Tommie Martin has sent the following two articles concerning questions about the upcoming bond & sales tax election.
1) From 10-19-07: COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES – Back to the Basics
For this article, I’ll revisit the basic factors of the public safety facilities issue. I once read that text without context is pretext – so, here is the context. To wit: given the current situation of our inadequate jails & unsafe courtrooms; given the current population of Gila Co. & the projected growth rate; & given the current crime rate & projected increase – the public safety facilities Committee factored out a 20-year infrastructure solution for necessary jail beds & attendant administration & court space. Inherent in addressing the court needs was the understanding that in Arizona, counties are "blessed" with one additional Superior Court division, & all of its trappings, for every 30,000 citizens. We currently have 2 Superior Courts and are nearing 60,000 residents. Therefore, in the near future we will be establishing another Superior Court.
All in all, the identified jail needs are +/- 300 jail beds (up from +/- 150 beds, based on projected population growth & crime rate growth in the next 20 years) within a total of new & remodeled space of 60,000 sq. ft. (following national space requirement standards). The identified new court space – court rooms for both Superior & Justice/Municipal Courts & associated offices; Sheriff Administration with evidence storage, Co. Attorney with Child Support & Probation, & Constable (also following national space requirement standards) totals 62,000 sq. ft. The estimated probable cost of this construction falls between $32 million & $40 million. As you know, the 2 principal costs of construction are the cost of the materials & labor, & the cost of the money needed to build.
When thinking about the cost of materials and labor, know that it is more economical to build today than it will be a year from today or 2 years, or etc. Part of the reason the Committee was instructed to bring forth the "most economical, soonest recommendation" was to take advantage of this factor – where soonest also factors into most economical. As to the cost of money, the Committee learned of the very sound financial condition the Co. enjoys – i.e. no existing bond debt, a $10 million free reserve, & a short term prime borrowing rate of prime minus 3 1/3%. In their financing inquiries, the Committee was advised by investment bankers that if the citizens agreed to let the Co. "go out to bond", the Co. would be eligible for the very lowest interest rate available at the time of bonding.
It was this understanding that led them to recommend the Co. go to election to let the citizens choose whether or not they wished the Co. to garner the "cheapest" money available through bonding (paid for with dedicated secondary property tax) … a "yes" vote in the bond election – or whether the citizens wished to use more expensive money (paid for with undedicated primary property tax) ….. a "no" vote in the bond election.
This would pay for the courts. Now for the jails.
The Committee recommended the Co. ask the citizens if they wanted to slide half of the total cost of construction off the back of property tax & onto the back of sales tax. In Arizona, counties are allowed the use of up to ½-cent sales tax, with voter approval, for new jail construction & operation. If you buy discretionary goods in Maricopa, Coconino or Yavapai counties, you are helping to pay for their jails.
One third of the arrests in Gila Co. are out-of-county residents & one third of the discretionary goods purchased in Gila Co. are by out-of-county residents. By using sales tax, Gila Co. can "export" this out-of-county cost. Residents or non-residents, legal or illegal, would all share in this cost through their purchases of "discretionary" goods (NOT groceries, pharmacies or services). These costs are currently paid for by property tax. In this case, a "yes" vote on the sales tax issue would mean the citizens have elected to use up to ½-cent sales tax to build & operate the new jails. A "no" vote on the sales tax would mean the citizens have elected to use their undedicated primary property tax for this instead. And now, because so many myths & misrepresentations have been thrown into this discussion & "muddied the water", I feel it is time I address some of these. With my next article I will discuss the recommended Payson location & why it was considered not only adequate but the best "bang for the buck". (The Committee was working under the instructions of making a recommendation that "got the tax payer the most value for the least money in the quickest period of time".)
I will also discuss alternate sites that were considered by the Committee, and sites that have been offered up for discussion following the disbandment of the Committee in June. I will share what was considered some of the "fatal flaw(s)" of each. In further articles I will speak to the county perspective on other issues being raised. As always, if you’d like more information on this or other topics, please contact my office at 928-474-7100.
2) From 10-26-07: COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES – Why are we doing this now?
Let me digress from my listing of alternative sites & return to that in my next article.
I was asked a VERY good question today that we haven’t discussed yet in these articles & that we do need to think about. And that question was "Why are we even discussing new jails & courts at this time?" While the Facilities Committee has pointed out that our jails are inadequate & our courthouses are not securable, let’s take a look at exactly what that means & see if we can answer this question for ourselves. Bookings in our jails increased about 11% over the 5 year period from 2001-2006. However, for 2007 the bookings are already at 11% over last year. This represents the largest single increase in 1 year that we have ever experienced.
Because of this, we are currently unable to control jail over-crowding, period. Research indicates that the jail has released 65 inmates just in the last 6 days, and as of 10/24/07, the jail is still at full rated capacity of 152 beds. These 65 releases have been a combination of early releases, releases to half-way houses, etc., & some of them are a cause for our concern. For instance, of the 9 men recently released to half-way houses, 3 promptly escaped. One turned himself back into the jail. One was re-arrested while committing another crime. One has still not been found.
Not only is the Sheriff’s Office & local Courts actively engaged in early releases and alternative housings, but other options are being considered as well. Options such as re-establishing a Home Arrest Program or only jailing those with felony arrests, while citing & releasing most other offenses. Also, of particular concern to the Sheriff & our Judicial System, is that an early release or alternative housing may be granted to someone who qualifies as a ‘non-violent’ offender, who in all reality is really a very BAD customer! In other words, a felon is picked up for shoplifting & quite possibly could be released before anyone learns of his other offenses.
In addition, there are other liabilities that extreme over-crowding brings to us. For instance, since 70% of all our inmates are considered pre-trial detainees & are innocent until proven guilty, our jail administrators have a constitutional ‘duty to protect’ & to ‘maintain standard conditions of confinement’. (To maintain our current average daily female population of 33-35 women & keep them housed in 18 beds is not "maintaining standard conditions of confinement".) Also, according to US Dept. of Justice (DOJ) mandates & standards, all detention centers & jails must set aside 25% of their rated bed capacity for Classification purposes. Inmates are classified & housed separately because of 1.) their charges, 2.) for disciplinary needs, 3.) for administrative segregation, & 4.) for medical reasons. In our 152 bed facility, that means that when 114 beds are full, the facility is at mandated capacity - as the remaining 38 beds must be left available for potential classification needs. However, our average daily population for the last 4 months has averaged 161 inmates. Because of the extreme overcrowding of the jail, the Facilities Committee recommended a doubling of the jail space to 300 beds. As we discussed last week, the question before us on Nov. 6th is on how we pay for the construction & operation of this additional space. Do we use a ½-cent sales tax (a "yes" vote on the sales tax issue) or do we use primary property tax (a "no" vote on the sales tax issue).
Now for an incident report that illuminates our unsecured court vulnerability. This situation could have happened in either Globe or Payson since the circumstance of unsecured courts are the same, but 1 day last week in Payson, a 14 year old juvenile offender decided to steal a gun, go to the Payson courthouse & kill his probation officer. His grandfather "ratted" him out, so the Payson police & the Sheriff’s office were able to put the Payson facility on "lockdown" until the youth was found & the situation dealt with. My point here is that if the grandfather had not reported it, & the young man had made it to the court facility with his gun – there is nothing on-site to discover whether or not he is armed - much less to stop him. Nor, as the Committee pointed out, are our existing facilities designed for "secure-ability".
Again, the question before us on Nov. 6th, is how to pay for the construction of secured courthouses. Do we use "cheap" money that is available through bonding (& paid for with dedicated secondary property tax) … a "yes" vote in the bond election; or primary property tax ….. a "no" vote in the bond election? And now I’d like to "switch gears" for a minute. I don’t know about you, but I’m struck numb & speechless by the fires in California & fretting because I know that it could just as easily be us. Until next week - be careful, be firewise, & be thankful.