By Larry Windom
A resolution establishing an Economic Development Authority was approved by the members of the Wright County Board of Commissioners during their regular meeting held Tuesday, Nov. 24.
Fostering the creation of this brand new, legal entity is a desire to eventually redevelop the current Wright County Government Center and Health and Human Services properties in the city of Buffalo. Both buildings will be empty after the completion and occupancy of the new Government Center that is now under construction.
A new Wright County Government Center is currently being built on the northern edge of Buffalo, on Braddock Avenue, next to the new Wright County Jail and Law Enforcement Center. When completed in the fall of 2021, the present Government Center, located on Second Street in downtown Buffalo, as well as the Human Services Center, located along Commercial Drive in a building that once was a Pamida store, will both be vacant.
At the moment, there is no plan for filling these very large and soon to be vacant buildings. And that is what is prompting county commissioners to instigate a process that they have, in the past, been reluctant to start. “Right now, our main focus is to be able to liquidate or market our properties; that’s kind of our primary function right now,” commented Commissioner Christine Husom.
That process starts with the establishment of an Economic Development Authority, or EDA, which has the statutory authority to engage in a variety of development-related activities that counties themselves do not possess.
An EDA is, in one sense, an expansion of the county’s powers and abilities. But it is also, in another sense, the creation of a new level of government that has, among other things, the right to tax, and that is what has prompted board members to approach the proposal with considerable caution.
During Tuesday morning’s meeting, commissioners took turns expressing these concerns before unanimously agreeing to pass the resolution. Commissioner Darek Vetsch listed the key reasons for moving ahead with the proposal, but then stressed, “I have no interest in the creation of another taxing authority.” Other board members echoed his comments.
Commissioner Charles Borrell, who voted in the past against pursuing the idea, reminded his fellow board members that he’d been “basically against this all the way.” But he said he could support the creation of an EDA with the addition of a “sunset” provision, meaning that the EDA would cease to exist after a predetermined number of years. He suggested five.
The proposed sunset provision prompted several minutes of discussion before the idea was dropped in favor of a less terminal approach. The resolution, as presented, already requires an annual detailed report to the county board. Advisor Bruce Kimmel, of Ehlers, Inc., suggested to the board that the EDA’s by-laws could be strengthened to require an annual vote by commissioners on whether or not to continue. This, he said, might prevent future “mushy rubber-stamps” of EDA annual reports.
Instead of disbanding the EDA, Kimmel suggested, it might be better to simply allow it to go dormant. Commissioner Vetsch agreed, “There is value in having the EDA, even if we go, say, three years from now and we get to the point where it is there, but we don’t utilize it, and it becomes dormant. Who’s to say that a year or two from then, all of a sudden, there is some other county property that we need to use the EDA to liquidate?”
Another key governor, of course, would be the fact that the EDA would be largely made up of members of the county board. The authority board, by resolution, will be made up of the five commissioners, plus two at-large members who are also approved by the county commission.
Although the catalyst for a county EDA is the future redevelopment of the pair of county properties, the EDA would also be able to partner with other local communities and with the Wright County Economic Development Partnership in their respective efforts to achieve specific economic projects. Also, a county EDA might also open the door for state and federal grants and other resources that are available mainly to larger public development agencies.
Addressing this, Commissioner Vetsch said, “Yes, 80 percent of what we’re doing is for the liquidation of property. The other 10 percent is, if we are going to do this, is that we should be at least be cognizant that there are some other potential benefits in this.”
The resolution gives cities, which often have their own EDAs or Housing Redevelopment Authorities, and townships the option of opting in or out of participating with the new county EDA.
The proposal to create an EDA has been in the air for months. This past summer, commissioners commissioned a temporary EDA Advisory Committee to discuss the possible role of a new county EDA. Meeting in August and October, the advisory committee prepared a final, positive report that was presented to commissioners on Tuesday.
As discussion ended and a vote was taken, Commissioner Borrell commented that he’d have to “put my trust” in the EDA board to enact by-laws with proper precautions, and he then went along with the rest of the board in an unanimous vote for the resolution.
Another discussion on another development-related topic did not go as well.
The county has been in discussion with the Monticello School District over a proposal for the two entities to jointly create a nature-based learning center at the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park, located on the edge of the city of Monticello.
This proposal would require the county to construct a new building at the park that would be leased to the school district to be used as classrooms and also be available for other public uses. Appearing before the commissioners, Parks and Recreation Director Marc Mattice said the next step in this very preliminary procedure would be to hire a firm to come up with a conceptual site plan and a price estimate for the project. The cost for this plan, according to a pair of engineering proposals, would be about $10,000.
In front of the board was a recommendation from a focus group to proceed by hiring a firm to prepare the plan. Commissioners, who had in the past expressed some reluctance over the proposal, discussed the plan briefly and then voted to not move forward.
Citing a number of reservations on the part of the county, including a concern that the county’s perceived use of the building might be contrary to the school district’s vision, Commissioner Vetsch commented, “If there is no interest to want to finance a building … I don’t want to lead the school down a rabbit hole.”
Commissioner Michael Potter agreed, “As much as you’d like to do all these things, it does not fit into the core function of what we do.” He then offered a motion to deny taking action, which was unanimously passed.