First, I apologize for the long delay in updating this Blog - no excuses. So by now, I am sure that you have heard all the chatter regarding casino expansion in Florida; but what is really going on and where will it lead? Although no one can answer that question with absolute certainty, there are some factors that our Legislature and you, the voters, will need to consider in making that decision.
Yes, you! Any proposed expansion of gaming should, at a minimum, be subject to the approval of the voters in the county where the expansion would occur.
Why? Because the voters of Florida need to be heard when it comes to the many questions that arise when you talk about expanding gaming, like… Where will the revenue go? How many facilities and where will they be located? How will any proposed expansion impact the existing revenue the State receives from existing gaming including the Lottery and the newly signed Gaming Compact with the Seminole Tribe? How will any proposed casino expansion impact your city and county? etc. These are important questions that affect you directly and should not be left to political sway. Quite frankly, the Legislature should want to be sure the voters are heard and respected in this regard. And so should every elected official in our State.
Currently, in addition to the Lottery, Florida has seven voter-approved slot machine operators at the existing pari-mutuel & poker facilities in South Florida: four in Broward and three in Miami-Dade. Five of these facilities are currently operating with slot machines. These facilities pay 35% of their gross revenues in tax dollars that go directly to fund education. Last year these facilities generated $138 million dollars for Florida and are projected to produce close to $200 million when all seven are operating slot machines. In addition, there are seven Seminole casinos operating in the State located in Brighton, Tampa, Coconut Creek, two in Hollywood, Immokalee, and Big Cypress. Finally, there are 18 pari-mutuel facilities (dog racing, horse racing, and jai alai) located throughout the State outside of South Florida; all but one offer Poker.
Any expansion of gaming could potentially either reduce substantially or eliminate the revenue generated by the voter-approved facilities in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties AND the revenue sharing the State receives under the Seminole Gaming Compact. The Compact requires that the Seminole Tribe’s seven casinos in Florida must share revenue with the State. The Compact guarantees the State a minimum of $150 million each year, but, based on the Tribe’s revenues, the estimated State’s share could be over $250 million per year.
However, if the State allows new casinos anywhere else in the State outside Broward and Miami-Dade (when the Compact was ratified, the voters had already approved the operation of slot machines at the existing racetracks in those counties), the Tribe would no longer be required to share any revenue with the State. This translates to a potential loss of revenue to Florida of $250 million annually.
Also outlined in the Compact, if the State allows any NEW casinos ONLY in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, the Tribe would no longer be subject to the minimum $150 million payment to the State. They also would not be required to share ANY revenue from the three Broward Seminole Casinos. That could potentially cut the State’s share from the Compact in half.
Finally, if the State allows the existing seven voter-approved slot machine operators in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to become full casinos, the Tribe can only reduce their revenue sharing by 50% of any loss to the Tribe at the three Broward Seminole casinos. If there is no loss, the Tribe must continue to pay under the terms of the Compact.
Obviously, the LEAST negative to our State is allowing the seven existing operators to become full casinos. And the MOST negative is allowing casinos outside the two counties.
Another consideration: Jobs. While it is true that new facilities will create temporary construction jobs, these jobs would be just that – temporary. Positions within the new facilities may only offset the loss of the same positions, due to increased competition, at the existing facilities.
One more consideration: any expansion of gaming beyond what is currently authorized will reduce the amount of revenue generated to fund education from existing gaming and the Lottery.
So, give us your opinion, what is the best path for the State?
a. One Casino in Miami paying a 15% tax. This would substantially reduce the State’s revenue from existing gaming and the new casino could take five years to construct. Once completed, the facility would have to generate as much revenue as the entire Las Vegas Strip in order to make up those lost revenues.
b. One casino in Miami AND full casinos at the existing voter-approved slot operators ALL paying a 15% tax. – This could slightly reduce the State’s revenue and could potentially even increase revenue by allowing the existing facilities to become full casinos. Although the new casino could take up to five years to construct, the existing slot operators could start immediately generating revenue from the new games.
c. Five new casinos - one located in Miami and the remaining four at select locations outside of South Florida all paying a 15% tax – This would GREATLY reduce the State’s revenues by ELIMINATING the State’s share from the Seminole Casinos and by reducing Lottery revenues. These facilities could take up to five years to be built. Once built, they would also reduce the revenue from the South Florida slot operators.
d. Five new casinos - one located in Miami and the remaining four at select locations outside of South Florida AND full casinos at the existing voter approved slot operators - all paying a 15% tax – This would GREATLY reduce the State’s revenues by ELIMINATING the State’s share from the Seminole casinos and by reducing Lottery revenues. Again, the new facilites could take up to five years to construct. HOWEVER the existing South Florida operators could start immediately generating revenue from the new games which would partially offset the losses.
e. Finally, no NEW casinos. Rather, allow the existing slot operators in Miami-Dade and Broward to become full casinos paying a 15% tax. This would only slightly reduce payments from the Seminole tribe, would have no impact on Lottery revenues, and would begin generating more revenue immediately.
One last question:
Should voter approval be required to authorize ANY new gaming in Florida?
a. YES, both a Statewide vote and a local vote.
b. YES, but only a local vote.
c. NO.
Please carefully read all the above scenarios. Then go to our survey page and Vote for the scenario that you think is best for Florida. And don’t forget to vote on the issue of voter approval.
Thank you. It should be an interesting path forward as it relates to gaming in Florida. I will keep you all up to date via this Blog as things progress, BUT, it is really important to know how you, the voters, feel about the matter.
