Group also votes to replace CV's grandstand

CORVALLIS - The Corvallis School Board voted unanimously Monday night to replace the grandstand at Crescent Valley High School's football stadium with new aluminum bleachers. And after debating the matter for nearly an hour and a half, board members also approved a controversial construction excise tax on new development with a vote of 6-1. The tax will go into effect on Sept. 1, 2009.

Crescent Valley's bleachers were closed Sept. 22 as soon as the district received a structural review from Devco Engineering indicating the wooden seats and floorboards had decayed to the point of being unsafe. The varsity football team's remaining home games were moved to Reser Stadium and Corvallis High School.

The new structure approved last night will provide seating for both local fans and visitors on the west side of the field. The project will be paid for by leftover money from the $86.4 million bond measure passed by voters in 2002.

Because of favorable bids and cost savings, about $5 million of the bond money remained in 2006 after the construction of Corvallis High School and Linus Pauling Middle School and repairs were made to others. Most of that has since been spent on other high priority projects such as replacing roofs, upgrading lighting and ventilation systems, resurfacing playgrounds and improving accessibility for disabled students.

Facilities manager Greg Lecuyer reported about $465,000 still was left, just enough to cover the estimated cost of the bleachers replacement. The district's original estimate of $332,000 for replacing the bleachers did not include moving them or expanding the size of the grandstand to accommodate all fans, Lecuyer said. The new estimate came in at about $462,000.

A contingent of Crescent Valley parents and staff were on hand to emphasize the need to replace the school's bleachers with a facility that would be equal to that of Corvallis High School's new stadium built three years ago. They requested that part of the grandstand be covered and that a new press box be built rather than reusing the current one as planned.

Lecuyer indicated the latest price tag did not include those items but that as the district seeks bids for constructing the new facility, they could ask for estimates that would include a number of options. Several board members suggested staff also explore the potential for using volunteers to help with the project in order to help cover the cost of extra features.

A half dozen people spoke out against the construction excise tax saying that if the board passed the new fees, it would be ignoring the plight of thousands of people employed by the construction industry.

"You couldn't pick a worse time to impose a tax on one segment of the economy," said Brent Byer, adding that he had counted 529 businesses in the local phone book that would be negatively affected by the tax.

Kristen Knutson of Iron Mountain Homes said homebuilders shouldn't have to carry the burden of financing school districts' capital improvement needs alone. "I urge you to think about the fairness of this tax," she said.

The construction excise tax was approved by the 2007 State Legislature to allow school districts to raise funds for capital improvement projects by taxing new development. A fee of $1 per square foot for residential construction and 50 cents per square foot for nonresidential construction - up to $25,000 per building permit - will be assessed.

Board members discussed several options such as collecting the tax in phases beginning with just 25 cents per square foot and indefinitely postponing implementation of the tax. Several expressed empathy for the local homebuilders and businesses affected by the fees, but in the end the pressing needs of deferred maintenance in the schools won out.

"I agree this is a bad time for the economy, but it's also a bad time for our schools' capital improvement projects. If we don't implement this tax now, we're taking a very big risk," said vice-chair Matt Donohue. "There is absolutely no good answer, but this is all we've got."

The dozen builders who stayed until the end of the meeting,however, left dissatisfied.

"I'm very disappointed that the school board approved a tax that unfairly burdens a small group of people rather than sharing the need for funding broadly in the community," said Mike Moore, the owner of Chateau Construction at the close of the meeting. He said most of the builders understand the schools' need, but that the construction excise tax was "a bad, unfair, targeted tax."