Jump to content

Richmond Resort & Casino


rjp212

Recommended Posts


  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, vaceltic said:

There's a community meeting on the casino development tomorrow night at 6pm. Go to voice your opinions yay or nay - regardless, its better to do ahead of time than trying at the last minute on the day of a council vote.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/19/richmond-casino-concerns-meeting-set-thursday-night/

No casino, schools first! :P  In serious though, I may have to go check this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2020 at 2:46 PM, vaceltic said:

There's a community meeting on the casino development tomorrow night at 6pm. Go to voice your opinions yay or nay - regardless, its better to do ahead of time than trying at the last minute on the day of a council vote.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/19/richmond-casino-concerns-meeting-set-thursday-night/

Back from the meeting and witnessed NIMBY turned to 11.  The meeting  was led by City Councilor Robertson and the primary speaker was Pamunkey Chief Gray.  Kim and Reva were in attendance.  This was likely the chief's first public session of this sort and he appeared to be completely on his own.  The purpose was to make a formal announcement to the area civic leaders, mainly Oak Grove, Bellemeade and Blackwell, and answer questions.  Main complaints were centered around "why would you build a casino in a neighborhood?" and "build it somewhere else!"  Most reasonable questions concerned rising property taxes, crime and traffic.  The vice president of Oak Grove (or Bellemeade?) neighborhood passed around a petition for opposition and requested residents to contact state legislators to kill the bills.  Robertson encouraged them to do so but I did not take it as showing opposition herself.

At this time, the tribe does not have a definitive plan for the site and they have a short term contract to buy the property, pending results from a referendum held Nov. 3.  Any renderings are just illustrations of their ideas for the $350 mi. development.

CURRENT TIMELINE:

Both State Senate and House bills for allowing casino licences in Bristol, Danville, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Richmond have passed general assembly voting and now are in committee to best combine the two.  Biggest differences between the two are tax rates and that in one Richmond has preference toward Pamunkey while the other is full open bid.  These are likely to be sorted out and passed in two weeks and expect Northam's approval.

Once General Assembly has done their thing, Robertson, Gray, and Trammel will be initiating an RFP for selection of a casino developer and location.  This is not limited to the tribe or the tribe's proposed site off Commerce.

Once a bidder is determined by City Council, the full vote for allowing a casino in Richmond with the attributed bid will be up for referendum on November 3.

In the event that the Pamunkey proposal is accepted, they expect construction to commence and take 1-2 years. 

 

Next Meeting:

Reva will be holding a separate meeting in March (date not decided but suspect the 19th), with Chief Gray attending, at behest of a civic representative from District 8 concerned with the work training center (resort casino is entirely District 6 land).


Some entertaining questions (paraphrased):

"Will the daycare center be in the casino?" (clearly thinking casino floor)

"How can we trust you when you keeping changing between building a casino or building a resort?"

"What do we get with our $350 mil.?" (thinking it was paid for by the city)

"Do you have any association with the casino going up on Semmes?"  No one had any clue where that came from.

"You come into our neighborhood wanting to build this for your tribe.  Why will you not let us build our own casino?"  Robertson responded well with "you are  welcome to put a bid into the RFP."
 

 

Edited by Icetera
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Icetera said:

Some entertaining questions (paraphrased):

"Will the daycare center be in the casino?" (clearly thinking casino floor)

"How can we trust you when you keeping changing between building a casino or building a resort?"

"What do we get with our $350 mil.?" (thinking it was paid for by the city)

"Do you have any association with the casino going up on Semmes?"  No one had any clue where that came from.

"You come into our neighborhood wanting to build this for your tribe.  Why will you not let us build our own casino?"  Robertson responded well with "you are  welcome to put a bid into the RFP."

This gave me a good chuckle.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Icetera said:

Once General Assembly has done their thing, Robertson, Gray, and Trammel will be initiating an RFP for selection of a casino developer and location.  This is not limited to the tribe or the tribe's proposed site off Commerce.

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Isn't the bill in conference committee? I recall reading the primary difference in the language was specific to the bidding process. One of the versions (Senate maybe?) specified open bidding, whereas the Pamunkey were mentioned specifically in the other version. I'm not sure how that translates to the city's involvement in the RFP process though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Due to the bidding requirement in the bills.  The city, specifically Richmond, has to allow bids in order to determine the one and only casino to be developed here and then if to build at all.  In Both bills we qualify in A.5 where Norfolk is A.4 due to net population loss.  Actually, each of the 5 requirements is clearly used to specify one specific city without naming it.  The RFP process is by city choice, likely via Gray and Trammel.

From HB4 https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+HB4S1: "The bill requires each eligible host city to hold a referendum on the question of whether to allow casino gaming in the city and to hold such referendum at the November 2020 general election."

From SB36 https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB36H1:

"

Article 2.
Eligible Host City; Certification of Preferred Casino Gaming Operator.

 58.1-4107. Eligible host city; certification of preferred casino gaming operator.

A. The conduct of casino gaming shall be limited to the following eligible host cities:

1. Any city (i) in which at least 40 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018, and (ii) that experienced a population decrease of at least seven percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau;

2. Any city that had (i) an annual unemployment rate of at least five percent in 2018, according to data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; (ii) an annual poverty rate of at least 20 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; and (iii) a population decrease of at least 20 percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau;

3. Any city that (i) had an annual unemployment rate of at least 3.6 percent in 2018, according to data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; (ii) had an annual poverty rate of at least 20 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; (iii) experienced a population decrease of at least four percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; and (iv) is located adjacent to a state that has adopted a Border Region Retail Tourism Development District Act; and

4. Any city (i) with a population greater than 200,000 according to the 2018 population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia; (ii) in which at least 24 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018; and (iii) that experienced a population decrease of at least five percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

5. Any city (i) with a population greater than 200,000 according to the 2018 population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia; (ii) in which at least 24 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018; and (iii) that had a poverty rate of at least 24 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

B. An eligible host city shall certify a preferred casino gaming operator and, upon request from the Department pursuant to § 58.1-4109, submit to the Department the name of such preferred casino gaming operator.

C. In selecting a preferred casino gaming operator, an eligible host city shall have considered and given substantial weight to factors such as:

1. The potential benefit and prospective revenues of the proposed casino gaming establishment.

2. The total value of the proposed casino gaming establishment.

3. The proposed capital investment and the financial health of the proposer and any proposed development partners.

4. The experience of the proposer and any development partners in the operation of a casino gaming establishment.

5. Security plans for the proposed casino gaming establishment.

6. The economic development value of the proposed casino gaming establishment and the potential for community reinvestment and redevelopment in an area in need of such.

7. Availability of city-owned assets and privately owned assets, such as real property, including where there is only one location practicably available or land under a development agreement between a potential operator and the city, incorporated in the proposal.

8. The best financial interest of the city.

9. The proposer's status as a minority-owned business as defined in § 2.2-1604 or the proposer's commitment to solicit equity investment in the proposed casino gaming establishment from one or more minority-owned and the proposer's commitment to solicit contracts with minority-owned businesses for the purchase of goods and services.

D. An eligible host city described in subdivision A 4 shall provide substantial and preferred consideration to a proposer who is a Virginia Indian tribe recognized in House Joint Resolution No. 54 (1983) and acknowledged by the United States Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs as an Indian tribe within the meaning of federal law that has the authority to conduct gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

E. An eligible host city described in subdivision A 5 shall provide substantial and preferred consideration to a proposer who is a Virginia Indian tribe recognized in House Joint Resolution No. 54 (1983) and acknowledged by the United States Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs as an Indian tribe within the meaning of federal law that has the authority to conduct gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.).

F. An eligible host city shall submit its preferred operator and owner based on the criteria in this section to the Department for a pre-certification of their qualifications to conduct casino gaming in the Commonwealth. An eligible host city shall also submit any written or electronic documentation considered as part of the criteria in subsection C, including any memorandum of understanding, incentives, development agreements, land purchase agreements, or local infrastructure agreements. Such pre-certification shall include a review of their financial status and ability to operate and properly support ongoing operations in an eligible host city, as well as current casino operations in other states and territories. The Department shall also consider as part of its review the best financial interests of the Commonwealth. The Department shall conduct such review and make a determination on pre-certification within 60 days of receipt of the request by the eligible host city. An eligible host city and preferred operator and owner shall fully cooperate with all necessary requests by the Department in that regard."

6 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Isn't the bill in conference committee? I recall reading the primary difference in the language was specific to the bidding process. One of the versions (Senate maybe?) specified open bidding, whereas the Pamunkey were mentioned specifically in the other version. I'm not sure how that translates to the city's involvement in the RFP process though.

The difference is that the Senate Bill has preference toward selecting Indian Tribes for Richmond and Norfolk.  Both require some selection process and it looks like we are decided on RFP.

Edited by Icetera
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

How long before the preachers will start up on their soapboxes about the "evils" of gambling?

There are multiple categories of potential NIMBYs regarding THIS project, I'm afraid.

Most present were strict NIMBY rather than concerned with the casino in general.  I would not be surprised if MGM rolls out some "Schools First!" campaign, though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

"The Pamunkey Indian Tribe is moving forward on its plan to build a casino in Norfolk and has not shelved its more speculative plan to try for a second casino in Richmond. Jay Smith, a spokesman working with the tribe on its development efforts, said that, unlike more established gaming operators, the tribe doesn’t have big revenue sources that have dried up due to the coronavirus crisis."

"the city of Richmond, a fairly new entrant to the casino discussion that has not yet begun the process of choosing a casino partner. Richmond spokesman Jim Nolan said the city is planning to hold its referendum in 2021 and intends to conduct a community engagement process on the issue over the summer."

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/05/11/casinos-are-shuttered-across-america-but-gaming-interests-say-theyre-still-coming-to-virginia/

Snagged from vdogg's Norfolk update.

Edited by Icetera
Stealsies!
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.