youth and families about problem gambling resources. RACs currently bring together five regional teams of prevention, intervention and treatment specialists and community members to address the issues concerning problem gambling across the continuum of care. What we have found is that while the state has 14 Bettor Choice treatment programs and a Helpline (all funded through PGS) these resources are underfunded and will be additionally stressed should gambling become more accessible to the vulnerable populations who are at risk for problem gambling including persons in recovery, youth and seniors. Regional Team members consistently relate that while social gambling is not a danger for most community members, it is devastating to the families and employers who must contend with a problem gambler. For each person~with a gambling addiction, a minimum of eight people are directly and seriously c affected. Research has also shown that of the persons who attempt or complete suicide, problem gambling has a higher rate than any other addiction or illness. In your deliberations on gambling venues and activities in our State, I would ask that you consider the impact that problem gambling already has on our citizens who are addicted to gambling and their families, and the impact that additional gaming opportunities may have our communities. I would ask that should gaming be expanded, the Legislature seriously consider increasing funding to DMHAS Problem Gambling Services to: • Conduct a statewide survey and research concerning the impact of gambling in CT • Expand treatment options with special consideration to identified populations • Increase initiatives that minimize the harm that may come from gambling for those persons who choose to gamble • Increase advertising of treatment services and resources for gamblers and their families which has shown an increase in calls for assistance to the CT Helpline when advertising campaigns have been conducted· • Support the development of a Responsible Gaming Framework based on the work done in Massachusetts that supports "minimizing the harm from gambling to individuals, families, and communities" while still serving the interests of the state and gaming licensees. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Marlene F McGann, MSC] South Central CT Substance Abuse Council serving the communities of Branford, East Haven, Hamden, Guilford, c Madison, Meriden, North Branford, North Haven, Wallingford [email protected] 001489 The Business Council of Fairfield Countv c -' Strengthening Businesses. Strengthening Communities. March 17, 2015 Testimony of Joseph McGee, Vice President, The Business Council of Fairfield County re ~~ised Bill# 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming Good afternoon, Chairmen Larson and Dargan and Members of the Committee. The Business Council of Fairfield County questions the value of expanding Casino gambling in Connecticut. The argument that we must save the two casinos in Eastern Connecticut from the consequence of the expansion of casinos in other states by expanding casinos in Connecticut from the current two to a future of five raises serious questions that requires a detailed economic analysis. The economic argument made in the 1990's in support of the casinos in Eastern Connecticut was that with the loss of defense jobs the casinos c would provide jobs to a part of Connecticut hard hit with defense cutbacks. In fact, thousands of jobs were created. Fast forward to 2015, employment in the casinos has taken a significant hit from regional competition and the answer is to create new casinos in western and northern Connecticut which will further exacerbate employment loss in Eastern Connecticut towns which have grown dependent on casino jobs. How does this help eastern Connecticut? IT MAY HELP THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE TWO CASINOS WHO WILL SHARE IN THE REVENUE OF THE 3 NEW CASINOS BUT HOW DOES THAT MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT IN EASTERN CONNECTICUT? The impact of casino expansion on the towns surrounding the 3 communities selected needs to be fully understood. A fundamental question needs to be addressed before we move forward. What is the case for this solution. Three small casinos will somehow compete with the glitz and glamour of the mega casinos planned in Massachusetts and New York? If they don't, what's next? This legislation proposed a major expansion of gambling in our State with significant impacts on our transportation system, water and 001490 sewerage systems labor supply and regional economies. Such a decision cannot simply be based on a short term desire to bolster an industry shrinking from regional competitive pressures. This proposal demands a c major analysis ofthe economics of this industry and the value of the solution presented to an industry undergoing rapid change. Thank you c One Landmark Square, Suite 300 Stamford, CT 06901-2696 P: 203-359-3220 F: 203-967-8294 www.businessfairfield.com c 001491 c Price, Richard From: Thomas MacGregor Senate Bill 1090: We are opposed to Senate Bill 1090 regarding casino expansion in our state, a desperate attempt to pursue money in the short-term with no real long-term outlook for Connecticut's economy. Dotting·the major highways of Connecticut with casinos to feed the gambling addictions of residents will eventually make our state look like one giant Atlantic City of bankrupt casino shells. We are strongly opposed to Senate Bill 1090 and this needless additional infusion of gambling into our state. Dr. Thomas and Ms. Linda MacGregor Danbury, CT c 1 001492 c Price, Richard From: Alesia Mclachlan To whom it may concern, I oppose any additional casinos to be established in the state of Connecticut. Thank you, Alesia Mclachlan Sent from my iPhone c c 1 001493 ~tate of QI:onnccticut SENATOR MICHAEL A. MclACHLAN RANKING MEMBER TWENTY-FOURTH SENATE DISTRICT SENATE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION & ELECTIONS COMMITIEE GENER1\L BONDING SUB COMMITTEE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING 300 CAPITOL AVENUE. SUITE 3400 MEMBER HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 FINANCE, REVENUE. & BONDING COMMITIEE DEPUTY MINORITY LEADER JUDICIARY COMMITTEE March 17,2015 Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, and Distinguished Members of the Public Safety and Security Committee, I am State Senator Michael McLachlan, and I am here testifying in opposition to SB l 090, An Act Concerning Gaming. This legislation would allow casino expansion in our state by allowing the Conunissioner of Consumer Protection the ability to issue up to three gaming facility licenses to the Indian tribes to jointly own and operate gaming facilities. Casino expansion is the wrong direction for our state, and the voters of Connecticut agree. In the most recent c Quitmipiac poll, voters say J75 - 20 percent there should not be more casinos. This legislation would lead to supermarket-sized casino parlors, not the casinos we're accustomed to at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. If this legislation does move forward, it will create othet·legal issues. The state would have to renegotiate the tribal compact that we have with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes. Currently, the state only shares in a small portion of revenues generated by Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. Should this legislature proceed with expansion, the new tribal compact should include state participation in all revenues at casino facilities in our state. Table games generate a large share of casino revenues and should be subject to a new compact. The negotiations must include existing facilities at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, not just the expansion of casino facilities. Our state should focus on helping our two existing casinos bring in tourists to their destination facilities, not including adding casino parlors throughout the state. Thank you. Michael A. McLachlan 1 State Senator- 24 h District c CAPITOL: (860} 240·0068 · TOLL FREE: (800) 842-1421 • E·MAIL: "[email protected] · WEB: www.SenatorMclachlan.com 001494 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:19 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Senate Bill 1090 Hello, As a resident of Windsor locks I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed expansion of casino gambling in ct. This is not the right direction for Connecticut, and would effect the people that can least afford it. Casino gambling is a dying industry, fraught with corruption and is indicative of a downward spiral of a society. One can only look to the fall of the Roman Empire as an example, but more recently the state of affairs in Atlantic city, where the major casinos are closing if not have closed all ready. If we are serious about balancing budgets we must control spending and shrink the size of government. In my opinion the size of connecticut does not warrant the size of its government! The ct government needs to get out ofthe business of selecting which businesses to be involved in. Stick to the principles set forth by our founding fathers! c Thank you ian marchaj Windsor locks Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. c 001495 c Price, Richard From: Commerce Security Services, LLC. Gambling it's a vice with consequences for it's abuse, Connecticut I would assume has enough of it at the current time. I don't support this but I might support legislation involving other gambling activity like the cardboard peel slot tickets I have seen in some private clubs as a revenue source in public bars for the state ... that could be a real money maker and has limits on it I think the tickets were like .25 and you could win up to a $100.00 .. David Marchetti Danbury, Ct. c c 1 001496 c Price, Richard From: Suzanne Marinan I am sad and disheartened that Connecticut legislators wish to see more casinos in our state and are asking for state approval. It is well known that not only do casinos lower property values, and that gambling affects the poor and lower income classes the most, the culture of gambling contributes to many other social ills. I believe legislators are supporting this only for the additional revenue income they can envision. In the long term this will only hurt Connecticut's New England wholesome family image. Take a look at nearby Atlantic City to see how the area has continued to mire in poverty and unemployment. As we are seeing at Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, many of the jobs initially created have now disappeared. Attendance is down and the addiction of gambling is up. Please do not propagate a bad choice for measly revenue enhancement. I'd rather see that we cut business taxes, make the Connecticut business climate more inviting and friendly, and invest in the long term sustainable industries, including hi-tech and healthcare. These would be better choices. Suzanne Mari.nan c Tolland, CT · c 1 001497 c TESTIMONY OF GLENN MARSHALL, PRESIDENT OF CARPENTER'S LOCAL 210, IN FAVOR OF SENATE BILL 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING, March 17, 2015, BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY Chairman Larson and Chairman Dargan and members of the committee, my name is Glenn Marshall, and I am the President of Carpenter's Local210 which represents union carpenters in western Connecticut • We are affiliated with the New England Regional Council of Carpenters that represents more than 5,000 carpenters and their families throughout Connecticut. We have nearly 2,000 signatory contractors who employ our members on their projects. Today I am here to testify in strong support of Senate Bill1090, An Act Concerning Gaming. Over the past twenty years, the Mohegan and Foxwood tribes have built facilities that have created thousands of good paying union construction jobs with health and pension benefits. We understand that the projects created by this legislation would do the same. In addition to the construction jobs, the casinos have created thousands of permanent jobs for our brothers and sisters in the United Auto Workers, the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Operating Engineers. Unfortunately, these jobs are being threatened by the growth of gaming in neighboring states, particularly Massachusetts and New York. The leadership of the casinos and the unions who repre~ent their workers believes this legislation would stabilize the job loss the c casinos face from the increased competition. That is why we strongly support this effort. Over the past few years, Connecticut has gradually emerged from the greatest recession our industry has known. In fact, the Connecticut construction industry faced unemployment rates of more than 30 percent for several years following the collapse of Wall Street in 2008. According to Connecticut economist Don Klepper-Smith, we have regained 76 percent of the jobs we lost during the "great" recession. The problem is that many of the jobs created so far have been either low-paying jobs with no benefits or high-paying jobs in highly-skilled, technical fields. The middle-class jobs that pay good wages and benefits, such as union construction jobs and the jobs at the casinos, have been left out. This proposal will not only create good construction jobs for our members but it would stem the potential job loss created by the new competition in the gaming industry. At this tenuous point in o~r recovery, Connecticut is no position to turn its back on good employers, like the Mohegan and Foxwood tribes, who continue to provide good jobs with strong benefits to the construction trades and permanent jobs to our brothers and sisters in the UAW, the Operating Engineers and the UFCW. Thank you for your consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions. c 001498 c Price, Richard From: Edward Marshall < [email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2015 11:21 AM To: pstestimony Subject: No More Casinos In Connecticut I am against additional Casinos in Connecticut. The casinos already in place have proven to draw crime to the areas around the casinos. Increases in illegal drugs sales, crime and prostitution around casinos is evident. The average casino participant, is usually a middle to lower income person. They can ill afford to give away their income to these casinos. Statistics show that winning in a casino is a very low probability. The games are stacked against the players, as this is a money making operation for the casino owners. Gambling is a vice that breaks up families and causes suffering for most players. Gambling is an addiction and a destructive force in society. Our economy is in a depression nationally and has been since the engineered collapse in 2008. Casinos will further make the lives of people who visit these gambling places, less full and will deprive them of the little money they have to live on. Many people on welfare go to casinos and spend the funds on gambling, instead of feeding their families and making the lives of their children better, more meaningful and productive. Gambling is a learned vice, which will be passed J c down to the children of the gamblers, making a larger dependency base ofthe population on public assistance. The argument that casinos create jobs is a weak one. The skills in running a casino are usually specific to gambling and not a skills base to build a career on. There is very low need for card dealers, dancers and porters outside of the casino world. Instead of building casinos, which will only make the wealthy investors richer and no one else, the state should be advocating building factories where people can learn skills they can use anywhere. Making things that can be sold on the global market in the long term, is much more rewarding and important to our people, state and nation, than short term service jobs in casinos. EDWARD MARSHALL Constituent/ Hartland Connecticut c 1 001499 c Price, Richard From: Mark Marschall Dear Connecticut State Legislators: I am troubled by Bill1 090 and the possibility that more casinos will be built in Connecticut. I find it difficult to understand why our state public servants want to build more casinos. Is it because more casinos are being built in adjacent states like the new casino being built in Springfield, MA? Is it because the casinos we now have in Connecticut and owned by private parties are losing money to the competition? Is it because more and more people in Connecticut are looking for places to gamble? Or, is it that the State of Connecticut sees a threat of losing revenue that comes in from the casinos in our state? I can only share my personal thoughts but I have real. problems with the State of Connecticut relying on gambling revenues to be able to run our state. I think the revenue is nice to have but we shouldn't have to rely on gambling in order to meet our budget. Competition is a good thing. It puts the burden on each individual casino to offer the best gambling experience to capture more visitors. Sure, people will try out the new casino in the area. But, they are going to go to the one that gives them the best experience. The owners of the casinos need to handle this competitive threat. They need to continuously improve what they have and even consider improving the odds of winning for the gambler. The answer is not to build more and more casinos. We have enough right now. I'm not a gambler but I do visit the casinos to take in events such as concert performances and basketball games. Yes, I db drop a few dollars in the slot machines and take in a good meal, but I'm not looking at c gambling as a source of income. The State of Connecticut and, specifically, the elected state legislators, need to get their hands around spending. We need more control on spending and we need to stop spending in certain areas. We need to investigate and stop fraud. We rieed to get people back to work who are currently on unemployment. We need to stop people from spending their unemployment checks on gambling. l have two children who are out on their own at the ages of 26 and 23. I've seen the threat gambling has been for them as they went through their college years. They are a targeted age group that are challenged with paying back their college loans. They don't need more places to gamble in the state that they live. There has to be other focus areas to bring people to Connecticut and I wouldn't be so proud to advertise that we have more casinos. Right now, Connecticut is one of the most expensive places in the USA to live. Why is that? Is it because we do not have enough casinos? Or, is it because we have excessive expenses in certain areas that other states do not have? I don't know the answer to that but that is your job to understand as our state legislators. Please don't vote to add more casinos to our state. Put the pressure on the owners of the ones we have to figure out how to remain competitive. Yes, they did have a huge competitive advantage being one of the few in the area. And, they will lose some market share. But, that's business. Thank you for listening! Sincerely, Mark Marschall Somers, CT c 1 001500 c Regarding the addition of new casinos in CT: I have never been in favor of the casinos in our state ... ,we rely on them for income which is most unfortunate for they are uncertain, especially as they lose their appeal. I think it is absolutely wrong to encourage activity which is unwholesome (gambling along with drinking) and does nothing to better the condition of our citizens, especially the vulnerable who are addicts to gambling and our seniors who seem to find nothing better to do than participate by the busload. To add more casinos to the two complexes we have now is wrong, wrong, wrong both morally and I think economically. I come from NJ and Atlantic City is a pathetic example of what can happen to gambling venues; the poor suffer, the environment is degraded, jobs are lost which have been depended upon but are risky to begin with. If we think that plopping three more on our borders will be a benefit, then shame c on us. We are ~adly deluded; it is a pipe dream; it speaks ill of our leadership. Signed, Linda Martin [email protected] New Hartford. c 001501 c Price, Richard From: Mike Masi < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 7:34AM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: Senate Bill 1090 I can't believe the state would want any more casinos . The two here are enough. This sounds like a pipe dream of the state to pay the Billions we owe ?? HOW ABOUT STOP SPENDING !! More and more are leaving this state it's just too expensive. Here's a crazy thought lower taxes & help small business owners, not DRIVE us OUT ! oh wait let's also put up Tolls !! we also need to by our booze till 1 OPM for some reason. The more I see what is going I want to leave!! Thanks, Mike Masi Acorn Electrical Contractors LLC P.O. Box 1128 Bethel Ct 06801 Ph 1-203-792-2676 This email transmission contains confidential, proprietary and privileged information and is intended to be read and used solely by the individual or entities named as recipients on this message. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you c c 001502 c Joanie Masot 56 Westwood Avenue Plainville, CT 06062 [email protected] Testimony before the Public Safety and Security Committee Opposing Bill No. 1090 on March 17,2015. Good afternoon Co-Chair Coleman, Representative Orange and committee members. My name is Joanie Masot, I am here sharing my concerns on Bill No. 1090. I am not against or for gambling. I sit before you today as a recovering problem gambler. Over 10 years ago, I made horrible choices and decisions with my gambling that led my son who was 9 years old at the time and is now 20 and my family and myself down a path of destruction. In short, my problem gambling addiction led me to prison, losing my home, my 16 yr. marriage and almost losing my son, say nothing of the shame and guilt. I was a casino gambler who began the journey with playing bingo very innocently and before long I was not be able to leave the casino for days when I went there. (Although, if I wasn't able to get to the casino, I found many other ways to get my high, such as instant tickets, OTB's, etc.). It didn't matter if I was winning or losing, I didn't leave until I had not a dollar in my pocket. I went to the extreme as is common with a problem gambler, to embezzle from my employer and used the funds to gamble. I went to prison for that crime, lost most of my family, c attempted suicide and was hopeless. Once, I was able to come to the reality that I had a huge gambling problem and knew there was no other choice to turn my life around or my son would be attending to my funeral. I reached out for help with the programs and support in our state and I was able to begin treatment and therapy which I did for many years. I ask you please to factor in while considering this bill to have funds set aside right from the beginning to fund Advocacy, Peer Support and treatment for our State. This is a must for our problem gambling people in Connecticut. Without the Advocacy, Peer Support and Treatment we are only setting ourselves up for increased successful suicides, more embezzlements and crimes, and many hopeless citizens. I am proud to tell you today my recovery is strong today because of the Peer Support and Advocacy. Without this I would not be sitting here today as I would not be alive. I am a law abiding citizen, a registered voter and the Mom I am supposed to be to my son. I have my family back in my life and I have a wonderful supportive husband today. I also am very blessed and fortunate to be an employee of Advocacy Unlimited. I am also a State of tf certified Recovery Support Specialist. Thank you for allowing me to share my testimony with you today. c 001503 c Price, Richard From: Milagros Johnson < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:42 AM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A. Subject: Senate Bill 1090 Greetings, I am aware ofBill1090, which is being considered to create casinos on along I 91, I 95 and I 84. I strongly oppose this bill. I have a family member who suffers from a gambling addiction and experienced how my family's life was impacted because of this. I strongly believe that the State of Connecticut needs to identify different ways of generating income and producing jobs that are not related to creating more casinos. Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts about Bill 1090. Milagros Marrero-Johnson Windsor, CT Resident Sent from my iPhone c c l 001504 c Price, Richard From: Marino Mazzeo I say NO to adding more casinos in CT. If CTwants more problems take a look of Atlantic city. Most of the strip casinos are in chapter11looking for buyers. Yea very little tax revenue now Create business free tax zone for up start business it would do wonders for new haven and Hartford and over all CT economy. But don't do it the ny way. All talk and no substance. Sent from my iPhone c c 001505 C Price, Richard From: Jean Merz Sirs, Just what we need!! Another casino????????? How many of you have read in the news recently about the Town Treasurer of Winchester, or the woman fired from UConn Health Center, who have embezzled hundreds of thousands to support a gambling addiction; or just about locals accused of supporting a gambling addiction by stealing from elderly relatives or people who have invested in their pyramid schemes with 401-K money? About the influx of casino workers in Montville, living in newly created flop houses, 3 to-a-bed, to work many hours at the Casinos? How about the addicted parents leaving children in their cars in the casino parking garages while they spend their last dimes on their addictions? AND YOU WOULD SUPPORT ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO HELP SUPPLY THOSE ADDICTS WITH A FIX?? We do not need, nor can we support another casino in Connecticut. PERIOD! END OF STORY!! c END THIS FOOLISiriNESS! Jean Merz, 144 Phoenix St, Vernon, CT c 1 001506 c Price, Richard From: Kevin Micinilio NO MORE CASINOS IN CT I will watch closely as to who votes for and who votes against this bill. Those who vote for it, will NEVER get another one of MY votes and I will make a mission to spread this word. Sincerely, Kevin Micinilio Fairfield, CT Please note that you may not/ely on email communication to us to report a claim or to give us instructions to place, bind, change c or terminate coverage unless we have subsequently confirmed to you in writing that we have received your message and will be taking the action you have requested. c 1 001507 c Price, Richard From: William Mikus I am against Bill 1090. I do not want more casinos in the state of CT. espeCially along 1-91, 1-95 or 1-84. The revenue from casinos is decreasing plus the misery gambling brings to some of our citizens is not worth the profit the state thinks it's going to gain. Do not pass Bill 1090. Sincerely, Rebecca Mikus 14 Stonewall Drive West Granby, Ct. Sent from my iPad c c 1 001508 Price, Richard From: Scott Miller A Bankrupt State with Bankrupt ideas. So sad, we were once a great State. Now we want increase monies into the State by people losing money. I would cut spending, and try like hell to create a better climate for business. Period! Scott Miller c c 001509 c Price, Richard From: W M MIPS No-more casinos in Connecticut. Walter Mips Enfield c c 1 001510 Price, Richard From: Franklin Gentlepersons I am writing in opposition to this bill. While a few casinos may bring the state benefits that outweigh their ill effects. More casinos compound the problems and add few benefits. I strongly urge you not to allow this. As a resident of Danbury, I specifically ask that no casino be allowed to open in my region. Franklin Moore 208 Westville ave ext Danbury, CT 06811 203-628-7831 Sent from my iPad c c 001511 c Price, Richard From: Filomena Connecticut does not need anymore casinos This will not be a good solution for the Short fall I. Ct finances. It will be other Excuse for lawmakers to spend more and Get into more debt. Look for permanent job Solutions for the unemployed. Lower the Taxes so companies stay in the state and Create jobs. More people working more Revenue to the state caufers Sent from my iPhone c 001512 Connecticut Conference c United. Church of Christ 125 Sherman Street . Hartford, CT 06105-6004 Testimony in Opposition to Senate Bi.lll090: An Act Concerning Gaming Submitted by: Michele Mudrick, Legislative Advocate Connecticut Conference, United Church of Christ March 17,2015 Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, and distinguished members ofthe Public Safety and Security Committee, I am Michele Mudrick, Legislative Advocate for the Connecticut Conference, United Church of Christ, and I am writing today in opposition to Senate Bill109f): An Act Concerning Gaming to protect Connecticut jobs and to encourage tourism by allowing the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe and the Mohegan Tribe of lndiags of Connecticut to operate casinos in the state. I am writing on behalf of the 240 congregations and more than 73,000 people in our state's churches. In fact, the United Church of Christ (UCC) is the largest Protestant denomination in Connecticut. Nationally, the UCC has more than 5,700 congregations with nearly 1 million members. In 1977, in 1979, and again in 1994, the assembled delegates and ministers of the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ met and voted on Resolutions that call upon the Connecticut Conference to oppose expansion of gambling. Adding additional casinos in the state could increase pathological, compulsive, and addictive gambling. Pathological/compul9ive/addictive gambling is a menta'! health disorder and the most severe form of c problem gambling. It is a persistent, maladaptive gambling behavior that compromises, disrupts, and da'mages personal, family, or vocational pursuits leading to serious adverse consequences. Some of the major characteristics of a pathological gambling problem include: obsession'with.gambling; a need to bet more money and to bet more ~requently, especially when chasing losses; restlessness or irritability when unable to gamble or attempting to stop; and thoughts of desperate ways to obtain money. 1 Gambling becomes a problem when the person's life is negatively impacted in some way. These include conflict in relationships with family members, friends or co-workers, gambling debt, and physical or mental health signs of stress or distress. A gambling problem can devastate the lives of the individual, family, friends, co-workers, employers, and community. A person who has a gambling problem is at a higher risk for trouble with alcohol or other drugs and vice versa. Two million (1%) American adults are estimated to meet criteria for pathological gambling in a given year. Another 4- 8 million {2 ~ 4%) are estimated to be problem gamblers. In Connecticut, it is estimated that 180,000 members of the population (6%) meet the criteria for problem or pathological gambling.2 How much gambling is enough or how much is too much? This important point needs to be taken into consideration. The answer seems to be that there is never enough gambling if the state has a budget defiCit. There needs to be more focus on the social costs of gambling, not just the financial gain. The people have spoken in a recent Quinnipiac University poll re.leased on March 11, 2015, that three in four . Connecticut voters oppose having more casinos in Connecticut . 1 . Connecticut Council on Proble!11 Gambling 2 Connecticut CounCil on Problem Gambling c God is still speaking, 860.233.5564 roll free) 866.367.2822 fa.'<) 860.231.8111 www.crucc.org 001513 Co~ecticut Conference United Church ·of Christ c 125 Sherman Street Harttord, CT 06105'-6004 Because of the many ill effects of gambling, the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ . opposes Senate Bill1090: An }\ct Concerning Gaming. Thank you for your work and for the opportunity to supply written testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 1090. Blessings, · Michele Muqrick (860) 796-3822 [email protected] c c God is still speaking, 860.233.3564 roll free) R66.367.2822 fax) 860.231.8111 Vl\YW.ctucc.org 001514 c Price, Richard From: Nancy More casinos in CT would be a mistake; jobs might be created to some small extent, but the increase in traffic and impact on public services would not be worth it. c c 1 001515 c SENATE BILL 1090 I AM SENDING IN MY TERSTIMONY AGAINST THIS BILL. I WILL BE HONEST AND TELL YOU THAT I GO TO FOXWOODS AND MOHEGAN SUN SEVERAL; TIMES A YEAR---AND I SPEND MORE THAN I SHOULD-I CAN'T IMAGINE HAVING IT ANY CLOSER THAN IT IS NOW--- AN EVEN BIGGER PROBLEM IS THE TRAFFIC AND THE -DECAY OF LOCAL ROADS IN WHATEVER TOWN IT COMES TO PLEASE DON'T DO IT----WE HAVE ENOUGH CASINOS NOW-AND THEY ALL HAVE TERRIBLE PAY OUTS JEAN NATALE-61 PADANARAM RD DANBURY, CONN 06811 c c 001516 c Price, Richard From: Larry Neary Please. Not in Danbury. Not anywhere in CT Thank you, Larry Neary Bridgewater, CT Sent from my iPhone c c 001517 c Price, Richard From: Ken Nelson Subject:~Bill1090 I would simply asked the question how dependent has Connecticut government become on the funds they receive from the two casinos in our state? Can our state afford 50% less in revenues from those casinos we have allowed to prosper in our state? · I would ask each and everyone of you to walk through Foxwoods resort Casino and look at the outlet mall they are building at this current time, the jobs they have created in building this mall not to mention staffing it once it's open is crucial to Connecticut's economy. The question is no longer do we want casinos or don't we, we are ready have them, the question is can we afford not to allow Connecticut to stay in the game and keep receiving the funds for our schools or are we going to allow those funds to go to our neighboring states? My family and I live in Enfield on the East Windsor line where it is possible they may want to build a casino and I would ask you to support this bill 1 099. I support this bill ( short answer ) c I Ken Nelson 48 Laughlin Rd Enfield 860-214-7826 c 001518 c (.V C. Or Lottery Testimony for the Public Safety and Security Committee March 17thJ 2015 Room 2C, LOB Please include the Connecticut lottery Corporation in discussions regarding SB 1090, AAC Gaming Good afternoon Chairmen Dargan and Larson, Ranking Members Zupkus and Guglielmo, and other distinguished members of the Public Safety & Security Committee. My name is Anne Noble, and I am the President & CEO of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation. I am here today to speak on SB 1090: An Act Concerning Gaming. As you are aware, this bill would permit the ~xpansion of casino gaming off of tribal lands with the opening of up to three c casinos in Connecticut and would be operated by a commercial venture between the Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods casinos. We respectfully ask that you consider the CT Lottery Corporation as you explore changes to state gaming policy. First, we ask that the CT Lottery's exclusive right to sell lottery products off of the reservations be clearly preserved in any gaming expansion legislation. Second, cannibalization of lottery sales should be expected if 1 - 3 new casinos open in Connecticut. A Washington Post article from last August reported that when casinos opened in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the casino sales had a negative impact on both lottery revenue and on local retailer sales (attached; August 11, 2014). Similar findings occurred in Arizona ac;cQrding ~o a 2001 Public Finance Review Article (abstract attached). Notably, in the Massachusetts Gaming Expansion Act (2011 Mass. Acts ch. 194), Section 15 requires their commercial casinos to be state lottery retailers and to "sell or operate the Iotter{, multi-jurisdictional and keno games; demonstrate that the lottery and keno games shall be readily accessible to the guests of the gaming establishment and agree that, as a condition of its license to operate a gaming establishment, it will not create, promote, operate or sell games that are similar to or in direct competition, as determined by the commission, with games c 001519 c offered by the state lottery commission, including the lottery instant games or its lotto style games such as keno or its multi-jurisdictional games." Third, modernization of the Lottery must be supported, including permitting the CT Lottery to broaden its offerings and distribution channels as well as leverage the internet to promote its products in the same manner as the casinos and private sector business. The CT Lottery is over forty years old; and during this time, it has pioneered many new ideas. Now, the CT Lottery is falling behind other states that are authorized to sell new and more innovative· games to remain competitive, to attract millennials, and to grow revenues. For example, many lotteries offer keno, bfngo, instant ticket raffles, loyalty programs, subscription sales, and scratch games with interactive features. We observe that lottery games are increasingly sold over the internet, including in Georgia, Michigan and Illinois. Kentucky recently generated $45 million in sales in its first full year of operating keno, and is now considering internet sales. Massachusetts, also faced with new casinos, is considering internet sales. The CT Lottery cannot maintain its place in history, and in the industry, if the Lottery cannot offer an up-to-date portfolio. last year, the CT Lottery contributed $319.5 million to the General Fund, more than any other gaming entity, and approximately $30 million more than the two casinos combined. Additionally, we partner with approximately 2900 retailers across the state, of which over 2000 are small businesses. Lottery income is a significant revenue stream for our retail partners and can equate to an additional $20,000 annually for a small business and $100,000 plus for a high c traffic store. In closing, the CT Lottery is an industry leader in responsible gambling. A 2013 survey\ that included 29 U.S. lotteries, showed that the CT Lottery contributes more money to problem gambling than any other state lottery, regardless of population. We work closely with the CT Council on Problem Gambling, the Problem Gambling Services division within the CT Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, the National Council on Problem Gambling and McGill University's International Center for Youth-Gambling Problems and High Risk Behaviors. We support and applaud the casino's overtures that they will be contributing more to responsible gambling as their expansion is considered. Thank you for your time and attention, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have. 1 This study was conducted by the National Association of State and Provincial lotteries and a copy of the survey results are attacned. c 2 001520 M:iyland ·lottery sales slide as casino revenue surges- The Washingto... http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-IotteJy-sales-slide-as c Local Maryland tottery sales slide as casino revenue surges By Annys Shin August 11, 2014 Before Maryland's largest casino opened less than two miles away, convenience store manager Chimg Patel was hoping to sell more lotte1y tickets than he was already moving. "We were doing ve1y good business with scratch-off games," he said. "I was t1ying to get another terminal" from the Ma1yland lotte1y commission. Then the massive Maryland Live opened near his Dash In gas station, and in the two years since, he estimated, his lottery ticket sales have gone down by 25 percent. And so has his commission, which used to be about $3,000 a month. Ma1yland lotte1y commission officials can commiserate. On Monday, they reported that traditionallotte1y sales have c slightly decreased for a secpnd consecutive year, to $1.72 billion. Access Blocked - Content Alert The URL: http://googleads.g.doublecllck.net/pagead They, too, have pointed the finger at Ma1yland Live for helping to end the lottery's unprecedented 16-year nm of annual sales increases. Previously, the lottery weathered the opening of other smaller casinos in more remote parts of the state, such as Berlin and Perryville, said Stephen Martino, director of the Maryland State Lottery and Gaming Control Agency. But now, with bigger casinos moving into more densely populated areas, lotte1y officials face the prospect that the downward slide has only just begun. "There was always an expectation there was going to be cannibalization by casinos," he said. "It is going to be a challenge with Horseshoe [Baltimore] opening in a couple weeks, and in a couple years, we will have MGM [National Harbor] opening." Horseshoe is located by M&T Bank Stadium, where the Ravens play, on some ofthe lotte1y's most lucrative turf. Baltimore accounts for just under 11 percent of the state's population but almost 17 percent of lotte1y sales, state data show. Only one other locale generates a larger proportion oflottery sales: Prince George's County, future site of c MGM National Harbor. It is home to only 15 percent of the state's population but generates 21 percent oflottery 001521 Mmyland lottety sales slide as casino revenue surges -The Washingto... http:!/www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-lottety-sales-slide-as c sales. Statewide, lottery sales decreased by 1.7 percent in fiscal2014, compared with the previous year, agency officials said. In 2013, they decreased by 2.2 percent. While not a large percentage, it was still the third largest drop among the 43 lotteries nationwide. Advertisement Surging casino revenue has more than made up for the decline in lottery sales. Last year, for example, the state netted 27 percent more in tax revenue from gambling than the year before, boosted by the opening of Rocky Gap casino and the introduction of table games, state data show. J c But the health of the lottery still matters for taxpayers. The state has come to rely on lottery sales, which are the fomth largest somce of revenue after income, sales and corporate taxes. And the lottery still contributes nearly twice as much to the state's general fund as casinos do, about $521 million in 2014. Lottery officials managed to keep the drop in sales from eating into taxpayers' share. Martino said the agency still met its goal for 2014 for the amount of money it was supposed to turn over to the state. To get a better grip on the problem, lottery officials have hired experts to examine the impact casinos are having on their business. The results of that study are slated to be released at the lottery commission's Thursday meeting. Access Blocked - Content Alert The URL: http:/jgoogleads.g.doublecllck.net/pagead Doug Walker, an economist at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, who is involved in the Maryland lotte1y study, would not discuss the findings ahead of their release. But he said other studies have shown that opening more casinos generally has a negative effect on locallotte1y sales. c "Those two industries tend to be substitutes for each other," Walker said. 001522 Maryland lottery sales slide as casino revenue surges- The Washingto... http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-[ottery-sales-slide-as· That dynamic has played out in Pennsylvania, which has 12 casinos and generates more gambling revenue than any c other state except for Nevada. Until the slot machine onslaught, Pennsylvania's lotte1y, like Maryland's, was on a roll, with annual sales increasing ever year, sometimes by double digits. But starting around 2006, as casinos began to spread across the state, lottety sales leveled off and then declined. Hardest hit were the areas surrounding the new slot machine parlors. In a 2008 report, Pennsylvania state lottety officials noted that when a new casino opened, lottety ticket retailers within an hour's drive rep01ted more frequent and higher percentage declines in weekly sales than retailers further away. Advertisement c But Richard McGowan, a gambling expert at Boston College, noted that trend was temporaty. Pennsylvania's lottmy sales have gone up evety year since 2010. Last year, the lottety posted a record profit. McGowan said there are other factors that can affect lotte1y sales such as the state of the economy, the mix of games, the size of the Powerballjackpot that year and even the weather. (Casinos do better in the spring and summer, he said, while lottety sales tend to do better in the winter.) The customer bases for lotteries and casinos also don't overlap as much as people might assume, he said. "Most lottety tickets are bought on impulse when people go in to buy milk and gasoline," McGowan said. "You have to plan to go to a casino." Whether Matyland follows in Pennsylvania's footsteps may boil down to timing. Gamblers have even more choices now than they did eight years ago when Pennsylvania expanded slots. In Ohio, which started adding casinos in 2012, lottery sales are still decreasing. As lottety officials brace for the opening of Horseshoe Baltimore, they are also trying to change their luck by offering games with recognizable brands such as the Ravens or Monopoly. And they have recently talked to Matyland Live c about possibly working together on marketing, officials for the casino and lottery agency said. 001523 M:.'lryland lottery sales slide as casino revenue surges- The Washingto... http://www.was.hingtonpost.com/local!mmyland-lottety-sales-slide-as· Until then, players should expect to see scratch-off tickets featuring dice, poker hands, slot machine reels and c roulette wheels, said Carole Everett, an agency spokeswoman said. As they design new games, she said, "we are looking at how players are reacting to the casino gaming experience." For Marylanders, the lottery lacks the novelty of having Vegas-style casinos on their doorstep. But, Martino said, that's also its strength. "The lottety is ubiquitous. Even with the erosion we've had the last couple of years, the lottery is still well established in the marketplace, and in the minds of people," he said. "Our challenge is going up against this competition that state policy has introduced. We have to find new games and energize our current games and responsibly encourage people to spend their entertainment dollars." Annys Shin has been a staff writer at the Washington Post since 2004. Access Blocked - Content Alert The URL: http://googleads.g.doublecllck.net/pagead/ads?cll c c 001524 c ®SAGE journals Search allj The Impact of Indian Casinos on State Lotteries: A Case Study of Arizona 1. Donald Siegel! and 2. Gary Anders2 ± Author Affiliations 1. 1Nottingham University Business School 2. 2Arizona State University West doi: 10.1177/109114210102900203 Public Finance Review March 2001 vol. 29 no. 2 139-147 c Abstract Gambling is a rapidly growing induslly with competing private, public, and Native American tribal interests. To examine the effects ofthis competition, the authors outline a simple econometric model for assessing substitution bell!'een lottery games and other forms of gambling. They estimate the model to examine whether an expansion in Indian casino gaming in Arizona is associated with a decline in lotte1y revenues. The findings imply that there is indeed a substitution effect. c 001525 c •••••••• , •• •••••• • •••• ,••••••• ••••• • • ••• NASPL North American Association of State and Provincial lotteries c Don Fecnoy, Minnasola- Research & Planning O.'rector Gary Gonder, Missouri- COO and Director of Ma1ketlng, Sales and Communications Jeff Ha!ch·Miller, Arizona- Executive Director Holly Koofer· Thompson, Missovri -Public RelatiOils and Responsible Gaming Coordinator Stephen Martino, Maryland - Director Chip Pols Ion, l c 001526 c TaMe 4: If yes, how much? Arizona $300,000 $300,000 -· Arkansas $200,000 $20Q,OOO BriUsh Columbia $6.5 million None California $125,000 None Colorado $50,000·$70,000 None Connecticut $2-$2.5 million $1.9 million Georgia $200,000 $200,000 Illinois $14,000 None l Missouri J $105,120 None c Nebraska 1% proceeds + $500,000 1% proceeds+ $500,000 New Jersey $15,000 None New Mexico $145,000 None North Carolina $1 million $1 million -- North Dakota $200,000 $200,000 - Ohio $915,000 None Oklahoma $500,000 $500,000 Oregon at least 1% proceeds ann"uafly alleasl1% of pr?ceeds annually Quebec $30.6 million None Rhode Island $162,000 $100,000 South Dakota $214,000 $214,000 . -- Vermont •$200,000 None - VIrginia $30,000 None Washington .0013 of net receipts .0013 of net receipts West VIrginia $1.5 million minimum of $400,000, maximum of $2M --· Wisconsin $800,000 $398,000 c. fii\SPL ?.01311osrJonslhlo Gambling Sm·voy 20 001527 Office of the Mayor City of West Haven 355 Main Street West Haven, Connecticut 06516 Edward M. O'Brien Mayor City Hall 1896-1968 March 16,2015 State Representative Stephen Dargan Legislative Office Building, Room 3603 Sl? lo9o Hartford, CT 06106-1591 Dear State Representative Dargan: Thank you for this opportunity to be heard on this proposed expansion of the number of casinos. in Connecticut. As Mayor ofWest Haven, I am in favor ofthis plan strictly from an economic and job creating perspective. It is no secret t.hat cities and towns across Connecticut are in need of new revenues and it is also no ..secret that the monies that were supposed to flow from our two casinos to the c municipalities have shrunk dramatically from what they were projected to be. In my city of West Haven, like many other towns and cities in Connecticut, we are facing tough economic times due to years of growth in our expenses and virtually no growth in our revenues, and in many cases, declining revenues. Many of our residents are in need of employment or in need of part-time employ1nent just to make ends meet. It is true that there is a push for increased gaming in states that border Connecticut. Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York are enjoying revenues and jobs as a direct result of this industry and we, as a state, arf~ missing out on these dollars. I understand the fact that there is much more than just dollars and jobs that must be plugged into the equation of expanding gaming in Connecticut, such as public safety a..1d health and I k.."'low that you and your committee will w-eigh all aspects of this expansion. I would urge you to please keep in mind the needed revenues that wouid tlow into the local municipalities and the employment that would be provided to our residents. I would again like to thank you for this opportunity to be heard on this issue .. Sincerely, · _, /;;_~~ Ed O'Brien Mayor c Telephone: 203-937-3510 • Facsimile: 203-937-3705 001528 c Price, Richard From: Ruth O'Donnell A Testimony by David G. Bohn, President and CEO of Preferred Utilities in Danbury, CT: Casinos cannot continue to deliver on promised revenue to the state and always bring social ills in. Therefore, I adamantly· oppose the Senate Bill1090 which would result in the creation of new casinos along 1-91, 1-95 and 1-84. In 2013, the Institute for American Values (IAV) organized a Council on Casinos that did extensive study on the causes and effects that casinos bring to states that implement them. The IAV found that although gambling used to be for only the wealthy in a resort-style setting, the regional casinos, founded by the state for revenue, appeal to a much different class of people. Now, people do not have to travel to resorts to games, they can travel 70 miles or less to gamble only, not spending money at local businesses or restaurants in the area. Because of this, the gamblers are of the poorer class, ill-equipped to lose money, and local businesses suffer because of the "free" perks offered by the casinos such as food, drinks, and transportation. Places such as Atlantic City embraced casinos as a source for economic renewal, but today despite multiple state bailouts and a $30 million state advertising campaign, the place is still in need of economic renewal. In most cases, casinos cannot support themselves because of the now competitive market with every New England state trying to take business from the others. However, the states bail them out in order to maintain the revenue that they do make. Casinos also adversely affect communities and families. Problem gamblers bring financial hardships on themselves and their families including debt, defaulted loans, bankruptcy, or loss of a home or business. IAV cites a Gamblers Anonymous study that fauna up to 26 percent have gambling-related divorces or separations. Children of problem c gamblers suffer from parental neglect, financial insecurity, and lost opportunities such as college. Although casinos tempt politicians with promises of economic renewal, the long term effects of casinos are negative. The presence of a casino drives out local businesses, and reduces community action such as voluntarism, civic participation, and family stability. Regional casinos take money out of a community rather than bringing money into a community. Bailouts, subsidies, and social costs are the price tag on setting up a casino system that creates more money for the state. Although many politicians look to casinos as an easy way to balance the state budget, casinos are a regressive source of revenue. Women, low-wage ~orkers, and retirees contribute most of the state casino revenue. This traps the state into depending on a regressive system that takes from the underprivileged and rewards the wealthy. The revenue the state creates is not worth the money the state has to spend to keep the system going or the ruined lives that are linked to the development of regional casinos. Thank You, David G. Bohn Ruth O'Donnell Executive Assistant Preferred Utilities Manufacturing Corporation. 31-35 South Street, Danbury, CT 06810 I www.preferred-mfg.com office: 203-743-6741 x 1010 cell: 203-788-4430 I [email protected]. Combustion Engineering since 1920 c 001529 c Price, Richard From: gary_o_keefe I think two casinos in ct is enough. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LIE smanphone c c 1 001530 c Price, Richard From: Olie < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:53 PM To: pstestimony Subject: Casino SB 1090 We do not need any more casino they are a burden for the town that has them Sent from my iPad c c 1 001531 c Testimony of the Connecticut AFL-CIO Submitted to the Public Safety and Security Committee March 17th, 2015 Good afternoon Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and members of the Public Safety and Security Committee. The Connecticut AFL-CIO on behalf of our 900 affiliated local unions who represent 200,000 working men and women all across this great state support: c Raised S.B. No. 1090 ·An Act Concerning Gaming We are supportive of this initiative because it is about growing our job base before the rug gets pulled out because of increased competition from other states like MA. We need to act quickly to remain competitive, protect jobs, and loyal casino patrons from leaving the state to gamble, and taking state revenues it's them. These jobs must be good jobs protected by collective bargaining agreements, both on the construction and operating side giving workers the financial ability to be a part of our state economy. Finally we also want to ensure these casinos should be smoke free. These few safeguards will provide Connecticut with a solid future for our gaming industry for years to come. Respectfully Submitted, Lori Pelletier Executive Secretary Treasurer, Connecticut AFL-CIO c 001532 c Public Testimony: Bill No. I 090, an Act Concerning Gaming Date: March IS, 2ots Presented By: Tamara L. Petro, MPH, Executive Director, CT Council on Problem Gambling (CCPG) Presented To: Members of the Public Safety and Security Committee Good morning. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Tamara Petro, and I am the Director of the CT Council on Problem Gambling (CCPG). The CT Council's mission is to reduce the prevalence and impact of problem and pathological (compulsive) gambling on individuals, families, and society. To be clear, we take a neutral stance on legalized gambling, yet we do not support illegal gambling. We are a non-profit, affiliate of a National Council on Problem Gambling in D.C. We also work in partnerships with the community, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services-Problem Gambling Services on prevention programs and the State's only 2417 Helpline for Problem Gamblers, (which you may have seen at various gambling venues or advertisements). We educate on the risks and on responsible gambling, and refer people to interventions such as treatment and recovery services. We are also members of partnerships with gambling industry representatives, to help create essential supports to prevent and mitigate gambling problems, and full-blown addictions. We are aware of the economic arguments and justifications for proposing the casino expansion, which seems to be fueled by the predominant concern of an upcoming casino resort in Springfield, Massachusetts, just over the border. This would also expand the c r~nge of communities in CT that would be affected by expansion in both states. Some studies report that with increased access, and associated with proximity, that rates of pathological and problem gambling increase and sometimes double. Usual prevalence rates range from 1-3% respectively, and can be expected to rise upward to 3-6% when this occurs. (Shaffer, H.J., Hall, M.N., and VanderBilt, J. "Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: a meta-analysis."). From a population projection, this is a significant number of citizens that will most likely continue upward. The last Economic and Social Impact study in 2008, found that an estimated 32,000-40,000 adults were probable pathological gamblers, and another 192,000 were at-risk for developing serious gambling problems, [(Gambling in Connecticut: Analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts, Spectrum Gaming Group, (2009)]. Effects of Problem and Pathological gambling range from troubling to devastating, both to gamblers, and families and concerned others. There are also ripple effects on youth, and underage gambling, which is another area of discussion. These negative social indicators are well document. Given The Council's recent and repeated testimonies, you may be already informed of these factors through our prior testimony. In short, they may range from (but not exclusively) a decreased quality of life, troubled or broken relationships, missed days of work, financial losses, crime, anxiety, depression, an increased usage of public services for physical and mental health, and suicide at the extreme end. These are similar to other addictions, with the extra added risk of a quicker negative, financial downslide. Does everyone who gambles face these consequences? Of course not. Yet for those who develop problems or even addictions, these can be quite significant. These are considerations we would like bring to the attention of the Committee. c 001533 c Another factor that we would like to bring to your attention is that slot machines, a significant activity within this plan, have inherent qualities in the way they operate, which has specific impact on the brain and therefore creates certain pathways that can lead to frequent use and also to addiction (National Center for Responsible Gaming, 2011; Shull Natasha D. (2012). Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Vegas.). Our State Helpline data shows that slots were a problem area for 60% of adults; 40% of males, and 46% of females with gambling problems in 2013. This is why groups such as ours give voice to these issues, so that they will be a part of the equation when deciding on whether to proceed with the proposed legislation. We are here to ask that you consider all of these factors to shape your decisions. However, some of the other facts have been omitted. The last impact study on problem gambling in Connecticut, and sponsored by the legislature, that I have referred to prior, was conducted in 2008. The next isn't slated until2018. Given that this study has not been conducted in recent years, and that venues and activities have changed significantly, we would have asked that a baseline and comparison study be done prior to any more significant expansions in order to make responsible, well-informed decisions. Such a study would have provided a current, systematic review of costs-benefits, balanced with a view of the social, mental health and behavioral health effects. We are now asking that regardless of the outcome of this bill, and in light of possible other expansions, that that timeline be moved to occur as soon as possible since it has not happened as it should have to appropriately inform decision making on these issues. We also request that The CT Council be involved in planning and implementation of such study. Gi'ven the numbers and the scope of prevention, education, treatment, recovery and c research work and services that will be required for us and our partners, we would also require increased and adequate resources to address these public health concerns and namely those who are most affected, at risk, and underserved or not yet served. Ifthis legislation moves forward, we would ask that an adequate percentage of the revenue be legislatively allocated for our Council's prevention work, research, and getting individuals into treatment. We would also request a clear and active role to help facilitate Responsible Gambling Policies and Procedures. The nature of the CT Council activities now include: • Awareness/social messaging campaigns to inform the general public about the Problem Gambling Helpline, the availability of treatment and hope for recovery; • Evidenced-based prevention initiatives, including Outreach and education at all levels: for key decision makers such as legislators, judges and lawyers, community gatekeepers who have community access, and namely to the community directly, schools, employers, clergy and more, and specifically including high risk populations, those of lower socioeconomic groups, ethnic minorities, and other historically underserved populations; • Treatment and Intervention, Peer support recovery services; and Existing work with Industry to accomplish prevention/outreach/education. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to these issues and if you require additional and immediate information, please feel free to contact me at the numbers provided: CT Council's Office Tel: 860-664-3996, Cell phone: 203-208-6065. Address: CT Council on Problem Gambling, 16 West Main Street, Clinton, CT, 06413 c 001534 c Price, Richard From: Tom A I do not believe that the state should be making revenue off peoples weaknesses. Also adding more traffic to the already crowded border towns on these mention highway would contribute to more traffic accidents and safety issues. Sincerely, Thomas Alaimo c c 001535 c Price, Richard From: gretchen ph < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:40 PM To: pstestimony Subject: [email protected] SBI09o Please, no more casinos. I am opposed to casinos in general. They do nothing to better our society. Gambling addiction creates too many problems. We do not need to build more venues for peoples lives to be ruined, for businesses and families to be stolen from to feed the habit. Our communities don't need the problems of traffic and crime that go hand in hand with casinos. There are going to be so many venues between those already in existence and the new ones being built in neighboring states the income generated is going to be too diluted. Think Atlantic City. Who needs it? Not Connecticut. Gretchen Pfeifer-Hall 4 Somers Road Enfield, CT 06082 860-212-0779 Cell [email protected] c c 1 001536 c Price, Richard From: Dwight Phelps Why do we need more casinos? Is the State trying to generate more income from casinos? Is this the State's answer to solving the run away spending of our State and the out of control deficit? The income from the two casinos we have now have not got the State out of debt! Casinos do not built a true good dependable economy for our State. Look at the two Casinos we have now, have they helped the towns in the Eastem part of our State? No they have not. If something is not working why do more of it. Why doesn't the State focus on bring sustainable business to the State instead of a faults business that the Casinos bring. Dwight A. Phelps This .email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. c www .avast.com c 001537 c Price, Richard From: Cathy Plopper- Paralegal Ladies and Gentlemen: I am opposed to new casinos/slot parlors in Connecticut. Two is enough. Thank you, Catherine Plopper Paralegal forT. Mark Barbieri 352 A Billings Road Somers, CT 06071 Phone: 860-763-0804 Fax: 860-763-0812 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY This email (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act 18 U.S.C. Sec 2510-2521 and is confidential. This confidential transmission may include attorney client privilege, attorney work product, privilieged medical, psychiatric, drug treatment information intended only for the receipient(s) named above. Reading, disclosure, discussion, dissemination, distribution or copying ~ c of this information by anyone other than the intended receipient or their legal agents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this in error, please notify me by email and/or telephone and delete this from your system. Thank you. c 001538 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:46 AM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Guglielmo, Anthony Subject: senate bill 1090 Let me see ifl understand correctly-we are quickly becoming the state of bad habits--more gambling, more liquor sales. Has anyone noticed the number of houses for sale in CT? Does anyone recall the newspaper article regarding the large numbers of people who want to move out of Connecticut the first chance they get? Taxes too high? and this is supposed to somehow alleviate the increases in taxes? How? How are towns to pay for increased policing? --Especially when the governor's budget is telling towns they need to fully fund the cost of a resident trooper. Is this supposed to be tourism highlight and attract more people to Connecticut? I can just see the families coming by the thousands to play in the "kiddy'' casinos ( never too early to start gambling- it probably helps to develop math and social skills). And never mind the property values of the towns where these casinos will be located---I'm sure the towns can raise the property taxes on the remaining residents--after all--it's not like the governor is raising taxes. He said he wouldn't. Yes I would definitely move to Connecticut. And I almost forgot-- the traffic on the highways--, that will probably bring in more "revenue" because we will put in more tolls. But wait---what about Massachusetts and Rhode Island? Aren't they considering casinos? Are we aiming to become the Las Vegas ofNew England? Bring on the dancing women .... Patricia Pogmore c Chaplin c 001539 c Price, Richard From: Rome < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:36 AM To: pstestimony; Sen. Kissel, John A.; Ginny Young Subject: We are AGAINST Senate bill 1090 Both my wife and I are 100% against placing ANY new casino's in CT especially in Enfield, our home town. Does the state really believe that there is an "untapped stream" of gamblers out here that just are too lazy to go to one of the two massive casinos already here in CT? Busses leave from here on a daily basis carrying the elderly and a dedicated group of residents from a wide area, including Massachusetts residents. All you have to do is go to the commuter lot near Macy's and check out the license plates. So, by placing a new casino here in town would essentially dilute what traffic the current casinos see from here. It would not be a new stream of income and would be an eyesore here as well. Of course this state will never not adopt any idea that will generate even one dollar of new taxes. How they think this would work in their favor is questionable. In addition the casinos in CT are already laying off people in their own facilities. No longer is the traffic 24 j7 like it was in the beginning. Other major gambling cities like Atlantic City are also c seeing gambling tail off leaving billion-dollar hulking buildings empty right on the boardwalk. So, leave it to the State to think that building a new one in a few locations in the state would be a good idea! Stay away from gambling as any kind of revenue creating enterprise. Springfield will realize early on what a boondoggle their project will be when no one will be willing to drive that horrible highway to a dumpy city. So much more could have been done there before embracing gambling. Even their own race tracks across that state are failing miserably and the crowd that they attract is, well, not you average Sunday-school caliber. Enfield already has it's issues. Stirring in a satellite casino here will do absolutely n-othing to help our town OR our state. Sincerely, Roman Polaski Virginia Young Enfield, CT c 001540 c Price, Richard From: Sue To CT represesntatives: CTdoes NOT need any more casinos. We have a HUGE spending problem in this state and that is what needs to be corrected. We do not need more casinos that will take away from the quality of life in this state. We need spending under control, not "get rich quick" schemes. Vote NO on this bill please. Thank you. Susan Polaski c c 1 001541 Price, Richard From: John J Pudelko To Whom It May Concern: We have enough casinos in Connecticut. Business is down at the ones we already have. People cannot afford to go. Please vote against the casino expansion. Respectfully Submitted, Patricia K. Pudelko John J. Pudelko Danbury, CT c c 001542 c Price, Richard From: Fred Purdue As residents of North Central Connecticut, my wife, Wendy and I need you to know we are absolutely opposed to any more Connecticut casinos. They do nothing constructive for the economy. They turn our highways into parking lots. They lower quality of life. Period. Fred Purdue [email protected] c c 001543 c Price, Richard From: Kevin Rabito < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:05 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: Senate Bill1090 Regarding the 1090 bill for casino's along 195, 191 and particularly 184. I am strongly opposed to this bill and having casinos. We've seen what going on with NJ own casinos, I do not want to see the mess that has become in the state of Connecticut. You add the tolls and the casinos and you will have a complete mess on the highways. Resident's of the state are already dealing with extreme traffic and this will make it even worse. As far as the towns, it will put more stress dealing with issues around the living areas of the casinos. How about ditch the tolls and the casino idea and work on bring companies that offer higher wages such as technology companies. If this bill does pass, I see no future for me and my family in living in the state of Connecticut. Regards, Kevin Rabito c c 001544 c Price, Richard From: Patricia Ramondetta We have a casino coming in Springfield which will bring enough traffic and crime to Enfield and surrounding areas already. The casino will only bring less time with families and healthy activities. Our society needs to focus more on positive venues to get money for the state, isn't that what it is actually about, how about concentrating on more on education and recreation. We really need people with higher incomes paying more taxes and donating to our state parks and especially education. Who came up with this insane idea anyway???? Pat c c 1 001545 c Price, Richard From: Debby Reelitz NO NEW CASINOS! Very simply. No new casinos. I grew up in Ledyard. I witnessed first hand the problems triggered by the casmos. No more casinos in Connecticut. Pax, Debby Reelitz Debby Reelitz Calligraphy Design Studio North Granby CT 06060 www .letteringdesign.com c 860-413-9041 j c 1 001546 c Price, Richard From: Dan Riley < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:38 PM To: pstestimony Subject: Casinos No more casinos. They suck the life out of communities. They provide nothing good. If you Don't have enough funding to run State Government then make it smaller!! Dan R. Sent from my iPad c c 001547 c Price, Richard From: Steven ROBERTS March 12, 2015 To Whom It May Concern; I write in support of the addition of two more casinos in the State of Connecticut. One to be located on rte 1-95 and on rte 1-91. My rationale for doing so is that I will see the competition right over the boarder. I am from Enfield and would easily frequent the new casino in Springfield versus driving down to the other end of the state. Although I do not know all the information about the 2 new casinos, I would hope that the State of Connecticut would be the recipient of the tax revenue generated each property. A site must be purchased that is not on tribal land. Thanks for your time. c Steve Roberts c 001548 c Price, Richard From: Robin Roccanti I am in favor of more casinos in the state! Sent from my iPad c c 001549 c Price, Richard From: Paul Rotello Sirs, Madams, The State of Connecticut has more than enough gambling palaces to service its residents and those of neighboring states. Crucially, we got them not by reasoned debate, or even citizens' desire for losing money recreationaly, but by judicial fiat. I've heard they can't seem to fill the existing ones. The state does not need more, particularly when the new reason is revenue enhancement. Like border tolls and any number of other dubiously intentioned proposals, these schemes are nothing more than money raisers that shift the burdens of financing good intentioned programs onto people well outside the representatives' district proposing them. I live in and represent Danbury, and the last things our city needs are Hartford closing our free borders or forcing casinos, and the profound negative impact they bring, onto our residents. In addition, I certainly wouldn't support placing them in other areas of the state either. That would be hypocritical. I c Gambling your way to financial health an oxymoron. It's past time we all accepted it. Best, Paul Rotello Danbury City Council 15 5 Deer Hill A venue Danbury, CT 06810 (203) 797-4514 c 1 001550 c Price, Richard From: Christy Ryan < [email protected]> Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2015 11:39 AM To: pstestimony Subject: Senate Bill 1090 I think you need to vote Yes. It would create jobs & development and may attract a new group of out-of-state visitors more often that · have the other casino was too far c c 1 001551 Price, Richard From: Shirley Ryan Do NOT build any more casinos in CT! We need REAL jobs in this state. What in the world are you thinking? Is there no one in the legislature with any common sense? Shirley Ryan Sent from my iPad c c 001552 c Price, Richard From: Jehad Sabbagh With regards to the discussion of adding casino's and more gambling in Connecticut, I want express my deep regret that Connecticut would encourage the most vulnerable population lose more oftheir money by making more gambling venues available throughout the state. We do not need the problems that gambling brings to families. I would encourage less gambling venues and not be threatened by what our neighboring states may do. Respectfully yours, Jehad Sabbagh William Raveis Real Estate 48 Mill Plain Rd. c Danbury, CT 06811 Office (203) 794-9494 Fax (203) 297-6267 Cell (203) 470-2812 Email: [email protected] This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com c 001553 c Price, Richard From: Michael Saliba Please consider my opinion that the last thing we need in CT is three more casinos. Why would we even consider this when the existing casinos and OTB' s are dropping in revenue every year. Gambling takes disposable income, which none ofhave any more because ·Connecticut has driven out too many jobs and tax those of us that stay to death! If the state is that desperate for money, stop making it more attractive for too many of our residents to live off the dole than to get a job. Make CT a "Business Friendly" State where more businesses and people working will bring in the funds. Study the fall of the Roman Empire where its' citizens realized they could vote people into government that would allow them not to work or pay taxes. When the Legions could no longer be paid, you know the rest of the story .... Michael Saliba 8 EmmaPl Suffield, CT 06078 c [email protected] ' c 001554 c Price, Richard From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:07 PM To: pstestimony Subject: NO to Casinos I am asking you to vote NO to Casinos in CT. We don't need drinking and gambling. We need to grow this economy in a healthy environment. Regina Sanchez Windsor c c 001555 c Testimony of Representative Ezequiel Santiago Public Safety Committee Tuesday, March 17, 2015 Se_~~te Bill #1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING. Good afternoon Chairman Larson and Chairman Dargan: I am Representative Ezequiel Santiago and I am here to speak on SB# 1090. I am in favor of this committee moving this bill forward. This legislation will allow our state's two tribal casinos to compete in a very aggressive and growing gaming market. New York's gaming market has successfully siphoned off almost 35% of Connecticut's casino market. This has come about chiefly by expanding their Aqueduct andYonkers pari-mutuel facilities to allow slots. Once MGM opens up in Massachusetts, Connecticut's gaming market will be further eroded. c However, I am~very disappointed that Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods representatives have decided to build three stand-alone casino's instead ofutilizing Connecticut's existing pari-mutuel's located at Bradley Teletheatre in Windsor Locks, Sports Haven in New Haven, and Shoreline Star Greyhound Park in Bridgeport, which is in my district. For the past three years, all discussions I have heard, including those coming from a legislative study committee headed by my former Bridgeport colleague Senator Andres Ayala, recommended that we determine a way to formulate an agreement with the two tribes to utilize the existing pari-mutuels and their Connecticut operator, Sport Tech, to fight off the onslaught of competition coming from nearby border states New York and Massachusetts. The study also found that the gaming industry was retooling their pari-mutuels throughout the country with great success because the market showed that people liked convenient gaming instead of long trips to Connecticut or New Jersey casinos. People would rather travel 20 minutes versus the hours it may take to drive to a traditional casino. c 001556 c SB 1090 reflects none ofthese trends, which are gaming market facts. It also makes the most logical sense to do this for the following reasons: 1. The existing pari-mutuels have been licensed gaming facilities for almost 40 years 2. They are zoned for gaming 3. There is plenty of adequate parking 4. There is room for expansion if needed · 5. They are operated by Sport Tech, a Connecticut company whose headquarters is based in New Haven. 6. It would secure the 500 Connecticut jobs already employed by the pari-mutual industry and would ensure many more if all parties agree on this concept. 7. It will help the urban areas of New Haven and Bridgeport thorough, increased revenue, jobs and economic activity J c 8. It would pay property tax to all host communities 9. The revenues from these facilities could begin generating for the Tribes, the State of Connecticut, Sport Tech and the host towns within 90 days with very little capital outlay. Plus, they could lease the machines for greater operational economic efficiency. 10. All of the above would create a unique cooperation between all parties- a true win for all and perhaps a model for future cooperative endeavors. Connecticut's legislative debate of 1991-92 put the Connecticut owned and operated Jai Alai and dog tracks out ofbusiness because the State's tribes wanted an exclusive on gambling. The 1995 casino debate was detrimental to Bridgeport because of tribal exclusivity on gaming arrangement. Bridgeport, by the way, has no casino. As we offer "win-wins" for tribal gaming, we should include a Connecticut industry that has operated successfully for forty years and has contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to the State coffers. c 001557 c The State's tribes plan to build three casinos in unnamed municipalities at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars will have significant hurdles to overcome. They will need local zoning, licensing, parking, traffic studies, public hearings and more, and may result in lawsuits now that they have decided to build off of sovereign tribal land. It will potentially take years to build these facilities, if they are ever actually built at all. Plus, they will continue to lose all that anticipated yearly revenue until they are opened, that is, if indeed they are ever opened. The tribes are basing their future on a "maybe" proposition. I suggest amending this bill so that it would place the slot machines in existing facilities. This will create win-wins for all parties and encourage future cooperative ventures down the road that will benefit many municipalities across the state. Thank you. c c 001558 c Price, Richard From: gary z My Name is Gary Sasso, I have been a resident of Connecticut practically all of my life. I remember in the early 1990's when the Connecticut Native Americans received tribal recognition from the federal government and sought to establish casino gambling on their reservation. I remember then Governor Lowell Weicker threatened to veto any Native Casino Gambling bill. At that time I felt a strong sense of obligation to assist the Native Americans who lost so much of their land and culture from European settlers who came to Connecticut. I personally met with the Connecticut legislators and requested they. support Casino gambling in Connecticut. As we know, not one but two Casinos were built and have been in operation. Local jobs were created building, staffing and maintaining them. slowly however, those in charge of staffing Casino's began to employ foreign workers and gradually replaced many of the locally hired U.S. born service workers with imported non American Born workers, thereby increasing Connecticut unemployment in those areas of the state; I am opposed to any public funding to support studying, building or financing, tax-credits for any additional casinos in Connecticut. (see Courant article titled, Thefts Feed a Casino Habit August 23, 2000By L YN BIXBY; Courant Staff Writer) I feel that based on past history with casino gambling's negative affects on our citizens, and those from surrounding state's it's a bad idea to expand gambling in Connecticut. Our elected officials should look to more sustainable methods to create good paying working and middle class jobs. I suggest investing in re-manufacturing in this state. One needs to only look at the Chinese Economy to see how manufacturing has taking,their country from an essentially an village farming society into an industrial c powerhouse. The time to propose unsustainable service sector proposals to create jobs and raise tax revenues funded by taxpayers MUST come to an end! These proposals like adding more casinos in Connecticut are robbing from Peter to pay Paul. Ultimately to poorest and most vulnerable citizens will squander their meager incomes and forego basic necessities to support their Casino gambling addictions. Sincerely Gary Sasso c 001559 c Price, Richard From: Anne Savo No more casinos, please! Anne Savo, AAI Account Manager Litchfield Insurance Group 21c Arts Center Court, Avon, CT 06001-3752 Direct Line: 860-618-1113 Fax: 860-499-5352 [email protected] www.litchfieldins.com c c 1 001560 Price, Richard From: Anne Savo Please, no more casinos. Let's put this issue to bed permanently. Lindsay Anne Savo 737 Lovely St. A von, CT 06001 c c 1 001561 c ~tate of QConnerticut HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STATE CAPITOL HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591 REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY SAYERS DEPUTY SPEAKER SIXTIETH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT MEMBER 300 CAPITOL AVE ROOM 4109 COMMERCE COMMITTEE HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106 PUBLIC HEALTH COMMITTEE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE CAPITOL: 860-240-8585 TOLL FREE: 1-800-842-8267 FAX: 860-240-0206 E-MAIL: [email protected] March 17th, 2015 First, thank you to Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, and members of the Public Safety and Security Committee for giving me the opportunity to testify on Raised Bil11090. Casino gaming is on the horizon in Massachusetts, Rhode Island has built a casino that has gaming, and the video slot attraction at Aqueduct and Yonkers is syphoning Fairfield County funds to New York. If we are not proactive about gaming in Connecticut, we will lose funds to these other states, tax revenue to our towns, and most importantly we will lose jobs across the c state. Last year, I co-chaired the Gaming Slots Task Force and we issued the following recommendations: To begin working with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan Tribes, to expand slots gaming licenses to three existing pari-mutuel enterprises in CT, and to establish a percentage of gaming tax revenue to be allocated to the Dept. of Mental Health and Addiction Services to treat problem gambling. In my town we have 1,500 hotel rooms, People fly into Bradley for meetings and are frequently looking for evening entertainment. Just as the hotels now send the vans to Six Flags in MA, they would provide rides to the casino in Springfield once it is built. We could offer slot machines and pari-mutuel racing within walking distance instead and keep jobs and money in Connecticut. This could be done very quickly as there are already existing facilities that are licensed. This is an important discussion and I hope we can all come to the table to discuss the best options for CT. I am grateful to Speaker Sharkey, Senator Looney, Representative Dargan, and especially Senator Larson for taking the time to listen to me. Sincerely Peggy Sayers, State Representative, 60th District c SERVING WINDSOR & WINDSOR LOCKS 001562 c Price, Richard From: Donald Schlichting For the record I do not want any more casinos in CT. Donald Schlichting c c 001563 c Price, Richard From: Charlene Schosser To Whom It May Concern: Seriously? More casinos in CT? I don't think this is the long-term answer for creating revenue in this state nor is it conducive to our already crowded highways. I can't believe I am even reading that the CT government is considering this as a viable option for the state. · l can't believe that this is what the people of the state of CT want, nor what my family and I want in this state. I vote and I make sure my friends vote. If you choose to junk up our state with more casinos and our already overtaxed citizens, I don't see a whole lot of reasons to stay around once retirement hits. I am definitely not interested in this bill being passed. Charlene Schosser schosserco@yahoo ..com 15 Milltown Road, New Fairfield (203) 482-7302 cell c (203) 746-9824 home c 001564 c Price, Richard From: Kay Schreiber < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 7:08 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael SSI09D Subject: No more casinos The State of CT has enough casinos. We do not need anymore. Thanks for your kind consideration, Kay Schreiber 125 South King Street Danbury, CT 06811 c c 1 001565 c Price, Richard From: Peter Scalzo < [email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 8:42 AM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: Senate Bill 1090 Please, please/ Don't allow more casinos. I had two tenants who got addicted by Foxwood and they both lost their bussiness and family life. We have enough! Money, Money, Money, Money! Peter V. Scalzo c c 1 001566 c Price, Richard From: Norman Smith WE DON'T NEED A CASINO ALONG I-911N NORTH-CENTRAL CT. TRAFFIC IS BAD ENOUGH!!! REVENUE IS DECLINING, WORK IS TOUGH, DISPOSABLE INCOME IS DOWN; NO CAS I NO. Nor-n-uvrv]. 5 m.i,:th, c c 001567 c Price, Richard From: Spicer, Dan Honorable Members of the Public Safety Committee- As a past resident of the region surrounding both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun (Town of Preston) I have firsthand experience that a casino brings more negative consequences to an area then positive contributions. Quiet side roads were turned into turnpikes clogged with traffic that the towns couldn't handle. The sides of the road near my house were strewn with "nippers" (single serving liquor bottles) amongst other trash that gamblers threw out their windows as they drove by. It was never this way when I was growing up. The level of drunk driving and crime has increased in the area increased dramatically as well. http://www.spectrumgaming.com/dl/june 24 2009 spectrum fina~ final report to the state of connecticut.pdf I would not wish the burden of a casino on any town in Connecticut. Two casinos is plenty, building more casinos will further saturate an over saturated market and will bring misery to yet another town. In this case, doubling down on more casinos is not a smart bet for the State of Connecticut. c Kind Regards, Dan Daniel Spicer 203-815-8188 The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and are intended solely for addressee. The information may also be legally privileged. This transmission is sent in trust, for the sole purpose of delivery to the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, any use, reproduction or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail or phone and delete this message and its attachments, if any. c 001568 c Price, Richard From: Bob Steindl To whom it may concern, Is there an alternative? There is another option for the state and tribes that would help bolster their dwindling revenue without impacting their current land-based casinos. Online gambling. Online gambling is a time and money intensive undertaking, but pales in comparison to the amount of investment capital needed to build new casinos, or even renovate off-track betting parlors for expanded gaming. Further, the state would be able to tax online gambling revenue generated by the tribe, and the two could work out a tax rate that would be agreeable to both. Finally, online gambling has proven to be complimentary to land-based casinos, and not as was long feared, cannibalistic. c Is online gambli'ng a good fit for Connecticut? Connecticut is a relatively small state population wise, with just 3.5 million residents. Based on their population Connecticut would be unable to support an online poker industry without entering into interstate agreements with other states. For comparison, Delaware's online poker revenue is nearly nonexistent, but at the same time, Delaware's online casino revenue has been decent. Delaware, with just under 1 million residents generated over $2 million in online gaming revenue in 2014, so theoretically Connecticut would see about 3.5-times as much revenue if they expand into online gaming. Robert Steindl 22 Fox Den Road Danbury, CT 06811 c 1 001569 c Price, Richard From: Michael Steir I am opposed to more casinos in CT. Michael Steir Danbury Sent from my iPad c c 1 001570 c Price, Richard From: Peggy Stewart I would like to go on the record as being opposed to the legislation (Bill1090) that would allow the expansion of casinos or any other gambling establishments within the state of Connecticut. I live in in the western corner of the state, right off exit 4 rte 84, and the traffic is terrible. Many commuters travel on local roads trying to bypass the congestion. The additional traffic created by a casino in Danbury would be horrible! All the idling vehicles also increase the air pollution .. Thank you. Peggy H. Stewart 10 Oak Ridge Ave. Danbury, CT 06810 (203)-746-4860 c c 1 001571 c Price, Richard From: S M Dear Elected Representatives, I am writing to ask you not to support Senate Bill 1090. Our state does not need more casinos. More casinos is the wrong d1rection for Connecticut Thank you. James Stringer 4 Carpenter Close Ridgefield, CT 06877 c c 1 001572 c Price, Richard From: Bill Sullivan My name is Bill Sullivan and I am a resident of Suffield CT. I do not support adding more casinos in CT and therefore do not support Senate Bill1090. Please consider the tax paying residents of these bordering towns when reviewing this bill and do not pass this legislation. Bill Sullivan Suffield, CT c c ------1~-----···· 001573 c Price, Richard From: DAVID SULUVAN Good day. I am writing today to voice my opposition to the subject bill. It is my understanding that if put into law this bill could result in the construction of several new casinos in Connecticut. My firm belief is that this legislation would not help Connecticut. Gambling is not consistent with the Biblical principles this country was founded upon. Please reject this legislation. Sincerely, David Sullivan 18 Lindberg Street Bethel, CT 06801 (203} 993-1003 Sent from Windows Mail c c 001574 c Price, Richard From: Craig Szwed Please do NOT allow any more casinos into our state. ' Some look on casinos as quick fixes for the financial mismanagement and leaks in the governmental purse, others simply look on them as businesses. In either case, they are NOT the tax boon and income driver that they are often made. out to be. Look at Connecticut's lottery system and Connecticut's relations with the existing casinos. While there has been money changing hands, gambling is not the windfall nor the panacea that some would have voters believe. Originally, legalized gambling in Connecticut was proclaimed as the savior of our education system. That was a lie from the beginning. Not only has gambling not wholly funded education in our state, but gambling proceeds now get redirected· and siphoned to finance other areas of government. Furthermore, there have been reports of Foxwoods casino fighting for its life as a business. Granted, it's a monstrous complex, but, if Connecticut residents and tourism cannot keep Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods flourishing as businesses then we definitely do NOT need more casinos. Craig Szwed c 31 Webster Road Union, CT 06076 Hope in Salvation: http://www.godssimpleplan.org/gsps.html Respect for History: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVz jODzuEk Voice In The Wilderness: www.craigszwed.blogspot.com My Arts & Values: www.craiqszwed.net Life Member: 281 51 Assault Helicopter Co. Association Disabled American Veterans Military Order of the Purple Heart National Rifle Association Member: Connecticut Carry (Volunteer Editor) Connecticut Citizens Defense League National Association for Gun Rights Oath Keepers The American Legion United States Concealed Carry Association * * * Real courage, in all things great or small, is nothing more, or less, than simply doing what is right, in spite of feelings, personal interests, or circumstances. (Craig M. Szwed, 2013) c 001575 c e Sportech INC 11th Floor, 555 Long Wharf Drive New Haven, Connecticut, 06511 Written Testimony of Ted Taylor, President ofSportech Venues, New Haven, Connecticut Raised Senate Bill 1090, An Act Concerning Gaming March 17,2015 Senator Larson, Representative Dargan and distinguished members of the Public Safety and Security Committee. My name is Ted Taylor, President of Sportech Venues, based in New Haven. Sportech is a global company that has owned the exclusive license for Pari-Mutuel gaming in Connecticut since purchasing the business four years ago. We have 15locations spread throughout the state and work hard to be excellent custodians of our license; we have invested more than $10 million dollars improving these businesses, we employ almost 400 people, and relocated our US "-: ;; Hf_!i!Qf11J80::te:rs·td:r Like the casinos, the competition from the MGM Casino in Springfield, Massachusetts will have a negative impact on our business in Windsor Locks. However, this is fair competition, which is why we invested almost $5 million dollars there last year including a new sports bar and restaurant alongside the gaming areas to help us compete fairly when MGM opens. We sit within the Airport Economic Development Zone, so hope to grow as the airport does, which is the same logic as that applied by the owners of the 1,400 hotel rooms nearby. Our Windsor Locks property is located only 3.4 miles from 1-91 and 10 miles from the Massachusetts border. Building another new Casino nearby, in addition to MGM Springfield, would have a devastating effect on our business and its employees. New Casinos on the scale being discussed alongside the three main Interstates would obviously have a profound and negative impact on other leisure and entertainment businesses nearby and merely move employment and revenue a few miles away and to different owners. Apart from Mohegan and Foxwoods we are the only other operator with gaming properties in the state and some of these could easily be enlarged. Our Windsor Locks/Bradley facility is built on six (6) acres and has 38,000sq feet and presents a much easier opportunity to quickly facilitate expanded gaming in partnership with Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, in a location already regulated by DCP, and a community that has grown to accept gaming. c 001576 c Some pictures are included with this testimony and I encourage members of the committee to visit to understand how this might be achieved as expanding an existing facility will be much easier than starting from scratch in new locations particularly given the lengthy and complex planning regulations that need to be fulfilled, and the public debate that will take place. We would welcome the opportunity to work with this committee, the General Assembly and both tribes toward a solution that helps to counter the impact that MGM Springfield is expected to have without destroying our own business unfairly. Thank you for your time and consideration of my testimony. • -··" •. 7·••.•• _.,.~ .·,•,,;,•••• > .. c . - ... _;··· '_.-.,.,,, '.' c Bradley Airport "a.n Investment Zone r-1" 0 c=J Bradley Aifl)brt.lnvestrnent Zone 0 CJ Census Blocks Containing Zone ..._ Mi'iiorHighway -Highway Local Road Town Boundary 1 inch equals 4,000 feet .~:::t~2J:> ,', §)( / i;,•r:og 3 ·+·~ ?'~:t,;~.;:r::\ : For Planning and Anall'Si:S Pucposo9: Only SoUl-ens: CRCOG and Munloplo GIS Databasns, CT 2004 Orthophotography TOioAidM Stroot Data u.s. census 2000 Data Prepo"'d by TI19 Capitol RegiOn COUfltil of Governments ·oote: .April 9; 2009 ·q r" ( ~ ~:.. - ;,j. ~~ :,,, u u u 001578 c c "" __ ·,:;_c.;;., .. c 001579 c c 001580 c Price, Richard From: David R Thayer NO CASINOS. David Thayer 15 Dewberry Way Suffield, CT. 06078 c c 1 001581 c Price, Richard From: Dennis Thibodeau To whom this concerns I would disagree with building more casino's in CT. All they are, are money traps to take away hard earned wages. True, the state would get a share of the revenue but like the tow casinos now, that money was supposed to go for education and instead most of it gets put into the general fund to fund the pork barrel special interest groups and some legislatures! The I -91 corridor is already next to being the state's LONGESf parking lot, I live in Enfield and work in Middletown and must travel I-91 and its always backed up. A casino in North Central CT would only cause more highway congestion! IT looks like to me that the State of Connecticut just wants to start " Casino Wars" with Massachusetts. I oppose new casino's here! Cut Spending, No more FREE BEES! Enact legislation to stop and eliminate putting ethanol in our gas over the winters., I watch my per mile average drop 4-6 gallons. Modern cars and trucks are fuel injected and computer controlled for the utmost fuel mileage. This gas really SfiNKS! I doubt there many Carburetor engines left out there except in antique cars. Fix the potholes at night when traffic is light. 3 times this week I have been in on the I-91 parking lot trying to get to c work. The Pot hole patrol tied up traffic for miles! Lower the GAS TAX, we pay the highest tax in the nation!! Dennis Thibodeau 170 Cottage Road Enfield, CT o6o29 c 001582 c Price, Richard From: Thury, Paul < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:49 PM To: pstestimony; Sen. Mclachlan, Michael Subject: Bill1090 Hello, As a Danbury resident, I am totally against a new bill that would allow more casinos in the state. Casinos have proven to bring an area down by hurting local businesses as people end up spending money at the casinos instead of supporting other businesses. The mayor of Ledyard says it has not helped his town. The latest Quinnipiac poll overwhelmingly shows that CT residents do not want more casinos. Please vote NO on this bill. Thank you for your time. Best regards, Paul Thury 2507 Eaton Ct Danbury, CT 06211 203.24 7.4499 NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY- Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices New England Properties -- The information contained in this message is intended only for the confidential use of the persons or entities to whom it is addressed. This message, together with any attachments, is proprietary and confidential, may contain inside information, and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. If the reader of this message is not one of the addressees set forth above: (a) the reader has received c this message in error and is directed to destroy this message, together with any attachments, and notify the sender, and (b) any review, dissemination, use, or distribution ofthis message or any attachments is prohibited. Thank you. c 1 001583 c Price, Richard From: William Thyse The ANS. to this Bill is NO. We do not need new casinos in western CT. William Thyse Danbury c c 1 001584 c Price, Richard From: Tignonsini, Diane B < [email protected]> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 7:47 AM To: pstestimony Subject: Casinos Sf>lD9D I would like to go on record as opposing more casinos in the State of Connecticut. These do not generate good jobs and instead make it easier for those who can least afford to lose money more opportunity to do so. How about job training sites in these locations instead, or, better yet, make better spending decisions and stop wasting taxpayer money! Diane Tignonsini Vernon, CT "This message originates from Eastern Connecticut Health Network. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential. If you are the intended recipient, you must maintain this message in a secure and confidential manner. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this message. Thank you." c c 001585 c Price, Richard From: Mark Traceski < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 6:58 PM To: pstestimony Cc: Sen. Kissel, John A Subject: Senate Bill 1090 No more CT casino's please! Mark Traceski 63 Michele dr. Somers, CT 06071 c c 1 001586 c Price, Richard From: Cathy Truly I am against this bill. We have enough casinos in the state and even those are not doing well. Revenues are down. And there is an increase on gambling addictions. Enough is enough! Vote NO!!!!! C. M. Turley Sent from my iPad c c 1 001587 c Price, Richard From: Karen Turnberg No more casinos! If two casinos aren't making money. How would five casinos make money? Small strip mall casinos are a blight, check out the Tulalip casino in Washington state. No more casinos. Karen Turnberg Sent from my iPad c c 1 001588 c Price, Richard From: Mary Ann Turner Dear Legislators: My first question to you is, "what are you thinking?" ok, two questions, "is this the best you got?" I never hear anyone in Hartford talk about this idea ... - Zero based budgeting. Alii hear are "schemes" like casinos (and let's not forget last weeks stupid idea- tolls} to make more revenue for CT. Our State is already known for being the last or close to the last in a lot of things, we don't need to add "baby" casinos to the reasons to hate CT and have one more reason to move. CT doesn't have enough losers to make CT rich! Stop this nonsense now. As aCT native, I beg you- please kill this in its tracks. There is no long term benefit to dropping casinos along every highway, unless you are so short sighted thinking the fabricated revenue projections- and a few start-up jobs- are really going to bring CT back to it "hay-day" of employment. Nope, United Technologies is looking to get out and all those jobs are leaving CT and casinos c are not going to replace that stable, product producing, large employer type business. This is just another gimmick, like the lottery and income tax, where you will "promise" to earmarking the dollars for something- but in time, you will just spend it on over inflated line items and then move on to your next "revenue drug of choice." Think about "ZERO BASED BUDGETS" -you might just find what you are looking for- a balanced budget. Mary Ann Turner 7 Meadow Road Enfield, CT 06082 860-7 45-4649 c 001589 c SCHAGHTICOKE TRIBAL NATION PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTARY & TESTIMONY MARCH 17, 2015 PUBLIC SAFETY & SECURlTY COMMITTEE SENATOR LARSON, (Chair) REPRESENTATIVE DARGAN, (Chair) SENATOR GUGLIELMO~ (Ranking Member) REPRESENTATIVE ZUPKUS,(Ranking Member) Members of the PUBLIC SAFETY & SECURITY COMMITTEE My name is Richard Velky and I am the Chief of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation of Kent, CT, a Tribe duly recognized by the State of Connecticut with a dedicated Reservation located in Kent since early colonial times. I was elected Chief for life in 1987 along with a duly elected and active 8 member Tribal Council. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on Raised Bill No. 1090, AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING I will raise several concerns and questions that appear c to be short c9mings in the proposal. FIRST, WITH RESPECT TO FREE-TRADE Does this legislation as drafted restrain free-trade? How does CT protect against time and money-consuming lawsuits from commercial gaming companies who would see this bill as restraining interstate commerce and potentially being Anti Trust in nature? Or, if it is a tribal gaming oriented law, will it automatically accommodate other tribes as they become Federally recognized, or will that just lead to latent litigation? SECOND, AS TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Is this legislation really about jobs or about maintaining the wealth of some very prot~cted gaming companies? What guarantees do CT residents have that our citizens will be the majority of employees hired? Will all the employees be new hires or just shifting excess personnel from existing casino's? If the two tribes seeking off reservation gaming were so motivated to create CT based employment, why were they actively seeking licenses in multiple Massachusetts locations that would have potentially reduced employment and tax revenues here in CT? Has your Committee performed any studies to determine the impact of gaming across our borders in MA, NY and RI and potential revenue loss here? 001590 c Are there any demographic, economic, or employment studies that have been prepared relating to any proposed gaming location? There is little, if any, indication that any highway, traffic, public safety, police, fire, health care or any impact on residential and existing commercial businesses studies have or are to be performed. If not, why not? Will the proposed enactment date of mid-October provide sufficient time for thoughtful review and input of such studies? Finally, there are significant questions and uncertainties as to whether these would be tribal casinos, commercial casinos, or quasi-commercial casinos and the legal ramifications that would result there from. There is little, if any, defmition relating to a template for state taxation protocols, expectations, and/or projections of tax revenues. But as proposed, there is a pronounced lack of guidance relating to the authority and responsibilities of the Department of Consumer Protection and other agencies. IN CONCLUSION Some may ask about STN, its past and its future. There are proposed regulations pending before the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Affairs that would serve to promote federal recognition. How can Raised Bill 1090 be crafted before the final BIA rules on recognition are published should be of serious concern. If the State of CT currently is in possession of information concerning the contours of those BIA rules will it share them with the public now to provide a clearer basis c for its thinking on this legislation with regard to having only two specified tribes, when the upcoming BIA rules may allow several more federal recognitions of CT tribes this year? Federal recognition would provide educational, health care, elderly housing, and economic opportunities. Clearly, enabling the two tribes seeking ancillary venues would adversely impact those tribes economic alternatives. Finally, it should be noted that regardless of what you may have heard on TV, radio, or read in the newspapers, as Chief of Schaghticoke Tribal Nation, I state emphatically, for the record, STN neither seeks nor would we construct a gaming facility of any sort on our ancestral reservation in Kent. These points briefly address questions and concerns from STN perspective. I will follow up later this week with other and more detailed questions and concerns for your consideration and the record. Clerk: Jamie Hobart Room 3600, LOB (860) 240-0570 c 001591 c First Selectman Steven N. Wawruck, Jr. [email protected] (860) 627-1444 Fax (860) 292-1121 [email protected] Selectmen Dennis A. Gragnolati Michael Russo The Town of Windsor Locks Home of Bradley International Airport March 16, 2015 Written Testimony of First Selectman Steven N. Wawruck, Jr., Town of Windsor Locks, CT S.B. No.1090 (RAISED), AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING Senator Larson, Representative Dargan, and distinguished members of the Public Safety and Security Committee, my name is Steve Wawruck, First Selectman of The Town of Windsor Locks, home of the "Gateway to New England", also known as Bradley International Airport. Our town has been working with the Airport Authority to make a better "gateway" for Bradley Airport, with more options for entertainment, hotels, and restaurants nearby, amenities that people expect when they travel near a major airport destination. Part of our work has been the positive addition of Bobby V's restaurant location at the newly renovated Bradley OTB facility. It has added a centerpiece to the Bradley Airport Redevelopment c Zone and is a cont~ening place for many area businesses and residents. S. B. No 1090 is an important first step to jump start the discussions on how to expand casino expansions at our Bradley OTB site. The marketing plan developed by MGM for the Springfield, MA casino is to attract and pull as many tourists and guests from Connecticut. They have made no secret about this and will attempt to recapture those who currently travel to Connecticut's gaming entertainment venues. The competition from the new casinos in Massachusetts (especially Springfield) will have a profound negative impact on Windsor Locks as well as the State of Connecticut and its gaming industry, if the State stands by and takes no action at all. If the casinos partner with the Bradley OTB site, it will help protect the jobs and local tax revenue from my community but as well as state revenue and jobs across the state of Connecticut. The Town of Windsor Locks has enjoyed an excellent relationship with Sportech Venues who owns and manages the OTB facility. They have been great corporate neighbors and an important and long term employer of over 100 people. Sportech contributes consistent tax revenue to the town. The company has made big investments in the Bobby V's restaurant and overall upgrades to the business. We need to protect those jobs and investments that have been made in our community. In closing, I would make myself available to serve in any capacity to begin serious discussions about protecting jobs and revenue in my local community as well as across the state of Connecticut from the very real and serious competition from Massachusetts. Thank you for your time and consideration of my testimony on this/v important matter. S~,rely 1 17 / I / • J.. . j) rt.l<.vr/lf..v•-((J- ~ veh N. Wawruck, ~ . c First Selectman Town Office Building e 50 Church Street • Windsor Locks, CT 06096-2331 001592 c Price, Richard From: Norman Winnerman Members of the committee Please count me in as an objector to the proposal to expand the number of casinos in our state. When the casino issue first came to the fore, years ago, it was a way for the Indian nations in CT to open casinos ON THEIR RESERVATIONS as a way of providing income and employment to their people as well as others that were hired to work at the casinos. The arrangement made with the state to participate in some of the revenue generated was helpful to us, though I wish all of the resources could have been designated for Education, but that's another story for another time. The current state of the economy clearly indicates that the luster of the casinos and the number of customers they have generated, with the resulting negative economic impact, is closely tied to the overall state of our economy, nationally and within our state. No one should be surprised with the decline in income and workforce since the patrons of the casinos have also been hammered by the economic impact of the recent collapse of our economy. I'd be astonished if there was a steady stream of gamblers given the housing and savings losses that we've all endured. This has been a long term issue and is only now, starting to turn around. That Massachusetts is opening a casino in Springfield should not be a reason to open up casinos all over our state. We've got enough!!~ If anything, we should learn from the example of the collapse of the Atlantic City casino c boom and bust. If they couldn't become "Las Vegas, East", we have no shot!! It's a pipe dream if you think anything else. New casinos should be restricted to the Indian Reservations -I see no value in allowing an expansion into every nook and cranny of our state. The infrastructure involved in terms of roads, sewer, water, etc. would be overwhelming to the state and to the communities where any new casino were to be built. We, in Danbury, for example, are hard pressed to maintain our own infrastructure. I shudder to think of the impact on our resources if we were to enter the casino business down here. Further, as one of the growing areas of the state, we've got enough to contend with to keep up with our expansion. I wouldn't believe anyone in our state government who promised to accept the responsibility for the infrastructure expense, alone. Our state budget will stretch us to the limit now. Further, the attempt to sell a half billion dollars in General Obligation Bonds, as noted in the financial pages of our newspapers, would further stretch us. live here and I'm not sure how sound an investment that would be if I were to purchase some of those bonds!!! Expanding casinos in Connecticut would do nothing to help all of our citizens. Kill this bill please, and move on to something of greater substance to all of us, rather than the small few big spenders who would benefit from this, if indeed, they coula make it work. Sincerely, Norm Winnerman 51 Lake Place North Danbury CT 06810-7233 Cell-203-512-4 793 Home-203-7 44-1838 normanw04®att. net c 1 001593 c Price, Richard From: Christine Wlodkoski I urge you to vote AGAINST licensing & building more casinos in Connecticut. Christine Wfodkoski 2 Parsons Road Enfield CT 06082 c c 001594 c Price, Richard From: Alex Walk Dear "Bill1090" Committee, I would like to testify against Bill1090. I believe that casino expansion will not have any long term benefits for the state's economy. Unlike value added manufacturing, casino gambling does not bring in new revenues but relies on money that already exists in the state economy and often to the detriment to existing businesses that will now be required to compete for those same dollars. Regards, W.AiexWolk Danbury, CT c c 001595 c Price, Richard From: Kay Woodford I am writing to express me opinion about another casino in CT ... absolutely NOT. The two we have are losing money and will continue to lose money once the casinos in Springfield and south Boston are open. We need to look at casinos as a destination and NOT a source of revenue. If they are good then they will attract the business. CT gets a percentage of the slot revenues already and to open another would further diminish their profits just like the Sunday sales- talking to liquor sore owners, it didn't increase sales, just spread it out. Don't further impact our original casinos by adding more competition. Kay Woodford Granby,CT c c 001596 c Public Testimony: Bill No. 1090, an Act Concerning Gaming Date: March 17, 2015 Presented By: Donna Zaharevitz, Recovery Coach and Judicial Liaison, CT Council on Problem Gambling (CCPG) Presented To: Members ofthe Public Safety and Security Committee 1962 thru 1992 I had lead a normal pristine life. Wife, mother of four grown children, career woman, Pillar ofthe small town in which I live I had even run for the top political office in my town. I was always the care giver at home and as my children started to leave the nest and my husband a funeral director in our town worked 24/7 I had no one to really care for anymore. I was involved with town activities, but that did not seem to fill the void I was used to as the care giver to my family. I played the lottery, $1.00 a day, went to church bingos with my neighbors, and casually attend the Casino. I started going to the casino more often, there were people to talk with ifl choose to do so, the sounds, the excitement, and the possibility of a big win I became a different person someone I didn't know anymore. J c I was a slot player, and in the mind of a slot player the more money you put in a machine it has to hit. I had played a machine I just knew was going to hit, but ran out of money. I had been watching a neighbor's house a friend of mine for 30 years and took three of her checks with deposit slips because I was going to win and put the money back. The win did not happen and four weeks later I was arrested. I woke up the next morning in a psych unit of a local hospital. When released turned myself into the police department and started my court appearance and after 12 months was giving AR and two years' probation. During that time I tried to commit suicide three times and upon my last release from the hospital my husband of 3 6 years informed me we were getting a divorce. I starte~ treatment at a Bettor Choice Gambling Treatment program in Hartford and completed that program and have been gambling free 18 years as August 28 of this year. I make no excuses for my actions, I made some pretty bad choices and there are consequences for those choices no one forced me to do what I did, but a gambling addiction is no different than a drug or alcohol addiction in fact it is much worse. We as gamblers keep this addiction hidden 1 c 001597 c for a very long time and only give it up when we are caught. We have no physical signs so no one really knows what is going on only we know something terribly is happening in our life. Today I work with gamblers and family members who have been impacted by the gambler in the community as well as gamblers who are incarcerated due to gambling related crimes in our correctional facilities. I have presented at the U.S. House of Representatives, local television, radio and also national T.V on the addiction .I'm not tell you this because I want any praise for what I do now, but to tell you the Better Choice Gambling treatment programs Connecticut have in place to help those with this addicted do work because if it were not for this program I would either be incarcerated today or would have completed my suicide attempt. Funding is needed to continue these programs; it is much less expensive to fund these programs than it is to fund a problem gambler who is incarcerated. I am not proud of what I did, but I am proud of what I do today and the best compliment I have had in the many years I have been doing this work it when someone comes up to me and says" Thank You, You Saved My Life." Respectfully J c Donna Zaharevitz 2 c 001598 c Price, Richard From: Zawilinski, David J UTAS All- CT needs "real" jobs..... engineering, technology, research, & manufacturing jobs .... another casino adds no value to Society .... Please vote No. Thanks for your time, David Zawilinski [email protected] Tel: 860-654-3287 Cell: 860-461-5379 CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING: This email may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipients. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this communication is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system. c c 1 001599 c Price, Richard From: Susan Zeitler Legislators, Please vote NO on Senate Billl090. Everyone knows where to go if they need to gamble. This brings in an element, to other areas, that we do not need. With all the people fighting their addictive personalities, please save them and their families from this. Thank you, Susan Zeitler Sherman CT c c 1 001600 c Price, Richard From: Gabriel Zurolo Conn. has ENOUGH casinos and does NOT need anymore. Please vote AGAINST allowing more casinos. J. Zurolo c c 001601 c Price, Richard From: Jeffrey If we can have ctfasttrack and ineffective new commuter trains from Springfield then yes to casinos in Enfield, Danbury, etc. oh let's not forget the river hogs for the Hartford debacle. I don't know what business sense any of u have. Sent from my iPhone c c 1