Skip to content

Recap of 2023Q1

Analysis

Date Range: January 9, 2023 – March 27, 2023

Executive Summary

In the first quarter of 2023, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners transitioned from the internal crisis management of late 2022 to a new role as the primary distributor of federal largesse. The board's dominant activity was the allocation of its remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, culminating in a final disbursement of $835,000 spread across 17 different community organizations. This followed a foundational $1.5 million ARPA commitment to the Port Hadlock sewer project, a critical infrastructure investment decades in the making. By prioritizing a broad array of capital projects—from childcare facilities and community kitchens to a pump track and student housing—the board used one-time federal dollars to generate widespread community goodwill and plug numerous funding gaps that the county's strained tax base cannot address.

This pattern of reactive grant-making contrasts sharply with the board's more contentious regulatory work. The codification of a new courthouse security ordinance consumed significant public and board attention, exposing a deep divide over whether all entrants, including attorneys and county employees, should face identical screening. In a 3-0 vote, the board ultimately prioritized operational efficiency and professional courtesy over a universal security standard, exempting "known insiders" from the full process applied to the general public.

The primary winners this quarter were the dozens of non-profits and community groups who received one-time funding injections. Losers were the 31 applicants denied ARPA funds and citizens who advocated for stricter, universal security protocols at the county courthouse. While the board successfully advanced major strategic goals like the Port Hadlock sewer, its overarching governance pattern was one of tactical, reactive spending, using temporary federal funds to address a permanent structural gap between community needs and the county's fiscal capacity.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Distributes Final $835,000 in Federal Relief Funds Across 17 Community Projects

Topic

The board approved a ranked-list allocation for its final $834,718 in available American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, distributing grants to 17 community organizations and projects.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: With a narrow tax base and high demand for services, the county leveraged one-time federal ARPA funds to address capital and operational needs it cannot support through its general fund. This action represents the final, competitive allocation of these funds.
  • Overwhelming Demand: The county received 48 applications requesting over $3.37 million, more than four times the available funding, highlighting the significant unmet financial needs of local organizations.
  • Preceding Commitments: Prior to this "Last Call" process, the board had already committed $1.5 million in ARPA funds to the Port Hadlock Sewer project and $100,000 for a Hood Canal broadband match, positioning infrastructure as its primary investment.
  • Grant Dependency: The process underscores the county's and local non-profits' reliance on external, temporary grant funding to provide services and build community assets.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Representatives from numerous organizations, including a pump track advocacy group and the Winter Welcoming Center, made funding pleas during public comment periods leading up to the decision.
  • What they represented: A wide array of sectors including youth recreation, homeless services, housing development, arts, and economic development.
  • Substance of testimony: Testimonies focused on community benefit, the leveraging of other funds, and the urgent need for capital to start or complete projects.
  • Intensity: While individual pleas were passionate, the formal allocation process itself on February 27 did not include public comment.

Deliberation Insights

  • Data-Driven Process: To manage the high volume of requests, commissioners used a blind individual ranking system based on pre-approved criteria (leveraging other funds, capital investment, youth focus, geographic diversity). This created a consolidated master list intended to ensure objectivity.
  • Prioritizing Capital and Housing: The final funded list skewed heavily toward tangible capital projects (YMCA childcare facility, Quilcene school kitchen, boat school student housing, Humane Society facility) and housing initiatives (Habitat for Humanity, Olympic Housing Trust).
  • Acknowledging Prior Funding: Commissioners debated whether to fund applicants who had previously received county support, ultimately choosing to fund several, including Habitat for Humanity and Jefferson Healthcare, based on the strength of their proposals.
  • Reallocation Mechanism: The board built in a contingency, directing that any unspent funds from an approved project would be reallocated sequentially down the ranked list to the next unfunded project.

Decision & Vote

Approved funding for the top 17 ranked projects, totaling $829,000, contingent on receipt of the final ARPA revenue tranche. (Approved 3-0 on February 27). Subsequent approvals of individual grant agreements occurred via the consent agenda on March 20 and March 27.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The 17 funded organizations, which received critical capital for projects ranging from $20,000 to $100,000. Beneficiaries include the YMCA of Jefferson County ($100,000), Public Works ($100,000 for Shine Road grant match), and Habitat for Humanity ($80,000).
  • Losers: The 31 unfunded applicants, who must seek alternative funding or delay their projects.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision obligates the entirety of the county's remaining discretionary ARPA funds, closing out the program. The county acts as a pass-through agency, creating administrative workload but no direct, long-term fiscal liability.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The allocation was a proactive use of one-time funds to address a wide array of community priorities. However, the process itself was reactive to the applications received rather than part of a pre-defined county strategic investment plan.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The funding aligns with broad priorities of housing, economic recovery, and public benefit. The breadth of the awards demonstrates a strategy of spreading benefits widely across the community.
  • Budget Trade-offs: By allocating the funds broadly, the board chose not to concentrate the remaining $835,000 on a single, large-scale problem, such as the Public Works road fund deficit or a larger housing investment.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A strategy for sustaining the services or facilities initiated with these one-time funds. The county is funding the creation of assets without addressing their long-term operational costs.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This action is a direct response to the tension between the county's limited tax base and high service demands. It uses a temporary federal windfall to mask a permanent structural deficit in the community's ability to fund desired projects.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The process raises expectations for future county largesse. When these one-time funds are gone, the county will have no mechanism to replicate this level of community grant-making, potentially creating disappointment and straining relationships with local organizations.

2. County Codifies Courthouse Security, Exempting Attorneys and Staff from Full Screening

Topic

The board adopted a new ordinance establishing mandatory security screening at the county courthouse but created exemptions that allow county employees, officials, and licensed attorneys to bypass the full screening process applied to the public.

Context

  • Regulatory Modernization: The ordinance replaced an outdated 1999 resolution, codifying security procedures to align with state law and court rules (GR 36, RCW 9.41.300) that allow for weapons restrictions in secure facilities.
  • Public Safety Concerns: The action was framed as a necessary measure to enhance safety for the public and employees in a high-traffic public building.
  • Operational Efficiency: Creating a single point of entry and screening in the courthouse basement was also intended to streamline operations for the Sheriff's Office, which provides security.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Public comment was extensive and sharply divided. Speakers included Tom Tiersch, George Yount, Steven Schumacher, and representatives from the Jefferson County Bar Association, the Treasurer's Office, and the Auditor's Office.
  • What they represented: One contingent argued for universal screening without exception, citing workplace violence statistics and principles of fairness. The other, composed largely of attorneys and county officials, argued for exemptions based on professional vetting (bar members) and operational necessity (employees handling mail and ballots).
  • Substance of testimony: Opponents of exemptions called them "plain old dangerous" and a form of favoritism. Proponents argued that requiring frequent visitors like attorneys to undergo full screening for every entry was inefficient and unnecessary.
  • Intensity: The debate was robust, consuming significant time during two separate meetings.

Deliberation Insights

  • Balancing Security and Convenience: The board's deliberation centered on the trade-off between absolute security and the practical realities of a working courthouse. Commissioners wrestled with defining who constituted a low risk.
  • Deference to "Insiders": The board gave significant weight to the testimony of other elected officials (Treasurer, Auditor) and the Bar Association, who argued that their roles and professional status warranted an exception.
  • Key Amendment: The board amended the draft ordinance to remove a screening exemption for off-duty law enforcement officers, a concession to critics who argued against preferential treatment for individuals not present in an official capacity. The exemption for on-duty officers was retained.
  • Acceptance of Existing Practices: The final ordinance largely codifies the de facto screening practices that had been in place since 2018, rather than instituting a fundamentally new security posture.

Decision & Vote

Approved Ordinance 01-0227-23 as amended to remove the off-duty law enforcement screening exception. (Approved 3-0 on February 27).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: County employees, elected officials, and members of the local bar, who are granted expedited, less intrusive access to the courthouse. The Sheriff's Office gains clear legal authority for its screening procedures.
  • Losers: Members of the public who advocated for universal screening and who perceive the system as creating a privileged class of insiders with fewer security checks.
  • Operational Changes: The ordinance formalizes the single-point-of-entry screening process, empowering deputies to deny entry to individuals with prohibited items.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The ordinance is a proactive measure to update an old rule and clarify authority. However, the substance of the ordinance is reactive in that it cements existing practices rather than implementing a new, more stringent security philosophy.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The ordinance aligns with the priority of public safety but creates a conflict with perceived values of equity and fairness by establishing different rules for different classes of people.
  • Pattern Recognition: The decision reflects a pragmatic governance style that prioritizes operational smoothness and accommodates the interests of established professional groups.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A data-driven analysis of the actual threat posed by the exempted groups. The debate relied on assumptions about professional status correlating with low security risk, a premise challenged by public commenters citing workplace violence data.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The ordinance creates a perception of a two-tiered security system, which can erode public trust. It codifies a potential vulnerability by exempting a large number of individuals from the same level of scrutiny applied to the general public.

3. Board Advances Port Hadlock Sewer Project with Major Funding and First Contract Bid

Topic

The board committed $2.5 million in county-controlled funds to the Port Hadlock Sewer Project and authorized a call for bids for the first phase of construction.

Context

  • Urban Growth vs. Rural Preservation: The sewer project is the single most critical piece of infrastructure needed to enable concentrated growth in the Port Hadlock Urban Growth Area (UGA), a cornerstone of the county's strategy to prevent rural sprawl.
  • Housing Crisis: The lack of a sewer system has been a primary barrier to building multi-family and other dense housing typologies needed to address the county's severe housing shortage.
  • Tax Base Limits & Grant Dependency: The project's estimated $35 million cost far exceeds the county's bonding capacity, making it entirely dependent on a complex patchwork of state and federal grants. The county's ARPA allocation was essential seed money.
  • Long-Term Planning: This action represents a major milestone in a project that has been in planning and development phases for over two decades.

Public Input

  • No public comment was offered on these specific actions, as they were largely administrative steps in a long-established and previously debated public works project.

Deliberation Insights

  • Execution Focus: Board discussion was celebratory and focused on execution. Having secured the majority of the external funding, deliberations centered on the practicalities of getting the project "shovel-ready" and ensuring local contractors had an opportunity to bid on segmented work.
  • Leveraging ARPA Funds: The board strategically allocated $1.5 million in ARPA funds and $1 million from a capital fund (Jan 9). This local commitment was critical for unlocking larger state and federal grants.
  • Unchallenged Assumptions: The board operated on the long-held assumption that the sewer project is the highest and best use for the committed funds and is essential for the county's future. Alternatives were not discussed at this late stage.

Decision & Vote

  • Allocated $1.5 million in ARPA funds and $1 million in capital funds to the sewer project. (Approved 3-0 on January 9).
  • Authorized a call for bids for Phase 1 construction (site preparation and earthwork). (Approved 3-0 via consent agenda on March 6).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Developers, future residents of Port Hadlock, and proponents of managed growth. The project, once complete, will unlock significant development potential in the UGA.
  • Losers: No immediate losers are identified, though opponents of growth in Port Hadlock see their position defeated. Future ratepayers will bear the long-term operational costs of the system.
  • Fiscal Impact: The county committed $2.5 million of its own resources and took on the financial administration of a $35 million project. It authorized the Treasurer to seek a $10 million line of credit to manage cash flow during construction.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: This is the culmination of a long-term proactive strategy. The decisions this quarter moved the project from the planning phase to the active construction phase.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action aligns perfectly with the board's stated priorities on housing, growth management, and infrastructure development. The significant financial commitment proves this is a top-tier priority.
  • Budget Trade-offs: Committing $2.5 million in discretionary and ARPA funds to a single project represents a major trade-off. These funds were unavailable for other priorities like the road fund deficit, social services, or broader economic development.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The long-term plan for managing the sewer utility and ensuring rates remain affordable, particularly for low-income residents who may be required to connect. The financial sustainability of the utility post-construction was not a focus.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This project is the county's primary tool for managing the tension between urban growth and rural preservation. By enabling density in the UGA, it seeks to relieve development pressure on outlying rural and resource lands.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The county is now fully committed to a massive, complex construction project with financial risks related to bid costs, construction overruns, and the stability of future grant disbursements. Project failure would be a catastrophic financial and political blow.

4. Board Addresses Staffing Crises with Retention Bonuses and Consultant Contracts

Topic

The board approved new retention and hiring incentives for corrections officers and authorized new spending on outside consultants to manage workload in the Department of Community Development (DCD).

Context

  • Personnel Shortages: Like many rural governments, the county faces chronic difficulties recruiting and retaining staff, particularly in specialized or high-stress fields like law enforcement and land use planning, due to uncompetitive wages compared to neighboring urban counties.
  • Consequences of Prior Decisions: The DCD workload crisis, first identified in late 2022, was a direct result of the board adopting a complex "Legal Lot of Record" ordinance without allocating resources for its implementation.
  • Public Safety Concerns: Staffing shortages in the corrections division have direct impacts on jail safety and operations.
  • Fiscal Pressure: These actions require spending unbudgeted funds, either from reserves or by redirecting other resources, placing further strain on a tight budget.

Public Input

  • No public comment was offered on these specific items, which were passed via consent agenda or as administrative follow-up to prior workshops.

Deliberation Insights

  • Crisis Response Mode: These decisions were presented and approved as urgent necessities to maintain core government functions. Discussion on the corrections incentives was minimal, framing it as a critical tool to prevent further staff departures.
  • Acceptance of External Costs: Deliberations on DCD's capacity issues, which began in late 2022 and continued into this quarter, showed a quick acceptance of hiring expensive consultants as the only viable short-term solution to process permit backlogs and meet state grant deadlines.
  • Lack of Structural Solutions: The board did not engage in a broader discussion about raising county-wide salary scales to address the root cause of the retention problem. The incentives and consultant contracts are expensive, temporary fixes.

Decision & Vote

  • Approved a Memorandum of Agreement for $15,000 retention/hiring incentives for up to nine Corrections Officers, totaling $135,000. (Approved 3-0 via consent agenda on January 9).
  • Approved a contract amendment with a shoreline planning consultant to manage work DCD staff could not, funded by a $50,000 state grant. (Approved 3-0 via consent agenda on March 27).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Current corrections officers who receive bonuses, the new hire who receives an incentive, and private consulting firms who gain county contracts.
  • Losers: County taxpayers, who fund costly short-term solutions. Other county departments and employees, whose needs are implicitly deprioritized as unbudgeted funds are directed to crisis areas.
  • Fiscal Impact: The county committed $135,000 for corrections incentives and is increasingly reliant on grant-funded consultants to perform core planning work, a model that is not fiscally sustainable.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: These actions are purely reactive, responding to immediate staffing flight and administrative backlogs. They do not represent a proactive, strategic approach to workforce management or sustainable service delivery.
  • Pattern Recognition: This continues a pattern from late 2022 of the board passing complex legislation first and only later funding the administrative consequences. It demonstrates a disconnect between policy ambition and operational capacity.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: The decisions highlight the acute tension between the county's limited tax base—which constrains its ability to pay competitive salaries—and the high demand for robust government services, from public safety to land use permitting.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A long-term, county-wide compensation strategy to make Jefferson County a more competitive employer and reduce reliance on temporary bonuses and external consultants.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: This ad-hoc approach creates internal inequities between employee groups who receive special incentives and those who do not. It also establishes a costly dependency on consultants, which can erode in-house expertise over time. The underlying staffing instability in critical departments remains unsolved.

AI Information