October 16, 1995
JOINT LEADERSHIP TEAM AND BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
Commissioners' Conference Room -- 8:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners: Steve Cornacchia, Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr. (arrived at 8:53 a.m.), Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer present. Representing the City of Eugene: Tim Laue and Laurie Swanson-Gribskov present. Representing the City of Springfield: Maureen Maine present. Budget Committee Lay Members: Peter Bartel and Marie Bell 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.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Dumdi called the meeting to order.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION: Approval of the September 25, 1995 minutes as submitted. Harcleroad MOVED, Maine SECONDED. VOTE: Unanimous.
Bill Van Vactor, County Administrator, advised the group that, as requested, copies of the "Community Policing Citizen Involvement Project Household Survey" were available at the table today. He also distributed copies of the information relating to Lane County's FY95-96 Budget for Criminal Justice Services, noting that the current figure is $39,154,000.
III. CONTINUE LEVY DISCUSSION
Sheriff McManus reported that Captain Clague is unable to be present today, noting that he would provide the overview for the Tier 1 Budget and Service Levels for Support Services. He directed the group to begin on page 9 of the "Sheriff's Recommended Service Levels."
#25 - Information Officer - McManus noted that this item was removed during attempts to lower the levy amount. McManus indicated that he thinks, however, that this position is imperative. Van Vactor confirmed that Public Information Officers are invaluable in emergency situations. Bell suggested the possibility of combining that position with an existing position. McManus stated that that could be looked at, suggested the possibility of perhaps sharing one position county-wide.
#26 - Support Service Administration - McManus reviewed this item briefly.
#27 - Support Service Administration - Tier 1 - Policy decision only.
#28 - Information Technology (complete migration to client server) - McManus explained that this item, too, was removed from the proposal, but would come up in a different form later.
#29 - Information Technology (portable computers in cars) - McManus reviewed this item. He explained that the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) is able to provide invaluable information for law enforcement via these portable computers, encompassed presently as a pilot project. McManus indicated that in the year 2000, NCIC plans on totally changing its present format and will provide the technology and ability to have in-car computers that will provide proof-positive, via fingerprint/video imaging, of wanted persons. He stressed that Lane County needs to be poised to receive this information.
#30 - Information Technology (expanded optical disc) - McManus briefly reviewed this item.
#31 - Information Technology - (public access) - removed from consideration.
#32 - Information Technology (combined unit) - removed from consideration.
#33 - Information Technology - Tier 1 - Policy decision only.
#34 - Cost Accountant - McManus briefly reviewed this item.
#35 - Fiscal Section - McManus reviewed this item. Responding to Swanson-Gribskov, Pat Dawley indicated that the Materials and Services in this item are phones, uniforms, radios, etc. for the personnel increases for the entire department.
Swanson-Gribskov reported that the City of Eugene has gone through a similar exercise and has determined that their Public Safety Department will be seeking $10-$12 million for community policing over the next three years, noting that there is not enough room under the cap when the County's proposal is taken into account. She remarked that she wants to discuss how to get the Sheriff/Corrections Levy/some of the Lane County general fund shortfall taken care of, while asking the Public Safety Coordinating Council to look at a regional/unified system. Swanson-Gribskov stated that the technology costs in this plan are close to $750,000 for an investment in the future. She stressed that this shows the need to try to merge what the cities are doing with the County and to determine how much is affordable now and how much is affordable later. Swanson-Gribskov expressed concern that these important discussions/decisions will not be concluded by the December date to meet the March ballot deadline. McManus observed that Lane County began hurting earlier than Eugene and has already reviewed cuts in all departments. He suggested that perhaps Eugene and the other cities should do the same thing with regard to all of the services it provides. McManus agreed on the need to determine who can provide a particular service best and who is mandated to do it, and then have them take on that responsibility.
#36 - Fiscal Section (Tier 1) - policy decision only.
#37 - Career Development - Removed from consideration. McManus emphasized that this had been a hard decision, noting that within the next five years there will be a major turnover of people due to numerous pending retirements.
#38 - Training - McManus reviewed this item. He noted that training is expensive, but is mandated by the state and by union contract. Responding to Swanson-Gribskov, McManus stated that the jurisdictions do exchange trainers. Harcleroad indicated that this component is critical.
#39 - Training (Tier 1) - policy decision only.
#40 - Recruitment - Removed from consideration.
#41 - Personnel/Payroll - McManus reviewed this item.
#42 - Personnel/Payroll (Tier 1) - policy decision only.
#43 - Police Services/Records (Tier 2) - Discussed at an earlier meeting.
#44 - Warrants - McManus reviewed this item. Responding to Swanson-Gribskov, McManus indicated that Lane County's lack of funding had required other departments to begin entering their own warrants. He noted that this proposal/component is only for the Lane County caseload. McManus reported that Eugene would really like "one-stop shopping" for warrants. Responding to Weeldreyer, McManus indicated that the warrant process is extremely labor intensive. There was general agreement that it would be beneficial to have one agency for the region dedicated to this system in order to provide information in a timely manner.
#45 - Police Service/Records (Tier 1) - policy decision only.
#46 - Dispatch (Tier 2) - Discussed at an earlier meeting.
#47 - Dispatch (Tier 1) - policy decision only.
#48 - Civil Unit - McManus reviewed this item. He stressed that it is very important for this unit to be restored and have some enhancements, observing that the numbers of civil papers and subpoenas are increasing at a dramatic rate. Staff reported that the goal is to remove this duty from the patrol units, noting that a majority of these services are required of the Sheriff by state statute.
#49 - Civil Unit (Tier 1) - policy decision only.
#50 - Emergency Management - McManus reviewed this item. Responding to Maine, McManus indicated that his team works hand-in-hand with the Red Cross. While noting that Emergency Management is important, Swanson-Gribskov stressed the importance of getting a sense of what the immediate, "today" needs are in the overall package.
Cornacchia emphasized the need to identify the benchmarks for service. He stated that he hasn't heard of any enhancement that would not be helpful to the system's operation. Cornacchia explained that he would like to hear more discussion regarding coordination/consolidation/ cooperation between the jurisdictions on many different levels, commenting that if there is political will, then this can be done during this timeframe. He observed that this exercise has raised the level of understanding and helped provide some assessment of the problems. Cornacchia asked if the group intended to talk about realities or go through and sort through FTE's. He stated that, with regard to resource, there needs to be a serious discussion of how much of the $10 cap is consumed by cities, how much is consumed by counties, and, more importantly, how much is consumed by this system. Cornacchia summarized that he would like to see this done from the community standpoint, and not piecemeal.
Laue remarked that, with regard to a systems approach, the city survey resulted in 80% support for community policing, but he expressed concern that he is not sure a systems approach can be developed in two months. He agreed that he sees nothing in the Sheriff's proposal that isn't necessary, but noted that Eugene's proposal is justified, too. Laue stated that Eugene recognizes the County's dire straights and sees a desperate need for more bed space in the jail and the reopening of the work camp.
Rust stated that he is more optimistic and believes that somewhere between the status quo and the proposal there is a formula that will fly. He remarked that there is not the necessary time before the ballot deadline to do an adequate analysis and review of relationships. Rust, indicating that he thinks the numbers can be brought down, suggested the need for a smaller committee to do that and come back with a strategic plan. He continued that, in a few years, when the intergovernmental work is done, then perhaps there can be a true consolidation of services in the metropolitan area.
Green indicated that he wouldn't have a problem with Rust's approach, but agreed with Cornacchia regarding the fact that a package approach, addressing the total costs for the system, needs to be addressed. He expressed interest in the total cost for an integrated system. Green observed the need to bring the State police services to the table, too.
Cornacchia agreed that the idea of providing a joint approach makes sense, as when an item is described as the Sheriff's levy, the public has the impression that that is the entire public safety system. He indicated that he would have no problem with a subcommittee review, but will not volunteer as he believes it is a simplistic approach. Cornacchia stressed the need to have a discussion regarding the available cap.
Harcleroad spoke with regard to the components in the criminal justice operation, noting that, collectively, Lane County police agencies are producing more work than the District Attorney can handle. He noted that capacity increases then are passed on through the Courts, the Jails, etc. Harcleroad observed that most of the work created by the nine police agencies comes through the DA's office and there is not political will to say prosecution won't be done. He asked for an effective analysis of which components have the capacity to generate the necessary work.
Maine commented that the capacity issue is Springfield's primary concern and that in order to sell this levy, there will need to be "buy in." With regard to a coordinated effort, Maine observed that the cities had not come into this process until a few weeks ago and she expressed concern about the timeframe needed for critical thought. She suggested that it may be more appropriate for the regional partners to get together after a short-term solution has been developed to get by in the meantime.
Bartel expressed interest in the total dollar amount for all law enforcement agencies in the county. He questioned, for example, whether insurance companies might be willing to help fund law enforcement since property crimes are such a problem. Bartel agreed that there is a strong need for the total discussion to occur, but noted that he could see a small committee coming back with a process for jurisdictions to get together to develop benchmarks and ideas for better coordination - at the end of the three years dealt with under the proposed package.
Gangle stressed that Ballot Measure 5 has caused the need for managed spending, agreeing with the need for more coordination. He suggested trying to find programs that will work on a regional basis and move those into the Sheriff's Office where the limited dollars can be better disbursed. Gangle agreed that this is the first step in a conversation that needs to go on and on. He expressed his belief that there is room under the cap, but that requires better management between governments.
Laue stressed that if there is going to be a subcommittee to look at what to fund in the levy, then he suggests that it be the Board of Commissioners. He stated that, as the levy is proposed right now, the County may not get support from Eugene and would probably get active opposition. Laue agreed with the need to have discussions regarding a system that is not a system.
Cornacchia remarked that he is interested in Eugene's position on a different type of funding mechanism. Responding to Cornacchia, Laue observed that at least a tax base increase would provide an ongoing funding source. He agreed with the need to deal in the short term with the immediate needs, and then engage in a long-term discussion on coordination. Cornacchia stated that he hopes the city representatives take back to their councils some type of leadership for discussions regarding what is the cities' overall capacity under the cap. He continued that it is necessary for the two major cities to acknowledge that they have a responsibility in the regional system (DA/corrections, etc.).
Bell acknowledged the need to find out the "bottom line" from its partners regarding their support and the impact to the cap. She stressed the need to stay focused and deal with the policy decisions.
Rust questioned whether there is something systemic and fundamentally wrong with the current approach to the levy or is it the numbers that are having the greatest impact, observing that for him it is the numbers. Responding to Rust's questions regarding just taking care of the status quo: the Psychiatric Hospital, the jail and the corrections programs, including the work camp, and maybe a little enhancement, Swanson-Gribskov indicated that it seems prudent to refund the current levies and make some purposeful, key enhancements and then continue discussion on "where we go from here" with the overall system.
Green expressed agreement with Gangle regarding using the "cap" dollars wisely in terms of regional programs, indicating the need to remain focused, suggesting that he is interested in Rust's subcommittee approach in the short term.
Weeldreyer agreed on the short and long term approach and the need to bring the state police into this conversation. She stressed the need for genuine collaboration between all Lane County jurisdictions for improvement of the criminal justice system, creating the best value for taxpayer dollars. Weeldreyer stated that in the short term, she is supportive of this proposal, noting that a key point is that it will stabilize the entire County's functions due to the O&C decrease. In the long term, she suggested consideration of a "criminal justice center" for Lane County that is shared by all jurisdictions.
Responding to Swanson-Gribskov's questions regarding the Public Safety Coordinating Council, Cornacchia noted that the Governor agrees regarding coordination/consolidation between the state and local bodies and local bodies with each other. He observed that the intent of SB1145's mandate for the PSCC is that it put together a coordinated public safety criminal justice system. Cornacchia remarked that the PSCC can't help with this immediate discussion, but can help with the long term coordination planning.
Swanson-Gribskov made some observations: 1) the Public Safety Coordinating Council is an established body to work with the long-term systems' "stuff;" 2) there is agreement that the current system is not a system and there is a need for some type of Lane County operations levy; but 3) there is disagreement regarding how to fix the current problem (whether it is a $40 million problem or a $15 or $20 million fix, for example).
Cornacchia expressed hope that, in the long-term approach, the PSCC brings all assets of each partner, including the general funds of each entity, to the table for discussion of what is the system.
McManus emphasized that on June 30, 1996 the current levy expires, noting that currently work camp money is being used to help operate the jail. He stressed that Lane County is in a vulnerable position, with an $11 million deficit this coming year. McManus observed that if there is no revenue source, things will be a lot different. He indicated that the current levy proposal was brought forward to keep business as it is now and add enhancement/restorations to meet the needs of area law enforcement agencies, which resulted from input from other police jurisdictions, judges, the District Attorney, etc. McManus stressed the need to know the final dimensions of the levy so he could begin selling it. Harcleroad also noted the need to find out what to do with "left over" dollars.
Van Vactor indicated that the survey results will be back in two weeks. He distributed copies (again) of the policy questions. * * * Rust suggested that everyone return for the next session with the policy questions answered in writing. * * * There was general agreement that participants would return those responses by this Friday, October 20, then budget staff would go through and look for central themes. * * * Rust suggested that at the next meeting, process work could take place on the board. * * * He suggested that participants also answer questions in the workbook. * * * McManus suggested that other players in the criminal justice system could also be present to react to responses from the participants.
* * * It was requested that Van Vactor make available copies of the Ernst and Young study on jail staffing, with Cornacchia suggesting that this data be put up against Tier One proposals with regard to the jail.
* * * Members were encouraged to attend the Friday meeting of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (at 7:30 a.m. in the BCC Conference Room) to hear the consultant's (David Bennett's) preliminary results regarding who is in the jail, how long have they been there, for what crime, etc.
IV. DISCUSS POLICY QUESTIONS
V. DISCUSSION/QUESTIONS ON POLICE STATISTICS HANDOUT
VI. FOLLOW UP MATERIAL
VII. NEXT MEETING
Monday, October 30, 1995
Commissioners' Conference Room
Sharon Giles, Recording Secretary