Springfield, Mass. — MGM Springfield officials sought Thursday to assure Massachusetts gaming regulators that MGM remains committed to developing an $800 million resort casino here, regardless of whether it makes an impact on the city's skyline.  

MGM announced earlier in the week that it was proposing the elimination of a 25-story hotel tower, raising questions about the project's feasibility.

Addressing the five-member Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which met at the MassMutual Center, Michael Mathis, the MGM Springfield president, acknowledged that the tower was part of the project as recently as early August.

But over the last six weeks, he said, concerns about "growing construction costs" had caused MGM to pursue design changes.

"What hasn't changed," Mathis said, "is our commitment to Springfield."

He said MGM would still spend at least $800 million on the project, likely more, and pay the city $25 million a year for 40 years in accordance with a "host community agreement."

He said MGM would still expect to complete the project by September 2018.

Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby, saying Mathis wasn't as convincing as Crosby had expected him to be, asked flatly, "Where is MGM and MGM corporate on its commitment to this project?

"Fully," Mathis said. "We're fully committed."

Commissioner Enrique Zuniga pressed Mathis and other project officials for specifics about the anticipated cost overruns that prompted the elimination of the tower as well as the relocation of some 50 apartment units that are to be developed as part of the project.

Under the proposed redesign, which is subject to commission approval, the apartments would be located outside the project's 14.5-acre footprint.

"You committed to a tower," Zuniga said, later adding, "We approved a design that included a tower."

Mathis said the same 250 hotel rooms that were to be built in a tower configuration would instead be included in a six-story structure. He likened the change to laying the tower down horizontally.

Zuniga questioned whether the lack of a recognizable tower would hamper MGM's ability to attract "players" to the casino.

"I don't think a tower was the way to attract players," Mathis said, adding that the casino's presence would be advertised through highly visible signage and that the casino would leverage MGM's extensive database of casino-goers.

Despite the assurances, Zuniga said he was "really troubled" by the design changes.

"A significant feature of this project is now no longer — and I'm worried," he said.

Crosby said the commission's consultants would have to review the changes before the commission voted whether to approve them.

"We're not going to reflexively say, 'You have to have a tower,'" he said.

The City of Springfield also must approve the changes.

Mathis told reporters the design changes have nothing to do with the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes' joint pursuit of a third Connecticut casino north of Hartford.

He declined to comment on the latest development in a federal lawsuit MGM filed against Connecticut officials over the law establishing the process that could lead to the third casino.

In a motion filed Wednesday, the Connecticut Attorney General's Office disputed MGM's claim that the law is unconstitutional and asked that the suit be dismissed.

Alan Feldman, MGM Resorts' executive vice president, responded in a statement Wednesday night.

"MGM's attorneys just received a copy of the motion and they are reviewing it," Feldman said. "But after an initial review, the State seeks to avoid the serious constitutional issues raised by the legislation and instead asks the Court to dismiss the suit on specious procedural arguments. We look forward to responding and our day in Court."

b.hallenbeck@theday.com

Twitter: @bjhallenbeck