Fergus Falls councilors pitch in-house economic development director, funding options

Fergus Falls City Council members and staff spent a work session outlining a plan to create an in‑house economic development director position and complementary programs to grow the city’s tax base, increase living‑wage jobs and spur housing and commercial development. The meeting featured three council teams presenting a common recommendation for a full‑time, city‑based economic development manager, potential funding mechanisms and a package of 10 initiatives ranging from workforce programs to riverfront redevelopment.

The discussion centered on why a city employee would improve coordination and speed compared with an outside nonprofit: “We need someone to see a desire to change,” Council Member Mike Martinson said, urging a candidate with sales, real estate and deal‑making experience who can “hand‑hold that business all the way through.” Laura Kildee, who led a separate team presentation, recommended hiring the director through the Port Authority with clear benchmarks and a performance‑driven budget that would not increase the overall levy immediately.

Supporters said an in‑house director would spend much of their time on business retention and attraction, with proposed time splits of roughly 50% on existing business retention and expansion, 40% on new business development and the remainder on community projects such as housing and childcare. Presenters suggested the new position would report to City Administrator Andrew Bremseth and work closely with Clara in Building, Engineering and Community Development.

Presenters described a package of related initiatives: creating a small advisory board of retail, industry and housing experts; preparing shovel‑ready industrial and commercial sites; pursuing grants and state incentives (for example, EDA grants, energy transition grants, community block grants and historic tax credits); investing in housing readiness and code updates; and activating the riverfront dairy site as a mixed‑use “Gold Coast.” “A well thought out PUD for mixed use for that site that maximizes the taxpayers’ return,” the presentation said, would make the riverfront more attractive to developers.

Cost estimates discussed at the session varied by presenter and scope. Team members proposed a likely annual funding requirement in the $200,000–$275,000 range to cover salary, benefits and program expenses; one presenter described a lower direct salary range for the hire in the $80,000–$110,000 band but noted total position costs would be higher after benefits and operating costs. Short‑term seed funds identified included a current $50,000 pledge, other budget reallocations (including engineering and communications savings) and potential Port Authority reserves. Presenters also proposed creating or expanding a revolving loan pool and suggested dedicating a portion of liquor store proceeds to grow a local loan fund.

The groups weighed in‑house staffing against an outside 501(c)(3) model. Advantages cited for an in‑house role included quicker access to city staff and authority to negotiate TIF and other incentives; advantages for an outside nonprofit included faster decision‑making and fundraising flexibility. Several presenters said the city should define a clear written TIF policy and guidelines so a future director could make consistent recommendations.

Presenters and councilors repeatedly emphasized housing as both an economic development input and constraint. Recommendations included identifying three to four development sites for housing, pursuing infrastructure grants to reduce utility and street construction costs, updating city code to ease homeowner improvements and exploring fix‑it loan programs and infill lot sales to stimulate single‑family construction.

Several other items were raised for near‑term action: engage the Small Business Development Center (SBDC) or a similar agency on a shared service basis to fill the gap between hiring and implementation, inventory vacant properties and accelerate industrial zone infrastructure planning (presenters cited roughly $2 million as an estimated cost to extend industrial park infrastructure). A community engagement or comprehensive strategic plan was recommended to provide a clear vision for a new hire to execute against.

No formal motion or vote occurred at the work session; presenters asked staff and council to synthesize the three teams’ proposals into a single package and to return with a hiring plan, job description, funding plan and timeline. Council members said they broadly supported the concept and asked staff to circulate the presentations and follow up with a smaller working group to finalize details.

Next steps discussed included: combining the three group proposals into one recommendation; using available short‑term budget sources to fund part of a transition year; evaluating SBDC/agency service tiers as an interim measure; drafting a director job description and funding plan for inclusion in the next budget cycle. “It’s time to hire and act,” one presenter said, while noting the council must also agree on a shared vision and incentives framework before finalizing recruitment.