Washington state's top education official is proposing a change to how timber revenue is used for schools. Unions are urging caution so the policy doesn't result in unintended consequences for workers.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal has proposed no longer using money from timber sales on state-owned lands for urban-area school construction.

Policymakers shouldn't yet assume today is anything like the "timber wars" of the 1990s, which pitted urban versus rural areas, said Sara Palmer, vice chair of the natural resources policy committee for the Washington Federation of State Employees, which represents staff in the Department of Natural Resources.

"Today it's a little more complicated, there's a little more nuance to it," she said, "and our members really feel that what we are doing at this time is sound, scientifically based land management. And we want that to continue to be a priority in the state of Washington for state trust lands."

Reykdal has proposed that the money from timber sales go to rural schools, as it has in the past, as well as sustaining healthy forests. He said it's harder and more expensive for rural communities to pass bonds for school construction than it is for urban communities.

Palmer said prioritizing funding for rural schools is a positive development, but her union is waiting to hear more details on the proposal. She said there are concerns about how it could affect workers in her union, as well as a sister union - the Washington Public Employees Association - and mill and forest workers.

"We really feel it is possible to balance economic needs and environmental needs and to find a middle path," she said. "We're really proud of the work that we do on that, and we're really proud of the work the department has done on that over the years."

Reykdal is rolling out this and other policy recommendations so legislators can consider them next session.

South Dakota farmers leading the "locally grown" movement have visions of a dynamic regional food production system but some of it is in doubt with looming federal cuts.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is swept up in the Trump administration's downsizing of federal agencies, including cancellation of the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program for food banks to buy local produce at a market rate. Grants from the Regional Food Business Center program are also in limbo.

Stephanie Peterson, a funding recipient who operates a small egg-producing farm called Fruit of the Coop near Sioux Falls, said she is unsure she will get the rest of her money to scale up.

"The pandemic showed us the fragility of our industrial ag system, and how important it is to build up and focus on these regional and local systems," Peterson contended.

But after pouring her heart and soul into this seven-acre farm, Peterson wonders if the dream will slip out of her hands. It would mean local restaurants would have one less option for buying eggs at a time when avian flu is disrupting supply chains. The USDA has resumed funding for some initiatives but the department's top official has categorized certain local food programs as "nonessential."

The group Dakota Rural Action said ending the purchasing program for food banks affects nearly 30 farmers around the state.

Kjersten Oudman, owner of Blue Sky Vegetable Company, makes produce deliveries on behalf of a regional food hub. She said she is sad her local food shelf will lose out on some fresh and healthier options.

"We were one of the few deliveries that was giving it potatoes, cabbage, carrots or microgreens," Oudman explained. "I am most upset that people who need good, healthy, nutrient-dense food may not be able to get it."

On the business side of things, Oudman worries specialty farmers in South Dakota will lose ground in attracting new customers and markets for their products.

"We're pretty behind a lot of our other states in our infrastructure," Oudman pointed out. "There's just a lot of uncertainty and a lot of questioning of (if) grant programs do not come through, what do our businesses need to do in order to continue pushing for development?"

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy is joining forces with the so-called Department of Government Efficiency to cut costs at the Postal Service, this week announcing plans to cut 10,000 workers, amid other reforms.

Kentucky has lost postal service offices at higher rates than other states, especially in rural and Appalachian counties.

Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union, said older adults, veterans and others depend on the service's commitment to deliver mail to everyone, regardless of where they live, noting the Postal Service delivers to every address in the country, 169 million addresses and 318 million pieces of mail, every day. Local unions in Kentucky are participating in a National Day of Action on Thursday.

"Part of the effort on Thursday is to make the postal customers around the country fully aware of this threat to what belongs to them," Dimondstein explained.

In a letter to Congress, DeJoy said the agency needs help with lease renewals on its retail centers and tackling the issue of counterfeit postage. The Trump administration has also floated the idea of privatizing the post office. Supporters argued the change would make the Postal Service run more efficiently and save money.

Polling from the Pew Research Center finds 72% of Americans have a favorable view of the Postal Service.

Dimondstein pointed out more than five decades ago, postal workers won collective bargaining rights. He stressed the union is prepared to fight back on any attempt to weaken union rights or target worker protections and working conditions.

"It's also very important, I think, for the public to be reminded that good living-wage jobs help our communities," Dimondstein added. "They help make them stronger. That's good jobs, turnover in the community to restaurants to small retail stores to housing."

According to the union, privatization would eliminate more than 600,000 living-wage union jobs, including more than 70,000 military veterans. As of last November, the Postal Service employed more than 7,000 Kentucky workers.

Indiana lawmakers introduced a third property tax plan this week, aiming to protect local governments from funding cuts while offering minimal relief to homeowners.

The proposal, led by state Rep. Jeff Thompson, R-Lizton, would change how property taxes are calculated, including phasing out certain homestead deductions and shifting local income tax authority.

"When you raise the rate, pocketbook lost some money," he said. "You lower the rate; pocketbook gains some money - that's the right system. It won't be always smooth, but the alternative is where we're at right now, and we can continue on down the path and we'll have the same results."

Thompson's plan joins competing proposals from Gov. Mike Braun and Senate Republicans. Braun's plan, which was central to his campaign, would significantly cut property taxes but at the expense of local government funding. The Senate version proposes smaller cuts to both homeowner taxes and local budgets.

David Ober, vice president for taxation and public finance at the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, told lawmakers that changes to the business personal property tax rate were "a bit of a double-edged sword."

"It eliminates the aggregate floor," he said. "It doesn't eliminate individual pool floors. A lot of businesses' personal property is sitting at that floor - at that 30% - but if you eliminate that 30% floor, it's not like it goes down to zero."

Despite the differences, all three plans would shift tax burdens between property classes.

Critics argued that reducing business taxes could place more financial pressure on homeowners. The Ways and Means Committee is also considering separate legislation to gradually lower the state income tax rate if revenue growth meets specific targets.


get more stories like this via email