|
As a result the
county board recently formed its own economic development committee.
Both the chamber EDC and the county EDC have continued working
toward economic development, but separately. Yet, each recognized
that there are benefits of working together as one. The strength in
unity and efficiency with increased resources, knowledge, experience
and less redundancy all add up to less expense and more power to get
things done.
So, at the invitation
of the county, the two EDCs met on Monday evening to discuss how
they might work together. Present for the chamber were past
president of the chamber and EDC representative Todd Lowman, chamber
director and EDC representative Bobbie Abbott and the new EDC
director, Jeff Mayfield. Representing the new county EDC were Chuck
Ruben, Bill Sahs, Terry Werth, Bob Farmer and David Hepler, with
county board chair Dale Voyles presiding over the meeting.
Issues that led to
the widening separation of the two entities were discussed at length
until both parties appeared to have a general sense of resolution by
meeting's end, nearly two hours later. As past failures were
discussed item by item, each group conceded shortcomings and came
away with a to-do list to get back on track.
Chairman Voyles set
the tone of the meeting by explaining that the purpose of the county
EDC is to get things rolling in the county. He also said that he
believes that everyone involved in promoting business here has
nothing but the best intentions. Lincoln Mayor Beth Davis, the
chamber, the county board all share the same goals: to do what is
best for the community. "Everybody wants to find out how we got to
where we are. Everybody has some concerns," he said.
Open meetings
Voyles began by
suggesting that the EDCs might work together if some of the current
issues could be cleared up. Starting with the most current issue, he
said that the county's legal adviser, State's Attorney Tim Huyett,
has recommended that county representatives not attend meetings with
the chamber EDC until it complies with open meetings requirements.
In addition to the states attorney's advice, the board recently
passed a resolution that requires any organization receiving money
(since it is tax dollars) from them to make their meetings and
minutes open to the public.
Abbott responded by
asking, "Do you mean, will we comply with the Illinois Open Meetings
Act, or are you just asking if our meetings are open to the public?"
She pointed out that the Illinois Open Meetings Act does not apply
to the chamber, as it is a nongovernmental organization. It would be
an unprecedented act for them to comply with that law.
Abbott assured the
committee that the public has always had the option to attend their
meetings, and they have never asked anyone who came to a meeting to
leave. The meetings are not kept secret; the meeting times are
published in the chamber newsletter and are at regular times, dates
and locations. Anyone can come.
Lowman said, "If
you're asking if our door is open to our meetings, yes."
Voyles cross-checked
whether it would be OK for their representatives to attend the
chamber EDC's meetings and then return to discuss matters with the
county committee, which meets in a more public format. The major
concern is that highly sensitive information is often divulged at
these meetings, such as property acquisition, personal and business
finances, contracts and so on. "We know what we can and cannot
discuss," he said. Adjourning to a closed executive session affords
privacy, but still, he asked, "Are you going to be OK with that?"
Abbott replied that
that was not only acceptable but expected.
Resolution: Have Tim
Huyett draft specific open meeting requirements.
Proposed commerce park
With that aside,
Abbott took the lead and suggested that the relationship with the
chamber might be looked at like other contracted services performed,
such as accounting services. "Basically, the board has not provided
money for anything that wasn't approved," Abbott said. "The economic
development director answers questions, does marketing, provides
business information and supplies an office. Tax money is honored."
The county agreed.
Then Abbott
tentatively broached another subject. "The commerce park monster"
seemed to be the greatest cause of separation, she suggested.
David Hepler
responded by raising several issues that built distrust during that
process.
1. The board was
asked at their work session on Thursday evening to make an approval
on Tuesday to purchase some expensive farm land at $11,000 per acre.
He felt this was inappropriate amount of time to make such a large
financial decision.
[to top of second column in
this article]
|
2. In addition to
insufficient time, not enough information was provided.
3. It was also
suggested that the property could bypass normal zoning and go to a
pre-annex. At that time Jeff Mayfield, the new director, took the
question of annexation to the city attorney, Bill Bates, who first
told him it would work. Mayfield then relayed that information to
the state's attorney, Tim Huyett, who agreed he didn't see a
problem.
However, before the
Tuesday meeting the two lawyers met and discussed it further. Bates
said there was no way that the annexation could be done. Neither
lawyer got back to Mayfield, but the board did learn of the rezoning
problem before the Tuesday meeting and didn't purchase the property.
Mayfield apologized
that this happened, but explained that he couldn't control that the
attorneys failed to inform him of their change of opinion.
Voyles, appearing to
understand, said to Mayfield, "You have been the recipient of a crop
planted before you. And it's turned up corn and beans, not flowers."
Two other issues
surrounding the commerce development were raised. Voyles said that
as of December it seemed as though all the economic focus was being
put on the proposed commerce park, and other economic development
was being allowed to slide.
David Hepler said
that he has received complaints from some owners that the properties
that they own have been discriminated against. The properties aren't
even being suggested when potential buyers come to town.
Both Mayfield and
Abbott assured the board that this simply is not the case. Mayfield
said he has fielded a number of calls and always suggests all the
properties that fit what the interested party is looking for.
Abbott conceded that
their database for finding properties lacks, and that is an area she
sees that they could develop.
Mayfield said,
"Regardless of separation, I have fielded calls from Atlanta, Emden
and Mount Pulaski. We have continued to meet business prospects,
send out packets." He has also met with David Hawkinson and Tony
Campbell several times, looking at possible development of a coal
power plant at the Elkhart site. Mayfield reassured the committee
that he follows every lead, provides information on properties
according to what specs the party is expressing interest in, and he
will continue to do so.
Abbott explained they
have properties listed on their DECA website. "We always have taken
care to promote available properties. I hope you don't feel we have
promoted one site over another, she said.
The chamber EDC
currently works from a demographic sheet they have of properties
that are set up and zoned. Abbott said, though, there are many other
properties that could be available out there. She conceded, "We have
never had a good database to provide information." Maybe that is
where their next focus ought to be, she indicated.
Hepler also brought
up that in addition to what seemed like insufficient information and
pressure to make commitments in an untimely manner, he had also
requested past meeting minutes from the county EDC reps and from the
past EDC director, Mark Smith, which he never got. "Because we are
being asked to spend big money, I need information," he said.
Lowman committed to
Hepler that he would get the minutes of past meetings that he had
requested in the past. Minutes dating several years back were in
Hepler's hands by Tuesday evening's meeting.
Financial commitment
As a final matter,
the group discussed financial support for the chamber EDC. Lowman
said that for five years the county relegated $5,000 per year. The
last two years they upped that commitment to $25,000. However, last
year they received only $15,000. Payment stopped in July 2002. He
said, "If you believe in it, fund it. If you don't, don't support
it."
It was realized that
the county method of disbursement had changed without informing the
chamber. The county was waiting for a request for the funds.
Resolution: The
committee proposed a payment schedule like their other payments made
to organizations where funds are approved and sent out quarterly.
They presented this to the board of the whole and it was approved on
Tuesday evening. They will be receiving past-due funds for the first
two quarters right away.
The chamber sees the
new county EDC committee as a positive advantage to get economic
development rolling here in Logan County.
The joint consensus between the EDCs is,
"Let's get moving."
[Jan
Youngquist]
|
