Lawmakers hear wide-ranging testimony on county fair resiliency grant bill; smaller fairs urge lower match

The Senate Appropriations, Government and Operations Division opened a hearing on House Bill 15‑91, a bill to appropriate funds to the Agriculture Commissioner for a county fair resiliency grant program, drawing testimony from fair board members across North Dakota who described urgent infrastructure needs and the economic role of fairgrounds.

Why it matters: Proponents said county fairgrounds are community assets that support youth programming, local businesses and tourism; opponents and several small-county witnesses warned a 1:1 local match added by the House would put the grants out of reach for the smallest counties.

Mark Landa, secretary of the Greater Grand Forks Fair board, told the committee he “strongly support[s] the appropriation of these funds to help county fairs across the state of North Dakota maintain and upgrade facilities.” Landa summarized Grand Forks’ history as a fair host and provided impact figures from Visit Greater Grand Forks: the Greater Grand Forks Fair’s 2024 direct sales were listed at $466,166 and the broader community impact that year at $716,172. Landa also said the fair has “well over $1,000,000 worth of repairs and improvements” on its list and described racetrack and event activity that bring visitors and sales tax revenue to the region.

Smaller counties urged changes to the House amendment requiring a 1:1 match. Nathan Schneider of Burke County — a county with about 2,200 residents — said the added match “has become unattainable for us.” He asked the committee for a sliding scale or lower-match option keyed to county population, and said in his view a straight dollar-for-dollar match would leave the smallest fairs unable to apply.

Other witnesses described a range of conditions and needs. Mark Hafner and Rick Baumann (Mercer County) described recent investments — $300,000 on hoop buildings and $90,000 on electrical upgrades — and said the county contributes annual support; Diane Shell, president of the McLean County Fair Board, described ADA and health-code needs including restroom upgrades and a commercial hood/suppression system she said can cost $7,000–$8,000. Don Jelsing of the Pierce County Fair described moving to a new site that currently lacks water, electricity and buildings and said some fairs are effectively starting from scratch.

Representatives of fairs large and small urged flexibility in matching rules. Several witnesses said the House amendment’s strict 1:1 match is likely feasible for larger fairs but would effectively exclude many of the roughly three dozen county fairs in North Dakota. Testimony suggested roughly one‑third of county fairs are in counties with fewer than 3,000 residents and another roughly one‑third are in counties with 3,000–10,000 residents, making a dollar‑for‑dollar match difficult for many boards that rely on volunteer labor and limited mill levies.

Representative Mitch Osterly, prime sponsor, said he supports a local match of some kind but that the House chose to set a 1:1 match rather than leave the precise criteria to the Agriculture Commissioner. John Schneider of the Department of Agriculture (Business, Marketing and Information Division) told the committee the Ag Commissioner is “very familiar with getting grant programs” and that, if the Legislature removed the House match language, the department could develop sliding‑scale or in‑kind match rules by administrative rule as allowed by the statute.

No formal committee vote on HB 15‑91 was recorded during the hearing; the Division closed the record after testimony and said it would work on the bill. The committee heard multiple requests from small fairs for either (a) a match formula scaled to county population, (b) acceptance of in‑kind or pledged matches over several years, or (c) a reduced match for the smallest counties so the grants reach the fairs that need them most.

The committee also received written material referenced by Landa and others, including an event impact summary and a letter from Visit Greater Grand Forks documenting event spending; witnesses asked that the committee consider those figures in evaluating grant size and match requirements.

Looking ahead: Committee members signaled receptivity to accommodations such as in‑kind match options, sliding scales by population, or pledge periods; the Department of Agriculture said it could draft rules if the Legislature allows flexibility. No final appropriation or vote occurred in the hearing; HB 15‑91 will return for committee action after the members and sponsor consider possible amendments.

Ending note: Testimony illustrated strong bipartisan local support for preserving and upgrading fairgrounds, but brought into focus the tradeoffs in designing a program that reaches both larger, revenue‑generating fairs and very small county fairs with limited local resources.