Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development Eda Msu Proposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Clair County commissioners weigh switching economic development work from EDA to MSU Extension amid transparency concerns
Summary
At a Feb. workshop, MSU Extension outlined a county-funded educator position costing about $117,895 annually. Public commenters pressed commissioners to pause payments to the Economic Development Alliance of St. Clair County, citing nondisclosure agreements and a lack of transparency. EDA officials said a response and proposal are forthcoming.
St. Clair County commissioners heard competing pitches for who should lead economic development during a Feb. workshop, with Michigan State University Extension proposing a county-funded educator post and many residents urging the board to pause funding for the Economic Development Alliance of Saint Clair County (EDA).
MSU Extension district director Carly Krueger presented a draft position description and estimated costs, saying the county’s share for a full-time MSU Extension educator would be $117,895 annually, including salary, benefits and operating costs. "MSU Extension is not interested in coming between St. Clair County and the EDA. We're not a magic solution or anything," Krueger said, adding the role would focus on food and agriculture entrepreneurship, community listening, education and helping local municipalities operationalize recommendations.
The proposal, Krueger told commissioners, would be implemented by amending the current memorandum of agreement with MSU Extension; the minimum qualification would be a master's degree and the typical recruitment timeline from posting to start is roughly four months to hiring and about six additional weeks for background checks and onboarding.
The audience and multiple commissioners raised long-standing transparency concerns about the EDA, especially the practice of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) for board members and some townships. "I just encourage this board ... to look for a more, open entity for the future of Saint Clair County," said Liz Masters, supervisor of Wales Township during public comment.
Bruce Seymour, vice president of business services for the EDA, said the EDA has six staff, runs business retention and expansion, entrepreneurship and workforce programs, and plans to deliver a written response and a proposal to the board soon. "The EDA will not be going away. We will be continuing one way or another, and we'd like to have you as one of our partners," Seymour said.
Commissioners and members of the public pressed details: whether an MSU-hired educator would be dedicated to the county (Krueger said the bulk of the work would focus on St. Clair County while the employee remains an MSU staffer and may participate in regional/state activities), whether the MSU position would be a one-year MOA renewed annually (yes), and what MSU reporting would look like (quarterly reporting and public presentations during later-stage interviews were noted).
Several speakers cited the county’s current payments to the EDA (residents and speakers gave an approximate annual figure of about $310,000) and previous one-time ARPA transfers (figures cited in public comments ranged from $400,000 to $500,000). Citizens and township supervisors described instances where NDAs or confidentiality arrangements limited local officials’ ability to notify residents about proposed projects, including large industrial proposals and data centers. Multiple public speakers called for more county control, public notification, and oversight of how taxpayer money is spent.
No formal change in funding was approved at the workshop. A commissioner announced plans to place four conceptual initiatives on the March 6 Board of Commissioners agenda: suspend EDA funding indefinitely; limit county services to the EDA to what is statutorily required; reallocate approximately $310,000 in annual payments to an in-house community and economic development function; and begin a contractual process with MSU Extension to provide the county’s economic development services. That action was announced as an intended agenda item and was not recorded as a board vote during the workshop.
The workshop underscored a split in public sentiment: some residents and elected township officials urged immediate changes citing secrecy and NDAs; the EDA asked for time to respond and signaled willingness to increase transparency and consider governance changes. Commissioners said they will consider the MSU proposal, await the EDA’s written response, and review the proposed agenda items for the March 6 meeting.
Looking ahead, commissioners will decide whether to direct county funds to an MSU Extension educator, continue the contract with the EDA under revised terms, or adopt another model. Any formal change in contracts or annual appropriations would require further board action and, where applicable, amendments to the county’s memorandum of agreement with MSU Extension.
