|
|||
|
This article by Bill Bodden of Redmond was submitted to The Redmond Spokesman in January 2003 With defeat of another school bond in 2002 and people in the Redmond school district clearly divided, we would do well to take stock of our various positions. Redmond, like many other cities in Oregon, was much smaller ten and fifteen years ago. With the increase in people there followed a need to expand the area’s infrastructure, including schools. Where did the money come from to pay for this expansion? Part of it came from system development charges (SDCs) on new homes, as it should. New home buyers were the major factor in requiring expansion, and it was appropriate that they help pay for it. Unfortunately, collected SDCs fell considerably short of actual costs, and the burden of paying most costs fell to established homeowners, many of whom had already paid for previous expansions. For the past decade, Redmond has had a history of the lowest SDCs and the highest property taxes in Central Oregon. The reason for this combination is logical, not coincidence. With the last two votes on school bonds a majority of voters essentially said "no more" to increased taxes. This rejection of increased taxes was of great relief to residents that genuinely couldn’t afford to pay more, but it did nothing to relieve the overcrowding in schools. That problem remains to be resolved. Before attempting to answer this question, we must first recognize that self-interest will be a major factor in future decisions. Builders and developers favor low SDCs. Many homeowners are opposed to tax increases for mostly legitimate reasons, and they are bolstered by a conviction that the current system of paying for growth is unfair. Most parents want better school facilities for their children without caring who pays. The school board has its preferences but has failed to persuade many homeowners that they will be judicious stewards of tax revenues. Without compromise by one or more of these groups, current problems will not be resolved through a school bond process. There is one immediate step available to ease the problem of overcrowded schools. Inform potential newcomers with children that schools are overcrowded and suggest they look elsewhere to settle. Alternatively, we can allow schools to become sufficiently crowded for current law to implement a building moratorium. The real solution, however, is to be found in raising allowable SDCs and collecting SDCs for schools. Builders and developers are dogmatically opposed to this but have yet to proffer any valid justification other than self-interest. The reality of a conversion, however, may prove their fears unjustified, but like most people they prefer the known to the unknown. Cities in California charge SDCs for schools (under different names) without reducing construction there. Given the fact that a majority of homeowners have decided against paying for new schools, opponents of increased SDCs may have to relent. As schools become more crowded, families will be less likely to move to and buy houses in Redmond. No buyers, no new home construction. Oregon Communities for a Voice in Annexation (http://www.ocva.org) has addressed letters to all city councils in Oregon to encourage them to pass resolutions supporting a change in the current laws on SDCs so that cities can charge what they deem appropriate. These resolutions have been approved by 21 cities. Redmond and Bend are not on this short list. Accordingly, homeowners that support a change should contact their city councils and state representatives to encourage them to ensure those changes are effected. Many homeowners have already paid for existing infrastructures and will do little, if anything, to create a need for more. Given population growth forecasts for the next 20 years, how many millions of dollars will these homeowners be asked to pay for future school and other bonds if the current system is not changed? Back to Education Home Page Back to Schools Home Page |
.
|
||