.png)
GUEST OPINION
The County recently signed a contract with the Port to provide economic development services. I voted against the contract and declined to sign it.
Here’s why.
In 2023 the executive director of the EDC [Economic Development Council] resigned. The EDC had been Pend Oreille County’s ADO [Associate Development Organization] for many years. ADOs partner with the Washington State Department of Commerce [Commerce] and promote business expansion, recruitment, and retention in their service area. ADOs receive $75,000 per year from the State and are required to leverage their state funding by getting financial support from their partners to accomplish their mission.
ADO contracts are negotiated with Commerce on a biennial basis consistent with the two-year State budget. The current two-year cycle ends June 30, 2025. This process requires ADOs and Commerce to jointly determine and agree on target goals for performance measures before a contract is signed and when the contract is up for renewal.
After the EDC decided to no longer be our ADO, the county asked for proposals to take over for them. We received three, and after reviewing them John Gentle and Brian Smiley voted to designate the Port our ADO. I believed Tri County Economic Development District [“TEDD”] would better serve Pend Oreille County’s interests, so I voted ‘no.’ Despite losing the vote, I fully committed to the success of the relationship with the Port. My position after the vote was ‘disagree and commit,’ because the bottom line is I want Pend Oreille County to thrive. That means a growing economy, successful businesses, and good paying jobs for our hardworking people whether they graduated college or never finished high school.
That’s much more important than one vote.
The next step was to negotiate a contract between the County and Port for economic development services. There were three key items as follows: Money: The basis for the County designating the Port our ADO was the Port’s initial proposal. In that proposal the Port asked to be paid $105,000 per year by the County. That’s the same amount that the EDC had been receiving. After the County designated the Port our ADO, the Port increased its request for County money from $105,000 per year to $200,000 per year. I strongly objected that the Port was asking for any increase at all.
No services had been delivered; nothing had been achieved. The Port then lowered its requested amount to $140,000. I continued to object. Giving the Port more money than they had asked for before they had accomplished anything struck me as irresponsible. John and Brian were fine with the higher amount. I was not.
Length of contract: The Port originally asked for the contract to run through 2027. They said they wanted to go past 2026 because the commission seat I currently hold will be up for election that year and they didn’t want contract renewal discussions to become “politicized.” But timing a contract renewal to avoid a particular vote is in itself political. Be that as it may, the best initial term with the county was through June 30, 2025. This would have resulted in contract discussions with Commerce and Pend Oreille County occurring at the same time. Issues related to performance and accountability could have been addressed in a coordinated manner, resulting in a higher standard of review. Separating the contract dates was not in the County’s best interest. I objected, but John and Brian voted for a contract that goes through June 30, 2026.
Transparency: Open government can build trust. Reluctance to ‘show your work’ to the public has the opposite effect. I have been clear on this issue for a long time, so was surprised when the Port asked to give updates to the county commissioners once every three months. In contrast, the Port agreed to report to the new EDAC [“Economic Development Advisory Committee”] every month. So it was hard for me to understand why there was opposition to monthly reports from the Port directly to the county. Although I objected, Brian and John agreed to reports every other month. This still falls short of real transparency.
The county commissioners had the opportunity to let the Port know we would hold them to high standards. Insisting on accountability and transparency does not indicate a lack of confidence or cooperation. It simply indicates an intention to reward success but not reward failure and sends a message that excellence is expected.
I will keep pushing for better governance to make sure taxpayers get value for their money and that the County develops to our full economic potential. I disagreed with the contract terms but remain fully committed to a successful relationship with the Port. Our economic potential is tremendous. I’ll do everything I can to help develop it.
