Gaming study sparks conversation; controversy
The Spectrum Gaming report for the Indiana Gaming Commission on Indiana’s underserved gaming markets is being treated as gospel by the media, many lawmakers, and advocates for a given potential host community . . . despite the fact that it was not intended to be such a tool, and in spite of descriptors and disclaimers in the report itself – which, in retrospect, might not have been as clearly stated as they could have been.
Lawmakers demanded the report, which was intended “to identify the top two regions in the state where an owner’s license to operate a riverboat may be located,” citing the legislation, with some extraneous citations omitted. The study was also required to consider:
(1) Projected annual gaming revenues and corresponding tax
revenues.
(2) Impact on other casinos in the state and corresponding tax
revenues.
(3) Patronage and gaming revenues from out of state visitors.
(4) Impact of a casino on the region’s tourism industry.
(5) Impact on the horse racing industry.
(6) Impact assessment of a potential tribal casino in the region.
(7) Impact of a potential tribal casino on revenues.
Spectrum assessed the state markets, but felt compelled to find a reasonable starting point. Everyone knew before the study even commenced that the Indianapolis and Northeast Indiana (Fort Wayne) markets would be the most underserved given the population of the state’s top two counties, Marion County and Allen County, and the distance to the nearest casinos.
As the researchers explain, “Spectrum identified and selected the four ZIP Code areas with the highest unmet gaming-revenue potential to model the estimated revenue a casino in each area could generate. Our modeling shows that the top two locations with the greatest AGR potential are in the Downtown Indianapolis area and an area north of Fort Wayne. For modeling purposes, Spectrum chose easily identifiable points for each location, or what we call ‘proxy points.’ It is critical to note that the identified proxy points are not suggested potential casino sites; they are proxies for development in the vicinity and are being used for Spectrum’s modeling purposes.
Note that the emphasis was in the original, and Spectrum then explains how the proxy points were selected.
Downtown Indianapolis Proxy Point: The Statehouse is the proxy location, as it is close to the convention center and sports stadiums, and is intended to show the potential for a Downtown casino – and not a specific site downtown.
Northeast Proxy Point: Located at I-69 and SR 8, it was chosen for ease of access from Fort Wayne, the proximity of the Indiana Toll Road, and the potential for perhaps attracting visitors from Michigan despite the presence of tribal casinos in Dowagiac, Kalamazoo, and Battle Creek.
While there may have been an arched eyebrow about how the Indianapolis proxy point just happened to effectively be the two short blocks from the center of the Circle City, while downtown Fort Wayne was not selected as the proxy point for Northeast Indiana, Spectrum did explain why – and showed its work. However, much of this was glossed over in social media accounts, news reports, and community leader and legislative reactions.
Yes, some lawmakers may remember the first Hoosier Park Indianapolis satellite wagering facility in the Embassy Suites complex basement (conveniently connected via tunnel to the State House, and effectively negating the need for the unofficial off-track betting parlor in the back room of an eponymously named retail outlet a literal chip’s throw from the east entrance to the State House).
But an Indianapolis casino would be located at least a few blocks away, and perhaps even close to the newly opened area on the banks of the White River now marked by the Elanco headquarters, the Mass Ave entertainment district, co-located with a new major league soccer stadium, or perhaps even as far away as the Indianapolis Motor Speedway (we think we made a great case for that several few months back.
Researchers simply chose this proxy point out of convenience, as they did with the Auburn site. While Auburn is home to a satellite wagering facility, no one currently seriously expects this city of 13,000 20 miles from downtown Fort Wayne to be the site of a new casino, and we’ve not even heard a whiff of a rumor about any operator sniffing around. Downtown Fort Wayne is a practical option – and city officials seem to be more than open to the concept – and we continue to hear that operators are interested in Steuben County, in the far northeast corner of the state, effectively on the Indiana – Michigan – Ohio border, and at the intersection of I-69 and I-80/I-90, the eastern terminus of the heavily traveled Indiana Toll Road.
The Conversation Commences . . . but Questions Abound
The Spectrum report will start the conversation about a casino move – likely the Ohio County license for Rising Star Casino Resort, which precipitated the process with a preemptive 2025 legislative request to allow it to move from Rising Sun to New Haven in Allen County. But with what is expected to be a truncated 2026 session (due to the prospect of a November-December special session congressional redistricting shifted into a front-loaded regular session to save money and face), time will be at a premium, and this is too heavy a lift for such a complicated issue . . . which might even result in an additional gaming license being created and Rising Sun being left intact.
At best, you’re likely to simply see a measure that would offer some instruction to the Indiana Gaming Commission on the licensing scheme and criteria – or even deferring legislative recommendations to an interim study committee to review next summer, affording even more time for different communities and companies to get their (non-charity rubber) ducks in line.
There are simply too many unanswered questions arising from the Spectrum report to allow action come January – and, to be fair, Spectrum was not asked to address those issues, and, in fact, made express disclaimers about what it did not do in terms of assessing the difference in revenues between, for example, a downtown casino for either underserved region versus a more suburban location, or the impact of a major hotel or hotels, meeting and convention facilities of a given size, and synergy between other tourism options, whether they might be sports teams, museums and the arts, food and entertainment districts, or recreational opportunities, for example.
Spectrum was also not asked to assess how a community or region might be boosted (instead of it boosting a casino) by new drivers such as the ability to host groups and conventions at new or improved facilities, and the synergy a casino complex with an entertainment venue and expanded food and beverage outlets might be able to offer and bring to a community or region – as well as upgraded local infrastructure and additional funding for public safety and emergency services.
Also not part of the Spectrum analysis: the size and scope of the facility; as presented, a $100 million facility would effectively offer the same value as a $500 million facility, but the size and scope of a casino campus is acritical factor for its success, as would be its community fit (look back, for example, as how Full House Resorts, Inc. sought to position its proposed New Haven casino as a good fit for the community culture in New Haven and eats Allen County, regardless of how it was received by elements who were so morally opposed to gambling or any change in their daily routines or land use that they would not evaluate the proposed project holistically.
Where do Things Stand Now?
The ag-equine industry is dead-set against any casino in Indianapolis or the metro donut, and those interests are backed by Caesars Entertainment, Inc. who, as Spectrum finds, would be a huge loser if the empire’s Anderson and Shelbyville casinos and pari-mutuel horse racing tracks faced competition.
The Indiana Horsemen, representing the state’s Thoroughbred, Standardbred, and Quarter Horse associations, issued a statement following release of the Spectrum study “warning that any recommendation to locate a new casino in Indianapolis would decimate the state’s horse racing industry and unravel three decades of responsible growth and partnership.
“Indiana’s horse racing industry is the backbone of rural economic development and agribusiness across all 92 counties,” notes Indiana Standardbred Association President John DeLong. “The study rightfully recognizes our impact, but placing a casino in Indianapolis would cripple the racetrack casino model that makes this industry possible. It would unravel decades of investment, could eliminate hundreds of jobs, and destroy a proven partnership between the horsemen, the racetracks, and the state.”
Brian Elmore, External Relations for the Indiana Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association (INHBPA), adds: “A casino in Indianapolis would cannibalize the racetrack markets in Anderson and Shelbyville – the very regions that fund racing purses and breeding programs through shared revenue with the racinos. In short, the juice wouldn’t be worth the squeeze. Any increase in gaming revenue could come at the cost of an entire industry that sustains families, farms, and communities across Indiana.”
The Horsemen emphasize that the current structure – centered on the racetracks in Anderson and Shelbyville – has been nationally recognized as “a gold standard for how gaming and agribusiness can coexist and thrive. The model has led to sustained growth in breeding programs, job creation, and agribusiness investment statewide over the past 30 years,” they observe.
Indeed, since the inception of legalized gaming in Indiana, those involved have pointed to the “three-legged stool” that has needed all legs for any legislative changes to stand: support from the casinos, horsemen, and the Orange Shorts” – supporters of gaming in French Lick. This has been recognized as a truism in the gaming milieu and has been half of the equation under which the symbiotic relationship between the state and the gaming industry has flourished (the other half has been that the State has long ensured that it would not exact any toll from the gaming industry without offering a collateral (if not coequal) benefit.
The horsemen understandably do not want to see a disruption to this formula. “Indiana’s policymakers have long shown foresight in ensuring that racing and gaming grow together, not at each other’s expense,” they remind all involved.
While some areas of the state could potentially support new gaming development with less disruption, the Indiana Horsemen caution that even expansion in the northeastern region could still impact the industry. “If expansion were ever to occur, the furthest northeastern part of the state would result in the least amount of harm,” the Horsemen acknowledge. “But any move closer to the existing racino markets risks eroding the very foundation of Indiana horse racing.”
Indianapolis Star deputy Opinion Editor Jacob Stewart implores leaders Thursday not to allow a casino to move to Indianapolis. “It would prey on low-income residents,” he posits. “Whatever meager benefits casinos provide pale in comparison to the harm they cause low-income residents,” he writes about three decades after Black lawmakers in Marion County – led by when-Rep. Bill Crawford (D) of Indianapolis, who was a chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means – pushed hard then and periodically after to add an Indianapolis casino to provide good-paying jobs for Black and low-income residents. They knew that no Hoosier casino host city or county regretted their decision to welcome a gaming facility to their community (though some that voted down “riverenda” – casino referendums – had loser’s remorse).
Local legislative leaders have also spoken out against a metro casino. House Speaker Todd Huston (R) of Fishers tells the Indianapolis Star “that he flat out doesn’t see a need for another casino in Central Indiana. Without his support, such a proposal is unlikely to go far. ‘I believe the Indianapolis market is already adequately served by the current gaming facilities,’ Huston said in a written statement. ‘I do support exploring a new gaming license in Northeast Indiana and the economic development opportunities it could bring to the region.’ ”
What Locations are in Play?
The Indianapolis Capital Improvement Board is intrigued by the idea, given its potential benefits for tourism and conventions, while Visit Indy, the nonprofit that markets the city, plans to discuss the proposal at its November 19 board executive committee meeting, according to PlayUSA.com.
PlayUSA.com suggests that “Discussions have focused on two downtown locations. The first is six acres of parking lots along South Street between Lucas Oil Stadium and the Indiana Convention Center. The second is a portion of Pan Am Plaza, initially set aside for a 600 room Hilton hotel expansion that has been indefinitely delayed. The South Street site is larger and considered more suitable, as most Indiana casinos’ gaming floors range from about 31,000 to more than 200,000 square feet on a single level. The land is owned jointly by the state and the Capital Improvement Board of Marion County, requiring coordination for development. The Pan Am Plaza site could use the southeast portion or, less likely, demolish the 12 story tower to make room for a casino. Other potential sites, such as Union Station or the USPS facility, present challenges related to size, historic preservation, and owner interest.”
Backing a casino are Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett (R), the unlikely duo of Sens. Aaron Freeman (R) and Greg Taylor (D) of Indianapolis, who only rarely find themselves in agreement on a controversial state or community issue. Those two took to the Senate floor this spring when the market study was proposed in an improvised tag team effort to advocate for an Indianapolis facility. “If the goal of our gaming operation is revenue to the state of Indiana, it is an abject failure that there is not a casino in downtown Indianapolis,” Sen. Freeman tells PlayUSA. “ ‘This could very much help the city of Indianapolis and the CIB,’ Freeman said, referring to the Capital Improvement Board, which operates the convention center, Lucas Oil Stadium and other downtown facilities. ‘Our city needs money, and I think the state partnering with the city could do a lot of good here.’ ”
“I know how important the market of Fort Wayne is for everybody up and down I-69 in that area,” Sen. Taylor tells the Indianapolis Star this week. “But when you look at the overall approach, this is very, very clear that (a casino in) Indianapolis would provide a better benefit to the state of Indiana.” “At the end of the day, you’ve got to sit down and say, ‘What’s the total benefit to the state of Indiana?’ ” the former Senate Democratic leader adds to IndyStar. “It’s not about Indianapolis or just north of Fort Wayne – it’s about the entire state,” he adds, overlooking the blow such a casino would pose to the ag-equine industry.
We’re already picking up whispers from other operators that they wouldn’t mind Caesars being taken down a notch, particularly given that the company received special dispensation from the Indiana Gaming Commission a few years back to hold on to it Horseshoe Casino Hammond after having agreed to divest it in the deal to buy out Centaur Gaming and its two racinos – and subsequently winning legislative approval in the now-tainted 2019 legislation to move up the starting date for live table games ta the two Central Indiana properties (and being able to hold a management agreement and naming rights for Caesars Southern Indiana after selling that property in the Centaur acquisition package.
As for Northeast Indiana . . . we related to you a few months back about how much interest there was among government, business, and community leaders over a casino in Fort Wayne proper – although at least two Summit City senators are not on board the casino boat.
Outside of Fort Wayne, legislative opposition stiffens, and Sen. Andy Zay (R) of Huntington, who was unsuccessful in his effort to advance the New Haven legislation, has his name in the hat this month for one of two gubernatorial appointments to a Republican vacancy on the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. There’s a chance he may not be around to champion a Northeast Indiana casino in January or in 2027.
While Auburn appears to be a nonstarter, Steuben County officials appear to be downright giddy about the prospect of a casino in the community dominated by summer recreation (and the winter visitors to the amazing toboggan run at Pokagon State Park). Fremont has long been a site eyed by local leaders as a potential casino home, and we’ve written almost two decade or so back about their quiet efforts to add their community to any casino conversation, dating back to 2007 when Majestic Star Casino was looking to potentially relocate one of their two Gary licenses – and convinced then-Senate Committee on Appropriations Chair Bob Meeks (R) of LaGrange to file a bill in 2008 to make the move possible. Back then, Buck Lake Ranch was eyed as a potential casino home as was a site west of the intersection of S.R. 120 and S.R. 127, near outlet malls and in close proximity to both interstates.
Mike Marturello reports for the Angola Herald-Republican that the Steuben County Board of Commissioners on November 3 “went on record that they want the county to be part of any discussions on relocating casino licenses in Indiana.” “I think we should … be part of the discussion, since it’s going to fall in our region, it’s going to impact us one way or the other,” board president Wil Howard (R) said. “Are we interested in entertaining that? I think we could be interested in gathering information to make the appropriate decision.” Howard lives at Hamilton Lake and served on the county council before joining the county commissioners. “I would agree with that,” Commissioner Andy Laughlin (R) of Lake Pleasant in rural Fremont. “I’ll make a motion to that effect, that we are want to keep researching that and gather information to make (the Indiana Gaming Commission) aware formally that we are open to that discussion,” added Commissioner Rick Shipe (R) of Angola. The motion passed 3-0.
Marturello writes that “Commissioners instructed Steuben County Economic Development Executive Director Isaac Lee and Steuben County Tourism Bureau Executive Director June Julien to further study the issue objectively and report back …. Lee created the report on casino impact for the Board of Commissioners starting literally the day after it was presented. As a positive, the Spectrum study estimated approximately 800-1,000 direct casino jobs plus indirect employment in food service, security and hospitality, the executive summary said. ‘Most of the workforce would need to come from the surrounding region, underscoring the need for workforce training and attainable housing – both priorities in SCEDC’s Strategic Plan,’ Lee wrote. The average wages paid to the casino workers would be in the $40,000-$45,000 range, which is considered competitive for the region. However, it would require housing and transportation access improvements, the report said. One of the downsides reported was infrastructure needs, the report said. ‘Spectrum does not address utility readiness, broadband capacity, or site-specific constraints – all critical issues locally,’ Lee’s report said. ‘Utilities, road upgrades, and public safety support would need to be established before construction to meet the operating and visitor demands of a casino-resort property.’ ”
“Spectrum’s Relocation Report confirms substantial market demand in Northeast Indiana but introduces material uncertainties linked to tribal gaming and infrastructure readiness. For Steuben County, the report represents a credible opportunity for growth if paired with strategic safeguards and complementary community investments, not a standalone guarantee of success,” Lee’s report also notes, according to the Angola paper.
“I think it’s a smart decision; whether it makes sense for our community,’ said Rep. Tony Isa (R) of Angola. “Is it going to be a perfect fit? I don’t know. We need to do our due diligence. Too often we are overlooked in our part of the state.” He adds, “I think the opportunity is so incredible.”
“To be honest with you, I don’t have any opinion one way or the other,” Sen. Sue Glick (R) of LaGrange tells the paper “I don’t think people should go into it with a get rich quick perspective. To be honest with you, I just hope they go in with their eyes wide open …. It’s an intriguing possibility,” Sen. Glick adds.
Sen. Zay believes the Spectrum study is a good first step in understanding how a potential casino relocation could strengthen Indiana’s economy while supporting development in areas where he suggests there is much room to grow. “It’s great to see this study recognize the strong economic potential of northeast Indiana,” he enthuses. “Our region continues to show signs of growth and investment opportunities, and I look forward to continuing my work and reviewing this study to see what possibilities are available to our state and region.”
On the flip side, Sen. Tyler Johnson (R) of Leo, in whose district the New Haven casino would have been sited and which he opposed, also spoke out against Auburn as a potential site, citing the Spectrum report’s narrow financial focus and failure to assess full community impacts. “The recent report released by the Indiana Gaming Commission ignores risks to families, schools and public safety – issues my constituents, colleagues and I demanded be studied. We needed an independent, comprehensive review of social, traffic and infrastructure costs before any informed decision could possibly be made,” says Sen. Johnson, who should have recognized that the legislature did not make such a request in SEA 43-2025, which authorized the study. “Understanding things the way I do now, I oppose this attempt to relocate a casino to my community,” Sen. Johnson concludes.
Rep. Ben Smaltz (R) of Auburn also weighs in on the prospect of a Northeast Indiana casino, urging careful further story and caution. Unlike Sen. Johnson, who opposes virtually all gaming bills, Rep. Smaltz chaired the House Committee on Public Policy, where he advanced the 2019 omnibus bill which authorized sports wagering (though he opposed mobile sports betting), a casino license transfer from Gary to Terre Haute, and expedited live table games for the racinos, among other matters.
Rep. Smaltz notes that the Spectrum reports uses Auburn as an exemplar, he emphasizes that this is certainly not a done deal. “While this report has generated discussion across the community, I want to be clear – I am not aware of any formal proposal or organized effort to locate a casino in Auburn,” he assures constituents. “If this were something the community wanted to pursue, an independent review should be conducted to assess potential social, traffic and infrastructure impacts to the community. However, Rep. Smaltz also emphasized that casino relocation can also bring challenges. “Research has shown that expanded gambling access can lead to higher rates of addiction, financial hardship, family strain and, in some cases, public safety concerns,” he adds, echoing the concerns he raised in 2019 about mobile sports wagering bringing gambling into every living room in every corner of the state.
Rep. Smaltz further observed that Indiana is already the seventh largest gaming state in the nation, with a well-established and heavily regulated industry that generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually in state and local tax revenue that supports community programs. Casinos across Indiana are required to operate as responsible community partners, contributing millions of dollars each year to their host communities for public safety, infrastructure and other local priorities, he adds. “We must be cautious and thoughtful of our constituents before moving forward,” is the Smaltz bottom line.
And What About Rising Sun?
Perhaps lost in all of this static about the Spectrum report for now is the original rationale behind the study: the proposed move of the Rising Star license to a more lucrative site.
During his company’s third quarter earnings conference call with Wall Street analysts this month, Full House CEO Dan Lee explains why he continues to push for a new location for his company’s tiny Rising Sun property. “When Indiana legalized 30 years ago, it intentionally put the casinos around the borders to try to draw revenue from Illinois, Ohio and Kentucky. Illinois, Ohio and Kentucky now all have their own casinos,” he reminds those listening. “The original locations are not the best locations in terms of maximizing the jobs or the tax revenues for the state. They do have that precedent. They allowed two riverboats on Lake Michigan to relocate. One went as the Hard Rock casino just off the freeway in Gary, and it’s the number one casino in the state now, doing $25 million, $30 million a month. The second one is in Terre Haute, and it’s doing very, very well in Southwestern Indiana. The legislature approved a gaming study undertaken under the gaming commission to investigate what would be the impact on the state tax revenues as well as on the horse tracks and the existing casinos of allowing a casino to move to any two locations, one of the two best locations.”
Lee continues, informing the investors that “Not surprisingly, number one is in Indianapolis. I mean, half the population of Indiana is in Indianapolis, which is in the middle of the state and has no casino. Now, Caesars has a racetrack 30 miles northeast of it and another one 35 miles southeast of it, and Terre Haute is 50 miles to the west of it. A casino in Indianapolis would have some impact on those, but the State still comes out way ahead. Then the other location I noticed is Fort Wayne, and, kind of specifically, northwest of Fort Wayne. Up there, you’d have — there isn’t any casino in Fort Wayne. That’s the second largest city in the state. The MSA is 600,000 people, if I remember correctly. You might have some impact on the tribal casino in Battle Creek that ironically, this company created 12 years ago. There’s another tribal casino up that way. It might have some impact on it, but most of the revenue would come from increased gambling by people in Fort Wayne. That study is out, and it’s available. We have the lowest revenue-producing casino in the state by a wide margin. There is actually a special tax tier for low-revenue casinos. I think we’re the only casino in it at the moment.”
Lee continues, “In terms of who could move, we would be the most beneficial to the state because we go from a very low tax rate to a more normal tax rate in a different location. Ironically, we actually have the support of the community we’re in because we pay, as I recall, about $1 million a year in taxes to Rising Sun, and we’ve told them that we would pay them 2X if we’re allowed to relocate. The same with our employees, we’ve said we would – if we’re allowed to relocate and they choose not to relocate with us, we would pay them one year’s severance. We wanted to make sure that we weren’t fighting opposition from the community we’re in. In fact, I think the community we’re in understands the situation and would welcome it,” CEO Lee concludes.