The Douglas County Sheriff's Protective Association submitted nine questions to county commission candidates in advance of the July 8-9 candidate forums.
Of the 10 candidates, nine responded. These are their answers as submitted to the association
The sheriff's association represents 80 deputies, investigators and sergeants in the department, or 98 percent of the sworn officers.
The candidates are grouped in their districts.
District 1
Anje de Knijf, Democrat: I would like to see taxes and regulations be kept at a minimum to stimulate economic growth. Tourism zones at Lake Tahoe and our north county would attract tourists without impacting the beauty of Carson Valley.
Greg Lynn, Republican: Given the current tax environment, with residential property tax capped at 3 percent and business taxes at 8 percent, it seems that business taxes will need to carry the bulk of the load. With the adoption of the building permit allocation ordinance Douglas County has announced to the world that it is a closed, if not exclusive community, a disincentive to new businesses or industries. With that in mind, the best chance of attracting new business seems to be keeping new taxes and regulation to a minimum. This is a two-edged sword for departments funded by the General Fund, because until the overall economy picks, which it won't in the near future, there will be little if any additional funding available. Also, the pending floodplain management ordinance threatens to degrade the attractiveness of Douglas County for new economic development even further. Another idea to encourage business expansion is to create a tourism zone in the North County and at the Lake to give some regulatory relief from Title 20 restrictions.
David Nelson, Republican: I believe that a more diversified economy is best for the local citizens and government. I am currently studying the NNDC NVision reports that were completed a couple years ago to do just that. Among other things it stresses a regional approach, community participation and more educational opportunities for success. These are the foundational cornerstones to attract new and good employers, which are the keys to a diversified economy.
District 3
Doug Johnson, Republican (incumbent): We have had an over-reliance on retail, residential and gaming. It is time to broaden our opportunities with concepts like agriculture business, education facilities and working on changing the demographics of Douglas County. There is a guideline already in place with the Northern Nevada Envision report. In the immediate future we have focused on revitalizing downtown Gardnerville, Minden and Genoa with less focus on north county big box stores.
Eric Rieman, Independent American,: No. 1, bring in more business. I would try to see where else I can get some revenue from.
Blaine Spires, Republican: I believe the most important attribute in stimulating the economy is to make sure that Douglas County is business friendly; less regulation and predictability. In order to achieve economic stability we need to maintain the businesses we have here while working with companies like NACO to go out and actively recruit businesses to come here. We need to highlight the reasons why Douglas County is such a great place to live. This will be possible through formal meetings with the business community to make sure each side understands what the other is looking for. With these issues in mind we should make sure that we attract the businesses our community can embrace and that will bring revenue to the county as well as jobs and not adopt needlessly harmful measures such as a business tax.
District 5
Nancy Epstein, Democrat: Small business can be a huge economic engine. The Main Street Project is a great example of an economic growth package. It is suggested that for every $1 expended you may expect a return on investment of $20 to $40. Previous rents in a Main Street project went from $1 per square foot to $12 to $14 per square foot. Local government can provide an environment that is friendly and helpful to small business through public-private support, promoting economic vitality. The county can participate with the towns and Chambers of Commerce, help with planning, providing seed money for consultants; provide locations where business can thrive. The County can streamline the process for starting a business, streamlining the due dates that common reporting forms are due with the ability to complete them on-line. Expand tourism-based activities to broaden revenue sources.
Michael Olson (Republican): I believe that we have relied on development for a long time to feed our local economy. We do need to continue to diversify our local economy. We need to encourage light industrial and commercial development. The tax base is higher and the jobs are better paying. We also need to focus on supporting tourist based events to allow an increase in TOT and sales tax dollars. This will also help local businesses by adding new customers who are here to spend money.
Stuart Posselt (Republican): The county should create an Economic Development Task Force and implement an economic development plan. That plan needs to be created for our rural county, not a metropolitan area. The Task Force would be comprised of leaders from across all spectrums of our county, from public safety, education, recreational, industry, commercial and beyond. The Task Force would establish the framework of the plan. That plan should first take an inventory of our assets and then hold community meetings to determine if and how the citizens want to improve, promote and market those assets. The manager of that plan would then implement the provisions. Few are trained/experienced in the economic development of rural areas so the search for such a director needs careful evaluation of their qualifications. Careful attention should be given to the maintenance of our county's rural character, quality of our assets and citizen input. Simply building more homes and bigger casinos and hotels is not necessarily the answer.
George Thiel (Democrat): No response.
District 1
De Knijf: Affordable housing: There currently are homes that are affordable for the Sheriff's' Deputies. Obviously, a pay increase would be the answer to qualifying for a mortgage to own a home.
Lynn: There is a small bright spot in this scenario, in that home prices are falling with no end in sight. In the past I participated in several dozen interview boards with Community Development and we constantly ran into this very problem. Our salaries have historically not been high enough to enable new hires to buy a home here unless they cashed out equity from a sale wherever they came from. Also, the Board of Commissioners has shown little appetite for the densities that would allow the creation of workforce housing, and county construction standards are always going up, making the creation of this type of housing more difficult. All county departments face this challenge. I don't want to sound like I'm dodging this question, but I need to point out that there is no easy answer.
Nelson: There are rentals, mobile homes, condominiums, townhouses and small starter homes that entry level workers can afford. Affordability is about as good as it has been for a while right now. It may get even better. I would be glad to personally help any new employee find an affordable residence in Douglas County.
District 3
Johnson: With the economic downturn the affordability has softened. We need to jointly make information available and take advantage of entities like Nevada Housing Authority that are already present. With efforts to find existing programs and the work force housing priority recently discussed at the Commissioner level we can win this battle.
Rieman: The annual income for Douglas was about $54,000 but with the housing market of 2006 to 2007 there wasn't a lot of options for a single working family to buy a house in Douglas County. The low income homes were still high dollar. I would like to see some single working family housing (not low income). I myself am a third generation in the Valley and cannot afford a house here. There are a lot of officers in Reno that can't afford to live there.
Spires: This is one of the main planks in my platform. Affordable/attainable housing is a large concern of mine considering many entry level jobs, whether it be public service or private sector, salaries make it difficult to afford your own home in Douglas County. We have a high quality of life in Douglas County and our housing reflects this, but if the people that protect and educate our community cannot afford a home then there is a problem. I am looking into a couple of solutions to these issues. What kind of incentives can be given to developers in order for them to build homes that are "affordable" for the public service sector or other hard-working individuals. As a commissioner I would look into possibly creating an affordable TDR incentive that would offer builders an increased number of density units if they agree to build more attainable housing. Also, I would work with the Nevada State Legislature to develop ways to ease the property tax burden for the men and women providing essential service to our county. As a commissioner I will do my best to facilitate such action with all the appropriate community entities to address this issue that I have personally faced.
District 5
Epstein: The Nevada Rural Housing Authority does provide favorable interest rates to first-time home buyers. (Someone who hasn't purchased a home in the last three years). The county should provide fair compensation that is comparable to other like communities. Public safety enhances our quality of life and we need to keep our wages and benefit packages competitive.
Olson: It has always been my philosophy that our community's professional service personnel should live in the community they are there to protect. I would much rather have a deputy thinking about Douglas County during a regional emergency than his family in Lyon County. I encourage that future development should afford an area of attainable housing in good areas and good quality. Starter homes for new families at attainable prices.
Posselt: This issue is not restricted to the sheriff's deputies, but teachers and other county employees as well. There are several way to address the situation and I would look at those which would not increase taxes or drain the budget. One such tool available is revenue bonds to use the county's low interest rate to provide low interest loans to those individuals " interest is the majority of a home loan monthly cost. This type of plan which is at no cost to the taxpayers has been very successful for our veterans. Another tool is for the county to actually purchase homes using revenue bonds and then rent them to the employees " perhaps with an option to buy. The county would then expect to received any profits if and when the home is sold on the open market and use that money to expand the program. This should be one of the objectives of the economic development plan I proposed in item no. 1 above.
Thiel: No response.
District 1
De Knijf: Typically, a per capita approach to staffing has been traditional. However, we don't have the same crime issues that there are in Carson City or Reno. Again, attractive salaries would be the obvious way to attract personnel to Douglas County.
Lynn: A good deal of progress could be made if we could solve the affordable housing dilemma. Also, my understanding is that DSCO recommends per capita staffing level based on national studies, which include metropolitan area that experience violent crime rates that we do not see here. This is not to ignore the fact that our jail is full of drug abusers, and I have some questions about the policy of starting new recruits out with what I believe is a year in the jail. This policy cannot be an incentive to stay on for a young recruit eager to get out on the streets.
Nelson: I would definitely pitch our school systems and the issue of drugs. I could be wrong, but I believe Douglas County is ahead of other counties in these very important areas.
District 3
Johnson: We cannot compete with big cities, but we can offer a great quality of life. While it is not the job as County Commissioners to micromanage the sheriff's department, I have met with our previous county manager and the sheriff with a discussion about morale in the department. A good reputation with comparable wages and benefits goes a long way with recruitment.
Rieman: Maybe you can work some thing out with the Realtors in the Valley to somehow lower the cost of a house to entice them here. Don't read the book from the cover. Open it up, look at the pages. Some people may have one fault on there application. And you see a deficit instead of a asset.
Spires: Douglas County's quality of life is its strongest asset, but if an individual or a family cannot afford an entry level home in Douglas County there is a level of assurance that they will apply somewhere else. As far as I know, Douglas County Sheriff's Office pay is on par with other departments considering demographics and other determinants, but with the cost of living that number diminishes. Once again, something has to be done about housing. What benefits upfront could DCSO give to incoming officers? Gas stipends, cost of living bonuses, or building public consensus on paying officers higher wages?
District 5
Epstein: By offering a competitive wage and benefit package, as well as stressing the quality of life we have in Douglas County. Our sheriffs are a critical and highly-valued part of our community.
Olson: I would show a positive working relationship with the sheriff's office to assure that personnel would have access to the appropriate equipment, training and staffing to be safe on the streets. I think it is easier to attract staff if they know they will make it home to their family safe each night.
Posselt: I would propose marketing Douglas County to prospective employees. We live in a beautiful rural County, a valley surrounded by mountains, blue skies, stars, and all the necessary recreational, commercial, medical and cultural elements. Douglas County is a safe county with good schools " a good place to raise a family. The economic development plan I propose (no. 1 above) should address and assist in this objective.
Thiel: No response
District 1
De Knijf: The budgetary constraints are currently affecting all departments in the county government. When these constraints ease, I think public safety is the no. 1 priority.
Lynn: Given the fact that we are, and will continue to experience budget shortfalls for the foreseeable future, the best bet seems to be to juggle the budget by re-allocating positions. All departments in the state are experiencing similar problems, and the possibility exists that we will be unable to make major corrections until the overall economy improves. As a commissioner my top priority needs to be public safety, specifically law enforcement and fire services. This is where resources need to go when we can afford them.
Nelson: I am very concerned with staffing in the areas that provide for citizen security, that is, sheriff and fire services. We need to be more cost efficient in staffing outside of sheriff and fire. We need to get the average number of county employees down to 11 county employees per 1,000 residents, which is where it was 10 years ago. At the same time we need to add to the sheriff and fire departments to get them up to full staffing.
District 3
Johnson: From a budgetary standpoint we have given authority to fill all 10 present vacancies. Balancing our budget utilizing vacancies in the Sheriff's department was never part of a plan, it was just available at the time through no intent of anyone. In the future, there is no doubt we need to increase staffing in tangent with the population. In my opinion we need a mix of experienced and rookie new hires.
Rieman: I myself would work with the sheriff and his staff to try and correct some of the problems. Maybe a committee so that they can prioritize the suggestions from the employee association. Look at a salary survey from the same population base of Douglas County and find a happy medium.
Spires: I have heard this issue echoed before and I believe that this issue should be more highly publicized in order to make it an important issue for the commissioners as well as the public. I believe that public safety is vital to a quality of life all citizens value and it needs to funded accordingly. I would like to know more about why there are staffing shortages and what can be done to correct them. Is it funding or lack of ability to attract applicants? I have heard varying opinions, but attainable housing is vital for filling and retaining such positions. Government is in place to protect its citizenry and uphold the law; these things have to be accomplished. I will work to build consensus on the board about this issues to make sure that it is a priority.
District 5
Epstein: The DCSO should start with priority-based phasing of staff. What is the current critical need? Do we need jail, patrol, investigators or other support personnel? Demonstrate the need, and then develop the plan to fill that gap this year, the next year and phase-in hires.
Olson: Look for and support ways to increase funding to allow the sheriff to make decisions regarding staffing needs with the goals of keeping all Douglas County sheriff staff and residents safe.
Posselt: Questions 3 and 4 address the same issues. To recruit new deputies identify those locations where there might be unhappy and dissatisfied safety officers " overworked, unhappy with the crowded living conditions, and simply looking for a better place to raise their family. Then market Douglas County and recruit those individuals. Use the economic development plan to assist in this effort. Market Douglas County to the graduates of academies, pointing out the advantages of Douglas County and its family friendly living conditions. Attracting personnel is like marketing a product. The sheriff's office and Douglas County needs to be actively sold for it cannot rely on the employees to come without being invited.
Thiel: No response
District 1
De Knijf: The opportunity for advanced training and education, along with experience, would provide advancement within the organization along with pay increases.
Lynn: Enhance opportunities for training and experience to promote career advancement. See comment on policy of putting new recruits in the jail for a year.
Nelson: Employee retention is an issue for every employer. First, we need to do a good job of finding the actual reasons we lose people, and aggressively address those concerns, as necessary. We should not let employee retention prevent us from being strong in compensation negotiations. We must be strong but at the same time fair. The trickier problem might be how to keep down the cost of training new people.
District 3
Johnson: The commissioners need to be available to listen and talk about the issues on a regular basis. As mentioned above, I had set up a meeting to discuss morale problems within the agency after getting feedback from several deputies. A respectful and consistent leadership within the sheriff's department needs to be addressed.
Rieman: I would say that this question Is the same as no. 4. In a tight budget year like right now it's hard to do incentives to keep employees happy. I've found you can't make every one happy, but I try my best.
Spires: I would assume that this covers the topic of training and the upfront cost to the department to train an officer who in turn leaves after training to go somewhere else. This issue has several components, but I believe that affordable housing remains the central issue for retention. Can an individual or family maintain the quality of life they want in this county? The county needs a stable economy in order for other family members to be able to work here and to make sure that the appropriate funding is in place to retain them.
District 5
Epstein: Explore education benefits, helping to pay for education and offer tuition assistance. Have recognition days, community club awards, and "heroes" programs, to demonstrate how valued our law enforcement community is to our residents. As a commissioner I would expect to be apprised of morale issues within the department and then work collaboratively with the DCSO to explore potential remedies.
Olson: I believe that training is a key retention tool. Offering deputies advanced training opportunities affording them a higher degree of knowledge and safety will contribute to the feeling of belonging to an elite force that understands the need to work together in a team environment. No deputy or detective wants to belong to a dysfunctional unit.
Posselt: Public safety is the no.. 1 priority of county government " it jumps ahead of education, roads and the rest of the county's services. The Board of Commissioners needs to listen to the sheriff and his deputies to learn what their concerns are and address them as best as they can. If the commissioners ignore the men and women of public safety, they will go where they are appreciated. The Board of Commissioners and the judicial need to constantly recognize the efforts and hard work by our protectors in every way possible be it working conditions or remuneration.
Thiel: No response
District 1
De Knijf: My understanding of the Master Plan amendments is that the majority of them have been administrative in nature (i.e. verbiage clarification, etc.). It would be nearly impossible to please all of the residents of our county all of the time " but I would strive to follow what is for the best interest of the economic health of our county at all times.
Lynn: To be candid, in the mid-90's the previous commission and the county manager embarked on a strategy of encouraging economic development by attracting national retailers to Douglas County through the Carson Plaza redevelopment on Indian Hill. To make these businesses successful, there needed to be a customer base, apart from what we could draw from Carson City and other outlying areas. This led to massive residential development, the ultimate consequence of this was the Sustainable Growth Initiative and the allocation ordinance. Of necessity, Master Plan amendments had to made to support this strategy. It seems to me that the rush for development will subside dramatically with the glut of foreclosed housing on the market and the absence of cheap and easy credit. In other words, this problem is likely to solve itself. A good bellwether will be the Park master plan amendment currently pending.
Nelson: My campaign is about reaching out to the citizens to find out and stay in tune with what they want. I will hold town hall meetings in each of the five districts twice a year. These will be held in the evening when more people can attend. The purpose will not be for them to hear from me, but for me to listen to them. I am a strong believer that the will of the people is the only way our constitutional form of government can survive.
District 3
Johnson: I believe my record speaks for itself on upholding the Master Plan and doing my absolute best to support my constituents desire. My record can be found on the county clerk's Web site under commissioner agendas and minutes.
Rieman: I will try my best to abide by the people that vote me to county commissioner but there are some things that are out of my control like legislation. I know one thing I'm against is the flood plain that will lose the Valley a lot of revenue.
Spires: I will support the will of the people, but the will of the people has to be a will that is well informed. I would rely on the sheriff to make the issues of Douglas County Sheriff's Office visible to the public so that the public can make the most informed decision possible and I would extend this to all issues. This is one reason I am knocking doors. I want to understand what the concerns are of individuals and not just special interests. However, in the end I will be elected by the people, and will therefore work for the people.
District 5
Epstein: I am the citizen candidate. I have no special interest in a particular issue before the county, other than as a concerned and motivated resident wanting to improve our community through the public process, balancing the budget, using the master plan as a guide for growth, and protecting and preserving our quality of life. I will be an honest and forthright commissioner who will put the best interests of the county first.
Olson: Although there may be times that the Master Plan should be amended I was involved in the 10-year master plan update and I believe it should be the guide to future development in Douglas County. A lot of time, money and energy have been spent to put together a plan that shows where we are headed and how we are going to get there. The will of the people should always be listened to. But we are a representative republic and our county representatives carry the burden of the impact of their decisions.
Posselt: That is precisely one of the major problems " the commissioners have been listening but not hearing the citizens " they appear to be working for the special interests. The Board of Commissioners work for the citizens of Douglas County and none other. I fully support adherence to the Master Plan. Yes, the Plan provides for modification, but that should only occur when there is a strong, valid reason for a change which benefits the citizens of Douglas County. (For instance, the Master Plan calls for a density of 25 units per acre in the SFR-T districts which the Town Boards of Minden and Gardnerville opposed and requested the Master Plan be modified to a lower, more appropriate density. The Planning Commission agreed except for my Republican opponent who did not respect the community's opinion and without an expressed reason supported the higher density.) I support the building permit allocation and growth management ordinance which gives the county an opportunity to manage its growth in a way that will retain the county's rural character and guarantee funding for the necessary services such as the sheriff's office.
Thiel: No response
District 1
De Knijf: Our county is a Dillon's Rule County not a Home Rule county, therefore, we are at the direction of the state in what we can and cannot do in regard to a separate tax or assessment district. I would certainly work with the state legislature in passing legislature that would encourage adequate funding sources for our law enforcement entities.
Lynn: Unlike California, counties in Nevada are not home rule counties. As I understand this situation, this means that in order to do anything like a separate tax assessment district, Douglas would have to get permission from the state Legislature. I also understand that no other jurisdictions in Nevada have this alternative funding source. California has these districts everywhere you look; this is why so many people move here to avoid these very taxes.
Nelson: I am not in favor of additional taxing districts. However, I do believe that the entire system of funding needs to be looked at more analytically. I believe we need to do a better job at being able to see the trees in the forest by analytically summarizing all the financial data more astutely to uncover inefficiencies and areas of overspending for county services. Our spending levels need to be very competitive in this day and age. I don't have enough information on this at this time to draw any conclusions. However, law enforcement and fire are my top two priorities in the area of what get funded first.
District 3
Johnson: I publicly supported the sale tax initiative back in 2006, but was concerned about morale if it didn't pass. We need to get the voters to support any new tax. It is not impossible with correct timing and education.
Rieman: I would agree to a tax only if you had everything prioritized on where the funds were earmarked for a certain purpose.
Spires: In order to implement a new tax or assessment district the state would have to become involved and considering our current economy I would not see fit to raise taxes. I do not believe more government is the answer. However, if the current issue of lack of funding and staff shortages jeopardizes public safety, then I would consider possibly taking more tax revenue for one source to better fund DCSO. I would rely on DCSO make a compelling case for what they need in order to better serve the community.
District 5
Epstein: The county could research other comparable communities. Has this been successful elsewhere?
Olson: I am not a tax-and-spend Republican. I think we determine need, identify available resources, increase revenue to achieve goal and work toward the next goal. Law enforcement is an important part of any community. Without law and order more money will be spent on social services correcting behavior that is commonly corrected through positive deterrent and law enforcement interaction.
Posselt: No. I think the citizens of Douglas County pay enough taxes. The issue here is spending priorities. As stated above, public safety is the county's no. one priority and the budget should reflect that fact. In May of 2007 the Board of Commissioners called for departmental performance audits. Such audits are a major management tool to control department functions and budgets. Over one year later they have never seen the light of day. Michael Brown, the new county manger, is working diligently to re-model Douglas County government and should task the department heads to provide the requested audits along with implementing all other accepted management tools to analyze and then streamline the county's operations. This will help to get the county's budget under control and enable it to set the necessary priorities.
Thiel: No response
District 1
De Knijf: There are currently requirements for infrastructure contributions from future developers. There is only so much we can require from future developments that will not adversely impact the favorable business climate in our county.
Lynn: State law imposes restrictions of the extractions that counties can require from developers. Douglas County has historically had one foot over the legal line when it comes to extractions. Development not only doesn't pay for additional law enforcement, it doesn't pay for a lot of its other impacts as well, which is why I'm very skeptical about Master Plan amendments. They end up building a Ponzi scheme that we're seeing the result of now. See Question 6.
Nelson: I believe that impact fees need to be much higher than they have been in Douglas County. I don't believe that they can ever be high enough to fund additional law enforcement staffing in perpetuity. We need to build a local economy that is stronger and smarter than just building houses, box stores and casinos. Ultimately, attracting new employers is the best strategy in building an adequate tax base.
District 3
Johnson: Some immediate proof of your statement was the build up of area 4 and look how many deputies we got for it! Now there are two new casinos approved!! Possibly through the Legislature we can work to broaden the scope of impact fees to support law enforcement. I am chairman of the Nevada Association of Counties legislative oversight committee this year which would help with this issue. As a board we have been working very hard to make sure future development pays for itself in all aspects. I was responsible for getting our previous county manager to fund two deputies out of the redevelopment fund. I was also working with the former chairman of the Washoe Tribe to fund more deputies when they had plans to build a casino in north county. We have a lot of work to do. I am very passionate about the issue of "missing the boat" with all of the growth and having nothing but liabilities left in its path.
Rieman: Some things are out of my control, but maybe we could go to Legislature and find some moneys.
Spires: I believe that growth has its benefits. The sheriff's office is funded from the general fund and the majority of that revenue comes from sales tax and property tax that are generated by growth. I am not for uncontrolled growth, but smart, well-managed growth that embraces the recommendations of the Master Plan. Controlled growth comes more revenue into the general fund because of the fees developers pay. At the same time, I do not have the authority as commissioner to impose new costs or taxes under current law. As we consider the growth issue, we need to maintain a high quality service and infrastructure. Attainable housing remains a primary issue because without controlled growth it is difficult to build homes that are attainable for first responders and other essential service providers like teachers in our community.
District 5
Epstein: Development costs and fees do go to the general fund, which in turn pays for public safety, so development has contributed. Law enforcement is a top priority and should have a dedicated funding source, but we can't put operating cost on development. You can have impact fees for development, but these have proven to be very difficult.
Olson: I believe that the need for additional safety protection should always be considered for future development. Contributions to the infrastructure should include the need for additional safety personnel. The difficult part is that once the position has been funded, how long will the moneys collected last? I would explore options or solutions allowing this approach to work in a positive way to assure appropriate funding levels for added personnel continued.
Posselt: Managing the county's growth is an important task of the Board of Commissioners. As development proposals come forward the quantified needs for any additional public safety elements must be determined and addressed. The Board should seek input from and listen to the sheriff's office as well as all of the public safety agencies. Those needs are obviously dependent on the details of the proposal such as use, size, location, and use intensity " density. The board should seek and rely on the expertise of the public safety agencies. If changes in manpower, equipment or facilities are necessary, those issues should be resolved before the proposal is granted approval. Any requirements should then be enforced. Again, it is an issue of the county inventorying its resources and setting priorities for its spending.
Thiel: No response
District 1
De Knijf: My priorities for law enforcement funding in light of budget shortfalls would be public safety as the number one priority. Fire protection would be next and education third.
Lynn: General philosophical priorities: 1. Public safety. 2. Fire protection. 3. Education. I would observe these priorities when allocating the resources that we can muster. Bear in mind that the Board of Commissioners is mandated to spend its first dollar on social services, indigent care, etc.
Nelson: Once again, Law Enforcement and Fire are my top two priorities in the area of what gets funded first. I am a Republican who believes that government should only provide those services that the citizens cannot provide for themselves. I would close down a lot other departments and services before I would touch the basic safety areas.
District 3
Johnson: Public safety is our no. 1 priority. With the retention issues solved with East Fork Fire & Paramedic districts, that makes the sheriff's department solely a no. 1 priority. We are working on priority-based budgeting with our new interim county manager. We have recently approved the sergeants joining the Sheriff's Association and just last week supported the jail build-out. The future is bright with the current county management in addressing law enforcement.
Rieman: I would have to say insurance first, salary second, and safety and equipment and training would be up at the top of the list. I would also re-evaluate the effectiveness of some of the programs to see if we couldn't get some grant money or state or national money to help with some funding. Also use the officers in other areas of the department, multitask. Don't eliminate jobs, just make every one more efficient.
Spires: I would rely on the sheriff to prioritize the issues and then relay that information to the commissioners to determine what needs to done and what things are nice to have. Government is in the business of protecting citizens and that has to be accomplished. I will make sure that it remains a high priority to me personally. This needs to be a bigger issue in the community and I will do my part to make sure that this is accomplished, but I need Douglas County Sheriff's Office to inform me of the things they need and would like to see in the future.
District 5
Epstein: I feel that law enforcement is a top priority and our officers and staff are doing an incredible job with the resources that they have. In a perfect world the DCSO should be fully funded and staffed to match population and the challenges of our community. In the meantime, I would pursue filling the vacant funded positions, offering competitive wage and benefit packages, with the high quality of life we experience in the County. We need to have a stronger presence at recruiting and job fairs, creating excitement and enthusiasm for working for the best sheriff's office in the state! We have great officers, staff, personnel and community members. Let's all work together to move forward and provide the strongest support possible for DCSO.
Olson: High. I believe that if you allow your safety office to become less than efficient you will pay for it later in social service programs. One of the nice things about Douglas County is that you feel safe. Our deputies cover a wide and broad area, from Topaz to Tahoe. They need the support and commitment from the Board of County Commissioners that they will not put them in harm's way if it can be avoided.
Posselt: As I stated in no. 5 above, public safety is the no. 1 priority of county government " it jumps ahead of education, roads and the other county's services. If we do not have public safety, there is no need for education, transportation facilities or commercial or residential development. This is a problem of entitlements which leave little to discretionary budget allocations. Just because public safety is a general fund agency is not a reason to cut its budget when revenue declines Public safety does not decline and, in fact, may increase during difficult times.
