2006-775-Minutes for Meeting June 05,2006 Recorded 8/1/2006DESCHUTES
NANCY
COUNTY CLERKDS CJ Z006'115
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
1111191111001 , 08/01/2006 04:10:09 PM
2006-7
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
C e
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded to correct [give reason]
previously recorded in Book and Page
or as Fee Number
❑ {
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora
MINUTES OF MEETING
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MONDAY, JUNE 59 2006
Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Commissioner Bev Clarno; District
Attorney Mike Dugan; Tammy Baney, Commission on Children & Families'
Board; Tim Edwards, Sheriff's Office; Becky Wanless, Parole & Probation
Director; Bend Police Chief Andy Jordan; and Bob LaCombe, Juvenile
Community Justice Department.
Also in attendance were Jack Blum, citizen member; Ernie Mazorol, Court
Administrator; guest Rick Treleavan, BestCare Treatment Center; media
representatives Molly Hendrickson and Shaliz Khonleni, News Channel 21; and,
for part of the meeting, Commissioner Dennis Luke.
1. Call to Order & Introductions.
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 p.m., at which time the attendees
introduced themselves.
2. Approval of Minutes of the May 1, 2006 Meeting.
JORDAN: Move approval.
DUGAN: Second.
Approval was unanimous.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, June 5, 2006
Page 1 of 4 Pages
3. Update regarding Dedicated Courthouse Parking.
Ernie Mazorol explained that the City has been requested to free up ten spots
for security reasons. The City Manager indicated they would provide barriers,
but have no desire to tie up those parking spaces for law enforcement purposes.
He said he is not sure the City understands the reasoning behind the request.
Chief Jordan stated this was discussed at length in order to try to think of a way
to make it work. However, if someone wants to blow up the building, there
would have to be a lot more measures taken than just setting aside these parking
spaces. The building would still be accessible, but parking problems would be
exacerbated.
Judge Sullivan said that Homeland Security is doing an evaluation, as is the
Sheriff's Office, and they will provide recommendations. LPSCC may want to
put together another proposal afterwards. The concern is that a public building
can never been made completely inaccessible. One area of concern is the glass-
enclosed area where the jurors come through; it is very vulnerable. The law
enforcement personnel there are also vulnerable. When certain groups come in,
the Deputies chase off some vehicles, but this is not an acceptable way of
handling the issue. He added that he understands the Deputies are also
concerned. Once the recommendations from Homeland Security and the
Sheriff's Office are available, he would like to be a part of the presentation to
the City.
Tammy Baney asked about the timeline. Judge Sullivan replied that it might
take a few weeks. He would like to update the group in August. The other
reason for the request is to have parking for emergency vehicles available, in
the event a quick response is needed. The LPSCC members agreed.
Ernie Mazorol said he would not like to see this wait too long, and wanted to
discuss barricades along the sidewalk. Judge Sullivan replied that he would like
to wait until the reports are in. He added that the sally port area is also an area
of concern.
Mike Dugan stated that the most vulnerable area is the back parking lot adjacent
to the jury assembly room, especially since there is no security camera covering
the outside area.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, June 5, 2006
Page 2 of 4 Pages
4. Discussion of Law Enforcement Agencies' Filing Process.
Judge Sullivan said that there is a recurring problem with filings, which need to
be done by noon so there is adequate time for processing and getting people
ready for arraignments and other activities. Felony matters are more common
now. He met with the Sheriff and Capt. Jenkin a couple of weeks ago, and they
said they would work with the Courts and push 245 filings.
He added that this situation is caused in large part by jail matrixing. The
severity of crimes has continually gotten worse. A lengthy discussion then took
place regarding this problem.
Judge Sullivan reiterated that the Courts need the reports more quickly, and
there is no excuse for the delays, especially on Mondays. He is not sure which
agencies are responsible. They want to accommodate the police agencies and
the District Attorney, but there is a lot of computer work required after the
reports come in. He would like to talk with all of the law enforcement agencies
involved to get a plan in place that will streamline this process.
Mike Dugan said that he estimates that about 20% of the time his people are not
getting the reports quickly enough. Having them by 10:00 a.m. would help.
Transferring the information is complicated and time-consuming.
5. Update on Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee.
Tammy Baney said that the Alternatives group is making progress, and has
received a lot of input from various agencies. Part of the considerations is what
is available before, during and after incarceration, and what can be done after
integration. Commissioner Clarno stated that it was interesting to hear from the
Chambers of Commerce, who reported that businesses tell them it is hard to
find employees because they often do not pass drug testing. The program needs
to benefit those who are actively trying to comply. Judge Sullivan added that
one alternative is completing the program and getting an early release.
Mike Dugan pointed out that this program helps companies to get better
employees who are more reliable, and workplace injuries are also reduced.
This is part of the drug-free workplace program. Ms. Baney stated that
insurance companies are interested in the success of the program as well.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, June 5, 2006
Page 3 of 4 Pages
6. Other Items and Items for the Next Meeting.
Commissioner Luke said that he sat in on a conference call with the Suitable
and Sufficient Subcommittee for Court Facilities, which just completed a
survey to learn what the various courts have in place.
No other issues were discussed.
Judge Sullivan suggested that the next LPSCC meeting be held on Monday,
August 7, since many people will be on vacation in early July. There were no
objections.
The August agenda will include:
An update on Drug Court.
An update regarding the courthouse parking issue.
Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A:
Sign-in sheet (1 page)
Exhibit B:
Agenda (I page)
Exhibit C:
Letter regarding Court Parking (I page)
Exhibit D:
Memo regarding Court Filings (I page)
Exhibit E:
Suitable and Sufficient Subcommittee Survey (4 pages)
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, June 5, 2006
Page 4 of 4 Pages
II
0
co
w
Q
W
J
a
co
O
O
N
G1
1
N
L
m
1
An
JJJ
~
~
~
V
C~
c
as
Z
J
7
(:zZ
Q
ems'
J
0
m
0
c
r,xmoii i
Page of
%>IVEg
G
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MEETING AGENDA
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
3:30 P.M., MONDAY, JUNE 5, 2006
Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building, Second Floor
1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
1. Call to Order & Introductions
2. Approval of Minutes of Monday, May 1 Meeting
3. Update (continued) regarding Dedicated Courthouse Parking for Law
Enforcement Personnel - Ernie Mazorol, Andy Jordan
4. Discussion of Law Enforcement Agencies' Timely Filing of Crime Reports -
Judge Sullivan
5. Update on Alternatives to Incarceration Subcommittee - Tammy Baney
6. Other Business and Items for the Next Meeting (Monday, August 7 -please
note, a decision was made by LPSCC earlier in the year to not hold a July
meeting)
Exhibit
Page / of
710 WALL STREET
PO BOX 431
BEND, OR 97709
[541] 388-5505 TEL
[541] 388-5519 FAX
WWW.ci.bend.onus
BILL FRIEDMAN
Mayor
BRUCE ABERNETHY
Mayor Pro Tem
JOHN HUMMEL
City Councilor
R. DAVE MALKIN
City Councilor
CHRIS TELFER
City Councilor
LINDA S. JOHNSON
City Councilor
JIM CIJNTON
City Councilor
HAROLD A. ANDERSON
City Manager
MARGARET ECHEVESTE
Finance Director
May 12, 2006
Susan Ross, Director
Deschutes County
Property & Facilities Department
1300 NW Wall St Suite 200
Bend, Oregon 97701-1980
RE: Parking spaces on Bond Street in front of Justice Building
Dear Ms. Ross;
A few days ago, I received your letter to Ken Fuller, dated April 21, requesting the
designation of 10 on-street parking spaces in front of the Deschutes County
Courthouse for public safety vehicles only. You noted the reason for the request is
security concerns.
I have discussed this proposal in some detail with City Manager Andy Anderson
and Police Chief Andy Jordan, and regret to inform you that we do not believe the
request should be granted. In fact, we believe that better security would be
provided from the installation of bollards in the sidewalk, and perhaps in the front
stairs, that would not allow any vehicle to cross the sidewalk and climb the stairs, as
recently happened at the Marion County Courthouse. Police or Sheriff vehicles
would be transitory, and would not provide an effective permanent barrier. We
would be happy to provide you with the specifications of the bollards we used
downtown at the intersection of Minnesota and Wall Streets, or we would be happy
to work with you on an agemative design.
I must also note the extreme shortage we experience in on-street parking in
downtown Bend. Taking away 10 spaces that are heavily used would exacerbate
an already'difficult parking situation.
Please feel free to call me at 312-4913 if you would like to discuss this further.
AND Pok
CCh hi
-f
Sincerely:
es
ef
LARRY LANGSPON
Fire Chief
n R. Russell, Director
Economic Development Department
PATMCIA STELL
C&y Recorder
City of Bend
cc: . Andy Anderson, City Manager
Andy Jordan, Police Chief
Exhibit C
Page of
ERNEST J. MAZOROL, III
Administrator
June 2, 2006
TO:
FROM:
OF
FIL E COPY
~ .
H o
l gr,~ 9
TRIAL COURT ADMINISTRATOR
Deschutes County Courthouse
1100 N.W. Bond Street
Bend, OR 97701
541-388-5300
Mike Dugan
Ernie M o
RE: Filings for Video Court - Effective June 21, 2006
To address the ongoing problems we experience with late filings, we plan to prepare two separate
court dockets for 1:30 p.m. and 2:45 p.m. video court. Effective June 21, 2006, two new filing
deadlines will be established for each video court docket. Baring unusual and extenuating
circumstances, filings submitted after the final cut-off period of 1 p.m. would be processed the
following day. Sufficient justification for an add on to be processed the same day, that does not
comply with the cut-off deadline, requires the presiding judge or court administrator's approval, or
their designee. So that the court and sheriff have sufficient time to prepare for court hearings and
the movement. of inmates, please take steps in your office to meet the filing time lines established
below, which were revised to provide you with more time than currently exists.
VIDEO COURT HEARINGS
1:30 P.M.
2:45 P.M.
DA files documents with court
Noon
1:00 P.M.
Court prepares files/entry
12:45 p.m.
1:45 p.m.
Court faxes documents to jail
1:00 P.M.
2:00 P.M.
Court publishes final docket & prepare journal entries
1:00 .m. -
T-2:00 .m.
You can expect the final dockets to be published at the time indicated above. You should not
anticipate obtaining a copy before then, as court staff have clerical procedures to follow before the
docket is published.
Please inform your staff of the time lines noted above. We appreciate your assistance in making this
system work for all agencies involved.
c: Sheriff Stiles -
Circuit Court Judges
Court Supervisors
Exhibit D
Page of
i-
,4-Preface for the Suitable and Sufficient Sub-Committee
Staff have developed this survey to send to judges, court staff, county officials
and selected lawyers in each county. The purpose is to obtain the information
your sub-committee needs to complete its task.
The objective is to produce a survey that will elicit the maximum number of
responses with the most useful information. We would like to send this out within
the 10 days, and hope to have responses ready for the sub-committee meeting
on June 29.
Please take a few minutes to examine the survey and think about the following
questions:
• Does the survey ask for the information that will be most useful to the sub-
committee?
• Are there questions that should be eliminated?
What information does the sub-committee need that's not included in the
survey? Are there questions not in the survey that should be included?
Courthouse Facility Survey
The Oregon State Bar, the Oregon Judicial Department and the Association
of Oregon Counties are collaborating to develop a strategy to address
courthouse facilities issues. We need your input.
This preliminary survey is designed to get a feel for the issues facing the
state's courthouses. Please respond as thoroughly as possible, but do not feel
your answers must be exhaustive.
If your county has more than one courthouse facility, including juvenile
courts housed in a separate building, please complete this questionnaire for
each facility.
Questions:
My responses relate to courthouse facilities in
County. If the responses relate to facilities other than the central
courthouse e( _g_., separate juvenile facilities or satellite courthouses),
please specify:
2. Please identify yourself:
a. Judge
b. Court administrator
c. Facilities manager
d. County government official
C:\DOCUME-1\DENNISL\LOCALS-1\Temp\Courthouse Facility Survey draft w preface 053106.doc Exhibit 6
Page of
w
3.
4.
5.
e. Attorney
Number of courtrooms:
Number of judges:
Number of judges' chambers:
6. Are courtroom facilities generally of adequate size to accommodate the
number of persons who use them? If not, how many courtrooms are too
small?
7. Cases are postponed due to the lack of courtroom availability on
average:
Less than once a week
Once a week
Once a day
More than once a day
8. In regard to the accessibility of the courthouse to disabled persons
please rate the following on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being not accessible and
5 being highly accessible:
a. Bathrooms
b. Courtrooms
c. Witness chair
d. Jury facilities
e. Clerk's office
9. Are existing ramps and elevators adequate in size and design to
accommodate persons with mobility impairments easily?
10. Please rank the needs of your courthouse in order of importance.
a. Additional courtrooms
b. Additional judges' chambers
c. Upgrading juror facilities
d. Additional space for clerk's office
e. Additional facilities for non-court related uses (e.g., district
attorney, sheriff, or county government offices)
f. Technological capacity upgrades
g. Upgrades to electrical, plumbing or heating, ventilation and
cooling systems
h. Structural safety (earthquake resistance where that is an issue,
fire safety, etc.)
i. Improved accessibility for persons with disabilities
j. Improved security measures and facilities
k. Maintaining the historic character of the courthouse
C:\DOCUME-1\DENNISL\LOCALS-1\Temp\Courthouse Facility Survey draft w preface 053106.doc
Exhibit r
Page of
i.
1. Establishing separate courthouse facilities to serve parts of the
county remote from the central facility
m. Establishing separate juvenile court facilities
n. Other (please describe)
11. Has your county made any improvements in the courthouse in the last
ten years? Please describe the improvements.
12. Has your county engaged in any planning activities to improve its
courthouse in the last five years? Please mark all that apply.
a. Workgroup/taskforce
b. Study commissioned
c. County bond
d. Other
e. No steps have been taken
13. What have been the results of these activities?
14. Have cost estimates for needed changes been generated?
15. If you answered yes to question #11, please provide the cost estimates
for the specific needs with which the estimates were associated.
16. Please list any deferred maintenance issues in your county courthouse.
17. Has the county had to rent additional space for court functions?
18. Please mark all safety issues that apply to your courthouse and rank
them in order of importance
a. Earthquake proofing
b. Adequate safety exits
c. Security from violent attack
d. Fire code compliance
e. Other safety issues (please specify):
19. What activities other than those that are court-related are currentlv
housed in the courthouse?
20. What activities other than those that are court related should be
housed in the courthouse?
21. Where does improvement, expansion or replacement of courthouse
facilities rank with respect to other capital projects that the county
may be considering?
C:\DOCUME-1\DENNISL\LOCALS-1\Temp\Courthouse Facility Survey draft w preface 053106.doc
Exhibit E
Page 3 of
22. How much did the county spend on this facility during the last five
years for
a. Capital improvements
b. Maintenance expenditures
c. Operating expenditures
23. In reviewing your court facilities and operation, please rank in order of
your county's greatest need:
a. Capital expenditures
b. Maintenance expenditures
c. Operating expenditures
C:\DOCUME-1\DENNISL\LOCALS-1\Temp\Courthouse Facility Survey draft w preface 053106.doc
Exhibit
Page of