Emotions ran high Tuesday as the Senate Budget, Appropriations, and Finance Committee met on St. Croix to debate Bill 36-0119, which would reprogram $5 million to the Sports, Parks and Recreation Department to complete long-delayed renovations at the Randall “Doc” James Racetrack — a project stalled for years amid funding and oversight disputes.
The session, marked by passionate testimony and heated exchanges, exposed deep divisions within the community and among lawmakers. Supporters of the measure, including Sen. Avery L. Lewis, called the racetrack “a cultural landmark, a community gathering place, and a cornerstone of St. Croix heritage for generations.”
Lewis, who sponsored the bill, described it as “cultural preservation, economic revitalization, and community pride. It is a promise to every horseman, every small business owner and every young person who looks to the track as a place of opportunity … that this legislature will not allow their future to remain on hold.”
The meeting quickly revealed deep divisions and lingering anger over years of stalled progress and unmet promises, much of it stemming from the racetrack’s troubled development history. “The IGL did not live up to its end of the deal, and the people of St. Croix have been denied their racetrack far too long,” Lewis said, referencing the failed agreement with the previous developer.
Lawmakers continually revisited the legal and contractual setbacks that have long plagued the project. As Sen. Kurt A. Vialet explained, “A breach of contract lawsuit was filed by the executive branch. It was settled back in January … As a part of the breach of contract lawsuit, all of the plans are turned over to Government House,” marking a new chapter of government control and responsibility.
Elroy Bates Jr., president of the Flamboyant Park Horsemen Association, warned that “some owners are running horses in Saint Thomas and training them on Saint Croix, often in open fields and roadsides, and some are even training on the highway, which is unsafe for drivers, riders and the horses involved.”
Despite broad support for moving the project forward, many participants questioned whether the proposed $5 million appropriation would be enough to restore the racetrack to modern standards. Vincent Roberts, commissioner of the Sports, Parks and Recreation Department, testified that while the funding is a “critical step forward,” it falls short of what is truly needed. “The total estimated cost for the completed construction and modernization of the facility is approximately $12 to $14 million,” Roberts said, noting that the current appropriation would only cover initial phases of the work.
Roberts added that the funding would still allow the project to begin important preparatory work.
“The $5 million appropriation, although not sufficient to complete the racetrack, will enable us to proceed with crucial design management and site preparation work that makes this project possible,” Roberts said.
Roberts outlined how the funds would be prioritized, emphasizing that “the most important thing is the safety of the jockeys and the horses.” He explained that the first phase would focus on repairing the running surface and stables, with additional improvements — such as perimeter fencing, clearing overgrown vegetation and renovating the paddock area —dependent on securing further funding.
Lawmakers and community members expressed concern that the project could stall again without a clear plan for bridging the funding gap. “Is it $5 million enough? No, but I know one thing, it’s a start [toward] moving in the right direction,” Lewis said, urging colleagues to support the measure as an essential first step.
While questions about funding dominated much of the discussion, an equally contentious issue emerged over who should ultimately operate the racetrack. As lawmakers weighed the best path forward, the debate shifted to whether the government should retain control or seek out a private promoter to manage the facility. The general consensus was that a public-private partnership would be the ideal long-term solution, but in the meantime, most agreed that government oversight was necessary to move the project forward in its current status.
Roberts acknowledged the long-term goal of finding a private partner but emphasized the need for public oversight in the immediate future. “The plan is to secure the first $5 million to get the project started … After that, we will see whether we have any interested investors. If not, we most likely will probably end up back in the legislature,” Roberts said.
“We do not want the government running the racetrack. No way, no way,” said Roberts, reflecting a widely shared sentiment among industry stakeholders.
Jay Watson, a horse racing advocate, echoed these concerns, urging lawmakers that “in an environment where our hospitals, schools, GERS and other critical government functions severely lack funding to operate. Horse racing needs to be looked at from a venue revenue-generating perspective, and not as a cost to the government.”
The committee’s deliberations culminated in a pivotal amendment to the bill, shifting oversight of the $5 million appropriation from a private company to the Sports, Parks and Recreation Department. “I move amendment number 36-579, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to bill number 36-0119,” said Sen. Marise C. James, as the committee unanimously adopted the change.
Transparency and process remained flashpoints throughout the meeting, with lawmakers pressing officials on the lack of a new request for proposals for a private promoter. “The RFP did not receive a response,” said Hugo Hodge, a member of the horse race commission. “Discussions have started to get another one prepared.”
Amid the debate over funding and management, lawmakers also raised pointed questions about the fate of materials and equipment previously located at the racetrack. Sen. Angel L. Bolques Jr. pressed officials for answers, asking, “We have things that have been removed from the track. I’m talking about the footings, the foundation, the elements, the truss, the steel, the seating, the staging area, where they gone, where they gone?”
Roberts acknowledged the concern but admitted he did not know what had happened to the missing items. “They are no longer on the property,” Roberts said.
Bolques expressed frustration that government-owned materials could disappear without clear documentation or compensation, noting, “I don’t understand how it is a contract that could just remove these items that belong to the government of the Virgin Islands without having to pay for them if they wanted to use them, or if we sold them to them. I don’t know what the situation is, but they’re gone now.”
When the roll was called, the committee approved the amended bill by a vote of 5-1, with one senator absent.
Vialet cast the lone “no” vote on the amended bill, delivering a pointed critique of both the process and the substance of the proposal. He warned that the $5 million appropriation could lead the territory to repeat a cycle of incomplete or stalled projects.
“There’s no clear plan, none,” Vialet said, expressing frustration with what he described as a lack of coordination and transparency.
With the committee’s approval, the bill now advances to the Rules and Judiciary Committee for further consideration. As the meeting adjourned, a sense of cautious optimism prevailed. “Slow motion is better than no motion,” Roberts said.
The fate of the Randall “Doc” James Racetrack and the future of horse racing on St. Croix now rest with the next round of legislative review.
St. Croix Source
Local news
