City reports CDC results from fecal samples--What does it mean?

Today, the city website reported:
Information received from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

Monday, September 09, 2013

Today the City of Baker City received the following information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

• 81 goats tested; 1 positive for C. ubiquitum (making it unlikely source)
• 64 elk tested; 1 positive with species still unknown, but negative by C. parvum and C. hominis–specific PCR
• 10 human specimens tested; 9 positive; 7 are C. parvum IIaA15G2R1; most recent 2 resequencing
• 4 cattle tested (5 listed on packing sheet, but only 4 in box); all negative
• 4 water samples tested; all negative
• 1 positive EPA method 1623 slide (4 oocysts present) tested; could not detect Crypto DNA

This is complicated so you might want to read it more than once.

Day Late and a few Cow Pies Short

I said in an earlier blog that they might not get positive results because of the haphazard late sampling (after we found the cow pies on the trip of the 19th) and not asking Dennis Dorrah and I to go along to show them where all the cow pies were. I had already notified Dr. De bess of our findings.

The cattle tests were taken on samples that were from some cow pies that had been there for an unknown length of time, and it is not known if they are from calves that have been in the watershed. It is the calves that usually test positive for C. parvum. Calves also shed more crypto when they are younger, like July in this case. 

They apparently only tested four or fewer cow pies and there is no way to know whether the cow pies they tested were from the calves. They tested 64 elk scat samples. 

They probably did not test all the fecal material that Dennis and I found. They should have tested the calves that are in the herd and were in the area (Dennis Dorrah, Clair Button, and I, saw them at least twice and they were nearby when they tested) for C. parvum, but I am quite sure they didn't, and I doubt if they will. It is in the state's and the city's interest not to find a culprit in this case due to liability issues. That is what happened in the Milwaukee outbreak--no definitive cause found. 

Also, Dr. De Bess told me that the staining of the crypto oocysts found in the 913 oocyst water sample might make it impossible to genotype the oocysts, i.e., determine whether they were C. parvum. That was a huge mistake. I think that means they didn't split the sample so that they could test (genotype) any unstained material from the sample to find out whether it is C. parvum, and the staining, as Dr. DeBess suggested to me that it might, destroyed the possibility of matching the 913 water sample oocysts to the C. parvum oocysts found in diseased patients. Not finding C. Parvum in the cow pies is also problematic, in terms of  establishing the responsibility of cattle, but they didn't and probably won't test the calves. All the research, plus the results showing it isn't in the elk, suggests that it may have come from cows.

Here are seven important points to consider (there are no doubt others):

- Four cow fecal material samples (compared to 64 elk samples) does not prove that cows weren't responsible.

-  The results do not remove the responsibility of Public Works to report to the Council about crypto or cows in the watershed.

-  Why did they take 64 elk fecal samples, 81 mountain goat samples, but only 4 cow fecal samples?

- Why did Dr. De Bess ignore my phone call and not ask Dennis and I to go along even though I alerted him to our findings prior to his prominent trip with the Herald reporter(s) to Elk Creek?

-  Why didn't they try to get cow pie samples from the calves that were in the area during our trip on the 19th, during their sampling mission, or during the following weeks when Councilor Dennis Dorrah went up to try and and repair the fence to keep the cows out and yet still found them in the watershed?

-  Why did the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), or the state, destroy the ability to genotype the original 913 oocysts in the original water sample to see if it was Cryptosporidium parvum? By apparently staining the whole sample and not keeping anything aside for genotyping, that information will likely never be known.  

- Why was the effort by Dr. De Bess and his CDC companions so weak with regards to testing fecal material from the cows in the vicinity when he made his investigation? 4 cattle samples and 64 elk samples? There was ample fecal material outside the watershed fence when the Councilors and I made our trip to the watershed that could have been genotyped to determine whether the cows carried Cryptosporidium parvum that matched the Cryptosporidium parvum found in the Baker City citizens suffering from cryptosporidiosis.

End Note:
At least one Baker City cancer patient contracted symptoms resembling those of cryptosporidiosis in July, and he died not long thereafter, before experimental treatments, an individualized immunotherapy vaccine, could be implemented in an effort to save him.
__

_____

Crypto Crisis morphs into Council soap opera starring Clair Button as Blind Man

In this Edition:

-Crypto Crisis morphs into Council soap opera starring Clair Button as Blind Man [Edit 9/8]
-Golf Course operator Billy Cunningham said to have thrown in the towel.
__
Crypto Crisis morphs into Council soap opera starring Clair Button as Blind Man

In yesterday's Herald article on the developing Council soap opera, Councilor Clair Button is reported to have said:

In a Thursday interview, Button said he doesn’t believe any city employee is or has been negligent.“I haven’t seen anything to make me believe that somebody really screwed up something that they should have known better about,” Button said.“I don’t believe in making scapegoats. The Council was warned in the past that there is a risk. You can’t expect people to see the future. The Council wasn’t prescient, and we can’t expect the staff to be either.”

Prescient means:

having or showing knowledge of events before they take place. "a prescient warning"
synonyms: prophetic, predictive, visionary

 Negligence means:

(Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

Councilor Button seems to be trying to bury the responsibility and accountability issues under a blanket of bromidic sermons, but are they true?

Well, while it is true that people can't be expected to always predict the future, there are some situations or events that have easily predictable outcomes. For example, if you park your vehicle on a hill, leave it out of gear, don't put on the parking break, and don't turn the wheels toward the curb, you can predict with some certainty that it will roll down the hill, quite possibly resulting in some minor disaster.  You could say the driver wasn't "prescient" or you could say the driver was "negligent."  Which would you choose?

With this in mind, lets review some of the facts surrounding Baker City's crypto crisis.

1) There was a lapse of over one year between the time Public Works received positive crypto test results until the time city staff informed Council about it. The tests were conducted in order to let Council know how to proceed with regard to water treatment.

Could Council have been expected to predict that staff would not inform them of the test results? If Council weren't told of the results could they be reasonably expected to proceed with the water treatment discussion and solutions in a timely and responsible manner and be deemed negligent if they didn't?  Answer to all is obviously no.

On the other hand, if a public works employee or employees are waiting for test results they know are coming and don't read them or report them for over a year, that's not about prescience, it is simple negligence. 

2) The Watershed Management Plan with the state requires cows be kept out of the watershed, and the Watershed Report from 2011 references a fence that was supposed to be built in the spring of 2012 to keep them out, but it never was. Council did not know about the planned fence or that materials had been purchased for it. Council did not know that cows were regularly getting into the watershed until August 19th of this year because staff hadn't told them or the Forest Service. 

The Watershed Management Plan requires that cows be kept out of the watershed and calls for city and Forest Service employees to monitor the situation to keep them out. The reason they are to be kept out of the watershed is that they carry disease producing organisms like Giardia and Cryptosporidium. We all know that, but city drinking water personnel are supposed to be acutely aware of that fact and to protect us from such possibilities. If staff knew that cows were getting into the watershed since at least 2011 but did not "exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances" by informing the Council and building the fence that was planned to keep cows out, that is not a failure to predict the unknowable, it is, once again, negligence, because they knew it needed to be built to keep the cows out and help prevent a waterborne disease outbreak.

3) Public works director Owen told Council on March 27, 2012, that the backup drinking water well at the golf course had been inoperable for a year and could be worked out through the water fund. It still is not operable.

Public works director Owen and the water department personnel should have known that the Watershed Management Plan designates the golf course well as our second drinking water well in case of an emergency, like for example a crypto outbreak or a fire in the watershed. It's not a matter of prescience because the reason the plan calls for it is that an eventual emergency has already been predicted. Not using water funds to repair the well and allowing the well to remain inoperable was a "failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances." Negligence by definition.

4) The Public Works Director did not meet the qualifications and experience requirements in the Watershed Management Plan which are a degree with specialization in engineering or equivalent background when she was hired.

Responsibility for this one rests with both former and current City Councils and the City Manager. The Watershed Management Plan states:

Minimum education of key personnel in Watershed Management: 

 (a) Director of Public Works minimum qualifications: Graduation from a four year college or university with specialization in civil engineering and three years of progressive responsible professional experience in public works administration including supervisory capacity; or any combination of experience and education that demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed above.   

This provision is included in the Water Management Plan to insure that Baker City Residents have appropriately educated and adequately qualified personnel overseeing the safety and over-all quality of our drinking water. It is there so that you don't end up in a situation where you've got a grocery store clerk or a secretary in charge of your drinking water program. As George H.W. Bush would say--"Wouldn't be prudent." More negligence

There are more facts that I could bring forth, but for now, I rest my case.

Please don't get sidetracked by the rhetorical nonsense or outright distortions and apparent lies of one or more Councilors trying to get us focused on the tone of Council emails, and the idea that we've got "nice" Councilors and angelic competent staff fighting off the "mean-spirited"unwarranted attacks of a minority of "bad" Councilors. We don't.  It's not about some sort of politically correct soap opera, it's about qualifications, diligent management, prudence and accountability. Can you say "negligence?"
__
Golf Course operator Billy Cunningham said to have thrown in the towel.

Billy Cunningham is reported by three different knowledgable sources to have resigned as operator of Baker City's Quail Ridge Golf Course. The golf course has struggled to make ends meet, but particularly since the completion of the "back nine" holes over a decade ago.

One current plan under discussion is to is to turn it into a public, non-profit organization/corporation along the lines of the Anthony Lakes ski area, which is owned by the County, but run by a public non-profit organization.   More on this later I hope.
_____

Part 2--Thoughts about the Council Work Session of August 29, 3013

[Edited previous post and split it into two parts, added material about the 2004 forced resignation of Public Works Director Dick Fleming to the end of this part, 8/31/13. Again, if the YouTube videos don't play, just click on the link above them. Updated 9/2/13 & 9/3/13]

Councilor Dorrah did a good job of getting the Council to focus momentarily on need to keep cows out of the watershed in order to protect our drinking water and exemption from filtration, but here's the problem. A few Councilors called the meeting, not to address the problem of cows in the watershed, not to solve how we got into a crisis that has caused Baker City to endure hundreds of illnesses and serious financial pain, not to talk about how staff has kept information about so many relevant and pressing problems from us, not to talk about the apparent lack of qualifications held by any staff member, or their incompetence in protecting our watershed over the last several years, but apparently only to talk about how some Councilors are uncomfortable about how other Councilors refer to staff when speaking or writing about the problem.

This video contains the gist of that self-righteous discussion, which took up an almost unendurable portion of the meeting:

Baker City Council Avoids issues--Button Lectures Council on Their Behavior082913 

After the meeting, I told Council that my opinion was:

Anyway, I  appreciated Dennis' reporting to the Council what he found and did about it , otherwise the meeting WOULD HAVE BEEN A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME!

Guess what--Council etiquette on intra-Council emails ISN'T THE PROBLEM. Don't make yourselves the issue! YOU'RE NOT! hate to watch Councilors of equal station lecture each other on their values and tell others how to act, while completely ignoring a major problem--The staff doesn't tell you what you need to know and they are not taking care of business. If everyone just keeps on being polite to each other, after a three year record of incompetence, the citizens are going to get screwed again!   The problem is not Council etiquette on email, the problem is that Public Works is not communicating with upper staff and Council, the Public works Director should still be a secretary and be replaced by an engineer, and that specifically, PW didn't tell Council twice about major problems in the watershed.  ENOUGH ALREADY!

BIG PS
The Council is elected by the people to take care of the problem for the people, not to serve the sensibilities of staff and sensitive Councilors.
Yes, I'm frustrated, and I think others are too.

[More background: Section X(B) of the Baker City Watershed Management Plan states:

B) Personnel Education/Experience:

(1) Minimum education of key personnel in Watershed Management:

(a) Director of Public Works minimum qualifications: Graduation from a four year college or university with specialization in civil engineering and three years of progressive responsible professional experience in public works administration including supervisory capacity; or any combination of experience and education that demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed above.

Additionally, please view this YouTube video which shows Mayor Langrell discussing the need to keep cattle out of the watershed and the fact that he had just learned that morning that Public Works was supposed to build a new fence back in the spring of 2012 to keep the cattle out and was wondering if they might want to move that up in their priorities. Here's the link:

8:27:13 Baker City Council Meeting--Mayor Langrell on cattle fence that was not not built ]

                  Michelle Owen responding to Mayor on unbuilt cattle fence

Now Back to Councilor Button's response:

What you missed, Chris, was that we asked for the meeting to discuss council activities that were happening behind the screen of privacy.  At various times, individual councilors (who were most likely communicating among themselves) have been conducting policy without the consent or approval of a majority.  We either have representative democracy or we don't.  Looking out for the "people" includes preserving our form of government.  If an individual or a minority can inflict major change on the administration of government without the knowledge of the public, then we would be accused of dishonesty or being asleep at the wheel.  Minority rule is not acceptable. 

Some of us believe that the affect of losing our city manager and some primary staff right now would be a serious setback to the progress of what we can accomplish in the next year.  It would be a huge diversion from focus on solving our immediate crisis, and could spark another year or two of community conflict.   Worse, it would be a setback to the proper function and rule of government. We are trying to get beyond political manipulation to an era of cooperation between reasonable and honest council members who put the community above personal animosities and power politics.  It is not just about feelings, but about your rights as a citizen to expect all members of government to respect the law and process of representative democracy. 

I think the cryptosporidium crisis is being used for political purposes, and the process of minority rule was kicked into gear months ago. What you saw was a polite attempt to speak reason to all parties without being part of the polarization and factionalism that is growing once again.    Some times you have to fight two or more battles at once when that is forced upon you. The interconnections are not always clear, but it is debilitating and distracting from unity of purpose. Some times, the right thing to do is to fight with one hand tied behind your back to set the example you want others to follow.  The bottom line holds. Minority rule is not acceptable.  We are not a dictatorship, and all parties owe it to the public to be open and honest about what they are doing.  Others can pretend they do not know why we called the meeting.  They can continue to hide what they have been doing.  If they succeed, we all bear the consequences. 

My opinion in response was:

Clair, I appreciate that you have responded, but without any specifics, it is impossible for me to evaluate your argument. 

How are individuals or a small minority "conducting policy without the consent or approval of a majority?"  What minority rule?  Nothing has changed, there has been no open discussion of the role of staff in helping to create the crisis and current predicament, let alone holding anyone accountable. If anything has been consistently hidden, it is accountability. 

What "major change on the administration of government" has been afflicted?  You won't even address the incredible communication problems that have kept Council and the public they are supposed to represent in the dark for three years. Again, Nothing has changed. 

I for one would not call for a change in City Manager, but it seems clear that the Public Works Director and one of her staff members bear a good deal of responsibility for our incredibly serious crypto crisis due to their failure to communicate known problems to the City Manager (either that, or Kee is a liar), Council and public for three years and for a negligently lackadaisical attitude. You, the rest of the Council, and Mike should have also known that the Public Works Director was unqualified [by the standards of the Watershed Management Plan when she was put in that position] to serve in that position and she has overseen  three years of incompetent response to a serious threat. Would you like to characterize my concerns as political?  Look at the facts.  Not only that, why don't you start talking about the facts instead of diverting attention to some conspiracy of political manipulation?

No one is indispensable and there are backup certified personnel in the water department as well as an engineer on staff. This problem started when Gilham got rid of a good engineer and put Tim "Scenic Vista" Collins in charge and then Gilham's secretary, Owen, replaced Collins.  For the Council not to rectify the situation by suggesting changes in staff, after the damage that has been done to our community, would be akin to criminal negligence. Mike Kee wasn't elected, Council was, and they can replace him if he doesn't correct a situation that led to the Crypto Crisis.

I haven't received a response from Councilor Button, but Councilor Dorrah noted that:

not only are we not supposed to voice negative opinions publicly or by email, we are not to voice them directly either. 

Sounds like the classic dysfunctional family to me.

OK, so I'll never get a response from a Councilor again. Well, they don't normally respond anyway, and I thought it would provide a needed window into what was  going on.  Their votes, and statements at Council meetings are quite revealing enough in any event. If one becomes a Councilor, they should know that their views should properly be open to all their constituents. After all, as Councilor Button might say, we wouldn't want anything to occur "behind the screen of privacy."

__

All the handwringing about a possible shakeup in Public Works seems a little odd when you contrast it with the forced resignation (more like a summary execution) of Public Works Director Dick Fleming back in April of 2004.

The April 5, 2004 Baker City Herald article quotes Fleming as saying "I did not receive any explanation" I really don't know" when asked why City Manager Gilham asked him to resign. 

In addition to cutting the city's payroll, Gilham told the Baker City Herald at the time that:

"Gillham said he sought Fleming's resignation "not so much for performance reasons as work style:
"I like to move at a more aggressive pace, to see more action in certain areas"

Gilham said he was comfortable moving Collins into the public works job because he believes the job requires management skills, but not necessarily technical ones.

 Say what? So he gets rid of an engineer as Public Works Director, which is what the Watershed Plan asks for, and puts then City Attorney Tim Collins in charge? About two years later, Michelle Owen, who I am told had worked for the city in secretarial positions for three years, lastly as City Recorder, was appointed Director of Public Works. I was also told that prior to that she was a checker at Albertsons.  Unfortunately, Ms. Owen's professional and educational qualifications pertaining to civil engineering, and any certifications, do not turn up in any of the annual watershed reports, as required. 

While Mr. Gilham gave some rather odd reasons for his summary execution of Dick Fleming, I have heard that it may have had something to do with a letter he sent to Scenic Vista developer Steven Jones almost a year earlier.

In the April 21, 2003 letter from then Baker City Public Works Director Dick Flaming to Scenic Vista developer Steven Jones, Fleming detailed problems he had with the construction of the Scenic Vista water tanks and other aspects of agreements between the developer and the city.

The City Attorney at the time, Tim Collins, went ahead and accepted the improvements in the subdivision, including the water tanks, a little over three months later, on July 31, 2003. This act made Baker City responsible for the tanks that the state and Mr. Fleming had problems with.

Mr. Fleming was asked to resign less that a year later, April 2004, by then City Manager Jerry Gilham.

Mr. Tim Collins has had a home in the very small (7 homes?) subdivision for about 6 years, and in 2012, the city was forced to pay to replace and upgrade the faulty tanks to the tune of nearly $200,000.

One last item.

In the 2010 Watershed Management Report, dated September 29, 2010, Water Supervisor Larry McBroom wrote that:

In accordance with EPA and DHS, the City is currently sampling raw surface water for Cryptosporidium and Giardia for the long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Treatment Rule. As of this date, lab reports are all negative for Crypto and Giardia. 

We learned later that crypto had been found in the Baker City Water supply as early as April of 2010. If he didn't know about the positive test, who did?

_____

Part 1--Thoughts about the Council Work Session of August 29, 3013

[Edited and split into two parts, added material about the 2004 forced resignation of Public Works Director Dick Fleming to Part 2, 8/31/13. Again, if the YouTube videos don't play, just click on the link above them.]

Councilor Dorrah says he found more cows in the watershed yesterday, a day after Thursday's Council Work Session where he informed staff and Council that cows were still getting in, but hey, who cares. . . . . After all, Don Foster, the relevant rancher/permittee, assured us in a letter to the editor in the Baker City Herald on August 28, 2013 that:

"These are three-wire drift fences designed so game can jump then, but good enough to turn cattle. Maintenance is not the responsibility of the city or the Forest Service. It is the responsibility of the permittee — yours truly — who grazes the cattle. Being responsible for the fence maintenance, as well as the cattle grazing, I can tell you this: The fencing was done. The cattle, during the time of this crypto outbreak, were in the California Gulch pasture. They are now in the Blue Canyon/Auburn area with some that have drifted north to Elk Creek. While three pair did briefly enter the watershed last week below the diversion they were removed quickly since when I got the call I was nearby and horseback. The fence where they entered was fixed immediately. I have what I consider a good relationship with the city water folks. If they see cattle, or signs of cattle, I respond as soon as possible.  . . . .My family takes our ranch duties and work seriously."

Too bad the city rarely informs the Forest Service of cattle trespass on the watershed, with whom we are told they also have a "good relationship."

The Council work session agenda of August 29, 2013 states under item 3, that the sole purpose was a "Discussion of Council/Staff Relations. I was under the impression that the subject might have something to do with the fact that city staff has seemingly, according to council videos, minutes and personal emails, repeatedly, over a three year period, not reported important facts to the Council, the City Manager, or the public.  I thought that their lack of communication within that apparent relationship, including not informing Council and the public for over a year (March 2010 to November 2011) about the fact that crypto had been found in our water, that they had known since at least 2011 that cows were gaining entry into our watershed, that we were supposed to have a fence installed in in the watershed by the spring of 2012, and that City Manager Kee said he didn't know on August 15, 2013 whether cows had been in our watershed, might be a matter of discussion.  How wrong I was!

Thankfully, Councilor Dennid Dorrah stepped up at the beginning of the meeting to tell Council that during his visits to the watershed over the last week, cows were still in the watershed, in the pasture they were not scheduled to be in, and that the fence to keep them out was in deplorable condition. He actually went up there with his own materials and labor to try to repair the fence during that time to try and keep them out. This after city staff, the Forest Service, and the permittee were informed of the problem!

Here is his presentation, part one:
Councilor Dorrah on Cows He Found In & next to the Watershed 083013

In the video above, Councilor Dennis Dorrah shares information with Council about trips he took this last week to the Elk Creek area of the Baker City Watershed. He relates that even after recent events showing that cows were getting into the watershed that cows are STILL getting in through a poorly maintained fence, are still in the pasture adjacent to the watershed where they are not supposed to be, and that he counted 19 cows in the wrong pasture next to the watershed. On his own initiative, he took fencing materials up to repair a section of leaky fence that runs for about a hundred yards east of the allotment fence gate. His investigation revealed a calf in the allotment (calves are more likely to carry Cryptosporidium parvum which can cause human disease when it gets into the water supply) and then asked for immediate action to put in a good fence in place to keep cows out of the watershed so that we do not face the possibility of another drinking water crisis next spring or summer. He reminded everyone that keeping our water filtration exemption depends upon us making every effort to keep cattle out of the watershed.

He also provided Council with photographs of the fence where he says cows could and did gain access, a photo of two cow/calf pairs just outside the watershed after a calf came back out, and a photo of the repairs he had made:

This is the place where Councilor Dorrah said the calf got in and got out. He noted the lower wire is anywhere from 26 to 36 inches above the ground, and will raise higher when an animal goes underneath. Note bent lower wires.

                    Cows near watershed fence.
There are two cows and two calves outside the watershed fence in this grainy closeup picture. Councilor Dorrah reported that one of the calves was inside the watershed originally, but when he went down to run him out, he charged back to mama who was outside the watershed fence. 

A portion of fence that Councilor Dorrah repaired with new fence posts and wire:

Councilor Dorrah described this as "an area where cattle WERE crossing. The top wire WAS twenty-six inches above the ground. I, with a helper, put in four posts and ran two new strands of barbed wire above the existing fence (which I was able to raise some on the new posts). It held pretty good.....bent but not broken when cattle tried to cross there at their favorite spot."

The Council then responded to Councilor Dorrah's concerns in the following video (description just below video):

Councilor Dorrah on Cows in Watershed Part 2 with Council & Staff Response 082913

Council responds to Councilor Dennis Dorrah's request for quick action on building a new fence to protect watershed from trespass cattle.  City Manager Kee informs Council that most recent results were received and that they are negative for crypto. My questions from an earlier blog are: 

Why weren't City Manager Kee, the Councilors, and the citizens of Baker City more aware of the fact  that Public Works Department personnel have known about cows getting into the watershed for over two years? Why didn't we know that the Department of Public works told the state Drinking Water Program on November 18, 2011, less than two weeks after we were told about the crypto in our water supply, that:"In order to better protect the Elk Creek Diversion Intake we will be constructing new fence next spring [Spring of 2012--over a year ago] along the boundaries of the city owned 40 acre parcel. The new fencing will prevent any livestock from entering into the city property. 

Similarly, why weren't we all, including City Manager Mike Kee, informed early on that the Watershed Management report from March 4, 2013 stated: "Also the City has purchased materials to construct a barb wire fence around 40 acres of City owned land surrounding the Elk Creek Diversion. This fence will provide a barrier for cattle ranging in the close proximity. Currently there is a meandering range allotment fence that extends for miles. This fence protects the Elk Creek Watershed and is in good repair most of the time, but there have been incidents where cattle have found their way to the wrong side of the fence. The new fence will protect the diversion and approximately 1/4 mile ofthe Elk Creek riparian zone from stray cattle." The promised fence was never built. So, given that safe drinking water is of fundamental importance to the healthy functioning and economic prosperity of a city, and given that Public Works knew that cows were regularly trespassing on the watershed around Elk Creek, why wasn't the plan to build that fence in the spring of 2012 followed?  I was told by a person at the state level that "the fencing project was not undertaken due to time/manpower limitations." Well, during that time, our resources in time and manpower were being spent on expanding the irrigation pond at the golf course and on Resort Street under-grounding of utilities. (See the Weekly Reports for the period in question.) 

To continue the description of the discussion in the above video: During this Council session, City Manager Mike Kee tells Council that: "We had a meeting with the Forest Service yesterday and talked about allotments, uh, to see what we can do, and it's not that cattle can't be in there now, it's that the Ranger has the discretion to put cattle on any of the allotments--it's all up to the Ranger--and the Ranger doesn't have any concern that those cattle are on the allotment [that is not the impression I got from talking to Wallowa-Whitman range supervisors, maybe he/she didn't have concerns about cattle being on the allotment, but he/she did have concerns about them being in the wrong pasture.] . . . . and [garbled] I don't think it is as immediate as ah Councilor Dorrah--. . . but, so uh I didn't answer the question. . . . uh, if it's thousands of dollars to build a new fence . . . we'll just divert the money to build a new fence."  After more talk, Councilor Dorrah says "Well, again, my issue is, we've gotta get the cattle out of there now . . . period.  And I think there is something to be said for having some fence in place, . . . ." Mike Kee says there has been talk with the epidemiologists of picking up some of the cow pies along the creek.  It goes on, and on, but Councilor Button says about the fence that there is no "ironclad guarantee that cattle won't get through it." Couldn't agree more, but we need to try.

It is worth noting that when Councilor Dorrah went down to repair fence again the day after this discussion, that he heard several cows bellowing inside the watershed down near the Elk Creek diversion, which, thankfully, is not currently being used. He patched three more sections of fence (three posts, one each between existing posts), but believes it is "an exercise in futility." "The worst WAS the fifty feet between posts and he could lift the bottom wire four feet above the ground and push top wire down to two feet above the ground." "Definitely need a little more than some maintenance up there."
[See part 2 here. Part 2--Thoughts about the Council Work Session of August 29, 3013]

_____

Updated Crypto Update: Comments and Questions 8/4/13 7:17 PM

This update includes engineering reports and cost estimates from 2009 and 2012 for UV treatment and an article on the new, on cue, national security "threats."

                           Goodrich Reservoir, Baker City Watershed
The City of Baker City released another drinking water warning yesterday which confirms that Cryptosporidium is in the water supply. They state that "Water samples taken on July 31 were positive for Cryptosporidium in water from the watershed supply and treated water (distribution system)." 

How much Crypto is in the water supply? Are the concentrations they found significantly high, or rather low? What were the sources and what are the locations where positive samples were taken?  Why are they not releasing the information about the locations and concentrations? Where is the transparency that people so cherish but see so little of?

When governments don't release available information to the public, when there is no good reason not to release it, it makes people think they are trying to hide something.  Why would they want to cover-up that information?  People are still wondering why the city didn't tell us the details of how positive Crypto results were kept from the public and the Council for over a year in 2010 and 2011. No one has been held accountable publicly other than Mike Kee taking it upon himself, which only hides the actual details and the identity of those actually responsible.

I sent an email to City Manager Mike Kee and Public Works Director Michelle Owen this Morning asking for the locations and concentrations for the positive samples. I have not yet received a response.

[Update 1:52PM:  Since I posted this I see that Mike Kee has selectively released the information I asked for earlier (10 AM) today to their favored commercial media information massage outlet, the Herald, but neither Kee nor Michelle Owen has given this citizen blogger the courtesy of a response. They prefer to give it first to a corporation. (The Herald is owned by a corporation, Western Communications, Inc.) The city did not even post the information on our own city website before releasing it to the Herald (and still hasn't). Par for the course. The Herald seems to be updating as I write now.  Bottom line: it was found in Goodrich but they didn't test other possible watershed sources, which they say they are now doing]

__

In a comment on the Herald website, someone who calls himself "Jeff" references a YouTube video that I put up about two years ago.  SEE:

Dorrah & Calder Still Think Drinking Water Safe102511.mp4 

It is worth noting that in the video, Mike Kee reminds the Council, some of whom have been urging a go slow approach, that: 

"...we want to do everything we can to keep this water safe, that we are providing for our public, so anything we can do to move forward with this process, I think we should. Can we go slow and avoid spending money? Yes we can, but we need to keep moving forward."

I take that as a bit of push-back from the City Manager on the go-slow approach [even though they didn't follow through with additional testing]. It is also worth noting that in 2009, the price for the UV treatment was estimated to be only $2.5 million, and that compliance was required by October 2013 (Since delayed until 2016). Membrane filtration, in 2009, was estimated to cost about $17.7 M and cost over 25 times as much as UV to operate. By 2012, the estimated cost for UV treatment was $1.84M to $3.14M. While a go-fast approach (i.e., install some approved effective treatment ASAP--before the deadline) is almost unheard of for public safety compliance, it could have saved us from the illnesses, economic hit, and repuational loss, that we are now experiencing.

See Table 2 (about p. 5 or 6 depending on whose counting):
Click link below to read on Scribd.

2009 Disinfection Options to Comply with LT2ESWTR

  2009disinfectionoptionstocomplywithlt2eswtr-november09draft

See also page 6, Project Budget Schedule, UV Kick‐Off Meeting & Technology Workshop, Baker City, OR, January 12, 2012 (on Scribd):

  UV Kick‐Off Meeting & Technology Workshop, Baker City, OR, January 12, 2012

 __

Also on the Herald, one "Loran Joseph" states that:

The exposure was estimated to have occurred as late as July 26th. With a minimum 2 days before symptoms occur, plus lab test return time, the city couldn't have been informed of this more than a day before this article was released. The city is being very diligent. 

I agree that the city has been diligent since the time they were told of the infected citizens by the County Health Department. The testing issue is different though.

The city has said that they started using water from Goodrich Reservoir on the 15th. If that is a source of the Crypto [turns out it was confirmed as a source on 8/4/13], then exposure for citizens drinking water out of the tap could, and likely did, begin within one or two days, i.e., by the 17th, and certainly no later than the 18th. The city has not told us whether Goodrich Reservoir is a source of the Crypto, although I was told by Mike Kee on the 31st that they were going to collect goat droppings for testing. If Goodrich was confirmed as a source [it has been confirmed 8/4/13], then they could have confirmed the presence of Crypto, before using the water, by testing it a week prior to opening. (That is one reason the city needs to tell us where the source or sources of contamination were.)

Given the earlier detection of Crypto, instead of relying on the wishful thinking of Councilors about our "safe" water supply, and despite the lack of a requirement, the city should have been testing the water on a regular basis after the first round of testing ended. I believe the episode points to regulatory failure by the state and federal governments, and a lack of prudence by city officials and the Council.

Competence, foresight and prudence is what the Council gets elected for and what city staff gets paid for. If we continue to elect Councils whose primary concern is Main Street area businesses and the needs of the well off, and if the city is hiring employees according to the "Baker Buddy System" instead of on appropriate education and merit, and if they are going to continue to insist on remaining unaccountable, then we citizens will suffer continuing crises, elite theft, and inefficient government.

__

If you are really interested in the early history of the Crypto issue please read this previous blog:

Monday, November 14, 2011

Accountability for Baker City's Cryptosporidium Fiasco--is the elephant still in the room?

In This Edition:
- Review and Summary of Events
- Council responses to my question , i.e.: When were you first informed that Crypto was in the water?
- Crypto Time line, from Council reports and etc.
_________

The new, on cue, national security "threats."

Crying Wolf, Wolf, Wolf

By Moon Of Alabama

August 03, 2013 "Information Clearing House -  After weeks  under heavy pressure for limitless spying on people everywhere the U.S. intelligence services conveniently detect a "threat" of some undefined future attacks. The "detection", we are of course told, was only possible because of limitless spying on people everywhere:

The United States intercepted electronic communications this week among senior operatives of Al Qaeda, in which the terrorists discussed attacks against American interests in the Middle East and North Africa, American officials said Friday.

The intercepts and a subsequent analysis of them by American intelligence agencies prompted the United States to issue an unusual global travel alert to American citizens on Friday, warning of the potential for terrorist attacks by operatives of Al Qaeda and their associates beginning Sunday through the end of August.

Just a month ago we were told that the "terrorists" are changing their communication because of the NSA snooping leaks:

The Al-Qaeda and other terrorist are reportedly changing their communication methods in light of the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden about US led NSA 'surveillance programme'.
...
US officials said that virtually every terrorist organization including Al-Qaeda is changing the way they communicate to hide from the US surveillance after the revelations about the leaks were reported in the media.
...
Private analysis firm IntelCenter's Ben Venzke said that the leaks by Snowden serve as a wake-up call to extremists and other hostile actors to analyse how they are working and improve their security.

Is it not a bit weird that just a month after that "wake-up call" and the "changed communications" talks between "senior operatives of Al Qaeda" are now easily detectable by the same intelligence services that warned of those changes?

And what is it about these "terrorists" that the "threat" from them ends after August 31?

Even some "analysts and Congressional officials" the NYT mentions in one short paragraph find this somewhat suspicious:

Some analysts and Congressional officials suggested Friday that emphasizing a terrorist threat now was a good way to divert attention from the uproar over the N.S.A.’s data-collection programs, ...

Ahh - you don't say ...

But the sentence continues:

... and that if it showed the intercepts had uncovered a possible plot, even better.

So it would be even better if now, as a warning has been given, something would happen to some U.S. embassy in the Middle East. That then would justify the warning and of course also justify the intelligence services NSA's limitless spying on people everywhere that made the warning possible.

Hmm - how much does it cost, let's say in Yemen, to have some guys on a motorcycle fire a few shots at an embassy guard?

This article was originally posted at Moon Of Alabama

City Council to Discuss a Revised Burning Ordinance Tomorrow Night

City Council will discuss a revised Burning Ordinance at tomorrow's, Tuesday night (7 PM) Council meeting.

Agenda Items (From the Council Packet):

1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance/Invocation--(Councilor Bonebrake)
3. Roll Call--B. Fitzpatrick
4. Consent Agenda
a. Minutes of May 10, 2011 Regular Session--B. Fitzpatrick, Motion/Approve
5. Citizens' Participation
(Citizens may address the Council on items not on the Agenda. Council may not be able to provide an immediate answer or response, but will direct staff to follow-up within three days on any question raised. Out of respect to the Council and others in attendance, please limit your comment to three (3) minutes. Please state your name and address for the record.)
6. Proclamation for Poppy Day--Mayor Dorrah, Read
7. Ordinance No. 3302 Bum Permit--J. Price, Motion/Approve
Possible 1st Reading
8. Ordinance No. 3303 Create Parks and Recreation Board--M. Kee, Motion/Approve
Possible 3rd Reading
9. Award of the 2011 Thin Overlay Paving Bid--M. Owen, Motion/Approve
10. Resolution No. 36592010-2011 Budget Changes--J. Dexter, Motion/Approve
11. Rules and Procedures of the Baker City Council--M. Kee, Discussion/
Informational
12. City Manager/Department Head Comments
13. Council Comments
14. Adjourn
__

Burning Ordinance (No. 3302)

The city has made a few changes to the new burning ordinance (No. 3302) they introduced about a month ago. One positive change, from my perspective, is that they changed the hours allowed for burning to between 7 AM and Dusk. The ordinance introduced a month ago had restricted burning to between 7 AM and 4 PM, when many people are working, at least on week days.

You can find the revised burning ordinance in the May 24 Council Packet that was posted this morning.

They are still restricting what can be burned in burn barrels. The new ordinance will change the things that are allowed to be burned in burn barrels by eliminating yard debris and wood, etc., and allowing only paper. There are some problems for citizens with this approach, as discussed below, the main one being that those who don't have the space required for open burning will no longer be able to burn yard debris in their burn barrels. There are other problems as well, and I will point them out in a post following tomorrow night's meeting, as I have very limited time right now.

I sent the following e-mail regarding the revised burning ordinance to the Council and City Manager today:

Monday, May 23, 2011

Dear Councilors and City Manager:

Mike posted the Council Packet to the city website this morning (Thanks Mike) and I was just now able to read it over for the first time.

A few questions/comments:

1. The Purpose states that:
This ordinance shall promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Baker City due to the air pollution and fire hazards caused by residential burning involving burn barrels, open burning and the burning of refuse.

As has been pointed out, air quality in Baker City has been improving for several years. The new ordinance will change the things that are allowed to be burned in burn barrels by eliminating yard debris and wood, etc. While these burnable items are allowed in legal open burning by the ordinance, many residents in Baker City's higher density neighborhoods will no longer be able to burn them due to the 25 foot radius required for open burning. They won't have the room required, so even though they might have the radius allowed for using burn barrels, they will no longer be able to use them for their most common purpose--the burning of yard debris, wood and cuttings.

1a. Is it your unstated purpose to make burn barrels useless for their primary use at many city residences and thus eliminate the burning of yard debris, wood and cuttings at these residences (due to the lack of space for open burning?

1b. Do you have any data from local studies that would indicate periodic "residential burning involving burn barrels, open burning and the burning of refuse" is significantly detrimental to the "public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Baker City due to the air pollution and fire hazards caused by" this type of burning as it is practiced in Baker City? If there were some objective data available, it could be balanced against the harm that will be caused to the users of burn barrels by this ordinance.

2. When the ordinance refers to "small commercial fire pits and grills," is it referring to items commercially available for consumers at retail outlets, or to pits and grills used at commercial establishments, or both?

3. SECTION 3. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, states under E., that "Only untreated wood, paper products and yard debris are permitted to be burned."

SECTION 5. OPEN PILE BURNING REQUIREMENTS, states under A., that "Open burn piles shall only contain dry leaves, wood, or paper."

One might assume that instead of just dry leaves, that the ordinance intended to allow the normal practice of allowing other yard debris, such as weeds and plant stems like old raspberry canes as well. Is the latter the correct reading and intent?

That's all for now. Thanks for a reply.

Sincerely,

Chris

My previous post on this issue can be found at:

MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011
War on the Poor Escalates--City Ordinance Would Add Restrictions to Burn Barrels (There is a New Burn Fee Too!)

More after tomorrow night's meeting.
__

War on the Poor Escalates--City Ordinance Would Add Restrictions to Burn Barrels (There is a New Burn Fee Too!)

[Edited May 10, 2011]
Note--According to the Council Meeting Agenda, Council will consider a possible second reading of the new burning ordinance on Tuesday, May 10, in City Hall at 7 pm. A possible second reading might not be true--they may do both a second and a third reading and pass the ordinance.

New Note: May 10, 2011.

I Watched the video of the meeting tonight--they are taking another look. They say they are concerned that a few issues may have come up, and that they they are concerned that they might be restricting open burning like barbeques, recreational burning, and religious ceremonies, so they are going to redo it. Note that they have no concern for the poor and low income people.The issue, and the new ordinance, will be addressed at the next Council meeting.
__

Listening to the Council, led by Councilor Calder (on this issue), discuss burn barrels and a new burning ordinance at the April 26 meeting, one might have gotten the impression that burning, especially in burn barrels, is creating an air quality emergency, while requiring a huge drain of Fire Department resources for investigating complaints.

In my view, the ordinance is a solution in search of a problem and a heavy-handed regulation that treats us all like children. It is a form of collective punishment that like my old second grade teacher, would make the whole class stay after school for the transgressions of a few. Of four immediately adjacent neighbors (across, behind, or next door), all burn, either open, with burn barrels, or both, except one. The one that doesn't, a life-long County resident, has no problem with the long-standing practice. At least one (perhaps two), didn't know about the change for burn barrels until I spoke with him 3 days before the May 10th meeting. Similar situations exist throughout our fair city of less than ten thousand people. I don't currently use a burn barrel, although I would like to in the future, and I do burn yard debris.

The ordinance, in restricting the time of burning to between the hours of 7AM and 4 PM (so that working people will be less able to use them, as pointed out to Council by Jim Silsby at the April 26th meeting), by restricting the use of burn barrels to the incineration of paper only, and by restricting the space needed to "15 feet from any combustibles (buildings, vehicles, fences, etc.) and property lines," will make the primary uses of burn barrels illegal for many residents, who may not be able to comply with the seemingly unreasonable content restrictions and the space needed for open pile burning.

Concerning air quality, Councilor Calder stated it was a "quality of life Issue." She stated a citizen with "breathing issues" came in, apparently to her upscale shop on Main Street, and complained about burning, while telling her that a fee of $180.00 a year would be appropriate because that is what it would cost a residence for garbage pick-up.

Is Air Quality really a Concern?

That was my question, so I asked the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) what our air quality has been over the last 5 years (2006 to 2010). Their records indicate the following:

In 2006 there were 329 Good days, 25 Moderate days, 0 UFSG (US EPA Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups), and 0 Unhealthy days.

In 2007 there were 324 Good days, 39 Moderate days, 0 UFSG (US EPA Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups), and 0 Unhealthy days.

In 2008 there were 331 Good days, 34 Moderate days, 1 UFSG (US EPA Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups), and 0 Unhealthy days.

In 2009 there were 336 Good days, 25 Moderate days, 0 UFSG (US EPA Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups), and 0 Unhealthy days.

In 2010 there were 345 Good days, 11 Moderate days, 0 UFSG (US EPA Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups), and 0 Unhealthy days.

So in fact, last year, 2010, was our best air quality year for the five your period. It has been getting better since the 1980s actually.

There is no doubt that there may be some transient and very short-lived concerns about smoke when someone burns yard debris, especially if no one has taken the time to inform them about how to do it properly (no wet leaf piles, air intake vents at bottom of burn barrel, etc.). If it is done properly, the concerns should be minimal, much less than what is experienced from, or while driving through a Forest Service controlled burn, or as experienced when driving by the city homes the Fire Department occasionally lights up for training exercises, where the smoke is intense and the smell lingers for days (as they did a week ago or so). Less problematic for many than when someone burns the willows and weeds in an irrigation ditch, in or outside of the city. Less problematic for many in fact than the noise produced by the constant rumble, horns and delays caused by the ever present trains or the early morning high-pitched buzz of planes flying low over the city.

Councilor Calder: "it's about time!"


While some of Ms. Calder's clientele, those so very special connoisseurs with the money to purchase the fine wines and cheeses, "organic" produce, fancy gadgetry, and other high-priced items (I and many of my neighbors can't afford to shop there), may object to the long established practice of burning in our small economically divided town, burning is often practiced among lower income people who depend upon it because they can't afford garbage service. Many who can afford garbage service burn too. In my mind, there is more to it than the judgements of the well heeled in balancing the alleged good versus the alleged bad. She and the rest of the Council ignore the importance of the fact that 650 burn permits were issued last year, which likely understates the number of residences who burn yard debris, limbs and paper every year. She did report the anecdotal number of 100 complaints to her, and another 100 phantom complaints to the city administration, to add to the 100 after the fact, and 40 active burning complaints cited by Fire Chief Price, which she admitted might be all the same (100 or so) people), but even her anecdotal numbers still show the users of the long established practice of burning far out numbering those who complain. [This whole episode, along with the Property Maintenance Ordinance, reminds me of the folks in a place I once lived, who moved into new tract houses near a dairy, and immediately began complaining about the smell, as if it was something new, abnormal and obnoxious--ultimately driving out the dairy.]

Baker City Fire Chief Jim Price

I did ask Fire Chief Price to document the equipment, time and money involved in the 40 "active" (they went down to take a look) complaints he said they received for illegal burning. Concerning the documentation, I simply said "I would like to be able to see any documentation you might have." The reason I asked is because the Council didn't, and it seemed to me that if the city is going to start restricting burning, and charging for burn permits, that they ought to look into the reality of his claims. Staff has distorted the truth before, as you probably know. In his response to my request, he said he would have the documentation on Monday, but he did not say he was charging me for it. On Monday, after he got the documentation, he told me he would charge me $59,50 for the information, which I cannot afford to pay. Seems like someone ought to bring that information up in a spreadsheet or list of individual reports in about ten minutes.

In contrast to Chief Price's response, Police Chief Lohner responded to a request for information on property maintenance cases without asking for money. He had the info on property maintenance available in spread sheet form, except for some details that he referred me to the Sheriff's department for. I'm perfectly willing to pay for the 25 cents a copy, but Chief Lohner provided quite a bit of information on one sheet without cost.

[Aside: My main concern about the response to asking for the information is that there was no discussion of any charges in the Fire Chief's initial response about getting the information. For example, when I ask the city for a CD/DVD they tell me what it will cost up front. If I ask Circuit Court for a copy of a record, they tell me I have to pay $0.25 a copy with no labor charge. I didn't feel like I was making a more formal public records request as cost has not been a major concern in any other requests for information, and Chief Price did not indicate that it would be a time consuming problem for him and costly for me. If I thought he was going to charge a large amount of money, I would have made a formal request with all the appropriate language about waivers for the public interest, limits on cost before proceeding, etc.

One has to wonder whether the fire department is keeping any of their call info on spreadsheets/databases.  You'd think that might be the minimum standard in our advanced, historic "fair city."]

Will the ordinance serve the goals sought by its proponents to restrict burning of plastics and other obnoxious or toxic materials?

While the ordinance may bring the city mostly undeserved additional revenue, it will make it harder for truly low income people to get rid of yard debris, without providing people-friendly options. Many do have wood stoves and fire places that can, do and will serve as incinerators for some of these materials. If catalytic and more efficient wood stoves are then used for the purpose, it will reduce the efficiency of the stoves and result in even more smoke and particulate pollution in Baker City. Think--Which chimney is that burning plastic odor coming from, anyway?

"People-Friendly" Solutions to getting rid of the waste (Are there better alternatives than criminalizing the unfortunate?):

I discussed some of these options with City Manager Kee back in late April.

Ask the monopoly private garbage pick-up business, Baker Sanitary (I have recently received a rumor that Baker Sanitary is selling the business to another, probably larger, garbage business [think Waste Management type corporate conglomerate?], or whoever they may be, to provide containers more appropriate for the amount of garbage produced at the residence. Many cities provide a smaller container for those residences with one or few individuals, at an appropriately reduced cost. I once brought this up to the owner of Baker Sanitary at a Council meeting, but it didn't fly with him.

Manager Kee suggested that another solution on the above theme would be to provide bi-monthly pick-up, instead of weekly, to reduce cost to the resident. I would think in the case of singles or in some cases couples with no children at home, that once a month pick-up would be enough. As a single low income person, I produce about a cubic foot of garbage (or less) per week that I can't otherwise legally get rid of through recycling or burning (and I don't always burn what I could), but your mileage will vary due to consumption patterns and other variables. I often see larger families with over-flowing garbage receptacles every week. It seems clear that the costs to dispose of their garbage should be more than those producing little garbage, unless of course, you think that those producing little garbage should subsidize those the produce a lot.

Encourage people, like neighbors, to share a percentage of the cost in maintaining a single garbage container.

Encourage, as a public service, the local monopoly garbage business to take in yard waste for free for a few weeks in the spring and fall, instead of just restricting free yard debris dumping to only those those with accounts.

Encourage use of leaves and grass clippings for mulch and compost.

Instead of banning the most popular use of burn barrels--burning of yard debris and limbs--educate residents on proper burning techniques and construction of air intake openings on burn barrels so that combustion of materials can take place more completely and efficiently without causing smoke.

Urge compliance with current laws by pointing out the wonderful opportunity to recycle plastics and other toxic materials at Baker Sanitary's great recycling facility on Campbell Street. If police of neighbors smell burning plastic in the neighborhoods, remind the offenders of the law and the harm it does, as well as the availability of the recycling facility. If the practice continues, cite them.

Does Councilor Calder have different standards for the business related proposed liquor license fee and the proposed burn permit fee?

Councilor Calder on liquor license fee at April 26 Council Meeting:


Jeanie Dexter, Finance Director, explained that there used to be a $10.00 city liquor license renewal fee before it was removed four years ago at the request of Council.

Councilor Calder responded that "four years ago, when we removed that renewal fee, it was because there was no real work to the city for that renewal fee" because the Chief's work is done during the OLCC [Oregon Liquor Control Commission]license renewal process.

Finance Director Dexter, in response to that point, noted that "there is quite a bit of work . . . involved in patrol obviously with some of those businesses that have those liquor licenses, obviously not all of them. . . ." [Alcohol related under the influence incidents, fighting, disturbances and accidents, both at a bar and afterwards, sometimes at home as in domestic violence and violation of restraining orders, or on the way home like DUII. There may be no record tying the seller of alcohol to the subsequent incidents. While some bars may selectively cut-off certain individuals for their own reasons, many serve alcohol to others beyond the point of slight inebriety.]

Councilor Calder responded that "I think everything that has come to Council as needing attention, has been related, I mean what we've heard about, has been related to the gaming license facilities, … there is no role in a business license renewal with OLCC . . .You have to show that you have your multi-million dollar worth of liability insurance [ Wildly overstated. OLCC website says that for brew pubs and On-Premises Commercial Licenses "applicants must obtain and maintain liquor liability insurance in the minimum amount of $300,000," not multi-million dollar amounts of liability insurance. Chris.] Calder goes on-. . . it requires nothing from the city so to charge is strictly revenue generating. There is nothing in the act of renewing a license that generates a cost to the city." [Emphasis added. I do recall previous council meetings regarding problems at establishments like Stockman's and others.]

City Manager Kee responded that "there is work that we put into these renewals. . .because they have to check to make sure whether any laws have been broken."

Chief Lohner indicated that while there may not be much work associated with approving OLCC licenses for businesses unless there is something abnormal "but throughout the year, obviously, if there are issues that goes on, I discuss that with OLCC, so there is an ongoing through the year. . . ."

It seems clear that businesses that sell liquor are associated with post license renewal police work.

How does Councilor Calder see the burn permit fee issue?

Councilor Calder's Different Standard on Burn Permit Fees


As pointed out by Baker City resident Jim Silsby at the April 24 meeting, issuing a permit takes about 5 minutes, about the same for dog licenses. Chief Lohner indicated that renewal of liquor licenses may take as little as ten minutes if there are no past issues to consider, but more time if there are.

Note that Councilor Calder also misrepresents number of cities that allow burning and is no longer trying to tie a fee, in this case the brand new $25.00 burn permit fee, to just the cost of issuing the permit, or, in fact, to any cost actually related to those costs. She is not even concerned apparently with the cost of issuance in this case, as she was with the liquor license fee. That is likely due to the fact that she has wanted to get rid of burn barrels for over a decade and seems to prefer limiting costs for business owners, a class of which she is a prominent member, but has little real concern for those who need a burn permit.

Is the User Fee Approach to Fees (Taxes) Always Appropriate?

Councilor Bonebrake: Fees Should be Related to Cost of Service


Councilor Bonebrake suggests we should operate on a more business-like model that reflects the cost of doing business with fees tied to the cost of service.

When Councilor Bonebrake, a founder of the Baker County Library, and also (earlier in the meeting when talking about burn permit fees) City Manager Kee, suggest that fees should be based on work generated and cost of service, does that mean that we should also reduce property taxes for education for those that have no children? Should we also quit charging sidewalk fees to those residents who have no sidewalks, don't want them, won't get them, and etc.? Will they deduct a portion of property taxes going to the airport for those who don't and won't be able to use the airport? Shall we renegotiate the incredibly generous lease on the old Carnegie Library used by the "Arts" aficionados? How about financing the library solely on user fees instead of a levy? Where does it end?

Factoids

Baker City Budget 2011-2012:
Personal Services (i.e., employee costs) represents over 71% of the total appropriations in the General Fund.

Baker City Budget 2010-2011:
Personal Services (i.e., employee costs) also represents over 71% of the total appropriations in the General Fund.

Baker City Budget 2009-2010:
Personal Services (i.e., employee costs) represents over 63% of the total appropriations in the General Fund.

Wow, >71%. No wonder we have no money for basic infrastructure and the city wants to find more revenue through fees

New 2011-2012 fee Schedule is here.


More video clips from the meeting:

Councilor Coles on New Baker City Fees and Budget Process


Councilor Roger Coles talks about potential problems associated with raising current, and creating new, city fees prior to allowing the Budget Committee, composed of the Council, and an equal number of informed citizens, to assess all budget issues first.

He explains that raising various fees for residents in the recessionary economic environment, especially for seniors who haven't seen any cost of living raise [Social Security has not had a cost-of-living increase for two straight years], when we face more important costly increases for basic services, like sewer and water, is counter-productive "nickel & diming the public" before the budget process has started.

A friend offered the thought that all the hoopla over the new burning ordinance, and the Property Maintenance Ordinance serves as a huge diversion from the pressing, real and basic infrastructure problems that we face. [Gosh, aren't you just giddy about the fact that we were busy persecuting the poor and rejecting system development charges while Baker City's infrastructure crumbled?]

(Council ultimately set the fees without allowing the citizen input from the Budget Committee deliberations.)

Perhaps more later.
The entire April Council Meeting can be downloaded at:
feed://bakercity.granicus.com/ViewPublisherRSS.php?view_id=2