[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6488844,"mediaKeyId","5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00","parentId",5509314,"title","County planners advance comprehensive plan chapters on capital facilities, utilities and transportation; propose two‑year CIP review cycle","audioSeconds",1226,"startMs",2914000,"endMs",4140000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00&start=2914&end=4140","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00/thumbnail_2914000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6488844/Thurston-County/Washington/County-planners-advance-comprehensive-plan-chapters-on-capital-facilities-utilities-and-transportation-propose-twoyear-CIP-review-cycle","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488844-b34847b5b025773e8cd80a74f66b7f61/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138491&Signature=YeoC9~RdQrzdg6RDVlfHUxhSx6vb3zC4z8GXkl3td-ZWSWfokYT2if3Xch-qkxHYIcjDX5GfEDZlSgEmsCaiyNgk6D-WCRJXGa67HWtsYzt30tcfrrnd~y3zUus~nqV9DxrXMPdTzu-a2Sql8KalCKg-OYa7rmYsYc8B6kWpssj4AQl6XMGMaXnb-CwDDkAmYBc2rpxGWUDoZKZQRuJoeYJu7eXDQRHkJDUX0I-2G2SA80~gvzulJ6yr2dp3lUfgl25JiN8Y2mavTpv0okPIYxm00Ah5~Sd~aWF5u1WmSd4TlxyorpR57MV1hjc3bQ-zWF6wdOIYnnRVLXw~uUfjdw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Thurston County Washington","date","2025-07-30T16:08:29Z","article","Thurston County planning staff presented the third installment of the county’s comprehensive plan update covering capital facilities, utilities and transportation and recommended changes to how the county presents and reviews its capital improvements program (CIP).

Ashley Bridal, director of Community Planning and Economic Development, and Derek Day, community planning manager, told the Board that the capital facilities chapter is intended as a high‑level clearinghouse that inventories existing facilities, forecasts demand, and points to more detailed master plans maintained by departments and partner agencies. Bridal said the chapter is not a budget document and that more detailed master‑planning documents (for example, public works master plans and school district plans) should be referenced rather than duplicated.

Staff noted emerging trends the chapters address, including projected increases in commuting, higher construction costs, and the need to incorporate climate resiliency into capital planning. A new transportation chapter component introduces a multimodal level‑of‑service approach differentiating rural and urban expectations.

The planning staff reported outreach with agencies and stakeholders, including a meeting with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to ensure the plan’s references reflect state transportation projects. Bridal said the county switched to an online public comments platform and provides a comment dashboard so the planning commission and public can see who commented and where comments originate.

The planning commission suggested the county move from an annual review of the CIP to a two‑year cycle to allow more meaningful review by the planning commission and the public and to reduce staff resource constraints. Bridal said staff heard general support for that approach and that follow‑up materials will include summaries of public comments and links to referenced master plans. Commissioners asked questions about the planning commission’s role and the distinction between organizational facility planning and the Growth Management Act requirements for capital facilities.

Staff indicated the next work session will cover natural resources and that a climate‑focused session was moved earlier in the schedule.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","July 30, 2025 Thurston County Board of County Commissioners Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","County planning staff presented updated comprehensive plan chapters on capital facilities, utilities and transportation and proposed shifting the capital improvements program review to a two‑year cycle.","taxTitle","Thurston County, Washington","taxId",4614,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6488852,"Commissioners discuss pooling opioid‑settlement funds; ask staff for county needs assessment before approving interlocal agreement",668,212000,880000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00&start=212&end=880","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00/thumbnail_212000.jpg","/articles/6488852/Thurston-County/Washington/Commissioners-discuss-pooling-opioidsettlement-funds-ask-staff-for-county-needs-assessment-before-approving-interlocal-agreement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488852-3abeb571cc29442a6c10fcb3855feeff/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138491&Signature=oDoLM9F2ITMVF3ZtX1K-PyGHU5qadS9Zj8y0Q006DyqdPzgffrvlhdNm7vMumGRGOle1MWX2AkVG27dOjXeghDEJpBqepoSrBz9ejfHCRvE73KtXtBwTUw0PdeIZUgsiHEqlmuWBQGMP14GaBbF9b~LbVv8nUl1EU5Lm8CBfven4687AD-pFmZx4A-hCgs76gL4nZac0v-tg-1VAyWwHTKYtPsMf4yevCKMEjuiH~6zXtvp0IO~l2qjy8gFTUWwM1x2yGESXR0Bj4ajnurimSlqZb1zHh1cki5tI-ycB83CyvNt6cfSC6NCZ7xkSk8L84hK5IHFttQ11bgET5UhtQw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Thurston County commissioners discussed a proposed interlocal agreement to pool opioid settlement funds under a county‑led opioid abatement council and directed staff to assess county program needs before approving the ILA.

Public Health Director Jen Bright presented a revised ILA that would allow jurisdictions in the county to pool opioid settlement funds and route funding recommendations through the opioid abatement council (OAC) to the Board of County Commissioners. Bright told commissioners the draft ILA mirrors the Regional Housing Council’s approval structure and includes a mechanism allowing jurisdictions to withdraw funds if they prefer to retain them.

Bright said the OAC and the Health Department want spending to align with the county’s opioid response plan and the 1Washington memorandum of understanding (1Washington MOU) that governs allowable uses for settlement money. “Those community‑identified priority areas just as a reminder are expanded access to treatment, primarily medications for opioid use disorder, warm handoff grant programs… and first‑responder based grants,” Bright said.

Commissioners expressed broad support for a pooled approach but several asked for a pause so staff could review the county’s immediate needs and the fit between settlement funding and programs already under budget pressure. Commissioner Mejia asked the county manager to consult with Public Health — including Katie and Dr. Freiheit — and report back on county needs before the board approves the ILA. Commissioner Green and others raised the jail’s treatment needs as an example, noting the sheriff’s estimate for adding methadone treatment services was about $800,000 annually; staff said they are refining that number with the sheriff’s fiscal team.

County and Public Health staff said there is no federal requirement to spend settlement funds within a specific timeline and that some opioid settlements pay out over multiple years. Bright noted the 1Washington MOU and the county opioid response plan would still constrain allowable uses even if jurisdictions keep their funds rather than pooling them.

Rather than voting on the ILA at the meeting, commissioners directed the county manager and Public Health staff to convene follow‑up conversations, reconcile county service needs (prevention, treatment, in‑jail services), and return with a recommendation. Commissioners also discussed program reporting, how pooled funds might reduce administrative overhead for smaller jurisdictions, and how the OAC intends for its funding recommendations to align with the Board of Health’s opioid response plan.

Quotations in this article come from commissioners and staff who spoke during the recorded discussion. The transcript did not include a final approval vote on the ILA at this meeting.","Thurston County commissioners discussed a proposed interlocal agreement to pool opioid settlement funds under the opioid abatement council and asked staff to assess county needs before approving the agreement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6488857,"Thurston County commissioners authorize purchase of downtown property for consolidated courthouse",0,764000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00&start=764&end=764","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00/thumbnail_764000.jpg","/articles/6488857/Thurston-County/Washington/Thurston-County-commissioners-authorize-purchase-of-downtown-property-for-consolidated-courthouse","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488857-973f92cb18fdcb3d41b773ebafc2a563/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138491&Signature=PWahQ5jqzcEBH6J3VT78JOeaQuEhCUyQozm3urVdWZWHEwJMg-3CY-zerd5ukZfBlg-HQFkJybqJkKIzSiReS9eltaSAgJtsk-yrTB4Fd7FvLMOx7V688GPGqe6KvYMnPS0rMFQIYf71QwtN38PvYYYeIJE~aqBTGLA4TNr3aEvqJQUnepZOU6YMgRQXmTIhcLZauM1mENWK41WIl-GFrAZCgJIGMD5oicVyGk70I3TGo1CanL07lHAxc9wLmQ1nQc-5pfNVZZ7PC5P547WwMl51kWQHW9LZf1WWApgyBUko3JL4a3eAzLLsOhyQheyY5dQ0IOrG6zpVLPcfNMefJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Thurston County commissioners unanimously authorized the county manager to sign a purchase and sale agreement for roughly 7 acres and five buildings intended to house county courthouse and administrative functions.

The agreement approved at the meeting (date not specified) would let the county buy roughly seven acres and five buildings that county staff said could accommodate all required court and county administrative space. The transaction was presented to commissioners as an alternative to a previous proposal to seek roughly $200 million in bonds to build a new courthouse.

County staff and at least one commissioner described the purchase as a rare opportunity to meet long‑standing space needs using available funds rather than asking voters for a large bond. “They were looking at trying to ask the taxpayers for $200,000,000 to build a new courthouse,” a commissioner said during discussion. The same speaker introduced the motion: “I make a motion to authorize the county manager to sign … the purchase sale agreement for real estate acquisition on behalf of Thurston County.”

Commissioners said the property contains sufficient building area and room to grow. One commissioner told colleagues they had toured the campus and believed the buildings “check the boxes” for courts and services. Another commissioner contrasted the current acquisition with earlier estimates that included inflation and financing costs, recounting that prior project estimates rose to about $280 million in 2019 when financing and inflation were added.

The motion was seconded and passed by unanimous voice vote. County staff indicated the county manager will execute the agreement on behalf of Thurston County.

What this means: The purchase is intended to consolidate courthouse, administrative and related county services into a single campus, avoid putting a bond measure to voters at this time, and address long‑standing facility needs. The transcript did not specify the seller, the exact parcels’ legal descriptions, the purchase price, or the proposed closing date; those details were described in the meeting as part of a purchase and sale agreement but were not read into the public record in the transcript provided.","The Thurston County Board of Commissioners unanimously authorized the county manager to sign a purchase and sale agreement for several downtown parcels and buildings intended to house county courthouse and administrative functions, avoiding a previously discussed $200 million bond proposal.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6488848,"Thurston County public works proposes modest rate increases for utilities, stormwater, solid waste and noxious weed assessments",652,1793000,2445000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00&start=1793&end=2445","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5509314-a19c0ff3435083e996442982f2101f00/thumbnail_1793000.jpg","/articles/6488848/Thurston-County/Washington/Thurston-County-public-works-proposes-modest-rate-increases-for-utilities-stormwater-solid-waste-and-noxious-weed-assessments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6488848-5bb23a9606f30a79053e699e50013e59/orig.mp4?Expires=1771138492&Signature=L0Pdp13c3Kd1EAmTEdv-q0kbChLZgYQwnK-qGuM5YW~R3WcrHrg8i3VgI8HnpLCyCKI-zds7ITHb8GbVHAHP3QGht9jy703-F5aeWuNvVVMMFnZ1GFHdPfMhceny5e1U4iaeVKW51cpiCASk9vfMuDp1neAQHfctKOloA-auDsAcc1ZN~E-wp4Ta1NwtQ-dh7xmtZwU0l6Ii7cVQ0GMgpS9Lo32WshjlEBt7UGDh3nhsZVEJvKaVOi7tE~prmi6sBYum5mqfwWXTVJHPQ-sS2ABSP9cvAed-qLm-oIZDqKLfesz9gxFO8wou2uBkaMVob8PHg~1ZS9lIeMhXNaT15g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Thurston County Public Works presented proposed rate and fee adjustments for the 2026–27 budget cycle for water and sewer utilities, stormwater, solid waste and the county’s noxious weed assessment. The proposal advances previously modeled rate consolidation and capital plans and will move forward through the county’s budget and public‑hearing processes.

Public Works Director Tim Wilson and utility managers told commissioners the adjustments are modest and are the next step in implementing a blended rate schedule that aims to achieve uniform utility rates by 2028. The water and sewer adjustments are part of a consolidation implemented in 2024 and include both modest increases and decreases depending on service area; for a typical Boston Harbor residential customer using about 700 cubic feet per month, staff cited an example increase of about $6.50 per month.

Stormwater rates were recommended following a comprehensive stormwater study; the staff recommended an 8% increase in 2026 (base rate) with no capital rate increase proposed in 2026, noting the effective household impact would be modest on an annual basis.

Solid waste rates include the most significant adjustments because the county’s last comprehensive increase was in 2012 and CPI has risen substantially since then. Public Works said the proposal models a multi‑year approach to support current service levels and planned capital investments (including waste recovery reconfiguration and a potential South County transfer station). The proposal would raise the organics tip fee from $45 per ton (2012 rate) to $75 per ton in 2026 and $90 per ton in 2027; staff said the contract processing cost for organics is roughly $77 per ton and that the proposal aims to reduce the county subsidy of that service. Public Works noted comparative county rates and outreach done with local haulers and the City of Olympia; LeMay provided an example estimate of a $1.30 monthly customer increase for a 65‑gallon trash service.

Public Works also presented a proposed 25% increase for the noxious weed assessment in 2026 with no change in 2027. Staff noted a statutorily prescribed process for that assessment, that a public hearing was held on June 23 with no comments, and that the noxious weed board recommended the increase.

Staff said next steps include posting proposed rates on the county website, including information in billing inserts and newsletters, continuing outreach with haulers and partner cities, filing required materials for solid waste rate changes with the state (Utility and Transportation Commission filing requirement noted), and incorporating the proposed changes into the county budget process. Public Works told commissioners there will be a public hearing (special in December) as part of the deliberations. No formal votes on the proposed rates were taken at this meeting.

Direct quotations in this article are drawn from the presentation and the exchange recorded in the meeting transcript.","Public Works presented proposed rate adjustments for 2026–27 for water and sewer, stormwater, solid waste and the noxious weed assessment. The board heard that the increases are intended to maintain service levels, cover operating and capital costs, and align with prior consolidation and rate study recommendations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County planners advance comprehensive plan chapters on capital facilities, utilities and transportation; propose two‑year CIP review cycle

Commissioners discuss pooling opioid‑settlement funds; ask staff for county needs assessment before approving interlocal agreement

Thurston County commissioners authorize purchase of downtown property for consolidated courthouse

Thurston County public works proposes modest rate increases for utilities, stormwater, solid waste and noxious weed assessments