NEWS
MyEagleNews.com
Fourth
of July
cornhole,
fireworks
planned in
Monument
By Steven Mitchell
Blue Mountain Eagle
While the Fourth of
July will look much dif-
ferent this year with big
gatherings and many fire-
works shows being can-
celed, residents will be able
to celebrate the holiday in
Monument.
The annual festivities
will be held privately along
the North Fork of the John
Day River at North Fork
RV and Camping Park.
North Fork RV and
Camping owner Steve
Mills said registration for
cornhole is at 10 a.m, and
the tournament kicks off at
noon.
Mills said, through
donations from several
ranchers and others who
had been involved in the
event in the past, the fire-
works show at dusk will be
20% larger than last year.
Mills said there have
been approximately 70
people at the park in pre-
vious years, but he is not
sure how many people will
show up this year.
“I can’t say that’s going
to happen in our park this
year,” he said. “But you
know it sounds like there’s
going to be quite a few
people.”
Mills said it was import-
ant to keep the tradition of
the Fourth of July going
this year.
He said when events
in small Eastern Oregon
towns get canceled for
even just one year they run
the risk of not coming back
the following year.
“I’m not saying that
this would happen on the
Fourth,” he said. “But
they don’t seem to come
back because the towns
have such a struggle with
money.”
Mills said he is not sure
if there will be booths set
up this year and that they
are “playing it by ear.”
He said this is the first
year that he and his wife,
Susan, have hosted the
event so he does not want
to “over-promise.”
For more informa-
tion, contact Mills at
541-693-3087.
Wednesday, July 1, 2020
A3
Canyon City weighs in on proposed aquatic center
City council will make
decision in July
By Rudy Diaz
Blue Mountain Eagle
Discussion on an aquatic
center in Grant County contin-
ues as residents in Canyon City
talked about their thoughts on
the pool and voting.
During the Canyon City
City Council meeting on June
23, proponents and opponents
of a proposed aquatic center
and taxing district shared their
thoughts as the city council lis-
tened to the concerns of their
constituents.
The proposal would create
a new aquatic taxing district
that would encompass Prairie
City, Mt. Vernon, Canyon City,
Seneca and John Day, and their
rural fire districts. The district
would have a permanent tax
rate of 20 cents per $1,000 of
a property’s assessed value for
operations costs, as well as a
20-year construction bond with
a rate of 71 cents per $1,000 of
assessed value.
Lisa Weigum, a resident in
Canyon City, shared her con-
cerns on a survey sent out by
Canyon City. The survey about
the proposed pool was sent out
to 250 residents through the
water and sewer bills.
There were 113 (45%) sur-
veys returned with 51 (45%)
respondents saying yes and 62
(55%) residents saying no. Of
the feedback from the survey,
109 were property owners and
nine were renters.
Weigum asked if the city
council would base its decision
on the survey.
“Our concern is that we
are representing our constit-
uents, so the best way to do
that is the people we do have
access to, we can send out a
questionnaire and those are the
ones typically paying the bill,”
said Canyon City Mayor Steve
Fischer.
Weigum said, if the city is
going to base it on the popula-
tion of the people they serve,
the 250 surveys with the water
and sewer bills are not an accu-
rate reflection of the voting
population in the town and in
each household.
A council member asked
Weigum what the city should
have done differently. Weigum
said, while it was difficult to
have meetings due to COVID-
19, she would have liked to
have seen more town hall
meetings and more oppor-
tunities for people to under-
stand what they are voting
on instead of just a survey.
She said it was not just Can-
yon City’s fault and that there
should have been participa-
tion from the steering com-
The Eagle/Rudy Diaz
Mayor Steve Fischer and the Canyon City City Council listen to what members of the audience had
to say about a proposed aquatic district June 23.
mittee that proposed the tax-
ing district.
Fischer said the town hall
meetings were planned, but
he got a notice to cancel the
meetings until further notice
due to COVID-19.
“I brought it to the coun-
cil saying we aren’t going to
be able to have those town
hall meetings, but we need to
have some kind of idea to have
input from our constituents,”
Fischer said.
Fischer shared a concern
that large landowners in Grant
County have more at stake
when it comes to the amount
in taxes they would have to
pay, but would not have as
big of a say when it comes to
voting.
“Keep in mind that some-
body who owns a single-wide
... that pays $30 a year in
taxes... My point is is that that
person has the right to vote.
That person may be paying
$30 a year in taxes,” Fischer
said. “Now we’re talking
about people who have thou-
sands of acres worth millions
of dollars, and they’re paying
thousands of dollars a year...
All I’m saying is that the peo-
ple who have the most at stake
is not the bulk of those that are
living in poverty.”
Fischer added that he
received a letter from the
Grant County Farm Bureau
with statements from people
who own large amounts of
land in Grant County.
“I do have somebody pay-
ing $30, $40, $50 for a $2,500-
worth manufactured home,
and they’re gonna have just
as much say,” Fischer, who
works in the Grant County
Assessor’s Office, said.
Weigum asked if Fischer
was saying that people who
own property have more of a
right to vote than people who
don’t.
Fischer said no, but those
are the ones bills are sent to.
“But their vote doesn’t
matter anymore than if you
own a trailer house and pay
$10 in taxes,” Weigum said.
“That vote has the same
weight as someone who pays
$10,000 in taxes because they
own a multi-million dollar
ranch. That’s what a vote is...
We shouldn’t be discriminated
against because we don’t own
property.”
Fischer said, “The thing is,
your portion of payment is not
going to be the (same).”
Although the rates would
be the same for every property
owner in the proposed taxing
district, the amount owed by
each owner would vary based
on the amount of property
owned and its assessed value.
Farmland and timberland is
assessed differently than other
properties.
Land owner John Morris
said he is one of the ranch-
ers and farmers that would be
impacted if the rural fire dis-
tricts were included in the dis-
trict boundaries as planned.
He said it would be paying for
something not needed.
“I’ll admit, I raised kids
here, but I don’t have any kids
anymore,” Morris said. “Is
it benefiting me? Not in the
least.”
Fischer said he was con-
cerned with the lack of infor-
mation provided on the pos-
sibility of repairing Gleason
Pool and the focus on building
a new pool. He added that he
does not believe that the state
of Oregon would back out of
plans to build a new Kam Wah
Chung interpretive center —
in the current pool’s location
— because of the swimming
pool.
“Again, it boils down to
the very thing I brought up
at several meetings, and the
only thing I heard is ‘No,
we’re not moving backwards,
we’re only moving forward,’”
Fischer said.
Fischer read the letter
from the Grant County Farm
Bureau, which represents
local agricultural producers
and other landowners in Grant
County, which suggested that
Canyon City follow Mt. Ver-
non in the decision to vote
down the resolution until a
third reasonable option is con-
sidered. This option is to repair
Gleason Pool and update it for
an extended life of five to 15
years to allow sufficient tim-
ing to develop a reasonable
alternative for its replace-
ment in a location that benefits
youth as a priority.
“In either case, however,
John Day secures potential
economic benefits to them-
selves while the external cost
inherit to tourism is bore by
others. Rural landowners and
agricultural producers will
not be immune to these neg-
ative impacts,” Fischer read
from the letter. “Although our
board has not wrapped up our
review or prepared our pub-
lic position on this matter, we
have reviewed sufficient back-
ground material to determine
that the city’s proposal does
not appear to reflect the inter-
est of most area residents nor
is it timely.”
Another concern Fischer
had is the effect on the tax rate
due to Mt. Vernon already vot-
ing against a resolution sup-
porting the pool, which would
require adjustments to the tax
rates or district boundaries to
bring in the funding necessary
to operate the pool.
Sena Raschio, a property
owner in Canyon City, voiced
her support for the pool being
on the ballot and its impor-
tance for the kids in the county.
“I have two children, and
I can really use a pool to not
only keep my kids physically
active... but it is a challenge
this summer to keep my kids
physically active,” Raschio
said. “We would want to have
a pool, and we would be will-
ing to pay.”
Raschio added that the clo-
sure of Gleason Pool this year
because of COVID-19 restric-
tions showed her just how
important it is to have a pool
and activities for her family.
Fischer said he agreed
about the importance of a pool
in Grant County, but said the
point that he is trying to make
is that repairing the pool was
never examined.
According to the final
report on the pool presented
to the city of John Day, the
city’s consulting team esti-
mated the cost for repairs
could be between $540,000
and $810,000 or more, which
could extend the life of the
pool another 10-15 years at
most, at which point it would
need to be replaced.
As the discussion began to
wrap up, Fischer clarified that
he had voiced his opinion, but
the city council as a whole will
make the ultimate decision.
The resolution will be brought
up during the next Canyon
City City Council meeting in
July.
S194052-1
S195887-1