So, in addition to a Jan 1, 5% withholding fee/tax for NY bettors with out of state rebate houses/ADW\'s, now increased fees for the signal.The Clueless Clowns at NYRA obviously do not understand or care about the implications to the whale rebater/big player grinding out a point or two after rebate. The rebate houses are only holding a couple of points now, after signal cost and rebates.The NY 5% tax/fee plus the increased signal fee will be difficult, if not impossible, to absorb especially if they have many NY clients.
So sad, people with a seat at the table have no f--king clue, seriously!
NYRA Budget for 2014 Calls for Hike in Fees
By Tom Precious(Bloodhorse)
The New York Racing Association is finalizing a \"fresh look\" budget for 2014 that will hike fees imposed on simulcast partners and raise prices for racetrack admission and parking while cutting a number of expenses, including money saved by ending training at Aqueduct Racetrack during non-racing periods at the facility.
\"We\'re doing our best to try to perform on a break-even basis,\" NYRA president Christopher Kay told a group of state regulators Dec. 2 meeting.
Kay did not immediately reveal the amounts to be raised by hiking fees imposed on those taking NYRA\'s simulcast signal. \"They may not like it. I\'m sure there will be some opposition,\" Kay said.
Kay said NYRA\'s 2014 budget, expected to be approved by its board the week of Dec. 2, will raise general admission prices at Saratoga Race Course and Belmont Park from $3 to $5 and clubhouse admission from $5 to $8, levels he said are comparable to other major tracks in the country. He said entry prices, which do not affect free admission at Aqueduct, have not been raised at Saratoga and Belmont since 2005.
Robert Williams, chairman of the Franchise Oversight Board, which monitors NYRA\'s finances, questioned Kay about raising prices after NYRA saw a drop in attendance at Saratoga this past summer despite major expenditures on marketing for the track\'s 150th anniversary.
Kay said NYRA will be making a number of improvements at the tracks to enhance the experience of patrons, including a new facility at Saratoga and improved technology to view races. He called the admission fee increase \"modest.\"
Kay said the 2014 budget envisions an operating profit of $250,000, separate from money NYRA will receive from video lottery terminal revenue at Aqueduct.
\"We need to use those (VLT) monies to grow our business\" and not just as a subsidy to make up for red ink budgets, he said.
Kay also said NYRA now plans to keep Aqueduct open, answering a question posed by Williams about NYRA looking at the possibility of constructing a synthetic track at Belmont that could be seen by some in the industry as an initial move to making it winter-ready. But, Kay said, NYRA does \"need to be prepared\" if closing Aqueduct is ever an option.
A NYRA spokeman later said there is no plan to install a synthetic surface at Belmont in 2014 or any other time.
Kay said the budget envisions experiments that, if successful, NYRA will keep in place when it hopes in 2015 to return to a private operation and out from under the authority of a state-imposed board of directors. Susanne Stover, NYRA\'s chief financial officer, called 2014 \"an important year\" for NYRA during the last scheduled year of the state running Aqueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga.
While Kay had been hoping to use the VLT revenue to grow NYRA\'s long-term business, the racing entity is facing two major expenses–pension costs and a federal income tax liability–that will eat up that revenue in 2014.
NYRA plans to close Aqueduct for training for two to four months a year.
\"Maybe shorter, maybe longer,\" Kay said. He said NYRA will talk with the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen\'s Association about the plan; the organization has raised concerns that closing for training could hurt pari-mutuel handle.
\"We\'d have to generate $44.6 million in handle to get those funds,\" said Kay, who noted that additional barns are set to be built in 2014 at Belmont to handle horses now kept at Aqueduct when that facility is dark.
On a year-to-date basis through three quarters in 2013, NYRA\'s net revenue totaled $122 million, down 1% from the same period in 2012. NYRA officials attributed the drop primarily to fewer race dates.
On-track attendance was off 9%, due, in part to declines at the Saratoga summer meet and for the Belmont Stakes (gr. I). Operating expenses were up 4%.
NYRA said it generated 21% of the nation\'s Thoroughbred racing handle. Aqueduct\'s VLT casino, meanwhile, had a daily win per machine of $433, up from $371 during the first three quarters of 2012.
Williams, the state regulator, called it \"a little odd\" that Saratoga saw an attendance drop when NYRA had a major marketing campaign associated with the track\'s 150th anniversary. Kay said NYRA next year is planning to broaden the marketing outreach, which he said this year was heavily tilted to attracting local patrons, to an area between Boston and Washington, D.C.
Einstein\'s the lot of them!!!!
Incredible totally inf$#%^&*$credible.
Along with the stellar product they will put on the track over the next 5 months!
Yes indeed they are truly enhancing our race track experience !!!!
You mean the 5% thing wasn\'t an April fools gag? Really?
Dumber than spit.
I will grudgingly give credit where credit is due.
DRF reports that NYRA has announced that for the months of January, February and March that Aqueduct will race on Mondays and be dark on Wednesdays. This has always seemed like a no brainer: On Wednesdays, Inner Dirt racing competes for the simulcasting dollar with a superior product being presented by Stronach Anita and Gulfstro Park; on Mondays there is no such competition.
The other things I\'m hearing, such as increased admission at Belmont and the Spa (\"There hasn\'t been an admissions increase at Belmont since 2005\" says the Boob from Toyland)(someone tell the Boob that there haven\'t been any real improvements made at Belmont since 1970); such as closing Aqueduct for training a few months a year to cut expenses; such as enhancing the ontrack experience (6500 live gate on Saturday, just awful for a card which featured the early winter book fave for the Derby and an outstanding Cigar Mile) give me no hope that anyone in this current regime, from Kay on down, could spell \"Clue\" even if they were provided the first three letters.
Nobody talking about quality of racing, safety of horses and riders, building a nationwide brand, cultivating brand loyalty among horseplayers.
Miff -
I don\'t think trying to negotiate higher signal fees is a new thing for NYRA. We\'ll see how they make out.
My (uneducated) guess is that the 5% fee is driven more by the OTBs (and the patronage recipients who run them) than by NYRA.
For me, the bottom line is that no one seems to be able to run a non-boutique racetrack without something else (usually slots) supplementing its income. That\'s not a tenable situation for the long-term health of the industry. With more and more wagering moving away from the track, signal fees (which many feel are too low for historical reasons) are a logical thing to be looking at for enhanced revenues.
In reading this thread, and nearly every other one devoted to the Gang that Can\'t Shoot Straight, or shoot anything else other than its own foot, my first thought is that Carl Hiassen or Dave Barry, writers who skewer the many follies and foibles of Florida politics, overdevelopment, etc., should moonlight into NY politics, and need not look any further than the horse racing industry to find ample fodder for another book.
So, on track attendance is down, but price of admission will go up, the line of thinking being that our product is deemed increasingly less appealing to the public, so let\'s charge them more for it. Now, if the rationale is to bring in more revenue, but you\'re creating an additional bar to increased attendance, does that not also mean you will also have fewer consumers of the overpriced crap that is served at the majority of non-privately run concession stands? Is this a favorable trade off? On the plus side, they can reduce costs of \"free\" crap that is given away, because fewer people will be spinning at five bucks a pop, much to the dismay of thousands of nieces and nephews who will be denied yet another cheesy white tee shirt or red hat to add to their annual Christmas gift collection.
Of course, as is frequently noted, the nature of the wagering business is shifting dramatically to the comforts of one\'s own desk, laz-y boy, or patio furniture. Someone might want to mention that, and its implications, to them as they figure out how to pay the heating bills at Aqueduct by squeezing out more revenue from all those empty seats that they\'re warming.
Bit,
Actually the 5% is the brainchild of NY State after an investigation of wagering. The 5% was embraced by NYRA and supported by the NY horsemen.None of these groups have the slightest knowledge of what there are doing here.\"They\" believe that this will force players handle from ADW\'s/rebate houses to NYRA 1 accounts and NYRA tracks.Rebates will drop by 5% IF the ADW\'s and rebate houses comply with the NY State edict.(hear some places won\'t but NYRA signal may get pulled)
By doing this(5% fee),\"They\" see that NYRA gets the WHOLE takeout on bets(blended 20%) instead of just the signal fee portion(like 8%) from many high volume venue ADW\'s/rebate houses.
Just highlights the disconnect between those in charge and the players and the overall poor treatment of the players.
Mike
So the 5 percent surcharge would not apply to \"regular\" providers like xpressbet?
Miff -
NYRA itself on gets 10% of the fee. The OTBs collectively get much more.
http://www.drf.com/news/new-york-add-5-cent-fee-bets-made-out-state-companies
It seems fair to assume that the rebate houses will reduce the rebates for NY residents by the amount of the fee. How do you think NY whales will respond?
Bit,
Some may look to NYRA for the same deal they were getting at the rebate houses or pull the plug on betting NYRA tracks. I understand NYRA will entertain a whale type rebate program(unconfirmed)but the implications of computer generated batch bets and live hook ups to the pools by a select few whales may be an issue.
Dont know how this will play out but the overall implications have not been well thought out or understood by the NY racing powers that be.
Mike
Dead,
Info sketchy but think any NY State resident who bets with an out of state ADW or Rebate house is subject to the 5%(paid by ADW/rebate House, not the player)
If you can believe it, I asked a guy at the NYS Gaming Commission about the law and his answer was unclear.
Mike
Mike, any idea what type of \"new facility\" is in the works for the Spa?
And I\'m guessing the \"improved technology\" for viewing races is Trakus and some flat screen TVs, yes? Notice no help on \"hearing\" races, so we can expect the usual dead zones in 2014.
\"Kay said NYRA will be making a number of improvements at the tracks to enhance the experience of patrons, including a new facility at Saratoga and improved technology to view races.\"
richiebee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will grudgingly give credit where credit is
> due.
>
> DRF reports that NYRA has announced that for the
> months of January, February and March that
> Aqueduct will race on Mondays and be dark on
> Wednesdays. This has always seemed like a no
> brainer: On Wednesdays, Inner Dirt racing competes
> for the simulcasting dollar with a superior
> product being presented by Stronach Anita and
> Gulfstro Park; on Mondays there is no such
> competition.
>
> The other things I\'m hearing, such as increased
> admission at Belmont and the Spa (\"There hasn\'t
> been an admissions increase at Belmont since 2005\"
> says the Boob from Toyland)(someone tell the Boob
> that there haven\'t been any real improvements made
> at Belmont since 1970); such as closing Aqueduct
> for training a few months a year to cut expenses;
> such as enhancing the ontrack experience (6500
> live gate on Saturday, just awful for a card which
> featured the early winter book fave for the Derby
> and an outstanding Cigar Mile) give me no hope
> that anyone in this current regime, from Kay on
> down, could spell \"Clue\" even if they were
> provided the first three letters.
>
> Nobody talking about quality of racing, safety of
> horses and riders, building a nationwide brand,
> cultivating brand loyalty among horseplayers.
I was out at Aqueduct on Nov 30 for a great card. For what it is worth, there were definitely more than 6,500 people there. The place was absolutely jammed. Walked all around the plant and dined at Equestris (sp?). Admittedly, the space devoted to racing is way smaller than it used to be, but the racing area was uncomfortably crowded. The murals were actually pretty nice. I would not have made them a marketing point, but they definitely liven up the place and make it more pleasant. Not sure how they count attendance. I never went through a turnstile and I cannot see what mechanism could even be used for counting attendance.
The thing that is unfair about the trying to take the casino revenues away from the NYRA is that there was an obvious contract made by which the racetrack gave up a huge amount of value in exchange for future consideration (i.e. a cut of the casino action). The value the NYRA gave up was use of very choice real estate, customers, and goodwill. I would not underestimate the value of the goodwill. Building a casino until recently was inconceivable due to the NIMBY-principle and social mores, and the only way a casino could have been built at the time this one was planned was on the basis of the gambling already being present at the location. After the NYRA performed its part of the contract and earned its quid pro quo, they now want to take away the NYRA\'s part of the deal? It makes no sense and outside of lewis carroll, it would never happen in the real world. Who would say -- I will pay you $250,000 and you transfer to me the house, and then after the $250,000 is paid you say -- nah, forget about the house? It is total lunacy.
As to the 5% issue, is there any chance that people will wise up and do away with it, or is this a fact of life? Does it only affect NY\'ers who bet NY racing through out of state websites? If I live in NY, use twinspires, but never bet on NY racing, am I unaffected?
Trakus was being installed back in Sept. Not sure if it is finished but I would guess NO. New TV\'s and maybe a few new Tote machines. How important is actually hearing the call of a race??...LOL.
Maybe they are building another viewing stand just off nelson Ave looking over the clubhouse turn? Seems about right from this crew
Magic,
Pretty much on the money.Kay is under the gun to get NYRA in the black.His selection as CEO was based on his business background, he is a racing industry neophyte bringing nothing to the table regarding the game.IMO he is care taking for Albany and trying to dress up the balance sheet for a buyer so that Cuomo gets racing out of his hair.
The few dollars in increased fees may be meaningful to some and is no more than a slap in the face to players.Record monies flowing to NYRA and they turn around and nickle and dime the customer....f--king idiots.
Mike
I haven\'t read anything to suggest that the fee only applies to bets on NY races.
Some Albany genius sent me this answer to my questions about the 5% or in other words ...f-me for asking!
Bill S5830-2013
Provides for account wagering on simulcast horse races within and without the state
Provides for account wagering on simulcast horse races within and without the state; authorizes the operation of multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers in this state, subject to the rules and regulations of the gaming commission; provides that any wagering account upon which no wager is made for 3 or more years shall be deemed to be abandoned property.
Details
Law Section: Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
Jun 17, 2013: REFERRED TO RULES
BILL NUMBER:S5830TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law and the state finance law, in relation to account wagering on simulcast horse racesPURPOSE: To update the State\'s current account wagering laws to allow for the use of new communications technology. The bill permits patron access to legal deposit wagering accounts via personal computers and other electronic communications systems, in addition to the telephone. Furthermore, this bill levels the playing field and holds both in-state and out-of-state wagering platforms to similar regulatory structures and statutory fees.SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:Section 1: Amends Racing & Wagering Law section 1001 to add new definitions for \"account wagering\", \"account wagering licensee\", \"dormant account\", and \"multi-jurisdictional account wagering provider\".Section 2: Amends Racing & Wagering Law section 1002 to grant the State Gaming Commission general jurisdictional powers over the conduct the new expanded account wagering activities that could be conducted under this legislation.Section 3: Amends Racing & Wagering Law section 1003(1) to add a licensing fee for out-of-state advanced deposit wagering platforms on wagers they take from New York Residents. These multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers will also remain subject to all simulcast laws and regulations.Section 4: Amends Racing & Wagering Law section 1012 to revise the current law that governs telephone betting on account. This provision expands telephone betting to include the Internet, personal computers, cell phones and other forms of electronic communication. It also facilitates the ability of regional OTBs and racing associations to form partnerships to jointly offer account wagering programs.This provision also establishes the procedures for establishing new account wagering programs by multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers by ensuring all bets taken by New York residents are included in the proper pari-mutuel pools to ensure payouts pursuant to regulated odds.Section 5: Adds New Section 1012-A to the Racing & Wagering Law to set the framework for which the State and Racing Industry shall regulate and set a statutory fee structure on multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers.Section 6: Amends Racing & Wagering Law Section 1017(b) to ensure a proper calculation of handle is counted toward a multi-jurisdicational wagering providers maintenance of effort paymentsSection 7: Amends Racing & Wagering Law section 503 to grant to regional OTBs the ability to enter into agreements to cooperatively sell and market New York racing products with domestic racing associations and enter into agreements with multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers.Sections 8&9: Adds New Section 115-b of the Racing & Wagering Law and Amends 99-I of the Finance law to provide the New York Racing Industry participants, the State Gaming Commission, and the State to collect, disburse and receive credits from the statutory fees paid by multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers.Section 10: Effective DateEXISTING LAW: None.JUSTIFICATION: In September 2012, the State Racing & Wagering Board (now Gaming Commission) issued a report that studied the economic impact that non-regulation of multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers had on the State\'s racing industry as well as the state\'s tax collections and revenues.The report indicated that roughly $200M was lost by not regulating multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers in a similar fashion to in-state wagering providers. More importantly, as more and more wagering is being done via the internet the report suggested that this number would continue to grow. Industry studies have shown that the current impact is much larger than $200M.This bill regulates multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers on par with in-state providers who have and continue to pay both regulatory and statutory fees to the State and industry participants such as the horsemen and breeders.Further, this bill modernizes the telephone account wagering law to include the Internet, other personal computer systems, and cell phones.New York\'s horse racing industry has not maximized its profits, and in fact due to non-regulation of these multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers has lost profits as New York residents have consistently been attracted to these providers who are able to offer better promotions and offers, mostly from savings in not having to provide much needed revenues to the State and it\'s horsemen, breeders and other industry participants.Legislation such as this bill would facilitate the ability to produce and market New York racing products. This, in turn, could increase horse industry profits and by regulating multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers generate more revenue to support local governments and New York\'s growing racing industry.Lastly, other States currently have either regulated and/or outright prohibited New York account wagering providers from accepting wagers from their in-state residents. Therefore, like other States, in enacting this legislation New York would be protecting its own racing industry.LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: New BillFISCAL IMPLICATIONS The former State Racing & Wagering Board (now Gaming Commission) estimated in September 2012 that nearly $200M in revenue can be realized to the State from this regulation. Industry estimates are much higherLOCAL FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on January 1, 2014, and that the State Gaming Commission shall begin to license multi-jurisdictional account wagering providers commencing on October 1, 2013.
Text
STATE OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________________
5830
2013-2014 Regular Sessions
IN SENATE
June 17, 2013
___________
Introduced by Sen. BONACIC -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
printed to be committed to the Committee on Rules
AN ACT to amend the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law and
the state finance law, in relation to account wagering on simulcast
horse races
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 1001 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breed-
ing law, as added by chapter 363 of the laws of 1984, subdivisions n, o
and p as added by chapter 445 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read as
follows:
S 1001. Definitions. As used in this article, the following terms
shall have the following meanings:
a. \"Simulcast\" means the telecast of live audio and visual signals of
running, harness or quarter horse races [conducted in the state] for the
purposes of pari-mutuel wagering;
b. \"Track\" means the grounds or enclosures within which horse races
are conducted by any person, association or corporation lawfully author-
ized to conduct such races in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this chapter OR THE LAWS OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION;
c. \"Sending track\" means any track from which simulcasts originate;
d. \"Receiving track\" means any track where simulcasts originated from
another track are displayed;
e. \"Applicant\" means any association [or], corporation OR BUSINESS
ENTITY applying for a simulcast license in accordance with the
provisions of this article;
f. \"Operator\" means any association [or], corporation OR BUSINESS
ENTITY operating a simulcast facility in accordance with the provisions
of this article;
g. \"Regional track or tracks\" means any or all tracks located within a
region defined as an off-track betting region, except that for the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------purposes of section one thousand eight of this article any track located
in New York city, or Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester counties, shall be
deemed a regional track for all regions located in district one, as
defined in this section;
h. \"[The board]COMMISSION\" means the state [racing and wagering board]
GAMING COMMISSION;
i. \"Branch office\" means an establishment maintained and operated by
an off-track betting corporation, where off-track pari-mutuel betting on
horse races may be placed in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this chapter and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto;
j. \"Simulcast facility\" means those facilities within the state that
are authorized pursuant to the provisions of this article to display
simulcasts for pari-mutuel wagering purposes;
k. \"Off-track betting region\" means those regions as defined in
section five hundred nineteen of this chapter;
l. \"Simulcast theater\" means a simulcast facility which is also a
public entertainment and wagering facility, and which may include any or
all of the following: a large screen television projection and display
unit, a display system for odds, pools, and payout prices, areas for
viewing and seating, a food and beverage facility, and any other conven-
ience currently provided at racetracks and not inconsistent with local
zoning ordinances;
m. \"Simulcast districts\" means one or more of the following named
districts comprised of the counties within which pari-mutuel racing
events are conducted as follows:
District 1 New York City, Suffolk, Nassau, and
Westchester counties
District 2 Sullivan county
District 3 Saratoga county
District 4 Oneida county
District 5 Erie, Genesee and Ontario counties
n. \"Initial out-of-state thoroughbred track\" means the track commenc-
ing full-card simulcasting to New York prior to any other out-of-state
thoroughbred track after 1:00 PM on any calendar day.
o. \"Second out-of-state thoroughbred track\" means the track (or subse-
quent track or tracks where otherwise authorized by this article)
conducting full-card simulcasting to New York after the race program
from the initial out-of-state thoroughbred track that has commenced
simulcasting on any calendar day.
p. \"Mixed meeting\" means a race meeting which has a combination of
thoroughbred, quarter horse, Appaloosa, paint, and/or Arabian racing on
the same race program.
Q. \"ACCOUNT WAGERING\" MEANS A FORM OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING IN WHICH A
PERSON ESTABLISHES AN ACCOUNT WITH AN ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE AND
SUBSEQUENTLY COMMUNICATES VIA TELEPHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC MEDIA TO THE
ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE WAGERING INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING THE FUNDS IN
SUCH PERSON\'S ACCOUNT AND WAGERS TO BE PLACED ON THE ACCOUNT OWNER\'S
BEHALF.
R. \"ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE\" MEANS RACING ASSOCIATIONS, AND CORPO-
RATIONS; FRANCHISED CORPORATIONS, OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATIONS, AND
COMMISSION APPROVED MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS THAT
HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSION TO OFFER ACCOUNT WAGERING.
S. \"DORMANT ACCOUNT\" MEANS AN ACCOUNT WAGERING ACCOUNT HELD BY AN
ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE IN WHICH THERE HAS BEEN NO WAGERING ACTIVITY
FOR THREE YEARS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T. \"MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDER\" MEANS A BUSINESS
ENTITY DOMICILED IN A JURISDICTION, OTHER THAN THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
THAT DOES NOT OPERATE EITHER A SIMULCAST FACILITY THAT IS OPEN TO THE
PUBLIC WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK OR A LICENSED OR FRANCHISED RACE-
TRACK WITHIN THE STATE, BUT WHICH IS LICENSED BY SUCH OTHER JURISDICTION
TO OFFER PARI-MUTUEL ACCOUNT WAGERING ON RACES SUCH PROVIDER SIMULCASTS
AND OTHER RACES IT OFFERS IN ITS WAGERING MENU TO PERSONS LOCATED IN OR
OUT OF THE JURISDICTION ISSUING SUCH LICENSE.
S 2. Section 1002 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding
law, as added by chapter 363 of the laws of 1984, subdivision 2 as
amended by chapter 18 of the laws of 2008, is amended to read as
follows:
S 1002. General jurisdiction. 1. The [state racing and wagering board]
COMMISSION shall have general jurisdiction over the simulcasting of
horse races AND ACCOUNT WAGERING within the state, and the [board]
COMMISSION may issue rules and regulations in accordance with the
provisions of this article.
2. The [board] COMMISSION shall annually submit reports on or before
July first following each year in which simulcasting AND ACCOUNT WAGER-
ING is conducted to the director of the budget, the chairman of the
senate finance committee and the chairman of the assembly ways and means
committee evaluating the results of such simulcasts AND ACCOUNT WAGERING
on the compatibility with the well-being of the horse racing, breeding
and pari-mutuel wagering industries in this state and make any recommen-
dations it deems appropriate. Such reports may be submitted together
with the reports required by subdivision two of section two hundred
thirty-six and subparagraph (iii) of paragraph a and subparagraph (i) of
paragraph b of subdivision one of section three hundred eighteen of this
chapter.
S 3. Section 1003 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding
law, as added by chapter 363 of the laws of 1984, subdivision 1 as sepa-
rately amended by chapters 2 and 70 of the laws of 1995, paragraph (a)
of subdivision 1 as amended by section 1 of part U of chapter 59 of the
laws of 2013, the opening paragraph of paragraph a of subdivision 2 as
amended by chapter 538 of the laws of 1999 and subdivision 5 as amended
by chapter 287 of the laws of 1985, is amended to read as follows:
S 1003. Licenses for simulcast facilities. 1. (a) Any racing associ-
ation or corporation or regional off-track betting corporation, author-
ized to conduct pari-mutuel wagering under this chapter, desiring to
display the simulcast of horse races on which pari-mutuel betting shall
be permitted in the manner and subject to the conditions provided for in
this article may apply to the [board] COMMISSION for a license so to do.
Applications for licenses shall be in such form as may be prescribed by
the [board] COMMISSION and shall contain such information or other mate-
rial or evidence as the [board] COMMISSION may require. No license shall
be issued by the [board] COMMISSION authorizing the simulcast trans-
mission of thoroughbred races from a track located in Suffolk county.
The fee for such licenses shall be five hundred dollars per simulcast
facility AND FOR ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEES THAT DO NOT OPERATE EITHER A
SIMULCAST FACILITY THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW
YORK OR A LICENSED RACETRACK WITHIN THE STATE, TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
per year payable by the licensee to the [board] COMMISSION for deposit
into the general fund. Except as provided [herein] IN THIS SECTION, the
[board] COMMISSION shall not approve any application to conduct simul-
casting into individual or group residences, homes or other areas for
the purposes of or in connection with pari-mutuel wagering. The board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------may approve simulcasting into residences, homes or other areas to be
conducted jointly by one or more regional off-track betting corporations
and one or more of the following: a franchised corporation, thoroughbred
racing corporation or a harness racing corporation or association;
provided (i) the simulcasting consists only of those races on which
pari-mutuel betting is authorized by this chapter at one or more simul-
cast facilities for each of the contracting off-track betting corpo-
rations which shall include wagers made in accordance with section one
thousand fifteen, one thousand sixteen and one thousand seventeen of
this article; provided further that the contract provisions or other
simulcast arrangements for such simulcast facility shall be no less
favorable than those in effect on January first, two thousand five; (ii)
that each off-track betting corporation having within its geographic
boundaries such residences, homes or other areas technically capable of
receiving the simulcast signal shall be a contracting party; (iii) the
distribution of revenues shall be subject to contractual agreement of
the parties except that statutory payments to non-contracting parties,
if any, may not be reduced; provided, however, that nothing herein to
the contrary shall prevent a track from televising its races on an
irregular basis primarily for promotional or marketing purposes as found
by the board. For purposes of this paragraph, the provisions of section
one thousand thirteen of this article shall not apply. Any agreement
authorizing an in-home simulcasting experiment commencing prior to May
fifteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-five, may, and all its terms, be
extended until June thirtieth, two thousand fourteen; provided, however,
that any party to such agreement may elect to terminate such agreement
upon conveying written notice to all other parties of such agreement at
least forty-five days prior to the effective date of the termination,
via registered mail. Any party to an agreement receiving such notice of
an intent to terminate, may request the board to mediate between the
parties new terms and conditions in a replacement agreement between the
parties as will permit continuation of an in-home experiment until June
thirtieth, two thousand fourteen; and (iv) no in-home simulcasting in
the thoroughbred special betting district shall occur without the
approval of the regional thoroughbred track.
(b) Any agreement authorizing in-home simulcasting pursuant to this
section shall be in writing, and upon written request, a copy shall be
provided to the representative horsemen\'s group of the racing associ-
ation or corporation that is party to said agreement. Such agreement
shall include a categorical statement of new and incremental expenses
directly related and attributable to the conduct of in-home simulcast-
ing. The representative horsemen\'s group may, within thirty days of
receiving the agreement, petition the board for a determination as to
the appropriateness and reasonableness of any expenses attributed by
either the racing association or corporation or the off-track betting
corporation.
2. Before it may grant such license, the [board] COMMISSION shall
review and approve a plan of operation submitted by such applicant
including, but not limited to the following information:
a. A feasibility study denoting the revenue earnings expected from the
simulcast facility and the costs expected to operate such facility. No
feasibility study shall be received for a simulcast facility that is
applying to renew its license. The form of the feasibility study shall
be prescribed by the [board] COMMISSION and may include:
(i) the number of simulcast races to be displayed;
(ii) the types of wagering to be offered;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (iii) the level of attendance expected and the area from which such
attendance will be drawn;
(iv) the level of anticipated wagering activity;
(v) the source and amount of revenues expected from other than pari-
mutuel wagering;
(vi) the cost of operating the simulcast facility and the identifica-
tion of costs to be amortized and the method of amortization of such
costs;
(vii) the amount and source of revenues needed for financing the
simulcast facility;
(viii) the probable impact of the proposed operation on revenues to
local government;
b. The security measures to be employed to protect the facility, to
control crowds, to safeguard the transmission of the simulcast signals
and to control the transmission of wagering data to effectuate common
wagering pools;
c. The type of data processing, communication and transmission equip-
ment to be utilized;
d. The description of the management groups responsible for the opera-
tion of the simulcast facility;
e. The system of accounts to maintain a separate record of revenues
collected by the simulcast facility, the distribution of such revenues
and the accounting of costs relative to the simulcast operation;
f. The location of the facility and a written confirmation from appro-
priate local officials that the location of such facility and the number
of patrons expected to occupy such facility are in compliance with all
applicable local ordinances;
g. The written agreements and letters of consent between specified
parties pursuant to sections one thousand seven, one thousand eight and
one thousand nine of this article.
3. Within forty-five days of receipt of the plan of operation provided
in subdivision two of this section, the [board] COMMISSION shall issue
an order approving the plan, approving it with modifications or denying
approval, in which latter case the [board] COMMISSION shall state its
reasons therefor. Within such period the [board] COMMISSION may request
additional information or suggest amendments. If the [board] COMMISSION
fails to approve the plan, the applicant may request a public hearing to
be held within thirty days of the issuance of an order denying it. The
[board] COMMISSION shall issue its final determination within ten days
of such hearing. The applicant may submit an amended application no
sooner than thirty days after a denial.
4. No racing association, FRANCHISED CORPORATION or corporation or
regional off-track betting corporation shall be allowed to operate a
simulcast facility except according to the provisions of an approved
plan of operation. No change in such plan of operation may occur until
an amendment proposing a change to the plan is approved by the [board]
COMMISSION. A plan of operation may be amended from time to time at the
request of either the operator or the [board] COMMISSION. The operator
shall have the right to be heard concerning any amendment to the plan
and the [board] COMMISSION shall dispose of such proposed amendments as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than thirty days following
submission by the operator or, in the case of amendments proposed by the
[board] COMMISSION, objection by the operator.
5. For the purpose of maintaining proper control over simulcasts
conducted pursuant to this article, the [state racing and wagering
board] COMMISSION shall license any person, association or corporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------participating in simulcasting, as the [board] COMMISSION may by rule
prescribe, including, if the [board] COMMISSION deem it necessary so to
do, any or all persons, associations or corporations who create,
distribute, transmit or display simulcast signals. In the case of
thoroughbred racing simulcasting or harness racing simulcasting, such
licenses shall be issued in accordance with and subject to the
provisions governing licenses for participants and employees in article
two or article three of this chapter as may be applicable to such type
of racing.
S 4. Section 1012 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding
law, as amended by chapter 18 of the laws of 2008, subdivision 4-b as
added by chapter 402 of the laws of 2011 and subdivision 5 as amended by
section 10 of part U of chapter 59 of the laws of 2013, is amended to
read as follows:
S 1012. [Telephone accounts and telephone] ACCOUNT wagering. [Any
regional off-track betting corporation, and any franchised corporation,
harness, thoroughbred, quarter horse racing association or corporation
licensed to conduct pari-mutuel racing may maintain telephone betting
accounts for wagers placed on races and special events offered by such
corporation or association.] RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS, FRAN-
CHISED CORPORATIONS, OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-JURISDIC-
TIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS MAY APPLY TO THE COMMISSION TO BE
LICENSED TO OFFER ACCOUNT WAGERING.
1. RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS, FRANCHISED CORPORATIONS,
OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATIONS AND MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING
PROVIDERS MAY FORM PARTNERSHIPS, JOINT VENTURES, OR ANY OTHER AFFIL-
IATIONS OR CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT IN ORDER TO FURTHER THE PURPOSES OF
THIS SECTION. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS INVOLVED
IN SUCH JOINT AFFILIATIONS OR CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE
SAME DISTRIBUTIONAL POLICY WITH RESPECT TO RETAINED COMMISSIONS AS THEIR
IN-STATE AFFILIATE OR CONTRACTUAL PARTNER.
2. THE COMMISSION SHALL PROMULGATE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO LICENSE
AND REGULATE ALL PHASES OF ACCOUNT WAGERING.
3. THE COMMISSION SHALL SPECIFY A NON-REFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEE WHICH
SHALL BE PAID BY EACH APPLICANT FOR AN ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSE OR
RENEWAL THEREOF.
4. ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEES SHALL UTILIZE PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
NUMBERS AND SUCH OTHER TECHNOLOGIES AS THE COMMISSION MAY SPECIFY TO
ASSURE THAT ONLY THE ACCOUNT HOLDER HAS ACCESS TO THE ADVANCE DEPOSIT
WAGERING ACCOUNT.
5. ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEES SHALL PROVIDE FOR: A. WITHDRAWALS FROM
THE WAGERING ACCOUNT ONLY BY MEANS OF A CHECK MADE PAYABLE TO THE
ACCOUNT HOLDER AND SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER OR BY MEANS
OF AN ELECTRONIC TRANSFER TO AN ACCOUNT HELD BY THE VERIFIED ACCOUNT
HOLDER OR B. THAT THE ACCOUNT HOLDER MAY WITHDRAW FUNDS FROM THE WAGER-
ING ACCOUNT AT A FACILITY APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION BY PRESENTING VERI-
FIABLE PERSONAL AND ACCOUNT IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
6. ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEES MAY ENGAGE IN INTERSTATE WAGERING TRANS-
ACTIONS ONLY WHERE THERE IS COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER FIFTY-SEVEN OF TITLE
FIFTEEN OF THE UNITED STATES CODE, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE \"INTER-
STATE HORSE RACING ACT\".
7. THE ACCOUNT HOLDER\'S DEPOSITS TO THE WAGERING ACCOUNT SHALL BE
SUBMITTED BY THE ACCOUNT HOLDER TO THE ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE AND
SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: A. CASH GIVEN TO THE
ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE; B. CHECK, MONEY ORDER, NEGOTIABLE ORDER OF
WITHDRAWAL, OR WIRE OR ELECTRONIC TRANSFER, PAYABLE AND REMITTED TO THE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE; OR C. CHARGES MADE TO AN ACCOUNT HOLDER\'S
DEBIT OR CREDIT CARD UPON THE ACCOUNT HOLDER\'S DIRECT AND PERSONAL
INSTRUCTION, WHICH INSTRUCTION MAY BE GIVEN BY TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION
OR OTHER ELECTRONIC MEANS TO THE ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE OR ITS AGENT
BY THE ACCOUNT HOLDER IF THE USE OF THE CARD HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE
ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE.
8. A. EACH WAGER SHALL BE IN THE NAME OF A NATURAL PERSON AND SHALL
NOT BE IN THE NAME OF ANY BENEFICIARY, CUSTODIAN, JOINT TRUST, CORPO-
RATION, PARTNERSHIP OR OTHER ORGANIZATION OR ENTITY.
B. A WAGERING ACCOUNT MAY BE ESTABLISHED BY A PERSON COMPLETING AN
APPLICATION FORM APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND SUBMITTING IT TOGETHER
WITH A CERTIFICATION, OR OTHER PROOF, OF AGE AND RESIDENCY. SUCH FORM
SHALL INCLUDE THE ADDRESS OF THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE OF THE PROSPECTIVE
ACCOUNT HOLDER AND A STATEMENT THAT A FALSE STATEMENT MADE IN REGARD TO
AN APPLICATION MAY SUBJECT THE APPLICANT TO PROSECUTION.
C. THE PROSPECTIVE ACCOUNT HOLDER SHALL SUBMIT THE COMPLETED APPLICA-
TION TO THE ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE. THE ACCOUNT WAGERING LICENSEE MAY
ACCEPT OR REJECT AN APPLICATION AFTER RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF THE APPLICA-
TION AND CERTIFICATION, OR OTHER PROOF, OF AGE AND RESIDENCY FOR COMPLI-
ANCE WITH THIS SECTION.
D. NO PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON IN WHOSE NAME AN ACCOUNT HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED MAY ISSUE WAGERING INSTRUCTIONS RELATING TO THAT ACCOUNT OR
OTHERWISE ENGAGE IN WAGERING TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THAT ACCOUNT.
9. A WAGERING ACCOUNT SHALL NOT BE ASSIGNABLE OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERA-
BLE.
10. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE OR IN REGULATIONS
WHICH THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT PURSUANT THERETO, ALL ACCOUNT WAGERS
SHALL BE FINAL AND NO WAGER SHALL BE CANCELED BY THE ACCOUNT HOLDER AT
ANY TIME AFTER THE WAGER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ACCOUNT WAGERING
LICENSEE.
11. DORMANT ACCOUNTS SHALL BE TREATED AS ABANDONED PROPERTY PURSUANT
TO SECTION THREE HUNDRED OF THE ABANDONED PROPERTY LAW.
12. ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS MUST POSSESS APPROPRIATE TOTALIZATOR
AND ACCOUNTING CONTROLS THAT WILL SAFEGUARD THE TRANSMISSION OF WAGERING
DATA AND WILL KEEP A SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WILL MAINTAIN A SEPARATE
RECORD OF REVENUES AND AN ACCOUNTING OF COSTS RELATIVE TO THE OPERATION
OF THE WAGERING PROVIDER.
13. WAGERS PLACED WITH THE ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS SHALL RESULT IN
THE COMBINATION OF ALL WAGERS PLACED WITH SUCH PROVIDER WITH THE WAGER-
ING POOLS AT THE HOST TRACK SO AS TO PRODUCE COMMON PARI-MUTUEL BETTING
POOLS FOR THE CALCULATION OF ODDS AND THE DETERMINATION OF PAYOUTS FROM
SUCH POOLS, WHICH PAYOUT SHALL BE THE SAME FOR ALL WINNING TICKETS,
IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER A WAGER IS PLACED AT A HOST TRACK OR AT AN
ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDER.
14. Any [regional off-track betting corporation and any franchised
corporation, harness, thoroughbred, quarter horse racing association or
corporation licensed to conduct pari-mutuel racing] ACCOUNT WAGERING
LICENSEE may require a minimum account balance in an amount to be deter-
mined by such entity.
[2.] 15. a. Any regional off-track betting corporation may suspend
collection of the surcharge imposed under section five hundred thirty-
two of this chapter on winning wagers placed in [telephone] WAGERING
accounts maintained by such regional corporation.
b. In a city of one million or more any regional off-track betting
corporation, with the approval of the mayor of such city, may suspend
collection of the surcharge imposed under section five hundred thirty-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------two of this chapter in winning wagers placed in [telephone] WAGERING
accounts maintained by such regional corporation.
[3. Any telephone account maintained by a regional off-track betting
corporation, franchised corporation, harness, thoroughbred, quarter
horse association or corporation, with inactivity for a period of three
years shall be forfeited and paid to the commissioner of taxation and
finance. Such amounts when collected shall be paid by the commissioner
of taxation and finance into the general fund of the state treasury.
4.] 16. The maintenance and operation of such [telephone] WAGERING
accounts provided for in this section shall be subject to rules and
regulations of the [state racing and wagering board] COMMISSION. The
[board] COMMISSION shall include in such regulation a requirement that
[telephone] WAGERING account information pertaining to surcharge and
nonsurcharge [telephone] WAGERING accounts shall be separately reported.
[4-a.] 17. For the purposes of this section, \"telephone [betting]
WAGERING accounts\" [and \"telephone wagering\"] shall mean and include all
those wagers which utilize any wired or wireless communications device,
including but not limited to wireline telephones, wireless telephones[,]
and the internet[,] to transmit the placement of wagers on races and
special events offered by any regional off-track betting corporation,
and any harness, thoroughbred, quarter horse racing association or
corporation licensed or franchised to conduct pari-mutuel racing in [New
York] THIS state.
[4-b.] 18. Every racing association, off-track betting corporation,
franchised corporation, harness, thoroughbred, quarter horse racing
association or corporation or other entity licensed OR FRANCHISED in
this state to conduct pari-mutuel racing and wagering, or authorized to
conduct races within the state, which operates [an account] A wagering
[platform] ACCOUNT for the acceptance of wagers, shall locate the call
center where such wagers are received within the state of New York.
[5. The provisions of this section shall expire and be of no further
force and effect after June thirtieth, two thousand fourteen.]
S 5. The racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law is amended by
adding a new section 1012-a to read as follows:
S 1012-A. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS. A
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDER SHALL ONLY BE LICENSED
UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDER IS LICENSED BY
THE STATE IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND, IF REQUIRED, BY EACH STATE IN
WHICH IT OPERATES;
2. THE CHARACTER AND THE BACKGROUND OF THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL
ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDER IS SUCH THAT GRANTING THE APPLICATIONS FOR A
LICENSE IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE BEST INTEREST OF HONEST HORSE
RACING;
3. THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDER SHALL UTILIZE
THE SERVICES OF AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY TO PERFORM IDENTITY AND
VERIFICATION SERVICES WITH RESPECT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WAGERING
ACCOUNTS FOR PERSONS WHO ARE RESIDENTS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
4. THE COMMISSION SHALL BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO THE PREMISES OF THE
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDER TO VISIT, INVESTIGATE
AND, PLACE SUCH EXPERT ACCOUNTANTS AND OTHER PERSONS IT DEEMS NECESSARY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSURING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF
THE COMMISSION;
5. IF NOT ALREADY REGISTERED, THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGER-
ING PROVIDER SHALL AGREE PROMPTLY TO TAKE THOSE STEPS NECESSARY TO QUAL-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------IFY TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK STATE, AND TO MAINTAIN SUCH STATUS IN
GOOD STANDING THROUGHOUT THE LICENSE PERIOD;
6. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS SHALL PAY A MARKET
ORIGIN FEE EQUAL TO FIVE PER CENTUM ON EACH WAGER ACCEPTED FROM NEW YORK
RESIDENTS. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS SHALL MAKE
THE REQUIRED PAYMENTS TO THE MARKET ORIGIN ACCOUNT ON OR BEFORE THE
FIFTH BUSINESS DAY OF EACH MONTH AND SUCH REQUIRED PAYMENTS SHALL COVER
PAYMENTS DUE FOR THE PERIOD OF THE PRECEDING CALENDAR MONTH; PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, THAT SUCH PAYMENTS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON APRIL FIFTEENTH SHALL
BE ACCOMPANIED BY A REPORT UNDER OATH, SHOWING THE TOTAL OF ALL SUCH
PAYMENTS, TOGETHER WITH SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS THE COMMISSION MAY
REQUIRE. A PENALTY OF FIVE PER CENTUM AND INTEREST AT THE RATE OF ONE
PER CENTUM PER MONTH FROM THE DATE THE REPORT IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED TO
THE DATE THE PAYMENT SHALL BE PAYABLE IN CASE ANY PAYMENTS REQUIRED BY
THIS SUBDIVISION ARE PAID WHEN DUE. IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT
ANY MONEYS RECEIVED UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION WERE PAID IN ERROR, THE
COMMISSION MAY CAUSE THE SAME TO BE REFUNDED WITHOUT INTEREST OUT OF ANY
MONEYS COLLECTED THEREUNDER, PROVIDED AN APPLICATION THEREFOR IS FILED
WITH THE COMMISSION WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE TIME THE ERRONEOUS PAYMENT
WAS MADE. THE COMMISSION SHALL PAY INTO THE RACING REGULATION ACCOUNT,
UNDER THE JOINT CUSTODY OF THE COMPTROLLER AND THE COMMISSION, THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF THE FEE COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.
S 6. Subdivision 2 of section 1017 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering
and breeding law, as amended by chapter 18 of the laws of 2008, is
amended to read as follows:
2. a. Maintenance of effort. Any off-track betting corporation which
engages in accepting wagers on the simulcasts of thoroughbred races from
out-of-state or out-of-country as permitted under subdivision one of
this section shall submit to the [board] COMMISSION, for its approval, a
schedule of payments to be made in any year or portion thereof, that
such off-track corporation engages in nighttime thoroughbred simulcast-
ing. In order to be approved by the [board] COMMISSION, the payment
schedule shall be identical to the actual payments and distributions of
such payments to tracks and purses made by such off-track corporation
pursuant to the provisions of section one thousand fifteen of this arti-
cle during the year two thousand two, as derived from out-of-state
harness races displayed after 6:00 P.M. If approved by the [board]
COMMISSION, such scheduled payments shall be made from revenues derived
from any simulcasting conducted pursuant to this section and section one
thousand fifteen of this article.
b. Additional payments. During each calendar year, to the extent, and
at such time in the event, that aggregate statewide wagering handle
after 7Labor P.M. on out-of-state and out-of-country thoroughbred races
exceeds one hundred million dollars, each off-track betting corporation
conducting such simulcasting shall pay to its regional harness track or
tracks, an amount equal to two percent of its proportionate share of
such excess handle. In any region where there are two or more regional
harness tracks, such two percent shall be divided between or among the
tracks in a proportion equal to the proportion of handle on live harness
races conducted at such tracks during the preceding calendar year. Fifty
percent of the sum received by each track pursuant to this paragraph
shall be used exclusively for increasing purses, stakes and prizes at
that regional harness track. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER
SUCH AGGREGATE STATEWIDE HANDLE EXCEEDS ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS, ALL
WAGERING ON SUCH THOROUGHBRED RACES ACCEPTED BY LICENSED MULTI-JURISDIC-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------TIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS FROM CUSTOMERS WITHIN NEW YORK STATE
SHALL BE EXCLUDED.
S 7. Section 503 of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law
is amended by adding a new subdivision 12-a to read as follows:
12-A. TO ENTER INTO, AMEND, CANCEL AND TERMINATE AGREEMENTS FOR THE
PERFORMANCE AMONG THEMSELVES, LICENSED RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPO-
RATIONS, AND MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACCOUNT WAGERING PROVIDERS, AS DEFINED
IN SECTION ONE THOUSAND ONE OF THIS CHAPTER, OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FUNC-
TIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES ON A COOPERATIVE OR CONTRACT BASIS.
S 8. The racing, pari-mutuel wagering and breeding law is amended by
adding a new section 115-b to read as follows:
S 115-B. MARKET ORIGIN CREDITS. 1. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION
OF LAW TO THE CONTRARY, ANY RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS, FRAN-
CHISED CORPORATIONS, AND OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATIONS THAT MAKES A
PAYMENT OF THE REGULATORY FEES IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER MAY REDUCE SUCH
PAYMENT BY AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE MARKET ORIGIN CREDIT ALLOCATED TO SUCH
RACING ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION, FRANCHISED CORPORATION, OR OFF-TRACK
BETTING CORPORATION BY THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION SHALL ALLOCATE
CREDITS IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO NINETY PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM
THE MARKET ORIGIN FEE PAID PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION ONE
THOUSAND TWELVE-A OF THIS CHAPTER FOR THE PERIOD FROM THE SIXTEENTH DAY
OF THE PRECEDING MONTH THROUGH THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF THE CURRENT MONTH.
THE COMMISSION SHALL NOTIFY PARTICIPANTS OF ALLOCATIONS ON OR BEFORE THE
TWENTIETH DAY OF THE CURRENT MONTH.
2. THE COMMISSION SHALL ALLOCATE CREDITS TO RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND
CORPORATIONS, FRANCHISED CORPORATIONS, AND OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPO-
RATIONS IN THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS:
A. FORTY PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE MARKET ORIGIN FEE
PAID PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION ONE THOUSAND TWELVE-A OF
THIS CHAPTER TO REGIONAL OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATIONS. ALLOCATIONS TO
INDIVIDUAL REGIONAL OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATIONS SHALL BE MADE BASED
ON A RATIO WHERE THE NUMERATOR IS THE REGIONAL CORPORATION\'S TOTAL
IN-STATE HANDLE FOR THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR AS CALCULATED BY THE
COMMISSION AND THE DENOMINATOR IS THE TOTAL IN-STATE HANDLE OF ALL THE
REGIONAL OFF-TRACK BETTING CORPORATIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR
AS CALCULATED BY THE COMMISSION;
B. FIFTY PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE MARKET ORIGIN FEE
PAID PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION ONE THOUSAND TWELVE-A OF
THIS CHAPTER TO THE RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS AND FRANCHISED
CORPORATIONS. ALLOCATIONS TO INDIVIDUAL RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPO-
RATIONS AND FRANCHISED CORPORATIONS SHALL BE MADE AS FOLLOWS:
(I) SIXTY PERCENT TO THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND FRANCHISED
CORPORATIONS. FIVE-SIXTHS SHALL BE ALLOCATED TO A FRANCHISED CORPO-
RATION AND ONE-SIXTH SHALL BE ALLOCATED TO A THOROUGHBRED RACING ASSOCI-
ATION.
(II) FORTY PERCENT TO HARNESS RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS.
ALLOCATIONS TO INDIVIDUAL HARNESS RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND CORPORATIONS
SHALL BE MADE BASED ON A RATIO WHERE THE NUMERATOR IS THE ASSOCIATION\'S
OR CORPORATION\'S TOTAL IN-STATE HANDLE ON LIVE RACING FOR THE PREVIOUS
CALENDAR YEAR AS CALCULATED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DENOMINATOR IS THE
TOTAL IN-STATE ON LIVE HANDLE FOR ALL HARNESS RACING ASSOCIATIONS AND
CORPORATIONS FOR THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR AS CALCULATED BY THE COMMIS-
SION.
3. AS A CONDITION FOR ANY RACING ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION OR FRAN-
CHISED CORPORATION TO CLAIM ANY MARKET ORIGIN CREDITS ALLOCATED TO IT,
SUCH RACING ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION OR FRANCHISED CORPORATION MUST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MAKE PAYMENTS FOR MONEYS OTHERWISE TO BE USED TO PAY THE REGULATORY FEE
AS FOLLOWS:
(I) PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO FORTY PERCENT OF THE ALLOCATED CRED-
ITS INTO AN ACCOUNT USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENHANCING PURSES AT
SUCH RACING ASSOCIATION OR CORPORATION OR FRANCHISED CORPORATION. SUCH
PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION OF
AN ALLOCATION BY THE COMMISSION OF AN ALLOCATION OF MARKET ORIGIN CRED-
ITS;
(II) PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TWENTY PERCENT OF THE ALLOCATED
CREDITS TO THE STATE\'S BREEDING FUNDS. SIXTY PERCENT OF THE PAYMENTS TO
THE BREEDING FUNDS SHALL BE ALLOCATED TO THE NEW YORK STATE THOROUGHBRED
BREEDING AND DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO
SECTION TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO OF THIS CHAPTER, AND FORTY PERCENT TO THE
AGRICULTURE AND NEW YORK STATE HORSE BREEDING DEVELOPMENT FUND ESTAB-
LISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION THREE HUNDRED THIRTY OF THIS CHAPTER. SUCH
PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF NOTIFICATION OF
AN ALLOCATION BY THE COMMISSION OF AN ALLOCATION OF MARKET ORIGIN CRED-
ITS.
4. THE COMMISSION SHALL PROMULGATE ANY RULES AND REGULATIONS NECESSARY
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE MARKET ORIGIN CREDIT.
S 9. Section 99-i of the state finance law, as added by section 26 of
part F3 of chapter 62 of the laws of 2003, is amended to read as
follows:
S 99-i. Racing regulation account. 1. There is hereby established in
the joint custody of the comptroller and the [racing and wagering board]
GAMING COMMISSION a special revenue fund to be known as the \"racing
regulation account\".
2. The racing [revenue] REGULATION account shall consist of all money
received by the [board] COMMISSION as regulatory fees AND MARKET ORIGIN
FEES pursuant to the provisions of the racing, pari-mutuel wagering and
breeding law.
3. Moneys of this account shall be available to the [board] COMMISSION
to pay for the costs of carrying out the purposes of the racing, pari-
mutuel wagering and breeding law; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO
FIVE PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ACCOUNT FROM THE MARKET
ORIGIN FEE IMPOSED BY SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION ONE THOUSAND TWELVE-A
OF THE RACING, PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING AND BREEDING LAW SHALL BE TRANS-
FERRED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE AND THE DEPART-
MENT SHALL DEEM THIS TRANSFER AS A PAYMENT OF A PARI-MUTUEL TAX.
4. All payments from the fund shall be made on the audit and warrant
of the comptroller.
S 10. This act shall take effect January 1, 2014; except that the New
York state gaming commission may accept and review applications for
licenses for account wagering and for multi-jurisdictional account
wagering providers commencing on October 1, 2013.
Comments
Open Legislation comments facilitate discussion of New York State legislation. All comments are subject to moderation. Comments deemed off-topic, commercial, campaign-related, self-promotional; or that contain profanity or hate speech; or that link to sites outside of the nysenate.gov domain are not permitted, and will not be published. Comment moderation is generally performed Monday through Friday.
By contributing or voting you agree to the Terms of Participation and verify you are over 13.
Discuss!
Open Legislation
Bills
Resolutions
Calendars
Meetings
Transcripts
Actions
Browse by Sponsor
Browse by Committee
Connect
BillBuzz
View Comments
Feedback
Developers
NYSenate.gov
Senators
Committees
Issues & Initiatives
Newsroom
Privacy Policy
This content is licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0. Permissions beyond the scope of this license are available here.
The software and services provided under this site are offered under the BSD License and the GPL v3 License.
Shouldn\'t penalizing residents of one state from frequenting a business in another state run afoul of the Commerce Clause? I thought this was very well settled law and one state cannot erect barriers to favor its business over others. Isn\'t this what the NY legislature is trying to do? They cannot penalize NY consumers for buying Vermont milk, so how can they penalize NY consumers for gambling in other states? If this is lawful, why dont they do the same thing to casinos? Foxwoods and AC have to withold 5% from NY residents.
I am completely mystified here. Is this really going to happen? Does nobody care?
SoCalMan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Foxwoods and AC have to withold 5% from
> NY residents.
>
>
Under what precise circumstances? . . ..
This may be a Mexican standoff. If the ADW\'s/Rebate houses refuse to comply with the 5% fee on NY resident a/c\'s, can NYRA afford to pull the plug on the signal? With a large portion of NYRA overall handle coming from ADW/rebate houses,it is doubtful.
Law triggers in on Jan 1, 2014, any NY ADW/Rebate house a/c holder receive any notice concerning future rebate rates?
Mike
It\'s really not NYRA\'s issue. The state licenses the ADWs and collects the 5%.
Bit,
NYRA is the state now also.If an ADW or Rebate house refuses to pay the 5%, the only recourse would seem to be state run/owned NYRA pulling the signal.
Not certain that NY State licenses out of State ADW\'s/Rebate Houses inside and outside the US.Understood selling NYRA signal strictly between NYRA and the receiving party.Would not be surprised if NY politicians tried to grab a buck with a licensing fee though.
Mike
Topcat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SoCalMan2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Foxwoods and AC have to withold 5% from
> > NY residents.
> >
> >
>
> Under what precise circumstances? . . ..
I am not saying this from any knowledge (I meant to put a questionmark not a period there, apologies for the grammatical error). I have no idea what the situation is and am just trying to understand. As I understand it, NY wants to extra tax me as a resident for betting out of state. However, it only views my betting out of state as when i do it by computer on horseraces, but all other betting out of state is fine? That seems insane to me.
I am a NY resident and I like to bet southern california races. If I bet on the california races at an Atlantic City casino, the only difference between me betting california races on a NJ website and at a NJ casino is which computer circuitry I am using to place the bet. What is the just and fair reason for NY dinging me for one activity (betting california races from my laptop up in the casino room) and not for the other activity (betting california races in the same building but using the casino tote machine)?
And, while NY is at it, why don\'t they go after casino play? I am not recommending any of this......but where is the logic and sense of fairplay? The NY resident horseplayer gets skewered while the NY slot player goes about his happy way spewing money in whatever state he wants without intereference? Why do I get treated much worse for wanting to bet horses and the guy who bets on slots gets special treatment? I want this law to go away and not have to deal with anything about this at all. However, if this is going to be the law of the land, then I want it to apply to all other NY residents who bet out of state. That would only be fair and just. Why am I being singled out because I want to bet on a horserace instead of a random number generator? If NY wants to collect tax from its residents, then it should collect it from ALL residents, not just the few who prefer betting one game instead of another.
Another way to look at this is say I am a stock day trader. I can ply my trade on any particular website. Can NY say that they are going to tax my transactions if I use a Non-NY website for my day trading instead of using a NY website? This whole thing just seems like a crazy mess. Maybe I am misunderstanding the whole thing. I still have yet to see anybody explain exactly what is supposed to happen on my Twinspires Account starting January 1. I have asked Twinspires and they tell me they have no idea.
The 5% is not deducted from players pay off, it\'s a fee charged to out of NY ADW/rebate house
My best guess is that this is somehow analogous to a licensing fee that the ADW house must pay for the \"right\" to transact business in NY State. Now, the murky part is \"in NY State\" because the only \"in\" part of that is the legal residence of the user. The possible fallacy, here, shows up in the example SoCal provides about a NY resident in New Jersey, conducting the identical transaction, and if there\'s a rebate involved (as there is in some Vegas books), that rebate would get dinged in one instance (internet) but not the other.
A few years ago, NY forced internet vendors to charge a tax to NY residents for online purchases, even if the vendor had no legal presence in the state. In the ADW situation, however, the fee is hitting the vendor (although the resident will wind up paying for it if the rebate is reduced). What basis could it be other than nailing them for the \"privilege\" of conducting business with NY residents? Again, as SoCal has pointed out, this kind of \"privilege\" does not generate fees for any other entity conducting wagering business for NY residents.
I\'d have to read precedent on this as my legal training predates internet legislation, but apart from that, it fails the logic test on a number of levels.