Green River work session reviews state ‘Blueprint’ plan as residents press for drainage work over design spending

August Granath, technical outreach manager with the governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, presented the Rural Economic Blueprint draft to Green River city leaders and residents, saying the program offers a free strategic plan to help rural communities compete for state and federal grants. "This program, the rural economic blueprint program, was created in January as a new initiative from the governor's office of economic opportunity to address a gap," Granath said, explaining the assessment, interviews and steering-committee process that produced the draft.

The draft emphasizes five goals — diversifying the economy, workforce development, infrastructure, transitioning Green River from a waypoint to a destination, and creating implementation systems — and lists projects including downtown streetscape work, brownfield remediation, riverfront activation, new housing partnerships and a proposed class‑4 commercial landfill. Granath highlighted local data: Census estimates show the city added about 33 residents (roughly 1% annualized since 2020), a median household income of about $46,000, and a heavy employment concentration in accommodation and food services (about 37%).

Much of the meeting turned to how an awarded rural community opportunity grant would be spent. Multiple residents criticized a large design/engineering line in the grant application, arguing those funds should go to immediate infrastructure or to businesses. "So why is this 600,000 for engineering design?" one resident asked, arguing the money would be better used directly by downtown businesses or to address citywide stormwater needs. Councilors and staff said the grant’s current scope was written to meet the funding program’s priorities and that changing the award could require reopening the competitive review. Granath cautioned that the rural community opportunity grants are evaluated comparatively and that amending an awarded project could complicate funding decisions in the current award year.

Residents and long‑time local officials repeatedly raised chronic drainage failures as a top concern. Speakers described roads being higher than available drains, repeated ad‑hoc fixes, and the lack of a citywide master drainage plan to organize conveyance and funding. Several callers urged adding a master drainage plan as a discrete project in the blueprint so the city can use future grant cycles to fund construction rather than only design. Granath and councilors agreed to add the master drainage plan to the infrastructure section for the draft.

Council members asked procedural questions about the selected engineering firm and contract scope. Staff confirmed an Ensign Engineering team was chosen through a formal RFP and noted the current deliverables are preliminary; councilors and residents pressed for clarity about where retention features would convey water and whether designs would prioritize conveyance to the river rather than retention ponds that would require long‑term maintenance.

Other topics included the potential for industrial recruitment around the inland port, the city’s water‑rights filing deadline (noted in the discussion), and a proposed class‑4 commercial landfill for construction and demolition material. Staff said the city’s next formal chance to act on the blueprint would be an October meeting (an Oct. 14 slot was discussed) when a finalized layout and potential council action could appear on a future agenda. Meeting participants noted the grant invoice period has started but staff indicated no final payout had occurred and that payment holds and amendments could still be discussed.

The work session closed with an agreement to refine the draft — specifically to add a master drainage plan project — and to bring an updated package back to council for consideration at a future meeting. The session adjourned at 7:21 p.m.