Business and the Law

In a time of economic turmoil, most people feel that Cascade Locks is fortunate to have several businesses looking to move to our town. Nestle Waters has opened an office next to the post office and seems willing to locate a factory near the industrial park. They are negotiating to get the city to sell spring water to them. It appears there will be some modifications to our water rights if this will happen. Additionally, there is an artisan foundry business ready to locate in our commercial district. It appears that the city will need to make some minor changes to our code to allow this as a conditional useage. The question we should discuss and answer is: what should be the city council's role in bringing businesses to town. Should council actively attract business? Should the city expedite the bureaucratic hurdles to help the businesses interested in moving here? Should we make it harder or easier for a business to set up shop in Cascade Locks?

Nine months ago, Cascade Locks went through a vetting process to examine alternatives in our legal representation. A new law firm was chosen. Recently there has been some discussion about altering or altogether changing this service. The topic of interest seems to be the cost associated with an attorney in attendance at every council meeting. Until nine months ago, it was standard for our city council meetings to include an attorney. With our new firm, attorney attendance has been excused more often than not. It has been expained that requiring our new firm to be at every meeting would double the amount we currently expect to pay for legal services. This is due in part to travel costs and hourly rates. Many people know that our meetings often approach five hours in length. Further, we know that most cities our size do not have an attorney attending their meetings. The question for discussion is: what legal representation should the city council have. Should it be at every meeting? Should it be once a month? Should it be on an as-needed basis? Or, do you trust our staff and councilors to interpret and apply the law for themselves?

ODOT and The Forest Service

Two bureaucratic giants have descended on our little city. Should we placate them and hope they leave us alone, or should we stand up to them?

ODOT has decided to repave Interstate 84 from Multnomah Falls to Herman Creek. They plan to begin in August and continue for 15 months. We don't know when they will be through Cascade Locks, but it is clear we will hear it when they arrive. They will be grinding, pounding and hammering all night every night. Their average decibel production will be at least twice what is allowed by our ordinances. They are asking us to waive the noise ordinance. In exchange, they are offering to have a noise meter with them at the work site. If they use it, ODOT will be able to tell us how loud their noise is. I have asked the council to consider requesting further concessions or mitigation from this agency. How do you think we should handle this issue?

The U.S. Forest Service allows our electric utility use a right of way for sending electricity to customers who live outside of city limits. Historically this has been a nominal fee - estimated at around $600 per year. This year, for the first time since 1974, the Forest Service has raised the fee to over $4600 and it will be well over $5000 next year. Even without the fee increase, we have been told that our electric department makes less money than we spend in sending electricity over this land. Now that deficit will grow. The Forest Service is one of our out of town customers. Their fee used to be slightly less than their electric bill. Now it is way above the electric bill. Our city's policy is that we don't raise fees without a vote - even fees that have been around for more than a quarter century. Could we hold the Forest Service to this standard? What, if any, options do we have other than accepting and paying the bill? Is it worth pursuing?