Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Finance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

OLG warns licensing structure leaves regulator underfunded after sports‑wagering reform

Committee on Human Services · February 24, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

OLG officials told the committee the 2024 Sports Wagering Amendment shifted sports wagering revenue streams and left OLG without predictable administrative funding; the agency proposed routing gaming receipts through a Lottery, Gambling and Gaming Fund and allowing the regulator to retain a percentage for oversight.

At the Committee on Human Services oversight hearing, Randy Burnside, executive director of the Office of Lottery and Gaming, explained that the Sports Wagering Amendment of 2024 moved sports wagering into a competitive model and redirected most tax receipts away from OLG’s operating accounts.

Burnside said licensing fees for commercial sports wagering are large but lumpy: initial Class C licenses cost $2,000,000 for a five‑year term and renew at 50%, while stadium (Class A) fees are $1,000,000 and renew at $500,000. He told the committee that fee timing and an unexpectedly small number of entrants have reduced licensing revenue from roughly $4.4M to about $2.7M in the cited years, and OLG now projects licensing receipts could fall to about $500,000 in a future year, creating an approximate $2,000,000 annual shortfall to fund regulatory costs.

“To address this, OLG recommends that all gaming revenues from private sports wagering, games of skill, commercial bingo, and future gaming activities be directed to the Lottery Gambling and Gaming Fund with Council allocating a percentage of gross or net gaming revenue from each gaming line to the OLG for administrative expenses,” Burnside said. He cited comparable approaches in Maryland and West Virginia and proposed a percentage‑based set‑aside (for example, up to 10–15%) to cover oversight without reducing transfers to the General Fund. Councilmembers requested further mapping of revenue flows and asked OLG to return with options that avoid adverse impacts on operators and the District’s transfers.