Return-on-Investment vs Not-for-Profit

When it’s the taxpayers money, what do you do? – May 9, 2024

So a group trying to establish a not-for-profit Boys & Girls Club facility is raising a ruckus over the covenants established by the city council back in the late 1990’s, and placing all the blame for that on Alderman Stauber? Kinda rough on the guy, aren’t we? As an alderman, he took part in that portion of establishing the new Mill Creek Business Park at the time. He was part of a group of government and very respected business people who worked to market that land for future development, and as businesses located there, the positive affect would be additional tax base. The exclusion of “not-for-profit” (NFP) only made sense at the time. The city expended tons of dollars in purchasing the land; installing the infrastructure; and marketing to have this land available to develop.  

Initially, Mill Creek was a pipe dream. And the project was justly criticized at the time by those who saw no need to look so far out into the future. But there were only a few acres of land left for commercial development in the East Side Industrial Park (it too was a pipe dream when it was established in the 1960’s when the city bought the old Norwood Hospital land for “future commercial development and additional taxbase”).

Besides the city council, MACCI and the city’s Industrial Park Authority (made up of successful business people who shared a positive vision for the growth of Marshfield) were involved in finding available land adjacent to the city for such a project. Once the land (the farm) was purchased and designed, rules were established to guide the orderly future sale of the land. A primary objective was to add to the city tax base. Development by a NFP did not figure into that formula. There would be no return for the investment made by the city (and its taxpayers), because obviously, NFP’s do not pay taxes! We agree on that??

So here we are today. A NFP wants to establish itself in the business park? And they are not going to pay taxes to the city?

I have almost always thought Mr. Stauber was a reasonable man. He does his homework on the city council, and many of his actions are well thought out. He was doing his job as an elected official to join others in governing the use of the “new” business park back then. He does not deserve to be your whipping boy because your pet project(s) hit a temporary roadblock. Welcome to local government!

This is not the business world some of you are used to, where a decision is made today, and the fruits are borne the next. This is city government, with responsible people doing what the taxpayers expect them to do – watch out for how their tax dollar is being spent. And new development never happens overnight! That’s because things are discussed in public meetings so the taxpayers can monitor the actions.

Which brings me to this point…if you want to do something, such as the project that is being proposed, and hits a snag like apparently it has, you don’t need to bull through it, and stomp your feet, and throw a fit. You talk through it. Prospective business developments are watching, and could easily be discouraged from considering locating here. They’ll think twice about getting their feet muddy in what’s left after your little battles.

But from the outside looking in, appears that your current approach stands little chance of reaching the goal you want to attain. Admittedly, a development like this could very well be an asset to Marshfield in terms of “quality of life” – like the parks, recreation facilities, library, etc. A positive move would be to suggest a review of the covenants by the city council and the Industrial Park Authority, to see if anything regarding Mill Creek Park has changed that might warrant possible reconsideration of parts of the rules.  

Is it realistic to expect the city taxpayers to partner in this project, considering their investment in the future made many years ago? Or perhaps there is a for-profit business in the community willing to partner with you and offer a building or free land and pay to have the utilities installed for this project? Put their name on the development and they might just donate the land.

Bottom line, the city made an investment in the future. It paid cold, hard money to develop this area. It did so with the expectation there would be a return for the taxpayer on the investment, particularly from the additional new taxes to add to the overall taxbase and financial health of the community.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *