MEETING: Untitled Meeting at Wed, Apr 23, 01:37 PM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

Jefferson County Housing Fund Board Meeting Summary

Open Public Comment

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:27.000–00:04:51.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Open Public Comment
  • Categories: public safety, housing, services

Topic Summary

The meeting opened with time for open public comment, during which a community member named Maggie criticized county and contractor practices, alleging systemic cruelty and the disenfranchisement of vulnerable populations, particularly regarding emergency shelter operations. The bulk of the critique focused on the lack of essential hygiene services (showers, toilets, laundry) in current emergency and transitional housing, framed as a consequence of prioritizing funding based on "heads counted" or perceived drug use rather than actual human needs.

Key Discussion Points

  • Maggie claimed that government policies exploit marginalized individuals (disabled, mentally ill, elderly, financially marginalized) by creating a system where "you're on drugs because that's where the money is" (Part 1, 00:01:42.000–00:02:01.000).
  • Emergency shelters were described as "problems, not solutions" due to lack of available permanent housing and poor conditions in transitional housing (Part 1, 00:02:26.000–00:02:44.000).
  • The speaker asserted that people are treated like "heads of cattle" to secure funding, neglecting essential life services like toilets, showers, and laundry (Part 1, 00:02:44.000–00:03:10.000).
  • Maggie proposed an Urban Rest Stop at the Port Housing Yacht Club location, instead of supporting Caswell Brown, arguing Caswell Brown would duplicate infectious disease spreading issues seen at 209A (Part 1, 00:03:43.000–00:04:13.000).
  • The proposal suggested the Port Housing Yacht Club could serve as a day center with potable water, showers, toilets, laundry, medical triage, a commercial kitchen, day storage, and a mail drop (Part 1, 00:04:13.000).

Public Comments

  • - Maggie: Criticized current system for exploiting vulnerable populations, often tying funding to drug use. Asserted emergency and transitional housing without hygiene facilities are "problems, not solutions." Proposed an Urban Rest Stop at the Port Housing Yacht Club ($375,000 for the building, $200,000 for the land, totaling $575,000), suggesting it could be a county asset with solar panels providing free heat and hot water (Part 1, 00:04:25.000–00:04:43.000). Stated the Urban Rest Stop approach avoids replicating the issues of congregate shelters, which she called a "number one spreader of transmittable disease" (Part 1, 00:03:43.000–00:04:13.000).

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • Proposed cost for Port Housing Yacht Club Urban Rest Stop: $375,000 for the building and $200,000 for the land, totaling $575,000 (Part 1, 00:04:25.000).
  • Maggie claimed the County currently has $585,000 left in its budget, which could cover the cost of the proposed facility (Part 1, 01:41:23.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternative proposed by public comment: Developing an Urban Rest Stop at the Port Housing Yacht Club instead of funding Caswell Brown's congregate shelter model (Part 1, 00:03:43.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken. Item was informational (public comment).
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified. Maggie agreed to speak with a board member after the meeting about the Port Housing Yacht Club proposal (Part 1, 01:40:40.000).

Discussion and Potential Action Regarding Funding Requests

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:05:07.000–00:51:22.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Discussion and Potential Action regarding funding requests
  • Categories: budgeting, homelessness, operations, planning, contracts

Topic Summary

Finance presented an overview of the Affordable Housing (Fund 148) and Homelessness (Fund 149) budgets, noting major unexpended awards (Casa Colina, Caswell Brown, Dundee Hill) and current cash balances. Three new requests were detailed: Dove House, Holy Cap Emergency Shelter, and the County Bayside Emergency Shelter. Finance recommended delaying decisions on funding requests for the second half of 2025 until the Washington State (WaSAK) budget is finalized, expected around April 27th. The core discussion focused on clarifying which funds could be used for operating versus capital expenses and addressing the most immediate need: gap funding for the current County Bayside Emergency Shelter through June 30th.

Key Discussion Points

  • Finance clarified Fund 148 is for Affordable Housing (budgeted at $1.4 million) and Fund 149 is for Homelessness (budgeted at $265,000) (Part 1, 00:05:42.000–00:05:58.000).
  • As of April 11th, $114,654 has been expended from Fund 148 and $1,079,936 from Fund 149 (Part 1, 00:06:16.000–00:06:30.000).
  • Major awarded funds not yet spent include Casa Colina, Caswell Brown, and Dante Hill ($110,000, expected to begin submitting requests soon) (Part 1, 00:06:39.000–00:07:21.000). Total unspent awarded funds are $1,035,000 (Part 1, 00:07:32.000).
  • Current cash balances: $1.3 million in Fund 148 and $162,900 in Fund 149 (Part 1, 00:08:19.000–00:08:26.000).
  • Three pending funding requests were identified: Dove House for July-December ($40,000), Holy Cap Emergency Shelter ($223,000), and County Bayside Emergency Shelter ($184,000 for July-December) (Part 1, 00:08:41.000–00:09:07.000).
  • The County Bayside Shelter's initial $100,000 award has been depleted, and they are currently $6,000 over budget (Part 1, 00:09:21.000). An additional $66,000 is needed to cover expenses (repairs, utilities, rent, lease) through June 30th (Part 1, 00:09:49.000–00:09:59.000).
  • Finance advised against funding requests for July-December until the Washington State (WaSAK) budget is approved (expected by April 27th), deeming such decisions premature (Part 1, 00:11:15.000–00:11:44.000). The only urgent request identified was the $66,000 needed for the current emergency shelter through June (Part 1, 00:11:44.000–00:11:54.000).
  • Discussion arose over the confusing separation of Fund 148 (sales tax for capital/60% of sales tax) and Fund 149 (REIT funds/40% of sales tax) (Part 1, 00:16:30.000–00:17:25.000). Vicki suggested changing calling them by designation "operation versus capital" (Part 1, 00:17:38.000).
  • Fund 148 RFP documentation for 2023 explicitly lists eligible activities to include "supporting building, operating, and maintenance costs of housing projects or units within housing projects," and "operating costs for emergency shelters," confirming 148 funds can be used for non-capital operating expenses (Part 1, 00:39:10.000–00:40:15.000, 01:07:09.000–01:07:17.000).
  • The projected year-end fund balance is $585,067, against a suggested minimum reserve of 10% of expenditures, or $140,000. It was calculated that even with the reserve held, funding the total potential emergency asks of approximately $323,000 to $350,000 is financially possible (Part 1, 00:41:24.000–00:42:09.000).
  • Judy stated that of $156,000 received from the DRF (Disaster Relief Fund) shelter program grant, which was $69,000 more than anticipated, $40,000 went to Holy Cap (Part 1, 00:27:38.000–00:28:45.000).
  • Clarification: The request for Holy Cap Emergency Shelter ($223,000) and County Bayside Shelter ($184,000 for July-December) represents an "either/or" scenario, not a combined ask (Part 1, 00:34:19.000).
  • The needed $66,000 for Bayside through June is operational funding the county is currently unable to cover, despite having a contract commitment (Part 1, 00:35:13.000).

Public Comments

  • Maggie, addressing a prior discussion on the Bay Side Shelter, noted that female toilets are likely to fail again, resulting in more expense for the county (Part 1, 00:45:09.000–00:45:30.000).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Judy referenced the 2025 Budget spreadsheet (as of April 11th) detailing Funds 148 and 149 (Part 1, 00:05:51.000).
  • Judy referenced the 2023 RFP for Fund 148, confirming that fund money is eligible for operations and maintenance costs of housing projects and emergency shelters, not only capital projects (Part 1, 00:38:47.000–00:40:15.000).

Financials

  • 2025 Budget: Fund 149 (Homelessness): $265,000 (Part 1, 00:05:58.000).
  • 2025 Budget: Fund 148 (Affordable Housing): $1.4 million (Part 1, 00:05:58.000).
  • Current Expenditures (Actuals as of April 11th): $114,654 (Fund 148); $1,079,936 (Fund 149) (Part 1, 00:06:16.000–00:06:30.000).
  • Unspent Major Awards (Fund 148): Casa Colina (Undisclosed amount), Caswell Brown (Undisclosed amount), Dundee Hill ($110,000). Total unspent awarded funds: $1,035,000 (Part 1, 00:07:32.000).
  • Current Cash Balances: $1.3 million (Fund 148); $162,900 (Fund 149) (Part 1, 00:08:19.000–00:08:26.000).
  • New Funding Requests:
    • Dove House (July-Dec 2025): $40,000 (Part 1, 00:08:41.000, 00:24:04.000).
    • Holy Cap Emergency Shelter: $223,000 (Part 1, 00:08:54.000).
    • County Bayside Emergency Shelter (July-Dec 2025): $184,000 (Part 1, 00:09:01.000).
  • Immediate Funding Need: County Bayside Emergency Shelter requires $66,000 to operate through June 30th (Part 1, 00:09:59.000, 00:34:00.000).
  • Funding Source Clarification: The Fund received $156,000 from the DRF (Disaster Relief Fund) shelter program grant, which exceeded the anticipated revenue by $69,000 (Part 1, 00:27:38.000, 00:30:32.000).
  • Anticipated End-of-Year Fund Balance: $585,067 (Part 1, 00:26:35.000).
  • Suggested Reserve: 10% of expenditures, or approximately $140,000 (Part 1, 00:25:07.000, 00:41:24.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussion centered around two options for the emergency shelter starting July 1st: $223,000 for the Holy Cap Emergency Shelter or $180,000 for continuing the current Bayside Emergency Shelter operation through December 30th (Part 1, 00:34:01.000–00:34:19.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken on funding requests; deferred until the next meeting pending state budget information.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Judy (Finance): To compose an updated financial sheet demonstrating current expenditures and a final 2024 budgetary report, separating Fund 148 columns into Capital and Operating expenses (Part 1, 00:25:48.000, 00:49:51.000).
  • - Judy in coordination with Chair/Vice Chair: To analyze potential revenue and impact changes from the finalized Washington State budget and prepare a strategic proposal for funding decisions prior to the May meeting (Part 1, 00:48:23.000–00:50:20.000).
  • - Board/Staff: To seek status updates on the major unexpended projects (Hugging Tree/Casa Colina – awaiting Prosecuting Attorney contract approval/status; Caswell Brown – status unclear as they do not normally communicate directly with Finance) (Part 1, 00:21:10.000, 00:19:43.000).

Approval of Minutes

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:51:25.000–00:51:59.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Approval of minutes
  • Categories: operations

Topic Summary

The Board reviewed and approved four sets of meeting minutes from January, February, and March for regular meetings, and a special meeting from January 3rd.

Key Discussion Points

  • Limited discussion; minutes were reviewed and motioned for approval by the Board.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Minutes from January 22nd, February 26th, March 26th (regular meetings), and January 3rd (special meeting) were approved.
  • Vote: Unanimous (Part 1, 00:51:52.000).
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.

Housing Task Force Applicant Appointments

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:51:59.000–00:56:40.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Review and potential action about the housing task force applicants
  • Categories: personnel

Topic Summary

The Board reviewed three applicants for the open "lived experience" positions on the Housing Task Force. After confirming the applications of Tamara Allen and Lita Fedorov met the "lived experience" criteria, a motion was made and unanimously approved to appoint them.

Key Discussion Points

  • Three applicants were received: Tamara Allen, Galen Goodwick, and Lita Fedorov.
  • The open positions were explicitly for "lived experience" (Part 1, 00:52:19.000).
  • Tamara Allen was identified as a previous client at Dove House (Part 1, 00:54:08.000).
  • Lita Fedorov participated in a needs assessment as a person with "under housed experience" (Part 1, 00:54:35.000).
  • Galen Goodwick self-identified "Lived experience" in the application along with "Raw Systems IQ, AI, and my master's in public administration," but the nature of the lived experience was unclear (Part 1, 00:54:58.000–00:55:13.000).
  • The ability to pay applicant stipends was confirmed (Part 1, 00:56:22.000).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Task Force applications (via email, referenced by Amelia/Judy) containing information on the applicants' background (Part 1, 00:53:26.000–00:54:08.000).

Financials

  • Stipends for the positions were confirmed to be funded (Part 1, 00:56:22.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Nominated two out of three applicants (Tamara Allen and Lita Fedorov) based on clearer documentation of lived experience relevant to the role (Part 1, 00:55:30.000–00:55:48.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The Board moved to nominate and appoint Tamara Allen and Lita Fedorov to the two open lived experience positions on the Housing Task Force.
  • Vote: Unanimous (Part 1, 00:56:13.000).
  • Next Steps: A thank you will be sent to the unsuccessful applicant, Mr. Goodwick (Part 1, 00:56:40.000).

Housing Task Force Meeting Scheduling and Support

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:56:48.000–01:03:19.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Discussion and potential action regarding the housing task force next steps
  • Categories: operations, planning

Topic Summary

The discussion covered the delayed start of the Housing Task Force, originally intended to kick off in April and now facing a May start. The goal shifted to scheduling the first two meetings in May quickly. The discussion concluded with a plan for the Chair, Vice Chair, and staff to collaborate on identifying room and date options for May and sharing the information via a poll with appointed members before the end of the month.

Key Discussion Points

  • The first task force meeting, initially planned for April, is nearly a month behind and is now targeted for May (Part 1, 00:57:18.000–00:57:48.000).
  • A recommendation was made to hold two meetings in May: an introductory/process alignment meeting, and a second meeting focused on presenting data analysis from the needs assessment (Part 1, 00:57:57.000–00:58:36.000).
  • Target weeks for the May meetings are the week of the 12th and the week of the 26th (Part 1, 01:00:50.000–01:01:22.000).
  • The challenge involves coordinating space availability (second floor conference room or chambers) and the schedules of existing Task Force members and supporting board members (Part 1, 01:01:22.000–01:02:25.000).
  • The suggested process moving forward involves the Chair (Amy) and Vice Chair (Commissioner Brotherton) proposing dates that work for them to Carolyn, who will check meeting room availability and send a poll to the full Task Force member list, copying Audrey Morford (Part 1, 01:01:58.000–01:03:02.000, 01:03:07.000–01:03:19.000).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Suggested having flexibility for members to miss a meeting if necessary due to the accelerated schedule (Part 1, 01:02:09.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No formal motion but consensus reached to proceed with an expedited two-meeting schedule in May.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Abil: To check availability of county meeting rooms for the target weeks (May 12th and May 26th) (Part 1, 01:03:02.000).
  • - Chair/Vice Chair: To provide dates that align with their calendars to Carolyn/Abil/Audrey to schedule the two planned May meetings (Part 1, 01:03:07.000–01:03:19.000).

Staffing and Data Needs for Five-Year Plan Development

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:03:28.000–01:12:07.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Housing Task Force Next Steps / Data Needs & Planning
  • Categories: planning, infrastructure, personnel, financing

Topic Summary

Discussion focused on the need for a designated County staff member to support the Task Force's technical subcommittee, specifically regarding data collection and financial projections for the upcoming five-year plan. The discussion was closely tied to the potential transition of the Consolidated Continuum of Care (CoC) role to the County and the need for data to inform future funding allocations and design decisions for housing projects like Caswell Brown.

Key Discussion Points

  • Richie described the existence of a technical subcommittee focused on data and projections for service needs (Part 1, 01:03:28.000–01:04:10.000).
  • A key missing component is designated county staff involvement to provide information on various funding streams that pass through or are managed by the County (Part 1, 01:04:16.000–01:04:48.000).
  • This request is tied to efforts to integrate county staff into the planning process in anticipation of the Consolidated Continuum of Care (CoC) possibly being transitioned to the County (Part 1, 01:05:56.000).
  • Commissioner Brotherton reported back from a legislative steering committee meeting where a Chelan County Commissioner (Commissioner Overbay) called the county taking on the CoC "one of the best decisions we've ever made" (Part 1, 01:09:17.000).
  • Concerns were raised about housing operators needing clearer direction on whom they are serving (e.g., families with children, people with disabilities, underhoused) given the potential mismatch between design (like in congregate shelters) and population needs (Part 1, 01:20:19.000–01:21:00.000).
  • The five-year plan legally requires development of a process for prioritizing capital funds allocation (Part 1, 01:26:14.000–01:26:29.000).
  • It was suggested that providers (like OLECAP) should report data tied to the objectives of the five-year plan to better identify gaps and understand service effectiveness (Part 1, 01:27:31.000–01:28:15.000).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

Reference to Amanda Christopherson’s presentation on the CoC to the Board of County Commissioners (Part 1, 01:10:03.000–01:11:01.000).

Financials

  • Discussion noted that the physical exploration of different CoC models (e.g., field trips to other jurisdictions) or increased staffing for planning efforts would require funding at "various different levels" (Part 1, 01:11:37.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Richie suggested exploring the CoC transition, investigating what led other counties to make the decision, and noting any unintended consequences (Part 1, 01:11:01.000–01:11:20.000).
  • The board considered requesting formal reports from providers like OLECAP, integrating them into the five-year plan objectives (Part 1, 01:27:23.000–01:28:15.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No formal action taken.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Chair (Amy)/Commissioner Brotherton: To follow up with Greg regarding his idea for designating a County staff person to assist the technical subcommittee with data and funding projections (Part 1, 01:07:31.000, 01:08:22.000).
  • - Richie/Commissioner Brotherton: To pursue exploration of other counties' CoC management by reaching out to Chelan County (Commissioner Overbay) and reviewing previous presentations (Part 1, 01:09:43.000–01:11:01.000).
  • - Chair (Amy)/Commissioner Brotherton: To conduct an informal check-in with providers (Celine Santiago of Hugging Tree/Casa Colina; OLECAP) to get operational status updates and clarify intentions for unspent awarded funds (Part 1, 01:28:30.000).
  • - Richie: To bring a draft report from the data needs assessment subcommittee to the second Task Force meeting in May for presentation and feedback (Part 1, 01:29:21.000–01:30:02.000).

Discussion on Caswell Brown Shelter Design and Public Process

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:14:25.000–01:28:43.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Shelter Coalition
  • Categories: housing, services, planning, social services

Topic Summary

Commissioner Brotherton raised concerns about the Caswell Brown congregate shelter project, questioning the design process and potential limitations it places on serving diverse and vulnerable populations, such as transgender individuals and the unemployable. The lack of public process or input from those with lived experience regarding the design was emphasized. The discussion touched on how Department of Commerce funding requirements may limit individualized housing options (like tiny homes) in favor of congregate settings.

Key Discussion Points

  • The American Legion is reportedly willing to entertain a motion to extend the current shelter agreement if Caswell Brown is actively being built (Part 1, 01:14:25.000).
  • Concerns were voiced that the congregate shelter design may limit service to trans persons (due to men's/women's rooms and no private rooms) (Part 1, 01:14:46.000–01:14:57.000).
  • Commissioner Brotherton asserted there has been no public process regarding Caswell Brown's design, nor input from potential residents (Part 1, 01:16:15.000–01:16:30.000).
  • The Department of Commerce funding structure reportedly mandates or favors some level of congregate care, which limited funding for individual tiny house shelters (Part 1, 01:16:47.000–01:17:27.000).
  • A request was made to at least have a public display of the designs or a conversation disclosing why the design must be a certain way (Part 1, 01:17:38.000–01:17:52.000).
  • Richie emphasized that services cannot be effectively designed only for the majority; there needs to be an understanding of the specific needs of underserved populations (families, persons with disabilities, the underhoused) (Part 1, 01:19:47.000–01:20:46.000).
  • The Board discussed asking OLECAP to present design information and integrate reporting metrics into the planning of the five-year plan to ensure alignment with system needs (Part 1, 01:25:49.000–01:28:15.000).

Public Comments

  • Maggie, referencing the current shelter model, noted that residents are "kicking everybody out during the day" (Part 1, 01:17:59.000), forcing unemployable people, including those with severe health issues like emphysema, to leave the site and travel long distances (Part 1, 01:18:36.000–01:19:00.000).

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • Fundraising is currently required for individual tiny house shelters not funded through the Department of Commerce congregate shelter model (Part 1, 01:17:14.000–01:17:27.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • A "public display of the designs or a public conversation about the designs" was suggested as a necessary step for transparency and input (Part 1, 01:17:38.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken. It was agreed that this topic feeds into upcoming decisions.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Chair (Amy)/Commissioner Brotherton: Will seek updates on allocated funds and Caswell Brown details from OLECAP informally (Part 1, 01:28:30.000).
  • - Board: Will request OLECAP, as a provider, to report operational metrics aligned with the objectives of the forthcoming five-year plan (Part 1, 01:27:31.000–01:28:15.000).

Needs Assessment Findings: Underhoused and Regulatory Conflict

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:28:57.000–01:36:02.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Committee Updates (Data Needs Assessment)
  • Categories: housing, planning, land use, services

Topic Summary

Richie provided an oral update on the completed data needs assessment sessions, specifically highlighting the issues faced by the "underhoused" population (mid-20s to 40s, often employed and couch-surfing or living in sheds). A critical finding was the conflict between service systems/regulators and this population, where fear of enforcement (due to unpermitted living situations) and administrative burdens prevent access to needed services, perpetuating landlord abuse and unsafe living.

Key Discussion Points

  • Two needs assessment sessions were recently completed; data assessment goes on "hiatus" pending the Task Force start (Part 1, 01:28:57.000–01:29:21.000).
  • A central finding: The current system is not designed to effectively serve the "underhoused" population (mid-20s to 40s, couch surfers, people living in sheds) (Part 1, 01:30:30.000–01:30:55.000).
  • This population is often fully employed but lacks sufficient income (Part 1, 01:34:50.000–01:35:07.000).
  • Challenges include living without access to basic hygiene (bathrooms, potable water) (Part 1, 01:31:07.000).
  • People fear contacting authorities or regulators regarding unsafe living conditions (unpermitted sheds, landlord abuse) because doing so might lead to their eviction and complete loss of housing (Part 1, 01:31:41.000–01:33:54.000).
  • Accessing integrated services is "cumbersome and an administrative burden" for those living in isolated spots in the county (Part 1, 01:34:24.000–01:34:25.000).
  • Personal accounts were disturbing, citing instances like an individual facing major surgery recovery while living in their car (Part 1, 01:35:32.000).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials explicitly cited, but the discussion summarized results from two recent data needs assessment sessions (Part 1, 01:29:21.000).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Richie suggested potential solutions could include starting a tenants union to help navigate the conflict between permitting/regulatory regimes and the survival needs of the underhoused (Part 1, 01:32:07.000–01:32:24.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken; item was informational.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps: Richie plans to bring a draft report of the needs assessment for presentation at the second Task Force meeting in May (Part 1, 01:29:21.000–01:30:02.000).

Housing Fund Board Meeting Room Setup

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:36:02.000–01:41:11.000 (Part 1)
  • Agenda Item: Next Step Request (Meeting Room Setup)
  • Categories: operations

Topic Summary

A discussion was initiated regarding the awkward configuration of the board meeting room, noting that participants often have their backs to the audience or struggle to utilize presentation screens. The Board agreed on an initial plan to rearrange the tables into an 'L' shape facing the screen to improve functionality and member/audience interaction, seeking Clerk support for feasibility.

Key Discussion Points

  • The current meeting setup is "awkward," with members having their backs to the audience (Part 1, 01:36:08.000–01:36:31.000).
  • The need to view a screen and simultaneously see fellow board members led to logistical issues (Part 1, 01:36:52.000).
  • The suggested solution was an 'L' shaped configuration, rotated to allow members to face the screen and the audience/camera (Part 1, 01:37:07.000–01:39:37.000).
  • The seating count requires three tables if all seven current members plus necessary staff are present (Part 1, 01:39:06.000–01:39:22.000).
  • The goal is to maximize functionality and respect the audience's visibility of the board members (Part 1, 01:40:06.000–01:40:11.000).

Public Comments

  • - Maggie: Informed the board that the "owl" video conferencing equipment can be placed on tables (Part 1, 01:40:17.000–01:40:27.000).

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • None documented; the discussion focused on refining the proposed 'L' shape solution.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No formal vote; consensus to pursue the room rearrangement.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Abil (Staff): To determine a feasible timeline for testing or implementing the 'L' shaped table configuration (Part 1, 01:41:00.000).

Jefferson County Board of Commissioners Meeting Summary

Public Comment for Board of Commissioners

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:00:48.000–00:09:06.000 (Part 2)
  • Agenda Item: Public Comment
  • Categories: infrastructure, land use, policy, public safety

Topic Summary

Three members of the public addressed the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on issues spanning infrastructure repair (Upper Hoh Road), housing development (Newt's Crossing), forestry land, and firework regulations. A third speaker, Maggie, used her time to present a detailed critique of service providers who neglect consumer rights and consumer protection laws by denying homeless and low-income individuals basic necessities like hygiene facilities.

Key Discussion Points

  • Ed Bowen expressed difficulty accessing meeting recordings due to "IT glitches" requiring a 4.6GB download (Part 2, 00:01:47.000–00:02:01.000).
  • Ed Bowen sought an update on the appeal to the governor regarding a federal disaster declaration decision (Part 2, 00:02:20.000).
  • Ed Bowen questioned the Board's plan for a public meeting, suggesting October at the Hoh Tribal Center is inappropriate for addressing road issues and proposing alternative South County locations (Clearwater School, Amanda Park) and urging speedier scheduling (Part 2, 00:02:48.000–00:03:13.000).
  • Ed Bowen requested information on which county district(s) contain the 300+ acres involved in the Board of Natural Resource's encumbered lands bailout (Part 2, 00:03:21.000–00:03:39.000).
  • Denise complimented the BOCC's "quick action to repair" the Hoh Road and appreciated the work on affordable housing, including the Newt's Crossing project (Part 2, 00:04:06.000–00:04:29.000).
  • Shelley requested the Board prioritize putting the fireworks issue on the agenda soon to decide on enforcement and what will be allowed (Part 2, 00:05:03.000–00:05:14.000).
  • Maggie stated that homeless and low-income people should be referred to as "consumers" because consumers have rights, including protection from unfair/deceptive practices and access to recourse (Part 2, 00:06:16.000–00:06:46.000).
  • Maggie asserted that service providers' unfair practices and denial of services (lack of showers, toilets, sinks) are widespread and encouraged the Department of Commerce and the Attorney General to be more active in monitoring these breaches of contract (Part 2, 00:07:09.000).
  • Maggie noted that the Department of Commerce and the AG often decline to pursue contract breaches unless the "level of harm incurred... is not enough for them to go after because the financial award... is not great enough," and further pointed out that consumer protections often stop at nonprofits (Part 2, 00:07:38.000–00:08:48.000).

Public Comments

  • - Ed Bowen: Requested IT support continuity, faster scheduling of West Jefferson community meetings (not focused only on Hoh Tribal Center), and delineation of the 300+ encumbered lands by County District.
  • - Denise: Expressed gratitude for quick Ho Road repair and rapid action on Newt's Crossing affordable housing initiative.
  • - Shelley: Urged the Board to address fireworks regulations and enforcement immediately as the summer holiday approaches.
  • - Maggie: Advocated for public protections for "consumers" (homeless individuals), raising concerns about service provider exploitation, denial of basic hygiene needs, and a lack of enforcement action by the Department of Commerce/AG due to insufficient financial scale of harm.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

  • Maggie noted that the financial awards sought by the government for contract breaches by service providers are often deemed not "great enough" to pursue, even if those breaches concern denial of essential services (Part 2, 00:08:04.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Ed Bowen proposed alternative locations for a public meeting in West Jefferson County: Clearwater School and Amanda Park (Part 2, 00:03:03.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No formal action; item was informational.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Dudley Nollette: To follow up with Ed Bowen regarding IT issues viewing meeting recordings (Part 2, 00:09:36.000).
  • - Commissioner Dudley Nollette: Clarified the October Ho Tribal School meeting is part of a general community outreach series, not specifically for road issues, suggesting a separate meeting would be necessary for that topic (Part 2, 00:10:26.000–00:10:49.000).
  • - Commissioner Brotherton/Commissioner Dudley Nollette/County Staff: To locate and review map of the 300+ acres of encumbered lands by district; it's mostly in District 3, around Dabob Bay and West Jefferson County (Part 2, 00:13:15.000–00:13:32.000, 00:16:40.000–00:17:25.000).
  • - BOCC: Firework regulations/enforcement are coming to the agenda next Monday, April 28th (Part 2, 00:12:14.000).
  • - Commissioner Brotherton: To reach out to Grays Harbor commissioners regarding the issue nexus raised by Ed Bowen (Part 2, 00:13:50.000).
  • - Commissioner Dudley Nollette/Staff: To call Eva from Newt's Crossing today to discuss potential solutions for the housing development (Part 2, 00:17:56.000–00:18:07.000).

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:20:33.000–00:30:30.000 (Part 2)
  • Agenda Item: Consent Agenda
  • Categories: infrastructure, contracts, planning, operations, funding

Topic Summary

The Board reviewed and approved the Consent Agenda, discussing two key items: the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) planning grant application and a contract amendment for Heritage Mechanical. Questioning sought clarity on the SS4A grant's municipal share of the match and the practical use of the resulting safety action plans, while procedural issues were flagged in the Heritage Mechanical contract document itself.

Key Discussion Points

  • The Consent Agenda included seven items, with primary discussion focusing on two.
  • SS4A Planning Grant: The federal contribution is $164,000, and the required match is $61,500. The County pays $20,500 of the match, leading to an assumption that the City pays the $41,000 balance (Part 2, 00:21:19.000–00:22:00.000).
  • The purpose of the SS4A grant documents (two comprehensive safety action plans for the city and county) is primarily to serve as a prerequisite for applying for future federal construction grants (Part 2, 00:22:52.000–00:23:07.000, 00:23:50.000).
  • The grant work potentially represents the "first step" toward addressing poor infrastructure, including the dangerous intersection of Jacob Miller and Discovery Road near a WSDOT roundabout plan (Part 2, 00:24:07.000–00:24:43.000).
  • Heritage Mechanical Contract: Two issues were identified in the contract (Agenda Item #3): duplication of sections (Severability and Survival—sections 14/15 repeated as 20/21) and a checklist error where only Exhibit D was checked, despite Exhibits A, B, C, and E being present (Part 2, 00:25:52.000–00:27:02.000).
  • The Consent Agenda also included the extension of the Caswell Brown Village lease, noted as a grant application requirement (Part 2, 00:29:29.000).
  • An amendment to the Van Eller surveying contract was also included for the Phase One sewer boundary project, extending the authority through the end of the year (Part 2, 00:29:55.000–00:30:13.000).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • SS4A Planning Grant Agreement (Part 2, 00:21:19.000: $164,000 federal, $61,500 match).
  • Heritage Mechanical Contract (Part 2, 00:25:52.000).

Financials

  • SS4A Planning Grant: County match is $20,500 out of a $61,500 total match (Part 2, 00:21:19.000). Federal contribution is $164,000 (Part 2, 00:22:00.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No formal amendments were made to the Consent Agenda before passage, but staff was directed to check on contract clarity.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The Consent Agenda was approved and adopted.
  • Vote: Unanimous ("Aye, aye") (Part 2, 00:30:24.000).
  • Next Steps:
    • - Commissioner Dudley Nollette/Staff: To follow up on the specific distribution of the city's match contribution to the SS4A grant (Part 2, 00:21:47.000).
    • - Staff: To check the Heritage Mechanical contract to ensure all exhibits were correctly checked as applicable before returning the signed contract (Part 2, 00:27:46.000–00:28:02.000).

Proclamation: Declaring May 2025 as Building Safety Month

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:30:30.000–00:37:46.000 (Part 2)
  • Agenda Item: Proclamation regarding Building Safety Month
  • Categories: public safety, operations, ordinances

Topic Summary

The Board received a presentation from the Department of Community Development (DCD) recognizing May 2025 as Building Safety Month. Staff highlighted the broad scope of their work beyond new residential inspections, encompassing safety in commercial spaces, short-term rentals (STRs), and resilience against natural disasters. The proclamation adopted commits the county to recognizing the essential services provided by code officials and the construction industry.

Key Discussion Points

  • Brandon Brown (DCD) represented the Building and Fire Safety team (including Phil, Mr. Cardinal, Gabe Shepard, and Brian Tracer) and emphasized that their work encompasses STR safety, commercial and restaurant inspections, and maintaining public safety and confidence (Part 2, 00:31:12.000–00:31:47.000).
  • The proclamation honors all contributors to safety, including architects, engineers, builders, tradespeople, and fire prevention officials (Part 2, 00:33:35.000–00:34:08.000).
  • Modern building codes mentioned safeguard the public from disasters including hurricanes, snowstorms, tornadoes, wildland fires, floods, and earthquakes (Part 2, 00:34:08.000–00:34:21.000).
  • The date of approval was announced as April 218th, an acknowledged error (Part 2, 00:35:21.000, 00:49:05.000). The intended date was April 28th.
  • Commissioner Brotherton shared a historical analogy about Elisha Otis's first elevator pitch and the importance of safety mechanisms that enable innovation (Part 2, 00:36:33.000–00:37:25.000).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Draft/Final Proclamation Declaring May 2025 as Building Safety Month in Jefferson County (Part 2, 00:32:51.000–00:35:21.000).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • A motion was passed to adopt the proclamation as read.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The proclamation recognizing May 2025 as Building Safety Month was adopted.
  • Vote: Unanimous (Part 2, 00:35:36.000–00:35:44.000).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Carolyn: To correct the date error on the proclamation draft (Part 2, 00:49:05.000).
  • - Staff: Commissioner Brotherton's original signature will be applied tomorrow upon his return to the office (Part 2, 02:35:43.000).

Hearing: Declaring County Property Surplus and Authorizing Sale by Auction

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:29:09.000–01:41:33.000 (Part 2)
  • Agenda Item: Hearing regarding declaring county property surplus and approved sale by auction
  • Categories: operations, budgeting, public safety

Topic Summary

The Board held a public hearing to declare county property (vehicles and equipment from three departments) surplus for eventual sale by auction, a necessary procedure for items valued over $2,500. Treasurer Stacey Prada and Public Works Director Monty Reinders confirmed the process would utilize the electronic auction site GovDeals and emphasized that the sales would be staggered rather than occurring on a single day. The Board approved the required resolution.

Key Discussion Points

  • County property valued over $2,500 must go through a public hearing to be declared surplus before being sold by auction (Part 2, 01:29:59.000).
  • Vehicles originate from three departments: Public Works Equipment Rental and Reserve (ER&R/Fleet), WSU Extension, and Juvenile Services (Part 2, 01:30:20.000–01:30:39.000).
  • Monty Reinders stated that most vehicles are parked and out of service, some for extended periods. The goal is to conduct sales annually or twice a year going forward to avoid large buildups (Part 2, 01:33:07.000–01:34:12.000).
  • Monty Reinders stated the county aims to minimize staff time devoted to the sale to maintain operational vehicles (Part 2, 01:36:26.000).
  • Sale Process: The Treasurer oversees the auction, which will utilize the GovDeals public auction site (Part 2, 01:37:57.000). Legal notices will be issued two weeks in a row, with sales starting no sooner than 10 days after the last notice (Part 2, 01:37:10.000–01:37:46.000). Newsflashes will be posted on the county website for high-value items (Part 2, 01:38:36.000).
  • Eligibility: County employees are not allowed to purchase auction property from Jefferson County, but they can purchase from other counties (Part 2, 01:40:53.000–01:41:11.000).

Public Comments

  • No public comment received during the hearing (Part 2, 01:34:37.000).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • RCW 36.16.145 (Public auction sales by electronic media) was cited regarding legal notice requirements (Part 2, 01:37:00.000–01:37:10.000).

Financials

  • The trigger value for a public hearing to declare surplus equipment is $2,500 (Part 2, 01:29:59.000, 01:38:36.000).
  • The sale involves 38 vehicles/pieces of equipment (Part 2, 01:38:00.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives were discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The hearing was closed. The Board approved a resolution declaring certain county equipment as surplus and authorizing its sale by auction.
  • Vote: Unanimous ("Aye," motion seconded) (Part 2, 01:40:36.000–01:40:41.000).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Treasurer and Public Works: To proceed with publishing legal notices and arranging the staggered auction of the 38 pieces of surplus property via GovDeals (Part 2, 01:38:00.000).
  • - Communications Specialist (Liz): To create newsflashes on the county website about the auctions (Part 2, 01:38:36.000–01:38:41.000).

Tourism Board and LTAC Committee Bylaws and Member Recruitment

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:41:55.000–01:57:03.000 (Part 2)
  • Agenda Item: Workshop & potential action regarding the tourism board and LTAC committee
  • Categories: policy, personnel, tourism, ordinances

Topic Summary

The Board reviewed the revised draft bylaws for the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) and discussed moving forward with member recruitment. The discussion focused on incorporating public comment, specifically regarding the mandated role of elected officials on the committee (Chair) and clarifying the removal process for all members. The Board approved the adjusted draft bylaws and directed staff to begin posting open positions.

Key Discussion Points

  • Ariel revised the draft LTAC Bylaws incorporating public comments and previous BOCC input (Part 2, 01:42:15.000–01:42:56.000).
  • Normal Timeline: The next steps are for the BOCC to approve the draft, move forward with advertising for members, appoint members, and then the re-formed LTAC Committee will review the draft bylaws, recommend changes, and send the final version back to the BOCC for approval (Part 2, 01:45:22.000–01:45:35.000).
  • Chair Position (Public Comment Focus): Public comment questioned mandating the Chair to be a BOCC Commissioner, citing RCW language that indicates the Chair must be "an elected official of the municipality," which could include the Treasurer, Assessor, or Auditor (Part 2, 01:46:11.000–01:46:48.000).
  • Commissioner Brotherton argued the standard practice has historically been a County Commissioner acting as Chair, appropriate due to the inherent conflict of interest in LTAC’s inception, and he sees no problem with the language allowing a Commissioner (Part 2, 01:47:17.000–01:48:06.000).
  • The Board generally agreed to adopt the more general RCW language allowing any identified elected official to serve for added flexibility (Part 2, 01:53:09.000–01:53:30.000).
  • Vice Chair/Member Removal: Ariel noted the draft only included removal procedures for the Vice Chair because of how the template was structured. The Board agreed to clarify language so the removal procedure applies to all members (Part 2, 01:51:02.000–01:51:41.000).

Public Comments

  • Public comment suggested removing the reference to Robert's Rules of Order (a suggestion addressed and incorporated by staff in the draft) (Part 2, 01:46:48.000–01:47:02.000).
  • Public comment requested flexibility in the elected official leadership role, citing the RCW (Part 2, 01:46:29.000).
  • Last call for public comment was made, but none were given on the motion (Part 2, 01:56:38.000).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Draft LTAC Bylaws (Part 2, 01:42:41.000).
  • RCW language defining elected official eligibility for the LTAC Chair (Part 2, 01:46:29.000).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Amendment 1 (Chair Role): Revised language to reflect the RCW, allowing any elected official to fill the Chair role, introducing flexibility (Part 2, 01:55:14.000).
  • Amendment 2 (Removal): Revised language to generalize the Vice Chair removal procedure to apply to all LTAC members (Part 2, 01:55:25.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion carried to adopt the two recommended revisions to the draft LTAC Bylaws and direct staff to post open member positions.
  • Vote: Unanimous ("Aye, aye") (Part 2, 01:56:42.000–01:56:47.000).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Ariel/Staff: To incorporate the two verbalized revisions (Chair eligibility and general member removal procedure) into the final draft bylaws (Part 2, 01:55:14.000–01:55:32.000).
  • - Staff: To immediately publish open positions for LTAC membership (Part 2, 01:55:32.000).
  • - Prospective Applicants: Individuals interested in LTAC membership encouraged to apply (Part 2, 01:57:03.000).

Board of Commissioners Weekly Briefing and Calendar

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:38:21.000–01:29:04.000 (Part 2); 01:57:03.000–02:58:08.000 (Part 2)
  • Agenda Item: Calendaring and Briefing
  • Categories: operations, planning, infrastructure, social services, economic development

Topic Summary

Commissioners Greg Brotherton, Heather Dudley Nollette, and Heidi Eisenhour provided extensive updates on their activities, committee work, and upcoming schedule. Key topics included federal funding advocacy, progress on local collaborative projects (Newt's Crossing, Chimacum Sewer, Farmers Market Infrastructure), AI tools in government, and planning for regional meetings.

Key Discussion Points

  • Commissioner Brotherton (Reflecting on previous week):
    • Attended a Harvard Kennedy School program on Recompete and place-based policies, noting that coalition building (like the county’s five-member coalition expanding to EDCs/tribes/nonprofits) is key to successful grant applications and long-term industrial policy (Part 2, 00:38:50.000–00:44:26.000).
    • Learned from former EDA head Alejandro Castillo about the post-Biden administration's focus on "controlling the narrative" on investments and mitigating policy disconnects at the implementation level (Part 2, 00:41:45.000–00:42:32.000).
    • Addressed concerns about unwinding bureaucracy and the political "pendulum swing" that challenges 20-year goals (Part 2, 00:46:44.000–00:48:27.000).
  • Commissioner Dudley Nollette (Reflecting on previous week):
    • Attended a WaSAK Virtual Assembly focusing on a tool called Buy Savvy (bysavvy.com) that aids public-sector workers in managing and navigating student loan deferral/forgiveness programs, suggesting it as a valuable employee recruitment tool (Part 2, 00:51:11.000–00:52:16.000).
    • Attended the Port Townsend High School Model UN General Assembly, noting it is a requirement for seniors' Civics class (Part 2, 00:53:26.000–00:55:10.000).
    • Met with new County Communications Specialist Liz Anderson (Part 2, 00:55:10.000).
    • Conducted the Parks and Rec Advisory Board Annual Park Tour, discovering a grant exists to replace the fence at Memorial Field (Part 2, 00:57:13.000–00:58:35.000).
    • Expressed clear public support for maintaining Memorial Field as a "competition quality" public sports field, against using it for heavy equipment (like the Rhody Carnival), citing research on field compaction risk and concussions (Part 2, 01:21:13.000–01:21:48.000).
  • Commissioner Eisenhour (Reflecting on previous week):
    • Focused time on understanding potential federal funding losses to the county, developing a list of concerns for the Democratic party meeting (Part 2, 01:24:35.000).
    • Discussed timber sales with Mallory Weinheimer, noting up to six county parcels slated for treatment (Part 2, 01:25:30.000).
    • Highlighted the "high tech" capabilities of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) hub site (Part 2, 01:27:16.000–01:27:33.000).
    • Completed personal wetland delineation for planning purposes (Part 2, 02:04:10.000).
    • Attended an initial meeting for Port Townsend Farmers Market infrastructure visioning (Tyler Street Market location adjacent to County Community Center), targeting ideas for covered facilities, electricity, and ground leveling (Part 2, 02:05:27.000–02:09:03.000).
    • Coordinated a future meeting regarding sewer infrastructure in Chimicum for local businesses facing septic issues, noting potential for a Local Improvement District (Part 2, 02:49:44.000–02:51:42.000).
  • Upcoming Key Calendar Items:
    • Continuation of County Administrator Interviews (Tuesday and Wednesday) (Part 2, 02:41:47.000, 02:47:48.000).
    • Joint BOCC/Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC) meeting on Tuesday (Part 2, 02:36:43.000, 02:47:12.000).
    • Opioid Settlement Funds (Manufacturing) workshop for BOCC is being planned for late May/early June (Part 2, 01:16:29.000).
    • WA Tech Community of Practice on AI (Part 2, 02:40:02.000): Commissioner Brotherton is joining and encouraged other County agencies/cities to join for setting standards and fielding questions; concern about saving prompts/outputs as public records was raised (Part 2, 02:39:05.000–02:40:02.000).
    • WaSAK Regional Meeting: All commissioners are available on various proposed dates in July and August (Part 2, 02:23:40.000). The county agreed to host its half-day session in coordination with Kitsap County (Part 2, 02:24:50.000).

Public Comments

Public comments on video viewing difficulty, Hoh Road, encumbered lands, fireworks, and consumer rights were received at the start of the meeting (as detailed in the preceding Public Comment section).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Jefferson County Strategic Plan (Part 2, 01:58:00.000).
  • CWPP Hub Site (accessible via bottom right of County homepage "helpful links") (Part 2, 01:27:37.000–01:28:11.000).
  • Buy Savvy website (bysavvy.com) for college loan benefits (Part 2, 00:52:16.000).

Financials

  • Discussion about the remaining $548,000 in Housing Funds (148/149) that could cover the $190,000 in emergency shelter operational requests for 2025, provided it is confirmed that Fund 148 operational allowances apply (Part 2, 01:06:36.000–01:08:31.000).
  • Opioid Settlement Funds (manufacturing funds) are being considered for potential public health infrastructure expenditures (Part 2, 01:16:29.000).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussion points included potentially supporting the Rhody Carnival Committee's efforts to re-envision their event for a location other than Memorial Field, potentially as early as 2026 (Part 2, 01:22:34.000).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: No action taken during the briefing; items were informational or deferred.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Commissioner Eisenhour: To check with Judy (Finance) regarding the eligibility of Fund 148 reserves for Bayside and Dove House 2025 operations funding in advance of meeting with Bayside (Part 2, 01:08:31.000).
  • - Commissioner Brotherton/Staff: To follow up on feasibility and space for the WaSAK Regional Meeting, and notify Paul Jewell of willingness to host (Part 2, 02:24:50.000–02:25:04.000).
  • - All Commissioners: To adhere to the agreed-upon KPTZ scheduling through October (Part 2, 02:33:00.000).
  • - BOCC: Planning a joint special meeting with finance (Treasurer/finance committee team) at 3:00 p.m. (Part 2, 03:04:05.000–03:04:12.000).

Executive Session

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:58:27.000–03:03:59.000 (Part 2)
  • Agenda Item: Executive Session
  • Categories: litigation, personnel, legal

Topic Summary

The Board of County Commissioners entered into a series of executive sessions totaling 65 minutes, utilizing the exemption regarding potential or probable litigation. Participants included the County Administrator, DCD Director, Fire Marshal, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and a Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney. The sessions were extended multiple times.

Key Discussion Points

  • The sessions involved staff from Administration, DCD, and the Prosecuting Attorney's Civil Department.
  • First Session: Began at 1:32 p.m., set to end at 1:47 p.m. (Part 2, 02:58:41.000–02:59:08.000).
  • Extension 1: Extended to 2:05 p.m. (Part 2, 03:01:07.000–03:01:10.000).
  • Extension 2: Extended to 2:15 p.m. (Part 2, 03:02:22.000–03:02:26.000).
  • Session 2 (Reduced Team): Began at 2:16 p.m. with only the County Administrator and Prosecuting Attorneys; set to end at 2:46 p.m. (Part 2, 03:02:44.000–03:03:04.000).
  • Extension 3 (Final): Extended to 2:55 p.m. (Part 2, 03:03:36.000).

Public Comments

N/A

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • RCW 42.30.110 (1)(i) (Open Public Meetings Act litigation exemption) was cited (Part 2, 02:59:08.000, 03:01:07.000).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Multiple extensions were used under the same statutory exemption.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The Board reconvened into public session and immediately adjourned the April 28th meeting.
  • Vote: N/A
  • Next Steps: Adjourned to hold a joint special meeting with the Finance Committee at 3:00 p.m. (Part 2, 03:03:59.000–03:04:12.000).