This is the Attorney opinion that keeps coming up.
It says council cannot but let’s sneak it through budget, but we may want to ask a judge.
It also makes it clear that the 5% privilege tax was unlawful.
It seems council repealed all their powers and forgot to re-establish them. (Read below)
And to think we had 3 previous council members speaking out against this council.
Looks to me like these 3 need to face the fact that this council did not create all these problems.
They inherited them.
What part of statutorily protected funds do they not understand?
So let me see if I got this right?
If this council does not violate the law and do what they did they are going to recall them?
I hope history is nice to you.
55 comments:
Cody, Yes you are right a 5% privilege tax is unlawful for a municipal utility. BL was wrong in his statement at council saying that the city had a privilege tax for the utility using the city streets. We have a franchise fee that is consistent with and lawful under ORS 225.270. However if you read the lawyers first paragraph he states they are asking to raise this fee for the construction of the fire hall. We all know that didn't happen. The ORS's to read are 294.460 and pay special attention to c) moneys that are restricted to specific uses. also read ORS 225.270 and ORS 225.250 Application of Earnings. This is why I still ask the question are the municipal utility revenues of a restricted use? ICA Carson has sent a letter to the States Attorney General asking the question, but still no answer. I have spoken with CPA's of other cities with municipal utilities and they consider MEU's restricted.
Darlene
It was nice to hear Brad and Jeff P. finally admit that things should have been done long ago for the fire department, it makes me wonder why if they want a fire district or some sort of taxation for the fire dept. why didn't Jeff encourage his supporters Brad and BS run a taxation district while he was in office why complain about it now why didn't he do something about it while he had all the POWER?
All I hear them saying is we want it no matter what legal or not take from tourism that's illegal, impose more fees to your utilities that will hurt the utilities heck to me it sounds like they want all of the $$ from the city. The fire dept already gets a lot of money from the general fund for the fire hall debts including the OIB loan and the old unpaid $450k loan. Maybe we could give it all to JP - that would make a lot of sense wouldn't it? Then we would be giving a lot more than our school to Hood River County.
Darlene
We do not have a franchise fee.
During his term he did have a privledge tax.
They just sugar coated it with the word payment in leuw of:
So we have a payment in leuw of a franchise fee and privedge tax.
Both in violation of the law for cities to do.
Determining the use of any fund begins at the funds legislative creation.
What was the intent of that fund when it was started.
You have to start hunting there.
Then if it is a debt revenue fund and has debt owed there are statutory restrictions.
Like a sewer fund financing a bond obligation cannot be touched for any other purpose.
That is found in sewer statutes of law and is known as a statutory restriction.
Statutory restrictions for our electrical are no other municiple uses and all excess funds are to be used to offset property taxes and/or go towards energy conservation. There is another exception since these laws took effect being: Municiple utilities can take a precentage to go into alternative energy generation.
Tourism also has a statutory restriction.
The present law is 70% tourism, 30% city.
Our city claims 70% city and 30% tourism.
But records I have seen show less than 30% when additional money for non tourism needs were billed to tourism from that 30%
Therefore it is of my opinion that because the city failed to abide by the law that grandfather clause no longer applies?
I am waiting for an answer back on that at this time.
I hope this helps.
Cody
Darlene
We do not have a franchise fee.
During his term he did have a privledge tax.
They just sugar coated it with the word payment in leuw of:
So we have a payment in leuw of a franchise fee and privedge tax.
Both in violation of the law for cities to do.
Determining the use of any fund begins at the funds legislative creation.
What was the intent of that fund when it was started.
You have to start hunting there.
Then if it is a debt revenue fund and has debt owed there are statutory restrictions.
Like a sewer fund financing a bond obligation cannot be touched for any other purpose.
That is found in sewer statutes of law and is known as a statutory restriction.
Statutory restrictions for our electrical are no other municiple uses and all excess funds are to be used to offset property taxes and/or go towards energy conservation. There is another exception since these laws took effect being: Municiple utilities can take a precentage to go into alternative energy generation.
Tourism also has a statutory restriction.
The present law is 70% tourism, 30% city.
Our city claims 70% city and 30% tourism.
But records I have seen show less than 30% when additional money for non tourism needs were billed to tourism from that 30%
Therefore it is of my opinion that because the city failed to abide by the law that grandfather clause no longer applies?
I am waiting for an answer back on that at this time.
I hope this helps.
Cody
Cody, What I was told was that according to ORS 225.270 it is legal to charge a fee (franchise fee, in lieu of tax fee or what ever they want to call it) as long as that utility has met it's operational obligations ( personnel, reserves, contingencies all operational costs)and that the revenue goes into the general fund to offset expenses to the city. I was told that this makes it possible to not increase the rates and therefore it is reducing the taxes. I'm not sure if I buy it but that is how it was explained to me. A privilege tax clearly does not apply to a municipal utility.
Darlene
Cody would you please stop saying something is law when it is not!!!!!!! Please read http://industry.traveloregon.com/upload/otc/departments/tourismdevelopment/finaltltsurveyresults.pdf and you will see for yourself the lodging tax is not 70% to tourism and 30% to general fund.
And to anonymous "All I hear them saying is we want it no matter what legal or not take from tourism that's illegal, impose more fees to your utilities that will hurt the utilities heck to me it sounds like they want all of the $$ from the city."
Did not the Mayor ask for ideas from the public concerning how we might fund Fire and Safety? Yes he sure did and I thought folks did a good job of brainstorming maybe these ideas are not all doable but it was a great start. If you have no ideas other than we can just do without, because we have an axe to grind don’t criticize others for making an effort.
Might I add to the council member stating we all have to take responsibility for our own safety, what the heck was that? We are not living in the Wild Wild West for God’s sake, for that matter we are not even living out in the country we live on a busy section of I-84.I assure you I do take safety precautions but I am not a trained Fire Fighter or EMT.
To the council member who went to his insurance agent asking if insurance rates will rise if changes are made to the Fire Department. Looks like you will be the first to have you insurance raise since you went and told on yourself. Try contacting the Insurance Commissioner’s office 503-947-7983 they will give you the correct answer which is yes if your fire rating changes your premiums will change, and yes your ratings will change if you no longer have a paid fire chief. Sorry to tell you buddy but check it out.
Thank you to the public who spoke at council I was encouraged by your willingness to work on finding a way to fund safety in our town.
And to the young lady who was jeered by some of the council members, topped off with the Mayor’s pounding of the gavel I heard it reverberate in my living room and I could feel your pain. I am glad your children are OK and I am glad you were able to call on help when you needed it. Mayor not your most shining moment.
Maybe not his most shining moment, but definitely one of the town's worst. Two meetings now in a row with the same people acting like rude pigs.
The man is holding down a job (something the past 2 mayor's have not) dealing with the last administrations illegal and blatant errors, politely listening to rabid, deluded or misguided citizens who are yelling at him because they don't want to lose their precious security Jeff but cannot get it through their simple minds that there is no money. He's a hell of lot more polite than Brad ever was or is now.
I did call my insurance agent. They don't care whether we have our own fire chief or use Hood River County's. The ratings are not affected by that. We will not be without fire coverage. They care that we have fire service (the county's) fire hydrants (painted by the Enforcement officer) and pressure (indicated by the color of the hydrant cap.) Out of curiosity, why would you care if you pay for higher insurance or the Chief's salary? I see it as you pay either way.
BTW, You may want to finish your thought in the second paragraph.
It is so interesting that you think last night’s council meeting was one of the worst. The public did not scream at council, citizens speaking did not turn around and stare at the public with glaring daggers, citizens did not call any council member a liar. All of which have happened at past meetings. Although you may have a point some council members did call their staff liars, and they sure showed an incredible lack of leadership, I guess in that respect it was one of the towns worst nights. And by the way if this council keeps it up with inappropriate comments concerning staff this City is going to get sued I have to say I am really surprised it hasn’t happened already. This smacks of a hostile work environment and it is all on tape. Stop calling your insurance agents call the State Insurance commissioner. I still think it is hilarious someone would willing call their agent to tell them, my town is soon to be without a paid fire chief, you might as well say please sir raise my rates.
Dear Anon(s):
You need to not have such a bad relationship(s) with your insurance companies. Mine exists to protect me. But I would question how you phrased your questions and how you presented the situation to the Commissioner.
Problem with the staff is the truth hurts. It's not a hostile work environment, it's a shoddy one. With shoddy and incompetent work habits and ethics. I'm sorry, am I insulting one of your relatives? I would have been on notice for just one accounting mess-up of that caliber, let alone insulting and arguing in public with my managerial group.
There is an attitude problem with several members of staff (and the public.) They keep forgetting that Council is elected by the ENTIRE community to represent the ENTIRE community, not just their 10 or 12 households.
And I agree that this meeting was not the worst, I think it was the one previous, but it's up there in the top 5. I think that too many citizens are treating channel 23 like a dramacomedy and picture themselves in a starring role. Especially with the look-at-me grins they flash the camera afterwards.
Good ideas, yes. Practical? Workable? Legal? Sustainable? Other questions that will need to be answered. Questions that were not answered before. Questions that can not be answered while citizens bring an confrontational attitude to the meeting.
Darlene
A franchise fee and a privilege tax are the same.
A franchise pays the city for the privilege of using something the city has.
If you go to the youtube channel and watch the June 14, 2010 video. You will see legal warning council not to say those 2 words when talking about the 5% right of way fee.
Legal did this because it is illegal tax.
The citizens own that right of way and the city cannot tax us to use what we own and paid to own.
A franchise does not; therefore the city can impose a privilege to use tax on the franchise, on behalf of the citizens for our investment.
The attorney opinion on this site is the very opinion I was gave by our former city administrator, while arguing with him in his office, over the 5% illegal payment in lieu of privilege tax.
So if whoever told you what you say, just read that opinion and I believe you will see they are wrong.
225.270 specifically say that excess funds must be paid to lower property taxes or go towards energy conservation. Nothing else is stated.
For it to say anything else would conflict with use of funds for other municipal needs and rates are set in accordance to the cost of the utility in that same 200 sub section of law.
Not to mention protections all utilities might or might not have was not considered.
A sewer cannot be used when a bond is being financed, etc….
Does that help?
Cody
Now we can't use our sewers?
Anonymous
I do not have to go to Travel Oregon.
I went to the ORs, OAR and the Senate bill including the minutes that created the law.
When this bill was passed we had a TRT tax in legislation.
So we fall under the existing law 70% city 30% tourism.
So at this time if we raise that tax 70% of that additional tax will go to tourism and 30% to the city.
But if we also raise that tax we are also going to lose 5% of the tax to be paid to the motel owners for collecting it.
But what if a little birdie told the state that the city could not keep its hands out of that 30% that was paid to tourism and submitted proof found throughout the record, proving this 30% did not go towards tourism specific uses. Proof showing the city took and expended that money on other municipal uses and showed what it was spent on?
Would the city lose the grandfather provision and our city revert to the intention of the legislators who created the law which is 70% tourism and 30% city?
Could the state take away our right to charge a city TRT tax away?
Could the state order that money to be paid back as well as penalize the city?
There are a lot of could and might just happen here, that you failed to mention.
But now you know.
Cody
All meetings to date are on line.
All videos are on the meetings for the month of June page.
Enjoy.
Cody
Cody,
Regarding the tourism tax, I was the one that spoke first at the City Council Meeting. First, the facts I can share with you:
1.) Cascade Locks already stipulates that hospitality business keep 5% of the collected taxes - so we are good to go there regardless of any potential increases. (The law states that if there are increases after 2003, then governments that are not currently allowing the 5% holdback would have to institute this.)
2.) There is no "grandfather" clause per se. It only states that levels spend on tourism as of July 3, 2003 should not go down.
Now my opinion regarding the enforcability of this element of the law:
I have not heard of any attempt at enforcement against any town or county when and if they dip below the 2003 levels, and I'm aware of numerous situations in various municipalities around Oregon where that exists. My opinion is that it is unenforcable and unconstitutional because the law arbitrarily and unequaly penalizes many cities and counties. It is inherently unfair that, for example, Portland is allowed to keep 83% of its TRT dollars (over 14 million in 2007!) when other communities which may be a lot smaller, and for whom the TRT taxes are a much higher percentage of local revenues, are required to keep these levels. Also, if you read the latest 82 page offical report and survey on the State of Oregon website, it acknowledges that many cities/counties spend a lot of "tourism" dollars on things that are not explicity defined by the code as acceptable "tourism" expenses.
My guess is that the most the state would ask Cascade Locks to do is to "get back on track" - Just as the County of Hood River has asked/required the two elected Cascade Locks city officials to do when they were found in direct violation of Hood River County building ordinances and avoidance of inspections related to the addition of cabins at the KOA recently.
A more interesting question for me, and I don't know the anwer, is whether the state could consider these two Cascade Locks elected officials in a conflict of interest situation if they vote on a budget that slashes the pay of the Fire Chief enough to effectively de-professionalize Fire services. As you are well aware, on of the most important resaons to have building codes and inspections is to make sure that there are no fire hazards and the Cascade Locks won't be burned down by potential "not to code" work in one of its businesses.
Sorry:
regarding spelling:
"one" and "answer" instead of "on" and "anwer"
Mark, The fire chief wages were reduced from $81,631 to $59,244. this was done by budget after the Department of Revenue asked that continued scrutiny be done for this department and to reduce expenditures. I would hardly call that a slash. The city continues to FULLY fund, as it always has, the fire and ambulance department as you can see if you read a copy of the budget. Not only is it fully funded but the city is also servicing fire hall debt which is not just the construction of the building but also supplies for the department in the approximate amount of $50,000. per year for 10 years coming out of the General Fund. This debt was incurred three years ago and no payments have been made. This was an illegal situation, you can't take out a loan without a pay back schedule. Sometimes it helps to see the whole story. The article in the paper about Pricher reducing his wages by a third is incorrect, He voluntarily reduced his wages by $4,500. with benefits this was $6,387. that does not add up to a third, there is also his overtime that has not been considered. I believe that the city of Cascade Locks expects to provide a professional fire department for it's community.
Darlene Sullenger
Mark Keller
1) If they pay the 5% then you would be correct but if they paid 3% and raised the rate then they would have to pay 5%.
2) We had an established rate in place and follow those rules. It was the city that used the term grandfather as a defense to take from the 30%.
3) I guess that depends?
On Portland you are really off track there. The Counties collect that tax for Portland.
“Multnomah County for example imposes a transient room tax of 11.5% of the rent charged by the operator of any structure or any portion of any structure which is occupied or intended or designed for transient occupancy for 30 days or less for dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes.”
“Five points of the tax collected by Multnomah County goes to the individual city where the establishment is located.”
“One point of the tax is allocated to the City of Portland to contract with a not-for-profit agency to promote the destination (i.e., OCC)”
“A three point surcharge rate of the tax is allocated to the excise tax fund of which hotel operators can deduct 5% of the three points for administrative costs. The remaining amount is dedicated to various projects such as the OCC, the Portland Center for the Performing Arts, and the Regional Arts and Culture Council.”
“A 2.5 point surcharge rate of the tax is allocated to the Visitors Facilities Trust Account (VFTA) of which hotel operators can deduct 5% of the 2.5 points for administrative costs.”
Multnomah County pays that 2.5% from a vehicle rental tax of 17%.
Portland also benefits from a Metro excise tax which supports Portland tourism.
Do you have any idea of how much revenue and job creation that the Oregon Convention Center, The Zoo, The Portland Center for performing Arts and The regional Arts and Culture Council alone bring in revenue and job creation each year?
The Convention Center alone supports three counties general funds in the millions each year since it was built.
So I have no idea where you got that 14 million figure from but in Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas Counties and Metro Regional Government for 2010 these are the facts.
Multnomah County Transient Lodging Tax $7,481,000
Motor Vehicle Rental Tax $1,566,000
Business Income Tax $150,000
Total $9,197,000
Washington County Transient Lodging Tax $1,013,000
Clackamas County Transient Room Tax $581,000
Metro Excise Tax $1,218,000
A far cry from the $14 million fact you stated in TRT alone.
Nothing personal just the facts.
Cody
What the heck, now Brad, Robb and Lance are recruiting people from out of town to help us understand how dumb we really are? I guess they must have run out of locals stupid enough to keep believing their "facts".
Mark, local politics are just that, local. You should use your great ideas and "facts" to get elected where you live. Lord knows we need help, but based on the "facts" and questions in your post, we don't need your kind of "help". We already have plenty of locals quite adept at repeating gossip as "fact" at the top of their lungs, with their fingers in their ears. If you think having relatives live here gives you some sort of right to be involved, come back on election day and see if you get to vote.
A fire department policy resolution has been found in the archives as well as the creation of the office of fire chief.
Will post as soon as upload finished.
Cody
Cody and Anonymous - please see the next post that specifically refutes some of your statements in your last two posts.
Darlene, Thank you for your thoughtful reply regarding what you refer to as "wages" of the fire chief. Quoting you: "Mark, The fire chief wages were reduced from $81,631 to $59,244."
My understanding is that his budgeted wages were somewhere between 50 and 60 thousand rather than $81,631. Is it possible you are referring to the total cost to Cascade Locks - including all Federal taxes that any employer is required to pay, health insurance paid by the City and any other specific benefits?
If so, your $81,631 number cannot, in fairness, be properly referred to as "wages"
Am I incorrect?
Secondly, even if I use your numbers, his wages after the decrease are/will be 72.6% of what they were. Whether you would use the word "slash" or not, that is a huge decrease.
Thanks!
The budget committee kept talking about $450,000 of debt like it was a big deal. What about the all of the debt.
$150,000 OIB loan
$130,000 OIB loan
$464,000 Electric Dept loan
$ 24,000 Water Department loan (Fire Truck)
$ 24,000 Street department loan
$ 60,000 Miss-appropriation "loan"
$852,000, is that a big deal yet?
No?
Okay, guess what, we need a new ambulance,
$200,000
Even though we haven't paid for the last one yet we will need a new engine soon because of the miles we put on our trucks creating "revenue".
$400,000
That command vehicle, we've run the wheels off it (in a town that's only 3 miles long) in just a couple of years
$60,000
That second out ambulance, too small
$200,000
Hey, that bunker gear is out of date. I was supposed to set aside capital reserves for that but, oops I did it again..
$60,000
That second out engine, the paint looks bad, volunteers don't like it and are going to quit if it isn't replaced
$400,000
I told you several times that I need stable funding and you know the definition of stable is "whatever I f'n feel like spending" . Surprise, over budget, again.
$150,000
I can't do everything, I need help! Full time help
$100,000
Hey, this Fire Hall is old and unsafe.
$5,000,000
Do you get the picture yet?
There is no amount of money that will be enough. Any threat will be made to get you to say yes. Once you say yes, it's your fault, you agreed, nobody forced you...
Can we afford $20 per thousand? How about $40?
Every fire "professional" who has looked at CLFD has said "You can't afford a full time fire chief".
Mark,
Sorry, I'm convinced.
I meant "specifically" convinced.
Mark,
If ya wanna throw numbers backs and forth;
Jeff's total compensation for 2010 is $101,000.00. About $100 per resident. That number is more than most cities pay per resident for an entire "professional" fire department, 24/7. We are paying that for 45 hours a week of Jeff's idea of professional. The other 123 hours a week (73% of the time) we get to wait for Stevenson to respond. So for a full time "professional" fire department we need at least another $500,000 per year for rolling stock and wages.
Or maybe we should just hire Stevenson full time.
By the way Mark, have you ever "developed" any property for Mimi?
Round of applause for Anon 10:43pm.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!
Please, council get a clue.
Sorry:
regarding spelling:
That should be "back" not "backs" and insolent, incompetent, dishonest, jackleg, fund miss-appropriator for "Jeff's idea of professional".
(Mark Keller's post continued)
If you add both Portland and Multnomah County's TRT taxes that are collected in Portland together (which was never my point), then you still have well over 40% of the total going to Portland's General Fund.
3.) Other information I talked about comes from the following source that is a statewide survey commissioned by the State of Oregon. It is also a click-through of the State of Oregon's web page related to local TRT taxes (http://industry.traveloregon.com/upload/otc/departments/tourismdevelopment/finaltltsurveyresults.pdf)
Pages 57 through 69 are a treasure trove of information on how TRT taxes are spent - by the Counties and Cities listed.
Some notable points:
a.) Portland's TRT taxes in 2007 designated for the general fund were also in excess of 14 million, and they were also 83.33% of Portland's TRT revenues.
b.) Portland and Multnomah County's revenues are separately listed (page 57), and the amounts and destinations of where they were spend are clearly noted
c.) Take a look at Cascade Lock's information (page 65) - The City appeared to be right on in terms of 70%/30% split in 2004 and only a 62%/38% split in 2007 - meaning that tourism apparently got higher than the required minimum by 8% that year.
d.) Redmond, Oregon (Page 62) is interesting in its choice for use of revenues:
Of the $507,582 collected in 2007, fully $367,635 of it - a whopping 72.4% of TRT taxes - went to one line item: EMERGENCY SERVICES!
4.) Cascade Locks does allow lodging providers to keep 5% of the taxes collected as stated (page 54)
Anyway, I would love to sit down with you over coffee... I'm totally willing to admit my mistakes.
Are you willing to retract your mistakes and your conclusion? (Quoting from your post again):
"A far cry from the $14 million fact you stated in TRT alone.
Nothing personal just the facts."
And, "Anonymous" please see my response after this statement quoted from your post:
"Mark, local politics are just that, local. You should use your great ideas and "facts" to get elected where you live. Lord knows we need help, but based on the "facts" and questions in your post, we don't need your kind of "help". We already have plenty of locals quite adept at repeating gossip as "fact" at the top of their lungs, with their fingers in their ears. If you think having relatives live here gives you some sort of right to be involved, come back on election day and see if you get to vote."
1.) I am a business person very interested in the business development of Cascade Locks, and I truly believe that some currently proposed ideas by the council, mayor and budget committee will hurt business development in the City.
2.) I have suggested a source for nearly $18,000 in revenue for Cascade Locks without taxing residents or hurting local businesses.
3.) I am concerned for the safety of my relatives and all the citizens of Cascade Locks if fire services are compromised, and given the incredible and ongoing vulnerability of the town to fires originating in the huge forests nearby.
4.) I have told the truth to the best of my ability and as documented, and tried to clearly state when I am relaying facts and figures and when I am stating my opinions.
If those things make me unwelcome to you - I would beg you to consider what that says about the heightened state of emotions in town, and how those may negatively affect the future of Cascade Locks.
I would like to sit down over coffee with you, too. I truly believe and hope that you would find me friendly and reasonable.
Mark,
40% vs, 87%.
Good "never my point", lol.
I really think you need to move to Cascade Locks. Brad, Lance and Robb are getting tired of having to come up with your kind of "facts".
What kind of town do you live in when you can't even afford your "volunteers"?
Cody,
Is there a way for you to post my last two posts in the Correct order?
for some reason part 1 showed as posting to me, but it did not appear on the blog, and so my posts at 12:45 and 12:55 are in the wrong order and therefore confusing to the reader...
Thanks! - Mark keller
Mark,
"heightened state of emotions in town"
In what town? Your town? How would we know and why would we care?
In our town? How would you know what the "emotions" are in our town?
Oh, somebody TOLD you.
Which somebody? Do the "emotions" of the other 1037 other residents matter or do you believe everything you hear?
I'll tell you one thing Mark, you're no Jeff Pricher. You need some threats in there if you want people to believe you.
Yes Mark the numbers that I referred to was the total cost of wages and benefits, to the city for Pricher, not including his overtime. I like to deal with actual costs. This was a generous compromise when you take into consideration that the Budget Committee had the entire deficit of $60,000. taken out of the fire fund this year. However it was thoughtfully reinstated to allow for other fire department options to be considered. The buck stops here! To the anonymous previous posts, very well said, thanks for commenting.
Darlene Sullenger
Mark,
Does Angel Heights ring a bell?
Oh Dear!!
Mark said;
"I am a business person very interested in the business development of Cascade Locks"
So do you gossip about and publicly insult council members in all the cities you want to do business in?
How has that strategy worked out for you in the past?
Mark
Every one of your posts in my email are on the blog multiple times.
I have had problems with this and Google is looking into it now.
Maybe that delayed your posts?
But I see everything in my email on the blog and in order.
Cody
Mark
I could have used the budget myself. But a budget is a projection (a best guess) of anticipated revenue and expenses. It in no way is an actual number. So there was no Goggle mistake there as I would never use a budget for actual numbers. Just look at ours.
But I will use that Portland budget now.
So as this budget shows a projected (Not an actual amount for this budget year) revenue of $14,524,258 and a 3.2% projected increase from last year.
Since I did use facts from the convention center let’s use that budget and see what the City of Portland budgets for expenses for that center alone.
Convention and tourism fund $3,537,770.
Convention Center area debt service fund $12,756,020.
So Portland shows $16,293,790 in expenditures.
That is a deficit of expenditures over revenue of $1,769,532 from the TRT.
This does not include expenditures for PGE Park, Civic Stadium, Portland International Raceway, the Performing Arts Center, along with the ones I previously mentioned from the Crossroads Consultant report. All tourism related if Portland were to choose to finance these from TRT funds which they do not.
Sure this does not factor in the revenue that the Convention Center brings in.
But that does not matter because all TRT dollars from the beginning were to build it.
It operates on that revenue source and until this debt is paid off will continue to show a negative fund balance.
So with this budget fact can you truly say that Portland spends 83% of its TRT tax to the general fund?
The way I see it Portland spends more on tourism related expenses than it brings in. In just one project.
But the fact is I do not care what Portland or any other town is doing.
I care about this town and what it is doing.
Now you said yourself that for at least 10 years that you could not bring a hotel into town with this economy or if we did not have a paid fire chief.
So give us the time to clean up this mess from previous administrations and maybe in 10 years we can have a convention center of our own to build your hotel around and a paid fire chief?
We are not Portland, we are not any other city, but we are Cascade Locks.
What other cities do is up to them.
The only city I care about is Cascade Locks.
Yes you see 30% being budgeted for our tourism.
What you are not seeing is after that. Funds were taken out of that 30%to pay for city landscaping, summer workers and such all non tourism related uses, but in fact other municipal uses.
That is a violation of the law.
And that is going to end.
Cody
Mark
Now you say you are interested in business development in Cascade Locks.
So you understand the cost of doing business.
Yet I do not understand with the facts concerning our emergency services fund as they are that a person with the knowledge of business, would not understand that when a business spends more than they generate in revenue that the business is not going to survive.
I can show you proof of misappropriation of funds for over 26 years.
Which have led to the highest utility rates in the Pacific Northwest and even into parts of California.
This misappropriation of funds have also degraded the health and stability of our utilities to the point now, that there is no funds to fix the problems needed today, when the misappropriated funds could have been used to maintain and upgrade these utilities’.
So as a business looking for a location to set up shop, what is the first thing a business looks for?
What is it going to cost to do business at that location?
So what happens when right across the river or down the road a business will save ½ to 2/3rds of the cost for utilities compared to Cascade Locks?
There not even going to consider Cascade Locks and it happens all the time.
Now it appears that you are from out of town.
If that is correct you have not been forced to pay these inflated rates due to misappropriations of funds.
Unlawful misappropriations of funds I might add.
Now I will be the first to admit that what you are witnessing here is a direct result of bringing the use of our utility funds into compliance with the law.
So maybe in 10 years you will be able to go to investors and say “Hey look at how the low rates for utilities in Cascade Locks will help your bottom line”.
That is what I care about.
Bringing cost of living jobs to Cascade Locks, to increase the tax base, to support these services we have.
So this city can grow as a productive city and not the depressed one it has been for decades, all the while watching cities around us flourish and grow.
And if you do not understand that you do not understand business, only the sales pitch.
Cody
I was on a roll last night uploading the videos.
The Tuesday council meeting uploaded in a little over 6 hours yesterday.
I had the special meeting of the council last night done before the budget meeting was over with no compression used.
I went to bed with only a couple of hours left showing to finish the upload of last night’s budget meeting.
But I woke up with an upload error.
So I am going to re upload that video and post the 2 new ordinances that have been found in the past 3 weeks concerning our fire department or so I thought we had a fire department until I read them, after the video is on line as the copyright check takes time as well and I can knock out the posting of these ordinances after that.
Sorry but I spent too much time answering comments this morning.
But will get back to the plan now and commitments I have soon after.
Cody
Mark Keller is my son-in-law, I asked him to come and speak to the council because of what I’ve heard at council meetings and budget meetings. Mark does not develop real-estate property he develops and manages Hotel properties. I can assure you he has nothing to do with Mimi has never met her and he never will. He has had no part of any questionable real estate development project in Cascade Locks or Stevenson. Mark is interested in this issue because of the concern my husband and I shared with him around the fire department and the 05-23-11 council meeting.My husband and I moved here hoping this would be a great place for us to retire we had know idea how divided this towns was. It is really hard to watch very sad. I will continue to accept Mark's assistance as long as he willing to help. If Mark speaks again at a council meeting it will be because I’ve asked for his help to speak for me and my husband and we will join him at the podium as voting citizens of Cascade Locks. Mark met Robb and Lance for the first time at the council meeting. They have nothing to do with Mark coming to support his Parents-in-law.
Mark and Shelly Storm
Shelly
I appreciate your letter and understand your concerns.
I myself want a paid fire chief and the knowledge of such a professional.
Now it appears that you have just recently moved here.
Putting aside a long and shaded history I will move along to a proposed casino.
This city gambled on that casino and threw the dice and overbuilt an emergency services department, bigger than this city could afford to meet the needs of that casino.
Well the city rolled craps and now that gambling debt has to be paid for.
The problem is that the city financed that gamble on things that violate the law.
So once again a city created problem was passed onto the backs of the utility rate payers and the security of our utility infrastructure along with further abuses with the funds.
All in violation of the laws.
What you witnessed in this budget process was the domino effect of bad business decisions, which violated the law, by our city government.
Now it is the responsibility of our present city council, to find a solution for problems they did not create.
Somewhere down the line, we the people are going to have to pay for the mistakes of former governments here.
How long and how much I cannot say as I do not know.
So understand how I would react to comments from an outsider with no knowledge of the history leading to this, after decades of fighting over these types of actions with this very city?
If you understand this, then you will understand that ideas are needed to fix this problem and any suggestion within the law would gladly be accepted even from Mark.
And all this budget committee did, was try and bring this city back into compliance with the law, with the state breathing down its back.
Cody
Cody,
Thanks for your thoughtful posts today in response to Shelly Storm. However, whether there was a google problem in uploading part 1 of my post last night (although I tried four times) part 2 did appear, and another post if mine as well (where I ask you to put my posts in order) as did 6 other posts from other persons during the time I tried to upload .
Secondly, I emailed you at your gmail account last night with the text of part 1, and I have yet to see you post it - which surprises me, given your commitment to not censor the blog, so eloquently stated in your "Dilemma" post that very nicely defends freedom of speech.
I will attempt for the 5th time to post part one right now, and then part 2 again, so that readers can see my full thoughts and judge for themselves.
(The reason there are two parts is that there were too many characters for one post)
Thanks! - Mark Keller
(and here is part 2 again, for context... - Mark Keller
If you add both Portland and Multnomah County's TRT taxes that are collected in Portland together (which was never my point), then you still have well over 40% of the total going to Portland's General Fund.
3.) Other information I talked about comes from the following source that is a statewide survey commissioned by the State of Oregon. It is also a click-through of the State of Oregon's web page related to local TRT taxes (http://industry.traveloregon.com/upload/otc/departments/tourismdevelopment/finaltltsurveyresults.pdf)
Pages 57 through 69 are a treasure trove of information on how TRT taxes are spent - by the Counties and Cities listed.
Some notable points:
a.) Portland's TRT taxes in 2007 designated for the general fund were also in excess of 14 million, and they were also 83.33% of Portland's TRT revenues.
b.) Portland and Multnomah County's revenues are separately listed (page 57), and the amounts and destinations of where they were spend are clearly noted
c.) Take a look at Cascade Lock's information (page 65) - The City appeared to be right on in terms of 70%/30% split in 2004 and only a 62%/38% split in 2007 - meaning that tourism apparently got higher than the required minimum by 8% that year.
d.) Redmond, Oregon (Page 62) is interesting in its choice for use of revenues:
Of the $507,582 collected in 2007, fully $367,635 of it - a whopping 72.4% of TRT taxes - went to one line item: EMERGENCY SERVICES!
4.) Cascade Locks does allow lodging providers to keep 5% of the taxes collected as stated (page 54)
Anyway, I would love to sit down with you over coffee... I'm totally willing to admit my mistakes.
Are you willing to retract your conclusion? (Quoting from your post again):
"A far cry from the $14 million fact you stated in TRT alone.
Nothing personal just the facts."
And, "Anonymous" please see my response after your statement quoted from your post:
"Mark, local politics are just that, local. You should use your great ideas and "facts" to get elected where you live. Lord knows we need help, but based on the "facts" and questions in your post, we don't need your kind of "help". We already have plenty of locals quite adept at repeating gossip as "fact" at the top of their lungs, with their fingers in their ears. If you think having relatives live here gives you some sort of right to be involved, come back on election day and see if you get to vote."
1.) I am a business person very interested in the business development of Cascade Locks, and I truly believe that some proposed ideas by the council, mayor and budget committee will hurt business development in the City.
2.) I have suggested a source for nearly $18,000 in revenue for Cascade Locks without taxing residents or hurting local businesses
3.) I am concerned for the safety of my relatives and all the citizens if fire services are compromised, and given the incredible and ongoing vulnerability of the town to fires originating in the huge forests nearby.
4.) I have told the truth to the best of my ability and as documented, and tried to clearly state when I am relaying facts and figures and when I am stating opinions.
If those things make me unwelcome to you - I would beg you to consider what that says about the heightened state of emotions in town, and how those may negatively affect the future of Cascade Locks.
I would like to sit down over coffee with you, too. I think you would find me most reasonable.
)
Once again, Part 1 of my post did not appear on the blog, but 2 others did - Cody, I emailed you the text of part 1, as well as trying to post it 5 times here. What is the problem?
Mark.
You need to shorten it up.
I myself tried to put it on the blog and got this error.
Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters
In fairness to you if you want a blog page I will give you one, so put it togather.
I have told all sides this same thing.
Do not send it to my gmail account as I never check that.
Comments that do go through I have an auto forward to this email address.
codysteelman@embarqmail.com
Will that help.
Cody
Thanks Cody!!! Got it...
So I will post this in three parts in order, and I won't bug you again about this one...
(part 2 - continued)
Which clearly shows that $14,524,258 is the budgeted revenue from Portland's TRT taxes specified for use in Portland's General Fund.
I was truly puzzled where you got your figures, until I ran across a reference to revenues for the Convention Center in Portland (http://www.oregoncc.org/pdf/occ_economicimpact.pdf Page 5)
So the figures I quoted from your post above are revenues for the Convention Center and are from Multnomah County's TRT taxes, NOT Portland's and the 14 million plus figure is correct as stated. (And I see where you likely made your Google mistake).
2.) 83% is the correct percentage of Portland's TRT taxes that are spent on the General Fund as I stated. Please refer to Portland's Transient Lodging Tax webpage (http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?c=29976). I quote from the opening paragraph:
"Of the 11.5% tax collected within the City of Portland, 6% goes to the City of Portland: 5% to the General Fund and 1% to Travel Portland. The remaining 5.5% goes to Multnomah County: 2.5% to the Convention Center Phase II, .275% to hotel/motel operators, and 2.725% to Convention Center Phase I and related operations."
This confirms both that 5/6 ths (83.33%) of Portland's TRT taxes go to Portland's General Fund, and confirms the destination of Multnomah County's TRT taxes that are collect in Portland. Multnomah County and the City of Portland are separate government entities, and their respective TRT taxes collected go into completely separate budgets. You have conflated the two in your post, probably because Portland's TRT taxes are collected as a "pass-through" by the county to save businesses from having to fill out two sets of forms and remit two separate payments.
If you add both Portland and Multnomah County's TRT taxes that are collected in Portland together (which was never my point), then you still have well over 40% of the total going to Portland's General Fund.
3.) Other information I talked about comes from the following source that is a statewide survey commissioned by the State of Oregon. It is also a click-through of the State of Oregon's web page related to local TRT taxes (http://industry.traveloregon.com/upload/otc/departments/tourismdevelopment/finaltltsurveyresults.pdf)
(part 3 follows)
Cody,
I shortened part 1 way up, and it still is not posting.. I'm confident we can make this happen! Let's try it in 4 parts
(part 2 of 4):
1.) You said:
"So I have no idea where you got that 14 million figure from but in Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas Counties and Metro Regional Government for 2010 these are the facts.
Multnomah County Transient Lodging Tax $7,481,000
Motor Vehicle Rental Tax $1,566,000
Business Income Tax $150,000
Total $9,197,000
Washington County Transient Lodging Tax $1,013,000
Clackamas County Transient Room Tax $581,000
Metro Excise Tax $1,218,000
A far cry from the $14 million fact you stated in TRT alone.
Nothing personal just the facts."
I refer you to the Adopted Budget, City of Portland Fiscal Year 2010-11 (url: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=310560&c=53164 Page 33, and several other pages)
Which clearly shows that $14,524,258 is the budgeted revenue from Portland's TRT taxes specified for use in Portland's General Fund.
I was truly puzzled where you got your figures, until I ran across a reference to revenues for the Convention Center in Portland (http://www.oregoncc.org/pdf/occ_economicimpact.pdf Page 5)
So the figures I quoted from your post above are revenues for the Convention Center and are from Multnomah County's TRT taxes, NOT Portland's and the 14 million plus figure is correct as stated. (And I see where you likely made your Google mistake).
(part 3 follows)
Cody: copy of email just sent to you:
Cody, I have shortened up part one to way under the limit, and still it doesn’t post. If you don’t remove all of my posts tonight starting at 8:51 and then allow me to post the entirety of my statement in order, I can only conclude that you want to never let the first part of that post see the light of day….
You have my request and authorization to remove my posts after 8:51, to then notify me, and then let me post the parts in order for context, or I will be forced to conclude that you are trying to confuse the readers and censor the first part of my statement.
Mark Keller said...
Cody,
Before I refute your latest post, I want to thank you for the public service of this blog!! No one is the arbiter of all truth, no one is a perfect researcher, and I will be the first one to admit mistakes in this forum when and if disproven!
Having said that, your last post is terribly wrong in some of its figures which I will prove in detail. My bigger concern is that since you are clearly such an intelligent and diligent researcher, it seems that many people (such as the person responsible for the "anonymous" posting directly after yours, as well as lots of other posters in this blog) take your work as gospel. Not your fault, but an important cautionary note.
I don't want anyone to take my word as gospel, and so I will cite the government documents and websites that refute many specifics of your response to my post of earlier today. Bottom line: I was correct about the 14 million, and the 83%, and your figures appear to be those listed in a document about the Portland Convention Center - Not about the City of Portland's Budget. That is why your total is way off.
1.) You said:
"So I have no idea where you got that 14 million figure from but in Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas Counties and Metro Regional Government for 2010 these are the facts.
Multnomah County Transient Lodging Tax $7,481,000
Motor Vehicle Rental Tax $1,566,000
Business Income Tax $150,000
Total $9,197,000
Washington County Transient Lodging Tax $1,013,000
Clackamas County Transient Room Tax $581,000
Metro Excise Tax $1,218,000
A far cry from the $14 million fact you stated in TRT alone.
Nothing personal just the facts."
I refer you to the Adopted Budget, City of Portland Fiscal Year 2010-11 (url: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=310560&c=53164 Page 33, and several other pages)
Which clearly shows that $14,524,258 is the budgeted revenue from Portland's TRT taxes specified for use in Portland's General Fund.
I was truly puzzled where you got your figures, until I ran across a reference to revenues for the Convention Center in Portland (http://www.oregoncc.org/pdf/occ_economicimpact.pdf Page 5)
So the figures I quoted from your post above are revenues for the Convention Center and are from Multnomah County's TRT taxes, NOT Portland's and the 14 million plus figure is correct as stated. (And I see where you likely made your Google mistake).
2.) 83% is the correct percentage of Portland's TRT taxes that are spent on the General Fund as I stated. Please refer to Portland's Transient Lodging Tax webpage (http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?c=29976). I quote from the opening paragraph:
"Of the 11.5% tax collected within the City of Portland, 6% goes to the City of Portland: 5% to the General Fund and 1% to Travel Portland. The remaining 5.5% goes to Multnomah County: 2.5% to the Convention Center Phase II, .275% to hotel/motel operators, and 2.725% to Convention Center Phase I and related operations."This confirms both that 5/6 ths (83.33%) of Portland's TRT taxes go to Portland's General Fund, and confirms the destination of Multnomah County's TRT taxes that are collect in Portland. Multnomah County and the City of Portland are separate government entities, and their respective TRT taxes collected go into completely separate budgets. You have conflated the two in your post, probably because Portland's TRT taxes are collected as a "pass-through" by the county to save businesses from having to fill out two sets of forms and remit two separate payments.
Mark
Of which I answered earlier not knowing this did not go through.
Mark
I could have used the budget myself. But a budget is a projection (a best guess) of anticipated revenue and expenses. It in no way is an actual number. So there was no Goggle mistake there as I would never use a budget for actual numbers. Just look at ours.
But I will use that Portland budget now.
So as this budget shows a projected (Not an actual amount for this budget year) revenue of $14,524,258 and a 3.2% projected increase from last year.
Since I did use facts from the convention center let’s use that budget and see what the City of Portland budgets for expenses for that center alone.
Convention and tourism fund $3,537,770.
Convention Center area debt service fund $12,756,020.
So Portland shows $16,293,790 in expenditures.
That is a deficit of expenditures over revenue of $1,769,532 from the TRT.
This does not include expenditures for PGE Park, Civic Stadium, Portland International Raceway, the Performing Arts Center, along with the ones I previously mentioned from the Crossroads Consultant report. All tourism related if Portland were to choose to finance these from TRT funds which they do not.
Sure this does not factor in the revenue that the Convention Center brings in.
But that does not matter because all TRT dollars from the beginning were to build it.
It operates on that revenue source and until this debt is paid off will continue to show a negative fund balance.
So with this budget fact can you truly say that Portland spends 83% of its TRT tax to the general fund?
The way I see it Portland spends more on tourism related expenses than it brings in. In just one project.
But the fact is I do not care what Portland or any other town is doing.
I care about this town and what it is doing.
Now you said yourself that for at least 10 years that you could not bring a hotel into town with this economy or if we did not have a paid fire chief.
So give us the time to clean up this mess from previous administrations and maybe in 10 years we can have a convention center of our own to build your hotel around and a paid fire chief?
We are not Portland, we are not any other city, but we are Cascade Locks.
What other cities do is up to them.
The only city I care about is Cascade Locks.
Yes you see 30% being budgeted for our tourism.
What you are not seeing is after that. Funds were taken out of that 30%to pay for city landscaping, summer workers and such all non tourism related uses, but in fact other municipal uses.
That is a violation of the law.
And that is going to end.
Cody
Mark
I followed it up with this.
Mark
Now you say you are interested in business development in Cascade Locks.
So you understand the cost of doing business.
Yet I do not understand with the facts concerning our emergency services fund as they are that a person with the knowledge of business, would not understand that when a business spends more than they generate in revenue that the business is not going to survive.
I can show you proof of misappropriation of funds for over 26 years.
Which have led to the highest utility rates in the Pacific Northwest and even into parts of California.
This misappropriation of funds have also degraded the health and stability of our utilities to the point now, that there is no funds to fix the problems needed today, when the misappropriated funds could have been used to maintain and upgrade these utilities’.
So as a business looking for a location to set up shop, what is the first thing a business looks for?
What is it going to cost to do business at that location?
So what happens when right across the river or down the road a business will save ½ to 2/3rds of the cost for utilities compared to Cascade Locks?
There not even going to consider Cascade Locks and it happens all the time.
Now it appears that you are from out of town.
If that is correct you have not been forced to pay these inflated rates due to misappropriations of funds.
Unlawful misappropriations of funds I might add.
Now I will be the first to admit that what you are witnessing here is a direct result of bringing the use of our utility funds into compliance with the law.
So maybe in 10 years you will be able to go to investors and say “Hey look at how the low rates for utilities in Cascade Locks will help your bottom line”.
That is what I care about.
Bringing cost of living jobs to Cascade Locks, to increase the tax base, to support these services we have.
So this city can grow as a productive city and not the depressed one it has been for decades, all the while watching cities around us flourish and grow.
And if you do not understand that you do not understand business, only the sales pitch.
Cody
Mark
Like I told you in my email if you want a post page I will give you that.
You appear to have something on your mind and it might be important.
I am one that believes that every side must be heard.
When the comments get long even I have problems as long winded as I can be.
I have also had problems and reported them to Google just this past 2 weeks.
So I will go back to them again.
My settings are correct and verified by Goggle.
If I delete a comment it will tell the blog "comment deleted by moderator".
Like I told you in my email I do not delete any comments even with permission.
I will take time Friday to contact Goggle one more time on this issue of missing comments when I see them myself in my email.
Cody
westside fire has 50 volunteers and one volunteer fire chief!
there are no paid fire chiefs in skamania county (cities if stevenson and n bonneville. carson has the largest fire department, also run by a volunteer chief.
Skamania ambulance does have some paid staff, but also volunteers.
we should let medical response handle ambulance,calls, they handle calls for all of multnomah county.
we got too involved with metro counties, should more concentrate on our own city first, and our neighbors to the north (skamania) and all the fd's in our own county; they all will respond when needed.
Post a Comment