2003-1436-Minutes for Meeting November 12,2003 Recorded 12/5/2003COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKDS YV 2003.1436
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/05/2003 03;42;33 PM
1111111111111111111111111111111111
2003-1436
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
and
SHERIFF & STAFF
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2003
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present from the County were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom DeWolf and
Michael M. Daly. Also present were County Administrator Mike Maier; Mark
Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Sheriff Les Stiles; Larry Blanton, Undersheriff; Marty
Wynne, Finance Department; Jim Ross and Sue Brewster, Sheriffs Office; and
Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office.
Also in attendance were media representative Chris Barker of the Bulletin; Barney
Lerten of bend.com and The Bugle; Jeff Mullins of KBND Radio; Melissa Barens
of The Source; and Jason Carr of Z-21 TV,- plus three other citizens.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss future funding of Sheriff Services.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 8:45 a.m.
Marty Wynne began the meeting with a summary of documents containing data,
much of it historical, relating to funding of the Sheriffs Office. (A copy of the
documents is attached as Exhibit A)
He stated that he utilized actual data as provided by the Sheriff s Office to come up
with the Fiscal Year 2003-04 figures.
Minutes of Joint Meeting: Board of Commissioners and Sheriff & Staff
Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Page 1 of 3 Pages
There were questions and concerns pointed out, and a lively discussion took place,
regarding what was actually covered in the budgets from Fiscal Year 1994-95 to
the present, and the number of Sheriffs Office employees during that time period,
due to complexities caused by the passage of 1145 legislation, the split levy, Parole
& Probation being split off from the Sheriff s Office, and the closure of the work
center. A lengthy discussion took place regarding these issues.
It was pointed out that thirty-four of thirty-six counties do not have a funding
differential between city and county Sheriff services; however, most of those are
covered in some way by general funds. Some also receive forest revenue and other
funding.
Sheriff Stiles asked what the necessity for this background data is at this point.
Commissioner Luke stated that the Commissioners wanted background
information to form an idea of where the budget issues are. He said he realizes that
if the rate is kept the same, there will be a budget shortfall. The question is, how
much. He also indicated that he is not ready to make a decision at this time.
Sheriff Stiles then referred to a letter he drafted to address his concerns. (A copy is
attached as Exhibit B) He added that ten or eleven options have been discussed.
He said that he likes Commissioner DeWolf s idea of a permanent tax district to
fund common services, and a five-year operating levy to fund rural Sheriff services
of patrol and investigations. However, the rate to present to the rural citizens for
an operating levy is still undecided.
Commissioner Daly stressed that the high levy requested by the Sheriff has no
chance of passing, and the result will be a loss of rural patrol services until another
levy can be passed. Commissioner DeWolf pointed out that the Sheriff s recent
survey showed that 63% of citizens said that a high rate would not be acceptable.
Sheriff Stiles said that the voters should be given the opportunity to decide. He
added that he feels it is his job to recommend a rate to provide for the public
safety, but not to ask for more than he feels is necessary. His office will be out of
funds on June 30.
Commissioner Luke stated that he would not vote for a permanent taxing district at
this point. He would like to see a three to five year levy considered.
DEWOLF: I move that we not go forward with a permanent taxing district at this
time.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Joint Meeting: Board of Commissioners and Sheriff & Staff
Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Page 2 of 3 Pages
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
It was decided that the business manager for the Sheriffs Office, Jim Ross, should
meet with Marty Wynne, Finance Director, to come up with some firm numbers
for a March levy.
Being no further discussion, Chair Luke adjourned the meeting at 9:40 a.m.
DATED this 12th Day of November 2003 for the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners. cz
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Tom DeWolf, eZrAt6ssioner
Midh el M. Daly, C/pifimissioner
Exhibit A: Documents provided by Marty Wynne, including historical Sheriff s
Office funding data (nine pages)
Exhibit B: A letter dated November 12, 2003 from Sheriff Stiles to the
Commissioners (one page)
Exhibit C: A memo from Commissioner DeWolf, providing an overview of his
opinions regarding the funding of Sheriff services (five pages)
Minutes of Joint Meeting: Board of Commissioners and Sheriff & Staff
Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Pages
•a.
N
w
N�
I.f..
x
H
d'
O
M
0
0
N
L
CD
m
V
U.
f—
_A 00zZr �?
O C c`7 O M
O
U O
U
00 N U') N
N r N O
1: O O
ti
N
a�
cv
�L
'-C
�/ )
00
619.O
c n
U
(U C:
c6
O m
C m
O
Q C
i C6
O i
C N
.L
C
•-
M C)
CYi
N
6-1-
cu
F?cu ._
L (n
.L M
W Nt
L M
U) O
N 6s
r U)
r•-
60- N
co cc
N
�U
crC
r`
e? E
N 0
619 U
e
:xhibit
'age / of 9
94-95
Rural
0.9461
City
0.5831
Difference
0.3630
95-96
Rural
0.8685
City
0.5310
Difference
0.3375
96-97
Rural
0.7931
City
0.4891
Difference
0.3040
97-98
Rural
1.1592
City
0.8020
Difference
0.3572
98-99
Rural
1.1200
City
0.7800
Difference
0.3400
99-00
Rural
1.1200
City
0.7800
Difference 0.3400
00-01
Rural
1.1200
City
0.7800
Difference
0.3400
01-02
Rural
1.1200
City
0.7800
Difference
0.3400
02-03
Rural
1.1200
City
0.7800
Difference
0.3400
03-04
Rural
1.1200
City
0.7800
Difference 0.3400
:xhibit f�
'age -of �_
m
0
\
0 0 <00
\\Q
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 \o QQ\\\\Qo
0
\
0
\
0
\
0 0 0
0 \o
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
\
0
,\.
�[!
N O Z
M M 00 Z Z Lf) M (c) (c) Z,
et
o0
00
't 00 M
r
ti
LC)
I
QV
R
L
V
r
N N
�- M O M r- M ti
Cfl
O
N
Cc) I�
ti
O
6
M
❑
M'
r
r
r N
r
'7.
r
Q
V
R
C
=
e
G
Q
0
0 0
o o Q
0 0 0 0
o 0 Q Q o0 00 o0 Q o0
0
o
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
o`
0
0
Lf)
Lf) O Z
O O O Z Z, M M 00 Z O
00
Ln
O
N (c) O)
U)
LO
(N
U)
o
M
O LC)
D) N M
ti
ti
to
I` N Ln
M
to
06
O
❑
1,-
O Ui
Cc) d• O N r M (D
IF
r
IT co O
LO
'
d'
M
Iq
+R+
-
M
(D
M ' ' '
r
T
N
O
00
O O (D
O O O O LO 0 0 0 0 U) M
00
O
(o
O N LLQ
ti
O
ti
O)
d
0o
O O CM
O O O O O T (D O O D) (c)
h
O
(o
'T 00 Lf)
ti
O
ti
00
r
G
ti
O O
' O Ln O O r- N o0 O O q' (D
r
O
CA
O r f-
CA
O
O
Im
(Gi'
CO)
O
O O N
N O O P- r- ti fl- U) 00 (D
O
CO
00
(c) D) c)
co
O
00
ci
O
(o
(D CO
ti 00 r W N "t O O M
M
M
N
(D N M
N
r
M
00
O
N M co
M r- N M cl L()
M
00
T
O O fl-
co
N
O
O
U.
r
O)
M
N
06
M M
(o
h
r
r
r
r
r
T
'fit
O O
O It O O N r ;t O
r
O
LO
M W CO
'q
N
(o
CA
Ln
M
w
fl- I`
c- T- O U,) O d' L() 00
o)
O
In
M c- t
Ln
O
Ln
0)
CP
O
M N'
' ti (c) O' ' Lf) llz (c) ' M
M
O
I
N t co M
le
Ict
O O
CO Lf) O M 00 Il-
CO
CA
r
(D O N
CA
Iq
v
ti
CA
r
N Ln
M Nt N N M N It N
h
M
M
o0 r't
M
N
O
to
t
It
r r r M
M
(o
qe
N O %t
(o
N
CO
Ln
LL
Ili
U)
N
CO
L6
(o
CD
T -r
LO
,It
r
�
00
L
=
i
'a
U)
C
+
N N
O N� O
U
y
=
L
C)
Q
N}
L O
U L= "_' LL "''
y
N
N U
L
W
U d
C UCDV
L LL N 0) O -p (L6
m
L
U
y
y_ � i . (1
m
o
0)
�
m
(D
C__ w E (6
W a)
>
=
y
i
U)
CL
Q.
U
X a) m
N �_ O 0_ (,I)) C.)
N
y
d
7
°6
x
y
-
y
.
m cu
3 U �• (n =n, I' LL C�
L
—
N 0
LV
L
W
0
v
Z
LL
'0�
ti O CO
Fu
O
N
0
O L
u)
r
,
y
i1/�/
YIL/
OL OL N
N (n _ CO O� O L O�
i-
L
I--
K
O tB R
H
L
H
R
uj
m
da- LL
LLZ)(nZUU SUfnU C:O
H
W
a2U
H
LL
3xhibit
?age .3 of �_
O O o 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 a 0 0& 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0I o
O o 0 OOoo10010ID ID O CD CD coCD (D 0 0 o O o 00 w
co 4 a0 r N M r O r �- N N .~_. r r O N r r r r r r M r r LO
0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000000 000000 00 O 00 I O
O r CO ti CO CD 117 O N — r r r r r r M r r
r
O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O
O 00000000 �0O000 OO O O O L(i
r r M N M r O M r r to n (DN r r r r �-- a)
r N N r r O
r
L L
Q O N
w M M
c CU
U U v)"6 =— U N
c L L
LL F- <6 U U Q L r O L O O O
L- N cLi c aa)) U a) a a of @ > c a) (, .� v2 cq m
L c •� •� a) a) n U cq cn '� in a) ani ani >
c c io c c
v aac c a) c.Llp_L) 0U a o L)Q
' in fn O a) C L w a) U V) a) = .N a Q N a) C!J (n (n Cn
°O E Ec,4 Ea).`>�ac�U?—cn�O o)•"a)a)a)a)'—a)
_ a) C6 CO (6 U •� W a) U >+ U ��+ J N U f— Yi. N O Q) .> > > > .E w
� N c O O to a) a) L L O L U a) c U c O O m O c (6 ca c0 c6 ca
ca c c O YO >_= O o 3 a) o c c "c n3 .c O Q N a .in in in in Q in
m ami E a) w a) -� W Z o o c m c L o c E 'E 'E o
o m c ami m a°) o o m a ac) aa)) Z) a) 1 2 m t a) 2 2 0 m E= o o m a) a U U .� � U)) o Q -Ea -Eo _0 -Ea ac) "o
UUD-D(n000�O22iZ0- 0LLT--iW(nUUQm2 W WddIL�0- a-u)<<u)<
Exhibit /4
Page —$4— of
xhibit
'age _ of �—
L
O
O O
-0
O O O O O
-0 O0 -1
O O O
-.0O
O
O
O
0-0
O O
O
O
O
f`
OO
Cl) I` 00 O (fl
Lo OO It LO
1-_
M
tD
CO
O 00 O
I-
ti
to
Q d
Cl)
�- r Cl) O N4
M00 (D
to
r
(D0;
O Lo to
Co
00
N
CNY
'cY
M
- r
Cl) (D c--.0
r
r
r
e
Q L Q
Q
>
Z Z
Z
r --(O
O O O O
r O LO O
(A
T
O
M
O 00 N
O
O
07
O)
(O
N O
O (t7 M O OO
tO O O O
00
N
O
h
ti It It
tD
(D
r
c
T
O M'
Lf) (3) O O (A '
(A Lo M M'
N
N
O
M
O CA O
O
'
O
to
00
tD
(C) O
N O 00 O
OO lO 00 O
N
to
O
r
00 �t Cl)
CD
to
O
N
I`
O r Cl) r d
O O N N
N
N
to
O
LO 00 O
Iq
ct
to
-
>,
O
M
N r N
O r r
d'
M
(D
tD
00 N—
N
N
Cl)
LL
N
O
C6
N
M
r
rl N I
T
r
r
r
N
e
o 0
\\ \
0 0 0 0 0
\ \ \ \
0 0 0 0
\
0
\o
0
\
0
\
0
\ 0
\ \
0 0
\o
0
\o
0
\o
0
0
}
1`
It 00
O I- to O N
00 N N r
M
tb
to
LO r OO
ti
O
to
to
L.
N
O N
O (0 It O (O
M (A 4 M
ti
tD
tD
r M
O
O
M
a
N
Ce) _o
N N O
(D LO '
N
M
r
.-LO '
r
O
T
M
e
Q M V' ' Q
N Q
r
y
>
Z Z
Z
T
M M
O to O
I- O N 00
O
N
T
It
O 00 LO
N
N
N
O
0)
(O 00
C) ',I- N O O
N d' Lf) O
00
M
It
to
O co co
M
M
M
CP
O
N LO
' O O N O N'
O t` M' '
tp
I
M
ti
r N "t
T
'
O
W
CD
N 1�
O LO Cl) O to
r O M 00
O
O
O
to
M O tt)
1-
r
1`
(3)
N
Cl) (D
O r N r
M O O O
O
N
M
co
It tO It
!t
It
M
to
N N
N
M r T
co
O
co
M
O
M
M
O
LL
r
(D
CO
N
N
r
1- N r
t7
r
O
T
N
L
0
O
O0
O0 O0 O0 O0 O0
O0
O0 O0 O0
O0
Oo
Oe
OoO0
0 0 0
O O O
0
O
0
O
o
O
e
O
'
r
CO r-
O LO 00 O r
(O M r N
O
le
O
(D ti LO
co
ti
M
G i
r
O4
664
to toMI-�
M
O
r
to
6
M
T
M
(D
— M r-
O 00 N N
N
LO
r
r
N
Z Z
Z
'
T
O t`
O O M O S
CA f` It CV
N
CO
O
O
d M ti
0)
r
O
O
M
O
O LO r O
1` t to M
O
to
0)
I•
00 t N
to
T
ti
O
to
O
(0
O 00 L() tO LO '
r- — N 0) '
1-
M
to
O
0) to M
00
co
to
M
t0
et
O P-
O (6 4 ti Lf)
.- O O r
M
0)
00
N
00 � O
0)
I`
f`
to
O
to
I--Cl)LO
Ln MM
tiO
to
O
N
O�00
O
M
O
r
O
d_ N
r r r
r r
M
CO
ti
(D
"t Cl) O
00
N
r
to
LLL
N
't
to
N
O
T
(0 . - r
CO
0)
T
0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
o
0
e
0
o
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
LO CD
to M O
— 0 1-
r
to
tD
(D
co r i
et
N
O
r
N
G a
CO
r M
N O O
I` 1-� M
6
.4
CO
r
6
O LO N
r-�
cf
ti
r
h
N
r
M
r h N
N
M(D
r
r
M
a v)
Q Q Q Q
Q
>
Z Z Z Z
Z
C:
Q
to
M
LO Il-
O O M O
tt) tO r 0
O
O
M
O 00
0)
CO
ti
N
O
N
N M
� (A
O f` CD O O
' O d' (D O r'
00 I r Cl)
M O Mr,'
N
Cl
O
I
O
M
O
O
t` 1` C)
(CtO O
M
N
N
0)
tD
r
M
O
G1'
to
1-
4 I`
O r O O 4
O' r M
It
r
N
(.O O (D
cr
Cl)
00
11
0)
to
CO O
to N M M
M !O O to
It
M
CO
CO
t M r
01
M
N
to
tO
Nt N
r
r
'tet
oO
tD
O
00 N r
1
N
O
O
LL
T
d
t6
N
O
Lor
I,
O
N
t E
OO
O_ItO
ONr�
O
r
O
to
Mount
uq
N
CD
CD
ui
tD
ti
r O
to O to
ao
Of
O
to
CO r �t
I[1
O
to
0)
. [
O
M N
' ' 1� (D O ' '
LO "t CD � '
M
M
O
It
v O M
(D
to
r
N
N
0)
It
O O
.- M 0
O CD 00 r
r-
00
0)
r
(D O N
m
I*
I
I-
T
N LO
00 N
N M N
N
I-
M
Cl)
le
00 c- 't
M
N
CD
to
3: C.
LL
r
•- r
MM
to
CD
N
.O
N (A It
to
CD
tD
N
O
(O
to
r
LO
10)
=
i
1
" -
w L
}
i_ U)
a) :3
y
a)
U)
y
a)
C
m
12
0;
O
U=
y
N U
O
L
LU
_`
_U
l.L+'
y
(� (
U d
U a)
pt a) -0 Co
@ U)
�(
C� to
.N (6 r-
d
O
O
d
N 0 @
(n
d
O
N
N N
W y co C
7 C6 U) U
O (U
>
d
y
d
i
06 7
O.
X
m
X
y
41co
X X
@
(� O (6 F- — y
U
(O
= LL
y
C y U
L u
y
d
w
y
Z%
Z
H 1--
p
(L6 J LL_ (7 ca 'O O
a
@ . LL =
r
H
w
d
♦_
O
Ham,,
rv.
7
z7f
>
D_ L1
.0 'O i C
'4'
co ,C
`
O
O
C
O
d
y y
=
O
Q> >
tl1
d
N (a O
C (U 7
E O C O
H
F-
K
N (B CO
H
H
d
m
00
N
i
w
dILLLt-
zC)USUfAU50
H
W
d2U
!-
w
xhibit
'age _ of �—
y
O
O
O O O
O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
O
O
O
O
O O O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O N
N Lo 0 00 0) �* It O N It N
Ln
CD
ti
O O O
O
O
r
O
Q d
ti O LO
4 m O co LO r-_:(0 N co O
r
(0
L6 to Ln
to
C;
1
N
�
e
Q r
r
>
Z
O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O
O
O
N co
CD
O
wCO
Lc)O
O
CD 0 0
0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
O
O
d' '�Y �
N
Cl
N
N
O
9
O
N O O
O O O O O 0 0 C C C 0
N
O
N
M O e►'
It
O
N
N
'V
O
000LO
Lo COOOOr r 00000
(D
O
tD
CAOO
O
M
Cl)
r --
C) 00 r
1- ti r O M LO LO r N
M
Ln
h
r 00 �
ti
to
M
N
O
O M
r't M r N d' 't
LC')
CO
N
ti r I-
to
1`
d'
U-
r
0)
r
M
N
h
(6 M
r -
f`
T
T
r
T
T
L
\
0
\ \ \\
0 0 0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
\o
\o
\
\
\o
t0
Lo 0o tf)
0 0
't r O O co 0o 1` O It O
0
to
0
L()
0
tD
0 0 0
00 O D)
0
0
0
0
L
CO
(D 1-- O
ti O LO O LO O O N O
(-i
r
tz
d' D) 4
ui
M
.t
tt
1-- 0) 0) (D M N
r
r U)
r
N
r
�
Z
Q N Q
>
Z Z
00
O O (D
O O O O LO O_ 0 0 0 LO M
co
O
to
O N LO
t-
O
ti
O)
o0
O O M
O O O O O M O O D (D
ti
O
co
'cY0o tO
h
O
ti
co
- 9
ti
O O ti'
O LO O O 1- N 0o O O ":t(D
r
O
0)
O r h
o
O
O
0)
M
O
O O N
N O O 1� r r 1-- 1--m 00 (D
O
o0,
00
O O M
O
O
O
0
O
w
(D CO r
h CO r CO N It 0) O M
M
M
N
M N CO
N
r
M
co
>-
(A
(V M M
M r N M r 'It M
M
00
r
Cl O II-
00
N
O
O
LL
i
r
O)
.-
M
r
N
O
r
M M
r
(0
r
t
r
T
f
\e
e
o\ \ \
\ \ 0\ \0 \ \0 \ -0 \ \ \
\eo
-0-1
\0
\\ \oo
\e
\o
o
\o
0
0
}
t0
N O N
N N O O r :t CO "t N O r-
st
N
Ln
h M h
Ln
O
m
0o
co[�
(DOOOLOONI--ON(0
O
Lo
ui
Or('M
1.
r
CA
(D
Da
ti
0) Odteoco "ItLn
r
o
T
o
M
c
>
Z
00
O N CO
O O O N N r (T O d' 00
Cl
11
N
1,- (D 00
r
O
r
T
M
I- O O
OO (D L() 'T r M LO O
N
(D
Co
O (D 00
w
CD
I*
C
tD
V'ct CO
' OOO ' MOLO 00MLTN
ti
o
N
r, Lo(O
O
M
T
O
N
r
(O N
N (O O (D O ti (O CO LO
0)
Lo
ti
d O M
M
a0
M
O
Ln
O Lo (D
't O r C) (D a0 M O Co LO
0)
(A
ct
CO LO 1-
r
I`
CO
Ln
M
O co N
r N r r (D 1--
(D
h
00
M 1-- �
(D
N
co
0)
U.
N
0o
r
N
O
r N
r!
l
r
T
T
r
r
T
L
0
O
0 0
O O O0
D0 O0 O0 O0 0-0 O0 O0 0 0
0
O0
0
0 O0 O0
O0
0
O
0
O
}'
00
M M r
O CO h 1` LO O N O to
to
N
N
00 M Lo
Ln
1`
tt
z-
N
CO (D O
Co CO I� �-- 0o U7 (0
'�t
Cl
O
M M
N
N
N
d
N
r N
O r' N Ch
T
r
N
Q Q Q
>
f
Z Z Z
M
00
O (D O M N 00 LO M O r 00
(D
o
(A
1- tv r
r
M
Iq
Ln
N
(D
00
O O O It It M 1- 00 O N
1h
O
Cl)
N Cl) Cl)
O
Cl)
M
O
- G
N
N O Cl)'
0 0 O 00 tO 1� N M O (D O
(D
O
07
M a0_ M
a0
M
r
o
r
O
LO LO LO
co co O (0 O O LO 00 Ln It
It
o
1t
(D
O)
Co
O
It
0
t`
M "t
1` 't r O0 N 00 1` N O CO
Ln
Ln
1`
CO 0)
CO
M
N
to
>.
M
O M to
r r � r O d'
(D
0)
(A
M 1` d'
Ln
t0
M
LL
'..
r
0o
r
T
N
to
O N
M
M
N
_
r
T-
r
r
T
L
0
a
0 0
o 0
-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o
0 -1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e
o
o
e
0
o
0 0 0
0 0 o
0
e
0
o
010-1
0
0
0
>'
n
(D It
1` r d' O 00 Ln 1- co LO
t0
O
O
O Co (D
O
Cl
N
M
O L
si'
C6 O
Vr--: 'tet O M r O O N LO
r
T
N
O r 00
T
O
o
M
N
i
ti r ' O 'Q N
'
r LO
O
N
Q
Q'
Cl
O N Co
Cl) 0) O co r h N N M
L()
O
to
M O d'
CD
to
M
T
1`
(0 C) O
O O OM O r O LO Cl) LO
M
O
O
r LO
r
r
00
C
a0
d' M O
N O O ' LO ' It (q D) Ln ' N
M
Lo
f`
N N (D
I' t O
Cl)
h LO
� CO 00 N 00 00 - 0) 1`
r
r
N
N M r
h
1`
LA
O
ti
00 O N
O 0) It 1` 00 (D N It N
1`
ti
N
O O LO
to
Ln
(0
t,
M N N
- (O r r CO
r
to
to
O 1- LO
N
N
Cl)
LL
1�
O
N
O N
M
M
r
T
T
r
T
T
I
0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-
' � }O
C'4
ct LO
0 0
Cp CD N � CDCO r
C
O h N
0
N
0
O
0
It
0 0 0
r O (D
.P
1�
0
�
0
v
(D
t() N
O O 4 O Ci h N LO (6
N
O
O
CA O O
CO
ti
.4
D a
T
r
h N M t- r M' N LO
T
r
r N
T
T
N
o
Q
N Q Q
......E
O
O 'd'
co O h O o) N "t r 1`
N
O
N
N (D r
to
(A
00
1*
O
N
M
_N
(D000 O O M NO r
N
O
!1'
d' d'O
00
r
O
M
O
Lo
(31O '
OONO1`"trOO ' N
O
O
Lo
ztrLIZ
O
o
O
Ln
(A
NT
M N
I,- r r 0 0 O O -- M 0)
r
O
Lo
Lo (D r-
M
T
Lo
O
(D
Lo
O M
(D 00 LO r LO CO O N Ln U)
r
Lo
r
LO CO M
N
r
M
o0
,:"..
M
r- co
1` r OO r r (D
Cl
to
O
M ct M
T
T
N
i
N
(0
O
N
Lo
O N r
M
M
T
T
T
T
T
:xhibit
Sage 6, of _
\ \ \ \ \o \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(N O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 h O O
M O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O h
rn rn rn
O O O
co M M
T r r
.O
m O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CA
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 to O O
h O O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ti O ti
O Lo In CO O O O T T 0 0 0 00 N O N
M .- t,- i-- T O M LOLO N 10 &0 00
N M d' M N ct t 00 CO to
r 4 N 00
r T T
O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N O O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N
00 O LO LO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 to O W
O M r ti .-- O M LO Ln — N M N ti
6) co �-- �t CO N V V M to N
Q) T M N ti
T T
0 0 o e o 0
O O O O O co
O O O O O .'
z r -
M
CA
It
00
N r- M
LO
M
O
CA
CD
M CSO dam'
I
M � �
m
M
O
�
6700
O
M
M
N
t� T ti
to
wIn
M M
T
f� ti
_ C
0co
Cl) M
L C O
w i- 0) 0
y
0)
O
T
E O
p U i=
LL� V
y
U�w 0 � lL w cE
cw
'c
7
U
c — U) Y
w H S in a-
co oc
O U
to
d
O
d
x X (� O
cu m 3 ��_ ��
ca
H
y
Z C
f- H (9 J Li 0 fU —0_N c0
j
fII
w R
O >
O_ Q O O o C O� c N
B O
O
c O
CO W
CL CL u— DczUU CUU)U
O
0 0 o e o 0
O O O O O co
O O O O O .'
z r -
M
CA
It
00
N r- M
to
M
O
CA
CD
M CSO dam'
I
M � �
�
M
O
�
6700
O
M
M
N
t� T ti
to
wIn
M M
T
f� ti
ttoo
0co
Cl) M
I�
T
O
T
N M
co
O
to
CD
M CSO dam'
I
' O
I
000 ti
I
O
M
t� T ti
to
1�
M M
T
1�
T
h
T
E
U)
N C
cn ami m m
U V +3+
in Z N �,
U) Ma O a
O W W
d O-- -For w W w
O O = O
W D_ 2 co ~ U f= ~
0
O
O
O
T
ON! N
ivy"
yCo00,
1,- 00
Lo O
Lt)
N !i v
CSS; m
?xhibit
?age
w
O
M
.S N
t (Q
� O
CL
Cl? O
O U
ER C
-O C
0) N
ca 3
Q Q
O U
� C
C
M
.Exhibit
Page _ of _
� o
O
O
(1)
M Lo
(6
Ln
r r
C
03
0)
O
U
CLj
O
C
d
N
O I-
O
O
(13
N
T
T
r r
O O O
OM
)
U
cj
C
O
�
}
LL
0)
-O
LL
>
00N O
O
ti 0)
0
o
O .-
1� O
I`
(00
00 I`
to (fl
0)
L
U')
0 0 0
U
0
O (1)
C
w
O
M
.S N
t (Q
� O
CL
Cl? O
O U
ER C
-O C
0) N
ca 3
Q Q
O U
� C
C
M
.Exhibit
Page _ of _
N 0
O
O
O
X!fl
N
fD
OM
� d
�
LL
-' 00
N
o
O 00 O
1� O
I`
p
00 I`
to (fl
N
U')
0 0 0
0 0
0
O (1)
M 00
N 00
CY.)
"Zt Lf) ti
M O
M
N N
O Lfj
Lfy LC)
O
O 00 —
M O
M
O
CY)
W
to O
F E
N
Cfl Ln
C)
O
N M~
LM C(0
00
r
N
r
_
r
r O
r
r
000 N
d
0)
O .-
O
C
Q
O
O OO
C
L
C
Lo Ln
O C
O
CU O
C
U
Cfl M
O a)
U
g�),N
Q•
Q L
OL
d
O
O
p
U
U
a)
.- rn
O
O
�rn
o.o
70 O
N i
n
X6N
'a
—
03
U
O 00
O Q
r -
O 10
Lo
O
U
a
U)
ti
r
U)
N
Z
L'. .
O
O
N p
p
p
C
N
F -
LL
w
O
M
.S N
t (Q
� O
CL
Cl? O
O U
ER C
-O C
0) N
ca 3
Q Q
O U
� C
C
M
.Exhibit
Page _ of _
5 Year Tax Levy At Current Rates CONFIDENTiAL
Preliminary Estimates
Rate Tax Revenue Room Tax Other Revenue Total Revenue
YR1
$
10,194,791
$ 2,650,000
$
2,703,556
$
15,548,347
YR2
$
10,820,323
$ 2,650,000
$
2,771,556
$
16,241,879
YR3
$
11,485,238
$ 2,650,000
$
2,846,601
$
16,981,839
YR4
$
12,192,072
$ 2,650,000
$
2,905,601
$
17,747,673
YR5
$
12,943,527
$ 2,650,000
$
2,957,223
$
18,550,749
NOTES:
Excludes all Contract (Sister, USFS, Code) Revenue and Expenses.
Excludes all New Employees Identified in Strategic Planning Process by DCSO.
First Year Actions Required by Sheriff's Office To Reduce Expenses:
Eliminate Four Animal Control Positions.
Eliminate Four School Resource Officer Positions.
Eliminate Two Selected Positions in Sheriff's Support Staff
Reduce Material and Services and Capital.
County reduces Indirect Costs or pass costs to other agencies.
Reduce Approximately Fifteen Selected Sworn Positions.
Cost Increases due to Layoffs
Total Cost Decreases
Impact of Public Safety and Security from Above Actions:
$ 201,000
$ 302,000
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 1,236,000
$ 2,039,000
Reduction in Patrol hours (In many cases we would not provide 24 hr coverage).
No response to animal calls or investigations.
No longer participate in CODE (Central Oregon Drug Enforcement).
No longer participate with Schools in Student Resource Officer education.
Increase use of Matrix due to overcrowding in Jail.
Exhibit
3ageof�
5YR LEVY @ CURRENT RATES
//• /-z-03
Annual
Sheriffs Office
Funding
Expenses
Shortfall
$ 17,587,535
$(2,039,188)
$ 18,422,439
$ (2,.1.80,559.)
$ 19,412,139
$ (2,430,300)
$ 20,926,410
$ (3,178,737)
$ 21,860,872
$ (3,310,122)
NOTES:
Excludes all Contract (Sister, USFS, Code) Revenue and Expenses.
Excludes all New Employees Identified in Strategic Planning Process by DCSO.
First Year Actions Required by Sheriff's Office To Reduce Expenses:
Eliminate Four Animal Control Positions.
Eliminate Four School Resource Officer Positions.
Eliminate Two Selected Positions in Sheriff's Support Staff
Reduce Material and Services and Capital.
County reduces Indirect Costs or pass costs to other agencies.
Reduce Approximately Fifteen Selected Sworn Positions.
Cost Increases due to Layoffs
Total Cost Decreases
Impact of Public Safety and Security from Above Actions:
$ 201,000
$ 302,000
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 100,000
$ 1,236,000
$ 2,039,000
Reduction in Patrol hours (In many cases we would not provide 24 hr coverage).
No response to animal calls or investigations.
No longer participate in CODE (Central Oregon Drug Enforcement).
No longer participate with Schools in Student Resource Officer education.
Increase use of Matrix due to overcrowding in Jail.
Exhibit
3ageof�
5YR LEVY @ CURRENT RATES
//• /-z-03
DESCHUTES
COUNTY
SHERIFF'S
OFFICE
LES STILES
Sheriff
63333 W. Hwy. 20
Bend, OR 97701
Bend Station
541-388.6655
Fax 541-389-6835
Administration
541-388-6659
Fax 541-389-4454
La Pine Station
51590 Huntington Rd.
La Pine, OR 97739
541-536-1758
Fax 541-536-5766
Sisters Station
703 N Larch St., Suite C
541-549-2302
Fax 541.549.1762
North Station
8222 N Hwy 97
Terrebonne, OR 97760
541.923-8270
Fax 541-548-7589
Special Services/SAR
541-388.6502
Fax 541-388-0793
Emergency Services
541-617-3303
Fax 541.388-0793
Adult Jail
541-388-6661
Fax 541.330-9162
Regional Work Center
541-617.3312
Fax 541-389-6368
November 12, 2003
Commissioner Dennis Luke
Commissioner Tom DeWolf
Commissioner Mike Daly
1340 NW Harriman Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
Dear Commissioners:
During the past three weeks there have been a number of meetings
regarding what funding mechanism should be used to fund Sheriffs Office
public safety services. Additionally, we have had a number of
philosophical discussions regarding what rate to use and how that could be
fairly apportioned.
During this process I have provided a number of options that included a
three year levy, a five year levy, a single flat rate tax -district, two
permanent tax -districts, and the latest one which is a permanent tax -
district for common services and a five year levy for rural services.
Within each of the levy rates for three and five year there were options and
costs associated with maintaining current service levels, not re -opening the
work release center and continuing with matrix, and then finally, no new
employees at all for the life of each of the levies. Including the two
options provided for each of the tax -district rates and the two cost options
for tax -district and five year levy. That brings the total number of options
to eleven. I understand that your staff has been working on some
additional options.
My recommendation at this point is that we adopt Commissioner
DeWolf's recommendation of a permanent tax -district to fund common
services and attempt to pass a five year operating levy to fund rural sheriff
services of patrol and investigations. This option appears to meet most of
the needs that have been expressed and allows us all some time to get
some distance on the cost issues and reconstruct a permanent fix for rural
services that could be presented in 2006.
I know we are alike in our desire to make sure public safety services are
not adversely harmed for our residents and visitors in the future. I look
forward to your decision.
Sinc
Les Stiles
Exhibit �8
?age / of /
Tax "Fairness" in the Context of Public Safety
by Deschutes County Commissioner Tom DeWolf
November 12, 2003
There has been much discussion regarding Sheriff Stiles' statement in a letter to
the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners in an October 28 letter: "I hold to my
beliefs that tax -payers should only pay for those services they receive..."
While this sounds good in theory, it is not practiced by any municipality that
relies on property or income taxes, as we do in Oregon. We simply do not pay taxes only
for those services we receive. Further, it would be completely impractical, if not virtually
impossible, to determine exactly what each individual taxpayer should pay based upon
the tax -supported services they use.
In reality, for the most part, taxes are intended to be collected and used for the
common good without a precise accounting to each taxpayer that what they have paid is
"only for those services they receive."
Since this issue is the very heart of the philosophical disagreement between the
Commissioners and the Sheriff, I will explain my position with several examples:
My children are grown and no longer live at home. No one in my family
attends COCC. I do not receive any services from an Educational School
District, yet I still pay property taxes for all three.
Some people never check books out at the Library. Some people go to
the Library daily. Yet all in the Library Districts pay the same rate of
taxes for both the construction bonds and the operations of the Library.
Some taxpayers have never gone to the fairgrounds and have never
called 9-1-1. They've never had a fire or medical emergency in their
home and have never had any problems for which they had to call the
police. Yet their taxes pay for all these services at the same tax rate.
Using the logic that taxpayers should pay "only for those services we receive," all
these examples represent people with a tax burden that is far too high. However, if we
accept the concept that we all benefit from certain common goods (i.e., I benefit when
others are educated, that libraries, fairgrounds and parks enhance my community, that
having police, fire and ambulance services available is good insurance for us all), then I
may well consider my tax burden "fair."
Many attempts have been made and will always be made to make our tax system
"more fair;" hence, the movement to eliminate the "marriage penalty" in federal income
taxes and "estate taxes" for those who have died.
Several years ago, Deschutes County, in an attempt to be "fairer," created a split -
rate levy system, whereby rural residents paid a higher rate for sheriff services than their
city counterparts. The theory is that city residents already pay taxes for police patrols and
rural residents don't pay city taxes. By asking rural residents to pay a higher rate, the
additional dollars raised would be dedicated primarily to patrols and investigations.
Exhibit
?age / of 5
Clackamas County was the only other county in Oregon at the time with a split rate.
Deschutes County modeled our system after theirs. I believe Deschutes and Clackamas
are still the only two counties with split rates. Consequently, our city residents benefit in
ways they wouldn't in almost any other county in Oregon.
When we had this same discussion in the year 2000 about the fairness of the split
rates of .78 (per $1,000 of assessed value) in cities and 1.12 (per $1,000) in rural areas,
we hired Moss -Adams LLP to perform an assessment of the rates. They had not worked
for any government entities in Deschutes County before and we wanted a completely
impartial result. Moss -Adams concluded "the allocation of resources and expenditures to
mandated services is reasonable based on historical and budgetary amounts as set forth in
Schedule 1. The mandated services are consistent with the Oregon Revised Statutes."
Moss -Adams also concluded "the basis used to allocate costs is appropriate." Redmond,
Sisters and Bend elected officials supported this split rate and the theory behind it, as
validated by Moss -Adams. Deschutes County Commissioners supported it. Sheriff Stiles
apparently supported it enough to endorse the levy rates. He gave no indication
otherwise. The voters overwhelmingly supported the levy. When it was put up to a vote,
with .78 and 1.12 for rates, it failed in March 2001 because it lacked the required 50%
voter turnout. In May 2001, with the same rates, it passed with 82% approval and 55%
turnout. In both elections, it passed in virtually every precinct in Deschutes County. This
is a strong indication to me that voters believe the split rates we have are reasonable.
Now, Sheriff Stiles claims that city residents are paying too much; that they are
not "only paying for services they receive." As much as some would like this issue to be
a simple matter of mathematics, it is not. Over many years, we in Deschutes County have
created a system of public safety that relies upon all its parts to provide the level of
service we all benefit from. In broad terms, this includes our judicial system, jail, fire
departments and fire districts, emergency medical technicians, city and state police, 911
district and sheriff's deputies.
It is impossible to allocate, with any degree of accuracy, exactly what each
individual taxpayer should pay based on services they receive. As with the examples sited
above, public safety involves a common pool of tax -supported funding to serve the
common good of our residents and visitors. I will again explain with examples:
I am a city resident. I drive to Smith Rock State Park. Someone begins
to harass me. I call 911. The city police my taxes support will probably
not be the ones to respond, a sheriff's deputy will.
I live in Terrebonne and drive into Redmond. Someone begins to harass
me. I call 911. A city police officer responds.
Some would claim these two examples constitute a "wash" and provide proof that
rural residents should pay for rural patrols and city residents should pay for city patrols
and then we are all even and fair. How many times do rural residents need the help of city
police? How many times do city residents need the help of sheriff's deputies? I have no
idea. I spoke with Redmond Police Chief Lane Roberts. He had no answer for this
question either, but suspects that Sheriff's Deputies probably provide backup support to
Redmond Police more often than the reverse. Since the majority of crimes and arrests are
Exhibit C_
Page - a_ of S'
made in the cities, I suspect that Chief Roberts is correct and that Sheriff's Deputies back
up city police more than the reverse, but I've never seen any such statistics. I do know
that if we are going to claim to calculate the fairness of this split, we'll need this answer.
He told me that the loss of most rural patrols by Sheriff's Deputies would have a severely
negative impact on Redmond's Police Department.
People who live outside cities shop at Bi -Mart, Fred Meyer, Costco, Safeway and
Staples in Bend. They eat at restaurants in Sisters and Sunriver. They go to the movies in
Redmond. They golf in Black Butte. They help provide the income with which those
businesses pay their property taxes to support their urban police services. I've seen no
calculations of how much rural residents are supporting police services in the cities
through their purchases. People in Bend eat at Tumalo Feed Company and golf in La
Pine. Their money helps pay property taxes for rural patrols, but to a fraction by
comparison because the vast majority of business is concentrated within urban centers.
Taking this discussion a step further, how fair is the tax burden for residents of
exactly the same taxing district? Here are two examples:
One family lives in a house in Bend worth $200,000. Their friends live
in a house in Bend worth $1,000,000. One family pays five times as
much as the other for city police services. Is it fair or accurate to say
they both "only pay for those services they receive?"
• One family lives in a house in La Pine worth $200,000. Their friends
live in a house in Tumalo worth $1,000,000. Is it fair that one pays so
much less for sheriff patrols than the other?
I live in Bend. I benefit from sheriff patrols as surely as I benefit from city police,
schools, libraries, fairgrounds and all the community facilities and services we pay for
together, even though we utilize those services to varying degrees and we pay differing
amounts depending on where we live and how much our property is worth. Tax rates for
general government services differ among Bend, Redmond and Sisters. Is this fair? Does
everyone "only pay for those services they receive?" Are the services of equal value?
When sheriff's deputies responded to the 18 Fire, they helped residents in the city
of Bend. When sheriff's deputies responded to the B&B Complex Fire, they supported an
effort to control a fire that mostly burned forests in Jefferson County. Is this fair? As
Chief Roberts pointed out to me, "This is the nature of police work in Oregon because
our authority is not limited to a particular jurisdiction like it is in Washington."
I called Bend Police Chief Andy Jordan and asked what would happen if
Deschutes County's Sheriff's Patrols were reduced by 80% and someone reported a
burglary in Deschutes River Woods. Would Bend Police respond? His answer was
immediate. "No."
"Okay, I call and say there's someone in my house with a knife. Do you
respond?"
"Yes. When someone is in immediate danger, we're there."
"I'm ten years old and I call to say my daddy is hitting my mommy."
"We're there."
Exhibit (2 -
?age 3 of S"
Chief Jordan explained that the impact of the loss of patrols in the rural areas
would severely impact the Bend Police Department. I believe if you asked. the Chiefs in
Sunriver and Black Butte Ranch, you would get the same response.
If we reduce patrols in the rural areas by 80%, and city police provide additional
services in areas they are not currently responsible for, what impact does that have on me
as a city resident? I am then definitely paying for a service that others receive without
paying city taxes and the service I do pay for is being compromised by being stretched
artificially thin.
This is not a black and white issue, and there are no simple answers. It is a
complicated system of public safety we have built up over a very long time. If we remove
a key component, the system will suffer. We will all suffer the consequences, city and
non -city residents alike.
A survey of 400 likely voters (200 each in House Districts 53 and 54) was taken
October 13-14, 2003. One question was "Next, would you vote for or against a measure
funding a law enforcement district in Deschutes County with a tax rate not to exceed 85
cents per thousand of assessed value over the next 10 years? This would cost the owner
of a $200,000 home a maximum of $176 in each of the next 10 years." 46% were in
support and 31% were in opposition. 23% replied "don't know."
The next question was asked only of precincts in the rural sample. "Next, would
you vote for or against a measure funding a law enforcement and public safety district in
Deschutes County with a tax rate not to exceed $1.97 per thousand of assessed value over
the next ten years? This would cost the owner of a $200,000 home a maximum of $394 in
each of the next 10 years." 18% were in support and 63% were in opposition. 19% said
"don't know."
We have seen a variety of options with various scenarios for raising the necessary
funds for Sheriff Office operations in Deschutes County over the past several months. In
April 2003, Sheriff Stiles said the decision had already been made to go out for a new 3 -
year levy in March 2004. He indicated the possibility that rates could rise as much as 25
cents per thousand for both city and non -city residents alike. In May, Commissioner Luke
said the Sheriff should have raised the tax rate in 2001, but acknowledged how tough that
would have been, since Mr. Stiles said he could run the department with the existing tax
rates. By June, the Commissioners convinced Sheriff Stiles to consider permanent tax
districts as opposed to levies, to give stability to funding of sheriff services. Sheriff Stiles
at that time indicated that on Friday and Saturday nights, a high percentage of sheriff's
deputies were performing backup duties within the city of Bend (this may cause some to
wonder if rural residents are subsidizing Bend residents).
Also in June, Commissioner Luke pointed out that the biggest mistake we could
make is having a rate that is too small and then have to go back to the voters for
additional funds later, like the 911 Service District has done. In response, I pointed out
that another mistake is too big a rate that will not pass. Former County Legal Counsel,
Rick Isham quoted Goldilocks when he pointed out that the rate should be "just right."
Identifying "just right" may not be as difficult as quantifying a tax bill in which
all taxpayers "only pay for those services they receive," but it is challenging when the
Sheriff's conclusions conflict with those of the County Finance Director, the County
Administrator and all three County Commissioners who are charged with the
responsibility of setting the rate and putting such tax measures before the voters.
Exhibit (,—;,
Page _� of S
I will not make a decision that I believe will compromise the safety and well-
being of the people of Deschutes County. Based upon my own judgment, which is
supported by the results of the recent survey and the vast majority of comments I have
received in recent weeks, I will not support shifting such a heavy financial burden onto
taxpayers who live outside Bend, Redmond, Sisters, Black Butte and Sunriver (Increasing
rural rates by $1.29 would increase property taxes on a $200,000 home by $258.00) in
order to reduce the tax burden of those inside the urban areas by a token amount
(reducing city rates by .02 would reduce property taxes on a $200,000 home by $4.00 per
year. Reducing rates by. 10 would reduce taxes by $20.00 per year).
I have seen no evidence to convince me that a formula exists within the property
tax system in Oregon to insure that taxpayers will "only pay for those services they
receive." There are many perceived inequities in our tax system. Altering one factor and
doing so without gathering and thoroughly analyzing all the data doesn't "fix" anything.
Ignoring all the other perceived inequities is also completely unfair. People with more
valuable homes and more successful businesses pay more property taxes. People inside
cities may sometimes subsidize rural residents, and vice versa. I have not seen any
evidence to show whether or not this is an equal arrangement. I do believe that if either
city police or sheriff patrols were eliminated from the system of public safety we have
developed, we would all be much less safe than we are today.
Given the challenges we face and the amount of information we should have at
our disposal before we create a permanent public safety tax district, I believe it would be
a mistake to ask the voters to decide on tax districts at this time. This is unfortunate,
inasmuch as Sheriff Stiles and the County Commissioners do agree that permanent, stable
funding is preferable to temporary levies.
I will support placing a 5 -year levy on the May 2004 ballot. I recognize that the
current rates of .78 and 1.12 will result in layoffs and inadequate budget reserves, but will
still preserve a strong presence of patrols and investigative services in Deschutes County.
I'm willing to consider modestly higher rates in both urban and rural areas.
I am also willing to consider a March 2004 levy with modestly higher, sustainable
rates so the Sheriff's Office can maintain current staffing levels and appropriate reserves.
I seek input to determine the appropriate rate over the next several weeks.
If the voters support the March proposal, so be it. If not, they'll have the option in
May to consider maintaining the current .78 and 1.12 rates. In this way, the voters will be
aware, up front, that they have two options to consider as to the level of Sheriff's services
they want.
I further propose that following the passage of a new 5 -year levy, we create a
"blue ribbon" committee of urban and rural taxpayers, elected officials and members of
the Local Public Safety Coordinating Council to look at all aspects of permanent public
safety taxing districts for Sheriff services in Deschutes County with the task of placing
such a proposal before the voters after thorough study and much public discussion, well
prior to the expiration of the next levy.
This has been a complicated, contentious and important debate. I've made my
decision after very careful consideration. I look forward to finalizing details and working
with Sheriff Stiles to pass a levy that will maintain an adequate level of public safety for
the residents and visitors of Deschutes County.
Exhibit (?-
Page S-- of S—