Benton County adopts redevelopment plan, authorizes HRA bond sale for new government center amid public protest

Benton County commissioners adopted a redevelopment plan for a proposed Benton County Government Center and authorized the HRA to proceed with a competitive sale of HRA lease revenue bonds this week, despite sustained public objections that the project should be put to a countywide vote.

Supporters of delaying construction and forcing a public referendum urged the board to pause activity across the street while the hearing proceeded. Residents repeatedly said they had submitted a valid petition and expected the question to be placed on a ballot. Public commenters also pressed the board for detailed, itemized tax-impact figures and questioned the timing of contractors beginning work prior to final financing actions.

The board’s actions finalize a statutory step required to allow the county’s housing and redevelopment authority to issue bonds. Jessica Reem of Northland Securities, who presented the financing plan, told the board the bonds would be sold competitively on Monday, Aug. 18, and returned for award consideration on Aug. 19; the planned closing date is Sept. 17. The finance plan in the packet shows the bonds maturing annually Feb. 1, 2027–2046, a preliminary average coupon of about 4.51% and a preliminary true interest cost of about 4.63%. Reem described the sale timetable and the HRA/lease structure under Minnesota statutes in the packet: “The bonds will mature annually each February 1 in the years 2027 through 2046,” and the bonds are callable beginning Feb. 1, 2033.

Why it matters: the HRA lease revenue bonds will finance the bulk of the planned new government center. The board’s vote on the redevelopment plan and the subsequent authorization to sell bonds remove a major procedural obstacle to issuing the debt; the county will need to certify a levy this fall for first collection in 2026 to fund the 2027 payment. Residents and others who addressed the board said they worry about the tax impact and the decision-making process.

What happened at the public hearing Residents filled the meeting to oppose proceeding without a referendum and to criticize the timing of construction. Multiple speakers said they had gathered signatures for a petition they believed required the board to put the project to a public vote. “Might have been a good decision. However, it wasn’t done and there was no pause given,” said Mike Levinasco during public comment, describing the visible construction activity as the hearing opened. Mary Kay Nordman told commissioners she was “surprised” by the timing and said the county’s handling of process had “given a huge slap in the face” to many residents.

Several speakers raised financial concerns. Daryl Watercutt and other commenters asked the board to show total interest and lifecycle costs, not only the principal. One public commenter summarized a common worry: “People think we’re paying 24,500,000 and we’re paying 34.5,” referencing the difference between principal and projected total debt service over time if bonds remain outstanding for their full term.

County staff and contractors on hand said the construction activity followed prior board approvals of construction contracts. Pete, the county’s construction manager on the project, told the board that “the county board approved those contracts. That was the notice to proceed with the work of the project,” and that steel and other long‑lead items were already ordered.

Board debate and votes After hearing staff and public testimony, the county board voted to adopt the redevelopment plan and then, sitting as the HRA, approved a set‑sale resolution authorizing the notice of sale for HRA lease revenue bonds.

- Resolution adopting the redevelopment plan: approved on roll call (Commissioner Benoit: Aye; Commissioner Heinen: Aye; Commissioner Popp: Nay; Commissioner Johnson: Aye; Commissioner Gapinski: Aye). - Set-sale resolution authorizing HRA lease revenue bonds (notice of sale for Aug. 18): approved on roll call with the same tally (Benoit: Yes; Heinen: Yes; Popp: No; Johnson: Aye; Kopinski/Gapinski: Aye).

Commissioners who voted in favor said the county had legal authority to proceed and emphasized the need to advance the statutory financing steps so the project could meet construction and scheduling constraints; those who opposed the measures cited the public’s petition effort and concerns about transparency and timing.

Key details and next steps - Bond sale schedule: competitive sale set for Aug. 18, 11:00 a.m.; board/HRA consideration of award on Aug. 19; expected closing Sept. 17. (Jessica Reem, Northland Securities) - Preliminary financing metrics (from the finance plan): average coupon approx. 4.51%; estimated true interest cost approx. 4.63%; maturities Feb. 1, 2027–2046; optional call beginning Feb. 1, 2033. Reem: “If you felt strongly that the impact would have, again, that correlation to municipal bonds… I would never suggest that you try to time the market.” - Construction status: contracts were awarded earlier (late June/early July) and contractors have mobilized; county staff said some site work and long‑lead ordering were already in motion. Pete (construction manager): “A lot of those processes were put in place at the action of the county board to approve those contracts.” - Levy/timing: the county will certify a levy in the fall of 2025 for first collection in 2026 to fund the early 2027 debt service; the lease payments supporting the HRA bonds are subject to annual appropriation by the county.

Public reaction and oversight Residents asked the board to honor the petition process and to provide clearer, itemized tax‑impact information on property statements; several speakers said they felt the board should have paused work pending the hearing. County officials said they will schedule debriefs with federal and state partners (where applicable) and continue routine updates for the board and public. Board members agreed to continue monthly construction and finance updates to the board as the project proceeds.

Ending With the redevelopment plan adopted and the HRA set‑sale resolution approved, the county moves the project to the financing stage: a competitive bond sale the week of Aug. 18, award and final decisions the morning of Aug. 19, and a closing anticipated Sept. 17. Opponents say the public remains unconvinced and plan to continue pressing for more transparency and, in some cases, a referendum. Supporters say moving forward now is necessary to preserve schedule and construction pricing.