||| FROM RICHARD FRALICK, RICK HUGHES, PATTY MILLER Former San Juan County Council Members
San Juan County Road Department has not had a levy increase in a long time and the Road budget is suffering. San Juan County has many needed projects; marine facility improvements, pedestrian trails and pathways, bike paths, culvert replacement and they need to set aside funds for emergency management needs.
Unfortunately, the 2022 Road Levy Lid Lift Proposal submitted by the County Council is poorly structured and their Fact Sheet is misleading. The proposal should be rejected by the voters.
The change to the road levy rate is permanent. The information presented by the county does not provide details as to how the additional funds will be used. It is a blank check lacking accountability and if approved by the citizens is difficult to change.
The County Council claims that the extra revenue generated would be approximately $4 million. This assumed no increase in assessed property values. Based on information received from the County Assessor, with the 28% increase in assessed values, the new road district levy would be $11,673,912, an increase of $6.5 million or 62% more than their estimate.
In today’s inflationary conditions, increasing funds available to maintain and improve our roads is appropriate. It should be done through a well thought out proposal, not the one currently offered by the County Council. We recommend voting NO on the current measure and ask the Council to put together a new proposal that corrects the deficiencies noted and present it to the
voters in a future election.
We encourage the council to initiate a more robust public outreach process as part of the development of a new proposal.
State law allows county road funds to be shift and diverted to the general fund, making county road fund sort of a general fund slush fund,. San Juan County has been doing this for years to the total extent of $21.4 million. That’s SJC taxpayer money that could have been used and roads and marine facilities.
Any new road levy should be structured to locally end such transfers by County ordinance or resolution because the state law is not likely to be changed.
Fully agree that this current road levy should be voted down and a new one structured that is more reasonable considering the massive new property assessments with the proviso that road fund tax will be restricted to road and marine use only.
Ok, so all three of these individuals, whom all three were Heavy Lifters of our Past Council have concerns of the New Math being presented. My (no) came with the no sunset, but a free pass from future discussions, without a major reset.
I agree, it’s time to go back to the drawing board and come up with a coherent plan.
While I am the chair of the county Democrats, I am writing this as a private citizen. The county Democrats had endorsed the road levy several months ago, long before the new property assessments were announced. With the increase in assessed value, if the road levy also passes, middle and lower income people are going to be especially hard-hit by much higher property taxes. It would make a lot more sense to defeat the current road levy, see how the funds available under the new assessments address the road problems, then craft a new measure at that point if needed.
The authors of the above article make perfect sense. It seems that the various branches of government did not fully communicate with each other prior to putting this measure on the ballot. Yes, we need work on our roads and culverts, but we can do better than the current measure. I encourage a NO vote.
Thank you to these three who have hopefully nailed the coffin of this levy shut!
The county absolutely needs to rewrite this request and bring it back to us in the Spring with what they actually need. Not this poorly timed windfall.
Finally, the fact that property owners in Friday Harbor are NOT subject to this tax is disheartening at best.
Pretty much everyone is in favor of the road levy. But not in the form and cost as it is presented. There is very little understanding with much confusion. It’s time to say NO. re-evaluate the proposal for the next election. In the meantime some basic and clear explanations are needed. As the County Assessor said to me “it is complicated.” With the extra time current tax rates can be used instead the old ones and an explanation of where for many years millions of dollars that has been diverted out of the road fund went.
I agree. This is a no. Not only is this a big raise on property tax, it would mean a big rent increase. The counsel needs to go back and do a little more home work.
Thank you to Rick, Patty and Richard for presenting a unified message regarding this. It would be great if the sitting Council would be willing to step up and point out that the consequence of this levy timing was not what they intended.
Sometimes, for the good of the community, you need to admit that things are incorrect. Fortunately our past council members are helping bring sanity to this issue.
Vote no and let’s get this done the right way.
There are helpful fact sheets and even an interactive map showing how Roads levy funds would be spent on decades of deferred maintenance and some new improvements. Please see the County website:
https://www.sanjuanco.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1250
https://www.sanjuanco.com/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=1278
https://www.sanjuanco.com/1918/Roads-Levy-2022
Also, it is important to correct a mistake made in previous comments. If the levy lift does not pass, there will be no “extra” money based on the higher property assessments we all received. We will still be restricted to collecting 1% over last years total collection plus new construction. That means the County will collect around $55,000 more than it did last year plus about $60,000 to $70,000 in taxes on new construction.
If the levy lift doesn’t pass, the 56 cents collected per $1000 in 2022 will fall as far as it needs to, probably below 46 cents in 2023, to keep the total collection below that 1% ceiling.
The County relies heavily on external grant funding. We are dead last in the State at our current levy rate. $1/$1000 would still mean we are on the low end, which is appropriate as our newly assessed property values are high. Our big projects have depended for years on grant money, which means priorities are dictated by what agencies outside the county will fund. Bringing the levy to a more normal level in comparison with other counties will give us a measure of self sufficiency and also give us matching funds and planning funds to compete for more grant money.
The price of a fish passage culvert is $1.1 million. A non fish friendly culvert costs $100,000-$300,000. The price per mile of widening a road shoulder for bicycle use is $3-4 million according to our Public Works Department. We have over 300 significant culverts on Orcas alone, and many have failed due to age and extreme weather. How fast we can catch up with needed repairs and get to building bicycle friendly infrastructure will depend on the willingness of voters to invest in our community needs.
Whatever your decision, thank you for taking the time to click a link or two to seek out the information you should have to make up your mind. Please drop me a line if I can be helpful walking you through any of the information our County staff has worked so hard to make available.
Re: the diversion of funds…The diversion was used to pay a part of Sheriff’s patrols and ended in 2021 when the new Council adopted a budget paying for the patrols out of the General Fund because it was clear Roads should be keeping the money collected for that purpose.
Our County Council members (all three) have an opportunity to step forward and say “Yes, we could have done better” . And perhaps those elected officials will reach out to the citizens they represent and seek input and guidance on a better structure for the road funds that are needed.
Thank you Richard, Patty, and Rick – your collective wisdom derived from experience is appreciated and acknowledged.
Amanda is absolutely correct… these problems didn’t happen on the current county council team’s watch. Get it right. Beware of those who misrepresent the issue for political gain. The problems of the day are very much a result of past electorates quick-fix, knee-jerk reactionary efforts, and it is that which has has led us to the point where we are at today. Pushing blame away from those who actually caused the problem for political reasons is shallow and misleading. In spite of all the political posturing of the moment, if you think for one minute that the “old” council would be promoting anything different than this one… you live in a different reality.
That being said, do the roads, and culverts need upgrading? Yes. But, with 20,000 people living in a county that hosts well over a million tourists a year it leaves no doubt in my mind as to who should be paying for it. If you’re going to kill us with over-tourism, (and to deal with all the resultant problems, and the expensive infrastructure that this type of business model requires), then you could at least make them pay for it.
How did the second wealthiest county in Washington State end up DEAD last in fees for roads?? Governing in a way that does not rely heavily on subsidies and philanthropy for housing, infrastructure and humanitarian needs is a step in the right direction. If the people do not think their tax money should be used in this way, they can vote no. Cool, right? I am curious about why we should be hearing more from all the folks who for all these years have not been able to sort this out. I think the former county leadership owes our MOST economically unequal county an apology for people that have to live in shacks, cap over campers and RVs to support our essential services.
https://www.epi.org/multimedia/unequal-states-of-america/#/Washington
BRAVO Michael Johnson for bringing up the problems of wear and tear on our infrastructure due to the high and growing number of tourists that use our islands and not paying their fair share. Time to create an equitable, future plan to resolve this issue.
Relying on any one statistic to compare how we rank to other counties is dangerous. The actual levy is based on Assessed Value Per Thousand x Levy Rate = Levy Amount. SJC assessed values were $9.1B so with a .55 levy rate that translates to $5M available to roads ($9,052,492,980/1,000*.55). SJC is 174 sq miles in land area and maintains 270 miles of roads. For a comparison, Jefferson County (Port Townsend area) assessed values were $4.8B and they had a levy rate of .85 (they divert an additional .14/thousand from road fund) which equates to a$4.2M road levy. Jefferson is 1,084 sq miles and maintains 400 miles of roads.
There are many differences between the 2 counties so I am not suggesting we are more or less efficient with our road dollars. I am merely highlighting that the county has provided you 1 statistic – rate per $1,000/assessed value but has not presented that in a context to allow us to make informed decisions. In the letter that I contributed to, we wanted to emphasize that we believe an increase is needed. Doing anything in SJC is more expensive. I have no political agenda. I just want my nieces/nephews and their children to be able to continue to live in this county.
Bottom line is that the county indicated they were expecting to gain $4M from this levy increase but in reality they will gain $6.5M. It is unfortunate that they failed to factor in an increase in assessed values. Had they done so they could have set a more reasonable rate and I would have gladly supported it. However since the rate has been set, I am simply asking them to come back with a more reasonable proposal and present it to the public for vote in a future election.
You make a good point, MJ. Widening the shoulders on Orcas Road, for example, would mostly (if not entirely) benefit bicycling tourists. Then why shouldn’t part of the lodging tax go toward such improvements — rather than to encourage more tourism? If necessary, we could increase the lodging tax to allow such transfers.
If you’re going to kill us with over-tourism, (and to deal with all the resultant problems, and the expensive infrastructure that this type of business model requires), then you could at least make them, AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT, PROMOTE, AND PROFIT FROM IT, (i.e. the visitors bureau, VR owners, the lodging industry, etc.), pay for it.
The various taxes allowed are set at the state level. The county does not have the ability to increase various taxes except as allowed for in the state RCWs. RCW 67.28.180 (https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=67.28.180) outlines the limits on the amount of lodging tax as well as the limits on its uses. Incorporated areas have some additional tools available to them but the only incorporated area in SJC is the Town of Friday Harbor. I am not up to date on all the limits and tools available but they are very limited.
And therein lies the problem.
We used to say, “We don’t care how you do it on the mainland,” but now, over time, we find ourselves at the mercy of laws that are set up to prevent local governments from adopting progressive legislation at their level. Therefore we remain locked into the status quo. Chief Economist John Perkins refers to this as a “Death Economy.” A death economy is what we are embracing under the current system… and it is that which is killing us.
https://www.navigatingourfuture.org/podcast/episode/1a7179a8/john-perkins-cultivating-a-life-economy
How I tire of decades of past county council members who can so easily excuse their vote by simply voicing the constraints they’re under. Every election we get politicians who run for office, and use the slogan “Vote for change” only for us to realize after the election that we’re simply getting the same ol’ same ol’. Where’s the candidate who’s willing to take a stand, and say, “Enough, we need to change these archaic laws,” and then actually helps the people to change them?
I see nothing in all of the information on how the road levy will effect Waldron which needs help with our roads and with the county dock whose float is disintegrating making the county the biggest polluter on Waldron. We Waldron residents will be paying at the suggested higher rates. We have serious road problems but the
Dept..of Public works is not serving us well now, and the head of public works is antagonistic to our needs. It appears that the council has been captured by the agency and has not done its job for any of us. Vote no on this levy.
San Juan County is the only county in Washington State that does not have any state highways, bridges or culverts that the state pays for in the other 38 Washington State counties. Since SJC citizens pay state taxes and and gas taxes, what is the history of grants from the federal government or Washington State to San Juan County for road and marine capital projects? And what specific efforts has the county administration/County Council made to the State legislators to increase these grants if the grants are inadequate considering we don’t have any state maintained roads or bridges?
Has the San Juan County ever tried to get some of our main roads to be designated state highways, or do state highway systems, which ferries are part of, just end at our ferry landings?
Citizens aren’t going to be excited to pay for a road levy that has, since 1972, had over $21 million moved over to the general fund. The only two year exceptions in that 50 year span were 1979 and 2021.
Fish culverts are mostly a separate topic, but how many culverts really need designed so a 100 year rainfall will not touch the side of the culvert, which is the new stream with a fish potential standard? It’s a totally absurd standard, and I at was at the DFW meeting testifying on another subject when that was passed as a routine agenda matter (no public testimony scheduled). The FWD director was by the Commissioners what this would cost, and he guessed about $3,000 for a culvert, bridges costing more. With that, the Commission approved the WAC changes for 100 year flooding, engineered so stream flow doesn’t touch the side of the culvert or build a (preferred) solution) bridge. That 10 minute agency session has now grown to a $4 billion project for WSDOT by one judge’s decision to make it happen.
Question for the County Council: Why are there so many miles of “private” roads that serve as access to hundreds of properties not county roads? Individual property owners, not the county, pay for construction, annual maintenance and periodic resurfacing, mowing, culverts, traffic signs, fallen tree removal, snow removal, etc.
What is San Juan County’s standard for making these roads county roadways? I’m not aware of any other county in the state that has as many private roads that provide access to multiple residents.
I would definitely pay more road taxes if the county would take over most private roadways serving multiple properties. I pay to maintain a 2.3 mile private road system serving 120 parcels, and I have never observed so many roads serving so many properties in this state that were not local government funded.
This should be a serious topic of discussion for the County Council. and it might help explain why SJC’s current roads levy is reportedly lower than most other counties in Washington State i.e., we have a much higher percentage of private roads than the 38 other counties.
Robert Dashiell brought this point to the discussion:
State law allows county road funds to be shift and diverted to the general fund, making county road fund sort of a general fund slush fund,. San Juan County has been doing this for years to the total extent of $21.4 million. That’s SJC taxpayer money that could have been used and roads and marine facilities.”
Later on in the comments, Cindy Wolf says that the diversion had been used to pay for a part of Sheriff’s patrols which ended in 2021, and sot the current Council was who stopped the money bleed and are keeping the road monies for… um… Roads.
So, 21.4 Million $$ was diverted all for Sheriff patrols by past councilors and commissioners-maybe even the 3 who penned this letter. Of course it’s a NO vote, but not for the reasons they stated. That’s a LOT of diversion!
There is so much more I could say about this letter and the part of past Councilors and Commissioners for the troubles we face on so many levels. For now, I will say Thank you and BRAVO to Robert Dashiell, Richard Trachtenberg, Michael Johnson, David Turnoy, Michele Rodriguez, Stan Wagner! You all touched beautifully on the points I would want to bring to the attention of the Public.