Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County considers master services agreement for facilities and parks planning; commissioners ask for scope and public engagement details
Summary
Clearwater Financial pitched a master services approach for facility, parks and open-space planning; commissioners split on signing a retainer without a defined project and asked for concrete project proposals and staff presentations before contracting.
Clearwater Financial representatives on March 4 described a master services approach to help Kootenai County prioritize facility needs, draft master plans and identify funding options, but commissioners pressed for clearer project scope and for county staff to present needs before entering a retainer agreement.
Cameron Bridal, representing Clearwater Financial, described the firm's municipal advisory and planning services and said the firm acts as a fiduciary subject to Securities and Exchange Commission and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board oversight. Bridal said the firm's approach pairs long-range planning with public engagement and a financial implementation plan and that the master services agreement would allow the firm to help the county list and prioritize projects, provide capital-stacking options and support annual budgeting and financing as projects move into implementation.
Nut graf: Commissioners expressed interest in a parks master plan, open-space evaluation and a facilities master plan but disagreed about entering into a retainer without a defined project. Several commissioners asked for presentations by county facilities and parks directors to clarify needs before authorizing a contract.
Commissioner Duncan said the county has lacked planning and supported using an outside firm to prioritize projects and evaluate park, open-space and aquifer-recharge issues. He asked whether he would receive at least one vote if he brought a master-services agreement to a future business meeting.
Other commissioners recalled a previously proposed master services agreement that included a $1,000-per-month retainer without a specific project and said they were uncomfortable paying a retainer before the board agreed on priorities. Bridal said Clearwater typically supports a living plan and noted one example in Madison County where immediate needs (a road-and-bridge building) were prioritized and financed first. At one point Bridal referenced a $12,000-per-year retainer option that would include up to 60 hours per project; commissioners asked staff to clarify the scope and costs and requested that the county facilities and parks directors brief the board on why the plans are needed before any contract is signed.
Ending: Commissioners gave mixed signals: they encouraged presentations and stakeholder engagement to define priorities but did not approve contracting at the meeting. Commissioner Duncan said he would bring a proposal if he wished to advance a master-services agreement to the board's business meeting.
