Author Archives: kimberlywirtz

Alaska’s nonprofit hatcheries give us hope for Washington’s salmon runs

The following op-ed appeared in the Seattle Times and was published earlier in August.

By Sen. Ann Rivers, Sen. Shelly Short, and Rep. Luanne Van Werven
Special to The Times

Imagine living in a state where the sea is overflowing with salmon, ensuring there are more than enough fish and wildlife to survive and thrive in the Northwest.

A state where salmon reproduction is self-sustaining to such a level that it grows the economy, protects taxpayers and revitalizes the environment.

We visited that state recently. It’s our neighbor to the north, Alaska.

In the early 1970s, salmon runs in Alaska were very low, jeopardizing the state’s commercial and recreational fishing industries. Leaders did an in-depth look at what worked and what did not work in Canada, Oregon and Washington. One of the strategies they adopted was to create salmon-enhancement projects. The most successful of those launched numerous nonprofit fish hatcheries, built through a public-private partnership with $100 million in no-interest public loans.

We toured one of those hatcheries — the DIPAC hatchery in Juneau, which produces 137 million fish every year. What we saw painted a picture of possibilities that could exist for Washington.

The survival rate of salmon to adulthood in Alaska — of both native and hatchery fish — is 1 to 10% depending on the year. Assuming a conservative 1% survival means 1.37 million DIPAC salmon return to their homes. The DIPAC hatchery covers all operating costs by selling 30% of each year’s returning fish. That means the remainder — a whopping 950,000 fish — are available annually for commercial, sport and tribal uses. They also are available to killer whales, eagles, bears and all salmon-consuming denizens of Alaska. Those are extra salmon available on top of the natural populations, and this isn’t the only such hatchery.

Those numbers got our attention, as did the fact that Alaska taxpayers haven’t paid for this hatchery since the startup loans were paid off several years ago. There are 29 hatcheries in Alaska. One is tribal. One is federal. Only two are state-run. Twenty-five of the 29 are these incredibly successful nonprofit operations.

Another impressive achievement of the Alaska model: They strive to augment wild stocks — not compete with them. Scientific assessments are made to find freshwater streams pouring into saltwater that do not have native salmon populations. Remote plants are made at these locations. This ensures that these hatchery fish do not compete with native salmon streams.

The DIPAC hatchery has excellent relations with its Native American neighbors and functions as an outstanding learning center for visiting school kids and surrounding communities. It also serves as a center of tourism in town and generates tax dollars for the public good from visiting tourists from around the world.

A recent Times Op-Ed [“Restoring salmon runs, not politics, will save southern resident killer whales,” July 16, Opinion] criticized hatchery fish as an unsatisfactory food source for orcas and recommended changes be made in other areas. We think that the state, tribes and all who fish can work on this project to take the pressure off the wild stocks that might be favored by orcas.

While we don’t anticipate that Alaska’s hatchery model can be replicated quickly in Washington, we saw that it can be done. This is why we recommend a pilot project to be developed by our state Legislature. Nearly 50 years of sustainable excellence in Alaska shows us how to make nonprofit hatcheries work for Washington.

Government is capable of doing big things when properly motivated and effectively led, and Washington’s private sector certainly has a solid track record when it comes to innovation and production. If the core problem is a lack of fish — well, Alaska did something about that, and so can we, not only for the benefit of the orcas but all others who rely on a robust salmon fishery. Let’s start by learning from our friends to the north.

7th District state legislators recognized for “Jada’s Law”

Short and Maycumber receive awards to improve bone-marrow donation awareness

Sen. Shelly Short and Rep. Jacquelin Maycumber have been recognized for their work on legislation to increase awareness of the process of matching those in need of bone-marrow transplants with potential donors.

Short, R-Addy, is the recipient of the 2019 “Rekindle Life Award.” Rep. Maycumber, R-Republic, is the recipient of the “Seeds of Hope Award.” Both awards were presented by the Jada Bascom Foundation.

During the 2018 legislative session, both Short and Maycumber introduced companion legislation known as “Jada’s Law.” They collaborated to successfully shepherd through the Legislature Senate Bill 6155, which was inspired by a visit from the Jada Bascom Foundation and the story behind the law’s namesake.

“When the Jada Bascom foundation met with me, they had been looking for a supporter in the Legislature for seven years,” said Short. “After hearing how Jada had to receive a bone marrow transplant from a match all the way in Germany, I knew we had to act.”

Under this new law, Washington state drivers or individuals who have identicards are provided written materials that guide them to become bone-marrow donors.

“It’s critical to educate more people about the need for bone-marrow donors and to generate more interest in the national marrow-donor program,” said Short.

“Bone marrow is a gift one can give at any time to save a life. In addition, bone marrow is matched cell to cell with ethnicity. The rates of survival diminish with mixed ethnicity,” explained Maycumber. “I don’t believe anyone’s chance of survival should diminish due to one’s race. This legislation can change those statistics and save lives.” 

SB 6155 passed both the House and Senate with unanimous support.

Short: A last-second tax bill out of nowhere

The following op-ed appeared in the Newport Miner and was published earlier in June.

By Sen. Shelly Short | For The Miner

Published June 12, 2019

Out of nowhere, House Bill 2167 was brought before the Senate for a vote on the last day of session, a bill which nearly doubles the business and occupational (B&O) tax banks across the state already pay. One House Democrat introduced this bill April 10, less than three weeks before session’s end. The actual language of HB 2167 was not made public, however, until just hours before it was heard, voted out of committee and off the House floor April 26. Rushed in one day from public testimony to votes out of committee and off the floor with little change. If this tax was truly necessary, then why not introduce it near the beginning of session for a complete hearing and vetting process by the Legislature?

Senate Republicans opposed this tax bill for two reasons. The first was that it was unnecessary. With extraordinary revenue from economic growth, we could fund the budget without new taxes. The second was because it was rammed through during the final two days of session. In fact, the Senate received HB 2167 as a title-only bill, which means it had a title on the first page while the rest was blank.

Despite our efforts to fight against it, including a few Democratic allies joining us in our opposition, the bill was passed by one vote in the Senate and signed into law by Gov. Inslee.

HB 2167 sets up a B&O tax of 1.2 percent on banks. The new law states it will focus on banks that have an income of at least $1 billion. This makes it sound like this new law won’t be consequential. But that is not the case. Most of the banks you know will be impacted. Making matters worse for us is that most of the affected banks are the ones located in our district. Most of you may not have an option of going to a smaller bank that won’t be burdened by this tax.

One might ask, “Why should I care about taxing banks?” The banking industry is one of the largest in the world. You may think that taxing them doesn’t affect you. However, many financial institutions and loan-lending entities adjust their lending practices to not only their national average, but also to whatever local and state regulations they and borrowers are subject to. Thanks to this new law, there is a strong chance you might be blindsided by new fees when you need that important loan. And with the size of these corporations, it’s no surprise that they are the ones we use whenever we need to start a business, finance our homes, or continue maintaining our farms.

In our district, many people are trying to start small businesses to make a living. Business loans are usually procured through these banks one way or another, as they are best equipped to finance a business. Even when you use a local community bank, that bank often forms a partnership with a multinational financial institution in order to fund a local business. During testimony on a different bill last year, Fannie Mae confirmed that adjusting loans based on local regulations does happen. Because of HB 2167, you may find yourself placed in a much more financially painful path when it comes to realizing your hopes and dreams.

Republicans weren’t the only ones blindsided by this bill. So was Sen. Mark Mullet, D-Issaquah. He hadn’t even seen the entire bill when it came over from the House, even though he chairs the Senate committee overseeing banks and other financial institutions. Given his financial experience, he also explained how this can have a ripple effect on lending practices for our average citizens. If such a claim could be alleviated, we still don’t know, he added, since this bill was rammed through without any legal analysis that could be done in two days. More importantly, Senate Democratic leadership disrespected Washingtonians by purposefully ignoring legislative process and constitutional principles designed to give everyone the opportunity to review, offer comments and changes. In fact, it is quite common for bills that go through the traditional process to have changed multiple times. In the end, it isn’t a surprise that Sen. Mullet and a few other Senate Democratic members sided with us in voting no. But it wasn’t enough to kill the bill.

Before Gov. Inslee signed this proposal May 21, Sen. Mullet joined Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, Sen. John Braun, R-Centralia, and Rep. Drew Stokesbary, R-Auburn, in sending the governor a letter requesting that he veto the tax on financial institutions – a tax that would total $133 million. But Inslee did not veto it, even though he had vetoed similar hastily passed tax legislation in the past.

This wasn’t the only tax affecting banks. House Bill 2158, which raises the B&O tax service rate from 1.5 percent to 1.8 percent, also became law. When you combine that with what HB 2167 does, the rate that banks pay will nearly double what they currently pay. In fact, banks in Washington will now be among those institutions with some of the highest tax burdens in the country.

All of this was brought about because our friends across the aisle claim that this new law will help folks who earn a lower income and are overburdened by taxes. If we truly want to lower the tax burden on those who are struggling financially, we shouldn’t do it by taxing the majority of places that hold their money. A wiser option would be to end superfluous taxes, especially after revenue has increased in two years from $41 billion to $50 billion.

And especially after introducing taxes that came out of nowhere in the last two days of session.

A budget that doesn’t put people first

The following op-ed appeared in the Omak-Okanogan Chronicle and was published today.

To download the article, click on the link: Budget Op-Ed

By Sen. Shelly Short, Rep. Joel Kretz and Rep. Jacquelin Maycumber

Special to The Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle

Every two years, the legislature is required to pass an operating budget that funds state government operations and services, while prioritizing education. This session, we received the budget written by majority party budget leaders on day 104 of the 105-day session. Hardly enough time to digest the finer details of a document hundreds of pages long and certainly not enough time for the public – the taxpayers – to weigh in.

Transparency took a back seat to expediency as title-only bills were introduced at the last minute, tax increases were passed literally in the dead of night, and most legislators found out what was in the budget only after it was passed by Democrats in both chambers.

This session’s impact on the average person in our district is among the worst we’ve seen. The final 2019-21 operating budget is rife with tax increases impacting individuals, employees, small businesses, property owners, real estate, and financial institutions, to name a few.

Let us be clear: tax increases were absolutely not needed.

Consider this. Two years ago, when budget writers crafted the 2017-19 operating budget, the March revenue forecast showed they would have $41.597 billion. In March of 2019 – again, just two years later – that number was $50.555 billion. That’s a $9 billion increase in two years!

This historical state revenue growth is due to taxpayers giving more of their hard-earned money to Olympia. While we entered the 2019 legislative session hoping to give some of that back to the citizens, across the aisle, more money meant more growth in government.

But even with this unprecedented enormous growth in state revenues, the majority party in Olympia decided more was needed. They passed legislation to raise taxes by $2 billion over the next four years to fund their $52.4 billion budget, which raises spending by 18% over current levels. We wonder how many of you will see an 18% increase in your family budget over the next two years?

A new increase to the business and occupation tax and a tax hike on oil refineries contribute to a wallet-gouging $1.16 billion rise in taxes. While some legislative colleagues claim this higher tax is another way to help the environment, the truth is it will hurt refinery workers, the communities they live in, and all of us at the pump with increased gas prices.

Many legislators in both the House and Senate fought against these proposals and offered amendments to lessen the damage done to our citizens, but to no avail.

These attempts further displayed the ideological differences we’re seeing from many Seattle-centric legislators who view tax increases from an ideology standpoint, not necessarily out of need. This has created a majority viewpoint that wants more government, more programs, more control over your money and time – things we don’t agree with.

Further, the Legislature’s answer for addressing the ongoing challenges in allocation of education funding was to punt it back to local property taxpayers in the form of increased levy lids.

Instead of the state assisting school districts’ adaptation to the new system brought about by the state Supreme Court’s McCleary ruling, the majority’s answer was to continue the inequity of the haves and have nots. Unfortunately, this places us once again on a path leading to an overreliance on local levies, a move that could bring about McCleary 2.0.

In addition, there were at least 25 bills the majority party was unable to pass through the conventional legislative process that ended up in the back of the budget as “budget provisos.” Several of these were high-profile bills dealing with K-12 sex education, environmental justice, studying removal of the Snake River Dams, and an income tax study.

If you control both legislative bodies and the governor’s mansion and still can’t get your bill through the process, maybe there is something seriously wrong with your ideas? Surreptitiously slipping wholescale policy proposals into the back of the budget needs to stop. It lacks legislative integrity and transparency.

All three of us worked hard this session to pass bills and fund local capital projects that will benefit our district. From veteran service officers, to wolf management and tracking, fire prevention, forest management and others, we continue to work on issues that reflect our shared priorities, values and concerns.

This budget, however, is not one of those things. It infringes upon our individual and financial freedoms and puts small businesses at risk. In our opinion, the Democrats’ budget does not put people first.

A chance to bring more broadband access to NE Washington

The following op-ed appeared in the Omak-Okanogan Chronicle and was published May 1, 2019.

 To download the article, click on the link: Broadband Op-Ed   

By Sen. Shelly Short  

Special to the Omak-Okanogan Chronicle

Seattle is home to many things that people in our part of the state are happy to go without. Heavy traffic, crime, excessive taxes and a lot of rules and restrictions, to name a few.

But there is one thing that most people in Seattle and the Puget Sound region take for granted that many in northeast Washington want and need – better access to broadband.

Broadband is as important now as the telephone was in the previous century. It’s a 21st-century must that allows people to use the internet and digital tools and gadgets for both work, education and play. Unfortunately, it has yet to reach some communities and homes in our rural district, causing them to miss out on so much that today’s technology offers. We know that bringing broadband to more rural, isolated parts of Washington removes barriers to entrepreneurial opportunities and economic development.

There was a point when people began seeing a telephone as a necessity rather than a luxury, and we should look at broadband the same way. Besides the benefits it would offer employers and families, broadband access is also important for health care and public safety, especially during an emergency. Fire crews need broadband to effectively communicate and coordinate with each other when they try to stop a fast-moving wildfire.

Broadband is a necessity for 21st-century students. Nowadays, many students go paperless in schools. They use digital textbooks in several classes instead of the hardbound books that previous generations used when they were in school. But we have many students who don’t have broadband access when it’s homework time. Being unable to use digital textbooks at home puts those students at a disadvantage.

Gov. Inslee requested a bill (Senate Bill 5511) this session that focuses on public-private partnerships to bring more broadband access to Washington. I’m one of its co-sponsors. I acknowledge that I’m not crazy about some parts of his proposal, but overall, this establishes an important foundation and tool to give communities across the state the broadband access that they need.

For example, our public utility districts across the state could become providers of last resort, albeit in a limited way, so as to not unfairly compete with private providers in order to help bring broadband service to unserved areas of the state. The internet infrastructure itself would be funded by appropriations in partnership with private service providers.

And last Wednesday, the Legislature passed SB 5511! Both the Senate and House approved it with strong majorities, and it now goes to the governor’s desk for his signature. I know I couldn’t have done this without many of you who came across the state to testify on why this bill would help you and your families. Representatives from the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Washington Library Association were just some of the people who spoke about the necessity of this service.

This is an issue that has had plenty of momentum this session, and that momentum has paid off in laying a foundation of public-private partnerships to begin to provide unserved and underserved communities with reliable broadband service.