Questions for Skagit County Ferry Division Year-End Meeting

Questions About Timing, Transparency, and Public Process

Why is the required annual public meeting being held after the 2026 fare increases and the budget were already approved?
- Did public input, if any, inform those decisions?
- Will this meeting affect future decisions or is it purely informational?
Will the Ferry Division commit to holding next year’s required meeting before fare-setting and budget adoption, so public input can actually influence outcomes?
Why was this year’s meeting scheduled as virtual-only, when virtual formats significantly limit discussion and public interaction?
- Will the county present in person on the island going forward?

Why were engineering services for new engine installation — clearly a capital improvement — budgeted and reported as Operations & Maintenance?
Examples include:
- Design of new engine enclosures
- Structural modifications
- Exhaust routing redesign
- New drive line and outdrive foundations
Can the county provide a full accounting of all line items that were capital in nature but charged to the O&M budget over the past 10 years?
How did misclassification of capital expenses inflate the apparent cost of operations and subsequently inflate the required farebox contribution?
Examples include:
- Electronic ticketing moving from the capital improvement plan to O&M with no explanation
Will the county correct these classifications going forward to ensure riders are not unfairly funding capital improvements through fares?

How does the new fare calculation method prevent inflated budget projections or misallocated expenses from automatically increasing fares?
- What safeguards exist?
- How will the public be able to audit or verify the numbers used?
What criteria does the Ferry Division use to define “actual expenditures” if capital work is routinely recorded as O&M?
Can the county produce a transparent breakdown of what portion of fare increases are related to:

Public Works acknowledged that key maintenance was postponed for years to keep budgets low.
How much of the current fare increase directly results from those decisions?
What internal review has been conducted to determine why the engine replacement took an extra 10 weeks in drydock — at significant added cost to the ferry division?
What corrective actions are being implemented to prevent extended shipyard delays and cost overruns in future haul outs?

Has the county determined how much federal Ferry Boat Formula funding was lost due to the failure to file the ferry census?
Does the county agree that fare payers should not bear any portion of the cost of that lost or under reported revenue?

If so, how will the county correct the 2026 farebox requirement to reflect those mis-steps?
If not, why should riders pay for administrative errors made by the county?

Will the county formally commit to crediting future ferry budgets with the amount lost or under reported and recalculate farebox targets accordingly?

How does the ferry budget demonstrate the same cost discipline that other county departments were required to endure — personnel cuts, furloughs, hiring freezes, and deferred purchases?
Why is the ferry presented as having ‘no possible efficiencies’ when every other department has been forced to identify reductions and restructuring?
Why is the ferry budget treated as structurally exempt from countywide austerity measures?

Will the county commit to publishing a quarterly ferry financial report — separating capital and O&M — so the public can verify the data used in fare-setting?
What steps is the county taking to rebuild public trust after:

Together, we can help ensure the ferry system remains reliable, fiscally sustainable, and fair for everyone who depends on it.