Questioning plans for park development

Two years ago, with the change in city management, a concerted drive was begun to enhance our community.

Much has been good. Landscaping and brush removal, more pathways and the new Fir Street splash park are wonderful improvements. They are proper city tasks. Cascade Avenue is a premier achievement. It resulted from superior collaboration with the Oregon Department of Transportation, who largely paid for the project. These are welcome and needed upgrades.

But a rising trend that considers major park enhancements to be a central facet of economic vitality is worrisome. Tourism and tourist attractions are clearly essential to Sisters but we must recognize that they are only part of the answer to sustainability. We must also attract entrepreneurs and family growth to supplement school enrollment and build year-round commerce. Ambitious plans for grand venues will someday be feasible, but they must be prioritized and publicly vetted before Sisters and city council takes action. An example of my concern follows:

On August 28, city council was presented a draft proposal to fund a $2 million park development program. This was our first exposure to the plan. Of the $2 million to be spent over the next 10 years, $732,000 is slated to purchase bare land. Another $250,000 is asked to expand Creekside Campground and $280,000 is to be used to upgrade the East Portal, which is the west entry to town near Bi-Mart. The rest is for restrooms, playground equipment, gazebos, signage and other small projects. To pay for the plan, a city charge applied to each new home, known as a System Development Charge (SDC), would be increased substantially from the current $613 to as much as $2,000.

Some members of the Parks Advisory Committee questioned the need for more acreage at this time, at least $732,000 worth. Are we so lacking in parks right now? My questions about how this level of investment could be considered prudent were answered thusly: Mayor Boyd stated that the plan would only cost $200,000 a year, which he felt reasonable and defendable. Two councilors said city parks are essential to keep the city viable and would attract business and families. The bare land in question was not revealed. It is either not currently identifiable or can only be made known in a closed council session. A bullet point in a later part of the agenda referred to a "Project Gretzky."

City Manager Gorayeb affirmed that Project Gretzky is the likely target for the proposed land purchase. Project Gretzky is a euphemism for a proposed city-owned ice rink. You may recall Project Mozart was the name of the amphitheater project.

There was no aim during this workshop for council to discuss the merits of the projects. We were only there to guide staff on whether future projects are to be paid for by levying SDCs on new homes and new lodging units or just assess the charge on new homes. This style of council presentation is hasty. It can lead to a subtle acceptance of the "numbers" prior to necessary debate of the projects in the first place.

Such governance is abrupt, tightly controlled, and builds incrementally without appropriate public and council consideration. It is an unbecoming process.

Someday we may be able to consider an ice rink. On the other hand, if such a project could be successful, would not a private investor take the risk? Should such projects even be considered parks? Would SPRD be a better operator than the city? Should a city of 2,000 seriously consider investing in grand venues as opposed to commencing a concerted effort to attract new families and year-round economic vitality?