|
|
| Crooked River Ranch Roundup |
|---|
| Nemitz provides insight on budget process |
|---|
By John Bowler
CRR Correspondent
Crooked River Ranch resident Paul Nemitz will begin his third year on the Homeowner Association Board of Directors in September.
Nemitz just finished his first stint on the Jefferson County Budget Committee and provided the following insight about his experience:
Q. How and why did you become a budget committee member?
A. The committee vacancy had been advertised several weeks by both the commission and the Ranch without attracting any volunteers. Commissioner (John) Hatfield, who I respect and had become acquainted with at county Republican party functions finally asked me if I could recommend anybody. I said he could put my name down.
I thought the Ranch should be represented on such an important county committee. I also was personally curious about how much bang the Ranch was getting back for the county tax bucks we were paying. I had been unable to find that out to my satisfaction up to then so I decided to take advantage of the opportunity.
Q. How much of your time did it take this year?
A. All told, roughly 25 hours of meetings over the span of a week.
Q. Was your curiosity satisfied about the Ranch getting a good return on its taxes paid to the County?
A. Yes and no. I didn't find any evidence the Ranch was not being fairly treated. Allocations from the general fund are commensurate with our contributions to it and our share of county population -- roughly 18 percent on both counts.
I also learned it is almost impossible to quantify the value of services we receive across the board. A prime example is law enforcement. It consumes the largest chunk of general fund contributions. Sheriff Jack Jones said he can't possibly authorize the time to keep daily track of every deputy minute and dollar spent on calls to the Ranch. I understand his problem. The same is true for quantifying such allocations as those made to the seniors, and services like nurses' visits, animal control, district attorney, etc. To find out exact amounts of what the Ranch receives would be prohibitively costly and time consuming just to alleviate Ranch concerns. After my first year of exposure and seeing how it works I still believe there is more than I recognize and I will continue to refine the assessment.
Q. Any surprises?
A. Yes, several. First, that 77 percent of the income stated in the $35 million county budget comes from outside the County -- mostly in state and federal grants. Second, the considerable amount of knowledge about county finances the commissioners, committee members and staff possess, especially Kathie Rohde, whose superbly organized data provided to us helped immensely to facilitate committee deliberations. It made the budgeting process much smoother than I had anticipated.
Lastly, the excellence of the presentations made by the very professional group who head and manage county departments and supporting organizations. They obviously are passionate about their units and the services they provide but they were also willing to make concessions on their dollar requests to the committee to help us balance the budget. They impressed me greatly.
Q. Can the Ranch do anything better to capitalize on its position in the county.
A. Yes, participate more in county functions and increase dialogue with county commissioners and department heads about getting more services or funds to do it ourselves. An example of how well that can that work is: we asked the county to help us with code enforcement. The Commissioners and staff responded immediately by developing a new county code ordinance, creating county positions to administer it, and securing funding for it that won't cost Ranchers a dime more out of their pockets.
It's on schedule to go into effect July 1 as Commissioner (Mike) Ahern predicted back in January. It's an impressive combination of innovative organizational development and funding to support the end result. Ranchers should be impressed. That effort says a lot about the county's commitment to support Ranch needs if they are presented properly. Now we need to work on having animal control included in the ordinance. That's not beyond the realm of possibility either.
After finding the experience of serving on the committee enjoyable, Nemitz looks forward to serving the remaining two years of his term.
He and his wife Cathy moved to Crooked River Ranch in 2004, from Florida, where he was a business manager with United Space Alliance, the contractor responsible to NASA for launch and recovery of the space shuttles.
After retiring, the Nemitzes drove across the country with their horses, stopping along the way to ride them. Cathy's horse was injured in South Dakota and they eventually had to stop at the Ranch to have her treated and to recuperate. While waiting and looking around they liked what they saw of the Ranch and its lifestyle.
Their daughter, son-in-law and two grandchildren live in Lake Oswego and visit Central Oregon frequently to vacation. That factor combined with the Ranch's love affair with horses and golf suited their interests nicely, so they bought a home, jumped right into Ranch activities and stay involved.
Water fight update
On June 23, there was a pretrial conference in the Jefferson County Circuit Court among attorneys for Charles Nichols, the Oregon Department of Justice, and attorneys for the Ranch water company, relating to the joint lawsuit of Nichols and the DOJ against that organization.
DOJ spokesman Tony Green sent the following e-mail to the Pioneer as an update of what took place at that meeting in the ongoing saga of what is now a formidable array of opponents in conflict with the beleaguered Ranch water company.
Green wrote, "The judge scheduled a trial to commence Oct. 26, 2009. He also set argument on the defendants' motion to reconsider the attorney general's intervention for hearing on Aug. 12, 2009, at 11:30. DOJ suggested a judicial settlement conference and the judge said he will look for a judge who can do that and let us all know who and when."
Water company counsel Tim Gassner e-mailed the Pioneer that he was not opposed to a settlement conference.
The Pioneer also intercepted a rumor last week claiming the stay imposed last February by the Appeals Court prohibiting PUC continuing to exercise oversight on the water company had been extended indefinitely instead of expiring last Friday as scheduled according to the rumor.
In response to a rumor that the Court of Appeals had extended a stay prohibiting the PUC from exercising oversight over the water company, Michael Dougherty said he had not heard about it.
Bob Vogel, PUC spokesman, did not reply to the same request nor did J.R. Rooks, water company general manager. DOJ's Green could not respond immediately due to the press of other DOJ actions in progress.
A cooperative clerk at the Oregon Appeals Court, after a long search of their files, found the following item, "On June 16, the Court of Appeals denied the PUC's motion for reconsideration of the appellate commissioner's 3/11/2009 order staying Order No. 09-026, which is on judicial review." That report was later confirmed by Green and must have been what the rumor intended to convey because it never could be verified as stated.
It is so far undetermined why PUC spokespersons did not acknowledge or even seem aware of that seemingly significant court action or why water company officials wouldn't comment on its import either.
DOJ and PUC have not fared well of late in attempting to maintain oversight of the water company, which counters their opponents every move in that effort. Unless the warring parties are able to resolve their differences in the judicial settlement conference yet to be scheduled, a long series of future court actions are in the offing.
A final relevant note: Tim Gassner, water company counsel, volunteered in a recent e-mail to the Pioneer that he would not oppose the settlement conference suggested by DOJ. Nichols did not comment on that point when asked.
|
| Go to top. |
|
