Uncertainty remains over Pleasanton horse racing as operators default and new investors pitch revival

County supervisors and fair board members spent significant time tracing why horse racing at the Alameda County Fairgrounds collapsed and whether it can be revived under new operators.

Officials said a contracted operator (referred to in the meeting as CARF/CAR) failed to pay amounts owed for services and that a joint powers authority underlying the operator lacked the liquidity to continue. The county recorded a large cash shortfall tied to operations and to a line of credit the county extended: staff described a combined receivable and outstanding line balance in the multimillion‑dollar range and said they had received roughly $1.125 million from equipment sales plus intermittent payments that reduced but did not eliminate the debt.

"We wrote off the entire receivable as bad debt, and since then we've received $300,000 and other smaller payments," finance staff Vivian (speaker 12) said while briefing the board on receivables and a May budget reforecast.

Board members also described regulatory and industry pressures: the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) removed the track's licensed status at one point, insurance pools were affected when licensure was lost, and large track groups and wagering signal providers limited participation. Those developments contributed to horses leaving the facility and to partners declining to continue winter race support.

In public comment, a representative of Bernal Park Racing (speaker 13) outlined a new private group formed earlier in 2025 by George Schmidt and John Harris, said the group had committed more than $2 million and held bank funds, and urged a partnership to restart Northern California racing dates. "Bernal Park Racing will take over a 100% financial responsibility to the county," the commenter said, adding the group had engaged civil engineers to address water issues and revised its business plan.

Supervisors asked the fair board to present a written, tiered plan for possible racing futures (summer meets, limited 45‑day windows, or year‑round stabling) and to tighten the county's contract with the fair association so communications and financial responsibilities are clearer. "I think we need to look at the contract that the county has with the fair board and tighten that up," one supervisor said.

Staff said the fair will remain a landlord: the county will not run races but can contract with a credible operator if regulatory and financial conditions are met. Board members said any revival will depend on satisfying regulators, securing a creditworthy operator to run meets and ensuring insurance and wagering partners provide signal and host fee support.

Next steps requested by supervisors included: a written operational plan from the fair board setting practical gradations for what could be achieved and a schedule for returning to the board with more details about operator creditworthiness and insurance arrangements.

No formal resolution to contract with a new operator was taken at the meeting; the discussion concluded with direction to continue exploring partner options and to report back.