Dear friends:

I hope your summer is off to a good start.  As you might imagine, mine's been rather hectic.

Outside of some significant progress on the Banks, most of June has involved a long community conversation on our Comprehensive Safety Plan.  It's been an invigorating debate.  I appreciate the many citizens and community leaders who have praised us for standing up and doing what we know is the right thing to do.  And I have especially enjoyed speaking to groups all over the County about the plan.  Please let me know if you are part of a group that wants to hear the full proposal in person.  (justaddpepper@davidpepper.com).

At the same time, this issue is a great example of how difficult it is in today's political atmosphere to achieve a common-sense balance and make tough decisions amid a crisis.  For example, of the assortment of groups have come out to oppose our plan, one side who wants only jails thinks the plan is too "liberal" because it invests some dollars in reform and rehabilitation.  On the other hand, they have allied themselves with other groups that think the plan is too "conservative" because it adds any jailspace at all. 

Needless to say, we think our plan strikes the appropriate balance between responsibly building the needed jailspace, at the same time that we initiate the types of reform and prevention that will keep us from having to build jail after jail in the future.  Interestingly, public opinion surveys show that this is exactly the common sense balance the vast majority of citizens are looking for.

Amid the debate, I did want to set the record straight on several issues that have been mischaracterized by some who oppose the plan:

The claim: the tax, which we proposed as temporary, will become permanent.

The facts: the statute under which we passed the law couldn't be any clearer-the tax must sunset as we proposed (reduced by a ¼ cent after eight years, removed entirely seven years thereafter).  The good news is that by collecting enough dollars up front, and accumulating interest (like an endowment), we are able to pay for 30 years of operations with only 15 years of the tax.  Beginning in year 16, at the same tax rate we have today, we will have a far superior and effective system.

The claim: this Plan can be done without a new revenue source

The facts: Trust me, I wish this was the case!  But there's a reason politicians have ducked this issue for decades-solving this is simply too expensive a proposition to do within our current resources.  Even Commissioners DeWine and Heimlich (who run every campaign on their anti-tax views) themselves conceded through their proposal last year that just building the jail alone-let alone operating it (which they didn't even propose paying for)-required new tax revenue.  And the anti-tax COAST group supported that position then.  That tells you something.

But our plan does not simply call for new revenue.  We also will use efficiencies and budget cuts from current County spending to help pay for necessary parts of the plan.  And we sunset the tax as quickly as possible.

The claim: this proposal is three to four times as expensive as last November's.

The facts: the primary reason this plan appears more expensive is that we're being more transparent about the real costs of new jailspace.  The most expensive aspect of any new facility is not the one-time cost of constructing it, but the annual cost of operating it (about $14M per year in this case).  In our plan, we are transparent about the need to operate the facilities for the next 30 years, and we budget for that cost (each year for 30 years).  Last year's proposal simply pretended those costs didn't exist, although the taxpayers would have been stuck with the same size operating bill once the jail was constructed.

The claim: this proposal wastes money on "liberal social programs"

The facts: with our recidivism rate at 70%, the plan's investment in rehabilitation, treatment for substance abuse and mental illness, and other reform is a critical way to ensure that we don't go down this road again, being forced to build jail after jail after jail.  Over the long haul, these investments will actually save us dollars by averting future jail construction.

But for the first time, the plan also creates accountability systems and independent oversight of programs aimed at reducing crime and recidivism.  We will measure the results of programs receiving dollars for prevention or rehabilitation, and ensure that the County is undertaking national best practices in any reform it pursues.  We are already working with national experts to get this done.

The claim: the Commissioners violated citizens' right to vote by directly implementing their plan.

The facts: the Ohio statute under which we acted is very clear-this is an issue where Commissioners, facing a crisis like the one we face today, have every right to directly increase the tax.  And other Counties, including Columbus in recent years, have taken the exact same step.  Facing a reserve fund that is almost depleted, the prospect of having to release 300 prisoners this October and more after that, the fact that every month of delay wastes million of taxpayer dollars needlessly, and the reality that solving this problem (unlike, say, new stadiums or light rail) is an absolute necessity, we felt that using that authority to make the decision was in the best interests of the County (even if a politically difficult decision).

As for last November's vote, I can't stress enough how different our Plan is from the one citizens voted down.  Last year's plan was only building another building (not even operating it).  It was a narrow plan that would not have solved the problem.  Our's is a comprehensive approach that will solve the problem for the long haul, which is why many people who opposed last year's plan are strongly supportive of this one.

The claim: if this plan fails, we'll be fine.

The facts: the consequences of failure are bleak, which is why we moved forward in the way we did.  First, we will not be able to continue the Butler County contract, so 300 prisoners would need to be released.  Worse, in the long-term, we would simply see the continuation of spending millions on the status quo, failed warehouse system (and its 70% recidivism rate), a fiscal crisis in the County (as we work to fulfill our legal mandate to provide sufficient jailspace), along with a further erosion of other services in order to meet that mandate. 

I hope this helps set the record straight on some questions you might have had.   Please share these with anyone who you think might also be interested in this issue. We think there is great opportunity to make real progress here.

Obviously, if you have questions, or have discussions with others who have questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,

David Pepper