Clallam County's Board of County Commissioners met in a special session to review options for closing a recurring general‑fund shortfall and to decide whether to place a revenue measure before voters.

The county's finance staff presented updated three‑year projections showing annual general‑fund deficits in the 2026–2028 timeframe and described a set of possible responses: expenditure reductions, drawing on capital or working capital, and revenue increases through property‑tax or sales‑tax changes. Finance staff said the county's projection for 2026 is roughly $3.7–$4.0 million and noted a similar shortfall appeared in 2025.

Why it matters: commissioners must adopt a balanced budget; staff said repeated one‑year fixes and relying on reserves are not sustainable. Any revenue measure placed on the ballot would require public outreach and clear descriptions of impacts on homeowners and services.

Key points from the presentation and discussion:
- Cuts and service reductions: Staff and department heads outlined program areas that could be reduced or deferred, and emphasized that some departments already operate at minimum staffing. Potential targets discussed included non‑mandated programs, parks operations and support to outside agencies, but staff cautioned that many cuts would not fully close the gap and could become counterproductive.
- One‑time options: The county can temporarily use working capital from other funds or refunding to free up cash, but staff warned that tapping capital for operations could stall capital projects such as the off‑channel reservoir or other long‑term investments.
- Sales‑tax options: Staff modeled two sales‑tax paths the county has not used: an existing public‑safety sales tax authority (up to three‑tenths of 1%) and a newer criminal‑justice public‑safety sales tax authorized by the Legislature (House Bill 2015), which allows up to one‑tenth of 1%. The newer tax can be adopted by ordinance and implemented locally before it must be submitted to voters by mid‑2028; however, staff said compliance criteria tied to officer training would have to be met and the state treasurer may withhold funds until those criteria are satisfied.
- Property‑tax options: Staff described levy‑lid‑lift mechanics and modeled scenarios that would raise the county levy toward about $1.50 per $1,000 assessed value in order to produce meaningful revenue. The county’s levy rate has declined over time as assessed values rose; staff explained that multi‑year levy lifts (temporary or permanent) and escalators (CPI or fixed percentages) carry different trade‑offs and disclosure requirements.

Staff modeled combinations of a levy increase and the new criminal‑justice sales tax with different escalators, implementation dates and assumptions about CPI. Under several modeled mixes the county would still need to pair revenue with expenditure reductions in order to adopt a balanced multi‑year budget.

Next steps: The board has scheduled a public hearing and a work session to consider specific ballot language and timing. Staff asked commissioners for any additional scenarios to model before the hearing and noted deadlines for submitting documentation to the auditor for a November placement. Commissioners and staff emphasized the need for clear public information about how proposed changes would affect a typical homeowner and which services would be preserved or reduced.