HomeMy WebLinkAbout030824 email - Follow-up to my previous emailALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Dear Commissioners Dean, Eisenhour, and Brotherton,
Please let this email serve as support to my last/ previously sent email where I explained my rationale for you not forming a Healthier Together Aquatic Center Task Force.
According to the supposed revenue that is to be produced by the allowed .2% increase in the sales tax imposed by the PFD, and supposedly needed for any given project to be fiscally viable
and sustainable, the argument is that this would, on average, and per person, only cost on average between $10 -$40 per person in sales tax taxes per year (as per the City of Port Townsend
Healthier Together Plan Proposal documents). If this is the case, that means the average person is spending between $5k and $20k per year, between $100 - $400 per week, on retail sales
related products within Jefferson County. Groceries as staples are not subject to sales tax, and neither is gas or diesel for our vehicles. Yes, rolling retail purchases create sales
tax based revenue, but alone do not make a significant impact. So what is everyone purchasing that has sales tax attached/ imposed and that creates these tax revenues? The largest producer
of sales tax revenues in the county has to be from the construction industries for materials and services rendered. This means that construction related sales tax must be continuous
and sustainable throughout the county in order to sustain a PFD. This also means that comprehensive plan growth policies as are currently being reviewed for amendment, must stay consistent
with allowing for continuous and sustainable growth in order to sustain a PFD.
As long as my wife and I have lived here, since 1992, growth policies, especially sustainable tax based growth policies and development opportunities have always been met with resistance.
How will this issue affect the viable and sustainable existence of a publically funded pool development project, and also the sustainability of the "tax and spend" appetite the PFD
will undoubtedly have? My wife and I do make purchases within the county for sure, but nowhere near the $20k threshold which our income, on really good years, might suggest we would
be capable of spending, in the county, in order to contribute at the $40/ person annual sales tax contribution level. We work really hard for our source of income and have been fortunate
so far, but there are many others that make up the varying economic brackets within our community who would be challenged to spend the $5k needed to meet the $10/ person annual sales
tax contribution level. I have many friends and acquaintances, at various economic levels, who I have talked to in order to get a sense of what they feel their sales tax related spending
might be in the city and the county. Every person/ family struggled to think that their spending levels would be at or above the $5k/ year or $100/ week threshold/ contribution levels
needed to produce the $10 per year per person sales tax revenue, which is needed to support the proposed PFD and potential new pool project, let alone $40 per year per person.
What would happen if we had a harsh economic downturn like we faced in 2007 - 2009? This downturn crushed the construction industry, which, again, would be the primary source of revenue
for the PFD. The only option to sustain the debt serviced by the PFD for any PFD publicly funded projects will be through property taxes. If property taxes are going to fill the gap
to service any PFD related debt, this would have to be proposed by the PFD and approved by the voters, which would most likely fail miserably. In an economic downturn, mandatory and
essential existing services would have to be maintained by the city and county, and other facilities and related services as designated to be funded by the PFD would likely have to
close or cease to exist.
For those who feel that private funding of a pool facility is not possible, and feel that the only way to build the pool is off of the taxpayers' back, and based on the economic downturn
scenario I have described above, this current PFD and pool development strategy is completely irresponsible and reflects unclear and flawed thought processes by those who are pushing/
guiding the process. I do not agree that a pool can only be built and operated with public/ taxpayers monies for our community. I feel that a privately funded option, if pursued correctly
and transparently, would be successful for its development and for its ongoing operation and maintenance. But, this option only works if the government gets out of the way and actually
helps to facilitate the process, and if the owners/ operators of the pool have excellent business sense and run the operation like we have to manage our household finances, always saving
and planning for a rainy day.
Based on the efforts I have put into trying to instill logic into this pool/ aquatic center/ PFD discussion, with very limited real or practical results, I am beginning to think that
no matter how hard I push to present my case, no one in an elected decision making capacity is listening. Yes, I as well as others may have changed the attitudes towards the City of
Port Townsend based "Taj Mahal" pool project, and thus, diverted efforts towards a centrally located county option. But the publicly funded pool development issue, and the related PFD
issue, which based on my interpretation is the most unethical issue of all, are both still pressing forward. It is also obvious to me that the "tail is wagging the dog" with regard
to these matters, as the more persuasive upper echelon members of staff at every municipal level are dictating public policy that is supposed to be measured, reviewed, and, in many
cases, challenged by who we elect to office as a system of checks and balances to a governing process that should only be providing essential services and well maintained public assets
for the citizenry. In the case of the pool and PFD issues, the tail is definitely wagging the dog.
Sincerely,
Mark L Grant
0}/documents/{1}