Post by Friends of the Pool » Wed Sep 27, 2023 5:10 am
If you’ve seen a certain No Pool Taxes website or posters around town you’d think Prop 1 will create “unlimited, unchecked spending.” To quote a poster in town, “You will be giving the District a BIG BLANK CHECK for construction and operations!”
This is false.
One of the most defined and inflexible aspects of Prop 1 is spending.
The levy by law CAN NOT be more than $75 per $100,000 of assessed value. No more. That is maximum. The proposition language LIMITS the funds to an aquatic facility, so that scope creep can’t happen. In a year, the increase could only be 1%.
If you want a pool in the Methow, please vote YES.
Friends of the Pool
Post by Reapward » Wed Sep 27, 2023 6:39 am
Understand something. It's not that some of us don't want a pool. We do not want a taxing district at a time like this. There are other needs. This is a want. This is a regressive tax. This is a permanent tax, I don't care how much you say you will be responsible on how our hard earned dollars are spent. And an excess levy could be proposed in the future. You're gonna need all the money you can get your hands on for a project of this magnitude. It would be the most expensive building in the Valley to build and maintain. Think about it.
Right, no open checkbook, literally, but figuratively, that's what it feels like.
Last edited by Reapward on Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pearl Cherrington
Post by seeyou » Wed Sep 27, 2023 6:55 am
What the FOP just said tells me the limit of tax dollars they can bring in.
It does not tell men the limit of what they can spend.
I will vote NO on this tax district
Charles Ultican
Post by rockchuck » Wed Sep 27, 2023 6:59 am
Here are the tasks recommended by the pool consultants. Only one, raising taxes, has been actively pursued. A lot of people are genuinely concerned about the approach.
Methow Valley Aquatic Center Feasibility Study
page 74
"• Funding Plan Update – Finalize the funding mechanisms for not only the development of the center itself but also the annual operating subsidy. This will establish the sources of funding and most importantly the dollars that are available for the project.
• Site Determination – A final decision on where the aquatic center will be built has to be determined as this directly relates to capital cost projections. This is followed up with a formal commitment to acquire the site itself.
• Building Program Update – Based on the funding plan, make any required adjustments to the building program (amenities and their size).
• Concept Design – With the site determined and an updated building program in place, develop a full concept and site plan for the center.
• Project Capital and Operations Update – Utilizing the updated building program and concept plan for the center, the project capital cost estimates are updated as is the operations cost/revenue estimates.
• Public Vote - If a taxing district (likely an MPD) is going to utilized to fund at least a portion of the capital cost and operations subsidy, then there will need to be an election to establish the district and the tax rate."
Steve Oulman
Post by mamab » Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:23 am
It should be stated that I am in no way against replacing a pool, however this isn't the issue at hand. FOP you are asking a community much of which are hard working families in a seasonal community with limited incomes to commit votes to a forever taxation district. Our kids will be paying this, it isn't a simple levy it is forming another governmental entity which will increase taxes on our properties, for a massive complex that rivals those in much larger communities. It will run at a deficit of a half MILLION dollars a year. It won't really employ any locals except for a very small staff. The building itself would be constructed by outside special contractors, so again that is money going out of our local economy. In essence you are asking for a blank check or at least a bottomless bank account on the backs of property owners. Call it whatever you want, but the facts are you want funding from taxpayers forever.
And signing Friends of the Pool as your "name" isn't really helping with transparency.
Our family will vote NO ON PROP 1.
Erin Bosco
Carlton
Post by Mike K » Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:28 am
Who are Friends of the Pool? If you feel so strongly about this introduce yourselves so we can see who is trying so hard to spend our tax dollars. I believe a new pool is needed, but your approach is wrong for the Valley.
I'm a NO VOTE
Mike Kedrowski
Post by karlukkid » Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:32 am
Once again the "Friends of the Pool" offer word salads and anonymous posts to justify the proposed new permanent taxing district. Those who have posted responses against this proposition on this bulletin board have in general posted their names. i.e.they are visible and accountable for their statements. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Post by Friends of the Pool » Wed Sep 27, 2023 7:54 am
Hi Erin,
We hear you about transparency. Unfortunately Friends of the Pool volunteers have been attacked in person and online. Many of us are hurting. We made a decision to post here without a particular name.
If you want to talk to a human you can call our number +1 (509) 593-3848 and Justin will talk to you.
With care, Friends of the Pool
Post by rockchuck » Wed Sep 27, 2023 8:06 am
These are good people and our neighbors.
https://www.foptwisp.org/board
Post by mamab » Wed Sep 27, 2023 8:14 am
Friends of the Pool wrote:
> Hi Erin,
>
> We hear you about transparency. Unfortunately Friends of the Pool
> volunteers have been attacked in person and online. Many of us are hurting.
> We made a decision to post here without a particular name.
>
> If you want to talk to a human you can call our number +1 (509) 593-3848
> and Justin will talk to you.
>
> With care, Friends of the Pool
That is not ok and I am sorry to hear that has happened. I don't really need to talk with anyone my mind is and has been made up ever since the words Recreation District were even mentioned. Thank you for your offer, I believe that we can disagree civilly for people to attack you is rude.
Erin Bosco
Carlton
Post by artgirl » Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:51 am
"Friends of the Pool wrote:
> One of the most defined and inflexible aspects of Prop 1 is spending.
>
> The levy by law CAN NOT be more than $75 per $100,000 of assessed value. No
> more. That is maximum. The proposition language LIMITS the funds to an
> aquatic facility, so that scope creep can’t happen. In a year, the increase
> could only be 1%. "
Respectfully ,From MRSC. org
"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)"
The max bond amount that a MPD can issue is based upon total assessed value of our school district which right now is $2,717,342,019.00 (almost 3 billion dollars). The final number for the year will be known as soon as the final assessments are completed.
