hnalogo.jpg (103481 bytes)

 

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society

Home
Up
Wildfire
Rural Fire Protection District Exploratory Committee
Justice System Exploratory Committee

 

JUSTICE SYSTEM EXPLORATORY COMMITTEE

Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015
 
The Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee’s (Justice System Exploratory Committee) was formed with a definition of its July 18, 2013 scope of work, Justice System & Public Safety Services Issue Scope Of Work.  That year, and the next, it worked on understanding the issue, writing letters to the editor of The Grants Pass Daily Courier, and web publishing educational brochures on the issue.
 
   Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee. Draft July 18, 2013. Justice System & Public
   Safety Services Issue Scope Of Work (Scope) Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.
 
The 2012 expiration of federal SRS payments to JO CO, used mostly for public safety services, resulted in five county levies and one city sales tax as solutions. They all failed. However, there is a high probability for another levy to be on a future ballot. This is reasonable, as public safety services are needed, even though the form and the cost are issues.
1. May 15, 2012 JO CO-wide Primary Election Measure 17-43, Criminal Justice System Operations Four Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 57 - 43 percent, Voter Turnout - Total 52.59%; 25,405 votes for Measure 17 - 43/ 49,561 registered voters = 51%.
 
2. May 21, 2013 JO CO-wide Special Election Measure 17-49, Criminal Justice and Public Safety Three Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.48 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 51 - 49 percent, Voter Turnout - Total 51.97%; 26,331 votes for Measure 17 - 49/ 50,944 registered voters = 52%.
 
3. May 20, 2014 JO CO-wide Primary Election Measure 17-59, Criminal Justice and Public Safety Three Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.19 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 53 - 48 percent, Voter Turnout - Total 56.51%; 27,991 votes for Measure 17 - 59/ 50,655 registered voters = 55%.
 
4. May 19, 2015 JO CO-wide Special Election Measure 17-66, For Patrol, Jail, Shelter of Abused Youth; Five Year Levy (i.e., $1.40 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 54 - 46 Percent, Voter Turnout - Total 50.65%; 25,824 votes for Measure 17 - 59/ 51,143 registered voters = 51%.
 
5. November 3, 2015 Grants Pass City-wide Special Election Measure 17-67 2 Percent Sales Tax for City Public Safety and Criminal Justice Services, failed 78 - 22 Percent -
             6. November 8, 2016 JO CO-wide General Election Measure 17-74 (Referred to the People by Initiative Petition),                For Four-Year Deputies, Prosecution, Treatment and Jail Beds Tax; Four Year Levy (i.e., $1.42 per $1,000 of                assessed value), failed 60 - 40 Percent.
 
In 2015, after the 4th levy failure in four years, the JSEC Committee, HNAHS, asked the question, "What can we do to shed some light on the issues?" Members of the committee believed that the first important step was the identification of the issues for why the levies failed. Except for the recent vetted study, Citizen Perceptions of Public Safety Levies in Josephine County, Oregon: A Test of Group Engagement Theory (Davis 2016), reasons for the levy failures are complex and unknown as facts (i.e., interested citizens debate and provide opinions on their non-vetted facts). However, it is believed that vetted research of citizen issues is the most important step in developing a successful, Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015. The Authors believe it would be prudent for the BCC to take Davis up on his challenge for future research to test his conclusions about public trust in government and citizen preferences utilizing several different citizen participation mechanisms (e.g., surveys, standing JO CO Budget Committee, focus groups, JO CO Fiscal Advisory Committee, workshops).
 
   Hugo Justice System & Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee. Draft 2015. Justice System & Public
   Safety Services Study Design: 2015. Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. Hugo, OR.
 
The purpose of the proposed JS&PSS study grant is to provide grass roots opportunities, for JO CO citizens for active citizen involvement (CI), accessibility to information, and education, to better understand the JS&PSS issue, which is partially driven by the history of revenue sharing from the federal government.
 
Justice System & Public Safety Services Study Design: 2015
 
Public Outreach 
Appendices to Study Design
Press Releases
Letters-To-The-Editor
Guest Opinions
Media Articles
Voters Pamphlets
Studies & Information
Minimally Acceptable Level Of Public Safety Services
Public Safety Services (PSS)
Public Meeting Presentations
City of Grants Pass Public Safety Project Reports
Josephine County Budgets
Citizen Participation in Local Budget Process
Courts

Justice System & Public Safety Services Issue Scope Of Work

INTRODUCTION

Josephine County (JO CO) Justice System (JS) & Public Safety Services (PSS) Tax Levies

The 2012 expiration of federal funding in JO CO, used mostly for public safety services, resulted in JO CO proposing two tax levies as solutions. They both failed.

1. May 2012 JO CO-wide Measure 17 - 43, Criminal Justice System Operations Four Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.99 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 57 - 43 percent.
2. May 2013 JO CO-wide Measure 17 - 49, Criminal Justice and Public Safety Three Year Local Option Tax (i.e., $1.48 per $1,000 of assessed value), failed 51 - 49 percent.

According to The Grants Pass Daily Courier1 Grants Pass precincts would have passed the 2013 tax 59 to 41 percent and the JO CO precincts would have turned down the tax 56 to 44 percent. Overall the voting citizens of JO CO were about half and half in supporting and opposing the measure. Two examples of rural precincts in the Hugo region are Merlin and Lucky Queen. The Merlin Precinct had 58 percent against and Lucky Queen had 51 percent against (Merlin yes 209 / no 284; Lucky Queen yes 363 / no 383). Lucky Queen had the same percentages for and against as county-wide.

The Merlin Precinct had 58 percent against and
Lucky Queen Precinct had 51 percent against
Measure 17 - 49.

Many believe that the 2013 “nay” vote was not necessarily a vote of whether citizens supported the JS&PSS, but more a view of trusting government and a vote on the specific measure, including its unknowns.

Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society The name of the association is the Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society (Hugo Neighborhood and/or “HUNAHS”). The use of “HUNAHS” is a way to use the magic vowel ‘U’ in Hugo so we can have our own county-wide catchword. It is pronounced like you say Hugo, HU-NAHS.

The association is perpetual.

The Hugo Neighborhood had its roots in the Oregon Legislature’s 1973 Senate Bill 100 and birth as the Hugo Citizen Advisory Committee in January 1976. Seventeen years later in 1993 it became the Hugo Neighborhood Association, and in 2000 it reorganized into the Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society. These three associations were the same evolving organization with the primary purpose of monitoring land use applications to assure local land laws were correctly applied. The Hugo Neighborhood is a land use association with a vital interest in the history of its land and people as so reflected in its 2000 evolution into a neighborhood association with its two primary missions of land use and history.

The Hugo Neighborhood’s membership and geographical interests are focused on the Hugo area, but its land use concerns are county and statewide. Its history interests are local, but their context can be county, state, and nationwide.

The purposes of the association is to protect Hugo’s rural quality of life by promoting an informed citizenry in decision-making. The Hugo Neighborhood is a nonprofit charitable and educational organization with a land use and history mission promoting the social welfare of its neighbors by working to promote Oregon Statewide Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement, and by preserving, protecting, and enhancing the livability and economic viability of its farms, forests, and rural neighbors. Its mission follows.

Land Use     • Promote Citizen Involvement (Oregon Statewide Goal 1)
                     • Promote Education
                     • Protect Our Farms and Forests (Oregon Statewide Goals 3 & 4)
                     • Protect Our Community’s Rural Quality of Life
History         • Preserve Our Local History (preserving, documenting, promoting & interpreting)
                     • Promote Education

This nonprofit charitable and educational organization encourages free admission to Hugo Neighborhood sponsored events and donations to support its activities.

The Hugo Neighborhood is non-political and will not be involved in politics in the sense of lobbying for the outcome of a public vote of the issues or officials to be elected.

Justice System Exploratory Committee Established On June 17, 2013 the Board of the HNA&HS passed on a 3 - 0 vote the establishment of the Justice System and Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee. The mission of the committee is to independently research the JO CO JS&PSS issue and publicly provide its analysis through web page publications. Its proposed mission is limited to educating its members the best it can and sharing this information publicly. The HNA&HS believes in the sanctity of freedom of speech and the right to vote.

The Exploratory Committee is NOT to
conclude there is a right or wrong answer
nor to recommend how citizens should vote.

The HNA&HS also believes there is a high probability for another JS&PSS levy to be on a future ballot, probably 2014. It believes this is reasonable as adequate public safety services are needed, even though the form and the cost are a potential concern.

Exploratory Committee’s Structure The Exploratory Committee is a small informal nonprofit charitable and educational organization. Part of its purpose is to independently investigate the issue. Independent does not mean ignoring the valuable information and perspectives that the public and consultant resources can provide.

Members of the Committee are responsible for its health and well being. A qualification of potential members is that they be advocates for the Exploratory Committee’s mission. Existing members have the authority to independently investigate, solicit, and champion new members to the Committee.

The first job of the Hugo Justice System
Exploratory Committee is to define a potential
list of analysis issues.

Analysis Issues The first job of the Hugo Justice System Exploratory Committee is to define a potential list of issues for analysis (this scope of work). This first list will be refined and evolve as the committee moves forward with its work.

Outreach Information gathered will be made available to others for their own evaluation.

Mission Big picture ideas for the exploratory effort include the following.

1. Identifying the JS&PSS issue.
2. Identifying the JS&PSS sub-issues for research and analysis.
3. Identifying a range in level of services
4. Identifying a range of costs for services.
5. Identifying revenues for services.

The ultimate goal is an adequate justice system and public safety services. Is it possible to have a higher level of service for a lower cost? The purpose of the Exploratory Committee is to gather information adequate enough to understand the JS&PSS issues. This includes educational outreach efforts.

Exploratory Committee’s Purpose Is Not Overtly Political The Exploratory Committee’s purpose is limited to investigating, researching, and evaluating the JS&PSS issues. It will not make evaluations of legislative proposals as to “right or wrong”, nor make recommendations on how to vote.

The contents of the educational brochures are expressions of the opinions and beliefs of those that contribute based on their thoughts and experiences. Hopefully, their efforts will assist the pubic toward informed decision-making.

Exploratory Committee Process For Decision-Making What is the actual process for the Exploratory Committee’s selecting, researching, and web publishing JS&PSS issue papers and educational brochures? For instance, do the members of the Exploratory Committee “vote” (after discussion on individual suggestions/conclusions) in order to present a unified position statement, or to decide which issues are worthy of further research?

Members of the Exploratory Committee would not vote on whether JS&PSS issues would be documented in reports or educational brochures. The lead volunteer investigator for a topic, report, brochure would research and document, other EC members might comment, or pass on being involved. The mission of self-education would be accomplished on the volunteer member’s schedule without rigid deadlines. The Exploratory Committee’s goal is consensus, but it could support a majority view without a vote. Consensus is expected as all minority views can be expressed, just as the consensus and majority views in a web published paper or educational brochure. In some cases the Exploratory Committee’s published information may look in conflict with each other, but it is in fact probably reflecting the different views of citizens (i.e., pros and cons research and web publishing is encouraged).

In some cases the Exploratory Committee’s
published information may look in conflict with
each other, but it is in fact probably reflecting
the different views of citizens.

Like many volunteer organizations, the job is what folks volunteer for. One objective not proposed for the Exploratory Committee is for it to recommend how the citizens should vote on any new ballot pertaining to the issue. The Exploratory Committee’s purpose is limited to investigating and researching the JS&PSS issues. It will not make right or wrong evaluations of a legislative proposal, nor make recommendations on how to vote.

However, the Exploratory Committee is encouraged to evaluate the effectiveness of understanding what is being proposed (i.e., proposed levies, HB 3453, other alternatives). For example, how effective was the 2013 JO CO-wide Measure 17 - 49 for Criminal Justice and Public Safety Tax when the measure as written did not inform the reader as to whether any public safety services would even be funded, nor how much they would be funded?

All members of the Committee would be responsible for its health and well being. The only qualification of potential members is that they be advocates for the Exploratory Committee’s mission and the purposes for which it was formed. Existing members of the committee would have the authority to independently investigate, solicit, and champion new members to the committee, including the expertise of consultant experts, as well as analyzing and publishing their results without approval of the Hugo Neighborhood.

Justice System Exploratory Committee Information Articles

1.  Justice System & Public Safety Services Issue Scope Of Work (draft July 18, 2013)
2.

Justice System Exploratory Committee Letters to Editor

Support Funding For Justice System While Living Within Our Means
April 10, 2014 Submitted
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Wayne McKy, Hugo
 
Facts Should Support How Safety Dollars Spent
April 17, 2014 Published/Submitted April 10, 2014
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Mike L. Walker, Hugo
 
Which Safety Services Do We Really Need?
April 25, 2014 Published/Submitted April 10, 2014/
Grants Pass Daily Courier
Jon Whalen, Grants Pass

EDUCATIONAL BROCHURES

Educational brochures are authored by the Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society (HNA&HS) or the Hugo Justice System and Public Safety Services Exploratory Committee (Exploratory Committee).

Many of the brochures are qualified as "very draft" which means that they are just an idea, or "draft" which means they are the beginning of a research project to collect information on an idea. "Final" means the research on a topic is complete and the brochure only needs final editing. No qualification label means the educational brochure is web published. All brochures are considered open for public review and comments.

For the HNA&HS and Exploratory Committee verifiability means other researchers and the public reading the educational Justice System & Public Safety Services brochures, or other documents, can check where the information comes from and make their own determination if the references or sources are reliable. The HNA&HS and Exploratory Committee’s goal is not to try impose "the truth" on its readers, and does not ask that they trust something just because they authored it. They do not ask for trust. Its goal is to empower other researchers and the public through educational materials that can be checked in order for them to find their own truth.

Brochure Number System - The first breakdown for brochure serial numbers are the chapter’s 1st order roman numeral heading (I) and 2nd order upper case alphabet letter sub-section heading (I.A). Further breakdowns are the 3rd order numerial heading (I.A.1) and 4th order lower alphabet case heading (I.A.1.a)). In summary, the educational brochures’ identification numbers are the outline order headings where the material is addressed.

HNA&HS (HNA) BROCHURES

Br. II.A Hugo Justice System Exploratory Committee
Br. II.B HNA&HS Constitution
Br. II.C All Voters & Votes Are Legitimate
Br. II.D Government Needs Support

FACTS: ISSUE, PROJECTS, ANALYSIS

Br. III.A.1 Justice System Public Safety Service Issue
Br. III.A.2 JS&PSS Educational Brochures
Br. III.B.1 Potential Research Projects
Br. III.C.1 Analysis Method

FACTS: JOSEPHINE (JO) COUNTY (CO) SHERIFF’S OFFICE

Br. IIID.1.1.2 JO CO Sheriff’s Mission, Vision, Goals, & Budget
Br. IIID.1.2 Meet the Josephine County Sheriff
Br. IIID.1.2.1 JO CO Sheriff Seeking Stable Funding: 2008
Br. IIID.1.2.2 Constitution JO CO Sheriff 2nd Amendment
Br. IIID.1.2.3 Constitution JO CO Sheriff 10th Amendment
Br. IIID.1.4 JO CO Sheriff’s Office History
Br. IIID.1.5 JO CO Sheriff’s Patrol Division
Br. IIID.1.5.1 JO CO Sheriff’s Contracted Patrol: Marine Unit
Br. IIID 1.5.2 JO CO Sheriff’s Contracted Patrol: Federal Forests
Br. IIID.1.5.3 JO CO Sheriff’s Contracted Patrol: City of Cave Junction
Br. IIID.1.6 JO CO Sheriff’s Rural Patrol: K-9 Unit
Br. IIID.1.7 JO CO Sheriff’s Major Crimes Unit
Br. IIID.1.8 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Evidence Unit
Br. IIID.1.9 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Records Division
Br. IIID.1.10 OR Sheriff’s Jail Command Council
Br. IIID.1.10.1 JO CO Sheriff’s Office Jail: 2006 - 2012
Br. IIID.1.11 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Civil Division
Br. IIID.1.12 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Communications Division
Br. IIID.1.13 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Proactive Policing
Br. IIID.1.14 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Integrated Fire Plan
Br. IIID.1.15 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Animal Evacuation & Sheltering
Br. IIID.1.16 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Flood Preparedness
Br. IIID.1.17 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Community Outreach
Br. IIID.1.18 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Police Memorial
Br. IIID.1.20 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Volunteers
Br. IIID.1.20.1 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Reserve Unit
Br. IIID.1.20.2 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Mounted Posse
Br. IIID.1.20.3 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Volunteer Unit
Br. IIID.1.20.4 JO CO Sheriff’s Office: Search & Rescue
Br. IIID.2 Justice System Public Safety Services Funding History: 2000 - 2012

FACTS: JO CO JUSTICE SYSTEM PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES

Br. IIID.3 Justice System Public Safety Services Staff History: 2000 - 2012
Br. IIID.4
Br. IIID.5.3 Voter Response to 2013 Measure 17-49 JS&PSS Proposal

FACTS: MEDIA

Br. IIID.6.1.1 Citizens’ Write January - May 2013
Br. IIID.6.1.2 Citizens’ Write June 2013
Br. IIID.6.1.3 Citizens’ Write July 2013
Br. IIID.6.1.4 Citizens’ Write August 2013
Br. IIID.6.1.5 Citizens’ Write September 2013
Br. IIID.6.2.1 Coverage by The Grants Pass Daily Courier: Jan - May 2013
Br. IIID.6.2.2 Coverage by The Grants Pass Daily Courier: June 2013
Br. IIID.6.2.3 Coverage by The Grants Pass Daily Courier: July 2013
Br. IIID.6.2.4 Coverage by The Grants Pass Daily Courier: August 2013
Br. IIID.6.2.5 Coverage by The Grants Pass Daily Courier: September 2013
Br. IIID.6.3 Coverage by The Oregonian: February - July 2013
Br. IIID.6.4 Coverage by California Newspapers
Br. IIID.6.5 Coverage by Other Media
Br. IIID.7.1 First Amendment Coverage in The Daily Courier
Br. IIID.7.2 JO CO Sheriff’s "Rural Patrol"
Br. IIID.7.2.1 JO CO Sheriff’s "Rural Patrol" Coverage
Br. IIID.7.2.2 JO CO Sheriff’s "Rural Patrol" Statistical Analysis
Br. IIID.7.3 JO CO Sheriff’s Rural Patrol Reserve
Br. IIID.7.4
Br. IIID.7.5 JO CO Historical Costs of Public Safety Services
Br. IIID.7.6.1 JO CO Best Public Safety Services Our Tax Dollars Can Buy: Standards & Authorities

FACTS: DEMOGRAPHICS, BUDGETS, & TAXES

Br. IIID.8.4 OR Health Care, Prison Numbers, PERS Retirement System, Tax Expenditures
Br. IIID.8.4.1 Cost of Health Care
Br. IIID.8.4.2.1 Relentless Growth in Dept. Of Corrections (Prisons) (1 of 2)
Br. IIID.8.4.2.2 Relentless Growth in Dept. Of Corrections (Prisons) (2 of 2)
Br. IIID.8.4.3 Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS)
Br. IIID.8.4.4 Tax Expenditures
Br. IIID.8.8 Josephine County Comprehensive Plan & Zoning
Br. IIID.10.1 City of Grants Pass, or Tax Rates: 2012 - 2013
Br. IIID.10.1 Oregon’s Permanent Tax Rates
Br. IIID.10.2.1 Oregon City Size & Tax Rate
Br. IIID.10.3 Oregon State Tax Rates County Wide
Br. IIID.10.3.1 Josephine County Assessor
Br. IIID.10.3.2 Taxes Example
Br. IIID.10.3.3
Br. IIID.10.3.4 Josephine County, or Net Taxable Rate, Including History Before and after Housing Bust
Br. IIID.10.3.5 Josephine County, OR Net Tax Rate Adjusted
Br. IIID.10.4 Tax Levies Over The Years

FACTS: CRIMINAL OFFENSES, CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, & GOVERNMENT

Br. IIID.11 Types of Criminal Offenses: Felonies, Misdemeanors and Infractions
Br. IIID.12 Citizen Advocacy Strategies
Br. IIID.12.1.1 Groups Concerned with the JO CO JS&PSS Issue
Br. IIID.12.1.2 Individuals: Pro, Con, & Neutral
Br. IIID.12.1.3 Constitutional Party of Josephine County
Br. IIID.12.1.4 Grants Pass Chapter of John Birch Society
Br. IIID.12.1.5 We’re for a Constitutional Government PAC
Br. IIID.12.2.1 Trust & Ownership by Citizens
Br. IIID.12.2.2 Trust Me, I Understand
Br. IIID.13 Josephine County Government: Elected Officials, Departments
Br. IIID.13.1 Josephine County JS&PSS Issue: Elected Officials
Br. IIID.13.2 Josephine County Board of County Commissioners
Br. IIID.13.3 Josephine County JS&PSS Issue: Departments

FACTS: STANDARDS

Br. IIIE.1.1 United States Constitution
Br. IIIE.1.2 US Bill of Rights
Br. IIIE.1.3 US Declaration of Independence
Br. IIIE.1.4 Oregon Constitution
Br. IIIE.1.5 Josephine County Home Rule Charter
Br. IIIE.1.6 Oregon Agencies & Public Safety Services
Br. IIIE.1.6.1 Oregon Attorney General
Br. IIIE.1.6.2 Oregon Legislative Counsel
Br. IIIE.1.6.3 Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
Br. IIIE.1.6.3.1 OR Criminal Justice Commission & 2009 OR Governor’s Reset Cabinet
Br. IIIE.1.6.3.2 OR Criminal Justice Commission’s Public Safety Subcommittee Report
Br. IIIE.1.6.3.3 OR Criminal Justice Commission’s & OR Senate Bill 77
Br. IIIE.1.7 OR’S Minimally Adequate Public Safety Services Standards
Br. IIIE.1.7.1 Oregon Senate Bill (SB) 77: 2009
Br. IIIE.1.7.2 Oregon House Bill 4176 (2012)
Br. IIIE.1.7.3.1 Enrolled Oregon House Bill 3453: 2013 (1 of 2)
Br. IIIE.1.7.3.2 Oregon House Bill 3453 (2 of 2)
Br. IIIE.1.8.1 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 213-070-000: 2011
Br. IIIE.1.8.2 Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 213-070-000: 2013
Br. IIIE.2.1 Standards: JS&PSS Historical Costs
Br. IIIE.2.2 Standards: JS&PSS Comparison Costs
Br. IIIE.2.3 Actual or Average Costs
Br. IIIE.3.1 Defining JO CO’s Public Safety System Taxpayer Driver
Br. IIIE.3.2 CO Required to Maintain Some Minimal Level of PSS Regardless of Funding Constrains?
Br. IIIE.3.3 OR Governor’s Reset Cabinet
Br. IIIE.3.4 Best JO CO Public Safety System Our Tax Dollars Can Buy

ALTERNATIVES

Br. IIIG.1 Adequate Information & Analysis Methodology
Br. IIIG.1.1 Adequate Analysis: Information Is Understood or Not
Br. IIIG.1.2 Adequate Analysis: Supporting Arguments Are Made or Not
Br. IIIG.1.2.1 Adequate Analysis: Standard(s) of Review
Br. IIIG.1.2.2 Adequate Analysis: Applicable Evidence/Facts
Br. IIIG.2 Adequate Information Analysis Process
Br. IIIG.2.1 Adequate Analysis: Historical PSS Services & Costs
Br. IIIG.2.2 Adequate Infor Analysis: Enrolled Oregon House Bill 3453
Br. IIIG.2.3
Br. IIIG.2.4 Adequate Analysis: Lack of Confidence and Trust in Government
Br. IIIG.2.5 Adequate Analysis: Taxes
 
Br. IIIF Range JS&PSS Planning Alternatives - Proposals
Br. IIIF. 1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Br. IIIF. 2 Alternative 2: 2012 JO CO-wide Measure 17 - 43 for Criminal Justice System Operations Tax
Br. IIIF.3 Alternative 3: 2013 JO CO-wide Measure 17 - 49 for Criminal Justice and Public Safety Tax
Br. IIIF.4 Alternative 4: Minimally Adequate Alternative
Br. IIIF.5 Alternative 5: Modally Adequate Alternative
Br. IIIF.6 Alternative 6: Declare Bankruptcy
Br. IIIF.7 Alternative 7: House Bill (HB) 3453
Br. IIIF.8 Alternative 8: 2014 JO CO-Wide Measure for JS&PSS Tax
 
Br. IIIH.4.1 OR Sec. of State Financial Condition Review of OR Counties: 2012
Br. IIIH.4.2 OR COs: 2012 Review of Fiscal Indicators (FI) 1 Local Support & 2 Timber Payment Dependence
Br. IIIH.4.3 OR COs: 2012 Review of FI 3 Debt Burden & 4 Liquidity
Br. IIIH.4.4 OR COs: 2012 Review of FI 5 Fund Balance & 6 Retirement Benefit Obligation
Br. IIIH.4.5 OR COs: 2012 Review of FI 7 Public Safety & 8 Personal Income
Br. IIIH.4.6 OR COs: 2012 Review of FI 9 Population Trends & 10 Unemployment
Br. IIIH.4.7 JO CO: 2012 Financial Condition Review
 
Br. IIIH.5 OSU’S Rural Studies Program (RSP) & JS&PPS Documents
Br. IIIH.5.1 OSU’S RSP: Changing Federal County Payments and Rural Oregon Counties
Br. IIIH.5.2 OSU’S RSP: Federal Forest Revenue Sharing Policies
Br. IIIH.5.3 OSU’S RSP: State of Oregon Property Tax Policies
Br. IIIH.5.4 OSU’S RSP: Factors Affecting County Policy Impacts and Responses
Br. IIIH.5.5 OSU’S RSP: Changes in Funding, Staff, and Service Levels from Loss of Federal Forest Payments: Policy Decisions by JO CO: 2005 - 2009
Br. IIIH.5.5.1 OSU’S RSP: JO CO Funding Changes from Loss of Federal Forest Payments: Policy Decisions: 2005 - 2009
Br. IIIH.5.5.2 OSU’S RSP: JO CO "STAFF" Changes from Loss of Federal Forest Payments: Policy Decisions: 2005 - 2009
Br. IIIH.5.5.3 OSU’S RSP: JO CO "Service Level" Changes from Loss of Federal Forest Payments: Policy Decisions: 2005 - 2009
 
Br. IIIH.5.6 OSU’S RSP: Anticipated Impacts on JO CO and Possible Responses from Loss of Ffp: after 2009
Br. IIIH.5.6.1 OSU’S RSP: Impacts on Well Being from Reductions in Public Safety: After 2009
Br. IIIH.5.6.2 OSU’S RSP: Impacts on Financial & Political Implications from Loss of FFP: After 2009
Br. IIIH.5.6.3 OSU’S RSP: Lack of Confidence and Trust in Government from Loss of FFP
Br. IIIH.5.7 OSU’S RSP: Oregon State University Rural Study Program Conclusion
Br. IIIH.5.8.1 OR Governor’s Task Force on Federal Forest Payments and County Services: 2007
 
Br. IIIH.6.1 OR Governor’s Task Force (OGTF) Findings: Impacts of No Action Alternative (1 of 3)
Br. IIIH.6.2 OR OGTF Findings: Impacts of No Action Alternative (2 of 3)
Br. IIIH.6.3 OR OGTF Findings: Impacts of No Action Alternative (3 of 3)

PUBLIC OFFICIALS & SECURITY

Br. IIIJ The Rewards & Perils Of Elected Officials
Br. IIIJ.1 Political Rewards Of Proactive Decision Makings
Br. IIIJ.2 Political Risk Of New Taxes Without A Vote Of The Locals
Br. IIIK.3 Neighborhood Security Groups
Br. IIIK.3.1  Citizens Against Crime (Cac) Patrol
Br. IIIK.3.2.1 Securing Our Safety (SOS)
Br. IIIK.3.2.2  SOS Board & Officers
Br. IIIK.3.2.3 SOS Teams
Br. IIIK.3.2.3.1 Natural Resources: Timber & Other
Br. IIIK.3.2.3.2 Sales Taxes and Other New Tax/Fee Revenues (NOTE: this effort is halted due to public input)
Br. IIIK.3.2.3.3 Property Tax Adjustments
Br. IIIK.3.2.3.4 SOS Team 5: Trust, Transparency, and Education / Public Ownership and Involvement
Br. IIIK.3.2.3.5 IIIK.3.2.3.5 - IIIK.3.2.3.13
Br. IIIK.3.2.8.1 SOS’s 11 Most Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): 1. Problem & 2. Cost (1 of 5)
Br. IIIK.3.2.8.2 SOS’s 11 Most FAQ: 3. CO’s Existing Property Taxes Spent, 4. Cost to Lodge an Inmate, 5. Cost Deputy District Attorney, 6. Discretionary Funding, & 7. # Grants Pass Police Officers (2 of 5)
Br. IIIK.3.2.8.3 SOS’s 11 Most FAQ: 8. Taxed for # GP Police Officers, 9. GP & CO Costs, 10. CO Jail & GP Jail, & 11. Property Tax System (3 of 5)
Br. IIIK.3.2.8.4 SOS’s 11 Most FAQ: Selected FAQs Of SOS’s 43 FAQs (4 of 5)
Br. IIIK.3.2.8.5 SOS’s 11 Most FAQ: Selected FAQs Of SOS’s 43 FAQs (5 of 5)
Br. IIIK.3.2.12 SOS’S Mission: Provide a Citizen-Voiced Plan to Provide for a Secure, Stable and Sustainable JO CO
Br. IIIK.3.2.12.1 SOS’s Mission Standard: Provide a Citizen-voiced Plan for JO CO
Br. IIIK.3.2.12.2 SOS’s Mission Standard: Provide a Secure JO CO
Br. IIIK.3.2.12.3 SOS’s Mission Standard: Provide a Stable JO CO
Br. IIIK.3.2.12.4 SOS’s Mission Standard: Provide a Sustainable JO CO
Br. IIIK.3.3.1 North Valley Community Watch (NVCW)
Br. IIIK.3.3.2 NVCW Response Team
Br. IIIK.3.3.3 NVCW Response Team Training
Br. IIIK.3.3.4 NVCW Response Team Self-Defense Training
Br. IIIK.3.3.5 NWCW Supports Local Neighborhood Watch Groups
Br. IIIK.3.4 Media Coverage of JO CO Citizen Groups Against Crime
Br. IIIK.4.1 Decisions on Second Amendment
Br. IIIK.4.2 CATO Institute

RECOMMENDATIONS

Br. IV.B OR Govenor’s Task Force (OGTF) on Federal Forest Payments (FFP) and County Services: January 2009
Br. IV.B.1 OGTF Recommendations: 2009
Br. IV.B.2 OGTF Executive Summary On FFP & CO Services: 2009
Br. IV.B.3 OGTF Section 1: Introduction and Overview On FFP & CO Services: 2009
Br. IV.B.4.1 OGTF Section 12: Legal Mechanisms For Dealing With Counties In "Fiscal Distress": 2009 (1 of 3)
Br. IV.B.4.2 OGTF Section 12: Legal Mechanisms For Dealing With Counties In "Fiscal Distress": 2009 (2 of 3)
Br. IV.B.4.3 OGTF Section 12: Legal Mechanisms For Dealing With Counties In "Fiscal Distress": 2009 (3 of 3)
Br. IV.B.5 OGTF Summary Of Findings And Recommendations On CO Services: 2009
Br. IV.B.5.1 OGTF Recommendations On CO Services: 1. Overview, 2. Help Yourself, & 3. Help to COs - 2009 (1 of 4)
Br. IV.B.5.2 OGTF Recommendations On CO Services: What the State and State Taxpayers Can Do to Help the COs - 2009 (2 of 4)
Br. IV.B.5.3 OGTF Recommendations On CO Services: What the State and State Taxpayers Can Do to Help the COs - 2009 (3 of 4)
Br. IV.B.5.4 OGTF Recommendations On CO Services: Feds Can Better 1. Share Resources and Revenues & Manage Federal Forest Lands, & 2. Legal Mechanisms for Facing "Fiscal Distress"(4 of 4)
Br. IV.D Oregon County-Wide Solutions - Recommendations
Br. IV.D.1 How JO CO Has Addressed its Financial Condition

Back to Top  

2012 Hugo Neighborhood Association & Historical Society