Promises to the State Auditor that an audit committee would provide enhanced financial oversight were broken. The Fort Worden Public Development Authority’s audit committee was not formally created until earlier this year, and it has rarely met. Even after revelations of irregularities and malfeasance that threaten the organization’s future, the audit committee has canceled its next scheduled meeting.
The Fort Worden PDA has never received a clean state audit. Every review by the State Auditor has found significant problems, ranging from misstating millions of dollars of debt as income to addition and subtraction errors. The response from the PDA has been that it would provide more training and resources to its financial team and that the PDA Board would form an audit committee to ensure that the problems were not repeated.
The State Auditor in February 2017 released adverse findings in its audit of the PDA’s first two years of full operation, 2014 and 2015. There was no audit for 2016 yet because the PDA was over a year and a half behind in getting that year’s information information to the State Auditor.
In response to the adverse findings, the PDA pledged that it was “implementing procedures to ensure internal controls are put in place and adhere[d] to in order to address this finding….” The PDA stated that this action was “our priority.” Further, the PDA said that it “has also established an Audit Committee to oversee future annual reporting as an extra measure to make sure accurate reporting takes place.” The State Auditor recommended strongly that staff receive the training and resources needed to do their job of preparing accurate accounts. The PDA pledged this would be done.
Yet, in the Executive Committee meeting discussing the findings by the State Auditor there was no discussion of these pledges and no motion by any Board member nor suggestion by staff to act upon those pledges. Instead, the Board and staff quibbled with and reframed the Auditor’s negative audit to minimize its significance. The minutes of that February 23. 2017 Executive Committee meeting may be read at this link. Indeed, David Robison, the executive director at the time–who held the position for nine years until November 2020–saw the negative audit as a positive reflection on the job his staff was doing.
Dave Robison said that to put things into perspective it should be noted that for a startup organization with complicated finances and operations, to have received only one finding in our first state audit is highly encouraging.
By the time of this discussion, the PDA had been in existence for seven years.
A review of the Board’s meeting minutes for all of 2017 shows no other discussion of the adverse State Audit, nor any action to create the promised audit committee and provide the enhanced staff training and resources strongly recommended by the State Auditor.
The next two years passed without discussion or action by the PDA Board to prevent a repeat of the negative audits for 2014 and 2015. No audit committee was formed. There was no action on upgrading the skills and resources of PDA’s accounting staff.
In February 2020, the State Auditor released negative audits for PDA’s 2016 and 2017 financial statements. In addition to submitting its 2016 data late, the PDA also was six months late in getting its 2017 financials completed and delivered to the State Auditor. Again, the State Auditor could not give the PDA a clean audit. It found $3.5 million in debt that was not reported, mathematical errors, and operating expenses and liabilities misstated for both years, among other problems. “Internal controls over financial statement preparation,” the Auditor stated, “were inadequate to ensure accurate and complete reporting.” Again the Auditor recommended that the PDA’s staff receive the training needed to do their job right. Again, the PDA told the State Auditor that it was forming an audit committee. “The Committee,” the PDA wrote in its response to the Auditor’s findings, “will perform regular review of internal financial controls, process and policies.”
Finally, at its February 26, 2020 meeting the Board took up a motion to create the audit committee. In discussion of the motion, Treasurer Jeffery Jackson claimed that the Executive Committee “has historically served as an audit committee.” {A review of all the minutes of the meetings of the Executive Committee, however, does not show that body undertaking any of the actions normally undertaken by corporate audit committees. They reflect no oversight of financial reporting or internal controls nor participation in the preparations for the state audits.) The motion passed unanimously. An “Ad Hoc Audit and Finance Committee” was born.
It did not meet until April 16. Its first agenda item was a review of financial reports presented by staff. There was no discussion of improving the inadequate financial controls which had led to four previous adverse audits by the State Auditor. There was no discussion of staffing needs or training the PDA’s accounting team. The balance of the meeting was about operations, cash flow requirements and projections, and recovering from the Governor’s lock down order. There was a discussion towards the end about the Auditor’s position that the Fort Worden Foundation, a related charitable fundraising group, should be included in the PDA’s financial reports. That was it as far as it went in responding to any of the State Auditor’s concerns.
Two months went by without another meeting of the audit committee. At its June 18 meeting there was no discussion of anything related to the problems identified by the State Auditor. All discussion was focused on budget scenarios, cash flow and the impact of the Governor’s COVID lock down orders.
The July meeting of the audit committee was canceled.
The August meeting of the audit committee was canceled.
No meeting was scheduled for September.
The October meeting was canceled.
On October 28, 2020 Acting Executive Director David Timmons reported alarming discoveries in the PDA’s financial picture. He found irregularities, malfeasance and other problems so severe they rendered the PDA’s finances “a house of cards.” Board members responded with surprise and concern. One Board member said she was “stunned.” See Port Townsend Free Press’s 11/5/20 report.
Despite the PDA’s precarious situation, the Ad Hoc Audit and Financial Committee has canceled its November meeting. No meeting for December is currently scheduled.
$100 million, that is the amount of the claims by Joe D’Amico and two of his companies against Jefferson County and former Sheriff David Stanko. This is by far the largest claim filed by D’Amico in his running court battles with Jefferson County spanning almost two decades. He has lost some, he’s won some. Here’s a look at what this lawsuit is about.
The Parties
The suit is pending in the United States District Court in Tacoma. Plaintiffs are Joe D’Amico and Fort Discovery Corp. and Security Services Northwest, Inc., two companies D’Amico owns. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are Greg Overstreet, who is in-house counsel for the corporations, Charles Maudell of Bellevue, and as lead counsel Wright Noel of the firm of Carson & Noel of Issaquah.
Defendants are Jefferson County, David Stanko and Robert Gebo. Stanko is the former Jefferson County Sheriff. Gebo worked for Stanko as an investigator. The current county commissioners and former county commissioner Kathleen Kler were originally named in the suit but have been dismissed. Attorneys for Defendants are Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Phillip Hunsucker and Andrew Cooley of the Seattle firm Keating, Bucklin & McCormack.
The Claims
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint begins with the statement: “As the demographics of Jefferson County changed from a rural mostly working-class population to a retirement community for the wealthy, Joseph D’Amico and his companies…were caught in the crosshairs….The political powers in the County do not like guns or people using guns.” As a result, D’Amico alleges that county officials conspired to run his businesses out of Jefferson County by various illegal means.
When D’Amico resisted in the courts, public forums, newspapers and the Internet, it is alleged, the county retaliated. He alleges that county officials sought to destroy his business by contacting his customers with false or harmful statements they knew would cause him injury. He alleges that county officials caused Facebook to suspend his advertising account. He alleges that the county opened a criminal investigation and issued press releases stating that he was under criminal investigation, with the intent and purpose of hurting his business–even though no criminal investigation was being conducted against him and no criminal charges have ever been filed. When D’Amico attempted to move his operations from Discovery Bay to remote forest land, he alleges the retaliation followed and resulted in preventing him from opening a commercial range on his newly acquired property.
Defendants deny all of D’Amico’s claims, though they do admit some facts.
Allegations Against Stanko and Gebo
To this writer, the most serious and troubling allegations, if true, concern former Sheriff Stanko and his investigator, Robert Gebo. Some of the other claims may not go anywhere, but this one, even at this early stage, seems to have legs. If true, this would be another case of what I wrote about in “Port Townsend’s Hatred and Intolerance Problem.” We have already too many instances of businesses run off for not toeing some unwritten conduct and thought code. Ironically, for a community that brands itself as welcoming and inclusive, the victims have been minority families. I believe someone named D’Amico falls into the category of a minority businessman, especially in this community. The family behind the Lobo del Mar enterprise in Port Hadlock, a racially and ethnically mixed extended family that suddenly left town, had also been the subject of a questionable Stanko-directed investigation that never produced any evidence of criminality. That incident may resurface as this litigation progresses.
This article will be limited to examining the documented claims and defenses surrounding D’Amico’s allegations against Stanko and his investigator. That is complicated enough for one report. Subsequent reporting will explain other claims. I appreciate the time and materials provided me by attorneys Overstreet and Hunsucker which make it possible for readers to get a picture of what is going on in the lawsuit.
Stanko was Sheriff from November 25, 2014 to December 31, 2018. Stanko lost his bid for re-election to his own Undersheriff, Joe Nole. What follows are allegations by both sides which must be proven in court. I do not express any opinion on whether they are true or false or whether, even if true, they would entitle D’Amico to judgment in his favor.
D’Amico’s Allegations:
In late 2016 or early 2017, Stanko “took the lead on behalf of the County on efforts to shut down the gun range,” D’Amico states. Stanko met personally with people described as “politically powerful” opponents to D’Amico’s gun range operations. After this meeting, Stanko “intensified” his efforts, and implemented an allegedly illegal plan to shut down the gun range, which was then called Fort Discovery and located on property on the western side of Discovery Bay.
Stanko and Gebo are accused of contacting D’Amico’s customers and telling them not to use the gun range, or feeding them information that resulted in driving them off. The damage was caused by telling them that D’Amico was under law enforcement investigation for violating a “2009 court order,” even though there was no such order, and that the Prosecuting Attorney would soon be filing a legal action to shut down the gun range, which never happened.
In a letter expanding on D’Amico’s Damage Claim Form (a document that must be filed before filing suit), attorney Overstreet lays out facts suggesting that Gebo’s investigation was pretextual. At one point, the county issued a statement that D’Amico was under “criminal investigation,” a very damaging allegation to someone in D’Amico’s line of work of serving law enforcement and military clients. The supposed “crime” being investigated, though, appears from Gebo’s emails to have been a question whether sandwiches and other food consumed by a handful of police officers at the Fort Discovery range was prepared there or elsewhere–two years prior to the inquiries being made. Not incidentally, there are no criminal penalties in the County’s health code sections pertaining to food service.
The plan to scare off D’Amico’s customers worked, the complaint alleges. By May 2017 all of Fort Discovery’s military and law enforcement customers had terminated their contracts with D’Amico, causing him hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses.
Current Sheriff Nole could be a key witness, not for the county and Stanko, but for D’Amico. It is alleged that as Undersheriff Nole told Stanko, then his boss, and Special Investigator Gebo, that it was improper to contact D’Amico’s customers to persuade them to stop doing business with D’Amico.
The County’s Response:
All defendants deny these allegations. In its answers to interrogatories, Defendants say that for fifteen years prior to 2001 there were no disputes until D’Amico began training law enforcement and military on his gun range and began making “A LOT OF NOISE.” (Upper case is used in the interrogatory answers.)
The county’s interrogatory answers go on to recount the subsequent long history of litigation with D’Amico. Sometimes D’Amico won. Sometimes the county won. They have paid each other’s attorney fees and costs over the years. D’Amico’s in-house attorney Greg Overstreet may be the state’s top attorney on the Inspection of Public Records Act. He authored the Bar Association’s voluminous manual on the law. After years of battling Overstreet in court, Jefferson County Chief Civil Prosecutor Hunsucker may also be up there in the ranks of the state’s top IPRA lawyers.
One very key legal fight the County says D’Amico lost was a decision by a hearing officer regarding the permissible scope of activities at the Fort Discovery range. The County asserts that the hearing officer ruled that training and use of the range by persons not employed by D’Amico was not a grandfathered use and not covered by any special use permit.
While not a “2009 court ruling,” it is a 2009 Hearing Examiner Decision. The County asserts that D’Amico violated the terms of the decision, indeed, that he effectively admits doing so in the complaint in this case.
The County also recounts receiving a high volume of complaints about noise from the Fort Discovery range and unsuccessful attempts to resolve the noise and land use issues with D’Amico.
The County generally states it has no information about the actions of Sheriff Stanko in regard to any investigation he conducted into D’Amico and his businesses, but appears to have been in possession of emails about contacts between Investigator Gebo and D’Amico’s customers.
Stanko’s Response:
Stanko’s answers to interrogatories state his side of the case, and sometimes conflict with what the county says. Sometimes he contradicts himself. He admits to meeting with people on Discovery Bay, but insists it was only about noise complaints. The county does have a noise ordinance and the Sheriff is charged with enforcing it. As for land use regulations, Stanko states unequivocally, “I do not enforce the land use code.” He says that he only enforced laws criminal in nature with exceptions such as animal control and noise. But when explaining why he investigated D’Amico he quickly contradicts himself: “We suspected [D’Amico] was violating the noise ordinance and possibly health codes.”
Enforcement of the health code is rarely a matter of criminal law. Stanko does not explain what part of the health code was possibly being violated. As discussed above, it may have been whether sandwiches were made on or off site.
Stanko admits that he had his investigator look into who D’Amico’s customers were on the grounds that D’Amico should not be allowing third parties to be there. That is not a criminal matter; it is a zoning issue, a land use regulation which the Sheriff earlier stated he did not enforce.
Stanko’s answers also stand in contrast to the interrogatory answer of the county as to what investigations have been launched against D’Amico. The county revealed that Stanko had Gebo investigate “possible violations of tax laws” as well as possible health and safety code violations. It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented for a county sheriff to launch an investigation of possible violations of tax laws. No information is provided as to what the tax laws in question may have been.
No prosecutions have been brought against D’Amico or any of his companies for criminal violation of tax laws, or violation of health or safety codes. Nor was D’Amico formally charged with violation of the county’s noise ordinance.
Jury Trial
All parties have demanded a jury trial, and the claims against Stanko and Gebo may make it there. There already appear to be plenty of issues of fact which will require a jury to decide. Plus, there will presumably be evidence from D’Amico’s former customers who will testify about what they were told by Gebo or Stanko. One key factual element D’Amico will have to prove is intent. Stanko’s denial that he enforced land use regulations when there are emails by Gebo stating he was investigating possible land use regulation violations at the Sheriff’s instruction do not help Stanko’s credibility. Stuff like investigating where sandwiches were made two years ago looks like a pretext for contacting D’Amico’s customers, knowing full well the damage that just the whiff of a law enforcement investigation would do to D’Amico’s business. There is much discovery to be conducted. Depositions will be taken. If Nole provides evidence, as the complaint alleges, that he told Stanko and Gebo it was improper to contact D’Amico’s customers with the goal of persuading them to not use D’Amico’s range, the case could get a significant boost and not require relying so much on the inference of intent from other facts.
Its financial reports have never been reliable, according to all the audits conducted of the Fort Worden Public Development Authority by the State Auditor. Every audit since the FWPDA opened its doors has found inaccuracies, omissions and failures to comply with required accounting practices. Recent discoveries, which will be addressed in upcoming audits, have uncovered massive malfeasance and irresponsibility that jeopardize the organization’s continued existence.
The first audit of FWPDA by the State Auditor found that for its first two years of operation, 2014 and 2015, the organization grossly misstated income and revenue.
The full audit report for 2014 and 2015 may be read by clicking here.
In response to these findings, the PDA informed the State Auditor that it was “implementing procedures to ensure internal controls are put in place and adhere[d] to in order to address this finding….” The PDA stated that this action was “our priority.” Further, the PDA said that it “has also established an Audit Committee to oversee future annual reporting as an extra measure to make sure accurate reporting takes place.”
The State Auditor recommended strongly that staff receive the adequate training and resources needed to do their job of preparing accurate accounts. PDA pledged this would be done.
But problems got worse.
In its audit for 2016 and 2017, the State Auditor reported an even longer list of adverse findings. This time the FWPDA attempted to blame its own failures on the State Auditor.
The full report of the 2016 and 2017 audit may be read by clicking here.
The adverse finding include:
–reports filed late by 544 days for 2016 and 180 days for 2017.
–failure to disclose $3.5 million of debt.
–cash flow statements with mathematical errors for both years.
–deposit liabilities misclassified as deposit inflows in the amount of about half a million dollars each year.
–operating expenses and liabilities misstated for both years.
–failure each year to prepare the required Management’s Discussion and Analysis.
–failure to observe generally accepted accounting practices in the presentation of basic financial statements.
Once again the State Auditor recommended that FWPDA adequately train staff responsible for preparing financial statements “and implement effective secondary review to ensure financial statements are accurate, complete and submitted in accordance with GAPP [Generally Accepted Principles and Practices].”
In response, FWPDA argued it was the State Auditor’s fault that its reports were late. It additionally tried claiming that the reports had actually been uploaded timely, but someone just had not hit “send” for a period of more than a year and a half for the 2016 report and half a year for the 2017 report.
The State Auditor responded to this attempt at blame shifting by stating, “The Authority provided our office multiple revisions to the financial statements resulting in additional procedures which elongated the audit.”
The State Auditor and FWPDA also argued about whether the Fort Worden Foundation should be reported as a component unit of FWPDA. The Foundation was created in 2016 to conduct year-round fundraising for FWPDA. At its most recent Board of Directors meeting, October 28, 2020, that issue again surfaced when Acting Executive Director David Timmons agreed with the State Auditor and said that the Foundation must be included from now on in the PDA’s financial reporting.
Once again, the State Auditor urged FWPDA to adequately train and equip its financial reporting staff to do its job right. And, once again, FWPDA responded with the same promise it used to answer the Auditor’s adverse findings for 2014 and 2015:
The State Auditor will next audit and report findings for 2018 and 2019. Acting Executive Director Timmons has announced that as part of its preparation of reports for the State Auditor, an “accountability audit” will be conducted to investigate how FWPDA’s financial affairs have reached the point where, to use his words, it has become “a house of cards” with any one of many events capable of triggering a “cascade” of catastrophic failures and defaults.
In our first report on this matter, we discuss how Timmons has stepped in after FWPDA’s long-time Executive Director retired and the bad news he has delivered to the Board as he uncovered “an overwhelming” volume of serious financial problems. You may read that report by clicking here.
Fort Worden is in big trouble. The public development authority that runs the commercial operations at the state park is teetering on the brink of financial collapse. This should not have come as a surprise to the people charged with the fiduciary duty of overseeing Fort Worden’s operations.
Back in 2017 the State Auditor issued findings of deficiencies in internal financial controls of the Fort Worden Public Development Authority (FWPDA). That is the entity that runs all of Fort Worden except for the camping areas and trails, which remain under the control of the State Parks Department. The deficiencies identified by the State Auditor undermined the ability of the FWPDA to produce reliable and accurate financial statements, or to account accurately for how it was spending money. As reported by the Port Townsend Leader:
After receiving the audit, which was published March 9, the FWPDA board designated its executive committee – chair Norm Tonina, vice chair Gee Heckscher, treasurer Jeff Jackson and secretary Jane Kilburn – as the audit committee. CEO Dave Robison and CFO Diane Moody are also in place to support the committee. The executive committee meets monthly, with any audit-related topics to be scheduled for these meetings.
Despite that enhanced oversight and the monthly meetings, the State Auditor in a report released this year again found material failures in FWPDA’s financial statements for a two-year period, including 2017, when the enhanced oversight was supposed to be detecting, correcting and preventing deficiencies in internal controls and reporting. As reported by the Peninsula Daily News, “Diane Moody, the PDA’s chief financial officer, and Executive Director Dave Robison issued a memo to the board last week that said the PDA is forming a finance and audit committee as a result.”
The question arises: what happened to the executive committee that was supposed to have been meeting since March 2017 to scrutinize financial affairs?
Now the State Auditor is taking an even more critical look in the wake of revelations that FWPDA’s financial condition is a “house of cards” ready to topple in weeks and facing long term shortfalls in the millions of dollars. The Leader’s front-page story quotes acting CEO David Timmons at length about numerous discoveries of malfeasance, irresponsibility and recklessness.
Timmons stepped in after Dave Robison, CEO for 9 years, retired in September. Timmons has discovered that the FWPDA had been using 19 credit cards, and run up a balance of $60,000 on one card. With millions of dollars in lines of credit, the FWPDA was using credit cards with 29% interest rates to make purchases and cover expenses. Loan proceeds designated for capital projects were being used to cover operating costs. Like the Cherry Street Project, costs were vastly underestimated and funds are not available to pay contractors and finish construction projects.
The numbers are so huge, the shortfalls so staggering, FWPDA may collapse early next year when its multi-million dollar lines of credit expire and other major loans come due.
How could this have happened?
I submit this is another manifestation of the Cherry Street Project Disease. This affliction plagues local ambitious public undertakings and is caused by a political insularity and monoculture that admits no dissension or critical thinking. The afflicted project develops symptoms of irresponsible grandiosity and detachment from hard realities.
Just as the Cherry Street Project got no hard look from a City Council that shamed dissent and critical thinking, the FWPDA has succumbed to the same malady. It was created out of the same closed circles that comprise the city’s elite. Early questioning and criticism from those outside the circles of Mayor-for-Life Michelle Sandoval were brushed aside, ridiculed and ignored. Group think prevailed. The self-serving dream of large, generous infusions of taxpayer money, to be delivered by political allies, made it possible to suppress doubts and obviate the necessity for just a little healthy skepticism and vigilance.
Former FWPDA CEO Robison worked in City Hall from 1990 to 1996. When it was discovered he had misrepresented his qualifications to get his job, he seamlessly landed on his feet at the Northwest Maritime Center. After that, he became CEO of the FWPDA in 2010.
Unlike the amateurish group behind the failed $2.3 million-and-counting Cherry Street Project, the FWPDA Board should have known better. Its Board members are highly experienced people with backgrounds in business and finance. Norm Tonina, its co-chair and a founder, is a Director of First Federal Savings & Loan. He was supposed to be a member of the enhanced oversight group created in March 2017, but needing resurrection this year. Treasurer Jeffrey Jackson is managing director of a venture capital firm, and for 13 years was chief financial officer of a $3 billion corporation.
The FWPDA Board says it is stunned by what Timmons has discovered.
The consequences of a collapse of the FWPDA will be a lot more devastating for Port Townsend than the demise of the Cherry Street Project. It is past time for the elites and decision-makers to welcome to the table a few people from outside their circles who are unafraid to ask hard questions, and push courageously for uncomfortable answers. Steel sharpens steel. Diversity makes us stronger. What we have now is like a family seeing the consequences of generations of inbreeding. New blood from other gene pools is desperately needed.
A man with more than $100 million in commercial and residential development experience wants to help the city fix the Cherry Street Project mess and get affordable housing built.
“It is clear that what is occurring now is a financial disaster,” says Bert Loomis of Port Ludlow, where he built the Port Ludlow Town Center and a number of town homes. “I’ve got 50 years of experience and a team of architects and contractors that can solve most of their problems. My team can get it done with their eyes closed.”
Loomis’ offer to help so far has been rebuffed by the city. On September 28, 2020, Port Townsend City Council directed the City Manager to negotiate a handover of the failed project to Bayside Housing, a non-profit that provides transitional housing in rooms rented from the Old Alcohol Plant in Port Hadlock. As we reported yesterday, it is very uncertain whether Bayside Housing will formally commit to taking over the project and whether it can amass the more than $1`million needed to finish renovation of the 75 year old building on the Cherry Street property. That building, known as the Carmel House (shown above in its current condition), was barged to Port Townsend in May 2017 and has remained unoccupied and uninhabitable since then.
The building has to go, says Loomis, if anyone hopes to complete a “financially responsible and time sensitive” housing project. “It is a losing proposition to continue to throw good money after bad.”
Loomis believes that “stick built” construction on the site can provide a range of affordable housing. New construction offers the advantage of being adapted to the needs of older users and those with disability issues and will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. He maintains he can build such housing at far less cost and faster than any local non-profit organizations.
“I am willing to work with the city and donate a lot of time and effort to get this done,” he says. He predicts that if the city continues on the course it has been following, banking its hopes on a local non-profit with no experience and inadequate financial and professional qualifications, “they’ll still be having this conversation five years from now.” He does not appear interested in working with any “NGO,” as he calls non-profit organizations. He did express interest in talking with Keith and Jean Marzan, whose $1 million offer for the project has been rejected by the city, but which may be resubmitted in another form.
Loomis-built townhomes, Port Ludlow
Loomis’ initial offer to talk with the City Manager was rebuffed on October 2. After reading our report about the uncertainty of Bayside accepting and being able to complete the project, Loomis reached out again to the City Manager. He has not yet received a response.
Loomis’ career in development and construction is indeed extensive and impressive. He is the developer of 13 properties in Port Ludlow. His resume of projects, which he provided to Port Townsend Free Press, backs up his claim to more than $100 million in construction, ranging from large commercial properties to sizable condominium projects, mostly in California. A rough calculation shows that the total square footage of his building projects approaches half a million square feet. Loomis has received numerous awards for his developments.
“Me and my team can get it done. We can help the city make this happen,” says Loomis. “But we can’t have politics dragging this out for twenty years. I would think that someone who is serious about getting affordable housing built would be eager to talk to someone with my kind of experience and knowledge.”
Many differences and many similarities exist between these cities. Let’s start with similarities.
Population, from the 2018 U.S. Census: Poulsbo 10,927 people. Sequim, 7,481 and Port Townsend, 9,704.
Retail sales for 2018: Poulsbo was $484,036,676; Sequim $395,878,966; and Port Townsend $287,029, 148.
Per capita retail sales are a different story.
Sequim has the highest per capita retail sales at $52,917. Poulsbo is next at $44,297. Port Townsend is the lowest at $29,578.
This shows that the reliance by Port Townsend on tourism has not proved to be a wise decision. It also shows that the exclusion of so-called “Big Box Stores” was not a good idea, either.
Of course, Poulsbo has a tourist district. The old downtown along Front Street is a nice place to be on a warm summer day. Sequim has the old downtown area along Washington Street. We all know about Water Street in Port Townsend.
Let’s consider those “Big Box” stores. Generally the term refers to retail stores with a floor area of 50,000 square feet or more. Port Townsend has one, Safeway. In fact, in all of Jefferson County there is only one big box store. If the goal were to have the least amount of big box stores, Jefferson County would likely rank #1 in the area.
Sequim has three: Walmart, Home Depot and Costco, and quite a few other large retail outlets.
Poulsbo has four “Big Box” stores: Walmart, Home Depot, Safeway and Central Market, and a whole host of other sizable retail establishment.
A more telling difference among the three cities is the attitude toward business. Port Townsend has gone to extreme lengths to stop businesses from locating here. In the Eighties. McDonald’s and Safeway were both opposed, but not successfully. Later opposition blocked RIte-Aid and Hollywood Video. Port Townsend has been very successful in opposing new business. Just look at the per capita retail sales above.
But, this opposition has come at a price. It has not just been retail businesses that have been blocked. Manufacturing and affordable housing are all in short supply.
Of course, there has been much talk about affordable housing of late.
But, talk is cheap. It is the mainstay of any politician. They can talk about things for a lifetime and still nothing happens. This is likely what will happen with affordable housing. There used to be a bunch of talk about retail sales leakage. But, that was also just talk. The talk never amounted to anything. Port Townsend and Jefferson County lack retail sales and will likely lack affordable housing for many decades to come.
As a result, the tax revenue available for Port Townsend is lower than Poulsbo and Sequim. Lower retail sales results in lower property tax, sales tax and B&O tax revenue.
Just ask yourself the following: How many of you drive to Port Townsend for your needs? Instead of shopping here, many from Jefferson County go to Sequim and Poulsbo. This is a significant retail leakage that does not have to be.
By having more options for retail here in Jefferson County we could retain the retail sales tax and employ people in addition to having more revenue from property taxes for the additional retail stores.
And if that happens maybe the attitude towards affordable housing would change also.
The choice is yours! Just do not think anything will change until the general attitude in our community changes.
