Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Opt Out Gaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee Adopts Amendment Extending Towns' Time Limits for Licensed Gaming Projects
Summary
In executive session the House Ways and Means Committee amended HB 737 to lengthen time windows before a town can reconsider permitting gaming facilities and voted 15‑0 to recommend the bill as amended.
The House Ways and Means Committee, in executive session on May 20, amended HB 737 to extend the statutory time windows that protect approved gaming projects from local re‑votes and then voted to recommend the bill as amended.
What the amendment changes The adopted amendment (20250850H as carried on the committee floor) increases the allowable period before a municipality may reconsider whether to permit gaming. The amendment raises the length of time an operator must be inactive before a town may reverse approvals from two years to four years, and it reduces a proposed 10‑year protected application period (for approved but not yet operated projects) down to six years.
Why it matters: investment certainty and local control Sponsors said the amendment aims to balance the municipality’s ability to control land use with multi‑year financing and permitting timelines that large projects often require. Supporters told the committee that large redevelopment and permitting projects can take several years of site work, financing and approvals and that a longer protected window prevents a town from changing course after an operator has invested substantial sums.
Vote and next steps The committee adopted the amendment and then voted to recommend HB 737 as amended. The clerk recorded the committee’s roll call on the recommendation as 15‑0 in favor.
Formal action recorded Motion: "Ought to pass as amended" (HB 737, as amended by Amendment 20250850H) Mover: Representative Peter Eulary (motion made on the floor during the exec session) Seconder: Representative Mary Murphy Outcome: approved Vote tally: yes 15 — no 0 (clerk roll call recorded the unanimous committee recommendation)
What the amendment leaves for later Committee members discussed whether the draft statutory language needed additional clarification — for example, about when an application is considered active or the mechanics of “licensed or eligible” status — and several members said staff and the Legislative Counsel should review phrasing before the bill moves from committee. The committee recessed the exec session to allow staff time to prepare the final amended text for committee files.
