NIEMAN for COMMISSIONER
District 3- Jefferson County, WA
Republican Party of Jefferson County
Committee to Elect Nieman
Stephen T. Nieman: Key Proposals
POLICY PROPOSAL Jefferson County Workforce Housing and Community Infrastructure Partnership Program www.Nieman4Commissioner.com Purpose "We're not asking developers to give away affordability. We're creating a new investment class where developers retain an ownership interest in workforce housing, earn returns over decades, and simultaneously finance the infrastructure necessary for rural economic growth." Jefferson County faces two interconnected challenges: 1. Workforce housing shortages. 2. Lack of wastewater infrastructure needed for retail, housing, and employment growth. This policy addresses both problems through a market-oriented public-private partnership model. ________________________________________ Guiding Principles Growth Pays For Growth Existing taxpayers should not bear the cost of infrastructure required by new development. Future development, utility users, and project beneficiaries should finance infrastructure expansion. ________________________________________ Homeownership Matters The objective is not rental housing. The objective is attainable homeownership for: • teachers • nurses • first responders • public employees • tradespeople • service workers ________________________________________ Developers Must Benefit Affordable housing cannot depend entirely on charitable behavior. Projects succeed when developer profit incentives remain strong and aligned with community objectives. ________________________________________ Program Structure Component One Workforce Townhome Villages Projects containing: 40-75 townhomes Walkable design Integrated open space Commercial services nearby Target household income: 80%-140% AMI ________________________________________ Component Two Community Infrastructure District Developer and County create: Community Wastewater System Road Infrastructure Stormwater Facilities Broadband Utility Extensions Financed through: • connection charges • utility assessments • latecomer agreements • developer participation • state infrastructure grants ________________________________________ Component Three Permanent Shared Equity Housing Each home contains: Traditional Mortgage plus Developer Equity Position Typical structure: Home Value $350,000 Bank Mortgage $280,000 Developer Equity $70,000 No monthly payments required on developer equity. ________________________________________ Component Four Resale Formula Upon sale: Developer receives: Original Equity plus Accrued Return or Percentage of Appreciation The shared equity position remains attached to the home. Future buyers assume participation in the same structure. This preserves affordability permanently. ________________________________________ Economic Benefits For Homeowners • Lower monthly payments • Homeownership opportunity • Equity accumulation • Wealth building For Developers • Long-term investment returns • Secured real estate assets • Portfolio appreciation • Recurring cash flow For County Government • Expanded tax base • New retail activity • Housing production • Reduced infrastructure burden For Communities • Local jobs • Reduced commuting • Better access to services • Stronger village centers ________________________________________ Pilot Recommendation Launch a demonstration project along the Highway 104 corridor serving the Tri-Area and Port Hadlock region: 50 Workforce Townhomes 15,000 SF Commercial Center Community Wastewater Plant Developer Retained Equity Model Public-Private Partnership Structure This pilot would establish Jefferson County as a national leader in combining workforce housing, decentralized wastewater infrastructure, and long-term private investment in community development. Option 1: Fixed Interest Deferred Second Initial Transaction Townhome Value $350,000 Bank Mortgage $280,000 Developer Note $70,000 Developer records a second-position deed of trust. No monthly payments. Accrues 2.0% per year. Ten Years Later Developer Note $70,000 2% annual accrual Year 10 Balance ≈ $85,300 Home sells. Developer receives: $85,300 Simple. But it does not fully capture appreciation. ________________________________________ Option 2: Shared Appreciation Mortgage Original Purchase Value $350,000 Developer Investment $70,000 20% of value Ten Years Later Value $500,000 Gain $150,000 Developer receives: Original Investment $70,000 plus 20% of Appreciation $30,000 Total $100,000 Homeowner receives: 80% appreciation $120,000 plus principal reduction on first mortgage Everyone wins. ________________________________________ Option 3: The Permanent Equity Model Instead of repayment: Developer Maintains a 20% Equity Interest At purchase: Developer 20% Homeowner 80% If value rises: House Value $500,000 Developer Equity 20% = $100,000 Homeowner Equity 80% = $400,000 Upon sale: The developer does not get cashed out. Instead: The next buyer purchases the home under the same structure. The developer simply remains a 20% equity owner. Think of it as a private-sector version of a community land trust without separating ownership of the land. ________________________________________ Why Investors Like This Today's development model: Year 1 Invest $20M Year 3 Finish Project Sell Everything Collect Profit Leave The profit period ends. Investors must find another project. ________________________________________ The Jefferson County model creates: Year 3 Finish Project Sell Units Retain Equity Interests Collect Returns for 30+ years Instead of a construction company mindset, investors begin acting like portfolio managers. ________________________________________ Example Project 50 Townhomes Developer retains: $70,000 x 50 units = $3.5 Million That becomes a secured housing portfolio. ________________________________________ Assume 3% annual appreciation. After 30 years: $350,000 home becomes approximately $850,000 Developer's 20% position: ≈ $170,000 per unit. Across 50 units: ≈ $8.5 Million of underlying asset value. The original $3.5M position more than doubles without constructing another project. ________________________________________ Why This Could Attract Institutional Investors It is eventually attracting: • Pension funds • Insurance companies • Impact investment funds • Affordable housing funds • Real estate investment trusts (REITs) Those investors like: Long Duration Assets 30-year horizons. Inflation Protection Housing inflation tends to rise with replacement cost. Security Second-position deed of trust. Predictable Cash Flow Homes resell continuously. ESG / Workforce Housing Many investors are actively seeking workforce housing exposure. ________________________________________ A Better Structure for Olympic I would actually pitch a pooled fund. Workforce Housing Investment Fund Initial project: 50 Units $70,000 retained position = $3.5M Fund Assets Future projects: 50 more units another $3.5M After 500 units: $35 Million of controlled workforce housing equity. Now the developer owns a permanent housing portfolio rather than a one-time subdivision. ________________________________________ The Synopsis "We're not asking the developer to discount housing by $70,000 per unit. We're asking the developer to convert $70,000 of immediate profit into a secured long-term equity position. Instead of harvesting all value at construction completion, the developer builds a perpetual workforce housing investment portfolio that grows with Jefferson County." In short: A workforce housing infrastructure investment platform tied to mixed-use development, community wastewater systems, and long-term real estate appreciation. Reference for Policy: Local Validation Olympic Housing Trust Jefferson County affordable housing initiatives National Validation Champlain Housing Trust (Vermont) San Francisco DALP Boulder H2O Arlington MIPAP
Synopsis: Safe Access Mobility Hub & Shared Ridership Program This synopsis summarizes the key features of Jefferson County District 3’s Safe Access Mobility Hub & Feeder Program, as outlined in the adopted Public Transportation Policy and accompanying Grant Language. The program addresses a documented structural barrier in rural transit systems: unsafe first-mile and last‑mile access to fixed-route bus service. The proposed solution combines consolidated mobility hubs with shared, demand-responsive feeder services and braided funding sources already in use across the United States. Key Program Features 1. Mobility Hub–Based Transit Access. Fixed-route bus stops are consolidated into a limited number of Safe Access Mobility Hubs located on flat, visible, and defensible sites. Each hub is designed with off‑lane bus pullouts, covered waiting areas, lighting, ADA-compliant boarding, and sufficient space for transfers, parking, and future expansion. The intent is to replace unsafe roadside boarding locations with purpose-built access points. 2. Shared Ridership Feeder Service. First‑mile and last‑mile trips are provided through demand‑responsive, shared‑ride feeder services rather than individual paratransit or private taxi trips. Trips are time‑windowed to align with fixed-route schedules and are accessible by phone to ensure usability for seniors and residents without smartphones. Vehicles are right‑sized to demand and include ADA‑compliant vans where required. 3. Integration with High-Intensity Hub Sites. Certain hub locations—such as regional highway intersections and park‑and‑ride facilities—are intentionally designed at larger scale to accommodate transit vehicles, private automobiles, feeder vans, and commercial users. Where appropriate, hubs may co‑locate retail services, fuel/EV charging, rest areas, and employment-serving uses to increase site viability and reduce unnecessary trip duplication. Shared Ridership: Where the Model Is Already Implemented The shared-ridership feeder model proposed for Jefferson County is not experimental. Comparable systems are currently in operation across rural and small‑urban regions in the United States. Arrowhead Transit in Minnesota has implemented shared, demand‑responsive feeder services using a mix of professional operators and volunteer drivers, achieving documented reductions in per‑trip cost and improved system coverage. Similarly, Via Transportation provides shared microtransit platforms for rural and small‑city transit agencies nationwide, allowing multiple riders to be grouped into coordinated trips feeding fixed routes and hubs rather than replacing them. Federal Transit Administration guidance explicitly recognizes this hub‑and‑feeder, shared‑ride approach as an appropriate mitigation for suppressed rural ridership caused by unsafe access conditions. How the Program Is Paid For Program funding relies on a braided financing strategy that aligns transit operations with healthcare and mobility funding streams already authorized under federal and state law. Core operating support is provided through Federal Transit Administration Section 5311 Rural Transit funds, which may cover up to fifty percent of eligible operating and mobility‑management costs. Additional operating and vehicle support is available through FTA Section 5310 for seniors and individuals with disabilities, including volunteer driver programs and accessible vehicles. Importantly, a portion of feeder trips—specifically those serving healthcare-related travel—are eligible for reimbursement under Washington State’s Medicaid (Apple Health) Non‑Emergency Medical Transportation program as well as Medicare Advantage supplemental transportation benefits. Capital and pilot support for hub amenities, planning, and technology integration may be supplemented through National RTAP grants, Federal Transit Administration Integrated Mobility Innovation awards, and Washington State Climate Commitment Act funding. This layered approach allows the County to expand safe access while minimizing reliance on new local tax revenue. Expected Outcomes Documented outcomes from comparable programs indicate ridership increases of approximately twenty to thirty‑five percent on affected routes, improved fixed‑route reliability due to fewer stops, and measurable reductions in pedestrian exposure to high‑speed arterials. For Jefferson County, these outcomes translate into safer access for seniors and mobility‑limited residents, improved workforce mobility, and more efficient use of existing transit resources. Conclusion The Safe Access Mobility Hub & Shared Ridership Program represents a practical, defensible modernization of rural transit delivery. By combining consolidated hub infrastructure, shared feeder ridership, and established funding mechanisms, the program directly addresses documented safety and access barriers while remaining scalable, fiscally responsible, and consistent with federal transit best practices.
Integrated Workforce Village & Safe Access Mobility Policy This policy integrates Jefferson County’s Safe Access Mobility Hub & Feeder Program with the Workforce Village development concept. Together, these initiatives address two structurally linked challenges: the lack of safe first-mile/last-mile access to transit and the growing displacement of the local workforce due to housing costs. By coordinating housing, transportation, and employment at a village scale, the County can improve mobility, stabilize its workforce, and strengthen the local economy without expanding unsafe roadside infrastructure or long, inefficient bus routes. 1. Policy Rationale: Housing and Mobility as a Single System Rural transit research consistently shows that ridership declines not because buses are unreliable, but because reaching them is unsafe. At the same time, Jefferson County’s workforce increasingly lives farther from jobs and services, compounding transportation demand and cost. The Workforce Village model resolves both issues by concentrating homes, services, and employment around designated Mobility Hubs that are intentionally designed for safe pedestrian access and transit connectivity. Rather than attempting to retrofit sidewalks and shoulders along high-speed arterials, this policy focuses growth and daily activity in safe, walkable nodes that are directly served by fixed-route transit and complemented by on-demand feeder service. 2. Workforce Village as a Mobility Anchor Each Workforce Village functions as a primary Mobility Hub within the Safe Access Mobility Hub & Feeder Program. Villages are planned with car-free residential interiors, centralized parking and mobility facilities, and direct pedestrian connections to transit boarding areas. This configuration dramatically reduces exposure to dangerous road conditions while improving transit reliability through consolidated, well-designed stops. Workforce Villages are intentionally sized to support first-mile/last-mile efficiency. On-demand feeder services can operate more predictably when a critical mass of riders originates from a single, safe location rather than dispersed hillside or arterial-adjacent homes. 3. Employer Participation and Economic Integration Employer participation is a central feature of this integrated policy. Businesses operating in Jefferson County are invited to engage through three complementary mechanisms: workforce housing investment, employee mobility support, and participation in the village-based service and employment core. Employers may contribute to shared-equity housing funds, provide down payment or mobility assistance to employees, or lease space within the village service center. In return, employers benefit from reduced turnover, improved reliability of employee arrival, shorter commute times, and lower absenteeism—well-documented outcomes in employer-assisted housing and mobility programs nationwide. Locating employment and services directly within or adjacent to Workforce Villages reduces peak transit demand, shortens average trip lengths, and allows feeder services to prioritize seniors, mobility-limited residents, and off-corridor households. 4. Operational Synergies with the Safe Access Mobility Hub & Feeder Program Integrating Workforce Villages into the Safe Access Mobility Hub framework enhances the operational efficiency of Jefferson Transit. Fixed-route buses benefit from fewer, safer stops and improved schedule adherence, while feeder services operate along shorter, flatter, lower-risk paths. Villages also provide ideal operating bases for volunteer and second-career mobility operators. Centralized carports, dispatch points, and passenger waiting areas simplify operations and reduce per-trip costs relative to dispersed rural pickups. 5. Fiscal and Climate Benefits This integrated approach reduces long-term public costs by aligning housing growth with existing transit capacity instead of extending routes or adding buses. Concentrated development lowers infrastructure maintenance costs, while shared-equity ownership ensures that public housing investments are recycled rather than lost to market escalation. Reduced vehicle miles traveled, increased transit usage, and walkable access to employment directly support Washington State climate and equity priorities, positioning Jefferson County competitively for state and federal funding. 6. Implementation Path Implementation will occur through coordinated planning actions rather than new operational mandates. Workforce Villages are designated as priority Mobility Hub locations; Jefferson Transit integrates them into service planning; and employer participation remains voluntary but incentivized through reliability, visibility, and workforce stability benefits. This policy framework allows Jefferson County to pilot integrated housing and mobility solutions at modest scale, evaluate outcomes, and expand incrementally based on demonstrated success. Conclusion By integrating the Workforce Village concept into the Safe Access Mobility Hub & Feeder Program, Jefferson County moves from managing symptoms—unsafe access and declining workforce retention—to addressing root causes. Housing, mobility, and employment become mutually reinforcing systems rather than competing budget demands. The result is a safer, more resilient county where infrastructure decisions are shaped by human needs, fiscal responsibility, and long-term community stability.
Jefferson County as a Cultural Motif for Business Marketing Core Thesis Jefferson County—particularly its mix of coastal Pacific Northwest landscapes, timber heritage, maritime identity, and small scale community structure—offers a distinctive brand environment that certain types of businesses actively seek out. The value is not just land or labor—it is authenticity. Businesses that benefit most are those that: •Sell experience, identity, or values, not just products •Need a story rooted in place •Want to align with sustainability, craftsmanship, or lifestyle culture ________________________________________ 1. Outdoor & Performance Lifestyle Brands Why Jefferson County Works •Olympic Peninsula proximity •Forest + marine environment •Rugged terrain and weather credibility (“tested in real conditions”) •Low density authenticity (not overdeveloped like major ski towns) Target Businesses •Outdoor gear companies (technical apparel, hiking, marine gear) •Adventure brands (kayak, cycling, trail equipment) •Sustainable performance wear Marketing Angle “Field tested on the Olympic Peninsula” “Built for real weather, real terrain, real people” These companies use place as proof of performance, and Jefferson County offers legitimacy similar to: •Patagonia (Ventura) •Arc’teryx (Vancouver) •Outdoor brands tied to mountain towns ________________________________________ 2. Craft Manufacturing & Artisanal Goods Why It Fits Jefferson County already aligns with: •Woodcraft traditions •Boatbuilding and maritime heritage •Handmade and small batch culture Target Businesses •Furniture makers (timber, reclaimed materials) •Specialty food producers (cheese, seafood, fermentation) •Distilleries, breweries, and small wineries •Textile or slow fashion companies Marketing Angle “Made in the Northwest Coast tradition” “Handcrafted in Jefferson County” Consumers associate: •Place → quality •Craft → authenticity •Small scale → trust This is a premium positioning, not a cost based one. ________________________________________ 3. Sustainable Living & Environmental Technology Firms Why This Works Here Jefferson County naturally supports branding tied to: •Environmental stewardship •Off grid or low impact living •Climate resilience Target Businesses •Solar, battery, and micro grid firms •Water systems and low impact infrastructure •Sustainable building materials (CLT, modular, timber) Marketing Angle “Developed and proven in a real low impact community” “Built for sustainable living, not theoretical models” This aligns strongly with our Workforce Village concept, which can become a demonstration site. ________________________________________ 4. Remote Work, Creative, and Knowledge Economy Firms Why This Is Emerging Jefferson County has: •Natural beauty (draw for talent) •Lower density and slower pace •Strong arts and cultural base (Port Townsend influence) Target Businesses •Small creative agencies •Design firms (architecture, landscape, product) •Media and content creators •Remote-first tech teams Marketing Angle “Work where creativity meets landscape” “Designed on the edge of the Pacific Northwest” These firms don’t need dense infrastructure—they need: •quality of life •inspiration •identity ________________________________________ 5. Hospitality & Experiential Retail Why Jefferson County Is Ideal •Destination adjacent (Port Townsend, Olympics) •Undersupplied high quality rural hospitality •Strong narrative potential Target Businesses •Boutique hotels and inns •Destination cafés and markets •Wellness and retreat operators Marketing Angle “A stop that feels like a place” “Gateway to the Olympic Peninsula” Our mobility hub + retail strip concept is especially aligned with this: •Functions as a modern rural waypoint •Similar to successful highway adjacent curated stops (not generic truck plazas) ________________________________________ 6. Mobility & Rural Innovation Companies Why This Is Underappreciated Our transit policy creates an opportunity for Jefferson County to be: •A testbed for rural mobility innovation Target Businesses •Microtransit platforms (e.g., Via type systems) •Rural logistics and delivery networks •Autonomous pilot programs (future phases) •Fleet electrification companies Marketing Angle “Tested in real rural conditions” “Built for places other systems ignore” This is a strategic recruitment opportunity, not just economic development. ________________________________________ 7. Employer Assisted Housing & Workforce Focused Employers Why This Is Unique to Our Plan Few rural regions offer: •Integrated housing + transit + employment nodes Target Employers •Healthcare providers •Skilled trades companies •Regional service providers •Logistics / supply chain companies Marketing Angle “We invest in where our employees live” “Stable workforce, stable community” This aligns directly with our Workforce Village + hub integration strategy. ________________________________________ Strategic Insight (Important) Jefferson County should not compete on: •Lowest cost •Fastest growth •Scale It should compete on: •Authenticity •Environmental identity •Craft + place based production •Human scale development ________________________________________ The Unifying Brand Narrative If you want one cohesive positioning: Jefferson County is where work, place, and community still align. That narrative supports: •Housing policy •Mobility hubs •Employer participation •Business recruitment ________________________________________ Bottom Line The businesses most attracted to Jefferson County are those that: •Need a story tied to landscape and authenticity •Value stable workforce housing •Benefit from integrated mobility and services •Sell identity, not just product Your policy framework (housing + mobility + hubs) does something unusual: ✅ It turns Jefferson County into a platform, not just a location.
Why Stephen?
I solve problems, that's what I do.
You want a someone who seeks resolution to issues through simple solutions.