SOAR can run without tax levy

I wanted to take a minute to expand on an article in the April 20 edition of The Nugget, titled “Dissenting voice heard on SOAR levy” written by Jim Cornelius.

I want to start with something I said that didn’t make it to print: This community owes a debt of gratitude to Tom Coffield for all he has done for SOAR. Everything SOAR is and does is due to Tom’s hard work. We on the SOAR board will truly miss his leadership.

Referring back to the article, Tom was quoted as saying, “In order for us to survive as Ben wants us to, we would have to do a ton of fund-raising.”

You cannot make the argument that SOAR’s “survival” is dependent on fund-raising.

The majority of SOAR programs and activities are self-sufficient. We are not going to lose those programs due to lack of funding as well as any programs offered in the future that pay for themselves.

We currently write grants, fund-raise, and ask for donations to scholarship young people that cannot afford to participate in SOAR’s offerings. In the past, those funds have come from granting agencies as well as the community through fund-raisers and voluntary contributions.

Is it a hassle to constantly raise those funds? Yes it is.

With the ever-increasing cost of housing within the SOAR district, fewer and fewer families with children that need scholarship assistance will be moving into the community.

In fiscal year July 2000 through June 2001, citizens that owned property within the SOAR district paid $116,671.77 through property taxes to fund SOAR. In Fiscal Year July 2003 through June 2004, taxpayers funded SOAR to the extent of $145,719.83.

Our current budget expects revenues of $160,000 based on Deschutes County projections.

Since the initial 22 cents per $1,000 of assessed value has remained the same, the increase is due to increased property values in the SOAR district.

As you can see, existing tax base revenues have been and will continue to increase.

That brings us to those programs that are not self-sufficient. In the article, Jim said that my philosophy is to cut programs that are not self-sustaining.

That is not my point of view at all.

My point of view on programs that do not generate enough income to be self–sustaining is that you have to look at the program, decide its value to the community. And whether it is worthwhile to continue to provide it. If you don’t believe it benefits the taxpayers, eliminate it. If you believe it has definite benefits to the community, you have to make it run as efficiently as possible because you know you’re going to have to fund it through grants, scholarships, fund-raisers and donations.

In our previous fiscal year (July 2003 - June 2004) with total revenues of $660,430.20 the existing tax base accounted for 22.65 percent of SOAR’s budget. 52.77 percent came from user fees, 5 percent from the SOAR foundation. The remaining 19.59 percent of funding came from a combination of grants, scholarships, fund-raisers and donations.

It is this 19.59 percent and the 5 percent provided by the foundation that the board majority would like to solidify with a tax increase as well as providing additional funding to see SOAR into the future.

Currently, we have lost $66,200 (10.3 percent of total revenue) due to the cancellation of the “Community Learning Center” grant. That particular grant was used to fund the teen center (82 percent of program revenue), our wilderness program (54 percent of program revenue), Kid’s Clubhouse (4 percent of program revenue), Academic (after-school tutoring, 100 percent of program revenue), Arts & Crafts (61 percent of program revenue), Drama (3 percent of program revenue), ELL Spanish (100 percent of program revenue), Fitness (dance and taekwondo, 7 percent of program revenue) and MS KKIS (a middle school taekwondo program to “keep kids in school” 100 percent of program revenue).

Some of those expenses you would agree with me benefit the community while others you could argue need not be considered necessary.

As of now, the board has not been informed that any other existing grants are in jeopardy.

Beyond the CLC grant, other programs that are subsidized by grants are Kids’ Clubhouse (26 percent of program revenue), Headstart / Preschool (8 percent of program revenue), Teen Center (18 percent of program revenue) and ELL Spanish (33 percent of program revenue).

Middle school sports gets a contribution of approximately $32,000 from the Sisters School District to offset expenses in taking over the program.

If in fact this levy were successful, SOAR would be able to reinstate those programs lost with the CLC grant as well as protect other grant funded or subsidized programs and provide more to the community than it currently can.

I don’t believe you can look at this levy as a temporary five-year levy. New programs created with additional funds will no doubt need to be funded indefinitely or we will be in the same situation we find ourselves in now.

I am philosophically opposed to forcing others to pay for non-essential government services just because I support them. At the same time, I would also like to thank those people who have supported SOAR with their charitable contributions.

Should this levy fail, those people who supported the tax levy can still offer a tax-deductible contribution to support this worthwhile organization. You have my assurance that I will continue to work hard to ensure your tax dollars and voluntary contributions are well spent.