Date post: | 05-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | david-moon |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 35
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
1/35
Overview of the Impact of Video Lottery
Terminals in Prince Georges County and
Table Games in Maryland
Presentation by the Department of LegislativeServices in consultation with
PricewaterhouseCoopers
to the
Workgroup to Consider Gaming Expansion
June 12, 2012
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
2/35
Overview
This presentation is primarily focused on the analysis of issues related to the expansionof video lottery terminals (VLT) at a sixth location in Prince Georges County and theintroduction of table games. These analyses include:
Whether the Maryland gaming market can support a sixth VLT facility
Drive Time Analysis of VLTs at a Prince Georges County Facility and the
Estimated Impact on Existing VLT Facility Revenues: This analysis wasconducted to estimate the revenues that a facility with 3,000 VLTs at National Harbor,including a facility that is considered a destination location, may generate in astabilized year of operations. In addition, this analysis also estimates the impacts of aPrince Georges County VLT facility on the revenues generated from existing andcurrently authorized VLT facility locations.
Impact of Table Games: This analysis was conducted to determine the potential
revenues that may be derived from adding table games at the five currently authorizedVLT locations, as well as from table games at a VLT facility at National Harbor inPrince Georges County.
Additional information on VLT program costs in Maryland and gaming in other states isalso provided.
1
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
3/35
2
Gaming Revenue Benchmark
Jurisdiction
Total GamingRevenue
($ in Millions)
MSAPopulation(Millions)
Total GamingRevenue Per
CapitaNumber ofCasinos
Chicagoland $2,011 6.7 $300 9
Detroit 1,667 3.3 498 3
Lawrenceburg (IN)(Cincinnati area) 678 1.5 450 3
Kansas City 732 1.4 507 6
Philadelphia 1,118 4.3 260 3
St. Louis 1,122 2.0 553 6
Maryland :
Central Maryland 1,224 6.0 204 3
Central MarylandWith National Harbor 1,470 6.0 245 4
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
4/35
Revenue Estimates for aPrince Georges County VLT Facility
3
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
5/35
Drive Time Analysis Method
Drive time analysis is used to estimate the potential gaming revenueof a gaming facility on the basis of a set of assumed conditions. Ittakes into consideration the expected level of spending at theproposed facility by adults living in various zones around a proposedsite location, with the zones primarily defined in terms of the amount
of time it takes to drive to the proposed site and the assumedsurrounding competition.
It should be noted that the drive time analysis is an establishedmethod which has been used extensively over a number of years in
the major gaming markets. Player behavior observed in othergaming markets provides a foundation for this analysis.
4
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
6/35
Drive Time Analysis Method (Cont.)
A drive time analysis was conducted to estimate thegaming revenues generated by a proposed facilitywith 3,000 VLTs at National Harbor inPrince Georges County in a stabilized year ofoperation.
The stabilized year takes place once the permanentfacility is open, has ramped up, and is moving into asteady operational state. It also takes into accountassumed competition.
5
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
7/35
The visitation analyses were conducted by dividing the areasurrounding the proposed facility into various zones and analyzingthe following three critical factors for each zone.
Adult Gaming Propensity: An estimate of the likelihood of a resident
of an area to visit a particular facility in a given year. The gamingpropensity depends upon a number of factors including access and drivetime, proximity to existing and proposed competitive gaming facilities,availability of other leisure activities, and availability and type oftransportation to the proposed facility. Propensity is shown on apercentage basis and calculated by dividing the number of expected
patrons in a geographic area by the number of adults in the same area.Appropriate propensity estimates, when combined with estimates ofregional population, can provide a useful understanding of the marketopportunity for a given facility.
Drive Time Analysis Method (Cont.)
6
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
8/35
Drive Time Analysis Method (Cont.)
Annual Frequency of Visits or Trips: An estimate of how often agamer living in a given area visits a particular facility in a year. Thosewho must travel a longer time to reach the facility are expected to visitless often; however, they are expected to spend more per trip onaverage, as explained below. Those who live closer are expected to visitmore frequently. For zones for which there is a greater variety ofalternative entertainment activities readily available, both the propensityto visit and trip frequency are estimated to be lower.
Average Trip Expenditure: An estimate of the typical spending of avisitor during a trip to a given facility. It is also referred to as win pervisitor. Under normal circumstances, trip expenditure and distance
traveled are positively correlated, such that a visitor who resides fartherfrom the gaming facility may be expected to visit less frequently but stayfor a longer period and spend more each visit than another visitor whoresides closer to the facility. On average, the more frequently a patronvisits the gaming facility, the less the patron is expected to spend at thefacility during each trip.
7
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
9/35
Drive Time Analysis Method (Cont.)
The following graphic illustrates how the three critical factorsdiscussed previously were used to arrive at the total gamingrevenues for the proposed facility.
Adult Population
in Zones X
Adult Gaming
Propensity
Adult Gamers in
Zones=
Adult Gamers inZones X
Annual Frequencyof Visits
Annual Visitationin Zones
=
Annual Visitationin Zones X
Average TripExpenditure
GamingRevenues from
Zones
=
8
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
10/35
Forty Minute Drive Time Zones for Maryland Live!,Proposed Baltimore City Facility, and Proposed
Facility at National Harbor
9
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
11/35
Analyses were conducted for both a regular VLT facility and a destinationVLT facility at National Harbor, each with 3,000 VLTs.
For a destination VLT facility, it is assumed that a 400-room hotel, additionalfood and beverage outlets, retail outlets, and a larger primary entertainment
venue are built, and that the facility operates with a lower tax rate than thestandard 67%.
It is also assumed that the destination facility is operated by a licensee withthe ability to market to members of a player loyalty program with a regional ornational reach.
In determining the revenues generated by a Prince Georges County facility,the impacts of the facility on revenues generated by existing VLT facilitylocations were also estimated.
Analyses for a Prince Georges
County VLT Facility
10
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
12/35
Revenue EstimatesPrince Georges County VLT Facility
The estimated revenue and win per unit per day (WPD) in the fullystabilized year for both a regular facility and a destination facility with3,000 VLTs at National Harbor in Prince Georges County are listedbelow.
11
Regular FacilityDestination
Facility
Gross Revenues($ in Millions)
$374.6 $423.9
Win Per Day $342 $387
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
13/35
Estimated Revenue Decreases forExisting VLT Facility Locations
The estimated annual revenue decreases for the Anne Arundel and BaltimoreCity VLT facility locations resulting from a 3,000 VLT facility at NationalHarbor in Prince Georges County are listed below.
VLT revenues generated by the other three existing VLT facility locations
would not be impacted by a Prince Georges County VLT facility.
12
($ in Millions)RegularFacility
DestinationFacility
Anne Arundel -$112 (-23%) -$125 (-26%)
Baltimore City -63 (-16%) -65 (-17%)
Total Reduction -$175 -$190
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
14/35
Revenue Sources for aPrince Georges County VLT Facility
13
($ in Millions) Regular Facility Destination Facility
Revenues from existingzones otherwise going
to Anne Arundel andBaltimore City facilities
$175 (47%) $190 (45%)
Revenues from increasedpenetration in existingzones
118 (31%) 132 (31%)
Revenues from newzones and out-of-market visitors
82 (22%) 101 (24%)
Gross Revenues $375 $424
Net New Revenues $200 $234
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
15/35
Revenue Estimates for Table Gamesat VLT Facilities
14
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
16/35
Table Games
Based on a review of gaming facilities in otherstates, it is estimated that the introduction of tablegames would increase total annual gamingrevenues at a VLT facility in Maryland byapproximately 23%.
Any impact on VLT revenues from the introductionof table games is expected to be negligible.
15
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
17/35
Estimated Number of Table Gamesby Facility
16
WithoutPrince
Georges
Facility
With PrinceGeorges
RegularFacility
With PrinceGeorges
DestinationFacility
Anne Arundel 209 161 155
Baltimore City 168 141 140
Cecil 57 57 57
Worcester 24 24 24
Allegany 22 22 22
Prince Georges 164 185
Totals 480 569 583
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
18/35
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
19/35
Combined Revenues from VLTs and Table
Games and Impact of Prince Georges Facility
18
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
20/35
19
GrossRevenues from VLTs and Table GameswithoutPrince Georges Facility
($ in Millions)
VLTs Tables Total
Anne Arundel $479.2 $110.2 $589.5
Baltimore City 384.4 88.4 472.8
Cecil 131.3 30.2 161.6
Worcester 53.8 12.4 66.2
Allegany 49.6 11.4 61.0
Total $1,098.4 $252.6 $1,351.1
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
21/35
20
GrossRevenues from VLTs and Table GameswithRegular Prince Georges Facility
($ in Millions)
VLTs Tables Total
Anne Arundel $367.5 $84.5 $452.1
Baltimore City 321.6 74.0 395.6
Cecil 131.3 30.2 161.6
Worcester 53.8 12.4 66.2
Allegany 49.6 11.4 61.0
Prince George's 374.6 86.2 460.7
Total $1,298.5 $298.7 $1,597.2
Increase $200.1 $46.0 $246.1
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
22/35
21
OperatorRevenues from VLTs and TableGames withoutPrince Georges Facility
($ in Millions)
VLTs(33% Share)
Tables(80% Share) Total
Anne Arundel $158.1 $88.2 $246.3
Baltimore City 126.9 70.7 197.6
Cecil 43.3 24.2 67.5
Worcester 17.8 9.9 27.7
Allegany 24.8 * 9.1 33.9Total $370.9 $202.1 $573.0
*50% share under current law.
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
23/35
22
OperatorRevenues from VLTs and TableGames withRegular Prince Georges Facility
($ in Millions)
VLT(33% Share)
Tables(80% Share) Total
Anne Arundel $121.3 $67.6 $188.9
Baltimore City 106.1 59.2 165.3
Cecil 43.3 24.2 67.5
Worcester 17.8 9.9 27.7
Allegany 24.8 9.1 33.9Prince George's 123.6 68.9 192.5
Total $436.9 $238.9 $675.9
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
24/35
23
NetNew Operator Revenues from TableGames withRegular Prince Georges Facility
($ in Millions)
% Increase
VLT TablesNew
RevenuesOver Current
Law
Anne Arundel -$36.9 $67.6 $30.8 19.5%
Baltimore City -20.7 59.2 38.5 30.3%
Cecil 0.0 24.2 24.2 55.8%
Worcester 0.0 9.9 9.9 55.8%
Allegany 0.0 9.1 9.1 36.8%
Prince George's 123.6 68.9 192.5
Total $66.0 $238.9 $305.0 82.2%
Note: Columns may not sum to total due to rounding.
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
25/35
State and Other Revenues from a RegularPrince Georges Facility and Table Games
24
($ in Millions)State Other
Education Trust Fund (48.5% of VLT revenues) $97
Horse Racing (9.5% of VLT revenues) $19Local Impact Grants (5.5% of VLT revenues) 11
State Lottery (2.0% of VLT revenues) 4
Small, Minority, and Women-owned
Businesses Account (1.5% of VLT revenues) 3Net Table Game Revenues (20% State share) 60
Total New Revenues Before AnyCompensation for Lost OperatorRevenues
$161 $33
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
26/35
Additional VLT and Table GamesInformation
25
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
27/35
Video Lottery Terminals Authorizedand Awarded/Requested to Date
Authorized Awarded/Requested Difference
Anne Arundel 4,750 4,750 0
Baltimore City 3,750 3,750 0
Cecil 2,500 1,500 1,000Worcester 2,500 800 1,700
Allegany 1,000* 850** 150
Additional Excess 500* 500
Totals 15,000 11,650 3,350
26
*Chapter 240 of 2011 reduced the VLT allocation for Allegany County from 1,500 to 1,000.**Awardee plans to add another 150 VLTs in the second year of operations, for a total of 1,000 VLTs.
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
28/35
VLT Program Costs($ in Millions)
Fiscal 2013 Fiscal 2016 (Est.)
VLT Ownership $76.3 $133.0
Central Monitor and Control
System
3.5 3.6
Lottery Administrative Costs 4.6 6.2
Total $84.5 $142.8
Less 2% of VLT Revenues -11.6 -22.0
Remainder as General FundRevenues
$72.9 $120.8
General Fund Revenues as a% of VLT Revenues
14% 11%
27
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
29/35
VLT Revenue Distributions inMaryland and Surrounding States
MD DE PA WV*
Licensee 33.0% 40.5% 45.0% 46.5%
State 48.5% 43.5% 34.0% 30.0%
Horse Racing 9.5% 10.0% 12.0% 10.5%Local 5.5% 4.0% 2.0%
Admin/MachineCosts
2.0% 6.0% *
Economic
Devt/Tourism
1.5% 5.0% 3.0%
Other 8.0%
28
*Revenue distributions are made after a deduction of up to 4% for state administrative costs.
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
30/35
Table Games Revenue Distributionsin Surrounding States
DE PA WV
Licensee 66.0% 88.0%* 65.0%
State 29.4% 12.0%* 35.0%
Local *
Horse Racing 4.5%
29
*In the first two years of table game operations, the licensee receives 86% and the State 14%. Of thelicensees share, 2% is distributed to local jurisdictions.
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
31/35
Summary of Impact of Prince Georges
Facility on Gross Revenues
A Prince Georges VLT facility with 3,000 VLTs would generateadditional gross VLT revenues of approximately $200 million from aregular facility and $234 million from a destination location, net of theimpact on other facilities.
Adding table games would increase gross revenues byapproximately $252 million at the five currently authorized VLTfacilities and $299 million with a regular Prince Georges facility($304 million for a destination location).
Based on these estimates, the Maryland market could sustain a sixthVLT facility in Prince Georges County.
30
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
32/35
Summary of Impact of Prince Georges
Facility on Operator Revenues
Lost VLT operator revenues from a Prince Georges facility are anestimated $37 million for Anne Arundel and $21 million for BaltimoreCity, which equates to approximately 10% of Anne Arundels grossVLT revenues and 6% for Baltimore City.
Estimated table game revenues for operators would also be lowerwith a Prince Georges facility $21 million from Anne Arundel and$12 million from Baltimore City (at a 20% tax rate).
Overall, however, net VLT and table game operator revenues would
increase at each facility
$31 million or 20% at Anne Arundel and$38 million or 30% at Baltimore City before any compensation forlost revenues.
31
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
33/35
Summary of State Impact
The benefit to the State depends on the distribution of revenues froma Prince Georges facility, net of any compensation to Anne Arundeland Baltimore City VLT licensees, and the tax rate on table games.
Assuming the VLT distributions under current law and no additionalcompensation to operators beyond new table game revenues, theState could receive approximately $101 million in additionalEducation Trust Fund and Lottery revenue from a regular PrinceGeorges facility.
Assuming a 20% tax rate on table games, the State could receive anadditional $50 million annually from the five currently authorizedfacilities and $60 million annually with a regular Prince Georgesfacility.
32
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
34/35
Impact of Shifting VLT Ownership
Additional revenues could be generated for the State byshifting ownership of the VLTs to the operators. The State willspend an estimated $133 million on VLT leases when all fivecurrently authorized locations are operational.
This equates to approximately 11.0% of gross VLT revenues.
Operators could purchase/lease VLTs more cost effectively,ranging anywhere from 2.5 to 8.0% of gross VLT revenues.
33
7/31/2019 Maryland Gambling Work Group Report - June 2012
35/35
Issues for Workgroup Discussion
Can the Maryland gaming market support a sixth facility with 3,000 VLTs?
If expanding to a Prince Georges County location and/or authorizing tablegames at VLT facilities:
the appropriate net benefit to the State (Education Trust Fund/General Fund);
the appropriate distribution of VLT proceeds from a Prince Georges County facility,including the appropriate licensee share;
the appropriate compensation, if any, to VLT facility licensees in Anne ArundelCounty and Baltimore City for lost revenues; and
the appropriate tax rate for table game proceeds and how those tax revenues
should be distributed.
Shifting VLT ownership from the State to the VLT facility licensees, includingthe percentage share of proceeds necessary to compensate licensees andthe anticipated savings to the State.
34