Supervisor Gomez pitches Douglas‑area port authority, says transparency must be written into bylaws

Supervisor Gomez proposed creating an independent port authority to coordinate trade, infrastructure and business engagement for the Douglas area, presenting draft articles of incorporation, bylaws and an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Douglas. She said the authority would be a nonprofit membership organization with sector committees and an independent board, not a new taxing political subdivision.

Gomez told supervisors the authority is meant to “promote trade” and give “everyone a seat at the table,” arguing that the current Douglas International Port Authority has been inactive and that a reconstituted, transparent body would help capture economic opportunity tied to a nearly $500 million commercial port project. “This is going to be crucial to our economic growth,” Supervisor Gomez said.

Why it matters: supporters say a membership‑based authority could marshal private investment, coordinate federal and state infrastructure requests, and give local industries — agriculture, mining, manufacturing and trucking — a single forum to press trade and road priorities. Opponents and some supervisors cautioned that a nonprofit model would not automatically fall under Arizona’s open‑meeting statutes, so the board must bind itself to meet transparency expectations in its bylaws and practices.

Draft documents and governance choices: staff presented two governance options discussed in the meeting — a political subdivision (which carries taxing authority and statutory restrictions) and a nonprofit model. The group said they had revised earlier drafts to remove the “political subdivision” title and move toward a nonprofit structure that allows business leadership while preserving oversight through founding‑member protections in the bylaws.

On oversight, county staff and the county attorney, Bird, noted practical limits: a nonprofit board is not automatically subject to Arizona open‑meeting law, and a founding member’s influence depends on what is written into the bylaws. Bird and staff recommended including bylaw provisions that require publication of minutes, routine posting of decisions, and a mechanism for founding members to approve certain bylaw amendments. One supervisor suggested adding an explicit clause authorizing inquiry or investigation of corruption allegations.

Board composition and funding: Gomez and staff described a membership and nomination process by sector committees (manufacturing, mining, agriculture, ranching, infrastructure, medical tourism, small business). Example dues were discussed to illustrate a tiered model — large corporations could pay higher membership fees (an example figure of $5,000/year was given) while small trucking businesses could pay a lower amount (example: $100/year). Founding members (Cochise County and the City of Douglas) would be initial members but would not serve as officers (chair, vice chair, secretary or treasurer) so operational control would rest with the independent board.

Geography and naming: supervisors pressed staff to define what “Douglas region” would mean in practice. Participants warned that leaving “regional” undefined could create ambiguity about who is eligible to join and whether neighboring counties or Mexican stakeholders are included; suggestions included naming the authority for Douglas or Cochise County or providing a precise boundaries clause.

Operational advice and offers of support: attendees with port experience urged a lean staff model — a single director with limited administrative support — and recommended establishing financial, legal and ethics committees. A public participant, who introduced himself as Vic Courier, told the board he had contacts in Mexico and federal agencies and offered to help the authority secure capital, saying, “Once you do that, I’ll write you a check.”

Next steps: no formal action or vote was taken. Staff said they would incorporate discussed redlines (remove the political subdivision label, add transparency and founding‑member safeguards, clarify amendment rules and removal processes), circulate revised documents to supervisors and then present the package to the City of Douglas for a joint review and IGA approval process. The board scheduled a later meeting to continue work; the work session adjourned without a final decision on formation or funding.

The board’s next meeting was set for 1:00 p.m. to discuss the county affordable housing plan.