Quarterly Summary (quarter ending 2025-09-30)

AI Information

Analysis

Date Range: July 7, 2025 – September 22, 2025

Executive Summary

During the third quarter of 2025, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners initiated a fundamental overhaul of its governance and service delivery models, driven by the persistent gap between public service demands and a structurally inadequate tax base. The board terminated long-standing lobbying and consulting contracts, advanced a new sales tax for road maintenance, and privatized the county's recycling program. These actions signal a strategic shift away from established practices toward a more transactional and fiscally constrained approach to governance.

The quarter’s most significant action was the board's August 4th vote to place a 0.2% sales tax measure for the Transportation Benefit District on the November ballot. This move to secure an estimated $1 million in annual revenue for the insolvent Road Fund represents the county's primary strategy for funding basic infrastructure: direct, targeted taxation. Concurrently, the board voted on July 21st to end its decades-long practice of subsidizing recycling, directing staff to privatize the service. This decision will shift the full cost to residents via mandatory curbside fees or per-use charges at the transfer station, freeing up an estimated $326,000 annually in the Solid Waste fund.

Winners this quarter were proponents of fiscal austerity and government restructuring. The board’s termination of its federal lobbyist contract (saving $114,844) and its strategic plan consultant (saving $38,067) redirects funds but also curtails the county’s long-range planning and federal advocacy capacity. Losers are residents of unincorporated areas, who face a new sales tax to maintain roads and will now pay directly for recycling services previously subsidized by tipping fees. While the board successfully reactivated a drainage district to address agricultural flooding and formalized policies for veterans' assistance, its dominant pattern was a retreat from subsidizing services the general fund can no longer support, placing the financial burden for core functions squarely on the citizens who use them.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Places 0.2% Sales Tax for Roads on November Ballot

Topic

Commissioners approved a resolution to place a 0.2% sales and use tax on the November 2025 ballot to fund the Transportation Benefit District (TBD), which maintains unincorporated county roads.

Context

  • Fiscal Crisis: This action is a direct follow-up to the Q4 2024 creation of the TBD, an entity established to avert the Road Fund’s projected $900,000+ deficit. The fund's revenue, tied to a 1% property tax growth cap, cannot keep pace with escalating costs for materials and labor.
  • Service Degradation: The county has already cut its vital chip seal program in half, extending the average road resurfacing interval to 25 years, far beyond the recommended 7-12 years. Without new revenue, further cuts to basic maintenance are unavoidable.
  • Tax Base Limits vs. Service Demands: The measure seeks to shift the road funding burden from the structurally limited property tax to a more elastic sales tax, which also captures revenue from the estimated 120,000 tourists who use county roads during peak season.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Jean Ball, Tom Tierce, Marcia Kilbar, Ed Bowen.
  • What they represented: Taxpayer and community advocates.
  • Substance of testimony: Support was strong, framing the tax as "entirely necessary" to maintain foundational infrastructure. One speaker, Ed Bowen, opposed the resolution's prioritization of "preservation" over "improvement," fearing it would prevent new projects. Another speaker asked for clarification on the voting population (unincorporated residents only) and the existing diversion of road funds to law enforcement.
  • Notable absences: No organized opposition from business groups or anti-tax organizations was present in the record.

Deliberation Insights

  • Lack of Alternatives: Deliberation treated the ballot measure as the only viable path to solvency for the Road Fund. Public Works staff reiterated that the fund faces a "fiscal cliff" and has already reduced staffing by 25%.
  • Prioritizing Preservation: In response to public comment, County Administrator Josh Peters defended the focus on preservation, stating it is the most critical need for the 400-mile road system and provides flexibility for matching grants and emergency repairs.
  • Political Strategy: The board previously deferred imposing a separate 0.1% councilmanic Law & Justice sales tax to avoid jeopardizing the TBD measure's chances with voters, signaling this road tax is the board's top fiscal priority.

Decision & Vote

Approved 2-0 to place the 0.2% sales and use tax on the November 4, 2025, ballot. (Aug 4; one commissioner not specified in record)

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Public Works department, which gains a potential $1 million annual revenue stream to fund core maintenance and stave off insolvency. Contractors who perform chip sealing and road repairs.
  • Losers: Unincorporated county residents and businesses, who will pay a higher sales tax. If the measure fails, all users of county roads lose as maintenance is further deferred.
  • Fiscal Impact: If passed, the tax will generate an estimated $1 million annually for 10 years, increasing the sales tax rate in unincorporated areas to 9.4%, matching Port Townsend.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive Governance: The measure is a reactive, albeit necessary, response to a long-foreseen fiscal crisis. It is designed to maintain a diminished level of service, not to fund a strategic expansion or modernization of the transportation network.
  • Shift in Tax Burden: This action continues the county's pivot from property taxes to sales taxes and user fees to fund core services. It shifts the burden more heavily onto consumers, including tourists.
  • Pattern Recognition: The creation of a dedicated tax for a single, essential service mirrors similar struggles in other departments. It signals the existing general fund structure is no longer capable of supporting the county's basic operational needs.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • Political Risk: The measure's success depends on voters agreeing to tax themselves more to maintain a declining asset. A "no" vote would force the board into immediate, severe budget cuts for Public Works.
  • Underlying Cost Drivers Unaddressed: The debate focused exclusively on revenue. The board did not challenge or analyze the escalating costs of labor, materials, and equipment that precipitated the crisis.
  • Temporary Solution: The tax has a 10-year sunset as required by state law. It provides a medium-term patch but does not solve the fundamental, long-term misalignment between the county's revenue structure and its infrastructure costs.

2. County Ends Subsidized Recycling, Pivots to Privatization

Topic

The board directed staff to pursue privatization of the county's recycling program, ending the current system of "free" drop-off recycling subsidized by general solid waste fees.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: The Solid Waste Program is a self-sustaining enterprise fund. Staff reported the current recycling operation is expensive, with low commodity values and high contamination rates (up to 30%) making it financially unsustainable. The program costs an estimated $326,709 annually.
  • Operational Failure: Unstaffed drop-off sites in Port Hadlock and Port Ludlow have seen a surge in illegal dumping (41 tons last year), increasing program costs and creating public nuisances.
  • Strategic Misalignment: Staff argued that two-thirds of the county's landfill diversion funds are spent on recycling (the third priority in the Solid Waste Management Plan), while the top priorities of "Reduce" and "Reuse" are underfunded.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Tom Tierce, Jim Friedman.
  • What they represented: Residents opposed to privatization.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers argued the move would impose a "$400 tax" on rural residents forced into a private curbside contract. They proposed an alternative: increase the general tipping fee by approximately $14 per ton to cover the program's cost equitably. Friedman presented research showing 19 facilities in six surrounding counties all offer free drop-off recycling, making Jefferson County an outlier.
  • Intensity: Testimony was sharply critical, accusing staff of misrepresenting alternatives and SWAC discussions, and framing privatization as a punitive measure against rural residents.

Deliberation Insights

  • Contamination as Driver: Deliberation centered on illegal dumping and contamination as the primary justifications for ending the unstaffed drop-off model. Commissioner Brotherton cited instances of "human waste" and toilets being dumped at recycling sites.
  • Cost Shift, Not Cost Savings: Commissioners and staff acknowledged the change is not a cost-saving measure but a cost shift. The goal is to make recycling fund itself, ending the subsidy from garbage fees and forcing users to pay the "true cost" of the service.
  • Reallocation of Resources: The board accepted the staff argument that privatizing recycling would allow the county to reallocate the subsidy and staff time toward higher-priority "Reduce and Reuse" initiatives, such as partnering with the Repair Cafe.

Decision & Vote

Approved 3-0 a motion to direct staff to move forward with pursuing privatization of the recycling program. (Jul 21; hearing date moved on Sep 22)

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Solid Waste enterprise fund, which will save over $300,000 annually. Proponents of "Reduce and Reuse" programs, which are now positioned to receive more funding and staff attention. Private hauler Waste Connections stands to gain a significant number of new mandatory customers.
  • Losers: All county residents who use drop-off recycling, particularly those in rural areas. They lose a "free" service and will now face either a mandatory private contract (estimated at $400/year) or pay-per-use fees at the transfer station.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision shifts the full cost of recycling, approximately $326,709 annually, from a broad subsidy funded by all garbage producers to direct fees paid only by those who recycle.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive Fiscal Realignment: This is a proactive decision to align a program's costs with its users, ending a long-standing public subsidy. It prioritizes the financial health of the enterprise fund over maintaining a free public amenity.
  • Shift in Service Model: The action represents a significant withdrawal of the county from direct service provision. It outsources a core environmental service to a private, regulated utility.
  • Urban vs. Rural Tension: The decision disproportionately impacts rural residents, who have fewer service options and are more reliant on drop-off facilities. It prioritizes a standardized, efficient model over accommodating a dispersed population.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • Equity and Affordability Ignored: The board approved the shift without a formal analysis of its impact on low-income residents, for whom a new mandatory fee represents a regressive financial burden.
  • Alternative Funding Model Dismissed: The public proposal to cover costs via a modest, across-the-board tipping fee increase was not substantively debated or modeled by the board as a viable alternative.
  • Enforcement Assumption: The rationale for privatization rests heavily on the failure to control illegal dumping. The decision assumes privatization is the only solution, rather than investing in enforcement (cameras, fines) at existing sites.

3. Board Overhauls Governance, Terminating Lobbyist and Consultant Contracts

Topic

The board voted to terminate its contracts with its federal lobbyist (Strategies 360) and its strategic plan implementation consultant (Barry Dunn Consulting), while also initiating a competitive bidding process for community center management.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: The actions were part of a comprehensive review of 14 non-departmental contracts, driven by the need to control discretionary spending ahead of a difficult 2026 budget cycle.
  • Performance Concerns: Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the value received from multiple long-standing contracts. The federal lobbyist was seen as ineffective, the strategic plan consultant's tools had not materialized, and management of three community centers by OlyCAP had generated concerns about cleanliness and lack of community advisory input.
  • Governance Shift: The contract terminations signal a broader shift away from relying on external consultants for strategic direction and advocacy, moving toward in-house management and more direct board control.

Public Input

No public comment was offered on these specific contract decisions during the workshops.

Deliberation Insights

  • Lobbyist Contract (Strategies 360): Commissioners concluded the $210,000 contract provided little value, asserting that recent federal funding successes were due to direct relationships with elected officials, not the firm. The board directed staff to issue a new, state-focused RFP for a much smaller contract (estimated at $50,000/year). The termination saves a remaining $114,844.
  • Strategic Plan Contract (Barry Dunn): The board paused the $138,659 contract after nearly $100,000 had been spent without the delivery of promised implementation dashboards. Commissioners stated the process had become more about the consultant's tools than actual plan implementation and directed the County Administrator to negotiate an exit. This saves a remaining $38,067.
  • Community Centers (OlyCAP): Citing a lack of custodial compliance and inactive advisory boards, the board directed staff to open management of the Tri-Area, Quilcene, and Brinnon centers to a competitive RFP. The decision breaks from the long-standing sole-source relationship with OlyCAP for these facilities.

Decision & Vote

  • Approved 3-0 to terminate the Strategies 360 lobbying contract. (Sep 2)
  • Approved 3-0 to terminate the North Olympic Legislative Alliance (NOLA) contract. (Sep 2)
  • Reached consensus to terminate the Barry Dunn consulting contract. (Sep 2)
  • Approved 3-0 to issue an RFP for the Tri-Area, Quilcene, and Brinnon community centers. (Sep 2)

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The county's general fund, which will save over $150,000 in near-term discretionary spending. Proponents of fiscal austerity. Local community groups in Quilcene and Brinnon now have an opportunity to bid for management of their local centers.
  • Losers: The terminated consulting and lobbying firms. The county’s federal legislative agenda, which now lacks professional representation. OlyCAP, which may lose its management role at three community centers.
  • Operational Impact: The County Administrator's office must now absorb the work of legislative agenda-setting and strategic plan tracking. Central Services must manage a new, complex RFP process for the community centers.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive Fiscal Control: These decisions represent a proactive attempt by the board to rein in spending and assert direct control over discretionary contracts, prioritizing short-term budget relief over long-term strategic investments.
  • Shift to In-House Capacity: The board is betting that in-house staff can manage strategic implementation and legislative priorities more effectively and cheaply than external consultants. This is a significant test of the county's administrative capacity.
  • Pattern Recognition: The terminations fit a pattern of questioning the value of legacy relationships and forcing service providers to demonstrate value through competitive processes. This marks a shift from a relationship-based to a transaction-based model of governance.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • Loss of Capacity: Terminating the federal lobbyist leaves the county without representation in Washington D.C. as it faces cuts to federal programs and seeks grants for major infrastructure. The decision assumes local relationships are sufficient, which may not be the case.
  • Strategic Implementation Vacuum: By halting the strategic plan implementation contract, the county is left without a formal system for tracking progress toward its adopted goals. The plan risks becoming a document that sits on a shelf.
  • Execution Risk: The success of the community center RFP depends on finding capable local organizations willing to take on the management and liability for aging public facilities, which is not guaranteed.

4. Board Reactivates Drainage District, Devolving Power to Landowners

Topic

Commissioners unanimously approved the reactivation of Chimacum Creek Drainage District #1, an agricultural district inactive since 1974, creating a new landowner-elected board with the authority to levy assessments to manage flooding.

Context

  • Infrastructure Failure: Chronic flooding and the proliferation of invasive reed canarygrass in the Chimacum watershed have degraded prime agricultural land, exceeding the capacity of individual landowners to manage.
  • Community Demand: The action was driven by a county-led survey showing 65% of affected landowners supported reactivating the district and 61% were willing to pay fees to fund maintenance.
  • Economic Development vs. Environmental Protection: The reactivation is intended to preserve agricultural viability, a key component of the rural economy. The district's future actions, such as sediment and beaver dam removal, will directly intersect with salmon habitat restoration goals.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Landowners Crystal Taggart and Jilly Boggs; representatives from the Jefferson County Conservation District and NW Watershed Institute.
  • Substance of testimony: Support was unanimous. Landowners testified that recent pilot cleanup efforts had dramatically reduced flooding, making fields usable months earlier than in previous years. The Conservation District endorsed reactivation as the logical way to empower landowners.
  • Concerns Raised: The chair of the Port Ludlow Drainage District warned the new board about high administrative costs, including elections ($45,000 biannually) and liability insurance ($5,000-$10,000 annually).

Deliberation Insights

  • Devolution of Authority: The board's role was framed as that of a facilitator. The action creates a new, independent special purpose district, shifting the long-term responsibility for drainage management from the county to the directly affected landowners.
  • Benefit-Based Funding Model: Deliberation focused on a tiered assessment model based on a property's elevation relative to the creek, ensuring that landowners who benefit most from drainage would pay a higher share. This model will be developed and implemented by the new district's board.
  • Acknowledging Fiscal Hurdles: Commissioners acknowledged the high cost of holding elections and noted the new district board would need to find efficiencies, such as holding in-person elections, to remain solvent. A former staff member noted the district would likely be unable to collect fees until 2027 due to budget cycle timelines.

Decision & Vote

Approved 3-0 to reactivate the Chimacum Creek Drainage District. (Jul 14)

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Farmers and landowners within the Chimacum watershed, who now have a legal and financial tool to collectively solve a chronic infrastructure problem. The local Conservation District is positioned to be a primary contractor for the new district.
  • Losers: Landowners within the district who opposed reactivation and will now be subject to new mandatory property assessments.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision creates a new layer of government with the authority to levy assessments on property. The total fiscal impact will be determined by the new district's board but is estimated to require at least $35,000 annually for initial maintenance.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive and Strategic: This is a proactive, constituent-driven action that establishes a long-term governance structure for a persistent, localized problem.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The action aligns with the board's stated priorities of supporting agriculture and farmland preservation.
  • Shift in Governance Model: The county chose to devolve authority rather than expand its own operations. This model empowers local stakeholders but also offloads a service responsibility and its associated administrative and fiscal burdens.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • Governance Capacity: The district's success is entirely dependent on the willingness of local landowners to volunteer to serve on its board and manage its finances, contracts, and political challenges. This capacity is assumed, not guaranteed.
  • Funding Viability: Landowners supported a "reasonable" fee in a survey, but the actual costs, including administrative overhead, may be higher than anticipated. If assessments are too high, the new board could face a political backlash.
  • Future Environmental Conflicts: The district's primary mission—agricultural drainage—may conflict with environmental regulations and salmon recovery goals. The new board will have to navigate these complex regulatory and stakeholder tensions without direct county support.