A total of 4461 ballots were returned out of 10,139 active registered voters – roughly 44%.  1525 voted YES and 2883 voted NO -  roughly 35% to 65%.   This is down from the 60% or 6008 votes cast for Newberg mayor in the 2010 general election.  Get the full results, including District 1 votes, here.

To me this means that a significant proportion of voters are concerned that too much of their money is taken for spending programs they don’t want.   It also means that not enough voters are paying attention to the spending plans of the Council.  Are voters just apathetic?

Look at it another way.  You’re sitting in a room with other voters.  Those sitting to your left and to your right think you should pay for their wants.

The election outcome hasn’t altered the sources of spending pressure on our wallets.  We have just lost one way of voicing our will.  Hopefully, our Councilors will take note of our displeasure.

Additional Water Revenue Needed

At 7pm, Wednesday, November 9, I went to the Citizens rate Review Committee (CRRC) meeting.  Two other Newbergers attended.  They were deciding if they wanted to serve on the CRRC.  The people who have complained bitterly about their $200 water bills were not in attendance.

Consultant Deb Galardi presented revenue increase scenarios for debt service coverage.  Get the agenda packet with details here.

Subtract from Water Sales Revenue (about $4.5 million, constant though 2015/16) the Operating and Maintenance Costs ( $3.5 million now and $4 million in 2015.16) to get the funds available ($987,000 now and $435,000 in 2015/16)to pay principle and interest on debt (about $1.3 million).  To maintain the contractually require 1.1 ratio, additional needed revenue grows from $400,000 now to $945,000 in 2015/16.

This presentation did not include increases for capital investment, nor did it suggest cost cutting strategies.

Factors Driving Costs

The City Manager mentioned ever tightening regulatory requirements that require upgrades, and increasing costs of public employee benefits.  Seventy cents of each new revenue dollar is expected to go to employee costs and 30 cents to maintenance supplies such as new water pipes. (Some existing pipes are 100 years old).

The ever “unpopular” suggestion of reducing staff and using cheaper contract labor received only cursory attention, but doesn’t have to die.

The CRRC has no control over setting capital investment budget levels for upgrades required by the “green”-leaning EPA, State legislature, and DEQ. Question: When is our water “clean enough”?  We still have to provide food, shelter, clothing etc. for our families.  You can’t eat water that has the last part-per-billion of something removed, and you die a lot quicker from starvation and exposure to the weather.

However, the CRRC can refuse to endorse the rate increases and push back on the Budget Committee and the Council.

The final factor pushing cost is the Federal Reserve Bank and Congressional policy of inflating the money supply via debt financing of TARP and subsequent “stimulus” legislation.

We elected a new “conservative” House of representatives to control debt-financed spending, but all we get is more debt.  Meet the new boss…same as the old boss.

Going Forward

We lost Measure 36-149, but  we didn’t lose the war.  Meet the new solution…same as the old solution: elect representatives at all levels of government that care about your individual rights and not collective “rights”.

The good news is that we have at least two representatives (appointed by Mayor Andrews) on the CRRC who are looking to cut costs rather that just raising new revenue.  They are Ernie Amunson and Beth Keyser, and they are truly in “our corner”.  They need your support.

The next CRRC meeting is November 30.  See agenda here when it becomes available here

Water Bill Too High?  Do Something!

Please, go to the meeting.  Thank them personally.  Or send email to them c/o City Manager. Find out for yourself why your water bill is $200 and will go higher through 2016 if you don’t say something.  Mayor Andrews and City Manager Danicic are on the CRRC.

Public Comments are heard at the beginning of the meeting.  You have no more than five minutes each, to tell them “my water is clean enough and I need a new winter coat” or if you must, “please raise my rates 25% over the next four years”.  Or tell them “Public employee costs are too high and I’m not paying it anymore”.

YOU have  ask the CRRC to push back on the DEQ.  YOU have to ask State Representative Kim Thatcher and State Senator Larry George to push back on the DEQ.  YOU have to ask our incoming House Representative to push back on the EPA.  YOU have to ask Senators Merkely and Wyden to push back on the EPA and Presidential Executive Orders.

Otherwise, enjoy your new water bill…much higher than the old bill.

Yours in Liberty,
Hank Grum

The Chehalem Park and Recreation District Board of Directors thinks:

Measure 36-149 could jeopardize important community develop-
ment projects that have already undergone a fair and thorough
citizen review process.

We have a system of governance that takes everyone’s voice into
account. It is a well-functioning process through which citizen con-
cerns are heard – concerns that represent a breadth of citizens, not
just those with the loudest voices.

Don’t give a few power over the majority. [Emphasis is in document.]

What projects are in jeopardy?  What interest of CPRD is threatened?  Are you scared yet?

“Well-functioning” process fair?

Are our primary concerns addressed by the “well-functioning process”?  The Affordable Housing Action Committee is concerned with redistributing wealth by having us pay for uncollected SDCs through increased sewer and water rates! Is this what the “breadth of citizens want”?

The minutes(available on City website) from the December 9. 2009 Affordable Housing Action Committee, a subcommittee of the AHC, reveals the plan to impose the new tax on overburdened Newberg taxpayers. Barton Brierly, Planning and Building Director,  stated, “The Phase I committee recommended that the entire city share in the burden of the fee [system development charges - SDC] reductions, rather than have it fall on specific segments of the population… There are different ways that [it] could be distributed though sewer and water rates”. (emphasis mine.)

Further, “Chair Stuhr stated the City needs to be careful how much of these costs is being pushed down to the payers. She suggested running the calculations backwards to see what the general population will accept and what that looks like”.

I want to pay for the services I use and not SDCs that are not mine!  How about you with the loud voice?  If the majority say pay the SDCs with your money, Measure 36-149 will be our protection FROM the majority!

Vote YES on Measure 36-149

It’s “The Taxpayer’s Choice”

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum

*****

Can the City of Newberg collect revenue from the taxpayer without a vote simply by renaming it a fee?  This is the central question addressed by Measure 36-149, the Charter amendment to get the option to vote on any fee or charge, as well a tax.

The City Council passed a Public Safety Fee (PSF) to hire three more police officers.  Normally, funds for this come from the property tax base, and the City would have to go to the voters to raise it.  By using a quasi-judicial order to pass the tax renamed a FEE, they took away our right to vote on it, since only an ordinance can be referred to the ballot.

Not only have the taxpayers been stabbed in the wallet, Truth and Integrity have also fallen victim to the opposing forces.  “We already have a process to refer any LEGISLATION to the ballot”.  You have seen this statement repeated in your voter pamphlet.  However, the fact that orders (PSF) and resolutions (water rates) cannot be referred, a material fact, is conveniently omitted.

Yesterday, I sent a letter of complaint to City Attorney, City manager, Council Members and the editor of the Newberg Graphic and asked for remedial action.  So far no one has replied.

However, I discovered a vindicating statement on the City website:

“Matters that are done by resolution or order are generally not subject to the initiative and referendum process.”

See FAQ #4 here: http://www.newbergoregon.gov/legal/initiative-petition-amend-charter-nov-8-2011-election

However there is no reference to the misleading statements in the voters pamphlet or the Measure Explanatory Statement.  A partial victory is better than none.

Read the letter Letter_MaterialFacts

Vote YES on Measure 36-149, and send this to a friend.

Yours in Liberty,
Hank Grum

$2,000 – the amount of Construction Excise Tax the school board voted to waive for the Habitat for Humanity “affordable”-housing duplex on North Main Street.  This tax is supposed to be used for classroom construction, not wealth-transfer schemes.

$21,000 – the amount of SDCs the City waived for the same project.  Uncollected SDCs eventually have to be replaced by the taxpayers.

$70,000 – City loan to Housing Authority of Yamhill County for “affordable” apartments on the historic Deskin property on Meridian Street.

$6,000 – the property tax on aforesaid property that will no longer be collected because HAYC pays no property taxes.

$800,000 – City SDCs spent OUTSIDE the city limits at Oxberg Estates.

One – City Manager to propose a municipal gas tax and a traffic impact FEE assessed against your home or business and collected on the water bill.

One – unelected “Affordable” Housing soviet ( oops, committee) proposing wealth transfer schemes such as a Utility (read water bill) Surcharge or Housing Trust Fund FEE on the water bill.  The Council has already established the Fund.  Now they have to take our money.

ZERO – the number of voters who can stop this spending without Measure 36-149.

Zero – the dollar impact on school funding.

Vote YES on Measure 36-149

It’s “The Taxpayer’s Choice”

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum

*****

Text of Opposition Argument

Measure 36-149 doesn’t add up.

Consider the facts: The Fire Fighters of Newberg urge you to VOTE NO
• $200,000 – the amount the City has already had to reduce its on MEASURE 36-149
budget to maintain services this year.
• $29,000 – the amount of taxpayer funds the City of Newberg
has already spent in legal costs to validate this measure for
election
• $10,000 – the approximate cost for the City of Newberg to hold
a special election
• Seven – the number of citizens already serving on the Rate
Review Committee to evaluate all proposed fee increases and
make recommendations to the City Council before decisions
are made
• Five – the number of people required to force special city elec-
tions if this measure passes
You do the math.
Please join us in voting NO on Measure 36-149. It just doesn’t add
up.
Newberg educators opposed to wasting money on special elections
and lawsuits.
Donald Johnston
Diane Williams
Larry Hampton
Lesley Carsley
Ken Carsley
Jillian Risher
Bill Rogers
Marilyn Jackson
Terry McElligott

Information furnished by Bob Ficker, Treasurer Newberg’s Future
*****

To the editor:

In his letter, Barton Brierley stated “ I don’t want to subsidize development — that’s why I am voting no on Measure 36-149.” As the City of Newberg Planning and Building Director, he supports waiving SDCs for developers that adhere to his “affordable” housing goals. For example, the City waived SDCs of $21,000 for the Habitat for Humanity duplex on North Main St. Our school board also voted to waive Construction Excise Tax of $,2000 for the same project. This tax is intended for classroom construction, not wealth transfer.

Here “affordable” means taxpayer subsidized. Uncollected SDCs have to be made up by taxpayers. Hence the Council established an “Affordable” Housing Trust Fund to be funded with a “utility surcharge” or a FEE. Without this measure, a FEE cannot be referred to the ballot.

Furthermore, developers oppose this measure. Real estate developer Curtis D. Walker loaned $3800 to Newberg’s Future, the PAC opposed to our right to vote. Mike Gougler’s MJG Development Inc gave $700. They know taxpayer’s might balk against supporting Brierley’s wealth transfer schemes.

Brierley is trying to scare us by saying taxpayers will have to make up SDC shortfalls. Yet that is exactly what we are already doing because we don’t have the vote!

Vote YES on Measure 36-149.

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum, Newberg

In his guest opinion McKinney praises the Evil League of Oregon Cities Model Charter:

The LOC model city charter is widely used in Oregon. It is time- tested and proven to be a trustworthy document. It serves us in the following manner: the charter allows us to conduct our city’s affairs administratively (setting policies and processes, etc.); legislatively (creating laws and ordinances); and quasi-judicially (procedures regarding land uses).

McKinney omits the truth when he fails to point out that the Public Safety Fee was passed quasi-judicially rather than legislatively.  He also omits the truth by not mentioning that the water rate increases were passed administratively.

What! Pass a tax by land use Order instead of by legislative Ordinance?  Yes, so it can’t be referred to the ballot by 10% of the voters.  That is the current procedure.  You have 30 days to collect signatures.

Is withholding a material fact a lie! Or is it just dishonest or just unethical. Is it a lie (perjury) only if you under oath? Otherwise it’s OK?  How about a teensy bit dishonest?

McKinney cannot plead ignorance, at least not on this point. I spoke to City Attorney Mahr and Councilor McKinney after the last Council meeting about this omission of material fact in the Council’s opposition statement in the voter’s pamphlet.

I asked “Whatever happened to the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth”? Mahr’s reply:

“That’s only on TV, not real life.”

Gary Allen also  omits the truth in his editorial.

Furthermore, there is an apparatus in place to require that legislative decisions made by the council be put to a vote of the people. It has not been used in Newberg in a very long time, if ever.

Last Wednesday, I met with the Graphic editorial board, and began with this same explanation of taxes called fees being passed by quasi-judicial order so the tax can’t be referred to the ballot. This is the WHOLE POINT of the measure. No Gary Allen is not ignorant either, at least not on this point.

Is withholding a material fact a lie?  Or are these people just incompetent?  You decide.

Roger Currier is the only one who addresses this issue:

I have heard through all my years around here a lot of complaints about these fee increases and new fees that should be called taxes. They are clearly taxes under the guise of a protective word called fees so that we cannot vote on them.

No Help from the City Gurus

I applaud Allen for pointing to the lack of cooperation from the City:

We believe him and find it unfortunate that city staff didn’t do more to help one of Newberg’s citizens produce a valid measure to place on the ballot.

The first petition version I submitted is identical to the one passed in the City of Damascus.  It’s not my “brainchild” as Allen claims.  Was his mind wandering in the conference?  City Attorney Mahr rejected it saying it was multi-subject (Taxes and FEES and Charges, oh my!) and not completely legislative (referring to FEES and Charges).  This claim was rejected by the Easterday court.

I asked Mahr for help in writing it.  He said: “I’m not your attorney, I’m the City’s attorney”.

Then Jim Morrison and I rewrote and submitted three more versions, all of which were rejected.  At this point Ross Day,  a people’s interest attorney with Common Sense for Oregon, wrote the fifth and final version with the 30-day flaw.  The Council had the opportunity to fix it in it’s own measure but didn’t.  Couldn’t get Mahr to write one?  No money to hire Tom Sponsler from LOC to do their thinking?

Did the Council pay attention to any of this?  Not generally, judging from their questions at the work session where Mahr presented his analysis of Measure 36-149.  Guess it wasn’t important enough to read.

McKinney thinks the ballot title is “misleading”, why didn’t he say something when attorney Margaret Olney of Our Oregon challenged the ballot title and City Attorney Mahr had to rewrite it? You did read it, didn’t you, McKinney? Just left it all to special-interest attorney Mahr?  Too busy denouncing me at meetings for bringing up budget questions and having bad information?

Did you ever try getting answers to questions from City staff? It takes a long time to overcome their foot-dragging  (More about this in a future post). Oh, McKinney is a Councilor!  They have to answer  to his satisfaction.

Sage Advice

Gary Allen has some advice for us:

The city council has seven members elected to represent specific geographic districts and the town at large. If people have a problem with their decisions, they can vote them out of office or, in dire cases, recall an individual councilor or the whole council.

Currier says the council failed in its duty:

…. I believe that your city council let you down on this one. They had the opportunity at the meetings and were asked by counsel to take some opposing action. Did they act? No, nothing happened on your or their behalf when it should have been done. They should have passed at least three referendums to be placed on the ballot at the same time.

The Council didn’t study the Measure, they didn’t ensure City Attorney Mahr wrote a ballot title to McKinney’s satisfaction, they didn’t try to fix problems in the Measure,  they omitted material facts in their voter pamphlet statement, and they let Mahr omit the same facts in the Measure Explanatory statement he wrote for the pamphlet.  This is dereliction of duty.

Let’s follow Allen’s advice: In these dire circumstances, recall the Council, and

Vote YES on Measure 36-149

It’s “The Taxpayer’s Choice”

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum

*****

City Council afraid of citizens Right To Vote

Democracy protects citizens Right To Vote

Charter Amendment does not Prohibit Tax Increases

City Council does not trust voters

President of George Fox opposes Voters Rights even though University pays no Property Taxes

Chehalem Park and Recreation opposes Voters Rights To Vote even though funded by your Tax Dollars

Chamber of Commerce opposes Voters Rights To Vote while partially funded by City

Developers oppose Voters Rights while not properly funding growth

Four (4) Members of City Council can pass Tax increases while amendment requires Five (5) citizens to request a vote

Police, Fire and Library should not be affected if Citizens pass Right to Vote Amendment

Water Bill Too High –Vote Yes

Why are Non-Residents opposing Your Right To Vote?

Lou, thank you for your contribution to the conversation.

All we need are We the People!

Vote YES on Measure 36-149

It’s “The Taxpayer’s Choice”

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum

*****

The Yamhill Count Clerk will mail our ballots today.  Get ready to vote YES on Measure 36-149.  Secure our right to vote how much government we want to buy and how our money will be spent.

I took a new peek at the financial activity of the Newberg’s Future, our Mayor’s PAC opposing our right to vote. Note: If you want to see for yourself go to

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/cneSearch.do?cneSearchButtonName=search&cneSearchFilerCommitteeId=15093

If you get sent to a search page, use Newbergs Future for the name of 15093 for committee ID.

What did I see? They’re running scared!  They know we will pass this measure.

On 10/17/11 they spent $2000 on PAC/WEST, a public relations firm based in Wilsonville, Oregon specializing in: campaigns & political strategy, crisis management, government affairs & lobbying, marketing. This is not surprising since the Council can’t seem to find words to tell us in open debate why they don’t want us to have the vote.  Hiring a mouthpiece won’t make us forget their deeds come re-election day!

And who is picking up the tab?  On 10/17/11they  received another $1400 loan (total $3800) from Curtis D. Walker, Newberg real estate developer, self-employed.

On 10/19/11they received $2000 from the Newberg Dundee Public Safety Association.

Compare to less than $600 collected by Yes on Measure 36-149.  According to election law, I don’t have to file transactions until I collect $2000.

My major expenses so far:  $350 for Voter Pamphlet statement,  $130 to the Graphic for upcoming ads and $52 for paint, stakes and screws to rehabilitate old campaign signs.  I had a bunch left over from my mayor race and some were donated.   Note: Too late I discovered I could have saved the $350 by collecting 400 signatures to have the statement placed in the voter pamphlet.

I had Laser Jet toner and paper left over too.  Used in-kind value is  about $40 t0 $50.  I’ve had my website since the mayor race.  It costs about $10 a month.  I tinkered the blog together using WordPress.

The Council were wondering if there was big money and a plot by outsiders behind me.  Nope.

Only Ross Day, an attorney with Common Sense for Oregon, worked pro bono to defeat the City Attorney Terry Mahr and OUTSIDE instigator Tom Sponsler of League of Oregon Cities who refused to allow me to circulate my petition.  When Mahr rejected the first petition, identical to the successful Damascus petition, I asked him to help write it.  He refused saying he wasn’t my attorney, but the city’s attorney.  Hey, who does he think the city is anyway?  Not the taxpayers, obviously.  But I digress.

So, fellow lovers of liberty, you don’t need big money or a public relations firm to fight for your rights.

All we have are We the People!

Vote YES on Measure 36-149

It’s “The Taxpayer’s Choice”

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum

Now Bob Ficker is scaring local business people.  They think when Measure 36-149 passes, infrastructure development will cease. What elements of this vague creature are they referring to? They don’t mention any. What is the connection to business development?  They don’t articulate any connection.

Business development will be hurt?  The wineries, food stores, restaurants, gas stations  and coffee shops need our tax money to operate and grow?  They have to join a “public/private partnership” so they won’t wither?

It will slow job creation? What job creation? Have I missed a recent flurry of “Help Wanted”signs?

How can business invest when the banks aren’t lending and Governments at all levels are using our money to foul up the economy with their schemes?

The more money taxpayers retain for themselves, the more they have to spend at a local business.  It’s that simple.

Vote YES on Measure 36-149

It’s “The Taxpayer’s Choice”

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum

*****

Text of Opposition Argument

DON’T HURT ECONOMIC GROWTH IN OUR COMMUNITY

Local Businesses urge you to VOTE NO on Measure 36-149

Newberg’s revitalized downtown has drawn new businesses to the

area and allowed for established businesses to grow. The advances

we have made in community infrastructure can be attributed to the

well-functioning dynamic between the City of Newberg and our en-

gaged citizens.

Measure 36-149 will change Newberg’s charter to allow an unelected

minority of just five people to obstruct our City government and undermine

a voter-approved process that has been successful for decades.

As business owners and managers we obviously do not want to

increase our tax burden, however: allowing challenges to municipal

legislation passed and implemented since January 1, 2009 could

disrupt many current projects and unnecessarily delay critically important

improvements to the City’s infrastructure.

Measure 36-149 will hurt development of countless businesses

throughout Newberg and slow job creation.

Larry Moore, The UPS Store

James A. Hirte, Colamette Construction

Truman A. Stone, Attorney

Stephen C. Palmer, Attorney

Jose Marin, Today’s Vision Clinic LLC

Sally L. Dallas, Masterpiece Framing & Newberg Gallery Online

James M. Snell, Realtor, Prudential NW Properties

Information furnished by Bob Ficker, Newberg’s Future

*****

It’s time for an entertainment break! We’re going to play Where’s the Beef? Somewhere nestled among the self-congratulatory garnish in this opposition statement (at the bottom of the post), you will find two actual arguments. (Hint: You’ve seen them before.)

Don’t stop to nibble at the garnish, and certainly don’t swallow it whole.  It’s full of unctuous, empty calories.  Just keep looking ahead for the beef.  Take notes if you must, but don’t spend more than two minutes.  I’ll wait for you to finish.

OK, ready?  If you said “There’s no beef here! There’s only two old arguments about litigation and election costs!”, you win and qualify for the fill-in-the-blank bonus round.

City of Sheridan Legal Costs Explained

But first, here’s an update on the City of Sheridan litigation costs.  In the previous Council argument we find this statement:

In the city of Sheridan, where they passed a similar measure, it has
cost them $30,000 just in lawsuits alone.

One might think, as I did, that this meant the voters had gone mad filing suits.

Today I called the City of Sheridan to find out exactly what happened: how many lawsuits were filed, who initiated them, and what were the issues. I was put in contact with the Mayor, Frank Sheridan.  I told him about our Measure and the above statement.

He told me that there weren’t any lawsuits, but just one judicial review of an Act passed by their council.  The City of Sheridan INITIATED the judicial review to see if the Act fell under the measure passed by the city.  Some FEES were covered by their measure and others were not.  He said the cost was between $20,000 and $30,000.  It was that high because other lawyers jumped in.

In our case, ANY revenue act is subject to referral if voters so choose.  There is no similar issue here.

Bonus Round

In the following statement, fill in the name of someone you know:

Newberg is a place where families, individuals, and retired people, and _____________ moved out because they no longer could afford the water bill.

Without Measure 36-149, YOUR name could be on the list.

Vote YES on Measure 36-149

It’s “The Taxpayer’s Choice”

Yours in Liberty,

Hank Grum

*****

Text of Robin Baker Opposition Argument

PROTECT WHAT WE CHERISH IN OUR TOWN

Concerned Citizen urges you to VOTE NO on MEASURE 36-149

Newberg is a place where families, individuals, and retired people
proudly call home because of our many success and community
achievements.

Our historic downtown truly embodies the values of small town America

We are admired for our ability to retain the close-knit and down
to earth qualities of our community while keeping up with the
fast paced development that keeps our economy healthy

Our local students are widely recognized for their achievements
in academics, music, athletics, and the vocational areas

We are home to George Fox University, drawing students from
many states who are eager to be a apart of one of the nation’s
top Christian universities

We have the community spirit and know how to work together
to build our future

Measure 36-149 will jeopardize many of the great things that we
cherish in our community.

Your opinion matters. That is why many opportunities for you and
your neighbors to publicly voice your concerns to your city leaders.
These community advisory opportunities have been proven
successful and save us from having to spend thousands of
dollars to fund special election campaigns and lawsuits over issues
that we can all work out together.

PLEASE JOIN ME IN VOTING NO ON MEASURE 36-149

Information furnished by Robin Baker, President, George Fox University, Newberg’s Future

*****