Initial gaming focus would turn on AC casino; more to come
Members of the Indiana House of Representatives returned to Indianapolis December 1 for an early start to the 2026 regular session. They did this to both technically circumvent and substantively fulfill the Governor’s call for a special session. That call was made under major pressure from the White House to redraw Indiana’s nine congressional districts so as to offer Republicans the likelihood of winning the only two seats they do not currently hold (and in which they have not historically been competitive).
The House drew its new maps December 1-5, and the Senate returned Monday – albeit with greater reluctance – to follow up.
We had told you to expect that because of the unusual shift in session start from early January to early December, the odd-year “short session” schedule would find itself significantly compressed, and major legislation – such as iGaming, casino location transfers, or creation of a new (14th) casino license – would face a heavy lift in terms of getting lawmakers educated; stakeholders organized; opposition neutralized; support built; final language fully analyzed and massaged; and coalescing all sides behind an acceptable compromise.
With all the moving parts involved in any casino move, it seemed that this issue was ripe for a detailed interim study review and subsequent long session vetting in regular order, and not for a rushed process that might fail to account for key concerns. There are similar concerns about iGaming, revolving around disputes about costs and benefits of – including whose numbers are more accurate –as well as current sports wagering issues surrounding both addiction of younger gamblers and the prospect of non-state-regulated prediction markets usurping our state-regulated sports wagering structure and tax income. There is also the prospect of the Hoosier Lottery quietly sliding in iLottery through all the noise as an “acceptable” alternative to or pilot test of online gaming, something that could further delay any iGaming discussion as the lottery and its contracted management services provider seek to retain exclusive iGaming rights while any such program gains its footing.
At this point, however, leadership does not appear concerned about any of this, and both the House and Senate have already (!) hosted hearings on casino bills.
The initial pair of what is now anticipated to be a wave of casino legislation focuses on the state’s second largest county and city: Allen County and Fort Wayne. The House bill proposes to create a new casino license in Fallen County, while the Senate measure seeks a transfer of the Ohio County license to Allen County or Fort Wayne.
General backing for an Allen County or Summit City casino is coming from Fort Wayne Mayor Sharon Tucker (D), eager to bring a signature project of her own to town before she faces voters for the first time in 2027; from Allen County’s Chamber of Commerce, Greater Fort Wayne Inc.; and the 11-county Regional Chamber of Northeast Indiana. A local FTW business- and civic-backed effort, Fort Wayne First, launched this fall as well to advocate for a local casino on behalf of assorted community and regional interests.
These leaders seek to preempt the possibility of a Native American casino from being developed on a 45-acre land-in-trust site in Fort Wayne by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.
“The Mayor of Fort Wayne and the Allen County Commissioners support the location of a casino in Fort Wayne/Allen County,” reads a bipartisan letter to legislative leaders from Mayor Tucker and all three members of the Allen County Board of Commissioners. “Fort Wayne and Allen County have a reputation for being able to work together and the location of a casino is another example of that.”
The local leaders tell State House leaders that they have already agreed to a compact under which 60% of the local tax revenue from any new casino would be “distributed to communities in Allen County based upon population. This will be a new stream of revenue to help meet the needs of our communities and remain one of the fastest growing areas in the Great Lakes Region, they add. The remaining 40% would be deposited into “a designated humanitarian fund for non-profits to help improve mental health and combat homelessness, addiction, and other challenges. A board will be appointed by elected officials to oversee the distribution” of these discretionary dollars.
“We propose this arrangement be in place for five years,” they tell lawmakers. “At the end of five years, the Mayor and Commissioners will revisit the distribution of the tax revenue.”
The Coalition for a Better Allen County is gearing up to oppose the prospect of a local casino, much as the group pushed back against the proposal earlier this year to transfer the Rising Sun license to New Haven.
Other bills – and likely amendments, if the current legislation proceeds – will open up other areas, probably Indianapolis and Steuben County for a casino license or move . . . and it will be interesting to see if lawmakers favorable to gaming expansion are willing to facilitate gaming in more than one community (i.e., a casino for both Northeast Indiana and Marion County).
There will be intense competition between and among regions if there is any indication that relevant legislation will move this session – and if it does, we remind you that it will move at what would be the legislative equivalent of supersonic speed: any floor consideration would not initially take place before mid-January, and all work on legislation would be wrapped up about five or six weeks later, no later than February 28.
The House bill found its way onto the first bill list introduced during the session and earned the first hearing of the new session. The House Committee on Public Policy offered a welcome respite from the divisive redistricting debate, showing the public that members could work together on a bipartisan basis on an issue that did not split across any natural partisan lines. The fact that it was revealed and heard so quickly (the bill request deadline is 5:00 p.m. Friday, December 12, and the bill filing deadline is not until Wednesday , January 7) indicates that leadership is interested in at least getting the bill heard, if not started on the path to passage.
Of note is that the author is not from Allen County or far Northeast Indiana, and is a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, and not the House Committee on Public Policy or its chair. House Speaker Todd Huston (R) of Fishers, himself a Ways and Means alumnus from a non-gaming county, has carried gaming bills (most notably the comprehensive 2019 omnibus measure that transferred the state’s first active casino license), and he and his predecessor have been of the mind that a trusted neutral broker should be entrusted with authoring key gaming legislation.
Speaker Huston turned to Rep. Craig Snow (R) of Warsaw, whose district includes parts of Kosciusko County and Wabash County. He’s not been involved in gaming bills in the past, has a fascination with the intricacies of state finances (before he became a member of the panel, he literally sat in on all meetings of Ways and Means as a freshman just to learn the process and fiscal nuances before being appointed), and is likely to become the next chair of the budget-writing panel whenever Rep. Jeff Thompson (R) of Lizton, who just turned 70 last month, decides to step down, following the Huston path of authoring gaming bills and then leading Ways and Means.
Bottom line: Rep. Snow and his district have no particular vested interest in gaming, and he’s been chosen to take the lead because all sides have confidence that he’ll do the right thing for the right reasons, and will not be biased for or against one side or region (though he does have a strong understanding of the fabric of Northwest Indiana and more connections with its lawmakers and leaders than with Central Indiana).
Rep. Snow’s HB 1038 would require the Indiana Gaming Commission to accept applications and proposals for a casino license in Allen County (which would be limited to 1,500 “gambling games,” just as is the casino in Terre Haute, but we could see that number increase if the measure proceeds) if certain conditions are met. This would be an open bidding process – think back to the final competition used to select the operator of the Vigo County casino.
Those conditions precedent include a resolution in support of allowing gaming operations to be conducted at an inland casino in Allen County being adopted by the county legislative body; and, if the proposed casino would be located in a city or town in Allen County, the legislative body of that city or town would also have to approve a parallel resolution of support. The license is proposed to be at least $50 million (recall that these fees have typically been subject to legislative whim at the time, and largely based upon a ransom of sorts that fiscal leaders believed that they could legitimately demand with a straight face – and sometime not even with such a visage!).
The license process would likely follow the same format as we’ve seen in the most recent two decades, with the Snow bill laying out specific criteria that the gaming commission must consider in evaluating applications:
(1) economic benefits;
(2) tax revenue;
(3) the number of new jobs;
(4) whether the applicant plans an investment of at least $500
million;
(5) whether the applicant has a resolution of support from the
legislative body of the unit in Allen County where it seeks to
locate;
(6) the financial stability of the applicant;
(7) the applicant’s history of community involvement; and
(8) any other factor that the commission considers appropriate.
The successful applicant would be required to enter into a formal development agreement with Allen County. The supplemental wagering tax assessed would be 3.5% of the casino’s adjusted gross receipts for the day. The local tax revenue would be divvied up with 50% to the city in which the casino conducts gaming operations and 50% to Allen County, and may not be used to reduce the unit’s maximum levy, but may be used at the discretion of the unit to reduce the property tax levy of the unit for a particular year, and is considered miscellaneous revenue.
The Legislative Services Agency fiscal note for the bill does not reference the recent Spectrum Gaming Group study for the Indiana Gaming Commission, which offered detailed projections by scenario, but the revenue figures are roughly within the same range.
Veteran LSA fiscal analyst Randir Jha estimates that “1.7 million to 2.2 million patrons will annually visit the Allen County casino and generate between $200 M to $230 M in AGR,” ramping up “as the full investment is completed.”
Jha concludes that “A small portion of AGR at the new casino will be displaced from other Indiana riverboats and racinos. It is estimated that the racino in Anderson will be the only one with a significant impact from the relocated casino. All other Indiana casinos are located at a substantial distance, so any impact will be minimal to none. These AGR impacts will result in a net increase in riverboat wagering tax and supplemental wagering tax revenues and loss of racino wagering tax and county slot machine wagering fees. The loss of AGR at the Anderson racino will also result in a loss to the horse racing industry and breed funds totaling up to $1.7 M annually. Additionally, the Allen County casino will result in a loss of AGR at the South Bend tribal casino. Since the state has a revenue sharing agreement with the tribal casino, the state’s share of revenue received from the tribal casino and deposited in the state General Fund will be lower.”
On the Senate side . . . SB 70 authored by Sen. Justin Busch (R) of Fort Wayne provides that the casino located in the City of Rising Sun (licensed owner) may relocate gaming operations to Allen County or Fort Wayne if certain conditions are met.
If the proposal is to relocate within the city limits of Fort Wayne, the owner must submit to the commission a letter of support for the proposed relocation signed by the mayor of the City of Fort Wayne. Mayoral support is not required for a proposed relocation to an unincorporated area of Allen County.
If the proposal is to relocate within the unincorporated area of Allen County, the owner must submit to the commission a copy of a resolution adopted by a majority of the Allen County board of Commissioners in support of the proposed relocation. The commissioners’ support is not required for a proposed relocation within the city limits of Fort Wayne.
The owner must also affirms that it will work with the City of Rising Sun, Ohio County, and the Indiana Economic Development Corporation to redevelop the vacated site of gaming operations in Ohio County “in a manner that best serves the interests of the local community.”
Before approving a request to relocate gaming operations from Ohio County to Allen County, the gaming commission is required to consider the following:
(1) The impact of the relocation on other casinos in southeastern
Indiana, including the estimated increased gaming revenue for
the casinos located in Dearborn County and Switzerland
County and the increased state tax revenue received from
those casinos.
(2) The estimated economic benefits.
(3) The estimated tax revenue.
(4) The estimated number of new jobs.
(5) An expected timeline for the relocation and development of a
casino and nongaming amenities, including the initial phase
of development and the completion of development.
(6) Any other issue deemed appropriate by the commission.
An applicant would be required to invest at least $500 million in the “development of a casino and nongaming amenities onsite.” Recall that Full House Resorts, Inc. had pledged a development of at least $500 million for New Haven in its original legislative attempt earlier this year to move the Ohio County license it holds. Under the Busch bill, at least 60% of the owner’s planned investment in the relocated gaming operations must be invested in the “initial phase” of development. The remaining amount must be invested – and the relocation and development of the casino and nongaming amenities completed – not later than five years after gaming operations begin at the new casino.
The casino move would also be predicated upon a $25 million transfer fee, paid to the State General Fund in two equal installments of $12.5 million. The first tranche would be due not later than 180 days after IGC approves the transfer request. The second payment is due not later 180 days after the commencement of gaming operations at the new facility.
There is also a clawback clause inserted by Sen. Busch intended to reduce the likelihood of the owner quickly flipping the new license if granted approval for the lucrative move. Should the owner of the relocated casino sell or transfer its interest in the license within 10 years of the approval of relocation, it would be required to pay a $50 million fee to the State General Fund before the sale or transfer of the license may be approved by the commission.
While we believe that this ownership stability period and attendant fee is likely to be trimmed in legislative negotiations, note that Louisiana State University this fall was on the hook for $54 million to former University of Notre Dame football coach Brian Kelly in the buyout of his coaching contract . . . and if Indiana University fires football coach Curt Cignetti, it must pay him the remainder of his eight-year $93 million deal.
The supplemental wagering tax assessed would be 3.0% of the casino’s adjusted gross receipts for the day (versus the 3.0% proposed in Rep. Snow’s HB 1038). This is estimated to generate about $6.2 million annually. Since the bill does not provide any guidelines for distributions, the Legislative Services Agency assumes that “the money will be deposited in an unspecified fund.”
LSA Fiscal Analyst Jha uses the same projections for visits and revenue from the Busch bill as he did to evaluate the impact of HB 1038.
The bill provides that Ohio County units will continue to receive the supplemental wagering tax hold harmless distributions. Ohio County units will also receive the revenue sharing distributions for non-riverboat communities. These provisions will reduce distributions to other local units. “The net impact to all local units will be minimal,” Jha concludes.
Since the new relocated casino is expected to contribute a larger share to the revenue sharing amount compared to the Ohio County casino, effectively reducing the contribution required by other riverboats, LSA believe that it is possible that some units with riverboats will receive additional wagering tax revenues. “Additionally, after having a casino, Allen County units will stop receiving the distribution of revenue sharing. The reduction in revenues will be about $1.5 M for Fort Wayne, $0.5 M for Allen County, and $0.2 M for the remaining local units. All other non-riverboat counties in the state will receive a total of $2.2 M in additional revenue sharing distributions. The bill will also result in Ohio County and Rising Sun receiving revenue sharing distributions of about $36,000. Being a location of a riverboat, Ohio County units currently do not receive this distribution.”
Following a relocation, “the Ohio County casino will not generate riverboat wagering tax or supplemental wagering tax. This will result in revenue loss for Rising Sun, Ohio County, and the Ohio County Convention and Visitors’ Bureau. However, the bill requires that Ohio County units continue to receive supplemental wagering tax hold-harmless distributions. As a result of losing supplemental wagering tax revenues, Ohio County units will receive larger hold harmless distributions, offsetting some of the tax revenue loss. However, Ohio County local units will have a net reduction in revenues,” LSA notes.
The Busch bill further requires that the City of Fort Wayne or Allen County will receive the distribution of riverboat wagering tax set aside for the local unit. This could result in the city or the county receiving about $13 million annually.
HB 1038 Hearing
The House Committee on Public Policy spent several hours December 4 learning about the Snow proposal – largely within the broader context of whether a Northeast Indiana casino makes economic sense; what communities might be interested in a casino; what the implications would be for a new license versus a license transfer; what impact an NEI casino might have on the state’s ag-equine industry; and who would be opposed to a new casino and on what grounds.
The public policy panel chair, Rep. Ethan Manning (R) of Logansport, had posted the hearing as an information only event, with no vote to be taken.
Committee members heard sharply contrasting testimony focused on the economic development benefits, market stability concerns, and the social costs of gambling.
Chair Manning reminded members that this discussion stems from the Spectrum Gaming study commissioned by lawmakers under a Senate measure passed with widespread support in April, and told those in the room that he expects four or five bills on casino regulation and development this session, and that HB 1038 was one component of what would likely prove to be a larger policy discussion.
Rep. Snow opened his explanation of the bill by acknowledging that he has been meeting with casino operators and others gaming industry stakeholders in recent weeks and learning about the industry, and suggested that Allen County serves up a strong case to host a proposed casino. He noted that an Allen County casino license would benefit his own district, which is in the same general region (albeit a bit more central), through jobs and investment, while stressing that social responsibility and problem gambling safeguards must remain part of the conversation throughout the process. “What we’re trying to accomplish today is to get the conversation started. There’s lots and lots of meetings to happen yet. The bill in its form may actually change,” he acknowledged.
Committee members pressed the author as to why the bill specifies Allen County as the host site, when the Spectrum report actually ranked Indianapolis as the most lucrative potential location and Allen County second.
House Democratic Whip Justin Moed (D) of Indianapolis, the ranking Democrat on the committee, repeatedly asked why the fiscal edge detailed for Indianapolis in the study was not reflected in the Snow bill. “Not that we don’t think Fort Wayne should be at least able to explore this opportunity. It’s just more that Indianapolis, per the study and per many stakeholders, would like the ability to have it discussed here in Indianapolis as well,” Rep. Moed told colleagues.
Rep. Ed Clere (R) of New Albany, asked how the proposed site was chosen. Rep. Snow responded that the bill is specific to Allen County, and that, based on the limited time he has had to study the issue, he believes locating a casino in the state’s second largest county would help maximize investment while reducing revenue cannibalization for the casinos clustered around Indianapolis.
Rep. Peggy Mayfield (R) of Martinsville questioned whether granting a new license in Allen County could set a precedent for adding more licenses whenever lawmakers see a revenue opportunity. Rep. Snow acknowledged the bill could do so, but argued that, in this case, the state would be filling what he described as a geographic gap in Allen County. Chair Manning agreed the proposal would establish a new approach as it relates to selection of casino sites.
Rep. Beau Baird (R) of Greencastle, vice chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, did not take a position for or against the bill but urged the committee to be “mindful” and consider implications for the horse racing industry as the debate moves forward. Rep. Baird is the owner/operator of Baird Ranch, one of the largest quarter horse breeders in Indiana, serves on the International Board of Directors for the American Quarter Horse Association, and works with the board of directors for the Indiana Quarter Horse Association and Quarter Horse Racing of Indiana.
Rep. Baird cited the 2022 Purdue University economic impact study conducted for industry groups that shows a roughly $2 billion annual contribution to the state from horse racing and argued that the sector needs stability to continue growing. He also noted the shortage of veterinarians in the state and suggested that we don’t want to stretch them too thin in their work.
Fort Wayne business and civic leaders then lined up in support of HB 1038, framing the Snow proposal as a means to build a destination resort and broaden the region’s tax base.
Fort Wayne vehicle dealer Tom Kelley, a major Republican campaign donor, told the committee the project would attract significant private investment and generate more than 1,000 jobs for the area. He referenced a draft economic impact report that he said estimates about $90 million in annual state and local tax revenue and suggested that higher employment would reduce Medicaid rolls and other public assistance costs. “I believe very strongly that’s the vitality that our kids and our grandchildren need to keep moving forward. The city, the county, the state, have put Fort Wayne and Northeast Indiana in a very enviable state to attract businesses,” the civic and philanthropic leader noted. “And the more money we have for economic development, the more jobs we’re able to create, the more income (generated) for the State of Indiana,” and more Hoosiers can be removed from Medicaid rolls.
Kelley also described a local plan under which a substantial share of casino-related revenue would be earmarked for charity and initiatives addressing pressing systematic regional socioeconomic challenges, including homelessness.
He told Rep. Clere that maximizing economic impact is a key factor, but that it would be up to developers to decide the best location to maximize that impact. In response to a question from House Majority Floor Leader Matt Lehman (R) of Berne, Kelley said he expected that the economic impact of a license relocation would prove similar to a 14th license in terms of economic impact.
Fort Wayne Mayor Sharon Tucker (D) praised the picture painted by Kellery and enthusiastically endorsed the bill, which could pave the way for a licensed casino in her city, labeling the Snow measure a major economic development break. “This is too big an opportunity for the city of Fort Wayne to pass up,” Mayor Tucker observed. “We recognize and see the economic investment, the development that could happen because of a license being located in the City of Fort Wayne is too tremendous for us to pass.”
Building on Kelley’s mention, she explained that local officials have proposed dividing proceeds among local governments based on population to support growth across the community. The first-term mayor, selected in caucus to fill a vacancy, added that she “absolutely” favors allowing the eventual operator to choose its specific preferred site within Allen County, as long as the location maximizes economic benefits, and added that the city and county agree revenue should be shared across the area regardless of where the facility is built. “ Whether it’s in the City of Fort Wayne, or whether it is in the county,” the mayor reiterated to lawmakers, “everyone in our community would have an opportunity to benefit from being able to have a license located in Fort Wayne,” she assured the legislative panel.
In the past, we have seen mayors fight for a location in their respective communities, but we’ve also not seen pre-license regional cooperation like this in quite some time (admittedly, there have not been any opportunities for a casino outside of a specific site or community with the exception of the Vigo County license in decades).
Mayor Tucker cautioned lawmakers that time is a key concern, and suggested relocation of an existing casino could allow the project to move forward more quickly than issuing a de novo license (a move that would also be unique; no new license has ever been created; the French Lick license was moved from an arguably fictional one created for Patoka Lake in Dubois County; the Terre Haute license was moved from Gary).
She also raised concerns that a tribal-owned casino could enter the region regardless of state action, and argued that a state-licensed facility in Fort Wayne would better position Indiana to capture that market while avoiding harm to other communities. Those comments came in response to questioning from Rep. Moed about Indianapolis. “My hope is that we can do no harm to anyone here. A casino in Fort Wayne, I think, would do better to create new growth in Indiana,” Mayor Tucker reiterated.
Rep. Cory Criswell (R) of Middletown, asked whether she would support a countywide referendum on allowing a local casino. Mayor Tucker responded that while she is “never in opposition of allowing the public to speak,” she reiterated her concern about delays in the process that would be created with a referendum, and urged lawmakers to balance community input with the need for speed.
Melissa Beber of Greater Fort Wayne, Inc. also backed the bill, describing Fort Wayne one of the fastest-growing cities in the Midwest. She informed panel members that a casino would align with the region’s long-term economic strategy, bolster the area’s “hospitality ecosystem,” and support “myriad needs,” including providing revenue for social services, housing, and community development.
Pone Vongphachanh, director of economic development for the City of New Haven, whose city leaders aggressively sought the transfer of the Rising Star license during the 2025 session, told solons that her community is officially neutral . . . but leaning supportive on the bill “and hope to have a seat at the table in this process.” She suggested that a broader entertainment district concept was preferable to a stand-alone gaming venue and argued that, managed responsibly, such a project could create a positive community atmosphere and guest experience in addition to economic gains.
Officials from Steuben County sought to insert their community into the conversation, urging the committee not to limit the dialogue to Allen County. They pointed to their tourism-heavy county’s location along interstate and toll road corridors near tribal casinos in Michigan.
Wil Howard (R), president of the Steuben County Board of Commissioners, told the committee that he and his colleagues in the most northeastern corner of the state wanted their county to be included in any discussions on. He noted that Steuben County has commissioned its own report showing it enjoying a strong market position. He highlighted the proximity to out-of-state casinos, and argued that a state-backed casino in Steuben County could recapture gaming dollars currently flowing to Michigan. Commissioner Howard also noted that other Indiana casinos have been sited near state borders, and pledged that Steuben County would support a countywide referendum and engage in close collaboration with both the legislature as well as local governments in the area.
Rep. Kyle Miller (D) of Fort Wayne noted that Commissioner Howard had mentioned he was open to a referendum and asked if he had “any sense of the public’s feelings on the casino right now?” He was told that locals are “mostly in favor of at least investigating this and being part of the conversation.” Asked by Rep. Miller if a state-backed casino in Steuben County would continue to make sense even if a tribal casino opened nearby, Howard said that it would, “because of the traffic we draw. There’s a lot of money leaving the state that we could bring back in here, and the data shows that,” he added.
When Rep. Vanessa Summers (D) of Indianapolis asked whether Steuben County officials were effectively asking lawmakers to abandon Allen County, Commissioner Howard responded that they believe the state should choose the location that produces the greatest economic development, and that Steuben County is “a great option to do that.” Chair Manning reminded members that additional bills on casino siting are expected, describing HB 1038 as one piece of a broader policy discussion.
June Julien of the Steuben County Tourism Bureau said the county already draws more than two million visitors per year and that seasonal population surges can push weekend attendance as high as 140,000 people (and even up to 90,000 during winter weekends). She pointed to high (six-figure) average household incomes around the county’s numerous lakes, and argued that this represents substantial discretionary spending that could support a casino in the tourism destination on I-69 and the Indiana Toll Road without harming revenues for existing Indiana operators.
Isaac Lee of the Steuben County Economic Development Corporation explained that his organization’s role is to gather data that reflects residents’ preferences and to support the county, region, and state. He acknowledged the Spectrum report and analysis provided by INDIANA GAMING INSIGHT, but argued that the data should be examined more deeply as lawmakers consider multiple proposals.
Representatives of the Coalition for a Better Allen County and other critics of the measure advocating on behalf of residents in the local communities that would be affected by siting of a new casino urged lawmakers to reject the bill or at least slow it down to allow for further study of assorted social impacts.
Cathie Humbarger of the Coalition for a Better Allen County was first to testify. She is a longtime leader of the Right to Life movement in the state, a veteran organizer who enjoys the confidence of many legislators and legislative leaders for her work on that issue. She argued that focusing predominantly on economic metrics ignores the real-world costs associated with gambling, including debt, divorce, addiction, human trafficking and crime.
“If this is all about economics, then you don’t care about increases in bankruptcies, divorces, substance abuse, mental health issues or increases in things like human trafficking,” Humbarger continued, offering some examples of gambling-related embezzlement.
Humbarger cited a 10-year study by researcher at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst that she said found that a relatively small share of gamblers struggles with addiction, but a small share of addicted gamblers generates a disproportionate amount of casinos’ profits. She contended that Allen County has experienced strong economic and community development in recent years without a casino, and requested a comprehensive study of the social effects in Indiana communities that host casinos. “You can’t practice vice virtuously,” she told lawmakers.
Rep. Miller asked her if she was aware of a community in Indiana that has a casino, but wishes they didn’t have one. Humbarger responded, “I’m not aware of any; I don’t know.” However, she added, “I’m not sure if the people in those communities realize the costs of having a casino. At the least, I’d ask that we do a study on those impacts.”
“Home-school mom” Kristen Bissontz of rural Allen County, also with the coalition, described Fort Wayne’s reputation as a family-friendly city, and argued that a casino would undermine that image. “No, thank you. We don’t want this in our backyard,” she informed the panel. “You guys are all talking about job creation and economic benefit. You’ve not taken into consideration the social impact that’s going to come when the casino comes.” She referenced research she said links casino gambling to higher levels of divorce, domestic violence and other social problems, and criticized the notion of targeting what she labeled a “virgin territory” casino market for financial gain. “I have one study that says 83% of the revenue for casinos is from residents, my neighbors. You’re coming to pillage my village.”
After Rep. Miller noted that polling shows 54% in Allen County support a casino, Bissontz acknowledged she had not conducted polling herself but expressed skepticism that residents fully understand the long-term implications. Bissontz concluded by stating, “I’ve raised my kids in Fort Wayne. I want them to be able to say it’s a great place to raise a family, not worry about fentanyl trafficking, personal bankruptcy, and sex trafficking.”
Matt Bell of the Casino Association of Indiana testified in opposition to adding new licenses, stressing that Indiana already has strong operators who compete both within the state and nationally. Bell, a former lawmaker from Noble County in Northeast Indiana, who has chaired the Indiana Gaming Commission, praised the state’s longstanding legislative and regulatory stability related to the gaming industry, and warned that HB 1038 would introduce uncertainty for investors and could send a message that the state is willing to disrupt its regulatory environment.
Such a change, he argued, could hurt Indiana in the long run. “If y’all make the decision to create new licenses in Indiana, then you are injecting tremendous uncertainty into that investment market. You’re making it much harder to bring capital to the State of Indiana,” Bell contended. “If chasing that golden egg of a new license meant that casinos decided that Indiana is no longer a good market for investment, and we’re not going to see the $500 million investments in Hammond and East Chicago that have paced economic growth, then I think you would have made a choice that hurts Indiana more than it helps,” Bell noted.
Bell urged lawmakers to move deliberately, engage more extensively with existing operators, and consider options such as online gaming rather than adding a new brick-and-mortar license. “Speed should never be the driving concern,” Bell, insisted. Rather, “getting the policy correct and doing it transparently should be our top priority.”
He noted that the casino association, while opposed to creating a new 14th commercial license, had not adopted a formal position on moving an existing license.
Asked by the chair whether lawmakers might be moving too precipitously, Bell replied that “I don’t think we’ve defined the need for a new casino, and citizens haven’t asked for one.” He also expressed concern that it could potentially create an unstable environment for current casinos. When Rep. Manning continue, asking Bell what more could we do to evaluate the impacts, he was told, “I’d have a more robust conversation with operators in Indiana and across the country.” Pressed by Rep. Heath VanNatter (R) of Kokomo as to whether the current casinos wanted to be part of the conversation on location of a potential new casino, Bell told him that the casino association hopes to determine a position on that by January.
Rep. Miller asked Bell if his instability argument would be the same for relocation versus a new license. He was told that some in the association may have that concern, which is part of why they were still working through a position on that. “We’re concerned that this bill would create unknowns, and make companies question whether Indiana is the right investment. If revenue is the reason you’re doing this, there are alternatives, like iGaming. It’s important to go slow, be deliberate, and closely examine public policy,” he reiterated.
Rep. Mayfield asked about differences between Indiana’s licensing structure and that of Nevada, and Bell explained that Nevada uses a regulatory process rather than a legislative one for casino approvals. Rep. Clere questioned whether generating state revenue was a central motivation when Indiana first legalized gambling in 1993, and Bell responded that economic development and job creation are the reasons cited in statute – not revenue alone. “Growing revenue was not the reason your predecessors chose gaming,” Bell told Rep. Clere. The southeastern Indiana lawmaker fired back, “Well, the legislature isn’t always articulate. If we went back to news coverage from that time, I’m sure revenue was probably the biggest reason. Economic development and jobs are part of revenue growth.”
Representatives of Indiana’s horse racing industry told the committee they are worried HB 1038 could dilute the funding streams that support parimutuel racing and related investments.
Brian Elmore of the Indiana Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, a veteran of the industry, recounted that when the casino framework was established in Indiana in the early 1990s, lawmakers envisioned that horse racing would share in “the fruits of riverboat gaming.” He said rising costs and inflation already make it difficult for owners and breeders to sustain operations. Elmore warned solons that any reduction in allocations from gaming would strain the sector, which he also estimated at roughly a $2 billion economic impact based on the Purdue study. He noted the “fine line” that currently faces those in the industry, complicated by “some stagnation with inflation.”
Tony Renz of the Indiana Standardbred Association described the way horsemen who race at Hoosier Park in Anderson invest in local farmland, barns and jobs, often after relocating from other states. He told the committee that the industry has worked closely with track owners and legislators to grow responsibly and that it has tried to maximize economic impact while minimizing harm to other properties . . . and said he looked forward to being part of the dialogue going forward.
When Chair Manning asked whether a casino in Allen County could be structured in a way that keeps the horse racing industry financially whole, Renz responded that industry representatives want to be part of that conversation. Elmore cautioned that a casino located in Indianapolis, in particular, could cut horse racing revenue by as much as half a billion dollars – which would understandably pose a serious threat – “tremendous harm” – to the industry. In response to a question, he estimated that 80% to 90% of people at the racinos are primarily there to gamble, but suggested that racing and gaming are closely tied.
Several lawmakers, including Rep. Jim Lucas (R) of Seymour, and Rep. Criswell (who lives five miles from Harrah’s Hoosier Park Racing & Casino) praised the number of jobs the industry supports, and indicated that such employment will be a priority as they consider HB 1038 and other gaming bills.
Other witnesses supported the idea of a casino in Northeast Indiana but argued that relocating an existing license would be better than authorizing a new one.
Veteran local economic development professional Bill Konyha of the Regional Chamber of Northeast Indiana said his board, comprised of 21 chief executives, had a lengthy discussion about the issue last month and voted to endorse HB 1038 with the understanding that a casino would be located in Northeast Indiana. Konyha, a former president of the Indiana Economic Development Association and one-time chair of the IEDA Legislative Committee, said a resort-style casino could reinforce the region’s arts, sports, and entertainment offerings, though the board has not yet taken a formal position on relocation versus a new license.
Oliver Barie, representing Churchill Downs Inc., supported the bill as written, arguing that requirements for local approval, a spelled-out license fee, and development proposals would create a fair process. He said that Allen County deserves an opportunity similar to the path Vigo County successfully followed.
Andy Baudendistel, the Dearborn County county attorney appearing on behalf of Rising Sun and Ohio County, told lawmakers their casino has enabled local projects that otherwise would not have been possible, but that market saturation, first from the casinos directly to the north and south of Ohio County and then from casinos and racinos in Cincinnati and Greater Northern Kentucky, has eroded revenue. He asked the committee to consider allowing the relocation of their casino to Allen County if jobs and community well-being in Ohio County
can be protected.
Alex Stolyar of Full House Resorts, Inc., Rising Star’s parent company, told committee members We definitely agree that Northeast Indiana should host a destination casino,” but understandably opposed issuing a new license. “We just disagree with the approach,” he said. “We would rather see allowing us to relocate our license, rather than expanding.”
He reminded the panel members that the Indiana Gaming Commission’s Spectrum study and company data show that his operation’s revenue has fallen by close to 70% since its October 1996 opening because of saturation in the current market. Stolyar, a now-familiar face to legislators, argued that relocating the Rising Star license to NEI would raise tax revenues, reduce saturation, and support development of a true high-quality destination resort, while a new license would simply create greater instability for existing properties.
Stolyar assured lawmakers that Full House Resorts has reached out to the horse racing industry and is willing to negotiate arrangements that protect its interests; indeed, he promised them he would immediately open a new dialogue out in the hallway with industry representatives if they so desired.
Rep. Mayfield asked a question about whether a license holder could be awarded a license and then “escrow” it, effectively depriving a competitor and community of the benefits (short answer: no; licenses come with caveats, triggers, and deadlines, and we have seen licenses yanked over the decades as a result) Indiana Gaming Commission General Counsel Natalie Huffman – telling the panel that she was only in her second month on the job after an earlier stint as a staff attorney a decade earlier) eventually told members she does not believe a license holder could simply decide not to use a license, emphasizing that licenses come with obligations to operate.
Chair Manning closed the hearing by reiterating there are many more meetings and discussions ahead and that, if HB 1038 is subject to a major amendment, he would invite additional testimony. The committee took no action at that point, and the bill was held.
SB 70 Hearing
At the outset of the Senate Committee on Public Policy hearing on SB 70, the Busch bill to allow relocation of a casino license to Allen County, Sen. Busch offered an amendment, taken by consent, to strengthen the bill and make it more consistent with seemingly popular provisions in HB 1038.
The amendment would ensure that Rising Sun becomes a part of any relocation decision via a letter of support from the mayor; any subsequent purchaser of the relocated casino (within 10 years of relocation) would be obligated to complete the legislatively mandated $500 million investment; the supplemental wagering tax would be increased from 3.0% as originally proposed to 3.5% (as in HB 1038), increasing the local tax slice; and there would be a specified division of revenue. Sen. Busch’s amendment would require 60% of the local revenue to be directed to the county, cities, and towns, while 40% would be directed to a “joint recovery fund” that would help to fund local mental health, homelessness, and additional quality of life initiatives, which Sen. Busch labeled as a “really great idea” that was brought to him by the mayor of Fort Wayne and the three members of the Allen County Board of Commissioners.
Despite the fact that Snow measure heard in the House last week involved a new license and the Busch bill was limited to a license transfer, most of the witnesses were the same characters and much of the testimony was parallel. We’ll try to highlight key distinctions and differences here.
Sen. Busch explained to the panel that the bill would create a “pathway” to bring a casino license to Fort Wayne, relocating the Rising Star Casino Resort, which is underperforming in its current location. This change would support economic development of the region and the state.
Mayor Tucker of Fort Wayne – who made her trip to Indianapolis “with pride” – opened the testimony by expressing her support for the bill, noting that she has spent time negotiating with members of the Allen County Board of Commissioners to consider how the entire Northeast Indiana region could benefit from a local casino. Referring to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, she cautioned lawmakers that a non-state-licensed casino could end up being sited in the community, but “We support a state-controlled casino,” citing a desire to maintain control over revenue and economic development. “If there’s a gaming expansion in Indiana, it should be something we can capitalize on,” the mayor explained. Fort Wayne is one of the state’s fastest-growing communities, and hosting a casino would offer the community needed tools to continue this growth. We want “a say in our destin[y],” the mayor added.
Rich Beck (R), a member of the Allen County Board of Commissioners and president of the Allen County Redevelopment Commission, appeared in person with fourth-term Commissioner Therese Brown (R) to offer their support for the bill. “We are in accord with the mayor of Fort Wayne,” said Beck.
To best contribute to development of the community, the second-term official said that this facility should fulfill three criteria: (1) be a destination and resort space; (2) be run by a responsible operator; and (3) should contribute to the Fort Wayne Recovery Fund. We want to ensure that funds raised are used to address social struggles in our community like homelessness and addiction, he added “We believe a fund like this could be transformative – not just for Allen County, but it could provide solutions we can share throughout Indiana.” He concluded that “We’re committed to working with you to find the best solution.”
While there was a good how of unity at this hearing, as in the House equivalent, Back Home up I-69 there seems to be a bit more wiggle room. Allen County Commissioner Ron Turpin (R) appeared Wednesday a.m. on Fort Wayne’s Morning News with Kayla Blakeslee on WOWO 1190-AM in Fort Wayne to discuss the casino. WOWO notes that Commissioner Turpin’s comments “followed remarks last week from Fort Wayne Mayor Sharon Tucker, who said it was not a matter of if a casino would arrive in the region, but when. During the interview, Turpin emphasized that the county’s position is exploratory rather than definitive.”
“I as one commissioner am aligned with my other two commissioners that it’s something we’re willing to explore, you know, if it is in the best interest of the people of Allen County,” Commissioner Turpin tells Blakeslee. “It’s not a hard yes for me. It’s not a hard no. It is, let’s explore this and see what’s best.”
Commissioner Beck was followed by John Urbahns of Greater Fort Wayne, Inc. who backed the bill, labeling it a “great opportunity” for the community from both a revenue generation and economic development standpoint. He highlighted how there would be a bit more than $1 billion in construction impact, just at the start of the project, noting that the resources from this project would also help locals deal with challenges in the community.
Sen. Dan Dernulc (R) of Highland asked Urbahns if there was a project labor agreement for the construction. Urbahns told him that he was not sure, but that would likely be up to the operator awarded the license.
Jill Boggs of Visit Fort Wayne, the local tourism organization spoke to how casino tourism will diversify and strengthen the local tourism portfolio: “A gaming attraction adds another reason for people to visit us, which would help our entire tourism ecosystem” and also support new business investment opportunities.
Craig Dellinger (R) of the New Haven City Council also backed the bill, noting the positive, but also suggested that given its pioneering role in all of this, and “New Haven deserves a seat at the table.” Our community has already done legwork to make this happen, laying the groundwork through planning and coordination with stakeholders and the region, and working toward workforce, housing, neighborhood, and infrastructure alignment. He then assured committee members that New Haven officials “are committed to collaboration” with regional partners, and the city “should be a partner in revenue distribution discussions.”
Sen. Blake Doriot (R) of Goshen made an appearance before the panel, but, uncomfortably, it wasn’t in his elective role. “I’m here as a horse owner,” he declared, because “My wife and me are involved quite a bit with the horse tracks in Indiana.” He told colleagues that while he sees “the point” of the Busch bill, he was concerned that horse tracks – particularly in Anderson – could be adversely affected by this bill. He trotted out the Purdue University numbers showing that the horse racing industry represents $2 billion dollars in annual economic impact, and also places more attention on veterinary medicine in our state.
“I’m not against this bill, I just hope you’re cautious about potential impacts on the horse racing industry,” Sen. Doriot said in wrapping up his testimony. He was immediately assured by the panel chair, Sen. Ron Alting (R) of Lafayette that the horsemen would remain in good shape under his watch.
“Let me make a comment regarding horses,” Chair Alting began, taking a point of personal privilege. “So, I’m the longest-reigning chairman of any committee in this whole building. And I have never, ever not taken care of the horses.” The horses will be taken care of. We have had meetings with both the operator that is (sic) in the bill, the author of the bill and others, and we would not do anything that would be damaging to the horse racing industry.”
Sen. Alting continued, “And so I give you my word – which I’ve given for a lot of years – and I don’t think they can come back on me saying ‘You never kept your word.’ I give you my word (that) I will be working with the author of the bill, and wherever this may end up, making sure that the horses will be taken care of – or there will be no bill. I can assure you of that. And everyone’s on board with this, by the way – everyone I’ve talked to: operators and chairman, I’ve not had anybody that has disagreed with that concept. I’ve always taken care of the horse racing industry; we wouldn’t do anything to damage that industry. I give you my word on that.”
Oner potential problem that Sen. Alting did not mention, however, is that should it prove impractical to directly compensate the horsemen or the tracks via a change in taxation or revenue distribution, he could face a brick wall in the House in the form of House Speaker Todd Huston (R), who is philosophically opposed to casino-related subsidies, at least in the form of “hold-harmless” agreements. Recall that when Rep. Huston carried the final omnibus gaming bill in 2019, he realized that the measure would not pass absent inclusion of some hold-harmless clauses for different cities expected to lose revenue. He reluctantly acceded to their inclusion . . . but voted against the final version of his own bill as a result.
In that final floor debate in spring 2019, Rep. Huston had reminded colleagues that he personally held one core philosophy on this bill: that there should be no hold harmless provisions. But, he ultimately allowed, lawmakers needed to do “what’s in the best interest of the state,” and he agreed that the State was going to receive more money than it gave back in a conference committee deal that got them to “where four people can agree, with the support of their caucuses, to sign a report … This is the will of my caucus.”
Still, you should watch Speaker Huston for signals as to how far he might be willing to go to assuage the horsemen and protect the ag-equine industry should it boil down to a direct subsidy situation.
Steuben County Commissioner Wil Howard appeared to advocate for a casino to be located north of Fort Wayne, reminding solons that this would also enable alignment with casinos on borders of the neighboring states of Michigan and Ohio. He requested that Steuben County be included in all conversations regarding casino licensing.
Following Howard was June Julien of the Steuben County Tourism Bureau who broke down local tourism numbers and seasonality for the panel, and revealing that 38% of visitors come from over 100 miles away, while 10% travel from at least from 250 miles away. She reminded the committee that Steuben County enjoys “a thriving tourism ecosystem, making us an ideal place to host a casino.”
Brian Elmore, the veteran horseman with the Indiana Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association drew upon his 50 years of industry experience to flesh out his concerns about the impact on agriculture businesses in Indiana. He detailed the history of horse racing within the context of casino gaming in Indiana and reminded legislators that when their predecessors in 2007 allowed slot machines at racetracks, that privilege came with a tab of $250 million per track – comparing that to a $500 million fee just imposed by the City of New York in today’s dollars for a lucrative casino franchise in the Big Apple . . . suggesting that the industry had already paid a steep price to the State (recall that taxpayers benefited, because that $500 million total was directed toward statewide property tax relief). He reiterated the concern over a negative impact of a casino in the area dampening horse racing revenue.
Tony Renz of the Indiana Standardbred Association played up the business end of the horse industry, explaining that Standardbred racing is a generational and family-oriented business, and many have relocated to Indiana for the sport due to the strong framework that lawmakers have created for breeding and racing here. “We’re about the agriculture business,” he proclaims, and this agriculture business is attracting and retaining people in Indiana, he said. Horsemen purchase substantial acreage of farmland, build, and employ people. While there are some 10,000 Hoosier jobs associated with horse racing today, as bill is drafted, horse racing cannot sustain that level.
Cathie Humbarger of the Coalition for a Better Allen County took a different tact than in her earlier House testimony, choosing instead to “defend the integrity and character of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma.” She made it clear that she and local leaders had been assured by tribal leaders that their land in trust would not be used for gaming, but lamented the constant calls that amounted to “The Indians are coming!” She was upset that local leaders and others pushing for a new commercial casino were “not telling the truth. I thought we were beyond that.” Local leaders were merely using the tribal casino shibboleth for leverage as a tool to reap their own “vice revenue.” Such action, Humbarger expressed, “borders on bigotry.” The argument to build casinos for economic growth is 15 years old, she suggests, and “We didn’t need a casino then, and we don’t need a casino now.”
“Which members of this committee are willing to publicly state in this hearing that my neighbors, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, are not telling the truth?” Humbarger challenged the panel. Humbarger then read from a two-page December 8 letter to lawmakers from Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Chief Douglas G. Lankford. Chief Lankford confirms that the native land on Fritz Road “is held in trust by the United States government on behalf of the Miami Nation. When the Tribe submitted the fee to trust application, the Tribe affirmed in its application that the land would not be used for gaming purposes. Despite inaccurate news reports to the contrary, [this land] will always be used for cultural activities and will never be used for gaming purposes.”
Of course, there remain skeptics who point to similar assurances made to then-U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R), and then-U.S. Reps. Tim Roemer (D) and Fred Upton (R-MI) and federal authorities when the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians was obtaining congressional recognition – before what was an immediate post-recognition change in tribunal leadership and a different decision on chasing gaming. There is also talk that this could be a feint worthy of former Senate Committee on Finance Chair Larry Borst (R), where the tribe keeps its word about that land, but then acquires adjacent property for gaming purposes. Once burned, twice shy, as they say.
“Home-school mom” Kristen Bissontz of rural Allen County was back with her lengthy recitation of all the social ills that a casino brings to a community. She also cited numbers from economic professor Earl Grinols, whose work has long been widely discredited by the gaming industry, attracting the attention of Sen. Greg Walker (R) of Columbus. She offered to buy him a copy of the book, to which Sen. Walker, a rabid defender of the Orange County casino, demurred.
Another Allen County mother added her testimony against the bill, reiterating social and economic concerns. She also had testified against the original New Haven casino bill before the same committee earlier this year, and suggested that the financial position of Full House Resorts, Inc. which she castigated then, was the same, if not worse today. Of course , he soliloquy about the $450 million in debt didn’t mention the reason behind it: capital for building a new casino in Illinois, where its temporary casino has proven extremely lucrative, and was a model in part for the proposed New Haven development. She suggested that the bill was not “solving a problem,” but rather merely “moving a problem.”
Jon Bond (D), a member of the Switzerland County Board of Commissioners and president of the Switzerland County Economic Development Commission testified on behalf of local government leader that “We are supportive of Senate Bill 70.” The attorney who has been involved in the process since the original Switzerland County licensing suggest that the bill optimizes the state’s gaming structure by offering a new Northeast Indiana property while maximizing growth in southeastern Indiana, “where the competition has gotten very stiff.”
Attorney Rhonda Cook appeared on behalf of the City of Lawrenceburg and its (independent) mayor “in support of Senate Bill 70” and relocation. She said that both parties are “working amicably together” on the effort and reminded the panel that the “bulk” of Rising Star AGR would be retained in the market if the Ohio County casino moves out of the region.
Appearing on behalf of Rising Sun and Ohio County, attorney Andy Baudendistel brought with him Rising Sun Mayor Steve Slack (R), City Clerk-Treasurer Rae Baker Gipson, and Ohio County Commissioner Shane Koons (R) “in full support” of SB 70. They use the opportunity to tout the positive impacts of gaming in the past and what relocation can mean for the region going forward in light of the dwindling revenue at Rising Star that was a function of market saturation in its current “boxed in” location, largely from Ohio and Kentucky since 2013. Safeguards are in place to prevent job losses and protect people from financial burdens upon a move, he explained, and a portion of the revenue generated in Allen County will be used to financially support the county. Meanwhile, the subtraction of a casino would lessen the competition in a saturated gaming area.
Baudendistel, a lifelong resident of Lawrenceburg and the Dearborn County county attorney, was asked by Sen. Greg Walker to elaborate on the social impact of gambling after one of the citizens had slammed local crime statistics. Baudendistel noted that he had long served as a defense attorney, and noted that his experience was that opioids have increased addiction and crime rates as they had throughout the state, and not gaming.
Alex Stolyar of Full House reviewed the history of the legislation and testified that relocation of the Ohio County casino “allows us to invest half a billion dollars back into Indiana.” He reiterated that the current Rising Sun location “doesn’t make much sense” now for a casino, given market saturation. “The whole region actually benefits” from a relocation, he suggests, and the state would as well. He rolled out the Spectrum study analysis that showed a $10 million to $12 million increase in “incremental tax revenues” by not adding a 14th license and instead transferring the license at the current location that is negatively impacting revenues. “Relocation is a better option,” Stolyar concludes.
He adds that the horsemen are in mind “in every conversation,” and he would be sure to ensure that the horsemen are worked with on this, pledging to meet with them “anywhere, any time,” so as “to find a solution.” He noted the wishes of Northeast Indiana officials to land a high quality destination casino. “That is what we do,” Stolyar told the panel. “We build high-quality destination casinos,” assuring them that “this will be well-financed and well-built.”
Sen. Dernulc raised concerns about mental health issues and scholarships.
Sen. Busch noted that Sen. Randy Maxwell (R) of Lawrenceburg was unable to attend, but a letter from him was submitted by Busch for the record in which Sen. Maxwell – whose district includes all three Cincinnati market casinos – confirmed that he supports the relocation of Rising Star and expansion of gaming. Sen. Busch also informed the room that Sen. Maxwell will be the second author of his bill.
After about two hours of testimony, the measure was reported from the committee on an 8-0 vote, with Sens. Dernulc, Greg Walker, and David Niezgodski (D), saying that while they were voting to advance the measure, they might vote differently on the Senate floor.
The bill will be recommitted to the Senate Committee on Appropriations because of the fiscal impact. Don’t expect a hearing in that panel until January.
What’s Next
At this point, indications are that the Senate proposal, SB 70, may be the framework for further discussion. While any license changes offer the prospect (and not mere potential) for market disruption, a license move from Ohio County would result in more minimal negative change to the statewide market structure and also boost the Cincinnati market casinos without that improvement coming at the expense of others.
SB 70 has now been amended to include the local government-favored provisions seemingly popular in HB 1038, and the “sticking points” would be the same for both bills: (1) the appropriateness of requiring a local referendum; (2) the specific site of a new Northeast Indiana casino; and (30 ensuring a soft landing for the ag-equine industry, and by extension, the two tracks.
The referendum issue is not a major concern to anyone in the process, and may or may not be included without any delay in the process resulting. The site is basically a local issue, and with Fort Wayne and Allen County officials in sync over the framework and willing to accept a locally sited facility anywhere in the county assuming equitable revenue splits, this can be left to local discretion . . . although the legislature may have to decide whether to affirmatively an expressly expand the legislation to include or exclude Steuben County (although officials there would seem open to a strong revenue-sharing deal with an Allen County casino).
The tough part would seem to be working out a deal with the horsemen (that’s job one, because it’s more palatable for lawmakers to help individuals than a pair of casinos owned by a global conglomerate), but all sides appear willing to negotiate. One concern: just how much in terms of discretionary dollars might remain after hefty pledges to Ohio County and Rising Sun, relocation fees paid to the State, a tax and local development agreement package for Allen County and Fort Wayne (and perhaps Steuben County), and building a $500 million+ casino campus. This can also be complicated by an uncooperative economy. That’s the position the two pari-mutuel horse racing facilities found themselves mired in when the warm-and-fuzzies wore off from gaining slots at the tracks in 2007, and they paid $250 million each for the privilege after going to the market for debt financing at double-digit interest rates to finance the fee and $150 million+ in development and start-up costs , only to open at the start of the 2008 global fiscal crisis.
Then there’s also the likelihood of legislation seeking an Indianapolis casino, based upon the (intuitive) Spectrum findings that this would be the state’s most lucrative facility (albeit at a hefty cost to Shelbyville, Anderson, and the horsemen). When the prospect of an Indianapolis casino was raised in SEA 43-2025, Sens. Aaron Freeman (R) of Indianapolis and Greg Taylor (D) of Indianapolis, long-time antagonists, literally joined together on the Senate floor to gleefully pledge their joint commitment to bringing a casino to the Circle City.
Sen. Freeman confirms to Marek Mazurek of the Indianapolis Business Journal Tuesday that he plans to file a bill to bring a casino to downtown Indianapolis before the January 9 deadline for bill filing in the Senate.
“It’s clear that if the goal is revenue, you put a casino in downtown Indianapolis every day of the week and twice on Sunday,” Sen. Freeman tells Mazurek. “If the goal is something else, then somebody needs to tell me that, and then we’ll adjust our conduct accordingly.” “If you look at our convention business, you look at all the assets that we have downtown right now, I think it would be a great addition to all of the other things,” Sen. Taylor adds to Mazurek. “It’s just another tool in the toolbox for us here in Indianapolis to actually put Indiana on the map.”
House Majority Whip Moed “who represents most of downtown Indianapolis, said he has nothing against Allen County’s bid, but wants to have more discussion about an Indianapolis license. ‘Why are we not at least exploring that option here?’ said Moed, who is the ranking minority member on the House Committee on Public Policy. ‘As we’re talking about moving one to Fort Wayne or creating even a new license, if creating a new license is on the table, then why would we not talk about the potential to generate revenue in Indianapolis?’ ”
Rep. Moed tells IBJ “he doesn’t plan to file a bill on the subject, but would like to see an amendment added to House Bill 1038 that opens the door for Indianapolis. Fellow Indianapolis Democrat Rep. Blake Johnson added bills that dictate a single location for a gambling license should be opened up to include more sites. Moed and Taylor say they would like to see Full House Resorts move its license to Indianapolis, while Freeman, calling himself ‘a free market capitalist,’ didn’t take a firm stance on moving the license versus creating a new one.”
Freeman tells Mazurek that he also believes that the horsemen can be compensated courtesy of “the extra tax revenue generated by an Indianapolis casino would be able to take care of any losses to racinos. ‘With that revenue, you can help other industries and other interests at the same time. Look, we can do both. We can walk and chew gum at the same time,’ Freeman said.”
An Indianapolis casino under a 14th license would be the toughest sell but even any Indianapolis option would face longer odds than Northeast Indiana because of market dynamics. However, it’s not unusual for lawmakers to overlook logic or reality in pursuit of revenue, or as part of political dealmaking, so Indianapolis will at least be at the table in discussions, if not a component at conference time, should we reach that point.