Lawmakers and industry spar over bill to authorize historical horse‑racing machines and expand VLT access for off‑track venues

A joint meeting of the Budget and Taxation Committee and visiting members of the House Ways and Means Committee heard competing views on Senate Bill 639, a proposal to authorize historical horse‑racing machines and allow additional video lottery terminals or HHR devices at off‑track betting (OTB/OTP) locations as a way to shore up struggling operators.

Delegate Janelle Wilkins, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said lawmakers convened the session to “figure out what, if any, action we take” after OTPs presented a proposal intended to keep their businesses solvent. A staff reader summarized the bill’s text as authorizing HHR at sports wagering facilities, requiring commission approval of wagering and machine counts, placing signage and operational controls on HHR devices, and capping approved machines (the staff summary referenced a cap of 4,000 approved machines and said proceeds would be divided in a manner similar to existing VLT distributions, with specified shares to the general fund and local impact grants).

OTB operators told the committee they are losing substantial revenue. An industry representative said OTPs are “losing hundreds of thousands of dollars year over year.” Richard, who identified himself as DPHR with the Boonsboro OTB, described investing savings to reopen a condemned building and said revenue has declined sharply since 2015–2016. Mauricio Prasad of the Riverboat said reward revenue at his location is down about 74% and that net receipts can be as low as roughly $8,000 a year after expenses.

OTPs urged allowing machine placements (they discussed seeking about 500 machines per location, with a portion leased to casinos and a tax rate intended to match existing large facilities) so that local venues can capture revenue now leaving the state. One OTP representative said a prior internal study estimated roughly $40 million is leaving Maryland annually to surrounding states and that placing VLTs locally could recapture that amount plus additional revenues.

Representatives for the Maryland Jockey Club and horsemen objected to classifying HHR as an extension of horse racing. Joe Bryce of the Maryland Jockey Club said the modern HHR product operates “like a slot machine” and said packaging it as a horse‑racing extension misrepresents the game and would not reliably boost purses for racing. Casino and industry representatives also warned of potential market cannibalization: Mike Johansen (representing Horseshoe/Caesars interests) and other casino speakers echoed a 2012 precedent calling for an independent economic analysis before expanding locations or reallocating machine counts.

James Butler of the Maryland Lottery and Gaming agency outlined how machine allocations and licensing historically worked, noting examples of prior allocations per county and that some allocated machines were not purchased or placed by licensees; he estimated there may be several thousand machines currently unused or unallocated under the statute.

Several lawmakers and counsel emphasized a constitutional constraint: moving allocated VLTs to new geographic locations or otherwise expanding the number of licensed sites would likely require a voter referendum or constitutional amendment. Committee members repeatedly referenced referendum language included in the bill’s last pages and said guidance from the attorney general indicates an expansion of gaming locations is a matter for voters.

On the study question, Senator Liu Shao (referencing a Global Gaming and Hospitality Capital Advisors feasibility study) noted an earlier estimate of about 2.8% cannibalization for HHR, while other presenters cited different cannibalization numbers and urged an independent update or new DLS‑led analysis similar to the 2012 work. Casino representatives warned that neighboring states — notably Virginia’s rapid expansion of HHR and casinos — change the competitive landscape and argued Maryland must understand the market impact before approving any changes.

Chairs and members stopped short of a decision. Several members said they support detailed summer studies and exploring partnership models between casinos and OTPs but reiterated that changing the constitutional allocation or adding locations would likely require a referendum. The committees adjourned the briefing after thanking participants and noting further work — including economic impact studies and legal review — would be necessary before any formal legislative action.

The meeting produced no formal vote or motion; lawmakers signaled a desire for independent analysis and for any constitutional change to be put before voters rather than implemented administratively.