Testimony to a school’s value

Matt Pearl

I was asked a question last week by a friend of mine in Albany about the King City R-I ‘No Tax Increase’ issue detailed in Proposition 1:

“With the income from the wind farms, why does the school need to borrow over $2 million?” he asked.

It’s a fair question, and one that has been a topic of discussion locally for a while. I have my King City-specific answer, but I would rather address the issue more broadly.

The conservative side of my brain likes the idea of savings to taxpayers: good value means the best case scenario for patrons—the more bang for your buck, the better you’re doing as a taxpayer. Why, then, didn’t the district call things ‘good’ and opt to roll back the levy, an overall taxpayer savings?

My justification when I see such issues arise-particularly when the beneficiary is a school district—is that I have a definition of value that does not just reflect low prices. Beyond a numerical total representing the tax bill patrons will receive, value also ought to include another important factor: what do the taxpayers own when all is said and done?

In King City R-I’s case—as in the cases a while back with Jefferson and years earlier at Northeast Nodaway and Stanberry—the district named itself responsible for maintaining a facility that offers local students the best that the community can afford.

Be it in academics, athletics or activities, schools desire to give their students opportunities that appropriately enhance the experience of those being educated.

When good maintenance to the local levy is performed you see a scenario that a district like King City’s can enjoy: taxpayers may continue their current tax rate, and therefore know what to expect at the tax time.

Then, when an extra utility or industrial windfall comes along, like the wind farms have, districts have the opportunity to give patrons more at the same cost of living.

Returning to the generalities of the issue, however, I’m proud to see our local school districts maintaining such positive response from patrons.

When two-thirds of a community approves a measure that prevents a drop in their property taxes, it is a testimony to the importance our local towns place in their schools.

And the reciprocal to that trust should be a profound one on the part of the districts: schools have earned taxpayers’ faith, and good stewardship is the expectation the community deserves in return.

When folks trust the school when its leadership says, “This needs to be replaced” or “That needs to be completed soon,” the district has the responsibility to substantiate such claims, and then to perform the work promised in a time and manner that benefits said patrons.

In the end, all associated with the district—be they administrators, teachers, board members, students or patrons—will benefit if pride in the facility, staff and educational mission are maintained.

When a community loses pride in its school, we may mark that as the first step toward losing the school itself.

And we feel this way about our fire departments, ambulance districts, municipalities and other entities that rely upon support from taxpayers for their daily operation. Would we really want to do without these services?

Would the average taxpayer truly benefit as much as possibly a couple hundred dollars a year less on his taxes as he would have from having better schools and emergency services? What do you suppose poor schools and emergency services do to your property values? Nothing positive would be my guess.