Senate rejects Gomez amendments to restore community mitigation fund allocations

Senators rejected two amendments aimed at restoring and directing gaming revenues for communities that host casinos, after an extended floor debate on regional equity and the statutory Community Mitigation Fund.

Senator Adam Gomez offered amendment 58 to reinstate a statutory 6.5% allocation of gross gaming tax revenues to the Community Mitigation Fund (CMF) and amendment 59 to direct $3 million for specific communities. Gomez spoke at length in support of both amendments, calling the CMF “about keeping promises, ensuring fairness, and standing up for communities that have done their part.” He said the CMF, created following the 2011 Expanded Gaming Act, had awarded more than $56 million in grants since 2015 and that fiscal-year 2025 allocations were halted when the House redirected gaming revenues to the general fund.

Gomez said the CMF was funded by 6.5% of gross gaming tax revenues and that the redirecting of those funds was a policy choice that left host and surrounding communities without support for increased demands on public safety, roads, housing and emergency services. He urged colleagues to “restore the Community Mitigation Fund” and argued amendment 59 would provide targeted mitigation for Springfield, Chicopee, Ludlow, Wilbraham, Holyoke, East Longmeadow and Longmeadow.

Senator Jacob R. Olivero joined in support of the amendments, noting local impacts of casino operations and saying the CMF had provided funds for public safety, higher education and district attorney offices. Despite supporters’ appeals to regional equity and the original statutory structure, both amendments failed on voice votes. For amendment 58 the presiding officer announced “the noes have it. The amendment is not adopted.” Amendment 59 likewise was not adopted after a similar voice vote.

The record shows the floor exchange came after the clerk read the amendment titles and before the Senate proceeded to consider many other amendments and fiscal items. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote tally for either amendment; the outcome announced on the floor was that both amendments were defeated.

Supporters framed the debate around honoring the gaming law’s intent and tying gaming revenues to the communities most affected. Opponents were not quoted at length in the transcript excerpt; the outcome was decided by voice vote rather than a roll-call recorded in the provided segments.

The debate and defeats leave in place the current treatment of gaming revenues as reflected in the House budget actions cited on the floor, and the CMF remained without the 6.5% allocation as described by supporters during floor remarks.