Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Grove School District asks public for input on possible parcel tax to shore up shrinking budget
Summary
At a community meeting, Oak Grove board leaders and staff explained how a new parcel tax could work, noted the district’s $68 existing tax yields about $1.75 million annually, and solicited public priorities — chiefly staff retention, student supports and mental‑health services — before any decision is made.
Oak Grove School District held a public meeting to gather community feedback on whether to pursue a new parcel tax to address a structural budget shortfall. Board President Francis Aber and Associate Superintendent of Business Mark Evans presented options and solicited priorities from parents and community members.
“Tonight we are not here to make a decision,” Board President Francis Aber told the meeting, framing the session as fact‑finding and community outreach. Aber said the district faces a “structural deficit” driven by declining enrollment, loss of one‑time funds and rising costs and that any parcel tax effort would depend on broad community support.
Mark Evans, the district’s associate superintendent of business, gave a step‑by‑step overview of parcel taxes: they are a locally levied flat tax on each property parcel, require a two‑thirds (66.67%) voter approval to pass, and can include exemptions and oversight provisions. “It’s a flat tax per parcel,” Evans said, and he noted Oak Grove’s current parcel tax of $68 — in place since 1991 — generates roughly $1,750,000 a year for the district.
Evans outlined choices the board would need to make if it moves forward: the annual rate, the specific purposes to be written into the ballot language (examples: competitive staff salaries, counseling and mental‑health services, after‑school programs, arts and libraries), the duration (ongoing versus a multi‑year term) and whether to add an inflation index. He also cautioned that the district would pay the election costs and, if the board later adopts a resolution to place a measure on the ballot, district staff would be prohibited from campaigning for it.
Participants worked in small groups and reported priorities consistently centered on retaining and recruiting staff, direct student supports (including English learner services and special education), and mental‑health and counseling resources. Table groups suggested a wide range of possible rates — several cited totals in the neighborhood of $75–$125 annually for a supplemental measure — and debated whether a measure should be ongoing or set for a fixed term of roughly 8–10 years.
Community members also stressed accountability measures to make a parcel tax more attractive to voters: a dedicated subfund for parcel‑tax revenue, regular public reporting and a citizen oversight committee that includes staff and parents. Several participants said outreach and boots‑on‑the‑ground campaigning would be essential given the two‑thirds approval threshold.
Evans said the district will compile the feedback, consider whether to commission polling and return an information item to the board; he indicated a June board meeting could be when a resolution to place a measure on the ballot would be considered, and that a likely election date would be Nov. 3. “Once the board passes a resolution, the board can no longer be involved,” he said, summarizing legal limitations on district involvement in advocacy.
No formal action was taken at the meeting; the board will present collected input at the April 16 board meeting and may discuss next steps in June.
Ending: The meeting closed with directions for submitting additional input through ParentSquare and an invitation to review slides and handouts; the district emphasized this was early outreach and that a ballot decision would come only after further study and board direction.
