San Juan County updates derelict-vessel program, seeks $26,000 to close prior-year gaps

Carrie Koski, derelict-vessel program coordinator in San Juan County’s Environmental Stewardship Department, told the County Council on April 14 that the county has operated a vessel removal program since 2004 and a prevention program since 2012, and that the two together now run on roughly a $150,000 annual budget.

Koski said the removal program is funded through the county’s solid-waste program and that the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reimburses the county for much of removal work. “Washington Department of Natural Resources reimburses, 90 to a 400% of those removals, including wages and benefits for admin time and indirect,” Koski said.

The county’s prevention work is smaller but focused on outreach, turn‑in events and coordinating with community groups. Koski said prevention is not reimbursable by the state and relies on federal and state grants and public donations; she gave a rough breakdown of current spending: “That program runs around a a hundred and 11 or so thousand dollars. … The prevention program … is about $39,000. So the total DV budget is about a hundred and 50 k,” Koski said.

Why it matters: Koski and council members emphasized that preventing vessels from becoming derelict costs far less than salvaging or demolishing a vessel after it sinks or is stranded. Koski described a range of social and logistical drivers—aging boats, limited marina space, difficulty insuring older vessels, and people using boats as housing—that increase the county’s workload.

Program scale and results: Koski said the county program has removed 105 vessels over roughly 20 years at a cost exceeding $1 million; she said recent individual removal costs ranged from about $1,500 to $41,000 and average project costs run “around 11 to 12 k per project.” She reported six county removals during the previous year and 27 countywide removals when including partner efforts (DNR-led projects, voluntary turn-in events and organized turn-in events with Northwest Straits Foundation).

Partners and operations: Koski described the county’s prevention work—outreach at marinas and yacht clubs, a hotline and a vessel-turn-in assistance program that helps owners use DNR’s voluntary turn-in program. She described coordination with the Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Department of Ecology, the county Department of Emergency Management, local ports and the Northwest Straits Foundation. Koski said county staff can act as a temporary authorized public entity to move or secure vessels when other agencies cannot immediately respond.

Law enforcement and human services constraints: Koski said many of the vessels of concern are occupied or used by people with housing and behavioral-health needs. “About probably about half of the boats … have an active person who’s a live aboard,” she said. Koski and council members discussed limits to impound or enforcement where vessels are used as residences, and the challenge of getting timely assistance and information from law enforcement. Koski said the county is exploring a liaison with the prosecuting attorney’s office and potential coded systems to share limited information about persons of concern, and is discussing whether the Department of Licensing could grant limited access to vessel registration data to speed identification.

Funding and budget request: Koski told the council she is proposing a budget amendment to transfer unclosed funds from 2019–2023 into the current account, saying “we’re looking at about 26,000 for that.” She characterized the annual local administrative funding for the part‑time coordinator position as roughly $70,000 (a 20‑hour/week position) and reiterated that prevention funding (about $39,000) is fragile because it depends largely on grants and donations. Council members and staff discussed short‑term donations and the possibility of asking marinas or yacht-club donors for support if state funding drops.

Council discussion and next steps: Council members thanked Koski for the presentation, asked for more clarity about utility and partner capacity (water/sewer not applicable, but coordination with ports and marinas matters for access), and raised implementation questions about transportation access for specific expansion or staging areas. No formal vote was taken; Koski’s requested $26,000 budget amendment and other items were discussed but not acted on during the meeting.

Ending: Koski encouraged the council to consider ways to sustain prevention funding and to support operational coordination with law enforcement, public‑safety and utility partners; council members indicated they would follow up and that staff would work with the auditor and prosecutor’s office to close prior‑year projects and to clarify next steps.