Letters to the Editor

Letter to the Editor: More questions about PenMet’s levy request

Editor’s note: Craig McLaughlin submitted this letter in response to our June 22 story, PenMet proposing levy lid lift renewal

From 2017 to 2023, as property values rose at a greater than 6% rate so that the “rate” of taxation dropped below the 75₵, this did NOT reduce PenMet’s overall income from property tax levies.  In fact, PenMet had a dramatic 77% increase in levies over that period in time.  The huge increase in 2018 and the annual 6% increases for the next 5 years combined get to the 77% number.  The dramatic increase in property values has more than offset the decrease in the rate.

Ask yourself this question:  Has your personal income increased 77% since 2017?  The article inadvertently shows a lower actual increase because it starts with 2018 which is after the levy lid lift went into effect and after the huge 2018 levy increase occurred.

The article mentions a $156 increase (since corrected by PenMet to $144) which, in either case, represents a 29.3% increase in year 2024 alone.  Can taxpayers afford a 30% hike in just one of their many levies?  The fire district and the school districts have done or are doing the same.  There is no documentation I’ve obtained through FOIA requests that indicates the Board has ever discussed or considered the affordability for taxpayers in 2017 or now.  Shouldn’t the Board at least consider that issue?  Can taxpayers afford what PenMet is asking?

In addition to the year 2024 increase, the 6% annual increases will, if assessed values increase by 6% or more each year, add another 38% to the levies PenMet will receive.  The combined effect will, again, be over 70% for 2024-2029 just like in 2018-2023.

Ally is quoted at length (in the June 22 story), but none of her comments are explained or challenged, and they need to be both.  As one example, consider the relationship between population growth and PenMet’s expenses—to show there is a direct relationship one would have to assume:

1. All of PenMet’s parks are being used at their maximum capacities
2. That 100% of the people living in PenMet’s park district are now using the parks
3. That the entire increase in population would also start using PenMet’s parks
4. That all of PenMet’s activities have a cost associated with them that is directly related to the population

None of these are true.

It would also have to ignore:

1. That an increase in population means more homes to assess and increased levies
2. Inflation, for a taxpayer supported entity, is a good thing as that drives up the values of existing homes thus increasing levies on existing homes as well
3. That some of PenMet’s events charge a fee and with an increase in population it’s likely that their event fee income would increase due to increase demand
4. That some of PenMet’s facilities have been upgraded and made more attractive which should increase its rental income

Ally puts forth conclusions without disclosing the basis or methodology or data used to get to those conclusions.

Ally also mentions our “community priorities.”  In this regard, PenMet gathers its information usually by survey.  PenMet’s surveys usually include questions like “Do you want more Parks?” or “Do you want more water access?”  What they don’t do is put a cost associated with the wish list they’re building.  Who’s against Parks?  Who’s against more water access?  Who’s against more playgrounds and ballfields?  Their survey questions are designed to get “yes” answers.  If you add in a reasonable expected cost, I think the “community’s priorities” might change just a bit or maybe even a lot.

Ally mentioned that PenMet is not required to take the full 6% increase, but let’s review the history from 2018 through 2023.  History is often times a good predictor of the future.  How many times did PenMet not take the full 6% increase?  To my knowledge, not once.  They took it every year and we went through COVID as well!  Maybe Ally can clarify this for all of us?

The article quotes me as asking several “Do you plan on…” questions.  Here are just four of my questions:

1. Do you plan on informing the voters that PenMet’s 2023 tax levy income has doubled over what it was in 2017 when the last levy lid lift was approved?
2. Do you plan on informing the voters that PenMet’s income increases automatically every year if the Pierce County Assessor increases the assessments on our homes?
3. Do you plan on informing the voters that PenMet’s income increases automatically every year when the Pierce County Assessor places new assessments on new construction?
4. Do you plan on informing the voters that, according to PenMet’s 2023 budget, less than 50% of PenMet’s 2023 income of just over $10M is left, after debt service and capital projects, to fund operations?

One final remark:  I believe the Commissioners can comment on any public comments at the Board meeting, but they choose not to—maybe by a self-imposed policy?  I have found nothing in the Open Public Meetings Act that prevents Commissioners from asking questions or making comments.  In fact, it would be a great improvement to the public comment agenda item if there was actual two-way conversation, but that never happens.

Craig McLaughlin

Fox Island

Gig Harbor Now accepts signed letters to the editor of up to about 800 words. Submit them on the Contact form by selecting “Letter to the Editor” from the Purpose dropdown.