The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-03-09 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 19, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2012 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Alan Unger and Tammy Baney; Commissioner Anthony DeBone was out of the office. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; media representative Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and three other citizens from HousingWorks. Commissioner Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Housing Works Presentation. Craig Unger and Cyndy Cook and their assistant came before the Board. The group spoke briefly about some of the conditions they run into dealing with tenants and property owners, including hoarding situations. They then did a PowerPoint presentation and provided an overview of the services they offer. (A copy is attached for reference.) Commissioner Baney asked if they assure that other support services are in place for groups such as veterans. Ms. Cook said they are a participant in the overhaul of consolidated housing. Commissioner Baney said a closely aligned funding process is necessary. Ms. Cook stated that she is working on this and is seeing some major changes in how the industry operates. The stakeholders are beginning to feel like valued partners. The true measure of success is how people eventually blend into the community. It is hard to get the attention of Salem and to get equity. The balance on the Housing Council is much better than it has been in the past. Commissioner Baney noted that others could learn from what HousingWorks is doing. The Housing Council wants to add value and have all entities enjoy an equal opportunity. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 19, 2012 Page 2 of 5 Pages BANEY: Move signature of a letter of support. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Commissioner Unger indicated they are looking at healthcare reform, and that housing and wellness also have a stake in this. Ms. Cook said that there are ways for all to address some of the common problems in a useful way. There are partnerships forming also to look at strategic ways to deal with the higher crime areas, homeless shelters and other issues. Commissioner Unger stated that there are also educational opportunities available that can tie into the rest. Mayor Endicott of Redmond is trying to reach out on a variety of issues as well, especially with youth. 2. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2012-015, Dissolving the Redmond Library Service District. Laurie Craghead gave an overview of the item, indicated that the bonds have been paid off, and the Order gives this information and provides for the process. Convened as the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: BANEY: Move signature of Order No. 2012-015. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Convened as the Governing Body of the Redmond County Service District: BANEY: Move signature of Order No. 2012-015. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 19, 2012 Page 3 of 5 Pages 3. Other Items. Erik Kropp said that Mike Kennedy, the former police chief of Sunriver, has contacted the County under the guise of a grievance. Mr. Kropp is n ot sure if a grievance is proper because Mr. Kennedy is not a County employee. There is an operating agreement between the County and Sunriver Service District. Mr. Pilliod indicated that this is not a grievance and Mr. Kennedy needs to be advised of this. He said that the directors are appointed, but the nominations are given to the Board by the Sunriver Owners Association. The way this was established was to handle appointments through a recommendation from th e Owners Association. There has been no request from them as to removal or appointment of anyone at this time. The letter speaks to some extent about this, but does not give a clear path for the Board to impose a different result regarding Mr. Kennedy’s employment. The directors appoint staff. Because the members of the district are not County employees, County personnel rules do not allow for a County grievance process. There may be district personnel rules, but this is unknown. Most police chief appointments are at will or by contract. The governing body could possibly alter the terms of the agreement with the district if the Board was not happy with how things were going, but that would take time and negotiation. It is not the call of the Board at this time. It appears that Mr. Kennedy’s only option would be civil action. It is unknown if they have personnel rules and if they do, whether there is a grievance process. Even then, it may not apply to a police chief. It could be there does not have to be cause, but there is usually a contract in place. He does not know if there is a contract and other factors. Having spoken with his counsel, Mr. Kennedy would like to address the Board personally in a meeting. He has put this all in writing, but the Board does not have a way to get him his job back. Commissioner Baney said the County should let Mr. Kennedy know the facts of how things are structured, and that the County does not have oversight in this situation. _______________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Monday, March 19, 2012 Page 4 of 5 Pages Commissioner Baney received a copy of the draft working proposal for a review of tourism services, from COVA. Business Bend put forth a plan for a DMO of choice, but COVA had not responded. Tourism and COVA are one issue; another is creating a tourism council in general. She presented a plan giving background for a plan to address tourism in general. It talks also about co-location. She would like COVA to move forward, but to bring in someone from Travel Oregon, at no cost to the County, who can be objective and neutral, and facilitate a proposal. Therefore, the County does not have to be part of the process. They are asking the County to get involved at a greater level than it should be. The County does not do marketing and tourism-related programs. The groups need to look at options and work towards a positive way to deal with this issue. The County could thank them for input, but request that they participate in the Oregon Tourism Board process. This sets the standards for others to get involved. There is a strategic planning COVA meeting this week. This conversation is critical and she would like to step back from COVA for a while, as they make decisions in this regard. She wants her participation to be neutral and it is too difficult to address this right now if she attends their meetings. _______________________________ Commissioner Unger said there is a cohesive strategy meeting in Reno next week, and they want him to be there to represent the collaboration. It would be next Tuesday, March 27. He is encouraged that most people show up at the meetings and that the U.S. Forest Service sees value in this process. _______________________________ The Board then went into Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations. Being no further discussion, the meeting ended at 4:00 p.m. DATED this pi!;J Day of nlti/L~ 2012 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ' -~--(0 , Anthony DeBone, Chair Tammy Baney, Com}flissioner ATTEST: ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, March 19,2012 Page 5 of 5 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, MONDAY, MARCH 19,2012 1. Housing Works Presentation -Craig Unger, Jan Thackery, Michael Hinton 2. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE REDMOND LIBRARY COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT and as the DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2012-015, Dissolving the Redmond Library Service District -Laurie Craghead 3. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)( e), Real Property Negotiations PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Jfyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for nY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I f-LI I I I I I I I 1 1 I~I - I ' ~IQ) i c 01 6: 1 r------~ I I ~ - II 1 I ~ I i ~' -0 I ~ :§ I I 10 ' ~' , ~ I' I I r-i-I ~ ~ I 1 I I I ~ ~I ' ~ ~l ~ V) ; I I I I I I I I ~~I I I I I I , ,i ~4 I +- I '~ 1 \1\ I I c:c I Q) !' I E ~' 10 ' I Z' ~ i I ~~ I ~\l I I \ 3/19/2012 Housing Works: Excellence in Affordable Ila::dFi,~~'R:r:- Housing Our Service Jurisdiction 1 -- 3/19/2012 Our Core Pr og ra m Centers Served 8 Umited abili ty EP IC Companies Prap"rtv Ma"ace.me.nt , LLC Fiilmili es Forward SOlIe) l Developing Housing Opti on s &Oppo rt u niti es Tr-'"-\ _ - 2,000 Conlrol Orlgon Residents Served __--- - 2 ,. 3/19/2012 Our Multi-family Housing Co mmunities Sisters, Oregon Workforce Housing Demographics Deschutes County Age of Re.ldent. ll!' Under 18 yrs il 18to40yrs a 41to55yrs • S6 to 71+ years - 3 , 3/19/2012 Workforce Housing Demographics Deschutes County Sources of Income Wag~ • Pens ion/Disabllh'y/SSI • Unemployment Insurance • TANF/General Assistance - Workforce Housing De m ograp h ics Deschutes County Occupation Services· Personal/Retail/Hospitality5" 3% • Student • Othef • Construct lon/Manufacturing/ Agr1cultu~/Foreslry • Education/Teacher Housing Choice Voucher Program and Impacts of Port-In's Al'110Unl 01 JrOUtLl1g A"''l.ir.t'''l\(t~ PALd to D,'~chlJt,'O; COW'IIy I;)ndlord~ .:In,''''''''-: $6,'152,208" J, 4 3/19/2012 Housing Choice Voucher Program* 583 370 85 Avera8! HH Ale 47 years 46 years 50 years Averaee Income $10,637 $10,519 $10,760 Elderly I Disabled 454 232 74 Families with 232 192 42 Children People Served 1,212 896 208 •... of..llroulry2012 Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program Deschutes County Avel'3ge Ace of Head of I-touseh old 39 years old Families with Children 8 Youths under 18 years old 11 Elderly or Disabled 17 People Served 54 Average income $5,445 Homeownership Program* Deschutes Coun ty Send Redmond I Terrebonne, 5i~t~r5, La PIne 37 31 3 g D 8 0- ~ -= [] ' . -·sllltis~)cs s ince 2004 5 3/19/2012 Ne ighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) Des ch utes County NSP 1 -6 homes DUfChase9 @od rebibbe1\ -2 wet*: sold In Redmon d wI th down P41yment IIJ bsldy - 2 ~re loOkt in Rl'd mo nd wtl h the Braund ten. pros~m -2 TQWI1 hDmeSart rffited 10 h ou.~h o kh,., or b!low~AMI NSP 2 -De,;Jg}:n:ot:::g~i Ho yslocfgr bomele~Mlh a -'" pleA In 8tond -Ou p'o In Red(1I0nd NSP 3 -Down payment aulst_nt -5 homeowners rn Aed mond. -l li1pp lu::..uon MI m the q'JI!\I' 'NIIh ~ou rl flO""'"", on ~riI' otl1f!I'5.. A ul IIi,!!) ,nd !!ill!! -9'ow n~m R.~mo n d.6 ..... r1!n t ~10 Sm.,AMJ h oose h okl~ ,,'u! 3 ,Hr 8Q% AMI h~hQId.l. Fa m ily Se lf -Sufficiency Prog ra m* Des chutes County ..: . Average Age of Participant 37vearsold Families with Children 97 Active Independent Development Acct's 37 Starting Annual Income·· $8,207 Ending Annual Income·· $27,384 "-'-of .-,.:ary2012.. p~-.. Family Self-Su ffic ie ncy Pro gram Deschutes County Jessi ca F. grad u ated March 15 , 20U -J(l UD completed th . f SS pqram in le u than three VlII!'oiIrt. -Shtl In d her him llv hIVe purchue-d _ hom. in Sitt.ft. an d, $.he wlfJ be wine th e (LJIldi (rom he r '!Cf OW liccount tow.rd J ...MOdt'lina ,he home. -s.tt. Is, relt~11n1 he.r renta l a'lutlna. .ouct'lf~r 6 3/19/2012 Creating Healthy Communiti esBtllilt'---.--~ ~~ - ---J_ Cnnnwct lWGenlS \.1111 F...,... FQy..ratcl Progt'Im5 Idenllty gilPs. and Inc.r•••e 9,.nt funding 101' program delNef'1 Outr.ach E:nqage ~ommunlty t'lnr.-. as.. resource fot oll Lre.ach tor eltsmple -N(JighbDr Impact· hOmrf'flu,er eolU .".m fm.lnr:t..U ~JIIColllO" mNt ~fe!1IJ Cll4lff".o,'nq • Full Circle Outrosch Centor • BaYIi & Girls Club o. Centro I Oregon Outcomes A <;;tiJtlle pL.ltiOtm upon \.. t'hCtl r"m IJoe-: C~ln uUllrJ the-I dre In!'":; flY. Self Sufl.cloncy Pers onal Asset ~:..tJtJ I~~ Sustfltnahlhty FamiliesForward Mission: Fostering partnerships, creating opportunities History: Families Forward, a 501(c)3 non-profit community development corporation, was created in 2003 by Housing Works Board of Commissioners. Purpose: Families Forward's purpose is to provide services to residents of Housing Works controlled properties as well as participants in the Housing Choice Voucher program. These core services Include Youth, Sustainablllty and Personal Asset Building Programs. FamiliesForward-..-""*"-.......... ~ Family Suslainability o Moving Forw.rd Fund o R..dy to Renl .0 WOMEN In Transformation ... Galeway Boutique ~Peraonal Asset Building -Go Hom.ownershlp Counaellng + vaney Individual Development Accounts (VIDA) + Opportunities for Kids + Hom.I••aJFoat.r Youth Program. -eo GangIDrug R ..I.r..nce Program. 1 3/19/2012 On the Drawing Board for 2012: Eastlake Village -Phase 2 What's in the works fo r 20l2? Eastlake Vil lage II -40 Units 8 on ~,bedroo ms 680sq ft 161 \1io--bedroom~ 7"'''" h 16lh ree--bedroom s l ,18S$Q f1 -Awarded Affordable Housing Fee loan by City of Bend !o p urchase the land -Meets Earth Advantage Platinum Rati ng for co n str uc tion -Ap plication for Oregon Hou si nS & Co mmunity Selillces Conso lidated Funding Cycle due March 30, 20 12 -An nou ncement of awa rd expected In June/Jul y 20 12 Site Plan - 8 3/19/2012 Other Initiatives Certification as Crime-Free Multi-family Communities Benefits: -Work ing partnership with law enforcement, residents a nd manaeement to ensure resident safety. -Certification is renewed annually ensuring commitment to crim e-free princip l es -The des i gnation of "(rime-Free Housing " is a brand that reflects HouslngWorXs' commitment to quality, safe and affordable housing Evaluate capital improvement needs in older portfolio units to pool properties for re-syndication Identify opportunities to increase the housing supply and enhance the services offered to residents Increase the rate of FSS graduation - What we have done ... In Summ ary. we a re : , Mission Driven -/ Fo st er'IIlE Dignity Throu gh Housing ;-Reflect Community Values ./ Work in loca l communities to re~po n d to loca l homing and po lic y needs ./ Develop co mmunity-driven solutio ns r Add Value to Our Communities ./ Throu gh re vitalizat ion o f nE!i l!l hbo lhood s ~ Th roug h commu nity delldopment and priva te /public pil rt ners hips ./ Thr o ugh progra m s to de'le lop eco no m i(. ~e l f-s u ffic i e n Cy :.. In It for the Long Haul ..," lOllg-term pr~n cr-in the co mmunity, mai nta lnina affo rd abiHt y over I ln~ ./ 1r1Vl!Ulng In rn.;,inten.mcl!!: and m aleriil ls ~o I hal OUI aflo ldd ble hou sing re milms an a s~c t l o t he co mmun ity oJ' Professio nal pror;t'l t y m "n <lft ~nlen t to ma intai n Illllh sUnd.ud s r Good Neighbors ./ Through utiH zln Obe.l.l prd t:t i(e..~ In deos;"" and rtl.a niJem~nt , w(: c.reillt 'f.ust'ilnable !;OmrnUnil ies 9 3/19/2012 THANK YOU. QUESTIONS? 10 March 8, 2012 Deschutes County Commissioner Alan Unger Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney Deschutes County Commissioner Tony DeBone 1300 NW Wall Street, Suite 200 Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Commissioners: I am compelled to bring this grievance before you for your consideration. As County Commissioners and the Governing Body of the Sunriver Service District, you are uniquely positioned to take the appropriate action in this matter. My name is Michael Kennedy, and until recently I was the Sunriver Chief of Police. In the years prior to my discharge I have received impeccable performance evaluations and in 22 years of employment with the Sunriver Police Department, I have never been disciplined. I have been promoted four times, working my way from Patrol Officer to Chief of Police. I have enjoyed the privilege of being the Sunriver Chief of Police for over twelve years. During that time, I have led the department through countless obstacles and challenges including the formation of the Sunriver Service District, obtaining State Accreditation and through a very controversial road issue. In addition during my tenure as Chief, we have started several Community outreach programs including the Sunriver Citizens Academy, Public Safety Day, as well as participating in outside events such as Kids Day, Shop with a Cop, and Winter Wonderland Express, just to name a few. The current management structure of the Sunriver Service District puts entirely too much control in the hands of a small segment of the community. The end result is that a private home owners association has effective control over the operations and funds of a public taxing district. The current management agreement gives the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) the authority to select all of the five members of Service District Managing board, two of those fIVe members must also be members of the Sunriver Owners Association Board, and in several instances these members have included the president of the Sunriver Owners Association. Even though SROA effectively controls the Sunriver Service District Managing Board, the management agreement gives them the authority to review the annual budget before it is sent to the Governing Body for approval. In addition, the management agreement gives the SROA the authority to approv~-EH:------"-.. disapprove the hiring of a manager for the Sunriver Service District.' .: U I. 1 : J MAR - 9 2012 il L... , •./ ' 1 ; L~...____.~-=-:~:~J I' OUr.;':) CJ'·:WS'3IY1ERS 1.. ___ /,Jt(,;j\!::J;R.'-\TiON~___I While SROA is certainly a part of Sunriver, the Sunriver Service District serves many more constituents than just the Sunriver Homeowners. To start with there is the Sunriver Resort, which is a huge property owner and a major user of services. There are several dozen businesses and business owners who are not represented by the Sunriver Owners Association. There are residents of Sunriver who are renting, and can vote in any government election, but have no say or representation in SROA business. And finally there is the largest segment of our constituents who are totally disenfranchised by SROA, and those are the tens of thousands of visitors to Sunriver each year. Sunriver is much more than just the Sunriver Owners Association. With that said, how did the SROA gain so much control over the Sunriver Service District? In 1969, the first Sunriver Police Officer was hired by the developer and was commissioned by the Sheriff. The first officer, Gene Goff, reportedly worked that position for two years before being hired full time at the Sheriffs Department. This arrangement of the Sheriff commiSSioning Sunriver Police Officers continued for over 30 years before then Sheriff, Les Stiles, announced that he would no longer continue that practice. Sheriff Stiles made it clear that he was concerned about the liability of commissioning officers that he had little or no control over. He also expressed concerns about the authority granted by him being used to enforce Owners Association rules, etc. Initially the SROA balked at the idea of the Sheriff pulling our commissions, indicating that he would never follow through with it because it would be IIpolitical Suicide" for him. In a poorly worded SROA advisory vote in June of 2001, the Sunriver Homeowners voted to maintain the current arrangement rather than petition to form a County Service District. It took nearly six months for Sheriff Stiles to convince SROA that the status quo was not an option. In May of 2001, Sunriver residents, (including the now disenfranchised renters) voted to form the Sunriver Service District, which came to fruition in July of that same year. SROA subsequently entered into a Management Agreement with the Deschutes County Commission, which gave them substantial control over the operation of the Service District. Having sat through those initial negotiations, I am well aware that SROA got many, but not all of the concessions they wanted. In the beginning, SROA wanted their full board to be appointed as the District Managing Board. Recognizing that the District would be contracting with the SROA for support services, the County Commissioners declined to allow that. As a matter of fact they placed a provision in the agreement that only two of five could sit on both boards at the same time. They further provided that all contracts between SROA and the Service District should undergo a third party review. It wasn't very long after the formation of the District that it became apparent there were conflicts of interest between the SROA and the newly formed district. Contracts did not initially undergo a third party review as required by the agreement and appeared to be substantially weighted to SROA's best interest. While the Service District was paying premium prices for services rendered by SROA for Accounting, Administration Service, Fleet maintenance as well as rent, the one contract where the Service District provided services only allowed for a token amount. The Rules Enforcement Agreement \ stated right in the agreement that it was not intended to cover the cost of the services provided, and in 10 years there has not been an increase in the contract amount. In addition, the Rules Enforcement Agreement provided for an annual review of the contact, so that SROA could make sure they are getting the service level they want, while none of the contracts where SROA was providing the service had any provisions for such a review. After some time of paying what appeared to be an excessive amount for these contact services, I played a role in convincing the Service District Managing Board that they should have a third party review as outlined in the management agreement. As a result, the contracts were substantially reduced, which did not endear me to the SROA. The next major conflict was the road issue. Attached you will find a memo dated 10/22/02, from me to Sharon Smith, the Sunriver Service District legal counsel at that time. In a nutshell, the SROA wanted the Sunriver Police Department to use one set of rules for SROA and another for the public. As one SROA attorney put it, "I think we can find a way to have our cake and eat it too". These disagreements continued for about five years until February of 2007 when the SROA announced that their roadways were not Highways, but were more accurately defined as Premises Open to the Public. At that time we stopped enforcing the traffic laws that applied only to Highways in the State of Oregon. This drew a great deal of media attention and did not go over very well with the Community of Sunriver. This stalemate continued until we were able to get legislation passed that changed the definition of Highways in ORS 801.305 to include Sunriver roadways. In response to these events some members of SROA proposed the dissolution of the Sunriver Police Department, which ultimately led to the unionization of the Sunriver Police Officers. During that same time period, an SROA board member, who was recently appointed to the Sunriver Service District Managing Board, came to my office and openly threatened my job. I was advised by him that SROA was going to replace the current Service District Managing Board members, with members who are more sympathetic with SROA's position. He also informed me that I needed to understand that SROA was in charge and would be running things in the future. I reported this contact to my direct supervisor. One by one over the years the board members were replaced with people who were obviously more sympathetic with SROA. Another example of a conflict between SROA and the Service District is the replacement of our legal counsel. Since the formation of the Sunriver Service District and during the road issue, the Sunriver Service District utilized the legal services of Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis. Apparently the firm of Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis also represented a Sunriver Owner against SROA in regards to a proposed development of the Sunriver Village mall. Shortly after that the Service District Managing board dismissed Bryant, lovlien & Jarvis as their legal counsel, indicating that they felt it was a conflict of interest for the Service Districts law firm to have opposed SROA. There was a comment made at that time by the Board similar to, uSROA is the Service District". The most recent conflict of interest came regarding the Bob Foster stalking case. After dealing with Bob Foster's unwanted attention for years, it finally came to a head when he reportedly tried to follow one of our Sergeants home from work. Based on advice from the District Attorney's office and the State Police, we approached SROA, who is our landlord, to ask that Bob Foster be trespassed from the SROA/Police building. After initially talking to the SROA General Manager, Sergeant Patnode and I were directed to go before the SROA board in a meeting that included their legal counsel. After meeting with the board, the SROA board president, Bob Nelson and Bob Wrightson, who are both also on the Service District board, came to my office and told Sergeant Patnode and I that they would not be trespassing Bob Foster, however their legal counsel had a better solution. They said their legal counsel would contact the Service District's legal counsel and work with him to solve the problem. A short time later, our legal counsel advised that we would be filing a stalking order against Bob Foster. While I was not in favor of this solution, as I had already discussed it at length with the DA's office, I followed our legal counsel's advice. At the request of legal counsel, I contacted Sergeant Patnode and Officer Kasey Hughes to see if they would be willing to have the stalking orders filed on their behalf. They subsequently agreed and the stalking orders were filed. After Bob Foster didn't immediately roll over, and threats of law suits were made to both the Service District as well as the Owners Association, SROA appeared to withdraw support. SROA put out a notice to its staff advising them, in substance, not to talk to us about the case. In addition, Bob Nelson, (SROA Board President and Service District Board Member), in a Service District executive session appeared to be attempting to withdraw Service District support from the two officers. He said something to the effect of "Why is the Service District financing these stalking orders, when this is clearly a civil matter between these two officers and Bob Foster". I reminded him that we had asked those officers if they would be willing to file the stalking orders at the request of legal counsel after he and Bob Wrightson had directed us to do so. Nelson indicated that he didn't remember it that way, and appeared to be very upset with me. I advised him that if asked, that is how I would have to testify in court. After that, SROA appeared to further distance themselves from the case, even though they were the ones who initially started us down the path of filing the stalking orders. On February lS, 2012 the Sunriver Service District had a department goal setting workshop. During that workshop it was clear that the board was showing a great deal of distain in their comments as well as their facial expressions toward me. Their general concerns seemed to be PR related. As it was a workshop I briefly discussed our current PR efforts and wrote down their concerns and recommendations. As we walked out of the workshop the Fire Chief looked at me and said "well that was an ambush". After the meeting I went to my office and called a meeting of my two Sergeants and my Office Manager. I advised them of the concerns of the board and asked them to come up with some ideas for a staff meeting that I was going to call for the following day. I then put out a notice for a full staff meeting the ) following day to be held at 6pm. (Getting staff input was one of the recommendations made by Director Baker in the meeting.) That evening I called my supervisor, Ron Angel, who is also the Board Chair, and asked if there was something going on that I didn't know about. Angel advised that there was nothing going on, and that the board was just interested in more of a PR effort. The following morning, on February 16, 2012, 1 walked around the Sunriver Village Mall and spoke with several of the local business owners and employees. I made some invitations to join our upcoming Citizens Academy as well as just stopping by to say hello. (This was also a recommendation made by my Board Chair.) At noon that same day 1 attended a COLES meeting at the Bend Police Department. I asked about the PR efforts of other agencies. 1 primarily spoke to the Redmond Chief of Police, who advised that they are understaffed and that he did not have a great deal of resources to devote to PR efforts. He spoke of an operation 10 program that they were doing and indicated that they were doing very little else. (This was also a recommendation made by the Managing Board.) At 3pm 1 attended the Sunriver Service District monthly Board meeting. I gave my monthly briefing as well as presented the Managing Board with our Annual Report. I outlined for the Board the challenges and opportunities we were facing over the next few months, including re-accreditation, outfitting new patrol cars, etc. Everything seemed to go well until the end of the meeting when Director Jim Wilson thanked me for my years of service and made a motion to terminate my employment. In what seems like a bad dream now, there was a second followed by a brief discussion and then I was fired. I was then met back at my office by Director Angel and Director Wilson who had me gather my things and leave. I repeatedly asked them to please explain what just happened. Angel just said something to the effect of "Come on Mike you know you don't like to do PRH. I briefly tried to plead my case, advising them of alii had done, but it was clear that they were not interested in listening. I advised them that I had my Officers coming in for a staff meeting at 6pm and they allowed me to box up my things and to briefly meet with the officers to say goodbye. It is my belief that the SROA misused the position in which you have entrusted it for its own vindictive purposes. There is no justification for my firing. I have always been a proponent of public relations and have dedicated hundreds of hours of my own time to this effort. I have attended nearly all of our PR functions as well as most, if not all, of the Citizen Academy classes over the past ten years. I respectfully bring this before the County Commissioners with a clear understanding that the current County Commissioners, County Manager and County Legal Counsel played no role in the formation of the Sunriver Service District or in the drafting of the subsequent Management agreement. 1 also recognize that your predecessors did so with the best of intentions. With that said, the management structure of the Sunriver Service District is absolutely flawed, and you as the Governing Body of the Sunriver Service District are in a unique position to correct it. , Terminating my employment after 22 years of flawless service and dedication is an injustice that I cannot just walk away from. The Sunriver Owners Association has pressured the Sunriver Police Department as well as me to perform unlawful and unethical acts to which we have refused. The results of those refusals were threats ranging from disbanding the Police Department to firing me. It is my firm belief that my firing was a direct result of my refusal to act on their unethical requests. I respectfully request that I be reinstated to my former position as the Sunriver Chief of Police. In addition I request that the current Sunriver Service District Managing Board members be removed from their positions and that the Management Agreement with SROA be rescinded. I believe that almost any other form of oversight for the district such as a District Manager or a Managing Board that more accurately represents all of the constituents of Sunriver is imperative. Sincerely ~ /'2 /I'?' d'''P' ~.@~af3u?t~/ Michael A. Kennedy /