Escambia County approves amendment to allow pari‑mutuel wagering and card rooms; vote 4-1 after heated public comment

The Escambia County Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1 on March 25 to adopt an amendment that adds pari‑mutuel wagering and card‑room activities as an allowed use in the county’s heavy commercial and light industrial zoning districts, a change proponents say would enable the relocation of an existing poker room to a site near Interstate Circle.

The measure drew a packed public hearing. Opponents said expanding the permitted use will bring social harms and traffic to neighborhoods; supporters said the existing facility operates responsibly and provides social space and jobs. After public comment and staff presentations, the board approved the ordinance with Commissioner Steve Stroberger casting the lone no vote; Commissioners Michael S. Kohler (chair), Ashley Hoffberger (vice chair), Lumen J. May and Stephen Berry voted yes.

Meredith Bush, an attorney with Clark Partington representing the poker room operator, told commissioners that state statute strictly limits the activity and would not permit an expansion of gaming beyond what is licensed today. “The state statute is very strict on what is allowed there,” Bush said, adding that relocating the current operation is governed by state limits and that only one such licensed location can operate within a roughly 100-mile radius. Bush said the proposal was for a relocation, not the creation of a casino or additional gaming venues.

Residents who opposed the amendment described community impacts they fear would follow. Elizabeth Lomax, a resident of Glenway Drive, said research shows gambling creates social and financial harms that increase costs for local government and residents. “Gambling takes money out of the local community and gives it to the owners of the business,” Lomax said. Corey Schick, a District 1 resident, spoke in favor, describing the card room as “a social setting” for older patrons and staff who depend on the operation for employment.

County staff and others noted that the county’s zoning rules already allow heavy commercial and light industrial uses on the site in question, and that some nearby industrial uses might generate impacts residents already experience. Commissioners said they were weighing the residents’ objections and the legal constraints established by state statute as they voted.

The vote concludes the county’s land‑use change that the applicant sought; detailed permitting and any state licensing steps remain subject to state review. Commissioner Stroberger confirmed on the record that he opposed the ordinance; commissioners asked the sheriff’s office for call records at the current facility to monitor any change in public‑safety incidents.

What’s next: the county clerk will record the ordinance amendment and staff indicated they will continue to field questions about traffic and public‑safety enforcement at the proposed site. The relocation itself will require site‑level permitting and compliance with state licensing for pari‑mutuel and simulcast activities.