Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Opinion & Editorial

by Kirk Thompson, School Trustee, Stevensville

After years of debate over problems, needs, alternatives, and costs, the facilities committee of the Stevensville School Board made a proposal for a new building program. This proposal is to build a new class 4-8 building, and a new building for band, music, and food service. A preliminary concept was published in the Bitterroot Star on February 25, 2009. A series of meetings on the proposal were held to gain more input from school staff and the community. As a result of these meetings, the proposal was modified and updated for months as new ideas were presented and evaluated. These new buildings would replace the 1901 and 1937 Junior High building, and the 1924 class 4-6 building, both of which would be removed, along with the separate Junior High shop building. The new building would replace existing buildings that have various structural problems, roof problems, electrical and plumbing problems, poor energy efficiency, access problems, and student safety issues. Correction of the problems in the existing buildings (even if feasible) would cost millions of dollars, and the district would still be left with very old structures that would not meet modern classroom standards.

Over the past several years, the facilities committee has considered many options, including rebuilding existing structures, building a new elementary school and converting the K-3 building to a junior high, building a new junior high, building a new high school and converting the high school to a junior high, and building only a new band and music facility. This proposal is the result of carefully considering all the pros and cons of the various alternatives. The proposed new buildings do not increase the number of classrooms we currently have, but the new rooms will be bigger and have more amenities. The new 4-8 building will be designed to easily allow for more classrooms to be added in the future if needed. It will also be designed to allow each grade to have its own space and bathrooms.

In July 2009, the school board was informed of an opportunity to obtain zero or near zero financing by using Qualified School Construction Bonds (QSCB). The Stevensville application for up to $10 million in such bonds was approved by the State of Montana on August 6, 2009. Based on this approval, the school board voted on September 15 and September 21 to call for an election by mail ballot in November 2009. The election will be conducted by the county, with ballots mailed on November 4, and counted on November 24. If approved, preparations of plans and specifications should begin by March 2010, with construction starting later in the year. Completion should be in 2012. The design allows the new 4-8 building to be completed before removing the existing structures in order to minimize class disruption and avoid the cost of temporary classrooms.

The total cost is estimated at $8,880,000 for the elementary district and $860,000 for the high school district (which includes Lone Rock). Financing would be through recently approved Qualified School Construction Bonds. This is a new type of school bond authorized by the federal government, in which the bond purchaser receives a federal income tax credit instead of annual interest payments from the borrower. Since this is a new type of bond for schools, and there is no well-established market yet for them, there is the possibility that potential buyers may require an additional small annual interest payment, depending on our bond rating, tax credit determined at time of bond issuance, and market conditions when bonds are sold. Based on current financial advice, we expect any additional interest required to be under 1 percent (the current tax credit rate is over 6 percent). With QSCB, the school does not have to pay off the bonds until the maturity date, and the taxes collected annually can be invested in accordance with state law to earn interest. Because of this, the mill levy required to pay for the bonds will actually decrease each year based on interest earnings for the previous year. The total amount paid by the taxpayers will actually be less than the amount borrowed. Compared to standard tax-exempt bonds, the total savings to district taxpayers will probably be over $4 million. We have a unique opportunity to solve numerous school building problems at a modest tax burden now, and with very great savings over delaying any further. To take advantage of the QSCB, we are required to have approval of the voters by November 24, 2009.

With the current lower costs of construction materials, and very favorable bids from contractors, this is an ideal time to construct new buildings. Please vote ''yes'' on the school bond ballots in November.

Thanks to Greater Ravalli Foundation

Dear Editor,

We would like to thank the Greater Ravalli Foundation for once again awarding a grant to Fund For All. Fund for All is a program that was started 6 years ago by Allison Mullin, a Stevensville High School student who recognized a need in our community to help kids participate in school or community activities that they would otherwise be unable to afford. The program is administered by the Stevensville Community Foundation with the help of their Junior Board Members and the Stevensville High School Counselor. Since its initiation over 100 kids have benefited from Fund For All with everything from swimming lessons to baseball mitts, sports shoes, cheer camps, soccer sweatshirts, student council convention expenses and other activities. Thank you for helping us to continue this great program for the students in our community.

Joey White and Quinn Bassett, Junior Board Members
Stevensville Community Foundation

Lawmakers listen more to lobbyists than homeowners

Dear Editor,

2002 to 2008 were great times in the real estate market. Construction was up; homes sold and were worth record highs. Not true today as worldwide market collapse hit the real estate industry hard. This is bad news for homeowners and local businesses when it comes to property taxes as the slump puts our market values far below their assessed value.

Pundits will tell us that reappraisal and property tax hikes are a result of Eastern Montana versus Western Montana. But when we look at the vote tally on the final mitigation bill requested by the Joint Senate Committee on Reappraisal we see a starkly different story.

I know the story all too well as I carried this bill for the Senate Committee but in the end, voted against it. My repeated warnings of the bad consequences for homeowners and small businesses, particularly in growth regions, were ignored. So, I voted against the bill with my name on it. I also carried many tax bills to cap the growth of homeowner taxes, all of which were killed.

Every Senate Republican, except one, voted for this bad law. Nearly ninety percent of House Republicans joined the fray. Compare that with seventy-five percent of House Democrats joining me in voting no and nearly fifty percent of Senate Democrats voting no.

Republicans ignored our warnings that the haphazard strategy would not work for heritage homeowners and particularly the elderly. Special interest lobbyists wrongly said it would work and the Republicans believed them. Now, we’ll all pay an average 15 percent more in property taxes next month, some much more.

I came home from Helena last spring knowing the bill with my name on it, that I could not support, was a colossal failure. The Republicans did not listen to anyone but the lobbyists, even as the fiscal note was clear: the bill would increase taxes dramatically for many.

The Republican Senate hijacked the House version of the final mitigation bill and exempted only 85 percent of the effect of growth. The Senate amended the House bill, which mitigated 100 percent of reappraisal, and forced homeowners and downtown businesses to pay $6 million more in taxes over the biennium and another $6 million over the cycle.

Senate Republicans removed all the assistance to the elderly, disabled, and poor homeowners and renters. Then Senate Republicans added a new tax on homes worth more that $1.5 million. No wonder elderly and lakeshore homeowners are hopping mad.

As a result, 60 percent of Montana homeowners will see their property taxes increase up to $200 over last year, some much higher. This is bad news during our difficult economic times.

Republicans Legislators have the majority in numbers, 77 seats of 150, to call a Special Session of the Legislature to fix their mess.

The solutions were all presented in the 2009 Session: capping a homeowner’s tax growth to no more than 3 percent, extending reappraisal to guarantee no more than 5 percent tax growth for businesses and homeowners, lower rates for those who live in their homes and pay more than $100 in increased taxes, and expanding assistance to elderly, poor and disabled homeowners and renters.

Over the years, the Montana Association of Realtors opposed our attempts to cap homeowner’s taxes to inflationary growth, or reappraise only upon the sale of a home.

A sales assessment ration will look at how valuations have changed and be presented to the 2011 Legislature, not nearly in time for the taxman.

Those who joined me locally in voting against this bad bill deserve sincere thanks; Sen. Bruggerman (R) Polson, Rep. Beck (R) Whitefish, Rep. Sonju (R) Kalispell, Rep. Brown (R) Columbia Falls, and Rep. Steenson (D) Kalispell.

I wish more Republicans had listened to homeowners and local businesses, and voted to help older citizens in high growth areas. The people who laid the foundations for our great communities deserve to be able to live out their days in their homes, and not to be sent to the “poor house” because suddenly their homes are worth more money than some made in their entire lives.

Citizen politicians would do much better by listening to homeowners and local businesses rather than well funded special interest groups intent on preserving their own interest. And homeowners and small businesses should protect their wallets from a Legislature intent on listening solely to special interests.

Rep. Mike Jopek
Whitefish

Health care reform worth fighting for

Dear Editor,

It is always darkest before the dawn. Despite the quickening maelstrom in Washington, healthcare reform is closer than it has ever been, in nearly one hundred years of trying. For all Americans who are desperate for its success, we must keep the faith and keep up the fight.

My family has known the hardship and heartache of huge medical bills for cancer treatment, and the torture of trying to make sense out of the morass of insurance claims and denials in the U.S. Likewise, we have enjoyed the benefits of national healthcare when living in other countries, from Switzerland to Chad. We fervently wish that our country could offer the simplicity and peace of mind of a national system to our citizens.

Consider public versus private enterprise. We need only to ask ourselves the nature of each to understand that the prime concern of private insurance is to have a healthy bottom line, not a healthy country.

As Washington Senator Maria Cantrell noted, “A family is paying $7,000 more now than what they just paid a few years ago for the exact same benefits. That means that as inflation is only 2-3%, healthcare costs are rising about 7% or 8% annually. That’s what’s happening and that’s what’s going to happen again…unless we bring true competition into the marketplace…”

True competition will only come into the healthcare marketplace with the offer of a Medicare plan for all who choose it. Four out of five Congressional committees have drafted, debated, voted on and passed legislation to fix health care with strong affordability provisions, shared responsibility, and the option of a public plan. We must redouble our efforts now to write, call, and speak out to Baucus, Tester, and Rehberg for reform that puts people before profiteers.

Keep the faith and keep up the fight.

Yvonne Gastineau Gritzner
Florence

Support for Travel Plan Alternative 4

Dear Editor,

The Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) is now accepting comments on its proposed travel plan for our Forest's trails and roads. f you care about our Forest then you must comment.

The "Preferred" Alternative 1 makes positive changes to travel management by adding protections to our invaluable natural resources like fisheries, streams, wildlife, prime hunting grounds, and the native plants that feed the spectacular wildlife. It also helps to reduce user conflict and promote safer travel for quiet users by closing some routes to motorized travel.

Though Alternative 1 is a step in the right direction it doesn't go far enough in protecting our resources and wildlife and providing a more balanced approach to recreation. This is found in Alternative 4. Hikers, bikers, and horseback riders outnumber ATVers and dirt bikers 22 to 1 as a primary activity, yet the vast majority of trails outside wilderness are motorized. This isn't fair trail usage and it diminishes the quality and safety of the experience for traditional Forest users and their families.

The 300-plus page draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) by the BNF on travel management consistently states through good reasoning, science and statistics that Alternative 4 does the best job in protecting wildlife like elk, mountain goats, bull trout, and wolverines. Likewise the DEIS says Alternative 4 is superior in protecting our watersheds and fish, while reducing risk of noxious weed infestations.

The BNF's economic analysis makes a strong case for quiet recreation. Quiet, non-motorized activities bring much more money and jobs to our valley's citizens. In fact non-motorized activities produce about 250% more jobs and labor income than motorized activities do.

The BNF's budget has decreased 39% since 2003. It doesn't have the funding to adequately maintain a thousand miles of motorized trails. Alternative 4 would close about half of these trails to ATVs and motorcycles, while keeping them open to traditional quiet users like hikers, horses, and hunters.

Alternative 4 does a superior job in protecting resources, habitat, wildlife and traditional trail uses. It still leaves many hundreds of miles of trails open to motorized use. It saves money by reducing the more expensive and labor-intensive maintenance that motorized trails require. It promotes non-motorized activities which bring in more money and jobs to our valley. And it provides the fairest and most balanced recreational opportunities on our trails.

Read the DEIS! Make comments! The National Forest's own science and studies make the case to choose Alternative 4. Comments are due by Nov. 4th.

Van P. Keele
Hamilton

Civil discourse lacking

Dear Editor,

What has happened to civil discourse?

While standing in front of the Montanans for Trap Free Public Lands booth at the Apple Days festivities in Hamilton, I witnessed one of our members getting elbowed in the stomach and pushed back into a propane heater by a man who was obviously unhappy with our gathering of signatures.

We are trying to get an initiative on the ballot that would let people vote on whether recreational trapping on public lands in Montana should continue.

The 63-year-old gentleman who was elbowed was the same fellow whose dog got caught in a couple of leg hold traps last winter. He has been helping us ever since.

We were all shocked to see the anger that gets directed our way by members of the opposition and we wonder: whatever happened to civil discourse?

Numerous studies are consistent in reporting that people who are cruel to animals are much more likely to be violent toward other people.

Is trapping cruel to animals? Is it appropriate on our shared public land?

Let’s let the voters decide in November, 2010. Please sign our petition to help get the question on the ballot.

Roger W. De Haan
Victor

©2009 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney