PROVIDENCE — A bill introduced in the General Assembly yesterday would extend Newport Grand’s contract with the state and would hamper the City of Newport’s ability to regulate the gambling facility.

Lawmakers and lobbyists alike expressed hopes the bill would end the court battle between the city and Newport Grand and allow the facility to proceed with a planned expansion. But some wondered whether the bill would also open the door for Newport Grand’s new owners to sidestep local input and regulatory authority as the owners undertake a massive development project.

No doubt about it, said Rep. J. Russell Jackson, D-Newport: “The language is broad.” Asked whether, by his reading, the bill would still allow the city to regulate any aspects of development or operations at Newport Grand, Jackson said, “those are open questions.”

Jackson, whose district includes Newport Grand, did not introduce the bill. Rep. Henry C. Rose, a Democrat who represents Pawtucket and East Providence, did.

Rose said he sponsored the bill at the request of the Procaccianti Group, the Cranston-based hotel developer that hopes to buy Newport Grand. Jackson said no one from the Procaccianti Group even contacted him to tell him the bill was coming, never mind ask him to introduce it.

“They’re going to have to work in partnership with the city and the state for many years,” Jackson said. “So far, I’m not impressed with the way they’ve embarked on this journey.”

Two years ago, before the company reached an agreement to buy the facility for $155 million, the current owners agreed to spend $20 million on renovations and expansion, in exchange for a contract with the state that guaranteed the owners the right to operate the facility, and locked in their state gambling tax rate, for 10 years.

That comparatively modest expansion plan has been hamstrung by the court fight with the city. Also on hold: the state’s share of the revenue from the additional 800 video-slot machines Newport Grand can install under the 2005 contract. That’s in addition to 1,070 machines already operating there — this year’s state budget includes $49 million in revenues from the facility.

“The lawsuit has hindered our ability to expand the existing space,” Newport Grand spokeswoman Amy Kempe said yesterday. “The intent of the legislation is to deal with that issue by reaffirming the General Assembly’s oversight over lotteries.”

The genesis of the lawsuit was the Newport zoning officer’s refusal to issue a permit, on the grounds that the plans conflicted with an ordinance prohibiting new construction for casino and video gambling. The City Council denied Newport Grand a zone change. The company sued the city and won; the city is appealing that decision to the state Supreme Court.

Rose’s bill has been referred to the House Finance Committee, which is under no obligation to vote on the measure or even hold a hearing, given that the deadline for introducing bills has long since passed and Rose needed permission from the House speaker to submit the bill.

The bill would force the City of Newport to define Newport Grand’s gambling operations as a permitted use for the purpose of zoning enforcement. It would extend Newport Grand’s contract by five years, locking in the current tax rate through 2020. And it would allow the facility to drop its plan to build a 90-room hotel, another requirement of the 2005 contract.

That doesn’t mean an expansion won’t happen — far from it. The Procaccianti Group has announced plans for a major renovation on the site and elsewhere in Newport’s North End. The proposed development would encompass 60 acres, cost $1.4 billion and include a hotel (at a different location than called for in the current contract), luxury residences, stores, restaurants and entertainment venues.

“In the absence of this issue being clarified, it will jeopardize the Procaccianti Group’s ability to go forward with the project and develop it in a way that the state, the city and the Procacciantis are all very proud of,” said Richard Mac- Adams, a lawyer for the Procaccianti Group.

Lawmakers and others reading Rose’s bill for the first time yesterday wondered whether the effect would be broader than the stated intent. It would apply to any city or town where video slots or pari-mutuel betting — that is, wagering on simulcast horse or dog races — is authorized by the state. (That list currently includes Newport and Lincoln, where Twin River is located.)

The bill would bar cities and towns from using local ordinances, zoning restrictions, land-use ordinances or “other municipal regulations” to “restrict or impede” video-slot operations or pari-mutuel betting.

But the bill defines “pari-mutuel licensee facility” as “improvements located on or adjacent to real property which support video lottery gaming and entertainment operations and those necessary uses and amenities which support such operations …as necessary to maintain the video lottery gaming and entertainment operations as a first-class operation comparable to similarly situated venues operated elsewhere in the United States…”

Newport Grand lobbyist Christopher Boyle said no “nefarious” ulterior motive exists. “We’re not asking for any relief” from city ordinance “on height or dimension or setbacks,” Boyle said. “We’re just strictly trying to deal with that problem that we had. The whole intent of the language was just to address the issue before the Supreme Court. If there are questions about the way the bill reads, we’d be happy to address it.”

egudrais@projo.com