Another front is opening up in the push to bring more proposals and operators into possible casino expansion in the state.

Leaders of the legislature's finance, revenue and bonding committee said Friday they will draft a bill that also would open up the competitive field — joining one of two bills with the same intent now gyrating in the public safety and security committee.

"We've certainly heard from the proponents of opening up the process, and we think there is compelling evidence to hear testimony," Sen. John W. Fonfara, D-Hartford and co-chairman of the finance committee, said. "We should be looking at the entire picture of what is best for the state of Connecticut."

The details of the bill have yet to be determined but they would focus on revenue. They could include agreements for the state's cut of slot and table games revenue. There also could be parameters for minimum investment, licensing fees and other additional payments prior to opening.

The move for casino expansion was sparked two years ago by plans for a $950 million casino and entertainment complex in Springfield. The complex, now being built by MGM Resorts International, stoked worries about job losses in Connecticut's gaming industry and erosion in slot revenues the state draws monthly from Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun.

In 2015, the legislature voted to allow the state's casino operators — the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans — to search for a site in the Hartford area to dilute the competitive threat of MGM in Springfield. But the tribes had to come back to the legislature for final approval to expand off their southeastern Connecticut reservations.

In the current session of the General Assembly, the bill giving the tribes the right to expand — their preferred site is East Windsor — is one of the two in the public safety committee. The competing bill pushing for opening up the field surfaced earlier this month. Both were considered in a daylong public hearing Thursday.

Crucial to any expansion is how it would affect decades-old revenue-sharing agreements between the state and the Mashantucket Pequots and Mohegans. The agreements give the state a 25 percent cut of slot revenue each month in exchange for the exclusive right to operate casinos in Connecticut.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has asked the state attorney general for an opinion on how the agreements —known as the "compact" — would be affected, even if the tribes are the ones establishing the new casino. Slot revenue is estimated to be $267 million this year.

"We have to explore all the options, even beyond the compact," Rep. Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford and co-chairman of the finance committee, said.

On Tuesday, the public safety committee is expected to vote on whether to send one or both to the full House and Senate. The committee must act before its March 16 deadline.

"I wouldn't be surprised if both bills were [passed] out of committee," Rep. Joe Verrengia, D-West Hartford and chairman of public safety, said Friday. "The conversation needs to continue."

With three expansion bills circulating, it is likely there could be changes — or combinations — as they come to a vote in the House and Senate.

MGM has played a key role in stoking the debate over expansion in Connecticut. It has opposed the legislation that gave the tribes alone the right to expand and challenged it in court, a case now pending appeal.

MGM also has said southwestern Connecticut would be more lucrative in terms of state revenue drawn from casino operations and would be interested in developing in the area. Competition also would drive better deals for the state and the host community.

Critics say MGM is prohibited by its gaming license in Springfield from opening a competing casino within 50 miles. Southwestern Connecticut also would put a competing gambling venue farthest away from Springfield.

Fonfara said there has been so much emphasis on reacting to Springfield, but there also is the argument that Fairfield County may provide an alternative. State legislators from Bridgeport and West Haven have urged the state to at least consider other options.

"The legislature is going to be asked to make a decision," Fonfara said. "Maybe it's not Fairfield, but we owe it to the state to have all the information on this. Our job is find revenue and everyday we try to find it."