you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you So fairly recently, month ago, okay. And when was, when were the Baker tanks put in place? Oh, boy. Um, all the way back to me and what's it January? I mean, do it in the January, I think I can text it. That can you? Okay, January. That's fine, rough. I think I can hear you in text actually the morning they arrived. So I can look at you are very excited as I recall. But not excited just showing that we were diligent in our duties. OK. And when was the permit filed? And how long was it turn around time that it took them to give us that permit? For that one, I'm going to say a month, but we can go get that information if you'd like. OK. So a month ago, given two months ago, applied for, tanks on site roughly January. Now, is it a separate permit that requires them to be used? No, the second permit, as I recall, is to turn the ballots. Okay, and that's going to happen for the dry months? Yes. No. It will happen for a week ahead of the fair through a week after the fair for the fair when the animals are on site. Got it. Okay. And when was that permit. Same permit. Different permit. and so we applied for that this year, same time as the other permit. Do we typically get that permit each year or is that something we did first time this year, same time as the other permit. Do we typically get that permit each year, or is that something we did first time this year? This is the first time this year at their request. Okay. The comments that I've received from people in the community seem to feel that this problem with the water board has been going on for some time, maybe dating back to last year, maybe dating back to I have a letter that was sent to my office back in 2014 that indicates There's not a problem with the water discharged at the fair. Can you help me understand maybe something changed from 2014 until 2024? And so I helped me understand what the situation was then, what it was in 2024. And then can you help me understand when we first found out about this issue that required those tanks, which I think was in 2023 or 2024 sometime. Welcome Nate, save your spot. Supervisor, is there a question for me? Yeah. I'm behind the executive director of the fair, right? I mean, is there anybody else that would be better to answer? So yeah, I guess it's to you. I would suggest I arrived here in 2013. It was recognized that there were concerns about water discharge when we were a stable facility back in 2014. But the fair did embark on some studies related to it, and ultimately the city would end if I pass valve to mitigate the issue in the Bernal Parkway. And then that basically mitigated the issue and was not on our property. That was in 2014. I think the valve truck probably finally went in in 16-16 at the same time near round stabling went away and went to Golden Gate Field to year round and we were no longer a stabling facility. So there were no noncompliance issues because it had been remedied through this valve. Fast forward to 2023 or I'm sorry, 2024 sorry when we started racing year round. And then the valve was determined not to be an appropriate solution. The problem arose again. It put us back behind the eight ball related to what's a better solution for the property and accounting versus this valve that had to deem not a program. Well, I'm looking at the letter from Congressman Swallow that he sends, which says that it recently came to his attention that equestrian activities at the Alameda County Fair may be resulting in the discharge of untreated animal waste, untreated animal and he is concerned and is offering his support to perhaps even implement a water catchment and treatment facility to capture and recycle this water. He sites concerns that he has. Did it actually say what you just said? Or did you just add words to the letter? I understand that staff at the fair is working to implement a water catchment and treatment facility. And he says, water treatment and recycling. I want to assure you that my office stands at the ready to assist in any way. We'll just read the whole thing for V, how's that? I am deeply concerned that the by the detrimental effects that this could have on ground water quality, the ecosystem and to human health. It is my hope that immediate action will be taken to discover whether this is occurring, and if it is, that immediate action will be taken to protect human health and the environment. It's my understanding that staff and the fair is working to implement a water catchment and treatment facility to capture and recycle this water for irrigation use. I want to assure you that my office stands ready to assist in any way we can. In discussions that the relevant regulatory bodies at the federal, state, and local levels. I know that we all value contributions made by the Alameda County Fair to the community and local economy. However, federal, state, and local levels. I know that we all value contributions made by the Alameda County Fair to the community and local economy. However, it is all of our interest to ensure that any waste generated at the fair grounds I'm assuming animal waste is to scope, dispose, and properly. So that's his letter. And then there seems to be a response, a response at that time, the day after. An email back to the congressman. By now many of you, if not, all of you have received a letter or a telephone call from Congressman Swahwell's office. The letter states that the fairgrounds equestrian operation is potentially not in compliance and could be polluting the groundwater. It is very unfortunate that he sent this letter without consultation with me or any board members. I am in contact with the congressman's office to clarify the facts and start an educational process as the allegation is completely untrue. affairs and compliance with state water quality requirements. It has openly been working with appropriate agencies to solve problems over the past 15 years. I'm rapidly pulling together documentation to formulate a response to the congressman and the individuals that were copied on the letter. The fair has made continued commitment to water quality issues over the past 15 years. We will continue to be, this will continue to be a priority as time and budgets allow. I can go on and on, but basically, that indicates, I think, the congressman's deep concern in 2014 and hour or the fair board's response that those are untrue. So fast forward to 2016, it seems like the solution was this valve. Was that solution the valve, the solution to this problem or a different problem? No, I would say that that was. And at that time was that solution found to be satisfactory to all the regulatory agencies. Like did it solve the problem? Did they come, did he congressman's well well know about the solution? That was implemented. Did he agree that everything's been done? And when he says, he's of the opinion that the fair is working on a catchment and treatment facility to capture and recycle the water. That's his understanding that didn't happen. So was he communicated why that doesn't need to happen? I can't speak for the congressman. Was there a communication back to the congressman? Yes, actually, the congressman came in to work in the facility with me. He explained my letter was written and what you just described or read was my response to my board, not to the congressman. And the congressman in this situation was responding to a communication that he received from one of our consultants that was looking for potential help. At the time. A consultant of the fair board reached out to the congressman, which precipitated his letter. What was the name of that consultant? I would have to go way back into the records to find that because the consultant was on before I arrived. Okay. Nonetheless, a solution was implemented. Was it was that a consultant for the Alameda County Fair Association? Okay. Yeah, there's a gentleman when I arrived here looking at putting in some new fangled digesters, they were called, of which we funded it for his study for about $10,000, I think, back then. And then when the money was exhausted, it kind of went away and then he went to the congressman trying to get federal funds to continue his study. That didn't go anywhere. When the congressman came to visit me, I gave him a tour of the property. And we looked at everything, explained why he sent the letter because it wasn't sure who this guy was and so forth. And I told him that this was a major component of what the fair board was looking at. And we continued to work with the city, which was the regulatory body that we answered to because we discharged into the MS4. And this was the solution the city came up with an emblem after. We put the meaning, the valve was. The valve. So then did the city issue of permit to utilize that valve? No, okay I have no idea what permitting process they went through for a double and saner amount okay I don't understand on our property wasn't built on our property But essentially it's they affluent from our property that it was trying to resolve a potential problem with. I mean, at some point, I'm just trying to get to state, local, and federal authorities that all have jurisdiction over what happens on this property. So if we implement a solution, we need to seemingly have either permission and or permit issued by those regulatory agencies and somebody's got to be responsible for having that. And I don't know when I'm just trying to find out if that's something that we as the county who owns the property is responsible for or is it the fair board responsible for having all required permits to satisfy city, county, state, and federal requirements. So that's a question for the fair board and a question for county staff. Yes, if you check with your county attorney for those answers because we're not attorneys. No, it's a question we can't vote for. To look into this. That's legal issues, not necessarily something that we might be aware of and we'd be happy to work. This is a perfect time to ask our county council that question and to ask your question and or we can take some of those questions offline, but just the simple question. In order to receive to have in place permits. To operate the fair? Is it responsibility of both or one or the other? Do we know the answer to that? I'm asking the fair operator and our county staff that's here and their staff. Who's responsibility? Well, I would you take that back to my office, look into that and get back to you. Okay, so today we don't know who's responsibility is to have, but we know that they weren't in place. Are you asking about a permit related to a project that happened on city property with a city sewer? Is that the one you're referencing? Any permit required to operate the spare. We seemingly have issues with these agencies. They're not going to and related to the operations of this fairground. So I'm asking the question about all permits required to operate this facility, whether it's something that was put on city property, put on something by the city, and or the fairs. I don't understand. There are different items. And that's your putting these things together. If there is a permit required on this property, board project on this property, that would be the fair board, bear staff. If there's something off property, I can't speak to it. And no, that okay valve does not only take the fairs water. It takes all of Bernal City Street. There are other out discharges into that ditch as well. So, okay, I don't have that perfect answer for you. We don't have an answer to that. I'm going to have to look into that and get that. Okay, so an open question whose responsibility is it? It may even be to your point, the City of Pleasanton's responsibility to receive that permit. So we might see if they have a permit in place. So it's a good point. What happened in 2014 was solved seemingly in 2016, fast forward to 2022 or 2023. So that's one issue and this is a separate issue. So nothing happened between, did anything change between 2014, 2016 and then 2022, 23? Yes, horses left the property. We are no longer a year-round state-owned facility. Okay, what did that change? 2016. And that, did that change the need for permits? Did we ever have permits prior to 2024 or 23 with the San in the mountain water district. And they'll say no. So we relied on the city, got a pleasant one because we discharged into it was discharged into their property. So I don't believe we ever had any permitting issues until 2024 when we became a, adding more than 500 years of summer property. Correct. So really good point. We've never had permits with the city of Pleasanton to discharge into their. No, we are we discharge into the MS4. Like any it we're not a correct and one was not required in my understanding or knowledge. Okay, historically we do have however an agreement that the county, the city and the fair has an agreement on the quantities that we can discharge into the sewer system. So if you want to call that a permit or you want to call that an agreement, I don't know it was long before any of us were here. It's from the 80s, 87 or something. And we still operate on that understanding. Is that that 80,000 gallons of anything? Yes, which is And they do they require testing of that 80,000 gallons a day to understand if the affluent is acceptable to them. It's just an agreement that we have. And we can do it. It's a very old type written agreement that we have that we lean on related to quantities. They've never required testing, but most recently through this last year they have come out and done testing so that when we find the solution for this problem, they know what is or isn't being discharged. So then 23, 24, we have a sep seemingly separate problem. It's all related to discharge of animal waterways. So yes, so what what as I understand it, they came to us in 20 you explain what happened in either 22 or 23 or 24 when DSRSD and the city of Pleasanton and the water board is asking the fair board for documentation or permits or shutting us down supposedly. What happened in 2023 was the city's main sewer line that runs through the property that they owned backed up. It lifted manholes of sewage that sheet flowed over and got into the storm drain. The city came out. They cleaned up or they unclogged their main line. Which was on our property. Yes. They cleaned it up and got the main line going and they left that was 23. This is like End of 22 20 beginning of 23 can't remember the unrelated to horse or related to horses. Okay. This is just a sewer backup that they had to take care of. Then they asked us because the sewer backed up into the storm drain, they asked us to clean the storm drains of which we did, professional, right? At that time, the valve was open. And that's when the sanitation district said, what valve on Bernal? And I explained that to them. And they said, well, we didn't know about this valve battle. I said, well, it's on city property. It's been there since 2016 or what have you. And they said, okay, well, let us come out and check all this. And that's where we got to today that when we brought horses on to the property. We had to start explaining that that valve was the best management practice or the BMP related to this and they said, well, then they worked with us for a very long time, everybody trying to figure out what we were going to do. And ultimately they said they would like the valve closed or actually eliminated because they can't find anything in code that makes that a reasonable BMP. That said, I've heard there are other solutions for automated valve systems like this, but we'll see. We can't even figure out how to charge our platform. And so that's where we are today. And they've since given us permanent to operate that valve. No, they have not. For fair, for fair, I'm waiting on it. Okay. They don't seem to they're taking these sequentially. We discharged our tanks. There's no horses on the property. I don't think they find there's a huge speed of execution issue here. They've come back to our permit multiple times and said, well, can we change this? Can we, and we're working with them? We have no reason to believe that they won't permit it before the fair, but they have requested that we reach out to the engineers and get flow detectors, calculate the waste discharge on the sewer lines and the storm drains. So we have good data moving forward. They also believe it's actually gonna save the association money because we're way overpaying at 80,000 gallons a day. That's a good thing. I thought I heard you say earlier that they issued permits for the baker tank to be discharged and that they issued permits for us to open the valve to run the fair. A week before the fair and a week after the fair. I did not say that. In fact, I don't know. I thought I heard you say that they have issued two permits. I said, anyway, we we can check it later. No, we'll check it right now, please. It says permit permit application submitted. Okay. Where is here? Permit was granted. Okay, it's it's quite. It's right there. I didn't say anything different. Okay. The one was granted one was submitted. And we have no reason to believe that they won't. We're in consultation with submitting that. We submitted it at the same time. A month ago. About a week apart. Okay. Some permits. The fair is going to start soon. So did they give you any indications when they will? All right, you do that. And what happens if they don't? We'll have to bring the baker tanks back. That's what I would imagine. Okay. Yeah, the storm drains are would be plugged and we would pump to bake your tanks. Have they issued any, have they, have you paid them any fines or fees? Fee's for only permit for midfays. Okay, so no fines. Okay. And then with regard to our current ongoing the permit operator in the fair is just one step. That doesn't get us into regulatory compliance, for example, hosting horses or animals of either any kind or up to a certain level or beyond a certain level, what level of compliance are we currently seeking with the Kirin-Rite study that they're doing or plan that they're planning to implement or whatever capital expenditure you're going to implement to get into compliance, what level of compliance are you seeking? I don't know what that question means, but I can describe what I think the engineers are looking at. Does that help? Well, let me clarify. I think we've all understood that if you have no animals of any kind anywhere on the property ever, then you might have a very low level of compliance needed, maybe not. If you have, I think it's been said, even one animal, then it increases the level of compliance that you need. If you have above a certain number of animals, say 100 horses, 200 horses, 500 horses, the thousand horses, that you have gradually a higher and higher and higher level of compliance needed. If you have them for a certain number of days, a week, two weeks, 45 days, or more, then you need a deeper or higher level of compliance and so Are you? Well, is the question more clear now? Yeah, yeah, okay. That's really not Jerome's position to say This is the board position or how many horses we want to take on or As a cost of doing the cost of doing it so that's what we look at. We have I didn't ask why it just has what level. Okay, so that's not a level you're asking what solution. Yeah, so those are so what it's of compliance. Compliance is compliance related to the bacteria accounts. Yes. What level of bacteria accounts are you putting a system in to comply with? So Chai has not been engineered. So we had a meeting yesterday, a day before yesterday. Currently, here in right is doing a study of the property to determine what what's happening on the property and what's the potential is. The direction from the board to staff to drone a staff was still look at the solution and I believe the potential is, correct? The direction from the board to staff, to drone and staff was to look at the solution, and I believe the solution is due by October of this year to allow for having horse racing up to 500 horses' statement. Does that answer your plan? Yeah, annually or for a limited period of time? It's a bit longer than 45 days. Okay. So right now, the solution being studied is to allow for compliance to allow the regulators to approve having 500 horses for 45 days, less than 45 days. 45 days are less because that there's certain, you know this better and probably the Hawthorne, Kefo. There we go. Kefo is something that we do not feel that we're going to be capable of achieving. We can be year-round to stay one. Kefo, well Kefo's got a lot of different levels to I love different levels, but the five. The five. Yeah. And the 500 horse over was a level that we were looking at. Because we fall under a much larger cable. If you go over 45 days or more than 500 horses, it's a significant change in what the requirements are. So what Cure and Rites trying to do is determine what the flows are, can an idea with Bacuria Council are so that we can develop a filtration system if necessary, that would allow us to do this. So that's kind of what we're at with this, but a lot of this is in the understanding the study of the flows right now, which public works has been very much involved in. And on calls, I said on a call last week with everybody listening, so I can kind of understand it. He would look at at is not unlike a filtration system of antidextrous system, almost. So you have to determine, you need the data ahead of time to get to where you get to the cell solution. Right now we're just waiting for Curena, right? Come back with all their flow calculations, and then we're taking a look at what we can do. And a lot of us are doing with affordability. When we do worse racing, you know, we have to look at who's putting on his car so around and all these other organizations that would put something like this together. We look at the, so the third board's looking at it not to lose money on horse racing. If we do horse racing again, well that's not true. We could talk about it. We could say the other conversation. I know it's another conversation, but I'm saying it's driven around economics when you say, what are you trying to accomplish with this? We're trying to understand what the variables are and what the cost would be. And right now, bottom line is we're just trying to find out what our flows are so that we can come up with a solution and then but we don't want to eliminate anything that we want to do on the front ground. So you have a contract with Karen Wright. The contract has direction ahead. Is that fair to say? Or should I ask the board or should I ask the executive director? The executive director is is overseeing the work that Karen Wright The right direction was to look at this and have, what would it cost us to have the ability to do with that or to have it worse-racing? It may be that we can't afford that. And so the solution is we do something else that allows us to house animals on the property just not. Well, the return on the investment may not be good there. Yeah. So just have to take a look at it. Okay. Well, that's the level of compliance that you're currently looking to get to. We're trying to and it sounds a lot like a water catchment and treatment facility to capture and recycle water. So we want to do it. Maybe we want the opportunity as big as we can make it within reason, you know, whether we have a horse show here, whether we have a horse racing here, we want to be able to be compliant. And we're trying to understand exactly what those requirements will be for these different side shows. So is it, are they looking to design a system and give you an answer for a 45 day window for horse racing or, and or also to allow for equestrian shows? If they're gonna give us, which would be longer than 45 days, or we would put you out of a 45, 45 days is the cap that you've decided to study at. Before, well, again, or build and scientist, you probably should direct those specific questions to Jerome, but my understanding is you can't have up to 500 horses for longer than 45 days without triggering greater scrutiny of your ability to meet the water demand. Water requirements. Right. So I now understand your question. I think what you're asking is what is the program we're trying to develop not the level of compliance. Because the compliance doesn't change the program changes. And what we are trying to stay away from at the request of the county is that there is no detention basin on the property. So we're trying to solve this to the greatest extent possible to keep us many horses without having a detention basin on top of it. As many horses. So could here in Wrightby developing a system without a retention basin that would allow for annual year round stably in a certain number of horses? In other words, above the 45 days? Potentially, if we can get the walk-quality board to sign off on that, I don't know if they will. They've been very determined that it's the 45 days over 40, over 500 horses. All right. Now, if they, if we could show them that, hey, look, we've treated everything in this way and nothing gets off the property that is non-compliant, they might go for it. But I've heard of all kinds of solutions from different at different locations and we'll see what they will buy off on and what the county will buy off. But I think the important part here to understand is, instead of just about horse racing, if I compliance with poor H Cloud Banemills, raising a van and we're sure to get it now absolutely so our farm that we're putting on site, it's a lot of different things. So, I would need to say here and say we're focused on our horse racing. We're focused on being compliant. Yeah. Okay. Right. On events that we may have. I mean, there are certainly a lot of people knocking on our horse for events here. I want to share why I feel the regulatory compliance and the solutions to them are so important. And I'm just speaking for me personally. This property, the Alameda County Fairgrounds, the operations that occur on this facility, to the heart of our heritage, our culture, our civilization here as we talk about Alameda County. What happens here is extremely important to me emotionally. Period, full stop. Should be to everybody, I think, but to me, very important. Raising of animals is a key part of that. Equestrian events, including horse racing, critical component to that. And I want to understand and have in place whatever's needed to comply with city, county, state, and federal guidelines to allow for that to continue to happen. Unfettered. I think we kind of all want to see that happen. And yet we're at a point where we don't have that now. And so that's what I'm upset about. We're not having first-wasting this year. So I want to make sure we, understanding how we got here is only part of it, but how we get out of it is another part. And I care very deeply and this board has been entrusted with something that is so near and dear to me. And that's why I'm asking these questions because I want to make sure that it is preserving and protecting our heritage and our culture to the best of our village. David, I was sort of surprised how we're going to say that I think it's very evident that this board spent the money we spent trying to keep that heritage alive when they closed building gate fields in in Alameda County. And Alameda County. We didn't see other supervisors. I'm sorry. And I'm going to say step up and try to have a program in help. And so the heritage is very important to us. And the most of us all of us that I'm certainly on the board and support that I would say that the only thing that's changed is time. This place had horse racing and had animals for years and regulation has changed and we're obligated now to keep up with that regulation and that's the challenge we're having right now is we we have a changed operation to speak up in 50. The forced racing was here off and on. Almost have been here off and on. This change is the regulation and now we're trying to catch what the changes are. So we can't comply and continue with our heritage of forced racing, our heritage of animals on site. And I find it disappointing that that somebody would think that that is not our goal. Well, and that's a question I have for you. Do you think that the board does not want to have a force race? I'm getting at, I'm trying to understand one, how we're not in compliance, how we don't know that we're not in compliance, how we plan to get back into compliance and at what level of compliance are we hoping to get back into. And that's the only question. That's a whole different question. And you get brought up. I just told you know, I said, when, when the board came out here the first time we had a meeting we walked the facility and the water board brought Rico from planning a whole group of people. The biggest concern that they had was you don't have to gutters on your barn. Okay and I said what? And I know that because I have a horse facility. And we got to make sure the wash racks are addressed. You know, we don't want this. OK, pretty obvious things. But don't do nothing yet until we figure out where we're going. Yes. And then we get a letter that you're a K-Full. Listen to me. see. Well, we have that's in well, 45 days more than 500 horses. Yeah, we don't know. So this is an evolution of government that has really created some of these issues for us because we haven't changed. Yeah. We're the same attitude, the same direction we tried. And we continue to try. I want to know, do you disagree with the direction of the board? John, I'm still trying to understand. I haven't made a judgment or a decision one way or the other, I'm trying to understand. So all of this, we just talked about it. And I understand, I mean, it's very complicated how we got to where we are. But the direction of the board is that we want to figure out how to how to have 500 or less forces for 45 decks. We think that that is a level of achievement that we may be able to achieve for 2026 to bring horse racing back if possible. We can find somebody to run it. But so that's in the direction of the board. And so my question to the supervisors is if you disagree with that, tell us what it is that you think that we need to be. I think it's a noble endeavor. I would certainly support it. I'm not rule would not rule out. Being more ambitious to accept, for example, include annual stabling, which you've done in the past. And I can't say that I would determine that. I think maybe I would. So I will probably try to see if we can go back and talk to our public works team who has apparently given a different direction. So because I'm just trying to understand that. First time I heard it. And that's what this meeting is all about, understanding that. And so when you gave that direction to stop at the level of 45 days for summer racing and not go all the way to annual racing, when was that again? A week ago, a month ago. But then you need the approval of our board for annual racing. Excuse me. We have all the requirements. Okay. Yeah. And assuming that we can get horses back because that's not us. That's all the horse owners, association, etc. about stuff. Racing associates and also everything that goes with that. To do that required one step at a time. And one thing that this could have been saved if the state would have stepped up and done something to help. Okay. When we did not get help from the state and and everything like that, that's what really hurt horse racing as a year-round event in northern California. When they when Golden Gate fields closed, they realized a financial obligation that they were having and the losses they were going to incur or were incurring. They realized the people we went to a gunfight with a knife in our hand. We're dealing with people with a lot more power and a lot more money than we are. Are you on number two in guess race? Yes. Well, you keep referring to that ban able to have works race in year round or half horses on the site, year round. Yes, the compliance. Okay, and the compliance. That's all. Yeah. What's needed? What do we have? Yeah. At what level? That's it. Your own fact of the, to the swallwell letter because. Well, you started with the swallwell letter and it references. Catchment and treatment process. But prior to that letter, were we in violation? Did we receive a notice from any state agency or any agency that said you're in violation? Nope. Good question. The letter was predicated on a consultant who wanted to do some work here. Yes. And Ben Swalwell's ear and Swalwell wrote this letter. It wasn't based on a legitimate complaint or violation from a state or federal agency that we weren't in compliance. You're accurate. And everybody and your mother was C.C. on Congressman's letter, including the count. So that's not a compliance letter that's an elected official raising concern and putting it out a hand to help and he came out to the property and said, I'll look for grants, I'll do this, I'll do that and I'm not saying he didn't but ultimately we got to this solution with the city. So the first time that we were notified that we're not in compliance, we're the we're in violation of some state or federal law, whether it 2024, whether it's correct. So it's not like we had 2014 to 2024, we're violating constantly and we're tap dancing and we're doing, no, we were fine until 2024 when we had more than 500 words of security. And that triggered all of this, which is like, well, I don't know, we discharged this ballot. We didn't put the ballot in the city, too. But that's 100% accurate as well as even when we went into racing, near round full time in 2024 October. Yes, but this all started in March of 2024 when we were fighting for the dates trying to keep horse racing alive on the property after Berkeley shut down. Um, if we still believe we could be compliant because it's an interpretation or an understanding of what a KFO is. And a KFO was developed for dairies where you have wash aisles of manure. We don't have that. An argument would have ensued had this continued that we are not a cave, and that there are options to not be a cave, because our animals are kept under roof in a dry stall, and we don't wash out aisle it. Now, ultimately, would we lose that argument? Maybe, but that's what the attorneys were working through of how rational the interpretation of what we were was going to be. And we never, we never got to the end point of that argument or that debate because economically it was failing. So we didn't need to continue to throw huge amounts of money at those consultants at that time. When it was failing. So we didn't need to continue to throw huge amounts of money at those consultants at that time when it was literally believing in by October, November, December. So in our we knew that the client essentially carf that was doing the racing was failing. So that's where we are today. It's still debatable whether, you know, they asked for a plan, we sent them a plan. They sent us a letter back saying, this plan doesn't work. Okay, we started to modify our plan. So that's where we're at. And Superbice, I want to assure that our board, if we could get horse racing back, we'd have 100% both to get it back and we could do it. This is not something that we wanted to lose. You can talk to any one of us. We've all been around in a long time. I've been here for 50 years and I've been to a lot of horse races and not just in this county but other counties and when you see them fail in other counties you don't want it to fail at your fair. Let's put it that way. Yeah if we can get it back we're going to get it back but we also have to make sure that when we get it back it's not going to toss this so much that we're not. Okay. Because it is expensive. That's number two. We'll get there. Okay. I'm just trying to understand the regulatory compliance. In summary, I think that I've heard that as of 2024, we knew we were out of compliance. We are trying to get back into compliance. We have permits that have been issued for the Baker tanks, permits that are on their way for the summer, a plan in place to simply understand what it would take to have limited equestrian uses. I'm still a little unclear as to what level that is, 45 days for the summer equestrian events before and after or not, but not up to annual stabling, which some people would suggest that unless pleasant annually stables, horses, all of northern California will be not able to have their summer horse racing. Maybe there's another solution for that. I don't know, but a big part of that solution, as I talk to my counterparts in Fresno, in Sacramento, in Sonoma, all hinge around, we need some place to stable these sources to your point, if they come back. I don't mean to get into item two, which we already have. We all put a list of's something that I want to make sure is, and so you said we were out of compliance. I want to say that was debatable. And we could have ended up in court on arguing what a cave all was. Yeah, okay. Yeah, Jerome said that. In the city was that one person, it was one group's determination were out of compliance, but it hadn't been't been challenged. So we could get there in a challenge on that. And that challenge came from our competition, just so we're aware that the state water board did not come knocking on our door. The CHRB and the TOC went to the state water board and said, hey, do you know this is happening? Like almost tattling, prior to us filing the NPDS permit that we were going to file. That's new news too. Okay, great. I'm sorry, that's not new news. I got a new news too. No, I got a question. Shocking. Tell me if I'm wrong. Wasn't there a letter? I don't have it. It said we were gonna get fine. We were gonna get fine. We were going to get sued personally and all that. Remember all that? This is what we stopped this. And we were definitely afraid of being fined by USDA and the regional water. By the regional water board. and that's what we're talking about. That was threatening us, but that's the evidence. We have to prove it in word. That's the, that's the, that's what's threatening bills. And we had to make a decision. What we got to make a decision, my mind, whether we losing money and horse racing was worth fighting this battle and improvement that the K-Full was improperly interpreted. You know, that's in my mind, how so I rationalized it. Right, most of it. I think it voted 12 to 6. Not breaks. That's correct. That's correct. I don't know. But there was no letter that was done. It was an attorney that advised this during the meeting. Correct? That's correct. The attorney advised us on the ramifications of potential of fines in a closed session. That was when he doesn't. This is the closed session. I was going to see for once and there was going to be. It was. There could be an end of when. And that's why voting for all for all the tension. Are there any other comments on item one, which is regulatory compliance? Nate, do you have any questions or you listening to all this? Any listening? Anything else? Yeah, taking it all in. Yep, educational supervisor. I just want to add that in our last meeting, if you check the minutes, you'll find that I did reference the fact that the water board was brought into this because of the C-HR-E-N-T-O-C report. Do we have written confirmation of that? I'm saying, with this. No, I mean, did we see them write a letter to the water board, or is it just, they called them up and told them that it was a dumb call from Scott Cheney, the executive director of the California of Borshtracing Board. Okay. It's called directly to the regional waterboard. And I believe that's in their minutes because somebody questioned them in a public meeting. So you can probably find that transcript too. And just finding out who's to blame is not the game I'm playing. I'm just trying to be as compliant as possible, have horse racing as possible and so forth. Yes. I agree with that. We knew this was the same possibility. We did when we put it on when bowling gave left. We knew that strontical somebody is gonna go start whispering to some state agency to come up to us. Yeah. Well, the Chuck's point about bringing a knife to a guy. That's more right. Okay. Because they want to do not a good. They wanted to eliminate or tracing in Northern California. Okay. That gets us to that gets us to item two. This is not a safety. Yeah. The state wanted or tracing in the non they could have saved it. Yeah, they did. And I personally talked to Carol loss about it. That's great. He's part of what did she say? She said, for a voice race, not going to happen. My understanding is Karen Ross also spoke to the supervisor. Yeah. What did she say? She said she's supportive of understanding all alternatives. Very supportive of understanding all alternatives. I note that CHRB also had a vacancy recently filled by a new individual who may have a different perspective on things. Perhaps, never spoken to Peter before, but we'll find out horse racing. Status of Bernal Park Racing, is there is. What is the status of updating on horse racing? What is the status of the presentation or offer or proposal by Bernal Racing? I think in what we've already covered, you've explained that you're looking to get into compliance to allow for it. But let's start with where we have been. As I understand it, We took it on, we may be understood some of the risks associated with it, those risks proved to be effective, I guess, or true. We found out a lot about needing for compliance for year round, stable and year round horse racing. And we lost something in doing it. Is that right? So what I'd like to understand is what money did we lose? Why did we lose it? Are we gonna get it back? How are we gonna protect from not having it? And so I guess all these questions answer that. This gets to why we don't have it right now. Okay, you wanna walk through that then? Well, I can only tell you what I prepared for. I just can give, create any of these questions and maybe we will get to answer them all. Uh, first we left off, um, the back in May with an ad hoc meeting in Oakland, we came back to this room in the fair voted, uh, or date direction by which this is in a closed session that we would work with, for an all racing, Park Racing. That happened upon the meeting March 18th. The fair and Bernal Park Racing requested summer race dates from the C.H.R.B. This is part of the process. So we co-off their letter that was sent. We received a deposit from Bernal Park racing on March 21st, which was within the deadline that the Fairboard gave Bernal Park. The TOC and the Southern California tracks did not grant funding for training and stable in past March 25th, though. And that really raised a huge concern because once it was no longer funded the track and training that became a major concern. Then the CHRB sent us a letter or an email to all parties saying that the Pleasantian track was no longer a CHRB licensed facility. And when that happens, the finish line insurance company, which is kind of an insurance pool for a courseman, was no longer a viable insurance option for coursemen. So they essentially, at this facility, they would be uninsured. At that point, Bernal raping's deposit was given back. The fair board did not keep the deposit. It was sizable. The track was closed on March 25th. We were hoping to get horses out as quickly as possible, but ultimately all horses were off property by April 5th. Finish line insurance actually extended the insurance until basically all horses were off property. Then, CHRB denied the request for some race dates in April at their April meeting. And as of this meeting right now, there is a CHRB meeting going on in a word starts maybe in 15 minutes ago. I'm not sure. There are no fairs scheduled to run in 2025. However, humbled, small fair in Ferndale, California, I do believe they are requesting dates. And we'll find out today if the CHRB allows that. Can you highlight a little bit of how Humble can financially make that work? Because of the way the betting is shared between the South and the North. Because it's a whole different animal when you look at the fiability of the money. You're getting it. Well first, you know, I'm a big fan of Humboldt. I've been up there multiple times and worked with them. And they're a member of carbon. The racing, that whole town revolves around that racetrack. And I hope that this works. They draw a lot of courses from Seattle and the horses that left here that would qualify for their racing had either gone to San Anita or gone to Seattle. Now I'm hearing about 300 horses are now leaving San Anita and headed to Seattle. So since Humboldt's so close, they can draw those horses down for a two week horse meat. They're really only gonna be probably four to six days of racing, I don't know what they're gonna try to set up. The reason this is viable for them is one, they've got the horses and two, they race over the top of Delmar. When you race in conjunction with another track in the Southern California region, you are the host track of the North, which means they receive all of the Northern Dating Commissions or host fees, even though the money is being bet on the Delmar race. So it's very lucrative. Off track, Betty. Is that called off off-track bedding? Yes. Yeah. So we've done that with the past before too. Oh, we've done that. Yeah. We did that in October, November, December, this last go-around when we tried to make racing happens. Exactly. Because we were the host track of the North. And so we were receiving a host fee from all of the northern off track betting and wagering. Do we receive that fee for every week that we operated winter horse racing? Yes, yes. And did that fee was it roughly the same each week or did it increase in the last It's not a fee. It is a commission. It's based on that percentage or it. roughly the same each week or did it increase in the last week? It's not a fee. It is a commission, but it's based on percentage or cut. Yeah, that's a better way to say. But they call it the host fee, but it's a percentage. As part of what I've heard is that that cut or that fee or that percent changed from week to week to week based on when contracts were put into place that allow for us to receive those funds. The idea being that if we had received what we could have received for each week of winter racing that we would have made a lot more money during winter racing. I don't know if that's true or not. I'm just trying to understand. The way you're describing that is, summarily incorrect, but that's okay. I don't think you're talking about that. Okay, I guess I would ask the question would be, can you send us the weekly receipts for racing during the winter that include a breakdown of racing, receipts, and commissions that occurred based on the races we held at our facility based on the races that were held off site in other locations that were bet on by patrons that came here and any other off track betting that occurred when we started, which I think did we when was first week that we had the winter racing? October and November started in October, or 18th or 19th. And it ran for how many weeks until Christmas day? Eight or 10 weeks. So you can provide the weekly receipts in that breakdown. I can't. No, somebody can. Sure, you can, you can find it at a public record through the CHRB. It wasn't in the money that flows to us, isn't it? No, it's not our racemeat. We did not receive any commission or cut from off-track racing during our hosting of the races. I thought I heard yes. Yes, we, the race meet that was run called Golden State Racing, belonged to Carth. We were merely the landlord, the host, and we charged them a license fee to be here, and we charged them for services we provided. Okay. So it was their race meet that was unsuccessful. And the reason we are out so much money is because we were providing services like janitorial security, tractor work that they did not pay for it because they didn't have the money from their revenue streams to pay us. Was it in that agreement that we... Services. Contract for services. So, Carf is the one that went bankrupt. We know that. Well, they're not bankrupt, but yes, they're... Ran out of money and still owe us. And the... When we say we lost money on horse racing, it's really that our agreement called for us to be paid and we didn't get paid. And so if we got paid, we would have not lost you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to do all this. Get rid of stop horse racing or we just said you're not paying your contracts. Therefore, we stop serving. No, I always say, car to the vote to stop racing, yes, and in turn, didn't have the money to pay us, which breached our contract. Is that a good way to say it? It sounds like it. And but I, am I the only one that feel that we got blamed for stopping horse racing because we were losing money. We were losing money on horse racing. And we were telling everybody we're not on that. We're trying to save for six months. Nobody's listening. Well, nobody's listening. I think that understanding that the people that contracted with us to run the race start paying us is different than we couldn't make a go of horse racing because people aren't betting it or patring in it enough or whatever. The whole time it was described as there's no money to be made in horse racing we got to get out of business in Reality, it's the person that contracted with us to run horse racing isn't paying us and so Isn't paying us very different very different It might well that's good that you see them as different, but we know where the money comes from and if Arft cannot be solvent in the business of horse racing, then they can't pay the bill to us and they can't be successful. It's one in the same. That. Okay. And we've seen horse racing numbers decline over the past decade. And in 2020, the re, I think our race meet lost money. Lost money. So we already knew that horse racing was on a downward trajectory when we got into it and became the host of the north. And all we were trying to do was stop the bleeding because the The tractor still need to go out there and run the track and everything. We're running the money and we have the contract service providers and we can't pay you. So how long should we let that go? Right. We let it go. I mean, we jumped on it and said, well, we can't, we can't keep running this money. So losing venture, right? The more that we get, the more likely it is that we're not going to recoup a lot of this money. When it says that the TOC did not grant funding for training and stabling, is there a separate contract for training and stabling versus the contract for running races? Yes, and so you have two different contracts with two different organizations One being a contract to run races with Garf and another being a contract with the Toc and Southern Tracks to stable and train The two different contracts. They are two different contracts But Garf is also partying to to the stable in training because that's their equipment that was going in circles out there. It's their racing secretary and so forth. So they're very intertwined. Did TOC and 7 Tracks pay their bill? Was it able in training? Yes. Did we have an option to extend that past March 25th? Yes, it was our option and carves option to extend until June and June. But we had to notify him a month prior. Yeah, we had to give him a moment notice. So if we had asked for it, they could have granted it. Did we ever ask for it? No, carth never asked for it. They were near bankruptcy. I guess it's a separate entity that had the ability to pay because I think they get a lot of money from the state and where they have the ability to pay. They had a track record of paying us. So they could have continued to pass. They have an obligation to pay us if we exercise the option. The decision, I guess I'm trying to reconcile TOC and Southern Tracks did not grant funding for training in state when it seems like a true statement. However, what's behind that is we never asked them to pay for it. And we're an all-park racing der. Ask them to pay for the stabling and training. Pass March 25th. We just never asked. I'm just trying to understand that. No, we never asked. Carf was out of business. Carf was out of the money. If the money is being paid to us to stable and train horses here, why could we not have asked to continue to train and stable horses? Well, we potentially could have, but we don't have the equipment to train horses. Carfields. And there's no other solution for that. But an all racing, I guess. For an all racing was trying to be our solution. We were lining up tractors with George Schmitt. He was having tractors hauled in. I was looking for heroes that we would own. Cutting heroes and all of that. So yeah, we kind of went down that path, then the insurance really killed it. Okay. And remember any other questions about this one? The stumbling is being paid by the stronic group. That's where the money's coming from. Yeah. That's the entity that FDAS, good. With the waterboard, they're the ones that decided to close Golden Gate fields at the most opportune time to make sure that horse racing in the north wasn't going to succeed. That's one of the reasons we didn't succeed. Who's betting on horses in October, November, and December? Who's going to race meets in October, November and December? Had this started now or a couple of months ago, I think there would be different, but we didn't have that luxury. Well, because the horses were going to be leaving. So we saved it. And the problem is we're the only entity that Here's a check. here's a check, all the waterboards on us now. Oh, gee, nobody else stepped up. And then there are also the end of the controls, a lot of the algorithms for bedding. So they were holding that from us. So even if we were going to race today, they would do the same thing and shut off the algorithmic betting from express bed in those other ones. Right. So they own one of the big websites that does online betting. They can say they didn't put our signal on. But it was monarch and didn't the CHRB put pressure to start to let us have the contract with monarchy. Is no one happened at the end? It's not with monarch, but yes at the end, politically we were successful to get them to sign the agreement, but that didn't mean that their veterans would actually play. And that's what happened. I don't know. Alan, do you have a different way to describe this? Or if I'm not accurate, clean it up? Yeah, well, there's two companies that basically sign all the contracts with the whole world for satellite wagering. And one of these Churchill downs is that's one thing that Carp had contracted with. This kind of a minor player and monarch is the other one which stronic owns. And it's just a power played by stronic to do all this. Could we have done better this time of year? Of course we have the Kentucky Derby greatness of triple prallin races, three years kept coming up to November. Could it have been better? Yes. But the pressure of the COC, strontic, you know, totally car spalled that those contracts should have been recognized. And they weren't. Yeah, just for point of clarity, for the last at least, we'll just call it my 12 years. All of the state of California wrote on one contract. Every track was considered equal and had the same deal across the state and monarch negotiated it for the state of California. When we decided, hey, we're going to do this G.S.R. thing with CARF. That's when they said, oh, no, we're not allowing this. Go to Churchill Downs for your deal and we got shut out. So, but none of this is a secret. We've been talking about this for six months. So, question from Sue Reiser-Mavin. Okay, so as I'd extended, just to kind of recap my mind, right and twerly wise, you're your compliance at this point. You're looking to see if you can get the permit or the fare. You're exploring possibly having horse racing in the future and are you going to be able to do horse racing in the future? Regardless of cars, then, strontics, and the T.O.C. and all of them, are you going to be relied on them? We have to rely on someone to run the races. We will not run the races. So if we get a Bernel Park racing that's willing to step up and run the racing, and we can satisfy regulatory compliance, then we can force racing. I think it gets confusing. I heard Jerome a couple of different times talk about we're going to run racing. That's because it's been on our property. That's the way that we've done it. And that's the way we talk about it. That's how I've heard it. But we don't run racing, car friends racing, for an L part runs racing, stronic group runs racing. And we supply the facility to allow that to happen. So you can contract with another entity to do this. So I'm answering your question. If we can satisfy regulatory up to whatever the amount of forces is that we have for whatever period of time. And we have someone that's willing to step up and run the races. Then yes, we can have horse racing back from place. And we're willing to do that. And we're gonna try to do that with that George Schleck. But one thing I would ask Jerome to try to quickly summarize for the supervisors is when we recognize the default, the amount of that and how deeply we were into it and why we made the decisions that we made. In December, February, March. During the race meet running this morning, and I were very closely tracking those commissions that we are public record, that we get or that carfgas, that's carfgas, okay, because I know that that's how the patients are what's gonna pay us for our services. But it's all public record. We all know how much money is coming in every single day, as well as we know how much money is being put out in person, which is to the owners of horses for winning a race. And we knew that that was astronomically getting out of hand. And we knew that Carth was not earning enough in commissions to pay their bill back to us. It was a simple man. I came to the fair board to give them that man. And by the end of December, they had stopped paying on their line of credit of which we'd used to buy out a gold. And they had stopped paying the account receivable to us for the services and the licensing fees that were contracted. To the tune of $5 million, what's the credit worthiness of that entity? It's joint power authority. And I don't believe they could get a lot of credit, which is why we became their credit. A joint power authority ultimately is it not the state of California and their general fund that backs Carth? Do they not have the ability to pay their bills? Or is it that what's being worked through now? They don't have the ability to pay their bills. No the joint power authority Doesn't necessarily have to be bailed out by the state. It's a We kind of signed a contract with somebody that may have no ability to pay us Potentially is all based on business venture. And I would also add that when Berkeley closed, you know, we tried very diligently to find other tracks for this to happen at where the cost of living is cheaper, wouldn't be as impactful to people. For example, the state fair, who was winterized, grandstand, modifications didn't have to be needed. Sonoma, we tried to see if they wanted to do this year round, for sure, same thing. Fresno, so when you're chatting with your counterparts in Fresno, know that everybody was offered these days. And this fair board was the only fair board that said, this is part of our heritage, we're going to do everything we can to make this happen. And we did everything we could for three months to determine that it wasn't going to work. And eventually we had to make a good business decision to not bankrupt. The mother ship, which was the fair association itself. Well, but we have a note that Carfus were fighting through it. It seems to me that somebody's going to have to pay their bill. We didn't take the risk of running. Again, I thought it was portrayed that we took the risk of us running races and we weren't able to get people in to come in and bet and therefore it can't be done and really it was another entity car that contracted with us for services that isn't you know not paying their bills and that we can go after and we'll go after, I guess, or work out through resolution, but it seems to me that they lost the money, not us. We're just the recipients of a bad debt. That is all accurate. With the exception of a JPA can declare bankruptcy. And if they do, we're really out of the money. I don't know. We don't want to look. We don't want to declare bankruptcy. Yeah, we don't have of the money. Right. I don't know. We don't want to do on the player backpropses. Yeah, we don't have our ability to collect the money that we're working on that out. I better to solve it in a workout situation. I get it. We continue to do that. Correct. And we've recooked. So we're good. 1.2 1.3. Yeah. And how much more do they owe? 3.849 million. Okay, and that includes the buyout of the golf too, so we didn't pay the buyout, they paid the buyout. Well, isn't that supposed to? I get it. It's supposed to, but right now. All right, but we still we didn't lose money buying back golf day last money, buying back golf, but we credit, we're a creditor and I'll still hold it. Where were you started? All right. Is there any public comment on horse racing or any other board members that care to talk about? I got a question. Of course you're wrong. The 13,300 a day, the TLC paid for stable, went to carf, not to Almond County Fair. No, it came directly to Alameda County fair. I I forced that because I did not want the payment to go to carf and then them not get it to us and here we're continuing to be their credit. So when in the wee hours of Christmas, we were negotiating this stuff and I said absolutely not I'm not signing this agreement unless it's declared that one car is in the deal because we need their tractors and two, the money is directly coming to the fair to pay for the services because we're not going to get under the, you know, behind eight ball again. So that's why that money came direct to us. And that money could have flowed through them to us to stable past March 25th. Have they been willing to do that? Yes. But I wasn't going to take the chance that it was going to pass through them. No, to come to us. To come to us. Well, again, when I asked you, if you asked them to stable past the 25th, you said no, carft didn't ask for it. But there's no reason why carfoot, and especially as we're negotiating with them, why we couldn't ask them to let it pass through to us directly and keep people stable past March 25th. I we can talk about semantics or whatever, but that's a pretty clear to me. Directly related to putting on the race meet. Sure. Carpet that point and December, they said we're done. Wow. The horse has got to go somewhere. Right. And it's not their money. Right. I guess it's their equipment. December, we knew there's not going to be any race meets anymore. They're powerful. There's 2000 out of money. We have from December to March. So why did I? Yeah, so it was good going to June 10. But at that time, for what purpose, if there's no racing, we were in the middle of Christmas Trying to get a little bit more runway for for our onsite course and we got them from from December 25 to March 25 that's that that was the gift that we were able to put together. I understand. So the people that were housed here, people who were sending their kids to school here, people that had a place to stay. I think that just isn't a consideration other than, and I know we did some help where we could, and I know my office did some help where we could, but all of that could have been extended to June 10th. than and I know we did some help where we could and I know my office did some help where we could but all of that could have been extended to June 10 with very little effort. How do you say that? Because there's a source of money that we didn't ask for and we're blaming car for not having Asporid when we could have done that we're not compliant With the water well, that's another point that gets it done. Okay, but I just say a lot of government get it done. And roll. This supervisor I think you're piecing this apart into different things intentionally. And it's really, well, okay. The addition of all of these things, and this fair board did an amazing job trying to keep all of this alive for the county of Alonita. And it just didn't work. From March 25th to June 10th at 13,300 a day, in which money is that? I know you've got something. 170,000. Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, we can agree to disagree, but it seems very clear that that could have happened. And no, I know I know it. I know. It was not very clear. It's not very clear. So I'm just speculating. That's agreeing to disagree. We agreed to disagree, sir. Yeah, that's what I said. I guess we agree on that. I don't know. The two will see us. One person saying, yeah, but no. Yeah. We did everything we needed. On CVA, I know nothing. The company, I don't know numbers and contracts. And that was not going to happen without us losing more money. 13,000 dollars a day to stable the horses. Yeah, but then we have all the compliance issues and we have to keep hiring engineers. We're here to do things, which you have to do anyway. Well, we didn't have to have at that level. You're not in big world. The $13,000 a day was based on our cost to house horses. That's it. We couldn't house the forces because of the regulatory requirements. Right? And beyond that. So we couldn't get the money to house them because we weren't going to be a compliant track. We didn't only equipment. Right. And we were a licensed track after that date anymore. Yeah. I mean, I don't know what you're not seeing here. That said, oh, we could have done this to June 10th. No, we could not have. Who not have? We have. I'm sorry. License to run races or license to train. You don't get a license to train. You don't need a license to train. You need all the license to be a license to a nice facility under a live track operation. So we were operating under Santa Anita's license as their auxiliary training track for those three months for those three months with their permission and their funding and they pulled that they that I've already said that yeah, that's dancing Anita. Santa Anita was the live track. It's a collective group of tracks though that ultimately make the thing decision, which is Santa Anita Del Mar and Rosalini. So we never had the opportunity to go past the 25th of March because Santa Anita pulled our license to be be a wherever authority to be a well, they determine they were no longer going to fund this facility because it dropped the low 400 horses. So I thought we had the ability to make them pay. I thought we had the ability to say you will stick. If we allow you to, you will stay, we had the option to have them stable their horses here. The option was ours to move to June 10th, right? Their option was to get out if the horse population fell below 400. That's what you're standing to then. Okay. Okay. They exercise an option to get out of. Yes, yes, for the money. I was on a phone call with the guy told us. Also new. They're very weird. I don't want to make it sound like we dropped the ball. We didn't drop the ball. I think one of the meetings now I'm understanding that they dropped an option on you that that is a new I thought you had an unfettered option to allow horses to stay Okay, I think one of the one of the meetings of your ass Mike florist from CDFA that he works for You know Baron Ross Karen Ross said you guys are not gonna race because there's no money there That they're we're out of money the 13,000 three what not going to race because there's no money there. They're We're out of money. The 13,000, three, what's going to them? Because, you know, I don't know what you're referencing. Why do you think Mike Clarks say that we're not going to race? Did he not say that in the meeting? Yep. How the meet-up won't race? Yeah, we were not going to allow you guys to have horses on site no longer. No, Michael Flores has no jurisdiction over this border or the county. Yeah, he was saying that car was no longer going to. Exactly car at this location. Carved period at any location, because carves was essentially getting out of the live racing business. They would still perpetuate and figure out what they're doing for off track betting facilities, but they were getting out of the live race meet business. That doesn't preclude us contracting with Bernal Park Racing, who at that time did not exist until we signed up, right? So we're really, anyways, go on, I'm sorry. We're done with this one. Anybody got other questions or comments about, yeah, super question. Well, I think this is all very helpful and informative. It's the way I see it is the fair board knew then that you know now you might have done something different. I get that sense. And then furthermore, I think it'd be helpful if our joint fair committee could be kept more informed about these sensitive matters, because I think a lot's come out of the last, I don't know, eight months, even today, that I think it's been very helpful. So I think we need to look at the contract that the county has with the fair board and tighten that up and make sure there's provisions for either a better communication or their own missions in the MOU, we fill those points. No doubt. Yeah, because I'm, that's good? David's my buddy in. But I kind of see things a little differently than David does. I think we're right on track. Really do. And a lot of new news here, because I was told we had an option to extend stabling, source of funds to do that with not understanding that they have the ability to tell us that they can't. So okay. Well, the other thing I think should be pointed out is it's not just stabling, right? Training. He's saying stabling, like we're just going to park the horses here. Can train them?, it's training Yeah, so the track has to be prepped every day by an entity that said we're out of business Those are our trackers and I'm gonna you that and it's also transport because the track that you're training for is Santa Anita It's not us So why are we doing this? They realized, we're just, what's the package for it's worth? What's the most important thing? So horses weren't stable here? Yeah, they were stable here. Yeah, so what San Anita the Roos? And they paid for the transport. That's why they were so out there. 13,000 was the training to track prep every day for the horses to train and then transported the horses to San and at their place. That's all their hate for by that 13,000. No, they pay the old. They that themselves. Yeah, but it did include veterinarians on site, all the drug testing on site, all the staff we made for that. This is all done in concert. So if we kept more than 400 horses, we could have forced them to keep them stay there. We kept more than 400. What I heard is if it went below 400, they could exercise 500. He said, 49. The last 400. Now, on site. Again, so they have to be willing to transport those forces. They have to be able to utilize those forces. And they chose not to do it. But it was blooded 400 or not. It wasn't just that they felt it's lovely. It's a super-frescent, I'll review. And the government are revolutions, they're revolutions, they're revolutions. Better wall up. No, again, I keep hearing that there's no money in horse racing, but I know that there is, as a matter of who's getting it, and how to get it. Right. That's not an excuse we're not having horse racing. But until somebody can stable horses in Northern California, we're not going to get anything back. The Russians are running right now. a lot of race tracks. We're race 45. I mean, this is a state government countrywide problem. I mean, New York, they're running five words. Yeah. Maryland five words. One thing. Does anyone throw it out here? The moving forward. Yeah. If we were to continue horse racing. the dates that we have, the Stratoc Corporation and TM has placed us on the worst dates in the summertime on top of the lost salamets. And they take one week off between. So they've done that on purpose. So moving forward, if we were to succeed, we would have the better race tracks to draw from, like Delmar, Saratoga. Our fair dates would have to move into July, maybe start July 4th and run through the end of July. Then we would be profitable both in our person count and our commission. When we say we be profitable, it's not us. It's some entities that we rely on them to make money so they can pay. That's right. No, no, hold on. No, yeah. If it's fair time racing in the four weeks of fair, it is us. And now we are hiring CARF to do services for us. That's a different model. Let's get complicated. It is very complicated. And I don't expect everybody to understand this. That's what you pay me for. That's true. That's true because it's just like what you're hearing versus what's happening. There are two different things because you almost have to come to every board meeting and race track meeting. That's why we haven't separate committee for that. To educate us to know how this really all works because you have to have certain groups that are responsible for running those races. And if you're going to revive racing, the best place to do is to succulent on this race. Honest racing is coming up to be gone there. So all year around facility. So that would be the place to house horses. And it's since the state owned Fairgrounds. And we would love that because then we could draw on their boards. We could draw on their boards. And are we talking them to do it? Jerome Sutton, Jerome. I've been to their board. Same with Fresno and same with San Rosa. not go to Fresno. Okay. But yeah, people have talked to Fresno. George Schmidt has talked to all of those. So then what is the status of Bernalgas? I see that it says that it's requested dates from them, did not get it, deposit returned. Are we still in talks with them? They're here, right? Now is the time for public comment. Anybody who would like to make a comment on item two, which is update on horse racing is the time to do it. Thank you. Hi, I'm here for for all part racing for this formed in February 2025 by George Mitch John Harris. Let me give you a briefing and some of you who may not know if what George Smith is. He's lived in Pleasanton since 1976. And the Ceo of what's now rising in T-Mobile, he was inducted into the wireless fellow fame, and then in text. John Harris owns and Harris Farms, owns approximately 40,000 acres, and everything on Highway 5 and 49. For all park racing, we'll take over another set financial responsibility to the county of Clark. For all park racing, we'll be the new park. John and George have committed over $2 million and already have $1.59, and a bank account at Greenmont Bank to support first racing in Northern California. To give you some of the history, Park and GSR, the first two weekends, people could not bet online. I know I'm going back, but I need to inform you. We did not have to signal the first weekend and partially the second weekend. We did not have a contract with the wheat racing until the last weekend, and they never bet a dime on GSR due to this misfortune. To give you a perspective, in 2024, the wheat racing is $17, spent $60 million during the Delmar meat on racing. And Betty, happy we've been able to have the signal the whole meat and not race Fridays, we would have been in the black. We also lost money due to not having parking concessions or additions. The reason John and George have started around car racing is because we understand the numbers and now we only run on weekends, the Hamilton commissions are thinking of for horse racing to be profitable. From our point of view, there's no reason to not have horse racing on days when you know you're going to win and not lose money. We think it's important to keep horse racing for other organizations like forage and FAA and young people to understand where our food source comes from. This will be greatly modified like you did in the Ville de Homes stock and if you do not keep course racing. Assuming Humble gets the rates today, or excuse me the dates today, George is up at the CHRB meeting in Sacramento and Burrell Park Racing has joined with Humble. They've asked to join us and to get the dates for racing this year. And there'll be nine race dates in Humble this year. Did it's approved today? Yeah, it's approved today. Yes, and we feel strong that it will. Good dates? Like? Good dates, yes. And we always had racing in June and July here in Pleasanton. I mean, since I grew up here. So, you know, in there since the 70s. Let's see, regarding the water issue, we Georgia, higher than the CBG civil engineers in the civil and civil gates. Is there any civil gates? We revised our business plan. And our projected revenue is $1,920. Our expenditures are $1,680, high in a profit of $8,000 or $9,000. I'm happy to give you a coffee of this. To receive no more not in the minutes and think that this was a viable product, these are both very successful businessmen that don't need to put their neck out there. They do because they see that the funds are here. This management happened and for an old park racing, must have taken this over and become the new base for hard. Also, Fresno's in discussions right now, and possibly via HUD for the courses to go briefly, but most of the person want to come back to pleasant time. This is a kind track. When the safest race track last year, again, one fatality, and that was in the paddock. The horse hid its head and unfortunately died. So. This is a kind track. When we were the safest race track last year, we had one fatality and that was in the paddock. The horse hit its head and partially died. So we have kind dirt. We have a great location and the first men and workers wanted to have the pleasant and we have over 2000 signatures on change. Or a people that want risk racing back in Northern California. Also lastly, first racing is not dying. New York, let me remind you, is spending $55 million to improve the France Dance and the race track for a 55 million. That'll be done next year and a hundred million Illinois then we'll be done next year. So it was dying people wouldn't be putting money into the sport. I'm going to question that. Is it also a conjunction with the casino? Sure, with sloppishing. Yeah, you take charge of the students. Absolutely. But there's a lot of talk in Shatter and the state about things happening on that route. And right now, we're trying to get dates here so we can get the dates that have tumbled. The C-H-R-V, get rid of all park racing going with tumbled. We get Fresno racing. People were very affected by it, pleasantly not raising. We've shut down a lot of people's jobs, Santa Rosa, Fresno Racing. People were very affected by it, but it wasn't been on racing. We shut down a lot of people's jobs, St. Rosa, Fresno, Sacramento. We're at Spinox County here. And they showed up, we had over 800 horses here and they said, no one's gonna come to GSR. They came in droves. This is a kind track, great locations, the kids' lexas, the schools, you saw people crying. They didn't want to leave. Yeah. And we needed better advertise in marketing. I mean, so saw people crying, they didn't want to leave. Yeah. And we needed better advertising and marketing. I mean, so many people connecting in town, I didn't see the advertising. They didn't say anything, and they didn't really do them right, so I was like, I was like, no, it's not. That's the best guest speaker ever. I was like, you tell me, we started, around the sun. I mean, I do it. You would put signs in the hospital valley. You know, you know, I want better orange eyes attend. You're ever more people. until we started moving around the sign. I mean, I didn't, you would put signs in the hospital valley, you know, you know, I don't want to, I don't want to, I don't want to, I don't want to, people on the other hand said, oh, you guys are racing really? And then they go, oh, glad, let me, let me just ask is the intention of Bernal racing to start this year if possible at Humboldt. Correct. And survive until the next summer racing season and bring on more fares. Or is it the plan to try to start up a year-round horse racing opportunity in Northern California? Because part of me here is that you can't do summer unless you have horses up here, or is it that you can bring horses up here temporarily during the summer, which is are you looking to be a year round, including the summer or just the summer? The answer is yes to about however we understand that we're under the gun with timing and obviously we are not going to be able to put a lot together due to where the fares are and where we are in the calendar year right now for this year. For this year. But we do feel that humbled and possibly Fresno will be able to raise and we're working with Fresno right now to be behind until maybe next spring where we can get. For all park racing together, get pleasant and going where we get racing here for the summer and work on a year round for the facility. Okay. And for our solutions for next summer, is it your intention to partner with us? Yes. And is it our intention to partner with them if they can stand up a business? Because Carf is going to not be around or at least they'll probably still owe us money by then. We have to partner with you if we need to be here. However, at least the draft got around. I know George wants to hire union workers. We haven't gotten our staff together. We've got verbal commitments from people, but we probably have to work out who's going to pick up garbage and some of the damage. It's to supervise and mild these previous point. This contract needs to be done. A total of three. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I would like to have those. Thank you. Sure. We'll get them to distribute. We can contact you and continue to understand more about your operations. Anytime. Okay. And. your operations. Any time. Okay. Yeah. You mean. Nate. Yes. Okay. Well, I would suggest. Of the fair board. Because I know they had their strategic. I. And I don't think. Your strategic plan. Consulate it was a portion. I don't think. So I would ask the airport to prepare a plan for entertaining for chasing in the future so we can kind of look at that and that could be a topic for our next meeting. I love that. that to that. Okay. Because even if we need to re-modify the contract, they will you with accounting in the airport. I still think it's important to give the airport an opportunity to come up with a plan because they've already talked about what they hope and I would like to see kind of something laid out in writing. And this is maybe what you ideally would you like to achieve, but this is maybe what practically you could achieve. So kind of, it might be gradations of that, because you know David David was talking about year round stuff. Maybe that's, I'm probably in the sky. It's just not gonna happen. But maybe this could happen. And if this happens, then maybe this could happen. And then maybe that could happen. But we'll just all have to happen together. I don't know. The best straight point. Yeah. And then how can the county be supportive and helpful? I think the fair board is interested. I said many, many times we're supportive of forced racing and we'd love to have forced racing into a point to where as long as the, it's subsidized by everything else you're doing the fairgrounds. It carries its own weight, meaning that we don't lose money. So I think that's already been said, it's already been tried. And you know, a fair time comes around and we can have horse racing. It's like the car comes in with a horse racing and at least. And then you move on to your next equestrian question event whenever it is. I get it. Now we might have a more credit worthy association as opposed to the car food couldn't. So we want to be landlords not operators. Oh except for the three weeks of the fare. No you're right. No I'm understanding this a lot better. So yeah. Because I'm just saying ideally, they still want to hear it, but we're not. You know, a partnership with the Fair Board to burn all raising if that can be achieved, but maybe you know sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry. So I'm sorry.? I'm sorry. So $9.5, almost $1 million was bet. OK. OK. And that was bet. That's bet. That's bet. That's bet. So they gave them the SAS file. Compenda had, they want to run because not only did they have their footprint but because Furndale, when they run, it serves a full town for the year. That carries them for the whole year until the next year to get them going to go on. Okay. So any other comments from the board? Well, I think it's important to point out that Furndale is drawing from horses. See, I do or if I can. Right. I understand that. But that's a key component to all of this is can we get the horses? Can we get enough horses here to have a race? Sounds like they're going from Seattle up and down. We're right in the middle. But that won't be on properly No problem. That'll be problem for now racing. Yeah providing a horse exactly that we're providing to venue It's up to for now racing to get the word you do Christmas with to provide the horses understood and that's why I own horses And we're down at Santa Neeter right now and Now they may not write our races that they have taken our horses Go down there because we were competing against our phone horses All the trainers that came from here that went down there. They promised we're going to run it out of our own courses, and it'll be the Northern courses running. And now they're talking about it's going to go open. So now we're going to have to compete against the Senate and the courses, and it's really early time. We ran two fourths last week, last item and it's like that's like night and day. That's so it seems like the major leagues and the minor leagues. Competitive soccer world level silver level bronze level. It's just never ends. Now it's $110 a day. You ought to take them to some verses. 8. Never ends. Now it's $110 a day. What do you want to do? So versus $80 a day up here for our nurses to be in training down there. Plus we have to go down and spend for hotels to go to stay down there, which is like $250 a night just to go down there. And right you go, oh, because Cindy, our horse doesn't join the crew. And you're not making no money. You're not paying the horses bills down there. So it's just, you're talking about, oh, there's no racing and it's hard. And there is not enough sources, but there is a lot of horses and a lot of people that went to Texas. One guy from here to 30 had down the Texas because he couldn't run here. He can't compete at San Luma. So those guys have all been talking to me and they go, oh, we'll come back up. Just tell us when we want to be here. We don't want to be down there. This is the best weather. This is the best place to be. It's wonderful. And it's the money situation. You know, and you're killing where it's killing racing because we have to be done. According to blood boroughs in December 2024 70% of calvaries are raised in northern California. A little bit less than 40 and so how. What does that tell you? And what are races down there? You know, you're talking about felon races and stuff. There's five horse fields, baffered, the big trainers, they'll run and then they'll scratch the horse. They have four horses running. Two horse run on four horses? You look at the handle, and then you get our norther horses that came from here. On the norther horses, they're like 200,000 on our race because you don't want, we have seven and eight horse fields down there. The seven and eight horse fields should be here. We had them making it all in one, we had them. It's just like, You guys are all running. Everybody, the town. I mean, just it's everybody. So that's just my opinion and I own lessons and it's just been really, really tough and trying to say things. Thank you. It's just what any other comments? Well, I mean, I would just say that to Nate's point that we should develop a plan, the plan is, we stand ready to have horse racing. That's the plan. We can't put a more detailed plan because we don't control all the components of it. Right? And for now, racing wants to step up and they assure us they can get the horses and they're on the boat board. Great. We have a track where the landlord. There could be anybody. Just step up. You didn't have to be for now. You have to be anybody. We're going to have regulation compliant, regulatory, compliant facility to do that. We have to. We'll be there. Okay. But supervisor Miley, just a comment, you just heard it echoed again. It's about the money and the money's not there always for the trainers. Well, the same thing is here for the operator of this property. And they can't compete. Those forces can't necessarily compete in horse racing. So they're here or they're in humble. And there's a reference that humble did a million dollars last year in Handel to educate everyone. You know how much money that is in commission to the track? Didn't take a gas. $40,000 50 if they got six percent and it was $10,000 on track. It was $60,000 profit. No, that's not crossed our promotion. Now they have to pay for this recognition. All of so we can say wow it's a million dollars in handle in handle. That's nothing. That's nothing. So I want humble to be successful. I want Bernal racing to be successful. And let's see what they do because they do need to get a race meet under their bill before, and not to mention, we don't know if same thing will happen to them, which means they turn off express bed on them and nobody that race. All right. We've got a little bit of ideas. CEO Pumble or employer badge. I see a Pumble that Monarch has told them that they will give them the same contract. Okay. Great. You're good. Update on golf at the fair of age. Golf. You don't play? That's item three. I'm terrible. Golf course is reopened. Every day, it's open 7 a.m. to dark. It's maintained and operated by Jenner golf right now. The first tea trivali is operational still. So they are on the property. And the course we're hoping will remain open during fair time this year. But people will have to enter from pleasant now. So that was one of the when horse racing was going away, we had to immediately re-work to get the golf course open for the car. How is it different from before last year and the jaders owned and operated everything to now, we let money to carf to buy out that is contracted, therefore, but the whole golfing is still happening, is that who owns it? It seems that if we lent money to carf, to buy it out, do they own it? If they aren't paying us the money, we lent them. Does it then revert to us in some sort of remediation or reconciliation or workout plan? What is the ownership and profitability of this entity? A golf. The county owns the property. Well, okay. uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, is only contracted to maintenance the golf course and operate the clubhouse meaning cut the grass. It's fully under our associations directive so we can close it shut it down, open it early, maybe whatever we need to do in the future. We essentially bought out the golf course. So we have bought it out or carf bought it. We bought it out with our cash and then cost those that's that money in a line of credit. That's what I'm trying to understand. If we bought it out with our cash, how does that entail carf at all? Because to have the race me, we have to buy out the golf course. Okay. We did it on their behalf. So if we did it on their behalf, is it their money? Or I guess what I'm saying is Carth agreed to pay us money to buy out the course that we then own, but they paid for it. what it's got in order to have your own horse race. And then he was supposed to have your own horse racing, you have to buy the golf course. So the money to pay for that was going to be generated by the race mean. Well, grace me. I'm from the North. I'm not always based on that. But three months in. Assuming they were going to continue to pay for it, that's because it went sideways. If it didn't go sideways, that's because it went sideways. If it didn't go sideways, then they entered into an agreement with us whereby they bought out a golf course and then gave it, essentially gave it to us. No. No. No. We offered them a line of credit, okay, but that's, they owe it. They owe us money and that's what they need to pay us on their separate deals We dealt with our golf course And we charged them That money in the against the line of credit So they had defaulted on their line of credit to us Okay, they defaulted on the line credit was I guess again if again, that was all part of the services of operating horse racing. So it just is odd. I don't understand how they feel that they can carry the pops of stabling horses, training horses, running races and on top of that pay for a buyout of a golf entity which they then have no equity or ownership or control over. What they did was they used the reflame on betting that this happened in the Golden Gate Hills as a baseline for what they could afford to pay. And that was what they were targeting. And I think we took 70% of that or something. Even they built a performance on their racing on what they would do. It's just a performance. It's an estimate. And it didn't pan out. We have an asset now called the golf operation. Correct. And yet, we didn't pay for it. We lent them the money to then... No, we did pay for it. Well, it came from us, but as a loan that came for us, we bought out their contract, okay? Then separately, we negotiated a deal with cart that pay us back so that we oh Good and that way we could control how we operate the golf course with full-time racing and everything Because we end up by Using money on the golf course during the bear we end up by paying to jvres because they not all during the bear. Because we have to close them down. Now we have control over all that. And that was a contract that was still had, I think, eight or 10 years to go right now. We have boom. We have anything we want. Which is why I don't understand how we consider it as a loss. Because now we're making the money for the next eight years. I never got a lot of things to say. I'm talking about conversations with my dad but they're counting folks. It was a cash loss. It's a tax. Yeah. Because we paid out the cash in the line of credit. Apparently we have not gotten it back. Okay but we we have an asset that we own the operations. What we have already owned it before because we have the land, but now we have a business. We had a business before because we were getting revenue when people played golf. We had a landlord relationship before with the Jeaters. Now we have an ownership of the golf operations. We bought it with our cash and then, okay, when we say we lent the money to Carth, we really charged them a fee rent. Why not to car? To buy it out. So we can still, are we making as much, if the jeaters are the same ones that are operating it now as they operated it then, are they receiving the same amount of profits now as they did then and that would be our profits or your profits? Right, they're on a fixed maintenance fee, meaning cut the grass for this amount of money. Which they did before when they owned it. No, they paid for everything. When they owned it, they had to cut the grass. Oh, yes, yes. Okay, yes, but they paid for it. Right. Now, we are paying them to do that. And all the revenue comes to us. Is there profitable? There will be a profit. How much? Don't know yet. I don't know yet. Yeah, I haven't even had a dream. We just started back doing it again. Yeah. Keep it had it. We just started back doing it again. We've been doing it since. Well, we were in the we just. December. Okay. So, so no, it's not profitable since we were in the winter months. But it projected to be. So what is it projected to be? If I was going to put a projection on it right now, we would earn 250,000. And 10 years. 18, a great year of 300. Okay. We'll see. Do we know what the jadders made? I know what their revenue is from us, but I don't know what they what their margins are. We don't know what they made because they're not going to share their financial information like that. Wait, are you saying what they're going to make in the future under the new agreement or what did they when they when they were operating it, it was an ongoing business. We paid them for it and so they cashed out. The question then is then if they made money at it then somebody ought to be making that same amount of money going forward and Correct. Well, not necessarily. I disagree with that. I'm renting a building and I'm getting next many dollars I sell that building to somebody else Now am I gonna get the same amount of dollars the person buying it may have had to pay more than I did. So therefore, they may have interesting carry in charges that I never had before. They may not make as much money as I made as the previous owner. Yeah, because they've got additional costs. And the other part of it is, is that they're cutting the grass. They're not cutting the grass for wages. They're cutting the grass, they're cutting the intake in care of it for them to make a little profit. So we're now sharing a little bit of that profit with somebody else. But we have control over who are we sharing with? We're paying them to do a service. We're making a little, we're not going to service for comforts, we're doing service there, making a 5, 10, 15, 20% whatever it is. Got it. But at the end of the day, when we want to do something now, we don't have to pay them to shut the golf course down and put a big tent out there and do an event. We don't have to rent it back from them during fair time. It is totally under our control. When we take the putting the driving range out there, and we shut it down because we need to parking, we have to pay them. That was easy for me. We got into it, right? We had to do the same thing 20 years ago. Yeah. Yeah, whatever long time. We didn't make that happen. We had to go long time. This board made the agreement. Long time. So about this board. You know what I mean? All right. The county. And we're going to carry agreed to. Before my child. Yeah, before you. You were here still. Come on. Yeah, I was before you. Yeah. We're dealing with the current situation. the current situation to The way it's explained as an absolute loss. When in reality, we have all these other benefits that you've talked about. So I don't consider it. But we spent the cash. So we don't have the cash. And it is a cash loss. Thank you. I'm talking about that. Thank you for saying that. Because I already would be financially nice. It's a cash loss. And I it would be financial guys. It's a cash loss. If you look at our financials, which we just had on the thing, we have a cash loss. And it shows on our financial statements, they were out of it. We got a clean opinion. The county has a cash loss. Well, not only that, but they car still owes us the money for it. So, and hopefully they pay it, which means that's a good deal for them. Yeah. I'm going to go for it anyway. Yeah, I don't know what. Yeah, they bail us out of an operational agreement that we don't like and it's on their dime, even though they're not paying us, but they will. Thank you, Jerome, for negotiating a great deal. Yeah, I apologize for that. I part has either they didn't understand what they were doing. Well, they really got the right to make the final decision. Or they just felt like it was okay. Yeah, we are too much undergone. Yeah, because everybody went into it, believing that the revenue from raising would be true. I understand that, but it was portrayed to me that that $3.1 million loss was also part of why horse racing can't exist. And to me, it has nothing to do with it. No, no, no. No, no. We lost $5 million on horse racing this year. $3.1 million of was gone. We heard that from all of you. You got $5 million. Pass. Why do cash, trying to put us worse together? Right. From a business perspective, is not exactly the old pot right now. Tell me, I don't know how to do cash. We argue with them. Yeah. I know,'m in a show. But Supervisor, I was, I, I wasn't in meeting with you when I explained that we lost all of this cash and that the fair was down to quit, eventually be down to its last million dollars in cash. Yeah. And you repeated it that that was a major concern to you that was a cash discussion. Yeah. That up P&L discussion. Yeah. All right. And we're in better position now. Yeah. We're getting there. Any other comments on golf or from board members or or no public comment will move on, update on the utilization of the grandstands during the fair. We're going to have monster truck raising and whatever else. Update on that update on utilizing the grandstands. In the grandstand this year will be a stock car racing NASCAR experience. This is a simulator truck has to sign a waiver if he rides on the track. There's going to be a home and Terry for this song just going to keep moving. We will have hot air balloons for the first seven days tethered in the middle of the golf course for customers to ride. It's an exciting new thing. More for immediate attention. Marketing. First seven days or first weekend of the fair, we will have access sports jumping in. This is just kind of a fun thing. This will be fun. New, we've never done that. Never done this. It'll be on the racetrack set up for the first week. Then we move into tractor poles. This is new. This will be on the track on the sealed surface. In fact, by the way, before you leave that, what we went and did the meeting with the Pleasantton folks. We talked about a little bit of this and they were excited as hell. Pleasant and what folks? The old city council. City liaison. It is on meeting with them. They jumped all over this. We were worried about noise and they said bring it on. When was the city liaison shuttle? Yeah, exactly. It was a lot of fun. You were at the meat. Yeah. Okay. Will they jump in for joy or not jumping for joy? I didn't see that. They were excited. Oh, I'm really excited. Nobody actually stood up. Yeah, probably. And nobody jumped. Is that going to damage the race track, the horse racing track? or what precautions are we going to make that it doesn't? And have the ever done tractor pulls on a racetrack before? I think maybe one of these pictures looks like a race track. It's a horse racing track, not like this. Well, we have to bother coming a little bit. is it going to damage track? No, the racetrack and or are we what precautions are we going to take so that it doesn't? The racetrack will be sealed tightly sealed. It's a time to turn for dirt and should not be any problem with this. And then after months of, I'm sorry, after tractor poles will move into rodeo, the next weekend, and then after rodeo, we will move into monster trucks on the tractor. So each weekend, yep, we're trying to program to be successful for the fair and community to have something to use that big building. The grandstands, the grandstands. And we're spending money on the grandstands. We are. And to be what on the grandstand itself or on the acts to come to the grandstand. Well, are we having to do any capital expenditures to modify or do anything to allow this to happen? No. Other than seal the dirt. Correct. And unseal it. Presumably correct. Whatever that means. Okay. And then do we have to pay to bring these people here to do it? it's just an attraction people get to watch it. That's part of the admission to get it into the fair. How much will we pay to bring all these people here? Every one of these contracts is different but we have an allocation right now about 400,000 for grain, sand, and its payment. That includes what was inside the oning where the bikes were doing stuff. So it's the three different weekends, the bikes, four different bikes, NASCAR, rodeo, NASCAR is tropical. NASCAR is here the whole run and it's an exhibit inside the grain stand that people can participate in. It's not meant to be like thousands of people. Okay, it's different than a portable ride though, it's free. Yeah, it's kind of like the science park. Yeah. Yeah. The hot air balloons are in the infield for seven days and it is free to the customer. This is the action sports bicycle show stunt show. It's free and this will be at six o'clock in the evening at the grandstand. Same for six o'clock for. Tractor bull six o'clock Brodio three nights of rodeo and Three nights and who's bringing us the rodeo? This is Kamacho. Kamacho lifestyle. Yeah. And is that different than livermore rodeo and the brow ranch rodeo? It's completely different. This is a show. Are they going to have wild cow milking and mutton busking? No. No. What can we do? Those are all wild. Well. What are they gonna do? Just show people how to last sow a cow or whatever that picture was? No, those right Bronx and right Voles and rope cow. All free for the community. Okay, so your pain Money to presumably market to the community so that they will come in and buy tickets to get into the fair and pay for parking and buy food and All that other stuff the same model that we have I'm sorry, we are in the piece of entertainment. We degenerate, point 15 and 20,000 different. I'm a 10-inch. Yeah, I mean, if they're not coming here for horse racing, they're coming here for that. Right. Those events, they've been at the Oakland Coliseum. If you look at the crowds, it's a whole different crowd than obviously horse racing. But I'm gonna say young people be it teenagers, young parents, a lot of them really like that type of stuff. And we haven't had that. So we're hoping to catch it. Why don't we have side shows, which we can do that. Yeah, that brought the whole burden. Even I heard the Coliseum board talking, we know you talk about it. Right. So, I agree, my only comment that I'm not saying I don't like it, it's not the same as our culture and heritage. I understand that. I know we all understand. It's just a good boy. It got a feel in the void. Okay. This is what something is about too. Is part of what the fair has done in 2019. Yeah. Then the pandemic hit any. We stopped doing we just were able to do it with sports. Getting to a big concert green. You want to do day on the green? It comes. I'll pull a mother. Green day. Green day. Yeah, that's OK. All right. That is item number four. Any other comments on item four update on. Oh, yeah, you I've shut you down before. I'm going to let you know that we're pressed down to. I'm going to press in the traffic. I don't know. Got it. That's super important to I don't know if it's going to be a problem. I don't know if it's going to be a problem. I don't know if it's going to be a problem. I don't know if it's going to be a problem. I don't know if it's going to be a problem. I don't know if it's going to be a problem. I don't know if it's going to be a problem. capital costs or other expenses, other than signing these people up. So they're better not be. It's our expense anyway. Yeah, and that's not a capital cost. It's not a capital cost. Okay. Taking taking down a rail if we were in which this year we don't plant it. Okay. But if we needed to, it's not an issue we take down the rail in different places already. And we reinstall the rail in different places already. All right. Any other questions or comments? Item five, update on foot saw contract. This is. Yeah, this is from GSA. It's just a summary of the meeting that took place on May the 12th. GSA sends its regrets for not being here today, but they had an obligation that they couldn't get out of. And it was pretty important on this employer recognition. Okay. Supervisor, I'm sorry I forgot to, that was last slide. Okay. I will. We will still have the two firework shows in the grandstand, and we still will have drone shows every single night in the grandstand. Oh, just a tap on. Sorry, I love it. That is back to our heritage when we sing the National Anthem at Rone Night. OK. Can we go on now? OK, back to you. Actually, in front of you is a written summary of the meeting that occurred on May the 12th. I was not in attendance. I know that you were there. Andrew as well as Kimberly were there. They met about the football lead and making sure that they were this licensing room was in compliance with the contract. And it was a subtlety of just changing some of the language. And it was a slight tweak and it was agreeable to everybody that now it gives you a whole summary. It also gives you kind of like where it is with the city of Pleasanton. So this licensing agreement with the ballistic United Soccer Club license agreement is in compliance with the contract that was originally as intended. And I heard that the meeting was just from the summary points is that it was a very productive meeting. Eventually, the county will just take all at the final language that I know that you that you counsel is working on, but it was just a subtle tweet that wasn't a dramatic change on any other elements that was my understanding. So you have now everybody has what happened at that meeting and I don't think Jerome got a copy of this. So I don't think you have anything to add. So you have now to put this in the record that they are within their purview is the fair. Let us just take place on the property. Yeah. I'm sure that would be good. Right there, out by the 12. Right there. Okay. Where's kids. So where are we looking at? Here's the off track bedding facility. Yeah. Okay. This is key 12 that you would come in and this is where you'd pay to park. Cars will come around here, park in here and then the facility will be laid out in here. Interesting. Could you update your stuff? So that space that you just circled on the map there looks like two or three rows of cars parked, that's the same as what's up here. Yeah, it's right there. So that's what that is. And then we lose that much parking, but we keep the other parking. Yeah, we have all of that still. That just looks a lot bigger than two rows of parking. So two rows. Well, well, it's from this fence line out to, yeah, okay. So you're gonna cut four rows, but are you gonna get rid of the trees? No. Okay, so that they just don't have to, well, the trees are in their rendering, kind of back here. This is just a rendering, okay. Yeah, this is, okay. But it's gonna be in there. That's that footprint that you showed. And so you have any concerns about losing the parking, I guess not, you wouldn't have done it otherwise. And 20 other parking right there. Yeah, yeah. And when you have any concerns about losing the parking? I guess not. You wouldn't have done it otherwise. We know. And 20 other parking right there. Yeah, yeah. And when you say it's going to be taken down during the Scottish games and no, it is not. It's not taking down. It's not even a lot of the other. It's control during those periods. It'll be paused. Some of we'd be paused during major events. OK. Yeah. So then that is, is that a permanent fixture? Or when we say, when will it be taken up and down, up and down? Hopefully, it doesn't need to be taken up and down. But it is capable of being put into shipping container and new one. Nothing that is construction, It's all so like I'm out set up like a mobile home. It's mobile, but it sits there. And this is just going to be there. Yeah. On going lead, pause during major events. But for all intents and purposes. A permanent structure. again, which can be pulled up and moved away. Okay. I wouldn't use so much. I'm not sure. Mobile home isn't permanent either, but they are there for hundreds of years. It's an exciting project though. And we'll provide passive revenues to the fairgrounds. Did they contract us or contact us to do that? Did we contact them to do that? Was this something that we let out to bid where other software organizations could bid for this? Or how did this happen? They have been in contact with us for many years. Foot sol is a, so this isn't soccer. This is foot sol. It's a much smaller court. And they wanted to use buildings, but they wanted, they were looking for kind of more of a home. And our buildings are used so often that it just didn't ever made sense. And so finally, about a year over a year ago, that Kane Dustin said, we've found these courts that are portable that can just lay down. Faith and grass is going to go in. Would this be something you guys would entertain? And last May, there was a big push to start talking about the product of the fair board and they said, well, let's see if they're serious, because we didn't know how serious they were. And they continued down this path. And we said, well, we're open to the idea provided we can get you in a location that doesn't affect the fair in our largest events. And've given all the parameters that you'd have to close down. You'd have to pay to park for public tournaments. We're in charge of food and beverage because that's how it works here. And if you're not going to tear down, we're going to charge you non-operating days, which is exactly what we do for every other event. So for example, the good guys, car shows start setting up on a Wednesday, Thursday, they're paying a half rate on their rent, or their license fee, and then they pay full rent on the days that they operate. How much is parking? $15 when there's a term. Same. It's always the same. And what, what, what's the annual rent that they pay for us? Oh, that's a contractual discussion. I'd share that with that with you later in your life, but not in a public meeting. It's wise. Any other questions or is it more or less than what you get for other contractual The advantage is it's a kind of built on a square foot per cent dollars per square foot. All right. Any other questions or comments? I just had a question on, I know we had discussed possibly moving them somewhere else because of the driving range. Is that still in the? No, we just tweak their footprint a little to get away from where the balls potentially landed. Yeah, we have no kids get it. We have to solve in the other cooperator area. Yeah, but what's all great? Yeah. So it's real. It's all great. I get it. Any other questions or comments item six is update on the upcoming 2025 fair planning. Fair planning just for the record is 29 days before fair opens before party starts. So everybody's extremely busy. I know most importantly is concert lineup. It's a the party starts. So everybody's extremely busy. I know most importantly is concert lineup. It's a very strong concert lineup this year. You can see some of the names. There's brochures to take back to your offers please. And the other. The fair. Some of our big ones though, we open with Junu-Jalette stuff. I I'm sure. Plank Black is a great country music. Tower of Power is always a winner here. Twist on Taylor is actually a tribute band to... What's your name? Taylor Taylor. Taylor Taylor. So off, obviously not as with you. Yeah, not at all. But we had that one already last year and it was great. That's the real Tesla, the real war, the real air supply, sugar ray, colic ray. So these are all real bands. Meaning they're not tributes. There's only two tributes on this entire list. It's the Elton John and the twist on table. So we've visiting credence as a true band. Yeah, that is the actual... Just without job. Oh, it is. Yeah, Foverty is not. Without Foverty, okay. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm not sure. So I'm shining blind. I'm shining blind. And I'm good. Band. I would say it's coming obvious that the public believes it's exciting like to choose because our sales altogether are up several hundred thousand dollars right here 2025 against 2024. and it's mostly the concerts that's creating that. So if you take concerts out, we're running about even with pre-sale attendance or pre-sale tickets. So concert tickets are different than entrance tickets. Entrance tickets are flat. Total is up, therefore, the difference is concert tickets. Yes. Would you know separately anyway? I'm also knowing currently where we are shy just a little bit, but there is no box seats in the Grand Slam for horse racing. There's no sky lounge. There's no trexite terraced tickets being sold. So to only be down this little bit is actually quite impressive and we're happy to see that. We don't want this to get out of hand. And we did not know the full effect of not having first race. This is also providing for a big promotion $3.50 Wednesdays and $11.00 throwback Thursdays. So those two days are heavily discounted and on sale right now within that. So that's another reason the attendance or not the attendance. The revenue number could be down even though we've sold just as many tickets. Okay, yeah. So what's the ticket count for Stull Account I don't have that in front of me. I'm sorry. Okay. But ticket counts are probably up. Your rate is half. What about 50s or third? Well, they're not all that those are just for those days. Yeah. Okay. All right. So we're excited about that. Hope it continues and then I'm sorry. That was just a thick, quick fair update which you can take brochures with you. Any other concert cost more? You're spending 400,000 to bring in monster truck and other things. So your overall projection is looking to be better than last year, same as last year. Now it's good to last, what for the fair? And keep in mind one of the quick things to say is that when we ran for sure, same for sure. I think our revenue was down off money. We lose 400. Yeah. When we ran for sure. So we're not gonna lose that, is. But I'm just asking what the projection is for this year versus last year on the pair. Money lines. Maybe a downside. We're about to go through. Okay, next item. That's called update on proposed budget. Okay. That's for the fair as well as current cash on hand. Okay. I'll talk about too. I'm not opposed to fair association budget. Yeah, six and seven could have been the same item, I guess, but we have it separate. Okay. And I don't know exactly what you want because you're using it. Somebody has used the word proposed 2025 budget. So I don't know what that means, but the budget was passed last October, it went to the County Board of Supervisors, in November or December, I think it got off by a month because of the genders. Yeah. So we often get a May revise, we often know every month how it changes, but okay. So we'll provide that to you now. Vivi, do you want to speak to what we went through with the closing of forced racing and right during some of this and what we did? Good morning everybody. So I only have three slides and my goal is to show you what happens from the original budget. I was committed. Happening now, but we're November too, which includes GSR and Fair Racing, to what happens in January, went far from GSR Cs there operations and minus racing. So we did forecast in January, and then what happens today. So before I go through all of that, all of these numbers, I just wanted to let everybody know that throughout the year, we constantly do, we've got past things that as you can see through information, just so we know how, even I will look like at the end of the years, we're coming to decisions. All right, so this is comparing the January version to the original budget. Again, original budget submitted in November with CAR and with GSR and Fairways week. And then what happened in January when we started looking for all kinds of opportunities, expenses, but capital expenses to make sure that we're soldering. Fairt, originally it was up by 12%, then when we did the January, we forecast it was up by only, it was up by 8.4%. What do we do? Because we do the fair attendance by 30,000, because there would be, we forecast has no waste. So that's down by 30,000 because there's would be we talked has that and no waste. So that's down by 30,000. 30,000 is a attendance. So that doesn't need a dollar sign in front of it. I'm reading that wrong. Is it 30,000 dollars? 10 things from 420,000 down to 300,000. Oh, I'm looking at B. Okay. Got it. Got it. Got me. So then the per tap per tap per person, you know, for a mission parking is about $15 per person and then multiply by 30,000. So that means we would lose 450,000 in emission and parking. I think it's not. A, it's numbers of attendance. B is money. Yes. The $30,000. I'm $15. That's 30,000 people. 30,000 accounts. Times. We are not expecting. And it just says $30,000. That dollar sign right there. I don't think that's okay. That's all. I'm going to stay there. $30,000 accounts times. I don't know. $15. So it's a reduction of $450,000 in their revenue. Thank you. Okay. Maybe can I just have? Yes. It's our speculation that we believe 30,000 people that ordinarily would have come only for horse racing will not come. So we think that that's actually overstated, but we're being conservative. Got it. That's powerful. Thank you. And there's revenue we expected to lose, which is $150,000. And then there are laws. There is zero out because in the original budget, we estimated we would lose 270, 270, 4000 for the fair waste. Just in the summer. And then the stapling expenses just in the summer. It would it would have cost this 88,000. Then GSR for their total revenue was zero out. We in the original budget, the budget is 2.45 million and the stapling expense reimbursement from them that's 150,000 the rest the licensing fee for the year, which was $3,000 per day. Okay. $3,000 per day for run. RB revenue originally up by 15.6%. Now we budgeted, we forecasted to be only up by 1.6% of it, without the GSR raising hot points, we inverse from card. We're good on this slide. Yeah. Hold on, Vivian. If there's 30,000 less people coming to the grandstand, is that accounting for the far and the food and track side tariff or that's too? No, that's just parking and admission. Okay. The the food commission is in this number 270.000. So that's parking but not admission because 15,000. So $15 a day is what it cost a park a park yes but you have 3.5 passengers in a cart so if you're doing for a head town parking with them three dollars in some of a sense for a head town parking so if I have 30,000 people that come in for racing that we're missing And what does it cost to get in the door? $12 and some ussens. To get in the door isn't it? Well, we've got all this discounting and we have rich. $12. Okay, so that $15 times $30,000 is $12,000. So, that $12,000 is $12, Okay, so that $15 times $30,000 is 12 for admissions through the door and all this for parking. And if I have three people in a car, isn't it $5 per cap? Cause $15 to park. It hasn't turned. Okay. $15 divided by 3.5. $15 divided by 3.5 is $4.30. Supervisor, so we have seasonal pass including the emissions. So your perky is not always $15. Your emissions not always $18. It wouldn't be, it would be fair for us to inflate that revenue. So we take the average per capita from player either. It was just equal to the parking so it seemed like your accounting for that's correct. Right that's it. Okay I get it. Yeah. Any more questions on this slide? Well let me just stand in. So Frank you asked what about the bars and so forth? Yeah, the bars are already in the racing operation profit and lost. And it's already a $274,000 loss. So, you wipe out those sections to the budget. You've just wiped out all the revenues of the bar. castor Bell, it's all in one P&L. I'm going straight to open from that. Okay, you might get a little bit. Thank you, Jerome. Other questions on this slide? You want to take care of him. Thanks for that. I was a person. Good. Yeah. Please. We're going to do two. just what we're talking time. So the calculation that you're using is $9.13 a person that is living in the grandstand at 30,000 people. 30,000 people divided by 274,000, $9.13. It's one of the strong right. Moths. Yes, by the time they leave that day, it would have costs is $9. I think it's not a proper care. For the person who goes with $25. For the best one. It's only to clearly change. Oh my god. This is. There you go. Okay. Okay. Okay. Again, the budget to January forecast to May forecast. What do we do? What have we done that's definitely from the original budget submission? We went in and included the foot saw, right in you. And then we also had a hiring freeze since January. And there were eight positions in event ops that were open. And we either do not fill those positions or they were eliminated. What is NOP's definition? Not already. Okay. All right. And then of course, Stability and Fannie revenue. We were receiving 13.3,000 per day for six days a week through March from the stronic group, no, it was from the TCO and then that was about 970,000. That had very little margin because we received the money and we pay out payroll and other expenses insurance and all that almost in zero margin. So that 970,000 there was not a profit. It was just a receivable, we've got as many pay off all expenses. Some of the expenses we have to prepaid and wait for the money to come in. And then we reduce KABACs by $2.8 million from the original budget submission down to $1.3 million. Primarily, the $1.3 million is on the foundation of the farm project. And we eliminated the construction managers, that was in the original budget, then we cut that expense, Hero expense and additional mails and grounds. One, two, three, 3, 1, 2, 3, open decision. So that saved about, I don't know, $300, $100,000 of that category. Oh, and then we received 1.35 million from the end of 40 tax credit from IRS finally, because we were expecting that money in 2024 and fortunately we received that in also retention for that go over so good saying. We submitted it two years ago. So if we can prove to IRS that your rose receipts significantly, we do to reduce in the year of 2020 and 2021, then you're entitled to the partial of the employee tax credits. It was a choice. Okay. All the companies received it early they're just starting to. TTP. I think it's going to be over. It was similar to. They were a positive. Because there was a lot of fraud. Going on. Oh, good. So that came in perfect timing. When you see that in April. And then. Then we will do it in the main projection. Last item is, because you all know that we received 1.1 to 5 million from car for the sale of their assets and then we received 300,000 from car to pay down their line of car. The 1.125 also pays down their line of credit. 1.125, they asked for that payment to apply to their regular receivable, which was about $2 million because they didn't pay us a penny in 4.4, 4.4 last year. So that 1 million paid down to the 2 million receivable. So now their receivables is $380,000. And is that money that was booked in last year, not this year? Which money? This money is received this year and it's booked for this year. It's booked for this year, but is it to pay a debt that was incurred from last year? That's the correct amount of debt to be raised. Okay. That's correct. Vivian, it was a loss from last year. It was a loss from last year because we wrote all of the entire receivable and as we met that. Okay. That's good. Okay. Any other questions on this slide? There's 300,000 dollars. Part of the three line of credit. No, wasn't it money that came in for the betting or something? Wasn't not a lot of credit though? No, they asked for it to be applied to the line of credit. Okay. But why did it come in so late? Yes, because it takes forever for those betting emissions to roll. Okay. Sort of thought of. Any question on this slide before we look at the last slide? I just got a question. Go back to that slide. 1.125. What we received. Was that from the equipment? Yes. Or what? The equipment in barns. They sold all the equipment in all the barns. That's right. We essentially held a lean on all of that. Is that the right terminology? Right. That's not good. We're good, but this one through. Okay, last slide. I just wanted to show you there's a lot of numbers. You probably can't see how we did to you. The original budget that we submitted, Rudolf Hailey, Senator McCollum here. We show a e-beta of 3.941 million profit and budgeted tax of 2.8 million. And then comes January, we might not have a fair race need and GSR for sure sees their operation. So minus all of that, that's the January forecasted version of P-B-N-A-T 1.6 million and which immediate a reduced have at 2.3 million from 2.8 million. We're good? Yep. Now, May, with all the information we have today, with the DRC check receipt, the 300,000 moving car preceding, and then the 1.125 million from car preceding, with all that information, we did another round of pre-port passed. So our eBana is 4.4 million. I've been in the year, everything's on schedule, on-plan, we will generate a copy of 4.4 million. And if you receive any more new information, we'll do another round of three questions. That backs remains at 1.3 million, again, primarily through the front project And, as wise, this line is, even on my list, the 1.3 billion cup bets will end the year at 3.1 million. Just to show in the revised, this is where Golden State racing money went to zero right there. And this is where fair time racing went to zero as well. So when we talk about pulling those P&Ls out, that's why it's not included. So you have stable revenue and stable expenses in the the May budget have stable revenue and stable expenses in the May budget. But you don't have it in the FY 2025 budget original from October of 2024. That was part of the big part of that is But in October of In October of 2024, you knew that you would be having racing, and you would have had the expected budgeted amount to receive from them at that time. So that was included in the racing piano? Included in the racing piano up here. 1.46 million. Okay, so if it's included, I say, okay, got it. Any other questions on the slide? And you can also see here, this was the three months of stabling. And there's revenue of almost nine. And there's expenses, sure, almost nine. A few of the expenses they actually carry out to the end of the year because there are fixed expenses during my period of expenses. So although the bar group will not be here, we don't provide the stabling services. Your general liability insurance is still there, appropriating insurance that we pay to the county is still there. So those are fixed expenses, but they're not large enough. Let's just make a comment. During all the meetings that we were having during January, February, March, and April, and when the stapling dollars, the 13,000 was came up every month. Everybody referred that to us, oh, you're getting all this money in gross. Nobody ever said that, hey, we are also spending 13,000, but it's not profit. And some of the people that spoke made it sound like we were netting 13,000 a month, we were not, many going out. And we want to make sure that that's fair and then that slide shows the face to the left where it was. This same thing happened tonight when somebody wanted to quote that humble has a million dollars. Right. That's just handled. It's not propped not to net. And they misconstrued these things intentional. Thank you. Can I ask a question, are there only those things? Yes. What is the total of payments that we received back from her? Well, we received that one point one to a total payment. Everything that they did that says. Well, they were paying for a quarter of the week last year. And then for the first stop paying. So let's say it's the same amount as put it for 1.8 million I think. Yes. From one start. In the before, when we're last being in three or at like 1.3 they have submitted that $300,000 check and then we just go all that money from them selling the equipment, right? For the barns and the tractors. That was, I would say it again, the genus, I was under the impression I could be wrong because I don't have all I know, it's swiftly, but I thought we had already received back one point, well, one point two, one point one, we're one point two before selling the tractors and the arms. Just a 300,000. The equipment is the 1.12. Then they gave us the 300,000. That was that meeting where they came and visited with us. And then prior to that, they had been current on the first quarter. Or the third quarter. So that might have been a payment of 600,000? That was exactly. Oh, I remember. 1.3 was the money that they passed for part the quarter of three. Quarter of three. Yes. But that money we've go for. Right. But I'm saying what we've since we ended, since we stopped having them here, what did we receive back so far because the number you'd given us in the last day was like 1.2 or 1.3 then we haven't had a meeting since we just sold all the they just sold all that equipment that's what I asked not quite following your numbers I think we've had a few meetings since we reported quarter three in us here to how we ended the year. How we ended the year was that all of the quarter four we see the goal that was two million. We didn't receive anything from them at the time and we rolled of the entire 2 million that hit our P&L as bad that expense. Since then we received 300,000 from Dana back in March she personally delivered that chat and she asked for that 300,000 to apply to their line of credit. They also pay like another 80,000 that they ACHUed. But 80,000. And then they okay I had it all written down. I just I lost. I remember that the note in my card. I remember. So it was 79,000. 79,000. They paid for one of the twenty twenty four months for the line of credit. Because Latin credit, it was an amortization schedule. So every month they pay about 80,000. They pay for one month and then they start paying $0,079,000 or $80,000. And then when we see the $300,000 from Dana back in March, she asked me to apply that $300,000 to the three more months of that alignment credit. So now if you look at the Amerinization for that alignment credit, I think four out of many, many months, it's been paid for. I've seen another way. How much question? Do they always at this point? I think $3.8 million. Less. Well, hold on. 3.8 million that includes the 974,000 from the regular research hall plus another 2.8, 2.9 million on the line credit. If you add those together, it's about 3.849. But they still look like the fixed one. But that's cash. Yes, okay. Even though they sold equipment of 1.1 million. Yeah, 1.1 million. Did they not give that all to us? They did. Okay. But they they had they always like 3.2 million. If you minus 1.1 million, they sell always 2 million. So do they always us 2 million or 3.8 million? They always 2 million from the line credit and they go always another million from the regular receivable. We've run all the expenses. So if you add those together it's about. Yes, I'm for you. I love, good point. Any other questions? Any public comment? The only one. Ron, would you just mention what we're doing at the directors of the Sky Lounge for the supervisors and for people during the airtime? Quite good. The Sky Lounge will be open nightly from the weekend. 530, practical to 830. The bar will be open. Use of script is allowed. There'll be heavy appetizers. It'll be for board, emeritus, VIPs, and will entertain sponsors. That's the plan. Good. Any other questions? We look forward to seeing you at the closing party one. Yeah. Thank you. And the ribbon cutting. I got checked my schedule. You have a done one. So, I'm just going to say how many. You have one. I got checked my schedule. I can't just have a recording. I got to see. Any other public comments? Seeing none, we're adjourned. Thank you. We got a run. We got a run. We got a run. We got a run.