Could local investors jointly develop a Kentucky horse-racing simulcast facility with a licensed track or buy part of that track?

Plain-English summary

The Legislative Research Commission asked whether local interests could invest in a horse-racing simulcast facility alongside a licensed track, either through a joint business arrangement or by buying into the track. The Attorney General read HB 749 as requiring the licensed track to apply for approval for each facility. The AG's conclusion about outside investment assumed that the licensed track maintained and operated the facility. The AG found no general investment bar in the bill or chapter 230, but identified KRS 230.300(2) as a possible restriction because it let the racing commission consider the applicant’s finances and the character and reputation of associated people.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Local investors

The AG concluded that local interests could participate in a joint venture with a licensed track or buy an ownership interest in the track. Its conclusion depended on the simulcast facility being maintained and operated by that licensed track.

Licensed tracks and racing regulators

The opinion identified the licensed track as the entity that would seek racing commission approval for each simulcast facility under HB 749. It also noted that KRS 230.300(2) allowed the commission to consider an applicant's financial stability and the character and reputation for honesty of people identified with the applicant.

Common questions

Could an investor who did not own a racing license join a simulcast project?

The AG said local interests could invest through a joint venture with a licensed track. The licensed track still had to maintain and operate the facility.

Could local interests buy a stake in the licensed track instead?

Yes, if the licensed track maintained and operated the facility. The AG found no general investment bar, while identifying KRS 230.300(2) as a possible restriction tied to the applicant’s finances and associated people’s character and reputation.

What did the opinion say about racing commission approval?

HB 749 required the licensed track to apply for commission approval for each simulcast facility. The opinion addressed the permissibility of outside investment and did not decide whether particular investment arrangements needed separate approval.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read Section 2 of HB 749 to require a commission-licensed track to apply for approval for each simulcast facility. Section 11 defined a track as an association licensed to conduct horse racing. The AG connected that definition with KRS 230.300's licensing language and KRS 446.010's broad definition of “person,” which included corporations, partnerships, and joint stock companies. The opinion addressed investment structure under the 1992 bill; it did not establish a current licensing rule.

Citations and references

• HB 749, Sections 2 and 11: proposed simulcast approval and track definition as quoted by the AG.
• KRS 230.300: track licensing statute discussed in the opinion.
• KRS 230.300(2): commission's financial and character considerations.
• KRS 446.010: definition of “person” used in the AG's analysis.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_90d6e6a2-b2f6-4b38-8404-2bfa32f524f2/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_90d6e6a2-b2f6-4b38-8404-2bfa32f524f2

Original opinion text

This is an official copy of the following document.

OAG 92-50
March 27, 1992
Vic Hellard, Jr.
Director
Legislative Research Commission
State Capitol
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Dear Mr. Hellard:
You have asked the following questions in reference to HB 749:

1. Can local interests invest in a simulcast facility in a joint business arrangement with a
   licensed track or tracks?
2. Can local interests invest in a simulcast facility by buying interest in a licensed track?
   Section 2 of HB 749 says, “Any track licensed by the commission to conduct horse racing and desiring to establish a simulcast facility shall apply for and may receive approval from the commission for each simulcast facility.“ Section 11 of the bill defines “track“ as “any association duly-licensed by the Kentucky Racing Commission to conduct horse racing.“ Licensing of tracks is authorized by KRS 230.300, which refers to the entity applying for a license as a “person“ and as an “association.“ “Person“ is defined in KRS 446.010 as “bodies-politic and corporate, societies, communities, the public generally, individuals, partnerships, and joint stock companies.“ We find nothing in HB 749 or in chapter 230 that restricts investments in the entity comprising a licensed track. The only possible restriction comes from KRS 230.300(2), under which the racing commission is authorized to consider the financial stability of an applicant for a license and the “character and reputation for honesty of all persons identified with“ the applicant. Therefore we conclude that as long as the simulcast facility is maintained and operated by a licensed track, local interests may invest in the facility through a joint venture with the track or through the purchase of an ownership interest in the track. Sincerely, Chris Gorman Attorney General Ross T. Carter Assistant Attorney General