funding new schools w/ developer fees??

TheRogue · 02-28-2005, 05:51 PM

Development fees gaining steam:

What do you think? As a parent with a child in a school of 250 that will see a projected 400 more students in the next 5 years, it intrigues me greatly.

As a city planning commission member, it would make part of my volunteer job easier knowing that the hundreds of new homes we're forced to approve will carry some of their weight in a system that was never designed for it.

We are told to not even MENTION the word "school" in a meeting, as it might be construed as being anti-development, and heaven forbid anyone be anti-development? :whazzup: :whazzup:

Try to keep 'er nice, folks.

TR

baltz526 · 02-28-2005, 06:13 PM

if the fee was fixed for each type of property.then the property owners would know up front the cost and be able to plan for it durring the projects. because this fee would be passed on to the occupants.

cohomojo · 02-28-2005, 07:37 PM

As a teacher in the second fastest growing school district in WA, I see the need for something to be done about the amount of new students in the district and no money to house them. My district can barely pass enough bond money to build new schools. Some of the older schools, in desperate need of repairs, get ignored because it is too much to ask the taxpayers to pass another bond. Obviously, a developer fee would get passed down to the buyer, but that is the quick and easy way to continue to house students. My opinion...new houses = new schools and the fee helps.

R Jackson · 02-28-2005, 07:44 PM

I have two kids in school in the North Clackamas District and I'd say its about time!

Straydog · 02-28-2005, 07:47 PM

I like the concept and think it makes a lot sense.

Softball Dad · 02-28-2005, 07:51 PM

If I am reading this correctly. It looks as if the state or city government is going to impose fees for every home being built and charging the fee to the builder or developer. Which in turn will be passed on to the homebuyer.
If that is the case, I am against it.

I am an independent Insurance agent that works primarily with contractors. In the last few years I have seen insurance rates sky rocket for homebuilders and developers. Clients that I have had insured for several years that were paying between $2,000 and $5,000 a year for their liability insurance. They are now paying between $15,000 on up to $100,000 a year just for the priveledge of staying in business. If they are able to locate insurance at all.

Yes, more homes and more people will put an extra burden on the schools. Correct me if I am wrong. But, isn't most of our property tax dollars going to schools now? Each home is helping to pay for schools each and every year if you have a child enrolled in school or not.

It seems very short sighted for our State to not to be able to figure out how many permits they are issuing for new houses and to not be able to figure out how many class rooms they are going to need. This just seems to be a poor way of trying to slip another tax onto the consumer. Believe me these fees will be passed on to the homebuyer.

The builders and developers are paying their fair share already. When you consider the price of permits, Utilities, Sub-Division Bonds, Maintenance Bonds, streets, Sidewalks, curbs and Insurance.

I am really beginning to wonder if my children will ever be able to afford the "American Dream"

My .02 OK, I'm ready to be flamed

baltz526 · 02-28-2005, 08:13 PM

any new tax is painful but our children need to be educated in (safe) schools.with well educated teachers and good shop,art,music,math,computer labs ect. this new development brings more children into the school districts and the property tax going to schools is below minimum now. ways to raise new moneys are needed, this is a logical one.i'm a contractor not a developer but i think this type of fee is needed. everytime the school levy's or on the ballet i vote yes and when my property tax bill comes i complain. just your standard schizophrenic voter.

Softball Dad · 02-28-2005, 08:27 PM

I couldn't agree more about needing good schools and good teachers. If the taxes we are paying are not enough to cover the costs. Then Great lets raise the taxes evenly to all residence of the City not just the developers and the buyers of the newly purchase homes.

How can only taxing new homebuyers be considered anything other than a SALES tax.

If more revenue is needed. Then I think everyone needs to pay their fair share.

Straydog · 02-28-2005, 08:35 PM

The general fund dollars (ie. property tax) that go to the schools are for everyday costs of operating the schools, not capital projects.

As it is, in order for a school district to get funding for a new school, they must pass a bond or some other type of financing by a vote of the people. That is very difficult to do.

Cool Texan · 02-28-2005, 08:39 PM

I'd vote no. New homes imply new people. New people then imply new tax dollars to pay for schools. Further, new people could buy existing homes, thus skirting the issue. Further, if I live in Multnomah County and buy a house in the same county, I am now being unfairly impacted twice (surcharge and then this tax). Too many problems with it.

But to be safe, I'll be glad that my new home (NOT in Multnomah County) will be finished before anyone could pass this kind of measure. Interesting concept though.

baltz526 · 02-28-2005, 08:48 PM

this would be a boost tax. and yes it would be a double taxation. every years development would give a boost to the school funding.

Straydog · 02-28-2005, 08:52 PM

You guys aren't getting it, I don't think............. the money currently gathered from property taxes can not be used for new schools. Property taxes would need to be raised, if a district needed a new school. From the article:

Quote:

Under state law, there's nothing to do about it except ask voters to pass a bond and raise property taxes.

These new monies, as I understand it, would be ear marked for new schools and be completly seperate from monies currently be collected to operate schools.

baltz526 · 02-28-2005, 09:02 PM

in the artical it says that the home price would not go up the market sets the sale price, false, the developer sets the price in a booming building market. the new fee would be put right on top. and passed on to the buyer. this would then make it a buyers fee. not a development fee. and i still see no real problem with it.as long as it was not to high, say $1.00 per square foot.

Softball Dad · 02-28-2005, 09:05 PM

Straydog,

Yes, I do get it. In my line of work I know a lot about bonding. Any school district will not be able to get a bond to build new schools without a tax basis to cover the cost of the bond, Period.

No one has yet to give me an answer on why the responsibilities for building new schools should fall on the shoulders of new home buyers? Maybe each child born should come with a fee for new schools? I think that would be more fair.

I don't know the answers but what is being proprosed is not it.

Cool Texan, you are right on the money with your statements

Straydog · 02-28-2005, 09:32 PM

Quote:

No one has yet to give me an answer on why the responsibilities for building new schools should fall on the shoulders of new home buyers?

It would not all fall on the shoulders of new home buyers:

Quote:

System development charges would not pay the entire cost of building new schools, Schrader said, but they might make voters more likely to approve bonds if they see developers pay their share."

WaterDog · 02-28-2005, 09:55 PM

This is no different than the SDC's a developer pays for Sewer, Transportation, Water, Parks, etc. The deveopment is adding higher demands on infrastucture and therefore the development needs to help pay for the costs of it's use. Seems to make sense to me unless the people moving into the houses don't have kids.

Fun stuff huh Kyle?

You get a sewer treatment plant yet.

Gus Orviston · 02-28-2005, 10:33 PM

I am against it.. i think it is wrong to saddle the new home buyer with another tax. This tax creeps up.. Sherwood I think is 10K, Newberg is 1,500 now I think.

And as we usually do, we tax the minority "situation" to pay for the rest of our needs. What I mean by that is the new home homer can't vote against this since there is no "union". Housing is growing so how cares.... Well you continue the upward spiral of housing costs by adding more to entry fee in becoming a home owner. Next thing Oregon's average home price is out of the reach of the poor . OH that is already happening.. just adds to it IMO. Then we will have to subsidize poor new home buyers so they can get into these homes... geez.

One of the problems with this methodology is you get the money, but you can pay the operational costs of the school. Sherwood use to use the money to buy park lands.. they can't pay to mow them, but the city owns a ton of parks they can't maintain.. Then comes the tax man and says, give me money to maintain the parks cuz the town doesn't look so good.

Also in a weird way the new home buyer is putting money in the local home owners pockets by immediatly adding a fixed amount to the previously estalished homes - simply put your home value goes up since the barrier to build new is increased.

Wrong approach.

gus

treegolfer · 02-28-2005, 11:33 PM

I pretty much agree with what Gus says. The only way I would agree to a fee for new schools would be to add this amount to every house sold in the district, new and used. Every time a house sold this fee would be added. Should make the school district administration happy, and cut down on new people moving into the district.

treegolfer

stilly bum · 03-01-2005, 02:25 AM

More education dollars could come from the federal government if we could get rid of the BS tax breaks for people with kids.

StickFish · 03-01-2005, 05:16 AM

Quote:

I have two kids in school in the North Clackamas District and I'd say its about time!

I will second that but in Tigard/Tualtin with 43 homes being built within 3 blocks of my house and Elementary School. Oregon has the cheapest cost to develop land in the country - that is why we are booming - it certainly isn't the employment rate.

baltz526 · 03-01-2005, 06:14 AM

the ammount of fee dollars being talked about is just going to be a boost to the school districts. unless they are so high it would stop all development in its tracks. this would shut down the whole economy and cause a depresion in the state with a major loss of jobs. this means the fee's would have to remain small, and in total may be enough to maintain, the existing schools, not build new ones. look at it this way, the school district would just be getting the same ammount it would receive, if the home was on the tax roll, for the year before it was occupied,or the year it was being built in. this type of development fee will remain a very small portion of the yearly school tax base by economic neccesity, to high, any amount over a one time $1.00 per squar foot on new construction. to low, less than $0.50 per square foot would turn it into a nonissue with very little help for the schools, just a feel good thing for the developers. just my opinion. teach the children and they will create a better world for their kids.

Softball Dad · 03-01-2005, 09:05 AM

[/quote]
It would not all fall on the shoulders of new home buyers:

Quote:

System development charges would not pay the entire cost of building new schools, Schrader said, but they might make voters more likely to approve bonds if they see developers pay their share."

[/quote]

You don't think we have all heard this same tired line before? The state tells us what they think we want to hear. Until, guess what? We didn't plan for something.

What about the increase in home values the existing homeowners are going to see because of the new developments? Should the capital gains that the existing homes see when they sale their homes go back to the to the original payers of this fee? Like it or not, Development will raise the value of your homes.

lost_sailor · 03-01-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Development will raise the value of your homes.

Please explain this. My home is worth more because the supply of homes increases? That's contrary to Economics 201. My home is more appealing next to a subdivision than next to a forest?

Tell me more, tell me more.

Most communities already have SDCs to provide water service, roads, and parks - - the question is whether to use that $$ to build schools. I don't know ...

salmonfever · 03-01-2005, 09:39 AM

I think its a great idea. I have lived in Sherwood for 17+ years, and seen the rapid growth. Thru school bonds, I have paid taxes for who knows how many more schools than were needed in my early years in the area. If the newcomers were made to pay a charge, the folks that alrady had paid for the schools would not be asked to pay as much everytime the schools get overcrowded with the inflo that the developers mademoney on. Further, there is no guarante that a school district will be able to pass a new bond. Without a charge, the developer inserts extra kids into the scholol, leaving the existing population with the job and cost of building new schools to accomodate them, or face increasingly overcrowded schools. Even if schools are already overcrowded, under current law, a city can not refuse a developer building permits. If they can't refuse permits, then the developer should pay a share of the cost of building the new schools necessary to accomodate his new houses.

Cool Texan · 03-01-2005, 09:54 AM

Salmon... but if you sold your current home, and bought another in Sherwood, you'd pay that charge even though you're not a new-comer to the area. Still agree with the charge?

We're building a home in Sherwood...and trust me, they're (*$)(^%$)@ us pretty hard on property taxs, so we'll easily be paying our "fair" share of stuff. Heck, they should name a school after me! :grin:

Its a bad plan, with too many holes, and would require a TON of "administration" (just what Oregon needs more of) to support it.

salmonfever · 03-01-2005, 10:09 AM

Yes-If I added another house to the inventory of houses feeding into the Sherwood Schools. By the way-be prepared for another bond measure for more school capacity soon after you move it-enrollment is growing like crazy. While you may be paying the city development fees, none of that money goes to the school system

Cool Texan · 03-01-2005, 10:14 AM

Fair enough of a response.

As for bond measures... wouldnt be too surprised. I've heard from folks about the current state of affairs, especially at the HS level.

Keeper · 03-01-2005, 10:24 AM

Instead of developing ways to acquire more new money...why doesn't somebody start demanding outside audits of how our tax money is being spent in the school districts?

I wouldn't mind paying more if I knew that money was going towards teachers and kids but it isn't.

District offices are full of opportunities to save money by eliminating positions. Too many administrators, too many assistants to the the administrators, too many assistants to the assistants and of course, everyone needs a secretary or two.

What about district office locations? Why is the Hillsboro district office located in the highest priced lease area in Hillsboro?

It really is time to start cutting at the top.

Just my .02

BTW...yes, my husband IS a teacher

salmonfever · 03-01-2005, 10:25 AM

don't get me wrong-I am not generally in favor of taxes. My first preference would be that building permits could not be obtained unless there was capacity in the school district to handle the additional students. However, the homebuilders managed to make sure that it is illegal to consider that in the decision to approve developmenets.
All that being said, Sherwood is not a bad place to move too-if you can stand the influx of uppies.

salmonfever · 03-01-2005, 10:26 AM

the problem is funds for building schools, vs operating them.

TheKing · 03-01-2005, 10:40 AM

We have this program where I live. If I where to build new const I would pay about $8500 in school mitigation fees to get my building permit. In addition to property tax that 80%+ goes to the schools. In the years since it was implemented I have seen no direct impact as no schools have been built a few have been remodeled and the same levies still get passed. A another tax with out accountability is just another tax. No one can tell me or show me how the totals collected where used to offset the original intent of the tax. It's all blended revenue. So if you vote for it insist that it shows up as a line item on the bugetand General ledger so you can hold them accountable.

Softball Dad · 03-01-2005, 10:55 AM

This is a fun topic. Since we are thinking about such outlandish ways to fund our new schools I still think that a $10,000 fee should be assesed for every new born and for every child from K thru 12 grade that moves into the state.

This is tongue in cheek. Guys

baltz526 · 03-01-2005, 12:25 PM

$8500.00 is way more money than the voters would approve in oregon for development fees.this sounds like the fees in some countys in calif. put in place by county commissioners not voters.

baltz526 · 03-01-2005, 12:32 PM

that would be about $12000.00 per year for grades 1 thru 12. that would be closer to the actual cost per student per year. i have no children in school, and i allways want more money for education. and pay for it. well educated children are our future, do not cut corners with the education of the children. it is to bad that a large part of the school budget go'es to administration and pers.

StickFish · 03-01-2005, 01:33 PM

Audits - hum let me see

I remember now, when our oldest started school I volunteered to audit the Parent Teacher Association's books - I listed my professional experience - must have scared them off - always wondered what happened there.

Too Many Administrators

Hum - let me see

Oh ya, two years ago when Tigard/Tualatin was doing it last Bond measure - which my wife helped lead - I grabbed the Durham Elem. Year book and asked my daughter about all the administrators/indirect eduction types - of the 30 shown she could honestly say she had only seen 1/2 of them or knew what they did at the school - Three English as a Second Language counsolers, Three secretaries for the main office, an on-site computer technician god knows what else. I'm not knocking the ESL folks cause our school has a huge spanish speaking population, but if they are paying a non-teacher type the kids should know what value they get from that person at the school.

As far as the kids being our future - I cannot say enough about that - I wrote some stuff about it in January shortly after the Tsunami, but that is another topic - but who is to know which kid in our schools anywhere in the country is going to get that spark to learn and achieve, they may be the person who invents something that saves your life - they may be the firefighter who saves you from a burning building, or the EMT who sparks you back to life. Or they maybe the poor guy int eh Whitehouse trying save us from the next Cuban Missle Crises.

We have all had our opportunity to become who we are - we cannot afford to not make sure our kids have the best education available - we can't.

Are dollars spent correctly - no idea - would I like to know - I've tried - would I support an independent council made up of educators (not administrators), partents and students to repair the funding flow - you bet - where do I sign up

TheKing · 03-01-2005, 02:41 PM

Baltz,

King County Wa. but it might as well be Calif. and you are right the Co council passed the plan not the voters.

baltz526 · 03-01-2005, 04:04 PM

watched a public access city council meeting in central calif. and a guy had paid over $14000.00 for permits and school district fee's to build a 1400sq ft home and the contractor called for final inspection a couple of days after his 90 permit ended. he had to pay all $14000.00 again to get the final inspection. this is off subject but this happens when the voters are not involved in the process.

roadsend · 03-01-2005, 05:08 PM

"he had to pay all $14000.00 again "
The contractor or the owner?

baltz526 · 03-01-2005, 05:26 PM

the home owner

Straydog · 03-02-2005, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Instead of developing ways to acquire more new money...why doesn't somebody start demanding outside audits of how our tax money is being spent in the school districts?

Bring 'em on, PLEASE!!

I am tired of reading and hearing all of the false generalizations that DO NOT apply to our district and, I am willing to bet, the majority of districts in this state.

I would welcome the opportunity to have the myths publicly disproved.