Loading...
2009-1197-Minutes for Meeting March 18,2009 Recorded 5/12/2009COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS CJ 2009.1 91 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/12/2009 08;06;48 AM 111111111111111111111111111 IN III 2009-1197 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page 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 or as Fee Number and Page 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 MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Marty Wynne, Finance; Ken Hales and Tanner Wark, Community Corrections; Sheriff Larry Blanton, Jim Ross, Sue Brewster and Capt. Ruth Jenkin, Sheriff's Office; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator; Les Stiles, former Sheriff; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Anna Johnson, Communications; David Givans, Auditor; and media representative Hillary Borrud from The Bulletin. No other citizens attended. Also present via conference call for the first part of the meeting was Ginger Martin, Director of the Oregon State Department of Corrections. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p. m. 1. Discussion of Community Corrections Act Opt-Out. Commissioner Baney expressed concern about the future of 1145 funding. Ginger Martin of the State Department of Corrections said that they have been asked to come up with a 30% reduction plan due to the billion-dollar drop in State revenue. They are in a dire situation about continuing to fund necessary services. She does not know what the budget will end up being, but it will be less than it is now. A group meeting at the Governor's office today included representatives of her Department who are looking at changes to the law to reduce the workload in Corrections to better match up with the funding level. The Governor's budget includes a less than baseline budget. If it were enacted, there would be an opt-out situation in the next biennium unless there are changes in the numbers of people on supervision. If that happens, the budget would be different, but at this point it is unknown how different. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 1 of 9 Pages Commissioner Baney asked if it would happen this biennium. Ms. Martin said the opt-out window is open for this biennium but it may not be a possibility next biennium. The County's governing body would have to notify the State that State oversight is wanted and the State would have six months to put this in place. The facility that was built, the work center, would transfer to the State. Most of the staff would transfer to the State if staffing levels remain the same. There are many administrative kinds of things that would have to be addressed. There have been some counties that sent in the letter in the past but never followed through. Commissioner Luke said Linn County did opt out but changed their minds. Commissioner Luke stated that he was at the legislature when 1145 was passed. He did not want to support it because he believed that funding over time would start to go down. Rep. Leslie Lewis and Rep. Ben Westlund had stated that the State could do it cheaper. This may or may not be true. Changing the rules as to who has to be supervised changes the agreement. Klamath County did not sign on when everyone else did, and waited a while. This changed the rules that everyone signed on for. He does not see this situation getting any better in the future. Neil Bryant and he discussed this issue recently and Mr. Bryant said that things are very depressed in Salem, since there is not much hope for improvement anytime soon. Ms. Martin said she has never seen a financial disaster such as the one that people are trying to deal with right now. Most things will not survive intact. Commissioner Luke stated that he feels that the clients are better off under County supervision due to family, work and other factors. Ms. Martin agreed that this works best when it is a part of the community. Sheriff Blanton said that in seeking ideas and boundaries, if the Commissioners chose to opt out, negotiations between the Sheriff's Office and DOC would occur about bringing back beds for the 1145 inmates. Regarding the work center, an agreement would be needed to exchange office space for jail bed space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Pages Ms. Martin stated that they would have to have a plan for those serving less than 12 months in jail. There is a freestanding facility that they would be in charge of, so they would have to make some decisions about how to manage these folks. In Douglas County, they funded some beds in the existing jail, as a part of the facility. An agreement was reached that in exchange for the jail beds, office space would be provided to the State. Douglas County and Linn County have both opted out in the past. Sue Brewster stated that counties can only opt out once during a biennium. Sheriff Blanton asked if sanctions are in addition to the amount per day per prisoner. Ms. Martin stated that she does not think most counties pay for sanctions separately. Mr. Hales said that it is his understanding it is all included. In these cases, about 33-34% of their grant goes to pay for jail beds. There are a few assumptions. If the County opted out, the State may be interested in contracting for jail beds, but could contract with others. Ms. Martin said that operationally it works better locally but this is not mandated. Commissioner Luke stated that a deal was cut under 1145 to have prisoners with less than a year time be housed in local jails. Mr. Hales said that this does require some management regarding who and when people are sanctioned. Ms. Martin said capacity has to be managed. Mr. Hales stated that the 40% comes off the top no matter how many people come in. Mr. Hales asked if there would be any savings gained by doing this. Ms. Martin replied that this is a legislative decision, and departments are committed only by the Governor's budget. Commissioner Luke said opt out is not a knee-jerk reaction. They have faced this situation since 1145 passed. It is the legislature's mindset. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 3 of 9 Pages When Sheriff Blanton asked whether things would stay the same after the budget for the next biennium has been adopted, Ms. Martin said she was not able to say. Mr. Dugan added that special sessions are expected. The conversation with Ms. Martin ended at 2:10 p. m. Commissioner Luke stated that 1145 is a pain and always has been, and clearly was not designed to benefit the counties, just the State. This County has managed to do great work with it, but it is a struggle each session. Mr. Hales said that Community Corrections has a provision that requires the legislature to look at keeping the money up. Other states do not have this. Mr. Dugan noted that they also changed sentencing guidelines. 1145 came later, and was implemented when there were not enough State prisons. Due to Measure 11 and other issues, the State ended up not following the sentencing guidelines, which in many cases were greatly shortened. Mr. Hales said that this emphasizes the importance of local control. Things are run better when the community is involved. Some things in this area are unique. There is no economic advantage to opting out. They would likely lose money for the jail also. They could choose not to fund misdemeanant supervision, but could do that now. Sheriff Blanton pointed out that he feels it is not about economics; it is about public safety. The State will say who is supervised. It affects the community and the Sheriff's Office when someone is matrixed out of jail. He does not want to opt out of 1145. They have budgeted $2 million but it will be $1.8 million, and may end up being less. The State would change who is supervised as a felon. The housing issue in the jail and work in the community means there should be additional misdemeanant and felony supervision. Linn County has about the same size jail, and they negotiated with the State, ending up with about $1.2 million per year, leaving them short of where they need to be to operate their jail. Sheriff Blanton said he does not like the State telling the County how to manage public safety. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 4 of 9 Pages Another possibility is the State will short money the first year, say they will make it up later, and change their mind. The Department of Corrections is in trouble. They are only doing in-service training now, as they think they won't have to backfill the schedule while others are at the academy. However, these new people are not on the schedule yet anyway, so this isn't a savings. He is not supportive of letting the State say how to manage local law enforcement. Mr. Hales said that the State would make decisions on who is released or sanctioned, as well as the level of supervision. A lot of things now being done well would not be done at all. Even if the law changes, some services may still be provided. The State-operated counties run on felony supervision and not much else. Commissioner Luke asked former Sheriff Les Stiles for input. Mr. Stiles said that he is at the meeting because he wanted to hear what Ms. Martin had to say. He has never discussed this issue with Sheriff Blanton. He stated that the problem would continue into the future. In 2001-03, they had to close the work center and lay off people. A lot of this was the fiscal impact of 1145, and there was no way to make up the difference. 1145 has not worked since it was established. The County does a much better job locally. The State wants to legislate its way out of crime, which can't be done. The impact to the system is less work for the State and more for the County. He said he would opt out now, that things will only get worse. Local problems should be handled at the local level, and the continued issue with the State isn't going away. Ernie Mazorol said that the money doesn't change. What they are talking about is a management philosophy. The questions are, which is better for the community, local or State control; will people be safer; and who does the community look to when there is a problem. If the dollar amount stays the same, local control is better. Commissioner Luke noted that providing Mental Health services is a State responsibility. They started contracting with the counties and now the counties have more responsibility with less funding. This happens all the time, as it is the pattern of State government. It is not Ms. Martin's call, but she would fund the maximum if she could. She can't ask for anything more than what is in the Governor's budget. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 5 of 9 Pages Mr. Hales noted that Commissioner Luke does not like the way the State downloads responsibility to the counties. No one has said it will be cheaper. Commissioner Luke added that the money won't follow if the responsibility remains with the County. Commissioner Baney said that by June 30 they should have rules in place and a decision has to be made. Commissioner Luke noted that this is true unless a county sues the State for violating its contract. Commissioner Baney stated that it is not acceptable to lower the level of felons being supervised. She asked how this would work if the State handled it. Ruth Jenkin replied that the State would hire and handle personnel. Mr. Kanner added that he would prepare a budget that assumes a drop in some indirect services. Mr. Dugan said that domestic violence and sex offenders would not be covered. Commissioner Luke stated that they can't just look at the one-year cost; they need to look at the long-term. If enough counties opt out, the State will have to look for another way or build new jails. Mr. Hales said that he feels most counties would not opt out, so it won't be a big issue for the State. Mr. Dugan stated that it has to make dollar sense to opt out; and whether things can still function properly. Opting out affects how they handle misdemeanants and some felons. It sounds like the State will decide just which felons will be covered. Maybe meth offenders will not be. Mr. Hales said that they are still better off with the County determining how to supervise. Commissioner Luke pointed out that the State does not supervise misdemeanants anyway. They may cut out some felony supervision. Then the County would be forced to take that on as well. This work is not cheap, and if this is funded something else would not be. Mr. Hales said that the State would download a certain amount of money. The County can choose to enhance it. The question to him is control, and whether it should be at the local level. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 6 of 9 Pages Tanner Wark added that misdemeanants are in the case bank, with lower service. Field supervision applies to those needing medium or high supervision. They try to remain accountable to what the Judge ordered. Mr. Hales said that low-risk felons are also on case bank. M & E Associates handles some through contract; these are all case bank cases. There is also electronic supervision. They are responsible to the Court. Crime is a community phenomenon, and ultimately it is handled locally. There are social repercussions if it is not done right. You can't have the County running some cases and the State others. This is not effective operationally and it diminishes the economies of scale. Commissioner Unger said that the public doesn't know or care,who handles public safety, they just want it done. There is better control if it is done locally. He thinks other counties should take on the battle. He is not in favor of opting out. Sue Brewster warned that the State may change the rules about opting out, making it harder to do so. Commissioner Baney asked what is wrong with sending a letter regarding opt out as a heads-up to the State. Mr. Hales said that a lot of work would be needed. They would probably not find out anything from a letter. It is not a money issue; it is policy. Commissioner Luke disagreed. He feels it is a money issue. These were not County prisoners to start with. Getting a sentence of one year or less means local sentencing and better treatment. Mr. Dugan said that a lot of crimes carry a sentence of a year or less. This decreases the amount of time spent in State prison and decreases the impact to the State. This is a huge public safety issue. If the State won't supervise a certain level of offender, the downstream cost of victimization is extreme. Commissioner Luke noted that the State will cut down who is supervised. Mr. Hales said that they base decisions on whether they are going to prison. They don't supervise at a certain level because they really don't want to catch them and have to deal with them. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 7 of 9 Pages Commissioner Luke said that if the State won't supervise, how will the County pay for it? People don't care who is responsible. Commissioner Unger stated that the County can do a better job. They just have to prioritize. Sheriff Blanton said that the decision is about local control. These people will also be housed in the County jail, causing crowding there. The Sheriff's Office can put a work plan in place for misdemeanants, but can't do this without help. It costs a lot of money either way. Commissioner Baney stated that with the 1145 contract, ultimately there could be no funds. She is concerned that everything seems to transfer over to the County, making it too easy on the State. The County should file suit and say "enough". The State needs to abide by the contract now in place. Mr. Hales noted that it is a grant agreement, and certain things have to be done to get the funds. It is more effective to get this money. Commissioner Luke said that he would like to get input from the Presiding Judge on this issue. The group briefly discussed the M & E Associates contract. Mr. Hales said there is no fiduciary relationship with the County. They get referrals from the Court and the client pays direct. What they do with the client is up to them. It is an alternative to monitored supervision and no funding for the County results. Mr. Dugan added that it is hard to know their caseload, what kind of offenders they oversee, how they operate and what they do. There is no oversight regarding outcomes. Legislation may establish a fee from offenders for bench probation, but many of these people are unable to pay. Commissioner Baney said that this conversation needs to continue on another day. They have some time to make decisions regarding opting out. The fundamental questions are at a policy level regarding public safety. Commissioner Unger stated that the legislature needs to know how this can impact the locals. Commissioner Luke replied that they know, but their job is to look out for themselves and not the locals. They think that local government can always just raise taxes if they need more money. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 18, 2009 Page 8 of 9 Pages 2. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 3. Other Items. The Commission on Children & Families has to present, no later than Monday, arguments to the State against a 30% budget cut. They already submitted a budget for a 20% cut. Commissioner Luke said that he supports Commissioner Baney working with Dave Kanner and others on this issue. Regarding the Finance Committee for the La Pine groundwater situation, Mr. Anderson said they are still working on recommendations. A brief discussion occurred regarding working on efficiencies in Community Development projects by cooperating with the City of Bend, to benefit both agencies. At this time the Board went into executive session under ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation. No formal action was taken. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m. DATED this 18th Day of March 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. A Tammy ey, Qjiair Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary a& t Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 9 of 9 Pages Wednesday, March 18, 2009 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 WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 18, 2009 1- Discussion of Community Corrections Act Opt-Out - Sheriff Blanton, Ken Hales 2. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. ff you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. ~`~~(ES n Department of Administrative Services . Dave Kanner -County Administrator 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www.co.deschutes.or.us March 12, 2009 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Dave Kanner RE: Opt-out from Community Corrections funding Under the Community Corrections Act, adopted by the Legislature in 1995, the State of Oregon transferred the adult parole & probation function to counties and agreed to provide funding to counties to carry out that function. The law further provided that offenders convicted of state crimes and sentenced to a year or less in prison would serve their jail terms in the county jail of the county in which they were sentenced. A key provision of the law is that if the state fails to provide funding at the "essential budget level," counties can "opt out" of this agreement with the state and turn the P&P function back over to the Department of Corrections. This occurred in 2003, when Linn and Douglas Counties opted out. The recent budget rebalancing plan adopted by the Legislature cut CCA funding by $6.9 million statewide and by $300,000 in Deschutes County, thus opening the opt out window. There may be further cuts in the '09211 biennium, but it's expected that the DoC will revise the required service levels to match available funding in order to prevent opt out. At your March 18 work session, Sheriff Larry Blanton and Community Justice Director Ken Hales will be available to talk to you about how the opt out process works (see attached documents). We will also have Ginger Martin of the DoC on the phone with us to provide further explanation and to answer questions. THE OPT OUT Transfer of Community Corrections Operations From a County to the State Responsibilities of the State Through the Department of Corrections The state would 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; (d) sentenced to 12 months or less incarceration (e) sanctioned 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 ("second look" release of juvenile offender convicted of Measure 11 crime) For local control offenders sentenced or sanctioned to a prison term of 12 months or less incarceration to be served locally, the state would become the supervisory authority and would determine the use of sanctions other than incarceration for this group as appropriate. ORS 423.478(2)(3) Community Corrections Funding Community corrections grants to counties are determined by the number and type of offenders under supervision in the county. The allocation amount would not change with a change in the governmental body that had the responsibilities listed above. The county share of state community correction funding would support all costs of operating community corrections including personnel, supplies, operation of facilities, alternative sanctions, and correctional interventions. Personnel Under existing state law (ORS 236.610) all county staff would transfer to state employment, except those effected by reduction in force due to budget reductions or job elimination due to organizational restructuring. All positions would be allocated at the appropriate state classification. DOC will need position authority and union representation would need to be determined. Salaries paid to new state employees are guaranteed to match their county salaries for 12 months per ORS 236.610 unless bargained higher. Wages, benefits, differentials, and working conditions would be bargained during the first 12 months. Community Corrections Plan The Department of Corrections staff would have the responsibility for creating the biennial community corrections plan. The plan outlines the basic structure and the supervision, services and sanctions to be applied to offenders convicted of felonies placed on supervision or local control status. The plan consists of program descriptions, budget allocation, and performance objectives for the correctional interventions to be provided. (ORS 423.525)(7)(8) Liability The state, through the Department of Corrections, becomes directly liable for the activities of felony offenders on supervision in the counties in which community corrections is operated by the state. At the same time, there will be offenders on supervision that will not receive that supervision due to budget constraints. Liability is also increased as the state takes on more employees, some of whom may carry a firearm in the course of their work. Property/LeasesNehicles The property currently being used to operate the field office would transfer to the state along with the responsibility, as would leases and contracts. Facilities Any facility built with state funds to house local control offenders would be vacated by the county until such time as the loan is repaid. The state would have the option to operate the facility directly, to contract with private or public entities to operate the facility or to lease it back to the county. Some of these facilities are stand-alone buildings, but most of the projects were part of existing facilities; the logistics of operation will be much more complicated in shared space. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE RULES GOVERNING THE OPT OUT 291-031-0085 County Option to Cease Participation in the Community Corrections Act (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 Act by providing written notification to the Director of the Department of Corrections 180 days prior to implementation of the change. (3) The department can elect to assume responsibility for community corrections sooner than 180 days with concurrence from the county. (4) A county may transfer responsibility for community corrections to the state no more than one time in a biennium. Stat Auth.: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.525 & ORS 423.530 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483 & ORS 423.500 - ORS 423.560 Hist.: DOC 5-2003(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 2-21-03 thru 8-20-03; DOC 12-2003, f. & cert. ef. 8-20-03 291-031-0095 Responsibility for Community Corrections (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) 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 legal 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, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.525 & ORS 423.530 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483 & ORS 423.500 - ORS 423.560 Hist.: DOC 5-2003(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 2-21-03 thru 8-20-03; DOC 12-2003, f. & cert. ef. 8-20-03 291-031-0100 Funding (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 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, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.525 & ORS 423.530 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483 & ORS 423.500 - ORS 423.560 Hist.: DOC 5-2003(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 2-21-03 thru 8-20-03; DOC 12-2003, f. & cert. ef. 8-20-03 291-031-0110 Biennial Community Corrections Plan 2 (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, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.525, & ORS 423.530 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.500 - ORS 423.560 Hist.: DOC 5-2003(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 2-21-03 thru 8-20-03; DOC 12-2003, f. & cert. ef. 8-20-03 291-031-0120 Transfer of Property (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 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 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, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.525 & ORS 423.530 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483 & ORS 423.500 - ORS 423.560 Hist.: DOC 5-2003(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 2-21-03 thru 8-20-03; DOC 12-2003, f. & cert. ef. 8-20-03 291-031-0130 Correctional Facilities When a county ceases participation in the Community Corrections Act, the state and county shall follow the terms of any applicable lease-sublease agreements regarding any correctional facilities acquired, constructed, or renovated under ORS 423.525(2). Stat Auth.: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.525 & ORS 423.530 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483 & ORS 423.500 - ORS 423.560 Hist.: DOC 5-2003(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 2-21-03 thru 8-20-03; DOC 12-2003, f. & cert. ef. 8-20-03 291-031-0140 Employees (1) County employees 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 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 wages and benefits. Stat Auth.: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483, ORS 423.525 & ORS 423.530 Stats. Implemented: ORS 179.040, ORS 423.020, ORS 423.030, ORS 423.075, ORS 423.478, ORS 423.483 & ORS 423.500 - ORS 423.560 Hist.: DOC 5-2003(Temp), f. & cert. ef. 2-21-03 thru 8-20-03; DOC 12-2003, f. & cert. ef. 8-20-03 4