Dunn County fair board reviews carnival contract after fuel surcharges and a projected shortfall

Dunn County Fair Board members on the meeting discussed carnival contract problems and a year-to-date deficit that fair staff say resulted in an estimated $34,000 to $45,000 shortfall.

The board heard that the fiscal projection showed a roughly $45,000 loss, which staff narrowed by about $13,000 after two incoming NTPA checks and additional per-diem receipts, leaving a projected gap near $34,000. Deb, who prepared the packet materials, told the board that reconciling deposits and projected deposits through August produced the current estimate and that some sponsor checks had not cleared, including one sponsor payment of $501.01 that could not be accounted for.

The discussion centered on the fair’s contracted carnival operator. Staff reported that the carnival deducted a $5,306 fuel surcharge from what it paid the fair and that GFL (the county’s garbage contractor) also assessed a new fuel surcharge of $1,344.60 that was not in past years’ billing. Deb said she raised the charge with the carnival operator and was told, “well, that’s kinda standard this year,” referring to the surcharge being deducted from the carnival’s settlement with the fair.

Board members also reviewed discrepancies between the carnival’s advertised ride prices and the prices patrons were charged. Staff provided the board copies of multiple contracts and receipts showing that mega-band prices at the event were $90 and $110 while a contract line said $80 in advance and $100 at the event. The group also discussed that a Thursday “kids’ day” of $2 rides appeared to have been limited in hours this year, and that the carnival closed earlier on Sunday than contract notes indicated. Staff said promised rides and advertised units sometimes did not appear on site.

Corporate counsel Jim is working with fair staff on a possible breach-of-contract letter to the operator; Deb said she has been assembling evidence and communicating with Jim. Board members agreed to invite the carnival representative (identified in meeting discussion as Vinny) to a future meeting, likely in October or November, for the operator to explain pricing, wristband and card systems, and ride counts. No formal action to terminate the contract was taken; counsel’s contact and the planned request that the operator appear were presented as next steps, and board members warned the county could face litigation if the operator refused to cooperate.

Why it matters: the fair relies on sponsorships, carnival settlements and gate revenue; unexpected deductions and contract deviations affect the fair’s bottom line and how county funds are accounted for.

What’s next: Jim, corporate counsel, will draft correspondence to the carnival operator and staff will bring contract copies and additional documentation to the next meeting. The board scheduled asking the operator to appear so members can hear how the carnival’s card and pricing systems will work going forward.

Speakers quoted or paraphrased in this article are identified in the speaker list below. This article distinguishes discussion (contract concerns, pricing discrepancies, missing receipts) from direction (inviting the operator back) and from formal action (none taken on contract termination at this meeting).