Skip to content

Recap of 2025Q3

Analysis

Date Range: July 7, 2025 – September 24, 2025

Executive Summary (≈200 words)

In the third quarter of 2025, the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners accelerated its strategy of offloading public services and creating new taxing authorities to manage a deepening structural deficit. The board’s primary action was to place a 0.2% sales tax on the November ballot to rescue the county’s failing Road Fund, a move that seeks to generate $1 million annually for a core service the General Fund can no longer support. This pursuit of new taxes to backfill basic infrastructure occurred as the board gave final direction to privatize the county's entire public recycling program, ending a decades-old subsidy and shifting the full cost to residents via a private, subscription-based model.

Governance was defined by this strategic retreat from direct service provision. The board approved a monumental $39.5 million state- and grant-funded project to replace the Big Quilcene River Bridge, a win that underscores the county's dependence on external funding for major infrastructure. It also reactivated the long-dormant Chimacum Creek Drainage District, another hyper-local taxing entity designed to solve a specific problem outside the county’s operational budget.

Winners this quarter were proponents of the new road tax and landowners in the Chimacum floodplain. The primary losers were county residents who will lose public recycling and face higher taxes for basic road maintenance. A critical failure in the county's administrative capacity was exposed when the search for a new Director of Community Development collapsed due to a non-competitive salary and the county's housing crisis, forcing a restart of the hiring process. The board’s pattern is clear: solve major capital needs with grants while creating new, single-purpose taxes and shedding non-mandated services to keep the General Fund solvent.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Places $1M Annual Sales Tax on Ballot to Rescue Failing Roads

Topic

The board approved resolutions to place a 0.2% sales and use tax on the November 2025 ballot for the unincorporated areas of the county, creating a new revenue stream for the Transportation Benefit District (TBD) to fund road preservation.

Context

  • Fiscal Crisis: This action is the culmination of a year-long effort to address the structural insolvency of the Road Fund, which was down 25% in capacity since the 1990s. The TBD was established in Q4 2024 as a legal mechanism to avert this crisis.
  • Tax Base Limits: With property tax growth capped at 1%, the county's General Fund cannot keep pace with road maintenance inflation. The new sales tax is a direct attempt to bypass this limitation by creating a dedicated, non-property tax revenue source.
  • Grant Dependency: The county's capital improvement road projects are almost entirely grant-funded. The TBD tax is required to fund basic operations, maintenance, and preservation, costs that are ineligible for most grants. The new revenue would also provide local matching funds required to secure future grants.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Jean Ball, Tom Tierce, Marcia Kelmer, Ed Bowen.
  • What they represented: County taxpayers and community advocates.
  • Substance of testimony: Supporters framed the tax as essential for maintaining basic infrastructure and noted the low cost of a general election ballot measure. Opponents questioned the use of funds, citing the ongoing diversion of road levy funds to law enforcement, and demanded that project "improvements" be prioritized over "preservation."
  • Intensity: Public comment was supportive of the need for road funding but critical of the county's past fiscal management and priorities.

Deliberation Insights

  • Crisis Framing: The board presented the ballot measure as a necessary and responsible action to prevent the further degradation of the county's 400-mile road network. The narrative focused on preservation as the most cost-effective long-term strategy.
  • Alternatives Rejected: The board dismissed public criticism of the road levy diversion, framing the TBD as the only viable path to solvency. A request to reorder the resolution's priorities to favor improvements over preservation was also rejected, with the board stating preservation was the core function.
  • Acknowledging Political Risk: Deliberation acknowledged the tax fatigue of residents but concluded that asking voters for the new tax was unavoidable to fulfill a core government responsibility.

Decision & Vote

Approved two resolutions: one to place the 0.2% sales and use tax on the November 4, 2025, ballot, and another to appoint members to the "For" committee for the voter's pamphlet. (Approved 3–0 on August 4).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Public Works department, which gains a potential $1 million annual revenue stream to restore chip sealing programs and stabilize its budget.
  • Losers: Unincorporated area residents and businesses, who face a sales tax increase to 9.4%, matching the rate in Port Townsend. Low-income households will be disproportionately affected.
  • Fiscal Impact: If approved by voters, the tax will generate approximately $1 million per year for 10 years. The immediate impact is a ~$20,000 cost to place the measure on the ballot.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: This is a reactive measure to solve a long-developing structural deficit. While the creation of the TBD was proactive, the need for it stems from a failure to adequately fund road maintenance through the traditional budget process.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action solidifies the board’s primary fiscal strategy: creating new, single-purpose taxing districts to fund essential services that the General Fund can no longer support. It institutionalizes a fractured approach to public finance.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The new tax allows the board to avoid making painful cuts to other General Fund services that would have been necessary to backfill the Road Fund. It preserves the existing budget structure at the cost of a higher overall tax burden.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A formal analysis of the economic impact of the tax increase on the county's vulnerable, tourism-dependent economy. The board did not publicly commit to ending the road levy diversion as part of the new funding package.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The board has tied its political credibility to the passage of this tax. If voters reject the measure, the Road Fund crisis will intensify, forcing drastic service cuts and creating a significant political failure for the commissioners.

2. County Advances Recycling Privatization, Ending Subsidized Public Service

Topic

The board directed staff to proceed with privatizing all public recycling services, sunsetting the county's tipping fee subsidy by April 2026 and transitioning to a mandatory, subscription-based curbside model managed by Waste Connections.

Context

  • Fiscal Pressure: The county’s public recycling program runs a net deficit of $326,000 annually, a subsidy covered by solid waste tipping fees. A recent Ecology grant of $245,000 covers only five months of operation, highlighting the system's financial unsustainability.
  • Operational Failure: Staff reported that the public drop-off sites suffer from 30% contamination rates and attract significant illegal dumping, undermining the program's environmental goals and increasing costs.
  • Policy Shift: The decision marks a fundamental shift from providing recycling as a subsidized public service to treating it as a user-fee-based consumer choice. This aligns with the Solid Waste Management Plan's prioritization of fiscal solvency over direct service provision.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Tom Tierce, Jim Friedman.
  • What they represented: Residents opposed to privatization and increased costs.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers argued the move was unaffordable for many residents, with curbside service costing an estimated $400 per year. They challenged the county’s data on illegal dumping and contamination and proposed an alternative: increasing the landfill tipping fee by $14 per ton to cover the existing program's costs.
  • Intensity: Public comment was organized and highly critical, accusing the board of favoring a commercial vendor over the public interest.

Deliberation Insights

  • Focus on Systemic Inefficiency: The board and staff framed the current drop-off system as outdated, contaminated, and financially unsustainable. The debate centered on the high costs and poor performance of the public model.
  • Privatization as Modernization: The board presented the transition to a private curbside system as a move toward a more efficient, modern model used by over 90% of Washington counties. The potential for lower long-term rates under the state's Recycling Reform Act was cited as a key benefit.
  • Equity Concerns Acknowledged but Deferred: Commissioners acknowledged that the shift would create challenges for low-income residents but noted that the private model allows for low-income discounts managed through the state Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC), an option not available under the current public system.

Decision & Vote

Directed staff to finalize an operating agreement with Waste Connections and schedule a public hearing to adopt a new Level of Service Ordinance formalizing the privatization. (Consensus direction on July 21; hearing scheduled for October 13 on September 22).

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 fund, which will eliminate a $326,000 annual operating deficit.
  • Losers: All county residents, who lose access to free public recycling drop-off sites. Rural and low-income households are disproportionately harmed due to affordability challenges and limited access to curbside service on private roads.
  • Operational Changes: The decision dismantles a long-standing public service, shifting the full logistical and financial burden of recycling from the county to individual households.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: The decision is a proactive move to solve a long-term structural deficit and align with a new policy direction, though it was triggered by the reactive crisis of rising costs and grant shortfalls.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This is a direct result of the tension between service demands and tax base limits. It prioritizes the fiscal solvency of an enterprise fund over the provision of a non-mandated public service.
  • Budget Trade-offs: By eliminating the recycling subsidy, the solid waste fund avoids a significant tipping fee hike that would have been necessary to cover both the recycling deficit and a $3.7 million capital shortfall. It trades a universal public service for targeted fee increases.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A concrete plan to mitigate the impacts on rural residents who cannot access curbside service. The board deferred this critical equity issue to a future regulatory process.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The county risks a surge in illegal dumping and recycling contamination in garbage bins, which could create new cleanup costs. The decision damages public trust by removing a highly visible and popular public service.

3. Board Approves Massive Grant-Funded Bridge Project, Ceding Land to Tribe

Topic

The board unanimously approved a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe and the Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group to advance a $39.5 million project to replace the Linger Longer Bridge, restore the Big Quilcene River floodplain, and transfer 53 acres of county land to the Tribe.

Context

  • Grant Dependency: The project is almost entirely funded by external sources, primarily a $25 million federal RAISE grant and a $12 million Tribal Bridge Program grant secured by the Tribe. The county’s contribution is limited to approximately $2,000 in closing costs, making this a major infrastructure win with minimal local tax investment.
  • Infrastructure Failure: The existing bridge is a chronic problem, contributing to 11 flood events since 1982. The project is designed to solve this long-standing public safety and infrastructure issue.
  • Environmental Protection: A key driver of the project is salmon habitat restoration. The MOA represents a partnership approach to achieving large-scale environmental mitigation goals that align with the county's progressive values.

Public Input

No public comment was offered.

Deliberation Insights

  • Focus on Partnership: Deliberations highlighted the project as a model of intergovernmental collaboration. The board praised the Tribe's leadership in securing the massive grant funding that made the project possible.
  • Multi-Benefit Framing: The project was presented as a "three-fer," simultaneously solving problems related to bridge replacement, salmon enhancement, and flood control.
  • Unchallenged Assumptions: The board accepted the staff and partner presentation without significant questioning. The transfer of 53 acres of county land was framed as a necessary component of the project and was not a point of contention.

Decision & Vote

Approved the Memorandum of Agreement as presented. (Approved 3–0 on July 28).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, which gains 53 acres of land and leads a major restoration project. Residents of the Big Quilcene floodplain, who will benefit from reduced flood risk. The local ecosystem, through salmon habitat restoration.
  • Losers: No direct losers were identified in the record.
  • Fiscal Impact: The project injects $39.1 million in federal grant funds into the local economy. The county avoids the massive capital cost of replacing the bridge on its own.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: The project is a proactive, long-term solution to a chronic infrastructure and environmental problem.
  • Pattern Recognition: This is a major success for the county's dominant governance model, which relies on attracting external grants and leveraging partnerships to execute strategic initiatives that its own tax base cannot support.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The decision aligns perfectly with stated county priorities for infrastructure resilience, environmental protection, and tribal partnerships.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A detailed analysis of the long-term economic and land use implications of transferring 53 acres of public land to tribal ownership.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The county is now a partner in a complex, multi-year construction project managed by an external entity. Any delays or cost overruns, while not directly impacting the county budget, could have significant local impacts and political repercussions.

4. County Reactivates Dormant Drainage District to Address Farmland Flooding

Topic

The board voted to reactivate the Chimacum Creek Drainage District #1, a special-purpose government formed in 1919 but inactive since 1974, to enable coordinated flood mitigation and reed canary grass removal.

Context

  • Service Demands vs. Tax Base Limits: Chronic flooding in the Chimacum Valley harms agricultural land, but the county's Public Works department lacks the budget and authority to conduct maintenance on private property. Reactivating the district creates a self-funding entity to provide this service.
  • Operational Failure: Individual landowners have been unable to effectively manage the invasive reed canary grass and beaver activity that cause the flooding. The reactivated district provides a legal and financial mechanism for collective action.
  • Partnership Model: The Jefferson County Conservation District (JCD) provided technical support and committed up to $80,000 in grant funding for the first two years, reducing the immediate financial burden on landowners.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Representatives from the JCD, the Port Ludlow Drainage District, and numerous Chimacum landowners.
  • Substance of testimony: Testimony was overwhelmingly supportive, framing the reactivation as a necessary step to protect agricultural viability and enhance salmon habitat. Speakers cited the success of a recent volunteer cleanup effort as proof of concept.
  • Intensity: Public comment was unified and reflected a strong, pre-organized community consensus.

Deliberation Insights

  • Focus on Enabling Governance: The board’s role was framed as facilitating a community-led solution. Deliberations centered on the administrative steps required to appoint an interim board and schedule an election for permanent commissioners.
  • Cost as a Concern: While supporting the reactivation, the board and public speakers noted the significant administrative costs, particularly the estimated $45,000 cost of an election, which will be borne by landowners through assessments.
  • Acknowledging Complexity: The chair of the Port Ludlow Drainage District warned of the challenges of community engagement and the administrative burdens of running a special-purpose district, signaling that reactivation is only the first step.

Decision & Vote

Approved a motion to reactivate the Chimacum Drainage District. (Approved 3–0 on July 14).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: Chimacum Valley farmers and landowners, who now have a legal tool to fund and coordinate flood mitigation efforts.
  • Losers: The same landowners, who will now face new annual assessments to cover maintenance and administrative costs, including an estimated $45,000 for the initial election.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision creates a new taxing authority. Landowners within the district will pay an estimated $6,800 annually in assessments, plus significant one-time administrative startup costs.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: This is a proactive measure to address a long-standing environmental and economic problem.
  • Pattern Recognition: The decision fits the county's pattern of creating hyper-local, single-purpose government entities to solve problems that fall outside the scope or budget of the county's General Fund. It further decentralizes and fractures the public finance landscape.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A long-term financial plan for the district beyond the initial JCD grant period. The district's ability to remain solvent and effective after the seed money is spent is not established in the record.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The new district is dependent on the volunteer labor of its elected commissioners and the continued willingness of landowners to pay assessments. If engagement wanes or costs escalate, the district could become inactive again, leaving the problem unsolved.

5. Director Search Fails, Exposing County’s Inability to Compete for Talent

Topic

The county’s recruitment for a new Director of Community Development (DCD) failed after an initial pool of seven applicants yielded only one candidate who was not preferred, forcing the board to restart the process with a revised job description.

Context

  • Operational Failure: The DCD has been in a state of crisis since a 2022 ordinance led to mass resignations and severe permit backlogs. This hiring failure prolongs the department's instability and leadership vacuum.
  • Housing Crisis: Staff identified the county’s high cost of living and severe housing shortage as primary reasons for the low applicant pool and the refusal of two qualified candidates to interview. The county's own housing crisis is directly hindering its ability to recruit the personnel needed to manage it.
  • Fiscal Constraints: The salary for the position was described as not competitive with larger counties and cities, a direct consequence of the county's limited tax base and budget constraints.

Public Input

No public comment was offered during the update.

Deliberation Insights

  • Acknowledging Failure: The Human Resources and Public Works directors gave a frank assessment of the recruitment's failure, citing the interconnected problems of salary, housing, and the complexity of the county's land-use issues.
  • Strategic Pivot: The board endorsed a plan to broaden the job description beyond traditional urban planning qualifications to include executive leadership and management skills. This is an admission that the primary challenge is managerial, not technical.
  • Shift to Public Engagement: The board repurposed a planned candidate meet-and-greet into a community forum to gather public input on DCD leadership needs and barriers to development, an attempt to turn the hiring failure into an engagement opportunity.

Decision & Vote

No formal vote was taken. The board gave consensus direction to restart the hiring process with a revised job description and hold a community meeting on August 5. (Discussion held July 28).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: There are no winners.
  • Losers: The Department of Community Development, which remains without permanent leadership. Residents and developers seeking permits, who face continued uncertainty and potential delays. The county administration, whose recruitment failure is now public.
  • Fiscal Impact: The failed search represents a loss of staff time and any fees paid to the recruitment firm. The ongoing vacancy could delay development projects, impacting future property tax revenues.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The response is reactive to a failed process. The decision to restart is a necessary, but unplanned, step.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This failure is a direct manifestation of the county’s core structural problems. The tension between tax base limits (constraining salary) and the housing crisis (constraining recruitment) has created a critical capacity gap in a key county department.
  • Pattern Recognition: The incident reveals the practical consequences of the county's economic vulnerabilities. The same affordability crisis the DCD is tasked with solving is preventing the county from hiring a qualified leader to do the job.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A concrete plan to address the non-competitive salary. While the job description was broadened, it is not established in the record whether the board authorized a higher salary range for the new search.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The continued leadership instability at DCD undermines staff morale and public confidence. Without a permanent director, the department's ability to implement complex new regulations, such as the short-term rental ordinance, or manage major projects, like the Comprehensive Plan update, is at significant risk.

AI Information