Share 
Vermont sports betting legislation is being held over in the Senate budget committee, where lawmakers Thursday questioned problem gambling appropriations in the bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee punted a vote on H.127 after chair Sen. Jane Kitchel, D-Danville, raised questions with an earlier amendment that would fund problem gambling at five percent of annual state sports betting revenue beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2026.
“We’re expressing concerns about anything that is open-ended,” said Kitchel.
Additionally, the committee flagged set amounts of $250,000 and $500,000 proposed in the bill for problem gambling programs in FY 2024 and 2025 respectively. Kitchel specifically questioned how much money is necessary for sports betting addiction starting out.
“The question is without the benefit of experience, it’s hard to know if doubling is the appropriate amount,” Kitchel said of the proposed amounts.
Under the bill, between two and six online operators would be allowed to operate in Vermont’s sports betting marketplace. Annual state revenue from sports betting would total $6.6 million in the first fiscal two years and $10.6 million in FY 2025 according to a legislative fiscal note.
Although it could still be added, H.127 does not yet appear on the Senate budget committee’s agenda for tomorrow. The bill — which has passed two other Senate committees in anticipation of a Senate floor vote — was referred to the committee last week.
The House voted the bill out on March 24.
Vermont Problem Gambling Funding Half the National Average
The five percent rate was proposed by the Senate Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs Committee in an amendment to H.127 on April 12 at the request of Vermont Department of Liquor and Lottery (DLL) Commissioner Wendy Knight after the committee heard that Vermont’s investment in problem gambling programming is half the national average.
Vermont currently only invests 23 cents on the dollar, or half the national average of 46 cents, to address problem gambling in the state, according to testimony from National Council on Problem Gambling official Brianne Doura-Schawohl at an April 7 committee hearing.
At the same hearing, Knight advised the committee to elevate that investment by tapping into potential sports betting revenue at the five percent rate. She also suggested that the set amounts for problem gambling be replaced with a percentage but those amounts remain in the bill, for now.
“You need to add the five percent. You need a way to grow the revenue for the problem gaming funds,” said Knight.
Next Steps in the Senate
It is uncertain how the Senate budget committee will handle the appropriations language, whether tomorrow or at a meeting next week. Legislative staff attorney Tucker Anderson reminded the committee that the bill can be amended on the Senate floor.
Anderson also pointed out today that the five-percent appropriation isn’t binding on future Vermont state legislatures.
“As this committee is likely very well aware, this is nonbinding language so that a future assembly may change this or come up with a different appropriations scheme,” he told the committee.
Kitchel was firm about adjourning and taking up the issue at another meeting — specifically the issue of putting an “upper limit” on problem gambling appropriations after FY 2025.
“We’re going to have to have a little more discussion in terms of this appropriation and allocation and whether we put an upper limit on it,” she said. “It’s very hard to know what this is going to generate and what we’re committing to.”
Horse Race Betting as a Sports Event?
Concerns with the inclusion of horse racing and equestrian events under the definition of “sports event” in H.127 were also brought before the Senate budget committee today — although Knight quickly put the issue to rest.
Knight said the definition does not require wagering on horse racing events. DLL has the authority to decide what events are included in any future Vermont sports wagering catalog. Horse racing does not have to be included in the catalog, even if it is in the definition, she said.
“The bill gives the (DLL) the discretion to figure out what kinds of sporting events we want to offer in this state so it’s not a concern for me. I think we’re fine,” she told the committee today.
The definition had been flagged by Churchill Downs Inc, according to Knight and Sen. Dick Sears, D-North Bennington, a member of the Senate budget committee and past sponsor of sports betting legislation in Vermont. Sears said CDI has shared concerns with the definition in terms of odds setting, i.e. fixed odds versus pari-mutuel.
“I’d hate to have Churchill Downs upset with us. Or Saratoga for that matter,” said Sears.
