HB 3533 revises Missouri’s riverboat gaming laws by repealing and reenacting several sections governing the Missouri Gaming Commission. The bill expands and clarifies the commission’s regulatory authority over excursion gambling boats, including licensing, inspections, enforcement, penalties, recordkeeping, and rulemaking. It also adds provisions directing the commission to require cashless wagering systems, allow patron opt-outs from marketing use of identifying information, and consider economic development, job creation, and nondiscrimination criteria when licensing boats.
The bill also changes the fee and tax structure for gaming operations. It raises the admission fee from $2 to $5.50, changes the basis for collection to every two hours a person is in the gambling area, and requires annual inflation adjustments. A portion of the fee is earmarked for historic preservation, veterans’ capital improvements, developmental disabilities services, the gaming commission fund, local home dock governments, and, in limited circumstances, compulsive gamblers funding. The bill further imposes a 13% additional tax on adjusted gross receipts from authorized gambling games and creates a separate remote wagering access fee for present and future forms of remote wagering.
In addition to fee changes, HB 3533 reorganizes how gaming revenues are distributed. It preserves funding for the Gaming Commission Fund and directs net proceeds to several state purposes, including Access Missouri financial assistance, veterans’ programs, the Missouri National Guard, and historic preservation. The bill also includes language addressing remote wagering, tax compliance, and the use of tax information by the Department of Revenue and the commission.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context is neutral to procedural, because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes included. The bill’s status as “Action Postponed” suggests it did not advance immediately and may have required further consideration. Based on the text, the measure appears designed to modernize and expand gaming regulation while increasing and redirecting gaming-related revenue, which could attract support from recipients of the earmarked funds and from those favoring stronger oversight.
Potential points of contention include the higher admission fee, the new 13% gaming tax, and the remote wagering access fee, all of which increase the financial burden on operators and potentially patrons. The cashless wagering mandate, marketing-information restrictions, and expanded commission authority may also draw scrutiny from gaming interests concerned about operational flexibility and privacy. At the same time, the bill’s revenue earmarks for veterans, historic preservation, developmental disabilities, and local governments may make it attractive to stakeholders who benefit from gaming proceeds.
HB 3533 would substantially amend Missouri’s gaming statutes in chapter 313 by replacing existing provisions on the Missouri Gaming Commission’s powers, admission fees, and revenue distribution. It would increase the commission’s regulatory authority over excursion gambling boats and remote wagering, impose new operational requirements on licensees, and create a new additional tax on gaming receipts. The bill also changes how gaming-related revenues are allocated among state funds and local governments, while adding or expanding funding streams for historic preservation, veterans, developmental disabilities services, the National Guard, and compulsive gamblers assistance.
The available record shows no committee testimony or vote breakdown, so there is no documented partisan or stakeholder debate in the provided materials. The bill’s posture appears administrative and revenue-focused rather than overtly controversial in the record, but its policy choices suggest a mix of support and concern: support from entities receiving dedicated gaming revenues and from regulators seeking stronger oversight, and likely resistance from gaming operators facing higher fees, a new tax, and tighter commission controls. The postponement of action indicates the measure may have required additional review or negotiation.
The main areas of contention are likely the increased admission fee, the 13% additional tax on adjusted gross receipts, and the remote wagering access fee, all of which raise costs for licensees. Gaming operators may also object to the cashless wagering requirement, the commission’s broad enforcement powers, and the restrictions on using patron identifying information for marketing. On the other hand, supporters are likely to emphasize the bill’s earmarked funding for veterans, historic preservation, developmental disabilities, local dock communities, and problem-gambling services, as well as its modernization of gaming regulation and revenue collection.