minhead.gif (11357 bytes)APPROVED 1/23/96

December 4, 1995
Commissioners' Conference Room - 8:30 a.m.

PRESENT: Commissioners: Steve Cornacchia, Ellie Dumdi (arrived at 8:39 a.m.), Bobby Green, Sr. and Jerry Rust present. Cindy Weeldreyer absent. Representing the City of Eugene: Tim Laue present. Laurie Swanson-Gribskov absent. Representing the City of Springfield: Maureen Maine present. Budget Committee Lay Members: Peter Bartel and Marie Bell (arrived at 8:36 a.m.) present. Kate Jones, Del Phelps and Bud Stewart absent. Department Heads: John Ball, Steve Carmichael, Jim Gangle, John Goodson, Doug Harcleroad, Bill Hoyt, Bob McManus, Rob Rockstroh, David Suchart, Bill Van Vactor and Teresa Wilson present. Chuck Forster absent. Facilitator: Lauren Chouinard present. Budget Staff: David Garnick, Tanya Heaton and Rick Schulz present. Recording Secretary: Sharon Giles.


Rust called the meeting to order.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (distributed at Nov. 27th meeting)

October 30, 1995 Joint Meeting, 8:30 a.m.

November 6, 1995 Joint Meeting, 8:30 a.m.

November 13, 1995 Joint Meeting, 8:30 a.m., including all

Tier 1 and Tier 2 Subcommittee minutes:

Tier 1 - November 2, 1995, 7:30 a.m.

Tier 1 - November 3, 1995, 1:15 p.m.

Tier 1 - November 7, 1995, 1:30 p.m.

Tier 2 - November 1, 1995, 3:25 p.m.

Tier 2 - November 8, 1995, 4:30 p.m.

MOTION: Approval of the Minutes as submitted. Harcleroad MOVED, Maine SECONDED. VOTE: Unanimous.

III. ORDER 95-12-4-1/In the Matter of Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Cities of Eugene and Springfield for Criminal Justice Planning Services (Bill Van Vactor)

Van Vactor distributed the Order, noting that the draft had been distributed last week and has since been reworked/rewritten (see material on file.)

Van Vactor outlined the provisions of the agreement. Noting that the Public Safety Coordinating Council is the coordinating body to implement provisions of this agreement, he indicated that their charge is to develop a work plan for approval of all three governing bodies no later than May 15, 1996. Van Vactor stated that Lane County's portion ($10,000) of the interim budget can come from contingency funds. Responding to Rockstroh, Van Vactor indicated that the group will work with both the adult and child criminal justice systems. Van Vactor noted that this process will take care of developing a work plan, not actually doing the work. He stressed that this is an aggressive goal, but with a staff person, he thinks it is doable. Responding to Bartel, Van Vactor stated that the staff will be responsible to the PSCC and that details will probably be worked out with the 3 CEO's and John Ball, as chair of the PSCC. Cornacchia emphasized that he still believes there is currently an organization/forum to do this job, noting that that is the MPC, so he believes this is redundant and thus is problematic for him. He stressed that eventually the three jurisdictions need to stand up and get MPC to do something besides transportation issues. Green expressed support for the agreement as it is.

Dumdi read the Order into the record. MOTION: Approval of the Order. Rust MOVED, Green SECONDED. VOTE: 3-1, Cornacchia dissenting. It was observed that this document will now to be referred to the cities for approval.


Garnick distributed Versions 4 and Version 5 of the "alternative uses" document. Garnick reviewed Version 4, observing the changes provided by the District Attorney. Garnick stated that Version 5 includes staffs' adjustments to balance the document to provide 8-year stabilization. He noted changes in budget numbers for the District Attorney, Assessment and Taxation and Deferred Maintenance. Harcleroad stressed that in order to get to 1992 staffing levels, he needs to add 11 people back, which would cost over $500,000 for salaries alone. He emphasized that the system will be out of balance. Harcleroad observed that Lane County has more judges than other major jurisdictions and that the County continues to grow. Bartel remarked that Version 5 figures for the District Attorney are still high ($4.4 million over three years), noting his discomfort with committing to adds without any data to support it. Responding to Harcleroad, Rust explained that there is a need to tighten up the numbers, that this is a broad outline of a spending plan for the next few years, that each budget year these numbers will be revisited and that they are not locked in.

Laue stated that it is unwise to go into a levy campaign saying what will be done with the money. He indicated that the City of Eugene will feel more comfortable if there is a * * * Memorandum of Understanding around how the monies will be spent over the 3-year period, dealing with the level of service for H&HS, the DA, etc. Bell remarked that there is no question about need in the DA's office, but that she would be interested to know what percentage of Lane County's total budget is used for the District Attorney's Office in comparison to other counties. Maine stressed that if the levy is going to be promoted, it needs to be less confusing. Bell stated that the levy should be sold with the idea that the money that was freed up is being prioritized towards impacts. She expressed concern that if there is a great deal of detail, there is a greater chance of making enemies along the way. Bell suggested that the group "buy into" categories 1 and 2, dealing with levy shifts and impacts, and then deal with the rest at the Budget Committee level. Cornacchia, noting that there is really only $2.3 million available, indicated that he is comfortable with the figures for the District Attorney on Version 5 from the standpoint of money that is available. Schulz observed that Version 4 is not a full accounting of all original requests. Rust noted that the District Attorney would be getting 13.5 new employees starting in July.

With regard to a Memorandum of Understanding, Rust suggested taking Version 5 and saying this is our best shot at a broad spending plan with the caveat that this group cannot bind a future board or budget committee, noting that in the event of emergency, things can change in future years. Harcleroad stressed that this is not an 8-year stabilization plan because of the 3-year levy and it is a big mistake to advertise it that way. He noted that there are a series of capital issues (sheriff's new building; staffing space for 53 new officers; general long term maintenance, etc.) that may impact stabilization. Harcleroad emphasized that the community is growing and demand for all services is going to increase and that an 8-year plan ignores growth. He underscored that his staff is willing to work hard, but can only handle so much "stuff" without making mistakes. McManus noted that the sheriff's levy capital project has been pulled off the table and will be given to the PSCC as a possibility to deal with all jurisdictions' problems. Laue agreed with Harcleroad's points regarding 8-year stabilization.

Green stated that he would want to see some comparison costs, dealing with District Attorney administration, filings, etc., to compare with equivalent counties. He observed that the District Attorney will always have to choose prosecution priorities. Van Vactor agreed that until it is known how each county's policy regarding prosecutorial discretion is exercised, numbers don't mean much. Harcleroad distributed a document dealing with district attorney comparisons between Lane County and four other counties. Cornacchia emphasized that what this committee is dealing with is really an * * * "8-year deficit reduction plan." He also noted that all agreements dealing with City of Eugene issues are dealt with in Categories I and II (shifts and impacts). Cornacchia indicated that this then ends the cities' scrutiny of Lane County's general fund. Bell expressed support for Cornacchia's new terminology.

Responding to Cornacchia's request that the Public Hearing have value, * * * Van Vactor indicated that staff could work on notifying the public regarding the December 11 Public Hearing via a press release and/or display ad, etc.

Consensus (except for Harcleroad) was reached Version 5, Categories 1 and 2. Ball observed that this process is meeting the original timeline and that he assumes follow-up budgeting will bring a further level of scrutiny. He urged members not to read this as a line item vote, but clearly a policy discussion regarding priorities.




None needed.


There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 10:02 a.m.

 Sharon Giles, Board Secretary

go_to.gif (1155 bytes)Back to Board Notices

Contact the webmaster@co.lane.or.us Read the Lane County Liability Disclaimer and User Agreement
Updated: 09/19/05 URL:
Copyright 1997 Lane County Information Services.  All rights reserved.