Criminal justice system needs hefty tax increase

By Dan MacArthur
North Forty News

Voters this November likely will be asked to swallow hard and approve a hefty tax hike to deal with soaring criminal justice expenses that otherwise threaten to burden county government with an annual billion-dollar bill.

Although still tentative, the package slowly taking shape currently proposes increasing the county sales tax by as much as 0.2 percent while extending an existing 0.2 percent sales tax approved in 1997 for detention center expansion.

It also proposes increasing property taxes by at least 6 mills, costing the owner of an "average" $240,000 home an additional $114 annually. Such an increase would represent a nearly 28 percent hike in the current county levy of 21.767 mills.

Proceeds from the taxes would cover current and ongoing operation costs in addition to existing and new construction debt service. A committee has already identified nearly $77 million in potential construction projects. They include a 192-bed addition and special housing unit at the jail, expansion of the alternative sentencing and community corrections units, and building a 42-bed secure juvenile holding facility.

That list could grow as a broad assembly of those associated with the criminal justice system assess other needs - such as a detox facility and related programs to divert those with mental health or drug and alcohol abuse problems from more costly and often-unnecessary imprisonment.

While development of a proposal is well on its way, county manager Frank Lancaster said, there still is considerable room for modification as proponents struggle to balance overwhelming criminal justice system demands with the need to present a prudent proposal acceptable to a majority of voters. The county commissioners will ultimately decide the form of any tax proposal placed on the ballot.

But Lancaster said a couple of things are certain.

First, he said, "It's going to be a big number, no doubt about it." Just how big became apparent at the March meeting of the Criminal Justice Advisory Board. Composed of law enforcement, probation, court and county officials, the board deals with criminal justice issues and develops alternatives to incarceration.

In developing a long-term financing plan for criminal justice needs, budget manager Bob Keister estimated that construction costs and debt service could range from $100 million to $150 million with operating costs of five to 10 times that amount.

"It's not long before you're looking at the 'B' word," Commissioner Kathay Rennels said in a subsequent interview, referring to the potential need for more than a billion dollars in operating costs for housing, feeding, guarding and caring for those caught up in the criminal justice system.

Those operating costs are the killer, Lancaster concurred. That's the reason, he said, that the proposal is taking a comprehensive approach to limit operating costs by diverting from jail all but those who absolutely should be there.

And secondly, Lancaster said, something has to happen soon or the costs of criminal justice at the current rate of incarceration eventually could consume all the county's revenues.

"Huge cuts in services would be required to feed this monster," he said. "This is the biggest issue facing the county today."

Could it pass?

There's one other certainty, according to John Knezovich, a Fort Collins accountant appointed by the commissioners to serve on a Citizens Criminal Justice Advisory Committee.

"It's not salable," he said. "It's just insanity."

While he acknowledges a problem exists as well illustrated by a recent escape from the county jail, Knezovich contended any request for a tax hike of such massive scale is once again doomed to failure - particularly with the other state and local tax measures before county voters this fall and the lack of groundwork by the county.

The criminal justice predicament has been on the back burner since voters in 2003 solidly rejected a proposal to impose a permanent 0.4 percent sales and use tax to expand the alternative sentencing program. The voters' lack of enthusiasm reflected that of the commissioners, who were openly ambivalent and divided on the ballot issue.

While she supported raising awareness by putting that earlier proposal before the voters, Commissioner Rennels said to be successful, any future ballot issues will require community consensus as well as support by all three commissioners.

But Knezovich said the commissioners have failed to build broad public support for a criminal justice tax issue, although they pledged to do so following defeat of the last one.

"There has been no leadership from the county commissioners," he said. As evidence he pointed to the limited role of the citizens advisory committee on which he serves. Contrary to the commissioners' claims that the group would be key in developing any criminal justice tax proposal, "they just want us to rubber-stamp it," Knezovich contended.

Big picture needed

The simmering criminal justice issues recently returned to a boil with the need to prepare a ballot proposal for the November election and the imperative to develop alternatives to imprisonment.

In keeping with that increased urgency, the commissioners on May 17 authorized hiring a criminal justice coordinator to pull together all the disparate parts and build partnerships among the players in the criminal justice system.

Lancaster said he proposed creating such a position, used increasingly in other communities, to bring more consistency and continuity to an admittedly fragmented system of state and county agencies operating independently of each other.

The criminal justice system, he said, is unique in that "nobody is in charge." Similarly, he said, there is nobody looking at the big picture formed by these myriad puzzle pieces. The county currently contracts with consultant David Bennett, who is present only sporadically. While Bennett has done fine work, Lancaster told the commissioners, things "fall apart" after he leaves.

The criminal justice coordinator would provide that necessary full-time presence while building relationships among agencies including courts, community corrections, law enforcement and the district attorney and public defender offices.

Lancaster said that latter role may prove most challenging because the coordinator would be in the awkward position of having great responsibility but no authority. He said the position would be part of the commissioners' office to ensure that the coordinator is neutral and not directly connected with any component of the criminal justice system.

"We don't have anybody who is watching the whole system," Rennels agreed. "Had this position been in place, we wouldn't be in the dire straits we are now."

"I believe we need somebody who's putting things together," agreed Commissioner Glenn Gibson.

Even with a $61,100 to $82,500 annual salary, Lancaster said, the coordinator position may result in a cost savings to the county considering what it is already spending on consultant's fees and staff time.

Lancaster said he hopes to have the coordinator hired by July 1, but acknowledged it may be difficult recruiting qualified candidates. But, he said, the need will remain even if somebody is not on board before the election.

"If we don't get help from the voters," Lancaster said, "we might need it even more."