School Bond thoughts

There appear to be a number of voters in School District 38 who wonder whether all the options have been considered to deal with the shortcomings of the existing facilities. Many feel that more specific educational issues should be addressed in order to justify the amount of money that has been requested.

Bigfork voters have always shown strong support for their school system, and many now feel that the time has come to discover a way to provide a truly °()()modern°+/- facility that will meet the needs of the twenty- first century for years to come. This may entail finding different uses for some of the existing facilities and relocating. It could involve cooperating with another school district.

The recent bond election, which was conducted by mail ballot, produced one of the highest voter turnouts in years. The results show that a great many voters actually took time to carefully consider the proposed use of the requested funds. Since the language on the ballot was not very specific, it was necessary to obtain additional documentation in order to discern more precisely how the two bond requests were interlinked. Upon careful examination of the architectural renderings, it was readily evident that the proposed square footage of actual classroom space was considerably less than the square footage for expanded office space, food service facilities, and other general areas. The proposal included very few improvements to the width of existing hallways or the enlargement of existing classrooms, both of which were listed as problem areas in order to justify the need for the bond funds.

School Districts are always faced with incredibly complicated funding challenges when they determine that their existing facilities have reached functional obsolescence. The school board and the administration of District 38 have struggled valiantly with this dilemma, and have presented what they feel is a solution to some of the problems. In light of the results of the bond election, further research and creative visioning may be necessary to meet the expectations of district voters.

State statutes allow a school district to ask voters to reconsider a °()()failed°+/- bond issue, but there doesn°Ot appear to be any provision for voters to request reconsideration of a °()()passed°+/- bond issue. Since the Bigfork Elementary, Middle, and High Schools occupy the same campus, and any modification to the existing facilities of any one of the schools will influence one or both of the others, it would make sense for the voters to have an opportunity to reconsider both the High School bond election and the Elementary bond election.

Many district voters will support a plan that results in a new facility, perhaps in a different location, financed by innovative, creative measures, rather than a plan that only provides °()()improvements°+/- to an aging facility with ongoing shortcomings. Given sufficient time and diligent study, it may well be possible to craft an effective plan that will fill the needs of Bigfork students and teachers without requiring them to spend the next fifteen years in a modestly improved facility.

Edd Blackler

Bigfork

Resort Tax clarification

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the letter to the editor from Dan Griffin in the December 27, 2007 issue of the Bigfork Eagle. His letter stated that, in his opinion, Bruce Solberg is acting as an advocate for a Resort Tax here in Bigfork. As President of the Bigfork Area Chamber of Commerce, I want to make it clear that neither he nor the Board of Directors is advocating any such position.

The Bigfork Steering Committee approached the Chamber Board and asked for Chamber participation in exploring the idea of such a tax. The Chamber Board, a 15 member group comprised of individuals from a cross section of business types, agreed that it is in the best interests of Bigfork businesses that we should be involved with this process as representatives of the business community and we voted in favor of Mr. Solberg participating in this effort.

I feel that it is very prudent for our community to look at the long range needs that will, and already are, presenting themselves to our town. It is important that we look for ways to maintain and preserve the quaint community that we have today so that Bigfork does not lose those qualities that make it so special.

Whether a Resort Tax is the right answer or not is for the citizens of Bigfork to decide. My responsibility is to assure that our Members know and understand the answers to all Resort Tax questions so that each person can make their own educated decision about what is right for Bigfork°Os future.

A6P5Mike Callaghan

President, Bigfork Area Chamber of Commerce

Resort Tax Part II

As a member of the Bigfork Resort Tax Committee, I am responding to Mr. Dan Griffin°Os letter in the Bigfork Eagle dated December 27, 2007.

The Resort Tax Committee was formed by the Bigfork Steering Committee to serve as a fact-finding committee to analyze and evaluate the need, feasibility, fiscal implication and economic impact of a Resort Tax for the Bigfork Community. This committee is not advocating a resort tax and the fact that Bruce Solberg (Director of the Bigfork Chamber of Commerce) is chairman of the committee does not indicate that the Chamber is a proponent of a resort tax.

Some of the questions and/or objectives the Resort Tax Committee will address are as follows:

1. What is the purpose of a resort tax and is it applicable to Bigfork?

2. How has it worked in other Montana communities (Whitefish, Red Lodge, Big Sky, St. Regis, etc?)?

3. What are the boundaries of a potential Resort Tax area?

4. How would the Resort Tax be administered and enforced?

5. What is the formation process of a governing entity?

6. What are potential resort tax expenditures?

7. What are Resort Tax election procedures?

8. What is the Bigfork Citizen°Os opinion of a Resort Tax?

Mr. Griffin had some valid points and raised some legitimate questions. Businesses would have a small additional accounting cost; all taxable items would be reflected at the point of sale. This additional cost could possibly be negated by a rebate (5%) at the end of each accounting year.

A resort Tax wouldn°Ot be a detriment to tourists nor to the people who live in Bigfork part-time. They are paying a 6% - 8.3% tax in their °()()home states: so they are actually getting a break when they are in Bigfork. It is unlikely that a resort sales tax would prevent anyone from moving here (if it did, that might be a good thing!)

Let us not forget, items such as medicine, most food items and some clothing would be among the items exempt from the resort sales tax, so the full time residents would not be affected that much.

The future growth potential in the Bigfork area, as projected by the Bigfork Steering Committee°Os Neighborhood Plan, illustrates the need for a revenue stream sufficient to maintain the infrastructure and services required to provide a rewarding and meaningful lifestyle for residents of Bigfork and its surrounding populace. As Bigfork is unincorporated, we receive very little monies from the state or country. Revenues from the resort sales tax could be used to improve our infrastructure; projects like the water and sewer problems detailed on the front page of the Bigfork Eagle dated 10/27/07. This tax revenue could also be used to supplement local services like the fire department, QRU, Bigfork Museum of Art and History and the Bigfork Food Bank. Other organizations would be able to request funds from the governing entity.

Whitefish and Red Lodge have been able to accomplish remarkable things with the revenue from their resort sakes taxes. Red Lodge has a 3% resort sales tax that generates annual revenue of approximately $600,000. The citizens and merchants I talked with all spoke favorably of the resort sales tax and its benefits to their community.

The Bigfork Resort Tax Committee recognizes the questions and concerns of the Bigfork community. We hope to answer these questions in a series of public forums. We have already invited citizens to submit questions on the Chamber website, but have had very limited response. Please send questions, concerns and comments to Resorttax@bigfork.org.

Gordon C. Graham

Resort Tax Committee