Committee advances cap on pari‑mutuel terminals; sets limit at 3,004 per live flat track

The Select Committee on Gaming approved an amended bill that would cap the number of pari‑mutuel wagering terminals authorized per live flat track and direct the Gaming Commission to adopt implementing rules. The motion to move the amended 26 LSO 0168 was carried by a roll call vote of 4 ayes to 2 noes; the draft will be forwarded to management council.

Committee supporters said the rewrite narrows the earlier, broader draft by removing zoning language and focusing solely on terminal caps, rulemaking, and applicability. LSO counsel described the rewrite as a deletion of the prior text and replacement with a short, targeted act that (1) directs the Gaming Commission to adopt rules governing qualifying pari‑mutuel event days and terminals, (2) prohibits approval of additional terminals while an operator has authorized but unused terminals, and (3) limits permit holders to no more than a specified number of terminals per live flat track. After debate the committee adopted 3,004 as the chosen cap per live flat track.

The bill as amended contains a grandfathering clause for existing permit holders: terminals they are authorized to operate as of the bill’s effective date would be grandfathered but those excess terminals could not be sold or transferred, and material changes in ownership would remove the grandfathered status. The draft also maintains applicability language that preserves existing permit conditions until renewal and sets a July 1, 2026 effective date for most provisions while allowing immediate rulemaking authority.

Testimony included substantial comment from industry representatives and local government organizations. Jeremiah Reaman (County Commissioners Association) testified that several counties either do not have gaming‑specific zoning or have never had simulcasting facilities, and expressed concern that rewriting approval authority could allow activity in counties that do not want it. Operators including Wyoming Downs, Wyoming Horse Racing, 307 Horse Racing and others described large investments and argued that a cap should account for existing permitted terminals so those investments are not unfairly disadvantaged. Industry representatives also pushed for grandfathering and argued a cap should not undercut projects already under construction.

Director Laramendi provided counts the commission had on file as of the committee meeting: Wyoming Downs had been approved for 2,310 terminals (1,146 active and two locations under construction); Wyoming Horse Racing had approvals for 3,004 terminals (1,032 active with locations under construction); and 307 Horse Racing had been approved for 1,369 terminals (1,043 active with one location under construction). The committee discussed multiple approaches — per‑track caps, limits on locations, population‑based formulas or grandfathering — and settled on 3,004 for parity among current large permittees.

After final discussion LSO put the proposed amendment in bill‑form, the committee adopted the amendment and then voted on the draft. The roll call on 26 LSO 0168 as amended was recorded as: Senator Craig — no; Senator McKeown — aye; Representative Johnson — aye; Representative Webb — aye; Co‑chair Cole — no; Co‑chair Lee — aye. The committee reported the measure to management council.