Skip to content

Recap of 2024Q4

Analysis

Date Range: October 7, 2024 – December 23, 2024

Executive Summary

In the final quarter of 2024, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners confronted the county's core fiscal limitations, advancing new taxes to rescue failing roads while overhauling its entire tourism promotion apparatus to seed a speculative $20 million aquatic center. Governance was defined by a stark trade-off: The board took decisive, high-risk steps to create new funding mechanisms for future ambitions but remained passive or reactive on escalating crises in housing, land use, and recycling. This pattern reveals a board willing to dismantle established systems for strategic bets while struggling to manage the immediate consequences of past policy failures.

The board’s most significant action was the unanimous vote to create a Transportation Benefit District, a new taxing authority designed to avert the insolvency of the county Road Fund with a potential $1.1 million annual infusion from new vehicle fees and a sales tax. This move to backfill a core service stands in sharp contrast to the board’s strategic redirection of Lodging Tax funds. Commissioners approved a funding plan that effectively defunds the county’s primary tourism marketing body in order to provide seed money for a Public Facilities District, a separate new taxing entity intended to build a mid-county pool.

While these strategic financial maneuvers took center stage, the board oversaw the collapse of its public recycling program, ending glass collection with no alternative and signaling a full transition to a private subscription model. It also absorbed intense public criticism regarding the imminent closure of mobile home parks, which threatens to displace over 100 low-income households, but took no definitive action.

Winners this quarter were proponents of a new aquatic center and the Road Fund, which gained a path to solvency. Losers were taxpayers facing new taxes, the county’s established tourism marketing organizations, residents losing access to public recycling, and mobile home park residents left with no county-led solution. The board’s actions prioritize creating new infrastructure over sustaining existing services, a strategic gamble that relies on future voter-approved taxes to solve present-day crises.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Advances New Taxes to Avert Road Fund Insolvency

Topic

The board voted to establish a Transportation Benefit District (TBD), creating a new legal entity with the authority to impose a $20 vehicle fee and a 0.1% sales tax to fund the county’s failing Road Fund.

Context

  • Fiscal Crisis: The Road Fund faces an $883,116 deficit in 2025, with reserves projected to be exhausted within two years. Public Works Director Monty Reinders stated that revenues are structurally outpaced by inflation, with costs for essential equipment like street sweepers doubling since 2011.
  • Service Cuts: The fund’s crisis has already forced a 50% reduction in the chip seal road preservation program, accelerating the deterioration of the county’s 395-mile road network.
  • Tax Base Limits: This action is a direct response to the tension between the state-mandated 1% property tax levy cap and the rising costs of maintaining core infrastructure. With property tax unable to cover costs, the TBD creates a new, dedicated funding stream.
  • Grant Dependency: While the county’s six-year capital transportation plan is 97% grant-funded, those funds are restricted to new projects. The TBD is required to fund basic operations and maintenance, which are ineligible for grants.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Marsha, Bill Leavitt, Jake Johnson, David Gooding, Ray Burkhart, Kathy Parlapiano, Charles Foley, Tom Tiers, Jean, and others.
  • What they represented: County taxpayers, primarily from unincorporated rural areas.
  • Substance of testimony: A majority of speakers opposed the new taxes, citing tax fatigue, the rising cost of living, and a lack of voter approval for the district. Several speakers demanded the county first reallocate existing funds, impose fees on bicycles and electric vehicles, and end the annual $520,000 road levy diversion to the general fund. A minority supported the measure as necessary to maintain essential infrastructure.
  • Intensity: Public comment was extensive and overwhelmingly critical, reflecting widespread opposition to new taxes.

Deliberation Insights

  • Crisis Framing: The board framed the TBD as the only viable alternative to a catastrophic failure of the road system. Deliberation focused on the necessity of the action, presenting it as a responsible, albeit unpopular, choice.
  • Councilmanic Authority Defended: Commissioners defended their decision to create the TBD and impose initial fees without a public vote, citing their legal authority and the urgency of the fiscal crisis. They characterized the choice as a matter of basic maintenance, comparing chip sealing to "painting your house to prevent it from rotting."
  • Alternatives Rejected: The board did not act on public demands to end the road levy diversion or explore alternative fees. The TBD was presented as the primary and necessary solution.

Decision & Vote

Approved an ordinance establishing a Transportation Benefit District for the unincorporated areas of the county. (Approved 3–0 on December 16). A subsequent hearing on the specific taxes will be held in February 2025.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Public Works department, which gains a mechanism to solve a structural deficit and restore maintenance programs.
  • Losers: County residents and business owners, who will pay an estimated $1.1 million annually in new vehicle fees and sales taxes.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision creates a new taxing authority capable of generating over $1 million per year. This stabilizes the Road Fund but increases the overall tax burden on the county’s limited economic base.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The action is a reactive, crisis-driven response to a long-foreseen structural deficit, identified in budget documents from prior years.
  • Pattern Recognition: This fits a recurring pattern of the county creating new, single-purpose taxing districts (e.g., Public Facilities District for a pool) to fund services that its general revenues can no longer support. It institutionalizes a fractured, piecemeal approach to public finance.
  • Budget Trade-offs: By creating a new tax, the board avoids making cuts to other general fund services that would have been necessary to backfill the Road Fund. It prioritizes the preservation of the existing budget structure over containing the overall tax burden.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A formal analysis of the economic impact of a new sales tax on a rural community with high inflation. The board also did not publicly model the impact of ending the road fund levy diversion as an alternative to a new tax.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The board has expended significant political capital to create an unpopular tax. The decision creates a high-profile political liability and fuels public distrust in the county’s fiscal management.

2. Board Overhauls Tourism Strategy to Fund Aquatic Center

Topic

The board approved the 2025 Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) grant awards and initiated the formation of a Public Facilities District (PFD), a set of actions that redirects tourism funds from marketing toward seed money for a new aquatic center.

Context

  • Economic Development vs. Service Demands: This represents a strategic pivot from promoting tourism through marketing to "destination development" by funding a large capital facility. The board’s stated goal, articulated in a September 9 memo, is to create amenities that attract visitors, rather than funding advertising.
  • Consequences of Prior Decisions: This follows a Q3 2024 decision to overhaul the LTAC and a Q1 2024 pivot to form a new task force to site the pool in a mid-county location, a move designed to resolve the urban-rural conflict that has historically stalled the project.
  • Tax Base Limits: The PFD is the chosen legal mechanism to ask voters for a new 0.2% sales tax to fund the pool. The $20,000 in LTAC funds are designated for the market studies required to launch a PFD ballot measure.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Dan Ventura, Debbie Wardrop, Diana Smeeland, Andrew Schwartz, and others representing the tourism industry.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers overwhelmingly opposed the board’s new direction, arguing that the LTAC process was ignored, decades of tourism expertise were being discarded, and that delays in approving the traditional marketing grants would harm small businesses. They argued a pool is a resident amenity, not a primary tourist draw.
  • Intensity: Public comment across multiple meetings was organized, pointed, and reflected deep alienation between the board and established tourism stakeholders.

Deliberation Insights

  • Board Division and Legal Intervention: Commissioner Brotherton proposed an alternative budget that would have immediately defunded the Tourism Coordinating Council (TCC) and visitor centers. After an executive session with legal counsel, the board rejected this alternative and unanimously approved the LTAC’s recommendations as-is.
  • Strategic Override: Despite approving the 2025 grants, the board simultaneously moved to dismantle the existing LTAC structure. It voted to open all appointed positions on the committee to new applicants and to draft new priorities, signaling a clear intent to replace the current members and permanently shift the funding strategy in 2026.
  • Deferral of Conflict: By approving the 2025 grants while simultaneously starting the process to replace the committee, the board avoided an immediate shutdown of tourism marketing but ensured a future confrontation over the county’s long-term strategy.

Decision & Vote

  • Approved the 2025 LTAC funding recommendations for $782,000. (Approved 3–0 on December 9).
  • Directed staff to draft a resolution to form a Public Facilities District. (Approved 3–0 on December 9).
  • Directed staff to open all LTAC positions to new applicants and draft new bylaws. (Approved 3–0 on December 23).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Proponents of a mid-county aquatic center, who secured seed funding and a clear path toward a ballot measure.
  • Losers: The Tourism Coordinating Council and other traditional marketing grant recipients, whose funding was approved for 2025 but whose future is now in jeopardy.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decisions reallocate $20,000 of lodging tax revenue to PFD startup costs and signal a future shift of the entire ~$900,000 annual fund away from marketing.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: This is a high-risk, proactive maneuver to achieve a long-stalled capital project by dismantling the county’s existing tourism promotion system.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action fits the board’s pattern of creating new, dedicated authorities (TBD, PFD) to fund major projects the general fund cannot support.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The board explicitly chose to prioritize a speculative capital project over established, ongoing marketing programs.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A data-driven analysis of the economic impact of defunding tourism marketing in a tourism-dependent economy. The board asserted, but did not demonstrate, that an aquatic center would be a more effective tourism driver.
  • Stakeholder Exclusions: The decisions were made over the strong objections of the LTAC and the tourism industry representatives who testified, creating deep institutional conflict.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The board has staked its credibility on the success of a future PFD ballot measure. If voters reject the new tax for the pool, the county will have alienated its tourism partners and dismantled its marketing system for nothing.

3. County Ends Public Recycling Program, Shifting Burden to Residents

Topic

The board endorsed a plan to end all county-supported recycling services, eliminating glass collection immediately and phasing out all other materials by 2026 in favor of a private, subscription-based curbside model.

Context

  • Operational Failure: The immediate action was driven by the collapse of the regional glass market. With no buyers, the county began landfilling glass in October 2024 at a cost of $10,000 per month.
  • Fiscal Pressure: The county’s source-separated recycling program runs a $300,000 annual deficit, subsidized by tipping fees and grants. The board’s decision prioritizes eliminating this subsidy.
  • Policy Shift: The move aligns with the county’s Solid Waste Management Plan, which prioritizes waste reduction and producer responsibility over public subsidies for recycling. It marks a fundamental shift from providing recycling as a public service to treating it as a consumer choice.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Tom Tirsch, Craig Durgin, Shelley Yarnell, Jean Ball, and others.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers criticized the plan for punishing rural residents who self-haul and cannot access curbside service on private roads. They argued the shift would lead to increased illegal dumping and disproportionately harm low-income residents. Some urged the county to explore entrepreneurial solutions for glass reuse.
  • Intensity: Public comment was sustained and critical, reflecting a sense of betrayal and concern over reduced services and equity.

Deliberation Insights

  • Focus on Systemic Inefficiency: The board framed the current source-separated system as outdated, inefficient, and financially unsustainable. Deliberations focused on the high contamination rates and costs of the current model.
  • Curbside as the Solution: The board presented the transition to a mandatory, subscription-based curbside system managed by Waste Connections as the most efficient and modern solution, despite public concerns about access and cost.
  • Acknowledging Gaps: Commissioners acknowledged that the plan does not solve the problem for rural residents on private roads or address low-income affordability, stating those issues would be addressed later through negotiations with the state Utilities and Transportation Commission.

Decision & Vote

Consensus direction was given in a workshop to discontinue glass collection effective December 1, 2024, and to direct staff to draft a new ordinance transitioning all recycling to a private subscription model by January 1, 2026. (Workshop held November 12).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Waste Connections, the private hauler, which will gain a significant new market for subscription services. The county’s solid waste enterprise fund, which will be relieved of a $300,000 annual subsidy.
  • Losers: All county residents, who lose access to public recycling drop-off sites. Rural and low-income residents are disproportionately affected due to limited access to curbside service and affordability challenges.
  • Operational Changes: The decision dismantles a decades-old public service. It shifts the full logistical and financial burden of recycling from the county to individual households.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The decision was triggered by the reactive crisis of the glass market collapse but represents a proactive, strategic decision to exit the business of providing recycling services.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: The action prioritizes fiscal sustainability over service provision, a direct result of the county's limited tax base and inability to continue subsidizing non-mandated services.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The decision conflicts with the county’s stated environmental goals but aligns with a broader fiscal strategy of shedding non-core services that require general fund subsidies.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A concrete plan to mitigate the impacts on rural and low-income residents. The board deferred this critical equity issue to a future regulatory process.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The county risks a surge in illegal dumping, which will create new cleanup costs for Public Works and private landowners. The decision also damages public trust by removing a highly visible and popular public service.

4. Board Absorbs Public Outcry on Mobile Home Park Closures, Takes No Action

Topic

The board received extensive public testimony regarding the pending sale and closure of two mobile home parks, which threatens to displace over 120 low-income households, but made no formal decisions or commitments to intervene.

Context

  • Housing Crisis: The situation represents a mass eviction of low-income residents, including seniors, disabled individuals, and essential workers, in a county with virtually no alternative affordable housing. Residents testified their immobile homes, valued at up to $180,000, will become worthless.
  • Regulatory Failure: The crisis highlights the weakness of state and local protections for mobile home park residents. Washington law allows for closure with six months' notice, offering minimal recourse for homeowners who cannot afford to move their trailers.
  • Market Pressure: The park owner reportedly rejected a tenant buyout offer at list price before raising rents by 25%, a move residents described as "economic eviction" to clear the way for redevelopment.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Over 15 residents from Olympic Village and Olympic Park, including Chris Olson, River Ward, Kim Danner, and Carol Ferguson.
  • What they represented: A vulnerable population of low-income homeowners facing homelessness.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers described fear, financial ruin, and a sense of betrayal. They detailed long-neglected infrastructure, including failing septic systems, and urged the board to enact an emergency moratorium on park sales, provide legal assistance, or explore county acquisition.
  • Intensity: Testimony was prolonged, emotional, and desperate, with speakers describing grown men in tears and widespread panic in the community.

Deliberation Insights

  • Expression of Sympathy, Assertion of Powerlessness: Commissioners expressed deep sympathy for the residents but repeatedly stated their legal authority to intervene was limited. Their discussion focused on exploring long-term policy options rather than immediate emergency action.
  • Focus on Future Policy: The board directed staff to research long-term solutions used in other jurisdictions, such as zoning overlays to preserve mobile home parks, but made no commitment to enact them.
  • No Emergency Action: Despite direct pleas from residents for a moratorium or injunction, the board did not direct legal staff to explore these options or schedule an emergency session. The response was to schedule future analysis, not to take immediate action.

Decision & Vote

No formal decisions were made or votes taken. The board directed staff to research long-term policy options. (Discussion held October 14).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The park owner and potential developers, who face no immediate county-level obstacles to the sale and closure of the parks.
  • Losers: Over 120 households of low-income residents, who received no tangible aid or intervention from the county and remain on a path to displacement.
  • Operational Changes: Staff time will be allocated to researching policy options, but no resources were committed to direct resident assistance.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The board’s response was entirely reactive to public testimony. Its decision to study long-term policy rather than take emergency action demonstrates a highly risk-averse posture when confronted with a complex crisis involving private property rights.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The inaction stands in direct conflict with the board’s stated top priority of addressing the housing crisis. It reveals a gap between the county’s aspirational goals and its willingness to use its regulatory power in a specific, high-stakes situation.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This crisis is a stark manifestation of the housing affordability vs. development pressure tension. The board’s passive stance implicitly prioritizes the property rights of the landowner over the housing stability of a large group of vulnerable residents.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A detailed legal analysis of the county’s authority to enact an emergency moratorium. The board accepted the premise of its own powerlessness without a formal public review of its options.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: By failing to act, the board signals to other park owners that there is little risk of county intervention in future sales or closures, potentially accelerating the loss of the county’s most affordable housing stock. It also risks severe political fallout if the mass eviction proceeds, undermining public confidence in the county’s ability to manage the housing crisis.

AI Information