Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Horse Racing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County Fair board defers return of horse racing amid financial and procedural disputes
Summary
After sharp public pressure to restore horse racing, the Alameda County Agricultural Fair Association told supervisors it cannot commit to racing for 2026 without a vetted, risk‑sharing proposal; private backers say they will cover losses, while the association stresses prior operator losses and gaps in submitted plans.
The Alameda County Agricultural Fair Association faced renewed public pressure on Dec. 8 to restore live horse racing at the Pleasanton fairgrounds, but board leaders said they could not approve a 2026 racing schedule without a fully vetted, executable plan that protects the association’s finances.
Supporters of racing — including longtime vendors and local racing proponents — told the ad hoc committee the track is a cultural and economic anchor and urged the board to use contract language they said requires the association to apply for racing dates. Several private backers said they would cover potential losses under a common-cost accounting arrangement proposed to the board.
“Fair racing worked,” said a longtime industry representative during public comment, urging the association to pursue dates. Vendor Carlo Cipollina, who has sold at the fair for a decade, told the committee his sales fell 50% this year after racing was suspended. “If they hear that [the horses] aren’t going to be there again, they certainly won’t come back,” he said.
Board members and executives responded that prior meet operators ran the association into financial distress and that the association’s fiduciary duty required caution. The board’s president told the committee the association had to “pull the plug” on prior racing arrangements to avoid bankruptcy. Association leaders said they have reviewed several proposals this year and rejected offers they judged incomplete or fiscally risky — for example, proposals that demanded sharing parking, food and beverage revenue in ways that would undercut existing leases and revenue streams.
“People offered plans at the 11th hour,” the board president said; the board asked proposers to submit a complete business plan and to meet with association staff to allow committee-level vetting before any board vote.
County supervisors signaled they would press for a legal and business review. Supervisor Nathan Howard said he wants the county’s counsel to examine the contract obligations and for a small-group meeting to attempt a negotiated return of racing without saddling the county with potential subsidies.
What happens next: The board asked any party that wants racing to deliver a complete, auditable proposal to the association’s CEO and to meet for a staff-level review before committee consideration. Supervisors indicated they will request a closed-session briefing on contractual obligations and the association’s financial analyses.
This item drew extensive public comment and no formal vote at the meeting.
