Springfield levy: Right step for public safety or deception?

Byline: GUEST VIEWPOINT By Sid Leiken and John Woodrow For The Register-Guard

Four years ago, Springfield residents supported public safety by passing the 2002 police levy, which allowed our police department to hire new officers, dispatchers, call-takers, record clerks, and non-sworn community service officers. In 2002, Springfield had the same number of officers on our streets as we did almost 25 years ago, even though our community had grown by 35 percent.

The goal of the 2002 levy was to reduce the response time by the police department to residents' calls, and the levy has been successful. Since 2002, response time to emergency calls has been reduced by almost 20 percent, and response time to non-emergency calls has been cut almost in half. Before 2003, our patrol officers often had to prioritize their responses to crimes in progress, delaying or foregoing their responses to lesser crimes. However, the quality of our lives is impacted by the lesser crimes as well. The 2002 levy allowed the police to be more responsive to all types of citizen complaints.

In 2002, it took the department six months to respond to calls of abandoned vehicles; that has been reduced to 30 days. Before Springfield voters passed the 2002 levy, residents who reported cold crimes often gave their reports to a call-taker or dispatcher. Now 80 percent of all police reports are taken by community service officers or sworn personnel. The five community service officers hired under the levy have freed up time for our sworn officers to stay on the streets where they are needed.

Springfield residents know, however, that reduced response time is not the only component to improved public safety. Increased arrests will not reduce crime unless the people who commit them are held accountable.

Lane County does not have sufficient staffing to hold inmates. Even though Springfield pays Lane County $165,000 a year for five jail beds to house some of our most serious misdemeanor offenders, 88 percent of Springfield prisoners spend less than 24 hours in jail, and 99 percent spend less that 48 hours in jail, before the county releases them.

To stop the revolving jail door and hold Springfield criminals accountable, Springfield voters passed a bond measure in 2004 to build a public safety building and jail. However, the City Council promised that the jail would not be constructed until the funds to operate the jail are identified.

Today Springfield has a new levy on the ballot - Measure 20-112. Most of the money from the 2006 levy will keep our police personnel on the job. The rest will help fund jail operations.

Much of the money to operate the jail will come from sources other than the levy. For example, we can lease jail space to other jurisdictions, charge inmates for some of the costs of keeping them in jail, and we will no longer pay Lane County for bed space in the county jail.

A jail will also make defendants more accountable in paying their fines and court costs. Since January of 2004, Springfield municipal court has assigned more than $3 million to collections agencies on active accounts that were deemed uncollectible. Holding defendants accountable for their fines and court costs will reduce the number of outstanding warrants that our officers must deal with, as well as provide revenue to operate our jail.

An Oct. 30 guest viewpoint in The Register-Guard said that the Springfield Police Department pays 42 percent of its budget to cover costs of the Public Employees Retirement System costs. That would be very alarming if it were true, but it isn't. Only 14 percent of the police budget goes to retirement accounts, and only police personnel hired after July of 1996 have PERS accounts. Anyone who would like more information on this particular issue should contact Bob Duey, Springfield's finance director.

Public safety is very important to Springfield residents. We ask Springfield residents to join us again in voting yes for Springfield's police and jail levy - Measure 20-112 - Springfield's solution to the public safety problem.

Sid Leiken is mayor of Springfield. John Woodrow is president of the Springfield City Council.