Changes made to annexation deal

The City of Sisters continued its efforts last week to hammer out an annexation agreement with the owners of the 30-acre McKenzie Meadows property at the west end of Sisters.

The property is the proposed site of a "senior-housing community" including a "lodge" with independent and assisted-living accommodations associated and single-family dwellings.

Last Thursday, the city council and developers worked through some sticking points in the agreement - but not all the councilors are satisfied.

The developers agreed to a provision requiring that the "lodge" be completed before any occupancy permits are issued for the single-family dwellings.

The council further agreed on provisions for an option to accept development open space as a public park with certain amenities chosen from among those listed in the city's parks master plan.

The wrangling over the park and whether it should have a public restroom had gone on across several meetings and occupied most of an hour's discussion on Thursday - a situation that clearly exasperated property co-owner Curt Kallberg.

"We're friggin' holding up thousands of jobs for a pumi-block building," he said. "I'll pay for the friggin' pumi-block building if it will get this thing off center."

Councilor Pat Thompson attempted to rein the discussion in by ticking off key points of agreement in the draft document. He said that the draft addresses all the "hard infrastructure issues" and requires the developer to pay for excess capacity impacts on sewer, water and roads.

In Thompson's view, that is the essential purpose of the agreement, and he thinks it has been accomplished.

"I don't think the purpose of an annexation agreement is to put up a road block for anybody," he said.

Councilor Bill Merrill takes a different view. He argues that development does not pay for itself through taxes and systems development charges and that there are indirect costs to the city that have not been identified or weighed.

For example, he told The Nugget, he is concerned about possible additional costs in road and park maintenance and unidentified increases in requirements for fire and police services.

"Before we annex the property, we need to know, do the benefits of this annexation exceed the costs," Merrill told The Nugget. "We don't know what the benefits are and we don't know the costs."

Merrill also argues that there have been significant changes to what the property owners presented to voters when they approved annexation of the property in 2006. He believes the owners should put the matter up for a new vote or build what was initially proposed, which included an early childhood development center, living facilities for seniors "of limited means" and single-family homes.

Merrill acknowledges that the majority sentiment on the council is to move forward with the annexation. He said the public should weigh in now, however they feel about the issue.

"If you feel one way or another, you need to let the council know," he said. "Apathy doesn't get it."

What do you think? Let The Nugget know. E-mail [email protected] or comment on this story online at http://www.nuggetnews.com.

Author Bio

Jim Cornelius, Editor in Chief

Jim Cornelius is editor in chief of The Nugget and author of “Warriors of the Wildlands: True Tales of the Frontier Partisans.” A history buff, he explores frontier history across three centuries and several continents on his podcast, The Frontier Partisans. For more information visit www.frontierpartisans.com.

• Email: editor@nuggetnews.com
• Phone: 5415499941