Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fairgrounds Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairboard urges Bremer County support for walkways, parking and event center improvements
Summary
Fairboard representatives told supervisors they conservatively estimate the fair draws about 72,000 attendees and outlined a multi‑phase plan—including hard‑surface promenades, accessible sidewalks and parking—seeking targeted county support (including $50,000 for concrete) and confirming $6 million already invested in improvements.
Representatives of the Bremer County Fairboard outlined plans for multi‑phase improvements to the county fairgrounds and asked the Board of Supervisors for targeted support to complete accessible walkways and parking.
During a presentation to the board, a Fairboard representative said the chamber provided formulas for an economic estimate and that a conservative attendance figure for the fair is about 72,000. "If we are assuming that 72,000 people ... spent $10," the presenter said, that would translate into roughly half a million dollars flowing back into the local economy; the presenter described this as a conservative calculation and noted vendor receipts and capital investment that are not fully captured in the estimate.
The Fairboard described three priority walkways (including a north‑east connection and a promenade), additional hard‑surface parking near the event center and livestock building, and phased promenade work to reflect traffic patterns observed at recent events. The Fairboard said it has received multiple proposals and estimates: asphalt parking quoted at roughly $149,000 and concrete at about $190,000; a shorter concrete walkway segment tied to accessibility needs was estimated in the $25,000–$50,000 range and was included in this year’s ask.
Fairboard representatives said they have assembled $6,000,000 in cash and in‑kind contributions to date and are pursuing grants and gift funding; one named donor amount in the discussion was a $10 gift earmarked for sidewalks. Supervisors asked about other funding sources and whether the fairboard planned to seek recurring county support; the board discussed whether the fair’s requests should be treated as one‑time capital assistance or ongoing operational support.
Supervisors also raised a county property question related to a front parcel the county holds; the fairboard leader expressed willingness to work with county staff to determine whether any county entity needs the parcel or whether it could revert to the original owner if no public need exists.
What happens next: Supervisors indicated the county could consider a one‑time budget supplement for the identified concrete work timed for a July 1 expenditure and directed staff to pursue follow‑up conversations with the fairboard regarding scope and funding sources.
Votes: The fairboard presentation did not require a board vote; subsequent capital/reserve funding would need formal board action.
