The nature of the encroachment upon American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer; it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue.The seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole of society.
John Adams
Congrats and thank you in advance to those elected. We appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time for us. Seems like a complete new era in local government. Almost like us citizens are taking an interest in, and responsibility for what is being done in our names. I like it! (yee haa) ;)
The City Council Agenda has been revised. It has been done in accordance with the law, 48 hour notice was. However, it was done late on 05-20-11 Friday.
The item that was added is:
Item D. Volunteer Fire Chief Position.
Source close to situation say they want to “restructure the Fire Department for cost saving reasons” The new appointee would be a current volunteer member. The volunteer has the ear of the Mayor and a select few council member.
Here's the "Hole in the Fence Gang" flipping our over a new business item that (for obvious reasons to anyone not trying to undermine the new government to start with) will go no where Monday night.
They will not "fire" Pricher, they may re-define his position after lengthy discussion, which will leave him open to be a full-time EMT. He may choose to quit, He threatens that every year anyway. The volunteers may choose to go with him but they"ll have to move to do that. Pretty drastic to me, but that is what happens with a personality cult.
This batch needs to grow up and stop screaming wolf every time something happens they don't like. This is at the most 10-12 people, out of town of a thousand, since when is 0.4% a majority? Volume does not make you right.
From: "Lorang Fine Art" To: "cindy farris" , "Rob Brostoff" , "Joanne Wittenberg" , sarahjknight@hotmail.com, mperkinsky44@yahoo.com, "Megan Webb" , "martha lamont" , jeffh51@earthlink.net, lynnekononen@hotmail.com Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:36:15 PM Subject: Fw: Fire Chief
I agree with Lynn, this council is out of control and not listening to the public! This should have been part of a town hall meeting, all of our ISO ratings will go up on our home owners insurance as well. Debora
From: Lynne Kononen Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:31 AM Subject: Fire Chief
We have been advised that there has been an addition to the City Council agenda on Monday evening. It is intended that they vote to make the Fire Chief job a volunteer position.
As a resident of Cascade Locks I am very concerned that this council is making decisions such as this without any consultation with the community. We are approaching fire season in the Gorge. We have already had our ordinance officer fired, so there is noone now to address ordinance violations, these include ordinances that control grass height, fire danger to properties etc....and this alone has the potential to endanger residences here in the City. Add to that our Fire Chief and PARAMEDIC being thrown out of his job, we could be looking at a very serious situation developing in town. It is also understood that if the Fire Chief goes, so do many of our volunteers....and where does that leave us? and our homes?
If you have any concerns about the future of our city, and where this council is taking us, please forward this email to any person you think may wish to know of the Councils intended action, and please try to attend the Council meeting Monday night so we can show these people that while they may not like the Fire Chief, we appreciate the work he does and do not approve of the plan to fire him. We want a paramedic, we want a Fire Chief and we want our homes and properties protected!
We hope to see as many people as possible at this meeting.
They are amazingly inept at revolution. We all know that the Kononen's don't care about the ISO rating, rather they care very strongly about having their personal EMT here.
320.350 Tax moratorium; exceptions; uses of revenues. (1) A unit of local government that did not impose a local transient lodging tax on July 1, 2003, may not impose a local transient lodging tax on or after July 2, 2003, unless the imposition of the local transient lodging tax was approved on or before July 1, 2003.
(2) A unit of local government that imposed a local transient lodging tax on July 1, 2003, may not increase the rate of the local transient lodging tax on or after July 2, 2003, to a rate that is greater than the rate in effect on July 1, 2003, unless the increase was approved on or before July 1, 2003.
(3) A unit of local government that imposed a local transient lodging tax on July 1, 2003, may not decrease the percentage of total local transient lodging tax revenues that are actually expended to fund tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities on or after July 2, 2003. A unit of local government that agreed, on or before July 1, 2003, to increase the percentage of total local transient lodging tax revenues that are to be expended to fund tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities, must increase the percentage as agreed.
(4) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a unit of local government that is financing debt with local transient lodging tax revenues on November 26, 2003, must continue to finance the debt until the retirement of the debt, including any refinancing of that debt. If the tax is not otherwise permitted under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, at the time of the debt retirement:
(a) The local transient lodging tax revenue that financed the debt shall be used as provided in subsection (5) of this section; or
(b) The unit of local government shall thereafter eliminate the new tax or increase in tax otherwise described in subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
(5) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply to a new or increased local transient lodging tax if all of the net revenue from the new or increased tax, following reductions attributed to collection reimbursement charges, is used consistently with subsection (6) of this section to:
(a) Fund tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities;
(b) Fund city or county services; or
(c) Finance or refinance the debt of tourism-related facilities and pay reasonable administrative costs incurred in financing or refinancing that debt, provided that:
(A) The net revenue may be used for administrative costs only if the unit of local government provides a collection reimbursement charge; and
(B) Upon retirement of the debt, the unit of local government reduces the tax by the amount by which the tax was increased to finance or refinance the debt.
(6) At least 70 percent of net revenue from a new or increased local transient lodging tax shall be used for the purposes described in subsection (5)(a) or (c) of this section. No more than 30 percent of net revenue from a new or increased local transient lodging tax may be used for the purpose described in subsection (5)(b) of this section. [2003 c.818 §11]
And I can hardly wait until Monday when your conniving gang tries to claim that you all get to talk, and The Mayor enforces the rule that if you're a group, and you are all going to say the same thing you must appoint one person only to talk for you, because I also sent him the email.
You guys sure can dish it out but you can't take it.
Unless you are willing to put your name to what you say don't say anything at all. Also befor you start commenting make sure you have talked with both sides. Remember there is your side, thier side, and the truth. What it boils down to is our local govement makeing choices that is in the best intrest of this town? Or thier own? Most of the Council has never been to the fire station late a lone gone down there and talk to the Firfighters. No mater how many times they have been asked to. With that said is our Council realy looking at the whole picture?
Of course you would agree, Melissa. You and Craig are related. Like most of this benighted burg.
I am so tired of the fire dept. volunteers only showing up at Council meetings when it concerns only their (learn to spell, Craig) narrow interests. Why do they insist the VOLUNTEER Council Members give up even more of their time to go to the station to massage their fragile little egos? Ever think that no matter how many times the Chief gives his song and dance about the station and the volunteers that some citizens can't help but think of what that ugly building costs us?
Why are none of you on the Budget Committee if you are so concerned?
Craig and Melissa, I hope that you are not repeating hearsay. Did you actually speak to the council members and ask them if they have spoken to firefighters? I happen to know that they have been talking to some of them, maybe not everyone of them and they have visited the fire hall. You are questioning the council for doing things in their own best interest instead of the interest of the city. What I see them trying to do is to work through a process to create a sound and stable city that pays its debts. The last council and administration created debts and took out loans that need to be paid back according to the budget law. No payments have been made to pay this debt, if you have any other ideas on how this can be achieved please let us know. There are no secret agendas. The majority of the voters elected your council, they wanted a change from the last administration and have put their trust in this council as do I. If you have concerns you should go to the meetings and ask questions or call up your council and ask them. There are so many rumors being spread and many people are not happy that budget committee is asking questions and digging into the budget. However I feel it is our job to ask those questions and scrutinize the budget. Many mistakes have been found in the budget this year, in the past it would have just been rubber stamped and passed without question. Policy is not being followed, budget law is not being upheld. We need to get our city back into compliance of the law and create stable funds. We need to stop wasting the tax payers money and have an efficient use of city funds, in order for the city to provide essential services to its residents.
Allegations were brought forth by some Budget Committee and Council members that the City was doing illegal action in concerns with an interfund loan (ie the Fire Dept) in accordance with the ORS. Lee Peterson of the Oregon Department of Revenue responded to the allegations. The response outlines allegations that a Ms. Sullenger made. Lee Peterson found that the allegations were without merit. Peterson further explained that several items that were quoted from the ORS were only quoting a portion of a statute. “It is a well-established rule of the courts that, when interpreting statutory language, consideration must be given to ALL of the words that the legislature included. One cannot simply disregard some of the statue if it does not fit one’s purpose. Therefore, I find the allegation that the loan violated ORS 294.460 (1) (C) TO BE WITHOUT MERIT” Peterson did, however, say that Resolution #1153 was for a term of five years and three have passed and no repayment has been made. He urges the Council to consider how and when the loan will be repaid. With that one now would say see I told you so the city did something illegal! The past council did have a repayment plan, the sale of the old Fire Hall. The same building that had a buyer for it, until a few concerned citizens opposed the sale because the buyer wanted to rent the modular building out as an apartment for a temporary source of income until the property was redeveloped.
Dear just saying, Maybe you should do a little more research before commenting. There is a letter dated May 10 to Marianne Bump from Sandi King who is in the same department as Lee Peterson at the Department of Revenue that states " ORS 294.460 (1) allows a district to make a capital loan from one fund to any other fund as long as the monies are not statutorily restricted." You can call Sandi or Lee at the Department of Revenue at 503-302-5837. I have spoken to both of them and neither has read the ORS's in question, which are 294.460, 225.250 and 225.270. The Department of Revenue does not deal with restricted municipal utilities therefore they cannot assume or make opinions in this matter. Lee Peterson commented on my letter only stating a portion of the ORS. However he failed to state that the two page ORS was attached to my letter along with copies of the rest of the ORS's in question. In his response he says I did not cite any statues and in his next paragraph he talks about the ORS that I cited, you can't have it both ways. Mr. Peterson also replys to an ORS 222.250 which is the incorrect number. Mr. Carson stated that he sent the ORS's to Mr. Peterson however Peterson told me this morning over a phone conversation that he did not read them. As for the sale of the old fire hall, the city misrepresented the use of the building to the interested buyer. When the truth came out the buyer did not want any part of it. I know this because I spoke to the buyer and read the letter from the city and planner John Morgan misrepresenting its use. The city did have a plan to sell the old fire hall but their plan was to sell it for over twice the appraised value, not very realistic. The only person who was interested in the fire hall was not going to pay any where near the $450,000. needed to pay off the loan. Don't listen to the rumor mills go get the information yourself it is all public record at city hall.
20 comments:
This was passed on to me.
To pass onto you.
http://hoodriverbizbuzz.com/
Election Results as of 9:20pm
Port Position 1
Rob Brostoff 56
Samantha Verschuren 65
Port Position 2
Donna Mohr 95
write-in 8
Port Position 3
Brenda Cramblett 73
Gail Lewis 49
Cascade Locks School Dist.
Sue Ryan 1,280
Kari Goben 1,207
write-in 48
Congrats and thank you in advance to those elected. We appreciate your willingness to volunteer your time for us.
Seems like a complete new era in local government. Almost like us citizens are taking an interest in, and responsibility for what is being done in our names.
I like it!
(yee haa) ;)
Don't forget what is being spent in our names.
Truth is I'm lost and don't know what to think. I believe we might finally "Ban Ridiculousness" but how will I know?
Maybe Gail, Robb and BS could help light the way, or not.
The City Council Agenda has been revised. It has been done in accordance with the law, 48 hour notice was. However, it was done late on 05-20-11 Friday.
The item that was added is:
Item D. Volunteer Fire Chief Position.
Source close to situation say they want to “restructure the Fire Department for cost saving reasons” The new appointee would be a current volunteer member. The volunteer has the ear of the Mayor and a select few council member.
Any thoughts Cody?
Here's the "Hole in the Fence Gang" flipping our over a new business item that (for obvious reasons to anyone not trying to undermine the new government to start with) will go no where Monday night.
They will not "fire" Pricher, they may re-define his position after lengthy discussion, which will leave him open to be a full-time EMT. He may choose to quit, He threatens that every year anyway. The volunteers may choose to go with him but they"ll have to move to do that. Pretty drastic to me, but that is what happens with a personality cult.
This batch needs to grow up and stop screaming wolf every time something happens they don't like. This is at the most 10-12 people, out of town of a thousand, since when is 0.4% a majority? Volume does not make you right.
From: "Lorang Fine Art"
To: "cindy farris" , "Rob Brostoff" , "Joanne Wittenberg" , sarahjknight@hotmail.com, mperkinsky44@yahoo.com, "Megan Webb" , "martha lamont" , jeffh51@earthlink.net, lynnekononen@hotmail.com
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 12:36:15 PM
Subject: Fw: Fire Chief
I agree with Lynn, this council is out of control and not listening to the public! This should have been part of a town hall meeting, all of our ISO ratings will go up on our home owners insurance as well.
Debora
From: Lynne Kononen
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:31 AM
Subject: Fire Chief
We have been advised that there has been an addition to the City Council agenda on Monday evening. It is intended that they vote to make the Fire Chief job a volunteer position.
As a resident of Cascade Locks I am very concerned that this council is making decisions such as this without any consultation with the community. We are approaching fire season in the Gorge. We have already had our ordinance officer fired, so there is noone now to address ordinance violations, these include ordinances that control grass height, fire danger to properties etc....and this alone has the potential to endanger residences here in the City. Add to that our Fire Chief and PARAMEDIC being thrown out of his job, we could be looking at a very serious situation developing in town. It is also understood that if the Fire Chief goes, so do many of our volunteers....and where does that leave us? and our homes?
If you have any concerns about the future of our city, and where this council is taking us, please forward this email to any person you think may wish to know of the Councils intended action, and please try to attend the Council meeting Monday night so we can show these people that while they may not like the Fire Chief, we appreciate the work he does and do not approve of the plan to fire him. We want a paramedic, we want a Fire Chief and we want our homes and properties protected!
We hope to see as many people as possible at this meeting.
Thanks
Lynne Kononen
They are amazingly inept at revolution. We all know that the Kononen's don't care about the ISO rating, rather they care very strongly about having their personal EMT here.
320.350 Tax moratorium; exceptions; uses of revenues. (1) A unit of local government that did not impose a local transient lodging tax on July 1, 2003, may not impose a local transient lodging tax on or after July 2, 2003, unless the imposition of the local transient lodging tax was approved on or before July 1, 2003.
(2) A unit of local government that imposed a local transient lodging tax on July 1, 2003, may not increase the rate of the local transient lodging tax on or after July 2, 2003, to a rate that is greater than the rate in effect on July 1, 2003, unless the increase was approved on or before July 1, 2003.
(3) A unit of local government that imposed a local transient lodging tax on July 1, 2003, may not decrease the percentage of total local transient lodging tax revenues that are actually expended to fund tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities on or after July 2, 2003. A unit of local government that agreed, on or before July 1, 2003, to increase the percentage of total local transient lodging tax revenues that are to be expended to fund tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities, must increase the percentage as agreed.
(4) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2) of this section, a unit of local government that is financing debt with local transient lodging tax revenues on November 26, 2003, must continue to finance the debt until the retirement of the debt, including any refinancing of that debt. If the tax is not otherwise permitted under subsection (1) or (2) of this section, at the time of the debt retirement:
(a) The local transient lodging tax revenue that financed the debt shall be used as provided in subsection (5) of this section; or
(b) The unit of local government shall thereafter eliminate the new tax or increase in tax otherwise described in subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
(5) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section do not apply to a new or increased local transient lodging tax if all of the net revenue from the new or increased tax, following reductions attributed to collection reimbursement charges, is used consistently with subsection (6) of this section to:
(a) Fund tourism promotion or tourism-related facilities;
(b) Fund city or county services; or
(c) Finance or refinance the debt of tourism-related facilities and pay reasonable administrative costs incurred in financing or refinancing that debt, provided that:
(A) The net revenue may be used for administrative costs only if the unit of local government provides a collection reimbursement charge; and
(B) Upon retirement of the debt, the unit of local government reduces the tax by the amount by which the tax was increased to finance or refinance the debt.
(6) At least 70 percent of net revenue from a new or increased local transient lodging tax shall be used for the purposes described in subsection (5)(a) or (c) of this section. No more than 30 percent of net revenue from a new or increased local transient lodging tax may be used for the purpose described in subsection (5)(b) of this section. [2003 c.818 §11]
Wow, a little off subject aren't you?
Cody,
Many thanks for getting my email online. I appreciate you helping get the word around! Saves me a lot of work... thanks again :)
Lynne Kononen
Cody, didn't, I did.
And I can hardly wait until Monday when your conniving gang tries to claim that you all get to talk, and The Mayor enforces the rule that if you're a group, and you are all going to say the same thing you must appoint one person only to talk for you, because I also sent him the email.
You guys sure can dish it out but you can't take it.
Who are these "you guys" you're always talking about? The only trash talk I ever see or hear comes from this BLOG.
Unless you are willing to put your name to what you say don't say anything at all. Also befor you start commenting make sure you have talked with both sides. Remember there is your side, thier side, and the truth. What it boils down to is our local govement makeing choices that is in the best intrest of this town? Or thier own? Most of the Council has never been to the fire station late a lone gone down there and talk to the Firfighters. No mater how many times they have been asked to. With that said is our Council realy looking at the whole picture?
I agree with what Craig said 100%!
Of course you would agree, Melissa. You and Craig are related. Like most of this benighted burg.
I am so tired of the fire dept. volunteers only showing up at Council meetings when it concerns only their (learn to spell, Craig) narrow interests. Why do they insist the VOLUNTEER Council Members give up even more of their time to go to the station to massage their fragile little egos? Ever think that no matter how many times the Chief gives his song and dance about the station and the volunteers that some citizens can't help but think of what that ugly building costs us?
Why are none of you on the Budget Committee if you are so concerned?
Craig and Melissa, I hope that you are not repeating hearsay. Did you actually speak to the council members and ask them if they have spoken to firefighters? I happen to know that they have been talking to some of them, maybe not everyone of them and they have visited the fire hall. You are questioning the council for doing things in their own best interest instead of the interest of the city. What I see them trying to do is to work through a process to create a sound and stable city that pays its debts. The last council and administration created debts and took out loans that need to be paid back according to the budget law. No payments have been made to pay this debt, if you have any other ideas on how this can be achieved please let us know. There are no secret agendas. The majority of the voters elected your council, they wanted a change from the last administration and have put their trust in this council as do I. If you have concerns you should go to the meetings and ask questions or call up your council and ask them. There are so many rumors being spread and many people are not happy that budget committee is asking questions and digging into the budget. However I feel it is our job to ask those questions and scrutinize the budget. Many mistakes have been found in the budget this year, in the past it would have just been rubber stamped and passed without question. Policy is not being followed, budget law is not being upheld.
We need to get our city back into compliance of the law and create stable funds. We need to stop wasting the tax payers money and have an efficient use of city funds, in order for the city to provide essential services to its residents.
Darlene Sullenger
Allegations were brought forth by some Budget Committee and Council members that the City was doing illegal action in concerns with an interfund loan (ie the Fire Dept) in accordance with the ORS. Lee Peterson of the Oregon Department of Revenue responded to the allegations. The response outlines allegations that a Ms. Sullenger made. Lee Peterson found that the allegations were without merit. Peterson further explained that several items that were quoted from the ORS were only quoting a portion of a statute.
“It is a well-established rule of the courts that, when interpreting statutory language, consideration must be given to ALL of the words that the legislature included. One cannot simply disregard some of the statue if it does not fit one’s purpose. Therefore, I find the allegation that the loan violated ORS 294.460 (1) (C) TO BE WITHOUT MERIT”
Peterson did, however, say that Resolution #1153 was for a term of five years and three have passed and no repayment has been made. He urges the Council to consider how and when the loan will be repaid. With that one now would say see I told you so the city did something illegal! The past council did have a repayment plan, the sale of the old Fire Hall. The same building that had a buyer for it, until a few concerned citizens opposed the sale because the buyer wanted to rent the modular building out as an apartment for a temporary source of income until the property was redeveloped.
Just saying
Dear just saying, Maybe you should do a little more research before commenting. There is a letter dated May 10 to Marianne Bump from Sandi King who is in the same department as Lee Peterson at the Department of Revenue that states " ORS 294.460 (1) allows a district to make a capital loan from one fund to any other fund as long as the monies are not statutorily restricted." You can call Sandi or Lee at the Department of Revenue at 503-302-5837. I have spoken to both of them and neither has read the ORS's in question, which are 294.460, 225.250 and 225.270. The Department of Revenue does not deal with restricted municipal utilities therefore they cannot assume or make opinions in this matter. Lee Peterson commented on my letter only stating a portion of the ORS. However he failed to state that the two page ORS was attached to my letter along with copies of the rest of the ORS's in question. In his response he says I did not cite any statues and in his next paragraph he talks about the ORS that I cited, you can't have it both ways. Mr. Peterson also replys to an ORS 222.250 which is the incorrect number. Mr. Carson stated that he sent the ORS's to Mr. Peterson however Peterson told me this morning over a phone conversation that he did not read them. As for the sale of the old fire hall, the city misrepresented the use of the building to the interested buyer. When the truth came out the buyer did not want any part of it. I know this because I spoke to the buyer and read the letter from the city and planner John Morgan misrepresenting its use. The city did have a plan to sell the old fire hall but their plan was to sell it for over twice the appraised value, not very realistic. The only person who was interested in the fire hall was not going to pay any where near the $450,000. needed to pay off the loan. Don't listen to the rumor mills go get the information yourself it is all public record at city hall.
Darlene Sullenger
Post a Comment