February’s regularly scheduled board meeting of the Humboldt County Fair Association included an announcement from Junior Livestock Auction Chair Mandy Marquez that the committee has added three new members (Lee Chamberlain, Charlie Anderson and Breanna Cahoon), a decision for revised fair dates that will allow for the possibility of an open show and a report out on the recent sponsor dinner. But — as has been the case for the last several months — the question of whether or not horse racing will happen in August dominated a majority of the discussion. (For more on the decision to change the fair dates how the fair association violated state open meeting laws, click here.)
During public comment, The Enterprise asked for an update on the fair’s 2025 budget, which was initially scheduled for review in November. Finance Committee Chair Jack Rice said there had not been a finance committee meeting in the last month and development of the budget was “paused” until a decision has been made regarding horse racing.
The date of that decision is yet to be determined. In a Feb. 6 meeting, the board received direction from Michael Margetts — former chief financial officer of the Sonoma County Fair — on what would be required of HCFA should it choose to put on a meet independent of California Association of Racing Fairs (CARF). CARF recently announced it will not seek racing dates for 2025, leaving many Northern California fairs without the financial and logistical support to continue racing. These financial and logistical concerns were at the heart of the board’s request to the Racing Committee to return with a proposal that would shed some light on the potential risks and rewards of going it alone.
The Racing Committee commissioned a report from Stacey Lapham, director for Sonoma County Fair and former program manager for CARF, about the viability of a 2025 meet. The report was made available to the board on the morning of its meeting leaving — several directors commented — little opportunity for review.
In a Feb. 17 Executive Committee meeting, Board President Andy Titus said racing represents a key financial opportunity for the fair, telling the committee it generated a profit of $120,000 last year. A draft budget provided to The Enterprise in January showed a loss for horse racing in 2024 of roughly $6,000, with the organization as a whole in the red to the tune of approximately $60,000 for the year. CEO Moira Kenny later explained the organization was recently informed CARF still owes it approximately $200,000 for 2024, which would push the final figures for racing and the association into the black. (With CARF facing potential fiscal insolvency, however, it’s unclear if HCFA will receive the owed funds.)
Lapham’s proposal estimates total horse racing revenue for 2025 at roughly $1 million, with a total net profit of $106,000. This figure excludes estimated extra expenses to the fairgrounds, including utilities, security and straw removal totaling around $50,000. Other expenses figuring into Lapham’s projections include hiring a director of racing, as well as other management consultants ($50,000) and contract services ($25,000). Curiously, some line items were excluded from 2025 expenses, such as a horse ambulance, while others were greatly reduced. Track maintenance, for example, fell from $30,000 in 2024 to a projected $5,000 in 2025. This may be due to the cost-sharing of CARF expenses, which will not be a factor in 2025. Other items — such as software expenses — are predicted to increase dramatically.
The report also notes some potential challenges, such as the cost of setting up and training on racetrack software, contract negotiations and labor agreements with various horsemen associations and simulcast companies, the potentially limited availability of both horses and staff and the need to purchase, rent or borrow equipment formerly provided by CARF.
Racing Committee Chair Greg Gomes concurred the committee will have to meet with Lapham and get more information. Rice expressed dissatisfaction with the report and the manner in which it was solicited.
“I requested a plan. This is an outline of a plan at best,” he said, adding that he believes they agreed at their previous meeting that the plan should come from the Racing Committee and not take up additional resources, including money or staff time. (Lapham was paid $1,000 for the report.)
Rice quizzed Kenny on whether she had spent much time dealing with horseracing in recent weeks; Kenny replied that it had taken up the majority of her time, but now that Lapham had the information she’d requested, things might ease up a bit. Kenny also said she had put in overtime to meet the needs of Lapham and the Racing Committee. Rice said that, based on the association’s financial position, it was trying to avoid overtime.
“We have limited resources as a fair,” he said. “We know it’s going to be a lot different this year. We had a lot of projects to work on aside from racing. It’s my own view that we have to be careful because there are so many other things we have to work on. I am worried that we are going to focus all in on that and if racing doesn’t happen, we’re going to lose time.”
“We also decided as a board to give this a shot,” replied Gomes. “We’re going to vote tonight to move forward with it.”
“Whether or not to go forward with it,” said Rice.
With the board eventually voting to table discussion of the report until it can be reviewed at length and the Racing Committee has a chance to talk to Lapham, the meeting moved on to vote on whether to seek dates from the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) in March. The decision to seek dates is the first of a series of deadlines that culminates May 15, when the association must initiate its race meet application in order to race in August. The agenda item included direction from CHRB Executive Director Scott Chaney, who said there are no “statutory criteria” governing date requests, meaning the board or its representative could request the date prior to meeting the burden of proof for feasibility a license would require.
Rice again raised the issue of whether focusing on racing will take resources away from planning a fair that would be financially viable without racing.
“Maybe everybody thinks I’m trying to drag the board through a knothole,” he said. “If we get to June and the financial backing disappears, we’re going to be in the worst of all worlds.”
Gomes said the board will have all the information it needs about finances by the end of next month, saying he has been in conversation with potential financial backers, but he refused to name them in the open meeting.
“I don’t think we can discourage any help: legal, financial, ideas,” said Director Lawrence Dwight, adding that the board was getting “the cart before the horse” by worrying about figures before applying for dates. “The [contracts] will come. We seen it back in COVID. We’re going down a good road.”
Director Clint Duey said he agreed the board must do due diligence for the financial health of the fair, but didn’t think they were putting that health in jeopardy by pursuing dates.
Rice said the board also had the responsibility to put on a successful meet if they were going to do it, saying racing in California is facing a lot of skepticism and challenges.
“Where are we if we don’t have enough horses?” he asked.
“As long as we put on six races a day we get the ADW,” said Gomes, referring to advance deposit wagering.
“Nothing is for certain,” Gomes added. “You could die tomorrow.”
Titus called for a motion, which was seconded by Director Johanna Rodoni. The motion to ask Lapham to submit dates to the CHRB was approved by a voice vote, with Rice being the lone nay.
In other news, Titus — reporting for the Building and Grounds Committee — presented a master list of repairs and maintenance projects for the fairgrounds. The 44 pending projects include mold treatment for the Art Building ceiling and completing the Friendship Square walkway. Forty-nine projects were marked as complete. Rice asked if a recent roof patch on Belotti Hall had worked, and Kenny replied that there is still water leaking onto the stage, as well as water found in the bathrooms, which may have been the result of plumbing issues. She said the company was now recommending a complete replacement of the roof, for which Titus estimated a cost of approximately $100,000.
Humboldt County First District Supervisor Rex Bohn also attended the meeting to tell the board he had recently met with county staff and that — while a formal meeting will still be necessary — it seems likely the county will extend its lease with the fairgrounds for another year, allowing the board and staff to focus on other matters.
The next regularly scheduled board meeting for the Humboldt County Fair Association is March 31 at 5 p.m.
Editor’s note: This article first appeared in the Feb. 27 edition of The Ferndale Enterprise, which is owned by North Coast Journal Inc.
This article appears in ‘Breathing Room’.
