What You Need To Know
- The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has deliberated on RFA-2 or Phase 2 applications in each of the three regions for the available reso casino licenses, as well as the state’s single slots-parlor license
- RFA-2 applications were evaluated based on five key criteria: General Overview, Finance, Economic Development, Building and Site Design and Mitigation
- Public Input was received and encouraged at several points along the systematic review process, including applicant presentations, public hearings, and host / surrounding community meetings
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is dedicated to ensuring that expanded gaming facilities will provide the greatest possible economic development benefits and revenues to the people of the Commonwealth. At the same time, the Commission works to reduce to the maximum extent possible the potentially negative or unintended consequences of the new facilities.
Five Key Criteria
Each of the five Commissioners led a team of industry experts to evaluate each gaming proposal based on more than 200 questions addressing the Commission’s key evaluation categories.
- Chairman Steve Crosby: Overview / General
- Commissioner Enrique Zuniga: Finance
- Commissioner Bruce Stebbins: Economic Development
- Commissioner Lloyd Macdonald: Building and Site Design
- Commissioner Gayle Cameron: Mitigation
The five key evaluation criteria for gaming proposals include:
- Overview / General – What about this license applicant’s project will make the project unique in the industry, make it a unique destination, reinforce the Massachusetts-brand and positively impact the Commonwealth?
- Finance – Will the project meet the estimated revenue projections, does the proponent have suitable financing to complete the project and will they spend the required minimum investment?
- Economic Development – How the project maximizes a positive impact on area visitor attractions, supports small business in the region and creates viable and meaningful pathways for employment?
- Building And Site Design – Does the building meet requirements for energy efficiency, have a design that integrates itself into the community and meet permitting requirements?
- Mitigation – How does the proponent solve traffic problems, address problem gambling, minimize its impact on the Lottery and mitigate any problems with the host and surrounding communities?
STEP ONE. Each member of the Evaluation Teams reviewed each of the Applicant’s responses to questions pertaining to that member’s Category of questions.
STEP TWO. Each member conferred with other members of that Evaluation Team and make a Summary Review of Questions Across Applicant, rating the quality of the Applicant’s responses to each question as either ‘Insufficient’, ‘Sufficient’, ‘Very Good’, or ‘Outstanding/Excellent’.
- Insufficient – Response failed to present a clear plan to address the topic, or failed to meet the minimum acceptable criteria of the Commission.
- Sufficient – Response provided was comprehensible and met the minimum acceptable criteria of the Commission; and/or provided the required or requested information.
- Very Good – Response was comprehensive, demonstrates credible experience and plans, and/or excels in some areas.
- Outstanding/Excellent – Response was of uniformly high quality, and demonstrates convincing experience, creative thinking, innovative plans and a substantially unique approach.
STEP THREE. Each Evaluation Team then compiled a Summary Review of Criteria.
STEP FOUR. This forms the basis for an Assessment of Category Across Applicants, which was delivered to each Commissioner for their review.
STEP FIVE. Finally, each Commissioner submitted their findings in a Summary Evaluation, which forms the basis for their decision to award a license.
In keeping with the Commission’s effort to ensure a fair, transparent and participatory process, the Commission took into account public comments given to the Commission at public hearings in potential host and surrounding communities, as well as through mail and at email@example.com. The Commission considered these public comments as it deliberated and decided on the licenses.