Supervisors press for detail after Washington County Economic Alliance requests $850,000

The Washington County Board of Supervisors interrogated a funding request from the Washington County Economic Alliance for $850,000, with multiple supervisors saying the request lacked the detail needed for an informed decision.

Why it matters: Supervisors said the money — intended to support site preparation, surveys, brownfield remediation and other economic development activities — could be significant for county taxpayers and requires procurement safeguards and more robust project plans.

Board members said they received a brief, six‑line budget from the alliance and expected a formal presentation and a more detailed scope of work. One supervisor said, “When they submitted us this breakdown, it was not professional at all,” and that some local partners (including the city of Leland) reported they had not been consulted on items listed in the Alliance’s breakdown.

The request included line items mentioned in the packet: $148,000 for engineering for an aviation park; $200,000 for brownfield remediation; $150,000 linked to a proposed BDO (business development) zone; and other survey and appraisal line items. Board members raised multiple substantive questions: how the Alliance determined survey and geotechnical costs for roughly 6,800 acres referenced in its materials; whether work for surveying and appraisal would require advertising; and whether selection of vendors would follow state procurement law.

County counsel and the board’s attorney advised that certain services — appraisals and some surveying work — are subject to legal advertisement requirements. Attorney Griffin told the board that “surveys and land appraisals must be advertised 30 days out” when tied to acquisition or leasing activity; he also explained that some surveying can fall under professional services selection processes rather than price‑based bidding.

Several supervisors, while expressing confidence in the Alliance’s leadership, pressed for these next steps before any county funding move: a formal presentation to the board with detailed line‑item budgets; disclosure of any relationships between Alliance board members and prospective contractors; and adherence to state procurement requirements (advertisements or qualification‑based selection as required). A supervisor said the Alliance should advertise the services to avoid “handpicking” contractors when taxpayer dollars are involved.

Outcome: the board did not approve the $850,000 at the meeting. Supervisors asked the Alliance and county staff to return with more detailed documentation and a procurement plan that explains whether and how advertised solicitations will be used. The item will be revisited during budget deliberations.

Ending

Board members said they supported economic development in principle but insisted that funding requests of this magnitude include specific deliverables, procurement transparency and explanation of how local partners would be involved.