Winchester council authorizes EDA to pursue feasibility study for convention center and potential casino, with referendum required

Winchester City Council voted Jan. 13 to ask the Economic Development Authority to move forward with feasibility and outreach work on a proposed convention–entertainment center that could include a destination casino, while stressing that any final approval would require a state license and a local referendum. The resolution passed following a long public-comment period and extensive council debate.

Jeff Bittner, executive director of the Winchester Economic Development Authority, told the council the action is "just the next step in the process," and emphasized that the EDA would not be authorizing construction but rather seeking a state feasibility review, identifying an operator and a specific site, and negotiating amenities and community benefits before any referendum. "It'd be premature to ask for referendum on a project when you don't know who your partner is," Bittner said.

Bittner outlined the EDA's analysis and outreach: studies by consultants and a 25-member study group; projections of a 50,000-square-foot gaming floor, 20,000 square feet of convention space, and capital investments estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars (presented ranges included $500 million to $750 million, and potentially nearer $1 billion in some scenarios). He said city revenues from the project were projected in the analysis at about $27.5 million per year under certain assumptions and described job and workforce-development components tied to operator partnerships.

Councilors repeatedly framed the decision as a choice to gather more information, not a final endorsement. Councilor Ford asked whether studies beyond spending-through-the-economy projections had been done, noting a need for traffic, market-demand and social-impact analyses. Bittner said the EDA's contracted study examined societal impacts (including addiction and crime) and that a state-level feasibility review would be an independent third-party assessment.

Several council members urged caution and called for wide community engagement. One council member moved to table the resolution to allow additional study and to rebuild public trust; that motion failed. Following further discussion the council moved and seconded a direction for the EDA to continue feasibility work and outreach; Brenda called the roll and the motion passed.

Members and the EDA repeated that a license from the state and selection of an appropriate operator would come before any referendum. Bittner said that if the council did not place a referendum within 24 months after a license is issued under the resolution's terms, there would be no casino.

The meeting followed a public-comment period in which numerous residents voiced opposition to a casino, raising concerns about traffic, impacts on downtown and small businesses, gambling addiction risk among young adults, and whether projected visitor numbers and hotel-room capacity were realistic. Proponents who supported studying the option emphasized fiscal stress and long-term revenue needs, with several councilors citing the city's limited land base and constrained revenue sources as reasons to evaluate additional tools.

The council vote does not authorize construction or site selection. Instead the approved resolution authorizes the EDA to continue feasibility analysis, to engage in community outreach and to report back; future steps include state review, operator negotiation, traffic and impact studies, and, if appropriate, a council vote to place a referendum on the ballot.