2009-1566-Minutes for Meeting November 02,2009 Recorded 12/21/2009DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2009'i56fi
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1212112009 08:34:07 AM
III IIIIIIIIIIII VIIIIII
II II
20-16d
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
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
~~~>1es coG
G {
Monday, November 2, 2009
Allen Room, County Administration Building, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
MINUTES OF MEETING
Present were Judge Michael Sullivan; Commissioner Alan Unger; Ken Hales,
Community Corrections; Chief Ron Roberts, Redmond Police Department; Becky
McDonald, 9-1-1; Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Chief Sandi Baxter, Bend
Police Department; Eileen Stein, City of Sisters Administrator; Shelley Smith of
the KIDS Center; Scott Johnson, Health Services; Hillary Saraceno, Commission
on Children & Families; and Aaron Brenneman, defense attorney.
Also present were Shelley Smith, KIDS Center; Mike Dugan, District Attorney;
Sheriff Larry Blanton and Sue Brewster, Sheriff's Office; Ruth Jenkin, Jail; Donna
McClung of the Oregon Youth Authority; Jack Blum, citizen member; Ken
Fahlgren, Crook County Commission; Steve Forrester, Prineville City Manager;
Mike Stafford, Oregon Community Justice Commission; citizen Andrea Blum; and
Hillary Borrud, representing The Bulletin.
1. Call to Order & Introductions.
Judge Sullivan called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.
2. September Minutes.
The minutes were approved as written.
3. Public Comment.
Ken Fahlgren, Crook County Judge/Commissioner, said he is trying to learn
how the Deschutes County LPSCC handles its meetings. Attending with him
was Steve Forrester, Prineville City Manager.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009
Page 1 of 6 Pages
4. County Public Safety Services Evaluation
Mike Stafford, Oregon Community Justice Commission (CJC) Coordinator,
gave an update on his agency and the current state of public services related to
community justice.
After last year's bailout, it is anticipated that funding will be gone within three
years. Senate Bills 77 and 78 direct his agency to analyze the public service
situation. If there is an emergency, a local agency can notify the CJC that such
an emergency exists. However, there are no criteria set at this time. There will
14 days to notify the Governor as to the nature of the emergency. If the
Governor supports this, a financial control board would be appointed. This
board will look at the county's situation in depth and make recommendations.
The governing body can then approve or reject the plan. If it is approve,
technical assistance will be offered. If the plan is rejected, the situation will be
monitored. The State will only be able to provide recommendations.
Originally it was established so that the State would have unilateral decision
making authority. This was deleted when the timber payments bill was
extended. The CJC has to determine what constitutes a public safety financial
emergency.
The underlying problem is that there are 36 counties and all have different
requirements. The rules will need to cover all possible circumstances. There
will not be a work group until March or April 2010. Bills 65 and 67, which
come up early in the year, may affect this situation. The session will start in
February, and revenue forecasts are not expected to go up anytime soon.
The legislature will primarily be dealing with money issues in the next session.
The CJC meetings will not happen until afterwards, beginning with regional
meetings. Labor has to be included in the discussions.
In short, a financial emergency is when crime spikes upwards. A good way to
measure this is to know how many forced releases there are, as well as patrol
staffing levels and response times. California's numbers are 1.5 per thousand,
with most of the west coast being 1.6 per thousand. The east coast is at 2.6 per
thousand. There are other measurements, such a prosecution rates and
matching crime rates to the economy. There does not seem to be any
correlation at the local or national level.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009
Page 2 of 6 Pages
Some studies will not show results for years, such as recidivism which takes
three years. Local entities will have input.
Mike Dugan said that arrests, not convictions, need to be considered. There are
a lot of misdemeanors in the meantime.
Eileen Stein stated that the system is already in crisis. She asked what it takes
to be a crisis. Curry and Josephine counties are in a crisis now and may go
under. Five others are close to that. Counties can dissolve. Josephine could
become part of Jackson County. Mr. Dugan observed that these counties used
the forest payment dollars for public safety purposes.
Ms. Stein said drastic measures would be the reason to do this, like having to
close the jail. The cities would then be impacted. Clatsop County only has
forty acres of timberland. If this goes into effect, it could be a mechanism for a
lot of things.
In regard to recidivism, Jack Blum noted that waiting three years to track it is
outrageous. Different people do different things. He feels that this should be
measured in degrees, every six months or year. Mr. Dugan said that figures are
not usually available from the CJC for five years. It should be any conviction,
not just new felony convictions.
Mr. Stafford said that there is a long history of using the three-year criteria.
He stated that there will be updates on the plan, but no final report until later.
Sheriff Blanton asked about the goal of this proposal. Mr. Stafford replied that
some counties did not want the State to help. This would be a neutral group.
Mr. Dugan observed that if the County does not take the recommendations, it
would be the County's fault if it does not work out. If the state `helps', the
state gets the static. He added that a statewide victimization survey is
desperately needed. There is no crime reporting link from 1991 to 2007 or
2008, comparing one county to another. The number of arrests and convictions
should be included. He added that is something is required, it also requires
bodies and there is no money forthcoming for new things.
Judge Sullivan noted that counties don't want to get grants if they have to spend
money to handle them.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009
Page 3 of 6 Pages
5. PPS Conditions for Early Released Inmates
Ken Hales gave an overview of the application of special conditions. He said
that with the increase of inmates being released, some have not had special
conditions imposed by the Parole Board. There are about 200 outstanding in
Deschutes County. The total is about 3,500. These have to be run back through
until they get caught up.
Judge Sullivan added that they were expecting perhaps 30 or 40, and got around
200 already. Mr. Dugan said that they are now expecting about 4,200. These
were supposed to be spread out so there could be a hearing within 21 days.
Judge Sullivan stated that he has met with the District Attorney to try to deal
with this. There is also new confidentiality reporting criteria as well.
Aaron Brenneman said that when defense attorneys are appointed to these cases
and are forced to show up in court with nothing, it creates a lot more work that
was not expected.
6. Inactive Status for Local Control Offenders
Captain Ruth Jenkin advised of revised Supervisory Authority Board protocols.
The CJC assesses public safety in the counties. The policy revisions clarified
the authority of the Board members and how monthly reports are structured.
Sue Brewster said if Parole & Probation wants to change the probation period,
they have to go the Supervisory Authority Board and ask for it to be done. Mr.
Hales added that 82% of those eligible to go inactive are not. This will put a
hole in the Department of Justice savings projections.
7. Other Business
Capt. Jenkins said the Jail's H1N1 plan has been finalized and they are waiting
for the Judge to review and approve it. It is a three-phase plan, and they are
now in Phase 1. They will not accept misdemeanors with flu-like symptoms
who are sanctioned with no new charges. Two inmates are now being treated
for the disease. Phase two would be implemented if there were twenty cases,
and the list of those not allowed to come in would be expanded. In Phase 3,
there would be 65 cases and probably a majority of the staff affected.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009
Page 4 of 6 Pages
Judge Sullivan noted that if the person is not admitted into the jail, the
supervisor has the authority to tell the person to report back in 14 to 30 days.
The same applies for those who are arrested.
Sheriff Blanton said that a promise was made that a policy would be in place. It
is challenging since the situation is so dynamic. It takes a lot to run a jail. Ms.
Jenkins noted that the federal prison was closed down because of the number of
Phase 3 cases. Judge Sullivan said that most defense attorneys are cooperative,
and a lot more is being done by phone to minimize exposure.
Scott Johnson noted that much depends on whether there is sufficient vaccine
available in the community.
Mr. Johnson said that two or three year ago, the Mental Health Court was
established, and about 25 cases were handled. They got a federal grant to
handle more intensive treatment. This was fast-tracked, and several groups
were involved. This allows them to function at a higher level for now.
Mr. Dugan stated that a lot of money has been spent designing for intervention
of repeat property offenders. There is no treatment for this in prison. They are
using the Family Drug Court model. He asked Judge Sullivan for an update.
Judge Sullivan noted that some will say that a 5% cut is not that significant.
However, if you are halfway through the biennium, it is really 10% or more.
They are already down 7-8% in the judicial area. They will lose up to 1/3 of
personnel. It is challenging to add programs while cutting staffing. Dave
Kanner said that they would have to put in a lot of up-front money. If there are
cuts later, they may not be able to perform.
Mr. Dugan said that the application would be for the big Drug Court, which
includes entire families, and a judge and others are needed. This does not
include funds for the District Attorney or defense. The questions are, who
would administer it and how much time it would take.
Mr. Hales stated that they are not well positioned because the model is not in
place, so there are up-front expenses. They get $14 per bed per day, but have to
pay the up-front costs regardless. They have to be able to operate at $7 per day
for this to make sense. Also, there probably will be no funding available after
three years, as they won't be able to keep the positions.
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009
Page 5 of 6 Pages
Sheriff Blanton observed that there are too many things to consider, and they
need to focus on what is already in place. Of the people in jail, 167 are pre-
trial. They have to be in jail and not in the work center.
Judge Sullivan noted that it is important to keep the lines of communication
open, as there are a lot of challenges to come.
Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
13z~ 6kkVL_
Bonnie Baker
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A:
Agenda
Exhibit B:
Sign in sheet
Exhibit C:
Summary of Task Force - Counties in Crisis
Exhibit D:
Senate Bills 77 and 78
Exhibit E:
Oregon Uniform Crime Reporting Program
Minutes of LPSCC Meeting Monday, November 2, 2009
Page 6 of 6 Pages
DESCHUTES COUNTY
PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
Monday, November 2, 2009; 3:30 p.m.
Allen Room, Deschutes Services Building, 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR
Agenda
Call to Order & Introductions
Judge Sullivan
II September Minutes Attachment 1
Judge Sullivan
Action: Approve minutes
III Public Comment
Judge Sullivan
IV County Public Safety Services Evaluation Attachment 2-4
Mike Stafford, CJC Policy Coordinator
Brief Council on evaluation process
V PPS Conditions for Early Released Inmates
Tanner Wark
Advise Council members of application of special condition
VI Inactive Status for Local Control Offenders
Captain Ruth Jenkin
Advise Council of revised Supervisory Authority Board protocols
VII Other Business
Judge Sullivan
Exhibit
Page I of
z
z
V
t^
w
~n
4
W
J
a
ON
O
N
Nw
L
c~
G
C
C
N
I
O
10
i
8
V
00
4
Q)
a,
V
~
J
a
z
\
\
qz-
r
\
J
Exhibit
Page of j,L
J
v
s
0
n
Attachment 2
Executive Summary
Our Task Force began its work when 33 of Oregon's 36 counties faced a loss of $210
million a year in federal forest payments, and 24 of those counties confronted shortfalls
of more than 20 percent of their discretionary general fund or road fund budgets in the
2008-09 fiscal year.
We call the 24 counties most affected by the loss of federal forest payments the "hard
hit counties." They include both large (Lane) and sparsely populated (Grant) counties
that crisscross the state, from Columbia to Klamath and from Curry to Wallowa, and
account for 39 percent of Oregon's population.
Hard Hit And Critical Counties
Shaded counties are federal forest counties.
Darker shading indicates Hard Hit Counties; darkest shading indicates Crisis Counties
The proportionate size of these counties' shortfalls from the loss of federal forest
payments this fiscal year would have exceeded that of the state's general fund budget
holes in 2001-03 and 2003-05 and the revenue losses now predicted for the state's
general fund budget in 2009-11.
Many of these hard hit counties looked beyond deep reductions in services and the
depletion of their reserves to the likelihood of an unprecedented and unmanageable
fiscal crisis within two to four years after the cessation of federal forest payments. Only
a belated reauthorization of these payments by the federal government in October 2008
averted a crisis which, compounded by the effects of the current recession, could have
forced the collapse of as many as nine "crisis counties" over the next several years.
The reauthorization provides a phased reduction of federal forest payments over four
years, beginning in 2008-09. By 2011-12, counties will receive less than half of the
amounts they are now receiving. In 2012-13, federal forest payments will end, and
Exhibit c
Page / of `f
counties will receive only their share of traditional harvest receipts, now averaging just a
tenth of current payments.
The crisis averted this year will loom again for the hard hit counties at the end of the
state's 2009-11 biennium, when these counties prepare for the steep reduction and
scheduled termination of federal forest payments in 2011-13.
Schools, too, will be affected, as will the state budget. Schools will lose a source of
revenue that now amounts to $60 a year for every K-12 student in Oregon. The state
will have to make up this loss from already constrained general fund resources, leaving
less funds to bolster state and county services.
FOUR-YEAR RAMP DOWN OF FEDERAL FOREST PAYMENTS
$300,000,000
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000.000
$ 50,000,000
so
Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed Fed
FY-01 FY-02 FY-03 FY-04 FY-05 FY-06 FY-07 FY-0e' Ft-09" FY-10' FY-II' FY-12' FY-13' FY-14` FY-15- FY,16-
❑ Revenue Received Revenue Estimate for 4-year Ramp Down El Revenue if Based on Actual Harvest
' E,d.-d
Our Task Force examined all options for dealing with revenue losses of this magnitude
and extent, which we present in the following categories.
■ What counties and county taxpayers can do to help themselves.
We looked to the local level where the funding losses will occur and assessed the
potential for cutting county budgets and raising revenues. We found that many
counties have already cut services to bare bones levels. Also, we found that
constitutional limitations on property taxes, voter resistance to such taxes and state
constraints on other revenue sources make it difficult for counties to respond to this
crisis by raising revenues. Finally, we found that many of the hard hit counties have
low tax rates compared to the statewide average. We concluded that:
o Counties statewide have significant unused property tax capacity within
constitutional limitations;
o It is reasonable to expect hard hit counties to seek voter approval of property tax
increases in the range of ten percent to 30 percent, which will increase overall
taxes paid by county taxpayers by just two to five percent; and,
o Counties should be freed from restrictions in state law that limit or prohibit their
ability to enact transient lodging tax and real estate transfer taxes.
➢ These solutions could enable the counties to recover eight percent to 24 percent
of their revenue losses.
■ What the state and state taxpayers can do to help the counties.
We investigated the potential for shifting a larger share of funding for state-county
shared services to the state, providing more state resources to the counties and
boosting investments in rural economies. Recognizing the impact of the current
recession on state finances, we adjusted our sights to a four-year horizon.
We developed and approved:
o Twelve recommendations for technical assistance, improved coordination of
effort between the state and the counties and clarification of authorities in areas
such as juvenile services, community corrections and roads;
o Sixteen recommendations to be considered over the next four fiscal years for
increased state financial support for county services, ranging from public safety
to public health and elections;
o Eight recommendations for increased state support for economic development in
rural counties over the next four fiscal years; and,
o Three recommendations to limit losses from or raise revenues controlled by the
state.
➢ We estimate that these solutions could cover up to 18 percent of the shortfall
facing the hard hit counties.
■ What the federal government can do to better share resources and revenues.
We examined several possibilities for increased federal support for counties.
We indentified and approved:
o Three recommendations to increase federal compensation, support for and
revenue sharing from federal forest lands; and,
o A recommendation urging Congress to authorize states to collect unpaid court
fines and fees from individuals' tax refunds, which will increase resources for
state, county and city criminal justice programs.
We estimate that these solutions could cover up to 13 percent of the shortfall facing
the hard hit counties.
■ What the federal government can do to better manage federal forest lands.
The Task Force reviewed pending plans for better management of, and increased
harvests from, federal forest lands.
We examined and approved:
o Six recommendations related to the management of federal forest lands,
including creation of a Young Adult Conservation Corps, increased harvests from
O&C lands managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management and
management practices to combat global warming.
➢ We estimate that revenues from these recommendations could be significant -
representing 16 percent of the hard hit counties' expected revenue losses (from
doubling harvest levels) to more than half of their revenue losses (when
combined with even greater harvest levels and increased shares of harvest
receipts).
However, we conclude that these plans are unlikely to come to fruition until at least
2012.
■ What the state and counties can do now to prepare for the loss of these
payments.
Finally, we present two recommendations for consideration in the 2009 legislative
session to facilitate planning and preparations for the phase-out of federal forest
payments and worst case provisions to deal with public safety emergencies.
➢ We strongly recommend that the state and the hard hit counties institute a joint
planning process to address the challenges these counties will face just two
years from now. Otherwise, the loss of federal forest payments will compromise
public health and safety, undermine funding for county roads and exacerbate job
losses in every region of the state.
➢ We also recommend that the state establish procedures to respond to counties in
fiscal distress, including a process to identify reductions in services that
jeopardize public safety and respond to such situations before they become true
emergencies.
We conclude that there is no one source for the solutions needed to avert major fiscal
crises that the 24 hard hit counties will experience with the loss of SRS payments.
Responses will have to come from every level of government - county, state and
federal, beginning with a state-county planning process during the next two years and
continuing engagement of the federal government on the issues of revenue sharing and
forest management practices.
r
Attachment 3
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session
A-Engrossed
Senate Bill 77
Ordered by the Senate April 23
Including Senate Amendments dated April 23
Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-
session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request
of Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the
measure.
Establishes process to declare public safety services emergency in fiscally distressed county that
fails to provide minimally adequate level of public safety services.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.
1 A BILL FOR AN ACT
2 Relating to fiscally distressed counties; and declaring an emergency.
3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
4 SECTION 1. (1) If the governing body of a county or the Governor believes that the
5 county is in a state of fiscal distress that compromises the county's ability to provide a
6 minimally adequate level of public safety services, the governing body or the Governor may
7 seek a declaration of a public safety services emergency by requesting in writing that the
8 Oregon Criminal Justice Commission review and analyze public safety services provided by
9 the county.
10 (2) When a request for review of public safety services is made under subsection (1) of
11 this section, the commission shall:
12 (a) Consult with the governing body of the county, the sheriff, the district attorney,
13 judges and other appropriate county officials, with labor organizations representing county
14 employees and with other public safety stakeholders to gather information regarding the
15 current level of public safety services provided by the county;
16 (b) Review and analyze public safety services provided in the county to determine, based
17 on the guidelines established pursuant to subsection (9) of this section, whether the county
18 is providing a minimally adequate level of public safety services; and
19 (c) Report its findings and recommendation to the Governor within 14 days after the re-
20 quest for a review is made.
21 (3) If the commission finds that the county is providing a less than minimally adequate
22 level of public safety services, the commission shall recommend to the Governor that the
23 Governor declare a public safety services emergency for the county. The commission shall
24 copy its findings and recommendation to the Legislative Assembly and the governing body
25 of the fiscally distressed county.
26 (4) Upon receipt of the findings and recommendation from the commissions review and
NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are in boldfaced type.
LC 959
Exhibit .7) _
Page / of
A-Eng. SB 77
1 analysis the Governor shall:
2 (a) Review the findings and recommendation;
3 (b) Within 14 days of receipt of the commission's findings and recommendation, either
4 issue the declaration of a public safety services emergency, if the Governor determines that
5 the county's fiscal distress prevents the county from providing a minimally adequate level
6 of public safety services, or issue a determination that the county's fiscal distress does not
7 cause the county to provide a less than minimally adequate level of public safety services;
8 and
9 (c) If the Governor issues the declaration of a public safety services emergency under
10 paragraph (b) of this subsection, establish a fiscal control board, as described in section 2
11 of this 2009 Act, for the distressed county.
12 (5) The fiscal control board shall meet with the governing body of the county, the sheriff,
13 the district attorney, judges and other appropriate county officials, with labor organizations
14 representing county employees, with other public safety stakeholders and with members of
15 the public to gain a fuller understanding of the county's fiscal alternatives and public safety
16 service needs and shortcomings. The board shall propose to the governing body of the county
17 a recovery plan designed to restore minimally adequate public safety services. As part of the
18 proposed recovery plan, the board may recommend that the governing body of the county:
19 (a) Reallocate funds;
20 (b) Cut services, lay off employees or otherwise reduce expenditures;
21 (c) Sell or lease real or personal property of the county;
22 (d) Issue bonds;
23 (e) Renegotiate payment terms of the county's legal and moral indebtedness;
24 (f) Refer measures to the voters;
25 (g) Request an emergency election under ORS 203.085; or
26 (h) Authorize the state to take over services as authorized by law other than this sec-
27 tion.
28 (6) The governing body of the county shall approve or reject the recovery plan proposed
29 by the fiscal control board. If the governing body:
30 (a) Approves the recovery plan, the board shall provide technical assistance in support
31 of the governing body's implementation of the plan.
32 (b) Rejects the recovery plan, the board shall monitor the governing body's efforts to
33 restore minimally adequate public safety services and, at the request of the governing body,
34 shall provide technical assistance in support of the governing body's efforts to restore mini-
35 mally adequate public safety services in the county.
36 (7) The fiscal control board shall periodically update the Governor and the Legislative
37 Assembly from the time the board proposes a recovery plan to the fiscally distressed county
38 until the Governor declares the public safety services emergency terminated pursuant to
39 subsection (8) of this section. When the fiscal control board concludes that minimally ade-
40 quate public safety services have been restored in the fiscally distressed county, the board
41 shall recommend that Governor terminate the public safety services emergency.
42 (8) The Governor shall declare the public safety services emergency terminated when the
43 Governor concludes that the fiscally distressed county has restored minimally adequate
44 public safety services in the county.
45 (9) The commission shall establish, by rule, public safety services guidelines by which to
[2]
A-Eng. SB 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
identify the minimally adequate level at which public safety services must be delivered in a
county. In establishing the guidelines, the commission shall seek broad input from the gov-
erning body of the county, the sheriff, the district attorney, judges and other appropriate
county officials, labor organizations representing county employees, other public safety
stakeholders and members of the public, and take into consideration the population density,
geographic characteristics, historical crime rates and other relevant factors in Oregon
counties. The guidelines must provide a basis for analyzing whether the county provides a
minimally adequate level of public safety services in the areas of:
(a) County jail operations;
(b) Law enforcement, investigation and patrol;
(c) Community corrections;
(d) Juvenile justice;
(e) Emergency operations and emergency response;
(f) Search and rescue operations;
(g) Criminal prosecution; and
(h) Court facility operations.
SECTION 2. (1) A fiscal control board established pursuant to section 1 of this 2009 Act
consists of three nonvoting ex officio members and five appointed members who have
knowledge of and experience with public safety services and fiscal management as follows:
(a) The Governor shall appoint three members.
(b) The President of the Senate shall appoint one member.
(c) The Speaker of the House shall appoint one member.
(d) The Secretary of State, the State Treasurer and the director of the Department of
Revenue shall serve as nonvoting ex officio members.
(2) A fiscal control board shall perform the functions described in this section and section
1 of this 2009 Act.
(3) A majority of the members of the board constitutes a quorum for the transaction of
business.
(4) Official action by the board requires the approval of a majority of the members of the
board.
(5) The board shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson.
(6) Appointed members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority for a term of
four years, subject to subsection (10) of this section.
(7) If there is a vacancy for any cause, the appointing authority shall make an appoint-
ment to become immediately effective.
(8) The board shall use the services of permanent staff of the offices of the Governor, the
Secretary of State and the State Treasurer, and the Department of Revenue to the greatest
extent practicable. However, the Governor, the Secretary of State and the State Treasurer
may agree to employ individuals to support the performance of the functions of the board,
if necessary, and the employing state official shall fix the duties and amounts of compen-
sation of these employees.
(9) All agencies of state government, as defined in ORS 174.111, are directed to assist the
board in the performance of its duties and, to the extent permitted by laws relating to
confidentiality, to furnish information and advice as the members of the board consider
necessary to perform their duties.
[3)
A-Eng. SB 77
1 (10) A fiscal control board terminates when the Governor declares that the public safety
2 services emergency declared under section 1 (4) of this 2009 Act has ended.
3 SECTION 3. This 2009 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
4 peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2009 Act takes effect
5 on its passage.
[4)
Attachment 4
75th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2009 Regular Session
A-Engrossed
Senate Bill 78
Ordered by the Senate May 4
Including Senate Amendments dated May 4
Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with pre-
session filing rules, indicating neither advocacy nor opposition on the part of the President (at the request
of Governor Theodore R. Kulongoski)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject
to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's brief statement of the essential features of the
measure.
Creates County Services Planning Council composed of appointed and ex officio members. Al-
lows invited counties to create and submit fiscal plan for council review. Directs council to en-
courage effective fiscal planning by counties and recommend to Governor and Legislative Assembly
appropriate levels of state fiscal support to counties.
Sunsets January 2, 2014.
Declares emergency, effective on passage.
I A BILL FOR AN ACT
2 Relating to county fiscal planning; and declaring an emergency.
3 Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
4 SECTION 1. (1) There is created the County Services Planning Council, consisting of 12
5 members as follows:
6 (a) The Governor shall appoint:
7 (A) Four members from among staff of the office of the Governor or other state agen-
8 cies.
9 (B) A representative of the Association of Oregon Counties.
10 (b) The President of the Senate shall appoint two members from among members of the
11 Senate, including at least one member of the Joint Committee on Ways and Means.
12 (c) The Speaker of the House shall appoint two members from among members of the
13 House of Representatives, including at least one member of the Joint Committee on Ways
14 and Means.
15 (d) The Secretary of State or the secretary's designee, the State Treasurer or the
16 treasurer's designee and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or the Chief Justice's
17 designee shall serve as es officio members.
18 (2) The council shall:
19 (a) Encourage effective fiscal planning for counties managing the phaseout of federal
20 forest safety net payments; and
21 (b) Recommend to the Governor and the Legislative Assembly an appropriate level of
22 state fiscal support to counties.
23 (3) A majority of the members of the council constitutes a quorum for the transaction
24 of business.
25 (4) Official advice by or recommendations of the council require the approval of a ma-
NOTE: Matter in boldfaced type in an amended section is new; matter [italic and bracketed] is existing law to be omitted.
New sections are in boldfaced type.
LC 966
A-Eng. SB 78
1 jority of the members of the council.
2 (5) The Governor shall select one of the members to serve as chairperson.
3 (6) Appointed members serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority for a term of
4 four years.
5 (7) If there is a vacancy for any cause among appointed members, the appointing au-
6 thority shall make an appointment to become immediately effective.
7 (8) The council shall use the services of permanent staff of the offices of the Governor,
8 the Secretary of State, the State Treasurer, the Judicial Department and the Legislative
9 Fiscal Officer.
10 (9) All agencies of state government, as defined in ORS 174.111, are directed to assist the
11 council in the performance of its duties and, to the extent permitted by laws relating to
12 confidentiality, to furnish information and advice as the members of the council consider
13 necessary to perform their duties.
14 SECTION 2. If invited to do so by the County Services Planning Council created under
15 section I of this 2009 Act, a county managing the phaseout of federal forest safety net pay-
16 ments may submit to the council for review a fiscal plan for a four-year period that corre-
17 lates with the budget cycles of the county. In the fiscal plan, the county must:
18 (1) Identify essential service needs.
19 (2) Identify long-term and short-term fiscal resources available to meet essential service
20 needs.
21 (3) Recommend:
22 (a) County services that can be eliminated.
23 (b) Services performed under contract, under interagency agreement or otherwise in co-
24 operation with the state that can be relinquished to the state.
25 (c) Achievable efficiencies, including efficiencies gained through regionalization, in the
26 delivery of:
27 (A) County services;
28 (B) Services performed under contract, under interagency agreement or otherwise in
29 cooperation with the state; and
30 (C) Services performed under contract, under interagency agreement or otherwise in
31 cooperation with other local governments.
32 (d) An appropriate level of fiscal support from county residents and strategies to:
33 (A) Take advantage of existing revenue or income solutions including, but not limited to,
34 obtaining voter approval for the enactment of local option taxes and for the establishment
35 of service districts under ORS chapter 451; and
36 (B) Develop systemic long-term revenue or income solutions.
37 (e) A priority for proposals to increase state fiscal support for county services and ser-
38 vices performed under contract, under interagency agreement or otherwise in cooperation
39 with the state.
40 (4) Provide other information the county considers necessary or appropriate to convey
41 its fiscal health status or planning process.
42 SECTION 3. Sections 1 and 2 of this 2009 Act are repealed on January 2, 2014.
43 SECTION 4. This 2009 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
44 peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2009 Act takes effect
45 on its passage.
[2]
Making the Case for O-NIBRS
An indispensable tool in the war against crime is the ability to identify with precision when and where
crime takes place, what form it takes, and the characteristics of its victims and perpetrators. Armed with
such information, law enforcement can better make its case to acquire the resources it needs to fight
crime; and after obtaining those resources, use them in the most efficient and effective manner.
The Oregon Legislature created the Oregon Uniform Crime Reporting (OUCR) Program in 1973 in an
attempt to collect crime data in far greater detail making that data more useful to law enforcement than
the previous FBI "Summary" system. A lot has changed since then. Oregon's population has grown.
Technology has advanced. Law enforcement's procedures have changed. What was state of the art 36
years ago simply does not meet the needs of law enforcement today.
O-NIBRS, Oregon's (version of) National Incident Based Reporting System, is a giant step ahead for law
enforcement. While it continues to collect statistical data just as the original OUCR format does, it also
collects investigative data that can be searched and shared with other law enforcement personnel.
Benefits to Law Enforcement:
• Ability to. report by Oregon Revised Statute (ORS), not just codes that mean nothing to the officer
on the street.
• Expanded types of offenses, property and drugs for more precise reporting.
• Street addresses where incidents occur allowing for crime mapping and deployment of resources
• Names of all parties involved in an incident (victims, witnesses, complainants, suspects,
arrestees, etc.)
• Personal information on parties involved such as residence address, phone number,
height/weight, date of birth, race, sex, identification numbers, etc.
• Relationships between victims and offenders.
• Information on vehicles involved in an incident such as license number, make, model, style, color,
etc.
• Gang affiliation of individuals involved in an incident or if an incident was gang related.
• Alcohol or drug use by individuals in an incident to aid in determining to what extent alcohol/drugs
play in criminal activity.
• Reporting of domestic violence.
• Reporting of hate crimes.
• Ability of agencies to produce their own reports at any time instead of having the need to call
OUCR for a report to be mailed.
• Ability to submit records more frequently than just once each month for more "real time" data.
• Ability to share information with other law enforcement agencies.
• Ability to control records or information the agency does not wish to share with others.
• Ability to search the database for addresses, persons or vehicles.
• Contact information on each record so investigators will know exactly who to call if a search
results on a "hit" that needs further explanation.
• Ability to submit to and search the National database, the National Data Exchange (N-DEx).
• Ability to form "virtual task forces" with other agencies through N-DEx and share information only
with members of those task forces.
• Ability for law enforcement to go from "reactive" to simple crime statistics to "proactive" using
investigative information supplied by other agencies.
Exhibit
Page of
Benefits to OUCR:
• Allows the State to retire an aging format that cannot provide the data needed for OUCR to meet
today's demands for information.
• All agencies would report in a single format. Currently there are 2 reporting formats. Data from
those 2 formats must be merged together in order for OUCR to produce standard and special
reports. This creates significant delays in preparing annual and special reports.
• Reporting rules between the 2 formats are slightly different and have been cause of confusion
and conflict with law enforcement and other State agencies in need of information.
• Retiring the older format will reduce program costs.
• OUCR would have the ability to provide the State Legislature crime information based on ORS
rather than (sometimes generic) UCR codes. The Legislature is at a disadvantage when
members cannot view crime numbers based on specific ORS's.
• OUCR would finally be able to address issues such as the association of drug and alcohol use
during the commission of crimes, gang involvement, types of weapons being used and
relationships between victims and offenders.
• Having a single format would greatly reduce the burden to the new OUCR training and auditing
program.
• More timely, complete, and accurate reporting will provide the state with the necessary data
required to meet federal grant requirements and therefore increase the opportunities for and
amounts of grant funds available to Oregon law enforcement.
Benefits to CJC:
Timelier reporting of statewide crime data; by month (in addition to by year). Currently, we
experience a substantial lag time to receive the past year's official crime reports. For example, in
August 2009, we do not yet have the 2008 numbers. With O-NIBRS reporting, we can compile
preliminary monthly data near real-time. [These data would be reasonably accurate, but not
100% precise because O-NIBRS data are dynamic.]
Victim information. Currently, we have no data source for information about victims of crime. O-
NIBRS reporting allows agencies to submit data about victims of an incident: type (e.g. individual,
business, etc), age, sex, race, ethnicity, resident status, type of injury, relationship to offender,
LEOKA related information
Better measure of drug related crime: O-NIBRS reporting format allows agencies to report
information about any drug involvement in a criminal incident. Currently, we report arrests for
"drug crimes" (possession & trafficking). We know that we are undercounting in some situations.
And, we are completely blind to how drugs might be involved in a "non-drug" crime. For any
crime, O-NIBRS can capture:
o Type(s) of drugs the arrestee possessed when apprehended.
o If offenders were suspected of using / consuming alcohol/drugs/narcotics during or
shortly before the incident. Specifically, we could identify violent crimes associated with
drug behavior, even when there is no drug charge.
o Description of any drug "property" seized or destroyed/damaged in relation to an incident
ORS associated with the UCR offense code. It would allow us to count offenses in the same
categories as we count OJIN charges and DOC conviction data; and would allow us to drill into
the data to answer ORS-specific questions.
Examples of Investiciational Benefits of O-NIBRS:
Scenario 1: Your agency investigates an arson incident and interviews 5 witnesses. One of the
witnesses appears suspicious. You make inquiries on this subject through LEDS/NCIC and the only
information that can be found is his driving record. You check this person through O-NIBRS and discover
that this subject was named as a witness to arson fires in 2 other jurisdictions in Oregon. What are the
chances the same subject would be a witness to 3 separate arsons in 3 different jurisdictions? Chances
are extremely high that this subject is actually the arsonist. You became aware of his involvement in the
other arsons only because those agencies had reported their records in the O-NIBRS format. This is
information the older OUCR format cannot provide.
Scenario 2: You are an officer in a small town with very few reportable incidents each month. Suddenly
there is an increase in thefts and vandalisms. Someone points to "that new family" that just moved into
town as possibly the root of the problem. Checking LEDS/NCIC returns nothing, except for the parents'
DMV records. Checking through O-NIBRS shows that the 14-year-old boy is listed as a suspect or
offender in several incidents in another agency on the other side of the State. You call that other agency
and the officer you speak with says something to the effect of "I'm sorry to hear that he's your problem
now! He's been a thorn in our side since he was 10 years old." While this isn't evidence that allows you
to immediately arrest the boy for your thefts and vandalisms, it does point to him as a suspect worth
further scrutiny. Without his name being in the O-NIBRS database, it may have taken you much longer
to develop this subject as a suspect.
Scenario 3: Your agency is investigating a kidnapping of a child by a family acquaintance. He's driving a
Chevy SUV with unknown plates. A check of DMV records through LEDS returns 3 vehicles registered to
the suspect, but none are Chevy's or SUV's. An Amber Alert cannot be initiated. He has not lived at the
address listed in DMV records for more than 2 years. A check of the O-NIBRS database reveals that this
subject was a complainant in a burglary incident in another agency about 100 miles away from where the
family suspected he may actually be headed. You ask that agency to check the address listed for that
burglary incident for the subject and they locate both him and the child. If this agency had not been
reporting in the O-NIBRS format, this address may not have been discovered for days or even weeks.
Oregon Law Enforcement Agencies Currently Reporting in O-NIBRS:
Amity PD
Jacksonville PD
Reedsport PD
Ashland PD
Keizer PD
Rogue River PD
Athena PD
La Grande PD
Roseburg PD
Aumsville PD
Lebanon PD
Salem PD
Aurora PD
Lincoln City PD
Shady Cove PD
Bend PD
Lincoln SO
Silverton PD
Benton SO
Manzanita DPS
Stayton PD
Black Butte Ranch PD
McMinnville PD
Sunriver PD
Boardman PD
Medford PD
Sutherlin PD
Carlton PD
Monmouth PD
Talent PD
Central Point PD
Morrow SO
Tillamook PD
Corvallis PD
Mt. Angel PD
Tillamook SO
Dallas PD
Myrtle Creek PD
Turner PD
Deschutes SO
Newberg-Dundee PD
Umatilla PD
Douglas SO
Newport PD
Umatilla SO
Eagle Point PD
Pendleton PD
Union SO
Gervais PD
Phoenix PD
Winston PD
Hubbard PD
Pilot Rock PD
Woodburn PD
Independence PD
Polk SO
Yamhill PD
Jackson SO
Redmond PD
Yamhill SO
Oregon Law Enforcement Agencies Working Toward Moving to O-NIBRS:
Coburg PD
Cottage Grove PD
Eugene PD
Florence PD
Junction City PD
Lane SO
Oakridge PD
Oregon State Police
Portland PB
Springfield PD