and it’s got nothing to do with the Department of Environmental Stewardship
||| FROM KEVIN RANKER |||
The County Council is considering a budget that eliminates the Department of Environmental Stewardship as an independent department in order to “save money” – which history has shown means there is no independent advocate for the environment within our county government.
What makes no sense is the Environmental Department actually brings in hundreds of thousands in grants and the Director’s position – which they are eliminating to “save money” – is almost entirely paid for by the Solid Waste Utility and the Stormwater Utility and does not greatly rely on the general fund… where they need to make cuts.
Where is there significantly increased spending in the county? Administration.
In Human Resources where we used to have one staff, we now have three with a Director making $180,000 and two support staff each making approximately $100,000. We have a Coroner at 20% time making $98,000. We have a risk manager making $157,000. We also now have a Deputy County Manager making $198,000 and finally, there is our County Manager who makes more than Washington State Governor Bob Ferguson at $242,760.
Putting aside the question of whether we need this many administrative staff in San Juan County, let’s take a closer look at the salary of our County Manager by comparison to other Washington Counties, as is surprising that our county manager makes more than the Governor and more than many counties much bigger than ours – even though we’re the smallest.
I have listed below several other Washington counties, how many citizens they serve, how many staff the manager oversees and their salary. Finally, according to the affordability index, Jefferson County and King County have similar cost of living to San Juan County.
Read for yourself below and then show up on October 5th at the County Council budget hearing in Friday Harbor or write a letter and let our Council know the Department of Environmental Stewardship is not the problem.
Here’s the details:
- San Juan County: Population 18,598, Number of county employees 230+/-, County Manger salary $242,760
- King County: Population 2,371,919, Number of county employees 18,000 +/- County Executive salary $280,584
- Whatcom County: Population 230,503, Number of county employees 1,000+/-Whatcom County Executive salary $250,915
- Snohomish County: Population 880,242, Number of county employees 3,500 +/-County Executive Salary 242,993
- Thurston County: Population 306,390, Number of county employees 1,000+/- County Manager Salary $235,400
- Clallam County: Population 78,474, Number of county employees 594 +/- County Administrator salary $195,316
- Jefferson County: Population 32,977, number county employees 130 +/- County Administer salary $185,546.40
- Washington State: Population 7,705,281, number of state employees 123,565 +/-Washington State Governor Salary $234,275
**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. If you can get an executive job in San Juan County, your set. Sign me up.
While I wholeheartedly agree with Kevin about the unwise closure of the Department of Environmental Stewardship, I do not agree with his attribution of cause.
Yes, the San Juan County salaries are high, but so are living expenses here. What does it take to induce talent to leave the mainland where convenience beckons, and housing isn’t in competition with constricted land area coupled with high-end second houses and estatelets? You can’t live on beauty. The use of population as even an approximate measure of relative salaries is fallacious. All counties have largely identical statutory obligations to fulfill so the resulting panoply of needed talent is generally the same, and I would suggest that considering the need to protect our county’s economic let alone ecological future would dictate that our need for talent in that area of concern would be at least as keen as that for any other Washington county, if not more so.
The issue isn’t salaries. San Juan County’s problem is caused by chapter RCW 84.55, which limits non-voted real estate levies to one percent annual increases irrespective of inflation. This means there will be a continual reduction (but no further than state mandates allow) of services, or beyond that, bankruptcy, unless voters support the county, and themselves, by approving levy increases as needed. I am not joking about bankruptcy. See the Seattle Times article concerning Clyde Hill, a wealthy municipal enclave in King County contemplating bankruptcy, simply because its tax-averse population will not approve supplemental levies.
We know what we have to do.
“The issue isn’t salaries. San Juan County’s problem is caused by chapter RCW 84.55….”
And, I might add… a state law that restricts tourism money (LTAC funds) from going anywhere ‘cept back into tourism related projects. Go figure.
The listed salaries of other county managers seem proportionate, especially when you consider the high cost of living on the islands and how difficult it can be for the county to attract and retain qualified employees. Were those comparisons to other counties supposed to convince readers that SJC’s County Manager is excessively compensated? For this reader, the comparisons had the opposite effect
It’s not (just) that the county has a spending problem. What we really have is a growth problem. Our best shot at environmental stewardship involves hitting the brakes on growth, not asking property owners to subsidize growth (a form of environmental destruction) through higher taxes. The voters spoke their minds about the most recent levy lift attempt. Orcas had the highest number of “NO” voters in the county, at 65.4% — that’s a 2:1 ratio. We are tapped out and taxed out. And we are tired of seeing fields and forests being replaced by buildings.
What drives the growth problem? That would be the tourism problem. We have a dysfunctional local economy that relies on the mainland masses traveling great distances on diesel-powered ferries (or highly-polluting short-haul airplanes) to transform their disposable income into whale-chasing boat tours and overpriced food that’s mostly grown somewhere else. Not very environmentally friendly. To reduce growth, and protect our environment, we must reduce tourism.
What’s the connection? Tourists do not only gaze upon the sweeping natural vistas, they also gaze upon the real estate listings shown on those obnoxious illuminated signs along Main Street. Tourism puts more eyes on the local real estate market, and real estate sales drive population growth, along with the deforestation, road building, utility trenching, equipment emissions, construction waste, and other forms of environmental damage that inevitably result from that growth.
If there’s one group of islanders who need to keep the tourism gravy train running, it’s the realtor class. To give just one example, take a look at the Zillow sales statistics for the Gudgell Group, which operates some of those obnoxious illuminated signs. This brokerage has an average transaction price of $1.7 million:
https://www.zillow.com/profile/Gudgell%20Group
A standard 3% agent fee on a $1.7 million sale is $51,000. These guys could be single-handedly funding the Department of Environmental Stewardship themselves. Wait a second… this business lists a Kevin Ranker as a Senior Partner… is that the same guy who wrote this article? If so, I have to ask: why is someone who makes that kind of money complaining that SJC’s public servants are overpaid?
Seems like the tail is trying to wag the dog here.
RE: David Bowman’s point: “Our best shot at environmental stewardship involves hitting the brakes on growth, not asking property owners to subsidize growth (a form of environmental destruction) through higher taxes”: It should be mentioned that RCW 84.55 restricts property tax increases to 1% per year PLUS NEW GROWTH. In other words, new homes and property development provide an apparent revenue incentive for the County. In reality though, many studies have shown that new residential development consistently fails to pay for itself in terms of the costs of services it requires (and which we all generously support through our approval of levy lifts for junior taxing districts for services not provided by the County).
I think a portion of our current budgetary imbalance is about salaries, Ranker only listed the highest paid SJCo employees. Not including the rank and file mid managers and specialists who make a lot too, Having a first time Assistant Co Mgr paid $198K to help the new manager that makes more than the State Governor is mind-bending out of control bureaucracy to any prudent person. Our regrettable situation also a result of the TARP flood of federal and state funds during COVID created unsustainable growth in programs and govt, a summer “hollow dollar” minimum wage tourist economy, winter business doldrums, over 40% of existing housing stock unoccupied most of the year (little to no occupational annual spending for utilities, goods and services and associated local taxes and small business infusion) and especially an economically whipsawed entirely too small working middle class. No where near the affordable housing stock necessary for a much more healthy, diversified economy with vastly more trickle down and recirculation is a direct result of many leaders in the County and Town (SJI) fumbling the most important ball since the 1990s. Not to mention our voluntary participation in the self-inflicted socio-economic wounds of a small County by the Growth Mgt Act essentially over-regulating and restricting rural land development beyond single family dwellings. My little mind sees all these elements (and more) to be directly connected to the “Nantucket Effect” well underway despite early warnings and a contracted study.
Perhaps we could take some f the LTAC (tourist) money and put it towards keeping our restaurants afloat for the locals during the buffer seasons. I tried three of my favorites for breakfast this morning– one of them was closed, another was now only serving breakfast on weekends, and the last had stopped serving full breakfasts until spring.
Cutting programs like the environmental department, and meals on wheels shows how desperate we are… during a time of record high tourism. Go figure.
What is missing from this conversation is what exactly does the Department of Environmental Stewardship actually do for San Juan County residents, what’s the level of grants and outlook for grants they receive, and if any functions presently performed will be reassigned to other Departments?
Staff pay, tourism pros and cons, and legal use of LTAC money all play into the overall financial picture, but the basic council decision is about the Department of Environmental Stewardship and what it actually accomplishes for SJC citizens … it’s a given nearly everyone wants the environment to have protections, but SJC should provide the specific facts of what SJC residents have gained or benefitted by having this Department.
San Juan County is not in a funding crisis. Wisely, they have wisely established substantial contingency funds. They have also added 23.497 FTE to the General Fund staffing since the last levy lid lift in 2020, and to avoid using contingency funds when there is no crisis situation, I think the council is wise to consider what can be changed in the organization to meet the SJC residents most critical needs.