Ad hoc fair committee recounts split votes, CHRB denial and next steps as public pushes to restore horse racing

The Alameda County Fair ad hoc committee on March 5 reviewed a chronology of efforts to restore horse racing at the Pleasanton fairgrounds and faced forceful public comment urging the sport’s return.

The committee recited a sequence of actions: a Dec. 24 memorandum of understanding with a private racing promoter, follow-up committee votes and an executive-committee motion that produced different recommendations about whether the fair or a partner should apply for race dates. Staff reported the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) denied some requested dates and that the CHRB told the association a fair itself would need to apply and assume legal responsibility for a race meet.

The transcript shows the racing committee at one point recommended the CEO seek dates for the 2026 fair (a 5–2 recommendation reported by staff), while an executive-committee motion developed a financial and operational framework the board would require to pursue race dates in 2027 and beyond (described in the meeting as a 6–2 recommendation at an earlier executive-committee meeting). At a later unscheduled meeting on Feb. 17 staff said the executive-committee recommendation carried (reported as 11–4 with one abstention) while the racing-committee recommendation failed (reported as 13–3). Staff said those different committee outcomes contributed to confusion about whether the association would apply for 2026 dates.

Several public commenters and stakeholders urged the fair to revive racing. Anthony Cordova, who said he helped prepare a revision circulated by association counsel, told the committee, "that wrong revision went out, not his," and urged staff to have followed up directly before pausing the process. George Smith, a longtime racing advocate, argued the board’s criteria for 2027 "can never be fulfilled" because of a state rule he said requires a track to have raced before 2010 to secure dates; he also outlined financing ideas including joint-powers arrangements and lines of credit to handle purses and wagering cash flow.

Supporters stressed racing’s economic and cultural role. Gloria Haley told the committee the community "wants racing back" for its historical ties and local economic spillover. Donald Smith, identifying himself as a veterinarian with more than 40 years at the fair, said excluding racing favored a Southern California monopoly and denied local communities access to that revenue.

Board members pressed staff for clarity about budget risks and liability. Staff said past race meets had lost money in recent years (the meeting record cites rough figures—about $1 million in losses across recent racing years and a $500,000 swing in a purse account cited by staff), and that CHRB and California Department of Food and Agriculture approvals would be required for some options. Staff also said the association had paused some actions after the CHRB declined an application and that other partnership offers were being considered.

The meeting did not produce a final decision. Chair and staff said several options remain on the table — having the fair apply for dates itself, carving the racetrack to be run by another operator, renegotiating the operating agreement, or pursuing a dispute-resolution process described in the current contract. Chair said the county may raise the issue in a closed session of the board and noted the ad hoc committee will bring further items back to the full board; staff also said the issue could reappear under the 2027 planning framework.

What’s next: committee members said they expect further dialogue and that the matter may be considered again at the full board meeting cycle, with a May meeting already planned where related contract and operating-agreement questions could reappear.