1 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

CHAIRPERSON: Representative Joe Verrengia

SENATORS: Bradley, Champagne, Hwang, Osten, Winfield

REPRESENTATIVES: Allie-Brennan, Barry, Camillo, Dauphinais, Fishbein, Fusco, Genga, Hall, Hayes, Morin, Orange, Simmons, Sredzinski, Vail

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Good morning everyone, and welcome to today’s public hearing of the Public Safety and Security Committee. Before we get started, I am going to refer to the assistant clerk to go over some safety rules. CLERK: All right. In the interest of safety, I would ask you to note the location of access to the exits in this hearing room. The two doors through which you entered the room are the emergency exits and are marked with exit signs. In an emergency, the door behind the legislators can also be used. In the event of an emergency, please walk quickly to the nearest exit. After exiting the room, go to your left and exit the building by the main entrance or follow the exit signs to one of the other exits. Please quickly exit the building and follow any instructions from the Capital police. Do not delay and do not return unless and until you are advised that it is safe to do so. In the event of a lockdown announcement, please remain in the hearing room and stay away from the exit doors until an all clear announcement is heard. 2 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Thank you. And, can I ask that we shut the doors because it’s difficult for us to hear? We are working on an overflow room to accommodate everyone, so the -- the way it’s gonna work today is we are going to reserve the first hour of this hearing for legislators and other public officials, and then after that we will go to the public list, and then we will go back and forth. We have a lot of speakers today, a lot of people signed up. We are going to hold to our time limits of five minutes on the elected officials and three minutes on the list of public officials, and we’re going to hold to that for any opening comments you may have and then followed by any questions or answers. My co-chair, Senator Bradley is -- will be here a little bit late, but he is on his way. He wanted me to convey that to everyone. So, without further ado, the first on the list is Senator Formica. Welcome, Senator. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Good morning, Senator. Welcome. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Senator Osten, Senator Hwang, Representative Sredzinski, members of the Public Safety Committee, good morning. I’m here to testify in support of SB-11, which is AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZATION OF A CASINO GAMBLING FACILITY IN EAST WINDSOR, and to testify in support of SB-17, AN ACT AUTHORIZING SPORTS WAGERING, INTERNET GAMBLING, AND INTERNET KENO. Senate Bill 11 seeks to finalize a process to facilitate the opening of the joint venture of East Windsor Casino Project previously approved by a bipartisan majority in the state legislature. That bill had a requirement for the Secretary of the 3 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Interior to weigh in regarding their approval, a requirement that SB-11 seeks to remove as unnecessary. This is a Connecticut issue, Connecticut revenues, Connecticut jobs, and politics in Washington shouldn’t play any part in this particular decision. I urge the committee to approve this bill to get Connecticut back to work. The joint venture has spent millions of dollars in preparation of this site, on this project, and should be allowed to complete the construction and open the casino. Senate Bill 17 seeks to provide the two currently operating casinos with more tools by which to compete with our border states with the allowance of sports and internet gambling as well as internet Keno. These are activities that are going on around us and should be a natural addition to our highly successful resort, gaming operations, and will comply with the existing compact. Connecticut needs the jobs. We need the revenue. We need to support our partners in this activity, and both of these bills would provide that, and I urge the committee to act favorably on both SB-17 and SB-11, and I thank you for the opportunity this morning to address you, Sir. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, Senator. Any questions? Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much Senator Formica. Last year we sat side-by-side talking about the MMCT Casino, the joint venture between two tribal nations. Do you have any idea how long the two tribal nations have been here in Connecticut? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I happen to do business in that part of the state, and the first casino, the 4 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Mashantuckets, arrived somewhere in 1991-92 at a time when Electric Boat was downsizing their facility, and they provided needed jobs to balance off and diversify the economics of Southeastern Connecticut. The Mohegans opened their casino a few years after that. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, that’s about the casino, but even the tribal nations themselves; how long have they been here in Connecticut -- the tribal nations -- as tribal nations pre-casino gambling? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I misunderstood your question. My apologies, Senator. Centuries. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, they have been partners with the state of Connecticut since Connecticut’s inception; would it be fair to say that? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): It would, yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, so we have two tribal nations who are used to not being necessarily given the same respect as other areas, so would it be fair to say that they have worked around that and not only does East Connecticut respect it’s tribal nations, it considers them good friends and good partners? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I would -- I would agree, and Eastern Connecticut certainly embraces the opportunity and partnership that we have with -- with both of the tribes there. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, I remember in conversation with you that your very profitable business in East Lyme, one of the best restaurants in the area or I might say, is actually received more business as a result of the two gaming institutions; would that be fair to say? 5 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, I think, you know, the arising tide lifts all boats, and all of Southeast Connecticut is seeing an influx in business as a result of the opportunities that were created first, I think, going way back to the bingo hall and then as the resorts developed, but I think more importantly was the diversification of the economy in Southeastern Connecticut as Electric Boat downsized to about 6000, these groups came up, and we were able to stabilize Southeastern Connecticut, so the entire -- the entire Southeastern and Eastern part of Connecticut have -- have done very well as a result of the trickle-down effect from the economic opportunities provided by these two of the largest resorts in the world. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, you are chair of the tourism caucus; is that true? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, as chair of the tourism caucus, how has -- how have the gaming institutions impacted tourism in the whole state of Connecticut but Eastern Connecticut in particular? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, certainly, as the -- the operations grew in the early 90s and began to prosper, it -- it really -- it really alongside Mystic became the tourism destination in Connecticut, and as a result of that, other opportunities grew, and tourism, industry has -- has spread and flourished throughout Connecticut as people became more aware of our great state, and obviously, driving up the two main interstates, 91, 95, people get an awareness of how wonderful this state is, and the tourism caucus that -- that we cofounded a few years ago, which you remember, has worked in a bipartisan manner to support all corners 6 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING of the state of Connecticut, but we have to identify those main attractions, and certainly, it’s Mystic and these resort casino that are amongst the biggest. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, in addition to the work that has been done on the tourism caucus, which is really a great impact on -- on the state of Connecticut. I believe it’s $3 dollars for every $1 dollar of investment that we can count on in tourism in Eastern Connecticut; is -- is that a fair statement? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): State dollars invested return $3 dollars in tax revenue to the state for every dollar the state invests. It’s a much higher multiple for businesses and -- and attractions. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, this -- the bill that we have before us today -- both -- both bills are both supported on a bipartisan, bicameral basis; is that true? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes, they were when they were passed in the legislature last session. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, even this session, we’ve expanded our -- our support of this in a bipartisan, bicameral basis? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes, the entire Southeastern delegation has been a leader in a bipartisan way and that is spread throughout the legislature. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): In working together with each other, posit that you and I have disagreed once or twice on a couple of policies, but this is something we’ve never disagreed on. Working -- 7 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): We’ve dis -- we’ve disagreed, Senator Osten? [Laughter]. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I don’t know. Every once in a while, we might have been on the opposite side. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): [Laughing]. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): But -- SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes. No, we -- we have had our moments, but on this one, we stand united. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, working with both the Eastern Chamber and the Norwich Chamber, have you seen the joint work that is being done with our tribal partners in Eastern Connecticut to afford a robust economic development in Eastern Connecticut. It was sure not true always in Eastern Connecticut, but we work together to try to keep the jobs that we have? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes, that’s absolutely correct. The both major Chambers are involved and the -- you know, in support of not only the activities on the -- on the resort casinos but the diversification that those businesses have been able to kind of spiderweb out into Connecticut in other areas. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, are you aware of the Mashantucket Pequot grant that the state divvies out? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Are you aware of the fact that it takes for every one payment to Bridgeport, one payment to Hartford, one payment to Waterbury, one payment to New Haven that each -- each of those one payments takes 40 Eastern Connecticut towns to equal 8 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING what those tribal nations are giving to the cities in -- in the state individually? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes, I understand that there’s a multiple. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Occasionally, do you hear from your constituents and the other elected mayors and first selectmen that that’s an unfair way to divvy up the Mashantucket Pequot grant? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, certainly, there’s concern about the host area of being fairly compensated for the services that they provide. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, so my understanding is that Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, and Waterbury has each received over a quarter -- more than a quarter-of-a-billion dollars since the tribal nations invested into Eastern Connecticut. Is that the number that you have? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): You know, I would trust you on that number, but I know it’s in -- I know it’s in that range. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, what kind of community investments have the tribal nations made? What -- what do they do as community partners that -- that you’re aware of? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, both of the -- both of the tribes have been partners deeply in the community with philanthropic efforts that they provide in ways too numerous to mention throughout the community. They’re just have become part of the fabric of the communities in Southeastern Connecticut. 9 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I think that the chairman of the Mashantuckets was selected as citizen of the year this year. Is that true? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I believe it is. I think you’re talking about the Eastern Chamber -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yes. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Citizen of the year? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yes. And, the -- not only what the tribes do; do you know in raw numbers the jobs that have been provided in Eastern Connecticut that 140 towns send workers to? I believe the number is around 12 or 13,000. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yeah, I think -- I think that is what it is now. It was a much higher multiple than that in the beginning, and as I said, it was critical in the diversification of our economy and you know, we talk about Connecticut’s economic diversification, which we all have to focus on, and we’re focusing on manufacturing. In those early days, that -- that was not the case, and without these two operations, we would have been in -- in very much trouble. It was down to about 6000 people in Electric Boat, zero in -- in the -- in these resort casinos, and then they came up to 15 or so thousand, and then now we see Electric Boat coming up to the 18,000-person mark, and you know, that’s what diversification and economy is all about. Sectors that grow on their own individually, but work in synergy with others, and I think that’s been a -- that’s been a big part of the success of Southeastern Connecticut. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I -- I can’t agree more. I think that with the Eastern Workforce Investment Board and the work that they have done with our 10 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING tribal nations and with the manufacturing pipeline and the Eastern Advanced Manufacturing Alliance, I often hear them speak about the people that are many of them here today that work down at the two casinos that have worked there for decades, and have raised their families and sent their children to college and bought homes, and what I would posit is the most beautiful part of the state of Connecticut. Have you known of any workers in your district that have worked at the two casinos since they’ve been opened? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): You know, I knew some folks that actually started at the bingo hall, and -- and were still there, so it was even before they were open, so it’s been a longstanding -- it’s been a longstanding supporter of jobs in -- in our area, and I would just like to point out you talk about the Eastern Workforce Investment Board, which has developed a formula for entry-level manufacturing, and in this budget that we’re operating under now, the WIBs throughout the state are going to benefit from that -- that Workforce Investment opportunity, I think, you know, having a -- the opportunity to replicate that program throughout the state of Connecticut will only -- will only lift economically other areas of our state as well. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, since the two tribal nations came in -- into existence with the two -- once they were federally recognized and allowed to develop two gaming institutions, the best entertainment centers on the Eastern seaboard far outperforming Atlantic City; how many years have we been bringing up the tribal nations to -- to talk about allowing commercial gambling in the state of Connecticut? I think we’re on our fourth year. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I believe almost as long as I’ve been here, yes. 11 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Do you know if we’ve invited Newport News to come up here to be a direct competitor to Electric Boat? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I don’t believe we would want to do that or have we. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Do you know if we have brought a direct competitor to Pratt and Whitney to come up here so that they would have a direct competitor up here with them? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Not to my knowledge. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Are you aware of the fact that the state gave more than $300-million-dollars in tax credits to both Pratt and Whitney and Sikorsky? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes, I’m aware of that. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I think you and I voted on that, and then you -- have you ever had the tribal nations come and ask for tax credits? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): They have not -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): From the state of -- SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): They have not to me. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): How much money have they given over their 27 years to the state of Connecticut to support its revenue? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, it would be in the billions as it’s roughly $250-million-dollars annually at this point. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, it’s about $8-billion dollars is what they have given to the state of Connecticut in revenue, so I -- you know, I’m a little confused that we’re not inviting Newport News 12 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING up here. Have you ever heard of us requiring President Geiger to come and sit in front of the legislature when we last year approved $83-million- dollars for them? Did President Geiger himself get ordered up to the legislature to talk? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): President Geiger? You mean the president of the Electric Boat -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Correct. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Division of General Dynamics? No, to my knowledge, he was not asked or invited. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Was Phebe Novakovic, the head -- the head of General Dynamics required to come up here to talk about jobs in Eastern Connecticut? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Not to my knowledge. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): All right. I don’t think -- I don’t think we directed them to come up. So, we have -- let me just if I could recap with you some of the things that you’ve brought to our attention here? We have two of the strongest companies in the state, number seven and number eight in employment. They’ve given us $8-billion dollars to the state, and they are good community partners. They’ve lived here forever. They actually lived here longer than you and I and our families, and we direct them to come up here. We tell them that we are looking for someone to work against them, and we want them to join them in partnership, and that’s what -- that’s how Connecticut is treating two of its top ten employees and its number one taxpayer? I’m sort of confused. I thought we were trying to be business friendly. Thank you very much, Senator. I enjoy working with you. I look forward to working with 13 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING you in the future, and I look forward to today’s hearing. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, Senator. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Fishbein, followed by Senator Hwang. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Good morning, Senator. How are you? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Good morning, Representative. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): From your perspective, the intent of having a casino in East Windsor, is it economic development or is it the just added gambling? What is your intent in supporting that East Windsor casino? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, I think it’s probably three-fold. It’s probably economic development as it will create jobs in that region and -- and a tax base. It’s also the opportunity to keep Connecticut dollars in Connecticut in terms of fighting off the competition, and I think it was something that was passed on a bipartisan nature here in the legislature, and we’ve started, we should finish, and I think that’s what -- that’s what we need to do. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Passed on a bipartisan nature. If I recall correctly, the caveat to that passage was approval by the BIA. That’s correct? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I don’t know that it was a caveat. That was one of the requirements that was in the legislation. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, and this legislation seeks to take away that requirement; is that correct? 14 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): It -- it does because it seems like that requirement seemed to have a political involvement down in Washington, and you know, this is about Connecticut making decisions for Connecticut’s jobs, for Connecticut’s revenue, for Connecticut’s partners. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you mentioned keeping money in -- in Connecticut. I would think that economic development would be bringing dollars -- new dollars into Connecticut. Am I wrong or is our understanding of economic development something different? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, I guess we could all interpret economic development in different ways. I know from a small business perspective, it’s less expensive for me to keep my current customers than it is to go out and get new customers, so I think this is an effort to try to keep our current customers in Connecticut. I think the tribes have come together in a joint ventureship and a partnership to work together to do that, to provide opportunities for the state of Connecticut to keep dollars here. We know that the -- the competition has opened up in Springfield. I don’t know how well that’s doing. My understanding is it’s not doing as well as they had hoped. We know that they’re looking in Yonkers, and so they’re trying to cut off opportunities for new customers to come into Connecticut, so it’s up to us to continue to be good customer service representatives in all of the industries we’re in, certainly in the hospitality industry; that’s number one, and the idea for this casino in East Windsor is not to replicate the two largest resort casinos in the world in Southeastern Connecticut, but to be at a point where they can capture some of that economics, and then maybe drive 15 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING traffic back to the great casinos that operate sporting events and you know, entertainment, and shopping, and restaurants, and all kinds of things that people may want to do in addition to you know enjoying -- enjoying casino gambling. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, last year we heard from the casinos that if they were unable to build an East Windsor and Springfield opened, there would be hellfire and damnation, and the giant sucking sound of jobs going to Springfield, and they would be diminished significantly. My understanding is that the track of revenues has actually be in line with the trend over the last 5 years, and the impact has been approximately 6 percent decrease; is that your understanding as well? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): My understanding is the decline has begun, and it is starting to show less business there. I’m not sure that whether that’s a result of the -- the MGM not doing as well as they’d anticipated or -- or whatever, but I don’t know about all the Armageddon that you talk about, but there certainly is job loss and economic loss, and the state of Connecticut needs to maintain that level of revenue that we have, and you know, we have to sometimes look ahead a little bit and not always look where we’re standing. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, as the chairman of the tourism caucus and being in support of economic development, from your perspective; how does an East Windsor Casino, which is my understanding is just a casino. There’s -- it’s not a destination like the other places. How does that add to tourism in our state? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, you know, anything that gets people to stop and look around from out of 16 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING town gives the opportunity for potential tourism related. We don’t know all of the attractions. We don’t know all of the -- the opportunities for in and around East Windsor for people they may have to enjoy. I’m sure that there are many things in a cultural nature and in an attraction nature that are around there, so if people stop there and they -- they get off the highway and they look and they see a restaurant they may want to stop and eat at, then that’s economic opportunity. If the see a gas station, they want to fill their gas up, that’s economic opportunity. If they see a museum or a shop or some place downtown, that’s economic opportunity that would not have occurred had not the opportunity for East Windsor been there. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, and I’m just trying to figure out the distinction. You know, why not open the process up and for a casino to be in let’s say Danbury, Bridgeport, you know. Why does the Eastern side of the state have to have the monopoly on this because certainly a destination casino in let’s say Bridgeport would perhaps draw people into the state that wouldn’t come here. Why am I locked into this East Windsor thing or -- or is your -- is your vision more than just East Windsor, if I could know? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, I think that the conversation in and amongst the legislature when the East Windsor opportunity was passed was a result of keeping dollars in Connecticut and keeping jobs in Connecticut that you spoke of, and -- and I think that was the main purpose of that particular casino. I don’t discount the fact that other communities in Connecticut if you put a casino in there would -- would draw business, but it would seem to me that if you have a large corporation that is looking to disrupt the casino industry here in Southeastern 17 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Connecticut for their own game and they buy a parcel in Springfield and one in Yonkers in an effort to try to get people to stop from coming into Connecticut, and I think we need to take matters in our own hands and protect our Connecticut jobs and protect our Connecticut revenue, so the fact that it’s located in East Windsor is because that corridor provides the opportunity to get to Springfield, and we would want to make sure people have the opportunity to stay here in Connecticut versus going to Springfield. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, what about the people that live in -- in the Bridgeport area? How does an East Windsor casino save those people from going to Springfield? How does that change the dynamic? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Oh, it’s a little shorter. You know, you pull off the highway before you have to drive all the way to Springfield, and -- and I don’t know the distance from Bridgeport to East Windsor, but I imagine it’s similar to the distance from Bridgeport to Uncasville, and -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I’m mean I’ll tell you from my perspective. I live in Wallingford, generally centrally located in the state. Every couple of months my wife and I go to one of the two casinos, generally to go to dinner, maybe see a show, drop $20 dollars in a slot machine or I do video poker. Anyway, you know, we’re not big gamblers. I have no need and I don’t ever foresee myself going to East Windsor because it’s not a destination. I -- I can’t do other things. I would certainly go to Springfield because it has more things. It has shows and stuff like that, so I don’t see it. I don’t have a need for East Windsor at all from my perspective, and I’m sure there’s other people like me, but I just want to move on to the bill 17 that 18 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING you also said that you’re in favor of, and I’m trying to figure out if the intent -- what is your intent under -- under this bill? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): The intent of this bill is -- is to get moving. Sports wagering and internet gambling is occurring around us. It is an opportunity for us to kind of, again, create Connecticut jobs, generate Connecticut revenue in an opportunity that already exists. The casinos there we have, again, a compact that we need to deal with that Rhode Island doesn’t have, that New York doesn’t have, that Massachusetts doesn’t have, so if we want to get this moving quickly, then this would be the opportunity to do it. If you want to have further discussions with regard to these types of operations in other sports of the state just as you did -- you, when I say you, I mean the government -- with Keno. The Keno had to go through the discussions with and around the compact, and I think that we want to get this started, we want to get this going, we want to get this revenue happening, and then you want to have continued conservations then -- then go right ahead. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you know, from my perspective, I don’t think the compact has anything to do with sports wagering. I just -- the argument doesn’t make sense to me because sports wagering wasn’t legal at the time of the compact being entered into. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): So, do you mean exclusivity? Is that what you’re talking about? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): You don’t think that the gambling exclusivity as provided by the compact relates to other gambling activity? 19 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I do not because it wasn’t legal at that point, so how could it be contemplated in the contract? It just doesn’t -- you know. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): From my perspective, if I may? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure. That’s what we’re here for. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): All right. It’s I just didn’t want to interrupt you. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): It’s gambling, and the exclusivity in the compact centers around gambling opportunities, and -- and I think that’s what it is. Whether it was -- I think sports betting was invented quite a long time ago. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, but it was illegal at the time of the entering of the MOU, and some people say that playing the stock market is gambling as well, so you know, if we expand the definition -- there’s a lot of definitions in the MOU -- I don’t know that we get there, but anyway, the -- this bill contemplates internet sports wagering. How does that create jobs? I mean I’m sure it creates some jobs, but I would think that if we’re in favor of, you know, jobs it appears at the casinos why not just have the sports wagering happen at the casinos? Why are you in support of me being able to sit at home and to sports wager over the internet? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, again, I think all of these are tools that can be used by these resorts to generate activity there. It is an opportunity to generate income for the state of Connecticut tax revenue, which in turn pays for job opportunities and -- and perhaps that money goes into tourism 20 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING marketing, who knows. I know that part of the money of East Windsor casino will support tourism, so all of that together is one package, provides the opportunity for economic development. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, just -- because I don’t know where I am on the sports betting in general -- but let’s just say that the -- the state had no financial take of the sports betting; would you still be in favor of it or is it merely the revenue aspect? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, I think -- you know, I don’t particular gamble. I’ve had my turn at that and I wasn’t very good at it, so I stopped doing it, but you know, I don’t know whether I’d be in favor of it or not. It exists all around us. This is an opportunity for us to capitalize like other states are capitalizing and generate some revenue on it, and you know, it would seem to fold right in to the operating system that’s going on now within the resort casinos. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Sure, but I have to balance - - as a legislator, I have to balance the “socital” - - no. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Societal? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Societal harms that perhaps emanate from the gates being opened, you know. I mean we hear about children swallowing tie pods. We don’t then turn around and advocate it by the government, you know. Just because it’s happening in the illegal activity or it was, and it’s going on around us illegally basically, doesn’t necessarily from my perspective make it that we should adopt it, but I’m hearing from -- SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well -- 21 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): A lot of people that because the state tends to -- will get some money out of this that all of a sudden it becomes okay. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, it’s happening illegally around us, so that’s -- that’s where I think -- [Crosstalk]. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, in the state, it’s happening, but what I hear is that people are doing it illegally and therefore, you know, why not just legalize it? That’s -- SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, there’s a couple of other opportunities the legislature is considering along those lines too, so -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I am opposed -- SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Not just gambling. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I am opposed to those -- [Crosstalk]. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): But, from my perspective, this -- this activity is happening around in states around us, so for -- for this particular issue, I think -- I think it makes sense to get in on it. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, looking at the last part of proposed bill 17, it contemplates sports putting in blocking -- standards to block sports wagering, internet gambling for individuals under the age of 21. So, you would be in support of 21 and older being able to sports bet and to do this over the internet, that’s your position? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): That’s the position of this bill and it also calls for internet Keno, which is legal in the state of Connecticut under 18 to be blocked. 22 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, so -- and I’m -- I’m not aware. What is the law presently, if you know, with regard to Keno? I thought it was 21. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): The bill contemplates 18. I think it must have something to do with the operations of casino -- of Keno now. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, is -- well, and on the casino floors, it’s 21. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Casino floor is 21. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): But, I don’t think you’d be playing Keno on the casino floor. There are other public areas in the casino that probably have opportunities for Keno just as businesses you walk into a 7-Eleven you can play Keno. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I’m willing to get educated on this because it was my understanding that you had to be 21 or older to gamble at the casinos, and Keno would be gambling, so if that’s presently -- and please if I’m wrong, please let me know -- but, it appears that this law -- this proposed law would allow an 18 year old to over the internet gamble utilizing Keno, and that’s something also that you’re in support of? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): My understanding is that the lottery allows people 18, if you want to go buy a lottery ticket or whatever. I’d have to double check what those rules are because quite frankly, Representative, I’m not sure 100 percent, so I don’t want to misrepresent. I’m sure that would be the reason why it’s 21 for the gambling, which you are correct. The casino floor, I believe is 21, but 18 for Keno, which is through the lotto -- the lottery, which probably has other areas that they’re at 18. 23 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And -- and this allows -- because presently we don’t have Keno over the internet -- this would allow an 18-year-old to gamble the game Keno -- [Crosstalk]. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): This would require reasonable procedures and data security standards to block access to internet Keno for individuals under 18 is how -- that’s how I read this. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Which, I would read it in the disjointed to be one who is 18 would have access, so being in support of this bill, you’re in support of that as well. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Of Keno for people 18 and over, yes. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): On -- on the internet? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Yes. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): They’re not going to the casino, just sitting at home playing Keno? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, again, the -- the opportunity exists for the lottery and the casinos. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, Representative. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Hwang, followed by Representative Dauphinais. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Senator Formica. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you, sir -- [Crosstalk]. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): We’ve certainly had our differences of opinion on the gambling issue, but 24 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING let me say that I have always admired and have respected your relentless passion in advocating for your community. That is unmistakable, and I -- I want to simply say that because in our many discussions the people of New London to Niantic should know how hard you fight for them. So, you -- you deserve tremendous credit and advocacy just as my colleague standing right next to me, Senator Osten, does too. But, just like your advocacy, I also want to acknowledge the people and colleagues in this General Assembly from other towns, from Bridgeport, for the good people that are advocating and fighting for their communities, and -- and to give some of their perspectives and thoughts, so it’s equally important that -- that we recognize and acknowledge their efforts on behalf of their community. With that being said, we have a very difficult task in this General Assembly to evaluate all the information, but I see this committee’s role has one that takes all the information that we have, and we have an important task of deciding what is in the best interest of all the people in the state of Connecticut, and that being said, I -- I also want to take a note that sometimes it doesn’t get heard from -- from the real passionate, and it seems the strong interest of people on both sides of the issue. Sometimes it gets lost from the real grassroots people of individuals that are concerned about the societal cost of gambling. The gambling addiction and the impact on those communities. I recognize that this is a part of our state. This is part of our economic as well as our job future, but that being said I think it’s really important that as we explore expansions and not only additional casinos but also looking at sports gambling and all the other avenues of the internet gambling that we do not ignore some of the potential impacts of 25 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING gambling expansion, and that we do as we raise this issue and as we expand gambling that we do our part to ensure that those that get impacted by gambling addiction have the necessary financial resources, counseling support that -- that are necessary, so again, I just want to applaud your passion of the advocacy for your community and the need to be recognize, and that being said, I feel the same way for my Bridgeport colleagues that may be testifying later on today, but I also want to ensure that the voices get heard from the people that are speaking for those that had their lives turned upside down by gambling addiction. They also need to be heard in this equation as well, so I want to thank you for your time on this, and again, I -- I want to finish. It is important for people to know how hard you and your colleagues have fought for your constituents, and is to be admired for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Dauphinais. REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH): Good morning, Senator. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Good morning, Representative. REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH): Thank you for your testimony. You said earlier that other competitors are trying to cut off customers to Connecticut. Have -- you know, I was just wondering who they were and when they made that claim? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): And, when I -- why I made that claim? REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH): Or, who made that claim? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): When the resort casinos opened in the early 90s, there was very little competition around us in states. You could draw a circle for the tank of gas, and I think reach 25- 26 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING million people would be able to come to those resorts. Now, there is competition in Rhode Island just up I-95. There is competition in Springfield, as we know, that will get a lot of conversation today. There is competition pending in Boston. There is competition in Yonkers. There is competition all around us that -- that people are looking to cut off the flow into Connecticut and to try to capture economic opportunities, and they have every right to do that. That’s business. REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH): So, that was you opinion of other competitors coming in and trying to cut off customers to Connecticut; is that right? I mean it wasn’t something that another competitor made their claim about? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, I don’t know if the words cut off was a claim that they may have made, but they have certainly have indicated that their -- their intention was to -- was to draw from Connecticut, certainly the region in Connecticut where the East Windsor casino is proposed to be located. REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH): And, so that would be a perhaps something that would go into Bridgeport; would be trying to cut off other customers coming into Connecticut? I’m just trying to understand where that statement came from. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): No. I spoke about areas outside of the state of Connecticut. REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH): Okay. Understood. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Bridgeport I think is in a unique situation. I mean, you know, years ago when the opportunity to get a casino in Bridgeport didn’t happen for whatever reason, and then the resorts 27 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING kind of multiplied, and the compact, you know, happened, I think the opportunities that were brought to Bridgeport over the last few years with regard to MGM, you know, I don’t know that they would have given the state of Connecticut the opportunities that these resorts would have given. These casinos supply $250-million dollars every year, and I don’t know of any other casino in the country that provides that type of economic opportunity to the states in which they’re in, nor do I believe that’s replicable to a casino operating either here in the state or outside of the state. REP. DAUPHINAIS (44TH): Thank you. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Senator Formica, for being here and offering your testimony for the past hour and answering questions from the committee. I appreciate that. What’s your -- what’s your vision for sports wagering in the state of Connecticut? Obviously, as I’m sure you know, there are a lot of variables that go into it. Last year, the House had a bill that never got called, but it was a very lengthy plan. It included the lottery. It included different areas where you could go and sports wager. What is your vision? Do you see it limited to just the tribes or do you see other operators being involved as well? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): You know, I think, you know, last year was in a different situation. We had other opportunities that could have exited, but again, we go back to the fact that Connecticut has the compact, and I believe that exclusivity has to be honored and recognized because that’s a deal that we made, so if we’re going to get this going and get 28 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING this moving, then the low-hanging fruit would be to get it into the casinos now and the resorts there and get that operating and start generating some economic activity, and then if conversations want to exit the legislature is going to sit -- or the committee is going to sit today and listen to a lot of testimony from a lot of people with opinions that differ from me, some marginally, some greatly, and that conversation is going to happen, and that’s how legislation is created, and that’s how -- that’s how deals are made, but from my point, you know, the longer we wait, the more we lose, so this is about Connecticut jobs and Connecticut revenue, and certainly, we all know we’re in a budget climate that -- that we need to move on that. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Hall. REP. HALL (59TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Senator, and -- SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thanks. REP. HALL (59TH): Thank you for your testimony. I actually am in support of your SB-11 bill that was submitted. As you may know or I’m sure you do know, I represent the section of East Windsor that the casino is proposed to go into. Later today, I know our first selectman from East Windsor will be here to testify along with the rest of the selectmen from the town. They’re in huge support of this project as you all know, and something that hasn’t been talked about, and I know the good Senator Osten worked on this amendment to the bill that we did pass last year or the year before, the $750,000- dollar additional funds that are going to the abutting towns to this casino, so for example, East 29 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Enfield, Windsor Locks, South Windsor, and Ellington would gain from the casino opening in East Windsor, so I think for the impact piece of it; can you talk a little bit about that and how we -- we amended that bill to take into account any sort of public safety, traffic issues, even housing issues, things like that? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Well, I think the Pequot fund is an opportunity to support cities and municipalities throughout the entire state, and you’re -- and you’re seeing the effects of having that East Windsor casino there generate more dollars as a result of the business being created at this model that’s gonna raise enough money to support municipalities and the services they provide each and every day that will be increased with increased traffic, and I’m glad to hear the first selectman is going to be here because I’m not familiar with East Windsor, and he can help Representative Fishbein understand all the great places to go in East Windsor when people want to pull off the highway and stop there. REP. HALL (59TH): So, thank you for that, and Representative Fishbein, I’d be happy to take you on a great tour of the whole region up there. It’s a beautiful part of the state, and I’d be happy to show you around sometime and all the wonderful things there. On -- on a serious note, do you think that by this bill proposing to bypass the -- the federal -- the Interior, so not going for the Interior approval -- Department of Interior -- does it in any way, in your opinion, jeopardize the compact? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): No. I -- I think what’s happening politically down there -- you know, all of us have read the stories about the secretary down 30 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING there and the potential not kosher behavior -- how is that -- that may have occurred down there, and listen, this is again, it’s about Connecticut jobs and Connecticut revenues. The BIA has approved, the Mohegans amendment. They are holding off on the other, and -- and so the point is, you know, what are we doing? We have $15 or $16-million dollars invested in this operation. It’s a bipartisan passage of the legislature -- legislation, through the legislature, so you know, it was almost not necessary to go there in the first place, but we went down through there as part of the bill, but politics got involved, and now, let’s bring it back. Let’s just move forward and -- and move on. REP. HALL (59TH): Agreed, and I thank you for your testimony, and look forward to listening to everybody else this afternoon. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): Thank you. REP. HALL (59TH): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. I -- I just have one quick question for you, Senator. Do you think by removing the BIA requirement puts Connecticut in a stronger or weaker position financially? SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I think it puts Connecticut in a stronger position if the opportunity to open East Windsor casino happens rather quickly, and I think that that removal would facilitate that, so I think we would be in a stronger financial position to move forward, yes. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Are you aware of the Attorney General’s opinion on this matter if we were to not submit these changes to the Interior and get their approval that the amendment to the secretary then would not be enforceable to compact? 31 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I’m not familiar with that. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): The Attorney General has weighed in on that, and I think this is at least one of my biggest concerns despite all that I’ve heard here this morning that in the Attorney General’s opinion if we have a compact that is not enforceable it seems to me that we would be in a weaker position financially with respect to payment, but I’m sure we can -- we’ll talk more about that today during the course of this hearing, but I want to thank you for your testimony. SENATOR FORMICA (20TH): I’m not sure I understood the AG’s opinion to mean that, which is -- which is what I meant, but I’m sure you’ll hear plenty about that, and I thank you very much. You’ve been very generous with your time this morning, and I know you have a long day ahead of you, so thanks to you and the committee for your generosity this morning. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, sir. We’re going to go to the public list. It’s after an hour. First up is Michele Murdock -- Mudrick. Hi. [Side conversation]. And, I just was informed that there is an overflow room for people who -- who would like to monitor this hearing. It’s in room 1D. Good morning. Yeah, just -- MICHELE MUDRICK: Oh, got it. Thank you so much. Good morning, Representative Verrengia and distinguished members of the Public Safety and Security Committee meeting. I’m Michele Mudrick. I’m the legislative advocate for the Connecticut Conference of the United Church of Christ and director of the Coalition Against Casino Expansion in Connecticut, and I am here today in opposition to all four bills that are on the agenda. The coalition is a group of 14 faith-based community 32 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING organizations representing over 1-million people in Connecticut. I’m also here as a mother and on behalf of our 233 congregations. What I’d like to talk about is what the experts who study casinos are saying. That’s really what I want to talk about today. What are the experts in our country saying about casinos? About the social and economic costs. One document that I’ll leave here and encourage you to read. The Institute for American Values published this report, Why Casinos Matter, and this report shows that gambling is highly addictive, that casinos depend on problem gamblers for up to 50 percent of their revenue, that living close to a casino increases your chance of becoming a problem gambler, that the benefits of casinos are short-term and easy to measure while the costs are longer term and harder to measure. Furthermore, casinos drain wealth from communities, weaker nearby businesses, hurt property taxes, reduce civic participation, increase risk of broken families, and increase crime, and bankruptcies in communities. According again to another expert, Earl Grinlos, he’s the leading expert on the study of casinos. There’s many hidden social costs, crime costs, business and employment costs, bankruptcy costs, suicide costs, illnesses related to pathological gambling, social services costs, and families costs. Grinlos report that factoring all the economic and social costs, these costs outweigh the benefits three to one. Additionally, we need to create jobs that add value, create real products, provide a living wage, and focus on jobs that industries that are not declining in potential. The market for casinos is saturated. There’s close to 70 casinos in the Northeast, over 33 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

1000 in the 40 states that have them. When Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun opened -- there’s only 12 in the Northeast, all in Atlantic City -- so the revenue was coming from out of state. The Northeast now is saturated with casinos, so it’s mostly Connecticut residents losing their money. Five of New Jersey’s 12 casinos recently closed, and Delaware is spending millions of dollars trying to bail out its three casinos. Since casinos are increasingly cannibalizing each other, a 2016 study by the Rockefeller Institute of Government is warning states like Connecticut that while casinos may generate short-term revenue, it is quickly reversing and declining. If we were to grow this industry, it would create more addictive gamblers that has huge societal costs. In 2009, the state sponsored a study and found that there was a 400 percent increase in arrests for embezzlements in Connecticut since casinos arrived, an increase of ten times the national average. In 2014, the Western Connecticut State University did a study and found that the number of violent crimes, murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault increased around the [Bell] two casinos despite going down Connecticut as a whole. According to UCONN School of Medicine, the growing gambling epidemic is hitting lower socioeconomic groups the hardest, and the resulting societal costs are being born by employers, law enforcement, social welfare agencies, and the healthcare system. Gambling is a serious, serious addiction that is not often talked about because there’s so much shame around it. The National Council of Problem Gambling, they can’t bring in their folks here because they get funds from the casinos. They estimate one in five gambling addicts attempt suicide. I was on the phone with a woman yesterday from New London who wanted to attempt suicide over 34 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Thanksgiving. She had no one to call. Called her pastor who brought her to Hartford Hospital, but I hear these stories every day. [Bell]. I’m getting calls and emails from people that have -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Excuse me. Ms. Mudrick, that’s the -- the bell that -- [Crosstalk]. MICHELE MUDRICK: Oh, I’m sorry. Thank you. And, my last point is I wanted to say, we’re talking about money. According to the economist on February 9, 2017, the residents of Connecticut -- the residents of Connecticut have lost more than $25- billion dollars over the last 25 years on state sanctioned gambling, and a lot of that -- the money that the casinos come from -- up to 50 percent -- come from the backs of low-wage workers, the minority, and people that are addicted. I don’t feel in good conscious that we’re funding our state coffers off of the backs of people that are addicted. Yes, the tribes have been excellent neighbors to us. Two casinos is enough. Thank you, and I apologize for going over -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): No problem. MICHELE MUDRICK: And, I would be happy -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any questions? MICHELE MUDRICK: And -- and honored to answer some questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Two quick questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Michele, for being here today. One of the things in your testimony you say that by conservative estimates at least two to fiver percent of Connecticut’s citizens 35 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING are now gambling addicts, and that’s attributed to the Connecticut Council on Problem Gaming; is that number, in your estimation, higher and as you pointed out, the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, receives money from the casinos as their funding, so is there any concern in that number -- that estimate of two to five percent? MICHELE MUDRICK: Thank you for that question. I -- I think the number is higher. What I could say is - - and I know everyone in this room, and I know many people in this room know gambling addicts, and it is almost impossible to get them [tapping] to come here. Almost impossible because there’s so much shame. They spend their kids’ college education at the casino. They spend their Social Security checks. They’re spending their mortgage payments. Everyone in this room knows at least one or two people that that’s happened to. One thing I could mention. It’s also in my testimony -- REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I just want to stick to the question. MICHELE MUDRICK: Yeah, [Crosstalk]. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): We are getting a lot of people on the list, and I want to make sure we get to everyone as soon as possible. MICHELE MUDRICK: By conservative estimates, it’s two -- so Mohegan and Foxwoods, from my studies, employ about 14,000 people full and part time. By conservative estimate, it’s about two to five percent of Connecticut citizens are now gambling addicts. The state population 3.57 million in 2017, which means that the number of citizens addicted to gambling is conservatively between the range of 71,520 people to 178,800 people, so that’s five times more citizens who have suffered life-changing 36 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING financial losses over gambling addiction, and it really is a shame that we -- that the Council of Problem Gambling can’t come here and testify against it because they’re being -- they get funded by the casino, so they -- REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. And, the other question I have is as you know we’re debating a bill on sports wagering. MICHELE MUDRICK: Yes. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, there’s -- you know, I think without any disagreement there is a black market of sports wagering which happens now, whether it’s bars having super bowl pools or because people gambling with their friends, or fantasy football. Do you see or have you seen a difference in a legalization process? So, in other words, by making something illegal -- I’m sorry, by making something legal and available to the public; does that show a marked increase in problem gaming in that area? MICHELE MUDRICK: Thank you for that question. From my studies and if you -- I would highly encourage you to go on Stop Predatory Gambling. They’re the nationwide organization in Washington D.C. that studies this issue, and again, these -- these are not my studies. These are the experts. These are experts in the country studying this. The increase for sport wagering and online gaming actually, I think, it’s 18 -- don’t quote me on this -- but I think it is 18.7 percent instead of the 2.5 percent gambling addicts, so there’s much more higher rate of gambling addiction with the sport wagering, internet gambling. You know, the study does show -- they’ve done studies in Ireland -- did their first study. I think it was over 80 percent of the people that -- that did sports wagering and internet 37 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING gambling actually had to get loans or sell something that they own because of that. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. MICHELE MUDRICK: Thank you. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Representative Berry. REP. BARRY (31ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, how are you? MICHELE MUDRICK: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. REP. BARRY (31ST): Thank you for your testimony. You had mentioned that you represent faith-based communities -- MICHELE MUDRICK: Yes. REP. BARRY (31ST): And, I’m sure you’ve seen a lot of how the -- how problem gambling has affected your members. Can you just say a few examples on how the social cost has affected? MICHELE MUDRICK: Yes, so the Coalition Against Casino Expansion in Connecticut actually represents 14 organizations. It’s both faith-based and nonprofit organizations. We have the UCC, the Episcopals, the Catholic Conference, Methodist, Baptist, and what we’re seeing -- one story that I’ll share, a pastor in Northern Connecticut -- of course, pastors visit people in their homes all the time, and there’s man testimonies on the website regarding this -- and we -- a woman was eating cat food. She couldn’t -- she spent all her money, all her Social Security check, all her retirement fund in the casino, so all she could afford was cat food. 38 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

We see many people coming into our churches that can’t afford to feed their family or to pay their rent, so they’re asking our churches to help them out. We see just yesterday’s phone call, on Thanksgiving, a woman that wanted to commit suicide. This pastor went away from her family to drive this woman to Hartford Hospital because she wanted to commit suicide. It’s a -- it’s a very real problem, and it’s something that’s not being talked about. We’re just talking about the jobs and the revenue, but ever -- people in this room you know it, I get it, feel in your heart you know that addiction is real. Two of the largest casinos in the world are here. It is enough. New York has its own casinos, Rhode Island has its own casinos, New Hampshire and Maine they are very smart. They always reject casinos. There’s none there. Massachusetts also has a law that if there is a casino there needs to be a referendum in that city or town, and we do not -- we deny the residents of East Windsor a referendum, which is really shameful. REP. BARRY (31ST): Just to follow up on that, there are casinos currently in the state. Do you see any further safeguards that could be done to prevent problem gambling? MICHELE MUDRICK: Wow. Well, it’s an addiction, and you know, everyone -- most people with addiction -- I mean the biggest safeguard is not to have anymore. Not to have anymore casinos is the best thing. You know, the trend for the future for states -- the trend is we need leaders -- be led by men and women who are visionary leaders. We need to phase out state-sanctioned gambling. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. I’m seeing no other questions. Thank you very much for your testimony. 39 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

MICHELE MUDRICK: Thank you, and I’ll leave this with you, and also, the Western Connecticut Council of Government, which is all the selectmen from Greenwich to Bridgeport voted they do not want a casino. I’ll leave that with you as well as some other documents from our coaliation, and also, a study by professor Clint. Again, he’s an expert in the field about how the social and economic costs are far greater. Thank you -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. MICHELE MUDRICK: So much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Senator Somers. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Good afternoon. Is it afternoon? Good morning still. How are you? Thank you for allowing me to testify this morning. To the co-chairs and the distinguished members of the committee, I am here to lend my support for SB-11, the ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZATION OF A GAMING FACILITY IN EAST WINDSOR, and I just, you know, you have had an hour with my fellow Senator Formica, so I don’t want to repeat everything that he has indicated, but I just would like to pause for a moment to think about the relationship that we have with this tribe. These tribes have really saved Eastern Connecticut in a time years ago when Electric Boat was at a downturn, and if it wasn’t for them, I don’t know what Eastern Connecticut would actually look like today. We have partnered with them. It’s almost been like a marriage, and now we have an opportunity here, in my opinion, to do the right thing. They have come to us with what the needs are to maintain their workforce and for them to be competitive and to, you know, fight off a competitive advantage that’s coming into a neighboring states, and you know, we have an issue; 40 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING do we stay with the people that we’ve developed a relationship with, that we trust, that have contributed $8-billion dollars to our economy, that are there every time an organization needs help in sponsorship, or do we go with the new shiny object that’s promising things that are -- are out and unattainable really at this point? So, I would like to say that the town that I represent, some of the towns, nearly 60 percent of the people that live in those towns work at the casino, and this is not just a casino. I’d like to correct that for the record. This is a casino and entertainment destination. When I go there, I don’t gamble. The only card game I know how to play is Go Fish actually [Laughter], and -- but you can go for entertainment, for malls, for restaurants, so there’s much more than just the casino aspect of this. Eastern Connecticut is truly dependent on the success of these casinos, and quite frankly, so is the state of Connecticut. The second that this is put out for anyone else, as you have heard, we will lose the revenue of close to $250- million dollars from the casinos. The federal government -- or federal law, I should say, states that they need to get something for the payment that they make for the state of Connecticut. That’s the deal we have, and what they’re getting is exclusivity, and I think that needs to be honored just like the relationship should be honored for, you know, over 20 years at this point. I’d like to point out that the competitor that’s interested in possibly coming here just bought a $850-million-dollar casino in Yonkers, New York. I find it very difficult to believe that they would now own a casino in New York, own one in Springfield, and then go forward with putting yet another casino in Bridgeport. It just doesn’t make sense to me, nor does it to the tribes. 41 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

So, I want to say I was really proud of the work that we did last session in a bipartisan manner, and I have personally witnessed firsthand the positive impacts that the tribes have had on many of the communities that I represent. To not go forward with this bill, I think sets a bad precedent. It creates uncertainty for our workers, especially in Southeastern Connecticut and a time when Connecticut is in a financial crisis, the citizens want to see progress. They don’t want to see progress undone, and it’s very important for us to keep that in perspective going forward. I’d also like to say that I know that there are some people that are just philosophically or morally against gambling, but that conversation is something we had 20 years ago. I say that train has sailed, and it’s time now to look at the where we are and how we can help our current businesses, people that employ 9300 residents of our state, how we can help them be competitive in this market. We would do that if this was Sikorsky. We just did that for Electric Boat. These are people that we also have had relationships for -- with that are solid and long lasting. As you know, the tribes are working to try to get this $300-million-dollar gambling site in East Windsor off the ground. It’s Trible Winds Casino as you probably have seen many of the buttons today. They received the state approval for this in 2017, but it’s been stalled by the never-ending drama at the Washington level and the U.S. Department of Interiors in Action. SB-11 is a bipartisan bill. It would remove the requirement of the Department of Interior’s approval for the East Windsor site or an operation, and it aims, again, which is critical to keep in mind, at jobs, [Bell] jobs, jobs, jobs. That’s what we heard from our governor, business 42 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING development, retention growth, an opportunity for those that without this particular casino, without our tribes would not have that opportunity, and I will leave you with that on SB-11. On SB-17, this, again, you know what the bill does. I’m in full support of that. something that Connecticut would benefit from this. We’ve had this great arrangement for the last 25 years, and I would just like to point out that I think it’s important, one thing that has not been mentioned, I know you went through the surrounding towns and some of the other towns that would benefit from this particular agreement, but one of the things that really wasn’t mentioned that in fact upon financing or approval of this project that -- that the tribes are going to loan the state of Connecticut $30-million dollars. That’s not accounted for in this budget, so that would be considered additional revenue, and that would be an advanced payment against their future payments to the state of Connecticut, and within 30 days of being authorized, the tribes would also be required to spend $1-million dollars advanced for the first cost of regulating the facility. They also do contribute $300,000 dollars to the Chronic Gamblers Treatment and Rehabilitation Account, and I don’t want to go back to my district when I have 60 percent in some towns of people working in the casino. They’re not working all at -- on the casino floor, but they’re working as somebody who’s managing a restaurant or they’re working at the outlet, and they are contributing, and they will be contributing to the Family Leave Act that you all are interested in pursuing, so think about if we lose those jobs what’s that gonna do to that particular program. They are required to pay every bity of state law that we pass here, so I think that’s very important to keep -- to consideration, 43 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING and I urge you to move forward in a positive way on this bill, and I’m happy to answer any of your questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, Senator. Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Somers for being here. Senate Bill 17; what’s your vision of sports wagering in the state of Connecticut? Do you believe it should be limited to just the tribes or do you feel opening it up to other operators would be appropriate or legal? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Again, I rely on the federal law that in order for the tribes to contribute to the state of Connecticut, unlike any other casino in the world, they get something for that, and for me, that’s exclusivity. I would like to see it started with the tribes, and then we can have further conversations on how that works going down in the future, but I think it should start with the tribes, personally. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. And, to the other -- to the other bill, with the competitive casinos in Yonkers and Springfield, you know, people have made it clear that there is a market, especially in the Southwestern part of the state for an additional casino or some casino expansion; do you believe that there is enough business or enough financing, if you will, if there’s enough of a market for additional casino expansion and do you oppose the idea of an RFP, which would just simply obtain information on what parties are interested in expanding? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Okay. I think there were a few questions in there. I am not a casino marketing 44 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING person that has the predictions for, you know, when the market is saturated, but I can tell you I cannot see MGM spending money on a casino in Bridgeport when they just purchased an $850-million-dollar casino that’s not up and running, that has 1200 people in it that -- I don’t see it. I would suggest, again, exclusivity. If we want to have a casino in Bridgeport, Connecticut, then let’s go through the tribes and have the tribes negotiate something with the other parties. I’m against putting an RFP out. The second you do that you’re going to lose every cent that’s coming from these tribes to the state of Connecticut. It breaks the compact. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you for answering the questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yep. Before I get to Representative Fishbein, just to follow up on that point, Senator. You said the second that we put out an RFP it -- it would -- it would break the compact; did I hear you correctly? Can you mic, please? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes. In my opinion, it depends what the RFP is. Is it just to go fishing or is it to locate a casino in Bridgeport? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): The -- the under -- under the proposed RFP bill, it’s the exact same process that was afforded to the tribes in 2015, and at that point, there was no mention of breaking the compact, so I -- I’m not sure where the disconnect lies, so we -- we allow for one process for the tribes in 2015 to conduct -- to go out and get these requests for proposals, and there was no legal argument stating that that was in violation of the compact and/or any threats to hold back any payments to the state of Connecticut, so under the competitive 45 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING process, it’s the exact same process, and I was wondering why you think there might be a difference? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Sure. Well, the difference is it’s a competitive process versus a noncompetitive process, and exclusivity means exclusivity. It does not mean competitive, so exclusive rights to something means you are the only one that has the rights for that. competitive RFP means you are bidding against someone else who does not have those rights, so that’s the -- that’s the clear difference for me. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. I’m not so sure it’s so clear, but nevertheless, thank you. Representative Fishbein, followed by Senator Osten. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Senator. Thank you for your testimony. I’m just trying to -- where Chairman Verrengia left off, am I to understand that you are not in favor of competition, and that you’re more in favor of what I perceive to be a monopoly or what you describe as exclusivity? Why is competition bad? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Competition is not bad, but if you sign an agreement or there’s federal law that states that this -- you can have all the competition you want, open it up, but you’re not gonna get one dime out of the tribes any longer ‘cause you’re breaking the contract. The contract that they have with the state of Connecticut federal law says, okay, you’re giving the tribe exclusive rights to have a casino in the state of Connecticut, and in return for that exclusivity, they make payments to the state of Connecticut. I don’t think you can have it both ways. I don’t think you can say, we want to still get our $250-million dollars every 46 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING year from the tribes, but we’re gonna open it up, and we’re gonna break the exclusivity. To me, those two things do not go hand-in-hand, so if this body decides they want to open it up to competition, I’m not against competition, but in this caser, the tribes sitting behind me that employ 60 percent of the workers in my towns, that have contributed to the state of Connecticut over $8-billion dollars for years, that have been good partners to the state in a time starting when the state was desperate, now we’re gonna say, well, I know you have exclusivity, and we want to continue to take your money that you’re sending to the state of Connecticut every year because where are we going to make up $250- million dollars, but by the way, we’re gonna open it up to competition. Those two things -- that’s the disconnect for me. I don’t think you can have it both ways. I think you have to choose one or the other. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So can you -- I’ve read -- I’ve read the MOUs, and I don’t recall any portion that says that the state of Connecticut cannot inquire in the open marketplace as to what other or any bidders would bid to have gambling in Connecticut. The MOUs don’t say that. Unless, please educate me. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): From a philosophical standpoint, why would the state of Connecticut go out and ask somebody else to bid on something if they were not intent on moving forward? Again, is it a fishing expedition? And, if we have an exclusive deal with the current tribes, why are we doing that? If I were them and I had an exclusive right to be the casino of Connecticut and the entertainment destination and the tourist destination of Connecticut, and you went and tried 47 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING to solicit bids from someone else, that naturally to me would be a violation of the agreement that we have. It may not be stated in the MOU, and I don’t have it in front of me to -- but it is clearly a move by the person that you are in an agreement with to do something different and to look to have ulterior motives so to speak, and that’s exactly what we’re seeing right here with MGM, so -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So -- so if you’re -- if you’re alleging that I’m in agreement with -- SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Not you. I’m saying, in general. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Not you personally, but I -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, don’t -- don’t we owe it to the residents and taxpayers of the state of Connecticut to find out whether or not someone else out there is willing to pay us more than $250 dollars instead of putting blinders on? Don’t we -- don’t we -- don’t we owe them that? Because it doesn’t violate the MOU. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): There is no other casino in the world that is paying $250-million dollars to a state. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, what -- what harm does it bring to the residents in the state of Connecticut and the taxpayers to get that answer? Because you’re saying we can’t even ask that question. That’s what you’re saying. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I’m say -- you can ask any question you’d like. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, no, no, no. You’ve been -- you’ve been say -- and you said to Chairman 48 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Verrengia that you’re not in favor of an RFP because that would violate and we lose all this money, so I think we’ve established that the contract does not preclude that, and -- and I’m -- I’m just -- I think I owe a duty to the residents of the state of Connecticut to ask that question, to find out what is available out there, and you would agree with me also that the MOU that’s in place and you said to somebody’s question that the discussion was had many years ago. The discussion that was had many years ago was tribal lands. We’re talking about something totally different here, so you know, I’m -- I’m open to the discussion about off tribal lands because that discussion never was had until a few years ago actually. You made a representation 60 percent of the residents of your towns work at the casinos. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I said 60 percent of one of the towns that I represent. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): About 60 percent of the people that live in that town are working at the casino. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. What town is that? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): That’s Griswold, Connecticut. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and -- and the population of Griswold? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I don’t have the exact number, but I can get it to you. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and then -- and I have no information about, you know, MGMs -- MGM’s intent or Wynn’s intent because we still haven’t talked about, you know, there’s a Wynn casino in Boston 49 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING that opened up in the last year or so that doesn’t appear to have impacted or within the reasonable past that has -- doesn’t appear to have impacted this, but if the tribes are willing to put a casino in East Windsor to try and stem money from going to Springfield, isn’t Bridgeport about the same distance from Yonkers as East Windsor is from the casinos? Why -- if it -- if it makes sense for the casinos -- for Foxwoods and -- and Mohegan to do that, to stem money from going northerly, why would MGM not do that to stem money going easterly? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): [Speaking off mic]. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): As I said, I’m not the marketing person for the casino, so I -- you’d have to ask them that, but I can tell you that you asked me what is the state of Connecticut losing? We’re losing revenue off of -- that could be coming to the state of Connecticut by delaying this. If we want to find out what somebody else would possibly pay the state of Connecticut, that to me is a fishing expedition because if this group decides to go that way, then you’re gonna lose the revenue from the tribes, which is $250-million dollars whether you, you know, want to say that’s part of the agreement or not, I can guarantee you the tribes are not going to pay the state of Connecticut on money when they don’t have the exclusive any longer, and we’re losing the money that we could have right now by having this casino open. That’s what we’re losing, and I have a potential of losing good paying jobs in my district when there’s no other opportunities there, and I -- I think that’s significant, and I have a duty, I think, to my constituents to make sure that their jobs are as protected as they possibly can be, and I also think that we have a 50 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING duty as the state of Connecticut to honor our agreements and to look at the businesses that have been good contributors to the state of Connecticut, that have worked with us, that as I said they -- they employ nearly 9300 people, if not more, and we have a history with them for 25 years, $8-billion dollars that they have contributed to our state coffers, to all the surrounding towns, and yet, we are wasting time, in my opinion, trying to find out what this one would give us or what that one would give us in something that ultimately, if we were to move that way, is going to be the loss of $250- million dollars in revenue to the state of Connecticut because the tribes will not pay that, so you know, we just philosophically see it differently, and you know, that’s all I can say. You know, I can’t tell you why. Maybe the tribes are financially astute and they wouldn’t want to invest in a casino down in Bridgeport right now -- I can’t say -- to, you know, fight off something in Yonkers because maybe they have the marketing and demographics that show that that’s not the place that they need to be concerned about. Maybe it is East Windsor to fight off the casino up in Massachusetts, and I can tell you I do have numbers from what I call, you know, the promises of MGM that have not been delivered yet, and you know, they promised $40-million dollars in monthly revenues, but they’re currently delivering less than half of that to the state of Massachusetts. They promised to create jobs, but they’re talking about layoffs currently less than 6 months of being open, so you know, we have an opportunity here to solidify a relationship that has been positive, and this is the whole conversation morally about gambling to me is off the table. That’s something that the legislature allowed years ago, so we have an 51 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING opportunity to solidify this relationship that has been developing over, you know, 25 years that not only contributes just through gaming, but it is an entertainment destination, tourist dollars, the employers and the employees -- excuse me -- the employees that work there they have retirement packages. This is a good organization. Why are we risking it just to find out what else is out there? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well -- SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Why don’t we empower and embrace the companies that we have here in the state of Connecticut? Maybe if we had done this years ago with other companies, we wouldn’t see them leaving to go to places like Boston. You know, we’re doing -- bending over backwards for Electric Boat. If this wasn’t a casino company, if this was a high- tech company, this would be a different conversation. I can guarantee it, so. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you know, we hear about the great things that the tribes have done, and you’ve never seen me say anything that the tribes have not contributed to our state, so that’s, from my perspective, that has nothing to do with this ‘cause it’s almost like, you know, well, they’ve given us $8-billion dollars or whatever it is, and because we got that money, then we have to do the exclusive, which really just seems a little unseemly to me, but on the sports betting aspect -- and I ask this question of Senator Formica also -- if the state was getting no money, would you still be in favor of the sports betting or is it just the fact that the state is going to get money out of it? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): For me, this is something that has been presented to the legislature. We all know that sports betting occurs. Everybody has got 52 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING their little pool and betting on this one and that one, and you know, sports betting for me, it’s not one of my priorities, but again, I said I’m -- I only know how to play Go Fish, and I don’t even know who any of the sports teams are, but it’s something that came to us that is available in other states. It can provide, again, another opportunity for somebody who is visiting our area who wants to partake in that as entertainment or as part of their, you know, vacation stay here in Connecticut. I think it’s something -- or you know, from their home if it’s online. I think it’s something that can be available, and it’s something that the state of Connecticut can generate revenue from. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But, is your support tied to the revenue or my question was if there was no revenue to the state and we just legalized it, would you still be in support of the concept? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I don’t think the state legalizes anything unless it can get revenue quite frankly. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, I -- we’re talking about your testimony, your -- your support of this bill. Was it based upon the revenue or is it based upon that you just think sports because it’s going on in other states that it should be legal here as well? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I think that if we have a company that has come to us that feels that there is a -- that has an exclusive that feels that the have a disadvantage by not being able to offer this but yes, we should offer it. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so I still don’t know what the state component, so which -- I don’t know what your position is with regard to that, but there’s talk about the lottery running sports 53 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING gambling, and you’re of the position that the tribes should run it. I guess from some interpretation of the MOU is the way you understand it? Am I -- I don’t want to put words in your mouth. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yeah, I don’t think the Connecticut lottery, quite frankly, should run anything. We’ve seen what has happened over the past few years with the Connecticut lottery, so for me personally, I would like to see that take an -- you know, nothing more added to the state’s responsibility. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so what if another entity was created or came to the lottery or we opened that up to an RFP; would you be in favor of that? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I would not because, again, it comes back to exclusivity of -- of gaming rights -- of gambling and gaming rights, and for me, that lies with the tribes. I may be wrong. I’m not the Attorney General, but I think that what we have and our relationship and the exclusive needs to be honored. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, if the lottery offered us more than the tribes were offering, you would still go with the tribes? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): When you have an exclusive agreement with someone, just because someone’s prettier or somebody can offer you more, doesn’t mean you break the exclusive. You honor your agreement. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I -- I think the distinction between sports betting and let’s say poker is -- the way our law looks at it is sports betting is a game of skill; whereas, poker is a game 54 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING of chance. Is it your position that the MOU deals with games of skill as well as games of chance? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Well, I bet that poker players that are professional poker players probably think it’s a game of skill, not a game of chance, so -- and again, I’m not somebody who -- who plays poker or bets on sports, so that’s a question I probably can’t answer. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yeah, I’m just trying -- because the MOU doesn’t mention sports gaming at all, so -- but you’re of the position that the -- the MOU addresses or at least encompasses sports betting, that’s your position? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): That’s my opinion, but again, I’m not the -- I’m not an attorney, and I -- although I’ve dealt with a lot of them, I believe that if we want to start sports betting here in the state of Connecticut whether it’s online, in person, that we need to honor our exclusive, we need to allow the tribes to get it off the ground. If we want to come back at another time and we can talk to them about something going forward, then let’s do that, but let’s -- let’s get it going and let’s start to generate some revenue for the state of Connecticut. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, from your perspective, if I’m sports betting in my office on the internet, that, you know, has nothing at all to do with tribal lands or property owned by the tribes, they should get a cut of that? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I would hope you wouldn’t be doing that on state time. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No. I’m talking about my private office. 55 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Okay. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Um. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I was going to say my living room, and I probably should have, but [Laughing]. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I’m just kidding. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I know. I know. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I’m trying to lighten the mood here. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): [Laughing]. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes. I think that if we enter into an exclusive -- again, you know, I -- I had exclusive agreements for my biotech company. I had the exclusive rights to manufacture a product for J&J that went into the brain and the liver. I can’t just say, geez, I’d really like to, you know, manufacture that product and give it to -- to another company ‘cause they’re gonna pay me more. I signed the agreement. I entered into good faith. They have paid me on time, and you can’t just break it, and so it, for me, gaming, gambling, whether you’re betting on whether we’re gonna have a budget on time or you’re betting on a sports team or you’re playing Go Fish or whatever the games are, it’s all the same, and I think that the tribes they are the ones that should have the exclusive. If we don’t want to have an exclusive, then fine. We won’t have one, but the state of Connecticut will lose the money. That’s -- that’s -- I see it. There’s no gray there for me in case you haven’t noticed, but. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Thank you -- thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 56 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Senator Osten, followed by Representative Morin. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, Senator, for your astute testimony today, and your very clear conviction to the people in your district. So, while Representative Fishbein was talking with you, I looked up Griswold, so they have 12,000 people there. I knew you were going to be [Laughing] -- I knew you knew it, so I just wanted to get from you how many workers -- you had talked about workers that have hired by the tribal nations to support the entertainment industry that makes up the two gaming institutions. How many workers does MGM have here in Connecticut? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I believe it’s zero except for the lobbyist. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, they’ve hired -- SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): If you count them, it’s -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): They’ve hired a ton of lobbyists -- SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yeah. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): To change public policy? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Absolutely. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Oh. Thank you. And, in your opinion, the compact that we have with the two tribal nations is sacrosanct and should be honored? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes, it is. A deal is a deal. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you. And, last year when we voted on something did the tribal nation spend their own money to start tribal Winds to get it ready for construction? 57 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes, I believe that they -- I believe that they -- they demolished the building and started to get going. I know there -- there was a groundbreaking ceremony, and they’ve invested obviously a lot of time and -- think about the message that this is sending the people that work there, you know? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): [Chuckling]. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Your job is safe. We’re going to make sure that we have an opportunity if we lose market share to have you travel to this other facility so you can keep your job, and the folks that are sitting behind me I’m sure some of them have an opportunity to work at this East Windsor facility, and yet, this legislature is still having the same conversation, and their uncertainty and anxiety as to whether they’re going to have a job or not, you know, that’s something that you really can’t put a price tag on, and I don’t think it’s really fair to do to people quite frankly. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, my last question because Senator Formica and I delved into the history of the tribal nations and the compact that we have -- the state of Connecticut has with them. My -- you said something in your testimony when Representative Fishbein was questioning you, and you said that if this was a different kind of company we would not be having this conversation, so you -- you and I represent an area that does a lot with the defense industry. We’ve given money to Pratt. We’ve given money to Sikorsky. We gave some money to Electric Boat. Would you entertain Newport News coming up here to go into another port on our beautiful river and work in direct competition to Electric Boat? 58 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Are you asking me would I put an RSP out to see what it would take to create another state-of-the-art shipyard? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yes, I am. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): [Crosstalk] To do it because I want to find out what they would pay the state of Connecticut? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Correct. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Absolutely not. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Morin, followed by Representative Vail. REP. MORIN (28TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Senator. I appreciate -- appreciate your testimony. I’ve, you know, listened. I’m a supporter of -- of the tribes and -- and this -- this effort, but I -- I do have a few questions and maybe a comment. I personally have been to both casinos and for exactly the reasons you mentioned. While I’m not a huge gambler, my wife doesn’t gamble at all, she does like the opportunity to go shopping and probably spends more money than I do trying to gamble, but the benefits are that it can be entertaining whether you’re going to visit one of the shopping areas, have a great dinner, go to a show, gamble, so I -- I appreciate that and that they are destinations and -- and we should work on protecting them. I am -- but then I -- the previous testifier, Michele, I believe, came in and talked about why she is against gambling, and you -- we talk -- you mentioned maybe morally we decided that 20 years ago, but you know, looking at the East Windsor proposal, which I believe is shovel ready 59 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING and -- and should be moved on with -- but it’s still that -- that one, in my opinion, and from what I’ve heard, is not necessarily going to be a destination. It’s just going to be a smaller gambling facility. Do you agree -- agree with that statement? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes, that’s correct. REP. MORIN (28TH): Okay. So, going on with that, looking at what do we expect and -- and is it problematic to bring that aspect strictly into the game? I think that’s a discussion that can be had and should be had at this level from all of us. just my opinion for what it’s worth, and -- and I think if -- if the tribes or anybody else that’s interested -- you know, it is -- it is a problem. I know from some former neighbors no longer with us, but they blew through their retirement gambling, and I know that’s like any other -- anyone that has compulsive behaviors, whether it’s with drugs and alcohol, gambling, food, any compulsive behavior is -- is going to be to some degree we would think of at the extreme. Not everybody has that, so that doesn’t mean you should stop all activities because somebody has an issue with it. I respect that and I agree with that statement, but maybe -- maybe -- and I believe you mentioned, was it $300,000 dollars that the tribes give towards Problem Gambling; am I correct in that statement? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): That is what’s on the table when -- REP. MORIN (28TH): $300,000 dollars, right? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yes, for this -- for this facility. REP. MORIN (28TH): Thanks. And -- and maybe -- maybe to help with these problems or -- or things 60 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING that they might consider doing a little more. I -- I think -- I’m not disputing the revenues they provide to the state of Connecticut. I’m not disputing or arguing that the jobs they provide aren’t good jobs that help everyone. Right? I want people in your district to be employed just like I want people in my district. We often take parochial views in these chairs. We -- we worry strictly about our districts, but we are state representatives and state senators, and we have a bigger obligation as well, and so I -- I appreciate when you and some of the others are advocating so hard for these jobs. So, those are just kind of my comments. I -- I think sometimes we’re delving, you know, a little to far in this. I’d like to see us move forward. I -- you know, I’m going to be interested in hearing from the others that want to talk about sports betting. It’s [Laughing] -- I forget who it was. I think it was the Chairman that said, you know, you go anywhere and people are gambling on sports, whether it’s super bowl pools, whether it’s at private clubs you see things going on. It -- I think it’s -- it’s -- while it might be problematic to some, I think it’s time. I don’t know that I -- I’m interested in hearing from maybe you and -- and others as to who should be the ones doing this. I mean if it’s strictly my opinion folks, if it’s strictly going to the tribes, does that -- who does that really serve in this? I think -- I think the majority of people in the state of Connecticut will not necessarily drive to one of the locations to bet on my beloved Red Sox; however, if there are different options, people might be inclined, so I think that’s a discussion that probably needs to be had in this committee, and I appreciate your indulgence, and again, Senator, I do appreciate your testimony. 61 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Thank you. I just -- I would like to say something about you bring up gambling as an addiction, and I can say from a public health perspective addiction is a disease, and if somebody could figure out the trigger of that, that would be great ‘cause we could generate a lot of revenue on that rather than having this conversation, but addiction also stands -- you know, we have addictions right now with vaping. It’s a huge addiction. We have opiates. We have cigarettes. There’s sex addictions. There’s overeating, so I just want to keep in perspective that, you know, we’ve heard a lot about addiction, but -- and gambling addiction, but I don’t want people leaving here listening to things that, you know, gambling is the only thing that -- that people can have an issue with, and that that is something that is being addressed by the tribes. If you go to the casino, you can see there’s signs that say, do you have trouble with this, you know, call this number, so it is not being swept under the carpet, and they are addressing it directly, and I just -- you know, I just want to make sure that people realize that. REP. MORIN (28TH): And, I don’t believe I eluded to that at all. As a matter of fact, I mentioned all those things. I just think maybe they can do a little more than $300 grand to -- to -- because there are -- all the addictions mentioned or many of them are being in other committees throughout this body, and it -- it’s, again, I’m not saying I would -- I’m against any of this discussion because of the problems of addictions, but I think we do at least as a society need to look into what we can do to help people that have those problems like we do with many other health issues. So, again, thank you very much. 62 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Vail, followed by Senator Hwang. REP. VAIL (52ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Senator. I agree with you 100 percent that we should honor agreements. I’m a big supporter of that, and obviously, the tribes have been wonderful partners with the state of Connecticut over the years, but I wondered are you familiar when that exclusivity agreement was made with the tribes? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I don’t have that exact date, but we can get it for you. I don’t want to misquote. REP. VAIL (52ND): Would it probably be in the mid 90s? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Early 90s. REP. VAIL (52ND): Early 90s? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): But, I just don’t have the specific date. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, when is that set to expire? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I don’t have that. I can -- you can -- if you ask the tribes, I’m sure they’ll have that exact date. I -- I don’t have those exact dates. REP. VAIL (52ND): Would it be -- I don’t know if anyone would know if that -- if that agreement is in perpetuity? It is -- SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I believe it is continuous unless we decide that we want to open it up to competition, which in my opinion, would then stop it. 63 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): Well, that’s where I have some concern ‘cause I agree if we’re, you know, 80 years from now when we’re going into the 22nd century, are we going to be sitting here saying we have an agreement, but yet, maybe something better would be in place with the people of the state of Connecticut, so that’s where I have concerns, and you know, how many people in this building were here when that agreement was made? Are you aware of that? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I do not have that number. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I’m sure somebody that’s been here a lot longer than I have could answer that. I don’t know. I know the governor is not the same, so. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. And, I actually don’t think there’s anyone on this committee that’s the same, so just some food for thought. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any other questions? Oh, Senator. Yes. I’m sorry. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I was a little taken -- I was a little struck back by the issue in regards to addiction. I think when you look at gambling there are many perils of addiction and -- and health hazards, but when I look at gambling, it is one in which the state has embraced, and -- and made money off of people’s illness and addiction, but I think it -- it is important not to take light of the significant impact of gambling addiction when the stats have proven that gambling addiction is the single highest cause of suicide in our society. I - - I think to address any addiction it’s important, 64 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING but I don’t think there’s enough known about the peril of gambling addiction, and when those numbers come out to me that impact people’s lives in such dramatic terms, I -- I think we should not take lightly the perils of gambling addiction in our society. As we look to expand it, I sincerely hope that we do not take that issue lightly, and that we increase proportionately the need to be able to support those people and to ensure and take seriousness of the significant health risks of gambling addiction, so that’s all I need to add. Thank you very much. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): If I can just respond to that? I do not take addiction -- any addiction lightly whatsoever. As, you know, former co-chair and ranking member of public health, addiction is a -- is a disease, but I will say that the state of Connecticut has embraced other addictions, alcohol, cigarettes, and they do make money off of those other items also, so I just wanted to make sure that gambling was just not singled out as the only addiction that we’re faced with. The tribes do contribute a significant amount of money, and if you look -- if you visit the casino, you can see that there are signs everywhere for should somebody feel that they are their loved one needs help, that there’s a number to call, and I just want to be clear I don’t take addiction in any form as something that’s light, but I don’t think it’s legitimate to say that the state of Connecticut is embracing this over others because we -- we make money on every pack of cigarettes, every, you know, bottle of liquor that’s sold, so thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Paolillo. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I could say good afternoon, Senator. Good 65 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING afternoon. Just one quick question. You have mentioned that the RFP process we would forfeit $250-million dollars a year from the tribes, and the AG has opined on this that legislation in and of itself setting or starting an RFP process would not jeopardize the compacts, and I just wanted to get your opinion on that. There would be further legislation moving forward if there was an RFP process, but I wanted to get your take because you’ve mentioned several times that that would be -- at the beginning, that we would be subject to losing those dollars, but we’ve had opinions the last several years that state the opposite, so I just wanted to ask that question. Thank you. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): And, that was the former Attorney General, correct? REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): The opinion was -- SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Yeah. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): From 2018. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Right. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Yes. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I -- that’s the great thing about opinions. There’s many of them, and being an attorney, you can argue both sides. I would not agree with that, per se, but I’m not an attorney, but to me, if you have an exclusive agreement, and you are then actively pursing an alternative, it breaks the exclusivity. If I were the tribes, which I’m not, the minute an RFP went out looking to solicit other potential casino operators to come into my -- to the state, that would violate what I consider my exclusive. I would stop making payments to the state of Connecticut. 66 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, you are correct. It was from 2018. Many of the red flag that the AG -- the former AG has raised have pretty good advice over the last several years looking at the series of opinions that he has gone. With the legislation that you’re proposing today, removing the authorization from the federal government, what risks do you see the state -- moving forward with the compacts -- what financial risks would you be concerned with not having that authorization going forward and protecting the revenue stream that we have from the state of Connecticut? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Well, again, I would rely on the relationship that we have that I -- you know, I would akin to a long-term marriage, that you have a relationship between the tribes and the state of Connecticut, and that I would believe and feel strongly that the tribes would honor their agreement that they have for the last 25 years moving forward, so I think the risk is very low to the state of Connecticut, actually. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, would it be your position that we wouldn’t need to go to the Interior on any changes moving forward with compacts, with MOUs, that this legislation would set that precedent so that there wouldn’t have to be that process in place anymore of going to the Interior for that authorization? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): I think it would depend on exactly what is being discussed at the time, but as we all know, there’s been some interesting developments in the BIA process that we’ve learned about, and I think that it is clearly in Connecticut’s court so to speak that with everything we’ve -- we’ve seen with what’s happening in Washington, how this decision was made, etc. or not 67 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING made so to speak that we have a strong hold or strong footing to move forward without their approval on this particular item. You know, the other things I couldn’t speak to. I wouldn’t know that they are that you’re speaking of in the future, but in this particular case, in this scenario in this point in time, I think that this is how we should proceed. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, you mention it depends upon the situation. Does your legislation touch upon when a change is made to the compact what would -- what would require Interior Department authorization and what wouldn’t and what we can pass here with that authorization? SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): This particular legislation speaks to the specific putting East Windsor casino in effect. It does not speak to the other things that you’ve discussed, so it -- it speaks to this in particular. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): I only ask that follow-up question because you mentioned it’s on a per-case basis, but thank you for your testimony. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. I’m seeing no other questions, so I want to thank you for your testimony, and I’m sure your constituents would be very happy and impressed with your testimony and your advocacy on this issue. Even though we may agree to disagree, I do certainly respect you being here today and the comments you provided this committee. SENATOR SOMERS (18TH): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Is Scott -- or I’m sorry. Kevin McGuiness and Clarence Nesbitt. Welcome, and if you could just state your name for the record. 68 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

KEVIN MCGUINESS: Good afternoon, co-chairs and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Kevin McGuiness. I am the chief operating officer of the Major League Baseball Player’s Association. [Clearing throat]. Excuse me. Clarence and I are here today on behalf of all five player associations of the NHLPA, the NBPA, MLBPA, NFLPA, and MLSPA. We want to ask you to ensure that if you move forward on creating a framework for sports betting that you have in it protections and ensure fair treatment for those who are going to be at the forefront of whatever you decide to do, namely the players. As I’m sure you can expect even the complexity of an issue like sports betting there’s not total unitivity among the player associations on all aspects of it. We have our disagreements too, and when it comes to certain issues like revenue sharing, we’re not all on the same page, but we’re in total agreement on what we believe are the four key cornerstones of ensuring that protection. We have provided written testimony and suggested legislative language on these four points. I’m going to focus on the first two. First, the legislation must have procedures in place that ensure the safety of all on-field personnel, players, umpires, game officials, and others involved who are on field. Second, the legislation must establish a fair procedure for reporting overtures by when a player, athlete, or game official is approached by a gambler or offered money or a family or him or herself is threatened. As I hope you can appreciate these concerns increase, the risks for players increase when prop betting comes into play and the greater the amount of prop betting, the greater the amount of risks. 69 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Again, we are going to move very quickly. I want to thank you for this opportunity. I’d be happy to answer any of your questions. I’d now like to turn it over to Clarence who is going to focus on the other two issues. CLARENCE NESBITT: Good afternoon, co-chairs and other distinguished committee members. I am Clarence Nesbitt. I am here on behalf of the National Basketball Player’s Association. The University of Connecticut and its legendary coach, Jim Calhoun, who I understand is inducted here in the state Hall of Fame, has been an incubator for NBA talent for many years. Recently, two current NBA players delivered state championships at this decade, Kemba Walker and Shabazz Napier, and I’d like to talk to you about extending some protection so those two current NBA players and their brethren. Specifically, around the issues around making sure there is proper due process during the investigation of any illegal activity alleged in sports betting requiring that the industry purchase official data from a source sanctioned by the player’s associations, and lastly, to piggyback on what Mr. McGuiness said, which is the NBA -- NBPAs position that players also should be allowed to directly participate in any revenue generated by the sports betting industry. A little bit more on that point, you know, we at the NBPA see the players as taking specific risks that only they bear, and we feel it’s a fundamental underpinning of our capital system that when one takes risks, there should be some profit motive. So, what about the players on this point? I would like to pause here and take any questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Representative Sredzinski. 70 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, does your organizations support moving forward with sports betting in say Connecticut? KEVIN MCGUINESS: We have not -- we’re a very democratic organization. We have not pulled the players specifically on Connecticut moving forward. We’re looking at the totality of what’s happening across the United State, and for us, it seems all the states are moving forward, so that’s really a call for you all. What we want to just encourage you to address is the fact that if you so decide to move forward that you have the protections in place to ensure the protections for players and more importantly the protections for the game. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, you mentioned players participating in the revenue generation or the revenue receipt. Can you explain more how that would work? We’ve had a lot of people come to the table and ask for part of the revenue whether it’s obviously the state of Connecticut is going to get their cut, and the leagues have asked for royalty fees or the royalty fees for their data. So, if you could explain what you mean by having the players participate in some way? CLARENCE NESBITT: Sure. So, we would be open to, you know, broad discussion on that concept, you know, whichever way. Obviously, you know, we have reached agreement with our employer of the NBA about how to split any money that’s obtained in this process so that one way to work with us or the other is I think you know the big point that we want to have inserted into the discussion is that, you know, let’s remember that players are precluded from participating in the industry directly simply because it would be viewed as a compromise in their 71 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING integrity, so we would like to participate directly in some other way. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. And, what limits do you support on some of the betting or do you support any limits such as parlay bets, prop bets, those types of things? CLARENCE NESBITT: I think I stand with what Mr. McGuiness just said on that. We also think we should be involved in any discussion about that. obviously, there’s a tremendous coercive effect of some of those bets, and we would like to be at the table. I don’t think we’re looking for an absolute prohibition, but I think we would certainly like to be involved in any discussions on it. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, just a final, you represent the players association, you’re not representing the leagues in any way today, correct? CLARENCE NESBITT: That’s correct. KEVIN MCGUINESS: That’s correct. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Hwang, followed by Representative Fishbein. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a big sports fan, I -- I think it’s important to know the history in which gambling has always had a presence in the game, and in baseball, you have the Black Sox and the gambling that impacted the World Series and the banning of Shoeless Joe Jackson, and -- and even to this current day, we -- we talk about the banning of possibly Pete Rose, because of his gambling, into the Hall of Fame, which I think he is well-deserved to be in. how does the league and its 72 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING players reconcile the fact that you’re now in a collaboration with MGM and that you are now taking a position into the gambling foray with the argument that everybody else is doing it, we’ve got to be sure to protect the integrity and the game; how does that mesh with the history in -- in the case with you know Major League Baseball but also with any of our sports that -- that have such an integral part in the life of people and -- and effects so much emotion in people. I mean where does the league reconcile that it -- it -- it’s no longer a sport but also a -- a betting institution? KEVIN MCGUINESS: Of all the questions I was wondering if I was gonna get today, this is the one that I’m the most confident in my answer. [Background talking]. League desperately does not want me to ever represent any of their opinions on any issue. [Laughter]. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): It’s a great answer, but then you represent the players. KEVIN MCGUINESS: All right. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): So, please feel free to share from a player’s standpoint because the -- the examples that I brought up with the players as well as the current situation in which the continued banishment of Pete Rose is a player issue, so -- and any other player down the pike, so maybe not from the league but from the player’s viewpoint? KEVIN MCGUINESS: Our players are probably have as many opinions on this issue as do the members of this legislature. We have people who are very interested in this. We have people who are opposed for all of the same reasons I think we’ve heard today with testimony. Our concern is we -- as you stand and watch this, this issue was changing. The 73 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING leagues have changed their position on gambling. You mentioned some of the history in baseball. We have very specific rules, particularly with regard to players about gambling. That has changed now, and now we’re seeing the leagues and the teams endorsing betting kiosks in stadiums. We’re seeing movement all over the -- all over the country on this, and our concern is for the players this is no longer a state-by-state issue because once you have a regulatory agency in place, once you have sports gambling legalized, the rules that are operative in Connecticut could be influenced by an event in California. It could be investigated by Connecticut. How do you square all of this? We’re very concerned, and that’s why we’re here before you today to make sure that the players who are going to bear the brunt of this. They’re going to be the public face of this. If there’s an accusation made, they’re the one’s who are going to bear the responsibility. We want to have the procedures in place to ensure they’re treated fairly, and they’re not sort of used as scapegoats through a process that we have not yet really addressed all of the nuances with regard to the playing of the game. CLARENCE NESBITT: If I can add -- add to that? SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Absolutely. CLARENCE NESBITT: You know, also basketball players are not monolithic and have a variety of viewpoints. I’m not aware of any, you know, player association advocacy to legalize sports betting, but all we are actually doing is just recognizing the reality of the situation and making sure our voices are heard on a particular topic. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And I want to continue on that line because where do you sit on the collegiate 74 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING players and the consequences of gambling on collegiate sports or would you support any prohibition on that? Because particularly on basketball you are looking at March Madness coming around the horizon. You have college players that live on just barely survival income while millions of dollars are gained by the university and the NCAAs and the one-and-done possibility that -- that keeps them in school. Where do you see the impact of this gambling and where is the protection for those college athletes should we allow gambling into college sports, which is obviously on the docket as well, and particularly for the NBA in which the -- you have the D league, but you see the college system has the main feeder system into your player profile; where do you stand on that in regards to where college players and -- and the gambling that may occur, and how do you protect them against the integrity when they’re barely making ends meet while they see millions of dollars in big donors and -- and big money being made, and -- and I think all they get is pretty nice shoes? CLARENCE NESBITT: Senator Hwang, that’s a powder keg of an issue you raise there. We haven’t pulled our membership on any of the actually various issues in your question, but you know, speaking personally, I would certainly like to think rules are done in such a way that we try to protect players and make sure they don’t do anything that compromises their ability to join the National Basketball Association and express their talents and entertain fans, and all the while. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Would you and your players support a ban on college sports? 75 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

CLARENCE NESBITT: Again, Senator Hwang, we haven’t pulled our membership on that topic. I can’t comment. KEVIN MCGUINESS: I would like to offer one other observation and that is as you consider some of the proposals we’re talking about, I hope you will also address not only with college sports but what we are seeing is happening in other sports. There are a lot of lessons that can be learned about the consequences of sports gambling by what’s happened in soccer overseas, and there we have players who before they sign their first professional contract are being approached by gamblers, are being approached by betting syndicates. What does that player do? Who does that player call? Because the consequences for that player is often personal and family safety. It is also money that they have never seen before, and if by raising it, it ends up jeopardizing their opportunity to be a professional, so as we get into in our written testimony, I’m hoping, especially with that reporting procedure and the investigative procedures that there’s real fair and equitable treatment for the player. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you for answering the question, and -- and it seems it’s an ongoing process, and I like what you said, it’s a powder keg -- powder keg of -- of issues that we need to address, and I -- I appreciate that we’re having this conversation to address it, and as I said earlier, before we proceed on anything as a state, we need to be very conscious of some of the impact that our decisions will make, and you bring up great examples of a lot of what ifs, so thank you for being here, and thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Fishbein. 76 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you gentlemen sat down, you might have seen I stood up, and I was going to go to a Labor Committee meeting, and you introduced yourselves, and you know, this is the first chance that I’ve had to hear from representatives of the players who certainly had the leagues come and talk to us, and I’m -- you know, is it here fascinated. You know, from my perspective, it’s the product of the leagues, the product of the players that we are potentially sanctioning gambling on, and that’s of significant concern to me and the integrity and using integrity, we had heard about an integrity fee last session we were talking about this, and you had mentioned, Mr. McGuiness, in your opening remarks about the safety of the players. Are those two connected or are you talking about some other safety? KEVIN MCGUINESS: No. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. KEVIN MCGUINESS: Absolutely. We -- we have had issues, and we believe that the more widespread, common place, and institutionalized sports betting becomes, the risk of -- it’s very different when you place a bet illegal or you place a bet in Vegas, and then you go to a game. It’s much different if you’re placing the bet at the game and the person who decides whether or not you win that bet is right there in front of you, is literally feet away, or their family is sitting in that section five rows away, or you know where their kids live. It’s a different experience. That’s what we’re trying to address, and I know this is a huge issue for our players, and interestingly, at least in baseball -- I can’t speak for basketball -- but I know I baseball this is one area where the players and the umpires are in complete agreement. We have to make 77 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING sure we have procedures in place to address this because this issue is going to increase and the risks to players and other on-field personnel is going to increase. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, how, in your concept -- you know, I like -- you know, I’m a Red Sox fan, Representative Morin is. I like, you know, going down to the field, and you know, at batting practice and throwing a ball out there, and you know, having them sign it. Would you -- I mean what kind of safety are we talking about because certainly that interaction would lead to potential safety concerns? KEVIN MCGUINESS: We are not doing that in place, but we want to have very clear procedures about what happens or if a player is getting threatened during a game, that we can address the fans, that the fans know what the rules are. Not in Boston, but in some -- some cities, some of the commentary coming out of the fans -- by fans is pretty outrageous, and if you add alcohol to it and you add a gambling loss to it, our concern is that the risk of danger greatly increases, so I’m not talking about -- what we want to do is to make sure we have procedures in place so that if an occurrence would appear to be arising everyone involved knows what they can do. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): In the states that have authorized sports gaming, what kind of safety measures have they put in place? KEVIN MCGUINESS: They’ve left it to the leagues. They have not addressed this issue. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. You know, and I guess that’s another concern is, you know, the league sees it being inevitable that it’s gonna happen and then give us our VIG, and I’m concerned about the safety of the player and the integrity of the sport is 78 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING ultimate to me. Would you and -- and perhaps this is a better question for the leagues because you’re just spectators at a certain level, but you know, one of the things I was thinking about is exhibition sports, so you have a preseason game; are they allowing betting on preseason games in other states? KEVIN MCGUINESS: I don’t know for sure, but I believe they are. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Wow. KEVIN MCGUINESS: I also believe that there -- that they -- I know there has been advocacy in other states for betting on Minor League games and for those, at least in baseball, Minor Leagues games are not always played to win or lose. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Agreed. KEVIN MCGUINESS: They play for development purposes. I don’t know how we’re gonna square that one. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Nor is exhibition. KEVIN MCGUINESS: Right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): A lot of times, you know, you got a guy, you want to see how -- I’m a hockey nut - - so you know, you throw a guy a right wing on the third line because you want to see how he’s gonna gel with the other guys, and you don’t really want them to score or win, but you want to see -- KEVIN MCGUINESS: Exactly. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): How they -- how they play. All right. I have a lot of concerns. Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony. KEVIN MCGUINESS: Thank you. 79 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Any other questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you very being here today. Next up, Chairman Butler, and Mr. Pineault. RODNEY BUTLER: All right. Good afternoon, or as we say, [Speaking in Mohegan-Pequot language], Rodney Butler, Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. I just said, good afternoon to you and thank you all for allowing us to be here today, and my name is Rodney Butler, Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Verrengia, Senator Hwang, Rep. Sredzinski, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the various gaming proposals before you for consideration. I’m joined here, as noted, by Ray Pineault, President and the General Manager of Mohegan Sun. There was a question earlier by Rep. Dauphinais regarding a statement made by our competitors in the North and whether or not they were going to attack Connecticut to lure gamblers up to Springfield, and the question was asked, I believe, it was of Senator Somers or Formica, I’m not -- I don’t recall. That was about two hours ago [Laughter], but that -- of who had made the statement -- and just for the record, it was actually stated at a Massachusetts Gaming Commission hearing from a MGM senior executive, and the direct statement that was made was -- this is regarding Springfield -- “We are ideally poised to go into Hartford and attack.” But, that was a fitting way to start today’s conversation. So, while we have experts from each of our institutions set to testify specifically on Senate Bill 17. For the purposes of this testimony, we have decided to divide the issue amongst our tribes as a sign of solidarity. I know that many of you on the committee are used to seeing us together, but 20 80 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING years ago, what you’re seeing right now was unthinkable. Our two tribes shared history as one of conflict and competition. Four years ago, we were able to put that long history aside in order to put ourselves in a better position to help the state we have called home for centuries. The product of that partnership is a shovel-ready project in East Windsor called Tribal Winds Casino, represented by many of the fine people in this room wearing the stickers. As we have discussed last month to this committee, the only thing holding us up is the Department of Interiors’ refusal to allow the law and publish the amendments to our government-to-government agreements in the federal register. Just a few days ago, we learned that a Grand Jury has been convened to determine if anything criminal took place resulting from former Secretary Zinke’s handling of our issue and while we are anxious to see the outcome of the various investigations, we don’t need to wait for the outcome at the state level. Passage of Senate Bill 11 would allow us to get started immediately, incurring jobs and revenue for the state. Tribal Winds Casino will bring in $70- million dollars in revenue to the state once its doors are open. We have a project labor agreement in place, and we anticipate hiring 2000 members of the Building Trades Construction during construction. We are also going to hire 2000 people to work at the facility and anticipate an additional 1000 jobs to various small businesses that will serve patrons at the facility. Best of all, passage of this bill would maintain the longstanding partnerships between our tribal nations and the state of Connecticut, which to date has brought more than $8-billion dollars to the state. 81 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

There is another bill that puts this partnership at risk, namely House Bill 7055. I want to be clear from the onset neither of our tribes will participate in an open RFP bidding process. I want to repeat that. Neither of our tribes will participate in an RFP open bidding process. I don’t want to preface that -- and I’ve said this in -- in testimony in the past. You know, I’ve been happily married for 17 years. My wife and I have been together for almost 25 years, high school sweethearts. It’s a great story. We have two amazing children, a great house, a cute bulldog [Laughter]. Right. It’s all good. And, I ask how many other folks in the room on the -- on the committee today are married? Spouse? You know we don’t judge. Partners, whatever? Right. In the room, how many are married? So, I ask any of you to go home tonight and ask your partner, wife, husband, what have you if it’s okay for you to go test the waters, play the field a little bit, go on a singles cruise and just see what’s out there. [Laughter]. See if you can get a better house or a cuter dog or better kids, and see what -- see what your partner says to you. It’s gonna be a very expensive conversation. [Laughter]. But, that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to help the state and in particular, the city of Bridgeport in relation to Bill 7055. If you go back to the beginning of this process in 2015, our initial proposal didn’t just call for a new facility in East Windsor, we also wanted to pursue possibilities in Bridgeport and the Danbury areas. It was an open conversation. We talked about all regions of the state. We continue to believe that the best way forward for all of the cities and towns in our state is to not pick 82 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING communities against each other and to maintain our current partnership. Before I turn it over to Ray, I just want to make two final points. The first is that we’ve been meeting with Governor Lamont, both together and as separate tribes. We’re engaged -- we’re engaged in an ongoing conversation with both him and his staff, and we appreciate his leadership on this effort to look at gaming holistically in the state of Connecticut, not just the two tribal facilities, not just the expansion of potential satellite facilities, but sports betting and the like. The second is that across the country sports wagering is considered a casino game, which means it falls under the exclusivity portion of our agreements with the state. Ray is going to talk about the economics of what that means, and the need to support Senate Bill 17, but as head of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, I can tell you that we don’t see this as a gray area. Given the very clear terms spelled out in exclusivity provisions within the Slots MOU, we respectfully but unequivocally take the position that all gaming expansion proposals, particularly those that involve third parties not involved in the agreement, must not only satisfy the state’s best interest, but must also fully honor the exclusive rights of the tribes in that agreement. In those agreements of exclusivity, some people have attempted to demonize the term exclusivity, and it’s simply not the case. When you look at the deal in Connecticut in comparison to the other tribal deals around the country, it’s top three in the country. When you look at the benefit back to the state as far as $8- billion dollars over the history of this, it’s top two. It’s a great deal, and it’s worked out very 83 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING well for everyone in this room and in this state. So, with that, we look forward to talking through these issues with you today, and at this point, I will turn it over to Ray. Ray. RAY PINEAULT: Thank you, Chairman Butler, and let me extend my thanks to the committee as well for their time and dedication to not let this be the issue that affects our tribes but also the residents of our great and diverse state. As Chairman Butler said, my name is Ray Pineault, and I am the President and General Manager of Mohegan Sun Connecticut. I want to spend some time talking about the revenue expectations for sports wagering, internet gambling, and internet Keno. The Supreme Court’s decision last year to lift the ban on sport wagering sent off an immediate competition in our region. Already, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania have passed measures to allow sports wagering, and it’s currently being debated in Massachusetts. We believe now is the time for Connecticut to act, so we can get in the game and start creating revenue for our state. We believe that legal sports wagering will bring in roughly $8-million dollars in the first year of operation and climb as high as $20 million dollars annually in year five for a total of $65 million dollars on the first five years. Likewise, I-gaming will also bring in much needed revenue to the state. We anticipate generating $10 million dollars in the first year, reaching $22 million dollars annually by year five for a total of $80-million dollars over five years. Adding I-Keno, and you’re looking at another $30 million dollars over the same five-year period. Taken together, these three proposals bring in $178 million dollars in new revenue over the next five years. They also 84 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING help us to solidify the partnership between the tribes and the state at a time when the situation on the ground is rapidly changing. We believe this is of profound importance for the economic health of Connecticut. For instance, put the slot payments in the same category as corporate taxes, then the casinos are by far the state’s largest taxpayers. Both of our facilities are in the top ten employers in the state. By enacting the legislation that Chairman Butler outlined in his testimony and what I’ve outlined in mine, we can maintain the existing agreements and bring in more than $1.5 billion dollars over the next five years. It is our belief that we cannot do anything that puts any of these agreements into jeopardy. We look forward to talking with you in great detail about these and other issues throughout the day and the weeks ahead. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Representative Sredzinski, followed by Representative Vail. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here, Mr. -- you said “Pino”? RAY PINEAULT: Pineault. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Pineault, and Chairman Butler. Thank you for being here. You did mention jobs as part of your testimony. How many employees do each facility have currently? RODNEY BUTLER: Currently, when you look at the facilities and the associated businesses, Mohegan is north of 9000 jobs in totality, and we’re just about 8000 jobs, so 17,000 in total, and again, you have to look at the facilities and all the support services. We have our own fire departments, police 85 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING departments. All those jobs includes over almost 17,000 jobs. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood, and I think it’s important that we look at the full package and not just casino floor employees. Obviously, we’ve had plenty of discussion about the resort aspect of your two facilities, so what percentage of those jobs are part-time versus full-time? Do you have that information or can you ballpark it for me? RODNEY BUTLER: I don’t have that, but I can get it for you. It’s probably 75 or 80 percent (inaudible - 02:26:41). In that range? RAY PINEAULT: That’s pretty accurate. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. RAY PINEAULT: Seventy-five to 80 percent are full- time jobs, and another 20 percent are either on-call or part-time. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): On-call or part-time, okay. Thank you. And, do you anticipate the same percentage being applied to East Windsor facility? RODNEY BUTLER: I’d say roughly. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, has that changed over time at all or has it been pretty consistent through the 20+ years of operation? RODNEY BUTLER: It’s been fairly consistent. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): So, obviously, you discussed in your testimony the RFP process and how you would not participate, but in your testimony, you do say that you would be open to expansion of tribal casino, not just East Windsor, but also in other parts of the state. You names Danbury and Bridgeport in your testimony, so other than the, you 86 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING know, story about going home and upsetting my wife, what is -- RODNEY BUTLER: Please don’t do that. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): [Laughing]. RODNEY BUTLER: I wasn’t encouraging that. [Laughter]. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I’m just gonna say, you know the guy from Foxwoods told me to ask you. [Laughter]. So, I’m just kidding. She’s probably watching and I’m gonna be in a lot of trouble. [Laughter]. But, other -- other than that -- than that comparison, what -- why would you be openly opposed to an RFP and why wouldn’t you participate in an attempt to get more information? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, in an -- in an attempt to get more information, we’ve talked about that. we’ve talked about that in this committee. We’ve talked about it with the prior governor. You know, we fully support doing some sort of survey or analysis of the statewide gaming and what the opportunity is, and we’ve even said that we’d commit funding towards that, so if you want to go about it in a way that’s, you know, more of an analytical approach and more logical and we’re working together as partners, we’d certainly think that engaging outside expertise, and if you don’t trust two operators who have been doing this for 25 years and pretty much were spot on what the numbers were going to be in Springfield, but we can absolutely bring in experts to talk about what we think the market is and -- and what Connecticut should do, and you don’t need an RFP process to do that and put the agreements in risk to do that. 87 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): In your opinions, do you believe that an RFP would jeopardize the compacts as they’re drafted? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. It’s the intent. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): So, you argue that the intent would be to break the exclusivity compact? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, otherwise, you just do a survey, right? Otherwise, you’d bring in experts and do analysis of the market. Why else would you go through an RFP? We don’t go through RFPs at Foxwoods or Mohegan to just test the waters. We go out with the intent to select a bidder. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. And, you mentioned obviously the agreement, which is 25 percent of slot revenue comes to the state in the form of payments. Has your slot operation increased or decreased over the years? RODNEY BUTLER: It’s decreased consistently with new competition. With Rhode Island, with Pennsylvania, with Maryland, now with Massachusetts, which just a correction for the record, Wynn has not been open for a year plus in Massachusetts. They are scheduled to open in June of 2019. It’s MGM that’s been open for several months now. They do have gaming in Southern Massachusetts, Plainridge facility, just outside of Gillett that’s impacted us. So, the expansion of gaming has impacted the Connecticut market, yes. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. And, so do you have more or less slot machines than you did say ten years ago? RODNEY BUTLER: We have substantially less, right. We have just over 4000 machines. I believe Mohegan is almost -- 88 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RAY PINEAULT: Forty-four hundred approximately -- [Crosstalk]. RODNEY BUTLER: Forty-four hundred. When we were at a peak of 7000, a piece. Also, from an employment perspective -- RAY PINEAULT: Right. RODNEY BUTLER: And, this is -- this is the tail of -- of what you’re seeing now with the expansion of gaming in Massachusetts with Springfield, and what’s gonna happen with Wynn, and why we even started this conversation because history repeats itself, and we have that as -- as a measure of what’s gonna happen. We were -- we were at 11,000 employees at our peak and Mohegan was in that same range, and now, we’re almost half of that, right -- casino employees, and so we see that trend. We see what’s gonna happen, and hence, the reason why we’ve been pursuing this initiative for the last four years. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, in my experience on the committee, I understand a lot of -- I think about 40 percent of your customers come from Massachusetts Boston area. RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Do you anticipate or have you planned for the opening of that Boston facility in June? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, absolutely. We’ve been planning for it once that license was issued. We’ve been -- both properties have been reinvesting in our properties from a non-gaming perspective. We’ve been re-honing our marketing programs to focus in on those areas and what faders we’re gonna lose to -- to -- what we have lost to Springfield and what we’re gonna lost to Boston, so we’ve been -- we’ve 89 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING been preparing for years. And, if you -- you’re more than welcome, Representative, to come back down to Foxwoods and -- and see what we’ve done in the last few years. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I was there for a convention last year. It was very nice to be there. like I said, I’ve always had good experiences at your facilities. RODNEY BUTLER: I appreciate that. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Are you -- switching gears to sports wagering. Based on your comments regarding exclusivity, as you may or may not know, there was a bill last year that included different operators of sport wagering. Lottery was involved. Off-track betting were involved. There were a lot of other possibilities. Do you see any opportunity for extra operators outside of the tribes being involved, and if so, would that jeopardize the compact? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, it would certainly jeopardize the compact, and that’s why we’re having ongoing discussions with the governor regarding this. We started it with Governor Malloy. It’s continued with Governor Lamont, and clearly, at that level and with their legal guidance from the state, they recognized the need to work with the tribes, and so yes, we believe that would violate, and that’s why we’re working together on that. But, I would point out in our neighboring state in Rhode Island, they have sports betting. They have one operator for the entire state for retail, and they’re looking at moving online. In fact, they’ll probably have online approved before we have brick and mortar approved here in Connecticut because they realized the value of that, not only from a revenue 90 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING perspective from sports betting, but what they’re seeing incrementally in their slot win at their facilities, you see -- you know, the last few months with sports betting online, they’ve seen growth in slot revenue, which we expect to see the same in Connecticut, which then translates into additional revenues for the state of Connecticut. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. RODNEY BUTLER: Thank you, Rep. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Vail, followed by Senator Osten. REP. VAIL (52ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. RODNEY BUTLER: Good afternoon. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, since the bill has passed for the Trade Winds Casino -- RODNEY BUTLER: Tribal Winds. REP. VAIL (52ND): Tribal Winds. I’m sorry. Tribal Winds Casino in East Windsor. RODNEY BUTLER: [Crosstalk]. REP. VAIL (52ND): I have it written down here. I don’t know why I said Trade Winds. RODNEY BUTLER: [Laughing]. REP. VAIL (52ND): How much money, not before that how much money, but how much money have you invested in that project since this body passed that law into effect to allow you -- to give you, you know -- RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. 91 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): The assumption that it was moving forward? RODNEY BUTLER: In direct hours, almost 20 million, but indirect accounting for my time, Ray’s time, our staff’s time, I mean you could -- you can add another five to ten million onto that. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, that’s all from the tribes? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. REP. VAIL (52ND): Yes? RODNEY BUTLER: One-hundred percent. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. All right. That’s all I had, and now I want to go now to the -- the -- the sports betting. In other states, they have -- they have this like -- and Nevada probably had it first. Who -- who do they make the bets through? Obviously, they can do it in the casinos, but the online betting; are those associated with casinos as well in Nevada? Are you familiar? RODNEY BUTLER: I’m -- I’m not fully familiar. I mean I know we have experts that are going to be testifying on that later. Ray, do you know? RAY PINEAULT: So, they’ve gone with some of the actual brick and mortar facilities that do have some online operations, but they also have allowed third parties to engage in it as well. REP. VAIL (52ND): What type of third parties? Would it be like a state lottery or some other type of agency? RAY PINEAULT: I believe -- and you know, we’ll have -- we actually have our online gaming expert testifying later -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. 92 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RAY PINEAULT: Actually, I believe that there are some of the operators that have come over from Europe to engage in U.S. gaming. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. RODNEY BUTLER: But, the -- but Representative, in New Jersey, the model is that the current licensed operators control all of the skins -- that’s what they’re referred to for online gaming in New Jersey. They all flow through the -- the existing operators, and then they can divvy those out as they feel appropriate. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, in anticipation of this, have you guys crunched the numbers if you were the exclusive operator of this in Connecticut, you’d be able to handle that? Have you gone through the process with that? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. Yes. We’re very comfortable with being able to handle this market. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, what would be -- again, we’ve had this discussion about numbers in the past, but on a slot machine at our casinos, what -- what percentage does that pay out on a dollar? RODNEY BUTLER: It’s just over 8 percent. I want to say 8.2 percent. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay, so 90 -- 91.8 percent? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. Yeah, is what’s paid out. Yeah. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, for every $100 dollars that goes in, $91 dollars and 80 cents comes out? What would your anticipated VIG be on sports gaming? Would it be in that ten percent range? RODNEY BUTLER: No. Ray? 93 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RAY PINEAULT: So, on actual sports wagering itself, the VIG is, you know, in a perfect world on an actual wagering per basis, you’re looking to offset the wages half on one team and half on the other team, and -- and your taking the VIG of five percent. You have other operating opportunities when you do a lot of sports betting -- online sports betting where hopefully the total margin is around ten percent. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. All right. I’m going to say -- you mentioned that Rhode Island they have one operator doing this; who -- who would that be? RODNEY BUTLER: It’s Twin River. REP. VAIL (52ND): Twin River. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, it’s a casino? RODNEY BUTLER: It’s a casino. REP. VAIL (52ND): Right. RODNEY BUTLER: And, so they own two facilities, one in Lincoln and one in Tiverton, and they offer retail sports betting at both of those locations. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. Thank you. I’ll save some of my other questions when the -- your experts come in later. RODNEY BUTLER: Thank you. CLARENCE PINEAULT: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, thank you very much, Chair, and thank you Chairman for coming up today. How many years have you been coming up to testify on this particular piece of legislation? 94 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: I think it’s only been four. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Only four? [Laughing]. So, actually, about 20 percent of the time or so of the time that you have all been in business together? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, but -- but in fairness, Senator, in fairness of this legislative body and -- and the reason why we’re in a collective suite together against the federal government, a lot of that holdup has been because of what’s happening down in D.C. and the shenanigans that have again hit the press yesterday regarding the Grand Jury, right. The secretary didn’t do that on his own. He was encouraged to do so, and I think you’ll find out more as that Grand Jury proceed. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m certain we’re gonna find out that Secretary Zinke was acting in collusion with MGM executives, so I really don’t want to get into that with you because you’re a much nicer person than I, and I might actually lose my temper as a result of -- RODNEY BUTLER: I find you very pleasant, Senator. [Laughing]. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): [Laughing]. As a result of bad actions by people that cost Connecticut workers jobs. So, you and -- you had talked a little bit about the fact that the two tribal nations have not always -- that -- that it was a huge leap of faith by the two tribal nations to act in concert with each other. Can you expand upon that a little bit? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, I mean just under 400 years ago, we were waring against each other, you know, across the river, and we’ve come a long way from -- from killing each other. I’ll say that. 95 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RAY PINEAULT: There you go. [Laughing]. [Laughter]. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, I’m -- I’m awfully glad to hear it because I -- I like both tribal nations, and -- RODNEY BUTLER: I like Ray. [Laughing]. [Laughter]. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m very happy [Crosstalk] [Laughter]. I’m happy that no killing, and -- RODNEY BUTLER: Not in these Chambers. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Not [Laughing] -- well, I don’t know about that either, so again, I say you’re much nicer than I. RODNEY BUTLER: [Laughing]. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, I do -- I do want to talk a little bit about acting in good faith, and we’ve been acting in good faith. This is not a -- a -- you did not just bring this issue to us on the consequences of casinos in surrounding states in a haphazard fashion. RODNEY BUTLER: No. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I recall a task force that was done with JONBO in regard to -- from the Eastern Workforce Investment Board that about five or six years ago started looking at what was going on with gaming, what the losses were gonna be, and what we had to do to shore up gaming. I’m not certain if you remember that task force, but did you just come upon this one day and say, hey, listen. We think that we should move up to East Windsor and open up a gaming institution there, or was it done with clear thought? 96 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: It was done with absolute clear thought, and in partnership with the state as we’ve been doing for the last 25 years and looking collectively at the gaming economy of Connecticut and saying, how can we improve it, how can we make ourselves more competitive, and up until most recently, we were embraced 100 percent by the entire state in -- in that effect, and we’ve made, you know, moves with regard to liquor hours and clearing of liquor, and -- and free play issues and all kinds of issues that we’ve looked at and said, this is beneficial for all of us and understanding that, and this -- this -- that’s where this conversation started. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, are you aware that almost -- almost to a person the chief executive officers of the surrounding towns have written letters of support to the governor regarding both tribes and the work that you do in the region? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. We are very aware and incredibly appreciative. It’s been a great partnership, not just with the surrounding towns, but with the entire state. I mean we have employees and venders in almost every municipality in the state of Connecticut. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, I think that people are not really quite aware of that, that workers come from every municipality in every edge of this state, so some of the other businesses that you support is like ACL in Norwich, which is a facility that has 300 workers at it. It’s Atlantic City Linen, and it’s one of the top taxpayers in Norwich, Connecticut, and I -- I don’t know if you know them or not. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. 97 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Do you know anything about ACL Linen? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. They wash all of our -- all of our linen for both facilities. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, I don’t know if people on this committee are aware that they’re a second- chance company. They hire people both incarcerated and those newly released into our communities and provide them with better than minimum wage jobs and benefits as a result of the work that you give them. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I want to thank you for that because that’s over 300 workers, and they’re actually looking to expand to cover the needs that both tribal nations have and surrounding hospitality areas that -- that deal with them, so I want to thank you because without your companies, two corporations, we would not have the ability to hire 300 people who are trying to establish themselves in communities again, and without you, that would be at significant risk. You work a lot with United Way. Can you tell me what your company does with United Way, and what United Way is for those who may not know? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, United Way is an incredible organization. I had the privilege of being the chair of the United Way of Southeastern Connecticut. I’ve done so for the last year. You know, both Mohegan and Pequot have been partners with United Way for, you know, since the beginning of -- of gaming in Connecticut, and what United Way does is they’re an aggregator of funds to then support local agencies. There is 26 plus agencies in Southeastern Connecticut that receive direct funding from the United Way and through our direct and indirect 98 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING contributions. You know, the campaign last year raised over $4-million dollars that goes back into the local community. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, are you and -- and your partners, the Mohegan, members of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Government? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, you partner with all of the Southeastern towns to see us move forward in both policy and in building up the infrastructure around the area? RODNEY BUTLER: Absolutely, because that infrastructure supports both of our -- both of our nations, and a majority of our employees are in that -- in that cog -- represented by that cog. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, many people may not know this, but you in particular have a unionized workforce at Foxwoods. My understanding is that you provide -- again, I’m going to use the term -- I come from a union background term of a living wage - - so, your workers seem to be paid a living wage. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, are they -- how -- how many of your workers, if you know, are decades-long employees? RODNEY BUTLER: Decades? We have probably almost 2000+ that have been there for 10 years or more. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, that’s unusual in today’s workforce to have people that have been there for that long. RODNEY BUTLER: You have to be a good employer to do that. 99 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, we had in the town that I live in we lost a paper mill, and you know, we had 150 workers. Between the two tribal nations, I know that many of those workers were hired at one of the two gaming institutions. When we have an action happening where we have companies that are closing, do you look at those workers to see what kind of jobs you can give them? How they fit into the community through the Eastern Workforce Investment Board mechanism? RODNEY BUTLER: We always do. We always partner with those local agencies, and even going back to your earlier point about second-chance programs, we actually have direct second-chance programs at both facilities. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, so if you could expand upon that a little bit, so people understand what that means? RODNEY BUTLER: Second chance? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yes. RODNEY BUTLER: I mean second chance is those individuals with criminal backgrounds that, you know, may have been minor as such, but are penalized from an employment perspective, and they can’t find jobs. Given the nature of the work that we do, and -- and the vastness of the jobs that we have available, we find that there’s jobs for everyone and in particular, those that are -- are deemed unemployable elsewhere. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, I -- I’ve been to both of the gaming institutions. Truth be told, I don’t even know how to play Go Fish. Senator Somers says she knows how to play that. I don’t even know how to play that, so -- but I go there because it 100 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING supports the communities that surround them, and I go there because the entertainment is great, and sometimes, it’s good to walk around and it’s a little cold outside right now. Having had no heat last night, I still haven’t warmed up yet, so I’m hoping that when I get home the Eversource has reconnected us. I’m hoping [Laughing], so some of the work that you have done as tribal nations is to remind people of the history of our state. Can you explain -- explain a little bit about the museum that you have in your facility? RODNEY BUTLER: So, we have the world’s largest Native-American museum. It’s 300,000 square feet, and we like to refer to it as the history of America because it really speaks about precontact times. It even goes back as far as the glacial -- glacial times, and it really tracks the first contact of the columnists with Native-Americans, and how that progressed over years, and Mohegan has an incredible museum as well that’s much older than ours -- RAY PINEAULT: [Laughing]. RODNEY BUTLER: And, I think it’s on the National Register as well. Is it Ray? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I think they’re doing a little bit of work over there right now, and I can’t wait until it’s all done, so I have stopped by at -- at both museums and find them to be fascinating, and actually would love to spend -- I think that you need to spend at least a couple weeks there to find out the history of things. They’re fascinating, and -- and I think that you do great work in getting that history out to our schools that are -- that surround the area. So, you know, I’m trying to be as diplomatic as you, and I’m not really good at being diplomatic, so I’m just gonna tell you this is 101 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING sort of irritating to me here today because I find it disrespectful to you, and I think you’re being very kind to not -- not be that way, and so I -- I’m just gonna say that I -- I respect both the Mashantuckets and the Mohegans for all the work they’ve done in Eastern Connecticut, for coming up here and answering questions year after year after year after year on the same methodology, and not having people understand that an agreement between the parties is an agreement between the parties and should be honored. I guess I won’t even go into the fact that tribal nations have often had agreements broken by parties, so in order not to irritate the Chairman who sits to the left of me, put a seat in- between us, I’m not certain why. [Laughter]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Ah, mm-hm. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m just going to say thank you very much for all the work that you’ve done for Eastern Connecticut. Both you and the former Chairman Brown have committed yourselves, your lives, put your families on hold and come here, and explain to us over and over again what a true partnership is, and I thank you for that partnership, and I look forward to many more years of partnership, and I’d be extremely disappointed if that partnership was disrespected and not honored. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. RODNEY BUTLER: [Speaking in Mohegan-Pequot language]. Thank you. RAY PINEAULT: Thank you, Senator. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, Senator, and it’s actually -- I’ve never worked with the good Senator before on any committees, but I have to say that although we may come down on different sides we’ve been very respectful toward one another, and 102 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING certainly, appreciate each of our standpoints, so thank you, Senator. I know you were here just not too long ago, but if you can give us the latest update on what’s going on with the casino as we -- as we’re here today? Do you have any -- can you provide us any updates on East -- East -- RODNEY BUTLER: With regard to performance? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Where we’re at with construction -- RODNEY BUTLER: Oh, oh, with Tribal Winds? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yes. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): So, it’s no longer MMCP? RODNEY BUTLER: No, it’s -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): You don’t have to -- [Crosstalk]. RODNEY BUTLER: It’s Tribal Winds. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. RODNEY BUTLER: Not to be confused with Trade Winds. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): [Laughing] [Laughter]. RODNEY BUTLER: Well, that’s where it’s at, and that’s why we have SB-11 on the table, right? Because the government was shutdown, Interior wasn’t operating. Now, they’ve reopened but with the ongoing litigation, and now the Grand Jury. We’re limited in the members of the department that we can speak with, and so we’re coordinating with them to - - to have a follow-up discussion of possibly moving forward with our amendment in some way, shape or form. At the same time, we’re doing the parallel path here in the state with SB-11. 103 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. So, it’s my understanding that you have all the permits in East Windsor and that if this issue was resolved -- this legal issue was resolved today, you’d -- you’d be ready to go or are there additional hurdles? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, there -- for the most part, there is one minor one that Rep. Paolillo had pointed out last time. I’m not sure if that’s been resolved, but it was a much smaller issue that would not hold up the project, per se, no. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. And, what about the financing for the project? The last time I inquired about this issue was in March of last year. The two chairs were not able to make the meeting, but you did send representatives. So, can you talk a little bit about how you’re going to finance -- RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, where that stands? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, there’s no financing for a project that’s not yet approved, and so once we get through the issue with Interior and we get formal approval, then we’ll proceed to -- to financing, but to that point, we’ve already put in $20-million- dollars of equity into the project, which is helpful when you’re going for financing. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, you -- you had indicated earlier -- getting back to the RFP process and the two-step process that was afforded to the tribes in 2015, when that went out -- could you just repeat that response? I know the question was asked, but -- RODNEY BUTLER: The earlier question or the latter? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): The RFP process. 104 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, so -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): What’s -- what’s your opinion as far as -- RODNEY BUTLER: So, there’s -- there’s two points. The earlier question, I believe, to Senator Somers was regarding the prior RFP process that the sole participants were the two tribes conducting it. It’s much different than an open RFP process where the tribes are one of several participating in it, right, and so that’s why the prior RFP process worked, and we were very careful working with the state to craft that, to make sure that it didn’t breach any exclusivity agreements and the fact that it was both tribes in the state doing that collectively is why it didn’t, and so the RFP process that’s on the table today through 7055 is the opposite of that, right. It’s an open bid. It’s us. It’s MGM. It’s whoever else who is interested bidding in the state of Connecticut. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): But, it -- just so that we’re clear. It’s the same process in a sense that it does not authorize for an additional casino. It would still have to come back to the legislature, which is why it’s the opinion that we’ve received previously, which is it doesn’t violate the contract. RODNEY BUTLER: Just to be clear. That wasn’t the only point as to why it didn’t violate the agreements. It didn’t violate the agreements primarily because of the process that was being led by the current parties of the agreement, so it wasn’t the fact of an RFP in that nothing was awarded. It was simply by the fact that it was the three of us working together under the guides of a current -- of an existing agreement. 105 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): All right. RODNEY BUTLER: And, we -- and again, at that time, we talked about doing that for the -- for other portions of the state, and we continue to be open to that conversation. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Right, and isn’t it fair to say if this process were to go through that at the end of the day the legislature still has the -- the option of approving or disapproving? RODNEY BUTLER: I’m not -- it’s your process. I’m not possibly -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Well, it’s the same process that you agreed to and this legislature agreed to back in 2015. You had to come back to the legislature to get the approval. RODNEY BUTLER: Right, but again, that’s not -- that’s not the critical component that breaches exclusivity. It’s the fact that the prior process was a process in concert with all of us working together. That’s the difference. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, if I heard you correctly earlier, you said the difference is also if it wasn’t the intention -- and I don’t want to put words in your mouth and correct me if I’m wrong. It wasn’t the intention of the legislature to go ahead with this process, and at the end of the day, authorize a casino, they why not do a survey? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Fair enough? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, fair enough. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): So, I think the difference between doing a survey and having a process like the 106 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING one that’s set up in the RFP process are two different things. Quite frankly, I value the RFP process if for nothing else it allows for the state of Connecticut to do their due diligence to get an idea of the value of a commercial casino license here in the state of Connecticut. We -- we haven’t looked at this at all. We -- actually, we haven’t gotten any information from any independent -- we have not received any independent information with respect to casino gaming. All the information, at least that I’ve received, has gone from the various stakeholders, but that’s on us, so I do think at the very least there is some value for the state of Connecticut in an effort to determine not only the value of the commercial license but also the seriousness of those who are suggesting that they want to come to the state of Connecticut, and I think that’s important from where we sit. It might be different from -- from what your position is, and I respect that, but I think it’s important to know. The last time back in March when your representatives was asked what they thought the legal timeframe is it -- would be with respect to both BIA issue -- this legal issue, and the mother of all legal issues that being what MGM has repeatedly said, the -- the issue over the Commerce Clause, so I don’t know if you or a representative can give us a sense of how you see this point being played out legally including challenges, timeframes, etc. RODNEY BUTLER: Well, I think with regard to the Commerce Clause that’s an issue for the Attorney General, and he’s addressed that -- the prior Attorney General, and I think in the last session we had that you had mentioned going back to the new Attorney General for a new opinion. I’m not sure if that’s occurred yet, but it’ll -- it’ll -- the 107 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Attorney General will certainly play a role in working hand-in-hand with our legal counsel to make sure that we’re all protected moving forward. And, then one thing, Chairman, I would say going back to the RFP, and I absolutely agree it’s 100 percent this body’s -- well, not this body, but the broader legislative body, it’s within your ability and authority to move forward with that. I would just note that in that RFP process that you should -- if you are serious about it and seriously concerned about the economic impact and what’s beneficial for the state and what the opportunity is, that you include an RFP process at least the minimum down payment of $750-million dollars up front to cover at least three years of the slot contributions that are coming to the state, right, but if you think about simply look at what happened in Massachusetts with their process it was a multi-year process, and I think it was five years plus between the initial legislation and a facility opening, and so five times $250-million is a billion plus, and so I think if we’re going to be serious and put this at risk, we should make sure that whoever’s bidding is willing to cover that, and by the way, that’s what - - that’s what the legislature actually did back in ’95 when they looked at this issue previously, and realized very quickly that going outside of the current agreements wasn’t beneficial to the state. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I’m sorry. What was the number you said? $750? RODNEY BUTLER: $750-million. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, that’s -- RODNEY BUTLER: That would be three years of the current contributions to the state from the tribe. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Of $250 -- 108 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: Of $250 -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): With math, $250? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes, two hundred and fifty. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): So, you’re assuming that -- you’re assuming that -- RODNEY BUTLER: I’m being highly conservative. I’m saying that if you want to move forward with legislation you should put in a placeholder for that, that they have to front, right, but what I’m saying is based on reality in Massachusetts in their legislation it was several years beyond that. I believe it was closer to five years, and so if you want to be aggressive put in five years of earnings from the tribes. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, thank you for that clarification. You know, projections are projections. They are what they are. You know, all of the projections that we’re seeing that particularly when Boston comes aboard, we may be looking at the $200 million or whatever the number, $190, but -- RODNEY BUTLER: Round down to 200. It’s still a big number. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yeah, whatever. It’s still -- and I would agree with you, by the way. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I couldn’t agree with you more. I’m certainly not looking to put the state of Connecticut in a worse financial -- RODNEY BUTLER: Right. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Place than what it is or to lose value, quite frankly, but at the same time, I 109 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING am just in looking at the overall gaming policy in the state of Connecticut. So, what happens -- this bill actually passed last year -- RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Or a bill passed a two-step process, and is it -- is it your position that if we were to pass a similar bill, the two-step process, that you would stop making payments to the state of Connecticut immediately? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Again, the Attorney General has weighed in on this, and I know I keep mentioning the Attorney General, but from where I sit, that’s who we rely on for the most part. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, absolutely. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, I’m just going to refer to this March 15, 2018 letter from the AG’s office, and he’s indicated, “As a legal matter, however, it is my opinion that the proposed legislation would not run or fall over existing agreements with the tribes.” He further went on to indicate that indeed any attempt by the tribes to cease making any such payments to the state would itself constitute a breach of the MOUs, and would put into serious legal jeopardy their authority to operate slot machines on their reservations, and I only bring that up -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): If I could just make a point? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Excuse me. Hold on. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): [Crosstalk] Personally, I just think that you have to -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): [Clearing throat]. 110 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): When you’re referring to the Attorney General, that Attorney General is not here any longer, and we would need to -- we would need to say that that’s an opinion from a prior lawyer who is not here, not an elected official, we should ask for the current Attorney General. He may come up with the same opinion, but we cannot any longer say it is the Attorney General’s decision. It is the prior Attorney General’s position, and we have no idea what this Attorney General is going to weigh in on, so I just want to make a point of clarification. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator, I would just appreciate that you ask to go through the Chair before -- especially, you cut off the Chair of this committee -- going forward in order to be recognized. So, back to where I was going with this, indeed, any attempt by the tribes to cease making such payments to the state would itself constitute a breach of the MOUs, and would put into serious legal jeopardy their authority to operate such machines on their reservations. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, Mr. Chairman, the only reason why I bring that out is not that I want to go down that path -- RODNEY BUTLER: I hope not. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): But, I think it’s important that if we’re going to have this discussion that it’s a two-way street, that if that were to happen and if you were to take that legal opinion that there -- there is something that the state can do as well is the only reason why I bring it out. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. 111 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I’ve heard so much about what path you might go down, but I think it’s important that as part of an overall agreement that in some ways the state is covered as well. RODNEY BUTLER: Absolutely. It goes both ways, and I fully recognize that -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yeah. RODNEY BUTLER: And -- and that’s why we’re having ongoing conversations with the governor from a government-to-government perspective, and we should be able to resolve that rather quickly. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): The other thing is I was not part of any negotiations with -- with the tribes in the governor’s office when this deal was brokered, but I do have a question. As far as that process in -- in coming to an agreement with the East Windsor Casino and the changes to the compacts, other than the language changes in the compacts, were -- were you required or the tribes required as part of that process to submit any financials? I know that other states when they -- RODNEY BUTLER: Submit financials in addition to the slot payments that we make every year to the state? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): No, this is a little bit different and correct me if I’m wrong. There’s obviously a difference between the two tribes and what happens on tribal reservations and your business entities -- RODNEY BUTLER: Right. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): While you’re operating there. What -- what I’m trying to understand is once you come off the tribal reservation and you form an LLC, so I’m trying to get a sense during 112 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING this process how that -- how did you go about that? I mean were you required to show any financial information? RODNEY BUTLER: To set up an LLC, I don’t think you need any financial information to set up an LLC. You just file it. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): No, no, I understand that. What I’m saying is as far as entering into agreement with the state of Connecticut? RODNEY BUTLER: We already had one with the state. It was 25 years long and at that point, $7-billion dollars invested, so I think based on that history and that very successful relationship the state had full confidence and comfort in working with the existing partners to expand that relationship. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): So, again, I couldn’t disagree with you more about the partnership and the relationship, but from a financial relationship, say if for some reason East Windsor down the road was to go under, bankruptcy or whatever. This is a hypothetical. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Is there -- what protections does the state have? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, the state -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Is it backed by the casinos? RODNEY BUTLER: It’s 100 percent by the casinos, and then as pointed out earlier -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I only ask because I don’t know. RODNEY BUTLER: No, no, no, and that’s a fair question Chairman. As pointed out in earlier 113 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING testimony with the deal that the state’s provided to other companies that have since left the state, we’re not asking for any money, we’re not asking for state backing, we’re not asking for any municipal aid or financial support. It’s the tribe’s $20- million dollars that have been put into this and our time and all of our employees’ time that’s been put into this, and the ones that are in the room today that come up to support this. You know, the soft hours that are well above $20 million dollars that we have hard dollars invested in. You know, that’s all us. It’s our money at risk. There is no risk to the state. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. So, you’ve competed in other states. It’s clear you’ve competed in other countries. RODNEY BUTLER: Mohegan very successfully. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yes. So -- so the process has been a little different than in other states, right? When -- whether you go up and want to compete in Mass -- ‘cause actually, the document that I have in front of me is -- is the document that requires any of the respondents to show over 20 different items, and I’m just trying to get a sense; was that kind of the same process here? When you -- when you went -- [Crosstalk]. RODNEY BUTLER: No, because we’ve been in existence for 25 years. You know, I would suggest to look at other very successful gaming states and some of the most successful are California and Florida, which are tribal gaming states, and -- and the relationship that’s there and what they had to go through to get into those. You can’t get into those states. There’s no open bidding to get into those states. The tribes don’t have to put forward their 114 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING financials and do background checks. It’s a -- it’s a right that tribes have per federal legislation that we’re operating under here. It’s not a commercial gaming facility. It’s not paying licensing fees and have you -- and what have you. There are some states that have that, but they don’t have tribal gaming, right. Massachusetts is unique. At the time that they approved commercial gaming, there was a tribe that was fairly recognized and so they made a carveout for them in particular, but many, many states are either commercial gaming or tribal gaming, and there’s very few that do both, and if they do both, the tribes are paying nothing. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Right, and you’re doing both? RODNEY BUTLER: Not in Connecticut. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Commercial casino? RODNEY BUTLER: Not in Connecticut. Mohegan has commercial operations in other states. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): No, what I’m saying though with the East Windsor casino. RODNEY BUTLER: If we ever get it moving forward. If you move forward on SB-11, we will be, yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Right. I mean that’s where I’m going with this. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I’m just -- first of all, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m -- RODNEY BUTLER: I’m not either. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Asking these questions because I honestly don’t know. 115 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I like to ask questions that I know the answers to. RODNEY BUTLER: I’d love to follow up with a one-on- one with you anytime. You know, Rep, I’m always there. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yeah, because there -- there is a difference. That’s all I’m trying to say, you know, between the commercial and the tribal, and I respect both. This is not a question of any of that, but then just one last question I have has to do with sports betting. You say that you have exclusivity, you have sports betting because it’s a casino game. Is that -- is that correct? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes, and the past governor and the current governor recognized that and hence, the negotiations that we’ve had with both. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. So, sports betting obviously wasn’t legalized until recently. The way sports betting has been legalized in the state over the many, many years is in very few states, and very limited, and it happened to fall in the casino, so I -- I understand the argument that could be made at its casino game, right. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): But, 30 years ago, there wasn’t technology, there’s wasn’t iPhones, right? RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): We wouldn’t even be talking about sports betting or technology, but my question is if that technology existed 30 years ago, then it wouldn’t be a casino game, right, because you didn’t have to go to casino, so kind of, I think, to 116 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Representative Fishbein’s point earlier, I just struggle with the exclusivity part with sports betting because it wasn’t legal then, and to say you have exclusivity on something that wasn’t legal based on the history, I’m not -- I’m not sure I agree, but I don’t know if there’s a comment there you want to make, or -- that’s kind of the issue that I see with it, but having said that, I really think it’s important and I know -- the little I know from the discussions you had with the previous -- the previous governor -- that you were willing -- the tribes were willing to work with the state when it came to sports betting, and I appreciate that because wherever it lands, however it lands, I do believe that there are other stakeholders that should be part of this. To what degree and how that all shapes out, I’m not sure, but the fact that you’re willing to work with the state, I certainly appreciate that. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, Chairman, it’s been a great partnership, and -- and in our culture, we treat those with respect that treat us with respect, and it’s been a respectful relationship up to this point, and hopefully, moving forward, so we are absolutely open to that conversation. We’re not going anywhere. That’s been stated many, many times over, and so us with the option and ability to enhance the gaming market in Connecticut benefits us, the state, our incredible employees, our families, we are -- we are part of Connecticut. Connecticut is names after us. We’re not going anywhere, and that’s why we -- why we partner the way we do. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, thank you. Anyone else? Representative Simmons. REP. SIMMONS (144TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 117 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: You’re welcome. REP. SIMMONS (144TH): Thank you both for being here today, and for your partnership and commitment to the state over many years. Just a couple of questions, and I apologize if you’ve already answered them. RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, no worries. REP. SIMMONS (144TH): But, Senator Osten was referencing the benefit -- the enormous benefits that you’ve provided to the state over many years, in particular Eastern Connecticut and the tourism in that region, and I’m wondering if you could elaborate on the benefits that your gaming facilities have provided to the state overall, and in particular, Fairfield County down where I represent -- Stamford. I’m not sure if you have any numbers specifically on jobs or revenue down in that region. RODNEY BUTLER: You ask, and you shall receive, so you know, Senator Osten actually talked about it a little bit earlier and Fairfield County. I mean Bridgeport alone has received over a quarter -- almost a quarter-billion-dollars since the inception of gaming in the state of Connecticut, and I can give you a full county breakdown of Fairfield County in particular. I will send it to you directly of how that -- of what that equates do, but I mean, again, that’s a big one, right, that like makes up the line share of that. REP. SIMMONS (144TH): Great. Thank you. And, if I could through you, Mr. Chair, could you talk about the status of the MGM Casino in Springfield and how it’s affected jobs and revenue thus far? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, so you know, MGM -- you know, in fairness of them -- they -- they’re a great 118 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING casino operator. I will not take that away from them. Good, good friend of mine, former CEO from Foxwoods is in the room today and works for them and I love him like a brother, and -- and I’m happy for what he’s doing with them. He’s doing some great things as an organization, so they know what they’re doing, right? Did they over invest? Absolutely. Were they fully aware of what they were getting into in Massachusetts? Probably not, but they’re a real competitor and when you put a billion dollars in the ground -- right investment or wrong investment -- it’s gonna have an impact on your market, and so we’ve seen some, you know, less of an impact than we had anticipated, but you’re starting to see them get their sea legs and started to -- to ramp up, and I think Ray would say the same from the Mohegan perspective as far as the impact of MGM. RAY PINEAULT: You know, I’d say that it’s -- it’s early on, right, so we’re only a few months into their operations, and you know, they’re obviously legitimate operators and have a tremendous amount of respect, and we need to respect their operations. Any time you add a billion-dollar business into a competitive market, it’s going to have an impact, and we’ve been working, as Rodney said in his earlier testimony, on that for many years, recognizing that this was going to have an impact and looking at how we adjust our business operations, but again, we’re early on in the operations. We have to understand, as Rodney also testified to, we’re a few short months away from Wind opening and adding more competition. We have MGM obviously looking in New York, and the current operators of Yonkers, and currently actively soliciting New York to add table games to -- to their Yonker’s operation, so continue to expand around us, so we need to continue to make sure we’re 119 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING sharing up what we do as our business and recognize them as competitors. REP. SIMMONS (144TH): Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, a final question. With respect to this bill, SB-11, and the intent of it in order to eliminate the requirement that the Secretary of Interior provide approval for the gaming facility, would that open the state up to litigation and extensive legal costs given our fiscal situation, do you anticipate that happening? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, we anticipate getting sued at some point by MGM. They’ve made that clear that that’s what their intentions are. Well, I guess it would depend on what Interior does and how -- how forcefully they -- they make their statement, whether they do at all, right, and then we’d have to assess it at that time. REP. SIMMONS (144TH): Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Representative Fishbein. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, sir. RODNEY BUTLER: Good afternoon, Representative. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I’ve been going in and out because I have a Labor Committee meeting going on at the same time, so I just wanted to be -- ‘cause I heard something before -- do you take the position that if we went out to RFP that that would break the MOU and that you would be legally entitled to stop making payments to the state of Connecticut? RODNEY BUTLER: We do. 120 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. And, is it -- is it the RFP, in your opinion, that triggers it? Is that -- RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I mean what if the governor calls in MGM and Wynn, and you know, whomever to his office, and says, what are you willing to give me? Would that break the MOU? RODNEY BUTLER: Well, he’s done that, so it hasn’t, right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. So, the mere inquiry, the legislature -- RODNEY BUTLER: It’s the initiating -- the initiation by the legislature of the law that is enacted to do that. We believe that violates, and then there’s a difference of opinions. We’ve talked about that, and I apologize that -- that you had to step out for that, but -- but we -- we’d battle it out in court or what have you -- I mean -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, can you just -- ‘cause I’ve read the MOUs, and -- and I ask this question of one of the senators earlier -- can you point me to the -- the portion of the MOU that precludes the state of Connecticut from inquiring of other third parties as to what they would be willing to perhaps give to the state of Connecticut for gambling operations? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, I haven’t read the MOUs recently. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. RODNEY BUTLER: Unfortunately. It’s good bedtime reading, but I can certainly provide that to you, Rep. 121 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Well, I just -- your legal opinion; is that based upon a lawyer’s interpretation or is that your layperson interpretation of -- RODNEY BUTLER: Well, I -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): [Crosstalk] Your ability is very clear -- RODNEY BUTLER: I will be very clear that I am the farthest thing from an attorney. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yep. RODNEY BUTLER: That’s the position of the tribe. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Is that -- RODNEY BUTLER: And, as the chairman of the tribe, I represent that opinion of the tribe. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No. I respect that. I’m just trying to ascertain, you know, because I -- I talk to people all the time who, you know, have an opinion based upon whatever, but their opinion is not on sound legal ground. RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, am I to understand that’s the opinion of the tribe without legal? RODNEY BUTLER: No. We’ve certainly reviewed it with legal, so -- and that’s what courts are for, right? The courts are -- there are difference in opinion from a legal perspective, and courts are in place to -- to remedy that, so -- and you might disagree, I might disagree, but at the end of the day, we end up at various levels of -- of -- of the court system, and that’s decided there. There’s no reason to -- to do that. We haven’t debated that over the last 25 years. We’ve had a successful 122 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING partnership. We’ve grown the Connecticut gaming market including with Keno, right. No one was concerned with breaching the agreements with Keno, and a competitive process and what that would mean, and the legislature enacted that legislation that allowed for the state to provide Keno, which has been incredibly beneficial for the state under the agreements with the two tribes. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, and I respect that, and I wasn’t up here during that, and you know, I’m only -- I’m here in my third year, and since I’ve been here, we’ve been talking about should we have an open process -- RODNEY BUTLER: Right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Or, should we have this closed process? So, now that I’m engaged and I’m just trying to look at everything, and I do respect that, you know, the tribes have been good neighbors, and at some level want what’s best for the state of Connecticut, and I would think that it’s part of that whole process you would respect our doing our due diligence, and I’m a little discouraged by the - - you know, the draconian nature that, you know, if we in good faith explore that, you know, the tribes are of the opinion that they’re just going to, you know, chop the head off of the chicken. I just -- [Crosstalk]. RODNEY BUTLER: Well, it’s -- it’s certainly not desired, and I think -- and I apologize, Representative. I think you stepped out when I -- when I gave my analogy earlier about relationships and commitments in relationships and exploring additional opportunities, and I related that to personal relationships and what that would mean if - - if I went out with my wife of 17 years, and I’m 123 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING not gonna restate the story, but if I went out and said, hey babe, I’m gonna see if I can find a new wife that can give me a better house and three dogs instead of two, and much smarter children. I don’t think she’d appreciate that. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Right, and that’s a good one. I like that one. [Laughter]. RODNEY BUTLER: [Laughing]. I think everyone else liked it earlier too. [Laughter]. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Paolillo. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Chairman. Thank you for being here. RODNEY BUTLER: You’re welcome. It’s good to see you again. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Good to see you two also today. Just a couple questions. On the headcounts, it was earlier in the discussion, probably about an hour ago -- RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): For jobs and so forth, and you were saying that you’d get back some information on full-time versus part-time. Would you be able to provide also benefits -- RODNEY BUTLER: Sure. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): And, folks what they are entitled to -- RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): With that breakdown? 124 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): That would be -- [Crosstalk]. RODNEY BUTLER: Just off -- off the top of the head? REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Sure. RODNEY BUTLER: I mean we’re -- we pay out almost $100-millon dollars a year in healthcare costs and benefits for our employees, just round numbers, and Mohegan’s the same. I mean it’s nothing to sneeze at. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): And, that says -- RODNEY BUTLER: And, we’re proud to do that. I mean they deserve that. They work hard, you know. It’s not easy work working in entertainment, and they certainly earn those benefits. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): And, is that over the whole workforce for the numbers that you’ve cited? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Okay. So, everyone is eligible? RODNEY BUTLER: All the full-time employees. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Okay. And, you said you’ll get us the breakdown? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah -- [Crosstalk]. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Between the full-time versus the part-time. If I can just jump around ‘cause a lot of the questions have been asked already? RODNEY BUTLER: Uh-huh. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): The Chairman was asking around the venture with the two tribes coming together and the forming of the LLC commercial 125 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING entity. What is the, between the two tribes, the allegation or is it a 50/50 partnership? RODNEY BUTLER: It’s 50/50. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, it’s -- certainly. Okay. And, then I know some of the questions related to the financial backing and it now being a commercial entity, a commercial business versus the way the businesses have been taking care of the state with the partnership over the state, so do the ratings or the financial strength, or maybe I should ask the question this way; what are the financial ratings now of the tribes individually, of latest go around with rating agencies and their outlook? RODNEY BUTLER: Pequot is not rated, and we don’t have to be, and Mohegan has more public -- yeah, we can get you that. RAY PINEAULT: I can get you our actual rating. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Okay. All right. RAY PINEAULT: We’re rated by -- by (inaudible - 03:24:30). RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah. [Crosstalk] Last check of Mohegan, they -- they were one of the highest rated gaming companies in the -- in the industry. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Mr. Pineault said something, and I didn’t hear his last comment. RAY PINEAULT: We can get you the -- we are rated. We can get you actual ratings. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Okay. That would be great. And, then switching gears. We had mentioned. It came up -- the zoning issue, which you eluded to before. What is -- what is the status of that around the Tribal Winds Casino? 126 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, I can get -- I can get you a confirmation on that. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Okay. RODNEY BUTLER: Okay. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): My follow-up question. Back I think it was a month ago when we last met, then Chairman Brown mentioned that there would be construction through litigation with zoning, and I was just interested in how -- how that would happen or how that would play out? I’m paraphrasing. He says litigation happening, construction would happen during that time, and how exactly would that play out? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, well in fairness, the Chairman Brown is not present. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Sure. RODNEY BUTLER: And, my recollection of that, he was referring to the broader litigation question as they’ve done out in Washington State with their very successful facility out there. They proceeded with construction through -- through litigation. Which particular litigation it was? I couldn’t tell ya, but that’s -- that’s what my understanding of what Chairman Brown was referring to. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Okay. So, I guess my followup would be then do -- given the litigation that’s out there, are there permits secured to build the Tribal Winds Casino? RODNEY BUTLER: Yes. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, they’ve been issued? RODNEY BUTLER: Most of the important ones. I can get you a full list of the permits. It’s public. I 127 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING can -- I can submit that to you for the record, if you’d like? REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Because -- RODNEY BUTLER: And -- and the ones that I believe you brought up last time that may be still outstanding, but I’ll certainly get that for you. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Sure. Because we’ve asked some of these questions over the last year or so, and I did review some of his testimony from the last meeting, and I know, obviously, in fairness, I won’t paraphrase is comments anymore, but I think it was pretty clear with the question at the time as I was last year for Mr. Bonell [phonetic] around timeline, around financing, around permits secured. I just find it hard to understand with some of the testimony going back a year or so how building permits can be issued when zoning is still up in the air. So, if you have a comment on that? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, no, no. I will absolutely get you a full list of the -- of all of the approvals that have been issued so far. There are several, but you [background talking off mic] -- and the first selectman is coming up later as well. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Okay. RODNEY BUTLER: So, he’ll probably have more insight into that than I do. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): And, then as just a general note that I would definitely say, and I’m not looking for a comment back. I just want to say thank you for being straightforward in your answers today and coming in front of this committee. I’ve only been here three years. I supported in 2017 the bill as to why we’re discussing today the topic, but I would also say that the opinions that we’re 128 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING working off of, the legal opinions are the ones that are in front of us that got us the 2017 bill, why we’re talking about Tribal Winds, so there’s only one set of opinions in front of us that we used to get to that point in 2017, and going forward many of the legal issues that have been addressed raises flags by our counsel are certainly some of the questions that we’re asking today, but that’s our only reference at this point. Otherwise, if we didn’t have the 2017 approval, we certainly wouldn’t be here right now discussing that bill, so Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Any other questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you very much. RODNEY BUTLER: Thank you guys -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Oh, I’m sorry. Oh, I’m sorry. Oh, Senator Champagne, I am sorry. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Just one question. If the sports betting does go through the casinos, would we have the same deal as the slots -- slot machines would be the payback? RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, so the economics are different on sports betting. Ray had mentioned earlier kind of what the spread is. I mean I believe it’s in the range of 5 percent, right, and so saying that the tax rates are different in various states, you see the tax rate in Nevada at 6.75 percent. You see in some of this -- in other states it’s 10 percent, and in Pennsylvania, they’ve just really lost their mind on it, and I think it’s like 40 or 50 percent or something like that. RAY PINEAULTY: An unaccountable rate. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Wow. 129 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

RODNEY BUTLER: Yeah, an unaccountable rate, and some of the experts behind us will -- will talk about that in -- in their testimony. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. RODNEY BUTLER: But, certainly, there would be a representative commercial tax rate on sports betting. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. And, if -- and if we did that, basically you guys would handle all the -- well, the professional sports people and you know, all of that? I see the head shaking behind you, so. [Laughing]. RODNEY BUTLER: Yes, and again, we’re -- we’re having open conversations with the governor about what that landscape will look like, but that’s the starting point, yes. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. Thank you, and thank you for coming. RODNEY BUTLER: Thank you, Senator. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Thank you very much. RAY PINEAULT: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Oh, I’m sorry. Representative Orange. REP. ORANGE (48TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s good to see both of you here today. RODNEY BUTLER: Always good to see you, Representative. REP. ORANGE (48TH): And, sorry that I walked in late on our testimony. I was in another meeting. RODNEY BUTLER: I’ll take it personal. [Laughing]. 130 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. ORANGE (48TH): But, I just wanted to state for the record that I was very impressed earlier with Senator Somer’s testimony and the truth behind the compact being exclusive to the two tribes, and I think that moving forward that people on this committee have to understand that, and it may have been a long time ago, but it’s still in effect today, and it has not been changed. It has not been opened or renegotiated or anything else, and I know the hours of work that you put in to your perspective tribes, and they are both fun places to go. I too don’t gamble. If I gamble $20 bucks, it’s like that’s the end of it, you know. It only takes five minutes, so I kind of hang onto it instead, but I enjoy going to each casino and the entertainment that both of them provide is -- is great, and it’s good for our tourism district as well, but I just -- I just wanted to make sure that the people on this committee and in this general assembly understand the fact and the fact of the matter is that you have exclusive rights for gaming in the state of Connecticut, and that’s end of business. That’s the way it is, and moving forward, I hope people recognize that because I do and I do not want to see lots of revenue in the future from the two tribes that have worked so hard and have supported our state for so many years. That’s all. RODNEY BUTLER: Thank you, Representative. RAY PINEAULT: Thank you. UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Chairman, could I make one last comment based on Representative’s point there? You know, a lot of people have -- not a lot -- a handful of people in the state have, you know, demonized the term exclusivity and talk about the fact that since it’s a longstanding agreement that’s the reason why we need to open it. It’s got to be -- you know just 131 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING so we can test the deal and see if it’s a good deal. I would challenge all of us to look at the longstanding agreement and the reason it’s been in place for 25+ years is because it’s actually a good deal, and I just leave you with that. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. I’m seeing none. Thank you. RODNEY BUTLER: Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Next up, Scott Butera. SCOTT BUTERA: Okay. Good afternoon, Representative Verrengia and members of the committee. My name is Scott Butera. I’m the president of MGM Resorts Interactive Practice, which does include sports betting. I’m here to discuss Senate Bill 665, and it’s a pleasure to be here today. It’s also a pleasure being back in Connecticut, which is the state that I know very well. I spend most of my adolescent and adult life in Connecticut and went to Connecticut schools. I attended Trinity College down the street where I’m now a member of the Board of Trustees. My three children were born in Connecticut. Two of them attended Trinity, and I live next to -- right next door to former governor for about 10 years, so I know -- I know a little bit about what happens in this state, and it’s been a pleasure to be a part of it. As Chairman Butler mentioned, earlier in the decade I did also have the opportunity -- rare opportunity and honor to serve as President and CEO of Foxwoods Resort for the Mashantucket community. I’m here today to talk about sports betting. I really believe that Connecticut has an unusual opportunity to do extremely well in this space. As you know, with past with being repealed, we think that sports betting can be as big as a $5-billion 132 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING dollar industry by the year 2023, and Connecticut, if done well, can be a big part of that, but we’ve seen in terms of a business model that makes sense for the state is -- is an open competitive environment where the biggest and the best operators are allowed to compete for a role in this state, and we think that should happen here. That wouldn’t require any kind of exclusivity. We think that there could be multiple players, perhaps six or seven players, and accommodate all of those who have the ability to do it well and skill to do it well and desire to do it, but we have seen that an open competitive environment with the right business model makes the most sense. We have a partner in Europe that provides a lot of our technology. They’ve been in business for ten years, called GVC Holdings, and what they’ll show you is that nine out of ten markets in Europe, and Europe’s been doing this for a lot longer than we have, of the most successful markets are markets where there’s open competition, so we feel very strongly that that should be the case. In terms of MGM -- just to offer a little bit of credibility to what I’m going to say -- we’re the oldest and largest sportsbook in the country right now. We have over 13 sportsbooks in Nevada, New Jersey, and Mississippi, and we do well north of a billion dollars in handle to actual betting a year, and in terms of the economics on those bets, the prior speaker was correct, it is about a 5 percent revenue number, so for every dollar that a casino makes about 5 cents, and from that 5 cents, it has to pay its taxes, its marketing dollars, its operating costs, its risk management, etc., so it’s really a thin business, and to do it well, you have to do it with big volume, and you need to have a big enterprise because a lot of things that go with 133 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING sports betting that are very important to be able to do it correctly, most notably you have to have highly sophisticated trading. There’s a lot of the sports betting right now that takes place in game, so while you’re watching a contest, you’re actually betting on a game and the value of those bets goes up and down. We have a trading floor, and it covers most of that that would look like any Wall Street Trading floor. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Sir, if I could just ask you to wrap up, please? SCOTT BUTERA: Yes, sir. I’ll wrap up. So, what we want to say is that there are four -- four main elements that we think that are very important to each success. You have to have a trusting product and from that comes all the integrity and sophistication that we think we have through our systems. We think you need a competitive market with competitive tax rates because of the economics that I mentioned. We think you need something that works best for responsible gaming, so we need to make sure that we have a robust compliance area, responsible gaming area. We have a company called Game Sense, which makes responsible gaming very user friendly and a very robust regulatory and enforcement for us where the folks who are participating can actually contribute and are trusted to do so based on your history. And, we think that with that if you were to look at models again like New Jersey, which is now producing revenues approaching that of Nevada with an open market and a competitive rate and a reasonable licensing fee, we think Connecticut can have a business here between retail and mobile that could be well north of $100-million dollars in the very near term. 134 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, sir. Are there any questions? Representative Sredzinski, followed by Representative Fishbein. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Butera, for being here. I just want to touch on a few things that you brought up. What type of licensing fees or taxes do you think the Connecticut market could support? SCOTT BUTERA: We think that the taxes should be somewhere in, you know, 8 to 10 percent range based on what we’ve seen in other states and what works, and what Connecticut would most benefit from. We think that allows enough opportunity to invest in systems and all the things you need to do it well, and in terms of licensing fees, what we’ve normally seen is fees ranging anywhere from, you know, $100,000 dollars to, you know, millions of dollars, and is the case of Pennsylvania, but that -- that was, you know, noncompetitive, so we think on the lower end, but -- but high enough that only the biggest and best are encouraged to participate makes sense. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Do you have a ballpark for that figure? SCOTT BUTERA: Somewhere near $100,000 -- somewhere in the $100 thousands. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. So, you mentioned some of the protections including game sense; does the technology exist that we could that minors or people out of state do not access our -- SCOTT BUTERA: Absolutely. We had very sophisticated, what we call Geofencing, where we can Geofence -- we could Geofence this room if we wanted to, that the minute your device exits a fences 135 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING facility and immediately turns off, so if you were to try to bet on your phone right now on a New Jersey app, you find you would not be able to do that, and we also absolutely have age verification as well as anti-money laundering systems that are, again, very sophisticated and cover a lot of our businesses, so when you work -- you know, we’re a $30-billion-dollar company, so we get the benefit of using systems that were set up to provide services to that entire organization. Some of these things, if you were a smaller player, you would not have the withal to do on your own, so again that’s why we think having the biggest and the best involved is -- is useful. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I know you mentioned competitive market being the best operations, so you said the best markets include competitive operations. We’ve heard a lot about exclusivity this morning and this afternoon. How many licenses do you think the state of Connecticut could support? SCOTT BUTERA: I think six to seven. You know, I would certainly include the existing operators in that. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, if you had to refer to another state that would be a best fit for Connecticut, which one? SCOTT BUTERA: I think New Jersey -- no, Nevada and New Jersey are the two -- by far, the two best, and you can see the speed of growth in New Jersey has been fantastic. Again, they are almost approaching Nevada numbers already. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, what is it specifically about the New Jersey system that works best? 136 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SCOTT BUTERA: Relatively, their tax. You know, again, they all run about 10 percent between the two levels, they have reasonable licensing fee, open licensing, and the ability to use mobile statewide, not only -- and also sign up through your mobile, so if I’m sitting in Northern New Jersey, which is one of the most deepest economic, you know, areas in the country, I don’t have to go to Atlantic City. I can just download my app and start betting there. And, the comment was made is -- is that a casino gaming is sports betting. I don’t believe that sports betting is a casino game. First of all, we haven’t had it, you know, anywhere, but if you look to Europe, sports betting takes place at betting shops or at soccer matches, and here in the United States where we had it was in racing. It took place at tracks, and if not for the fact that it was only allowed in Nevada and Nevada didn’t have anything other than casinos, I think it ended up there, but I think there’s really no correlation between sports and casinos. It’s not like a table game or a slot machine. You don’t need to be in a casino to bet on the Pack’s game. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. Thank you for the answers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Fishbein, followed by Representative Vail. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, sir. SCOTT BUTERA: Good afternoon. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I think -- and I had mentioned this earlier because I recognize that distinction -- games of skill versus games of chance, and -- and that’s what you are dealing with on the table game thing? 137 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah, I -- it’s definitely a game of skill because you’re making a decision based on information. What I was saying is unlike a blackjack where you have to go to a casino to play it, you know, sports don’t necessarily need to be played at a casino. They can be played anywhere. It’s not -- casino doesn’t have elements within it other than TVs that really relate to sports. Like traditional casino games would. Now, having it at a casino is beneficial to the casino because it does - - in a comment that was made earlier, it does drive up other revenue, so we have seen areas that have sportsbooks, acting sportsbooks, we have seen their volumes go up on their table games. That happened to us in Mississippi. We put a sportsbook in Mississippi, and table games doubled within a couple of months because of -- you know, the similar type mentality. They’re both games of skill as you had mentioned. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, of course, every accoutrement that you add to a casino is gonna drive more foot traffic, so you put -- you know, you have a casino without a restaurant, you have one with a restaurant -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): The one with the restaurant is going to have more foot traffic, and therefore, more casino, so that -- that’s natural the more, you know -- [Crosstalk]. SCOTT BUTERA: I would say so, but if you were to look at sportsbooks historically, you know, before PASPA, it was really just amenities for table game players. They really weren’t, you know, bread and butter businesses for casinos themselves because of the margins. Now, is a different story with the 138 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING inline betting and being able to bet on a lot of different props and doing it during the game and how it relates to the next generation, so it’s also how people are consuming sports. People aren’t just sitting in chairs watching matches anymore. They really want to be part of the action, and that kind of drive fantasy for a while. It just becomes more exciting to people when they’re in this entertainment environment and they’re betting and they have skin in the game and the outcome, and now you’re interested in watching the whole game so you stay -- that’s why the leagues like it, and you know, we -- a number of historic league deals, and we’re very aligned with the leagues be it the NBA, which we started with, the NHL, Major League Baseball, and also the WNBA. It just creates a much greater degree of fan engagement and fan dealership, and -- and it drives up, you know, sporting numbers as well, and -- and it creates opportunities for sports that you might not otherwise watch, so a lot of specialty sports are gaining popularity because of the related sports betting. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Oh, I totally -- you know, was it two years ago we had a forum, and you know, I’ve been involved in fantasy sports for over 20 years, and I know, you know, when I’m watching the Seattle Mariners against the L.A. Dodgers I would normally not -- when I got a player on one of those teams -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I definitely watch more -- more baseball. SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Under your model, you said six to seven licenses would be ideal for 139 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Connecticut, so you’re talking about there would be six to seven business entities that would have the ability that I as a consumer would have the ability to bet with on my phone? SCOTT BUTERA: That’s -- that’s correct, and that’s sort of based on the population, but I think the right amount of competition would be, so that you’d get great product. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, why -- and maybe you answered this, but I’m just -- ‘cause this is the first I’ve heard, you know, about more than one license. Why is it beneficial to the state of Connecticut to have six to seven as opposed to one? I would think that the -- SCOTT BUTERA: Because -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Oversight would be larger. SCOTT BUTERA: Well, I think you want to have people who have an ability to provide a lot of oversight for the state themselves, so if you have bigger more sophisticated operators, you can get comfortable. You know, we’ve been doing this business for ten years. We talk about like amateur sports, which is a very important part of the business. We could explain to you how we monitor all of that from an integrity standpoint. Again, I think that’s why the leagues chose to work with us, so yes, we pay up for official data with the leagues because we want to make sure everything is -- is as credible as it can be, but I think in terms of custom -- in getting a good product to your customer and driving the most revenues that you can, I think you have to have more than one. The comment was made about Rhode Island, and they have -- they have -- it’s Twin Rivers that does it, but it’s actually not. It’s actually their lottery. They gave it to their lottery system. 140 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Lotteries aren’t sophisticated sportsbook operators, and trust me, this is an at-risk business. It’s not like, you know, a slot machine where you know you’re getting 8 percent or a table game where if the math goes correctly you should make whatever the game provides. You can lose money in this business, and the super bowl round lost $2-million bucks because they wanted to operate, you know, one -- one enterprise through their lottery, and ended up losing money. I don’t think they expected that, so. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But, that I -- I would expect that that’s part of their betting process. They betted at some level and decided to go with one -- [Crosstalk]. SCOTT BUTERA: And, they -- but they decided to take risks. You know, this is a -- this was an illegal business up until now, so even we -- you know, this business is evolving, and I think, you know, we do a lot of presentations to other commercial enterprises or Native American communities, and a lot of times they think, hey, I want to get into sports betting and where do I -- and how do I start doing it, and you really have to understand that you don’t just start doing it. You have to have a lot of sophistication. You have to understand a lot of -- you know, all the different spreads and all the different lines, and who does well against what, and then you have to have a big liquidity pool so that you can lay off as much as possible, and there’s no perfect layoff. Trust me. You’re always rooting for some team to win if you’re that sportsbook operator, but you can get close. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): But, I just -- why wouldn’t we - why wouldn’t it be beneficial to us to select the best? You’re sitting here saying we have the experience -- 141 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): We’re all over the place. SCOTT BUTERA: It -- it -- it would be of benefit, but I think you could have more than one, and they would compete against each other and create better product for your customer and a better environment. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So where’s -- where’s the competition between to licensee? SCOTT BUTERA: So, if -- if we were an operator and there was another operator -- [Crosstalk]. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I was the consumer, and you’re looking to get my business -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. You -- you -- the same way the two retail casinos compete. Who has the best product? Who has the cheaper, best betting lines? Who has -- who has an interface that I like? Who has a rewards program that I like? And, you know different strokes for different folks. It’s like why would you choose a Chevy versus a Ford? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, that’s a good answer. And, would these licenses be time-limited or would they be long-term? SCOTT BUTERA: I think they would -- yeah, I think they would be time-limited, and there’d be some kind of, you know, renewal process, but I think you should have a fairly initial -- it shouldn’t be a year or two. It should be five, six, seven years, ten years, or something of that nature, but I think there should be some renewal process. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And -- and is that what the industry currently does? Is it five or six plus? 142 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SCOTT BUTERA: Yes. It was between five and ten, yes. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. The -- you would -- I don’t know if you were here earlier when the representatives of the players were here? SCOTT BUTERA: I was. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, they spoke about the safety of the players. SCOTT BUTERA: Yes. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You as a provider, do you have any part of the safety of the players? SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah, one -- it’s interesting because one of our situations that we have with the leagues is we work with the leagues on bets that they like and don’t like, so I mentioned GVC, our technology partner. We did a joint venture with GVC. They have proprietary technology that we have thousands of our own in-house people running and manipulating, so we can -- we can adjust to any request whether it be a regulatory request or a league request on the fly, so Major League Baseball came to us and said -- there was also a comment about preseason sports. We don’t want any betting on preseason sports, and we said, we understand that, so we work with the leagues to identify risk areas, and we just won’t make lines on them. To the extent that there is risks there, that risk exists today already. It’s, again, Connecticut has a robust sports betting environment already. It’s just not legal, so the -- but we do work with the leagues on trying to ensure, you know, always integrity. We have -- we are over a $30-billion-dollar company. If we ever put our license at risk, it would be, you know, really 143 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING draconian to say the least, so we try and -- we try and prevent all of that. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, what if we, as the committee that, you know, would be moving this forward wanted, which I’m not of the opinion, exhibition sports to be bet on -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): That would be out of our control, or -- [Crosstalk]. SCOTT BUTERA: Well, that would be -- well, first of all, if you prohibited it, we certainly couldn’t do it. If you wanted it, we would work with the leagues -- if you wanted it and the leagues approved it, we would -- we would make lines on it. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, then you talked about -- SCOTT BUTERA: And, there’s -- there are a lot of preseason -- football preseason sports are bet on. There are a lot -- you know, baseball right now I thin is the one that -- that is not allowing it, but most sports do. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, and that’s because they’re getting paid. SCOTT BUTERA: What do you mean? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): The leagues are getting paid for allowing that. SCOTT BUTERA: Well, we don’t pay the leagues for that. We don’t pay the leagues for allowing betting. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): No, but do the -- like in New Jersey -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. 144 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): If an exhibition NFL game is bet on through your system -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Does the NFL get -- SCOTT BUTERA: No. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, they get no portion? SCOTT BUTERA: Nope, none whatsoever. The deals that we have with the leagues are commercial deals. They involve marketing. They involve allowing us to use their data. It’s everything from tickets at games, to suites, to using their database to market our sports better through, to doing play for fun games in states that don’t have sports betting, so we did a deal with a company called Alliance of American Football. You might have heard of it. It’s this new development league. Their app has a game where every play you can pick will it be a pass, will the guy go left, right, or center, will it be a touchdown or first down, and then based on the down and distance, the formation, and the personnel on the field, it gives you odds. So, based on third and ten with this guy at wide receiver, you know, 80 percent chance pass left, you know, and if you bet on that or play, you score points and then you win rewards. So, those are the kind of things we’re doing, but we’re not -- we’re not paying -- the leagues would have to get licensed if they wanted to participate in any kind of gaming revenue, and they don’t want to do that. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): When I’ve spoken to the leagues, they want -- especially Major League Baseball. They want to be in charge of the data. SCOTT BUTERA: Right. 145 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I’m hearing you -- you have another system? SCOTT BUTERA: No, we -- we purchase -- that’s part of our deals. We have access to their official data. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, then you transfer it -- [Crosstalk]. SCOTT BUTERA: We use that for our -- for our data for our sports bets, so if you were to go on our app and bet on a baseball game when the season starts, we’ll be getting data officially approved by Major League Baseball as opposed to some other source that’s not approved. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, then going back to the integrity thing. What -- since the sports more than likely that are being bet on, none of them I think would happen in Connecticut; what am I to do as a consumer if I believe that there was cheating let’s say going on? How am I protected? SCOTT BUTERA: Well, one, we have -- one, we have all the sophistications, so our logo if it’s a baseball game, baseball’s logo or NHL’s logo is on our app. You know, so you have some comfort that we are standing behind that. If you thought there was cheating, you could always, you know, sue to get your money back, and you’d have to -- you know, we’d have to demonstrate that all the protections were in place. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, would I be able to sue here or would I have to go -- SCOTT BUTERA: Well, you can’t -- if you’re allowed to make a bet here, then yes. Everything’s state- by-state, so -- and I’m not a lawyer, so maybe I’m speaking a little out of the school, but usually, 146 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING all of the activity that takes place in the sports betting world is state-by-state. So, if there -- so if we’re operating here, we’d have a server here, we’d have people here that work it, and it would be ringfenced, and anything that took place would be a state action. It would have it’s on set of state rules, so yeah, it would have to be the state because if it were Nevada they’d have a different set of rules, so it would have to be some kind of state rule. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, I’m just trying to figure out who -- I’d want to sue everybody. SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, I’d sue you and the state of Connecticut, or I’d put a claim in with the Claims Commissioner -- SCOTT BUTERA: You could sue the league or you know -- and again, I’m not a lawyer, but all I can assure you is that we have many protections in place, and we have large companies with their logos on it that stand behind it, and it’s all -- everything we do is approved by regulators. I think, you know, if cheating were to take place, then we’d have to make amends. It -- what really happens is we make amends, you know, so if a player comes in -- a lot of times there will be a bad line, so somehow the computer sticks a bad line. There’s supposed to be Patriots minus $1000 dollars and it used Patriots plus $1000 dollars, and everyone jumps on it, you know. What we do is we usually, you know, pay those out, you know, and it’s unfortunate. Now, we have a right not to, but practically as being a large business that’s not what we do because we don’t want to kill our customer base; whereas, smaller operators would take advantage of the fact that they 147 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING can go to the regulators and say it was a computer glitch and not honor the bet. You know, those kind of things, but it -- but we would stand behind. If it were a legitimate customer issue, we would stand behind it before any lawsuit would take place. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I respect that. I just -- you know, I guess I’m a purest in that I care about my baseball and my hockey -- SCOTT BUTERA: You should. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You know. SCOTT BUTERA: I do too. I do too. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): You know, I -- I don’t watch NFL football anymore, but I had heard that there was a game in New Orleans at the end of the season where -- SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): There was a lot of complaining. You know, the referee made a bad call and there was cheating, and I’m just -- you know -- SCOTT BUTERA: I don’t know that there was cheating. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, they made a bad call. SCOTT BUTERA: There were premade allegations. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): There was allegations. SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah, but that’s every -- you know, that happens. [Laughing]. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I just I don’t know. I just think we’re creating a lot of problems, but anyway, thank you. Thank you -- [Crosstalk]. SCOTT BUTERA: All right. But, I can assure you that the leagues would not have worked with us 148 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING unless we proved to them that we did everything with great integrity, and we’re not gonna lose -- this business is an important business, but if you look at our enterprise, we have three properties in Japan -- in China. We’re bidding on a property in Japan. We have, you know, half of the Las Vegas strip. We’re not gonna risk that for, you know, something like this by any means. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Vail. REP. VAIL (52ND): I forgot what I was going to ask now. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): [Laughing]. REP. VAIL (52ND): [Laughing]. I’m just kidding. I wrote it down so I wouldn’t forget. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. I want to get -- I’m kind of concerned about the consumer here is one of my big priorities and making sure that they’re getting the most out of these bets as possible. So, if you could kind of walk through with me an average bet? So, if there was a football game between the Patriots and the Jets, and the Patriots were favored by 7 points -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, I bet on the Patriots and Representative Fishbein bet on the Jets, that to make that bet at a casino, if we each wanted to bet $50 dollars, we’d each have to pay $55 dollars -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. VAIL (52ND): If we wanted to win $50 dollars, correct? [Crosstalk]. You would have to pay $55 dollars for the bet. SCOTT BUTERA: That’s correct. 149 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): And, then if I won the bet, I would collect my $55 dollars plus the $50 dollars back, which would be $105 dollars. SCOTT BUTERA: Correct. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, the casino would keep the $55 dollars from each me and Representative Fishbein, so they would collect $110 dollars, and they would pay out $105 dollars; is that correct? SCOTT BUTERA: That’s correct. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, theoretically, then that percentage -- SCOTT BUTERA: That’s -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VAIL (52ND): That’s slightly less than 5 percent. SCOTT BUTERA: Yes. REP. VAIL (52ND): Would that be correct? SCOTT BUTERA: It could be. Yeah, we actually average more like 4 percent. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. SCOTT BUTERA: I was keeping it simple, but that’s a perfect layoff, and it’ hard to get -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VAIL (52ND): I know there’s parlays and all the other stuff -- SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah. REP. VAIL (52ND): In the bets, but on a 50/50 bet - - SCOTT BUTERA: That’s correct. That’s correct. 150 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): That there would be generally a little less than 5 percent for -- and so, all those other costs would come out of the 5 percent that -- SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah. REP. VAIL (52ND): Either -- whoever was operating this would be -- SCOTT BUTERA: That’s -- REP. VAIL (52ND): Would it be the same if it was done online? SCOTT BUTERA: Yes, it would be. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, again, all those expenses would come out, so if you were to make, you know, a profit of 2 percent on that bet -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. VAIL (52ND): Then that percentage you would pay -- if it were the same as what the current casinos’ agreement is with Connecticut, it would be 25 percent of that 2 percent, if that were the case. SCOTT BUTERA: Well, you would be -- you would be paid -- yeah, on revenue, so, yes. REP. VAIL (52ND): On revenue, so -- SCOTT BUTERA: Correct. REP. VAIL (52ND): If the revenue was only 2 percent -- SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah. REP. VAIL (52ND): After your cost of the less -- SCOTT BUTERA: Right. REP. VAIL (52ND): Than 5 percent -- SCOTT BUTERA: That’s right. 151 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): Then you would pay if it’s -- [Crosstalk]. SCOTT BUTERA: It would be the -- it would be the equivalent to -- my expenses wouldn’t impact it. It would just be how much we won, so if we had a billion dollars of handle, and we made $50 million dollars from that or $40 million dollars from that, the revenues would be based on the $40 million dollars. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay, ‘cause I just want to make sure the consumers are getting as much out of this as possible. SCOTT BUTERA: And -- and by the way, with a competitive market, those spreads that you’re talking about -- the -- the $5-dollar VIG, will be narrower, so if you’re in a noncompetitive market, those spreads can be anywhere from $10 dollars to $20 dollars, so for the consumer to really get the best price in, you want to be in a very -- you want to have competition to make sure those spreads are narrow, so we compete against each other on VIG spreads. REP. VAIL (52ND): Shouldn’t a VIG spread be set? SCOTT BUTERA: No. It’s -- it’s up to the operator. If I can do something more competitively than my neighbor -- REP. VAIL (52ND): So, you could actually decrease that? Because you could bet with a banky and get the 5 percent. SCOTT BUTERA: I could decrease -- well, the consumer pays the 5 percent, so what I’m saying is I could -- in a competitive market, the consumer will get a better spread, will get a narrower spread than in a noncompetitive market. 152 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): And you mean by spread, you’re not talking about the point spread, you’re talking about the margin? SCOTT BUTERA: Well, maybe both, maybe both. It depends, but typically lines, futures bets, parlays bets, and VIGs all tend to be more consumer friendly when they’re in a competitive market because don’t forget these -- you know, these -- sports betters are very sophisticated people, so if you had six operators, they’d have six apps on their phone, and then they’d have an app that would tell them which app was offering the best line on that particular bet, so you know, it’s very competitive. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, so again, with those 50/50 bets it’s a little bit easier to analyze; what about with the futures bets and stuff like that? If -- if the operators were generating, you know, a 20 percent profit margin, how would we know that and -- and -- and would -- SCOTT BUTERA: Well, we’d have to disclose -- REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. SCOTT BUTERA: We’d have to disclose everything to you for sure. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah, we’re a public company and you now, we have those numbers, and we disclose them, and our regulators do look at them, but again, we’ve been doing this for ten years, so you know, we can - - we have good relationships with the folks in Nevada that have these things. We could easily get these things answered for you, or you could see how it’s actually done if you wanted to. We’d be more than happy to bring people out here or have you come see us, but we’ve been doing it for ten years, and 153 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING we haven’t had a problem, but we do allow them to look at those numbers. REP. VAIL (52ND): Do you know what your average is? On percentage? SCOTT BUTERA: Average? REP. VAIL (52ND): Uh. SCOTT BUTERA: Spread? REP. VAIL (52ND): Yes. SCOTT BUTERA: I would say it’s anywhere from 5 to 10 percent, which you factor in the parlay bets and some of the funkier bets. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, the parlay bets tend to generate a -- a bigger margin line. SCOTT BUTERA: Yeah, bigger -- yeah. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. SCOTT BUTERA: Because they’re -- they’re -- they’re -- if you hit them, they’re high octane, right. REP. VAIL (52ND): Yep. SCOTT BUTERA: So. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): All right. Anymore questions? I’m seeing none. SCOTT BUTERA: All right. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you very much. SCOTT BUTERA: I really appreciate it. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Next up is Greg Smith. GREG SMITH: Can I pertain with some opening remarks? 154 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Good afternoon. Yes. GREG SMITH: Okay. Thank you. Yeah, definitively, good afternoon. Thank you for allowing us to make some remarks here, Mr. Chair. Actually, both chairs and members of the committee. My name is Greg Smith. I’m the President of the Connecticut Lottery Corporation, and appreciate this opportunity to speak with you about the concept of internet lottery in Senate Bill 17 and in support of the sports rage -- wagering contained in Senate Bill 665. I would like to first discuss internet lottery or I-lottery as it’s called. Today, in Connecticut, virtually everything can be purchased over the internet and the idea of internet waging -- wagering is also not new to this state. Connecticut residents have been placing bets online in the state for horse races since 2013, and we can all remember the avalanche of Daily Fantasy Sports Advertising from 2015 and the resulting online play, and currently, in ten other states, you can purchase lottery tickets online. They are safe and secure transactions that are meeting all the technological requirements for location, age, and player verification, and responsible gaming criteria. If a lottery is going to be poised to maintain and potentially increase general fund transfers over time, we need to be able to modernize like other 21st-century businesses, and this includes through our distribution channels. Since the lottery was created in 1972, the marketplace and consumer-buying habits have changed significantly. People in their 20s and 30s often do not carry cash and prefer to use their phones for nearly all of their purchases, selling only at retail, and requiring cash limits our future growth potential and soon enough, may challenge our ability to maintain year-over-year growth. 155 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

We have asked the committee leadership to consider bill language that would authorize us to sell all 12 of our draw games over the internet, not just Keno. The other draw games include Powerball, Mega Millions, Lotto, and other daily numbers games. We estimate that selling all of our draw games over the internet would yield approximately $50-million dollars to the general fund after the first five -- full five years, and approximately $150-million over the first ten full years of sales. In short, after the program is up and running, there is a steady stream of $20-million dollars and growing in new general fund transfers per year. If we were only authorized to sell Keno over the internet, the net revenue would be significantly less than if we were able to offer all 12 games. Further, the overall revenue to the state would also be smaller due to the agreement between the states and the tribes that provides 25 percent of the net Keno revenue to the two tribal casinos. It is also important to note that in order to offer our draw games over the internet, the associated start-up costs and administrative cost to implement 1 draw game or 12 draw games is virtually the same. With any form of internet wagering, we strongly recommend the committee consider defining specific game offerings so that the casino product offerings do not overlap the lottery product offerings and vice versa. The lottery is strongly committed to incorporating a wide variety of responsible gaming efforts, safeguards such as spend limits and time limits, a voluntary self-exclusion program, and widely displaying the problem game blame helpline numbers. We believe that inclusion of responsible gaming safeguards should be a requirement of any gaming legislation. 156 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

And, finally regarding sports betting, we believe that Connecticut Lottery is an ideal business partner for the state to consider for two primary reasons. The first reason is revenue. Our estimates show that our return, we will return about four to five times as much money per dollar wagered as any other operator. This is because, just like a lottery game, we would give all of the profits that the lottery generates from sports betting as opposed to a small return on profits that the casinos or other commercial operators would pay. Our second distinguishing factor was the -- we are the only potential partner that is fully customizable. If sports betting is to be successful, it needs to be conveniently available. We would use a portion of our statewide retailer network, primarily composed of small businesses to deliver sports betting, and there are many options. We could have hundreds of sports betting retailers. Think of one in every town or a small number, whatever reflects the comfort level of the legislature and the administration. We are also customizable with respect to the offering. A convenient store could offer simple win/loss wagers, while a local sports bar could offer a more complete sportsbook. In short, we can deliver whatever product we are asked to deliver, and we can do it while making more money for the state per dollar wager than anyone else. It’s been stated that the policy goals of sports betting are to eliminate the black market and to raise revenue for the state. If sports betting is not conveniently available to people, meaning both geographically throughout the state and online through mobile, betters will continue with their local bookie or illegal off-shore websites that they currently use, and the state won’t drive significant economic benefit from the legislation. Although 157 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING this discussion is new in the state, sports better has been successfully run side-by-side with lottery operations in about 70 percent of the jurisdictions worldwide. We are prepared to offer a world-class sports back -- sportsbook with an experienced and successful sportsbook operator. In fact, we are speaking with the same sportsbook operators as the other gaming providers did in Connecticut did before they entered into agreements, and all have experience in the U.S., and many have experience worldwide. Although we believe there is room for everyone in this new space, ultimately, sports betting through the lottery will best provide that convenience and return the most profits of the state. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify before you today. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Senator Osten, followed by Representative Vail. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions for you. We had Senator Somers come up here earlier. Can you please explain to us? She talked a little bit about the lack of faith that the residents and the constituents in the state of Connecticut have in the lottery. Can you talk a little bit about the problems you have had in the lottery and what you plan on doing to address those situations? GREG SMITH: There were a few problems over the last couple of years with certain features of the lottery limited to a very small audience of employees or board members, and over the last two years, there have been a number of improvements to bylaws, policies, and ongoing review of regulations and draft regulations that we are evaluating with the Department of Consumer Protection now that have 158 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING either cured or with continue to strengthen lotteries operations and the consumer and state’s confidence in lottery. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, can you provide us with all of those changes so that we have them here at the committee? GREG SMITH: Yes, we can. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you. And, is the lottery an open process? Can anyone come in and run the lottery? GREG SMITH: Can -- maybe clarify that for me a little bit? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Can I come in one day and decide that I want to sell lottery tickets? GREG SMITH: The Connecticut Lottery Corporation is a -- is a business of the state, and so the legislation -- the legislature would control who can come in and sell lottery tickets, but right now, I understand it’s reserved specifically to the Connecticut Lottery Corporation. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, it’s just the -- the corporation of the lottery that can do that? The quasi-public of the lottery? GREG SMITH: From my understanding, yes, due to legislation that this body passed. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, it’s closed to just the quasi-public of the lottery corporation? It’s a separate corporation from the state of Connecticut? GREG SMITH: When you say it is closed -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Can I have another corp -- corporation come here today and open up the lottery? Open up a lottery? 159 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

GREG SMITH: That’s for the legislature to decide. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, it’s a closed process right now? GREG SMITH: Based on the -- based on the language and statute right now, my understanding is the Connecticut Lottery Corporation would be -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Is it monopoly? GREG SMITH: I’m sorry? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): It’s a monopoly of the lottery corporation? GREG SMITH: The lottery -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): The way it is right now -- is it a monopoly for the lottery corporation? Has it been established as a monopoly for the lottery corporation? GREG SMITH: I don’t believe the language -- the word monopoly is included in the statute, but I think -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, any other business can come in and establish a lottery? It’s a question. GREG SMITH: I -- I -- to be honest with you, I’d have to get a legal opinion on that, but my belief is that the Connecticut Lottery Corporation is reserved for that. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, they’re the only ones that can use the lottery right now? GREG SMITH: To sell -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): They’re the only ones that can sell tickets -- GREG SMITH: To sell lottery games? 160 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yes. GREG SMITH: At this point in time, that is my understanding. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. And, so you may not consider that a monopoly, but I think I do. So, it’s a closed process through just the lottery corporation? GREG SMITH: Are you saying the selling of lottery tickets? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Correct. GREG SMITH: As written now, we are the only operator. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. So, again, if we came in tomorrow and we changed the legislation, how -- how do you pay your employees and your administrative staff? Is that paid for by the state of Connecticut or out of the proceeds of the lottery? GREG SMITH: All lottery expenses including those wages for employees are paid through lottery sales. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, if we came in tomorrow and we said, we’re gonna allow this to be shared by other people and they’re going to sell tickets also, would that have an impact on your revenue? GREG SMITH: As far as having another operator in the state? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yes. GREG SMITH: It is possible. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, it would be ideal for you to know ahead of time and make business plans for that? 161 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

GREG SMITH: Certainly, in advance -- any advanced notice helps you maintain your -- your product knowledge and your customer allegiance. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. Have you worked with the tribal nations? GREG SMITH: Myself or the -- or the corporation? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): The corporation. GREG SMITH: The corporation has been in business with the tribes in a variety of ways. Both of the locations currently are lottery retailers, and so they sell our products on their properties, and then additionally we do some marketing agreements and sponsorship agreements with them where we’ve done some instant tickets that are branded for some experiential prizes with them, and then we also do some marketing agreements. One that I think is currently active or just beginning with the Mohegan property. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, do you find them to be an honorable partner? Have they cheated you? GREG SMITH: I am unaware of any cheating. I have been here now for seven months, but I have not heard of anything, and I would be surprised if that would be the case. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, that is the case because they’re two tribal nations that have acted as good business partners with the lottery corporation? GREG SMITH: It -- it would probably be inappropriate for me to reach back in time prior to my tenure, but I have heard nothing that would raised their ethics or business partnership into question. 162 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, to Senator Somer’s comments, the people in the state of Connecticut would be comfortable with the changes that you have made in the lottery corporation? Or have you had other complaints? Recent complaints? GREG SMITH: No, no, I -- I would -- I would say yes to what you described. I think the changes that have been made have strengthened the -- not only with the public’s confidence and acceptance of lottery -- ‘cause our sales continue to grow as do returns to the state, and even over the last couple of years, and then they’re reporting back to different legislative bodies, seem to have gained comfort and confidence as well as I believe with our regulators. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, I have to say the only form of gambling I do is through the lottery ‘cause it’s the only one I really understand, and I don’t know how to play poker or any of the other games. That’s all the questions I have. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Senator. Up next, Representative Vail. REP. VAIL (52ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I want to break down a few things, and kind of continue where I was asking a little while ago with the previous testifiers. On -- on every dollar that the lottery takes in, how much gets paid out to the consumer? GREG SMITH: And, you’re speaking from -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VAIL (52ND): Let’s say (crosstalk) tickets. GREG SMITH: Lottery op -- lottery operations right now? 163 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): Yes. GREG SMITH: Our profit return to the state for our full portfolio of games is approximately 27 percent, but -- so that’s -- that’s what you return to the state, but there’s -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VAIL (52ND): As far as return of money, I don’t care about the state right now as much as I do the consumer. The consumer gets -- I asked the same question about four years ago, and the number I was told was around 60 percent; is that still accurate? GREG SMITH: It is. It varies by game, but based on the sales and the differences whether it’s instant tickets where we return more to the payer or the kind of -- the draw games like Powerball and Lotto, it’s a -- it’s a smaller price percentage, but the mix is in the low 60s. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. So, low 60s and then the difference in the 27 percent, which would be 73 percent. That other 11 percent would go towards the cost, you know the vendors and whatever your costs are and all that. GREG SMITH: Cost and operations and paying our -- paying our retailers their commission as well. REP. VAIL (52ND): Yes, and I’ve always had great concerns about that very low payout in the past, and you know, I’ve made -- we talked to the casinos earlier, and they’re paying out 92 percent as opposed to 60, low 60s, so if -- in the Keno, how much is that specifically? Do you know what that percentage is that you pay out on casino to the consumer? GREG SMITH: The prize pay out of Keno is 65 percent. 164 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): Sixty-five percent. And, and in sports betting, I don’t know if you -- I don’t know if you listened earlier when I asked him about the bets with the $50-dollar bet or whatever. We talked about it’s going to be less than a 5 percent margin. Are you gonna -- do you plan on operating on that same small margin, which is customary in sports betting? GREG SMITH: We expect the margin to certainly be smaller than -- than lottery by comparison, and we’d be working -- if we were authorized, we’d be working with experienced sportsbook operator, and we would probably fall similar to that, but I don’t want to say specifically that we’re gonna be at a 5 or 4 percent level like -- like we heard previously. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. ‘Cause that’s a big concern to me. I think, you know, we need to be fair to our consumers, and I’m already, you know, a little unhappy with the payouts we pay on those tickets to begin with. I know it’s a revenue generator, but you know, we have people out there buying scratch ticket after scratch ticket after scratch ticket, chasing a dream and it -- and it, unfortunately, that one doesn’t come up too often. So, no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Representative. Senator Hwang. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair. I’m going to take it a little bit different direction. Do you now handle online transactions where -- where your users get their lottery information or their cards -- GREG SMITH: So -- SENATOR HWANG (28TH): In betting online right now? 165 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

GREG SMITH: The Connecticut lottery does not sell over the internet any of its products. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Then how would you be able to offer that product on sports gambling. What venue do you think you would deliver and -- and be able to -- to engage in sport gambling? Where do you see the delivery system right now? GREG SMITH: And, so in our -- in the concepts and thoughts that we’ve brought forward have been based on that we -- we believe that there is a good opportunity for convenience access and to have a number of retail locations throughout the state. Okay? We also believe that there would be good customer convenience and good sales volume that could occur in areas like sports bars that are in various towns, and then the online sales, which does not exist now for any of the potential operators in the state, we would all -- any of us that were authorized would bring forward an online platform that would be the mechanism through which a customer would open an account, deposit their funds for utilization, and then actually place their bets based on their areas of interest. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): You raise up two very important questions of -- of -- for me is one, so what we’re looking at is if the Connecticut lottery were allowed to be involved in the sports gambling business that you would open up your channels of distribution, those individual retail shops, convenient stores, and restaurants that you have Keno, which is the current form of any electronic delivery and gambling that you have in the state that you all operate, so you would be pushing sports gambling into those kind of retail outlets; would that be correct? 166 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

GREG SMITH: Well, I think -- I think what’s important to note is we would expect that the legislature would define either how many or how dense the offerings could be as far as locations and number of -- number of outlets, so you know, right now lottery has 2900 licensed retailers, and all of them sell effectively all of our games, scratch tickets and each of the number games. That is not the picture that we are initially describing with sports betting, so we don’t expect that full volume that is experienced with lottery sales in licensed retailers. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): I appreciate that, but it seems like it -- it’s still a work in progress, and there is a lot that needs to be sorted out, but -- but let me go on with offering that kind of a thought that -- then wouldn’t you be open to having other outlets of current existing venues that are much more versed than that, the online sports gambling as well as our pari-mutuels. Would you be adverse for them to be involved in sports gambling? Because right now, I think, as I read in past testimony, if not your current testimony, I think you’re saying this should be the purview of the lottery. Would you be receptive to opening it up to other modes of sports gambling beyond lottery? GREG SMITH: So, any information or conversations that we’ve been involved in have not -- have included multiple operators, not just lottery, so we -- if -- if this legislature were to grant full authority to the lottery, then -- then we’d move forward on that, but if we were granted any authority and that there were other operators, we would also make progress that we were allowed through the statutes and regulations. So, we -- we have not -- and in any -- any comments we’ve made 167 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING publicly have noted that there’d be multiple operators, and we specifically referenced both casinos and the existing off-track betting locations. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you. So, for point clarification, if the legislative deemed, you would not be adverse to having multiple outlets being involved in sports gambling? GREG SMITH: That -- that has been our initial position and continues to be our position. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Great. And, the second question raised at the point of interest is currently you don’t have any internet capability to deliver the gambling experience in sports or any of your products. Where do you see the ramp up time and where do you see getting the expertise to be able to deliver that product while at the same time maintaining -- if I may be so kind -- the past history in regards to some of the challenges that may have occurred within the lottery; how do you create a system when you have no experience in that to be able to get into the internet space? Could you share some of the vision that you have related to that too? GREG SMITH: Certainly, the different operators that either other potential operators have -- or let’s say the offerers -- the sportsbook offerers have experience and have -- all have created online platforms, so them bringing that forward is what any operator is going to expect. I don’t -- I don’t know the casinos that intimately, but I would believe that they are also relying on the expertise of who they’re under agreement with. Myself as the director of the Illinois Lottery, we were one of the ten lotteries that sold online. We were actually 168 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING the very first one, and during my time there, we also transitioned to a new online platform and new online operator, so I do have experience in managing online lottery sales, and I don’t want to make it as simplistic as that, but it becomes -- the sports betting concept becomes another product on the structure that would be highly similar to what I’ve experienced before. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): It’s good to hear that experience, and -- and we’re lucky to have you seven months into the job, but I also see if you’re receptive to multiple players, it -- it would be an open marketplace; do you foresee the lottery without the quasi-public protection of the legislators being the only game in town -- do you see yourself competing? And -- and if you do, do you welcome that open-market competition to be able to -- to deliver the best product for the consumer that’s going through that experience? GREG SMITH: And -- and I agree that the multiple operators is probably good from a competitive standpoint. I think one of the interesting definitions that should come out of the legislation is with so much emphasis on online sales and where the probably best return for the state will come by requiring an online offering, it’s who can sell full statewide online and then, you know, how many competitors would have that or would it be restricted to tribal land for the tribes versus, you know, maybe the lotteries or the OTBs being able to sell online, you know, border-to-border, so again, that -- that defining and the benefit outcome will be left to this group to wrap their arms around. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you. I find it interesting because I said earlier you do have right now a virtual monopoly I the lottery business, and 169 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING in order to get into that new business, you welcome an open competitive process that -- that indeed the state could evaluate who may serve the ultimate long-term interest of the state better, and you would have to compete in that marketplace to provide the best product. With that being said, it’s -- it’s -- I also know that Connecticut lottery is one of the biggest contributors to the agency on problem gambling. How much do you contribute a year -- if you recollect right off the top of your head -- to the agency? GREG SMITH: So, we write checks to them for $2.3- million dollars per year, and then we also do it at some additional engagements and efforts that we don’t tally the value of, but we believe that our partnership with not only the Connecticut Association but also the National Associations are - - they’re not only just good ideas, they should be mandatory. It should be something where we recognize that not everybody can control their involvement as well as the vast majority do, and so some assistance is needed. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And, I appreciate that, and thank you, because I do believe that it is a societal cause of concern, and you have been a major contributor in dollars, and fully aware that the business you’re in could and for all intense purposes, create that kind of an opportunity to -- to have that addiction. With that being said, as you get a bigger piece of the pie in regards to sports gambling and internet, do you foresee a significant incremental interest, significant percentage of donation or contributions to the issue of addictive gambling? GREG SMITH: Yes, and while not quantifying it, in language, we recommended to this committee for a 170 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING bill that they may bring forward. We strongly encourage that. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): You’re not adverse to having 2 percent of your income go into problem gambling resources? GREG SMITH: You know, I think that -- I think that the legislature will decide what they think is the need and the volume of services. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Terrific. GREG SMITH: And -- and then dictate what that allocation becomes. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): No, I appreciate that and I appreciate your concern on that arena, and I believe that there’s a lot that needs to be discussed and a lot that needs to be learned, but I appreciate you offering your viewpoint, and again, welcome. GREG SMITH: Thank you. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Welcome to Connecticut. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Thank you for your testimony. Up next, Ted Grabowski. TED GRABOWSKI: Good afternoon to the co-chairs, vice-chairs, ranking members, and members of the Public Safety and Security Committee. My name is Ted Grabowski. I’m business manager of Laborer’s Local 230 out of Hartford, Connecticut. The Connecticut Laborer’s District Council represents nearly 5000 members and support staff throughout Connecticut. Thank you for allowing me to submit testimony in support of Senate Bill 11, AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZATION OF A CASINO GAMING FACILITY IN EAST WINDSOR. The Laborer’s District Council is supporters of this project as 171 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING construction alone would create at least 2000 jo9bs and includes a project labor agreement to ensure fair wages and benefits for the building trades. After the doors open at Tribal Winds, it will provide employment for at least 2000 people with areas residents given a priority for new employment. The construction of the casino would create great middle-class jobs for trades people offering apprenticeship programs to the community with good pay and healthcare and retirement plans. The intent of this bill is to eliminate the requirement for approval by the secretary of the United State of the Department of the Interior regarding the operation of a casino gaming facility in East Windsor by the Mashantucket-Pequot tribe and Mohegan tribe of Indians of Connecticut. It encourages business development, job retention, and growth as well as increases revenue to the state. We look forward to working with the committee members on this bill. Please let me know if you have any questions. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much for coming today. You talked about a project labor agreement that you have to build Tribal Winds. Can you tell me what that entails or tell the committee what that entails? TED GRABOWSKI: Well, basically it entails there -- there’s local hiring requirements, there’s apprenticeship training requirements for local residents which where the trades would take those areas residents, put them into our state apprenticeship programs, and train them and put them to work on that site, which -- which in the long run creates careers, long-term careers for those individuals within the Building Trades. 172 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, Building Trades is an organization which looks to create that next generation of trades then in a variety of different trades; is that true? TED GRABOWSKI: We have registered apprenticeship programs with the state of Connecticut. We have -- we have plumbers, we have electricians, we have carpenters, we have operating engineers, we have sheet metal workers, varying licensed trades within the state of Connecticut. Our programs are licensed through the state of Connecticut and registered with the Department of Labor. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, in your training -- and in the project labor agreements, have you found that they’re successful in making sure development is done with the utmost professionalism? TED GRABOWSKI: Our apprenticeship programs are second to none within the state of Connecticut. We have a high success rate as far as graduation goes in turning those apprentices into licensed journeymen. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, the projects themselves that you do, do they -- are they at the top of the list of professional developments? TED GRABOWSKI: Integrity at the most -- at the highest level of the construction industry. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, that means that when someone is being done, it’s being done correctly? You don’t have to -- your workers are being paid correctly, and -- go ahead. TED GRABOWSKI: The prevailing wages are paid correctly. Our benefits are paid, the health -- the health funds, the pension funds, and the annuity funds in regards to the prevailing wage, yes. 173 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, do you have people that make sure that -- that go around the state and -- and check on other developments that might not be up to par that are mishandling workers or mishandling the development themselves? TED GRABOWSKI: We do have individuals at the Fair Contracting, and that’s exactly what they do. They check for prevailing wage violations, certified payrolls, workers safety, and training as far as the apprenticeship programs go. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Do you have any idea of any current projects that are going on that you’re keeping an eye on to make sure workers are being paid correctly and building permits are being submitted as appropriate? TED GRABOWSKI: I did not bring that information with me, but I can get it for you at a later date. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): That would be great. I -- I -- I’d be particularly interested in anything that’s going on in the state of Connecticut where we’re not paying our workers correctly, and we’re not making sure that the project is being done with the utmost professionalism with the proper building permits. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Mr. Grabowski -- TED GRABOWSKI: Thank you for your time. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you. Up next, we have Mayor Joe Ganim. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Hello everyone. Mayor Ganim had to leave. He asked us to testify on his behalf. My name is Representative Ezequiel Santiago from the city of Bridgeport. 174 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Representative Chris Rosario also from the great city of Bridgeport. REP. HENNESSY (127TH): Jack Hennessy, 127th district. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Good afternoon. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Thank you. I am -- well, we are all here to testify in support of Bill 7055, and basically, it’s the way we do things here in Connecticut. Usually, when we are looking for information, looking for services, putting something out there, it’s done through a bidding process, and there’s a reason for that. It helps to make sure that things are transparent, and it helps to make sure that we have an opportunity to look at what is the best offer out there for us. Why we would -- if we’re looking to expand gaming outside of tribal lands, why we would pursue a different process escaped me. Why would we do things differently than the way we do everything else? I understand that there is a compact in place and that things have to be worked out. Part of the bill basically says that if anyone is willing to participate, they have to explain how they will cover for any losses incurred as far as any losses in revenue from the tribes, which is why I am very disappointed when I heard earlier today that the tribes would not even participate in such a process. For me, they have the perfect answer to that question, being able to going back and rework the details in the compact, so I don’t understand why they would refrain from partic8pating in something that’s done for -- for the benefit of the state of Connecticut and for transparency. Personally, I feel that if a process were to move forward, open transportation process, that a good candidate for a location would be the city of Bridgeport, and there are reasons why I feel 175 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING that way. Bridgeport is in a location and currently has the transportation modes readily accessible to proposed location, that it makes perfect sense. We are a boat ride away, a ferry ride away from Long Island, which is a market that definitely needs to be tapped into. New York City is just a short drive away. once again, these are markets that we can take advantage of, and it just makes sense to me, so I know -- I know we’re limited as time is concerned, so I am going to pass it along to my colleagues, but I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen of the committee. It’s an honor to be here before you all. I just merely want the same opportunities as far as gaming is concerned, that Eastern Connecticut has had. I know the tribes have been a greater partner to the state of Connecticut and to the city of Bridgeport, but speaking on behalf of my constituents, many who are behind me as well as the business community, the city of Bridgeport has been hurting for a long time, and I know we’ve been recipients of the Pequot fund, but we need to do a lot more. I know in the state of Connecticut when other regions of the state have been going through issues, whether they be crumbling foundations, what not, the city of Bridgeport’s been there to -- to come to the rescue, and I think that the rest of the state of Connecticut needs to give us a helping hand as well. REP. HENNESSY (127TH): Thank you. Jack Hennessy, I just thank you for this opportunity to testify in favor of this bill. Bridgeport has -- it’s the largest city in Connecticut, and it has a severe unemployment problem. This would provide up to 4000 jobs, steady, good-paying jobs, and the future of 176 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Bridgeport, I believe, has to be linked with the future of Connecticut. In order to move Connecticut forward, I think we need to move Bridgeport forward, and this would be a good economic driver, not just for Bridgeport but for Connecticut. Thank you for your time. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you. First up, Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, and I appreciate having you all here. I had some questions for the Mayor, and I’m disappointed that he didn’t stay long enough to answer those questions. I’m wondering do you -- were you here earlier when we had Michele Mudrick talking? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I was not. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. She is with the Connecticut Conference of the United Churches of Christ and the Coalition against Casino Expansion, and she has some -- some businesses in Bridgeport who have spoke -- who she says are against casino gambling. Do you know the Bridgeport Islamic Community Center? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I have heard of them, yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. My understanding is that they are opposed to casino expansion in Bridgeport. Could you reach out to them and find out what their opposition is? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I’d be happy to do so, thank you. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you. Do you have -- do you have any idea who the Council of Churches of Greater Bridgeport are? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Yes, yes. 177 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, they are also opposed to casino expansion in Bridgeport. Did you know that? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I did know that, yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. Do you know what their reasons for that are? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I don’t know directly, but I have spoken to members in the past. I know that they have some moral issues individually. I haven’t spoke to them as a group. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): All right, and I’m wondering if you could get that information from them? You know, I’ve been down in Bridgeport working on a variety of community projects with Senator Moore to see what we could do for Bridgeport, so if you could get us that information, that would be great? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Absolutely, and next time, say hello when you’re in the great city of Bridgeport. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): If I knew you were gonna be there, I would, but I generally go down for business and then come back up. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Well, I’m always there for business. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m waiting for all of you [Background talking off mic) -- I’m -- I’m waiting for all of you to come up to Sprague and talk to me up there ‘cause I’ve been down in Bridgeport more than I think you have been in Sprague, but we could go -- we don’t need to go there. Do you -- are you -- REP. HENNESSY (127TH): We would if we could find it. [Laughter] 178 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yeah, and I would never talk down about Bridgeport, so just saying. Western Connecticut Council of Governments, are you aware of the Western Connecticut Council of Governments? Do you know which towns that that incorporates? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Can you list those off for us, please? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I -- I actually can. I have them right here. There’s 25 towns, and they’re opposed to gambling. They tend to be around your area, so around Bridgeport. I know you have the metropolitan COG, and this is the Western COG, and so I’m just curious have you had conversations with the Western Connecticut Council of Governments? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I don’t believe they reached out to me, Madam Chair. REP. HENNESSY (127TH): I’d just like to point out that the Bridgeport delegation meets with anyone that wishes to meet with us. We -- we are always available for meetings for any constituency. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m not implying that -- that you don’t, I’m just asking if you’ve met with these particular people because they’re -- they’re expressing disagreement with your -- with your particular position on this issue, and I just didn’t know if you had a chance to talk with them, so do you really want me to list them, or are you just willing to -- I can list them. That’s all Bridgewater, Brookfield, Danbury, Darien, Greenwich, New Canaan, New Fairfield, New Milford, Newtown, Norwalk, Redding, Ridgefield, Sherman, Stamford, Weston, Westport, and Wilton. So, I’ve been in some of those towns for a variety of reasons, but I never asked them about the gaming situation either, so. 179 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Well, thank you. Last time I checked, when I was knocking on doors in the 128th district, my constituents, they overwhelmingly wanted a -- being an opportunity -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yeah. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): For jobs. Yeah. Yep, and -- and I think that we can work together on a lot of jobs, that’s why we’re working on the manufacturing pipeline, and have worked on that to expand that all over the state, which provides that living-wage job. That’s why we gave as -- as a legislature over $200 million dollars to the Sikorsky development and to keep them here in the state because really want to keep that defense industry booming down there. That’s extremely important to the whole state and extremely important to us. Do you have any idea how much money has been given to the city of Bridgeport for the -- since gaming has been initiated? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Probably a quarter-billion dollars if I’m guessing. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): It’s right around $300- million dollars, slightly more than a quarter-of-a- billion dollars. Are you aware when that agreement was being put in that the reason why that was done was to support our urban areas with greater dollars, that each one of the four largest cities get a quarter-of-a-billion dollars in revenue? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I was probably around 16 or 17 years old when they signed that agreement -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I was older. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): But, uh -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m an old person. 180 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I could imagine they did that to help out cities. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, by doing -- by giving the quarter -- you know, more than a quarter-of a billion dollars in revenue to the cities, that -- that 40 towns in Eastern Connecticut to make up one of those payments, so for what you have gotten in one year, one year of payments to the city of Bridgeport, 40 towns in Eastern Connecticut to make up that one payment. Are you aware of that? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I’m aware of that, but I also, if the shoes were on the other foot, if we had a gaming resort in Bridgeport and there’s town in Eastern Connecticut that wanted the dollars, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t have had a problem with that. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I wouldn’t have had a problem with that, but I wouldn’t then try to break the compact either, so -- and again, I’m just asking the questions. I’m not discouraging you at all, so you know, I just think that that’s something that we should understand and my colleagues answered from Eastern Connecticut -- answered over an hour of questions by people without any snarky remarks. They just answered the questions without any of that, and I think that I have the right to ask you the same questions that were being asked of my colleagues. Both Senator Somers and Senator Formica were questions for over an hour on why we should not look at expanding gaming, and they just answered the questions, and so I would just like to be able to ask you the questions that were asked of my colleagues in Eastern Connecticut. I think that’s fair. 181 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. HENNESSY (127TH): Senator Osten, nobody questions your -- your right and ability to represent your constituency, and you know, we’re -- you’re representing your constituency, we’re representing ours, and -- and I -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Correct. REP. HENNESSY (127TH): I -- don’t see that there’s any problem within that. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Correct, but we didn’t answer them with snarky comments. All’s I’m trying to do is get to the detail of it. Where would you -- are you aware that MGM made a promise to Massachusetts of delivering over $40-million dollars and has delivered half of that? Are you aware of that? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Not all the details, the complete details, unfortunately, no. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Are you aware that MGM has a -- a 7 percent profit over last year nationally, and is laying off over 3000 workers? REP. HENNESSY (127TH): I would -- I would say that this bill is not about MGM. This bill is about a fair open bidding process that anyone can bid into whether it’s the tribes, or MGM, or when. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So -- so, you’re not aware of the fact that they’re looking to lay off 3000 workers? Are you aware of the 1994 agree -- talk about casinos down in Bridgeport? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I looked at the Only in Bridgeport. Actually, it’s a piece I read on an infrequent basis, but at least once a month. I’ve - - have you read the dissertation on the Only in 182 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Bridgeport regarding the 1994 casino expansion in Bridgeport? REP. BAKER (124TH): I’m not aware of that, but what I think that what we’re -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I don’t think that they introduced you. I’m sorry. REP. BAKER (124TH): Oh, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): [Laughing]. It’s not for me. REP. BAKER (124TH): Senator -- Senator Osten -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I know who you are, but -- REP. BAKER (124TH): This is Representative Andre Baker, and -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you. REP. BAKER (124TH): To the distinguished members of the Public Safety Committee, I’m not aware of any -- any kind of agreement, but I think that what we’re here for in terms of whether to speak on it is that if you look back at what you’re specifically speaking on that agreement, and as we move forward, we don’t have anything in place in terms of a structure, and I think that that’s why we’re here, to try to put something in place so we can be able to move forward and have some sort of committee in place, so that we can look at the future of not just casino gaming but lotto and the OTB or online gaming, any kind of gaming that might be here in the state of Connecticut. We need some sort of structure. We need some game plan. We need something in place so that we can see how we want things to look in the future of Connecticut, some strategies in place. What we have here maybe that’s not working, but in the long-term and what we can do in terms of being able to move forward. That’s what 183 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

I’m here to speak on and then some of my colleagues too. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, about five years ago, there was a bill that was supported on a bipartisan basis. I think it had unanimous approval in the General Assembly on a plan moving forward on what was going on with gaming at large and the jobs at large. I am not certain if any of you were here five years ago. I think Representative Hennessy was, maybe Ezequiel -- I’m not positive -- but it was supported 100 percent by everybody to get an idea on what we were going to do in gaming, and we came back with a plan that was supported by this legislature to move forward with our current tribal nations and to figure out what we were going to do with the competitions that were surrounding us. Did you look? Or, if you were here, then you voted for that. That was a plan to move forward. We -- we voted on it. It came through the Commerce Committee. It was supported. It had a written plan that came back, and that’s actually the precursor to East Windsor, so we have been working on this for a lot of years to figure out where we were going, and it was supported by the legislature, and a task force was actually looked at by businesses, got together, and came up with an idea on how we were handling things and where we were moving forward, so I just -- I would encourage you to go back and look at that task force recommendation to see where we were moving forward on. If -- if you’re open RFP process put at jeopardy $250-million dollars for the state, is that something that you would vote for? Through you, Mr. Chair. REP. BAKER (124TH): Well, I mean I -- I haven’t had a chance to -- well, let me just say this. I -- I wasn’t there five years ago, so I -- I’m not aware, 184 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING but I have had the opportunity to either kind of look at some of the legislation that’s in place in terms of who oversees gaming in itself, and I don’t really see where there has some kind of committee that really is a strategizing from a long- term/short-term perspective on how gaming should be here in Connecticut. I know that the -- there is no real committee in place to do this long-term strategy, and I -- I appreciate the fact that five years ago that there was some steps that were taken to -- to put some kind of measures in place, but I think that at this point we really need to specify, designate a committee of some sort to look at gaming as a whole and strategize it from a long-term perspective. REP. HENNESSY (127TH): Senator Osten, if I could just add? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Sure. REP. HENNESSY (127TH): That, you know, this -- this -- this bill before us is prospective. I think main problem that Connecticut has is that we are kind of stuck in -- in the past, and that this is an opportunity to move forward, so -- so what’s gone on in the past, you know, has gotten us to where we are now, and I’m thankful for the tribes and -- and their participation, but to say that this is a sacrosanct deal that can’t be amended, I -- that’s not the way business is done. We move forward when economic realities change. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I -- I am not actually -- Representative Hennessy, I guess with the tribal nations I completely disagree with you. And, if this business was any other kind of business, we would not be having this discussion because we are not willing right now to bring in the competitor of 185 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Sikorsky, the competitive of Electric Boat, and the competitor of Pratt and Whitney and say that we don’t honor those long-term partnerships that we have, and in regards to the tribal nations, they are government-to-government relationships that we have here, and our governor is having conversations with them. That’s where it more appropriately belongs, and our previous governor had conversations, and that’s how we got Keno. That -- that was in a direct relationship, discussion between the tribes, and our government, so I can’t -- I can’t really disagree with you more on this particular issue. I think this is a direct attack on Eastern Connecticut, and I see no other way around it. This has been five years in the making, and I started with -- I’m the one who initiated the task force ‘cause I recognized that we were going to have a problem with gaming employment. It was my bill, and I worked with businesses to make sure that we were going to protect those jobs as much as possible, and start diversification into other areas, which has ultimately led to the -- the manufacturing pipeline and filling 4000 manufacturers with all of our students in good-paying trades jobs, so I actually have worked on this for a really long time, so I guess I’m getting increasingly frustrated, and that’s probably what you see here today. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Madam Chair, if I can just -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m only a vice-chair. I’m not a chair. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Oh, Madam Vice-Chair -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I have another committee -- REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Senator. 186 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I have another committee that I blew off today just to be here -- REP. ROSARIO (128TH): [Laughing]. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): ‘Cause this is extremely important to Eastern Connecticut. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Well, going back to your question. I don’t think we’re gonna lose a cent from the -- the compact because I believe there’s an opinion from the previous Attorney General that -- that pretty much says that, so I know the state has recourse if they try to decide not to pay. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And -- and all due respect, the previous Attorney General, like any other lawyer, has -- has an opinion. The tribal nations have said, if there’s an open RFP process that is the end of the compact, and whether or not we end up as -- as they said here today, they will end up in court, it still puts the state of Connecticut at jeopardy of $250-million dollars a year. This is not -- this is not a light issue. It’s $250-million dollars a year, and I’m willing to come down to Bridgeport and work every day whether people come up to Sprague or not because I understand that we have to work as a state, but what I find here is region against region, and -- and while I have been down to Bridgeport, again, I say that people have not been up to Sprague. We’re too tiny. Nobody cares about us, but I’ve been working my heart off to make sure that I provide jobs for Bridgeport as well, not -- not trying to take jobs away from a part of the state, and in Eastern Connecticut, we were the ninth worst in the whole country on the labor market area. The ninth worst in the whole country, and we’ve worked really hard to get to the point where we’re not the ninth worst in the whole country. It wasn’t 187 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING any other labor market in Connecticut that was the ninth worst in the whole country. It was us, but I’m more than willing to come down there. I’ve driven down there a lot, and I will drive down there again no matter the outcome of this, but I will not try to take jobs away from you. I would never try to do that, and that’s what’s happening here. This is truly the worst kind of -- of -- of work that’s happening here. It’s pitting region against region. That -- that’s really what’s happening here, and this is why I just -- you know, I’m more than frustrated with this. I’m really more than frustrated with this, and I keep hearing about an open RFP process. We all know what will happen. We should recognize that as reality, and -- and -- and know that when you make that vote, know what it does. It -- it takes jobs away from one of the poorest sections of the state, and when Mayor Finch was there, he and I used to equate the socioeconomics with the town of Sprague and the city of Bridgeport. While on a far smaller number of people, we -- we were the same. That’s why I really care about your jobs, and that’s where I think that -- I think getting you the manufacturing pipeline, and I actually talked with another state rep who has talked with someone up in Stonington who wants to put jobs at Steel Point, who’s very interested in that. I -- I -- I don’t just do this and say what is the best way to get rid of Eastern Connecticut jobs and give them to Bridgeport. I want to find ways for us to get all of us jobs. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Senator, if -- if I may, through the Chair, I don’t think we’re -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, people don’t really want me to talk right now. They’re all kibitzing over here telling me to be quiet. 188 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I don’t want to take one single job from Eastern Connecticut, from East Windsor. Right now, the people of the city of Bridgeport have no jobs. They have no hope. They’re struggling. It’s life and death. Kids are going to school hungry, and I think I shared this story 15 years ago in 1994-1995. It was this body that failed the city of Bridgeport. They’re the ones that voted the casino down. My mother wanted a job there. I was a latchkey kid. She worked three jobs -- three jobs. Her brother was incarcerated. I took care of myself. She didn’t get a union job. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, I didn’t have a union job either. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): If -- if you can just let me finish, please? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yep. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): You know, please go through the Chair, for the second time. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Through the chair, through the chair, everybody says, you’re taking away jobs from people of the state of Connecticut. The last time I checked, the city of Bridgeport was in the state of Connecticut, and that’s why I’m up here. That’s why I’m fighting. ‘Cause people are struggling, and you’re more then welcome to come to Bridgeport. I’ll give you my cell phone, 203-360- 0181. I don’t care who gets it. Call me, please. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, you’re more than willing -- REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Let’s talk together on this. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): To come up to Sprague where the people are also fighting for jobs, and I didn’t 189 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING have a union job either, and I started working when I was 14 years old, and I was the oldest of seven kids -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, I took care of all of them. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator -- REP. ROSARIO (128TH): If -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I am asking -- hold on a second. For now the third time, Senator, if you want to express comments, you go through the Chair. It’s standard. It’s how we do it with all the committees. I certainly appreciate your passion, but I’m asking you to be respectful with the chairs of this committee. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Through you, if I may, Mr. Chair? With all due respect, Senator Osten, I take offense to your comments, accusing me of wanting to take away jobs from Eastern Connecticut. All I am doing is fighting for what I feel is right with regards to a process. If we’re gonna venture outside of tribal lands, we should do it with a RFP process, and all I am doing is trying to get the same opportunities afforded to your constituency with regards to gaming jobs, and jobs that come from gaming such as restaurants, theaters, things of that effect. I am only looking for the same opportunity, so I take offense to you accusing me of purposely trying to take away jobs from Eastern Connecticut. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Through you, Mr. Chair. Still it’s on my questioning, right? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yeah. 190 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Through you, I know you don’t see it that way, but I have a right to see it that way because it is impacting my district. It does impact Senator Somer’s district. Sixty percent of the people that live in Griswold work at the casinos. We went through this process five years ago to see what we could do. The RFP process was decided by the state of Connecticut in conjunction with the trial nations. It was not done by other people. It was done by us, and we came to a conclusion on that, and they spent $20-million dollars -- $20-million dollars. Are we saying that that doesn’t matter? I’m -- I’m confused. Why does that not matter. I don’t get it. I don’t. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Senator Bradley. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): I don’t want to be the dead horse here, but I just have some questions here to kind of maybe bring some perspective to the members of this committee, and hopefully, maybe even get some perspective for me, and if you gentleman don’t know, you don’t know, and it’s fine to -- to understand that, to say it that way. I’m going to start off with you, Representative Rosario, if I may? What -- what section of Bridgeport -- we understand in your introduction you said the 128th, and I know that we operate up here in the Capitol with these numbers, but can you describe the section of Bridgeport that you represent? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Thank you. Thank you, Senator and Mr. Chairman. Yeah, it’s the 128th district. It’s actually the smallest district in the state of Connecticut. It’s the most-dense, and it’s also probably the poorest. These are folks that are literally -- it’s a -- it’s a blue-collar town. These are folks that work in the service industry, they work in manufacturing. They live 191 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING paycheck to paycheck, and these are the folks that we’re fighting to get good paying jobs for. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): If you live in the East side of Bridgeport right now and you were looking for employment, is there any big company, big corporation that has ever existed there or existed within the last 20 to 30 years that would be able to employ people? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Nobody -- you know, we have our hospitals and we have Sikorsky, but again, like I said, some of the people in my district have socioeconomic issues. Some of them could barely finish high school, so a job at Sikorsky may be out of reach. A job at a Bridgeport hospital may be out of reach. Maybe working in the gaming institution whether it may be something like Mohegan Sun, Foxwoods, or even MGM because, again, this is open. This is -- I am not married to MGM. I am not married to anybody. That’s what we’re looking for. We looking to get people good-paying jobs. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, you represent a side of Bridgeport that if there were an RFP process and Bridgeport were to bid, is that land located in your district? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I believe it’s in Representative Baker’s. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Is it in close proximity to your district? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Yes, it’s within a short bus ride away. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, in your capacity as representatives, are you in frequent contact with your constituents? 192 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Hourly. [Laughing] [Laughter]. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And -- and -- and in your - - and in your capacity of -- of -- of winning the seat of representative, does it require you to knock on doors and to talk to people in the district? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Yes, Sir. REP. BARRY (31ST): Have you informed your constituents that if you were to be a servant of them in the 28th district -- or the 128th district that you would be a proponent of this RFP? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Absolutely. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And in -- and in doing so, people have elected you to represent them; is that correct? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Yes, thankfully. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. And, Representative Baker, if I may ask you some questions? REP. BAKER (124TH): [Speaking off mic]. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): I know that you also represent a side of Bridgeport. Can you briefly and succinctly describe the side of Bridgeport that you represent, Sir? REP. BAKER (124TH): Yeah. I’m in the 124th district, which is the East end primary. My district is one of the proposed districts where MGM has proposed to put a casino in there. Now, my district is also -- it’s -- it’s -- how should I describe it? It’s one of the districts where the employment rate is extremely high. A majority of my constituents are not homeowners in there. They are renters and stuff. We have a lot of small 193 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING businesses, which are struggling and stuff. We have a lot of vacant properties there where one time we had a large facility, which was Steel Point, which is a -- one of the larger employees in the -- in the city of Bridgeport. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, in your capacity as a representative, have you been in contact with your constituents? REP. BAKER (124TH): Excuse me, what did you say? SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Have you been in contact with your constituents -- [Crosstalk]. REP. BAKER (124TH): Extremely. Extremely. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, have you informed them that if elected that you would be a proponent of a RFP process? REP. BAKER (124TH): Yes, I have. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And -- and in informing them of that, they have elected you to the seat? REP. BAKER (124TH): Yes. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. And, can you describe to me some issues of violence, if any, that have occurred in your particular district? REP. BAKER (124TH): Yeah. Because of the -- the lack of employment, I have a lot of youth, especially on my main fairway of my district, which is Strafford Avenue, where it’s a lot of congregation of young -- of young men, which are unemployed and lack of resources to be able to have jobs. Also, a lot of them have not finished their education or level and stuff, so they just congregate and getting through all forms of acts of violence, and so. 194 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, you -- you’ve been residing and living in Bridgeport for quite some time; have you ever heard of any private business who is not looking for government monies to open up a significant business on -- on this particular piece of property or any property that affects your constituents? REP. BAKER (124TH): No, I haven’t. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Have you heard of any private investment that would employ people in the capacity that’s being alleged that would employ people in your constituency? REP. BAKER (124TH): Yes, I have. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, who has that been? REP. BAKER (124TH): There have been (inaudible - 05:11:43) and a number over the years, but -- but recently -- most recently, you had MGMs that looked into coming over to the district. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you. And, outside of MGM, has anyone else proposed of investing in your district and ensuring that your constituents can have employment? REP. BAKER (124TH): Well, in the past couple of years, we have -- we had Bass Pro come over there, which has been a small boost to the -- to the area. It has opened the flood gates in terms of -- of other businesses, and as I describe as a wave attracting Bridgeport, but not since MGM has come there and sort of like put some public relations and put us on the radar, people have began to look at what the possibilities of -- of Bridgeport becoming. 195 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you very much. Representative Santiago, may I ask you some questions? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Sure. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Sir, can you briefly and distinctly describe the side of Bridgeport that you represent? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I represent the downtown area and the south end of Bridgeport, also section of the eastside, as well as abutting with the east end as well. And, basically, we are lacking as far as affordable housing is concerned. Unfortunately, we have way too many housing contracts that are in the city. One in my neighborhood has been a problem with crime, and I am happy to say that we are moving on, and we are going to be tearing that down and reconstructing, but until that happens, there is still a lot of -- a lot of crime going on and it’s - - it’s unfortunate. Also, we have issues by the water, so we have close to resiliency problems. There is an education gap, unfortunately, in Bridgeport that we’re trying to address, so all the same socioeconomic problems that affect most urban areas is definitely felt in my -- in my district. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, have you been in contact with your constituents? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Yes. I -- I do my door knocking. I go to events where I’m constantly in contact with my constituency. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, in your contact with your constituency, have you expressed a desire to be in favor of an RFP process? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I have, and usually, after being asked by my constituency about it. It is one 196 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING of the issues that the are very keen on. I can’t say that I’ve been asked much with regards to legislation other than the casino, the open bidding process in my district. It’s something that weighs very heavily on their minds, and I guess gives a sense of hope to many people. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, and in you informing them that you’re in favor of the RFP process, they have obviously still elected you to that seat? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): They have. Most of the people that I have spoken to, and individuals that I have spoken to have agreed with me and are supporting me after doing so, yes. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And -- and now, describe to me what jobs opportunity, if any, and the significant body exists in your particular district. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): In my particular part of the district, we’re trying to revitalize the downtown area. It’s gonna take some time. Luckily, the state has helped us with investing us with Brownfield Remediation. There’s lot of work to be done, but those are smaller -- smaller businesses that are looking to fill downtown storefronts, things of that nature, so small business is definitely something that we’re trying to help in order to boost our employment numbers, but when you talk about large scale employers that are looking to invest millions of dollars and create hundreds of jobs, I’d be pressed to remember when’s the last time a company came to do that. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, this is an open question for any one of the representatives here present. Are you aware of any forums that have been held by yourselves or anyone else where you describe 197 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING and discuss an RFP process and what that might entail? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Yes. If I may? I have been part of such forums, discussions, community conversations with various members, entities, stakeholders, so I -- I know that I have been part of that. A lot of that is going on right now because of the possibility. I know that if we were to move forward with this bill, any town that was selected there would be a referendum, so the voting electorate would have a say in ultimately in the end decision, so that’s why we’ve actually been out there doing our part to work into the forum constituency. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, is it accurate to describe that in the not-so-distant past there was a forum that was held where members of this committee were invited and members of the delegations were also invited to partake in discussions and workshops in terms of what that RFP would look like and in terms of what an individual company would do if awarded that RFP; is that correct? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): That’s correct, and -- and if I may add? I know in the past, I believe, over there was a referendum in Bridgeport in the 90s and there was over 87 percent of the people in the city of Bridgeport wanted some sort of gaming institution in the city, and I know there have been some recent polls done by, I believe, MGM and independent companies, and it’s hovering around that same percent, about 80 to 85 percent people in the city of Bridgeport would support a gaming institution in the city. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. Representative Hennessy, you represent a -- a drastically different 198 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING side of Bridgeport, which I, unfortunately, does not encompass my state Senate district, so -- but I am familiar with it. Can you describe to us what -- what your district looks like briefly and succinctly, please? REP. HENNESSY (127TH): Thank you, Senator. So, the 127th district is in the north end of Bridgeport, and it abuts Fairfield and Trumbull, and Main Street is -- is the line, so it’s -- it’s a very succinct rectangle. It’s at least 50 percent is single- family ownership, and the rest is multiple family owners, and it’s a really nice district. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Can you describe to us the property taxes that your constituents have to pay? REP. HENNESSY (127TH): Oh, it’s -- it’s pretty horrible. It’s not as bad as Black Rock because obviously the -- the values of the properties are much more expensive, but it’s crushing. [Laughing]. It’s absolutely crushing. Most -- most people pay at least $8000 dollars a year for a very small modest home, you know capes and the like. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, would you describe the school district -- and this is an open question to anybody here in the committee -- in terms of the funding and -- and monies that we get from the state of Connecticut; would you describe our school systems as a failing school system or as a thriving school system? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I would describe it as underfunded. Drastically underfunded. You look at the numbers, the amount of students are special ed numbers as well, and you know, you compare them to other large cities and the fact that we’re getting in some cases about $40-million dollars less a year; yet, we’re serving the same, if not more, children, 199 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING doesn’t -- it doesn’t add up to me, but I would say definitely underfunded. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, I know -- I know that earlier you commentary was reviewed by members of the committee to be snarky or to be dismissive, but can you -- can you gentleman describe -- anyone who’s open to answer the question -- and I know you’ve sort of touched upon this -- describe to members of this committee in very real terms what job opportunities mean for the city of Bridgeport? What it means for us to have a fair shot of having private money come to the city of Bridgeport? REP. HENNESSY (127TH): I’d just like to -- I’m sure there’s other members that want to speak on it, but I’ve been a legislator for the city of Bridgeport for the last 16 years, and I’ve -- I’ve really -- it’s broken my heart that I’ve been up here working to benefit Bridgeport and not see those benefits coming to Bridgeport, and I really do think that there are divisions in the state of Connecticut, and unfortunately, I think Bridgeport has been ill- served, and I -- that’s why I’m so supportive of this bill that’s before you, and I hope that you vote it out because it’ll give Bridgeport an opportunity that we haven’t had in a very long time. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Thank you, Senator. Very briefly, and -- and the reason why I’m so passionate about this issue, it is literally life or death. Some people are literally if they don’t get a job they resort to things that can change their life where you end up incarcerated or dead, and it’s a real effect, even to our youth. I wish -- I wish -- I know we all serve different constituencies. I’ve been to more wakes and funerals for people under the age of 18 in the last 6 years than any of you, probably. It’s hard. It’s not easy. It is 200 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING difficult, and it’s not stopping. We need to do something about it, and we need to get people jobs in the city of Bridgeport because it is literally life or death. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, just -- and lastly, co-chair, and I’ll finish up with this; is it your understanding that this RFP process what -- what is being requested of members of this committee is that we have simply a fair and open process and to look at what revenues, private revenues can be generated to the state of Connecticut? Is that your understanding of the RFP process? In other words, that we’re not looking to affect any particular side of the state of Connecticut if it doesn’t as the entirety of the state of Connecticut create jobs and revenue? Is that accurate? REP. BAKER (124TH): I solely agree on that. You know, I -- I think one of our -- our thought process as we sit here -- you know, we talk about jobs, jobs, but yes, it is a life and death situation, but you know, as I look at -- you know, I stand in Bridgeport, I look as I go south of Bridgeport, you have Norwalk, you have Stamford and how they’re thriving with jobs. You know, you look up in Shelton, they’re thriving. You look in New Haven, you’re thriving. My goal as a legislator is not to be able to take the whole state down. I think as we begin to work together and we look at other districts -- I mean Bridgeport wants to thrive just like other cities, man. We got to come together as legislators and figure out a way that we can make each and every city thrive. It shouldn’t be one against the other. Bridgeport is down. We need to work together to bring Bridgeport up because it’s gonna be a domino effect. If Bridgeport does well, the whole state is going to do well. You know, I 201 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING mean as I have talked to other legislators over the years, I’ve realized their connections that they had in Bridgeport. They were born and raised here, but they had the opportunity to move. There are so many people still here that don’t have that luxury, don’t have that opportunity. There were many legislators here they tell the stories about how their grandfathers and their uncles and stuff, you know, they got started in Bridgeport, working in the factories, who were able to raise their families and -- and -- and move outside. Why can’t some of the youth have that same opportunity. Let’s come together as -- as a collective body and move each and every city forward. Thank you. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you. And, this is the last question, just honestly. We’ve heard our governor give his analysis of our fiscal situation, and it’s a very gloomy one, and I think that’s not a surprise to anybody in the room. Do you find that for the taxpayer of the entire state of Connecticut that before we tax anybody a penny that we first look at ways that we can generate private revenue to increase the general funds and to increase monies to -- to our already decimated general fund? Do you think that we have an obligation as legislators to make sure that we find private revenues before we tax the general population? That’s the last question that’s open to anybody in the delegation. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I -- I -- I believe we need to explore every option, and -- and that includes everybody. It includes the tribes. It includes MGM. Everybody needs to be at the table. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Sredzinski. 202 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here today. I noticed on the sign-up list the full delegation was signed up, so can I assume that the full delegation is supportive of this bill? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I know that Senator Moore wanted to sit here and testify with us. She wasn’t able to do so. She said she had a meeting with leadership. Representative Stallworth did also want to sit here with us. He waited for a while. He had some issues going on back in Bridgeport, so he let me know he wasn’t able to as well as Representative Stafstrom. He was here and was hoping that we would be able to testify before 2 o’clock, but he had business in the district, so he had to leave, so I can speak for them because they did want to sit here and -- in unity on this issue. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much, and I remember the testimony from last year where the full delegation was in front of us. Speaking of people who support the bill, I know that there are others that are going to testify in support of this bill. What have you heard from the business community? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): The business community has been very supportive of this initiative. Every business leader that I’ve spoken to whether it’s small or with the Chamber, they -- you’ll hear from some of them pretty soon. They’re rallying around this because they know that this is an opportunity that doesn’t come often, and it’s one that can be extremely impactful economically, you’ll be hearing from other members, but my understanding and my communications with the business community, not only in Bridgeport but in the region, has been very supportive of this open and comparative bid process. 203 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you. So, on the process itself -- correct me if I’m wrong -- but this bill does not authorize a casino in the city of Bridgeport. This bill simply creates a RFP process at which point any private casino operator could offer an option anywhere in the state of Connecticut if they thought that they were the best person that could offer that; correct? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): That is correct. The only reason why I mentioned Bridgeport personally was because I personally felt that it makes sense due to various factors that I mentioned, but I do know that this process is open to anywhere, and that, you know, it can be Greenwich, it could be Sprague, it could be anywhere, but -- and you know, I’m supportive of the process itself, and I would love to see what came about from that process. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): So, if this bill were to pass, there is a possibility that there could be a proposal for Strafford, for Milford, for Lebanon, for whatever town in the state of Connecticut that someone felt would be the best destination for a casino expansion. This would not authorize anything. It would simply just get information out of the state; is that correct? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): That is my understanding, that is correct. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate you being here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Thank you, Representative. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Vail. REP. VAIL (52ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon gentleman. 204 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Good afternoon. REP. VAIL (52ND): Between Senator Bradley and Representative Sredzinski, they asked and answered most of my questions, but I want to thank you for coming up here, and thank you for your support in Northeastern Connecticut with our crumbling foundations, and -- REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): You’re welcome. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, that point struck home with me, and again, it’s just you guys are asking for an opportunity to see what’s out there; is that correct? UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Correct. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): That is. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, to do what’s in the best interest of your -- of your district. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Our district, and we truly feel that the state could benefit as well. REP. VAIL (52ND): Absolutely. And again, just -- just to put it out there, I’m in a region pretty close to where East Windsor casino’s gonna be, and there’s plenty of support there but there’s also plenty of opposition there as well, and I think it was unfair to kind of put you guys on the spot, and if there’s only one person in this room pitting areas of the state against each other, and it’s none of the four gentleman sitting up here, so thank you for your testimony. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Thank you very much. I know personally I’m -- I’m supportive of -- of that endeavor. I just think that we should look into our region as well and see what opportunities lie there. I don’t want us to be reactionary like we were when 205 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING the Springfield’s casino was announced. I want us to think ahead and plan ahead so that way if something does happen next to the Southwestern corner of the stead, instead of reacting to it, that we have actually planned ahead and have something in place to deal with that. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): If I -- if I may, Mr. Chair? Let’s be -- let’s be real here. Let’s be real here. MGM, they’re a business. They’re trying to make money, and they recently purchased the Yonkers Raceway Casino. They’re New York state. Their compact, whatever gaming issue they have, it’s gonna open up in a few years, and I guarantee you if they leave Bridgeport, if this for some reason evaporates and nothing happens in Bridgeport I guarantee you they’re going to expand their footprint on that property, and everybody including the tribes is going to be begging to come to Bridgeport to compete just like they want to compete against Springfield. I just want to say that on the record. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Senator Hwang. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): It’s hard to follow all these acts here. Welcome to the Bridgeport delegation, and I just want to repeat again as you mentioned earlier; could you clarify for this committee the fellow colleagues that are not present but stand behind unified to represent the Bridgeport delegation? Could you recite their names again for the record that we’ve recognized their support of your advocacy? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I -- I spoke to Senator Moore, Representative Stallworth, and Representative Stafstrom. They all wanted to be here in support with us, but were not able to make it, so those are the members that I know of. 206 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And -- and I do applaud all of you for taking your time and sitting through and -- and I want to thank Mayor Ganim for coming in as well, and here’s the bottom line, right. You are truly great representatives of your constituents. The passion and the advocacy that you’ve demonstrated needs to be allotted, and -- and just as I said earlier, the -- the tremendous advocacy of colleagues in Eastern Connecticut should also be allotted. Their constituents need to know that you are fighting for them. With that being said, poverty has no geographical parameter, right? We need to find solutions that would serve the best interest of every resident of the state. You know, poverty and the implications of poverty and the cycles of poverty needs to be broken. With that said, you’re looking to give Bridgeport an opportunity, a shining light to be able to explore opportunities beyond business as usual. Would that be correct? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Correct, Senator. And, if I may add? We wish and we’re grateful that MGM is considering Bridgeport. We wish it was Amazon. We wish it was any other fortune 500 company that was begging to come to the city of Bridgeport, but right now, you know, MGM wants to take us to the prom, and I don’t want to turn it down. [Laughter]. REP. BAKER (124TH): And, through the Chair, if I might just respond, echo in on? You know, we believe that MGM is -- it can be the start. It can be the start of a domino effect, which will -- which will take off other businesses, other entertainment, other entities to the city of Bridgeport, and also filter in some surrounding communities, you know? That’s what we’re looking at to do. You know, I’ve had many conversations with some colleagues and different people where you talked about 207 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING regionalization in terms of how Fairfield, how Strafford, how Shelton and Trumball; how we can -- we can work together and we can benefit from economic development in -- in that region, and this is all that we’re trying to do. We’re trying to bring our ideas -- Bridgeport ideas -- how we can help to build that regionalization and benefit those that Fairfield County and parts of New Haven County also. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And, for you as a delegation that you support the RFP bill, you are open to all and any individuals coming through; is that true? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): That is correct. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): That’s poignant for me because when you let at Bridgeport, and I’m in the neighboring town, and it is a proud city, that’s it’s trying to get their footing, and there’s history of the -- the gambling lure dating back many years as -- as resident Rosario said, but you also go a little deeper and the fact that you have the Scatacooks that reside in that area that have fought the upward battle to get federal recognition, and they have been denied that process, so I think when you look at the RFP process, you also open up the opportunity that all of those seeking to get their fair share of this process have an opportunity and an avenue to be able to have this discussion; would that be fair to say? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Absolutely, and I -- I believe the Scatacooks have been approved or recognized by the state and were actually approved by the federal government, and then I don’t know if there was some interference down in Washington, and that got overturned, but yes, we’re open to anybody 208 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING including both Mashantucket and -- and Foxwoods and Mohegan. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Well, I think that’s something you can both agree on, that Washington’s had a hand in both of these issues, right. With that being said, our state’s unique because of the compact relationship. The compact was derived many years before the Bureau of Indian Affairs was even started. With that being said, when we look at competition in Massachusetts, in New York, in Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, do they have unique compacts or are they part of an open bidding process in which the marketplace dictates and the state gets to pick the best and highest best offer and highest best benefit for the state’s constituents and the people that it serves? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): I can speak for Massachusetts. I know they have a gaming commission, and they did have a tribe, I believe -- correct me if I’m wrong -- that was already federally recognized, and they were able to take part and I guess get a gaming license, but I’m under the understanding that most of the Northeast there is an open and competitive process, which I believe our current tribal partners have participated in in other states. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): What would you say to proponents of the current existing compact, that if we open up to an RFP process that we would lose the burden at hand over 200 plus million and all the money that we’ve had as beneficiary of the state. There is no denying the important partnership that the two tribes have had in our state’s history related to gambling on tribal land. With that being said, what would you -- if that question was posed - 209 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

- what would you do to be able to make up that instant shortfall should the RFP process go through? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Their -- basically, it does work both ways, right? If -- if they were to decide that they did not want to send us those funds anymore, then there’s a good chance that they give up their right to operate slots in the state of Connecticut, so that’s the decision that, you know, I think they should also take their time and make wisely, so the RFP as we proposed it in this legislation does as part of being successfully awarded, you would have to basically find a way to cover the minimum that we would get from the prize, which I believe is about $190-million dollars a year. You would have to be able to cover that amount for the term of whatever the loss is from them in order to qualify, so there’s work to be done, and the potential operators with regards to explaining to us and making us feel comfortable as to how we would get from point A to point B in that regard, and that’s very important of course, so because of that being the case, part of (inaudible - 05:38:52) process, and because it goes both ways as to where they can’t just say, we’re going to stop sending you the money, and expect us to say, okay, that’s fine. Go about your business as usual. I think, you know, we have more leverage than we’re getting credit for in this process. Thank you. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And, I want to close by saying thank you all again for your passionate advocacy and your constituents need to know that you’re out there for them. I want to acknowledge Senator Moore. In fact, I saw former Senator, Ed Gomes, present at this testimony, who still deeply cares about this, and also Representative Stafstrom, as well as all these others that aren’t able to make 210 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING it, so you stand unified, and I -- and I applaud your advocacy on behalf of your constituents. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, Senator. Representative Fishbein. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon gentleman. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Good afternoon, Representative. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): A lot of questions have been asked of you. Representative Hennessy, I didn’t even recognize you, but [Laughter] when you said you’ve been here for 16 -- when you said you’ve been here 16 years, I had to go back and you know -- looking good there. Anyway, [Laughter], you know, a lot of people don’t know but I used to have a small boat that I kept in Bridgeport on the Captain Thomas Boulevard, Parcels Marina. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Okay. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): My wife and I, we lived in Bridgeport for a year in 1991 before we got married, and Bridgeport was a different place then. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Yes, it was. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I share your vision, you know, the open process, but -- and one of the things we hear about with the -- what I call the closed process, the East Windsor where we are today is the referendum. The fact that the residents of East Windsor were not allowed to vote on whether or not the casino is going to come to their town, and I was out of the room for a little bit, but I don’t know if you addressed your position on whether or not you would allow your residents to vote on whether or not 211 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

-- if an RFP was successful and to go to Bridgeport -- if that would be favorable? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Who would have thought a bunch of legislators from Bridgeport want an open and transparent process, right? [Laughter]. Yes, we would -- we would love to have a referendum so that everybody, whether you oppose it or support it, have the opportunity to do so. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, you know, we hear a lot about timing here. You know, an RFP is not going to be quick, and so that would be an up or down vote, so if the RFP that we, the legislature, determine to be the best contract for the residents of the state of Connecticut, you would have your residents of Bridgeport be able to reject that; is that what I’m hearing? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): For the referendum, yes. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, what about the surrounding towns? Because what we ended up with, unfortunately, that we voted on last time, surrounding towns were given funding as a result of the impact, you know, traffic and those kinds of things. Would you open up the referendum process to perhaps Trumball or Strafford, those other towns that border Bridgeport? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): That would be only fair. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Yeah, that would be only fair, and I know many of those mayors and first selectmen from those surrounding towns have come up here in the past to support this project. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, let’s just say, you know, ‘cause I’ve heard a lot of what you had to say today, but let’s just say that a proposal came in and it said that the best thing or we determine the 212 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING best thing for the state of Connecticut was to have a casino in Danbury or New Haven; would you gentleman be -- would you perhaps be disappointed, but would you be okay with the system? REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): I’d be honest with you in saying, yes, I would be disappointed that Bridgeport were not selected, but I’d be very supportive because the process was done properly, imbedded properly. It’s something that I fought for, so yes, I would be very supportive. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I would expect the rest of you gentleman are -- concur? REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Absolutely. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Thank you. That’s -- REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Absolutely. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, I’ll take it Representative Hennessy [Laughing], got it. Okay. Thank you, and thank you for your advocacy here today. REP. ROSARIO (128TH): Thank you. REP. SANTIAGO (130TH): Thank you, Representative. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Are there any questions? All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. I’m under the understanding that a number of individuals have to get on a bus, so I’m going to call them up collectively, and then they could speak for three minutes. Lawrence Jensen [phonetic], Jerome White, Shawn McBride [phonetic], Ernie Pason [phonetic], Joe Bracini [phonetic], Robert DeGligimo [phonetic]. And, if I’m missing anyone from those trades, let me 213 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING know. Is everybody here? Oh, okay. Then, they didn’t miss their bus. All right. That’s a good thing. Can’t blame me. All right, then we’ll go next is Anika Howard. Welcome, and just hit the mic button there, and please identify yourselves. AVIRAM ALROY: Good afternoon, so my name is Aviram Alroy. I’m the VP of I-gaming at Mohegan Sun, and from the interest of time, myself and Anika, are going to do separate statement, but will jointly answer questions. If that’s okay? So, again, my name is Aviram Alroy, and I would like to speak in support of Bill number 17, and I would like to thank you all for the opportunity to speak. I’m a resident of West Harford, Connecticut, and I’m employed as vice-president of Interactive Gaming at Mohegan Gaming and Entertainment since 2012, with 15 years of experience of online and mobile gaming in the U.S. as well as other European countries. I last spoke to this similar committee in March 2018, when I urged the committee to urge forward with legalizing sports betting and be ahead of other states in the region. Since we spoke last year, the following states started to increase their operation of legal and secure sports betting including Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, West Virginia, and Mississippi -- and Mississippi. In Pennsylvania, Mohegan Sun has moved forward with our partners, begin operation this year, and in New Jersey, Mohegan Sun has already utilized all its free available sports betting and is operating at full capacity mobile, bricks and mortar sportsbook with great success. By the way, unlike the colleague from MGM who said that there’s an open licensing in New Jersey, that is not the case. The licensing for sports betting in New Jersey is tethered to the casino and racetracks. 214 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

So, in the last few years, New Jersey has been operating I-gaming, and as of last year, sports betting as well. Since legalization, New Jersey state has generated more than $100-million dollars in tax revenue, created many jobs directly and indirectly, and in fact, New Jersey is seeing not just new revenue but also additional incremental increases from existing and traditional gaming revenue as I-gaming sports betting crosspollinate between online, bricks and mortar sports betting and casino games. Clearly, legalizing mobile and bricks and mortar sports betting will be a win/win for the state of Connecticut as the tribal casinos to keep and increase revenue to the state rather than seeing it going out. The market in Connecticut is expected to generate more than $100-million annually in gross gaming revenue from sports betting. We know for a fact that the market right now is not only existing in black market but also thriving in neighboring states. Legalizing and regulating mobile sports betting in other states was a major success also in terms of rollout and security. Today, we can identify users who are underage through third-party services that are using government and banking corporations. We use features that allow players to (inaudible - 05:47:31), and we can monitor player’s spending habits better than ever before. We can also identify certain behaviors of players, flag them, and act accordingly as required. I have confidence that the state of Connecticut will benefit from sports betting as it will reduce black market and out-of-states bet, and increase state revenues. The two Connecticut tribes as they currently operate casinos in Connecticut are best suited for the job as they have the required skills, expertise, and will be able to maximize the state income potential through their database in a fell 215 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING entertainment and amenities, attract visitation from the entire Eastern region and the country and not just locally. Thank you very much. ANIKA HOWARD: Good afternoon, co-chairman and members of the Public Safety and Security Committee. My name is Anika Howard, and I am the vice-president of brand marketing and digital for Foxwoods Resort Casino. I am also a member of the AGA Sports Betting Task Force. I have almost 20 years of diverse I-gaming, I-lottery, mobile sports betting, and I-gaming casino experience. I’m here today in support of proposed Senate Bills 665 and 17. In the interest of time, my comments will focus on the technology that allows for tighter controls, our commitment to responsible gaming, and the importance of the customer experience. The technology is proven, age and [clearing throat] -- excuse me -- age and identity controls for both Nevada and New Jersey have been very effective for numerous years. We can restrict underage access effectively by performing know-your-customer checks to authenticate player identify. Additionally, biometric checks that measure things like physical characteristics, patterns and keystrokes, facial recognition, and fingerprints can be incorporated to ensure that the player playing the games is indeed the owner of the account. Responsible gaming is an interest of both Fozwoods and Mohegan Sun. We take it very seriously. Foxwoods is one of the first casinos in the industry to offer a self-exclusion program, and it’s been in place for 25 years. We are a founding member of the Connecticut Council for problem gaming, and we continue to be an active partner. This is the commitment and diligence that we will bring to sports wagering and online gaming. Once again, proven technology solutions make it 216 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING possible to manage responsible gaming programs and integrate controls to -- into the customer experience. Features like playing spending limits, visible game clocks to make it easier to maintain a correct sense of time and reality checks to remind players how long they played or how much they’ve won or lost all help customers play responsible. Self- excluded gaming -- excuse me -- self-excluded and gaming restricted players can be blocked completely from ever opening an account and flagged if they try. Finally, I’d like to talk about the customer experience. In proceedings like this, we tend to view these things independently, but customers don’t see it that way. For retain sportsbook, mobile online -- mobile online sports betting, and online casino, the whole offering is greater than the sum of its part. This experience has proven to be true in surrounding states than illustrated in how these products often work together. Online and mobile have become an expected convenience. Let’s step away from gaming for a moment and think about our daily lives. We can purchase a morning cup of coffee with our cell phones, we can order a ride, a meal, a plane ticket, and even make a bank deposit, so this technology has fundamentally changed very basic activities that we do every day. Beyond what the jurisdictions are doing, customer’s expectations are very, very high with regard to this. Customers want convenience, customers want options, and they expect an easy mobile first experience. Gaming is no exception. Online gaming revenue has easily outpaced online sports and is by far the biggest opportunity overall. additionally, cross selling between online gaming and online sports create additional opportunities for both. I’ve included more detail in my written testimony. 217 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

In closing, it’s in Connecticut’s best interest to remain competitive in this region. I feel like this is done -- this can be done by expanding our relationship to include the items listed in the bill. There’s a definite first-mover advantage here. For Connecticut, the most efficient passport is to build on the continued grand loyalty of Foxwoods Resort and Mohegan Sun. We know and understand the market and are well-positioned to engage and bring new and existing customers into the fold. Thank you for your time and consideration. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. Okay. I’m told Mayor Lauretti is not here. Representative DiMassa. Representative, it’s good to see you. I miss you on the committee. REP. DIMASSA (116TH): It’s good to be here. I certainly miss everybody. I miss this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the chairs, the ranking members. It’s always nice to be here. I know it’s been a long day and I think you’ve probably heard every talking point on every side, and I just want to actually go up to like a 50,000- foot view on casinos and sports betting, and I just want to start off by saying, you know, it’s -- it’s -- and I’m going to quote a republican here, President Herbert Hoover once said, “Competition is not only the basis of protection to the consumer but is incentive for progress.” You know, as a society, we’ve always valued competition. We feel lit equals out the market, so just a few statistics, and I’m going to provide these to the clerk of the committee when I’m done. These come from OFA and OLR. In 2008, the average annual employment in the gaming industry surrounding 218 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING the casinos was 18,409 jobs on average. In 2017, which was the last year that OLR gave me in their report, the number had dropped to 11,492 jobs, so that’s a loss of 6917 jobs. In terms of revenue, OFA’s provided that in fiscal year 2009 the tribes contributed $377.9-million dollars to the state of Connecticut in gaming payments. In 2018, that number had dropped to $273-million dollars, which is a loss of $104-million dollars a year if you compare it with fiscal year 2009. Now, OLR does do some projections, and the current projection that they have provided to me, which again I will make available to the clerk, is that by 2022 that number in combined payments would be down to $199.3-million dollars, so you know, I can’t sit here -- I cannot sit here today and tell you that the competitive option and the RFP is -- is necessarily going to provide us more value. I have to sit here and tell you I don’t know, and I know where we’re heading, and I honestly am not concerned if -- if -- you know, as far as the legislation for East Windsor, I have no problem with -- with the legislation for East Windsor in that development. My concern arises with the trend that we seem to heading where perhaps the lack of competitive edge is hurting our gaming operation, and we’re going to see the same thing in sports betting because, again, there’s a lot of talk around how many licenses and who would do it and who would have the right to operate online. You have to understand that in any market when there’s competition there has to be incentives provided to bring in revenue, to bring in customers, right, so if I have Caesar’s Palace down the street, and I have, you know, MGM up the road, if it takes me 20 minutes to take a valet to park my car at Caesar’s Palace, I’m gonna go to MGM, right. 219 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

There’s -- there’s an edge that happens when you add competitive elements to the market, so it’s the same thing in online sports betting. If you have one vendor, that vendor doesn’t necessarily have to provide all of the incentives that two or three or four or five vendors provide because they have sole access to the market. On the flipside, gaming online and sports betting is not just something that we have to look at from the perspective from the resident of Connecticut. We have to also understand that I can get in a car right now, and I can drive to New Jersey, and I can open an online account with a sports betting firm, and if I am physically in New Jersey, I can hop on my phone and make a sports bet. You will see the same actions take place if we initiate sports betting, so if there is a book that’s operating in Connecticut whether it’s the tribes, no matter who it is, if there is a competitive edge and there’s a bonus incentive or there’s a point incentive, you will get somebody who may be on the border, whether it’s New York, whether it’s Massachusetts, whether it’s Rhode Island, they may say, you know what, I’m gonna get in my car, I’m gonna drive 15 miles over the border, I’m gonna go to a nice restaurant, I’m gonna open an account, I’m gonna have a couple beers, I’m gonna have some appetizers and bet in the football game. So, depending on how this committee and the state decides to move forward with sports betting and the online aspect of sports betting, you are going to see many other markets benefit all over the state, especially in the border regions, and we also have to realize there’s an adverse impact to this as well. If we have one vendor that operates our line sports betting, which has been discussed, right, whether it’s the tribes that you have to physically go to a casino or they’re the only ones that operate 220 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING online, they may not offer the necessary incentive to attract people on the borders into our states to do sports better. There are many factors. The other piece of sports betting that sometimes is -- is not understood is you have recreational gamblers and you have professional gamblers. A recreational gambler is going to come in, they’re going to bet $100 dollars on a game. If they win, they’re gonna take all their money and go home, and if the lose, they’re probably going to come back tomorrow and bet again, unfortunately, right, and there are negatives to it as well. But, a professional sports better doesn’t necessarily go and place a bet and then win or lose and walk away or win or lose and pull their money. What usually happens with a professional gambler is they may make an initial deposit, okay, so they open an account online in Connecticut. They deposit $5000 dollars, and they don’t take that $5000 dollars and bet one one game. They take that $5000 dollars and over time they spread it out over many games because a professional sports gambler kno9ws that if he is really good, really good he may win 52-53 percent of the time. He’s gonna lose the rest of the time, and he knows that the way to -- to try to make money over time is to break up his risk and spread it out, but the piece you have to realize with this, that means that over time books are actually carrying money that’s not necessarily theirs that’s in the account of the consumer that has established that account with that agency, so if I go and place $1000-dollar bet online and I win and I don’t pull that money out, the casino is or the operation is sitting on that money, and it becomes very important to realize that you need to spread the risk of sports better because like anything else there are no guarantees. You see games where a team that’s 221 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING favored by 40 points all of a sudden their star athlete gets injured and the team loses the game, and you know, you will be surprised that there are people out there who if -- especially if it’s their favorite team, they’ll throw $1000 dollars on that team even if it doesn’t have a chance of winning. Now, your payout, all right, on that -- depending on how many people did that -- can vary, so the -- the thing that’s happened with many online sportsbooks that are operating here illegally, unfortunately, ‘cause it takes place, is that they customer’s money has not always been protected. It’s not been excluded. It’s been mixed in with operating revenues, and we certainly have a number of people I would tell you in this state who have lost money with illegal operations, which of course is another reason to legalize it, but you also have to spread the risk. So, again, I am going to provide to the clerk these -- these numbers from OLR and OFA. I would be welcome to take any questions. The only other thing I would say very quickly is, you know, we -- I am not interested in -- in pinning any communities against each other, you know. Most of my district happens to be West Haven, which you know is not going to see anything one way or another from this, whether it was the tribes, whether it’s MGM, weather it’s Caesar’s, whether it’s Wynn, and really, this language is very vague in the bill. It doesn’t mention Bridgeport. It doesn’t mention MGM. It talks about a process, and the only thing I would say to that is this, what concerns me greatly I we have representatives who have come here and told us that we are giving you the best deal in town, and I have no way at this point to quantify that. I know right now $273-million dollars is what our gaming license is worth. It’s worth $273-million dollars. 222 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

I also know it’s going to be worth, you know, $199- million dollars in 2022 if -- if OLR and OFA are accurate, so I know that the state’s asset -- because that’s what it is. This gaming license is a state asset. That state asset is depreciating in revenue. It’s depreciating in value. now, that doesn’t mean that if we initiate, you know, a competitive process. We may find that you know what maybe we do have the best deal. I don’t know, but I will tell you this, what concerns me is I personally have trouble understanding how putting our an RFP while you’re not granting any license to any other operation. I have a very hard time understanding how that is violating exclusivity because you are not granting a license to anyone. You’re literally going out to the market and saying what is this license worth? What would Caesar’s, Wynn, and what would you pay to come here? And, maybe they’ll say we wouldn’t come here at all. We don’t see a market, but until we ask the question, we won’t kno9w. The only thing we will know is that license in 2022 is going to be worth $199-million dollars plus or minus. That’s what we know. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, Representative. REP. DIMASSA (116TH): And, my concern is not just West Haven, New Haven, Bridgeport. My concern is for the entire state, which every community shares a piece of -- of this revenue. My concern is how do I go back and explain to my constituents how we didn’t examine all options and what potentially the best deal would be for the state, and I would actually encourage the tribes, look I don’t really want to violate the exclusivity. Come to the -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative, just wrap it up -- [Crosstalk]. 223 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. DIMASSA (116TH): Yep, and I’ll leave it with that and if there’s any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Any questions? All right. I’m seeing none. Thank you for your testimony. REP. DIMASSA (116TH): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, it was good seeing you again. REP. DIMASSA (116TH): Always good to see you all. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Next up is -- I’m not sure if it’s Roberta or Robert Gallagher. I’m sorry I can’t read the writing, and Kayla Smith is coming up as well. KAYLA SMITH: Hello. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Welcome. If you can just state your names for the record, please? KAYLA SMITH: My name is Kayla Smith. ROBERT GALLAGHER: And, my name is Robert Gallagher. KAYLA SMITH: Good afternoon. As mentioned, my name is Kayla Smith, here for the Senate Bill 11, and I currently live in Ledyard, Connecticut. This August will mark my tenth year working at Mohegan Sun. After high school, I immediately entered the workforce. Inspired by stories of friends and family who had made good life from the sales working at the casino, I applied for job at the casino. I am very proud to have been hired by Mohegan Sun months out of high school. I began working part- time in valet and ran a concessions department. Over the years, I was encouraged to work my way up 224 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING the career ladder. It wasn’t long before I was working full-time in VIP services. Currently, I work in Mohegan Sun’s Guest Relations and Human Resource Department. I have the pleasure of working with our guest every day to ensure the experience at our entertainment facility is world class. Living in Southeastern Connecticut, there aren’t many opportunities for employment, which provide high school graduates like me with quality career opportunities and a clear pathway for a sustainable middle-class lifestyle. My job at Mohegan Sun is important to me and affords me many benefits that I would not be able to find locally. I know what businesses do when new competition opens. They must respond. We are here today to ask you not to further delay the response to the increasing competition. If you, the Connecticut legislature, and the state government do not allow Mohegan Sun and Mashantucket-Pequot tribes respond to completion as they would like, I would fear the consequences. I worry that unchecked competition will negatively impact Mohegan Sun’s success, and if I lose my job, I will not only be able to find a similar job with the level of pay and benefits I currently receive. While local businesses have been laying off workers and not hiring, Mohegan Sun not only hired me, they provided me with promotions and wonderful opportunities for growth and personal development. I enjoy and appreciate my job at Mohegan Sun, and I hope their success will continue to be my success, much like it has been the state’s success. I hope you all will continue to work with the tribes to ensure my job and the jobs of thousands of others like me are protected. I urge you to pass Senate Bill 11 to give us all the fighting chance. Thank you. 225 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Good afternoon, again, and my name is Robert Gallagher. I live in Norwich, Connecticut, and I’m here today to speak in support of SB-11, AN ACT CONCERNING THE AUTHORIZATION OF CASINO GAMING FASCILITY IN EAST WINDSOR. I want to make one thing very clear. My job is important to me and your actions on this bill could have a direct effect on me and my future. To put things in perspective, I went from a job without health benefits, without vacation or sick time in 1995 to a 23 plus year career at Mohegan Sun. I have a home, rental property, my car, my boat is registered in Connecticut. I have a lot invested in this state. I contribute to the economy, paying my fair share of taxes. I have taken advantage of Mohegan Sun’s tuition and reimbursement program. It’s hard to articulate just how much I appreciate my job at Mohegan Sun. I don’t think the general public or some of our legislators truly understand what Connecticut casino employees put back into the local economy and how much it will impact the state if jobs are lost. Those of us who have made a career at Connecticut’s world class gaming industry need to know that all of our legislators are doing everything they can to protect our jobs. The bill before you today seeks to remove the last obstacle currently delaying the East Windsor Tribal Winds project, a project designed to give our casinos a fighting chance against MGM, a project to help protect thousands of jobs and the hundreds of millions in slot revenue that the tribes give to the state each year. On multiple occasions, the Connecticut General Assembly has approved steps to ensure that we remain competitive against a company that has its sights on our jobs and our revenue. I 226 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING urge you to think seriously about the consequences and to reaffirm your support for the East Windsor Project by voting yes on SB-11. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your time, and we’d be happy to answer your questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Representative Fishbein. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your -- your testimony. I’m just trying to figure out if another casino came to town and let’s say there’s a resort casino in Bridgeport and they wanted to pay you more money, why would that not be of benefit? ROBERT GALLAGHER: Well, I think we can both answer that, but you know, I’ve been in this industry -- I’ve been in the hospitality industry in Connecticut for over 30 years. I’ve been at Mohegan Sun for going on 24 years. I’ve had other offers. It’s a great company to work for and sometimes you have to take into consideration lifestyle over, you know, a percentage of your pay rise. You know, not everything is -- is about money. It’s a great company to work for. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I’m just looking at the economics, you know. When there’s one manufacturer in a town employing all of the blue-collar workers and then another manufacturer comes into town and offers to pay more, it’s usually better for the economic condition of the area, and -- ROBERT GALLAGHER: So -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): I’m just -- ROBERT GALLAGHER: Yeah. 227 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Trying to -- [Crosstalk]. ROBERT GALLAGHER: I’m -- I’m sure you -- you could probably -- you guys are the best paid -- this isn’t the best paid job in the world. You know, you guys are putting your time in here and I’m sure that you could make more money doing something else, but you’ve decided that this is what you want to do and this is the job that you enjoy, so that’s what you do. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, and I appreciate both of you coming up today. Both of you are my constituents. I represent the wonderful town of Ledyard and wonderful city of Norwich, and we’ve had our share of difficult times in both of those communities. There have been questions that have been asked revolving around poverty and other issues. Have you ever seen poverty in either Ledyard or Norwich in regards to what we have to compete against? ROBERT GALLAGHER: Well, as far as poverty, Norwich has its fair share of issues, but it’s a great place to live. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I don’t always lock my doors. I live seven-tenths of a mile from Mohegan Sun. I used to live in Stonington. I chose to move closer to Norwich because it was a shorter commute and it’s a good place to live. I hope that answers your question. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): It does because we have a wonderful community, small town, but we have worked very hard to get to where we are today, and I -- I 228 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING really think that both of you exemplify the people that work at Mohegan Sun, and I want to thank you very much for being in the community and for doing all that you do to represent a great company. Thank you. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Anyone else? I’m seeing none. Thank you very much for your testimony. KAYLA SMITH: Thank you. ROBERT GALLAGHER: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Next up is Representative Davis, and was also going to invite town manager, Mr. Maynard. Welcome. REP. DAVIS (57TH): Thank you, and it’s always a pleasure to be back at the Public Safety Committee where I once served, and for the record, my name is Christopher Davis. I’m the state Representative from the 57th district, proudly serving East Windsor and Ellington, and I’m -- for the interest of your time and everyone else’s time here, I’ve asked if we could have our first selectman, Bob Maynard, join us and provide his testimony at the same time, and we can both answer questions, and I’m here testifying in support of SB-11. BOB MAYNARD: Hello, I’m Bob Maynard, and I’m the first selectman of the town of East Windsor, and I - - I wish I was the town manager, but I got elected three years ago, and it was a learning experience. Good afternoon, Chairman Verrengia and Chairman Bradley and members of the committee. I have testified before this committee for a couple of years now about bringing your casino to our town. I feel I kind of know you know. I -- I feel and I 229 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING think if in Bill 957 that was passed last year, if it wasn’t for one paragraph in that 20-page bill, I think in East Windsor we’d have a casino that is half built and we’d have 20,000 construction workers employed and busily working on the site. Already in East Windsor, we’ve torn down the showcase cinema theater on the property and then CT purchased for the casino, and we are eager to start building the casino the minute Bill 11 passes. I believe if it were not for MGMs questionable interference and on the federal level that Bill 11 would not be necessary. I want to report that the East Windsor residents remain excited about partnering with the tribal nations to revitalize our town and the Northeast region -- Northcentral region of Connecticut. As you know, the Mashantucket-Pequot home is in Connecticut as is the Mohegan home in Connecticut. They are part of Connecticut’s heritage. The tribal nations care about Connecticut, they care about their tribes, and they care about people in general. I have seen MGM spend millions of dollars to manipulate Connecticut’s decisions. I am sure that MGM -- as the person from Bridgeport says -- don’t care about people. They care about profit and the money, and I would just end saying that if a group comes and offers to build a $3-million-dollar building in Connecticut, generate 2000 jobs, provide tens of millions of dollars in revenue to the state at no cost to the state, I’d say take their offer. And, finally, I’ll just say the bottom line is, in my opinion, the state’s -- considering the state’s gloomy fiscal situation, accepting the tribes -- tribal nations’ offer to build and operate the Tribal Winds Casino in East Windsor seems clear, obvious, and necessary. I’d be happy to answer any questions. 230 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Any questions? Representative Hall. REP. HALL (59TH): Welcome -- welcome from my district. Representative Davis and I split East Windsor, and I have the luck of representing the part of town that the casino is going in, so welcome, First Selectman Maynard to the hearing today. A couple of quick questions. There has been a lot said about what the residents of your district want, so you touched on it in your testimony before us. Can you go into a little bit more detail as to the process that was gone through because Representative Davis, myself, and you had sat at many, many town halls in East Windsor and listened to the residents of East Windsor. In fact, Representative Davis and I actually brought to the floor the ability to do a referendum on this, so if you can talk to a little bit of how your district feels about this coming into the town and what is the percentage of the district that supports this, in your opinion? BOB MAYNARD: Yeah, as you said, we got to the know the tribal nations very well, and there was a process they went through. They put out the RFP and we and four other towns applied for that -- the opportunity to have a casino built, and it was finally narrowed down to two, and they came and spoke with us a little bit to get to know us, and then the two were Windsor Locks and ourselves, both in a sense partners in the Northcentral region, and they chose us, and at that point -- [background discussions] -- at that point, they had come and talked to and had meetings at the middle school and the high school when really hundreds of people came, and in fact, it was so crowded that people couldn’t get in the school building. We heard from all the 231 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING police, all the departments in town, and they thought they could handle this well, and it would be good for the town, and we -- the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to make an agreement with the tribal nations, and we actually have this agreement and it’s on our website, and we made the agreement, and then it’s interesting that people -- actually, I have here MGM. You know, MGM was -- was good to us and bad to us. We probably wouldn’t be talking about a casino in East Windsor if MGM didn’t build one in Springfield, although even if somebody with insight would realize that’s a great place in the region to build one in the Springfield area, or -- anyway, so we have one there because of MGM, but I think we’re getting delayed in building it because of MGM too, and I didn’t realize until this testimony that MGM had actually gone down to Bridgeport and talked to people saying, we think we’re gonna build here. Well, the -- the process we went through was the tribal nation chose us and we wanted them. We welcomed them, so that’s -- that’s -- that’s why -- what’s slowing us down a little. But, interestingly enough -- and I do have here -- I think I -- this -- this is a flier that MGM sent out to me -- well, to all our residents. They sent out dozens of them to us, and it says East Windsor taxpayers you got a bad deal and it’s time for a do- over, and it goes on and on, and it gives my phone number, so I got -- I didn’t get to many calls actually, but -- and one thing here -- let’s see where it said -- it says right here it’s time for a do-over. An open competitive process with a local referendum should be used for any new casino in Connecticut, and -- and I kind of wonder about that in the sense that this is a political statement they’re making. We -- our form of government, our governing body is the town meeting. The town 232 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING meeting determines what the town’s gonna do. It votes on our charter. It does everything. Our referendum -- we have a referendum on the budget, and that means that -- that the building is opened at 6 o’clock in the morning, and there’s some voting machines, and people put ballots in, and it closes at 8, and there is a registrar there. Now, at a town meeting, there’s no hours. You come to the meeting, and after the meeting, you vote on -- on the issues that are there, and the registrars are there, you have a paper ballot, and you put it in a box. Well, after we decided and we signed the agreement with for the referendum -- no, for the -- with the tribal nations, a group in our town put up an ordinance -- because it doesn’t take a lot of people on -- to sign a document to all a referendum, and the referendum said that they wanted to manage how the casino would be run, but it also said a casino couldn’t be built within 2000 yards of a children’s home, and well, within 2000 yards of where we’re going to build the casino in Windsor -- in Warehouse Point is the Alexander Children’s Home, so basically, that says you can’t build it here if - - if this ordinance passed. So, that town meeting 400 people came, and we all discussed it. There were many things said, and then we had a vote, and the vote was two to one for the casino, and some people waited in line over an hour and a half to put their ballot in the box, so is there any question about how the people felt about a casino in East Windsor and still do. They want it and they want to partner with the tribal nations. They’re really good people. REP. HALL (59TH): So, thank you for that answer. I’m going to take the number that you gave us at the end, so by a ratio of two to one, you feel that it’s supported in the town of East Windsor, and you feel 233 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING that SB-11 is the way to get there and expedite what should have happened actually last year. We were -- we were all looking for it to move forward at that point. The other question I have for you is the town of East Windsor has worked very diligently to move this project quickly through the process once the state hurdles have been met. Can you talk to a little bit of that of the process that the town has already gone through, and we heard testimony before from both -- both the tribes saying that they are ready to go the minute that this bill passes, so maybe you can talk to a little bit of how far the town of East Windsor has gotten to this point to be shovel ready, if you will, for this project to get the green light? BOB GALLAGHER: Yes, we are shovel ready. We’ve -- the planning and zoning has approved their site. Wetlands have approved their site, so really all the -- the permitting process is all done. We’re just waiting for them to come and give us a plan, a detailed plan, and with that plan, they would come and give us a lot of money, probably $2-million dollars. I’m not sure exactly, but that would be for us to -- to give them the building permit, and when you have plans for a building permit, that means you have -- where all the doors are going to be, the foundation, and detailed plans. It’s an architectural drawing, and we have to go through that and make sure they meet all the state regulations -- building regulations, so that’s the first thing, and we’re ready. If they come in tomorrow and ask for a building permit, we’ll take their plans, we’ll start going through it, and as soon as we’re comfortable with their plans, they can start building. 234 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. HALL (59TH): Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your patience today, sitting and waiting. BOB GALLAGHER Sorry, I couldn’t get here sooner, yeah. REP. HALL (59TH): We have a lot of people to testify, so thank you Representative Davis. Thank you, First Selectman Maynard for coming today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative -- Senator -- I’m sorry -- Bradley. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): It’s not problem. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for your patience. I have a few questions, and I first and foremost want to start off by saying that from a Bridgeport perspective we do appreciate your lovely town, and I have no shout of a doubt that there are wonderful people that reside there from my experiences dealing both with my -- with my Senator here to my right, Kathy, and from knowing Senator Hall, and knowing what a wonderful representative she is. I’m sure that that is the case, and no one desires to pin communities against each other. We all want to see a Connecticut that prospers, but I do have some questions and some concerns to see if maybe we can get kind of to a point of -- of what’s the best steps we should take as a committee. I want to kind of start working kind of backwards. You -- you describe the zoning process and you made reference to wetlands. Usually, wetlands are kind of protected eco systems and are sensitive eco systems. Can you describe what else is on -- on that particular piece of property where there is plans to build this casino? BOB MAYNARD: It was the site of a showcase cinema theater, and if you can imagine a theater, it has a 235 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING big parking lot around it, and it -- it’s an impervious surface and the water’s gonna fall off, so already on the site is basis to handle the water flowing off and -- and do the proper things for the water to be -- well, to meet the wetlands approval, so really, very little has to be done. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. So, there’s wetlands around there, and is there anything else? Is there any other forrrestted areas or anything like that that currently exist on the property where they are proposing to build the site? BOB MAYNARD: Any what? SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Forrested areas, rolling hills -- BOB MAYNARD: Oh, no. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): You know, kind of that type of -- BOB MAYNARD: This -- like I said, it’s right off the highway, and it’s a -- it was a move theater. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, it’s just the size of a move theater is the proposed size of the casino? BOB MAYNARD: And the parking lots that are associated with it. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, the parking lots that are associated with them. Now, I’m sure the tribes presented to you proposed earnings that you would get if -- if they were to build that there; is that correct? BOB MAYNARD: We, in the agreement, the development agreement that we made, and we made it with the tribes because if they didn’t meet our terms and 236 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING they agreed to our terms, we wouldn’t have wanted the casino there. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, those conversations happened exactly when? BOB MAYNARD: A long time ago. [Laughing]. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): A long time ago. So, would it be fair to say that those conversations happened prior to the building of the MGM resort in Springfield now; is that correct? BOB MAYNARD: Prior to the building. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Yes. BOB MAYNARD: Although, I think they -- they certainly were intending to build, and I think they had purchased the property. I think it was -- it was -- that was the reason actually. I think -- like I said, in the beginning was that the tribal nations decided to come to -- to East Windsor and had their -- there are a -- by the way, just a little tangent. I think they’re saying, hey build the casino here now, and I agree that you should. You’re gonna lose money if you don’t build it now. Then, you can start talking to them. I think -- I think they would listen. I -- I -- they might build in Bridgeport or wherever you would like, but -- SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Well, if you could facilitate those conversations, I’m sure the governor would be in appreciate of that, and so would a lot of us here. BOB MAYNARD: [Laughing] Yeah, I don’t -- SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): But, just going back to the point -- to the point where I’m trying to get at. Those conversations happened prior to the MGM casino being built in Springfield, and can you describe to 237 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING me the proximity of where your town’s located to the border of Massachusetts? BOB MAYNARD: I don’t know exactly. I’d say it’s 10 or 15 minutes away, maybe 12 miles. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, relatively close. BOB MAYNARD: Very close. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, I’m -- I’m understanding from -- because I don’t know that section of Connecticut, I’m kind of a Fairfield County guy, my understanding is that these -- these are towns with relatively small populations; is that correct? BOB MAYNARD: That’s correct. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, so would it be correct and accurate for me to say that the majority of the patrons that would come to this casino would come from Massachusetts or the surrounding cities of Massachusetts? BOB MAYNARD: In Hartford. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Massachusetts and Hartford? BOB MAYNARD: Yes. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. BOB MAYNARD: ‘Cause 91 goes right -- right through our town. It’s on the Eastern -- Western border, and -- SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, would it be accurate to say that since those conversations might be viewed as stale now, and we don’t know what exactly -- you don’t know exactly what those projections are -- the possible earnings that you would be receiving; would it be fair to say that maybe you should revisit that 238 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING to make sure that it’s accurate in terms of monies that you would be receiving from the casino? BOB MAYNARD: Well, no. Excuse me. I didn’t finish. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Sure. BOB MAYNARD: I said we made a development agreement, and this is -- this is what it was. It was for taxes and we -- and also this thing called an impact fund. They said they would give us $3- million dollars a year for the impact the casino would have, and it would have some impact. We need -- law enforcement would have to be beefed up. We said -- and then, in addition to that, we -- they’re gonna -- we’re gonna -- they’re gonna pay us taxes, and it’s not nothing special about the taxes. It’s based on the mil rate, but I should say a little caveat. What we did is we figured out under approximate value and approximate assessment for the first five years, and we said, we’ll say that the value of this casino is going to be two -- two and a half million -- no, $250-million dollars, and we’ll just tax you for that, and the mil rate will vary, so the taxes will vary, but after that, then we’ll reassess the value of the casino, and it will be just normal mil rate, but we did fix their payment for the first five years. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Right, so -- REP. DAVIS (57TH): And, to that point as well, if I can, sir? SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Sure. Absolutely. REP. DAVIS (57TH): It’s also located in a special taxing fire district, so they would be paying an additional whatever the mil rate set by that fire district is, at least as conceived right now. I 239 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING know the town is undergoing conversations about maybe consolidating that fire district with the other fire district in town, but they would also be paying that as well, and with the timing of the agreement and those conversations, it was after the RFP process was passed by the legislature, so they started that conversation after the fact that the legislature approved the RFP process, and then they went in and did the RFP process, got selected, and then the town of East Windsor then entered into negotiations for a hometown agreement or host-town agreement. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Right, so my understanding of what’s being proposed is that there is an initial amount that will be charged, and then there’s a reassessment of what that looks like, and my only concern is that looking at kind of holistically as we have been is how we can best serve the state of Connecticut. If we don’t know what the impact of another casino has done that’s relatively close to your border, shouldn’t we look at that to see exactly what their financial contribution should be? Shouldn’t we make some sort of an analysis on that prior to commencing another project there? BOB MAYNARD: I’m not sure what you mean. REP. DAVIS (57TH): Well, it’s my understanding, Senator, that the actual per capita assessment to the town of East Windsor is significantly higher than what MGM is paying the residents of the city of Springfield, and additionally, the way that the bill was drafted a couple of years ago, it also sets aside funding for the surrounding towns as well, so it’s not just the town of East Windsor that would benefit from the revenues generated. Direct payments to the towns directly around it, as well as the cities of Hartford and East Hartford who have 240 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING guarantees within this agreement to also have individuals employed from those cities and towns as well. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Right. REP. DAVIS (57TH): So, it goes not only just East Windsor, but it also goes into the surrounding communities based on the legislation that we passed as well. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, prior to serving up in legislature, I served on the Board of Ed, and we had a cap in terms of what we could allocate with a no- bid contract without having to issue an RFP. Our cap was $25,000 dollars. After $25,000 dollars -- and I think it might be state statute, but I don’t want to be misquoted on that -- after $25 dollars, I think it’s either -- either an ordinance in the city or state statute that requires mandates and RFP process for any bid or any monies that are going to be allocated to an individual company. Are you aware of that? Do you operate under similar guidelines in your town? BOB MAYNARD: Yes, we do. I think it’s $20,000 dollars. Anything over that, we go to an RFP process. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Right, and -- and part of that requirement is that if you don’t do that, on its face, it looks like you’re being unfair, and it creates a possibility of -- of discriminatory actions or for favoritism, and -- and -- to -- to the point where it might be even as corruption; is that your understanding of why those ordinances are there? BOB MAYNARD: Yes. 241 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. So, why do you feel that gaming or casinos should be exempt from just simply an RFP process or an open bidding process? BOB MAYNARD: Do you want to answer that? REP. DATHAN (142ND): I’ll take a first stab at that, and then I share similar concerns, and to be quite honest with you, if we -- if we weren’t in the unique circumstances that we are as the state of Connecticut, I would be fully supportive of an open process just because I’m a free market type of person, but we do live in a unique situation, and that’s because we have compacts or understandings with -- with the two tribal nations that are located within the state of Connecticut, and because of that, that supersedes any of those other requirements that you are talking about and necessitated the need for state legislation to be passed to open up that RFP requirements, so that was an open process. Multiple towns did bid on that process. The legislation was originally, I believe, three towns, if I’m not mistaken, from this committee that was ultimately limited to only one town, and the town of East Windsor certainly operated under what was allowed or told to do so by the state legislature, and I know certainly that the city of Bridgeport and several other towns were interested in putting in bids as well, but the legislature deemed it to -- to be only that one region of the state of Connecticut at that time. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Right. So -- so I know that obviously it’s outside of your, first selectman, your responsibility as to what we do up here in the legislature, but you will acknowledge the fact that your town and my city is limited to what the statue says and which is to be fair and transparent RFPs must be issued after you exceed a 242 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING certain amount of money to avoid corruption and to avoid mismanagement and -- and -- and discrimination. BOB MAYNARD: Yes, I -- I totally agree, and just let me say that -- I said it originally when I was answering Carol, that MGM building it was a blessing to us, and now, it’s -- it’s kind of a curse because they’re doing everything they can to slow down the construction of this -- of this casino here in East Windsor, and to -- because -- and I don’t blame them because once our doors open there in East Windsor, they are going to be losing millions of dollars a month to our casino, and they’re also going to be -- right -- they’re not going to be -- they’re going to be losing -- well, they’re losing money but -- to our casino and our casino will be paying you for revenue when we open up. Now, so I’m not really sure that MGM wants to build a casino in Bridgeport, but they do want to slow down the building of our casino, and so I think you have to take that into account, and -- SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, would you -- would you be open -- REP. DAVIS (57TH): Sorry. If I can? SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): You want to add to it? Sure. REP. DAVIS (57TH): Yeah, just that I think I see where you’re going with the questioning as far as the RFP, and it’s important to note that East Windsor as a town responded to an RFP. They aren’t the ones that issued the RFP. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Correct. REP. DAVIS (57TH): It was the state that authorized that to be done in part because -- because -- not in 243 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING part, because of the tribal agreements that we have with the two tribal nations within the state of Connecticut, which makes it a unique situation that is kind of outside of the typical RFP process for sure, and I appreciate those -- those questions. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you. So, first selectman, if -- if we were to issue this RFP, if we were to pass that as a legislature and allow for that to take steps and we were to also allow for your project to be built, would you have any opposition to -- to that happening? BOB MAYNARD: Not at all. Not at all. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. And, furthermore -- I know I’m kind of going back and forth in terms of what company does more for -- for any particular town, and I don’t mean to put you on the spot, so it’s kind of if you know, you know, and if you don’t, it’s absolutely fine, but are you aware of anything that MGM does for the constituencies that they give or that they’re patrons or anything like that? Are you aware of anything that they give back to the community or serve for the community or things that they’ve done to improve the lives of the people -- [Crosstalk]. BOB MAYNARD: I -- I -- I am not aware, but I’ll say something in a sense I’m aware of. Apparently -- and I have not visited the MGM -- but apparently, during the day, they have a buffet or something of sandwiches or something and people come in from the street, and so they’re in a sense they’re feeding the needy, but I don’t know if they planned on doing that. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, it’s -- so if I understand your testimony correctly, you don’t know -- 244 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

BOB MAYNARD: That’s correct. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): If MGM does anything to serve? And, you don’t particularly know -- I would assume -- the scope in terms of their value, how big the organization is compared to the tribes’ organization? How much money they particularly have or how much money they can allocate to the community? BOB MAYNARD: Well, I would speculate that MGM is a -- is a multi-billion-dollar international corporation. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, it’s possible that if it was an RFP that they would be willing to do a lot more for East Windsor if they were able to bid on the process and to build a casino there; is that possible? BOB MAYNARD: I don’t think so. In fact, I think there’s an agreement they have with Massachusetts that they won’t build another casino within a 50- mile radius of Springfield’s casino. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, they’re limited from doing that now, but from your understanding of -- of their net worth or their book of business, it would be -- it’s significantly larger than what the tribes have; is that correct? To your understanding? BOB MAYNARD: Yeah, I would say, yes. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. And -- and both the tribes and MGM, and any other casino operators where they’re talking about building, at the end of the day is something that I all think we all would agree with is a vice, right? Gaming is -- we’re not dealing with building nurseries or senior citizen living. This is -- this is a vice -- casinos. It 245 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING was viewed not too long ago to be kind of a negative activity to engage in; is that correct? BOB MAYNARD: Well, I guess if you consider smoking a vice, right, then gambling would be a vice, right. A drink, you know, alcohol, those are -- are more drugs than habit, but -- SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Sure. So, -- so all those vices that you mentioned, smoking, alcohol, you know, maybe people would throw marijuana into that, casinos, these are all vices, these -- these companies engage in that would deal in these types of business; is that correct? BOB MAYNARD: I -- I do. Well, I have to say I’ve been to the Foxwoods Casino, and I play Texas Hold’em, and so consider me a sinner. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Right. I’m not throwing stones. BOB MAYNARD: [Laughing]. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Trust you me -- trust you me, I’m sure my sins outweigh yours, and I’m not sure about that [Laughter], but I’m no -- I’m no choir boy that’s for sure. You can ask anybody in Bridgeport, but -- but my point is that I -- I just think -- I think that we just want to call a spade a spade to make another analogy with gaming, right. I don’t think it’s per se saying that MGM is the world’s evil and the tribes are doing such a great service to any of us here in the state of Connecticut in terms of the service that they are providing. They’re providing a casino, which we know has destroyed a lot of homes and families, and has had negative aspects to what they do for a business, so we kind of have to be honest in terms of what the tribes are actually doing here. 246 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

BOB MAYNARD: Well -- SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Because this isn’t a historic museum that they’re proposing. BOB MAYNARD: This is true. Non-historic’s in the library. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Right. BOB MAYNARD: But, if you look at other businesses, a lot of other businesses make money on human nature, whatever it is, whether they put out styles of clothing, but they’re using the human nature, and the human emotions, and that -- that’s something that actually is getting worse perhaps because now with the Facebook people -- elected officials are appealing to people’s emotions rather than logic, and I think really the -- there’s a huge educational thing that’s needed in all walks of life to help people not get stuck in a -- in a habitual thing that’s negative to their health. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, this is one of the last final questions I have for you, and I really appreciate you taking the time here to indulge me with this. If we were to issue an RFP and if the RFP were to show that opening up for private bidding for competition would generate more revenue, I think you testified that you would be in favor of that, right? BOB MAYNARD: I -- if -- if we have a casino in East Windsor, I’m all for it. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, the only way you would be in favor, even if the state of Connecticut could generate more revenue, you would only be in favor if East Windsor got a casino even though if the RFP showed that we were going to generate more money 247 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING having a casino somewhere else or by having an open process? BOB MAYNARD: If you’re saying that -- if you’re saying that you would consider two casinos, but if you’re saying that only one casino can be in Connecticut, then I -- I think there would be a better place to build a casino as you pointed out in Connecticut than East Windsor, but for the tribal nations right now it’s best for them to build one in East Windsor, and it’s also good for the Northcentral region of Connecticut. I think work has to be done if you’re gonna build a casino somewhere else, but to -- to throw -- I would say, you know, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and -- so don’t throw away what’s there. REP. DAVIS (57TH): And, Senator, if I could to your previous question about license? I shared those very concerns. You know, I wasn’t necessarily the - - the biggest cheerleader for this project in the very beginning if anybody around here remembers for those very same concerns, and -- and as Representative Hall had mentioned we attended very numerous townhall meetings, we hosted townhall meetings together about the project, and -- and there -- things in the state of Connecticut, and got feedback from our constituents, and to your first question, I think, or one of your first questions of the distance. This facility is very close to Springfield, and the idea that individuals that engage in those types of activities already have pretty direct access. In fact, the state of Connecticut built a train that goes from Windsor Locks, literally right over the bridge from where this facility is going to be, right into downtown Springfield for access to that casino, so I think people will be participating in it whether it’s in 248 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

East Windsor or not because of the proximity to -- to Springfield, but at the end of the day, the legislature limited where these could be. Now, if those conversations like the governor asked for, if the tribes could consider doing Bridgeport, I think that -- as well as East Windsor, I think that’s a conversation to continue to have, and -- and I encourage the tribes to continue to do that because it would benefit -- potentially benefit both your community, my community, and ultimately the entirety of the state of Connecticut if we went down that route. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Fishbein. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, gentleman. BOB MAYNARD: Good afternoon. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Thank you for coming and your testimony. I don’t know if you’re aware, you know, we sit here all day, and I feel like we’re fighting over, you know, where this casino’s gonna be. But, you know, there was a report done in 2009, that embezzlements in Connecticut have increased almost 400 percent since the casinos have opened, and you know, as a local leader myself, you now, ‘cause I sit on our local town council as well as being here, I would be concerned about a casino coming to my community. In fact, you know, a very large facility, Bristol Myers in our town recently closed, and we had talked about, you know, possibly, you know, engaging in this activity, and we decided as local leaders that we didn’t want it, so you know, I’m a little concerned on that aspect. But, why would it make sense if East Windsor went forward, I would think there would be no way for somebody to 249 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING bid on an RFP? How would they possibly know that unless they knew the impact of East Windsor? Wouldn’t it in effect just -- the word isn’t mute -- but, how would I as a potential bidder be able to bid on the RFP not knowing what the casino situation in Connecticut was five years from now? REP. DAVIS (57TH): I think I understand your question in that it would make it difficult to have an RFP process if the East Windsor Casino was still in limbo; is that essentially what you’re -- what you’re getting at? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Or even built and it hadn’t been totally, you know, it’s gonna have some sort of -- a lot of business in the beginning, you know, because it’s new, and then it’s going to decrease more than likely. That’s the trend of these things. So, how does somebody -- let’s just say if we had the RFP and Wynn wanted to big, I mean it’s virtually impossible; wouldn’t you agree? REP. DAVIS (57TH): For them to know what the saturation of those casinos would be? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, what they should bid on that RFP. BOB MAYNARD: Well, I would say that a casino in the Bridgeport area or fairly close to New York City is probably a good place for a casino, and they -- if the casino existed in East Windsor and it had some - - and they started to understand the amount of revenue that the East Windsor casino was going to take -- Tribal Winds -- they would have a good idea of how much money they can make in Bridgeport, and they would offer a casino that would make money in Bridgeport. 250 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. The -- just please educate me as to the process in East Windsor. The town meeting votes on the charter? BOB MAYNARD: Yes. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, there’s a charter -- BOB MAYNARD: Well, the town meeting is the -- is the town government. Now, we can in a town meeting can vote on the charter, can vote on any -- any motion that -- that the -- that’s either the members of the town or the Board of Selectmen put before it, but a referendum is no more than taking a town meeting and extending the hours, and putting it -- using voting machines. That’s all a referendum is. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Oh, I would -- I would agree. So, the town -- like, we have a town council in Wallingford. It’s a nine-membered body, so the town meeting is made up of how many? BOB MAYNARD: The town meeting is made up of all the residents in the town -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, and that is -- BOB MAYNARD: All the voters. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay, so it’s not like an RTM or something like that? BOB MAYNARD: No, it would be the full -- all electors in the town can participate, and they can actually then and it often times happens the town meeting gets -- gets determined as recessed to a referendum, which in this case, it did not happen. Actually, I believe that might have been voted down at one of the town meetings to do that, but that -- that does happen sometimes for the town’s budget that get presented at the town meeting, and then get sent down to referendum. 251 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): So, since we voted on this in 2017, I think, has East Windsor taken any action to perhaps, since there is a lot of discussion about this, to have the referendum that’s being bandied about? BOB MAYNARD: In a sense, they haven’t, and the reason we haven’t it would -- it would be a big imposition on the town. We want the referendum -- not the referendum. We want the casino, the Tribal Winds, and we would have to spend thousands of dollars to hold. It would cost about $5000 dollars to hold a referendum, but then you could imagine what -- what happened if -- if we did hold that referendum. MGM, 12 miles up the road, would start putting up these fliers all over the place, and the tribal nations would feel necessary to defend themselves, so we’d have a big circus in town, and it would get us nowhere. I’m sure the vote would come out that we’d win it. A lot of people put in a lot of effort, and we just don’t need that hoopla. We’re ready to build. Like I say, if Bill 11 passes, we will be building the next week. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I would expect that every election you have you have a lot of fliers and certainly, a lot of the fliers are made locally, so you know, that’s a way for economic development locally, but I’m -- I’m just concerned the numbers that you know you gave me -- I looked up the population of East Windsor. It’s about 11,400, and you know, 400 people showed up and voted on this thing, which is about -- it’s been 3 and 4 percent of the residents, and I’m just -- BOB MAYNARD: Yeah, well, let me say that often times in a municipal election 1000 people show up, and that’s when we have the referendum and the voting open from 6 to 8 o’clock at night. 252 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, I’m sure when you gentleman run that more people than that show up to put you in office, but this is a very big decision, and it’s a very big -- it’s gonna change -- you know, should it happen, it will change the character of East Windsor forever, and you know, I know in my town in Wallingford, you know, almost everything goes to referendum. You know, the charter is a referendum. It’s in our charter. BOB MAYNARD: Do you have a town manager and a council? REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): We have a mayor. BOB MAYNARD: Yeah, so -- REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Mayor and council. BOB MAYNARD: You have a different form of government than we do. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Yes, sir. But, I just -- I have a little difficulty while there’s going to be a lot of fliers, so we’re not gonna let the people vote on this, and I -- I -- you know, with all due respect, I don’t think that’s a reason not to have a referendum, so -- but I enjoyed the discussion. REP. DAVIS (57TH): And, Representative, and as Representative Hall had mentioned that we introduce the requirement when that bill as passed by the legislature in 2017 to require that as part of the RFP process, it -- or actually in part of when East Windsor was already selected to do the authorization for the East Windsor process and the legislature that ultimately voted that down, and I wasn’t comfortable necessarily doing that because it would have been pretty heavy-handed for us as a state to say you have to have a referendum when the townspeople in town meetings voted down the 253 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING opportunity to have those referendums on the ordinance that you had mentioned, and there have been other opportunities since then for town people to weigh in as well, which public hearings for the planning and zoning and wetlands Applications, various other things that there has not been that kind of turnout for any of those meetings like they received in those -- in those town meetings. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Well, would you be open to an amendment of SB-11, you know, that took off that requirement of federal BIA support, but added a referendum. If we took off one thing and we added something else as some level of assurances; would you be -- what -- what would be your position on an amendment like that? BOB MAYNARD: I -- I would not support that in -- for the reasons I said. It would -- I don’t think - - I think the town -- and I have every reason to believe the town really is 100 percent -- well, maybe not 100 -- 70 percent behind this casino, and to create a referendum would -- would not be in the best interest of the town at all in the sense that as I said, it would -- it would cause a big, in a sense, political battle in the town that’s unnecessary. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): And, what about the other towns that you know I mentioned earlier that as part of the legislation that passed the other towns were given money extensively because of the impact upon their towns? Should they be able to have a referendum on those -- on this impact? BOB MAYNARD: I don’t think the other town really should determine whether or not we have a casino, and I think if you ask them -- I think -- I know if a town next to us, if Windsor Locks had gotten the 254 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING tribal nations’ blessing for a casino, I would be happy to take $750,000 dollars from the tribal nations. REP. FISHBEIN (90TH): Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you both for coming today. And, Representative Davis, you have looked at this East Windsor Casino from all different sides of it. You analyzed this casino to make sure that your communities were not negatively being impacted. You said a little bit earlier that it was the state who decided where the third casino would go; is that true? REP. DAVIS (57TH): That is correct, yeah. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, it wasn’t like MGM made this decision or the tribal nations made the decision. We gave them an option of a certain area to -- to move into; is that true? REP. DAVIS (57TH): Yes, that’s correct, and I think in fact when you had the public forum, the information forum the other day and excuse me, I missed their testimony earlier today, but I know that they had definitely said that we ask -- the tribes had asked for three locations, and we as a state limited them to one location. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, I recall that very clearly. Again, that is part of my frustration here is that we as a state asked our tribal nation partners to pick a location in the certain region of the state, and Mayor, I understand that town meeting form of government -- that’s what my town has is a town meeting form of government. Have you ever 255 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING gotten a flier from any other business sort of putting your phone number out there saying -- BOB MAYNARD: No. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Call you and tell you to renege on a deal? BOB MAYNARD: No, and -- and -- so that’s why I kind of cautioned Connecticut. That’s why I tried to say in my opening remarks. You’re -- you’re dealing with a huge corporation that has a lot of money, and they don’t care about people at all, and if -- if your town or your state or your region isn’t doing what they want and it’s costing them money, they’ll pull out all of the funds and all the stops to -- to really attack on a very individual resident level what you’re doing, so be careful of what you are inviting into the state. REP. DAVIS (57TH): And, I would say I don’t know how MGM operates as the Senator questioned. I assumed that they are very active in their communities and that they do care about those people that -- that certainly work at their facilities and in the communities in which they are present in; however, I think it sends a very bad message for the state of Connecticut for us to go through a multi- year process, select a facility, say create a business and we will let you build one, invest $300- million dollars, create thousands of jobs for us to then come back and say, stop, don’t do that. We’re talking this all away from you after investing in their part. They’ve invested millions of dollars into this site. They purchased the property. They tore down the derelict buildings that the town has been desperately desirous of removal, and now to say don’t -- don’t go forward, I think that would be a problem. Now, I do know that the bill that’s before 256 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING you as well here today does not call for that, does not say stop East Windsor. You know, you can still potentially do that under that bill. It’s not like some of the bills in the past, and I very much appreciate that, but it’s important for us not to send that bad negative symbol, whether it’s a casino or any other business in the state of Connecticut that we’re gonna set you up to fail, and I don’t want to have that shown around the world at this point that Connecticut would do that to a business that’s willing to invest that much money in our state. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I think that this is the first time today I’ve taken a sigh of relief just by you saying that because I have worked extremely hard as you have worked extremely hard for your area, and to hear that we would have a business that would put in tens of millions of dollars into supporting an area, and we would say after they had done that we made a mistake, we’re not moving forward, or oh, by the way, sorry, we’re looking at it different five years later. I -- I so appreciate you saying that because I am trying to have us look more business fri8endly, and this seems to me to be quintessential, not business friendly, my opinion on this. So, Mayor, in regards to your town meeting form of government, I wanted to make sure people understood the town meeting form of government. You can send things out to referendum if you so choose? BOB MAYNARD: Absolutely, yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I always -- BOB MAYNARD: You could. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Send my budget out to referendum, but I don’t always send out all the ordinances because they generally don’t require that 257 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING level, but I found I have just as many people coming to town meetings -- as a matter of fact, my last town meeting had more people come to it than I had voting at referendum, so I was a little bit dismayed that I spent the money on a referendum, so long time to, especially when you take into the cost of having registrars, moderates, and all the other folks that you have to have. The building that is being used now, Representative Davis talked a little bit about that. Was that an occupied business with -- occupied building with a business in it? BOB MAYNARD: The Showcase Cinema? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yes. BOB MAYNARD: No. It had been abandoned for ten years. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, was it just sitting empty with the parking lots not being used around it? BOB MAYNARD: Yeah, grass growing through the pavement and there -- on the side of the -- of the building there was a door where you could go in, and there was a piece of plywood up there, and there was a 3-foot hole cut in the plywood, so I’m not sure what was in the building, but something was in the building. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Oh, I know. Having empty buildings is always disastrous for communities because whether it’s two-legged or four-legged people who enter or animals who enter, it’s always problematic because it creates a whole boatload of problems for your fire department, for your police department, and -- and the other social services that are there. when you were debating this at your town meetings, did tribal nations send out fliers to 258 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING all of your people with phone numbers on it and say call you in support? BOB MAYNARD: No, no, they didn’t. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I find that interesting. Are you aware, Representative Davis, of the lawsuit that MGM brought against the victims of the Las Vegas shooting? REP. DAVIS (57TH): I’m aware that that has happened. I don’t know any of the details whatsoever or their motivations to do so. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I suppose we could -- when Mr. Clinton comes up, maybe I can ask them their motivation for it. REP. DAVIS (57TH): I think he would be better suited to answer that, so -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. I’ve been waiting for him to have the opportunity to come up. So, you know, your town is prepared to move forward. There was a question about inland/wetlands. Does every one of your -- when you have a zoning permit, does everything go through zoning, then go through Inland Wetlands, and then go through -- BOB MAYNARD: Usually, the wetlands is first. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Okay. BOB MAYNARD: It can go either way. REP. DAVIS (57TH): And, I would point out that if any of you have seen -- and I know Senator that you attended one of the ceremonies there, so you’ve seen it yourself. That location is quite unique for this opportunity, and it’s interesting to note that the building sat their vacant for ten years. We have been unable as a community to redevelop that spot 259 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING that is very nice property right off of I-91, and next door to it a former Wal-Mart that had closed and then moved further down the road into a different location, so now that building is also standing vacant, which currently is not part of this proposal, so that would still be there, but the hope for the town is that by having this facility built here that you would also see that development in some of those other derelict properties right around there that could only benefit the taxpayers of East Windsor and the state of Connecticut. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, I want to go back to the building permit and zoning permit process just for a quick minute. There was some conversation that my colleague had with you regarding Inland Wetlands. Just because a developer goes to Inland Wetlands, does that mean that there’s wetlands on the property, is that just I am to see if there’s wetlands on the property? BOB MAYNARD: No, it’s every person who -- who proposes the bill to build something of significance has to go to Wetlands ‘cause actually there is a lot of wetlands around the East Windsor area, so that’s just one -- part of the process. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, so it goes from Wetlands to Zoning, and then once the detailed plans come in, you will issue a building permit? BOB MAYNARD: That’s correct. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I assume that -- my understanding is that you have great debate on your council -- your city council in that you have people on all sides of the issue. On this one issue, you are a lockstep with each other; is that true? 260 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

BOB MAYNARD: That almost is an understatement. When I took office -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): [Laughing]. BOB MAYNARD: Three of the five -- and there was myself and another person -- but three of the five were opposed to it, and they even took away my town attorney, tried running a town without an attorney, but -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): [Laughing]. I’ve tried. It doesn’t work well. BOB MAYNARD: [Laughing]. So, yes, yes, there was - - and yet, we’re all in step on the casino. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, I just want to thank you very much for waiting all day long, and Representative Davis, I want to thank you for your insightful way of looking at this project as -- as you have challenging each and every one of us to make sure we were doing things that were best for your communities and for the state, and I think that, you know, I so enjoy listening to you debate, whether it’s on the Bond Commission or it’s in Finance or on the floor. I find your way of looking at things to be remarkable and insightful, and I very much appreciate everything you do, and I’m so appreciative of you saying today that what we have done is could be perceived by other businesses as bad for Connecticut. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. DAVIS (57TH): Thank you very much for those very kind words, Senator, and I enjoy working with you as we’ve worked very closely on the state budget for a number of years now. Thank you very much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Champagne. 261 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. Senator Osten already asked a few of my questions, but I’m going to go through just a quick list of things. So, you responded to an RFP in East Windsor in -- that was put out and you won? BOB MAYNARD: Correct. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Were there any concerns from Planning and Zoning? BOB MAYNARD: No, I don’t think there were any. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. From Inland Wetlands? BOB MAYNARD: No. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. From any other board or commission? BOB MAYNARD: No. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. And, you made contact with the tribes and you came up with a cost of increased services? BOB MAYNARD: Yes. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. So, the town doesn’t have to worry about that? BOB MAYNARD: That’s correct. We -- we’ve -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): All right. BOB MAYNARD: Yep. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): And, you have -- you’re going to be getting the taxes for the -- the cost of the building, and you have that set over five years? BOB MAYNARD: Yes. 262 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. To me, this is a win for East Windsor. BOB MAYNARD: Absolutely. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): There is no question as the process. You went through the process. You did it correctly, and you know, I congratulate East Windsor on this because to me, this is a win, and I was on that property many times when I went to the movies, and that would be a perfect place to build. I see it luring no property values or causing any problems, and the highway is literally right there, so. BOB MAYNARD: Yeah. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): You know, I support the casino there, and you know, hopefully, we can get this done and move it along, so thank you. BOB MAYNARD: I think this is good not only for East Windsor but the entire region. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): All surrounding, absolutely. BOB MAYNARD: Yeah. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Because I now from my district, there will be people that will apply and probably be working there as well, so thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Representative Paolillo. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Hi, good afternoon. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): First selectman, I just have a couple questions -- 263 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

BOB MAYNARD: Sure. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): I know you’ve given a lot of this testimony already. I asked the tribes today about the building permits that they have secured -- BOB MAYNARD: A lot. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): To this point. BOB MAYNARD: Well, permits. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): But, I’d just like clarification -- BOB MAYNARD: Sure. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): From you, if I could start there? What have they secured? BOB MAYNARD: They’ve -- they’ve secured the Wetlands permit, and they’ve secured the Planning and Zoning permit, so they’re -- now, the next permit they’ll have to apply for is the building permit, and that just means that they’ll give us a plan, and we’ll make sure the plan meets the coding specifications of buildings in Connecticut, just the state regulations. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, with those permits that they’ve secured so far, there’s an appeal? BOB MAYNARD: Yes, there is. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Can you -- can you give us an update about that because there wasn’t any update at the last informational hearing, and again, earlier today. BOB MAYNARD: Well, I can give you -- this is what I have in front of me because I was -- I was here in January when you asked that question, and what I have here is -- is something that was received by 264 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING the town on July 6, and it’s -- it’s litigation of Sophia’s Plaza, and it says Sofia’s Plaza versus the Planning and Zoning Commission of the town of East Windsor and MMC Ventures, LLC. So, and there’s not much to it, but I’ll read one paragraph from it that really gives you and idea of what we’re up against, and it says, “The plaintiff, Sofia’s Plaza, LLC is agreed by the action of the defendant, Planning and Zoning Commission on the MMC Venture, LLC site plan application because it is the owner of land adjacent to the land, which is subject of the commission’s decision and the approval of the site plan application, will have adverse effect on its property.” And, that’s all we know. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Well, there’s actually been a brief filed with six different areas of concern, so -- BOB MAYNARD: That’s true, and then a prefiling -- REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Well, if I can just followup with that? BOB MAYNARD: Sure. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): The brief was a little bit longer than the -- BOB MAYNARD: Well, okay. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Brief paragraph that you just read. BOB MAYNARD: No, what I read was on July 6, was the citation, the -- the -- what Sofia’s Plaza put to the courts to say that they wanted to bring this case to the courts, and I’ll just go off on a tangent a slight minute. When -- and -- and the primary person and manager -- it’s in this too -- is Disphenia Tarsinas [phonetic], and she’s the 265 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING managing member, and she came to the Planning and Zoning hearing -- I was there -- and it was brought up that there was going to be a sidewalk put in on her side of the street, and she said, “well, who’s gonna shovel the sidewalk?” That was her only complaint at that meeting, but now, as it says here, she is saying it has an adverse effect, which is very nebulous. Now, you’re saying -- and you’re right. What the Sofia’s Plaza did was FOI all the information possibly about the casino, and it took us a long time to give her that information, and then there’s I guess a disposition, the -- the -- the plaintiff gives one to the judge, I guess, and the defendant gives one to the judge, and then they’re going to have some kind of a hearing, so I - - I -- that’s up to the lawyers to discuss. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, I guess just my final question would be you’re -- you’re not in a position to issue those building permits until the appeal has been heard and there is a decision rendered on that? BOB MAYNARD: I don’t know. I would have to -- I -- I -- I don’t know if I could or not. I don’t know. I’d have to check with my legal team because right now, we passed -- you’re right. They’re under -- definitely under litigation. Somebody’s saying that the process wasn’t done correctly. Now, can we issue a building permit? I’m not sure, don’t know. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, I would just ask that those plans -- those final plans that you have mentioned they haven’t been presented to you yet? BOB MAYNARD: They haven’t been presented to us, no. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): So, it would be probably difficult for a building enforcement official short of those plans and without zoning to be able to issue building permits and to make -- 266 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

BOB MAYNARD: Without the plans, you couldn’t. I’m not sure if zoning -- if he has zoning or not. I -- I thought, from my perspective, the zoning site plan has -- the zoning’s been approved. That’s my perspective. Now, I don’t know if a -- if a court appeal would hold things up. I don’t know. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): I thank you for your answers today. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I just have a couple quick questions. As far as economic development piece to this and the benefit to East Windsor, you indicated that the $3-million-dollar host-town agreement -- BOB MAYNARD: Impact -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Impact [clearing throat], and that’s essentially to pay for any additional services that the town would be liable for, right? BOB MAYNARD: Yes. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): You also mentioned that you would be getting taxes -- the taxes paid on the property because it’s not being paid now; is that correct? BOB MAYNARD: That’s correct. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Do you see any other economic benefit to the town of East Windsor other than those two that we’ve identified? BOB MAYNARD: Jobs would be helpful, and -- and would just benefit. It also benefits, like you say, the region and the state, but to East Windsor, I think the taxes and jobs are probably the key, but maybe -- [Crosstalk] 267 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Just one second. Do you know how many -- approximately how many residents, if any, work at MGM Springfield? BOB MAYNARD: No, I don’t know. Not a lot ‘cause -- at least -- I don’t know. I don’t know. REP. DAVIS (57TH): If I can? I am aware that there are some in the area that do work at MGM. I don’t know the exact number, but as far as the economic development goes, I now I have been approached and I believe the town may have already been approached by people that are interested in developing parcels around that facility that are currently either undeveloped or underdeveloped in my opinion such as the derelict building here at the old Wal-Mart, and not that it’s derelict in a sense that it’s falling down or -- or -- but it’s just not being used on a regular basis, so that’s -- that’s potential economic development right there that would turn around the tax rules for the people of Connecticut, as well as the development of open lots that are right nearby that people have started to look into potentially developing if the casino were to be built. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative, you voted -- I believe, you voted no on the bill last year for the RFP process? REP. DAVIS (57TH): I did. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, was -- and I don’t recall. Was one of the reasons you voted no was because of the potential loss of the revenue and the tribes not fulfilling that obligation and putting that money at risk? REP. DAVIS (57TH): Tht is one of the reasons why, which is why I think it potentially is in the best 268 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING interest of the state of Connecticut to do a process in which the tribes are the partners, as well as if we were to do another facility outside of East Windsor’s facility as well, so that is not a question of the amount of money that could potentially be lost. If for some reason the East Windsor facility is stopped and another facility is opened, I think that certainly opens the tribes to say, well our exclusivity has been breached, and we may not want to move forward with that, but I understand that that bill at that time perhaps didn’t do that directly, but it did lead -- would have led to that process. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, would you agree that the current compact is pretty much an iron clad agreement with respect to the state getting the -- the money from the compacts? REP. DAVIS (57TH): They have done it for the last whatever it is -- 25 years, so it appears that it is a longstanding and ongoing process. I will say that, you know, there is limitations to it as I think there’s been some testimony about those limitations that might be in place for other things like sports gaming or I-lotto or something along those lines, but as far as casino gaming, which I think the two bills that are before you with that respect deal with they have been making those payments, and I had been assured personally, and I think they’ve done so in public forms here that it’s their intention to continue to make those payments as long as the compacts aren’t breached. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Right, and do you have any knowledge -- I don’t think you’re a lawyer -- with respect to any changes to the compacts that need any amendments to the compacts need to go through the 269 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

BIA in order for those compacts to continue to be enforceable? REP. DAVIS (57TH): Well, it’s my understanding that the issue at hand is that the Interior secretary said that this is not a contact with the Mashantucket-Pequot tribes, and that they do not need to rule on it. I don’t know if that’s correct or not. That’s what they -- what they ruled. Now, there’s ongoing litigation about whether that was a correct interpretation, and a Grand Jury investigation whether or not there was undue influence to make that determination at the last moment, but at this time, we had requested as a state to include that approval process within that legislation that we’ve had. We’ve now seen that that’s an issue at the federal level, so that’s why I think why this bill is here before us here today. Ultimately, I would like to see the federal government approve that memorandum of understanding with the Mashantucket-Pequot, so we can just move forward with the process, so I’m not necessarily saying we need to do away with wanting them on board with this, but it’s quite clear that there is outside situation here that took place that is being adjudicated at a Grand Jury level as well as within the Department of Interior with their internal investigation as to whether or not the process was properly followed and the decisions that were made were ones in the best interest of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the federal government. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And -- and I couldn’t agree with you more with respect to had -- had that been approved by the DIA, we’d probably not be having this conversation, and they would well be on their way, and quite frankly, I -- I respect the legislature’s intentions back then, although I may 270 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING disagree, I wouldn’t be here today having this conversation, but it’s not the case, and one of the reasons why I opposed the original bill was kind of to the point that you stated earlier about the state of Connecticut, jobs, our budget situation because I really felt that this process that we went through was going to resolve because of the -- the numerous legal pitfalls in that bill that we had passed to allow this situation, was going to cause delays, and it -- again, I’m not a lawyer, but I think -- I think particularly in MGMs case, they made it very clear that the path that they were going to take legally, and I think because of those adherent legal pitfalls that that’s why we’re here today because of delays. I’m all about jobs. I’m all about creating the revenue, but I would have liked to seen the cleaner process, and I think had we gone that other direction, we might not be still talking about a shovel-ready project four years later with no end in sight, so I agree with you. I certainly appreciate Mr. Maynard’s testimony. I’m getting to know him pretty well. We’re seeing him a lot and your advocacy for your community should be commended, so thank you for being here today. BOB MAYNARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. I’m seeing no one else. Robert Christopher -- or Christoph. I’m sorry. Sorry. Robert -- Sir, can you just push the microphone button there? ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Sorry about that. I’ll start over here. Good evening, Representative Verrengia and members of the committee. Thank you foe the opportunity to speak with you today in support of House Bill 7055. My name is Robert Christoph, Jr. I’m President of Operations for Bridgeport Land Development. We are one of the 271 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING owners -- private owners of the largest track of land on the Bridgeport Harbor. We’ve been there for 16+ years, so we’re not Johnny Come Lately. We’ve been there a long time. In the downturn, we -- we were the only company or major developer that stuck with Bridgeport through the downturn to redevelop the project. We stuck with them through the recession, and we continue to build today. We went forward with all the infrastructure to make the site developable, so that we knew when the -- when the time came and it -- the market turned around, we’d be ready to construct. Today’ we’re transforming the Bridgeport Harbor from an old abandoned industrial harbor to a new modern Ameritime entertainment and reactional destination, and it has begun -- began in earnest. The waterfront building we’re developing today is approximately 42,000 square feet. It contains a waterfront restaurant called Boca Mediterranean Seafood. You will be able to come there to the waterfront to dine, shop, and boat. We are also for the first time in 100 years opening the waterfront to the public. We’re putting in 25-feet promenade around the peninsula. The residential development for the project, the first phase will start this April. We’re excited about that because that will be one of the first market rate housing projects to be developed in Bridgeport. Why do I share this history with you? As the saying goes, we’ve only just begun, but for the next chapter to unfold, we need your help, really your permission. We need you to establish a state gaming commission and authorize it to conduct a competitive RFP process for a commercial casino. We are confident that Bridgeport will stand out in the process. We are proud to be associated with a proposal made nearly a year and a half ago by MGM. Their plan for 2000 permanent, 272 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING good-paying jobs with an additional 5000 indirect jobs for a total of 7000 jobs, for doing business with local vendors, for working with the community organizations, and for establishing a tourist attraction that will help every other tourist attraction in the city, in the region are just some of the reason why we remain convinced that this is a piece of the puzzle that needs to be moved into place. By doing that, the picture becomes clear that we can more fully recognize the potential that is Bridgeport. We are believers and have been for quite some time, and we have absolutely no doubt that ours is the best place in Connecticut for a commercial casino, and there is plenty of data and plenty of local support for that conclusion. A fist-class [Bell] entertainment venue is precisely what’s needed. A perfect fit with the other plans for Steel Point that were highlighted here today. I’ll skip to the end. We ask you to take the next step, which can lead to a fist-class Long Island Sound entertainment destination that will have heads turned, jobs grow, and dollars flow to the city of Bridgeport, surrounding communities, and the state of Connecticut. Thank you, and I’m pleased to answer any questions. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you. Senator Hwang. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you very much for waiting and -- and this goes for all the people that are standing in this room. Thank you for participating in this process. You talked about the commitment that you made already. Could you elaborate a little bit what you have done in -- in an area that has been desolate -- ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Yeah. 273 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And, underdeveloped for over -- dare I say -- 15 years, share with this committee what commitment you’ve made to creating jobs and businesses in the community of Bridgeport? ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: So, we’ve been working, as I said, for 16+ years, and a lot of that time has been spent on making this project resilient and sustainable for the future. We put in all new infrastructure, all new roads. We raised the complete site approximately 8 feet. We put in a whole new bulkhead in the property after Hurricane Sandy and before that FEMA came out and raised the flood plain 4 feet as many of us people in Connecticut know on the shoreline that was a major issue, and so we -- we didn’t just raise it 4 feet for FEMA, we went back and redesigned it and raised it 8 feet, so that we would be sustainable going into the future. All that infrastructure took time. We also went forward when everyone left and did the entitlements of the project, so we had the full 2+ million square feet of entitlements in place for the project if we proceed forward. We attracted Bass Pro. We’ve attracted Starbucks, Chipotle to come to Bridgeport and continue to do that. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And -- and you’ve made a commitment, I think, as we spoke briefly. You -- you relocated from where the family business is to be a permanent resident of Connecticut, to make that kind of commitment, so you’re right on the ground. Would that be correct? ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: That is correct. I’m now a resident of Connecticut. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Now, for this committee and you’re -- you’re not a novice developer; could you share briefly -- and I know it’s been a long day -- 274 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: [Laughing]. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): The track record of -- of demonstrated success, if not a revitalization and regentrification of -- of significant communities; could you elaborate quickly maybe two or three projects? Maybe just one or two projects that you might have been involved in, in making the same kind of commitment that you made from the family, from your dad onto you in various communities in revitalizing a -- a -- a challenged community, a challenges area? ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Yes. One of the most popular ones today is the Miami Beach Marina facility that we redeveloped. It was a run-down city, had real fiscal issues. We went in and in a period bought majority -- a lot of historic art deco buildings, revitalized them, brought them back in, put them back out into the historic nature that they originally were intended. We redeveloped the waterfront from which was a waste transfer station and a bus depot into a first-class waterfront with a harbor walk that now goes all the way around the peninsula of Miami Beach. Was a key part in redeveloping a lot of the assets along that waterfront with both the city of Miami Beach, as well as a couple of private developers to revitalize that area. We are also the owners of Bahia Mar in up in Fort Lauderdale. We hosted the world’s largest boat show as another great example of something we look to attract to come to Bridgeport and the harbor, the great destination that we think it will become. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you for your efforts and thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thak you, Mr. Chair. 275 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Thank you. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Senator. Up next, Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Christoph for being here today. You’ve been waiting a long time. A lot of people I’ve heard from either that are opposed to this project or think Bridgeport could do better has said, well why does Bridgeport need a casino? Why can’t they put other economic development I there? Why can’t they put a factory in there? Why can’t they put a corporate headquarters there? why can’t they put a large retail establishment there? Can you just answer that question for me? I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but if you could just address some of those concerns. ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Well, right now, the one tenant that we have knocking on the door of Bridgeport is MGM, and that’s our opportunity. We think it’s to move forward with a mixed use development for housing and for retail and enlivening the waterfront to make it a destination is in the highest and best use currently of Steel Point and what we are developing there. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, since you’re so familiar with the area, what is your experience, what is your believe, and what this type of development would mean for not only that part of Bridgeport but the entire region? ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Well, I think it would be a hugely forward for the area. It would be a ten-year shot in the arm up front. It will otherwise take 10 to 15 years to build it the hard way. This would be an opportunity to create that destination, to attract people from all over Long Island Sound to 276 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING come here and be part of the entertainment destination. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you for taking the time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Thank you. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Thank you, Representative. Any other questions? Mr. Christoph, thank you. ROBERT CHRISTOPH, JR.: Thank you. REP. PAOLILLO (97TH): Next up, we have Chief Velky. Good evening, sir. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Good evening. My name is Richard Velky. Thank you. Thank you, chairman, vice-chairman, ranking members, and committee members. My name is Richard Velky. I have been the Chief of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation since 1987, and I am here today to speak in support of House Bill 7055, AN ACT CREATING THE CONNECTICUT GAMING COMMISSION AND CREATING A COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR A RESORT CASINO. I speak today on behalf of more than 300 members of the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation located in Western Connecticut. The Schaghticoke tribal nation has been waging battle concurrent fronts for recognition, restitution, and inclusion in Washington D.C. at the Bureau of Indian Affairs to undue a great miscarriage of justice where the Schaghticoke Tribal Nations recognition was granted in 2004, and then rescinded 22 months later. In Connecticut’s courtrooms to remedy this state’s grievous grab of tribal land and uncompensated taking and most importantly today, here before this committee in support of a fair and open process leading to the state’s first commercial casino and an opportunity for the inclusion by the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation in the process. We urge 277 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING lawmakers to support Bill 7055 because it provides a fair and open process when considering the state’s first commercial casino, and it establishes an independent state gaming commission to oversee that process, which Connecticut has not had. If the state wants to protect and enhance its revenue stream and get the best possible deal for the taxpayers, the only solution is an open competitive process. This bill provides the best deal for the people of Connecticut because it requires the transparent and competitive process over the exclusive bill approved by MMC -- for MMCT a couple of years ago. It would lead to the substantial upfront investment, allow for a higher percentage of gross gaming revenues, and licensing fees to be paid to stat in a competitive process just has been done in other states. A fair an open process would allow the state to consider for the benefits to all her citizens of commercial casino elsewhere such as in Southwestern Connecticut that would make more sense than any other location. Bridgeport, for example, is Connecticut’s largest city, and it sits on a a waterfront, which offers so much untapped potential. Thousands of new good jobs can be created. Access to the New York market simply is unavailable in other locations that has been the focus of the state’s attention. Schaghticoke Tribal Nation will have a pathway to compete along with everyone else, and no one’s constitutional rights will be denied or violated. The alternative of handing a gaming monopoly to MMCT would only give Connecticut the deal it needs and would apparently result in nothing more than a smaller development in East Windsor if that ever happens, and that is not a plan for Connecticut. It is designed for more as an attempt to disrupt MGM Springfield and to spur any actual economic 278 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING development or new job creation in Connecticut. The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation stand ready, willing, and able to compete for the right to offer commercial casino gaming in Southwestern Connecticut. All we need is an open process, which gives us the opportunity to compete. Bill number 7055 creates the necessary pathway and should be approved by this legislation. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, Chief, for your testimony. Any questions? Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Chief, for being here and taking the time. I know this isn’t your first experience testifying on this type of bill, but I believe, and I’ve been here pretty consistently since 10 a.m. -- I believe you’re the first person that is not affiliated with either MGM or the tribes that have come before us to testify on one of our bills, and you are in support of the free market option, the RFP process; is that correct? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: That’s correct, but don’t mistake that I do have friendly relations with both the tribes and MGM. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. I’m not asking you to pick a side, just it’s very clear that while there may be relationships this is a separate issue, which you know, everyone refers to this as the MGM bill, the Bridgeport casino, but it’s really just the RFP, which is trying to get information about the state, and I just want to keep driving that home, but thank you very much for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: And, if I could just follow up on that? That’s very important too because if it’s an open process it just doesn’t mean STN, MGM, it 279 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING means anybody else that might have an interest -- your family, anybody else. It’s an open process. It’s not cut off with a monopoly. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Chief, I really want to thank you for coming up today. I think that one thing that a lot of people don’t understand is our state recognized tribal nations are not being sorted as they’re supposed to be according to state law. Are you aware of the fact that there is a sate law that says that we are supposed to maintain the reservations to an ability to be used? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Yes, I am, Senator. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, how large is your reservation? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: We are approximately 400 acres, mostly mountainous. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): [Laughing] I actually was talking to Senator Miner about this, and he said that’s what you said, that is was mostly hilly in nature, and because I was looking at the industrial hemp legislation that we were -- that I’m hopeful that we can get through, which will significantly help out our tribal nations and our dairy farmers and other farmers providing them with a crop that’s not been available for a long time. It’s a billion- dollar business right now in the United States, so I’m hoping to get that through. I’ve been at both the tribal nations reservations that are federally recognized, and the state recognized Eastern Pequots, and I’m working with them. Their reservation also very large, also not being maintained as required by state law. It’s in north 280 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Stonington, not exactly in my district, but borders my district. I would be happy to work with you to see what we can do to make sure that we’re living up to our obligations and that the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection is doing what it’s supposed to do by state law to make sure that those reservations have the necessary facilities to be maintained and to be used by you and your members, so I hope to someday come down. I’ll put on my combat boots from my Army days, and I’ll come down and I’ll walk up those hills with you if you’re interested? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Don’t do it during rattlesnake season. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): [Laughing]. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: But, I appreciate it very much, you giving us that attention. I often wonder because I now the two tribes are contributed to all the other towns here in the state of Connecticut, why the five indigenous tribes that are recognized by the state, the other three state recognized tribes we’re not part of the rest of the towns that were able to get some of the funding that our own people raised being one of Connecticut’s first families? SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): That’s -- and -- and I like the fact that you’re saying that because I think the people often forget that I’m Irish, and so we didn’t come here first. Quite frankly, the Native Americans were here first, and I think that we have to recognize the fact that -- that we should be working with our Native American partners, whether state or federally recognized, but that decision was not made by the tribes themselves. That decision was made some 27 years ago by the legislature on who 281 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING was going to be in on that, and in talking with Chief Sebastian from the Eastern Pequots, she has been concerned about that also. That’s why I -- I put in a bill this year to put in a well, a septic system, and roads into their reservation, which holds yearly an event that I’m surprised that there’s not more accidents out -- driving out into the woods in North Stonington, but I’d love to come down. I’d love to see your reservation, and I’d love to work with you to make sure that we’re meeting our state obligations to your tribe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Thank you very much, Senator, and the open invitation is there for you. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Vail. REP. VAIL (52ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I’d love to come out too, but I don’t do rattlesnakes, so we’re all set with that, but I’ll still love to come out and check that out. So, you mentioned earlier that the Schaghticoke Nation was recognized by the Department of the Interior in January of 2004, and then had that recognition withdrawn in October 2005, and why -- why was that do you think, in your opinion? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: That was on Columbus Day in 2005, also too. I -- I can only give you my thoughts. It’s -- REP. VAIL (52ND): And, that’s what I’d like to hear. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: We had a -- the state of Connecticut came in against the tribe to have our recognition rescinded, to be honest with you because they didn’t want another casino at that time in 282 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

2004. Had we been having this conversation in 2004, we -- we qualify. There are seven criterias that needed to be meet -- met. We met all seven, and we were even used as a model for other tribes to follow in order to achieve recognition, so in my honest opinion, I believe it was because of gaming why we were stripped of our recognition and ironically, here we are, you know, 17 years later in the same position. REP. VAIL (52ND): Was it the legislature that was pursuing that or was it -- CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: No, it was the Attorney General, Mr. Blumenthal. He was the -- the leader. Him and Jeff Benedict. What we used to call the roadshow. They went around I heard earlier a coalition of towns objecting to something going on in Bridgeport. It’s the same coalition of towns that was put together 20 years ago to stop us. That part has to change. The part that has changed is now the state does want that other casino, and we should be the candidate for it. REP. VAIL (52ND): I see here in the testimony that in the modern era, which is post 1934, that this is the only time that that’s happened; is that correct? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: There was two tribes that had their federal recognition with -- pulled from them at the same time. It was us and Historical Eastern Pequots here in the state of Connecticut. The only two tribes in the United States that ever had that done was done on the same day, it was done on Columbus Day. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, again probably for the same reasons you -- you speculate. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: I’ll let them -- [Crosstalk]. 283 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. I -- I shouldn’t put you on the spot like that, but certainly appreciate your testimony, and good luck to you. Is there any -- is there any movement on you guys being recognized again by the Department of the Interior? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Well, the rules were changed in 2015 for federal recognition, and when they changed the rules in 2015, again, the Schaghticoke was a model of what to do in order to be federally recognized. However, once again, then Senator Blumenthal had gone and put an amendment to the rules unless you were already denied, so again, I guess you weren’t ready in 2015 for that other casino. [Laughing]. REP. VAIL (52ND): All right. Thank you. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Thank you, sir. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Hwang. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you for being here, and have you ever wondered why you get just so much attention and affection from Senator Blumenthal? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: I think it’s love. [Laughing]. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Oh, well. Well, I want to welcome you, and I want to welcome former Speaker Amann. History -- this wonderful packet you put together it’s very interesting, but you cited 1736 as the first point of contact from a colonial establishment of a treaty, but your tribe goes back so much further. Can you share kind of a little bit more how far you’ve been in Connecticut? As one of the original settlers? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Our footprint really begins in 1698, and then from that point on we can definitely 284 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING identify the group. There was a group of natives, but they didn’t name themselves Schaghticoke yet at that point in time. Gideon Mauwee, the first founder and chief of our tribe named it Schaghticoke Tribal Nation. Schaghticoke Tribe at that time. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Yeah. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: It’s been spelled 13 different ways from then to now. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Well, I had to practice saying your names right, so [Laughter], and I know there are a lot of people waiting still. Can you kind of share what you included in this packet? ‘Cause that’s very important. I think you included two documents from the Attorney General Jepsen in relations to one from April 17, 2018 and another one that was sent April 15, 2015. Could you just kind of quickly elaborate the -- the rationale and why you included that in the packet for this committee? CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: [Conversing off mic]. JAMES AMANN: [Hoarse voice] If you don’t mind, Senator? SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Not at all. JAMES AWANN: Excuse me for my voice. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Through the Chair. JAMES AWANN: Through Mr. Chairman, obviously, we put the Attorney General Jepsen’s opinion just for a reminder of what that opinion was, and was something that quite frankly he was very concerned with for the state of Connecticut future lawsuits and other things that he felt might be troublesome down in Washington at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We also have our history in there. I think it’s important that you take a look at that history because most 285 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING people really don’t know too much about the Schaghticokes. There’s a letter also talking about the open process, in a press release that the Chief did about a year ago and then obviously his testimony today. The reason why we’re putting it there is that everything that we’ve been saying that an open and fair process is the only way to go for the state of Connecticut and its citizens. [Background coughing]. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you. And, as the former Speaker of the House -- you were my first speaker -- you understand the importance of protecting the interest of the state has a -- a significant leader to recognize that the guidance of the Attorney General is critical in some of the policies that we dictate, and in fact, I believe the current hold up as we’ve heard over and over again is the fact that we have not gotten that legislative approval from Washington to allow building the East Windsor, and -- and you know, I’m going to go back again. Thank you for your public service, but as a speaker and your experience, you recognize and including this that this guides an important part of how we have to operate as a legislative body and trust it with doing what’s right for the state of Connecticut? JAMES AMANN: There’s no doubt that I had my times with the Attorney Generals, and we took their letters very serious. I’m surprised that some of the talk that I hear over the last few years that, well, it’s only an opinion. He is our state’s attorney. He’s our Attorney General. His opinion means a lot. He’s giving a warning to legislative body that this could be a potential problem. If we don’t take our own Attorney General serious, then I think the General Assembly has the problem. Their 286 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING opinions are ones we must follow, and as a speaker, yes, I disagreed sometimes with the opinions, and I’ll tell ya a couple times we went out and got advice from our attorneys, and we didn’t follow it 100 percent, but most of the time, we did, and we always took it serious, and we looked at those opinions closely and talked to our own attorney staff to make sure we were going in the proper direction. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Well, thank you for your service, and thank you for your time, and -- and Chief, to your members as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHIEF RICHARD VELKY: Thank you, Senator. JAMES AMANN: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Up next is Yuri Clinton. YURI CLINTON: Thank you, Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): You’re welcome. YURI CLINTON: Chairman Bradley, Chairman Verrengio, my name is Yuri Clinton. I’m here with MGM Resorts International and contrary to the testimony we’ve heard, MGM is not a heartless corporate entity. We are made up of over 70,000 hardworking men and women. I’d also point out that 19.5 percent of the employees in Springfield are Connecticut residents, and we’re happy to have them as part of our family. MGM has been here year after year after year. Our message hasn’t changed. We support the House Bill 7055 because it calls for an open competitive process, a process that incorporate the best practices of states like Massachusetts, Michigan, Maryland, and other states who in the modern era have adopted commercial gaming. 287 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Perhaps, Michigan is the best example. Michigan had a selective process that was competitive. It set out the state’s policy objectives. They had multiple entrance. They ended up with three casino operators in Detroit, and they also have tribal gaming, and it’s important because if you look at the comeback story of Detroit, it’s a story that could be an example for Bridgeport. Additionally, what we find is that in the state of Connecticut there is overwhelming support. Recent poll shows 71 percent of voters support an open process and 60 percent of voters in Eastern Connecticut. A RFP process is not an MGM process. It is truly an open competitive process. There are countless articles in the last few weeks where the tribes are even quoted, are witnessed to have being in Bridgeport. The reality is that Bridgeport is a great opportunity for a tourism infrastructural investment, and an open process is the only way for the state to understand the true value associated with the gaming license, and with that, it’s been a long day. I have written testimony submitted, and I’m available for any questions you may have chairmen. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Sure. Representatives Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Clinton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here and waiting, so far going on eight hours. YURI CLINTON: [Laughing]. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Obviously, I’m very familiar with the project as it’s been proposed and discussed, and again, I wanted to reiterate this is an RFP bill that you have indicated that MGM would be interested in bidding on, but you do have a 288 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING location in mind. You have some concepts in mind, but this bill is not authorizing a casino in Bridgeport. This bill is just the RFP, and why do you think this is the best approach for the state of Connecticut at this time? YURI CLINTON: I think the American Gaming Association, which is the premier association for gaming in the country talks about in its annual report all of the success that states have had with commercial gaming, and the largest number of states have adopted a competitive process of some type, and the states certainly that are generating the most gaming revenue have taken this process. It is truly the only way to test the market and understand the value of your gaming license and whether or not your gaming policies are acceptable from a larger industry perspective. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, I know that MGM has project resorts all over the country, all over the world. Can you give me some examples of some MGM projects across the country and what impact they’ve had on surrounding community? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, I think, you know, so there’s a lot that has been said today about whether or not Springfield is living up to, you know, its promise. I would defend Springfield all day long, but I’d also tell you that Springfield is a part of 28 properties that MGM owns and/or operates. Examples of some of our biggest successes recently, National Harbor is number one in the Maryland market. It was the sixth license to be issued, and it actually grew the market last year generating $732-million dollars in gross gaming revenue. Detroit, as I referenced earlier, one of the largest taxpayers in the city of Detroit generated $615-million dollars last year in gross gaming revenue, and then of course Atlantic 289 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

City, which has also been referenced today. Atlantic City has had to reposition itself in the market, but the Brogata Hotel owned by MGM has been a market leader with over $692-million dollars in gross gaming revenue. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, how have those projects impacted the surrounding communities or even regions areas? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, you know, as I said earlier, MGM has over 70,000 employees, and we actually track our volunteer hours. We actually track our contributions to local charities and the amount of impact that we do from a job creation and wage generation perspective, and not only are we market leaders, but we are leading corporate citizens in each of those jurisdictions by evidence by those development agreements. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Switching gears a little bit, part of the bill includes the creation of a Connecticut gaming commission. This is something that would be new for the state of Connecticut. Why does MGM or does MGM support the gaming commission? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, if I had been able to speak right after Chairman Butler, there could have been a new story because what I would have said, is yeah, you know, we too would support the state having a study and a survey, and essentially, what we are saying is that a gaming commission that could ask the real questions that are outstanding that no one’s actually taken the time to dive into. You know, what is the best market to maximize revenue and jobs and tourism investment in the state of Connecticut? It isn’t about whether it is one city versus another city. It’s about literally looking at the map and saying, what city has access to the 290 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING biggest markets? How do you deal with responsible gaming? There was a list of church groups and concerned citizens who are concerned with responsible gaming, and we actually heard testimony, but the state should actually have a position on that, and the way you get that position is having a study and having a gaming commission that is independent. I’m paid by MGM, and I travel the world at their calling. The tribes have great representatives who travel the world. We see them in Tokyo. We see them on the East Coast. We see them on the West Coast looking at the same projects that we’re looking at, so they’re well represented, but all of us are paid to look out for the bottom lines of the entities that employ us. The gaming commission would be the only truly independent body looking at gaming not as the mayor or first selectman of East Windsor, not as the mayor or city council person from Bridgeport, but as the entire state taking all of those factors into consideration, and then finally, how do you actually set a market tax rate for slots, for table games, for sports betting? How do you set a license fee? Those are real questions, and you know, everyone -- the Bridgeport delegation said here, and they were very clear that they’re not committed to MGM, and MGM has been very clear that we’re not blindly walking into any of this. We want to be part of the gaming market here in Connecticut, but what that means is there has to be reasonable tax rates. There has to be reasonable regulations. There has to be market-ready opportunities and the only way the state can really do that is by the formation of a gaming commission. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I’m aware of the gaming commission in the Nevada. I’m not sure -- are there 291 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING other gaming commissions in other states in which MGM operates? YURI CLINTON: Every state. I -- I don’t know how a state could have -- protect the integrity of the gaming process, the integrity of those revenue streams, make sure unsuitable individuals are not participating in those gaming industries without a commission. Nevada actually has a bicameral setup. They’ve got a gaming control board, which enforces the regulations, and then they’ve got a gaming commission, which sets policy. Detroit has a gaming control board. Maryland has a gaming commission. Massachusetts obvious example with the gaming commission. Every modern state does it. You don’t -- you can’t go deep into the regulation of gaming entities without setting up that type of a regulatory structure. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much, and thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Hwang. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you. I just want to welcome you to the General Assembly. YURI CLINTON: Thank you. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): I should be paying rent here pretty soon. YURI CLINTON: [Laughing]. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): But, saying that, to be quick, I think you are looking at this as an RFP process, and I think one of your biggest points of contention is the fact that as all the other states you have experienced doing business in, you’ve always had an opportunity to have a fair shake at -- 292 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING at being able to be able to do business there. Why is it so different in this state? YURI CLINTON: You know, I do have to say that the tribes have had a lengthy relationship, and it’s been a positive relationship. You would have saw Rodney Butler walk out. He always gives me a big hug. I always give him a big hug. Scott, who testified earlier from MGM for sports betting, has a great relationship as the former CEO. The reality is that we understand the special relationship that the state has with the tribes, and we’ve always respected that relationship. In our minds, that relationship pertains to tribal gaming, and you never saw us come in here before 2015, and say, oh, build a casino. It was once that the General Assembly made the policy decision to have off-tribal property gaming. When they said they wanted to have commercial gaming, was when we raised our hand and there were others as well who raised their hand, so the idea here is simply that, you know, I think that the relationship with the tribes and the state have taken on a life of it’s own, and we respected that until they got off of tribal land. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): And, I wanted to just emphasize a point that you made earlier of the collegial relationship that you have the with tribe leadership, and that you’re professionals, and this is business, and that the personalities and the emotions are kept in check as you deliberate this process. You’re looking to all win, and you’re gonna compete real hard and do the best of your ability, but what you emphasized earlier is something that I thin we and all the advocates are very passionate about this, and as we debate this issue moving into the weeks ahead is this is maintaining a decorum and a respect and a 293 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING professionalism as we move through this process, so I appreciate you bringing that -- citing that as an example with the leadership of the tribe. Believe me, you’re competing with each other on this issue, but what you just said something to be noted that you conduct yourself with professionalism, with respect, and this is business, through you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? [Background conversation]. Senator Bradley. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): All right. Thank you very much. So, I’m sure you have been present here for the vast majority of this testimony. There’s been allegations made that -- that it was promised to the common wealth of Massachusetts that they would be paid $40-million dollars I think that was the figure that was estimated that you would pay in revenues to that common wealth state/state, and it’s much less. It’s half of that, which has been alleged. Can you speak to that and can you got some clarity to that? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, I appreciate that. You know, I will say that the governor -- Governor Lamont, you know, has had an open door for everyone. He’s made it known to us that he was speaking with the tribes, and he also invited us in to share information, and we appreciate that, and one of the issues that we did address with him was the performance of Springfield. I am proud of the performance of Springfield. You know, it’s only in the gaming industry where an entity could make $20-million dollars in a month, and people question whether or not it’s successful. Springfield is successful, and as you heard Chairman Butler say, Springfield is finding its legs. We understand it to be a seasonal business, and we’re getting very excited about the 294 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING springtime and what’s coming for that business. Springfield never promised $50-million dollars to the state of -- the common wealth of Massachusetts. The projection was that within a range of gross gaming revenue to be earned by the property itself, it could get to $50-million dollars, but what I can tell you and I’m very proud to report is that in the first six weeks there were over a million visitors to MGM Springfield. In that first six weeks alone, they paid $9.1-million dollars to the common wealth. That 46 percent of the workforce is female. That Enfield, Connecticut actually did an analysis kind of looking at the impact that the Springfield casino would have, and they actually counted direct jobs for Enfield, Connecticut, direct sales of $2.8- million dollars were projected. What we know for a fact is that MGM Springfield has invested $4-million dollars in the local head start program for Springfield residents who need those services, so Springfield is absolutely a success. Would we like it to do better? Absolutely, and the team there is doing everything it can do to make sure that that facility continues to operate well. We are used to being first in our markets, and I’ve given you the examples of Detroit, of Maryland, of Michigan, of Atlantic City, and we will strive everywhere we go to be number one, so even if we had made $50-million dollars in gross game revenue, we would still be seeking to do better. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): You hit some interesting points there of some of the things that your corporation has done for Springfield and possibly for other areas that you -- that you operate in. Could it be possible that we as a legislature after seeing your experience and other states have done the same that we could legislate and mandate those 295 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING type of contributions to the city or area in which you would open up a facility? YURI CLINTON: Absolutely, and that’s -- that’s the thing that is so interesting. So, when we see the tribes everywhere else -- we saw them in Massachusetts and competed against them in Massachusetts. The competition in New York we didn’t get to see who all competed, but some of the other competitors were tribal competitors we know that for a fact. Everyone’s used to these types of obligations. You see, a gaming license is a privileged license. It’s kind of like driving a car. You don’t just get to have it until you’re 100 years old. You have to test to get it, number one, and then when you have it, it can be taken from you because it’s not a right, it’s a privilege. The same thing with the gaming license. This is the only industry where if you want to spend a half-billion dollars, you have to go and ask for permission, and typically, what they say is we don’t subsidize the investment, number one. We require certain jobs, number two. We require community development agreements, typically. We require certain obligations to spend with local businesses, minority businesses, women businesses. You set your policy objectives and you actually identify the zone in the state where you think it can have the most impact. In Massachusetts, there were three zones created, and so the state -- the common wealth of Massachusetts was actually telling investors here’s where we think you’d have the most impact for our state, and so you can set your gaming policy, and you should set your gaming policy that in exchange for the privileged license these are the policy objectives that have to be met, and then MGM, the tribes, and everyone else sits down with their development team, identifies whether or not they 296 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING want to compete under those guidelines, and then they choose to submit a bid or not. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, possibly my last question here, we’ve heard a lot of conversation about removing -- possibly removing the legislative language that requires further approval in order to move forward with the East Windsor casino, and -- and we heard a lot of conversation as to whether or not, you know, it’s the Attorney General’s opinion is simply just simply that, another attorney’s opinion on the matter of legislation or law. If we were to do the inverse with this RFP process, if we were just to simply bulldoze right ahead and say we are going to have an RFP process, hypothetically speaking, how quickly could your organization bid for this process or would be active in this process? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, I think that, you know, the process actually should be dictated by the state acting through the General Assembly or acting through an empowered gaming commission, and the gaming commission would actually set up the timeframe, so there were examples about five years in the common wealth of Massachusetts, and there were other examples that maybe longer than that and some shorter, but the timeline isn’t set by the individual company. We don’t tell you when we’d like to be open or when we’d like for construction to be complete. You tell us, and as part of our analysis as if we’re interested to bid or not, is can we achieve that goal? So, if you wanted to have RFP responses within 90 days or 120 days, there’s no reason that you couldn’t do that. All you have to do is say that this is the guideline. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): So, we’ve -- we’ve heard a lot being mentioned of what’s happening on the 297 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING federal level, and allegations of nefarious dealings, and I think you’ve made an interesting statement when you stated that the reason why every other state or common wealth in our beloved union of the United State of America requires commissions, requires oversight, is to make sure that we check these vices and check the people who are engaged in it because it’s no secret to anybody that it’s had a very dark history, a very dark past that’s casino operation in general, right? So, right now as it stands right now in the state of Connecticut, what do we have in place to check and make sure that there’s no nefarious dealing happening here in the state of Connecticut? YURI CLINTON: There’s no commission in place. You know, what you have is, to be quite honest with you, are your ethics reports from a lobbying perspective, and so if you read the newspapers, I think every newspaper in the state has said MGM has spent millions of dollars, and you have the first selectman, I believe he was the first selectman, of East Windsor hold up a mailer and say, oh, they sent this mail out. Well, he knew we sent it out because we put our name on the bottom of it like we do every mailer we send out, and they knew that we spent millions of dollars lobbying because we had to disclose every cent that we spent, and unfortunately, that isn’t the best way to do your policy. You should have those disclosures, but you should also have a set of criteria. I looked the other day. I think Massachusetts had almost 50 different points that a bidder had to comply with because they wanted to make sure that their policy objectives were being met first and foremost. They never asked, what do our in-state actors want? They never asked, what do the national and international brands want? They said, we’re trying to create 298 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING jobs, we’re trying to create economic development in certain zones, we’re trying to maximize the value of the privileged license. Here’s our criteria, and every other state has done the same thing. The tribes are no strangers to this. You know, Mohegan paid $75-million dollars for Pennsylvania license. They -- Mohegan not only agreed to pay $85-million for the common wealth, but they’re in litigation right now over the Boston license. They understand full well everything that MGM is being accused of doing here in Connecticut? Absolutely, because that’s the way that you get access to a gaming market. No one gives you a privileged license. You have to go and lobby for it, and then you have to be found qualified under the criteria that’s set by the General Assembly of the perspective state. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Obviously, if there’s an RFP process, there’s gonna be a lot of companies bidding. I’m assuming one of them would be yours for the amount of sweat equity that’s been placed up to this point to making this happen. There’s some very serious allegations against your company, and I’d like for you to just kind of speak on two of them. One is this alleged lawsuit about people who were residing or were injured at your hotel or at your facility, and the other is this allegation of some sort of nefarious dealings in Washington D.C. and lobbying the -- the Indian commission up there. Can you speak on those two issues? YURI CLINTON: So, I -- I will have to say with regard to the mass shooting, that the people of Connecticut understand full well the absolute tragedy associated with a mass shooting. I’m -- I’m not going to leverage MGMs response to its tragic experience, the experience of families and the entire state of Nevada was exceptionally tragic, and 299 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

I’m not going to try to leverage that experience in any way for any type of political gain or commercial gain. What I will say is that MGM has filings that we stand behind. They’re based on legal principals, and I just simply have to leave it there. I really don’t have any additional comment. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. And, any additional comment in regards to the allegations of wrong doing or undue influence when it comes to commissions on the federal level? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, what I can say is that I know for a fact that the tribes lobbied, that MGM lobbied. I don’t know anything that former Secretary Zinke did or didn’t do. I read the Washington Post and the New York Times like most people, I guess. I know that the press accounts are uncollaborated. They’re from unnamed sources, and they speak to Zinke’s conduct, which I cannot speak to. What I know is that the issues that are subject to those news reports are actually being litigated right now in federal court, and that MGM is exceptionally clear in its role, and we stand behind our court pleadings there, and that ultimately will be found out, you know, through the court of law in federal court in the District of Columbia. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you very much. YURI CLINTON: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Osten, followed by Senator Champagne. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much. Mr. Clinton, it’s a pleasure to see you here today. I have several questions for you. You said that all states -- all states have tribal commissions; is that true? 300 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

YURI CLINTON: No. States with commercial gaming have commercial gaming commissions or control boards or some regulatory structure, yes. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, do Florida and California have tribal commission -- have gaming commissions? YURI CLINTON: They don’t have commercial gaming in the sense that it’s being considered here in Connecticut. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Do they have casinos off tribal lands? YURI CLINTON: Florida has its mass casinos by the Seminoles. I think they have 11 properties. They’re all considered to be tribal gaming properties, and then there are highlight and off- track betting and dog racing tracks that have a different regulatory structure, but they’re not resort casinos of the type being considered here in Connecticut. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): But, they are off tribal lands? But, they are off tribal -- YURI CLINTON: The tribal casinos are -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yeah. YURI CLINTON: The Seminole casinos are on tribal lands. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): In Florida and in California, there are casinos and betting institutions off tribal lands? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, I think I said there are dog tracks in Florida. I know there are card rooms in California. There are horseracing tracks in California, and those are not -- they’re not on tribal land. 301 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, they’re run by the tribes in those states. YURI CLINTON: No, I don’t know that to be the case. I know the Seminoles’ 11 properties are considered tribal, and there are other non-tribal entities off of tribal land in Florida. In California, the card rooms are not owned -- owned by the tribes. They do have dozens of tribal casinos though, and they are all throughout the state. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, they’re not all on tribal lands. YURI CLINTON: The [Crosstalk] -- the tribal casinos are on tribal lands. The commercial entities are not. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, they don’t have a tribal gaming? They don’t have a gaming commission in either Florida or California? YURI CLINTON: Each tribe has its own gaming apparatus and gaming commission, and they have their own ordinances, and so each tribe is required to enforce their own ordinances, and that’s the same thing that happens here in Connecticut. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Again, you said before that all states have gaming commissions, and that’s not true. YURI CLINTON: No, I said -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I didn’t go through all 50 states. YURI CLINTON: That’s no -- that’s not what I said - - SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I’m sorry. I didn’t -- I really didn’t interrupt you. I was trying to get 302 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING the question. I’ll let you speak, and I have a question, so you said that all states have gaming commissions, so I’m just curious do all states have gaming commissions or not? YURI CLINTON: No. What I said was states with commercial gaming have commercial gaming regulatory structures. Commissions or control boards are examples of that. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, neither Florida nor California have gaming commissions? YURI CLINTON: Florida and California have tribal gaming, and the tribes are responsible for regulating themselves, and then there are regulatory structures in place for the card rooms and the racetracks in California and for the dog tracks and the highlight that happens in Florida. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): You have training facilities in Las Vegas that you train people to work in your casinos; is that true? YURI CLINTON: The structure in Las Vegas -- I’m actually chairperson of the Nevada partners, and we have a relationship with the Culinary Training Academy, and so the Culinary Training Academy is not owned by MGM or Caesar’s or Wynn, but we all and others donate to it and support it, and those people are trained through the Culinary Training Academy. Unite Here is the union. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Yep. YURI CLINTON: And, we give jobs to people who finish those trainings. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, in the train -- in those academies, who pays for the workers? According to the UAW, the workers themselves pay to go there. 303 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

YURI CLINTON: I don’t know what the UAW report says. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, are they guaranteed a job after they go to that academy? YURI CLINTON: Nevada has a different structure. It is not a structure that’s mandated by regulatory requirements or statutory obligations, and so those requirements are based on the union agreements, and so all of the union properties hire from the Culinary Training Academy. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): But, the workers that go to that academy are not necessarily guaranteed a job in the casinos? YURI CLINTON: I -- I don’t know that to be the case, and Connecticut would have the opportunity to set its own priorities, and not follow what Nevada does and could mandate different requirements for its training, could mandate different requirements for union participation. Here again is an example of how Connecticut could actually see its legislative priorities put in place. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): In your agreement with Massachusetts, do you have a ban from developing another gaming institution within 50 miles of that casino? YURI CLINTON: In the agreement with the city of Springfield, there is a 50-mile radius ban, yes. It’s contractual. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, so you can’t put a casino in East Windsor? YURI CLINTON: Well, we actually have a desire to look at what’s available in the state of Connecticut. Our idea is Bridgeport for 304 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Connecticut, and you’re right, within 50 miles of Springfield, we would not put a casino. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, so your intention when you sent out your mailer to the East Windsor residents was to negate the East Windsor project? YURI CLINTON: No. The idea at that time -- that -- that mailer is at least a year old, maybe two years old. I don’t know which mailer specifically. I couldn’t see it, but the reality was that we push for an open competitive process year after year. In a true sense -- without naming towns -- we’ve told everyone where we would put a casino if we were the ones who won a RFP, but there were other people who might think different cities. Someone might think that East Windsor makes sense, and the tribes certainly are saying that publicly, so maybe it is that as a part of an overall RFP process while MGM would bid Bridgeport, maybe the tribes would bid East Windsor, but no matter where you bid, you’d have policy objectives set by the state which would mean higher benefits to the city that wins. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, I certainly understand that, and you said -- so that wasn’t the only flier you sent out in East Windsor? How many fliers did you send out in East Windsor to stymie project in Connecticut? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, I think we sent out several fliers with the idea of supporting an open competitive transparent process in Connecticut, which is the same type of process that they do for all government contracts and privileged licenses. I wasn’t aware of any other examples where there were exclusive grants without a competitive process. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I -- I think that the legislature directed the tribal nations to choose 305 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING something in this particular area. I don’t think it was their initial choice, so I’m assuming that you would understand that the legislature is the one who guaranteed that to begin with, but your mailers were to stymie development in Connecticut. That’s -- that’s the only reason that they were sent out. They weren’t sent out to increase economic development in Connecticut. They were sent out to destroy economic development in Connecticut. My understanding is that at the Massachusetts Gaming Commission Jim Murren and other high executives in - - in MGMs corporate world said that they were interested in attacking Connecticut, and they were interested in taking Connecticut business away. Do you recall that? It’s on video. Do you recall that conversation? YURI CLINTON: I’d like to first address the intent of the mailers. We speak to our intent for mailers and the intent was, as I said, not to destroy economic development but to advocate -- as the mailer was read in open session today -- to advocate for an open competitive process whereby whichever city won would have the absolute best deal, and so that was the intent to actually spur a conversation that would be best for the residents of the state of Connecticut. With regard to the senior executives, you’ll also note that at the same time, Mohegan was bidding for a license in Massachusetts, and one of their calling cards was their database at Mohegan Sun, which essentially was the exact same thing, saying they knew how to reach out and attract residents in the market area for their property if they would have been granted a license in Palmer, Massachusetts, and so within the same vain, our senior executives also said that they knew how to target that same population that otherwise Mohegan 306 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING would be targeting for Palmer, Massachusetts. I do believe that that did happen. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I don’t believe that Mohegan said that they were looking to -- and I quote, “I just want their Connecticut money to come here” from Jim Murren and from Bill Horbunckle [phonetic], “We are ideally positioned to go into Hartford and attack.” So, I don’t believe that Mohegan went and said, we are going to attack Hartford and that we are looking to get Connecticut money away. I would -- I would dispute that. I also have been doing some work revolving around the -- a couple of reports revolving around your quarterly estimates, and I noticed in 2018 that you did not make your MGM -- not you personally -- have any idea? I’m sure you’re paid twice what -- if I added everybody’s salary up here that’s here, you’re making two or three times that -- but, with that being said, I heard that your -- Jim Murren said that it was laughable because you had not made your quarterly estimates. He thought it was funny that reporters were asking him about that. What happened in 2018 in Las Vegas? Was that a direct result of people not wanting to go to Las Vegas because of the shooting that happened at your casino? YURI CLINTON: I -- I will say that, you know, Chairman Butler makes ten times what I make, and so there are a lot of people in the casino industry who are well-paid, who travel a lot, and who work to have economic development opportunities for urban areas, and so one day, I’ll be in Chairman Butler’s pay range, not today though. What I will say to you is that I did not mean to say that Mohegan said they would attack any market. I did say specifically that Mohegan said that one of the advantages they had was their database, which as full of Connecticut 307 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING residents and other people in the market, and that was the comparison that I was drawing. When our chairman said that it was laughable, what he was talking about, that was on an earnings call, not with reporters but with analysts, and analysts -- one of the criticisms that chairmen have and public companies have is that they’re pushed to have returns quarter after quarter, and our senior team takes a long view, and he said, exactly that. I heard the call. That, you know, we’re taking a long view. We’re not worried about an individual quarter. We’re worried about long-term prosperity and profits for our shareholders. At MGM, to be quite honest with you, has had an absolute great tenure under this management team, consolidated net incomes of $2-billion dollars in 2017, even our growth of over a billion dollars from 2012 from 2017, significant reduction in leverage ratios from 2011 to 2017, so this management team works exceptionally hard just like the tribal management team. You know, we saw Mohegan in South Korea. They’re competing there. They got a license there. There were going to put a billion dollars in the ground. You know, the tribes are good corporate citizens, so is MGM, and there is no difference between us in looking for those development opportunities. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So besides the lawsuit that you brought against -- not you personally -- your company brought against the shooting victims in Nevada, are you aware of the other lawsuit that happened against the young girl who was electrocuted at your company and is still seeking medical help? YURI CLINTON: I -- you know, it’s so unfortunate that there are these real tragedies that happen, and in our society when tragedies happen, are typically 308 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING followed by litigation. I got to let the court pleadings speak for themselves. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, do you remember this particular lawsuit? YURI CLINTON: I have to let the court pleadings speak for themselves. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, it’s there? I will assume it’s there? I guess that answers that question. So, I know it’s late and I know we have all spent a lot of time here. I think that you’re only here -- quite frankly, MGM is only here to stymie business in Connecticut. That’s why I think you sent the flier out. That’s what I think the first selectman was saying here today, and I want someone that’s gonna be committed here for hundreds of years like the two tribal nations have been. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Senator Champagne. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Thank you. Can you tell me how -- how far your casino in New York -- the one MGM just purchased -- is from Bridgeport? YURI CLINTON: Well, I think it’s about maybe an hour’s drive. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): An hour? YURI CLINTON: Yeah. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. And, is the Bridgeport casino going to be the biggest in the world when you’re done? YURI CLINTON: No. We -- we were very honest about what we thought that market could bear, taking into account the 10,000 BLT units in downstate New York, 309 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING taking into account the current market. You know, we never promised that we could even consider something more than, you know, $600-million dollars, and there we were even clear about the kind of -- what the market rates needed to be, and I think that if you had an open RFP, you’d probably find that sensible business people would probably tell you the same thing. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, how many employees is that do you think? That you’re gonna employ? YURI CLINTON: Oh, it’s -- it’s definitely around 2000 employees. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): In Bridgeport? YURI CLINTON: In the other facilities that are the same size or smaller actually, you have just around 1500 to 2000 employees. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): And, I think somebody earlier said that it would be like an 8 to 10 percent tax rate? YURI CLINTON: No. I don’t know anything about that. If you gave us an 8 percent tax rate, we would be very happy with that tax rate. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, it’d be more? YURI CLINTON: Yeah, it’d have to be more. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): How much do you think the city of Connecticut is going to make from this Bridgeport casino? YURI CLINTON: I don’t know. I mean there are some estimates that it could be $280-million dollars. It depends on -- there are so many variables, and that was one of the reasons I said earlier that the only responsible way is to create a gaming commission 310 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING where you don’t have Yuri Clinton sitting here telling you that he’d like an 8 percent tax rate ‘cause I’d say that all day long or the tribes who pay 0 percent on their table games, and they’re probably the only entity with a gaming license who have been so successful and pay 0 percent on table games, so you have to have an independent analysis. You have to set a market rate tax rate, and that’s something that if you depend on the industry will give you different answers. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, you’re going to be about the sixth of the size of -- or a third of the size of one of the casinos in Connecticut currently, and you still think you can pay the state of Connecticut $280-million dollars? YURI CLINTON: It’s not about the size of the casino. It’s about the size of the market that feeds the casino, and what everyone knows is downstate New York is underserved, and the state of New York has a very regimented process for casino development, and it is, you know, well-established with their processes, and so you don’t have to put in billions of dollars and have, you know, 8000 slot machines in order to generate real revenue if you’re feeding into the right market, and that’s one of the reasons why an East Windsor casino no matter how large wont’ be successful because it can’t pull from the New York market. It’s not gonna pull from the Boston market, and it’s not enough to even deflect the impact that the Wynn project in Boston will inflict on the tribals’ properties. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Well, you have a casino in-between New York City and Bridgeport. How big is the New York casino? Is that going to be a lot bigger than the Bridgeport casino? 311 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

YURI CLINTON: The New York casino, Empire City Casino -- I know a lot about that property. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Yeah. YURI CLINTON: That property generates over $600- million dollars in gross gaming revenue, and all it has is 5000 BLT units and a harnessed racetrack. It is feeding into a market that is so underserved. If you compare New York to any major city with commercial gaming, it’d have 60-million visitors. The potential for the New York market is really significant. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): And, are you in the process of enlarging that casino? YURI CLINTON: We can’t enlarge it because we have to get a legislative authorization and you see, that takes full-court press in order to do. At some point, you know, we’d like to and we’d like to do that. We’ve been very honest with everyone, but when we started talking about Bridgeport and when the industry started talking about Bridgeport, it was with full awareness that the casino in Yonkers existed, that the casino in Queens existed, and what the timeframe was for new supply from New York, what it would be. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, the tax rate in Bridgeport is going to be 48 percent? Around there? YURI CLINTON: We’re not going to bid on 48 percent tax rate. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): You said it was six hundred -- you expected $600-million, and you’re going to pay the state $280-million. YURI CLINTON: No. There’s a -- there’s a blended tax rate that was discussed, tax on tables, tax on 312 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING slots, sports betting is part of that, and they all have different tax rates, and here again is why I say, you know, you can’t depend on my testimony or the tribe’s testimony. That’s the part of the bill, the House Bill 7055 that talks about a gaming commission because you have to set a market tax rate in order to maximize the number of bids. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right. Well, you can see my concern here? My concern is a loss of revenue for the state of Connecticut. YURI CLINTON: Yeah. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): And, you said, you told me that you expect Bridgeport to bring in $600- million dollars. Did you not say that? YURI CLINTON: No. I said, that -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): But, I wrote that down. YURI CLINTON: I said Yonkers made $600-million dollars last year. That was my testimony. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): But, when I asked you about Bridgeport, I asked you a minute or so ago, you said, 2000 employees and you said $600-million. YURI CLINTON: No, $600-million is Yonkers. That’s historical. I know that for a fact. I can’t tell you what the Bridgeport casino would make. I can’t tell you the tax rate. I can tell you what we purport it. Oh, what I did say was $600-million dollars for investment. That’s capital investment, nonsubsidized. That’s not to do with general growth gaining revenue. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Okay. So, you have no estimate on what -- what that casino’s gonna make, but you expect to pay $280-million, which is right around what the -- the -- the -- 313 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

YURI CLINTON: No -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Go ahead. YURI CLINTON: You’re correct. I’m sorry. What I’m saying is that there’s a blended tax rate that we’ve talked about out loud. What we don’t know, and the reason that I can’t give you a clear estimate is I don’t know the tax rate that the General Assembly will come out with. I don’t know the license fee, so we suggested a $50-million-dollar license fee. Massachusetts had an $85-million-dollar license fee. Pennsylvania had a $75-million-dollar license fee. Until we know those -- those -- that part of information, you can’t have a projection as to what the casino investment will yield. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): So, if you don’t know that, how do you know you’re gonna pay us $280- million dollars? YURI CLINTON: That was a -- an example of kind of what we thought the highest range could be if we had table games, if we had slot machines -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): There’s a lot of ifs. YURI CLINTON: If we had sports betting, if we were able to access the arena for entertainment. Those are all the amenities -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): But, the problem is is if we break that compact, Connecticut automatically starts to lose $273-million-dollars a year, and -- and if we as a state break the compact, the Indians keep everything. They still get to use the slots. They keep -- they get to keep doing everything, but we just get no more money from them, and then you put in a casino in Bridgeport, all we get from you is $110-million dollars. The state of Connecticut loses $160-million dollars. That would be a big 314 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING problem for me, so I’m looking for guarantees, so if you’re gonna come to Connecticut and you’re gonna put it there, I’m looking for guarantees that I’m still gonna make $273-million dollars a year from whatever casino comes in here. [Music playing in background]. That’s what I’m looking for. YURI CLINTON: Senator, Champagne, I -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): For ten years at least. YURI CLINTON: Yeah, I don’t -- I don’t disagree with you that you’d want guarantees. What I would say to you is that, you know, we’ve not asked you to break the compact. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): We don’t have a choice if you come in. YURI CLINTON: We’ve not asked you to break the compact. House Bill 7055 is for an RFP -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Right. YURI CLINTON: For you to set a tax rate, for you to set license fees, for you to get bids from across the country of people who are interested including the tribes who have said that they would also be interested in Bridgeport. They said that they wouldn’t participate in RFP because they got the choice now. Once the RFP is there, I think they probably might change their mind because they’ve competed everywhere else, and why not compete with their advantage in their home state? But, nonetheless, the reality is that until you open the bids and everyone knows the tax rates and the license fees, you can’t say whether or not you are better off or not, and by opening the bids, you haven’t breached the compact. Former Attorney General Jepsen, has the last legal -- 315 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): He’s not here anymore. YURI CLINTON: Has the last legal opinion from the Attorney General’s office on the point, and his legal opinion on the point was that the mere act of an RFP does not grant authority to conduct gaming; therefore, it does not breach the exclusivity. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Well, it still goes back to the point, you know. Unless somebody can bring a casino in here that’s the biggest in the world and can bring the state of Connecticut a guaranteed $2730-million dollars a year and the state of Connecticut is not going to lose anything, I find it hard for me to support this. I mean that’s -- [Sigh]. YURI CLINTON: Well, we don’t know until we have the bids, and it doesn’t have to be the biggest in the world. I mean through this exchange the one thing that I’d like to impart upon you is that in National Harbor only has 2000 slot machines and made $700- million dollars in a smaller market than we have with New York. Detroit made $615-million dollars in a smaller market than we have in New York, and then obviously Atlantic City made $692-million dollars. Those are not the biggest casinos in the world, but they’re feeding off of markets that are able to generate that type of gaming revenue. Feeding off of the New York market, a Bridgeport opportunity is pretty significant. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): Unless you build the other casino in New York a lot bigger, and then, you know, they have the choice to go an hour further or they can stay much closer. YURI CLINTON: 7.5 million people in Long Island with a direct ferry ride to Bridgeport, easier for those people to get to Bridgeport than to get to 316 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Yonkers. 8.5 million in downstate New York, even if everyone who wanted to come to one of the casinos, there’s not enough capacity, and so yeah, if you have an entertainment venue, and that was Bobby Christoph, Jr. -- SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): These are -- but again, we go back to -- okay. We’ll leave it at that. YURI CLINTON: Okay. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): But, my main concern is the money, and -- and I’m not seeing it with a small casino, and I guess it will take a bit to convince me. Thank you. YURI CLINTON: Senator Champagne, if I may just two seconds to address that last point? The one -- the two things the people of Bridgeport have said is they’re not married to MGM, they want the best deal, and the other thing they said is that they don’t just want a casino. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): They don’t want to lose as a state either. YURI CLINTON: They don’t just want 2000 slots machines. They want an entertainment facility on Steel Point -- close to Steel Point that can actually attract people to come to Bridgeport who don’t otherwise come, so it’s not just a small casino. It is an entertainment facility, and that’s what the criteria should be for any bill that you guys vote on. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): The criteria should be is if the state of Connecticut doesn’t lose any money. I don’t know if you know this, but we’re literally out of money. If you listened to the governor’s speech the other day, he would have told you that, you know, so we can’t afford to just lose, you know, 317 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

$100-million dollars, and I’m just -- that’s a low estimate. YURI CLINTON: That’s fair. SENATOR CHAMPAGNE (35TH): All right. Thank you. YURI CLINTON: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any other questions? YURI CLINTON: I just have a couple. With respect to litigation, whether it be BIA or the possibility of additional litigation when it comes to the Commerce Clause. I think you’ve publicly stated your position and your intention. Can you give me a legal timeframe from how you see this all playing out from what we’re experiencing now in the BIA litigation, appeals, and then any future litigation? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yeah, I think the -- the issue -- so the tribal chairmen sat here today -- much respect for Rodney Butler, and I’m not being derogatory at all. He is a hard-working executive - - but he sat here today and said, hey, we’re interested in Bridgeport but we’re not interested and won’t participate in an RFP for Bridgeport, and so the issue there is that if you have an exclusive no-bid grant to any entity off the tribal land is the distinction, that you open yourself up to constitutional claims both in the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, and you would have the exact same path of litigation in Bridgeport that you have now in East Windsor. Specifically, we’re currently in the process of having the court adjudicate claims based on the Administrative Procedures Act, which is whether or not IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, is being used to facilitate off tribal land gaming -- commercial 318 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING gaming, and whether or not it was intended for that use, and so there is bath and forth. The Department of Interior and MGM had a positive court order a few -- about a month or two ago, and then last month I think it was Mashantucket-Pequot had a -- in the state of Connecticut, had a positive ruling, and so now they’ve amended their complaint and will be back and forth on that. It could be nine months, it could be more, I don’t know. Once that’s finished, if in fact the state of Connecticut wants to risk its gaming revenue by removing the Department of Interior requirement, well then at that point another suit for constitutional grounds will be ripe, and we’ve always been honest, and we’ve said that we intent to, you know, litigate those issues, and that could be, you know, three to four years. I don’t know the precise timeframe. YURI CLINTON: Okay. And, from what I heard from the press, what I’ve read, the -- the governor would like to see this played out not in the courtroom but getting the stakeholders together and trying to work out an agreement. It’s my understanding he’s met with the various stakeholders. There’s been conversations -- without getting into any details or specifics, if you will -- do you think there’s a way that this issue could be resolved outside the courtroom with respect to a commercial casino license here in Connecticut? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Yeah, I think there are multiple ways. I mean one way is to have an open competitive process and the winners win. You know, that happens. In Maryland, they required, I believe, it was $15-million dollars. I’m not sure what the number was, but they required each bidder to put up an application fee in the millions of dollars, and if you lost, you had to make a choice - 319 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

- do I want my millions of dollars back or do I want to waive my right to litigate, so there are structures in place that, you know, could avoid litigation. There are also opportunities for the governor to have some leadership in getting the parties to the table for some, you know, negotiated process that the governor leads. You know, he’d have to lead it, and every indication, you know, from this governor, is that he’s really interested in negotiated outcome, and so you know we’ve been open to communication with him. We share information with him. You know, he has kind of stepped forward from that perspective. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): You kind of mentioned it early -- earlier with respect to the East Windsor casino and the model. Preliminary reports that I’ve seen suggest that it may be a five-story garage with a first-floor casino operation. You obviously are a professional in the industry. It seems to me from what I’ve read that casinos are getting away from those models and are trying to create a true destination location that involves more than just the gaming piece. In fact, in some cases, the gaming piece might even be a smaller piece of the overall operation. Just would welcome your comments. YURI CLINTON: Yeah, you know, MGM is known for integrated resorts, you know. We put a billion dollars into Springfield, which was an urban area where the manufacturing jobs have left and no one was making that type of an investment, but the gaming floor is only 120,000 square feet out of, you know, well over 2-million square feet of developed space. Multiple restaurants, a move theater with ten screens, a bowling alley, retail, common areas where people can -- can get together for beer 320 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING gardens or ice skating, or to watch, you know, large screen events. You know, building into the historical presence. It doesn’t look like a spaceship in downtown Springfield. It actually fits in and creates a narrative that there’s a vibrant downtown, as well as taking over the management of the Mass Mutual Center where Stevie Wonder and Cher, you know, where hit liners. There isn’t a scenario where Stevie Wonder goes to Springfield but for MGM having this property there, and we think the same for Bridgeport. You know, we know the impact that when Mohegan built this convention center and its arenas what the impact that had on the XL Center here in Hartford. The reality is that you have to have an identity that says we’re more than just a casino floor. And, so how do you have that? You have to put more money in than what you need just for slot machines and parking. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, then I was wondering your input on the bill -- one of the bills in front of us with respect to removing the BIA requirement and the financial position that may -- it may put the state in, and I was wondering if you have any comments with respect to how that might impact bond holders, the state’s position, if you have any thoughts? YURI CLINTON: I -- I do think that the, you know, tribes have said repeatedly -- I don’t know if I’ve heard them say it today in their testimony -- but repeatedly there are reports that the tribes would pass tribal resolutions to guarantee that they would continue making payments to the state even if the removal of the Department of Interior obligation meant that they didn’t have to by law, and I just think that if you look at Foxwood -- and there were questions about Foxwoods’ financial stability and 321 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING their financial standing -- if you look at their debt and their deferment agreement, you might find that their creditors might have something to say with what happens to unclaimed money, right. Money that’s not obligated to go to the state, and I don’t think that even as I do believe Rodney and his statements that he means to do well by the state. It may not be up to him given his debt structure, and you have to ask him more about his debt structure and whether or not his bond holders would have any say or whether or not his creditors would be able to intervene in that. I just don’t know the answers to that. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. I want to thank you for your testimony. Thank you very much. YURI CLINTON: Thank you very much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Next up is Bobby Valentine. BOBBY VALENTINE: Good evening. That’s a tough act to follow right there. [Laughter]. But, I am in the hotseat. I appreciate you giving me sometime today. I’m Bobby Valentine. I’m a Connecticut resident born and raised in Stamford, Connecticut. I’m proud to say that today was a very enlightening day to see the hard work that you all have to do on a daily basis. I’m here to talk about sports betting, and I have a little bit of knowledge about that. I have some experiences that have intertwined with sports betting, so I’ll just let you know that when I was 18 years old I became a professional baseball player. I played for 13 years. I coached for five years. I managed in Texas for seven years. I managed in New York for seven years. I managed in Japan for seven years. I managed in Boston for seven months [Laughter], but during that 50 years of 322 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING kind of baseball experience I had a lot of experience with people talking about sports betting, and for 40 of those 50 years, the last 40, I was involved in a business venture here in the state of Connecticut, a restaurant business, a sports bar where as you can imagine there is also a lot of conversation about sports betting in Stamford and Norwalk and Milford, and for the last eight years, I’ve been associated with Sportech, and we have co- ventured in the ultimate sports bars, I believe, in Stamford and Windsor Locks, and during all that time, what I have found is that betting is here in Connecticut, but legalized betting is not, and I don’t think it’s a decision of whether or not the people of Connecticut are going to continue to bet. They are. The only question is going to be whether or not they’re going to do it legally. Now, for the last eight years, my association with Sportech has been one of amazement. They have overdelivered in every promise they make. We have opened and operated two spectacular restaurants together, along with OTB betting, and it’s gone without a glitch. There are naysayers who said, oh, it will be the building to bring the town down. Instead, it’s been the buildings that bring the community up. They have established themselves as reputable community leaders, and I’m proud to say that I have been with them, and you know, one of my other little gigs for two years is I was the Director for Public Safety in Stamford, Connecticut. [Bell]. And, I once again appreciate the hard work that you’re asked to do, and I know you have a lot of tough decisions that you have to make, but I really believe that giving Sportech the ability to have sports betting is not a difficult decision for you to make. This is a corporation that has entities from Stamford to Hartford, from New London to Waterbury. There’s 16 323 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING different locations already. They have the availability to have 26 licensing -- licenses in the state. They already have a relationship with the tribal nation with their OTB betting, and they have a wonderful relationship with the state where they have had this license for the last eight years, and the license has been out for the last 23 years. So, I say you do have to frown. There are big decisions -- [Bell] -- to make and many difficult decisions, but that’s my three minutes that says I just would like to think this is an easy decision. Sportech is the place that people should go to bet on their favorite team. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): All right. BOBBY VALENTINE: Thank you, and I’ll be here for any questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. I’m going to take the privilege on this one and going first. Just a question, and I ask that you take off your business hat and go back to the playing days and your managing days. You know, it is a valid concern when we talk about legalizing sports betting and how it can affect the integrity of the game, and I’m curious in your time in baseball, you know, I mean we’re familiar with people who we know, Pete Rose most famously for -- for betting on sports, but did you see it at all as a player? Players betting on -- BOBBY VALENTIME: [Laughing] No. No, and that’s because there were the regulations within the game of baseball, and there were the very difficult and tough penalties that would be given if in fact someone was busted as Pete was for betting on the game of baseball, but legalizing what is already there would -- would increase the integrity of the 324 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING sport. It would give that check some balances that you need. If my brother makes a million-dollar bet, and I happen to make some other dumb decisions to lose the game that I don’t normally make, it’s very easy to figure out I was doing it deliberately so my brother could win the million dollars because Sportech is going to have them registered as that better. Right now, you have no idea who is benefitting, and I think some stuff is probably going on, and I think not only in baseball but in other sports that it needs more regulation, and legalizing gambling is the way to do it. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, I’ve heard from the leagues over the last two years, league officials, read some press reports from individual owners how much they’re going to prosper with the legalization of sports betting and the additional revenue streams that it’s going to bring to them. I was just wondering back, you know, putting the former player’s hat on; do you think it should be part of a collective bargaining agreement or -- or how those revenue streams should -- some of those revenue streams come back to the players, if you have any thoughts on that? BOBBY VALENTIME: Well, in baseball, obviously, they have one of the best collective bargaining agreements in all of sports, and 52 percent of revenues go to the players, so this would be -- the revenues would be included in the big pot that is divided up. I think the players will easily get their fare share of revenues that are generated, and most of those revenues are going to be generated by increased interest in the games. They’re gonna stay until the ninth inning if they have a chance of being in the action, even if it’s 9 to 1. They’re going to have a real allegiance to a player or a 325 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING game if in fact it’s you know their $10 dollars that’s on the line, so I think there’s going to be a lot of revenue this year, and I don’t think there’s any problem with the sports industry reaching their hand out because they’ll be making plenty. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I -- I couldn’t agree more with the revenue and the revenue sharing piece of it, but I think equally as important as you stated it’s the regulation of sports betting that’s just as -- just as important. BOBBY VALENTINE: Oh, it’s important. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, sir. I don’t know who else is up. Senator Hwang. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome to the General Assembly. This is how business is done, right? BOBBY VALENTIME: Yes, this is business. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Well, I want to thank you for being here. You know, it was great to see you earlier this morning because it reminded me that we’re a month away from the start of the baseball season. BOBBY VALENTIME: Yes, so -- SENATOR HWANG (28TH): So, that’s encouraging, and we may yet take this meeting right to it. [Laughter]. I want [Laughing] -- that Sportech is very lucky to have ya, and thank you for your work and philanthropy throughout the community, but in your current role additionally to working with Sportech is with Sacred Heart University, and thank you for the great work you’ve done and -- and the beautiful sports complex that’s taking shape there. How do you feel -- what are your feelings on college 326 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING exemptions on sports gambling? You see it right on campus how our student athletes struggle while millions of dollars are being made and -- and how susceptible they could be to the lure of -- of gambling and the fact that you could swing and -- and you know miss a pitch or miss a ball shot or miss a block. It’s really easy. For you, from your perspective, do you think we should exempt or -- or prohibit college betting? BOBBY VALENTINE: Well, once again, this has been going on for years. Ernie Cobb was involved in the great Boston College point shaving scandal back in the early 80s. He’s from Stamford, Connecticut. He was given money to shave some points. There have been other shaving of points. Today, people are betting on college games. The -- the availability of a player to have access to someone who’s betting is there. It’s present. Nothing’s going to change when betting becomes legal. They’ll still have the opportunity and the temptation, and what you need is integrity. I think at the university level that’s part of the recruiting process, that you have to have people wearing your name of your university who come to that school already with integrity, and then the coach of the school has to make sure that they’re teaching the right values of sportsmanship and integrity. Of course, there could be temptation, but believe me, there’s temptation now because there are people who are betting on the game now whether it be Sacred Heart I don’t know or it’s Duke -- a major game, but guaranteed every football game that’s played on Saturday afternoon there are hundreds of millions of dollars bet on those games. Most of it, you know, legally. SENATOR HWANG (28TH): Well, I want to thank you for -- for your great work in the community, and thank 327 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING you for your patience and sticking it out today. Thank you, sir. BOBBY VALENTINE: Well, thank you for our hard work. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Valentine, for being here. Thank you for being a steward in the community. You’ve been to events in Newton public speaking. You’ve been a great Director of Public Safety for the city of Stamford where we had discussions in my career -- BOBBY VALENTIME: Yes, we did. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I’m a 9-1-1- dispatch supervisor, and so I appreciate your efforts there. But, since you’re here to talk about sports betting and it’s quarte after seven, we can move on to the real topic that I want to get to, which is how many licenses do you think Connecticut can support, and do you think a competitive environment is better or an exclusivity? BOBBY VALENTINE: I think a competitive environment is best in all cases and for sports betting, that’s included. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, do you have an opinion on how many licenses? Now, this wouldn’t be total number of operations, so for example, if Sportech was included, they would be one license, they can have multiple operations. What is your vision for how many licenses the state can support? BOBBY VALENTINE: And, I am not speaking for the company, but I am speaking for the individual resident of Connecticut. I think it could support a half a dozen. I think that what you -- what the state needs is revenue. It has to reach all the 328 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING residents, and I don’t think a three-hour drive is a very good way to place a bet on your favorite team on a Saturday afternoon, so I think facilities should be made accessible to all of the residents of the state. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): And, do you support an online option to the sports wagering? BOBBY VALENTINE: I do, but I think it needs total restriction. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. Thank you for taking the time. Thank you for waiting here nine hours with us, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Barry. REP. BARRY (31ST): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you please address the issue of problem gambling and what safeguards does Sportech have in place? BOBBY VALENTINE: Yes, well, they have the number one safeguard in place, and that is that you don’t get credit when you bet, that the biggest problem that in my research that betting has is the fact that people bet more than they have, that they get out on that limb with their credit line with their illegal bookie, and then it becomes a massive problem. When you have to pay to play, when you have to have your money to make the bet, that’s the greatest way of keeping someone from betting over their head. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Senator Bradley. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you very much. Again, echoing everyone’s sentiment of your great leadership and obviously, being a person who knows all -- all too well the importance of competition. That’s been your life, so thank you for those 329 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING statements. I -- I want to talk about specifically the sports betting thing that you’re here addressing. One of the things I like about your company and my limited knowledge of them, and one of the things that I love about you is the fact that you’re actually physically present here in the state of Connecticut. It is a brick and mortar facility. One of the things that we talked about in this committee, which I think will be -- there’s some correlation there. It’s about cyber security, and Senator Hwang has done a great job of bringing experts to this committee to talk about that. Can you tell us what your opinion is about if we were to open this RFP process and allow different companies to come in; do you think it would be wise for us to make legislation that would require there to be a physical presence, and not necessarily you physically need to go there to be, but there’d be an established place to go in order to make sure that, you know, there isn’t some sort of cyber crime that’s committed from some company that doesn’t have extradition treaty for the U.S., and we have no recourse for the taxpayers? BOBBY VALENTINE: And, that might be above my paygrade to answer that, but yes, I think that every precaution needs to be made at every level, and I think there does need a physical presence. I think that that’s how we really live our lives. Even though some of the younger people are living their lives without it, I think that we need that physical presence. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Thank you. BOBBY VALENTINE: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Anyone else? We’re good? Thank you very much. 330 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

BOBBY VALENTINE: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Have a good night. BOBBY VALENTINE: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Cheeseman. REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Verrengia, Chairman Bradley, Ranking Member Sredzinski who is just making out when I sit down -- REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): [Speaking off mic]. REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): [Laughing] And, Ranking Member, Senator Hwang, you have my submitted testimony, so I’ve never stayed this late fore a public hearing, which is an indication of how strongly I feel about this issue. I don’t think our tribal partners could have a better advocate than Senator Osten, but I will bring to you my perspective. She mentioned one of my favorite statistics, and not in a happy way, that Eastern Connecticut up until recently had the ninth worst recovery in the country when you’re looking at the labor market. Absent our tribal partners, I don’t like to think what would have happened to our part of the state. We saw drastic downsizing at Pfizer, excellent paying jobs. We are still looking at Fort Trumball, undeveloped. Pfizer left the minute they lost their tax abatement. Electric Boat was not the thriving enterprise it is now. Defense contracting for submarines had tanked, so the casinos -- our tribal partners played such a huge role in at least keeping our heads above water, and I don’t think that’s something I personally, nor I think the state should be willing to overlook. Senator Osten mentioned their philanthropic endeavors. I was speaking to a constituent just this past weekend 331 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING who’s very involved in charities for wounded warriors, and he was thrilled to report that Foxwoods was letting them have the use of the Grand Ballroom without charge. I know the Mohegans -- I have a local -- in fact, my Parks and Rec Director is trying to build a baseball and totally handicap accessible field using no municipal funds. The Mohegans granted him the use of one of their ballrooms free of charge. I could go on all day about the part they’ve played in my community, and I listened to some of the other testimony, and I’m not going to cast dispersions, but I find it hard to take seriously an organization that denied vociferously that there was any interest in developing a casino in Yonkers during the last session while they were pushing a casino in Bridgeport, and then read in November that they paid $850-million dollars for Yonkers, and I guess my final word on this the revenue is important. I don’t want to see that go away, but what’s more important to me is respect and honor. We have two tribes, two sovereign nations that entered into an agreement with this state, have honored it, have said they will continue to honor it whatever happens, and the idea that we as a state would not offer them the equal honor and respect that they are due, I would hate to see us betray our indigenous people again, and I view it in that way. So, thank you so much for your time. As you can see, I feel strongly about this. I was so pleased that we had reached a bipartisan decision. I hope we can going forward because we all want what’s best for the state, but don’t forget my part of the state. I sometimes jokingly say Eastern Connecticut is our equivalent of flyover country. Please remember that we’re there and we count too, and remember our 332 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING partners who helped us survive. So, thank you very much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you very much for coning today, Representative Cheeseman. It’s really a pleasure to see you here. We’ve talked often about our tribal nations and our partners and economic development in Eastern Connecticut, and you and I both recognize how hard it’s been. I’ve seen you at many Workforce Investment Board Meetings, and yu said it so eloquently. It’s truly about the respect of our partners who have been here for hundreds of years, and who we have had an agreement with -- an agreement with and signed that agreement, and I am hoping also that your words to everyone will ring so true that we will not break that agreement with our indigenous tribes. Can you talk a little bit about the tourist -- the tourism area of Eastern Connecticut, and a little bit about the museums that we have down along the shore that provide small amounts of economic development in our tiny communities? REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): I’d be happy to. I think one of the pluses -- and people tend to overlook this -- is the people who are coming to those casinos and tribal destinations are not always spending all their time there. If you look at our part of the state, we have everything ranging from the Mystic Seaport, the Mystic Aquarium, the Mystic Art Associations to historic houses in my town. I’m -- that was a plug for my little executive director of the Children’s Museum in Niantic as my full-time job. The Nautilus Museum. We have a huge range of museums and other tourist attractions that compliment what is offered in the -- by the tribes at their casinos. 333 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): There are many things that our tribal nations act as partners with in Eastern Connecticut. I believe they also sit on the Workforce Investment Board, the Eastern Advanced Manufacturing Alliance, our Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments sector. All of our economic drivers include representatives from our tribal nations. In your meeting with them, how -- how have those representations gone forward? REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): I think they recognize they’re an integral part of the community. The people -- yes, they have their employees, but their employees have family members, sons and daughters, wives, husbands, children who also need employment, and they want to see our community do well. I mean I know they’ve partnered with the tourism coalition. Foxwoods, in fact, provided money. They have created in effect a series of online modules for people in the hospitality and tourism industry to provide the people working with the customers with the best training possible, and my understanding is they put a significant investment in that because it’s in their interest for everyone to do well. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, you mentioned the labor market standing and the New London Labor Market standing was ninth worst in the country. There was no other labor market that was mentioned in Connecticut as being ninth worst in the country. Can you speak a little bit about that? REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): Yes, and that was a point I often made in stressing the needs of our particular part of the state. You know, my line was, you know, not Connecticut, not New England, not the Northeast, ninth worst in the country and unless you were there at that time and saw the continual bleed of jobs and you know, good paying careers, I 334 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING don’t think you had any idea. You know, the numbers of foreclosures, you know, the real toll it took on the region. It’s easy to, you know, look at the forest and the seacoast and you think, oh, this is a wonderful, you know prospering part of the state. It wasn’t. I mean we’re very fortunate now with the jobs pipeline coming through EB and our economy for a change is actually doing better than many parts of the state, but for many, many years that wasn’t the case. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Representative Cheeseman, I really thank you for all the work you do for Eastern Connecticut, for recognizing where we are and what we are going to do together. You’re an integral part of our coalition, bipartisan, bicameral working together to make sure that people don’t forget Eastern Connecticut as they have for a very long time. Thank you very much for coming and staying so late today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you very much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Senator Bradley. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Just -- just briefly ma’am, and -- REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): [Sneezed]. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Bless you. And -- and I don’t like to pin region against region as I think I’ve stated in passing. You know, and I obviously have to say something here for my beloved city of Bridgeport. You know, 55 percent of our property is in the hands of nonprofit. That means that every time that the state of Connecticut wanted to build a juvenile detention facility, it gets built in Bridgeport. Every time we wanted to build a prison or a government facility, it gets built in 335 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Bridgeport. Have you ever been to our downtown in the city of Bridgeport? REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): I actually have. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): And, so you can literally film the destruction of Damascus and use Bridgeport as the background shot for -- for that move. It -- it’s desolate. It is the worst downtown in the entire state. Now, consider that when we are part of Fairfield County, per capita the home of more billionaires than anywhere else in the United States, so when you talk about the Eastern part of Connecticut, which I know has also gone through those hardships, you talk about the jobs that have been deprived, you talk about all those opportunities that have been lost, that’s an isolated part of the state of Connecticut from what I’ve heard testimony from. We’re part of the most affluent part of our nation, and we have places where -- have you ever been down Strafford Avenue in Bridgeport, Connecticut? It’s in the east end of Bridgeport. REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): I don’t know. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Or Connecticut Avenue? We’re right now almost at 10 murders in the city of Bridgeport, and the year just started. We’re month two now in 2019. Absolutely decimated industry absolute economic isolation. All we’re asking for - - and I know as a woman who is fair and understands equity -- is for a bidding process that would be fair and transparent and that we as legislators look at what makes the most sense in terms of generating revenue. That’s it. It’s not necessarily saying that Bridgeport deserves it because we are in tough shape or that the tribes deserve it because they’ve been victimized in years’ past. We’re simply saying 336 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING what makes sense for all of us sitting at this table to make sure that Nutmeggers are getting the greatest bang for their buck. Would you support something like that? REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): I suppose my feeling is we have an agreement and what is the point of having an open and transparent RFP if at the end of the day you’re going to -- if you’re not going to have the option of selecting someone other than our tribal partners, why are you even having an RFP? And, I -- I don’t live in Bridgeport, but I can share your frustration, and I would work hand-in- hand with you to bring initiatives to Bridgeport that would provide the people who live there and their children and their families with the opportunity to have the good-paying jobs and careers that they deserve and they need. One -- the Senator mentioned the Eastern Workforce Investment Board. I have seen what they have done in the local high schools working hand-in-hand. I would want to bring that sort of initiative to Bridgeport, to work with your young people, your young men and your young women, talking to them in the middle schools, showing them that they are all these -- how far are you from the -- the Sikorsky and Pratt and Whitney, you know? You are in an area where there is so much advanced manufacturing. That’s what I would like to do to Bridgeport and bring those sort of initiatives and those sort of moves that really give you a future and not again pit region against region because I do feel if you’re going to enter an RFP, why are you doing it if you’re not entertaining the possibility of not picking your tribal partners? SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): I’m just going to make two points respectfully, Representative. One is that for the years that I’ve been living in the city of 337 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Bridgeport and studying about the politics of the city of Bridgeport and understanding the economics of the city of Bridgeport; do you know how many times this legislature or legislatures of years past have proposed that? Maybe it’s been proposed, how many times it’s been executed? Never. So, here we have a corporation who’s looking to generate private money during a time when we have fiscal responsibilities where we’re in a very tight fiscal situation, who’s willing to bring private dollars to investment, and all we’re saying is we want to see if the dollars add up, and if it doesn’t add up, then it doesn’t make sense for any of us to approve it. That’s what we’re saying, and my frustration is we are all here first and foremost American citizens and first and foremost put our country before anything else, and secondly, obviously, residents living in the state of Connecticut, Nutmeggers, why would we not look first at the interest of the state of Connecticut and the taxpayers of the city and first consider the exclusive right of what you describe as a sovereign nation. Why are we putting their interest before the interest of the rest of us? REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): Because I don’t think we’re putting their interest before. I think we’re putting our sense of honor and respect on the line, and I think having made an agreement, having reached that decision it behooves us to keep it, but again, I’m -- I am sincere about this, Senator Bradley. There should be no one in this state who lives in a community where there are murders like that. There should be no one in this state who feels they have no future. If that is the case, then we as a legislature, we as human beings are not doing the right thing. [Crying] Sorry, I’m getting emotional here, but I do feel strongly about this, that we 338 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING should be able to come up with a decision that honors agreements we’ve made in the past, but also, helps the people to whom you have to answer. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Correct. Thank you very much. REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): You’re welcome. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No. And, I want to thank you for staying so late. It really shows that this issue is very important to you. REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. REP. HOLLY CHEESEMAN (37TH): It’s a pleasure and an honor as always. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Okay. Let’s see where we’re at here. Lawrence Jenson. LAWRENCE JENSON: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Larry Jenson. I’m the former Deputy General Council or Solicitor at the U.S. Department of the Interior, and I’m appearing today on behalf of MGM resorts to explain why it is that Bill 11, when viewed through the lands of federal law, puts at risk the state’s right to continue to receive hundreds of millions of dollars each year from the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos. Bill 11, as you know, is designed to preserve the state’s authorization as set forth in Public Act 17-89 of a tribally owned casino in East Windsor. It would do that be eliminating the requirement for Interior Department approval of that authorization before it becomes effective. As you well know, that authorization is currently mired in litigation as a result of Interior’s failure to approve the 339 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING authorization. However -- and this is an important point -- even if Bill 11 becomes law and thus mutes the current litigation by removing the requirement for Interior Department approval, the authorization of an East Windsor casino will continue to be mired in litigation, except this time the challenge will be on constitutional grounds as has been mentioned in previous testimony, the argument being that the Act 17-89 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution and also the Commerce Clause. This state’s then Attorney General, George Jepsen, the highest legal officer in the state, warned in 2017 that the potential for such a constitutional challenge to succeed is “not at all insubstantial.” That’s even if Bill 11 becomes law, the authorization of the East Windsor casino could be invalidated by the courts, and the legislature would then find itself several years from now right where it was several years ago when it first began to consider whether and how to authorize commercial gaming in the state beyond that already taking place at Foxwood and Mohegan Sun. Moreover, an even more important point, is that the passage of Bill 11 could immediately expose the state to serious legal and financial risks as General Jepsen repeatedly warned and as federal law provides [Bell] authorizing a casino in East Windsor without Interior Department approval could well result in the termination of the tribe’s obligation to share its revenues with the state. As a result, General Jepsen counseled as recently as last year that maintaining the requirement for Interior Department approval of the East Windsor casino is “highly recommended to protect the state’s interest in continuing to receive revenues from Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun.” Now, the tribes recognize the risk to the state’s revenue strain from the passage of Bill 340 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

11, and because they recognize that risk, they have proposed to mitigate it by entering into new agreements with the state that would guarantee the continuation of the casino payments even if the passage of Bill 11 terminated the legal obligation to make such payments. The problem with such a guarantee [Bell] is that it would not be enforceable as the tribes and the state under federal law are not free to change the terms of their relationship with respect to gaming without Interior Department approval; thus, despite the tribes’ best intentions, if Bill 11 passes, third parties like for example the creditors of the tribes would be in a position to force a reduction of or outright termination of the payments to the state from the casinos. Thank you. I’d be happy to take any questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any questions? I guess that’s kind of the point I was trying to bring up most of the day that the question in -- in by removing that requirement certainly doesn’t put the state in a -- in a stronger position, and to some extent, weakens their position, and I think that’s important to note and particularly for the reasons that you’ve articulated too, so thank you for those comments. Any other questions? Thank you. LAWRENCE JENSON: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Jerome White. JEROME WHITE: Good evening, Chairman Bradley, Chairman Verrengia, vice chairs, ranking members, and other members of the committee. My name is Jerome White, Recording Secretary, organizer, and member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 488. I’m submitting this testimony in strong support of House Bill 7055, 341 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

AN ACT CREATING THE CONNECTICUT GAMING COMMISSION AND CREATING THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR A RESORT CASINO. Competitive bidding for a resort casino in the state will offer the best scenario for our state and the communities where it would be built. By establishing a gaming commission and creating a competitive bidding process, we can update our existing gaming laws and increase revenue to our state. MGM Bridgeport’s proposed plan is a terrific case and point, 7000 jobs for the city and the region at no cost to taxpayers, not less than $8 million dollars annually to Bridgeport, benefits neighboring communities, and an investment of $12- million dollars in workforce development. However, while MGM is leading the way on this bill, this bill will only offer MGM and its competitors a path to an open biding process for the best possible project that the state can choose. With that being said, the construction of a resort casino would create great middle-class opportunities for our current trades people and continue to allow apprenticeship programs to train our communities for the future. All with decent wages, healthcare, retirement benefits, pride, and dignity on and off the job. As with all projects of this magnitude to also have a labor neutrality agreement with organized labor will ensure top wages and benefits are paid as well as safe and favorable conditions exist through the duration of construction. All this in turn will have a positive economic impact on the region. Through putting local men and women to work, their wages will be spent back in the communities that they live in, supporting local businesses, and allowing those communities to thrive. I would strongly urge the committee to pass House Bill 7055 and encourage the growth of 342 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Connecticut’s share of the U.S. gaming market. Thank you for your consideration. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and not really a question. Just a comment. Thank you Jerome for being here even though you don’t live in Monroe anymore, you stay in touch on issues and so I think it’s great. Thank you for taking the time to stay and testify. JEROME WHITE: Yeah, thank you. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Anyone else/ I’m seeing no one. Thank you. JEROME WHITE: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Next up is David Satz. DAVID SATZ: Thank you, Chairman Bradley and Chairman Verrengia and members of the committee. Thanks for staying so late to hear us and give me this opportunity. My name is David Satz. I’m senior vice president of Government Relations for -- and Development for Caesar’s Entertainment Corporation, and Caesar’s operates approximately 50 casinos including 18 sportsbooks, so I’m here to talk about sports betting, not your other issues that you’ve head here today, and to say that we strongly support Senate Bill 655 with the proviso that there be open licenses. The model that Connecticut chooses for sports betting is important, and let me tee up several recommendations. First, we urge that the state act as a regulator, not as an operator, issuing license in a risk-free 343 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING manner to the state with a manageable tax rate. You may ask why. The reason for this is sports betting is a very risky business. You’ve already heard that they’re very low margins of you know 4 or 5 percent. It has adherent riskiness and exposures to the bets and probably most importantly there was a downside to putting the taxpayer’s money at risk. Private operators are the best way to hedge against this risk, and a tax rate of approximately 10 percent in that range will create a successful way to take away the illegal market that exists today. Second, we would recommend that Connecticut issue a prescribed number of licenses. I’ve heard a bunch of things in the range, but approximately five to ten mobile licenses with a state agency providing strict regulatory oversight. Multiple licenses as compared to a sole-source provider will provide more consumer choice, it will encourage innovation, it will provide for better pricing for the consumers, and it will provide for better product offerings. The licenses -- the licensees will hold the state harmless for any activities so the low margins and the riskiness, which I mentioned before, won’t be an issue for the state. Third, we recommend a model that will treat the existing tribal casinos and operators fairly and with respect but consistent with state and federal law. Tribal issues are -- are and should be an important consideration for you as today’s testimony made clear, but I want to be clear that your determination on sports betting on nontribal lands is purely a tenth amendment state’s rights issue as the tribes have no right to off reservation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. To address this, we suggested if the tribes desire to go mobile throughout the state off reservation that they do so 344 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING on the condition that they’re willing to do so under the competitive network that I’ve just described, and that they be guaranteed licenses within that -- that piece. [Bell]. Fourth, we recommend that there be strict state regulation with state-of-the-art technology. I think my power point that’s attached to our testimony has a description of the pieces on age -- age limits, responsible gaming measures, fraud protections, and geo location. Last, I want to address the issue of the importance of integrity protections, but highlight that the answer to integrity is not to give away taxpayer money to third parties who argue that they have some need for an integrity fee or royalty fee. The industry has a long history of dealing appropriately with monitoring the integrity of betting, not sports, of the betting piece. Integrity enhancements take place through improved transparency in a legal market and the algorithms that are made to show any anomalies in the betting. Oversight by the integrity monitoring organization that’s focused on sharing with law enforcement nationally and with regulators in cutting the funds to the illegal market. Integrity will not occur by taking taxpayer money and dedicating them to third party participants. [Bell]. Thank you. I’m happy to answer any questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions? Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you for your testimony and thank you for waiting. You had mentioned the number of licenses. What do you think 345 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING about licensing fees or tax rates that would be appropriate here in Connecticut? DAVID SATZ: So, as I mentioned, I mentioned a tax rate of 10 percent. The existing -- most of the existing states that have legalized sports betting have rates in 10 percent or below. I think New Jersey’s drifts up depending on whether it’s retail or mobile to I think it’s 13 percent, and then you have that one outlier in Pennsylvania, but I -- I think the tax rate should be in the 10 percent rate if you want to really take away the illegal market. In terms of licensing fee, it’s really a policy call. You know, I -- you know, sports betting is not a (inaudible - 09:38:22) on the revenue side, so it can’t be that high that it prevents all of the pieces that you want to do in getting rid of the illegal market. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Well, we have to decide. That’s our decision, and any guidance you can provide. A number of 100,000 was mentioned before. Is that a reasonable amount? DAVID SATZ: I think that would be reasonable. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): All right. Senator Bradley. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Would you -- was your company currently located in the state of Connecticut? DAVID SATZ: We are not. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): You’re not? And, if -- if this RFP were to be opened up, would you be opposed to legislative language that would require that 346 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING there be some sort of physical location in the state of Connecticut? DAVID SATZ: No, I actually heard that dialogue before I think with the Wire Act, which there are all kinds of issues going on with the DOJ opinion. I think you’d have to locate your servers within the state regardless of what happens with the DOJ opinion because the Wire Act prevents bets and wagers and the equipment relating to it and information relating to it crossing state lines. SENATOR BRADLEY (23RD): Okay. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Any other questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you for your testimony. DAVID SATZ: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Robert Dinofrio [phonetic]. DAN ONOFRIO: Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity. My name is Dan Onofrio, President and CEO of the Bridgeport Regional Business Council. I’m here today to provide our support of House Bill 7055 on behalf of the 700 business partners and members we represent through our affiliate organizations of the Bridgeport, Strafford, and Trumball Chambers of Commerce. Bridgeport is a beautiful, vibrant city. We sometimes get lost in the shadows but make no mistake, this is a thriving community of people. A community that wants for all of us who want the chance to work, to live, to strive for greater things. This is a family community and at Bridgeport, family always comes first, but families can’t do it alone. They need jobs, and not just the run-of-the-mill jobs or seasonal jobs or jobs with little to no hope. Now, they need secure high- 347 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING paying jobs from established reputable employers. Those employers and the citizens of Bridgeport who would choose to work for them, that’s why I’m here today. A good job is a ticket to a better life for all of us, a ticket to purchase a generational home, a ticket to escape the challenges of debt and financial hardship, a ticket to a brighter more empowered future for ourselves, our children, and of course, Bridgeport. That is why as President of the Bridgeport Regional Business Council I am here today to ask our elected officials to help make Bridgeport a more hopeful place, a place with a real future where families will stay and live and thrive. Where people will be rewarded for hard work, raise their families, create lasting legacies. I’m here today to strongly endorse a move to do just that, to bring jobs, tax revenues, and local business spending to this great city. You see, there’s a skilled, enthusiastic, but underutilized workforce in the city. Our employment rate of 4.6 percent lags dangerously behind state average of 3.2 percent. So, where do we find the jobs to close that gap, to empower our citizens with the ability to make good on their dreams? A resort casino in the greater Bridgeport area is certainly a good start, and that can only happen if you approve a competitive process for a commercial casino license. A moment ago I referenced jobs, taxes, and local business spending, but according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, I quote, “The greatest perceived benefits of casinos are increased employment, greater tax revenue, and growth in local retail sales.” As the legislature continues to evolve this discussion, I look forward to helping you all as a representative of the people and businesses of Bridgeport who stand to gain so much from a thoughtful, pragmatic partnership with, for 348 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING example, an MGM and their world-class entertainment and commerce hubs. Thank you again for this opportunity to champion Bridgeport, a vibrant and beautiful city that would significantly benefit from an infusion of good jobs, tax revenue, and spending at local businesses. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): I’ll be quick, President Onofrio, but welcome to the position. I know that you -- we’ve heard a lot of people from the city of Bridgeport here today and your business is located - - your agency is located in the city of Bridgeport, but you represent the Regional Business Council. Can you just briefly in 15 seconds or less tell us how the region feels about this proposal? DAN ONOFRIO: Sure. So, we represent, as I mentioned, Strafford Chamber of Commerce, Trumball Chamber of Commerce, and Bridgeport Chamber of Commerce. We’re a makeup of 700 plus organizations in the region and overwhelmingly our -- our board -- I’m here to speak on behalf of our board that are overwhelmingly in support of -- of this bill. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you again for taking the time to wait this long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Michael Garrett. Okay. Charlie Dowd. CHARLIE DOWD: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you so much for your time and patience, and I appreciate the time to speak with you. My name is Charlie Dowd. I’m the Deputy Athletic Director at Sacred Heart. I’m here 349 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING representing the university, and the university strongly supports HB 7055, THE ACT CREATING THE CONNECTICUT GAMING COMMISSION AND CREATING A COMPETIIVE BIDDING PROCESS FOR RESORT CASINO. The university supports the idea of competitive bidding process, which will allow the state to make the best decision for the state for a developer for a casino. We believe the open bid process will benefit Bridgeport and the surrounding community economically. We don’t have a -- we don’t have a horse in the race, but we do have interest in what’s estimated to be about 20,000 people per weekend coming to downtown Bridgeport and -- and putting on an old hat of mine where I spent 20 years plus trying to bring people into Bridgeport for sports entertainment. I know specifically the benefit of having all those folks visit the downtown. We acknowledge that in addition to benefitting the city, the state, and the region, a resort casino in Bridgeport will also benefit Sacred Heart and its academic programs. We have a hospitality resort and tourism management program, sports management, performing arts, business marketing communications, as well as additional programs we may end up developing just to support such a large local regional employer. Leisure and hospitality is an industry that is showing strong growth and hiring nationally as well as internationally. The addition of a resort casino to the mix in Bridgeport will provide our students with a hands-on opportunity, internships job to prepare for employment in the hospitality industry here, nationally, and even internationally. It will provide the same for current and future area residents. We believe that the addition of this resort casino many of our graduates will find jobs and choose to remain employed in Connecticut. As you know, we have a 350 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING significant brain drain of young people from the state of Connecticut. That’s an important consideration. Our primary reason though for endorsing this bill is the employment, redevelopment, and revenues that regenerate the city of Bridgeport. All boats rise with the tide, and we feel that this would be a tremendous benefit to our region. Thank you so much for your time. I welcome questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you. Next up is Chris Cipolla. CHRIS CIPOLLA: Good evening, Chairman Bradley, Chairman Verrengia, and members of the committee. My name is Chris Cipolla, and I am the senior manager for Government Affairs at DraftKings. DraftKings was founded in 2012, and since that time, has evolved into a global sports entertainment company with more than 10 million customers throughout the world. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling last May, DraftKings entered the sport betting industry, and we became the first company to offer a mobile sports wagering application outside of the state of Nevada when we went live in New Jersey in August with our product. As the top mobile sports provider in the state of New Jersey and a marked participated in multiple jurisdictions throughout the United States, we appreciate the opportunity to participate here today to discuss the importance of Connecticut embracing a competitive fully mobile sports wagering market that will generate revenue for the state and provide much needed consumer protections that do not exist in today’s illegal market. The results from New Jersey demonstrate the importance of a fully mobile sports wagering market 351 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING that permits mobile registration, funding, wagering, and withdraw from anywhere within the state. In January alone, New Jersey generated $385-million dollars in wagers. Nearly 80 percent of that amount was placed via mobile device. Despite retail sportsbooks having a two month advantage in New Jersey over mobile products having launched in June, 67 percent of the total amount wagered to date on sports of the $1.6-billion dollars that’s been wagered has been wagered via mobile device. New Jersey also demonstrates the importance of any sports wagering framework being considered to allow for multipole operators to serve the market. A marketplace with multiple choices for consumers will lead to a much better consumer experience that forces operators to innovate and to continue to offer new and exciting products to Connecticut residents. Multiple operators will increase the overall economic impact that sports wagering has in this state and most effectively counteract the massive illegal market. Additionally, for the small segment of the population that struggles with gambling, DraftKings provide safeguards that allow customers to set their own deposit and play limits, and to self-exclude from participation should they choose. These safeguards among many others that exist in the regulated space do not exist in today’s illegal market. If Connecticut wants to maximize revenue, best protecting consumers, and eliminate the thriving illegal off-shore sports betting industry we strongly believe based on our experiences and the available data that it is best accomplished through the creation of a competitive fully mobiles sports wagering market. Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. 352 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Representative Vail. REP. VAIL (52ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. I want to dig into DraftKings a little bi here, so let’s talk about the daily -- say Fantasy Football -- the daily Fantasy Football, not the sports wagering part of it yet, but the daily Fantasy Football. I know a lot of people that use FanDuel and DraftKings. They download the app. You know, they’ll pick a certain, you know, lineup, you know. It makes a little bit more interesting on Sunday to watch a football game or so on and so forth, and they have a certain salary for each one or whatever. They have tournaments. They can go head-to-head. How does that work now? I know there’s people in Connecticut doing it. Are they doing it illegally? CHRIS CIPOLLA: No. Daily Fantasy Sports is a completely different vertical than sports betting. Daily Fantasy Sports, as 20 states throughout the country has determined, is a skilled-based contest that requires individuals to set a lineup based on a salary cap. They’re different products than -- than sports betting, and we’ve operated in Connecticut without issue. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, if I was to download the app -- ‘cause I haven’t already -- and I was to win a pot for $1000 dollars, and I wanted to withdraw that money; how -- how does that go about? That’s already legal in Connecticut. Would I have to pay taxes on that and how does that work? CHRIS CIPOLLA. We -- we are operating in the state of Connecticut, and I think for the purpose of this discussion it’s also important to note that our products they are separate applications, so we have 353 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING a Daily Fantasy Sports product. Our mobiles sportsbook is a completely different application. As far as tax thresholds, when you win money in connection with a contest, if it’s over a certain limit, documentation is submitted to that, is provided to the contestant so that they can file the appropriate tax forms. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, do you mail a check to their house, is it deposited -- [Crosstalk]. CHRIS CIPOLLA: There’s different ways. REP. VAIL (52ND): There’s different ways? CHRIS CIPOLLA: Correct. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, that is already available in Connecticut? REP. VAIL (52ND): Connecticut residents have the ability to participate in Daily Fantasy Sports, yes. REP. VAIL (52ND): Oh, okay. All right. Thank you. CHRIS CIPOLLA: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Any other questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you, sir. CHRIS CIPOLLA: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Michael Garrett is back. MICHAEL GARRETT: Representative Verrengia, Senator Bradley, honorable members of the Public Safety Committee, my name is Michael Garrett and I am a lifelong resident of the city of Bridgeport. I am also a lifelong republican living in the city and currently serve as the republican town chairman. You have a unique opportunity before you today as you contemplate the passage of a competitive gaming bill for all of the citizens of Connecticut. 354 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Many years ago, the federal government made a decision was to allow two Native American tribes to receive federal recognition. Because of that decision, the Mohegan and Pequot tribes decided that casino gaming within their tribal reservations would be an important opportunity for economic development, which would affect the lives of their tribal members. However, the General Assembly had nothing to do with that decision. That decision was already made by the tribes themselves, so our elected leaders negotiated with the tribal nations and created a compact, which allowed the tribal nations to amass an enormous amount of revenue. In turn, the citizens of Connecticut would be compensated with 25 percent of the tribal casino’s slot machines revenue. Once again, that decision was made by a governor who negotiated with the tribal nations. The people of Connecticut really had no say in the matter on how gaming would be formed in Connecticut and how it should be regulated. Before you now, is the opportunity to correct these past errors or oversights. Now, is the time to take advantage of the opportunity to create a competitive gaming market in Connecticut. I urge you to make Connecticut competitive rather than restrictive, and enact an open bidding process. In my view, monopolies don’t work. As a matter of fact, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed by the U.S. Congress forbidding monopolies. The tribes have made it clear. They want to continue to expand gaming in order to remain competitive. In other words, they want to keep their monopoly and remain competitive at the same time. This is logically absurd because a monopoly cannot co-exist with free- market competition, so how does the present tribal 355 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING plans for expansion help the rest of Connecticut or my city of Bridgeport? The present tribal plans for a casino expansion in East Windsor is predicated upon an old-school business model that was prevalent in the 1970s. it does not integrate the modern family-oriented, quality entertainment venue, and community-friendly approach of the more enlightened 21st century gaming corporations. By their own words, the tribes now state that their primary focus is a casino in East Windsor. [Bell]. Yet, they continue to play duplicate -- diplomatic word games in claiming they still have an interest in Bridgeport. In reality, their primary focus is to interrupt casino traffic from a competing Springfield, Massachusetts casino. It seems the tribes have become very comfortable with conducing business under the protection and unfair advantages that a monopoly provides. The people of Bridgeport and the citizens of Connecticut deserve better than this. They deserve a modern gaming model based on competition and regulation that grows jobs and economic opportunity. As legislators, you would be making a terrific mistake if you got involved in a territorial dispute over economic development. This is exactly what the previous legislature did with the passage of the East Windsor casino legislation. When they passed that -- this legislation, they told me in no uncertain terms that the people of my city means little, if anything, to them. [Bell]. They choose to ignore people who live in poverty for -- for a lack of a job. Instead, they chose to favor the tribal gaming entities that re only interested in protecting their own monopolies. I strongly urge you to let the marketplace decide who, where, and how the gaming industry at large chooses to invest in the various communities located in Connecticut. 356 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Do not leave this decision to those who represent the narrow self-serving interest of a select few. The people of Connecticut are dependent on you -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Sir, can you wrap it up, please? MICHAEL GARRETT: To make the right choices to help my city as well as the rest of Connecticut in benefitting from the economic development, job opportunities, and tax revenue that will come from a proposal that stresses fair competition. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you, sir. Any questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you. MICHAEL GARRETT: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Next up, Fred Taylor, Richard McGuire, Sportech team. I don’t know how many you want to bring up together or you want to -- Ted, I’m sorry. TED TAYLOR: I know you know. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I’m sorry. I should know better. TED TAYLOR: Yeah. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): We’ve seen a lot of each other. [Laughing]. TED TAYLOR: Good evening, Chairman Bradley, Chairman Verrengia, and the distinguished members of the Public Safety Committee. I’m Ted Taylor, President of Sportech Venues, and I’m joined by Richard McGuire, Executive Chairman of Sportech, the parent company of Sportech Venues, and also Rich Pingle [phonetic], our Chief Legal Officer. We’re all based here in Connecticut, and we’ve, at your request, combined our testimony just to try to move 357 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING things along a little bit quicker. We’d like to thank you for the opportunity to testify, and we’re purely here to speak about sports wagering. We don’t want to get involved in the casino in Bridgeport. Sportech employs over 400 people in Connecticut. We have 16 off-track betting venues, two Bobby V’s restaurants and sports bars. We have an online and telephone betting operations up and running for a long time now live-based in New Haven, which is also our North American business headquarters where we include -- where we have our legal accounts, marketing, and admin teams based in the huge round sports haven building, which many of you know well. Our company has been a reliable part of Connecticut for a quarter of a century now. We have acquired from the state an exclusive license to provide legal betting via firstly our venues and secondly our digital operations, telephone and online, and they’ve been running safely, security under the egress of DCP for a very long time. We’ve invested significantly in our people, our properties, our digital platforms, and we anticipate expanding our presence in the state, creating further local opportunities for employment. Something I think we can all agree on and it’s been spoken quite a lot very eloquently by the Bobby Valentine before me is illegal sports betting takes place throughout the state online and offline. It’s happening now. It’s kind of a running joke, but it’s happening everywhere. It’s -- it’s not licensed, but if legal sports betting was offered through the existing approved license and properly regulated environments, we can then deliver the appropriate consumer protections and create a relatively simple new revenue stream for the state. We believe that the existing regulatory framework used by the state 358 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING decades to deliver betting entertainment to consumers is the most efficient and secure way by -- that we can execute a legitimate sports betting opportunity for consumers that will also drive tax revenues. Our venues and our digital betting platforms plus the casinos are already licensed and offering betting right now. We’re doing this all already. The existing established betting operators are uniquely positioned to seamlessly implement sports betting so that Connecticut residents can enjoy sports legally and state can benefit accordingly. utilizing these existing licensed betting operators to offer sports betting will not lead to proliferation of sports betting because it will happen in existing gambling institutions. It merely brings it into those safe legal regulated environments; moreover [Bell], extending the current licensing through existing properties mitigates the need to increase the oversight burden by the state, primarily DCP, but it minimizes the increased cost to the state, which I know we’re all trying to do. Neighboring states are progressing at pace off of legal sports betting, and we should not be left behind, especially given that we have three licensed operators with longstanding and strong partnerships with the state and the expertise and infrastructure for exactly this type of activity. We are regulated and ready to bring safe, secure sports betting to your constituents here in -- here in the state in environments that are up and running and have already been approved for betting. We have met recently with the governor’s office and a number of legislators to explain our position, which is as submitted above and in our written testimony earlier this morning, and we will continue to (inaudible - 359 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

10:01:59) do so whatever we can. Thank you for your time -- for your time and consideration of my testimony, and the two Richards and myself will answer any questions that anybody may have. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Representative Vail. REP. VAIL (52ND): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quick. Mr. Valentine said -- you know, Representative Sredzinski asked him that he thought maybe half a dozen providers would be a good number. Would you -- do you think that’s a good number? TED TAYLOR: I told him he was wrong. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. TED TAYLOR: Yeah. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. What do you think? TED TAYLOR: I think that you have enough existing providers of gaming within the state to do this very adequately already. REP. VAIL (52ND): So, you’d say the three. TED TAYLOR: I would say the three, yes. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you, Mr.Chairman, and as a followup; what do you think the license fee should be? TED TAYLOR: Well, obviously zero, but [Laughter]. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): All right -- [Crosstalk]. TED TAYLOR: I -- I -- 360 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): You know what state you’re in. This is Connecticut. TED TAYLOR: No, I know. I understand all the points, and I think that it’s -- the main thing about a license fee is it needs to be set at a level that allows us to compete properly. I understand the need for it and the tax rates, but if it’s done, it’s in a way that it is so erroneous that we can’t compete, particularly with the what will continue to be legal operators. It becomes a challenge for us all because we’re not then driving the betting revenue that creates a tax for the state. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. So, a number of $100,000 dollars h as been put out there as a possibility. Is that too high or too low? RICHARD MCGUIRE: Mr. Chairman, may I? Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): If you could just identify yourself for the record, sir? RICHARD MCGUIRE: Sorry, yeah. Richard McGuire, Chairman of Sportech. The -- the bill that was being progressed last year at a $500,000 dollar fee payable every two years, so $250,000 dollars. It was a number we were working with and we think that’s a fair and representative license fee, and that’s paid every - every two years. Half a million dollars every two years. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Gotcha. Thank you very much, and the tax range for sports betting 8 to 10 percent has been thrown out there. Too high? Too low? TED TAYLOR: We are again happy that we -- we felt that we could be very competitive at the 10 percent rate because it helps to drive the revenue and it helps us all to be successful. 361 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much for answering my questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any other questions? I just have one by way of a comment, and maybe there will be a question in there. You and I have had a number of discussions over the last so many years, and I’ve always said that whenever I have a conversation about sports betting that your group was included in that conversation that it continues to be included in every conversation that I have with sports betting, and one of the reasons for that is because of your investment here in the state of Connecticut. I’ve been to you Bobby V’s, probably most recently the one in Stamford, and I was really impressed with that -- with that restaurant, and quite frankly, when we first met and I saw that you were investing in these -- in these restaurants, I kind of scratched my head because this was before sports betting was legal, and you guys were operating like horseracing, and I’m thinking geez that’s really a thing of the past. Why are you investing all this money in horseracing and you don’t see a lot of it, but you took a risk, and -- and it paid off in a sense that sports betting is now legal, and you’re hoping to -- to be part of that and to the extent that at the end of the day, you’re included. You certainly have my support. Maybe this is where the question comes in. Talk a little bit about the value to your company with respect to not only brick and mortar piece of it, but the importance of the mobile platform? TED TAYLOR: Well, thank you for your comments firstly, and it’s actually something I’d like to mention is that we bought the business eight years ago, and we’ve invested every single penny of profit 362 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING and more in the state, which is why our employee numbers have gone up, and it was an educated risk. You know, we didn’t spent $8.5 million dollars in Stamford without thinking that this was an opportunity that would present itself, so we did it in full knowledge and the same in Bradley as well actually because we knew MGM was coming, so we thought we got to get ahead of the game and do something, and we did that four years ago very successfully. It -- it’s a really important aspect of our future. You’re right to say that the horseracing industry is -- is in a different state right now. What happened with it in the last six months in Jersey is that actually it’s doing quite well because the guys going to bet on sports are also betting on the ponies or, you know, that sort of thing. So, you know, it’s a vital part of our future, and we will continue to do more of the same wherever we can provided that the overall licensing and tax regime makes sense for everybody. I think that covers. RICHARD MCGUIRE: Mr. Chairman, if I can just follow from Ted’s comments. I think we’ve had some testimony today from other operators keen now to move into the state, and we heard testimony just now about deploying or employing servers in the state. We’ve taken a very different view. We employ people. We create jobs in this state. As Ted touched on, it’s not just for us moving into the state and putting a server in the state, we want to actually employ and create a significant number of more jobs here in the state, and we think that’s absolutely paramount. I just to one of the earlier points, again, both Ted and I did disagree with Bobby on the numbers. We think you have enough significant qualified operators in the state right now to conduct sports betting in a competitive 363 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING environment and competitive it has to be because competition brings innovation and it brings a very good deal for consumers across the board. Having just one operator clearly isn’t good for consumers, and that’s a key focus for us, so we think you have extensive operators licensed and regulated right now in the state and ready to go who deliver a significant number of jobs across the state. TED TAYLOR: I just realized I didn’t answer your question. The bottom line is the evidence from Jersey and every -- I’m English. I was going to say European, but I’m nearly not European anymore, but the bottom line is over there mature markets it’s at least 70 percent of the betting these days is done on a device, a portable device. What we find, even with horseracing, what people do is will sit in one of our venues, and they’ll use the internet to bet because then they can sit at their table. It’s very personal. You know, you’ve seen people throughout the day. They’re not just listening to the testimony, they’re doing their email, they’re doing whatever else they’re doing. In Jersey, the figures in terms of betting on a device are huge, so without that, it can’t really be successful. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, in order for you to have a successful sports betting business, is it imperative to offer that in addition to a mobile platform at all your locations versus if the state were to restrict the amount of locations that you -- [Crosstalk]. TED TAYLOR: Well, we have 16 locations, and we’re licensed for eight more, but that’s based on the OTB model. If -- if -- you know, we believe that we could actually invest in each of those locations and have a -- a blend of a successful bar, restaurant, OTB with betting as well as the online platform. 364 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

Fairly obviously, it’s harder these days, just the way the world is changing, people use the mobile or internet or whatever you want to call it to do lots of their transactions, but you know, as long as we can invest sensible amounts of money and make a sensible return, we’ll do whatever we can. What we don’t want to do is just be people who come in from afar and say, we might put a server somewhere in a - - in a location, and then we sickle the money out of Connecticut and not really pay any tax. We’re here, we’re heavily invested, we want to stay, and we want to grow with the state. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any other questions? Okay. I’m seeing none. Thank you. TED TAYLOR: Thank you very much. RICHARD MCGUIRE: Thank you very much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): John Nimons [phonetic]. Todd Hill. Richard Pingle [phonetic]. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yep. Bruce Silva. Arthur Bell, and Dan Spillane, who I know has been here all day waiting to testify. Good evening, Dan. DAN SPILLANE: Good evening, Chaiman Verrengia, Chairman Bradley, members of the committee. Last time I testified, I think I was sitting up for about 90 minutes plus, and I’m going to try to hit the under at this point in the hearing today. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Anyone wanna bet on that? [Laughter]. DAN SPILLANE: So, I’m here to present the perspective of the National Basketball Association on sports betting legislation. We submitted a written statement today that lays out our views of what we think sports betting legislation should 365 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING include. It’s late. I won’t repeat what’s in that statement, but I do want to just emphasize very quickly a few key points for you to take away. I think our position on sports betting has been consistent and clear over the years. Any law that legalizes sports betting should include safeguards for the integrity of our sport. It should protect the fans who bet on our games, and it should fairly compensate the creators of the underlying content who bear the risk if things go wrong, and it should create a partnership among the states, the regulator, gambling operators, and sports leagues to make sure that sport betting eliminates illegal betting markets and maximizes revenue to the state. We’ve proposed specific bill language that would put these principles into effect, and a lot of what we proposed was included in the bill that reached the goal line here in Connecticut last year, and I hope that momentum can be carried forward this year to make Connecticut a national leader on legalized sports betting. To just very briefly recap, legislation should include four key components. First, a toolkit for sports organizations to protect their competitions including things like an automized data sharing for integrity monitoring purposes, cooperation with league investigations, mandatory alerts of suspicious activity, and a channel for leagues to challenge bet types that could pose greater integrity risks. Second, robust consumer protections including state- of-the-art responsible gambling requirements, age verification, and strict licensing requirements. This also would include a requirement to use official league data for endplay and proposition 366 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING bets to ensure that bet outcomes are consistent and accurate across operators. Third, a competitive mobile betting marketplace to ensure that legal betting options are appealing and widely available enough to shift betters from illegal to legal markets. And, fourth, compensation to sports organizations based on the amount bet on their games. This would be paid by betting companies, not by the state, to compensate the creators of sports content for the value and for the fundamental inputs that we create for sports betting, to compensate for the risks that we undertake when bets are placed on our games, and also to cover increased expenses that we take on to protect ourselves in a world of expanded sports betting. In short, if Connecticut passes laws that make leagues partners rather than outsiders, you’ll create an assurance of integrity and an economic incentive for sports leagues to make sports betting in this state as successful as possible. I look forward to continuing this conversation, and I am happy to answer any questions. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Sredzinski. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): So, for the record, Mr. Chairman, I’m going to take the over on the bet, and I got about 45 questions to ask you. [Laughter]. DAN SPILLANE: Excellent. [Laughing]. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you for your patience today. Obviously, this isn’t your first appearance. You did mention the compensation to leagues. Some people call them integrity fee and people call it a royalty fee. We had testimony today from the player’s associations who said that 367 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING players should also receive a part of that sports wagering. What is your stance -- what is the league stance on that? DAN SPILLANE: I think we are in alignment on that issue because any compensation that the league would receive from betting on our games would be revenue that comes into our system and is shared with the players under our collective bargaining agreement, so generally speaking under our CBA, there is a 50/50 split of revenue between the teams and league on the one side and the players on the other side and again, generally speaking, revenue like I’m talking about here whether it comes from a partnership deal or from a royalty that’s paid to leagues for the right to offer bets on our games would go into that pool and go through the system, and ultimately half of it reach the players. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Understood. And, if -- if a royalty fee or integrity fee was not included, does that mean the data would not be provided or what would be the league’s position or pushback if there were no royalty/integrity fees included in the bill? DAN SPILLANE: Well, separate out the royalty aspect from the data aspect, all of the elements that I have described are important for our support. We think that all are meaningful and reasonable, and I’ll just point out we have scaled them back in an effort to take into account feedback that we have received from people in the industry, from legislators such as yourselves. We started out, for example, at a 1 percent of handle royalty, and it now is at a quarter of a percentage point because we were trying to take into account points that were made about it being too high, making it harder for operators to compete against illegal operators. I 368 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING can still justify the 1 percent today, but in an effort to try and compromise and be reasonable, it’s down at a quarter point, so we do continue to feel that is important and something that, you know, we would need in order to support the bill. Data is separate from that. So, the official league data requirement is more of a consumer protection matter to make sure that bets -- again, focusing on endplay bets and proposition bets, not just like an over or under point spread bet that’s taken at the beginning before a contest starts. You can resolve those bets based on just something that you read on NBA.com but we’re really talking about real-time bets that require fast data in order to be able to offer bets with a high degree of time, allows operators to make more money, and also accurate data. This is coming from a very heavily tiered audited system of data collection that we have and which I could speak for 90 minutes just on that. It’s a -- it’s a pretty impressive system with a lot of investment into it, but ensures that we have an accurate and consistent data feed, and that should be what’s used to settle bets just like you would require other types of gambling to use, you know, properly licensed and reliable equipment or software or whatever. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Is your toolkit that you mentioned up and running in any other states? DAN SPILLANE: For the most part, no. So, we -- it’s still pretty early in this process. We’ve only seen a couple of bills passed in the U.S. since the Supreme Court’s decision in May, and although it sort of seems sometimes like sports betting is just a tidal wave across the country, only about 10 percent of the country right now actually lives in states that have legal sports betting, so you know, we’re in the top of the second inning on this, I 369 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING think. We’ve had some bits and pieces of the things that I have talked about in the toolkit that have come up in other states, certainly in bills that are pending right now. There are a lot of bills across the country that are including the types of things that I have been talking about, and on the royalty and official data, there are a half-dozen states that have bills pending with the royalty. There is eight that have one with official data, and all of those include the suite of integrity protections that I described, so I’m -- I’m hopeful that we’ll start seeing some momentum behind that in the coming months. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): Thank you very much, and to continue with the sports puns, we are in overtime for the hearing. DAN SPILLANE: [Laughing]. REP. SREDZINSKI (112TH): So, I’m not going to belabor the point, although I do have a lot of other questions, but I’ll reach out separately, but thank you very much for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Representative Vail. REP. VAIL (52ND): I got you covered J.P., don’t worry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a -- you said a quarter of percentage point -- is that of the total handle or just of the profits? DAN SPILLANE: That’s based on the handle or the amount bet on our games. REP. VAIL (52ND): The total amount? DAN SPILLANE: The total amount bet. REP. VAIL (52ND): Just on NBA games. Obviously, for MLB, NFL; do you represent those or are you just representing the NBA today? 370 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

DAN SPILLANE: Well, to answer the first part of your question, that’s right. So, each sport would receive a quarter percentage point of the amount bet on its own games, not other league’s games. I’m here just speaking as a representative of the NBA, but I can say that we’ve been working closely over the past year with Major League Baseball and the PGA tour, and the package that I have described today, they’re fully supportive of and have been here in Hartford as well talking about this too. REP. VAIL (52ND): And, I think I remember from last year’s testimony; was it -- Nevada obviously already had it -- was it Delaware and New Jersey, or? I think the question -- no body was giving the fee of the states that were already providing before the court ruling; is that correct? DAN SPILLANE: That’s correct, so that -- that hasn’t been passed anywhere yet. I mean Nevada, for example, that’s -- that’s been in place for decades, and we had no seat at the table in those discussions. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. DAN SPILLANE: Some of the other bills that were in place before the Supreme Court ruling had been baked at various times. You know, in one case, was included in another gaming law, you know, a year or two, three years earlier. Another one was basically prewired before the Supreme Court even heard arguments in the case, so a lot had happened before we even got involved in this. REP. VAIL (52ND): Okay. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Any other questions? Just maybe a comment. I think at the heart of the national debate when it comes to sports 371 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING betting in the leagues is the question of integrity fees, royalty fees, whatever -- whatever you want to call them. I think here in Connecticut, in my conversations with the league, I’m attempting to change the conversation. Let’s talk about a partnership and how we can partner together and what that partnership might look like, so I know we’re going to continue this conversation, but the thought is that I could think of no one better to -- to partner with than major league sports and what that partnership might look like, for example -- this is certainly a hypothetical -- is -- is having a greater professional sports presence here in the state of Connecticut, whether that would be an exhibition game at Reshel Field or filling some of our vacant arenas, having a game -- I know years ago Celtics and Knicks used to play at the Civic Center -- whatever the case may be. I think from where I sit all the options are on the table, and I look forward to -- to continuing that conversation, and I hope when a -- a sports betting bill is discussed and included in that bill will be a partnership with the leagues with the understanding that it would also bring economic activity to the state of Connecticut as well as expand your market share or your market here in the state of Connecticut so that it truly would be a true partnership and a win/win situation. DAN SPILLANE: I appreciate that, and that’s a conversation we’re certainly happy and excited to continue, and I understand you’re asking yourselves as legislators what is in it for the state of Connecticut to do these various things, and we want to be able to answer that for you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Great. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. 372 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

DAN SPILLANE: Thank you very much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Next up is Diana Goode. DIANA GOODE: Hi. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Welcome, and for full disclosure, Diana and I went to high school together. DIANA GOODE: We did. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): And, we hadn’t seen each other in years. DIANA GOODE: And, I won’t call you Joey. [Laughing]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): All right. [Laughing]. Very good. [Laughter]. Thanks. Thanks. DIANA GOODE: [Laughing] Sorry. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Welcome. DIANA GOODE: Senator Bradley, Representative Verrengia, members of the committee, thank you for letting me testify tonight. I am Diana Goode. I am the Executive Director of the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling, and on behalf of the council and the approximately 35,000 people in Connecticut who are problem gamblers who would like to submit this testimony. So, we did submit written testimony, so I’ll go super fast. I just want to start by saying the Connecticut Council is not for or against gambling. We are neutral. We will remain neutral. We just want to make sure that there are safeguards in place. The Connecticut Council is a nonprofit organization whose mission is to raise awareness of problem gambling as a public health concern and to advocate for help for those who cannot gamble in a helpful 373 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING manner. While most people are able to gamble for entertainment with no negative consequences, there is a small percentage who are addicted or at risk of developing a problem. There are currently many holes in the safety net, and now, we have the potential for massive expansion. Hopefully, this is a moment for people to come together and realize that with increased access comes a the responsibility to assist Connecticut residents who can’t gamble responsibly. We hope yu will fund our existing infrastructure of prevention and treatment as we expect the need for our services will increase. Problem and disordered gambling is a medically recognized behavioral disorder that impacts a significant number of people and results in a significant social cost. According to surveys, between 1 and 3 percent of Connecticut adults, approximately 35,000 are believed to suffer from disordered gambling, potentially resulting in crime, bankruptcy, loss productivity, and the increased need for social services. Problem gambling is also increasing at an alarming rate among our youth due in part to the increasingly blurred lines between video gaming and gambling. We believe the expansion of legalized gaming in Connecticut, whether it’s casinos, sports wagering, or online betting will likely increase gambling participation and problems unless safeguards are established. So, we’re recommending five safeguards. The first one is in the expansion of gambling include dedicated funds to prevention and treat gambling addiction. Number two, sports betting operators should implement responsible gaming programs, which include comprehensive employee training, self-exclusion, the ability to set limits on time and money spent 374 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING betting, and specific requirements for the inclusion of help and prevention messages in external marketing. Third, is assign an independent regulatory agency to enforce the regulations and requirements that are enacted or a gaming commission similar to Massachusetts. [Bell]. Is that my time? REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): You can continue. Go ahead. DIANA GOODE: [Laughing] [Laughter]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I’m going to use the Chair’s discretion over here. Go ahead. DIANA GOODE: Saved by the bell. That was a kind of different bell. Anyway, four, conduct surveys on the prevalents of gambling addiction prior to expansion and at regular period thereafter to monitor the impacts of expanded legalized gambling or an impact study. Number five, establish a consistent minimum age for sports gambling and related fantasy games. While the Connecticut Council does not advocate for or against gambling, we feel that it is necessary to require reasonable regulations that will protect individuals from addiction issues that are highly likely to be unintended consequences of expanded legalized gambling. Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Are there any questions? Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I don’t know if you’ve been here all day? [Laughing]. DIANA GOODE: I have. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, in the beginning of the meeting, there was a young woman who talked, and she 375 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING was the coalition against casino expansion, and she -- I believe she said that you would not be here to testify, and I thought that -- I’ve been actually waiting to see. So, there is no bar on you testifying on ways that we could handle problem gambling at all? DIANA GOODE: There’s not, and she actually said it a couple times -- SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): She did. DIANA GOODE: Which really surprised me since I was sitting here. There are no restrictions at all. we can’t do what we do as the Connecticut Council without help from the industry and access to industry leaders, so there is absolutely no reason that we can’t be here today. We’re not advocating for or against the casinos, so we’re not putting our funding into jeopardy in any way. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Right. DIANA GOODE: They give us unrestricted funds and let us do what we do, and we work together with them. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So, your basic job, what you’re trying to do is to try to make an industry as safe as possible? DIANA GOODE: Correct. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): And, so just to be very clear on this because it was said on more than one occasion that you would not be here -- not you personally -- but your organization was barred from testifying on issues revolving around problem gambling and ways to handle that. That is not a true statement? DIANA GOODE: Correct. 376 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Great. Any other questions? I just -- I just support problem gambling, gaming, and I hope at the end of the day -- and I know I’ve said this to you before -- that I really hope that the state of Connecticut has one of the most robust programs in this legislation. This is -- this is a problem, and it’s only going to be exacerbated by the expansion of gaming here in the state and something that we really need to take seriously, so thank you, and thank you for being here. DIANA GOODE: Thank you, and thank you for your support. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): You’re welcome. Thanks. Any other questions? Nope. Great. Thanks. Chris Hyde. Donna? Don? [Off mic conversing]. Donna? Okay. Great. Thank you. DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Sorry. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): It’s okay. I just couldn’t read my own writing there. Welcome, and thank you for sticking around this late hour. DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Well, it’s been very interesting I have to say. Senator Bradley and Representative Verrengia and members of the committee, I’m not with a casino. I’m not with OTB. What I’d like to share with you is my name is Donna Zaharevitz. I’m a recovering gambler. I placed my last bet August 28, 1997, and I’m also a convicted felon. My gambling journey started many years ago with an innocent game of bingo, and it progressed again at that point to the lottery when it came to town, and then it progressed to the casinos. I was a casino player. I was a slot player. I made some choices. I don’t 377 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING blame the casino. I don’t blame the lottery. I don’t blame anybody but myself because there are consequences for the choices that we make, and I didn’t make a good choice. I liked going to the casino, and I played quite often to the point that in the mind of a -- of a slot machine player, the more money you put into the machine, the machine has to hit, well, that’s not how it actually happens. There’s three wheels in there, there’s a motor, and there’s a chip, and when that chip is ready, it hits, and I had played a machine for a long time and I ran out of money. And, in the mind of a gambler, I borrowed three checks and three deposit slips from my neighbor. Remember what I said, borrowed, because I was going to win and put that money back. Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. I come from a small town in Connecticut. I ran for public office. My husband has had a business in town, so we were well-known in the town. Four weeks later, there was a knock at the door, and there were three police officers standing there, and I knew them, and I said, come on in. I had no idea why they were there. They asked if I knew anything about the checks, and I don’t care what addiction your in, drug, alcohol, or gambling, when you’re in action, you lie, and you tell stories well, and I was good at what I did. And, I said, no, I know nothing about those checks. I ended up in the psych unit. My family faced the town because I hit the Hartford Current. To make a long story short ‘cause we don’t have a lot of time this evening, I was arrested. I was in a psych unit. When I came out, I turned myself in. I went to the court appearances once a month for a year, and I would hear a judge say, you can get into a drug program, you can get into an alcohol program, until my case came up and no one said anything about 378 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING gambling, but because I was a first-time offender, I was given two years probation. During the course of those two years probation, I tried to commit suicide three times, and on the third time coming out, my husband of 36 years says, we’re getting a divorce. I got through the two years. I got into a program called the Better Choice Gambling Treatment Program, which the state of Connecticut has eight of those throughout the state. Connecticut is the only state that has those programs. I can honestly say I am safe today. If somebody ask me will you gamble again, and I said to you no, then I’d be lying because I don’t know. We have the highest successful suicide completion rate than any of the other addictions. I got through yesterday, I’m working on today, and I don’t know about tomorrow. But, I ask you to consider in your work that you do with these new casinos coming up and this other gambling coming in to please consider funding for these programs that help people within our state because we’re gonna have a lot of people in a lot of trouble, and I’m fortunate to be here today because a lot of people don’t make it. I thank you. I’ll answer any questions -- [Crosstalk]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you for that very personal testimony. Thank you very much. Senator Osten. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): He says begrudgingly. [Laughing]. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): I’m tired. SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): So -- REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): [Laughing]. It’s been a long day. 379 February 26, 2019 aa PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECURITY 10:00 a.m. COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING

SENATOR OSTEN (19TH): I -- I really want to thank you for coming today. I think it takes a lot of courage to sit here all day listening to the stories that we have here about expanding gaming, and then come and say, hey, listen sometimes you have to make sure that we’re taking care of the people. And, I really want to thank you for standing up and making people recognize that we really have to pay attention to regular ordinary people who face regular ordinary problems, and I think you are very courageous, and I want to thank you. DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you so much. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Thank you. Any other comments or questions? I’m seeing none. Thank you very much. DONNA ZAHAREVITZ: Thank you. REP. VERRENGIA (20TH): Is there anyone who is not signed up and would like to speak? Okay. I’m seeing none. The public hearing is adjourned.