Justice system tax offers mix of remedies to voters

By Dan MacArthur
North Forty News

Jail cells are always a tough sell, even when they include more attractive alternatives to costly incarceration. That's because the criminal justice system is invisible to most law-abiding citizens--other than the unfortunate few who become victims of crime.

Sheriff Jim Alderden shares the popular perception that Larimer County is relatively crime-free. While it's difficult to fully document, he can quantify it for the unincorporated county where 422 major crimes were reported in 2005, six fewer than the figure seven years ago. At the same time, the arrest rate in connection with those crimes increased from 11 percent to 28 percent.

The criminal justice proposal on the Nov. 7 ballot is no easier to peddle than previous ones, but proponents believe it will be more attractive to skeptical voters. Fitfully cobbled together in the two years since voters solidly rejected a sales tax hike for expanding alternative sentencing programs, they believe the current proposal offers a more comprehensive, long-term solution to the county's criminal justice needs.

The cost

This new solution comes at a cost. The proposal asks voters to approve a permanent 5-mill property tax increase that would cost the owner of a $250,000 house an additional $100 annually. Business owners would pay more than three times that rate on their real and personal property.

In the first four years, the tax is estimated to generate almost $75 million. The bulk would go toward jail costs. More than $24 million would be applied toward the first debt payments on a $56 million expansion of at least 290 beds. Another $30 million would be used for staffing and operating the expanded jail. And nearly $11 million would support the previous 191-bed expansion of the jail completed in 2000.

The programs

Of the remainder, more than $3.8 million would go toward staffing and operating mental health and substance-abuse treatment programs. Nearly $2.6 million would go toward building facilities for pretrial, mental health and substance-abuse programs. Some $1.8 million would be allocated to staffing and operating the pretrial program. Another $1 million would be available as contribution toward building a public/private detoxification center in the county. And $630,000 would be set aside to cover unexpected expenses or support other programs if not needed to cover contingencies.

The mental health and substance abuse programs would offer treatment to offenders who don't need to occupy expensive jail cells. The additional funds would double the mental health treatment capabilities to 140 clients, according to figures provided by the county.

The pretrial program similarly uses bonding or home-monitoring programs to divert eligible arrestees from the jail while awaiting trial. The new money would more than triple the capacity of that program from 650 to 2,210 clients.

Advocates maintain that such alternative programs have a value far beyond the fraction of the tax revenues they would receive, because of their effectiveness in diverting from jail those who don't need to be there.

The jail

Even so, developers of the proposal insist there was no avoiding the need for additional jail cells to house the most serious criminals. The jail has consistently exceeded its 486-inmate operating capacity.

Facilities administrator Maj. Gary Darling said the jail population averaged 513 prisoners a day in 2005. That crowding triggered early release of criminals who committed less-serious crimes. More than 900 prisoners who have completed 75 percent of their sentences have been released early since the policy was implemented in 2004. So far this year, 317 prisoners were released early.

Those jail cells also come at a dear price of about $193,000 a bed, according to county budget manager Bob Keister. "This is a very large, expensive thing that society wants us to do," he said. "This is one of those things where the truth hurts to tell people how expensive the criminal justice center is. It's very, very expensive."

And the current tax proposal is only the first installment in what is expected to be a $1.1 billion effort to meet criminal justice needs during the next 20 years. That figure may sound astounding in itself, but it is about half the amount criminal justice officials estimated would be needed.

To reach even that first billion mark would require repeatedly returning to the voters. Providing this proposal passes, in 2008 voters would be asked to approve a 0.2 percent sales tax to operate the expanded detention center. Then a permanent 3-mill property tax hike would go before them for consideration in 2013 and again in 2019, followed by a 2-mill request in 2026.

The pros

County Commissioner Kathay Rennels calls the proposal a "very well-considered plan" that would give the county the jail cells it needs while addressing long-standing detox, mental health and diversion program needs.

Rennels acknowledged that the tax proposal certainly is not a forever fix for criminal justice needs. But she questions whether a permanent solution is possible, given the difficulty of determining future trends in crime and incarceration. She said this proposal gives the county the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of the treatment and diversion efforts before returning to ask voters for further funding to pursue a particular course.

"The right thing is to do this and then go back," she said.

While she stresses that the criminal justice tax issue is a big deal, if it fails, "the day after this doesn't pass, everything will look the same." She said, however, there will be a gradual degradation of services as the county budget is trimmed to focus more on essential services.

In time, Rennels said, the current justified sense of safety also will slip. "By the time crime is in your face and you don't feel safe, it's too late," she added.

Alderden confirms the commissioners' contention that rejection of the measure will result in more early releases, and the threshold could be reduced to prisoners completing only half their sentences. The sheriff said his office might also be forced to quit booking criminals committing misdemeanors, leaving them unaccountable for their crimes and free to commit more.

"I would predict we'll see an increase of crime rates in our community if this doesn't pass," he said. "It's going to be pretty immediate."

Darling also pointed out that with construction costs increasing 8 percent annually, it will cost much more to build any new facilities later.

The cons

While there is no organized opposition to the proposal, former Fort Collins mayor and city council member Gerry Horak has been publicly outspoken in his criticism. "I think scare tactics are being used," he asserted.

As an example, Horak said, as a member of the community corrections advisory board, he questioned the effects of the early-release program, but officials provided him with none. "This is being presented as a bad, terrible thing. It's not a terrible thing if bad things aren't happening," he said.

An independent candidate opposing incumbent Republican Rennels, Horak insists his opposition is not politically motivated. Instead, Horak maintains that he is concerned the criminal justice proposal is a "hodge-podge" thrown together without any consideration of its effectiveness or the bigger picture.

"The commissioners have a bigger responsibility to look at the overall needs of the county," he said.

He contended that it would be better to kill this proposal and go back to comprehensively consider the criminal justice demands balanced against all the county's other needs.

"I think it was poorly designed to begin with," said Horak, noting that there's no backup plan should the proposal fail. "It doesn't seem like it was well put together," he said.

"I think this puppy is deader than a doornail," said John Knezovich, another former Fort Collins mayor and council member. Although a member of the citizens advisory board that helped develop the proposal, he said it is absolutely unrealistic to expect voters would approve so many tax increases. He also was critical of placing it on the ballot too late to effectively make the case, which he estimated would have required a $100,000 citizen-based campaign.