Committee hears hours-long testimony on bill to regulate video lottery terminals; sponsors outline transition plan for 'no‑chance' machines

The committee held a full public hearing on House Bill 970, a proposal to establish a regulatory framework for video lottery terminals (VLTs) and to transition existing "no‑chance" gaming machines into a state‑regulated market.

Sponsor Representative Bill Hardwick opened the hearing by describing the bill as "a comprehensive regulatory framework for all gaming devices in the state of Missouri," saying it aims to provide regulatory certainty for businesses and route revenues to education via the state lottery fund. Hardwick told members the bill would create a licensing system administered by the lottery, with enforcement roles for the Highway Patrol and the state's gaming commission. He said the bill defines gambling similarly to existing law (a stake of value, a game of chance, and a payout) and would make "no‑chance" machines unlawful while providing a path for retailers to transition into the regulated system.

Attorney Alex Cosette, representing Torch Electronics, described the transition mechanics in detail. Under the sponsor's plan, the lottery commission would issue temporary stickers allowing current "no‑chance" machines to operate while the VLT program is established. Retailers could request a sticker, attest they will turn over unregulated machines, and then install VLTs within a short window once the state program is operational. Cosette summarized technical differences between device types: "no chance game machines are machines that have a finite set of outcomes," whereas VLTs rely on a random number generator, and she said the bill would require a 21‑year age minimum, surveillance in retail locations and cash‑only play.

Proponents from small business and terminal operator communities argued the bill would legalize activity already present in Missouri, protect small retailers who currently face legal uncertainty, and direct new tax revenues to education. Kenny Dobson of Wear Brands and other retail witnesses said regulated VLTs would make the revenue stream legitimate and bankable; operators from other states described per‑device revenue metrics and said regulated markets co‑exist with destination casinos.

Opponents including the Missouri Gaming Association and several licensed casino community representatives warned the bill could authorize many more machines statewide — testimony used a estimate projecting tens of thousands of terminals if the license cap per retailer (12 per location in the bill text) were applied to thousands of retail locations. Mark Ehlinger, counsel to the Missouri Gaming Association, argued the proposal as drafted raised constitutional questions because the Missouri Constitution mandates lottery proceeds be devoted to education and the bill proposes administrative fee allocations to veterans and local governments; Ehlinger said administrative fees must be tied to lottery administration, not redirected.

Committee members questioned the sponsor about multiple policy choices: sizable application and operator fees described in the bill (examples cited in testimony: $500,000 and $250,000 application or operator fees); whether retail locations should be required to place terminals in separate rooms; whether municipalities should be allowed to opt out immediately instead of waiting a transition period (the bill contains a one‑year window before local ordinances can restrict VLTs); and whether the Highway Patrol's funding allocation for enforcement would be sufficient (transcript shows a token per‑license fee allocation in the bill for patrol enforcement). Hardwick said he was open to amendments and expects to work with the committee on fee levels, local opt‑outs, separation/partition requirements and indemnity language.

The hearing included extended practical and legal back‑and‑forth: convenience store owners and terminal operators said regulated VLTs have produced material revenue for veterans groups and small businesses in other states and argued the regulated model adds consumer protections such as self‑exclusion lists and surveillance. Casino representatives and hometown casino communities argued passage would endanger the prior public votes and large local investments that created destination casinos, and warned of the scale of potential machine deployment.

No committee vote on HB 970 was taken in the public hearing. The bill sponsor said he would accept suggestions and consider amendments on fee levels, location and enforcement details.

Votes and motions recorded earlier in the meeting were for other bills; HB 970 remained in the public hearing phase at the conclusion of testimony.