The Senate is scheduled to begin debate on casinos on Wednesday.
Kathleen NorbutMonday, 10:30 p.m.: Updated with more details
BOSTON – A statewide group opposed to casinos on Monday again called for an independent study on the costs of casinos after meeting with a key author of the state Senate’s casino bill.
Kathleen C. Norbut of Monson, president of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, said that if the Senate spent tax dollars on an analysis of benefits from casinos, there should also be an analysis on the costs.
She said there is no proof that the taxes, mitigation and fees in the Senate bill will be sufficient.
“Stop the process,” Norbut told reporters at the Statehouse. “Slow down. Drill down and look at the costs.”
The Senate Ways and Means Committee on Friday released a bill that authorizes casino resorts for three regions in the state including one for the four counties of Western Massachusetts.
The Mohegan Sun of Uncasville, Conn., is the only company currently proposing a casino for Western Massachusetts. The company is planning a $500 million to $600 million casino resort for Palmer across from Exit 8 of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
The Senate also took the wraps off an $80,000 study by Innovation Group of Littleton, Colo., that estimated three casinos would generate up to $1.8 billion in gross gaming revenues each year and return about $460 million in taxes to the state via a proposed 25 percent state tax on gaming revenues.
The Senate on Wednesday is scheduled to begin two days of debate on casinos.
The Senate bill, expected to be approved, would need to be reconciled with a casino bill by the state House of Representatives. The House approved a bill for two casino resorts and 750 slot machines for each of the state’s two horse tracks and two former dog tracks.
Stanley C. RosenbergNorbut and three other members of United to Stop Slots on Monday met for about an hour at the Statehouse with Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, D-Amherst, who helped write the Senate’s casino bill.
Rosenberg pointed out that the Senate bill requires casino applicants to identify, evaluate and mitigate social, economic, cultural and public safety impacts in host and surrounding communities.
The Senate bill also would send 10 percent of gross gaming revenues from casinos to a trust fund to be used partly for prevention and treatment of gambling addiction, community mitigation and reducing the effects on cultural facilities such as Symphony Hall and CityStage in Springfield.
Rosenberg said he also plans to co-sponsor an amendment to the bill that would call for a study that would in part tabulate the number of current problem gamblers in Massachusetts and then track any increases after casinos start operating.
Rosenberg said there are no reliable methods for determining social costs such as the numbers of suicides, embezzlements and divorces that could be caused by casinos.
Rosenberg said United to Stop Slots should commission its own independent study on costs.
“Go do it,” he said. “But they have no intention of doing it.”
The Senate is scheduled to begin debate on casinos on Wednesday.
“It was a spirited exchange,” Rosenberg said of his meeting with the casino opponents. “There were no fisticuffs.”
The state senator who represents Palmer on Beacon Hill also called for a new cost-benefit analysis on casinos.
Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, filed an amendment that would order the state Executive Office of Administration and Finance to complete an analysis on the costs and benefits of expanded gambling. The analysis would have to be submitted by July 1, 2011 and no casino license could be issued before the study is complete.
Under Brewer’s amendment, the analysis would include the costs of mitigating social problems such as gambling addiction and domestic violence.
Monday was the deadline for senators to file proposed amendments to the casino bill.
Sen. Gale D. Candaras, D-Wilbraham, filed an amendment to protect any employees of casinos from second-hand smoke.
According to her amendment, casino operators could not force employees to work in a smoking section of the casino. Casino operators also would be banned from discriminating against job applicants who want to avoid smoking areas.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill would provide an exemption for casinos from the state’s 2004 law that bans smoking in restaurants, bars and other workplaces. In the Senate bill, casinos could designate 25 percent of gaming space for smokers in order to compete with casinos in other states that do allow smoking in certain areas.
Connecticut and Rhode Island have similar statewide smoking bans, but the two Indian casinos in Connecticut and the two slot-machine race tracks in Rhode Island are exempt.
Charles F. Bunnell, chief of staff for the Mohegan Tribe, said the tribe’s Connecticut casino does have designated non-smoking areas for gamblers.
Candaras filed another amendment that would require a minimum $600 million capital investment in a casino in Western Massachusetts, the same as required for proposed casinos in two other regions of the state.
Candaras said the Senate bill currently mandates a minimum $400 million investment in the Western Massachusetts casino since it is projected to be less profitable than the two other casinos.