Proposition 1 November voting issue: an analysis

[pasayten]

The Census demographics for the Methow School District are:

Total Population
5,904
Median Household Income |
$62,436
Total Households
2,673

Census does not count houses/folks that are part-time and registered as living elsewhere.

Just for an example, lets considers that there are a total of 4,000 households in the District counting part-time...

$23,000,000 / 4,000 = $5,750 PER HOUSEHOLD... Good grief this is an immense and overblown project for the Valley!!!

[pasayten]

Informed that My Turn letter is scheduled for next week. Great news!

[Fun CH]

Don't forget that a Metropolitan Park District by law gives them the right of eminental domain.

A limited Metropolitan Park District is variation on the MPD structure, but I'm unsure whether or not a limited MPD includes all powers granted under Washington state laws.

A limited MPD however does have to declare its Levy rate before a vote.

"A metropolitan park district may also be formed for a limited purpose that identifies specific public parks and/or recreational facilities (such as specific swimming pools, playfields, or public parks). A limited purpose MPD must establish its levy rate within the initial ballot measure. The rate becomes the maximum levy rate until a future ballot measure is placed before the voters for a levy rate lift."

https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/parks-a ... -districts

[pasayten]

Your taxes will go up... Rents will go up... VOTE NO!!!

Metropolitan Park District Finances
A metropolitan park district (MPD) is a junior taxing district that has two regular property tax levies available - one of $0.50 per $1,000 assessed valuation (AV) and one of $0.25. They are considered as a single levy (up to $0.75) for the purposes of the 1% annual levy limits in chapter 84.55 RCW, which sets limits on the amount by which a levy can be increased (RCW 35.61.210). However, the levy rate could potentially be reduced through prorationing, and the two portions of the levy have different rankings in the prorationing statute (RCW 84.52.010).

Any taxing jurisdiction, including a metropolitan park district, that is levying property taxes at a rate lower than its maximum rate can ask the voters to lift the levy lid by more than one percent. A simple majority vote is required. For more information, see our Levy Lid Lifts page.

A metropolitan park district may also impose one-year excess levies, subject to 60% voter approval and minimum validation (turnout) requirements. See RCW 84.52.052, RCW 35.61.210, and Washington State Constitution, Art. 7, Sec. 2(a).

Metropolitan park districts may issue general obligation debt in an amount equal to 2 ½ percent of their assessed valuations. (RCW 35.61.110) Of this 2 ½ percent, ¼ percent may be nonvoted (also called councilmanic) debt. (RCW 35.61.100) The rest must be voted. The source for repayment of nonvoted debt is the district’s general fund. For voted debt, debt service is paid from an excess property tax levy, which must be passed by a 60 percent vote, with an election turnout of at least 40 percent of those voting in the last general election. (RCW 84.52.056 and art. 7, sec.2, of the constitution.) This debt must be used for capital purposes (RCW 84.52.056) and can issued for a maximum of 20 years. (RCW 35.61.100)

Districts may also issue all kinds of short-term debt: tax anticipation notes, bond anticipation notes, revenue anticipation notes, grant anticipation notes as well as use lines of credit. (RCW 35.61.100)

The ex officio treasurer of the district must be the county treasurer of the county within which all, or the major portion, of the district lies, unless otherwise designated by the district (RCW 35.61.180). If the district boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of a city, the city may act as the district treasurer. Otherwise, the district can designate a different treasurer only if the board has received the approval of the county treasurer. If the district is someone other than the city or county treasurer, the treasurer must be bonded.

If the district is using the county treasurer, the district's tax revenues must be placed in a separate fund within the county treasurer's office to be known as the "metropolitan park district fund" and paid out on warrants (RCW 35.61.210).

[pasayten]

This is what you would be voting for... VOTE NO!!!!!


Function and Powers of Metropolitan Park District
An MPD may:

Purchase, acquire and condemn lands within or without the boundaries of park district

Issue and sell warrants, short- term obligations, or general obligation bonds

Issue revenue bonds

Petition for the creation of local improvement districts

Employ counsel, provide for park police officers, secretary of the board, and all necessary employees

Establish civil service for employees

Regulate, manage and control, improve, acquire, extend and maintain, open and lay out, parks, parkways, boulevards, avenues, aviation landings and playgrounds, within or without the park district

Authorize, conduct, and manage:
the letting of boats or other amusement apparatus,
the operation of bath houses,
the purchase and sale of foodstuffs or other merchandise,
the giving of vocal or instrumental concerts or other entertainments,
the management and conduct of such forms of recreation or business as it shall judge desirable or beneficial for the public, or for the production of revenue for expenditure for park purposes.

Sell, exchange, or otherwise dispose of surplus property.

Annex territory.

[Fun CH]

I don't think this proposition has "overwhelming public support" as is being portrayed by the Friends of the Pool organization.

Another Community member sent me this text.

"I just read the 78 page proposal that the proponents wrote. They haven't been honest with us about the taxes needed to build and run the MPD. "

[pasayten]

Everybody is invited to comment/post on the nopooltaxes blog page!

https://chewack.com/nopooltaxes/blog-page/

I also started a Facebook Page...

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100094094394835

[pasayten]

Ray, just looked at the website! Fantastic.
How to get the word out about this?

Just send out the link.... Folks are welcome to comment on the blog also... http://nopooltaxes.com

I will be adding more stuff and dress it up as time goes by

[PAL]

Ray, just looked at the website! Fantastic.
How to get the word out about this?

[Fun CH]

This Proposition 1 analysis came to me from a community member with permission to post.

Can this be posted on the http://nopooltaxes.com website I am putting together?

I do ask when it is private individuals... lol...

thanks for asking Ray. I checked and yes go ahead and post that on your website. I need to correct a few typos that were pointed out which I'll do now.

[pasayten]

This Proposition 1 analysis came to me from a community member with permission to post.

Can this be posted on the http://nopooltaxes.com website I am putting together?

I do ask when it is private individuals... lol...

[PAL]

Excellant. This community member has done their homework. I've read most of the study but now with the specific pages I will go back and review.
It does gall me that, and I remember this, that they are saying they have "overwhelming support for the center".
I am in the process of writing a letter to the editor and this is a good point to make that there is not overwhelming support.
And it will be my own words, not words used here.
There are many questions that come to mind. One is, how will the building be heated or cooled? Big heat pump? It is not known at this time.
By the way, Andy Hover takes phone calls. I intend to call him in a few days and discuss this project. His number is on the website, which I don't have in front of me right now. The county commissioners are thinking of endorsing this. They were given a presentation last Tues.
I wonder if the community member has written a letter or a Muy Turn about this?
If what they say is true that people don't really know the details of what they are voting on, then they must be informed.
Pearl

[Fun CH]

This Proposition 1 analysis came to me from a community member with permission to post.

Quote:

"There is apparently in our community a misunderstanding as to just what this pool proposal is, and a lot of selling of feel-good emotion to promote it. I think it is important, for the voters to think hard about the taxation implications and economics of this pool proposal.

On the Friends of the Pool (FOP) website https://www.foptwisp.org/ you can read the final report of the study they hired. It is well worth people studying the economics of this proposal, that their very own study actually does a good job of outlining.

In conversations with friends of a variety of stripes, it has been rather shocking how uninformed most people seem to be as to what they will be asked to vote on. For example, apparently many people think this measure is only about raising funding to construct a $20+ million pool. When it is pointed out, people are surprised to hear that along with the construction costs, based on the best case estimate of maxing out all possible revenue sources, it will cost over $600,000 per year to cover the operational deficit. That is new information to them. I think a whole lot of people do not understand that this proposed pool would be really expensive to build and will perpetually operate at a greater than $600,000 deficit in today’s dollars.

Here’s a link to the study. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... Report.pdf

It’s well worth reading the whole thing. It’s rather jaw dropping what they want the public to sign on to. To look at the financing structure, start reading at p. 61. It outlines the four different operational structures available. The structure the FOP chose, a Metropolitan Park District (MPD) only needs a simple majority to be adopted, thereby becoming a permanent junior taxing district. I don’t think a lot of people understand the permanence of that detail. They are not just voting to fund the construction of a pool. More importantly, they are actually voting to create a permanent taxation district that will have several mechanisms for taxing, that the the voters will have no further say about other than to pay their property tax statement. This is also the organizational structure that will allow them to raise the largest amount of money with the least amount of public input.

For example, a Metropolitan Park District can tax at a higher rate than any of the other three structures and same goes for raising funding through bond issuance.

P.67
 General obligation debt. Can be issued in an amount equal to 2 ½ % of assessed valuations.
Of this, ¼ % may be non-voted debt. The source for repayment of non-voted debt is the district
general fund. For voted debt, debt service is paid from an excess property tax levy and must be
passed by a 60% vote. This debt must be used for capital purposes and can be issued for 20
years maximum. (RCW 84.52.056, Constitution art. 7, sec.2, RCW 35.61.100, RCW
35.61.110)

P.70 talks about debt. The board would have the authority to issue debt without voter input to the tune of~$4 million based on current property valuations. Keep in mind that is more than the Fire District 6 voters turned down repeatedly for the construction of the new fire station in Winthrop. This pool board could, and most likely would have to assume that non-voted debt in order just to construct the pool (as the study points out, see below). Doubtless, by the time that debt was paid off, there would be significant enough capital improvement repairs needed to the building housing the pool that they would re-issue to the same (actually greater, inflation adjusted) amount. The moral of that issue is that, highly likely, servicing ~$4million (and rising as property values rise) of debt will be part of the perpetual, annual operational cost and deficit of that pool. To raise more debt than that would require a voter approved levy with 60% approval. Doubtful such levy measures would pass, but they would still have the non-voted limit that they could max out.

P.70
MPD Debt Limit Considerations
The pool feasibility study is considering different levels of debt funding. First an MPD is limited on
the amount of debt it can issue. A MPD has the ability to issue general obligation debt. There are limits
both on the amount voted and non-voted (commonly referred to as councilmanic). Overall, the limit is
2.5% of the assessed value in the district. Assuming an MPD boundary contiguous with the existing
school district boundary, the follow debt limits might apply.
• Total Debt Limit: $39.7 million
• Total Non-Voted Limit: $3.97 million

Combined Debt and Subsidy on Levy Capacity
A combined debt and operating expense that used the full capacity of the levy would max out a total
bond of between $7.5 and $8 million.

They are claiming that they will likely be able to generate the construction funding from donors and public funding sources, but their own study says that along with all other sources such as above, they will also need to take on debt.

P.70
Debt Issuance and Levy Requirements
Prior to the creation of the MPD, it is useful to understand how different levels of debt obligation will
impact the capacity of the MPD levy. The pool will likely be funded through a range of public, private,
and philanthropic funding sources, but it is likely that debt issued by the MPD will be a prominent source of capital.

Then we get to the issue of the cost of the permanent operational deficit of this proposed aquatic center. Again, it seems that this is clearly not commonly understood by many folks. Presumably the quote below from their study is based on the most optimistic and exhaustive estimates of revenue sources the study could outline. If the revenues don’t meet that estimate, obviously the deficit would be larger since the expenses would remain the same.

P.71
Operating Subsidy Levy Requirements
Outside of debt service, the MPD levy will also have to fund the operation of the facility. The level of
operating subsidy is currently estimated at $600,000 per year. At this level, the levy rate would need to
be approximately $0.38 per $1,000 of assessed value in the district.

$600,000 per year, every year, forever, of course increasing with inflation and assuming their optimistic revenue estimates are accurate.

So the FOP are billing this Aquatic Center as the only viable way to provide a pool to keep the valley children from drowning. Obviously that is not true and they already paid for an earlier preliminary study that looked at four different scenarios ranging from recreating a seasonal outdoor pool akin to the existing Wagner pool up to this three pool, year round, indoor aquatic center. That preliminary study used to be linked on the FOP website but it no longer is. (Curious that they don’t want us to see it anymore.) Back when it was released, the Methow Valley News published an article that did a reasonable job of summarizing the four different options. Here’s that article. https://methowvalleynews.com/2022/04/13 ... -memorial/.


In that preliminary study, for the most expensive option, which is the option FOP has selected to pursue, the construction cost was estimated at $17.9-23.4 million with an annual operational deficit of $650,000 to $725,000. The study also estimated that an outdoor replacement for the Wagner Pool would cost $8-11 million, with an annual operational deficit of $75-125,000. That’s half a million difference per year just in the operational deficit. People in the Methow don’t seem to understand that. The construction cost difference between the outdoor pool estimate and the $20+ million they want the voters to sign off on is $9-12 million. That’s enough to build 2-3 more fire stations in the valley. Will the fire hall in Twisp need replacing sometime in the future? I have no idea. The difference in these pool options could easily pay for one. I may be off on the numbers, they should be checked, but just the $9-12 million difference would pretty much have covered the combined costs of the new Winthrop fire hall ($4.5? million), the Winthrop library ($5? million) and the new Twisp town hall ($3+? million). And that ignores what could be purchased with just the $500,000 difference in the operational deficits between a seasonal, outdoor replacement pool and this luxury indoor aquatic center. Every 8-10 years you could build a new fire hall. Hell, every 16 years you could build a new outdoor pool. Or by their own numbers they could build and operate outdoor pools in both Twisp and Winthrop for less than what they are proposing for their aquatic center and still save $400,000 per year in the operational deficit. Not that I am suggesting we need two pools, but it demonstrates the magnitude of what they are asking us to authorize them to spend, supposedly on our behalf.

If the public is being asked to create and authorize a new permanent taxing district to fund the construction and operational deficit of this one, a very expensive facility, wouldn’t it be wise to first do a bit of a review of what other if any significant public expenditures we all might collectively be looking at in the coming 10 years for example. This project looks to me like a budget buster or at least a budget hog. Will we need to replace the fire hall in Twisp at some point? I don’t know. How much life is left in the high school building? It’s been problematic from the get go. Back to the $500K difference in annual deficits above, that’s real money that could be allocated towards other public priorities that instead they want us to permanently direct towards, by function, a short lived, very expensive to build and operate project. Enclosing a pool inside a building is exceedingly hard on a building. It very safe to say that if this indoor pool proposal is built, the building will have a useful life dramatically shorter than for example the new fire hall in Winthrop. Likely in as little as 20 years, it will need significant, expensive repairs and renovation.

Another comparative way to look at the relative magnitude of what they are asking for is it appears from 2023 property tax statements that their charge on our property taxes will be roughly 2/3 of what we pay for our County Road assessment. Staggering.


And then there is their repeated statement that there is “overwhelming public support” for this project, as headlined in the Methow Valley News article above and other MVN articles since. Later in the above MVN article it reads, “ 'It’s becoming clearly apparent that people want indoor water,' said Ballard [the study consultant]. With that feedback, the consultants will work on refining plans for an indoor swimming pool facility…”. What the article didn’t state was that the above quote from Ballard during the Zoom meeting was made after about 12 people weighed in and said they preferred the year round indoor pool instead of a replacement outdoor pool. No kidding. The newspaper then characterized it as “overwhelming support” and FOP has run with that phrase since. "

While reviewing the MVN article, also note the following deficit estimate for the pool option FOP wants. "The annual operational shortfall would range from $650,000 to $725,000, consultants said.” I found it interesting that in the final report the operational deficit had fallen to $600K. If nothing else, it suggests a plausible, higher deficit range that voters should be aware of if the revenue estimates used in the final report can’t be met.

Here’s where the zoom link is on their website https://www.foptwisp.org/events-upcoming

And here’s the meeting https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y15mq3 ... SdxNn/view


I think there are a lot of people here that aren’t doing any critical thinking about this proposal, are buying into the “save the childen” argument and are disposed to supporting whatever pool proposal is thrown in front of them. Compared to what they are proposing, the also expensive ~$10 million + $100K annual deficit, seasonal outdoor pool option looks like a relative bargain. The finances of either scale of pool seem out of scale for this local economy considering the other recent publicly funded building projects in the Valley. Equally important and why this proposal should be rejected is the permanent tax district governed by an unelected board it would create. If this tax district is created as they desire, they would have enormous latitude to do what they want with public funds without much public opportunity to rein them in. They are proposing the 5 member board be composed of one member from each of the Twisp and Winthrop town councils, our local county commissioner (currently Andy Hover) and two at large members, one appointed by each of the Twisp and Winthrop town councils. They say this is effectively having voter accountable board members since these members are indirectly appointed by elected representatives. Unless of course you are one of the majority of effected residents that don’t live in either town. They are asking us to grant them the authority to pack the board with their self-selected, pro-pool advocates.

Hopefully renters are aware that the significant increases in their landlord’s property taxes due to this pool proposal will be directly passed on to them in the form of increased rent.

Which lastly begs the question of how this expensive proposal is supposed to help the chronic problems of affordable housing, lack of low wage workers etc? Seems like this is one more way to drive such folks away from being able to afford to try to work and live here. And just who will be able to afford to live here to work at the pool for the low wages outlined in their operational cost estimates in their study?

None of it makes much sense and certainly doesn’t instill any confidence that the folks that are pushing for this pool should be granted the trust to be sensible fiduciaries of an entirely new, permanent taxing district.

Hopefully Methow Valley voters will think very critically about this Metropolitan Park District and related pool proposal prior to the November election. "