Organization backs away from school SDC measure

The statewide school advocacy group Stand for Children threw itself into reverse last week and decided not to proceed with a November general election ballot measure. Its leaders said it wanted to avoid jeopardizing more than a dozen local school bond issues that will be on the same ballot.

The proposal for which the organization was expected to campaign would have allowed schools to collect impact fees (systems development charges) on new construction.

The money would be used to help pay for school additions and new school buildings to accommodate enrollment growth. Although this type of revenue can be used for parks, streets and sewers, it cannot be used for schools.

Jonah Edelman, executive director of Stand for Children, explained that a poll showed that if an impact fee initiative and a local bond issue were on the same ballot, a substantial number of voters would vote for one but not both.

“These (local) bonds are absolutely critical for addressing the rampant overcrowding that is happening in growing school districts and we just couldn’t proceed in good conscience knowing that we might be putting children at risk on the one hand by trying to make progress on the other,” Edelman said.

He said that the organization instead will attempt to pass an impact fee bill in the 2007 Legislature or, if that fails, push for another initiative later.

Merry Ann Moore, the chief Sisters-area spokesperson for Stand for Children, concurred: “My personal feeling is that while it’s disappointing, it’s a very smart decision given the fact that last thing we want to do is take money away from bond measures that are critically needed,” she told The Nugget. “I think it’s a very wise decision.”

Moore said she believes the state will eventually adopt the policy her organization favors. She’s just not sure how or when. “I think it will happen, I just don’t know exactly which path it will take,” she said. “But if it’s not done by the Legislature that doesn’t preclude us from coming back later (with another initiative).”

Moore was asked whether the reasoning applied in the current instance might block future initiatives since there are local school bonds on the ballot in virtually all major elections. She said no, partly because “if Stand for Children gives notice that (an impact fee initiative) is going to be on the ballot then (school districts) don’t have to schedule bonds for the same ballot.”

A ballot measure on this subject was expected to be the top priority for Stand for Children in 2006.

The group’s membership voted during January on whether to proceed to get something on the ballot.

Although the results of that internal poll were never announced, Edelman’s statement implied that the vote was favorable and the group was ready to go before it received the unsettling results of the poll testing the potential effects on local bond issues.

Although Edelman said several superintendents had asked his group to back away from a November initiative, Bend-La Pine Superintendent Doug Nelson told The Bulletin he was not among them even though his district has a large construction bond on the November ballot.

Nelson said he expected the impact fee measure to pass handily and was taken aback by the decision to pull the plug.