Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 13 Public Safety Special Levy Election AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 6/18/2012 Meeting Type:Regular Meeting Staff Contact/Dept.: Bob Duey, Finance Staff Phone No: 541.726.3740 Estimated Time: 20 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: Strengthen Public Safety by Leveraging Partnerships and Resources ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC SAFETY SPECIAL LEVY ELECTION ACTION REQUESTED: Conduct a public hearing and adopt/not adopt the following resolution A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FIVE YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.28 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2013/14. ISSUE STATEMENT: The current 5-year Public Safety Special Option Levy will expire at the end of the next fiscal year (06/03/13) 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 assessed valuation levy for funding. This levy first passed in 2002, added funding for our municipal jail in 2006 and now includes police & jail services as well as both municipal court and city prosecutor. After completing two work sessions, Council has requested of staff to prepare a resolution with ballot title for public hearing prior to any action for the placement of this measure on the November 6th General Election ballot. The prepared resolution requests a 5-year levy at a rate of $1.28 per thousand of assessed valuation. If adopted, the resolution and ballot title will be filed with the Lane County Elections Office. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Council Briefing Memorandum Attachment 2: Resolution w/ Exhibit A Ballot Title Attachment 3: Advanced Marketing Research Executive Summary 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: 6/13/2012 To: Gino Grimaldi COUNCIL From: Bob Duey, Finance Director> BRIEFING Subject: Public Safety Special Option Levy Renewal MEMORANDUM ISSUE: The current 5-year Public Safety Special Option Levy will expire at the end of the next fiscal After completing two work sessions, Council has requested of staff to prepare a resolution with rate of     year (06/03/13) and will require a successful vote 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 assessed valuation levy for funding. This levy first passed in 2002, added funding for our municipal jail in 2006 and now includes police and jail services as well as both municipal court and city prosecutor. ballot title for public hearing prior to any action for the placement of this measure on the November 6th General Election ballot. The prepared resolution requests a 5-year levy at a $1.28 per thousand of assessed valuation. If adopted, the resolution and ballot title will be filed with the Lane County Elections Office. COUNCIL GOALS/MANDATE: Enhance Public Safety  To meet existing services needs, essential City public safety services receive resources from a special levy twice passed by the voters of Springfield. The continuation of this levy for another 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. ntroduction The Council has held two work sessions on determining the right mix of services and cost to the tax ay ed in The Council has discussed renewal rates for the levy that range from the current $1.09 per thousand . I pers for asking for the passage of a special option levy at the November 6th election. Members of the Council have expressed a strong interest in be able to maintain the existing level of service for the municipal jail, police services and court operations that is currently being provided by the levy pass November of 2006. The survey conducted by Advanced Marketing Research on behalf of the City appears to provide supporting documentation that Springfield citizens are currently supportive of continuing to be additionally taxed in order to continue receiving this level of service. to a $1.34 per thousand of assessed valuation and, with an interest in maintaining existing services, have directed staff to prepare the resolution and ballot title for public hearing with a rate per thousand of $1.28       Attachment 1  Page 2    Rate Per Thousand of AV Preferred Ballot Services FY08-13 FY14-18 Police Services $ 0.67 $ 0.64 Court and Prosecutor Srvs $ 0.08 $ 0.11 Municipal Jail $ 0.34 $ 0.53 $1.09 $1.28 Preferred Ballot Title: The Preferred Ballot Title would require the rate per thousand to increase from the existing $1.09 per thousand to a rate of $1.28 cents per thousand. The Preferred Ballot Tile is configured to maintain the current service level for police, the jail, court staffing and the prosecutor’s office as they relate to the levy services. Community survey results indicate that the public is very satisfied with the level of service being provided by the City in these areas. Cost per Household- Median Residence AV Rate at $1.28 Residence RMV (Est @ 79% of RMV Annual $135,000 $106,650 $137 $150,000 $118,500 $152 $175,000 $138,250 $177 $200,000 $158,000 $202 $225,000 $177,750 $228 $250,000 $197,500 $253 Per Lane County – the 2011 Median RMV for Springfield is $152,239 Median – equal number greater and lesser Community Survey The City commissioned with Advanced Marketing Research to conduct a community survey to draw insights about voter behavior surrounding the 2012 public safety levy. This survey, presented to Council at the June 11 work session indicated significant community support for the service currently being provided by the current levy. The executive summary has been provided as backup documents for the public hearing, but as the full survey results have previously been distributed they are not again in the current packet of information The survey results appear to show favorability towards keeping a similar level of service as opposed to any service reduction. For example 63% said they would definitely or probably vote yes on a police services levy that maintains current services while costing the average homeowner $161 per year, or a rate of $1.34 per $1,000 of assessed value. When changes to the current levy are offered as an option, such as renting additional jail beds, 56% said they would definitely or probably vote yes. When offered an option that included losing some combination of police officers and court services, 41% said they would definitely or probably vote yes on a police services levy that would cost the average homeowner $131 per year, or a rate of $1.09 per $1,000 of assessed value. Ballot Title The Ballot Title must be a neutrally worded document that adheres to the State guidelines of being comprised of a maximum of 10 word ballot title, a 20 word question and a150 word explanation along with other required wording. The specific rate per thousand of the levy and the number of years must be       Attachment 1  Page 3    clearly stated in the question and the purpose of the levy must be clearly explained in a non-advocating nature. To follow up on the discussion by Council at the June 11 work session, staff and the City Attorney have completed additional research on the use of the word “renewal’ in the ballot title and have looked to the State as the governing agency in this matter. In their publication for writing a ballot title the Department of Revenue advice is that “a measure renews a current local option tax if it is for substantially the same purpose and asks for a rate or amount that is equal to or less than the current rate or amount”. The City’s measure is intended for substantially the same purpose but the rate under consideration is not equal to or less than the current $1.09. In the interest of maintaining the impartiality of statements that is required by the State in this matter, staff is recommending that the ballot title does not include the word “renewal”. It is believed that this issue will be thoroughly vetted by any political action committee that likely will be active and that staff and Council would be better served by publicizing the essential facts that will be necessary to have an informed electorate. Attachment 2 Resolution with Ballot Title has been provided for Council’s review, Special Option Levy Background Presented at Previous Work Sessions Current 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 line 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 Force, 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 and non-emergency calls, improve communication and responsiveness to citizens, and develop the capacity to focus attention on specific 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 expanded as a direct result of the additional staffing provided by the Levy. While the Department’s response to calls for police services improved significantly during the original Levy, many issues remained, including a property crime rate that was consistently near the highest 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 that actually reducing property crime rates would require different resources. With additional input from the community and from the Police Planning Task Force, a series of goals and objectives was outlined for the 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.       Attachment 1  Page 4    In 2012, 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 offenders are held in custody until they either post bail or their cases are resolved, fines and forfeitures are more likely to be paid. The investments made by the Springfield community have begun to show results, and the goals moving forward will be to continue the gains already achieved. Total Cost Estimates for Levy Renewal - The last full year of information in which to estimate future levy is the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2011 (FY11). The current year FY12 still has 3 months to go until year end and the budget for FY13 has not year been approved. Utilizing trending data for labor contracts and inflationary activities the following are the 5-year costs estimated for the current services being provided by the Public Safety levy. Service FTE Police Services 20.00 $ 13,776,362 Municipal Court and Prosecutor Services 2.23 $ 2,582,392 Municipal Jail Operations 18.10 $ 15,700,811 $ 32,059,565 Renewal of the Special Levy in November 2012 - The initial numbers that are being developed for the renewal of the special police levy identify only the estimated cost of providing the same services that are currently being provided by the 2006 special levy. The cost of services included in last renewal of the levy was calculated in the spring of 2006. Since that time there are many factors influencing the arrival at the 2013 to 2018 calculations. Some of the more prominent ones are: Expense Factors 5 years of the levy while in the previous le there was funding required for only 3 years (2010-2012) The CPI during the period The Municipal Jail is now in full operation for all vy from January 2006 to current totals 15.7% or an average of 2.7% per year f both greater and lesser costs than originally anticipated but no big surprises r factor in estimating future costs 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 erating the jail has not increased as anticipated Experience in operating the jail for over 2 years has identified areas o Overall the operation of the jail has been in line with projected costs although rising labor costs will be a majo 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 increase in the number of trials held as a result of op Revenue Factors The overall g AV) for the period between 2005 and 2012 has been greater than projected providing for a larger AV base to begin FY14 Greater than anticipated AV growth has resulted in an anticipated ca rowth in the City’s assessed valuation ( rry-over of beginning cash that can be utilized to help keep the cost of the renewal levy lower for July 2013       Attachment 1  Page 5    The recession has adversely affected the financial strength (jail operations fund) The leasing of jail beds to outside agencies has no using fee has not been as high as anticipated and has not been a significant revenue in the operations to this il. Resources that the jail could be wholly or partially ible for generating could include the charging of inml overall fines and fees collected as result of the ability to n offenders with jail time. With the operation of th ting a different trend line for primarily two sources of revenue (revenue sharing from the general fund and additional income from the leasing of jail beds to outside agencies) it is pos 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 t generated the revenue anticipated in 2005, currently at only about 30% of that total The ability to collect from inmates the jail ho point The ability to generate revenues was an important part of the initial forecasting of the net operating costs for operating a 100 bed municipal ja responsates for overnight stay costs (including jai bed), the leasing of jail beds to others agencies, the generation of revenue from a 5% charge against all court fines collected, and a revenue sharing of sanctioe 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. In projec sible to reduce slightly the dependency on the levy renewal. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing concerning the resolution with ballot title that has been presented to Council. Adopt the resolution as presented or, after discussion, adopt a modified resolution with ballot title. The resolution directs the staff to file with the Lane County Elections Office the request to have the measure placed on the November 6, 2012 ballot.   RESOLUTION No. 12-__ A RESOLUTION REFERRING TO THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY A BALLOT MEASURE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A FIVE YEAR LOCAL OPTION TAX FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PURPOSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.28 OF ASSESSED VALUE BEGINNING IN 2013/14. As the preamble to the Resolution the Common Council of the City of Springfield, Oregon (the “City”) hereby recites the matters set forth below. To the extent any of the following recitals relates to a finding or a determination which must be made by the Council in connection with the subject matter of this Resolution or any aspect thereof, the Council declares that by setting forth such recital such finding or determination is thereby made by the Council. The recital, findings and determination set forth herein constitute a part of the Resolution. (1) POLITICAL SUBDIVISION. The City is a municipality and political subdivision organized and existing and pursuant to the laws of the State of Oregon and the 2001 Springfield Municipal Charter of the City (“the Charter”). (2) POLICE PLANNING TASK FORCE. The City Council has previously appointed members to the Police Planning Task Force for the purpose of assisting in the development of a blueprint for strengthening public safety by leveraging partnerships and resources. (3) CURRENT LEVY AUTHORIZATION. The City currently has the authorization from the citizens of Springfield to levy a special option tax at the rate of $1.09 per thousand for police services beginning July 01, 2007. The current authorization is for five years and expires with the fiscal year beginning July 01, 2012. (4) NEED FOR SERVICE ENHANCEMENTS. A variety of surveys and community forums have been held by, and on behalf of, the City intended to determine the current needs and desires for the residents as they pertain to issues of public safety. The surveys indicate a continued need to enhance police services to the Community. The City recently completed the construction of 100-bed municipal jail through general obligation bonds that opened in January 2010. The Council of the City determined to proceed with the identified services for polices services, municipal jail operations and court services for the renewal of the current authorized special option tax at a cost of $32,059,565. The estimated tax rate needed to generate the resources required is $1.28 per thousand of assessed valuation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIED, OREGON AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. APPROVE OF BALLOT MEASURE FOR GENERAL PURPOSE LOCAL OPTION TAX LEVY. The Council of the City hereby directs that at the general election to be held on November 06, 2012, there shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the City a measure authorizing the City to levy a local option tax for public safety purposes in the amount of $1.28 per $1,000 of assessed value beginning in 2013/14. The ballot title for the local option levy is attached as Exhibit A (the “Ballot Title”). Section 2. SUBMISSION TO THE ELECTIONS OFFICER. Not later that the 61st day before November 06, 2012, the City Recorder, as the Chief Elections Officer of the City, shall submit to the County Clerk for Lane County, Oregon a statement of the local option tax measure together with a certified copy of this Resolution and the Ballot Title, all in order that the local option tax measure may appear on the ballot for the general election to be held on November 06, 2012. The City Recorder shall submit to the County Clerk all necessary information, and shall do and perform all other acts and things necessary or appropriate, so that the measure shall appear on the ballot for such primary election. Section 3. ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION. The City Manager, the City Recorder and the City Finance Director and each of them acting individually, are hereby authorized, empowered and directed, for and on behalf of the City, to do and perform all acts and things necessary or appropriate to cause the public safety purpose local option tax levy to appear on the ballot for November 06, 2012, general election and to otherwise carry out the purpose and intent of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the Council and approval by the Mayor. ADOPTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 18, 2012, BY A VOTE OF _____ FOR AND _____ AGAINST. APPROVED: ___________________________ Mayor Christine L. Lundberg ATTEST: ___________________________ City Recorder, Amy Sowa Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2 Ballot Title    CITY OF SPRINGFIELD  BALLOT MEASURE XX‐XX    Caption : FIVE‐YEAR  LEVY FOR SPRINGFIELD JAIL OPERATIONS AND POLICE SERVICES    Question: Shall Springfield levy $1.28 per $1,000 assessed valuation for five years beginning  2013/14 for Springfield jail operations and police services.  This measure may cause  property taxes to increase more than three percent.     Summary: The current levy for public safety services, which expires June 30, 2013, provides  funding for Springfield’s municipal jail, uniformed police, support personnel and  municipal court operations.  Passage of this five year levy would renew funding for the  municipal jail and maintain the existing level of police and community services.      Springfield’s jail opened in 2010.  This levy would continue to provide partial funding for  jail operations.  Court fines, prisoner fees and leasing jail beds to other agencies would  provide other funding.  The jail provides space for sentenced defendants and has  reduced the number of defendants failing to appear for scheduled court dates.  During  the first 2 years of operations 3,692 were booked into jail with an average jail  population in excess of 60 inmates per day.      Police services provided by the current levy include additional uniformed officers,  community service officers, dispatchers and record clerks.  The current levy has resulted  in improved response times for both emergency and non emergency police calls.   Passage of the proposed levy would allow this level of service to continue.   The estimated tax which would be raised by this levy are 20013/14 ‐ $4,699,947;  2014/15 ‐ $4,840,946; 2015/16 ‐ $4,986,174; 2016/17 ‐ $5,135,759; 2017/18 ‐  $5,289,832 for a total of $24,952,658.