Happy New Year's Issue

What is your new year's resolution for the city of Cascade Locks? What changes would you like to see by this time next year? What is your vision for the future of our city?

December Issues 2008 - Part Two

1. The Budget Committee recently met to discuss possible ways to pay the loan the city has used to pay for the construction of the newest building in town. It appears that the budget committee has identified two new options in addition to the staff recomendation of reducing the Ordinance Enforcement position by half. Both new options include reducing the Parks and Recreation budget by half and limiting the Ordinance Enforcement position to under 20 hours per week - thus eliminating the expense of paying benfits for that position.
The first option additionally includes paying for the loan with an increase of internal payments charged to city utilities. The increase would be from 5% to 5.9%.
The other option additionally includes postponing the hiring of a part-time paramedic and using the money that was budgeted for that position to pay for the loan.
The question is which of the three options do we support? What other feasible options could be explored? Should this decision be made by the current council or the new council?

2. It has been suggested that our committee system could use an overhaul or at least some restructuring. This might be as simple as establishing some procedural guidelines for a few of the committees. We might further address guidelines and establish mission statements for all of the committees. It may be as complex as re-organizing our entire committee system including eliminating, combining and/or adding some commitees. What changes do you see as necessary or advisable? What guidelines would you recommend for our committees? Is developing a mission statement for each committee a resonable idea? Are there some specific committees that you feel should be considered for this process? Are there some that should not be part of this process?

3. Council may soon be deciding how to address a shortfall in the fund we use to pay for our street lights. A fee increase passed by council in March addressed this shortfall. However, as many of us know, a recent amendment to our city charter repealed all fee increases passed since January 2008. Thus the shortfall was created in the recent election. Several options were presented at a council workshop. It has been determined that the money can be saved by turning off 57 streetlights. We could also spend money by subsidizing our streetlight fund with timber payment funds that were not expected when we created the budget. A long term option would be to refer the fee increase to voters in the next available election. Which option do you prefer? If streetlights are turned off, which ones do you recommend be turned off? Can we turn off the one right outside my bedroom window? Should the newer streetlights be the first to go? Is subsidizing the streetlight fund with timber payments a good policy? Are there any other options out there?

Please be reminded that our goal in this blog is to discuss issues and our different opinions of those issues. When we begin to refer to specific people we lose focus on the issues and the general dialogue degenerates - often into petty name calling. I don't like the idea of deleting posts, so please don't post comments that will be considered for deletion. Rather, please be encouraged to share your ideas and participate in a healthy discussion that includes mutual respect.