AUGUSTA – Two legislative committees endorsed a proposal Monday initiating a taxpayer-funded study to analyze a casino’s impact on Maine.

The study, expected to cost between $8,000 and $10,000, would create a 19-member task force to evaluate possible locations for a casino and its effect on:

. Municipal and social services.

. Affordable housing.

. Crime rates.

. Interruptions to businesses.

. Other forms of gambling in Maine.

With eight members absent, the 16-2, ought-to-pass recommendation on LD 2200 from the Legislature’s combined committees of Business and Economic Development and of Legal and Veterans Affairs now advances to the House where it could be heard as soon as next week.

The legislators’ decision to pursue the casino study arrived two weeks after leaders of the Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe agreed to abandon efforts to submit a bill this session that would have let them build a casino in southern Maine. Although there is legislative interest in the proposed casino, the tribes decided that the Legislature’s anticipated April 17 adjournment date would not provide enough time to thoroughly review the plan. Gov. Angus S. King remains irrevocably opposed to the gambling resort and all but promised to veto the bill if it reached his desk. Tribal leaders insisted King’s stance had no bearing on their decision to delay the bill.

Under the provisions of the 1980 Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, the tribes need legislative approval to acquire land they intend to use for gambling purposes. Proponents of the idea claim the gambling resort would rival the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Mashantucket, Conn., and generate $50 million for the tribes and $100 million for the state’s General Fund each year.

The tribes are evaluating a 150-acre to 200-acre parcel near the interstate in Kittery for the casino, which would employ up to 4,000 people with wages averaging about $25,000 annually. The resort would rely on out-of-state players who supporters claim would make up 80 percent of the casino’s customers.

Sponsored by Rep. Rod Carr, R-Lincoln, the casino study task force as proposed by the joint committee report would consist of:

. Two state senators.

. Five state representatives, including one of the two tribal representatives.

. Four public members, two in favor and two opposed to the casino plan.

. A representative of the Maine Chiefs of Police Association.

. A representative of the Maine State Police.

. A representative of the Maine Attorney General’s office.

. A representative of the Association of Independent Neighborhoods.

. A representative of the Maine Chamber and Business Alliance.

. A representative of the Maine harness racing industry.

. A representative of the state Office of Substance Abuse.

. A representative of the Maine tourism industry.

The proposal also calls for three different public hearings to be held at geographically central points in Maine and for the casino’s impact to be evaluated within 25 miles of its proposed location.

In explaining the need for the casino study, Carr said it would be only a matter of time before the issue of an Indian gambling resort would once again be before the Legislature – possibly as soon as January.

“If you’re in the same situation as I am, I’m really not sure there was enough information available for us to make an educated decision,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like more information could possibly hurt.”

Carr was supported by Rep. Donald Soctomah, the Passamaquoddy tribal representative, who said Mainers deserved to have all the facts on a casino proposal. Soctomah said lawmakers could not really afford to ignore the fact that Maine is one of the highest-taxed states coping with declining state revenues and a shrinking industrial job base.

“There is nothing wrong with hearing the truth,” he said. “The true facts are what frightens people who oppose this.”

But some lawmakers felt like the study was being rushed through the Legislature, during what could be its final two weeks, in an effort to avoid scrutiny. Rep. Mary Andrews, R-York, observed that at Monday’s hastily called public hearing, the presence of legislators, tribal leaders and casino lobbyists only made the absence of the public more conspicuous.

“The one group that’s missing is the citizens of Maine,” she said. “There are many people who have been denied the right to have input on this bill. There has been no advertised notice of this public hearing whatsoever.”

In addition to a lack of public notice, the study proposal was assailed for failing to address the moral implications of a state partnership with the tribes in a casino. Michael Heath of the Christian Civic League of Maine opposes the gambling resort which he said substitutes an “ethic of luck” for the “ethic of hard work.”

“If you go through with the study, it simply must be amended,” he said. “You must add to the study the consideration of social, health, criminal, and religious and moral aspects of casino gambling.”

Ultimately, the committee did address all of Heath’s concerns with the exception of seating someone on the task force specifically for the person’s opinions on religious and moral issues. In addition to the particular areas of expertise the respective casino study committee members would bring to the panel, the six legislative representatives would include two drawn from the Business and Economic and Development Committee, two from the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee, one from the Health and Human Services Committee and one from the Transportation Committee.