Tuesday evening, the Port Angeles City Council held a work session focused entirely on the City’s ongoing update to the Critical Areas Ordinance.

No action was taken.

The purpose of the work session was to help Council understand the draft framework, ask questions, and provide preliminary feedback before the ordinance moves through the Planning Commission and eventually returns to Council for formal consideration.

I appreciated having that opportunity because this is one of those policy areas where the details are important.

Critical areas regulations affect wetlands, aquifers, flood prone areas, geologically hazardous areas, fish and wildlife habitat, stream corridors, marine bluffs, and other environmentally sensitive parts of the City.

They also affect property owners, developers, public infrastructure, parks, utilities, housing, and economic development.

The challenge is not simply deciding whether these areas should be protected.

The harder work is building regulations that protect environmental functions, are grounded in best available science, are understandable to the public, respect private property rights, and can actually be implemented and enforced.

That is consistent with something I have written about before in Looking Ahead While Managing Today. The vote at the end is only one part of policymaking. A large part of the work comes beforehand, when we are trying to understand the system, the competing interests, and the consequences of the choices available to us.

Tuesday’s work session was very much that kind of meeting.

Why the City Is Updating the Ordinance

The Critical Areas Ordinance update is part of the City’s broader implementation of the recently adopted Vision 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Under the Growth Management Act, cities and counties periodically update their comprehensive plans and must also ensure that critical areas regulations remain consistent with state law and best available science.

Staff explained that the City could have approached this as a relatively narrow compliance exercise.

Instead, Community and Economic Development staff, working with Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and other departments, chose to take a broader look at the existing code and rewrite it for clarity, consistency, and usability.

The existing regulations are spread across several portions of the municipal code, still use the older term “environmentally sensitive areas,” and rely in part on science and standards that need updating.

Staff also explained that the current structure can be confusing for both City employees and people trying to understand what they can do on their property.

I support the effort to make the code clearer.

If someone receives one interpretation from one employee and a different interpretation later, that creates frustration and undermines confidence in the permitting process.

Transparency is not only about making documents available. The rules themselves should be understandable enough that residents can reasonably know what government expects of them. That is the same principle I wrote about in Beyond a Single Comment when discussing public participation and the responsibility government has to explain how decisions are made.

Part of a Larger Development Code Rewrite

The Critical Areas Ordinance is Phase Two of the City’s larger development code update.

Phase One, dealing largely with life safety and expanded over the counter permitting, was adopted in June.

Phase 1.5, which included Growth Management Act and legislative development code requirements, was adopted at our August 18 Council meeting.

Phase Two is the Critical Areas Ordinance.

Urban forestry has been separated into Phase 2.5 and is expected to return for Council consideration in 2027.

Later phases will address zoning, urban development standards, the sign code, subdivisions, and other portions of the development code.

I think separating urban forestry from the current ordinance makes sense.

Trees overlap with critical areas, but tree retention across residential neighborhoods and other private property raises broader questions about housing, affordability, private property, climate resilience, and equity that deserve their own discussion.

How the New Framework Would Work

Staff are proposing to consolidate the City’s critical areas regulations into a new Chapter 15.22.

Instead of spreading requirements across several sections of code, the proposed chapter would establish general provisions followed by separate standards for each type of critical area.

The five categories discussed Tuesday were:

• wetlands;

• critical aquifer recharge areas;

• frequently flooded areas;

• geologically hazardous areas; and

• fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.

  

The proposal also creates clearer distinctions among activities.

Some would be exempt because they are unlikely to affect a critical area.

Others would be allowed with documentation showing how impacts will be avoided or minimized.

Projects that could affect a critical area would generally require a Type II Critical Area Development Permit, supporting studies, and review by qualified professionals.

There would also be a Type III reasonable use exception process for situations where the regulations would otherwise eliminate all reasonable economic use of a property. Those cases would go before the Hearing Examiner and still require mitigation designed to avoid a net loss of ecological functions.

One of my questions was simply who the ordinance means when it refers to “the Director.”

Staff clarified that it refers to the Community and Economic Development Director.

That may seem like a small issue, but it is exactly the kind of ambiguity a code rewrite should eliminate.

Mitigation and Reasonable Use

I also asked about compensatory mitigation.

Staff explained that mitigation can take several forms, including restoration, rehabilitation, creation of habitat, use of a mitigation bank, or in some circumstances a fee in lieu of direct mitigation.

The larger framework follows a sequence: avoid impacts first, minimize what cannot be avoided, restore or mitigate disturbance, and compensate where impacts remain.

I think that order is important.

Mitigation should not become permission to unnecessarily damage a critical area simply because someone is willing to compensate for it afterward.

That prevention first approach is something I have been thinking about a lot lately. It came up just last week during the Marine Resources Committee discussion that led to Derelict Vessels, Prevention, and Regional Partnership. In that context, preventing a vessel from becoming an environmental cleanup problem was far preferable to dealing with it after abandonment.

The circumstances here are different, but the basic lesson carries over: preventing avoidable damage is usually better than trying to reconstruct what was lost afterward.

Protecting Future Water Sources

One of the strongest themes in Tuesday’s discussion involved Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas, or CARAs.

Port Angeles does not currently rely on aquifers within the City for its drinking water supply. Our primary source is the Elwha River.

But staff explained that aquifer recharge areas exist within the City and could potentially become important future water resources.

My preliminary view is that we should be proactive in protecting them.

We have already spent considerable time as a Council discussing drought, water supply, and long term utility resilience.

If groundwater becomes important to Port Angeles decades from now, the time to protect its quality is before we need it, not after contamination has occurred.

That does not mean prohibiting every activity in a recharge area.

It does mean carefully examining hazardous materials, higher risk commercial or industrial uses, and other activities that could affect groundwater quality or recharge.

This is similar to the way I have approached other utility discussions. In Keeping the Lights On and the Rates Stable, I wrote about the importance of thinking beyond today’s demand and protecting the capacity future residents will rely on.

Water requires the same kind of long range thinking.

Wetlands and Buffers

Staff also presented three possible approaches to wetland buffers.

One would base buffer width primarily on the wetland category.

A second would consider the wetland category and the intensity of the proposed development.

A third would also account for the specific functions and characteristics of the wetland.

I did not choose a preferred option Tuesday.

I want to better understand the tradeoffs, hear the Planning Commission’s recommendation, and review the supporting science before reaching a final position.

That was true for several of the eight questions staff put before us.

I had preliminary thoughts on some. On others, I need more information.

That is exactly why I found the work session useful.

Restoring Degraded Critical Areas

Another question was what role the City should play when a critical area has already been degraded.

My initial view is that the City should have an active role, particularly when the area is within City limits or City property is involved.

That does not mean City staff need to perform every restoration project themselves.

Tribal governments, conservation organizations, state agencies, nonprofits, and community groups already have expertise and programs that can help.

The better question is where the City can add value.

That is a question I keep encountering in regional work. During the Solid Waste Advisory Committee discussions I wrote about in When Waste Becomes a Resource, and again during the recent MRC discussion, the strongest partnerships were not built by every organization trying to perform the same function.

They worked because each partner understood what it could contribute.

I think restoration should be approached similarly. The City can help identify priorities, participate in partnerships, and make sure degraded areas inside Port Angeles do not simply fall through the cracks between jurisdictions and organizations.

Critical Areas and Encampments

I also asked whether the proposed provisions addressing unauthorized uses and enforcement would apply to people living outdoors within critical areas.

Staff explained that unauthorized camping in those locations would generally be a violation because camping is not a permitted use within the underlying zones involved.

That answer brings the Critical Areas Ordinance directly into another conversation Council has already been having.

I have written before about the need to hold compassion and boundaries together when addressing homelessness and public spaces.

Critical areas add an environmental dimension to that discussion.

There are real human circumstances involved when someone is living outside.

There are also real effects associated with sanitation, vegetation damage, waste, fire risk, water quality, and habitat degradation.

I do not think good policy requires choosing one reality and ignoring the other.

If Council establishes environmental standards, those standards should be applied consistently.

But adopting a standard does not automatically create the people or resources needed to enforce it, nor does enforcement alone address why someone is living there.

That is why I think this portion of the ordinance deserves more Council discussion before final adoption.

Viewsheds and Environmental Protection

Port Angeles has extraordinary views of the Strait, the Olympic Mountains, and the surrounding landscape.

The current code allows some vegetation pruning in geologically hazardous areas for viewshed enhancement, subject to certain conditions.

Staff told us that compliance with those standards has sometimes been difficult and improper pruning can create environmental and enforcement problems.

My initial position is fairly straightforward.

Where a genuine conflict exists, environmental protection should generally take priority over preserving a private view.

Tree roots help stabilize slopes. Vegetation provides shade. Riparian trees help maintain cooler water temperatures and healthier habitat.

That does not mean every form of viewshed enhancement should be prohibited.

But any allowance should be based on clear standards and an enforcement approach the City can realistically carry out.

A rule that cannot be administered consistently is not necessarily a strong rule.

Fish, Wildlife, Kelp, and Eelgrass

The proposed ordinance also includes Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas.

In Port Angeles, those include streams, riparian corridors, kelp beds, eelgrass beds, nearshore habitat, and areas designated for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species.

I was glad to see the marine environment included explicitly.

Our relationship with the Strait does not stop at the shoreline.

Kelp forests, eelgrass beds, salmon habitat, stream corridors, and nearshore ecosystems are interconnected.

My work with the Clallam County Marine Resources Committee has made those connections much more visible to me.

The recent derelict vessel discussion was one example. The issue began with boats, but quickly became a conversation about hazardous materials, marine habitat, prevention, government responsibility, and regional cooperation.

The Critical Areas Ordinance approaches many of those same environmental systems from the land use side.

What happens upstream and on land eventually reaches the shoreline and the Strait.

Trees and Urban Forestry

Tree retention generated considerable discussion, but staff made an important distinction.

The broader question of tree protection on private property will primarily be addressed later through the Urban Forestry chapter, not through the current Critical Areas Ordinance.

The Comprehensive Plan includes a goal of reaching 30% tree canopy coverage in residential neighborhoods, while current City code primarily regulates street trees and trees already located within protected critical areas.

Future Council discussions will need to address questions such as how much authority the City should exercise over tree removal on private property, who bears the cost of professional review or maintenance, how requirements should differ between developed and undeveloped lots, and how tree retention interacts with housing production.

I intentionally did not try to resolve those questions Tuesday.

Those tradeoffs deserve more information and their own discussion.

Clarity, Capacity, and Enforcement

One theme I kept returning to throughout the work session was implementation.

Good environmental policy requires more than ambitious language.

Property owners need to understand the rules.

Qualified professionals need to be available to complete required reports.

Staff need the capacity to review applications.

And if Council creates enforcement obligations, the City needs a realistic way to carry them out.

I asked whether enough qualified professionals exist locally to provide the reports the ordinance may require.

Staff noted that Clallam County maintains a list of qualified professionals, which may provide a useful model.

I do not want us to create a process that technically exists but becomes functionally inaccessible because residents cannot find someone to complete the required work.

That brings me back to one of the larger ideas I have been writing about this summer.

A policy can produce an immediate result, but the better question is whether we are also building the capacity needed to make future results more sustainable.

With this ordinance, that means thinking about the code and the systems needed to make the code work.

This Is Still a Draft

Tuesday’s conversation was preliminary.

Staff presented eight broad policy questions covering uses near critical areas, wetland protection, aquifers, viewsheds, restoration, and tree retention.

I did not try to answer every one of them.

I told staff I wanted time to review the material, hear the Planning Commission’s discussion, and continue working through the questions before the ordinance returns to Council.

I would rather take the time to understand the implications of a complicated ordinance than announce a position simply because a question was placed in front of me.

That is what I believe a work session should allow us to do.

What Happens Next

The Critical Areas Ordinance still has several steps before Council is asked to adopt anything.

The current schedule is:

• August 26: Planning Commission final review

• September 23: Planning Commission public hearing

• October 20: City Council first reading

• November 17: City Council second reading and possible adoption

• Early 2027: Council consideration of the separate Urban Forestry chapter

That timeline gives residents additional opportunities to review the proposal and participate before a final decision is made.

I will continue reviewing the draft, the Planning Commission’s recommendations, and the supporting information before it returns to Council.

My Takeaway

What I appreciated most about Tuesday’s work session was that the conversation was not framed as a choice between environmental protection and development.

Port Angeles needs both.

We need housing and economic opportunity.

We need functioning infrastructure.

We also need clean water, stable slopes, healthy streams, wetlands, tree canopy, and a resilient marine environment.

The policy challenge is creating rules that recognize those connections.

A strong Critical Areas Ordinance should protect ecological functions while giving property owners clear expectations about what is allowed, what requires review, and what mitigation may be necessary.

It should be grounded in science.

It should be understandable.

It should be enforceable.

And it should protect resources that Port Angeles may depend on decades from now rather than waiting until those resources have already been damaged.

That is the standard I will be using as this ordinance moves toward Council consideration this fall.

As always, I’ll continue sharing what I learn, the questions I am asking, and how I approach these decisions as your Port Angeles City Councilmember.

Below is the YouTube recording for the work session for your convenience.

Tuesday’s Port Angeles City Council meeting covered long term electric utility planning, housing and development code changes, affordable senior housing, economic development, public safety equipment, and the City’s emerging Science of Hope work.

A common thread ran through much of the evening.

It is relatively easy to identify where we want Port Angeles to go. The harder work is making sure our policies, infrastructure, finances, and organizational capacity develop alongside those goals.

Before getting into those larger policy discussions, I also want to recognize PENCOM telecommunicator Tiffany Lozano, who was honored for her response to a June 28 cardiac arrest call. We heard that she recognized the need for CPR and began providing instructions within eight seconds of answering the call.

We also received encouraging news that PENCOM is fully staffed for the first time since 2020, while work moves forward on the new joint public safety facility.

Planning for Our Future Electric Needs

One of Tuesday’s two public hearings concerned the City’s 2026 Electric Utility Power Resource Plan.

State law requires Port Angeles to periodically evaluate its current electricity needs and forecast the resources necessary to meet future demand. Bonneville Power Administration remains the City’s primary source of electricity.

The current forecast assumes that the McKinley Paper mill remains curtailed and that electricity demand across the City’s regular distribution system remains relatively flat.

Under BPA’s new contract beginning after 2028, Port Angeles will have a Contract High Water Mark of approximately 47.039 average megawatts. Based on current forecasts, our distribution load is expected to remain below that level, with conservation helping reduce future demand.

That is good news.

But the presentation also showed why long term utility planning deserves continued attention.

Electricity demand is growing rapidly across the broader region. Large users, including data centers, are one source of that growth. Increasing regional demand has the potential to place upward pressure on wholesale electricity and transmission costs.

I supported the Resource Plan when it came before the Utility Advisory Committee earlier this year, and I continued to support it Tuesday night.

My larger concern is what happens if a future industrial or commercial customer dramatically changes the assumptions behind our current forecast.

If a particularly large new user pushes the City into more expensive Tier 2 electricity purchases, I do not think existing residential and small business customers should unexpectedly absorb those incremental costs.

That is a rate design and policy conversation Council will need to approach carefully if such a proposal ever comes forward.

That concern also connects directly with the ongoing community discussion around data centers.

Near the beginning of the meeting, Councilmember Suggs raised a late item asking Council to schedule a future discussion, and potentially future action, regarding a possible data center moratorium within Port Angeles. Council agreed without objection to place that discussion on a future agenda.

No moratorium was adopted Tuesday.

I have been researching the potential electricity, water, infrastructure, land use, economic development, and ratepayer implications associated with large data centers. Tuesday’s Power Resource Plan presentation reinforced why utility capacity needs to be central to that discussion.

I am not interested in approaching the issue through a simple “for” or “against” framework.

The questions I want answered are more specific:

• What would a particular development require from our electric, water, sewer, transportation, and other public infrastructure?

• Who would pay the incremental costs created by that demand?

• What long term economic benefits would the project provide to Port Angeles?

• What regulatory tools does the City actually have?

• And what protections should be in place before a resource intensive development is allowed to move forward?

Those are the questions I expect Council will need to work through when the data center discussion returns.

I also asked that when the next Resource Plan comes before Council in 2028, we find a way to make the information more accessible to the public. The state spreadsheet serves an important regulatory purpose, but residents should also be able to understand the assumptions behind our forecasts and how those assumptions connect to future utility rates.

Council unanimously approved the 2026 Resource Plan.

Housing and Development Code Changes

Our second public hearing involved a substantial package of amendments to the Port Angeles Municipal Code.

I spent considerable time reviewing these changes before Tuesday’s meeting because land use codes are complicated, and this package combined state requirements, implementation of our recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, and changes recommended through Planning Commission and public review.

Deputy City Manager Calvin Goings and Community and Economic Development staff walked Council through those distinctions.

Among the changes were:

• new state required parking provisions;

• a 50% residential density allowance for qualifying existing building retrofits;

• updates affecting transitional and permanent supportive housing;

• expanded opportunities for child care facilities;

  

• new rules governing essential public facilities;

• greater flexibility for single family housing in additional zones;

• allowing duplexes as a permitted use in the R11 residential zone; and

• expanding an affordable housing density provision beyond religious organizations to qualifying nonprofits.

I supported the package.

Several portions stood out to me.

Removing Barriers to Housing

Parking requirements can consume a substantial amount of land and add cost to housing construction.

Some of Tuesday’s parking changes were required by state law, but they move in a direction I generally support: avoiding unnecessary parking mandates when those mandates make housing more expensive without producing a corresponding benefit for our residents.

Our Comprehensive Plan goes farther than the changes adopted Tuesday. I asked staff about that difference and was told broader residential parking reform is expected during Phase Three of the Comprehensive Plan implementation.

I will be following that work closely.

I also support the new 50% density allowance for qualifying residential conversions of existing buildings. Reusing existing structures can create housing while making better use of infrastructure already in place.

Duplexes and Middle Housing

The Planning Commission recommended allowing duplexes as a permitted use in the R11 zone.

I support that change.

Duplexes are one relatively modest way to increase housing choices within existing neighborhoods. They can serve multigenerational families, smaller households, renters, or property owners seeking an additional unit without dramatically changing the physical scale of a neighborhood.

During my review, I noticed one portion of the draft appeared to list duplexes as both permitted and conditional in R11. Staff confirmed Tuesday that the remaining conditional use reference would be corrected and that duplexes are intended to be permitted.

Child Care

The amendments also expand where child care facilities can operate.

Housing and employment policy cannot be separated entirely from child care availability. Families cannot obtain full-time jobs if they cannot find reliable and adequate child care services for their children.

I am interested to see whether these code changes result in additional child care capacity over time.

Essential Public Facilities

I also asked about the new Essential Public Facility provisions.

State law requires cities to provide a process for siting certain regional facilities and prevents local governments from effectively excluding them altogether.

My concern is making sure Port Angeles residents are not required to absorb disproportionate impacts from a regional facility simply because state law requires that some location be found.

Staff explained that applicants must make reasonable efforts to mitigate impacts and that the Hearing Examiner retains the ability, after the required analysis and consideration of alternatives, to deny a particular proposal if significant impacts genuinely cannot be mitigated.

Any future site-specific Essential Public Facility proposal would go through that Type III process before the Hearing Examiner. Council’s role is establishing the legislative framework, not deciding an individual application.

Housing Capacity Also Requires Infrastructure Capacity

One point I emphasized Tuesday is that zoning capacity and infrastructure capacity are not the same thing.

We can change zoning to allow more housing.

That does not automatically create additional water capacity.

It does not expand sewer or wastewater systems.

It does not increase electrical capacity.

It does not build streets or sidewalks.

And it does not automatically provide the emergency services that additional population may require.

I support creating substantially more housing in Port Angeles. Our Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan both recognize the need to increase housing supply and diversity.

But land use reform and infrastructure investment have to work together.

I do not see those goals as competing with one another. I see them as two parts of the same long term responsibility.

Council unanimously adopted the development code amendments.

Francis Ridge Senior Apartments

Council also considered a request from the Peninsula Housing Authority for City participation in the proposed Francis Ridge Senior Apartments, the third phase of the long term redevelopment of the Mt. Angeles View property.

The project is expected to create approximately 60 to 70 apartments for seniors age 62 and older, serving households at or below 60% of Area Median Income. The project is also expected to include veteran and formerly homeless set asides and make use of project based and VASH housing vouchers.

The overall project will require a much larger funding package involving several sources, potentially including Low Income Housing Tax Credits, the Washington Housing Trust Fund, Clallam County housing funds, infrastructure grants, and City support.

Council agreed to commit at least $500,000 from the City’s dedicated HB 1590 housing sales tax fund.

I asked how that commitment related to the County’s contribution because the proposal referenced the City providing at least $500,000 or 40% of the County contribution.

The County’s final contribution has not yet been determined, which means the City contribution could ultimately be larger depending on the financing structure.

I also asked what happens if one of the project’s major outside funding sources does not materialize. We learned that some City funding could still be used for design and other work necessary to position the project for a future funding round rather than sitting untouched until the entire financing package is secured.

Those are details I will continue tracking.

I ultimately supported the request.

We have dedicated housing revenue specifically intended to address housing needs. Using a portion of those funds to leverage a much larger affordable housing investment is, in my view, an appropriate use of that resource and aligns with our Comprehensive Plan and Housing Action Plan.

Council approved the commitment unanimously.

Measuring Economic Development

We also received the Community and Economic Development Department’s second quarter economic development update.

I have wanted Council to have these conversations more regularly because economic development is difficult to evaluate if we do not establish measurable indicators and revisit them over time.

There were several encouraging numbers in the presentation.

Through the middle of the year:

• the City reported $388,252 in housing related grants, awards, eligible fee waivers, and infrastructure support, compared with $184,691 at the same point in 2025;

• 39 dwelling units had been permitted, compared with 19 at the same point last year;

• 97.2% of tracked inquiries received responses within two business days;

• 97.3% of routine over the counter permits were processed the same day or within one business day after payment;

• 51 Port Angeles businesses had received assistance through the City’s partnership with the Clallam Economic Development Council and APEX program; and

• those partnerships were associated with approximately $6.78 million in federal contracts awarded to Port Angeles businesses.

We also heard updates on Project 935, the City’s work around permit ready and repeatable multifamily housing designs, and the planned 86 room Bamboo Hotel at First and Washington.

Those are useful indicators.

The question I asked is how we connect economic activity to jobs, particularly family wage jobs.

Deputy City Manager Calvin Goings pointed to the annual industrial user and family wage jobs summit that Council incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. The first is expected in the first quarter of 2027 and is intended to bring together the Port, manufacturers, service providers, Peninsula College, and other regional partners.

I think that will be an important next step.

I also asked whether businesses and developers are identifying recurring barriers that Council could address through future policy or code changes.

Calvin discussed steps the City has already taken to make permitting faster and more predictable, while also acknowledging a continuing challenge: Community and Economic Development and Public Works can still operate too much in separate organizational silos.

Residents and businesses experience one City government. Our internal structure should make it easier, not harder, for them to navigate a project that crosses departmental lines.

Building a Hope Centered City

One of the most interesting presentations Tuesday came from Fire Chief Derrell Sharp and Senior & Community Center Manager Carmen Geyer, who have been trained as Hope Navigators.

The Science of Hope framework is built around three basic ideas:

Goals: Where are we going?

Pathways: How can we get there, including finding another route when we encounter a barrier?

Willpower or agency: Do we believe our actions can help move us toward the goal?

I was already somewhat familiar with this work through a Hope Rising book study I participated in through the school district, so I appreciated seeing how the concept is developing inside the City.

What interested me most was the emphasis on employees closest to the work helping identify barriers and possible pathways.

Employees who work directly with a process every day often see obstacles and opportunities that senior leadership, and certainly Councilmembers, will never see from our positions.

I expressed support for continuing the work, while also identifying two things I will be watching.

First, I want this to become something sustainable rather than another organizational initiative that receives attention for a year and then disappears.

Second, improving employee well being should not unintentionally become another obligation placed on employees who are already stretched.

If the goal includes healthier organizational culture and reducing burnout, implementation itself needs to respect employee time and capacity.

I appreciated hearing that the current approach is intended to grow with employee participation rather than simply being rolled out from the top.

Council is expected to have a more detailed Science of Hope work session in September, and I am looking forward to continuing that conversation.

A Few Other Actions

Several other items from Tuesday are worth briefly noting.

Council received the first reading of the second amendment to the 2026 City budget. Much of the amendment reflects capital changes Council already approved through the Capital Facilities Plan earlier this summer, along with several previously authorized items. Final consideration is scheduled for September 1.

I pulled the Madrona Law Group agreement from the consent agenda because the original six month authorization had expired before Council was asked to ratify the continued work.

City Manager Nathan West publicly acknowledged that he had lost track of the expiration during the extended transition between City Attorneys and took responsibility for it.

I appreciated that straightforward explanation.

My concern was not whether the City needed outside legal support during that transition. It was making sure the Council authorization process was clear. After that discussion, I supported the agreement extending the firm’s work through the end of the year.

I also kept the City’s proposed five-year Taser replacement contract on the regular agenda because I wanted a public explanation of its full lifecycle cost.

Chief Brian Smith explained that the approximately $241,000 package includes the equipment and support necessary for the program and that the contract model anticipates another replacement cycle after five years.

Given the equipment failures PAPD is experiencing with its current legacy devices, I supported the replacement after getting those questions answered and ultimately made the motion to approve it.

Council also approved the design agreement for the SR 117/US 101 interchange project, which I strongly support. Creating a more direct freight connection to the Port has potential benefits not only for industrial transportation but also for downtown traffic, pedestrian conditions, safety, and the overall waterfront environment.

My Council Report: Learning Between Meetings

Council reports are an opportunity for us to share some of the work that happens between formal Council meetings.

Since our July 21 meeting, I have tried to use that time to learn directly from the people and organizations doing work throughout Port Angeles and Clallam County.

Solid Waste and Industrial Symbiosis

On July 22, I attended the Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting.

We continued work related to the regional Solid Waste Comprehensive Plan, and I learned more about the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s own solid waste planning efforts.

A large part of that meeting focused on industrial symbiosis, the idea that one business’s waste stream may be useful as an input for another business rather than simply becoming something that has to be disposed of.

I wrote about that meeting afterward in “When Waste Becomes a Resource.”

That article explored a question I continue to come back to in Council work: how can we use public infrastructure and regional partnerships more efficiently while remaining attentive to affordability?

We also heard from Senator Mike Chapman about Washington’s new producer responsibility approach to packaging. I remain interested in how those policies affect local solid waste systems and whether costs passed through the supply chain eventually show up in what households pay.

Seeing Encampment Cleanup Work Firsthand

On July 28, I joined 4PA while the organization conducted one of its encampment cleanup efforts.

I wanted to observe their approach to encampment cleanups firsthand: how the organization approaches a site, what volunteers encounter, how they interact with people living there, and what the cleanup process actually requires.

That experience connects with a theme I have returned to in previous writing about homelessness and public spaces: these issues are harder to understand when we encounter them only through complaints, photographs, or social media discussions.

There are legitimate concerns about sanitation, public access, environmental impacts, personal safety, and the well being of people living outside. Good policy requires understanding those realities together rather than reducing the issue to a slogan.

Understanding the Public Defender’s Role

On July 30, I met with Public Defender Harry Gasnick and toured the new public defender office near the Senior Center.

I learned more about the office’s operations, how public defense billing and costs work, and the role public defenders play in the broader criminal justice system.

When Council is making decisions about public safety and criminal justice funding, I want to understand the entire system rather than viewing police, prosecution, courts, and defense as isolated pieces.

Public safety policy works best when we understand how those pieces interact.

Youth Wellness and Prevention

On August 3, I met with Amanda Sanders from the Port Angeles Healthy Youth Coalition.

We discussed youth wellness, substance use prevention, and ways community organizations and local governments can appropriately support efforts that give young people stronger pathways and opportunities.

I also talked about that meeting in one of my Monday Council update videos.

This connects with another theme that has increasingly shaped how I think about local government: community wellness is not created by one program or one institution.

Schools, families, nonprofits, health providers, local government, recreation programs, and community organizations all occupy different parts of that work. The City’s role should be to understand where our responsibilities genuinely intersect with those efforts and where partnership can add value.

Parks, Families, and Community Connections

On August 15, I attended the ribbon cutting for the resurfaced tennis courts at Erickson Park with Mayor Kate Dexter and Councilmember Drew Schwab.

The project was a good example of what can happen when a community organization, in this case the Peninsula Tennis Club, works effectively with City Parks staff.

I also attended the Port Angeles School District’s Back to School Fair at Jefferson Elementary.

There were organizations from throughout the community helping families prepare for the school year. One program that particularly caught my attention was the YMCA Family Navigator program, which helps families connect with services and resources.

I would like to learn more about that work.

Both events reinforced something I have written about before: public infrastructure and community relationships are closely connected. A park, school, community center, or other shared space becomes more valuable when people and organizations are actively using it to build connections.

Derelict Vessels and Regional Cooperation

Finally, on August 17 I attended the Clallam County Marine Resources Committee meeting.

Much of our discussion focused on derelict and abandoned vessels and the potential value of preventing aging vessels from becoming expensive environmental cleanup projects.

I published a separate recap of that meeting, “Derelict Vessels, Prevention, and Regional Partnership.”

The underlying idea connects with several other issues I am working on: prevention is often less expensive than responding after a problem becomes severe, and regional problems frequently require regional partnerships rather than each jurisdiction trying to recreate the same program on its own.

A Continuing Theme

Taken together, these visits and meetings may look unrelated: solid waste, homelessness, public defense, youth wellness, parks, family services, and marine resources.

For me, they are connected by the way I am trying to approach this job.

In my July 21 Council recap, “Looking Ahead While Managing Today,” I wrote about the importance of learning from City departments, committees, businesses, partner organizations, and people doing the work before Council is asked to make policy decisions.

That is what much of the past month has looked like.

I do not expect every conversation or site visit to produce an immediate ordinance or budget decision.

Sometimes the value is building a better understanding of how a system works, where responsibilities overlap, where gaps exist, and what questions I should be asking when an issue eventually reaches the Council table.

That kind of learning is part of the work too.

Coming Up: Critical Areas Ordinance Work Session

The next Council work session is scheduled for Tuesday, August 25 at 5:00 PM and will focus on an update to the City’s Critical Areas Ordinance.

Critical Areas Ordinances regulate environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.

This work is another piece of implementing the City’s updated Comprehensive Plan and balancing development with long term environmental stewardship.

Tuesday’s economic development presentation identified the Critical Areas Ordinance as one of the City’s upcoming implementation efforts.

I expect the August 25 work session to be primarily an opportunity for Council to learn where that update stands, understand the policy and legal framework, and begin identifying questions before any later legislative decisions.

I will share more as that process moves forward.

My Takeaway

Tuesday was one of those meetings where several agenda items that initially appear unrelated begin connecting once you look at them together.

We want more housing.

We also need the infrastructure capable of supporting it.

We want economic development and family wage employment.

We also need to understand the long term demands new development places on utilities and public services.

We want an organization capable of solving difficult problems.

We also need to listen to the employees closest to those problems and make sure new initiatives do not simply add to their workload.

Those connections are increasingly how I think about Council decisions.

Passing an ordinance or approving a project is only one point in a much longer process. I am interested in whether the policies we adopt are building the capacity Port Angeles will need five, ten, and twenty years from now, and whether we are doing that in a way that remains financially sustainable for the people who already live here.

As always, I’ll continue sharing what I learn, the questions I am asking, and how I approach these decisions as your Port Angeles City Councilmember.

Watch the entire meeting below.

Monday evening I attended the August meeting of the Clallam County Marine Resources Committee (MRC), where I serve as the City of Port Angeles alternate representative.

The largest discussion of the evening focused on derelict and abandoned vessels: what happens after a vessel becomes a problem, what can be done before that happens, and what role a local Marine Resources Committee can realistically play.

That last question was especially important to me.

Like many advisory committees, the MRC has limited volunteer capacity. Before supporting a new project, I want to understand whether it fits the committee’s responsibilities and whether members can realistically sustain the work.

Monday’s presentation helped answer some of those questions and reinforced why prevention may be one of the most useful places for regional organizations to focus their efforts.

Derelict and Abandoned Vessels

Dana Oster, Marine Program Manager with the Northwest Straits Commission, presented on regional derelict-vessel removal and prevention work being carried out with Marine Resources Committees, Tribal governments, the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR), ports, and other partners.

The program grew partly from work already underway in places such as San Juan and Snohomish counties and expanded after additional federal funding became available beginning in 2023.

Since then, the regional partnership has helped remove 29 derelict vessels across the seven MRC counties at a total cost of more than $1 million. Individual removal costs vary considerably depending on the vessel, its location, whether it is floating or grounded, and how difficult it is to remove safely.

One example Dana showed was the Windjammer, a nearly 60-foot vessel with a concrete hull that had been stranded on Tribal tidelands for more than a decade. Because it was not located on state-owned aquatic lands, the usual DNR process could not easily address it. Regional funding and partnerships eventually made the removal possible.

For me, it was a useful example of how complicated and expensive a vessel can become once it has already been abandoned.

Prevention Before Removal

That experience helps explain why the program has increasingly emphasized vessel turn-in and recycling events.

Rather than waiting until an aging vessel sinks, grounds, or is abandoned, qualifying owners can voluntarily turn vessels in for proper disposal.

Three regional turn-in events have processed 92 vessels at a total program cost of a little more than $200,000.

The comparison is not perfectly one-to-one because every vessel and removal is different, but I came away with a clear impression: preventing a vessel from becoming derelict can be far less expensive than responding after it becomes an environmental or navigational problem.

The turn-in process can also keep hazardous materials out of the marine environment.

Before vessels are dismantled, materials such as petroleum products, fuel, oil, fire extinguishers, flares, cleaning products, and other potentially hazardous substances can be removed and properly handled. Portions of the remaining vessel, including wood and metals, can then be diverted for recycling when possible.

DNR’s Vessel Turn-In Program exists for essentially this reason: to help address vessels that have not yet become legally derelict or abandoned but are at risk of becoming so.

Could Clallam County Host a Turn-In Event?

One possibility discussed Monday was a future event involving both Clallam and Jefferson counties.

Under the concept being explored, the two counties could advertise a coordinated regional event while using locations associated with the Port of Port Angeles and Port Townsend to receive vessels based on where participating owners are located.

Nothing has been approved yet.

One major question is whether DNR will have sufficient funding available to support an event in 2027. DNR currently covers much of the cost associated with these events, and its future funding availability still needs to be determined.

If funding is available, the Northwest Straits Commission would return to the MRC and local partners to begin more detailed planning.

What Would the MRC Actually Do?

This was the question I asked during the presentation.

Before adding another project, I wanted to understand what participation would actually require from a committee whose members already volunteer significant time to existing work.

Dana explained that the MRC’s role would be relatively targeted.

At least one member would generally participate in monthly planning meetings, report back to the full committee, and help identify ways to reach vessel owners locally.

Community outreach is especially important because finding eligible vessel owners and helping them understand the program can be one of the most difficult parts of a successful turn-in event.

That outreach can include distributing flyers, sharing information through community organizations and local networks, and identifying places where vessel owners are likely to see the opportunity.

The MRC would not become a vessel-removal agency, hire removal crews itself, or assume responsibility for operating the program.

From my perspective, that is an appropriate role to keep exploring: using the MRC’s local relationships and knowledge to connect people with an existing state and regional program without duplicating work already being done elsewhere.

How Residents Can Report a Vessel

The presentation also raised a practical question: what should someone do if they see a vessel they believe may already be derelict or abandoned?

DNR administers Washington’s Derelict Vessel Removal Program and provides a Derelict & Abandoned Reporting Tool (DART) for reporting suspected vessels.

Dana explained that useful information can include photographs and as precise a location as possible. She also explained that the Coast Guard generally becomes involved when a vessel presents a navigational hazard, while DNR handles the broader state derelict-vessel program.

I think making that reporting pathway easier for residents to find locally is worth continuing to explore.

Legislative Outreach and Future Funding

We also discussed the importance of continued outreach to state and federal policymakers as future marine-resource funding remains uncertain.

MRC members have been working with the Northwest Straits Commission to arrange opportunities for policymakers and their staff to see projects on the North Olympic Peninsula firsthand.

One idea discussed Monday was coordinating those visits with other local governments, Tribes, and organizations so a trip to the Peninsula can include several projects rather than a single stop.

I think that kind of regional coordination makes sense, particularly given our distance from Olympia and the number of organizations working on related marine and environmental issues.

Looking Toward Future MRC Projects

We also had an initial conversation about possibly partnering with the Jefferson County MRC on future derelict crab-pot removal work.

That is not currently an adopted Clallam MRC project. Like other potential projects, it would need to go through the committee’s planning process and have members willing to serve as project leads before moving forward.

I expect that conversation to continue as the MRC begins planning for its next project cycle.

Other MRC Updates

We received updates on ongoing kelp monitoring at Freshwater Bay and Clallam Bay, with additional volunteers helping expand the number of people available for surveys.

We also discussed members’ observations of unusually low numbers of Dungeness crab this year. We did not reach a conclusion about the cause. Instead, members discussed inviting an appropriate scientist, agency representative, or Tribal co-manager to a future meeting to provide additional information.

I appreciated that approach. Observations can identify questions worth investigating, but they are not enough by themselves to explain why something is happening.

My Takeaway

The derelict-vessel discussion was the most useful part of the meeting for me.

There is already considerable work happening through DNR, the Northwest Straits Commission, ports, Tribes, and other Marine Resources Committees. I do not think Clallam County needs to recreate those programs.

The more useful question is where we can add value.

A future vessel turn-in event may be one place where the MRC can help: connecting existing programs with local vessel owners, bringing regional partners together, improving public awareness, and preventing manageable problems from becoming expensive environmental cleanups.

Whether that opportunity moves forward will depend on funding, partner capacity, and the MRC’s own project planning for 2027.

For now, Monday’s discussion gave me a much clearer picture of what that work could look like and what role the MRC could reasonably play.

Learn More

Washington Department of Natural Resources:

• Derelict Vessel Removal Program

• Derelict & Abandoned Reporting Tool (DART)

• Vessel Turn-In Program

As always, I’ll continue sharing what I learn through the committees and regional partnerships I participate in as your Port Angeles City Councilmember.

Last week, a local Substack writer who publishes as Clallamity Jen contacted me after sharing one of my Monday videos. A reader had responded with a cynical view of the Port Angeles City Council and whether residents’ opinions have any real influence on public decisions.

Jen did not ask me to defend every decision made by the City or argue with the person who left the comment. She asked broader questions about why people often feel unheard, what residents can do when they have that experience, and what elected officials can do differently.

Those are fair questions, and they are not unique to Port Angeles.

Frustration with government is real. It should not be dismissed as ignorance, negativity, or an unwillingness to understand the process. People form their opinions of government through personal experiences that may include unanswered messages, conflicting information, long delays, confusing referrals, public comments that receive no visible response, or decisions that appear to have been settled before they had an opportunity to participate.

A resident may have spent weeks or months trying to address a concern. They may have contacted several offices, repeated the same information to different people, or been told that another department or government has responsibility. They may have spoken at a public meeting and left without knowing whether anyone considered what they said.

Since being appointed to the City Council almost eleven months ago, I have learned more about the difference between what government believes it is doing internally and what residents can actually see. Officials may be reviewing documents, asking questions, seeking clarification from the City Manager, or carrying an issue into a later budget or policy discussion. Unless some part of that work becomes visible, a resident may reasonably conclude that nothing happened.

Government cannot expect the public to simply assume that listening occurred. Public institutions have a responsibility to explain their processes, acknowledge their limits, and communicate how residents can remain involved.

What Public Comment Can (and Cannot) Do

Before joining the City Council, I had delivered public comment to the Council myself. I remember preparing what I wanted to say, trying to fit it within the time allowed, and wondering whether my words would have any effect on the decisions the Council was preparing to make that evening.

The experience did feel impersonal to me. I would speak, return to my seat, and the meeting would continue without a direct response. From the audience, it was difficult to know whether Councilmembers agreed, disagreed, had questions, or had already reached a conclusion.

Serving on the Council has helped me better understand why Councilmembers generally do not engage in a back-and-forth during the general public-comment period. Public comment is intended to give residents an opportunity to place concerns, information, and requests before the Council and into the public record. It is not structured as a question-and-answer session or an open debate between speakers and Councilmembers.

If Councilmembers responded at length to each person, meetings could quickly become uneven. One speaker might receive several minutes of discussion while another receives little or none. A comment may also raise factual claims, legal questions, personnel concerns, or administrative issues that cannot responsibly be evaluated from the dais.

Many concerns require staff information, review of an adopted policy, clarification from the City Manager, or examination of documents that are not available during public comment. An immediate answer may sound responsive while still being incomplete or inaccurate.

Certain land-use proceedings, appeals, and other quasi-judicial matters require additional caution. Councilmembers must remain impartial and base their decisions on the proper hearing record. A spontaneous exchange outside that process could create fairness concerns or introduce information in a way that is not appropriate.

For those reasons, public comment may not produce an immediate response. Residents can still follow up in writing, provide supporting documents, ask who has authority, or continue participating as the issue moves through a committee, hearing, budget process, or later Council discussion.

Residents should reasonably expect that their comments will be received respectfully and considered with the rest of the public record. Public comment does not guarantee a particular result, but it should provide a genuine opportunity to describe an experience, identify a concern, question an assumption, or bring forward information before a decision is made.

When an Email Does Not Receive an Immediate Response

Elected officials receive emails covering a wide range of subjects. Some are short questions, while others include detailed histories, photographs, documents, links, or several requested actions. The concerns may involve City policy, County government, the school district, courts, state agencies, nonprofit organizations, private entities, or administrative work handled by the City Manager and staff.

I make an honest effort to respond to every email I receive, but I also recognize that this is not always possible or realistic. The volume can be high, and a useful response may require research, staff information, or a better understanding of which government has authority.

I do read each email word for word. I note the issue being raised, the information the writer wants me to understand, the points being made, and the action being requested. An email may lead to review of a staff report, an adopted plan, a budget document, or an existing policy. It may identify a question that should be raised with the City Manager or considered during a later Council discussion.

From the sender’s perspective, however, a lack of response can still feel like a lack of attention. Reading a message is not the same as acknowledging it or explaining what happens next. Residents should feel comfortable sending a respectful follow-up when they have not received an answer. A follow-up may return a message to attention during a busy period, clarify that a response is still being requested, or provide new information.

Residents should not be expected to prepare a formal legal argument. Explaining what is happening, how it has affected them, what they have already tried, and what action they are seeking is often enough to begin the conversation. Dates, locations, photographs, documents, and previous contacts can help identify the appropriate next step when they are available.

Finding the Government That Has Authority

Many issues brought to local elected officials cross jurisdictional lines. The City of Port Angeles, Clallam County, the Port of Port Angeles, the school district, Tribal governments, state agencies, courts, public authorities, nonprofit organizations, and private service providers may all have responsibilities connected to the same concern.

A road may be owned by the City, County, state, Port, or another entity. A criminal-justice concern may involve City police, the County jail, prosecutors, public defenders, courts, behavioral-health providers, or state law. A housing concern may involve City zoning, County services, a state agency, a landlord, a housing authority, or a nonprofit organization.

Residents should not be expected to understand every jurisdictional boundary before asking for help. Even people who are familiar with local government can find it difficult to determine who has authority, who should be contacted, and where a concern should begin.

Port Angeles operates under a council–manager form of government. The City Council adopts policy, passes ordinances, approves budgets and plans, sets utility rates, and approves major contracts. The City Manager and staff administer City operations, supervise employees, and implement Council policy.

An individual Councilmember cannot independently direct staff, promise a particular administrative action, or make a City decision outside a properly noticed Council meeting. A Councilmember can ask questions, raise policy concerns, review information, and help residents understand where authority lies, but should not cross into day-to-day administration.

When another government or institution has responsibility, residents should not simply be left with a closed door. Public officials should explain the boundary as clearly as possible and, when they can, direct the resident to the appropriate entity, official, department, or public process.

Residents can also ask direct questions: Who has authority over this issue? Is this a policy question or an administrative matter? Is there an existing review or hearing process? Who should I contact next? What information would help that person understand the concern?

Those questions can help turn a confusing referral into a clearer path forward.

Being Heard Does Not Always Determine the Outcome

There is a difference between being heard and receiving the outcome someone requested.

Elected officials often receive competing requests. One person may ask the Council to expand a service, while another asks us to reduce spending. One resident may support a project, while another believes the same project will negatively affect their neighborhood. Some people participate frequently and publicly, while others may be affected by the same decision but never contact the Council.

Councilmembers still have a responsibility to consider the law, adopted plans, staff analysis, budget constraints, public testimony, and effects on the broader community. The volume of emails or public comments can demonstrate the depth of concern surrounding an issue, but it does not by itself resolve the policy question.

From a resident’s perspective, however, a general statement that their concerns were considered may feel incomplete when the final decision goes in another direction. They may reasonably wonder which parts of their comments were accepted, which were questioned, whether the information they provided changed anything, and why other considerations ultimately carried more weight.

Elected officials will not always be able to respond in detail to every individual comment, but they should explain the broader reasoning behind their decisions. Residents should be able to understand what information was considered, what alternatives were available, what legal or financial limits applied, and how the decision fits within adopted policies and public responsibilities.

When the outcome differs from what residents requested, communication should not end with the vote. A clear explanation can help people understand how the decision was reached, even when disagreement remains.

Practical Ways Residents Can Participate

Residents do not need to be experts in municipal law, budgets, or government structure before participating. Personal experience can provide information that does not appear in a technical report, especially when it explains how a policy, service, or project affects someone in everyday life.

Timing can influence how much room remains to shape a proposal. By the time an ordinance, contract, plan, or project reaches a final Council agenda, months of technical review may already have occurred. Residents may be able to participate earlier through advisory-committee meetings, public hearings, surveys, open houses, planning processes, budget development, and review of draft documents.

Government has a responsibility to make those opportunities easier to find and understand. Residents should not have to monitor several websites and read hundreds of pages of technical material simply to know that a proposal is developing.

Residents who are especially interested in a particular subject should consider applying to serve on a City or County commission, committee, or advisory board. These bodies often spend more time reviewing a specific issue than the City Council or County Commissioners can devote during a regular meeting.

Members may study staff reports, hear presentations, ask detailed questions, receive public input, and make recommendations before a proposal reaches the elected body responsible for the final decision. Someone interested in housing, land use, transportation, utilities, parks, public safety, environmental protection, solid waste, arts, or another area of public policy may be able to contribute directly through one of these groups.

Serving on an advisory body can also provide a clearer view of how recommendations are developed, how competing concerns are considered, and how an idea moves through public review before reaching a final decision.

Writing a letter to the editor is another way to participate in civic discussion. A letter can raise an issue, describe a personal experience, question an assumption, support or oppose a proposal, or encourage others to become involved. It allows residents to communicate not only with elected officials, but also with neighbors who may not attend meetings or follow government agendas closely.

Civic Participation Beyond Government Meetings

Being involved does not always require writing to elected officials, attending every public meeting, or speaking during each public-comment opportunity.

People can volunteer, join a service organization, participate in a neighborhood group, help with a community cleanup, support a nonprofit, attend a public event, or listen to people whose experiences differ from their own. Conversations that happen through those activities can reveal concerns, ideas, and perspectives that may never appear in an agenda packet or formal presentation.

Community involvement also helps people understand how an issue affects others and what work is already taking place. It can connect residents with organizations, public employees, volunteers, and service providers who see different parts of the same challenge.

Sharing thoughts publicly can be difficult. Speaking at a meeting, submitting a letter, applying for an advisory body, or sending an email may leave someone feeling exposed. People may worry that they will use the wrong words, receive criticism, or discover that others strongly disagree with them.

Before I became a teacher, public speaking was not something I felt comfortable doing. Teaching required practice, repetition, and a willingness to continue even when I felt nervous or uncertain. Civic participation can develop in much the same way.

No one needs to begin as an expert or a confident public speaker. Participation can begin with attending one meeting, writing one letter, asking one question, volunteering for one event, or listening to one conversation. There is no single correct way to participate, and the most visible voices are not the only voices with useful experiences or ideas.

What Residents Should Expect From Elected Officials

The responsibility for public engagement cannot rest entirely with residents.

Residents should expect elected officials to treat them respectfully, communicate in understandable language, explain their decisions, and remain open to continued dialogue when disagreement occurs. They should also expect honesty about what an official can do, what falls outside that official’s authority, and when no immediate solution is available.

Listening should not include promises that cannot be kept. It is more respectful to explain the limits of an office than to suggest that a concern can be resolved when the official has neither the authority nor the ability to produce that result.

Residents should also expect elected officials to say when they do not know something, when additional information is needed, when government made a mistake, or when public input changed how an issue was understood.

A vote tally is not a complete explanation. Residents should be able to understand what problem a decision was intended to address, what alternatives were considered, what constraints applied, and why an elected official supported or opposed the final action.

Continuing the Conversation

No resident should be expected to participate in every meeting, follow every agenda, or communicate about every issue. Civic participation can take a form that is realistic for the individual and connected to the subjects they care about.

That may mean sending an occasional email, speaking during public comment on a specific proposal, writing a letter to the editor, joining a community organization, applying for an advisory board, volunteering, attending an open house, or listening to neighbors with different experiences.

A previous frustrating experience does not have to end the conversation. Residents can follow up, ask what happens next, request clarification about who has authority, provide additional information, or participate when the issue reaches another stage of review.

Elected officials have a corresponding responsibility to make communication respectful, understandable, and honest. They should not dismiss frustration, offer false promises, or rely on procedural language without explaining what it means for the person seeking help.

Disagreement will always be part of representative government. The goal is not to eliminate disagreement or guarantee that every participant receives the outcome they requested. The goal should be a local government in which residents can see how to participate, understand who has authority, receive honest explanations, and continue the conversation after a comment, email, meeting, or vote.

Public trust is not created by asking residents to assume government listened. It grows when the public can see that concerns were taken seriously, decisions were explained, limits were acknowledged, and communication remained open even when people reached different conclusions.

I would love to hear from you! Please feel free to reach out to me at jhamilton@cityofpa.us or come up and talk with me if you see me around town.

I serve as the City of Port Angeles representative on the Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee. The committee reviews regional solid-waste issues and advises on the countywide solid-waste plan. It does not independently set City utility rates, approve City contracts, or direct City employees.

Most of us stop thinking about an item once it goes into the garbage or recycling.

We roll the cart to the curb, a truck picks it up, and the material disappears from view.

But it does not really disappear.

From there, it enters a larger system involving collection trucks, transfer stations, compost facilities, processing plants, recycling markets, contracts, utility rates, environmental rules, transportation costs, and companies willing to accept or reuse recovered materials.

The July 22 meeting of the Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee helped bring that larger system into focus.

The committee continued its work on the countywide Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan, heard updates about recycling, composting, and hazardous-waste programs, and received a detailed presentation on industrial symbiosis from State Senator Mike Chapman and Port of Port Angeles Commissioner Colleen McAleer.

Industrial symbiosis was the part of the meeting that stayed with me most.

The term sounds technical, but the basic idea is easy to understand:

Something one business treats as waste may be something another business can use.

That could mean recovered cardboard becoming raw material for a paper mill. It could mean wood waste becoming fuel. It could mean excess heat helping power another process. It could also mean several businesses sharing equipment or infrastructure that none of them could reasonably build alone.

The discussion connected solid waste with economic development, industrial jobs, environmental stewardship, utility infrastructure, the future of the McKinley mill site, and the prices residents pay through both public utility systems and everyday purchases.

There was a lot to unpack.

What the Committee Is Planning

The Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee brings together representatives from the County, incorporated cities, Tribal governments, agriculture, businesses, the waste industry, environmental programs, and the public.

I attended as the Port Angeles City Council representative. Port Angeles Public Works Director Scott Curtin also participated and provided information about the City’s solid-waste and recycling operations.

The committee’s role is advisory. It reviews solid-waste issues, receives reports from organizations working throughout the county, and helps guide updates to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.

Some decisions belong to Clallam County. Others belong to Port Angeles, Sequim, Forks, Tribal governments, private companies, or the state. The committee helps connect those pieces, but it does not make every final decision discussed at its meetings.

At this meeting, the committee did not set a new utility rate, approve a new transfer station, decide the future of the McKinley site, or adopt a state recycling fee. It gathered information and continued shaping a regional planning document that may guide future recommendations and decisions.

The Countywide Solid Waste Plan

Clallam County is currently updating its Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.

The plan is the regional roadmap for how garbage, recycling, organics, hazardous materials, and other waste streams will be managed over the coming years.

It describes the existing system, identifies future needs, reviews possible improvements, and helps guide facilities, programs, permitting, and eligibility for certain funding opportunities.

The committee continued reviewing portions of the draft dealing with the planning area, collection systems, current facilities, population growth, future capacity, and coordination with Tribal and industrial systems.

Several practical questions came up:

• Where is population growth occurring?

• Will the existing location of facilities continue to make sense?

• How can recycling and composting become more accessible?

• How should affordability be addressed?

• How should Tribal, commercial, and industrial systems fit into the regional plan?

• What changes in state law need to be reflected?

• Which recommendations from the previous plan still make sense?

One issue was whether more solid-waste infrastructure may eventually be needed farther east in the county.

Port Angeles currently has major transfer infrastructure, but much of the county’s recent growth has been closer to Sequim. That can create inefficient transportation patterns if material moves west and later has to travel back east or farther away for processing.

No new facility was proposed or approved during the meeting. The committee was identifying a question the plan needs to address:

As the county grows, where should future solid-waste facilities and services be located so the system remains practical, affordable, and reliable?

The discussion also touched on redundancy. If one major facility becomes unavailable because of equipment failure, a road closure, or another emergency, is there another place capable of handling the material?

Those are the kinds of questions a comprehensive plan should help answer before a crisis forces the issue.

What Is Already Changing Locally

Before the main presentation, the committee heard several reports showing how solid-waste policy becomes day-to-day work.

Port Angeles Recycling Equipment

Port Angeles is continuing to work toward installing a recycling compactor and baler at the existing composting facility.

A compactor reduces the amount of space loose material takes up. A baler compresses recyclables into dense, uniform bundles that are easier and less expensive to transport.

That may sound like a small operational change, but transportation is one of the largest costs in a rural solid-waste system.

Loose recycling can fill a truck by volume before the truck reaches its weight capacity. That means more trips, more fuel, more staff time, and more wear on vehicles.

Once the new equipment is operating, the City may be able to move more material with fewer trips and reach closer or more competitive recycling markets.

It also reinforces something I think is easy to overlook:

Putting an item in a recycling bin does not mean the item has already been recycled.

The material still has to be collected, prepared, transported, accepted by a processor, and turned into something new.

If there is no end market, recycling becomes transportation and storage rather than true material recovery.

Hazardous Waste on the West End

Clallam County also reported that work is continuing on a household hazardous-waste collection event for the West End.

Household hazardous waste includes materials such as paint, solvents, pesticides, corrosive cleaners, automotive fluids, and other products that should not go into ordinary garbage or down a drain.

Access matters in a geographically large county.

A program that works well for residents near Port Angeles may be much less useful for someone who must drive a long distance from the West End. Special collection events can bring services closer to residents who otherwise have limited options.

Tribal Planning

The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe is also developing its own integrated solid-waste plan.

That work includes reviewing waste streams from Tribal government operations and enterprises and identifying ways to improve recycling and material management.

The committee discussed the value of connecting the countywide plan with Tribal planning without replacing or overriding the Tribe’s own work.

The goal is coordination where systems overlap.

Food and Yard-Waste Composting

The committee also heard from local compost operators.

SisterLand Farms reported that it is on pace to collect more than 65 tons of kitchen waste from Port Angeles this year. Only a few years ago, the operation was collecting about three tons.

That growth shows real public interest in keeping food waste out of the garbage stream. It also shows how quickly a successful program can reach the limits of its land, equipment, labor, and financing.

More volume requires safer processing equipment, more capacity, moisture control, fire prevention, contamination management, and reliable customers for the finished compost.

Lazy J Tree Farm described a much larger yard-waste composting operation handling thousands of tons of material.

That discussion quickly moved into water.

Composting depends on moisture. If piles become too dry, the biological process slows and fire risk may increase. If they become too wet, runoff and other problems can develop.

That is a good example of how waste systems connect with other public concerns. Composting is not only about collection. It also involves water, land, equipment, fire prevention, environmental health, and the practical experience of the people doing the work.

The discussion also raised a broader concern: regulations written for very large commercial facilities can have very different effects on small farms and community-scale programs.

Rules may be necessary for safety and environmental protection, but the scale of the operation should be part of the conversation.

Industrial Symbiosis: Turning Waste into a Resource

The largest presentation of the meeting focused on industrial symbiosis.

Senator Chapman and Commissioner McAleer explained what it means, what Washington has been doing to support it, and what opportunities may exist in Clallam County.

Industrial symbiosis is a formal name for a simple idea:

The unused output of one operation becomes a useful input for another.

Sometimes that output is a physical material such as wood waste, cardboard, ash, food residue, or a manufacturing byproduct.

Sometimes it is heat, steam, water, energy, transportation capacity, storage, or specialized equipment.

The word symbiosis comes from biology, where it describes a close relationship between different organisms. In an industrial setting, it describes businesses or facilities that become more efficient by connecting what they produce, need, or discard.

A Simple Example

Imagine a wood-products company that produces large amounts of sawdust and bark.

The company may have to pay to haul that material away.

A nearby business may need woody material to make energy, biochar, mulch, compost, or another product.

If the two businesses can agree on quality, quantity, price, transportation, and permits, the first business avoids some disposal cost and the second receives a useful raw material.

The material has not changed.

What changed is whether the system treats it as waste or as a resource.

Industrial symbiosis can also involve shared infrastructure.

A large business may have enough volume to support a kiln, treatment system, warehouse, or marine terminal. A smaller business may need access to the same equipment but not have enough production to build it alone.

Sharing that capacity can make both operations more competitive.

Why Ports and Industrial Areas Are a Natural Place to Start

Ports are often a good place to look for these opportunities.

They already manage industrial land and may have roads, marine access, utilities, storage, freight connections, and businesses located near one another.

That can make it easier to connect waste streams, transportation, and shared equipment.

Senator Chapman described industrial development in rural communities as something often measured one job at a time.

Ten jobs in a rural area can have a much larger effect than the same number of jobs in a major city.

His interest in industrial symbiosis is therefore not only environmental. It is also about rural economic development and creating more reasons for businesses to locate and remain here.

Examples from Denmark

Chapman described a trip to Denmark where he saw industrial symbiosis operating at a larger scale.

One example involved agricultural waste.

Dairy farms produced manure and other organic material. Instead of treating it only as an odor or disposal problem, the material was collected and converted into energy.

The gas could then be returned to nearby communities as a heat source.

That created several benefits at once:

• Farmers had a productive use for material they needed to manage.

• Communities received energy.

• Odor was reduced.

• Organic waste stayed within a regional system.

• Transportation and processing were coordinated.

He also described breweries working with farms to reuse brewing byproducts.

In another example, businesses locating in an industrial park were expected to identify partners that could use their waste streams.

Washington is not Denmark. Our laws, geography, business culture, and public institutions are different.

But the examples show what can happen when waste, energy, water, transportation, and economic development are treated as parts of the same system.

Why It Can Be Difficult

Industrial symbiosis sounds simple, but making it work can be complicated.

A material may be reusable in theory but too expensive to transport.

Many residual materials are heavy, bulky, and low in value. A reuse opportunity may work if two companies are three miles apart but fail if the material must be trucked 200 miles.

Quality also matters.

Food waste may contain plastic. Wood waste may include treated or painted material. Recycling may contain contaminants that damage equipment or reduce the value of an entire load.

Businesses also need reliability.

If one company depends on another business’s byproduct, what happens if the supplier closes, reduces production, or changes its process?

Permitting and environmental protection still apply.

Calling something a resource does not remove land-use, air, water, solid-waste, shoreline, or environmental requirements.

A successful project has to be safe, lawful, financially realistic, and environmentally preferable to the available alternatives.

What Is Already Happening in Port Angeles

Industrial symbiosis may be a new phrase to many of us, but the basic idea is already part of Port Angeles’ economy.

Recycled Fiber at McKinley

The McKinley mill used recovered cardboard and other recycled fiber to manufacture containerboard.

That is circular manufacturing in a direct form.

Material collected through recycling systems became the raw material for a new industrial product.

The mill’s closure affected workers, City utility use, the local economy, and the regional market for recovered fiber.

It also showed why recycling depends on manufacturing.

Residents can carefully sort cardboard, but the system still needs companies willing and able to use it.

Hog Fuel and Energy

The mill also used woody residuals, often called hog fuel, as part of its energy and steam system.

Hog fuel can include bark, chips, sawdust, and other wood-processing residue.

Instead of paying to dispose of all of that material, it can become a fuel source under properly designed and permitted conditions.

That does not make every form of combustion automatically beneficial. Air emissions, equipment, fuel quality, and environmental rules still need to be considered.

But it is a clear example of an industrial byproduct becoming part of another productive process.

Composite Recycling

The Composite Recycling Technology Center provides another local example.

Waste carbon-fiber material can be studied, processed, and used to create new products rather than being treated only as landfill material.

That expands the idea of recycling beyond bottles, cans, cardboard, and newspapers.

It also connects waste reduction with research, advanced manufacturing, and local employment.

Shared Kiln Capacity

Commissioner McAleer also discussed the possibility of local wood-product businesses sharing kiln capacity.

A kiln dries lumber to a controlled moisture level.

A large operation may have enough volume to justify building one. A smaller manufacturer may need kiln-dried material but not have enough production to support that investment alone.

A shared facility could reserve most of its capacity for a larger user while making some capacity available to smaller businesses.

That is industrial symbiosis through shared infrastructure rather than a direct exchange of waste.

The McKinley Site and Local Industrial Opportunity

Commissioner McAleer spent a significant part of the presentation discussing the former McKinley mill site.

The property is important to Port Angeles because it includes industrial land, buildings, utilities, marine access, and equipment developed over many years.

It also carries uncertainty.

Some systems may still be useful. Others may be outdated, damaged, or expensive to restore. Environmental conditions, ownership decisions, market demand, utility needs, and startup costs all need to be understood.

McAleer described the site as both difficult and full of possibility.

She discussed an interested local investor who has been willing to look beyond the obvious problems and examine what parts of the property may still have value.

She also described the possibility of thinking about the site more broadly.

Instead of asking only whether one traditional paper-mill operation can restart exactly as it existed before, the question could become:

Could several connected businesses use the site, its infrastructure, and one another’s byproducts in a way that creates a more diverse and resilient industrial operation?

Possible activities discussed included:

• Forest-products manufacturing.

• Wood drying.

• Biochar.

• Energy generation.

• Woody biomass use.

• Waste-heat recovery.

• Shared infrastructure.

• Marine transportation.

• Research and product development.

These are possibilities, not commitments.

Any redevelopment would still require private financing, environmental review, permits, utility analysis, and an open public process for any future City decisions or agreements.

The City Council should not select a private business model or prejudge future permit applications.

Our role is to establish clear policy, protect public resources, ask informed questions, and evaluate any future City participation through the proper legislative and budget process.

Woody Biomass

The meeting also highlighted a growing regional problem.

There is a large supply of woody biomass with fewer places able to use it.

That includes material generated by forestry, land clearing, wood manufacturing, and other operations.

When a major buyer or industrial user closes, the material does not stop being produced.

It begins accumulating, travels farther, loses value, or becomes a disposal problem.

Industrial symbiosis could create new outlets for some of that material.

Could it become fuel, biochar, a construction input, a soil product, or feedstock for another process?

The answer will not be the same for every material, but the scale of the problem makes it worth including in the regional plan.

The committee discussed strengthening the plan’s language around industrial symbiosis and innovative uses for commercial and industrial waste streams.

I believe that is worth pursuing.

The plan should not promise that every byproduct will become profitable. It should create a framework for identifying realistic opportunities, studying barriers, supporting partnerships, and protecting the public interest.

State Policy, Packaging, and Affordability

The presentation then moved into a pointed discussion about state recycling policy.

Senator Chapman said Washington has struggled to reduce its waste stream and has responded by adopting major changes.

He also warned that those policies may have consequences for affordability.

His concern was that new producer obligations, packaging fees, and beverage-container deposits may eventually reach consumers through higher prices or added upfront costs.

I think those concerns deserve careful attention.

I also think it is important to explain what the policies actually do, because several different ideas were discussed together.

Producer Responsibility

Washington has adopted an extended producer responsibility system for residential packaging and paper products.

Under that model, companies that produce or sell covered packaging help finance the system used to collect and process those materials.

The basic argument is that the cost of packaging should not fall entirely on local utility customers and governments after the product has been sold.

Supporters believe the program can:

• Provide more consistent recycling services.

• Improve recycling infrastructure.

• Encourage packaging that is easier to recycle.

• Fund much of the cost of collecting and processing covered materials.

• Reduce some pressure on local recycling rates.

Chapman raised the other side of the question.

A fee may be paid legally by a producer, but businesses can respond to that expense in several ways. They may absorb it, redesign packaging, reduce another cost, spread it across a larger market, or raise prices.

The effect will not be identical for every company or product.

But it is reasonable to expect that at least some costs could show up in consumer prices.

That is especially important for groceries, medicine, and household necessities.

At the same time, residents already pay for packaging after purchase through garbage and recycling rates, taxes, litter cleanup, contamination, and transportation.

The real question is not whether waste management costs money.

It already does.

The question is how those costs should be divided among producers, consumers, utility customers, and government, and what improvement residents receive in return.

Bottle Deposits

Chapman also discussed a proposed ten-cent deposit on certain beverage containers.

This is sometimes described casually as a bottle tax, but a refundable deposit works differently from an ordinary tax.

A customer pays an additional amount when purchasing a covered beverage and can recover that amount by returning the container through an approved system.

The goal is to increase container recovery, reduce litter, and create a cleaner recycling stream.

Even though the deposit is refundable, it still raises practical questions.

Residents pay the money upfront.

People who do not return containers lose the deposit.

Retailers and system operators need space, equipment, staff, transportation, fraud controls, and processing capacity.

Rural communities may have fewer convenient return locations.

A system that looks simple in Olympia may feel very different to someone who must drive a long distance to redeem containers.

Before a system like that moves forward, I would want clear answers about:

• Where residents could return containers.

• How the West End would be served.

• How small retailers would be affected.

• What happens to unclaimed deposits.

• How the deposit system would interact with curbside recycling.

• Whether removing valuable bottles and cans would increase the cost of processing what remains.

Those are not arguments against recycling. They are implementation questions that directly affect residents.

The Other Side of the Cost Discussion

Committee members also pointed out that producer funding may bring money into local recycling systems.

That could help Port Angeles and other service providers pay for collection, processing, education, and infrastructure.

If reimbursement works as intended, it could reduce some current costs or slow future rate increases.

The final effect on residents will depend on several things happening at once:

• What producers pay.

• What portion reaches consumer prices.

• What local costs are reimbursed.

• What investments local governments must make.

• Whether packaging becomes easier to process.

• Whether transportation and contamination costs fall.

The outcome is not yet clear.

That uncertainty should be explained honestly rather than replaced with a simple promise that residents will either save money or pay more.

What This Could Mean for Port Angeles

State recycling policy and the countywide plan may eventually affect Port Angeles Public Works operations.

Possible effects include:

• Changes to accepted materials.

• New education and labeling requirements.

• Reporting and recordkeeping.

• Contract changes.

• Facility upgrades.

• New contamination standards.

• Reimbursement for qualifying recycling costs.

• Changes in the value or destination of recovered materials.

• New administrative or staffing responsibilities.

The timing is important.

Port Angeles is already moving forward with the compactor and baler.

Could that investment help the City meet future requirements?

Could it qualify for outside support?

Will the City need to spend money before reimbursement begins?

How will these changes affect utility rates?

Those are budget and policy questions for the Council.

Council’s role is not to tell Public Works how to operate the facility day to day. Our role is to review budgets, contracts, rates, capital investments, and policies with a clear understanding of the long-term costs and benefits.

Industrial symbiosis also connects with the City’s broader plans.

It relates to:

• Economic development.

• Industrial land.

• Utility capacity.

• Marine and freight transportation.

• Climate and environmental stewardship.

• Capital facilities.

• Fiscal sustainability.

• Regional and Tribal coordination.

A large industrial user can create jobs and utility revenue, but it may also require significant infrastructure.

A group of smaller, connected users may create a more diverse economic base, but shared systems can create dependency and risk.

Good planning requires us to look at both opportunity and obligation.

What I Will Be Watching as the Plan Develops

I recently wrote in an email response that people deserve a fair process, respectful treatment, and an honest explanation, even when a final decision is not the one they hoped for.

That obligation applies to solid-waste planning too.

As the plan develops and recommendations begin moving toward actual decisions, I will be focused on five broad questions.

What problem are we trying to solve?

Before supporting a new program, facility, fee, or regulation, I want a clear explanation of the problem and the result we expect.

Are we trying to reduce transportation costs, increase recycling, manage food waste, create a local market for woody material, improve access on the West End, or prepare for future population growth?

Different problems require different solutions.

Who has the authority and responsibility to act?

Solid-waste systems involve the County, cities, Tribal governments, the state, producers, private haulers, processors, businesses, and customers.

Residents should be able to understand which organization is making the decision, who will carry it out, and who will be accountable for the results.

What will it cost, and who will ultimately pay?

I will be looking at both startup costs and long-term operating costs.

I also want to know whether funding comes from utility rates, taxes, producer fees, grants, private investment, or some combination.

If reimbursement is expected later, residents should know who pays upfront, when the money is expected to return, and what happens if it does not arrive as planned.

What are the practical effects?

A policy may look good on paper but create different challenges once it reaches a collection route, transfer station, grocery store, small business, or rural household.

I will be watching how proposals may affect rates, prices, access, staffing, contracts, transportation, and public infrastructure.

How will the public be included?

Public participation should begin before every major choice has already been narrowed or settled.

Residents should have access to understandable information, know which decisions are still open, and have a meaningful opportunity to ask questions and offer input.

Public participation does not mean every speaker will receive the exact outcome requested. It does mean government should explain what it heard, what competing concerns were considered, and why a final decision was reached.

Looking Ahead

The Solid Waste Advisory Committee will continue reviewing the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan at future public meetings.

The committee will also return to recycling, organics, contamination, affordability, and the effects of changing state law.

Industrial symbiosis is likely to continue appearing in that work.

I believe it belongs in the conversation.

The idea offers real possibilities:

• Reducing disposal.

• Lowering transportation costs.

• Creating markets for local byproducts.

• Supporting manufacturing.

• Making better use of industrial land.

• Creating jobs.

• Reducing the amount of material treated as waste.

It also requires realism.

Not every material has a market.

Not every technically possible project will be affordable.

Not every grant-supported idea will become a lasting business.

Not every reuse proposal will meet environmental standards.

Good planning should be ambitious enough to identify opportunities and careful enough to recognize the risks.

The contents of a garbage cart may look like the end of a product’s life.

In reality, they are part of a larger network of public services, private markets, environmental responsibilities, household costs, and industrial opportunities.

The question is not simply where our garbage goes.

It is what we are paying to move and dispose of, what value may still remain in those materials, and whether we can build a system that protects the environment without losing sight of affordability.

That is a conversation worth continuing.

Meeting Recording

The recording of the July 22, 2026 Solid Waste Advisory Committee meeting is not currently available, so I am not able to share it here.

I have based this recap on the committee agenda packet, the meeting transcript, and my own notes from attending the meeting. I will add the recording later if it becomes publicly available.

Additional Resources

• July 22, 2026 Solid Waste Advisory Committee Agenda Packet

• Clallam County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update

• Current Clallam County Solid Waste Management Plan

• Washington Recycling Reform Act information

• Washington Industrial Symbiosis Program information

Mayor Kate Dexter was absent and excused from Tuesday evening’s City Council meeting, so Deputy Mayor Navarra Carr presided over the meeting.

Like many Council meetings, this one did not include headline-grabbing decisions. Instead, much of the evening focused on the steady work of governing: reviewing public input, approving routine business, discussing long-term utility planning, asking questions about public safety investments, and receiving updates from Councilmembers and City staff.

Below is a recap of the meeting in the order the agenda was considered.

First Public Comment

The meeting opened with a single public comment from a community member who addressed the Council regarding homelessness and related community concerns.

Public comment is an important opportunity for residents to speak directly to the Council before we begin our business. While Councilmembers generally do not respond during the meeting, every comment becomes part of the public record and helps inform future policy discussions.

I want to personally encourage residents to participate in public comment whenever they have something to share with the Council. I listen carefully to every speaker because those comments often provide valuable insight into issues affecting our community, perspectives on agenda items, and concerns that may not otherwise come before the Council. Even when I don’t ultimately agree with every position expressed, hearing directly from the people we serve helps me become a better-informed councilmember.

Healthy local government depends on public participation. Whether you choose to speak in person, submit written comments, or simply attend a meeting, your involvement helps strengthen our community and our democracy.

Consent Agenda

Following approval of the agenda, the Council considered the Consent Agenda.

Most of the business items originally listed under Section J of the agenda were moved to the Consent Agenda and approved together. The only item removed for separate discussion was Item J4, the proposed purchase of two Ford F-150 Police Responder vehicles for the Port Angeles Police Department.

Several items approved through the Consent Agenda are worth briefly highlighting.

Electric Utility Power Resource Plan

The Council scheduled a future public hearing on the City’s Electric Utility Power Resource Plan.

This plan helps guide the City’s long-term electric resource planning and fulfills state planning requirements. It examines projected electricity demand, expected energy resources, conservation opportunities, and strategies for maintaining a reliable electric system while managing costs over the coming years.

Although this type of planning document can seem technical, it plays an important role in shaping future utility decisions that affect every electric customer in Port Angeles. Planning today helps ensure the City is prepared to meet future energy needs while maintaining reliable service and making thoughtful long-term investments.

Scheduling the public hearing allows residents an opportunity to review the document and provide input before the Council takes final action. If you are interested in how the City plans for future electric demand, conservation, and resource development, I encourage you to review the Power Resource Plan before the public hearing.

FEMA BRIC Resolution

The Council also approved a resolution designating the City Manager as the City’s authorized representative for FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program.

Although procedural, this designation is required before the City can submit certain federal grant applications. Authorizing a representative does not obligate the City to pursue any specific project or accept grant funding. Instead, it ensures that the City is eligible to apply for BRIC grants if opportunities arise.

Programs like BRIC are designed to help communities invest in projects that reduce long-term risks from natural hazards before disasters occur. Depending on the project, grant funding can support infrastructure improvements, flood mitigation, seismic resilience, wildfire preparedness, and other investments that strengthen community resilience while reducing future recovery costs.

While this resolution received little discussion during the meeting, actions like these are an important part of ensuring the City remains eligible for outside funding opportunities that can help offset costs for local taxpayers.

Late Agenda Item

Because the City Council will not meet again until August 18, staff requested adding a late item to the Consent Agenda authorizing a conditional Stage 3 Water Shortage Declaration should drought conditions worsen before the next regular Council meeting.

Earlier that day, the City announced that it had entered a Stage 2 Water Shortage, which includes additional water conservation measures in response to ongoing drought conditions. With nearly four weeks until the next regular Council meeting, staff recommended that Council also authorize a conditional Stage 3 declaration if conditions deteriorate further before August 18.

Rather than requiring a special Council meeting to respond, this action provides the City with the flexibility to implement additional conservation measures promptly if they become necessary. It is important to note that Council did not declare a Stage 3 Water Shortage during this meeting. Instead, Council approved a contingency measure that would allow the City to respond quickly if drought conditions continue to worsen before the next scheduled meeting.

Bonneville Power Administration Update

Readers may remember this topic from my recent Utility Advisory Committee recap. During that meeting, the Utility Advisory Committee discussed the proposed agreement in detail and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve it.

In simple terms, Tier 2 power refers to electricity purchased beyond the City’s allocation of lower-cost federal hydropower. As electricity demand grows throughout the Pacific Northwest, utilities increasingly need to plan for how additional power purchases could affect future costs, reliability, and long-term rate planning.

Although much of the discussion involves technical utility planning, these decisions help shape how Port Angeles plans for future energy needs while maintaining reliable electric service.

Taking a Closer Look at the Purchase of Two Police Department Vehicles

The primary discussion of the evening centered on Item J4, authorizing the purchase of two Ford F-150 Police Responder trucks for the Port Angeles Police Department.

Unlike the other business items, this proposal remained on the regular agenda to allow additional Council discussion and questions before a vote was taken.

As I reviewed the agenda packet, I had several questions that I wanted answered before making my decision.

Why is the City purchasing these vehicles through Arizona?

One question I received from a constituent after the agenda packet was published was why the purchase documents referenced a dealer in Arizona instead of a Washington dealership.

Chief Brian Smith explained that the City participates in cooperative purchasing agreements that allow public agencies to purchase specialized equipment through competitively awarded contracts. In this case, the cooperative purchasing agreement provides access to vendors that specialize in police vehicles and equipment.

Police vehicles are a highly specialized market. Not every dealership sells or supports law enforcement fleets, and those that do often participate in national purchasing cooperatives used by cities across the country. Chief Smith noted that a number of large cities in both Washington and Oregon use the same purchasing agreement because it provides competitive pricing while meeting public contracting requirements.

Although the dealer is located in Arizona, the vehicles will still be outfitted through the City’s existing local upfitter in Lakewood using separate contracts.

Will these trucks have enough storage capacity?

I also asked whether these trucks would have sufficient space to carry all of the specialized equipment officers use during a typical shift.

Chief Smith explained that each truck will include a custom rear equipment storage system with pull-out compartments that maximize available space while making equipment easier to access. He confirmed that all of the equipment currently carried in patrol vehicles will fit while still providing a prisoner partition comparable to the department’s existing patrol fleet.

His explanation gave me confidence that these vehicles are being configured around the operational needs of our officers rather than simply replacing one vehicle with another.

Connection to House Bill 2015

Another councilmember asked how this purchase related to the public safety funding discussed during our previous Council meeting, when the Council approved implementing the local public safety sales tax authorized under House Bill 2015.

Chief Smith explained that the state grant associated with House Bill 2015 helps fund officer salaries, while the local public safety sales tax provides broader flexibility for future public safety expenses, including equipment. However, because the sales tax will not begin generating revenue until January, those funds are not yet available for these purchases.

He also noted that the patrol vehicles identified for replacement in the Capital Facilities Plan remain in good condition. Rather than replacing those vehicles early, the department plans to continue using them while purchasing these additional trucks to support the department’s expanding staffing needs as new officers are hired.

I thought this exchange was especially helpful because it connected Tuesday’s discussion to the Council’s previous meeting. It illustrated how recent decisions about public safety funding fit into the department’s longer-term planning for staffing, equipment, and fleet management.

After asking my questions and hearing the discussion, I felt comfortable supporting the purchase. Discussions like these are an important part of the Council’s oversight role. While staff provide professional recommendations, it is the Council’s responsibility to ask questions, understand the reasoning behind significant expenditures, and ensure that public funds are being used thoughtfully before taking action.

Council Reports

Councilmembers then shared updates from committees, regional organizations, and other City-related activities that have occurred since our previous meeting.

During my report, I shared several opportunities I’ve had over the past two weeks to better understand the people, departments, committees, businesses, and partner organizations that help make Port Angeles work. One of my goals as a councilmember is to continually learn from those who serve our community in different ways. The more I understand how different parts of our community operate, the better prepared I am to ask informed questions and make thoughtful policy decisions when issues come before the Council.

Learning from the Fire Department

On July 13, I had the opportunity to spend several hours with Fire Chief Dan Sharpe at the Port Angeles Fire Department.

In addition to touring the facility, we discussed the department’s inspection program and the many responsibilities the department carries beyond emergency response. One aspect that stood out to me was learning more about the department’s commitment to firefighter wellness, including the on-site fitness facilities that help firefighters maintain the physical readiness required for a profession that regularly places them in physically demanding and high-stress situations.

I’m also planning a future ride-along with one of the fire crews so I can gain an even better understanding of their day-to-day operations and the challenges they encounter while serving our community.

Utility Advisory Committee

On July 14, the Utility Advisory Committee received a presentation on the City’s ongoing sewer rehabilitation program.

As I mentioned earlier in this newsletter, maintaining our underground infrastructure continues to be one of the City’s most significant long-term responsibilities. Much of our wastewater system includes infrastructure approaching or exceeding 100 years of age, including sections of historic brick sewer pipe.

I appreciated the presentation from Scott and the Public Works team because it reinforced the importance of taking a proactive approach to infrastructure maintenance. Rehabilitating aging sewer lines before they fail is often far less costly and disruptive than responding to emergency failures after they occur.

Connecting with the Community

On July 17, I had the opportunity to meet with community member Danny Steiger, owner of Angeles Hardwood.

One of the parts of serving on the City Council that I enjoy most is the opportunity to sit down with members of our community, hear about their experiences, and better understand the perspectives they bring. Conversations like these help me learn more about the people, businesses, and organizations that make Port Angeles such a unique community.

While these conversations don’t involve Council decisions or commitments, they provide valuable context and help me stay connected with the people who live and work in Port Angeles.

Looking Ahead

Between now and our next Council meeting, I have several additional opportunities to continue learning.

On July 23, I’ll attend a meeting of the Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee at the County Courthouse.

Later this month, I’ll also visit the Clallam County Public Defender’s Office to learn more about its operations and how its work intersects with the City’s role in the criminal justice system. As the City continues working with our county partners on criminal justice issues, I believe it is important to understand how each part of the system operates and how those pieces fit together.

Council reports are one of my favorite parts of each meeting because they provide residents with a broader picture of the work taking place outside Tuesday evenings. Committee meetings, department visits, regional partnerships, conversations with community members, and discussions with local organizations often provide the background and context that inform the policy discussions residents see during regular Council meetings.

Final Public Comment

Three community members spoke during the final public comment period, raising issues related to recovery services, capital-project spending, transportation planning, homelessness, and public safety.

Recovery and Outreach Services

A representative of Reflections Counseling Services Group provided an update on the REAL Program, which stands for Recovery, Empowerment, Advocacy, and Linkage.

The program serves people experiencing substance-use or co-occurring challenges, including individuals who have frequent contact with law enforcement or first responders and those who have experienced difficulty accessing services through more traditional systems. The speaker explained that, as of July 1, Reflections is the sole provider of the REAL Program in Clallam County and is continuing to hire care managers and recovery coaches.

The speaker emphasized that referrals may come from community partners, service providers, or individuals seeking help for themselves. Councilmembers and community members were also invited to an upcoming Recovery Month open house planned for late September.

Capital Projects and Transportation Spending

A Port Angeles resident commented on several projects included in the City’s capital-planning documents.

The speaker questioned the proposed route and expected use of the 10th Street Bike Boulevard, suggesting that other routes may be more practical for cyclists. The speaker also expressed concern about the cost of the City’s proposed neighborhood traffic-circle program and suggested that four-way stop signs could provide a less expensive alternative.

Additional questions were raised about the funding and scope of the transportation project near 10th and C Streets. More broadly, the speaker encouraged the Council to consider whether state grant funding could be directed toward projects such as sewer rehabilitation and other core infrastructure needs.

The comments reflected an important question that appears throughout the City’s capital-planning process: how should limited local and outside funding be prioritized among transportation improvements, safety projects, utility infrastructure, and other community needs?

Outreach, Homelessness, and Transportation Safety

A second Port Angeles resident spoke remotely and began by expressing support for the services provided through Reflections Counseling Services Group.

The speaker asked whether residents could directly contact the program when they encounter someone who may benefit from outreach, particularly during weekends or times when emergency dispatch and law-enforcement resources are already heavily committed.

The speaker also addressed public claims that law-enforcement agencies are transporting unhoused people into Port Angeles. The speaker disputed those claims and encouraged anyone with specific evidence of misconduct to make a formal report rather than relying on unsupported accusations during public meetings.

Finally, the speaker commented on the proposed traffic circles and bicycle routes. The speaker suggested that the location of a possible traffic circle on Laurel Street should be evaluated based on where it would most effectively slow downhill traffic. The speaker also noted that electric bicycles have made steeper routes more accessible and offered a different perspective on the potential use of the proposed 10th Street Bike Boulevard.

The final public comment period demonstrated how residents can examine the same proposals from very different perspectives. Those comments become part of the public record and provide Councilmembers with additional information and questions to consider as projects and policies move forward.

Watch the Full Meeting

If you would like to watch the complete meeting, including the staff presentations, Council discussion, and public comments, you can view the recording below.

Additional Resources

• July 21, 2026 City Council Agenda Packet

• Stage 2 Water Shortage Information

Local government works best when residents stay informed, ask questions, and participate in the process. Thank you for taking the time to follow along with the work of your City Council.

The next regular Port Angeles City Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 18, 2026.

Most of us don’t spend much time thinking about the sewer system beneath our streets.

That’s probably a good thing.

When we flush a toilet, wash dishes, or take a shower, we simply expect the system to work. If it does, we rarely think about the miles of pipe carrying wastewater beneath our neighborhoods or the decades of planning and maintenance required to keep that system operating.

That was the focus of the July 14 meeting of the Port Angeles Utility Advisory Committee.

2026 07 14 Uac Agenda

926KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Rather than discussing a new construction project or responding to an emergency, the committee spent nearly the entire meeting learning how the City rehabilitates aging sewer infrastructure before it fails. It was one of the most educational committee discussions I’ve attended because it provided a behind-the-scenes look at the engineering, planning, and budgeting decisions that quietly protect one of the City’s most essential public services.

Understanding the Challenge

Public Works staff began by explaining the scale of the City’s wastewater system.

Port Angeles maintains approximately 120 miles of active sanitary sewer. About 40 percent of that system was installed before 1956, meaning many of those pipes are now well beyond the design life engineers originally expected.

2026 07 14 Uac Presentation Slide Deck

7.11MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The City’s long-term goal is to transition away from reacting to emergency failures and toward a preventative maintenance program. According to the 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan, that transition is expected to take many years, with the goal of reaching a fully preventative maintenance cycle around 2040.

One of the most interesting explanations came when staff described why the City chose 1956 as an important benchmark.

It wasn’t because every pipe installed before that year is failing.

Instead, the City needed a practical way to prioritize where to begin.

As staff put it, “If everything’s an emergency, nothing is.”

That philosophy drives much of the rehabilitation program. Once the older system was identified, staff then began prioritizing projects based on pipe size, condition, and overall importance to the wastewater collection system.

The largest transmission mains receive particular attention because they serve the greatest number of homes and businesses. A failure in one of those major lines has far greater consequences than a smaller neighborhood collection pipe.

One example discussed during the presentation was the recently rehabilitated 30-inch brick sewer main beneath Francis Street.

Unlike newer pipe materials, these brick mains are especially vulnerable to earthquake movement and ground shifting. Rather than waiting for deterioration to reach the point of failure, the City installed a structural liner inside the existing pipe to strengthen it and significantly extend its useful life.

That example illustrated one of the central themes of the meeting: infrastructure stewardship is often about preventing tomorrow’s emergency rather than responding to today’s.

Why Sewer Pipes Fail

The discussion then shifted from which pipes are rehabilitated to why sewer pipes fail in the first place.

One point I hadn’t fully appreciated before the meeting is that different pipe materials fail for different reasons.

Concrete pipes gradually deteriorate through chemical reactions with wastewater over long periods of time. Clay pipes, on the other hand, are extremely durable chemically but are more brittle and susceptible to cracking from ground movement.

Even the soil surrounding the pipe can become part of the problem.

Staff explained that decades ago, construction trenches were often backfilled with whatever native material happened to be available. That sometimes meant large rocks, organic material, or poorly compacted soil surrounding the pipe. Today, when crews excavate a failed section, they occasionally discover a large rock pressing directly against the pipe, creating a concentrated pressure point that contributed to its eventual failure.

Modern construction standards require much better bedding and backfill practices, but those historical construction methods are still influencing infrastructure performance many decades later.

Ground movement, deteriorated joints, shifting soils, and groundwater infiltration all add to the challenge.

For me, this portion of the discussion reinforced how complex underground infrastructure really is. The condition of a sewer main depends on far more than its age alone.

Why the City Uses Trenchless Rehabilitation

A significant portion of the discussion focused on cured-in-place pipe rehabilitation, commonly known as CIPP.

Rather than excavating an entire street to replace a deteriorated sewer main, crews install a flexible liner inside the existing pipe. The liner is then cured, creating what is essentially a new structural pipe within the old one.

Staff explained that Port Angeles currently uses two primary curing methods.

Larger projects are typically completed using ultraviolet (UV) light, while some projects continue to use steam curing depending on the size and characteristics of the installation.

The advantages are substantial.

Because the existing pipe remains in place, trenchless rehabilitation generally requires less excavation, shorter construction timelines, lower overall costs, and significantly less disruption to neighborhoods than traditional replacement.

At the same time, staff emphasized that rehabilitation is not the right solution for every project.

If a pipe lacks adequate capacity to serve future growth, simply lining the existing pipe will not solve the problem. Likewise, severe structural problems or alignment issues may still require traditional excavation and replacement.

That distinction became one of the most informative parts of the meeting.

The City’s objective is not to use one construction method everywhere. The objective is to match the engineering solution to the problem being solved.

Questions About Environmental Impacts

Committee members also explored questions many residents would probably ask if construction occurred in their own neighborhood.

How safe is the curing process?

What causes the odors sometimes associated with sewer rehabilitation?

Should nearby residents have concerns?

Staff explained that while temporary resin odors may occasionally be noticeable near active work sites, the liner materials remain contained within the pipe during installation.

They also shared an interesting example from the Lincoln Street rehabilitation project.

After construction, one nearby building reported an odor inside the building. When staff investigated, they discovered the rehabilitation project had actually revealed an unrelated plumbing problem inside the building itself. A failed plumbing trap had allowed odors to enter the structure, and the rehabilitation work simply made an existing issue more noticeable.

In other words, if odors are entering a building, it is generally an indication that something within the building’s plumbing system needs attention rather than a failure of the rehabilitation process.

I appreciated this discussion because it addressed practical questions residents may have while also explaining the engineering behind the work.

Planning for the Long Term

As the technical discussion continued, the conversation naturally shifted toward long-term planning and funding.

Committee members asked whether the City could accelerate the rehabilitation program if additional funding became available.

Staff indicated that, in general, the answer is yes.

The program is not currently constrained by contractor availability. Additional funding could allow more rehabilitation work to be completed, although project costs vary significantly depending on pipe size and location. Staff also explained that grouping multiple projects together often results in more competitive bids and better overall value for taxpayers.

That conversation highlighted an important reality.

Maintaining infrastructure is not simply an engineering challenge.

It is also a budgeting challenge.

Every additional dollar invested in planned rehabilitation has the potential to reduce future emergency repairs while extending the life of essential public assets.

My Takeaways

"Maintaining infrastructure is one of the City's most fundamental responsibilities. I believe future budget discussions should continue looking for opportunities to maintain or even accelerate rehabilitation efforts where financially sustainable."

After listening to the presentation and the committee discussion, I shared a few thoughts that reflected what I took away from the meeting.

Maintaining infrastructure is one of the City’s most fundamental responsibilities.

Reliable utilities support nearly everything else we hope to accomplish as a community. Housing, economic development, business investment, and neighborhood quality of life all depend upon infrastructure that quietly performs its job every day.

I also shared that I believe future budget discussions should continue looking for opportunities to maintain or even accelerate rehabilitation efforts where financially sustainable. Preventative maintenance rarely attracts much attention, but it often prevents far more expensive emergencies later.

Finally, I suggested that the committee receive a brief annual progress report summarizing what had actually been accomplished through the rehabilitation program each year.

Questions such as these can help tell the story behind the budget:

• How many feet of sewer main were rehabilitated?

• Which projects were completed?

• How much progress was made toward reducing the rehabilitation backlog?

• What priorities remain for the following year?

The Capital Facilities Plan tells us where we intend to go.

An annual progress report would help demonstrate how far we’ve actually traveled.

I appreciated that staff were receptive to the idea and indicated they would explore ways to provide that information in the future.

Final Thoughts

One lesson continues to stand out to me after serving on the Utility Advisory Committee this past year.

Good stewardship is often invisible.

When infrastructure works well, there isn’t much to notice.

Roads stay open.

Businesses continue serving customers.

Homes receive reliable utility service.

Life simply goes on.

That quiet reliability is the product of decades of engineering, thoughtful budgeting, careful maintenance, and the daily work of City employees who manage systems most of us never see.

Meetings like this remind me that good local government isn’t only about responding to today’s problems. It’s also about making thoughtful investments today that reduce tomorrow’s emergencies.

That kind of long-term stewardship may not always make headlines, but it helps ensure Port Angeles remains a resilient, well-maintained community for years to come.

Thank you, as always, for taking an interest in the work of your local government.

Watch the Meeting

If you’d like to watch the discussion for yourself, I’ve included the full meeting recording above. I encourage residents to watch whenever they have the opportunity. Seeing the questions, explanations, and discussion firsthand provides an even deeper appreciation for the work that goes into maintaining the essential services we rely on every day.

Upcoming Events and Meetings: City Council Meeting - 6:00pm on Tuesday, July 22nd at Port Angeles City Hall Council Chambers and Clallam County Solid Waste Advisory Committee - 3:00pm on Wednesday, July 23rd at Clallam County Board of Commissioners Meeting Room.

The July 7 City Council meeting began with something that will shape much of the work ahead: the start of our 2027 budget process.

Budgets are where priorities become choices. They are where plans, public expectations, staffing needs, infrastructure needs, and fiscal reality all meet in one place. That is why I appreciated starting the evening with a budget goals work session before moving into the regular Council meeting.

Budget Work Session

The July 7 meeting began with a 2027 budget goals work session.

City Manager Nathan West opened the work session by explaining that this was an early step in the 2027 budget process. The purpose was not to make final budget decisions that night, but to give Council an opportunity to discuss priorities, tradeoffs, and direction before staff begins building the preliminary budget.

Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa then walked Council through the budget framework. She explained how the City’s budget connects several pieces of work together: the Comprehensive Plan, the Strategic Plan, the Council Work Plan, department level needs, and the actual financial resources available to the City. In other words, the budget is where adopted plans become funded work.

She also reviewed the City’s financial policies and the basic guardrails staff uses when preparing a budget. One of the most important points was that ongoing expenses should be supported by ongoing revenue. Reserves are important, but they are not a long term solution for recurring costs. The City also has reserve targets and cash flow needs that help protect financial stability, especially in the General Fund and utility funds.

The presentation also looked at the 2026 revenue and expenditure outlook, early 2027 budget considerations, and the results of the budget survey completed by Council and City leadership. Those survey responses helped identify where there is support for maintaining services, where there may be concern about reductions, what kinds of revenue options Council may be willing to discuss, and how much tolerance there may be for utility rate adjustments or other funding tools.

This was an important conversation because the City is facing the same challenge many local governments face: costs continue to rise, infrastructure needs are significant, public safety needs are real, and residents expect core services to remain reliable. At the same time, every dollar has to come from somewhere.

During the discussion, my main point was that the 2027 budget should begin with maintaining essential services as the foundation.

For me, that means public safety, infrastructure, utilities, streets, and parks. These are the services residents rely on every day. They are also the areas community members continue to raise with Council. As we move into the 2027 budget process, I want to see those services maintained at their current levels or strengthened where the need is clear.

I also said that revenue conversations need to connect to economic development and growth. That includes partnerships with the Port, encouraging building and investment, supporting growth in the business and industrial sectors, and continuing to look carefully at the City’s urban growth area. If growth is happening just outside the City, including major development like the Amazon facility, then we need to understand what annexation or other long term strategies could mean for City revenues and services.

Another point I made is that budget choices should be clearly tied to the City’s adopted Strategic Plan. That should be the gold standard. If we say something is a priority in our plans, residents should be able to see how the budget reflects it. The connection between our goals, our adopted plans, and our actual spending should be clear to both Council and the community.

When asked about priority service areas, I identified public safety, parks, and streets as areas I want to see maintained or strengthened. Those are core services, and they are also areas where the community has repeatedly told us they expect continued focus.

There will be more budget conversations ahead. My focus will continue to be essential services, long term fiscal responsibility, transparency, and making sure our adopted priorities are reflected in the choices we make.

First Public Comment

During the first public comment period, Council heard support for appointments to the Public Safety Advisory Board. I appreciated hearing community interest in that board and the work that has gone into preparing it.

Public comment is an important part of the Council process. Even when comments are brief, they help connect the work on the agenda to the people who are paying attention, volunteering, applying to serve, or asking Council to consider a particular perspective.

Consent Agenda and Items Added to the Consent Agenda

Before the consent agenda, Deputy Mayor Carr was excused from the meeting.

Council then moved into the consent agenda.

The original consent agenda included the June 16 meeting minutes, the expenditure report, the construction contract for a 24 hour restroom, an annual license renewal for the City’s virtual server storage, procurement of a new HP Latex printer for traffic sign manufacturing, and replacement of HVAC units for the City Hall server room.

Before Council voted, staff removed Item I-1 from the agenda. That item was the proposed energy conservation incentive payment to McKinley Paper for a lighting project. Since staff removed it, Council did not take action on that item at this meeting.

Council also added several items to the consent agenda before approval.

One of those items was a resolution authorizing the waiver of sewer connection fees for Connecting Housing Infrastructure Program grant eligible affordable housing projects. This is connected to the Eklund at Gales project through the Peninsula Housing Authority. The purpose is to allow sewer connection fees to be waived for eligible affordable housing projects when those waived fees are reimbursed through the County administered grant process.

This is the kind of practical housing infrastructure work that does not always receive a lot of public attention, but it matters. Affordable housing does not happen only through big policy statements. It also depends on financing, utilities, infrastructure, intergovernmental coordination, and making sure projects can actually move forward.

Council also added the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 997 collective bargaining agreement to the consent agenda. Labor agreements are part of the City’s responsibility as an employer and service provider. They affect recruitment, retention, service reliability, and the people who keep critical City systems running.

Council also approved appointment recommendations for the Public Safety Advisory Board. I am glad to see this board moving forward. Public safety is one of the City’s core responsibilities, and structured community input can help strengthen the connection between residents, Council, and the departments doing this work.

The consent agenda was approved.

Council Reports

During my Council report, I shared a few updates from the past week.

On June 29, I had the opportunity to spend time with the Port Angeles Police Department and do a ride along with Deputy Chief Viada. I was able to meet more of the staff and officers in the department, attend a department meeting, and spend time in the police cruiser seeing more of what our officers do during the daytime.

I appreciated the opportunity to learn more about the work happening inside the department and to better understand the people doing that work.

I also took a moment to thank Officer Brady, who is leaving the department. I have known her since she was a student at Port Angeles High School, and I said during the meeting that I believe she represents the very best of what Port Angeles is and strives to be. I thanked her for her service to the department and our community, wished her and her husband success in their next chapter, and said I hope she comes back to visit often.

I also shared a few reflections from July 4.

In the morning, I attended the Veterans Circle of Flags Honors Dedication Ceremony at Mt. Angeles Memorial Park with my wife Nancy, who is an Army veteran. The ceremony was beautifully done and was a meaningful reminder of those who have served and sacrificed to uphold the ideals we strive toward as a community and as a nation. I thanked VFW Post 6787 in Carlsborg and the Daughters of the American Revolution for hosting the ceremony and for the flag display.

Later in the day, I went down to the Port Angeles City Pier for the waterfront events, including the hot dog eating contest. I thanked Sam Grello and the Waterfront District for the work they put into the event and for what they continue to do for our downtown and waterfront.

I also attended the Fourth of July parade. I shared that the parade is one of my favorite parts of the day because it brings so many different parts of our community into the same shared space. People talk to each other, cheer for kids, and celebrate the work happening throughout Port Angeles.

That evening, I watched the fireworks from across the water off Ediz Hook with my 8-year-old daughter Savannah. We loved it.

I closed by thanking everyone who helped make the Fourth of July safe, accessible, and welcoming, including volunteers, vendors, Public Works, law enforcement, and City staff.

The next item on my schedule before the following Council meeting is the Utility Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, July 14.

After all councilmembers and City Manager West gave their reports, Council then moved into the continued public hearing and final consideration of the HB 2015 criminal justice sales tax ordinance.

HB 2015 Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption

Council continued the public hearing and considered final adoption of the HB 2015 criminal justice sales tax ordinance.

This ordinance authorizes an additional one tenth of one percent sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes. The revenue is intended to support public safety, including costs connected to the additional police officer positions made possible through HB 2015 grant funding.

During the public hearing, Council heard concern about the proposed sales tax. The commenter made clear that their concern was not opposition to police or law enforcement, but concern about the impact of regressive taxes on households already under financial pressure. They referenced the ALICE report and noted that many working households earn too much to be counted in federal poverty measures but still do not earn enough to meet basic expenses. The commenter also raised concerns about whether other alternatives had been discussed publicly and whether the ordinance should include a sunset clause.

I appreciated that comment because it named a real tension in local government. Public safety needs sustainable funding, but tax choices also affect residents differently depending on household income and financial stability.

Before voting, I asked staff how the new revenue would be tracked so the public can distinguish it from unrestricted General Fund revenue. Staff explained that the revenue will be tracked within the Police Department to offset police expenditures.

I also asked how residents would be able to see that information outside of the budget document itself. Staff explained that the revenue will be included in budget discussions, called out in the City budget, available through the open budget portal, and included in budget status reports.

That transparency matters to me. When Council asks the public for new tax revenue, residents should be able to see where the money is going and how it is being used. This should not be treated as a blank check.

I supported the ordinance because public safety is one of the City’s core responsibilities. Recent call volumes continue to show the need for sustained capacity. Over the July 4 weekend alone, our Police Department responded to fireworks complaints, domestic violence calls, assault, overdose, and other incidents. When the department has to decide which call to prioritize because capacity is limited, that affects the whole community.

This ordinance is intended to help build that capacity.

I also repeated what I have said before: I do not like taxes, but if we need a revenue source to support public safety, I believe this sales tax is a better option than increasing property taxes. A sales tax spreads the cost more broadly, including to visitors and others who use City services while they are here.

The agenda materials estimated that the sales tax approach would cost the average household about $20.60 per year, compared with about $49.60 per year if the same amount were raised through property tax. For me, that difference matters. It helps fund a core service while reducing the direct burden on Port Angeles households.

Council adopted the ordinance on a 6 to 0 vote, with implementation intended for January 1, 2027.

Second Public Comment

The meeting ended with a second public comment period.

I always appreciate residents who take the time to participate, whether they are speaking about a specific agenda item, raising a broader concern, or simply asking Council to keep something in mind.

Public comment does not replace the work of staff analysis, legal review, adopted plans, or public hearings, but it is still an important part of local government. It helps Council hear what people are experiencing and what they want us to pay attention to as we make decisions.

What Comes Next

The July 7 meeting was an important step into the 2027 budget process.

There will be more work ahead as Council reviews priorities, revenue options, service levels, infrastructure needs, labor costs, public safety capacity, housing needs, and the long term financial health of the City.

My focus will remain on maintaining essential services, making sure our budget reflects our adopted plans, supporting public safety, investing in infrastructure, strengthening housing efforts, and keeping the process transparent for residents.

The budget is not just a spreadsheet. It is one of the clearest statements of what a city is choosing to protect, maintain, and build for the future.

Next City Council Meeting: Tuesday, July 21st, 2026 at 6:00pm.

The full video on the July 7, 2026 City Council meeting is available below.

July 4 is one of those days that feels both national and local at the same time.

Across the country, people gather with family and friends. There are flags, cookouts, fireworks, music, and traditions that come with Independence Day.

Here in Port Angeles, the day has its own feeling.

We celebrate between the mountains and the water. We see families downtown, kids looking forward to fireworks, visitors coming into town, neighbors gathering, local businesses preparing for a busy day, and public workers and first responders helping make the holiday possible.

And, of course, we have the Fourth of July parade.

That parade is one of the clearest pictures of Port Angeles as a community. Different organizations, families, businesses, public servants, volunteers, students, veterans, faith communities, civic groups, cultural traditions, political views, and neighbors all move down the same streets together.

Not everyone in that parade sees the world the same way.

Not everyone worships the same way, votes the same way, loves the same way, earns the same amount of money, or carries the same life story.

But for a little while, our community shares the same public space. We wave at each other. We cheer for kids. We recognize people we know. We see parts of Port Angeles that may not always show up in the same room together.

That is part of what makes the day meaningful to me.

July 4 is a celebration.

It is also a reminder.

Freedom is protected by service.

Freedom is strengthened by sacrifice.

And freedom is tested by whether we are willing to defend it for people beyond ourselves.

That is the thought I keep coming back to this Independence Day.

Freedom is not only personal

Freedom is easy to talk about as something individual.

The freedom to speak. The freedom to worship, or not worship. The freedom to love. The freedom to build a life. The freedom to raise a family. The freedom to work, learn, organize, disagree, vote, participate, and belong.

Those freedoms are real, and they are worth celebrating.

But freedom is not only personal.

Freedom is also shared.

It depends on whether we are willing to protect rights not only for people who think like us, vote like us, worship like us, live like us, or love like us, but for people whose lives and experiences may be different from our own.

The freedoms, rights, and privileges we celebrate on July 4 do not belong to one political party, one income level, one faith tradition, one kind of family, or one kind of person.

They belong to the veteran and the student.

The business owner and the worker.

The person who worships and the person who does not.

The person with money and the person struggling to get by.

The person whose life looks familiar to us and the person whose life asks us to widen our understanding.

Freedom is only fully honored when we understand it as something we protect for others, not only something we claim for ourselves.

Eleanor Roosevelt once said that human rights begin “in small places, close to home.” I think about that often because rights are not only national ideas. They are lived locally: in neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, parks, libraries, public meetings, and homes.

They are lived in how people are treated when they ask for help.

They are lived in whether a resident feels safe speaking at a public meeting.

They are lived in whether a student feels seen in a classroom.

They are lived in whether a family can access basic services.

They are lived in whether a person is treated with dignity even when they are struggling.

That is why freedom has to be more than a word we use on holidays. It has to shape how we treat people close to home.

Service is broader than one kind of service

When I think about service, I do not think only about one kind of service.

Military service deserves deep respect. So do the families who carry that service with them. Our country has been shaped by people who raised their hand, took an oath, left home, missed birthdays and holidays, accepted risk, and served something larger than themselves.

Some gave their lives. Some came home changed. Some carried burdens quietly for years. Some families carried those burdens with them.

That service deserves gratitude.

But service also shows up in other ways.

It shows up in first responders who miss dinner, sleep, birthdays, and holidays because someone calls for help.

It shows up in public workers who keep roads, utilities, parks, buildings, and public spaces functioning.

It shows up in teachers, paraeducators, coaches, nurses, health care workers, caregivers, nonprofit workers, tribal leaders, faith communities, volunteers, small business owners, and neighbors who step forward when something needs to be done.

It shows up when someone gives up a Saturday to clean up a park, serve food, coach a team, help a neighbor move, check on someone who is struggling, sit through a long public meeting, or volunteer for a community event.

Service is not always loud.

Sometimes it is quiet, ordinary, and unseen.

But communities are held together by people who keep showing up.

President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to “ask what you can do for your country” is often remembered as a national call to service. I also hear it as a local one. Most of us will serve close to home, in ordinary ways, through the people around us and the community we help build together.

Service does not have to be grand to be meaningful.

Small acts repeated over time can shape a community.

Sacrifice is not only the final sacrifice

When we talk about sacrifice on days like July 4, it is right to honor those who made the final sacrifice in service to the country.

That deserves our deepest gratitude.

But sacrifice also has a broader meaning.

Sacrifice can mean time away from family.

It can mean missing your child’s event because someone else needs help.

It can mean choosing to serve when you are tired.

It can mean giving up comfort, privacy, money, sleep, weekends, evenings, or personal plans because the community needs something done.

It can mean stepping into difficult work when it would be easier to stay home.

It can mean doing something that will never make headlines, never get applause, and never be fully noticed by the people who benefit from it.

That kind of sacrifice is all around us.

It is in the parent working a second job.

The volunteer setting up chairs before anyone arrives.

The firefighter leaving the table when the call comes in.

The teacher staying late to help a student.

The public employee answering the phone when someone is frustrated.

The neighbor who checks on someone elderly, sick, or alone.

The elected official, advisory board member, or community volunteer who sits through long meetings because the decisions affect real people.

A free community does not run on slogans.

It runs on people willing to give part of themselves to something beyond themselves.

What freedom means to me as a parent

As a parent, freedom is personal.

I want my children to grow up in a community where they are safe, loved, respected, and able to become who they are.

I want them to have the freedom to learn, ask questions, make mistakes, build friendships, find their voice, and imagine a future for themselves.

I want them to understand that rights come with responsibilities.

The responsibility to tell the truth.

The responsibility to listen.

The responsibility to treat people with dignity.

The responsibility to help when someone needs help.

The responsibility to understand that freedom does not mean doing whatever we want without regard for others.

It means learning how to live together.

That is not always easy.

Any parent knows that.

But the lessons we try to teach our kids at home are connected to the kind of community we are trying to build: one where people are safe enough to be honest, respected enough to be heard, and responsible enough to care about more than themselves.

What freedom means to me as a teacher

As a teacher, I think about freedom through education.

Education gives young people choices.

It helps students see more than the life immediately in front of them. It helps them ask better questions, solve problems, evaluate evidence, build confidence, and understand the world more clearly.

That is especially true in mathematics.

A math classroom is not only about formulas, procedures, or tests. At its best, it is a place where students learn persistence. They learn that a hard problem can be worked through. They learn that being wrong is not the end. They learn how to revise their thinking, explain their reasoning, and keep going.

Those are civic skills too.

A free society depends on people who can think critically, listen carefully, disagree respectfully, and work through problems with others.

It depends on people who can tell the difference between evidence and rumor.

It depends on people who believe their voice belongs in the room.

Teaching has shaped how I understand freedom because I have seen what happens when young people begin to believe they have a future.

That belief is powerful.

And it is one of the reasons public education is so deeply connected to democracy.

What freedom means to me as a community member

As a community member, freedom shows up in everyday life.

It shows up when families can enjoy public parks.

When people can walk downtown.

When kids can go to school.

When residents can attend public meetings.

When neighbors can disagree without becoming enemies.

When people can worship, gather, volunteer, celebrate, and participate.

When a person can ask for help and know someone will respond.

Port Angeles is a beautiful place, but it is also a real place.

We have strengths, and we have challenges.

We have people who are doing well, and people who are barely getting by.

We have deep history here, including tribal history that long predates the City itself.

We have working families, retirees, students, veterans, small business owners, public employees, artists, volunteers, and people who came here because they saw something special in this community.

Loving a place does not mean pretending it is perfect.

It means being honest enough to see what needs work and committed enough to help improve it.

That is part of freedom too.

Freedom gives us the ability to participate. Community gives us a reason to use that ability for something larger than ourselves.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that we are caught in an “inescapable network of mutuality.” I think about that in a local way. In a community like Port Angeles, our lives are connected.

We use the same roads.

Our children attend the same schools.

We depend on the same utilities.

We shop in the same stores.

We gather in the same parks.

We are served by the same first responders.

We make decisions through the same public processes.

What harms one part of the community eventually reaches other parts of the community.

What strengthens trust in one place helps strengthen trust elsewhere.

Freedom asks us to care about more than our own corner.

What freedom means to me as a councilmember

As a councilmember, I think about freedom through the everyday work of local government.

Freedom is protected not only by speeches or symbols, but by process.

Open meetings.

Public records.

Public comment.

Fair rules.

Honest budgets.

Reliable services.

Safe streets.

Clean water.

Working infrastructure.

Public spaces where people can gather.

A local government that respects the public enough to do its work in the open.

None of that sounds as dramatic as fireworks.

But it is part of how freedom is lived.

When a resident can watch a meeting, read a packet, make a public comment, request a record, contact an elected official, or see how public dollars are being used, that is part of self-government.

When the City maintains essential services, plans for infrastructure, supports public safety, protects public spaces, and makes decisions in public, that is part of the responsibility that comes with public trust.

I do not see my role on Council as having all the answers.

I see it as listening, learning, asking questions, explaining decisions, staying in the proper lane, and helping make sure the City’s work is grounded in law, adopted plans, fiscal responsibility, and the public interest.

That is not always exciting work.

But it is important work.

And it is one way freedom becomes practical.

July 4 in Port Angeles

I am grateful to celebrate July 4 in Port Angeles.

I am grateful for the beauty of this place.

For the parade that brings so many parts of our community into the same public space.

For the kids waving from sidewalks.

For the families who make memories together.

For the people who serve quietly.

For the workers who keep things running.

For the volunteers who give their time.

For the first responders working while others celebrate.

For the veterans and military families whose service is woven into the life of this community.

For the teachers, public workers, health care workers, tribal leaders, nonprofit workers, caregivers, coaches, small business owners, and neighbors who help make Port Angeles what it is.

I am also grateful for the responsibility that comes with public service.

Serving on City Council has made me even more aware that local government is not separate from daily life. It is connected to whether people feel safe, whether infrastructure works, whether public spaces are cared for, whether budgets are honest, and whether residents can trust the process.

Those responsibilities are not abstract.

They are part of how we practice freedom here, close to home.

Carrying freedom forward

July 4 should leave us grateful, but not passive.

Gratitude should move us toward service.

Celebration should remind us of responsibility.

Freedom is something we inherit, but it is also something we practice.

We practice it in how we raise our children.

How we teach students.

How we serve neighbors.

How we protect rights.

How we listen.

How we disagree.

How we show up.

How we care for public spaces.

How we build trust.

How we make room for people whose lives are different from our own.

Freedom is protected by service.

Freedom is strengthened by sacrifice.

And freedom is tested by whether we are willing to defend it for people beyond ourselves.

That is what I will be thinking about this July 4.

I hope everyone in Port Angeles has a safe, meaningful, and peaceful Independence Day.

The Port Angeles City Council and the Clallam County Board of Commissioners met in a joint special meeting on June 23 to discuss criminal justice services.

It was a short meeting. It was also an important one.

When people think about public safety, they often think first about police officers, emergency calls, patrols, or visible issues in the community. Those are important. But public safety is also supported by less visible systems: prosecution, public defense, courts, jail services, contracts, budgets, and agreements between governments.

Those pieces may not make for the most dramatic public meeting, but they affect whether the system works.

As a parent, I want my kids to grow up in a community where people can feel safe.

As a teacher, I know young people and families need stability, accountability, and support.

As a community member, I want local government to solve problems without turning every disagreement into a fight.

And as a City Councilmember, I want us to make decisions in public, protect essential services, and take enough time to get the details right.

That is what this meeting was about.

The City and County are working through new agreements for criminal justice services. Those agreements were not ready for final approval on June 23, so the Council took action to preserve continuity while the work continues.

In plain language: the services continue, and the City and County are still working toward updated agreements.

How this meeting fits into the bigger picture

This meeting connects to the public safety and fiscal responsibility conversations I have been writing about throughout June.

At the June 16 City Council meeting, Council opened and continued the public hearing on the proposed HB 2015 criminal justice sales tax. That proposal is about funding additional local public safety capacity, including the local cost of four new police officer positions connected to state grant funding.

The June 23 joint meeting was about another part of the same system: what happens after law enforcement contact occurs.

Police staffing matters.

Prosecution matters.

Public defense matters.

Courts matter.

Jail services matter.

And the agreements behind those services matter.

Residents may not follow every contract detail, and I understand that. Most people are busy working, raising families, paying bills, caring for loved ones, and trying to keep up with daily life. They should not have to become experts in interlocal agreements to understand what their local government is doing.

My goal with these recaps is to make the process clearer.

The June 23 meeting was not about every public safety issue facing Port Angeles. It was about keeping essential criminal justice services moving while the City and County complete the next round of agreements.

A narrow agenda

The agenda for this meeting was narrow.

The City Council and County Commissioners met to discuss prosecution services, public defense services, and the extension of the existing criminal justice services agreement.

There was no public comment during the meeting.

City Manager Nathan West explained that the City and County had hoped to be further along by the time of the joint session. The goal had been to bring forward agreements for prosecution and public defense services.

Those agreements were close, but they were not ready for final approval.

Additional legal review was still needed by both the City and the County. Staff also explained that the City and County were generally on the same page on the dollar amounts and generally aligned on the methodology, but some language still needed work.

That distinction is important.

This was not presented as a breakdown. It was presented as a situation where both governments needed more time to make sure the agreements were right before approving them.

I think that is the responsible approach.

It is frustrating when timelines stretch. I know residents want these issues resolved. I do too. But it is better to take a little more time and approve agreements that are clear, workable, and legally sound than to rush something because a deadline is uncomfortable.

Council unanimously voted to table the prosecution and public defense agreements to a future Council meeting.

What services are we talking about?

The previous criminal justice services structure covered four major areas: prosecution, public defense, court services, and jail services.

These services are connected, but they are not the same.

Prosecution is about reviewing and handling criminal cases.

Public defense is about making sure eligible defendants have legal representation.

Court services are about the legal process, hearings, and case management.

Jail services involve custody and detention.

Each one carries different costs, staffing needs, legal responsibilities, and operational realities.

That is one reason the City and County are now working toward separate agreements instead of one large umbrella agreement.

From a public perspective, this may sound technical. But the basic idea is simple: clearer agreements should help everyone better understand what is being provided, how costs are calculated, and who is responsible for which part of the system.

Clear agreements help residents understand what each government is responsible for, how costs are shared, and how essential services will continue. That kind of clarity builds accountability and public trust.

When local governments share responsibilities, the public deserves clarity. Residents should not have to guess whether the City or County is responsible for a service, how much the service costs, or whether the service will continue.

Why services continue while negotiations continue

One point from the meeting is worth saying clearly: prosecution and public defense services continue during this period.

Deputy Mayor Navarra Carr made that point during the meeting, and I agree with it.

Tabling the agreements does not mean these services stop. It does not mean they are less important. It means the final agreements need more review before approval.

That is an important message for the public.

Public safety requires accountability, but it also requires due process. It requires prosecution, but it also requires public defense. It requires officers, but it also requires courts. It requires laws, but it also requires constitutional protections.

Those are not competing values. They are part of the same system.

A healthy community needs both safety and fairness. Local government has a responsibility to support both.

Extending the current agreement

The most important action of the evening was about extending the existing criminal justice services agreement.

The current interim agreement was approaching a June 30 expiration date. Since the City Council does not meet again before that date, the City needed to act on June 23 to avoid uncertainty.

Staff presented a preferred path and a backup path.

The preferred path is called Amendment Two. It sets a target date of September 30, 2026, for completing the broader criminal justice services contracts and extends the agreement to December 1, 2026, if more time is needed.

The backup path is a notice letter. That letter protects the City’s ability to trigger a 120-day extension if the County does not approve Amendment Two before June 30.

In everyday terms, Council approved a plan that says:

We want the City and County to approve the extension amendment.

But if that does not happen before the deadline, the City still has a way to protect continuity of service.

That is not flashy, but it is important.

It is the kind of practical step local government needs to take before a deadline arrives, not after.

Council unanimously approved the motion.

Why the dates matter?

There are three dates residents should understand.

The first is June 30, 2026. That was the immediate deadline. The City needed to act before then to avoid letting the existing agreement expire without an extension path.

The second is September 30, 2026. That is the target date for completing the broader criminal justice services contracts.

The third is December 1, 2026. That is the extended agreement date under Amendment Two if additional time is needed.

Mayor Dexter explained that September 30 is not a date anyone is trying to stretch toward. It is a practical target because both the City and County also need to begin building their 2027 budgets. These agreements affect those budgets.

That is one of the things I have learned quickly on Council: timelines matter because budgets matter.

When a contract affects public safety services, staffing, and future costs, the City has to understand the numbers before making budget decisions. The same is true for the County.

City and County responsibilities overlap

This meeting also showed how City and County responsibilities overlap.

Residents experience public safety as one system. If something happens, people want help. They want someone to respond. They want cases handled. They want rights protected. They want fair outcomes. They want safety and accountability.

But behind the scenes, different parts of that system are handled by different governments and different offices.

The City provides municipal services, including local police services and City budgeting.

The County provides countywide and regional services, including many parts of the criminal justice system.

Separately elected County officials also have their own responsibilities. The Sheriff, Prosecuting Attorney, courts, and public defense system each have roles that are not simply controlled by the Board of County Commissioners or the City Council.

That can be complicated.

It can also be frustrating for the public.

But it is one reason these agreements need to be handled carefully. The City cannot simply direct County operations. The County cannot ignore the City’s need for clear costs and reliable services. Both governments have to work through the details.

That is what residents should expect: not finger-pointing, but careful work.

My perspective

I did not speak during the June 23 meeting, but I supported the action taken.

The City needed to preserve continuity of criminal justice services. The prosecution and public defense agreements were close, but not ready. The County needed time for additional review. The City needed to act before the June 30 deadline.

The action we took was practical.

It tabled the unfinished agreements to a future meeting.

It approved the preferred extension path.

It approved a backup notice letter if the County does not approve the amendment before the deadline.

It authorized the Mayor and City Manager to carry out the documents needed to make the action effective.

That is responsible governance.

It keeps services moving while giving both governments time to complete the work correctly.

As a councilmember, I want agreements that are fair, clear, and fiscally responsible.

As a community member, I want City and County leaders to work together respectfully.

As a parent and teacher, I want the adults in the room to keep essential services functioning while they work through difficult details.

That is what this meeting accomplished.

What Comes Next

The prosecution and public defense agreements will come back to a future Council meeting once the remaining review is complete.

The County is expected to continue its own process, including review by the Board of Commissioners and consultation with the relevant separately elected officials.

If the County approves Amendment Two on or before June 30, the agreement extension will move forward under that amendment.

If the County does not approve Amendment Two before June 30, the City’s notice letter is designed to preserve the City’s extension rights under the existing agreement.

The target date for completing the broader criminal justice service contracts is September 30, 2026.

The extended agreement date under Amendment Two is December 1, 2026.

Residents should continue watching this issue because it affects core public safety services, the City budget, County services, and the long-term relationship between the City and County.

The larger theme is simple: public safety depends on more than one meeting, one vote, or one agency.

It depends on people doing the work, contracts being clear, budgets being honest, and governments cooperating even when the issues are difficult.

The June 23 meeting was a short meeting.

But it was a necessary one.

Full meeting recording available below

The June 16 City Council meeting was another step in a sequence of meetings focused on infrastructure, public safety, housing, ratepayer protection, environmental stewardship, and long-term fiscal planning.

The Council adopted the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan. We opened and continued a public hearing on the proposed HB 2015 criminal justice sales tax. We approved several consent agenda items, including a community-funded tennis court improvement agreement, tree trimming final acceptance, and closeout of an on-call water main repair contract. We also considered a late item related to the Western Port Angeles Harbor cleanup process and approved a design services agreement for Project 935, the City’s housing pipeline pilot project.

This meeting connected directly to the series of articles I have been writing over the last several weeks:

In “Reading the Blueprint in Public,” I wrote about the May 26 Council work session where the Council first reviewed the preliminary 2027–2032 CFP/TIP in detail.

In my June 2 recap, “From Blueprint to Public Record,” I wrote about the first CFP/TIP public hearing, public testimony on Ediz Hook, the pavement management presentation, and the broader infrastructure maintenance challenge facing Port Angeles.

In “How Port Angeles Decides What Gets Built,” I stepped back from a single meeting and explained how the City uses the CFP/TIP, grants, unfunded project listings, staff capacity, public hearings, and Council decision-making to move from ideas to public infrastructure.

In “Keeping the Lights On and the Rates Stable,” I wrote about the June 9 Utility Advisory Committee meeting and how UAC reviewed the Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan and the utility-related portions of the CFP/TIP before making advisory recommendations to the Council.

The June 16 meeting brought that process to the next stage.

It was not just a meeting about adopting a planning document or holding a first hearing on a tax ordinance. It was a meeting about how Port Angeles connects public input, staff analysis, adopted plans, advisory committee review, grant opportunities, infrastructure needs, and final Council action.

Juneteenth Proclamation

The only ceremonial item at the June 16 meeting was the Juneteenth Proclamation.

Mayor Dexter read the proclamation recognizing June 19 as Juneteenth. The proclamation described Juneteenth as Freedom Day, Emancipation Day, or Jubilee Day, commemorating the day in 1865 when news of the Emancipation Proclamation finally reached enslaved people in Texas.

The proclamation also recognized the importance of education, reflection, and action in confronting racism, inequity, and institutional barriers. It affirmed the City’s commitment to equity, inclusion, and a respectful community.

I appreciated that the meeting began with that reflection.

Juneteenth is not only a historical marker. It is also a reminder that public institutions have a responsibility to examine whether their policies, systems, and practices serve people fairly. For local government, that means being transparent, listening carefully, and continuing to work toward a city where residents, workers, families, and visitors are treated with dignity and respect.

Public Comment Themes

Public comment at this meeting reflected several community priorities.

During the first public comment period, several speakers spoke in support of the Peninsula Tennis Club’s work to fund improvements at the Erickson Playfield tennis courts. The comments described the condition of the courts, the long history of the club’s partnership with the City, the importance of public recreational facilities, and the major community fundraising effort that made the project possible.

The Council later approved the Facility Improvement Agreement on the consent agenda. The agreement allows the Peninsula Tennis Club to support resurfacing and lighting improvements at the courts, funded by donations raised by the club. This is a good example of a community partnership that improves a public asset without using General Fund dollars.

Public comment during the HB 2015 criminal justice sales tax public hearing focused on public safety, police staffing, accountability, substance use, harm reduction concerns, and the relationship between public safety services and community trust. One speaker supported the tax while raising concerns about public health and enforcement consistency. Another speaker supported the tax as a practical way to help fund additional officers while leveraging state grant funding.

Those comments fit within a broader public conversation that has continued across several recent Council meetings.

Residents have raised concerns about homelessness, encampments, public safety, shelter options, transitional housing, sanitation, downtown conditions, the impacts on businesses, and the need for accountability. Other residents have emphasized compassion, housing access, services, health care, bathrooms, trash disposal, and the need for realistic shelter pathways.

Those perspectives are not always easy to reconcile.

Some residents are asking the City to move faster on enforcement and public safety. Others are asking the City to move faster on shelter, services, and housing. Business owners are asking for safer and more predictable conditions. Service providers and advocates are asking that the community not lose sight of the human needs behind homelessness and addiction.

A responsible Council has to hear those concerns together.

Public safety, housing, shelter, economic development, public health, and community trust are connected. The City cannot solve every regional challenge alone, but it does have responsibilities within its own authority: budgeting, land use, public safety capacity, public infrastructure, parks, streets, public facilities, coordination with partner governments, and transparent public process.

2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan / Transportation Improvement Plan

One of the most important actions of the evening was the adoption of the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan.

The CFP/TIP is the City’s long-range capital planning document. It identifies major infrastructure and capital project needs over a six-year planning window. It includes roads, sidewalks, utilities, parks, public safety infrastructure, housing-related projects, public facilities, stormwater, water, wastewater, electric, solid waste, fleet, technology, and transportation projects.

The Transportation Improvement Plan portion also meets state requirements for the City’s six-year transportation planning process.

In plain language, the CFP/TIP helps answer several questions:

What infrastructure does the City know it needs?

Which projects are funded?

Which projects are unfunded?

Which projects may depend on grants or outside partnerships?

Which projects support adopted plans?

Which projects help maintain existing assets?

Which projects support housing, public safety, economic development, environmental stewardship, or transportation connectivity?

Which projects need to be tracked publicly even if the money is not yet available?

This was the second reading and adoption of the CFP/TIP resolution. The plan had already moved through several public steps: staff development, website publication, the May 26 Council work session, the June 2 public hearing and first reading, June 9 Utility Advisory Committee review, and the June 16 continued public hearing and final Council action.

That sequence is important.

The CFP/TIP did not move in one step. It moved through review, public notice, public hearing, advisory committee recommendation, Council discussion, amendments, and final adoption.

That is how the process should work.

What changed before adoption

Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa explained that there had been updates since the first review.

One update involved the Athletic Field Facility Assessment project, which was added as an unfunded project following Council discussion at the June 2 meeting. This does not fund construction or guarantee a specific facility outcome. It keeps the need visible in the City’s capital planning framework so the City can evaluate conditions, maintenance needs, capital improvements, grant opportunities, lodging tax possibilities, partnerships, and other outside funding sources.

Another update corrected the funding status for the City Hall Server Room HVAC Rooftop Units project. The packet attachment had identified the project as unfunded, but staff clarified that the project is funded in the amount of $55,000 and that the final document would reflect that correction.

The plan also included the title and scope change for TR0919, now School Safety Lighting. That project had previously been tied to a traffic safety camera concept. After public concern and Council discussion, staff narrowed the scope to flashing lights and speed feedback signs in school zones.

That remains a useful example of public process. Concerns were raised. Staff reviewed the project. The scope was clarified. The project remained focused on school safety while removing cameras from the current scope.

Ediz Hook and the final CFP/TIP amendment

The Council also discussed the Ediz Hook boat launch project.

At the June 2 public hearing, residents spoke strongly about the importance of the Ediz Hook boat launch. They discussed marine access, safety, economic activity, tourism, fishing access, and the need to understand the next steps for a compliant replacement.

At the June 16 meeting, the Council considered whether the CFP/TIP should include additional language acknowledging the need to look beyond simply replacing floating docks. Mayor Dexter proposed adding a Phase Two to the Ediz Hook boat launch project to identify alternatives to ensure floating docks are protected.

After Council discussion and clarification from staff, the Council unanimously approved the amendment. The Council then unanimously adopted the 2027–2032 CFP/TIP as amended.

This is an important distinction.

The amendment does not select a final design. It does not resolve permitting, cost, FEMA, shoreline, environmental, or long-term maintenance questions. It does not pre-commit the City to a particular location or project outcome.

It keeps the issue in the planning framework.

That matters for grant readiness, future analysis, and public accountability. If a project or phase is not listed, it can be harder to track, discuss, or connect to future funding opportunities. Listing it allows the City to keep the broader issue visible while staff continue evaluating what is feasible, fundable, permitted, and responsible.

Why unfunded projects stay in the plan

A recurring point in my recent articles is that “unfunded” does not mean “unimportant.”

The CFP/TIP includes projects that are funded, partially funded, grant-dependent, and unfunded. That can be confusing if a reader assumes a listed project is the same thing as approved construction.

It is not.

A project can be listed because the need is real, while still remaining unfunded because no funding source has been identified yet.

A project can be listed to preserve transparency.

A project can be listed so the City can pursue grants.

A project can be listed so staff and Council can keep evaluating it as priorities, costs, public input, and outside funding opportunities change.

A project can be listed because the City needs to track long-term infrastructure needs even when the money is not available today.

That is part of fiscal stewardship. The City should not pretend every need is funded. It also should not hide needs simply because funding is not yet available.

The better approach is to name the need, identify the status, and keep the public process open.

My comments on the CFP/TIP

During the CFP/TIP discussion, I thanked staff for their work and flexibility through the process.

This plan took significant staff time. It required coordination across departments, review by the Utility Advisory Committee, discussion at Council, and updates based on community and Council input.

I also echoed what we discussed at UAC: the utility-related portions of the plan were built in a way that protects ratepayers by not proposing utility rate increases above what is already adopted in the plan.

That does not mean there are no future cost risks.

Infrastructure costs can rise. Emergencies can happen. Grants can change. Federal or state requirements can shift. Staff capacity can affect timelines. Future Councils will still have to make decisions.

But for this planning cycle, staff presented a CFP/TIP that maintains the existing adopted rate path, avoids new debt for the 2027–2032 planning cycle, and keeps long-term needs visible.

That is the kind of disciplined planning residents should expect from the City.

HB 2015 Criminal Justice Sales Tax Public Hearing

The second public hearing of the evening involved the proposed HB 2015 criminal justice sales tax ordinance.

This item followed up on prior Council discussion from the April 28 work session and May 5 Council meeting. On May 5, the Council accepted grant funding connected to HB 2015 to support four new police officer positions and directed staff to bring forward the documents and public hearing process for a councilmanic one-tenth of one percent sales tax for criminal justice purposes.

At the June 16 meeting, Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa presented the item, the Mayor opened the public hearing, public testimony was received, and the Council conducted the first reading of the ordinance. The public hearing was continued to the July 7 Council meeting.

That means the process is not complete yet.

Council has not taken final action on the ordinance. Additional public process remains.

What HB 2015 allows

HB 2015 created a local revenue option for qualifying cities and counties to impose an additional one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax for criminal justice purposes.

The City was deemed eligible because of the related grant award through the Criminal Justice Training Commission. The grant is approximately $785,680 over two years and covers 75 percent of the personnel costs for four new police officers.

The proposed sales tax would help support the remaining local costs connected to those positions, including the remaining 25 percent of personnel costs and related outfitting needs such as gear, vehicles, supplies, and training.

The revenue must be used for criminal justice services that substantially support the criminal justice system. The legislation also includes yearly reporting requirements.

That accountability is important. A dedicated revenue source should have clear public expectations, clear legal restrictions, and clear reporting.

Why I support this approach

I support this sales tax.

Public safety is a core City service. Police staffing affects response capacity, proactive policing, officer workload, public trust, downtown conditions, neighborhood safety, business confidence, and the City’s ability to respond to complex calls.

The question before the Council is not whether public safety has a cost. It does.

The question is how to fund added capacity responsibly.

In this case, I strongly prefer the proposed sales tax approach over raising property taxes to fund the same public safety capacity.

A property tax increase would fall directly on property owners within the City. A sales tax spreads the cost more broadly across residents, visitors, and commercial activity in Port Angeles. Visitors use City streets, parks, emergency services, public spaces, and business districts. A sales tax means they contribute to the public safety system that supports those places.

Staff estimated that the proposed one-tenth of one percent sales tax would generate approximately $510,000 in 2027. Staff also estimated that the average annual cost to a household would be about $20.60 under the sales tax, compared with about $49.60 if the same amount were raised through a property tax levy.

That is a meaningful difference.

It is also a way to leverage state funding. The state grant covers a substantial portion of the first two years of personnel costs for four officers. The local revenue source helps the City sustain the local portion and plan for the transition after temporary grant funding.

I do not view this as an easy decision, because no tax increase should be treated casually.

But I do view it as a responsible public safety funding strategy.

It is limited to criminal justice purposes. It is tied to a specific staffing need. It is connected to state grant funding. It spreads the cost across a broader base than property taxes. It includes reporting requirements. And it keeps the discussion in public, through a public hearing and ordinance process.

Public process on the sales tax continues

The Council opened the public hearing on June 16 and continued the item to July 7.

That means residents still have an opportunity to follow the process and provide input before final action.

The earliest collection date discussed by staff would be January 1, 2027, provided the ordinance is approved and the required notice is submitted to the Department of Revenue within the required timeline.

For residents, the key points are these:

• The proposal is one-tenth of one percent.

• The revenue is restricted to criminal justice purposes.

• The City’s eligibility is connected to the HB 2015 grant award.

• The grant supports four additional police officer positions.

• The sales tax would help fund the local share and related officer costs.

• Annual reporting requirements apply.

• Council has not completed final action yet.

• The public hearing continues to July 7.

That is how this kind of decision should move: staff presentation, public hearing, Council questions, first reading, continued public process, and final Council consideration at a future meeting.

Other Council Business

Several other items were approved or discussed during the meeting.

Consent agenda

The Council unanimously approved the consent agenda.

The consent agenda included approval of prior meeting minutes, an expenditure report totaling $1,694,010.20, the Facility Improvement Agreement with the Peninsula Tennis Club, final acceptance of the Tree Trimming Project CON-2025-04, and termination acceptance for the On-Call Water Main Repair Contract SVC-2022-65.

The tennis court agreement stood out because of the community partnership behind it. Peninsula Tennis Club members raised approximately $170,000 to support resurfacing and lighting improvements at the Erickson Playfield tennis courts. Public comments before the consent agenda emphasized the importance of those courts for public recreation, youth access, high school use, and community wellness.

This is the kind of partnership that fits well with the City’s strategic goals around community health, wellness, and resilience. It improves a City asset, supports recreation, and reflects community initiative.

The tree trimming final acceptance also connects to infrastructure maintenance. Tree trimming near power lines is not always a visible public priority until storms, outages, or safety hazards occur. Regular vegetation management helps protect electric reliability, reduce outage risk, and maintain safe infrastructure.

The water main repair contract termination reflected another basic infrastructure reality: emergency water repairs require both planning and contractor capacity. Some City water mains are in difficult terrain, including steep ravines, creek crossings, and deep locations. When contractors close or contracts end, the City has to adapt while maintaining emergency response readiness.

Western Port Angeles Harbor cleanup late item

The Council also approved a late item related to the Western Port Angeles Harbor cleanup process.

Staff explained that the City is one of several potentially liable parties (PLP) involved in a long-running harbor cleanup process with the Department of Ecology. The item authorized an additional $50,000 payment to the potentially liable parties group account to support continued work by Tetra Tech on remedial design work.

I asked a clarifying question about whether the City anticipates reimbursement through insurance or Department of Ecology grant funding. Staff confirmed that insurance is expected to cover the majority of costs and that the City is also working on Department of Ecology grant funding for costs not covered by insurance.

This is another example of ecological stewardship intersecting with fiscal stewardship.

Harbor cleanup work is legally complex, environmentally important, and financially significant. When the City participates in that work, residents should be able to understand both the environmental purpose and the funding strategy.

Project 935: Housing Pipeline Pilot Project

The Council also approved the Project 935 Design Services Phase Agreement with Dialog for the Housing Pipeline Pilot Project.

Project 935 is the City’s multifamily housing pipeline pilot project at 935 West 10th Street. It is connected to the City’s Housing Action Plan and Strategic Plan housing goals. The project is designed to address the shortage of multifamily housing, expand affordable and attainable housing opportunities, support efficient land use, and demonstrate higher-density mixed-use development in a commercially zoned area.

The City previously accepted a $1,988,500 Department of Commerce housing grant to support the project. The June 16 action authorized the City Manager to approve a professional services agreement with Dialog for design services in an amount not to exceed $1,283,641.

This is not construction approval. It is a design services phase agreement.

That distinction is important.

Housing policy often sounds abstract. Project 935 is one way the City is trying to move from policy into implementation. It addresses site readiness, early design costs, predevelopment barriers, and replicable plans that may help future housing projects. The goal is not only one site. The goal is to learn from this pilot and improve the City’s ability to support more housing over time.

This connects directly to the Housing Action Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council’s housing priorities.

Port Angeles needs more housing choices. That includes workforce housing, multifamily housing, affordable housing, attainable housing, and housing types that fit within existing infrastructure and transportation networks. Project 935 is one piece of that larger work.

Recap of my Council report

During Council reports, I kept my comments brief.

I mentioned the June 9 Utility Advisory Committee meeting, which I had already written about in my recap, “Keeping the Lights On and the Rates Stable.”

I also attended the Port Angeles High School graduation on June 12. It was a good day to celebrate students and their families. I noted how impressive it is to see students earn honors, academic recognition, and college credit while completing high school.

I took a moment to thank Port Angeles High School Principal Jeff Lunt for his service to the school district and the community. His work with students, staff, athletics, and school culture has been meaningful, and I wished him well as he moves on to his next professional role.

I also attended Pride at the Pier on Sunday, June 14 and read the City’s Pride Month proclamation because Mayor Dexter was not available. I appreciated seeing the vendors, community members, and cultural expression at the event. It was well organized and reflected the importance of creating public spaces where residents can gather, celebrate, and be seen.

Finally, I attended the Clallam County Marine Resources Committee meeting as the City’s alternate representative on June 15. The main presentation was giveb by Suzanna Shull and focused on centralized data collection through SoundIQ and how that information can support Marine Resources Committees across the region. The discussion included how data can help track and understand marine projects, ecological conditions, forage fish, and other marine resource work.

That kind of data matters for long-term environmental stewardship. Good policy depends on good information.

What Comes Next

Several items from this meeting will continue through future public process.

The HB 2015 criminal justice sales tax public hearing continues to the July 7 Council meeting. Residents who want to comment on the proposed one-tenth of one percent sales tax for criminal justice purposes will still have an opportunity to participate before final Council action.

The adopted 2027–2032 CFP/TIP will become part of the City’s capital planning framework. Staff will continue using it to guide project planning, budget development, grant readiness, and future updates. Because the CFP/TIP is updated annually, residents will continue to see changes as projects move forward, funding sources shift, and new needs emerge.

The Ediz Hook boat launch project now includes the added Phase Two language to identify alternatives to ensure floating docks are protected. That work will still require future analysis, public process, funding evaluation, environmental review, and Council consideration where applicable.

Project 935 will move into the design services phase. Residents should watch for future updates on concept design, site planning, community engagement, and how this pilot project may inform future housing work.

The criminal justice sales tax discussion will remain tied to broader questions about public safety capacity, fiscal responsibility, grant funding, and how the City sustains core services.

The larger theme is the same one I have been writing about throughout this series: city decisions do not happen in isolation.

• Infrastructure planning connects to housing.

• Housing connects to utilities.

• Public safety connects to staffing and sustainable funding.

• Environmental stewardship connects to long-term liability and grant strategy.

• Public trust depends on clear records, public hearings, transparent explanations, and disciplined decision-making.

I will continue using these recaps to explain not only what the Council did, but why the process works the way it does and what residents should watch next.

Full meeting recording available below:

Next Council Meeting: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 at 5:00pm - Joint session with the Board of Clallam County Commissioners

The June 9 Utility Advisory Committee meeting was short, but it covered two important pieces of Port Angeles’ long-term planning: the Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan and the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan.

These are technical documents, but they affect real questions for residents and ratepayers.

Will the City have enough power to meet future demand?

How does Port Angeles avoid higher-cost power when possible?

How do capital projects move from plan to funding to construction?

How does the City protect ratepayers while still maintaining the infrastructure residents depend on every day?

Good local government often happens in meetings like this one. They are not always dramatic. They are not always long. But they are where staff, advisory committees, and Councilmembers review forecasts, funding assumptions, infrastructure needs, rate impacts, and long-term planning before final decisions come back to the full City Council.

Who was at the meeting

The Utility Advisory Committee met on June 9, 2026. Present were Deputy Mayor Navarra Carr, Councilmember Amy Miller, Councilmember Jon Hamilton, and Shaun Henson.

Anna Schorr and Melissa Voltz were absent.

The committee had a quorum and proceeded with the agenda. There was no public comment.

The two main items were:

1. The Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan, presented by Gregg King, Power Resources Manager.

2. The 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan, presented by Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa.

Both items received favorable recommendations from UAC.

That distinction is important. UAC did not make final City Council decisions. UAC is an advisory committee. It reviews utility-related issues, asks questions, hears staff presentations, and makes recommendations to the City Council. Final Council action, where required, still occurs through the City Council’s public meeting and public hearing process.

The role of the Utility Advisory Committee

The Utility Advisory Committee helps the City review utility issues in a more focused setting. Utility planning can involve electric power supply, water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, Medic 1, capital facilities, rates, reserves, infrastructure replacement, and long-term financial planning.

These are not simple topics. They involve legal requirements, engineering assumptions, budget constraints, grant timing, ratepayer impacts, staff capacity, and public policy.

The committee’s role is to help review that material and make recommendations. It does not replace the City Council. It does not direct staff. It does not adopt the City budget, approve the CFP/TIP as final action, or complete the public hearing process.

Instead, UAC helps build the public record and gives Council another layer of review before decisions come forward.

How this meeting connects to recent articles

This meeting also fits into a broader public conversation I have been writing about over the last several weeks.

In my May 26 City Council work session recap, I wrote about the preliminary 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan and how Council began reviewing the City’s long-term infrastructure priorities. That work session focused on the “blueprint” stage: how projects are listed, how costs are estimated, how funding sources are identified, and how Council begins asking policy-level questions before final adoption.

In my June 2 City Council recap, I wrote about the CFP/TIP public hearing, including public testimony on Ediz Hook, the pavement management presentation, the discussion around school safety lighting, and the broader infrastructure maintenance challenge facing Port Angeles. That meeting moved the conversation from staff presentation and Council review into the formal public hearing record.

My recent long-form article, “How Port Angeles Decides What Gets Built,” stepped back from any single meeting and explained the larger system: what the CFP/TIP is, what funded and unfunded projects mean, why grant-dependent projects require flexibility, why staff capacity matters, and how public testimony fits into the process.

The June 9 UAC meeting was the next step in that same process.

It was not a final Council decision. It was an advisory committee review of two technical but important items: the Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan and the utility-related portions of the 2027–2032 CFP/TIP. UAC’s role was to review the material, ask questions, hear staff explanations, and make recommendations that will return to the City Council through the public process.

Taken together, these meetings show how local government actually works when it is functioning properly. A project or plan does not move from idea to final decision in one step. It moves through staff review, work sessions, advisory committee review, public hearings, Council questions, public testimony, and recorded votes.

That sequence can feel slow. But it is also what gives residents a public record, multiple opportunities to understand the issue, and several points where questions can be asked before final Council action.

Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan

The first major item was the Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan.

Gregg King, the City’s Power Resources Manager, presented the plan. He explained that the City is required to update this type of plan every two years. Port Angeles completed its first Resource Plan in 2008 and has updated it every two years since.

In plain language, the plan asks a basic question:

Does the City have adequate power resources to meet projected demand?

To answer that, the plan reviews current electric loads, current power resources, expected future loads, conservation, and whether the City’s future resources are adequate.

The 2026 plan looks at current power usage, estimates future usage for 2030 and 2035, considers power sources including conservation, and then moves through public notice, public hearing, Council approval, and submission to the Washington Department of Commerce.

The plan must be submitted to the Department of Commerce by September 1, 2026. It will be updated again in 2028.

UAC recommended that the City Council conduct the public hearing and approve the proposed Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan by resolution.

BPA, Tier 1, Tier 2, and the Contract High Water Mark

A central part of the presentation was the City’s relationship with the Bonneville Power Administration, commonly called BPA.

Port Angeles remains a BPA customer. BPA is the City’s primary wholesale power provider. For residents, the main point is that BPA power remains a major reason Port Angeles has access to reliable, comparatively low-cost public power.

The presentation also discussed Tier 1 power, Tier 2 power, and the Contract High Water Mark.

Those terms can sound complicated, but the basic idea is straightforward.

Tier 1 power is lower-cost BPA power available to the City within its contract limits.

Tier 2 power is higher-cost power that could apply if the City’s demand grows beyond that contract amount.

The Contract High Water Mark is the amount of Tier 1 power the City can receive under the post-2028 BPA contract before Tier 2 power may become an issue.

For Port Angeles, the post-2028 Contract High Water Mark is 47.039 average megawatts.

The City’s current load is significantly below that level. During the presentation, staff explained that the City itself is currently running around 28 to 30 average megawatts, with the McKinley Paper mill curtailed and operating at a much smaller level than it historically did.

The current forecast shows Port Angeles staying below the Tier 2 threshold.

That is positive for ratepayer planning, but it should not be treated as a guarantee that conditions will never change. Forecasts are based on assumptions. If major conditions change, the City can revisit the plan in the next update.

What growth is included in the forecast

During the meeting, I asked a clarifying question about whether the forecast included possible future load growth from housing, industrial activity, electric vehicle charging, electrification, and commercial growth.

Staff explained that expected growth is accounted for in the forecast. The plan assumes some future load growth over time, but still shows the City remaining below the Tier 2 threshold based on current assumptions.

I appreciated that explanation because residents may reasonably wonder whether Port Angeles can support future growth while maintaining reliable and affordable power.

Housing growth, commercial activity, EV charging, and electrification all have utility implications. A housing policy is not just a land-use question. It is also a water, wastewater, transportation, stormwater, and electric utility question.

The Resource Plan does not answer every future growth question by itself. But it gives the City a structured way to review power supply and demand, and it gives the City the opportunity to update assumptions again in 2028.

The mill assumption

The McKinley Paper mill remains a major factor in understanding electric load.

The current Resource Plan forecast assumes the mill remains curtailed. Staff explained that the mill has been curtailed since 2024 and is currently operating at a small capacity compared with historic industrial load levels.

It is important not to speculate beyond the public record. The plan uses the current assumption that the mill remains curtailed. If conditions change, the City will need to account for those changes in future planning.

The presentation also noted that the industrial transmission customer would be responsible for its Tier 2 power purchases if its load created that need under the applicable contract structure.

Strengths and risks in the Resource Plan

The Resource Plan presentation identified several strengths in Port Angeles’ current electric utility position.

The City has a conservation program that helps reduce demand and supports more efficient energy use.

The City continues to have competitive power rates.

The BPA transmission system is highly reliable and remains a major strength for the region.

The presentation also identified several risk factors.

Port Angeles and the Olympic Peninsula have a limited amount of local electricity generation. That means the City continues to rely heavily on regional power supply and transmission.

The City’s Contract High Water Mark will be reduced starting in 2028. The current forecast still shows the City staying below the Tier 2 threshold, but the reduced high water mark is part of the long-term planning picture.

There is also a broader regional risk. If power consumption rises across the Pacific Northwest, wholesale power and transmission costs may increase. That issue would not be limited to Port Angeles or BPA alone. It is part of a larger regional energy picture.

This is why careful resource planning is necessary. The City needs to look ahead, track assumptions, and update plans as conditions change.

UAC recommendation on the Resource Plan

After the presentation and discussion, UAC voted to provide a favorable recommendation that the City Council conduct the public hearing and pass the resolution approving the proposed Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan.

Again, that was not final Council action.

The next step is the City Council public hearing process. The Council will consider the plan in a public meeting, and final action will occur through the proper Council process.

Review of the 2027–2032 CFP/TIP

The second major item was the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan, often shortened to CFP/TIP.

Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa presented this item.

This was the committee’s second review of the proposed CFP/TIP. At the May UAC meeting, committee members requested additional time to review the document because of its size and complexity. I appreciated staff allowing that extra time.

The CFP/TIP is a large document. It includes utility projects, transportation projects, funding sources, cash flow, priorities, completed projects, unfunded needs, and long-term capital planning. It is not the kind of document that should be rushed through without careful review.

At the June 9 meeting, staff explained that the committee was reviewing the utility-related sections and the Transportation Improvement Plan. Staff also noted that the plan had already been reviewed by City Council at the May 26 work session and during the June 2 Council meeting, which included a public hearing.

Staff confirmed that no rate increases above what is already adopted were proposed in this plan.

That is a careful but important distinction. It does not mean there are no future utility cost risks. It does not mean rates can never change. It means that, within this plan, staff were not proposing rate increases above what is already adopted.

That is meaningful for ratepayers.

What the CFP/TIP does

The CFP/TIP is updated annually. It is based on the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Strategic Plan, City Work Plan, budget, and capital planning process.

It helps the City identify long-term infrastructure needs, coordinate projects, plan funding, evaluate staff capacity, and understand how projects connect across departments and utilities.

The plan includes funded projects and unfunded projects. It also identifies projects that may require grants, partnerships, or future revenue decisions.

For residents, the CFP/TIP is one of the clearest public documents for understanding what the City is trying to build, repair, maintain, or plan for over time.

It is also a reminder that infrastructure decisions are rarely isolated. A street project can involve pavement, sidewalks, ADA access, stormwater, water lines, sewer lines, lighting, school safety, and future maintenance. A housing goal can depend on wastewater capacity. A public safety goal can depend on transportation and utility infrastructure.

The CFP/TIP is where many of those connections are documented.

Unfunded does not mean unimportant

One point I will continue emphasizing is that “unfunded” does not mean “unimportant.”

A project may be listed in the CFP/TIP even if funding has not yet been secured. That can be responsible planning. Listing the project allows the City to track the need, seek grants, coordinate future work, evaluate tradeoffs, and update priorities over time.

Some projects are too large to fund immediately. Some depend on state or federal grants. Some require more design or scoping before the City can know the true cost. Some require partnerships with other agencies.

Keeping those projects visible helps maintain public transparency. It also helps the City be ready when funding opportunities arise.

TR0919 / School Safety Lighting

One of the most important updates in the CFP/TIP discussion involved project TR0919.

This project had previously been tied to a traffic safety camera concept. After public concern and Council discussion, staff revised the title and scope.

The project is now called School Safety Lighting.

The revised scope removes cameras. It focuses on flashing lights and speed feedback signs in school zones.

The first location is Franklin Elementary. Possible later locations include Jefferson Elementary, Hamilton Elementary, Port Angeles High School, and Stevens Middle School.

I appreciated this change.

School safety is a real concern. At the same time, residents raised concerns about cameras, privacy, data, and automated enforcement. Those concerns deserved to be heard respectfully.

The revised project keeps the focus on visible school zone safety infrastructure: flashing lights and speed feedback signs.

This is a good example of public process working. Concerns were raised. Staff reviewed the project. The scope was narrowed. The updated project better reflects the safety goal while responding to public concern.

That is how local government should work: listen, clarify, adjust where appropriate, and keep the decision in the public record.

Ratepayer protection

Rate stability was also part of the discussion.

Staff and committee members noted the importance of keeping rate impacts limited to what is already adopted. This is especially important at a time when utility costs are rising in many places and households are already feeling pressure from the cost of living.

I made a comment during the meeting that keeping rates relatively stable is an accomplishment worth noting.

That does not mean there are no future risks. Utility systems face inflation, aging infrastructure, changing regulations, regional power cost pressures, supply chain issues, grant uncertainty, and staffing constraints.

But within this CFP/TIP review, no rate increases above what is already adopted were proposed.

That kind of ratepayer protection is important. It reflects the City’s effort to balance infrastructure needs with affordability.

A plan that ignores infrastructure maintenance is not responsible. A plan that ignores ratepayer affordability is not responsible either.

The work is in balancing both.

My reflection as UAC Chair

As UAC Chair, I appreciated the way staff handled this meeting.

First, I appreciated that the committee was given additional time to review the CFP/TIP. These documents are large and technical. Taking more time helped the committee make a better recommendation.

Second, I appreciated the Power Resource Plan presentation. Electric utility planning can be difficult to follow because it involves BPA contracts, load forecasts, conservation, Tier 1 and Tier 2 power, the Contract High Water Mark, industrial load assumptions, and regional power risks.

I asked whether future housing, industrial growth, EV charging, electrification, and commercial load growth were included in the forecast because those questions connect directly to the City’s long-term growth and infrastructure planning. Staff explained that expected growth was included in the forecast and that the plan can be updated again if assumptions change.

Third, I appreciated the TR0919 update. The revised School Safety Lighting project keeps the focus on school zone safety while responding to public concern about cameras.

Those are the kinds of adjustments that help build public trust.

UAC recommendation on the CFP/TIP

After discussion, UAC provided a favorable recommendation to City Council for adoption of the plan.

Again, this recommendation is advisory. The City Council still conducts the required public process and takes final action where applicable.

The CFP/TIP will continue through Council’s public adoption process.

What comes next

The Electric Utility 2026 Power Resource Plan will go through the City Council public hearing process. Staff will seek Council approval by resolution, and the plan must be submitted to the Washington Department of Commerce by September 1, 2026.

The 2027–2032 CFP/TIP will continue through the City Council’s public adoption process.

The June 9 UAC meeting was brief, but it reflected the same larger themes I have been writing about in recent recaps and long-form articles: long-term planning, infrastructure maintenance, ratepayer protection, public safety, staff capacity, and transparent decision-making.

The May 26 work session showed how the CFP/TIP begins as a planning blueprint. The June 2 Council meeting showed how public testimony and Council discussion become part of the formal record. The June 9 UAC meeting showed how advisory committee review adds another layer of technical review before final Council action.

That is not always the most visible part of local government.

But it is one of the most important.

I will continue using these recaps to explain not only what happened at a meeting, but how each meeting fits into the larger work of maintaining infrastructure, protecting ratepayers, planning for growth, and making public decisions in a transparent way.

To watch the meeting in its entirety, you can view it below.

Over the last several weeks, the Port Angeles City Council, the Utility Advisory Committee, City staff, and members of the public have been working through one of the most important planning documents the City reviews each year: the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan.

That name is a mouthful, so it is usually shortened to CFP/TIP.

It sounds technical because it is technical. It includes project sheets, cost estimates, funding sources, timelines, priorities, grant assumptions, utility capital needs, transportation improvements, staff capacity considerations, and long-term infrastructure planning.

But the CFP/TIP is not just a document for engineers, finance staff, planners, and grant writers.

It is one of the clearest public windows into how a city decides what gets built, what gets repaired, what waits, and why.

Residents often experience local government through specific questions.

Why is this street not fixed yet?

Why does that sidewalk stop halfway down the block?

Why is this park project unfunded?

Why is the City talking about a boat launch, sewer line, school safety beacon, stormwater project, or utility upgrade instead of something else?

Why does one project appear to move quickly while another stays on a list for years?

Those are fair questions. They deserve clear answers.

The answer is rarely as simple as “the City does not care” or “Council just needs to prioritize it.” In reality, a project must move through a public framework that includes adopted plans, legal requirements, budget authority, staff capacity, grant eligibility, public hearings, permitting, environmental review, procurement, construction timing, and long-term affordability.

That is what this article is about.

The core point is this: the CFP/TIP is not a wish list and it is not a blank check. It is the public framework the City uses to identify needs, test those needs against funding and staff capacity, align them with adopted plans, and decide how to move projects forward responsibly.

Understanding that framework is one of the best ways residents can understand how local government actually works.

What the CFP/TIP is

The Capital Facilities Plan is the City’s long-range plan for major public infrastructure and capital assets. These are not routine day-to-day operating expenses. They are larger investments in roads, sidewalks, utilities, parks, public safety facilities, technology systems, stormwater infrastructure, water and wastewater systems, marine access, public buildings, fleet equipment, and other assets that last beyond a single budget year.

The Transportation Improvement Plan is the transportation portion of that planning work. It identifies street, pavement, sidewalk, pedestrian, bicycle, safety, and transportation-related projects. Under Washington law, cities must maintain a six-year transportation program and may revise it only after a public hearing. That is one reason the CFP/TIP process includes formal public hearings and a June timeline.

The CFP/TIP also connects to Washington’s broader planning framework under the Growth Management Act. The GMA is the state system that requires long-range planning for growth, land use, housing, transportation, capital facilities, utilities, and environmental protection. The City’s Vision 2045 Comprehensive Plan is the local long-range policy document that guides those decisions.

Capital projects should not float free from adopted policy. A road project, sewer project, park project, utility upgrade, or stormwater investment should connect to the larger public framework: the Comprehensive Plan, the 2025–2026 Strategic Plan, the Housing Action Plan, utility plans, budget decisions, and Council policy direction.

In plain terms, the Comprehensive Plan helps answer: What kind of city are we planning for?

The Strategic Plan helps answer: What are the Council’s near-term priorities?

The budget answers: What spending authority has been approved?

The CFP/TIP answers: What capital projects are needed to support that future, how are they sequenced, and how might they be paid for?

A housing goal may require wastewater capacity.

A street safety goal may require sidewalks, crossings, ADA ramps, beacons, or traffic calming.

An economic development goal may require electric capacity, road access, stormwater improvements, or water infrastructure.

A climate or resilience goal may require shoreline work, stormwater planning, culvert improvements, or habitat restoration.

A public safety goal may require communication systems, emergency facilities, or reliable roads and utilities.

The CFP/TIP is where those goals begin to meet physical reality.

How local policy fits together

One reason the CFP/TIP can be difficult to understand is that it does not stand alone.

It connects several layers of City policy.

The Comprehensive Plan sets the long-range land use, housing, transportation, utility, environmental, and capital facilities framework. The Strategic Plan identifies near-term Council priorities. The Housing Action Plan helps frame the relationship between housing needs, zoning, infill, and infrastructure capacity. The Wastewater Comprehensive Plan evaluates sewer and treatment capacity. The Complete Streets ordinance guides how the City thinks about transportation projects. The Transportation Benefit District chapter identifies a local funding tool for preserving and maintaining transportation infrastructure.

The City Strategic Work Plan also helps connect broad goals to specific staff work. It describes the projects the City intends to undertake in 2025 and 2026 to support Council’s strategic goals, and it functions as a communication tool between City staff and Council by showing departmental projects, objectives, and timelines.

The CFP/TIP brings many of those pieces into one capital planning document.

That is why it is not enough to ask whether a project is popular. The City also has to ask whether the project is supported by adopted plans, whether it is funded, whether it is eligible for grants, whether staff have capacity to deliver it, whether it creates future maintenance obligations, and whether it fits within long-term affordability.

This is where public trust depends on process.

A project should not move simply because it has the loudest voices behind it. It also should not be ignored simply because it is complicated, unfunded, or technical. The better approach is to put projects into the public planning framework, evaluate them against the record, and make decisions through public meetings.

The CFP/TIP process is public, annual, and iterative

The CFP/TIP is updated every year. It is not written once and then locked away.

The June 9 Utility Advisory Committee packet describes the CFP as a six-year planning document updated annually based on the Comprehensive Plan, Council Strategic Plan, and City Work Plan. It identifies secured or reasonably expected revenues and expenditures for projects included in the plan. It also lists projects without identified funding so additional funding options can be explored.

That last part is important for residents to understand.

The CFP/TIP is not limited only to projects that already have money. It also keeps track of major needs that do not yet have funding. This helps the City maintain a public record, pursue grants, build partnerships, and continue evaluating long-term priorities.

The process generally begins internally, with departments identifying project needs. Directors and the City Manager review and prioritize those needs. Finance staff prepare cash-flow analysis and funding options. The draft plan then moves into public review through Council work sessions, advisory committee review, public hearings, and Council action.

That is why residents may see a project discussed several times before adoption.

A work session is different from a public hearing.

Advisory committee review is different from Council adoption.

A project being listed is different from a construction contract being awarded.

A funded design phase is different from funded construction.

The process can feel slow, but each step serves a purpose. It gives staff time to evaluate. It gives Council time to ask questions. It gives advisory committees time to review technical issues. It gives residents time to comment. It gives the City time to align projects with funding, grants, legal requirements, and staff capacity.

Public trust depends on that sequence. The City should not move major projects through rumor, pressure, or informal promises. It should move them through public documents, public meetings, public hearings, and recorded decisions.

Funded, unfunded, and grant-dependent projects

A common source of confusion is the difference between funded, unfunded, and grant-dependent projects.

A funded project has an identified funding source in the plan. That funding might come from utility rates, grants, reserves, the General Fund, the Transportation Benefit District, real estate excise tax, donations, or another source. But even when a project is funded, construction may not begin immediately.

Design may still be needed.

Permitting may still be needed.

Environmental review may still be needed.

The City may need to issue a request for proposals.

A project may need to be bid.

A contract may need to come back to Council.

A grant agreement may need to be finalized.

Staff may need to schedule the work around other projects.

A funded project has financial footing, but it still has to move through implementation.

An unfunded project is different. It means the City has identified a need, but funding has not yet been secured.

Unfunded does not mean unimportant.

In many cases, the opposite is true. Some unfunded projects are large, complex, expensive, or dependent on outside funding. Some need additional study before a specific scope can be developed. Some are waiting for state or federal grant opportunities. Some may require partnerships with other agencies. Some are visible in the plan precisely because the City wants to keep the need on the public radar.

Residents should be careful not to read “unfunded” as “forgotten.”

Unfunded means the project is recognized, but the money is not yet there.

Grant-dependent projects add another layer. Many capital projects in a city like Port Angeles cannot be completed with local dollars alone without putting too much pressure on taxes, utility rates, or the General Fund. Grants are essential.

But grants are not simple.

Grant programs have deadlines, eligibility requirements, scoring criteria, match requirements, environmental conditions, design expectations, reporting obligations, and sometimes very specific project scopes. A project may be important locally but not score well for a particular grant. Another project may move faster because a grant opportunity suddenly opens. Sometimes a project must be redesigned or phased to fit a funding program.

That can be frustrating, but it is part of modern capital planning.

A city that wants to leverage outside money has to be ready when opportunities arise. Listing unfunded projects helps the City stay grant-ready.

Why staff capacity matters

Money alone does not build projects.

This is one of the most overlooked realities in local government.

Even if a project has money, someone still has to manage it. Staff have to develop scopes, write grant applications, administer grants, prepare requests for proposals, evaluate consultant responses, negotiate contracts, manage design, coordinate with regulators, prepare bid documents, review legal requirements, inspect construction, communicate with the public, track budgets, process payments, and close out the project.

That is real work. It takes time and expertise.

The June 9 UAC materials are direct on this point. The CFP considerations include rising costs, impacts on the ability to deliver vital services, staffing resources to complete projects, and grant funding for cost-effective projects. The presentation also states that no additional staff capacity is recommended, meaning projects must be prioritized and completed as resources are available.

Residents should be able to see this tradeoff clearly.

If the City adds projects faster than staff can realistically manage them, projects can slow down. Costs can rise. Staff can be stretched too thin. The public can become frustrated because projects appear “approved” but not delivered.

Responsible planning means acknowledging capacity before overpromising.

This is especially important in parks, utilities, transportation, and public facilities. A project may have community support. It may be worthy. It may even be listed in the CFP/TIP. But if the department responsible for managing or maintaining the project does not have the capacity to take it on, the City has to be honest about that.

This is not a reason to avoid planning. It is a reason to plan more clearly.

Adding an unfunded planning item can be responsible when it acknowledges a need without pretending that funding and staff capacity already exist. It gives the City a way to track the issue, look for grants, and revisit the project in future budget cycles.

Affordability, no new debt, and long-term maintenance

Infrastructure is expensive. Deferred infrastructure is often more expensive.

The current CFP/TIP planning cycle has been shaped by several Council directives: little to no rate impact where possible, setting aside cash equal to prior-year depreciation, leveraging projects, avoiding new debt, focusing on preventive maintenance to extend asset life, and continuing Complete Streets principles.

Those directives reflect real values.

Affordability matters. Residents and businesses feel utility rates, taxes, and fees. A capital plan that ignores household affordability can lose public trust quickly.

Debt also matters. Debt can be a useful tool in some circumstances, but it carries long-term obligations. The current CFP/TIP does not propose new debt for the 2027–2032 planning cycle. That is a major policy choice.

At the same time, maintenance matters. If the City waits too long to maintain roads, pipes, facilities, or utility systems, the eventual repair can become more expensive and more disruptive. Preventive maintenance is usually less expensive than emergency repair. Planned replacement is usually better than catastrophic failure.

That is the tension.

The City has to balance affordability today with the cost of delay tomorrow.

That is not easy. It requires honest public discussion. It requires good data. It requires staff analysis. It requires Council discipline. And it requires residents to understand that “not spending money now” can sometimes mean spending more later.

The goal should not be to build everything immediately. That is not realistic.

The goal should be to make responsible, transparent decisions about what must move now, what can wait, what needs grants, what requires more study, and what risks grow if we delay.

What the June 9 UAC review adds to the process

The Utility Advisory Committee is scheduled to continue its review of the proposed 2027–2032 CFP/TIP on June 9. That review gives the public another opportunity to see how utility and transportation projects are evaluated before the plan returns to the City Council for continued public hearing and potential adoption.

The June 9 UAC agenda packet describes the CFP as a six-year planning document updated annually based on the Comprehensive Plan, Council Strategic Plan, and City Work Plan. It explains that the plan identifies secured or reasonably expected revenues and expenditures for included projects, while also listing projects without identified funding so additional funding options can be explored.

This is one of the central points for residents to understand.

A project can be listed because it is needed, while still remaining unfunded. A project can be unfunded because the City lacks an identified funding source, not because the project lacks value. The UAC packet states this directly: unfunded projects are included in the CFP to demonstrate the total capital need in each fund, and the unfunded designation does not reduce their significance or importance.

The UAC materials also describe the fiscal discipline behind the current plan. Staff identify several Council directives: little to no rate impact, setting aside cash equal to prior-year depreciation, leveraging projects, avoiding new debt, focusing on preventive maintenance to increase asset life, and continuing the Complete Streets initiative. The same packet states that no additional debt is proposed for the 2027–2032 CFP planning cycle.

In other words, the City is not simply adding projects without considering affordability.

The packet also shows why staff capacity must be part of the conversation. The CFP considerations include rising costs, impacts on the ability to deliver vital services, staffing resources to complete projects, and grant funding for projects vetted for cost-effectiveness. The presentation states that no additional staff capacity has been recommended, meaning projects must be prioritized and completed as resources are available.

This is one of the clearest lessons in capital planning: money alone does not deliver projects. Projects require staff time, project management, design review, procurement, permitting, grant administration, construction oversight, and long-term maintenance planning.

The UAC process gives residents another public window into those tradeoffs before final Council action.

Public testimony matters

Public testimony is not a formality.

The June 2 public hearing on the CFP/TIP showed why. Residents came forward to speak about Ediz Hook, Valley Creek, and other infrastructure priorities. A petition was submitted. Speakers provided lived experience, technical perspective, economic concerns, accessibility concerns, environmental concerns, and community values.

Public testimony helps Council understand how a project affects real people. It can identify issues that may not be obvious from a table in a planning document. It can show organized community support. It can raise concerns about scope, safety, access, timing, and trust.

But public testimony does not automatically produce an immediate operational directive. The Council’s role is legislative and policy-focused. Councilmembers can ask questions, adopt plans, approve budgets, set policy, authorize contracts, and receive public input. Under the council-manager form of government, Council does not manage staff day-to-day or direct individual staff work outside the proper process.

That distinction protects the public process.

A strong public record helps Council make better decisions. It also helps staff understand community priorities within the adopted framework. But the City still has to follow legal requirements, procurement rules, grant rules, environmental review, permitting, budget authority, and Council procedure.

That is how public trust is built: by listening carefully and acting through the proper process.

Case study: TR0919 and school safety lighting

Project TR0919 is a useful example of how the public process can clarify a project.

Earlier discussions of the project raised public concern because of its connection to traffic safety cameras, license plate readers, data collection, automated enforcement, and privacy. Those concerns were legitimate public concerns.

School safety is important. But the tools used to improve school safety also matter.

The June 9 UAC packet shows that staff reviewed the project and recommended changing the title from Traffic Safety Camera Program to School Safety Lighting, with a scope focused on improving safety in school zones and removing cameras from the project. The project sheet describes implementation of a school safety program that includes flashing lights and speed feedback signs in school zones, beginning with Franklin Elementary and potentially expanding to Jefferson Elementary, Hamilton Elementary, Port Angeles High School, and Stevens Middle School.

That is a meaningful shift for public trust.

A flashing beacon or speed feedback sign is a visible safety tool. A camera-based system raises different questions about privacy, data ownership, retention, enforcement, equity, and public confidence. Those are not small differences.

TR0919 is a good example of the CFP/TIP as a living document. A project description was reviewed. Concerns were heard. Staff clarified the scope. The project became more focused.

This does not mean every resident will agree on every school safety tool. It does mean the public process helped separate a shared goal from a disputed method.

The shared goal is safer school zones.

The revised method is visible school safety lighting, not cameras.

That is how public trust should work: listen, clarify, and document the decision.

Case study: Ediz Hook and public access

The Ediz Hook boat launch is a good example of how a project can be important, visible, and still complicated.

The City previously posted a public update explaining that no final decision had been made regarding permanent removal of the float docks. That update also explained that the easternmost string of floats had been temporarily taken out of service in 2023, that the westernmost string was severely damaged during January winter storms, and that the float manufacturer no longer provides the materials needed to repair the existing float dock system. The City also noted that the Ediz Hook Boat Launch Improvement Project had been incorporated into the CFP as an unfunded, multi-year effort dependent on collaboration and grant opportunities.

That background helps explain how the project reached the current CFP/TIP discussion. For this article, however, the more current public record is the June 2 City Council meeting.

At the June 2 public hearing, residents and marine users spoke strongly about the importance of the Ediz Hook boat launch. A petition was submitted into the Council record with 1,382 verified signatures. The petition described Ediz Hook as a premier coastal hub, stated that the facility supported more than 20,000 boat launches between 2019 and 2025, raised concerns about economic loss and public safety hazards, and called for completion and publication of a Request for Proposal as a step toward identifying a modernized, safe, and sustainable public boat launch.

Public input helps build the record.

Ediz Hook is not only a recreational amenity. It is marine access, fishing access, public safety, tourism, economic activity, and part of Port Angeles’ identity as a coastal community.

At the same time, public testimony does not eliminate the steps required to move a project responsibly. The City still needs to understand what a compliant replacement could look like, what FEMA may cover, what FEMA may not cover, what grant opportunities may exist, what permitting or environmental constraints apply, and what funding gap remains.

That is why the RFP/design step is important.

A request for proposals is not the same thing as construction. It is part of the process of defining the project clearly enough to understand scope, cost, compliance, funding options, and next steps.

That may not feel fast enough to residents who use the facility and see the need every day. But it is the responsible path for a public asset with regulatory, financial, environmental, and design complexity.

The lesson from Ediz Hook is not that public testimony instantly funds a project. The lesson is that public testimony can elevate a project, clarify the community need, strengthen the public record, and help the City evaluate what responsible next steps should look like.

Case study: Valley Creek and balanced planning

Valley Creek is a different kind of case study because it involves stormwater, habitat, fish passage, open space, downtown connectivity, public access, industrial waterfront land, long-term maintenance, and intergovernmental relationships.

That makes it important.

It also makes it complicated.

A project like Valley Creek cannot be reduced to a simple pro-or-con question. There are ecological values. There are cultural and civic values. There are stormwater and habitat questions. There are public access and open-space possibilities. There are also land-use, industrial, operational, financial, and liability concerns.

The Port of Port Angeles has raised substantive concerns in letters from 2023 and 2026. In its 2023 letter, the Port stated that it understood the benefits of daylighting lower Valley Creek but did not support the proposed routing alternative because of impacts to limited commercial and especially industrial waterfront properties. The Port also said it believed an alternative limited to the Valley Street right-of-way struck a better balance, and it raised concerns about engagement of affected property owners and businesses.

The Port’s 2026 letter took a more developed position. It acknowledged ecological, cultural, and civic values in the Valley Creek vision and supported thoughtful long-term planning where feasible. At the same time, it stated that the Port does not support daylighting concepts that would require conversion, long-term encumbrance, or functional loss of limited industrial waterfront property, or materially constrain Port operations. The letter also raised concerns about capital cost, long-term maintenance, liability, grant competitiveness, and whether other regional habitat opportunities could deliver greater ecological benefit with fewer conflicts.

Those concerns should not be dismissed.

They also should not end the conversation by themselves.

They are part of the record.

A balanced planning process should ask several questions at once.

What ecological function could be restored?

What stormwater benefits could be achieved?

What are the public access and open-space possibilities?

What are the costs?

Who would maintain the project long-term?

What land would be affected?

What operations would be constrained?

What legal or liability responsibilities would exist?

What partners would need to participate?

Are there alternatives that achieve some benefits with fewer impacts?

Are there other watershed investments that may provide greater ecological value for lower cost or lower conflict?

Those are the kinds of questions a public planning process is supposed to surface.

Valley Creek is a good example of why the CFP/TIP and related planning processes need a full record. The City’s responsibility is not to reduce a complex issue to a slogan. It is to evaluate the project through adopted plans, public testimony, partner concerns, environmental information, financial realities, and long-term maintenance responsibilities.

That is how public trust is maintained.

Case study: pavement, Complete Streets, and the Transportation Benefit District

The pavement management discussion is one of the clearest examples of why infrastructure planning needs to be honest.

The June 2025 pavement survey looked at approximately 138.4 centerline miles of City pavement and found a network-wide Pavement Condition Index of 48, placing the network in the “Poor” category. More than 55% of the pavement network requires rehabilitation or reconstruction, and residential streets are in the worst condition.

But pavement is not only about asphalt.

Port Angeles has adopted a Complete Streets policy through Ordinance 3615. That policy recognizes that streets should be planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained as part of a connected transportation network that serves multiple users: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists, emergency responders, freight haulers, and people of all ages and abilities.

That means a street project can raise several questions at once.

Is the pavement failing?

Are there utilities underneath that also need work?

Are sidewalks missing or deteriorated?

Are ADA ramps needed?

Is lighting needed?

Are there school safety concerns?

Are there bicycle or pedestrian connections that should be considered?

Is drainage part of the problem?

Would doing only the pavement now create a more expensive project later?

The Transportation Benefit District is part of that same conversation. Under Port Angeles Municipal Code Chapter 11.20, TBD funds are intended for transportation improvements that preserve, maintain, and operate the City’s existing transportation infrastructure. The code states that those funds are meant to preserve prior transportation investments, reduce the risk of transportation facility failure, improve safety, support cost-effectiveness, and continue optimal performance of the transportation system.

The pavement conversation is not just about what residents see on the surface. It is about how the City maintains a transportation system over time.

Councilmember Miller raised an important timing issue during the June 2 discussion: the TBD expires in 2028. That means the City and community will need to begin a public conversation well before the deadline about what renewal would mean, what non-renewal would mean, and how local transportation dollars help preserve infrastructure and leverage outside funding.

My own takeaway from the pavement presentation was broader.

Port Angeles is facing an infrastructure maintenance challenge that includes roads, sidewalks, sewer and wastewater pipes, stormwater, utility capacity, ADA access, public safety, and the physical systems needed to support housing, growth, and economic development.

A city cannot grow on top of failing foundations.

That does not mean rushing into any one funding solution. It means being honest about the size of the challenge, the cost of delay, and the need for a disciplined long-term plan.

Sewer and wastewater: the infrastructure residents do not see

Some of the most important infrastructure in Port Angeles is underground.

The 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan explains that the City owns, operates, and maintains a wastewater collection and treatment system serving the City, the Eastern and Western Urban Growth Areas, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe service area under a 2007 agreement. The system includes approximately 119 miles of sewer pipelines, 17 pump stations, and the Port Angeles Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Wastewater is directly connected to housing, growth, environmental protection, and economic development.

A housing policy may look good on paper, but new housing still needs wastewater capacity. A business expansion may make sense economically, but it still needs utility service. A neighborhood may be ready for infill, but if sewer capacity is constrained, growth can become more expensive or harder to serve.

The Wastewater Comprehensive Plan makes this connection clear. It explains that the City’s planning area includes the Eastern UGA, Western UGA, smaller UGAs south of the City boundary, and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe service area. It also notes that growth is not expected to occur evenly across the service area, which is why the City used a geographic model to apply different growth rates across the City and UGAs.

That is the kind of planning detail residents may not see when they look at a single project list.

The same plan identifies significant system constraints. The wastewater collection system has both separated sanitary lines and combined sanitary and stormwater components. In older areas, stormwater can affect wastewater capacity, and wet weather flows can stress the treatment system. The plan also identifies capacity-limited trunklines, including areas such as Milwaukee Drive, West 4th Street, Marine Drive, Lauridsen Boulevard, South A Street, Front Street, and the alley between Caroline Street and Georgiana Street.

This is why the CFP/TIP is not only about visible projects.

When residents ask why housing, redevelopment, street repair, or public improvements take time, part of the answer is often underground. Sewer capacity, wastewater treatment, pump stations, stormwater, and utility coordination all affect what the City can support.

The Wastewater Comprehensive Plan also shows why capital planning has to be long-term. It identifies a 20-year capital improvement program and recommends periodic review as costs, priorities, and project scopes change. That is exactly the kind of planning discipline the CFP/TIP is designed to support.

Sewer rehabilitation and the cost of waiting

The sewer and wastewater system also shows why deferred maintenance can become expensive.

The February and March UAC materials provide important context. Approximately 40% of the City’s active sanitary sewer collection system was installed before 1955, with the oldest sections dating back to 1915. The 2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan identified a major pipe replacement backlog in the sanitary sewer collection system. The City has increased the Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation annual budget to help address that deficiency.

Even with that increase, the City is dealing with a long-term infrastructure system that requires sustained investment over time.

The UAC materials explain why planned rehabilitation is so important. In December 2019, a ten-foot section of a 24-inch clay sanitary trunk main under Lincoln Street near the 4th/5th alley failed and collapsed. The repair required emergency mobilization, closed Lincoln Street for several days, and cost more than $200,000. The same kind of money, if spent proactively, can rehabilitate far more pipe through trenchless methods such as cured-in-place pipe lining.

That is the difference between reactive and proactive maintenance.

The City is also working on capacity, not only replacement. The A Street Wastewater Capacity Improvement project is designed to address conveyance limitations identified in the Wastewater Comprehensive Plan. UAC materials describe the project as increasing the size of an existing sanitary sewer gravity main along A Street, helping reduce future sanitary sewer overflow risks in the area, and sizing the project for future infill development and increased development in the Western Urbanized Growth Area.

That is exactly the kind of connection residents should understand.

Wastewater capacity affects housing.

Stormwater affects wastewater.

Old pipes affect streets.

Growth depends on utilities.

Infrastructure is interconnected.

When we talk about housing, we have to talk about wastewater. When we talk about roads, we have to talk about pipes underneath them. When we talk about economic development, we have to talk about capacity.

That is why the CFP/TIP is so important.

Stormwater, green infrastructure, and environmental stewardship

Stormwater is another area where capital planning becomes complicated quickly.

Stormwater is not just rainwater flowing down the street. It affects roads, creeks, culverts, outfalls, water quality, habitat, flooding, combined sewer systems, and shoreline health. In older areas, stormwater and wastewater systems may interact in ways that reduce capacity and increase treatment costs.

The UAC discussions around sewer rehabilitation and the A Street project show this connection clearly. Removing inflow and infiltration from the wastewater system is important, but that water still has to go somewhere. In some places, that means the stormwater system also needs capacity improvements.

This is where broader resources such as EPA’s work on green infrastructure can help residents understand the concepts. Green infrastructure generally refers to approaches that help reduce and treat stormwater where it falls, using natural or nature-based systems such as rain gardens, permeable pavements, green roofs, and other practices. Green infrastructure can support runoff reduction, water quality improvement, habitat, flood mitigation, and cost savings in some contexts.

That does not mean every Port Angeles stormwater problem can be solved with green infrastructure. Some problems require pipes, culverts, outfalls, capacity improvements, or engineered solutions. But it does mean the City should continue thinking about stormwater as part of a larger system that includes streets, habitat, shoreline resilience, and public space.

For coastal communities, shoreline resilience also has to be part of the conversation. Coastal communities must think about erosion, habitat, storm impacts, shoreline stabilization, public access, sea level rise, and long-term maintenance.

These resources do not decide local projects for us. But they help frame the questions.

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

What are the alternatives?

What are the long-term maintenance obligations?

What is the ecological benefit?

What is the cost?

What public infrastructure is being protected?

What tradeoffs are involved?

Those questions should shape stormwater, creek, and shoreline planning.

How advisory committees fit into the process

Advisory committees are an important part of the public process.

The Utility Advisory Committee is especially relevant because the CFP/TIP includes electric, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, Medic 1, and transportation projects. UAC members review technical material, ask questions, hear staff presentations, and provide recommendations within their role.

The UAC does not replace the City Council. It does not adopt the CFP/TIP. It does not manage staff. But it helps develop the public record and provides another point of review before final Council action.

Utility infrastructure is complex. Rate impacts, reserves, depreciation, capital transfers, grant timing, staffing, capacity, and project sequencing are not always easy to understand in a regular Council meeting. Advisory committee review creates more space for discussion.

The Planning Commission also plays a role in related land-use and regulatory matters. The Planning Commission’s work on the Comprehensive Plan, critical areas, zoning, and development regulations is distinct from the CFP/TIP, but connected. Land use and infrastructure planning cannot be separated. If the City plans for housing growth, it must also plan for water, wastewater, transportation, parks, stormwater, and public facilities.

Good public process uses multiple forums.

Council work sessions help Council study.

Public hearings allow formal public testimony.

Advisory committees review technical issues.

Planning Commission work addresses land-use and regulatory frameworks.

Council votes provide legislative action.

That structure may seem complicated, but it exists for a reason. It helps the City make decisions based on the record, not impulse.

The Council’s role is legislative, not operational

Port Angeles operates under the council-manager form of government. Under that structure, the City Council is the legislative and policy body, while the City Manager supervises administrative affairs.

That distinction is central to how Port Angeles government works.

Council adopts plans.

Council approves budgets.

Council holds public hearings.

Council authorizes contracts.

Council sets policy.

Council asks questions.

Council listens to the public.

Council does not manage staff day-to-day.

Council does not direct individual employees.

Council does not make informal operational promises outside of public process.

That boundary protects everyone. It protects staff from conflicting individual direction. It protects Council from slipping into administrative management. It protects residents by keeping decisions in noticed public meetings, where the public can see the record, hear the discussion, and understand the vote.

When residents raise concerns about a project, Councilmembers can ask proper policy-level questions.

Is the project in the CFP/TIP?

Is it funded?

Is it unfunded?

Is it grant-dependent?

What adopted plan supports it?

What public process is required?

What staff capacity exists?

What are the tradeoffs?

What decision is actually before Council?

Those are appropriate questions.

But the City still has to move through the council-manager form of government, procurement rules, budget authority, grant rules, staff analysis, and public meetings.

That is not a weakness. It is the structure that keeps public decisions accountable.

What residents can do next

Residents have a meaningful role in this process.

The first step is to read or review the CFP/TIP. Not everyone needs to read hundreds of pages cover to cover. But if you care about a specific project, look it up. Is it listed? Is it funded? Is it unfunded? Is it active, planned, prioritized, or pre-planning? Is it connected to grants? Does it have a project number? What year is it scheduled?

Second, follow the meetings. City meeting materials are posted through the City’s official agenda and meeting systems. The June 9 Utility Advisory Committee review and the June 16 Council continuation of the CFP/TIP process are key steps in the current cycle. The Planning Commission’s June 24 work on the Critical Areas Ordinance update is a related but separate process that also relates to long-term planning.

Third, submit public comment that helps build the record. The most useful public comments are specific. They explain the need, identify who is affected, connect the issue to safety, access, affordability, environment, or adopted plans, and recognize that funding and staff capacity are part of the decision.

Fourth, distinguish between urgency and implementation. A project can be urgent and still require design, permits, grant funding, environmental review, or a public hearing. Public testimony can elevate urgency while still respecting the steps required to turn concern into action.

Finally, ask clear questions.

What is the project number?

What is the funding source?

Is there a grant opportunity?

Is local match required?

What department would manage it?

Is staff capacity a constraint?

What adopted plan supports it?

What decision is before Council?

Those questions make public conversation stronger.

Further reading

For residents who want to go deeper, these resources are useful starting points:

City of Port Angeles Capital Facilities Plan page

Vision 2045 Comprehensive Plan

2025–2026 Strategic Plan

2025 Housing Action Plan

June 2, 2026 City Council agenda packet

June 9, 2026 Utility Advisory Committee agenda packet

2024 Wastewater Comprehensive Plan

Ordinance 3615 — Complete Streets

Port Angeles Municipal Code Chapter 11.20 — Transportation Benefit District

RCW 35.77.010 — Six-year transportation program

RCW 35A.13.080 — City manager supervision of administrative affairs

FEMA Public Assistance

Washington RCO Boating Facilities Program

EPA Green Infrastructure

NOAA Digital Coast Adaptation Strategies

Public trust is built through process

The CFP/TIP is not perfect. No long-range planning document is.

Costs change.

Grants change.

Emergencies happen.

Staff capacity shifts.

Public priorities evolve.

Projects become more urgent.

Other projects become less feasible.

New information changes assumptions.

But the CFP/TIP gives the City and the public a shared place to work from.

It shows what is funded, what is unfunded, what depends on grants, what needs more study, and what must be sequenced over time. It connects public testimony to staff analysis. It connects Council priorities to budget realities. It connects adopted plans to physical infrastructure.

That is why I believe residents should understand it.

Public trust is not built by pretending every project can happen immediately.

It is not built by treating every unfunded project as forgotten.

It is not built by promising outcomes before the record is complete.

Public trust is built through transparent process, clear records, honest explanations, and disciplined decision-making.

The CFP/TIP is one of the City’s most important tools for doing that work.

It is how Port Angeles begins deciding what gets built, what gets repaired, what gets preserved, and what kind of future we are preparing for.

On Tuesday, June 2, the Port Angeles City Council moved from studying the City’s long-range infrastructure blueprint to beginning the formal public process of reviewing it.

The previous week, on May 26, Council held a work session on the preliminary 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan, usually shortened to CFP/TIP. That work session was about understanding the document: what projects were included, how they were funded, what remained unfunded, and how the City is trying to balance affordability, grant readiness, and long-term maintenance.

The June 2 meeting was different.

This was the first public hearing and first review of the CFP/TIP resolution. That distinction matters. A work session allows Council to ask questions and understand the plan in public. A public hearing gives residents the formal opportunity to place their comments into the record before Council action.

And on June 2, residents did exactly that.

The evening showed why the CFP/TIP matters. It is not just a list of projects. It is a public process where community needs, staff analysis, Council priorities, funding constraints, and future votes begin to meet in one place.

A meeting that began with civic recognition

Before the Council moved into the major policy items of the evening, we began with several ceremonial recognitions.

The Council recognized the 25th anniversary of the Port Angeles Farmers Market. That proclamation highlighted the market’s role as a local economic engine, a source of food access, a small business incubator, and a weekly community gathering place. The Farmers Market generated more than $650,000 in vendor sales in 2025 and helped provide the equivalent of more than $60,000 in food benefits last year.

The Council also proclaimed June 2026 as Pride Month in Port Angeles. The proclamation recognized the contributions of LGBTQIA+ community members, acknowledged the continued need for visibility, acceptance, and safety, and invited residents to participate in local Pride activities.

We also recognized City Engineer Jonathan Boehme for his years of public service as he prepares to move on from the City. His work has touched many of the infrastructure projects residents use every day, including combined sewer overflow work, street safety improvements, stormwater projects, and capital planning. City Manager Nathan West and Public Works and Utilities Director Scott Curtin both spoke to Jonathan’s technical skill, but also to the team culture and professional legacy he leaves behind.

Finally, the Council recognized the public service of former Mayor and Councilmember Frank McPhee, who served on the Port Angeles City Council from 1986 to 1989 and as Mayor from 1987 to 1989. His legacy was not only in formal City actions, but in his role as a neighborhood business owner and community presence through McPhee’s Grocery.

Those recognitions mattered because they framed the rest of the evening. Local government is not only about projects and votes. It is also about the people, institutions, businesses, volunteers, staff, and public servants who hold a community together.

Then we turned to the infrastructure choices that will shape what comes next.

The CFP/TIP public hearing: the blueprint enters the record

The major item of the evening was the first public hearing on the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan.

Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa gave a shorter version of the presentation Council had received during the May 26 work session. She explained again that the CFP/TIP is a seven-year planning document. It sets the next year’s capital budget, amends the current capital budget, and keeps the City aligned with Growth Management Act requirements and grant eligibility requirements.

That last point is important. The CFP/TIP is not just an internal City planning document. It is also one of the tools that helps the City pursue state and federal funding. If a project is not identified, scoped, and included in an adopted plan, the City may be less competitive or even ineligible when grant opportunities appear.

Staff emphasized several guiding principles in the plan: little to no rate impact where possible, no new debt, leveraging projects, preventative maintenance, complete streets, and setting aside cash equal to prior-year depreciation where possible.

Affordability was a repeated theme. Staff noted that the plan does not include additional rate increases compared to the currently adopted capital plan. That does not mean there are no costs in the system. It means staff worked to reprioritize projects and use existing resources so the proposed CFP/TIP does not add new rate pressure beyond what was already planned.

The numbers are large.

The plan includes approximately $188.2 million in total funding requirements, with major sources including $85.3 million in grants, $39 million in utility rates, $15 million from excess reserves for rate stabilization, $11.9 million from the General Fund, $9.3 million from Transportation Benefit District tax, and $4.3 million from real estate excise tax.

The spending side is also significant, with approximately $223.7 million in total project costs across the seven-year plan.

That gap between project need and available funding is one of the central realities of municipal infrastructure planning. Port Angeles is not short on needs. The challenge is sequencing those needs in a way that is legally sound, financially responsible, operationally realistic, and responsive to the public.

New projects and a major change to school safety lighting

Staff also explained several updates that had been made since the May 26 work session.

Three projects had been added to the plan: a trash receptacle study, City Hall server room HVAC rooftop units, and First/Front Street tree improvements. These were already included in the project listing attached to the CFP resolution and did not require separate Council action unless Council wanted to make changes.

One of the most important revisions involved project TR0919.

That project had previously been framed around traffic safety cameras. Given public concern about surveillance, license plate readers, data use, and community trust, staff recommended retitling and revising the project as “School Safety Lighting.” The updated description removed cameras and focused instead on flashing amber beacons and speed signs.

I think that change matters.

Traffic safety around schools is a real issue. But the tools we use must reflect public trust, privacy concerns, equity, and clear purpose. A school-zone lighting and beacon project is a very different policy choice than a camera-based enforcement program. The revised project moves the focus toward visible safety infrastructure rather than data collection or automated enforcement.

That is the kind of adjustment the CFP/TIP process should allow: public concern, Council discussion, and staff review producing a clearer and more appropriate project description.

Ediz Hook: public testimony meets capital planning

The most visible public testimony of the evening centered on the Ediz Hook boat launch.

A petition was submitted into the record with 1,382 verified signatures asking the Council to prioritize modernization of the Ediz Hook boat launch. The petition described the launch as a major coastal and marine asset, cited more than 20,000 boat launches between 2019 and 2025, and argued that current conditions create economic loss and public safety concerns. The petition also emphasized that FEMA disaster rules may only fund replacement of existing infrastructure, not necessarily the kind of modernized facility many community members want.

Several speakers echoed those points.

Residents and marine users described the boat launch as a public access point, a safety issue, an economic driver, and part of Port Angeles’ identity as a coastal community. Speakers raised concerns about the current condition of the facility, mobility and accessibility barriers, the effect on fishing and boating activity, and the risk that continued delay could push activity to other communities.

One speaker offered professional experience and volunteered to help. Another emphasized that the issue is not just about convenience, but about accessibility, safety, recreation, tourism, maritime activity, and protecting a public asset before conditions worsen and costs increase.

The testimony was strong, organized, and clearly connected to the CFP/TIP.

It is important, however, to be precise about the Council’s role at this stage. The Council received the petition and heard testimony. The Ediz Hook boat launch is already listed as one of the prioritized projects in the CFP/TIP. The public hearing was continued to June 16. The Council did not, during that hearing, direct staff to take a specific operational step or bypass the ongoing process.

That distinction matters because public trust depends on both responsiveness and process. Residents should see that their testimony is heard. Staff and Council also have to work within FEMA rules, grant timelines, environmental requirements, permitting realities, design constraints, and adopted budget authority.

My own view remains that Ediz Hook is more than a recreational amenity. It is a working shoreline, a public access point, a fishing and boating facility, a public safety consideration, and a place with broader cultural and ecological significance. The long-term solution should reflect all of those layers.

Valley Creek and the broader meaning of stewardship

The public hearing also included testimony in support of Valley Creek restoration.

A representative from Futurewise spoke about Greenlink Port Angeles and the long-running vision to daylight and restore lower Valley Creek. The testimony connected the project to stormwater management, ecological restoration, urban creek planning, recreation, education, and economic development. The speaker also noted that this work builds on earlier planning, including work connected to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the Valley Creek Committee.

This is another example of why the CFP/TIP is not just a budget list.

Some projects are easy to see: roads, docks, buildings, and vehicles. Others are systems-level projects that ask the City to think about water, habitat, downtown redevelopment, public space, stormwater, and long-term environmental stewardship together.

Valley Creek is still unfunded. That does not mean it is unimportant. In the CFP/TIP, the unfunded list helps keep long-term needs visible so the City can look for grants, partnerships, and future funding opportunities. But the public process also helps Council and staff understand which unfunded projects continue to have organized community support and long-term strategic value.

Youth baseball and softball fields: putting recreation infrastructure on the planning map

After the public hearing testimony, Council discussed the CFP/TIP resolution and a motion was made to add a project evaluating the condition and future needs of the City’s baseball and softball facilities.

Councilmembers discussed these fields as important community assets. The conversation highlighted that youth baseball and softball facilities serve local families, support recreation and healthy lifestyles, provide space for youth development, and can also contribute to the local economy when tournaments and visitors come to Port Angeles.

I supported adding this project to the CFP/TIP as an unfunded planning item.

My reasoning was focused on process and capacity.

Adding a project as unfunded does not mean the City is committing immediate dollars to it. It means the City is acknowledging that the need exists, that it should be tracked, and that it may be positioned for future grant opportunities, partnerships, lodging tax consideration where eligible, or later budget discussion.

I also noted that the City needs to be realistic about Parks Department capacity. Before we can responsibly fund and move forward with additional parks projects, we need to understand whether the department has the staffing, maintenance capacity, and operational support necessary to manage the work already in front of it.

That is the balance I was trying to strike. Parks, youth sports facilities, and community recreation spaces matter. But recognizing a need in the CFP/TIP is not the same as pretending the funding or staff capacity already exists.

Putting the project on the unfunded list gives the City a way to keep the need visible, pursue grants in the future, and think more strategically about how to maintain and upgrade much-used youth and community sports facilities and parks over time.

The consent agenda and other routine but important actions

The Council also handled several consent agenda and purchasing items.

The main consent agenda included approval of the May 5 minutes, an expenditure report totaling $3,245,358.77, continuation of short-term lodging licensing services, Cisco Meraki software licensing renewal, Veeam backup software renewal, municipal code amendments related to fire, life safety inspections, certificates of occupancy, and administrative procedure updates, Type Zero legislation, neighborhood sewer rehabilitation, and the C-Street chip seal construction contract.

A public commenter raised questions about the short-term lodging licensing contract, including whether the City still needed the service and whether reporting was publicly available. Staff explained that the contract underpins the short-term lodging licensing portal, that the one-year extension is intended to bridge the City toward the Tyler ERP system if possible, and that the City publishes short-term lodging license and active complaint information on its website.

Councilmember Suggs disclosed a conflict related to the Race Street landscape maintenance contract because of a family relationship and stepped out for that item. That contract was moved out of the consent agenda and handled separately.

I will not spend much time on those items here because the central story of the evening was infrastructure planning. But routine actions matter. Software renewals, licensing portals, sewer rehabilitation contracts, chip seals, landscaping maintenance, and code updates are all part of the machinery of City government. They are not always high-profile, but they are how the City maintains systems, provides services, and implements policy.

Pavement management: the uncomfortable math under our streets

Later in the meeting, Council received the Pavement Management Plan consultant findings.

This presentation was one of the most important parts of the evening.

The City’s road network had not been comprehensively evaluated since 2016. The new analysis looked at approximately 138.4 centerline miles of City pavement and found a network-wide Pavement Condition Index, or PCI, of 48. That places the City’s road network in the “Poor” category.

More than 55% of the pavement network requires rehabilitation or reconstruction. Residential streets are in the worst condition, with a PCI of 43. Staff also reported that climate-related distresses such as weathering and cracking account for a significant share of observed pavement failures.

The funding gap is stark.

The City currently allocates about $1 million annually for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation. That is only about 15% to 20% of the industry benchmark for a network of this size. Maintaining the current PCI of 47 to 48 would require approximately $8.5 million per year. Improving the network by five PCI points would require approximately $11.6 million per year.

Staff described the strategy as a combination of preserving good and fair roads before they become much more expensive to rebuild, growing crack sealing and chip sealing work, coordinating with Clallam County where possible, using pavement data to prioritize projects, and protecting local funding sources that help leverage state and federal grants.

The Transportation Benefit District is central to that conversation. The 0.2% sales tax expires in 2028. Without renewal, the City’s annual pavement funding would drop dramatically, and the City would also lose local match capacity needed to compete for grants.

But my main takeaway was broader than pavement alone.

My comment: this is an infrastructure maintenance crisis, not only a road problem

During the discussion, I said that the presentation made clear we are at a breaking point with a lot of our infrastructure.

Yes, the roads matter. The pavement data is serious. But the road surface is only one layer of a larger system.

Underneath those streets are water lines, sewer lines, wastewater infrastructure, stormwater systems, and other assets that also age, fail, and become more expensive the longer we wait. Sidewalks, ADA ramps, crossings, bike facilities, trails, and public access infrastructure are also part of the same maintenance reality.

When we talk about pavement, we cannot pretend we are only talking about asphalt.

If a road is failing but a hundred-year-old pipe underneath it also needs replacement, the responsible answer is not always to simply pave the road and move on. That may look good for a few years, but if the City has to tear it up again because the pipe underneath fails, we have not served the public well.

That is why this presentation underscored, for me, a larger infrastructure maintenance crisis facing this Council.

It includes roads.

It includes sidewalks.

It includes sewer and wastewater pipes and lines.

It includes stormwater.

It includes capacity constraints that affect housing.

It includes the utility and transportation systems that have to be in place before we can realistically support growth, redevelopment, and economic development.

Residents often ask why Port Angeles cannot move faster on housing, business growth, street improvements, downtown revitalization, or public amenities. One major answer is that growth requires capacity. If the infrastructure underneath a project is failing, maxed out, or too expensive to serve, then policy goals stay stuck on paper.

That is why I said the conversation needs to happen soon about a broader plan. Costs are not going down. Asphalt is not getting cheaper. Replacing pipes under streets is not getting cheaper. Materials, labor, inflation, and deferred maintenance all move in the wrong direction when we wait.

This does not mean we should act recklessly. It means we need to be honest.

A City cannot grow on top of failing foundations.

The motion on pavement management

After Council discussion, Mayor Dexter made a motion directing staff to incorporate the Pavement Management Plan findings into future budget processes and Capital Facilities Plan updates, and to return to Council with specific project priorities and additional funding alternatives.

The motion passed unanimously.

That was the right next step.

It did not commit the Council to a specific funding source that night. It did not solve the problem in one vote. But it recognized that the pavement report cannot sit on a shelf. The findings need to shape the next budget cycle, the next CFP/TIP update, and the Council’s future conversations about funding, prioritization, and public communication.

Councilmember Miller also raised an important point about timing. Because the Transportation Benefit District expires in 2028, the Council and community will need to begin that conversation well before the deadline. Residents should understand what renewal would mean, what non-renewal would mean, and how local transportation dollars help the City compete for outside grants.

That conversation cannot wait until the last minute.

It will need to be honest, clear, and grounded in the visible condition of our streets and the less visible condition of the infrastructure underneath them.

Why this meeting mattered

The June 2 meeting mattered because it showed the entire infrastructure process in motion.

Residents brought organized testimony and a petition on Ediz Hook.

Futurewise elevated Valley Creek restoration and long-term ecological planning.

Council added a youth baseball and softball facilities assessment to the planning map.

Staff revised a traffic-camera-related project into a school safety lighting project.

The City continued moving sewer rehabilitation and chip seal work forward.

And the pavement management presentation made clear that our street system is underfunded relative to its long-term need.

That is a lot for one meeting.

But it all connects.

A boat launch is not only recreation. It is public access, economic activity, tourism, safety, and coastal identity.

A youth field is not only a park. It is family life, youth development, tournament activity, public health, and community pride.

A road is not only a road. It is a transportation system, a grant strategy, a maintenance liability, and a surface sitting on top of water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure.

A sewer line is not only a pipe. It is housing capacity, environmental protection, public health, and economic development.

That is the interconnected city.

What I took from the meeting

The main lesson I took from June 2 is that Port Angeles needs to keep making infrastructure visible before it fails.

That means showing residents the numbers, even when they are uncomfortable.

It means explaining why some projects are funded and others are not.

It means using the CFP/TIP as a public-facing document, not just a technical binder.

It means taking testimony seriously while respecting the process required to turn public concern into funded, permitted, legally sound projects.

It means recognizing that affordability and investment are not opposites. Sometimes the most expensive option is waiting too long.

And it means being honest that the Council has inherited a long list of needs that cannot be solved with slogans, one-time grants, or short-term fixes.

We need a disciplined, long-term approach.

That approach should include grant readiness, careful use of reserves, honest discussion of local funding tools, continued coordination with the Utility Advisory Committee, close attention to staffing capacity, and a willingness to revisit assumptions when the data shows we need to do more.

Recap of my Council report

During Council Reports, I shared a few updates from recent meetings and community events.

I reported that I attended the Key Leader Conference on May 6. I appreciated the data and perspective shared by Dr. Derek Kilmer, particularly because much of what was presented connected with trends I also see through my work in education.

I also noted my continued participation in the Utility Advisory Committee process, which was especially relevant given the Council’s ongoing review of the CFP/TIP and the broader infrastructure issues discussed during the meeting.

On May 15, I attended the Field Arts & Events Hall gala with my wife. It was my first time attending a circus-style performance, and I appreciated the opportunity to see the acrobatics and community celebration connected to that event.

I also attended Port Angeles High School’s Scholarship Notebook Night on May 22. More than $750,000 in local scholarships was awarded to graduating students, with the total around $761,000. That is a remarkable reflection of how deeply this community invests in young people and their futures. I also recognized the high school administration, staff, donors, and community partners who help make that event possible each year.

On May 27, I participated in a PUD subcommittee meeting with representatives from the City and Clallam County PUD. We discussed joint purchasing opportunities, possible future alternative energy opportunities, Tier 2 power issues, and the value of continuing quarterly meetings. I was glad that conversation happened and felt it was a good start for continued coordination.

Finally, I noted upcoming committee work, including the next Utility Advisory Committee meeting and the upcoming Marine Resources Committee meeting on June 15.

What comes next

The CFP/TIP process is not finished.

The Utility Advisory Committee is scheduled to continue its review on June 9. The public hearing on the CFP/TIP will continue on June 16, when Council is expected to conduct the second review and consider adoption before the state’s June 30 Transportation Improvement Plan deadline.

If you care about Ediz Hook, Valley Creek, youth fields, school safety lighting, pavement management, sewer rehabilitation, sidewalks, public restrooms, trash receptacles, parks, utility rates, or future growth, this is the time to pay attention.

The June 2 meeting showed that infrastructure planning is not abstract.

It is the public record of what we choose to preserve, what we choose to repair, what we choose to prioritize, and what kind of city we are trying to build.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 – Utility Advisory Committee review of the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan.

Next City Council CFP/TIP Hearing: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 – Continued public hearing, second review, and potential adoption of the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan.

Watch the meeting

For readers who would like to watch the full June 2, 2026 Port Angeles City Council meeting, the video is available here:

On Tuesday, May 26, the Port Angeles City Council held a work session focused on one of the most important planning documents the City reviews each year: the Preliminary 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan, usually shortened to CFP/TIP.

This is not the kind of document that usually generates headlines. It is long, technical, and filled with project numbers, funding tables, cash-flow assumptions, replacement schedules, grant references, and department-level priorities. But it is one of the most practical expressions of what local government actually does.

The CFP/TIP is where the City’s long-term goals become pipes, roads, sidewalks, parks, public safety systems, fleet equipment, utility upgrades, environmental projects, and grant-ready investments. It is where the Strategic Plan, Comprehensive Plan, Housing Action Plan, utility planning, budget discipline, and capital strategy all meet the physical reality of Port Angeles.

If the Comprehensive Plan answers the question, “What kind of city are we trying to become?” then the Capital Facilities Plan answers a more concrete question: “What do we need to build, repair, replace, or preserve to make that future possible?”

That is why I believe these work sessions matter. They give the public a chance to see how large municipal decisions are built before they become final votes.

A work session, not a public hearing

The meeting opened with an important clarification from Mayor Dexter. Several residents were present because of interest in the Ediz Hook boat launch. The Mayor explained that this was a work session, meaning there was no public comment period that evening. City Manager Nathan West added that the June 2 Council meeting would include a noticed public hearing, which is legally different from a general public comment period.

That distinction matters. Work sessions allow Councilmembers to ask questions, test assumptions, understand staff recommendations, and discuss policy direction in public. Public hearings are the formal opportunity for residents to provide testimony on the specific item before Council action.

In plain language: May 26 was for Council study and discussion. June 2 and June 16 are where formal public input and Council action enter the process.

That is a good example of process doing what process is supposed to do. Residents were able to attend and listen. Councilmembers were able to ask detailed questions. Staff were able to explain the plan. And the public hearing timeline remained intact.

The fleet update: climate goals meet operational reality

Before moving into the full CFP/TIP presentation, Public Works and Utilities Director Scott Curtin introduced Fleet Manager Brian Coburn for an update on the City’s vehicle replacement strategy.

This may sound like a small topic, but fleet management is a major part of municipal service delivery. Every City department depends on vehicles and equipment to do its work: police vehicles, dump trucks, utility trucks, parks equipment, service vans, snowplows, and specialized vehicles for light operations, water, wastewater, streets, stormwater, and facilities.

Mr. Coburn explained that since the adoption of the Port Angeles Climate Resiliency Plan in 2022, the fleet division has been evaluating opportunities to move toward hybrid and electric vehicles wherever practical. The City now has 11 hybrid vehicles and six fully electric vehicles in service, with more potential hybrid or electric replacements planned where the technology fits the job.

But the presentation was also realistic. Not every municipal vehicle has a workable electric or hybrid option today. Smaller vehicles are where the market is currently most practical. Heavier-duty trucks, including F-550 class utility vehicles and dump trucks, still often require diesel engines because of the work they perform.

That led to one of my first questions of the evening. I asked what happens when a vehicle needs replacement but there is no electric or hybrid option available. Mr. Coburn explained that in those cases the City purchases the most practical conventional vehicle, typically gas for smaller vehicles and diesel for heavier-duty vehicles.

That is the right kind of answer. Climate planning cannot be symbolic. It has to be operational. If an electric or hybrid vehicle can perform the work, reduce fuel use, and fit the City’s infrastructure, we should continue moving in that direction. If the technology is not yet available for the job, the City still has to provide water service, repair roads, plow snow, maintain parks, and respond to emergencies.

The balance is not “climate versus service.” The balance is making the cleanest practical choice that still allows staff to do the work safely and reliably.

Standardizing the fleet: a quiet efficiency gain

A major part of the fleet discussion focused on standardization.

Mr. Coburn explained that years ago the City had five dump trucks that were all different: different years, different brands, different controls, and different parts. Over time, the City has worked to replace those with more uniform vehicles. That matters because these trucks are used for snowplowing and other emergency-response work. When an employee has to get into a truck in the middle of the night, they should not have to spend half an hour learning the controls before they can safely operate it.

Standardization also helps with maintenance. If the City has similar vehicles across the fleet, mechanics can reduce the number of parts and diagnostic systems they need to keep on hand. It also supports faster repairs, lower training complexity, and more predictable operations.

Other Councilmembers asked useful questions about reliability, charging capacity, fuel tracking, and whether the City has reduced or expanded the size of the fleet over time. Staff explained that hybrid vehicles have been dependable, that fully electric vehicles require better charging infrastructure for daily municipal use, and that the City’s fleet has grown in some areas because service demands have grown, especially in utility and public safety functions.

Mayor Dexter also raised a practical workforce-development point. Peninsula College has had automotive training work connected to electric vehicle certification, and if that program is revisited in the future, it may be useful for the City to communicate its fleet-training needs. As more municipalities move toward hybrid and electric vehicles, mechanics will need training that matches the equipment public agencies are actually using. That kind of local alignment between municipal operations and workforce education is worth watching.

The CFP/TIP: the city’s infrastructure instruction manual

After the fleet update, Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa led Council through the preliminary 2027–2032 CFP/TIP.

The document is approximately 400 pages. It covers general government, housing, public safety, parks and recreation, Medic 1, electric, water, wastewater, solid waste, stormwater, equipment services, information technology, and transportation.

Director Carrizosa framed the document clearly. The CFP/TIP is a seven-year plan that does two things at once: it updates the current year’s capital budget and sets the next year’s capital budget. It is also a living document, updated every year as project costs, grant opportunities, staff capacity, Council priorities, and community needs change.

This process is tied to legal and practical requirements. The Growth Management Act requires capital facilities planning. Grant eligibility often depends on having projects properly listed in an adopted plan. And the Transportation Improvement Plan must be filed with the state by June 30.

In other words, this is not just a wishlist. It is a planning, budgeting, grant, and accountability document.

Director Carrizosa also explained what counts as a capital project. For purposes of the CFP/TIP, the City is generally talking about installations, builds, equipment, or assets that last more than one year and exceed $30,000 in cost. Smaller capitalized items still exist in operational budgets, but the CFP/TIP is focused on larger, long-range needs.

That distinction matters because not every important maintenance need appears in this document. Routine maintenance is still essential. But the CFP/TIP is where the larger investments are organized, funded, prioritized, and connected to the City’s long-term plans.

The policy guardrails: affordability, no new debt, and “dig once”

A major theme of the presentation was affordability.

Staff explained that the plan was built around several long-standing Council directives: minimal to no rate impact, cash set aside equal to prior-year depreciation where possible, leveraging projects when possible, no new debt, preventative maintenance, and complete streets.

The “no new debt” direction is especially important. The City currently has capital needs far beyond what local revenues alone can cover. But the plan is intentionally built without adding new debt. Instead, staff are relying on a combination of grants, reserves, utility capital transfers, restricted funds, and careful timing.

That does not mean every future Council will always avoid debt in every circumstance. But it does mean the plan before us was built under the current policy expectation that we should avoid adding debt unless Council changes direction.

The “dig once” principle also came through clearly. If the City knows a water main needs replacement and the street above it also needs work, the goal is to coordinate those projects so we are not tearing up the same road twice. That kind of coordination is not flashy, but it is one of the clearest ways to respect ratepayer and taxpayer dollars.

The numbers: ambitious, grant-dependent, and carefully constrained

The scale of the plan is significant.

Staff presented a capital plan with roughly $223.7 million in planned project costs over the next seven years, not including the full universe of unfunded projects. The broader proposed CFP, including unfunded projects, totals roughly $439.7 million.

The funding picture is just as important. The plan includes approximately $188.2 million in identified funding sources. Of that, about $39 million comes from utility rates, and about $85.3 million is planned from grants. Transportation alone accounts for about $61 million in grant funding. General government projects account for about $11.6 million. Utility grant funding is also included for electric, wastewater, and stormwater projects.

That tells us something important about the City’s financial reality. Port Angeles cannot complete this level of infrastructure work on local dollars alone without unacceptable pressure on taxes, utility rates, or both. Grant readiness is not optional. It is central to the City’s capital strategy.

This is why I keep coming back to the phrase “grant-ready.” A project may not be funded today, but if it is scoped, listed, justified, and tied to an adopted plan, the City is much better positioned when state or federal funding becomes available.

Staff also noted that the plan does not include additional rate increases beyond what was already built into the adopted plan. That is a major point. There are scheduled utility-related increases in the plan, but staff worked to avoid adding new increases beyond the existing framework.

For residents, especially seniors, families, small businesses, and people living on fixed incomes, that distinction matters. Capital planning should not be disconnected from household affordability.

2025 accomplishments: work already completed

Before discussing future projects, staff reviewed what was completed in 2025.

The City completed 30 projects totaling approximately $16.6 million and came in about $4.7 million under budget. Staff emphasized that those savings do not disappear. They are carried back into the plan and used for continued capital needs.

Completed work included general government, IT, electric, stormwater, wastewater, solid waste, water, and transportation projects. Examples included Civic Field improvements, aluminum bleacher upgrades, neighborhood park improvements, data and security improvements, LED traffic signal conversion, the decant facility, the Elwha River Ranney Reach habitat restoration, Marine Drive paving, 8th Street paving, chip seals, and signal controller upgrades on First and Front.

That is the practical side of the CFP/TIP. It is easy to look at a long list of future needs and feel overwhelmed. But every year, projects do get completed. Roads are paved. Utility systems are improved. Parks are upgraded. Public safety equipment is replaced. Environmental restoration moves forward.

The work is incremental, but it is real.

The top 25: what rises to the front

One of the most useful additions to this year’s presentation was a citywide “top 25” project list.

Director Carrizosa explained that the list is not a simple ranking from one to 25. Instead, it identifies projects citywide that will be prioritized over other planned projects because of timing, funding, importance, need, and staff resources.

The list includes several projects that residents will recognize: the EOC/911 Dispatch Center, Ocean View Cemetery columbarium expansion, Ediz Hook boat launch repairs, the housing pipeline pilot project, Critchfield Road three-phase reconductor, utility fiber network, water treatment transmission main replacement, A Street improvements, wastewater treatment plant HVAC replacement, neighborhood sewer rehabilitation, recycling processing center, ERP roadmap and replacement, city-owned fiber optics, Truck Route at Highway 101 intersection, N Street reconstruction, First/Front pedestrian enhancements, and 8th/10th Street bike lanes.

This list helps residents understand what the City is trying to move first. It also helps Council see the plan as a whole instead of only by fund type or department.

Other Councilmembers generally expressed appreciation for having a clearer priority list and raised questions about document usability, project categories, and how unfunded projects might be better organized in the future. I agree with that direction. A long plan becomes much easier to understand when residents can see which projects are most likely to move first and why.

My questions: schools, sewer, electric capacity, and the waterfront

When it was my turn, I focused on four main areas: transportation near the new school construction areas, sewer rehabilitation, electric capacity on the west side of the city, and waterfront stewardship.

I asked these questions because the CFP/TIP should not be read as a set of isolated projects. A street project may also be a school safety project. A sewer project may also be a housing and environmental protection project. An electric utility project may also be an economic development project. A waterfront project may also be a cultural, ecological, and public-access project.

That is how I tried to approach the discussion.

Transportation and school safety

First, I asked about the Transportation Improvement Plan and whether projects near the new school construction areas, including Porter Street and Park Avenue, could be prioritized in connection with the school projects.

My concern is straightforward: when schools are rebuilt or expanded, traffic flow, walkability, and student safety should be part of the larger conversation. We should be asking whether the surrounding streets, sidewalks, crossings, and traffic-calming tools are ready for the way families, students, buses, and staff will actually use that area.

City Engineer Jonathan Boehme gave a helpful explanation of how transportation projects are prioritized. He explained that the City must match projects to grant programs. Some grants are better suited for full reconstruction. Others are better for pavement preservation. Often, the City may only receive one grant at a time from a particular program, so projects are staged based on eligibility, grant competitiveness, road condition, and staff capacity.

For example, he explained that Porter Street may fit well with a Transportation Improvement Board grant, but timing depends on other current and upcoming projects, including N Street and other grant cycles. Park Avenue, while rough from a rideability standpoint, may not yet be in the same structural failure category as roads that need full reconstruction.

That answer helped me better understand the logic behind the project timing. It also reinforced why I asked the question publicly. The reasoning is not always obvious from the table in the document. Residents should be able to hear why one street moves first and another waits.

This is also a good example of why public work sessions matter. A project list can tell you what is planned. A public discussion can explain why.

Sewer rehabilitation and avoiding preventable failure

Second, I raised sewer rehabilitation.

This remains one of my highest concerns. Sewer rehabilitation is not just about replacing old pipe. It is about capacity, public health, environmental protection, and avoiding emergency failures that cost far more than planned replacement.

I specifically referenced the kind of expensive emergency situation we saw when infrastructure fails and leaves the City with a major hole in the ground and a major bill attached to it. Planned rehabilitation is not cheap, but emergency replacement is often far more expensive, disruptive, and risky.

For me, sewer rehabilitation connects directly to several Council priorities. It supports housing because new housing cannot be built responsibly without adequate wastewater capacity. It supports environmental stewardship because failing sewer infrastructure can threaten waterways and public health. It supports fiscal responsibility because repairing infrastructure before catastrophic failure is generally more responsible than waiting until the system breaks.

Director Curtin later provided good news. Because the City received favorable bids on the A Street Basin project, some freed-up dollars may allow the City to award additional alternates connected to sewer rehabilitation. That means we may gain additional lineal footage of sewer rehab work because of competitive bid savings.

That is exactly how capital planning should work: when savings appear, use them strategically to address the next highest related need.

West End electric capacity and future growth

Third, I asked about the West End Urban Growth Area substation and why the transmission portion remains unfunded while other parts of the project move into later years.

This is a technical question, but it matters. The west side of Port Angeles is increasingly important for economic development, industrial activity, and future commercial capacity. If we want businesses to grow, if we want industrial land to be useful, and if we want the City to be ready for future demand, electric infrastructure has to be part of the conversation early.

City Engineer Boehme explained that substations involve long lead times. The City first needs to determine design, service area, scale, location, and real estate needs. Equipment procurement can then take three to four years. While that is underway, the City can focus on site preparation and later transmission infrastructure. The transmission component is more straightforward once funding is available.

That explanation was useful because it showed that the unfunded status of one component does not necessarily mean the City is ignoring the need. In this case, the project has to move through stages: planning, siting, design, procurement, equipment delivery, site preparation, and then transmission work.

I asked this because I believe we need to keep electric capacity on the radar as part of long-term economic resilience. Growth does not happen only through zoning changes or business recruitment. It also depends on whether the underlying utility systems are ready.

Pebble Beach and waterfront stewardship

Fourth, I raised Pebble Beach and waterfront stewardship.

The waterfront is one of our defining public assets. As downtown activity increases and the Olympic Discovery Trail continues to serve residents and visitors, shoreline spaces like Pebble Beach matter even more. I asked why the project is currently unfunded and whether we should consider elevating its priority.

City Manager West explained that the need may come forward sooner than originally anticipated. Based on earlier coastal engineering advice, beach nourishment was expected to be needed over a longer time period, but current conditions suggest that nourishment may be needed sooner.

I also noted the cultural significance of the area to the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe and the importance of thinking about partnership, access, and long-term stewardship. Our waterfront is not simply a recreational amenity. It is a cultural, ecological, transportation, tourism, and community identity corridor.

That is why I believe projects like Pebble Beach should be viewed through a broader lens. They are not only parks projects. They are resilience projects. They are access projects. They are stewardship projects. They are part of how we preserve the shoreline while keeping it meaningful and usable for the community.

Housing pipeline, Valley Creek, Ediz Hook, and cameras

Other Councilmembers raised several additional topics that deserve public attention, even though I want to keep the main focus of this recap on the questions I asked and why I asked them.

One discussion focused on the multifamily housing pilot project at 935 West 10th Street. Staff explained that the City received a $1.9 million state capital budget appropriation, accepted the grant from the Department of Commerce, and purchased the property for the pilot project. Staff are now working through proposal evaluation and price negotiation for design work.

The importance of that project is that it is not only about one site. The goal is to design a multifamily, multi-story, potentially mixed-use project and generate plans that can help future developers build similar housing elsewhere in the city. That is how housing policy begins to move from concept to implementation.

Council also discussed Valley Creek restoration, which remains unfunded. Staff explained that the City has continued conversations with the Port and Futurewise, but other watershed priorities are currently ahead of Valley Creek, including the Elwha and Ennis Creek corridors. The estimated timeline may be several years out.

The Ediz Hook boat launch also received attention. Staff explained that the January 2024 disaster led to a FEMA project. The City currently has funding for design but not construction. Staff are preparing an RFP for architectural and engineering services to develop bid-ready construction documents. A key limitation is that FEMA generally funds replacement of what existed before, not necessarily a redesigned or relocated facility. If the final design includes improvements beyond what existed previously, there may be a City or sponsor share.

Councilmember Suggs also emphasized that Ediz Hook may be an opportunity for partnership with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. I agree with the importance of that frame. Ediz Hook is not just a recreational asset. It is a working shoreline, a public access point, a Coast Guard resource, a fishing access point, and a place with deep cultural and ecological significance.

Council also discussed public safety cameras and traffic safety cameras. Staff clarified that the public safety camera project in the IT section is a replacement of existing city-owned cameras that no longer function, not an expansion of a new third-party surveillance system. Separately, concern was raised about the traffic safety camera program, including questions about data ownership, access, and community trust.

Those distinctions matter. Public infrastructure discussions often get blurred together under the word “camera.” But the details matter: who owns the system, what the purpose is, where it is located, how data is stored, how long it is retained, and who can access it.

General Council discussion: usability, stewardship, and unfunded projects

The rest of the Council discussion generally focused on how to make the CFP/TIP more understandable and more useful as a public document.

Councilmembers raised questions about the top 25 list, how projects are organized, whether page numbers could be added to project tables, whether digital versions could link to referenced studies, and whether the City should consider clearer categories for joint projects or stewardship projects.

I think those are important transparency questions. A plan may be technically complete, but if residents and Councilmembers struggle to navigate it, the public value of the document is reduced.

There was also discussion about the large unfunded project list. The CFP/TIP includes many projects that are identified as necessary but do not yet have secured funding. That is valuable because it keeps needs visible and helps the City pursue grants. But if the list becomes too broad, it may become harder to see which projects are close to actionable, which are long-term aspirations, and which need further study before they can move.

A tiered unfunded project list could help with that. For example, the City could distinguish between projects that are ready for grant pursuit, projects that need more scoping, and projects that remain long-range concepts. That kind of clarity would help the public understand not just what is unfunded, but how close each project is to becoming real.

Councilmember Hodgson was absent from the work session due to illness.

What I took from the work session

The May 26 work session reinforced several key points for me.

First, Port Angeles is trying to do a lot with limited resources. The plan is ambitious, but it is also constrained by affordability, staffing capacity, grant timing, and existing policy direction.

Second, grant readiness is central to our future. Many of the projects residents care about most will not happen quickly unless the City is ready to compete for state and federal funds when they become available.

Third, infrastructure is connected. Sewer rehabilitation supports housing and harbor protection. Transportation projects support school safety and economic development. Electric capacity supports future industrial and commercial growth. Waterfront projects support ecology, tourism, culture, public access, and tribal partnership.

Fourth, public trust depends on making these systems understandable. Residents should not need to be engineers or budget analysts to understand why projects move forward, why some wait, and how the City pays for them.

Finally, affordability has to remain at the center of the conversation. Every project has a cost. Every delay can also have a cost. The Council’s job is to weigh both honestly.

What comes next

The process is not finished.

The first public hearing and first reading of the CFP/TIP resolution are scheduled for June 2. The Utility Advisory Committee will continue its review on June 9. The second public hearing and possible Council adoption are scheduled for June 16, ahead of the state’s June 30 deadline for the Transportation Improvement Plan.

If you care about Ediz Hook, sewer rehabilitation, street safety, public restrooms, trash receptacles, housing infrastructure, parks, shoreline stewardship, utility rates, or the future of Port Angeles, this is a good time to pay attention.

The CFP/TIP is not the most dramatic document the Council reviews. But it may be one of the most consequential.

It is the blueprint underneath the city we experience every day.

Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 – Regular City Council Meeting, including the first public hearing and first reading of the 2027–2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan resolution.

Every week in this newsletter, we pull back the curtain on the technical and structural machinery of local government. We map out wastewater grids, evaluate 6-year Capital Facilities blueprints, track past-due utility debt data, and debate code enforcement triage scripts. It is a world measured in line-by-line metrics and immediate policy outcomes.

But the calendar routinely provides natural inflection points that encourage us to step back from the immediacy of the council floor.

Today is Memorial Day. Across our neighborhoods, the day is naturally marked by family gatherings, open highways, and time spent along our shorelines. The ability to enjoy this level of peace, local safety, and neighborhood stability is the primary indicator of a community built to thrive. For a local representative, looking into our shared history during these milestones isn’t about looking backward for its own sake—it is about understanding the invisible foundation upon which all our modern civic infrastructure rests.

The Triangle of Fire and Salt Creek: Blueprints of Structural Foresight

A clear physical reminder of our region’s military history sits directly along our coastlines. Because the geography of the Olympic Peninsula has always positioned us as the frontline gateway to the Pacific Northwest, our shores were chosen to host some of the most complex coastal defense networks in American history.

Just to our east, guarding the strategic entrance of Admiralty Inlet, sits the concrete and mortar of the late-19th-century defense grid known historically as the “Triangle of Fire.” Constructed under the federal Endicott Program to protect the maritime shipyards and growing civilian populations of the Puget Sound, this network relied on three interconnected military installations designed to operate as a single, coordinated tactical unit.

Fort Worden

Serving as the strategic anchor and designated tactical command headquarters of the entire harbor defense network, construction began in 1897. Its bluffs were engineered to house 41 artillery pieces across 12 distinct concrete batteries. Its primary tactical vector was commanding the open waters stretching from the New Dungeness line across the shipping channels, utilizing massive 12-inch disappearing guns designed to rise above the parapets, fire, and immediately retreat into reinforced positions below.

Fort Flagler

Activated on Marrowstone Island in 1899, Flagler was armed with an array of 10-inch and 12-inch long-range weaponry and subterranean mortar batteries. Its placement was mathematically calculated to create a lethal crossfire with Whidbey Island, covering the critical shipping vectors stretching past Admiralty Inlet and the low-lying sand spit.

Fort Casey

Positioned across the inlet to anchor the eastern point of the defensive triad, this fort utilized high bluffs to command clear sightlines over the shipping lanes. Its matching batteries of disappearing guns and mortar pits locked down the final leg of the crossfire network, creating an impenetrable wall of harbor defense.

Camp Hayden

As military strategies modernized, this defensive perimeter was pushed even further west to guard the very approach to our harbor. In 1941, just 15 miles west of Port Angeles, the military established the Striped Peak Military Reservation—later renamed Camp Hayden (now known as the Salt Creek Recreation Area).

Built to secure the outer straight, this installation was anchored by Battery 131, which housed two massive, ex-Navy 16-inch Mark 2 guns shielded inside heavily reinforced concrete casemates. Connected by an expansive subterranean magazine bunker, these guns were capable of hurling a one-ton projectile 28 miles out into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Paired with the 6-inch guns of Battery 249, Salt Creek stood as the raw mechanical vanguard of our coastal grid.

When you walk through the silent, weathered gun casemates of Fort Worden, Fort Flagler, or Salt Creek today, the physical structures provide a powerful lesson in infrastructure. They stand as monuments to a fundamental governance reality: maintaining a stable society requires deep structural foresight, immense resources, and a collective willingness to build fortifications for challenges we hope we never have to face.

The Homefront Matrix: Coordinated Local Resilience

This legacy of protective vigilance sits directly within the soil of Port Angeles itself. Following the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the vulnerability of the Pacific coast became an immediate reality. The Strait of Juan de Fuca was suddenly a potential highway for hostile naval forces, and our local community immediately mobilized to protect the homefront grid.

Local records from December 1941 document an extraordinary, grassroots coordination between ordinary citizens and active military personnel. Local residents formed a disciplined volunteer defense guard, taking up strategic positions along our waterfront and establishing 24-hour observation posts on our urban bluffs and along Ediz Hook to scan the horizons. Main Street shopkeepers, mill workers, and loggers rotated through grueling overnight watches in freezing coastal winter conditions, working alongside municipal crews to coordinate strict blackout drills across our industrial harbor.

Concurrently, active-duty personnel stationed on our shores went onto an immediate war footing. The U.S. Coast Guard personnel at Air Station Port Angeles on Ediz Hook anchored our local maritime patrol grid, flying continuous anti-submarine warfare patrols and surveillance sweeps over the Strait to intercept potential threats before they could penetrate our inner waterways.

These volunteers and service members demonstrated a trait that Port Angelinos display on a daily basis: perseverance, resilience, and an innate understanding that the safety of the whole depends entirely on the individual willingness of neighbors to serve a cause greater than themselves.

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                           1. THE THREAT VECTOR                            │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Pearl Harbor surprise attack creates an acute, immediate security risk    │
│ along the open marine corridor of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.             │
└─────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────┘
                                      │
                                      ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┐
│                           2. THE OPERATIONAL CORE                         │
├──────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────┤
│        THE CIVILIAN RESPONSE         │       THE OPERATIONAL SHIELD       │
├──────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Ordinary Port Angeles residents form │ USCG Air Station Port Angeles      │
│ a disciplined Volunteer Defense      │ coordinates continuous anti-       │
│ Guard, standing 24-hour winter watch │ submarine sweeps directly          │
│ scopes along city bluffs, waterfront │ overhead, locking down the outer   │
│ docks, and commercial sectors.       │ boundaries of the harbor entrance. │
└──────────────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────────────┘
                                      │
                                      ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┐
│                         3. THE STRUCTURAL ENDORSEMENT                     │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ A safe, stable, and resilient municipal baseline that allowed our local   │
│ economy and neighborhoods to grow unimpeded.                              │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Human Dimension: Lineage of Local Valor

To truly understand Memorial Day on the Peninsula, we must look past the physical infrastructure and focus entirely on the human element. The North Olympic Peninsula has been home to exceptional individuals who received our nation’s highest military decoration for valor: the Medal of Honor. Their personal accounts highlight the deep perseverance that anchors our community lineage.

Francis A. Bishop

Consider the story of Francis A. Bishop, who served as a Union Army soldier in Company C of the 57th Pennsylvania Infantry during the American Civil War. At the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House on May 12, 1864, Private Bishop demonstrated exceptional bravery by rushing forward ahead of his line to capture a Confederate battle flag. Decades later, he relocated to the Pacific Northwest, making his home on the Peninsula. He belonged to a generation of veterans whose presence helped anchor our early regional communities, demonstrating that the grit required to build a city is forged in a willingness to look out for the person next to you.

Richard B. Anderson

Decades later, that torch of individual sacrifice was carried into the Pacific theater of World War II by Richard B. Anderson. Raised on the Peninsula and attending Sequim High School, Anderson joined the U.S. Marine Corps as a Private First Class. On February 1, 1944, during the assault on Roi Island, Kwajalein Atoll, Anderson was hunting enemy snipers from a shell crater alongside three other Marines when an activated grenade slipped from his hands. With only seconds on the fuse, he chose an act of absolute selflessness: he threw his own body directly onto the grenade, absorbing the blast to shield his companions from certain death. Today, his memory is woven into the very fabric of our civic core; the Port Angeles Federal Building was formally renamed the Richard B. Anderson Federal Building to remind us of the real human cost of our continuous security.

Marvin G. Shields

That legacy extended into the Vietnam War through Marvin G. Shields, born and raised in Port Townsend. Serving as a Construction Mechanic Third Class with Navy Seabee Team 1104, Shields was stationed at Dong Xoai on June 10, 1965, when a massive enemy assault pinned down their compound. Despite being heavily wounded twice early in the multi-hour firefight, Shields spent hours moving completely exposed through open ground to resupply ammunition and carry wounded men to safety. When an enemy machine-gun nest threatened to wipe out the entire compound, Shields volunteered to advance directly into intense fire with a rocket launcher, successfully destroying the emplacement and saving dozens of lives before succumbing to his wounds. He remains the only Navy Seabee to ever receive the Medal of Honor.

How History Informs Modern Civic Stewardship

When I read these names and study the blueprints of our regional defense installations, it directly informs my work, direction, and hopes for the future of Port Angeles.

In public service, it is easy to view peace, financial stability, and public safety as static assets—things we simply inherit, like a pre-existing land parcel or an underlying water right. But true stewardship means recognizing that a stable society is a dynamic, fragile inheritance. It is an ongoing contract between the past, the present, and the future.

Our responsibility to those who served before us isn’t fully discharged by standard observations. Our real work is found in how we treat and maintain the communities they left behind.

┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                             1. THE FOUNDATION                             │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Historic individual sacrifices establish a secure envelope for public     │
│ life.                                                                     │
└─────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────┘
                                      │
                                      ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┐
│                             2. THE FRAMEWORK                              │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Stable municipal structures allow for local self-governance, predictable  │
│ commerce, and public safety.                                              │
└─────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────┘
                                      │
                                      ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┐
│                               3. THE DUTY                                 │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Present-day operational maintenance—such as protecting working families   │
│ from utility rate shocks and expanding utility capacities responsibly—     │
│ preserves that framework for the next generation.                         │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

When we commit ourselves to the demanding work of local governance—when we analyze long-range Capital Facilities plans to insulate working families from sudden utility rate hikes, build transparent public safety protocols, protect our marine nearshore habitats, and engage in respectful public discourse—we are actively validating that history. We are declaring that the local democracy and community stability they protected is worth the heavy lifting required to sustain it today.

This connects directly to the “prevention science” frameworks we reviewed earlier this month at our regional Key Leader Gathering. The underlying data proves that a city’s health is directly tied to its sense of collective efficacy—the shared belief that neighbors can and will coordinate to look out for one another for the benefit of the whole.

Whether it was volunteers standing watch on our bluffs in December 1941, or modern residents working together to navigate complex socio-economic challenges on our streets today, being part of something bigger than ourselves is how we maintain what we have.

An Overview of the Coming Week

Once the holiday concludes, the practical work of municipal stewardship resumes immediately. This coming week features several high-stakes operational touchpoints that represent our ongoing work to strengthen our local foundation:

• PAHS Scholarship Night: This past Wednesday, I had the honor of attending the Port Angeles High School Scholarship Night at the auditorium to celebrate our graduating seniors. Witnessing our local civic groups, families, and businesses invest $750,000+ directly into the higher education, military, and trade paths of our youth was an extraordinary display of community continuity.

• May 26th City Council Work Session: Tomorrow evening, Council will convene for a specialized work session focusing on the Capital Facilities Plan.

• May 27th Joint City-Clallam PUD Subcommittee: On Wednesday, I will participate in our inaugural joint subcommittee session between the City of Port Angeles and Clallam PUD.

Final Thoughts

As you spend this Memorial Day with your family, friends, and loved ones, I hope you take a quiet moment to look out at our city and appreciate the extraordinary peace we enjoy. Let us resolve to keep Port Angeles a community worthy of the deep sacrifices made on our behalf.

To the Gold Star families in our midst, and to every resident who carries the live memory of a fallen loved one: our city stands with you, remembers with you, and remains profoundly in your debt.

Have a safe, meaningful, and reflective Memorial Day.

My digital door and my inbox remain open. If you want to discuss upcoming utility updates, city work plans, or local history, please reach out to me directly at jhamilton@cityofpa.us.

If you want to understand the true posture of a community, don’t look at it when its chambers are quiet. Look at it when the room is packed, when the public comment clock is ticking, and when the friction between long-term economic development and immediate localized anxieties is fully exposed on the floor.

This Tuesday, May 19th, the Port Angeles City Council met for an exhaustive, high-stakes session that pushed directly against our adjournment limits. The chambers were filled with intense public testimony covering everything from industrial shoreline preservation to the metrics of accountability governing our public spaces.

As your representative in Position 7, I believe my job isn’t just to cast a vote and walk away. My job is to give you a transparent, line-by-line breakdown of how the mechanisms of government operated, exactly what decisions were made, and precisely why I voted the way I did.

Part I: The Administrative Consent Agenda

The evening began with a massive, front-loaded Consent Agenda containing several structural contracts and legislative first readings. Per standard procedure, items on the consent agenda are approved in a single, block vote unless pulled for independent council discussion.

The Council successfully approved several baseline items:

• Expenditure Approvals: Funding allocations spanning April 25 to May 8, 2026, totaling $2,172,281.32.

• The 2026 Budget Amendment No. 1 (Ordinance Adoption): Formally adopting budget updates on a second reading to formalize outside funding allocations.

• Infrastructure & Power Extensions: Moving forward with the Critchfield Road three-phase power extension contract (CON-2026-04) and the body construction contract (TR-071680AP).

• Environmental Data Contracts: Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with AKS Engineering & Forestry for the 2026 Urban Tree Canopy and Stream Assessment.

Note: Multiple council members actively attempted to add several high-priority items from Section I (specifically the 24-hour Public Restroom Program, the Trash Receptacle Expansion Memo, and the Behavioral Health Field Response Review) directly onto the consent agenda block to fast-track their approval. However, these attempts were formally denied by other members of the Council who insisted that these critical public safety and public health items be kept off the consent agenda to guarantee independent, transparent floor debate later in the evening.

Part II: Street Vacation STV 26-0045 (Brix Marine Expansion)

The first discussion of the evening centered on Item G-4, a petition by the Port of Port Angeles to vacate approximately 5,000 square feet of an unimproved, unopened city right-of-way between Marine Drive and West 4th Street within Block 105. The vacation was requested to absorb the sliver of land into adjacent port-owned heavy industrial property to facilitate a major boat-manufacturing facility expansion for Brix Marine.

Public Comment

Public testimony centered around two different perspectives from residents and community leaders. Upland residents living along the 170-foot-high marine bluff shared deep anxieties regarding geotechnical stability, real-time vibration tracking, and lateral earth pressures on the outcropping below their homes. They raised valid historical red flags regarding slope saturation along the 42-inch stormwater conveyance easement running directly through the vacation zone.

Conversely, regional economic leaders, including the Clallam County Economic Development Council (EDC) and Port Commissioners, strongly urged approval. They emphasized the project’s capacity to anchor up to 50 family-wage maritime jobs within the urban core—aligning directly with the region’s federal Recompete economic revitalization targets.

The Legislative Distinction

Staff and the independent Hearing Examiner delivered a critical legal reminder: a street vacation is purely a property-status alteration. It changes a public right-of-way into private or port land at full appraised market value; it is not an explicit construction authorization or a waiver of environmental oversight.

Future construction remains fully bound to independent Type I and Type II permitting tiers—including the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Critical Areas Ordinances, and Shoreline Substantial Development Permits. Furthermore, Courtney Bornsworth, our natural resources grant administrator in the Community & Economic Development (CED) department, verified that extensive mitigating conditions—including strict 50-foot slope setbacks and deep foundation pinning designs—remain legally baked into adjacent permit files.

Why I Voted “Yes”

When the motion was made to adopt the ordinance and waive the second reading, I voted in the affirmative.

My vote was driven by a clear policy philosophy: we must be predictable partners in sustainable economic development while preserving non-negotiable environmental baselines. On the floor, I noted that I read the Hearing Examiner’s findings thoroughly and felt comfortable that all baseline legal criteria for right-of-way disposal had been verified. However, I explicitly stated that my support was strictly limited to the property vacation element itself. I made it clear that I expect absolute, unyielding enforcement of our environmental and critical area protections when the downstream permitting documents hit our desks for final construction authorization. We can build living-wage jobs and protect our marine bluffs simultaneously; our professional staff has the technical expertise and the regulatory teeth to guarantee it.

The motion passed 6-1, with Deputy Mayor Navarra Carr dissenting over environmental concerns.

Part III: Public Comment on Section I (Homelessness & Public Space Stability)

Before the Council began independent floor debate on the 120-Day Stability Framework return items, we listened to extensive, highly charged public testimony focused entirely on Section I. Because our full 415-page city council agenda packet had been published and available for public review, community stakeholders from across the political spectrum arrived prepared to shape our baseline perspectives.

The public testimony put the community’s competing realities on full display:

• The Neighborhood and Business Perspective: Several downtown residents, property owners, and local merchants expressed severe exhaustion regarding unmanaged neighborhood encampments. They shared that the historical “whack-a-mole” method of shifting issues across neighborhoods was fundamentally failing both unhoused individuals and the public. They strongly urged the Council to enforce city ordinances, use this meeting to re-establish trust with the community, while also voicing deep caution regarding where any potential “managed sheltering site” might eventually be situated under the proposed RFP framework.

• The Humanitarian and Human-Centric Perspective: Representatives from local non-profit networks and community advocates reminded the Council that a managed shelter or safe parking site cannot simply be a designated patch of dirt. It must be paired with intensive human resources—including direct wrap-around medical pipelines, behavioral health support networks, and controlled utility infrastructure. They explicitly cautioned that rigid mass-cleanup timelines or administrative compliance barriers must not inadvertently create an inequitable burden for disabled or extremely vulnerable unhoused individuals.

Hearing this raw, directional feedback directly before our floor deliberation provided an invaluable layer of accountability, ensuring our programmatic guardrails matched our residents’ lived experiences.

Part IV: The 120-Day Stability Framework Underway

The Council then transitioned into the heavy core of the evening: working through the return items linked to the public space stability framework initiated on April 7th.

Item I-1: Managed Sheltering RFP Authorization

Staff returned with a comprehensive draft Request for Proposals (RFP) designed to solicit competitive bids from qualified non-profit providers to operate a three-year pilot managed sheltering or safe parking program. The framework mandates strict baseline parameters, including 24/7 site security, controlled entry, secure asset storage, and integrated utility infrastructure (bathrooms, showers, laundry).

• Why I Voted “Yes”: I fully backed the motion to launch the RFP. However, I used my time on the floor to be entirely blunt about the fiscal parameters. Our full 415-page agenda packet makes it clear that our budget currently contains zero dollars programmed for this operation.

  I explicitly stated to the room that my long-term support for whatever bids return to this council is fundamentally and extensively linked to our regional accountability conversations. Port Angeles cannot, and will not, carry the fiscal burden of a regional humanitarian crisis alone. The county must step up as an active financial partner to fund a portion of this infrastructure, ensuring we do not create an unfunded mandate that drains our local general fund or forces utility rate shocks onto our local ratepayers. The RFP passed unanimously.

Item I-2: The Public-Facing Encampment Response SOP

Chief Brian Smith presented a detailed triage script mapping out department responses across public rights-of-way, facilities, and public parks.

• Why I Voted “Yes”: This SOP delivers the exact black-and-white predictability the community has requested. I supported the memo, but pushed staff on the floor to expand its operational boundaries.

  I stated that to make this truly transparent, we must completely re-imagine our online Public Nuisance Complaint Form. It cannot remain a bureaucratic black box where citizens submit a concern and hear nothing back. We need a modern tracking ticket system where the public can see exactly who is assigned, where it stands in the triage process, and how it is resolved. Transparency builds civic trust.

Item I-4: The Trash Receptacle Resource Chokepoint

Parks Director Corey Delikat’s report brought a sobering dose of operational reality to the floor: our maintenance teams service 156 public trash receptacles along a grueling 33-mile route every single day of the year. Yet, our park maintenance staff size has remained completely flat since 1991, despite the city adding 18 massive new civic facilities over the last 35 years.

• Why I Voted “Yes”: I enthusiastically supported moving this item to a formal Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) review. As I shared on the floor, we cannot keep expecting our staff to do more with less. It is an issue of workplace safety and structural liability to have our crews manually lifting chest-high 55-gallon bags into flatbeds next to active vehicle traffic. We need automated, mechanical, and modernized collection innovations before we blindly add more physical cans to the map. Approved unanimously.

Item I-3: The 24-hour Public Restroom Program

The Council reviewed the capital plan to systematically swap out failing, 60-year-old concrete restrooms with modern, prefabricated 24-hour configurations, with Erickson Playfield and Ediz Hook solidified as the next two installation targets.

• Why I Voted “Yes”: Public sanitation is a core pillar of community health and environmental protection. If we do not fund the physical infrastructure for basic human sanitation in public zones, we face severe contamination fallout in our business districts and park ravines.

  Council member Miller introduced a successful motion instructing staff to evaluate expanding our personnel capacity (FTEs) in the 2027 budget to properly manage this expanding infrastructure, which I strongly backed. Furthermore, during our floor debate, I brought forward an innovative infrastructural recommendation directly rooted in the recent April 16, 2026 Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Commission meeting. I suggested that rather than continuing our reactive, high-maintenance approach to traditional commercial plumbing, the city must look at adopting industrial toilet grinder/macerator technologies—a solution raised by one of our commission members last month. If we reframe public restrooms as a non-negotiable public health utility rather than a basic amenity, we must integrate hardened, automated mechanical systems that can process waste efficiently, withstand high-volume public usage, and minimize the operational downtime forced onto our short-staffed maintenance crews. Staff was directed to explore these engineering opportunities moving forward. Approved unanimously.

Items I-5 & I-6: Postponed for Strategy Alignment

Recognizing that we were rapidly approaching our hard 10:00 p.m. adjournment limit, the Council enacted a two-part procedural pivot to preserve complete strategic alignment:

• Item I-5 (Behavioral Health Field Response Review): Deputy Mayor Navarra Carr introduced suggested to postpone the dispatch response analysis to allow for a dedicated, separate council conversation.

• Item I-6 (Regional Cost-Sharing MOU Options): I suggested and initiated the postponement of this regional funding item. As the original intent of the motion was to bring back this motion in September, I felt it was appropriate to re-visit this motion as a future council meeting.

The Dictated Council Report (What I Would Have Said)

Because our intense policy debates ran right up to our structural time limit, the traditional “Council Reports” period was waived at the end of Tuesday night’s session to allow the staff to go home. However, civic accountability doesn’t pause when the gavel drops.

Below is the transcript of what I intended to read into the official public record during my designated report block:

As always, my digital door and my inbox remain completely open to your feedback, concerns, and insights. If you want to discuss the mechanics of the Encampment SOP, track the progress of the sheltering RFP, or dive deeper into our utility metrics, please reach out to me directly at jhamilton@cityofpa.us.

When we look out across the Strait of Juan de Fuca from our vantage point in Port Angeles, it is easy to view the waterfront simply as a scenic backdrop. But to anyone involved in public policy or environmental science, that shoreline represents something far more critical: it is the literal ecological buffer of the Olympic Peninsula.

This Monday, May 18th, I attended the monthly hybrid meeting of the Clallam County Marine Resources Committee (MRC) from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. To keep my promise of complete municipal transparency, today’s long-read will move line-by-line through the official agenda items, culminating in a scientific deep dive into the foundational cornerstone of our marine food web: forage fish.

Part I: The Administrative Framework (Agenda Items 1–6)

1. Call to Order, Introductions, and Quorum

The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair LaTrisha Suggs. Staff conducted a comprehensive roll call spanning the academic community, conservation interests, the development sector, tribal natural resource representatives (including the Jamestown S’Klallam and Lower Elwha Klallam tribes), and city representatives. A functional legislative quorum was officially determined.

2. Public Comment on Agenda Items

Per standard transparency guidelines, an open block was provided for initial public testimony. There were no community members present in the courthouse chambers or waiting in the active Zoom digital queue to comment on specific agenda elements, and the committee transitioned smoothly to regular business.

3. Approval of Minutes

The official minutes from the April regular session were reviewed by the committee. No corrections or amendments were brought forward, and the historical record was approved as written.

4. New or Special Business: Election of Officers

A core operational requirement for the evening was the annual selection of leadership roles. The committee conducted structured nominations and successfully finalized appointments for the upcoming year:

• Chairperson: LaTrisha Suggs

• Vice-Chairperson: Alan Clark

• Northwest Straits Commission (NWSC) Representative: Alan Clark

5. Announcements & Regional Updates

The announcements block featured two critical informational items that highlight our region’s shifting maritime landscape:

• Float Plane Application: The committee noted a pending application submitted to the City of Port Angeles for a commercial float plane service and accompanying docking ramp near the urban core.

• NWSC Commission Planning: NWSC Representative Alan Clark provided the regional update. Clallam County is actively slated to host the full Northwest Straits Commission meeting this July. Committee members were requested to coordinate with staff regarding local presentation logistics and field site tours. Additionally, members were urged to RSVP for the upcoming Olympia Oyster monitoring days scheduled for June 1–3 under the direction of project leads.

6. Committee and Project Reports

The administrative section concluded with subcommittee reports. The committee noted the official resignation of Mike Doherty, leaving a vacant seat on the Advisory sub-committee that will need to be filled by a qualified regional stakeholder in upcoming sessions. The Education and Outreach subcommittee also noted they are successfully mapping out summer engagement pipelines.

The Deep Dive: Forage Fish and Nearshore Health

The emotional and intellectual core of the meeting arrived during the project updates, led by a featured data presentation from Chelsea Korbulic and Tim Cochnauer regarding our local forage fish community science efforts.

To understand why this work is so vital, we have to look past the large, charismatic megafauna of the Pacific Northwest—the killer whales and Chinook salmon—and focus on the “little guys” that make their survival physically possible

.What Are Forage Fish and Why Do They Matter?

Forage fish are small, schooling, lipid-rich species that occupy a critical, delicate middle tier in the marine ecosystem. Locally, our primary monitoring focuses on Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus) and Pacific Sand Lance (Ammodytes personatus).

These species perform an irreplaceable ecological transformation: they consume massive quantities of microscopic zooplankton and phytoplankton, converting that raw energy into highly concentrated protein and fat. They are the primary food source for immature and adult salmon, seabirds, marine mammals, and apex predators.

If you remove forage fish from the equation, the entire energy pipeline of the Salish Sea collapses. Salmon recovery is an mathematical impossibility without abundant, healthy forage fish populations to sustain them during their critical nearshore life stages.

The Science of Nearshore Spawning

Unlike other marine species that broadcast their eggs in open water, Surf Smelt and Pacific Sand Lance are obligate nearshore spawners. They lay their microscopic, adhesive eggs directly in the upper intertidal zone—the exact band of pebbles, coarse sand, and gravel where the high tide laps against our beaches.

Because they incubate their next generation on the open beach, their reproductive success is 100% dependent on the physical integrity of the shoreline. This makes them the ultimate ecological canary in the coal mine for nearshore health.

How Our Volunteer Data Informs Shoreline Policy

Our community science teams use specialized core tubes to pull sediment samples directly from the high-tide line (utilizing a precise “4:00 p.m. handoff” workflow to match tidal positions out at places like Cline Spit). These sediment samples are then put through a rigorous “blue bowl” swirling process to isolate microscopic eggs under a microscope to confirm active spawning.

When this volunteer data tracks a high density of forage fish eggs on a specific beach, that data transitions from a spreadsheet to a powerful legal and policy mechanism:

1. Halting Hardened Armoring: Historical shoreline practices favored building concrete bulkheads, seawalls, and rip-rap armor to protect upland properties. This “hardened armoring” starves the beach of natural bluff erosion, causing waves to scour away the fine gravel and leaving behind barren, hard clay. By proving a beach is an active spawning ground, our data helps planners enforce Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) rules that restrict new bulkheads, favoring “soft shore” techniques that preserve natural micro-gravel.

2. Protecting the Micro-Climate (Overhanging Canopy): Forage fish eggs deposited in summer months face a lethal threat from solar radiation and desiccation (drying out). If the overhanging marine riparian vegetation (trees and shrubs along the bluff) is clear-cut for development, beach temperatures skyrocket, and egg mortality reaches nearly 100%. Tracking data allows us to defend strict shoreline setbacks to protect the canopy that shades the nursery.

3. Informing Municipal Project Design: On our upcoming City Council agendas, the city continuously reviews multi-department plans for Ediz Hook habitat restoration, public 24-hour restroom prefabrications, and environmental critical-area cleanup SOPs. Our city engineering teams use the MRC’s forage fish mapping to ensure that any heavy machinery work or beach nourishment projects align perfectly with seasonal spawning windows, ensuring municipal projects never inadvertently suffocate a generation of forage fish under construction sediment.

Part III: Closing out the Session

Next Meeting Date and Call for Speakers

The next regular monthly hybrid session of the Clallam County MRC is officially scheduled for Monday, June 15th at 5:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Room. As noted in my prior updates, the Education sub-committee has officially reached out to coordinate a joint presentation with the Olympic Peninsula Audubon Society (OPUS) to highlight migratory coastal bird trends and the critical importance of the regional “Lights Out” light pollution initiative along our marine corridors.

Good of the Order & Final Public Comment

The final administrative check verified that no new good of the order topics required immediate action, and no public online users requested late-stage comment blocks.

Adjournment

Following a unanimous motion, the meeting was officially adjourned at 7:00 p.m., concluding a highly productive session of localized environmental stewardship.

Our community science programs are always seeking new hands to help carry core tubes and analyze beach samples. If you want to step into the field, protect our local fisheries, or share your thoughts on upcoming nearshore zoning codes, please reach out to me at jhamilton@cityofpa.us.

Every week, my email inbox serves as a real-time heat map of community anxiety. Lately, the messages have centered on two highly charged topics: the status of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) and rumors surrounding federal detention facilities.

When issues get this loud, it is tempting for elected officials to jump straight into the political fray, stake out a partisan side, and stay there. But true stewardship requires something different. As my colleague Councilmember Drew Schwab recently noted in his framework on governance, public anxiety and community advocacy function as an essential “input layer” for city government. It is directional pressure that highlights gaps between policy intent and our residents’ lived experiences.

The challenge of leadership isn’t to run away from that tension, nor is it to force a premature conclusion just to quiet the room. The job is to hold that space open long enough for an orderly, transparent public process to unfold.

A city is a living network. You cannot talk about public safety without talking about housing, and you cannot talk about housing without talking about sewer pipes, utility budgets, and regional policy. Today, I want to provide a transparent status update on the issues filling my inbox and demonstrate how they tie directly into the “Invisible Foundation” we are building for the future of Port Angeles.

Setting the Record Straight on ALPRs and Detention Facilities

First, let’s lay out the facts regarding surveillance technology and local zoning, because transparency is the best antidote to speculation.

The ALPR Status Update

In February, the City hit the pause button and uninstalled all three Automated License Plate Readers. This was an act of deliberate due diligence. Our community raised valid privacy questions. As one constituent shared in a recent email, many are “concerned about the safety of the community but more concerned about privacy and the misuse of collected data.” Furthermore, a common misconception in our community is that these were “Flock Safety” systems; the technical reality is that the three units placed within Port Angeles were neither manufactured nor operated by Flock.

Concurrently, Washington State was debating Senate Bill 6002 to establish baseline regulations. I am not taking a definitive side today on whether these cameras should permanently vanish or eventually return. My commitment to you is purely focused on process. Now that the state legislature has passed SB 6002 (mandating strict 72-hour data deletion limits and prohibiting camera use near schools, places of worship, or medical facilities), any future discussion regarding ALPRs should be handled through an open, noticed public work session. If this technology ever comes before the City Council again, it will be transparent, heavily restricted by state privacy guardrails, and subject to direct community scrutiny.

The Detention Center Rumor vs. Local Autonomy

There has also been significant concern regarding “Project Peninsula,” the large-scale construction site on the west side at Edgewood and Critchfield. Let me be unequivocally clear: This site is an Amazon last-mile distribution facility. It is a commercial warehouse designed to sort packages for local residential delivery. It is not, and never has been, a detention facility.

There are currently zero plans, permits, or applications in front of the City Council for any type of ICE or DHS detention facilities to be constructed within Port Angeles city limits.

To protect our local zoning autonomy moving forward, the Council directed city staff at our last meeting to thoroughly research land-use moratoriums regarding secure facilities. We expect to hear back from staff with their findings and recommendations during the summer. A moratorium acts as a legal “pause button.” It gives our planning staff and community 6 to 12 months to update our municipal zoning codes, ensuring we have the permanent legal language to clearly differentiate between an economic driver like a commercial warehouse and a secure facility that does not align with our community’s long-term safety and housing goals.

Human Capacity and the Proof of Co-Response

While we allow staff the time to research those policy guardrails, we are using objective data to build actual safety capacity. This brings us to the 2025 Port Angeles Police Department Annual Report.

Data moves conversations from opinion to insight. The 2025 report reveals that our department handled approximately 21,000 calls for service last year. On our highest-volume days, particularly during the peak summer tourism season, the department faced massive surges, including a single 24-hour period in June that saw 82 separate calls.

Operating on “survival staffing” (typically 3 to 4 patrol officers per shift), a 21,000-call workload means our police force is entirely reactive. If two major 9-1-1 calls occur simultaneously, the entire shift is instantly tied up, leaving the rest of the city exposed. This is the exact reason I strongly supported accepting the HB 2015 Grant to add four new police officers to our roster without draining our local general fund.

This isn’t about expanding enforcement for its own sake. It is about building “human capacity” so officers aren’t just sprinting from crisis to crisis. When a department has adequate bench strength, it gains the operational breathing room to implement proactive, modern public safety models.

We already have proof right here in Port Angeles that this capacity-driven model works. City Manager Nathan West recently highlighted the success of Operation Shielding Hope, our post-overdose co-response model launched in 2024. Back in 2023, our first responders were drowning in a reactive cycle, managing four overdoses a week while Clallam County ranked second-highest in the state for overdose fatalities.

By investing resources into a specialized Post Overdose Response Team that handles the warm handoff to behavioral health professionals, the city fundamentally shifted the paradigm. Today, 78% of survivors accept help on-scene when that specialized team arrives, compared to a miserable 3% under traditional reactive policing. Most importantly, twelve months after launch, overdose fatalities in Clallam County plummeted by 61%.

Operation Shielding Hope succeeded because it coupled safety with specialized care, while simultaneously freeing up traditional 9-1-1 responders to handle other urgent calls. That is what true public safety capacity looks like.

Re-envisioning Community Oversight

More staffing, however, must always be paired with increased public transparency and structured oversight. That is why the new Public Safety Advisory Board (PSAB) Work Plan, presented to Council by Chief Brian Smith and Chief Derrell Sharp, is such a massive, positive development.

Historically, community advisory boards have trended toward being strictly informational; members sit through a quarterly slide deck, listen to updates, and go home. The new PSAB Work Plan completely resets those expectations.

Moving forward, the board will pivot to a deliberate, theme-driven monthly dialogue. Over structured 90-minute sessions, this board will tackle the complex issues that require community consensus before they ever hit the City Council floor. This is the exact public venue where we will dive into data retention policies, review neighborhood nuisance trends, and evaluate public safety technologies. It bridges the gap between the police department’s operational expertise and the community’s core values.

From Intent to Execution: The May 19th Crossroads

All of these separate threads (data, capacity, transparency, and infrastructure) converge directly at our upcoming May 19th City Council meeting.

On May 19th, the Council will vote on budget amendments to formalize these law enforcement grants and peak-unit ambulance additions, transitioning our public safety strategy from “planning” to “doing.” But more than that, this meeting marks a pivotal moment of accountability for the 120-Day Stability Framework initiated by the City Council back on April 7th.

Last month, the Council as a whole introduced a series of motions explicitly designed to break the City out of a fragmented, reactive loop and build a system of predictability for our public spaces. While our community is often split on the “how,” we are entirely united on the “where”; we all want our parks, neighborhoods, and downtown corridors to be clean, safe, and governed by a clear rule of law. My specific focus within that legislative effort was introducing the motions to mandate a predictable Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Encampment Response and to build a formal framework for Regional Leadership and Funding Accountability with Clallam County.

On Tuesday night, city staff are delivering on that collective mandate. They are returning to us with exhaustive, data-driven memos that detail exactly what it physically, legally, and financially takes to transform our legislative intent into execution. Let’s look closely at the operational components coming before us, paired with my current thoughts on how we must proceed.

Managed Sheltering (The RFP Framework)

In response to Council’s direction to establish Managed Sheltering Areas, staff are recommending the immediate issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) to secure a qualified, third-party non-profit operator for a three-year pilot project. The strict programmatic guardrails match exactly what we envisioned: any prospective site must incorporate 24/7 security, controlled entry, secure asset storage, and integrated utility infrastructure (bathrooms, showers, laundry).

Staff noted that the city has a strong history of assisting localized micro-shelter programs—such as The Answer For Youth (TAFY), 4PA’s Touchstone Campus, and St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church—using conditional use permits, fee waivers, and local sales tax housing grants.

• The Reality Check: There are currently no funds allocated for this effort within the City’s current budget. Real cost estimates will only enter our budget matrix once third-party providers submit competitive bids.

• My Thoughts: Managed sheltering is a non-negotiable prerequisite to reclaiming our public spaces, but we must be brutally honest about the scale and economics of this crisis. Unmanaged homelessness is not uniquely a Port Angeles problem; it is a regional challenge that impacts Clallam County as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely critical that we seek an active financial partnership with Clallam County to help provide a significant portion of the ongoing funding needed to make this pilot project a reality. The County must be an active, willing partner in resolving this long-term. Our support for incoming third-party bids will depend heavily on establishing this regional cost-sharing bridge.

Incentivizing Safe Parking Programs

Directly adjacent to centralized sanctioned encampments is our push for distributed Safe Parking framework options. On May 4, Saint Andrew’s Parish submitted an application for a temporary Safe Parking Program (TUP 26-0098). This program provides a highly managed, code-compliant option for up to four vetted individuals sleeping in their vehicles. It operates within a strict nightly window (5:00 PM to 8:00 AM), utilizes external sanitation facilities to protect church infrastructure, and features a built-in regional precedent: Saint Andrew’s stepped up to temporarily host guests transitioning across municipal boundaries from Trinity United Methodist Church in Sequim.

• My Thoughts: Centralized sheltering cannot bear this burden alone. Finding creative ways to encourage and incentivize more local faith-based organizations and non-profits to host Safe Parking areas is going to be absolutely critical to our success. Programs like the one at St. Andrew’s show that small-scale, highly managed vehicle locations establish immediate stability without overwhelming neighborhood resources. The City should actively look for ways to cut bureaucratic red tape, waive permit fees, and provide baseline technical support to expand these micro-sites city-wide.

A Public-Facing Encampment Response SOP

To fulfill the motion I introduced, staff are providing a public-facing Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to end the “whack-a-mole” approach to enforcement and make the City’s actions entirely predictable. Chief Brian Smith’s return report outlines a clear, multi-department triage workflow stratified by jurisdictional zones—recreational parks, non-recreational municipal facilities, private land, and Public Works Rights-of-Way (ROWs).

Importantly, the SOP codifies concrete operational rules: property left behind valued under $100 will legally be deemed abandoned or discarded debris and will not be logged into police property custody. Furthermore, staff highlighted a critical, often invisible cost: environmental degradation. Unmanaged encampments in sensitive riparian bluffs and ravines cause severe erosion and water quality damage, and establishing a dedicated critical-area remediation program across our park system is projected to cost $40,000 to $80,000 annually.

• My Thoughts: This public-facing transparency is exactly what I requested in my clarifying memo to the City Manager in April. Our staff and residents must have a clear, written script showing what happens when a public space is impacted, who makes the final call on abandoned property, and how we protect our sensitive natural environment.

Moving forward, I believe this SOP must explicitly clarify three additional pillars of accountability:

1. The Inter-Jurisdictional Handoff: We need clear, operational guidelines detailing exactly how handoffs occur from city-level public space management to county-level social and behavioral health responsibilities. When our city crews and non-profit organization partners clean up a site, there must be a synchronized county pipeline ready to absorb those individuals long-term.

2. Robust Data Tracking: We must track data meticulously—measuring response timelines, shelter placement success rates, and environmental mitigation expenditures.

3. Re-imagining the Public Nuisance Complaint Form: Our current intake system is a black box. We need to re-imagine the Public Nuisance Complaint Form into a modern, streamlined digital tool. It should make submission incredibly easy for our residents and include an interactive, public-facing system where citizens can track exactly how each “case” is evaluated, routed, and ultimately resolved.

Our residents deserve to see that our staff is doing the best job possible to efficiently handle encampments in our public spaces, proving that code violations will be met with swift, transparent closure rather than months of bureaucratic stagnation. We must also strictly listen to our residents with disabilities as this SOP is finalized; mass cleanup deadlines can inadvertently create an inequitable administrative burden for disabled individuals if accessibility accommodations aren’t intentionally built into the protocol.

Reclaiming Public Sanitation (24-Hour Restrooms)

Parks Director Corey Delikat is returning with a structured timeline to replace our city’s aging, 60-year-old concrete block park restrooms with modern, climate-resilient, prefabricated facilities designed for 24-hour accessibility. Following the success of our initial three downtown installations, staff are actively prioritizing Erickson Playfield (funded in the 2026 Capital Budget) and Ediz Hook (currently entering engineering design) as the next two sites, with Elks Playfield and Lincoln Park scheduled for subsequent years.

• My Thoughts: Providing 24-hour public restrooms is a fundamental win for community health, dignity, and environmental stewardship. If we don’t provide the physical infrastructure for basic human sanitation in public zones, we are actively forcing the public safety and biological consequences onto our business districts and parks.

The Trash Receptacle Resource Chokepoint

The Council also directed staff to look at adding public trashcans across city limits and recommend the staffing resources needed to haul the extra waste. The data staff returned is a stark illustration of structural underfunding: our Parks team currently maintains 114 exterior and 42 interior public cans, requiring a route that covers 25 miles of driving and 8 miles of walking every single day, 365 days a year.

• The Resource Chokepoint: I was in elementary school in 1991. To put that in perspective, since George H.W. Bush was in the White House, our park maintenance team has added zero full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, despite constructing 18 major new civic amenities (including the Dream Playground, Civic Field, the Skate Park, and the Waterfront Trail extension). This massive, daily waste haul runs entirely on just 1.3 FTEs. Staff must completely manually hoist heavy 55-gallon bags chest-to-shoulder into flatbed trucks, often while stepping directly into active vehicle traffic along Front and First streets.

• My Thoughts: Adding more trashcans is an obvious public desire, but the data proves we cannot just order more cans and dump them on a maintenance crew that hasn’t seen a staffing increase in thirty-five years. Forcing staff to manually haul raw waste next to open traffic is a severe liability and an unfair burden. I completely back staff’s recommendation to initiate a formal Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) item to study mechanical, automated, and modernized routing collection systems before we expand the physical footprint of the cans.

Single Field Resource vs. Co-Response Models

Finally, staff studied the feasibility of building a dedicated, non-law-enforcement behavioral health 9-1-1 field response unit. The research compiled by PenCom Deputy Director Karl Hatton delivers an important lesson from across Washington State. After conducting an exhaustive review with every 9-1-1 center coordinator in the state, our team found that standalone, single-resource behavioral health dispatching is incredibly rare.

Even highly acclaimed programs like Seattle CARES operate strictly within a co-response framework, dispatching mental health specialists alongside an officer or fire medical unit for field safety. In cities like Bellingham, attempting to move away from co-response to isolated, single-resource field teams required two full years of continuous optimization just to establish field trust and safety protocols. Structuring an independent city dispatch asset would require an estimated $1.4 million to $5 million annually, while historically servicing less than 3% of total incoming emergency call volumes.

• My Thoughts: Our long-term partnership with Peninsula Behavioral Health (PBH) is already deeply rooted, safe, and operational. PBH successfully provides 24-hour crisis responders integrated with the statewide 9-8-8 lifeline and works hand-in-hand with our PA Fire Community Paramedics and PAPD. Trying to build a duplicated, city-run standalone dispatch team would cost millions of local dollars, fragment our communication network, and place clinicians in high-risk field environments without backup. The data proves our best path forward is to double down on our existing co-response framework, using the new HB 2015 officers to provide the necessary safety backing.

The Stance on Regional Co-Governance

This comprehensive look at our operational limits leads directly back to the core theme of the second motion I introduced in April: Regional Accountability. Port Angeles cannot fund a county-wide humanitarian crisis on a municipal budget.

Staff are returning on May 19th with an analysis of how we can build a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Interlocal Agreement (ILA) with Clallam County to give the City a proportional, final voice over how state and federal housing and homelessness fund streams—specifically document recording fees (HB 2163) and affordable housing surcharges (SHB 2060)—are distributed within our borders.

The historical metrics compiled by staff reveal why this is a critical issue of financial stewardship for our taxpayers: 66% of Clallam County’s total 2025–2027 biennial homelessness fund allocation goes directly to organizations operating inside Port Angeles city limits. Our urban core absorbs two-thirds of the county’s physical social capacity, yet our City Council has zero legislative say in how those regional funds are managed, scored, or allocated.

Staff have laid out two pathways for us to consider on Tuesday: Option A, which expands the City’s presence on a restructured Clallam County Homelessness Task Force Executive Committee; or Option B, an aggressive push to form a combined regional Housing Funding Board modeled after the incredibly successful system used by the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County. Their joint board features elected city officials and county commissioners voting side-by-side to manage all regional housing revenues under a unified, transparent rubric.

• My Stance: I am unequivocally advocating for Option B. We must move away from an advisory role and secure an equal, co-governed seat at the table where regional decisions are made. However, I want to establish a firm boundary: we must strictly protect our independent municipal Sales and Use Tax (SUT 1406 and 1590) affordable housing grant programs. Port Angeles runs a highly streamlined, exceptionally efficient local grant system that directly funds local projects. We must never surrender our local tax dollars to a county-controlled framework; our focus is on establishing co-governance over the regional and state dollars currently being spent inside our city without our oversight.

The Unified Grid

This brings us full circle to the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) we reviewed this week in the Utility Advisory Committee.

It is easy to look at a 389-page blueprint for sewer pipes and think it has nothing to do with police grants or homelessness. But infrastructure is the physical permission slip for social and economic progress.

According to the official Community & Economic Development metrics published in our May 19th City Council agenda packet, Port Angeles hit a stark residential bottleneck last month: the city permitted zero new single-family homes and zero new multi-family units during the entire month of April. Year-to-date, only 5 single-family units have been permitted city-wide. Why? Because we cannot build the affordable workforce housing Port Angeles desperately needs if our wastewater capacity along corridors like the “A” Street Project is completely maxed out.

Furthermore, our internal financial realities dictate how we pay for these foundations. According to the monthly update on past due utility accounts report provided by Finance Director Sarina Carrizosa in the May 19th City Council agenda packet, Port Angeles households are hitting an economic wall. As of the end of April, our residents are carrying a staggering $899,964.60 in total past-due utility debt. Even more alarming, the 90-day past-due bracket exploded by 98.9% in a single month, leaping from $92,865 in March to $184,738 in April.

This data is precisely why I clarified at the UAC meeting that major capital facilities projects are funded through long-term savings and outside grants, not sudden utility rate hikes. Our residents are facing severe arrearages, and our families cannot absorb unexpected financial shocks.

Stewardship is the quiet, rigorous work of ensuring all these distinct pieces fit together into a single, resilient grid. We must maintain our infrastructure through grants to protect utility rates. We must expand public safety capacity through state dollars to enable life-saving co-response models. And we must build managed shelter systems through regional partnerships to protect our business districts and parks. By rejecting the rumor mill, committing to open public processes, and locking arms with regional county partners, we are ensuring Port Angeles is not just surviving the challenges of today, but built to thrive for the generations to come.

As always, my door and my inbox remain open. If you have thoughts on the upcoming May 19th sheltering discussions, our 6-year infrastructure blueprint, or our public safety work plans, please reach out to me at jhamilton@cityofpa.us.

While most municipal headlines focus on high-profile policy debates, some of the most consequential work for the long-term health of Port Angeles happens in the Utility Advisory Committee (UAC). On May 12, our committee began a deep dive into the “instruction manual” for our city’s survival: the 2027-2032 Preliminary Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) and Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP).

At nearly 400 pages, this plan outlines every major project the city intends to build, fix, or replace over the next six years. From the water pipes under your street to the pavement you drive on, this document is where our strategic goals meet financial reality.

The CFP: Why a 389-Page Document Matters to You

The CFP and TIP are often dismissed as dry technical manuals, but they are actually the financial and physical backbone of Port Angeles. Without this process, the city is effectively flying blind.

The CFP takes our abstract goals—like “increasing housing” or “improving safety”—and assigns them a concrete timeline and a price tag. It is the foundation for how we proceed with our annual budget because it allows us to plan for generational costs rather than just daily expenses. By looking six years into the future, we can coordinate projects, protect the city’s credit rating, and ensure that our “Invisible Foundation” is ready for the growth we want to see.

The “Unfunded” List: Positioning for Grants

During the presentation, the committee discussed the extensive list of “unfunded” projects included in the back of the report. It is important for residents to know that while the city has a long “wish list” of needed improvements, we generally only move forward with projects that have a clear funding path—whether through utility rates, state grants, or regional partnerships.

By identifying these “unfunded” needs now, the city positions itself to be “Grant-Ready” the moment state or federal funds become available. This proactive identification is what allowed the city to successfully secure the First/Front Pedestrian Enhancement grant and the law enforcement grants we discussed last week.

The “A” Street Link and Capacity

We spent time discussing how projects like the “A” Street Wastewater Project are the anchors of this plan. These aren’t just “sewer projects”; they are economic development projects.

A Quick Reminder on “A” Street:

• Unlocking Growth: Increasing capacity so we can actually build the housing Port Angeles needs.

• Environmental Protection: Keeping our harbor clean by reducing Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO).

• Fiscal Responsibility: Replacing aging infrastructure before it fails and creates an emergency bill for taxpayers.

Transportation: The “Dig Once” Philosophy

The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) portion of the document focuses on the maintenance and safety of our streets and trails. Budgeting for ongoing maintenance is critical; it is far more cost-effective to maintain a road today than to rebuild a failed one tomorrow.

During the meeting, staff highlighted our commitment to operational efficiency. When the City is already digging up a road for one project—such as a water main replacement—we look for opportunities to fix or improve other utility systems in that same stretch at the same time. This “Dig Once” philosophy ensures we aren’t spending more money a year or two later to dig up the same road again, maximizing the value of every dollar spent.

The TIP includes several high-impact projects that provide important context for our long-term goals. For example, we are looking at the US Highway 101 at Tumwater Creek interchange, a project essential for improving safety and traffic flow in a high-traffic corridor. Other projects, like the Olympic Discovery Trail segments and various ADA sidewalk upgrades, follow our “complete streets” approach—ensuring our roads serve drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians alike.

Rate Stability and Affordability

A recurring theme of our committee discussion was affordability. During the meeting, I clarified a point that is often misunderstood: the major infrastructure projects listed in the CFP are typically paid for using funds that the city has strategically saved over time or through successfully procured state and federal grants. They are not the cause of unexpected rate hikes.

In reality, utility rate changes are determined by “cost of service” increases, such as negotiated labor contracts with our various unions or scheduled increases already set by city ordinance. As your representative, I am always looking for ways to limit utility rate increases by prioritizing efficiency and ensuring we are as “grant-ready” as possible to offset costs that would otherwise fall on local families and seniors.

We Want Your Input

Because this is a Preliminary Plan, there is still significant time for community input. I want to thank the staff for the “A-plus” level of detail in this 389-page report.

If you have thoughts, questions, or concerns related to any of the projects listed in the Preliminary 2027-2032 Capital Facilities Plan and Transportation Improvement Plan, I want to hear from you. Please reach out to me via email or attend a future public hearing. Your feedback helps ensure our infrastructure investments align with our community’s values of safety, housing, and environmental stewardship.

Next UAC Meeting: Tuesday, June 9, 2026 from 3:00pm - 5:00pm. We will continue our deep dive into the specific project descriptions and funding sources within the CFP.

Saturday Long-Read: In my long-form essay this Saturday, "The Interconnected City," I’ll be weaving these utility projects together with the 2025 Police Report and our upcoming homelessness discussions. I'll show you how a sewer pipe, a police officer, and a regional shelter plan are all part of the same conversation about a resilient Port Angeles.

If you want to look at the preliminary plan yourself, you can find it on the City’s website here.