A debate Wednesday night about the two ballot questions facing Douglas County voters in November, the school continuance bond and the growth management ordinance, focused on a dismal economy, and the best way to proceed in the face of decreased revenue in both private and government sectors.
Before the debate, Assemblyman James Settelmeyer, R-Gardnerville, explained to audience members and those arguing against the continuance bond that property tax bills would not decrease if the bond is denied. He explained how recent modifications in the Supplemental City County Relief Tax allow counties to split up any tax rate lost by another entity without going to voters.
The school district is hoping voters pass the bond so they can retain a 10-cent debt service tax rate guaranteed by having outstanding bond payments. When their existing bonds retire in 2011, they will lose that tax rate and the government service tax benefit that comes with it, revenue that the district uses to fund their capital improvement projects, construction projects exceeding $100,000 that range from replacing school roofs to updating fire alarm systems.
Former county commission candidate Dave Nelson, who was recruited at the last minute to argue against the bond, said the county could use the additional revenue in shaky economic times.
"I'm not sure the money for the bond couldn't be better used by the county instead of the schools," he said.
Nelson mentioned how rural counties, including Douglas, are in the process of asking the state for an additional 10-cent property tax rate.
"Maybe if the bond doesn't pass, and the money goes to the county, they won't try to raise our taxes," he said.
Cheryl Blomstrom, chair of the Keep Improving Douglas Schools committee, argued there is nothing more important in Douglas County than children and the quality of the schools they attend.
"When I started the KIDS committee, I was one of the naysayers. I am fiscally very conservative," she said. "But I was not only shown the need but was thoroughly convinced of the need for the bond."
Blomstrom acknowledged that the county could use the money, but said the school district needs it more.
"The stuff in our district is old . It's getting older and it needs fixing," she said.
Gardnerville resident Jack Van Dien, who was also recruited at the last minute to argue against the bond, said he was opposed to the concept of what seemed to be a "revolving slush fund."
"I still like the idea of specific projects with fixed amounts, rather than what amounts to a sum of money we're trusting the school to spend the right way," he said.
Both Nelson and Van Dien said government entities should be run like businesses, cutting costs where necessary and setting funds aside for certain needs. They urged bond proponents to offer an alternative plan in case the measure fails.
"If the bond fails, I will be on the street corner with a tin cup," Blomstrom said. "The school district is not a business. We cannot use one fund for another. Our hands are tied by the Legislature."
The bond question spilled into the next debate about the Building Permit Allocation and Growth Management Ordinance.
"The schools are feeling the impact," said Dan Dykes, opponent of the ordinance. "Clearly, the impact of no growth is just as big of a problem as uncontrolled growth."
Dykes was referring to the school district's residential construction tax, which also funds capital improvement projects. The district receives $1,600 for every new building permit in Douglas County. However, since the housing slowdown, that fund has decreased by 80 percent, prompting the district to search for other sources.
The Growth Management Ordinance was approved by the county commission in 2007. It appears on the ballot as an advisory question. If residents vote against it, the commission could repeal it.
The ordinance limits the amount of residential growth in the Valley to two percent, compounded annually, and sets a scheduled allocation of building permits.
John Garvin with the Sustainable Growth Committee, arguing in favor of the ordinance, said a community can't rely on residential growth for tax revenues.
"Any community that hitches their wagon to the residential growth vehicle is in trouble," he said.
Proponent Jim Slade asked if tax revenues created by residential construction compensate for the costs of additional infrastructure.
"We have seen that the added costs exceed those tax revenues," he said.
Both sides agreed that the slipping economy has changed the nature of the debate, since construction has slowed well below the levels permitted by the ordinance. The question is how the ordinance will be used in the future.
"I think this limits our ability to take off once the economy rebounds," said opponent Rob Wigton. "We were a healthier community when we were growing by three of four percent a year. Businesses were open. People had money in their pockets and they were spending it in the community."
Opponent Pete Coates said the ordinance is regulatory in nature and unnecessary.
"Why put up a traffic light at a deserted intersection on a lonely highway where there is no traffic at all?" he said.
Dykes agreed, saying the best government is small government.
"The markets will seek their own centers when they are allowed to do so without the government," he said.
But Slade drew parallels to the national economic crisis and argued that government is needed to protect citizens against boom-and-bust cycles.
"Market forces are out of control," he said. "This ordinance takes out the highs and lows and helps us progress in an orderly fashion."
Wednesday's debate was sponsored by the Business Council of Douglas County, the Carson Valley Chamber of Commerce and The Record-Courier.
