Local News
Board of County Commission News in Brief
“>
Vested Rights
The second work session held this month was on “Vested Rights” in regards to local cases stemming from Ballot Measure 49. This measure was passed in the November elections and went into effect December 6th 2008. Legislature authorized it to go on the ballot June 16th , 2008. These dates are important, according the presentation given by County Counsel Andrew Jordan, because part of what commissioners will have to decide is how much work was done on developing land in “good faith” and how much was done after finding out the law regarding the land could change. Measure 49 was passed in response to Measure 37, which granted landowners the opportunity to develop property they owned prior to current zoning regulations. According to Jordan Measure 49 restricts Measure 37 rights giving landowners three avenues for proving they had “vested rights” so they could develop their land. At the present time three appeals from landowners seeking approval on their vested rights claims are due to appear before the board. Evidence of vested rights is the burden of the landowner. They must show they have made a substantial effort to begin development of their land under their Measure 37 claim. Jordan said that courts have said that a seven percent investment of the value of the development shows a substantial effort according to case law, however it is not necessarily the minimum amount that must be invested. There also must be “good faith” effort, the landowner/developer must have performed all work on the Measure 37 claim lawfully following legal procedures to begin development of their land under their Measure 37 claims. These cases are a quasi judicial proceeding which the commissioners will have to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether the applicants meet the various criteria. The board will be required to make a record, produce findings of fact, of the proceedings in case there are appeals on their rulings.
Palmberg Easement Opposed by Scheller
The request for an easement over two pieces of county property in Warrenton from Jason Palmberg was tabled at the request of county staff. Palmberg asked for an easement to install a road and utilities across the Skipanon River. A dam is on the property where Palmberg proposes the road. Jim Scheller with The Skipanon Water Control District spoke against the easement. Scheller said the dam structure was not designed to hold traffic or utilities and that Skipanon Water Control District has written numerous requests to the City of Warrenton regarding a road on the dam. According to Scheller the Water District maintains the right to oversee the dam. County staff will collect more information on the situation before making a recommendation to the board.
Commissioner Expresses last minute budget concern
The commissioners voted to adopt the 2008-09 Fiscal Year budget for Clatsop County, which totals $56,604,900. The vote included setting the tax rate for the upcoming year at $1.5338 per $1,000 assessed value. The board also adopted the 2008-09 budgets for the 4-H and Extension Special Service District ($446,300); Rural Law Enforcement District ($2,388,200); Road District #1 ($2,540,800); and Westport Sewer Service District ($152,800). The budget passed by a unanimous vote.
Before the vote on the budget Commissioner Patrick brought up a concern over a series of emails between County Manager Derickson and District Attorney Marquis regarding the wording in the budget that stated that the two most recent hires being paid out of the General Fund would be the first let go if the General Fund experienced a shortfall. Marquis said he was unaware that the wording had carried over to the new fiscal year. Mike Robison, with Central Services, clarified that the language had been part of the budget packets given to the department heads in January. The board decided to first vote on the budget then to discuss the language. After the budget vote Patrick made a motion for the language prioritizing the two positions for elimination to be removed. The motion failed by a vote of 4-1.
New Media Policy
The board voted unanimously to approve a new media policy setting criteria for allowing a media organization in a closed executive session of the board of county commissioners. Further, the media policy states what cannot be reported on.
COLAs for Employees
The board approved a cost-of-living salary adjustment for non-union employees for the upcoming fiscal year from the original 4 percent included in the 2008-09 to 4.2 percent. Human Resources Director Dean Perez said the difference between the two figures totals $6,000. Commissioner Patrick made a motion to apply the COLA to the District Attorney’s newly re-instated stipend. Commissioner Raichl seconded the motion for the sake of discussion. Raichl asked if the stipend had just been negotiated this year in the budgeting process. Staff confirmed that it had been. Marquis confirmed that in the past the stipend had been raised per cost of living increases were granted. Raichl clarified that the District Attorney did not have any stipend last year and now had $13,500 stipend this year. The motion was put to a vote, 4-1 against applying the COLA to the re-instated stipend.
Manager’s Report
Derickson handed out Jordan’s opinion the county’s lack of authority over pipeline structures, the oversight of which is given exclusively to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission by the Natural Gas Act.
Commissioner’s Report
Sam Patrick reported that a meeting has been scheduled for July 2 at the Knappa Fire Hall to discuss the fate of the railroad tracks over the Knappa Dike, which was repeatedly damaged by flooding beginning in 2005. Representatives from The Corp of Engineers, Oregon Department of Transportation and the Railroad will be meeting with members of local residents who lived in the diking district to discuss whether or not to rebuild or vacate.
Appointments
County Planning Commission: Marcia Harper-Vellutini, Clarke Powers and Tod Lundy
Northwest Oregon Housing Authority: Charlotte Langsev
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department: Commissioner Ann Samuelson
Consent Calendar
- An amendment to an agreement with the State of Oregon for the replacement of the Ferris Creek Bridge;
- Cancellation of delinquent manufactured structure taxes;
- A public safety contract with the Oregon State Marine Board;
- A county counsel services contract and budget adjustment for 2007-08;
- Setting a hearing date for the vacation of a public road known as ‘old abandoned railroad right of way’ in Section 24, T7N, R9W;
- Purchase of paint for road-striping;
- A resolution and order authorizing a loan to the County Health and Human Services Department.
Local Media
Police Blotter
Articles Elsewhere
Recent Comments
On Nov 18, 5:48 PM, Patrick McGee …
By its all here, can't you read? from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.will be ready before 2025 to handle …
By Nick from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.I didn’t realize getting LNG from Alaska …
By Nick from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.lol, I was saying how sad the …
By senior citizen from the article Incumbents keep seats: Last 190 ballots result in no changes.Who says we need LNG Imports Nick? …
By Patrick McGee from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.The enviro movement is all about fundraising...these …
By Sick of bake sales... from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.I’ve visited CRK’s website as well as …
By Nick from the article Rehearing of FERC's Bradwood order is granted for Limited Purpose.Good article, Carrie. To Un-Hip Reader and …
By Bob Goldberg from the article Incumbents keep seats: Last 190 ballots result in no changes.
29 Comments
On Jun 26, 5:30 PM, Ron wrote:
The fiasco with the county budget for 2009 as broadcast on KAST was a sad political maneuver to place Commissioner Roberts into a corner. CCFOG at it’s best.
On Jun 26, 7:51 PM, Kyle G. wrote:
Hey, how did Patrick know what was in the e-mails between Derickson and Marquis anyway?
Oh yeah, Marquis must have shared with his buddy Yosemite Sam !!
Talk about lame ducks. That guy should just let Rohne take over and let county business beginning going again.
On Jun 26, 9:43 PM, Matt wrote:
$2,388,200 for rural law enforcement?! Last I heard they had more money than they knew what to do with and were trying to loan it to other departments. How about, if you can’t dream up enough ways to spend it, maybe give it back.
On Jun 26, 9:51 PM, Nora Charles wrote:
Funny how Sam asked Josh, “What was the wording you were upset about, Josh?” and Josh shook his head and said, “Uh, this is the first I am hearing about this.”
I seem to remember a transcript that Cindy did of the tape of last year’s budget meeting with Josh. Anyone have a copy of that transcript?
On Jun 26, 9:58 PM, Knappa boy wrote:
Looks like its still the 4-1 commission. What has happened to Patrick?...it really makes me sad. He needs to retire ASAP, for the health of our community. We need to move forward
On Jun 27, 7:24 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
Somebody needs to spread those posts out a bit to, maybe, not make it so obvious that one person is making post under a bunch of phoney names.
A good chance for discussion already tainted by “Biased Bullscat” attemting to drive it in one direction only...NCO’s as oppose to open discussion attempting to find answers in the interests of all of us.
On Jun 27, 8:06 AM, OK wrote:
So Patrick when is the last time you had an answer that contributed to a solution that made sense, I hesitate to post anything on NCO anymore because it always becomes about you slamming others, but I still enjoy the factual articles, at least you kind find out what is going on in the local area without the Forrester slant, his opinion column should just be every page.
On Jun 27, 8:57 AM, Jon Dana wrote:
Let’s not get caught up with pg opinions. He had 12 articles on his site with one reply, so I’m sure he would find it incomprehensible to have 3 in 15 minutes. It was a very good question to which he never replied. I know Patrick you don’t care. Pretty much your motto. Back on topic-- As far as I’m concerned state and county employees are already overpaid. With recession and inflation staring us in the face they just argue how split OUR tax dollars. With arrogance to the taxpayer. They don’t care about us, so every time the state or county ask for money for anything I vote NO, why let them waste it. Have a nice day. It’s going to be a dandy!!
On Jun 27, 9:02 AM, Patrick McGee wrote:
On Jun 27, 7:06 AM, OK wrote:
So Patrick when is the last time you had an answer that contributed to a solution that made sense, I hesitate to post anything on NCO anymore because it always becomes about you slamming others, but I still enjoy the factual articles, at least you kind find out what is going on in the local area without the Forrester slant, his opinion column should just be every page.
Awwwww! you poor thing you.
Well. OK, I’ll leave so you can have full access without intimidation from the likes of me.
Here you go, it’s all yours.
Enjoy
On Jun 27, 2:58 PM, Ron wrote:
Do I understand he is gone???
On Jun 27, 3:14 PM, maj wrote:
Volunteer for something at County or at least come to four meetings. Just four, and listen to the presentations of four committees that are using your tax dollars for services to OUR community and then really think about how these people “don’t care about us”. It is too easy to say that when we are talking about faceless people, or an angry face staring at us from a screen or paper but come to a few meetings, sit next to these people and actually get a look at what your money is being used for. Compare the wages of a couple of the county’s professionals with secular professionals and see which one is making the best wages.
I think it was a good idea to put Lundy on the planning commission. I look forward to some good work out of that group. I am dismayed to see that Rohn has yet to make it to a single BOCC meeting. He will be taking up the reigns in January 09 and it looks like District 4 is in for another looser with little concept of team work.
On Jun 27, 3:28 PM, Knappa boy wrote:
I was talking about commissioner Patrick retiring, not the complainer Patrick.
On Jun 27, 4:21 PM, Jon Dana wrote:
Sorry, still a little to busy to be involved, but that what happens when your not a professional or a public employee. Exactly what is a professional? Avg family wage in Clatsop County is 30,000 dollars with not many benefits going to those that make up the bottom half. 30,000 divided by 12 = 2500 per month and a 4.2% raise to somebody making 60,000 dollars and pers, is a 2500 dollar raise. I’m sure you can find equity in that when you throw the word professional in there. I think sometimes you forget that half the people in Clatsop county make less than 30k and no benefits, no health, no dental,no vision, no retirement. How many holidays are paid how many sick days do they get paid. I don’t feel sorry for public employees.
On Jun 27, 8:13 PM, just saying wrote:
I don’t think anyone is asking you to feel sorry for anyone. Frankly, if anyone had the opportunity to make sure that they did have benefits for themselves and their family I think they would be idiots to pass up the opportunity.
Your mind has been made up on this for a long time, however I think it is not right thinking that you vote no across the board no matter what is being asked for just because you don’t want county employees to be paid.
On Jun 27, 9:39 PM, J D wrote:
get all the benes you want but when it comes to tax money they just want more and more and more. It’s not just county it’s state also They are over benefited. So I see you think there is nothing wrong with handing out a raise (county employee) that is equal to 1 months wages to the avg. person in Clatsop County. Line up at the trough and eat yourself sick. CB I’m still voting no across the board, thats my only way to get rid of a few hogs. No to the jail No to the college, Maybe just maybe I could put that in my retirement fund instead of somebody else’s. I know it doesn’t seem like I have an open mind but I do and it changes
On Jul 1, 3:38 PM, guest wrote:
Transcripts
http://ivegottyping.blogspot.com/
On Jul 1, 10:05 PM, thanks guest wrote:
BARTLETT:They’ve got Clackamas County with eight staff and $375,000 budget, and that’s exactly equal to the numbers from Baker County. So it appears that the latest update of the DA’s survey has some problems in it,....
With any type of study like that you can always find problems. I did, though, in checking with the numbers I’m comfortable in Mr. Derickson’s recommendation that we ride it out and spend some more time getting better information, because with what’s happening in Oregon counties—I printed off this morning the Benton County budget number and find that the budget officer there is recommending 15.4 for the district attorney’s office in the next biennial budget. Benton County does a different budget system.
But then when I started looking at the LGPI study, I don’t think that the person who put that together corrected the numbers between counties that work 40 hours a week and counties that work 37.5 hours a week. So if you take a county that works 40 hours a week, you get an equivalent of about an extra .93 FTE, or .06 of an FTE for every person, and over a 15-person office you get about one extra FTE. Which begs a bigger question than anybody probably wants to address right here, and it’s definitely not one that the budget committee can recommend because the budget committee doesn’t do labor negotiations, but a number of counties after the 1980s crash and that did move away from a 37.5-hour week. That was instituted in my memory because there were a number of years in the 1980s where employees were not able to be given salary increases so the hours were reduced. Many counties, and this is changing again with timber revenues, many counties went back to a 40-hour-week cycle to get back up to the productivity.
So I think that rather than address it with this budget committee at this time, what really needs to happen is continue the staffing and then perhaps seek redress from LGPI to get apples and apples in the numbers.
DERICKSON: Was that a question? [laughs]
BARTLETT: That was a statement, actually.
DERICKSON: Okay.
BARTLETT: But could you do that? Could you get LGPI to redo the study, given that there are a number of gaps. Mr. Marquis and you have been sending information back and forth and it doesn’t…. I mean the clear gap is that the study doesn’t, when it takes different counties, reflect the actual equivalent hours’ work between the staff in different offices.
Marquis bringing up this LGPI study again this year was a ridiculous ploy for a Daily Astorian sound bite! Back to square one is right. With Marquis acting as if what was said the year before didn’t even happen!
MARQUIS: I do need to point out that…. I smile a little bit when you say a 40-hour work week. There’s no deputy DA’s that work 40-hour work weeks. They’re not hourly employees. And frankly we have relatively, although we’re under labor contract….
I see your point and I note that difference, but bodies to bodies. Mr. Bartlett you’ve been in city and county administration much longer than I have. I think it would be an excellent idea to ask LGPI to redo it. That data is a year old.
BARTLETT: Is that something that’s possible? Without an increase in fee.
DERICKSON: [chuckles] Can I paraphrase back what I think I heard your statement to be? Was given that there’s discrepancies within the LGPI staffing survey between data in the survey and data produced from a county-owned software package, should those issues be redressed with LGPI so that there’s maybe more consistency with the information available in the report and the other data that we’ve developed in the last year?
BARTLETT: Yeah. And I think you’re gonna see the impact of the timber-dependent O&C;counties, budget cuts, this year. I know in Clackamas County I’ve been talking with the manager there. You’re going to see some dramatic adjustments in budgets across the board.
DERICKSON: We certainly could…. If that’s the budget committee’s recommendation, we certainly would do that.
http://ivegottyping.blogspot.com/
On Jul 1, 10:30 PM, thanks guest wrote:
PATRICIA ROBERTS: Josh, I just was kind of curious in one of these trees of paper. There was a reference to infractions and at another point it’s violations.
MARQUIS: It’s the same.
ROBERTS: Are they interchangeable?
MARQUIS: Yeah, they mean the same thing. Under the law there are offenses—that includes felonies, misdemeanors and infractions.
ROBERTS: That’s everything.
MARQUIS: Um yeah. Infractions and violations are the same thing. An infraction or violation means a crime or an offense for which somebody cannot go to jail. So…we have way more than our share of them.
ROBERTS: Is trespassing an example?
MARQUIS: No generally.
ROBERTS: Okay.
MARQUIS: Although in counties that have had to cut back, what they’ve done is…. We can reduce a crime to a violation. It cheapens things up. You don’t need a jury, you don’t need a….
ROBERTS: I understand that. I guess the thing that has come across to me after reading absolutely not only you gave but the county administrator has given and other information that’s come in, is that we don’t really have any way to measure what the statistics are. In other words, we don’t have any way to know how much of a burden the input is into the computers for your staff on these violations which are included. Because if you take the violations away, the actual number of cases drops down to relatively a small number. I mean, comparatively. It’s over 5,000 that are violations or infractions, or whatever you want to call them.
And I guess what I’m having trouble with not only with the weighing of the cases but also what that burden is upon you. Some of these, I understand, are collecting state funds that go to the state—for traffic violations. Is that correct?
MARQUIS: The fines from the circuit court all go to the state.
ROBERTS: Yeah. So that is part of it. And do you do that or does the courts?
MARQUIS: The court does most of the collection, if you will. I mean, we enforce it in the sense that if somebody owes thousands of dollars in fines we will…his probation officer will often violate him and will threaten him with jail if he doesn’t pay the money. But the larger issue you addressed, commissioner, is a good one, and that is: How do you measure? One of the things that Scott forwarded on to you that I’m pleased he did was a pamphlet about how do you measure the performance of the DA’s office?
ROBERTS: Yes, I loved that. You have an opinion poll. [laughs]
MARQUIS: But the problem is, and Scott and I have some discussions about this: What is it that you measure? Do you measure convictions? Do you measure…. Is it good if more cases go to trial or is it good if there are more plea bargains? There’s a lot of things that performance measures lend themselves to, and I’m sure there are ways to do performance measures in district attorney’s offices, but they’re a little more complicated.
ROBERTS: But my whole point is that somewhere I’m hoping we can move down the path where we come to some agreement so we have some measure. Every other department is doing this. And while you are a state employee, all your employees are paid for out of the county, and the county still has to figure out how to keep its budget, and how to afford what you need. But we can’t measure it, the way it is now. We don’t know how. The statistics are saying one thing. We compared them to other counties. We need some help.
MARQUIS: Well, you know, one of the advantages is we are a fairly small county and I would really urge any of you, any of you at any time, to come if you want and spend a half a day in the DA’s office.
ROBERTS: That’s not what I’m suggesting. What I’m suggesting is, can we come up with some performance measures that we can agree upon.
MARQUIS: I’m sure we can work on that.
ROBERTS: Great.
MAN: Can I weigh in real quick on that? I went into the National—what’s the national organization?
MARQUIS: National District Attorney’s Association?
MAN: Yeah. Have you read that article that’s in there on Prosecution in the 21st Century?
MARQUIS: Yes.
MAN: It talks about some performance measures and some goals. I don’t know what was your thought on that article.
MARQUIS: I’m a vice president of that organization so I’m familiar with most of the stuff that they do. I don’t remember the specific details of that.
We have really robust discussions at the national level about these exact same issues. One of the issues also is, do you measure…How do you measure the performance? Do you measure it personally, about how people think about the DA himself?
Cindy inserts her opinion into the transcript here ... THIS IS WHERE YOU TAKE IT PERSONALLY. PATRICIA WAS TALKING ABOUT TYPISTS IN YOUR OFFICE. How Cindy gets that out of the dialog is a puzzle
MARQUIS: There was a study done asking people, What do you think of how Josh Marquis is doing as DA, as part of an attempt to get a case kicked out of the county. It was Anthony Scott Garner. It didn’t. He stayed, he got convicted. He got true life. Seventy-five percent of the people had an opinion. Seventy-three percent of those people rated my performance as “good” or “excellent”, 16 as “fair” and 8 as “poor.” But what does that mean? I mean, that’s just me, and as Commissioner Roberts points out, 95 or 98 percent of the office is not me personally, it’s my staff, and it’s paid for by the county.
ROBERTS: I just have one other quick question.
It’s my understanding that there are no new defense attorneys that have been hired by the state. Is that the indigent? Is that correct?
MARQUIS: There’s no new contracts. There are two consortiums with, I’m trying to remember, six or seven attorneys in it. And then they do hourly rates. Bryant would be able to address this better than me; I know he doesn’t want to be put on the spot. But no, they haven’t introduced new defense attorneys. And if you want to hear somebody complain, ask a defense attorney about what they think of the DA.
ROBERTS: So what I’m saying is that at least on the indigent, I know that those who can afford can go out and hire attorneys, but is it common that you have to have three attorneys at the same time in court? How often does that happen now?
MARQUIS: It happens all the time in dependency cases.
ROBERTS: Every day you have numerous…at the same…three courtrooms at the same time?
MARQUIS: Yes. It’s very rare that there’s a day where criminal stuff is not going on in all three courtrooms. Are there trials going on in all three?
ROBERTS: At the same time.
MARQUIS: At the same time, yeah.
ROBERTS: I guess that would be another statistic that would really help us to understand your case load and your workload.
MAN: But not necessarily trials.
MARQUIS: No. Trials are only held on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
ROBERTS: Yeah. So just the total number of days in court and how many times you actually had three attorneys at the same time in court. That would just be helpful for us to understand your workload.
SAMUELSON: And just to kind of back up what you’re saying. When Measure 37 claims happen, we know what those cost us because of staff time. Some of it’s data entry, some of it’s _____. So even though it’s a pain to sort of track that, it gives people, it gives the public a real…. We can say this is what it is. So when you talk about violations and all these kinds of things, I think, I mean that makes sense to me.
ROBERTS: Somehow we have to understand your workload.
SAMUELSON: And we have to be able to explain, you know, ultimately. And I agree about what Judge Nelson said, that cases are very much more complex. I know when I used to be involved in juvenile probation, it’s very different now than it was then. I mean it wasn’t easy then, but it was a little simpler. You didn’t have as much of the multiple things. But again, documentation of all that.
<b> Marquis never gives a straight answer to this question. Another year goes by and Marquis STILL isn’t giving straight answers, still ducking the issue, still won’t show what he’s doing with the staff our county taxes pay for and his office is still the most over staffed in the state of Oregon. In Oregon the average DA has ONE ADA per 10,000-12,000/pop in Clatsop County Marquis has ONE ADA per 5,400/pop. Almost half of what the rest of the DA’s in the state of Oregon have to deal with.
Marquis said his most recent hire took a $5,000 pay cut and traveled thousands of miles to work in Clatsop County. With the hours they have, the benefits they get and trying a mere 15 cases a year its a cake walk. No wonder the guy took the job! And Marquis was acting like the guy was doing US a favor!
On Jul 2, 1:36 AM, Don Pearleone wrote:
Marquis is a lying little evasive weasel who thinks the Clatsop County should revolve around him. It’s past time the County got a new prosecutor. Everyone has been hip to why he got his stipend jerked away because he was padding the expense account by falsely reporting his office was handling many more state cases than it actually was to increase his budget. Screw him, he’s as crooked, or more crooked, than the people his office supposedly prosecutes. You got an employee racking up bogus expenses in your business you cut your loses and send him down the road. Same with government. Get rid of him. Time to bring in an honest man or woman to that important office.
On Jul 2, 2:25 AM, ya'all smell Brylcreem? wrote:
Ah Josh, ya’ shouldn’t otta talk about yerself that way. Yer not falsely reporting that yer handling many more state cases (so technical here, aintcha lowyer man)yer jist acting like traffic infractions are something that count as high as court cases, jist in case yer ADAs ever take a break from their lattes and actually research a case to see if it needs to be prosecuted. But hell, its jist money. Jist the dumbass, hick town, redneck, yahoos money and iffen we wasn’t giffen it to yew we’d jist be drinkin it down and gitten areselves more deweys.
On Jul 2, 3:36 AM, Name (required wrote:
Everybody who thinks Josh is a wanker say “yay”
“Yay!”
On Jul 2, 9:44 AM, yay wrote:
*yay*
On Jul 2, 10:01 AM, Best Guest wrote:
“YAY!!!”
On Jul 2, 6:19 PM, yayhoo wrote:
YAY!!!!
On Jul 3, 9:27 AM, Country Boy wrote:
Jon Dana wrote that half the people make 2,500 per month.
According to the C.County web-site the ave.wage in Clatsop county is just below $30,000. with the avarage person making under $15,000.00 per year. That means there are a lot of high paid workers with a lot more low wage earners.
On Jul 3, 6:23 PM, Jon Dana wrote:
where you find your numbers , ----but when I was looking in the 07 budget under pension I found that the cost in 05 to fund the co. emp. pension fund was 1.085 mil. and has increased approx 33% to 1.625 mil. in 07 In 2 years pension funding increased 33% Please tell me I’m wrong an extra 560,000 into the pension fund. Did you notice all the motorcycles lined up at the county shop (pict in the da a few days ago) I guess it should make my heart feel good to know that they’ll be able to afford a new one when they retire. Country boy where did you find avg. person making under 15k.
On Jul 3, 7:46 PM, bone head math wrote:
that be a 50% increase!!
On Jul 4, 7:56 AM, Country Boy wrote:
The statment was the Ava. non gov worker makes under 15K
On Jul 4, 5:13 PM, guest wrote:
What type crimes are changed from a crime to a violation???? Could that mean it should/could have been a violation to start with. Does it cheapen the way really?