LETTER: 911 tax plan doesn't work

I MEAN REALLY! A ballot that isn’t a ballot. Doing nothing is a yes vote. Vote no on a ballot with no dollar value is a yes vote. A vague promise to adjust things after we get this turkey passed. A total frontal tax assault on every small business owner in the valley. And for an explanation all we get is a tepid acknowledgment from one county commissioner that “we did a very poor job of explaining it.” Is this really the best they can do?

This whole 911 Special Tax District plan is akin to riding your bike downhill with no brakes. Scary and out of control.

I suggest our elected officials go back to the drawing board. First work with what we know. Flathead residents are reasonable (most of the time at least) and so are our elected officials (again most of the time). I serve on the Columbia Falls City Council which means I’ve had a front row seat watching this train wreck since 2008. The 911 Center’s initial bond was too small to maintain a digital 911 Center so now it’s time to pay the piper. In 2008, elected officials, department heads and management staff got bonding of $6.9 million for a new digital 911 Center and basically said “we’ll deal with capital needs later.” Now these same people tell us “later is here.”

Any funding approach needs to include all Flathead Valley residents, not just homeowners and small businesses. Possibly look at a universal fee or administration fee on a driver license. If we have 80,000 licenses in the county that is $24 per license or $1.9 million. Also visitors to the valley certainly use 911 services and through resort tax fees a very considerable revenue stream has been created. Isn’t it reasonable that visitors help fund 911 services? In short any approach that includes everyone vs. just property owners should be developed and sold to the public.

What I do know is the proposed 911 Special District funding package isn’t going to work. For example a key element of the 911 Special District plan is to tax business owners for tenants’ use of rented property. Consequently if a tenant is, say, a sign company the new tax is $50, but when the sign company becomes a storage facility, the tax is $1,000. When the tenant moves, a vacant property is taxed at $25. Eventually the space is rented for retail lumber purposes with a tax of $250, but don’t worry, the tenant doesn’t need all his space so they sublet some space to a pawn shop, which is to be taxed at — you guessed it — $1,000.

How does this plan make any sense? How is anyone going to keep track of every new or old tenant’s start date? Never mind the “trust me my business isn’t really what it looks like” argument. I can hear it now “my business is actually a social/fraternal organization... I only owe $25!”

So if anyone wants to make a Christmas wish I suggest:

Dear Commissioners, please scrap this plan on Dec. 30. —Dave Petersen, Columbia Falls