HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 03 Police Special Levy Renewal AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/7/2012
Meeting Type:Work Session
Staff Contact/Dept.: Jerry Smith, Police
Bob Duey, Finance
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3729
541-726-3740
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Financially Responsible
and Stable Government
Services
ITEM TITLE: POLICE SPECIAL LEVY RENEWAL
ACTION
REQUESTED:
None
Staff is presenting a review of the current police special levy that will be
expiring on June 30, 2013 and estimated costs for providing like services in
the next 5 year period. Council is being asked to provide direction to staff
in preparation for the review of a ballot title, question and explanation at a
subsequent work session.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The current 5-year Police Special Levy will expire at the end of the next fiscal year
(06/30/12) and will require a successful vote, most likely in November 2012, to
renew the levy for an additional 5 years. Essential services provided by the City
rely on the $1.09 per thousand of assessed valuation levy for funding. This levy,
first passed in 2002, added funding for the Municipal Jail in 2006 and now includes
police and jail services as well as municipal court and city prosecutor. Staff is
asking Council to consider both service and funding level requirements in
establishing the final ballot measure. Staff is recommending that the Council
execute a request for a special levy election and have filed with Lane County
Elections prior to any summer break.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Council Briefing Memorandum
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
See Council Briefing Memorandum
Attachment 1 Page 1
M E M O R A N D U M City of Springfield
Date: 4/23/2012
To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL
From: Jerry Smith, Police Chief
Bob Duey, Finance Director>
BRIEFING
Subject: Police Special Levy Renewal MEMORANDUM
ISSUE:
The current 5-year Police Special Levy will expire at the end of the next fiscal year (06/30/12)
f
and
and will require a successful vote, most likely in November 2012, to renew the levy for an
additional 5 years. Essential services provided by the City rely on the $1.09 per thousand o
assessed valuation levy for funding. This levy, first passed in 2002, added funding for the
Municipal Jail in 2006 and now includes police and jail services as well as municipal court
city prosecutor. Staff is asking Council to consider both service and funding level requirements
in establishing the final ballot measure. Staff is recommending that the Council execute a
request for a special levy election and have filed with Lane County Elections prior to any
summer break.
COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE:
s needs, essential City public safety services receive resources from a
d by the voters of Springfield. The continuation of this levy for another
Enhance Public Safety
To meet existing service
special levy twice passe
5 years is critical if the City is going to maintain a level of public safety services that meet the
needs and expectations of its citizens.
Introduction
The accom
place a levy
panying information is being presented to Council in a work session as part of the process
request on the November 2012 ballot. This request is to re-establish the special levy for
ed
ents. First,
to
police services that will expire on June 30, 2013. There will be two work sessions scheduled prior to a
request in July for the Council to take final action for placing the levy on the ballot through the Lane
County Elections office. This first work session is intended to concentrate on the services being provid
and the size of the necessary levy to provide those services. The current levy is at rate of $1.09 per
thousand. It is anticipated that the size of the levy that would be required to provide the same level of
services as the current levy would be $1.22. Depending upon revenue estimates the $1.22 could be as
high as $1.34 per thousand or could be reduced to a cost closer to the current $1.09 rate.
Council is being asked to provide direction to staff on two important points in preparation for the next
ork session scheduled for June 4th in respect to both service and funding level requiremw
research has shown that there is still support in the community for a levy to pay for the additional services
being provided, but it is also known that this support is not without limits. Council is being asked to
provide staff with direction for the financial limitations that should be applied when drafting a ballot
measure for the November election. Second, if the financial limitations are below the $1.22 or $1.34
Attachment 1 Page 2
maximum levy required, staff would like to review with Council several of the options that may be
available to reduce the overall cost of the levy for the 5-year period.
Background
The City Council first asked the citizens of Springfield to approve a 4-year special levy for police
r:
olice Officers 8.0 FTE
ice Officers
Officers
pal Judges
+25% Contract
addition to staffing there were minor material & services costs required to outfit and supply the
By 2006, when the re-authorization of the levy was necessary, the City had passed a general
dition
on
1. The municipal jail would be constructed on the site of the existing police facility, which would
To address the first 3 years of funding for the municipal jail (expected to open in 2010) the Council
ele
e
Rate Per Thousand of AV
services in November of 2002 to expand the level of service being provided by the police and court
systems. The original levy was for $0.66 per thousand of assessed valuation and provided funding fo
P
Community Serv5.0 FTE
Record Clerks 2.0 FTE
Communication5.0 FTE
Court Clerks 2.0 FTE
Court Munici.05 FTE
City Prosecutor
In
newly funded positions.
obligation bond issue for the construction of a new police/court administration building and the ad
of a 100 bed municipal jail. The administration building was under construction by that time and the
construction of the municipal jail was still in the planning phase with the eventual construction waiting
two events.
not be razed until the move was completed into the new Springfield Justice Center; and
2. The Council had committed to not begin construction of the new municipal jail until the
necessary funds for the first 3 years of operation had been secured.
cted to include the net amount required to operate the jail after other available resources for the first 3
years into the renewal of the special levy in the fall of 2006. The levy in 2006, although not legally
broken down this way within the levy request, included the following rate per thousands for each of th
unique services:
ervices
S FY2002 FY2006
vices
utor Services
$
Police Ser$0.59 $0.67
Court and Prosec$.07 $0.08
Municipal Jail 0.00 $0.34
$0.66 $1.09
urrent Levy Performance Standards
Before the original operating levy was passed in 2002, Department staffing levels had been reduced
to levels well below national or regional averages. Positions including Lieutenants, a Police Captain and
C
Attachment 1 Page 3
line
ce,
d non-emergency
calls, improve communication and responsiveness to citizens, and develop the capacity to focus attention
on s
nded
mproved significantly during the
original Levy, many issues remained, including a property crime rate that was consistently near the
hig
t
he
the
after two years of operations, citizen satisfaction with the police department and the jail is
consistently high. Property crime rates, compared to 2008, are down significantly. Property crime
offere
sults,
Renewal of the Special Levy in November 2012
r the renewal of the special police levy identify only
e estimated cost of providing the same services that are currently being provided by the 2006 special
levy
staff positions had been eliminated in a series of budget reductions that followed the passage of
statewide property tax limitations. The staffing priorities identified in the Levy were the results of
research, collaboration with local partners, and extensive work done by the Police Planning Task For
who developed and updated a twenty-year plan for police services in Springfield.
The goals of the original levy were to improve response times to emergency an
pecific neighborhood problems. By 2006, emergency response times were noticeably shorter and
non-emergency response times were cut from a median of 11 minutes to 6. Increases in staffing levels to
the Records and Dispatch units meant that waiting times for citizens calling in to report a problem were
shortened significantly. Additional officers on each shift, and the addition of Patrol Community Service
Officers meant that a higher percentage of calls had an officer available to dispatch rather than taking a
phone report. In 2002, less than 70% of all incoming calls for service resulted in an officer being
dispatched to take a report. By 2006 that number had increased to over 80%. Specific problem-solving
efforts, such as the TEAM Springfield bicycle patrol and neighborhood ‘hot-spot’ patrols also expa
as a direct result of the additional staffing provided by the Levy.
While the Department’s response to calls for police services i
hest in the state. Crime prevention efforts are effective in improving citizen satisfaction with law
enforcement responses to crimes, but by the time the 2006 Levy renewal approached it was clear tha
actually reducing property crime rates would require different resources. With additional input from t
community and from the Police Planning Task Force, a series of goals and objectives was outlined for
operation of a Municipal Jail. Those goals include holding offenders accountable for their actions,
increasing revenue from fines and forfeitures, and specifically, reducing property crime rates in
Springfield.
In 2012,
nders are held in custody until they either post bail or their cases are resolved, fines and forfeitures a
more likely to be paid. The investments made by the Springfield community have begun to show re
and the goals moving forward will be to continue the gains already achieved.
The initial numbers that are being developed fo
th
. The cost of services included in last renewal of the levy was calculated in the spring of 2006. At
this point, there are many factors influencing the 2013 to 2018 financial calculations. Some of the more
prominent ones are:
Expense Factors
The Municipa
there was fun
l Jail is now in full operation for all 5 years of the levy while in the previous levy
ding required for only 3 years (2010-2012)
The CPI during the period from January 2006 to curreer
ng the jail for over 2 years has identified areas of both greater and lesser
costs than originally anticipated
nt totals 15.7% or an average of 2.7% p
year
Experience in operati
Attachment 1 Page 4
projected costs although rising labor costs
will be a major factor in estimating future costs
Overall the operation of the jail has been in line with
Police have found that they are able to operate the
ted along with attempting to address the void in complementary social and mental
health services in the community
has not increased as anticipated
jail on one less FTE than originally planned
Municipal Court has found that the cost for indigent representation has increased at a rate faster
than anticipa
The number of trials held as a result of operating the jail
Revenue Factors
The overall growth in the City’s assessed valuation (AV) for the period between 2005 and
has been grea
2012
ter than projected providing for a lar
cost of the renewal levy lower
has adversely affected the financial strength of the General Fund over the last
several years which has impacted the amount of revenue sharing that has been possible between
court revenues (general fund)and jail operations (j
The ability to collect from inmates the jail housing s
ich to estimate future levy is the fiscal year that ended June 30,
Y11). The current year FY12 still has 3 months to goas
ear costs estimated for the current services being provided by the Public Safety levy.
ger AV base to begin FY14
Greater than anticipated AV growth has resulted in an anticipated carry-over of beginning cash
for July 2013 that can be utilized to help keep the
The recession
ail operations fund)
The leasing of jail beds to outside agencies has not generated the revenue anticipated in 2005,
currently at only about 30% of that total
fee has not been as high as anticipated and ha
not been a significant revenue in the operations to this point
Estimates for Levy Renewal
The last full year of information in wh
2011 (F until year end and the budget for FY13 h
not year been approved. Utilizing trending data for labor contracts and inflationary activities the
following are the 5-y
Service FTE
Police Services 20.00 $ 13,776,362
Municipal Court and Prosecutor Services 2.23 $ 2,582,392
unicipal Jail Operations 18.10 $ 15,700,811M
$ 32,059,565
and
operation is responsible for its own operational costs and the material and services account for just over
23%tal expenditures identified above. For prosecutor service area, the
majosts associated with running aith the available jail beds are 58% for material
andtract)the remain
municipal judge personal services.
the levy was to be renewed at the above described costs with no adjustment in non-property tax
resorce
Each of the three core service areas in the levy has different material and services needs, which
are included in the total expenditures identified above. For police services most of the material and
services required to equip the 20.0 FTE already are included in the department’s operating budget
make up just under 5% of the total with the remainder being personal services. For the municipal jail, the
of the tothe municipal court and
ority of the new c court w
services (this includes the prosecutor’s con with ing being for court staff and
If
us the resulting levy would increase from $1.09 to $1.34 per thousand of assessed valuation.
Attachment 1 Page 5
The ability to generate revenues was an important part of the initial forecasting of the net operating
costs for operating a 100 bed municipal jail. Resources that the jail could be wholly or partially
responsible for generating could include:
Charging of inmates fo
Leasing of jail beds to others agencies
r overnight stay costs (including jail bed)
ily two sources of revenue (revenue sharing from the General
t is possible to reduce
mentioned earlier, there is anticipated available
ilable resources for
al for
the initial estimate of $1.34 to a new estimate of $1.22.
Generation of revenue from a 5% charge against all court fines collected
Revenue sharing of overall fines and fees collected as result of the ability to sanction
offenders with jail time.
With the operation of the jail just passing the two-year mark it is likely that the operation has not yet
reached it full capacity for generating a greater share of its own operating costs from operations. By
projecting a different trend line for primar
Fund and additional income from the leasing of jail beds to outside agencies) i
slightly the dependency on the levy renewal. Also, as
cash on hand at the end of the current levy that can be reprogrammed back into the ava
the 2012 levy. With these changes, it may be possible to lower the required rate for the levy renew
Rate Per Thousand of AV
Services FY2002 FY2006 FY2012 FY2012 FY2012
Police Services $ 0.59 $ 0.67 $ 0.67 $ 0.67 $ ?.
Court and Prosecutor Srvs $ 0.07 $ 0.08 $ 0.12 $ 0.12 $ ?.
Municipal Jail $ 0.00 $ 0.34 $ 0.55 $ 0.43 $ ?.
$0.66 $1.09 $1.34 $1.22 $1.09
Establishing a Rate for the 2012 Levy Renewal
y in 2012 will invbina
idblishiate pros for cost non-
tan be efor the coing of
th`Each of these hajor iml require te City
can provide a concise and compelli
soe of the more significant factors in determining the rate are as follow:
between resources and expenses that will be necessary
to fund the identified services. It is important to recognize that over a five year period costs
he
cessary to establish a
“blended rate” thatat
n
ining years while utilizing the funds held in reserve. In this way the
attempt is to match
The establishment of a rate for the renewal of the levolve a comtion of
entifying the right level of services to be provided, estang accurjections and
x revenues, and listening to citizens about the level of support that caxpected ntinu
is special levy. ave a mportance in this matter and each wilhat th
ng statement to voters in an informational campaign. Financially,
m
Establishing the net amount each year
to maintain a consistent level of service costs are almost certainly to increase.
The assessed valuation of the City for which the annual levy is applied changes every year
and it not always easy to project in this economy. An unexpected low rise in the assessed
valuation (such as FY11 @ 0.59%) can greatly impact the dollars received from the special
levy while an unexpected rise in the assessed valuation (such as FY12 @ 3.6%) can have t
opposite effect.
The actual specific rate required for each year is different so it is ne
is one constant rate over the life of the levy to generate to total dollars th
is the anticipated need. By establishing a blended “constant” rate it is most likely that you
will over collect in the first 2 to 3 years of the levy, save these funds into a reserve, and the
under-collect the rema
the overall revenue and expenditure for the 5-year period but not for each
individual year.
Attachment 1 Page 6
While the table identifies the blended rates being benchmarked at $1.34, $1.22 and $1.09, it is
ticipated that not much attention will be given to rates above the $1.22 rate nor below the $1.09 rate
d staff will concentrate the remaining discussion between
an
an those two numbers.
City
per y
to
next 5-
Each $0.01 of levy represents about $40,000 per year in property tax revenue to be received by the
. The $0.13 per thousand difference between the $1.09 and the $1.22 would represent about $520K
ear or $2.6M over the 5-year life of the levy. The ability to move the levy rate down from the $1.22
$1.09 would require adjustments in either anticipated revenues or services to be delivered during the
year period. Some of the options would be:
Increase Jail Operations Revenue. Current estimate for the leasing of jail beds in FY14 is
d for a approximately 13 beds per night for 365 nights per year. Each additional jail bed lease
365 day period would generate an additional $27K.
Increase Revenue from General Fund. Additional revenue sharing from court fines collected
between the General Fund and the Jail Operations Fund. Every year the General Fund
rs for arraignment and/or trials. This amount is
currently $145K. Long term this number could be as high as 400K but with the economic
realities the Generawn
transfers by agreement the prior financial commitment that the City had for jail beds at Lane
County and the funding for a single bailiff position that was re-allocated when the new jail
opened. That $304K is set every year. In addition it is anticipated that the General Fund is
able to transfer a percentage of the increased revenue that is being recognized by court as a
result of the jail’s ability to hold prisone
l Fund is facing in the current recession this dollar transfer has not gro
as quickly as anticipated in the 2006 financial analysis.
Reduce Service Expectations in Police or Court Levy. Currently there are 22.23 FTE funded
from levy resourcen of s. It would be unlikely that the FTE could be reduced in the jail portio
the levy request but other considerations could be given to reduce the current service level
that is being provided by the police or court systems.
Reduce Funding Level for Levy Services and Increase Expectations for General Fund
Support. Most if not all of the services provided by the levy would be considered the type of
services that could normally be provided by the General Fund. Measure #’s 5, 47 and 50
created a municipal finance environment where temporary special levies became necessary
tools to provide a level of service requested by citizens that were outside the capabilities of a
city’s permanent rate established by the State. Reductions could be made in the services to be
provided by levy funding with the expectations that these services would return to the
by the
budget committee.
to
General Fund and become services within the modeling for future General Fund
expenditures. Based upon established priorities, these services may or may not see funding
from the General Fund in future years. It does not provide any additional funding but moves
the discussion of future service levels from the levy to the traditional budget discussion
For example, to lower the levy from $1.22 to $1.09 an average of $520K would need
be reduced from each of the five year’s projected costs. These costs could be 5 police
officers or the entire court and prosecutor share of the levy or some other combination o
officers, court costs, record clerks and communication officers. The current projection
of the FY14 General Fund deficit is $1.6M. This option would increase the anticipated
deficit in the General Fund to $2.12M. These services would then become part of the
budget discussions for FY14 along with all other General Fund services. Staff would
then present the Budget Committee with a balanced proposal for FY14 while de
the yet to be determined service impacts of these changes.
f
scribing
Attachment 1 Page 7
Conclusion
The informat
levy renewal was
proposed levy. T
are very much re
of the police specst for the police and court
s core services that are subsidized by property tax dollars.
NDED ACTION:
No action required. A second work session is scheduled for June 4th at which time staff will
ion presented at this first work session for the establishment of a ballot measure for the
intended to provide both a background of the current levy and priorities for the
he services that the City is able to provide as a result of the levy’s additional resources
cognized as part of the core provided by the police and court services. The continuation
ial levy is critical to the financial stability of the City, not ju
services but for all of the City’
RECOMME
present a recommended ballot title, ballot question and explanation for Council consideration.
Staff is seeking direction from Council in preparation for that work session.