According to a 2012 Secretary of State audit report Coos County is dependent upon federal timber payments for 12% of its revenue in part because “it levies the third lowest property tax rate among the counties”. Nevertheless, the state acknowledges some positive indicators including “good debt management, strong liquidity, and a healthy fund balance at year end”. Still, unnamed “officials” confirmed local fears that an effort is underway to dismantle county government when they told state auditors the board “will need to consider liquidating county assets in order to pay expenses“. This same official also advised the state that the county was addressed the loss of federal timber payments by forming two citizen advisory committees. Sadly, the committees ignored recommendations in an earlier 2009 legislative task force report as well as a sound balanced budget plan proposed by position one primary candidate, Randy Sanne.
The advisory committees have recommended using volunteer commissioners within two years to afford the immediate hiring of a public administrator as a way to somehow rectify revenue shortfalls. The state report identifies a range of unique responsibilities that would seem to require more than part time or twice monthly attention.
Today’s counties provide a wide range of public services including: public health, mental health, community corrections, juvenile services, criminal prosecution, hospitals, nursing homes, airports, parks, libraries, land-use planning, building regulations, refuse disposal, elections, air-pollution control, veterans services, economic development, urban renewal, public housing, vector control, county fairs, museums, animal control, civil defense, and senior services.
Perhaps it is this board of commissioners that is broken and the county is still standing in spite of them.
Read the report here Oregon’s Counties: 2012 Financial Condition Review
According to Fred Messerle letter to the state, we’re damn near broke. By the way, those are statements he claimed that he did not make.
.” Given that, how do you propose the county solve the budget challenges this report identifies? bleats the little lost lamb al.
For starters al, how about you return to the tax payers that $10,000 of THEIR money put into your private business? What a wanker, do you even see how rediculous you are? Is that even possible? You sucked up their money, all the while bleating like a little lamb, you told them they are running out of money?
Return their money al, THEN you might have some street cred, as it is you are a laughing stock.
Wow, a fair and even tax program scares the hell out of these local Welfare Queens, living off the hard work of others, Mark McKelvey comes to mind.
Self recognition does require a fair amount of reality, you boys can’t deal with reality. Taxes have to be raised, and you are lying to the people when you argue otherwise. You know it, we know it, and THEY are learning it.
Kay, it’s been said “Better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” You might want to think on that a bit.
The average tax rate in Coos County is different for city vs. county properties. City property taxes range from $12 to $18 per $1,000 of assessed value and county property taxes range from $8 to $15 per $1,000 of assessed value. The majority of taxable assessed value is currently taxed at the limits set by Measure 5 ($15/1000).
Furthermore, only 12% of property taxes goes to Coos County government. The rest funds schools (42%), cities (12%), libraries (5%), and so forth. There is very little untaxed capacity in the county and it exists in rural areas. Therefore, raising property taxes either increases taxes for rural residents only (most of whom are on fixed incomes) or forces the assessor to reduce the rate somewhere else in a classic “robbing Peter to pay Paul” strategy. In other words, the revenue generated by increasing county taxes will come from schools, cities, libraries, and so forth. It is NOT new revenue.
If by a “fair and even tax program” you mean tax reform at the county level, I agree that there may be some things we can do to improve the current tax structure. However, that does not grow the pie. It merely redistributes the pieces. It does nothing to solve the problem of diminishing revenues. We have to grow the pie to do that, and the only way to grow the pie is to grow the economy.
That is the reality, Kay. Let’s see if you can deal with it.
“over half the counties showed a favorable cash position of 5:1”
Coos County was not in that half at 3.5:1 (page 12)
“States recognized as having sound debt management practices typically use a range between five and eight percent of revenues. The State of Oregon uses a target of five percent.”
Coos County sits at 6.7%.
This report begins by stating “We identified eight counties whose financial condition may indicate a higher risk of distress than other counties.” That statement leads me to believe that Coos, Douglas, Lane, Curry, Polk and the others included in the report are not deemed to be in a “sound financial position” by the State of Oregon.
Interesting report. Thanks for posting it.
Raising county taxes is not a simple fix. The report touches on the problem. It says,
“The passage of statewide constitutional tax limitations in the 1990s (Measures 5, 47, and 50), established permanent rates for each taxing district. A county’s permanent tax rate is the maximum rate it can impose without approval by voters.”
Coos County’s permanent tax rate is $15/1000. Check your bill. We are there. Ironically, while the county’s rate IS very low, there is no capacity within the permanent tax rate in which to raise it. Because of M5, 47, and 50, this is a moot point. (Thanks a lot, voters.)
However, there are some creative ways to raise tax revenue. For instance, raising a tax on overnight lodging in county properties is an excellent way to tax high incomes. (Hello, Bandon Dunes.) This was discussed for a while but then dropped. Let’s renew that discussion.
Even creative measures like that won’t fix our county’s financial woes. We can no more tax ourselves to prosperity than we can cut our way there.
The problem is clearly the loss of revenue resulting from a lack of economic growth. A big part of that is the absence of economic activity on the 61% of county land that is publicly owned. From 1937 to 1995 that land made Coos County economically healthy and viable. True, much of that was due to harvesting old growth timber that is long gone, but we can make those lands productive again without sacrificing our environment.
The other course we must take is to develop, diversify, and grow our economic base. This is why developing the port is so vital. But the port should not be viewed as a savior anymore than timber, fishing, and mining should be. We need to stimulate new growth industries in clean energy, high tech, trade, and light manufacturing.
I know people like tourism. I do too. But tourism will never be enough to sustain our community. If it was, it would have already. Tourism is an important piece of our economic pie, though, and it need not be sacrificed.
We won’t be saved by a magic budget. We have a stark choice: Grow or Die. The questions are either: Grow how? Or, Die when?
Susan – it’s your right to object to selling county assets. Given that, how do you propose the county solve the budget challenges this report identifies? We have plenty of people who object to everything in this County, but few of them have any viable solutions or alternatives. Are you proposing that the county do nothing to address the problem?
Al, don’t doubt. The Secretary of State Chief Audits Divison person has promised to provide the identity of the “official” who wants to sell county assets Wnat to wager that it isnt Messy. It is an elected person. More later.
I read this report, but came away with a very different assessment. The report states that a “favorable cash position” is one in which a county has at least $5 of cash for every $1 of debt. Coos County has $3.5 dollars and Coos County’s unreserved fund balance fell 29.6% between 2008 and 2001 – the 6th highest drop in the state. Coos has the 12th largest unfunded Retirement Obligation in the state – an uncollected debt for each citizen of $334 (this long-term debt was not addressed in Mr. Sanne’s budget). This PERS liability spiked from a reported $68 in 2008 to $472 in 2009 simply because the State required that Counties report this liability more accurately. Coos currently has the 3rd lowest public safety spend of all counties in Oregon. Some additional red flags: Coos County has the 6th highest debt service level in the State. Coos had the fourth highest dependency on timber payments of all State counties. Coos County population has remained flat for the past 30 years, while our over-50 population has grown by 25%, which will means our workforce is shrinking as our young people leave and those remaining are retiring. Personal income is in the bottom half of all Oregon counties and per capita income is approximately $3k lower than Curry County.
And, considering this report is based upon data through 2011, I doubt Cam or Fred had much impact on the numbers during their eight month in office.
Once again, Al misstates facts and misinterprets data. First of all, he has conflated cash expense ratios with debt ratios. The report actually says, “A ratio of less than one indicates the county’s cash position is not sufficient to meet its short-term obligations.
During 2008-2011, all but one county had an average cash position that was sufficient to meet their short-term liabilities. Over half of the counties showed a favorable cash position of at least 5:1, indicating the counties had a minimum of five dollars available to cover each dollar obligated.”
The report also says, “…seven counties had an average debt service to governmental fund revenues percentage that exceeded five percent; however, all 36 counties were within the range recognized as sound debt management”. Coos County stands at 6.7%, well within range of sound management.
The one correct statement Al made is that neither Cam nor Fred can take any credit for the county’s still sound financial position.
Why is this person NOT named?
What a damned mess. People who clearly state “we are not qualified” continue to think they can govern? Hell, they can’t even remember the numbers of their own bills, not one of them.
Main has stated that it is not he who plans to liquidate county assets. Is the county official at last sentence of page 21 Messerle and if so what are his plans? What surprises will we see when the last of the dream team is annointed by Governance Team member, Administrator supporter, and County Clerk Turi.
Fred was caught on video during a debate forum in Bandon talking about selling off the county forest, or words to that effect