Okanogan County officials were briefed on a projected shortfall in the county road fund that staff said would leave the department well below its target beginning balance and require service reductions or new revenue.

County Engineer Josh Thompson and other public‑works staff told the Board of County Commissioners that a state timber payment (SRS) that had been expected was missing from July and August receipts and that, combined with other revenue changes, reduces the county’s projected beginning fund balance from roughly $3.4 million toward about $2.7 million unless the gap is closed.

The county’s road budget team said they had already carved roughly $2.6–$3.0 million from the preliminary road maintenance and capital plan. That reduction, they said, still leaves a shortfall of several hundred thousand dollars to as much as multiple millions depending on whether one‑time reserves are used. The staff presentation showed where cuts were proposed: reduced chip‑seal and pre‑level projects, eliminating mag‑chloride soil stabilization, cutting striping and vegetation work, cancelling nonessential pit work and postponing planned equipment replacements. Maintenance supervisor positions and temporary seasonal hires were also identified as possible layoffs if no new revenue is found.

Why this matters: county staff framed the shortfall as a direct threat to routine road maintenance that affects winter safety, school bus routes and emergency response. Maintaining a roughly $3 million beginning balance, staff said, is important to preserve cash flow through slow tax months and the early construction season.

What staff recommended and what commissioners discussed
- Staff recommendation (summarized): prioritize keeping a $3 million beginning balance; otherwise implement staged service cuts and staff reductions. Staff proposed keeping some positions through the winter and delaying layoffs until early spring if possible in order to maintain winter operations.
- Personnel: county staff said the next draft budget contemplates eliminating roughly six to seven road department positions if no new revenue is secured. Commissioners asked for an alternative scenario that would keep positions through the winter (to April 1) and push service cuts instead; staff said they would produce a revised budget showing that option and its cost.
- Service reductions under discussion: cutting chip seal and major pre‑level projects, reducing crack sealing and patching, halving striping frequency, suspending mag‑chloride applications on gravel roads, reducing culvert and storm‑damage contingencies, and pausing planned equipment purchases and some pit/crushing activity.
- Equipment and ER&R: county shop managers described ER&R (equipment rental and replacement) as a restricted revolving fund that pays for vehicle replacement and shop operations. Staff said pausing equipment purchases delays replacement and increases future replacement costs but provides short‑term relief.

Revenue options the board considered
- Transportation benefit district (TBD): commissioners and staff discussed a TBD as a near‑term option. A TBD can impose a 0.1% local sales tax and an optional vehicle fee (commonly $20) within the district. Staff said legal details matter: countywide TBDs, city involvement and revenue distribution must meet state rules and interlocal agreements; some jurisdictions use councilmatic (non‑voter) authority for a first increment but additional increases may require voter approval. Staff asked the county clerk and Department of Revenue for an estimate of the county’s unincorporated share of sales tax revenue to model potential TBD revenue.
- Real estate excise tax (REET): commissioners directed staff to continue research on whether an additional county REET increment could be used for roads and what statutory conditions (project‑only restrictions, growth‑management prerequisites or public‑works definitions) would apply.
- Use of one‑time reserves: staff reviewed the county’s Local Assistance/Tribal Consistency (LAEC) balance (discussed during the meeting as roughly $11.7 million). Commissioners noted using LAEC to backfill the roads for one year would be possible but would substantially reduce that finite balance and not fix recurring revenue shortfalls.

Process and next steps
- Staff committed to produce a revised budget matrix showing (a) the current proposal with layoffs and service cuts; (b) a version that keeps identified road positions through the winter into early April and shows the additional cost; and (c) revenue projections for a TBD and for a possible county REET increment so the board can compare options.
- Commissioners asked staff to reach out to the Department of Revenue and to provide a clear estimate of how much the county would receive from a 0.1% sales tax applied to unincorporated‑area transactions. Commissioners also asked for legal review of REET eligibility and any strings attached to using REET for roads.

What the meeting recorded as formal action
- No final appropriations or tax levies were adopted at the session. The board did approve a motion to enter executive session on risk of a proposed action (see separate actions log); that motion was seconded and carried by voice vote.

Context and local impacts
- Staff told the board that the county has used state grants (including SDBG or similar chip‑seal grants) in recent years to temporarily offset maintenance costs; losing that federal/state grant carryover and the missing SRS payment compounds the current structural shortfall.
- Staff warned that the longer the county postpones a structural solution, the larger the backlog of deferred maintenance and the more expensive future repairs will become. Commissioners emphasized the stakes for school bus routes, emergency response and long rural routes that rely on seasonal maintenance.

Sources and speakers
This account summarizes the commissioners’ session presentation and Q&A with the county engineering and finance team and the road maintenance leadership. Speakers and roles on the record in the meeting included:
- Josh Thompson, county engineer (presented the road budget and scenarios)
- Pam Johnson, county treasurer (financial clarifications)
- Carrie Hall, county auditor (budget structure)
- Gary George, maintenance manager (operational impacts and equipment/ER&R)
- John Tubin, ER&R manager (shop and equipment funding)
- “Commissioner” (board members were present and asked policy questions; individual commissioner names were not provided in the transcript excerpt)

Ending
The board set a near‑term schedule for staff to return with a revised budget that preserves winter operations while quantifying the cost of delaying layoffs, and to provide revenue estimates for a TBD and for any REET increment. Commissioners signaled a willingness to consider both one‑time reserve use and new local revenue tools, while stressing the need for clear public messaging if taxes or fees are advanced for voter or council approval.