approved on january 23, 2013 by the board of ... wbs min.pdf2012/12/19 · quarry, copeland sand...

APPROVED ON JANUARY 23, 2013

BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AT THE WEEKLY BUSINESS SESSION

WEEKLY BUSINESS SESSION December 19, 2012, 9: 00 a. m.

Anne G. Basker Auditorium

604 N. W. Sixth Street, Grants Pass, OR 97526

Present: Simon G. Hare, Chair, Don Reedy, Vice-Chair, and Harold Haugen, Commissioner; Kim Kashuba, Recorder

These are meeting minutes only. Only text enclosed in quotation marks reports a speaker' s exact words. For complete contentsof the proceeding, please refer to the audio recording.

Pursuant to notice through the media and in conformance with the Public Meeting Law, Simon Hare, Chair called themeeting to order at 9: 00 a. m. Items discussed were as follows:

1. PROCLAMATION: In the Matter of Proclaiming the Day of December 21, 2012 as Homeless Persons' MemorialDayCommissioner Hare read the Proclamation naming December 21, 2012 as Homeless Persons' Memorial Day. Kelly

Wessels of United Community Action Network ( UCAN) accepted the Proclamation, provided statistics on the homelesspopulation of Josephine County, and announced that a memorial service for homeless people who had died would be held at12: 15 this Friday in front of the Courthouse. Commissioner Hare thanked Ms. Wessels and asked the audience for a moment ofsilence in tribute to those without homes who lost their lives this year.

2. LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS:

a. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 2012- 004 to Approve an Amendment to the Transportation SystemPlan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, with Adoption of the 1- 5 Interchange 61 Interchange Area

Management Plan ( IAMP)( First Reading was held on 11/ 21/ 12 at 9: 00 a.m.)

Commissioner Haugen made a motion to read Ordinance 2012- 004 by title only, seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon rollcall vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen— yes, Commissioner Reedy— yes and Commissioner Hare— yes.

Commissioner Hare read the Ordinance by title and asked Rob Brandes, Public Works Director, to explain the Interchange AreaManagement Plan, including the processes used that lead to this amendment to the County' s Transportation System Plan andthe address of Exit 61' s traffic problems. Mr. Brandes did so, and Commissioner Hare opened the Public Hearing at 9: 09 a. m.

Hearing no public comments or questions, Commissioner Hare closed the Public Hearing at 9: 11 a. m.

Commissioner Haugen made a motion to Adopt Ordinance 2012- 004 to Approve an Amendment to the Transportation System

Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, with Adoption of the 1- 5 Interchange 61 Interchange Area Management PlanIAMP), seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen — yes,

Commissioner Reedy—yes and Commissioner Hare— yes. One original Ordinance signed and retained for recording.

BOARD DECISIONS UNDER ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS WERE MADE AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT WAS RECEIVEDExcept Item 3( b))

3. ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS IN CONSIDERATION OF:

a. Order 2012- 055 In the Matter of Initiating the Formation of a Law Enforcement Service District Pursuant toORS Chapter 451; Setting First Public Hearing

Commissioner Hare requested from the Board a summary of recent activity that occurred during his absence.Commissioner Reedy responded that Order 2012- 055 reflected the fact that the City of Cave Junction had elected to not beincluded in the territory covered by the proposed Law Enforcement District. It was clarified that all Order 2012- 055 did wasset the matter for a first public hearing.

b. Approval of Order 2012- 057 In the Matter of the Regular Weekly Business Meeting of the Board of CountyCommissioners for December 26, 2012 and January 2, 2013

Commissioner Reedy moved to approve Order 2012- 057 as listed, seconded by Commissioner Hare. Commissioner

Haugen stated he would not support the motion as the Board should be available to deal with any issues that may arise betweennow and the end of the year. Commissioner Reedy responded that the Board always had the option of calling a specialmeeting. Commissioner Hare agreed, stating he would be available to form a quorum if necessary. Upon roll call vote, motionpassed 2- 1; Commissioner Haugen— no, Commissioner Reedy— yes and Commissioner Hare—yes.

c. Approval of Findings of Fact and Decision of the Board Regarding Conditional Use Permit for MahannahQuarry, Copeland Sand and Gravel, Applicant

Planning Director David Wechner described this land use application and hearing, the approval of which was reflected inthe Findings of Fact and Decision now before the Board. Commissioner Hare had minor corrections and suggested a map be

Weekly Business Session December 19, 2012 Page 2

added to the document. Mr. Wechner suggested that the Board could move to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision with

edits and he would provide an original reflecting those changes to the Board' s office later today. The Board concurred withCommissioner Hare' s edits and agreed to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision with those changes.

d. Approval of Findings of Fact and Decision of the Board Regarding a Remand Hearing regarding a request to:Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map of Josephine County ( Ordinance 81- 11, as amended) from Forest toResidential and amend the Zoning Map of Josephine County ( Ordinance 85- 1, as amended) from WoodlotResource ( WR) to Rural Residential 5 Acre minimum ( RR-5). The subject property is identified in theJosephine County Assessor' s records as Map 37- 05- 20, TL 2001. The property owners are Richard andChristine Whitaker

Planning Director David Wechner read this Agenda Item, stating the title was fully explanatory of what was before theBoard for approval. Commissioner Hare added that the reason for the Remand Hearing giving rise to these Findings of Factand Decision was a change in the Oregon Administrative Rules. He offered additional information and edits to the document,and the Board held a brief discussion and reached a consensus on them.

e. Approval of PEG Equipment Purchase and Related Installation Costs( Not to Exceed$ 18,333)

Rosemary Padgett, CFO, explained this purchase would enable the County to resume broadcasting Board meetings,providing channel automation, live streaming and video on demand. Commissioner Hare suggested rounding the Not- to-Exceed amount to$ 18, 500, and the Board agreed.

REQUESTS/COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS:

Bill Wagner, Selma, spoke in opposition to the proposed law enforcement district, as well as the idea of combining County and

City public safety departments. He proposed that the way to cure the County' s financial problems was by selling " excess"County land to generate timber revenues.

Dale Matthews, Grants Pass, commented on how PEG funds should be spent, and in opposition to any new taxing districts.

Tony Correia, Grants Pass, offered various suggestions on how the County could save money.

Jim Rafferty, Selma, submitted Exhibit A, copies of the Board' s December 5 letter to Mayor Mike Murphy and OAR 451. 010,and questioned the authority of the City of Grants Pass to remove the option of rural patrols from discussions of a lawenforcement district.

Jay Meredith, Josephine County, submitted and read Exhibit B, a letter to the Board from Secure Our Safety.

Mark Seligman, Selma, read a prepared statement in opposition to any proposed taxing district, alleging that the majority ofcitizens who attended a recent meeting hosted by SOS voted not to support a law enforcement district.

Connie Roach, Josephine County Assessor, contradicted Mr. Seligman' s comment, stating that she attended that SOS meetingand there was in fact no vote taken at it.

Jerry Smith, Grants Pass, explained at length his history with the community and spoke in opposition to any proposed taxingdistrict.

Barbara Gonzales, Grants Pass, spoke in opposition to any proposed taxing district.

Jeff Wolfe, Colonial Valley, reminded the Board of its responsibility to provide protection of the citizens of Josephine County.

Jim Goodwin, Grants Pass, provided a history of attempts to get levies passed in Josephine County and offered suggestions tothe wording of ballot titles of any future levy.

Cherryl Walker, Murphy, publically declared that since she was elected County Commissioner, she has stopped participating inSOS meetings to avoid any impressions of conflict of interest.

Gil Gilbertson, Josephine County Sheriff, thanked the citizens for their suggestions regarding funding County Public SafetyServices, and advised that his Department layed off 65 people and would have to lay off more if a funding solution was notfound.

Sandi Cassanelli, Merlin, submitted Exhibit C, material obtained from a recent City of Grants Pass meeting, which she stateddemonstrated her allegations of special treatment of SOS.


Keith Heck, Grants Pass, offered information regarding the proposed law enforcement district, stating concerns regarding adistrict' s permanency were unfounded, as it would only be permanent in rate stability; citizens could vote it out. He stated theCounty had inadequate patrols and if the decision to put a levy on the ballot was delayed until November, money from it wouldnot be recognized until November 2014.

Pat Fahey, Grants Pass, spoke on behalf of SOS, addressing various comments made about the organization' s efforts ataddressing the County' s public safety problems.

Pat Seitz, Josephine County, spoke in opposition to any proposed taxing district.

Mrs. Fahey, Grants Pass, asserted the importance of having a viable and effective public safety system.

Larry Ford, Grants Pass, spoke in support of passing Order 2012- 055, stating the matter should be set for public hearing and theprocess allowed to take place.

Board Discussion& Action: Agenda Item 3( a)

Commissioner Haugen stated he supported passing this Order as it would allow citizens and the incoming Board to take part indetermining the level of public safety they wanted in their community. Commissioner Reedy expressed his issues with thelanguage of the City' s Resolution because it specifically excluded citizens outside City limits. However, he was in favor ofmoving the process forward and approving the Order. Commissioner Hare discussed the County' s financial situation and whatthe future looks like. He addressed several citizen comments regarding public safety and asked for answers from the public.

Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve Agenda Item 3( a) as listed, seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon roll

call vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen— yes, Commissioner Reedy— yes and Commissioner Hare— yes.

One original Order signed and retained for recording.

Board Discussion & Action: Agenda Item 3( b)

See Administrative Action 3( b)

Board Discussion & Action: Agenda Item 3( c)

Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve Agenda Item 3( c) as listed, to include edits and map addition as discussed,seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen— yes, Commissioner Reedy

yes and Commissioner Hare— yes. One original Findings of Fact and Decision signed and retained for recording.

Board Discussion & Action: Agenda Item 3( d)

Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve Agenda Item 3( d) as listed, to include edits and map addition as discussed,seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen— yes, Commissioner Reedy

yes and Commissioner Hare— yes. One original Findings of Fact and Decision signed and retained for recording.

Board Discussion & Action: Agenda Item 3( e)

Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve Agenda Item 3( e) as listed, rounding the Not-to- Exceed amount to , 18, 500,seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen— yes, Commissioner Reedy

yes and Commissioner Hare—yes.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR:

a. Approval of Minutes (Draft minutes are available for viewing in the Board' s Office)Land Use Hearing— November 5, 2012

Weekly Business Session— November 14, 2012



County Administration Workshop— November 28, 2012General Discussion— December 4, 2012

Public Health Budget— December 4, 2012

Weekly Business Session— December 5, 2012

County Administration Workshop— December 5, 2012Staff Meeting— December 6, 2012

b. Approval of Position Requisition: Replacing Existing Classification of Sr. Admin. Supervisor with ChiefAdmin. Supervisor, Commissioner' s Office

Commissioner Hare advised that the replacement of this classification would create consistency with like staff of other

County Departments. One original Requisition signed and returned to Human Resources.


c. Approval of Personnel Action for New Hire of Emergency Service ManagerSara Moye, Human Resource Director, confirmed the hire and start date of this new employee. One original Personnel

Action signed and returned to Human Resources.

d. Approval of Personnel Action to Appoint a Tax Collector

Sara Moye, Human Resource Director, explained that this Personnel Action changed Eve Arce' s classification to appoint

newly elected Treasurer Eve Arce as Tax Collector effective January 7, 2013. One original Personnel Action signed and

returned to Human Resources.

d( 1) Approval of Order 2012- 061: In the Matter of Designating the Tax Collector for Josephine County( not onagenda)

Sara Moye, Human Resource Director, advised this Order had been tied with Agenda Item 4( d) to address an issue of gaps

in compensation and benefits to incoming Tax Collector Eve Arce and outgoing Tax Collector and Treasurer John Harelson, byproviding pay to an elected official ( EO) for his/ her entire term in office. This would change the County' s current policy ofonly paying through December 31 of the last year of an EO' s term, despite that EO continuing to serve for an additional weekuntil his/her replacement was sworn in. Steve Rich, County Legal Counsel, advised that both the Oregon Revised Statutes andthe County Charter dictated that a newly elected official was to be sworn in on or after the first Monday of the year, althoughthe Charter only refers to officials elected to the Board of Commissioners. Sara Moye advised that the proposed change to theCounty' s policy would be consistent with current wage and hour practices and would alleviate liability as people would be paidfor all the time they work. After further discussion, the Board agreed to approve the Order. One original Order signed at the

December 20, 2012 Administrative Workshop meeting and retainedfor recording.

e. Order 2012- 056 In the Matter of Refunding Taxes Paid on Real Property Over the Amount of$ 10,000John Harelson, Treasurer, stated the Board' s approval of this Order would be a purely ministerial act, as in this case the tax

bill was paid by both the property owner and the escrow account holder. One original Order signed and retained for

recording.

Treasurer Harelson requested a moment to thank the Board and the citizens of Josephine County for the opportunity to serve astheir Treasurer and Tax Collector for the last sixteen years. Commissioner Hare commended Mr. Harelson for his years of

service, stating that his financial decisions as County Treasurer over the years had earned Josephine County an excess of$ 1Million. Commissioners Reedy and Haugen echoed those comments.

f. Approval of Order 2012- 058 In the Matter of Administrative Policies and Procedures for Josephine County forthe Purpose of Conducting Business on a Daily Basis: Personnel Policy Manual One original Order signed andretainedfor recording.

g. Approval of Order 2012- 059 In the Matter of Administrative Policies and Procedures for Josephine County forthe Purpose of Conducting Business on a Daily Basis: Adopting Safety Program Manual One original Order

signed and retainedfor recording.Commissioner Hare commented that Order Nos. 2012- 058 and 2012- 059 approved Administrative Policies and Procedures

that had been fully discussed and vetted by the Board at prior meetings.

Board Discussion and Action:

Commissioner Reedy made a motion to approve Consent Calendar Items 4( a) through =1( g) as listed, seconded byCommissioner Haugen. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen— yes, Commissioner Reedy— yes and

Commissioner Hare—yes.

5. OTHER:

None reported.

6. MATTERS FROM COMMISSIONERS:

a. Approval of Resolution 2012- 061: In the Matter of Requiring the United States Fish and Wildlife Service andthe Bureau of Land Management to Coordinate the Designation of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl in

Josephine County.Commissioner Hare stated this Resolution had been proposed by Southern Oregon Resource Alliance. He had suggested

edits and was in support of it. The Board concurred.


Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve Resolution 2012- 061, subject to Commissioner Hare' s recommended edits asdiscussed, seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen — yes,

Commissioner Reedy—yes and Commissioner Hare— yes. One original Resolution signed and retained for recording.


b. Approval of Resolution 2012-062: In the Matter of Amending the Operating Rules for the Josephine CountyMining Advisory Board

Commissioner Flare advised this Resolution would amend Resolution 98- 94 and allow an additional member to the

Mining Advisory Board.


Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve Resolution 2012- 062 as listed, seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon rollcall vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen—yes, Commissioner Reedy— yes and Commissioner Hare—yes.

One original Resolution signed and retained for recording.

c. Approval of Resolution 2012- 063: In the Matter of an Appointment to the Josephine County MiningAdvisory Board

Commissioner Haugen advised that the reason for the prior Resolution was to allow the appointment of Mr. Tom Kitchar

to the Mining Advisory Board, as he was on that Board when it was originally formed and could offer historical perspectivenow.


Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve Resolution 2012- 063 as listed, seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon rollcall vote, motion passed 3- 0; Commissioner Haugen—yes, Commissioner Reedy— yes and Commissioner Hare—yes.

One original Resolution signed and retained for recording.

d. Approval of Letter re: Tax Collector Duties

The Board agreed sending the proposed letter to John Harelson, relieving him of his duties as Tax Collector effectiveJanuary 6, 2013, was appropriate as he was given those duties by letter of the Board.


Commissioner Haugen made a motion to approve the sending of a letter to John Harelson relieving him of his duties as TaxCollector effective January 6, 2013, seconded by Commissioner Reedy. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 3- 0;Commissioner Haugen — yes, Commissioner Reedy —yes and Commissioner Hare —yes. One original Letter signed andsend to John Harelson.

e. Approval of Order 2012-060: In the Matter of Establishing a Compensation Policy and Procedure for theBoard of Commissioners and Elected Administrative Officers in Josephine County

Discussion of this Order was had in connection with Agenda Items 4( d) and 4( d)( 1).


Commissioner Reedy made a motion to approve Order 2012- 060: In the Matter of Establishing a Compensation Policy andProcedure for the Board of Commissioners and Elected Administrative Officers in Josephine County, seconded byCommissioner Haugen. Upon roll call vote, motion passed 2- 1; Commissioner Haugen— yes, Commissioner Reedy— yes andCommissioner Hare—no. One original Order signed and retained for recording.

Weekly Business Session was adjourned at 11: 43 a. m.

Kim Kashuba, Recorder

Entered into record:

Exhibit A: Letter/OAR submitted by Jim RaffertyExhibit B: Letter from SOS submitted by Jay MeredithExhibit C: City of Grants Pass documents submitted by Sandi Cassanelli

I a. / .9, / e (,), Ss

E;t: ibit A _

Josephine County, OregonBoard ofCommissioners: Simon G. Hare, Don Reedy, Harold Haugen

d?

t' Josephine County Courthouse500 NW 6th Street, Dept. 6/ Grants Pass, OR 97526

541) 474-5221 / FAX( 541) 474-5105

http:// www.cojosephine.or.us

December 5, 2012

The Honorable Mike MurphyMayor of the City of Grants PassCity Council MembersCity of Grants Pass101 NW" A" StreetGrants Pass OR 97526

Dear Mayor Murphy and Council members:

The Board of Commissioners has heard from a group of concerned citizens in JosephineCounty who support placing the question of a countywide law enforcement services district onthe ballot for the May 21, 2013, election. The proposed district would be a county servicedistrict organized under ORS Chapter 451, and would provide law enforcement services perORS 451, 010( 1)( n). It would be governed by the Board of Commissioners pursuant to ORS451. 485, and county voters would be asked to establish a permanent rate limit to fund thedistrict's operations as authorized by ORS 451. 547.

Pursuant to the authority granted in ORS 198.835, the Board of Commissioners has agreed toinitiate the district formation process by Board order at the December 19, 2012 businesssession. Because the proposed district will include territory within the incorporated cities ofGrants Pass and Cave Junction, the Board order must be accompanied by a resolution fromthe each of the city's governing bodies approving the order. We respectfully request that youprovide the Board with a certified copy of a resolution that indicates the City's support andapproval of the Board's order to initiate the formation of the district. We will need the resolutionprior to December 19, 2012.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,JOSEPHINE COUNTY

BOA9 OF COMMISSIONERS

Simo G:-Har-, hair

Vic hair

fry,

Harold Haugen, Commi

ier

BCC:SR:pe

cc: Aaron Cubic, City ManagerJosephine County is an Affirmative Action/ Equal Opportunity Employer and complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973"

Josephine County is an Equal Opportunity Employer and complies with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of J 973."

A

GENERAL PROVISIONS

451. 010 Facilities and services provided by service districts. ( 1) Master

plans and service districts may be established as provided by this chapterregarding:

a) Sewage works, including all facilities necessary for collecting,pumping, treating and disposing of sanitary or storm sewage.

b) Drainage works, including all facilities necessary for collecting,pumping and disposing of storm and surface water.

c) Street lighting works, including all facilities necessary for thelighting of streets and highways.

d) Public parks and recreation facilities, including land, structures,equipment, supplies and personnel necessary to acquire, develop and maintainsuch public park and recreation facilities and to administer a program of

supervised recreation services.

e) Diking and flood control works, including all facilities necessary fordiking and control of watercourses.

f) Water supply works and service, including all facilities necessary fortapping natural sources of domestic and industrial water, treating andprotecting the quality of the water and transmitting it to the point of sale toany person, city, domestic water supply corporation or other public or privateagency for domestic, municipal and industrial water supply service.

g) Solid waste disposal. This paragraph does not apply in Clackamas,Multnomah and Washington Counties.

h) Public transportation, including public depots, public parking and themotor vehicles and other equipment necessary for the transportation of personstogether with their personal property.

i) Agricultural educational extension services.

j) Emergency medical services, including ambulance services.k) Library services.L) Roads.

m) Emergency communications services, including a 9- 1- 1 emergencyreporting system established under ORS 403. 115.

n) Law enforcement services.

o) Human services.

p) Cemetery maintenance.q) Animal control.2) Within the geographical jurisdiction of any local government boundary

commission established by or pursuant to ORS 199.410 to 199. 519, in addition tothe purposes described in subsection ( 1) of this section, master plans and

service districts may be established as provided by this chapter regarding:a) Fire prevention and protection.

b) Hospital and ambulance services.

c) Vector control.

d) Weather modification.

3) Within the boundaries of any subdivision, service districts may beestablished as provided by this chapter regarding:

a) Fire prevention and protection.

b) Security services provided by contract with an association ofhomeowners whose property is located entirely within the boundaries of theservice district, which services may include the enforcement of the rules orregulations of the association dealing with public access to or the use of the

property of the association, routine patrolling and inspection of private areaslocated within the jurisdiction of the association and matters of traffic and

safety within such areas.c) Law enforcement services.

d) Hospital and ambulance services.

e) Vector control.

f) Activities set forth in subsection ( 1)( a), ( f), (g), ( j) and ( m) ofthis section.

4) As used in subsection ( 3) of this section, " subdivision" means a

subdivision as defined by ORS 92. 010 or any contiguous group of suchsubdivisions that:

a) Is a planned community within the meaning of ORS 94. 550 without regardto whether such subdivision or group of subdivisions is subject to ORS 94. 550 to94. 783;

b) Is located entirely within an unincorporated area and is everywhereseparated by a distance of five miles or more from an urban growth boundarydescribed in an acknowledged comprehensive plan of a city or the urban growth

boundary adopted by a metropolitan service district under ORS 268. 390 ( 3); and

c) Prior to the establishment of a service district under subsection ( 3)

of this section, is designated a subdivision for purposes of this subsection by

the governing body of the county in which the subdivision or group ofsubdivisions is located.

5) Within the boundaries of Washington County, master plans and service

districts may be established as provided by this chapter regarding waterresource management services that affect the quality and quantity of water

within a single watershed, basin or planning area. As used in this subsection,water resource management services" means:

a) Planning for and provision of two or more services or facilities suchas sewage works, drainage works, surface water management, endangered species

recovery management, water quality management, diking and flood control works,river flow management, water supply works, wastewater reuse and irrigationfacilities.

b) Activities ancillary to the services and facilities listed inparagraph ( a) of this subsection, including facilities for the production, saleor purchase of energy when such facilities are integrated in a master planadopted under ORS 451. 120. [ 1963 c. 515 § 2; 1965 c. 246 § 1; 1967 c. 538 § 1; 1971

c. 674 § 1; 1971 c. 687 § 1; 1973 c. 211 § 1; 1973 c. 785 § 1; 1975 c. 630 § 1; 1977 c. 60

1; 1977 c. 287 § 1; 1979 c. 221 § 1; 1985 c. 472 § 1; 1987 c. 525 § 1; 1989 c. 668 S 1;

1989 c. 793 § 24; 1995 c. 303 § 2; 1999 c. 166 § 1; 1999 c. 677 § 66; 1999 c. 759 § 1;

2005 c. 101 § 1; 2005 c. 510 § 1]

MASTER PLANS

451. 110 Definitions for ORS 451. 110 to 451. 140. As used in ORS 451. 110 to451. 140, unless the context indicates otherwise:

1) " County court" includes the board of county commissioners.2) " Service facilities" means public service installations, works or

services provided within a county for any or all of the purposes specified inORS 451. 010. [ 1955 c. 509 § 1; 1963 c. 515 § 3; 1967 c. 249 § 1; 1973 c. 785 § 2]

o?./ 2w3sSecuring Our Safety

We want your input to create:

A Citizen- voiced plan to provide for a secure, stable and sustainable Josephine County"

SOSwww.SecuringOurSafety.orgSECURING OUR SAFETY

December 19, 2012

Board of County CommissionersJosephine County Courthouse500 NW 6th Street

Grants Pass, OR 97526

Dear County Commissioners,

First of all, thank you for allowing public input in today's meeting and thank you for consideringstarting the process of forming a Law Enforcement/ Criminal Justice service district today.Considering the Grants Pass City Council voted unanimously to be a part of the district, whileCave Junction was not ready to vote on this matter, you may be asking how that affects ourrecent district recommendation.

Please think back to early 2012 when the Board solicited funding ideas from the public, held anopen house to allow the public to present ideas, and then chose the best of those ideas to bringto vote of the entire County. There was little time to study each of the great ideas presented thatnight. Securing Our Safety ( SOS) has held nearly weekly town hall meetings for seven monthsnow studying various funding and service solutions to restoring Criminal Justice services in our

county. SOS has collected nearly 1200 surveys from County residents that cover in depth whatlevel of services residents want and the ways they would prefer to pay for those services.

Stopping the district formation process today would ignore seven months of very hard workstudying this issue and collecting public comment on this issue, and would ignore the majorityopinion throughout the County. We advise you to stay the course and approve the initial orderforming the district excluding Cave Junction in the District. While we love all our brothers and

sisters throughout the County, and certainly in CJ, we need to respect the public's overalldemand to solve this problem and the majority voice of the public. Cave Junction isn' t ready tobe part of the district and that' s their right be excluded for now until they get more answers tosome of their questions. But to allow close to 2% of the County' s population to dictate the rightsof the other 98% of the County to solve some of its public safety challenges does not make

sense. We are not ignoring the CJ Council or CJ' s rights to exercise their opinion. We' re askingto move forward with creating the district which would allow CJ to potentially join the district at alater date should they choose.

Through all the ways we have collected survey results and public opinion, including theNovember ballot, the SOS Criminal Justice Survey, and the County Criminal Justice Survey, thepublic has demanded we increase the level of service in our criminal justice system. And in the

detailed SOS Survey and County Survey each of the components of the criminal justice systemreceived very high marks from the public. The public wants higher level of services in all of theseareas, and that voice is nearly a unanimous voice. We have a duty to keep our options open toany potential solution as we approach yet another fiscal year with no major solution in place.

Securing Our Safety www.SecuringOurSafety.orq

Delaying this action on the district formation process today would be devastating because itwould delay this partial funding solution for one more fiscal year. Please approve the order todayto allow the discussion to continue next year and be brought to a vote of the people in May of2013 if next year's Commissioners wish to bring this to a vote.

While we are still collecting survey results, nearly 1200 people have now given their " 3 minutesat the mic" and told us their opinion of the level of services in our criminal justice system and

their opinion of different funding solutions for achieving the desired level of services. This District

would lust be part of the solution as it' s clear we' re going to need a variety of solutions to get towhere our citizens want to go. Please start the process today which would allow additionalpublic hearings on the district in January and February of next year. Interim survey results canbe found at http:// securingoursafety.org/ surveyresults/ and we will be tallying the full surveyresults early next year. You will hear from us next year on other smaller funding solutions toachieve the service level goals in other areas of the Criminal Justice system.

Please do not ignore the 1200 people that have given their "3 minutes at the mic" in favor of just

a few people that have expressed a concern over this proposal. We know our residents almost

unanimously want solutions to our funding challenges and the majority is in favor of consideringa revised property tax proposal. It will be the County's job to revise the proposal even more inthe next two months. But for now, please keep in mind that in our extensive survey work nearly68% of respondents were willing to consider a revised property tax proposal of some kind. In the

City of Grants Pass closer to 78% of respondents were willing to consider a revised property taxproposal, while close to 61% of County residents outside Grants Pass are willing to consider arevised property tax proposal. We have a duty to bring them another option and let them vote onit. Again, please don' t allow the voice of 2% of the County to eliminate options the other 98% of

the County would like to have.

If we don' t move forward with starting the district today, the only significant solution that could

be put in place before next fiscal year would be a short-term levy. A short-term levy does notsolve the problem, it just creates a new one at the expiration of the levy. It doesn' t make sense

to put basic public safety up for a vote every 2, 3, or 4 years any more than it makes sense tovote on whether we should operate our schools in the coming year or provide clean drinkingwater to our citizens in the coming year. The # 1 duty of government is to provide for the safetyof its citizens and we ask you to approve this initial order forming the district so we can

potentially achieve a partial solution to our citizens' demands next fiscal year rather than havingto wait another 12 months. The longer we go without providing for the basic public safety of ourcitizens, the more difficult it will be to recover from this crisis. You don' t always know what the

majority voice of the public is when you make your decisions, but your decision today is clear.Please move forward on creating the district so the public can debate this in the County forumover the next two months and potentially vote on the district in May of 2013.

Sincerely,

Jay Meredith, President and Board ChairSecuring Our Safety, Inc.SecuringOurSafetvCc gmail. com

Securing Our Safety www.SecuringOurSafetv.orq

CITY OF GRANTS PASSSPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA a./?,,..2_December 17, 2012 loss

11: 45 am – 1: 00 pm Special MeetingCouncil Chambers – 101 NW "A" Street Exh,ibit________

MAYOR: Mike Murphy

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:

Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4

Northwest Area Northeast Area Southeast Area Southwest AreaDan DeYoung Lily Morgan Jim Williams Kris WoodburnDennis Webber Rick Riker Richard Michelon Darin Fowler

1. COUNCIL ACTION:

a. Ordinance authorizing the issuance of Full Faith and Credit Water Bonds.Pgs. 1- 6

b. Ordinance authorizing the issuance of Water Revenue Bonds. Pgs. 7- 50

c. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a local agencyagreement with ODOT to receive Modernization and CMAQ funds for theAllen Creek Road project. Pgs. 51- 54

d. Resolution approving inclusion in County District to fund criminal justiceservices under ORS 451. 010( 1)( n). Pgs. 55-58

2. CONSENT CALENDAR:

a. Resolution amending the Personnel Rules, Regulations and Policies.Pgs. 59-68

b. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Task Order No. 02with Keller Associates, Inc. for Storm Water Master Planning. Pgs. 69- 84

c. Motion to approve the minutes of the City Council Workshop of November26, 2012. Pgs. 85- 98

d. Motion to approve the minutes of the City Council and Budget CommitteeQuarterly Budget Workshop of November 27, 2012. Pgs. 99- 118

e. Motion to approve the minutes City Council Workshop and SpecialMeeting of December 3, 2012. Pgs. 119- 136

f. Motion to acknowledge the minutes Urban Tree Advisory Committeemeeting of October 15, 2012. Pgs. 137- 138

g. Motion to acknowledge the minutes of the Parks Advisory Board meetingof October 18, 2012. Pgs. 139- 140

3. EXECUTIVE SESSION:

d) Labor negotiations ( news media not allowed without specific permission)

4. ADJOURN

If special physical or language accommodations are needed for this Public Session, please notify Karen Frerk( 450-6000) at least 48-hours prior to Session.

Resolution approving inclusion in CountyItem: District to fund criminal justice services Date: December 17, 2012

under ORS 451. 010( 1)( n).

SUBJECT AND SUMMARY:

Consider approving the resolution to allow the City and its citizens to participate andvote on a County District that would provide Criminal Justice Program services sharedby all residents of the City and County.

RELATIONSHIP TO COUNCIL GOALS:

This supports Council goal of LEADERSHIP by working with Josephine County onfunding efforts for the Criminal Justice System that serves both City and Countyresidents. This also supports Council goal of CITIZENS SAFETY by supporting thecreation of a District that will provide support services necessary for the citizens inGrants Pass.

BACKGROUND:

The Josephine County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) has requestedpermission to initiate the formation of a District that would provide resources forCriminal Justice services that serve the entire City and County. Prior to action by theBCC, the two incorporated cities in the County( Grants Pass and Cave Junction) needto provide official permission to be included in the District. This is the first step in theDistrict formation process, followed by two hearings by the BCC in January andFebruary of 2013. The County would then have the opportunity to put the District andrelated property tax funding on the ballot in May of 2013. If the City participates in theproposed District, City and County residents will have an opportunity to vote on the taxrate if the BCC approves the ballot measure in 2013. The new District will have no

taxing authority without voters approving that taxing authority.

This action by the BCC was initiated by the newly formed non- profit group Securing OurSafety( SOS) after careful consideration over the last 6 months and gathering publicinput on local criminal justice programs and funding challenges. After hearing fromSOS, the Commissioners unanimously agreed to start the hearings process on thismatter to leave the option for Commissioners to place this on the ballot next year. The

deadline for Commissioners to start the process and approve the initial order formingthe District is December 19. In order for the Cities to be part of the District the Cities

have to act on a resolution to be a part of the new District before the Commissioners

approve the initial order forming the District. The letter from SOS to the CountyCommissioners making the request to start the process of forming a District is attachedto this background document as Exhibit 'A'.

ITEM: 1. d. RESOLUTION APPROVING INCLUSION IN COUNTY DISTRICT TO

FUND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES UNDER ORS 451. 010( 1)( N).

55

EXHIBIT

Securing Our SafetyWe want your input to create:

A Citizen- voiced plan to providefor a secure, stable and sustainable Josephine County"

Swww.SecuringOurSafetv.org5.&- RIN* OuJR SAFETY

December 4, 2012

Board of County CommissionersJosephine County Courthouse500 NW 6th Street

Grants Pass, OR 97526

Dear County Commissioners,

As you are well aware, Securing Our Safety ( SOS) is a non-profit that formed in 2012 for thepurposes of research and education on how to help the County provide the services that arerequired for a " secure, stable, and sustainable Josephine County." To date our efforts have

focused mostly on the local Criminal Justice program challenges as the Criminal Justice Systemis one of the key infrastructure components for our County along with the basic requirements ofschools, roads, utilities and other core community needs.

SOS has gathered enough research and community input to make a specific recommendationthat requires your immediate attention in order to keep elections options open for the comingyear. SOS has been working on a variety of potential funding options and service options torestore Criminal Justice services. An SOS Natural Resources Committee was the spark that

helped the County restore the Timber Advisory Board with a goal of quickly increasing localtimber production on County lands and other lands in a sustainable manner. This group is

already making great progress on ideas that could be one of many solutions needed to restoreour community's critical Criminal Justice services. While much progress has been made, it's justa portion of the ultimate combination of solutions needed. Today, Commissioners need toschedule and approve an order that starts the process of creating a new Law EnforcementDistrict to serve our local Criminal Justice programs.

SOS has learned that creating a Law Enforcement District has a number of specific stepsrequired to start the official process of taking public input on the matter, the first of which needsto happen over the next week. More specifically, the first step at the County level is for the BCCto approve an order by December 19, 2012, that initiates the formation of the district. And sincethe SOS recommendation is that the Law Enforcement District cover the entire county withservices shared by the entire County, the City of Grants Pass and the City of Cave Junction mustapprove to be a part of the new district prior to the BCC order to initiate the district. With your

specific notification to the two cities that you intend to initiate district formation, the two cities

could each act on a resolution to be included in the district on December10th,

allowing the BCCto consider the new district in your meeting on December 19, 2012.

After working on various solutions for nearly seven months and having so far gathered over 1000surveys from our residents on the topic of Criminal Justice level of service and funding options,SOS can now confidently say that our residents want a higher level of service. We can also

confidently say that if local taxes are part of the combination of eventual solutions, our residents

Securing Our Safety www.SecuringOurSafety.ora.

56

would prefer that tax be a property tax ( the most common and preferred way to fund localgovernment services in Oregon). While our collection of community input will remain ongoing in

coming months, some very preliminary survey statistics are now available on our website here:

http:// securingoursafetv. orq/ surveyresults/

Our recommendation involves a Law Enforcement District that would be formed for the purposes

of minimal funding for specific Criminal Justice services that everyone in the County shares nomatter whether they reside in one of the cities or out in the unincorporated parts of the County.The ultimate result is after a vote of the entire County, the new district would have a minimum

property tax rate that would last until either residents vote to change it or Commissioners chooseto levy less than the permanent authority of the new district. This would be a property tax ratesignificantly lower than the proposal in May of 2012, and would help meet the definition of asecure, stable, and sustainable Josephine County."

SOS requests that the BCC immediately begin the process of forming this district in order tomeet the deadlines require for County residents to vote on this matter in May of 2013. May of

2013 would be the last reasonable opportunity for this partial funding solution to contribute to theCounty's Fiscal 2014 budget should voters agree with the specifics of the eventual electionsmeasure. The process must begin by your action on December 19th in order for the BCC to havethe required hearings on this matter in January and February of 2013. Essentially, this initial

action is not approving the district but rather beginning the official process of forming the districtand holding the required hearings at the BCC level. By this action, the district option remainsopen next year if Commissioners choose to bring this to voters. Without this swift action, the

potential partial funding contribution to our County's badly needed Criminal Justice serviceswould have to wait at least one additional fiscal year.

In today's SOS meeting, the unanimous recommendation of the nearly 30 SOS members inattendance was that the County immediately initiate the formation of a Law Enforcement Districtthat would provide funding for the Criminal Justice services all County residents share: The

Adult Jail, Juvenile Justice, The District Attorney, Court Services, and Animal Control. This

would allow the BCC enough time to hold the proper hearings on the new district idea in Januaryand February and enough time to place the proposal on the May 2013 ballot for consideration byall County residents. Should you agree, please also immediately inform the cities of CaveJunction and Grants Pass of your intentions so they can each independently choose by MondayDecember 10th whether to be included in the district.

Securing Our Safety and the entire County thanks you for keeping options open as we approachyet another year with significant funding challenges for our Criminal Justice System. We look

forward to participating in hearings on the district idea and sharing why it could be a great partialcontribution to a series of solutions to our local funding challenges.

Sincerely,

Jay Meredith, President and Board CharSecuring Our Safety, Inc.SecuringOurSafetv(asgmail. com

Securing Our Safety www.SecuringOurSafety.orq

57

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRANTS PASS

APPROVING INCLUSION IN A COUNTY DISTRICT TO FUND CRIMINAL JUSTICESERVICES UNDER ORS 451. 010( 1)( n).

WHEREAS:

1. Josephine County faces a serious funding shortfall and has in the last sevenmonths significantly reduced the level of services of various criminal justiceprograms; and

2. The Board of County Commissioners are proposing the creation of a CountyDistrict which will provide services to the entire City and County; and

3. The only services to be considered in the District would be adult jailoperations, district attorney services, juvenile justice, circuit court security,sheriffs civil process, and animal control; and

4. The operation of those programs is critical to the success of protection of the

public' s safety within the City of Grants Pass; and

5. If voters approve the District, it could allow for an increase in the number of

beds available for local law enforcement use within the jail, increased juvenile

justice services, and the increased ability of the district attorney to prosecutemore cases; and

6. The proposed District will only provide funding for the services specificallystated herein and shall not provide services that primarily benefit residentsoutside the City, including, but not limited to patrol services, traffic control, orcriminal investigations as the City's Public Safety Department performs thesefunctions within the City; and

7. The District would include property within the City of Grants Pass and,therefore, in order to form the District, the Council must approve the creation

of the taxing District.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of GrantsPass approves of the Order of the Josephine County Board of Commissioners to initiatethe formation of an ORS 451. 010(1)( n) district for the purpose of providing criminaljustice services throughout Josephine County, including the territory within the City ofGrants Pass, effective upon approval of the voters at the May 21, 2013 election, subjectto the limitations contained in the above recitals.

EFFECTIVE DATE of this Resolution shall be immediate upon its passage bythe City Council and approval by the Mayor.

ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Grants Pass, Oregon, in special sessionthis

17th

day of December, 2012.

SUBMITTED to and by the Mayor of the City of GrantsPass, Oregon, this day of December, 2012 to be effective on the date indicatedas adopted by the City Council.

Michael Murphy, MayorATTEST:

Date submitted to Ma or:Finance Director

Approved as to Form, Mark Bartholomew, City Attorney

58

Committee Member Leagjeld stated, I have a lot of questions as usual but I will zero in on a

couple I think are important. One, I would suggest through you or through the City Manager to

work with Council to do a formal invitation to the lay members of the Budget Committee to the

goal-setting. Not as active participants but as people sitting there and getting an idea of what

we' re talking about in the next year so when they get into the budget setting they have some

reality check as to what was going on. I would even go so far as to give them an opportunity to

give their thoughts at the end of the goal- setting, once its done. The other one is I' ve been on

this Budget Committee for so many years and we talk about PERS as being a big item but I

think we have a bigger item and that is in Public Safety. I think we don't really know what is

going on totally and once again I request that prior to the Budget Committee meetings we get a

breakdown between fire and what it costs us truly for the fire function and what it costs us for

the Public Safety. We cannot do a comparison. SOS is doing a comparison but you can't do a

comparison because of fire and Public Safety being together. To do a right and get it cleaned

out you should look at it that way. It can be done. Bend has done it. They went from two

different functions to one and back to two. It can be done.

Councilor DeYoung asked, Jerry are you looking to take Public Safety as a whole and then ask

how much of the money goes to the fire side of it and how much goes to the police side of it? Is

that what you' re looking for?

Committee Member Leagjeld stated, there are two lanes. Each looks at them separately and

totally what their finances are.

Councilor DeYoung asked, right but you are looking at the financial side to split police and fire

out separately, correct?

Committee Member Leagjeld stated, that is correct.

Councilor DeYoung asked, but you' re not looking for the Budget Committee to tell Joe that he

has got a split his department? You' re just looking for the financial split up, correct?

Committee Member Leagjeld stated, this is not a request to do it on the agenda and break it up

I' m just saying that if we were to go forward with an intelligent look at what's going on andyou've got the biggest dollar consumption in the house and you don' t know... I would dare say

Quarterly Budget Workshop Meeting Minutes 7November 27, 2012

105

that I' ve been on there a long time and I still don' t understand how the money goes on in there.

I think that it' s time to bite the bullet and look at every department thoroughly and completely.

It' s the responsibility to oversight of the Council and I think it' s time to step up and look at every

department just like the Redwood sewer and putting that together. Those are the kinds of

things make management sense and need to be done. We have some big lumps coming in

PERS and other things and we have to be ready for it. Do we have the most efficient structure

for our city? There are very few... well, I' m not going to get into that because I' m just interested

in looking at the financials. Let's just stop there.

Councilor DeYoung stated, we have four meetings scheduled throughout the year. Would it be

productive to say we' re going to take Public Safety at one meeting and say this is what reallyfocus on at this meeting and go through those financials? Because when you hand it to

everybody on the Budget Committee unless they vow to sit down and really read it, and there

are probably a lot of people on there like me that don't necessarily understand everything

they' re reading, would it be advantageous for us to say we are going to take Public Safety and

we are going to have a whole meeting dedicated to going through those financials?

Committee Member Leagjeld stated, any way you want to do it as long as it is done on the basis

that you' re driving to the end to getting the financials reported. I don' t know how you can run a

department if it is co- mingled with another department and make any sense of what goes on. If

there is and Joe has those records then let's get them out and let's get them on the table. If not

let's create the records so we can look at it honestly and fully and completely.

Councilor DeYoung stated, I guess I can ask Jay. Is that something where you can push abutton and it automatically splits it? So you would have to go back through and say cop carscost this much and fire engines cost this much?

City Manager Cubic stated, the way Public Safety is established is there are a number of

activities that occur and they serve dual purposes. From a budget standpoint there are some

things like a police car or a fire truck that you can separate out, but when it comes to certain

delivery of services they are co- mingled together and that is part of the efficiencies that have

been built into the system that Grants Pass has. If ultimately City Council wants to look at this

and the Budget Committee wants to look at this and we are provided that direction to try to


106

break it down it would take some work and some time for us to do that because that is not the

way our current system is established.

Councilor DeYoung stated, it would be tough to go back two or three years and say a policeman

responded to a fire and he was the first one on there so does he dedicate his time to fire or to

police. I understand that knitting on that side of it. In the future, if it is something that Council

and the Budget Committee is interested in could you apply various codes, I think 1 out of 12

comes to mind, but it various code for what you' re responding to and then with those codes they

would be stacked in different sides? Is that possible in the future so that maybe you could split

the labor side? I can see where the actual capital side of it, the actual hard cost, is pretty easy

to do. But you' re getting in trouble because you have police responding to fire and fire

responding to police and they' re both responding to medical. Maybe it would be well worth

looking into asking how much time firemen are spending on medical and how valuable is the

training that we provided for them? Is it paying off? Yes, it is because we have EMTs and

every one of them is an EMT. Was it worth doing that? Yes, because they responded to this

many medical calls. Is that something that can be categorized in the future? Not necessarily

gang back. I don't know if Jerry has in mind to go back and weed out a couple of years. I

don't know if that could work or not In the future can you categorize that and make it so that it

is part of the budget presentation?

City Manager Cubic stated, I will refer to Jay from an accountability standpoint but for the future

it would be much easier to do than to try to go backwards and track that. You also have to

consider the information and the value of the information versus the amount of resources

required to keep track of that. I remember back in the day when I had to track my time whether

it be on the computer or on a piece of paper and a good 45 minutes of my day or certain portion

of my week was put down just trying to track exactly where I spent my money to allocate theresources. It would require some resources in order for us to track that. Is it possible? I

believe we have some opportunity to maybe further refine the difference between police and fire

expenditures. Our chief would probably be better to answer specifics on how he thinks it might

be able to be split out in the future.

Public Safety Chief Henner stated, my first thought is I thought this question came up at the

Council level at some point in the last six months. We gave an estimate of what we thought it

would take to answer the question that Jerry asked for. We gave that estimate to the Council

Quarterly Budget Workshop Meeting Minutes 9November 27. 2012

107

and the Council said we' re not interested in you devoting that much time to try to figure those

costs out. That direction came from the Council. Now, as far as trying to split it out the cost of a

police car or fire truck as the City Manager said that is pretty easy stuff. Where it gets

complicated is the Parkway Station for example. We share that facility between police and fire.

How do you determine what amount of time in that building is prorated out to fire or police? Or if

a group of dispatchers is in the Parkway Station doing training the dispatch center isn' t part of

fire or police. It is a freestanding separate part of my budget. If a CSO goes to a crash is he

functioning in the traffic control mode or sweeping up glass to support fire? How do you break

that cost down? My time could almost get into what Aaron talked about. It is pretty simple.

Part of my time is serving in the fire function and part of it is serving in the police function and

part of it is overseeing the 911 dispatch contract and the dispatch center. My time would have

to be tracked and prorated out. That is what we got from Council, as I recall, and they said

we' re not interested in you devoting the time to do that.

Chair Fishwick stated, I think Jay was going to comment on where we are so far and I also see

Jerry and Rick and I know Ferris was in line a while ago.

Finance Director Meredith stated, there are some costs for police and fire that are already

broken out between the two. It doesn' t show up in our budget reports because it is field and

support. It is not police and fire. There are some personnel that do work exclusively and there

are some vehicles that do operate exclusively for fire and we have some of that broken out. We

could detail what that is along with estimates of the other but a significant amount of time would

have to go into an accurate result. I think the more important question is what would we do with

that information after we got it? What value would it serve and that would be the point of

deliberation. That would be very helpful to understand what we would with that information.

Chair Fishwick stated, thank you Jay. I am going to go back to Jerry because I think you are in

the middle of the conversation. Then, I will go to Ferris and Rick.

Committee Member Leagjeld stated, this is kind of like déjà vu. We get to this point where he

wanted dig down and find out what is really going on with our City finances and funding. It can

be done. Bend has done it. For those of you that haven' t been around as long as I have I was

here when this first started and Joe was too and Joe and I don' t agree on a lot of things. The

City chose through Eric Milgren and then City Manager Mike Casey to try this idea of guns on


108

firemen and hoses on there and it seemed like it worked good on paper but by the time you put

all those guns on there and they did spend a lot of money on guns they almost had it come back

on them when the Anderson Street fire came on. They had policemen out trying to fight the fire

at Anderson and then they got a call for a bomb threat and so if it was the best deal in the world

we would have every police and fire department put together as Public Safety and there is very

few that are. It is an expensive item and firemen do not like to do police business and I doubt if

we do very much crossover. All I am saying is let's look at these things. I will come down and

go through because what you have to do is take a print out and go through and recode

whatever you want to put a code under for the fire. You can do it and its a simple process. The

value is the biggest single expenditure in the City needs to be looked at, period. If you don't

you' re giving in to poor accounting and poor management.

Committee Member Simpson stated, changing the subject a little bit, during the budget process

we talked a little bit about JO-GRO and the possibilities of privatizing that. I think Council was

going to look into that. Has there been any movement or discussions on that?

Finance Director Meredith stated, that is a good question. That was actually a topic that came

before Council very recently. Because that is something Council wanted us to look into what

Public Works did is we are starting a new master plan for the wastewater services and we had

the consultants focus on the JO-GRO piece first. We have a potential large capital expenditure

looming for JO-GRO to come into compliance with DEQ standards and so we wanted to answer

that delivery question very early in this process so we could satisfy DEQ and also get on top of

the JO-GRO question. The costs of maintaining the JO-GRO operation are slightly more than

the main alternative which is to take the solids to the landfill and just pay for them to be

disposed of in the landfill down the Medford area. The green alternative or the environmentally

friendly thing to do is to keep JO-GRO operating. The incremental cost of keeping JO-GRO

operating versus landfill was not so great that Council basically said we want to move forward

and continue operating JO-GRO as we have but Council also said we want to have companies

bid on operating that service for us. That is where we' re at now. We are going to be talking to a

couple companies about whether they are interested in operating that service for us. That is

where we are at. All we know at this point is we will have a major capital expenditure to get that

operation into DEQ compliance for storm water standards I believe it is. Is Terry here? Is that

correct Terry that basically the storm water runoff is our primary concern? We will continue to


109

operate that whether we do it internally as we do now or have one of the waste haulers

potentially operate that for us that is still to be decided.

Councilor Riker stated, when we look at the police and fire I would be in favor of having somedegree of evaluation. I can see if we' re trying to document everything it would be an absolute

nightmare and add just another layer bureaucracy and I think before we go there we need to

feel that we are going to get the results or the information we essentially need. What I would be

in favor of is at the first time looking at it would be for Joe to just go through some procedures or

some categories and just from a gut feeling saying okay 75% of the day's calls are for medical

reasons and 25% are for fire and just to do what you have a feeling for what exists out there as

what you see. Then, from there if we need to go to more infinite documentation we could move

forward from there, but I' m hesitant on the expense and the time it would take.

Committee Member Lindsay stated, in thinking of what Jerry and Rick have said it seems to me

that perhaps we could go to a 10, 000 foot level instead of the detail level and then look at the

budget accounting entries and say this is obviously or clearly pure fire. This is obviously or

clearly pure police and somewhere in the middle is something that is for both. If we could just

get a cut at it and start to say these are the three areas and these are what the costs are

involved it would seem to me to be at least a good solid first step to identifying some of the

things that Jerry is looking at. Perhaps then you could decide how much deeper you want to go.

It seems to me that taking a broader view at first to see what the three categories look like then

you might have a better handle on how to proceed from that point on.

Chair Fishwick stated, what I was going to say was real similar to what Roy said. It sounded

like it is a minimal impact to identify the obvious separate kinds of expenditures and functions

but instead of only acting like there are two categories we will be reminded that there is a third

category which is the things that overlap and leave them in that category just as in the initial

report. The other thing I was going to add is that as part of the performance audit committee we

are looking at public service as coming up in a year or two after we have a year of data from our

new system. I would think that would be better timed than to try to do something financially right

now without having all the service day-today operational data that we are going to get from ournew system that could inform whatever we do with this information. In fact, it might be the

performance audit that drives how we look at the financial side after we take a look at the

functional aspect. I wanted to summarize that so that staff had an idea of where we might be


110

headed in the next couple of meetings and as we get set up for the budget process. Of course

anyone else can chime in too but I' ve got Dan next and don' t know if I have anyone else in line.

Councilor DeYoung stated, I like the three categories and then if something jumps out at you in

the fire side you' re only looking at the fire side. If something jumps out at you on the police side

you go in and dig and push more on the computer until you find out your glitches. That no mans

land in the middle that is huge. You are putting on five different hats a day and one of your hats

you put on is coming here and basically answering a bunch of questions that we have for you.

You are kind of caught in the middle there. You may be able to make that third category smalleras you know where it is.

Public Safety Chief Henner stated, I think we would actually end up with probably four blocks.

One would be fire, one law enforcement, one 911 dispatch, and then that fourth would almost

be the miscellaneous overlapping stuff that occurs. I think that is very doable.

Councilor DeYoung stated, I think you see where the Committee is going that we would like to

split that out a little bit. I think that is kind of where we are at. Then, I would say if we need to

push more or if something is jumping out you can follow through on that and not bother the

other sections of Public Safety in general. In other words, if something really jumps out at you

then you are not saying let's put all of Public Safety under the microscope. We may have only

one area. In my deal if sales falls off I' m not going to go to school the sheet metal guys I' m

going to go look at sales and categorize that. Also, that question I had for JO-GRO is when you

put out an RFP for people to take over JO-GRO, the leaf side, the green side of it, you' re not

asking them to do anything about the solids coming out of the plant down there? Those solids,

that is a separate deal, Terry, where you' re going to say if we close JO-GRO down out here wehave to address the solids from our responsibility side of it as a City Council. I think we have

agreed to say that we' re going to take solids loose from that RFP. Or are solids involved with

the RFP? If we take solids over there we have the leaf program that basically Clearwater or

somebody is going to take over the leaf program, the green side of it, and the composts and the

bio-mass and that whole episode.

Public Works Director Haugen stated, I guess at this point the input I got from City Council when

we had a workshop here a month ago was that we were going to look at continuing the

operation JO-GRO but look at privatizing with local entities. About two months ago we went out


111

approved on january 23, 2013 by the board of ... wbs min.pdf2012/12/19 · quarry, copeland sand...

Documents