Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I'm hoping that this outrage will ultimately prove to be a good thing. 

 This is SOOooooo outrageous that it could trigger a true revolt of the electorate.  With a groundswell of political outrage - the income tax could be repealed, the commisioners responsible unseated, the electorate galvanized to do some, much needed, major political house keeping.  Politicos far and wide would be compelled to look at what happens to self serving Politicians who kick their "subjects" too hard.

Yes, this COULD be a good thing.

---

An ascendant man, living in a degenerate age, MUST, by definition, live in contradistinction to his times.

I urge readers to do their own research and read the adjoining threads on this topic, as the foregoing post is misleading.

First, it's important to remember that 49% of the voters supported the income tax last fall, and that was before the county lost the federal funding which comprises 30% of the county general fund. The commissioners were under substantial pressure from half the people to fix the problem, and the other half expected them to ignore it or make it worse. When the federal funding didn't come through on February 15th as hoped, they felt they had to act, but they never "ignored" the voters. To the contrary, they did everything they could to be responsive to them.

Anybody who watched the discussions knows that the commissioners - especially Green, Stewart and Dwyer - were doing everything they could to listen to the public. They ordered an analyst to poll voters to see what the most objectionable portions of the last tax were and then the commissioners changed or removed those sections. They spoke to the media and the public to increase understanding and invite comment. They held public meetings. I witnessed one of those hearings and, though there were comments for and against the new tax, most of the people who spoke favored it; many of them begged the commissioners to protect non-essential but wonderful programs - like 4H/extension and veterans services.

Given the near 50/50 split last fall, the commissioners knew half the people would be angry no matter what they did.

After reviewing the summary of all the county programs that could not be funded following another 30% reduction of the general fund, they did the courageous and, I believe, morally right thing.

Here's the good news for you folks: Our system of government provides for a simple, idiot-proof,  referendum process. Certifying a referendum would take fewer than 6,000 signatures. Thats just a couple weekends in front of Safeway. That will put the tax on the ballot and immediately paralyze the county's ability to collect the tax pending a favorable outcome on the vote and that will force the county to immediately implement the layoffs you want. You guys could be celebrating the loss of public safety and the last county services for infants, the elderly and mentally ill before May first!

(If Congress acts at the last minute and some federal funding is miraculously (and temporarily) restored, the county will "only" have to fire enough people to save $5,000,000 per year - otherwise it's closer to $23,000,000 per year - and that's enough to fully cripple a system which is already dysfunctional and dead-last in staffing in the USA, so you guys will have plenty to celebrate.)

Spanky you are right, 49 percent did vote in favor of the tax.  That would mean a majority voted against it.  I thought in a democracy the majority ruled, right?  Yes it was a close vote however the fact remains that the majority of people in Lane county voted against it.  So please, no spin.

I guess funding the Methadone clinic is more important then keeping beds at the jail.  Check it out for yourself on the priority list. I mean is that real public safety?  In fact, if truth be known, a lot of the methodone users use the free methadone so they dont have to spend as much on herion.  That's a great use of tax payers money. 

Spanky, why is it everytime the county has a so called budget crisis they go after the Sheriff's office?  Or I mean public safety.  Could it be the Commisioners try and play on the publics sense of safety?

 

 

tab911:

Spanky you are right, 49 percent did vote in favor of the tax.  That would mean a majority voted against it.  I thought in a democracy the majority ruled, right?  Yes it was a close vote however the fact remains that the majority of people in Lane county voted against it.

Yes, a slight majority voted against it. Then the financial situation changed for the worse, as the federal funding was not restored on February 15th when Congress chose to enact the continuing federal resolution without including secure rural schools. The commissioners were immediately faced with catastrophic cuts - much bigger than those discussed prior to the November election - so they asked the citizens what they should do. They ordered a poll which asked several critical questions, including, "Why did you vote against the income tax in November?" According to the poll, the #1 objection was "too confusing" (because it was called a vote to limit a tax but it actually created AND limited a tax);  the #2 objection was "fairness" because some retirement income was exempt (because the commissioners had no authority to tax it), and the #3 reason was "the property tax roll back unfairly benefits the rich".  Get the point? There were specific citizen complaints the commissioners set out to address through responsive modification and correction. They also took away ALL restoration support and left only the funding necessary to prevent further collapse. As proposed, this income tax leaves Lane County law enforcement dead last in the USA, right where the majority of our citizens want it  be. The commissioners  thought they could please MORE than 50% of the citizens by doing what was asked of them. I know it's fun to hate them and call them names, but these folks were trying to do the right thing. If you can hold the nasty tongue and give them a chance, they'll listed to your complaints and try to explain what they were trying to do. That's what commissioners Stewart, Green and Dwyer tried to do for me, and I was very impressed. They're just regular folks and they're trying to help. I wouldn't have their jobs for all the tea in China.

Remember, the commissioners asked for public input. They distributed the budget numbers, shared the possible choices, including just letting all the services crash. They held a series of news conferences and public hearings. Following all of that, they thought they had the best choice in a sea of awful choices. Folks here think they were they were wrong, but it wasn't for lack of trying on the part of the commissioners.

tab911:

Spanky, why is it every time the county has a so called budget crisis they go after the Sheriff's office?  Or I mean public safety.  Could it be the Commissioners try and play on the publics sense of safety?

First, the majority of the Lane County public has no sense of public safety or they would not have forced the system to collapse to dead-last in the USA over the last 25 years. (If you want the supporting data/documents/numbers, I'd be happy to have them sent to you.)

Next, the Sheriff, DA, Juvenile Corrections, and Parole & Probation departments comprise approximately 70% of the general fund budget, and the Sheriff's budget is bigger than the other three combined. Basically, if program is 70% of the budget, you're going to have to eat the majority of the cuts when there is another severe reduction. It's just math. (By the way, the last jail cut, two years ago, involved closing 119 jail beds, because the Sheriff didn't have the employees left to keep them open. According to the commissioners, they didn't get a single complaining phone call about closing all those jail beds, in spite of the increased risk to the community and several recent horrors involving inmates killing or robbing immediately after early release. (Benitez case and others.) However, when they talked about limiting the hours at the LCARA (Animal Regulation) they got more than a dozen phone calls from angry citizens! This community doesn't give a rip about the Sheriff or the DA - no matter how many times their departments are cut, but it will fund parks and longer library hours without hesitation. Bizarre.

I used to say, "Public safety services are always the first to be cut because the politicians are trying to hold us hostage to fund other services we don't want." I still think that's true of the City of Eugene, but it's clearly not true of the county.

Go on line and watch the web-cast of the morning presentation of the management team representatives (via web-cast on county webpage) when they explained the cut priorities they recommended to the board of commissioners. (I think it was a week ago last Wednesday.) That was when the board was given the priority list that was created by the management team. It may not seem so at first, but it's an extremely rational list. For example, Taxation and Assessment is listed as a high priority because of the following dynamic: the state provides $2 million in support for the "A&T" program, because the county collects money for the state. However, after many years of budget cuts and layoffs, the county A&T staffing was below minimum state standards, and work was not getting done. The state threatened, and the county had to agree, in writing, to hire additional A&T staff. If that agreement is breached, the state will pull it's support and fine the county. So, the county could cut a couple more bodies out of A&T and defer some more work, but that short term savings would result in immediate fines and the loss of MUCH more state money - that that would be a stupid play. Other programs were ranked high on the list because they're revenue-generating or revenue neutral (like marriage licenses and concealed handgun permits.) It doesn't make much sense to cut programs that make money, right? It’s the same with the “Family Law” (child support enforcement) program. That program has an annual budget over $1 million dollars, but it generated over $20 million in support of Lane County families AND it costs less than $190,000 in county money to pay for it, because the federal government pays for 66% of the costs up font, and the Lane County program has been rewarded with additional federal incentives for record recoveries and efficiencies. Here’s the biggest rub of all: If the county kills the support program, the state will come in and run it and charge Lane County for doing so. When the cost of the AG running the program was calculated the commissioners found that it would cost the county an additional $60,000 or more per year if they tried to close it or abandon the program to the state.

I agree that “methadone” is not “Public Safety”. That phrase should be reserved for the DA (chief law enforcement officer for the jurisdiction), the Sheriff (including jail, search & rescue and patrol), Juvenile Corrections, and the Parole and Probation officers. However, if EVERY general fund dollar went to those departments, it still wouldn't be enough money to return the staffing to 2001 levels,  and the county was in lousy shape then too. Obviously, the county can't do that anyway, as most of the other general fund services are essential at some level, including Assessment and Taxation, Elections, Animal Control, Human Resources, Payroll, Building Permits to name just a few.

Part of the problem is the funding complexity. The public has no idea how it works and most people would rather assume corruption and mismanagement than spend a rainy day or two figuring it out. (Which is what I've tried to do.) Here's an example of an interesting but complicated relationship: The law enforcement system can't work without DAs, because they are the ones who charge and prosecute people. Without them, a criminal cannot even be held in the jail, as it is the DA who decides what to charge, among other things. Lane County has been slashing DAs and DA investigators (cops) for 25 years, so Lane County now has the lowest staffing in the state. Is that saving money? No, because the DA's are necessary to get the criminals convicted; if the criminals are not convicted they don't end up on probation or parole; if they are not on probation or parole, the numbers of criminals being supervised drops sharply, and it’s the number of criminals being supervised that defines the amount of state funding under Senate Bill 1145! (That’s the one that stuck the counties with dealing with the felons that used to be housed in the state prison system.) So, according to the analysis shared by the Sheriff and the Chief Deputy DA, if the another million dollars is cut out of the DA's office, it will eventually reduce the SB1145 funding for the county by as much as 70% - and that is $26 million over the next biennium! It took a collaborative effort of the Sheriff, the DA, the Parole and Probation people, and a budget analyst to figure out the HUGE adverse impact. At this point, with staffing so far below contemplated minimum levels, there are financial mine fields like that at every turn.

I'm not here to say that the county doesn’t do stupid things. I like the extension service, but I don't think it's the county's responsibility to fund it and, in any event, it’s not a life and death sort of service. Similarly, the county shouldn't be funding "Metro TV" just so one particularly obtuse, bloated, blowhard commissioner has a soap-box. I'd much rather see that money pay for a cop or a public health nurse - but our criticisms need to be constructive and based in fact, and 99% of what I'm reading here and seeing on the news is factually inaccurate, incomplete and misleading. Too many people are expressing their rage in a factual vacuum. People can’t make good decisions, or offer meaningful constructive criticism if they remain completely ignorant of the facts.

Now I'll try to answer your question about the methadone program with the story one of county staff shared during a public meeting. A woman was recently arrested for stealing food at a local market. When she was searched the officer found heroin, methamphetamine and almost $30 (so the woman had plenty of money to buy the food). As it turns out, that woman was a heroin addict who had been off of the street drugs for more than two years. She had a job, an apartment, and she had gotten her kids back from CSD. Unfortunately, she was not fully weaned from the opiates/methadone, so when the program funding was lost, she was back on the streets in less than a week. Her arrest cost her job and her kids. As taxpayers we're back to paying the HUGE foster-care costs for her kids, and we'll be paying to arrest, prosecute, treat and lodge her again. We’ll also be paying for her large-scale stealing again, because she WILL find a way to get the money for her dope. When we catch her stealing we’ll be paying for her court-appointed lawyer too, not to mention the judge and staff to sit in court listening to all of this. 

I don't want to pay for druggy methadone, even if it is cheap (and it is) - but I'd rather do that than pay for her kids, her arrests, her prosecutions, and her criminal behavior. (According to the DA who presented the management proposals, a vigorous heroin/meth addict will steal in excess of $100,000 in property per year to support her habit. On balance I'd rather spend $800 per year to provide her with  methadone.

Spanky,

I enjoy reading your posts, at least you express your opinions without trying to offend people.  I appreciate that.  I believe we just disagree with how the commisioners went about doing what they did.  In no way am I saying the county doesn't need the money, however, as a county employee who could be losing my job due to the cuts I still believe the commisioners should have gone to the voters.  By enacting the tax the commssioners will do more harm.  They had to know the citizens would revolt and place it on the ballot to be shot down.  The voters have long memories in this county.  They still remember when the Sheriff told them he would have to close the forest work camp if the levy failed.  The levy failed and the camp never closed. 

DELETE

d_glass_slipper:

And I agree tab911. This is the point here. Not the tax in general, but the fact being that the people voted what they did and the county went behind their backs and did what they wanted anyway. Does this mean the people really have no voice? Are we in a dictatorship then? And you can tell me up and down that the people are stupid and don't know how to vote, but it comes down to we are a democracy and this is what the people voted, end of story.

You're right, of course, no matter how ignorant or uninformed the citizens, we are a democracy. I can't think of a better way to do it, though it's hard to feel good about our process when you see  the results our system is achieving. (Just look at the quality of our state and national political leadership!) Oh well, I guess it's the best alternative out there, and we can't very well require voters to understand the issues they're voting on. That would really kill voter turn out.

The heck of it is, it's terribly expensive to educate people who don't wish to be informed, and that describes most of the folks in Lane County and, obviously, most of those who are choosing to weigh in on this subject now.

You seem to feel very strongly about this stuff, but you're describing what the commissioners did as "behind our backs". I don't understand that. The issues they were struggling with were discussed constantly and reported in the print media and on the TV news. Many people showed up for the public comment meetings which were all advertised, all public, and all after normal business hours to maximize potential for public participation. Those hearings were also described in the media -- before and after. The potential choices were published and debated. The commissioners provided hand-outs describing all the options and comparative costs. Prominent community members showed up to argue the issues - and many arguing that it was time for "real leadership" as, once informed, they felt it would be "grossly irresponsible" for the commissioners to fail to act or to wait for the system to crash. Some told the commissioners it would be "financial suicide" to dispose of all the employees they had spent so much to train, as they will be sucked up by other agencies...but that's a topic for another post. In any event, after six weeks of vigorous debate, and many related articles, TV spots, and radio segments we definitely can't accuse them of acting "behind our backs".

Here's what the outraged people are missing. At the time of the November vote, there was still an expectation that Congress would renew the critical federal funding which comprises 30% of the general fund PLUS $27 million per year for roads and schools. Maybe the commissioners should have threatened the public with the loss of the federal funding before the election, but that would have been dishonest, because it sill looked like congress was likely to renew at least some of the funding before Christmas. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

After the narrow defeat at the polls, and failure of congress to act before Christmas, Tony Bieda, the liaison who informs the commissioners of legislative matters, announced that there was reason for optimism - that there was an opportunity for Congress to renew the federal funding when they addressed the "continuing resolution " on February 15th... But that didn't happen either.

It's still possible for the federal funding to renewed at some level, but it seems less likely every day. If the commissioners wait and it's not renewed it's catastrophic. (Remember, even if the federal support is renewed at 100%, the county will be having it's every-other-year layoffs...)

The county fiscal year runs from July 1st through June 30th, so the time is short.

At the last public meeting the commissioners asked the county attorney how quickly they could submit the new tax proposal to the voters for election. The attorney said the tax could be put on a May ballot but, because of the minimum notice requirements and other factors relating to employee union contracts, the county would have to start processing the 300 layoffs before May. At that moment everybody watching the hearings knew the commissioners were in a heck of a jam. If they failed to act the layoffs would go into effect. If they put the matter on the May ballot, and layoffs started in April, people like the folks on this forum would accuse them of trying to scare the community into a "yes vote". More importantly, it costs HUGE money to purge 300 employees, 150 of whom are sworn officers who were very expensive to train and equip.

Most of the people who saw all of this evolve, urged the commissioners to "nut up and do the right thing". The two who didn't nut up are exactly the leaders you don't want: one of them has yet to figure the system out, partly because he's new, and the other is the quintessential politician - a guy who always does the politically expeditious thing and never says what he means.

Ironically, the two most fiscally conservative commissioners Breen and Stewart, voted to enact this tax... that should tell you something.

I don't know any of these people personally, but I have met Stewart and Green. These guys are not stereotypical politicians. They're good guys - normal people struggling with HUGE problems that have no easy answers. Mr. Stewart took the time to talk to me, and I met commissioner Green when he was coaching kids football. The way people talk here, you'd think these guys were Lex Luther clones who would be getting the money themselves. They're not. heck, their jobs are not at risk - they're simply doing their best to act in the best interests of the community they share.

I'm telling you, the commissioners you need to be worried about are the other two who voted against the tax...especially if you think your money is being wasted now... Commissioner Fleenor wants to convert the Animal Regulation into a county-run animal lodging facility - when the county can't even fund the cops/DAs/POs - at 60% of minimum staffing. Now that's scary. Commissioner Sorenson considers every service as valuable as law enforcement services - that's why they've laid off cops/DAs/POs while keeping "metro-television" - the county's political soapbox that provides NO critical service. Unfortunately, the more financially conservative voices, like Stewart, have been unable to get rid of the TV and other unnecessary programs...

By the way, for the Fleenor supporters, you should note that he campaigned on there being "plenty of money" like so many others in the past. Once he took the time to review the finances, which was after the election, he changed his tune. Now he knows there isn't enough money to provide even basic minimum services, so he's ready to support submission of a new tax to the voters. That's a heck of a transformation in only ten weeks. Imagine where he'll be once he thoroughly understands the intricacies of running a 1,500 employee organization that spans services from animal control to courtroom litigation and infectious disease to search and rescue (over an area of 4,600 square miles - and area the size of the state of Connecticut.) Imagine what his views will be in a few more months or years when he actually understands it.

The HUGE fact remains that the measure we voted on was deliberately deceptively and misleadingly worded.  If it had been worded plainly and clearly I have a very strong feeling that a LOT more folks would have voted against it and not just 2%.

Potawatomi13:

The HUGE fact remains that the measure we voted on was deliberately deceptively and misleadingly worded.  If it had been worded plainly and clearly I have a very strong feeling that a LOT more folks would have voted against it and not just 2%.

Potawatomi, you have no idea what you're talking about here.

You obviously don't know who drafted the measure, who participated in the editing, or why it ended up in such lousy form. It was anything but deliberate. The confusing wording was the result of an effort to simultaneously enact a tax AND limit the tax, because the commissioners were trying to be responsive to the citizen concern that, once enacted, the tax rate would continue to grow. The wording could have been simple if it were not for the number of qualifiers, limiters and explanations the county attorney was directed to include - all because of concern for voter reaction. The ultimate result was a mess, but the intentions were nothing but good AND ALL OF MACHINATIONS WERE VIDEO-TAPED DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REMAINED AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW.

Furthermore, your speculation on probable outcome is not supported by the post-polling data collected and analyzed by Lindholm Research. (The Lindholm report is also a public document. It was shared with the media and the public and the Register Guard reported on it.) The poll strongly suggests that the tax measure would have passed but for,
1) The PERS retirement income exemption was unfair, though the commissioners had no ability to tax it.
2) The confusing language left many of the pro-public safety people confused, as it sounded like a limiting measure. People on both sides voted "no" because of confusion of what they perceived to be deception.
3) There was a VERY large under-vote (Over 13,000 people who voted on the other matters/measures didn't vote at all on the tax measure!) . If even half of them had voted for the tax we'd have it today.

As they say, "Opinions are like ********, everybody has one." This is true even though most of the opinion-holders have NONE of the essential facts.

If the post election data was so pro tax, why did the commissioners enact an income tax? 

No matter how much they take they always want more. 

Spanky, maybe you can check into how much money the Sheriff's office has spent in remodeling projects at the jail this year.  One project very big project was so they can release offenders out the back of the jail instead of out the front like they do now.  Why is it they are looking at renting the building across the street?  These maybe good projects, however how can you scream poverty while spending MILLIONS.

The bottom line is, Lane County is a program/service county and very anti law enforcement.  The only time these people do not committ crime is when they are locked up.  Instead of speaking to the politicians maybe you should speak to the ones committing the crimes.  Then and only then will you have true insight as to why they do what they do. 

I've  had them say you can spend a million dollars on programs and services but until we want to change it will not work. 

Spanky, in your response about charging inmates you said that would be a good question for the sheriff.  I would like to inform you the COMMISSIONERS are the ones with the power to do this, not the Sheriff.  The reason is, by charging inmates you are starting a new county fee, which requires a majority vote by the commissioners.  So, the sheriff has no say in the matter. 

tab911:

If the post election data was so pro tax, why did the commissioners enact an income tax?

I never described the post election data as "pro tax". I described what the polls identified as the primary objections to the tax, most of which could be eliminated by tweaking things like the retirement income exemption, the "unfair" property tax roll-back and the confusing wording. Since it was a close vote, and the under-vote (13,000+ votes) was large, it's reasonable to assume that removing/fixing the objectionable sections would have produced a good chance of passage.

tab911:

No matter how much they take they always want more.

That's certainly true of most government, but remember, Lane County is in this bind partially because its' leadership didn't keep raising taxes when it had the authority to do so and the other governments around the state were doing just that. That's how Lane County ended up with a property tax rate that's the lowest in the state and roughly one-third of the county property tax rates in other large metro counties. Without the timber subsidies, we may eventually get to the point where we'll have to accept an average tax burden if we want average public service.

tab911:

Spanky, maybe you can check into how much money the Sheriff's office has spent in remodeling projects at the jail this year.  One project very big project was so they can release offenders out the back of the jail instead of out the front like they do now.  Why is it they are looking at renting the building across the street?  These maybe good projects, however how can you scream poverty while spending MILLIONS.

About two years ago the DA suggested that the Sheriff remodel sections of the jail so more inmates could be housed in the same space (by double-bunking where possible, for example). The Sheriff and his team analyzed the possibilities, identified some barriers, and came up with some creative solutions, one of which reduced the number of closed beds immediately. If memory serves, one of the barriers to housing more people at the jail was the limited medical area/facility. I understand that was part of the remodel you describe - perhaps as a precursor to the double-bunking, but I don't know. Given the anti-law enforcement bias in this community, and the HUGE cost of building a properly sized jail, anything the sheriff can do to increase capacity is probably good and necessary. The other part of the remodel concerned the "sally-port", I think, and that was designed to limit crowding, and improve safety and inmate "flow". I haven't found the total remodel cost, yet, but it would have to be very expensive before it had any appreciable effect on the jail, as corrections is very expensive to operate. At $120 per-bed day, an 84 bed unit is over $3.5 million per year. Even if the remodel cost $1  million, it wouldn't be enough money to keep that unit open for 4 months. (The 24/7 nature of corrections makes it the most expensive county operation.)

tab911:

The bottom line is, Lane County is a program/service county and very anti law enforcement.  The only time these people do not commit crime is when they are locked up.  Instead of speaking to the politicians maybe you should speak to the ones committing the crimes.  Then and only then will you have true insight as to why they do what they do. 

I've  had them say you can spend a million dollars on programs and services but until we want to change it will not work.

Absolutely. You are 100% correct...and I have no idea how to fix this. For unknown reasons, the majority of Eugene citizens seem to think everything can be fixed by "treatment". Apparently Hollywood feels the same way. They have all forgotten the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." In Eugene the system leads every horse down to water every day, expecting a different result every time. I'm in favor of doing it just once  (so the horse knows where the water is) and the letting the horse go. I would much rather see the limited treatment resources applied to those who actually want to stop what they're doing, as those are the only ones who change, but that will never happen in the Eugene we-can-fix-everybody fantasy world.

tab911:

Spanky, in your response about charging inmates you said that would be a good question for the sheriff.  I would like to inform you the COMMISSIONERS are the ones with the power to do this, not the Sheriff.  The reason is, by charging inmates you are starting a new county fee, which requires a majority vote by the commissioners.  So, the sheriff has no say in the matter. 

Yes, it is commissioners who must approve fees, but it is the Sheriff who must make the presentation and fight the battle, just as it was in Douglas County when Sheriff Main moved those programs forward. I think our sheriff is trying to implement similar programs but, as I said, that would be a good question for him.

OK everyone, here are the two things that we all need to do:

 

#1: Saturday, go out and sign the petition, and get the income tax referred to a vote!!!  If anyone here still trusts the word of someone like Stewart, I pity them for their folly.

 

Here are the locations tomorrow where you can sign the petition:

 

Graffiti Alley, 675 River Road, Eugene

 

Econo Lodge, 1190 W. Sixth Ave., Eugene.

 

Eugene Elks Lodge No. 357, 2470 W. 11th Ave., Eugene.

 

Immanuel Baptist Church, 3050 Game Farm Road, Springfield.

 

Emerald Isle Mobile Home Park, Recreation Room, 658 S. 57th St., Springfield.

 

Hearth & Patio Shop, 85295 Highway 101,Florence.

 

Ray’s Food Place, 25013 Highway 126, Veneta.

 

D&D Classic Automotive, 1180 Ivy St., Junction City.

 

#2: Next week, go to one of the two Commissioners public meetings they will be having, and sign up for the public comments, and give them an earful!!

 

Here is the info on the two meetings:

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007 - WORK SESSION

 

9:00 a.m.    (Commissioners' Conference Room)

 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14, 2007 - REGULAR MEETING

 

9:00 a.m.    (Commissioners' Conference Room)

 

The location for both meetings is the same:

 

Public Service Bldg.

125 East 8th Avenue

Eugene, OR  97401

Phone:  682-4203

 

The time for debating this matter has ended.  It is now time to TAKE ACTION!  Get out there tomorrow, and also next week.

 

Lance in Springfield