Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory firm pitches master facilities, parks and open-space planning; board debates contract approach
Summary
Clearwater Financial presented a master services approach to help Kootenai County prioritize facilities, parks and open-space projects. Commissioners debated whether to sign a retainer before selecting specific projects and requested further briefings from county staff and stakeholders.
Clearwater Financial presented its municipal advisory services to the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners on March 4, offering to lead master facilities, parks and open-space planning and to help prioritize and fund projects through a master services agreement.
Cameron Bridal, the caller from Clearwater Financial, said the firm is Idaho-headquartered and acts as a municipal advisor subject to Securities and Exchange Commission and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board regulations. He described a process that begins with public engagement, project inventory and prioritization, followed by a financial implementation plan that can include bonding or other financing. Bridal cited recent local projects his firm has supported and described the master services agreement as a platform to kick off planning work and provide ongoing assistance so plans remain "living" documents rather than shelf reports.
Commissioners expressed differing views about contracting before identifying specific projects. One commissioner said the county previously received a master services agreement proposal that included a $1,000-per-month retainer without a defined project and opposed signing a retainer before the board agrees on a first project. Commissioner Duncan argued the county has lacked planning and favored using a master services agreement to help prioritize facilities and parks, including how open space relates to aquifer recharge areas.
Bridal said his company’s retainer model would provide ongoing support and annual follow-up so adopted plans can be implemented. At one point in the discussion staff referenced a retainer figure of $12,000 per year for up to 60 hours of work per project as an example of a lower-risk engagement; commissioners asked for time to gather additional briefing materials and requested presentations by county facilities and parks staff to demonstrate specific needs before entering an agreement.
No contract was adopted at the March 4 meeting. Commissioners asked staff to bring a master services agreement or additional briefing materials for further board consideration; one commissioner suggested a vote may be considered at a forthcoming business meeting if a project scope can be defined.
