Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors weigh keeping $10,000 for regional EDC amid mixed results and BLM land limits
Summary
La Paz County supervisors debated whether to continue a $10,000 annual payment to the county economic development organization, with some members citing limited local results and others pointing to the EDC’s role in getting an Opportunity Zone designation for Quartzsite; no formal vote was recorded, and members proposed placing funding in contingency pending measurable progress.
La Paz County supervisors spent a substantial portion of their session debating whether to continue a $10,000 annual contribution to the county’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC), with concern about the organization’s local performance balanced against its role in countywide programs.
One council member described the EDC as having operated “with such a tight budget” that directors spent much of their time fundraising rather than delivering development outcomes, calling current results “foolish” and arguing the county could redirect the funds to the Chamber of Commerce if the EDC does not improve (Committee member, S4). Another supervisor pushed back, saying the EDC “was instrumental in the Opportunity Zone selection of Quartzsite” and had staffed the county-wide tourism program, which generated enough interest that other counties asked to see the county’s model (Committee member, S6).
Speakers identified several constraints outside the EDC’s immediate control. Multiple supervisors said a lack of industrial-zoned land and delays from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have prevented larger employers from locating in the Portside/Quartzsite area; one speaker said 77 acres set aside for a “major project” remain unavailable because of BLM delays (Committee member, S7). That land constraint was cited as a key reason recruitment and project attraction have not produced the expected local jobs.
Rather than cut the $10,000 outright, several supervisors proposed conditioning future payments on demonstrable progress. One option discussed was moving the allotment into a contingency line so the county could redirect it if the EDC failed to meet agreed-upon performance benchmarks; another suggestion was to broaden the EDC’s director search to attract a regional economic-development professional who could better use tools such as the Opportunity Zone designation (Committee member, S2).
No formal motion or vote was recorded in the transcript. Staff confirmed the county can leave the requested amounts in the budget now and modify them later after contract or performance conditions are clarified. A supervisor summarized the practical next step as drafting a contract or agreement that ties any future county payments to specific deliverables and reporting requirements.
What happens next: supervisors agreed they would not finalize a cut today; instead they signaled a willingness to place funding in contingency or attach contract conditions and to continue discussing recruitment and BLM-related land solutions at future meetings.
