Public Safety Staffing May Be Cut To 05/06 Levels

In a subdued meeting with much tallk about layoffs and not filling job openings, the most disconcerting news in the April 14 Bend City Council Work Session on department by department budget cuts were the proposed staffing cuts at the Police and Fire Departments.

This was so troubling to the City Council that they decided to move $100,000 from the Mirror Pond restoration fund to the Fire Department to ensure that all six stations remain open at all times, at least for the forthcoming fiscal year. Even then, Fire Chief Larry Langston stated that "two out of three days, we are out of EMS units for ambulance runs at some point during the day".

Police staffing is also going to be cut, both through not filling current openings and by not filling two openings created by expected retirements this summer. This should not affect call responses or violent crime investigations, but will affect the clearance rate for property and other low-level crimes. It is also expected to affect the budget due to reductions in traffic and other fines.

The complete elimination of Code Enforcement was proposed. Street maintenance is to be cut from $1.7 million to $700,000. The snowplow budget will be reduced to $150,000, in the hope that next winter will not require the $550,000 worth of plowing that this winter did. Transit cuts were proposed to eliminate Sunday Dial-A-Ride service and some mid-day fixed routes, along with bus stop improvements like benches, garbage cans, and shelters. The UGB process will be delayed, and there is concern that if the City is sued over the UGB there may not be enough money for legal defense services. Accessibility projects will see staff cut from six to three. The Affordable Housing budget will go from a proposed $2.1 million to $1.1 million. Engineering will be cut 40%, delaying transportation and utility improvement projects.

The Planning Department is being hit especially hard, as it is fee-based with supporting revenues from permits. Unfortunately, the residential permit level has dropped into the basement, and it turns out that the residential permits had been supporting the commercial permits all along. Department Director Mel Oberst stated commercial permit fees have never been high enough to cover required planning and inspection services, as commercial buildings are much more complex. The General Fund has been tapped to help pay for these services.

Reserves are being decimated, with most departments to only carry 1.5 to 2 months of reserves, while Transit will only maintain two weeks of reserves.

The "winners" seem to be the Community Development and Economic Development Departments, along with the Juniper Ridge and Airport Improvement projects. Both these departments are seeing year-over-year increases in monies from the General Fund, while the General Fund will be tapped to cover $250,000 in debt service for the Airport Improvements, and another $180,000 in debt service for the Juniper Ridge improvements required for the Les Schwab project. Both of these debts do not currently have a stable funding source for repayment.

City staff will return soon with specific immediate cuts, and also plans to revisit the subject in September, with further cuts possible depending on the economic situation going forward.

The residents of Bend will see a definite drop in services, from filling potholes to enforcing the sign ordinances, as the City battens down the hatches in the face of the oncoming recession.

All hopes hang on selling land this fall

Following the City Council meeting this evening, a Work Session focused on budget cutting, I talked to Finance Director Sonia Andrews. We discussed the amount of funding going towards JR from the General Fund, which she stated as $180,000 for debt service on a line of credit to cover our obligations per Les Schwab. All potential cuts in the JR budget as presented last fall have been undertaken. We are still waiting on ODOT for a number of trips that can possibly result in land sales this fall.

Ms. Andrews characterized the City's position as "crossing their fingers" in hope of everything working out. If not, it's dead in the water for now, and the City is paying debt service on the $6 million we will end up in the hole until things turn around. Ron Garzini and, to a lesser extent, John Russell are the rainmakers. Ms. Andrews even admitted that even if the trips are OKed, she has no idea where the money to fund the $40 million Cooley/97 interchange will come from. That's on the Garz/Russell plate.

In a realistic aside, Ms. Andrews stated that even if they can sell 50 acres for only $5 a square foot, half of the $10 that Russell is promoting, but far more realistic for undeveloped land considering Les Schwab paid $7 for shovel ready with no SDC's, that she is off the hook because that $10 million will pay for costs incurred.

There was very little discussion of Juniper Ridge at the actual meeting. Much more time was spent on saving a $100K here or there, than on the big parts of the budget. My guess is that if the voters don't decide to fund the transit system this fall, it's gone. Capell and Telfer already question it's priority, especially considering the deep cuts to public safety.

But strangely, no one questions the developers subsidies through unrealistically low SDC's and permit fees, which has led us to this point. Growth has simply not paid for itself. Councilor Clinton is the only one who even brought this up.

Low SDC's and permit fees-->Planning/Engineering/Road/Utility deficits-->General Fund hits-->Public Safety cutbacks

As an example, consider the city of Troutdale. Per their SDC worksheet, a one-ERU residential hookup costs $4426, while according to the Bend worksheet, a one ERU hookup to the sewer is only $2038. Is Bend's cost really less than half of Troutdale's? Or are Bend taxpayers picking up the difference for the developer?

A Public "Mea Culpa" To Mark Capell

I recently filed a complaint with the Oregon State Ethics Commission regarding City Councilor Mark Capell and his votes on issues regarding Knife River Corp. and President, Todd Taylor, Mark's cousin. Mark's mother and Todd's mother are sisters, as Mark informed me Wednesday.

This was in error, as it is completely legal to vote this way. Oregon state law does not consider a cousin to be a relative in this regard. To quote the Oregon Revised Statutes on the definition of a "relative":

ORS 244.020 (14)(d) Siblings, spouses of siblings or parents of the public official or of the public official's spouse

So cousin's are fine, while in-law's are not.

Sorry, Mark.

UPDATED: For Sale: 10 Acres With View, Westside, Price: $0.00

Or "How The Bulletin Lost It's Objectivity About Real Estate"

UPDATE: There was an actual exchange of property, with the Bulletin giving up property north of Olney. I am trying to figure out the exact details. The recordings are available at http://recordings.co.deschutes.or.us/ when you search with WESTERN COMMUNICATIONS INC in the Last Name field. Look for records around Oct. 18, 1999.

Deschutes County DIAL records show that the big headquarters building sitting above Mt. Washington and Century, this building, sits on land acquired for nothing:



The key pages of the DIAL document, pages 2 and 3, are these:





Note that sale price: $0

And you wonder why the Bulletin is so pro-Brooks Resources development?

Bend CC Spends $2.5M w/NO COMMENT

I just returned from the Bend City Council meeting. They all voted for the settlement with Juniper Ridge Partners, in an amount over $2.5 million dollars and giving JRP the right to purchase the first 50 acres of Juniper Ridge land, with absolutely no public comment or questioning or anything.

$2.5+ million dollars from Bend taxpayers without even a cursory debate. Whatever debate was held was in secret, in Executive Session. Not to be heard be the people actually paying this bill.

This is not only disgusting, but also may be illegal. The State Ethics Commission will weigh in on this.

How can you call yourself a responsible representative of the citizen's of Bend and sign off on this without any debate.

Absolutely no public debate.

City's Hands Now Tied? Notes on JRP Termination Agreement and Exclusive Purchase Option

Reading over the agreements terminating the City's nascent Master Developer relationship with Ray Kuratek's and Jeff Holtzman's Juniper Ridge Partners, LLC, one thing stands out: they gain not only $2,515,000, but also an exclusive three-year option on the 50 acres surrounding the Les Schwab property. At a price to be set by up to three appraisals (one by a City appraiser, one by a JRP appraiser, and, if there is no agreement, a third by an appraiser chosen by the Deschutes County Judge) which will almost certainly come in at the same price as Les Schwab paid, $7/sq ft with no SDC's, since that is the only true comparable. And then JRP gets a 6% "finders fee" knocked off the appraised price.

The mechanics of the agreement are that the city will deliver an "Entitlability Notice" to JRP, which will then have a total of 105 days to exercise their option and close the transaction, and will then have an additional two years to begin development. JRP will be responsible for all infrastructure improvements, and must prove their financial capability for such work to purhcase the property. It is an all or nothing purchase--the 50 acres will not be broken down for partial purchase by JRP.

There don't seem to be any usage restrictions, as the zoning has not been changed for this property as it has on the Les Schwab parcel. Their is no requirement for using the land for employment purposes, and in fact it states:

City acknowledges that through this Agreement, JRP is purchasing excess City property and is developing the same for JRP's own purposes and pursuant to JRP's own development plans. This is not a contract by which JRP is constructing an improvement for, or to the specifications, the City or any other municipality or governmental entity.

How is the city planning to develop anything at JR without JRP? How is the city planning to make our $50+ million dollar investment, counting the Cooley/97 interchange, back? Are we going to get badly need jobs or more unneeded housing?

Another interesting thing is that both Juniper Ridge Partners LLC and Heather Kuratek are listed as contractors in the Termination Agreement and Release. There is absolutely no indication of actual amounts paid to any contractors by JRP, and there doesn't seem to be any accounting or audit requirement at all. Just the desire to pay them off and get out from under any potential lawsuit.

Another thing that isn't clear is when does the time clock start ticking with entities like Cooper Robertson on the city's dime? Does this agreement provide the taxpayers with Bend a master plan at a known cost or are we going to continue to pay Cooper Robertson and others going forward? Is the city going to be billed from now on rather than JRP? These questions are not answered in the agreements.

My biggest concern is that map shown in the Option and Purchase and Sale Agreement:



This is the first 50 acres to be developed, what the city is hoping to be able to develop with the additional $40 million investment in the Cooley/97 interchange and subsequent sign-off by ODOT. According to the Issue Summary, the city is hoping to have a funding source for the new interchange in the not too distant future:

We are beginning to communicate with investors who might assist us in funding the 97/Cooley mid-term intersection improvement project. We hope to find a funding solution by Fall 2008.

Of course, this is six months behind what we were told just a month or two ago, but in this economic climate it probably isn't that big of deal.

What's going to be the by far more important part of any such agreements is the precise number of trips allocated to Juniper Ridge. Garzini has to negotiate the full 3000 for divying up between potential funders and JR, without any going to existing and future housing infrastructure in the area, or developing even 50 acres is dead in the water. I've heard several rumors now that the main source of this funding is going to be Walmart, in conjunction with the development of their land on the NW corner of the intersection.

Even with this investment at Cooley/97, the city will not be able to develop any more than 50 acres without other vehicular access, which is another big question mark. Where and at what cost? Perhaps the council and staff will inform us of their plans regarding this issue soon.

This will be an fascinating week. Signing up for a $2.5+ million payoff at the same time you are hearing about cuts in vital city services has to be gut wrenching for any members of the council that truly have the interests of all of Bend's citizens in mind.

Rumors of Bend Bulletin Real Estate Reporter's Demise Abound

One casualty of the turmoil in Bend may be David Fisher, who covered the real estate beat for the Bend Bulletin. From the Bend Economy Board there is an interesting thread fleshing out a rumor reported in the alternative weekly,the Source:

Interesting week in The Bulletin's business section.

First, The Source comes out with this blurb on Thursday ...

Quote:
TV isn't the only one getting into the act. A little bird told us that a reporter across town, well known for his real estate coverage, walked out when editors insisted that he spin his latest story to emphasize the positive side of the housing slump.

Oh, well, what's one more fairy tale in makebelieveland?

That caused Bulletin Executive Editor John Costa to fan his line editors through the newsroom to assure everyone that said real estate reporter had really been fired for lying about being sick.

Which didn't play well with a lot of the staff, because this email had already made the rounds for a couple of days ...

Quote:
Charlene: (Apparently meaning Sharlene Crabtree, the Bulletin's Human Resources Director) Here's my response to the March 4 Separation Notice:

3-4-2008
I did not "lie about being sick." I took two days off after an article I wrote for the Feb. 26 paper was edited by my supervisor, Business Editor John Stearns, in such a way as to remove any facts or opinions that tended to disagree with a public speaker's rosy predictions for the local real estate industry. As I told him, my intent was to carefully consider why that particularly editing job, which I viewed as dishonest, upset me, and to calm down enough to rationally discuss the issue with him.

When I returned, I was not "questioned about the days off" -- I initiated a meeting with Mr. Stearns and told him, without prompting, that I had not been physically ill but needed two "mental health days," in my phrasing, to determine how I should best discuss my future with the paper with him in a calm, rational way, rather than forcing the issue when I was angry and confused.

I told him during that meeting on Feb. 28 that I felt that the editing job on my Feb. 26 story was part of a pattern of editing that included misleading headlines, sources being banned from my coverage, story ideas getting spiked, and odd pre-story cajolling, all of which seemed designed by the executive editor to generate more favorable coverage of the local real estate market than I have thought was best in the two years I have been assigned to cover it for the paper. I further told him that, although I believed that the articles I had written for the paper were as thorough and as accurate as I could make them, the utter hack job that was done on my Feb. 26 story had led me to conclude that the paper was not willing to cover the industry as honestly as it should, given that the housing market -- which is economically important to the paper -- is now in the midst of a steep downturn.

I asked to be shifted to another beat, including others that had been identified by the executive editor as important to the paper's overall coverage, such as the business of medicine, or the banking industry. I told him I felt that I would be allowed to cover those beats "straight," without what I perceived to be the editors' emotional desire to slant coverage of the real estate market.

He denied that the paper's editors intended to color the news and criticized me for taking the days off, rather than confronting him with my concerns immediately. I told him again that I felt that I needed the time to clarify my own thoughts before I attempted to have a discussion with him, but if he felt the days weren't covered by our sick leave or vacation policy, I would be happy to take them as unpaid time off.

Stearns told me on March 3 that he had discussed my request to change beats with the executive editor. I don't know what was discussed in that meeting, but I was fired the next day.

In conclusion, there was no violation of the ethics code. I was quite honest about my reasons for not coming to work for two days, and was, I suspect, fired for stating those reasons to my supervisor.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to respond.

According to a quick look at the edit trail in The Bulletin's computer system, apparently what set him off -- finally -- was an edit job on a story on Dana Bratton's pie-in-the-sky real estate "forecast" speech last Monday that scrubbed paraphrases from Bill Valentine and Brooks Resources honchos Kirk Schueler and Mike Hollern, all saying that they think the downturn is going to last a whole lot longer than the April 25 turnaround date that Bratton ladled out to the adoring real estate crowd at The Riverhouse.

That pesky stuff got axed on orders from Costa, who told his business editor to "stick to what was said at the meeting."

Out, too, went a section that pointed out that the ridiculous predictions that Bratton made last year of a quick RE turnaround also -- uh -- kinda failed to pan out.

Which left the good readers of Bend with the vision of Dana Bratton, grand real estate prognosticator, predicting that everything will be hunky-dory by May, contradicted only slightly by those notorious pessimists at the National Association of Realtors, who actually suggested that sales might not turn around until late this year.

Could it be an accident that all of this is happening a week after the Realtors and Builders announced their "Best Time in 20 Years to Buy a House" campaign? Complete with plans for a good, old-fashioned media blitz?

Journalism at its finest, and right here in River City.

A search on the Bulletin site shows Fisher has only couple of bylines since the Bratton story, while before he wrote something nearly every day. One of his last was "Sellers Offer Cold, Hard Cash To Get Homes Off The Market". Andrew Moore wrote the latest real estate story on Awbrey Butte's new homeowners association. So perhaps the pushback has really taken another step forward.

On a related note, I am now officially a stringer for the Bend Weekly, with a Press Pass on the way. My first article was posted here. Now I should be able to get into the Executive Sessions. I plan to offer a much more skeptical viewpoint then the other cheerleaders in town, and certailnly better than the crap in the Bulletin today titled "Juniper Ridge Q&A", which I would link to if it wasn't behind their paywall.

Plus there is that pesky little detail of the City Council making a $2.56M decision in Executive Session to pay off Juniper Ridge Partners. My biggest goal is to force greater transparency around this issue, and a major step forward in that process will occur this week. Stay tuned...