![]()
|
|||||||
|
©
2002 |
What
if annexation is rejected?
What happens if voters turn down
annexation of the site of the proposed new Sisters High School in the March
12 election? The answer is not clear.
"We're pretty sure the voters
in Sisters will vote nix on the annexation because they don't want a high
school, based on the numbers, but they do want a middle school," said
anti-annexation activist Mel Bryan.
However, it is questionable
whether the bond approved by voters could legally be used for anything
other than a new high school and the middle school remodel project.
School board members have
given no indication that they would consider revisiting the middle school
option, which they rejected during deliberations before the bond election
as being less cost-effective in the long run.
"You've got all that history
of research and background and what the voters voted (for)," School Superintendent
Steve Swisher said.
While they are exploring contingencies,
school officials dispute the notion that most Sisters citizens oppose
annexation.
"Actually, the people who
are working on getting it passed have quite a different opinion," said
Swisher.
School board chair Heather
Wester said the options if annexation fails have not yet been formally
weighed.
"We haven't had that discussion
yet among the board," she said.
However, both Wester and Swisher
told The Nugget there are three basic possibilities:
ï Revisit the middle school
option. That would require legal counsel on what is allowed to be done
with bond money. School board members have indicated that they do not
consider that a viable option, because voters approved a bond for a high
school.
ï Build the high school on
land that is already annexed into the city limits -- i.e. where the football
field is now. Fields and other facilities could be placed on the land
that the county just allowed into the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary.
City of Sisters planner Neil
Thompson and Department of Land Conservation and Development representative
Laren Wooley have both confirmed that such a step would be legal and would
probably involve a relatively straightforward land use process.
However, Swisher indicated,
building on that location would require substantial changes in the site
plan for the school complex.
ï Attempt to build on the
proposed site without annexation. Swisher said that conversations with
Deschutes County legal counsel and members of the board of commissioners
lead him to believe that "there is a course of action, but it is an extensive
timeline."
County community development
director George Read, city planner Thompson, and DLCD's Wooley all indicated
that such a move would be unusual if not unprecedented and would almost
certainly wind up being a legal question.
Swisher said that building
on county land is "not (in the) best interest" of the school district,
because a school would probably not have access to city services and bond
dollars would have to pay for septic and water infrastructure. The delay
in construction -- which could be well over a year -- would also probably
drive up costs, Swisher noted.
|
|
|||||