Reply to County Brief by Fair Fares, LLC
Hon. Kathryn C. Loring
Hearing Date: October 14, 2025, 1:30 PM
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON
FOR SKAGIT COUNTY
STEPHEN D. ORSINI, et al.,
Petitioners,
Case No.: 25-2-00131-29
v.
THE BOARD OF SKAGIT COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, et al.,
Respondents.
PETITIONERS’ REPLY BRIEF
ON APPEAL
Petitioners respectfully submit this Reply to Respondents' Brief on this appeal.
Respondents' defense of Resolutions R20250009 and R20250015 rests on a portrayal of a
thorough, data-driven process that purportedly justifies dramatic fare increases and the abrupt
elimination of non-expiring punch cards. However, this characterization ignores critical flaws in
the process, including inflated cost projections, disregard for public input and economic impacts
on Guemes Island residents, and failure to consider viable alternatives. Respondents' claims fail
under the arbitrary and capricious standard, as their decisions were willful and unreasoning,
disregarding substantial facts in the record.
I. OBJECTION TO OVER-LENGTH BRIEF
As Respondents note, this appeal is governed by the Rules of Appellate Procedure for
Appeals of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (“RALJ”). Resp. Br., at 8. The rules provide that the
briefs of appellant and respondent “shall not exceed 18 pages.” RALJ 7.3(b). Petitioners’
Opening Brief complies with this rule. Respondents have submitted a 25-page response brief,
without prior leave of court, prejudicing Petitioners. See Id. (“For good cause, the court may
PETITIONERS’ REPLY ON APPEAL – P. 1
grant a motion to file an over-length brief.”) Petitioners object and request that the Court strike
Respondents’ Brief, or limit consideration to the first 18 pages of the brief.
II. REPLY TO RESPONDENTS’ FACTUAL ASSERTIONS AND ARGUMENT
A. Petitioners Have Timely Appealed Resolution R20250009.
Respondents suggest that Petitioners are barred from challenging Resolution R20250009
because the Board had previously adopted R20240282 “limiting the future use of paper punch
cards,” on December 20, 2024, and such resolution “was not appealed.” Resp. Br., at 5.
As discussed in Petitioners’ Opening Brief, there was confusion regarding the agenda for
the December 20, 2024 meeting from the outset. Pet. Br., at 6. Resolution R20240282, as
introduced at the hearing, stated that “any and all paper punch cards” could not be used after a
certain date, but also expressly referred to punch cards with “expiration dates.” See CP 883-84
(“will be valid only until the expiration date printed on the card”; “regardless of the printed
expiration date”). When questions as to the status of “non-expiry” cards came up at the hearing,
Commissioner Wesen acknowledged that “we’re going to figure out a system how we can do
some kind of credit or something” to address such cards. CP 926. After further review, the
Board adopted Resolution R20250009, which expressly stated: that “subsequent to the adoption
of R20240282, it was determined” that the County has sold two types of cards with no printed
expiration date; that there “may be public confusion” as to the status of such cards; and that it
was “SUPERSEDING R20240282” accordingly. CP 1086 (emphasis added); see also CP 1090
(distinguishing “dated paper punch cards” and “no expiry” cards).
Petitioners were not obliged to appeal a resolution that had been superseded. Resolution
R20250009 was the operative “final action” to terminate cards that were sold with no expiration
date.
B. Termination of “Non-Expiry” Cards was Arbitrary and Unsupported.
Respondents conflate regular multi-use punch cards with “non-expiry” punch cards.
Resp. Br., at 11-14. Petitioners have not claimed that the regular multi-use paper punch cards
PETITIONERS’ REPLY ON APPEAL – P. 2
should not have been terminated as part of a transition to electronic ticketing. Nor are Petitioners
challenging the County’s efforts to shorten the expiration time for single ride or multi-ride passes
(CP 330, 502, 606-07), or enforce expiration dates on existing cards (CP 604 (comments of
Public Works Director Grace Kane, as quoted in Respondents’ Brief)). There was no
consideration of passes with no expiration date until the concerns were brought up by citizens at
the December 20 hearing. CP 900, 921, 926.
Non-expiry punch cards were sold with explicit promises, creating contractual
obligations to purchasers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the County encouraged residents to
purchase additional punch cards, generating $175,586 in revenue, expressly representing that
these cards would remain valid indefinitely. CP 64, 67-70. The County accepted these
contractual prepayments for future rides without any caveat of future termination. CP 78. The
County sold numerous additional “Convenience Cards” from 2018 to 2023, which were marked
“no expiry” or “valid until used.” CP 734, 1090.
The County does not identify any justification for breaching its expressed promises. The
County’s new e-ticketing system uses scannable QR codes for all fares, including “multi-ride”
fares and free rides for youth 18 and under. See CP 719; see also CP 610 (“[W]e can make
anything work in the E ticketing system. The question for the board is do you want to offer a
discount and do you want to have an expiration date.”) The County offered no reason why non-
expiry punch cards could not be converted to e-tickets with QR codes, to honor contractual
obligations.
C. The Alleged Funding Shortfalls and Rate Study Were Flawed and Inflated.
Respondents claim a cumulative farebox shortfall of $1.6 million from 2018 to 2023 to
support a 65% fare recovery of operational costs. Resp. Br. at 2-3. But during this same time
period, the Ferry collected $1,267,754 in new fares through the vessel replacement surcharge,
and $350,740 in Federal Ferry Boat grant funding. The County also chose not to reimburse lost
revenue which became available through the Federal Covid relief funds despite promises to the
PETITIONERS’ REPLY ON APPEAL – P. 3
contrary. CP 49, 78, 433. In total, these non-attributed revenues exceed the stated $1.66 million
“farebox shortfalls.”
Respondents rely on the 2023 KPFF rate study for projections (Resp. Br. at 3), but
selectively applied its findings. The study recommended phased increases over five years at an
average of approximately 14% annually and stressed tracking ridership to assess fare elasticity
CP 148, 154 (“a larger fare increase is likely to cause a greater reduction in demand”). The
Board, however, adopted hikes ranging from 22-82% without such monitoring (CP 146-79).
The KPFF study also endorsed multi-ride discounts of 15% to support affordability (CP
146-79), but the Board eliminated these, without justification, amplifying the effective increases.
Federal grants and reimbursements were not fully accounted for in the methodology (CP 433).
D. The County Has Improperly Incorporated Capital Costs In Its O&M Projections.
As discussed in Petitioners’ Opening Brief, the County inflated the projected O&M costs
for the ferry by including the costs of refurbishing the MV Guemes to accommodate new
engines, as part of its regular haul-out. This additional work increased the cost of the dry-dock
to $1.6 million, well in excess of the usual costs of $500,000 to $1 million.
Respondents quote staff representations that the haul-out did “not include capital costs,”
and correctly point out that the $1.6 million costs did not include “the purchase of engines or
outdrives.
” Resp., at 17 (emphasis added). But they fail to address the substance of Petitioners’
argument. The Nichols Bros. contract included all of the associated costs of refurbishing the
vessel to accommodate installation of the new engines. See CP 741 (“we know we’re going to
have a big shipyard in 2025 where we put on the new engines”). These associated costs were not
“routine dry-docking as associated repairs,” but rather “major vessel refurbishment.” CP 233,
92-98; WAC 136-400-030. They should not have been counted as O&M; see Earl vs. Whatcom
County. This artificially inflated the County’s fare projections.
E The County Excluded Significant Revenues from Its Fare Calculation.
The County argues that it was not obliged to include “compensated amounts” in its fare
PETITIONERS’ REPLY ON APPEAL – P. 4
calculations because nothing in prior resolutions “required inclusion of other funding.” Resp.
Br., at 18. Funding received by the County pursuant to the Federal Ferry Boat Program and State
“Youth Ride Fee” program is plainly revenue that serves to defray the County’s operating costs
for the ferry, and should be included in O&M calculations.
F. The County’s Public Process Was Limited and Did Not Incorporate Key Feedback.
Respondents describe a process with hearings, work sessions, and adjustments. Resp. Br.
at 3-5. While some engagement occurred, the record shows substantive concerns -- such as
affordability impacts (e.g., $420/month commuting costs; CP 471) and alternatives like grants or
efficiencies (CP 433, 766-771) -- were not adequately addressed in the final resolutions. Rather
than mitigating these concerns, the Board significantly reduced multi-ride discounts, escalating
the originally proposed ~30% fare increase to effective hikes of 30-90% for frequent users, and
in particular, senior/disabled riders. CP 556-76; see also Opening Br. at 4-5 (noting additional
increases for multi-ride 20-trip vehicle and 25-trip passenger punch cards). This response
directly contradicted public input on affordability, exacerbating burdens on riders without
justification.
G The Board Failed to Consider Alternatives and Equities.
Respondents point to comments from Public Works Director Kane, suggesting that
increase in fares “is not just a financial problem but an equity issue.” Resp. Br., at 10. Ms.
Kane’s comments underscore the true equity issue at hand, which Respondents ignore: The
Guemes Island Ferry is an integral part of the County's road system, and serves as the sole route
on and off the island for its residents. Unlike every other road and bridge in Skagit County, the
ferry is not fully funded through general road funds, and instead relies on daily payments from a
captive ridership, who must rely on it to access work, schools, and essential services. The
County may expend millions for culverts or bridges benefiting small numbers of residents (not
on Guemes Island), yet such infrastructure is funded collectively without user-specific tolls. This
is the nature of shared public infrastructure.
PETITIONERS’ REPLY ON APPEAL – P. 5
The Board’s actions to increase fares, based on inflated cost predictions and exclusion of
alternate revenues, force residents to personally pay an even greater share of costs for basic
mobility. The County’s 2025 schedule increased fares by an average of 30%, and up to 81% for
senior/disabled multi-ride passes. CP 1032-33.1
H. The Challenged Resolutions Were Arbitrary and Capricious.
There is no dispute that a decision is arbitrary and capricious if willful and unreasoning,
in disregard of facts and circumstances. Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wn.2d 373, 383, 932
P.2d 139 (1997); see Resp. Br., at 9-10. The County’s arbitrary termination of unused, “non-
expiring” fare cards (R20250009), and dramatic increase of fares based on inflated cost
projections and disregard for available revenues (R20250015) meet this standard.
Petitioners rely on their Opening Brief for remaining issues not addressed herein.
III. CONCLUSION
Respondents' brief fails to rebut Petitioners' showing that the resolutions were arbitrary
and capricious. The Court should reverse, invalidate the 2025 fare increase and punch card
elimination, and remand for a rate-setting process that properly considers actual ferry operating
costs and revenues.
Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of October, 2025.
LAW OFFICE OF CARL J. MARQUARDT PLLC
/s/ Carl J. Marquardt
Carl J. Marquardt (WA Bar No. 23257)
1126 34th Avenue, Suite 311
Seattle, WA 98122
Tel: (206) 388-4498
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Petitioners
1 Respondents claim multi-ride discounts “are based on frequency of use, not age.” Resp. Br., at
21. In fact, the County increased fares “senior/disabled” fares by 51% (non-peak) and 74%
(peak) for passengers, and 47% (non-peak) and 81% (peak) for vehicles. CP 1032-33, 1122.
PETITIONERS’ REPLY ON APPEAL – P. 6
Notes
The County has no right to Reply to our Reply. Next major event, Hearing, Skagit County Court House, 1:00pm, October 14.