APPROVED 10/30/95

October 9, 1995
JOINT LEADERSHIP TEAM AND BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING
Commissioners' Conference Room -- 9:00 a.m.

PRESENT: Commissioners: Steve Cornacchia (arrived at 9:30 a.m.), Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr., Jerry Rust (excused from 9:55 until 11:15 a.m.) 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, Marie Bell and Kate Jones present. Del Phelps and Bud Stewart absent. Department Heads: John Ball, Chuck Forster, Jim Gangle, Doug Harcleroad, Bill Hoyt, Bob McManus, Rob Rockstroh, David Suchart and Bill Van Vactor (arrived at 9:30) present. Steve Carmichael, John Goodson and Teresa Wilson absent. Facilitator: Lauren Chouinard. Budget Staff: David Garnick, Tanya Heaton and Rick Schulz. Recording Secretary: Sharon Giles.

I. CALL TO ORDER

Dumdi called the meeting to order.

II. APPROVE MINUTES

* September 18, 1995

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

* Minutes for September 25 were distributed, to be voted upon at the next meeting.

Dumdi introduced Lauren Chouinard who will be the facilitator for this meeting. She also introduced Maureen Maine, representing the City of Springfield.

III.    FOLLOW-UP MATERIAL REQUESTED AT LAST MEETING

Gangle distributed a handout with rate estimates for various urban and rural areas. He explained that the first four pages represent the cities beginning in FY95 and going to FY98. Gangle added that the last four pages contain figures for rural/suburban areas. He provided examples of how the chart works. Gangle observed that the urban renewal districts are in Veneta, Cottage Grove and Eugene and that the numbers represent only the government portion, not urban renewal collected for the school districts. He also noted that totals are rounded up. * * * Green remarked that he is interested in a breakdown of all the assessment costs, such as for 4-J, Bethel, LCC, etc. (for all measures which are currently being assessed) in order to see what the current figures are and what it will look like if the levy is successful. Gangle reported that he has all of that material and that he could provide it for people to look at if they are interested (specifically Green and Dumdi).

McManus distributed material related to patrol activity statistics as requested at the last meeting. He asked members to look over the information and ask questions of Captain Langford next week, if necessary. * * * He suggested that this be put on the agenda for next week.

IV.    CONTINUE LEVY DISCUSSION

McManus asked Captain Ben Sunderland to work through the Tier 1 proposals (services that everyone in the entire County pays for) and respond to questions as the meeting progresses. Sunderland used the September 18 handout "(Reformatted) Sheriff's Recommended Service Levels" as the basis for the discussion, beginning on page 5.

Laue asked a question relating to Item #9, Search and Rescue, noting that Eugene has only used the service two or three times in the last 10 years. He questioned why this item is in Tier 1, instead of Tier 2. McManus responded that the service is largely used for city residents who get lost in the woods, or a (city) child who wanders into the water. He indicated that it is an attempt to have everybody responsible for the average 40 search and rescues done every year. McManus stated that his office is planning to form a tight coalition with all of the fire departments, to supply them with training and limited equipment in order to provide quicker assessment/response.

Laue indicated that his subcommittee had met last week with the Eugene City Council with regard to the Levy, reporting that the Council had sent them back with direction on how to focus. He noted that the Council understands that the County has a financial problem and is willing to work with the County; but in the short term, the Council direction is to deal with the issue of stabilization and then over the long-term to work more toward a systems approach. Laue remarked that they will be dealing with Tier 1 today in terms of stabilization. He observed that the Council is supportive of moving the Sheriff off of the General Fund.

* * * Bell questioned the rationale of more new officers being assigned to West Lane when the reports of South Lane are way beyond West Lane. McManus noted the need to be prepared in West Lane for OSP downgrading a full station to an outpost, similar to what happened in South Lane. He suggested that this discussion be held until Langford gets back; remarking, however, that in Florence there is only one deputy who takes calls as the others are on contract obligation.

#11 - Transport Supervision - Sunderland briefly reviewed this item.

#12 - Juvenile and Justice Court - Sunderland reviewed this item, noting that the Supervisor position is a restoration. McManus noted that the Courthouse is close to becoming a secure facility and that the supervisor will be responsible for supervising the contract civilian people that will be running that operation. Bell asked how much transportation occurs each day. McManus replied that the staff is doing more than driving people back on forth; that they are courtroom security for inmates during trial, provide courthouse public safety, provide arraignment movement and transport inmates to psychological examinations and to the penitentiary, etc.

#13 - Shuttle Service - McManus explained that the shuttle service is the Sheriff's Office's answer to increasing the efficiencies of some of the police agencies farther away from Eugene, by not tying up their officers to drive inmates around and allowing them more time at their duty station. Laue indicated that #11 and #13 are not priorities for Eugene. He asked why #13 is not on a contract with the small police agencies, in effect having them pay a prorated amount on the basis of the service. McManus explained that those arrested on felony crimes (anywhere in Lane County) are the responsibility of the Sheriff's Office. With regard to Item #12, Laue indicated that Eugene does not feel this is a "has-to-have." McManus noted that a large number of the people in the County system are Eugene arrests/residents, remarking that if Lane County is not there, Eugene will be called upon to do the service.

#14 Court Transportation - Sunderland observed that #11 through #14 are integral to each other. McManus reported that 60% of people needing transportation come from the two major cities. Laue remarked that they are not disputing the statistics, but are suggesting that agencies move more slowly on a stabilizing approach in the near term and move toward a more systematic approach in the long term. He indicated that the Eugene Public Safety Committee will be coming forward with a huge budget request for the next five years and that a combination of the two levies will cause a problem with the cap. Responding to Bartel, Sunderland reported that this year's cost for the four (transport) programs is 10 deputies, plus M&S for a total of $619,532, less a $25,000 contract, for a final figure of $594,532. Bartel noted that this request represents a 100% increase. McManus emphasized that small cities are saying that it is devastating for them when they have one officer on duty and then need to transport a felony suspect. Responding to Bell, McManus indicated that the proposed supervisor would coordinate activity of the transport work unit. He stated that the private courthouse security agency will use deputies for actual arrests. * * * Bartel wants further discussion of this issue. McManus suggested that the committee take notes on items of prior/non-priority as this discussion progresses. He noted that his preference, however, would be to have a thought-provoking discussion on items as they are discussed. With regard to process, there was consensus to try to get through all 50 items and only ask key questions for clarification today, dedicating the next meeting for discussion. Chouinard suggested that participants write down their questions so that they could be formulated into a packet.

#15 - Continue Road Crew/Weighmaster - It was noted that these are Road Fund funded positions, not needing discussion in this arena.

#16 - Corrections Administration - Sunderland briefly reviewed this item. Bartel asked whether it is desirous for in-house staff to do this or to have independent analysis. McManus reported that the current consultant recommends internal analysis of data. Bartel asked for an explanation of the difference between "collection of data" and "analysis of the data." McManus indicated that data is currently collected in AIRS and that a better system is needed. Laue stated that this is a long-term systemic need. Responding to Green, McManus stated that once the AIRS system is "up," the actual employee to collect the data could be anywhere in the system.

#17 - Corrections Security - Sunderland briefly reviewed this item, noting that it ties in with item #23 (the additional 48 beds). * * * Swanson-Gribskov discussed the issue of costs of sworn versus non-sworn asking for more detail on how these 44 positions break down. McManus reported that the majority of those who work in corrections must be sworn deputies. He indicated that Lane County is comparable with compatibles regarding pay/benefits for its corrections staff. Cornacchia received confirmation that a Deputy I is the same whether they are on the street or working in the jail. Sunderland noted that the difference is that everyone starts in corrections and then moves to police services; so, the highest paid are in police services as they have more seniority.

Responding to Bartel, Sunderland reported that there are currently 311 beds total, with an operating cap of 271, with a difference of 40, explaining that if the population stays beyond 271 for 24 hours, they must drop back. He noted that six beds are dedicated to segregation for medical or other purposes. Sunderland responded to Bartel that the daily per-bed operating rate in the jail is $83 per day. McManus, noting that the State published data of $52 per day, stated that Lane County's rate includes the total cost to run the jail. Responding to Swanson-Gribskov, Sunderland indicated that they have developed details on the increased cost per bed as a result of the additional 48 beds and the proposed staffing increases. * * * Bartel, observing the cost of over $5 million in personnel for the jail, asked how to get the legal interpretation of what can and can't be done with regard to the classification of these positions. Cornacchia remarked that collective bargaining must be factored in. McManus suggested that group members may want to work with an officer in Corrections for an 8-hour shift to have a greater appreciation of what they do. Chouinard asked if comparative salary data would be helpful. McManus suggested that perhaps John Clague, Ruth Larson, Legal Counsel and Sunderland be asked to do research and report back. McManus remarked that they can take a look at laws, current contract, comparables around state, etc., with Cornacchia noting that the group cannot do justice to a discussion of privatization in such a short time. McManus emphasized that to have a total discussion of where the system is going would probably require the use of a consultant. * * * Chouinard summarized that there is no assignment at this time.

* * * Green observed that every item seems to focus on the addition of staff, suggesting that there may need to be an analysis regarding whether there is another way of doing business (as a long-term assignment/goal). Responding to Green, Sunderland reported that the additional 44 employees would be added in the first year and maintained throughout. He stated that they had arrived at that number by doing a task analysis for the additional 48 beds, along with a review of existing jail staffing. Sunderland noted that this document reflects 19 positions less than first estimated in the "red document." Green received confirmation that this does not take into account prisoners resulting from SB1145. Expressing concern for the safety of personnel, Bell indicated that safety is a priority and that this area may not be the first place to cut. * * * Bell asked for specific information on how many officers are being injured at the jail presently due to understaffing.

Weeldreyer remarked that she has spent an entire swingshift at the jail and that she sees the need for at least one extra person on each floor on each shift. Responding to Maine, Sunderland indicated that, with the additions, the operating cap would increase to 12% less than 359; but that the additional beds cannot go up to 48 unless there are commensurate staffing increases.

Laue observed that the vast majority of offenders have major substance abuse problems and asked if any of these 44 positions will deal with that. Sunderland reported that there are "Materials & Services" dollars (for contract services) in the "Population Management" piece (#22) that are targeted toward accessing counseling and treatment for that portion of the jail population.

#18 - Corrections Records - Sunderland briefly reviewed this item.

#19 - Food Service - Sunderland reviewed this item, noting that two positions are restorations. Responding to Swanson-Gribskov's concern that there are large percentage increases in food service, medical service and corrections maintenance compared to the (48) increased beds, Sunderland indicated that some positions are restorations, some are to respond to increases and some continue current cost efficiencies using the existing cadre of inmate workers.

#20 - Medical Service - Sunderland commented that inmates with high-risk, physical problems, such as AIDS, hepatitis and tuberculosis, can't be shipped off to the state anymore. He indicated that the facility can only provide emergent care and that staff are seriously subjected to all of these contagious diseases. Harcleroad noted that often prisoners are let out when they appear to require high-cost medical services. * * * Green asked for statistical information regarding the average level of education of inmates, stating that this is a systemic issue due to failure at the front end. Manus noted that the Forest Work Camp provided some skills training.

#21 - Corrections Maintenance - (Briefly reviewed in conjunction with the items above.)

#22 - Population Management - (Briefly discussed in #17.)

#23 - 48 Beds - (Briefly reviewed throughout the course of the day's discussions.)

Bell expressed discomfort with the end price tag, emphasizing that "restorations" must be justified, too. McManus remarked that staff is asking for help regarding priorities and are open to fresh outlooks. Bell asked if "we had learned things to do better with less?" McManus observed that the department has been functioning, but is still failing with regard to matrixing and loss of sentencing ability due to closure of the Work Camp, for example.

#24 - Jail Alternatives - Sunderland explained that this item relates directly to reopening the Forest Work Camp to 120 beds in Year 1 and reviewed the annual information. Laue indicated that the additional 48 beds (#23) are a priority for the City. * * * With regard to #24, Laue remarked that Eugene was disappointed regarding the closure of the Forest Work Camp, but asked how many city bookings were sentenced to FWC. He asked if it would be possible to look at a waiver of 30-day preference at the Camp. Sunderland indicated that the Camp was sometimes used to avoid matrixing. McManus noted that having 120 beds on line will decrease the need for the 30-day preference and expressed willingness to work with Eugene on that issue. Responding to Green, Sunderland reported that the Forest Work Camp will hit full capacity in Year 2. He also indicated that, while the Camp will be fully staffed, if the population is down, employees will be pulled out and be put in other vacant positions. Sunderland explained that there were 13 deputies and two sergeants (sworn officers) out of a staff of 23 when the Work Camp was open. Responding to Green, McManus indicated that when capacity is increased to 120 beds, it will be run differently than before - with a considerably higher risk inmate crew.

Chouinard summarized that the meeting Minutes will reflect the comments/ concerns/requests for further information, with the secretary indicating that the Minutes would be available on Tuesday.

V.    DISCUSS POLICY ISSUES

Continued to the next meeting.

VI.    NEXT MEETING

October 16, 1995 at 8:30 a.m., with discussion of Support Services (#25 through #37) and staff's policy questions. There was consensus that there will be further discussions regarding Tier One, with the additional information requested, at the October 30 meeting. (No meeting to be held on October 23.)

VII.    ADJOURN

There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 11:17 a.m.

Sharon Giles, Board Secretary