We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. We'll go to the next meeting. I'll ask the clerk to please call the roll to establish quorum. Supervisor Miley. Supervisor Halver. Present Jerome Hobin. Present Tim Weaver. He's muted, but he's present. Check more. President. Yeah, President. Thank you. Chuck Moore is present. John Smith. Here. Gordon Galvin. Here. Frank M. Hopp. Here. We have a quorum. Okay, we have a quorum. And we welcome all participants for our meeting from the public. In person and remote participation is allowed and encouraged. In order to participate, if you're in person and want to speak to an item, please fill out a speaker slip or let the clerk know. If you're participating remotely, the clerk will now provide brief instructions on how to do that. For remote participation the teleconferencing guidelines may be found at www.acgov.org agricultural fair association. If you'd like to speak on an item please use the raise your hand function at the appropriate time. Thank you. OK, very good. I note that we also have staff here present. And so we have three separate items to take up. I'm going to ask that we move the update on water quality matters to be the first item and then update on horse racing and then update on housing. So for the water quality matter, is there a staff report? Ms. Kimmerley, we have a staff report for that or? afternoon, supervisor and members of the fair board. So as you know, we've been, I'm Kimberly Gasway, Director of the General Services Agency for Alameda County. And we have some responsibility on the agreement with the fair association, mostly around facility management. Other divisions within the county have different responsibilities. So We have been meeting with the state of the city of Pleasanton regarding water issues. Mostly around storm water management as well as waste water disposal at this site. We did receive, we sent a letter to your board to the fair association and copied your CEO, your CEO, and the state of Ple Water Quality Control Board that was issued to the Fair and also the county as property owner. And it appears that the Regional Water Quality Board is being very proactive and wanting to work with all the parties and Trying to avoid Pelties, but they certainly is within their purview to do so if we do not comply with the regulations and the permit We also then received a notice of corrective action requirements from the city of Pleasanton. And I know Jerome understands these issues much better than I do, but there are some connections that the city installed for storm water that probably should not have been installed according to DSRSD. So the city is now sent a letter to the county and the fair association regarding that and that we have to submit the fair association needs to submit the storm water management plan and illicit discharges and make sure you submit best management practice implementation. The city and DSRSD are working together to seek to remove a bypass valve that's on Bernal Avenue that was inappropriately installed. It's not on county property or fairgrounds, specifically the fairgrounds within city limits, but there is some discussion that they may allow for an extension of that current connection again. I will defer to Jerome, but during the dry season. So at the last, there's been weekly meetings pretty regularly and then there was a meeting on March 1st and it became pretty clear. All the agencies trying to work together to resolve the problems. And the first is to amend the existing permit application requesting to discharge the wastewater that was currently held in Baker tanks. They also request the city of Pleasanton and the steam permit application requesting to discharge the waste water that was currently held in Baker tanks. They also request the city of Pleasanton and DSRSD, offer an extension of time for permanent removal of the bypass, which I mentioned until the end of the year to get us through the dry weather. in conjunction with City of Pleasants, but they want DSRSD, the district wants the City of Pleasant to sign an agreement on how they make sure those valves are open and closed at appropriate times so no stormwater gets in the main water system. So in addition that the fair is needed to submit to the state water quality control board a plan for stormwater and wastewater discharge prepared by a licensed engineer by the end of the year and the plan must include what will happen during wet water flows and the fair Association also needs to cooperate with the SRSD who is going to investigate of whether or not there are any other unpermitted connections that the fairgrounds has access to. So it's important that we as the county and property owners sent the letter to the fair association while everybody has been working together, we're on notice as well. The county as the property owner. Our agreement does say that the fairgrounds hold us and demnifies us against any fines or penalties. So we want to be good partners, but we want to understand that our agreements says there has to be compliance with the laws and appropriate permits. And that if there are violations, we will be looking to you to indemnify the county. Very good. Is there anything else to add from the fair board? Maybe what we've done so far or when did we send the letter was last? I think I got a copy of it Thursday or Friday. It is March 13th. It's been made in receipt I'm assumed and actions in progress any update on the fair board. Yeah. Jerome Oben CEO, Alameda County Fair. Thank you. I concur with Kimberly's entire assessment and what's in next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. I'm going to go to the next floor. by March 21st. Item number one and number two have already been submitted. And the county GSA was copied on those permits that were filed for the Baker Tank and as well as the bypass valve request. We also number three to engage engineers. We do have two engineers engage already because they were already involved with the systems during the CAFO process that was not completed when we learned that the horses would be exiting. So, one, two, and three are, one, two are done and waiting for response from sanitation district. Number three is being worked on and then of course number four would be after the work is completed. We will continue to look for the, the, any further unpermitted cross connections. So if item three have the engineers been reengaged? Because they were engaged and then disengaged, have they been reengaged? Well, they're certainly still on retainer. They were just put on hold related to the CAFO. And not to spend any further money until we recognized were we going full CAFO or doing a different permit. And since then though, I would say this scope of work has been expanded to the entire property, not just the KFO that we were dealing with earlier. So do they know about the letter and this renew requirement? Only one of them, only one engineer Karen Wright knows about the letter. And are they coming back to the properties at what time to do an assessment? It's not scheduled yet, but we will. Okay. So you let them know and it's not scheduled. Okay. Anything else? I've related to this topic. No. No. Okay. Then are there any other, before we go to public comment on this topic, I'll ask if there are any other comments or questions from anybody on the board. And if you don't have them now, it can happen later, but saying none, we'll ask for, Supervisor Miley, please. And then after that, we'll go to public comment on this item. So the fairs working to come into compliance, right? So in order to proceed to come into compliance, what steps do you need to take? To keep the property, to make the property completely compliant, we need an engineering plan and then a construction correction to the property as a whole, to immediately come into compliance with what was agreed to on the March 10th meeting. We need to file for the permit for the Baker Tank so it can be emptied and too we need to file for a permit, a temporary permit to allow the cross connections to be utilized at the city and at the, we'll call it the Redgate Tunnel for this purpose. So I don't want to, are there any actions you need to take in order to achieve that? On the fairgrounds? There are physical things we are doing. Yeah, we would have to change valves. We would have to get the permits submitted and approved if they will. Is that what you're referencing? Well, then we've got three separate items here. What I'm referencing is in order to achieve that, do you have to remove the horses? Oh, sorry, yes. Right now, the commitment during this March 15th meeting, the pretext of all of it was, first and foremost, the stables are closing on March 25th and the horses will be removed. Then we went on with these four criteria past that. Is that what you're referencing? Yeah, so, but can you achieve compliance without removing the horses? Or total, you know, can compliance come about, am I, am I jumping to number one? Because I'm trying not to jump to number one. I'm trying to understand if they can do compliance and still have some level of horses at the fair. not according to what I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The question is, is there another way, besides what was agreed to, what was discussed on March 10th? And I think what Supervisor Miles is getting at is that was A plan discussed on March 10th. If the request is to allow horses to continue through the dry season or even a few days of the quote unquote rainy season or wet season and you are able to get into compliance even with a population of horses there, then can you stay in compliance without getting rid of all the horses? Getting rid of all the horses provides a baseline no horses there, which I don't know when the last time that was, no horses there to know what it would look like if you had no horses there. But could you still get into compliance below a certain number of level of measured pollutants? But still have horses there. I don't know that we know the answer to that. I think the heart of that question is, would the water board and or the sanitation district allow for that to happen? I don't know that we have the answer to that, but I think based on the discussion, and I'd like actually our county staff to weigh in on that, given what was said on the 10th, given the concilatory stance of the water board and the sanitation district is that a feasible option request? Or do you think that that would not, that they wouldn't allow? We've never asked them, I guess. I believe that the district and the state do not have an opinion of whether or not we have horses there and there is a path forward. The engineering plan may have to be slightly different and there's also different rules depending on the number and types of animals that you have on site, but they have not ever said that the horses need to leave. Yeah, okay. And another follow-up question that is, and it just sparked in my mind, the violations and the penalties and fees actually accrue to the county while we're indemnified by the board, these are violations that we are in violation of the county, because we're the owner of the property. And if fines were to be levied, they would be levied against the county, is that correct? Technically, that's correct. We are the property owners. The notice of violation is both to the owner and Operator so they would love you the fees are agreement with the fairgrounds as we would look to them to pay those fees and I see there's a letter from the water Bay area San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board on July 25th of 24 so So nine months ago. Was there any communication from them to us before that to the county? And or the fair board? I thought it was March of that year. So there's been over the years number of communications. So we've been looking historically back at what's taken place. I think the most the situation really escalated when the horses were coming from Golden Gate fields which brought it to the attention of the state. They and I and I think, all the different jurisdictions, regulatory authorities started really looking more into the situation, and including us as the property owner to say, okay, what is going on. I do know that Jerome has been working to get into compliance for quite some time, working on a storm plan and as well as a wastewater management plan and there's been some challenges but I know these at least in the last nine months there's been quite a bit of effort on the regulators as well as the county to try to figure this out and what Jerome's been working with different consultants. I think he switched gears. And one meeting I heard, your arm can, of course, chime in. It was one meeting what I heard was, look from, believe it was the DSR, the steamer had been the state. We don't want to talk about when the horse is leaving. We want right now, this is what's happening. You need to be in compliance right now with your plan. So there's been quite a bit of back-and-forth. Anything, Adam? I concur with what Kimberly just said. I think the communication you're looking at is the first official communication if it's the notice of violation from the water board. Prior to that though, we had a tour of the property when no horses were on site, so that was as of up until we'll call it June 5th. But this meeting, the property tour was early May, which incorporated all parties, so that we could tour the property and show them what we were planning to do including the water board and that's when the water board said okay submit your permit we did they said don't upload it to the portal yet give it to staff so we can do a draft review for you. Okay great thank you, great. Thank you. We submitted it. And they came back with the notice of violation and said, no, this is going to be considered a CAFO. That is what then took our first consultant off the job and put a second consultant on the job, which has done CAFO-related permitting. We went down that path, which all of these back and forth take two weeks, three weeks, back and forth, back and forth. We went down that path with a new document. We submitted it, and it was given back to us with corrections or rejections, if you will, because they didn't think it went far enough fast enough. It was basically a plan with all the right things in it but no construction yet until we've done testing for a year and a half or two years to determine the constituents in which we were dealing with. When that was rejected, then we went back to the drawing board said, what are we going to do? And that's about the time the race meet was obviously failing and was not going to be capable of producing the revenues needed to actually pay these people to do the work as well as pay for the construction project that would be required. So that's when we retracted. We realized that the race meet golden state racing that was operating from October until December 25th was no longer going to be viable. For a multitude of reasons we can talk about if you'd like. And at that point we were working with the water board and that's when said, hold on, we don't know if we can complete these documents as a CAFO because the economics aren't working out. So that's when, why there are so many stops and starts related to the engineers, because these are $40,000 documents, each pop, that you have go through. By this point, the race meet had ended March, December 25th on Christmas Day. And we negotiated a deal to keep horses funded by the Southern California race tracks until March 25th. It had an option to continue On both sides, one was their option to continue if there were more than 500 horses and one was our option to continue past March 25th should we want to. The problem was we were trying to get through the holiday season so we didn't kick anybody out of the barns or our RV campgrounds in the middle of the holiday season. And that these horses would not be left without a place to train. So this went from Christmas day until March 25th. We talked to the water board, the city, and the sanitation district. And we said, hey, the economics aren't working here. our first out, legal out, without breaking a contract would be March 25th. If we can get rid of the horses by March 25th, can we keep, can we not essentially not have enforcement or fines? The conversation basically was that that was the game plan and we then had to continue the communication to do everything possible with Baker tanks, best management practices, filters, all kinds of things to do our best to not continue discharges. So did that help the store? No, it does. Very helpful. I appreciate that. It's very consistent with what I've heard, although, I think you added what I've learned is that you actually were able to start racing, even though you hadn't been able to resolve this with the waterboard. You were still going back and forth with the waterboard. Started racing then figured out it wasn't viable. But then still, so the 25th of March was a negotiated item that you mentioned was the first available time to legally get out. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't allow you to stay longer if you asked for that. And I think I heard Kimberly say that they're not requiring you to leave. So my point is we don't know the answer, but we could ask them if it would be OK to stay through the dry season. We just never asked. We just said that's our way to get out of the fines and fees was the negotiation that we offered up that you offered up And I understand it. Yeah, yeah, we we They were gonna find us Yeah, and so we took action immediately on the counties behalf and the fairs behalf to make sure that we could be as compliant as possible And that was the fastest quickest way out of it. Yeah. Since then, did we do anything besides moving water around to get back into compliance, like using other best practices for keeping clean? Yeah. Oh, absolutely. And they've come out and inspected the facility in person. Okay. That's why we have baker tanks on facility and we're pumping the water into baker tanks. We have air bladder plugs in the storm drains. We have pig filters in every single one of the inlets. We raised up the manure containment zones with larger walls. We put out notifications. We've policed the backside. We have shut down water in some instances of offenders that would not stop leaving hoses run into storm drains. We've rented sweeping devices and things like that. We've updated our plans as whenever they requested a new thing. We've redone waddles and so forth to stop discharge into certain areas. There's a long list. Every week we continue to do things that they have requested including weekly updates to the water board of which everybody has copied on including the county and probably yeah I'll just leave it at that absolutely. We that has been our MO is try to do everything possible let them know know that we care, that this is serious, and that we take it seriously, because what's in front of the fair board are four different letters of violation. Essentially, we have a brand new one here from the county, and we respect that, and it's very accurate in my opinion. We have one from the sanitation district saying, disconnect these valves that they never knew about. We have one from the city that says, be compliant with what you put in the ditch on Bernal Avenue. And then we have the, yeah, that was for four notices of violation. I'm trying everything I can to cure. Do we know if it's had any effect on where we lie in the level of contaminants and in compliance? We could be in compliance already. No, we test every single qualified storm event. And we have not met compliance in a single one of them. Are numbers getting better? Yes. We're getting better. Yes. So what level were we at before, say in December, and what level are we at in the most recent storm? You'd have to ask the scientists that if you see the documents that were provided by Kimberly, there's 40 categories that they're testing for, including metals, of which. So, if you want to review those documents, you can see where we comply and where we don't comply. But the main one that I know everybody is very focused on is ammonia, nitrates, and E. coli for bacteria accounts. So we have a recent report that says where we are, we just don't know how close it is to where they want us to be, where the compliance level is. I just don't know it off the top of my head because I'm not a scientist, but yes, we know how close we are. The documents show how close we are, but they're not compliant. But they've gotten better. Yeah, absolutely. And they've gotten better because the horse count has continuously gone down. When we started this endeavor, we were, I think, at 870 horses. Today, we're at, well, for round terms, say 350. And the volume of water leaving the facility is also dramatically gone down. We filled our first Baker Tank in a matter of three weeks and now our second Baker Tank has been sitting there for four weeks and doesn't have much water in it. So you mentioned two permits that you have to apply for. One is to discharge the Baker T tanks. The other is to allow DSRs for them to allow discharge into the sanitary district throughout the dry season. That is correct and that's why and they were out today for a tour of the property to show them how we are doing facilitating this, which is why we were, well, I thought we were going to be late. So the Baker tanks though are full of water that indicate presence of a lot of horses. They were collected when horses were from 800 down to 350. Yes. So we submitted a permit. We hope that they accepted that permit as a discharge horse water was known to be horse water into their sewage system. Right? And then a separate permit is to allow for us to discharge throughout the rest of the dry season. My speculation is if they're allowing us to discharge horse water from the Baker tanks into their sanitation system, then they would likely be equally willing to allow us to continue to discharge the same kind of water throughout the rest of the dry season. In other words, if they're going to take the baker tank water, they're going to take horse water throughout the dry season. We just haven't asked that question of them. I agree with your assessment on what the water is and how simple it is to just do that that's been my argument for nine months. Very logical. I see a commissioner Smith. Yeah, I just want to add that we've asked for a permit I believe in January. that was never approved. It took six weeks before we got to the second cent of permits. So it's, we continue to try to work through it. It's not always happens quite as quickly as we like. Yeah, I appreciate that. And that's kind of when I started kind of making some phone calls and getting them involved. And they've been very responsive and willing, it's my experience of that, has been. But what I also understand is the second permit that was requested to, well, I don't need to worry about that. I'm pretty confident in the sanitation boards assessment of the Baker Tank fluid and if they're willing to accept that, and that's a good thing. We all want that to be accepted. I don't have any other questions unless Supervisor Miley has a follow up, but I want to thank Jerome and Kimberly. Super-adjust, I just want to add that yes, they should accept the water because we've provided them the metals to test as well as we do a lot of testing on this water now. So they have all of that information. I think another indication that the water that we generate is acceptable to the sanitation. That's a good way of it. Yeah, it's surprisingly surprise. Yeah, so this has been helpful, but more precisely. So you're down to 350 horses and March 25th, you'll have no horses. Is that true? So, because as far as Howard kind of mentioned, is there any way to being compliant and work towards future compliance by keeping some level of horses under 350 on fairgrounds after March 25th? My quick answer is no. These are mitigation measures. These are not being compliant, if that makes sense. This is a, I don't want to call it a negotiated settlement, but these four items are what we need to be doing. And nobody told me you can just do number one and two, and now you're compliant. That is not accurate. We are tolerant of us doing what we're doing. Is that a question? I don't want any questions. If the sanitation board would allow you to pump into the sanitation board, water that we think they're going to apply from the Baker Tank, if they would allow you to do that, would that then alleviate the water control board, the Senate, Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Control Board? And I think the answer to that is a very clear yes. That would be your prerogative to say, not me, because I've never heard just ask. I've been in many meetings with them, supervisor, and everybody was on the meeting where this was being discussed, and that was never an understanding. And we've asked if we can get into the sanitation district during the dry season would that allow you to delay would that allow you to agree to allow us to delay past March 25 to exit all the horses. I have not asked that question specifically the way you just did. Thank you because that was always the understanding that the horses would be gone. Okay, I just think that's the kind of number one at the moment, but that that's kind of the the crux at the moment of some of the controversy. If we can move towards compliance in a short term and in the long term without removing all the horses. That's kind of what we're, you know, I think we're struggling with. Because some I've been told, once again, by different parties we can, but then I've also been told that we can't. I respect that, but I only have four letters to go on. One is from the city of Pleasanton, one is from the water district, I'm sorry, the water board, one is from the county, and one is from the sanitation district, and they are all impressive letters that scare our board. And we are doing everything we can right now to comply with all of them on behalf of the association and the county. Those are the four official letters that we have. I have no official letter from anybody saying, oh but just do what you want over there or work towards compliance and we'll let you keep going That's never been a thing right now that I know of Can I represent recognize Commissioner Moore Chuck Moore? You mentioned several times that we've had or counties had conversations with the water board If they indicated to to you that they would forgive or let this stake go beyond, and because, and if they have, why didn't they put it in writing? So the board here, our board would have that in writing and could respond to it. Yeah, so I think again, Kimberly, as mentioned, that they've never said you have to get rid of all the horses. They have said that there is a path forward. I believe that they have said that as long as effluent is going to the sanitation board, the water board has said we're okay because effluent is all going, during the dry season, is all going into the sanitation district. And so part of the complication is on their side, they're looking at the fair board. They're not looking at the county because the fair board is in place. So everybody's looking at the fair board perhaps to proper that solution. We can't proper a solution for you. But as we talk about them, if it were to be that way, I think they've all said we're not looking to get rid of all the horses. We just want you to be in compliance water. The water is not going to be in the water. The water is not going to be in the water. The water is not going to be in the water. The water is not going to be in the water. The water is not going to be in the water. The water is not going to be in the water. The water is not going to be in the water. with it. It's all seems like an easy layup, but we can't do that. We can request that you do that, and I think you'll see that request from us. We would request that you ask the sanitation district to take the water past the 25th. We would request that you would ask the water board to accept that as being in compliance while you look for a longer term solution, we request that you keep horses there and keep people employed and keep people in school and that would happen. But you have to make that request and we believe that the answer would be we can work with you, yes, because there's a lot of pressure to do all of those things. But, and I completely respect letters like this aren't happy to read. I get it. But there seems to be that path forward that we can't take, but you can. And that's what I think the request is. That's where I think we're at. Can I speak? So yes, we have a hand raised by two people. I'm sorry, I didn't look up. I'm going to say Commissioner Weaver and then Austin. And then if we have no more comments from the board, we'll go to public comment. But indeed, Mr. Weaver, you're up. Yeah, so what I'm hearing you saying that even though they we may have horses there, all this time period we will still be in noncompliance and against all these regulatory boards, what they want us to do. Why would we want to continue to go down that road when we know we're not in compliance and that's a direct violation? Plus the fact that our board, a nonprofit board, we don't have the authority to violate any laws and if we are then we're doing what we're supposed to be doing and that's trying to fix it as soon as we can with the funds and the people available as your managers of the fairgrounds. Why would you want us to continue to go down the road of violations when we try to solve it immediately? Tim, let me go this way. But getting into compliance with the sanitation board is filling out a permit that they accept. Now you're in compliance. Once the water is going into the sanitation board, you're in compliance with the water board because you've got no water going down the creeks. So you get completely in compliance by filling out a permit to put the effluent, it seems like it anyway, to put the effluent into the water and the sanitation district, just like you've applied to empty the baker tanks. So, nobody wants you to be out of compliance at all and nobody wants you to remain out of compliance. But during the dry months, getting into compliance is achieved with a permit request, a fairly simple permit request, and then staying in compliance past that into the rainy season takes time. I grant this only gets us through the dry season but that gives people time to figure out their lives and livelihoods and so I wouldn't suggest we go past that but it seems to be within reach to allow for this to happen through the dry season till whenever it starts October 15th or whatever. So I hope we're saying the same things to him. We don't want you to be out of compliance. We want you to be in compliance. And part of that is in the dry season with the sanitation district. And that gets the water board happy, happy, happy, happy happy Tamarin If you unmute yourself you're up. Good afternoon. This is Tamarin Austin. I am a Consultant working with Jerome and his staff and I'm a former Water Board attorney. I worked with The San Francisco Bay region for probably eight years and then worked for the Los Angeles region for four years So I'm pretty familiar with exactly what that notice violation means and what happens when you don't comply with it. I'm very comfortable talking about any of those types of hypothetical situations today. One thing I have confirmed with the staff in the Office of Enforcement is that the reason that you are not going through formal enforcement right now and by UI actually need Jerome in the county is because Jerome and his staff have put together a pretty aggressive plan and they're sticking with that plan. There was a meeting I'm going to say about a month ago where there was the regional water board, bunch of folks from the county, bunch of folks from thegrounds, and some of the questions that are being asked today came up in that meeting. What about can't we keep horses when that be okay? I had three separate folks from the water board contact me after that meeting to say, hold on a second. You said March 25 in your weekly updates and you've been saying that since January. So what do you really mean? So maybe they haven't said don't do it, but they're sure concerned about that being a real deadline. That a lot of not enforcement has been predicated upon the fact that that was a deadline and all of the actions that have been taken up till now have been focused on that deadline. So I would say that you roll the dice a little bit when you say, okay, we're gonna go ahead and keep horses there after March 25th, which is next week. So the biggest problem that the fairgrounds faces with horses at the fairground is that it is not currently set up to manage stormwater. So we're all talking about dry season. That's fine. But long term, what are you doing? What is the plan? And this has been the chicken and egg sort of conversation up till now, which is, can we afford it? Do people want it? All of these other concerns that we're talking about humanitarian concerns, making sure the horses are cared for are not abandoned. There are many concerns that are tied up in that, but it kind of boils down to having a plan, having an objective. So if you want to keep horses past March 25th, you darn well better have a plan in front of a water board in advance that tells them we're about to change boats midstream and here's our new plan. So there are options and certainly for the long term, if you want to engineer solutions to make the fairgrounds so that it's not discharging stormwater that's got processed waters is the term that they use in it. Those are options, but you've got to have a plan and you've got to have it to the waterboard in advance of what you do. After the fact, Mayacolpa is what we're in right now. We're trying to deal with the fact that, you know, there wasn't a structural assessment of the fairgrounds. There weren't structural controls in place before Golden Gatefields moved over. So we're in that phase of trying to, you know, do the apology and do the best we can to make up for that now. I would be very cautious about pushing the water board and not sticking with the plan that you have in place without a new plan in place. So those are kind of broad brush issues and I'm happy to answer questions or discuss, but I just wanted to make sure that was kind of included in that thinking. Absolutely, I appreciate you waiting. Thank you. And I think we can address all of those perhaps. Any other questions or comments from the board before we go to public comment? I do have a question of council. Because we drifted into item one a little bit and three and two, can we take the items of discussion as a body? At once? Or is that complicated things? I know that most of what we talk about was item three, so maybe we'll just go to public comment on three, but we've drifted comments into all of them and we got a tight timeline too. How can we do this? Yeah, I think the safer courses to take public comment on each item. The items are somewhat interrelated. So the fact that you've talked about other topics within this topic is acceptable. I think safer courses to allow the public to comment on each item on the agenda. If there's any public comment on item three, update on water quality matters. They can raise their hand and or fill out a speaker slip in person. And I always say in person people get to speak first as they came here. So if you could call the first three speakers and have them kind of line up over here and be ready to go to the microphone. Who are the first three speakers? Okay, so we'll have the first in-person goes first and we'll allow two minutes of public comment. I do have a question. George mid is not able to, he's online but he's not able to hook up to his microphone and he sent me a text. Can I read it? Sure. Okay. This is from George Schmidt. I tried but technology is not my key point. Okay. LLC is set up. Operating agreement is in place. TIN applied for bank account set up to 2 million committed so far, hired a water engineer. You know, I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is the update on the water quality matter. And to sell the gates. Okay, got it. Okay, here we go. And to sell the gates hired a tight, and hired water engineer and to sell the gates. So this has already been done by George Schmidt with Bernal Park Racing LLC. Okay. Thank you. Okay, and I haven't, now I'm talking for myself, Stephanie Wedge. I have an email and I've been communicating back and forth with Lori Teal or Tal from the Water Board, Water Control Board. And she said in December 2024, the fairgrounds informed us they wouldn't submit a long-term wastewater plan because they had decided to shut down the facility and remove all horses. Since then, we've continued to work with them on implementing the in-term wastewater plan and reduce pollution as much as possible. She also goes on to state that they said that they would work with Alamedita County Fairgrounds and keep the horses there. So they do not have to leave in order for this to work. Do you have any more questions? Lori Tall, TAUL, Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor. Yep, that's it. Gloria, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. I just wanted to say that when this situation occurred and the problem with the wastewater was encountered, that was when we had more than 500 horses. At this time we have less than well under 500 horses and I don't think that there's as much an issue with the wastewater as there was before. We definitely need to keep this open to help our employees keep them housed, give them jobs, and continue racing for the benefit of the community and for the county of Valimita. I've been a long time resident of Valimita County, loved the county, wanted to continue and try to realize how important this is for our economic health development and the welfare and cultural traditions of the people of California and this county. Thank you. Okay, let's move back up then to item one and update on horse racing at Alameda County Fairgrounds. I both deserve a quick update. I think we all kind of know that you've decided not to do it. And the only other way to have it even possible is for somebody else to step in and that's what somebody's trying to do. But any other update? No, that what you just described as accurate. The only way to do this is if somebody else steps in and was to do it, you were correct. And I think that, I mean, when I first got involved with this is all about water, but I think that I heard overwhelming support that if water could be alleviated, that was the first step, but that's not the only step. They have economics and we have infrastructure, business, setup, licenses to apply for permits to be granted. And that would have to be done by somebody else, not the fair fair board and that the fair board was not interested in losing money to horse racing. But would be amenable to a break even scenario. I don't want to put words in the mouth, but that's what I heard, I think. I think you're relatively accurate. I don't know where the, it's okay to break even, comes from. Yeah. Oh, in fact, I've heard some people say, it's okay to lose a little bit of money, just not a lot of money. I don't know where you're at. That's up to your fare board. I see Smith wants to, John, just, Miley after that, just to a couple of things that were said there, the Fair Board has said that we could not do horse racing for basically three reasons, regulatory requirements, fire issues on the backside and that financial situation. We lost approximately $1.9 million trying to do horse racing, trying to keep racing alive and it didn't work for us. So if someone else comes in to take over the financial responsibility, that's great. If we can get regulatory and fire address, I guess that would probably work for the board. But we talk about compliance. The only time I've ever seen or heard about compliance is from the water board. And water board has been consistent that we are not compliant. And they don't care if you have horses or you don't have horses or if you have geese or goats. They want you to be compliant. So it's not, you know, I don't know if it's the chicken or the egg, the horses are there, so we're not compliant. If the horses go away, we'll be compliant. Maybe. And the penalties for that are pretty severe. So as a board, a fiduciary responsibility of the association would say, we can't continue a failing enterprise. And we certainly't want to put ourselves at risk as because of a non-profit agency and the possibility of the county coming back to us to collect monies on something that we know that we're not compliant with. So that's kind of one position. Thank you. Miley and then Moore. He has happened first. Okay. So before you do that, just in front of me, I just want to say, I understand it says horse racing and understand the next item says housing, but I want to also understand there's a difference between boarding horses and racing horses. If you board them, you may race them. You can't race them unless you have them boarded somewhere. But just because you board them doesn't mean you have to race them. And that I think is an issue that we at some point need to talk about because the boarding is directly tied to employment. So I wanted to throw that out there and then give the floor to my esteemed colleague and then to Moore and then anybody else that raises their hand. Yeah, there's a couple of things. So that's one of them, because I was trying to figure out if you keep horses there, do they have to race? And if they don't race, would that help to alleviate some of the burden that people are experiencing? And if we go down that track, could that be achieved? And also, we already heard that if you keep horses there, you've got to come up with a plan. You know, before the 25th. So that's one thing. Another thing is, you know, John mentioned the reason why you don't want to do horse racing. Because you have to be able to meet all three of those criteria. So if horse racing were to take place there, is there another entity that could fulfill that responsibility? And if so, how would that occur? And if they are fulfilling that responsibility, how does the fair come into compliance? I mean, can that still happen in a short term? So once again, we're looking for short term in the long term. So there, I've kind of have three separate questions here. Because if you keep horses there, you've got to be working towards compliance in the short term in the long term. You have to have a plan. And keep horses there. Can you board them? And not race them? And if you race them, can that be done by another entity that would also allow for the fair to continue its effort coming to compliance? And can you achieve a plan to present to the Water Board by March 25th? So those are some of my questions. Well, I would let my fellow board member Chuck Moore answer that because he's probably much more aware of what boarding horses and how that would work without having the means of supporting it. And, Jerome, you can address what it's costing us to board horses currently. And the only reason we would board horses is if we could race them and make a profit somehow or other, or break even, if we could do that, I believe. Just a couple of things. One, there's boarding and there's training. And if you're a race facility or boarding race horses, they need to get on the track and train. If you're boarding 100 jumpers, they have to go in and have room to jump and practice. If you're just a boarding facility, there's a lot of those around everywhere. So boarding horses is something that would be pretty easy for anybody to do. I think the real challenge here is what ends up costing so much money is the preparation of the track. ends up costing so much money is the preparation of the track and all the things that go along with the horses. No trainer or I'm sorry, the owners that I'm aware of would want to just board a horse at a facility like ours and not have them out working so that at some point in time they can and generate profit for the owner. These are working horses that need to be trained on a regular daily basis. So, um, and it happens to be something I know a little bit about because I have 75 horses on my facility and we have a training facility for three-day eventing. So it's important that when you bring a horse in and you put it as in a program that you can operate the program. I know that years ago I think it's about prior to 2017 we were a training and boarding and facility for Golden Gate Filts. And we received a vending and stably money for doing that. Golden Gate Filts decided that they did not want to pay the fee anymore and pulled the horses. So, at that time time we converted more towards what we had an option for with some shows and try to develop that program. Where horses were in and out. Even after that point in time we had racing at the fair but it was not unlike the carnival. The horses came in, they worked a little bit on the track a month or so, or ahead of time, and then they were out to the next, I believe, Sacramento was after us, the state fair. So, when you say boarding, it's going to really define what goes along with that. Because of its preparation of the track, we don't own the equipment and things like that. I mean, there would be a whole bunch of work that would need to be done to continue with a program to where resources would be on site and being a valuable tool for somebody at some point in time other than a pleasure of work that you get on and ride around on. So that's kind of what I see when you talk about boarding resources, you really have to have a solid training program for them and that it requires safety equipment. It requires ambulance, it requires a whole bunch of stuff that somebody would have to be responsible for. And the beauty of CARF before they went away was all of this was their responsibility. And they took care of it. Not us. And we don't have the infrastructure in house today because we knew horse racing was going to go away because of the cost of it and regulatory compliance issues and a lot of what we had is the downsizing. And we are very, very tight budget now because of us trying to save horse racing You know it's It's the boarding stuff. I'm not quite sure you have to define what boarding is and what goes along with it and who's responsible for those fees. But could you do what you could do anything? Answer your question. Are more questions to get other questions. Commissioner Gordon Galpin. Thank you. The chuck alluded to this, but I think it's important to point out that our association really acts as a host. So in the past, when we've had horse racing, we didn't put on the horse racing. We were the host for the horse racing in CARF, who is now in the process of going bankrupt. They put on the race me. So I heard earlier from a speaker that George who's been involved in this wants to apply and get a license and in essence become carf. So that solves that problem. If in fact he's able to get all the licenses and things that he needs and demonstrate to us that he could put on a race meet. But the other thing nobody's talking about it is, who's going to pay for the boarding? We have an agreement in place that runs through March 25th. After March 25th, there needs to be a revenue stream to pay for the boarding. So that's another issue that needs to be addressed or solved. Very good. I agree. Commissioner Imhoff. All right. For you guys that don't know me, I'm Frank Imhoff. Thank you. The paperwork 22 years are probably a long guess. Frank, they can't hear you online unless you go to the microphone. The longest paperwork. Remember, it's on the paperwork right now, this fair has been going on for over 100 years. There's two outflow pipes, they're concrete, they're three feet, since the fair was built, nothing has ever been done. I have worked on 50, 60 projects in the Bay Area with regional board, Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Game, and I have analyzed these pipes, and here again, I'm dressed as a farmer today. I left the house at 5.30, you guys know me, I usually wear a hat. So today, I'm going to tell you some of the history. None of the water has been cleaned since the fair has been in operation. It's before the park was built across the street, the soccer fields, the two pipes went to a ditch, the ditch went to another ditch, and it went to the Royal Dailaguna that went to the Alameda. That's how it is. In the hills, you have run off, Chuck, your play south horses, it runs of the creek, the creek is right in front of your house. This is very simple. Regional water board, how I, when I work with different jobs, don't close someone down, and you can ask them, I think it's in a letter, that says, If you're not in compliance, but we're not going to shut you down because you're not in compliance, you're going to come up with a plan, you're going to have a timeframe, and it's going to be paid for. And that's part of it. The sewer district wants to permit, wants it signed, wants it filled out. And I think the gallons are 80,000 gallons a day. I'm not sure on that. We have somebody that's very, very interested to put up $2 million to keep on training by equipment, by barrels, by water trucks. He also has backers that are around the state that are also going to help him do this. He is just not doing this thing handily. He is actually doing this. John Harris is one of them. There's a few more guys down south that $13,300 if it gets extended, it's going to pay for the stabling. now, horses are leaving Pleasanton, going to Santa Anita and Racing. Last week, there was three races, and I think the handle on those three races from Northern California Horses only was $1.6 million. So in order for the supervisors to make a good decision, I think that you really have to understand exactly what's going on. And it comes back to the fair has never done a thing in the hundred years that it's been an operation. Last year, the fair washed and jet washed those concrete pipes and cleaned them because there was highs and lows in them. Now they flow. Oh, I would think about half flow the other day. Now, I didn't analyze the water, but for what I do, call myself a person that installs bioswales retention basins with other companies. That's the solution. George has hired to still the gates and another engineering firm and they have all the antelittle information on how they're going to solve this problem and they said it's really not that hard to do. So, in saying that, I don't have anything else to say, but I don't think this is that big of a problem. Anything else from members of the board? Recognize, is that a hand raise? Recognize Commissioner Moore. I think there might be a little bit of confusion, a little bit on the affairs desire for horse racing. We spent a total of over $5 million to try to save horse racing in Northern California and battled with Southern California who made it very difficult for us. And Carf certainly failed in many areas of it, but one thing that they were pretty successful at, and that was all the products that went along with the racing. When you talk about the $1.6 million down south, the handles are much better right now down south. And I come in out of the retail business for 40 years. One thing I learned is called building a brand. And GSR didn't have a brand. So you go out there and you throw San Anita up on the screen and it has a brand. People are gonna bet in San Anita You threw a GSR up and people go who in the hell is the GSR and and tell you have the The Deep pockets to build a brand or the marketing dollars to go out and Build and so try to support that brand, it would be difficult for me to swallow that what they're doing at San Anita would be done at our facility. That's a tough deal. And you get past the regulations and it comes down to economics. And on the fair board we've talked about a variety of things what we would have to have to make it work. And, in fact, I think we put together a list, a couple of us of some of the things that if we were to look for a new car George Schmidt and his group and I know drum do you have that list or some of those things because this is something like we talk you know let's hear that list and then we'll get on to item two which is update on housing we still still have that to go and I know that. Yeah. Okay. I just don't want to forget this because this is what because the we're talking about results. And I don't want to confuse effort with results here. We want to make sure that these are the kind of things that we would need at a fair association to move forward with something and I thought it was pretty thoughtful and it's probably a lot more to be added to it. But if we're going to go down this road, it's something that we should at least have a conversation about. Thank you. Did you want to read the list? Okay. So let's go to public comment. Thank you. Anybody online can raise their hand at anybody in person can fill out a speaker slip. Please. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Amelia Marshall. I'm here today representing California State Horseman's Association Region 5, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. I'm here to advocate for Alameda County continuing to support horse racing or horses in some context at the Alameda County fairground It's been since the 1880s the horses have been there United States Senator George Hurst in the 1880s was racing his thoroughbreds there and he was the father of William Randolph Hurst, the publisher and the Hurst Castle guy. The horse racing industry has been a vital component of the economic ecosystem that creates jobs for those backstretched workers and also supports families who have horses elsewhere in the tri-value area. When you've got veterinarians, you've got hay vendors, you've got tack vendors that gravitate around the racetrack. That keeps prices affordable for families who have teenage daughters who love horses and horse racing is a beloved sport. Livermore area, Delval area, this is a prime country for horseback riding and it's becoming increasingly unaffordable for families to have their own horses. This is an economic ecosystem that deserves to be preserved. The loss of their livelihoods and their housing for the community of people who work at the Pleasant and Race Track would be very tragic and unjust. And these are skilled jobs. People assume that they're just mucking out stalls, but it's not like that. It's a specialized skill to manage hot thoroughbreds and use them in racing and manage them safely. So in closing, I'll just say we urge Alameda County to invest in keeping horses and we appreciate supervisor Miley's support for the equestrian community. Horse racing is not just about gambling. There are plenty of opportunities to go to casinos or bet on sports. It's about supporting a vibrant community of horse lovers here in Alameda County. Thank you. Thank you, next speaker. Hello, my name is Dana Stor. I'm the new chair of car. Following drum hoping. I'm also a fan of the Alameda County fair having been born and raised in Alameda County. It's my hometown fair. This is very difficult decisions before you all. But I would ask the supervisors to look at all of the details. Horse racing is not financially viable. It is barely financially viable in the south. I would suspect to think that we will see sanity to go away within probably five years. It's untenable. It's not financially reliable. And we deserve those people to work on the track. Those people that are being housed to be honest and open with what we can and can't do. At a conversation with the TOC this afternoon, they have no intention of continuing to pay for stable ink or vanning. Excuse me. So we have to be realistic about that. And all the nuances, it's the CHRB, it's licensing, it's all of the above. The GSR meet essentially, almost bankrupted carfe, We are trying to make sure that we work through having our debts paid and we are trying to do that. That includes making Alameda County whole. It almost bankrupted Alameda fair as well. And the severity of that and the fiduciary responsibility of the board and the board of soaps. It actually surprises me we're having conversations we're having. Is it financially viable? Is it one year? You have those, you know, fans that are going to, you know, some with a great amount of money that can put together money, but is that going to work more than one meet? Is that going to give false hope to those that live on the backside? Is that going to just delay the inevitable instead of coming together and trying to help these people? Take care of them. Have acceptance. Support the South. Those the things that we need to be thinking of and doing as we move forward. So I'm happy to take any questions. I know these are very difficult subjects to try and, you know, meet or out with all the interest involved. Excuse me, but I just think as emotional as this topic is, everybody really, really has to be realistic about Sonoma's not running, Fresno's not running. The writing has been on the wall for a while, about 30 years, and we all have to be very, very realistic about it. Thank you. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line. We're on item one. Gloria. So we'll go back and forth. We go online. Then we'll go in person, online and person. Yes. This is, I'm actually on Gloria's phone. This is Rosam and Barclay. I am an owner and breeder of Thurbera Horses in California. And first I would like to address this financial viability of horse racing. I think if you get out of this small world we're in here and out of California it's odd that we keep getting a lot of press and the impression that horse racing is no longer salvageable, it's on its way out. That doesn't explain why so many other states in the union are expanding their racing programs. They're setting all kinds of records for attendance and handle. They are, look at Churchill Downs 20 years ago, they thought they were done. Now they're racing in multiple states and they've never done so well. New York is breaking all their own attendance and record handles. Texas was told they would die without interstate simulcasting after their creation of Heiza. They're doing very well, thank you. A lot of these states, yes, they get state help. But my point is, don't bury us yet. The sport of horse racing is still alive. It's huge in other countries. There's no reason why it can't be huge here. When you get out of our little area and you really examine and study the sport of horse racing today around the world, because it is a world sport. It's doing very well and very healthy in many places. So I just don't want everybody to bury us too soon. I also want to say that when you are talking about people like George Mitt and you're talking about people like John Harris, There's no way these guys would be investing in this and coming up with money if they didn't know it could be successful too. What this all comes down to is management. I've owned raised race horses for years. You can take a horse and one stable with one trainer and he can't even hit the board. Then all of a sudden you move him, you change his environment, somebody understands the individual better, the next trainer wins six and a row with them. That's what our sport is going through right now. You can't totally excuse the management and say it's all the industry. We have- Thank you, that's your time. Thank you, next speaker. I have a text from George Schmidt. He's stating, I'm him and John Harris are stating that people in equipment will be offered to all racing fairs in NorCal. If the fair does not want to run, we says the land in parking and we will do it. So this is from George. He also stated that he spoke with Bill Nader, President of the TOC, who said that they would continue paying the 13th three a day. They just need a letter from us. What's a TOC? Okay. Okay. Well, you can speak with George Mitt. Okay. Well, he spoke to Bill. Knock. I didn't interrupt you. So please let me speak. Keep going. Don't you want to go on? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't interrupt you, so please let me speak. Good keep going. Racine. Racine is making a comeback with younger generations. The 120 year old Belmont Park is undergoing a $455 million makeover, including general improvements to the barns, to the barns, the base surface track, as well as a complete overhaul to the drainage system and extension extensive grandstand. Expected completion is 9-11-2026. That's $45 million. On April 22nd, 2025, Fairmount Park in Colleen'sville, Illinois, ahead of its 100-year anniversary, is undergoing a $100 million makeover. Improvements include a new grandstand, 150-person restaurant, a new tote board with video, version board, track improvements, drainage, construction, and a concert venue. So I don't think people would be spending this much money if racing was dying. On another note, I'd like to state in the last four years, Alameda County Fairgrounds has held 10 equestrian events, not resource events. There were two in 2020, one in 2021, two in 2022, two in 2023 and three in 2024. All of them but one were free admission and free parking. The last one on May 18th, 2024, was free admission with $15 parking or vice versa. And this came from Silicon Valley Horse Show and the Golden Gate Array Indian Horse Association. I did ask Stephanie Skinner for this information today as she said she didn't have it. But I did call and get this information. Lastly, right, as long as the horse is stay, we saw two issues. Horses provide work and paychecks for the workers. Workers collect a paycheck that enables them to pay rent and stay in their current home and keep their kids in school. The workers pay taxes to support the local community and don't want handouts. There are currently 20 families living at the RV park with children as young as newborns to high school and some even in college. 30 have been kicked out because their trainers have had to leave because the March 25th date was set by Munich County Fairgrounds. And as many, many more have been split from their families, which has left at least 20 families homeless living in their cars and on the streets. So I think we can save this. We're asking you to help save us. Save us. Thank you. Next speaker. Collar, you're on the line. You have two minutes Donna. Hey, can you hear me? Yes. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you to supervisor Hobart and supervisor Miley for all your support. My name is Donna Peroni. My husband is a trainer. I do work at his barn. I've been in racing, involved in racing. I first was in Washington. While I was working in high school in 1976, it's been my life. It's been his life. He started in Nebraska. We met in Northern California. We've been in Southern California, Florida, and we love it here. We stable that bay Meadows, and when it closed, we chose Pleasanton because of the area and because of the racetrack, the one of the safest surfaces to train on in the country. We have been here probably more than 25 years. If this place shuts down, we have our help. One boy, his mother and father work. They have three kids in school. They don't know what they're going to do. They can't pull their kids from school. One husband could possibly get a job in Washington. If we have to leave, we're giving our part home. We love Pleasanton. We have a wonderful neighborhood. We moved to Southern California and we've looked and looked and looked and there's no homes available because of the fires. The rent is outrageous. It's putting a burden on all of us. It's undue burden because you have the ability to roam to change this. You have the ability to work with the water department. You have a plan in place. You have people that will put up the money. You don't have to do a thing. Just sit back and let them do it. Thank you. Linda, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Linda, you're on mute. Linda, you're on mute. I'm a nursing student at Cal State East Bay and most of my family works at the race I told him best friend is going to med school at Davis and she is no longer able to attend full time because her mother worked at the race track for over 30 years and now she has to help her Bay the right. I think the scope of this is going way beyond what we see or that it is affecting. We focus on the workers on the backside and there's gonna be a lot of loss of jobs. There's gonna be like kids that will be able to finish out this school year. But I think it's also affecting people who grew up on the race track, who have a connection to it and who are very sad to see it go. I think the biggest issue here definitely is the people that are currently working there, who have their kids in school in Pleusington and we'll have to pull them out of school if horse racing ceases to exist in Pleusington. Growing up I love Valimita County fair I love going and looking at all the cows and the horses and the sheep and the goats and whatnot but slowly over the years I've seen that disappear and it's very disappointing. In a society where everyone seems to be glued to their phones, I think that we're missing out on such a big part of agriculture that's like rich and I'm very, sorry, I'm flustered and emotional, but racing in Andameda County means a lot to me and a lot that many people were committed to racing. Anyone in person would like to speak? Online. Color, you're on the line. You have two minutes, Linda. I'm your microphone. We'll come back to you. George, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Okay, let me, yes. I hope you can hear me. Yes. We have been trying to work with the Fair Board for months now on keeping the horses here and running them through the fair. John and I have set up an LLC with a formal operating agreement. We've applied for our tax fair identification number. We don't have it yet so we can't open a bank account yet. John and I have committed two million dollars to cover what's going on because of all the issues with the water. I went to some old friend and I have engaged the silvicates in the water engineering company called CBG for a lot less than $40,000 to try to help get a plan in place that'll take care of the water issue in the long run. We also have hired a title search company and we're going back all the way to 1858 to go through the title. I don't have all that information here yet. The people and equipment that we will rent or lease will be used not just for this fair, but John and I will offer it to the other racing fairs. It's my understanding from talking to people that have pleasant and runs that Fresno and Sonoma and Humboldt will all three run. I don't care if the fair wants to run the horses that's fine with me, we can work together and figure out how to put this thing together and make it work and replace the disaster that CF was with Golden State Racing. I'll be at your meeting tonight and hopefully we can get this thing settled and at least let the people stay here through the fair and let their children get through school and we'll give them time to figure out a way to go forward. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Becky Bartling, former CEO of the Snow McCannick Fairgrounds. I was 22 years in Delmar, Delmar Fairgrounds and Restract. The first thing I want to do is I want to thank Elimita for standing up for doing what they did. Carf came to us in Santa Rosa and asked if we would be interested in stabling and racing and we knew what the problems were going to be. So I want to give Jerome and his board a pat on the back for doing that because that was not an easy choice Unfortunately, the financials did not turn out the way they wanted to I was relaying a story a little bit earlier today about our racing I was the CEO for nine years and the only two years that we made money racing was during COVID when golden gate ran our race meet. And a point was made about branding. Golden Gate had the same horses that we had. But there's a brand that is out there when you look at it, whether it's Golden Gate, whether it's San Anita, whether it's Del Mar, or it's a fair racing. it's different. The money is not there. The off track betting facilities, the ADW do not look at fair racing the same way they do at the more premier race meets. I also do wanna concur with the statement that was made earlier, I talked with Bill Nair today, and he has said that they will no longer continue supporting any stay milling up here after the 25th. Thank you. Collar, you're on the line, you have two minutes. Hi, this is Bill Nader from the Thurough Road owners of California. And let me just try to clarify regarding where we are at the moment. We, before I do that, let me debunk some of the information that was previously communicated. When we were given short notice that Golden State Racing was not going to continue with its application for racing into 2025, the south, which was the racetracks, namely San Anita Delmar, in coordination with the TLC, put together a very comprehensive financial package to relocate anyone from the north and to continue to provide opportunities for horses and horsemen in the North to still participate in California and in Southern California at Siena Nida. Over that period of time, which is now coming up on three months, the investment has been not only in paying for stabling and training at plus and 10, but also vaning horses back and forth, and also providing racing opportunities here in the South. And that package all up has been about a $2 million investment over the three months. This was a stop gap measure. This is for transition. I did have conversations with Mr. Schmidt about the potential of continuing with the stabling and training operation at Pleasantton beyond March 25th and I requested that we get a formal application that we could take to our Stabling and Vanning Committee. We haven't received that proposal as of yet, so the committee has not met. but one of the things that gives room for pauses whether there is room from a statutory standpoint for the South Stabling and Vanning Committee to pay for stabling that benefits a different zone. So we will ask outside counsel to look into that, but serious question mark in my view. So when I say that we wouldn't continue, my comment you today is, I'm not going to say that I'm not going to chair of the committee, if we would be open to that, I think it would be doubtful. And I think to be fair to everybody in the meeting today on this committee to give you any false hope on that would not be appropriate on my part and not responsible. But I would say the probability of that would be very, very limited. Again, there's statutory compliance that we believe would be outside of our scope that we would not be able to accommodate that request. And secondly, whether the track's that we believe would be outside of our scope, that we would not be able to accommodate that request. And secondly, whether the tracks in the South would want to continue to do it, when we passed the transition phase and the number of horses is dwindled down in a small number, I would say would be unlikely. Also further to that, we would need to have additional support of this idea that Pleasanton is really in compliance with local water issues. We've listened to what was said today. It seems to be unclear on that point. We leave that with you, but until we can understand what our statutory obligations are and whether the property is in compliant and compliant environmentally, we can't really entertain a stabling deal. So that would be something where it would be a complete unknown, but to measure your expectations, I would say the probability that we would continue would be very slim. You're on the line, you have two minutes, Mike. Unmute your microphone. These are last speaker. Is there anybody else in the room? I'll bring it back to I think we did one and two and we kind of We didn't get that in here. We can't. All right, I'll bring it back to that. I think we did one and two and we kind of. We didn't talk about housing yet, but we should talk about housing. Is there an update on housing at the fairgrounds? Well, well, before we get off of more comments from the board, sure. Okay, so we've now heard that the stabling agreement is probably not going to be extended. So, to keep the horses there past the 25th of March, my little back of the napkin calculation is about $1.2 million to keep them there through fair. Is that something that the county would entertain? I guess the question that we have would be where would horses go if they're not going to pay for it. Where would they go? Would they all, they could go out of state, they could go down south? Somewhere else they would get paid for, they just wouldn't get paid for here. That comes from the off track betting what they get paid for. So what they're saying is that they don't find out there and there's more rooms. They would invite more horses there or they would go to Seattle but Where would they have gone when golden gate fields closed? you know I feel like we've done our best To accommodate that whole program and and make it work But there's certainly a Place for horse owners to take their horses and continue racing with them. So I'm kind of confused that if there's no support from the racing and south for the horses in the north. Then where to to our boards questions the county. Gonna hope with honor or something. No, I think a tenant that we've always described is that the fair board would entertain ideas as long as they don't lose money. And that means they're paid for their costs. You know, just taking an entire step back. Aside from a few people that have called in from outside of our area, we all know each other and we're all friends and we're going to continue to be friends. But what I see and what troubles me is this issue has it has so divided everybody on what they disagree on as opposed to what we can agree on. It feels like it's north against south, brother against brother, father against son at a war. And what I think we agree on though, and I think we got a little off kilter. But I'm disappointed that people are having to move in the middle of the school year. I'm disappointed that people have to move when we're entering the dry season. I'm disappointed that we can't put a go through even if it's one year, ma'am from Carf or whatever, if you give people longer time where we can bring in services like career placement or skills training or if we can have people know where they're going to go because they can plan ahead. And if we have people with a softer landing in the corporate world when you get relocated, you have a year. Company will tell you a year in advance probably. You stay in place. buy you a house in the new place that you have to go to. They won't buy it all for you, but they'll give you mortgage payments and all of that. They don't just say you're gone in a month or two months or three months. It's done with foresight. And so we all agree that people should be treated with dignity. We all agree that people should be housed. I like the fact that people who would never have a chance to afford living in our community can do so, send their kids to school in a place that they now can do so, have a job that they could operate in. And if we could preserve that for even the dry season of this year, that would be helpful. I don't know all the pressures on Mr. Nader or the TOC. I don't know all the pressures that come from the stronic group and the industry in Southern California. They're also very nice places to live by the way. But it's a shame that all the things that we can agree on is kind of push to side because we're fighting with a water board that should be reasonable with us and I think we'll be reasonable with us and it just feels like maybe too little too late. But if there's a cost to stably in horses and if horse owners want to continue to stable, then if somebody pays for it, I would hope that we would allow it to happen. If that means people can stay housed and employed great and if they're not willing to pay for it at the TOC level or if the horse owner themselves isn't willing to pay what the true cost is to stay in Pleasanton, then I guess that's gonna be a problem for those people. But it's disappointing that they have to do it now. And separately, if those people want to break from their horse and want to stay in Pleasanton, I think we have maybe we can talk talk about how we can keep people housed, even if they can't work anymore. But I'm still, if people still do want to keep their horse boarded there, I think there's a path forward to do that with what I've heard from the water board and the people that have talked to the water board and the fact that we're moving into the dry season. So that's where my head is at, but I grant that we don't have a solution past the 25th of March because we didn't exercise the option to do that and apparently they're gonna pull the rug. We haven't asked them, but that's what I would ask that we find out if those horses could, Maybe it's not through the end of the year, maybe it's an extra till the end of the school year or something like that. That's where I would try to fight to keep people in place. And I wish that our state would recognize that when our state lets people go, they should provide a severance period and provide for accommodations for people. But that's the state treats the counties that way all the time. Anyway, those are my comments. Where is an update on housing? How many people do we have there? How many people who have left there? How many people are now living in their cars or in a trailer somewhere else or moved successfully to another fairgrounds? Do we have any data on that? I'll start with in December when everyone was here right before in October and November, December. How many did we have? And where did they all go? And How many are left? Thank you supervisor. The best answer I can give you is the list of families that we have and that we've provided to the county and to CityServe. Same list that the school district has and the Alameda County Fair and Fair Board as well as I know the county and several others are committed to make sure the families are not displaced during this time and do not have to leave school. And we can make that we can figure out how to make that happen a lot easier than making a race meet or a training and operation happen. So I have had meetings with these groups. So it is ongoing. Unfortunately, I'm not allowed to be privy to all of this information because of all of the rules and regulations related to housing and school districts. I can tell you, we started with 16 families on this list and I think we're down to probably 10 in the campground right now. Okay, how many do we have last fall? Do we know? Roughly. Last fall, I don't know. November, December. Nobody did the research way back then because this was not of concern. It's a public campground. They moved in some of them with the help of some of our horse racing industry social groups. For example, RV purchases and so forth, but we weren't privy necessarily to every family, which ones had how many kids or so so far. So, fair enough. I see that it's been added for a couple hours now. Any last, well, so I guess we take public comment on that item as well. So, public comment on housing. Anybody wanna comment? My apologies for breaking down earlier, But I'm not sure if I can do that. My policies for breaking down earlier, but I do want to come up and say that I want to say that there's about 20 families if not more being affected by this. not only that live at the fairgrounds, but also those who live elsewhere who are financially stable because they have a job with the horses currently at the fairgrounds. And if that's their main source of income, sure it's not like you're handing them an eviction notice, but you are saying, oh, I'm taking your job away from you. So now what am I going to pay rent with? And a lot of these people may not have a form of financial assistance that they can receive from the state or anything else to help them stay on their feet. and they may end up homeless. So I want you to consider that while making this decision because it's not just one or two people and even if it was one or two people they have human rights they should... They should get a fair chance. Thank you. Anyone else either in person or online wanting to address the topic of home housing on the fairgrounds? Maureen. Hello. My name is Maureen Morley and I've been listening to all of the comments today and in the questions that have been asked. And there's a lot of education that's neat necessary in order to really understand the complexities of forced racing, training, and racing. So I'm not gonna try and delve into that. But what I would like to say is that the Allen County Fair Association Board really jumped in and tried hard to make this work for the people and the horses. And this was all precipitated by Golden Gatefield closing abruptly. If Pleasanton had not stepped in, we would have been in this place quite a while ago and the Placenton board would not be solely responsible for this way. So my point is this, it's really an Alameda County field and I'm calling on Alameda County Board a supervisor to provide assistance. They need immediate help with legal, housing, food, medical to help people with transitions. Whether it is now within the next week, or even if it's further down the line, if indeed, stabilin continues and horse racing occurs, the moment will simply be postponed to another time, but I'm calling on Alameda County to not just point to the fair association board to carry this weight alone. They have done heavy heavy lifting in the county needs to assist. Donna, you're on the line. You have two minutes. Hi, this money Meyer and I, I'm sorry to get away from the housing because we were on the line trying to get on before. What I want to mention is the money that comes to the town of Pleasanton with horse racing. People come to the fair to go to the races. The races brings money to the grocery stores, to the motels, to the restaurants, to the whole city of Pleasanton and the county of Alameda. Nobody has mentioned about that. It brings a lot of money and that's what we all are for. Thank you. And on the housing, it's not just the people in the trailer parks. They bought those trailers to get a house to live in, to live in the trailer park. We had an owner that died, that had a trust, and helped all those guys. They put a lot of their own money into buy those trailers. They don't have vehicles to haul them anywhere. They can't move them. If they can't pay their rent, those trailers will just get abandoned. All the money those people put in for that. We have a house here. We can't pay rent if the horses leave. We can't find a place to live in LA because of the fire victims. Who's going to help? Are you helping us stay here with no job? Or do we go with the job and have to live in our car because all the houses are taken. Nobody's helping. Nobody's helping. I have no more speakers for this item. Okay, very good. Any other comments from the board? I have some final comments that I'll jump with my colleagues, Miley. Yeah, just a couple of things. So Gordon, you mentioned if the horses are there, you figure out on a mount, if that mount were available, what would that money be used for? You're talking about my back of the napkin calculation 1.2 million. That's to continue boarding the horses from the 25th of March through fair time. So that I'm just saying that to me, let's drop everything about the water board. That has to be solved first. Is that the true dead net incremental cost of whatever it costs to stable, the incremental cost of hay and whatever electricity, whatever, whatever, whatever, what would that be to allow those horses to continue to be stable? I know that's what whatever the TOC or strong was willing to pay. And I don't know if you can say publicly or want to say publicly. Maybe that's a side conversation, but I guess that would, because I don't know if you want to say, but that would be what we're getting at, I think. Yeah, I don't know what our expenses are. I just know what the stabling agreement that's in place provides. And that's the number. So the 13,300 a day is the number that I extrapolated through fair time. And it comes to about 1.2. Of the 1.2, I don't know how much goes to cost. I don't know if this is necessarily a moneymaker or just a break even on the 13th or three a day, but we can provide you some data on that. That would be something the board would discuss I think. The state-alone training 13-3 is approximately the actual cost. All-in electricity insurance staffing, track amendments, tractor, fuel, staffing, and so forth. There's very little variable cost in this because most of the money is on the track, the racetrack. So whether you have four horses on the racetrack or you have 500 horses, it doesn't really change what you're doing on that racetrack. So, okay. And that would be a discussion that if you were to entertain a discussion from an entrepreneur that wanted to come in and find a way to make this work, that would be a cost that they would have to pay. I.E. George Schmidt in his consortium. Yes. And if they're willing to pay it, you're willing to provide it. Okay. So if that money were available, then that would go to the workers and families and others who are No, we shouldn't mix up which workers were talking about. That money would go to pay the people that work at the Alameda County Fairgrounds and for what used to be CARF to function the racetrack and the office, the admin, the cleanup, but it does not include individual grooms that work for trainers and owners in the barns. The Alameda County Fair and Carf had nothing. We don't touch the horses. We take care of the facility, manure removal to the farm, you know, to get rid of stuff, things like that. So even with that money we're still going to have an issue with some folks needing to have jobs or services to help them. Yeah just to be brief what happens is horse race races horses are a business you know horses not racing it's not earning money and it's not paying its bills. So just to have a stabling facility that is not certified by the California horse racing board, it won't work for horse racing. It'll work for stable horses, you know, regular trail horses, but if you're not a certified facility, you can't. And that's what Jack was talking about. I think so. Okay. And once again, you know, I've been on board of supervisors for 24 years. I've never had to deal with them, you know, horse racing. So I'm trying to understand all this, and I don't know all the players and everything, but the native guy would say that they're the people that would have to allow for all that training. There's the people that are currently funding it as a certified auxiliary stable of Santa Anita. Okay. Right. All right. So, um, and supervisor, there's a lot of requirements to be a certified auxiliary stable. Okay. Okay. All right. Um, so, and then also, even if we, if we did that you still need to come up with a plan by March 25th, because I do feel the Austin person that attorney is working with you. Instead of experience having worked with the waterport, I think what she was saying is probably something that we need to rely on. You still need to come up with a plan. Even if we were to go down that road and the likelihood of you being able to come up with a plan over the next week is going to be maybe challenging and maybe pick it an extension but who knows but the point is that's an issue as well, right? I would agree with all of that. But for me, I would agree with all of that. And I think, are you talking plans for the water? Yes, yes. So I think as of now, I think Jordan is into it for a little bit of money, he already has that time about two quarters of of the way. Bill. So I don't think it's going to get here again. I'm not seeing it. The engineers guys, they have come there, colleagues on their boards, and all that part. They can't not only do it. Okay. So the plan that George has, the fair board needs to, I guess, maybe recognize that plan and then he's to get to the water board so they can say it's okay. So I think the plan that George has, I think it's great that he has the plan, but I mean he folks have got to sign off on that's what you want to pursue. And I'm not telling you what to do at the moment. I'm just trying to understand all this. And then going down the road, you work going down. It's not your intent to eliminate horse racing. You hope to have horse racing. Start of the game. Maybe next year, you can come in to compliance. Is that the thinking? If horse racing is viable, we'd love to have horse racing. We want to have horse racing. We've never not wanted to have horse racing. It's just not been economically or environmentally doable for us in the current state of being. Why is not for them being a bad person? Oh, so you're you. They haven't decided they could do it. They haven't decided that works. So okay, so questionable whether you bring it back. Okay. It's questionable because of the economics. Okay. Supervisor, I just want to reiterate, we just spent 5 million plus in cash out of the fairs bank to make racing happen. And it didn't work. So to think that we're going to make it work for four weeks of fair time racing That's devastating. So No, you know, you're right. There's two categories there. There's the golf course by out. All I'm showing is our commitment As to what we did for racing as well as the $1.9 million that we are out So call 1.9 if you if we want to dismiss a golf course by out One more quick point we heard several people get up, car, speak on the viability and financially of horse racing. We heard, I believe it was, her name was Becky from Sonoma, who did horse racing and also Delmar. How to, you said that the only time that it was profitable was when it was ran by gold gate fields because of the brand and people who were on the bet heavily on the brand and confidence and what was going on. I think some of those issues would have to be really looked at hard to move forward to come back with horse racing and the work that we need to do on the fairgrounds needs to be done whether the horses are not there or not because at some point in time we would like I would like to see them come back be viable and then also there's an opportunity if horse racing comes and goes like it used to at the fair time, there's an opportunity to do other horse related events at the fair grounds. We're not going to tear it down. 500 stalls that are built in center block. We're going to figure out a way to do it. We need some time. And what is the money? I think it's highly unlikely that horse racing will come back at fair time in the future because once these horses are gone as drone pointed out it's a business. So if you're if you're race horse isn't racing you're not making money. So if you don't have a host track in the north, you're not gonna have a community of horses available to race at the fair. So I appreciate everybody's effort to try and save this and we would not have bought out the golf course contract if not for horse racing. That's why we did it. We would have never done it, but for that. But on top of that, we lost $1.9 million on top of that to do this. So we've done our part. And again, I just come back to somebody's got to step up on the stabling if you want to go forward. And I appreciate all the work that George and Frank and everybody's put into this, but we have to have something solid to hang our hat on. I agree and I would hope that you would seriously and sincerely evaluate business proposal from George if and when he gets it done. I hope would ask you would sincerely and earnestly look at the cost, if that's the all-in cost to provide the track and ability for them to train and everything then provide that. If he's wanting to do that then let him do that, if at all. And if they race, they can race, if they don't race, they can stay there and if they can't stay there, because they can't put the business plan together, they'll go somewhere else. But in the meantime, I would say that indeed we should be looking at if the job goes away, but the people stay, we have rental assistance for people all day long. We have unemployment insurance for people all day long. We have food assistance for people all day long. That's what counties do. I think that's what one of the people wanted. And we provide affordable housing for people all day long. And if you remember, if you don't have a race, you don't need a racetrack, we got lots of land there that can be repurposed for a lot of different things. So if we can utilize 500 or 900 stables for something else, fine. If we don't, oh yeah, it can be torn down and put into something else. So that's where our social services group comes in and that's where where we as a county board, and there's only two of us here, but we have a board and a mission and a desire to keep people housed and we should be looking at all of that. So I'm committed to doing that, but I hope that you do your part and evaluate and Make the request to the water board to continue and make the request of George Schmidt or and his team to pay the Fair cost that it takes and see if it can work, but if it can't It can't and we're willing to help out Son of social services on what that's what city serves all about. We fund them. And, anyway, surprise them, I'll leave. Yeah, I would basically align myself with what Supervisor Howard was saying. Except I just want to put the emphasis on the displacement in the hardship. It will to the workers, the families, and others who have depended on horse racing. So if there are things you would suggest the county do to help address that problem, please let us know. That's one thing. Secondly, I just want to say, as a fair board, obviously the fair board and your own, all your networks and associates, everybody knows more about this than I know. And you've been in this for a while. So whatever decision you make tonight, you may be keeping in mind what's surprising, however, we're saying I think it's going to be important if you look at that business plan. I mean, Frank says it can be done. I mean, once again, all of you are highly skilled and qualified in many, many areas. And respect that. So if we don't have time to turn this around, then I'm going to support the decision that you've made, but I would like to be able to soften the flow to the people that it's going to impact. And then the other thing is I do think it's unfortunate that this matter has come before this at Hawk Committee sooner because I think the first I heard of this was maybe toward the latter part of last year. I think I can't remember. And maybe if we've been brought into this sooner, we could have been part of the deliberations around this, but also finding some insight and some support earlier on. And quite frankly, become more knowledgeable about possible options that could have been pursued earlier that might not have gotten us to where we are today, where you know, horse race you're going down the road of moving all the horses out so that's all I'm gonna say at them at the moment because I I've heard a lot of different testimonies and of horse racing can thrive in other states I'd like to see a thrive here but at what cost and I respect whatever you know the board decides to do I just like to see a thrive here, but at what cost and I respect whatever, you know, the board decides to do. I just want to be able to help you out as best we can as we can. So, so is it clear that you guys are for this continuum, both, and not dismissing the horses on the 20s, as far as what you, how I'm understanding this. What's really committed to that, that that was bad, you think? What I'm saying is there's been a lot of back and forth, there are a lot of variables that need to be considered. And I think when the board takes us up this evening, I'm going to leave it to your best decision to decide what to do. But recognizing that whatever you do, I want to be supportive of that decision, whether you decide to keep horses there, whether you decide not to keep horses there, whatever you decide, I'm going to try to see how I can be supportive, but keeping in mind once again I want to protect the people that are going to be impacted by your decision. No, we have another supervisor in the bathroom. They're not able to talk. They are watching. That's okay, they heard me. Kimberly, I want to thank you also. And I want to note we have Andrew Massey here from our legal team who's been watching. I know that you've been pulled into this most recently, but most intensively. And aside from how this affects people going forward, I wanna make it clear that you're gonna continue to be on top of this, making sure, and one thing to just reiterate, as we own the property, the fair board is our agent, they work in coordination with the contract that we have in place. There are terms to that contract that need to be met. That's what precipitated this letter. The regulations and NOVs and fines and getting compliance are one of those terms. There are others. Contracts have start dates and end dates and they have ways to be reconsidered and we're going to be looking at all of that. Not today, probably at a nearby future public meeting and look at the whole thing. So that's our ourative and I appreciate you being here for that. I see no other business before us but a lot of business for before you in the next hour. God speed back to the bay, East Bay, another trivalley. Good luck. Supervisor. Public comment on items not on the agenda. Public comment on items that are not on the agenda. Thank you for reminding me. If anybody wants to talk about a topic not on the agenda, now is your time to do so. We can't lose quorum until then, though. Anybody online or anybody in the room? I have no speakers. Okay, but we have to do it. We are adjourned. Thank you.