Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fairgrounds Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairgrounds audit finds revenue controls largely sound, recommends improved consistency and vendor documentation
Summary
Auditors said fairgrounds revenue was generally complete and accurate but identified consistency and oversight gaps across revenue streams; they recommended consistent two‑person deposit procedures, improved vendor documentation and clearer marketing responsibilities; five recommendations were accepted with an August 1 target.
Audit staff reported on a review of the fairgrounds' revenue controls covering the period March 1, 2023 through Feb. 28, 2025. Auditors tested multiple revenue streams — flea/farmer's market booths, event promoters, race and parking revenue — conducted a vendor booth reconciliation and surveyed vendors and promoters.
The auditors concluded revenue appeared complete and accurate and that vendors were generally satisfied, but they found inconsistent application of strong controls (for example, a two‑person count form was not consistently used for all revenue sources). Auditors issued two medium‑risk and two low‑risk observations and five recommendations, all of which management accepted with an implementation target of Aug. 1.
Recommendations included consistently using two‑person deposit counting procedures across revenue sources, better maintaining vendor documentation (business license and sales‑tax numbers), clarifying and documenting booth‑spreading policies to ensure fairness among vendors, and clarifying marketing/promotional responsibilities between fairgrounds management and event promoters. Auditors also suggested leveraging social media when feasible to improve event awareness.
Fairgrounds staff explained that some recent revenue changes were driven by a prior COVID‑era grant subsidy for the flea market that expired, and that weather and seasonality affect booth participation. During the site visit auditors found at least one vendor who had not paid but then paid after being contacted and recommended better verification during set‑up. Management welcomed the recommendations and said they will implement the accepted changes.
The committee asked about survey response rates (roughly 179 responses from ~2,000 invites) and the potential for self‑selection bias in vendor surveys. The audit team noted the concern and still considered vendor feedback helpful for identifying marketing gaps.
