01.19.16 EDA Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the entity to evaluate and underwrite their loan programs, but the County Board retains the ultimate authority to approve the allocation of those financial resources. In addition to the private sector business representation, these boards can be comprised of representatives of smaller communities. This allows for these public private entities to pool resources and provide economic development technical assistance to those communities that don't otherwise have the individual capacity. Large communities with more staff and financial capacity use these types of structures more as an advisory board representing private sector business interests. In the case of Washington County, Woodbury and Oakdale use this structure to help develop Economic Development Strategic Plans. Since the primary benefit of this structure is to encourage private sector involvement through board participation and possibly financial support, the question is how could this type of structure benefit Washington County and what are the downsides. Research shows that often counties in Minnesota start to play a role in economic development with this type of EDC structure as a first step. Counties can provide financial resources based on tasks assigned to that entity while retaining final approval authority for specific projects and programs. These structures work well as marketing champions for county wide growth and should not be considered mutually exclusive of a more formal structured approach. The possible downside risk of this approach in Washington County is the current private business community participants, particularly the Oakdale and Woodbury EDC's, could perceive that this is duplicative. In addition, the more this public private model is tasked with direct economic development activities, such as loan programs and technical assistance, the more there would need to be careful consideration given to avoiding duplicating those same efforts currently undertaken by the larger communities and potentially the County HRA, Formal Structure (County Community Development Authority) If the County Board chooses a more formal and active role in economic development, one logical path is to seek any necessary special legislation to enhance the capabilities of the Washington County HRA by essentially adding economic development authority powers. Other jurisdictions have successfully completed similar legislative action and established themselves as "community development agencies" (Dakota, Scott, and Carver), that were originally constituted as housing authorities. Any programming would require careful consideration to avoid duplicating efforts currently undertaken by cities, but obtaining legal authority provides the county access to significant authority and financial resources to encourage economic development. Many of the technical skill sets required for implementing economic development strategies exist within the County HRA. (They also exist in many of the larger communities, but are currently limited to those municipal boundaries.) To be responsive to city needs and county board direction, the HRA could certainly undertake and implement programs (i.e. partner with MCCD for example) as soon as possible as long as those efforts are consistent with current authority, while pursuing the necessary legislative amendment process. A possible downside of the CDA model is the risk of diluting private business sector interests on the board. However, the CDA model can have a board comprised entirely of county elected officials or a blended combination of elected and appointed members. As resource commitments increase with a more active and formal participation in economic development activities, county elected officials may choose to have a more direct involvement on the board. They establish adi isory committees organized according to the issues they intend to address. If the Washington 10