||| FROM CINDY CARTER |||
San Juan County is requesting a levy lid lift to $.85/$1000 of property value.
The statement on the county website is the same levy rate that was approved in 2019. What they fail to mention is that in 2019, from the San Juan Assessor’s information, the value of the taxable land was 7,543,576,994. (yes, that’s $7+ billion dollars!)
This year’s (2026) taxable land value is $14,659,653,033. That means that we would basically double the taxes collected for the county if we are using the same rate as was approved in 2019.
To lift the levy lid is an excessive increase in the taking of individuals’ money.
Then there is the comparison with other counties of approximately the same size as San Juan County.
- San Juan County current population is estimated for 2026 as 18,794. The budget for expenses in 2025 in San Juan County was $144,500,873.
- In Asotin County, population 22,500, their budget is $47,349,000.
- Klickitat County, population 23,400, their budget is $64,870,000.
- Pacific County, population 25,000, and budget of $64,547,000.
- Pend Oreille, population 14,050, and expenses of $15,651,000.
Even if you add 20% to the above budgets because of the increased cost of living in San Juan County, the most any of the above counties would budget or spend is $77,844,000.
The conclusion to the above information is that San Juan County already exceeds what other counties of similar sizes are spending by about 53% or by about $66 million dollars. San Juan county is wasting way too much money on a variety of programs and studies and needs to cut down. Passing this levy would allow the county to continue throwing money around like water with little to no accountability.
Increasing Levies(taxes) increases rents and the cost of living in SJC. Many are leaving SJC already due to financial strain.
Is this request for more of our money necessary? NO
Is this request for more of our money excessive? YES
Is this request for more of our money damaging? YES
Save SJC. We must VOTE NO on this levy lid lift.
**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 author is a member of the San Juan County Republican Party Central Committee.
Thank you Bob Distler.
The nominal assessed value of SJC real estate has indeed increased dramatically, especially at the high end, the part that is most demanding of county services. That’s reflected in the cost of running the county. The increase of $0.31 per thousand asked in the lift proposition yields about $4.5 M on the 14.1 B of county assessed value, which is the projected deficit of $3.7 M plus a prudent reserve.
The fundamental issue is just this: because of Initiative 747, the real value of the county’s property tax revenue decreases every year, absent a lift. Periodic resets are essential to preserve county services that support the quality of life in many ways. If we turn down the levy lift, some of these services will no longer be provided, and the civil society of SJC will fray a bit more. I don’t want to see such fraying happen, so I will be voting YES on !.
Thank you Ms. Carter. Your figures affirm my comment regarding valuation in response to Mr. Demeritt’s letter of April 10. Moreover the data regarding comparably sized counties focuses our attention on how others fund essential priorities which is necessary to achieving an equitably balanced budget.
And thank you Mr.Distler and Mr. Symes for amplifying the political distinction between need and want. Most of us want a civil society that cares for the less fortunate, but it cannot be achieved by impoverishing everyone. Those of us on fixed incomes are being left behind with no chance of ever catching up. As I noted in response to Ms. Kassa’s letter of April 9, I had to use money set aside for a medical expense to meet my tax obligation. Is that your notion of a just and civil society?
Like many folks our income falls between the poor, who qualify for assistance, and the wealthy who can just “write a check”, but my ability to support my family and carry an inequitable societal burden has diminished. If people like us become economic refugees forced to leave, then what will you have? The rich, the poor and “Nantucket West”.
We’re voting NO, because we can’t afford the largesse that has crept into this county’s budget.
Phil, agreed. We have given into creep apathy… as the County shrinks its mandated obligations, choosing lower fruit wins.. mind you we love our doers , but I’m disappointed that this has to even be mentioned.. BUSINESS could not stay solvent with the model being exemplified. I was hoping voting a new orcas Council member would help with transparency and sound process of decision making. In not faulting but concerned that the gap continues to widen on accountability verses feel good progress.
It’s not the question of shrinking or buckling up. I remember Richard Fralick representing Orcas.. he had extremely difficult decisions to make, live with and yet had the Moral Courage to set a bar of accountability.
I will not vote for easy, I want vision. Show me the how, then you will see the tide rise fundamentally with the support needed to continue the sound progression needed. Let’s get to work and Govern.
Thank you Cindy for some useful information and comparison.
A commentator’s party affiliation has no bearing. Both parties have long drunk the cool aid of incessant economic growth and spending like drunken sailers. The two party system is well-protected by insiders from meaningful change and is a key reason we find ourselves and our nation in such terribly dysfunctional straights.
Locally we are in an economic death spiral having banked for far too long on summer over-tourism and out of proportion short term investments in expensive homes and property that are not investments in community well-being. The industrial destruction of salmon has decimated economic opportunities forever.
I have only been here for 20 years but early on I could see that the many levies and lid lifts seem to be about gold-plated results time and time agaIn catering to those who have plenty of wealth and never have to budget on monthly wages or limited annuities as regular folks do. Never just good enough to provide reasonable services. And of course never a flat or decreasing budget (tuned to real inflationary numbers) to hold the line on driving good people out and cooling business/jobs .incubation.
The Pandemic federal money trough was too much for too long in this odd little backwater place. We are still hungover.
I fervently wish it wasn’t so but spit in one hand and wish in the other…..
I will be voting against this lid lift in protest but expect it will pass handily as dire circumstances have again been overstated and the idea of belt-tightening for the greater public good rejected outright.
Difficult call on this levy lid lift. Some distortions by both the pro and con arguments.
Fact: This is a San Juan County General Fund increase. General Fund revenue can be used for ANY legal purpose, not just the purposes listed in the argument for in the voters pamphlet. The County Council decides on where the money is spent.
Fact: In 2020, the year the last general fund levy was increased, SJC’s General Fund collected $7,124,250. In 2026, the SJC is to collected $8,076,770, an increase of 13.37% over the last 6 years. State laws do not limit the increase to 1% a year … it’s 1% plus new construction and a smattering of other smaller taxes, primarily related to utilities. San Juan County had a modest new construction boom during the Covid years, and that is what primarily accounted to the six year, 13.37% increase.
Fact: US inflation increased dramatically during the Covid period for multiple reasons. On a national scale, it increased 27.27%. Can’t get a good measure on actual inflation in SJC, but clearly SJC’s general fund increases were roughly half of U.S. inflation. The County Council is right is requesting a levy lid lift.
The real question is how much is a reasonable request. If the U.S. inflation rate (2020-2026) is used as a basis, the county would need an increase to slightly under $.70/$1000. The SJC 2026 general fund levy rate is $.545/$1000, so roughly a $.16/$1000 increase. The ballot is asks for $.85/$1000, which is about double the amount to make up for the last six years of inflation.
Compounding the levy ask amount are three current issues. First, Trump’s war is going likely to markedly increase inflation for likely the next two or three years. Second, the 2027 State legislature is also going to get a LOT of heat to raise the 1% plus new construction tax limit. An increase to 3% has twice been considered but not advanced, but 2 % plus new construction would seem logical, but any significant tax increase is going to meet huge opposition. And third, SJC property taxes have increased rather dramatically in 2026, largely due to voter approved increases.
Final Fact: This is a permanent levy. Voters do not have be told that … but “This is a one-time levy lid lift, and future increases of the levy amount will be subject to the limit factors set out in Chapter 84.55 RCW” translates to a permanent levy.