© 2002
The Nugget Newspaper
Sisters, Oregon
All rights reserved

Send us an email

Display Advertising

Board committed to high school
By Jim Cornelius

The Sisters School Board will go forward with the construction of a new high school regardless of the outcome of the March 12 annexation vote in the City of Sisters.

The school district is seeking to annex approximately 98 acres for a new school site. Annexation opponents say they want the district to reconsider building a high school and instead build a middle school.

The school board rejected the middle school option as being more expensive in the long run and went to voters last year with a proposal for a new high school. The current high school is to be converted to middle school use.

"That's what the voters passed," said board member Steve Keeton at a January 22 meeting.

Board member Glen Lasken concurred, saying that to back out now "would not be doing our duty to our citizens."

That doesn't sit well with anti-annexation activists.

"I think that's an arrogant power play," said Sisters area resident Jim Mackey.

Mackey and Sisters resident Mel Bryan argue that Sisters' population growth and school enrollment numbers don't justify building a high school (see Letters to the Editor).

"I think a healthy review is in order, based on the information I've seen," Mackey said.

The school board believes that review was already done and the only questions left are where the school will be built if annexation fails.

The school board could decide to build on the land even though it is unannexed. That would require changes in county ordinances.

"We have every indication that the (Deschutes County Board of) Commissioners would be willing to go back and review those ordinances," school superintendent Steve Swisher told the board.

However, board chair Heather Wester noted, building on the unannexed land would also require an extensive land-use process that is vulnerable to appeals.

The district could relatively easily change the location of the new school to where the football field is now and place new playing fields on the unannexed land.

Lasken said he has reviewed conceptual sketches for such a plan.

"It's not bad, really," he said. "It's not as good as using the land the way we'd hoped (but) I think it's helpful for us to have that as an option."

Wester noted that the option of building on the football field appeared to be viable for the school district.

"It just wouldn't work for SOAR," she said.

The Sisters Organization for Activities and Recreation had planned on its own to build recreational facilities on the 98 acre site. While ball fields would probably be allowed outright, other recreational structures might not be allowed.

Swisher said that school district attorney Nancy Craven is researching the parameters of the law regarding recreational facilities on unannexed land.

Board member Bill Reed recused himself from the discussion of particular options, citing potential conflict of interest. Reed owns property surrounding the school sites that could be affected by which option is chosen.

While confirming that the district has options, the board believes the original plan is best. Board members say that costs will go up -- or the facility will be cut back -- if that plan is derailed by a "no" vote on annexation.

Wester said that delays and added infrastructure costs could wipe out interest money on the bond. The board has committed to using the bulk of that money to pay down the bond -- if the project stays on schedule.

"This could cost the voters of the district $1.9 million," she said.

"Or more than that," Keeton asserted. "It's going to cost the taxpayers money or programming and somebody needs to make that point."

Back to front page