On the Record; 7017

The following is a sci fi TV original. Thanks to you. I'm Bob Douglas and welcome to this week's edition of On The Record Our guest this week our Patrick Sullivan of Sullivan and Liz Shane leading a lobbying firm at the state capitol representing Steve Wynn's Mirage Resorts who has proposed casinos and more in the cities of Hartford and Bridgeport. And we welcome back Peter Smith a former state representative who is executive director of the Connecticut parimutuel association representing among others Connecticut's jai alai interests. And joining us today is Hilary Waldron of the Hartford Current. To both of you thanks a lot for joining us. OK Patrick let's begin with you first the debate at the state capital over casinos and video slots continues

your assessment of where we are in the ongoing debate at the Capitol. I think that what we found is that the governor having cut the deal with the Indians really turned this into an economic debate. And our position was that we needed to present the legislature with a better economic package than the governor had cut with the Indians. And we believe that we've done that. Steve when as you know yesterday came in and guaranteed one hundred forty million dollars which is 40 million dollars larger than the Indian deal. Peter we will of course talk about video slots in the existing per mutuals which is necessary for their for their livelihood. If you add those two together we come up somewhere in the 200 to 200 20 million dollar range. And we feel that that is a much better economic deal and I just saw the legislature on that.

Peter you represent the interests and for lay folks who may not know who they are. Explain you know who you represent where they are and from your position with this debate now is the Connecticut parimutuel association as a business association of the existing industries in the state of Connecticut. That's a we're made up of the five privately owned and operated facilities they had to include Milford highlight Hartford highlife Bridgeport highlife Plainfield dog track and the owners of the Bradley tele theater. What they are is the parimutuel industry started in the state of Connecticut about 17 years ago and it was created as a as a gaming industry. And in fact that's what it has become and continues to be. These are facilities where you can go in there and in some of the facilities bed on horses dogs or whatever happens to be projected on the screen and a live simulcast display and also live performances of highlight or dog racing. The industry as a whole in the state of Connecticut has presently about

thirteen hundred employees. And they're concerned from all of this all the gaming issues between the casino and the opening of Fox which is really their survivability and their future viability. So from our perspective we're Well obviously not just interested spectators in this debate debate we're active participants because we have proposals in front the legislature too. Pete chow tastes have changed in gambling people don't want to wait for a long time between races the way dog racing is. Highlight is a sport that has a does not have a wide appeal. Many say our highlight in dog racing would you say they're their dying industries without slot machines and if they are dying industries Why should people in Connecticut who don't may not play the games why should they care that they survive. I think that what you see is the natural progression of any industry I mean much like you have Pratt Whitney or. Or any of the other major employers in the state. The issue of diversifying your product and keeping up with the times is very important. I think it is very interesting that the

the expansion that we're that we're talking about of the diversification that we're talking about within our existing facilities is video gaming. We all know that in the 90s things have turned a video where kids used to play Monopoly now now it's video games on the TV. In fact the what you point out in terms of the amount of action that takes place is very important because what we're doing is we're selling a product. In 1976 and 77 we could sell a product that there was a 15 minute intermission between each game because that's what the people wanted. You know that this. Any of the gaming facilities is ultimately an entertainment industry. I mean people come here to to be entertained to to gamble to do what they would like to do. Our contention is that it's more important for the state of Connecticut in terms of our our industry's future viability that we keep those people coming into Connecticut facilities instead of sending them up to Foxworth. Why should we make an extraordinary move like that potentially 5000 more slot machines into the state to keep an industry like yours going. Why should we just not

say let them close. I don't think it's an extraordinary move. I think really what you're talking about is these are facilities where where gaming takes place and I think we can make the argument that that if you're if you're actually going into a machine and placing a bet on x y and z over here if you're going in and putting money into a machine and betting on a different program you're still betting. I mean ultimately that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about casino games or anything else we're talking about parimutuel games with other gaming types of amusements going on. And and when you say why should we save them I think the reason we should save them is because we're not talking about future jobs we're not talking about this other potential expansion out here what we're talking about is thirteen hundred people. And if you go to facilities like Plainfield or you go to facilities like Milford highlight you're talking about employees who have been in those locations for up to 17 years. You're talking about people who who actually have raised kids put kids through college and survived on those type of jobs. I don't think it's reasonable for the state of Connecticut to make a decision that we're just going to

dismiss those thirteen hundred people and we're going to make a decision that that we're going to go to what is perceived to be an independent nation within the state of Connecticut and say you can take all those jobs in the city of Milford you can lose your 400. You can lose your couple million dollars a year the city of Bridgeport you can lose your jobs. The city of Hartford you can lose your jobs and tax space in the city of Plainfield which interestingly enough is the second poorest community in the state of Connecticut. You can lose 300 jobs because we don't care. And ultimately I think what we're saying is we're saying we are business in the state of Connecticut. We need an opportunity to compete on a level playing field. It's not fair to grant a monopoly to one section of the state and not to allow the rest of the industry to compete. What does attorney Richard Blumenthal's decision or announcement earlier this week now do to this whole mix he basically said that the agreement that the governor made with the P quad tribe is quote legal. Does that make your effort easier or more difficult with this is it really was it really had an effect from our standpoint.

People have asked obviously you know would we be entering into a lawsuit when this took place and we said absolutely not that we had always viewed that the governor's taking this from a from the moral ground and making an economic benefit us greatly because we do have more to put on the table. And we're talking we're talking about creating jobs the jobs that legit already exist. The tourism it legit already exists. It's the only the only county in the state of Connecticut where there has been growth this year. And we're talking about 20000 direct and indirect jobs. We're talking about urban entertainment complexes. Steve always says that gambling ain't enough. And what we're talking about are facilities that will not only create jobs and generate tax dollars to the municipalities and to the state but we're also talking about attracting 8 million tourists per year to those cities. One of the other things that was mentioned yesterday that we will elaborate on over the coming weeks is a linkage piece

for Bridgeport where we would be assisting in some of the redevelopment and I think those are the kinds of things that make this not only attractive but very doable. Is it going to be more difficult to convince Hartford. That they should seriously consider a casino because you've got the chamber of commerce interests who have a negative view of this. We all know where the mayor of the city of Hartford she opposes a casino in their community yet in Bridgeport it appears to be just the opposite. Some of the political interests and the business interests have been before various committees and said we'll take one we'll take even one hearing. One of the representatives in Bridgeport says will take both casinos. Is it more favorable now toward Bridgeport over Hartford or. I would I would think that you would have to conclude that Bridgeport has really embraced the concept. They really feel that that they need it and it goes through throughout the entire community both political and social social

communities. Hartford is a completely different situation. The polling that we've done indicates that two thirds of the residents of Hartford do in fact want this done. And as as they continue to talk to their elected officials I think that may help our cause. But the reality is Bridgeport certainly is more attractive. Steve Wynn said yesterday that he would guarantee the state one hundred forty million. I looked at the figures and it looks like that includes income taxes being paid by employees is that correct. First of all I don't honestly know the answer to that. If the guy that brings the number down to about one hundred fifteen million if again if that's correct and if even a hundred fifteen million would he take money out of his pocket to pay the state the additional whatever it is if his expectations fall short what he said was that

he would put the faith and credit of his organization organization behind that commitment. And you know he told me afterwards that that was absolutely correct. I think the other thing that everyone fails. To remember is that the hundred million dollars is only a one one year guarantee from from the Indians and then we go to some kind of a percentage basis so we feel that that ours is a is a guarantee that is in concrete and theirs could fall far far short of 100 million dollars in future years. Just to follow up on that Steve Wynn's also made an incredible commitment in addition to promising one hundred forty million dollars based on you know definitely speculative estimates he's hired two staff members and got an office here he's got to get Bronson here he's been flying back and forth himself. Yesterday he flies flew several employees back and forth from Last Vegas to testify.

He's spending an awful lot of money. Why is it that he went to Hartford and Bridgeport this badly What is it about Connecticut. I think part of it is the fact that he was born in New Haven. The fact that Skip you know has lived and worked here for so many years and he's not only a director at The Mirage but President of the the development wing I think that has a lot to do with it. He also came when he came in here at center of the bellows of the patient and saw hard for it and then went down to Bridgeport it Governor Walker's suggestion. And started to meet with people he really kind of fell in love with with Hartford and the architecture and that's why the designs of the two projects fit so much within the local context of of those two cities. So much to both of you how much do you think public opinion in the end is going to make any difference in terms of what may or may not happen vote wise at the state capitol. A poll recently in Hillary's newspaper and other polls have indicated you

suggested that the public at large pretty much endorses or would support some measure of casino the expansion of gambling and we do have a economy here in Connecticut that continues to be very sluggish that factor in terms of affecting votes at the state capitol the public opinion factor. I think that that always plays a piece in the whole puzzle. But I think ultimately what what people are going to have to decide on is really what they perceive to be the economic benefit to the state. I think you know what what Patrick is talking about in terms of the casino project with with potential jobs I think from our perspective of keeping jobs you know we hear in the press continuously about Pratt having layoffs and other major employers having layoffs and it just comes to a point I think I think that elected officials have to make a decision on many times with private sector jobs. They can't make or don't have the last say in this instance they do have the last say in this instance they can really look at it and say OK should these jobs disappear or not.

Do you sense a ground roots support in Milford's in the Hartford's and claim still for those facilities to expand. Whatever it needs to take to keep them there. Absolutely and that's surprised me to an extent I I represent in Milford highlight was when I was in the legislature in terms of they were in my district. And so I knew that they had been a good citizen within the city of Milford. What really surprised me is is the turnout at that point field showed at this public hearing all the way from the from the mayor to the. Economic development director to too many businesses around the other thing that that Milford generated within a 24 hour period they have had letters from those 35 businesses in the surrounding area that say that they are an integral part of our business and if Milford highlight closes we may indeed close also. So there's there's a good amount of ground support groundswell support around those facilities for the jobs from the jobs standpoint with the I guess it was the New York Times two days ago saying that Connecticut was going to lose another 200000 jobs before we see a bottom. That's really scary. And when you can put

20000 direct and indirect jobs on the line along with the tax dollars along with the tourism and save existing jobs and Peter's facilities then I think. That has a lot of impact on the legislature. What kind of a timetable are both of you up against if you don't get the votes this year in terms of reading a veto that the governor's promise will come if this doesn't pass this year is it over a short term or is this something that we're going to see and be doing maybe this program the year from now. Well I think and from our perspective from from the facilities that I represent they are really on their last legs. You know they've gone through a variety of of ups and downs most recently with the opening of Fox what its affects some of these facilities around the neighborhood of 20 percent. And that's that's a big hit to take from a from any type of business. You have a situation where the office of fiscal analysis which is the legislative branch in terms of making projections already says a playing field they feel will close in six months. I think

that's a that's a legitimate concern and that projection probably will prove true. From from the parimutuel perspective this is probably a live or die year for them. Timetable for Steve Wynn. Again I think we have a window of opportunity. We haven't spoken directly about what happens if it doesn't pass this year because we believe it will. But the reality is with Governor Weld pushing for a video slot machines in message Massachusetts with Rhode Island already having them with the Indians building a casino in upstate New York with two new Indian claims in Bridgeport and unmindful for reservations that would in fact create casino gaming. I think that we have not only an opportunity but an obligation to the citizens of Connecticut to do this on a private basis so that the state can in fact participate in the not only the job creation but the tax dollars going about 11 minutes left.

As you know the Indian money stops as soon as video slot machines are legalized any place else in the state. The parimutuel say if they got a video slot machines make as much bring in as much money to the state as the Indians can and is that part of. How would that be done. That's one of the issues we were asked in a public hearing because obviously besides the job issue to the dollar the big remit the gov made with the Indians is key in this whole equation. And as a matter of fact when we started this process that really wasn't necessarily the target number although it's interesting to look back to the Christian Cummings report which is that the executive branch spent two hundred forty thousand dollars on two years ago to really give an overview of the gaming industry and within the Cummings report Kristin Cummings reported said that Fox would open and there was no at least diversification of the existing options within the parimutuel facilities they would be drastically hurt in the neighborhood of 20 percent. That proved to be very

true. They gave a. An estimate of about 97 million that the parimutuel could could raise what we are doing right now as we've retained Ernst and Young to come up and give us some some what we hope to be accurate numbers. They are they have told us preliminarily that they're very comfortable with the Christian Cummings number and they feel that that in fact it might be a little higher so we were looking in those ranges but again I don't have hard numbers and when we do like we told the public safety committee we will let them know probably early next week. What do you have any idea you try to figure out what number of slot machines you would need to reach that level. Do you have any idea what number we could expect at each end and that that's one of the issues that we're trying to trying to have them answer for us also because the the issue is is that there's ultimately a saturation point I mean all of this is market driven. And so they are coming up with a number that they feels is justifiable within this region and we probably will be looking at the neighborhood of 6000 machines in the in the five facilities which was about the number that was talked about last year in last

year's legislation. Is it going to take a veto proof bill to make this doable in the session this year and do you think a veto proof bill to be sent on the governor's desk is possible. Definitely we believe it is. And I I've always felt that that it needed to be a bill that addressed both the parimutuel side from the job standpoint and also from the casino side to address the tourism the job creation the additional revenue. I think what we're looking at is is really a situation where anyone who watches a legislature knows that you can't make a determination of what's going to happen by the end until the end. I'm not sure how the equation works out but I think ultimately if if you make a decision in terms of jobs over here existing facilities and and really on a fairness issue I think it may indeed be doable.

Now you folks kind of joining forces now and we know there's going to be a unified effort here so that those on your side of this issue don't you know get split up amongst amongst yourselves if there's a unified effort here. There are areas of agreement so that. You can work as a unified force within the legislature. I think right now what we have in public safety are two separate bills. You have the bill Patrick's representing in terms of the casinos which which we're very happy includes us with in that legislation as our association has has a bill that's being proposed by Representative Amun and Karen in Plainfield and offered and that is our focus right now. You know it's our contention that that we're not we're not fighting the casino issue because ultimately the legislature or the committee will make a determination. Terms of which bill comes out. But but our focus at this point is really our bill. I think long term will end up with one one bill that would

include both the Permian chills and one or two casinos. How much of a factor of the I have a almost a record number of new state lawmakers in the general assembly both in the House and the Senate this year that I guess you folks is still trying to find out. Better than probably those of us in the presence of these folks are where they stand on a number of issues. What about that factor the fact that we've got a lot of new legislators who have to vote up or down on this issue whether they like it or not both in committee and down on the floor before it's all over if that make the argument easier or is it more difficult. From my standpoint I think it's easier because with 50 some odd new House members. Virtually all of them went door to door and during the course of the door to door what they've relayed to me is that that virtually no one was opposed to the concept of these urban entertainment casino complexes. And I also think that there were some hard

people who didn't run again. And I think the new faces are very very helpful to us from our perspective it's really an educational issue. You know they have to understand as you started in the beginning the program what's a pair of mutual I mean that's really the question when you're dealing with. And if somebody doesn't live in a town that has one of these facilities they're not familiar with it they may have heard about it but they're really not familiar with it which which I think is also one of the points that we used to sell. You know people say that if you if you. Allow these products to diversify if you allow X Y and Z the world is going to change well. Ultimately we've had gaming facilities in six locations in the state of Connecticut for almost 17 years. The state of Connecticut is still the same state of Connecticut. I mean we're not talking about this major change within a state that we all love what we're talking about is business is an industry that have function well within their communities not having any organized crime or those associated problems that that we always hear about. And I think what what we're telling people is listen this is a business

let them diversify. Let them compete. And and that's that's being the reason you know what we're hearing is that that's not bad. They understand that I think about five minutes left. All right there's been talk a lot about the casino being more than a an engine of revenue being something that brings economic development and jobs. The two places you're talking about hard for Bridgeport have a core of unemployed people who have a intrinsic problem with working in a casino and that is that although they may be straight and living cleanly now they've had scrapes with the law. And I think that's a reality that is going to be a problem with getting people good jobs with mobility in the casino How do you do you think that is a problem and how would you keep that promise of giving people good jobs career oriented jobs when there is probably going to be some difficulty in doing that. What we found Steve is is the president of the mayor's commission in Las Vegas to initiate a minority hiring.

And Steve learned a number of things through that process that he hopes will be helpful here. Probably the most important thing is that women in particular who have been on welfare in you know in the cycle are hesitant to take jobs because they would lose their coverage for health care for three month period if they were unsuccessful. So. So Steve assures them that they will be covered in the event that they don't make it. Steve spends close to six million dollars a year and job training which dwarfs the amount of training money that's spent by any of the other casinos. Steve believes that the job training will do that will do the trick. We also will have I believe as part of the legislation ultimately. Some type of minority hiring component. We believe that the people do you know do live here that they are

employable and that we can help take some people up off the ground on their feet. Well sort of follow up. The other question is what will you do to ensure that people don't just drive into a basement parking garage or get dropped off on a bus go into the casino stay in the casino and never venture out into Hartford and patronize any of the businesses. That's that's a very good question. The Hartford Restaurant Association originally was opposed to the idea and as they did research in Las Vegas and Atlantic City and other jurisdictions that allowed casino gaming they found that people in fact do leave. One of the things that Steve has talked about is if there are complementary. Dinners to be given that that those complimentary dinners could could be cashed in at any restaurant in Hartford or in Bridgeport. And I think that's one of the things that could be done. The other as I mentioned is the linkage piece that Steve

will be talking about for Bridgeport which will help help to build and renovates on some existing areas that need help. The other thing that Steve has found is that in Atlantic City in Las Vegas and in other jurisdictions the businesses that are restaurants that are good restaurants the other businesses that are well-run do enjoy a huge increase in trade as a result of the infusion of so many more tourists. We had been using a number for a long period of time that 60 percent of the people who would attend these facilities would be from out of state and that's been the experience at Foxwoods. In Bridgeport the estimates that we now have are close to 85 percent of the people would be out of state so that would be a huge injection of new capital. Not to

mention the three hundred fifty seven million dollar payroll that we create down there. We got less than a minute now. Take a headcount. What's it look like if you're a betting man. Before it's over in June I would bet on it. And I am a betting man on occasion. I think that there have been so many distractions. That it's been very difficult to get a head count because once the governor put his package on the table then then Peter had to run numbers and we had to put a package on the table that would compete from an economic standpoint. So we are in the process now that that we've guaranteed 140 million of going back to each and every legislator legislator to find out if they will they will support it. OK. And we'll see we'll get back to you many times I'm sure before the session is over thank you very much for being with us. I guess I've been Patrick Sullivan of the Sullivan machine lobbying firm and Peter Smith representing the state's parimutuel interests our thanks to Henry Walden of the

Hartford Current. And I'm Bob Douglas Please join us again next time for another interview on the record.