Move forward with urban renewal grants

Some members of the Sisters City Council have picked an odd time to have second thoughts about the nature and purpose of the City's Urban Renewal District small projects grant program. Funds for the grants come from the tax dollars paid by property owners of the Urban Renewal District, which basically encompasses the downtown commercial district of Sisters.

The City offered this second round of matching grants (up to 50 percent) to encourage property owners to invest in improving the façades of commercial buildings to "achieve visible results that enhance Sisters downtown image, marketability and economic vitality." Applicants sought multiple bids and budgeted for projects. Twenty-one applications were submitted; two were rejected as being ineligible (see related story, page 1).

When the 19 applications came to the Council for approval last Thursday, the Council, with Mayor Chris Frye absent, declined to approve any of the grants. Councilors David Asson and Nancy Connolly expressed reservations about funding projects that might be better considered basic business expenses and concern that funds thus used might take away from other worthy projects. They want to take some time for a further look.

There is a legitimate debate to be had as to whether this kind of tax-increment financing for urban renewal and economic development is appropriate and beneficial to a community in the long term. There's plenty of room for a philosophical debate over whether local government should be in the business of providing grants to improve the appearance of private businesses.

But the time for that debate in Sisters was before the City Council agreed to announce the grants, allocated the funds to make them, and invited applications for them. The councilors had to be aware of the nature of the projects they would be looking at - the City has approved such grants before.

The City has put property owners through a series of hoops, including providing multiple bids for their grant projects, costing time and expense, and has now missed its own timeline for approval, leaving property owners in limbo. As one property owner put it, it's baffling.

If the City Council decides it doesn't want the Urban Renewal Agency to provide such grants, fine. But tabling this round of grants for further study is going back on a deal. If the projects submitted in good faith meet the criteria of the grants, they should be approved. If the Council doesn't like the criteria, they should revise them next time or decide not to offer the small-projects program at all.

Then, at least, everybody knows where they stand - and the City isn't wasting peoples' time.

Jim Cornelius

News Editor