Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

This was posted on the FOP facebook page:

"Hi, on the voter pamphet the FOP PAC rebuttal states "The law limits the maximum amount of debt ($7million) and annual revenue (less than $2million)." That revenue amount is of course property tax revenue.

However, Wa State law states (RCW 35.61.100\ 35.61.110 ) "Every metropolitan park district may contract indebtedness not exceeding in amount, together with existing voter-approved indebtedness and nonvoter-approved indebtedness, equal to two and one-half percent of the value of the taxable property in said district, "

The total debt limit of both non voter and voter approved general obligation bond debt at 2.5% equals around $67million dollars based on current assessed value in our school district of almost 3 billion dollars. And that doesn't include other types of debt that a MPD can take on.

Isn't your rebuttal statement misleading voters? Or is there another explanation for this discrepancy?"

Thanks Ray for those numbers.

So the "Rebuttal to Argument Against' that is in our voters pamphet is a complete fabrication? The MAD MAC in their rebuttal (to what the law actually allows at $67 million debt limit ) stated:

"The law limits the maximum amount of debt ($7million) and annual revenue (less than $2million).

Voters need to be made aware of that debt limit fact.

Is the FOP PAC imisrepresenting the law that governs Metropolitan Park Districts?

Debt limits...

RCW 35.61.100 Indebtedness limit—Without popular vote. Every metropolitan park district through its board of commissioners may contract indebtedness and evidence such indebtedness by the issuance and sale of warrants, short-term obligations as provided by chapter 39.50 RCW, or general obligation bonds, for any purposes authorized for such metropolitan park district and the extension and maintenance thereof, not exceeding, together with all other outstanding nonvoter approved general indebtedness, one-quarter of one percent of the value of the taxable property in such metropolitan park district, as the term "value of the taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015. General obligation bonds may not be issued with a maximum term in excess of the maximum term set forth in chapter 39.46 RCW. Such general obligation bonds must be issued and sold in accordance with chapter 39.46 RCW.

RCW 35.61.110 Indebtedness limit—With popular vote. Every metropolitan park district may contract indebtedness not exceeding in amount, together with existing voter-approved indebtedness and nonvoter-approved indebtedness, equal to two and one-half percent of the value of the taxable property in said district, as the term "value of the taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015, whenever threefifths of the voters voting at an election held in the metropolitan park district assent thereto; the election may be either a special or a general election, and the park commissioners of the metropolitan park district may cause the question of incurring such indebtedness, and issuing negotiable bonds of such metropolitan park district, to be submitted to the qualified voters of the district at any time.

Since we are all having our properties reassessed, I wanted to check how this affects the Friends Of The Pool (FOTP) Aquatics District funding potential with updated tax revenues and debt service. I sent an email to the assessor.

“Assessor assessor@co.okanogan.wa.us
Thur, Jul 20 at 7:30 AM

Ray, the assessed value in an ever changing number we are not complete with the new values for the 2024 tax year. The Appraisers are looking at all the new construction right now but I will give you the assessed value as of yesterday.
The assessment for 2024 taxes for the Methow Scholl District as of 7/19/2023 is 2,683,316,500. This value will increase as new construction is added.
Larry Gilman
Okanogan County Assessor”

The FOTP feasibility study used previous years assessed values for their analysis. We are being reassessed now significantly upward which increases the potential tax revenues and debt service for the proposed Aquatics District.

total debt limit... 2,683,316,500 assessed value x 2.5% = $67.1 million
non-voted limit... 2,683,316,500 x 0.25% = $6.71 million

FOTP Feasibility Study figure:
$1,190,000 annual tax revenue for $0.75/$1000 levy rate
Total Debt Limit: $39.7 million
Total Non-Voted Limit: $3.97 million

New figures based on current assessed values:
$2,012,000 annual tax revenue for $0.75/$1000 levy rate
Total Debt Limit: $67.1 million
Total Non-Voted Limit: $6.71 million

Steve, how did you come up with the $62 million in debt limit number? The FOP rebuttal states that by law they can't borrow (issue bond debt) more than $7 million.

I came up with the same number as you. Broken down is $7 million in bond debt. non voter approved paid back by regular levy.

And the MAC MPD can return to voters and ask for an excess levy and to borrow (issue bond debt) for up to an additional $55 million. Voter approved paid back by excess levy.

At any rate, as our school district's assessed value goes up, the MAC MPD non voter approved debt limit will also go up. So that FOP $7 million debt limit rebuttal statement is false.

here's the law

RCW 35.61.110
Indebtedness limit—With popular vote.
Every metropolitan park district may contract indebtedness not exceeding in amount, together with existing voter-approved indebtedness and nonvoter-approved indebtedness, equal to two and one-half percent of the value of the taxable property in said district, as the term "value of the taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015, whenever three-fifths of the voters voting at an election held in the metropolitan park district assent thereto; the election may be either a special or a general election, and the park commissioners of the metropolitan park district may cause the question of incurring such indebtedness, and issuing negotiable bonds of such metropolitan park district, to be submitted to the qualified voters of the district at any time."

That number did not include the cost of land with one site estimated at $5 million for the old Wagner Mill site.

Also, building materials have gone up greater than the inflation rate

2023 report

"About 82.5% of construction materials experienced a significant cost increase since 2020, with an average jump of 19%, according to a construction materials report from construction cost data tracking firm Gordian."

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/f ... se/651744/

"May 16, 2022 · Building materials prices are up 19.2% year over year and have risen 35.6% since the start of the pandemic."

https://www.nahb.org/blog/2022/05/build ... -over-year

"Feb 21, 2023 · All construction types and materials remain significantly more expensive than they were in February 2020, with the overall cost of construction ..."

https://archinect.com/news/article/1503 ... c-analysis


And construction labor continues to rise.

I am responsible for the $25+ million dollar figure.  People should understand how I arrived at it.

Page 43 of the feasibility study says "The projected capital cost for the project is estimated to be $20,085,723 based on 2022 costs."  (Note that a preliminary estimate for an 8-figure project is down to the dollar.  That ought to raise a red flag.  Also, it is unclear where or if this estimate includes things like roll-up doors or expensive air filtration for smokey days.)

The 2022 cost estimate was outdated when published in the final report.  An indoor aquatic center is years away from actual construction. 

The consultant estimate assumed 5% annual inflation in the cost spreadsheet.  I simply carried that forward.

In 2027, the estimated cost adjusted for inflation is $25.6 million.

The operational cost figure is similarly adjusted for inflation.

Folks can argue about the figure. I merely used information from the consultant hired by Proposition 1 proponents.

Steve Oulman

This is from the Okanogan County Voters Pamphlet...

Notice that the FOTP DID NOT rebut the MAC $25 million figure... These were written in August before they started changing their message to accommodate public pushback of a $20+ million complex.