Pierce County Council adopts $5 million Community Needs Grant program with member allocations and capital carve‑out

Pierce County Council adopted ordinance O2025‑507 on April 15, 2025, creating a new Community Needs Grant Program in county code and authorizing up to $5,000,000 in biennial grants to nonprofit and public entities that serve Pierce County. The council approved the ordinance, including three council amendments, by a 7‑0 roll call vote.

The new chapter 2.113 of the Pierce County Code establishes a $5,000,000 biennial funding cap. Council staff described the proposed distribution as up to $3,000,000 for discretionary grants (split between the executive and council) and up to $2,000,000 reserved for capital projects and property acquisitions. The ordinance sets per‑recipient limits of $75,000 in a single year or $150,000 over a biennium and directs that funding generally be distributed on a reimbursable basis under a written grant agreement.

Why it matters: The ordinance creates a formal legal framework for direct allocations that the council has made in prior budgets through the miscellaneous current expense (MCE) line. Council staff and the executive’s office told members the change is intended to make those allocations transparent and to place guardrails around how and for what purposes county dollars can be distributed.

Council staffer Paul Boehke summarized the ordinance’s structure during the meeting: “This ordinance proposes to establish a community needs grant program by adopting a new chapter 2.113 of the Pierce County code. The program is designed to provide a clear and efficient mechanism for Pierce County to distribute funds to support community driven initiatives.”

Julie Murray, representing the executive’s office, explained that the change responds to advice from the prosecuting attorney’s office about the county charter and previous direct appropriations: “The prosecuting attorney…stated that the process of the direct appropriations that the council was doing within the budget was inconsistent with our charter… The idea…was that the direct allocations were really meant to be grants, and there is no prohibition on doing grants.” Murray said the ordinance provides eligibility criteria, funding parameters and allowable uses so distributions can be made under grant agreements.

Amendments and policy details - Amendment 1A (adopted, then amended as a scrivener correction): When fully funded, each council member may propose up to $375,000; if the program is not fully funded, the available council portion will be divided evenly among the seven members. Council members clarified and removed a duplicated word in the text as a scrivener correction during debate. - Amendment 4 (adopted): Adds language that funding distributions made under the new chapter are not “contracts for professional services” as defined in section 9.15(2) of the Pierce County Charter, a change intended to distinguish grant distributions from procurement contract rules. - Amendment 5 (adopted as amended): Simplified the list of allowable uses and added “aging and disability services.” During amendment discussion the council changed subsection language from “sustainability and livability” to “sustainability and quality of life improvements.”

The ordinance exempts these grant distributions from Pierce County Code chapter 2.106 (Purchasing) for amounts within the program’s stated limits; larger allocations or those outside the code’s allowances would still be subject to procurement rules. The ordinance also requires written grant agreements that “articulate the public benefit” and contain standard county terms and conditions.

Public testimony Several nonprofit leaders and community representatives addressed the council during the public hearing in support of restoring a community needs fund. - Eric Flagan, executive director of the Mustard Seed Project of Key Peninsula, said the county’s prior direct allocation enabled a Key Peninsula assisted‑living and memory care project to proceed after construction costs rose: “Without that funding, we would not have been able to move forward.” - Carol Wright, representing the Graham Kapalson Community Council, described how flexible, local funding helped a newly opened senior center serve older residents in an unincorporated area that lacks nearby services. - Philip Cowan, executive of the Grand Cinema, and Jean Ann Smith, director of the Mid County Community Center, urged support for a streamlined grant program, saying the existing competitive procurement processes can be time‑consuming for small organizations.

Council debate and vote Members described the ordinance as a compromise that balances local flexibility with fiscal guardrails. Council member Morrell said the grant framework “is a better process than what we’ve had before” because it provides clearer parameters and transparency. Vice Chair Herrera and other members said they supported the ordinance after the amendments established clearer member allocations and legal distinctions. The council adopted O2025‑507 as amended by a 7‑0 roll call vote (Ayala: yes; Yambe: yes; Herrera: yes; Morrell: yes; Kuver: yes; Denson: yes; Hitchens: yes).

What comes next The ordinance creates the statutory framework; the council and the executive must place funding in the county’s biennial budget for the program to be operational. Council members noted the program’s impact will depend on the amount ultimately funded in the budget and emphasized that reimbursements and written grant agreements will govern distributions.

Ending note Council members said they expect the new program to remain subject to public budget deliberations and open records practices, and they signaled plans to use the framework conservatively in the upcoming biennial budget process.