Ridership Comments

Guemes Island Ferry System 2023 Rate Study Report

Proposed Fare Schedule

2023 Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report

Public Comment Extended to June 15th 4:30pm

Final Public Hearing: Thursday, June 8th, 2023 from 3:30 – 5:30 p.m. | 1800 Continental Pl, Mount Vernon, WA 98273 https://bit.ly/SkagitBoCCMtg

The Guemes Island Ferry Rate Study Estimated Project Schedule can be found here.

Skagit County Public Works is proposing an increase to ferry rates in 2023. Skagit County has hired a Consultant, KPFF, to conduct a rate study. The objectives of the study are:

• Reduce the road fund subsidy that contributes to the ferry operating deficit each year
• Simplify the fare structure for future implementation of electronic ticketing
• Use previous studies and stakeholder input to guide the process
• Evaluate opportunities for additional and ancillary revenue
• Recommend fare policies for existing operations while planning for ferry replacement

Please review the following information to learn more, and be sure to check this webpage often for updates throughout the process.

Background on Ferry Fare Revenue Target Methodology

Submit a Comment

_____________________________________

2023 Public Ferry Fare Proposal Comments

Becca Fong

Hello Public Works staff and Board of Commissioners,

I appreciate the opportunity to help make the ferry system as efficient and sustainable as possible.  You have heard a lot from my fellow ferry stakeholders, and myself. So at this point in the process, I implore you to:

– Look closely at cost saving opportunities for the ferry system and develop a process to do this annually.  I know there are complexities that make digging into the accounting of the ferry division cumbersome, but the devil is truly in the details. The issue of the huge insurance expenditure in 2022 is a prime example of where looking closely at expenses and having a process to do this would have saved the ferry division and increadible expense.

– Look closely at the which expenses are charge to O&M and Capital Expense.  While we’re working to bring the new ferry online, there are monies available to charge to that effort.  Making sure that those expenses aren’t charged to O&M is an important way to find some cost savings.

– Consider using a portion of the surcharge revenue as part of the farebox revenue. I appreciate planning for the future beyond the M/V Guemes II, however, I belive that having some of those funds available for use to address current potential shortfalls in fare revenue could provide a sustainable contingency fund to buffer the fluctuations in the other funding sources.

I am interested in developing a solid process for developing the fare targets that solves the issues that have come to light with this recent series of events.  This will be an interative process, that I and many of my fellow community members are willing to help with.  

The current proposal was based on the premise of capping the Road Fund contribution, which is now not part of the equation. However, the approach of the Guemes ferry as a drain on the County resources has become the dominant narrative, that if cost savings, close attention to accounting, and a continued commitment to explore additional funding sources are done – I think we can shift that perspective to show that the Guemes Ferry system can be an asset to the County and not a burden.

With sincerity and the spirit of collaboration, 

Becca Fong

__________

Carl Ullman

Proposed New Fare Methodology

The current fare-setting methodology is flawed though it has its good points. But there are worse flaws and fewer good points in the new methodology being proposed. We do not need to be reinventing the proverbial wheel to achieve the announced goal of taking some pressure off the Road Fund.

The County says the present situation is not acceptable because it takes too big a bite out of the Road Fund. Instead of changing the methodology for the fare structure, the amount taken from the Road Fund could be easily changed by adjusting the current 65%/35% cost assignment in order to obtain the desired $750K contribution from the Road Fund.

That would produce the result the County seeks without producing the following disadvantages:

Burden of uncertainty solely to the Fare Box. With the proposed new methodology there is a fixed amount for the Road Fund contribution to overall expenses and, thus, the entire risk of uncertainty falls on the Fare Box. This imbalance not a good idea.

It eliminates the incentive for the County to control expenses because the Fare Box, not the Road Fund, is solely exposed to cost overruns, insufficient anticipation of expenses, and unforeseen or neglected fiscal issues. This is inherent in the proposal despite the best intentions of County personnel.

Public Works has explained its admirable budget review and belt-tightening; however, there should not be the expectation that fare payers should absorb the costs of the new proposal’s change in fiscal policy.

More equitable and more feasible is the existing methodology that shares cost uncertainties, offering some reassurance to Fare Box customers that they are not alone in dealing with uncertainties that are sure to arise.

This is not a matter of the character or ability of our public servants. In the proposed new fare methodology the deck is unavoidably stacked against the Fare Box. It is appropriate for people to expect better.

Not smoothing or averaging. Ferry expenses vary from year to year. Under any system we are bound to “miss the target” of a fixed expense prediction. The current methodology uses a 5-year rolling average to avoid radical swings in its outcome that might otherwise result from unanticipated higher or lower expenses or income.

Looking at individual years’ costs uninformed by the lived experience of other recent years is a recipe for jagged graphs and under informed decisions. The new proposal’s addition of half-a-haulout’s expenses each year shows an awareness of this problem and the concept should be applied to other expenses as well. Some sort of smoothing is necessary; the new proposed methodology lacks that useful feature of the existing methodology.

In sum, the current fare methodology is not without its problems. But it can be adjusted to accommodate current needs, while the new proposal promises to be much more cumbersome and unsatisfactory.

Electric Ferry Battery Replacement Surprise

One facet of the County’s initial push for a new, electric, ferry was assuring fare payers that a new ferry would be less expensive to operate than the existing M/V Guemes. I believed the assurance and as a member then of the Guemes Island Ferry Committee I told my constituents about this advantage of the new electric ferry. Many were receptive.

Now, according to a section of the 2023 Fare Proposal website, the reduction in operating cost “is not something we can count on any longer.” This is a reversal of the previous assurances by the County and is an example of why the public is mistrustful of County assurances.

Worse, the website explains that the initial cost assessment has changed in part because of “the need to plan for battery replacement every 10 years or so.” Surely this expense was known from the beginning of electric-ferry planning. This is not unrelated to public attitudes regarding the County’s recent work on the fare issue.

This reversal on fiscal efficiency represents the collapse of the main pillar supporting the electric ferry project. If for about $20M we are not getting a less expensive operation, what ARE we doing? It is good to finally level with people, but the resulting skepticism owes a lot to the County’s own expressions.

“Subsidy”

Please stop using the word “subsidy” to describe the Road Fund contribution to Skagit County Ferry operating costs. First, the word suggests the Fund is paying for something somebody else ought to be paying for or paying for something less deserving than other claims on the Fund.

Second, to the best of my knowledge in no other setting do we use “subsidy” to describe Road Fund expenditures. When we build a bridge we do not say the Road Fund is subsidizing the bridge; the Fund is simply paying for it. If the USDOT or FEMA pays for most of the bridge we do not say the County is subsidizing the United States or the bridge or the users of the bridge.

Third, the word is baggage, being both invidious and pejorative, and will lead us to flawed outcomes. Take for example the proposed new fare methodology. Because the Road Fund “subsidy” is of lesser dignity than other “normal” Fund obligations, it can be “fixed” at $750K. This protects the Fund from the vicissitudes of the real world where the ferry is concerned, while other Fund expenses must deal with uncertainties because they are viewed as fully legitimate expenses and not “subsidies.” Nowhere else, at least to my knowledge, do we think it appropriate to say, “On this item the Road Fund will spend $X and no more; any further expenses must be covered by user fees.”

Of course the ferry has a unique relationship in Public Works’ management responsibilities. Accordingly, we have unique fees to help cover expenses and a unique program to share, between the Fare Box and the Road Fund, unanticipated expenses. But the relationship is not so unique that ANY Road Fund expenditure should be viewed as a subsidy rather than as a regular expense of maintaining the County transportation system.

Some years ago the Public Works then-Director Dan Berentson said the Department would move away from using “subsidy.” I can understand that the topic probably did not make it to the top of his To-Do list, but now it’s time has come.

Carl Ullman

_______

Stephen Orsini

Commissioners,

Retain the Current Fare Methodology

The fare increase proposed by the consultant KPFF is artifice that avoids any relationship to the cost of operating the Guemes Ferry.  Although it purports to look two years back at costs and then project a budget two years into the future, the proposal already locks in a five year fare increase of about 100% based on a budget projection for 2023 of $3,412,191 which is the highest in the history of the Guemes Ferry operation.  This baseline budget is set to increase by 20% through 2028.  Fares will increase about 14% per year which achieves a compounding effect.  This model will reflect no reduction in operations and maintenance long promised with the introduction of the new hybrid-electric vessel with a projected on-line date of 2025. The State of Washington support to counties with ferries will be folded into the County Road Fund as is the Guemes road fund tax, amounting to $787,521 this year.

Of interest is that Guemes Island is not alone this time around.  Other small communities, like Lake Cavanaugh, are being told there is no money to fix their roads although they too have paid their road fund tax over the years.  The County is currently employing a consultant to investigate creating taxing districts singling out small communities that have higher demands on the road fund.  This approach begs the question, where is the road fund being spent and is it destined only for “larger” communities within the County?  By focusing these additional taxing districts on smaller communities, the County Commissioners will avoid the politically unpopular but fairer county-wide increase in the road fund tax.  

The County has a complete monopoly on the operation of the Guemes Ferry.  It is a transit system.  No transit system, be it SKAT or the Guemes Ferry, can pay its O&M and capital costs completely from farebox revenue, just like no single smaller community in this county can pay for the bridge or road system that might serve it.  

The current fare methodology laid down in 2010 is best because it accurately tracks the operational costs and indicates when and how much of a fare increase is warranted.  The KPFF Model will not have the same level of cost transparency and already ignores the actual costs of O&M of the ferry for the next five years.  This model should not be accepted by the Skagit County Commissioners who have a responsibility to run an equitably priced ferry transportation system for the majority of the ridership.  Without this approach and facing what amounts to a 100% fare increase, Guemes farmers will be forced out of business.  Families, with parents who work daily off island, long the backbone of the Guemes Island community, will be forced to move from the island.   With this decline in year-round ridership, the ferry system will engender a decline in revenue which may not rebound with time.  

Submitted by:
Stephen Orsini

_______

Cindy Kamp

Dear Skagit County Commissioners,

KPFF was selected to conduct Guemes Island Ferry System 2023 Rate Study Report, which I will refer from here on as “the study,” in large part because they were the only company who submitted a bid for the project. Instead of submitting the bid proposal again to attract a larger audience of potential bidders, Public Works chose to go with who they knew best.  KPFF is well known at Public Works as they have worked on previous projects and studies and currently have several hundred thousand dollars worth of other contracts they are working on for Public Works and Skagit County.

The problems began with the RFQ itself.  The Public Works RFQ includes in the objectives of the study to:  “Recommend rescinding the 65% fare recovery methodology in place currently and replace it with a strategy for future fare changes.” Public Works wasn’t asking KPFF to find or create the best fare model that would be best for Guemes Island citizens, the operation of the ferry, or sound financial plan for Skagit County, why didn’t they include in the study comparisons of how other ferry systems create their fare models or what percentages are funded from fares vs public funds? The objective seemed more like a goal to do away with the current model for the sake of getting rid of it more than trying to come up with the best solution.

On the Guemes Island Ferry website, it states that one of the objectives of the study was to “use previous studies and stakeholder input to guide the process.”  The public was not included in the process until week 8 in the RFQ – when Public Works presented KPFF’s findings at the February 28th meeting – which was supposed to be the only public comment for the proposed rates. In fact even the word public was only used three times in the three plus paged RFQ.  Everything was initially created behind closed doors and without any input from the stakeholder or the Guemes Island Ferry Committee who they have worked closely to in the past prior to Grace Kane becoming the Director of Public Works. 

KPFF should have been familiar with the opinions of Guemes Island residents as they worked with BERK Engineering in 2019 on the Guemes Island Ferry Public survey.  The results of this survey highlighted that islanders want most is a reliable ferry and to keep fares low.   Despite Public Works and KPFF’s  knowledge of the opinions of Island residents, they proceeded to make changes to some of the lowest ranking items in their survey as objectives of the study:

REDUCE THE NUMBER OF FARE CATEGORIES – 4%

INTRODUCE A SMALL VEHICLE  UNDER 14’ RATE -19%

ADDING A DRIVE UP TOLL BOOTH –  8%

REMOVE PEAK/NON PEAK FARE DIFFERENCE – 11% (KPFF did not include this in their study)

Here are some of the outcomes produced by KPFF:

The 2022 fare structure has 28 categories – the newly proposed fares schedule has 27.

They have added an Under 14” is fare category.  KPFF is also currently working with Pierce County on their ferry fares.  In their analysis to Pierce County, they stated that adding this category could create an estimated loss of $30,000-$170,000 per year – no mention of this loss in the study.

Another new addition to the proposed Fare schedule is adding a Free Youth Category.  For Pierce county, KPFF stated that the “Youth Riding Free Category” has an estimated loss of $70,000 per year.  KPFF mentioned in the study that the revenue loss for this has not been estimated.  

Despite that only 8% of the island residents who participated in the 2019 survey were interested in a ticket booth, (not included in the scope of KPFFs study), Public Works will be adding a New Ticketing System and Booth  – adding $205,000 into the budget for 2023. 

Public Works has also added a new bicycle category (against the advice of KPFF). This does not include a multi ride category for those who commute regularly on their bicycles.  This makes zero sense when on one hand we are very excited about the positive environmental impact of a new electric ferry but we would then penalize cyclists who commute in the most environmentally friendly way?  

When I reviewed the ferries used by KPFF in the study, it didn’t make sense they included the five of the six ferries used in their analysis because they are all part of multi-ferry systems. (The Whatcom County Ferry is the only stand alone ferry system included in the study). This is important because the multi-ferry systems usually operate with standardized rates and fare categories that may or may not be beneficial to each individual ferry.  What I did discover was that KPFF has provided consulting services to every ferry system on that list – with the exception of EUPTA, which I was unable to find information for by the time I wrote this.  

Not only did the KPFF study include questionable comps, I do not agree with the data used to create the basis for Other Tax Revenue.  KPFF used the 2022 Ferry Fare Target report as the basis of the 5 year average looking ahead six years – $348,000, stating that a “reliable projection is not available”  despite that at the time the study was completed, they would have had the actual tax revenue from the state for 2022 to create a new 5 year look back average.   This boosts this average to nearly $400,000.  But what this really highlights in the proposed fare model is its inability to accurately reflect future revenue targets when they know the tax revenue fluctuates greatly annually.

KPFF mentions throughout the report fare elasticity and acknowledges that slowly raising the rates over 5 years should help minimize this vs doing all at once in 2023. Translation: maybe the island residents won’t notice.  While KPFF stated that because of lack of past data could they make a more accurate prediction of how a rate increase would impact ridership, a quick google search provides many studies and examples of fare elasticity-especially related to the Washington State Ferry System- which KPFF has a lot of experience with.  If KPFF didn’t have enough data to at least provide an estimate, then I would think they didn’t have enough data to create a new fare model schedule, new fares, and recommend new fare categories.

In addition to adding costs and reducing revenue on the proposed rate structure, KPFF found a way to add future cost for themselves in the new fare model. KPFFs “rate study” and/or “new fare model” requires them to conduct an ongoing annual analysis to update the fares, ongoing analysis of ridership data to possibly make further adjustments to rates, and conduct future analysis for other revenue options.

The model KPFF created requires KPFF to manipulate and analyze data annually for the foreseeable future.  I did not see an adjustment in the budget for this additional expenditure.

In KPFF’s bid proposal, they made a commitment to “ensure the project is completed within its schedule and budget.”

But what did we get instead?  KPFF stated in the report that “within the time available for this  study, it was not possible to evaluate a complete overhaul and standardization of the fare  structure.”  So why is Public Works asking you to vote on an unfinished project?

Public Works is asking you to vote on an incomplete, revenue losing, expense increasing proposal that has essentially been thrown together without a thorough analysis of the cause and effect this will have not only on the citizens of Guemes Island, but the overall financial impact on Skagit County as a whole. We have a current Fare Model system in place that took decades to  make – please don’t tear it apart now.  Please wait until we have our new ferry and we have a  realistic understanding of our annual operation and maintenance expenses will be before  making any further changes to the Fare Model.  Please use the existing model to create any future rate increases.

Cindy Kamp
_______

Becca Fong:

• The fare increase is the same as the original ~100% average increase, now it is spread out over 5 years instead of all at once.  They are proposing to increase the fares a little every year, in an effort to make it more palatable.So in 5 years, the fares will have gone up a combined total of ~ 100% from current fares.
• Adopting this proposal allows Public Works to raise fares based on their projections for revenue needs instead of using the average of the past 5 years.  This means they will get to estimate what they think the costs will be and then use that estimate to make the case to continue to raise fares.
• Adding new fare classes which will take more time and is less efficient. In particular bicycles and under 14 ft. are unnecessary new fare classes that add another fare category for the purser to process, The goal is to create operational efficiencies, not add more complexity.
• With the adoption of this proposal it will eliminate the requirement and accountability for Public Works and the Skagit County Commissioners to share information with us about annual operations, and provide information about future fare increases beyond the current public input process we’ve dealt with this year.  This is due to the need to replace the existing resolution that outlines a public involvement process, with a new resolution to adopt the new plan. 

Gabe Murphy:

• The final proposal recommends a similar fare increase as the initial proposal, but spreads it out over 5 years. This is more palatable as it is less of an extreme change all at once, but still has the effect of making the Guemes Ferry operation a revenue generator for Public Works. The massive fare increase didn’t go away.
• The new “methodology” for calculating fare increases is one that will require the constant contracting of the consultant to: “Adjust fares on an annual basis”… by “re-running the fare model” This means that the consultant is designed into the fare calculation process. The consultant cost to Skagit County for this study was over $100,000 this time around. If we are paying a consultant yearly to do this job, that fee will become a regular part of ferry operations expenditures which the ridership pays for. Is this sustainable?
• The existing fare calculation model works. It is set up to take community and ferry committee input twice a year, and the fare calculations are done using historical data and not “pro forma” estimates.
• The final proposal eliminates a passenger fare for youth, 18 years and younger, which is beneficial to families with children and should be supported. However, Skagit County has not secured any funding, to this date, to supplement the lost revenue stream which seems to work counter to the objective of balancing the ferry operations budget.
• What happened to a Needs Based Fare category? There was one included in the original proposal, although it was actually more expensive per trip than a regular frequent user pass. Why is it not a priority for Skagit County to help support community members in need?
• Changing the Oversized-Vehicle length increments from 5’ to 10’ increments has the appearance of reducing fare categories, but in practice won’t save time or resources on the ferry operations side, and will systematically overcharge larger vehicles to the detriment of the numerous small businesses that operate on Guemes Island.
• Nowhere in the final proposal are there any provisions or recommendations to improve efficiency, reduce cost, or incentivise Public Works operate the ferry system in a fiscally responsible way. There are only projections that the cost will significantly increase over time, however up until the 2022 fiscal year, the cost of operating the ferry system averaged a very small increase over time.

Allen Bush:
Guemes Island Ferry State Revenue Funding has fluctuated dramatically in the last five years between $205,239 and $584,664 annually. These sources vary based on the other counties with ferry inputs, reporting numbers and county fuel tax receipts. Looking back and averaging these actual revenue sources with the current model allows for balanced fares over time. It would be nearly impossible to predict this fluctuation in future revenue with the KPFF proposal which freezes the state revenue as a budget item at $348,000 annually.

Actual haul out costs are also balanced over time, looking back and averaging these expenditures while planning for capital and maintenance costs for the future. Finding qualified vendors and the availability of shipyards will be difficult to predict looking forward as KPFF suggests. 

The forty-year-old M/V Guemes has been assessed and evaluated twice by qualified engineers in the last ten years to determine what capital investments should be made to extend its service life, until the new all-electric ferry comes online. The first of its kind in North America, there is no precedent to calculate a maintenance budget for the new ferry. The KPFF proposal estimates the cost for future haul outs for a boat that isn’t even built yet, let alone provide comparable all electric ferry haul out costs.

Excluding the Public in fare setting policy weakens the 15-year Resolution agreement between Skagit County and Guemes Island Fare Payers, sharing 35%-65% of operating and maintenance costs. The same Resolution contains a Calendar of Events which allows ample opportunity to engage the public as situations arise and contribute with consensus in decisions prior to rate increases. The KPFF proposal eliminates any collaboration and regular reporting schedules to keep the public apprised of Ferry Operations.  The proposal does however allow KPFF to add consulting fees to operations and maintenance each and every year to guide ferry fare calculation. By excluding the public meetings from future fare increases is the opposite of an open and transparent government.  

Mandatory State Reporting provides a template for fare setting policy. Skagit County is required to deliver the Ferry Deficit Reimbursement Report to the State by April 1st and receives reimbursement by August 1st of each year. This revenue stream has varied from $102,603 to $451,672 annually. By design the Public Forum Resolution provides staff an opportunity to share these figures with the board and public while reporting to the state, saving time using the same calculations. We don’t know what revenue to budget for until we receive these funds every August.

_______

John Hopkins

Dear Commissioners,

Thank you for listening to the islanders’ comments and making significant changes in the latest proposal.  Phasing in the increase over five years so this year’s increase is about 14% for most categories is appreciated.  Retaining the 65% formula so fares will continue to be based on ferry operating costs is essential.  Changing the 5-years used to analyze data to 2-1-2 will require making forecasts and we think it is essential that we be able to review these forecasts before they are finalized.

In changing the rates for oversized vehicles a thorough analysis was done by looking at rates in various other ferry systems.  We think this same type analysis should be done for the surcharge.  How does our surcharge compare to other ferry systems?

In the extra revenue section there was a discussion on paid parking.  Since Anacortes does not have any paid parking, I think charging for parking will create more problems than it’s worth.  Drop the idea of paid parking.  Having a sponsor for the new electric ferry, weather for carbon credits or just green PR, may have potential and should be pursued.

A needs based category was created allowing users to buy a convenience 5-trip punch card at the senior rate.  Can they buy a normal punch card at the senior rate?

Will bike users be able to use their walk-on punch cards?  Does this mean a separate transaction will then have to be done for the bike?

John Hopkins

________

Virginia Orsini

Dear Commissioners:

It seems you have been taken off-guard by the fact that Public Works expenses, including ferry expenses have risen in the past year, especially since all costs have gone up, (including groceries and property taxes).

Financial mistakes were made by County workers during Covid by letting people ride free for more than a month and then selling limitless frequent-user cards.  There has also been a shift in accounting since construction of a new ferry has been added into consideration – now ALL ferry expenses are considered “operations and maintenance”.  There were also several PW mistakes made on repair of the new “where did these beavers come from?” road, and the replacement of a storage site for road materials.  Guemes Islanders have been blamed for not paying their fair share when questionable county actions may actually be at fault.

Islanders have always willingly paid fairly for their transport, so they should not bear the cost of losses to ferry revenue through county policy or errors.  The 65 percent model based on a 5-year actual costs should be kept in place.  Otherwise, the County has total control over this service with NO oversight or obligations to its users.  That would be a situation ripe for corruption.  Neither would this “let’s gaze into the crystal ball” method of predicting expenses each year allow for the ups and downs of the cost of ferry maintenance.  It would constantly predict upward, and essentially create another taxation during down-years.

Spreading out a draconian fare increase over five years will still have a negative impact on the day to day functioning of Island residents.  In five years there will be another fare increase based on what?  Insurance? A new assistant ferry manager?  A toll booth?  Parking?  Cutting service?  A comment like, “Well, you chose to live there” is getting pretty old, tired, and insulting.  Everyone chooses to live somewhere for a variety of reasoned considerations. Make a distinction between those who live on Guemes and pay the bulk of ferry costs, and those that recreate here who pay a whole lot less of their budget.

Here are a few specific areas of concern in the fare proposal:

1.  Bicycle tickets:  Frequent user card holders should be able to bring a bike onto the island for no extra charge.   They are either young and poor, or they are trying to assure they make the ferry, and are not a burden on the environment or the system.  And of course, as frequent users, they are bearing the greater cost of the ferry, and are taking exceptional measures to be able to live on the Island.  Visitors to the Island, however should pay extra since, for them, it is recreation.

2.  Eliminate the “under 14 feet” automobile category.  It was state that one of the purposes of this proposal was to simplify the fare structure, and this complicates it.  We scratch our heads.  Give the benefit to bicycle riders instead. We do not need to have the same exact policies as the State Ferries.

3.  Keep the current payment structure for children intact.  Island kids get one free ride home from school each school day.  Charge all other trips in line with senior fares.  Eliminating this fare on children will drop revenue, but also unfairly benefit visitors who come to recreate.

4.  Here’s the big one:  Raise the millage rate for the Road Fund across the board, county-wide.  If you are short on funds, you must consider that everyone in the county uses county roads, whether they are bridges, roundabouts, or a ferry (for maintenance of which you already get money from the State), and they must share the burden of these expenses according to their property values.  This includes developers and expanding corporations.  This year alone our property taxes have increased twenty-five percent.  That means next year you should also see an increase in revenue for the Road Fund.  If not, you need to consider changing some general County funding structures.

Therefore, the managers of the ferry and Public Works must work diligently to keep costs under control, and administer a reasonable fare structure that does not ruin working people, businesses, artists, and retired individuals that happen to live on Guemes.  They must administer the fare structure in collaboration with the duly elected Guemes Ferry Committee.  Then look at sharing any inflation growth taxation County-wide.

Sincerely,
Ginger Orsini

_______

Cindy Kamp

Dear Skagit County Commissioners,

On the 2022 Guemes Island Ferry Expense Report, the Insurance category was charged $572,868. The budgeted amount for 2022 was $120,799 – $452,069 over budget – 374% over budget.

The explanation I received for this unexpected and unbudgeted expense was that it stemmed from Resolution #R20230020 on how to allocate insurance costs across different county departments.

From the information I received from my Skagit County public records request, in 2022, four cars in four separate occurrences sustained minor damage to their vehicles on the Guemes Island Ferry – each determined to be the responsibility of an action or inaction of a ferry worker. The grand total paid to the individuals for all four occurrences was $5,366.93.

This $5,366.93, somehow, turned into $59,348.37 – which was 27.36% of an entire “fund.” From there, it ballooned to $448,878, which was added to the regular ferry insurance premium of $123,990 for the grand total of $572,868 charged to the ferry.

The 2023 Preliminary Budgeted Insurance Expense is $124,423. My understanding is that as the Resolution stands, theoretically, if the ferry sustains even one claim for $1.00 and no other department has a single claim, the entire $1.4 million could be charged to the ferry.

The proposed new ferry model does not take into consideration a variance of $1.4 million in looking ahead next year or the year after.

It is of concern to me that this $448,990 was included as an expense for the following reasons:

1)  This “expense” goes directly into the operation and maintenance expenses that are used in the ferry fare calculations.

2)  If you removed this expense from the 2022 expenses, the Guemes Island Ferry would have been under budget by $395,704 – not over budget by $53,173 as was stated on the 2023 Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report.

2022 Budget – $2,851,420
2022 O&M Expenditures (without the $448,878) –  $2,455,716
Difference –  $395,704

3)  This artificially inflated actual expense was used in the Ferry Operations Report given to Washington State to determine the distributions of the Ferry Deficit Fund. It is not a regular operation expense to pay an exorbitant percentage of the overall insurance premium for the entire county. For example, just because the County Fair did not have any claims in 2022 doesn’t mean it didn’t benefit from having insurance. This could artificially benefit Skagit County, thus potentially taking dollars away from Whatcom and Pierce counties.

4)  It concerns me that the additional $448,878, an unprecedented and unexpected expense, was not even mentioned on the 2023 Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report. In fact, “the year 2022 was a typical year for ferry operations” was how the year was described. Is it a typical year to have a new expense that is 16% of the total $2,904,594 O & M expenses?

In addition to my concerns regarding the additional unexpected 2022 expense and the consequences of it, I have further concerns regarding our annual insurance premiums. Not only have they increased 36% since 2018, (excluding the additional $448,878 from 2022) ($90,912 – $123,990) they are significantly more expensive when looking at some comparable ferries – many which insure multiple ferries:

2023 Budgets
Whatcom County Ferry – $85,134
Pierce County – $38,000 (total for 2 ferries)
Casco Bay Island Transit ( KPFF used this ferry line in Guemes Island Ferry System 2023 Rate Study) – $79,200 (total for 5 ferries)

Guemes Island Ferry’s insurance is nearly $39,000 more annually than Whatcom County ferry. In my search to further understand why our insurance premiums are significantly higher for our ferry – even higher when compared to multiple ferry systems – I have asked who our ferry is insured through. Despite requesting this information through a public records request and a phone message to Risk Management, I have not received an answer to this question. What I did learn was that the Washington County Risk Pool (WCRP), which insures Skagit County, does not insure ferries. So my question of who is the insurer of the ferry still has not been answered, and creates even more questions as to how the ferry was charged for $448,878 from the overall county insurance if it isn’t even included in that fund.

My hope in writing all of this to you today is you will take the time to look further into the cause and effect of Resolution # R20230020 and make the necessary changes to prevent this misallocation of funds from happening in the future. Also, please consider adjusting the expenses from 2022 that are being used in ferry fare calculations. And finally, please look into our actual insurance premiums to try and reduce expenses.

Over the past few months there have been many conversations regarding how to increase the ferry fares. At the same time, we have gone from Public Works Director Grace Kane thanking Ferry Captain Rachel Rowe for her efforts to slash $200k from her budget at the beginning of this year to not only adding the $200K back in, but looking ahead for expenses to be around $4 million in 2 years – about $800K more a year. The proposed model creates the opportunity for operational expenses to continue to balloon without an incentive to control costs. We have no idea where we are going to be in 2 years with the new ferry. Please focus on fixing the issues we currently have, keep the existing ferry fare model, and reevaluate when we have the new ferry operational.

Sincerely,

Cindy Kamp

_______

Penni Sturgill
to Commissioners

After reviewing the proposed rate increases for the Guemes Island Ferry I must strongly object on several issues and rate categories.

You have added an additional rate category of 14 ft. vehicles or less.

This has little to no value and directly goes against one of your concerns, having the purser having more ticket sales and hands on at the line.

You have created another category for Bike Riders, as a resident if we ride our bikes over to Anacortes on busy summer nights, we are able to use our passenger punch cards.

Under your proposed rate increase we can’t use our punch cards, you are requiring us to purchase a per use ticket, again requiring more interaction with the purser.

You have charged Guemes Island Fare Box with Thousands of dollars that once charged left the islanders unable to meet the fare box goals that you set.

How can Insurance fees or costs that have been charged to the Fair Box amount to $500,000.00 in one year?

Where is the transparency?  What are you hiding… Is this charge for insurance the total cost for all of Skagit County charged against the Fair Box?

Why is the KPFF’s Fee coming from the Fair Box for $111,000.00 – All they have done was follow the fares charged by the WA. State Ferry System. 

Why wasn’t the fee prorated over 5 years since you are proposing a rate increase over five years.  They have provided nothing original or creative.

I find it interesting that KPFF thinks that mirroring the WA State Ferry system is acceptable.

We are a small island of about 900 homes, many that are only here on a seasonal basis.  WE ARE NOT equal to the size and scale of the islands within WA.  We have a 6-minute ride covering a 1 mile each way.  How can this be comparable to islands that offer a host of camping, RV’s sites, hotels, restaurants, public and private marinas, and private airstrips for travel options.  We do not have the draw for many of the vacationing options that the islands provide.  STOP TREATING us like we are comparable.

Skagit County did significant work on Eden’s Road.  During this work you used the Ferry for days and into the evening with hundreds of trips with equipment and gravel.

Did you compensate other departments within the County to provide services needed to complete this work?  If so, did you contribute to the Fair Box for the Ferry? It seems to me you should have contributed a credit for the 65% Fair Box used and taken away from paying customers.

You, the County, controlled the expense, timeline, and outcome of this project. We as islanders did not have a say in the expense or outcome.

If you look at the rates you have proposed, you are directly impacting the lifestyle and services provided by nearly anyone who services the island.

The fees for oversized vehicles and trucks or trailers are not palatable for anyone.

Frontier Lumber
Waste Management
Ziply Fiber & San Juan Cable
Fedex & Third-party delivery Companies
Lowes & Home Depot
Septic Pump Trucks
Concrete Trucks

Islanders will not be able incur the additional service fees from all these oversized delivery vehicles to cover the Ferry Fees.

Many of these service providers are on Guemes Island on a weekly basis.

With these exorbitant fees life on Guemes Island will no longer be an option to many would have a fixed income or an abundance of disposable funds.

I see two scenarios for our future:

Property prices and home values will sink due to burden-some costs, or we will become an island of non-occupied mega wealth property homeowners.

You will lose many who are multi-generational families and their business. 

We will no longer have any agricultural businesses on the Island since it will be cost prohibitive.

You will lose many veterans who want to live a simple quiet life.

You will lose several people who are aging out with limited funds.

You will lose the guests who visit and stay at the resort that bring their boats for crabbing and fishing.

You will lose the property owners that have vacation properties within Holiday Hideaway that come over with RV’s, motorhomes, trailers, and boats.

If the Ferry were considered a part of the roads system in Skagit County and not another vehicle for taxation, the island will survive and adjust.  With the proposed rate increases over the next five years you will cause considerable harm to those who currently have a stake in ownership on the island.

Penni Sturgill

__________

Dan Sturgill

Rachel Rowe Ferry Operations Manager

Grace Kane Public Works Director

Ron Wesen Board of Skagit County Commissioners 

Lisa Janicki Board of Skagit County Commissioners

Peter Browning Board of Skagit County Commissioners

Stated in your Guemes Island Ferry Fare Proposal Public Hearing Scheduled for June 8 “this rate study has been a heavy lift for Public Works staff”.  You might want to state the obvious that Skagit County Public Works (without any Guemes Island Ferry Committee representatives) hired the same consultant that WA State utilized to establish it’s Ferry rate schedule (almost word for word). Then you charged the Guemes Island Farebox fund over $110K to pay for this heavy lift again without any input from our duly elected Guemes Island Ferry Committee (GIFC).  Then during the 2023 BCC Work Session with Public Works Guemes Island Ferry Rate Study Monday, April 17, 2023; 3:00 p.m. Grace Kane with the GIFC not 4 feet behind her claimed she didn’t recognize GIFC as an elected body representing Guemes Island.

Shame on Skagit County Public Works for not standing up for the legitimacy of the Guemes Island Ferry Committee other than Commissioner Ron Wesen who acknowledged their standing.

Please take a very serious look at the huge negative years-long effect these fare rate increases (without GIFC input) will have on the greater population of Guemes Island. 

• Arbitrary 65% Farebox recovery Target (Why not 50% since we get literally no on Island Police or fire protection)

• Annual 14% passenger and regular sized vehicles fare types increases through 2028 (this is a 92.5% fare increase…due the math)

• 2023 Farebox accounting…(questionable charge of $500k for Ferry Insurance claims(?) and $110K for KFPP(?) Where’s the transparency?

• Where are the COVID relief funds received by the County?  Were they applied for by Public Works for the Guemes Island Ferry lost Fare revenue?

• Why the 14 ft vehicle category?  Is this going to have a new punch card?  More work for the Purser.

• The bike fee is for non-residents only!  It should be covered/waved by a resident with a passenger/walk-on punch card!   

Thanks,

Dan Sturgill

________

Michael Murphy
to commissioners, ferry comments

Skagit County Commissioners,

My name is Michael Murphy, Guemes Island resident for 46 years, Ferry Committee for 8 years, Volunteer Fire Department, 10 years, three years as Chief, and Community Club Board member 5 years.  I am writing these comments to you from an historic as well as present day perspective.

In early 1982, then County Commissioners Howard Miller, Bud Norris and Jerry Mansfield asked Max Benjamin and Al Bush (both Guemes residents) to establish a Guemes Island Ferry Committee along with three other community-elected members including Rollie Jones, Glen Veal and Mike Murphy, to be liaisons between the Island residents and the Skagit County Commissioners. 

In December of 1982, the County Commissioners unanimously declared that Resolution 9518 be adopted for the purpose of establishing ferry user rates. These included cash fares, Washington State fuel tax revenue derived for ferry operations, and Washington State ferry deficit reimbursement. These revenues were to cover 100 percent of the actual cost of FERRY CREW WAGES AND BENEFITS, FUEL AND FERRY INSURANCE.

The reason for this adopted  resolution was that these items were over and above the expenses for maintaining the county road system in Skagit County, Washington of which the Guemes Ferry is an integral part. This resolution worked well for many years. Changes to the resolution have since created issues with accountability and keeping costs down.

The island residents pay their fair share of taxes to maintain all county roads and bridges for all residents, visitors and businesses to have open access to the county. 

All Skagit County taxpayers pay for maintenance and repairs to the equipment and machinery used to keep the County road system working efficiently, ie. dump trucks, bulldozers, graders etc. Since the ferry is a piece of equipment in the road system, it seems that this, too, should be included in this maintenance schedule.

In addition, I believe that it is not the responsibility of the island residents and property owners to pay the wages of management who are participating in other than direct ferry activities such as procurement of a new vessel, docking facilities and charging stations.

Also note that the Guemes Island ferry is the ONLY  section of Public Works  that brings a positive cash flow to the County and it appears that the Public Works leadership is assuming that we are a cash flow that they can keep dipping into when they want money for other Public Works projects.

In my opinion, it  would be better for Public Works to look at ways to save money by becoming more efficient in their operations than to keep trying to tax people out of their homes. 

I will say that in the past 40 plus years that the Ferry Committee has done an exemplary job in trying to keep the avenues of communication open with the County. My hope is that the county officials will reciprocate, in kind, to the Ferry Committee and Guemes Island residents so that we can avoid issues like the ones we are now facing.

Sincerely,
Michael Murphy

________

Allen Bush Sr

Commissioners,

I have lived on Guemes Island for over 60 years and served on the Ferry Committee for over 20. I am wondering how we got to a place where Public Works spending is not being measured or not putting costs in the proper columns of Operations and Maintenance and Capital costs.

Not all costs incurred during the haul outs are operating expenses. Any item that extends the life of the vessel is a capital cost. Structural steel, hull and deck plating and entire piping systems etc. are considered capital expenses. There are Federal and State funding sources that offset these capital costs, Public Works just needs to plan and apply for them.

Public Works is spending over $100,000 of our Operating costs on a consultant to determine a new way to calculate fares based on a forecasted budget. No time in history have ferry users paid fares using future predictions. Actual cost and actual expenses determine user fees, especially when they are required to apply annually for State money to offset operational losses and Ferry deficits. The sky’s the limit if left to outside consultants and staff speculation of future revenues.

Public Works has inflated Operations and Maintenance costs. The Ferry Manager spends time on the new ferry capital project, so much so that an assistant manager was hired to manage the operation. There should be an adjustment as to where those wages and benefits fall and to whose side of the ledger is responsible. 

The KPFF proposal should be discarded and Public Works should engage in cost cutting efforts and analyze their own records to determine how to stay within the limits of annual fares collected and outside revenue received. Ferry users will change their habits and find different ways to travel if fares are increased as proposed. Keeping fares low and the boat full will return the most revenue. I know, I’ve been involved for a long time.

Sincerely,
Allen Bush Sr

________

Allen Bush

Who is responsible? Is it the ferry users for not paying their fair share of operating costs? Despite the fact that ridership is flat and users changed their travel habits during a worldwide pandemic recently. All while the county decides to discontinue the collection of fares, but never compensating the ferry system or ferry users with any of the $37M in COVID money they received?

Is it to the commissioners for skipping five opportunities to increase fares in the past 5 years and then recommending a Consultant Study to project an operating budget for a brand-new electric ferry that isn’t even built yet? Do we know what the future operating costs will be?

Is it to the crew who inadvertently incurred $5,300 in fender bender insurance claims that have ballooned to $572k in operating expense? All while continuing to do their job without a labor contract?

Or to KPFF, the consultant who followed a project directive to increase fares and find another $750k in annual operating revenue. Yet in the process failed to mention that several of their suggested changes will cost ferry users even more money?

The answer is all of the above. There is no one group or item on our list that does not contribute to the success or failure of the Guemes Island Ferry. We have a system in place that measures all of these things in a meaningful way and everyone is included. Let’s stay the course. I suggest we work together to make our system the shining star of Puget Sound, if not North America.

Let’s start with the process of increasing fares in an open and transparent way, one that exists in the standing public forum resolution. Let’s keep the quarterly updates highlighting the hurdles and successes that will make our system predictable and sustainable for everyone involved. 

Last fall our neighbor, Pierce County, analyzed the 3 county ferry systems, giving common metrics to measure their differences and similarities. The Guemes Island Ferry has the lowest cost per passenger moved at or below $5.00. The Guemes Island Ferry also has the lowest cost per hour of operation at $600. Maybe it’s the fact that we are required to return 65% of our operating costs through fares while the other counties are required to return only 55%. Meanwhile the Skagit County Road Fund is holding our $1M in ferry surcharge money for a ferry purchase 40 years from now. It appears we are contributing our fare share.

Two months ago, KPFF gave Pierce County a very similar analysis to the one developed here for Skagit County. KPFF warned Pierce County that offering free passage to those 18 years and under, a reduced needs-based fare and the smaller 14-foot vehicle category would be a potential annual revenue loss of $300k. Why are these losses absent from our report? KPFF predicts an annual haul out cost of $750k. In 5-years we will have collected $3.75M for haul outs when we might see actual costs of half that. What will need to be repaired on a brand-new all electric ferry two years into service? KPFF also predicts system revenue from the state at $350k each year. In 2022 Skagit County experienced a record breaking $585k state funding number. Not sure looking ahead is wise or sustainable. Let’s continue to use actual costs and real revenue numbers. Let’s not price people out of their homes with projected budgets to calculate fares.

To get this 40-year-old diesel ferry across the finish line let’s not become dependent on consultants to calculate our fares, but let’s rely on our policy, our process and each other to deliver solutions that other ferry systems can look to for guidance. For the future, when our new ferry comes online, we can use these agreed upon policies and processes to measure the progress and adjust accordingly. Let’s avoid a future where green energy profiteers will suggest their solutions only to embarrass state legislators who have banked on the idea that this new technology will lower operating costs, provide good paying jobs and create livable communities. 

Let’s Stay the course.

Allen Bush

______

Stephen Orsini

Mon, Mar 6

to ferrycomments, Janicki,

To:  Skagit County Public Works and the Board of County Commissioners

Re:  The Proposed Rate Increase for the Guemes Island Ferry from the KPFF Rate Study   Presented February 28, 2023

From:  Stephen Orsini

Grace Kahn, Skagit County Public Works Director, was quoted in the March 1 edition of the Anacortes American article on the Guemes Ferry, “ We’re coming to a point where we can’t afford $1.0 million per year coming out of the road fund, . . . adding that island residents need to pay their share toward ferry operations.”

Guemes Island, like other areas of unincorporated Skagit County, pays a tax annually into the county road fund based on assessed land value. The assessed value for Guemes Island for 2023 is an impressive $605,785,292.  The current rate is $1.30/$1000 of the assessed value.  This means that Guemes Island will subsidize the County Road Fund in the amount of $787,521.00 in 2023.  The County does not in its accounting methodology allow this Road Fund revenue to be applied directly against the operating cost of the Guemes Ferry. The implication in Ms Kahn’s statement is that the islander’s only take from the road fund for the Guemes Island Ferry. 

In addition to the tax contribution to the road fund, the ridership of the Guemes Ferry pays fares, termed fare box revenue. The fare box revenue is augmented annually by two State contributions to counties which have ferries: one from the Motor Vehicle Fuel Tax and the other from the Washington State Department of Revenue Deficit Reimbursement Fund.  This gives a five-year income average of $1,501,939 annually.  But the five-year total cost of running the Guemes Ferry, which includes haul-outs as operations and maintenance, is $2,598,678 annually. So the County’s contribution from the road fund, not offset by the Island road fund tax contribution, has a five-year average of $1,096,739. 

Over time, a number of County decisions ranging from significant scheduling changes, to adding more crew and refusing to apply for new free engines from the Volkswagen settlement fund have added significantly to the cost of running the Guemes.  Moving cars is how the ferry generates the most fare box revenue, but the car and driver ridership remains frozen due to operational changes. The only way to address this situation is to increase fares.  Cost savings were not presented as part of the KPFF Plan.

Looking at the proposed fare increase on the individual level, in 2022 my wife and I paid $1800.00 in ferry fares and $1189.00 in road fund tax.  For 2023, our payment into the road fund based on increased property valuation rises to $1460.00 Applying the overall proposed fare increase of 71% to last year’s fare expense of $1800, our cost of fares will rise to $3,078 making our 2023 contribution to the road fund plus cost to ride the Guemes Ferry $4,538.00.  

In the fall of 2022, the Lummi Island Ferry instituted a fare increase.  One outcome is that their fare for individual car and driver rose from $14.00 to $17.00. (Guemes Ferry’s car and driver will increase from $15.00 to $25.00.)  They managed this fare increase process internally without paying a consultant $80,000 -$100,000 which is what Skagit County did in hiring KPFF, for this specific task.

What remains today is a much more expensive operation for the Skagit County Ferry, moving less cars than in the past, sharply rising property tax payments and no recognition of the increasing tax revenue accruing from the island to the County Road Fund. 

______

Margaret Duryee 

Mon, Mar 6

to ferrycomments, commissioners

I moved to Guemes 42 years ago and bought my home on Guemes and started my business THE RED SNAPPER in Anacortes which begins its 31 years of business on April 1, 2023. I have traveled to my work on the ferry which I always assumed was my “road” all of these years.

This new cost improvement increase will make my going to my business everyday impossible for financial reasons. As my 31 years of THE RED SNAPPER begins in April I have gotten older and with health reasons I drive over now to support my health issues with my age. I have just  signed a new 5 years lease as I had wanted to continue my business in Anacortes using the ferry which I consider my “road” to and from work. This increase will make my continuing of my business not financially okay for me. 

Please reconsider this huge price increase.

Thank you for you time,

Margaret Duryee homeowner Guemes Island and business owner in Anacortes

_______

Julia Pingree

Mon, Mar 6

to ferrycomments, commissioners

I have lived on Guemes for many years traveling to my job at Island Hospital daily for over 15 years. I had a car on the Anacortes side and the Guemes side for convenience. It worked out well. Now, I am retired and cannot or rather will not leave my newer car on the Anacortes side as my old car was stolen! I don’t feel it is  safe in the parking lot anymore. In increasing the fare for the ferry I will not be going to town very often as I am living on a fixed income.

I oversee the Food Pantry at the island’s  Church which is supported by donations from the Islanders. It is used by the Islanders. I have seen an increase in use because of inflation as well as the haulout. I predict that the fare increase will affect the use and donations to the Food Pantry. More use, less donations.We need to take care of our neighbors.

Please consider the effect of how this increase will affect the Islands population.

Julia PIngree

Islander Voter   

_______

Bruce Rooney

Sandra Lane

Mon, Mar 6

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Dear County Commissioners:

My wife and I attended the 2023 Ferry Fare Increase Meeting on Tuesday, February 28, 2023 and we want to add our comments to those presented there.

When we retired in 2004, we choose to live on Guemes Island so that we would not have to deal with the Washington State Ferry System.  How ironic that you hired those same people to propose new ferry fares.  Let’s see.  A new class for cars under 14 feet.  Extend standard car fares to 22 feet and increase the cost of ferry fares for full time residents to almost double.

Guemes Island has only one small restaurant/store to shop at.  We are in effect a suburb of Anacortes.  We need to go to town for food, medical appointments, hardware, restaurants and entertainment.  We spend most of our disposable income and money for necessities in Skagit county.  One of the KPFF presenters said that elasticity was not included in their study.  Really, there is only so much money for middle class people to spend.

Last year we purchased 14 senior car and driver cards and 7 senior walk on cards for a total of $2,506.  Under the proposed fare increase and factoring in having to pay peak fares, the total yearly cost would be $4,805.  An increase of 91%, nearly double to what we are paying.  Why have you penalized retired citizens of Skagit County so much?  According to KPFF, this was done in the name of fairness.  It doesn’t look fair to me.  And I predict it would not seem fair to you if you had to pay $28 to go to coffee with your spouse or to go see the doctor.  We shall, of course, have to go to Anacortes and Skagit County for necessary trips, but we will certainly curtail most of the others.

You have left us in the position of having to decide what to give up in order to continue our way of life on Guemes, or to move off the island.  A huge property tax increase followed by this burdensome fare increase will designate that Guemes is another island like those in San Juan County for the rich and very rich.

I ask and hope that you can redo the 2023 Ferry Fare Increase so that it is fair and reasonable.   We want to remain on Guemes Island and live in Skagit County.

_______

Allen Bush

2023 Ferry Fare Proposal (skagitcounty.net)

FARE STRUCTURE

In October 2019, in preparation for the public input session for the KPFF Guemes Island Ferry Operation and Service Study the GIFC reminded the County that there is in place now a mechanism under which the Board of County Commissioners is provided with information so it can knowledgably set fares.  The mechanism is the product of extensive discussion among the Board, islanders, and others.  If there is to be a change proposed to this mechanism, it must involve thorough review, by all parties, of the revenue sources, expenses, equities and reasons for change.  This review will need shared factual, statistical, and fiscal bases.  It will be a big job. 

More, it is premature to take up restructuring the fare-setting mechanism at this time.  Nobody knows what the new boat will finally cost.  The new boat is expected to reduce operating costs considerably, but until the boat is more completely designed (not to say delivered) it’s very hard to quantify that savings to the degree useful to fare setting discussions.  The GIFC is prepared to take up with the Board the discussion of a “fair fare.”  But we do not think that working through BERK, the survey process, and one or two public meetings allows adequate ventilation of the relevant matters.  It’s simply a bigger job than that.

Before proposing a rate increase and engaging a consultant to address ferry fare revenue shortages we must analyze current fare calculation methods and their foundational county resolutions.

Public Works provides background on Ferry Fare Revenue Target Methodology and Resolution R20110382  “mandates that Public Works prepare and submit a report to the Board that calculates the County’s ferry fare revenue target pursuant to the formula, and recommend a ferry rate schedule for the upcoming calendar year with an estimate of fares based off those rates.”

Within Resolution R20110382 there are attachments that require a Calendar of Events that also mandates an annual Work Plan and the gathering of public advisory input throughout the year. We have not seen a Work Plan or been engaged in public advisory input in quite a few years.

1st Quarter ( January through March) — Public Works staff distributes to the Public the Work Plan reviewed by the Board during the previous year end. The Work Plan will include topics on which the county intends to gather public advisory input during the ensuing Work Plan year, and information as to how the public can provide advisory input in the topics included on the Work Plan to the County throughout the year. Public Works staff prepares a Draft Annual Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report which shall include a recommended rate schedule. Public Works staff conducts the Annual Public Forum meeting for the purpose of discussing issues and efforts included on the Work Plan and to solicit advisory input on the Draft Annual Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report.

2nd Quarter ( April through June) — Public Works staff presents to the Board the Annual Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report which shall include a recommended rate schedule.

3rd Quarter ( July through September) — Board may conduct a public meeting at a location deemed appropriate by the Board for the purposes of hearing advisory input as to any and all community concerns relative to the Guemes Island community. Public Works staff prepares a draft Ferry Operations Status Report regarding Guemes Island Ferry operations annual accomplishments, including progress achieved on the current Work Plan; and prepares a draft Work Plan for the upcoming year. Public Works staff conducts the second Annual Public Forum meeting for the purpose of discussing issues and efforts included on the to solicit advisory input on the Draft Operations Status Report.

4th Quarter ( October through December) — Public Works staff presents to the Board the Ferry Operations Status Report and the coming year’ s Draft Work Plan. Public Works staff works with the Board in the final adoption of the Ferry Division’ s portion of the Public Works budget for the upcoming year, and finalizes the coming year’s Work Plan.

Meet with the Guemes Island Ferry Committee, other interested organizations and citizens at-large as is deemed necessary. These sessions are for the purpose of facilitating detailed and collaborative dialogue between such interested parties and Public Works and are intended to develop recommendations as to operational practices relative to the Guemes Island Ferry operation. Such on-going meetings will be used to discuss and work toward resolving issues identified in the Work Plan. Inclusive of these meetings is the development of progress reports, updated annual Work Plans, and recommendations to the Board. It is further expected that the Public Works Director and senior management of the department will actively participate in such on- going meetings. 

FARE STUDY PROPOSED ACTION

There appears to be conflict regarding the capture of Peak Season Fares and Multi-Use Punch Cards as the County has extended the expiration date from 90 to 120 days. This extension allows the discounted rate to span the entire duration of the Peak Season thus reducing fare box revenue, defeating the intent of the Peak Season Fare.

The proposed action of reducing fare categories and streamlining boarding procedures is contradicted by suggesting Gross vehicle Weight categories in addition to vehicle length. Calculating these fares will add to boarding time and reduce vehicle throughput.

The Skagit County Comprehensive Plan and the Guemes Island Sub Area Plan both encourage Park and Ride transportation alternatives to motorized vehicle travel. By suggesting paid parking in either parking lot will discourage walk-ons and discourage alternatives to drive-alone trips if paid parking is implemented.

Recommendations for additional scheduled runs to increase revenue contradicts any recommended service reductions as a way to balance operating costs.

When evaluating the operating costs per run compared to average revenue per run, administrative costs must be considered. With more administrative time spent away from the dock and the addition of an assistant manager, it appears to be adding to the costs per run rather than reducing them. In past studies by consultants, it was determined that any administrative time spent elsewhere would not be charged to Operation and Maintenance. The system still services about a mile of water between Anacortes and Guemes Island and the same vessel has been in use for 42 years.

RIDERSHIP NEARLY FLAT

Changes in Ridership Patterns & Revenue data shows that the ferry system experienced peak ridership and farebox revenue in 2018. Since that time ridership has seen flat or declining revenue all while the County paused collection of all fares during COVID-19 and also pausing the Peak Season Fare during the summer months. This has cumulatively added to fare revenue shortfalls for those years and reflects poorly in the annual Ferry Fare Target Report(s).

FARE STUDY FAQ

What is the process for increasing ferry fares?

Skagit County Public Works will work with stakeholders and the consultants to bring a fare proposal before the Board. To pass a resolution to increase fares, a draft resolution will be sent from Public Works to the Board. Following a public hearing, the resolution will be placed on the Board’s agenda for approval.

The Guemes Island Ferry Committee does not see any opportunity to contribute as a stakeholder between now and the time a draft fare proposal is presented by the consultant. We would like that opportunity.

What happens when the new ferry enters service and has reduced operating expenditures?

Early analysis concluded the new ferry would see a reduction in non-salary operating costs. However, as we work to further refine the future of ferry service, that reduction is not something we can count on any longer. The cost of goods and services has increased exponentially since that analysis. The new electric vessel will not need as much diesel fuel to operate, but the county will need to plan for battery replacements every 10 years or so.

The incentive of reducing operating costs with a new electric ferry was a major motivating factor in deciding to make the change sooner rather than later. Also, if battery replacement will be considered an operational cost that too would have influenced decisions made nearly 8 years ago, when an all electric ferry was seen as a beneficial long term cost reducer.

Will I still have to pay the vessel replacement surcharge?

The vessel replacement surcharge in Resolution R20180123, approved by the Board on June 18, 2018, is expected to remain in place. Part of the scope of work for the consultants is to figure out if the amount is appropriate in planning for future vessel replacement. This money can be used exclusively toward the purchase of a new ferry.

The existing ferry and the proposed new electric ferry were funded without using any vessel surcharge money. Essentially, we have experienced a large fare increase in 2018 and wonder if the vessel surcharge is even necessary. We anticipate fifty years from now Skagit County can find new ferry funding as they have in the past.

FARE TARGET SHORTFALLS

When discussing the “unexpected high expenses” on a 40 year old ferry seem in conflict with the analysis of a marine engineer nearly 10 years ago, who stated we were a little behind in replacing some key elements on the M/V Guemes. Refurbishment of the current vessel was a viable $5,000,000 Capital improvement option along with the option of a new ferry. Among the needed upgrades were the following…

• Replace engine foundations

• Replace propulsion system

• Update navigation electronics with AIS

• Replace all paneling

• Replace doors and locks

• Mid-body extension of 20 feet

• Refurbishment of hull steel

• Refurbishment of piping systems

Since 2013 we have paid for most of the above through Haulout O&M expenditures one by one, despite the use of a federal fund called the Ferry Boat Discretionary (FBD) Program.

Skagit County has asked and received FBD funding, not for the “Boat” but for Piling Replacement, Dock and Bridge decking and Breakwater replacement to the tune of millions over the years. ELIGIBILITY: FBD funds may be used for the construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, and preservation of ferry boats, ferry terminals, and ferry maintenance facilities in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 129(c) and 147.

By simply leaving any Boat items off the Work Plan or Capital Improvement Plan they have determined that the “unexpected high expenses” are now discretionary O&M costs and reflect poorly on our ability to meet revenue targets.

_______

Allen Bush

2023 Ferry Fare Proposal

Policy:  a course of action adopted or proposed by a government, business, or individual.

Does the KPFF Report offer a better course of action for fare calculation policy?

The short timeline that has been proposed for raising fares, although may reach the desired deadline, does not include any substantive public input or illumination of the budget items to be either inclusive or transparent. 

Creation of any Ferry Fare Calculation Policy should involve more stakeholder and public scrutiny of the proposed Operations and Maintenance budget of $4MM.

Guemes Island has participated in fare setting policy right alongside Public Works since Skagit County took over the system in 1960. In most recent years we have engaged in several year long studies of Fares that included as many as 62 meetings regarding our responsibilities and contributions to offset ferry costs.

This collaborative policy resides in the current resolution that is frequently referenced pointing out farebox shortfalls. This same resolution also contains the responsibility of Skagit County to administer their obligations of meeting timelines and communication of any hurdles that may require a fare increase. We all should agree to honor this policy. 

Process:  a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

Does the KPFF Report provide a better process of calculating fares?

Only including a proposed Budget to calculate an accurate fare will not provide any more than an educated guess. In years past no projections or budgets have been anywhere close to the end result.

Leaving out real numbers from actual expenditures from prior years will only arrive at speculating on both income and presumptive costs. 

Projections have always been used to create alarm and worry for those deciding whether or not to increase fares. We must wait and let them become real numbers and make decisions then. 

Looking back over a five-year period helps balance decisions between worry and certainty. Making incremental modifications to the fare structure with real numbers eases the pain of the abrupt shock of too much, too fast.

Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

Does the KPFF Report use a better chain of reasoning for calculating a Fair Fare?

A fare increase whether large or small needs to take into account what a reasonable fare should be for Guemes Island. Meeting an arbitrary number to meet expenses balloons rapidly into what we are seeing in the KPFF proposal. Assembling a collection of other ferry system methodologies from previous projects does not give confidence to the reasons we are collecting fares in the first place. Guemes Island residents have produced tax revenue, user fees and capital funding for years with the idea that we, when our time came, would be provided with upgrades to our ferry service and facilities. Without believing our contributions are appreciated there will be a lack of trust of those in care of our money.

Allen Bush

_______

Mary Lascelles 

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Greetings to all concerned regarding proposed fare increases to Guemes Island ferry in 2023:

I am sure we all appreciate cost of living adjustments need to be made periodically. 

In 2023, we have been issued substantial increases in our property taxes.

It has been a big hit for many. 

Food prices have skyrocketed over the past year. It affects all of us daily.

So many are already trying to stay afloat – even before ferry fare increases. 

Some of the fare increases (on the chart of many categories) are 30, 50, or even 100% higher than what we are currently paying. 

How can Guemenians with families as well as retired (includes my husband and me) on fixed incomes cope with this kind of spike?

The highest % of Guemenians are middle class individuals, families, and the retired. All are trying their best to manage regular living expenses. 

The increase in Social Security Benefits was 8.7% in 2023 – an extra $100-200/month.

This was a a higher cost of living adjustment than the year before. It felt substantial.

However, it’s been eaten up and then some by property taxes and groceries – before a rise in ferry fares.

Have you given thought to how drastically these fare increases will modify daily lives of Guemenians?

Can we keep in mind that while there are people with substantial means on Guemes Island, most live a modest lifestyle.

**Can I suggest we modify the initial increase to 10-15% so Guemes households aren’t buried deeper due to 2023 overhead?

Thank you for your time,

Mary Lascelles

____________

Michael Murphy

to ferrycomments

County Commissioners, Rachel Rowe and Grace Kane,

My name is Mike Murphy and I have been a resident of Guemes Island for 46 years at 5819 Edens Road.  I am 72 years old and currently retired. I have served as the Fire Chief of Guemes Island, a Community Council member for 6 years, a member of the original Guemes Ferry Committee for 8 years. I am an active and contributing community member. 

During the first years of the Ferry Committee, there was always open dialogue with the county regarding fare increases. The county valued islander input. Why has the county unilaterally decided to end that communication? Why is mismanagement of Public Works and the Guemes Ferry Manager’s Office resulting in unreasonable rate increases for those people who are directly affected, yet have no say in the decision making? Why does the Guemes ferry need 4 and 5 employees per shift, when 3 people could adequately do the job – as was the case for 25 years?  Mismanagement!  Just look at the proposal to add a TICKET BOOTH – and another employee to man the booth! More mismanagement! In times of budget shortages, it is not logical to add more employees. The Guemes Ferry Manager can not manage the employees that are already working as it is. 

My wife and I are proud to have contributed to the well-being of our community for more than 40 years. We are now on a fixed income, both of us retired. Property taxes have increased 30 percent for us and our neighbors. Now, the county wants to add an additional burden of a proposed 70 -104 percent ferry fare increase.  I can understand the necessity for periodic fare increases. I believe a 15 percent increase to be reasonable. I also believe good management would not necessitate the use of a consulting firm. If I or my wife had run our businesses using that model, we would never have made it.  Good Management can predict changes in the economy and make gradual changes to budgets — but not keep adding personnel. 

In conclusion, I believe Public Works and Ferry Management need to clean up their house, rather than shifting burden and responsibility to others.  And yes, the county does have an obligation to provide ferry service to Guemes Island — The ferry is an integral part of the Skagit County road system, not a separate entity as was suggested by Grace  Kane recently.

Sincerely,

Michael E. Murphy

_______

Stephen Orsini

March 7

ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us

commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us

Re:  Toward achieving an equitable fare increase for the Guemes Ferry.  

Stephen Orsini

4971 Guemes Island Rd.

Anacortes, WA

1.  The current fare increase proposal put forth in the KPFF study results in fare increases with most categories seeing an increase of 100% or more.  Many of the figures used in the study, such as the projected budget of $3,213,000, have no background data that is available to the public until after the fare increase has been made. Why did KPFF not use the 5 year average Adjusted O&M expenditure of $2,250,816?  The time frame to adopt this plan is exceedingly short and must be extended by 45 days to allow further study of options mentioned below and for adequate public input with transparency of shared information.  

2.  The current resolution, R20180123, and its ferry fare calculation methodology should not be abandoned. The historical data it provides is extremely valuable. Fare adjustment amounts can be accomplished within the adjustable components of this model.

3.  Credit has to be given in the current ferry fare calculation methodology for the substantial amount of Road Fund Tax, $787,521.00 for 2023, that Guemes Island is subsidizing the County Road Fund.  The difference between this subsidy and the amount actually paid from the Road Fund annually for the ferry can then be used in the existing fare calculation methodology.

4.  The County should investigate changing the use of the surcharge, currently raising about $250,000 annually, to be applied to haul out costs at least until the planned new vessel is operational with expected reduction in haul out costs.

5.  The County should not spend money on a ticket booth but instead should institute an electronic, scanner-based ticketing system that allows riders of all categories to purchase their own tickets via cell phone or ticket machine in the waiting room prior to boarding the ferry.  The goal of this system is to reduce loading time and reduce the need for a full-time pursuer. Once up and running this active ticketing web-site can also be used to sell advertising as another revenue stream for the County.

6.  As a method to control the continuing cost increases in the manning of the Guemes Ferry and provide a cap to operational expenditures, the County, with proper pre-notification of the Inland Boatman’s Union, should investigate, via a Request for Proposal, employing a marine management firm like HMS or Crowley Maritime Services to operate the Guemes Ferry.  HMS is the company which operates the Pierce County ferries under a lease contract arrangement. One of the advantages is that the management company is responsible for hiring ferry personnel and negotiating pay with the Inland Boatman’s Union.

_______

Charmaine Johannes

Skagit County Commissioners, Guemes Ferry Manager Rachel Rowe, and Grace Kane, Public Works Director,

I would like to paraphrase a  comment by Grace Kane that was recently published in the Skagit Valley Herald and GoAnacortes:  “running the vessel (Guemes) should not keep coming at the expense of other public works priorities.”  This sounds like a serious budgeting/ management issue to me, and instead of attempting to pit residents of the whole of Skagit County against the residents of a small part of Skagit County (Guemes.) let’s talk about how to solve the problem before making another huge budget mistake.  Guemes Islanders pay taxes that support other county services just like everyone else!  This proposal needs more time for consideration and more community input. 

Before County Commissioners make their decision to raise Guemes ferry rates 70-104 percent, I respectfully request  these considerations be noted:

People WILL change ridership habits if rates go up unreasonably. Then, how does the county compensate for lack of revenue?

If it comes to reducing and making changes in the ferry schedule, has the county considered how those changes will affect the revenue for the new ferry when it finally arrives?

Penalizing bicycle riders with higher fares goes against the county’s goals to be more ecological and mindful of Climate Change.

It was stated that the new fares are comparable with other ferry systems in the State, but it was not noted that Guemes islanders have to leave the island for almost all services ie. medical, groceries, post office, etc. There are no services on Guemes. And that higher fares will negatively impact and discourage different vendors who bring services to the island like cement trucks, lumber trucks, UPS and FedEx, etc. 

The TICKET BOOTH is not a good idea because it means adding another employee to a shift, and where can a ticket booth be situated so that cars and walk- ons can access it equally?

Simplify the new fare structure, and take a close look at the proposal for “needs based fares.” which appears to cost more, not less.

As Guemes residents change their ridership habits because of high fares, how does the county plan to accommodate the need for more parking on both the Anacortes side and Guemes side?

The new proposal does not address Ferry crew issues at all!

If it is true that the Guemes Ferry has had budget deficits since 2018, why haven’t the county/ferry managers made  incremental adjustments over the last 5 years?

Finally, I know I will use the ferry less if fares increase too much.

Respectfully,

Charmaine Johannes, MEd

Guemes resident of 40 years.

_______

Bud Ashbach

March 8, 2023 

ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us
commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us

Proposed Guemes Ferry Rate Hikes

Dear Commissioner Wesen;

I write to you specifically, as you are the District #1 Representative on the County Board.

My connection to Guemes goes back to 1946; I know that through the years there has been quite a bit of inflation, almost everywhere. I’m sympathetic to ferry crew members needing a new contract, with better wages.

Twenty years ago my land taxes were like $3,000 a year, now they are about $10,000. These are general figures, but I’m told by the tax man that my place is now a lot more valuable, because of inflation, and other sales, even though I am not selling.

I watched how the County failed to secure new diesel engines for the current ferry, that were available (basically free) from Volkswagen. I watched how the ferry docks (on both sides of the channel) were modified with new spanning beams, where the installation of extra pillars under the old spans probably would have made the docks safe for twenty more years, with vastly less money spent. I am watching the efforts by the County to get an expensive electric ferry, where much money has been used in “studies” about the suitability going this new route, rather than having re-powered the ferry through Volkswagen’s offer.

It looks like the docks and/or pilings may need reconfiguring if the electric ferry arrives; and it may not be now known whether power stations will be needed on both sides of the channel; or whether diesel generation of recharging power will be needed near the docks or on the new ferry.

It is not readily known that the electric ferry will be able to transport more vehicles and people for the crossings, than what we now have, daily. I’m not sure that Guemes is actually worth such an expensive ferry.

I watched the construction of the one-way road, by the County, through the newly inundated valley below Guemes Mountain. That project, which may even be ongoing, involves an enormous amount of money, but did little to improve the situation, which likely had a simple solution. I watched the County move the large pile of gravel from a convenient center-of-island location to a new spot near Clark Point. Moving that pile certainly was expensive and unneeded. The pile was just moved, relocated. It could have been distributed over time. But this, like the road project through the damp valley, makes it look like the County is doing good things for Guemes, at big costs. Those costs were largely unnecessary. Those two projects involved more county equipment impacting our current ferry. Without any real gain.

What I’m saying is it is time to evaluate the worth of County expenditures. I’m told that a “study” was purchased, to address whether ferry fares should be upped.

The road fund taxes from Guemes properties ought to be used with the view of improving transportation. That mostly involves getting across the channel, both directions. That will keep property values up, which the County Assessor likes.

I know that under state law the “road fund taxes” may be invaded for purposes of government, that are quite beyond roads, bridges or transportation. I am asking you to make good sensible use of our local road taxes, for the transportation issue that is rather unique to Guemes.

I can envision what may well happen with an extremely large rate hike: more people will travel by foot, which will reduce revenue. And in Anacortes, you will see many extra blocks of parked vehicles, that may well be an annoyance for the city, and the good neighborhoods close to the ferry.

Maybe it is too late to rescue the ferry situation, because of the history that I have just described. I can accept a modest increase, but still am sorry that much money seems to have been spent where savings were clearly available.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bud Ashbach

5538 Guemes Island Road

_______

Jason Krapf

to ferrycomments, commissioners 03/09/23

My name is Jason Krapf I  have been a resident on guemes for 25 years. I work full time on the island as a general contractor. I use the ferry on average about 4 trips a week that is 208 a year. About 10-20trip punch tickets a year. That cost $1960.00. I  understand that the rate increase will change that to $3920.00 . That is alot of money to pay to just go to town to get supplies. I have a wife and two kids and she has to go to town about the same amount for various things. So 1 household will now spends $7840.00 on the ferry. That is way to much. 

As a general contractor it is getting harder to get subcontractors over to do work on island,because of the rate and long lines that can take hours. This increase will not help. It will drive the price of service up even more. 

The increase that has been proposed is gouging, it is unreasonable high, I would think a 15%  or even 20% increase is more reasonable. 

_______

Jake Choiniere
to ferrycomments, commissioners

I am a Guemes Island resident at 6731 Guemes Island Rd, where I live with my wife and two school age children.

I have great concern regarding the proposed ferry rate increases.  

First, the data used to inform these increases are flawed:

-There are wrong assumptions regarding projected operating costs

-There are wrong assumptions regarding projected revenue due to inclusion of pandemic era revenue dips

-The notion that the road fund contribution must be capped at a particular amount is completely arbitrary

-Does not take into account massive property tax increase for our homes for 2023  (roughly 30% for us) and associated contributions to the road fund

Second, we are already paying much more for what we get in terms of per-mile and per-hour ferry service relative to other places.  Increasing the cost further while not improving service is unacceptable.

Third, I am very opposed to the notion of trying to charge for bicycles.  We should be encouraging lower car traffic.  Major problems with charging for bicycles:

-How will this not complicate the ticketing process and reduce efficiency?

-Are you going to charge for wheelbarrows and grocery carts? 

-What about dogs?

-What about bicycles hanging off the back of cars?

Fourth, the proposed increases will present very meaningful impediments to basic activities of daily living disproportionately for working families, who will also be trying to absorb property tax increases, recent increases in cost of goods and services, etc.  

The proposed rate increase plan must NOT be enacted, and more time should be taken to consider alternatives that will be more fair and equitable.

Thank you,

Jake Choiniere

________

Carl Ullman

Proposed New Fare Methodology

The current fare-setting methodology is flawed though it has its good points. But there are worse flaws and fewer good points in the new methodology being proposed. We do not need to be reinventing the proverbial wheel to achieve the announced goal of taking some pressure off the Road Fund.

The County says the present situation is not acceptable because it takes too big a bite out of the Road Fund. Instead of changing the methodology for the fare structure, the amount taken from the Road Fund could be easily changed by adjusting the current 65%/35% cost assignment in order to obtain the desired $750K contribution from the Road Fund.

That would produce the result the County seeks without producing the following disadvantages:

Burden of uncertainty solely to the Fare Box. With the proposed new methodology there is a fixed amount for the Road Fund contribution to overall expenses and, thus, the entire risk of uncertainty falls on the Fare Box. This imbalance is not a good idea.

It eliminates the incentive for the County to control expenses because the Fare Box, not the Road Fund, is solely exposed to cost overruns, insufficient anticipation of expenses, and unforeseen or neglected fiscal issues. This is inherent in the proposal despite the best intentions of County personnel.

Public Works has explained its admirable budget review and belt-tightening; however, there should not be the expectation that fare payers should absorb the costs of the new proposal’s change in fiscal policy.

More equitable and more feasible is the existing methodology that shares cost uncertainties, offering some reassurance to Fare Box customers that they are not alone in dealing with uncertainties that are sure to arise.

This is not a mater of the character or ability of our public servants. In the proposed new fare methodology the deck is unavoidably stacked against the Fare Box. It is appropriate for people to expect better.

Not smoothing or averaging. Ferry expenses vary from year to year. Under any system we are bound to “miss the target” of a fixed expense prediction. The current methodology uses a 5-year rolling average to avoid radical swings in its outcome that might otherwise result from unanticipated higher or lower expenses or income.

Looking at individual years’ costs uninformed by the lived experience of other recent years is a recipe for jagged graphs and under informed decisions. The new proposal’s addition of half-a-haulout’s expenses each year shows an awareness of this problem and the concept should be applied to other expenses as well. Some sort of smoothing is necessary; the new proposed methodology lacks that useful feature of the existing methodology.

In sum, the current fare methodology is not without its problems. But it can be adjusted to accommodate current needs, while the new proposal promises to be much more cumbersome and unsatisfactory.

Electric Ferry Battery Replacement Surprise

One facet of the County’s initial push for a new, electric, ferry was assuring fare payers that a new ferry would be less expensive to operate than the existing M/V Guemes. I believed the assurance and as a member then of the Guemes Island Ferry Committee I told my constituents about this advantage of the new electric ferry. Many were receptive.

Now, according to the Q&A section of the 2023 Fare Proposal web site, the reduction in operating cost “is not something we can count on any longer.” This is a reversal of the previous assurances by the County and is an example of why the public is mistrustful of County assurances.

Worse, the Q&A explains that the initial cost assessment has changed in part because of “the need to plan for battery replacement every 10 years or so.” Surely this expense was known from the beginning of electric-ferry planning. This is not unrelated to public attitudes regarding the County’s recent work on the fare issue.

This reversal on fiscal efficiency represents the collapse of the main pillar supporting the electric ferry project. If for about $20M we are not getting a less expensive operation, what ARE we doing? It is good to finally level with people, but the resulting skepticism owes a lot to the County’s own expressions.

“Subsidy”

Please stop using the word “subsidy” to describe the Road Fund contribution to Skagit County Ferry operating costs. First, the word suggests the Fund is paying for something somebody else ought to be paying for or paying for something less deserving than other claims on the Fund.

Second, to the best of my knowledge in no other setting do we use “subsidy” to describe Road Fund expenditures. When we build a bridge we do not say the Road Fund is subsidizing the bridge; the Fund is simply paying for it. If the USDOT or FEMA pays for most of the bridge we do not say the County is subsidizing the United States or the bridge or the users of the bridge.

Third, the word and is baggage, being both invidious and pejorative, lead us to flawed outcomes. Take for example the proposed new fare methodology. Because the Road Fund “subsidy” is of lesser dignity than other “normal” Fund obligations, it can be “fixed” at $750K. This protects the Fund from the vicissitudes of the real world where the ferry is concerned, while other Fund expenses must deal with uncertainties because they are viewed as fully legitimate expenses and not “subsidies.” Nowhere else, at least to my knowledge, do we think it appropriate to say, “On this item the Road Fund will spend $X and no more; any further expenses must be covered by user fees.”

Of course the ferry has a unique relationship in Public Works’ management responsibilities. Accordingly, we have unique fees to help cover expenses and a unique program to share, between the Fare Box and the Road Fund, unanticipated expenses. But the relationship is not so unique that ANY Road Fund expenditure should be viewed as a subsidy rather than as a regular expense of maintaining the County transportation system.

Some years ago the Public Works then-Director Dan Berentson said the Department would move away from using “subsidy.” I can understand that the topic probably did not make it to the top of his To-Do list, but now its time has come.

Carl Ullman

_______

Taunya Sell 

March 5, 2023 

Feedback on Guemes Ferry Fare Increases

To whom it may concern:

Seeing the proposed ferry fare increases, I am aghast. We are living in a time where 40% of Americans are struggling to pay for the basics of food, shelter and basic transportation — and Skagit county thinks it is a good idea to implement a more than 100% cost increase for off-island travel on Guemes residents. This huge fare increase comes at a time where inflation is already pinching the wallets of Americans, making it very difficult for a large swath of the population. In addition to the continually rising inflation, this year’s real estate taxes have risen more than 50% from last year. Has that been considered by Skagit county government – if so, why is Skagit county trying to take even more of my income with this ferry fare increase? This seems over the top.  

Guemes is not an island of residents that consist of 1%. In fact, most year-round residents are not wealthy but fall somewhere in the middle class and many are at the lower end on the income spectrum. A rise of more than 100% in ferry fares takes away meaningfully from spending on other essentials such as food. Ferry fares are a basic and essential expense for island residents as there are no grocery stores on the island. In addition, there are many other essential services and amenities that do not exist on Guemes. 

This is an unconscionable and an egregious very, very large tax increase on the people that live on Guemes. While this is not an actual tax increase, for all practical purposes it is. All residents need to leave to buy food and some need to get water off-island too. Many residents work off-island and need to commute to make money for their families, so the fare increase acts like an additional tax on their income. This will lead to a meaningful reduction in discretionary spending for residents, but more importantly to non-discretionary items like food and the cost of heating your home. 

For small businesses on island, these higher fares will make it almost impossible to attract labor to the island, especially services-oriented labor. This comes at a time where the labor market is the tightest its been in 40 years. This is apt to lead to Guemes Island small businesses shuttering their or reducing their operations. Definitely not a positive for the economy of Guemes Island. 

For those on a fixed income, this is a nightmare. This will also be a further tax on anyone who needs to bring essential services to the island. Say you need work done on your home. Cha-ching!

Furthermore, the implementation of this tax increase is being implemented with virtually no notice to residents. The largest ferry fare increase in the history of the island is being implemented without time for residents to even brace for the impact. This fare increase will put extreme pressure on households and on the entire economy of Guemes Island. 

My children play basketball, football and have various hobbies that we as parents want to support. In 2022, alone, we spent $1277 on ferry fares for just football – this includes fares for traveling to practices, games and car washes and other events. With the proposed fares, our ferry costs will rise to $2687, a $1410 increase, or a rise of 110%. This calls into question football next year. I am sure others with kids in sports or those with regular medical treatments or those that commute for work are going to greatly feel the pinch if these proposed fares are implemented. 

Please, please, do not raise fares to the level of the proposed rates. Skagit county should also take into account the 50% rise in taxes we are paying the county. This fare increase feels very out of touch with what is going on the real world. Don’t make it harder for parents, commuters or those with requirements off-island. This is an egregious tax increase on Guemes residents. DO NOT IMPLEMENT IT.   

Taunya Sell

_______

Mark Lascelles

to ferrycomments, commissioners

March 9th 2023

Regarding the Proposed Guemes Island Ferry Fare Increase

To whom it may concern,

I have reviewed the proposed fare increase, and although I agree with the need for an increase due to the additional burden it is putting on the County Road Fund, I believe your increase percentages are way out of line and place an unreasonable burden on the ferry riders.

A 15% to 20% increase given current inflation and allowing for a couple of years since it was adjusted would seem reasonable. A 75% increase which is what is proposed in my category, is going to add close to two thousand dollars annually to my ferry cost. This is only the ticket cost and does not include the knock-on costs of services, construction and others that will be passing their additional cost on to us.

Given that a year ago we began paying a surcharge to help with the purchase of a new ferry, and in addition we have seen a dramatic increase in our property taxes, this increase will place an undue burden on us all at this time.

Thank you,

Mark Lascelles, Island Resident

_______

Stephanie Kavanaugh

March 9th 2023

to commissioners, ferrycomments

To:Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA. 98273

Re: SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION

2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

From: Stephanie Kavanaugh

5943 S Shore Road

Anacortes WA 98221

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:  

We have been on Island since early 2002.  What drew us here was that, while Guemes was an Island, it was easily accessible Island. 

For some reason ‘Skagit County’ doesn’t really seem to consider Guemes Island and the people that live here as part of Skagit County. Whenever Ferry issues come up, it seems that the first response is to remind us that we chose to live here (true–one does choose to live somewhere). And then the second response is that some other place in the county is more deserving of funds, etc. Do you tell the folks living in the far eastern part of the County that they live too far out in the woods?  We are all in this County together, whether in rural Skagit County or on an Island in Skagit County. Please don’t try to make us, the folks who live and travel to Guemes Island, somehow out be the bad guys, taking all the money. We aren’t. The County Road Fund which covers all rural roads including the Guemes Ferry ( which really creates a marine road in rural Skagit County), is quite well supported by our property tax portion. 

And yet, you feel the need to increase ferry fares an exorbitant amount! We all understand that the price of doing just about everything goes up. We do expect that ferry fares would need to be increased some. However the rate of increase proposed by KPFF is absurd, not to mention the new categories of fares.

All of us on Guemes Island support businesses, services, medical offices, etc on the mainland of Skagit County. We have to-we have only minimal services on the Island. Everything done on the Island– construction, repairs, utilities, eating dinner at home–has to come over on the Ferry. All suppliers/workers make money by coming to Guemes Island.  If the County wishes to raise more revenue from the Ferry users, perhaps making the fares as reasonable as possible would do that. We each make more runs, more ferry fare collected. If fares are raised so high that we all chose to just not go to town, the County will not collect nearly as much.   

Or is that really the County’s end game?  Raise the rates, discourage ridership, say ‘oh dear, we just don’t have enough money to run the Ferry’, cut runs and continue the downward spiral?

Maybe instead the County could consider Guemes Island an asset to the county!  A tourist attraction which brings folks through town-who shop in town on their way to Guemes Island. An attraction for entertainment–take the ferry over for an evening of music and dinner at the Store. Come over for a hike or a bike ride around the Island.  And the flip side, if Ferry fares are reasonable, more Islanders head to town for dining, entertainment, etc, supporting the local economy. If the rates are raised too much, all those sorts of discretionary trips just won’t happen. All those ‘extra’ trips that bring in revenue for the Ferry. But please, don’t misinterpret my words. I’m not hoping for more runs or late weeknight runs. I just don’t want to see the County cut our existing schedule to ‘save money’.

One last comment has to do with streamlining operations/reducing operating expenses. There are always two sides to a budget. Let’s skip the idea of a toll booth for now. What earthly purpose would that serve, other than adding expense, delaying loading the ferry and making it more difficult to leave on time with a full boat?  Why don’t we get the new ferry up and running and all those bugs sorted out first. Perhaps at some later date a toll booth will make sense. Let’s not add that to the reason why ferry fares have to increase right now. 

Respectfully,

Stephanie Kavanaugh

happily living on the jewel of Skagit County

________

Jacki Mayo | The Mayo Home Team

March 9th 2023

to ferrycomments, commissioners, me

I am a Realtor in Skagit County. I live and do a lot of business on Guemes Island. I have lived on the island for over a decade. I have moved people to Guemes Island. It is a special place in your County, with good tax-paying citizens. There is a large Guemes retirement community that has prepared for retirement and has picked Guemes Island to call home. There are generational families that live and work here and throughout Skagit County. Young families that want to raise their families here, their children attend schools and partake in sports throughout the county. 

It seems to me that the county commissioners have bad feelings about our island. Their perception seems to be we are a burden to the county and the rest of the county is supporting us. That was very apparent at the chamber presentation “The State of the County” where it was asked, “how long are we going to support 600 people”. The cost of the road restoration due to the beavers, the South Shore Road that is slowly sluffing away not to mention the burden of a new ferry. 

We are a gem in your county. A draw that brings tourists that spend money in your county. The ferry is a part of your transportation system which Guemes residents contribute to through:

Guemes residents will contribute $787,521 to the Road Fund for 2023, through property taxes, based on a total Guemes Island property valuation of $605,785,292 for 2023. 

With the sale of a property, 1.7% of state excise tax goes to Public Works

Guemes residents contribute more in other areas who are benefiting from Public Works road Improvements

Guemes residents will also contribute $595,609 to the general Skagit County fund in 2023.

Capping the use of the Road Fund contribution at $750,000 annually is less than what Guemes residents are presently contributing.

Property taxes on Guemes just took a whopping 30% on average. Along with other increases in property taxes throughout the county should more than cover the increase in O&M. 

Since your unfair and hardship-imposing proposal increase, I have had phone calls from very upset people that fear they will have to move. People that planned for their retirement and to spend the rest of their days on Guemes Island. Those people are now faced with too many additional costs and if the ferry increase proposal goes through they will have to sell. Then I ask what it will do to property values on Guemes Island. Time will tell but I suspect they will take a significant hit in value. Properties will then be overassessed and it will take years to readjust and many will be forced to move and get less than previously assessed market value. 

There seems to be an undue process in a mismanaged system. Commissioners are not supposed to do this to their residences nor should they think poorly of any area of their county. I don’t understand where this thinking has come from. I don’t understand why other county ferries are handled differently and seemingly better. These are areas that need to be examined rather than an undue financial burden imposed on county citizens. 

This ferry increase imposed on Guemes residences is not the solution. Let’s work together to find a better, more palatable solution for your county transportation system and operating and management costs going forward. 

Jacki Mayo

The Mayo Home Team 

________

Andy Self

Thu, Mar 9

ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us 

Comments on new ferry fare structure

   The 2023 Ferry Fare Proposal posted online states that Skagit County has asked the Consultant to evaluate a needs-based discount. This report will then be presented to the Board of County Commissioners to provide a basis for their fare structure decisions.  I am requesting that further information on this scheme be provided addressing the following concerns

1. Government-administered needs-based programs are typically means-tested to prevent fraud. Will there be a financial need evaluation protocol used? If so, what will be the criteria? Be specific.

2. What documentation will be required? What will be the frequency of re-evaluation? This program would be fundamentally different than the current Over 65/disabled fare structure, as peoples’ financial situations are subject to change.

3. The means testing protocol would require County oversight. Will there be a budget item that will provide the resources for this process?  Please provide a cost estimate.

4. As with many government programs that subsidize the poor, demand frequently exceeds resources. Will there be a limit to the size of this program? If not, will fare structures be revised in response to maintain required revenues?

Sincerely,

Andy Self

7127 Upland Drive

Anacortes, WA 98221

______

Ann Naymie

Guemes Ferry Rate Hike

Thu, Mar 9

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Please re-consider, as elected or appointed officials, your proposal to raise the Guemes Ferry rates by 71%.  One can’t help but question your budget management, your fiscal responsibility, your hidden agendas, and your choice to exploit local citizens.  

For those who live on island and work off island, or those who provide services on island but live off island, these are forced costs and they are captive ferry riders.  There are no alternatives.

A progessive ferry rate increase over 4-5 years, starting at 15%, is understandable, ethical and humane.  

Do the right thing!!

Ann Naymie

________

Adam Mimnaugh

to ferrycomments, commissioners

As a 23 year member of the Guemes community, my family and I feel as though we are being taxed out of the area. Cost of housing, property taxes, food expenses, fuel expenses, and now a price hike on our ferry is inflating the cost of living nearly past what most people can afford.

On this rate increase, I haven’t seen any simple math showing how the consultant came up with these rates. It seems suspect that the ferry committee hasn’t been given that information, even after requesting it.

The 14’ vehicle length should be 16’ so that it actually covers most small vehicles, and walk on ridership should be encouraged with a minimum increase. The oversized vehicle rates are wildly overpriced and will cause even more vendors and service providers to hit us even harder or not service us at all.

I believe a partial solution would be to offer commuters lower rate passes to residents who live on Guemes by purchasing from Skagit county online, and then have higher rates at the ferry terminal for those off island tourists and visitors.

Adam Mimnaugh

________

Nancy Fisher-Allison

to ferrycomments, commissioners

To:  The Ferry Rate Decision Makers

I am writing to express dismay over the proposed rate changes for the Guemes Island Ferry.  In many categories, the fares are expected to double. 

If you look at recent U.S. Census data for the tract covering Guemes Island, you will note the following.

Median age:  62.8

Median Household Income:  $76,429

Poverty rate:  10.4%

I do not live in poverty, although I am mindful of my neighbors who do (and I know them).  However, I am above the median age and, like most people in the “senior” category, I live on a fixed income. 

On my fixed income, I have an important volunteer job that involves regular travel off the island – in fact, I serve Skagit County.  I am a Guardian ad Litem for children in dependency cases, providing essential information to commissioners and judges at Skagit County Superior Court.  In order to advocate for the best interests of dependent children, I travel around Skagit County and beyond to visit children, foster parents, relative caregivers, and birth parents – all at my own expense.  Sadly, the proposed fare structure will make me think twice about taking on any cases in the future.

My household budget calculations always take ferry expenses into account, but I was not remotely prepared for your proposed changes. 

The proposed fares are excessive and unprincipled.  In the spirit of fairness and good conscience, please find a way to adjust them.

Respectfully,

Nancy Fisher-Allison

Guemes Island

________

Kelley McAlister

To: ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us

Tuesday, March 7, 2023 

Subject: Guemes Ferry Fare Proposal

Long Term Ferry Sustainability

The county’s proposed cap on ferry spending and resulting fare increase almost doubles our ferry costs and would be a financial burden for many residents especially low-income folks, families, and commuters. The rate hike will cause me and most other residents to use the ferry less in general and walk on instead of driving. Revenues will continue to drop, and I suppose fares will have to increase again. At some point the whole concept of the county providing the ferry will not be sustainable.

Public Information Effort

More public input on the fare increase implications and the advice of the ferry committee could be useful to the county.  Also, the residents would better understand the funding challenges if they were better informed. The Public Works Dept. decision to hold county meetings off island and not to attend ferry committee meetings on island caused much less public participation. 

Oversize Vehicles

I have a lightweight utility trailer (31 ft long with tow vehicle) and currently pay $39 dollars a trip peak rate. I use the trailer once or twice a month to haul brush or building materials. Many residents use these small trailers for homeowner projects. The proposed change puts me in the 30 ft to 40 ft category and I would have to pay $123 each trip. This is 3 times the current rate and unfair. Since the trailer uses the deck space of a 14 ft long vehicle the fair rate would be an additional $21 (14 ft vehicle new rate) plus the tow vehicle at $25 for a total of $46. 

The end result is that I could not afford to take the trailer on the ferry at the new rates, and the $39 I currently pay will be lost revenue. What purpose does that serve?  Also 5 ft or less increments should be used to determine oversize rates. Using 10 ft increments as proposed puts my 17 ft long 1/2 ton pickup with 14 ft single axle lightweight trailer in the same category as a fully loaded 39 ft long multi-axle commercial truck which could weigh as much as 40 tons.

Thanks for reading this and considering my comments.

Kelley McAlister

Guemes Island Resident

_______

Greta McAlister

ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us

Proposed Fare Structure for Guemes Ferry

As a retired teacher on a fixed income, the proposed fares will create a significant hardship on my budget.  The report by kpff failed to consider the impact of the proposed increase on Guemes residents.  Ferry usage will decrease drastically because we simply cannot afford to ride the ferry.  Those who commute for work each day will have to consider leaving the island for good. Businesses that provide services to the island will either pass the extra cost directly to islanders or will stop doing business here.

I believe everyone on the island is willing to absorb a reasonable increase but the proposed fares are not reasonable or fair.

Please take more time with your decision and include input from our ferry committee (elected to represent the people of the island) and from the those who are most directly affected.

Greta McAlister

_______

Stephen & Virginia Orsini

to ferrycomments

Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA. 98273

Re: SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION
2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

From: Virginia (Ginger) Orsini

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:

Given that:

The residents and businesses of Guemes Island cannot afford the 2023 proposed fare increases and maintain their current relationship with the ferry, their homes, farms, or jobs.

The residents of Guemes have deep connections with their homes, act responsibly toward  their environment, pay their taxes, and are no different than the rest of the people of Skagit County.  They pay their fair share of everything as long as it is reasonable.  The proposed fare increase is not reasonable.

Residents of the island depend on jobs, food and services obtainable only from Anacortes.  The ferry is considered an essential service, and is a huge part of the lives of the residents.

The “choices” that we made to live on Guemes were calculated choices based heavily on the ferry schedule and costs.  Subsequently, the County has made all of the “choices” regarding the functioning of the ferry, and road maintenance without any transparency to, or representation from the ferry users.  There has been no evidence of attempts to save costs. The County has kept their cards close to the vest.  Why?  The costs of Guemes Ferry haul outs are the highest of the four county-run ferries systems.  Why?  These are consequences of choices that the public works and ferry management have made, not the ferry users.

Visitors to the island can more easily absorb a larger share of the ferry tolls.  During the peak season they create a huge increase in demand on the ferry, the roads, the staff, and the residents, and do not rely on the ferry to get to their jobs.

Skagit County has made expensive mistakes in regard to the ferry operation, and Guemes road maintenance that must be acknowledged before making another radical ferry rate increase.  These mistakes are not the fault of the residents.  Some of these are:

1. Moving a sensibly located gravel depository to a nonsensical area, and opening up 1.5 acres of forested land without a permit to do so, or an environmental review.

2. Refusing to try Beaver Deceivers in a created wetlands, crossed by an important access route, and using the wrong type of fill to repair that road, then having to do it over twice.

3. Not collecting fares during the Covid outbreak, hiring an operations manager that was not budgeted for, and hiring consultants where in-house and ferry committee input should have been sufficient.

4. Even considering the construction of a toll booth in a tight area that will only cost more,  serve to back-up traffic, delay sailings, and be obsolete when patrons can ticket themselves.

Therefore, I suggest the following adjustments to your fare proposal:

1. Full-time residents that purchase multi-ride cards should not be subject to the “peak” fare rates 

2. Residents with a punch card can take their bicycles for no extra charge.  Charge a bike fee to visitors without punch cards.

3. Eliminate the under 14’ car/driver category, 

4. Limit the fare increases to around 20%- 25% across the board.  For instance, raise non-peak adult passenger fares from $4 to $5, raise adult senior from $2 to $3. Adult punch card from $77 to $93, senior punch card from $46 to $58; raise car/driver ticket from $12 to $15, and senior car/driver from $10 to $12; raise car/driver punch card from $196 to $240, and senior car/driver punch card from $156 to $190.  This should net you approximately $200,000 to $240,000 more toward the operation of the ferry and still fit the existing model.

5. Manage the road fund more efficiently, and look for more federal and state grants for large road projects.

6. Collaborate and share all accounting with the elected Ferry Committee as representatives of the patrons of this system.

Virginia (Ginger) Orsini

_____

Andy Leech

to ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us

To: Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon WA 98273

Re: SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION

2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

Robert A. Leech, Colonel, USAF Ret

Veronica A. Leech, RN Ret

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:

Bottom Line Up Front:  I ask you to seriously reflect on the significant—and adverse—impact that this proposed fare rate increase will have on my family and almost every other household on Guemes Island and rescope (downward) the proposed increases.

My wife and I have owned our property on Guemes since the early 1970s, and finally after 30 years in the Air Force traveling the world, retired in 1999 and were able to fulfill our dream and move to Guemes.  Shortly thereafter I “failed” retirement and started a 10-year mini career with the Navy/Marine Corps Relief Society at Naval Station Everett.  Every day began and ended with a trip on the Guemes ferry.  So too my wife who continued her nursing career, relied on the ferry to get to work.

We are now in our mid-70s (75 and 74) and continue to be regular ferry users, though now many of our trips off island are for medical appointments.  In 2022 our purchases of ferry tickets came to a bit over $2,020.  That number will increase to approximately $4,444 (based on data in the Fare Type Increase Comparison on p.11 of the kpff rate study public hearing draft, Feb 23, 2023).  Let me put that number in my perspective.  Our combined Social Security Benefits ($4,188) will cover roughly 94% of the projected new ferry cost.  Fortunately, after adding my VA Disability payment ($327.99), we’ll have $71.99 left over.  I cannot imagine that any of you agree that it is acceptable to use all of our Social Security and most of my VA Disability entitlement to pay for our ferry rate increase.

We can’t realistically consider moving off the island given the cost of doing so at this point in our lives. Though the assessed (taxable) value of our home is unlikely to decrease, I imagine the sales value of the property will go down due to the doubling of the cost of ferry service to and from our home in Skagit County.

Please carefully read and consider all the letters that you receive on this matter.  I wish the county had made all them available to the public in a timely fashion so that I knew if other topics (impact on services and businesses we use in Anacortes and the rest of Skagit County, etc.) were addressed.  

Best regards,

Robert  A. (Andy) Leech, Colonel USAF Ret

Commissioner, Skagit County Cemetery District 3

_______

Molly Johnson 

Mar. 10

to commissioners, ferrycomments,

Please consider before increasing Guemes Ferry rates

The fare proposal process needs to take the time to develop a clear and transparent set of alternatives that will ensure the plan is thorough and considers engagement of the community and all stakeholders.  We are looking for a plan that is sustainable and equitable now and into the future. 

There needs to be a transparent public process for the development of the fare increase proposal. 

The methodology and process used to develop the fare increase proposal is not using the current and best available data.  

Public Works need to look at the actual funding needs and fully explore options for funding that established need. 

Fare increases impact working families, fixed income households, and small businesses with oversized vehicles’ ability to maintain their quality of life and earn a living on Guemes Island.

The cap on the Road Fund contribution is arbitrary and unnecessary.  

Public Works’s budget shortfall for Fonk Road repairs are not an acceptable reason to cap the Road Fund contribution. 

Guemes property tax payers will contribute more than the proposed cap of $750,000 to the Road Fund in 2023

The Guemes Ferry’s Road Fund Contribution percentage is less than the Whatcom and Pierce County ferry’s road fund contributions.

Molly Johnson 

________

Talya Makus

Mar.10

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Guemes Ferry Rate Hike

Hello,

I was 13 or 14 years old when I was introduced to Guemes. Currently 3 generations of my family live here. My grandparents bought undeveloped property here and built a home which they hoped would remain in our family for generations to come. Your proposed rate increase could easily force my family from being able to enjoy what they worked so hard to create. There are many people here on a fixed income that the rate hike would force to leave. Ripping the fabric of this community. You can see the same islands from all over this area. It is the people here that make this place special. All of them. 

Sincerely,

Talya Makus

________

Karen Shill

Mar.10

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Guemes Island Ferry Rate Proposal

To Skagit County:

Please REJECT the proposed Guemes ferry rate increase package. 

While some adjustments may be needed, this proposal is TOO MUCH, TOO SOON.

1. The immediate and ongoing impacts would be counterproductive. Businesses, employees and residents would be harmed:

The proposed fares would discourage businesses such as building contractors and suppliers from continuing to do business on the island. A construction company owner would not be happy to pay nearly triple the current rate, $123 from $45, for a 40’ truck, and neither would the customer.

Employees who commute for work either on the mainland or the island may not be able to afford to keep their jobs. Many of these jobs are in service industries, which are typically at the lower end of the wage scale, so those employees would be impacted disproportionately. Asking these employees to pay more than double in a single price hike ($400 from $196) for a 20 trip vehicle and rider card is unconscionable.

Residents who need regular access to the mainland would also suffer. Because the island has no medical services, people have to travel to the mainland for routine and urgent care. People with cancer, heart disease and other disabling conditions can have frequent appointments. Higher fares would be especially bad for low income patients and lower income residents. Asking seniors and disabled people to pay 67% more in a single price jump for a single trip is outrageous.

2. The proposed fare hikes pile on top of one another, creating severe, sudden shocks.

For example, increasing the vehicle length increment from five feet to ten feet is unreasonable. Today, a 41’ vehicle would pay for 45’ at current rates. Under the proposal, the same vehicle would pay for 50’ :  five additional feet that it doesn’t occupy on the ferry deck at a higher price. 

Passengers with bicycles would also experience the fare pile-on effect. Raising passenger fares AND charging for bicycles is not reasonable. If anything, bicycle use should be encouraged.

3. Guemes Island residents already contribute substantially to the ferry budget.

Through our property taxes, we pay many hundreds of thousands of dollars into the road fund annually. We also pay ferry fares. We are not a community that is being coddled or subsidized, as was suggested by County Commissioner Wesen on February 28. The contribution to the ferry budget from the road fund should NOT be reduced.

4. The Guemes Ferry is part of our overall traffic structure and should not be singled out for excessive taxes and fees. As a comparison, people who must use a particular bridge, freeway overpass or road to get to work, home, medical care, etc. typically don’t pay separate fees for using those public assets.

Should this proposal be approved, my ferry use habits would certainly change: fewer trips and more walking on rather than driving.  I suspect that many others would respond the same way, leading to significantly more parking pressure on the mainland side.

I concur with the importance of regular income/expense reviews. Of course the ferry needs to be financially viable, with safety, reliability and proper treatment of the hard-working, dedicated crew. This fare proposal doesn’t disclose where the increased fare revenue would actually be used. This proposal is drastic, lacking in transparency and excessive. It should be REJECTED.

Respectfully,

Karen Shill

________

Debra Adams

Mar.10

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Regarding the ferry fare increase

Email to County Commissioners and Public Works regarding the Guemes Ferry fare increase:

I find myself in quite a quandary regarding the publishing of the proposed fares for the Guemes Island Ferry by the KPFF company.  Let me share with you:

I moved to Guemes Island in 2015, after inheriting a property from my now deceased parents.  From 2015 until now, I have carefully planned and executed plans to update/upgrade my home to one that is sustainable by myself, until my death.  I have invested in a new 50 year roof, replaced all of the windows, installed a mini-split system (and done away with baseboard heating which is not only very expensive, but largely ineffective for its cost).  The front and back decks have been replaced, the pier-on-beam system has been engineered and updated.  My outdated electrical panel has been rewired and replaced.  All of these improvements have been done while I had a 40 hour per week job in Anacortes, WA and could afford to accomplish them.  So, at this point, with all of these investments, my home is sustainable (for myself) until I die.  

The largest problem to all of this planning is that Skagit County forgot, in all of their transparency, to send a memo regarding their lack of planning and subsequent increases in taxes, ferry fares, etc., to balance their budget.  Suddenly in 2023, there is a crisis funding increase demand, followed by the statement “Guemes Island needs to pay their fair share” of these suddenly appreciated costs.

I retired in October 2022.  Now on a fixed income, I will struggle with affording transportation to Anacortes ‘proper’ to secure groceries, services, etc.  Since I am also not a ‘handyperson’, any services I need – like plumber, electrician, yard care, costs will reflect a hugely inflated cost of riding the ferry for purveyors of these services.  

Currently I am faced with the decision of selling my home and moving because the county has proposed a mandate that will clear Guemes Island of the population of retirees, those on any sort of fixed income.  I understand that it is an easy choice for those Commissioners and members of Public Works because they are not affected by these changes.  Having worked in low-income housing in Anacortes for the past 13 years, I also understand the thought pattern that gives way to statements of “we don’t come up with the numbers, we just have to deal with them – and you do too”. 

Sure wish I hadn’t missed the memo that Skagit County and the Public Works dropped the ball years ago and now have to institute crisis management to make up all the differences in the next year or so.

Debra Adams

________

Natalie Magnus

Mar 10

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Greetings,

I am writing again to expand on the feedback I provided earlier. Previously I wrote regarding my own personal situation as an island resident and the impact this fare increase will have on my life and ability to live within my Skagit community that I call home. I want to expand on that, and also express additional concerns about this decision making process. 

I rent on Guemes and have been saving up to try to purchase a home here. With housing prices in this area and now a proposed 80% increase in my annual ferry fare, you can see why I am frightened and discouraged.

I work full-time, Monday-Friday, in Mount Vernon as a Dean in higher education (Skagit Valley College). In anticipation of the fare increase, and especially after seeing the proposal, I have been speaking with my employer about trying to work remotely at minimum two days per week. I currently estimate $1,200 in ferry fares per year specifically for work commuting (not personal/leisure). This proposal would increase my needed work ferry fare budget to $1,920 per year. However, if my work plan is approved and the proposal passes (increase to $8/adult fare) I will be able to reduce this to $1,152 per year– which is less than I am paying currently. This is just one example to show how the most frequent (every week day) and highest paying (standard adult fare) rider is already making life adjustments which will decrease overall revenue for the ferry due to such a drastic proposal that did not take into consideration the voices and lives that it would impact most.

As a Skagit county resident and public employee of the county, I am not impressed by the process that is being displayed. I know how important it is to involve the community and stakeholders most affected by policy and new decision making. This is what I have been trained to do as a government employee. Public Works is not following the current resolution R#20100050 that established a calendar of events for collaborating with the public at large to discuss proposed rate increases and upcoming issues with the ferry. Feedback has not been solicited in a manner that is accessible to those who are most deeply impacted.

I want to remind the county of how much revenue is earned by having Guemes as part of the community and county. Not only in direct tax dollars to the road fund from residents, but also as Guemes is a vacation destination to many. The island is booked with weddings all summer long, bands travel in to put on live events at the store, and travelers from near and far come to enjoy the island. In this, they stay in local Anacortes hotels, shop at local-owned businesses, eat at local eateries, and contribute to Skagit County in countless ways.

The disjointed process and proposal has the potential to decrease and gentrify what has been a money-making and community-building highlight of our county. I urge you to listen to each and every comment sent your way, and consider those of us who are being pushed out.

Best,

Natalie Magnus

_______

Kathy Malley

Mar 10

to ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commissioner@co.skagit.wa.us

To Commissioners Wesen, Browning and Janicki;

Guemes Island Fare proposal

The current proposal for your consideration regarding the Guemes Island Ferry fare increase should be denied. Fare increases for island residents ranging between 50% – 143% is both indefensible and unstainable. Instead, I’d encourage you to direct your staff to work with the Guemes Island Ferry Committee and other interested stakeholders to develop a long-term, equitable solution for the revenue needed to operate and maintain the Guemes Island Ferry. 

Good government solutions – ones that are durable and work over a long period of time — tend to be the ones built with the involvement of the people directly impacted. Since the 2023 budget for the Guemes Island Ferry has been adopted without a rate increase, I ask the County to take the time needed to develop a proposal that works for the County and island residents. 

Given that we don’t know what the operational costs of the new ferry will be, I believe taking a phased approach to fare and long-term revenue needs should be considered. This could include:

1.       A more modest fare increase of 10-15% in 2024 to provide some additional operating revenue. Any fare increase should:

a.       Prioritize affordability for island residents through punch card purchases that retain flat year-round price.

b.       Have a modest impact on oversized vehicles to ensure farm, ranching, construction and other services that island residents reply on do not skyrocket.

c.       Encourage bicycles and smaller cars: for bicycles keep the costs the same as passenger fare since bikes make good use of the deck space, filling in spaces where cars do not fit. For smaller cars, move to 15 or 16’ length limit, rather than the proposed 14’ since cars we consider small (i.e. Prius) are longer than 14’. 

2.       Continue collecting the surcharge, but repurpose a portion of it for operating and maintenance costs for at least for a few years until the new boat comes online and we have a better sense of its operating costs.

3.       Explore the creation of a ferry district to create a steady flow of income specifically for the ferry and help offset the potential loss of income from the MVFT. This would require a change to the RCW, which now limits revenue from ferry districts for passenger-only boats. There was a legislative proposal in 2017 to fix this; it was passed by the Senate, but didn’t make it out of the House. I believe a Ferry District is a more equitable approach to revenue creation. Rather than full time residents having to shoulder the bulk of fare increases, all properties on the island, regardless of whether someone is there 1 week of the year or 52 weeks of the year will pay a portion of their property taxes to support ferry costs. Obviously this on top of the significant portion of our taxes that already go to the County Road Fund, so a Ferry District and its associated levy have work in tandem with keeping fares modest.

I’m sure there are other ideas to consider for long-term revenue needs, fare models and ways to increase ridership. The Guemes Island Ferry Committee and island residents have worked with the County in the past to create viable solutions and I’m sure it can be done again.

As you know the ferry is literally a lifeline to the 800 or so people who live on the island. Please engage meaningfully with Island residents to develop a viable solution that maintains an affordable, well run county ferry.

Thank you for your consideration.

Kathy Malley

________

Betsy Jeffers

Mar 10

to ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us

Public Comment – Guemes Island Ferry Fare Increase

Greetings,

I am requesting that the County Commissioner’s do not move forward with the ferry rate increase as presented by KPFF at this time. 

The proposal does not provide enough data to ensure that the study was completed accurately, and more importantly with thought to the full-time residents that will be impacted, which includes my husband and me.

I am not opposed to raising the fares; however, I am opposed to this affecting the senior residents that may be on a fixed income or for the younger families that are just starting out in one “fare hit”, so to speak.  And again, my husband and me!

I am hoping you took a few things, listed below, into consideration.

Marine Highway:  The ferry system should be considered as a marine highway, and not added inconvenience.  It should be included in all budgets. 

Have you compared this to the Alaska Marine Highway and how they handle this.  This is part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration

Or possibly the San Francisco, CA ferry system that is also in need of a fare increase.

Budget:  Provide data on what is included in or excluded in the proposed budget.  You have fallen short on your budget every year since 2018. 

Why were there no increases since 2018 (surcharge) and no real increase since 2015.

It seems unfair that this oversight and mismanagement should be put to the residents in one increase. Some options:

Phased over time.

Hold and review if the new proposed ferry will solve or alleviate this issue.

Rate Structure:  What is the reason we have such a complex rate structure?  Offering a reduced fare for vehicles 14’ or less is nice, but in reality that will not offer a discount to many.

Consider moving that to 16.’

Keep the 22’ rate, and charge overages by the foot (BC Ferries does this effectively) as it seems that if the vehicle is only a foot over, you are moved to the next fare which is in 10’ increments once over 30’.

Cost Reduction Measures:  Where is a listing of cost reduction measures that will be put into place? 

Have you considered, instead of a fare booth, possibly having a card that can be loaded online, based on type, so you can tap and go.  This allows folks to reload online or at the ticket booth in the terminal.  I like to think of this as a type of “fast pass” or “fast track” which many cities use.

Would not impact loading which is effective.

Allows electronic refilling.

Saves on the paper cards which are thrown away when completed.

Change of Ridership:  With the new increase, we will modify our ridership, as will many, which will impact your arbitrary budget.

Loss of revenue spending in our neighboring areas (Anacortes, Burlington, La Conner, Mt. Vernon, etc.) which will impact businesses struggling already.

More walk on traffic – loss of car revenue.

Unforeseen Costs:  We run the risk of more and more businesses not servicing our island.  We already pay an increased charge for the ferry fare, wait time for the worker which is a loss to the business making it more and more unattractive for goods and services, not to mention the store, the resort and other small businesses on the island.

In closing, I could continue to provide reasons, but I feel that I have provided you with some insight to how this will impact the residents of Guemes Island.

As I mentioned, we will change how we go about our daily lives when it comes to hoping into town.  It will be a planned event.

Remember, we are a part of Skagit County and should have the same considerations as other residents in our fine community.

Please reconsider this!

Respectfully submitted,

~Betsy Jeffers

_______

Dave Shill 

Mar 10

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Guemes Ferry rate increase proposal

I am upset, even angry, about your ferry rate hike proposal, thus inspired to write a letter.  I altogether reject the study suggestions and county officials’ inference that Guemes Island residents do not pay their fair share.  The study shows prejudice against and lack of understanding of our island population.

There are many Island residents like me who are retired and on a fixed income.  Apart from shopping for groceries, we have a substantial number of medical trips to Anacortes and beyond.  Your proposed  71% average rate increase poses a hardship.  This is on top of increased property taxes and food prices. 

Your rate study is flawed and should not be used to set rates. The COVID period’s drop in fare revenues was not adequately considered.

The ferry is part of the County transportation system (like a bridge). Road funds for ferry operations should be increased, not reduced. Fare box revenues should be no more than roughly 42% of the budget.

Because the new ferry is completely funded, surcharges for it that we’re collected during the current and previous rate structures should be applied to keep fares down.

The compact car rate should include cars such as the Toyota Prius, perhaps slightly more than 14′.  

I also oppose charging for bicycles.  They help with the parking problem and higher fares.

Do not tie future rates to the cost of living index.  Our rates should be set solely by the cost of operations and the percentage ticket box revenue to cover those costs.

Please reject the Guemes ferry rate increase proposal. 

I do support a SMALL increase. While the study has lots of information, and history, and diagrams… it fails to consider many of the tangent issues as noted above.

Sincerely,

David B Shill

______

Lu & Jim LeMieux 

Mar 10

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Ferry fares

No doubt we are strongly opposed to the proposed extreme fare increases. We understand that costs of doing business continue to rise (and fares need to rise) but inflation is what, around 7%, nowhere near the proposed percentage increases to the fares.  Also with the property tax increases for some on the island raised by 40%.  It seems the county wants to run out the middle class and gentrify the island so it brings in more $$ for the county. 

Please keep in mind this island has very limited services- residents are required to leave the island on a regular basis for supplies, medical care, entertainment etc.  We will keep this simple, pointing out my main concerns about the proposed Guemes ferry fare increases

*  How working class residents that are required to leave the island on a daily basis will be able to afford the high fare- especially in the summer!  $25 per trip? $125 per week?   Many may struggle to afford to buy a $332 punch card, much less a $400 pc that would save them some $$.

*  How will retired residents that live with a fixed income afford the fares, granted they might not have to go to town several times a week but perhaps some do.  Still the same issue with the punch card prices.

*  A few years back, the ferry commission wanted to encourage walk-ons and bikes.  Now it appears that has changed- especially with the senior passes charging      over 100% more during peak times?

*  Any punch card cost savings for residents during peak season to avoid even higher fares will be taken away with a peak season punch card.

*  A toll booth?  Why on earth?  Is it a cost-saving strategy? I don’t think so. The ferry crew enjoys their walks up the line to collect fares, they certainly will not         enjoy sitting in a toll booth all day!

We were very pleased with most of the Guemites that spoke at the meeting last week and agree with 98% of their concerns and suggestions (except the date nite idea to increase ferry use and a couple others).  Since Covid, we have seen nothing but increased ridership year-round on the ferry.  The winter days when we could get in line 10 minutes before the ferry arrived and expect to get on that ferry are gone.

Lastly, if the fares do increase to the proposed amounts, We are certain ridership will decrease substantially and there goes your increased revenue.  And we residents  take offense to the county commissioners complaining that the Fonk Road repairs (for 60 residents) can’t be accomplished due to the high cost of the Guemes Ferry (for 900 residents).   

Enough said and thank you for listening

Sincerely,

Lu & Jim LeMieux 

Have owned property here since 1996

_______

Stop: Proposed Guemes Ferry rate proposal is unacceptable

to ferrycomments, commissioners

To:Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

 Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

 Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA. 98273

Re:SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION

2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

From:   Becca Fong

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:

As I sit at my computer typing this letter at 11:30pm on a Friday night after putting in 50+ hours of work this week, doing all the things to raise my two elementary school age kids, and (in the remaining precious hours of the day) organize and support the community on Guemes to implore you to stop this fare rate proposal and take a hard look at the actual need to create a viable annual ferry O&M budget –

I am frustrated, angry, and disappointed.

I’m frustrated that:

– The rate proposal process has not been transparent. That Public Works has not clearly defined the problem causing the O&M shortfall for 2023 and has not looked into ways of decreasing costs and/or finding alternate sources of funding.

– That the timeline to implement this new fare increase is very compressed.  It doesn’t follow any previous processes and does not provide any room for discussion or looking into different ways of doing things.

– The proposed cost increase will change my family’s cost of ferry ridership from $3,166/year to $5,206/year. This difference of $2,040 is a substantial cost that impact decisions for our family – like which sports our kids can play, and how often can they take lessons to learn to swim. And we consider ourselves fortunate that we do not have to make more difficult choices, but it will decrease the amount we drive onto and take the ferry.

I’m angry that:

 – The financial impact on many of my friends and family members who have fixed incomes will face hard choices, as they cannot afford to pay fares that increase close to 100%. They will have to make choices about which medical appointments they can go to, how to earn a living with this huge financial impact in the mix.  Many will suffer because of this.

– Grace Kane has said that “island residents need to pay their share”. We pay more into the Road Fund than  the cap of $750,000 she is proposing.

– Public Works has mismanaged its funds to the point that Grace Kane has said that she can’t afford to spend money on the Guemes ferry in order to fix Fonk Road. That is Public Work’s responsibility to manage their capital improvement plan, not Guemes ferry users.

I’m disappointed that:

–  That the County is willing to pit Skagitonian against Skagitonian by implying that the necessary repairs to Fonk Road wouldn’t happen because of the Road Fund contribution that is attributed to the Guemes ferry. That is just low.

We all support each other as Skagitonians. To imply otherwise is insulting. We all pay our taxes to support the greater good – so the Skagit County government can properly steward those funds to provide the essential services that we need to thrive as a county.

– Public Works and the Commissioners are willing to ignore the Skagit County Strategic Commitments to:

– Provide solutions to problems and questions, not just responses

– Continually measure, evaluate, and improve services and delivery

– Ensure responsible stewardship of public assets and financial resources

– Provide transparent and fiscally responsible governance that inspires public confidence

I have spent my career in public service. I know you likely pride yourselves on doing what is right for residents, providing the services that make Skagit County the special place that it is, and are honored to be trusted with the responsibility to do that well.   It pains me to see Skagit County forcing this proposal through a process without transparency, accountability, interest in looking at alternatives, finding efficiencies, or meaningful public engagement.  You can do better than this.

At its best – It’s a lack of consideration for residents, visitors, businesses, and others who love and support the Guemes ferry and Skagit County.

At its worst – It’s local government that lacks the ability to manage its resources and is willing to obfuscate the truth and pit residents against each other to hide that inability.

If you have made it this far, thank you.  And I will close with – Please stop this process and work with us to find a sustainable solution that will work now and into the future.

Sincerely,

Becca Fong

________

Rory Denovan

ferrycomments, commissioners

Proposed Guemes ferry fare increase

My kids may not be able to attend swim lessons and other activities because of your ill-conceived, politically motivated, and downright greedy plan to more than double our ferry fares.  

We knew you didn’t represent us. Now we know that you hate us.

Rory Denovan

_______

Jayne Mardesich

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Proposed ferry rates

As a local registered nurse, I worked throughout the Covid 19 pandemic. I even received a raise—3%. The fact that you are now considering a nearly 100% increase in our fares for the Guemes ferry is hard for me to take in. The ferry has always been considered part of the road system in Skagit County. Our fares supplement this system, but should not be expected to cover all of the costs involved. Bridges in the county are repaired and rebuilt, yet I have not seen tolls placed on them. In addition, our property taxes have skyrocketed this year. I have been on this island for 60 years. Unlike the San Juan islands, Guemes has always been a place where people can live and go to work, not just vacation or spend two weeks out of the year at their “cabin”.

I would propose a much more modest increase, preferably tied to the actual cost of living increase locally. Commuter cards should be much less expensive than a regular fare, as those of us that live and work locally are already paying the exorbitant and ever increasing property taxes.  Let the visitors pay more.

I would also encourage you to forget the different and confusing vehicle categories. Keep it as is—car and oversized. As far as the proposed change to 10’ increments, I can only imagine what that will do to our costs for having the roofer, gutter installer, or carpenter come to repair our homes—that cost will surely be passed on to us.

Thank you for your consideration of these issues. My hope is that a solution can be found that will be agreeable to all.

Sincerely

Jayne Mardesich

_______

Pat Richley-Erickson

Mar 12

to ferrycomments, commissioners

GUEMES FERRY: 143% increase on senior passengers?

As a permanent, year-round, land owner resident of Guemes Island, I must report the negative impact the proposed ferry rate increase will have on our household if passed. My husband has just completed chemo weekly and radiation week-daily for the past three months, with attendant hospital stays before and after. When he begins the next round of treatments, the costs for ferry trips will effectively move us off the island.

25 Senior Passenger non-peak crossings up by 97.8% (from $46 to $91)

25 Senior Passenger peak crossings up by 143% (from $46 to $112)

20 Senior/Disabled driver, under 22 non-peak up 76.3% (from $156 ro $275)

20 Senior/Disabled driver, under 22 peak up 109% (from $156 ro 326)

Figures based on https://www.skagitcounty.net/PublicWorksFerry/Documents/Fareproposal.pdf

This is at odds with a 71% ferry rate increase reported in the media.

In the same year, when our home’s real estate taxes have doubled, this exorbitant ferry rate increase is untenable to all but the very wealthy.

Our real estate taxes include funds for Skagit County roads, but there is no accounting ensuring Guemes Island roads will benefit from our taxes. The Guemes Ferry is our road to the rest of the world.

 You can bet I’ll be attending the Commissioners Work Session: Tuesday, March 14th, 2023 at 2:30 p.m. via Zoom using the following link: https://bit.ly/SkagitBoCCMtg

Guemes FERRY: ADA Non-Compliance – “passenger only” ferry during haul out

As a permanent, year round, land owner resident of Guemes Island, I must respond to the use of the “passenger only” walk-on ferry during the haul out. It does not provide federally mandated ADA requirements for people such as me who rely on an electric wheelchair. As it is, I am the “strong one” in the family, as my husband is in the middle of unanticipated chemo and radiation treatments.

Guemes FERRY: Please slow down discussion process

 Since the 2023 Public Works budget has already been adopted, without the proposed ferry increases. So why the rush to raise ferry fees by 1 April 2023?

I am a registered voter, full-time, resident homeowner living on Guemes Island, and am following the county’s interactions with Guemes Island residents closely.

Pat Richley

(Guemes Island)

________

Karen Shill

Mar 12

to commissioners, ferrycomments

To: Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA. 98273

Re: SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION

2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

Guemes Island Ferry Proposed Rate Increases

When faced with difficult organizational decisions, I have always found it useful to refer to the Mission Statement of the organization struggling with the decision.  This is the best way to determine if a proposed change squares up with the fundamental purpose of the organization.

If a proposed decision conflicts with the Mission Statement, it should be rejected or modified to comply fully with the Mission Statement.  Here, of course, I am referring to Skagit County and KPFF promoting substantial changes to the Guemes Island Ferry rate structure. I see lots of daylight between the County’s Mission Statement and the rate change proposal.

To follow up my previous comments on this matter, I have a basic question and would appreciate a reply:

How do Skagit County and KPFF justify this proposal in light of the County’s mission statement (below, as it appears on the County website)?

Skagit County Mission Statement

Skagit County is a very special place to live, with beautiful and diverse communities and extraordinary natural resources. Skagit County Government proudly serves the people, businesses, communities and organizations in this special place, guided by these principles:

We will partner with our customers, based on mutual respect and trust, to protect and plan for the health safety and welfare of current as well as future citizens.

We will assist our customers, based on fairness and justice, to understand and comply

with the intent of Federal and State regulations as well as our own. 

We will support and honor our employees in their efforts to be progressive and innovative in improving the efficiency and quality of services to our customers. 

OUR MISSION is to be recognized as a premier county in Washington State for providing professional leadership, operational excellence, timely assistance, and maximum efficiency in service delivery to our customers.

Sincerely,

Karen Shill

_________

Gabriel Murphy

Mar. 13

to ferrycomments, commissioners, bcc: me

To: Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA. 98273

Re:SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION

2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

From:   Gabriel Murphy

Guemes Island resident since 1983, and tax paying property owner since 2015

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:

Acknowledgement of the Skagit County Commissioners:

Thank you for taking the time to read our statements, hold public hearings, and consider the input of your constituents. We as the Guemes Island community acknowledge that you are all very busy people, and we are a small percentage of your population, so it is not lost on us that your time is valuable and you have chosen to spend some of it considering our wellbeing. We are all very appreciative of your time! Thank you!

Bottom Line Up Front:

Please STOP this ill conceived and untransparent process immediately! As the 2023 budget is already approved, there is NO RUSH to upend an existing process that is based on historical data and was created in collaboration with the Guemes Island Ferry Committee and the residents of Guemes Island.

Regardless of the unforeseeable consequences of doubling the cost of an essential service for a small percentage of the population, I’d like to request that we all take a step back for a moment, pump the brakes, and look at this situation like this was a business decision. Skagit County is a business, although its customers cannot easily go somewhere else for services, and Skagit County does have the responsibility to provide these services, without discrimination, to all of its residents.

Commissioners, all three of you come from backgrounds in business, so I would like to propose that you look at the Guemes Ferry Operations as a business that you currently operate, that happens to be struggling at the moment. If this were the reality, would your initial reaction be to hire a consultant to tell you how to run your business? And if they came back and told you that if you doubled your prices, without making any other changes, that your business would begin to thrive once again? If this was your own personal livelihood at stake, I suspect you would get a second opinion. Please stop and get a second opinion!

Significant Gaps in Fare Proposal:

KPFF explicitly stated in their February 28th presentation that the study did NOT consider a change in ridership patterns that could result from a change in fares. This automatically delegitimizes the entire study from the get go. When prices increase even a reasonable 10-15%, consumers change their habits. When prices double, those changes are guaranteed, and hard to predict.

The KPFF study uses a “Projected Revenue Required for Operations” of $3,169,000. Skagit County has been requested to provide the basis for this number but has NOT made that information public. This is higher than any other single year O&M cost in history, including all haul out years, so it is a mystery where this came from. Without transparency into the calculation of this number, this fare proposal has zero credibility.

KPFF reports a theoretical “Revenue Shortfall” of $862,000 which is the basis for the rate increase calculations. Since the rate increases in the proposal are weighted towards multi-ride fares and oversized vehicles, this dollar value will be extracted disproportionately from full-time residents and the businesses that support those residents. With roughly 800 year round residents, you are asking for each person (on average) to contribute another $1000 a year. This is unreasonable!

The KPFF proposal for a “Needs Based Fare” appears to either be a miscalculation, or a complete miss. A “5-trip Convenience Vehicle Needs Based Fare” costs $85/$100 (non-peak/peak). A “20-trip under 22’ Multi-Ride Vehicle and Driver Fare” costs $332/$400 respectively. It appears that the cost per trip during peak season is the same, and it appears that in non-peak, the “Needs Based” fare is more expensive. Is this a mistake?

Here is the reality of the situation: The cost of operating the Guemes Island Ferry is increasing due to a number of factors including: inflation, increased cost of labor, increased cost of fuel, increased cost of routine maintenance due to deferred maintenance of a 44 year old vessel. Dropping the full force of these cost increases onto a small community all at once will be catastrophic. Skagit County has the responsibility to provide a fair and equitable fare structure to the residents of Guemes Island who DO pay their “fair share” in Road Fund taxes and General Fund taxes, as well as contribute to the overall economy of Skagit County.

Please do the right thing! Stop this process immediately! Engage with the Guemes Island Ferry Committee and the residents of Guemes Island to come up with a plan that both satisfies the financial needs of Skagit County as well as considers the financial and economic well being of the Guemes Island community.

Respectfully,

Gabriel Murphy

_________

Carolyn Eastman

Mar 12

to ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commisioners@co.skagit.wa.us

ToSkagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA. 98273

Re:SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION

2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

From: Carolyn Eastman

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:

There are several ways in which the proposed ferry rate increase will negatively impact my island community, my neighborhood, my household and me personally:

With such unfathomably expensive ferry ticket costs, folks living full-time on the island who are raising children, are disabled, young, elderly or living on the margins financially may be faced with an insurmountable financial barrier to remaining on the island. As you well know, we do not have schools, medical facilities or grocery stores on the island and must use the ferry service for these essentials. Small business owners, commuters and trades folks with larger vehicles will in some cases be priced out living on the island. This upheaval and rendering of the relationships and fabric of the community will be a loss for all of us here on Guemes.

The ferry rate increase will encourage the conversion of properties to short-term rentals. Those who will opt to vacation on the island will continue to do so regardless of the ferry rate which will be wrapped into the cost of their vacation.  When current residents who can no longer afford to stay move, the turnover in properties will undoubtedly increase the number of short-term rental properties and bring in more affluent property owners turning us into, for all practical purposes, an economically gated community.  This will irreparably tear at the fabric of the community and threaten the richness of long-established relationships and cohesive neighborhoods. Additionally, the increase in vacation and short-term rental properties will put stress on our finite water system as vacationers will not have any incentive to be careful with their water consumption.

My household will certainly reduce our use of the ferry choosing to forego dining in Anacortes, frequenting local businesses and attending community events. I estimate that my household will decrease its monthly vehicle and driver plus passenger ferry crossings from 10-12/ month to 3-5/ month to stay within our budget. As the second largest community in Skagit County, Anacortes is well served by the population of Guemes Island spending their dollars locally.  Guemes Island year-round residents represent about 20% of the population of Anacortes so the change in our buying habits, relying more on Amazon and online purchases will be felt. That money vanishes from the local economy out of Anacortes and out of Skagit County.

My basic sense of fairness is challenged by the way the County has proceeded with addressing its need to finance other projects in Skagit County. I  understand that costs generally increase over time and that modest ferry rate increases may be necessary from time to time. However, changing the road funds/ferry ticket formula will have a devastating effect on this unique part of Skagit County now and into the future.  I leave it to other island community members to give you their input regarding the numbers and methodology used to create the rate proposal. They will undoubtedly touch on the huge property tax increases, the rate structure of other county-run ferry systems, what percentage of our taxes go to services that we use far less that those in other parts of Skagit County, etc.  Perhaps the County should consider beefing up the road fund with some of the funds received through the increased property taxes.

Please consider how this proposed ferry rate increase will negatively impact the place we call home as you search for the right path forward.

Sincerely,

Carolyn Eastman

_________

Peter Castle

Sun, Mar 12

to ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us

To: Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer; Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

1800 Continental Place

Mount Vernon, WA 98273

Re: Skagit County Public Works Ferry Division

2023 Guemes Island Ferry Fare Increase

From: Peter Castle

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:

Property taxes on Guemes Island have increased dramatically, but with all of this new revenue you state you are unable to continue the funding percentage formula that has worked for all these past years.  In taking into account all of the categories of tax distribution, Guemes is a solid Net Positive tax revenue generator for the county.  This larger perspective must be taken into account in any fare rate decisions.  It also negates the premise that the rest of the county is subsidizing our island,… Skagit’s Island.  On the whole, the opposite can be said to be true. I will gladly support all of the other county services, but island residents should not be penalized in the process. 

Personally, our property taxes have doubled since moving here in 2019, now requiring an additional $6000 a year.  Our current ferry rate costs us $2000 a year.  Under the proposal they would at the least double, the result being our sending the county an extra $8000. per year since our recent arrival.  We will certainly  have to alter our trips and spending as a result.  It will require ordering very many products on-line for delivery as opposed to patronizing local businesses as has been our preference. Also many fewer trips to support and enjoy the restaurants of Anacortes  As you know, dollars spent locally tend to circulate many times through our own local communities. 

Some points,..

There are approximately 34 school age children currently on the island.  The proposed rate increases will force some of these families off the island.  We are already contributing far more resources to the schools than the island population consumes.    You’re welcome.

Guemes has a very low crime rate and uses significantly fewer county resources for sheriff patrols, incident calls, court resources and jail accommodations than the overall county population.

The new rate structure for longer vehicles will likely create a situation  such that farming or livestock operations are no longer viable on the island.  You might ask some county farmers off the island how much these new higher rates would affect their operations whenever longer vehicles or equipment rolled on or off their property.

I suggest an idea –  an experiment to familiarize yourself with constituent concerns.  Every time you go to a restaurant, out for groceries, off to work, attend a medical appointment, take the kids to a game or outing, put your proposed  fee in a cash box – every time,  real money, all passenger fees included, no money to be ever taken out of the box.  If you are taking that trailer full of junk to the transfer station, have some hundred dollar bills at hand for the occasion.  

Taking the fishing boat out for a day of crabbing?  Have a few hundreds at the ready for that as well.  Appliance delivery?  Hay delivery? Horse trailer?  Have a stack of hundred dollar bills at hand for each of those too.  Perhaps tell your children that they can no longer play sports or participate in after-school activities as the trips are too costly.   Live with the consequences.  Do this for at least a year, then consider your rate increases.  You are asking us to live with this without end.

 Peter Castle

________

Philip Burton 

Guemes Ferry Fare Increase 2023 Comments

The suggestion that rates should be raised 70 to 100% is ridiculous and unacceptable and should be immediately rejected.

The ferry crew is working without a contract.  No rate increase should be considered until they have a contract. That way we know what that expense will be.

The primary goal of the government is to provide public safety and infrastructure.

The infrastructure of the ferry facilitates commerce from all over the county that gets delivered/ used on Guemes.

The ferry is an aqua road. Public transit does not pay for itself. It is funded by tax dollars.

The road fund should certainly contribute substantially to the ferry budget.

The target of fares recovering 65% is the upper limit and should be lowered to 45%.

I think it was misstated that the $1.4m the road fund contributes is 10% of the entire road fund budget.  Some research showed that the road fund is $32m.  If the road fund was only $14m then it is too low to maintain the 800+ miles of road in the county.

Other sources of ferry funding could and should be explored.

A modest increase of 10-15% is understandable, outside increase 20%.

Then no more increases for 5 years.

We should be careful to keep fares reasonable to protect the economic diversity of the island and visitors.

The proposed rate increase would be especially hard on the senior population of the island. 

Making the fares too high could hurt the real-estate market of Guemes.

Making the fares too high will alter peoples ridership pattern and the county could easily end up losing farebox revenue.

The consultants’ proposal of fares overcomplicates the fare types.  The current fare types should be retained.  Examples of where the proposal got it wrong are: commuter/punch card rates should be same all year, Walk on punch card should include bicycle for commuters – cash ticket can be higher for the summer visitors, over length vehicles should continue to be measured in 5’ increments, the proposed 14’ car length is ridiculous and would only apply to a small % of cars on the road.  Just keep the same fare categories.

The expense of the consultant was a waste of dollars.  This all could have been done in house and with the help of the community/volunteers.

There is an overarching feeling or sentiment here that Guemes is somehow apart from the county.  We are part of the county of course.  We contribute substantially to the real estate tax revenue for the county.  We work and shop throughout the county.  We should all work together on issues like this with mutual respect and admiration – in a spirit of community.  We are your customers and your employer.  We pay your salary.  We admire and respect the ferry crew and the county infrastructure that carries us back and forth to work and home.  The ridership deserves the same respect.

Philip Burton 

_______

Mark D Spahr

Mar 15

Commissioners, ferrycomments

Guemes Ferry did not charge Fares 2020

At the March 14 meeting discussing proposed Guemes ferry rate increases, Commissioner Ron Weson asked how long fares were not charged during Covid.  Checking our 2020 calendar, a period of no fares started March 23 and ended on May 5.  During those 43 days many commercial operators and contractors took advantage of not paying, so there were logging trucks, gravel and sand stockpiled and other construction materials.  Many non-residents from urban areas chose to live on Guemes during this time, also increasing non-revenue producing ferry traffic.  43 days represents about 12% of the year, however because of the increased commercial and trucking traffic, the no payment gap probably resulted in a greater than 12% reduction in revenue for Skagit County. Guemes Islanders do not know who at Skagit County made the decision to offer free ferry service.

Mark and Cecilia Spahr

________

Daniel Sturgill 

Mar 12

To: ferrycomments

Proposed Ferry fares

These proposed Ferry Fares gouge the existing residents to the point of extortion!  The County needs to totally rethink their funding plan.

You’re taking extreme advantage of a small group of residential land owners that have no recourse or options to continue to live on Guemes Island.  

Please reconsider the proposed option that designates Guemes Island as a Ferry District and tax each individual parcel equally on an annual basis for up to 50% of the estimated Ferry System’s annual operations budget.  As the County knows all landowners on Guemes Island understand that they must use a Ferry to travel to and from Guemes Island.

DON’T TAKE ADVANTAGE AND PROPOSE EXTREME AN UNREALISTIC FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS ON THOSE WHO CURRENTLY LIVE ON GUEMES ISLAND!!!  PLEASE THINK BIG PICTURE!!!

Daniel Sturgill 

______

Boshie Morris

Mar 13

commissionner, ferrycomments

Guemes Ferry Fare Increase

Boshie Morris -Guemes friend, resident at I Avenue and 7th Street Anacortes

Sadly, I have just learned of the plight of Guemes Islanders, in the midst of the current ferry shutdown for repairs.

Insult to injury. 

This reworking of the fare schedule by the County’s consultant seems to CHERRY PICK a few things from what I have researched on the Lummi Ferry site as well as some things from the Wa. State Ferry.

Curiously, BOTH of those allow CHILDREN to age 19 to ride FREE as passengers and as walk ons. If driving, naturally a 19 yr old pays for car and driver. NO such eligibility for Guemes youth, unless 5 or under. 

The Wa. State ferry does have a 14′ vehicle category, because ALL Wa. State ferries have toll collection booths with striping for length measure and extensive car waiting lots. Neither of which is applicable to the Guemes Ferry. The vehicle 14′ or less category would include a VW bug-2011 or older (12 years old); subcompact cars like the Kia Rio, Kia Soul, Honda Fit, Chevy Bolt, Jeep Wrangler and Renegade, Mini Hardtop, Fiat Spider, BMW i 3 and a few other cars 2020 or newer. Not even the Toyota Matrix subcompact, nor 9 of the 15 SMALLEST SUV’ s produced in 2019 qualify as 168″ or less. Are new cars a thing on Guemes Island?

Interestingly, the Lummi Ferry rates are concerned with vehicle weight of <11,000 lbs- all vehicles that meet this criteria are the base rate. I can’t even imagine how big a truck needs to be to exceed 11,000 lbs. 

The Whatcom County criteria look pretty dissimilar in fares, tho both Guemes and Lummi Ferries have a run distance of about 5 minutes, and some similarities in # of daily runs except Lummi Ferry, on Saturdays and Sundays, have 18 trips each way with~ half what is provided on weekdays! I wonder if the DATA used by the consultants factored Lummi population or property values in the proposal before Commissioners? 

Most disturbing is the disregard for time for open communication between Guemes Islanders, Anacortes mainlanders and the County over this radical proposal. The last time I witnessed this was at a Commissioners daytime meeting regarding the abrupt Guemes Ferry service extension to 10:30 p.m. daily some 15 years ago when we KNOW ridership was a fraction of what is borne today. THAT DATA FREE analysis was shameful- as is this MASSIVE Fare Increase to cover an extended shortfall that was not dealt with since 2018.

How could so many people be so blindsided and confused by such a proposal? I have read many thoughtful suggestions, and pleas from residents to take this down a notch, rethink adding a booth, (where- I guess would be in the middle of 6th Street) and attempt to lower this 70+% hike to something phased in over time, NOT fully at the apparent closure of 3 years of Covid hardships. 

Respectfully submitted, Boshie Morris

Boshie Morris

_______

Tom Fouts

Mon, Mar 13

to ferrycomments, commissioners

FERRY COST HELP—TRY THIS

In 2018 the International Maritime Organization adopted a decarbonization goal of 50% by 2050. Recently our Federal Government has committed to a net carbon maritime goal of zero by 2050. This goal has only 27 years to be realized. Considering our country’s recent efforts to achieve carbon reductions through grants, low interest loans, and cost reductions for equipment, I believe we have the ability to harvest significant financial support for our electric ferry for the foreseeable future.

Should this be the case, I think any resources our new ferry can harvest must be applied directly to ferry operations and ticket costs. The road fund could be benefitted for all Skagit residents by efforts to secure these potential grants.  To ensure Skagit County takes advantage of all assets available to the electric ferry I would like to see an agreement to enlist the Guemes Ferry Committee as a resource locator for potential monies and grants available for the foreseeable future. To ensure equitable compliance with Skagit County and the Guemes Ferry Committee regarding the above agreement it needs to be underwritten by contract.

I realize considerable angst has been generated regarding the new ferry rates among Islanders and with good reasons. However, this situation is a dose of reality. It is my belief that working together with Guemes Islanders and the Skagit County Commissioners will provide fare relief in the near future.

Tom Fouts
_______

John Hopkins 

Fare Proposal

1.  Reduce amount going to surcharge by 50%–Adds $120,000 to O&M

2.  Raise rates across the board by 10 to 20 %–Adds $120,000 to $220,000 To O&M.  At the 20% rate I have reduced expected revenue gain by $20,000 due to slippage in ridership.

3.   Create a needs based category, set fare at senior rate.

4.   Change vehicle punch card  time frame from 120 days to 90 days.

5.   Bicycles– No charge with punch card.  Otherwise charge $2 per bike.

6.   No change in vehicle length categories.

7.   Keep 65% formula

At the time of setting new rates make a Federal Reserve type statement that we will be monitoring revenues and anticipate another 5 to 10%  may be needed next year.

Note: With the new ferry in 2025 there will not be another haul out until 2027, reducing costs for the  next 3 years.

John Hopkins 

_______

David Prewitt

Comments 2023 Fare Rate Study 

The first question to answer is the appropriate funding amount for Skagit County residents to put toward the Guemes Island ferry operation. The proposed $750,000 cap methodology would mean Skagit County  would contribute only 20% on average to the operational and maintenance costs associated with delivering the Guemes Island ferry service. When compared to the current commitment by the County of 35%, or the Whatcom and Pierce County contributions of 44% and 45%, respectively, this model is an outlier. Additionally, the application of the model to a single high-cost year, i.e., one with a haul-out, to determine farebox shortfall and the resulting rate increase is impractical. Finally, to ensure an equitable and sustainable ferry service, the proposed fare structure should reflect the needs of different ferry user segments.

Considering the Benefits of the Guemes Island ferry service

In determining an appropriate county funding commitment, a balanced review should consider benefits in addition to costs. Below, these benefits and their economic impacts are outlined.

The county-wide economic return on the investment Skagit County residents currently make in the Guemes Island ferry service far exceeds the invested dollars. This effect is clear in the property tax data presented below. 

Property taxes

O Guemes Island produces less than 1% of the demand for county services by population 

while contributing approximately 3% of county property tax revenue.

Property Taxes and demand for services by population Skagit county as a whole and Guemes Island compared 

Skagit County Guemes Island Guemes % of total

Real estate valuation $21,157,521,076 $605,785,292 2.86%

Population 2020 Census* 129,523                      900 0.69%

How much more Guemes Island contributes to the tax base of the county than its population represents 412.06%

*2020 Census Tract 9501 less 48 to allow for Sinclair and Cypress Island populations 

oTax valuation of Guemes Island properties is directly linked to ferry service. For example, 

if without ferry access, property values declined by just 40%, island property tax 

contributions to Skagit County would decrease by $2,380,130 annually from a current 

value of $5,950,326.

Additional benefits of the ferry service:

Direct wages: Nearly one million dollars in wages are earned each year by local county 

employees who staff the service, and these dollars by and large go straight back into the county 

Economy.

Indirect wages paid through County contracts: This year over one million dollars is scheduled to 

be spent on the haul-out and associated maintenance at Dakota Creek in Anacortes putting 

those dollars from the ferry operation directly back into the local economy.

Employment opportunities: Home builders, plumbers, electricians, landscapers, etc. On island 

construction projects alone inject millions of dollars annually into the local economy in both 

wages and materials purchases. 

Consumer spending: Residents and non-residents alike make their purchases at mainland county businesses due to the fact that there are no retail outlets of any consequence on the island. All food, clothing, appliances, haircuts, car washes, medical services, etc. purchases put money in the hands of local business owners and, by extension, their employees.

A UK study on the economic impact of “Lifeline” ferries (those that offer the only means of access for the community served) found that,

 “[While] of course there are other costs to the state in maintaining services for the islands, from

a transport perspective, the economic benefits are at least ten times the costs.”1

Clearly a ferry service can offer many economic benefits to the regional economy that surrounds it. Costs, of course, must also be considered.

Considering the costs of the Guemes Island ferry service

Adjusted for inflation, average costs of the ferry service are not significantly increasing. The table and graph below cover the last ten years of operational and maintenance expenses, inflation adjusted for comparison into 2021 dollars, associated with providing the Guemes Island ferry service.  What is most notable is that when adjusted for inflation and using a 4-year look-back to smooth out peaks between haul-out and non-haul-out years the operations and maintenance expenses have remained more or less constant, averaging $2,683,232 in 2021 dollars.

1 Jarvis, Tony. “Beyond Lifeline Services: How investing in transport can unlock the economic potential of peripheral areas.” Highlands and Islands Enterprises. https://www.starconference.org.uk/star/2006/Tony_Jarvis.pdf

The first question to answer is the appropriate funding amount for Skagit County residents to put toward the Guemes Island ferry operation. The proposed $750,000 cap methodology would mean Skagit County would contribute only 20% on average to the operational and maintenance costs associated with delivering the Guemes Island ferry service. When compared to the current commitment by the County of 35%, or the Whatcom and Pierce County contributions of 44% and 45%, respectively, this model is an outlier. Additionally, the application of the model to a single high-cost year, i.e., one with a haul-out, to determine farebox shortfall and the resulting rate increase is impractical. Finally, to ensure an equitable and sustainable ferry service, the proposed fare structure should reflect the needs of different ferry user segments.

Considering the Benefits of the Guemes Island ferry service

In determining an appropriate county funding commitment, a balanced review should consider benefits in addition to costs. Below, these benefits and their economic impacts are outlined.

The county-wide economic return on the investment Skagit County residents currently make in the Guemes Island ferry service far exceeds the invested dollars. This effect is clear in the property tax data presented below. 

Property taxes

oGuemes Island produces less than 1% of the demand for county services by population 

while contributing approximately 3% of county property tax revenue.

Property Taxes and demand for services by population Skagit county as a whole and Guemes Island compared

Skagit County Guemes Island Guemes % of total

Real estate valuation $21,157,521,076 $605,785,292 2.86%

Population 2020 Census* 129,523                      900 0.69%

How much more Guemes Island contributes to the tax base of the county than its population represents 412.06% *2020 Census Tract 9501 less 48 to allow for Sinclair and Cypress Island populations  

oTax valuation of Guemes Island properties is directly linked to ferry service. For example, 

if without ferry access, property values declined by just 40%, island property tax 

contributions to Skagit County would decrease by $2,380,130 annually from a current 

value of $5,950,326.

Additional benefits of the ferry service:

Direct wages: Nearly one million dollars in wages are earned each year by local county 

employees who staff the service, and these dollars by and large go straight back into the county 

Economy.

Indirect wages paid through County contracts: This year over one million dollars is scheduled to 

be spent on the haul-out and associated maintenance at Dakota Creek in Anacortes putting 

those dollars from the ferry operation directly back into the local economy.

Employment opportunities: Home builders, plumbers, electricians, landscapers, etc. On island 

construction projects alone inject millions of dollars annually into the local economy in both 

wages and materials purchases. 

Consumer spending: Residents and non-residents alike make their purchases at mainland county businesses due to the fact that there are no retail outlets of any consequence on the island. All food, clothing, appliances, haircuts, car washes, medical services, etc. purchases put money in the hands of local business owners and, by extension, their employees.

A UK study on the economic impact of “Lifeline” ferries (those that offer the only means of access for the community served) found that,  “[While] of course there are other costs to the state in maintaining services for the islands, from a transport perspective, the economic benefits are at least ten times the costs.”1

Clearly a ferry service can offer many economic benefits to the regional economy that surrounds it. Costs, of course, must also be considered.

Considering the costs of the Guemes Island ferry service

Adjusted for inflation, average costs of the ferry service are not significantly increasing. The table and graph below cover the last ten years of operational and maintenance expenses, inflation adjusted for comparison into 2021 dollars, associated with providing the Guemes Island ferry service.  What is most notable is that when adjusted for inflation and using a 4-year look-back to smooth out peaks between haul-out and non-haul-out years the operations and maintenance expenses have remained more or less constant, averaging $2,683,232 in 2021 dollars.

1 Jarvis, Tony. “Beyond Lifeline Services: How investing in transport can unlock the economic potential of peripheral areas.” Highlands and Islands Enterprises. https://www.starconference.org.uk/star/2006/Tony_Jarvis.pdf

Guemes Island Ferry (Adjusted for inflation using  2021 dollars)

Expenses over time after adjustment for inflation

Year

O&M total 

expenses

4 year look back 

average

Variance from 10 

year average Haul out Comments

2012 2,140,527$              479,981$                 Y

2013 1,913,635$              706,873$                 N

2014 2,943,140$              (322,632)$                Y

2015 3,064,661$              2,515,491$              (444,154)$                Y

2016 2,182,633$              2,526,017$              437,874$                 N

2017 3,224,758$              2,853,798$              (604,250)$                Y “In 2014 and 2015 costs increased due to major mid-life maintenance work”

2018 2,208,733$              2,670,196$              411,775$                 N “In 2014, 2015 and 2017 expenditures increased due to major mid-life maintenance”

2019 3,364,489$              2,745,153$              (743,981)$                Y

2020 2,018,169$              2,704,037$              602,339$                 N “In 2015, 2017 and 2019, increased expenditures were due to maintenance”

2021 3,144,332$              2,683,931$              (523,824)$                Y

Average 2,620,508$              2,671,232$              6 out of 10 yrs

 $-

 $500,000

 $1,000,000

 $1,500,000

 $2,000,000

 $2,500,000

 $3,000,000

 $3,500,000

 $4,000,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021

Total O&M expenses  over time adjusted for inflation

O&M total expenses

4 year look back average

Revenues over the last ten years

In 2010 Skagit County Commissioners determined that it was appropriate for the county to cover 35% of the operational and maintenance costs of the Guemes Island ferry service. Over the last ten years county funds actually covered 38% of the ferry operation, as seen below. 

Guemes Island Ferry

Revenues and Expenses and the Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report

                                                     Expenses Ridership O&M

Year Fares collected MVFT* WSDOT** Road Fund Percent O&M TotalFare target Offage Haul out

2010     853,219$   120,161$   109,856$       523,197$   33%   1,606,433$       997,158$   (143,939)$    Y

2011     791,897$   119,969$      98,490$       367,876$   27%   1,378,232$       954,929$   (163,032)$    N

2012     955,670$   154,610$    116,337$       560,133$   31%   1,786,750$       947,251$         8,419$    Y

2013     985,791$   160,843$      89,216$       381,762$   24%   1,617,612$       950,793$       34,998$    N

2014     915,871$  138,592$     118,156$    1,332,181$   53%   2,504,800$       899,491$       16,380$    Y

2015  1,006,793$  138,411$     349,260$    1,129,390$   43%   2,623,854$       996,788$       10,005$    Y

2016  1,189,654$   149,293$    215,862$       387,417$   20%   1,902,906$    1,095,557$       94,097$    N

2017  1,160,205$   168,399$    159,051$    1,376,251$   48%   2,863,906$    1,144,694$       15,511$    Y

2018  1,231,829$     84,683$     390,074$      288,074$   14%   1,995,242$    1,282,491$    (50,662)$    N

2019  1,172,643$  102,636$      102,603$   1,725,890$   56%   3,103,772$    1,302,372$  (129,729)$    Y

2020  1,090,088$  141,089$      272,798$      382,164$   20%   1,886,139$    1,386,935$   (296,847)$   N

2021  1,115,037$   133,417$      184,560$   1,711,318$   54%   3,144,332$   1,300,624$   (185,587)$    Y

Total 12,468,697$ 1,612,103$ 2,206,263$ 10,165,653$  38%  26,413,978$ 13,259,083$    (790,386)$  6 out of 10 yrs

Notes 2010 when the transition to a new model and the reporting requirements were being ironed out

2011 Ferry Dock Rehabilitation Project. Between March 28 and May 21, 2011 Skagit County did not collect any fare box revenue 2019-2021 Pandemic years * Motor vehicle fuel tax contribution ** Washington State Department of Transportation deficit reimbursement fund for county ferry operations Washington State Revenues Skagit County

Ferry Fare Revenue Target Report

This 3% disparity from 35% target spending had three main drivers: the pandemic, delay of the proposed 2019-2020 fare increase, and possible shortcomings in the 2010 fare setting methodology’s  consideration of the 5-year average. The outsize impact of the first two drivers can be seen in the offage from fare target in the chart above. The possible shortcomings in the fare setting methodology will be discussed further below.

Comparing Skagit County cost recovery to similar operations in Whatcom and Pierce counties

Skagit County’s current contribution is, by percentage, already the lowest of the three most similar county-level ferry systems in the State (see Pierce County’s Fall 2022 ferry comparison study for more metrics and discussion).

County contribution percentage

Year Skagit/Guemes Pierce/Anderson Whatcom/Lummi

2017 48% 43% 47%

2018 14% 50% 47%

2019 56% 43% 47%

2020 20% 46% 40%

2021 54% 37%

Average 39% 44% 45%

Skagit figures from FFRTR

Whatcom and Pierce figures from Pierce County 2022 comparative analysis

Comparison of different methodologies

1. Current model

The current fare setting methodology has called for additional farebox revenue for several years. Between the pandemic and the lack of a general fare increase since 2015, the farebox has underfunded the ferry operation by just under $110,000 per year. Data for the last six years is presented below.

Fare box shortfall over last six years on average using current 65% – 35% methodology 

Average O&M expenditure over last 6 years 2,482,716$             

Average county contribution actually required to cover O&M expenditures 978,519$                

Average target county contribution for last six years using the 35% model 868,951$                

Over payment by county and under payment from fare box on average 

over the last six years on average 109,568$   

2. Proposed cap methodology

This table shows that the proposed cap methodology would effectively reduce the County 

contribution by at least 15% on average, making it by far the least supportive of the three similar

Washington State county ferry services. Just as important, the average additional farebox 

contribution this methodology suggests when using a $750,000 cap should be $352,877 per year. This is nearly $400,000 less than the projected fare revenue listed on the “Proposed Fare 

Structure” draft. 

Current methodology outcomes over last ten years compared to KPFF “Cap Methodology” when retroactively applied Adjusted for inflation using 2023 dollars

Current methodology KPFF Cap methodology

Year County expense County%O&M Farebox variance County expense County % O&M

2012 681,125$ 32% -$131,039 540,000$ 25%

2013 493,027$ 26% $451,624 451,624$ 24%

2014 1,584,559$                  54% -$1,001,313 564,000$ 19%

2015 1,330,813$                  43% -$749,128 570,000$ 19%

2016 507,197$                     23% $444,367 444,367$ 20%

2017 1,567,124$                  49% -$958,659 591,000$ 18%

2018 263,459$                     12% $318,898 318,898$ 14%

2019 1,730,239$                  51% -$1,249,865 621,000$           18%

2020 91,289$                       5% $408,915 408,915$ 20%

2021 1,525,731$                  49% -$1,062,568 648,750$ 21%

Average 977,456$                    37% -$352,877 515,856$ 19.7%

3. Modifications of the current model

Possible shortcomings in the fare methodology adopted in 2010 (mentioned above) include lack 

of an adjustment for inflation when performing the 5-year look-back. Without first adjusting the 

past 5 years into current dollars, the methodology inadvertently discounted the fare target by 

the rate of inflation over those years. Also, the methodology attempted to smooth over high cost

haul-out years and lower cost non haul-out years, but by using a 5 year look-back instead of an 

equal (or proportional, i.e. we have seen haul-outs in 6 of the last 10 years) number of years 

with and without haul-outs, the model produced high and low fare targets based on whether the

5-year look-back included 2 or 3 haul-out years. If these drawbacks were to be addressed, the 

current model would more accurately deliver the desired fare outcome. For instance, using these adjustments, target fares for 2022 would have increased by $67,000.

4. Model funding operations from farebox/state sources, maintenance from County sources

An alternative fare model for the ferry service would assign operations costs to farebox and state sources and maintenance costs to County sources. Roads have initial capital costs, low level maintenance costs, and periodic higher cost repairs. Ferry services have the same cost profile, with the addition of ongoing operational costs. Only costs common to roads would thus be funded by road fund levy income. An estimate for this model would require the farebox 

contribution for 2023 to increase by $544,737. Funding the difference between ferry and road 

funding models with fares is an additional model to consider.

In comparing these four models, including the proposed cap methodology applied to past years, the following farebox increases are suggested: approximately $110,000 from the current model, 

approximately $350,000 from the proposed cap model, approximately $175,000 from the modified current model, and up to $545,000 from the alternative operations/maintenance model. None of these projected farebox increases come close to the proposed $750,000 increase.

Fare structure considerations

Finally, the fare rate structure should have clear logic which establishes the relationship between different fare categories. As an example, one car and driver fare shall be equal to 4 adult passenger fares,and oversized vehicles shall pay for twice the number of vehicle spaces they take up. 

In addition, frequent user categories should allow year-round users of the system to pay a consistent amount on a monthly basis. Year-round users do not create the near doubling of traffic in the peak summer months, and as such, they are not the proper group to target for peak season fare increases. Rather, a logic should be established to link additional demand to fare structure and thus to the annual revenue target. An example of this might be that the additional demand created in peak season shall contribute 40% of targeted revenue. This seasonal user segment is both least likely to change behavior due to higher fares and least impacted by fare increases. 

Before fare structure changes of the proposed magnitude are implemented, community input and sustained dialogue is essential.

Conclusion

 Skagit County should acknowledge that the benefits generated by the Guemes Island ferry service do not accrue only to residents of Guemes Island, and therefore it is not only the tax revenues from the Island that should be considered when creating an operations and maintenance funding methodology for the ferry service operation. Considering the commitments of other Washington counties and the four models presented above to address ferry costs, a $750,000 farebox increase is unjustified. In addition, fare structure changes should be more fully considered with all stakeholders before implementation.

David  Prewitt

________

Robert H Anderson

Mar 16

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Guemes ferry price increases.

Some us us who were born in the Great Depression followed all the rules of living a responsible life:   Live within your income and budget.  Live frugally. Plan for your retirement so you aren’t a burden to your children.  Don’t buy what you can’t afford. Stay out of debt.  Etc.

We did that and thus are able to have reasonable savings that allows us to live on Guemes Island in retirement.  Suddenly we are in a situation where all prices are going up (taxes, and almost everything up over 10% this year) except retirement income (went down 20% last year)  and increases on bank savings, IRAs etc. flat or negligible.

In determining increases needed to maintain a balanced County budget, you need to factor in these trends that, if continued, will make it impossible for us responsible citizens of modest means in retirement, to continue to live on Guemes or in Anacortes in the near future.  Guemes is fast becoming a retirement community where only the wealthy can afford to live.  Is this the future the county desires?

Rev. Robert Anderson

_______

Lynette and Manuel Mattke 

March 21, 2023 

Commissioner Ron Wesen 

Commissioner Peter Browning Commissioner Lisa Janiki 

 Proposed Guemes Island Ferry Fare Increases 

Dear Commissioners Wesen, Browning, and Janiki, 

As proud Skagit County residents, we are writing to you to express our concerns about the proposed fare increases for the Guemes Island Ferry. The proposed increases are dramatic and will, combined with the current effects of inflation, hit many Guemes Island residents hard. 

For Guemes residents and visitors, the ferry serves the same function as bridges or roads across Skagit County. If it weren’t for the tanker ships going through the Guemes Channel, that would otherwise be a viable solution, but cannot be due to the needs of the Anacortes refineries. Roads and bridges in the County are toll-free, yet Guemes Island residents are now being asked to shoulder a significant burden for the costs of the Ferry. 

While we support reasonable fees for the Ferry, including reasonable periodic increases that align with cost of living increases, the proposed changes to pricing, vehicle lengths and electronic kiosks go well beyond such reasonable solutions. As a result, we ask that you: 

1. Phase reasonable price increases in over multiple years, and align them with cost of living 

increases to make them viable for hard-working families living on the Island. 

2. Maintain discounts for bulk purchases, and/or introduce subscription pricing for frequent ferry 

users. 

3. Maintain current vehicle length increments. 

4. Make bicycle crossings free to encourage biking instead of vehicle usage. 

5. Cancel the planned kiosks and instead implement an easy-to-use barcode or transponder 

scanning solution similar to the State’s Good to Go program. 

The current proposal is punitive to the hard-working families, taxpayers and voters on Guemes Island and unfairly burdens them with significant costs that no other County residents are expected to bear. We hope you will consider this request and our suggestions, and that you will significantly revise the proposal before it is implemented. 

Sincerely yours, 

Lynette and Manuel Mattke 

________

I am reaching out to you today in hopes that you will reconsider moving forward with making 

changes to the Guemes Island Ferry Fare formula at this time, make a modest fare increase 10 

to 20%, keep the current fare chart categories the same, and not reduce ferry service during 

non peak season.

THE FUTURE IS UNKNOWN – IMPOSSIBLE TO LOOK AHEAD AT THIS TIME

THE NEW ALL-ELECTRIC FERRY

The original expectations of the new all electric ferry as presented by Skagit County:

● Reduce fuel/energy costs by 41%

● Reduce Maintenance and repair costs by 53%

These are projections made but the actual costs are unknown.  But if you are going to look 

ahead, it would seem only right that this reduction would be calculated as it was sold.  

THE FERRY WORKER CONTRACT

Salary and wages are currently unknown.  If roughly 60% of entire budget goes towards this 

expense and we have no idea what the ferry worker contract will be, how can anyone project 

this future expense?

Also, if the plan does proceed to make cuts in service, and are looking ahead 2 years  in 

budgeting, the budget should include additional recruiting cost and expect higher turnover from 

employees since it would be difficult to find part time workers looking for a 3 hour position.

SOCIALLY ISOLATE SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN RECOVERING FROM COVID

If you are looking to reduce service, please know that there are a lot of families 

who will be forced to make life changing decisions.  There are about 50 school age children that

I know of on the island – most are in public schools some are  homeschooled.  If you cut the last 

ferry run to 6pm, you are telling every one of the these kids that they can no longer participate in

school sports, ballet, karate, Little League, music lessons, etc.  I simply can’t imagine the 

additional irreparable harm you can do to this age group – kids who were socially isolated 

because of covid for over a year and are really just starting to live again – only to take that away 

from them?  

COVID DAMAGED CURRENT SYSTEM – IT’S NOT BROKEN!1!!!

I went back and listened to all of the County Commissioner meetings regarding the annual ferry 

reports since 2019 and I was shocked to learn how little COVID came up from 2020 on.  How is 

it that the ferry received zero of the trillions of Covid dollars to offset losses during this time. 

Pierce County sure did.  

The shortfall in revenue – due to the ferry’s decision to stop collecting fares  – set everything in 

motion for future shortfalls.  If you add back the lost revenues from 2020 and 2021 that were 

due to covid with covid funds that were available – as Pierce County did – our numbers would 

not be far off.  (Shortage of $114,000 in 2020 due to lack of fares collected and short $185,587 

in 2021 could have been caused by the sale of non expiring punch cards that were offered in 

2020). These shortages unnecessarily increased the Road Fund contributions and have 

changed every number looked at since. 

At the 2022 Ferry Fare Target Report presentation in April of 2021, Ferry Captain Rachel Rowe 

made a recommendation for a fare increase.  If you go back and listen to that meeting it was 

Commissioner Janicki who cautioned against implementing a fare increase due to Covid 

vaccination rate concerns and a possible 4th wave of Covid.  Why weren’t fares increased then?

FAIR FARE INCREASE

While I heard it repeatedly mentioned through multiple commissioner meetings about a normal 

business budgeting practice of looking back two years, current year, and two years ahead, I have never heard of this as a budgeting practice in any business. As it stands, our current ferry 

captain has repeatedly expressed frustration with the budgeting process (as she did in the 

recent work session) and has demonstrated challenges in projecting maintenance expenses in 

the past.  I feel a two year look ahead could at this point create even more challenges.

I do feel the current model is flawed by using a 5 year average knowing that every other year 

was planned to incur a larger expense.  If you use 6 years back or 10 years back- an even 

number -wouldn’t we have had a better average?  Why not just tweak this number for now until  we get the new ferry?

I agree a reasonable fare increase (10-20%) is overdue and necessary.  Please recognize that 

the past few years have had an impact on where we are today, but at least some of the Covid 

money that rained from the federal government should have landed back into the ferry revenue. 

Proposing cutting services, massive rate hikes, disingenuous “more affordable” multi trip punch 

cards from 20 to 10, isn’t the way to go.  Please pause changing the model until the new ferry 

has arrived and all factors can be included moving forward.

When the new all electric ferry arrives in 2025, it will either be something for the islanders to 

celebrate or something we will want to protest.  If the new ferry makes living on the the island 

unaffordable, I think I could safely place a wager which way that is going to go.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

_______

Ellen Fitch

Thu, Mar 30

to ferrycomments, commissioners

Fare Proposal for Guemes Island Ferry

Dear Commissioners Wesen, Browning, and Janicki,

As a Guemes Island property owner and full time resident,  I am writing to voice my concerns about the proposed fare increases for the Guemes Island Ferry.  

Upon examining the proposed fares, one might surmise that they have been specifically designed to penalize full-time residents of the island, especially our seniors.  Under the new proposal, an adult single walk on fare goes up 50% during non-peak season and 60% during peak season, but a senior and disabled single walk on fare goes up 100% for both non-peak and peak seasons.  What is the justification for the larger increase for seniors?  Most of the senior full-time residents of the island are on fixed incomes and can least afford such a price increase for this critical service.  

The frequent-use punch cards that most residents rely on don’t provide any relief from the fare increase either, in fact the price increase for them is even worse.  The price of an adult walk-on punch card goes up 50% during non-peak season and 106% during peak season.  And for seniors, it gets worse.  Their walk-on punch card goes up 98% during non-peak season and 143% during peak season.  Again, I ask what justifies penalizing Guemes Island senior residents this way?  

I have been a homeowner and full time resident of the island for the past two years.  In that time I have seen the assessed value of my home go up almost 50% each year, and my property taxes increase accordingly.  The property taxes that I pay contribute to county services, including roads.  I find the message being sent by this proposed ferry pricing – that the county doesn’t believe it needs to provide the same essential services for Guemes Island residents that it does for other residents of the county – very disheartening.  Guemes Island is part of the county and the ferry allows access to our part of the county, just as roads provide access to other areas of the county on the mainland.  It’s an essential service that everyone benefits from.    

I understand that a fare increase is warranted given the increased costs associated with ferry operations, but I think it should be a more modest increase than what is being proposed and the financial burden of shouldering those costs should be distributed differently.  I think island residents, including seniors and commuters who have to ride the ferry more frequently, should be given a discount as a way to keep the island affordable for those with modest incomes.  That discount could be accomplished by continuing to make the punch cards available at the non-peak rate even during peak season, just as they are today and maintaining a more generous discount for senior punch cards.  

Having a discount for shorter cars is sensible except why not make it for cars under 15′, which is more reasonable.  There are very few car models under 14′, so this fare category is really quite useless.  Many islanders drive small cars which fall under 15′ so this would be a more reasonable cutoff for a discount fare that some people could actually benefit from.  

And finally, for oversize vehicles and trailers, please don’t eliminate the 5’ increments in fare pricing (the proposal only has 10’ increments which translates to a much larger fare being imposed when moving up to the next size category).  This feels like yet another financial burden being imposed on top of the already increased fares.  

Sincerely,

Ellen Fitch

_______

Rodger Ricks 

Fri, Mar 31

to ferrycomments@co.skagit.wa.us, commissioner@co.skagit.wa.us

To:Skagit County Commissioners: Ron Wesen, Lisa Janicki, Peter Browning

Public Works Director/County Engineer: Grace Kane P.E.

Ferry Operations Division Manager: Captain Rachel Rowe

Re:SKAGIT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FERRY DIVISION

2023 GUEMES ISLAND FERRY FARE INCREASE

Dear Commissioners, Director, and Captain:

My wife and I were drawn to purchasing property on Guemes Island in 2016 partly because it is easily accessible with a County ferry system which is known to provide good service, and we built a home there in 2018 which we hope to retire to shortly.   We love the island and are very pleased to report that the ferry system functions very well.  Since our involvement with Guemes, we have kept abreast of the arguments for and against the new electric ferry, several ferry rate increases, and the ferry replacement surcharge, but…the current proposed fare increase is in my mind both outrageous in magnitude as you have been advised by many island residents already, but it represents a rescission of the farebox recovery policy that has served the island and County well for many years and is relevant in your consideration of this proposed ferry fare proposal.   Key points of this farebox recovery policy follow: 

Resolution R20110382 states that, “It is the desire of the Board that the County’s ferry fare revenue target be calculated as a percentage of the overall system operating and maintenance costs as computed in the annual deficit reimbursement report provided to the state less revenues from the motor vehicle fuel tax and state ferry deficit reimbursement. In order to balance and mitigate potential large variations in year-to-year maintenance costs and revenues from the motor vehicle fuel tax and state deficit reimbursement, these costs and revenues will be averaged over the previous five county calendar fiscal year periods.”

The ferry fare revenue target shall be calculated, using data from January 1 through December 31 of each calendar year, as follows:

“The five (5) calendar year average of ferry operating and maintenance costs as computed in the prior annual deficit reimbursement reports submitted to the State. For purposes of this resolution, capital expenditures are not included in the ferry operating and maintenance costs and shall be defined as all capital expenditures defined in WAC 136-400-030 and other capital costs including financing and depreciation expenses applied to the replacement, expansion, or creation of ferry system physical elements, less the five (5) year average of the state motor vehicle fuel tax received by the County for operation and maintenance of the ferry system, less the five (5) year average of the State Ferry Deficit Reimbursement received by the County, the total of the above multiplied by 65%.”

As you undoubtedly know already, this farebox recovery is a metric used by other ferry systems around the country and specifically by those Skagit County Ferry Systems compares itself too, and with a 65% farebox recovery, Skagit County is already assessing the Guemes Island ferry users a higher farebox than other County ferry systems in WA:

Whatcom County – Lummi Island Ferry @    55%

Pierce County – Anderson Island Ferry @    43%

Skagit County – Guemes Island Ferry @      65%

Essentially, the code requires that 65% of the operational costs for running the ferry system be borne by the system users, and the remaining 35% be borne by Skagit County property taxes and other revenue sources, which includes a large portion from the County Road Fund.   This farebox recovery measure is in effect a partnership between the County and the system users where each party is vested in seeing “cost control” and the users paying the bulk of the cost, and as shown, Skagit County requires system users to pays more than peer county ferry system users by a significant margin.  

Grace Kahn, Skagit County Public Works Director, was quoted in the March 1 edition of the Anacortes American article on the Guemes Ferry, “ We’re coming to a point where we can’t afford $1.0 million per year coming out of the road fund, . . . adding that island residents need to pay their share toward ferry operations.”   Accordingly, the ferry fare proposal abandoned Resolution R20110382 in favor of eliminating the partnership that controls costs by capping the County Road Fund contribution to $750,000 per year.  

Reviewing the 2023 adopted budget, the County Road Fund has swelled from $22,980,448 in 2020 to a projected $32,941,020 in 2023 for nearly a $10 million increase.    So…. Because the County Road Fund budget has swelled so much, it appears the current proposed ferry fare increase is being proposed to help stem the red ink flowing from the County Road Fund, which really is a serious County budgeting / management issue that should not be passed on to Guemes Island ferry users in the form of a nearly 100% rate increase and abandonment of the partnership Resolution R20110382 provides.

The Skagit County Assessor’s office provided me information supporting assessed value of property of $617,578,300 on Guemes (excluding farm, agricultural and commercial) with over 1300 property owners which provides $4,920,524 in real estate tax revenue, and specifically $1.3020460195 per $1,000 assessed value, or $804,115 into the County Road Fund revenue in 2023.   Although I don’t have the information to compare this to the rest of the County, I believe the property tax contribution by Guemes is not insignificant, and any talk that “island residents should pay their share toward ferry operations” should review the facts.

As you consider how to make the ferry system budget be balance, I suggest you review very closely the following additional matters:

Revenue sources from other ferry systems, as when I reviewed the Pierce County and Whatcom County ferry rate study reports, I believe they had tapped into other funding sources.

Skagit County had a Covid-19 response that suspended collection of revenue for many months, and such revenue suspension should be considered an extraordinary event with projected revenues from such suspended months included in the farebox calculation

The farebox methodology per Resolution R20110382 prescribes ferry fare revenue target be calculated as a percentage of overall system operating and maintenance costs….     Given the County periodically hires consultants for new ferry design, rate surveys, etc., such are “below the line” and not operational and maintenance costs and should not be included in calculation of new target ferry fares

All system users for Guemes Island should pay their way which will be counted as revenue sources for determining accurate farebox revenue, including school buses, US postal service vehicles, and County vehicles.  

Thank you for your consideration of these matters and your service to the community.

Sincerely,

Rodger Ricks

________

Jim and Janet Casey

To state the obvious, there is only one road to Guemes Island. It happens to be water.

● The less than 1 mile crossing of this road is a marine highway. This highway provides Skagit County with a property tax base of $605,785,292 and a resulting contribution of $787,521 to the road fund.

● Equal treatment should be applied by the county for use of this marine highway, just as in many other instances in Skagit County where there is only one way to get from Point A to Point B. Specifically Sammish Island has only one point of access for its residents.

The Road Fund pays for numerous bridges, round-abouts, pedestrian crossings, culverts, and other projects with limited access (see current funded projects). A yet unfunded proposed project is a docking facility on Sinclair Island, servicing 70 residents.

Is there a formula applied to the everyday, ongoing use of any of these services?

● As in the fable, “The Three Billy Goats Gruff”, is there anywhere else in the county except crossing the Guemes Channel, that subjects its users to an additional toll paid by a specific vehicle and specific passenger(s) each and every time it is used?

● Perhaps the Commissioners should mandate and apply the same formula imposed on the use of the Skagit County Marine Highway to roads throughout the county. This would provide significant and continual revenue to the Skagit County Road Fund.

● We submit that the problem isn’t that Guemes Island ferry users aren’t paying their FAIR/FARE share, the problem is that the Road Fund is inadequate for the many needs of the residents of Skagit County. The Commissioners should shift their focus on how to solve this systemic problem.

● Regarding additional proposals to offset shortfalls of the fare box, especially the draconian idea of charging for parking: Where else in the county is pay parking applied?

Skagit County bus “park and rides”, courthouse, airport, train station? How could you possibly add insult to injury, by punishing those who are trying to save on fares, simply to be burdened with parking fees? Additionally, what consequences are you not considering? Will you extend the Skagit County Bus System to Guemes so we can pay the minimal bus fare to cross? What about the public relations nightmare with the City of Anacortes and neighborhood residents?

We contend that the users of the Skagit Marine Highway understand that fares need to adjust with changing economic conditions. However, it is wrong to pit one community against another.

We all pay for many projects we will never use, buses we will never ride, inefficiencies in administration, expenses that we have no control over (climate change), and unexpected economic conditions that no one can avoid or predict (ie COVID).

We believe the Commissioners have an obligation to the residents, voters and taxpayers of Guemes Island to reconsider these excessive increases and come up with more viable solutions.

Sincerely,

Jim and Janet Casey, Property Owner on Guemes Island since 1978

________

Stephen Orsini

Apr 14

The Guemes Island Fare Recovery Methodology is not Broken.

The Guemes Island Ferry Management consistently cites the failure of the Guemes Island Fare Recovery Methodology to meet its 65% Ridership Farebox Revenue Target since 2018. This is a prime reason given for hiring a consultant to explore a fare increase which in its first iteration resulted in proposed increases in many categories of 100%.  The Fare Recovery Methodology (model) was created by the County and codified in 2010-2011 by Resolutions R2010050/R20110382. To achieve the amount of the proposed fare increase, the County wants to do away with the current fare resolution in favor of a system which raises fares based on projected budgets two years into the future and includes the Consumer Price Index no matter what the actual cost to operate the ferry.  It is time for an analysis of the Fare Recovery Methodology keeping in mind this is the County’s model.

From 2012 to 2017, the Fare Recovery Methodology exceeded its 65% farebox revenue by amounts ranging from $8, 419 in 2012 to a high of $94,097 in 2016.  (The amounts exceeding the revenue target are folded back into the Road Fund offsetting the target 35% paid out of the Fund.)  Going back to 2012 from 2022, the fare box revenue has exceeded its target in 6 years out of the last 10.  

  In 2018, the fare box revenue was below the target by $50,080. This deficit normally would have engendered a serious discussion of a fare increase.  In 2018, however, to ensure capital funding for a new vessel from CRAB, the County was required to have “skin in the game” so the County imposed a surcharge of 20% plus per ticket to build a capital fund for a new vessel in the future.  This surcharge, the highest ticket percentage of any ferry system in the State of Washington, is generating about $245,000 annually but cannot be accounted for in the fare recovery model.  For the ridership, however, this represented a major increase in the fares. So in 2018 the County Commissioners chose not to raise fares that would be shown in the fare recovery model.  This was the same for the 2019 year in which the recovery model missed the 65% target by $129,729.  

The year 2020 saw the fare box revenue miss its target by the largest amount, $296,847 in the history of the model.  This was the first year of the Covid 19 Pandemic.  The response of Ferry Management to the Pandemic, in order to protect the crew, was to suspend collecting any fares for 43 days with an estimated loss in revenue of $114,000. Although fares were collected normally in 2021, this was still a year affected by the pandemic. Travel was still down. In 2021, the fare box revenue missed the target by $185,587, its second largest miss in its history.  

During these years, although money was pouring out of the Federal Government to sustain wages and employment in all sectors, no credit toward crew wages appears in the model.  Compare this with the Pierce County Ferries as quoted in the Pierce County Ferry Comparative Analysis, “Pierce County has also benefited a great deal through the various Coronavirus relief bills(increased 5307 revenues via Cares in 2020, and almost 40% of the usual revenue collection from CRRSA in 2021), which directed some federal dollars to ferries.”  The Guemes Island Ferry Manager stated that the loss in revenue in 2020 was made up by a special sale of punch cards- without their normal expiration date.  This brought in cash but effectively froze those punch cards from any future fare increase.  (One person reportedly bought $14,000 worth of these punch cards.)  The fact remains that no Federal relief money was applied to offset crew wages in the model.  Wages remain a major cost in the operation of the vessel, in 2020, a non-haul out year, 64%.

In looking just at the last five years, the model shows that the 65% target was missed but there is no analysis of why.  Further the model is the messenger, it worked as designed, but this is not a justification for throwing the model out. This is akin to shooting the messenger.  No doubt that it is time for another fare increase for the Guemes Island Ferry but one that is similar to that recently achieved by the Whatcom Ferry which has a fare recovery model and used it to arrive at about a 20% increase in fares.  They did not see the need to throw out their model, nor did they spend an estimated $80,000- $100,000 to hire a consultant to achieve the fare increase.  (All consultant fees are included in the model as a cost.)

In these periodic fare increase episodes, no analysis is made of costs and whether the increase in costs actually achieves operational efficiencies.  This is termed a cost/benefit analysis, a tool used often in private business. As the Guemes Ferry earns most of its income from vehicular traffic, a major consideration in adding cost should be whether the cost increase actually moves more vehicular traffic. In 2013, the total cost of salaries including benefits for the ferry amounted to $782,759.  By 2021 this total had risen to $1,279,922, an increase in 8 years of 63.5%.  In that same period the vehicular traffic remained flat. The 63.5% increase in wages was mainly due to addition of staff but achieved no corresponding increase in the efficiency of moving vehicles. The 63.5% increase far exceeds any national indices for cost increases in that same period.  

Another quote from the Pierce County Ferry Comparative Analysis:  “The Guemes Island Ferry vessel M/V Guemes was built in 1979 and runs on diesel and has extremely high maintenance costs.”  The M/V Whatcom Chief, also a diesel ferry, is about 60 years old and the M/V Guemes is about 40 years old.  The question remains why is the Guemes running such high maintenance costs? 

The major advantage of keeping the current fare increase methodology is that it tracks the increases in the overall cost of operating the Guemes Ferry. It also averages out the expensive years of haul out with the much less expensive years when no haul out is performed.  

The current KPFF (consultant to Skagit County) analysis and budget projection is based on 2023, a haul out year, so the proposed increase in fares and the new budget projection, the highest in the history of the operation of the ferry at $3,169,000, can only result in a massive fare increase for the Guemes Island Ferry ridership.  The projected budget for the following year will not include a haul out, but the fares will not go down- guaranteed.  

Another reason given by County management for removing their ferry fare target revenue model is that it is “old”, i.e. created in 2010-11. Actually, the model has proved its value and flexibility over the years and continues to do so. Just because something is “old “is not necessarily a viable analytical tool. Further, the model, by adjusting say the fare box revenue target of 65%, can accommodate a very significant fare increase while maintaining a valuable tool for analysis of the overall cost of the Guemes Island Ferry operation and maintenance. 

The 2023 Fare Revenue Target Report has not been generated and is usually not available prior to its April 30, 2023 due date.  Given the direction of the current fare review, it is not clear that the 2023 report will be generated.

Submitted by:

Stephen Orsini

________

Taunya Sell 

Saturday, April 15

Guemes Island Resident – Adamantly Oppose Ferry Increase Plan

Skagit Valley Board of Commissioners:

Me, my family and residents of Guemes Island vehemently oppose the egregious fare increase the Skagit County Board of Commissioner is proposing. The entire resident population of Guemes is up in arms at the proposed fare increases of greater than 100% in many instances. This is so over-the-top, it’s really nuts. The county government is missing the point of the job they have, which is to serve and represent the people of their county in a fair and transparent way. Instead, we get a slap in the face. And you hope we don’t notice. Believe me, we do. 

We are also opposed to the new plan to charge different rates for peak vs non-peak as well the creation of several new categories of fares. Why would there be any need to increase the fare categories? Simple is always the most fair system – and this system has seemed to work just fine since Guemes ferry’s inception. The most obvious answer to the new categories is to complicate things for the residents of Guemes and to obscure the truly deleterious impacts of these increases.

In addition, the plan to immediately implement the higher fare schedule screams of the ram-it-through methodology of the federal government that is frustrating voters across the country, akin to the Pelosi comment that “you can read the bill once you vote on it”. Let’s be clear that no one is a fan of the federal government today and if your methods such as: non-transparency, fudging the numbers, confiscating funds, and trying to ram through policy before the voters understand what has happened to them, is your policy too, we will all work to get the incumbents out. Citizens are tired of this corruption and deceit and overstep.

Let’s be clear: most islanders are lower to middle income people and with the island a home to many retirees, many are on a fixed income. This fare increase is basically a huge tax increase that will make all other necessities for life much harder to attain. Especially with lower income folks that populate this island, of which there are many. 

These fare increases are especially hard to stomach when one realizes that the county has used our budget — a budget you are saying is under-funded — to spend money on consultants to see how they can increase fare revenue the most without creating a squeal from residents. Well, let’s be clear. There is a squeal and we are all aware of your underhanded tactics to ram this fare increase through and how you have used our budget to achieve your ends of more and more revenue to spend. And our committee has made residents of Guemes and Anacortes aware that these are the tactics you are taking.  

If there was one sense of fairness in your analysis, you would also consider in your thinking that we pay a higher percentage of ferry operating costs through fares than other neighboring counties – in that their road funds pay more of the ferry costs. Both Whatcom and Pierce county contribute 45% of the ferry budget from the Road fund but Skagit is only contributing 35% of the budget in our case. Why is there this disparity? Have the consultants you hired with our budget incorporated this into their analysis? No, they haven’t. And why? Because the goal is to sock to the residents of Guemes and to travelers to the island and workers coming to the island to try to justify these increases. This goes both ways: as many folks here on Guemes need to make a living off island, so this tends to hit these people even harder since their travel is more regular and compulsory. These ferry increases are a worse hit to the bottom line for most residents than increasing gas prices 100%. Even Biden has a keen focus on the cost of travel, which is why he is working hard to keep gas prices low. It is a harder hit to the average resident. 

Lastly, have you thought about the impacts to the island economy outside the residents? I think not. These huge fare increases are going to make it very difficult to bring much needed labor to the island from surrounding areas. Many of the island’s businesses will be in peril because bringing lower wage labor to the island will be very challenging. Bringing contractors to fix homes and improve homes will also skyrocket in cost. 

This all comes in a year where inflation is the highest its been in 40 years and Skagit County homeowners received a 50% increase in our real estate taxes. My road taxes are up 20% in one year. None of these things have been a concern to you.   

Every islander or worker that comes to the island from Skagit county is opposed to this ferry fare increase. If you listen to your constituents, you will not increase fares at all. Make things more equal with how much the county pays toward the Guemes ferry’s operating budget, stop using our budget to pay for consultants that benefit only you, look for reasonable ways to reduce costs vs only looking through the lens/mindset that more revenue from your constituents is always better. This is an egregious power grab (money is power you know) and this kind of crazy has inflamed the residents. Do the right thing! Leave fares unchanged.

Taunya Sell, Guemes resident, wife and mother of two boys.

________

Frans Sell 

April 17

A Vote for No Fare Increase for Guemes Island

Skagit Valley Board of Commissioners:

I am a 3-year resident of Guemes island. One of the reasons we moved here was the lower cost ferry system that could enable me and my family to live on island. I speak to residents across the island, contractors to the island (we had to have our septic system replaced this last month), workers at the Guemes Island General Store, farmers, retirees and vacationers and all are strongly opposed to the fare increase the Board of Commissioners is proposing. It is a shock and a slap in the face to those I speak with that the proposed fare increases are in many cases greater than 100%. This is crazy.

The folks I speak with are also opposed to charging different rates for peak and non-peak and creating several new categories of fares. Since inception, Guemes has had a simple fare policy that is easy for residents and contractors to the island to understand. Simple is the most fair policy and it would seem that the only reason to change the fare system would be to make things less transparent so residents have difficulty understanding exactly what they are paying. A simple fare policy is best.  

The costs to bring our kids to football for the season will now cost more than $2700 this year if you implement these crazy fare increases, vs $1200 in 2022. $1200 is bad enough and it makes one think twice about even letting them participate at $2700. This will make it tough on us.

Also, the plan to immediately implement the higher fares reminds me of the federal government policy of ramming legislation through before people understand what has really happened. Let’s be clear – no one is happy with the federal government and the way they have been running things lately. We moved up here to get away from bad policy but are now wondering if too many Seattleites have moved up to Skagit since the policies and methodologies seem so similar. Many many people are not happy with this way of governing.

The desire for transparency, honesty and fairness doesn’t seem apparent with your committee. With this egregiously huge fare increase, most residents on Guemes have wisened up to the fact that one reason that we are not meeting our ferry costs is that the county decided to use our budget to hire consultants at costs of hundreds of thousands a year just to analyze how you could soak us residents the most for more money. How incredibly ironic is that? This is terrible governance – you are here to serve with transparency and fairness. It clearly doesn’t exist on this committee.

Fairness clearly wasn’t the goal as otherwise these consultants would have applied a higher percentage of the ferry operating cost budget emanating from the road fund. In both Whatcom and Pierce county, those counties contribute 45% of the ferry budget from the Road fund. Here in Skagit we pay a much higher percentage of our ferry’s operating costs with the Road fund only contributing 35%. Residents here know this fact too.

 This fare increase is going to drive businesses from the island as lower wage earners won’t be compensated enough to make it here to work, a very horrible outcome for the island economy. For those that have to travel off-island to work this will be an even harder pill to swallow. Bringing contractors to the island is going to be almost impossible without huge step-ups in cost for Guemes resident. And with a large retiree community here on island, mostly on a fixed income, this is really going to pinch. Think hard about these second order impacts.

This committee has not been transparent, is trying to ram through the fare increases immediately, dipping into our ferry budget to hire consultants to sock it to residents more with higher fares and has not even considered cost savings. Only tax increases, because let’s be clear – these higher ferry fares (travel costs) are just like a tax. An egregious and high new tax.

Our real estate taxes are up 50%, inflation is the highest since I was in grade school and your committee doesn’t even blink about raising fares more than 100%. For many, many on island this will be a far harder pill to swallow than even gas prices going up 100%, 200%, 300%. Do you think about these things? Do you think or care about your constituents?

Do the right thing! Stop trying to gouge residents of Guemes. You must think that island residents are rich retirees. This is so far from the truth – many families struggle today to live on the island at current fare rates. Those with families. Those on fixed incomes. And the last thing we want is for many lower-income residents to have to move off-island, so that Guemes turns into some nasty rich enclave of Seattle. Seattle is a mess.

It is the job of government to serve its constituents, to cleave to a mindset of fairness, efficiency, transparency and honesty – but your committee seems to have none of these traits. If you can’t do the right thing, it will be our goal to replace you with those that will try to serve the best interest of the residents of Skagit county. Be a thoughtful and fair leader that listens to its constituents. Leave fares unchanged!  

Frans Sell

______

Gabriel Murphy

Commissioners:

Thank you as always for your time and effort! I truly appreciate the work you do for our county.

Leading up to today’s Work Session with Public Works regarding the Guemes Ferry Fare changes, I’d like to ask that you consider the following:

The 2022 to 2032 Skagit County Strategic Plan outlines the Vision, Mission, and Values that the Skagit County government intends to operate by to promote sustainable growth and a vibrant economy. The first two, and arguably most important, Values in this plan are “Communication” and “Collaboration.” Communication and Collaboration are key to a respectful and trusting relationship between County Government officials and the communities they serve. I would like to promote this dialogue.

When considering rescinding Resolutions R20100050/R20110382 and writing the new Resolution codifying the new Guemes Ferry Fare Structure for 2023, I would like to ask that you consider keeping “Attachment A: Guemes Ferry Operations Public Forum” and consider updating the language in this “Attachment” to reflect the current and future Values that the Strategic Plan outlines. The aforementioned resolutions outline a collaborative working relationship between Skagit County Public Works, the Guemes Island Ferry Committee, and the Guemes Island community at large.

I would like to request that Public Works/Ferry Operations works directly with the GIFC to come up with a new and more feasible version of the “Forum” that will leverage the GIFC to take some of the burden off of Public Works when it comes to meeting and communicating with the Island. We understand that there is a significant burden to county officials to come to the island to meet with community members, and that is something that the GIFC can help with.

As a member of the Guemes Island Community and as a member of the Guemes Island Ferry Committee, I am committed to keeping an open communication channel and a collaborative relationship with Public Works and the Commissioners. Our primary goal as the committee is to advocate for a safe, efficient, reliable, and sustainable ferry service to Guemes Island. Please ask Public Works to work with us to make this happen.

Thank you as always for your time and consideration!

Gabriel Murphy

_______

Mark Madden

Cc: commissioners@co.skagit.wa.us 

Subject: Proposed Guemes Ferry Fare Rate Increase

State law RCW 36.82.070 provides that County Road Funds may be used for operations and maintenance (O&M) of roads, bridges, or ferries.  For the past many years, Guemes Island ferry O&M costs have been shared by the Skagit County Road Fund, the State, and ferry fares paid by the ferry users.  Other users of roads and bridges in Skagit County have not contributed to O&M costs for roads or bridges by tolls or any other passage fare collections.  Only ferry users pay additional transportation costs above taxes on property and fuel.   

The Skagit County Public Works Department currently projects Guemes Island ferry O&M costs will be over $750K above the current planned budget.  They propose this funding gap be paid solely by the Guemes ferry users with fare increases averaging 71%.  They claim their proposal is necessary for the Road Fund to maintain the service levels of roads and bridges in the remainder of Skagit County.  The roads and bridges in the remainder of the County have also experienced inflationary increases.  The Guemes ferry rate increase will shift County transportation cost increases to a minority group of citizens for the benefit of the majority. 

For over 5 years ferry fares have paid over half of Skagit County obligations for Guemes ferry O&M costs.  The fare rates covering the fare contribution have been based on a five-year average cost basis to smooth the annual change.  The annual ferry O&M annual cost fluctuation is high.  However, is not desirable to fluctuate ferry fares up and down each year.   

The proposed ferry rate increase is based on a very high O&M year of cost instead of an average cost year.  In this past year ferry O&M costs have experienced record high inflation, sky high diesel costs last fall, and a second month of drydock repairs in 9 months.  Yet the future O&M costs are projected to be 25% lower than the average when the new electric ferry is in service.  Ferry fare rates should be based on an actual ferry O&M cost, not the highest peak ferry O&M cost ever experienced.  Ferry fares based on a high-cost year will result in overpayment during all other years. 

The Guemes residential decline in recent years is partially caused by unreliable transportation service.  Inadequate capacity and frequent breakdowns sometimes increase ferry crossing times two or three times the normal twenty minutes.  Frequent second trip ferry runs, and necessary early ferry line arrivals add thousands of hours of waiting time for users. And they drive up the costs for deliveries and services.  Some retailers even decline service to Guemes Island.  Ferry breakdowns and lengthy maintenance periods make jobs or other daily needs impractical.  

Public Works has squeezed all the efficiency possible out of ferry operations but failed to add adequate resources for public service.  Proposing a 71% increase in user costs for the same inadequate service demonstrates a desire to reduce the livability for property owners on Guemes Island.  Skagit County should serve Guemes Island to the same standards as other County areas.  This will require the proposing of a fair and reasonable ferry rate increase and improving service levels when the new electric ferry is operating.  

Regards,

Mark Madden

__________