Skip to content

Recap of 2025Q4

Analysis

Date Range: October 6, 2025 – November 17, 2025

Executive Summary

In the final quarter of 2025, Jefferson County’s governance moved from managing a structural deficit to confronting a full-blown fiscal crisis. The Board of Commissioners responded with austerity, imposing an immediate, county-wide hiring freeze and directing departments to prepare for budget cuts of up to 12% to close a projected $5.2 million General Fund deficit. This reactive scramble to preserve core functions overshadowed all other activity, revealing a government whose financial model has failed, forcing it to choose between funding law enforcement and basic land-use planning. The board’s actions prioritize institutional survival through drastic cuts over service stability, shifting the consequences of its fiscal crisis onto staff and residents.

The board’s most significant action was the unanimous October 27 vote to freeze all hiring, a pre-emptive measure to stanch spending before a chaotic year-end rush. This was followed by a series of workshops that laid bare the scale of the crisis, culminating in a directive for departments to identify massive cuts. Concurrently, the board approved a new policy for clearing homeless encampments, a regulatory action that took on immediate significance as the City of Port Townsend displaced residents of a major encampment, triggering intense public criticism about the lack of available shelter. The county’s response confirmed its operational inability to provide alternatives, a direct echo of its Q2 decision to bail out the shelter system with over $260,000 in emergency funds.

Winners this quarter are an abstraction: the county’s future balance sheet, which these cuts are designed to rescue. The losers are county departments facing the loss of critical staff, residents who will experience reduced services, and the unhoused population, who now face a formal removal policy without a corresponding increase in shelter capacity. The board also threw the county's tourism promotion apparatus into chaos, functionally rejecting the funding recommendations of its citizen advisory committee to redirect over $150,000 to county-managed parks. The board’s pattern is one of escalating crisis response, where long-term strategic ambitions like a new aquatic center have vanished in the face of immediate fiscal collapse.

Individual Action Analysis

1. Board Imposes Hiring Freeze, Directs Massive Cuts to Avert Fiscal Collapse

Topic

The board unanimously approved a resolution for an immediate, temporary hiring freeze and directed departments to prepare for budget cuts of up to 12% to address a projected $5.2 million General Fund deficit for 2026.

Context

  • Fiscal Crisis: Finance Director Judy Shepard reported on November 3 that projected 2026 revenues of $27 million were dwarfed by expenditures of $32 million. The deficit was exacerbated by a $1.396 million supplemental appropriation approved on October 20 for unbudgeted costs, including a $357,000 shortfall in jail medical services.
  • Consequences of Prior Decisions: The crisis is the culmination of years of structural imbalance, recently accelerated by the full-cost absorption of the homeless shelter system in Q2 2025 and the county’s inability to generate new revenue streams to keep pace with inflation and service demands.
  • Tax Base Limits: The board’s action is a direct admission that revenue from its primary sources—property taxes (capped at 1% growth), sales taxes (declining), and timber payments (volatile)—is insufficient to fund existing government operations.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Jean Ball, Tom Tiersch, and others during multiple budget discussions.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers questioned the size of county reserves, criticized the government for spending beyond its means, and demanded austerity. Several speakers on November 17 specifically opposed using new Transportation Benefit District sales tax revenue to backfill the Public Works general fund allocation, arguing it violated voter trust.
  • Intensity: Public comment was sustained and critical, reflecting deep taxpayer concern over the county's fiscal management.

Deliberation Insights

  • Crisis Framing: The County Administrator framed the hiring freeze as a necessary "first step" to prevent a late-year hiring rush and avoid more drastic measures like layoffs. The narrative focused on responsible, pre-emptive action.
  • Acknowledging Failure: Deliberations across November workshops were a frank admission of fiscal failure. Commissioners noted the $3 million deficit that existed before the latest round of appropriations and acknowledged the need for deep, painful cuts.
  • Elected Official Pushback: While accepting the necessity of cuts, several elected officials, including the Sheriff and Assessor, warned of severe service impacts and proposed furloughs or pay cuts as alternatives to eliminating positions.
  • Strategic Trade-offs: In a November 10 workshop, the board rejected a staff proposal to "claw back" $638,000 in road funding, upholding a commitment to voters. Instead, it chose to backfill the deficit with one-time or restricted funds, including $302,000 in law and justice sales tax and $150,000 from opioid settlement funds.

Decision & Vote

  • Approved a resolution implementing an immediate temporary hiring freeze. (Approved 3-0 on October 27).
  • Directed staff to proceed with budget balancing based on a 12% departmental cut target, while using select restricted funds to reduce the total amount needed. (Consensus direction on November 10).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: There are no immediate winners. The actions are designed to benefit the long-term solvency of the county government at the cost of immediate service capacity.
  • Losers: All county departments, which are now unable to fill vacant positions and must plan for deep operational cuts. County residents will face reduced service levels and longer wait times. The Sheriff's Office, the largest General Fund department, faces a potential $997,000 cut.
  • Fiscal Impact: The hiring freeze immediately halts new salary expenditures. The 12% cut is intended to eliminate a $5.2 million deficit. The decision to use $150,000 in opioid settlement funds for jail medical costs and law enforcement support is a direct trade-off against funding community-based treatment and prevention programs.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The actions are purely reactive, driven by a budget crisis that was predictable and has been developing for several years.
  • Pattern Recognition: This confirms the county's fiscal model is broken. After years of creating new taxing districts to fund specific projects, the core General Fund, which pays for law enforcement, courts, and land-use planning, has become insolvent.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The board is trading service capacity for fiscal survival. Every dollar cut from a departmental budget represents a service that will be delayed, reduced, or eliminated.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A long-term strategy for revenue generation. The entire focus was on cutting expenditures, not on solving the underlying structural revenue problem.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The hiring freeze and budget cuts will cripple departmental capacity, risking operational failures in critical areas like permitting (DCD) and law enforcement. The deep cuts erode staff morale and will likely trigger resignations, further degrading institutional capacity.

2. Board Adopts Encampment Removal Policy Amid Public Displacement Crisis

Topic

The board unanimously approved a revised policy governing the removal of unauthorized homeless encampments on county property, establishing a public health framework with a 7-day notice period.

Context

  • Housing Crisis: The policy was finalized as the City of Port Townsend cleared the Evans Vista encampment, displacing dozens of individuals with limited shelter options. Public testimony confirmed the county’s primary low-barrier shelter was full, highlighting the gap between the new policy and the system's capacity.
  • Legal Pressure: The policy was revised to comply with the 2024 Grants Pass v. Johnson Supreme Court decision, which allows for encampment removals if the process is tailored and not a blanket criminalization of homelessness.
  • Operational Constraints: The policy relies on the Public Health department for assessments and the Sheriff’s Office for property storage, creating new duties for departments already facing budget cuts. Public comment on November 3 noted that county code (JCC 1.5) contains onerous requirements for establishing temporary emergency sites, creating a potential conflict with the policy's intent.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Representatives from Well Organized Jefferson County, shelter residents, and advocates including Vicki Sontag, Sonder Hunt, and Matt Reddy.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers overwhelmingly urged the board to adopt a "no displacement without placement" standard, requiring a confirmed low-barrier shelter space before any removal. They demanded transparent reporting on demographics and outcomes and criticized the city’s displacement for scattering vulnerable people away from services.
  • Intensity: Testimony was sustained, organized, and emotional, framing the issue as a matter of human rights and public health.

Deliberation Insights

  • Focus on Legal Defensibility: The Prosecuting Attorney’s Office framed the policy revisions as necessary to align with evolving case law and provide clear, defensible procedures for staff.
  • Public Health Framework Adopted: The board embraced the "public health framework," emphasizing that removal is a last resort after alternatives are offered.
  • "No Displacement" Clause Rejected: While commissioners expressed sympathy for the principle, the final policy does not mandate a confirmed shelter placement prior to removal, citing the need for flexibility and the lack of available beds.
  • Code Inconsistencies Acknowledged: Commissioner Brotherton acknowledged contradictions between the new policy and existing county code for temporary facilities, committing to a future review.

Decision & Vote

Approved a resolution adopting the revised Unauthorized Encampment Removal Policy. (Approved 3-0 on November 3).

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: County administration and legal counsel, who now have a standardized, legally vetted policy to manage liability.
  • Losers: Unhoused individuals, who face a formal process for removal from public land without a guarantee of alternative shelter.
  • Operational Changes: The policy creates a formal, multi-departmental process for encampment response, requiring coordination between Public Health, the Sheriff's Office, and Public Works. It codifies procedures for notice, property storage, and reporting.
Strategic Implications
  • Reactive vs. Proactive: The policy is a reactive measure prompted by legal changes and increasing public pressure. It manages the symptom—encampments—but does not address the cause, which is the severe shortage of housing and shelter.
  • Alignment with Stated Priorities: The policy's public health framing aligns with stated priorities, but its lack of a guaranteed placement provision conflicts with the goal of solving homelessness. It prioritizes risk management and order on public property over housing stability.
  • Connection to Fundamental Tensions: This decision is a direct result of the tension between service demands and the county's limited capacity. The county has created a policy to manage a problem it has publicly admitted it lacks the resources (shelter beds, funding, staff) to solve.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: A budget or plan to create the additional shelter capacity needed to make the policy effective without causing harm. The policy was adopted in a resource vacuum.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: By implementing a removal policy without adequate shelter, the county risks displacing people to less safe, less sanitary locations, potentially worsening public health outcomes and creating new unauthorized encampments on private land.

3. Board Overrules Citizen Committee, Redirects Tourism Funds to County Parks

Topic

The board effectively rejected the funding recommendations of its Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC), voting to strip funding from two visitor centers and redirect $156,014 to the county Parks and Recreation department.

Context

  • Consequences of Prior Decisions: This action is the latest development in the board’s multi-year effort to overhaul tourism promotion, which began in 2024 with the decision to defund traditional marketing in favor of a new aquatic center. The chaotic LTAC process in October 2025, which required a follow-up meeting to correct calculation errors, exposed ongoing dysfunction.
  • Urban vs. Rural Tensions: The debate pitted funding for established tourism entities like visitor information centers (VICs) against county-owned assets like parks and the Quilcene Community Center, reflecting a tension between marketing and infrastructure.
  • Strategic Pivot: Commissioner Brotherton explicitly argued for prioritizing public infrastructure over private marketing efforts, proposing a permanent 30% budget allocation for county projects and defunding VICs entirely.

Public Input

  • Who testified: Dan Ventura (LTAC member), Andrew Schwartz, Shelly Arnell-Brennan, and others.
  • Substance of testimony: Speakers were divided. An LTAC member opposed funding county projects he deemed unrelated to tourism (Quilcene septic system). Others criticized the LTAC process as flawed and emotional but urged the board to respect the committee's work to avoid further chaos.
  • Intensity: Public comment reflected the deep division and frustration surrounding the county's tourism strategy.

Deliberation Insights

  • Board Division: The board was split. Commissioner Dean defended the LTAC's deliberative process and supported its recommendations. Commissioner Brotherton advocated for a complete overhaul, prioritizing county assets.
  • Rejection of Committee Work: The final motion to strip funding from the Forks and Gateway visitor centers and reallocate it to county parks was a direct override of the citizen committee's recommendation.
  • Process Failure: The board acknowledged the process was flawed and committed to a DMO (Destination Marketing Organization) workshop in early 2026 to create a more coherent strategy.

Decision & Vote

A motion to approve the LTAC recommendations, but with funding for the Forks and Gateway Visitor Information Centers ($156,014) redirected to the Parks and Recreation department for trail maintenance, was sent back to the LTAC for a 45-day review. Vote count not recorded in the materials.

Impact & Analysis

Immediate & Long-Term Consequences
  • Winners: The Jefferson County Parks and Recreation department, which gained over $150,000 for trail maintenance, effectively using tourism taxes to backfill its operational budget.
  • Losers: The Forks Chamber of Commerce and the Gateway Visitor Center, whose operations were defunded. The LTAC, whose authority was undermined by the board's decision.
  • Fiscal Impact: The decision reallocated $156,014 in lodging tax revenue from external marketing and visitor services to an internal county department.
Strategic Implications
  • Proactive vs. Proactive: This is a proactive, if contentious, move by a board majority to impose its strategic vision for tourism spending, prioritizing "destination development" (improving public assets) over traditional marketing.
  • Pattern Recognition: This action fits a pattern of the board centralizing control and using dedicated funds to solve General Fund problems. With the county facing a budget crisis, lodging tax revenue was used to pay for park maintenance that might otherwise require General Fund support.
  • Budget Trade-offs: The board explicitly chose to fund internal county operations at the expense of established, third-party tourism organizations.
Critical Gaps & Risks
  • What was not discussed: The economic impact of defunding visitor centers in a tourism-dependent economy. The decision was based on a strategic preference, not a data-driven analysis.
  • Vulnerabilities Created: The board has further alienated established tourism stakeholders, creating a contentious environment for the planned 2026 DMO strategy session. By overriding its citizen advisory committee, the board risks discouraging future volunteer participation.

AI Information