October 2, 1995
JOINT LEADERSHIP TEAM AND BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
Commissioners' Conference Room -- 8:30 a.m.
PRESENT: Commissioners: Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr. (arrived at 9:05 a.m.), Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer. Steve Cornacchia excused. Budget Committee Lay Members: Peter Bartel, Marie Bell and Kate Jones. Del Phelps and Bud Stewart absent. Department Heads: John Ball, Chuck Ryer (for Steve Carmichael), Chuck Forster, Jim Gangle, John Goodson, Doug Harcleroad (arrived at 9:00 a.m.), Bill Hoyt, Bob McManus, Teresa Wilson and Bill Van Vactor present. Rob Rockstroh and David Suchart absent. City of Eugene Representatives: Tim Laue and Laurie Swanson-Gribskov. Budget Staff: David Garnick, Tanya Heaton and Rick Schulz. Recording Secretary: Sharon Giles.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Dumdi called the meeting to Order. Minutes of the September 18 meeting were distributed, for approval on next week's agenda.
Van Vactor reviewed his September 25 memorandum (see material on file) regarding a citizen survey. He explained that Rick Lindholm had indicated that it would cost approximately $7,000 to conduct a 20-question survey, and that it would need to be conducted during the second or third week of October to give it time to be processed and then for the group to assimilate it. Van Vactor commented that he thought survey results were quite helpful with regard to formulation of the Juvenile Justice Center bond measure. Responding to Bell, he remarked that the survey had provided percentages on how many people were willing to fund the services. Goodson remarked that it could help to point out some public misconceptions and also in putting together an information campaign. McManus stated that the proposal is meant to respond to needs heard from citizens/cities. He recommended that, if a survey is done, that one aspect deal with "Did we put the package together right?" to help in determining whether Tier 1/Tier 2 is the right way to go. McManus indicated that the time frame and the money are of concern to him. Responding to Bell, McManus indicated that, regardless of the outcome of the survey, he would not abandon some form of proposal, as a new revenue source is required. He remarked that he is not worried about data coming in the other direction if we stick to asking questions about this proposal. Bell stressed that she really believes that if the survey talks about doubling and tripling services, there is a good chance the public will say no.
Bartel commented that the committee cannot operate without information and encouraged the survey, noting that something will be learned that wasn't known before. Ryer stated that two critical things were learned from the survey with regard to the Juvenile Justice Center, i.e., were we in the range and which precincts to target. McManus observed that the Sheriff's Office has been reduced by 40 positions while crime is on the rise and the population increasing, noting that even if services were tripled, they wouldn't come near the national average. Gangle expressed support for doing a survey, remarking that if useful information is obtained, then the cost of the survey is a small price to pay. Swanson-Gribskov stated that she can appreciate that Lane County must have a law enforcement levy, noting that the issue is one of timing, size and scope versus other issues that are going on in Eugene. She observed that with the short timeline, there hasn't been a chance to scale it back or tailor it to adapt to a larger audience.
Responding to Van Vactor, Rust agreed that the Sheriff should meet with Rick Lindholm, but he suggested having other people, both urban and rural, on the subcommittee to formulate the questions for the survey. He indicated that he is interested in learning if people realize that the current levies are running out and what is their general perception of the Lane County budget. McManus stated that he would like the survey to be narrow and specific to the proposal on the table. Responding to Bell, McManus agreed that the proposal on the table is just a working model and, for purposes of the survey, dollar figures could be left out; using wording such as "Would you pay additional taxpayer dollars to support..." There was unanimous support to initiate a survey, with Garnick indicating that there are sufficient dollars in 1065 money to fund the survey. * * * Copies of the city survey were requested. Swanson-Gribskov remarked that at least one person has raised the concern of having city people voting on rural (Tier 2) taxes.
III. FOLLOW UP MATERIAL REQUESTED AT LAST MEETING
Schulz distributed a revised page one of the "Sheriff's Recommended Service Levels," indicating that a few figures have been changed. Gangle distributed a draft document dealing with Lane County tax rate projections, asking if the format is useful; and, if so, indicating he would then develop it for the major rural areas. * * * Swanson-Gribskov asked for information regarding the calculation of what the Assessed Value increase is (in percentages), noting that it is important to know what happens if the AV rate doesn't come in as high. She agreed that it would be nice to have some examples of Tier 2 for unincorporated areas. * * * There was consensus that the chart would be reverified and developed further.
IV. POLICY QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING
Van Vactor distributed his September 29 memorandum dealing with policy questions (see material on file), noting that there are some policies implicit in the proposal that have not been voted on. He asked the group to think about these questions and have a general discussion next week to make sure there is agreement on the assumptions. With regard to Tier 1 and Tier 2, Bell asked if McManus had used a per capita population or some kind of formula, when the number of additional FTE for rural areas (Tier 2) was designated, to see if the rural people would be getting their fair share of the levy. McManus indicated that staff had looked at the number of positions that have been lost over the years (resident deputies, 24-hour patrol coverage in some areas, etc.) and put those back in, noting that he agreed that statistically the numbers are still low. There was a brief discussion regarding urban level of services for rural areas. Bell reiterated her concern that Lane County will need to be able to answer questions with some statistical model, based on population, in order to sell the levy to the rural areas. * * * Van Vactor indicated that there is some BPST data available. Rust commented that the number that will matter the most is the amount that the average taxpayer will have to pay. He stressed the need to get McManus's team to the blackboard to go through the program elements of the proposal in order to understand the base (what is available today) and then to understand what the actual proposals are and why they are needed. He noted that in that will be the analysis of how the Sheriff's Office will essentially double FTE and how the amount for the County's share of a taxpayer's taxes will triple/quadruple. Rust emphasized that these numbers will need to come down substantially. He urged the group to review the policy questions next time and then go through a program-by-program discussion regarding what the levy is buying and why it's needed. He observed that the owner of a $200,000 house will pay approximately $700 in additional taxes with the current proposal. Bell expressed agreement with Rust. McManus reminded the group that this proposal also funds all of Lane County for the next eight years and is designed to keep the General Fund afloat for awhile. Rust noted that the savings to the rest of Lane County government, from the concept of getting the Sheriff off of the General Fund, will be the same regardless of the number amount chosen for the levy. Forster suggested that a question for the survey may be is taking the Sheriff off the General Fund what the voters want to happen. Bartel remarked that it can only strengthen the proposal to have a general discussion; but he noted that discussion of dollar amounts for specific positions may be difficult.
V. LEVY DISCUSSION
McManus remarked that he is going to Springfield tonight and there is a possibility that they, too, may desire to have a representative at the table. He suggested review of Tier 2 today and save Tier 1 for next time when a Springfield representative may be present.
Tier 2 Budget and Service Level
Captain Eric Langford explained that this discussion will include uniform patrol, detectives and support elements that support a rural patrol operation.
Crime Prevention: Langford briefly reviewed this item.
Volunteer Coordinator: Langford briefly reviewed this item.
South Lane Law Enforcement - Langford reviewed this item. Responding to Bell, Gangle indicated that all districts within Tier 2 will have the same Lane County law enforcement assessment. Responding to Hoyt, Langford indicated that the area previously had two uniformed officers and one detective from Lane County and 17 officers from the Oregon State Police, for a total of 10, where six Lane County law enforcement staff are now proposed. Rust asked how this ties in to the contracts with the small cities in South Lane and West Lane. McManus noted that contract agreements will allow the city's deputy to go out, helping to provide 24-hour coverage. Rust observed that the concept is that if small city residents are already paying for a police service through their city taxes, then they only have to pay Tier 1; but, if they're not, then Tier 2 "kicks in." He questioned whether Lane County subsidizes those contracts. Bell remarked that she would like to hear from some of the small cities, noting that there may be some advantages to the cities being on the levy. She indicated that they might "buy in" to the levy better if somehow it included their city services. McManus acknowledged that Lane County could have that discussion with them, but observed that if the people in those cities just go onto Tier 2, they will have a decrease in their services. Bell summarized that she just wants to make sure this is a "systems" approach, as the contracts are a part of the whole system. Dumdi remarked that the Board is setting up joint meetings with the small cities and this will be a topic of conversation. Langford pointed out that there is no supervisor position included in the South Lane proposal because of the relationship with Creswell, where there is a sergeant there and Lane County pays for half the salary.
West Lane Law Enforcement - Langford reviewed this item. McManus noted that the Florence State Police is scheduled to go from a "station" to an "outpost" in about 15 months. Responding to Bartel, McManus indicated that the Florence Police Department has about 10 staff, that they will come out of the city a few miles to cover the Sheriff or State Police on a call, but will not answer calls, accidents, etc. outside their city limits. * * * Rust suggested that Florence be asked to respond regarding their FTE/service level plans over the next few years.
Central Lane Law Enforcement - Langford reviewed this item, noting that this is the core service delivery group. Rust asked what percentage of the staffing build-up would be serving the metro area. Langford remarked that this area covers from Triangle Lake to Walton to Creswell to Blue River and to Lowell/Dexter. Rust indicated he was interested in service calls for Glenwood, River Road/Santa Clara and North Springfield. * * * He remarked that he is interested in service calls and possible contracts. Bartel concurred with Rust regarding the areas of urban transition. Responding to Green, Langford stated that there is currently not the staffing to accommodate a 4/10 schedule, but that they are looking at that model for the future. Green mentioned that he was interested in looking at/having analyzed the frequency of call for services and the times of calls with regard to staffing. Langford stated that it would not be advantageous to have no officers on duty, stressing that the current 18 officers cannot be distributed more effectively than is already being done. Bell noted that if she had the information regarding the number and frequency of calls, priority, etc. then she would feel more comfortable regarding the proposed level of increases for Central Lane. Responding to Dumdi, McManus noted that provision of city level of services in, for example, River Road would require more people than those proposed and would give them more service than other urban areas. Weeldreyer commented that those people are already upset regarding being on the edge of annexation. * * * Green reiterated that he was still interested in seeing how the FTE are allocated and information regarding times of calls/staffing level during those times/nature of calls/location, etc. Langford asserted that staffing currently is always one sergeant and two deputies, around-the-clock. Swanson-Gribskov indicated that the question, more importantly, with regard to the additional 40 officers, is whether every shift gets the same add with the proposal or whether there are peaks and valleys in calls, location (UGB and the various districts), etc. Responding to Goodson, Langford indicated that it is anticipated that the 4/10 schedule would go into place in the first year.
Detectives: Langford briefly reviewed this item, noting that they currently don't investigate burglaries or the majority of sex abuse complaints due to staff shortages. Responding to Swanson-Gribskov, Langford indicated that the benchmark for the percentages of increases was to try to look at average response times, frequency of calls and providing the ability to respond to all major property crimes and reported felonies.
Community Policing - Langford noted that this area has been removed from the proposal.
Contract Services - Langford observed that there is a discussion about each of the contracts in the Policy Development book. Rust stated that it had been his presumption that with Tier 2 going into place, the County would no longer need the reciprocal agreements. He asked whether, if the population of Veneta and Creswell were added up, their cost-per-service share is equal to, for example, Westfir/Dunes City/Lowell or are they getting a better deal because of the contract. McManus observed that if they desire additional levels of service, that's what the contract provides. * * * Langford reiterated that he would get information by calls/population/distribution. Dumdi remarked that people in Creswell and Veneta are paying for that service in their city taxes. Rust remarked that it is the subsidy piece that concerns him. Langford explained that the new facility (for the Traffic Team) operating costs would be for maintenance and custodial personnel. Swanson-Gribskov asked if there is a bond parallel that envisions building a new facility. Rust noted that there is a $13 million capital construction bond proposed in year two. * * * Bartel asked for clarification as to whether people are committed to new facilities as a course of action. He suggested that if there is going to be a new facility, it is important to think about other building needs and a more comprehensive approach with regard to courts, etc.
Tier 2 - Support Services
Captain John Clague noted that the portion of Records and Dispatch that reflect the direct relationship between the new deputies and these services have been put into Tier 2.
Records - Clague reviewed this item, indicating that in coming up with the numbers they looked at the number of additional deputies, the propensity for the public to call for services and the kinds of reports the deputies would be generating, and then tried to correlate those numbers to the types/number of records folks needed to process those. Jones asked if the ratio is kept constant (whether it is similar to the current level of support to officers). Clague remarked that it is as precise as they can get. Bell asked, assuming the acceptance of the need for nine additional people, how the figure of $l/2 million for nine clerical support staff was obtained. Langford responded that it correlates to salaries and fringe benefits based on current contract rates, noting that collective bargaining has set the base figures and this is for entry level and assumes no overtime. He also noted that some of the salaries were awarded by an interest arbitrator.
Dispatch - Clague reviewed this item.
Swanson-Gribskov questioned why more Tier 1 support services weren't put into Tier 2, noting that many other functions, i.e. personnel, accounting, etc. are directly attributable to Tier 2. Clague responded that proration was not considered in an effort to keep the levy more simple for the public to understand. McManus agreed that the decision had been made for simplicity.
McManus asked the group if this discussion was helpful and whether this is the format desired for the review of Tier 1. Rust observed that it was helpful, but shows that there are numerous policy questions.
Harcleroad asked whether any decisions have been made regarding money that is left after the Sheriff comes off the General Fund. He expressed that after hearing the presentation, he has concerns that two additional DA's may not handle the load. He noted that 45% of his caseload comes from the city of Eugene and that their increases also have a significant impact on his department.
VI. NEXT MEETING
McManus noted that he and Sunderland have a commitment next Monday and asked if it was okay to start at 9 a.m. instead of 8:30. Green asked if this group was allowing enough time for staff to work on the assignments. Van Vactor noted that there hasn't been much time and that the Analysts have not had time to work on anything else. There was consensus to keep the present weekly schedule. * * * There was agreement, however, not to meet on October 23 as numerous people would be absent.
There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Sharon Giles, Board Secretary