Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fairgrounds Use And Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rusk County committee debates outside events at fairgrounds, refers requests to county board
Summary
Committee members debated whether to allow outside events such as a bull-riding show and a rodeo at the Rusk County Fairgrounds — citing revenue, scheduling and wetlands concerns — and voted to refer any completed usage agreements to the full county board for final action.
Rusk County Fairgrounds Committee members debated whether to allow outside commercial events at the county fairgrounds and voted to send any completed usage agreements to the Rusk County Board for final decision.
The issue drew extended comment from committee members, fairboard volunteers and event organizers over the practical and fiscal effects of additional events such as a bull-riding/bull-in-barrels show, a proposed rodeo and high‑speed boat races tied to a Mardi Gras weekend. Committee member **** Orsinger, identifying herself as “the elected representative for District 13 of the County Board,” said the county should “encourage as much tourism and as much visiting to our county as we can” and argued the fairgrounds should be used more often to bring visitors and spending to local businesses. She said state Department of Natural Resources staff — whom she identified as Dan Harrington in a Spooner DNR office — told her the rodeo would not necessarily damage fairgrounds if managed properly.
Others pressed competing concerns. Justin Houston (role not specified in the transcript) and fair volunteers said events scheduled close to the county fair — specifically two weeks before the fair — could draw attendance away from the county fair’s own rodeo and sponsors. Committee members and a speaker who identified themselves as the sheriff questioned whether two events would cancel each other out or whether people would attend both; one committee member said they would personally attend both events.
Several speakers urged the committee to prioritize revenue generation given recent investments in the fairgrounds. Another committee member (identified in the transcript as Mr. Runstrom) listed recent upgrades and argued the county should not turn down revenue opportunities. At least one commenter cautioned that allowing preferential treatment to one group could raise questions under the county ethics ordinance and advised consultation with corporate counsel.
The committee settled the procedural question with a motion: upon receipt of a completed usage agreement, the committee will forward the request to the county board for final action. The motion passed after a second and voice vote. Committee members noted the item will return to the county board agenda in March for a final decision.
Why it matters: Committee members framed the dispute as a trade-off between protecting the county fair’s attendance and maximizing use and revenue from a publicly funded facility that has received recent capital upgrades. The referral preserves local oversight while moving formal approval to the full county board.
Details and next steps: Committee members said they will accept formal, completed usage agreements from event organizers; those completed agreements will be placed on the county board agenda for final approval. The committee also asked staff to confirm event dates, insurance certificates, any proposed revenue-sharing or sponsor arrangements and construction activity that could conflict with events (for example, new restrooms scheduled for completion in mid‑summer).
