As Sen. Jill Goldthwait strenuously pointed out at Monday’s casino task force meeting, the economic feasibility study commissioned by the Penobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes should not have dismissed arguments about the associated costs as “absurd.” A better word – one more appropriate to the occasion and that avoids the unnecessary hyperbole cluttering this debate – would have been “settled.”

The entire, broad and complex argument over whether Maine should have casino gambling is, of course, far from settled. The argument over the specific question of whether the state and affected communities can be cushioned from increased public costs – roads, police and fire protection, and the like – is now a question of how big that cushion should be.

According to the study conducted by James Klas, a Minnesota-based hospitality industry consultant, a casino in southern Maine, as envisioned by the tribes, would generate $727 million annually by its fifth year of operation; the state would get $130 million in gaming, income and sales taxes. Such a casino would employ 4,700 workers (making it the state’s sixth-largest employer), would generate thousands of additional jobs in other businesses and would spend tens of millions on services and supplies. These numbers are backed by the real-world experiences at more than 400 casinos nationwide; Mr. Klas’ methodology and findings were found to be well done and reasonable by two highly respected Maine economists.

What remains for the task force, on this matter at least, is to survey the 26 states with casinos and to determine what would be a fair method of sharing revenue and what costs will increase. The Klas projection is based upon the model used in Connecticut, where casinos pay a state tax of 25 percent on slot- machine revenues. In other states, there is a guaranteed base fee paid to the state with additional payments made when casino activity rises above a certain level. Precisely what costs will increase will depend greatly upon precisely where a casino might be located. However, it is safe to assume that a set-aside of, say, $30 million a year would create a dedicated fund large enough to reimburse any public entity for any imaginable increased cost as the result of a casino or anything even remotely related to one.

The task force would perform an additionally valuable service by surveying the various mechanisms in use to ensure the revenue sent to the state is shared fairly with the affected municipalities. The complaints by towns near Foxwoods that they are not adequately compensated for their increased costs is not a matter of the casino not keeping its word – the complaints are against the state of Connecticut.

This 18-member task force was created by the Legislature last spring to assess the impact of a casino on seven key points of public interest, from traffic to problem gambling, and to report its findings to the next Legislature. The issue of increased public costs winds through those seven points, the question is whether sufficient reimbursement is possible. The task force should accept that it is and move on to the remaining issues. The only absurd argument is the one that goes on after it’s settled.