Skip to content

Recap of 2022Q4

Analysis

Date Range: October 3, 2022 – December 12, 2022

Executive Summary

During the final quarter of 2022, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners confronted the high cost of its own strategic ambitions, shifting from long-range planning to contentious, expensive implementation. The period was defined by the direct consequences of prior policy choices, as the board was forced to commit significant financial resources to manage the fallout of its own regulatory reforms and address escalating crises in core county services. The dominant pattern was one of tactical spending to mitigate self-inflicted administrative friction and systemic operational failures.

The board’s landmark achievement of the prior quarter—a new "Legal Lot of Record" ordinance—immediately crippled the Department of Community Development, necessitating an expensive course correction. The commissioners directed staff to hire on-call planning consultants at a cost of $75,000 to manage a permit backlog created by the new law. Simultaneously, the board approved a $270,000 no-bid contract for emergency IT infrastructure upgrades and authorized new hiring and retention bonuses for corrections officers to stem a critical staffing exodus.

While attempting to navigate a complex DNR forest carbon proposal, the board operated with extreme caution, a direct reversal of its earlier impulsiveness on timber sales. Its final action was a letter to the state that supported the project's conservation goals in principle but demanded granular financial data and preserved the county's right to opt-out, reflecting a new, more deliberative approach.

The winners were external consultants and county employees in crisis-beset departments. The losers were taxpayers, who are now funding reactive fixes, and the Public Works department, whose long-term structural deficit in the road fund was formally documented in the new transportation plan but left fundamentally unsolved in the final 2023 budget.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Adopts Contentious Land Use Law, Creating Immediate Permit Backlog

Topic

The board unanimously adopted a "Legal Lot of Record" ordinance, establishing a new mandatory review process to determine the legal building status of all parcels before development.

Context

  • External Mandates: The ordinance was presented by staff as a legal necessity to comply with the state's Growth Management Act and avoid liability from inconsistent, ad-hoc determinations. It replaced an expiring moratorium.
  • Development Constraints: In a county with a severely limited private land base, any new regulation affecting development potential carries significant economic weight. The ordinance was passed despite widespread public opposition in the prior quarter from landowners and the real estate industry.
  • Housing Crisis: The action was framed by staff as a way to provide long-term certainty for development, but it introduced a new, immediate administrative hurdle for property owners and builders.

Public Input

  • The public hearing was closed on September 26. Tom Tears, in public comment on October 3, praised revisions that exempted minor projects like roof replacements from the new review process.

Deliberation Insights

  • Staff-Driven Revisions: Following intense public criticism in the prior quarter, the board directed staff to streamline the ordinance. Revisions integrated the review into the existing Site Development Review process, created a presumption of legality for most modern platted lots, and removed a requirement to formally record the legal lot determination.
  • Unchallenged Assumptions: The board accepted the premise that a new, universal review process was the only legally defensible solution, despite public calls for a simpler system. Deliberation focused on mitigating the ordinance's impact rather than questioning its necessity.
  • Focus on Process over Impact: Commissioner discussion centered on the flow chart and procedural steps of the revised ordinance, not on its potential economic impact on small landowners or the housing supply.

Decision & Vote

Adopted Ordinance 09-1003-22 unanimously (3-0) on October 3.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The county's planning and legal departments, which gained a standardized, legally defensible process for lot determinations.
  • Losers: All property owners seeking to develop land, who now face a new mandatory review step. Owners of older, non-standard parcels are most affected, facing uncertainty and potential costs for surveys and research.
  • Operational Changes: The ordinance created a new, mandatory step in the county's permitting system, immediately increasing the workload for the Department of Community Development (DCD).
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The ordinance was a proactive attempt to build a durable regulatory framework, but its implementation was reactive to an expiring moratorium and legal pressure.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action created a direct conflict between the board's stated priorities. It advanced goals of orderly growth management and environmental protection but undermined the priority of streamlining regulations to address the housing crisis.
  • Pattern Recognition: This decision set the stage for a cascade of consequences, revealing a failure to anticipate the operational and fiscal impact of major regulatory change.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A thorough analysis of the administrative capacity of DCD to implement the new law. The board adopted the ordinance without a plan to manage the inevitable increase in permit applications.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This ordinance sits at the nexus of nearly all the county's core tensions: housing affordability vs. development constraints, the demand for government services vs. tax base limits, and urban growth vs. rural preservation.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: By passing a complex new law without adequate staffing, the board created a predictable administrative crisis that required an expensive fix just weeks later.

2. Commissioners Fund Costly Consultants to Manage Self-Inflicted Workload Crisis

Topic

The board gave direction to hire an on-call planning consultant for $75,000 and pursue other staffing solutions to manage a DCD workload crisis driven by the new Legal Lot of Record ordinance and state-mandated planning updates.

Context

  • Predictable Consequences: Just over one month after adopting the Legal Lot of Record ordinance, DCD reported it was overwhelmed with a backlog of Site Development Reviews and unable to make progress on a legally required Shoreline Management Program (SMP) update.
  • Fiscal Pressure: DCD stated it was losing staff to higher-paying jurisdictions like Kitsap County, making it unable to hire its way out of the crisis. This reflects the county’s struggle to offer competitive wages.
  • External Mandates: The Washington State Department of Ecology had returned voluminous comments on the county's draft SMP after a 10-month delay, creating an urgent need for specialized planning work under a grant deadline.

Public Input

  • No public comment was offered.

Deliberation Insights

  • Crisis Management Mode: The discussion was framed as an emergency response. DCD Director Brent Butler presented high permit volumes and staff losses as justification for immediate, costly intervention.
  • Acceptance of External Costs: The board immediately accepted the need for outside consultants. There was no discussion of reversing or amending the new ordinance that was the primary cause of the workload increase.
  • Lack of Alternatives: The board did not explore alternatives to hiring expensive consultants, such as re-prioritizing DCD tasks, implementing a temporary permit moratorium, or seeking an extension on the state's SMP deadline.

Decision & Vote

The board gave consensus direction on November 7 for DCD to prepare a contract amendment with BERK Consulting for the SMP work and to procure an on-call consultant for $75,000. No formal vote was taken.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Private consulting firms, which gain new county contracts. DCD, which receives resources to manage its workload.
  • Losers: County taxpayers, who will fund the high cost of consultants to perform work that would otherwise be done by county staff.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision committed at least $75,000 from the county budget, with the final cost of the BERK contract amendment not yet specified.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: This was a purely reactive decision to solve a crisis created by a prior policy choice. It demonstrates a pattern of passing complex regulations without accounting for the resources required for implementation.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The funds for consultants will come from supplemental appropriations, implicitly deprioritizing other potential uses of those funds or reducing reserves.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action confirms a disconnect between the board's legislative agenda and its administrative and fiscal capacity. The "pass now, find money later" approach creates budget instability.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The root cause of the crisis—whether the Legal Lot of Record ordinance was overly burdensome or poorly designed. The focus remained on treating the symptom (workload) rather than the disease (regulatory complexity).
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: The decision highlights the tension between the county's limited tax base and the high cost of the robust government services (in this case, complex land-use planning) that the board and its progressive constituency demand.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: Relying on external consultants is a costly, short-term fix that does not address the underlying issues of uncompetitive county salaries and high staff turnover.

3. Board Cautiously Engages on State Forest Carbon Plan, Demanding Financial Data

Topic

The board engaged in an extensive public process around the Washington DNR's forest carbon pilot project, culminating in a formal letter that supported the project's goals but withheld full endorsement pending detailed financial analysis and greater local control.

Context

  • Policy Inconsistency: This deliberative approach is a direct reaction to the board’s chaotic reversal on timber sales earlier in the year. The board is determined to avoid another poorly vetted decision on forest policy.
  • Fiscal Pressure: The carbon project is presented as an alternative revenue source for junior taxing districts (schools, fire) that are heavily dependent on timber harvests, addressing the core conflict that drove the earlier controversy.
  • Environmental Demands: A vocal constituency strongly supports the project as a way to preserve older, structurally complex forests from logging, aligning with the county's environmental values. The timber industry and some rural stakeholders expressed skepticism about the revenue projections.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Dozens of residents, conservation groups (Olympic Forest Coalition), industry representatives (American Forest Resource Council), and fire officials testified during a special workshop on November 30.
  • Substance of testimony: Conservation advocates praised the project as a visionary way to protect forests and fight climate change. Industry representatives and skeptics questioned the carbon market's stability, argued young forests sequester carbon faster, and warned of impacts on local jobs.
  • Intensity: The workshop drew significant public engagement, reflecting the high stakes of any change to forest management policy.

Deliberation Insights

  • Data-Driven Skepticism: Unlike the previous timber debate, commissioners consistently focused on verifying the financial projections. They questioned the price-per-credit assumptions and demanded parcel-specific inventories.
  • Search for a Third Way: Deliberations focused on finding alternatives to the binary choice of "DNR's plan vs. status quo." Commissioners discussed reconveyance of state lands to county control, trust land transfers, and collaborative management models.
  • Protecting Local Control: A primary theme was ensuring the county could influence which parcels were included and had a clear "opt-out" if the project did not perform as promised. The final letter explicitly requested a role in parcel selection.

Decision & Vote

Approved sending a formal letter to the DNR Board of Natural Resources unanimously (3-0) on December 12.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Proponents of long-range, collaborative planning. The board successfully positioned the county as a critical, sophisticated partner for DNR, rather than a passive recipient of state policy.
  • Losers: Interests seeking a quick endorsement or rejection of the carbon plan. The board's action delays a final decision in favor of more analysis.
  • Long-Term Impact: The decision signals a significant shift in the county’s approach to forest policy—from reactive and divided to proactive, unified, and data-driven.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Reactive: The board’s engagement was highly proactive. It organized workshops and solicited expert analysis to inform its position, representing a significant evolution from its reactive stance in the spring.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action aligns with stated priorities for both environmental protection and long-term fiscal stability by methodically exploring a policy that could serve both.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action shows clear institutional learning. The board is applying the painful lessons from its timber sale reversal to create a more durable and defensible policy process.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A concrete plan for replacing timber revenue if the carbon project proves financially unviable. The fundamental dependency of junior taxing districts on state land revenue persists.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This entire process is a direct attempt to resolve the county's deepest conflict: economic development vs. environmental protection, and service demands vs. a limited tax base.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: By engaging so deeply, the board raises expectations for a successful outcome. If negotiations with DNR fail, it could damage the board’s credibility and renew the conflict with both environmental and industry stakeholders.

4. Board Adopts 2023 Budget and Transportation Plan Revealing Structural Road Deficit

Topic

The board adopted the 2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the 2023 Mid-Biennium Budget, which formally acknowledged a looming structural deficit in the county Road Fund.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: The Road Fund forecast presented with the TIP showed expenses outpacing revenues, projecting a negative cash balance by 2024. This is driven by construction cost inflation (8%+) far exceeding revenue growth (2%) and the loss of federal timber revenue.
  • Tax Base Limits: The county increased the property tax levy for the Road Fund by the state-mandated maximum of 1%, but this is insufficient to cover rising costs.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The board approved a $620,000 diversion of property tax revenue from the Road Fund to the General Fund to support the Sheriff's Office, a reduction from prior years but still a significant transfer out of the already-strained fund.

Public Input

  • Who testified: During the TIP hearing, residents praised the quality of county roads but urged staff to prioritize specific safety projects. During the budget hearing, residents impacted by safety issues on Shine Road requested that funds be allocated for fixes.
  • Substance of testimony: Public comment focused on specific project-level demands, not the high-level structural deficit facing the Road Fund.

Deliberation Insights

  • Deficit Acknowledged, Not Solved: Commissioners and staff openly discussed the Road Fund's bleak financial trajectory during the TIP presentation. However, the final adopted budget did not include a long-term solution.
  • Prioritizing Public Safety Over Infrastructure: The decision to continue diverting over half a million dollars from roads to law enforcement demonstrates the board's immediate priorities. The long-term solvency of the road system was implicitly deferred.
  • Reliance on Grants: The TIP is overwhelmingly dependent on grants (95% of its $38.5 million total). The deliberation showed a continued reliance on this reactive funding model rather than developing stable, local revenue for infrastructure.

Decision & Vote

  • Approved the 2023-2028 TIP unanimously (3-0) on November 21.
  • Approved the 2023 property tax levies, including the Road Fund levy and diversion, unanimously (3-0) on November 21.
  • Adopted the 2022-23 Mid-Biennium Budget Modification unanimously (3-0) on December 12.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Sheriff's Office, which continues to receive a substantial subsidy from the Road Fund. Proponents of specific grant-funded projects included in the TIP.
  • Losers: The Public Works department and all users of the county road system. The failure to address the structural deficit guarantees future crises, deferred maintenance, and an inability to provide local matching funds for grants.
  • Fiscal Impact: The budget locks in a trajectory toward insolvency for a core government function. While the General Fund remains stable, the Road Fund is being systematically depleted.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The budget is reactive, funding immediate law enforcement needs at the expense of long-term infrastructure sustainability. Acknowledging the problem in the TIP without funding a solution in the budget is a hallmark of reactive governance.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The decisions conflict with stated priorities for maintaining infrastructure. The budget reveals that, when forced to choose, current public safety operations are valued more highly than future road conditions.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This is a classic example of tax base limits clashing with service demands. Without the political will to seek new revenue (e.g., a voter-approved levy), the board is forced to cannibalize one core service to fund another.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A credible plan to close the Road Fund deficit. Options like seeking a road levy lid lift from voters, implementing new fees, or making deeper cuts to the Public Works program were not part of the budget deliberations.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The county's ability to maintain its primary physical asset—its road network—is now at high risk. This jeopardizes public safety, economic activity, and the county's ability to secure future state and federal grants that require local matching funds.

5. County Extends Local COVID-19 Emergency Powers After State Declaration Ends

Topic

The board adopted a resolution extending its local COVID-19 emergency declaration and associated temporary personnel policies after the statewide state of emergency expired on October 31.

Context

  • Operational Continuity: Staff argued that the local declaration was necessary to retain administrative flexibility, particularly for personnel policies like paid administrative leave for quarantine, which were credited with maintaining service levels amid staff shortages.
  • Political Calculation: The decision was made despite public comment urging the board to end the declaration, citing the endemic nature of the virus and the actions of other counties. Commissioners weighed the political cost of appearing to "cry wolf" against the operational benefits.
  • Public Health Concerns: The decision was supported by public health officials, who cited rising cases of flu and RSV and the risk of a winter surge overwhelming local healthcare capacity.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Several members of the public, including Steven Schumacher and Annette, consistently spoke against the extension at multiple meetings.
  • What they represented: A constituency concerned with government overreach, questioning the efficacy of masks and vaccines, and arguing for a return to pre-pandemic normalcy.
  • Substance of testimony: Commenters argued the declaration was disingenuous, created business uncertainty, and eroded public trust. Supporters argued it provided necessary flexibility.

Deliberation Insights

  • Focus on Administrative Tools: The commissioners' discussion was almost entirely focused on the declaration's utility as an administrative and HR tool, not as a public health mandate. They repeatedly emphasized it did not involve lockdowns or mask mandates for the public.
  • Deference to Staff: The board heavily deferred to the advice of the county administrator, human resources, and the Department of Emergency Management, who all recommended the extension to maintain operational stability.
  • Policy Integration as a Goal: The board directed staff to begin integrating the useful elements of the temporary COVID personnel policies into the permanent employee manual, signaling that the declaration is a stopgap measure.

Decision & Vote

Adopted Resolution 49-22, the 13th Temporary COVID Policy, unanimously (3-0) on October 24, to take effect November 1.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: County department heads and the HR department, who retain flexible tools for managing staff absences. County employees, who continue to have access to special paid leave for COVID-related issues.
  • Losers: Members of the public who view the ongoing declaration as an unnecessary exercise of government power, deepening their distrust of the board.
  • Operational Changes: The decision maintained specific personnel policies, such as providing up to 40 hours of paid administrative leave for isolation, which are more generous than standard sick leave.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The action was a proactive measure to prevent potential operational disruptions during a predicted winter virus surge.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The decision aligns with the board's priority of ensuring continuity of government services, even at the cost of political opposition from a segment of its constituency.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action reflects the board's pragmatic, operations-focused governance style, prioritizing the machinery of government over ideological consistency.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The specific financial cost of maintaining the enhanced leave policies. The total expenditure on COVID-specific paid leave was not quantified during deliberations.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: By extending the emergency on purely administrative grounds, the board risks diminishing the perceived legitimacy of a "state of emergency," potentially reducing public compliance during a future, more acute crisis.

AI Information