Camas Washougal Watch

Majority party in Olympia sets the stage for tax increases

 

Dear Friends and Neighbors of Camas - Washougal,

The Washington State Senate has introduced a bill that affects voter-approved Initiative 960. The legislation, Senate Bill 6843, was just introduced today and is already scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate Ways and Means Committee this afternoon at 1:30 p.m

The voters approved Initiative 960 in 2007. The Initiative requires any tax increase to be approved by either a 2/3 vote of the Legislature or by a vote of the people. Senate Bill 6843 would strip away those requirements and make it much easier for the Legislature to raise taxes. 

Senate Bill 6843 is sponsored by Sen. Margarita Prentice from the South Seattle/Renton area.  The bill would suspend the protections voters approved in 2007 when they (overwhelmingly in the 18th District) passed I-960.  In essence, the majority party will use a SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE to do away with the TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE REQUIREMENT to raise taxes!

The following Senators are sponsoring Senate Bill 6843:

Sen. Margarita Prentice - (360) 786-7616

Sen. Ed Murray - (360) 786-7628

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles - (360) 786-7670

Sen. Debbie Regala - (360) 786-7652

Sen. Darlene Fairley - (360) 786-7662

Sen. Kevin Ranker - (360) 786-7678

Sen. Joe McDermott - (360) 786-7667

Sen. Adam Kline - (360) 786-7688

Sen. Karen Keiser - (360) 786-7664

 

You also need to know about House Bill 3176 which would be used to raise taxes once Senate Bill 6843 passes the Legislature.  House Bill 3176 is 90 pages long and contains between $250-$300 million in tax and fee increases.

The following legislators are sponsoring House Bill 3176:

Rep. Ross Hunter - (360) 786-7936

Rep. Bob Hasegawa - (360) 786-7862

Rep. Mark Ericks - (360) 786-7900

Rep. Steve Conway - (360) 786-7906

Rep. Larry Springer - (360) 786-7822

I would encourage 18th District residents to voice their opinions as soon as possible as both these bills appear to be on a “fast track” through the legislative process.

I want you to know that I am adamantly opposed to both of these bills.  I do not believe the Legislature should engage in backdoor maneuvers to thwart the will of the people.  And I do NOT believe that raising taxes is the answer to our state’s spending problem.  I hope you will join me in actively working against these two proposals.

Sincerely,

Rep. Ed Orcutt, 18th District and

Jaime Herrera
State Representative
herrera.jaime@leg.wa.gov

http://houserepublicans.wa.gov/herrera

(360) 786-7850

 

 

The State Auditor’s Office today published two audit reports of K-12 school districts in Washington.

• We reviewed the three areas that represent 70 percent of school district funding in Washington: employees' education and experience (staff mix), enrollment and transportation. The fiscal year 2008 apportionment report summarizes our audit results in those areas. http://www.sao.wa.gov/EN/Audits/LocalGovernment/Schools/Documents/Apportionment_report_FY08.pdf

Recently I submitted some questions to Camas School District Superintendent Mike Nerland to help me understand the upcoming CSD levy. One question was a concern about an apparent contradiction of CSD documents that has contributed to the confusion of many voters. Secondly, as a taxpayer, I very interested to see HOW my tax dollar is spent - what percentage id allocated towards basic education and teachers vs. what I consider non-essentials such as athletics.

Mr. Nerland has been out of town with family health issues and directed me to Ina Evers-Martin, Director of Business Services for the CSD. Ina also played a key role in authoring the current levy. I was pleased to receive a very detailed response from Ina and the speed and openness in which she replied.

 Q. How will Levy dollars be allocated?

The following table illustrates how the levy dollars are spent during the 09-10 school year:

 

Basic Education: certificated, classified staff, principals $3,562,866   35.3%

General Support: Central Administration, Custodial, Maintenance,

Utilities, Insurance, Grounds, Technology, Motor Pool,   2,353,570     23.3%

Special Education                                                       1,293,885     12.8%

Pupil Transportation                                                   1,180,062     11.7%

Athletics                                                                       963,332       9.5%

Certificated Staff Development                                      453,890        4.5%

Text Adoptions                                                             240,000       2.4%

Bilingual Program                                                           26,406        .3%

PSE Staff Development                                                     10,000      0.1%

Learning Assistance                                                         9,578        0.1%

Secretarial Staff Development                                          8,549         0.1%

 

TOTAL LEVY                                                             10,102,138  100.0%

 

Allocation of percentages is currently being worked on for 2010-11 but is expected to be about the same. She noted that “If the state does indeed eliminate I-728 and the K-4 enhancement dollars, we may see a greater percentage of the levy utilized to retain teachers and a smaller percentage in other areas”.

 

According to the Camas School District "Budget Summary Fiscal Year 2009-10" prepared by Director of Business Services Ina Evers-Martin the 2010 General fund levy is $2.49 per thousand dollars property value.

According to the "Budget Summary" produced by the CSD contradicts the FAQ brochure mailed to voters, the expiring levy is $2.49/$1,000 total tax collected = $9,542,304.

The Mailed FAQ states the expiring levy is being assessed at $2.68/$1,000 totaling $10,102,138

 

Q. Which source of information is correct? The CSD Budget report or the CSD's Q&A Mailer?

 

According to Martin “Last July, when our budget was adopted, the 2010 approved levy in the amount of $10,111,289 was rolled back to the estimate of the levy lid calculated by the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to $9,542,304.  A school district can only collect 24% of the sum of the state and federal funding it receives in the previous year.  So, when the budget was adopted, we rolled back the levy to that estimate, knowing we might have to re-certify the levy when the actual levy lid figures were released by the state in October 2009.  The actual levy lid which was released by OSPI in October was $10,102,138.  Since the approved levy is higher than this amount, we re-certified the 2010 levy to the levy lid amount of $10,102,138.

  At budget time in July of 2009, I also estimated that the levy would cost the individual tax payer $2.49 per $1,000 of assessed valuation, not knowing that our total assessed values would drop by 17.6%.

 

In December 2009 the actual assessed values were released by the assessor’s office.  I originally estimated that the owner of a $300,000 home would pay 3000 x $2.49=$747.00 in 2010.  After the drop in assessed value to this $300,000 home, the new value of the home is $247,200.  This also means that the individual cost per $1,000 must increase, since the school levies are for a set amount.  The rate per $1,000 is now $2.68—the rate necessary to generate the fixed amount of $10,102,138. Again, the rate will fluctuate depending on changes in assessed value, but the total dollars collected remain fixed. The current cost to my example tax payer is 2472 x $2.68=$663, which is less than the original estimate because of the drop in assessed value.  This is, of course, based on average values for the Camas School District. Remember that assessed values across our district do not adjust consistently.  Some values drop more and some less—contributing to some variance in overall tax amounts for similar houses.

 

When a school district passes a voter-approved tax, whether levy or bond, we must put before the voters a total collection amount (and an estimation of what the tax rate will be). This means that the district will collect exactly that approved amount, regardless of increases or decreases to property values. Each year the county auditor sets the tax rate for our M & O levy based on overall home values within our school district boundaries. Thus, the 2009 assessed value is the basis for the 2010 collection. A few years ago, when property values in Camas were skyrocketing and new home construction had peaked, people would comment to me that the district must be in good financial shape as they expected we were collecting more Maintenance and Operations (M & O) levy dollars due to the fact that so many new people were moving to the area. The truth of the matter is that while property values were going up, the M & O tax rate for homeowners was going down, and the district was collecting the same amount of money voters had approved in the last election cycle.  Consequently, even though our enrollment continued to grow, we had to do rely on the previously approved levy amount. Now, as we’ve seen property values drop for a couple of years, the M& O tax “rate” has been increased to compensate for this—still generating that fixed amount in the original levy. Regardless, we still only receive the total dollar amount the voters approved back in 2006.

 

When you look at our Q&A flyer, you will see that the rate for 2010 is $2.68.  The rates for 2011 – 2013 are estimates based on a modest growth of assessed values and a modest growth in student enrollment. If the estimated levy is higher than the 24% levy lid, by law we have to roll back the levy to that lid”.

 Probably more information than you wanted to know, but I think it is important to know this BEFORE casting your vote.

-Gary

At the 25 January City Council Workshop, a majority of council members indicated support for a scaled-down version of the E Street project that:

          1.  Deletes the roundabout at 17^th and E Streets.

          2.  Installs a better coordinated traffic signal at 17^th & E Streets.

          3.  Completes curbs and sidewalks along the length of E Street.

          4.  Improves school crossing safety at Hathaway School (20^th & E).

          5.  Delays a variety of storm water improvements along E Street.

          6.  Includes the E Street Road Diet for a minimum period of five years:

                    A.  Reduces four travel lanes to two (one in each direction).

                    B.  Adds a center turn lane for left turns.

                    C.  Adds bicycle lanes on each side of E Street.

          7.  Takes advantage of $6,000,000 in federal and state grants.

          8.  Limits city contributions to the project.

          9.  Still requires use of eminent domain to acquire project property.

 

As the lone council holdout vote in opposition to the Road Diet on E Street, I need your feedback.  Would you please send an email to my city account at dshoemaker@ci.washougal.wa.us telling me whether you:

          1.  Agree with the scaled-down E Street project, OR

          2.  Disagree with the scaled-down E Street project.

 

Although it is not absolutely necessary, it would also help if you would provide your reasoning for your position.  I want to understand.

 

The Council will be voting Monday 1 February to authorize the Director of Public Works to solicit construction bids.  Unfortunately, deleting the Road Diet from the project would result in the loss of over $2,000,000 in grant funding.  The Hathaway School crossing improvements have separate funding and would be completed no matter what the Council decides on the E Street Project.  I could use your best thinking on the issue.

 

Anyone wishing to address the Council on this issue will have the opportunity during the first public comment period of Monday’s meeting.  The first public comment period is early in the meeting, before the vote on the project.

 

-Dave Shoemaker   Washougal City Councilman   Position 6

Signs appeared Monday throughout Camas echoing the sentiment of over-taxed property owners dissatisfied with the Camas School Districts’ Levy increase under the ruse of a “replacement” levy.

Levy proponents have done a good job of encouraging voters to “Vote for Schools” without explaining how much of an increase they will see in their property taxes if they vote “yes”. Assuming voters will just vote “yes”.

 

Property owners are not convinced CSD has trimmed administrative costs including high administrative salaries, bulging administrator positions (vice-principles, etc.) wasteful programs – sacrificing teacher jobs and front line support jobs. All the while, building new schools and an new football stadium in the middle of a recession. While voters are struggling with economic pressures – the schools are building like crazy and trying to raise taxes in the form of a levy.

 

NOT NOW!

Do the Math…Vote NO!

$269,000

X

2.63/1000

= $707 cost per Home!

+8% More for What?

Levy ballots arrived to homes yesterday and today, as you, once again, to vote yes or no on spending your tax dollars to supplement the schools.

we've been impressed with Washougals efforts to get the facts out - mailing information to voters in an effort to make an intelligent decision.Even reducing taxes - If I lived in Washougal, I'd vote yes for their levy.

We can't say the same for Camas. They've chosen to send "vote Yes" promotionals and have yet to explain the details of WHY they want to raise our taxes 8%. Either they think the public is too dumb to understand, or the public is too apathetic to care (which there is some truth in that one) or they have a sense of arrogance that the public will just vote "yes" because Camas schools just ask for it.

Rumors are circulating that even IF the Camas Levy passes, there will be staff cutbacks.

Is the Board and Administration correct? Are we too apathetic to care to vote or care to add another 8% to our taxes?
When it comes to school levies, is there a tipping point when the voters so NO to $100,000+ administrative salaries, top heavy administrative employment vs. teachers and front line employees, no to 11 football coaches, and other indulgences?

Legislator calls forum to make sure that students, parents, other advocates are heard

 

OLYMPIA – “Not so fast there, Governor,” is the message a southwestern Washington lawmaker is sending out about a legislative proposal to transfer supervision of the State School for the Blind and the Washington State Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss to the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction.

 

            State Rep. Jim Moeller, D-Vancouver (49^th Legislative District), testified in a Senate committee hearing yesterday morning (Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2010) against Senate Bill 6491, which he maintains has received “neither the appropriate level of fiscal scrutiny nor the appropriate level of public involvement.”

            Moeller has arranged a public forum this weekend to discuss the legislation. The forum will be held this Saturday, Jan. 23, from 10 a.m. until 12 noon. It will take place in hearing room A on the first floor of the John L. O’Brien Building on the Capitol Campus here in Olympia. Citizens should call or e-mail Moeller for driving directions.

His Olympia phone number is 360-786-7872, his local phone number is 693-0804, and his e-mail address is moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov.

            All interested parties are invited to the forum, and staff from the governor’s office will also be there. Interpreters and Braille copies of the legislation will be provided.

The legislation, which was requested by the governor, would require that the School for the Blind, the School for the Deaf, and the State Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss would become programs under the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

            Right now, the State School for the Blind is under the direction of the school’s superintendent, who works with a board of trustees. The governor appoints the school’s superintendent and the trustees. The governor also appoints the director of the Washington State Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss, as well as the center’s board of trustees.

            “I simply haven’t heard any concrete reasoning, either financial or otherwise, for making such a dramatic change in the way these two long-standing institutions are governed,” Moeller said. “There is no specific information about how such a reorganization would save money or improve services provided to these unique populations.

            “And it seems to me that proponents of this idea haven’t done enough to involve the most obvious stakeholders,” Moeller said. “Students, parents and advocates for children who attend these facilities must certainly be involved in the process.

            “I understand that there’s a huge budget and revenue crisis, and I know that we have to make some very big changes in the way we do things. But we need to be sure that we are not making changes just for the sake of making changes.” 

            The Washington State School for the Blind programs emphasize all aspects of specialized and academic training for blind students, pre-school through grades 12 and beyond.  Very similarly, the Washington State Center for Childhood Deafness and Hearing Loss provides statewide leadership, coordination and delivery of educational services to children who are deaf or hard of hearing.

 

###

 

More information
¿ Phone: (360) 786-7872 / 360-693-0804 (District phone)

¿ E-mail: moeller.jim@leg.wa.gov

¿ Web site: http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/moeller/

A great opportunity is available through the Southwest Washington Workforce Development Council for all sophomores, juniors and seniors.
 The SW Opportunity Internship Program is a 90 hour internship for those students that have a desire to work in the fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and or Math (STEM).

One of the key requirements to qualify for the internship is that the student must qualify for free or reduced lunch. This grant is on a first come basis and as there are a limited number of spots available. Please click on the link below to get additional details or for contact information.
http://www.camas.wednet.edu/chs/counseling/pdf/oipstem.pdf

the Port of Camas/Washougal
will call a Special Meeting Workshop for Monday, January 25th at 6:00 p.m., at the Port Office,
24 South “A” Street, Washougal, WA 98671, for the following purpose:
OPEN SESSION WORKSHOP – 6:00 p.m.
Strategic Planning for the Port
Facilitated by John White, of JD White/Berger Abam

Senate Bill 6396 before the Washington legislation would bring California-style gun-control to the Northwest and ultimately ban many semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by Washingtonians. 

In fact, SB 6396 is more far-reaching than it appears on the surface and will absolutely impact a gigantic swath of Washington firearm owners, including concealed pistol license holders, hunters and competitive pistol shooters.  As examples, consider the following restrictions that flow from the provisions of this horrendous piece of gun control legislation:

Ø     Every semiautomatic AND PUMP-ACTION rifle and shotgun that has a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip located rear of the trigger (yes, that is just about all of them) is defined as an “assault weapon” and is banned under SB 6396!

Ø      If you and your child/children are out in the woods plinking with his or her Ruger 10-22 and there are more than 10 rounds in the magazine, you are a FELON!

Ø     If you are a Concealed Pistol License holder and your semi-auto self-defense pistol contains more than 10 rounds, you are a FELON!

Ø     The use of firearms defined as “assault weapons” (see first bullet point) are banned for use in hunting!

Ø     Competitive shooters will be impacted as any semi-auto pistol that has a detachable magazine and is equipped with a muzzle brake or compensator is defined as an “assault weapon!” 

Ø     If you own a firearm(s) defined as an “assault weapon” on the date this bill becomes law, you can keep it if you are willing to allow your Sheriff to come into your home once every year to ensure you store your firearm(s) appropriately!

Senate Bill 6396 is proof that the gun-ban groups and politicians are not interested in only banning semi-automatic firearms that happen to look like military firearms.  This bill shows where they really want to go with their agenda!  This gun ban scheme will only punish law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to curb crime or keep criminals from obtaining firearms illegally.  This is not only another attack on our Second Amendment rights in Washington State, but an attack on your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches of your home! 

Brief messages can be left for your legislators by calling the toll-free legislative hotline at 800-562-6000.  Legislators’ direct phone numbers and email access can be found by clicking on their names either here for Senators: http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Senators/Pages/default.aspx 

or here for Representatives:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/representatives/Pages/default.aspx

The Port of Camas- Washougal Commissioners will meet with leaders from the City of Washougal, City of Camas and Columbia River Economic Development Council (CREDC) on January 19th at 7:00 p.m. in the Second Floor Meeting Room of the Camas Library, located at 625 NE 4th Avenue, Camas.

 

This is a rare meeting which citizen have not witnessed in many many years in our community. Local leaders talking to one another.

 

The Agenda:

 

1.) Bart Phillips CREDC presentation

a. What is the CREDC?

b. How are we managing the regional economy?

c. Questions?

 

2.) Cities and Port of Camas-Washougal

a. Current economic projects and partnerships we are working on.

b. What are our efforts for job creation?

c. Other?

 

3.) How can we work together to improve economic stability for our area?

 

4.) What is next?

 

5.) Adjourn.

 

(Meeting is open to the public. No decisions will be made.)

[