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