BOSTON — Massachusetts gambling regulators said they would spend several months evaluating final applications submitted by three companies hoping to win licenses to build the state’s first resort casinos.
As expected, Wynn Resorts, MGM Resorts International and Mohegan Sun filed detailed “Phase 2” applications with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission by Tuesday’s deadline.
Mohegan Sun and Wynn are vying for the only eastern Massachusetts resort casino license allowed under the state’s 2011 gambling law, while MGM is the only applicant in the state’s western region.
The applications, thousands of pages in length, provide exhaustive details about the proposals and will be evaluated by the five-member commission on the basis of several key criteria, including finances, economic development, building and site design, and plans the developers have to reduce impacts on local residents and businesses.
The commission hopes to make portions of the applications public next month and has invited all three companies to a Jan. 22 public hearing to discuss their proposals. Licensing decisions are not expected until late May or June.
Wynn Resorts, which has proposed a $1.2 billion resort at a former industrial site on the banks of the Mystic River in Everett, said Tuesday that it submitted its application to the commission last Friday. A spokesman for the Las Vegas company said the filing included 750 documents totaling more than 18,000 pages.
Connecticut-based Mohegan Sun said it submitted its final application on Tuesday in 15 boxes totaling more than 16,000 pages of documents.
The company is hoping to develop a $1.3 billion resort on 42 acres of land owned by Suffolk Downs in Revere. The plan emerged after a proposal by Suffolk Downs for a casino straddling the Boston-Revere border was rejected by East Boston voters in a Nov. 5 referendum.
The commission said a new vote would be needed by city residents on the Revere-only project.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less