Revamping Racing’s Future Part 1: The Proposal, continued


“T ese new synthetic surfaces are looking like the best bet for the future with such dras- tic weather changes that we are now seeing,” Foreman told T e Equiery. Foreman was part of the team that investigated the fatalities in New York during the winter of 2011-2012 and strongly believes that climate change is the cause of these deaths. “Whenever there is a cluster of fatalities like


we saw in New York, and then again at Santa Anita this past winter, we need to look for what has changed,” he said. “In New York, 2011- 2012 was one of the most unusual winters they had seen with really cold nights and days that would warm up quickly. T ese changes aff ect the track surfaces.” Foreman added, “T is past winter at Santa


Anita was one of the coldest and wettest win- ters ever. T eir track [surface] wasn’t used to that sort of weather. T e track surface was made for more arid weather.” T ese fatalities have led to a new group based in Kentucky tasked with studying the eff ects of climate change on various track surfaces. So far, it seems synthetic surfaces are the most reliable, though the of- fi cial Kentucky study has not been completed.


The Money In December of 2018, the Maryland Stadium


Authority released a study estimating that it would take $424 million just to rebuild Pim- lico. At the time, T e Stronach Group stated that they fully supported the idea but were not going to invest any more money into that track. T e players were tasked with how to save Pim- lico and renovate Laurel all while “living within our means,” as Rifkin stated at the press confer- ence. He added, “T e real question being asked of the group was how much money do we have and how can we stretch that.” With the new proposal, which eliminated most of the permanent seating at Pimlico and replacing it with temporary seating ar- eas, Pimlico’s rebuilding plan is estimated at $199,547,000 while Laurel’s is estimated at $173,365,000. T is brings the total proposed project for both tracks to $372,912,000, which is less than the original estimate for just Pimli- co by the Maryland Stadium Authority’s study. Knowing that funds for this project could not be taken from the tax payers and must be paid for by the industry itself, experts were brought in to look at current rac- ing revenue and how to apply that to the new proposal. T e new pro- posal draws funds from cash bonds and existing Capital Improvement Funds balances with the bonds payments com- ing from the current Racetrack Facility Re- newal Account (RFRA). T e RFRA gets money from 1% of the State’s casino video lottery terminal revenue. T ose 42 | THE EQUIERY | NOVEMBER 2019


funds are then divided into multiple segments. T is proposal would use the T oroughbred industry’s 80% share of the Racetrack Capital Improvement Funds, which is $8.5 million, while the City of Baltimore’s portion would be $3.5 million from the City Infrastructure Con- tribution and the horsemen would contribute $5 million from the Purse Dedication Account.


“The real question being asked of the


group was how much money do we have and how can we stretch that.” - Alan Rifkin, counsel for the Maryland Jockey Club


T is would allot $17 million annually to bond payments. Bond Proceeds, based on the RFRA con-


tribution, would account for $348 million of the project and would be managed through the Maryland Stadium Authority. T e esti- mate Capital Improvement Funds cash bal- ance of $27.5 million (as of March 31, 2021) would bring the total funding for the project to $375.5 million. T is new plan would need approval from the


Maryland General Assembly to extend the life of the RFRA for the duration of the term of initial debt issuance. T e proposal


requests a


30-year extension. Note: Reported here is a very simple breakdown


of funds. For more specifi cs on the RFRA and Bond Proceeds proposal, see equiery.com.


Tentative Timeline T e fi rst step to get any of these projects off


the ground is with the 2020 Maryland General Assembly legislative session that begins in Jan- uary. T e proposal will need to be drafted into legislation that then must be passed into law before any construction can begin. “Everything presented today is a plan that must be approved by the legislature,” Foreman explained at the press conference. If approved, construction at Laurel will start


The Equiery wants to hear from you! What do you think of the new Pimlico/ Laurel proposal?


Email your thoughts to editor@equiery.com


fi rst. “We will likely have to shift all live racing to Pimlico while the Laurel backstretch and new track are being built,” Cole said. T is does mean that the horsemen at Laurel will be tem- porarily displaced. “T e logistics still need to be worked out but we’ve already started working on these details,” Keefe told T e Equiery. “It will be challeng-


ing for the horsemen for sure, but we will be able to work it out,” Harrison added. “T e end result will be worth it. We have the potential here to increase the overall industry in the state including breeding farms, training facilities…


all of it.” Keefe said MTHA has started looking into


Timonium, Pimlico, Bowie and even Fair Hill as possible temporary sites for the Lau- rel horsemen. Rifkin, Foreman and Cole have already started talking with Gerry Brewster, president of the Maryland State Fair Board at Timonium. “We have nearly 600 stalls and a 5/8 mile track at Timonium,” Brewster told T e Equiery, “and we have housed horses from Pimlico during renovations in 2001 and even early in 1992.” Although Timonium seems the most likely


location for the displaced horsemen, it too needs some renovating before it can accommo- date horses year-round. “T e fi rst track on the property was in 1819 and the Fair has run races here for 140 years. Our infrastructure is crum- bling with some pipes being over 100 years old!” Brewster said. He also pointed out that the current track at Timonium would need to be winterized to allow for year-round training. Despite these challenges, Brewster said he is


“We are cautiously optimistic and happy to hear that the group [who presented this proposal] has publially said they will sup- port Timonium’s needs.” - Gerry Brewster, Maryland State Fair Board chairman


“cautiously optimistic” and “happy to hear that the group [who presented this proposal] has publically said they will support Timo- nium’s needs.” T e Maryland State


Fair is an IRS Section 501(c)3 nonprofi t and any changes to the fa-


cility will need to be approved by its board, but the board is “open to discussions,” according to Brewster. Once Laurel is complete, the new Pimlico


complex work will begin. Rifkin assured the public that even during construction, the Preak- ness will be held at Pimlico. “We might have to run a year with limited seating, but the Preak- ness will not be moved from Pimlico,” he said. If approved, the project is projected to take


three to four years for completion. When com- pleted, the Preakness will stay at Pimlico and Maryland will be able to host year-round rac- ing at Laurel. “T is proposal is as much about community as it is about the Preakness,” Fore- man told T e Equiery. “We are needing to fi x the industry as a whole, not just the Preakness.”


Your Thoughts T e Equiery wants to hear what your thoughts


are on the new Pimlico/Laurel proposal. Are you in favor or against this new proposal? Do you think this proposal is the solution to the problems the Maryland racing industry is fac- ing? How does this proposal aff ect you person- ally, if at all? Voice your opinion by emailing editor@equi-


ery.com. Please include your name, hometown and your involvement with the Maryland horse community.


800-244-9580 | www.equiery.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60