Laserfiche WebLink
interviewees mentioned concern about wildfire, particularly in the upper county,and the ability of <br /> firefighters to access fires via county facilities and residents to evacuate. <br /> Several expressed appreciation for the Public Works Department and for clearing roads as quickly <br /> as possible during and after snow events. <br /> Proposed Levy <br /> Participants largely felt one of two ways about the proposed levy: <br /> 1)while they did not necessarily want to pay more taxes,they It's wise to take <br /> understood the critical need to maintain the county's roads and care of what we <br /> bridges and were generally supportive, or 2)were very concerned about have and keep <br /> the disproportionate burden of a levy on residents(particularly on larger projects <br /> farmers with large properties, people on fixed incomes, and people with separate. 9 <br /> low incomes)and wanted to explore other ways to payfor road and OF <br /> bridge maintenance, such as an impact fee or sales tax so visitors would <br /> also help pay for their usage. Most felt that a"maintain what the County has"approach over a <br /> substantially larger and more costly"new roads and bridges or improvements"approach was the <br /> right balance. <br /> Several themes surfaced around challenges the county may face with a road levy. <br /> Fairness around who will pay.Several interviewees expressed concerns about the <br /> disproportionate burden on residents, particularly on large <br /> landowners(since the amount people have to pay for the levy Consider having <br /> may be based on property value) and people on fixed <br /> people who are using <br /> incomes or who have low incomes.The County is experiencing the roads help pay <br /> urban growth,with new people moving in from the western side of for the maintenance. <br /> the state,and hosts manyvisitors,especially during the summer People on fixed <br /> months.Some stakeholders feel that visitors,who contribute to the incomes and rural <br /> wear and tear on the infrastructure, should also help pay for road communities are <br /> and bridge maintenance.They said the County should consider going to be extremely <br /> other methods to raise funds,such as an impact fee or sales tax so it burdened by this <br /> is not just an additional cost to residents.Another idea to cover the [levy]. <br /> cost was to ask for grant support from the state since the area is a <br /> popular summer destination in Washington, and congestion from 1-90 spillover adds <br /> to more traffic on county roads <br /> Sharing how the County got to this point.All participants emphasized that it will be critical for the <br /> County to share how they got to this point of needing more funding for road and bridge <br /> maintenance. Questions that will likely be important to voters will be around why the funding is <br /> needed now, how the previous funds were used, and why the current budget is not adequate to <br /> cover maintenance now(i.e., increased labor or material costs,greater growth,etc.). Many <br /> stakeholders acknowledged that while they do not want more taxes,they understand that under- <br /> maintaining the roads and bridges will lead to worsening conditions and more expensive fixes in the <br /> future. <br /> Kittitas County Road Levy Research [Stakeholder interview Draft Summary 3 <br /> March 2024 <br />