By DAVE CHASE and CHARLES CONN
As private citizens, the two of us have suggested that the citizens of Sun Valley and Ketchum have a dialogue about whether it would be mutually advantageous to merge administrations. What we have proposed is that this matter be scheduled for a vote and debated. Then citizens for and against can have their voices heard and the result recorded.
We personally believe a merger probably makes sense. Our two towns are in the same visitor-based businesses, and share a common downtown that we and our visitors enjoy. Consolidating would enable a clearer marketing strategy to attract new visitors and new businesses. This is important, as we are not keeping pace with other resort towns. It could save at least $2 million in combined costs—though other mergers of similar-sized cities have achieved much more than the 10 percent savings this represents. This is significant, as Sun Valley residents pay about 50 percent more property tax per parcel (not including sewer and water levies, which widen this difference). And it would give the citizens of Sun Valley a say in the downtown core, and on important matters like the five new resort hotels under consideration in Ketchum, and vice versa.
Whether your initial inclination is positive or negative, we are convinced that it makes sense, especially in these economic times, to have the conversation. That is why we are so surprised that some elected officials and citizens are working to smother the debate before it happens. On these pages we have read emotive hyperbole designed to stifle conversation: "hostile takeover," "Ketchum is a financial disaster" and worse.
These statements are simply untrue. This could never be a hostile takeover, as it takes a majority of both towns' voters to effect. Ketchum's finances a disaster? We have demonstrated this is not the case with numbers from both towns' budgets. Both towns have conservative debt levels and positive fund balances, and responded to the economic downturn with prudent budget cuts. If consolidation occurs, by statute any previously incurred debt must be settled by the previous citizen body and fund balances, not the other town. Please, use facts, not slogans.
The combined city name has also been put forward as an emotive item, since under Idaho code the larger city's name is retained—unless the new administration wants to change it. We are working to amend the code, but anyone in power would choose our internationally recognized name, Sun Valley, or Sun Valley-Ketchum. Moreover, city ordinances in which rights, such as property values, can be grandfathered under code. Just as both towns have zoning that varies by district, so would the new town.
Neither of us will run if the two towns we serve are consolidated. Everyone would get to vote on who they want to run the new city.
We are left wondering what the public officials opposed to putting this question to the voters are afraid of. Maybe the towns will decide to combine services while maintaining separate administrations. Surely we are better for having come together and discussed the facts. More important than protecting public officials is to explore solutions that save money and improve our ability to attract visitors and businesses. We owe that to all our constituents.
Chase and Conn are city councilors from Sun Valley and Ketchum, respectively. The views here are their own.
