The Pierce County Board voted to send a resolution concerning a proposed partnership between SwiftCurrent Connect (SCC) and the Pierce County Fairgrounds for internet service back to the Finance …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
The Pierce County Board voted to send a resolution concerning a proposed partnership between SwiftCurrent Connect (SCC) and the Pierce County Fairgrounds for internet service back to the Finance & Personnel Committee for clarification.
Last month during the first reading, Chair Jon Aubart took issue with wording in the proposal that called it a “donation.” At this month’s second reading, that wording had not changed.
According to a presentation by Pierce Pepin Cooperative Services Director of Marketing & Growth Dave French in July, SCC would provide all the infrastructure, equipment and labor required to construct and operate high-speed fiber internet service at the Fairgrounds. SCC would pay for the initial estimated investment of $200,000, which includes network design, materials, equipment, construction and installation labor, in exchange for naming PPCS the single presenting sponsor and naming rights at all agreed upon locations, such as the Grandstand, entry gates, social media channels and more. The agreement would be a 10-year contract ending after the 2037 Fair; the annual sponsorship value to PPCS is listed as $20,000; and the annual operational expense budget provided by PPCS to Pierce County would be a $5,000 allowance to be applied towards maintenance, including but not limited to routine performance monitoring, pre-approved maintenance and equipment repair or replacement, warranty-related repairs, and onsite troubleshooting; any charges beyond the allowance would be Pierce County's responsibility, billed at $135 per hour.
Supervisor Frank During (District 8) also questioned it truly being a donation if naming rights/sponsorship are wanted in return. Aubart asked Pierce County Fair Manager Liz Dietsche why no further information on the proposal’s specifics had been provided as requested. She said she’d been busy with the fair, held Aug. 13-17.
“The slide presentation is not in the packet. We’re just getting dumped on here,” Aubart said.
“The equipment will be given to us at the end of it, and we would acknowledge it with the signage around the fair,” Dietsche explained.
Aubart wanted to know what the signage is worth and how that’s figured out.
“We have all the things that this can do, and it will give us some future value. However, currently, when we think about the signage, it’s probably worth about $5,000 or $6,000 as far as what we would normally charge,” Dietsche said.
Supervisor Mel Pittman (District 17) said he is in support of the resolution but wants the donation language changed. Aubart also questioned whether the work would need to be bid out, since the value of the infrastructure is supposedly $200,000.
“Does it need to come under a bid? Another company could say ‘hey, we didn’t get that opportunity’ and we could end up in a lawsuit. I’m not saying there would be, but that’s a possibility. If it’s not a donation and it fall under the bidding process that’s problematic.”
Corporation Counsel Brad Lawrence said it wasn’t a bad idea to send it back to F&P for clarification. French said moving it back further could make it so the internet service would not be ready in time for the 2027 fair, which is the goal.
Supervisor Barry Barringer (District 16) said the Pierce Pepin board may rescind the proposal if they think the county doesn’t appreciate it.
“I think we’re really splitting hairs here,” he said.
Public comment
“The permit did not provide meaningful safeguards for the waters of Pierce County,” Kashian said. “The job of [monitoring] extractive industries should not be the responsibility of individuals. It should be the job of our elected officials.”
Other business