CO Code § 44-32-512 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 44 - Revenue - Regulation of Activities|Article 32 - Racing|Part 5 - Licensing and Registration|§ 44-32-512. Eligibility to Operate Race Meets - Renewal or Revocation

     No person shall be eligible to operate a race meet under a license issued under the provisions of this article 32 unless the person is the owner or controls the possession of a properly constructed racetrack suitable for the conduct of racing and improved with safe and suitable grandstands; equipped with reasonably sanitary accommodations and also such accommodations, including track conditions, as the commission may require for the care and control of the animals racing at the meet; and also such other improvements as, in the opinion of the commission, may be required for the protection of the public, human and animal participants, and others likely to be present at the race meet. In consideration of the location of the track and other structures and erections and the probable capacity requirements to accommodate the crowd and the number of people that will reasonably be expected to occupy the grandstands and attend the race meets, a major racing operation license shall not be issued for the racing of horses at a class A track that is within forty miles of any other major racing operation licensed under this article 32 for the racing of horses at a class A track; nor shall a major racing operation license be issued for the racing of horses at a class B track that is within forty miles of any other major racing operation licensed under this article 32 for the racing of horses at a class B track. In no event shall any racing operation licensed under this article 32 for the racing of horses at a horse track located within forty miles of the Colorado state fair and industrial exposition conduct race meets of horses on the same dates as the race meets of horses at the state fair.    As used in subsection (1)(a) of this section, “major racing operation” means nonprofit corporations and commercial tracks conducting race meets that exceed fifteen racing days.       Applications for renewal of a license shall be filed with the commission on or before a day fixed by the commission and shall set forth the name of the applicant and if a corporation the names and addresses of its officers and directors with a list attached thereto of the names and addresses of all the holders of its stock, as of a date not more than thirty days prior to the filing of the application, and the amount of voting stock held by each stockholder. If any of its voting stock is known by any applicant to be registered in the name of a person not the actual owner thereof, the list shall also show the name and address of the actual owner.    The application shall set forth the proposed dates of race meets, the dates within the race meets on which the applicant intends to conduct racing at the meet and the number of races intended to be run on the dates, and the address of the establishment where the meets are to be held and shall have attached thereto the most recent financial statement of the applicant as of a date not more than twelve months prior to the date of the application for renewal of the license. The application shall also contain such other information as the rules of the commission may provide to ensure that the licensee is conducting race meets in accordance with the provisions of this article 32 and the rules of the commission. To determine whether an application for renewal of the license to conduct race meets shall be granted, the commission shall have the right to examine the financial and other records of the licensee, to compel the production of records and documents, to conduct hearings, to summon witnesses, and to administer oaths.      As soon as is practicable after the date fixed for the filing of applications for renewal, the commission shall meet and determine the granting or denial thereof. If the commission finds that the applicant has fully complied with the requirements and conditions for renewal, the application for renewal shall be granted, and the commission shall allot and assign to the respective applicants, in the manner stated in this subsection (4), dates for race meets and dates for racing within the race meet and the number of races on the dates.    Except as otherwise provided in this article 32, the commission may allot different dates for race meets, different dates for racing within a race meet, and a different number of races on the dates from those requested in the application for renewal. In making its allotment of dates, the commission shall endeavor to allot to each applicant the dates requested by the applicant in the application, after giving due consideration to all factors involved, including the interests of the applicant and the public and the best interests of racing. In its allotment of dates, the commission shall also endeavor, whenever possible, to avoid a conflict in live horse race dates between class A tracks or between class B tracks located within fifty miles of each other; except that the commission may allot dates to a state, county, or other fair commission or association holding not more than one race meet annually for a period not exceeding six days, despite the fact that the dates conflict with the dates allotted to another applicant conducting live horse racing. When the granting of requested initial or renewal race dates would result in a conflict, the commission may grant race dates so as to avoid conflict to the extent possible, giving preference to requests for race dates from license applicants whose licensed race meet in the previous year included the same dates.       In the event the commission finds that any applicant for a renewal of a license to conduct race meets under this article 32 has violated any of the provisions of this article 32 or any rule of the commission, or has willfully or fraudulently made any false statement in an original application for a license to hold race meets or for the renewal of the license, or has failed to pay the commission any sums required by this article 32, or lacks the ability, experience, or finances to conduct race meets, the commission may refuse to grant a renewal of the license.    Any unexpired license held by any person who has been convicted by the commission of violating any of the provisions of this article 32 or any rule of the commission, or who has willfully or fraudulently made any false statement in any application for a license to hold a race meet or for the renewal of the license, or who fails to pay to the commission any and all sums required under the provisions of this article 32 is subject to cancellation or revocation by the commission. The cancellation shall be made only after a summary hearing before the commission, of which three days' notice in writing shall be given the licensee specifying the grounds for the proposed cancellation and at which hearing the licensee shall be given an opportunity to be heard in person and by counsel in opposition to the proposed cancellation. No license shall be granted or continued to any licensee for any race meet licensed under this article 32 who has made default in any payment of any premium or prizes on any race meets held under this article 32 or who has failed to meet any monetary obligations in connection with any race meet held in this state.      History. Source: L. 2018: Entire article added with relocations,(HB 18-1024), ch. 26, p. 306, § 2, effective October 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 12-60-511 as it existed prior to 2018.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   The primary purpose of the extensive changes made in this article was to confer upon the racing commission a broad discretionary power in granting or denying applications for race meets. Colo. Racing Comm'n v. Columbine Kennel Club, Inc., 141 Colo. 497 , 348 P.2d 954 (1960).   It seems a wise intendment on the part of the general assembly to forestall or prevent the commission from exercising favoritism among applicants and making it impossible for the commission to issue licenses only to such applicants as might be in the favor of the commission, and reject others for no given reason. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   By the act, the commission is told what applications to reject, and there is no room within the provisions of the act that allows an arbitrary or capricious action of the commission. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   The general assembly by the employment of the word “shall” in connection with the issuance of a license, unquestionably intended that such was to be put beyond the pale of permissive action on the part of the commission in cases where the applicant has met every requirement of the act in connection with its application, and does not fall within the specific prohibitions. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   The prohibitions specifically contained in the act are that no license shall be issued for the racing of horses or other animals within 40 miles of any other racing operation licensed under this law, and further, that the number and kind of race meets to be held in any one county in any one year shall be determined by the commission, provided that not more than two race meets for animals other than horses shall be licensed in any county in any one year, nor held for a duration longer than 30 days, and no race meets shall be conducted on any Sunday. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   The act provides not only the eligibility for applicants for a license, but distinctly sets out what may be considered ineligible applicants, and therefore, the use of the word “shall” is a clear indication that, in the consideration of applications that meet every requirement when a third person as well as the state of Colorado has an interest in the exercise of the duty of the commission, the exercise of the power is then imperative. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   So far as the commission is concerned the act provides that it is legal to have as many tracks as the 40-mile limit will not prevent, so long as there is not more than one in each county. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   If the commission can say that an application for license should be rejected because it is 45 miles from another track when it is provided in the act, not within 40 miles of another track, then there are no bounds to the discretion of the commission, and it could refuse a license on the basis of 50, 75, or 100 miles, or any other distance it might see fit to state. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   Where the commission considered the “best interests” of racing, and of the state, would not be served by granting the license, there being sufficient evidence to support this finding, it should have been upheld by the trial court. Colo. Racing Comm'n v. Columbine Kennel Club, Inc., 141 Colo. 497 , 348 P.2d 954 (1960).   In this section it is provided that after the first year of the operation of a track, and there have been no violations committed by the operator, the commission shall renew the particular license upon application and grant the same time it had in the preceding year. Cloverleaf Kennel Club v. Racing Comm'n, 130 Colo. 505 , 277 P.2d 226 (1954).   Licensees possess no unqualified right to allotment of equal number of racing days. Cloverleaf Kennel Club, Inc. v. Colo. Racing Comm'n, 620 P.2d 1051 (Colo. 1980).   Applied in Greyhound Racing Ass'n v. Colo. Racing Comm'n, 41 Colo. App. 319, 589 P.2d 70 (1978).