A legislative committee rejected a bill Thursday calling for a study of the costs and benefits of commercial gaming in the state, a measure opponents had feared could delay the Mashantucket Pequot and Mohegan tribes’ pursuit of a Hartford-area casino to compete against MGM Springfield, a $950 million resort casino being built in Massachusetts. 

The Massachusetts project is seen as a serious competitive threat to the tribes' southeastern Connecticut gaming facilities, Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun.

"The issue at hand is simple. If we do nothing to compete against MGM Springfield, Connecticut will lose more than 9,000 jobs and over $100 million in state tax revenue. Those are the facts, and we appreciate the support we're getting from the many legislators who want to make sure that doesn't happen," Andrew Doba, a spokesman for the tribes, said in a statement.

The Commerce Committee voted 11-7 against forwarding the bill to the Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee, effectively killing it.

Sen. Joan Hartley, D-Waterbury, co-chairman of the Commerce Committee, voted against the bill. Rep. Chris Perone, D-Norwalk, the committee's other co-chairman and the bill's main proponent, voted for it.

Three members of the committee were absent.

Rep. Paul Brycki, D-Griswold, the only member of the committee from eastern Connecticut, voted with the majority.

Tribal leaders, casino workers and representatives of the building trades urged defeat of the bill at a public hearing last week.

Representatives of MGM Resorts International, the Las Vegas-based gaming operator behind the Springfield project, voiced support for the study, as did some lawmakers and a University of Connecticut economist.

The bill would have required a study of “certain commercial gaming” in the state, including a comparison of potential geographic locations for a casino; various tax rates to be applied to gaming proceeds; minimum internal controls under which a casino or other facility would have to operate; and minimum capital investments in a facility.

The tribes and MGM Resorts have already commissioned studies of the impact MGM Springfield is likely to have on the state’s existing casinos and where a third one might best be built.

A law passed by the legislature last year allowed the Mashantuckets and the Mohegans to jointly solicit proposals for a casino site in north-central Connecticut. MGM, which claims in a federal lawsuit that the law is unconstitutional, funded a study that found that a casino in southwestern Connecticut would be a better option.

Backers of the bill calling for a new analysis said the previous studies were biased and therefore unreliable. Some also said it was time the state conducted a fresh study of the social costs of gaming.

While the tribes have said they hope to open a Hartford-area casino before MGM Springfield’s anticipated September 2018 debut, they have yet to propose legislation that would enable them to open a commercial casino on non-tribal land.

Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, which operate as tribal casinos, are located on reservations and are subject to federal oversight.

b.hallenbeck@theday.com