In a recent council meeting, concerns were raised regarding a proposed $10 million contract spanning five years, marking a significant financial commitment for the small county of approximately 9,000 residents. Council members expressed apprehension about the implications of such a lengthy contract, especially in light of the county's current financial challenges, including ongoing expenses related to the civic center, which has already cost $5.775 million without being operational.

The discussion highlighted the council's lack of involvement in the contract's development, with one member noting that they received the contract details only 30 minutes before a scheduled public service committee meeting. This raised questions about the transparency and fairness of the evaluation process for the contract, which was described as a request for qualifications rather than a traditional request for proposals. The evaluation was conducted by two county employees and an external evaluator, whose qualifications were called into question due to a prior job offer that was declined.

The scoring of the bids also drew scrutiny, with Clearwater receiving the highest score of 253, significantly higher than the next closest bid of 163. Concerns were voiced about the qualifications of the evaluators and the bidders, particularly regarding their familiarity with the county's water and sewer systems, given the turnover in management over the past two years.

Additionally, the council discussed the potential for federal and state grant funding, which could be leveraged if the water and sewer department were designated as a public entity. However, the current mixed public-private structure complicates access to these funds.

The financial breakdown of the proposed contract revealed a management fee of $1.58 million, with additional costs for repairs and maintenance. Questions remained about the county's financial responsibility in the event of major infrastructure failures, as the contract's limits on repair budgets could leave the county liable for excess costs.

Overall, the meeting underscored the need for greater public involvement and scrutiny in the contract process, as council members grappled with the implications of the proposed agreement on the county's financial health and service delivery.