Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gambling Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners defer decision on Wyoming Horse Racing's proposed Green River move pending clarified resolution language
Summary
Wyoming Horse Racing representatives asked the county to update their address for pari-mutuel and simulcast operations in Green River, but commissioners requested clearer resolution language and tabled the matter for a later meeting.
Representatives of Wyoming Horse Racing (Pacesetter Racing and Gaming) briefed the Sweetwater County Board of County Commissioners on a proposed relocation of their Green River pari-mutuel and simulcast facility to 420 Uinta Drive and sought county approval to update the address on their existing county authorization.
Why it matters: The move would enlarge the facility's square footage and amenities and the company projects higher tax revenue and local investment. Company leaders said the operator paid roughly $700,000 in taxes in 2024 split among state, county and city and projected more than $1 million annually if the improved facility is approved.
What happened at the meeting: Nick Hughes, president of Pacesetter Racing (owner of Wyoming Horse Racing), outlined a plan to invest about $1.2 million in facility improvements and to renovate the new site for up to the county-permitted number of terminals (the operator said its county authorization is for 84 terminals and it would not exceed that number). Hughes and other company representatives said they already have city support and asked the county to update the address on the existing resolution.
Commissioners expressed concerns about details missing from the proposed county resolution, including whether the county permit should match the Wyoming Gaming Commission's review cycle (a three-year review had been the county's previous practice) and whether both satellite locations (Green River and Rock Springs/Elk Street) were addressed. County counsel and commissioners said they preferred clarified resolution language to align permit terms and to specify satellite locations and durations. The company said it would accept the county's standard permit terms.
Outcome: Commissioners did not approve a resolution at the meeting. They agreed to follow the original plan to return this item to the next meeting with revised resolution language that references the prior resolution and specifies the permit term and the status of both satellite locations. No formal vote on a permit change was taken and no enforcement action occurred.
Discussion vs. decision: The discussion was informational and the item was effectively tabled pending revised language. Commissioners asked staff and counsel to draft a revised resolution for the next meeting that clarifies term length and the status of multiple facilities.
Quotes: Nick Hughes: "We have committed to to invest 1,200,000 in upgrades, of which we've probably already completed about 70 percent." Commissioner Richards (summarizing board preference): commissioners want the county permit to "coincide the permit the county permit with the permit provided by the commission" so review cycles and terms align.
Ending: The company and county staff agreed to return with a revised resolution for formal consideration at a future meeting; no county authorization change was recorded at this session.
