The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) recently made changes to how certain gaming tax revenues are distributed in the state. The decision, which was met with both support and opposition from commissioners, aims to offer more flexibility in funding and expand the use of funds for projects throughout Massachusetts.
The community mitigation fund (CMF) is a pool of tax revenue generated from gaming activities in the state’s three casinos: MGM Springfield, Encore Boston Harbor and Plainridge Park Casino. Established in 2015, the CMF provides grants for local projects in communities near these casinos. Over the years, it has contributed nearly $50 million to various initiatives, including transportation, community planning, workforce development, and public safety.
Additionally, the CMF allocated funds for a feasibility study aimed at restoring the seawall and Charlestown Pumping Station, as well as extending the Mystic River Harborwalk.
The recent recommendations put forth by Joe Delaney, the MGC’s chief of community affairs, seek to modify how the CMF distributes its money. Delaney advocates for an increase in block grants and expanding the use of funds to projects throughout the entire state, rather than limiting them to communities where the tax revenue originates.
By transitioning to a block grant access system for community projects and utilizing competitive grants for statewide initiatives, Delaney aims to ensure a fair distribution of funds across all regions.
Furthermore, Delaney highlights that western Massachusetts, referred to as Region A, has received a higher portion of funding compared to Regions B and C. To address this imbalance, he suggests redistributing leftover funds from Region A to the other regions.
The proposed changes to the CMF have sparked a variety of opinions among the MGC commissioners. While Chairwoman Cathy Judd-Stein and Commissioner Bradford Hill expressed their support for the changes, Commissioner Nakisha Skinner voiced her opposition.
Commissioner Jordan Maynard favored giving the MGC more spending flexibility, but emphasized the need for a thoughtful approach in determining how the funds should be awarded. Maynard believes that until a clear plan is presented on how the changes would impact discretionary funding, it is premature to fully support the proposed plan.
Skinner, on the other hand, expressed her reservations about the changes and emphasized the importance of understanding the potential impact on discretionary funding before making any decisions. Her cautious approach highlights the need for thorough analysis and consideration of the potential consequences of altering the distribution of funds.
The board did ultimately decide to accept the changes.
