Supervisors vote to schedule hearings on urban renewal (TIF) plan for wind-farm area

At a Sept. 20 meeting, the South County Board of Supervisors voted to put on the calendar the formal consultation and public hearing process to consider adopting an urban renewal (tax-increment financing, or TIF) plan that would capture tax increment from wind turbines and use the proceeds for roads and facilities.

Jason Kaminski, identified in the transcript as an attorney who has worked with the advisory committee, summarized the background and recent work on the plan: "This is just a a summary of how we got to where we are now," he said, describing advisory-committee work dating to June, an assessment completed Feb. 11, and a revenue spreadsheet prepared in November.

Why it matters: supporters told the board the plan could unlock funding for a set of projects — a conservation building, a secondary storage/shop building and a potential sheriff's office — connected by road work that would improve access to the turbine sites. One board member warned of a timing risk for a separate federal aid package tied to Alta Vista. "I really don't wanna see nearly a million dollars that was very hard fought to get for them go away," an attendee said, urging the board to move forward so Alta Vista could keep $840,000 in federal aid.

How the plan would work: presenters said the renewal area was drawn around wind turbines using New Hampton School District boundaries and would allow the county to identify projects in a plan and later issue general‑obligation bonds or notes to finance them. The tax increment from the wind turbines, they said, would be expected to offset debt-service levies in years when TIF receipts are available; if receipts are insufficient, the debt could technically be supported by a general obligation levy on all taxable parcels as a backstop.

Revenue and timing estimates: the presenters showed long-range projections tied to the wind farm, estimating roughly $55 million in tax increment over 30 years and about $35 million over a 20-year portion of the same projection. Presenters cautioned those figures used prior levy rates and remain subject to change.

Next steps and the board action: the motion that passed directed staff and the advisory committee to schedule the consultation meetings with "effective taxing entities" (the school district and relevant cities and taxing bodies), prepare required notices and consent forms, and set a date for the first of two board meetings needed to adopt a plan (the second meeting would include a public hearing and final vote). The board approved that motion by roll call, with members recorded as voting "aye." The motion did not itself adopt the renewal plan; it scheduled the process the board will follow before any formal adoption.

What remains unresolved: presenters and board members noted several uncertainties — projected levies may change, interest rates and construction costs are unpredictable, and some projects shown in the plan are contingent on future board priorities. Board members also discussed the need to coordinate with up to seven neighboring cities that may be affected and to respond to any written comments from taxing entities during the consultation period.

The board asked staff to prepare notices and to work with a financial adviser (referred to in the meeting as Travis) about six months before any bond issuance. The board said it would not commit to particular projects or financing until the public hearing and formal vote at a subsequent meeting.