Joint City-County Planning Task Force

Joint City-Greene County Planning Task Force Meeting Notes June 25, 2014 – 9:30 a.m. L-45 Conference Room-Busch Municipal Building 840 Boonville Avenue Meeting #20 Task Force Members Present: Collin Quigley, Springfield Assistant City Manager Tim Smith, Greene County Administrator Cindy Stein, Greene County Auditor Mary Mannix Decker, Springfield Finance Director Jerry Moyer, Greene County Court Administrator Martha Mundt, Greene County Budget Director Dan Patterson, Greene County Prosecutor The meeting began at approximately 9:32 a.m. with a welcome from Collin Quigley, Assistant City Manager, and Tim Smith, Greene County Administrator, followed by a review of today’s agenda. Introductions were conducted. Assistant City Manager Quigley asked for a motion to approve the notes from the June 11, 2014 meeting. Jerry Moyer, Greene County Court Administrator, moved to approve the notes as presented. Cindy Stein, Greene County Auditor, seconded the motion and the notes were approved. Dan Patterson, Greene County Prosecutor, gave a PowerPoint presentation entitled “Criminal Justice Scenarios, Projections and Response.” (Please refer to Exhibit A located within the City Clerk’s Office for additional information.) The following is an outline of the presentation: A. Current Situation B. Felony Referrals from Law Enforcement C. Felony Case Referral Source D. % Increase in Felony Charges Issued E. % Increase Attorney Staff vs. Felonies Issued F. APA (Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys) Average Felony Caseload G. APA Misdemeanor Caseload H. Courts Added Since LEST (Law Enforcement Sales Tax) II I. Felony Cases Disposed in Circuit Court (couple slides) J. APRI (American Prosecutors Research Institute) Felony Workload Snapshot K. APA (Assistant Prosecuting Attorney) Turnover L. Status Quo (No additional Resources) M. GCPA (Greene County Prosecuting Assistant) Projections: Status Quo Felony Referrals N. Felony APA Case Load Projection Status Quo – No Additional Resources O. Status Quo – NO Additional Resources P. One Notch Increase Catch & Match  Q. One Notch Increase Part A – Catch Up to Law Enforcement & Courts R. One Notch Increase Part B – Match LE One Notch Increase S. One Notch Increase Part A – Catch up & Part B – Match T. “Toughest on Crime” Stance (several slides) U. Combined Investment V. Questions? County Prosecutor Patterson voiced he feels a system analysis including a strategic planning component with the various stakeholders regarding the local criminal justice system is needed. Following the presentation, the Task Force discussed the issue of criminal justice. In response to a question posed by Assistant City Manager Quigley, County Prosecutor Patterson noted that regarding the % increase in felony charges issued, the base year used was 1998. He noted that the “bulk load” increased for the County Prosecutor’s Office in approximately 2002, when additional local law enforcement officers were hired via funding from the LEST I. County Prosecutor Patterson noted that since approximately 2003, the County due to caseload issues has transferred several misdemeanors cases to the City Prosecutor’s Office for prosecution relating to ordinance violations, since the offense was conducted inside the City limits. In response to a question posed by Martha Mundt, County Budget Officer, County Prosecutor Patterson explained that Part A (Catch Up to Law Enforcement & Courts) would be a prerequisite to Part B (Match LE One Notch Increase). In response to a question posed by County Administrator Smith, County Prosecutor Patterson discussed that the approximate grand total of $2.6 million (without the cost of occupancy) is a combination of all of the scenarios he reviewed. County Prosecutor Patterson explained that his office has implemented a “best plea offering” for case management. He addressed that in approximately 2012, the local circuit court system instilled a “negotiated plea deadline,” which has helped shift the focus for cases from trials to “disposition by plea.” In response to a question posed by Mary Mannix Decker, Springfield Finance Director, County Prosecutor Patterson explained that the average length of time for a case, depending upon the charges, from start to finish is approximately 1 year. He noted that Class A and B felony charges may take more than a year due to the severity of the crime. City Finance Director Mannix Decker voiced she also feels a systems analysis is needed so improvements can be made to the criminal justice system versus a “band-aid” approach, which will help better utilize tax payer monies. The Task Force continued to discuss the issue of criminal justice. In response to a question posed by County Administrator Smith, County Prosecutor Patterson discussed that he feels a systems analysis should be conducted first with a strategic planning component, which should include all of the “stakeholders” (i.e. Count en banc, prosecutor’s office, public defender’s office, law enforcement personnel, and local bar association). He noted that he has drafted a plan, which has a significant amount of data at this time. County Prosecutor Patterson reported that he is waiting on a meeting to be conducted with the Court en banc; however, no specific date was noted at this time. In response to a question posed by Assistant City Manager Quigley, County Prosecutor Patterson reported that he feels an increase of approximately 22% in staffing is needed for his office to handle the caseload. Rod Hackathorn, Manager-Public Defender’s Office, spoke about current funding shortfalls to handle cases within the Public Defender’s Office, which he noted is a “tri-county office” that includes Greene, Taney, and Christian Counties. He expressed that he feels more efficiency is needed regarding the criminal justice system; however, he stated not at the expense of his clients. Public Defender Manager Hackathorn noted that the only proposed scenario for his office is “Status Quo” due to limited funding, because they are already doing “more with less” at this time. County Prosecutor Patterson discussed that he feels some possible options may be available to help assist the Public Defender’s Office (i.e. a grant if possible). The Task Force thanked County Prosecutor Patterson for today’s presentation. Carl Yendes, City Municipal Chief Prosecutor, distributed and discussed a memo dated March 24, 2014 regarding the Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Scenarios. (Please refer to Exhibit B located within the City Clerk’s Office for additional information.) There were no questions from the Task Force for City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes at this time. The Task Force thanked City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes for today’s presentation. Todd Thornhill, City Municipal Court Chief Judge, discussed an e-mail handout regarding some statistics from the Municipal Court about case filings and arrest warrants and the Law Enforcement/Criminal Justice Scenarios. (Please refer to Exhibit C located within the City Clerk’s Office for additional information.) City Municipal Court Chief Judge Thornhill reported that Municipal Court would be able to handle all three proposed scenarios, although the proposed Scenario “Toughest on Crime stance” would require some additional resources for implementation. During the discussion, City Municipal Court Chief Judge Thornhill responded to questions posed by the Task Force. In response to questions posed by County Administrator Smith, City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes expressed that case filings have decreased, because traffic enforcement tickets issued by Police have decreased. City Municipal Court Chief Judge Thornhill noted that individuals may be better drivers than in years past. City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes reported that he transferred to Municipal Court as the Chief Prosecutor in 2010. In response to a question posed by City Finance Director Mannix Decker, City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes discussed that the average length of some cases, depending upon the charges, from start to finish for the City is similar to the County, which is approximately 1 year. He noted that some cases may only take 3- 6 months to be resolved, while some Driving While Intoxicated (DWIs) cases may take over a year to resolve. City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes noted that there are over 16,000 City related warrants outstanding for various offenses at this time. City Municipal Chief Judge Thornhill explained that the City’s Municipal Court has a 270-day goal for case resolution, such as for DWI cases, with some case times being shorter or longer depending upon the charges. He noted that approximately 70% of the cases at Municipal Court are handled from start to finish within the 270-day goal. In response to a question posed by City Finance Director Mannix Decker, City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes explained that in approximately 2003, the County began transferring some offenses (i.e. marijuana possession, narcotics paraphernalia possession cases, and misdemeanor stealing) conducted within the City limits to the City Prosecutor’s Office for prosecution due to the County Prosecutor’s Office caseload. In response to a question posed by Harold Bengsch, Greene County Commissioner, Public Defender Manager Hackathorn reported that including benefits, an attorney for the Public Defender’s Office makes approximately $60,000 a year. County Administrator Smith noted an agreement between the City and County from 1997 regarding the issue of law enforcement. He explained that the issue of the criminal justice system cannot be resolved without the other being involved. The Task Force thanked City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes and City Municipal Chief Judge Thornhill for today’s presentation. The next Task Force meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 9, 2014 at the County’s Archives Election Center. County Administrator Smith noted that the next topic for discussion would be consolidated functions of the City and County. County Administrator Smith reported that he is working on finalizing a draft report, and requested that City Municipal Chief Prosecutor Yendes e-mail his information to him, so he can continue finalizing the Task Force’s report. With no additional discussion, the meeting was dismissed at approximately 10:50 a.m.