Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
There were always going to be hard issues for Eugene and Springfield to work through on their journey to completing the merger of Eugene Springfield Fire into a truly single entity.
But who saw the July 2 announcement that the cities would revert to stand-alone departments coming?
We didn’t.
It appeared for months that the permanent union of Eugene Springfield Fire as a single agency was a matter of when, not if. When the Eugene City Council voted in December to support the planned merger, and the Springfield City Council followed suit a month later, there were few, if any, public indications the deal might fall apart.
Now, a week and a half after the cities announced their planned split — in brief written statements released the day before a federal holiday — we still don’t know why 16 years of work toward a unified department appears to be headed out the window.
What aren’t the two cities telling us? Leaders owe the public an explanation for why we’re now on a two-year journey back to the days of separate Eugene and Springfield fire departments.
Perhaps the worst thing about this split is that neither side seems to want it. Financial details aside, a unified fire department in a connected urban area of nearly a quarter-million people makes common sense.
Without any explanation from city leaders or elected officials, the public is left to speculate. And they’re doing it plenty — online in Facebook groups and other forums.
The public can’t wait weeks or months to learn why their cities are on the path to spending more on salaries and equipment costs in the coming years. We understand negotiations like these require some secrecy while in progress, but the information vacuum about this apparent failure to negotiate is unacceptable.
Springfield seems likely to bear more pain from the split. Having struggled for decades to adequately fund fire protection, it will need to hire a leadership team for its fire department as well as reestablish office and warehouse space.
So here’s the question for Springfield leaders: When will they put a tax levy on the ballot? A levy already funds one of Springfield’s five fire stations, and voters by a wide margin last November approved increasing that levy amount. Outside of substantial budget cuts to departments like public works or the library — which already absorbed cuts this year — the need for additional taxpayer support seems inevitable. That means city councilors and staff will need to start the work of convincing voters, and soon. If a first effort fails, they may need to try again. Unless someone has a viable alternative. We’re struggling to think of a good one.
And here’s the question for leaders of both cities: Is this really the end of the Eugene Springfield Fire story? Eugene City Manager Jenny Haruyama’s one-page letter to her Springfield counterpart, Nancy Newton, giving formal notice of the split, said the notice was driven “solely” by the terms of a deadline each city agreed to place on the talks six months ago. Newton responded in her own letter that Springfield “is willing to continue discussions” with Eugene “regarding the appropriate path forward.”
The current makeup, with Eugene and Springfield sharing a fire department but maintaining separate budgets and staff, was riddled with inefficiencies. But its breakup may be worse. And without any real public outreach by either city, Eugene and Springfield residents are left to wonder why they’re being given the option that hardly anyone seems to want.
As the cities start discussing how to unwind their consolidated department, the next six months can’t go the same way the last six months did: a process veiled in secrecy, with little explanation about where we’re headed and why.
