Slot machines moved a hesitant step closer to reality in Brevard County March 30 when the state Senate passed its version of a gaming bill, a sweeping, comprehensive piece of legislation that will enable slot machines at the Melbourne Greyhound Park and tracks in seven other counties. A referendum in Brevard in 2012 approved the addition of slots at the track. Similar referendums passed in the other counties as well. But the state needed to agree to the casino expansion, and therein lies the dilemma.
“I’m enthused about the bill. It is good for us and the gaming industry,” said Jim O’Brien, Melbourne Greyhound Park’s president and CEO.
But what’s good for the gaming industry is not of interest on the House side, which approved a bill on April 5 that diametrically opposes any expansion of gaming. The future of legislation this session rests with a conference, where representatives of each body try to craft a new bill acceptable to both sides.
Senate spokeswoman Katherine Betta said the conference requires agreement from the House Speaker and the Senate President. If the House and Senate had only slight differences with the bills, the amendment process could reconcile the two. This is not one of those times.
Betta said typically when one chamber passes a bill, the bill is not sent to the other chamber until the end of the next scheduled floor session. However, for timing reasons, one chamber can send the bill immediately back to the other chamber for consideration. This is one of those times.
Senate President Joe Negron, R-Stuart, will talk to sponsor Senator Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, and make that decision in the coming days. But, Betta said, at this point it is likely that a conference would occur.
“Such a complex subject could be resolved by conference committee, which would generate a conference report that represents a compromise between the two chambers. The legislators appointed to the conference bring the report back to their respective chambers for consideration,” she said.
Most times, this kind of conference convenes before the end of the legislative session, which falls on May 5.
O’Brien is upbeat about the chances. He said legislation came close last year. “It’s a different political atmosphere this year. Joe Negron is a businessman. He understands the positive implication. But the next two or three weeks are very important.”
If the expansion of slots at the tracks passes muster, Melbourne Greyhound Park will spend $50 million to build a new facility on track grounds that will provide local construction jobs for 18 months. In addition to providing jobs and helping local vendors, Brevard County will receive 1.5 percent of slot revenue, with another half percent kicked back to Melbourne as host city.
“This can have a positive end with a great win for Brevard County,” O’Brien said.
Whatever comes out of the legislature still has to get the okay with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, which owns the two Hard Rock casinos as well as others throughout the state. The state has prior agreements with the tribe and, as these bills stand, an OK is not sure bet.
“Both bills would require a dramatic increase in the Tribe’s payment to the state without providing increases in the Tribe’s exclusivity sufficient to justify those higher payments,” said Marcellus W. Osceola Jr. Chairman Tribal council. And he added that the Senate bill would broadly expand gaming.
Moreover the current legislation may face opposition from the Interior Department as related legislation did in 2015. A compact signed off by Gov. Rick Scott proposed a $3 billion a year payment from the tribe in exchange for exclusivity in some areas and the addition of craps and roulette at tribal casinos. The legislature failed to act in time and the compact died.
Speaking on the failed legislation in a June, 2016 letter, Paula L. Hart, director of the Office of Indian Gaming, said “We are concerned that the bills may violate Indian Gaming Regulatory Act prohibition against taxing tribal gaming revenue. The ratification dilutes the central bargain involving exclusivity without reducing or eliminating revenue-sharing obligations. We would be hard-pressed to envision a scenario where we could allow a compact [like this] to go into effect.”
