HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-29 Strategic Issues Committee MinutesSTRATEGIC ISSUES COMMITTEE
MINUTES
September 29, 2003
Councilors Present: Nichi Famham, Gerry Palmer, Richard Greene, David Nealley,
Dan Tremble, Frank Farrington
Staff Present: Ed Barrett, Chief Cammack and Chief Winslow
Others Present: Dr. Ervin
The meeting convened at 5:00 p.m.
1. Discussion/Review of November 0 Statewide Ballot Question #1
Question 1A—Citizen Initiative
• Do you want the State to pay 55%of the cost of public education, which
Includes all special education costs, for the purpose of shifting costs from the
property tax to state resources?
Question IS — Competing Measure
• Do you want to lower property taxes and avoid the need for a significant
Increase In state taxes by phasing in a 55% state contribution to the cost of
public education and providing expanded property fax relief?
Question 1C —Against A and B
Against troth the Citizen Initiative and the Competing Measure
Barrett Said that the Council had passed a Resolve last October in support of the
Proposed Tax Reform Initiative of the Maine Municipal Association. This has
since become item 1A on the ballot. Size then, we have a ballot item with IA,
1B and 1C on R, and Barrett said that it was appropriate for the Council to revisit
the issue.
To summarize the choices, Barrett said that 1A Is the MMA proposal which calls
for the state to fund 55% of education Including 100% of special education. It
also sets up two efficiency incentive funds, so 2% of the state's allocation for --
education would go to an efficiency incentive fund, and 2% of the general
revenue sharing which comes from municipal government would go to an
efficiency Incentive fund, both of which are to Identify ways to reduce funding
and costs, and improve regional cooperation. Legislative committees are
required to report by March 1, 2004 on how the additional funding for education
should be implemented and how the efficiency fund should be set up and work.
Barrett said the issue that is generally raised with MMKs proposal is where do
we get the additional funds since the referendum does not specify that. There
has been some concern whether the additional revenue would be used to offset
property taxes, or would there be an increased overall state burden. Another
question is funding 100% of special education and whether this would lead to
over -identification of special education clients.
Barrett mid that the competing measure adopted by the state legislature calls for
a six-year phase to 55% funding based on the essential programs and services
(EPS) model. The EPS model is an effort by the state to create a model that
predicts or estimates what should be spent on education. He said that there are
significant shifts in the allocation to individual communities This plan calls for
Increasing circuit breaker funding and increasing the eligibility cutoffs. By
January 2010, the oeparbnent of Educatlon and Bureau of Revenue Services are
required to report to the Legislature on the effectiveness of the law on lowering
property taxes and meeting the goals of funding public education. Barrett said
that in the first year, Bangor is looking at receiving an increase of $33,500. With
a 3% increase in the school budget, we would be required to raise property
taxes by over $1 million to fund the school budget. There are a lot of questions
about whether the projected increases in future years will be real or will be offset
by other competing demands.
Barrett said that he is concerned that with the preliminary data, the state may
have underestimated the annual increase in school spending. Barrett said that
there was going to be a real challenge for the legislature to make this happen.
The legislature is not bound to implement voter approved referendums.
The third choice, 1C on the ballot, is to choose neither question IA nor IB.
Barrett said that neither approach is perfect. Barrett said that his biggest
concern about the Governors proposal is that if the referendum passes, then it
will be more likely that the state will not fund education next resulting in
increased property taxes throughout the state when citizens are expecting to see
a decrease.
Greene asked what the approximate reduction In property taxes for the average
taxpayer would be for question IA. Barrett said that the statewide average
would be 15%, and Bangor would be about the same. Barrett said that question
IA does not specify what 55% of education means. It appears that the
legislature would most likely define it as 55% of the EPS model.
Nealley said that 1B is delaying the issue of paying for education. He sald that it
is an inadequate way for property taxpayers to pay for education. He said that
he supports question 1A, because question 1B does not go far enough.
Farrington said that he likes question IA for its promises and the problem with
question IB is that It appears easy to not follow through on the promises. He
said that 1B is more logical, but less binding. He discussed the lack of control
over legislation. He said that this is a legislative project and should be solved at
the state level, and he is not comfortable with municipalities taking a position.
He said that if we are going to take a position, then we should do so as a group,
and we have three councilors missing.
Tremble agrees with Farrington that we should have all councilors present to
discuss this issue. He noted that tonight's discussion was an effort to move this
forward and get it on the next Council agenda. Tremble said that we need to
review how this will affect our area of the state. He said that 10 has the same
result as SA, however it is a little less painful for all concerned. In the long run,
he feels that Bangor and the individual property taxpayer will be better off with
question 1B. The subsidy in 1B greatly expands the circuit breaker program,
which obviously helps the property owner.
Palmer mid that people do expect the leaders in Bangor to make some decisions,
particularly for things that are in our own self-interest. He said that Farrington
does make some good points, such as how do we reign In spending. He said
that IA is an overconmctlon of the problem, and it will be very hard for the
people of Maine in the first year. Palmer said that education is the one thing
that we have to protect. He mid that IB makes more sense, and IA is too
severe and too stem. He mid that he would like to hear more from the citizens.
Sandy Ervin, Superintendent of Schools, said that the City Manager has done a
very nice job In laying out the issues. Ervin said that the EPS model has been
put together to fund education. This is based upon a model that attempts to
descaibe what s:hools must look like, instruction and programs, in order to reach
the Maine learning results. That model will be very challenging to fund. Right
now the model is based upon the amount of money that we have. Ervin said
that none of these models work without the necessary funding. Ervin said that
the EPS model is going to demand consideration of funding in the shorter term,
not the longer tens, and that will be a challenge for the legislature.
Barrett discussed the history of the school's budget needs over the years 1990-
2000 due to state funding Issues. The real driving force of the City's property
taxes has been the fact that the state did not keep up with its commitment to
funding education.
Nealley said that maybe the state should look at more drastic cuts. They need to
find creative ways to find more revenue. Nealley said that he thought 1B was a
last ditch effort to head off something that takes great political courage.
Ervin commented that the funding model is law, but the state is still not sure
how this model is going to work with vocational education, transportation, and
special education. These are the categorical or programmatic concerns that are
the second part of the funding model. These are big-ticket items that vary
tremendously from small districts to large districts north to south. He said that
special education is driven by federal law and not something that local
government can easily control. If the state does not put its share into special
education, then municipalities will pay for It.
Farnham said that it was just less than a year ago that we had this resolve in
front of us to reduce taxes statewide. We asked our citizens to sign a petition to
get the MMA question on the ballot Farnham said that she would need a motion
from this committee to do another resolve if it was to move forward to the full
Council. She said that we have a resolve that already addresses our concerns,
which states that we support the proposed tax reform initiative of the MMA that
reduces property taxes statewide.
Tremble said that at the time we passed the resolve, It was the only item on the
table. He saitl that now we have both items, and he supports pushing this
forward to full Council. He said that there are a couple of things in the resolve
that do not get addressed. Neither one Is meaningful tax reform. There Is a tax
shit[, and the legislature is going to do tax reform with the shift to come later.
Tremble said that there is nothing that 9uarentees property tax relief as is
indicated in 1A. Municipalities may decide to use the offset in another way.
Tremble asked Barrett what he would suggest to move forward.
Barrett said that the original resolve Is in effect support for IA. He said that he
could write one in support of 1B that would be considered a change from our
original position. Tremble moved this, and Palmer seconded it.
Farrington wanted Barrett to clarify the motion. Barrettsaid that we would put - -
together a resolve to support 10, and if that fails, then the current resolve
remains in effect that supports 1A. Farrington said that he is not really
comfortable with either question, and thinks that the legislature is capable of
malting its own decision, and thinks the process is going the way R Is supposed
to and to let It rlde. Palmer said that with only six around the table he has no
problem with this going through to full council to hear from our colleagues who
are not with us.
The motion was doubted, and Farnham asked for a roll call vote. Tremble and
Palmer voted yes to send to full council, and Nealley, Farrington, Greene and
Farnham voted no.
Tremble asked if it was a tradition of the Council that any Councilor could
request an agenda item. Barrett said that this was correct. Tremble requested
that this be put on the agenda for full Council consideration.
2. Regional Dispatch
Farnham said that Chief Cammack recently met with Penobscot County
Commissioners and the Penobscot County Regional Dispatch Board of Directors
to obtain further information regarding issues related to the possibility of Bangor
Joining the Regional Dispatch Center. Farnham said that Cammack has
presented documents summarizing these meetings, and now we would like to
discuss the results. Barrett said that ft our hope to get public Input on this issue
a[ neighborhood meetings in early December. He suggested that this Council
leave a recommendation for the next Council to work with.
Barrett listed the Issues that cannot be met by Penobscot Regional
Communications Center (PRCC); CCN monitoring, attendance at roll calls,
maintaining an Incident sheet and adequate representation on PRCC policy
board.
CCN monitoring was a high priority request from Chief Winslow. PRCC does not
currently offer this service, and if R was provided to Bangor, then it would have
to be made available to other departments.
Roll call attendance by a dispatcher takes place 2-3 times a day at the Bangor
Police Department, and is a medium level priority by Chief Winslow. After
discussion, R appears that the eventual relocation of both the Bangor Police
Department and the Regional Dispatch Center would make committing to such
an arrangement problematic.
Bangor dispatchers currently maintain an incident sheet as a communications -
tool for officers/supervisors coming on duty, and was a low priority item by Chief
Winslow. Both parties agreed that while such a system could be implemented at
the outset, it is unlikely to remain workable over the long-term.
Police and Fire had expressed a desire that Bangor be guaranteed two
representatives on the Board, a high priority item. Barrett said that there is no
guarantee that Bangor will have more than one representative.
There are also Issues that remain unresolved; compatible phone system, CAD
software, mobile data terminals, and assurance of adequate staffing, some with
future projected completion dates.
The phone system, a high priority, should provide convenient call transferring
abilities to Bangor Police and Fire. This process Is complicated by the pending
purchase and installation of a new phone system by the City.
CAD software, a high priority item, is an interface with the fire department that is
being tested in Old Town. There are some procedural Issues that still need
attention, and the projected date to have this up and running is January 1, 2004.
Mobile data terminals operate on an analog cellular link and It is not: capable of
supporting an expansion. Our current provider, Unicel, has told us that they will
be testing a digital link capable of exchanging data in real time with plenty of
band width to support additional MDT7s in early 2004.
Based on our experience, a minimum of ten dispatchers will need to be added by
PRCC to handle Bangor's call volume. The PRCC Board supports this
recommendation, and the Commissioners indicated that they would commit to
the level of staffing that is "required."
PRCC has agreed to monitor our alarm system with some form of service fee or
revenue sharing.
Barnett asked the Chiefs if they had anything to add before starting a discussion.
Chief Winslow said that in regards to CCN, there are other staff members that
could do this for a good portion of the day, however there would be late night
hours where no one would be available. As you know most arrests in which this
would be useful do not happen during daylight hours. He noted that dispatchers
listen to commanding officers that arrive a half-hour early to brief them. As far
as the incident sheet, Winslow mid that there should be other staff available to
do this the majority of the time. Winslow said that he Is still very concerned with
the place that Bangor would have on the Board, If they have agreed in principle
only to give us one position. Winslow mid that he is not comfortable with the
political response from the County saying that they would provide the required
staff. Winslow mid that their experience has been that they would need a
minimum of 10 dispatchers.
Chief Cammack mid that when they made the presentation to the Board, they
were not in favor of Bangor getting any special treatment. Cammack said that
he is a little worried about the recommendation of adequate staff by the Board.
Cammack noted that the current dispatchers at PRCC already have a significant
work load and should not be expected to pick up the workload that Bangor
would bring. Cammack mid that if we are doing 35- 10% of the call volume,
then we should have this same representation on the Board. Cammack mid that
the PRCC Board was pretty much unanimous in that they did not want to
Increase the Board's size to accommodate Bangor's needs at this time.
Farrington said that It Is crucial that we provide the necessary level of service to
our Bangor citizens, and we are getting professional opinions from staff that this
would not happen at the current level with the County people. Farrington said
that there Is a minimum level of service that we need to Insure that we can
provide. He said that we should not hold what we should do hostage to the idea
of regionalization. The most important thing is the safety of our citizens. As we
continue along this process, Farrington said that he would hope that we could
work this out with dispatch. He said that we need to research the legality of
mandatory fees by the County to the City, whether we use this service or not.
Nealley said that maybe Bangor should offer regional dispatch services, since
Bangor is already a service center serving many of the surrounding communities.
He said that he feels that many of the surrounding communities joined regional
dispatch because of the financial mandate just as we were looking at doing. He
said that he did not think it was asking too much to have the appropriate level of
staff and Board representation.
Tremble mid that he agrees with Farrington that a lot of promises have been
made. He said that the only sticking point he can see is the monitoring situation
and we should find a way to resotm it He said that everyone that is on the
Board is someone that is part of the dispatch system, so everyone is going to
want the same high level of service that Bangor wants, so this is really not as big
an Issue as originally thought. As far as staffing Issues, Tremble said again that
If there are staffing shortages, then all other communities will be affected as
well.
Palmer said that Bangor might be able to offer some of these services; however,
there may be some challenges. He expressed reservations about creating a
regional entity within an existing regional entity. He old that he would like to
know mare about CCTV monitoring and how B makes R safer for our officers,
and suggestions of other ways of solving this Issue.
Winslow said that whenever they bring someone into the booking room, which Is
where they talk to juveniles and OUIs, there is a camera that needs to be turned
on. The dispatcher currently tums the camera, and Is notified by the officer.
Winslow said that the officer could turn the camera on when arriving. The
assurance is that there is an actual person that could be watching the monttor
while performing other duties. If the officer is in trouble, there are other
methods of requesting assistance, such as radio or telephone. The problem is
that when someone turns on you, it may be difficult to get assistance, and with a
dispatcher watching the monitor, the officer may receive help more easily.
Winslow said that an incident requiring backup may happen once a month.
Palmer wanted to know If this same reality happens on location, with no monitor
available. Winslow said that was correct.
Barrett said that this meeting was to provide an update on the issues and no
decision making is necessary. It is difficult to measure the impact on services.
This decision involves a judgement that has to be made.
Greene wanted to know if we had a rime frame to make a decision. Barrett
indicated that at a recent discussion, the Council expressed an interest on
hearing from the public on this issue. Neighborhood meetings have been
scheduled for early December. In addition, should the City request a court ruling
on the County's inclusion of the cost of regional dispatch in the County tax, we
will need to wait for the courts decision.
The meeting adjourned at 6:35 p.m.