Loading...
2009-1438-Minutes for Meeting April 29,2009 Recorded 8/21/2009COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKOS ~J 2009. 438 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111111,,,■1„„1.,1., 1,1,11 oil 08/21/2009 08;08;01 AM 2008-14 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, APRIL 299 2009 Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Larry Blanton, Sheriff; Ken Hales and Tanner Wark, Community Justice; Ruth Jenkin, Jail; Susan Ross and Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities; Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel; Anna Johnson, Communications; Ernie Mazorol, Courts; media representative Hillary Borrud with The Bulletin; and 11 other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Discussion of Request to Re-Establish Home Rule Charter Committee. Ed Fitch, a member of the County's 2006 Home Rule Charter Committee, said in the November 2006 Charter Election, 46% of voters voted for home rule, with 54% saying no. He said there was a strong under vote and it is clear to some that Home Rule would have received majority support. Voters were not opposed to Home Rule, just this particular format. One concern was that people could only vote for one Commissioner rather than three, a criticism of the last Home Charter Rule. Issues of part time and full time should be readdressed and reevaluated. To put it on the ballot in May of 2010, he would like to have the committee formed by next fiscal summer. The last time there was only four months to put the Charter together. He does recognize there is a cost for the County, which would have to be waived by the Commissioners. Now is not a good time to bring up issues that cost money, but we do need to focus on the future and this is an appropriate time to do that. He felt there is a strong census that expanding commissioners to five would be strong for the County. He said we would not want to wait another 20 years before looking at it again. By doing it in 2010, they would be able to take the minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Page 1 of 9 Unless there is support from the Commissioners, he did not think re- establishing the Charter would be successful. The campaign should not be driven by the Bulletin; it should be best interest of the County and citizens in Deschutes County. He did not ask any one to come today because judgment on Home Rule Charter is the Boards decision. Commissioner Baney reminded everyone that this is a public meeting but it is not open for public comment. Commissioner Luke said it is not just up to the Board. The public has a right to go out and gather signatures and a committee could be formed. He does not disagree with Charter form of government; he did not like the last one. Mark Pilliod pointed out that there is a lot of staffing time to take into consideration. He estimated 80 hours just for him and his staff. There were also presentations by various departments and a lot of involvement from the Clerk's Office staff. Creating the map of the districts is time consuming. It is more of a political decision. As the Commissioners pointed out, there is the option to collect signatures to form the committee. Commissioner Unger said he is supportive of Home Rule and saw some advantages to it. He thought it should be formed into something that is more specific to the local situation. If the committee starts now, there could be public input that would help make something that is for everybody. Commissioner Luke asked if the Board would like to have a public meeting. Commissioner Unger said he was agreeable. Commissioner Baney said we might not have a lot of staff time to put into this. Mr. Pilliod said if they wanted any materials generated from the previous effort, he would be glad to get those to them. Commissioner Unger said enough information should be given to the public so they know what this means. Commissioner Baney recommended that it be after the budget is completed. 2. Continued Discussion of Opt-Out from Community Corrections Act. Commissioner Baney said regarding the conversation of opt out or not opt out, she heard clearly from the judges. The main issues she heard was local control as the way things are working and they do not want to loose the ability to have a say. Overall, it is a unique situation in Deschutes County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Page 2 of 8 Commissioner Luke said he was not surprised by the judge's answers. Ernie Mazorol said the judges like to keep local control. It is better if there is a way to keep everything under one umbrella. The court likes local control because there have been some savings they have experienced in the past. There is a uniqueness to get around the table and resolve issues. Commissioner Luke said do we accept a State mandate or do we put additional local funds into it. The biggest concern is the State continues to under fund 1145. We will have the same discussion down the road if we do not opt out now. Commissioner Baney wanted to know more information. She said parole & probation supervises those mandated by courts, which is more of misdemeanor population. Commissioner Unger asked what opt out means. Commissioner Baney said we are mandated to supervise a certain population of felons. If we opt out, we would not supervise them. Mr. Hales said the role would remain the same if we opt out or do not opt out. He has not heard of any dissatisfaction with the service. Commissioner Luke said our responsibility is not to supervise people. Commissioner Baney said it would be a decision of the Board to supervise those who are not supervised by the State. Sheriff Blanton said we still do not have the amount-the State is going to propose. They can change whenever they want to. If we opt out, we will get no 1145 money. The jail would rent beds from the Department of Corrections. Dave Kanner said it is true that funding is decreased in last three years but the trend over time has been.to increase money. If there is a 30% budget cut, Deschutes County will receive more money in the next biennium than in the last biennium. The cut they proposed was a 24 million dollar reduction from the essential budget level. Deschutes County will get a larger piece of a smaller pie based on number of offenders. Commissioner Baney said it is therefore a reduction of an increase. Mr. Kanner said the total amount of money statewide shrinks but the percentage to Deschutes County increases. Some other counties will get decreases. Mr. Kanner passed out documentation (see attached). The reason he brought it to the Board is so they can see changes over time. The County has reduced the money put into that function over time. Some County money could be used for discretionary items. There was a decline in 2009 because of the change in the split. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Page 3 of 8 Larry Blanton said if looking at the State funding line, the sheriff should get more money. Mr. Kanner said he used the Governor's recommended budget. Now that we are looking at what the actual allocations will be, it will be higher to parole and probation and the jail. Sheriff Blanton said that is assuming the budget is adopted. Commissioner Baney said it may go up or down but should tract this a little closer to June. Mr. Kanner said if Ways and Means gets their budget done early, we might know by the time we go into budget deliberations for the County. Mark Pilliod said if the State assumes responsibility for employees, assuming a State mandated function; the State would be required to maintain comp levels for one year and then revert to the State level. For those not going to the State, the County could be liable for unemployment for County laid off employees. Ernie Mazorol said regardless of who manages it, the dollars coming from the State will be the same. If there is a reduction in money, we will have to make decisions Commissioner Baney said the question is to opt out or not to opt out. What corrections community would like is local control. She hears the Sheriff's concerns and at what point do we say enough. The question is how do we feel about it, is this the time to opt out? Commissioner Unger said he did not want to opt out. We should inform the State they are going in the wrong direction. There are opportunities with electronic monitoring and new things that make supervision with fewer costs. He would rather have local control on 1145 money than to tell the State they can do it. He does not think the citizens of Deschutes County would like to have the State do what they want to do. Commissioner Luke said we have made a case to legislature on 1145 every year. The comment from the State is they can do it for less so why is the State paying counties. They use this for one of the tools to balance the budget. The Department of Corrections does not want to do it. He thought that if not now, one of these days, the County would opt out. Is local control better, yes it is. Will there come a time the County may not be able to support it. One of these days, we will have to start cutting programs. Commissioner Unger said counties should all stick together. He did not want to be the first to opt out. Commissioner Baney said she agreed with both of the Commissioners. At this time, Deschutes County is able to cover the costs but down the road, the writing is on the wall. If given back to the State, the concern is some offenders will be supervised by the State and some by the County, which does not make a seamless situation. She is not in favor of opting out. Sometimes it is a fresh perspective that helps move things forward. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Page 4 of 8 Commissioner Unger said if we look at what the public wants, they want us to do a better job. Legislation should hear that loud and clear, safety is important. Commissioner Luke said there are major discussions on cutting down on who you have to supervise. Ken Hales said there are different ways of supervising and their proposal to reduce the length of sanctions is already less that what the County does. Commissioner Luke asked if we are looking at cutting back the number of people that we will be asked to supervise to justify the formula. Sheriff Blanton said what was a felony would now be handled as a misdemeanor. Mr. Hales said good time rotates someone out quicker. Commissioner Luke said tomorrow or the day after is the last day to get bills to the legislature. Is there a bill to reduce the workload? Mr. Hales was not aware of any bills that would do that. He added that local control determines some of the law, with local control up to the local safety advisory board. Commissioner Luke said it is still not clear. The State is talking about changing the rules on who is supervised. How are they doing that? Are they doing it by bill or administrative rule? This cannot wait until the last minute. Mr. Hales said the product of the Governor's work group was to address the workload management. Commissioner Baney said this is not a win win situation regardless. She thinks they will find another way to reduce the number of people that have to be supervised. She is hearing they will reduce measures to cut costs. At this time, the group discussed one of the cost cutting measures could be combining Parole & Probation with the Sheriff's Office. Deschutes County Parole & Probation used to be under the Sheriff's Office direction. After it was separated for some time, it was again discussed to combine the two but previous commissioners voted against it. It could be one of the options to look at when considering opting out. Commissioner Luke said we have been innovative on many things. A judge can put down an order, the question is, will the State pay for it. If just doing what the State mandated, we would not be doing that. Ten years ago, we were not transferring any money at all to Parole & Probation. Commissioner Unger said he is interested in knowing what monies we have had to put into other department budgets such as road, public health, etc. It is not just a problem with corrections. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Mazorol said if you have local control, there are some felons that would be supervised less. Things were moved around a little but he still thinks there is that flexibility. He said if we can take a global look, we could decide how to manage it. Commissioner Baney asked if we have to supervise all felons and then we can spend money on the misdemeanors. Mr. Hales said as long as the felons are taken care of. Commissioner Baney said do we opt out or not opt out. Commissioner Luke said you have two votes. Commissioner Baney said she is hearing everyone wants the best service delivery with local control and being able to continue being innovative in the most cost efficient manner. Cost is one component but not the only reason. Mr. Hales said there is more opportunity for efficiencies and effectiveness in juvenile and adult parole and probation. The functions are much more similar and the opportunities are much the same as far as economizing, training, etc. Commissioner Baney said good decisions should to be made. The Sheriff said he and Mr. Hales have a good working relationship. No other administration has done more than the current administration. He said he believes strongly in alternatives to incarceration. If the concern is level of current funding, there is still the opportunity to consolidate and save money. In some way, it might enhance service delivery. In terms of indirect cost, that will potentially be up to the Commissioners to decide if they want to contribute money each year. They pay over $80,000.00 in drug and alcohol treatment. How can we provide the same or better service with reduced costs to everyone. Opt out or do what we can with potential budget issues. Because I am independently elected, I have options that Mr. Hales does not have regarding budget. Commissioner Unger said the conversation is not over. He and Commissioner Baney felt LPSCC would need to weigh in. She said it is a sensitive conversation and something that will be long term. Mr. Kanner said the common mission in this case is with juvenile and adult parole and probation. The Sheriff's Office provides patrol, investigation, and incarceration. It is a different mind set. He thought Mr. Hales has made significant strides in the department with morale and procedures over the last twelve months. He quoted something Commissioner Luke had stated earlier, "let government work and do not keep changing it back and forth". Since 1991 parole and probation has been jerked around a lot. We have something that is working, it is not broke, so do not try to fix it. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Page 6 of 8 Sheriff Blanton said whatever the decision is; he suggests a decision be made. It is not a healthy organization for employees to be going back and forth. The decision is up to the Board. Mr. Mazorol said if the dialog keeps going, let the judges know. The relationship with the court is really important. Commissioner Luke sated if it is kept short, he would not mind a hearing, Tanner Wark said it would be good for staff to bring this to a close. He said the structure they now have is moving in good directions. Commissioners Baney and Unger agreed, make a decision. Sheriff Blanton said he values LPSCC, judicial and the judges input. Commissioner Baney said she would want to hear back regarding the core components of the system. Jack Blum, public member of LPSCC, said State said they could do it cheaper but when it comes to parole and probation, before 1145, the State had parole and probation and their supervision was poor at best. It was not because they did not have good people, it was because they had too much to do and had more clients to take care of than they could handle. If State thinks they have a formula to do it cheaper, they need to let us know what that is. If the State cuts money and probation officers become unemployed, inmates will come out, come back to the community, and be committing crimes, a big revolving door. Commissioner Luke asked about the closing of the prison in Madras and if it does, will there be early releases coming to parole and probation. Mr. Hales said approximately 200 new offenders on parole will come to Deschutes County. Part of the discussion, a provision of 57, is to move more people into prison and at the same time have turnover with more people coming out of prison. Commissioner Baney felt these were hard decisions and they needed more information. She would like to look at the budget to see what it would look like. The decision will be a long-term decision. We are loosing productive time having to talk about 1145 every year as to whether to stay in or opt out. The funding will not get any better. What is the short time line. Commissioner Luke said we should do this fairly quickly. With going into budgets, the sooner the better. He would refer to staff on how much time they need. Commissioner Unger said we are kind of down the road on the budget for this year; he would like to analyze this budget, understand the opportunities and then carry the decision into next year. Commissioner Baney said the only hesitation is if there are efficiencies, we will need those to offset the needs for Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 29, 2009 Page 7 of 8 next year. Mr. Hales said he did not know what efficiencies there are but he has been over the Parole & Probation budget and there is not any fat in the budget. If the Sheriff can support a parole and probation operation that is great. If he has people that can provide services, the real issue is of governance. Commissioner Luke asked how much time the Sheriff would need if he had access to the budget to come back with a proposed organizational chart and savings. Sheriff Blanton said not too long in terms of people on the org chart now. The primary savings are in personnel. The ability to deliver service, indirects, automobiles, and such would not be half of the budget. Commissioner Baney said it would have to make sense in improving service. Erik Kropp made a phone call to Ginger Martin regarding an amendment to SB 264, which could change and go to another bill. Sheriff Blanton said he would look at it and get back with Mr. Kanner. Commissioner Luke asked where the court is in relationship to the budget. Mr. Mazorol said if the budget were to be cut 15%, they would start closing doors. Al lot of programs will be gone but if they get over that percentage, they will start closing doors. 3. Other Items. None offered. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. DATED this 29th Day of April 2009 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy Baney, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair ATTEST: ARecloring secretary 1~ 66v~~~ Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 8 of 8 Wednesday, April 29, 2009 ~0 1 Department of Administrative Services PA rLA Dave Kanner, County Administrator 0 NA -A\' 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www. co. deschutes. or. us April 22, 2009 TO: Board of Commissioners FROM: Dave Kanner RE: Home Rule Charter On March 25, 2009, Ed Fitch, a member of the County's 2006 Home Rule Charter Committee, appeared at your business meeting to request that the County establish a new charter committee with the goal of referring a new home rule charter measure to the voters. The Board requested that I schedule this request for work session discussion, which I have scheduled for April 29. Although you are probably already familiar with it, I have attached the state statute that addresses home rule charters. Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner Chapter 203 - County Governing Bodies; County Home Rule Pagel of 3 203.720 Electors of county may adopt, amend, revise or repeal county charter; certain provisions, deemed matters of county concern, to prevail over state law. The electors of any county, by majority vote of such electors voting thereon at any legally called election, may adopt, amend, revise or repeal a county charter. The charter, or legislation passed by the county pursuant thereto, shall provide a method whereby the electors of the county, by majority vote of such electors voting thereon at any legally called election, may amend, revise or repeal the charter. The county charter and legislative provisions relating to the amendment, revision or repeal of the charter are deemed to be matters of county concern and shall prevail over any conflicting provisions of ORS 203.710 to 203.770 and other state statutes unless otherwise specifically provided by conflicting state statutes first effective after January 1, 1961. [1959 c.527 §2] 203.725 County charter amendment; single subject; separate submission to electors. (1) A proposed amendment to a county charter, whether proposed by the county governing body or by the people of the county in the exercise of the initiative power, shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith. (2) When two or more amendments to a county charter are submitted to the electors of the county for their approval or rejection at the same election, they shall be so submitted that each amendment shall be voted on separately. (3) Notwithstanding any county charter or legislation enacted thereunder, this section shall apply to every amendment of a county charter and shall take precedence and prevail over any conflicting provisions in a county charter or in legislation enacted thereunder. [1983 c.240 §2] 203.730 Charter committee appointed after filing of resolution or petition; sufficiency of petition; notice to persons entitled to make appointments to committee. (1) A county charter may be proposed by a committee appointed after the filing with the county clerk of: (a) A resolution requesting appointment of the committee, adopted by a majority of the county court; or (b) A petition requesting appointment of the committee, signed by such number of electors of the county as is equal to at least four percent of the whole number of votes cast within the county for all candidates for Governor at the most recent election at which a candidate for Governor was elected to a full term. The petition shall be substantially in such form as the county clerk may prescribe. (2) The county clerk, not later than the fifth day after the filing of the resolution of the county court, shall give written notice thereof to those persons entitled to participate in the appointment of a member of the committee. (3) Upon the filing with the county clerk of a petition requesting the appointment of a committee, the county clerk, not later than the 15th day after the filing of the petition, shall verify the signatures and certify to the county court the findings as to the sufficiency of such petition. If the petition is found to be sufficient, the county clerk immediately shall give written notice thereof to those persons entitled to participate in the appointment of a member of the committee. [1959 c.527 §§3,4; 1973 c.255 §1; 1979 c.190 §403; 1989 c.174 §1] 203.740 Charter committee and members; appointment, qualifications, vacancies, terms, organization, meetings. (1) Within 60 days after the county clerk finds that a petition for the appointment of a committee is sufficient, or within 60 days after the county court has filed with the county clerk its resolution requesting that a committee be appointed, a committee shall be appointed as provided in this section. Only one committee is to be in existence at any given period of time. (2)(a) In all counties: (A) A majority of the county court is entitled to appoint four members of the committee; (B) A majority of the state Senators and state Representatives then representing the county is entitled to appoint four additional members; and (C) A majority, consisting of at least five, of those persons appointed under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph is entitled to appoint one additional member. (b) If, within 45 days after the terms of committee members begin to run as provided in subsection (4) of this section, an appointing authority has not made the appointment or appointments it is entitled to make, the http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/203.html 4/22/2009 Chapter 203 - County Governing Bodies; County Home Rule Page 2 of 3 county clerk shall call a meeting of those persons constituting the appointing authority by giving written notice to each of them, specifying the purpose of the meeting and the time and place thereof. The time of the meeting shall be set within 15 days of the expiration of the 45-day period. (3) All members of the committee must be electors of the county. No member shall be engaged, directly or indirectly, in any business with the county that is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of duties as a member of the committee. An initial appointment, or an appointment to fill a vacancy, is made by delivering to the county clerk written notice of the name and address of the person appointed, signed by the person duly authorized to act for the appointing authority. No member of an appointive authority may serve as a member of such committee. If an appointing authority fails to make such an initial appointment within 60 days after the terms of committee members begin to run as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the county court shall make the appointment within 10 days after the expiration of the 60-day period. (4) The terms of committee members run either from the date the county court receives the certification from the county clerk that the petition requesting the appointment of the committee is sufficient or from the date the county court files its resolution requesting appointment of the committee, as the case may be. The terms expire on the day of the election at which the committee's proposed charter is voted upon or within two years from the date the terms began, whichever is the sooner, unless, in the case where a proposed charter is not submitted at an election held within such two-year period, the county court by resolution filed with the county clerk before the expiration of the terms extends them until the day of the election on the proposed charter or for another two years, whichever is the sooner. Any vacancy occurring on the committee, in a position for which an initial appointment has been made, shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term by the appointing authority that was entitled to make the initial appointment of the member whose position is vacant or, if such appointing authority fails to make the appointment within 10 days after the vacancy occurs, by the county court. (5) Not later than 80 days after the terms of committee members begin to run as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the members of the committee shall meet and organize. A majority of the committee constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. The committee may adopt such rules as it deems necessary for its operation. However, the committee may not prohibit the public from attending any of its meetings. [1959 c.527 §5; 1979 c.748 §2; 2005 c.22 §153] 203.750 County funds for charter committee; committee staff; county officials to cooperate. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 294.305 to 294.565, if the county court is notified of the sufficiency of a petition requesting the appointment of a committee, or if it files its resolution requesting the appointment of a committee, the county, acting through the county court, shall cause to be made available from funds of the county an amount equal at least to one cent per elector of the county or $500, whichever amount is greater, for the purpose of paying the expenses of the committee in the preparation of the charter. Members of the committee shall serve without pay. The committee, within the limit of funds available to it, may employ such persons, or contract for their services, as it may deem necessary to aid it in the performance of its functions. Persons employed by the committee are exempt from civil service. The county, acting through the county court, shall cause to be furnished free of charge to the committee adequate office space and, notwithstanding ORS 294.305 to 294.565, may cause money, in addition to the required minimum amount, to be appropriated for the committee. The committee shall submit to the county court a budget covering estimates of its expenditures. With respect to expenditures in excess of the minimum amount of money required to be made available, the budget as approved or revised and approved by the county court shall represent the authorized limits of the committee's expenditures. Any balance remaining unexpended shall be transferred to the general fund of the county unless other provisions were made at the time of the appropriation to the committee. The county treasurer is authorized to disburse funds of the committee on its order. (2) The committee may conduct interviews and make investigations which to it seem necessary in order to draft a charter; and, to the fullest extent practicable, county officials and employees shall cooperate with the committee and provide it with information, advice and assistance. [1959 c.527 §6] 203.760 Submission of proposed charter, after public hearing, to electors; approval of conflicting charters. (1) The committee shall submit its proposed charter to the county clerk not later than the 90th day http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/203.html 4/22/2009 Chapter 203 - County Governing Bodies; County Home Rule Page 3 of 3 before the election at which the proposed charter is to be voted upon. Before the proposed charter is submitted to the county clerk, the committee shall conduct at least one public hearing thereon. After the proposed charter is submitted to the county clerk, the county clerk shall submit the proposed charter to the district attorney for a ballot title as provided in ORS 250.185 (2). The ballot title is subject to judicial review as provided in ORS 250.195. (2) The charter proposed by the committee shall take effect on the day fixed therein if approved by majority vote of the electors of the county voting thereon. (3) If two or more conflicting county charters are approved at the same election, the one receiving the greatest number of affirmative votes shall be adopted. [1959 c.527 §7; 1979 c.190 §404; 1981 c.173 §6] 203.770 Copies of charters and amendments, revisions and repeals thereof; location and judicial notice of. (1) Duplicate certificates shall be made, setting forth the county charter adopted and a statement of its ratification, signed by the officers or members of the body canvassing election returns. One of such certified copies shall be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, the other shall be kept as a permanent record of the county. All courts shall take judicial notice of either copy. (2) This section shall also apply to any amendment, revision or repeal of the county charter. [1959 c.527 §8] http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/203.html 4/22/2009 0 C 7 d a) otf W (n a ° m Q. a) a) ° o 0 E (n Ch E E m cu O 0 U cu U Q O O 0 7 f0 - c c a c a) ll a a m U c - m E m E O o ° 3 co U a) c a) U 0 M cn cu L E E .a.+ U L C Y 3 - ~:3 (n 2 O U U p :3 0 a) - m C U O O c0 n cn c N m cn c cn O O ? - C N A _ - aj cn - f0 O U fU p O L C E a) a) O m O L - 3 L C m U N O O U C O a) O a) m 3 N a) o :3 ° (n H c c c o (D he a) o a) 0 o > ? > m a) ca CN Q - m m d L _ C E N O 0 E C m L E E O O (n O L U U m N C O ° 0 ° .0 a , ° ° 0 CU c ° m m 0 a~ m a) a) V c c 0 a) E 70 0 m a 0 0 c u k- o ~ o m L a O a ' cn _ c v 3 3 m 3 S Fa 3 3 - O •c c - o J a) a) E c c o a) E 3 U) c c c o 0 v_) ' CL o CL o c ° - - z a) w a) " m c O c a) w w C O a i cn 2m O o c . : -n cn o 0 o co 6 a) d a) c c 'g m o t(D - -0 m a) c cn c 0 '0 -0 .2 V) o o a) ' ' _ m 0 0 ~ a) O w 0 p v v O N N c L ca c L - ' cn c to c c m L L a) 0 a) 0 a) 3 U y - o 0 (D a) cn c U n c ~ ° U E iu 3 c°~ c°) f° U c- ~ CO (n mo CL c c o o m o ~ O m - - U } m m o CL CL m m ) o, O » Z U ~ z z o c U~ z z z z z M° 8: z O O cco o ~ z z z m V ~ 00) X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x x X X X X X m CL O N _ X X X X X X X a) CL ~n O a) o m N L O 0 C N N > C C L co Y (d ~O C C E 0 7 a) ~ C O ° L Z C ` E O O _ O Y Y N cn ° L" N C C Q ' d v ) a) E a) U L O C E N L L C O ` i Y m O t i) DO OO D U U U U U 0 U U' 2 2 ~ ~ 13- 3 ~ ~ "N ~e~ ' ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS DIRECTORS Governor's Community Corrections Workgroup Executive Board oA Progress Report Members When the Governor released his recommended budget for community corrections (7% less than the calculated baseline budget) he committed to Steve Berger convening a workgroup tasked to develop workload reductions equal to the OACCD President funding reduction. However, the workgroup was further challenged at our , Klamath/Lake County first meeting with a projected revenue shortfall between 4-5 billion for the Community Corrections state budget. Mark Royal Recognizing this, the workgroup notes it is important to emphasize several OACCD Vice President, critical points: Umatilla/Morrow 1) There are no palatable options which will approach the savings County Community necessary to be meaningful Corrections Shane IIagey 2) The committee understands the interest in maintaining some local OACCD Secretary, control with respect to how the resources will be allocated Jackson County Community Justice 3) Although the proposed cuts are intended to reflect prudent corrections and enforcement policies, everybody understands the actual application Abe Huntley of the cuts will mean something different in each jurisdiction. (So, for OACCD Treasurer example, just because a proposed reduction might be described as " " , Josephine County reducing supervision for population A , many counties in extremis may Community Corrections already be providing little or no actual supervision of that population, so the reduction will be expressed through loss of supervision for an even higher risk group.) The only alternative was just to set a number without regard to policy and let each jurisdiction see what it could afford to do. The group felt it reflected better policy to at least try to define the cuts in Committed To, And terms of better corrections policy. Value, Offender Reformation, The following recommendations described below are in order of suggested Services to Victims, priority and will move ahead with legislative concepts specific to cost Crime Prevention, reductions in community corrections: And Community 1) inactive Status: Match Local PPS Supervision to Board PPS Supervision Restoration Law. Make law for local PPS inactive status match Board of Parole/PPS inactive status: supervision becomes inactive after 1/2 of sentence unless PO requests the case remain on active supervision. www.oaccd.net 3203 Vandenberg Rd. Klamath Falls, OR 97603 Ph: (541) 880-5500 x8201 Fax: (541) 880-5513 sberger0coAlamath.or.us This change would drop an average of 150 offenders off of supervision. Since this law change does not change the sentence, it could take place immediately. Estimated savings: $888,264 each biennium 2) Earned Compliance Credit for Probation (i.e. probation "good time"): Create an earned compliance credit that would reduce the time that offenders are on supervision at the rate of one day off for each day served on probation a net 50% reduction in supervision possible. Credit would be earned only if the offender is in compliance with all of the conditions of probation. Offenders could earn credits for each month they are compliant but not on those months they were not compliant. When all the conditions are met, including the full payment of restitution, if any, the supervision term would be reduced by the amount of time earned. (Savings calculations are based on the assumption that supervision sentences would be reduced overall by 40%, or said another way, that 80% of the earned time available would be awarded. There was much debate about whether offenders on supervision in the community would reach this level of compliance.) Estimated savings: $7.3 Million for 09-11 biennium $51.5 Million for 11-13 biennium 3) Reduce Sentence Length for Probation Revocations: Modify all probation revocations without new convictions to a maximum of 60 days. The state average is currently 84 days. (This refers to the sentence ordered, not the time the inmate actually serves, and it does not apply to revocations based upon a new conviction.) Estimated savings: $9.7 million for 09-11 biennium assuming only the local control cases. The three recommendations noted above totaling an estimated $17.89 million represent 7.3% savings for the 09-11 biennium from the $245 million October calculated baseline budget for community corrections. This meets the original objective seeking workload reduction equal to the Governors recommended budget. Additional Recommendation for consideration: Measure 57 Phase-In Proposal The workgroup acknowledged the contrary objectives of packing more offenders in the front only to hurry them out the back of the corrections system, so some consideration was given to the idea of modifying Measure 57 to allow a phase-in for some of the property offenders. In present form, Measure 57 allows the parties to stipulate to a departure in some narrowly defined circumstances. The group contemplated the possibility of an automatic departure into an intensive Drug Court supervision program (similar to the HOPE program in Hawaii noted in the Governors most recent memo regarding Byrne/JAG Grants). Revocations following such a departure would be left with the discretion of the supervising judge, but it would result in the imposition of the prison sentence described in Measure 57. To be clear, this would not affect repeat property offenders who are already subject to prison. This proposal to "phase-in" Measure 57, would carve out that subset of M57 property offenders who would not be going to prison but for 57. The potential savings has yet to be calculated, but it is anticipated that some significant portion of the projected savings would be directed to local jurisdictions to fund the jail, supervision and treatment necessary to make such a program work. Members of the committee were asked to speak with members of their respective groups and report back ASAP, as we are on a very tight legislative timeline. Please forward your thoughts relating to the M57 Phase-In Proposal so I can report back for the group on the M57 proposal. The good news: Federal Stimulus Money for Public Safety: Byrne/JAG Grant As noted in the Governor's briefing memo sent March 30th to Senate President Peter Courtney and Speaker of the House David Hunt, $22 million will be distributed statewide through a formula process that, is based on population and crime rates. This amount is split with approximately 60 percent administered by the state, and 40 percent in direct local awards to cities and counties, netting approximately $13.5 million for the state and $8.5 million for the local jurisdictions. The state money could potentially provide $12.9 million to support the HOPE program model, with the remaining $.6 million set aside to fund a state Alcohol and Drug Policy Commission (Numbers are estimates/proposals only). There is some potential confusion with respect to the HOPE pilot project, and other "HOPE-like" programs which might be instituted in order to provide more intense supervision, and more certain sanctions, for those in the M57 property "phase in" group. A third group, the poorly defined and extremely diverse group of current "drug court" programs would likely continue to operate in the background, at least for a while, as many are operating on grant funding. 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. ~v-cES eo o~° `Z{ Deschutes County Department of Community Justice J. Kenneth Hales, Director 633360 Britta Street, Building 1, Bend, OR 97701; ph 541.317.3115 Commissioner Tammy Baney, Chair Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners 1300 NW Wall, Bend, OR 97701 Re: Misdemeanor supervision On March 18`h and 19th discussion arose about misdemeanor supervision in Deschutes and other counties. In response to the questions about what other counties do regarding funding misdemeanor supervision Tanner Wark reviewed the biennial community corrections plans for some counties and spoke directly with several community corrections directions. He was able to gather current information from twenty-four of the thirty four community corrections departments. The following provides information regarding financial contributions, level of misdemeanor supervision and state grant allocations for twenty-four community corrections departments. A Baker County community correction received $60,000 this biennium from the county general fund. The community corrections department supervises an average of 176 offenders of which 26% are misdemeanor offenders. The Sheriff is provided 37% of the state grant. Benton County community corrections does not receive county general fund money but does have a local levy to subsidize one probation officer as well as $291,000 for jail housing. The department will be requesting additional funding for the next levy for another probation officer. On an average daily bases the department supervise 466 offenders of which 23% are misdemeanors. A Clackamas County community corrections is budgeted separately but the director is supervised by the Sheriff. This department receives $2.3m annually from the county general fund. The department supervises 3,229 offenders of which approximately 37% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 11.9% of the community corrections grant.. Clatsop County community correction receives $50,000 a year from the county general fund to help pay for misdemeanor supervision. The department has an average of 584 offenders under supervision of which 21 % are misdemeanors. The grant share to the Sheriff is 19%. Columbia County community corrections does not receive county general fund money. Its offender population is 520 of which 13% are misdemeanor; 26.6% of the state grant is provided to the Sheriff. Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 Coos County community corrections does not receive county general fund money. Offender population is 653 of which 9% are misdemeanor. The Sheriff receives 37% of the state grant. Crook County community corrections receives no county general fund support. Offender population is 187, of which 0.03% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 28.7%. Curry County community corrections receives no county general fund support. The department supervises 120 offenders, of which 2% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 48%. Douglas County community corrections is state operated. The department supervises 1144 offenders of which 33 or 2.8% are misdemeanors. They expend 36% of the grant on jail beds. Harney County community corrections receives no county general fund support. The department supervises supervise 97 offenders of which 30% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 29.8°/x. Hood River Countv community corrections receives no county general fund. The department supervises 220 offenders of which 43% are misdemeanors. The grant share to the Sheriff is 21%. Jefferson County community corrections receives no county general fund. The department supervises 242 offenders of which 14% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 18%. Josephine County community corrections no longer receives county general fund support. The department operates 3 work crews which charge $350 a day. Annual revenue is unknown. The department supervises 976 offenders of which 13% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 22.8%. Klamath/Lake County community corrections receives no county general fund appropriation. The department supervises 1360 offenders of which 29% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 21 % of the Klamath County grant and 22% of the Lake County grant. Lane County community corrections receives $54,000 annually from the county general fund. The department receives federal grant monies. The department supervises 3622 offenders of which 7.3% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 38.8% of the state grant. Linn County community corrections is operated by the State. The department supervises 1671 offenders of which 17% are misdemeanors and of those 85% are on case bank. They expend 32% on jail beds. Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 2 Malheur Countv community corrections receives no county general fund money. The department supervises a population of 481 offenders of which 26% are misdemeanors. The grant split to the Sheriff is 56%. Marion Countv community corrections receives no general fund money. The department supervises 4178 offenders of which 12% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 32% of the community corrections grant. Polk County community corrections receives no general fund money. The department supervises 688 offenders of which 30% are misdemeanors. They will lay off two employees and cease misdemeanor supervision. The split to the Sheriff is 21.5%. Tillamook Countv community corrections receives no general fund revenue. The department supervises 281 offenders of which 27% are misdemeanors. The Sheriff retains 29.7%. Umatilla/Morrow Counties community corrections receives no county general fund. The department supervises 919 offenders of which 0.005% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 33%. Union/Wallowa Counties community corrections receives no general fund money. It has grant funding for.45 FTE. The department supervises 251 offenders of which 10% are misdemeanors. Funds to the Sheriff are unknown. Washington CountX community corrections receive $2.3 million annually from the county. The department supervises 4,141 offenders of which 35% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 32.9%. Yamhill Countv community corrections receives county general fund support to finance two PO positions. The offender population is 1463 of which approximately 50% are misdemeanors. The split to the Sheriff is 30%. Deschutes County community corrections supervises 168 misdemeanor sex offenders and misdemeanor domestic violence offenders. Ninety five percent of these are on medium or high field supervision and are supervised with the same intensity as felony domestic violence and sex offenders. These offenders are afforded all the same programs as felony offenders. Misdemeanor and felony sex and domestic violence offenders require more time and effort than most felony offenders due to the special circumstances required in supervising these types of person to person offenders. Requirements of these offenders include weekly treatment sessions, polygraphs and special statutory and regulatory rules. Department officers strictly enforce no contact with victim or minors conditions applicable to these offenders. These offenders may be assigned to electronic monitoring due to community or victim risk. Other offender types are assigned to electronic monitoring as sanction or as an alternative to incarceration. Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 At any given time the department may have six to seven certified officers involved in supervising misdemeanor offenders. Misdemeanor sex offenders are assigned to the same officers as felony sex offenders and likewise with domestic violence offenders. A total of 3 FTE are necessary to effectively supervise 168 misdemeanors sex and domestic violence offenders. Summary: To date and over recent years all county community corrections departments have provided some level of misdemeanor supervision. The chart below shows that some departments provide very limited misdemeanor supervision and others provide a considerable level of supervision. The chart also displays the level of state community corrections grants funds provided to sheriffs departments. Although not universal it appears that several of the departments that provide higher level of misdemeanor services also retain larger shares of the state grant funds. Chart 1 Misdemeanor supervision levels and grant allocation levels Comparison between Misd and Jail Split 60.00% - - 50.00% - - 40.00% oPercentage of 30.00% Misdemeanor Population ■Jail Split 20.00% - - 10.00% 0.00°k _ \a0 a°a ova °°a `0y c°c c0 cP~c 0~a ~c '`OC y°° °Q °c a~ e~ ov to z~ Joao ~a~~ Oay~o Go\J'°~°~ Q°~~ ~a &yr°~ J Adult Parole & Probation 541.385.3246; Juvenile Community Justice 541.388.6671 4 Community Corrections Funding Trend for Deschutes County With 10%, 20%, 30% DOC Community Corrections Impact Scenario Reductions Community Corrections Funding $6,000,000 $5,000,000 _ tAdult P&P/10% -~-Adult P&P/20% $4,000,000 Adult P&P/30% DCS0110% $3,000,000 - DCSO/20% -a- DCSO/30% $2,000,000 -,--County Total/10% -County Total/20% $1,000,000 County Total/30% o° ° o° o~ oh o`O o o o o o° ~o ~o Document Reproduces Poorly (Archived) Adult Parole and Probation Budget Summary (Fund 355) Resources Beginning Net Working Capital Federal Funding FY 2007 Actual 342,288 1,586 FY 2008 Actual 311,856 0 FY 2009 Budget 663,144 0 FY 2010 497,892 0 FY 2010 Proposed 467,892 0 =1111111 - % Chg (29.4%) 0.0% State Funding Charges for Services 2,104,834 63,489 2,695,310 43,037 2,936,835 39,000 2,877,425 43,000 2,877,425 43,000 (2.0%) 10.3% Fines 340,265 383,259 360,000 380,000 380,000 5.6% Interest Revenue 31,152 31,147 28,165 9,000 9,000 (68.1%) Rents and Royalties 22,435 3,280 0 0 0 0.0% Interfund Grants 8,064 28,658 50,000 0 0 (100.0%) Transfers In 327,990 499,000 313,078 207,078 165,029 (47.3%) RESOURCES 3,242,103 3,995,547 ,390,222 4,014,395 3,942,346 (10.2%) t R uirerttents FY 2007 Actual 1,523,859 FY 2008 Actual 1,630,342 FY 2009 Budget 2,026,327 F2010 R uested 1,922,126 F V 2010 Proposed 1,901,586 % Chg FY09-10 (6.2%) Personnel Services 831,146 2,355,005 955,236 2,585,578 1,170,122 3,196,449 982,692 2,904,818 957,140 2,858,726 (18.2%) (10.6%) Internal Services 238,830 261,290 308,730 285,269 268,648 (13.0%) Other Materials and Services 336,412 447,769 383,529 435,473 435,473 13.5% Materials and Services 575,242 709,059 692,259 720,742 704,121 1.7% Capital Outlay E 0 T 0 100 100 100 0.0% Contingency 0 0 501,414 388,735 379,399 (24.3%) TOTAL REQUIREMENTS 2,930,247 3,294,637 4,390,222 4,014,395 3,942,346 (10.2%) Community Justice Stolf,Sumirnary - I M. MAP ~t t,#: Wit• 11M Adult Parole and Probation FTEs 28.50 34.70 38.00 32.80 Juvenile FTEs 63.15 66.35 66.55 62.55 TOTAL FTEs 91.65 101.05 104.55 95.35 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, APRIL 29, 2009 1. Discussion of Request to Re-Establish Home Rule Charter Committee - Mark Pilliod, Ed Fitch 2. Continued Discussion of Opt-Out from Community Corrections Act 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. if 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.