Humph! I would have thought 5th grader with your name calling & attitude.

fedup:

Humph! I would have thought 5th grader with your name calling & attitude.

The word "ignorant" is descriptive. What is a better word for a person who is not educated in the area about which he chooses to pontificate? How about a guy who bases his judgment on completely incorrect assumptions, isn't interested in learning, and doesn't seek or value accurate information? That sounds like a great definition of "ignorant" to me.

You've made it clear that guys like you and Ben Pooler don't need any of the relevant facts -- because you claim "it" is about "integrity". Oddly, you judge your public servants based on things they didn't do withough knowing what they did do -- or why they did what they did. You're content to label them without understanding the difficult choices they had to make.

As it turns out, Faye Stewart has great integrity. He does what he swore an oath to do even when it's politically dangerous to do so. A coward would have done the politically expedient thing and ignored the problem, using the November vote as an excuse to avoid trying to fix the loss of federal money. When the system crashed he could have hidden behind the fall campaign and said, "We tried to fix the system but the public said 'no' to the only tax option left." That would have been a better political solution, but three of the four commissioners took the courageous route to  act in the best interests of the community.

When the income tax dies, we'll all have our chance to say "I told you so" anyway. I'm actually looking forward to it, as the DA and the Sheriff have given the community ample warning, including all of the information summarized in the "Summary of Public Safety Collapse".

I think the federal money will probably be approved, at some decreasing level for a few years, and that will return the system to what the law enforcement people have described as "the death of 1,000 cuts.  The good news is, we're starting in last place in the USA in many categories, so we don't have to worry about falling below our present position! ( Glad you're okay with that, but I have kids, family and friends to wory about, so I want something better than no cops between Eugene and Florence....)

Halo, you're doing exactly what you told me not to do! :-)

I think you're doing the right thing by try to share the facts, by the way, but you shouldn't give me such a hard time for doing it too!

Also, I think you'll find people more willing to listen if you are less insulting. You will not get anywhere with the folks who are determined to remain uninformed, but there are some who have been misled by family, friends, or the media, and they come around once they have the facts right.

Here's another thing: Some of the people who write as though they are ignorant of the facts may be doing it intentionally to fan the anti-tax, anti-law-enforcement flames. The anti-tax adds on the radio are very deceptive and inaccurate - but I'm convinced that's by design. The sponsors want the tax killed, and accurately describing our present circumstance doesn't advance that effort.

I am sorry but I do not believe people in Lane county dont care about public safety I think that they do (WE DO).

The Problem is being taxed for everything. WHy can most companies work within there budget yet Lane County cannot. And also I think most people are mad at the fact that this was voted on before and lost and then the commissionars turned around and passed it.

I will tell you for people making minimum wage adding more taxes no matter how small hurts.

Every one of these I read have good valid points but put yourself in the shoes of the minimum wage earner if you can.

 

I agree with you. We as tax payers have had enough. I'm all taxed out. I don't have the answer to fix the problems we have, but there are some programs beside the law inforcement we can cut from. Why should 327,000 Lane county tax payers pay so 248 Lane county workers can work. Many companies though out the United States lay off thousands of people. They do this because there isn't enough money coming in to there company. So, They lay off employees to survive. It's called restructuring. The county can do the same. Sorry but what else can we do. I can't afford the extra tax

burden on my familiy. Look at the taxes I already pay. Property tax, gas tax, state income tax, federal income tax, medicare tax, tobacoo tax (yes I smoke) and social security tax. And now, county income tax. All just because we can't controll spending in this county. Give me a break.

dmetech:

I am sorry but I do not believe people in Lane county dont care about public safety I think that they do (WE DO).

The Problem is being taxed for everything. WHy can most companies work within there budget yet Lane County cannot. And also I think most people are mad at the fact that this was voted on before and lost and then the commissionars turned around and passed it.

I will tell you for people making minimum wage adding more taxes no matter how small hurts.

Every one of these I read have good valid points but put yourself in the shoes of the minimum wage earner if you can.

 

I'm sorry guys, but this is what is so frustrating about the anti-tax group. Either you have not read the law, or you didn't understand it, or you're trying to mislead people.

First, minimum wage earners will not pay a dime of the tax. Read the law. Do the math. It's just another anti-community safety deception - like the one on the radio claiming that Lane County is bloated with supervisors, when it has the lowest supervisor to line-worker ratio in the state at almost 1 to 13 (as compared to the state government average of 1 to 7, the recommended private sector average of 1 to 10, or the Eugene average of less than 1 to 6.)

Why can most companies live within their budget? The answer is everybody can live within some budget. Some companies, like some cities and counties, have HUGE budgets. Lane County could function just fine if it had the same marginal property tax rate as Multnomah County, or Washington County, or Yamhill County or ANY average Oregon County, but those darn commissioners in the 1970s and 1980s didn't raise our rates like their counterparts in all the other Oregon counties did, so Lane County is stuck with a property tax rate that's the lowest in the state and less than half of the state average.

The truly bizarre thing about the folks claiming they're "for" public safety but not the tax is this: They expect a free ride on government services. They expect all the services while only paying for a few of them. It's like going to your local rental car agency, renting a car, and then being pissed that you have to pay the same rate as everybody else. Do we pay some tax? Of course - we just don't pay anywhere near what the average Oregonian pays, and the average Oregonian doesn't pay anywhere near what the average American pays. Go ahead, Google your way through this subject area and see what you find! When ALL the taxes are combined, Oregon ranks 39th in the USA - and that statistic is heavily influenced by the many people carrying the MUCH higher Portland metro tax burden. All the county commissioners are trying to do is close the gap between reality and being the lowest county on the income ladder. Heck, in their present state of poverty, Lane County would provide MUCH more bang for our buck if they only had the same amount of money per citizen as the other large metro counties.

Mr. Pooler and his team would have you believe that we'd all be crippled if we moved up closer to the USA average tax burden -- like he couldn't pay the extra four or five dollars per week to have a functional public safety system. I'm sorry, that's complete crapola. Frankly, if that was the truth the add campaigns would be running that.

By the way, the deceptive anti-tax advertisement in the paper claims that the county "Is being investigated by the Secretary of State just as it was last year!!" That's true. Anybody like Mr. Pooler can make a complaint, justified or not, and it will be investigated. What the advertisement doesn't say is the more important piece: According to the Secretary of State, there were no violations last year and this year the violations were de minimus and had nothing to do with inaccuracy, deception or inappropriate use of funds (described in detail in the Register Guard). At least the county information pieces are accurate.

This tax is D.O.A.  I think that's the wrong thing for this community, but I'm in a position to leave whenever I decide it's in my best interests to do so. I just find it particularly disturbing that the Ben Poolers of the world can spread dishonest/inaccurate information and most of the public is too suspicious, to lazy or, as Halo would say, too stupid to dig out the truth.

It's a darn shame, because this used to be a nice place before we imported all the big city crime, criminals and values from down south...

     For one Mr. spanky you need to get your facts straight. I did'nt make the complaint about lane countys ads. Also it was a justified complaint made. Also our ad in the paper is fact. There is no disception in it. When you use tax payer money to advertise an ad, it has to be a neutral ad sir. As we say in our web site, we are not a anti-tax PAC.

    But we will not let the public servants in this county make a decision on a tax issue without the tax payers approval or vote. Also by the way I was raised in the northwest sir. Yes I moved back to the northwest from Nevada. That does'nt make me any less of an american. Also if you think that our tax burdon is low in this county. I would like to know were you are getting your misinformation from. I have never ever attack you. I have ask you to phone me if you wanted to disguss a solution to the problem,  but you hide behind your computor. You come up with some good and bad ideas. And you also make some great points. I will look into them. Spanky we the people of Lane county were upset in the way the county commissioners put the tax in. Not giving the people a chance to vote on this issue was wrong. Yes you are correct, I don't like being tax to death, but if the people were to vote it in I would accept it. That is the american way of life.  

    Look we are a people that live in Lane county, that have a very big budget problem. All I heard is tax the piss out of everybody. Has anybody looked at the real budget here? I have and there are some solutions. But we are the ones that don't have the ability to look at it. Because the they wont let us. The budget I have seen is the one you can look at online. I dont like it because it did'nt break it down very well. Spanky do me a favor, help in a solution here. I would very much like to find one that everone could accept. I will look at your items you listed for verification. I 'm sorry I have made you so upset that you had to write about me in that way. I'm very interested in fixing the problem not causing one. Thank you for your time.

  

Halo:  I am going to sink to your level. You are an arrogant, self righteous, self centered, nazi, moron. And I am sure you feel churches should be built for you. A word of advice get over yourself. You catch more flies with honey. The pill isn’t quit so sweet when you are doing swallowing is it. If you dislike lane county so much why don’t you leave it.

bnpooler:

     For one Mr. spanky you need to get your facts straight. I did'nt make the complaint about lane countys ads. Also it was a justified complaint made. Also our ad in the paper is fact. There is no disception in it. When you use tax payer money to advertise an ad, it has to be a neutral ad sir. As we say in our web site, we are not a anti-tax PAC.

    But we will not let the public servants in this county make a decision on a tax issue without the tax payers approval or vote. Also by the way I was raised in the northwest sir. Yes I moved back to the northwest from Nevada. That does'nt make me any less of an american. Also if you think that our tax burdon is low in this county. I would like to know were you are getting your misinformation from. I have never ever attack you. I have ask you to phone me if you wanted to disguss a solution to the problem,  but you hide behind your computor. You come up with some good and bad ideas. And you also make some great points. I will look into them. Spanky we the people of Lane county were upset in the way the county commissioners put the tax in. Not giving the people a chance to vote on this issue was wrong. Yes you are correct, I don't like being tax to death, but if the people were to vote it in I would accept it. That is the american way of life.  

    Look we are a people that live in Lane county, that have a very big budget problem. All I heard is tax the piss out of everybody. Has anybody looked at the real budget here? I have and there are some solutions. But we are the ones that don't have the ability to look at it. Because the they wont let us. The budget I have seen is the one you can look at online. I dont like it because it did'nt break it down very well. Spanky do me a favor, help in a solution here. I would very much like to find one that everone could accept. I will look at your items you listed for verification. I 'm sorry I have made you so upset that you had to write about me in that way. I'm very interested in fixing the problem not causing one. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Pooler, it is you who have the facts wrong, and your ads are very deceptive.

Yes, there were two complaints to the Secretary of State's office, one based on the information provided last fall, and one concerning the information provided over the last few weeks. The Secretary of State found NO violation as to the information provided last fall and a de minimus violation as to the information provided most recently. The nature of the violations was detailed in quotes in the Register Guard. For example, according to the Secretary of State, it's perfectly fine for the county to say there will be "staff reductions" but it's impermissibly persuasive to say "staff cuts". There was no finding of inaccuracy, deception, misleading language, or inappropriate use of funds. They simply suggested the county use different words and more examples to communicate exactly the same message. Whatever. That sounds darn silly to me -- and it's nothing like the message of misbehavior your advertisement was intended to create.

I have no idea why you say you can't see the budget. I've been down to the county many times to see it: it's an indexed, tabbed, book which is all public record. They can't fail to share it with you - and wouldn't want to, because Lane has a small fraction of the money the other metro counties have. Every comparison I sought made Lane County look comparatively frugal. You'll find the same thing, especially if your point of comparison is the City of Eugene or any of the other larger cities in Oregon.

You ask why I think our tax burden is low. The answer is it's easy to figure out because the information is reported everywhere. Just go to Google and search using "Tax burden by state". You'll get a TON of information. Oregon is 39th as a state. Lane County has the lowest property tax rate at $1.28 per $1,000 assessed property value. Multnomah County is over $4 per $1,000 and most of the large metro counties are well over $3. Amazingly, without any logic to explain why, Lane County is expected to get by with $1.28. If the amount was raised to $3.28 per $1,000 of assessed value the county revenue would increased about $40 million per year and they wouldn't be in this spot. That didn't happen for MANY reasons, one of which is the fact that the City of Eugene taxes it's citizens to death, and they're already near the $10 per $1,000 cap, so any additional property tax imposed on top of that cap would push the city of Eugene into compression. That means the city would lose revenue, so their politicians were hostile to bringing the County property taxes up to the Oregon average.

The only taxes capable of generating the necessary money are 1) sales tax (in any form, including gross receipts tax), 2) Property tax or 3) income tax. All the others generate too little money to fill the enormous hole. All the other political units would oppose a sufficiently large property tax, a sales tax makes the most sense but will never happen here, so they went with an income tax.

There is no tax that everybody will agree on. As Commissioner Dwyer told the media, everybody wants the tax the other guy pays. Somehow, people in Lane County have gotten the idea that they pay more than everybody else. As you now know from reading the numbers on all the tax reports, Oregon is in the lowest third and Lane County is in the bottom of that. And, as you can see from your property tax statement, the VAST majority of the tax you do pay goes to the cities and the schools. The county gets the table scraps - and that was fine as long as the feds were carrying our water. It's not enough anymore.

By the way, this tax is DEAD, but even if it wasn't, it wouldn't come close to fixing the problems.  It's totally different from the proposal made last fall. That one would have been a supplement that might have vaulted Lane County public safety up into the bottom third of systems in the USA, but this one is merely intended to hold our position in last place. It just stabilizes the structural deficit and replaces the federal money. There is no added money to return our system to normal staffing. The jail still wouldn't work, they still wouldn't go get burglars and car thieves, and the DA wouldn't get a normally staffed office. They just wouldn't lose any more.

Mr. Pooler, I've made no intentional personal attacks against you. I don't know you. My remarks are meant to address your actions, your statements, and the inevitable results of what you and the many like you are doing. You may be a wonderful man in every respect but this, but your misunderstanding has done nothing but fan the flames of ignorance here. Our citizens have it comparatively easy, but they think they're carrying a greater burden than any other citizens in the country -- so they think they're entitled to great public services and they're being ripped off because they're not getting any police/DA/jail/etc. The reality is, they're not getting the service because they're not paying for it. If you read and understood the budget, and you were being honest, you wouldn't be making all the statements about there being "plenty of money" to provide these essential services.

Meanwhile, I remember watching the Benitez family when she was murdered following the husband's release from the overcrowded jail. I've got family and friends I care about here. I feel like people like you are screwing with our quality of life. You're saving me $256 per year in exchange for the highest property crime rate in the USA, packed emergency rooms, untreated mental health patients wandering around peeing in the sidewalks, drunks killing people on the highways, and soaring auto-insurance rates. Thanks, but I don't need any more help like that - it's not a bargain at any level.

I hope you feel some responsibility when you read the paper in a couple years and learn about the awful consequences of crime that might not have been necessary if we had a jail... Or maybe we'll be reading about it in August. I'll be my last dollar we will not see you out there in front of the TV cameras trying to fix the public safety system... Maybe I'm a cynic, but I'm betting this is all about saving a few bucks per week for you and that's it.

Hi spanky,

    I thought you would like to read this.

More budget insanity from Lane County, Oregon. The county threatens important cuts in public safety if the 2% tax isn’t passed (yes it starts at 1.1%, but how long do you think it will take before they raise it?). Yet what really is going on? They cite losing $20 million in Federal funds, and that sounds like a lot. But the dirty little secret is in a budget of almost $500 million, it’s only about 4% of the total. Yes, 4% (if you add in the missing federal road funds, the budget variance is 8%). For that they claim they’ll have to shut down programs, have massive layoffs and let criminals free? Insane. If they can’t handle a 4% budget variance they need to go back to management school.

First, the facts: From KMTR who reports the $20 million loss in federal money:

Budget Number One reflects about $3 million in service reductions and assumes federal money will continue.

Budget Number Two deals with losing $20 million for general county services and another $20 million from road funds.

And next, from Lane County’s web site (Financial Summary, page 7) the total budget amount of almost $500 million.

Total Resources for the County total $492.8 million. This is an increase of $6.3 million from the current year’s budget of $486.5 million.

So, 20/492.8 is 4.05%. And for that paltry amount, they’re trying to implement a permanent income tax of 2%? Even if you take the loss of road funds, it’s still only an 8.2% budget variance.

So, since they have so much trouble with the budget, here’s a few ideas to get them started to handle the small variance:

• Most important, learn to prioritize spending. Sheriff and road services are primary functions of County government. Fund those fully for public safety, and with whatever is left over fund any remaining programs. Anything at the bottom probably isn’t required.
• Implement an immediate hiring freeze. This should have been done years ago. No need for layoffs, just let natural attrition reduce the workforce.
• The commissioners themselves should serve for free. Just like city councils and school councils all over do.
• Immediate freeze in travel, conferences, etc

Finally, Lane County has a huge reserve fund (from page E-7 of the budget reports) totaling over $100 million or almost 20% of the budget!

The County’s adopted financial policies direct that each fund should have a minimum 5% prudent person reserve. This budget category totals $102.5 million for FY 06-07 and is 19.1% of the total budget. This includes reserves for operations as well as future capital projects.

But they need to be honest, they’re trying to shakedown Lane County taxpayers with a permanent, ever increasing tax rate of 2% for only a 4%-8% reduction in revenue. And if taxpayers don’t give in to their demands, they’ll lash out in anger and cut important safety programs instead of areas where spending isn’t a priority

 

Pooler, as you must know, you are well off the mark, again.

Although there are other areas in which the county is hurting financially, this has always been about the public safety system: the Sheriff, the District Attorney, Juvenile Corrections, and Parole and Probation - all of which are within the Lane County general fund. That is the only fund over which the commissioners have discretionary spending control, and that was a total of $57 million last year. The federal money is approximately one third of that. Since the public safety departments are two thirds of the general fund, they absorb two thirds of the cuts to pay the $20 million loss in federal money.

I don't know which part you find most confusing, but here's the bottom line: Cuts have already been implemented in 12 of the last 15 years as the deficit has developed. Now they have a small fraction of the needed staffing: If the staffing at every Lane County police agency was doubled, we'd have close to the national average police officer staffing for our population. We'd have to more than double the size of the jail too. And add nine investigators and ten DAs to the DA's office. And twenty parole and probation officers. Nobody is talking about that.

The proposed income tax is just enough money to hold Lane County last in the USA in police staffing and almost #1 in property and drug crime. Other crime is getting bad too.

But you've helped to convince thousands that we can't possibly bear to shoulder an average US tax burden, or even an average Oregon tax burden. We're so special.

Thanks to people like you, this tax will fail, so the jail will close more beds, the Sheriff will lose the last of the detectives, the DA will stop prosecuting more crimes, and juvenile gang members presently incarcerated at the Serbu facility will be released. Yeah for you.

You'll save a few bucks, and so will I, and we'll be stuck with our awful crime rate. (We're afraid to leave our truck on the boat landing when we float the river now, because it's been clouted three times in two years! My wife's truck was smashed at Jerry's last week. Welcome to Lane County!)

That will be your legacy Mr. Pooler. We'll be thanking all the self-centered whiners like you when the doors to the jail open and the remaining scumbags are turned loose to join all their friends the jail hasn't been able to hold. We'll keep importing criminals who want to live in the no-jail-zone. When the next @sshole is released to kill his wife we'll all be thanking you for that $2.75 per week we didn't have to spend -- or the $6 per week we didn't spend last fall when we had a chance to increase law enforcement staffing all the way up to the fifteenth percentile in the USA!! We could have started working our way towards being a normal community. Thanks for helping us avoid that.

By the way, did you even read the public safety report? The Sheriff doesn't even respond to approximately 50 crimes per week - and even so, the DA is STILL getting 100-150 new criminal cases every week!!

We don't want to hear you whine when your wife is robbed or your truck is stolen.

Mr. Pooler, I appreciate the fact that you're at least doing some digging. That's a good thing. But you've misunderstood the numbers, so you're mixing and matching across categories in a way that confuses the picture. I suggest you do what I did and get some help from an accountant or budget analyst, because you've completely misconstrued the numbers. Your numbers are not even close - so I'll start there.

Fixing your general fund math:
First, the federal payment last year was approximately $47 million. In rough numbers, $20 million was dedicated (by feds) to the county road fund, $20 million to the county general fund, and $7 million to schools and federal forest patrol (Sheriff). The total county general fund budget was just under $60 million, so the loss of $20 million is a 30% cut, not 4% or 6%. (That cut would be mitigated somewhat because the county would return to the old timber formula, and that would generate several million dollars, so the net loss to the fund is projected to be near $17 million.)

The general fund includes ALL the public safety departments, Assessment and Taxation, Elections, Lands, Children and Families, Information Services (computers), Human Resources,  and Administration: With the exception of the room tax and car rental tax which could partially transferred from parks, general fund is the ONLY money the commissioners get to allocate. The rest of the huge number you cited is "pass through" money - money earmarked by the state and feds for a particular purpose - and much of it is "double counted" (described below). So, for example, the Health and Human Services Department oversees almost $100 MILLION in federal and state program money that comes to them to support programs for disabled kids, retarded adults, infectious disease investigation and emergency planning, and dozens of other "medical/welfare-type" programs people typically associate with the federal government. It IS the federal government, but the money is sent through the county "H&HS" Department which monitors the dozens of related contracts and grants for compliance. The county commissioners have ZERO control over all that money, just as they have ZERO control over 91% of the property tax money the county collects (because it "passes through" to the cities and schools).

Similarly, the road funds are dedicated. The commissioners can't decide to take road money to "buy" more cops, DAs or nurses, because that money is strictly limited and monitored, like ALL the funds, and subject to external financial audits to insure strict compliance with federal law. But here's a twist. Years ago the County Administrator and commissioners did something very smart to apply some of the dedicated road money in a proper way. They set up an internal billing system which assesses "overhead" for all the departments, so some of the cost of supporting road fund activities could be recovered. I'll explain.

Public Works (road department) uses the services of general fund departments extensively. In fact, because it's a very large department, it uses a LOT of the internal services: they need legal help with contracts (county counsel), they need help hiring and processing employees (human resources) their people need to get paid (payroll/Administration), computer systems need to be built and maintained, and so on - so the county charges overhead (called "indirect"). In this manner the huge Public Works division pays a big chunk of those general fund departments it uses. BUT the money Public Works pays as overhead to the administration is shown as "income" for the county -- because that's the way the federal accounting rules require it to be tracked. That's confusing, because the money is counted on the income side when it comes from the feds to Public Works and AGAIN when it's paid as overhead from Public Works to the Administration as "indirect". (look at the income numbers in the budget). As a result, much of the county money is counted twice or more (as income in that huge number you quoted.) It's like this: Suppose you earn $100 and your wife earns $100, but she pays each of your five kids $20 in a allowance, and the kids are each required to pay $15 towards the cost of the home and food - and you were required to record their payments as "income". The REAL income for the home is only $200, but in this example you'd have to show a $260 in income. That's what the county does - because it's the only way to recover the fair share of dedicated funds to help carry the cost of the general services.

I've been through the budget a LOT. Most of it is easy to figure out, but this piece was not, so I asked for help from the county's senior budget guy, Dave Garnick. I have yet to confirm this number, and I plan to, but it looks like the REAL county income/budget is closer to $260 million - and most of that just passes through the county, like the nearly $100 million that goes through H&HS to local businesses serving the federal social programs.

On the two budgets: The departments were directed to prepare two budgets because Congress continues screwing around, and the County Administrator has to have a plan if the federal money is renewed for a year, and another in case it isn't.

The persistent structural deficit has produced a shortfall of approximately $3.5 million IF the federal money is renewed at 100%. If the federal money is not renewed, the total general fund deficit is close to $20 million, approximately 30% of the general fund budget. Since Public Safety departments comprise 65% of last year's general fund budget, and some of the departments can not be cut further*, the public safety system will be hammered if the federal money doesn't come through, especially since commissioner Sorenson never misses an opportunity to further cut the Sheriff (see his current interview in the Eugene Weekly fictional rag).

On reserves: Like all government entities, the county relies on it's bond rating - the government version of a credit score. A favorable bond rating is essential to doing business, and a poor rating substantially increases the cost of doing business. Moody's informed the county that it needed to maintain a higher "prudent reserve". If memory serves, the number is near 10% of the annual budget, and the county was near that number when I last looked.

The county fiscal crisis is not imaginary. The county has cut positions in 13 of the last 16 budget years. (What other explanation is there for having the lowest per-capita police officer staffing in the USA? That take a concerted effort!!)(Numbers in linked document, along with citations to original data.)

Here's what I predict: The congress will eventually come through with a one year extension, but maybe not before the county has to implement layoffs. At best it will be a declining income similar to that proposed under the Wyden plan. If that happens, the county will be at budget #1, with a $3 million reduction in services in year #1, then there will be a 10% cut in the federal money in year #2, plus the structural deficit, and the county will implement the second step in cuts - about $7 million, and so on into year #5. Because the public safety departments get most of the money, they'll take most of the cuts.

Mr. Pooler, if you think this is all imaginary, LOOK at the staffing summary linked in the neighboring thread. THIS HAS BEEN GOIN ON FOR OVER 25 YEARS.  It's not a subject for debate - it's a done deal. The employees are gone - already.

To the kooky fringe, like Alan Pittman of the Eugene Weekly, it's not enough for us to have the lowest per-capita police officer density in the USA. He and Peter Sorenson want to continue the law enforcement cuts, even as our crime rate continues to climb into the highest levels in the USA. The statistics are appalling, and we had our second drive-by-type shooting  in less than two weeks yesterday, but they're convinced there is no problem.

This place is crazy...


* Many county departments are so far below minimum staffing they have gotten into trouble. Assessment and Taxation has not had the staff to update appraisals, process appeals promptly and handle many other functions. After years of warnings the state finally required the county to hire additional staff and sign an agreement to maintain it or the state funding can be pulled, so the county could save a $100,000 by laying off staff in A&T, only to lose fifteen times that much money in state support. There is a similar situation in Family Law and many other county departments with staffing running at 60% of recommended levels for the volume they process.

I have watched this thread with interest for months since I first started it. The volume of incorrect information is discouraging, though "Spanky" has consistently been right on the facts.

Mr. Pooler, you're obviously confused by the county budget and money calculations. Since you're leading the charge to kill the funding for public safety, I'm sure the county officials would be willing to talk to you and work through the budget until you understood it. Perhaps you could make an appointment to speak with one of them after the vote is counted next week.

Regardless of the outcome, another county tax measure will be in the hopper soon, as many in the community are not content to live with soaring crime rates and no law enforcement system, and the pending tax measure doesn't offer a fix for that problem. Even if the tax is approved it only funds county services at existing, grossly inadequate levels. If it fails, as we expect it to, and the federal money is renewed for another year, there will be another $3.4 million dollar cut to public safety anyway. If it fails and the federal money is not renewed, the cuts will be catastrophic, as promised. None of the potential results puts this issue to bed in a satisfactory way. That virtually guarantees another tax measure for you to fight. Why not take the time to understand the issues?

You obviously don't understand how the criminal justice system works either. If the county funds only the Sheriff, no felons will be held in jail longer than 48 hours, as the DA is the only one with authority to charge the crimes and move the criminal cases forward. If they're not charged, criminals are released. That's why thousands of crimes are currently being ignored, as the DA staff is 30% below the level from the late 70s, and he no longer has the staff to handle the increasing load. He's not filing approximately 1,500 criminal cases per year as it is, and his deputies STILL have the highest caseloads in the state.

By the way, Mr. Pooler, you're proposing nothing new. Lane County has been reducing through attrition for many years. There are 230 fewer Lane County employees than there were 26 years ago when there were 60,000 fewer citizens too serve. A hiring freeze was not implemented because no responsible elected official could completely kill law enforcement services during a time when service levels were already half the national average and crime rates were among the highest in the nation. Now, with a nearly 30% cut in general fund support within a year, attrition will not cut the staff quickly enough, so layoff will be necessary.

Many of your other suggestions are not possible, but even if they were all implemented, they wouldn't come close to balancing the budget. The only way to cover the loss of federal money is to reduce staffing proportionately. The money is always in the people.

To everyone else:
I'm convinced that Mr. Pooler is in the minority. I think most gainfully employed citizens are willing to pay a fair tax rate to protect the community they live in if they understand why it's necessary. Most taxes, especially those proposed in Eugene, protect people making lower income levels, as the doomed income tax did. The problem is our citizens are disinterested, confused and distrusting, and there are MANY folks like Mr. Pooler spreading misinformation. They have convinced folks that they're paying more than everybody else and that county employees are fat, lazy and overpaid. As we've seen with the recent anti-tax advertising campaing, some are willing to outright lie. (As where the advertisement claimed that all county managers received a 6% raise when none had and the average raise was only 2.6% after a year-long delay.) Unfortunately, as long as Mr. Pooler and his friends are successful in their efforts to mislead, the public will stand by and watch the system go down.

Mr. Pooler is also wrong about the county reserves - by a factor of almost 20. (Perhaps this was just confusion on his part, again, but the information is available on-line, and the county staff are willing to assist in finding the correct documents.) It appears the Mr. Pooler simply multiplied a target policy objective by the largest combined budget number he saw. It's much easier and more accurate to call the county and ask for assistance...assuming you want to be accurate.)

The link to the on-line budget summary is here:

Policy


The relevent policy reads,
 "3) Reserve Policies Goal:  To maintain adequate reserves to provide a cushion against unforeseen events and economic downturns, thus providing for stability in planning and service delivery and to maintain a reserve level sufficient to maintain a favorable bond rating.
a) The County will establish reserve funds that can be used to reduce the impact of revenue
fluctuations and provide for more stable delivery of services to Lane County citizens.
b) The County will strive to maintain a minimum of a 5% Prudent Person Reserve for all funds
except the General Fund.  The reserve in each fund will be reviewed annually during the budget
process by the designated fund manager and associated committee.
c) The County will establish operational reserves within the General Fund and strive to maintain a reserve balance of at least 10% of General Fund operating revenues.  Refer to General Fund Reserve Policy at LM 4.011 below.
d) The county will establish and budget adequate contingency reserves for all operating funds to
meet unanticipated requirements during the budget year.

A goal of 10% of the general fund would be approximately $6 million, not $100 million.
 
Mr. Pooler's group is wrong about salary policies and adjustments too, but I'll post those corrections in another thread.

Teamplayer:

I have watched this thread with interest for months since I first started it. The volume of incorrect information is discouraging, though "Spanky" has consistently been right on the facts.

For all everyone reading this thread knows, you and "Spanky" could very easily be the same person.  You are both hiding and concealing your identities for some unknown reason.  At least Mr. Pooler has the personal courage to publicly state his convictions and openly stand by them.  Both you and Spanky, however, do not. 

You do not seem to be ashamed of your beliefs, so there must be some other reason for your anonymity.

Teamplayer:

Regardless of the outcome, another county tax measure will be in the hopper soon

That will be rather difficult to do, if the 3 Commissioners who have been trying to shove this income tax down the throats of the public are removed from office.  All their attempts have accomplished is to make the people regurgitate this tax measure back out at them.  The County should focus on getting Federal funds restored soon, and also look to the state for some assistance.  Coming right back at the people yet again with another tax will surely doom the measure to defeat, just as it did in this election.

Teamplayer:

I'm convinced that Mr. Pooler is in the minority.

Tonight's early returns show 71% of voters supporting Mr. Pooler.  That is a rather large majority.  Early returns also show the public safety tax measure in Coos County having a 68% No vote, which is almost as large as the one here in Lane County.  In any event, both public safety tax measures are being defeated by a margin of more than 2 to 1.

You and "Spanky" are the ones totally out of touch with how the public really feels about more new taxes.

At least I don't live in Eugene, and have to worry about the 5 new taxes totaling $16 million a year that the city council is planning to place on citizens there, so that the streets of Eugene can finally be properly maintained.

Lance in Springfield