Waiting for an ethanol plant in Sharon
SHARON If the best-laid plans hadn’t gone awry, Global Renewable would be making ethanol in Sharon right now.
That would mean 55 more jobs than the village has right now.
It would mean water and sewer mains would be flowing past the village’s industrial park.
It would mean the industrial park had some industry in it.
When Global Renewable announced in November 2006 that it would build an ethanol plant in the village, the Whitewater-based company expected the plant to be in production by now.
The company has yet to break ground, and President Jeff Knight has stopped saying when he expects to do so. He hasn’t given up hope, however, Knight said.
The village does not have the legal means to recoup attorney and engineering fees racked up during negotiations for an ethanol plant.
One village official said it’s a mistake the village didn’t have a cost-recovery agreement with Global Renewable. Others say the money spent is part of the risk municipalities take while attempting to increase their tax base.
Ethanol plans
Global Renewable proposed a $237 million ethanol plant on Highway 67 on the village’s west side.
The plant was expected to produce up to 120 million gallons of ethanol from 38 million bushels of corn.
Investors planned to buy the corn from within a 50-mile radius of the plant, which would have improved the company’s bottom line, Knight said.
By the end of 2007, investors had gotten together close to 90 percent of the financing needed for the project.
But a drastic increase in corn prices in 2008 along with the economic slow-down made those loans impossible today, Knight said.
“We’re on hold—I think as most of the country is—waiting for the financial situation to correct itself,” Knight said.
He hasn’t given up hope for the project and still is working to move toward construction of an ethanol plant in Sharon, Knight said.
Whether he builds it or someone else does, Sharon is perfectly suited for an ethanol plant, Knight said.
“We had a hill to climb to pull financing together,” Knight said. “We haven’t deserted the site. We believe that site in the long term is one of the best sites for an ethanol plant in the country.”
Other industry
The village of Sharon owns 44 acres adjacent to the site of the proposed ethanol plant. Global Renewable owns the 200-acre parcel where the proposed plant would be located. The two properties together make up the village’s industrial park.
Except there’s no industry.
The village is ready to donate village-owned land to a business or business that want to locate in the industrial park, village President Diana Dykstra said.
Former village President Chuck Dorn had been negotiating with Poly-Flex, an industrial liner manufacturing company.
But the deal fell apart after the April election when Dorn lost his seat to former board member Dykstra, Dorn said.
Dykstra said information wasn’t communicated from the former board to the current one.
Sharon needs to be ready when another company says, “Yes,” Dykstra said.
The village board last month gave staff direction to apply to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation for the permits necessary to build water and sewer mains to the industrial park, attorney Brian Schuck said.
But the village has not approved construction plans at this point, Dykstra said.
The village estimates it will cost $2.1 million to run water to the industrial park, Dykstra said. Officials want some commitment from a business before they break ground.
“It’s such a risk to put those improvements on our backs without commitment from somebody who’s going to come in,” Dykstra said.
That’s one thing she and Dorn agree on.
“It was anticipated that we would do the actual improvements upon a serious entity wanting to locate,” Dorn said. “From a cash flow standpoint, it wasn’t feasible to put water and sewer in and then sit and wait for somebody to come along.”
The price
It’s been more than a year since the village of Sharon has spent money on the ethanol debate, Clerk Dawn Redenius said.
It’s not clear when the village will start getting money back on the investment.
Redenius said the village spent more than $40,000 on attorneys fees. Dorn estimates the village is out close to $100,000 on attorney and engineering fees.
An attorney worked to write pre-annexation agreements for the project. Professionals also negotiated terms for tax-exempt industrial revenue bonds and worked to help the village create a tax incremental finance district.
The tools were intended to support Global Renewable’s search for financing.
The problem, Dorn said, is the village never signed a cost-recovery agreement with Global Renewable.
That means the village doesn’t have legal means at this time to recover the money it spent during negotiations.
When he asked, Global Renewable said it would not pay for attorneys and engineers fees, Dorn said.
“They’ve told me they’re not going to pay us for it, for us to engage in bond counsel,” Dorn said. “That’s when things kind of broke down.”
Bob Carlson was the village president when Global Renewable started negotiating with the village.
Spending tax dollars is part of doing business as a municipality, Carlson said.
“On some things, we just have to eat it,” Carlson said. “It’s like a TIF district. Some people don’t like TIFs. But a TIF is us gambling with the taxpayers’ money. If it fails, the tax dollars are lost.
“But if it works …”
Dan Thompson, the executive director of the Wisconsin League of Municipalities, doesn’t have statistics on how many municipalities create cost-recovery contracts in early negotiations with businesses.
But his gut tells him it’s common for many municipalities to invest a certain amount of money in groundwork in an attempt to land businesses, Thompson said.
It’s not easy for a municipality to ask a potential new business to agree to share costs before they even agree to a location, Thompson said.
But the alternative is doing nothing and waiting for a bolt of good luck, he said.
“When a deal goes sour, it makes ugly headlines,” Thompson said. “What I say to veteran and newly elected officials is, from my perspective, the risk-adverse nature of municipal decision making is one of the biggest drawbacks to economic development.”
SHARON ETHANOL TIMELINE
November 2006—People pack Sharon Village Hall to hear Global Renewable announce plans to build one of the biggest ethanol plants in the state. Officials expect the plant to open by early 2009 at the latest.
March 2007—The village of Sharon annexes 518 acres. The land is slated as a home for the ethanol plant as well as an industrial park. The village starts to create a tax incremental financing district to help entice the plant to locate in Sharon.
April 2007—The Sharon Village Board approves the sale of $60 million in tax-exempt revenue bonds. The bonds never were sold, and the money never borrowed.
The planning commission approves $13 million in tax-increment financing for infrastructure improvements.
June 2007—Global Renewable gets air quality and construction permits from the state Department of Natural Resources. The permits have since expired.
December 2007—Global Renewable reports that it’s raised more than 80 percent of the $237 million needed to build the ethanol plant. The U.S. Senate passes a bill calling for the nation to produce 36 billion gallons of biofuel annually by 2022.
July 2008—The Janesville Gazette reports that Global Renewable plans to break ground by fall. It’s the last time a company official shares a timeline with the newspaper.
June 2009—A Global Renewable official says the company still hopes to build in Sharon, although he cannot say when.

Jun 10, 2009 at 5:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Oh they let me drive and I burn diesel in my huge pickup truck. How many people recall all of little inventers out there who had cars running on such things as chicken waste and cooking oil. Then all of a sudden you don't hear anymore about it. Funny how these things just disappear. So we could be burning alot of things in our cars and trucks right now if the oil companies would not buy them up and stick them in a drawer. And the car companies are more than capable of making a car that runs on these fuels. But the only time they do is when they are forced to. So we as stakeholders in two of the car companies should hold their feet to the fire and make them make these cars and trucks.
Jun 9, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
I don't seek to get into arguments with people who've already made up their minds. I will say that the scale of ethanol needed to get us off OPEC oil is impossible. We also import much of our fertilizers (derived from fossil fuels) and fossil fuels power these plants.
If you would be interested in finding out about the downsides of ethanol production that are backed by facts and sources given, please visit www.energyjustice.net/ethanol
I've personally talked with people around the US that have been negatively impacted by this industry. AND I've talked with those who benefit. There is a better way than growing genetically engineered monoculture crop plantations fed into fossil fuel burning plants to generate our energy for transportation.
Jun 9, 2009 at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just ask me
Jun 9, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
facts101 - Please tell us all what the "better" things are that we can use to fuel our cars. I can only use a gasoline/ethanol mixture in mine. Would you have me try to use grass clippings? cardboard? coal? What is this secret fuel that you are proposing I use in my Malibu?
Assuming they let you drive, you are probably burning gasoline and ethanol like the rest of us. Where did you think ethanol came from? The next time you talk with your opec people, suggest to them to produce ethanol for us - so we can import that too.
Jun 9, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks BayMom for posting those two links. Also I may mention that mileage with ethanol is not as good as gasoline. Also people I know who have used E85 tell me they lack the power that they would otherwise get from gas. I do not cheerlead for OPEC I just know there are better things out there than ethanol. Also I see no one could argue the fact that they were operating way outside of the their DNR permits. And also no one said they would like to live next to an ethanol plant...no takers? When people living next to these plants start having health problems they did not have before the plant got there that should tell you something.
Jun 9, 2009 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
For taxed2much and JustAskMe -- there are numerous studies showing the inefficiency of ethanol production, which wastes our natural resources and pollutes our planet. These problems have been well known for a long time, but too many politicians, national and local, have chosen to listen to the snake-oil salesmen who stood to benefit from the foolish ethanol subsidies.
If you seriously want to know, here are two links to information from reliable sources:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/conten...
Jun 9, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
facts101;
show us the facts to back up your statement that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol to what it gives back.
Jun 9, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
But you go ahead and cheerlead opec if you want.
Jun 9, 2009 at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't know about that particular plant, but in general, ethanol is more "green" and "American" than opec oil.
Jun 9, 2009 at 8:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
JustAskMe you must either work for the ethanol plant or you are just nuts. United Ethanol is under investigation for all the toxins they let go out their stack. They ran outside their permits for toxins for along time. And its proven that it takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than what it gives back. And without goverment subsidies no one would be makeing a drop of this. So quit being a cheerleader for someting that is doing so much harm. And yes its a small number of people that complain. But if one of that small number was you,you would want your voice heard
Jun 9, 2009 at 6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
We can't wait for you to move either. Lowerring our foriegn dependency on oil will cost us - it's not free. Your moving is a small price to pay.
Jun 9, 2009 at 5:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Be grateful the abomination has not been built in your town.
To burn how much natural gas, and consume how much corn, to make how much ethanol?
We would all be farther ahead to convert our vehicles to natural gas.
Since the Howling Beast to the East has gone online, it's never quiet in Milton anymore...and the trains go back and forth, back and forth, all day and all night.
When I moved here it was peaceful, now I live in industrial park.
I can't wait to move out of Milton.
Jun 8, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just ask me.
Jun 8, 2009 at 4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sharon officials would find that an ethanol plant would CREATE JOBS and increase revenue within their community. Milton is proof that an expanding industrial base is good for the community AND decreases foriegn oil independence.
Jun 8, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Milton residents benifit greatly from their ethanol plant - only a HANDFUL of residents are against it. Unfortunately, these VERY
FEW residents get "heard" more.
Jun 8, 2009 at 1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Whether or not Global Renewable would be good for Sharon is a moot point. The fact that ex-Village President Chuck Dorn put Sharon into a serious financial hole isn't. The Village hasn't even started making payments on land purchases he pushed through...and it looks doubtfuil that they will be able to. As far as Poly-Flex, I would love to know why our entrepid reporter didn't pursue this...was it strictly a personal deal being cut? Sounds amazingly collusive!
Jun 8, 2009 at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Sharon should come to Milton and talk to the people who live down wind from the ethanol plant. Take a good wiff and smell what empty promises and greed smells like. And if you have childern move them out of the path of this stuff its all bad.
Jun 8, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think I'll move to Milton and open an inhaler store. Land there must be pretty cheap.
Jun 8, 2009 at 12:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Way to go Tommy Thompson and Jeff Knight!
Jun 8, 2009 at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
If Sharon had been proactive 30 years ago, Scot Forge would have been there and not in Clinton, so I don't feel too bad for the Village of Sharon. I do feel somewhat bad for the homeowner's who were sold a bill of goods by Global Renewable and they have kept dragging this ordeal out for years. It's not fair to the homeowners who were counting on sales of their property to get out of there before the plant went up and devalued their homes.
They should change their name to Global REMOVABLE. Sharon and those homeowners probably wish they could remove the "company" from their vocabulary.
Jun 8, 2009 at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sharon should look at Milton and other towns who've had horrible pollution problems with the ethanol plants that have been built. The residents of Sharon, while sorry that their village officials wasted their tax money on this, can be glad that they and their children aren't experiencing increased asthma and other illnesses, as well as declining property values, due to an ethanol plant nearby.
Jun 8, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
That is so true. It is amazing the damage he caused in his short term. At least the voters were not fooled this time around. The least votes out of all running for office. A sure vote of no confiedence.
Jun 8, 2009 at 8:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Dorn says..."
Does this mean that if Dorn had been re-elected as Village President the Poly-Flex deal would have gone through? In other words, it wasn't a business decision but rather one based on some type of personal relationship?
The Village of Sharon lost more opportunities with Dorn as the Village President than just Poly-Flex and Global Renewable. Dorn was staunchly anti-progress, preferring to use his position to stifle growth and attack those he percieved as his enemies.
A shame. Small-town politics at it's worst.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.