Skip to content

Recap of 2023Q2

Analysis

Date Range: April 3, 2023 – May 22, 2023

Executive Summary

During the second quarter of 2023, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners governed from a defensive crouch, forced to manage the direct operational and fiscal consequences of its own prior legislative actions. The period was defined by an acute administrative crisis in the Department of Community Development (DCD), where a staff exodus following a new land use ordinance compelled the board to approve emergency closures and prepare for costly consultant contracts. This reactive posture, aimed at mitigating self-inflicted damage to core county services, stood in sharp contrast to the board’s simultaneous progress on long-term, grant-funded infrastructure projects.

The board’s most significant actions were attempts to contain the DCD meltdown. After eight staff resignations created a backlog of over 400 permits, commissioners approved a full-week departmental closure in May simply to process paperwork, a stark admission of systemic failure. While the board advanced major capital projects—awarding a $1.14 million contract for the Port Hadlock Sewer and a $445,000 contract for Dosewallips River restoration—these wins were entirely dependent on external state and federal funding. Local tax dollars, meanwhile, were increasingly directed toward fixing broken internal processes.

In a major policy decision, the board passed a resolution urging the deprioritization of criminal enforcement for entheogenic plants, a move that satisfied its progressive base but created explicit tension with the elected Sheriff and Prosecutor.

The primary winners this quarter were external engineering and environmental consultants, along with construction firms awarded major contracts. The losers were residents and business owners seeking permits from the crippled DCD, taxpayers now funding the fallout from the poorly implemented land use law, and county departments facing chronic underfunding while crises consumed board attention.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Shuts Down Planning Department to Manage Permitting Crisis

Topic

The board approved an emergency one-week closure of the Department of Community Development (DCD) to manage a staff exodus and a 400-plus permit backlog created by a new land use law.

Context

  • Consequences of Prior Decisions: The crisis is a direct result of the board's October 2022 adoption of the "Legal Lot of Record" ordinance, a complex law passed without allocating resources for its implementation. The board had already approved spending $75,000 on consultants in late 2022 to manage the initial fallout.
  • Personnel Shortages: DCD Director Brent Butler reported eight staff resignations since February 2023, crippling the department. This reflects a county-wide struggle to retain employees due to uncompetitive wages.
  • Operational Failure: The new Site Development Review (SDR) process, intended to streamline permitting, became a bottleneck. DCD reported 100 applications were stuck in the system, with 42 requiring complex historical review under the new legal lot law.
  • Housing Crisis: The permitting logjam directly obstructs the construction of new housing, undermining the board's top stated priority.

Public Input

  • Who testified: The Planning Commission and the President of the Home Builders Association.
  • What they represented: Development interests and advisory bodies directly impacted by the departmental failure.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers framed the situation as an emergency, citing deep staff dissatisfaction and supporting a full operational review.

Deliberation Insights

  • Crisis Management Mode: The board accepted the closure as a necessary emergency measure. The discussion focused on triage—approving the shutdown and fast-tracking a Request for Proposals for on-call consultants—rather than addressing the ordinance that caused the collapse.
  • Lack of Accountability: Deliberations did not include a review of the board's own role in creating the crisis by passing the under-resourced ordinance. The focus remained on staff-level implementation failures.
  • Alternatives Rejected: An interim moratorium on new permits was proposed by staff but not adopted by the board. The board opted for the temporary closure and the hiring of expensive external consultants as its primary solution.

Decision & Vote

Approved a one-week closure of DCD for the first week of May and authorized staff to proceed with an RFP for on-call planning consultants. (Approved by consensus 3–0 on April 17).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Private consulting firms positioned to win contracts to backfill DCD functions.
  • Losers: Property owners, developers, and builders, who face extended delays and increased uncertainty. Taxpayers, who will fund costly consultants to perform work previously done by county staff.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision commits the county to significant, unbudgeted expenditures for consultant contracts. The full fiscal impact was not specified in the record.
  • Operational Changes: A core county department was rendered non-operational for a full week, signaling a profound breakdown in a key government service.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The decision was purely reactive, an emergency attempt to stop a complete departmental collapse. It demonstrates a failure of proactive planning and resource allocation.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action reveals a complete disconnect between the board’s stated priority of addressing the housing crisis and its legislative actions, which have actively hindered it.
  • Pattern Recognition: This continues a pattern from late 2022 of the board passing complex legislation first and only later confronting the administrative consequences, confirming a severe gap between policy ambition and operational capacity.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The root cause of the crisis—whether the Legal Lot of Record ordinance is fundamentally flawed and should be amended or repealed. The discussion treated the law as immutable.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: The crisis is a direct manifestation of the tension between development constraints (complex regulation) and housing affordability, and between the demand for robust government services and the county's limited tax base to properly staff them.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: Relying on consultants is a temporary, expensive fix that fails to address the underlying issues of uncompetitive salaries and unsustainable workload. It creates a long-term dependency and erodes in-house institutional knowledge.

2. Commissioners Deprioritize Enforcement of Psychedelic Drug Laws

Topic

The board discussed a resolution urging that the investigation and arrest of adults for activities involving entheogenic plants and fungi be the lowest law enforcement priority for the county.

Context

  • Political Alignment: The resolution aligns with the values of the county’s progressive electorate and follows similar resolutions passed by the City of Port Townsend and the Board of Health in 2021.
  • Public Safety Concerns: The elected Sheriff and Prosecuting Attorney both expressed significant reservations, citing their oath to enforce all state laws and concerns about setting a precedent for selectively enforcing other criminal statutes.
  • Constituent Demand: The action was driven by a highly organized and vocal contingent of residents from the Port Townsend Psychedelic Society, who provided extensive public testimony on the therapeutic benefits of the substances for PTSD, addiction, and anxiety.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Over 28 members of the public testified in person and online across two meetings.
  • What they represented: A coalition of mental health professionals, veterans, addiction recovery advocates, and individuals with personal healing experiences.
  • Substance of testimony: Testimony was unanimous in support, citing scientific studies and personal stories of healing trauma and mental illness. Advocates stressed the need for decriminalization to enable peer support models and avoid commercialization.
  • Intensity: Public comment was extensive, organized, and emotionally compelling.

Deliberation Insights

  • Tension with Elected Officials: The board's deliberations highlighted the inherent conflict in directing the enforcement priorities of other independently elected officials. Sheriff Joe Nole stated he could not support the resolution due to his oath of office. Prosecutor James Kennedy noted such cases are already a low priority and are rarely prosecuted.
  • Focus on "Soft Power": Commissioners framed the resolution not as a directive but as a policy statement and a tool for advocating for state-level legislative change. Commissioner Dean expressed concern that language directing future budget allocations would "defang" the board's ability to hold other officials accountable.
  • Pragmatic Concerns: While supportive of the goals, commissioners debated the scope of the resolution, with concerns raised about including "all drugs" in a public health section and the logistical implications of limiting future funding. The final vote on a revised resolution was deferred.

Decision & Vote

Deliberations were held on April 24; the item was deferred to a future meeting for revisions. A final vote was not taken during the period of this analysis.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Advocates for drug policy reform, who secured a strong statement of support from the county's legislative body.
  • Losers: The Sheriff and Prosecutor, who are placed in the politically difficult position of either defying the board's stated will or selectively enforcing state law.
  • Operational Changes: While framed as a recommendation, the resolution is intended to reduce law enforcement actions related to personal use of psychedelics.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Reactive: The action was proactive, responding to a well-organized advocacy campaign to advance a specific policy goal.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The resolution aligns with the board’s progressive values and stated interests in public health and social justice reform.
  • Pattern Recognition: The action demonstrates the board's willingness to use its platform to make symbolic policy statements, even when it creates friction with other branches of county government and has limited direct enforceability.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The potential for unintended consequences, such as an increase in public intoxication or impaired driving incidents, and the county’s liability in such events. The resource implications for public health or emergency services were not analyzed.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The action risks undermining the authority and discretion of the elected Sheriff and Prosecutor, potentially politicizing law enforcement priorities. It also creates a public expectation of non-enforcement that may not be deliverable.

3. Board Advances Major Infrastructure Projects with External Funds

Topic

The board approved a series of major contracts and budget allocations for infrastructure projects, primarily the Port Hadlock Sewer and road maintenance, funded almost entirely by state and federal grants.

Context

  • Grant Dependency: These actions underscore the county's complete reliance on external funding for major capital improvements. Local revenue sources, particularly the strained Road Fund, are insufficient for anything beyond basic operations.
  • Long-Term Strategy: The Port Hadlock Sewer project is the culmination of a decades-long strategy to enable dense, urban-style development and relieve growth pressure on rural lands, a core tenet of the county’s comprehensive plan.
  • Fiscal Pressure: On April 17, the board approved a $1 million cash-flow loan from its capital fund to the sewer project, demonstrating the liquidity challenges of managing large, grant-reimbursement-based projects. The board also approved a $1.2 million increase to the Center Road overlay contract, using dedicated state RATA funds to address a road overdue for resurfacing by 30 years.

Public Input

  • No significant public comment was offered on these contract approvals.

Deliberation Insights

  • Execution Focus: Board discussions were focused on execution and celebrating milestones. The award of the $1.14 million sewer construction contract was hailed as a "thrilling" achievement.
  • Local Preference: In awarding the sewer contract to Seton Construction, a local firm, Chair Brotherton highlighted the cost savings and efficiencies gained from using a local bidder.
  • Acknowledging Deficits: While approving the Center Road contract, Commissioner Dean noted the project was 25-30 years overdue, a tacit acknowledgment of the county’s long-standing infrastructure funding deficit which was formally documented in late 2022.

Decision & Vote

  • Approved a $1.2M Public Infrastructure Fund award for the Gateway Visitor Center and Complete Streets projects. (Approved 3-0, April 17).
  • Awarded a $1,139,547 contract to Seton Construction for Phase I of the Port Hadlock Sewer project. (Approved 3-0 via consent agenda, April 24).
  • Approved a $1.2M contract increase for the Center Road overlay project. (Approved 3-0 via consent agenda, May 15).
  • Approved a $444,887 contract with Natural Systems Design for Dosewallips River restoration planning. (Approved 3-0, May 15).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The construction and engineering sectors, which were awarded millions in contracts. Proponents of managed growth and environmental restoration, whose strategic goals were advanced.
  • Losers: No direct losers were identified, but the reliance on grants leaves the county vulnerable to shifts in state and federal funding priorities.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decisions commit millions in pass-through grant funds and leverage local funds as a match. This activity stimulates the local economy but does not address the county's underlying structural deficits.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: These actions are the execution phase of long-term, proactive strategic plans for growth management and environmental restoration.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The use of dedicated grant funds for these projects means there are few direct trade-offs with general fund services. However, it highlights the stark contrast between the county’s ability to fund externally-favored projects and its inability to solve internal funding crises like the Road Fund deficit with local dollars.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: These projects directly address key county tensions: the sewer project mediates urban growth vs. rural preservation, and the Dosewallips project balances environmental protection with infrastructure needs.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The long-term operational and maintenance costs associated with these new assets, particularly the sewer system, and the county's plan to fund them once grant money is spent.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: Heavy reliance on grants creates a boom-bust cycle of capital investment and leaves core infrastructure vulnerable if external funding priorities change. It also masks the inability of the local tax base to support the county's infrastructure needs.

4. County Waives $211,000 in Fines to Settle Chronic Land Use Violation

Topic

The board approved a settlement with a property owner for chronic solid waste violations, agreeing to release 80% of $264,500 in accrued fines in exchange for a commitment to clean up the properties.

Context

  • Enforcement Challenges: The case involved a long-standing hoarding issue at two properties, including one with a conservation easement, that had resulted in three fires. The county's code enforcement process (Title 19) had failed to achieve compliance.
  • Fiscal Pressure: The county was faced with the choice of pursuing costly litigation with an uncertain outcome or settling for less than the full value of the fines to guarantee the cleanup.
  • Public Health & Safety: The primary driver for the settlement was the need to resolve a significant solid waste issue and public nuisance.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Tom Tiersch.
  • Substance of testimony: The commenter argued that such settlements shortchange the county and lack transparency, comparing the waiving of fines to dismissing traffic tickets.

Deliberation Insights

  • Pragmatism Over Punishment: The Prosecuting Attorney framed the settlement as the most effective path to compliance, arguing that a court battle would be costly and might not result in a cleanup order.
  • Focus on Compliance: The board's discussion centered on the tangible outcome of getting the properties cleaned, viewing this as a greater public benefit than attempting to collect the full fine amount. The settlement required the property to be transferred to a family trust, which would assume responsibility for the cleanup.

Decision & Vote

Approved the settlement agreement, releasing approximately $211,600 in fines immediately, with an additional $52,900 to be released upon successful cleanup. The owner will pay $14,425 for enforcement costs. (Approved 3-0 on April 3).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The property owner, who avoids over $260,000 in fines. The county government, which secures a guaranteed cleanup plan without further litigation costs.
  • Losers: Taxpayers, as the county forgoes significant revenue from penalties intended to deter violations.
  • Fiscal Impact: The county wrote off $211,600 in accrued fines, establishing a precedent that could weaken the deterrent effect of its penalty system.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The decision was a reactive solution to a chronic enforcement failure.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action prioritizes public health and safety (via cleanup) over revenue generation or punitive enforcement. It reflects a pragmatic approach to resolving complex compliance issues.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A broader review of the county's code enforcement process to determine why it failed to achieve compliance over a long period, allowing the problem to escalate.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: Waiving the vast majority of fines may signal to other potential violators that the county's enforcement penalties are negotiable, potentially encouraging non-compliance.

AI Information