If D.C. officials have their way, residents and visitors will be able to cast legal wagers on sports at physical locations and by using an app by as early as this fall, beating every other jurisdiction in the Washington region and potentially reaping a first-to-the-market revenue windfall.

But the city’s breakneck pace towards implementing sports betting—made legal by the Supreme Court last May, and approved by the D.C. Council in December—has prompted unease, including among good-government groups, private operators of popular betting platforms, and some city lawmakers.

An ‘Extraordinary Recommendation’

That unease was on display during a four-hour D.C. Council committee hearing on Monday on a bill that would allow the city to skip the competitive bidding process for its lucrative lottery contract, which expires in March 2020. If passed, the bill would give current operator Intralot an extension on the contract it has held since 2010 while also making it the sole operator of an app-based sports betting platform.

City officials led by D.C. Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey DeWitt and D.C. Lottery director Beth Bresnahan told the Council that the recommendation to sole-source the lottery contract to Intralot—an “extraordinary recommendation,” DeWitt admitted—was being made in order to speed the implementation of sports betting in the city, especially as legislators in Maryland and Virginia consider legalizing sports betting for themselves.

“The District’s position as a ‘first mover’ is critical to the success of its sports wagering,” said Bresnahan. “If Virginia and Maryland offer sports wagering before the District, these states will be better able to establish customer relationships with their residents, thus depriving the District of potential revenue from commuters who double our adult population every work day. This revenue may never be recovered.”

DeWitt’s office estimates that sports betting could bring in more than $90 million in revenue over the first four years, but Bresnahan said an analysis commissioned by the D.C. Lottery found that $60 million of that stood to be lost if D.C. fell behind Maryland and Virginia in legalizing sports betting.

She said a competitive bidding process for the city’s lottery contract—which would include a monopoly on an app-based sports betting platform—could last more than two years, putting D.C.’s first-to-the-market status at risk.

A Slippery Slope?

But the suggestion of skipping the city’s procurement rules for the sake of speed and possible revenue drew cries of concern from a number of speakers at the hearing, some of whom said the competitive bidding process had been created to get the best value for taxpayers and to ensure fairness and transparency.

“When we shoot an arrow through the heart of the procurement process, you kill the integrity of the process and the trust of the citizens who look to its government, its elected officials and its appointed officials to make the right decision. Once you go down that slippery slope, you’re going down it for a long, long ride,” said John Ray, a former Council member-turned-lobbyist who said he was testifying only as a resident and taxpayer.

Dorothy Brizill, a longtime Wilson Building watchdog, echoed Ray’s sentiments.

“I assure you when the dust settles, this is not going to come out good. And especially when we have the recent history of problems with the lottery contract,” she said, referring to the extended lottery contract process over a decade ago that spawned accusations of misdeeds and corruption.

“The bottom line is: chasing the dollar in D.C. is not necessarily for the public benefit,” she said. “It smells. It just smells.”

John Pappas, speaking on behalf of a trade association for the online gaming industry, also spoke against the proposed sole-source contract, saying that D.C. gamblers would be better served if they could legally use multiple private sports betting platforms like DraftKings or FanDuel instead of a single one operated by the D.C. Lottery’s chosen contract-holder.

But the prospect of beating Maryland and Virginia to implement sports betting, and rake in the possible revenues from doing so, seemed to be the force that most shaped much of the testimony on Monday, from the D.C. Chamber of Commerce to Katrina Barksdale.

Barksdale, whose son was murdered last year, told the Council that she wants sports betting as soon as possible, largely because half of the city’s portion of the expected revenues would be split between early education and violence prevention programs.

“Every day you delay you could have saved a child’s life,” she said. “Please find a way to give money to what’s important to them.”

Still, even those expressions of support weren’t enough to sway some lawmakers, including Councilmember Robert White (D-At Large) and Councilmember Elissa Silverman (I-At Large), both of whom pushed for answers as to what would be best for the city in the long run.

“Do we lose money by not going with a sole-source contract? Will our finances be better with a sole-source contract, or will they be better if we compete this?” asked White. “Without competition, how do we know we’re getting the best value?”

It’s unclear whether those questions will be fully answered, though. Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), who chaired Monday’s hearing on the bill, said he intends to put it to a vote in his committee as soon as Wednesday, and to the full Council for a first or two required votes next Tuesday.

If the bill passes the Council, sports betting may indeed come to D.C. by as soon as this September.

This story originally appeared on WAMU.