RICHMOND, Va. -- Petersburg's hopes of a referendum on a proposed $1.4 billion casino were kept alive Friday as a bill that would allow it if ur cleared its final House committee.
The vote came a day after its companion bill in the Senate was killed in the Senate Finance Committee.
"We're absolutely thrilled at the momentum that this bill has had," said the House bill sponsor Del. Kim Taylor (R - 63rd). "We've been working for a year to move this legislation forward. Petersburg is open for business and this is the greatest opportunity that our city has had in decades."
“We are grateful for the support today from the House Appropriations Committee,” said Zed Smith, Chief Operating Officer of The Cordish Companies, in a statement. “We look forward to continuing to work with the General Assembly as the process moves forward. Today’s vote is a recognition of Petersburg’s longstanding and pressing need to attract new jobs and additional tax revenue. Our $1.4 billion urban revitalization project will provide a major economic development boost to Petersburg and the entire Tri-Cities region.”
The House bill was approved by the Appropriations Committee in an 11-to-9 vote.
As written, the bill would give Petersburg a chance to hold a referendum on a proposed casino by The Cordish Companies. It would also block Richmond from holding another referendum for at least a year after voters rejected a $565-million proposal from ONE Casino + Resort in 2021. That language drew criticism from local and state elected officials from the city.
"I'm not opposed to if Petersburg wants to do a casino, but I have had problems…that is this setting precedent to decide what needs to be done in another locality, as relates to it being delayed in Richmond," said Del. Delores McQuinn (D - 70th). "You're hoping that wherever it is, it is enhancing the quality of life of people that live there. And I think that any locality has that right. And we should not be creating this kind of policy that says, 'Okay, we want it for Petersburg, but we want you to wait.'"
The City of Richmond Council President Mike Jones was also at Friday's meeting and pointed to a recent study that found both cities could support a casino.
"What's the best thing for the Commonwealth? JLARC has already spoke on that casino in Richmond has a greater impact in revenue to the Commonwealth, one. Secondly, it has more jobs, 1,000 more jobs. And so what's the best thing for the Richmond Metro Statistical Area? That's what I think we should be looking at," said Jones, who added bringing a second referendum is not ignoring the will of the voters. "Anytime you put anything out to vote, you're listening to voters. The challenge was that individuals who had a true concern about casinos, they just banned it and used the NIMBY vote. They tried to muddy the water. And so, things have changed, we deserve a second chance because we have a new partner at the table in Churchill Downs. They do this work, along with the Kentucky Derby, as well as we're still going to bring 1,000 more jobs, we're going to bring more revenue to the area. And, honestly, we're going to chart the course for labor and labor is truly important to me. So, I believe Richmond is prime. But don't stop us just so you can do it."
However, Taylor said while is she open to compromise on her bill, dropping the Richmond language is not among them.
"We definitely don't want two casinos, because we want Cordish to open up Live! in Petersburg because it is a destination casino," said Taylor. "If we have two casinos, we're not going to have the quality that we want or we need."
Officials with Cordish said they would not proceed with their plans if Richmond was allowed to have a second referendum.
"We believe a single world-class mixed-use destination as we have proposed in Petersburg continues to be in the best interest of the Region," said Smith.
Chances in the Senate
Next up for the House bill is clearing the entire chambers with the deadline to do so on crossover day on Feb. 7.
Should it do that, the question is could it survive in the Senate?
While the bill was defeated in the finance committee, five of the senators who voted no gave differing reasons for their vote including not wanting to block Richmond, questions about the actual economic impact of casinos, and an amendment added to the Senate bill regarding wage requirements.
The latter concern was raised by Sen. Frank Ruff (R - 15th), who added he could support a bill without that language.
"Not overwhelmingly, but I would support it. I'm not a big fan of the whole concept, but I would vote for it," said Ruff.
"We have a lot of discussions with a lot of different groups to move forward on this," said Taylor. "So, I'm just looking forward to having those talks and getting this done."
But, even if the bill dies, something could be included in the budget language to allow the Petersburg casino to move forward as language was inserted during last year's budget to allow the JLARC study and pause another Richmond referendum.
"Around here there's a billion ways to bring back a bill. So, I don't know, but, I think it's dead," said Sen. Janet Howell (D - 32nd), who is the lead budget negotiator for the Democrats in the Senate. But, Howell added she supports Richmond getting another vote and such language in favor of Petersburg would not be coming from her chamber.
"Oh, no. Not in the Senate budget."
