Beware of new school tax

On December 11, 2007, the Sisters School Board will vote on the implementation of the new Construction Excise Tax (SB 1036). By their estimate it will generate $200,000 to $400,000 annually.

I am sure that the new revenue stream will benefit the district. This revenue will be dedicated to the priorities of a "Facilities Plan" that is required to be in place before implementing the tax. Not surprisingly, the district already has a "draft" (if this were a class assignment, it would be deemed incomplete) of the Long-Term Facilities Plan ready for adoption prior to the vote on December 11.

A job well done by individuals and committees alike in order to expedite the implementation of the new tax.

I completely understand the district's priority in securing this new revenue stream. It is an opportunity created by our elected state officials, not by a vote of school district patrons. They can point a finger at Salem and smile.

As quoted in the "Sisters school board eyes new construction tax" article, (The Nugget, November 20), our district superintendent has categorized those subject to this new tax as .... "a different source of patrons"... "new to this community who are buying homes that are paying a 'little bit' to support the school district.....", as if to say that this new tax is OK because it only affects those moving into the district.

Not so. It affects every residential and non-residential building permit issued in the district (with limited exceptions). Any project, small or large, new construction, remodel, garages, shops, etc. will be assessed the new tax. I am sure the district patrons planning to build within the city limits will surely enjoy another tax placed on top of the current Systems Development Charges already imposed by the City of Sisters.

Is it not enough that a majority of those new households will be occupied by retired couples who will not burden our current system with additional students but still pay their share via property taxes, contributing monetarily to our schools?

Is it not a possibility that the new home, shop, garage, etc. being constructed might just be for an existing district resident who has been a contributing patron for many years with a desire to up-size, downsize or modify?

Is it not a probability that due to the current price of real estate in the Sisters area that fewer young families with school aged children can even afford to move here, resulting in a continued decline in the student population?

Is it not a probability that in this current economic downturn that has only just begun, the additional tax will only aggravate the financial recovery of the real estate, construction and other related industries that make up the bulk of our economic base?

The impact of this new tax has been misrepresented by the district superintendent; it will burden far more of the existing patrons, young and old, with and without school-aged children, than have been identified and will allow those who come to live in our great community and buy an existing residence to avoid the tax assessment.

In reviewing the handouts provided at the November 27 workshop, I thought it was quite telling that the last item on a handout was their "summary," which goes like this:

Steps for Implementation: Enter into IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) with local governments (that is how the tax will be collected); adopt long-term facilities plan (the draft is pretty "drafty," ask to see it); enact construction excise tax; (and then); involve the community (finally).

I have been a property tax paying member of the district for 28 years. Our children attended K-12. I support our school system.

I just don't like this tax and the way is has been misrepresented.