What’s Up In Crook County?
By Crook County Judge Scott R. Cooper
Originally published in the Powell Butte View, April 2003
As you might imagine, much of the attention of county officials is currently focused on Salem. The county is tracking a number of initiatives of concern.
Oregon Health Plan Funding
A plan was unveiled last week to fund the Oregon Health Plan at approximately $500 million. That’s enough to provide basic healthcare coverage at the federal Medicare/Medicaid minimum for the state’s most needy services. Programs such as eyeglass purchase for children and most mental health coverage would be eliminated. The latter has county officials concerned. While almost everyone agrees that the Health Plan must be trimmed in order to balance the budget, the elimination of mental health benefits, particularly $150 million in prescription drug coverage, has serious cost implications for counties. Many individuals in the mental health system who function normally when provided with expensive prescription drugs pose a risk to themselves and to society when those drugs are not available. The result is an increase in incarceration and institutionalization, which costs many times more than the prescription drug coverage and for which there is no state subsidy. Therefore, the Crook County Court supports continuation of prescription drug coverage through the Oregon Health Plan.
Parole and Probation Funding
In 1999, the state entered into a partnership with counties to transfer parole and probation services operations to local government. The reasoning behind this move was that it was generally agreed that counties could operate parole and probation less expensively than the state and could house parole and probation violators serving less than 12-month sentences less expensively than the state. In addition, it was assumed that with parole officers in individual communities would have closer ties with law enforcement and more knowledge of their communities and therefore could probably provide better supervision of the parole and probation population. Counties were initially resistant to this idea, fearing that the state would provide up-front funding and later renege. They eventually agreed, when the state wrote into law a provision that the state would provide 100 percent funding for parole and probation services, including an annual adjustment for inflation. Unfortunately, the counties did not get written into law a definition of “inflation.” The state has now decided to define “inflation” as “whatever the state decides it can afford.” As a result, the state is proposing a $40 million across-the-board-cut to counties for funding of parole and probation in the next biennium, and rumors are that the cut will increase. The Crook County Court, along with all other counties in the state, is opposed to any reduction in corrections funding which violates a good-faith agreement and transfers a financial burden from state to local government.
Transient Lodging Taxes
The proposed destination resort in western Powell Butte could provide substantial revenue to Crook County if it were approved and if voters were to implement a transient lodging tax hotel rooms at the resort. Currently, although there is a lodging tax within the city limits, there is no lodging tax in the county because there has never been a substantial enough presence of hotels and motels to justify one. Unfortunately, a bill in the legislature would add 1 percent to existing lodging taxes statewide to support the Oregon Tourism Division. In exchange, hotel/motel operators would be guaranteed that no new lodging taxes could be implemented and any future increases in lodging tax would have to be used exclusively for tourism promotion. The Crook County Court is opposed to this legislation on the theory that a county should not be penalized for not previously imposing taxes when it had no reason to do so and because any measure which reduces local ability to direct revenues where they are most needed makes no sense in these tight fiscal times.
“Son of Measure 7” legislation
Some 53 percent of voters passed Measure 7 in 2000, which provided that a landowner whose property lost its value as a result of a zoning decision or other land-use action by state or local government would be entitled to some level of compensation. The Oregon Supreme Court promptly threw the measure out on technical grounds, but most legislators recognized a message in the voters’ action. As a result, it is widely expected that some sort of restriction on the ability of government to take action which drastically reduces property values will be passed by this Legislature. Whether the governor will sign such legislation probably depends on how it looks in final form. The Crook County Court cautiously supports this legislative concept, reserving the right to change its position based on how the final bill looks, of course. Oregon law delegates a great deal of authority to local government. It’s important to build important checks and balances into the system to make that authority is used wisely.
Bridge Repair Funding Package
The state of Oregon faces a crisis. Its bridges, largely built between 1947 and 1961, are literally cracking and falling apart statewide as they reach the end of their lifespan. At least 66 bridges on Interstate 84 alone have been identified as requiring repair or replacement, in addition to hundreds more on Interstate 5 and elsewhere around the state. By year’s end, 20 percent of state-owned bridges will require weight limits and truck detours. Nearly $5 billion is needed immediately to prevent bridge closures and load postings which would hamper freight movement, increase the cost of transporting goods and goods and services, increase truck traffic with associated congestion and wear and tear on state and local highways and reduce incentives for businesses to come to Oregon. Leaving aside the fact that somebody should have sent his coming and started planning for bridge replacement a long time ago, the fact is, we can’t put the “fix” off any longer and still look for much-needed economic recovery. Thus, the Crook County Court reluctantly supports a bridge-repair bonding package, backed by an increase in vehicle registration and title fees.
Crook County residents with strong feelings about these or other issues are urged to contact Sen. Steve Harper or Rep. George Gilman and make their views known.
Originally published in the Powell Butte View, April 2003
As you might imagine, much of the attention of county officials is currently focused on Salem. The county is tracking a number of initiatives of concern.
Oregon Health Plan Funding
A plan was unveiled last week to fund the Oregon Health Plan at approximately $500 million. That’s enough to provide basic healthcare coverage at the federal Medicare/Medicaid minimum for the state’s most needy services. Programs such as eyeglass purchase for children and most mental health coverage would be eliminated. The latter has county officials concerned. While almost everyone agrees that the Health Plan must be trimmed in order to balance the budget, the elimination of mental health benefits, particularly $150 million in prescription drug coverage, has serious cost implications for counties. Many individuals in the mental health system who function normally when provided with expensive prescription drugs pose a risk to themselves and to society when those drugs are not available. The result is an increase in incarceration and institutionalization, which costs many times more than the prescription drug coverage and for which there is no state subsidy. Therefore, the Crook County Court supports continuation of prescription drug coverage through the Oregon Health Plan.
Parole and Probation Funding
In 1999, the state entered into a partnership with counties to transfer parole and probation services operations to local government. The reasoning behind this move was that it was generally agreed that counties could operate parole and probation less expensively than the state and could house parole and probation violators serving less than 12-month sentences less expensively than the state. In addition, it was assumed that with parole officers in individual communities would have closer ties with law enforcement and more knowledge of their communities and therefore could probably provide better supervision of the parole and probation population. Counties were initially resistant to this idea, fearing that the state would provide up-front funding and later renege. They eventually agreed, when the state wrote into law a provision that the state would provide 100 percent funding for parole and probation services, including an annual adjustment for inflation. Unfortunately, the counties did not get written into law a definition of “inflation.” The state has now decided to define “inflation” as “whatever the state decides it can afford.” As a result, the state is proposing a $40 million across-the-board-cut to counties for funding of parole and probation in the next biennium, and rumors are that the cut will increase. The Crook County Court, along with all other counties in the state, is opposed to any reduction in corrections funding which violates a good-faith agreement and transfers a financial burden from state to local government.
Transient Lodging Taxes
The proposed destination resort in western Powell Butte could provide substantial revenue to Crook County if it were approved and if voters were to implement a transient lodging tax hotel rooms at the resort. Currently, although there is a lodging tax within the city limits, there is no lodging tax in the county because there has never been a substantial enough presence of hotels and motels to justify one. Unfortunately, a bill in the legislature would add 1 percent to existing lodging taxes statewide to support the Oregon Tourism Division. In exchange, hotel/motel operators would be guaranteed that no new lodging taxes could be implemented and any future increases in lodging tax would have to be used exclusively for tourism promotion. The Crook County Court is opposed to this legislation on the theory that a county should not be penalized for not previously imposing taxes when it had no reason to do so and because any measure which reduces local ability to direct revenues where they are most needed makes no sense in these tight fiscal times.
“Son of Measure 7” legislation
Some 53 percent of voters passed Measure 7 in 2000, which provided that a landowner whose property lost its value as a result of a zoning decision or other land-use action by state or local government would be entitled to some level of compensation. The Oregon Supreme Court promptly threw the measure out on technical grounds, but most legislators recognized a message in the voters’ action. As a result, it is widely expected that some sort of restriction on the ability of government to take action which drastically reduces property values will be passed by this Legislature. Whether the governor will sign such legislation probably depends on how it looks in final form. The Crook County Court cautiously supports this legislative concept, reserving the right to change its position based on how the final bill looks, of course. Oregon law delegates a great deal of authority to local government. It’s important to build important checks and balances into the system to make that authority is used wisely.
Bridge Repair Funding Package
The state of Oregon faces a crisis. Its bridges, largely built between 1947 and 1961, are literally cracking and falling apart statewide as they reach the end of their lifespan. At least 66 bridges on Interstate 84 alone have been identified as requiring repair or replacement, in addition to hundreds more on Interstate 5 and elsewhere around the state. By year’s end, 20 percent of state-owned bridges will require weight limits and truck detours. Nearly $5 billion is needed immediately to prevent bridge closures and load postings which would hamper freight movement, increase the cost of transporting goods and goods and services, increase truck traffic with associated congestion and wear and tear on state and local highways and reduce incentives for businesses to come to Oregon. Leaving aside the fact that somebody should have sent his coming and started planning for bridge replacement a long time ago, the fact is, we can’t put the “fix” off any longer and still look for much-needed economic recovery. Thus, the Crook County Court reluctantly supports a bridge-repair bonding package, backed by an increase in vehicle registration and title fees.
Crook County residents with strong feelings about these or other issues are urged to contact Sen. Steve Harper or Rep. George Gilman and make their views known.
posted by Scott Cooper | 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home