OFA Fiscal Note
OFFICE OF FISCAL ANALYSIS
Legislative Office Building, Room 5200
Hartford, CT 06106 ↓ (860) 240-0200
http://www.cga.ct.gov/ofa
SB-1090
AN ACT CONCERNING GAMING.
OFA Fiscal Note
Agency Affected |
Fund-Effect |
FY 16 $ |
FY 17 $ |
Consumer Protection, Dept.; Comptroller Misc. Accounts (Fringe Benefits)1 |
GF - Potential Cost |
See Below |
See Below |
Resources of the General Fund |
GF - Potential Revenue Gain |
See Below |
See Below |
Municipalities |
Effect |
FY 16 $ |
FY 17 $ |
Various Municipalities |
Potential Cost, Potential Revenue Gain |
See Below |
See Below |
Explanation
The bill authorizes casino gaming at up to three unspecified locations, and authorizes the Attorney General to execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes regarding the disposition of any associated gaming revenue between the state, municipalities, and the Connecticut Council on Problem Gambling.
The bill results in a potential cost of between $5.8 million and $6.4 million to the state as it authorizes off-reservation casino gaming at up to three unspecified locations in Connecticut, subject to regulation by the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).
The cost (wages and fringe benefits) is due to the need for overseeing casino operations at up to three casinos which would each require a Gaming Regulation Supervisor and as many as fifteen Gaming Regulation Officers. The DCP would be required to perform background investigations for every prospective casino employee, as well as for the members of the casino gaming facility license. It is estimated that there would initially be 1,000 to 2,000 employee applications and over 100 ongoing applications per year. This would require two Gaming Investigators, two Office Assistants, two Paralegals and two Staff Attorneys. Additionally the DCP would be required to audit payment functions to ensure the state received the correct revenue. This would require a Supervising Account Examiner and five Account Examiners. Finally, it is assumed that each casino would seek a liquor license therefore resulting in the need for three Supervising Liquor Casino Agents and as many as fifteen liquor casino agents.
To the extent any such facilities are built and an associated MOU is executed, this results in a potential revenue gain to the state and municipalities. The timing and magnitude of the revenue gain is dependent on the operation date, location, and specific gaming devices offered at any casinos established pursuant to the bill, as well as the provisions of the MOU which detail the percentages of revenue to be dedicated to the state and municipalities.
The bill also requires that towns considering to host a casino hold a public hearing. This will result in a cost, estimated to be minimal. Municipalities must post notices of public meetings in newspapers, which has a cost that varies based on the length of the notice and the rate charged by the newspaper. Additional potential costs could include overtime for a police officer to provide security at a public hearing.
BACKGROUND
The January 15, 2015 Consensus Revenue estimates include assumptions regarding the revenue impact of the planned opening of casinos in Massachusetts as early as FY 18. Specifically, the Office of Fiscal Analysis assumes the opening of Massachusetts casinos will result in a $63.5 million revenue loss to the state in FY 18. This assumes a casino will begin operation in Springfield in the summer of 2017, and is an annualized amount.
The Out Years
The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would continue into the future subject to inflation.
1 The fringe benefit costs for most state employees are budgeted centrally in accounts administered by the Comptroller. The estimated active employee fringe benefit cost associated with most personnel changes is 38.65% of payroll in FY 16 and FY 17.