Skip to content

Recap of 2022Q2

Analysis

Date Range: May 17, 2022 – June 27, 2022

Executive Summary

During the second quarter of 2022, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners operated in a state of reactive governance, repeatedly reversing course on major policy and struggling to reconcile the county’s progressive values with its limited fiscal realities. The period was defined by contentious land-use debates that pitted environmental preservation against essential service funding, and the urgent need for housing against procedural transparency.

The board’s most significant action was its vacillation on state timber sales. On May 31, commissioners voted 2-1 to ask the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to defer two timber sales, prioritizing the development of a long-term conservation strategy for older forests. Less than a month later, on June 27, the board reversed itself on another 2-1 vote, rescinding the deferral request after intense pressure from rural fire and school districts dependent on timber revenue. This decision secured approximately $3.2 million in potential revenue for junior taxing districts at the expense of a coherent conservation policy, exposing a critical failure to find stable, alternative funding for rural services.

Similarly, the adoption of a permanent ordinance for temporary homeless housing was driven by the imminent expiration of an interim rule. The rushed process resulted in last-minute amendments and drew public criticism for a lack of transparency, forcing the board to immediately promise a future review to correct substantive flaws.

While advancing public safety through a new no-shooting zone in Cape George, the board’s actions on core county challenges were characterized by crisis management rather than strategic planning. Decisions consistently served immediate needs—revenue for fire districts, a legal framework for homeless shelters—while deferring the foundational work of building long-term fiscal sustainability and strategic alignment.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Reverses Timber Sale Deferral, Prioritizing Revenue Over Conservation Strategy

Topic

The Board of Commissioners voted 2-1 to rescind its prior request for the state to defer the Beaver Valley and Penny Wise timber sales, effectively allowing the sales to proceed to fund junior taxing districts.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: Rural fire and school districts, designated as junior taxing districts, rely heavily on revenue from state timber harvests on trust lands. Fire officials testified that the Beaver Valley sale alone represented ~$250,000, equivalent to two first responders, needed to manage a 61.5% increase in call volume since 2016.
  • Environmental Demands: A vocal constituency of environmental advocates and residents urged the board to protect older, structurally complex forests, citing their ecological value and potential for carbon sequestration. This aligns with the county's progressive electorate and stated environmental values.
  • Policy Inconsistency: On May 31, the board voted 2-1 to request a one-year deferral to develop a "collaborative co-management" strategy with the DNR. By June 27, after attending a "Timber School" and facing direct pressure from fire chiefs, the board reversed its position.
  • Revenue Scale: The Beaver Valley sale was valued at approximately $2 million, with Penny Wise valued at $1.2 million. This revenue is critical in a county with a constrained property tax base.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Fire Chief Bret Black (East Jefferson Fire), Justin Mathes (Brinnon Fire Commission), and representatives from conservation groups including Dr. Patricia Jones and Jessica.
  • What they represented: Junior taxing districts advocated for the revenue to fund essential public safety services. Conservation advocates pushed for permanent protection of older forests.
  • Substance of testimony: Fire chiefs detailed deficit spending and antiquated equipment, framing the timber sales as a matter of public safety. Conservationists argued for landscape-level analysis, updating the county's 2011 forest plan, and prioritizing long-term ecological health over short-term revenue.
  • Intensity: Testimony was direct and highlighted the stark trade-offs between funding emergency services and preserving legacy forests.

Deliberation Insights

  • Shifting Alliances: The initial 2-1 vote on May 31 to defer the sales was opposed by Commissioner Brotherton, who sided with the junior districts' revenue needs. The final 2-1 vote on June 27 to allow the sales was opposed by Chair Dean, who sought to maintain the deferral for conservation planning. Commissioner Eisenhour voted with the majority in both instances, first supporting the deferral and later its rescission.
  • Information Influence: Commissioners' attendance at a WSAC "Timber School" between the two votes appeared influential. They returned with a new understanding of 80-year harvest rotations as a potential compromise for maximizing both carbon sequestration and timber revenue, shifting the debate from "harvest vs. no harvest" to "how to harvest."
  • Absence of Alternatives: The board's deliberation lacked concrete, near-term alternatives to timber revenue for funding the junior districts. The conversation acknowledged the need for a long-term strategy but concluded that immediate fiscal needs were paramount.

Decision & Vote

Approved a motion 2-1 to draft a letter removing the deferral request for the Beaver Valley and Penny Wise timber sales and seeking a partnership with DNR on a long-term plan (June 27). Commissioners Eisenhour and Brotherton voted in favor; Chair Dean was opposed.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Junior taxing districts, particularly rural fire and school districts, which secured access to critical operating revenue. The timber industry also benefits from the sales proceeding.
  • Losers: Environmental advocates and residents seeking to preserve older forests, whose primary policy goal was defeated.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision releases approximately $3.2 million in potential gross revenue from the two sales, with a significant portion directed to local services.
  • Long-Term Impact: The county remains dependent on timber harvests for essential service funding, perpetuating the cycle of conflict between economic needs and environmental protection. The reversal undermines the board's credibility in establishing a consistent, long-term conservation strategy.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The decision was entirely reactive, driven by immediate budget pressures from service providers. It abandoned a proactive, albeit nascent, effort to develop a durable forest management strategy.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action conflicts with the county’s stated priorities on environmental protection and climate resilience. It reveals that when faced with a direct trade-off, the board prioritized short-term fiscal stability for essential services over long-term conservation goals.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The board funded rural fire and emergency services at the direct expense of preserving legacy forest stands. No alternative funding mechanism was established.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A viable, immediate plan to decouple essential service funding from timber revenue. The discussion focused on the binary choice presented, not on creating a third option.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This decision is a textbook example of the conflict between Jefferson County's limited tax base and its service demands, as well as the tension between economic development (timber) and environmental protection.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: By failing to secure a conservation outcome, the board risks alienating a core part of its progressive constituency. By failing to solve the underlying funding issue, it ensures this same conflict will erupt over future timber sales.

2. Board Adopts Homeless Housing Ordinance Under Deadline, Sparking Process Complaints

Topic

The board adopted a permanent ordinance establishing zoning regulations and performance standards for temporary homeless housing facilities, replacing an expiring interim rule.

Context

  • Legal Mandate: An interim ordinance was set to expire on June 20, creating a legal vacuum and forcing the board to act. State law (RCW 36.01.290) and court decisions (e.g., Martin v. Boise) limit a municipality's ability to prohibit sheltering without providing alternatives.
  • Housing Crisis: The action occurred against a backdrop of a severe housing shortage, with low inventory and median home values having doubled, exacerbating homelessness. The county's Point-in-Time count identified approximately 130 unhoused individuals.
  • Regulatory Complexity: The ordinance had to navigate complex zoning codes, distinguishing between temporary tent encampments and tiny shelter villages, and balancing the needs of the unhoused with neighborhood concerns.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Housing advocates Vicki Sontag and Barbara Mori, and rural residents from Brinnon.
  • Substance of testimony: Advocates largely supported the ordinance's goal but strongly criticized the process. They cited a lack of public access to the final draft before the hearing, the introduction of unvetted changes after the final workshop, and the rushed timeline. Specific objections were raised about new requirements, such as compliance with the International Residential Code's Appendix Q for tiny homes, which could render existing shelters non-compliant.
  • Notable Absences: No service providers like OlyCAP testified at the final public hearing on June 13.

Deliberation Insights

  • Process Over Substance: The board's deliberations focused heavily on procedural defenses and managing public criticism. Commissioners acknowledged the process was rushed due to the sunsetting of the previous ordinance but maintained that documents were accessible through standard channels.
  • Key Amendments: During the hearing, the board made several amendments from the dais, including equalizing the permit duration for tent and tiny shelter sites (one year with two annual renewals), adding a "good neighbor policy" requirement, and changing administrative language.
  • Unresolved Issues: The board adopted the ordinance despite advocate warnings that specific sections (like the IRC requirement) were unworkable and had not been properly vetted for cost or operational impact. This suggests a "pass now, fix later" approach.

Decision & Vote

Approved Ordinance O5-06-13-22 unanimously to repeal the interim rule and adopt permanent zoning regulations for temporary homeless facilities, as amended during the meeting (June 13). Vote count not explicitly recorded but noted as unanimous.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The county government, which avoided a regulatory gap, and OlyCAP, which gained a pathway for its proposed Casual Brown Village.
  • Losers: Public participants and advocates who felt their input was ignored in a flawed process, eroding trust in the county's public engagement. The status of existing temporary shelters under the new rules was left uncertain.
  • Operational Changes: The ordinance creates a Type 2 administrative permit process for temporary facilities in rural residential zones, establishes standards for safety and operations, and limits permit duration.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The action was reactive, dictated by an external deadline. The flawed process demonstrates a lack of long-range planning that would have allowed for a more deliberative, inclusive, and thorough legislative process.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: While the ordinance aligns with the board's priority of addressing the housing crisis, the execution undermined stated values of public transparency and engagement.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action fits a pattern of crisis-driven decision-making, where the immediate need to solve a problem (expiring law) overrides the need for a well-vetted, sustainable solution.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The full fiscal and operational impact of the new IRC and L&I requirements on existing and future shelter providers. The board did not have this analysis before voting.
  • Stakeholder Exclusions: Key service providers did not weigh in on the final version, and advocates who had been deeply involved felt their final concerns were not addressed.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The county adopted an ordinance with known flaws, requiring it to expend additional staff and board time on future amendments. This creates regulatory uncertainty for service providers and perpetuates public distrust.

3. County Denies Grant Sponsorship for Church Renovations, Citing Church-State Concerns

Topic

The Board of Commissioners unanimously voted to withdraw its sponsorship of a $124,000 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application for the Trinity United Methodist Church.

Context

  • Funding Request: The church sought grant funds for major capital repairs, including a new roof, windows, and boiler, and to address flood damage. The justification was the church's role as a de facto community center, hosting secular groups like Alcoholics Anonymous and a food bank six days a week.
  • Constitutional Constraints: The U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause and corresponding state provisions place restrictions on public funding for religious institutions.
  • Competing Priorities: The county had a slate of other potential CDBG applications to consider, including one for public health septic system grants.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Tom Tirish and Jim Scarantino (via text).
  • What they represented: Citizen concern for the separation of church and state.
  • Substance of testimony: Commenters argued that because money is fungible, public funds for capital repairs would inevitably support the church's religious mission. They also raised concerns about "compelled speech" and the costs of monitoring grant compliance.

Deliberation Insights

  • Legal Ambiguity vs. Political Caution: The county's legal counsel, Philip Hunsucker, advised that the grant likely met the legal standard (the "Lemon test") because it had a secular purpose. However, commissioners expressed significant ethical and political reservations.
  • Lack of Demonstrable Public Benefit: Commissioners noted a lack of evidence that the church was actively promoting its space for broad community use beyond its existing partner groups.
  • Preference for Core Government Functions: The board explicitly stated a preference for sponsoring a grant for septic system repairs, a core public health function, over renovating a privately-owned religious facility.

Decision & Vote

Approved a motion 3-0 to withdraw support for the church's CDBG grant application (May 23). Vote count established as unanimous.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Advocates for a strict separation of church and state. County public health initiatives, which were implicitly prioritized for future CDBG sponsorship.
  • Losers: Trinity United Methodist Church and the community groups using its facilities, which lost a significant funding opportunity for critical repairs.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision freed up the county's single CDBG sponsorship slot for other projects, preventing the allocation of $124,000 to the church.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The decision was reactive to a specific grant application. However, it established a clear precedent for the board's stance on funding religious institutions.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action aligns with a fiscally conservative approach to discretionary funding and prioritizes core government services (public health) over supporting third-party community organizations, particularly religious ones.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The board chose to forgo an opportunity to improve a community gathering space in favor of preserving its ability to fund a direct public health need.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A broader policy or set of criteria for evaluating future requests for financial support from faith-based organizations that provide secular community services. The decision was ad hoc.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The decision may discourage other faith-based community partners from seeking county support, potentially limiting the county's ability to leverage existing community assets to deliver social services.

4. Board Establishes New No-Shooting Zone After Deferring to Tribal Treaty Rights

Topic

The board approved a new no-shooting area in the dense residential portion of Cape George and separately initiated a facilitated stakeholder process for a proposal at Gardener Beach.

Context

  • Public Safety Concerns: Residents of Cape George petitioned for the zone after multiple incidents of unsafe gunfire, including one at 4:00 AM, in a dense area with over 400 homes. The Sheriff's Office indicated it was unable to act on such incidents without a designated no-shooting zone.
  • Tribal Sovereignty: An initial, larger proposal for Cape George included a 230-acre DNR parcel. The Point No Point Treaty Council objected, stating it would infringe on treaty hunting rights.
  • Regulatory Framework: State law (RCW 9.41.300) allows local governments to restrict firearm discharge only where a "reasonable likelihood of jeopardy" to public safety exists. The county must navigate this standard while respecting treaty rights and private property rights.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Dozens of Cape George residents, landowners at Gardener Beach, and Dylan from the Point No Point Treaty Council.
  • Substance of testimony: Cape George residents overwhelmingly supported the zone, citing child safety, livestock distress, and the unpredictability of bullet trajectories. A minority opposed it, arguing existing state laws were sufficient. At Gardener Beach, testimony highlighted unsafe waterfowl hunting near a public boat launch. The Treaty Council provided critical input, successfully advocating against the inclusion of the DNR parcel in the Cape George zone.
  • Intensity: Public comment was extensive and passionate, particularly from Cape George residents demanding action.

Deliberation Insights

  • Deference to Tribal Rights: The board immediately accepted the Treaty Council's concerns, discarding the larger Cape George proposal and advancing only the smaller version focused strictly on the residential area. There was no debate on this point.
  • Choosing the Right Tool: For Gardener Beach, which involved private land with permitted hunting, low housing density, and absent stakeholders (the primary landowner, WDFW), the board rejected a formal public hearing. Instead, it opted for a less formal, commissioner-led facilitation process to bring all parties to the table.
  • Establishing a Standard: Commissioners determined that the high housing density and documented gunfire incidents in Cape George met the state's "definable threat" standard required for regulation.

Decision & Vote

  • Unanimously approved holding a public hearing for the smaller Cape George proposal (May 17).
  • Unanimously approved the ordinance creating the smaller Cape George no-shooting area (June 27).
  • Unanimously approved pursuing a facilitated solution for the Gardener Beach proposal (May 17).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Residents of the Cape George community, who gain a new regulatory tool to address safety concerns. The Point No Point Treaty Council, which successfully protected treaty hunting rights from local government encroachment.
  • Losers: Individuals who previously discharged firearms on private property within the new Cape George zone.
  • Operational Changes: The Sheriff's Office is now empowered to enforce firearm discharge restrictions within the designated Cape George boundaries.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Reactive: The action was reactive to resident petitions but demonstrated a strategic approach to implementation. The board successfully balanced competing interests by tailoring its response to each unique situation (a formal ordinance for a clear-cut case, facilitation for a complex one).
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The decision aligns with priorities of public safety and respect for tribal sovereignty. It shows the board's ability to navigate complex land-use conflicts and achieve a workable compromise.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action stands in contrast to the timber and housing decisions. Here, the board took a measured, deliberative approach, listened to all stakeholders, and arrived at a durable, well-supported outcome.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • Stakeholder Inclusions: The process effectively included tribal government, residents, and landowners, representing a model for successful public engagement.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: The decision directly navigated the tension between rural character (which can include hunting and firearm use) and the safety demands of growing residential density. The outcome prioritized safety within dense housing areas while preserving traditional uses on adjacent public lands.
  • What was not discussed: A county-wide framework or set of objective criteria for evaluating future no-shooting zone petitions, which could prevent future ad hoc debates.

AI Information