Skip to content

Recap of 2023Q3

Analysis

Date Range: July 3, 2023 – September 25, 2023

Executive Summary (≈200 words)

In the third quarter of 2023, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners governed through a series of externally driven crises and grant-funded opportunities, revealing a deep chasm between its capacity for long-range planning and its ability to manage immediate operational pressures. The board's primary actions were reactive, from implementing a controversial fireworks sales ban triggered by a state-level fire declaration to approving a $2.1 million mid-year budget adjustment driven almost entirely by an unbudgeted $886,000 increase in employee health insurance premiums.

This reactive posture was balanced by the successful advancement of major, externally funded strategic projects. The board leveraged over $16 million in a federal RAISE grant to plan segments of the Olympic Discovery Trail and committed to seeking state grants to study flood and wildfire risks in Brinnon. These decisions underscore a governance model heavily reliant on grant dependency, where the county executes ambitious multi-million dollar infrastructure plans while struggling to fund core services with its own limited tax base.

The board’s most significant fiscal decision was a fundamental restructuring of solid waste fees, doubling the minimum charge to $20 and adding an annual 2.5% escalator to rescue the system’s depleted financial reserves. This move, while fiscally necessary, shifts a greater burden onto low-volume and low-income users.

Winners this quarter were proponents of large-scale infrastructure and environmental projects who saw their goals advanced with outside money. Losers were non-profit fundraisers impacted by the fireworks ban and residents facing higher costs for basic county services.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Upholds Fireworks Ban, Prioritizing Safety Over Fundraising

Topic

The board allowed a county-wide fireworks sales and discharge ban to take effect on June 30, a decision triggered automatically by a state fire hazard declaration and a 2022 county ordinance.

Context

  • Consequences of Prior Decisions: This was the first implementation of a 2022 ordinance that ties a local fireworks ban to a "High" fire danger declaration from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), removing political discretion from the board.
  • Constituent Demand vs. Public Safety: The action pitted local non-profits, who rely on fireworks sales for significant fundraising, against fire officials citing dry fuels and high risk. The Chimacum High School boosters reported a potential loss of $12,000–$15,000.
  • Operational Reality: With only 13 firefighters on duty county-wide during a holiday weekend with a large tourist influx, fire chiefs unanimously supported the ban to preserve limited emergency response capacity.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Randy Kerley (TNT Fireworks), Kelly Liskey (Big Blue Boosters), and multiple residents.
  • What they represented: Business interests and non-profit fundraising groups.
  • Substance of testimony: Testimony was overwhelmingly opposed to the sales ban. Speakers argued that weather conditions were not extreme, communication was poor (permits were issued just two days before the ban), and the financial impact on community groups was severe.
  • Intensity: Public comment was impassioned, focusing on lost revenue and perceived government overreach.

Deliberation Insights

  • Adherence to Process: Commissioners consistently framed the decision as non-discretionary. They deferred entirely to the professional judgment of the county’s fire chiefs and the automatic trigger mechanism they had previously codified in the ordinance.
  • Focus on Communication Failures: The board acknowledged significant communication gaps, particularly the timing of permit issuance relative to the ban, and focused its after-action review on improving future notifications rather than questioning the ordinance itself.
  • Unchallenged Assumptions: The board accepted the premise that a pre-defined, non-political trigger was the best way to manage fire risk, even when its first application caused significant economic disruption and public anger.

Decision & Vote

No vote was required. The ban took effect automatically per Jefferson County Code Chapter 8.75. The board took no action to reverse it. (July 3)

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Fire and emergency services officials, who avoided responding to fireworks-caused fires during a high-risk period. Residents concerned about fire safety and noise.
  • Losers: Non-profit groups, primarily the Big Blue Boosters, who lost a primary annual fundraiser. Fireworks vendors and residents who wished to purchase and use them.
  • Operational Changes: The Sheriff's Office was tasked with enforcement, focusing on education and voluntary compliance. 46 calls for service were logged on July 4, with few citations issued.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Reactive: The 2022 ordinance was a proactive attempt to create a data-driven policy. Its implementation in 2023 was a reactive, non-discretionary response to an external trigger.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action aligns with the board’s priority of public safety over economic considerations in an emergency context.
  • Pattern Recognition: The decision demonstrates the board's preference for creating automatic, expert-driven regulatory systems to remove themselves from politically contentious, case-by-case decisions.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A mechanism to mitigate the financial harm to non-profits who prepare for sales in good faith. The board offered sympathy but no financial relief.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: The incident highlights the friction between traditional rural activities and the increasing risks posed by climate change and population density. It pits economic self-sufficiency (fundraising) against the demand for government-provided safety.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The poor communication around the ban’s implementation eroded public trust, creating a perception that the county is bureaucratic and insensitive to the needs of community organizations.

2. County Doubles Minimum Garbage Fee to Shore Up Failing Fund

Topic

The board approved an ordinance and resolution that doubles the minimum fee at county solid waste facilities from $10 to $20 and institutes an automatic 2.5% annual fee escalator starting in 2025.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: The Solid Waste enterprise fund’s capital reserves were projected to be less than half of the benchmarked requirement ($916,000 vs. a $2.04 million target). Fees had not been substantially increased since 2014, while costs rose.
  • Operational Failure: Customer volume at the transfer station was 54% over design capacity, with 45% of users bringing in small loads (under 120 lbs.) that generated only 13% of the tonnage, creating significant traffic congestion for low revenue.
  • Tax Base Limits: As an enterprise fund, Solid Waste must be self-supporting. With reserves depleted, a steep rate hike was presented as the only alternative to service cuts.

Public Input

  • Who testified: A resident identified as Mr. Tush.
  • Substance of testimony: The commenter supported the per-ton rate increase but argued the doubled minimum fee was regressive, disproportionately impacting residents with smaller vehicles and those who produce little waste. He suggested a smaller, trial increase.

Deliberation Insights

  • Data-Driven Decision: The board relied heavily on staff data showing severe reserve depletion and operational inefficiency caused by high volumes of low-revenue customers. Regional comparisons showing a $25 average minimum fee in other jurisdictions were used to justify the $20 figure.
  • Equity Concerns Acknowledged, Then Deferred: Commissioners acknowledged the regressive nature of the minimum fee hike. In response, they directed staff to develop a low-income discount program but approved the full fee increase before that program was created or funded.
  • Alternatives Rejected: The public suggestion for a smaller, phased-in increase was discussed but not adopted. The board prioritized immediate fiscal stabilization over mitigating the financial shock to residents.

Decision & Vote

Approved Ordinance 03-0703-23 and Resolution 28-23, effective October 3, 2023, after a one-month delay for IT upgrades. (Approved 3–0 on July 3).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Public Works Solid Waste division, which secures a stable revenue stream to rebuild reserves and fund future capital needs.
  • Losers: Low-income residents and households that produce minimal waste, who now face a 100% increase in the minimum cost of disposal.
  • Fiscal Impact: The new fee structure is designed to generate sufficient revenue to close the fund’s structural deficit. The one-month implementation delay cost an estimated $8,321 in revenue.
  • Operational Changes: The fee structure is intended to disincentivize frequent small trips, theoretically reducing traffic congestion at the transfer station.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The action is a reactive, crisis-driven response to years of deferred fee increases that allowed the fund to become financially unstable.
  • Budget Trade-offs: By making the fund solvent, the board avoids the need for a future General Fund bailout, protecting other county services. However, it places the full burden of solvency directly on ratepayers.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: The decision is a direct result of the tension between service demands and the county's limited revenue options. Unable to subsidize the service, the board chose a user-fee model that has a disproportionate impact on those with the least ability to pay.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The potential for the steep fee increase to encourage illegal dumping. The board assumed compliance and did not budget for increased enforcement.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: Implementing a significant, regressive fee increase without a low-income discount program already in place risks harming the county’s most vulnerable residents and damages the board’s credibility on equity issues.

3. Board Advances Major Infrastructure Plans with External Grant Funding

Topic

The board authorized staff to pursue millions in state and federal grants and approved contracts to advance large-scale infrastructure projects, including the Olympic Discovery Trail, Brinnon hazard mitigation, and Port Hadlock sewer system.

Context

  • Grant Dependency: The county’s entire capital improvement strategy is predicated on securing external funding. These actions demonstrate a governance model where major local priorities can only advance when aligned with state and federal grant programs.
  • Long-Term Planning: The projects represent the execution phase of multi-year, or even multi-decade, strategic plans for economic development (ODT), climate resilience (Brinnon), and managed growth (Port Hadlock sewer).
  • Fiscal Reality: The combined cost of these projects is tens of millions of dollars, an amount far beyond the capacity of the county’s local tax base. The $16.13 million federal RAISE grant for the regional trail system is a prime example.

Public Input

  • Public comment on the Brinnon grant application was supportive, but requested formal, data-driven methods to ensure community needs were accurately reflected. Comment on the ODT grant was uniformly positive.

Deliberation Insights

  • Strategic Use of Staff Time: The board directed significant staff resources from Public Works and Community Development toward grant application and management, signaling that grant acquisition is a top administrative priority.
  • Leveraging Partnerships: Success in securing grants was repeatedly attributed to collaboration with partner agencies, including the Peninsula Trails Coalition, the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group.
  • Focus on Execution: With funding secured or in sight, board discussions centered on administrative execution: authorizing grant applications, approving design contracts, and establishing financing mechanisms like a line of credit for the sewer project to manage cash flow between construction payments and grant reimbursements.

Decision & Vote

  • Authorized staff to apply for a $250,000 state grant for Brinnon flood and wildfire studies. (Consensus direction on July 10).
  • Approved a contract with D.A. Davidson for underwriter services for a line of credit for the Port Hadlock Sewer project. (Approved 3-0 on July 24).
  • Accepted role as co-recipient of a $16.13 million federal RAISE grant for the Olympic Discovery Trail, with Jefferson County's share at $2.88 million for planning and design. (Briefing on July 10).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Proponents of recreation, managed growth, and environmental protection. Engineering and construction firms who will be awarded contracts. The specific communities of Brinnon and Port Hadlock.
  • Losers: No direct losers are identified, but the intense focus on grant-funded capital projects draws staff time and attention away from solving core operational deficits funded by local taxes.
  • Fiscal Impact: The county leverages a small amount of local funding and staff time to attract millions of dollars in outside investment, stimulating the local economy.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: These actions are the tangible results of long-term, proactive strategic planning.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The reliance on restricted grants creates a bifurcated budget reality. The county can fund a $41 million, six-year transportation plan almost entirely with external money, while simultaneously being unable to solve the structural deficit in its own Road Fund for basic maintenance.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: These projects are the county’s primary tools for navigating its core challenges. The sewer project addresses the urban growth vs. rural preservation tension; the Brinnon grants address climate resilience; and the ODT addresses the tourism-based economic development model.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The long-term, unfunded operational and maintenance costs of the new infrastructure being built. The grants cover construction, but the county tax base will be responsible for upkeep.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: Over-reliance on grants makes the county’s capital improvement program vulnerable to shifts in political priorities at the state and federal levels. It creates a "boom-and-bust" cycle of infrastructure investment rather than a steady, sustainable one.

4. County Confronts Budget Realities with $2.1M Mid-Year Adjustment

Topic

The board approved a $2,102,185 second-quarter supplemental budget appropriation, driven primarily by an unbudgeted $886,105 increase in employee health benefit premiums.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: The appropriation highlights the intense pressure rising healthcare costs and inflation place on the county’s General Fund. The health premium increase alone consumed a significant portion of the county's financial flexibility.
  • Service Demands: The budget adjustment also included new ongoing funding for an HR Analyst position to handle complex labor negotiations and regulatory compliance, and increased one-time funding for the Sheriff’s Office and Superior Court to meet operational demands.
  • Budgetary Process: The action followed the board's formal adoption of its 2024-2025 budget guidelines, which capped non-labor spending increases at 1.5% and held most fund transfers flat, signaling a period of fiscal constraint.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Tom Thiers.
  • Substance of testimony: The commenter urged the board to fund an electric truck for the Noxious Weeds department instead of a gas-powered one, citing state fleet mandates and environmental benefits. The board agreed and increased the vehicle's budget line from $31,000 to $50,000 to accommodate the request.

Deliberation Insights

  • Acceptance of External Costs: The board treated the massive health insurance increase as an unavoidable external cost. Deliberation was minimal, focusing on the necessity of the appropriation to maintain existing benefit levels.
  • Strategic Additions: While the budget was dominated by the benefits crisis, the board approved targeted spending to address specific operational weaknesses, such as adding HR capacity and upgrading court technology.
  • Responsive to Public Input: The board demonstrated flexibility by amending a departmental budget request on the fly in direct response to a single public comment, changing the specification and increasing the budget for a vehicle.

Decision & Vote

Approved Resolution 29-23, the second quarter supplemental budget appropriation, as amended. (Approved 3–0 on July 17).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: County employees, whose health benefits were maintained without increased premium sharing. Departments that received targeted funding increases.
  • Losers: Taxpayers and the General Fund reserve, which absorbed a nearly $900,000 unbudgeted expense, reducing the county's capacity to respond to future crises or fund new initiatives.
  • Fiscal Impact: The appropriation consumed a significant portion of the county’s fund balance. It underscores the fragility of a budget where a single line item can require a multi-million dollar adjustment.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The budget action was largely reactive, a response to a benefits cost shock that was not anticipated in the biennial budget.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The decision to fully fund employee benefits, even at a high cost, aligns with the board’s stated priority of being a competitive employer to retain staff.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The $886,105 spent on health premiums is money that cannot be used for road repairs, social services, or other public priorities. It represents a massive, implicit trade-off against every other unfunded need.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A long-term strategy for controlling employee benefit costs. The board treated the increase as a one-time problem to be solved with reserves, rather than as a recurring structural threat to the budget.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The high, volatile cost of employee benefits is now established as a primary threat to the county’s fiscal stability. Without a cost-containment strategy, similar crises are likely to recur, forcing future trade-offs between employee compensation and public services.

AI Information