Loading...
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.