— from Lovel and Boyd Pratt —
We usually fill out our ballots as soon as they arrive in the mail. However, we need more information before we can vote on Proposition 2.
We completely support the programs funded by Proposition 2’s levy lid lift. In 2009, during the great recession, the County Council had to cut $1 million to balance the county budget. The County Council then asked voters to approve a levy lid lift to generate approximately $960,000 to pay for highly valued community programs and services that are not mandated by state or federal laws (see Resolution 28-2009).
The levy lid lift was the only way for these programs to be maintained at that time.
In 2009, the voters approved the proposition for the six-year levy lid lift and renewed it for another six years in 2014. The County Council is now asking voters for an increased levy lid lift that would generate $1.7 million, and to approve this levy lid lift without an end date.
We have recovered from the great recession. Can the county’s general fund pay for some or all of these programs once again (as was done until 2010)? What amount of property taxes have been collected from new construction each year since 2010 (property taxes can be increased by 1% per year plus new construction, without voter approval)? What amount of sales taxes has the county collected each year since 2010, above the amount collected in 2009? Can the increase in tax collections cover the costs of some or all the programs included in the levy lid lift?
The levy lid lift was initiated in response to an economic crisis. Is it necessary in the current economy?
**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.**
“The levy lid lift was initiated in response to an economic crisis. Is it necessary in the current economy?”
No. I think not.
It would be preferable if the county were to better manage its finances, expenditures versus regular income. It’s called a budget.
We who live here have to do that. Our county should, too.
Seriously? San Juan County has lowest property taxes in WA. And these are super valuable programs that are run on shoestrings. And the ask is really minimal all things considered. Please support proposition 2. What was true in 2010 (when Mrs. Pratt was one of the least effective County Council members ever seen) is no longer true a decade later.
What is really galling is that the authors of this letter are extremely well off and land rich (inherited wealth btw), so their interest comes across as nothing more than wealth preservation. I’m astounded they both felt the need to actively oppose Proposition 2 given the absolute essential services at stake.
Everyone should take the time to do your research and compare taxes and programs here with elsewhere. Supporting Proposition 2 is a no brainer.z
Ms. Richards misses the point of objections to the levy lift in question. No one I know objects to spending for the programs in question. No one I know begrudges another $100 for such programs. During the crisis of the Great Recession, there was little or no opposition. A decade later, with the County awash in additional revenue, it makes no sense to make seniors and kids the budget “orphans” again, and now, permanently. The objection is that the programs for seniors, kids, and EMTs are fundamentally important government programs that should be built into the regular County budget and not presented as potential sacrifices every time the “temporary” levy expires. Let us vote on levy lifts for the more whimsical expenditures proposed by the County–like the shiny new “Government Center” in Friday Harbor, instead.