Senate bill on video‑lottery terminals and charitable gaming draws wide policy debate over revenue allocation and problem‑gaming funding

Senate Bill 83 drew extended testimony and technical questioning on revenue splits, charitable distributions and use of gaming revenue after a full public hearing before the Senate Ways and Means Committee.

Sponsor Sen. Tim Lang summarized bill differences with earlier House proposals and the budget. The bill would authorize a share of gross gaming revenue from video‑lottery‑type terminals (VLTs) and allocate portions to charitable gaming operators, the Education Trust Fund, a proposed “elderly, disabled, deaf/blind exemption reimbursement fund” and the general fund. Lang described the proposed allocation as one way to direct new gaming revenue toward education and property‑tax relief programs for qualified taxpayers.

Pat Abrami, former state representative and chair of a recently convened charitable gaming commission, presented the commission’s work and a comparative table of revenue splits in existing HHR (historic horse racing), the governor’s budget proposal and House and Senate options. Abrami said that moving to VLTs changes operator economics and that a reduced operator share could be appropriate because slot‑machine vendors and setups can be less costly than HHR systems. He urged careful choices about splits, charities and problem‑gaming funding.

Multiple witnesses — including municipal representatives, a state representative and lottery officials — raised questions about earmarking of revenues. Rep. Dan McGuire (Epsom) said the House budget had moved lottery proceeds directly into adequate education payments and warned against automatic statutory earmarks that could constrain future budgets. Others supported allocating a portion to a new fund to reimburse municipalities for property‑tax exemptions provided to the elderly, disabled and visually/hearing impaired; Lang said the bill’s proposed reimbursement fund would pay up to the statewide liability prorated if the fund were insufficient.

The hearing also examined legal and constitutional issues. Several witnesses and members discussed whether revenue from activities traditionally administered through the Lottery Commission but originating in charitable or pari‑mutuel gaming (historic racing, simulcast, sports wagering or VLTs) must be used for public education under the state constitution’s language about lottery proceeds. Lang and others said the constitutional restriction applies to the activity of the lottery (Powerball, scratch tickets, etc.) while other gaming activities historically governed by other commissions have been brought under the Lottery Commission for administrative efficiency; they characterized questions about constitutional limits as a “gray area” that may ultimately require legal review.

Problem‑gaming funding and the mechanics of a statewide self‑exclusion list also drew attention. Lang described a proposed statewide self‑exclusion database intended to prevent a person who voluntarily excludes themself at one facility from simply gambling at another facility that is not linked to the same list. Several witnesses called for a clear problem‑gaming strategy and for defining program goals before setting a funding formula.

Lottery Director Charlie McIntyre and other witnesses told committee members that fiscal notes on VLT revenue are estimates and would be updated; McIntyre said the Lottery could provide updated revenue estimates to the committee and work sessions could explore practical regulatory and auditing details.

No committee action was taken. Committee members requested updated fiscal estimates and asked for side‑by‑side comparisons of House budget language and the Senate bill’s VLT provisions; leadership said updated documents from the LBA were available and would be circulated to members.