[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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],{"_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",6484301,"mediaKeyId","5825908-f098c6b4d16b0d67656f132f996ced97","parentId",5825908,"title","Thurston County road fund faces multi‑year shortfall; officials outline cuts, unfunded positions and options to slow decline","audioSeconds",1176,"startMs",3585000,"endMs",4761000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825908-f098c6b4d16b0d67656f132f996ced97&start=3585&end=4761","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825908-f098c6b4d16b0d67656f132f996ced97/thumbnail_3585000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6484301/Thurston-County/Washington/Thurston-County-road-fund-faces-multiyear-shortfall-officials-outline-cuts-unfunded-positions-and-options-to-slow-decline","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484301-1f0b8010731d56ce8a9ae698b22ae0dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1773708676&Signature=EKU-PSf7FDACEdrrfJNrnKfoVIZ9I9AXFPxZfGP4QfGMFVY~xhWURtG9ML~-fIXXQh~Hdz7y68GGX9IeRutjID-3O-yNYzaNfqjVG3bHxoMYTC-yCXRd2QZUupK2YJc7NHAr4Ja753ZatOODjHVe8gPAFLj~i16U3FoilrDLxyaTPVtbg515p6Na3CYh3Bu94Yyx4E7kLcF3luDkUy7LRCjvPrKXE7cYTR-gV51E877qELCMHBaQjUH0KcDUcJ39MXM4w3awz628tZF5bKafKkp2IyNC2G8G~YH2h3PBMInW~eyaRR0Jcdi1i~IKQb-dtgr8b17qqV9qkAc-Vq1kkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Thurston County Washington","date","2025-09-25T16:09:39.593Z","article","Thurston County public works and budget staff told commissioners Wednesday that the county’s road fund faces a multi‑year structural shortfall, driven by rising construction and materials costs, flat or declining fuel‑tax revenue and legislative shifts that have moved road levy dollars into the general fund.

Public Works Director Sharon Luis and Summer Miller, budget and finance manager in the commissioners’ office, presented a 10‑year outlook showing the road fund’s revenue falling short of projected expenses if current levy‑shift levels continue. “We are shifting and diverting 24% of the available road levy,” Luis said, summarizing the combined levy shift and a $1.5 million diversion earmarked for traffic enforcement. She noted the county is among the top four of Washington’s 39 counties in the share of its road levy shifted or diverted to other purposes.

Staff reported inflation‑driven cost increases across maintenance work: a 51% rise in paint costs used for striping, 48% higher pipe costs, a 23% increase in asphalt since 2020 and a marked increase in chip‑seal contracting costs. Luis said a $2 million chip‑seal program that covered 50 miles in 2017 would cover roughly 29 miles in 2024 dollars.

Revenue trends and projections: the presentation showed property tax (road levy) provides roughly 70–75% of road fund revenue; motor vehicle fuel tax receipts have not kept pace with cost inflation and are effectively flat in staff projections despite a recent 6¢ gas‑tax increase at the state level that yields counties a portion of the revenue.

Budget impacts and containment measures: staff said they have already suspended a $1.2 million operating transfer from the road fund to capital programs and are delaying equipment replacements. Short‑term containment tactics include reducing chip‑seal and overlay miles, delaying equipment replacement, holding vacant positions and, if necessary, unfunding positions — staff estimated 8–10 positions could be unfunded in 2026 under current assumptions. Long‑term options discussed included suspending the rural community support program (about $275,000 annually), altering the traffic calming program and lowering levels of service for mowing, vegetation removal and striping frequency.

Public works staff emphasized that nearly half of the road fund’s indirect costs are equipment and that deferring preservation work increases long‑term capital costs. “If you defer maintenance, you pay exponentially more later,” Luis said, noting that deferred pavement preservation leads to faster pavement deterioration and higher replacement costs.

Commissioners and staff also discussed emergency‑reserve needs: the road fund historically covered major emergency responses (for example the 2022 flood had about $2 million in immediate emergency costs, with later FEMA reimbursement). Staff said the county’s fund balance used to be healthy but that projected deficits could reduce the county’s ability to respond to future emergencies without additional revenue or reductions in service.

Biennial budget context: assistant county manager Jennifer Walker and county manager Leonard Hernandez joined budget staff in outlining biennial budget scenarios and a set of conceptual allocations. The board asked staff to prepare public‑facing scenarios and return with more detailed, dated spreadsheets; staff requested time to reconcile last‑minute adjustments, noting some law‑enforcement and central services lines need formula corrections.

No formal decisions were taken. Commissioners agreed to continue budget deliberations in additional sessions and asked staff to return with more detailed, dated financial worksheets and options for targeted restorations or alternative revenue sources (including discussion of levy lid lift or other long‑term revenue measures).","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","September 24, 2025 Thurston County Board of County Commissioners","oneSentenceSummary","Thurston County public works and budget staff told commissioners Wednesday that the county’s road fund faces a multi‑year shortfall driven by rising costs, declining fuel‑tax revenue and county levy shifts; staff outlined containment measures and projected they may need to unfund 8–10 road fund positions in 2026 if trends continue.","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},6484306,"Thurston County planning staff propose code changes to align permit timelines, expand some SEPA exemptions inside UGAs",1135,2351000,3486000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825908-f098c6b4d16b0d67656f132f996ced97&start=2351&end=3486","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825908-f098c6b4d16b0d67656f132f996ced97/thumbnail_2351000.jpg","/articles/6484306/Thurston-County/Washington/Thurston-County-planning-staff-propose-code-changes-to-align-permit-timelines-expand-some-SEPA-exemptions-inside-UGAs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484306-9bf77109356b980ce42cabfe41619458/orig.mp4?Expires=1773708676&Signature=OBbWJ-X7RL09MovDtSKrKN62wviGxnRjUyOGCrqaNN-rwMNNJzJpKMB2FfDqM4b7VB~GbVjo~uIM4VUksbWHQfMBcNIocLybd5yH5Qfxg-pUpyvWhpnLGiOA1F2gFOoSQ7jxMOpU7dVevshs27dNqp9nspQm8CVeqaFwLWpgiNUEsye8X10lI2S1OtMuOS2J57W1FzE-9uluIWxF0GMEhgDwHgdf4MHAv3joNesU4~W6dx90CHNQBUis2uyoiTCYhhvbZPSanPshj8XKR0ManoyklRChVWOBYNQrI60Dh8mfe2UdHnFNH~VGROtdhkUb9wd7pUsuVo0XAk-AloZMuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Thurston County planning staff on Wednesday recommended a package of changes to the development code that would align local permit review timelines with state law, broaden State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) categorical exemptions for housing inside Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) and keep limited exemptions in rural areas.

At issue: state law recently expanded categorical SEPA exemptions for housing to speed housing development. County staff told commissioners the county’s development code had not been updated since 1997 and runs timelines that differ from the state’s Local Project Review Act; the proposed code changes would synchronize the county code with the state statute.

Ashley, a Community Planning and Economic Development staff member, told the board the planning commission recommended adoption of the permit timelines and other clerical updates after public review. For SEPA exemptions, planning commissioners recommended expanding the county’s exemptions inside UGAs to match state allowances — for example increasing the county threshold for exempted multi‑unit housing — while holding to more limited exemptions in rural county. “The planning commission landed on broadening exemptions in the UGA to make permits faster and cost less, but keeping limited exemptions outside the UGA,” Ashley said.

Staff framed the change as consistent with the county’s growth strategy: encouraging denser housing within UGAs while preserving rural character. Commissioners asked about distinctions between single‑family and multifamily thresholds in rural areas; staff noted local constraints such as community water and septic limits make large rural multifamily development uncommon and that planning commissioners had recommended a modest rural exemption increase from four to six units.

The code package also includes updates to permit review timelines required by the Local Project Review Act (SB 5290) and a housekeeping set of clerical edits. Another component the board asked staff to evaluate is whether quasi‑judicial land‑use appeals should remain heard by the Board of County Commissioners or be delegated directly to Superior Court; the planning commission recommended retaining the board as the appeal body based on community feedback that the board is more accessible to residents.

Staff asked commissioners whether to include the full package in a public‑hearing draft. Commissioners indicated they supported moving the whole package to a public hearing, and staff proposed a public hearing on Nov. 18; commissioners said the development code docket can be scheduled separately from the once‑yearly comprehensive plan docket if needed.

No formal action was taken Wednesday. Planning staff said they would return a public‑hearing draft, incorporate commissioner direction and publish materials in time for the November hearing.

","Thurston County planning staff on Wednesday proposed a development‑code package to align local permit timelines with the state Local Project Review Act, widen some SEPA categorical exemptions for housing inside Urban Growth Areas and keep limited exemptions in rural county.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6484311,"State’s Chehalis Basin office outlines six long‑term flood and fish strategy options, including flow‑through dam and Skookumchuck Dam choices",2277,55000,2332000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5825908-f098c6b4d16b0d67656f132f996ced97&start=55&end=2332","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5825908-f098c6b4d16b0d67656f132f996ced97/thumbnail_55000.jpg","/articles/6484311/Thurston-County/Washington/States-Chehalis-Basin-office-outlines-six-longterm-flood-and-fish-strategy-options-including-flowthrough-dam-and-Skookumchuck-Dam-choices","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6484311-923e3ccf5b683de11854738aec5a66f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1773708676&Signature=mFABcw7mR5g8oNcrjcU0W-IWxOPIkOPX~Oya3aJB~G4TTqyVELnJvd0bGJ-bXjPDthO~tZoWi2FuM6PINMNPmoirtp5B9qbEXMQzwAOSKG-L~h9AWhlRDnqwOBS5bGpjMCjmI2cMP4BuF-m~jBIAKFzUpv~Dt~M82Z-LvICnF2SvjBviNs0NRah7j~LGyNd9VEV6aRwIUn-3maqTP6MT4teRe1LcUKGbJVRomfURV-r7DxrQSfeJ5FqrUECsd6~V-OSxdDgjtDieyJIEOYRiAQGt6h8uj~0RBMCWfHXl2iIrAYoFrw9i3BEE8Yf8hwPm54P-YHdIU1DD-eufeOTmYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Office of the Chehalis Basin on Wednesday briefed Thurston County commissioners on six long‑term strategy options to reduce flood damage and restore aquatic habitat across the Chehalis Basin, including a proposed “flow‑through” dam, a package of local levees and alternatives for the Skookumchuck Dam.

The Office’s director, Jim Zenk, said the office — housed in the Washington Department of Ecology — is charged by the Legislature to develop a strategy that balances near‑term flood protection and long‑term aquatic species restoration. “Our primary goal is to aggressively pursue flood damage reduction and aquatic species restoration within the basin,” Zenk said.

Why it matters: the Chehalis Basin is the state’s second‑largest basin and supports timber, agriculture and other economic activity; the basin has seen declining salmon runs and increasingly frequent flooding that has caused major damage in the past. The board and basin partners are weighing multi‑decade investments that could affect communities in Thurston County and neighboring jurisdictions.

Most of Zenk’s presentation described a suite of six options that technical teams are evaluating. On the structural side, one option centers on a proposed flow‑through dam upstream of the basin that would remain open during normal conditions and close only to capture predicted catastrophic flood flows; the concept includes temporary fish transport when gates are closed. That proposal is undergoing state environmental review by Ecology, which Zenk said will release a draft environmental review in November; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is also conducting an environmental impact statement expected next spring.

A second structural approach is a ‘‘non‑dam’’ local actions package of levees and flood walls around Centralia and Chehalis, plus levees along the Skookumchuck River to protect communities that would receive limited benefit from the upstream dam. Zenk emphasized that the options remain conceptual and would require further permitting and environmental review.

The board also discussed the future of the Skookumchuck Dam, built in 1970 without fish passage and owned by TransAlta. TransAlta is scheduled to retire its last turbine this year, prompting the basin board to study three choices for the facility: do nothing, modify the dam to improve fish passage and limited flood benefit, or remove the dam entirely. Zenk said TransAlta currently holds the water rights associated with the reservoir and that board staff are examining off‑channel storage and potential purchases to preserve those rights. “The water that’s stored behind the dam is owned by TransAlta,” Zenk said. He also said one preliminary estimate for the water rights value is about $80 million.

Participants raised tradeoffs. Commissioners asked whether a single large dam would address floods driven by different rainfall origins; Zenk agreed a dam would be most effective for floods originating in the upstream Willapa Hills, but less so for Skookumchuck‑driven events and cautioned that upstream actions could shift flooding downstream. He also noted agencies and tribes differ on the Skookumchuck Dam: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has urged full removal to help spring Chinook, while the Chehalis Tribe has expressed concerns about sediment and flow changes.

The office said the basin has already invested in more than 140 projects in recent years that together protect more than 300 acres and more than 200 homes and businesses; the Legislature has appropriated roughly $70 million across two prior biennia and another $75 million in the most recent biennium. Zenk said an estimate to fully implement habitat restoration in all critical areas could approach $1 billion, if every identified project were built.

The basin board intends to use technical comparative analysis to estimate how each package reduces flood risk, protects homes and affects salmon, steelhead and other species. Zenk said the board’s final long‑term strategy likely will combine pieces of multiple options rather than pick a single preset package.

The office is conducting public outreach and scheduled two in‑person open houses and an online open house: Sept. 25 at the Veterans Memorial Museum in Centralia (5–7:30 p.m.) and Oct. 8 in Montesano, plus an online open house mirroring the in‑person information. Zenk said the board plans to produce a final long‑term strategy in 2026 and will seek further public comment before legislative sessions.

The Thurston County commissioners who heard the presentation described the briefing as useful background before the county considers any resolution or formal policy positions. Commissioners pressed staff to ensure outreach to downstream water rights holders, to clarify liability and management options if ownership changes, and to bring additional financial and liability analysis back to the basin board for consideration.

Looking ahead: the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the flow‑through dam is due from Ecology in November; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers expects an EIS in spring. The basin board will use comparative modeling and public input through 2026 to select or combine long‑term options.

","The Office of the Chehalis Basin presented six long‑term strategy packages being evaluated for the Chehalis Basin, including a proposed flow‑through dam, non‑dam levee alternatives and options to modify or remove the Skookumchuck Dam. The board emphasized science‑based evaluation and local outreach, with open houses scheduled in Centralia and Oct. ","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Thurston County road fund faces multi‑year shortfall; officials outline cuts, unfunded positions and options to slow decline

Thurston County planning staff propose code changes to align permit timelines, expand some SEPA exemptions inside UGAs

State’s Chehalis Basin office outlines six long‑term flood and fish strategy options, including flow‑through dam and Skookumchuck Dam choices