1. Waste Connection Inc. wants to raise our garbage rates again. Are you happy enough with their service that you are willing to pay the 5% increase they are asking for? Should other options be investigated? Should the council change the requirement that every resident must sign a contract with this company?
2. The council is being asked to adopt population projections that show our town population increasing by 2% every year over the next 20 years. Adopting the projections is a preliminary step to updating the city's Comprehensive Plan. These projections have to possibility to influence the Hood River County School District's decision about closing Cascade Locks School. The projections were not influenced by future developments such as the Warm Springs project and Port expansion. Should the council wait for more information, or move forward with the projection adoption?
3. The results of the Nov. 4 2008 election created an ammendment to the city's charter that effectively appealed last May's utility fee schedule adjustment. The fees have been returned to 3 dollars for late payment, 10 dollars for placing a red tag warning, 15 dollars for a returned check. It has been suggested that the fees are too small to have any real effect. As a result, city staff will potentially be expending more time administering the fees than the fees are worth. However, according to the charter, the fees can only be raised after ratification by voters. Should the council refer a fee schedule increase to the voters? If so, should the city pay for a vote as soon as possible or wait for a statewide election?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Councilman for Cascade Locks
- Lance Masters
- This blog is intended as a way for people interested in Cascade Locks to share ideas and opinions. Posts that are interpreted as hindering the free flow of ideas and opinions may be removed. Please be encouraged to discuss ideas and opinions rather than individuals and names.
24 comments:
Thankyou. Question answered. We appreciate the heads up.
Open Letter to StraightArrowCL,
I would first like to thank you for posting your comments. You’ve asked some good questions and it is obvious that you care about what happens to Cascade Locks. I hope you will consider sharing your ideas regarding the December Issues with the readers of this blog. I have copied and saved your first comment. In response to your posts, I would like to clarify a few points. First here is the chain of events that led to me temporarily removing your post:
1. Your comment was posted
2. One of the people you mentioned by name in the comment contacted me and asked to have their name removed from the site
3. I decided that was a reasonable request
4. I looked for a way to edit your post and finding none, decided to remove it.
5. I went to the Blazer game in Portland. Blazers won 106-68.
6. I wrote this letter.
I am asking that people who post to this blog attempt to avoid using names and write more in generalities about ideas and opinions of the issues facing our town. I imagine this may be difficult in some cases, but it is my general request. I believe this will lead to a more free flow exchange of ideas. For example, someone could post, “we have watched Councilman Xxxxxxxxx work as Attack Dog for the Xxxxxx/Xxxxxxxxx/Xxxxxx gang.” As long as the X’s are there, we aren’t embarrassing anyone by name. However, the way I see it, the issue being addressed in the quote is the appearance that a councilman who represents the voters has chosen to represent a smaller group instead. I would prefer that the quote be written thus, “We have watched a certain councilman represent the interests of the few rather than the many and we are wondering, Councilman Masters, if you plan to do the same.” It is, of course, perfectly fine to mention me, Lance Masters, by name.
If you are willing to change the post so that the names are removed, I am happy to have it reposted. Further, if I can figure out a way to edit it myself, I will put it back up. I know the readers of this blog will want to see it. I invite you to continue posting.
Finally, I have some specific answers to the questions you raised in your post. I’ll be happy to share them with you if you are still interested, but they all center around this idea: I plan to work to make Cascade Locks a better place to live and visit, both now, and in the future. As Lynn Lundquist said last week, “The future belongs to those who dare to invest in it.”
Please forward your copy to me at yahoo.com
Straight Arrow,
I sent it to StraightArrowCL@yahoo.com
no caps in email address
RE#2: As of the 2000 Census, the city's population was 1,115. The 2007 estimate is 1,075 residents (Source is Wikipedia.) We have LOST approximately 5.35% of our population. I would suggest that we should deal with reality, and not adopt a number just because it falls in with the projections for the county. The pie-in-the-sky outlook has held this town back for over a decade. We should be looking into attracting commercial business and making the downtown attractive.
"It has been suggested that the fees are too small to have any real effect." Those increases were passed as punishments for households that can barely pay their bills on time now, things are just going to get worse for them. Why do we punish those who can afford it the least?
The amendments were passed by LEGAL vote for two reasons, to curb the rampant spending of money by the City and to get the City Charter (and Ordinance) Committees off of their butts and get it done.
Despite what Mayor XXXXX and Administrator XXX think, finding a weaselly way around the law is not serving town's best interests. If an election is needed, then make it worth the cost and utilize the opportunity to adjust all fees, not just a few to try to "punish" us for voting the amendments into law.
Its sad that the city had to raise the fine fee to begin with. Someone once said at council "the city shouldn't play parent to the citizens" When 1/4th of the town pays its bills late, I think the city has the right to do something about it. If people are so irresponsibles as to pay their bill late or not at all, they deserve a fine! As far as spending the money to have to put this on the ballot, I think its a crime that the city has too. The city should be able to raise a fine fee, if needed, but I would like to add, Why don't people just grow up and pay their utility bills on time!
Can you mature, learn how to write (to, not too, and never end in a preposition) and find some empathy? Where do you get the 1/4 figure from? Can you substantiate that figure, or is it a quote from a Council meeting? Utilities are utilities because they are needed. Everybody has been unable to pay a bill. One choses the one bill it is easiest to let go. You ignore the simple fact that the amendments were voted into law because the City got out-of-hand with the threat of additional fees on our utilities. Most of our citizens all ready have a difficult time paying their bills without the additional fees.
Janissary I'm sure that there are those who may appreciate your lesson on literary application, although I am not among them.your comments may be more effective if you yourself didn't make simple errors in your choice of words. My understanding was that this was intended to be a free flowing exchange of ideas, and not designed as a forum to show off our literary prowess. It may be a challenge for some to keep their enmity of the city in check long enough to allow an open minded exchange. To answer the question about a quarter of the city paying late it in fact was a little closer to a third.
As far as people being strapped and unable pay there bills, I do agree with that being the case I also believe often times it's largely of there own choosing. We all are paying on a number of things that didn't even exist 5 or 10 years ago, high speed internet, expanded cable and unlimited texting. The media has completely skewed our sense of priorities,with that our idea of what constitutes a necessity has also been greatly altered. Many in our society can find a way of affording what they want but have little left for the actual necessities. Such as investing in there community. I say investing because what we spend as a community will pay dividends by increasing the cities capacity to attract business, new residents and tourism.
1. Raising garbage rates: While I don't like paying more for anything, it stands to reason that as time passes, it costs more to do things. I've hauled my trash to Hood River and it actually costs less to have them come to my curb. Along with the free pick-up of materials offered once a year by the City plus the ability to drop burnable items off, again at no charge, I'd say we make out pretty good. Businesses usually pass down increasing costs by raising the prices of their goods correct? In light of that, what would we do if they just sent a letter and said "the rates have gone up due to an increase of costs" and not give us a choice? I'd rather vote yes on the 5% then get a surprise letter that reflected an 8-10% raise.
2. There are new families moving into Shahala and Wind Song so I don't think that it would be that big of a stretch to adopt the projection as long as it didn't affect our ability to obtain certain grants based on our actual population.
3. This whole issue stinks! Fines as punishment. Let's address that for a moment. Unless everyone does business with companies I know nothing about, we all pay late fees if we're not timely with our accounts. Why should the City be any different? It's also a business. It takes a full day to put all the tags out not counting the almost full day it takes to prepare them and this city like any other city, has to recoup the costs. I don't believe that the city should have to pay for anything in relation to raising fees and I believe that some folks should wake up and smell the roses that again, it takes money to make money. With all the accusations that fly around this town you'd think the Mafia was in charge and the only goal was to make the citizens poorer. What a crock!
"Why should the City be any different? It's also a business."
True, yet we are the owners of that business. Isn't it to our advantage, as citizens/owners to ensure that things done in our names be done well? It is sound financial action to know how you pay for something before it is purchased, and to protect your credit rating while paying it back.
While I agree with what you've written Kate, to a point, I find that the reality of how that's being accomplished is not good business for anyone. Let's just say that some of the citizens are so busy trying to tell the City how to run "our business" that the City can't run period. Out of respect to Lance Masters, I'm not going to get into a mud slinging session with anyone on this website. He has put this together for people to view their opinions on certain subjects - pro and con. Not to slap at each other because of disagreements or misinformation. If a person has an opinion as to the subject of the day, post it but quit picking comments out of each blog to comment on and be a productive part of the process.
Anonymous #4 - (this month)
I really have no respect for an Anonymous commentator. If you really respect Lance and the posters upon this log, why not have the "cojones" to put your name on your comment?
Your concept of what Lance intended may not be what Lance intended. I choose to not state his intentions - I will leave that to him. I know who you sound like - so many other people in town without the guts to put your name where your mouth is.
I will state that I am a productive part of the process. Dialogue has been always part of the Democratic process since the Athenian Greeks and is a fundamental part of the process. Your flawed concept of "process" is equal to the exclusion of any personalized opinion. For example: "America, love or leave it." No room for love America, acknowledge the current malfunctions, and accept that change is constant and necessary. Don't like it? Think it's un-American? Read Thomas Jefferson. You advocate no citizen input, leave everything to those who "know better." Always easier for those without "cojones."
While I am at it, Anon. #4, Perhaps I reply only to the part of the post I might disagree with. Think about it.
I have stated my intentions for this blog at the top and bottom of the main page. In the December Issues thread I have written an open letter to poster StraightArrowCL that defines these intentions further.
This blog is for the free flow exchange of ideas and opinions. As such, it is expected that some opinions will conflict with others. When opinions conflict it is tempting to disagree with the person rather than the opinion. Sometimes this seems unavoidable. However, our goal here is to maintain mutual respect for the people with whom we disagree. When we make the disagreement about the other person, we’ve effectively stopped talking about our ideas and opinions.
Hopefully, that clarifies things. I enjoy a healthy debate as much as anyone, so please continue the discussion. We can all take a deep breath, reflect on our differences, and remember, as John F. Kennedy said, “We all breathe the same air.”
1. We don't really have a choice about paying the 5% increase. I attempted to relate my experience in finding alternate waste management service when I was on council to a new counselor, and he turned his back on me and walked off. I am concerned with that attitude. What I found was that we could get another service, but it would cost us twice as much as we were currently paying. Even with the rate increases of the last several years, the alternative would have also increased so there really isn't a new solution that makes monetary sense.
2. I personally would like to wait for more information, whatever that would be, or approving a higher population projection. My sole reason is that the School Board will be able to use those figures to justify closing the school. I said as much at the last Council meeting. We need the population projections to update the comprehensive plan which sorely needs updating, but giving them may doom our school. This is a tough one.
3. The city does not lose money with the old fees. If we have 20 red tags, the city recovers $200. It does not take $10 worth of time to check the billing log, write up the simple red tag and deliver it, unless the person placing the red tags returns to City Hall for each new tag. If they can't deliver 5 to 10 an hour, then we need to look at the procedure. I didn't like having those fees raised, as they tend to hurt those who can afford it least. I don't care to have an election to raise them whether it is a special election or in the general election. Prove it costs the city more than it recovers and then we can have a discussion
Lance, have you heard about Union inquiries regarding the construction of the firehall? and If so, how does this the costs? Also, may we initiate a dialogue regarding the recent budget meeting?
Some very good points are being brought uo here.
I think this blog is a very good idea to get citizen involvement in local government.
Kudos Lance :o)
Arnie you were absolutely right at the last council meeting. It is about population.
I have been looking into the school issue and if you go to the Hood River School District Web Site and find the map, of how they zone, Cascade Locks is zoned with a populated area of Hood River.
A population zone of over 3,000 with our population mind you.
Now if you go to any big city I know of, for example the middle of a street is the boundary for the school zone then a child on one side of the street goes to one school and a child on the other side of the street goes to another school.
So why then are Junior and High School students whom live in Hood River not bused to our Junior and High School, when there is no junior or High School in the zone they live in?
I think we may have hood River over the barrel here?
Then our school qualifys for the small and remote school status.
I do not know if Hood River School District Administrators are registering us as that but there are addition funds to schools who qualify or is Hood River has been using our population to fund their projects, but, something is smelling more the deeper I look into this and I beleive our City Council should start looking into this and now.
So maybe the sollution is in the details?
Cody
Janissary. There will be new topics on the front page next week. I am still waiting for more info on the budget meeting as I was not part of it.
In the 20+ years that I have lived in Cascade Locks I have watched as local officials blatantly abused their power as well as the public trust as they executed their personal agenda's including but not limited to vindictive personal revenge campaigns.
This reprehensible behavior has resulted in the near destruction of the “Community”.
Those citizens and special interest groups with influence at City Hall, so often use it as a weapon in which they attack their own neighbors and groups with contrary interests resulting in ridiculous increases in the cost of living as well as a negative business environment.
It is mere incompetence for the City to sell the McCoy property to a developer for a specific purpose by failing to exercise the basic due diligence required to complete such a transaction legally.
It is however unethical for the City to do anything other than at the City’s expense correct the zoning so that the developer can proceed with their original plan that they had already paid to design.
It is criminal for the City to continue to cover-up the illegal excavation of Belle St. by a former City Council Member for the personal benefit of a friend of a former mayor which is at the root of all the problems facing the purposed development.
Instead of engaging in a further fraudulent act by simply declaring a nonexistent growth number maybe we should try to create an environment that encourages growth restores the peoples trust in local government.
We could then honestly recruit new families as well as living wage jobs to increase the tax base before spending $2,000,000 to appease the egos of a few local officials
Silence Doogood /COO
“Government Accountability Task force”
Cascade Locks Chapter
silencedoogood@ymail.com
Regarding the tag fees, a few things need to be pointed out.
State law for utilities, require, that in order to raise fee's, those fee's must be due to an increase in the utilities direct cost of buisness, and no other business endevor costs, the utility may be in can be applied to a utility.
In simple words, if the costs go up then they can raise fees! For the specific utility!!!
If you go back to the taped council meeting, during discussion of this issue, as well as, read the red tag notices, sent in the City Newsletter, this City raised fees, to teach citizens financial responsibility and the City thought that it would improve customer relations with the citizens.
Well that went over like a lead ballon in the form of the measures just passed.
After all this the city now wants to interfere in our lives again and violate our rights with this garbage issue as well as negotiate fees with a private company for the citizens.
We know how that always turns out don't we?
This I will blog on later.
All I can say is when will they learn.
Cody
This is word for word what I read to council at the council meeting last night.
Then they passed the rate hike.
Do you realize what happened here?
1-November 7, 2008, the citizens of Cascade Locks amended the city charter via initiative, pursuant to well established law, the amendment prohibits the city of raising any fees effecting citizen’s, absent a majority vote of the citizens.
2-Both the US and State Constitution, as well as Oregon statutory law, prohibits, political subdivisions, from regulating a business that the political subdivision is engaged in.
3-As to Resolution number R112408-1, which on its face, appears to be a contractual agreement between the City of Cascade Locks Incorporated and Waste Connections Company Inc, effectively, creating a change in a fee, which effects the citizens;
did I miss the election?
If it is your position that this is not a rate charged by the city one must assume that the City is a partner via contract, in the Garbage business and therefore prohibited by the aforementioned constitutional and statutory restrictions from enacting or enforcing any laws related to that business.
4-In addition, I have been unable to confirm Waste Connections Common Carrier Status, which is required if the City allows them to monopolize garbage collection. So therefore I respectfully request that the City Council table the aforementioned item and execute proper due diligence prior to taking action. I realize that this is not the order in which you normally conduct business, however you have to agree that tabling the item is the responsible thing to do.
Thank you for your time.
Post a Comment