Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfap Edc Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDC seeks a fixed PFAP allocation; council reviews draft ordinance amendment and its fiscal effect
Summary
EDC staff and county administrative staff briefed the council on April 14 about a proposed PFAP ordinance amendment that would allocate a fixed share of the county’s PFAP revenues to the Economic Development Council to fund core staff and trades training.
At the April 14 meeting the county’s administrative coordinator described a proposed amendment to the county PFAP ordinance that would allocate a portion of annual PFAP revenues to the county’s Economic Development Council (EDC) to support core staffing and trades‑training work.
Background and proposal: The county’s PFAP ordinance currently directs 25% of PFAP revenues to the town of Friday Harbor; the remainder is distributed by the PFAP committee through a competitive process. The EDC’s request, explained by EDC staff and county administrative staff, would create a standing allocation for the county’s EDC equal to a percentage of the annual PFAP fund. County staff presented a draft amendment that would allocate 27% of the remaining annual PFAP revenues to the EDC to finance personnel costs (a trades coordinator and a portion of the executive director’s salary) while the balance of funds would remain available to the competitive process managed by the PFAP committee.
Why it matters: An allocation would provide recurring, predictable funding for an economic‑development organization that performs workforce training, business support and cross‑border economic coordination. Council members and staff noted trade‑offs: an automatic allocation reduces the available competitive pot for other capital projects but helps stabilize a program the council has supported in the past.
Financial context and council questions: County staff showed recent PFAP totals and the effect of a 27% allocation (presented as 27% of the remaining pot after the Friday Harbor 25% carve‑out). Using the 2025 pot shown at the meeting, staff estimated the EDC allocation would be approximately $169,915 under the proposed language, leaving roughly $459,400 for competitive grants in the example year. Council members asked why the percentage was 27% and whether other counties use similar set‑aside allocations; staff said the percentage came from the EDC’s estimate of stable needs and that the PFAP committee had not objected to bringing the proposal forward. The council requested further information, including ordinance wording clarifications and comparisons to other counties’ approaches, and asked staff to return with a second‑touch draft that clarifies whether the percentage applies to the total PFAP pot or to the balance after the Friday Harbor carve‑out.
Council direction and next steps: Council members asked staff to refine the draft ordinance language to make the percentage’s math explicit and to provide the EDC’s recent annual reports that document deliverables. Staff confirmed the county prosecutor’s office has been consulted and follow‑up on several technical questions will be provided before a second reading.
Ending: The item was a first‑read discussion; no council action was taken. Council members thanked EDC staff for attending and asked staff to return with clarified ordinance language, sample reporting deliverables and any comparative county practices.
