Compromise deal on school measure falls short

The members of Stand for Children, a statewide organization that campaigns for increased school funding, will decide this month whether to place on the November ballot an initiative that would allow system development charges (SDCs) to be used for schools.

According to Merry Ann Moore, the group’s chief spokesperson in Sisters, Stand for Children recently came within an eyelash of getting the Oregon Home Builders Association to join in support of a mutually acceptable initiative. But the effort failed. So now, if Stand for Children decides to collect signatures for an initiative, as expected, the home builders will represent its strongest and best-financed campaign opponents.

System development charges are fees on new construction (houses, commercial structures, etc.) to help pay for improvements in four types of public facilities: sewer, water, transportation and parks systems. The purpose is to let growth pay directly for at least part of the cost it imposes on a community’s infrastructure.

The state law authorizing these charges does not permit their use for schools, even though advocates argue that community growth produces just as much impact on schools as on the four “systems” for which fees are now collected. Several other states, including Washington, do permit the use of such impact fees for schools.

The initiative being discussed by the roughly 4,000 members of Stand for Children (see related story, page 19) this month would amend the law to give schools a piece of the SDC pie. Home builders have generally opposed such a change on grounds that additional fees would increase housing costs at a time when many cities and counties are trying to make new housing more affordable to low- and middle-income families.

As Moore described it in a recent Nugget interview, representatives of the Oregon Home Builders Association approached Stand for Children leaders sometime after the close of the 2005 session of the Legislature and said, “’Well, how about a joint initiative on school construction fees?’” In response, Moore said, “We got together and said, ‘That could work…gosh it would be fantastic not to have your opposition.’”

Negotiations over the contents of a measure nearly collapsed over a home builders’ proposal that it contain a cap on SDCs for parks. “We’re parks supporters too and we didn’t want to create a division between parks and school advocates,” Moore recalled. But that concern dissipated when it was learned that the cap being suggested was higher than the fees most parks districts now receive.

So different versions “went back and forth quite a lot (until) eventually a final proposal was taken to our membership and we voted yes, that we wanted to move forward with this joint initiative,” Moore said. “But then the homebuilders’ executive committee went into emergency meeting at the beginning of December. Forty-three showed up and the vote was 22 to 21 not to proceed with the initiative…

“So at that point, having made a very good faith effort to try and make a real genuine political compromise on this issue, which would have been rather historic, we decided well, we would have loved to do that with you (the homebuilders) but we don’t have enough common ground…So we will go and do whatever our membership is in favor of on our own.”

Tim Knopp, executive vice president of the Central Oregon Builders Association, the local affiliate of the Oregon Home Builders Association, told The Nugget over the weekend that he could not vouch for the details of Moore’s account. But he said, “I can confirm for you that there were some discussions (about a joint initiative). The Oregon Home Builders made an offer to Stand for Children, which they rejected and came back with a counteroffer, which wasn’t accepted.”

The upshot, Moore said, is that, “We fully recognize that it’s going to be a very difficult campaign and we know they (the home builders) will be in opposition.” She said a joint initiative “would have made the campaign a slam-dunk. To have made a compromise would have been wonderful, but (failure to do so) is symptomatic of where things stand with education in Oregon.”

She said Stand for Children would still be open to a compromise if the home builders wanted to reconsider. “If they want to do something with us, the door is open and they know it.”

In the meantime, on January 9 the Stand for Children membership will begin voting on whether to launch an initiative. A decision is expected within two weeks.