||| FROM SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS |||
San Juan County publishes answers to frequently asked Road Levy questions. November’s ballots will include Resolution No. 20-2022 – a proposition to increase the county road levy from $0.56 to $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed value. The $0.44 increase will be used to maintain roads and marine facilities, repair storm damage, and enhance roads for pedestrians and cyclists.
Q: When will the levy be on the ballot?
A: The road levy will be included on the ballot for the November 8 general election. The ballot measure requires a simple majority (50% plus one) to be approved by the voters.
Q: Is this a new tax?
A: This is a tax increase and is referred to as a “levy lid lift.” This levy lid lift proposes to increase the road levy from $0.56 to $1.00 per $1,000 of assessed value. This is a $0.44 increase.
Q: What will this cost me?
A: The road levy is a property tax that is assessed upon real property owners located in the unincorporated areas of San Juan County. For example, if your assessed value were $850,000, an increase of $0.44 per $1,000 of assessed value equates to a $374 increase in your property tax.
Q: How much money will this generate?
A: The levy is expected to generate an additional $4 million in revenues for the road fund every year.
Q: When will I pay it?
A: If passed, this amount will be added to property tax bills beginning in 2023.
Q: What will this money be used for?
A: Road levy funds are constitutionally protected in the State of Washington and can only be spent to support county road purposes. Revenues generated by this levy will support repairs and replacements of failing culverts, updates to marine facilities, and widening of shoulders for multi-modal transportation.
Q: What else does the County spend road levy funds on?
A: The County is responsible for over 270 miles of public roads, thousands of culverts, numerous marine facilities, bridges, trails, and other transportation related facilities located on seven different islands. Road funds support public and private business and their workers in the maintenance and improvement of these essential public facilities.
Q: What will happen if the levy fails?
A: If the majority of voters do not approve the levy lid lift, the County would need to strategically plan for level of service reductions to minimize the impact to our community. Considerations for level of service reductions require the County to establish limits of ordinary maintenance equal to what the citizens of San Juan County are willing to afford. After reductions in capital improvement programs, level of service reductions commonly include designating segments of County roads as “unmaintained public roads.”
Q: What can I do as a resident/voter?
A: You are strongly encouraged to get out and vote on November 8. San Juan County relies on the support of its residents to keep all services running including Police, Fire/EMS, roads, parks, and more. If you have any questions about this levy, please email roadlevy2022@sanjuanco.com.
Looking for more? Visit: https://www.sanjuanco.com/1918/Roads-Levy-2022
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Wow, do I have this right?
At $0.56/1000 (last year’s rate) and if my house was appraised at $850,000, my tax last year would have been $476. At the new rate of $1.00/1000, my tax would be $850. BUT my home’s appraised value went up 23.78% last year to this year (“structures” only, so the increase should apply county wide). Given this increase, the house is now worth $1,052,117. My actual new tax is going to be $1052.
So, the increase in tax, last year to this year ($476 last year to $1052 this year) has more than doubled. Or, the increase is 121%. This would mean the proposed County Road Fund would increase 121% in just one year!
If my figures are correct, how can the County justify such a large increase?
Hope I have made a mistake somewhere.
This doesn’t answer any of my questions. Why does the County need such a significant increase in the same year our assessed values have increased 30%? That $850,000 house is valued at $1,100,000 for 2023, resulting in an automatic increase in road tax. How much has the County actually determined it needs to maintain roads and culverts? What portion of this tax goes to expand shoulders for multi-modal transportation?
This post feels more like fear mongering than information. Guess I better approve this tax or EMS won’t make it to my home in an emergency…
This is definitely an unnecessary increase because of the significant assessed value increase. Please vote no and let’s maintain the existing rate. We have enough increased expenses with this ‘politically caused’ inflation.
Increased demand for limited supply; costs rise.
Devaluation of the currency known as inflation; costs rise.
Effect on revenue and budget forecasts; unknown.
Solution: Throw more money at it!
Or perhaps, just perhaps vote NO. Let’s wait a year or two and see how values and revenues adjust before approving such a steep levy.
Naw, too conservative, too prudent, too pragmatic. So will affordable housing be affordable, can you continue living here and for how long?
The choice is ours
Once again, Mr. Waunch is correct. Thank you sir.
The county should look at trimming Consultant Fees and Lawyer Fees do to Miss management and lawsuits. They need a New direction. Away from a Citified San Juan County.
I am not interested in any more road levies until the county gets out of the holy very old box of ever widening roads for truck and auto speed and convenience without finally and honestly addressing our crying need for SAFE and PLEASANT bicycle and pedestrian paths. Riding a bike or walking next to busy trucks and cars on hilly, curvy Orcas is particularly insane. It Is way past time we figured this out with safe Trails especially from Orcas landing to Eastsound and thence to Moran State Park.
Q: How many tourist vehicles use our roads each year?
Q: What proportion of our road maintenance/enhancement budget is due to that use?
Q: Do we directly recover any funds for. our roads from the visitors?
Q: If so, is it enough to cover the costs? If not, why?
Q: Can we somehow recover some of these costs directly from the visitors, or will we have island residents pick up the expense?
Q: How does this increased levy cost impact our working class, our elders, and people living on fixed incomes?
Brian,
The county is set to award over $1 million in funds from the lodging tax fund. The repair of our roads and associated improvements so that visitors can use them and we can host them safely is 100% in line with the intended use of those funds. In fact if you read the LTAC application it’s worded as though this was its express purpose!
How about we award the LTAC money to roads for safety and access upgrades.
There… I have successfully shifted $1 mil of our resident tax burden out to non-residents.
It’s not $4million, but it’s a start.
Tom Owens, you are getting off light! Our assessed value increased by 34% for 2023 which is when this new road levy would kick in. Our new levy will increase by 141%! We have made no improvements to our property in years.
If Carla and I, Tom and Sylvia have figured this right this levy proposal is another example of county employees and officials intentionally lowballing the cost impact to unsuspecting citizens.
We request the county reanalyze this proposal and publish a new estimate on this forum which includes the increase in property assessment.
Please vote NO. Enhance the roads for cycling? Enhance the marinas for more boats? Are you kidding? No thank you. We want less tourism, not more.
I think a valid question is whether the County Council was briefed by the the Assessor’s office that historically unprecedented increases in assessed values were in the planning stage for 2022 valuations. The law of assessment values have not changed between 2021 and 2022, but the algorithms (my collective use of all the factors the Assessor uses to arrive at a parcel value number) used to calculate new values is rather shocking. For example, my valuation increased 69.2%, and many parcels in the surrounding area increased higher than that … some over 90%.
What seem logical is to have the Road Fund increase calculated at the new assessed values and see if the new calculation is sufficient in itself to cover the the needed increase, because I strongly suspect the the $4 million increase was based on 2021 valuations.
It’s too late to remove the levy lift from the November ballot, but I think the County Council should be bold and pass a measure (resolution) that actually proposes this levy increase not be approved based on lack of full disclosure by the Assessor’s Office.
And remember, this significant tax increase is not a one year event … it will likely continue until parcel values decrease, that that may not be in anyone’s reading this lifetime.
I think I might feel more positive about the proposed levy if the revenues collected were placed into separate, secure funds for each of the three stated purposes, rather than commingled to slosh around in a single tank. In other words, I’d like to see a guaranteed fund for bike lanes, rather than to hope there’s enough left in the bank after whatever Public Works estimates is needed for road maintenance and improvements.
Again…VOTE NO. Make the tourists pay this. I see vans full of bikes from Utah all the time. Do they pay? I doubt it. How many public boat launches are on Orcas? One I think. My property assessment went up almost 100% this year somehow. How about yours? No thank you.
I am 82 years old, and have been voting now for over 60 years. I’m a supporter of local government, and have never voted against a property tax increase, bond, or levy. But that streak will end with the upcoming Resolution No. 20-2022, the San Juan County Road Levy. The increase from $.56 to $1.00 per $1000 of assessed value is shocking enough; but when you factor in the (typical) 34% jump in assessed valuation (which the County cynically fails to do), the increase in the road levy comes to 140%. The County has failed to justify this massive increase, and has failed to be straightforward with the voters about its true impact on our pocketbooks. We need to send them a message. Vote NO on Resolution No. 20-2022.
I believe following statement is in error and should be adjusted to more accurately reflect the reality of what “citizens” will be directly impacted by the tax increase… “Considerations for level of service reductions require the County to establish limits of ordinary maintenance equal to what the citizens of San Juan County are willing to afford.”. In this case, the sentence should be amended to … “equal to what property owners of San Juan County are willing to afford.”
The “citizenry” of San Juan County might be voting on this proposed tax increase, but it’s clearly stated in the language of the proposal that it is “property owners” yet again that will ultimately shoulder the financial burden.
The county road department has amply demonstrated that they do not effectively and strategically utilize the funding we already provide; the absurd “move the road over 20 feet” project in Westsound being a perfect example of low priority work that clearly was wildly expensive for what it accomplished.
I think Justine’s idea for the lodging tax going to the road department is a good one. Some municipalities charge an infrastructure fee, often substantial, to developers of new residential properties. Perhaps it is time to consider something like that for new construction? And/or perhaps there is a way to charge an infrastructure fee to visitors? A flat fee per non-resident vehicle perhaps? Or?
I seriously question how much actual benefit we receive from things like the Prune Alley gentrification project. And is that kind of beautification project really a priority when last winter there were massive washouts of critical roads and there are still no safe walking or biking paths on the majority of our county roads?
Throwing tax dollars at an agency that appears to have no rational prioritization plan for new projects seems like a very bad idea to me. I will vote NO on this levy.