Everyone, I hope you can join us for a
press conference with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro to discuss federal
infrastructure investments.
Date:Wednesday, February 21,
2018Time:10:00am (Please plan to arrive early
Place:Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman 200 North Branford Road Branford, CT
MGM Rallies City Residents In Waterfront Gaming Push
For a company cynics assert is just here for show, MGM Resorts is spending mightily to build public support for a proposed $675 million waterfront resort for the East End, a neighborhood in need of an economic jolt. An MGM mail piece hit city mail boxes during the week as various casino constituencies slot positioning in the current session of the General Assembly that must approve any casino expansion
for Connecticut.
The proposal requires state legislative support because of a gaming monopoly the state granted Connecticut’s two tribal nations in exchange for 25 percent of the slot take, a number MGM officials assert is dwindling with a promise of more revenue to the state including an up-front $50 million licensing fee upon a green light. MGM has given state officials swimming in red ink something to think about as legislators seek new revenues streams. MGM pegs its revenue flow to the state at more than $300 million annually.
Protecting its casino turf, the two tribal nations that operate Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have joined forces to remind state legislators new gaming without them violates the state gaming compact and with it the current, yet dwindling, slot revenue flow. Protecting its Connecticut market against MGM’s nearly $ billion Springfield, Mass. gaming facility under construction, the tribal nations were awarded by the state a site in East Windsor to build a casino on non-tribal land. The East Windsor deal has been slowed, however, by sign-off inaction from the federal regulatory Bureau of Indian Affairs.
So MGM says this and the tribal nations say that while state legislators weigh the most advantageous economic impact.
Meanwhile, part of the equation is making sure there’s buy-in by Bridgeport residents. Polling shows city residents’ overwhelming support for MGM’s proposal. Gaming bills for an open, competitive process will be debated by the General Assembly. The process would likely include a non-binding referendum by residents of the host city.
The city is back to the future with this gaming issue. In 1995 the State Senate rejected a proposal for a Bridgeport gaming enterprise led by the Mashantucket Pequot Nation that operates Foxwoods. What’s different this time? Connecticut state budget is drowning in red ink. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
The proposal requires state legislative support because of a gaming monopoly the state granted Connecticut’s two tribal nations in exchange for 25 percent of the slot take, a number MGM officials assert is dwindling with a promise of more revenue to the state including an up-front $50 million licensing fee upon a green light. MGM has given state officials swimming in red ink something to think about as legislators seek new revenues streams. MGM pegs its revenue flow to the state at more than $300 million annually.
Protecting its casino turf, the two tribal nations that operate Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have joined forces to remind state legislators new gaming without them violates the state gaming compact and with it the current, yet dwindling, slot revenue flow. Protecting its Connecticut market against MGM’s nearly $ billion Springfield, Mass. gaming facility under construction, the tribal nations were awarded by the state a site in East Windsor to build a casino on non-tribal land. The East Windsor deal has been slowed, however, by sign-off inaction from the federal regulatory Bureau of Indian Affairs.
So MGM says this and the tribal nations say that while state legislators weigh the most advantageous economic impact.
Meanwhile, part of the equation is making sure there’s buy-in by Bridgeport residents. Polling shows city residents’ overwhelming support for MGM’s proposal. Gaming bills for an open, competitive process will be debated by the General Assembly. The process would likely include a non-binding referendum by residents of the host city.
The city is back to the future with this gaming issue. In 1995 the State Senate rejected a proposal for a Bridgeport gaming enterprise led by the Mashantucket Pequot Nation that operates Foxwoods. What’s different this time? Connecticut state budget is drowning in red ink. CLICK TITLE TO CONTINUE
Public Transit, Road And Bridge Projects Could Suffer Cuts
Denise CoffeyContact Reporter
When Transportation Commissioner James Redeker spoke at a special meeting of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments on Feb. 2, he delivered sobering news. The Special Transportation Fund, which finances the state's transportation system, will be in deficit by fiscal year 2019 unless the state takes action.
The state can either curtail spending on transportation or identify new resources to support the STF, he said. Should the fund remain at its current levels, capital projects, programs, operating expenses, transit, and highway services would be scaled back or delayed, and transit fares would increase.
"I'm here to talk about choices," Redeker told the four state representatives and 16 town leaders gathered.
Gov. Dannel Malloy has suspended $4.3 billion in projects, affecting every town in the state.
Reductions in the DOT operating budget would mean reduced staff for snow events and routine maintenance, as well as rest area closures. Projected cuts to the Northeast Connecticut Transit District would be 15 percent in FY 2019, with a 50 percent cut the following year.
NECCOG Executive Director John Filchak said cuts would spell the end of the transit district.
Projects that are 100 percent state funded would be at risk. There would be reductions in the Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program, which covers local bridge and road projects.
On Jan. 31, Malloy proposed additional revenues for the STF so that critical state and municipal projects across Connecticut could continue. Those proposals include an increase to the gas tax, the imposition of a tire fee, adjustments to the car sales tax, and statewide tolling to begin in fiscal year 2023. The projected revenues from those proposals would be $47.1 million in fiscal year 2019, according to the governor's office. By 2022, those revenue projections would add $187.9 million to state coffers.
Those revenue projections, and state revenue projections in general, drew a lot of criticism from those in attendance, because they haven't been reliable. The sales tax revenue, gas tax revenue, and growth rate have not performed as the state expected.
Killingly Town Manager Sean Hendricks called the state's revenue projections unrealistic and unbelievable.
"We're funding on phantom dollars," he said.
State Rep. Doug Dubitsky slammed the state's history of bad revenue projections.
"There hasn't been 7 percent growth in decades and yet, that's what the state has been using," he said.
Some were in favor of some of the governor's proposals, because the state needs revenue to pay for critical transportation projects. A major concern is making sure any new taxes and fees are spent on transportation - and not siphoned off into the General Fund. The legislature has taken money slated for transportation and used it to pay for other things before.
State Rep. Danny Rovero said any increase to the gas tax should be removed once tolls are installed and operating.
"People are sick of taxes," he said.
But many Republicans are against tolls in Connecticut. The General Assembly Conservative Caucus released a memo on Feb. 2 arguing against tolls. Infrastructure costs, the need for additional state employees to operate the system, and the time period it would take to get tolls up and running were some of their criticisms.
Congestion pricing estimates could push toll costs for some Connecticut residents up to thousands per year. And some argue that the money collected from new fees and increased taxes will subsidize rail and bus transit and leave northeastern Connecticut in the lurch.
"This is just another way for the state to suck more and more money out of your wallet," Dubitsky said. "The money... will never be enough if they [governor and Democrats] won't put transportation money towards transportation."
"There is no consensus on this," State Rep. Pat Boyd said. "I don't think tolls are viable unless someone makes a plan and it gets vetted by the public. We owe it to the residents to debate its merits and minuses."
Rovero agreed.
"We won't support tolls unless they come back with a plan that tells us how much revenue they'll raise, what the expenses will be, and where the tolls will be located," he said. "Any penny collected from tolls will be spent on roads, according to federal law. I think people will accept that."
Denise CoffeyContact Reporter
When Transportation Commissioner James Redeker spoke at a special meeting of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments on Feb. 2, he delivered sobering news. The Special Transportation Fund, which finances the state's transportation system, will be in deficit by fiscal year 2019 unless the state takes action.
The state can either curtail spending on transportation or identify new resources to support the STF, he said. Should the fund remain at its current levels, capital projects, programs, operating expenses, transit, and highway services would be scaled back or delayed, and transit fares would increase.
"I'm here to talk about choices," Redeker told the four state representatives and 16 town leaders gathered.
Gov. Dannel Malloy has suspended $4.3 billion in projects, affecting every town in the state.
Reductions in the DOT operating budget would mean reduced staff for snow events and routine maintenance, as well as rest area closures. Projected cuts to the Northeast Connecticut Transit District would be 15 percent in FY 2019, with a 50 percent cut the following year.
NECCOG Executive Director John Filchak said cuts would spell the end of the transit district.
Projects that are 100 percent state funded would be at risk. There would be reductions in the Local Transportation Capital Improvement Program, which covers local bridge and road projects.
On Jan. 31, Malloy proposed additional revenues for the STF so that critical state and municipal projects across Connecticut could continue. Those proposals include an increase to the gas tax, the imposition of a tire fee, adjustments to the car sales tax, and statewide tolling to begin in fiscal year 2023. The projected revenues from those proposals would be $47.1 million in fiscal year 2019, according to the governor's office. By 2022, those revenue projections would add $187.9 million to state coffers.
Those revenue projections, and state revenue projections in general, drew a lot of criticism from those in attendance, because they haven't been reliable. The sales tax revenue, gas tax revenue, and growth rate have not performed as the state expected.
Killingly Town Manager Sean Hendricks called the state's revenue projections unrealistic and unbelievable.
"We're funding on phantom dollars," he said.
State Rep. Doug Dubitsky slammed the state's history of bad revenue projections.
"There hasn't been 7 percent growth in decades and yet, that's what the state has been using," he said.
Some were in favor of some of the governor's proposals, because the state needs revenue to pay for critical transportation projects. A major concern is making sure any new taxes and fees are spent on transportation - and not siphoned off into the General Fund. The legislature has taken money slated for transportation and used it to pay for other things before.
State Rep. Danny Rovero said any increase to the gas tax should be removed once tolls are installed and operating.
"People are sick of taxes," he said.
But many Republicans are against tolls in Connecticut. The General Assembly Conservative Caucus released a memo on Feb. 2 arguing against tolls. Infrastructure costs, the need for additional state employees to operate the system, and the time period it would take to get tolls up and running were some of their criticisms.
Congestion pricing estimates could push toll costs for some Connecticut residents up to thousands per year. And some argue that the money collected from new fees and increased taxes will subsidize rail and bus transit and leave northeastern Connecticut in the lurch.
"This is just another way for the state to suck more and more money out of your wallet," Dubitsky said. "The money... will never be enough if they [governor and Democrats] won't put transportation money towards transportation."
"There is no consensus on this," State Rep. Pat Boyd said. "I don't think tolls are viable unless someone makes a plan and it gets vetted by the public. We owe it to the residents to debate its merits and minuses."
Rovero agreed.
"We won't support tolls unless they come back with a plan that tells us how much revenue they'll raise, what the expenses will be, and where the tolls will be located," he said. "Any penny collected from tolls will be spent on roads, according to federal law. I think people will accept that."