Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 04/28/98 JEO MINUTES Metropolitan ^rea Elected Officials Meeting Room 1--Lane County Fairgrounds 796 West 13th ^venue, Eugene, Oregon April 28, 1998 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Lane County Board of Commissioners: Steve Cornacchia, Chair Ellie Dumdi Bobby Green Peter Sorenson Cindy Weeldreyer Bill Van Vactor, Lane County Administrator Lane Transit District: Pat Hocken, President Rob Bennett Eugene City Council: Pat Farr, President Tim Laue Bobby Lee Scott Meisner Laurie Swanson Gribskov Betty Taylor Ken Tollenaar Jim Torrey, Mayor Jim Johnson, City Manager Pro Tern Springfield City Council: Greg Shaver, President Anne Ballew Terry Beyer Stu Burge Norm Dahlquist Maureen Maine Bill Morrisette, Mayor Mike Kelly, City Manager Bethel School District #52: Kent Hunsaker, Superintendent Eugene School District #4J: Chris Pryor, Board President Dave Piercy, Superintendent representative Springfield School District #19: Alan Petersen, Board President Jamon Kent, Superintendent Lane County Assessor Jim Gangle Lane County Sheriff Jan Clements MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 1 Circuit Court Judge Kip Leonard (Dave Factor, representative) District Attorney F. Douglass Harcleroad City of Springfield Mayor Bill Morrisette called to order the joint meeting of the Metropolitan Area Elected Officials at 5:45 p.m. He invited those who were present to introduce themselves. ANIMAL REGULATION Lane County Commissioner Cindy Weeldreyer reported on her work to develop a proposal for re- designing animal control services in Lane County. She described her visit to animal welfare and service provider organizations and her request for reports on countywide animal regulation systems in other areas. She said she had gathered information, submitted it to jurisdictional staffs for evaluation, and was preparing options for consideration by a stakeholders group whose membership had been identified but never met. II. GLENWOOD Springfield City Manager Mike Kelly referred to his memorandum distributed with the agenda of the meeting, regarding issues of whether the planning and urban services jurisdiction of the Glenwood area should be changed from the City of Eugene to the City of Springfield. He described the origination of consideration of the change, the work program to deal with the issues involved approved by the Metropolitan Policy Committee, the "due diligence" study undertaken, the influence on the work program of Measures 47 and 50, and the initial results of cost analyses of the change. Eugene City Councilor Laurie Swanson Gribskov said she supported consideration of the change and asked if considerations included differences between the Eugene Water & Electric Board and the Springfield Utility Board regarding underground utility infrastructure. Mr. Kelly replied that representatives of the two utility providers had met and made a commitment to reach an amicable resolution of all issues involved, if a change was made. Eugene City Councilor Ken Tollenaar stated that he was concerned that public information regarding the proposed change implied that areas of Glenwood already annexed to the City of Eugene would automatically revert to the City of Springfield. He said he was not sure of which statutory provision provide for such a change. PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL REPORT Lane County Commissioner Steve Cornacchia reminded participants that the October 1997 joint meeting of Metropolitan Area Elected Officials had charged the Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC) with preparing a recommendation of a coordinated regional strategy and funding for the Lane County public safety/judicial system. He described processes which had led to recommendation of a Lane County Public Safety Local Option Levy proposal. He referred to MINUTES-Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 2 documents entitled "PSCC Goals, Outcomes, Strategies, and Benchmarks" and "Public Safety Coordinating Council Proposed Levy Items" distributed with the agenda of the meeting. Mr. Cornacchia reviewed a prioritized ranking of programs proposed for inclusion in the recommended levy described in a draft spreadsheet dated April 28, 1998, distributed at the beginning of the meeting. He explained the process followed to develop the recommendation. Mr. Cornacchia said that he believed "threshold questions" which needed to be answered before he could support a proposed levy included: (1) Would there be unanimous support from jurisdictions for a levy? (2) Would there be other revenue measures proposed on the same ballot by other taxing bodies? Mr. Cornacchia requested other elected officials who were members of the PSCC to express their views. Mr. Tollenaar said that he did not believe developing a levy proposal completed the work of the PSCC because it should continue to serve as a planning organization, seeking increased effectiveness and efficiency in the public safety system. He suggested that the programs proposed to be supported by a public safety levy were a good prioritization of the needs of the system. He said he did not believe revenue ballot measures to support a new library and parkland acquisition under consideration by the City of Eugene would compete with a public safety levy. Springfield City Councilor Stu Burge said being part of the PSCC had been an enlightening experience. He said he believed all of the programs proposed for support by a levy had merit, but that they should be broken into segments acceptable to voters. He said he believed capacity programs needed to be included in a levy for it to be approved by voters. Eugene City Councilor Laurie Swanson Gribskov said she believed the prioritized list of programs proposed for a levy were a "work in progress" and that some could be phased in to reduce costs. She said she was pleased with the attempt of the PSCC to balance proposals between those providing system efficiencies, prevention, and capacity. Springfield City Councilor Maureen Maine said she was concerned that the need and purpose of programs proposed to be included in the levy be clearly conveyed to voters. She said the highest priority of the levy should be capacity because while prevention/intervention programs can be funded through private, nonprofit organizations, jail capacity cannot. Lane County Commissioner Bobby Green said that the intergovernmental agency cooperation on the PSCC was unique throughout the State. He said he believed prevention programs needed to be adequately supported by a public safety levy and that the total tax being requested needed to be clearly understood. He said the Board of County Commissioners could not support a public safety levy alone. Lane County Sheriff Jan Clements said he believed the total amount of a proposed levy was critical; that outcomes of programs to be supported by it needed to be clearly identified; that additional work to determine the interdependent nature of proposed programs needed to be completed; that if the measure did not pass, it was possible that "double majority" votes would be required for any proposals for the following two years; that prevention programs were not effective without adequate jail capacity; that support of treatment programs was essential to a MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 3 complete public safety system; and that the jail capacity need projected in program proposals was based on a population profile study performed by the Lane Council of Governments. District Attorney Douglass Harcleroad pointed out how public systems such as schools could not operate with the 80 percent failure-to-appear rate faced by the judicial system. He said programs proposed to be included in a public safety levy would provide capacity, prevention, and cooperation between local governments. He said he believed the annual cost of a levy should be emphasized, not its total cost. Mr. Cornacchia invited non-elected official members of the PSCC present to express their views. Springfield School District #19 Superintendent Jamon Kent said that school districts believed that a public safety levy should provide support for a complete system, that it should be placed on the ballot at a judiciously chosen time, and that its outcomes should be carefully defined. He recommended that a survey of public opinion regarding support of a public safety levy be made. Springfield Police Chief Bill DeForrest said that the lack of adequate jail capacity was the most critical need which should be addressed in a public safety levy. He said that area police chiefs also supported including conversion of the Area Information Records System (AIRS) and early intervention programs in a levy proposal. Lane County Children and Family Department Manager Patricia Rogers said the proposed levy was an opportunity to provide balanced support for all elements of the public safety system. She said she was pleased that support for early intervention for high risk juvenile offenders was included among programs given the highest priority among those proposed to be included in a levy. PSCC Citizen Member Jan Gund stated that she believed the council was providing the best opportunity available for a coordinated examination of the public safety needs of Lane County. She said the PSCC should continue its work after a levy was passed. Mr. Cornacchia invited elected officials who were not members of the PSCC present to express their views. Eugene City Councilor Pat Farr said that he did not believe most citizens realized the scope and coordination of public safety services. He said he supported the importance of including jail capacity in a public safety levy because it "made the system work," but was a strong advocate of prevention programs as a way to reduce needs for capacity. He thanked the PSCC for its work. Lane County Commissioner Elli Dumdi expressed appreciation for the work of the PSCC. She said she was concerned that it would be difficult to convince the voting public of the importance of the proposed programs, despite their high cost. She said she believed prevention was the most important element of a public safety system. Lane County Commissioner Peter Sorenson reviewed establishment of Public Safety Councils by State legislation. He suggested that failure of voters to approve public safety levy proposals in 1996 and 1997 indicated dissatisfaction with such proposals. He said it was important for all jurisdictions, including school districts, to support the legislation. He said his concerns about using a Local Option Levy to support public safety included: (1) the proposal did not provide a comprehensive or continuing solution to problems; (2) a five-year levy would delay an attempt to address an under emphasis on prevention; (3) the support of all jurisdictions was not guaranteed; MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 4 and (4) a survey of public perception of the problem and acceptance of the levy was not included in the proposal. Eugene School District 4J Board President Chris Pryor expressed appreciation for the inclusion of school district officials in the meeting of elected officials. He said he believed the public needed to be educated on the needs for public safety system improvements. He warned that omnibus ballot revenue measures were dangerous because they did not allow voters to express choices regarding elements included. He suggested that the total cost of the proposed levy was too high and would be difficult to explain to voters and that there might be an advantage in presenting its programs to voters in smaller elements. Springfield City Councilor Greg Shaver reported that the public safety levy had been discussed by the Springfield City Council and that there was unanimous support for all programs identified in Tier 1 proposals. He said the council had agreed it would not propose a revenue measure to enable full support to be given to a public safety levy. He said he believed capacity was a key to the success of prevention programs and that tax-payers were individually paying for the cost of weaknesses in the public safety system. MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 5 City of Eugene Mayor Jim Torrey stated that the Eugene City Council had never failed to support a Lane County ballot revenue measure. He said he believed a gap in programs proposed for inclusion in a public safety levy was an emphasis on the importance of keeping juveniles in school. He said he did not believe there were adequate prevention programs proposed in Tier 1 of the levy proposal. He encouraged including a "court school" and support for programs for homeless youth in a levy proposal. He said he would support potential Eugene revenue measures for a library and park-land acquisition and a Lane County public safety levy in the fall election. Eugene City Councilor Tim Laue said he believed voters would be able to understand the importance of programs proposed to be included in a public safety levy and that if 90 percent of its support was directed toward capacity expansion, it would not be approved. He suggested that a significant portion of programs proposed in Tier 2 would need to be included for a levy to be approved. Eugene City Councilor Scott Meisner said he believed previous public safety measures had not been approved by voters because they did not deal with the need to address the perception of safety. He said he agreed that capacity needed to be included in any levy proposal and that he believed that offering a "menu approach" to voters was unwise because the public safety system was comprehensive and its pads inseparable. He recommended that prevention proposals be cautiously made because of the difficulty in substantiating their success. He said he expected to support a public safety levy. Mr. Tollenaar said he believed a park-land acquisition revenue measure could be considered a public safety prevention proposal. He said he did not believe percentage of the total cost of program proposals was a good measure of their balance because prevention was comparatively less expensive and that some portion of capacity could be considered prevention. Ms. Weeldreyer said it was her experience that the lack of coordination in the public safety system was best illustrated in rural areas of Lane County. She suggested that the system was like a house in need of repair and that improvements should be strategically planned. Ms. Maine said that she supported a public safety levy proposal and that she believed a significant difference could be made through programs supported with a $1/$1,000 of assessed value. Mr. Cornacchia said he believed "market research" regarding voter response to a levy proposal was important and that it should seek opinions from a large segment of the voting population. Bethel School District 52 Superintendent Kent Hunsaker expressed appreciation for being able to participate in deliberations of the elected officials and the work of the PSCC. He said safety was the highest priority of schools and of Lane County. He said he did not believe a five-year Local Option Levy was an appropriate revenue source to support public safety programs. He suggested unused tax bases and issuing bonds could be more advantageous. He said parks and public safety issues had a natural affinity and should be presented to voters in a common package. Mr. Burge said he was frustrated because he did not believe the total levy proposal could solve public safety system problems. He suggested that diminished social and family values, and the MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 6 misuse of drugs and alcohol were core reasons the success of proposed programs would be limited. Mr. Harcleroad proposed that the elected officials instruct city and county chief administrative officers to work with PSCC staff to prepare a public safety levy proposal based on the work of the council and discussion of the officials. He said he had discerned the following themes in the discussion: (1) the critical nature of capacity proposals; (2) the importance of increasing the proportion of prevention proposals; (3) the value of a voter survey/market research; and (4) the concern that more permanent funding sources be explored. Eugene City Councilor Betty Taylor said that she was attracted by the comments about the proposal made by representatives of the school districts. She said she believed that voters wanted to have a choice in determining how public safety revenue was spent; that cities and counties had unique roles in providing for public safety; that more attention should be given to homeless issues; and that educational bodies should develop prevention program proposals. Eugene City Councilor Bobby Lee said he believed that there were more juveniles that ever before; that homeless issues were a significant driving force in public safety spending; that prevention programs would reduce future capacity needs; and that the public wants elected officials to be visionary. Mr. Laue said he believed voter survey/market research had wide support among elected officials and should be considered in preparing a public safety levy proposal. He said he supported using a broadly based survey/research, inclusion of "push" questions, evaluation of support for issuing of bonds for capital elements of the proposals, using the PSCC Policy group as a sounding board for a proposal, and purging election roles of ineligible voters. Ms. Swanson Gribskov moved, seconded by Mr. Torrey, that the joint meeting of Metropolitan Area Elected Officials request (1) that the Eugene City Manager, Lane County Administrator, Springfield City Manager, and a representative of area school district superintendents work with staff of the Public Safety Coordinating Council to prepare a recommendation to be evaluated by the Eugene and Springfield city councils and the Board of County Commissioners for a Lane County Public Safety Local Option Levy based on the work of the council and its task groups; (2) that the levy proposal consider issues raised by officials such as the mixture of capacity and prevention programs, the phasing in of programs, issuing bonds for capital expenditures, the interaction of programs, using voter surveys and market research, and the potential of other area jurisdictions proposing revenue ballot measures in the same election; and (3) that the Public Safety Coordinating Council Policy Group provide initial evaluation of a levy recommendation. Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) Local Government Services Director Jim Carlson reviewed information provided to officials regarding revenue produced by a levy adopted by voters in September and a levy adopted in November. He also pointed out that if Measure 53 removing requirements for "double majority" votes on ballot revenue measures and related matters from the State Constitution is not approved by voters in May 1998, there would be an advantage to proposing a four-year Local Option Levy to enable placing of a follow-up measure on the ballot of a general election in an even numbered year. MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 7 Mr. Kelly suggested that consideration of the requested levy proposal would likely be possible by elected officials in June. The motion was adopted unanimously, 26:0, with Mr. Bennett and Ms. Hocken not participating. In response to a question from Mr. Burge, Lane County Assessor Jim Gangle explained that published figures reporting the assessed value of an average house included only calculations related to single family units. Mr. Morrisette declared a five-minute recess in the meeting. IV. TRANSPLAN FINANCE STRATEGY Mr. Carlson referred to his memorandum dated April 28, 1998, regarding proposed TransPlan finance solutions distributed at the beginning of the meeting. He described the role of elected officials in approval of strategies to address the shortfall of revenues to meet transportation needs projected in the plan. He reviewed descriptions of the strategies proposed for consideration included in the memorandum. Mr. Sorenson asked what was the projected change in the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in Lane County. Mr. Carlson said TransPlan projected that the VMT would continue to rise over the next decade, largely because most residential development would likely occur on vacant land at the edges of urban growth boundaries and result in longer trip lengths. Lane Transit District Board of Directors President Pat Hocken explained that transit program funding was provided independently from that used for street and highway projects identified in TransPlan. She said it seemed likely funding would continue to be available for its programs, including its long-range bus rapid transit system. She said the district experienced revenue shortfalls in being able to provide regular bus service in the increasing number of areas requesting it. Mr. Carlson said elected officials would need to make decisions regarding policies and revenue strategies for street and highway modernization projects. He said TransPlan projected increased vehicular traffic congestion and that decisions would need to be made about how much was acceptable. In response to a question from Mr. Tollenaar, Mr. Carlson explained that local gas tax or vehicle registration fees were not considered in revenue strategies because elected officials had previously appeared to reject such potential revenue sources. In response to questions from Mr. Green regarding the shortfall of revenue to meet proposed expansion of the bicycle trail system, Mr. Carlson explained that a Transportation Utility Fee could be used to deal with such a shortfall and that no bicycle-related local revenue source was being considered because Federal funding of streets and highways often included provision for creation of bicycle systems. In response to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson explained that approval of TransPlan did not eliminate the need for later approval of funding for individual projects such as the West Eugene Parkway. MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 8 In response to another question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Carlson explained that reasons that a Transportation Utility Fee was proposed for consideration was that it provided locally controlled revenue, could be adopted without voter approval, and was more possible to control locally than a vehicle registration fee or gasoline tax. In response to a question from Ms. Weeldreyer, Mr. Carlson explained that LCOG monitored all legislation and regulation proposals regarding gasoline taxes. He reviewed State proposals currently under consideration. Mr. Morrisette stated that he believed the meeting had been valuable. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager Pro Tern (Recorded by Dan Lindstrom) R:~1998~Adm Services~CIS~JEO~jeo980428. wpd MINUTES--Metropolitan Joint Elected Officials April 28, 1998 Page 9