DOCSLIB.ORG

Fy19-Tables.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fy19-Tables.Pdf Traditional Lottery Here’s a breakdown of FY19 traditional lottery sales, by game, compared to FY18 sales: FY 2018 FY 2019 Game Type % Change Thru 6/30/2018 Thru 6/30/2019 Instants & Pull Tabs 157,389,042 165,625,843 5.23% Powerball 40,047,750 35,707,327 -10.84% Mega Millions 17,220,849 28,997,959 68.39% Super Kansas Cash 11,831,489 21,077,568 78.15% Hot Lotto 3,326,783 Discontinued -100.00% Lotto America 4,011,859 6,567,708 63.71% Lucky For Life 5,887,198 5,655,846 -3.93% Pick 3 7,089,797 7,090,765 0.01% 2by2 1,550,011 1,610,272 3.89% Keno 14,200,817 13,157,552 -7.35% Kansas Hold’Em 2,459,770 Discontinued -100.00% Racetrax New in 2019 5,791,350 100.00% Raffle 3,933,440 4,000,000 1.69% Total All Games $268,948,805 $295,282,190 9.79% Expanded (Casino) Gaming State-owned and operated casino gaming generated a transfer of $98.7 million in FY19. Of that, $90.5 million went to the Expanded Lottery Act Revenues Fund, and $8.22 million went to the Problem Gambling & Addictions Grant Fund. In addition to revenue transferred to the State, casino gaming generated a transfer of $12.3 million to local units of government in the four casino gaming zones. Here is the distribution of revenue at Boot Hill Casino & Resort in Dodge City in FY19: Adjusted Net Revenue as of June 30, 2019: $41,589,906 Distribution Percentage Received Amount Received State of Kansas 22% $9,149,779 Problem Gambling & 2% $831,798 Addictions Grant Fund Local Governments* 3% $1,247,698 Casino Manager 73% $30,360,631 *1.5% to City of Dodge City and 1.5% to Ford County Here is the distribution of revenue at Kansas Star Casino in Mulvane in FY19: Adjusted Net Revenue as of June 30, 2019: $184,157,835 Distribution Percentage Received Amount Received State of Kansas 22% $40,554,718 Problem Gambling & $3,683,156 2% Addictions Grant Fund Local Governments* 3% $5,524,735 Casino Manager 73% $134,395,226 *1% to City of Mulvane, 1% to Sumner County, and 1% to Sedgwick County Here is the distribution of revenue at Hollywood Casino at Kansas Speedway in Kansas City, Kans., in FY19: Adjusted Net Revenue as of June 30, 2019: $150,790,865 Distribution Percentage Received Amount Received State of Kansas 22% $33,173,990 Problem Gambling & $3,015,818 2% Addictions Grant Fund Local Governments* 3% $4,523,726 Casino Manager 73% $110,077,331 *3% to the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kans. Here is the distribution of revenue at Kansas Crossing Casino in Pittsburg, Kans., in FY19: Adjusted Net Revenue as of June 30, 2019: $34,489,213 Distribution Percentage Received Amount Received State of Kansas 22% $7,587,627 Problem Gambling & $689,784 2% Addictions Grant Fund Local Governments* 3% $1,034,676 Casino Manager 73% $25,177,126 1% to City of Pittsburg, 1% to Cherokee County, and 1% to Crawford County Where Does the Money Go? Traditional Lottery Revenue Traditional lottery revenue goes into the State Gaming Revenues Fund. On a yearly basis, the first $50 million is divided by a formula which first transfers $80,000 to the Problem Gambling and Addictions Grant Fund. Then 85 percent of the balance is transferred to the Economic Development Initiatives Fund, 10 percent to the Correctional Institutions Building Fund, and 5 percent to the Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund. The Economic Development Initiatives Fund supports state programs that create and retain jobs in Kansas. Those include Kansas Department of Commerce programs, Tourism and Parks programs in the Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, the Kansas Board of Regents for vocational education programs, and many more. Other portions of traditional lottery revenue are specifically appropriated for veterans’ programs and, beginning in Fiscal Year 2020, mental health programs. All other net revenues in excess of $50 million must be transferred to the State General Fund. In Fiscal Year 2020, up to $8 million of the net profits generated from vending machine sales will be directed to mental health programs throughout the state. Veterans Games Included in the Fiscal Year 2019 transfer of traditional lottery was $1.2 million from the sale of special $1 and $2 Veterans Benefit instant scratch tickets. Proceeds from the tickets go to state programs benefiting Kansas Military veterans. Some of the programs include Veterans Enhanced Service Delivery Program, National Guard scholarships and Kansas Veterans homes and cemeteries. Expanded Lottery (Casino) Revenue The 2007 Kansas Expanded Lottery Act created the Expanded Lottery Act Revenues Fund (ELARF). The State’s share of revenue from state-owned and -operated casino gaming is transferred from the ELARF for purposes of reduction of state debt, state infrastructure improvements and reduction of local ad valorem tax; and/or for other purposes as directed by the Kansas Legislature, such as Kan-Grow Engineering Funds at state universities and the reduction of unfunded actuarial liability of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS). .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TEL Audit Report FY 2019
    Tennessee Education Lottery Corporation For the Year Ended June 30, 2019 Deborah V. Loveless, CPA, CGFM, CGMA Director Robyn R. Probus, CPA, CFE, CGFM, CGMA Assistant Director Aaron Jewell, CPA, CFE, CGFM Audit Manager Mark White, CPA In-Charge Auditor Hellens Cruz-Sanchez, CPA, CGMA, CFE Staff Auditor Gerry C. Boaz, CPA, CGFM, CGMA Technical Manager Amy Brack Editor Amanda Adams Assistant Editor Comptroller of the Treasury, Division of State Audit Cordell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37243 (615) 401-7897 Reports are available at comptroller.tn.gov/office-functions/state-audit.html Mission Statement The mission of the Comptroller’s Office is to make government work better. Comptroller Website comptroller.tn.gov November 25, 2019 The Honorable Bill Lee, Governor Members of the General Assembly Board of Directors, Tennessee Education Lottery Corporation Ladies and Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the financial and compliance audit of the Tennessee Education Lottery Corporation for the year ended June 30, 2019. You will note from the independent auditor’s report that an unmodified opinion was given on the fairness of the presentation of the financial statements. Consideration of internal control over financial reporting and tests of compliance resulted in no audit findings. Sincerely, Deborah V. Loveless, CPA, Director Division of State Audit 20/003 Audit Report Tennessee Education Lottery Corporation For the Year Ended June 30, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Audit Highlights 1 Financial Section Independent Auditor’s
    [Show full text]
  • Regulating the National Lottery
    Section 5 Regulating the National Lottery The Third National Lottery Licence May 2021 The Third Licence Conditions 1. Grant of Licence 2. Definitions and Interpretation 3. Commencement 4. Handover from the Previous Licence 5. Service requirement 6. Prohibition of activities not related to the National Lottery 7. Consumer Protection 8. Retailer commission and retailer management 9. Independent section 6 licence applicants 10. Information and reporting 11. Payments to the Secretary of State 11A. Promotion of the National Lottery 12. Shareholders, other Connected parties and debt providers 13. Vetting 14. Control environment 15. Contractors 16. Employees 17. Performance monitoring 18. Handover on expiry or revocation of the Licence 19. Security for Players’ funds 20. Confidentiality and freedom of information 21. Intellectual Property 22. Data Protection 23. Licence extensions 24. No waiver 25. Severability 26. Governing Law and jurisdiction 27. Third Party rights 28. Notices 29. Survival Schedules Schedule 1 Definitions Schedule 2 Part 1 Games and facilities to be available in the first five weeks of the Licence Schedule 2 Part 2 Financial penalties Schedule 2 Part 3 Schedule 3 Handover from the Previous Licensee Schedule 4 Part 1 Ancillary activities that the Commission has consented to Schedule 4 Part 2 Further Conditions relating to Ancillary Activities Schedule 5 The Ancillary Activity Payment Schedule 6 Schedule 7 Codes of practice and strategies Schedule 8 Primary and Secondary Contributions Part 1 Definitions and interpretation Schedule
    [Show full text]
  • Public Gaming International Magazine May/June 2017
    The Damage to Brand efore exploring the ways and means The key part of the sentence is “where the Lottery Bto displace illegal operators from the consumer is located” as opposed to where marketplace, we should begin by clari- the operator is located. The members of the Caused fying what it means to be an illegal illegal gaming community are continually operator, define the difference between legal exploiting new developments in technol- and illegal lottery. That definition varies ogy and legal loopholes to claim that a legal by Lottoland depending on the continent, the country, or license in one jurisdiction entitles them to even within the jurisdiction you are taking as operate in all without regard to the legal- and Illegal a reference. Let’s refer to the definition artic- ity in the jurisdiction where the consumer ulated by the Council of Europe Convention resides. This posture enables them to essen- “Secondary” on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions. tially hijack the revenues of legally licensed It addresses the issue of match-fixing in operators all around the world, depriving the Lotteries: sports, but it is a definition that can apply good causes supported by licensed operators to all forms of games-of-chance. It is the and channeling those profits over to private first time that an international institution shareholders. The evidence of this is already A Call to has endeavored to clarify the boundaries that having a big impact in Europe and Australia. separate legal from illegal gambling. Article Action 35A of the Council of Europe Convention on the Manipulation of Sports Competitions The business model of these “secondary establishes that any sports betting activ- lotteries” works like this: First, they tech- ity whose type or operator is not allowed nically are not operating a lottery.
    [Show full text]
  • September | 2020
    September | 2020 The coronavirus pandemic has changed the way we use the internet. Whether it’s remote work, online shopping, online learning or remote health care, new methods and changes in consumer behaviors will likely continue after the virus has run its course. Internet gambling is another area that may soon see a COVID-19 bump. Most states do not allow internet gambling. Of the 44 states with lotteries, only 11 allow some form of internet play, either permitting lottery tickets to be sold over the internet or offering online lottery subscriptions. Of the 25 states with commercial casino gambling, internet gambling (that is, traditional casino games played electronically over the internet, usually distinct from online sports betting) is only available in Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Michigan and West Virginia have recently legalized iGaming but are not yet offering it. While there are only a handful of states that have considered iGaming or iLottery measures during coronavirus-dominated 2020 sessions, there are signs that a shift may be underway. One of the primary reasons that legal gambling has been slow to embrace the internet despite a sizable online gambling black market, is a fear that online gambling would rob brick-and-mortar casinos and surrounding establishments of visitors and revenue. This fear no longer appears to be widespread across the casino industry, and many stakeholders now point to evidence that internet gambling will actually help casinos. Those who are more inclined to bet online tend to be younger and are not necessarily active casinogoers; iGaming may offer an opportunity to appeal to a broader market.
    [Show full text]
  • Sports Betting Update: a Report on the Status of Play
    Sports Betting Update: A Report on the Status of Play Released June 14, 2021 MASSACHUSETTS GAMING COMMISSION Crystal Howard, Program Manager POST-PASPA AND POST-PANDEMIC UPDATE (AS OF MAY 18, 2021) Introduction The Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC) was created upon the adoption of “An Act Establishing Expanded Gaming in the Commonwealth” in November of 2011. The Commission, a five-member independent body, is tasked with implementing the Act and regulating the licensed gaming establishments. The Expanded Gaming Act allows for up to three destination resort casinos located in three geographically diverse regions across the state and a single slots facility for one location statewide. The Gaming Commission, at this time, has awarded the slots only license and two of the three integrated resort licenses. Each resort casino paid an $85 million licensing fee and was required to make a capital investment of at least $500 million – a requirement that both licensees substantially exceeded. The Commonwealth receives 25% of their gross gaming revenues. The slots facility paid a $25 million license fee, exceeded a required minimum capital investment of $125 million, and is taxed on 49% of its gross gaming revenue. As of this date, the Commonwealth has collected approximately $767 million in total taxes and assessments from Plainridge Park Casino1, MGM Springfield, and Encore Boston Harbor. This paper is intended to update the MGC’s 2018 publication on sports betting. Similarly, it does not represent an adopted position of the Commission. Rather it offers a fact-based report on the status of legalized sports wagering across the nation. Post-PASPA Status of Sports Betting The sports betting landscape has evolved rapidly since the decision which overturned the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) in Murphy v.
    [Show full text]
  • DEMAND for LOTTERY GAMBLING: Evaluating Price Sensitivity Within a Portfolio of LOTTERY Games
    National Tax Journal, September 2014, 67 (3), 595–620 DEMAND FOR LOTTERY GAMBLING: EvALuATING pRIcE sENsITIvITY wIThIN A pORTFOLIO OF LOTTERY GAMEs Michael A. Trousdale and Richard A. Dunn This article introduces a new approach to analyzing whether lottery games are complements or substitutes, and whether a portfolio of lottery games is optimally priced. We estimate Barten’s synthetic differential demand system for the on-line lottery games operated by the Texas Lottery Commission. The demand system ap- proach imposes theory-consistent demand restrictions that allow identifcation of parameters for games without price variation. We use the estimated parameters from the Barten model to construct expenditure and price elasticities. Results indi- cate that on-line games in Texas are generally substitutes for one another and the portfolio of games is not priced to maximize proft. Keywords: gambling, lottery, consumer demand, elasticity, demand system esti- mation, Barten synthetic demand system JEL Codes: D12, H21, H27, H71, L83 I. INTRODUCTION roceeds from lottery gambling are a signifcant source of revenue for U.S. state Pgovernments. As of 2012, all but seven states operate or sponsor lottery gambling with total sales of $68.7 billion and profts of $19.4 billion.1 In Texas, lottery gambling provides more revenue than excise taxes on alcohol or cigarettes, accounting for approxi- mately 2 percent of total tax revenue (Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, 2010). Although lottery games serve as a form of entertainment, they are established frst and foremost as a source of revenue for the jurisdictions that operate them. A number of studies estimate the elasticity of total sales with respect to effective price to investigate whether a lottery game maximizes expected proft (Cook and Clotfelter, 1993; Gulley and Scott, 1993; Scoggins, 1995; Farrell, Morgenroth, and Walker, 1999; 1 See “Lottery Sales and Transfers,” North American Association of State and Provincial Lotteries, http:// www.naspl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=content&menuid=17&pageid=1025.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Lotteries
    The History of Lotteries Gerald Willmann Department of Economics, Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6072, U.S.A. [email protected] August 3, 1999 Abstract In this pap er wegiveanoverview of the history of lotteries. Start- ing from early evidence in the Bible and in the classical Roman world, th we trace lotteries up to their reapp earance in Europ e in the 15 cen- tury. From that period onwards, lotteries b ecame so numerous that we concentrate on a few exemplary cases: the old French lottery, early lotteries in New York, and lotteries in the German states. Finally,we give a brief account of more recent developments and discuss some related issues. JEL: B15, B25, D80, G29, H27, N4. 1 1 Intro duction Lotteries have a long history. Their use is do cumented in the Old Testament, and several Roman emp erors used them for entertainment. They reapp ear th in Europ e in the 15 century mainly as a means to raise revenue for the state. Since then they have survived all opp osition. From an economic viewp oint, lotteries are interesting for at least two reasons. First, the fact that p eople buy lottery tickets presents achallenge to the theory of decision making under uncertainty. The prevalent Exp ected Utilityhyp othesis cannot 1 explain this phenomenon satisfactorily. Second, lotteries are an imp ortant source of revenue for the state. If we lo ok at the voluminous literature on tari s in international trade and note that lotteries often contribute more to the state budget than tari s, we can only wonder why the economic literature has remained so silent on this issue.
    [Show full text]
  • State Lotteries: Gambling with the Common Good by Julia Fleming
    Copyright © 2011 Center for Christian Ethics at Baylor University 29 29 State Lotteries: Gambling With the Common Good BY JULIA FLEMING While their regressive burden upon the disadvantaged is a strong ethical reason for rejecting state lotteries, we should also consider the messages that their promotion conveys to the community as a whole. Lotteries, as alternatives to taxation, undercut the development of civic virtues and social responsibility. ithin the last fifty years, state governments in the United States have made a radical change in their policies towards gambling, as Wevidenced especially in their sponsorship of lotteries. Today, ninety percent of the U.S. population lives in lottery states; in 1960 no Americans did. As Erik Owens has observed, “Every action the government takes, every policy the government makes, conveys certain values to its citizens.”1 So, what values are state governments indirectly endorsing, or at least tolerating, in their new reliance upon lotteries as a source of revenue? Does govern- mental promotion of lotteries exploit the weaknesses of problem gamblers, prey upon the disadvantaged, and encourage a superstitious belief in lucky numbers? In a broader sense, do lotteries, as alternatives to taxation, under- cut citizens’ development of civic virtues and social responsibility? Roman Catholic social thought provides a helpful vantage point from which to consider the ethics of state lotteries as a regular revenue source. The tradition’s general principles, especially its emphasis upon civic responsibil- ity and the importance of social virtues, suggest that reliance on the lottery poses a risk both to vulnerable citizens and to the character of the community as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • BGC-APP-009A, Cardroom Applicant's Spouse Supplemental
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Cardroom Applicant's Spouse Supplemental Information for a State Gambling License BGC-APP-009A (Rev. 12/11) DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL (916) 227-3584 (916) 227-2308 facsimile CARDROOM APPLICANT'S SPOUSE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR A STATE GAMBLING LICENSE Type or print legibly in ink an answer to every question. If a question does not apply to you, indicate with "N/A" (not applicable). If the space available is insufficient, use a separate sheet and precede each answer with the applicable section and question number. Do not misstate or omit any material fact(s) as each statement made is subject to verification. Any corrections, changes or other alterations must be initialed and dated by the applicant. PLEASE SEND THE COMPLETED SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR A STATE GAMBLING LICENSE, A $1,000 NON-REFUNDABLE APPLICATION FEE, AND A $6,600 DEPOSIT TO PAY THE ANTICIPATED INVESTIGATION AND PROCESSING COSTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 19867 TO: California Gambling Control Commission, 2399 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 220, Sacramento, CA 95833-4231. A. PERSONAL 1. Full Name: Last First Middle 2. Alias(es), Nicknames, Maiden Name, Other Name Changes, Legal or Otherwise: 3. Date of Birth: 4. Place of Birth: City County State Country 5. Residence Address: Street City State Zip 6. Business Address: Street City State Zip 7. Occupation: 8. Telephone: Residence: Business: 9. Social Security Number*: 10. Driver License/Identification Card No./State Issued: 11. Eye Color: Hair Color: Weight: Height: 12. Distinguishing marks (scars, tattoos, etc.).
    [Show full text]
  • Delaware State Lottery Comprehensive Annual Report
    DELAWARE STATE LOTTERY An Enterprise Fund of the State of Delaware COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2019 AND 2018 DELAWARE STATE LOTTERY An Enterprise Fund of the State of Delaware COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2019 AND 2018 Prepared by: The Finance and Accounting Department of the Lottery Tina M. Leager Senior Fiscal Administrative Officer Delaware State Lottery TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION PAGE LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ........................................................................................ 2 PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS .............................................................................................. 18 ORGANIZATION CHART ........................................................................................... 19 CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR FY 2018............................................................................ 20 FINANCIAL SECTION REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR ...................................................................... 22 MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ....................................................... 24 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION AS OF JUNE 30, 2019 AND 2018 .................... 30 STATEMENTS OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2019 AND 2018 ............................................ .31 STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2019 AND 2018 .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State Lotteries and Their Customers
    MILLER_ARTICLE FORMATTED 5-27-19.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 6/6/19 2:41 PM STATE LOTTERIES AND THEIR CUSTOMERS Keith C. Miller* INTRODUCTION On Tuesday, October 23, 2018, a lucky person in South Carolina who purchased a Mega Millions lottery ticket learned she or he was the winner of the second largest lottery prize ever awarded in the United States—$1.536 billion.1 The ticket was sold by a convenience store in rural South Carolina.2 The build- up to the drawing was dramatic; people stood in lines waiting to buy a ticket, hoping they would become the winner of a prize that would make them fabulously wealthy.3 The United States had another case of lottery fever. Lotteries have a history in our country that predates the U.S. Constitution.4 Not surprisingly, our affection for lotteries can be traced to their popularity, and *Ellis and Nelle Levitt Distinguished Professor of Law, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. Many thanks to my research assistant Anne Reser-Moorehead for her hard work, research, and editing assistance. 1 The Associated Press, $1.537B jackpot won in South Carolina is 2nd largest in U.S., AP NEWS (Oct. 24, 2018), https://www.apnews.com/91503645c0e5488c91e 48bb60718966b. Actually, the ticket would only pay a total of $1.536 billion if the winner chose to take the prize over a 29-year period. If the winner elected the immediate cash payout, she or he received $878 million. The SC Education Lottery has a message for the Mega Millions jackpot winner, who has not yet come forward, FOX CAROLINA (Oct.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem Gambling in Estonia and the Relationship with Personal Risk
    Problem Gambling in Estonia and Related Personal Risk Factors Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on Gambling Studies and Policy Issues 1-4th July 2008 Nova Gorica Stella Laansoo Public Service Academy of Estonia ESTONIA Population 1 340 602 GDP $24,6 billion Average monthly salary $1200 Unemployment rate 4,6 % (31.12.2007) Stella Laansoo, 03.07.08 2 Background - Availability of gambling activities in Estonia as of June 08: 167 (land-based) gaming sites including 5056 slot machines and 63 gaming tables; National Lottery Sports betting Remote Gambling - Gaming sites are open 24/7 - 90% from gambling market belongs to casino games - Gambling activities in Estonia are not available to persons under 21 years of age, excl.lottery. - Slot machines are banned outside the gaming site Stella Laansoo, 03.07.08 3 Estonian flagship – Olympic Casino Stella Laansoo, 03.07.08 4 Research Conducted in Estonia Prevalence study in 2004 (Laansoo, S., Niit, T., Faktum) looked at the extent of contact the Estonian population has had with gambling and examined the risk factors for problem gamblers Prevalence study in 2006 (Laansoo, S., Turu-uuringute AS) aimed at finding out in what direction the trend of problem gamblers is developing and additionally to risk facors examined gamblers’ abilities to manage the running of their day-to-day lives. Stella Laansoo, 03.07.08 5 Methodology Both surveys were carried out on the sample of an omnibus survey conducted by a marketing research company. The sample of 2004 was purely an omnibus survey In 2006 part of the survey was as the omnibus (n=1,000), and part as a specific survey (n=1,005), in the form of a questionnaire Stella Laansoo, 03.07.08 6 Samples The target population of the survey was made up of permanent residents of Estonia in the age 15-74 with an average age of 46.3 years in 2004 and 42.3 years in 2006 In recruiting the samples the proportional model of recruiting the target population was applied, considering rural versus urban as well as regional aspects.
    [Show full text]