Student-led push for May local option tax sparks divided board debate over timing and capacity
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Students and advocates urged the Parkrose SD 3 board to place a local option levy on the May ballot to address a projected $4.5 million deficit; board members split over short timelines, campaign capacity, past results and whether to wait for more planning, and staff offered cost estimates for analysis and outreach.
Students and community advocates asked the Parkrose SD 3 board on Jan. 26 to consider placing a local option tax (operating levy or capital bond) on the May ballot to address the district deficit.
"This has to be the time," an impassioned student advocate (Speaker 18) told the board, arguing that immediate action and student-led outreach could win community support. Staff and the CFO outlined the short legal and procedural timeline for a May measure: an intent filing in mid/late February and ballots in May, with a title and voters’ pamphlet text required by late February/March.
Administration said a consultant cost estimate of $3,000–$5,000 would be needed for revenue projections and that a campaign’s communications and outreach previously cost roughly $80,000–$100,000. Staff noted the district’s recent levy attempts and close losses in prior elections — citing a prior operating levy that failed by a small margin — and stressed the need for polling, a public-education plan, and boots-on-the-ground volunteers to make a short-timeline campaign viable. The CFO warned that the district is currently roughly $4.5 million in deficit and that postponement increases risk of deeper cuts.
Board discussion split along practical and strategic lines: some directors urged caution and more time to prepare a full plan, community outreach and polling, while others argued that waiting would worsen the deficit and that the May timeline, though tight, was the only realistic near-term opportunity. Several directors suggested compromise steps: request a quick quote from a taxing agency, present more detailed cost and facility assessments at the Feb. 9 work session, and consider an off-March communications push to build support even if the board did not file a May measure.
No final resolution was passed that night. Staff said they could try to secure a quick cost estimate for the board and that the district’s facilities assessment (for capital bond planning) is already in progress; the board agreed to continue the discussion at its February work session.
Next steps: Staff to attempt to obtain cost and revenue estimates and return to the board at upcoming meetings; students and labor allies expressed willingness to lead grassroots outreach if the board directs staff to proceed.