Dell Raybould

Idaho State Rep, 34B, Republican  



0 No HTML. Comments are subject to approval. Minimum 50 characters.
  • Kathrine Holyoak said

    Mr. Raybould-

    Greetings. It was helpful to hear your views of Potato Harvest at our school board meeting recently. We voted to maintain the existing harvest and value your opinion. I would like to share an opinion of mine with you that I hope you will consider.

    I wish to relay my thoughts on the legislation regarding Business Property Tax that will be debated this session in Boise. My thoughts spring mainly from my perspective as a Madison trustee and are in relation to how this legislation will affect education.

    My worry concerning eliminating the Business Property Tax is that the legislature's current plan for "finding" the lost revenue is to make it possible for "local" entities to pass taxes to backfill that lost revenue. I worry that if schools ask the public (locally) for more money now, it will be nearly IMPOSSIBLE to bond later for legitimate educational needs (Madison has some legitimate building needs on the horizon which include additional elementary schools to accommodate the growth in that segment of our population). Local education has a very limited number of times we can effectively ask Madison County patrons for money. This is compounded by the difficulty of getting a super majority tally for bonds to build/improve/maintain buildings.

    It is a constitutional state mandate to fund public education at that level, not locally. Unless the state can figure out a way to replace the lost revenue without having it supplemented locally, I oppose the Business Property Tax being eliminated. Additionally, local taxing options increase the breadth of disparity between "rich districts" vs. "poor districts" which will suffer even more dramatically than they currently do (those who haven't been able to pass local levies or bonds).

    I also worry that the average (non-business owning) tax payer will not receive additional "benefits" if they vote to backfill this revenue loss through local measures (unlike voting to build a school which the public can then see tangible results of their higher taxes). All the public will get for their increased tax burden is to return to the current "status quo". Idaho's current "status quo" has bottomed out at 50th in the nation for per pupil spending. The fact that this legislation will drop educational funding even lower is unconscionable to me. Please protect educational funding and vote against this legislation.

    However, a compromise of letting small business exclude the first $50,000 -100,000 of their property could be considered. That would give relief to the small business owners who probably need it, and yet not let HUGE corporations become richer as our schools become poorer.

    Kathrine Holyoak
    01/23/2013
  • mike adams said

    pass a law like arizona and support arizona on this immigration bill. get the illigals out of idaho
    05/23/2010
  • Co-Sponsored bill HJM6
    08/09/2009
  • Co-Sponsored bill HJM2
    08/09/2009
  • Co-Sponsored bill H210
    08/09/2009
  • Sponsored bill H160
    08/09/2009
Alternative Formats RSS ATOM JSON
Idaho
Last Update
11/24/2009
Share This Page