Horse racing and pari-mutuel wagering; amends definition of breakage.
SB 864 is a Virginia horse racing and pari-mutuel wagering bill that revises the statutory definitions and revenue-distribution rules governing live, simulcast, and historical horse racing. The substitute bill updates the definition of “breakage” so that historical horse racing breakage is measured to the nearest dime, while other horse racing breakage remains measured to the nearest cent. It also modernizes and expands the statutory framework for pari-mutuel wagering by clarifying terms such as historical horse racing, simulcast horse racing, satellite facilities, significant infrastructure facilities, and related industry participants.
The bill primarily restructures how wagering pools are retained and distributed among the Commonwealth, localities, racetrack operators, horsemen, and industry-support funds. It sets or preserves percentage allocations for purses, operator retainage, the Virginia Breeders Fund, veterinary and industry organizations, and local tax shares, and it creates separate treatment for live racing, simulcast racing, and historical horse racing. It also directs legitimate breakage from live and historical horse racing into capital improvements, the Racing Benevolence Fund, and the Problem Gambling Treatment and Support Fund, depending on the wagering type and terminal category.
SB 864 would amend §§ 59.1-365 and 59.1-392 of the Code of Virginia, affecting the legal definitions and tax/retention structure for horse racing and pari-mutuel wagering in the Commonwealth. The bill changes how breakage is defined for historical horse racing, preserves the existing regulatory role of the Virginia Racing Commission, and adjusts the statutory formulas that govern license taxes, purse distributions, local government shares, and payments to industry-related funds and organizations. It also reinforces the Commission’s authority over contractual agreements and distribution arrangements tied to wagering retainage and breakage.
The bill appears to have received mixed but generally procedural support in committee, with unanimous approval in the Senate Committee on General Laws and Technology before being referred onward, followed by a narrow 8-7 vote to pass it by indefinitely in Finance and Appropriations. That voting pattern suggests the measure had support among some members but also significant opposition or concern in the fiscal committee. No transcript excerpts were provided, so the available record indicates a divided reception rather than a broadly enthusiastic consensus.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s fiscal and policy effects: how much wagering revenue should go to the Commonwealth versus localities, operators, purses, and industry funds; whether the revised breakage treatment and terminal-specific allocations were appropriate; and the extent to which historical horse racing should continue to receive dedicated revenue streams. The close Finance and Appropriations vote suggests disagreement over the financial impact on state and local revenues, gambling-related support funds, and the horse racing industry’s share of proceeds. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a technical and industry-stabilizing update, while opponents likely questioned the revenue distribution and gambling policy implications.