Oregon state ballot measures
increases
money to local
schools
State Ballot Measure Number
One increases the amount of
money the state gives to local
schools. It also establishes a new
way of making sure that roughly
the same amount of education
money goes to each child in every
school district.
It increases personal and cor
porate income taxes in order to
finance the arrangement, making
it possible for local school districts
to reduce local property taxes on
homeowners and renters.
But Measure Number Three
does not make property tax
reduction mandatory. School
districts, if they wish, can use the
additional revenue for increasing
expenditures, instead of
decreasing local taxes.
Currently the state pays about 35
per cent of public school ex
penditures. In the 1960s state
support declined to around 20 per
cent. Measure One, if it had been
in effect this year, would have
provided about 43 per cent state
support in the average school
district.
The State Department of
Revenue has estimated that if the
income tax rates had been in
creased this year to the levels
Measure One suggests and if
property taxes had been reduced
an equal amount, a tax burden of
about $34 million would have
shifted from businesses to in
dividuals.
The measure would not pay for
transportation expenses. The
present state expenditure of
about $9-and-a-half million would
remain the same.
Nor would the measure provide
state funds for most of the
programs it does not finance now
such as sports, lunch programs,
community services and capital
outlays.
Measure One replaces the
present system of equalizing the
amount of money spent on
children in different districts.
Each district receives a "basic
grant" of $250 for children in
grades one-eight, $325 for
children in grades nine-twelve and
$125 for children in kindergarten.
Local districts then pitch in as
much money as they can for each
student. Finally, the state
"equalizes" the expenditures. For
example, each child in grades
one-eight receives at least $800
under Measure Number One. In
some instances the state
equalizes up to $1,000.
Nonetheless, some districts will
be able to spend more than $1,000
per child. And some won't. In
deed, Measure Number One will
probably increase the number of
districts that will be able to go
beyond the $1,000 mark. And the
poorer districts will still be left
behind in overall funding
The measure is almost certainly
not the end of proposals for state
financing of schools. If it passes,
Measure Number One will begin a
movement toward state financing
rather than local financing of
schools.
And it won't be the last try, if it
fails.
Measure One eliminates the
equalization function of the In
termediate Education Districts
(IED). Presently, tlie lEDs raise
property tax revenues, and
distribute the money to school
districts within one area in order
to equalize spending on each
child. That function would be
replaced by the state equalization
process.
The new equalization system
would benefit medium size cities
in Oregon the most. And Measure
One would probably mean an
overall loss of education money
for Portland.
Measure One is more or less part
of a larger, three-part tax
package. The other parts are
Measure Three and the present
property tax refund to renters and
homeowners.
The three parts are independent.
Tax refunds were made into law in
the past legislative session. And
either of the ballot measures can
be put into effect if the other fails
to pass.
Mike Dolan
2 really un
objectionable ?
At first glance, State Ballot
Measure Two seems pretty
unobjectionable. It's mostly about
mass transit, and isn't everybody
in favor of mass transit in this age
of crowded cities and high gas
prices?
At second glance, Measure Two
looks even better. It entails no
new taxes, and means more
transportation control at the local
level. Who could complain about
that?
A third, longer look reveals how
this is all possible. If Measure Two
is passed, the State Constitution
Vote
JASON
AS PRESIDENT OF THE OREGON SENATE:
A leader In paaaage of bottle bill
Actlvo supporter of billboard removal legislation
Succeeded In his goal of renter tax relief
Favored lowering the drinking ago to 19
AS YOUR U.S. SENATOR, HE WILL WORK
FOR:
Guidelines to limit government spending
Reform of the unresponsive federal reserve system
Reestablishment of trust and responsibility In the Presidency
Rapid development of solar and geothermal energy
A VOTE FOR YOUR FUTURE
Paid Students tor Boe, Karen Gibson Campus Coordinator, S50 E. 15th, Eugene, Or. 97401 May 20, 1974.
will be amended to "open up" the
beefy state Highway Fund, is
virtually the only source of money
in the state for transportation. As
it stands right now, that fund can
be used only for highway and
road construction.
"Opening up" the highway fund
means allocating eight per cent of
it for things like rail systems in
major cities; new and extended
bus services; inter-urban rapid
transit in the Willamette Valley;
and improved bridges, roads, and
intersections, to name a few. Each
community could decide for itself
what to do with the money
(though each project must be
approved by the Legislature), and
there is nothing that says you
can't build new roads and high
ways, if that's what is needed
most.
The problem now, says Portland
Major Neil Goldschmidt, is that
there is simply no choice—it's
more highway construction, or
nothing. He is joined in that view
by a long list of Oregon notables
who have lent their names in
support of the measure, including
the governor, all major guber
natorial candidates, and the
mayors of most major cities
But obviously not everybody
likes Ballot Measure Two. And
those who don't would caution
you to take some more glances,
particularly at the financial
aspects.
"Will there still be enough
money to keep Oregn's highway
system among the best in the
nation?" they ask about Two's
passage. Sure, the last Legislature
passed a $150 million bond
measure for this purpose, but
Gov. McCall himself has said that
the state has an "extreme need"
for $500 million to catch up on
highway improvements. And an
Oregon State study warns that
anticipated revenues will fall 60
per cent short of state highway
needs through 1990.
And then, of course, there is the
inescapable fact that the current
fuel shortage will further com
pound the problem by shrinking
the State Highway Fund, since
the fund is made up largely of
gasoline tax monies.
All of which might indicate that
this is no time to be spending
highway money on other things. If
highway funds are diverted,
according to Jack Kalinoski,
public affairs manager of the
Associated General Contractors,
"we may well have to increase
gasoline taxes and motor vehicle
fees." He therefore regards the
contention that Measure Two will
mean no new taxes as "basic
dishonesty." But Kalinoski is
assuming, of course, that state
roads and highways do not lose
their present high priority.
Measure Two's biggest op
ponents are road contractors,
who have an obvious vested
interest in its defeat. They claim
that they are not against mass
transit, but say that by "going too
far, too fast," Measure Two is not
the way to fund its development.
The Legislature had a relatively
easy time deciding this matter:
they passed it nearly two to one.
But for an amendment to the
constitution, the masses must
also approve.
Scoff Peterson
3changes way
state operates
State Ballot Measure Number
Three is an important change in
the way this state operates. It is a
constitutional amendment which
regulates the amount of money by
which public school districts can
increase their budgets each year.
Measure Three also eliminates
the well-known six per cent
limitation on the increase in local
property taxes which has been in
effect since 1916. It allows
property taxes to increase at any
rate.
Local schools receive funds
primarily from three sources: state
grants, county school funds and
local property taxes. Under the
present system local property
taxes cannot be increased more
than six per cent each year
without the approval of school
district voters.
This is supposed to regulate tax
increases The six per cent
limitation was established when
Oregon was primarily an
agricultural state and when
Schools received almost all of their
revenues from local property
taxes.
Things are different now than
they were 58 years ago. Schools
receive about 35 per cent of their
revenues from the state govern
ment. And a six per cent annual
increase does not even keep pace
with inflation.
In Eugene, the six per cent
limitation restricts the school
budget to a completely
inadequate $10 million. The
budget was about $25 million last
year and the the district is asking
for about $30 million this year.
Measure Number Three
regulates the growth of school
budgets by limiting the total of all
three sources of income rather
than just the one source of local
property taxes It limits growth to
5.5 per cent each year. Moreover,
it prohibits schools from spending
more than the annual limitation
permits.
The idea is to insure that each
spring local school officials can
look forward to beginning the
next school year with a budget
reasonably related to the one
under which they had operated all
year
But it also stipulates school
districts cannot increase their
budget by more than 5.5 per cent
unless local voters decide to start
all over again with a completely
new tax base
And school officials will have
only two attempts to get approval
from voters. If the new base is not
approved after two budget
elections, the old base stays in
effect.
This will put a stop to the endless
series of school budget elections
that voters have been subjected
to recently in Oregon.
Some communities have turned
down as many as five budgets
after weeks of deliberation, salary
cuts and program reductions.
But here is the catch that is not
immediately spelled out in the
measure.
The entire increase of the
budget, that is 5.5 per cent of
state funds plus county money
plus local taxes, can be drawn
from any one of the three sources.
This means that local property
taxes could skyrocket in one year.
But that is not supposed to
happen. State support of schools
has been increasing each of the
last few years in Oregon and it is
supposed to increase even in the
future.
But, as in Measure One, property
taxes are supposed to be con
( Continued on Page 23)