APPROVED 10/9/95

September 18, 1995
Commissioners' Conference Room -- following HACSA

PRESENT: Commissioners: Steve Cornacchia (excused from the meeting at 9:35 a.m.), Ellie Dumdi, Bobby Green, Sr., Jerry Rust and Cindy Weeldreyer. Budget Committee Lay Members: Peter Bartel (left the meeting at 9:45 a.m.), Marie Bell, Kate Jones and Delbert Phelps. (Bud Stewart absent.) Department Heads: John Ball, Fred Barker (for Jim Gangle), Steve Carmichael, Chuck Forster, Doug Harcleroad, Bill Hoyt, Bob McManus, Rob Rockstroh, David Suchart, Teresa Wilson and Bill Van Vactor. (John Goodson absent.) Budget Staff: David Garnick, Tanya Heaton and Rick Schulz. Recording Secretary: Sharon Giles.


Weeldreyer convened the meeting of the Leadership Team and the Budget Committee.


September 11, 1995 Joint Meeting, 8:30 a.m.

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

Garnick stated that there is a lot of information to give out today, noting that staff was not able to get packets out until late Friday. He distributed the reformatted Sheriff's Recommended Service Levels (as a replacement to the former "Blue" packet) and distributed a replacement/corrected page for the first page of that updated report (the summary page). Schulz explained the additional information included in the reformatted package, as summarized on its cover sheet (see material on file). Garnick also distributed the requested March 31, 1995 memorandum, from area law enforcement officials to Mike Gleason, Mike Kelly and Bill Van Vactor, regarding the criminal justice system in Lane County. Garnick then distributed department packages regarding levy impacts on the District Attorney, Youth Services, Health and Human Services and Animal Regulation. Finally, Barker distributed a revised handout on behalf of Jim Gangle, dealing with needs to be considered for use by the "freed up" general fund dollars.

Van Vactor reported that as a result of recent meetings with Moody Investors, Lane County has been notified that it has retained its AA bond rating.


District Attorney

Harcleroad briefly reviewed his packet information (see material on file) and summarized that his department is down eleven employees, including three lawyers, from FY92-93 and that to return to this level would require $503,000, including materials and services to equip the employees.

With regard to the workload expected to be created by the proposed levy's additional deputy sheriffs, Harcleroad noted that his figures would be "guess-timates" at best. He indicated that he would need two lawyers and support staff for the first year's 21 additional police officers (on average, one lawyer per ten police officers). Harcleroad noted that Springfield has also added 6 police officers and 2 support staff and that Eugene has added 12 employees, so the impact is much wider than just the Sheriff's Office. He observed that the Sheriff's Office workload is only 12-13% of the District Attorney's cases, with Eugene and Springfield providing about 60% of the caseload.

Responding to Cornacchia, Harcleroad stated that, strictly to deal with the impact of the first year's anticipated 21 additional officers, the "low number" requirement would be two lawyers and one secretary for an impact of $200,000 (salaries for those three employees, including materials and services.) He continued that this impact is for the first year only. Bell asked if similar figures have been prepared to deal with increases for the Eugene and Springfield additional officers. Harcleroad indicated that he has talked to the police chiefs and city managers regarding the problem caused when they have increases and Lane County's services are not increasing. Bell stated that she would like to see such figures (for Eugene and Springfield) in print for the benefit of giving an explanation to voters.

Youth Services

Carmichael briefly reviewed his packet information (see material on file), noting that figures on page 5 dealing with impacts from the Sheriff's levy should be cut approximately in half as he had done his estimates based on a figure of 45 deputies, not 21 deputies. He stated then that the impact for one year would require two additional staff. He indicated that five additional staff would be necessary to restore Youth Services to its level of five years ago.

With regard to operating costs for the Juvenile Justice Center, Carmichael noted that the estimates are for 3 years out when the facility is completed. He observed that the cost of operation for the Juvenile Justice facility would be $1.2 million annually and the 20-bed shelter would cost $900,000 per year to operate. Carmichael stressed that there needs to be a discussion regarding moving the Pathways program off the Sheriff's levy. Rust received clarification from Carmichael that the $2.1 figure ($1.2 million + $900,000) is in addition to today's annual operation costs of $1.4 million. Cornacchia asked for the total cost of Youth Services right now and what the costs will be with the additional detention, noting that when he sees the term "Juvenile Justice Center" his expectation is that will be the entire operation that fulfills Youth Services' mission.

Carmichael reviewed page 2 of the material, noting that it is a policy decision with regard to how many beds to have operational. Rust asked if there are additional Youth Services programs beyond the $3.2 million identified as total for year three (on page 2). Chuck Ryer indicated that the current operating budget for Youth Services is $4.5 million; thus he noted that three years out the total costs would be the identified $2.1 million additional dollars plus the current $4.5 million operational costs. Carmichael explained the shift of Commission on Children and Families state funding to prevention efforts as outlined on page 3.

Bell asked to receive information on special state program funding for incarcerated students and for kids on the street, noting that there are dollars allotted for every child in the state. Ryer indicated that to get specific dollars, a child has to be on an individual education plan. Dumdi asked for the breakdown of (operational) costs of the $50,000 per bed for detention.

Cornacchia was absent from the meeting beginning at 9:35 a.m..

Health and Human Services

Rob Rockstroh reviewed the categorized restoration figures as explained in his memorandum (see material on file), noting that $367,000 is the amount necessary for restoration of services that were cut in the general fund. He stated that he did not use a formula. With regard to levy funds, he indicated that $1,547,000 is the amount of current Health and Human Services functions that are funded on the current levy and would not occur under the proposed levy unless they were restored by the general fund. Rockstroh stressed the need, in particular, for the alcohol and drug treatment services ($544,000) which are now funded on the levy. Van Vactor asked for clarification about the apparent difference between juvenile residential rates and adult residential rates. Carmichael explained that the levy is the only thing that funds Pathways and there are other funds for the adult facilities. Van Vactor asked for the actual costs for adults and Green asked for data regarding the level of recidivism/success rates. Green also asked what are the consequences for failing in the program. Rockstroh remarked that probably all programs are failing depending on the standards used to evaluate them. Green noted that there needs to be a justifiable reason to support funding for programs that are failing.

Bartel left the meeting at 9:45 a.m.

Rockstroh continued to review the ten packages included in his material. With regard to the Lane County Psychiatric Hospital, he noted that $598,000 is the amount that would be necessary to keep the Psychiatric Hospital, which is currently funded on the levy. Rust stressed that the Psychiatric Hospital and Pathways are currently funded on levy and asked if these should not be built into the proposed levy. He emphasized that he wants a thorough discussion on this point. With regard to levy impacts. Rockstroh stated that if staff is added back on package #10, it will be necessary to bring the manager position back to full time which would bring the total to $178,000, instead of $162,000.

Responding to Phelps, McManus indicated that the total impact of drugs and alcohol on the corrections/law enforcement system is 78%. Harcleroad noted that a study done several years ago on cases that went to grand jury showed that 80% of cases involved drugs/alcohol even though only 20% were actual drug cases. Bell received clarification that an accounting of all corrections services currently funded by levy, and not included in the proposed levy, needs to be done, remarking that it would include Rockstroh's "B" list and Pathways funding.

McManus noted that a caveat to the concept of the Sheriff's Office only on a levy was that the deleted programs of other departments would have to be picked up by money saved by the Sheriff's Office departure from the general fund. Rockstroh agreed, observing that during the original development of the proposal, budget staff originally presented the assumption that these items would be added back in automatically from the "freed up" funds. McManus agreed, noting that his department, during development of the concept paper, had projected that the "freed up" general fund dollars would be used to fund the programs that were previously on the Public Safety Levy, in addition to adding significant enhancements to the District Attorney's Office, along with dollars towards the operational expenses of the juvenile facility. Bell remarked that the problem with that is that it is hard to justify growth in these departments when other departments are at bare bones. McManus explained that it adds efficiency to other departments if corrections is functioning efficiently.

Van Vactor noted that the Financial Plan shows that if the Sheriff's department does come off the general fund, then up to $5.5 million can be spent in the first year; and if it is the desire to fund previous levy services, then it would be necessary to subtract $2+ million from the $5.5 million. McManus commented that the flip side is an $11 million deficit. Bell suggested that maybe those affected by the proposed levy need to go onto the new levy to leave a balance of funds to other departments to make things fair. Responding to Jones, McManus and Rockstroh agreed that if the Sheriff's Office proposal is implemented, the H&HS "B" services are definitely important.

Responding to Phelps, McManus stated that the levy is designed to answer the needs of cities and rural residents and will show some long-term efficiencies in all areas of public safety. He noted that if people can't be held in the jail or there is not a place to sentence people, the system will not work. McManus stressed the potential loss of $11 million next year, observing that that would have an extreme impact on system. Ball remarked on the need to make earlier/preventive interventions.

Weeldreyer noted that constituents have concerns regarding the recent story in the Register-Guard which misled some people to believe that the increases would be to their entire property tax bill, not just the Lane County portion. She stated that Lane County has a credibility problem with the public that will have to be overcome with regard to the mothballing of the work camp. Weeldreyer stressed the need to assure voters that Lane County is looking at the entire criminal justice system. Dumdi suggested using a proactive approach with letters-to-the-editor/op ed pieces, etc. in support of County funding.

Animal Regulations

Suchart reviewed the material on file related to Animal Regulation (see material on file.)

Assessment & Taxation

Fred Barker provided the presentation for Assessment and Taxation (see material on file). He indicated that the department has had 12 FTE reductions since FY92-93, but that they would only be asking for 8 FTE back if a restoration were possible, due to efficiencies that have been gained in the last few years. Barker remarked that $900,000 of the add request is for computer conversion. He highlighted the "year 2000" problem on the computers, noting that the problem is industry-wide. With regard to the total add, Barker noted that 60% of the costs are involved in computer conversion. Barker remarked that the RIS savings related to getting off mainframe have not been factored in.


Hoyt reviewed his packet material, noting that his restoration request would be for funding to cover Lane County's full share of RIS.

There was a suggestion that everyone's material be formatted similar to the H&HS presentation.

There was a brief discussion on area cities' reallocation of resources and its impact on Lane County's law enforcement services which have been lessened by 40 FTE in the Sheriff's Office since FY92-93 and 11 FTE in the District Attorney's Office since FY92-93.

Van Vactor remarked that the vision of the 8-year plan is in keeping the County stable during that time. He asked if it is an acceptable assumption to keep annual spending of the potential "freed up" dollars capped at the $5.5 million level. Phelps remarked that it would be helpful next Monday to have all department pieces presented today compiled to show the levy, the other departments' requests and how the total plan would look; then balancing could be done as desired. It was suggested that a colored matrix would be helpful, along with numbering of the pages.

McManus indicated that he would be giving the first presentation tonight at the Eugene City Council.

(Items IV, V and VI were not discussed at today's meeting.)


September 25, 1995 - 8:30 a.m. in the Commissioners' Conference Room.


There being no further business, this meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Sharon Giles, Board Secretary