Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

When you ask experts, you need to understand the terminology enough to understand the answer.

Yes, the "federal income tax" is progressive. But it is really a tax on earnings, not all income. If I have capital gains they are taxed at a much lower rate. If one can aggressively manage their investment portfolio that capital gains tax rate might be zero. Some years you might be able to write off investment losses and your overall tax rate might be zero.

Also, the regressive effects of the social security payroll tax and (to a much lesser extent) the medicare payroll tax are pretty noticeable and dominate what lower-income taxpayers end up paying. I used data from nerdwallet.com and the Google to calculate approximate tax rates for hypothetical taxpayers:

For a taxpayer earning 15_000 per year (about the Federal Minimum wage) they pay an effective tax rate of 26%
For a taxpayer earning 30_000 per year (about the Washington State Minimum wage) they pay an effective tax rate of 27%
For a taxpayer earning 150_000 per year (a pretty comfortable upper middle income wage) they pay an effective tax rate of 35%
For a taxpayer earning 1_500_000 per year (so a well-to-do member of our aristocracy) they pay an effective tax rate of 39%

So yes, if you are just counting straight up payroll taxes the "system" is progressive, sort of. Though probably not as much as you'd expect or like.

But the fact of the matter is that our hypothetical mid-level Amazon manager making 1_500_000 per year has some options (literally) that lower-income folks do not. They probably take a pretty large portion of their income as stock options or restricted stock. So they can effectively defer their income and pay less tax.

For a taxpayer earning 1_000_000 per year and having 500_000 per year in capital gains, they can pay an effective tax rate of 30%
For a taxpayer earning 750_000 per year and having 750_000 per year in capital gains, they can pay an effective tax rate of 26%
For a taxpayer earning 500_000 per year and having 1_000_000 per year in capital gains, they can pay an effective tax rate of 22%

So it is a lot more complicated than the top line numbers show. And this all comes down to someone making the major bucks has options and flexibility that someone living paycheck to paycheck can never imagine. Also, like I said, if you aggressively manage your portfolio it is possible, with tradeoffs and other risks (not including going to prison, though), to make your effective tax rate zero. Which you'll never be able to do working at Starbuck's or McDonald's for minimum wage.

The effective tax rate described above includes the Medicare Payroll tax, the Social Security tax, the Federal Income tax, and the Capital Gains tax. All of this was for a single taxpayer for simplicity.

Note that I am not saying this is right or wrong. And to be honest, some of the provisions of the capital gains tax code I heartily support even though they probably seem excessively generous to normal people. But I do not think that the overall system can be described as progressive. How we fix that or if it even needs to be fixed are bigger questions than my pay grade.

mister_coffee wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:23 am No.

Federal income taxes are progressive, in the sense that higher income brackets are taxed at lower rates. But the income tax system as a whole is pretty viciously regressive.

opinions are one thing but let's ask the experts.

Quote from Investopedia;

"In the U.S., income taxes operate under a progressive system. In 2023, federal progressive tax rates range from 10% to 37%. For a single taxpayer, the marginal rate of taxation is: 37% for incomes over $578,125."

From the tax policy Center

"The average federal tax burden tends to be much lower for low-income households than for high-income households."

"The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that in 2020, households in the lowest income quintile have a negative average income tax rate as a result of refundable credits—namely the earned income tax credit (EITC) and the child tax credit (CTC). That is, the payments the lowest-income households receive from refundable credits exceed any income tax they owe."

mister_coffee wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 7:23 am The net effect of the above is that poor working stiffs working to just live under a roof and eat bad food from Dollar General pay far higher tax rates than the wealthy.

When it comes to regressive property taxes and sales taxes this is true.

The friends of the pool dismiss the concerns that this regressive tax will have on low income people who live in the MethowValley by referring people to the senior tax exemption program. The name is confusion and I think it gives the impression that seniors are exempt from paying property taxes which is not true.

We've already seen two letters to the MVN editor who think low income seniors are off the hook because of the senior tax exemption program. The top tier of that program at $35,000 to $40,000 of Gross income including Social Security income will still the entire tax levy amount that is imposed on them by this MAC Metropolitan Park District. The two income tiers below that will still pay part of that regular levy.

And of course if you're low income and don't qualify for a senior exemption then you don't get a tax break at all.

Low income families are now seeing their property values Skyrocket because housing demand and any additional taxes will be a burden.


A construction worker friend of mine has realized that he can't afford to buy a house here. He was speaking to a neighbor next to his rental who purchased a home and she says she's scraping just to get by just to pay the mortgage so no luxury for her.

The FOP shows a little concern for these people even though their consultant report pointed out these regressive taxes taxes will will have an effect on low income people.

Fun CH wrote: Thu Sep 14, 2023 6:55 am ... such as people living below the poverty line don't pay Federal income taxes. Income taxes are progressive, people pay based on what the amount of money they earn. ...

No.

Federal income taxes are progressive, in the sense that higher income brackets are taxed at lower rates. But the income tax system as a whole is pretty viciously regressive.

Payroll taxes are flat taxes on the first dollars of your income, and cut out entirely at higher incomes. For social security taxes that is 6.2% of your paycheck up to the first $160_200. After that it is zero. That is pretty damned regressive. And the vast majority of the tax that low income folks pay is the payroll tax.

Investment income is generally taxed at a lower rate (or sometimes not taxed at all). Lower income people do not have investment income because they do not have money to invest.

Also, folks with money can have considerable flexibility in how much taxes they pay and when they pay them, simply by virtue of the fact that they are wealthy. They can afford decent accountants and lawyers that will plan how they spend their money and recognize their income to pay the minimum tax. Poor folks can't afford those accountants and lawyers and need the money they earn this week and can't defer some income or spending to next year or the year after.

One other way poor people get screwed by a system (though to be fair "the system" isn't at all designed to help poor people) is that whatever paltry aid and subsidies they qualify for are stripped away as they begin to earn money -- this translates sometimes to an unimaginably steep tax rate they have to pay. It gives many of the poor no incentive to actually get a job.

The net effect of the above is that poor working stiffs working to just live under a roof and eat bad food from Dollar General pay far higher tax rates than the wealthy.

And the difference is-now they want a Rec District or specifically an MPD, that is in addition to any taxes we paid on those forest service roads, etc.
The roads were not an amenity but indeed some became amenities for the ski trails. But NO RECREATION DISTRICT was created. And we especially do not want an MPD with no control over how the money is spent.
FOP is all over the place. They start with, 1. And indoor aquatics center, 2. Then "dry amenities or other recreational opportunities, 3. Then an outdoor pool is mentioned, 4. Then maintaining the Wagner Pool, while trying to build an indoor aquatics center. 5. Or maybe an outdoor pool, that could be covered in the future.
Then a city council member is supposed to be appointed from each Town. Has anyone looked at the Town's agendas and see they have their hands full? Would the council person have time to devote to the appointment?

Back to the basics here. NO on Prop 1 first and foremost.

just-jim wrote: Sat Aug 26, 2023 9:23 pm .

Fun CH wrote: Sat Aug 26, 2023 9:40 am.
……In other words it was a community effort done without taking tax money from people who can't afford it and or don't use that trail system….

This is not only incorrect, it is patently wrong and shows complete ignorance and mis-understanding about how the Methow trail system developed - and how recreation facilities and rec opportunities, in general, are built and maintained. And how the planning and engineering for the same all happens. Especially those that exist on public lands, both federal and State.

In regard to the trail system we now have….?

First, there were numerous uses of federal and State and Local TAX funds in the many discussions with FS and several State agencies (and Okanogan County), who managed the lands and roads involved. Then there was further expenditure of TAX funds for the wages of the same folks who had to write the special use permits, do the numerous environmental reviews and documentation for ground disturbing activities (like trail construction). Much of this happened in the late 70’s and early 80’s. For the FS…this meant carving out a special land management classification in the development of Forest Plans – approved in the late 80’s, these costs 100’s of thousands of $$s and took YEARS.

Then, let’s pretend to ignore that much – maybe even most – of the present trail system is NOT on both high and lower standard FS roads. All built at considerable cost by federal TAX funds. And maintained, rebuilt, resurfaced etc, by the same TAX funds, yearly, for 40+ years, now. Think of the road system in Goat/Rendezvous/Cub Cr area, in particular. Building roads to similar standards today would be well in excess of $100K/mile.

There were State TAX funds involved in agencies like DNR, WDFW and WADOE reviewing proposals, doing assessments and required documentation where these trails crossed not just the lands they manage, but lands managed by other agencies.

Then, the were HUGE amounts of State TAX funds awarded to either a) Methow Trails, b) the FS, c) Methow Institute ….to further ALL this work, ESPECIALLY building bridges, parking areas, toilets, etc. The suspension bridge across the Methow near Goat Cr is a good example. A major effort. With a cost in the range of – I recall - $150-175,000 in late 1990s dollars, it was funded by a WA NOVA grant, straight from State TAX funds. Engineering and Environmental reviews would have included the FS, since the bridge sits on the Nat’l Forest. Considerable work on the part of WDFW and WADOE would have occurred as well…..water and fish. Whether or not these engineering and environmental reviews were funded by ‘normal’ Fed or State TAX funds, or included under the NOVA program grant is immaterial; it was ALL federal or State TAX funding. I think the smaller bridge across Goat Creek proper - now being replaced – was similarly funded.

Complicated, expensive, infrastructure doesn’t just appear….they don’t ‘magic’ them-selves into place. They take planning and engineering.

Yes, LOTS and LOTS of volunteer time, effort, sweat, and inspiration was involved. But HUGE amounts of TAX money was involved…and STILL is. And by far THAT was - and still is - paid for people whom don’t use the trail system, never have used it and never will even see it. From TAX receipts at both State and Federal levels. That is how recreation in the public arena happened with regard to the nice trail system we have here, now.
.

yes we know that tax money is used to fund recreation. However people who can't afford taxes, such as people living below the poverty line don't pay Federal income taxes. Income taxes are progressive, people pay based on what the amount of money they earn.

Property taxes are regressive taxes which means low income people, pay taxes that they can't afford especially in our area where housing prices continue to go up. When that happens our assessed property values go up. Someone who has a $60,000 property with home on it in 1984 will now have a $500,000 home and be taxed on that value even though their income status has not changed.

A study done by the Washington State government shows that low income people pay 15.7% of their income going towards regressive taxes. Where is a person at top tier income pays only 5.5% of their income to regressive taxes.

In the instance where regressive tax associated with Proposition 1 which will create a Metropolitan Park District, only properly owners in our school district are stuck with finding a very expensive luxury pool plus what ever other traditional facility at the MPD Board of Commissioners decide.

See how that is not fair.

A more fair system for Washington State a income tax. Would you be willing to pay an income tax on your large taxpayer funded retirement income, Jim?

I would if it reduced property taxes however we know that won't happen. The government will always keep what they have and want more.

Fighting for fairness and against greed is something liberals have always aspired too. However only something like 56% of Democrats consider themselves to be liberals.

Dig deep Jim and try to find some empathy for those less fortunate than you.

dhop wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2023 11:21 am Don Nelson wrote in his editorial “Back the Ballot” that a board that is appointed, not elected, is a good thing because elected board members would try to “rein it in from being very effective.” In other words, trying to provide fiscal accountability and being responsible to taxpayers is a bad thing, and FOP should have free rein to do as they please. I don’t know why Don is so pro-MPD and doesn’t present arguments for both sides. I hope it’s not because a FOP board member is on his staff. Calling those who are anti-MPD “suspicious, paranoid and mis-informed” is uncalled for and not true. IMO, the mis-informed are those that think the proposition on the ballot this fall is a vote for or against a pool. Almost everyone in the valley agrees a pool is necessary, but many of us are opposed to a MPD and a $25 million mega pool complex. I wish Don would be more objective.

in a April 2nd 2014 editorial Don had this to say about the Slate of potential elected Recreation District board members.

https://methowvalleynews.com/2014/04/03 ... il-2-2014/

"Some of the candidates are running because they don’t like the proposal, and want to have something to say about how the district is operated if approved."

So now he's saying ignore the Democratic process because those who desire fiscal responsibility will "rein it in from being very effective.” Those two statements seem contrary to each other.

Also in his 2014 editorial Don stated,
"For the most part, it’s been a civil discussion with good points raised on both sides — or in the middle, if you’re one of those who say they support the idea but don’t like the proposed structure."

This time around Don set the tone with his attack on democracy by calling 78% of the voters who voted no on this issue in 2014, " paranoid".

What changed? Is this a left versus right issue for Don and he's siding with his political identity?

Does Don think that all liberals on the left support prop 1? We dont. Prop 1 is exactly the type of issue that liberals rally against, ie class inequality as it relates to a regressive tax structure that FOP desires to impose on low income people.

I do agree with Don that we are "suspicious" as every voter should be of any group who desires unchecked control of our tax dollars. That was true back then and it's true now.

I don't think voters were as Don stated, "mis-informed" in 2014 however voters certainly are now. It's up to the FOP to inform the voters NOW, not address voter concerns after the election and if prop 1 passes.

A FOP sales pitch full of ambiguous and contradictory information should make any voter suspicious.

I stopped subscribing ( and advertising) to that ‘News’ paper (really more a personal advocacy magazine) for exactly these reasons! Zero sense of fairness and accuracy in reporting and I told them a couple times to their face but zealots don’t care as long as ‘their’ cause is furthered (progressive?)

Don Nelson wrote in his editorial “Back the Ballot” that a board that is appointed, not elected, is a good thing because elected board members would try to “rein it in from being very effective.” In other words, trying to provide fiscal accountability and being responsible to taxpayers is a bad thing, and FOP should have free rein to do as they please. I don’t know why Don is so pro-MPD and doesn’t present arguments for both sides. I hope it’s not because a FOP board member is on his staff. Calling those who are anti-MPD “suspicious, paranoid and mis-informed” is uncalled for and not true. IMO, the mis-informed are those that think the proposition on the ballot this fall is a vote for or against a pool. Almost everyone in the valley agrees a pool is necessary, but many of us are opposed to a MPD and a $25 million mega pool complex. I wish Don would be more objective.

Here is a link that shows who the candidates for MPD board Commisionere were the last time. Note that some of the people were running that opposed the issue and if elected would have added an element of fiscal responsibility to the board.

Its clear, the FOP this time around is not being fiscally responsible with a 1st round borrowing plan for 21+ million dollars going towards a pool that the community already has.

The FOP choose a structure this time where all 5 candidates will be a appointed by Twisp and Winthrop Town Councils and will most likely be the FOP board members.

How is that fair in a democracy? The FOP has removed MPD board accountability right from the start. If passed, voters are removed from any further say in how our tax money is used.

How is that no vote structure being "beholden" to the voters as the FOP has stated in their Letter to the MVN?


https://methowvalleynews.com/2014/04/03 ... their-say/

Jim, While it is true that many federal and state tax dollars were used to build the trail system, IMO comparing it to the proposed MPD is not a good analogy. I admit I don’t know the amount of taxes I paid into the trail system, but I’m guessing it isn’t very much. I’d be surprised if it even came close to $100 per year. And while you say some people pay those taxes but don’t use the Forest, I’m guessing that number is very, very low in our valley. I ski, hike, bike and swim on the Forest, and for the few $ I pay I’d say it was a pretty good deal. The vast amount of public land is one of the reasons many people live here.
I, for some reason, am still a landlord trying to be a responsible citizen of our valley by keeping rents low. IMO, the mega pool complex proposed by FOP is not an essential service like schools, fire, roads, etc., so I will not pass these costs on to my tenants. So this ridiculously expensive facility is going to cost me $1300 per year, and I likely will never set foot inside it. I’ll bet I’m not the only one in this situation.
A public pool is IMO needed in the valley, but do we really need and can we really afford a pool complex that costs $0.75 per $1000 of assessed value? Tonasket did it right - a public pool and other parks financed by a $0.15 per $1000 levy which is renewed every 6 years (and has an elected board). IMO, they set a good example for us to follow. We have enough tourist attractions without needing a mega pool complex thrown in the mix.

Jim, perhaps this Wa. State study linked below will explain how property taxes are regressive and how low income people pay more of their fair share than you do. Mind sharing the amount of money you receive from Social Security and your government pension?

Kind of ironic that the people who have the most money around here will be paying the least amount of money to support a highly regressive, non-voter accountable Metropolitan Park tax District. Money flowing to the wealthy from the backs of the poor, same old story.

If you click the link it will download a PFD file from Wa State Government.


"Washington's tax structure is regressive. The lowest income households pay 15.7 percent of income for total excise and property taxes, while the highest income households pay 4.4 percent of income for the same taxes. Sales tax is the main cause of regressivity."

Key Conclusions from the Evaluation of the Current Washington Tax ...


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... jJtc73WDNC

just-jim wrote: Sun Aug 27, 2023 11:32 am .
Nice use of ‘weasel’ words on your part, Chris. You cant ever admit that what you wrote is wrong, can you?

Your mis-understanding of recreation, or the economics of recreation, on public land and how it’s funded is right up there with your ignorance about other things…like fire.

But do keep doubling down! It’s a great ‘trumpian’ move on your past, too; just spray more BS, declare victory, and move on!

It’s takes a mighty small person who is unable to admit they’ve lost an argument.

You do realize that you brought up the trail, system not me?

As hilarious as this has become….im done with the topic.
.

here we go again. Jim, when you use your personal attack words in lieu of a cogent argument it means that you don't have a cogent argument.

Once again comparing recreational projects funded by a income based Progressive tax system where everyone chips in and everyone benefits, to a regressive tax system where only property owners pay and only a few benefit, is presenting a false equivalency argument which is considered to be a logical fallacy.

.
Nice use of ‘weasel’ words on your part, Chris. You cant ever admit that what you wrote is wrong, can you?

Your mis-understanding of recreation, or the economics of recreation, on public land and how it’s funded is right up there with your ignorance about other things…like fire.

But do keep doubling down! It’s a great ‘trumpian’ move on your past, too; just spray more BS, declare victory, and move on!

It’s takes a mighty small person who is unable to admit they’ve lost an argument.

You do realize that you brought up the trail, system not me?

As hilarious as this has become….im done with the topic.
.

Jim keeps making the same tired argument. I already explained to Jim that his argument is a false equivalency and therefore a logical fallacy.

Yes, Jim Federal tax dollars are used in most all our community recreational projects and Federal land trails, just like federal tax dollars are used in every community all around the country to support Recreation.

All that tax money comes from a large pool of taxes that everyone in the country pays (except those living below the poverty line) and is distributed by ELECTED OFFICAILS. Taxpayers have a say in how that money is distributed by casting a VOTE.

So the with current federal recreational land budget of 2.7 billion dollars, each person in the country pays around $8 to support federally funded recreation in our country. On average a family of four that would be $32. Of course the more money a family earns more taxes are paid.

This Income tax system is a progressive tax system where the poor aren't hurt by paying excessive taxes that they can't afford while the wealthy pay their fair share.

Everyone pays and everyone benefits.

This current proposal for the formation of Metropolitan Park District is completely different from that everyone pays structure above.

With this proposed MPD only our School District Property Owners (including 8.7% of those in this Valley living below the poverty line) will be paying to support any and all recreational projects that only 5 highly paid UNELECTED Metropolitan Park District Board of Commissioners will decide. Again, if the MPD is passed, voters are removed from decision-making process. The FOP choose the 1 out 3 recreational District structures that gives them the most control with the least amount of voter control, ie zero.

This MPD will place an large tax burden on seniors with low and fixed incomes and other low income people throughout the valley. So great for those who benefit from the tourist industry here, not so much for other people who are struggling to survive on low and fixed incomes.

I already gave an example of one low/fixed income senior who has been living here for around 45 years and built many homes in the Valley. His additional MPD levy tax bill at current assessed values over his expected 30 more year lifespan will be around $30,000. That's a far cry from paying $8 a year to support the federal recreational system and the additional $1,000 a year tax if proposition 1 passes .That extra $1000 will undoubtedly keep increasing as property values rise.

So in the MPD example only we Property Owners pay and only those who will use those Mega spa and other facilities, including tourists and the tourist industry here, greatly benefit off the backs of those who can ill afford it.

These types of property taxes is a regressive tax system where excessive taxes hurt the poor and benefit the wealthy.

See Jim, comparing a progressive tax system where everyone pays to a regressive tax system where only property owners pay is a false equivalency logical fallacy argument, apples and oranges.

It was/is my understanding that Congress has not appropriated enough funding through the years to the FS to even maintain trails, etc. I saw a diminishment in maintenance. Yes, those are our federal tax dollars for sure. Everyone pays. But it seems like ever since the funding dried up, that the FS couldn't maintain trails-just not enough gov't funding. Maybe that will change with all the $ supposedly coming from the current admin.
Do we really need another tax on the property owners locally, for an overpriced aquatics center, when necessities like fire prevention, housing, and hopsitals are needed much more?
But thanks Jim for explaining it all. I know from your FS experience you probably had first hand knowlegde of all the complexities involved. Leave it to humans to make things complex.

Thanks Jim. You put it all in words much better than I could have.

.

Fun CH wrote: Sat Aug 26, 2023 9:40 am.
……In other words it was a community effort done without taking tax money from people who can't afford it and or don't use that trail system….

This is not only incorrect, it is patently wrong and shows complete ignorance and mis-understanding about how the Methow trail system developed - and how recreation facilities and rec opportunities, in general, are built and maintained. And how the planning and engineering for the same all happens. Especially those that exist on public lands, both federal and State.

In regard to the trail system we now have….?

First, there were numerous uses of federal and State and Local TAX funds in the many discussions with FS and several State agencies (and Okanogan County), who managed the lands and roads involved. Then there was further expenditure of TAX funds for the wages of the same folks who had to write the special use permits, do the numerous environmental reviews and documentation for ground disturbing activities (like trail construction). Much of this happened in the late 70’s and early 80’s. For the FS…this meant carving out a special land management classification in the development of Forest Plans – approved in the late 80’s, these costs 100’s of thousands of $$s and took YEARS.

Then, let’s pretend to ignore that much – maybe even most – of the present trail system is NOT on both high and lower standard FS roads. All built at considerable cost by federal TAX funds. And maintained, rebuilt, resurfaced etc, by the same TAX funds, yearly, for 40+ years, now. Think of the road system in Goat/Rendezvous/Cub Cr area, in particular. Building roads to similar standards today would be well in excess of $100K/mile.

There were State TAX funds involved in agencies like DNR, WDFW and WADOE reviewing proposals, doing assessments and required documentation where these trails crossed not just the lands they manage, but lands managed by other agencies.

Then, the were HUGE amounts of State TAX funds awarded to either a) Methow Trails, b) the FS, c) Methow Institute ….to further ALL this work, ESPECIALLY building bridges, parking areas, toilets, etc. The suspension bridge across the Methow near Goat Cr is a good example. A major effort. With a cost in the range of – I recall - $150-175,000 in late 1990s dollars, it was funded by a WA NOVA grant, straight from State TAX funds. Engineering and Environmental reviews would have included the FS, since the bridge sits on the Nat’l Forest. Considerable work on the part of WDFW and WADOE would have occurred as well…..water and fish. Whether or not these engineering and environmental reviews were funded by ‘normal’ Fed or State TAX funds, or included under the NOVA program grant is immaterial; it was ALL federal or State TAX funding. I think the smaller bridge across Goat Creek proper - now being replaced – was similarly funded.

Complicated, expensive, infrastructure doesn’t just appear….they don’t ‘magic’ them-selves into place. They take planning and engineering.

Yes, LOTS and LOTS of volunteer time, effort, sweat, and inspiration was involved. But HUGE amounts of TAX money was involved…and STILL is. And by far THAT was - and still is - paid for people whom don’t use the trail system, never have used it and never will even see it. From TAX receipts at both State and Federal levels. That is how recreation in the public arena happened with regard to the nice trail system we have here, now.
.

mister_coffee wrote: Fri Aug 25, 2023 7:42 pm I would love to hear Fred's or Jay's current viewpoints and opinions here.

Quote from MVN article: "This is a recreation-based place. Recreation is an economic draw. It attracts people to come here, spend money here, move here,” Wert said."

I don't know Fred but always consided that Jay did a great job along with John Hayes, John Sunderland, Joy Schwab John Bonica, Don and Sally Portman and all the trail workers and volunteers to get the xc trail system up and running.

In other words it was a community effort done without taking tax money from people who can't afford it and or don't use that trail system. They already have to endure the tourist traffic and higher assessed value taxes as a result of higher property demand.

I was kind of surprised to hear that Jay wanted to do this recreational District, but recreational development seems to be his passion.

It is clear that they wanted back then, and the new proposal prop 1 desires to attract even more tourists.

But haven't we maxed out the number of tourists this Valley can endure? We all look forward to the side Seasons when we have this place to ourselves again.

And why ask property taxpayers to fund commercial recreational projects to support that tourist trade? What happened to free market Enterprise?

What happened to community effort to build recreational projects from enthusiasts that will use those projects? Those efforts build community through the values we hold of giving what we can. Stand out in minus 0° weather helping out with a cross country ski race and you'll know what I mean.

The FOP has now divided this community by their Spirit of " we'll just take what we want" and if you can't afford it, move out and move on.

As I said before, some of the effects of rural gentrification are unattended consequences of people wanting to live in this beautiful Valley. A unique place that has always valued community over outside or recent arrival tax payer supported commercial interests. Homes not Hotels.

Setting up a Metropolitan Park District here will be a direct cause of rural gentrification here that we can stop by voting NO on Proposition 1.

I'd say to the FOP, take your "taking" attitude and Disneyland values elsewhere or stay and join us and build this community with the spirit of giving that has always sustained us.

I would love to hear Fred's or Jay's current viewpoints and opinions here.

They didn't get it then and they are not getting it now,
"Funding recreation through a district-wide tax levy would spread the financial burden of supporting recreational facilities and programs more equitably among the people who use them, Wert said."
The financial burden is on property owners and the renters that will see rent increases.
Thanks for your research Chris.

What I found most interesting revisiting this 2014 ballot measure is how the discussion revolved around helping to fund the Wagner pool. Nine years later the historical Wagner pool is still going strong.


That 2014 Park District proposal also focused on funding the ski trail system and the ice rink, both of which were and still are Community funded and supported without the need to establish a Metropolitan Park District.

A simple solution to help pay to fund the Twisp Wagner pool has always been to charge a higher entry fee for out of town users.

So in 2014 they installed a $17,000 boiler and now this new MPD proposal wants to take that to the dump? The community that Prides itself in recycling really wants to thrash this pool facility? This new proposal doesn't seem to be about a pool, just like last time it wasn't about funding a ice rink or a ski trail system. The community came together and did the hard work to fund those projects.

Its always been about forming a Metropolitan Park District complete with all the negative impacts that will have on our community.

https://methowvalleynews.com/2013/06/07 ... -proposed/
Methow Valley parks & rec district proposed
JUNE 7, 2013 BY METHOW VALLEY NEWS

New taxing entity would support facilities and programs in Winthrop, Twisp
BY ANN McCREARY

Two local residents want to give Methow Valley citizens the opportunity to create a special taxing district to support parks and recreation facilities and related programs in the valley.

It’s an idea that has been discussed for years as local elected officials and community members struggle to find money to support recreational opportunities such as the Wagner Memorial Pool in Twisp and the Winthrop Ice and Sports Rink.

Fred Wert and Jay Lucas, local residents with backgrounds in promoting recreation, have been working during the past year to lay the groundwork for the creation of a parks and recreation district.

They have begun distributing petitions around the valley calling for the creation of a parks and recreation district with the same boundaries as Methow Valley School District 350. Under state law, the petition needs to be signed by at least 15 percent of the registered voters in the proposed district boundaries (in this case 600 people), and sent to the Okanogan County Commission. After a public hearing, the district would be created and an election would subsequently be held for five district commissioners who would oversee the district and set the tax levy.

Wert said he and Lucas took on the project in recognition of the importance of recreation in the Methow Valley, and with a desire to create a more equitable and dependable source of funding for recreation facilities and programs.

“This is a recreation-based place. Recreation is an economic draw. It attracts people to come here, spend money here, move here,” Wert said.

“Jay and I are aware that Twisp and Winthrop are supporting facilities used by residents and visitors. The model in other places is that the county does that. But Okanogan County doesn’t really have a presence in the valley, and isn’t likely to,” Wert said in an interview this week.

King County’s parks and recreation division, for instance, boasts 200 parks, 175 miles of trails and 26,000 acres of open space. In the Methow Valley, the burden of funding recreation facilities falls on the two cash-strapped towns.



Exploring local interest

Lucas and Wert bring considerable related experience to the work they are doing to promote recreation in the valley. Lucas worked for a recreation service area in Alaska before becoming executive director of the Methow Valley Sport Trails Association (MVSTA) for 30 years. Wert is a founding member of Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition, which advocates and raises funds for state wildlife and recreation programs.

During the past year they have been talking with state and county officials to explore the legal aspects of creating a special taxing district. They have also met with town leaders, school district officials, MVSTA, the Kiwanis Club and other groups with an interest in local recreation opportunities.

“Intuitively, it’s obvious there is a need today that is not being met, and a desire for a mechanism to improve facilities, bring new facilities in, and maintain the ones we have,” Wert said.

Twisp Mayor Soo Ing-Moody said the topic of creating a parks and recreation district comes up frequently among town officials, especially during discussions of the town’s major recreation attraction – the Wagner Memorial Pool. Used by residents from throughout the valley as well as visitors, the pool is supported by the taxpayers of Twisp.

The town struggles to keep the aging pool operating. Largely through fundraising by nonprofit community groups, including Friends of the Pool and Kiwanis, a new $17,000 boiler was purchased and installed to heat the pool this summer – good news to swimmers who have endured teeth-chattering water temperatures in past years.

But the pool continues to leak water at the rate of about 7,500 gallons per day. That’s equivalent to a garden hose running full force all day long, said Twisp Public Works Superintendent Howard Moss. Moss has worked to locate and repair leaks, but they are so pervasive that only a very expensive reconstruction of the pool structure can solve the problem.

The town struggled to come up with the $65,000 that it cost Twisp to operate the facility last year, Ing-Moody said. “Twisp has under 1,000 residents who are carrying this burden. That’s a lot of money for town residents to be shouldering alone,” she said.



Programs could benefit

While the Twisp pool is an example of the kind of recreational use that could benefit from a broader funding base, Wert said a parks and recreation district would support not just facilities, but programs as well.

“Organizations that provide recreation opportunities, both indoor and outdoor, would be eligible for funds,” Wert said. The five elected district commissioners would determine what programs and facilities are funded, and would have the ability to contract with other entities to provide recreational opportunities, or create programs that would be operated by the district.

Examples of potential projects are included in a document prepared by Wert and Lucas summarizing key points of the parks and recreation district proposal. For instance, the district could contract with Twisp to provide support for an outdoor pool; contract with the school district to provide a youth baseball program; contract with MVSTA to provide a cross country skiing program; or provide matching funds for state grants for projects such as the Winthrop Ice and Sports Rink, the Susie Stephens Trail or the Twisp Community Trail.

Funding recreation through a district-wide tax levy would spread the financial burden of supporting recreational facilities and programs more equitably among the people who use them, Wert said.

“The two towns are providing most of the developed recreation facilities,” which are used by all residents of the valley, as well as visitors and second homeowners, Wert said. “In fact, 85.6 percent of the assessed value in School District 350 is located outside the two towns. By having a recreation district which taxes all potential beneficiaries of these facilities, local residents’ burden for supporting these facilities is greatly reduced.”

The funding priorities of the district would be set by the elected commissioners, with public feedback, Lucas said. Voters would have to approve the levy with a 60 percent majority. “The voters get to decide how much they want to fund, if they want to fund it,” he said.

It will take a while to get to the point of generating tax income for local recreation opportunities, Wert said. If the petition drive is successful in creating a parks and recreation district this year, Wert said, elected commissioners may be able to develop priorities and plans and propose a levy as early as 2014, which means revenues wouldn’t be received until 2015"