Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/07/1997 Work Session . . . MINUTES Joint Elected Officials Meeting Meeting Room l--Lane County Fairgrounds 769 West 13th Avenue, Eugene October 7, 1997 S:4S'p.m. PRESENT: Cindy Weeldreyer, Chair; ElIi Dumdi, Steve Cornacchia,. Bobby Green, Peter Sorensen (Board of Lane County Commissioners); Laurie Swanson Gribskov, Pat Farr, Tim Laue, Nancy Nathanson, Ken Tollenaar, Scott Meisner, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor ( Eugene City Council); Greg Shaver, Terry Beyer, Norm Dahlquist, Anne Ballew (Springfield City Council); Bill Morrisette (Mayor, City of Springfield); Jim Torrey (Mayor, City of Eugene); District Attorney Doug Harcleroad; Lane County Sheriff Jan Clements; Circuit Court Judge Kip Leonard; Lane County Tax Assessor Jim Gangle; Bill Van Vactor (Lane County Administrator); Vicki Elmer (Eugene City Manager); Mike Kelly (Springfield City Manager). I. INTRODUCTIONS Each elect~d official introduced his or her neighbor and described the accomplishment of which that individual was most proud. Ms. Weeldreyer welcomed those in attendance and said that she hoped the meeting was the first of a series of meetings that would allow the elected officials to look at issues common to all their agencies. She called the meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners to order. .; Mayor Torrey called the meeting of the Eugene City Council to order. Mayor Morrisette called the meeting of the Springfield City Council to order. Mayor Torrey expressed the hope the meeting would be an open forum for discussion of where to go in the post-Ballot Measure 47 /SO environment. He said each jurisdiction had inadequate funding for public safety and had been forced to make service reductions. Mayor Torrey wanted the Springfield City Council to discuss the possibility of a joint approach to a new revenue source to offset some of those reductions, and wanted all jurisdictions to discuss how far they were willing to go in terms of shared service provision. Mayor Morrisette said that the meeting was an opportunity for the elected officials to take a fresh look at the way they relate to each other and consider new approaches. He reminded those present that because the Springfield council was outside the boundaries of Springfield it could not make any decisions at the meeting, but the council was present to share its thoughts. Mayor Morrisette said that he hoped the dialogue would continue after the meeting, Board Chair Weeldreyer began her remarks with a quote from Walter Lipman: "The genius of a good leader is to leave behind him or her a situation in which common sense without the grace of genius can deal with successfully, " MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page I . .. . Ms. Weeldreyer said that the meeting agenda was ambitious and designed to provide the elected officials with information on a variety of topics and allow some limited time for discussion and direction to staff. She believed that the elected officials were serving in an area of profound change. She suggested that voter approval of property tax limitations was a challenge to the elected officials to pool resources to continue to provide essential government services. Ms. Weeldreyer said that collaboration was not new to government in Lane County and the elected officials could point to many examples of successful government collaboration. Ms. Weeldreyer thanked members of the Coalition to Rebuild Public Access Television for videotaping the meeting for broadcast on Channel 11. II. PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL REPORT Ms. Swanson Gribskov introduced other members of the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) Policy Group present--Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Harcleroad, Mr. Clements, Mr. Leonard, Mr. Green, and Mr. Cornacchia--and noted that Springfield representatives Stu Burge and Maureen Maine were unable to be at the meeting. Ms. Swanson Gribskov reviewed the four questions the policy group agreed faced local government: 1. Do we agree that there are public safety service needs and are we interested"in doing something about them? 2. What are our priorities (since we cannot do it all) ? 3. While some things must be done individually, what opportunities are there for the integration of our efforts? 4. What source or sources of revenue might be used to fund these costs? Ms. Swanson Gribskov reminded those present of the PSCC's origin in Ballot Measure 11 and said that locally the PSCC's focus had been broadened to what was needed to create a safe community in Lane County. Ms. Swanson Gribskov referred to the meeting packet, which included a list of the different categories in the locally supported community safety and justice system and their respective budgets,. as well as.a list of unmet funding needs in each category. PSCC members discussed examples of the unmet funding needs, current conditions, projected service demands, local public safety planning efforts, and service initiatives in the categories of Prevention, Juvenile Justice, Police Services, Prosecution, Custody, and Support Systems and Programs. Ms. Nathanson said that a common theme at a recent Community Policing Action Plan public forum was problems related to youth out of school and the perception that many minor infractions were being committed by youth during daylight hours, including school hours. People were very interested in prevention activities but shared the perception that there was little that could be done. Ms. Nathanson expressed frustration that the school boards were not at the meeting because she believed that there were many issues that could be addressed collaboratively with the school districts. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 2 . . . Mr. Morrisette noted his long-time support for a truancy ordinance and said that Springfield has a truancy officer. He said that parents must be involved in keeping their children in school. He advocated for parental responsibility laws. He said that society is telling children by its actions that it does not care and that enforcement of existing laws was key and parents must be good role models. Mr. Sorenson said that prevention funding was inadequate, particularly in light of what was spent on enforcement. He said that early intervention and tax reform were essential. Mr. Farr said that public safety begins at home with a strong family. He said that government should focus it efforts to make sure that families are living together in homes. Mr. Farr commended the partnerships that currently exist, and said that he knew the schools were willing to work with local government. Mr. Torrey asked the PSCC to identify what was needed in terms of programs and funding so the voters could determine if they wanted to pay for it. Mr. Torrey said that ,disruptive students in a traditional system created problems for other students who wished to learn, and suggested that the elected officials work to find a facility for a court school to be attended by such disruptive students. Mr. Lee said that society has not made a sufficient investment in. its youth..: He. said the growing tide. of runaways statewide must be turned.' Mr. Lee urged the elected officials tomaintaina~~.cando".attitude ' as they addressed what he believed to be complex issues. Ms. Taylor said that. recreation and community centers were vital to prevention: She saidthatthe . community needed an alternative to keeping disruptive students in school. Ms. Dumdi agreed with Ms. Taylor about the need to separate disruptive students from other students and pointed out that separation required more staff. Ms. Dumdi expressed hope that the proposed service district for public safety services in east Lane County would be successful and lead to the formation of other districts. She said that the district would also require staff,andfunding. Ms. Beyer observed that the problems in the community related to 'public safety were'well~known, but progress in addressing them seemed slow.' Mr. Tollenaar said that he hoped the elected officials could reach a general consensus about what was needed in the area of public safety. He suggested the formation of a working group to identify a short list of priorities and joint financing methods to support the priorities. Ms. Weeldreyer said that many public-safety related problems were beyond the ability of government to solve. She believed that the solution involved government and the community. She cited Neighborhood Watch programs as an example of a community-based solution. Ms. Weeldreyer said that low literacy rates, drug and alcohol problems, and mental illness all had a relationship to public safety, and creating an infrastructure to address those needs was beyond the ability of a single agency. She noted the upcoming Youth Summit on October 10 and suggested that in the future people would look back on this week and agree that was the time Lane County residents rolled up their sleeves and worked together to make a difference. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 3 . Mr. Shaver discussed the problem of recividism and the lack of jail space and lack of sanctions for failure to appear in court. He said that sanctions should be reinstituted into the system and emphasized the need for incarceration space for low-level offenders. Mr. Shaver said he would be supportive of a levy to increase custody and sanction capacity. Mr. Cornacchia endorsed Mr. Morrisette's comments regarding the need for modeling. He said that the elected officials had the opportunity to stress the importance of commitment to spouse, family, and community, and serve as examples of that commitment. He suggested that the elected officials consider placing all revenues on the table with no strings attached and create ,a shared system before asking the voters for more money. Mr. Cornacchia acknowledged the political difficulties of a regional approach but urged the three jurisdictions to show leadership. Ms. Ballew acknowledged the importance of public safety services to the voters but said that given the current public mood regarding property taxes she was unsure that a levy would be successful. She stressed the need that any levy offered to the voters must be focused on specific services and be easily understood. Mr. Laue said that the already bad budget problem was worsened by the passage of Ballot Measure 47. He said that a coIiaborative effort was needed to address the rising numbers of crimes committed by youth. He said he believed that a small group of repeat offenders created the largest public safety problem. Mr. Laue suggested that the community needed to reconsiderits currentcapproach'and. the: ;'" value of replacing it with an approach that reached the small percentage of youth committing .the .largest .,.. number of crimes. . Mr. Meisner said that it was difficultto prioritize services when their integration, was'.so'vital. to .the success of the public safety system. He challenged the conclusion that some services must be delivered by individual jurisdictions, and encouraged the elected officials to think beyond that assumption. Mr. Meisner pointed out that many services were already centralized, such as jail and prosecution services. Ms. Swanson Gribskov reviewed the upcoming PSCC and policy group meetings schedule. . Mr. Green was not convinced that more money was the answer. He agreed with Mr. Shaver that sanctions must be in place. Mr. Green stressed the importance of families to prevention of crimes. He said that parents needed to commit to making sure their children get to school on time, to meeting their child's teachers, to discuss the child's report card with the child, and turn off the television at least three hours nightly. Mr. Green said that the three jurisdictions know what the problems are, and must decide if they have the political will to address them and give clear directions to their organizations' chief executive officers. Mr. Morrisette said that the task before the elected officials was doable. He said that the elected officials need to get the message across to lax parents about what their children were doing. He said that Springfield's truant officer was making a difference. Mr. Morrisette suggested that malls be posted with signs prohibiting school-age children from being there during school hours. He stressed the importance of holding parents accountable for their children's actions. Mr. Morrisette said that incorrigible children should be separated from other children and directed toward productive activities. The elected officials discussed whether the PSCC was the appropriate forum for future discussion of the issues that were raised in the conversation. Ms. Nathanson also asked for clarity about what budgets were being discussed; for example, did the funding include the three jurisdictions' contributions to the Intergovernmental Human Services Fund or programs specific to a single city, such as Eugene's Safer Schools program? Mr. Sorenson said that the PSCC was not sufficiently MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 4 . . . representative of the three jurisdictions, although he welcomed its recommendations. He said that the three jurisdictions needed to reach agreement about other outstanding issues, such as funding for the Juvenile Justice Center's operations and funding for early intervention programs. He suggested that the three jurisdictions form a subgroup to examine the issues and make a recommendation to the elected officials. Responding to a question from Mr. Cornacchia regarding Eugene's interest in a consolidated services approach and willingness to place its budget on the table, Ms. Elmer emphasized the City of Eugene's commitment toward a regional approach to public safety services as appropriate. She believed that the area was heading incrementally toward more consolidated services, such as the 9-1-1 center. Ms. Elmer further believed that differences between the two cities' programs and values would require extensive discussion before consolidation would be achieved. Mr. Shaver suggested that the PSCC be asked to consider what the public safety/criminal justice system would look like if it had the opportunity to design a program from its inception. He supported identifying those areas where the three jurisdictions could work cooperatively to deliver services, but said he was not convinced that a single metropolitan police department was in the best interest of the two cities. Mr. Shaver did not think that bigger was necessarily better, or that the economies of scale resulting from such a consolidation would not be accompanied by service degradation. Ms. Weeldreyer asked if the elected officials supported asking the PSCC to explore the'conceptoL creating the best public safety/criminal justice system Lane County could provide, and to return to the elected officials with details about the components of the systemand-itscost. .Mr.. Cornacchia questioned whether the PSCC could undertake that task.but supported making the. request. Ms. Weeldreyer believed that the elected officials had identifiedJheir,priorities duringJhe.discussioll;'iand. it. would be up to the PSCC to continue the discussion and up to individual jurisdictions to determine what resources they could bring to the table. Mr. Torrey asked when the PSCC could have a recommendation before elected officials. Mr. Cornacchia suggested that was a difficult question to answer, particularly now when the committee was working on the impacts of Ballot Measure 47 and Ballot Measure 50. He suggested that Ms. Swanson Gribskov determine how she wished for the PSCC to process the elected officials' request. Ms. Swanson Gribskov indicated she would convene a meeting of the policy group so members could review the discussion; Mr. Lee, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Leonard left the meeting. III. AL TERNA TIVE REVENUE MEASURES Ms. Weeldreyer introduced the item, saying that because of the passage of Ballot Measure 47 and Ballot Measure 50 property tax revenues available to fund local government have been significantly reduced. To mitigate the elimination of valued local government service, efforts were underway to identify revenue replacement alternatives at the local and state level. Ms. Weeldreyer said that on July 28, representatives from the three jurisdictions met and decided to convene the elected officials to disqlss re,venue funding for public safety, transportation, animal control, and other local government serVIces. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 5 . . . Jim Carlson, Lane Council of Governments, said that the passage of Ballot Measure 50 not only reduced property tax revenues but impeded the ability of local government to raise revenues in the future. Staff was asked to examine other revenue sources. Mr. Carlson referred the elected officials to an overview of revenue options included in the meeting packet and asked them to consider whether they agreed there was a need for additional revenues, what revenue source was preferable, and when the revenue source could be implemented. Ms. Weeldreyer referred the elected officials to a list of policy questions included in the meeting packet: 1. Do you accept that there are service needs? 2. Are you willing to have staff investigate a joint or coordinated revenue measure to address those needs? 3. Do you want to form a working committee, including elected officials, to make a recommendation back to the three jurisdictions? 4. Do you have a preference for timing--May 1998 or November 1998? 5. Arethere any of the outlined revenuesthaf'youwanttolook atin, more detail?, While there appeared to be general agreementthere were service, needs','Mr. ,Torreypointedoutthat.. ., the elected officials just finished a discussion in which twomembersofthePSeC suggested: that no, p additional revenues were needed for public safety. . He. maintained thatuntiLthere:.was 'agreementabouL, , . the need for additional revenues in that service area, there was no need for discussion. Mr. Torrey believed that there was a need for additional revenues, particularly in the area of prevention. Mr. Tollenaar did not believe that Mr. Cornacchia's comments implied that there was no need for additional revenues, but instead a need for a rational analysis of the distribution of resources in relationship to need that might perhaps result in a different distribution of dollars. Mr. Cornacchia clarified that his suggestion to pool resources was focused on the need for the three jurisdictions to maintain community confidence in their actions' and his desire thatthey demonstrate a:responsibleuse of taxpayer dollars. He said that an analysis might show thaUhethree:jurisdictions',weredoing the best that they could with available dollars, and might indicate a need for additional funding. Mr. Cornacchia said that analysis might be an appropriate task for the PSCC.. Mr. Morrisette noted the relationship of public safety to other issues such as housing and employment . and said that there were many needs in those areas not being met. He said that there was a need for funding for "front end" services, such as intervention and parental training. Mr. Morrisette said that there was a need for an alternative revenue source, and he favored a vertical gross receipts tax. Ms. Swanson Gribskov said that the elected officials' discussion identified a shortfall in funding for prevention and youth services, a lack of operating funds for the Juvenile Justice Center, and a lack of custody capacity. She suggested that a modest proposal could be developed for joint funding of those service areas. In response, Mr. Meisner pointed out that there were shortfalls in every service area, and he preferred to await the more comprehensive PSCC analysis of the system before seeking additional revenues. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 6 . . . . ' Mr. Green indicated his affirmative answer to questions 1-4 but said he was not interested in examining the revenues outlined in the packet. He would be willing to look at a revenue measure that included a component for prevention focused on children up to 8 years of age. Mr. Green said that research indicated that prevention programs had the most impact during those years. Mr. Sorenson said that the public safety needs discussed by the elected officials were real but there were other community needs, such as libraries and parks, that were getting more acute because of growth and an inadequate funding base, He said that the elected officials should include tax reform in their list of discussion items, because he believed that those who had supported Ballot Measure 47 had been voting for tax reform. Mr. Sorenson believed that taking up the issue would demonstrate leadership at the local level. He pointed to the worsening condition of funding for intergovernmental human services efforts and said that issue must also be addressed. Mr. Laue believed that all present recognized that there were service needs not currently funded. He said that all three jurisdictions had reduced their budgets and there would be continuing shortfalls. Mr. Laue said that he preferred an intergovernmental approach to the issue. He emphasized that the elected officials were discussing prevention services that had been lost, not new services, and that loss would have a significant impact on the community. Mr. Laue said that he would not support a new property tax measure. Ms. W eeldreyerproposed that, the elected officials appoint acommittee,to:make,:aTecommendationtoi]~.::;:> the three jurisdictions about forming a working ,group, and suggested thatthe committeeincludethe.::" three chief executive officers, herself, Mr. Torrey, Mr. Morrisette, MrtClements, and Mr.. Harcleroad. The elected officials accepted Ms. Weeldreyer's proposal. Responding to a question from _ ' Ms. Taylor about the timing of the committee's recommendation, Mr. Morrisette anticipated that the, committee could meet within the week to discuss a recommendation. IV. BALLOT MEASURE 50 UPDATE Mr. Gangle provided an update on the implementation of Ballot Measure 50. Mr. Van Vactor thanked Mr. Gangle for his presentation and. the hard work of his department: , He noted that Mr. Gangle's office had lost 15 positions as a result of budget cutswhileimplementinga new taxing system. Responding to a question from MLShaver, Mr. Gangle confirmed thathis estimates represented a "best case" scenario. Ms. Ballew asked about the impact of new construction on the tax rate in the future. Mr. Gangle said that new construction will mean added revenue in the future. Mr. Torrey asked if a company finishing the last year of its three-year exemption in an enterprise zone would be considered new revenue the next year. Mr. Gangle said yes. Mr. Harcleroad left the meeting. V. REGIONAL TRANSPORT A TION NEEDS MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 7 . . . . . I .. Mr. Carlson reported that the State legislature had failed to increase transportation funding during the last legislative session; subsequently, there were transportation revenue measures proposed by six Oregon counties on the November ballot requesting that voters increase or institute local gas taxes and/or vehicle registration fees. He referred the elected officials to a recent editorial in The Oregonian endorsing those efforts. Mr. Carlson said that staff had developed estimates for local transportation funding needs as part of the TransPlan update. That information was summarized in the meeting packet as Table 2 in a memorandum entitled "Transportation Finance--Options and Policy Issues." He said that the table indicated a gap between revenues and demand of about $15 million per year. Mr. Carlson reviewed the local transportation financing options summarized in Table 3 in the memorandum, noting their possible annual yields and expected uses for the revenues. Mr. Carlson asked the elected officials if they wished to take a coordinated approach to encourage the State legislature to increase transportation revenues in the 1999 session or if they wished to consider a local taxing option. He also asked if the elected officials had a financing option preference. Responding to a question from Mr. Green, Mr. Carlson explained that the counties involved did not' generally have extensive timber receipt revenues. Mr.-Cornacchia said that Umatilla County had 1,600_ miles of road and 250 bridges, quite comparable to Lane County. In good years Lane County received close to $20 million in timber receipts for its road fund, while UmatillaCounty received about $1 million and did not have the same guarantee of money as Lane County under the Forest Plan. Responding to a question from Ms. Swanson Gribskov about the timber receipts anticipated by Lane County, Mr. Cornacchia reviewed the formula basis for timber receipts distribution over a ten-year period. He said that by the end of the ten-year period, the County would have no guarantee of money, only the actual receipts. He noted attempts by the Oregon Association of Counties to freeze the receipts and eliminate the annual three percent reduction. Ms. Weeldreyer added that the current guarantee brought the program into the entitlements category, and it became a budget target for representatives from other areas of the nation. Mr. Cornacchia said the recent movement to change the manner in which road construction in national forests were funded would also have an impact on the level of timber receipts by shifting that cost to the counties. ' Mr. Shaver said that the demands of growth led to an increase in the number of roads created that must be maintained, and current revenues were inadequate to support that effort: He said that he would have supported a legislative action to increase the gas tax and index the tax to inflation, and he wanted to give the voters that opportunity. Mr. Shaver said that the taxpayers saved in the long-run from adequately funded maintenance programs because it cost less to maintain a road than replace it. He said that any gas tax that he supported would have to be dedicated to road maintenance, and it should be applied on a countywide basis with revenues going to the city where they were collected. Mr. Shaver said that the local gas tax should include a provision that stipulated any increase in the State tax would result in a commensurate decrease in the local tax. Ms. Weeldreyer asked the elected officials about their interest in a local gas tax. She said that the board had discussed the issue, and agreed that in light of the size of the County's Road Fund it was probably imprudent for the board to seek such a tax. Ms. Weeldreyer said that the idea of spending down the fund to justify the tax did not seem prudent, either. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 8 . . . . . . . Mr. Cornacchia asked the elected officials of Eugene and Springfield to discuss what they would do with the additional money realized by a gas tax and provide that information to the board. He said that would give the board and the public a better understanding of the needs of the two communities. Mr. Torrey expressed interest in knowing the County's five-year plan for its Road Fund. He suggested the elected officials discuss at some point in the future the possibility of merging the three jurisdictions' road maintenance sections. Mr. Morrisette also was interested in knowing more about the County's intentions for its Road Fund, particularly inasmuch as the County did not distribute the funds on a per capita basis. He said that he continued to hear that the Road Fund was close to exhaustion, but it appeared that it would contain significant amounts for some time to come. Mr. Morrisette acknowledged the County's assistance on road projects in Springfield. He also agreed with Mr. Torrey that there was a potential for merging some public works functions. Ms. Dumdi favored examination of a vehicle registration fee. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Shaver said that his support for a local gas tax was based in part on the clear correlation between the tax and its use and its ease of administration given that there was a gas tax already in place. Directing her remarks to the County Commissioners, Ms. Nathanson suggested that thdnterest of the two cities in a gas tax may not be shared by the County, but she asked that the County not preclude the cities from examining the possibility of a gas tax to meet their program needs. Mr. Green did not favor a countywide gas tax, pointing out that the first 16 Lane County projects on the State Transportation Improvement Program did not address capacity. Responding to a question from Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Cornacchia said that the County did not have an SDC for transportation because it did not have a relationship with developers. He said that where the County encountered issues related to road financing and development was in the interfaces between the rural and urban areas. As growth occurred, requiring road improvements to long-existing roads, people who had lived along such a road for many years were being asked to pay the public's contribution, as a benefitted property, for those improvements. In many cases the cost of those improvements exceeded the equity an individual had in their home. Mr. Cornacchia believed that the cities' SDCs should be modified to include those costs so that long-time residents were not being asked to pay costs that should be born by developers. Mr. Tollenaar suggested that any follow-up discussion include transit and transit facilities. He said that Lane Transit District should be a participant in that discussion. Ms. Taylor endorsed Mr. Cornacchia's comments about the burden being placed on long-term residents by development. She suggested that money collected through a gas tax be used on bicycle paths as well as on roads. Ms. Weeldreyer asked if there was support among the elected officials for referring the issue of transportation financing to the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC). The elected officials agreed to refer the issue to the MPC for further discussion. MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting October 7, 1997 Page 9 . . . ,,~ ... VI. ANIMAL REGULATION Ms. Weeldreyer reminded those present that many years ago the three jurisdictions jointly operated Tri- Agency Animal Control. She said that Lane County currently lacked a comprehensive system of animal welfare and regulation, and the County had further reduced its animal control budget and could not longer provide the level of service it once did. Ms. Weeldreyer asked if there was any support on the part of the elected officials to commit to an examination of providing animal control services in a coordinated manner with the assistance of local nonprofit agencies focused on animal welfare. The elected officials discussed the relative priority of animal control. Ms. Weeldreyer said that she was interested in asking staff to scope the issue with local humane societies, veterinarians, and Greenhill Animal Shelter. The elected officials agreed to give staff permission to scope the issue. VII. WRAP-UP The elected officials tentatively agreed to schedule another joint meeting within six months. The meeting adjourned at 9: 10 p.m. (Recorded by Kimberly Young) r: \97jointljeo07.1 07 Adopted by the Springfield City Council this 18th day of ATTEST: II I!~ Mie- W..i1son.,. Cit;r-Reco.tdeJ: Assistant City Manager Gino grimaldi MINUTES--Joint Elected Officials Meeting May , 1998. M7I~JI Bill Morrisette, Mayor October 7, 1997 Page 10