Senate committee advances bill to let four counties compete for inland casino license; referendum option, Rising Sun compensation draw debate

House Bill 10‑38, presented to the Senate Public Policy Committee as a House author bill, would allow current Indiana riverboat license holders to apply to relocate a license to one of four inland counties (Allen, DeKalb, Dubin and Wayne) through a competitive process that includes an optional local referendum and a multi‑phase application schedule.

Representative Snow, the House sponsor, told the committee the measure "creates a competitive framework for moving the Rising Sun casino license to new locations, aiming to modernize license placement and foster competition among operators and communities while protecting local governments and preserving game continuity." He described a timetable that opens applications Oct. 1 and calls for final decisions by April 15, a $50 million up‑front payment to the state in five installments by the winning bidder, a $500 million minimum investment requirement and anti‑flipping provisions that extend financial obligations if a facility is sold within 10 years.

The bill also includes a one‑time payment to Rising Sun in Ohio County "to compensate for economic loss and provide transition funding," Snow said. He told senators that current license holders such as Full House Resorts would have the first opportunity to develop relocated facilities but would be compensated if they do not win the new siting competition.

Supporters from Northeast Indiana argued that the proposal creates an opportunity for economic growth and job creation. Representative Brad Barrett said his community’s study ranking and quick public and local‑government alignment justify leaving Wayne County in the competitive pool. "My community is willing to participate in a referendum," Barrett said, adding that local officials had moved quickly to prepare a coordinated bid.

Wayne County witnesses — including business leaders, the county’s economic development director and school superintendents — told senators they had invested time and resources to prepare a proposal. Melissa Vance, representing Wayne County organizers, cited an independent study estimating about $105.9 million in annual adjusted gross revenue and described local plans for using revenue to support infrastructure and schools.

Industry representatives and local officials emphasized potential job and tourism benefits. "A casino in Fort Wayne represents a significant opportunity to create good‑paying jobs," said Carl Bandemer, deputy mayor of Fort Wayne, listing construction and permanent positions allied with hospitality and entertainment.

Rising Sun and Ohio County officials urged stronger protections for the host community. City attorney Andrew Bondistel warned that the bill, as drafted, weakens previously negotiated long‑term payments to Ohio County and does not impose binding obligations on license winners to redevelop or remediate the existing riverboat facility and property. He estimated the community currently receives roughly $5 million annually from riverboat distributions and said losing that flow would be a "significant financial hardship." "If that is not in place, the local community will be saddled with the responsibility and cost of dealing with an abandoned pavilion and riverboat," Bondistel said.

Public‑health and community voices also testified against the relocation, stressing gambling‑harm risks. Dan Schrek, a licensed clinical addiction counselor, cited state estimates of problem gambling and argued that adding a new major venue "shifts convenience and normalizes high‑frequency play," concentrating local harm and service demands.

Several committee members questioned whether the local referendum in the bill should be mandatory rather than advisory. Sponsor Snow said the current text allows a referendum as written but that he was open to considering an amendment to make it compulsory. Testimony also highlighted fiscal‑note gaps: speakers asked who would pay for off‑site infrastructure and noted revenue displacement from existing Indiana casinos and racinos.

After hearing public testimony and discussing two larger amendment packages, the committee took a roll‑call vote and advanced HB 10‑38 by a recorded vote of 7‑3. The bill was reassigned to the Appropriations Committee.

What happens next: HB 10‑38 will go to Appropriations, where funding questions and specific amendment language (including any binding referendum language, the size and destination of payments, and redevelopment obligations for departing license holders) can be negotiated. The committee record indicates several stakeholders expect further changes in later stages.

(Reported from testimony and committee proceedings.)