Racing board tables decision on Northern California proposal

At a meeting Thursday, the California Horse Racing Board heard a proposal for 2026 race dates in Northern California, after which it tabled a decision on the plan until next month.

A combination of Northern California racing interests stood behind a proposal for 2026 race dates at three fairs.

CHRB wrote in the board package before the meeting that several legal and procedural issues with the original proposal needed to be resolved, and their concerns were hammered home by the California Department of Food and Agriculture in a letter to George Schmitt, the principal in Bernal Park Racing, regarding the Bernal plan to run meets at three northern fairs. 

“After a thorough review, we have determined that the current statutory framework does not provide authority for CDFA to approve the proposed structure,” CDFA secretary Karen Ross wrote. “Food and Agriculture Code 4058 envisions entities formed by fairs or similar public organizations, and existing provisions do not contemplate private entities leasing racetrack facilities for the purpose of conducting live horse racing meetings. Additionally, existing statues impose restrictions that would prevent implementation of the proposal as submitted.” 

This letter was dated Jan. 13 and received by the CHRB late Tuesday, less than 24 hours before Wednesday’s CHRB meeting and not in time to include in either the public or commissioners’ packages, though the commissioners were provided late Tuesday with the CDFA letter and two related documents. Those documents have since been uploaded. The northern interests quickly pivoted at the meeting and revised the proposal to indicate that the three fairs – Alameda County, Humboldt County and Tehama District – would be the applicants, not Bernal, though Bernal would help run the meets under contract. Schmitt and others urged the commissioner to allocate a total of 12 weeks of dates, four weeks at each of the three fairs, two each for racing and two each for simulcast wagering. 

Executive director Scott Chaney said “staff cannot recommend these date allocations because we have not had even close to adequate time to evaluate this (new) proposal.” He added, “I don’t know what the plan is. (Therefore, approval) is not the way in which a regulatory body should act.” 

Commissioner Davis said, “We need to have something in front of us that says this is the plan. The plan in our Board packet right now has changed. We are not in a position to know what the plan is other than what came in last night. We appreciate that we have an overview, but we don’t have the level of detail that we are looking for to make a decision about race allocations.” 

When this discussion touched on the reliability of information coming from proponents in the past, Chairman Ferraro misspoke when he made a reference to the late John Harris, who had partnered with Schmitt in a proposal for dates last year. The reference should have been to the Big Fresno Fair. 

Chairman Ferraro voiced a motion that the board schedule a February meeting “at which time we will make some sort of decision” on the sole issue of northern race dates. Commissioner Castellanos urged the three fairs to “step up to the plate” and each submit the required documentation ahead of that meeting. The precise date and location of the February meeting is to be determined.