Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORKSHOP re DEM organizational changes 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Willie Bence - Director, Department of Emergency Management DATE: July 13, 2026 SUBJECT: WORKSHOP: Potential Department of Emergency Management (DEM) Organizational Changes STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Department of Emergency Management (DEM) oversees a broad program designed to help the community prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. DEM, the smallest department in the county agency, has long been under-resourced. Meanwhile, its work has continued to expand given the growing threat of climate change (including more frequent and more severe disasters) and increased awareness of the need for disaster preparedness in the broader community. ANALYSIS: The attached white paper outlines four potential pathways for the future of DEM, including changes to its governance structure. These changes are designed to bring additional stakeholders to the table by providing partners direct input into the work of emergency management. Additionally, new governance structures would provide mechanisms to expand DEM’s capacity, whether through financial resources or in-kind support from partner organizations. The four potential pathways are: 1. Status Quo 2. Emergency Management Advisory Council 3. Emergency Management Board (i.e., independent governance structure) 4. Merger with JeffCom 911 The DEM Director and County Administrator have been socializing these options with stakeholders and soliciting feedback. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no immediate fiscal impacts. However, if/when a new governance structure for DEM is put in place, the county’s direct financial support for DEM may decrease, depending on the support from partner agencies. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Listen to the presentation, ask questions, and discuss preferences and next steps. REVIEWED BY: ______________________________________ ________________ Josh Peters, County Administrator Date 7/8/2026 WORKING DRAFT: last updated 5/14/2026 1 DEM Organizational Structure Potential Changes DRAFT Contents Problem Statement .................................................................................................................. 1 Options for DEM Support and/or Reconfiguration ................................................................ 2 Option 1 - Status Quo ............................................................................................................. 2 Option 2 - Emergency Management Advisory Council ............................................................ 2 Option 3 - Emergency Management Board (i.e., independent governance structure) ............. 3 Option 4 - DEM merger with JeffCom 911 .............................................................................. 3 Opportunities for Capacity Building ....................................................................................... 4 Integration with Related Resiliency Programs ....................................................................... 6 Problem Statement The Jefferson County Department of Emergency Management (DEM) is responsible for emergency management services for all of Jefferson County, including within the City of Port Townsend. DEM conducts disaster preparedness education and outreach to the community, maintains readiness of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC); writes and updates disaster plans, including the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) and Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP); manages a cadre of disaster response volunteers; and broadly supports disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. DEM has long been under-resourced to support such a broad mission, relying extensively on its volunteers and tenuous federal grant funding. As climate change increases the frequency and severity of disasters, federal disaster support remains in flux, and demand and awareness from the general public and partners for disaster preparedness activities heightens, the department is seeking ways in which to increase coordination and improve capacity. By reimagining the governance, organizational, and funding structures of DEM, we hope to build a system in which public safety stakeholders can identify needs (what we want to do); identify resource and funding gaps; determine ways to fill those gaps; and finally develop a path forward to build disaster preparedness, response, and resilience capacity through collaboration and unified effort. WORKING DRAFT: last updated 5/14/2026 2 Options for DEM Support and/or Reconfiguration Option 1 - Status Quo DEM’s current annual budget of $247K is funded primarily through the county’s General Fund (GF), with about 15 to 20% funded through two annual grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). DEM staff consists of 2.8 FTE: one full-time Director, one full-time Program Coordinator (responsible for volunteer management and grants/finance), and two part-time clerk hires (limited to 69 hours/month). Each clerk hire is fully grant-funded; one works as a Public Information Officer, supporting DEM’s education and outreach, and the other as a Planning Coordinator, working to improve the EOC’s Planning Section and facilitating the Local Emergency Planning Committee hazardous materials review board. Pros: Continuing with this model would require no additional financial support from public safety partners. DEM would continue with its work as it has historically, relying extensively on volunteer support, with a need to carefully triage projects and focus areas with limited resources. Despite lack of resources, DEM has traditionally exhibited an ability to “do more with less” and would continue to do so, even though the need to do more has continued to increase. Cons: DEM’s volunteer network, while also one of its major strengths, constitutes a major weakness, as volunteer support can often be tenuous. Many of DEM’s volunteers are retirees whose overall reliability and commitment to day-to-day organizational work vary greatly. The county is currently experiencing a deficit in its GF budget, and although DEM is the smallest county department with a relatively small budget, further cuts may be necessary. Federal funding to support DEM’s two clerk hires and DEM’s outreach program are not guaranteed year to year. Option 2 - Emergency Management Advisory Council Many communities have established a council or committee to provide overall direction, prioritization, and feedback to their emergency management department and the collection of public safety partners that form the Emergency Operations Center Organization. Establishing such a Council would give key partners a more direct input mechanism into DEM’s activities and would allow for more holistic, community-wide planning as it relates to emergency management. Additionally, through participation via an EM Council, partners could provide financial support to bolster DEM’s capabilities based on priorities agreed upon by the group. One such example being additional staff to support interagency coordination and planning, or direct support for Emergency Operations Center readiness. Pros: More direct participation, feedback, and decision making around emergency management activities. Potential for increased financial support and capability for DEM, with the WORKING DRAFT: last updated 5/14/2026 3 cost burden shared amongst partners. Would only require new/updated ILAs with partners interested in participating on Council. Cons: Yet another committee. Many potential partners/committee-members are experiencing their own financial difficulties. Does not immediately or inherently bolster DEM’s resourcing or capacity. Option 3 - Emergency Management Board (i.e., independent governance structure) Many communities have established a governance structure—related to but independent of the county government—to provide overall direction, prioritization, and feedback to and management of their emergency management department and the collection of public safety partners that form the Emergency Operations Center Organization. Establishing such a Board would give key partners a more direct role to govern DEM’s activities and would allow for more holistic, community-wide planning as it relates to emergency management. Additionally, through participation via an EM Board, partners could provide financial support to bolster DEM’s capabilities based on priorities agreed upon by the group, as well as financial, staffing, and/or in-kind support from member organizations. Potential seats in a governance Board for Jefferson County DEM include, but are not limited to, the following organizations: Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners, Jefferson County Public Health, Jefferson County Public Works, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, City of Port Townsend City Council, City of Port Townend Policy Department, Jefferson County Public Utility District No. 1 Commission, Port of Port Townend Commission, Fire District representation for Commissioners and Chiefs (TBD), Jefferson County Hospital District No. 2 Commission. Pros: More direct participation, feedback, and decision-making around emergency management activities. Increased “buy-in” through financial support and capability for DEM, with the cost burden shared amongst Board member organizations. Raises the possibility that a dedicated revenue stream for a new agency could be created, similar to how JeffCom is funded. Cons: Yet another independent governance Board. Many potential partners/committee- members are experiencing their own financial difficulties. May be challenging to establish. Moves direct decision-making away from Jefferson County itself. Implies the need to establish capabilities for a new agency—such as HR, financial management, etc.—similar to when JeffCom was created years ago. Option 4 - DEM merger with JeffCom 911 Like DEM, JeffCom 911 is a public safety agency that coordinates with key public safety partners in support of the community. DEM and JeffCom coordinate closely during EOC activations. As with the Advisory Council or Board concepts, many other communities have WORKING DRAFT: last updated 5/14/2026 4 partnered their 911 and EM functions under the same organizational umbrella. JeffCom has an existing Board which would then in turn provide direction to both the 911 dispatch and emergency management activities under the new organization, without the need for a new/additional governing body. JeffCom is already partially funded by an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) through the organizations it supports, all of whom are key DEM public safety partners (law enforcement, fire). Pros: Leverage existing JeffCom Board and organization. Board can provide feedback and prioritization similar to Council without the need to create a new organization. JeffCom’s existing funding model can be used as a mechanism to provide additional resourcing to DEM, if desired. This move would allow DEM to focus primarily on its core emergency response functions and development of the EOC as an extension of JeffCom 911 dispatch services. JeffCom has in-house admin to support functions DEM staff must currently oversee, like grant and finance, freeing up capacity among existing staff. Cons: County’s support for DEM includes $247K budget plus indirect support (i.e., “cost allocation” and “cost recovery”) in facilities/information services support. Funding model for JeffCom would have to be revisited to account for DEM’s inclusion and for equity among participating partners. Several ILAs would have to be reviewed and updated or rewritten. JeffCom’s existing board structure may not adequately provide representation to DEM’s existing stakeholders or key partners; JeffCom Board may consider adding an emergency management subcommittee or other model to include representation beyond JeffCom’s five existing board members. Opportunities for Capacity Building DEM is mandated by Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Revised Code of Washington (RCW) to maintain an active emergency management program and perform several other functions. Those requirements are as follows: ● WAC 118-30-040: Establish emergency management organization. Each political subdivision must establish an emergency management program and appoint a director. Per the WAC, "Emergency management program means a system that provides for management and coordination of prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery activities for all hazards." ● RCW 38.52.070: Maintain program for alert and warning "notifying significant population segments of life safety information during an emergency." This includes the Nixle text alert system, maintaining "Alerting Authority" status under FEMA for access to Integrated Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) (under Public Law 114–143 amending the 2002 Homeland Security Act), and communication procedures outlined in the Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP or EM Plan). ○ RCW also includes emergency authorities during declared disasters and requirements for Comprehensive Plan. WORKING DRAFT: last updated 5/14/2026 5 ● WAC 118-30-060: Development of Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan. Each political subdivision must produce a Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and submit an update to the state every five years. The plan must be tested by an exercise or EOC activation at least every five years. The full list of plan requirements is listed in the WAC. Our last CEMP update was approved by the state in February 2025. ● WAC 118-04: Registration of emergency workers and training mission numbers for emergency operations, including search and rescue operations. Facilitate claims and reimbursements outlined in chapter 38.52 of the RCW. ● WAC 118-09: To receive emergency management assistance funds, local jurisdictions must have a standalone emergency management department with a separate budget, at least one employee whose duties are at least half-time focused on emergency management programming, and must meet the CEMP requirements in 118-30-060. ● WAC 118-40: Establish a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) in compliance with the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (synonymous with SARA Title III). ● Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 through 5207: Update Hazard Mitigation Plan every five years for State and FEMA approval. Necessary for access to state and federal grant funding and disaster response reimbursement during federally declared emergencies. In addition, DEM’s other functions, essential to a robust emergency management program, the safety and well-being of the Jefferson County community, and the expectations of the stakeholders, include but are not limited to: ● Outreach and education, including regular informational presentations, training for volunteers and the general public, and All County Preparedness Day ● Plan development beyond the CEMP requirements outlined in WAC 118-30-060, such as development of a Comprehensive Evacuation Plan or Emergency Feeding Plan ● Training, development, and exercise to support the development of the Incident Management Team ● Management of an overarching volunteer program that includes Volunteer Emergency Communicators (VECOM), Neighborhood Preparedness (NPREP), Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Disaster Air Response Team (DART), Help Equines, Livestock, and Pets (HELP), and the Grassroots Emergency Education Network (GREEN) ● Plan development assistance for community partners (Port Ludlow Village Council, Chimacum school district as recent examples) Through additional staffing, financial resources, or in-kind support, DEM can build capacity to support several outstanding community needs that have been previously requested or identified by stakeholders, but have thus far not been able to be addressed. Some examples include: ● Planning support and capacity building for City of Port Townsend-specific emergency management issues. Additional staff resources could work directly with City staff and the WORKING DRAFT: last updated 5/14/2026 6 Port Townsend community to provide training for City staff, and build an emergency response structure and plan for the city. ● Climate change planning. A recent climate change summit for Jefferson County staff identified the need for a central coordinator to help convene stakeholders working on climate change resilience and to help coordinate work. DEM has historically only partially engaged in this work to focus on response issues. Additional staffing capacity would allow DEM to both engage further in climate change resilience work and potentially help lead/coordinate. ● Additional planning assistance for partner orgs. Many organizations require expertise and assistance performing organizational readiness assessments and continuity planning. Many other emergency management organizations/collectives, like the Clark County Regional Emergency Services Agency (CRESA), provide this service to stakeholder organizations. ● Additional training and development for Incident Management Team members. Many positions with the Jefferson County Emergency Operations Center are understaffed and/or are staffed by those with adequate training. Additional resourcing would allow DEM to improve capacity among IMT members, which would result in improved disaster response outcomes for the community. Integration with Related Resiliency Programs Several communities have recognized the dual importance of disaster readiness and response, and overall community resiliency. Community resilience includes a broad range of important work beyond basic disaster preparedness and emergency response activities, including but not limited to things like climate change preparedness and adaptation, food security, housing security, healthcare access, and community wildfire protection. Another consideration is whether DEM could be expanded or enhanced to integrate other local resiliency efforts into its overall mission, becoming an organizing and coordinating entity for efforts across multiple jurisdictions and departments. If a new governance structure is developed for DEM, this new mission (or missions) can be prioritized and resourced by participating agencies. Snohomish County established the Office of Recovery and Resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic to coordinate recovery efforts, improve community engagement, and work alongside its Department of Emergency Management on issues relating to resilience. There are other models elsewhere that could be inspiration for structure change here in Jefferson County. For example, there is the Disaster Relief Mobilization-Community Resiliency Model (DRM-CRM) used in Santa Cruz, California. The Santa Cruz County Office of Response, Recovery, and Resilience features a mission that includes emergency management, climate adaption, and food resilience. WORKING DRAFT: last updated 5/14/2026 7 Climate Change One local consideration is whether DEM could be expanded or enhanced to integrate other local resiliency efforts, such as climate adaptation, food resilience, and the like, whether in conjunction with the joint Climate Action Committee (CAC) or as the principal staff support for CAC. One outcome of Jefferson County’s recent climate summit was the recognition of a need for a principal coordinator of climate change work, both within county government and among the broader community. By adding additional capacity and rethinking DEM’s overall mission, a coordinator within the new office could have bring community stakeholders together to synchronize climate change work, either by transforming the CAC into a new entity featuring stronger partnerships, or be serving as a dedicated coordinator for the existing joint venture. Housing One often overlooked aspect of community resilience is affordable housing. Housing represents a major component of disaster recovery, as communities rebuild following a major disaster and families look to return home after being displaced from their homes. Prior to a disaster, many local agencies struggle to recruit and retain members of their workforce due to a lack of affordable housing in the area, and the rising cost of housing continues to contribute to homelessness. Additionally, studies have showed affordable housing is a key aspect of individual disaster preparedness; for example, renters are often less prepared for disasters than homeowners, as they have less resources and incentive to store supplies or make improvements to their living space. At its score, safe, affordable housing acts as a foundation of economic and social stability. Similar to the issue of climate change, there have been calls for a coordinating entity to help facilitate conversations and guide collaborative work on the issue of affordable housing. This function could also live within a DEM office with an expanded focus and resources, guiding day to day work around issues relating to housing while also conducting planning and coordination around disaster response and recovery as it relates to damage assessment, debris management, and other housing-related disaster response issues. Food Security Finally, food security is another issue that is being worked on by a loose conglomeration of various groups, including the CAC, Local 20/20, Jefferson County Food Bank, WSU Extension, and others. DEM has worked with these groups specifically on the issue of emergency food response and distribution, but more work remains on developing a holistic plan for food security on the Peninsula.