Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
District Court 2 budget steady, county to renegotiate Forks lease and security terms
Summary
CFO and District Court 2 staff presented a modest revenue increase for 2026 driven by interpreter revenues and flagged security and contract shortcomings at the City of Forks courtroom. County staff will model true costs and begin negotiating a modernized service contract with Forks.
District Court 2 officials presented a conservative 2026 spending plan and asked commissioners to authorize work to modernize the county's contracts with the City of Forks.
The court is budgeting $90,162 in revenues for 2026, an increase of about 9.6% driven largely by interpreter reimbursements; planned expenditures are $487,000 (about a 3.1% increase). The CFO and county finance staff explained that the state, through the Administrative Office of the Courts, partially reimburses in-court interpreter costs but that reimbursement is capped by the legislature and may not cover all increased local interpreter expenses.
Court staff warned commissioners that the county—s long-standing agreement with the City of Forks lacks clear, modern language spelling out roles, responsibilities and security obligations. Judicial staff described one recent panic-button test that produced a five-minute response time and noted the building lease was extended on a one-year basis; the front counter windows and overall facility layout remain vulnerable to security incidents.
Commissioners directed county staff to develop a clearer cost model for court services in Forks, including case-origin and probation-cost allocations, and to begin negotiating a new contract and fee schedule with the city. Mark Downing (county finance) said he would share case-filings-by-origin data and a cost-allocation spreadsheet that staff will use to estimate appropriate charges for municipal partners.
What was decided: Staff will prepare the cost model and a proposed contract template and will return to commissioners with recommendations for negotiating fees with the City of Forks.
Why it matters: Forks hosts remote county court operations; the current informal or dated agreements shift risk and cost-uncertainty to the county. A transparent fee model will clarify what the county is paying for city-hosted court services and will help determine whether Port Angeles, Sequim or other partner agreements should be adjusted.
Next steps: County finance will supply case-origin and probation allocation data; civil counsel and the county—s contracting staff will draft a revised contract and fee schedule for commissioner consideration.
