AN ACT relating to pari-mutuel wagering; specifying requirements for simulcasting permits, including historic horse racing terminals; requiring approval by a city, town or county for the issuance of a simulcasting permit as specified; authorizing conditions and revocation of approval; authorizing appeals; amending enforcement requirements; conforming provisions; specifying applicability; and providing for an effective date.
Summary
SF0045 revises Wyoming law governing pari-mutuel wagering to create a detailed framework for simulcasting permits. The bill requires simulcasting to be conducted only by a permit holder approved by the Wyoming Gaming Commission and by a local approving authority, defined as the governing body of the relevant city, town, or county. It directs the commission to adopt rules, treats simulcasting permits as a type of pari-mutuel event permit, and sets application, notice, review, and renewal procedures. Applicants must identify the exact location and the number of historic horse racing terminals proposed, and local governments must publish notice and hold a public meeting before acting on an application.
Impact
The bill adds a new statutory section, W.S. 11-25-210, and amends related definitions and enforcement provisions in Wyoming’s pari-mutuel wagering laws. It gives cities, towns, and counties formal approval authority over simulcasting facilities, including the ability to impose reasonable conditions, object based on specified local impacts, and revoke or deny renewal for limited good-cause reasons. It also limits local fees to actual administrative costs, establishes appeal rights to district court in some circumstances, and requires at least one steward to supervise each commission-approved simulcast location. Existing simulcasting permit holders receive a transition period through December 31, 2027, before the new requirements fully apply.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have broad overall support, passing both chambers with large majorities and receiving favorable committee recommendations. The final enactment suggests lawmakers generally agreed on the need for clearer regulation of simulcasting and local oversight of gaming facilities. The failed concurrence vote indicates there was at least some disagreement between the chambers over amendments or final language, but the bill ultimately resolved those differences and became law.
Contention
The main points of contention center on local control versus statewide gaming regulation. The bill gives local governments approval and revocation authority, but also limits how they may use that authority by requiring written findings, good-cause standards, and appeal rights in some cases. Another likely area of concern is the treatment of historic horse racing terminals and the restriction on simulcasting within 100 miles of a live pari-mutuel event unless the live event operator consents. The transition rules for existing permit holders also suggest a balance between protecting current operators and allowing cities, towns, and counties to apply the new framework later.
Permits civil liability against casinos and simulcast facilities for reckless indifference or intentional misconduct toward persons self-excluded from gaming activities.
Permits civil liability against casinos and simulcast facilities for reckless indifference or intentional misconduct toward persons self-excluded from gaming activities.