We are currently considering changes to the committee system. Some changes are obvious and simple, while others are more complex. Here are a few highlights of the proposals:
1. Define standing committees and temporary committees
2. Eliminate Water Rights, Telecommunications, Municipal Services Agreement, Law Enforcement, Citizens Utility Advisory committees
3. Create new committees to oversee city departments such as Public Works and Emergency Services
4. Direct the Parks and Recreation Committee to focus on developing a city park and turn the recreation program over to faith based and/or volunteer groups
5. Offer training to each committee once per year
6. Decide if relatives or members of the same household should be allowed on the same committee.
7. Require committee members to be registered to vote in Cascade Locks.
What do you think of these proposals? What other ideas do you have to add to this re-organization?
The council has started the process of renegotiating the contract with the Hood River County Sheriff. Currently the Sheriff's office requires the taxpayers of Cascade Locks to pay extra for patrols in our city. The Sheriff has demanded a fee increase of more than 10 percent. We had budgeted enough to pay for three eight hour shifts before this increase. The taxpayers in places like Parkdale and Odell do not pay extra for their patrols. It appears that the taxpayers in Cascade Locks are the only taxpayers in the county that are asked to pay twice for this service. In a neighboring county with a similar population, Wasco County, the Sheriff's Office patrols the entire county including cities. The city of Maupin, less than half the size of Cascade Locks, has a branch of the Wasco County Sheriff's Office in their downtown and a deputy assigned full time.
Should we expect the Sheriff to patrol the entire county? Is this another example of Hood River refusing to extend tax payer funded services to Cascade Locks? Is it time to develop more self-sufficiency and reduce the reliance on Hood River? On the contrary, should we go ahead and pay the extra fees they demand for Sheriff services? Is three days enough? Should we consider adding more days of patrol at even greater cost to our taxpayers? Do you consider Cascade Locks to be a high-crime area compared to the rest of the county? If so, what responsibility does the County Sheriff have to providing protection services to our community?
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.
54 comments:
Given the problems with the utility bills this year there should be an oversight committee and/or audit of that department. Too many people were hurt financially and there was little to no cooperation from City Hall.
We should be our own county, with our own school district. It may seem far fetched, but as long as we continue to be a "thorn in the side" of HR county we will have to fight for everything we get. There are residents in HR who even believe we are getting the short end of the stick! I disagree with those who say "people move here not expecting services" More retirees are moving to CL. They want to feel safe with police protection and full time EMS coverage. This is a city and people do expect services! Stevenson has only 100 to 200 citizens more than us, they have all the services they need, why should we expect less?
Wouldn't it make sense to wait and see what happens with approval of the resort/casino before making a decision on police protection locally? As to the EMS, a report was commissioned by the city at the request of citizens, it pointed out the need for another paid EMS person, why pay $5000.00 for an evaluation and not take the advice it gives? As to the committees that's just rearranging the furniture, it doesn't really matter.
Turning a city program and money over to a faith based program will be controversial, which faith do you have in mind?
Can you name anyone on a committee who does not reside in Cascade Locks, and why should they be registered to vote, is voting to become a litmus test? Just a few quick thoughts, Lance....
Robb
Robb,
Your flat wrong about the report pointing out the need for another EMS. Go read the minutes of the meeting the report was made at.
8 hours a day, 7 days a week is not "full time" EMS protection. It's 1/3 time. 7X8=56 hours coverage...7X24=168 hours in a week.
Hello Anonymous.....
You're correct that it calls for a part time EMS, that's what I meant, not a second full time person.
Robb
Wouldn't it make sense to wait and see what happens with denial of the resort/casino before making a decision on police protection locally? Because we may not need it, and certainly won't be able to afford it.
Rob:
If someone doesn't care enough about our town to register to vote, they don't care enough to be on a committee.
Hello Anonymous.....
Approximately 5 years ago I was campaigning door to door here in town, I ran across a family who for religious reasons did not participate in the electoral process. Should their beliefs be a reason to not be able to serve? I suspect you could make that argument, my own feeling is that if someone wants to be of service to the community they should be able to. How they approach their voting right is a private issue, at least to me. I don't think someone would volunteer their time unless they cared for the community. It can be quite trying and contentious. I'd be interested in hearing what others think about it.
Robb
Robb
Robb = Wrong
Wrong on Fire hall statement
Wrong for council
Wrong for Port
Wrong as Skinhead policing vigilante.
wrong, wrong, wrong
Quit campaigning Robb, it's not your blog
Skinhead policing is a little harsh, you know... but he does seem to be making those expansive statements to prove he is just right for office, any office, anywhere He'll fit anywhere, he'll change, he has changed, he'll vote just the way you want. Please just elect him, whoever you are, and whatever you want.
He thinks people only volunteer because they care about this community. Personal agenda? He's never heard of it.
Rather than attacking Robb, why don't you share your opinion about what is right? Try to do it without attacking someone else.
What is the right Fire hall statement?
What is right for the council?
What is right for the Port?
What is the right kind of Skinhead policing vigilante?
Do you have any thoughts on what is right for committee reform or policing services?
In a sense, this is Robb's blog because he is sharing his ideas about issues in Cascade Locks. By the same token, it could be your blog too.
It doesn't matter what we say
you vote as you want anyway
That consultants also said that we would eventually have to join with a larger regional system, and soon. People keep ignoring that part, and just keep quoting the part that supports what they want.
Several years ago we joined with Hood River FD, it was a rough go, there were morale issues, and the costs for Hood River were so high that they gave up on the idea and turned the fire department/ambulance service back over to Cascade Locks. We've proven that we can run fire and ambulance more economically than Hood River. I for one would not want to go through those issues a second time. Lance is correct, it's a shame that anonymous has to take cheap shots while remaining anonymous, reminds me of the guys who wore white sheets down south 70 years ago, they were also anonymous.
Robb
Lance
Not mentioned is the mayor to appoint committee members.
Also if I remember number 7 here, should be, should there be residency requirements or otherwise to serve on a committee.
I realize that the council did discuss being a registered voter to serve but the residency issue was left open to further discussion as time was limited for full discussion of all the issues in this workshop.
Cody
I think with HDFD, things have changed. They have more staff now, for one, and also a new chief. I think the regional approach makes more sense, opens up more training opportunities for local volunteers as well.
Andy
Hmm, so 70 years ago there was a band of anonymous, white hood wearing folks who went around insulting people? I hadn't heard about them....
I did read something about people being lynched (hung by their neck, you know, killed) by what must have been a copycat organization that just went overboard.
I'm sure the author isn't comparing his treatment to being lynched, as I'm sure some would find that offensive. Especially if they had a relative who might have fallen victim to this racial hatred.
Okay, I'm jealous. Lance definitely has the sexier subject this time. When do we start this official lynching committee? Can I consider this official notice and sent my letter to the Mayor? It's not on channel 23 yet.
Can't someone come over to my blog and insult Robb? Please?
cross of church and state?
as long as religeous preferance doesnt effect lawful adjustments,
or prefrence to government
volenteer time is so valuable cherish it
honor those who do it
encourage others to join
robb you cant use history to base fact, its against the "rules"
"This is a city and people do expect services! Stevenson has only 100 to 200 citizens more than us, they have all the services they need, why should we expect less?"
we are not the county seat
stop following the jonses
dagg
Pontificate anonymously(ores for example), no risk, no reward.
Put your name on it to build a campaign platform.....be on the look out for the guys in white hoods
Nauseated,
Lance didn't delete your comment, somehow I did?
When slick turns to slime the holes get harder to plug. LANCE FANCY PANTS and the NEEDY SCARY KERI have the question all worked out, so why is he asking? It's a done deal! A vote sold and a job for hubby. It is a clumsy dirty dance by a devious dirty duo.
I really love hearing all of this interesting discourse. "Lets wait and see what happens with the casino...," what kind of mentality is this? Sorry if this sounds like an attack. I really do not want to sound negative. I am about solutions. I agree with Lance, its time for opinions, thoughts, and creative thinking instead of this bashing of the city administrator, city councilors, city staffers, and people like Robb.
Kate, you are right! Creating a regional system is a better thing. I have talked to some fire people about this and they have said that regionalization would eliminate overhead and create a cost share and balance of services for all. Unfortunately there are others in this community that do not want to see this. I voted for the fire district because I believed that it would serve as a first step towards the regionalization, but others could not see the bigger picture and faltered with their votes based on conjecture and bad information. One could go both ways on this issue. We could lose local control, add another layer of government, but in the other hand we would potentially reduce cost, increase the level of service and have better equipped and trained volunteers. Getting the RIGHT information is the key.
On that same thought, one can not compare services across the river to cascade locks. We need all three services. I think we need an increase in all three services. I think the community NEEDS to pay for these services and not create tax limiting measures that restrict the city's abilities to adequately provide the services. While we are in tough economic times as many bloggers post, the city seems to have a history of not looking to the future and planning for the citizens needs. Sometimes (and while most will not agree) the council has to make decisions that most will not like. Most people are only interested in themselves or how things affect them. Kind of selfish if you ask me, not the American way. Also, the council has the best information to make those decisions. They are supposed to look 5, 10 or more years out. An investment now could pay off in dividends in the future. The way I see it, its time to start investing more in our infrastructure. Our past councils have not done a very good job of planning. I look at our aging water system and horrible streets to name a few. The only way things will change is if we invest. I have children whom I do not want to lay a burden upon. It is not fair that we shirk our responsibilities and let the next generation pay for it. I am willing to pay my part are you?
As dagg pointed out, Stevenson does have all of the services.... but they pay for it. They (the city) pay city taxes and then they pay a tax for the ambulance (hospital district). If you look at our tax structure, we DO NOT pay for very much. In the last ten years the cost of living has gone up, but what about the tax rate. It hasn't. The established rate or $2.705 hasn't changed. Property values have gone up, yes; additionally bonds for schools, the college and other things have come and gone, but the tax rate has not kept up with inflation. So, ultimately we need to start paying more otherwise we will have to start cutting more. Please don't cut police, fire or medical. Those services are as important as our water, sewer and electricity. The big difference between our community and others is they pay for what they get. We expect a lot an don't pay for it....
Andy, I think you are spot on too. However, and I pose this question to all you bloggers, have you talked to the volunteers and queried their thoughts. I think its time that we start listening to our professionals. Do you really think some of them are willing to throw their careers away. The CA has a west point lineage, and other city staffers are proven in their fields of knowledge. I haven't seen any of them do anything terribly wrong. Humans are not infallible so cut them some slack. If you think you can do better then why don't you have the degrees, why don't you put in for the jobs?
Lance, thanks for trying hard to make for positive change. I think all of your proposals have merit. I think your recommendations should be implemented. Involvement of citizen committees and departments might give the council a better feel and guidance on making decisions. I caution you though. I sat at home and watched on TV at what happened the last time a committee made a recommendation at the request of the council, it was ignored... both options. However, if council was to take a proactive approach by a little reorganization, I think it might help. Maybe it will install more trust with the community / council and the community / staff. I think we really need to work on this. The key though will be to not falter after recommendations are made. As for the law enforcement. I think we should not pay the requested 10%. I think we should pay what we did last year. I think the sheriff needs to do a better job of providing us with details of what they are doing in our community. CM Osborne had started to push this but it fell through the cracks. Does the city have to LEAGALLY provide police? If we do then we are either stuck with the sheriff or maybe we should look at the hood river pd, or Troutdale or some other agency. If the city is not required to provide police then I say we start making waves with the sheriff to provide the coverage he is required to do. Why just limit ourselves to the sheriff. If what you say is true about Maupin, then I say we stand firm. Thanks Lance for providing this opportunity.
Last but not least; Robb, I'll vote for you!
-Riverside Concerned-
While I'm of the opinion that it would serve the City better to join with Hood River FD, I do not believe that means to get rid of the Fire Chief. I think he should remain in that position, whether the title would change is another matter. I think being part of a larger organization would offer him more support as well. Just my two cents.
On the committee reorganization, quite frankly, I'm baffled as to why we have so many and I'm not sure I even understand what half of them do?
Lance, could you shed some light on this ?
as to the wait and see attitude
do you wait for gas prices to drop before you fill up?
if we wait to resolve these issues our town will die, people will move they have no reason to stay!
no education
no police
no medical services
no affordable housing
higher taxes with no support services
lets get the state to check and balance the county services they are required to provide us under our tax agreement.
as a comunity we have not the push to resolve these major concerns
we have no choice but to push for a stronger hand to help
dagg
The one statement that comes up time after time is that we do not know what services the city is required to provide. When I researched the Fire Dept., I spoke with a state fire marshal and was told there is no required level of service, and no required provider. It is solely up to ourselves to decide that.
The other thing I would like to mention is that these stories of past problems with both Stevenson and Hood River (county or city?) are just that, in the past. Their levels and efficiency of service have changed just as ours has. We need to re-visit consolidation and regionalization. Fires don't recognize service boundaries. Don't confuse mutual aid agreements with regionalization and its benefits.
The HR News reported on Bernard's flood of information requests concerning the deputy's call volume. If this info is pertinent on the police calls, wouldn't it also be pertinent on the FD calls as well?
How many of those 392 calls were false alarms or instances were services were refused?
Andy,
In general, the way I see it, the committees exist to provide assistance to the city council and staff. The committees make recommendations to council as part of the legislative decision making process. The committees help the staff work toward achieving the goals of the city. Being on a committee is seen as a way for citizens to be involved in the process of governing our city.
It is true that there are lots of committees currently. However, only five are permanently created by ordinance. These are Budget, Planning, Tourism and Beautification, Museum and Parks and Recreation. The others have been created at various points to fill a need for advising council and helping the staff. Some of these committees do not meet regularly and some do not have members anymore. One of the recommendations has been to eliminate most of the committees that are not created by ordinance. If you look at the list of these, you see some specific issues. For example, the way I understand it, the Municipal Services Agreement Committee was formed to pursue, analyze and recommend an agreement with the Warm Springs Tribes as part of the negotiations to bring the Casino project to Cascade Locks. I think we have completed that agreement. Consequently we could eliminate the committee, or we could keep it around to ensure oversight of the agreement. In any case, the council will decide what, if any, changes to make to the committee system. I hope that answered some of your questions.
Lance
IT"S TOURISM. There is no "and anything!!!!!!!!"
TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.TOURISM.
STOP USING A NAME THAT DOES NOT EXIST JUST TO EXCUSE YOUR VOTING TO USE THE MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TOURISM.
SATOAR,
First, I used the name to refer to the committees that were created by ordinance, not to excuse anything. Second, maybe you should have a look at Ordinance number 259. That is the ordinance that created the Tourism and Beautification Committee. I can email a copy to you (lmasters@clbb.net) or you can request one from City Hall. The name does exist. We do not have a “TOURISM Committee.” Finally, I agree with you about the vote for landscaping. I don’t excuse that error, but it will be corrected. We need to spend more money on promoting tourism.
Get real - River person. Are you running for office too? The reason the previously proposed fire district was defeated is that it was based on a pile of faulty information. (Much like the firehouse project or any presentation the fire chief makes). If we had hired a qualified person with a solid work history things might be different.
It seems many of you have flawed reasoning regarding our police coverage. I suspect some of these expectations are based on individuals personal needs and may not be realistic for this community. Are you sure CL is the INCORPORATED city you want to live in?
Get it? "INCORPORATED CITY"
This means CL receives citizens tax dollars to provide police service. If we want the same level of service as Parkdale or Odell, then we can cease to be incorporated (a legal process decided by the majority of the voters). Those tax dollars would then go to the county to cover equivalent services.
Wake up folks la la land is imploding. A little less creativity and a little more reality is long overdue.
Okay some more information on police coverage - if we want the same level as Stevenson and HR then we need to ante up our tax dollars to pay for police coverage which is currently being paid in CL by tourism or TRT dollars and very little if any tax dollars. We must compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges the only other incorporated city in HR county is Hood River with a large enough tax base to pay for adequate protection. There are advantages to being a city and there are also responsibilities, incorporated or unincorporated whats your pleasure?
What do you think Cody?
"The reason the previously proposed fire district was defeated is that it was based on a pile of faulty information. (Much like the firehouse project or any presentation the fire chief makes). If we had hired a qualified person with a solid work history things might be different"
Any facts or details to back this up? or just empty thoughts?
"These are Budget, Planning, Tourism and Beautification, Museum and Parks and Recreation."
let us set the commitees as to their importance in future economic development
budget committee = council?
tourism committee and recreation committee are both in the same and are both factions of the planning committee
beautification committee and the parks committee are working for the same basic goals
museum committee should be a seperate issue due to its nonexistance
there should be a councilor appointed priority for each committee to keep the people informed
"The others have been created at various points to fill a need for advising council"
if the advice has been recieved the need for them should be reviewed and addressed promptly
only residency requirement for volunteers for you have the right to not vote
relatives or members of the same household should not be allowed on the same committee due to lack of conflicting ideals eliminating the ability for change.
dagg
Leave the budget committee alone. Ain't broke, don't fix it. Just remove family members.
Tourism and recreation are not the same. Recreation is for us, tourism brings people to us. They have different focus and different monies. TRT pays for tourism (rather... it is supposed to) and we pay for recreation. Neither of them have anything to do with planning!
There is no separate beautification committee, it was part of the tourism, but the second half of the name was dropped, probably when the funding changed.
Put the museum under tourism that is where it belongs and why isn't the Port paying for it to start with?
Councillors have enough to do with 5-and 6-hour meetings, budget committee and other sundry time requirements. Have the Committee chairs attend the Council meeting and report.
How are you going to require residency for services like Fire ad Electric when the service boundaries go outside of town limits?
You can register to vote and not have to vote. How else to prove the residency?
Totally agree about family members, even fiancees and sisters seem to have trouble lately separating their opinions.
bagg
Members of the same household shouldn't be on the same committee.
Council members shouldn't have immediate family on committees or working for the city. It's too easy for things look improper, regardless of the motivation.
Does this interest in committees reflect what's currently going on at city hall? If a committee recommends against a new paramedic, will staff and council listen, or will it keep coming back a third, fourth, fifth time?
Our town voted down the fire district proposal, our council put it last on it's list of goals, but it's still being implemented piece by piece at the cost of other services.
Don't bother with the "community putting safety first" garbage. Actions speak more clearly than words. This position is less important than: A command vehicle, A new building, An air compressor, A new fire truck, The title and pay of "Fire Chief" ect ect ect.
It's easy to applaud the minority fringe getting its way when your part of the group. The winds of change are blowing stronger and stronger, the opportunity to experience the other side of this equation could well be in your immediate future. Enjoy
"Tourism and recreation are not the same. Recreation is for us, tourism brings people to us."
tourists come here to recreate what makes you think they are different ideas for the motivation is the same (to keep poeple occupied while there here)?
why would you come here if there were nothing to do?
"Neither of them have anything to do with planning!"
direction in which to pursue to strengthen the desire to vacation here
"Put the museum under tourism that is where it belongs and why isn't the Port paying for it to start with?"
the only attractions here are controlled by the port
and smart one the museaum is in port house one
that is my point the port has control of our city history the city was here before the port was established, so as a city we should take control of our history and present it with pride
the port is not our historian
"How are you going to require residency for services like Fire ad Electric when the service boundaries go outside of town limits?"
"You can register to vote and not have to vote. How else to prove the residency?"
residency requirements for committee members and the proof is in the utility bills and your valid state id or license
"Council members shouldn't have immediate family on committees or working for the city. It's too easy for things look improper, regardless of the motivation."
family members are in employment of our city and it represents a serious conflict directly within the hireing proccess
are we so sure these people have the best qualifications of all those that applied for these positions
i was not aware that relation to family is a demanded qualification to work for the city of cascade locks
"As to the committees that's just rearranging the furniture, it doesn't really matter."
sometimes you just need to throw out the old chair and get a new one
the committees are supposed to convey the peoples wishes but when the goal is undetermined the group gets off track
recreation+beutification+museaum+
parks=TOURISM
why is it so confusing?
DAGG
Well since I was asked to respond Cobalt I will say I am waiting to see what comes up in public discussion as well as here and what the Sheriff has to say to council.
If what you say about the TRT tax paying for this I just sent council House Bill 2267 enacted in 2003, which amended the Room tax laws before and became the Oregon law today.
You can read it here.
http://pub.das.state.or.us/LEG_BILLS/PDFs/EHB2267.pdf
As it is now I have many questions so all I can do is address them individually.
There are few firm rules that dictate who is primarily responsible for addressing a particular public safety problem.
What rules, for example, dictate who is responsible for preventing and controlling retail theft? Is it the police? The shop? The consumer? The insurance carrier? The difficulty arises because every problem stems from a variety of sources, each of which can plausibly be said to bear some responsibility for its remediation.
Much depends on who possesses the skill, knowledge, authority, and resources to implement changes that will effectively reduce or control the problem. However, much also depends on who possesses the political power to avoid accepting responsibility—leaving to others, including the police, the responsibility for dealing with the problem. Although important, the full range of factors that determines legal and moral responsibility for public safety problems, as well as the processes and sources of authority under which such determinations are made.
Determining and assigning responsibility for addressing public safety problems has become ever more important as the general understanding of what causes problems and what best addresses them improves. Until better arrangements are made by our local government and in our society at large for determining and assigning such responsibilities, it will continue to fall to police to analyze public safety problems and to take the lead in apportioning responsibility for addressing them. Until them it is our cities responsibility to provide its citizens that protection under the law.
Public safety responsibility falls directly on our local government to provide.
I feel until council can answer who will be responsible for public policing safety by exploring all options that our community faces today it would be irresponsible to even consider cutting the limited policing we presently have.
As it appears that this cut is being proposed to hire an additional part time Paramedic and in comparing the total calls handled by the EMT department against the total calls handled by the Sheriff the balance of justice does not justify a cut yet would justify an increase in policing services or our City and it appears the city is getting more bang for the buck than we are paying for now.
Council knowing that critical data I feel would be irresponsible to propose a cut in services as well as not explore a solution to incident calls which according to the data are rising year by year.
As it was already pointed out by a previous poster we are an incorporated city. That takes away the County requirement to provide those services.
I am sure that Hood River County has budgeted not only for the pay of the officer whom provides this service to us but for all overhead associated with it such as the vehicle, maintenance, gas, additional training and the like. As it is today the Sheriffs budget is already paying for additional hours and time for jail transport, court appearances and the like that we are fortunate enough for that those costs are not passed along to us or patrol hours cut.
As it is the Sheriff’s department is facing their own budget problems so if I were council I would explore what effect this proposed cut will have on that budget. It may well be that the Sheriff budget may not be able to absorb any more of a loss to support this cut. I am sure the Sheriff must keep the deputy at a working level of at least 40 hours a week and below that level the Sheriff may have to decline the City offer and cut all services to us and lay off that deputy?
Then council must consider the public mood at this political intense time. The citizens are all concerned with how the city is going to pay for all the new expenditures’ to the fire EMT department.
I myself am outraged for instance looking at the new punch list expenditures’ above and beyond the bid. I see nothing there but mismanagement errors and items like $500.00 T.P. Paper holders I can buy for $30.00 to meet ADA requirements.
At this point I feel council needs to freeze any and all expenditures’ to that department until they figure out how to pay it off before adding more expenses.
Once again it has been left to our electrical department to cover this cost and over runs and Council borrowed that money on the assumption that they had 5 years to pay it off. The law says that there must be a payment arraignment in advance of the loan insuring repayment in the 5 years according to the law they used to borrow it. Not just 5 years to repay as it was done but according to a repayment plan.
I myself am tired of my electrical rates based on costs not associated with that direct business and this is where this is leading once again. I see just another hidden franchise fee in our rates coming.
Then I have heard on the streets that council is considering putting our Ordinance Enforcement Officer through EMT classes to be this part time EMT. If this is true this brings up a whole new set of problems which are being pointed out as a concern in this very blog. Way too many direct family members for a town our size, on council and working for the City at the same time. I myself now wonder how efficient that our City can operate without laws of Nepotism being broken? I know these people but have watched it progress from 1 to 4 now and it has been talked about on the street since it began. I see it starting to boil to the surface and am curious to see how they are going to deal with the fall back. Consurns I did not have before I now share with other citizens.
Another consideration is crime is rising yearly both violent and non violent. It has affected our community and will continue to do so. As our population raises so will the crime. At this moment a major corporation is exploring building a multimillion dollar job creation project here and we are still waiting to see if the Casino will actually become a reality. It seems to me the timing of this is in total contradiction to not only the needs of the city but the outlook the city would want to give any business wanting to set up shop here.
Our country is facing the worse economic meltdown in decades. Jobs are being lost not only around the country but even our very city along with bedroom community citizens’ whom are losing their jobs. When people face the loss of their lively hoods these lead to other problems which will require police. These problems will range from domestic assault,alcohol, drugs to theft to feed families. Has council considered these problems?
Then we face international problems which could affect our city. There are extremists out there whom want nothing more to wipe us from the face of the earth. Do not say it cannot happen here as it already was discovered in Stevenson right after 911 and the police there learned of it and arrested the extremists. We live just a few miles from a major strategic electrical infrastructure target. I myself want the real police here to have a presence and if the time came I would feel so much more comfortable taking up arms with the police than with council as I would have better faith at least thinking they could shoot as well as I can and have the same types of weapons to handle such a threat should it occur.
Now Bobby Walker had some viable alternatives he mentioned at the last council meetings. I would like Council to direct the budget committee to explore all options if they feel such a need for an additional paramedic is needed. I feel that this issue should go to the budget committee for any and all recommendations on not only this but a viable solution to pay the fees we have now with no responsible plan on how to pay for them.
I understand that council is just responding to this matter from a Fire and EMT study that was recently completed and presented to the previous council. It would seem to me that council would want to have a study done on public safety from a police perspective before just deciding to cut police coverage.
As it is now and has been for years our very council has tied the hands of the Sheriff to effectively fight crime. Council by contract controls the days and hours of the patrols. These do not change and every citizen knows when the Sheriff is on duty and when he is not. Does council really think that the criminals do not know this information? Between this knowledge and a police scanner our city is nothing but a target for criminals and do you wonder why it is our very businesses and citizens seem to get robbed in the days and hours our city has no police presence. So with 168 hours in a week and 40 hours of coverage is it not an oxymoron in itself to consider cutting this public safety service the city has a responsibility to provide?
Until I have more information from council you like I will just have to wait to truly respond and consider not only my concerns but all issues on this blog.
Cody
if i remember correctly, our contract with the county sheriff was for additional coverage to increase the presence in our comunity
we voted to pay the additional cost to the county and open an office at city hall
this was to offset the expenses of the additional days needed for full time sheriff coverage in our part of the county
this was not designed to give us only the time we could afford but to offset the expences to give us more coverage.
officer Yoshaharah, i believe, is the officer assigned to cascade locks at the time in question
officer/detective Baker, i believe, is the officer who took over during the changes in opinion as to what contracted coverage we were actually entitled
now we only get what we pay for and inflation has taken control of our police coverage and the county sheriff wants cascade locks to burden the expenses of coverage for this part of the county
option
ignore their demands
cancel existing contract
demand county coverage
negotiate supplimental coverage
option
board of emergency services
police department
fire department
trauma response
ambulance transport
dagg
"option
ignore their demands
cancel existing contract
demand county coverage
negotiate supplemental coverage"
This is not an option as we are a city and as a city we get the tax dollars that the sheriff WOULD get if we were not an incorporated city. Parkdale and Odell DO NOT get their tax dollars to spend the way that they want to. The tax dollars that they pay go directly to the county - are we getting the picture here? Cascade Locks gets the tax dollars that they pay therefor we are required to pay for police coverage IT IS NOT AN OPTION!!!! but really we need to remember that hardly if any of our tax dollars are paying for police coverage it is almost completely being paid by tourism dollars.
I would think that the question we should all be asking ourselves is what services are the city providing for the taxes that we pay? And before you say water, sewer, and electricity those are paid for by rates not taxes.
Thanks Cody for your reply thanks too for channel 2 :-)
Would anyone be interested in signing a letter addressed to the council stating that we do NOT want the staffing levels of the deputies to go down and that we understand that there will be a cost rise?
Can we protect ourselves this way considering that as we are an incorporated city we are required by law to provide our citizens with law enforcement services, and if we do not contract with the Sheriff's Office, we are required by law to provide such services and that it will cost a sh*t load more?
Interested? It will have to be prior to the next Council meeting on May 11th.
Kate
I have already expressed my views on this issue to coumcil by e-letter.
I would hope every concerned citizen would do the same.
A simple email to all Council Members and the City Administrator is all I use to ensure my voice is heard. Certified-return receipt of course insures it is a part of the record.
Your idea is a good one to reach out to those whom may have concerns or whom do not understand the issue.
Your idea would be a good platform for those citizens.
Posting this at the store or the post office might reach out to those whom otherwise may not bother to draft their own letter.
If I see one posted and is drafted with my concerns or others I may not realize I will certainly sign it.
Cody
Cody:
Doesn't it bother you that Randy never reads his emails?
I know a couple of Randy’s here. Neither of them uses email presently.
One does not have a computer and is too stubborn and set in his way to learn and the other cannot afford the extra gas to operate the power source to fire up his computer.
So what’s the point for me to send emails to either one or is it you sent a message and are asking me to have the one check his email?
Please clarify
Cody
Oh there is also councilman Holmstrom.
It is not that he does not answer them it is just that his email gives me these messages.
Hi. This is the qmail-send program at 24hoursupport.com.
I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
raholmstrom@clbb.net
user is over quota
Another words his e-mail box is to full and needs cleaned out.
As far as making me mad if this is the Randy you are talking about then no it does not.
Each time I get these errors I send them to Bernard and as of the past few weeks nothing has changed and the same errors.
I also make sure to ask Bernard to insure Randy gets my messages along with the errors.
To insure council gets your messages you can just certify your messages to council and turn them in. Then you will know whom reads them or who just recives them or whom does not receive them at all. All those apply with our city government.
Other than that I look at it this way. If I attempt to express myself to council and Randy does not get them because his mailbox is to full then I inform the city of the problem and if it is still not corrected I have done my job and it seems to me that just maybe this council person does not care about his job and I know where that next vote will go.
If he has not been forwarded these messages and does not get them I at least tried.
So look at it this way and don’t get mad. If he makes a mistake for lack of knowledge then he is personally liable on all levels.
But for now I will leave it to my conclusion being he must not give a yahoo about it which seems not only to be my opinion but yours as well.
It would also seem to me that you know something from the city level as no one knows but Bernard and I that I know of about my problems getting emails to Randy.
?
So how did you know as this is my first disclosure of this other than to Bernard?
Very interesting.
Cody
Can I criticize the poll? I notice that the first choice is different from the other three. it involves things that are tourist-y good for our city, but doesn't indicate any percentage of the TRT that should be spent. The other three choices are clear and concise. They ask how much we should spend, not what should we spend it on.
Fair enough Kate. The assumption with the poll was that if you chose the first option, you were indicating that no restrictions should be placed on how TRT dollars are spent so long as the investment is in something, "touristy good." The paragraph above the poll sort of touches on that, but perhaps it wasn't clear. In any case it is clear that the people who are answering the poll favor spending more on tourism promotion.
A couple of Days ago I was talking to a person in town whom seems to have a handle on things here.
I have read what he has posted and did not really understand until now.
He sent me some addresses in an email I asked for and I want to share them with everyone.
Right now I am only going through the beginnings of all this information he sent me and I want to share this with everyone.
I had to read this a couple of times but I understand it a little better now.
I know this has nothing to do with this subject but it has to do with everything I am learning.
http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/PTD/docs/local-b/504-406.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/PTD/docs/local-b/504-420.pdf
http://www.oregon.gov/DOR/PTD/docs/local-b/504-073.pdf
I also have all the forms that these articles refer to and if someone is interested just say so and I will send the rest of the web addresses.
"what responsibility does the County Sheriff have to providing protection services to our community?
The answer is none... unless he gets our tax dollars. We are an incorporated city and pay nothing into the Sheriff's budget.
The Sheriff's budget comes from the County. Every resident whether in an incorporated city or not pays property tax to the county. They take our tax dollars and then they ask us to pay again for the service.
We get the same amount of patrol time as any other area of the county. We pay extra for the extra hours extended to us by the Sheriff's dept. This is not paying twice for the same thing nor are we being taken advantage of. If we want extra time we can contract with any agency, be it H/R cty Sheriff, the city of H/R, or Multnomah County Sheriff. We could also initiate a local city police dept. What ever we decide to do will cost money above and beyond what the Sheriff's office allocates to us now.
We had a good deal and BS had to play money-shuffler just one more time to pay for the new, too-big fire station. Then we got KJ and LM to jump on the bandwagon get more hours for hubby. Now, BS is just trying to play CYA and asking Hood River City (which is 2 positions short and under a suit for sexual harassment) to give us an estimate.
He blew a good deal, he pushed Joe Wampler and got pushed back. We will never again get as good of a deal from the Sheriff's office.
I'm definitely watching the shoot-out tonight. The next fun match will be the Port vs. the City on Tuesday at the Marine Pavilion. That one won't be televised and you better bet that it concerns our future as a community.
Post a Comment