Memorandum TO: In Support of Maryland Jobs & Schools FROM: Sage Policy Group, Inc. Re: Impact of Question 7 Introduction & Purpose Since the introduction of slot machines in 1997, Maryland has been Charles Town’s most lucrative market, with the most supportive jurisdiction being Montgomery County. In an effort to recapture lost economic and fiscal activity, Marylanders ultimately legalized video lottery terminals (VLTs) after a November 2008 referendum in which voters authorized 15,000 machines at five locations in Maryland.1 Despite the introduction of several facilities in Maryland, the state continues to play catch-up, in part because the existing facilities may not be attractive enough to undo previously established patterns of behavior or perhaps because they are not strategically situated. Accordingly, in August 2012, the Maryland legislature passed a new law that introduces Question 7, which will be presented to Maryland voters this November.2 The referendum will authorize a casino in a four-mile swath of far-western Prince George’s County that includes National Harbor and Rosecroft Raceway as well as permitting table games there and at the five other locations already approved by the state, three of which are already in operation.3 One of the primary objectives embodied in Question 7 is recapturing additional lost economic activity while encouraging more out-of-staters to play in Maryland. Based on findings in a 2007 DLLR study and Fiscal Notes provided by the Department of Legislative Services, approximately 30 to 37 percent of Charles Town’s gaming revenue comes from Maryland players.4,5 The fact that Charles Town is generating more weekly revenue today than it was in 2007 is an indication that Maryland’s currently operating facilities have not produced as much impact as desired.6 A new gaming facility located in far-western Prince George’s County, by virtue of location and with the inclusion of table games, will both ensure Maryland will be competitive with other mid-Atlantic states on gaming. The purpose of this memorandum is to investigate the extent to which the new Prince George’s County facility and the addition of table games at Maryland’s other facilities would finally release Charles Town’s grip on Maryland’s economy and tax base. It should be noted that this analysis focuses specifically on Charles Town because it is the largest single beneficiary of the spending of Marylanders on gaming. However, the impact of Pennsylvania and Delaware facilities on Maryland’s economy should not be discounted. Some Relevant History In 1994, West Virginia authorized VLTs at four different horse tracks.7 In December 2009, table games were instituted at Charles Town after the residents of Jefferson County approved these games through a referendum
1
Senate Bill 3, Fiscal and Policy Note (Revised), 2007 Special Session. (2007), p.3. Retrieved September 24th, 2012, from http://mlis.state.md.us/2007s1/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0003.pdf, p.8 2 Linskey, Annie & Michael Dresser. (August 15, 2012). General Assembly oks casino bill. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved September 28th, 2012, from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-08-15/news/bs-md-gambling-session-tuesday-20120814_1_table-games-slotmachine-sixth-casino 3 Linskey, Annie. (September 24th, 2012). Some gambling opponents focus fight on Prince George’s: Clergy, others work for a ‘no’ vote from county residents. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved on September 24th, 2012, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-gambling-prince-georges-20120924,0,4374734,print.story 4 Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation. (2007), p.15. 5 Senate Bill 3. (2007), p. 11. 6 West Virginia Lottery. (n.d.) Data downloadable from http://www.state.wv.us/lottery/vidsum.zip and http://wvlottery.com/tablegames/reports.aspx 7 Id.
1