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
Total Pageviews
Monday, May 23, 2011
May 18, 2011, Cascade Locks, Oregon, Budget Committee Meeting.
18 comments:
Anonymous
said...
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?
The 2011-2012 Budget Committee, change how they wanted to run a meeting. They only wanted to here from the citizens in the first meeting and then they will allow the citizens to speak at the last meeting. Remember they allow us to speak. They are hiding behind the minimum requirements that are outlined in the ORS/AR. They do not want to here from all the citizens. See prior post from question asked of Cody.
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.
The budget committee is giving the public two times for comment. That means they are not hiding behind the minimum requirements of law but are actually giving the public twice as many times as the law allows.
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.
Well I guess it will all come out in the wash. I have made my call to Oregon Attorney Generals office. Why is the council concidering a volunteer fire chief due to budget issues while entertaining the idea of a 70 / 30 split tourist with the 70% going to the tourisum budget.
A lot of people don't understand that the transient room tax is a tax collected by motels and it can only be spent in accordance with the ORS. It is intended to bring in more tourists to town and that is what the tourism committee is doing, you can see the proof yourself if you look at the increased revenue the motels are bringing to the city. We rely on the tourism printing brochures and advertising for our city. The tourism committee voted to ask the council for more money to market the town. That is their right as a committee to ask, however the council tabled the issue for consideration in the future. I am also waiting to hear from the Attorney Generals office however I am concerned with what information was actually sent to them by staff. No one wants to commit to answering the question, can we or can't we borrow from a municipal utility? If the money is deemed as excess funds shouldn't it be given back to the rate payers? If it is legal to use these funds why hasn't it been done in the past? It maybe legal to loan these utility funds but the process by the last council was helped along by the Department of Revenue to dissolve fund 55 capital reserve and create fund 56 making it legal to build a fire hall. The Department of Revenue in doing this does not look at the accounting aspect of the issue and does not deal with restricted municipal funds. Either way someone needs to answer the question. Darlene Sullenger
the biggest resone why none of us are on the Budget Committee is becouse the mayor will not alow it. He will only alow you to be on one Committee at a time.
If I'm willing to spend over 200 hrs of my time to make sure that I can help those in need. (thats 200hrs. away from my family) Why can't the council spend a little more time reserching. After all that is what they where elected to do.
I think the reasoning for one person not being on multiple committees was that it allowed for more citizen involvement than just a select few. However you can still research anything that you are passionate about and if you want your opinion or interpretation heard you have that right to either send a letter that would be put into council packets or budget committee packets, or you can also speak at meetings. No one wants to silence anyone. As to what the council is researching I can't respond to that.
If you would be so kind as to sign your name to your comment there are people our here that would be glad to discuss your issues concerning the repayment plan for the fire hall loan as well as the real reason that the old fire hall did not sell.
I agree with the idea behind what the mayor said about being on one committee. But we are a small town as well and somtimes that idea don't always work. And you are right in what you said Scott. Right now it's looking more like a head hunt than a buget issue. But I'm just seeing oneside right now. Im working on trying to see thire side to. Its defficult when there is so much drama involved. When it's not needed.
Craig, That's OK Scot's name is on the email account so it comes up. I thought that Jeff Helfich was the only other person wanting to be on the budget committee, he was on last year and this year his wife or girlfriend Shawna Hasel is on budget. The mayor told him that he was already on the planning commission and he wanted more citizens to be able to volunteer. There are always two sides to a story I like to try to find out the truth. There are a lot of documents at the city that can be used to research things such as past meeting minutes in the archives to see why decisions were made the way they were. It's interesting to read about what was actually said and who voted for what. The big issue now is that the fire chief has bought things for the fire hall and the city built the fire hall and now we have to pay the bills and who is going to give up some of their funds to pay for it? Loans were made from multiple funds and now need to be paid back and we are trying to find the money to do that. If you look at the terms of the loan for the fire hall and read the auditors report and then try to read the budget there are not a lot of options for repaying this debt.
Thnaks For the info. There have been many ideas given from the Cheif to pay off these loans and genrate revinew for the dept. Some of his ideas came from a Cost revinew anlises done in I believe it was 2009. From a firm in Wilsinvile. In that report in shows things like the Perimedic On Call program. I have the report! And I've talked the me contact at ther frim about it. But the city dose not have record of it. All the have in the min. is a blurp about the firm giving a talk about it. Its sad to me that tax payers money is being spent on reports and no one seems to care what it says. Every time someone dosen't agree with the couscil there ran off. If you would like to see this report and read what it says let me know and I'll giv you all the info. I joined the dept. becouse I didn't like what I was hearring and see. So I thought there is only one way to finde out what is realy happing GET IN VOLVED so that is what I did. And not every thing that I heard was true.
As for paying off the fire hall was the sell of the Mc Coy land and the sell of the old fire all suppose to take care of our part? All so the fire hall is the responseablity of the city to payoff not the Fire Dept. The Fire Dept. is responsable for all that is in side it. But I'm still digging around and trying to filter though the mess.
We need to all come together and find a way fix this fude and work together. Thx for you imput Darlene
So Darlene what you are saying is the tourism committee feels they need more money to print brochures and such than their town needs a Fire Chief. Just because you can ask for the 70 / 30 split doesn’t mean you should. Please provide the ORS number to back up your statement. This is all beginning to sound like a personal vendetta. Where is the logic in this approach? I'll just say what I am thinking, it just sounds like the council and some folks on the tourism committee have hatched up a plan to deplete City funds and claim they have no money to support a Fire Chief. Could this be the case?
so its not enough that the electric department and the water department pay for the fire department tourism should do it to? Heck why not just have everybody pay for it then we could be one big happy fandamnly.
18 comments:
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?
The 2011-2012 Budget Committee, change how they wanted to run a meeting. They only wanted to here from the citizens in the first meeting and then they will allow the citizens to speak at the last meeting. Remember they allow us to speak. They are hiding behind the minimum requirements that are outlined in the ORS/AR. They do not want to here from all the citizens. See prior post from question asked of Cody.
Warm regards,
Just Asking
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.
The budget committee is giving the public two times for comment. That means they are not hiding behind the minimum requirements of law but are actually giving the public twice as many times as the law allows.
Darlene Sullenger
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
May 23, 2011 11:41 AM
Well I guess it will all come out in the wash. I have made my call to Oregon Attorney Generals office. Why is the council concidering a volunteer fire chief due to budget issues while entertaining the idea of a 70 / 30 split tourist with the 70% going to the tourisum budget.
A lot of people don't understand that the transient room tax is a tax collected by motels and it can only be spent in accordance with the ORS. It is intended to bring in more tourists to town and that is what the tourism committee is doing, you can see the proof yourself if you look at the increased revenue the motels are bringing to the city. We rely on the tourism printing brochures and advertising for our city. The tourism committee voted to ask the council for more money to market the town. That is their right as a committee to ask, however the council tabled the issue for consideration in the future. I am also waiting to hear from the Attorney Generals office however I am concerned with what information was actually sent to them by staff. No one wants to commit to answering the question, can we or can't we borrow from a municipal utility? If the money is deemed as excess funds shouldn't it be given back to the rate payers? If it is legal to use these funds why hasn't it been done in the past? It maybe legal to loan these utility funds but the process by the last council was helped along by the Department of Revenue to dissolve fund 55 capital reserve and create fund 56 making it legal to build a fire hall. The Department of Revenue in doing this does not look at the accounting aspect of the issue and does not deal with restricted municipal funds. Either way someone needs to answer the question.
Darlene Sullenger
the biggest resone why none of us are on the Budget Committee is becouse the mayor will not alow it. He will only alow you to be on one Committee at a time.
If I'm willing to spend over 200 hrs of my time to make sure that I can help those in need. (thats 200hrs. away from my family) Why can't the council spend a little more time reserching. After all that is what they where elected to do.
I think the reasoning for one person not being on multiple committees was that it allowed for more citizen involvement than just a select few. However you can still research anything that you are passionate about and if you want your opinion or interpretation heard you have that right to either send a letter that would be put into council packets or budget committee packets, or you can also speak at meetings. No one wants to silence anyone. As to what the council is researching I can't respond to that.
Darlene Sullenger
Anonymous May 23, 2011 10:47 AM
If you would be so kind as to sign your name to your comment there are people our here that would be glad to discuss your issues concerning the repayment plan for the fire hall loan as well as the real reason that the old fire hall did not sell.
I agree with the idea behind what the mayor said about being on one committee. But we are a small town as well and somtimes that idea don't always work. And you are right in what you said Scott. Right now it's looking more like a head hunt than a buget issue. But I'm just seeing oneside right now. Im working on trying to see thire side to. Its defficult when there is so much drama involved. When it's not needed.
Ops! Sorry Darlene! I just saw Scott's name at the top! Sorry! :-(
Craig, That's OK Scot's name is on the email account so it comes up. I thought that Jeff Helfich was the only other person wanting to be on the budget committee, he was on last year and this year his wife or girlfriend Shawna Hasel is on budget. The mayor told him that he was already on the planning commission and he wanted more citizens to be able to volunteer. There are always two sides to a story I like to try to find out the truth. There are a lot of documents at the city that can be used to research things such as past meeting minutes in the archives to see why decisions were made the way they were. It's interesting to read about what was actually said and who voted for what. The big issue now is that the fire chief has bought things for the fire hall and the city built the fire hall and now we have to pay the bills and who is going to give up some of their funds to pay for it? Loans were made from multiple funds and now need to be paid back and we are trying to find the money to do that. If you look at the terms of the loan for the fire hall and read the auditors report and then try to read the budget there are not a lot of options for repaying this debt.
Darlene Sullenger
Thnaks For the info. There have been many ideas given from the Cheif to pay off these loans and genrate revinew for the dept. Some of his ideas came from a Cost revinew anlises done in I believe it was 2009. From a firm in Wilsinvile. In that report in shows things like the Perimedic On Call program. I have the report! And I've talked the me contact at ther frim about it. But the city dose not have record of it. All the have in the min. is a blurp about the firm giving a talk about it. Its sad to me that tax payers money is being spent on reports and no one seems to care what it says. Every time someone dosen't agree with the couscil there ran off. If you would like to see this report and read what it says let me know and I'll giv you all the info. I joined the dept. becouse I didn't like what I was hearring and see. So I thought there is only one way to finde out what is realy happing GET IN VOLVED so that is what I did. And not every thing that I heard was true.
As for paying off the fire hall was the sell of the Mc Coy land and the sell of the old fire all suppose to take care of our part? All so the fire hall is the responseablity of the city to payoff not the Fire Dept. The Fire Dept. is responsable for all that is in side it. But I'm still digging around and trying to filter though the mess.
We need to all come together and find a way fix this fude and work together. Thx for you imput Darlene
So Darlene what you are saying is the tourism committee feels they need more money to print brochures and such than their town needs a Fire Chief. Just because you can ask for the 70 / 30 split doesn’t mean you should. Please provide the ORS number to back up your statement. This is all beginning to sound like a personal vendetta. Where is the logic in this approach? I'll just say what I am thinking, it just sounds like the council and some folks on the tourism committee have hatched up a plan to deplete City funds and claim they have no money to support a Fire Chief. Could this be the case?
Did the tourism committee deplete the EMS fund as well? It's been in the red for 2 years.
so its not enough that the electric department and the water department pay for the fire department tourism should do it to? Heck why not just have everybody pay for it then we could be one big happy fandamnly.
Post a Comment