2003-781-Minutes for Meeting April 10,2003 Recorded 4/17/2003COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKOS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0411712003 02:05:57 PM
11111111 1010117181
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
2003101
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF "SB 1145 OPT OUT" MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building, 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly; Commissioner
Dennis R. Luke was out of the office. Also present were County Administrator
Mike Maier; Les Stiles, Larry Blanton, Jim Ross and Sue Brewster, Sheriffs
Office; Beck Jackson, Parole & Probation; Rick Isham and Mark Amberg, Legal
Counsel; Judge Stephen Tiktin; and Stan Robson, former Benton County Sheriff.
No representatives of the media or other citizens were present.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the process and risks involved in "opting
out" under SB 1145, should Deschutes County choose to do so.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 a.m.
SHERIFF LES STILES:
I'd like to thank everyone for coming. I think all of you received the letter than I
wrote a couple of weeks. At the time, all I wanted to do was to have a meeting to
just discuss opt out and Senate Bill 1145 and issues in generalized terms.
My next to the last paragraph made it clear that I am not recommending opt out at
this point in time. Because of the numbers of issues that seem to be developing
surrounding this issue in the State, and last week Linn County went ahead and filed
their letter of intent to opt out, I received information that Lane County is very
close behind and that other counties are on the verge of doing so.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 1 of 32 Pages
I guess if you take a look at this agenda, the one item that is not listed there is what
I'd like to start out with. Stan Robson, former Sheriff of Benton County, is here,
and he has been doing the equivalent of 1145 since 1984 in Benton County. The
1145 and Community Corrections Act was modeled on what they were doing
there. For those who don't know about all of the aspects of 1145, I have kind of a
brief overview attached to the agenda as a second handout.
You are also going to get a copy of a document that Sue Brewster wrote; I would
really appreciate it if you don't get a chance to read or scan it today, please take a
careful read of it. That document has all of the information pertaining to the legal
aspects of Senate Bill 1145, the Community Corrections Act, and consequences -
how we would do it, should that be something that we choose to do down the road.
Then, item 1, review of DOC administrative rule regarding opt out; item 2, the
impact of opt out on the jail; and item 3, the impact of opt out on Parole and
Probation; there's a fourth item that I think we should cover right at the end, and
that is, in light of the information that has been presented and in light of the issues
on the table, there are political consequences.
I think there is a game of high stakes poker going on; and should we even sit at that
table. And if we choose to sit at the table, what are the consequences. And if we
choose not to sit at the table, what are the consequences, taking into account all the
legal and philosophical issues.
STAN ROBSON:
If I am being redundant, please let me know. Like Sheriff Stiles said, since 1984
we have had in place the concept of 1145, which was eventually drafted. We were
forced into it mainly because of the county jail; because of the beds, we had to
have other alternatives besides incarceration. In a nutshell, 1145 was a prospect of
reducing the prison load by having all sentences of a year or less being kept at a
local level. That would include felons, where before only misdemeanor sentenced
folks were kept at the local facility, if the felons had a sentence of a year or less.
Many of the people who were sentenced were getting maybe six months in the
penitentiary and the turnaround time was just a matter of days when they were
back in our community. It wasn't looked at as a very effective or beneficial way of
dealing with these individuals. It was kind of a "catch 22" in that many of those
folks sentences to a year or less are difficult people. They are the ones who are
recidivists, and are the ones that are committing crimes that maybe aren't serious
enough to get the big sentences. It was kind of a mixed bag.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 2 of 32 Pages
RICK ISHAM:
Wasn't one of the reasons behind 1145 was that the State was not willing to build
new prisons, because the state beds were so expensive?
ROBSON:
That's partially true, in that one of the things that happened about that same time
was Measure 11 passed, creating almost $1 billion prison building process to keep
pace. It was thought to help that out. The fact of the matter about the cost for
beds, and at the time the cost for many counties was actually more than what the
average prison bed was. I think the average for the state prison is about $65 to $68
per day; and I know in my facility that it is $110 per day to keep a prisoner. That
certainly was one part of it; the cost of keeping folks and not having space to do it.
The other part, philosophically, was that on a local level, since most of these
people are going to come back to the community anyway, if you did something at
the local level to try to do some kind of rehabilitation, you were going to be ahead
of the game. Not a lot was going on in the state prisons, especially with a six-
month sentence. The prospect of keeping them local meant programs could be
instituted within the jails as well as in community corrections.
With the 1145 concept, it was either the appointing of supervisory authority to the
Sheriff who oversaw all three areas - law enforcement, corrections, and community
corrections - or, based on a decision of the Commissioners, it could be another
entity or combination of entities to do that supervisory authority. There was also
supposed to be a working relationship where everybody got together to make a
decision as to who was going to be incarcerated, or on supervision, or a
combination of both...
There are all kinds of ways of doing this, and in most counties it is working pretty
well in getting the cooperation as to who goes to jail and who doesn't. It has to be
a strong working relationship because the jails can't get too loaded up by sanctions,
and community corrections has to have the capability of having the sanctions if
they need them.
The prospect was that you don't just have one sanction; you would have a series of
sanctions so that a person on parole or probation violates, it is not an automatic go
back to jail situation. That's the most expensive sanction, and there should be
some other steps. Most counties developed many steps in between, such as those
your county has in place.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 3 of 32 Pages
For the most part, even though there was some pretty strong resistance at the outset
of 1145, most Sheriffs and communities have realized there is a real benefit in
what 1145 is doing. I was at a meeting of Sheriffs about a week ago, and almost to
a person no one wants to opt out. However, faced with what is going on with the
state and getting no money - and I know my program was 100% supported with
DOC monies - they can't afford to continue on. It is so expensive to keep a
prisoner in jail, it is tough to do.
But many are suggesting, and I personally agreed, that a notice of option is
important, whether you file to do the opt out or not. At least the notice of opt out
pushes the legislature to do something. If you don't do that, they can finish the
session without having addressed it completely, and even though there is a process
for opting out down the road, it is going to take much more time to get that
accomplished. It is with 180 days of once you do file before that actually files.
STILES:
Sue, could you clarify something? I am almost certain that somewhere in here
there's a statement that you can only exercise the option once a biennium.
SUE BREWSTER:
That's right.
STILES:
So, in other words, if we did it right now, we would be in our current biennium,
and we'd have another option after July 1. So, essentially we have two decisions
that we could make in this calendar year. We could opt out, and we then could
change our mind after July 1.
BREWSTER:
There could be a problem with changing your mind if the DOC gets too far down
the road.
STILES:
I know there are some mechanical issues. But we have that option.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 4 of 32 Pages
ROBSON:
I think that giving them notice that it is a possibility sends them a strong message,
rather than waiting to see how things fall out. I don't know where all of the other
Sheriffs are, but I know a lot of them are considering this pretty quickly. I know
the Sheriff of Linn County did do that, and he was one of the hardest to convince
of 1145. He fought it strongly, but now is a very strong believer in 1145. He feels
he now has no choice but to push the issue.
We did the same thing about five years ago when I lead a small committee of
Sheriffs to go to the Governor when we were still fighting for money, which we
have had to do since the inception of 1145. $7 million had been cut out of the total
budget. We pretty much threatened the Governor that the prisoners would be
coming back to the state's doorstep if we didn't get some monies put back in there.
They did have some wiggle room and some emergency funds that they were able
to draw from; and we did get that money put back in.
The state does not want the prisoners, but you folks can't afford to keep them,
either, without getting some money. It will be extremely expensive for them to
take them back; nor do they have a place to put them. And there are all kinds of
ramifications. A lot of facilities were built with 1145 money. It is very
complicated. So opt out is not something the state is going to want to have happen.
TOM DEWOLF:
Are you basing this on anticipated cuts?
ROBSON:
No; current cuts, that have already happened. $40 million out of a $110 million
budget has already been cut, putting you in the hole already in trying to backfill
those cuts. And more cuts are anticipated.
DEWOLF:
That part I'm aware of. The word is that they are going to be releasing the co -
chair's budget next week, and they are calling it the "shock and awe" budget. Only
they aren't smiling when they say that. I need to understand better that the impact
is so severe that we would consider this.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 5 of 32 Pages
STILES:
Opt out can be triggered, as I understand it, in two ways. Sue Brewster will cover
this next in her review of the Administrative Rule opt out. If the aggregate, the
total allocation for the state, drops below a certain level, that triggers opt out. If it
drops below that level for the County, that triggers the option of opt out for the
County.
One of the concerns that I don't want to see lost in the shuffle here is that although
Rob Partridge is the co-chair of public safety ways and means, and the list that I
got two weeks ago -his "shock and awe" list - is, as I understand it, his idea. But
critical functions, for the first time ever, the Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, and District
Attorneys associations are all on the same plate with a priority list. We gave the
Governor's advisory task force a month ago a recommended priority list for public
safety funding.
The number one issue across the state for us is crime lab. We will sacrifice every
Oregon State trooper on the road to keep crime labs, and we made that very clear.
We can't afford to hire the people to bring DNA testing and crime scene
processing. Rob Partridge's list shows crime labs as a priority five, item #53,
individual counties paid per crime scene. The Barbara Thomas homicide would
bankrupt us. We held that crime scene under a search warrant for weeks for
processing and analysis. We can't afford to pay that.
DEWOLF:
I met with Neil Bryant the night before last. He said that crime labs would be
preserved in what's being proposed.
STILES:
That's fine with us. The point I am trying to make is that when the "shock and
awe" budget comes out, regardless to what it is, we need to keep this in the context
of this isn't where it is going to end. Items #30 through #33 on this list were public
safety deputies and officials, police officer training, 9-1-1 operators, corrections
officers' training, paid per agency. In other words, pass the cost along, which
completely blows away some items. So, there are a lot of other issues that
probably ought to be held in the context of this issue.
Sue, could you just do a quick overview of the Administrative Rules of opt out,
and what it means?
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 6 of 32 Pages
BREWSTER:
This is really the work of Teresa Wilson of Lane County; I just plugged our data in
and deleted parts that aren't pertinent to us. (A copy of this document is attached as
Exhibit A.) Her analysis shows that Lane County came to the conclusion that it
was a wash; that they should go ahead and opt out.
DEWOLF:
Can you explain what you mean by "it's a wash"?
BREWSTER:
There was no benefit not to opt out; their budget was much larger than ours was,
and they had lost a sufficient amount so that opting out would be a wash to them.
MIKE MAIER:
If we trigger opt out, we will have a major deficit, and we can't shift money from
the general fund.
STILES:
The major deficit would come from the Sheriffs Office only, because Parole &
Probation would become a state agency.
MAIER:
I talked with the Linn County administrator, and they are in a different position.
They can shift general fund money to pick up the loss, but will still need money.
We don't have that luxury.
BREWSTER:
Lane County has not made a decision yet.
BECKY JACKSON:
Sue, you said that Teresa Wilson's initial perception was that it was a "wash", but
then you started to say I think something else.
BREWSTER:
The wording that she used was that she couldn't find a strong reason not to opt out.
It is a simple process if you make that decision. You write a letter 180 days prior
to opting out, and everything is turned over to the state, including the SAB, which
would become a state function.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 7 of 32 Pages
One of the issues that we had that I'm not clear about is what happens to our 1145
people. Do we ship them over to Salem? What do we do? Lane County was
considering turning over one of their facilities that was partially built with 1145
funding, housing them there, and the state would take care of them there.
STEVE TIKTIN:
There's a big difference, as I look this Rule, I was going to try to figure out what
happens to the 1145 offenders. I know they don't leave the County jail. Under the
law, when I sentence most people guilty of felonies, probably 90% of the felonies,
it is a County jail sentence either as a condition of probation or a less than twelve
months guideline sentence. Those people will not go to prison.
BREWSTER:
The thinking, I believe, was that they would stay in the work release center and the
state would run the work release center.
TIKTIN:
That's what I want to know. Because if we have to keep paying to run the
corrections piece for them locally, without getting the 1145 money to do it, then
we've got a big problem, a huge problem. When I read this Administrative Rule, it
doesn't say -- I don't know what it says. It just says that they will assume the duties
of the local supervisory authority. What do they mean by that? Because if it is the
jail's responsibility to house them, the supervisory authority's responsibility is to
decide what programs they can participate in. To me, this is intentionally vague. I
think we could end up being stuck with all the same prisoners, paid for by the
County now instead of with state money.
STILES:
I don't think that is the case. My understanding is that the state would assume the
responsibility, assume the building, and we might end up with two supervisory
authority boards. We still won't get out of our misdemeanor function. All
prisoners in the County system technically fall under the SAB.
The Linn County Sheriff said, fine, come over here, take the pod, bring your staff,
put the prisoners there, and you manage them. If you want to sanction them, we'll
charge you for beds and we'll charge you for food and whatever, but feel free to do
this. But they will not be out of the County budget.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 8 of 32 Pages
TIKTIN:
Well, that's what he said.
STILES:
I think that this whole thing has the potential to wind up in court. Now, that's
assuming that we push it all the way. That's assuming that the state doesn't blink.
That's assuming that the real problem, which is underfunding, doesn't get
corrected. And I think that we will probably need to be prepared for that.
I don't think any of us can say with absolute certainty or clarity, because you can
read the Administrative Rules and the ORS and have one interpretation, and
somebody else can read it and have a completely different interpretation of the
same language.
DEWOLF:
That's my point. It is so subject to interpretation, that my concern is making -- it
seems to me that if we give notice to opt out, we better be prepared to opt out.
STILES:
Absolutely.
DEWOLF:
And if we don't know what the impact is going to be -- come over here and take
over the work release center, pay us, whatever -- and they say "no", and we're still
stuck with these people here, now all of a sudden we have $1.5 dollar problem that
we don't have today.
STILES:
We can address that down the road. I was going to save the financial thing to the
end, in terms of the consequences. Because for Becky there will be none. The
$1.287 that I have budgeted right now, which is down from $1.65 this fiscal year,
since we already got whacked $180,000, is my problem, and I can address that at
the end. But in the meantime, what I would like to do is keep going, get to the end,
and then backfill in terms of cost and consequences.
I agree with the Judge, but I also disagree that they would remain our
responsibility, fiscally.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 9 of 32 Pages
1112-44M
Well, I don't know the answer. I think what the state could readily do, as we've
seen them starting to do now and is why we are here today, they could say that
they are just not going to give you any money to house these offenders.
Now, if you want to incarcerate them and pay for it locally, if you don't think that's
a necessary sanction, then don't do it. But for those offenders who are
incarcerated, we'll be the supervisory authority. I think we could get rubbed in the
grease pretty badly, and possibly lose all of the money that we are getting now to
provide jail beds.
STILES:
Is there another option? One of the things we've never talked about is what the
difference is between a 12 -month and a 13 -month sentence.
The problem is that I can't give 90% of these people anything more than about six
months. Let me hand this out. (He then distributed a copy of the ORS guidelines;
a copy is attached as Exhibit B.) We don't have to talk about the guidelines and all
the ramifications, but this really does scare me, Sheriff, because there are very few
offenders that I have an opportunity to send to the DOC. That's my problem.
STILES:
Can we address that collectively, right at the end?
TIKTIN:
Sure.
STILES:
Since the opt out is pretty simple, and Sue covered that in her document, which we
should take the time to read, but not today since the Judge has to be on the bench
early. Why don't we change the order just a little bit and have Becky speak. What
would the impact of opt out be on Parole & Probation for offender supervision and
your decision-making process?
JACKSON:
In terms of offender supervision, of course the state will not assume any
responsibility for the supervision of misdemeanants. So we currently have a
population of close to 400 misdemeanants under supervision. Roughly 100 of those
are DUII's, and the remaining are family violence and sex offender individuals.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 10 of 32 Pages
Were we to opt out, and were the state to resume responsibility for Parole &
Probation, none of those individuals would be supervised unless the County
decided to create some sort of County probation department. We had that system
years ago. There was typically a state probation office in a particular county, and
in many places there was a county probation department as well, that was
responsible for supervising misdemeanants. So, that, of course, is a big concern.
In terms of the decision-making process, I think that now, under the current
system, we have County control. We have complete and total authority over those
offenders to make decisions in terms of moving them out of the jail, back into the
jail, putting them on work release, electronic monitoring, day reporting; and of
course that decision-making would be taken out of our hands, and would be taken
over by the state.
Supervisory authority would be comprised of state employees who, again, would
be making those decisions. Past experience is that Salem does not always make
the best decisions for local areas, because they simply don't know about the
resources, the difficulties in terms of employment or transportation in a particular
area; so often you are left holding the bag where you are expected to do something
that simply isn't feasible.
I think those are the two primary and biggest ramifications of Parole & Probation
being taken back over by the state.
BREWSTER:
Is there a chance that if the state takes over the SAB that they would simply leave
it? I know there is no guarantee.
JACKSON:
My guess is that it would be staffed by primarily by parole and probation folks,
local people who would be state employees, but who would be controlled by the
state. They would report to the state.
STILES:
They would still have to come to LPSCC. I haven't presented by budget to LPSCC
this year because there is no budget to present. All of our funding goes to the
offenders, 100%. In the end, they would still have to come to the Local Public
Safety Coordinating Council. I don't think that portion of the statute would change.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 11 of 32 Pages
JACKSON:
No, but I don't think LPSCC is really going to have any control; they are simply a
recommending group.
STILES:
No, but we would certainly have some advisory capacity.
TIKTIN:
I don't know if we have any role anymore, at all. That's another question. LPSCC
is there to recommend how we spend the 1145 dollars that the state gives the
County. If the state isn't giving the County any 1145 dollars anymore, I think
LPSCC possibly goes away.
STILES:
I don't know. Does anyone know?
TIKTIN:
The LPSCC statutes are in the materials I brought.
STILES:
LPSCC is enabled by statutes other than the ones that I've seen relating to opt out
funding levels.
JACKSON:
But LPSCC is related to SB 1145.
STILES:
Absolutely. It came into being because of 1145. There's no question about that.
I'm just saying that unless those statutes are abolished, LPSCC will still statutorily
be an entity.
TIKTIN:
I agree with that.
STILES:
Well, we can real quickly get on to the impact of opt out on the jail. The items
listed on that -- inmates, dollars, supervisory authority board, and the regional
work center building. If you read Sue's attachment, we'll do this in reverse order.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 12 of 32 Pages
The regional work center building has a lease and a sub -lease. But the bottom line
is that they will still have until the year 2017 some degree of control over the first
floor of that building. We will not be able to utilize it. If we utilize it in any way,
shape, form or fashion, we become responsible for the debt service on the building.
The bottom line is that if there were to be an opt out, that would be the building --
or at least that floor -- that they would turn into their facility to do whatever they
are going to do with state prisoners. On April 30 it will be closed. We don't have
the funding to continue to operate the regional work center in our budget next year.
We are in the process of shutting that down now. The bottom line is that the state
could come in and do what they want with it. I don't know of anything that would
prohibit them from opening a hotel there as opposed to running inmates.
MIKE DALY:
How many employees are in the work center?
STILES:
Twenty-six. Fifteen of those are going away, will actually lose their jobs. Some of
the corrections deputies are going to be transferred to backfill the technician
vacancies that were created with the layoffs in the jail, so that we'll have all
corrections deputies. We are going to see the population in the jail change.
The one good spin-off of you having court just four days a week is that we are
hoping that our jail population continues to slide down as you aren't able to address
cases and sentence offenders. We're hoping to see our population go down. We
may or may not trigger matrix on April 30.
But if we do so this calendar year, which we anticipate, we're going to see the mix
in our jail change. We will start seeing more A and B felon offenders incarcerated
as opposed to dope dealers and car clouters. For that reason, we are going to have
all corrections deputies in the jail and no techs, because they can't go hands-on
with an inmate. I don't know if that answers your question. There will be no staff
left that are regional work center people.
That covers the inmates part of this agenda. The dollars are real simple. If we
chose to opt out, we've budgeted $1.287 million, what we've forecast today; that
could change tomorrow. Our budget was submitted knowing that some of the
dollars in there are real soft and may not come to be. If we opted out, effective
June 30, which we can't do because of the 180 days, it would cost us $1.287
million next year, and I would have to fill that hole.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 13 of 32 Pages
JIM ROSS:
We talked about this. It could be just half of that.
STILES:
Right. And that's where I was going. If we opted out today, effective June 30, it
would be $1.287. If we wrote a letter that says we want to exercise opt out
effective June 30, and clock started ticking, and in fact 180 days toll on December
301, it would be $640,000.
The 180 -day minimum is in the statute for notification. There is no maximum. In
theory, we could write a letter saying that we choose to opt out June 30, 2004, at
the end of our next fiscal year. We would receive the whole $1.287 million this
fiscal year, and we would not receive that amount the following fiscal year because
we would be triggering opt out. But there is no maximum deadline in the statute,
just a minimum. So, there are a whole range of options there as to what we may or
may not choose to look at. The financial impact isn't going to change.
ISHAM:
We are seeing it through all of the County's programs. There's a shift. In order to
balance the budget at the state level, traditionally it has gone to the local level -- be
it schools, cities or counties. They are looked at as revenue opportunities,
apparently under the assumption that local governments don't need the money.
Since this is kind of a fact of life, in terms of a levy that is expiring and going to a
special district solution possibly for that ongoing local option tax, have you
considered increasing that to cover shortfalls from the state, so you would basically
have a full-service program?
STILES:
I have considered that. And right now that isn't an option. Mike (Maier) and I
have discussed it. I guess the bottom line is this. There are a couple of issues at
stake here. On the one hand, we are saying that we want Parole & Probation 100%
funded by state dollars, and we aren't willing to commit a single penny to it. And
yet, Becky just told us that she is handling 400 misdemeanant offenders.
On the other hand, we're going to say, on the Sheriff s levy, we're going to tack on
an additional 12 cents to ask you to fund a mandate from the state on the County's
back. And, by the way, we also need another 25 cents per thousand just to take
care of Sheriff s services. Although that may not come across, the perception is
that we are now asking County taxpayers to assume that load. I'm not sure that in
this day and age --
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 14 of 32 Pages
ISHAM:
It's the legislators asking this.
MAIER:
Would we be asking the taxpayers to assume that load even if we opted out?
STILES:
Yes, we will. Only it won't be for 1145. It would be to maintain current staffing
levels in the jail.
JACKSON:
These people are Deschutes County's responsibility in the respect that they
committed their crimes here. The law says they have to return to the county where
they committed their crimes. I think it is incumbent on us to provide the broadest
and best array of services for them, given the fact that they will be returning to our
community and will be our neighbors.
STILES:
I would agree with that "us" part of your statement. It is incumbent on us. And I
would agree very strongly with that if it weren't for the fact that the Sheriff s Office
is hanging in the wind on an operating levy all by itself. If we were all equal
players from a common pot, if the Sheriff s Office were funded out of the general
fund and the Board of Commissioners chose to make a conscious decision that it is
a collective us fiscally, and then set priorities, I would agree with you.
The political reality is, I have to pass an operating levy next March, and the voters
are in a pretty crappy mood. And I don't think their mood is going to be any better
when they see what the state produces in July, August or September -- whenever
they finally have an adopted budget. It's getting pretty ugly. So, the question
becomes, the bottom line is, as the Sheriff and as the person responsible for the
budget, how do I fill that $1.287 million hole this fiscal year if we chose to opt out.
It's very simple. We opt out halfway through the year. I mean, the earliest we
could go is to send a letter today, opting out June 30, it goes into effect December
30, and we take a $640,000 hit. It also doesn't preclude us from writing a letter
today stating that we are going to opt out effective June 30, 2004, which does give
me some slack to go ahead.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 15 of 32 Pages
By then, in March of 2004, I will know whether I passed an operating levy.
Frankly, I don't anticipate two campaigns like we did last time. I think we'll have
just one shot at this, and we have to pass it in March. We can put it back on the
ballot, but won't be able to raise enough money to run an effective campaign twice.
So, that's the fiscal consequences to the Sheriffs Office.
DE WOLF :
What do you do the following year? If the levy doesn't pass in March, then the
choice would be to not opt out at that point?
STILES:
It's going to be moot. If we don't pass a levy and we use the June 30 opt out date,
then I would probably say to cancel the opt out, because we would be scrambling
for every penny we can get, and beggars can't be choosers. Cancel the opt out
effective June 30, let's bail on this letter, sorry that we made a mistake. That would
supplement us by $1.287 million. But the fact of the matter is that I would be
making a $10 or $11 million cut.
DEWOLF:
You'd still have some permanent funding.
MAIER:
No, they're gone. He's down to zippo.
STILES:
This isn't a permanent taxing district. I have no funding unless we pass the levy.
There's no permanent revenue base. This year we're budgeting $9.9 million or
something for the tax levy. Add a 6% growth factor, and we'd be at about $10
million and change. We haven't had a rate increase for seven years. If it doesn't
pass in March, we're going to gut the Sheriff s Office and there will be nothing left.
There won't be a jail; there will be no patrol and no detectives.
DALY:
With no State Police presence, that leaves us in a world of hurt.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 16 of 32 Pages
STILES:
Don't count on the State Police being here on July 1, on the road. I guess what I'm
saying, Tom, in the end about the opt out -- and remember, I did not recommend
opt out in my letter at this time; we need to talk about it -- but because I'm on a
levy and because I have a campaign to run starting this September for March, the
consequences of what the state is or isn't going to do has a pretty dramatic impact.
Mike asked me a month ago how I was going to cover this. I told him there are a
number of ways I can cover it. I have a whole lot of options. But I guess in the
end we have a time window between now and June 30 to make some decisions
with respect to the issue of opt out. What should those be?
Last but not least, Larry (Blanton) has something to say. Then we can throw the
whole thing open.
MAIER:
I just want to say one thing here. Not so much the funding, but I hate to get to the
threat of an opt out. If we decide to do this, we should not be thinking that we
would retract our opt out.
The thing that bothers me the most that we haven't talked about is how bad things
were when the state had it before we had it. It was terrible. The relationship
between Parole & Probation and the Sheriffs Office was non-existent. I can't
speak for the Courts, but I remember that there was really no local interest coming
out of Salem.
STILES:
I agree 100% with everything you just said. None of the Sheriffs truly want opt
out. That said, if we go ahead and play the card and they call the bluff, do you
think the director of Parole & Probation and their staff are going to change their
philosophy about their commitment to the communities, because they are now state
employees?
JACKSON:
I don't think I would change my philosophy. But all I can tell you is that I would
be getting a directive from Salem to do things differently. And I know that
because I worked for them before. It's not me changing my philosophy.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 17 of 32 Pages
STILES:
Absolutely. But the question is how well we can work together; is that going to
change, considering your hands are going to be handcuffed. Ours will be.
Frankly, your sanction option is about to go away anyway. I mean, we are going to
have some institutional handcuffs applied whether we like it or not.
Would it change how well we work together? I don't think so. Would some of her
controls change? Absolutely. But if we are going to deal with philosophical
issues, let's deal with who built the jail. And for whom.
LARRY BLANTON:
Just a little bit of spin from the day-to-day side. From what I see, and we've all
lived them, elections are no fun. Operating levies are how we survive.
Your Honor, you said earlier, and we've been talking about money issues relating
to whether we do this opt out or prepare to take the $1.2 million dollar cut, in my
opinion, I think the state is headed there anyway. It is apparent. Every time you
pick up the newspaper, on Sunday morning the judicial system was $200 million
upside down still, and they still haven't put a bottom line on it. We still do not
know where we're at.
Additional to that, in 1994 we occupied the jail. I was part of that election, and we
all were. The whole thing was that we wanted to build a jail to house Deschutes
County prisoners. Now, whether it is perception or reality as to what our
responsibility is to the current 1145 people, I think we're going to start matrix
within 30 to 60 days after we move those prisoners from the work center. The
opinion of the taxpayers is going to be, when we ask for a 35 cent or 45 cent
increase, because in my opinion that's what it is going to take, in addition to the 87
cents and $1.12, then we're against the lid what we can increase that to because of
the cap.
We are fast approaching maximum burnout here with public safety. In my
opinion, the Courts going to four days will help us with the jail, and the D.A. going
to four days is going to help us with jail; the fact of the matter is that before anyone
in here can talk about quality of life issues in Deschutes County, if you don't have
effective, funded, well-maintained public safety, you can't talk about quality of life
here. And we are fast approaching that. And I am very concerned about passing
this levy in March, and we will be broke, upside down, and there won't be
anything.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 18 of 32 Pages
You can ask anyone on the street what quality of life is, it's safety. We beat
ourselves to death about this all the time, but I firmly believe the thing we are
talking about with the financial issues, if opt out is an option, the state is headed
there anyway. Because they are cutting it and cutting it, we're going to end up
there before we know it.
STILES:
I guess one of the main concerns that I have is that when you look at what they are
doing to DOC, in light of what Larry had to say, if you look at the big picture, it is
unconscionable that they are going to be asking Parole & Probation, police
agencies, and 9-1-1 dispatchers to pay for the tuition for a program that already
existed under unitary assessment at the state level.
This year we are taking a $100,000 hit because they capped the 9-1-1 tax. You
look at the thinking that is coming out of there about passing on additional costs to
local governments. The squeeze is here. Would I like Parole & Probation to be a
state agency? Absolutely not. Do we do it better now than we were doing it when
we were an option 1 or 2 or 3? Absolutely, we do. The cold, hard fact is that I
don't see this ending.
I talked with Neil Bryant the other day at lunch because I was concerned about the
OSP thing. He told me that there are probably not going to be any troopers on the
road to keep the crime labs. I was reiterating to him my concern about crime labs,
because we can't do DNA analyses in Deschutes County, and we can't afford it.
He said it isn't over, and it's going to get a lot worse. The $130 million they were
forecasting for May, I'm now hearing a reasonable number is now $400 million.
If that continues to happen, and I see nothing on the horizon that says it isn't, what
are the best options of the worst alternatives? None of the alternatives we are
facing are good. It was just like looking fifteen people in the eye and telling them
they don't have a job anymore. Every one of them asked me, why me? The whole
thing with closing the work center was that there were no good options. That was
the only option that impacted the whole system the least. And my concern is that it
is not just one part of the system. It's not just the Sheriff s Office not passing a
levy. It's not just the risk that Parole & Probation becomes a state agency. I don't
see indigent defense being better, and I don't the Courts or D.A. being any better;
for the first time, we are all being faced with a new paradigm. The whole system is
caving at once.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 19 of 32 Pages
DEWOLF:
Beyond that, the thing that I want to address that you said, Larry, is that what I
hope is we all recognize that public safety is a larger umbrella than the Sheriff s
Office and Parole & Probation, and the Court system and the D.A. The fact that
Mental Health is getting decimated; those people are either ending up in the
emergency ward or your jail.
The Commission on Children and Families is being cut in half. That means all
these kids that in prevention programs and their parents were being taught how to
be parents; Together for Children is going from a $237,000 a year, 13 FTE budget
down to $50,000 and a 2 FTE budget. It's everything. What Mike says is, we don't
have the money to fill this hole. This isn't a hole. This is everywhere.
STILES:
From my perspective, I'm not asking the Board to fill the $1.287 million dollar
hole. I will deal with that all by myself. I have a series of options. If we opted out
and it started on December 30 and the state did call the bluff, I've already talked
with my Jim (Ross), my business manager, about some ways that we can start
cutting today to increase our savings for nine months even more than we have
already cut, and suck up some temporary layoffs until I know what's going to
happen with the levy. I'll know that by March 15. The present levy expires June
30 next year at midnight. I guess my question is this.
DEWOLF:
If you pass it without a 50/50?
STILES:
It doesn't work in May. Only in November.
BREWSTER:
Is there a point where, if the state cuts the money back for 1145, how far do they
cut it back before we need to take action, before it makes sense for the County?
MAIER:
That's a hard question to answer until you know what the state is going to do.
BREWSTER:
If the state were to cut it another amount, say half, would it then make sense to
trigger this, or does it never make sense to do it?
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 20 of 32 Pages
TIKTIN:
I couldn't agree more with Larry about public safety and the Courts, but that is
competing with K through 12 and all the other things that we know are important
to the state. So, whatever happens, whatever the legislature allocates to public
safety and to dealing with felons in our state, it's going to be a problem statewide.
It's going to be the same problem whether the state or County has the
responsibility.
So what do we get public safety wise, quality of life wise, by opting out? That's
the first thing I think we should look at. The second thing is, I'm sitting here not
seeing, Sheriff, how you get any benefit at all out of opting out.
STILES:
Stability.
TIKTIN:
You get less stability, because you don't get those County dollars anymore but you
still get those prisoners that I'm going to send you after December 30 who are
getting County days.
BREWSTER:
But that's not a given.
STILES:
That's not a given. I don't accept that.
BREWSTER:
There is a strong argument, and there is language under 423 that says that the
counties agree to take these people only with adequate funding.
TIKTIN:
Look at the rest of the statutes, which tell me the sentences that I can impose on
people, and find that if I say 30 days in jail as a condition of probation, they get 30
days in jail. What you are going to get, Les, if we opt out and, you're going to love
this, you are going to get the prisoner, with someone else supervising the prisoner,
and you're not going to get the money to pay for the beds. That's what I see.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 21 of 32 Pages
STILES:
And you know what? I'll be happy to do that. Philosophically I will be very
unhappy, as a public safety official. From a purely dollars and sense standpoint,
we'll give them the bottom floor of the building and tell them, here, you've got
your SAB, they are your prisoners.
TIKTIN:
That assumes that you can let them out. If I send them to the County jail for 30
days -- Let's go back to before 1145. For as long as I have been a lawyer, if you
steal a car and I put you on probation, and I give you 30 days in jail, the state
wouldn't give us a nickel for that. So most of the 1145 prisoners now in jail are
still people who are doing County jail time as a condition of probation.
BREWSTER:
Why couldn't they use the work center?
des
I think Becky is right, though, in the sense that these people don't become just the
state's problem; they are still the community's problem. They steal your car and I
want to sanction them, they are the community's problem. I don't care if they
committed a felony or a misdemeanor, they are our problem. If we decide that we
can't afford it, and we have to close a pod in jail and go to the matrix, so be it. But
someone who lives in Deschutes County is still our problem.
STILES:
Judge, you are absolutely right, and I agree with you 100%. That said, they are
getting out anyway. That said, it isn't going to make any difference, because the
fact of the matter is that if you give me a 30 day sentenced offender and I
guarantee if matrix is triggered, he'll be lucky to serve ten.
TIKTIN:
But wouldn't you rather have the $1.287 million dollars?
STILES:
That isn't going to keep him in jail any longer. It isn't going to add any programs.
What is really breaking my heart about this is that it is unstable funding.
TIKTIN:
It would pay for beds.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 22 of 32 Pages
STILES:
It's just like the contract that Greg (Brown) had entered into some years ago,
selling County beds for state prisoners. They walked in and gave us 36 days last
year. They came in January and said, it's gone, there's $2875000 gone. They come
in this year, $112,000 gone. Now there's another $50,000 gone. Next year there's
$300,000 gone. I guess to get back to what Sue said, how many -- I mean,
$100,000 here and $100,000 there, and pretty soon it is irrelevant.
TIKTIN:
The other thing I am thinking is that if you go to Salem now, Les, and you fight for
our share of community corrections dollars, you've got a voice. When the Sheriffs
go down to Salem and fight for the community corrections' portion of the state
budget, you've got a voice.
Once we opt out, you don't have a voice anymore. You've got nothing to say in
Salem really about how much money this County gets out of that community
corrections pie. I think we lose a degree of influence and effectiveness, both as a
County and as a Sheriffs organization when people opt out. That's the other side
of that. I'm on your side, by the way, with all this. I don't want to give that up.
When you go to Salem and holler than your group or Deschutes County isn't
getting its fair share of money, I want people to listen to you. I don't want you
sitting in a corner because you're an opt out county and you aren't getting the
money anyway.
STILES:
Judge, we have for 27 months been voicing those concerns in Salem. Prior to my
becoming Sheriff, this guy sat over there and met with Kitzhaber and a group of
Sheriffs. This has been going on since day one. They have one mathematical
formula one year, then the next year they have a new formula, and next week we
will get yet another formula.
(Overlapping conversations.)
DEWOLF:
So far every formula has meant dollars coming here. Down, down, down; but
dollars. So far the only reason that you've stated to Steve's question was the reason
to opt out is stability.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 23 of 32 Pages
STILES:
I have many more issues, but to me the first and foremost is financial stability.
Because if I take another $300,000 cut in July, I lay off more people.
DEWOLF:
But you are talking about a $1.287 million cut; how many people does that lay off?
STILES:
Between now and then, if we choose to participate in what I perceive to be a high
stakes poker game, don't confuse my philosophy with my fiscal concerns. If we
choose to participate --
DEWOLF:
Your philosophy is not wrapped tightly with your fiscal concerns?
STILES:
My philosophy about community corrections being a very positive program and
not wanting to lose it sits over here. My fiscal concerns right now in terms of
where we are at with the state, and where our funding is and what the dollars and
cents are, tell me independently from what I believe is in the best interest of the
County, assuming we have the money, is separate from what I believe right now in
this issue.
The question is, I think in the end it is all about politics, right now, today. Now, it
may not be tomorrow; but today the reason for this meeting is this. Should
Deschutes County consider opting out and joining other counties in sending a
message to the legislature? Don't forget, we still have another bill out there that we
are pushing hard, repealing it entirely. Whether or not it passes or where it goes,
who knows.
They have a bill out there saying that that we can't opt out with an emergency
clause, making it effective July 1. Set those things aside. Should we or should we
not even consider it. If we do consider it, when and how should we do it. It is my
recommendation that if we send a letter of opt out that there is a compromise
solution between what Linn County did last week and what Lane County may do
today.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 24 of 32 Pages
For us, there may be a solution that is a compromise that says we will send an opt
out letter but we date it June 30 of 2004. This gives me the option of passing a
levy in between then. And we still get our $1.287 million this year; we just cut it
off for the following year. That gives me essentially 15 months to make up the
hole that I know is coming.
DEWOLF:
Whatever additional you need, separate from this, let's say you need 25 cents. We
toss a quarter out there and talk about adding 12 or 13 cents here on top of the 78
cents and the $1.12. We failed on 9-1-1 at 9 cents.
STILES:
That's why I have 15 months to absorb more people who are leaving and not filling
the positions, to cut additional costs, and still ask for the absolute bare minimum to
get by. Tom, when I come to you with a rate, it's probably going to be a non-
negotiable rate. It's not going to be something that I am going to come back to the
taxpayers later on and say, oh, I really didn't mean it, we can cut it.
DEWOLF:
And what are we going to tell those voters who are so ticked off at government
because there's no music programs in schools, there's no sports, no football games
on Friday nights.
STILES:
I can tell you what I'm going to tell them. Elect new leaders. Elect new
legislators. Fix it.
TIKTIN:
I have to leave, but I want to get back to where we started with Stan. I'm not a big
fan of threats, of something I'm not prepared to back up. Like filing a notice of
intent when I know I don't want to do that. I guess I don't want to opt out. I don't
think we get any benefit from it, and I think we get a probation department that
goes upside down and won't do half the job done we're getting now. We lose the
money, whatever you can buy with $1.287 million dollars, buy it.
I guess my thought is that I'd still be interested to know or to hear more about what
leverage we gain as a County by filing. Is there some leverage, Stan?
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 25 of 32 Pages
ROBSON:
I think the biggest issue is the message is going to be that none of us really want to
opt out. So you're not holding something back.
JACKSON:
Stan, I have to disagree with that. After talking with DOC, it was their belief that
when Linn County filed their opt out, that's what they intend to do.
ROBSON:
But the Sheriff has also said that he loves 1145. He said that up front, and he's
saying that it works, but he feels he has no other option because of the funding
issue. That is the message, just to force the legislature to look at the issue. That's
what the counties want instead of having them put it on the back burner, and
making cuts and go. They want to force the issue. Whether this is the right way to
do it or not, I don't think there is any hidden agenda.
STILES:
Your Honor, we have communicated until we are blue in the face, and it has
absolutely zero impact. They are continuing to cut. My concern is that what we
are seeing in other areas, the mentality over there is to pass it on to the counties.
Pass along additional costs to the counties. The fact of the matter is that if that is
their philosophy in general, we don't have a prayer that they are going to fix this
any more than they already are. They already think they are subsidizing.
DEWOLF:
But there's also the reality that we are $2 billion short from what we anticipated
two years ago. Now we're looking at another $400 million that no one anticipated.
I don't think they are out to get us. I think they are just as screwed as we are. I
want to work with them and I don't think that talking until we are blue in the face
has no impact. I think if we hadn't been doing that, worse decisions would have
been made. I believe it has helped our County and other counties, and we've got to
still do that.
I'm really concerned about this step, and I don't know if there are other options. If
you can help us develop some thoughts about different options, Stan, so that we've
got -- maybe we've got none. This just makes me nervous.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 26 of 32 Pages
TIKTIN:
One last thought. Whatever number of dollars are coming into the County now,
there won't be any more dollars coming in for public safety if we opt out. I'd rather
have you, Sheriff, spending those dollars since you could do a whole lot better job
spending them, and Becky, too, than the state. I think the money will be gone
down a rat hole if the state spends that money. I trust you with the money.
STILES:
I trust me with the money, too, Judge; but here's the bottom line. I'm doing
nothing but warehousing state prisoners. We got our report card for CORE,
because I told them that before they kicked this off I wanted data analysis, phase
and phase 2 CORE. Out of all of the people who finished phase 2, 40% had not
recidivated with use of drugs. That's a huge number. It's gone.
So all I am going to be doing is warehousing prisoners. The programs in the jail
will stay, but the programs with meaningful substance that have an impact as an
alternative are going to go away. We won't be able to do any more than short-term
programs because of the turnover.
TIKTIN:
I feel the same way. You're right.
STILES:
Tom, in the end, obviously it is the Board's decision. I would like you to at least
strongly consider it. The clock is ticking, and we have an option this biennium,
and we have another option after July 1, by statute, if they don't change it. I would
like you to at least consider it. I'm the only department affected, and we have
looked at this very carefully.
DEWOLF:
Parole & Probation is affected by the fact that they are no longer a County agency.
STILES:
I meant in terms of dollars and cents. In terms of money lost, I will be the only
department affected. I am willing to take that hit to send a message to Salem that
this program isn't working. Frankly, even in the flush times, back before all this
started, they weren't paying their full freight. Now in tight times they are going to
pay even less.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 27 of 32 Pages
DEWOLF:
I respect that position, but I'm not sure I can share it.
DEWOLF:
Sheriff, what if we send this letter wanting to opt out in 2004, and they call your
bluff and force you to opt out now?
STILES:
They can't do that. We give them the date that we choose to opt out. It would be
much easier for me to ask for 5 or 6 cents on top of the minimum rate I'm going to
have to ask for anyway to keep the organization and the jail whole, by saying that
this is for County prisoners only. This is County, as opposed to warehousing the
50 state prisoners we are warehousing today in a 228 bed facility.
MAIER:
I'm uncomfortable trying to call their bluff.
STILES:
I'm perfectly willing to live with it.
•:_ • Z
I think there are some other things to be looked at. I appreciate what you are
saying here about that loss. One of the things I wanted to ask the Judge is why he
can't make those sentences six months or more to the penitentiary.
BREWSTER:
Because of statute. The argument it is part of 1145, that we only assumed that
change because of 1145. That all felony cases will go back to the state. They
would be responsible. They may end up staying locally, though. The Judge's point
is that it is not written in stone, no one knows yet.
STILES:
I'd be willing to test that in court.
DEWOLF:
How can we rescind the notice of opt out? What allows us to do this?
BREWSTER:
The Administrative Rule addresses that. The DOC makes the call.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 28 of 32 Pages
DEWOLF:
If it is DOC's call, then we don't have any options.
STILES:
I got an e-mail from Ginger Martin (from the State DOC), and in it she talks about
the Administrative Rules. Essentially what she said is that you can change your
mind. But, and here's the caveat, if we've gone too far down the road in terms of
transfer of property, prisoners, facilities, contracts, what have you, and it would
cost more to back out, then we wouldn't have the option. (A copy of an e-mail from
Ginger Martin to Becky Jackson, and backup information on Community
Corrections, are attached as Exhibit C.)
DEWOLF:
Before I make any kind of decision, I want that very clearly understood. Isn't it a
possibility that they really want us to opt out?
STILES:
No, they don't want that. Because by state law they have to take every one of these
employees.
JACKSON:
No they don't. It says that there's been a reduction in funds, so there would be a
commiserate reduction in staff.
STILES:
That would happen anyway.
JACKSON:
But they may lay off more than we would.
MAIER:
But they don't have to stay in Deschutes County. They could send them to Coos
County.
STILES:
They can do anything. Mike, we could drag in a lot of what ifs. Bottom line, I
know we will live with the consequences. I can at least document that we had this
meeting and the issue was discussed. We've got minutes, and down the line we'll
let public opinion make the decision.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 29 of 32 Pages
I've made a recommendation that we opt out effective June 30, 2004. Are they just
going to table it? Now I assume the Board will have to address that at some point
in time.
MAIER:
Either they formally address it, or they ignore it.
STILES:
I know that everybody is looking at it from a purely dollar and cents standpoint, and I
think that Dennis (Luke) may look beyond the dollars and cents. I'm hoping he does.
MAIER:
That's not true, though, Les. It's not dollars and cents; it's a matter of service.
That's my major concern, the public safety aspect. Because when we had the old
system, it was lousy.
STILES:
I know what didn't get done. You are throwing it out like they are going to transfer
to here and send every to Klamath County. Do you really think that would
happen?
MAIER:
You have a whole different thing when you go into the state level. They bump
people all over. We had supervisors come in here and get bumped out. We had
parole officers come in and then get bumped out. It was lousy, and a lot different
program. On a scale of one to ten, if we had half the staff now we would be twice
as good as they were when they had full staff.
STILES:
I agree with all of that. That said, I don't see them taking the employees that
currently exist here away. They would become state employees, and I don't see
Becky's or anybody else's philosophy over there changing, although they will have
some institutional handcuffs that we can't control.
MAIER:
Les, you are just guessing.
STILES:
So are you.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 30 of 32 Pages
MAIER:
No. I know what we have now. I know who the supervisors are now. We have
some control over that. But as soon as it goes to the state, these people
automatically get into bumping when there is a reduction. Whole different ball
game.
STILES:
Yep. All of that could happen.
MAIER:
Then the orders are being called by Salem, not locally.
STILES:
The County hasn't put a penny in for Parole & Probation.
BREWSTER:
There are really two different issues, though. Parole & Probation is one. The other
is the big impact issue, how much is the jail going to absorb the cost for the people,
and how much County money is going to be spent. At what point do we hit that?
MAIER:
Let me ask this. I'll round it to $1.3 million. This covers the direct costs now, not
the indirects. You said it was about $65 per day.
ROSS:
In the jail, it's more like $72 per day if all costs are included, like depreciation.
based it on total capacity.
MAIER:
At least when I looked at the operating budget, it projected out to about $55 per
day, and the adopted budget was at about $59 per day. Now, if you include
depreciation, I understand it's a higher number. But you are breaking even.
BLANTON:
You can do what you want with those numbers. If you jail capacity bed space
doesn't change and your budget goes down, it appears that it costs you less per day
to house people, but that's not the case. Just because you still have 228 beds in the
jail and you've had to reduce your budget because of less funding, you are still
calculating what you think it costs for your current budget. You can't do that.
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 31 of 32 Pages
MAIER:
You budget at maximum capacity and expenditure in the budget.
STILES:
Mike, we could argue this forever, but frankly, if you don't mind me saying so, I
don't care what the bed cost is. I don't really care how much the state is giving us.
I care very much about in the end whether or not 50 of our 228 beds are housing
state prisoners. I care very much that the total cost has been under -funded from the
get -go, and that the intent of 1145 was gutted the minute we closed the work
center. We have no programs.
Bonnie, could I get a copy of these minutes, because down the road I am going to
need this for two different campaigns, and the media is going to want some
answers to questions about what the Board of Commissioners is considering.
S Being no further items brought before the group, the meeting concluded at
N:35 a.m.
DATED this 101h Day of April 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Vt � L4 C C'U
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
I►
mmm.wa,/,�
eWoi
�2"Cal�
Michael M. Daly, mmissioner
Minutes of Meeting of Commissioners, Sheriff & Others Monday, February 10, 2003
Subject: Consideration of Possible 1145 Opt Out Page 32 of 32 Pages
w 1
OPT OUT MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 10, 7;00 a.m.
BOCC Hearing Room
1. Review of DOC Administrative Rule re: Opt Out
• 6 month notice
2. Impact of 0pt Out on jail
• Inmates
• Dollars
• Supervisory Authority Board
• Regional Work Center building
3. Impact of Opt Out on Parole and Probation
• Offender supervision
• Decision making process
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 9, 2003
Teresa J. Wilson, Lane County Counsel, drafted this analysis. I have simply substituted
Deschutes County data for the Lane County data.
Subject: Process and Risks for "Opting Out" under SB 1145
Facts: The Legislature adopted SB 1145 in 1995. Pursuant to SB 1145, the County
assumed responsibility for services for felony offenders on parole, probation, post -prison
supervision, or sentenced or sanctioned to 12 months or less incarceration, or on
conditional release. The State agreed to fund these services, pursuant to an approved
plan, with a baseline for the funding established for the biennia beginning after June 30,
1999. The original baseline date was June 30, 1997, but was legislatively modified in
1999 with an additional appropriation. Under the statutory funding scheme (ORS
423.483), counties have the right to discontinue participation if the total state community
corrections appropriation for the services drops below the 1999 baseline level, adjusted
for phased -in or phased -out programs, increased or decreased caseloads, pilot
programs and inflation. (See Exhibit A, attached statutes).
The services and funding are described in biennial intergovernmental agreements (IGA)
between the County and the State Department of Corrections (DOC). An IGA was
signed between the County and DOC for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001
for a sum of $4,760,290 (known as grant-in-aid funds). The contract contained several
termination provisions: 1) Statutory - recognition of the County's right to discontinue
participation under ORS 423.483(2) "at the end of any month upon the delivery of a
resolution of the Board of Commissioners to the Director designee of [DOC] not less
than 180 calendar days before the termination date." 2) Automatic - if the State fails to
provide any funding; and 3) County election -- specifically: "lf there is reduced state
funding, County may elect to amend the Agreement pursuant to Section V or terminate
the Agreement pursuant to this Section XI [the Termination section]." Arguably this third
"County election" section broadens the right to terminate to include a right if there is any
reduction in state funding to Deschutes County, whereas the statutory right is based on
a reduction in the total state appropriation for services for all counties. The counter
argument is that third section is merely a poorly worded reference back to the statutory
termination provision and does not broaden it.
An amendment was signed in July, 2001 to the 1999 IGA, extending it through June 30,
2003. The State agreed to provide $7,031,250 for the additional two-year period. There
were no changes to the termination language. There have been subsequent legislative
funding reductions due to state fiscal shortfalls, which are set out in an amendment
Deschutes County signed on March 2&. This most recent amendment reduces the
funding to Deschutes County by $381,783 to $6,649,467.
Also under SB 1145, the State agreed to provide funding for construction for new
facilities to enable the counties to manage this new population of inmates. The State
procured the funding through a large bond sale. Counties built new or enlarged existing
facilities, with the construction payments being made by the State. The counties leased
JN30curm is and SMrvslbedrylV ocaf Setti %Temp=fy kdemet Fdes"XI5BV% 1145 opt outdoc
the facilities to the State for terms of roughly 30 years; the State granted a mortgage on
its leasehold interests in favor of a bond trustee; the State then subleased the facilities
back to the counties for operations. Deschutes County built the Work Center this
arrangement. More specific facts regarding the Lease and Sublease are outlined on
Exhibit B, and will be discussed as pertinent below.
Question: What is the process for exercising the County's right to discontinue providing
services under SB 1145? What risks are involved?
Answer: The initial process is fairly straightforward, and under ORS 423.483(2),
involves sending written notification to the State Director of Corrections 180 days prior to
implementation. The notice should identify that it is in exercise of the statutory rights,
the rights under the IGA and those of the Sublease, and that the intent is both to
discontinue participation in the Community Corrections partnership created with SB 1145
and to terminate the Sublease.
The practical process is more complicated and would involve transfer of prisoners,
transfer of employees, potentially the transfer of funds, transfer of personal
property/equipment purchased with Community Corrections Act funds and terminating
the Sublease for the Facilities that were constructed with SB 1145 construction funds,
i.e., turning the Facilities over to the State to use or sublease to another tenant. The
latter will mean working out an arrangement that permits the State (or its Sublessee) to
operate those Facilities. See the Discussion below. The risks involved with opting out
are also covered below.
Discussion:
A. Process. As described in the Answer above, the process to give notice of intent to
discontinue participation in the SB 1145 programs (and the IGA) is straightforward —
simply sending written notice to the State Director of Corrections 180 days prior to
implementation. Under the current IGA, this should be accompanied by a resolution of
the Board of County Commissioners that identifies the basis for giving notice the
failure of the State to appropriate adequate funding under ORS 423.483. Care needs to
be taken that the facts exist which would support giving the notice — i.e. we need to
make sure that the State in fact has failed to appropriate funding sufficient to meet the
test outlined in ORS 423.483. Stated differently, either we need to have evidence from
the State that they agree that there is insufficient funding to meet the test described in
ORS 423.483(2), or we need to make the calculation ourselves on a statewide basis.
If we do not have an actual admission from the State on the funding issue, but we have
a good faith belief that the reductions in funding meet the requirement, then we could
give the notice and during the 180 -day period perform such fact gathering as is
necessary to actually run the calculation. If we determine that the State has met its
obligation, we would then rescind the notice. There is some risk involved in this
approach, as there is no statutory provision regarding the rescission of notice or the
consequences of such should the State have incurred costs in preparation for taking
over the programs.
The notice also needs to address the situation of the Lease/Sublease. The Sublease
permits termination if the County discontinues participation in the SB 1145 program. It
JADowffWft and Segnp%eolcypAcal SoWrgj Temporary Internet RosIMK15BW 1145 Opt Outdoc
also provides that if the Sublease is terminated for that reason, the Lease does not
necessarily terminate. The County could terminate the Lease by paying the Defeasance
amount, i.e., the remaining balance on the $2,396,898 of the State loan. Given the
current County financial situation, that is not a likely option. (See Exhibit B for further
description of Lease and Sublease.) The County should thus be clear that it is also
giving notice that it intends, on the basis of discontinuing participation in the SB 1145
partnership, to terminate the Sublease, but not the Lease, effective the date that
responsibility for the Community Corrections programs is turned over to the State.
In summary, the points to be made in the Notice are:
1. In accordance with the provisions of ORS 423.475(4) and 423.483, the
County is giving the required 180 day notice of its intent to terminate participation in the
Community Corrections partnership created by SB 1145, and simultaneously, at the end
of the notice period, to terminate the 1997 Sublease entered into between Deschutes
County and the State, through the Department of Corrections, for the Facilities
constructed under the SB 1145 program.
2. The County is specifically not intending to terminate the 1997 Lease that was
also entered into under the SB 1145 program. It is willing to meet with State
representatives to work out necessary arrangements for the State to assume possession
and operation of the Leased Facilities.
3. The basis for this notice is the State's reduction in funding for these
Community Corrections services that has occurred to date, such that the funding has
fallen below the baseline established by ORS 423.483.
If the County wishes to continue the Community Corrections services should State
funding be restored to the baseline level before the end of the 180 day notice period,
then that should also be indicated in the notice.
B. Implementation Issues. There are many implementation issues that will arise after
the giving of the notice, in order to be able to appropriately and smoothly tum over the
operation of the programs and the facilities.
1. Prisoners — Under the Sentencing Guidelines, as 1 understand them,
offenders with terms of incarceration of 12 months or less serve them at the direction of
the local supervisory authority, regardless of who is operating the Community
Corrections programs, while those with terms of 12 months or more are in the legal and
physical custody of the DOC. ORS 137.124, OAR 213-005-0001. Under the recently
adopted temporary rule OAR 291-031-0095, the DOC will perform the duties of the local
supervisory authority in the situation of a County that is discontinuing the SB 1145
partnership. (Note: The DOC has recently adopted several temporary rules that cover
the situation of counties discontinuing the SB 1145 programs. As temporary rules, they
cover the period 2-21-03 through 8-20-03; however, it is reasonable to anticipate they
will be made permanent rules. Where I cite a rule that has temporary status, I will
identify it as such. The rules can be found at on the State website at
http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/banners/rules.htm j
We will need to prepare to identify all prisoners in custody that the State will
assume responsibility for, and get ready so that on the date of implementation, these are
J:VocumerQs and SeMrgsUwckWXLocet SawngsVempmary Internet FH6S%OLK15B%SB 1145 Opt Outdoc
the only ones who are physically in the Leased Facilities. If there are any prisoners who
remain the County's responsibility and who are in the Leased Facilities after the
implementation date, the Sublease provides that we are then liable for the debt service
on the State loan.
We will also need to identify all individuals not in custody but who are on parole,
post -prison supervision, probation or conditional release under ORS 420A.206 for
transfer to the State's responsibility on the date of implementation. The State will not
assume responsibility for the supervision of offenders convicted of misdemeanors (ORS
423.483(2); OAR 291-031-0095 (temp)), so the County will need to determine if it is
going to continue supervision of any of these individuals, and if so, how and by whom.
2. Employees — The employees who work in the SB 1145 programs will be
transferred to State employment when the duties of the programs are transferred, to the
extent funds are available. The transfer will take place pursuant to ORS 236.610-.640
and OAR 291-031-0140 (temp). If there is reduced funding, there may be a
commensurate reduction in staff positions, i.e., layoffs. Given the probable timing of any
notice to be given by the County, it is likely that layoffs to accommodate reductions in
State funding will have already been implemented at the County level before any
transfer.
The notice of intent to transfer the SB 1145 programs and the employees may
well trigger an obligation under the applicable collective bargaining agreements to give
notice and an opportunity to bargain. However, the rights to be bargained are in great
part controlled by the transfer statutes, ORS 236.610-.640. This is different than when
the State initially transferred the community corrections employees to the County under
SB 1145, as ORS 423.549 made clear that implementation of SB 1145 did not trigger
any obligation to bargain under ORS 243.650-243.782. There is no such statutory
waiver of bargaining obligations for a transfer back to the State. Any other impacted
contract will need to be reviewed regarding similar issues.
Under ORS 236.610(2), the transferred employees may not have their salaries
reduced during the first 12 months at the State. The County will need to liquidate any
accrued compensatory time. ORS 236.610(3). The employees have the right to elect to
retain accrued sick leave, up to 80 hours vacation leave and any additional vacation
leave if agreed to by the State and County. ORS 236.610(4). The County is obligated to
pay to the State funds equal to the accrued leave, ORS 236.610(4)(b), and presumably
to make payment to the employees for any leave accruals beyond that transferred
pursuant to the County's normal employee termination policies. After the transfer, the
employees will receive leave in accordance with State policies. The State will also
arrange for a waiver of any waiting period with its health insurer. ORS 236.610(5).
The County will be obliged to furnish the State with the employment records of all
transferred employees. The timing of the transfer is to be by written agreement of the
State and County. ORS 236.610(6).
The transferred employees will retain the seniority accrued with the County, as if
it had been accrued at the State. ORS 236.620(1)(c). After the transfer, the transferred
employees will have the same privileges, benefits, hours and conditions of employment,
and be subject to the same regulations as all other State employees. ORS
236.620(1)(d).
JADoeuments and Sathn9sM* rytlLocal SeWngsRemporary Intemet ReMOLKISSM 1145 Opt Outdoc 4
3. CCA Funds — Under OAR 291-031-0100(temp), grant-in-aid funds allocated to
the County will be retained by the State if the County discontinues participation. If the
transfer of responsibility is for less than the full 24-month biennium, the funds will be
prorated to the date of transfer. The County is required to provide a financial closing
statement to the State within 60 days of the transfer, and to return any funds received
but not spent. DOC will also retain all supervision fees collected from offenders during
its supervision after it assumes responsibility.
4. Facility — Pursuant to the Sublease, upon the date the responsibilities for the
SB 1145 programs are transferred to the State, the County is obliged to surrender
possession of these Leased Facility (the Work Center) to the State, broom clean and
in good condition (except for reasonable wear and tear), free of all tenants and
prisoners except those for whom the State assumes responsibility. Note: if the
County fails to surrender possession or continues to use the Leased Facility within 30
days after termination, the County is liable for the debt service on the State loan for
the County Project, and any other damages suffered by the State.
Under both the Lease and the Sublease, the County must also make utilities, garbage
service, and all other services or amenities which were available for the Leased Facility
under the County operation available to the State/Lessee or new Sublessee. This
includes use of exercise areas and food service. County can bill the State/Lessee or
Sublessee for these services at the rate of the County's cost. State may use the Leased
Facility for any lawful purpose if the Sublease is terminated.
Under the Sublease, the County has the obligation to maintain/repair the structure,
foundation, exterior walls, roof, doors and windows, elevators, emergency lighting,
sidewalks and parking areas that serve the Leased Facility, as well as the HVAC,
plumbing, electrical, lighting, carpet and other floor coverings in the Leased Facility. It is
not clear who would have these responsibilities in the event the Sublease is terminated,
as this requirement is not contained in the Lease.
The County will need to engage in detailed negotiations with whomever the State
chooses to operate the Leased Facilities, in order to work out the necessary cooperative
arrangements to enable reasonable functioning of both the Leased Facility.
5. Equipment — Under OAR 291-031-0025(2)(f) and 291-031-0120(temp), upon
the County discontinuing participation, DOC assumes title to any property that was
transferred when the programs were initially transferred to the County, and any
equipment, furnishings, vehicles or property purchased with state funds to provide parole
and probation services. The County is required to provide DOC a list of all such
equipment, furnishings, vehicles or property with a value of over $250 within 30 days of
the giving of the notice of intent to discontinue participation.
6. Continued role of LPSCC — If the County discontinues participation, then the
DOC will be responsible under OAR 291-031-0110(temp) for the development of the
community corrections plan. They will meet with the local Public Safety Coordinating
Council to review County recommendations on how the state resources should be used
for the local offender population, and the plan will be submitted to the County
Commissioners for information and comment.
J:1Docunwr is and SeUm9slbedtWALocW seo gffemporw Internet FMswuc15BM 1146 opt outdoc
5
C. Issues/Implications/Risks
1. Issues/Next Steps After Givina of Notice
a. Validate whether the statewide funding meets the statutory test to
trigger the County's right to discontinue participation in the SB 1145 program.
b. Begin development of a plan regarding the release and/or transfer of
prisoners to the State, and of those offenders under supervision by Parole and
Probation.
c. Determine what to do with respect to any offenders currently under
supervision due to misdemeanors.
d. Give appropriate notice to any affected union(s) under applicable
collective bargaining agreement(s).
e. Develop and sent a list to DOC within 30 days of giving the notice to
discontinue participation of the equipment, furnishings, vehicles and property over $250
in value and purchased with State funds for Parole and Probation.
f. Begin planning for the necessary coordination with a new tenant of
the Leased Facilities to make reasonable use for both parties.
2. Implications — One of the implications of discontinuing participation is that the
State has indicated in the temporary rule, OAR 291-031-0085(3) that a County may only
make an election to participate or discontinue participation once per biennium. The
original premise of SB 1145 was that these offenders who would soon return to the
community in any event, were better managed locally, under the guidance and direction
of local supervision. There will also be implications for members of the community by
the County discontinuing participation, and by having the State perform the
responsibilities for this offender population with a reduced responsiveness to local
concerns. Continuing to participate under reduced funding means county monies are
being spent on SB 1145 offenders and SB 1145 inmates are occupying bed space that
would otherwise be available for local offenders.
J:M)ocumerrts and Settings\hedryjU.oca1 Settings\Temporary Intemet FileMOLK1581S81145 Opt Outdoc 6
EXHIBIT A
CORRECTIONS
CHAPTER 423. CORRECTIONS AND CRIME CONTROL ADMINISTRATION AND
PROGRAMS
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
423.475. Findings.
The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
(1) Passage by the voters of chapter 2, Oregon Laws 1995, has created
mandatory minimum penalties for certain violent offenses, and the probable effect
thereof will be a significant increase in the demands placed on state secure facilities.
(2) These demands are a shared responsibility of the State of Oregon and its
county governments. The state recognizes that it is in a better position than counties to
assume responsibility for serious violent offenders and career property offenders.
(3) Counties are willing, in the context of a partnership with the state, to assume
responsibility for felony offenders sentenced to a term of incarceration of 12 months or
less.
(4) Under the terms of the partnership agreement, the counties agree to assume
responsibility for the offenders described in subsection (3) of this section, subject to the
state agreeing to provide adequate funding to the counties for this responsibility.
(5) The amendments to statutes made by sections 1a to 5, 7, 8, 9a, 9b, 9c, 10 to
14, 17 to 19 and 22 to 29, chapter 423, Oregon Laws 1995, and the provisions of ORS
423.478, 423.483 and 423.549 and section 5a, chapter 423, Oregon Laws 1995, are
intended to acknowledge and implement the terms of the partnership between the state
and the counties. (1995 c. 423 § 1)
423.478. Duties of department and counties; authority of county supervisory
authority.
(1) The Department of Corrections shall:
(a) Operate prisons for offenders sentenced to terms of incarceration for more
than 12 months;
(b) Provide central information and data services sufficient to:
(A) Allow tracking of offenders; and
(B) Permit analysis of correlations between sanctions, supervision,
services and programs, and future criminal conduct; and
(c) Provide interstate compact administration and jail inspections.
(2) Subject to ORS 423.483, the county, in partnership with the department, shall
assume responsibility for community-based supervision, sanctions and services for
offenders convicted of felonies who are:
(a) On parole;
(b) On probation;
(c) On post -prison supervision;
J:1DOcumarft and Set6npUxx WXocal SeWngskTemporary Intemet FilestOLK15MB 1145 Opt Outdoc
(d) Sentenced, on or after January 1, 1997, to 12 months or less incarceration;
(e) Sanctioned, on or after January 1, 1997, by a court or the State Board of
Parole and Post -Prison Supervision to 12 months or less incarceration for violation of a
condition of parole, probation or post -prison supervision; and
(f) On conditional release under ORS 420A.206.
(3) Notwithstanding the fact that the court has sentenced a person to a term of
incarceration, when an offender is committed to the custody of the supervisory authority
of a county under ORS 137.124 (2) or (4), the supervisory authority may execute the
sentence by imposing sanctions other than incarceration if deemed appropriate by the
supervisory authority. If the supervisory authority releases a person from custody under
this subsection and the person is required to report as a sex offender under ORS
181.595, the supervisory authority, as a condition of release, shall order the person to
report to the Department of State Police, a chief of police or a county sheriff or to the
supervising agency, if any:
(a) When the person is released; and
(b) Within 10 days of a change of residence. (1995 c. 423 § 9; 1997 c. 313 § 33;
1997 c. 433 § 9; 1999 c. 156 § 1; 1999 c. 626 § 21; amendments by 1999 c. 626 § 44
repealed by 2001 c. 884 § 1)
423.483. Baseline funding; basis on which county can discontinue participation.
(1) The baseline funding for biennia beginning after June 30, 1999, is the current
service level for the expenses of providing management, support services, supervision
and sanctions for offenders described in ORS 423.478 (2). At a minimum, each
biennium's appropriation must be established at this baseline.
(2) If the total state community corrections appropriation is less than the baseline
calculated under subsection (1) of this section, a county may discontinue participation by
written notification to the director 180 days prior to implementation of the change. If a
county discontinues participation, the responsibility for correctional services transferred
to the county, and the portion of funding made available to the county under ORS
423.530 reverts to the Department of Corrections. In no case does responsibility for
supervision and provision of correctional services to misdemeanor offenders revert to
the department.
(3) As used in this section, "current service level" means the calculated cost of
continuing current legislatively funded programs, phased in programs and increased
caseloads minus one-time costs, decreased caseloads, phased out programs and pilot
programs with the remainder adjusted for inflation as determined by the Legislative
Assembly in its biennial appropriation to the Department of Corrections. (1995 c. 423 §
6; 1999 c. 952 § 1)
JADocuments and SettingslbeckAALocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK156SS 1145 Opt Outdoc 8
$i
O
C
O
•J
'J
O
O
Ull
CIN
o
0
0
o
O
O
n
�
O
�
•J
•J
O
00 N -&S
�
O O
D\
O� o 00
p
000
O O O
b�9
00
-! �-! ►-s
N
W
a CD
Z
'�
cidL/1p
to
J
M cn
O
O
O
O
N
O
►�
O
�+
0
JUDGMENT; EXECUTION; PAROLE; PROBATION 137.671
(c) The chairperson of the State Board of
Parole and Post -Prison Supervision;
(d) The Superintendent of State Police;
(e) The chief administrative employee of
the Psychiatric Security Review Board;
(f) The Director of Human Services;
(g) The Director of the Oregon Youth
Authority;
(h) Trial judges;
(i) Judges of the Oregon Supreme Court
or Court of Appeals;
0) Majority and minority parties of the
House of Representatives and the Senate;
(k) District attorneys;
(L) Criminal defense attorneys;
(m) County sheriffs;
(n) County commissioners;
(o) County community corrections direc-
tors;
(p) Chiefs of police;
(q) Victims of crime;
(r) The public at large;
(s) The director of a nonprofit entity cre-
ated for the purpose of increasing under-
standing of the adult and juvenile justice
systems and promotion of effective policies
for prevention and control of crime; and
(t) Private contract providers. [1995 c.420
§2; 1997 c.433 §3; 2001 c.900 §231
Note: See note under 137.651.
137.659 [1987 c.619 §9; 1991 c.455 §l; repealed by 1995
c.420 §141
137.660 [Repealed by 1961 c.359 §11
137.661 Agency cooperation with com-
mission. All officers, boards, commissions
and other agencies of the State of Oregon
shall cooperate with the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission to accomplish the duties
imposed upon the Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission. [1985 c.558 §6; 1995 c.420 §51
Note: See note under 137.651.
137.662 Oregon Criminal Justice Com-
mission Account. The Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission Account is established
separate and distinct from the General Fund.
All moneys received by the Oregon Criminal
Justice Commission, other than appropri-
ations from the General Fund, and except
those moneys described in ORS 475A.160,
shall be deposited into the account and are
continuously appropriated to the commission
to carry out the duties, functions and powers
of the commission. [2001 c.716 §11
Note: See note under 137.651.
137.663 [1987 e.619 §3; 1989 090 §38; 1993 c.188 §3;
repealed by 1995 c.420 §141
137.665 [1989 c.790 §89; 1993 c.692 §6; repealed by
1995 c.420 §141
137.667 Amendments to sentencing
guidelines; submitting to Legislative As-
sembly. (1) The Oregon Criminal Justice
Commission shall review all new legislation
that creates new crimes or modifies existing
crimes. The commission shall adopt by rule
any necessary modifications to the crime se-
riousness scale of the guidelines to reflect
the actions of the Legislative Assembly and
may classify offenses as person felonies or
person misdemeanors for purposes of the
rules.
(2) The commission may adopt by major-
ity vote of all of its members amendments to
the sentencing guidelines approved by sec-
tion 87, chapter 790, Oregon Laws 1989. The
commission shall submit the amendments to
the Legislative Assembly for its approval.
The amendments shall not become effective
unless approved by the Legislative Assembly
by statute. The effective date of the amend-
ments shall be the date specified by the Leg-
islative Assembly in the statute approving
the amendments. The Legislative Assembly
may by statute amend, repeal or supplement
any of the amendments.
(3) The provisions of subsection (2) of
this section do not apply to amendments to
the guidelines adopted by the commission
that are required to implement enactments
of the Legislative Assembly or under ORS
421.512 (2) or subsection (1) of this section.
(4) If a rule adopted under subsection (1)
of this section is not approved by the next
regular Legislative Assembly following the
adoption of the rule, the rule is repealed on
January 1 following adjournment sine die of
that Legislative Assembly. [1989 c.790 §94a; 1993
c.681 §6; 1993 c.692 §7; 1995 c.420 §6; 1997 c.691 §3; 1999
c.966 §21
o e^See note under 137.651.
137.669 'delines control sentences;
man ory sentences. The guidelines
adopted under ORS 137.667, together with
any amendments, supplements or repealing
provisions, shall control the sentences for all
crimes committed after the effective date of
such guidelines. Except as provided in ORS
137.637 and 137.671, the incarcerative guide-
lines and any other guidelines so designated
by the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission
shall be mandatory and constitute presump-
tive sentences. [1987 c.619 §5; 1989 090 §95; 1995
c.420 §7; 1997 c.691 §41
Note: See note under 137.651.
137.670 [Repealed by 1961 059 §11
137.671 Authority of court to impose
sentence outside guidelines. (1) The court
may impose a sentence outside the presump-
tive sentence or sentence range made pre-
sumptive under ORS 137.669 for a specific
offense if it finds there are substantial and
Title 14 Page 175 (2001 Edition)
JUDGMENT; EXECUTION; PAROLE; PROBATION 137.124
rate convictions arising out of a continuous
and uninterrupted course of conduct only if
the court finds:
(a) That the criminal offense for which a
consecutive sentence is contemplated was
not merely an incidental violation of a sepa-
rate statutory provision in the course of the
commission of a more serious crime but
rather was an indication of defendant's will-
ingness to commit more than one criminal
offense; or
(b) The criminal offense for which a con-
secutive sentence is contemplated caused or
created a risk of causing greater or quali-
tatively different loss, injury or harm to the
victim or caused or created a risk of causing
loss, injury, or harm to a different victim
than was caused or threatened by the other
offense or offenses committed during a con-
tinuous and uninterrupted course or conduct.
[1987 c.2 §12; 1991 c.67 §29; 1991 c.111 §14; 1995 c.657 §2]
137.124 Commitment of defendant to
Department of Corrections or county;
place of confinement; transfer of in-
mates; juveniles. (1) If the court imposes a
sentence upon conviction of a felony that in-
cludes a term of incarceration that exceeds
12 months:
(a) The court shall not designate the
correctional facility in which the defendant
is to be confined but shall commit the de-
fendant to the legal and physical custody of
the Department of Corrections; and
(b) If the judgment provides that the term
of incarceration be served consecutively to a
term of incarceration of 12 months or less
that was imposed in a previous proceeding
by a court of this state upon conviction of a
felony, the defendant shall serve any re-
maining part of the previously imposed term
of incarceration in the legal and physical
c y�of the Department of Corrections.
(2)(a) ) If the court imposes a sentence
conviction of a felony that includes a
term of incarceration that is 12 months or
less, the court shall commit the defendant to
the legal and physical custody of the super-
visory authority of the county in which the
crime of conviction occurred.
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this
subsection, when the court imposes a sen-
tence upon conviction of a felony that .in-
cludes a term of incarceration that is 12
months or less, the court shall commit the
defendant to the legal and physical custody
of the Department of Corrections if the court
orders that the term of incarceration be
served consecutively to a term of incarcer-
ation that exceeds 12 months that was im-
posed in a previous proceeding or in the
same proceeding by a court of this state upon
conviction of a felony.
(3) After assuming custody of the con-
victed person the Department of Corrections
may transfer inmates from one correctional
facility to another such facility for the pur-
poses of diagnosis and study, rehabilitation
and treatment, as best seems to fit the needs
of the inmate and for the protection and
welfare of the community and the inmate.
(4) If the court imposes a sentence of
imprisonment upon conviction of a misde-
meanor, it shall commit the defendant to the
custody of the supervisory authority of the
county in which the crime of conviction oc-
curred.
(5)(a) When a person under 18 years of
age at the time of committing the offense and
under 20 years of age at the time of sen-
tencing is committed to the Department of
Corrections under ORS 137.707, the Depart-
ment of Corrections shall transfer the phys-
ical custody of the person to the Oregon
Youth Authority as provided in ORS 420.011
if:
(A) The person will complete the sen-
tence imposed before the person attains 25
years of age; or
(B) The Department of Corrections and
the Oregon Youth Authority determine that,
because of the person's age, immaturity,
mental or emotional condition or risk of
physical harm to the person, the person
should not be incarcerated initially in a De-
partment of Corrections institution.
(b) A person placed in the custody of the
Oregon Youth Authority under this subsec-
tion shall be returned to the physical custody
of the Department of Corrections whenever
the Director of the Oregon Youth Authority,
after consultation with the Department of
Corrections, determines that the conditions
or circumstances that warranted the transfer
of custody under this subsection are no
longer present.
(6)(a) When a person under 18 years of
age at the time of committing the offense and
under 20 years of age at the time of sen-
tencing is committed to the legal and phys-
ical custody of the Department of
Corrections or the supervisory authority of
a county following waiver under ORS
419C.349, 419C.352, 419C.364 or 419C.370 or
sentencing under ORS 137.707 (5)(b)(A) or
(7)(b) or 137.712, the Department of Correc-
tions or the supervisory authority of a
county shall transfer the person to the phys-
ical custody of the Oregon Youth Authority
for placement as provided in ORS 420.011 (3).
The terms and conditions of the person's in-
carceration and custody are governed by
ORS 420A.200 to 420A.206.
(b) When a person under 16 years of age
is waived under ORS 419C.349, 419C.352,
Title 14 Page 143 (2001 Edition)
SENTENCING GUIDELINES GRID
- APPENDIX 1-
V V CRIMINAL HISTORY SCALE 9V V
�.e. y c°y .ri <r q y q
<i �p��i' p�•i,$ /1 $ i� ` � y i. ����q fie? 9 ��y Vp 9 -PO ; �'
Vok
q
• In white blocks, numbers are presumptive prison sentences expressed as a range of months.
• In gray blocks, upper number is the maximum number of custody units which may be imposed;
lower number is the maximum number of jail days which may be imposed.
225-
196-
178-
149- 149- 135-
129-
122-
120-
10.
MURDER
269
224
194
177 177 148
134
128
121
�
MANSLAUGHTER 1,
ASSAULT i, RAPE 1,
1,
SON
121-
116-
111-
91-
81- 71-
66-
61-
58-
1
130
120
115
110
90 80
70
65
60
'
RAPE I AssA°LT I
66-
61-
56-
51-
46- 41-
39-
37-
34 -
RG
72
65
60
55
50 45
40
38
36
W
MANSUUGHTFA II, SEXUAL
ABUSEAASSAULTII RAPE",
ABUSE INDIstAY DF
41-
35-
29-
27-
25- 23-
21-
19-
16 -
o U uEMIS CE.
45
40
34
28
26 24
22
20
18
Ua
CDMF! PROSTITUTION;
NEG. HOMICIDE
EXTORTION, COERCION,
SUPPLYINGCONTRABAND,
31-
25-
21-
19-
16- 180 .
. . 1180
180
180
r/�
PE 1
36
30
24
20
18 . 90 :
. 9D:
. 90 .
• . 90
W...
....
....
...
'
ROBBERY It. ASSAULT III,,
RAPE 111, gRiBEREGWVIN,
INTIMIDATION,
25-
19-
1-5-
13-
10- 180 •
•180• •
• 180 •
•
'-IS'O''
0
O/PR.P' ' Qo
R—W POSSESSION
30
24
18
14
12 90 ...
.
90'
' 90'
90 '
W
ROBBERYII'TM�C BY
RWEVIVEII�L�
15-
13-
11-
9-
6- :180...1210
20'
:120
PROPERTYC21A
16
14
12
10
8 • • 90 •
• • •60
• 60 •
..60.
W($10.000.8419.91
. .
. . .
. . . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . . .
1—"
FrA I,
CUSTOTNALINTERFERENCE11,
PROPERTY CRIMES
10-
8-
120 '
' 120
.
120' ' 120 '
. . .
120'
. . . .
120'
. . .
120
U
�uRGG ILT AI
9
.68 :
.:60
. 60: : sb :
1;0:
sb :
: 6`d
.....
..........
................
.....
10.
'�A"�N CH 1LD
ABUSE OF CO W
CRIMINAL NONSUPPORT,
:120
.1:20.
20 :
:1:201
120: :120
: 90 :
:
PRGPERrY GRIMES
(JI.Wo- (999)
•60
. . .
. . . . .
. 60'
. . . . . .
60
. . . . .
'60
. . . . .
60 • . 60
. . .
. . . . . . . . . .
30 •
. . . . . .
-30.
. . . .
. . . . .
DEALING CHILD PORN06R11PIIY 90 '
VIOLATION OF WILDLIFE LAWS,
WP
90
90
.9Q :
: 90 90:
.9� :
AA.
:.70 :
90:
TM � : 30:
30
30.
:30 . 30:
30 :
: 36'
.
•30.
(Ara a- $1,oro1
9q0
90
ALTERING RREARM ID. : 90 •
W181Tl1ALOFFENDER
NOLATIOLINiAN AMY,
90
• 90
• 90 • •90
90
•90
90
DRUGS -POSSESSION TY //��
DRUGS•POSSESSION 3V .
. VD
/�I
.3.Q
�0 i
: $0 :�-
,�0 •
�{
_3.Q
• In white blocks, numbers are presumptive prison sentences expressed as a range of months.
• In gray blocks, upper number is the maximum number of custody units which may be imposed;
lower number is the maximum number of jail days which may be imposed.
and that the offender meets the eligibility criteria established for
that facility or program by the supervisory ry authority.
(4) The supervisory authority shall keep a record of all sanction units
served by the offender during the course of the probationary term.
When sanction units are served only upon the satisfactory completion
of a custodial program, the supervisory authority, when appropriate,
shall certify that the offender has satisfactorily completed a custodial
program and the number of sanction units served by the offender as
part of the program.
(5) Where the sentencing judge finds that a custodial rehabilitation
program designed to deal with drug or alcohol abuse or sexual
behavior is essential to minimize the offender's likelihood of engaging
in future criminal conduct, the requirement that the offender enter and
satisfactorily complete such a program shall not be limited by the
sanction units set forth in OAR 213-05-011 or the provisions of this
rule.
213-05-013
Jail As Part of Probation
(1) Subject to the provisions of sections (2) and (3) of this rule, the
maximum number of sanction units that may be used to impose a jail
term as part of a probationary sentence shall be as follows:
(a) Up to 30 sanction units for offenses classified in Crime Categories
1 and 2 and grid blocks 3-6, 3-H and 3-1;
(b) Up to 60 sanction units for offenses classified in grid blocks 3-A
through 3-F, 4-C through 4-1, and 5-G through 5-1; and
(c) Up to 90 sanction units for offenses classified in grid blocks 5-F, 6-F
through 6-1, and 7-F through 7-1, and if a probation sentence is
imposed as a departure from a presumptive prison term or as an
optional probation sentence.
(2) Within the limitations established by this rule on the use of jail as
part of a probation sentence, the sentencing judge may impose:
Effective November 1, 1999 25
the conditions of probation, or that the offender has participated in
new criminal activity.
213-10-002
Revocation Sanctions
(1) For those offenders whose presumptive sentence was probation,
the sentence upon revocation shall be to the supervisory authority for
a term up to a maximum of six months.
L "I
Effective November 1, 1999 36
CORRECTIONS AND CRIME CONTROL
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this
section, a representative of a state agency
shall receive actual necessary traveling ex-
penses only. [1977 c.378 §101
423.450 Contempt proceedings against
person interfering with ombudsman. If
any person willfully obstructs or hinders the
proper and lawful exercise of the Corrections
Ombudsman's powers, or willfully misleads
or attempts to mislead the Corrections Om-
budsman in inquiries under ORS 423.400 to
423.450, the judge of the Circuit Court for
Marion County, on application of the om-
budsman, shall compel obedience by pro-
ceedings for contempt as in the case of
disobedience of the requirements of a sub-
poena issued from such court or a refusal to
testify therein. [1977 078 §111
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
423.475 Findings. The Legislative As-
sembly finds and declares that:
(1) Passage by the voters of chapter 2,
Oregon Laws 1995, has created mandatory
minimum penalties for certain violent of-
fenses, and the probable effect thereof will
be a significant increase in the demands
placed on state secure facilities.
(2) These demands are a shared responsi-
bility of the State of Oregon and its county
governments. The state recognizes that it is
in a better position than counties to assume
responsibility for serious violent offenders
and career property offenders.
(3) Counties are willing, in the context
of a partnership with the state, to assume
responsibility for felony offenders sentenced
to a term of incarceration of 12 months or
less.
(4) Under the terms of the partnership
agreement, the counties agree to assume re-
sponsibility for the offenders described in
subsection (3) of this section, subject to the
state agreeing to provide adequate funding to
the counties for this responsibility.
(5) The amendments to statutes made by
sections la to 5, 7, 8, 9a, 9b, 9c, 10 to 14, 17
to 19 and 22 to 29, chapter 423, Oregon Laws
1995, and the provisions of ORS 423.478,
423.483 and 423.549 and section 5a, chapter
423, Oregon Laws 1995, are intended to ac-
knowledge and implement the terms of the
partnership between the state and the coun-
ties. [1995 c.423 §11
423.478 Duties of department and
counties; authority of county supervisory
authority. (1) The Department of Correc-
tions shall:
(a) Operate prisons for offenders sen-
tenced to terms of incarceration for more
than 12 months;
423.483
(b) Provide central information and data
services sufficient to:
(A) Allow tracking of offenders; and
(B) Permit analysis of correlations be-
tween sanctions, supervision, services and
programs, and future criminal conduct; and
(c) Provide interstate compact adminis-
t and jail inspections.
(2) p ubject to ORS 423.483, the county, in
p nership with the department, shall as-
sume responsibility for community-based
supervision, sanctions and services for of-
fenders convicted of felonies who are:
(a) On parole;
(b) On probation;
(c) On post -prison supervision;
(d) Sentenced, on or after January 1,
1997, to 12 months or less incarceration;
(e) Sanctioned, on or after January 1,
1997, by a court or the State Board of Parole
and Post -Prison Supervision to 12 months or
less incarceration for violation of a condition
of parole, probation or post -prison super-
vision; and
(f) On conditional . release under ORS
420A.206.
(3) Notwithstanding the fact that the
court has sentenced a person to a term of
incarceration, when an offender is committed
to the custody of the supervisory authority
of a county under ORS 137.124 (2) or (4), the
supervisory authority may execute the sen-
tence by imposing sanctions other than in-
carceration if deemed appropriate by the
supervisory authority. If the supervisory au-
thority releases a person from custody under
this subsection and the person is required to
report as a sex offender under ORS 181.595,
the supervisory authority, as a condition of
release, shall order the person to report to
the Department of State Police, a chief of
police or a county sheriff or to the supervis-
ing agency, if any:
(a) When the person is released; and
(b) Within 10 days of a change of resi-
dence. [1995 c.423 §9; 1997 c.313 §33; 1997 c.433 §9; 1999
c.156 §l; 1999 c.626 §21; amendments by 1999 c.626 §44
re�1 c.884 §1)
423.4 aseline funding•, basis on
whi—ch county can discontinue partic-
ipation. (1) The baseline funding for biennia
beginning after June 30, 1999, is the current
service level for the expenses of providing
management, support services, supervision
and sanctions for offenders described in ORS
423.478 (2). At a minimum, each biennium's
appropriation must be established at this
baseline.
(2) If the total state community correc-
tions appropriation is less than the baseline
Title 34 Page 817 (2001 Edition)
ip --1,_ ,
423.500 HUMAN SERVICES; JUVENILE CODE; CORRECTIONS
calculated under subsection (1) of this sec-
tion, a county may discontinue participation
by written notification to the director 180
days prior to implementation of the change.
If a county discontinues participation, the
responsibility for correctional services trans-
ferred to the county, and the portion of
funding made available to the county under
ORS 423.530 reverts to the Department of
Corrections. In no case does responsibility
for supervision and provision of correctional
services to misdemeanor offenders revert to
the department.
(3) As used in this section, "current ser-
vice level" means the calculated cost of con-
tinuing current legislatively funded
programs, phased in programs and increased
caseloads minus one-time costs, decreased
caseloads, phased out programs and pilot
programs with the remainder adjusted for
inflation as determined by the Legislative
Assembly in its biennial appropriation to the
Department of Corrections. [1995 c.423 §6; 1999
c.952 §1]
423.500 Definitions for ORS 423.500 to
423.560. As used in ORS 423.500 to 423.560,
unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) "Director" means the Director of the
Department of Corrections.
(2) "Department" means the Department
of Corrections.
(3) "Plan" means the biennial community
corrections plan required by ORS 423.535.
[1977 c.412 §1a; 1979 c.160 §2; 1987 020 §220; 1995 c.423
§1aj
423.505 Legislative policy on program
funding. Because counties are in the best
position for the management, oversight and
administration of local criminal justice mat-
ters and for determining local resource pri-
orities, it is declared to be the legislative
policy of this state to establish an ongoing
partnership between the state and counties
and to finance with appropriations from the
General Fund statewide community cor-
rection programs on a continuing basis. The
intended purposes of this program are to:
(1) Provide appropriate sentencing and
sanctioning options including incarceration,
community supervision and services;
(2) Provide improved local services for
persons charged with criminal offenses with
the goal of reducing the occurrence of repeat
criminal offenses;
(3) Promote local control and manage-
ment of community corrections programs;
(4) Promote the use of the most effective
criminal sanctions necessary to protect pub-
lic safety, administer punishment to the of-
fender and rehabilitate the offender;
(5) Enhance, increase and support the
state and county partnership in the manage-
ment of offenders; and
(6) Enhance, increase and encourage a
greater role for local government and the lo-
cal criminal justice system in the planning
and implementation of local public safety
policies. [1977 c.412 §1; 1989,c.607 §1; 1995 e.423 §21
423.510 [1977 c.412 §2; 1985 c.44 §3; 1985 c.558 §7;
repealed by 1995 c.423 §311
423.515 [1977 c.412 §4; 1987 c.320 §220a; repealed by
1995 c.423 §311
423.520 Financial grants to counties
from Department of Corrections. The De-
partment of Corrections shall make grants to
assist counties in the implementation and
operation of community corrections programs
including, but not limited to, preventive or
diversionary correctional programs, pro-
bation,parole, work release and local cor-
rectional facilities and programs for
offenders. The department shall require re-
cipients of the grants to cooperate, to the
extent of available information systems re-
sources, in the collection and sharing of data
necessary to evaluate the effect of commu-
nity corrections programs on future criminal
conduct. [1977 c.412 §5; 1987 c.320 §221; 1995 c.423 §3;
1997 c.433 §101
423.525 Application for financial aid;
review of application; rules for program
evaluation; use of funds; community cor-
rections manager; modification of plan.
(1) A county, group of counties or intergov-
ernmental corrections entity shall apply to
the Director of the Department of Correc-
tions in a manner and form prescribed by the
director for funding made available under
ORS 423.500 to 423.560. The application shall
include a community corrections plan. The
Department of Corrections shall provide
consultation and technical assistance to
counties to aid in the development and im-
plementation of community corrections
plans.
(2)(a) From July 1, 1995, until June 30,
1999, a county, group of counties or inter-
governmental corrections entity may make
application requesting funding for the con-
struction, acquisition, expansion or remodel-
ing of correctional facilities to serve the
county, group of counties or intergovern-
mental corrections entity. The department
shall review the application for funding of
correctional facilities in accordance with
criteria that consider design, cost, capacity,
need, operating efficiency and viability based
on the county's, group of counties' or inter-
governmental corrections entity's ability to
provide for ongoing operations.
(b)(A) If the application is approved, the
department shall present the application with
a request to finance the facility with financ-
Title 34 Page 818 (2001 Edition)
CORRECTIONS AND CREVIE CONTROL
ing agreements to the State Treasurer and
the Director of the Oregon Department of
Administrative Services. Except as otherwise
provided in subparagraph (B) of this para-
graph, upon approval of the request by the
State Treasurer and the Director of the Ore-
gon Department of Administrative Services,
the facility may be financed with financing
agreements, and certificates of participation
issued pursuant thereto, as provided in ORS
283.085 to 283.092. All decisions approving or
denying applications and requests for financ-
ing under this section are final. No such de-
cision is subject to judicial review of any
kind.
(B) If requests to finance county correc-
tional facility projects are submitted after
February 22, 1996, and the requests have not
been approved by the department on the date
a session of the Legislative Assembly con-
venes, the requests are also subject to the
approval of the Legislative Assembly.
(c) After approval but prior to the solic-
itation of bids or proposals for the construc-
tion of a project, the county, group of
counties or intergovernmental corrections
entity and the department shall enter into a
written agreement that determines the pro-
cedures, and the parties responsible, for the
awarding of contracts and the administration
of the construction project for the approved
correctional facility. If the parties are unable
to agree on the terms of the written agree-
ment, the Governor shall decide the terms of
the agreement. The Governor's decision is
final.
(d) After approval of a construction proj-
ect, the administration of the project shall
be conducted as provided in the agreement
required by paragraph (c) of this subsection.
The agreement must require at a minimum
that the county, group of counties or inter-
governmental corrections entity shall submit
to .the department any change order or al-
teration of the design of the project that,
singly or in the aggregate, reduces the ca-
pacity of the correctional facility or mate-
rially changes the services or functions of
the project. The change order or alteration
is not effective until approved by the depart-
ment. In reviewing the change order or al-
teration, the department shall consider
whether the implementation of the change
order or alteration will have any material
adverse impact on the parties to any financ-
ing agreements or the holders of any certif-
icates of participation issued to fund county
correctional facilities under this section. In
making its decision, th0 department may rely
on the opinions of the Department of Justice,
bond counsel or professional financial advis-
ers.
423.525
(3) Notwithstanding ORS 283.085, for
purposes of this section, "financing agree-
ment" means a lease purchase agreement, an
installment sale agreement, a loan agreement
or any other agreement to finance a correc-
tional facility described in this section, or to
refinance a previously executed financing
agreement for the financing of a correctional
facility. The state is not required to own or
operate a correctional facility in order to fi-
nance it under ORS 283.085 to 283.092 and
this section. The state, an intergovernmental
corrections entity, county or group of coun-
ties may enter into any agreements, includ-
ing, but not limited to, leases and subleases,
that are reasonably necessary or generally
accepted by the financial community for
purposes of acquiring or securing financing
as authorized by this section. In financing
county correctional facilities under this sec-
tion, "property rights" as used in ORS
283.085 includes leasehold mortgages of the
state's rights under leases of correctional fa-
cilities from counties.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision
of state law, county charter or ordinance, a
county may convey or lease to the State of
Oregon, acting by and through the Depart-
ment of Corrections, title to interests in, or
a lease of, any real property, facilities or
personal property owned by the county for
the purpose of financing the construction,
acquisition, expansion or remodeling of a
correctional facility. Upon the payment of all
principal and interest on, or upon any other
satisfaction of, the financing agreement used
to finance the construction, acquisition, ex-
pansion or remodeling of a correctional fa-
cility, the state shall reconvey its interest in,
or terminate and surrender its leasehold of,
the property or facilities, including the fi-
nanced construction, acquisition, expansion
or remodeling, to the county. In addition to
any authority granted by ORS 283.089, for
the purposes of obtaining financing, the state
may enter into agreements under which the
state may grant to trustees or lenders leases,
subleases and other security interests in
county property conveyed or leased to the
state under this subsection and in the prop-
erty or facilities financed by financing
agreements.
(5) In connection with the financing of
correctional facilities, the Director of the
Oregon Department of Administrative Ser-
vices may bill the Department of Correc-
tions, and the Department of Corrections
shall pay the amounts billed, in the same
manner as provided in ORS 283.089. As re-
quired by ORS 283.091, the Department of
Corrections and the Oregon Department of
Administrative Services shall include in the
Governor's budget request to the Legislative
Assembly all amounts that will be due in
Title 34 f Page 819 (2001 Edition)
� _V_ - ____
423.530 HUMAN SERVICES; JUVENILE CODE; CORRECTIONS
each fiscal period under financing agree-
ments for correctional facilities. Amounts
payable by the state under a financing
agreement for the construction, acquisition,
expansion or remodeling of a correctional fa-
cility are limited to available funds as de-
fined in ORS 283.085, and no lender, trustee,
certificate holder or county has any claim or
recourse against any funds of the state other
than available funds.
(6) The director shall adopt rules that
may be necessary for the administration,
evaluation and implementation of ORS
423.500 to 423.560. The standards shall be
sufficiently flexible to foster the development
of new and improved supervision or rehabili-
tative practices and maximize local control.
(7) When a county assumes responsibility
under ORS 423.500 to 423.560 for correctional
services previously provided by the depart-
ment, the county and the department shall
enter into an intergovernmental agreement
that includes a local community corrections
plan consisting of program descriptions, bud-
get allocation, performance objectives and
methods of evaluating each correctional ser-
vice to be provided by the county. The per-
formance objectives must include in
dominant part reducing future criminal con-
duct. The methods of evaluating services
must include, to the extent of available in-
formation systems resources, the collection
and analysis of data sufficient to determine
the apparent effect of the services on future
criminal conduct.
(8) All community corrections plans shall
comply with rules adopted pursuant to ORS
423.500 to 423.560, and shall include but need
not be limited to an outline of the basic
structure and the supervision, services and
local sanctions to be applied to offenders
convicted of felonies who are:
(a) On parole;
(b) On probation;
(c) On post -prison supervision;
(d) Sentenced, on or after January 1,
1997, to 12 months or less incarceration;
(e) Sanctioned, on or after January 1,
1997, by a court or the State Board of Parole
and Post -Prison Supervision to 12 months or
less incarceration for a violation of a condi-
tion of parole, probation or post -prison
supervision; and
(f) On conditional release under ORS
420A-206.
(9) All community corrections plans shall
designate a community corrections manager
of the county or counties and shall provide
that the administration of community cor-
rections under ORS 423.500 to 423.560 shall
be under such manager.
Title 34
(10) No amendment to or modification of
a county -approved community corrections
plan shall be placed in effect without prior
notice to the director for purposes of state-
wide data collection and reporting.
(11) The obligation of the state to provide
funding and the scheduling for providing
funding of a project approved under this sec-
tion is dependent upon the ability of the
state to access public security markets to
sell financing agreements.
(12) No later than January 1 of each
odd -numbered year, the Department of Cor-
rections shall:
(a) Evaluate the community corrections
policy established in ORS 423.475, 423.478,
423.483 and 423.500 to 423.560; and
(b) Assess the effectiveness of local revo-
cation options. [1977 c.412 §6; 1987 020 §222; 1989
c.790 §65; 1995 c.79 §218; 1995 c.423 §§4,4a; 1996 c.4 §§7,8;
1997 c.433 §11; 1999 c.156 §2; 1999 c.952 §21
423.530 Procedure for determining
amount of financial grants; rules. (1) Fi-
nancial grants for community corrections
pursuant to ORS 423.500 to 423.560 consist
of the Grant -in -Aid Program. The Grant -in -
Aid Program consists of moneys appropriated
to the Department of Corrections for the
purposes of management, support services
and supervision of offenders described in
ORS 423.478 (2). The department shall deter-
mine, prior to July 1 of each odd -numbered
year, each county's percentage share of the
amount appropriated for the purposes of this
subsection. Such determination shall be
based upon a weighted formula of workload
and population as adopted by the department
by rule. In adopting the rule, the department
shall consult with a broad based committee
including, but not limited to, representatives
of the Department of Corrections, local
county community corrections, county boards
of commissioners and county sheriffs.
(2) Funding received by a county pursu-
ant to ORS 423.500 to 423.560 approved for
county corrections programs shall not be re-
duced by the department except by action of
the Legislative Assembly or the Emergency
Board. Such reductions shall be made pro-
portionately using the applicable allocation
formula. [1977 c.412 §7; 1979 c.160 §1; 1985 c.708 §1;
1987 c.320 §223; 1989 c.613 §1; 1989 c.790 §66; 1993 c.680
§l; 1995 c.423 §51
423.535 Biennial community correc-
tions plan required; county authority to
contract for services. (1) Prior to receiving
funds, the county shall have a biennial com-
munity corrections plan.
(2) The county and the Department of
Corrections shall enter into an intergovern-
mental agreement referring to the plan.
Page 820
(2001 Edition)
[
CORRECTIONS AND CRIME CONTROL
(3) The county may contract with public
or private agencies including, but not limited
to, other counties, cities, special districts and
public or private agencies for the provision
of services to offenders. [1977 c.412 §13; 1987 c.320
§224; 1989 c.613 §2; 1995 c.423 §71
423.540 Program compliance review by
Director of Department of Corrections;
effect of failure to comply. The Director
of the Department of Corrections shall an-
nually review a county's compliance with the
intergovernmental agreement under ORS
423.500 to 423.560. A county must substan-
tially comply with the provisions of its com-
munity - corrections intergovernmental
agreement and plan established pursuant to
ORS 423.525 (7). If the director determines
that there are reasonable grounds to believe
that a county is not in substantial compli-
ance with the intergovernmental agreement
or plan, the director shall contact the county
regarding the alleged noncompliance and of-
fer technical assistance to reach compliance.
If the county does not resolve the alleged
noncompliance, the director shall, after giv-
ing the county not less than 30 days' notice,
conduct a hearing to ascertain whether there
is substantial compliance or satisfactory
progress being made toward compliance. Af-
ter technical assistance is provided and the
hearing occurs, the director may suspend any
portion of the funding made available to the
county under ORS 423.500 to 423.560 until
the required compliance occurs. [1977 c.412 §8;
1979 c.487 §14; 1987 c.320 §225; 1995 c.423 §8; 1997 c.715
§5]
423.545 [1977 c.412 §9; 1987 c.320 §226; repealed by
1995 c.423 §311
423.549 State positions in community
corrections branch; abolishment; county
authority; affected employees; pay. (1)
Notwithstanding ORS 236.605 to 236.640, all
state positions in the state community cor-
rections branch of the Department of Cor-
rections, the funding for which is transferred
to counties, are abolished on January 1, 1997.
Counties have sole discretion in the develop-
ment of methods and means of county com-
munity corrections operation under ORS
423.500 to 423.560 including establishment of
wages, benefits and working conditions and
selection of any employees to operate super-
vision programs or other services and sanc-
tions under ORS 423.478 and 423.525. The
implementation of this section does not give
rise to any bargaining obligation under ORS
243.650 to 243.782. Notwithstanding any col-
lective bargaining agreement, the department
shall first offer to any employee so affected
and not hired by a county a vacant position
in other department branches and operations
for which the employee is qualified. This
preference lapses 90 days after the operative
date of this section. The department has sole
423.560
discretion in selecting and filling vacant po-
sitions from among affected employees hav-
ing preference.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this
section, for each month of employment dur-
ing the period of January 1, 1997, through
June 30, 1997, a county shall pay each af-
fected employee hired by the county in regu-
lar full-time employment to provide or to
support the provision of community correc-
tions programs and services the same mini-
mum gross monthly salary or hourly wage
that the affected employee received in state
employment immediately prior to termination
of the employee's state position. In the event
an affected employee formerly employed by
the state in a supervisory position is hired
by a county in a nonsupervisory position, the
county shall pay the affected employee dur-
ing this period the same minimum gross
monthly salary or hourly wage to which an
affected employee in the nonsupervisory po-
sition would have been entitled to receive in
state employment at the top step of the state
pay classification for that position imme-
diately prior to its termination. A county
shall also provide to each affected employee
during this period the same benefits provided
to existing county employees performing the
same or substantially similar work, giving
full consideration to the length of the em-
ployee's state service as though the service
had been in and for the county. [1995 c.423 §16
(enacted in lieu of 423.550)]
423.550 [1977 c.412 §10; 1987 c.320 §227; 1989 c.607
§3; 1989 c.614 §3; 1993 c.680 §2; repealed by 1995 c.423
§15 (423.549 enacted in lieu of 423.550)]
423.551 [1989 c.614 §5; repealed by 1995 c.423 §311
423.552 [1989 c.510 §2; repealed by 1995 c.423 §301
423.553 [1989 c.510 §3; repealed by 1995 c.423 §301
423.554 [1989 c.510 04,5; repealed by 1995 c.423 §301
423.555 Statewide program evaluation
and information system. The Department
of Corrections shall establish and operate,
with the cooperation and participation of
county community corrections agencies, a
statewide evaluation and information system
to monitor the effectiveness of correctional
services provided to criminal offenders under
ORS 423.500 to 423.560. To the extent of
available information systems resources, the
system shall permit ongoing evaluation of
apparent correlations between services pro-
vided and future criminal conduct. [1977 c.412
§11; 1987 c.320 §228; 1995 c.423 §10; 1997 c.433 §121
423.560 Local public safety coordinat-
ing council; duties. (1) The board or boards
of county commissioners of a county shall
convene a local public safety coordinating
council. The council shall include, but need
not be limited to:
(a) A police chief selected by the police
chiefs in the county;
Title 34 Page 821 (2001 Edition)
m-n.- ,
i ,
i
423.565 HUMAN SERVICES; JUVENILE CODE; CORRECTIONS
(b) The sheriff of the county or, if two or
more counties have joined together to pro-
vide community corrections services, a sher-
iff selected by the sheriffs in the counties;
(c) The district attorney of the county or,
if two or more counties have joined together
to provide community corrections services, a
district attorney selected by the district at-
torneys of the counties;
(d) A state court judge, and a public
defender or defense attorney, both appointed
by the presiding judge of the judicial district
in which the county is located;
(e) A director of community corrections,
a county commissioner, a juvenile depart-
ment director, a health or mental health di-
rector and at least one lay citizen, all
appointed by the county commissioners;
(f) A city councilor or mayor and a city
manager or other city representative, both
selected by the cities in the county;
(g) A representative of the Oregon State
Police, who is a nonvoting member of the
council, selected by the Superintendent of
State Police; and —
(h) A representative of the Oregon Youth
Authority, who is a nonvoting member of the
council, selected by the Director of the Ore-
gon Youth Authority.
(2) The boards of county commissioners
of two or more counties may jointly convene
a single, regional local public safety coordi-
nating council by means of an intergovern-
mental agreement. Local officials may
combine the council with existing local
criminal justice advisory councils established
under ORS 1.851.
(3) The local public safety coordinating
council shall, at a minimum:
(a) Develop and recommend to the county
board of commissioners a plan for use of.
(A) State resources to serve the local of-
fender population; and
(B) State and local resources to serve the
needs of that part of the local offender popu-
lation who are at least 15 years of age and
less than 18 years of age, which plan must
provide for coordination of community -wide
services involving prevention, treatment, ed-
ucation, employment_ _resources and interven-
tion strategies; and
(b) Coordinate local criminal justice pol-
icy among affected criminal justice entities.
(4) Nonvoting members of a local public
safety coordinating council may not be
counted in determining whether a quorum
exists. [1977 c.412 §12; 1995 c.423 §11; 1997 c.249 §136;
1997 c.698 §11
423.565 Additional duties of public
safety coordinating council. In addition to
the duties assigned to it under ORS 423.560,
the local public safety coordinating council
convened by the board of commissioners
shall, at a minimum:
(1) Develop and recommend to the county
board of commissioners the plan for use of
state resources to serve the local youth of-
fender population;
(2) Coordinate local juvenile justice pol-
icy among affected juvenile justice entities;
and
(3) In consultation with the local com-
mission on children and families, develop and
recommend to the county board of commis-
sioners a plan designed to prevent criminal
involvement by youth. The plan must provide
for coordination of community -wide services
involving treatment, education, employment
and intervention strategies aimed at crime
prevention. [1995 c.422 §75; 1995 c.423 §11a]
PAYMENTS BY SUPERVISED PERSON
423.570 Monthly fee payable by person
on supervised release; use; payment as
condition of release; waiver. (1) A person
sentenced to probation or placed by an au-
thority on parole, post -prison supervision or
other form of release, subject to supervision
by a community corrections program estab-
lished under ORS 423.500 to 423.560, shall be
required to pay a monthly fee to offset costs
of supervising the probation, parole, post -
prison supervision or other supervised re-
lease.
(2) A person sentenced to probation or
placed by an authority on parole, post -prison
supervision or other form of release, subject
to supervision other than by a community
corrections program established under ORS
423.500 to 423.560, may be required by the
releasing authority to pay a monthly fee to
offset costs of supervising the probation,
parole, post -prison supervision or other
supervised release.
(3) When a fee is required under subsec-
tion (1) of this section, the fee shall be de-
termined and fixed by the releasing authority
but shall be at least $25, and if the releasing
authority fails to establish the amount of a
released person's required fee, the fee shall
be $25.
(4) Fees are payable one month following
the commencement of probation, parole,
post -prison supervision or other supervised
release and at one-month intervals thereaf-
ter. If the released person is supervised un-
der county authority, the county shall collect
or provide by contract for the collection of
the fee from the released person and shall
retain the fee to be used by the county for
Title 34 Page 822 (2001 Edition)
F-1
i
Becky Jackson
From: Martin Ginger [Ginger. Martin@doc.state.or.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:50 PM
To: DL OACCDDIR - Directors Only; DL CCB Sheriffs - All County Sheriffs
Cc: Worley Birdie
Subject: Community Corrections Opt Out Rule
Because the Opt Out has been triggered by the reductions in HB
5100, the Department of Corrections has temporarily adopted an administrative rule to
provide guidance to that process immediately. This means that we can use the rule now,
even as it goes through the required period for public review and comment. That rule is
attached to this e-mail:
«Temp Adopt Rule.rtf>>
We have also created a rule that would govern.a change from state to county operation
after a county has opted out and at some point wants to again operate community
corrections. Since that rule does not need to be adopted immediately, it was not included
in the portion of the rule temporarily adopted now. The entire rule including both opting
out and opting in is attached:
<<Opt Out Rule.rtf>>
Both of --these rules are now open for comment until April 21, 2002. Please send your
comments, either e-mail or written, to:
Birdie Worley
Department of Corrections
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, OR 97301
Birdie.Worley@doc.state.or.us
Once we have reviewed all of the comments and accomodated the suggestions received, the
rules will be permanently adopted into Oregon Administrative Rule.
Temp Adopt
Opt Out Rule.rtf
Rule.rtf
Because the Opt Out has been triggered by the reductions in HB
5100, the Department of Corrections has temporarily adopted an administrative rule to
provide guidance to that process immediately. This means that we can use the rule now,
even as it goes through the required period for public review and comment. That rule is
attached to this e-mail:
«Temp Adopt Rule.rtf>>
We have also created a rule that would govern.a change from state to county operation
after a county has opted out and at some point wants to again operate community
corrections. Since that rule does not need to be adopted immediately, it was not included
in the portion of the rule temporarily adopted now. The entire rule including both opting
out and opting in is attached:
<<Opt Out Rule.rtf>>
Both of --these rules are now open for comment until April 21, 2002. Please send your
comments, either e-mail or written, to:
Birdie Worley
Department of Corrections
2575 Center St. NE
Salem, OR 97301
Birdie.Worley@doc.state.or.us
Once we have reviewed all of the comments and accomodated the suggestions received, the
rules will be permanently adopted into Oregon Administrative Rule.
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS
Division 031
291-031-0005
Authority, Purpose, and Policy
(1) Authority: The authority for this
rule is granted to the Director of the
Department of Corrections in accordance
with ORS 179.040, 423.020, 423.030,
423.075, 423.478, 423.483, 423.525, and
423.530.
(2) Purpose: The purpose of this
rule is to:
(a) Support county community
corrections programs that provide
appropriate sentencing alternatives and
improve local services for persons charged
with criminal offenses with the goal of
reducing the occurrences of repeat criminal
offenses through state/local govemment
cooperative and collaborative efforts;
(b) Provide appropriate sentencing
altematives;
(c) Promote local management of
community corrections; and
(d) Promote the use of the most
effective criminal sanction necessary to
administer punishment to the offender,
rehabilitate the offender, and protect public
safety.
(3) Policy: In accordance with
Section 6 of the Community Corrections Act
(ORS 423.525), it is the policy of the
Department of Corrections to support
county corrections programs. The Act
establishes a legal frame of reference for
state/local government cooperative and
collaborative efforts in the areas including,
but not limited to providing supervision,
intermediate sanctioning programs and
treatment and habilitation programs for
supervised offenders. The Department of
Corrections is directed to make grants to
county to support local corrections
programs authorized under this Act The
county is required to develop a local
comprehensive community corrections plan
revealing which corrections services are
planned to address supervision, sanction
and service needs in the community.
(4) This rule is a public document
and will be available to all parties interested
in the implementation of the Community
Corrections Act.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0009
Definitions
(1) Caseload: Each county's
caseload consists of the offenders under the
supervision of the county field office who
are:
(a) Felony probationers;
(b) Parolees and offenders under
post -prison supervision;
(c) Conditional releasees, including
those sentenced under the provisions of
"second look" (ORS 420A.206), conditional
discharges under ORS 475.245, and other
forms of felony diversion;
(d) Sentenced to 12 months or less
incarceration; and
(e) Sanctioned to 12 months or less
incarceration for a violation of condition of
supervision.
(f) Abscond cases shall not be
included for allocation purposes.
(2) County Population: Those
persons projected or counted by the census
who permanently reside in a county.
(3) Local Community Corrections
Program: Any locally -based public or
private organization which provides
correctional services and is funded either in
whole or in part by grants from the
Department of Corrections, excluding
programs directly under the administration
of the Department of Corrections
Community Corrections.
(4) Workload: The number of
offenders sentenced to probation or to post -
prison supervision/parole in a county,
including estimated change in that
Effective 221/03 DIV - 031 - Page 1 of 7 Temporary Adoption
population for the biennium.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
PROCEDURES
291-031-0010
Notice
(1) Every county governing body will
be given notice when this rule is formally
adopted. The notice will include a copy of
this rule.
(2) Plans must be submitted
between October 1 of each even -numbered
year and May 15 of the following year.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0015
Plan Development
(1) Each county governing body
must appoint a local public safety
coordinating council in accordance with
ORS 423.560. This council will be
responsible to develop and recommend to
the county board of commissioners a plan
for use of state resources to service the
local offender population.
(2) The Director of the Department
of Corrections will provide, within available
resources, consultation and technical
assistance to aid counties in the
development and implementation of a
community corrections plan.
(3) An extension of time may be
granted by the Director when necessary to
allow completion of local agency
negotiation, or to allow additional time to
collect data or information necessary to
complete the community corrections plan.
Requests for this extension shall be
submitted to the Director or designee in
writing.
(4) Standards for Plan Submission
and Evaluation: Community corrections
plans shall be submitted to the Director or
designee. Each community corrections plan
shall be submitted in a format and order as
established by the Department of
Corrections.
(a) An intergovernmental agreement
between the county(s) and the department
must be signed by the Department Director
or designee prior to any state community
corrections funds being expended.
(b) Administrative:
(A) Plans must specify the
membership and chair of the local public
safety coordinating council. Plans must
specify how the membership meets the
statutory requirements for committee
membership.
(B) Plans must identify a community
corrections manager who is responsible for
the administration of the community
corrections program.
(C) Plans must contain an
organizational chart illustrating areas of
authority, responsibility, and accountability.
The organizational charts will indicate the
staffing level and structure in each program.
(c) Offender Programs/Services:
Plans must provide descriptions of all
offender programs including:
(A) Offender population to be
served; -
(B) Goals/outcome/purpose of
program_ ;
(C) Program slots or beds; and
(D) Community Corrections Act
funds that will be used to operate the
program.
(d) Fiscal: Plans shall display
separate line item accounts for expenditures
and revenue for each program/service area.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0020
Effective 2/21/03 DIV - 031 - Page 2 of 7 Temporary Adoption
Plan Submission Process
(1) The community corrections plan
shall be submitted to the Director of the
Department of Corrections.
(2) The Director or designee will
review the proposed plan within 30 days.
(3) The community corrections plan
will become a part of the intergovernmental
agreement between the state and the
county.
(4) No modifications to an approved
plan shall be placed into effect without prior
written notification of the Director or
designee.
(5) Any county that receives
financial aid under this program may
terminate its participation if the total state
community corrections appropriation is less
than the baseline calculated under in ORS
423.483(2) by written notification to the
director 180 days prior to implementation of
the change. If a county discontinues
participation, the responsibility for
correctional services transferred to the
county, and the portion of funding made
available to the county under ORS 423.530
reverts to the Department of Corrections.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0025
Supervision Fees and Financial Records
(1) Supervision fees collected
pursuant to ORS 423.570 must be used for
community corrections purposes as outlined
in the approved local community corrections
plan.
(2) Department of Corrections
Funds:
(a) The department shall prepare
and distribute to the counties written
instructions regarding budget, allotment,
and fiscal reporting requirements. Each
county shall adhere to the department's
budget, allocation, and fiscal reporting
requirements.
(b) Reallocation of funds in a county
approved plan and budget, within or
between budget categories, requires a
budget update and the prior notification of
the Director or designee.
(c) Proposed fund transfers shall be
submitted and processed on forms required
by the Department of Corrections.
(d) Each county shall forward to the
Department of Corrections a copy of the
county's annual financial statement and that
portion of the county's annual audit that
addresses the community corrections
program.
(e) Within 120 days following the
end of the state's biennial budget period,
each county shall submit a closing financial
report for the biennium. Any state general
funds not expended within the biennial
period will be identified. A budget update
will be submitted to the Department of
Corrections showing how those funds will
be expended for community corrections
purposed in the next biennium.
(f) If a county ceases to participate,
the department may recover title to any
transferred property that remains in use at
such time. The department shall assume
title to any equipment, furnishings, vehicles
or property purchased with state funds for
the purpose of providing parole and
probation services in the county.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179,040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0026
Orant-ln-Aid
(1) Community Corrections funds will
be allocated based on a formula that
considers workload, county population, and
the cost per day of managing offenders on
probation or parole/post-prison supervision.
The formula will be weighted 100%
workload and 0% county population.
(2) The Director of the Department
of Corrections, after considering
Effective 2/21/03 DIV - 031 - Page 3 of 7 Temporary Adoption
recommendations of those listed in ORS
423.530(2), shall determine the method and
formula by which funds are allocated to
counties.
(3) Prior to July of each
odd -numbered year, the Department of
Corrections shall determine each county's
proposed share of workload and will
compute each county's percentage share of
the coming biennial grant-in-aid
appropriation. When the total actual
appropriation is known, the Department of
Corrections will compute the actual amounts
indicated.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0051
Funding for Sexually Violent Dangerous
Offenders
(1) The department may allocate
moneys appropriated under Chapter 924 of
Oregon Laws 1999 to local 'supervisory
authorities for the intensive supervision of
sexually violent dangerous offenders.
(2) The allocation to a county shall
be determined by calculating the
incremental cost to move from the high-risk
supervision rate to an intensive supervision
rate. Payments will be made to a county on
a quarterly basis, upon invoicing by the
county
(3) Payments to counties for the
purpose of intensive supervision of sexually
violent dangerous offenders shall not
exceed the legislatively approved
appropriation for the supervision of sexually
violent dangerous offenders.
�4) Once each biennium, the
Depa, ent of Corrections, the State Board
Of 0,afible and Post -Prison Supervision, and
to supervisory authorities shall determine
the: number of offenders expected to be
classified as sexually violent dangerous
offenders during the following biennium.
The department shall use the number in
calculating the budget for the community
corrections division of the department for
the following biennium.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0061
Construction Funds
(1) Funds received for the
acquisition, construction, or renovation of
local correctional facilities shall be
expended only for those acquisitions,
construction, and renovation projects
approved by the Director as part of the
approved application for local corrections
construction projects.
(2) Facilities constructed or
acquired by counties where the agreement
with the state terminates before 20 years
participation shall revert to the state.
(3) At the option of the department,
the county may retain ownership in such
terminations when the county agrees to
continue using the facilities for the
corrections purposes originally approved in
the local community corrections plan,
provided the county agrees to house state
inmates/offenders subject to county review
and approval of each person -so housed.
(4) Budget and Fiscal Reporting:
(a) The department or its designee
shall prepare and distribute to the counties
written instructions regarding budget,
allocation and fiscal reporting requirements.
Each county shall adhere to the
department's budget, allotment and fiscal
reporting requirements.
(b) Each county shall forward to the
Department of Corrections a copy of the
county's annual financial statement and that
portion of the county's annual audit that
addresses the community corrections
program.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.0301 423.0751 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Effective 2121103 DIV - 031 - Page 4 of 7 Temporary Adoption
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.0201
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
291-031-0070
Evaluation
(1) The Department of Corrections
shall establish and operate a statewide
information system. In order to ensure
uniform information, the Department of
Corrections shall establish minimum data
entry standards for the state information
system. Counties are required to provide
information to the statewide system as
required by the Department of Corrections.
(2) In accordance with ORS
423.565, the department will review each
county annually. This review will be a
combination of a self review and a review by
the department. There may be a compliance
plan required if the county is not in
compliance with the intergovernmental
agreement.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.0201
423.030, 423.075, 4233.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
County Option to Cease Participation in
the Community Corrections Ac#
291-031-0080
(1) The Community Corrections
Act gives each county the option to
transfer responsibility for community
corrections to the Department of
Corrections if the Legislature fails to
fund community corrections at the
baseline established in ORS 423.483 0 )
and 3.
(2) If the total state community
corrections allocation is, less than the
baseline, the county may discontinue
artici " tion in the Act b rovid* ' d
written notification to the Director of th
_Department of Corrections 180 days
prior to implementation of the change
(3) A county may transfer
responsibility for community corrections
Etkdive 221/03 DIV - 031 - Page 5 of 7
to the state no more than one time in a
biennium.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Responsibility for Community
Corrections
291-031-0090
(1) The Department of Corrections
Will assume responsibility for
community-based supervision
sanctions and services for offenders
convicted of felonies who are on parole
or Post -prison supervision, Probation,
sentenced or sanctioned to a prison term
of 12 months or less, or on conditional
release under ORS 420.206.
(21-- According to sentencing
guidelines, terms of incarceration of 12
months or less are served at the
direction of the local supervisory
authority rather than in the [eaal and
Physical custody of the Department of
Corrections (OAR 213-005-0001(2)). The
Department of Corrections will perform
the duties of the local supervisory
authority for terms of incarceration of 12
months or less (local control offenders)
(3) The Department of Corrections
will not assume responsibility for the
supervision of offenders convicted of
misdemeanors.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Imp[: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
undin
291-031-0100
(1) Department of Corrections
funds allocated to provide correctional
services by the county will be retained
by the state.
(2) County allocations are
Temporary Adoption
computed for a 24 -month period, If the
transfer of responsibility is for a period
of, less than 24 months, the funds
_retained by the state for community
corrections activities will be prorated to
the day of the transfer.
(3) A financial closing statement
will be provided to the state within 60
days of the transfer of responsibility.
Any state funds distributed but not spent
will be returned to the state.
(4) The department, at its option,
may choose to operate community
corrections in regions consisting of
several counties, and to combine funds
and staff to operate the region most
efficiently.
(5) The department shall retain all
supervision fees collected from
offenders supervised by state -operated
community corrections offices and
received subsequent to the state
assuming responsibility for operations.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Biennial Community Corrections Plan
291-031-0110
(1) The Department of Corrections
shall develop a community corrections
Plan for each county with a state -
operated community corrections office.
(2) The department will meet with
the local public safety coordinating
council to review the county's
recommendations as to how state
resources will be invested to serve the
local offender population. Those
recommendations will be included in the
plan and/or the department will provide a
response to each recommendation.
(3), The departm„g'nt;X1111ubmit the
plan to the county cdm im ssioners for
information and comments. The
commissioners may choose to comment
or may simply acknowledge the plan was
received.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Transfer of Property
291-031-0120
(1) When a county ceases
participation in the Community
Corrections Act the state shall assume
title to any equipment, furnishings,
vehicles or property purchased with
community corrections grant funds and
used by existing county staff to provide
parole and probation services to the,
county, The county shall provide the
Department of Corrections with a list of
all such equipment, furnishings, vehicles
or property with a value of over $250
Within 30 days of the county's
notification to the Director of the
Department of Corrections that it will
discontinue participafron in the
Community Corrections Act.
(2) An agreement transferring title
of equipment or property to the
Department of. Corrections shall be
written, accompanied by an inventory list
signed by the designated
representatives of both the county and
the department. The agreement shall be
subject to all state regulations governing
such transfer of title.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Correctional Facilities
291-031-0130
Correctional facilities acquired,
constructed, or renovated under ORS
423.525(2) shall revert to state control if
Effective 2121103 DIV - 031 - Page 6 of 7 Temporary Adoption
the county transfers responsibility for
probation and parol&ost-prison
supervision before the lease -sublease
a reement terminates.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.4831
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Employees
291-031-0140
(1) County employees in, the
county community, corrections anencx
and funded through the community
corrections grant to that county will be
transferred to state employment, to the
extent there are funds available. If the
county has experienced a reduction in
funding, there will be a commensurate
reduction in staff positions available for
transfer.
(2) Countyemployees transferred
to state employment will not suffer any
reduction in salary or loss of emolovee
benefits for 12 months because of the
transfer. Salary will not be reduced,
accrued sick leave will be retained, up to
80 hours of vacation may be transferred,
a waiver of waiting period for preexisting
conditions will be arranged. The
employee may remain with his or her
Present retirement system for 12 months
or may participate in the state retirement
system. Following this period, salary,
benefits and retirement plan will be
based on established state wages and
benefits.
Stat Auth: QRS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Imps: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Effective 221/03 DIV - 031 - Page 7 of 7 Temporary Adoption
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS
Division 031
Notice of Intent to Adopt
County Option to Cease Participation in
the Community Corrections Act
291-031-0080
(1) The Community Corrections
Act gives each county the option to
transfer responsibility for community
corrections to the Department of
Corrections if the Legislature fails to
fund community corrections at the
baseline established in ORS 423.483 (1)
and 3
(2) If the total state community
corrections allocation is less than the
baseline, the county may discontinue
Participation in the A, ct by provid'ino
written notification to the Director of the
Department of Corrections 180 days
prior to implementation of the change.
(3) A county may transfer
responsibility for community corrections
to the state no more than one time in a
biennium.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Responsibility for Community
Corrections
291-031-0090
(1) The Department of Corrections
Will assume responsibility for
community-based . supervision,
sanctions and services for offenders
convicted of felonies who are on parole
or post -prison supervision, probation,
sentenced or sanctioned to a prison term
of 12 months or less, or on conditional
release under ORS 420.206.
(2) Accordina to sentencing
guidelines, terms of incarceration of 12
months or less are served at the
direction of the local supervisory
authority rather than in the legal and
NOI to Adopt DIV - 031
Physical custody of the Department of
Corrections (OAR 213-005-0001(2)). The
Department of Corrections will perform
the duties of the local supervisory
authority for terms of incarceration of 12
months or less (local control offenders,.
13) The Department of Corrections
Will not assume responsibility for the
supervision of offenders convicted of
misdemeanors.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Fundina
291-031-0100
(1) Department of Corrections
funds allocated to provide correctional
services by the county will be retained
by the state.
(2) County allocations are
computed for a 24 -month period. If the
transfer of responsibility is for a period
of less than 24 months, the funds
retained by the state for community
corrections activities will be prorated to
the day of the transfer.
(3) A financial closina statement
will be provided to the state within 60
days of the transfer of responsibility.
Any state funds distributed but not spent
will be returned to the state.
(4) The department, at its option,
may choose to operate community
corrections in regions consisting of
several counties, and to combine funds
and staff to operate the region most
efficiently.
(5) The department shall retain all
supervision fees collected from
offenders supervised by state -operated
community corrections offices and
received subsequent to the state
Page 1 of 5 NOl Date 221/03
assuming responsibility for operations.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.4831
423.500 to 423.560
Biennial Community Corrections Plan
291-031-0110
_ (1) The Department of Corrections
shall develop a community corrections
plan for each county with a state -
operated community corrections office.
(2) The department will meet with
the local public safety coordinating
council to review the county's
recommendations as to how state
resources will be invested to serve the
local offender population. Those
recommendations will be included in the
plan and/or the department will provide a
response to each recommendation.
(3) The department will submit the
plan to the county commissioners for
information and comments. The
commissioners may choose to comment
or may simply acknowledge the plan was
received.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423,4831
423.500 to 423.560
Transfer of Pro
291-031-0120
(1) When a county ceases
participation in the Community
Corrections Act, the state shall assume
title to any equipment, furnishings,
vehicles or property purchased with
community corrections -grant funds and
used by existing county staff to provide
Parole and probation services to the
county. The county shall provide the
Department of Corrections with a list of
all such equipment, furnishings, vehicles
or property with a value of over $250
NOI to Adopt DIV - 031
within 30 days of , the county's
notification to the Director of the
Department of Corrections that it will
discontinue participation in the
Community Corrections Act.
(2) An agreement transferring title
of equipment or property to the
Department of Corrections shall be
written, accompanied by an inventory list
signed by the desianated
representatives of both the county and
the department. The agreement shall be
subject to all state regulations -governing
such transfer of title.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Correctional Facilities
291-031-0130
Correctional facilities acquired
constructed, or renovated under ORS
423.525(2) shall revert to state control if
the county transfers for
Probation and parole/post-prison
supervision before the lease -sublease
agreement terminates.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Employees
291-031-0140
(1) Countv emWovees in the
county community corrections agency
and funded through the community
corrections -grant to that county will be
transferred to state employment, to the
extent there are funds available. If the
county has experienced a reduction in
funding, there will be a commensurate
reduction in staff positions available for
transfer.
(2) County employees transferred
Page 2 of 5 NOI Date: 221/03
to state employment will not suffer any
reduction in salary or loss of employee
benefits for 12 months because of the
transfer. Salary will not be reduced,
accrued sick leave will be retained, up to
80 hours of vacation may be transferred
a waiver of waiting period for preexisting
conditions will be arranged. The
employee may remain with his or her
Present retirement system for 12 months
or may participate in the state retirement
system. Following this period, salary,
benefits and retirement plan will be
based on established state wage s and
bens
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: QRS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.078, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
County Option to Participate in the
Community Corrections Act
291-031-0150
(1) The Community Corrections
Act gives each county the option to
directly operate community corrections
rather than to have the Department of
Corrections operate community
corrections.
(2) A county that has exercised
the option to "opt out" of participation
may again participate In the Community
Corrections Act by providing written
notification to the Director of the
Department of Corrections 180 days
prior to implementation of the change. A
county may make this chancre no more
than one time in a biennium.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
The county will assume
responsibility from the Department of
Corrections for community-based
supervision, sanctions and services for
offenders convicted of felonies who are
on , parole or post -prison supervision,
Probation, sentenced or sanctioned to a
prison term,of 12 months or less, or on
conditional .release under ORS 420A.206.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Funding
291-031-0170
(1) Department of Corrections
funds formerly used to provide
correctional services by the state will be
granted to the county under an
intergovernmental aareement.
(2) County allocations are
computed for a 24 -month period. If the
transfer of responsibility is for a period
less than 24 months, the funds allocated
to the county will be prorated to the day
of the transfer.
(3) A financial closing statement
will be provided to the county by the
Department of Corrections within 60
days of the tracer sfer of responsibility.
Any, state funds allocated to the, county
but not spent by the state will be
appropriated to the county.
(4) The county shall retain all
supervision fees collected from
offenders supervised by county -
operated community corrections offices
after the date of transfer.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
4233.525, and 423.530
Stat Imps: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Responsibility for Community
Corrections Biennial Community Corrections Plan
291-031-0160 291-031-0180
NOI to Adopt DIV - 031 - Page 3 of 5 NOI Date: 2121103
The county will develop a
community- corrections plan (OAR 291-
031-0015) prior to the transfer of
responsibility.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Transfer of Property
291-031-0190
(1) When a county begins
Participation in the Community
Corrections Act, the county shall
assume title to any equipment,
furnishings, or properly used, by, by existing,
DOC staff to provide parole and
Probation services in the county. The
Department of Corrections shall provide
inventory list signed by designated
representatives of both the county and
the department and shall be subject to
all state regulations governina such
transfer of tjtie.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Correctional Facilities
291-031-0200
Correctional facilities acquired,
constructed, or renovated under ORS
NOI to Adopt
423.515(2) shall_ be sub -leased to the
county if the county assumes
responsibility for probation and
Parole/Post-Prison supervision before
the lease aareement terminates.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
Employees
291-031-0210
(1) State employees employed in
the county community corrections
agency and funded through the
community corrections grant to that
county will be transferred to county
employment, to the extent theme are
funds available. If the county has
experienced a reduction in fundina. them
will be a commensurate reduction in
staff positions available for transfer.
(2) State employees transferred to
county employment will not suffer any
reduction in salary or loss of employee
benefits for 12 moroMs because of the
transfer. Salary will not be reduced,
accrued sick leave will be retained, up to
80 hours of vacation may be transferred,
a waiver of waiting period for preexisting
conditions will be arranged. The
employee may remain with his or her
Present retirement system for 12
months. Following this period, ,salary,
benefits and retirement plan will be
based on established county wages and
benefits.
Stat Auth: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.525, and 423.530
Stat Impl: ORS 179.040, 423.020,
423.030, 423.075, 423.478, 423.483,
423.500 to 423.560
DIV - 031 - Mage 4 of 5 NOI Date: 2121/03