APPROVED 12/4/95

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

 PRESENT: Commissioners: Steve Cornacchia, Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr., 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 absent. Budget Committee Lay Members: Peter Bartel and Marie Bell present. Kate Jones, Del Phelps and Bud Stewart absent. Department Heads: John Ball, Steve Carmichael, Chuck Forster, Jim Gangle, John Goodson, Doug Harcleroad, Bob McManus, Rob Rockstroh, David Suchart, Bill Van Vactor and Teresa Wilson present. Bill Hoyt absent. Facilitator: Lauren Chouinard present. Budget Staff: David Garnick, Tanya Heaton and Rick Schulz present. Recording Secretary: Sharon Giles.


Dumdi called the meeting to order.


* October 2, 1995

* October 9, 1995 (Distributed at the October 16 meeting.)

MOTION: Approval of the minutes as submitted. Harcleroad MOVED, Rockstroh SECONDED. VOTE: Unanimous.

Minutes for October 30, 1995 were distributed for approval at the next meeting.


Garnick reviewed the four-page "Tabulation of Responses to Policy Questions Regarding Sheriff's Levy." He noted that there were nine responses (six from department heads, two from Commissioners and one from Van Vactor, plus a memo from Laue and Gribskov). Garnick reviewed the responses to each individual question (see material on file). These limited responses indicated general support for the Sheriff's office going totally off the General Fund, use of the two-tier approach and funding for impacts on other departments, with mixed feelings regarding the evaluation of other options. Gribskov-Swanson asked for a discussion later of the issue of taking the Sheriff totally off of the General Fund. Responding to Bell, McManus indicated that rate based levies cannot go past three years. Rust observed that he had suggested the possibility of two years, in recognition of staying at the table for the "ultimate financial fix." Bell commented that it is advantageous to go to the voters as little as possible. She stated that the issue is a balanced approach, also dealing with impacts and having some dollars to make a difference in some other programs within the County (public health, for example). Swanson-Gribskov stated that Eugene is advocating for a two-year levy as more Juvenile Justice Center costs will be known after the first two years. She added that one of City of Eugene's key interests is how much the jurisdictions can afford collectively under the cap. Swanson-Gribskov highlighted other City of Eugene key interests, including corrections, the sallyport, warrants, 48 beds, 120 beds at the Forest Work Camp, detox, residential treatment, the Psychiatric Hospital, a deputy at Skipworth, a short-term approach to the General Fund shortfall, impacts on the District Attorney, the tax policy (cap) and support for a two-year levy which keeps everyone at the table for a "system fix."

Laue observed that Eugene is considering going out for a small levy, in the $2 million range, for two years. He commented that if the Sheriff's levy stays modest and City of Eugene's stays modest, then there is the possibility of selling both to the metro area. Responding to Green's earlier question, Swanson-Gribskov stated that the term "modest" refers to a levy of less than $20 million. Green observed that in the voters' mind that may not even be modest. He noted that there are five upcoming vacancies on the Eugene City Council and questioned the political commitment of the Council. Weeldreyer asked for the Sheriff's response to City of Eugene's key interests. McManus noted that City of Eugene's key interests are well identified as their needs, but expressed concern that they are not looking at the Sheriff's ability to handle increases put forth by Eugene over the last eight years. With regard to a two-year levy, he observed that it is difficult to hire people and increase service delivery levels for only a two-year period. McManus also explained that SB1145 will create a great workload shift in January of 1997, stating that if there is a two-year levy, it will be difficult to get benchmarks of that effect. * * * Green noted the need to get this same input from Springfield and the small cities, with Van Vactor remarking on the upcoming series of meetings with the small cities.

With regard to the cap/compression, there was a discussion of the handout distributed by Gangle (see material on file). Gangle indicated that figures for FY96-97 include a $2 million city levy. He stated that figures are at a 100% collection rate, so figures are optimistically high. McManus remarked that the proposal has built in uncollectables. Wilson noted that although rates are different over the three years, what actually goes to voters is one rate for each tier - the same rate over the three years. Rust expressed concern that the group was not making much progress, stating his disappointment that so few people had filled out responses to the policy questions. He suggested the need for subcommittees, one for Tier One and one for Tier Two. Bell stated that she does not feel comfortable deciding the importance of individual workbook segments, stressing the need to have the Sheriff's priorities. She expressed support for giving the Sheriff a dollar figure and giving it to the Sheriff for his priorities. Bell remarked that she would like to see a list from every small city to determine common interests and then put numbers to that.

Cornacchia stated that setting up subcommittees is not an answer without direction on what they are supposed to do. He expressed the need to talk about basic/substantive issues, such as whether the proposal will be perceived as affordable by constituents and whether rapidly enhancing the ability of one department is the right way to go in this exercise.

Green expressed support for subcommittees, noting the need to provide them with direction. With regard to direction, he stated the need to discuss administrative efficiencies versus increased FTE, the rate, areas of disagreement and long-term relationships. Bell suggested having a voice vote on each question. Rockstroh indicated that he was willing to defer to elected officials and the budget committee with regard to decisions. Cornacchia agreed on the need for two subcommittees, noting that the two rural commissioners have to provide leadership regarding Tier Two as they have to sell and deal with it. He suggested that the two rural commissioners set up their own committee with the Sheriff, representatives from the non-metro cities and the rural areas and then come back with recommendations with regard to Tier Two. Cornacchia stated that Tier One has the most questions. He indicated that the rural commissioners also need to be involved in Tier One. Weeldreyer advocated for one subcommittee as rural people are going to pay both tiers. Rust stressed that there is so much to do in Tier One that it would be more efficient to have two committees, also allowing a rural focus on Tier Two. Dumdi remarked that she was leaning toward two subcommittees to get away from the large group situation. She indicated that the rural committee could concentrate on Tier Two but also look at Tier One.

With regard to the charge to the subcommittees, Cornacchia suggested going through the policy questions as a group and voting on them, so the subcommittees have a feeling of where the group is at.

Question One: Should the Sheriff's department go TOTALLY off the General Fund?

Green: yes - gives Lane County flexibility in the long term.

Weeldreyer: ditto - good selling point for the next three years.

Dumdi: ditto.

Bell: yes.

Cornacchia: no - the option of using a portion of the $10+ million left in the General Fund should be left on the table for consideration. If the subcommittee can present a "total off the General Fund" levy that is affordable, and has a chance at winning at the polls, the he will support it.

Bartel: philosophically "no"; but the reality is that the voters will go for that.

Laue: no, not totally - keep option open.

Question Two: - Should the levy include two tiers?

All "yes."

Question Three: Is the Sheriff's determination of what is Tier One and Two correct?

All "yes."

Question Four: What are the appropriate amounts for Tier One and Two?

Cornacchia: Does not believe current figures are fiscally or politically affordable. He reviewed specific figures for various areas within the levy, summarizing that Tier One spanned the range from $20.5-$22.5-$24.3 million, for a total levy of $24.7-$27.4-$29.5 million.

Rust: Indicated that he had arrived at a figure of $21 million for the first year after going through the exercise for Tier One and would hold it pretty constant throughout.

Green: Stated that he had taken the $23.3 million on page 2 in the Tier One and had targeted 10% of that number towards administrative efficiencies. He indicated that he would direct the Sheriff to determine how to expend that figure.

Harcleroad: Commented that there is still a significant need for dollars to support the DA's office.

Laue: Thinks it needs to be less than $20 million. Not convinced can raise a budget by 50% and end up with a stable system.

Weeldreyer: Not in a position to throw out a number - like where Cornacchia is headed. Have sheriff respond to subcommittees to see if that's do-able.

Dumdi: Do not have a firm number either. Like recommendation of short term.

Composition of Committees:

Weeldreyer proposed that the Tier Two subcommittee be composed of the two rural commissioners, one budget committee member (Del Phelps), the sheriff and representatives of the Sheriff's Advisory Committee and the Public Safety Advisory Committee.

With regard to the Tier One subcommittee, Rust and Green volunteered, along with either Laue or Swanson-Gribskov, Maine, Harcleroad, McManus, Dumdi and Bartel (8 members).

There was concurrence that the subcommittees would return with a report at the next meeting on November 6.

Van Vactor indicated that the survey would be available by 5:00 p.m. tonight, indicating that he would see that they were distributed to all committee members.

Garnick referred to the last piece of packet information, consisting of a Cost Comparison of FY95-96 Alcohol and Drug Residential Treatment Facilities.

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.


Sharon Giles, Board Secretary