Response to "levy facts" statement

This is my response to Chairman Cladoosby’s and Superintendent Meissner’s “levy facts” statement in the Feb. 13 Weekly News.

McCleary Fix: The Legislature increased the state property tax to “fully fund basic education”.

It also capped the permissible levy tax rate and restricted levy monies to non-salary expenditures.

Last August teachers in many school districts around the state, including La Conner, threatened to strike at the behest of their union, demanding substantial salary increases drawn on McCleary funding.

Analysts and news editors chastised school boards for caving to excessive union demands, warning of subsequent salary funding shortfalls.

The issue is moot now but watch out for the future! Taxpayers beware if there is a downstream push to raise or eliminate the levy lid, or for further increases in state property taxes.

The state’s history in this matter is dismal and not encouraging.

Tribal taxation re La Conner School District levy support (Great Wolf Lodge effect): Historically, the tribe has not contributed its full and fair share of equivalent levy tax monies (collected principally from Shelter Bay properties with no taxpayer representation) and the adverse effect this has on the rest of the community that has to make up the difference (increased property taxes as much as 25 percent).

Prior to Great Wolf, county administration transferred 100 percent of voter-approved levy tax funds collected to the district.

The tribe’s contribution has been averaging around 60 percent.

The fact that the tribe provides funding support for other LCSD programs is valued and appreciated but is not relevant to this issue.

Reservation residents voting on local property tax measures: The issue questioned why tribal reservation residents who have no tax liability can vote for local property taxes others have to pay.

The authors responded with arguments of (1) federal “impact aid” received by localities with military base and tribal reservation inclusions in lieu of property tax revenue (not relevant: the LCSD would receive these federal funds regardless of local levy propositions or outcomes); and (2) that voting rights “do not depend on property ownership” (totally agree: that issue was dispelled by the owner/renter argument which is not the case here).

Military personnel residing on federal property (e.g., NAS Whidbey Is.) are nearly all temporary; very few are Washington residents.

If they are registered to vote, likely they vote in their home state districts, not locally.

Conversely, tribal reservation residents tend to be permanent, can register to vote locally and are encouraged to do so.

This is an apples/oranges comparison – a major difference!

Although it has no bearing on the issue, I appreciated the commentary regarding military service and the core values it preserves. I am U.S. Navy retired.