2004-37-Minutes for Meeting January 07,2004 Recorded 1/14/2004COUNTY OFFICIAL
TES
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
Il01/14/1004 11;46:56 PM
uuu um.lInaim ■
aMIR
2004-37
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.ora
MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 2004
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom De Wolf.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Susan Ross,
Commissioners' Office; Les Stiles, James Ross, Larry Blanton, and Sue Brewster,
Sheriffs Office; Tammy Credicott, Property Management; Mark Pilliod and
Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and Marty Wynne, Finance Department. Also in
attendance were Steve Scott, the County's Real Estate Broker of Record; media
representatives Barney Lerten of bend. com and The Bugle, Chris Barker of the
Bulletin, and Jeff Mullins of KBND Radio; State Representative Gene Whisnant;
and three other citizens.
Chair Mike Daly opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was a Decision regarding a Litigation Issue.
The following action follows an executive session discussion held earlier in the
day regarding Wisdom v. Deschutes County.
DALY: Move that Legal Counsel be authorized to proceed with
negotiations on the terms of a settlement according to the earlier
discussion with Legal Counsel in executive session.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 1 of 24 Pages
2. Before the Board was a Decision regarding Real Estate Negotiations Issue
("Elliott property").
DEWOLF: Move that the County's Real Estate Broker of Record and County
staff proceed in securing the property and draw up an addendum
for the Board's signature, as discussed in executive session.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was a Decision regarding Real Estate Negotiations Issue
(Sale of County -owned Property to the City of Redmond).
DEWOLF: Move that the County's Real Estate Agent of Record (Steve Scott)
and County staff negotiate the sale of the County's 122.8 acres
(located within the City of Redmond's urban growth boundary)
with City representatives, according to the parameters discussed in
executive session, and report back to the Board with the final
negotiations.
LUKE: Second.
DALY:
I have a comment to make. I am very much objecting to the part "including the
agent of record" in the negotiations on this. The agent of record has not been
involved in this issue up until just the other day when he was brought in by Mike
Maier for negotiations.
I think we have three lawyers working for this agency, and we have a real estate
department. The issue is very cut and dried. I can't imagine why we need an
agent of record to be involved in this. If, for some reason he is involved, I would
suggest that he proceed under his contract where he is being paid $100 per hour
for his advice. That's the way I feel about it.
LUKE:
As strange as it may seem, and this is probably the first time I've disagreed with
you on an issue, the agent of record has been involved with this property ever
since I've been here, since he's been under contract with the County. He has
worked different aspects of this and hasn't charged us for most of that work.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 2 of 24 Pages
This is not a simple, cut and dried, straight real estate deal; it's complicated.
We talked quite a bit about it over the last few days. Tammy (Credicott) is not
a licensed real estate agent. We made that decision quite a while ago because
of the liability that the County would assume if she were a licensed real estate
agent. And it takes more than just an agent, because an agent doesn't have the
knowledge of a broker. You need somebody with that knowledge to make sure,
since this is a complicated deal. And I'd like to make sure it goes through.
The agent of record has proposed that he get I%, since some of the negotiations
of this are a counter-offer to increase the price for different things. I think the
original number that he put out, I believe it was $17,000 something, should be
the commission. And he should move forward and get this thing done.
PILLIOD:
I realize a lot of this is yet to be fulfilled, but I think the idea was that it would
be contingent upon a sale.
LUKE:
It's contingent upon a deal. As always.
DEWOLF:
I agree with Commissioner Luke. We do not have a real estate department, as
you said, Mike. We have a property management department, and Tammy's
responsibility is managing the properties that we have. When we have simple
sales, she handles them. We've had a lot of those that go out to public bid and
what have you. It's these complicated pieces that we were originally looking at
in a very different direction for this piece of property.
Steve's been working to prepare that property for sale, and would have been the
agent of record, and it would have been a 10% commission on bare land. I
think this is more than fair. He has worked his tail off on this property for us.
For the five years that I've worked with Steve in this position, and the years
prior to that when I've worked with Steve when he and Jim Crowell lead the
effort to raise the money to restore the old downtown gym for the Boys and
Girls Club, he's been a part of this community since he was a little kid. And I
think he knows the community and that knowledge serves us as a County so
well, having someone like Steve as our real estate agent of record.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 3 of 24 Pages
I don't think we're tossing any bones here; I think we are saving money here. I
want to maintain that good relationship with Steve for as long as he is our real
estate agent of record. Take his personality completely out of it. I want to treat
our real estate agent of record fairly so that if Steve is no longer in that position,
that we will still have other people who will want to be our real estate agent of
record because we do treat people fairly for the work they perform for us.
If we were going out and buying and selling property and using a real estate
agent every time, we would spend a fortune. Much more than we have spent in
the years we have had Steve under contract. He has saved the taxpayers of this
County a lot of money, and he's doing so again on this. I'm going to support
Dennis and the I% commission on this piece of property.
LUKE:
It should be 1% of the original offer.
MIKE MAIER:
The only thing that has been proposed is adding the $17,000 and change for the
environmental cleanup work. There would be no commission on the
participation amount either.
DALY:
I have another question. I'm not through. We have a contract with an agent of
record. In that contract, there are two ways to go. He either gets a commission
if he has it listed, or he gets a payment of $100 an hour for his advice. Now,
I'm talking about this piece of property. Not all of the other things you're
talking about.
DEWOLF:
I'm talking about this piece of property.
DALY:
I'm talking about this piece of property. Has he got a listing on this piece of
property?
PILLIOD:
I don't believe so.
Okay. Has he ever asked for a listing on this property?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 4 of 24 Pages
PILLIOD:
I don't know.
DALY:
According to the contract that we have with the real estate agent of record, the
only option he has to get paid on this is the $100 an hour that is included in
there for his participation in the negotiations.
PILLIOD:
Under the contract we currently have.
DALY:
Thank you.
TAMMY CREDICOTT:
Tammy Credicott, property management --
DALY:
I haven't asked for any further discussion yet.
LUKE:
I would like Tammy's input, please.
DALY:
But --
LUKE:
Mike, you're Chair, not a dictator here. Okay. There are three Commissioners
here. Tammy, could we have your input, please?
CREDICOTT:
It's my understanding that this would be treated like any other property, and at
the time we are ready to negotiate we would sign a listing agreement with
Steve. Similar to the Elliott property. So at this point we would sign a listing
agreement stating the I% commission.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 5 of 24 Pages
DEWOLF:
And we have had different percentages on the real estate fee on different pieces
of property throughout this. If we were going to - what we have been doing
with Steve over the last few years on this piece of property is preparing it to
sell.
And whether we were going to do all of that work ourselves, or now that
Redmond has finally decided that they want to buy it, to have them do it - either
way, it was moving towards the point where we would be signing a listing
agreement with Steve Scott. And if we would have just gone forward the way
we were, it would have been at 10%. This is a hell of a deal.
PILLIOD:
It sounds to me as though the County has established a bit of a practice of
specifically negotiating particular listing agreements on individual pieces of
property, which amounts to an amendment to the contract that he has. I mean,
if we are talking about, strictly speaking a listing, bare land sale, it would be
10% or an hourly consulting fee.
Tammy has now mentioned that on a case by case basis we enter into a listing
agreement with Steve and adjust the percentage or the fee. Then as a matter of
law, the contract and practice, we have established precedent for allowing
particularized fees based upon particular cases, incidents, sales and transactions
that we have with him.
LUKE:
I'd like to point out that on the Lafayette properties he actually charged us less
commission than he was entitled to, which was actually a change in the
contract, too, because he wasn't paid what the contract said he was entitled to.
PILLIOD:
Certainly. There's nothing that prevents the Commission from asking the real
estate agent of record to quantify in some fashion the effort and time that has
been brought to bear on this to this point. That doesn't mean that he is entitled
to the fee we are now talking about; that's a decision you are about to make one
way or the other. You could require some narrative or statement that sets out
more particularly why this amount, $17,000 and change, is a fair amount, given
the history and the transaction. That's entirely up to the Commission at this
point.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 6 of 24 Pages
DALY:
I think that it would be entirely appropriate. I mean, we are talking about
$17,000, and basically he only entered into this situation with the City of
Redmond on this particular deal yesterday. As far as I know, he spent a total of a
couple of hours in a meeting here. To pay the man $17,000 of public money just
because he was brought in at the very last minute of these negotiations, is absurd.
I think, I've talked to Mayor Alan Unger about their realtor of record, and was
told that they have kept him out of it since this is a deal between two public
entities. They didn't want to involve him. So, you've made your motion, and if
you want to do this, it's up to you. I don't have the votes to change it. I do think
that Steve ought to give us something in writing to justify this expenditure. It's
public money and I believe that anytime we are going to spend that kind of
public money, it ought to be justified.
DEWOLF:
And if he had entered into this yesterday, I would agree with you. But I reject
your notion that he entered into this yesterday. He has been working for us on
this piece of property for years, preparing it to the point where we could sell the
property. That is the facts. Now, you can reject that if you want, but that's your
problem, not mine.
We have never before said, hey, Steve, on every real estate deal where you are
going to get a contract at some point, where we are going to sign a listing and you
are going to get 10% if it is commercial or bare land, or 7% if it is residential, we
also want you to keep track of your hours. That has never been done before. He
was working towards getting this ready to a point where he would have probably
multiple listings because it would have been multiple pieces of property once we
partitioned it and then subdivided the property. And each one of those would
have had a commission of 10%, as the contract calls for.
The fact is, we changed our minds. We changed the decision; he did not. We
are the ones who changed this. And for you to say that yesterday is the first
time he has been brought into this particular deal isn't fair. There's a certain way
that you can squirrel through and make that an accurate statement because
yesterday is the first time that we received an offer from the City of Redmond.
In that very narrow way of looking at it, you could say that's the first time on
this particular part of this deal that Steve's been brought in. But he has been
working on it for years, with the full expectation that we would honor our end
of our bargain with him. And I intend to do so.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 7 of 24 Pages
DALY:
If he has been working on this for the last four years, I would suggest that he
could probably put that in writing, and everything that he has done to get the
property ready. I think Legal Counsel is correct, that we ought to have some
kind of backup information before this commission is paid.
DEWOLF:
I'm going to call for the question.
DALY:
Okay. Could I have the motion read back?
(The original motion was read back to the Commissioners.)
LUKE:
I withdraw my original motion.
DEWOLF:
I withdraw my second.
LUKE:
I move to direct staff, including the agent of record, to negotiate and do a
counteroffer with the City of Redmond on the 122.8 acres; and that the real
estate agent of record be paid $17,220 in commission for a completed
transaction. If there's no deal, there's no commission paid.
DEWOLF:
Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE:
DALY:
(Split vote.)
Yes.
Chair votes no.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 8 of 24 Pages
4. Before the Board was a Discussion of Document No. 2004-006, an
Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the Cities of
Sisters, Redmond and Bend regarding the Defense of the Revised
Population Forecast (if Appealed).
Laurie Craghead explained that this is a preemptive agreement. The last time
the forecast was challenged, the cities did not intervene. The planners
suggested that in the case of an appeal, the cities should agree to intervene and
share in the cost of defending the forecast. This document has not yet been
presented to the cities formally, but they are aware of it.
Commissioner DeWolf asked what constitutes "adequate" findings. Ms.
Craghead said that this would be determined by LUBA (the State Land Use
Board of Appeals).
DEWOLF: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was a Discussion of the Upcoming Sheriffs Levy.
DALY:
Are we going to make a decision on the levy today? Is that the plan?
LUKE:
That would be my hope.
DEWOLF:
Mine, too.
1x0,114 i
Whatever the decision is, the campaign has to be put together and people
organized. The sooner, the better.
LES STILES:
With me are Undersheriff Larry Blanton and Business Manager Jim Ross.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 9 of 24 Pages
There have been a number of public meetings over the past eight weeks. There
have been reams of paper and a host of documents presented. Bottom line, at
one of those meetings I heard what I thought might be a consensus in terms of
at least an operating levy rate. There remains some debate as to whether it
should be three or five years.
But in the end, what I heard was essentially two options. One option was
maintaining our current .78/1.12 rate, which we've been on for seven years. As
a result of that rate, each year for the last three years we have systematically
taken our unappropriated ending down from a high at one point of $2.3 million
to this year, where the latest estimate is around $345,000. I think that's highly
optimistic and doesn't take into account the ballot measure that we are going to
vote on in a couple of weeks.
Independent of that, the bottom line is that it is clear that this rate has not, and
will not sustain our current level of operations, much less take care of our future
needs.
The other rate that I have heard some discussion on during our meetings was a
rate of .82 for the urban area and 1.60 for the rural area, which would be an
increase of .04 for urban residents and .48 for the rural. That said, what I've
done is work with staff to prepare a financial and operational scenario. (Copies
of the document were distributed at this time. A copy of the document is
attached as Exhibit A.)
Scenario #1 is .82/1.60. Scenario #2 is .78/1.129 the current rate. Scenario #3
is, what are the consequences if the levy fails. There are risks in any decision
we make, regardless of the rate. Those risks should be clearly identified up
front, and not seen somewhere down the road in April or whenever as being
some type of "you're just saying this because" as a scare tactic.
JIM ROSS:
The three columns represent the following. The first column is the levy rates at
.82/1.60, which we consider a rate that sustains our current operations.
The second column is the current rate, .78/1.12. The third column is what I call
our doomsday scenario - what happens if the tax levy fails.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 10 of 24 Pages
The numbers in red means a change from the previous scenario. So we're
starting at .82/1.60. Then we're showing what changes when we go to .78/1.12.
Obviously, under the resources side, we go from resources of $18,118,000 at
the .82/1.60, and we fall to $16,100,000 at .78/1.12. And that's simply because
our tax revenue would be less at the lower rates.
Then, going to the column where the tax levy fails, we would get no tax
revenue from the current year, so that's a decrease of $12 million. We would
end up getting $6 million of funds from the collection of room tax and from
other services that the Sheriff has contracts for, such as the City of Sisters and
the 1145 funding for inmates.
STILES:
Before you move on, Jim, you'll see that throughout this, at the bottom there is
going to be an asterisk, not only on this document but the following document
where there is a narrative of what each of these means. Everything is
predicated on our current level of funding for 1145.
Should anything disrupt that, be it Ballot Measure 30, be it the new legislative
session, or the possibility that some of the counties will opt out. Based on the
house bill for disappropriations, if the measure fails in three weeks, which
means a $26 million cut, or $780,000 to Deschutes County, $325,000 to us, it
may trigger what we already saw last years when Lane, Marion and a number of
counties opted out.
LUKE:
Did anyone opt out entirely?
STILES:
They retracted. They submitted their letters to the Department of Corrections,
but the legislature put back in exactly the amount to not trigger opt out, so they
withdrew their letters. I think that yo-yo is creating a level of frustration in
other counties besides ours.
DEWOLF:
You have one year during which you can withdraw.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 11 of 24 Pages
STILES:
As long as the state has taken no substantive steps in furtherance of your opt
out. Frankly, the last legislature clearly understood, and demonstrated that by
putting $30.6 million back into DOC. They understood clearly what the
consequences are.
The State cannot afford to have all of the county prisoners dumped back into
their lap, when they have neither the resources nor the staff to deal with it.
What will happen in July is a wild card, but I wanted to make sure that these
figures clearly show the wild cards that we cannot predict or forget.
LUKE:
There could be a big void of leadership in some of these issues with the new
legislature.
The .82/1.60 is the current service level?,
STILES:
That will be exactly what we have today, and not a single thing more. No work
center and no additional deputies. What that means as a practical matter is that
we will start what I call "the City of Bend gradual decline". This is where you
have increasing population, static staff, increasing demands for service,
decreasing customer service, decreasing ability to clear crimes and to do the
kinds of things you want. It will be a gradual shift. The first two years it will
be almost unnoticed. In years three, four and five, if we go to a five year levy, I
think you'd see a more dramatic drop.
LUKE:
What's your recommendation, three or five years?
STILES:
Well, that depends. One of the items we discussed in our public meetings in the
past was the idea of this blue ribbon committee reinvestigating the concept of
permanent tax districts, and trying to resolve some of the philosophical issues
around how we allocate costs.
The intent I believe was that this committee would attempt to bring this issue
forward in two years. If that's the case, and there is a serious commitment to
move on that, I would suggest three years.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 12 of 24 Pages
Frankly, with a five year operating levy at this rate, years four and five are
going to start seeing us doing the same kinds of things we've been doing for the
last three years in terms of financial resources.
LUKE:
So, your recommendation is?
STILES:
We're going to be really scraping the bottom of the barrel at .82/1.60 in years
four and five.
I would recommend a three-year levy if we are going to take a substantive step
toward the formation of that blue ribbon committee that Tom talked about. We
should actually start on that right now and take it to the voters in May of 2006.
I know that the City of Sisters and the City of Redmond definitely want a seat
on that. If that were going to be done, I'd say three years.
In terms of operational stability and the impact on morale in our agency and the
ability to do what we need to do on a continuing day to day basis, obviously
five years is better. Permanent is the optimum.
MIKE MAIER:
Can you do both? Five, and proceed post haste with this?
STILES:
We can, and Legal Counsel assured me that we can vacate at the moment the
permanent tax districts come into being.
DEWOLF:
You would have two years left on your levy, and people might say, why should
I vote for this change now.
STILES:
Bingo. Plus the fact that the only five-year levy that Deschutes County has ever
presented to the voters failed. Five years is a long time, and if there's a
substantial change, and I think it's a risk, by moving from three to five, we're
taking a risk.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 13 of 24 Pages
DEWOLF:
You've got another huge issue here. That is, none of the four of us agree that
this is the right way to go.
STILES:
Which might make it a perfect solution.
DEWOLF:
It could be. But it's only for the short term. The reason for the blue ribbon
committee is to try to get it away from being all of the elected officials dealing
with this, and including law enforcement from the three areas and interested
citizens from throughout the County to go to work on this, have a healthy
debate, and really look at and dig out the evidence.
As I contend, there's a huge benefit to having a Sheriff s office for city residents
as opposed to what is being presented, that City residents are paying too much.
I know it's a huge compromise for you, and it's a huge compromise for me.
That's the only reason I am interested in going forward, is the agreement that we
have this committee go to work on this right away and put this on the ballot in
two years. The only way that I am interested in that personally is a three-year
levy. I think a five-year levy takes all the incentive out for moving towards a
permanent levy, where we need to get.
LUKE:
So a three-year levy would take effect in July of 2004, through June of 2007.
So you would vote in 2006, probably November. If it goes down, it would give
you an opportunity to pass another serial levy.
STILES:
Exactly. It gives us a nine-month window and the opportunity to reevaluate.
There are two major benefits. One, it gives us that nine-month window to start
looking at a new rate, so we'd be back where we are today. Plus, it would also
give us the opportunity to evaluate the rate itself. I remain very concerned
about what I believe is an effective compromise rate for years four and five. It
will also give us the option to evaluate what's happening after the first two
years, especially if our growth rate and demand curve keeps going in the
direction it's going.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 14 of 24 Pages
MAIER:
I'd like to compliment Jim on this document. It is really good information.
We've had a lot of big spreadsheets, but this really helps.
JIM ROSS:
The main thing is to look at the consequences of keeping the rates at the current
level. There are some major consequences.
LUKE:
I believe the citizens of Deschutes County have a good relationship with the
Sheriffs Office. I've been at fires with you people and know how you work
with other agencies. I hear very little bad comments from the public regarding
the relationship your deputies have with the general public. You have a very
high quality staff.
The level of service that we're at right now I think the citizens of the County
expect. I would have a problem supporting a rate that would significantly
reduce that level of service. I think the public should have an opportunity to
vote on a rate that at least maintains the level of service they have right now.
There is no increase; we're not reopening the work center now. We should at
least try to maintain the level of service we have now.
STILES:
I concur with that. Even that will result in a gradual decline in service. Cutting
anything will just exacerbate that. What isn't shown here is that if we keep it at
.78/1.12, July 1 of this year we will have to lay off 19 people. The following
July we will have to lay off additional people, and will continue layoffs each
year for the life of the levy. If it fails, we will have to lay off 112.
LUKE:
There have been discussions as to city residents versus rural residents, but to me
they are all County residents. And that will discussion will continue. This is a
major compromise for all of us.
DALY:
At the last meeting we had to talk about the rate, you thought maybe we were
all on board. I think I said I wanted a week to think about it. I didn't make a
decision at that time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 15 of 24 Pages
When I came back after thinking about it, and we're talking about this rate of
1.60/.82, what this does is basically jump the rural folks' cost per thousand
almost .50 a thousand, which is a huge jump.
I'm thinking about the older, retired people and fixed income folks who live in
La Pine, and all over the County, that basically can hardly make it on what they
have now. Suddenly they are going to have to pay more. Also, we have
schools putting levies on the ballot at the same time, to try to get additional
money. The combination of the two is going to make a huge hit.
I agree, I would really like to see the Sheriff have permanent funding. I agree with
this blue ribbon panel, and think that we need to go forward on it. I agree with a
three-year levy. I'm worried that if we put the .82/1.60 on the ballot and it fails,
then we end up in this right hand column. I think to play it safe, I would rather see
the .78/1.12 go on the ballot. I think you have a good chance of it passing.
Obviously we would lose people and everything else. But to me it doesn't put
us into the right hand column. I think you do a great job, and if we can get to a
permanent funding system, I'll support that 100% at a rate that's equal
throughout the County. But the three-year levy at the current rate, that's playing
it safe. That's where I'm at. I think we should play it safe and not get over into
the right hand column and lose all police services if the levy fails.
STILES:
Mike, I hear your concerns and understand them. We gave that a great deal of
thought. We did not come in asking for a rate without recognizing the
consequences. The flip side is that when we made our decision, one of the
responsibilities and duties of the Sheriff is public safety. And when we were
looking at this, this past calendar year alone I've already laid off 24 people at
our .78/1.12 rate. I shut down the work release center, I triggered matrix in the
jail, and we've got an OMNI Group study telling us and giving us a pretty clear
picture of what they believe is coming in the years 2005, 2010 and 2015.
We're the fastest growing county in the state. When you get behind the curve --
in my experience with the City of Bend, they were going to annex the 11,000 to
14,000, whatever it was, City management clearly understood that there were
consequences and said they must hire 23 officers. They never did it. They now
sit at 63,000 with the lowest staffing ratio of police officers in the state of
Oregon for municipal agencies. I have seen their demand curve go up, and I've
seen their customer service curve go down, and I can't in good conscience
recommend that.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 16 of 24 Pages
If we stay at .78/1.12, we will cut 1/3 of our patrol positions. There will be
dramatic consequences and we will never catch up. Then, if you try to catch
up, what is the rate we'd be looking at in three years? Will the impact be any
less then than it is now?
I know it's a tough choice, and know these are tough times and I recognize that
we are looking at tough issues. But I have faith that the voters will choose what
is in their best interest. I'm very sorry that we are going to see competing
interests pitting education against public safety on the same ballot. We all live
with the consequences of Salem. We all live with the consequences of the
perceptions of the people in Salem. I'm sorry that we are at the point we're at.
The fact of the matter is, I can't in good conscience recommend staying with a
rate that I know is going to substantively cut and make the pain that much
greater in three or five years.
LUKE:
I don't relish going out with a higher rate. If we could maintain current service
levels with the existing rate, I'd be there. I don't look forward to going out and
campaigning for this because of the rate increase. But I do look forward to the
fact that you have a high level of service and people expect that.
I think personally that they should be given the opportunity to vote, to see if
they are willing to pay for that. If they're not, then we go back in September and
adjust the rate. I think we can make the case for this, that you need this money,
it doesn't go into the general fund but goes directly for Sheriff services. I think
we can make the case that this money is needed to maintain the current level of
service.
LARRY BLANTON:
You know, almost a year ago we started a strategic plan at the Sheriff s Office.
It's our job as administration to support and assist the Sheriff with potential
upcoming issues with a growing county like this. That strategic plan identified
some issues that we need to keep up with the current level of service and
demand for service. We need to increase employees, equipment, materials and
service. That's not going to happen. The .82/1.60 is a concern to me as to how
long we can keep providing the same level of service. We shouldn't be at the
.78/1.12 today. We can't live on that rate. It's because of very good financial
management in the Sheriff s Office that we can still push patrol cars down the
street at that rate. We can't continue to do that.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 17 of 24 Pages
Mike, I agree with you. Our concern is about the older folks and retirees, and
who is going to answer the 9-1-1 calls. If we're not careful, there won't be
anybody to answer those calls. It's a concern and an issue we have struggled
with. We have cut costs, we have pinched pennies, and that's what is demanded
and rightfully so by the public to make sure we are getting every drop of juice
out of a penny, and we've done that. We're at the end.
We've done some creative things with scheduling, with cutting vehicle fleets,
and with cutting personnel to make sure we have adequate staff responding to
9-1-1 calls. We can't put people out there by themselves. I'm concerned, and
we lay awake at night thinking about it. It's a proactive approach. That's our
job, to identify in a proactive way upcoming issues. It's our job to try to stay up
with a study that the County paid for about potential upcoming issues.
This isn't just the Sheriff s Office we're talking about. If we have to cut and
make adjustments in the jail and how we receive prisoners from the cities of
Bend and Redmond and outlying entities, it's going to affect their level of
public safety as well. If I were the Chief of Police in Redmond or Bend, I
would tell my people not to adjust what they are doing on the street. Continue
to arrest the same number of people for the same crimes, and let the Sheriff sort
it out at the jail. It's the County's responsibility as soon as they come in the
door. There is a huge issue with potential liability if we don't continue to
provide enough money to make sure we stay out of hot water when we are
providing this service.
DEWOLF:
I want to clarify one thing. The 24 positions that were lost were certainly not
all due to the .78/1.12. There was a lot of 1145 money lost as well.
STILES:
The 1145 money was the straw that broke the camel's back. But it was not the
sum total. We could have absorbed some of the 1145 loss from the State of
Oregon and continue to scale down the work center. The aggregate of the
.78/1.12, lack of revenue, 1145 and a host of issues is what resulted in that.
DEWOLF:
Each of the three of us has a problem. And that is, we each need two votes to
do anything. And I can't get two votes for what I would do today. What I
would do is to go forward at $1.24 for everybody. That's what I would do.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 18 of 24 Pages
I think that when we created this split rate, we created something that was a
shot in the dark. We didn't have the evidence to support it then, and we don't
have the evidence to prove it now. I think you, Jim, came up with the 1.24 as
the number that would adequately preserve what we have now if we had it
across the board. I can't get a second vote to do that. So I'm forced to either go
with what Mike or what Dennis wants to do. They're both in the same position.
The thing that this does is move in a direction that I don't want to go. It moves in
the direction that reduces the city residents' portion of this entire levy. Currently,
at .78/1.12 the city rate is at 69% of what the rural rate is. At .82/1.60, the city
rate is 51% of what the rural rate is. That's a big jump in that gap, and it goes
against what I believe. The only solace that I take in this compromise is that
when we started out the original proposal was at $2.85 for rural areas, and it's
now at $1.60. That's $1.25 per thousand lower than where we started.
The problem that I have, Mike, with the position of staying at .78/1.12 is that we
have moved in this direction for the past three years with a budget that all three of
us and the other three members of the budget committee have approved. We've
allowed this unapprorpiated balance to drop each year, knowing that this day was
coming, and knowing that those rates would need to rise.
I live in the City of Bend. I know there's more crime in the city. I should pay
more to be safe, because it happens. I mean, I've had crime take place at my
home as many people have. I've had it take place at businesses that I have
owned, as many people have. You know what, I save in other areas because I
don't have to drive as far, it's not as expensive for a variety of services that I'm
able to access, and it's my hunch that on balance, it's pretty fair.
There are obviously people who disagree with that, and I respect that. That's
the reason that I think it's critical that we form this committee to look at all
those issues. To listen to what I have to say, to listen to what Allan Bruckner
has to say. We've been friends for a long time and when we disagree we still
stay friendly, but argue the facts of these issues. That's what I hope will
continue to take place.
What this compromise does in my opinion is buy us some time. It buys us the
time to get a permanent district on the ballot at a rate that we can agree to. I'm
willing to be proven wrong, but I want evidence. And I hope you are all ready
to be proven wrong based on the evidence that is brought to this committee
during the next eighteen months.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 19 of 24 Pages
I look at a .48 per thousand increase in the rural area on a $150,000 home being
$72 per year. For some people that is a lot of money. For others it is no big deal.
It's a difficult pill to swallow at all because of the difficulty with tax issues. The
one thing that I guess I would offer up is that we at Deschutes County have been
very frugal. We've built the Becky Johnson Center in Redmond, the Human
Services building in Bend, and we're putting up the new office building to share
with the State -- we've done that without going to the taxpayers for additional
dollars by the way that we've been able to work with other government entities
and save money in other areas to make those things happen.
When Dennis and I were here the first two years, we levied less than the full
rate that was allowed by law. I think we were the only municipality in the State
of Oregon to do that. We left money in people's pockets. I guess what I'm
saying is, now we're asking people to dig a little bit into their pockets.
I'll be honest with you; this is against my own self-interest. As a city resident,
if I went with your most optimistic deal, my rate would drop and I'd save some
money. Dennis and I would both benefit by doing that. Mike, you don't live in
a city so this impacts you in a much more negative way than it does us. The
thing is, none of the three of us are doing this because of our self-interest. We
are looking out for what we believe is best for the people in the County.
Even though I don't like this rate and don't agree with it, I respect the fact that
you disagree with me and we've got more work to do to get to a place where we
can all be on the same page. I think what this does is move in the direction that
those who disagree with me wanted to see this go. It puts more on the backs of
rural residents than it does on city residents, but it still has what I think is an
adequate increase for city residents. It's a 5% increase for city residents and a
30% increase for rural residents. But I will vote to put this on the ballot at
.82/1.60 with a three-year levy.
I think we need to have the fire on all of our feet to put this working group
together to study the issue and make a recommendation for a rate for a
permanent tax district. This should begin right after the election. It should
have a good representation of law enforcement people and citizens, with wide
geographical representation, socioeconomic representation, gender, age, and
that we really put together a matrix that will consist of a good group of people
committed to the hard work that this is going to take. In May of 2006 we
should have permanent districts on the ballot so we can get out of this mess that
we've been in.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 20 of 24 Pages
LUKE:
There is a difference in the amount of money that a penny brings in the urban
and rural areas. What is that?
ROSS:
It's approximately $40,000 per penny in the rural areas, and $70,000 per penny
in the urban areas.
LUKE:
I would move that staff be directed to prepare the language to place a levy on
the May ballot for three years at a rate of $.82 in the urban areas and $1.60 in
the non -urban areas.
DEWOLF:
I would go for March to give us a window to come back in May. But since I
can't get support for that, I'll second your motion.
DALY:
Anyway, any more discussion? I want to be sure everyone has a chance to say
their piece before this vote happens.
The only thing I've got to say is that I will vote against it, simply for the reasons
I stated before. I just don't think we have the climate for any kind of a tax
increase. The February election will give us a good indication of how people
feel about increasing taxes. I support the Sheriffs Office 100%, but just want to
play it safe and make sure we don't lose Sheriffs services.
LUKE
I appreciate it. I went to some of the town halls with the Sheriff, and at the one
in La Pine, the people who attended there were very supportive of paying
additional money to maintain their services. They don't want a decrease in
services. I think Terrebonne is the same way. We are going to have to go out
and justify it. But it's about public safety for the citizens of Deschutes County,
and I'm willing to go out a work on it.
DALY:
I hope I'm wrong. I hope the citizens will support you. But I can't in all- good
conscience support the .50 increase in the rural areas. It's a huge increase in one
step. I have a problem with that. I just can't support this.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 21 of 24 Pages
BLANTON:
Anything we do here is a risk. It would certainly be nice, and I would ask you
to reconsider, if we had the full support of the County Commission instead of
having to answer questions about why it was a two -to -one vote and us having to
answer issues relating to this.
DALY:
I appreciate your concern. As I said before, in this issue I hope I'm wrong. l
don't think I am, and I'm afraid we're probably going to lose at the ballot box.
hope I'm wrong.
STILES:
If we do, the consequences are clearly laid out.
DEWOLF:
We've been going down this road for years, like I said before. The one thing
that I believe is that without public safety in our communities, everything else
falls apart. When we get to budget time, I don't look at individual departments
and keeping them whole; we look at an entire system. Public safety is one key
component, just like mental health is.
When it comes time for voting, consistently our voters have supported public
safety because people don't like to be scared and people don't like to be
threatened in their homes or out shopping or driving on the roads.
Mike, I hate this. I am disappointed that you won't support this, because for me
personally I'm really biting the bullet to agree to go along with this. The
philosophy is wrong. But I'm willing to set that aside because I believe so
much that we have to maintain the service levels that we have out there.
And it's not just the growing population; it's the growing tourist population. I
mean, we have 15,000 people a day here on average; 365 days a year, and they
do not live here. All of that combined together puts so much pressure on not
just this department but the cities as well. They are critically important to
keeping everyone in the cities safe, too. I hope that when all is said and done
that what we see when we come to a permanent district is one flat rate for one
district countywide. I'm willing to see something else happen as a result of an
intensive study of the benefits to city residents.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 22 of 24 Pages
Although I appreciate the fact that you disagree with it, so does Dennis and so
does Les. But we're going to support this thing.
STILES:
I'd like to make one final comment. I strongly support your idea of a single
common rate. We are the only county in the state that exists to the degree that
we do on the split operating rate levy. When the idea first came up, I know it
wasn't this Board, the consequences are, in every other county the tax rate for
the county includes public safety services. In our case, that would be
represented by the $1.24. And you'd still be one of the lowest taxed counties
around, even if you added the $1.24. The real question becomes, that would be
the optimum solution. It takes away this whole issue of who gets what and who
it is designed for, from the standpoint of allocating dollars.
DEWOLF:
What I'm saying, bottom line, is that we will be asking the voters to give us
these three years of a little bit higher rate than they want to pay so that we can
get through a good, solid, reasonable process with a blue ribbon committee to
help us make a good decision on permanent districts. That's what I'm asking. If
someone is paying an extra $72 a year, there will be three years of that. That's
what we're asking people to do. I think that is reasonable in this case.
DALY:
The question has been called for. Any further discussion?
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes no.
(Split vote.)
This meeting was continued to 1:30 p.m.
Continued.-
Present
ontinued:
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom DeWolf,-
also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Anna Johnson and Judith
Ure, Commissioners' Office; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; and media
representative Chris Barker of the Bulletin.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Page 23 of 24 Pages
6. Before the Board was a Discussion of the Selection of a Federal Lobbyist to
Represent the County.
The Commissioners, Mark Pilliod and Judith Ure gave an overview of the
feedback they had received from references they had contacted about the three
federal lobbyist finalists.
After a lengthy discussion, and noting that the choice was very difficult to
make, the Board came to a conclusion on their selection.
DEWOLF: Move approval that a one-year contract be entered into with The
Ferguson Group.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes yes.
Being no further discussion or items brought before the Board, the meeting
adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
DATED this 7th Day of January 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Page 24 of 24 Pages
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
Tom DeWolf, Commissioner
Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Deschutes County Sheriff's Office
Financial and Operational
Scenarios
Levy Rates at $.82 and
$1.60
Levy Rates at $.78 and
$1.12
Tax Levy Fails
Resources
$18,118,521
$16,100,301
$6,161,846
Requirements
Operating
$18,118,521
$16,100,301
$6,161,846
Non -Funded Employee Liability
$75,481
$421,103
FTE Funded
171
152
59
Sheriff's Staff
Sworn Positions
Captain & Undersheriff
Captain & Undersheriff
Captain & Undersheriff
Non Sworn Position
Six staff working 5 day
weeks
Reduce Staff
Reduce Staff & Work Days
Automotive Communications
FTE
Manager/Mechanic/Techni
cian
Manager/Mechanic/Techni
cian
Manager/Technician
Number of new vehicles purchas
Thirteen
Eight
None
Investigations/Evidence
Captain
60% Code, 40%
Investigations and
Management
60% Code, 40%
Investigations and
Management
60% CODE, 40%
Evidence/Civil
Detectives
Six
Six
None
Sergeants
Two
Two
Forensic Sgt only who also
handles evidence
CODE Detectives
Two
Limited, if detective
I positions cut
None
Major Crimes
Rape, Robbery, Homicide
Rape, Robbery, Homicide
Patrol responsibility if
available
Evidence Handling & Storage
Two Technicians
Two Technicians
Captain & Forensic Sgt
Patrol/Civil/Traffic
Patrol Teams
Four Teams with 11
Deputies per Team 24
hours per Day
Four Teams with 9
Deputies per Team 24
hours per Day. Reduction
in Patrol hours.
4 Staff Sisters, 6 Staff other
areas working 16 hours per
day civil duties and
emergency response if
available
Response Time
30 minutes or less
Significantly Reduced
Emergency calls only,
response time unknown
K-9
Four Deputies
lFour Deputies
None
Civil Service
One Full time Tech &
Deputies
Deputies only
Captain, Lieutenants & Sgts
Traffic Team
Four deputies, one
sergeant
Four deputies, one
sergeant
None
Code Enforcement
One Law Enforecment
Tech
One Law Enforecment
Tech
None
Animal Control
Four Law Enforecment
Tech
None, No response to
calls
None, No response to calls
SRO's
Four Deputies
None, no longer
participate
None, no longer participate
Substations
LaPine, Sisters,
ITerrebone I
LaPine, Sisters,
ITerrebone
Closed
January 6, 2004
Exhibit 19
Page ( of Z
Deschutes County Sheriffs Office
Financial and Operational
Scenarios
Levy Rates at $.82 and
Levy Rates at $.78 and
Tax Levy Fails
$1.60
$1.12
Adult Jail/Transport/Court Securi
Total Beds
228
228
108
Four Teams with ten
Four Teams with ten
Four Teams with 5 Deputies
Deputies, one Sergeant &
Deputies & one Sgt. No
and one Sgt *(see note)
One Program Deputy
Program Deputy
Corrections Deputies
Four Deputies
Four Deputies
None, Transport perfomed by
Mgmt (Undersheriff/Captain)
Transport/Court Security
Limited
Limited
Religious required, Reduce
NA, AA & GED
Inmate Pro rams
Inmate Transport
As Requested and
As Requested and
Limited, done by
Deputies available
Deputies available
Undrsheriff/Capt, Medical
emergency reduced Increases
risk of litigation
Contract with Aramark
Contract with Aramark
Aramark may opt out of
contract requiring remaining
staff to provide services
Kitchen Services
Inmate Release
Increase use of Matrix due
Increase use of Matrix due
Focus will be to lodge most
to overcrowding in Jail
to overcrowding in Jail
serious criminals. Estimate
arrestees from local law
enforcement agecies for
lodging maybe booked and
Impact of other Law Enforcemen
None
None
Longer waiting period
booking inmates
Laundry, cleaning etc
Laundry, cleaning etc
No inmate work program
Inmate Work Program
Control Room Upgrade
Limited maintenance
No capital improvements
Jail Maintenance
*(note)This does not assume
any further reductions of
S131 145 funds (High Risk)
Emergency Services
Emergency Manager (Grant Fun
Funded
lFunded
Funded
Special
Services/SAR
Funded
Funded
Forest Service and SAR
Sergeant 50% Title III Funded
Office Assistant 80% Title III
Funded
Funded
Funded
Operational
Operational
Severely limited operations
SAR
Two Deputies
Two Deputies
Not Performed unless
Marine Patrol & USFS patrol
services contracted
Training
Funded
Funded
No Programs, Sergeant
moves to Adult Jail
Training Sergeant
Notes:
Jail po ulation is estimate only
Aramark Contract status is unknown Could have impact on Juvenile
Immate worker program changes need to be defined
January 6, 2004
Exhibit
Page of Z