Study: Downtown Indianapolis Tops List for Potential New Casino
Downtown Indianapolis Tops List for Potential New Casino, Study Finds
INDIANAPOLIS–A new study commissioned by the Indiana Gaming Commission identified downtown Indianapolis as the top location for a potential relocated casino, projecting it could bring in almost half a billion dollars in revenue annually and more than $170 million in state tax receipts.
The findings, presented Wednesday to the State Budget Committee, come from a 45-page analysis by Spectrum Gaming Group.
The firm was hired in response to Senate Enrolled Act 43 — passed during the most recent legislative session — which called for the state to commission an independent study by Nov. 1 to identify and assess the top two regions in Indiana where a casino license to operate a riverboat could be relocated.
“The statute was very direct,” Indiana Gaming Commission Executive Director Joe Hoag told lawmakers. “We wanted the study to look at projected annual gaming revenues and corresponding tax revenues … the impact on other casinos, the impact on the horse racing industry, (and) the impact assessment of a potential tribal casino in the region.”
Study eyes possible downtown casino
The commission initiated the relocation study earlier this year “to ensure that its licensed casinos are optimally located amid a rapidly changing gaming landscape in the Midwest,” the report said.
Spectrum’s analysis found that relocating a casino license to an area near downtown Indianapolis would yield an estimated $493.3 million in adjusted gross receipts annually — roughly eight times more than the state’s lowest-grossing casino — with $170.7 million in gaming-tax receipts for the state.
Adjusted gross receipts are the casino’s total gambling revenue after paying out winnings to players. “Gaming-tax receipts” or “state tax receipts” refer to the wagering and supplemental taxes Indiana collects from those adjusted revenues. The taxes largely fund public services, but a small share goes to local development agreements where casinos operate.
A second possible location, near the intersection of I-69 and State Road 8 in northeast Indiana, could generate $204.3 million in adjusted gross receipts and $61.1 million in tax receipts, according to the study.
The Indianapolis site, referred to in the report as the “Downtown Proxy Point,” was modeled near the Statehouse and convention center area “to show the potential for a downtown casino – and not a specific site downtown,” Hoag said.
“Just like in real estate, what’s the most important factor of what casino you go to? Location, location, location,” he continued. “People go to the first casino they come to. They’re not going to drive by one or two casinos to get to another unless it’s new and shiny.”
Spectrum concluded that either of those two “optimal areas” for a relocated license could significantly increase gaming revenue and corresponding state receipts compared with existing locations.
The study focuses on relocating an existing license rather than issuing a new one because state law currently limits the number of riverboat casino licenses. Relocation allows the state to capture higher revenues in a prime location without creating additional licenses.
Horse racing industry could lose millions
But the study also noted that a downtown Indianapolis location — while drawing the most revenue — would divert roughly $140 million in gaming revenue from existing racetrack casinos, particularly Hoosier Park in Anderson and Horseshoe Indianapolis in Shelbyville, both owned by Caesars. The industry currently receives 12% of adjusted gross receipts from those two racinos.
The report additionally warned of “significant differences” in how a new casino could affect Indiana’s horse racing industry, depending on if it’s located in downtown Indianapolis or farther northeast.
If a downtown Indianapolis casino opens, Spectrum projected a loss of $10 million to $17 million annually for horse racing, “reducing purses and breeding incentive funds” and knocking Indiana from 10th to 19th nationally in average purse size for thoroughbred races.
By comparison, the northeast Indiana option would have a much smaller estimated loss of $1.7 million for the industry.
And while a downtown casino could draw substantial visitation, Spectrum concluded it would not meaningfully boost tourism without being tied to other major attractions.
“Unless a potentially relocated casino in Indiana were to include – or be proximate to – a regionally prominent convention center or other major attraction, it would not impact tourism beyond attracting gamblers from its core market catchment areas,” the report said.
Indiana’s 14 commercial casinos generated $3 billion in adjusted gross receipts in the 2025 fiscal year, a 5.4% increase from the previous year, boosted by the opening of Terre Haute Casino Resort.
But Spectrum noted the state’s gaming landscape is evolving amid new competition across the Midwest: from historical horse racing machines in Kentucky to expanded casino and video gaming in Illinois and Ohio.
Still, Hoag told budget committee members that the report “provides a wealth of information” that lawmakers can use as they weigh whether to authorize relocation of any casino license.
Lawmakers weigh in
State Budget Committee Chair Sen. Ryan Mishler, R-Mishawaka, questioned whether allowing a struggling casino to relocate makes sense.
He pointed specifically to Churchill Downs-operated Rising Star Casino Resort, located along the Ohio River near Cincinnati, which the Spectrum study identified as the smallest of Indiana’s 14 casinos and a likely candidate for relocation.
The report found that Rising Star generates about $42 million in adjusted gross revenue annually — far below the state average — and that if the casino were to close, Indiana would lose only about $1 million in total gaming-tax revenue, since most of its players would shift to other casinos in the state.
“Just because a casino is doing bad, to say, ‘Let’s let them move because they’re doing bad’ — I mean, do we want them to run another casino? Maybe they’re poorly run,” Mishler said.
“I think the real question is, A, do we want to have another license? And B, if we do, where do we want it to be? And then just open that up,” he added. “I just don’t like the idea (of) saying you get to move to here. I’d rather just be yes or no — we’re going to do a license, we’re going to do it either in Indianapolis, or y’all bid on it or something.”
Rep. Greg Porter, D-Indianapolis, also weighed in, referencing the report’s mention of a potential tribal casino and the difference between the federally recognized Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Miami of Indiana.
Hoag said Spectrum’s analysis included only a high-level estimate of what a tribal casino might mean for state revenues.
He told lawmakers the study “touches on a little bit” of that issue but “doesn’t have a lot of color,” since local development agreements and tribal compacts would depend on future negotiations between the state and federal governments.
Sen. Andy Zay, R-Huntington, who authored Senate Enrolled Act 43, said in a Wednesday statement that he believes the study “is a good first step in understanding how a potential casino relocation could strengthen Indiana’s economy while supporting development in areas where there is much room to grow.”
“It’s great to see this study recognize the strong economic potential of northeast Indiana,” Zay said. “Our region continues to show signs of growth and investment opportunities, and I look forward to continuing my work and reviewing this study to see what possibilities are available to our state and region.”
But Sen. Tyler Johnson, R-Leo, “rejected” the proposal to relocate a new casino near his district in northeast Indiana, citing the gaming study’s “narrow financial focus and failure to assess full community impacts.”
“The recent report released by the Indiana Gaming Commission ignores risks to families, schools and public safety — issues my constituents, colleagues and I demanded be studied,” Johnson said in a statement. “We needed an independent, comprehensive review of social, traffic and infrastructure costs before any informed decision could possibly be made. Understanding things the way I do now, I oppose this attempt to relocate a casino to my community.”
