Clallam County commissioners and staff on Sept. 16 discussed next steps for a jointly owned emergency operations center and consolidated 9-1-1 facility with the City of Port Angeles, a project now estimated at about $21 million and funded with a mix of federal, state and local sources.

The item drew extended questioning about who will make timely decisions during construction, how the project will be managed and how the county will protect contingencies. "The critical function here will be performed by a project manager," said Todd Milke, the county official directing the project. "The project manager is the critical role. They are people who come from a construction background." Milke told commissioners staff will complete construction/bid documents and return at a work session within roughly two weeks to request authority to go out for bid.

Why it matters: Commissioners emphasized that rapid, day‑to‑day decisions will be required once construction starts — substitutions, grading timing, and market changes can add hundreds of thousands of dollars quickly. Several commissioners urged clearer written language governing the decision chain and information flow before bids and mobilization.

Milke described the project’s recent history and current status. The joint project moved from a roughly $30 million concept down to about $21 million through scope reductions while preserving seismic resiliency and core emergency functions. The design stage is near-final: county staff submitted 90% design documents to the Department of Community Development and are awaiting review comments needed for permit submittal. The site is inside the county’s urban growth boundary but outside Port Angeles city limits; the county will initially use a septic system and hook up to city sewer later for redundancy.

On funding, Milke said the county and city have assembled federal, state and local grants and appropriations so the project is currently funded at about $22.2 million against estimated project costs near $21 million. He listed funding sources in the meeting: a FEMA grant of about $2.965 million, at least two Washington State Department of Commerce grants (about $1.65 million and another of roughly $5.7 million), approximately $2 million from emergency 9‑1‑1 reserves, a recent legislative appropriation of about $1.95 million and local contributions. Milke said the county and city have committed funds and that the project budget includes management and construction contingencies; "we have a project cost of about 21,000,000. We have revenues identified at 22,200,000 — so we have about 1.2" (million) and "there's probably about 2,200,000 in contingency" within the project cost.

Commissioner Randy Johnson said his central concern is decision authority if circumstances change after construction starts: "Someone has to come together and make that decision on a timely basis … or you end up eating an additional cost of 4 or $500,000." Johnson asked for clearer documentation of the information flow and decision‑making chain; Commissioner Mark Ozias and Milke said the core team (county and city leads) and an incoming project manager/owner’s representative will handle day‑to‑day matters and that the project manager will escalate options to the core team if a choice has material cost implications.

Milke described how the county will structure construction oversight: the county will remain the grant administrator and design lead during construction; the county and city anticipate hiring a separate project manager/owner’s rep (via RFP) who will coordinate the general contractor and a construction management firm (OAC) to verify compliance with construction documents. He said the county anticipates advertising widely for contractors to encourage competitive bids.

Milke also summarized past scope reductions and bid alternates that the team intends to use to preserve essential systems while leaving lower‑priority items as add alternates (for example, a hot‑water storage tank and extended fuel storage for the backup generator). He said staff will include bid alternates so competitive bids can allow items to be added back if money allows.

What was decided: Commissioners did not record a vote to award construction contracts during the Sept. 16 meeting. The board approved moving the project forward as staff described: staff were directed to complete construction/bid documents, issue an RFP for a project manager/owner’s representative, and return to the board at a work session (targeted within about two weeks) to request authority to advertise for construction bids and to seek approval of the formal construction agreement.

Background and next steps: The project has been discussed for several years and underwent multiple design stages (staff described 30% and 60% design checkpoints earlier this year). Staff asked the board to consider a construction agreement that would carry the county’s role forward into construction. The county will continue to administer grants and coordinate with city counterparts. The board and staff agreed to prepare a clearer, follow‑up document or MOU describing information flow and decision escalation to address commissioner concerns before construction authorization.

Who said it: Commissioner Randy Johnson asked most of the questions about management and timely decisions; Commissioner Mark Ozias provided earlier reports on related issues; Todd Milke spoke for county administration and project direction and referenced Scott Curtin, city public‑works director, as the city’s project manager. Other referenced participants include Nathan West (Port Angeles city manager), Jim Denisi (county engineer), OAC (construction management firm) and the architect team (Canterbury, Portland — referenced).

Ending: The board scheduled a joint public meeting with Port Angeles the same evening to consider the construction agreement and provide an opportunity for public comment; staff will return to the commissioners with final construction documents and a request for authorization to advertise for construction bids.