2003-819-Minutes for Meeting April 23,2003 Recorded 5/1/2003COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKDS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/01/2003 01;34;48 PM
1111111111111 8 1111111111111111111111
2003-000
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2003
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly.
Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrators; Rick Isham and Laurie
Craghead, Legal Counsel; Susan Ross, Judith Ure, Ted Schassberger and Anna
Johnson, Commissioners'Office; Jenny Scanlon, Juvenile Community Justice;
George Read, Damian Syrnyk and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Judy
Summers, Risk Management; media representatives Barney Lerten of bend com
and Chris Barker of the Bulletin; and approximately twenty other citizens.
Chair Dennis Luke opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
WILLIAM KUHN:
I'm William Kuhn, and my wife and I live in the Tumalo Winter Deer Range
located between Bend and Sisters. Because of some public hearings going on, I
have been precluded from discussing various issues with the Board of
Commissioners.
I respectfully request to meet with an individual or body of the County that has
jurisdictional oversight of Community Development, besides George Read, to
discuss our concerns and needs.
LAURIE CRAGHEAD:
The question is, who has more authority over Community Development than
George Read. The Kuhns are precluded from taking with the Board of
Commissioners because of various land use issues before them at this time.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 1 of 30 Pages
08
They could talk with Mike Maier (the County Administrator); he doesn't get
involved in land use decisions.
DEWOLF:
He does not have authority in this type of thing. George Read, as a Director
and not an elected official, reports to the Board.
� 16IU
There are a lot of things that have occurred over the past two and one-half
years, with so many appeals and declaratory rulings, the Board cannot discuss
the activities of the Community Development Department. I tried to meet with
Commissioner Luke in August 2000, at which time only one item was
discussed. I have asked him since to meet with me, and he said he can't do so
since there are other appeals.
CRAGHEAD:
I'll contact you in a couple of days, and will try to work with you to discuss how
to handle this situation.
Mr. Kuhn agreed to this arrangement.
2. Before the Board was the Reading and Consideration of the Adoption of a
Proclamation Declaring May 1, 2003 Central Oregon Volunteer
Appreciation Day. - Pat Minney, Network of Volunteer Administrators
Pat Minney of the Network of Volunteer Administrators, along with Lin
Gardner and Woodie Madeiros, came before the Board. Ms. Minney then read
the Proclamation.
She went on to discuss the various activities scheduled around this event, and
said that almost 500 people participate.
Commissioner Luke observed that the Board participates in the selection of the
Volunteer of the Year, and it is very difficult to make such a selection because
there are so many outstanding people involved.
Lin Gardner stated that this year they are honoring all nominees, which includes
eighteen adults and seven youth. All of them will be introduced, and the
winners will be named at the end of the evening.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 2 of 30 Pages
This year two additional people will be recognized. They are Sasha Abarca, the
young woman who organized the flag displays in Redmond, and also Dan
Hulbert, who is a Gulf War veteran who organized care packages for service
men and women now serving.
Commissioner Luke observed that yesterday he attended an event at Bend River
Mall with Congressman Walden, which has donated space that now is full of
contributions. Congressman Walden was also in Redmond that evening to
honor Ms. Abarca.
DALY: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was a Review and Discussion of a Proposed Contract
between Deschutes County Juvenile Community Justice and Deschutes
County Solid Waste Department regarding Community Work Service.
DEWOLF: Move approval of the Heart of Oregon contract.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
DEWOLF: Move approval of the Juvenile Community Justice and Solid
Waste Department contract.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 3 of 30 Pages
4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Change Order
between Deschutes County and Florida Atlantic University, regarding the
Dennis Maloney Contract.
DE WOLF : Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of By -Laws for the
Proposed Juvenile Community Justice Advisory Committee.
The Board still had questions about this document, so a separate meeting will
be scheduled to discuss it further.
6. Before the Board was a Review of Community Development Department's
2002 Accomplishments and Fiscal Year 2003-04 Work Plan, and Setting a
Date for a Public Hearing regarding the Work Plan.
George Read gave an overview of the proposed Plan, and said that a public
hearing will take place on May 14 for the Board to consider it.
He then reviewed the Work Plan, giving an overview of the achievements of his
department over the past year.
7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First and
Second Readings and Adoption of Ordinances No. 2003-019 and No. 2003-
020, Revising County Code in Order to Revise the Mineral and Aggregate
Resource Inventory for Deschutes County, and Declaring an Emergency.
Paul Blikstad read his staff report to the Board and the audience. He said the
reason for the emergency clause is that additional applications have been
received for the division of the properties, and this must be approved before
anything else can take place. He and the Board then discussed details shown on
oversized maps and an aerial photograph.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 4 of 30 Pages
He went on to say that there were no objections voiced at the Hearings Officer's
hearing, and DOGAMI has indicated it is satisfied with the reclaiming of the
site. The neighbors have been notified twice of this pending action.
Commissioner Luke then opened the public hearing.
Sharon Smith, an attorney representing the applicants, then spoke. She said this
ends a long-term process that started in 1992. It is a success story even though
it took a while. There had been some opposition to the initial mining, and her
clients were faced with a LUBA appeal. The mediation program was used, a
resolution was reached, and part of that was to limit the mining to four years.
After that time, the ground was reclaimed. They would now like to move to the
next step with the property.
Being no other testimony offered, Commissioner Luke then closed the hearing.
DALY: Move first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2003-019, by title
only.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Chair Luke then did the first reading of Ordinance No. 2003-019 by title only,
declaring an emergency.
DALY: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
DALY: Move first and second reading of Ordinance No. 2003-020, by title
only.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 5 of 30 Pages
Chair Luke then did the first reading of Ordinance No. 2003-020 by title only,
declaring an emergency.
DALY: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2003-045,
Regarding an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision on Files CU -02-
1249 CU -02-125, CU -02-126, and MC -02-17 (Appeal No. A-03-3; Kuhn and
Watts).
Laurie Craghead stated that Community Development has received notice from
Mr. Kuhn that he wants to withdraw his appeal in this issue.
Commissioner Luke asked if notification via e-mail is adequate. Ms. Craghead
replied that it is in the file, duly noted and responded to as appropriate.
9. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval of
Draft Findings in Support of Exemption from Competitive Bidding
Requirements in regard to Improvements to a Public Building located at
Highway 97/Lafayette Avenue, Bend.
SUSAN ROSS:
I do want to clarify an item that was in the recent newspaper article regarding
this issue. It said, "the public hearing is to request an exemption from State
contracting rules". We are not requesting an exemption from State contracting
rules; I doubt we would ever get that. This is actually a request for an
exemption from competitive bidding requirements.
DALY:
I'd like to know how Commissioner DeWolf got on the committee.
DEWOLF:
You appointed me to it, many months ago.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 6 of 30 Pages
ROSS:
He was appointed by the Board as the Commissioner delegate.
The request is to allow us to use a CM/GC (construction management/general
contractor) process to construct the warehouse/I.T. building. The three findings
that we are presenting in support of this is, number one: the timing issue. We
are on a critical timeline to complete this building. It has to be completed prior
to the completion of the County/State building so that we can move into the
new warehouse and then be able to tear down the old warehouse. This is
required as part of the new County/State building. We are expecting that we
would need a building up and ready for move -in by February. So, timing is a
critical factor.
Another factor is substantial cost savings. If we have to move twice, that's
going to cost a lot. We also feel that if we can get a contractor on board early to
help us through the design process, it will eliminate the need for change orders
in the future.
LUKE:
How does doing this process speed it up? I've seen buildings, once they are
designed and we have an architect on board designing the building, and the
bidding process begins; how does this speed that up?
ROSS:
I will ask Scott Steele, who is the architect, to talk about this during the public
hearing.
Anyway, there are substantial cost savings. The third factor is the complexity
of the project, to acquire the most qualified contractor to provide services on
this building. We are housing our I.T. services in that building. It is the entire
computer room and computer center for the entire County. There is some
complexity to it, and we do want to get a contractor who has experience with
that type of a facility. So, those are the three findings that we would present in
support of this exception.
LUKE:
So you are telling me that you're going to look for a general contractor, and one
of the criteria will be that they have built buildings before that house computer
facilities.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 7 of 30 Pages
ROSS:
Not necessarily computer facilities, but have experience with some technical
types of construction. Maybe not specifically a computer room, but maybe
high technology types of spaces. We don't know what we are going to get.
We do not feel that there will be diminished competition using this method.
The general contractor still needs to competitively bid for the subcontracted
work.
DALY:
So we are going to put out an RFP for a general contractor.
ROSS:
For CM/GC, yes.
DALY:
We've already got an architect that has the building designed; is that right?
ROSS:
The building is not completely designed. There is only a preliminary design on
how the building would be sited. But the specific engineering design has not
been completed.
DALY:
But we're going to put this out statewide?
ROSS:
Yes. We have to publish in the Daily Journal.
LUKE:
They could come from Washington, too, since the Daily Journal of Commerce
goes into Washington.
ROSS:
Right. We can't limit it.
DALY:
So we are going to get bids on preliminary architectural drawings and narrow it
down with qualifications.
minutes of board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 8 of 30 Pages
ROSS:
Exactly.
DALY:
There won't be any pricing involved in this initial phase; is that what you are
saying?
ROSS:
We would ask for their overhead markup.
DALY:
But we won't have a total figure.
ROSS:
Not a total figure on the cost of the project. That would be part of the
contractor's job, to help us design and develop the total cost.
At this time, Chair Luke opened the public hearing.
SCOTT STEELE:
(With Steele Associates Architects) We're the architects for the project. To
answer a couple of questions, my firm uses both the traditional hard bid
method, which is you complete the documents and bid them out, and any
contractor who can bond the project then bids it.
We have also implemented projects with the CM/GC process. Sisters High
School is a good example, and there are many other projects in the public sector
that have used this, such as the new police station and the fire stations. For the
Sisters High School, the reason it was implemented was because of the timing
issue, which is one of the things you are facing.
I'm just letting you know that many projects in the public sector use the CM/GC
process, across the state. It is not highly unusual.
There are a couple of key points. The time challenge that Susan (Ross)
mentioned is very real. It is a warehouse, but don't be fooled; it also houses one
of the most complex portions of the County's functions in it.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 9 of 30 Pages
We have a very tight time frame. The way that a CM/GC process can save
time, if we hard big the project, we have to completely finish all of the
construction documents, with fully detailed specs, everything has to be totally
done before we can advertise statewide in various journals forbids. So it comes
at the very end of the design process. You need to leave a good month for
bidding for this project, and it would probably take a couple of weeks to select a
contractor, and then a couple of more weeks for them to get on site. That
process would take at least a couple of months.
In the CM/GC process, where you can benefit regarding time, is that you can
issue an RFP -- and it's open, it's still competitive, anyone that qualifies and can
bond can still submit for the project -- but that can happen while we are
designing as we are now, in the early phases. You get the contractor selected
and on board, and they give input during the design process, which is one of the
added values to the County and the community. This also mitigates change
orders later; they critique our structural systems, and give input on all systems,
and can get sub -bids and test the market as we are finishing the documents.
They still have to sub -bid, and we require in our documents that they have to
sub -bid every part of the work, even work that the general might want to self -
perform.
So, some of the issues brought up of not being competitive I frankly don't
understand. It's as competitive, the sub -contractors still get to bid, any general
contractor that qualifies and can bond the job can submit for the project. That's
how the schedule can be quicker.
Another aspect that you asked about was the cost. When we submit the RFP
and have you look at it, we often ask for the percent of overhead and profit. We
also indicate that once a contractor is brought on board in the CM/GC process,
there is a period of time that they have to lock into what is called a GMP, or
guaranteed maximum price. They have to do that before we are totally
complete with the documents. So, very early on you have a guaranteed
maximum price.
One of the other benefits of the CM/GC process versus the traditional hard bid
process is the way of cost savings to the public. In Sisters, we are $1 million
under GMP right now, and that money goes back to the School District. They
give it back.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 10 of 30 Pages
In a hard bid world, you don't give any potential savings back to the client.
Some contractors in negotiations say that they will keep 50% of whatever is
under the GMP, and it gives them an incentive to do a good job with their sub -
bids and come in low. Others are a little more giving, like giving the client
75% of whatever is under the GMP.
There is a potential for a lot of money to be given back. You can check with
the Sisters School District when the project is done. I know there have been
projects in this community where money has been returned. That does not
happen with a hard bid scenario. That's one of the potential benefits to the
County.
LUKE:
Does it work the other way?
STEELE:
No, because they can't exceed the guaranteed maximum price. Dennis, the
thing about that is that it makes it very tough for a general is that in the hard bid
world the contractor can try to pick apart the documents, saying that something
isn't clear or they didn't understand something. In a CM/GC project, the
contractor has given input on the design and has critiqued all the details and the
specs as they were finished. For them to come back later and say they weren't
aware of something, doesn't work. They knew, they bid it, and they have been
involved in the design of it.
That's why the chance of change orders is greatly mitigated in the CM/GC
process. Can it go the other way? It probably has on occasion, but it's probably
very rare. It's also open book; we are required to see all the bids and sub -bids.
I don't think there is really any way stack it. And I also think that the
contractors, at least the ones I am aware of, have more integrity than to do
anything untoward regarding the bidding process.
So, there's a significant cost savings, and the schedule is faster -- and we need
every week that we can get; there's no doubt about it. We'll be pushed to get
this done no matter which way it goes. If it goes hard bid, I don't see how we
can meet a February deadline. I don't think it's possible.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 11 of 30 Pages
LUKE:
So, the procedure to write the specs, and the specs are more accurate as you go
through the process, we get a reduction in the architectural fees because they
don't have to spend as much time on it?
ROSS:
I already tried that.
STEELE:
The reality is that we still produce the spec and we still aid with bidding when
the sub -bids go out; we still have to answer questions. Either way you pick as
far as procurement, we still have our job to do, and we still write the spec. The
key thing is, Dennis, in all seriousness, when we are doing a spec and designing
a building, there are many different ways to do things in terms of detailing and
structural systems.
We have to make our best assumption, so we use open web joists for the roof
system and we hard bid it. Invariably, the contractor comes back and says we
should have done it another way. There are always alternatives. The efficiency
benefit that you get is that we get all of that input because the contractors have
their fingers on the pulse of the market and the trades, and they will make
suggestions to use. So we develop the documents with their input.
And as far as diminishing competition, I think I mentioned that I don't see how
it diminishes in any way, shape or form. Any contractor that can bond the job
can come after this. And I would expect that this is CM/GC or other because of
the economy. I'm sure that you'll get some contractors out of the Valley; and I
wouldn't be surprised if you got a couple out of Washington, and all the locals
that can qualify. I've never seen a diminished showing. In Sisters we sure
didn't get that; I think we had about fifteen. So as far as the number of
proposals we get, I've never personally seen any difference between hard bid
and CM/GC.
I think I touched on the public benefits. Dollars below the CM/GC are returned
to the County. Value engineering decreases change order potential and
increases quality of the product. Ability to occupy the building, I think
somewhere in the neighborhood of two, possibly three months earlier than if it
is hard bid. All these points are arguable, but I do this for a living and I've done
projects both ways in this community; and they go faster with CM/GC. And I
think this is a good example of one that needs it.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 12 of 30 Pages
TOM RIOS:
(With the Ironworkers Union, Portland.) I'm with Local 29, and this is not a
union - non-union issue because most of our contractors do a great deal of work
for open shop contractors. So we have a good relationship with them. But I do
a lot of work around the state, and the one thing I have seen that is whenever
you exempt a project from public bidding, you do eliminate contractors.
LUKE:
It's not from public bidding. It's only for the general contractor.
RIOS:
For the general contractor, that, too. It says that there is no favoritism, but that's
not always true either. I've seen cases where a general contractor will
deliberately use or favor one contractor instead of others, and close the door to a
lot of subcontractors, whether they are local or not. And as far as some of the
cost overrides, they can override just as easily on a CM/GC project as they can
on any other project.
LUKE:
How would that work?
RIOS:
Well, once a project starts, whether it's a complete price or not, like this project
across the street, if you run into problems like with the dirt work, you are still
going to run into problems whether you hard bid it or not. Somebody is still
going to have to pay for that regardless. Well, I'll use that project as an example.
It says there is no favoritism on this project, but yet we had steel wreckers and
placers, some from this part of the country, that weren't even aware of this project
being out for bid. So they didn't even get an opportunity to bid on this. It was
already let out and done before we had a chance to look at it.
DALY:
You are talking about this one?
RIOS:
That project there, and I'm certainly not saying anything against William Smith
Properties or Keeton King, because their records speak for themselves; they are
both good contractors and good community businesses.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 13 of 30 Pages
William Smith, of course, did all the Mill District and Keeton King did all the
work for that, and we never had an opportunity to even submit bids to get a
portion of that.
LUKE:
Those were not public dollars. That's different. The Old Mill District was all
private.
RIOS:
Right. But what I'm saying is that there was still a relationship. Like all
general contractors, they have certain subcontractors that they like working for
them. And there's nothing wrong with that, absolutely, positively not. But my
only concern is that when you do that, when you exempt a project from public
bidding, you eliminate competition, and that's really what drives the price down
of anything, is competition. That's really what it amounts to. That's my
concern.
DEWOLF:
I just don't understand how it is eliminating competition. If we put this out with
the typical form of advertising throughout the Northwest, and we have ten,
fifteen, however many firms that make a proposal, and you've got me, who isn't
a contractor, sitting on that committee, along with other people who may have
background in this area. I have no favorites for contractors. I don't see how it
reduces competition. Anybody who has the capacity to do this work can make
a proposal. How is the competition reduced?
RIOS :
The actual CM/GC I really don't have too much of an issue with, because it in
some cases it is a good deal. I like it in one way, because if a general contractor
under the CM/GC wants to perform any portion of that work himself, he has to
submit a bid himself.
But, also if you exempt this from public bidding, then you also exempt this
from the first tier public disclosure laws, don't you? That means that any
individual can't go in there and sit down and watch the bids being opened and
see if this guy has his bond in, or if the bid time closes at 10:00 and here comes
a bid in at 10:05. I go to a lot of bid openings and I see a lot things. And that's
really why I am here.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 14 of 30 Pages
I just want to be sure that everybody has a shot at it. It doesn't matter if they are
union or non-union. Most of the contractors that get these jobs are non-union,
and we go in as sub -contractors. But as a CM/GC and being exempt, I think it
closes the door to some contractors because not all of them can qualify as a
CM/GC. They can come in as a general contractor and not completely as a
CM/GC. I don't know what the criteria for that is, though.
I still believe that whenever you eliminate competition, how can you compare a
price if they give you this set price to do this building, how do you know that is
the best price you can get? You don't know, because that is the price they gave
you. I see contracts out for bid all the time where this guy here comes in at say
$8 million, and you've got another one that comes in at $7 million, and you
might have some guy come in at $15 million. How do you know it's not the
high end of that project?
DEWOLF:
How would you answer the timing?
RIOS:
The timing, it makes no difference. The timing issue really goes to the quality of
the contractor that gets the job. And when you start saying, like in this project
across the street here, it says this contractor was the only one capable of
performing that project. There are contractors all over the state that can do that
project. A lot of them didn't even know it was going on. I didn't even know it was
going on, and I spend a lot of time here. So I just don't see the advantage to it.
LUKE:
One of the ways it can reduce competition is that one of the things they look for
in this kind of thing is experience. The only way you get experience is to get
the job to start with. Sometimes young people who are starting out in the
construction field usually start with small projects and work their way up.
There was one major builder here, his first j ob was the 9-1-1 building. It was
only a $60,000 contract, but he beat Keeton King, which is hard to do. But he
wanted to. He needed to get that experience.
If you do this type of process on all of your buildings, eventually you are going
to eliminate the people who have no experience and will get to a handful of
contractors who have experience, and no one else can get into the field. That is
one of the ways in the long run, not in the short term, you start to eliminate
competition.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 15 of 30 Pages
DEWOLF:
Have we done that on all of our projects?
LUKE:
No. Becky Johnson Center, and the Health Building were not. They were hard
bid.
DEWOLF:
Because we didn't have the time constraints that we have on this one.
ROSS:
Also, the 4-H/Extension building and the Alyce Hatch project; and the CRC
project will be hard bid.
RIOS:
Sometimes you can get fraud in your bidding process. I know he mentioned
that Sisters project out there that it was so much under budget. Well, how do
you know, if you already had a fixed price? This is what I'm getting at. And
they had one contractor out there, and it certainly wasn't Kirby's fault, it was a
subcontractor, and I had to go after them on the state level because he was
paying his guys well over $10 an hour less than what he should have been
paying them for the classification and the work he was doing. This goes on all
the time. So, I just don't see any advantage to it.
LUKE:
They usually get caught, though.
ROSS:
Whether or not it is a CM/GC process, we still have to check certified payroll.
We do site visits to make sure the payroll matches up to this.
RIOS :
I do a great deal of prevailing wage violation complaint work. It's true that
when the paperwork comes to the office, whoever it is looks at it and says that
this carpenter here got carpenter hours. He's got labor here, and he's labor rate
here, it's right. They compare the classification to the wage rate rather than the
work that they are actually performing on the site. I know, because I've filed
easily over one hundred in the last three years. Whether it's a federal or city
job.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 16 of 30 Pages
What happens is that if you don't go on site, and if you don't know who is doing
what kind of work, there's no way to know. The people in the office don't
know; they don't know what iron work is, compared to carpenter work,
compared to labor work. But that's getting out of it. I just don't see where the
competition being eliminated for your contract with your limited amount of
funds that you are using for this project can be an advantage. Because if you've
got a qualified contractor and you tell him you have to have it done, and you
have penalties in your contract, he's going to get that done or you are going to
get some money back. Period.
LUKE:
There are some violations in prevailing wage, but by and large people do what
they are supposed to do. There are a few people out there. A hundred
violations, with all of the contracts that are going on in this state, aren't very
many. But it helps to keep the other people in line.
RIOS:
I'll tell you what. For every one that I file, there are probably twenty or thirty
that I don't. Because I always talk with them first. One thing I don't like doing
is getting the state agency involved. I've already been into this office over some
items. That's why. Because if I can go on site, and I speak for the iron workers
only, I see somebody doing something, I always tell them to be sure that this
guys gets his correct wages and pay and all that, so I don't have to file a wage
complaint and we don't make more work for the contracting agency.
RICHARD ZABEL:
I will Zabel Construction Services, Inc., which is a construction management
consulting company that has just starting here in the area. I have previous
experience, ten years as a general contractor in Oregon, and thirteen years
experience with Bechtel Corporation. So, twenty-eight years experience in
construction. I have degrees from COCC, Oregon State and Stanford.
I don't know the specifics of this particular project. There are certainly very
good uses for negotiated contracts, what you call the GC/CM arrangement.
Typically in the industry those uses are areas that the designer/builder has
considerable expertise in, the process they have expertise in. Or also retrofits,
areas where a competitive bid is hard to come by because you don't know what
you are going to run into until you get into it. And so those are very good uses
for it.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 17 of 30 Pages
A $2 million dollar warehouse doesn't seem to me to be a very good use for that
type of contract. Everyone does computer rooms now; that is really not high
tech.
DEWOLF:
Then, what is? If the County's computer system is not high tech, what is?
ZABEL:
The last project I came off of was in Shanghai, and it was a microelectronics
factory for IBM. A wafer factory for Motorola. Those are high tech. A
computer room is very basic and standard, and most office buildings have that.
And you have subcontractors who are very good at putting those in.
As far as the timing goes, if it really is a critical timing issue, there are a lot of
things you can do up front to improve the schedule. One of the things is fast -
tracking, where you release part of the design before the whole thing is finished.
You release the underground utilities, you release the civil work, the
foundations. That can be done separately from the rest of the building. And it
can be contracted out by itself. And that can improve the schedule
considerably. In general, you are saying that you --
DEWOLF:
So you are saying that you would put out a bid for foundation work, and then
have a different general potentially for the rest of the building? Don't you end
up with one of these?
ZABEL:
Not if you have a good design. And good management.
DEWOLF:
And both contractors that will not blame each other for being an inch out of
square.
ZABEL:
If you have a good design and good management, that's right. The potential is
there. One of the reasons, and I have nothing against Steele and Associates, I've
never worked with them and I don't really know anything about them.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 18 of 30 Pages
But it's much easier for them to have a contractor that they have already worked
with before on board with them, and go through the design and the specifications.
It makes their job a little easier, and they don't have the conflicts that they would
have with a hard dollar job.
It's not to say it's not good. But that's true, you wouldn't have those kinds of
conflicts, where the contractor says, I'm sorry, this design is completely messed
up. No wonder it's going to cost more money. You wouldn't get that as much.
But then you also don't get the competition. You are saying well, you can go
out to all these different firms and get competition. You aren't getting
competition, you are getting proposals from all these companies, and they may
be able to do the work. But I'll bet five bucks that you will probably end up
giving the job to somebody that maybe the architect has worked with before,
and has a good rapport with.
Like I said, I am just starting out. So you end up with an estimate from the
contractor with a guaranteed maximum price, but you don't really have any way
to say whether that's a good estimate or not. And you still have all of these
subcontract bids that you think are competitive also, but all those subcontractors
also know that they are bidding on the same job that is negotiated and not a
hard dollar bid. The savings that you are getting are possibly coming from an
inflated price.
So are you really getting savings, or not? So, I'm actually surprised that there is
as much negotiated contracting going on around here. In fact, it is not
necessarily a good thing. I don't think it's good for the taxpayers or the
competitive building market.
GEORGE WARD:
Thanks for being here. I, too, am a new kid on the block in Bend. I only
finished moving in yesterday. I think I can say I don't know anybody in this
room. I'm a registered professional engineer in Oregon. I know very little
about the project except what I read in the paper. And I'm here just to support
the concept that I believe you are attempting to review and perhaps approve.
I support the comments of both previous speakers. It sounds almost like we met
in the back room just before the meeting started. That's not the case. I've never
seen or know anybody here. I felt that coming down today would be an
opportunity to get to know your County. I promised I would be quiet, but I'm
going to break that promise.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 19 of 30 Pages
I would urge that the County give serious consideration to a controlled process,
somewhat described previously, so I won't repeat all of that. Since 1968 I've
done numerous industrial building designs as a civil engineer in Portland,
Alaska, Guam and different locations. What you are up against is two issues.
One is a time factor; and secondly, a legitimate contract procedure. I think the
first issue can be solved easily.
More recently, about two years ago, State Fish and Wildlife in Oregon got in a
time bind with about a $1 million facility in The Dalles. It was a fish ladder
manufacturing plant for fish control. I was brought in as a consultant to that,
and said, how do we jump-start this? So what you are really looking for is a
legitimate jump-start contracting procedure.
I think you have probably already heard the better part of two concepts. I
would add only this, that you've got some site considerations, planning delays,
architectural detail delays, subsurface sewer and utilities, foundations and that
kind of thing. And the building selection and the details within the building
itself. That is a whole separate issue.
If you know where the site is, and I'm sure you do, if you know its geological
conditions, and I'm sure you do, and the rock here is not a bit harder than the
rock in The Dalles. So I assume you have a tough site. That's different than
detailed planning of say, a computer building. That is high tech, but it is known
tech. Knocking rock out of a place and dynamiting and rock breakers is known
here more than anywhere in the state. So you people have access to people here
who are highly qualified. You could jump-start that easily in a legitimate
contract.
Then your own County people, working with local people, could site the
building if it isn't already done. Recognizing that you have the legal restraint,
you cannot keep these things invisible. But that's easy. And the state managed
to do it. They got the building in on time. It was still under design, which I
was responsible for, when the site work was underway. You can avoid the
potential long-term process of total design, total bid review, and then total
wrestling, because that is what can happen.
I think what you are onto is the correct route. I don't know that I see the correct
destination. But I think you are absolutely right in looking for this fast track
construction. Thank you.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 20 of 30 Pages
DALY:
Assuming that you do separate the site work from the actual construction of the
building, aren't we still going to have to do a spec book and public bidding
process, the whole works?
I don't think so, but I'm not a public official. I can say that, but you can't. But
the state itself made that decision. And it worked for them in that instance.
There's no disagreement in general from what you've heard today.
JERRY FLETCHER:
I'm the Secretary for the Central Oregon Construction Building Trades, and
also a Deschutes County taxpayer. I think the question here is, that when you
look for a request for proposals, Commissioner DeWolf, you've got to make
sure that the taxpayers know that you are looking at the best qualified
proposal, and not the one that is the most politically connected. That is what I
am hearing out on the job site. I do to the job sites quite a bit; that's my job, to
go out there.
And we are seeing two contractors getting all the work. And that's the
problem. So you've got to make sure that these request for proposals are done
fairly. And you're not a contractor, so you are going to have to rely on the
experience of the people underneath you. But that's the question that I'm
getting from the people outside. And, also, the electrical bid on this job over
here didn't even go out for bid. It was handed down. So to say that it is
competitive, it's not. Thank you.
DEWOLF:
What we did was contract with William Smith Properties. I keep hearing that
comparison. My understanding is that these are not comparable. I understand
some of the similarities, but to say that because certain things were done on that
project, that's how it would be with this project, that's not an assumption we can
make. And I totally appreciate the perception.
DUANE FRANCIS:
I was going to bring up the same point. That's a completely different project
than a CM/GC. A design/build doesn't have the same rules.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 21 of 30 Pages
I like the CM/GC process a lot. There's a couple of issues. If you take 100%
of the value of your project, your proposal to the general contractors, which is
going to go statewide, is going to deal with probably 12-15% of the cost of that
project. I'm assuming that they are going to ask for the fees and general
conditions, and the contractor's profit and overhead. That will be a portion of
the contract will be looked at and reviewed by whoever selects the general
contractor. The other 85-87% of the job will go to hard bid.
I disagree with the comments I heard earlier that say they won't be competitive.
They will be competitive. Those drawings will most likely be distributed
throughout the building centers, and it's statewide just like anything.
And I don't think that as a subcontractor we're going to care whether it is a
CM/GC process. We're bidding against another subcontractor, who knows his
background, whether union or not. And I think managing the process of the
bids is the key to getting good numbers. And I think all of the subs are going to
come to the table and want to be low, or they aren't going to get accepted for the
job. And that's my comment.
Being no further testimony offered, Chair Luke then closed the public hearing.
DALY:
I am an excavation contractor, and this is new to me; I've actually never been
involved in one of these. It's hard to understand. I guess my question would be
that if we go to this process we are talking about, what is the makeup of the
review committee? Is there a way that the makeup of that committee could be
changed to make everyone feel more comfortable? Is that something we need
to think about?
LUKE:
Where did the review committee come from? We haven't even started this
building.
ROSS:
Actually, you set the review committee for the entire, full projects. You did
select Commissioner DeWolf. You can change it. It is representatives of
departments that are affected by the whole host of remodels and buildings.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 22 of 30 Pages
This would be a subcommittee of all of the people affected by that building;
Commissioner DeWolf, me, Renee Warner and Tad Walker (Building
Services), Dave Peterson's office (Information Technologies); and we've asked
Dennis Perkins to sit on all of these committees as a representative of the
building department.
DALY:
That's my only concern, is that the public feels comfortable with the committee
that we have put together to select this.
ROSS:
The makeup of the committee can change; it's not cast in stone.
DALY:
That's my only heartburn, if there is a perception out there that the committee is
okay. I've quite frankly forgotten about selecting it. Maybe we can revisit that.
I don't have a problem with the process.
ROSS:
Staff is open to that.
DEWOLF:
That's how we selected the architect. The same committee. It was designed to
be consistent throughout this project, with people who are directly affected.
ROSS:
So that committee will change a little bit, for instance, when we get ready to do
other projects.
DALY:
But the committee itself is basically made up of County people.
ROSS:
Yes. It is a County project. We're open to suggestions. All three
Commissioners could be on that committee; it doesn't matter to me; but if there
is an appeal, it then goes to all three of you.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 23 of 30 Pages
DEWOLF:
I appreciate the input that people have had today. Regarding perception,
ultimately I have to sleep at night, and need to feel that I've done ethical things
in my life. That's how I will approach this as we have in the past. The process
we use is a very fair and thorough process for any of these selections.
I compare it to a degree the way that we would select a department director,
which we've done three or four times over the last few years. We bring in who
we feel are appropriate people to augment the core selection group, and try to
be fair, thorough and unbiased to the best of our ability, which is the same as
anybody else. And then we make those selections accordingly.
I've got no axe to grind in this, I've got no favorites, and from what I've seen in
the selections that have been done through this process in the past and in the
selection of Mr. Steele's firm, I didn't see any evidence of that with any
members of the selection team.
So I am comfortable with it, and there is nothing I am going to be able to do
about what gets written in the media and how that is perceived. Whether that
shows up in the newspaper, we were joking before that this shows up on the
front page, like why would it be front page news, when we're in a war in Iraq
and SARS and everything else that is hitting this world. But they did. And
Chris (Barker, of the Bulletin) doesn't write his own headlines, so he may write
an article and the headline guy can change the perception of it. That's part of
what we have to deal with, is those perceptions out there.
All I can do at the end of the day is my best job, as unbiased and as ethical a job
as I can in every decision that I make. I have the utmost faith that if we change
the committee or leave it as it is, it is because the three of us are ultimately
comfortable with the decision-making process. I don't know any other two
guys that have higher intentions than Mike and Dennis. Even when we disagree
on stuff, I know where their hearts are and I know what their ethics are, and
we're all doing our best on behalf of the taxpayers.
And I'm going to support doing this because, as much as I respect what has
gone on today and it has made me think about what we are doing, I think those
questions are answered in this process. And I think what we're doing, if it goes
that direction, is the best for the taxpayers that I represent.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 24 of 30 Pages
LUKE:
When you leave the standard process of building public buildings, I think you
need to prove that it is in the best interest of the public to do that, to eliminate
that first tier of competition from the competitive bidding process. And I've not
convinced we've done that.
There is no question that there is a time constraint, but we put that on ourselves
and that's not the fault of the construction industry; that's our fault. This is not a
complicated building. This is a standard building that has some technical stuff
in it, but when the architect gets done with the specs and works with the
computer people, I think that you will get quality bids from quality electricians
and people to put those in. I don't think we have met the burden of proof, and
I'll be voting no.
DEWOLF:
The only thing I would say in response is that I don't think this is a matter of
fault that we are in the time constraint we're in. It's a matter of circumstances.
LUKE:
Right. And I didn't mean it was our fault, that we created the time constraint. It
is circumstances.
DEWOLF:
It is just the timing of how things have to fall within the projects. It's the timing
that is the key for me on this. I respect that there could be some savings of
dollars, but there is some debate on that. For me, the timing of it, not having to
move all that archive material twice, is a big deal. In times of budget
constraints, I don't want to have people having to move all that stuff twice.
That's really a factor.
LUKE:
The only things you have to move are in the warehouse. The archives stuff has
already been moved.
ROSS:
No, only the Kidnastics part has been moved. That is a real small portion of the
archives. Most is stored in the warehouse.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 25 of 30 Pages
DEWOLF:
I would move approval of the exemption from competitive bidding on this
project.
DALY:
I'd like some more discussion. That's the only issue. I kind of agree with you,
the warehouse building is not that much a technical building. The computer
room doesn't bother me at all because of the fact that it is conduits and wires,
and I.T. people can handle all that. The timing is the only issue for me. And I
think we have to worry about it. It definitely does make a difference. In most
cases I would agree with Commissioner Luke. But I'll second the motion.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes no. (Split vote.)
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Indemnity
Agreement with Klah Klahnee and Sunnyside Sports for the Bike -a -Roo
Breakfast and Ride Scheduled for Sunday, April 27.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
11. Before the Board was Consideration of Acknowledgment of a Resolution
Adopted by Deschutes County Special Road District No. 1 regarding the
Creation of a Local Contract Review Board for the District.
Rick Isham explained that Statute says the County must acknowledge this
resolution, which provides that appeals for this organization's public contracts
won't come to the Commissioners. There is no choice; Statute says that the
Board shall acknowledge receipt of the District's determination.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 26 of 30 Pages
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
DEWOLF: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items:
12. Signature of a Lease Amendment regarding the Sheriffs Office Sisters
Substation.
13. Signature of the Master Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes
County and Bonneville Power Administration to Provide Security to the BPA's
Redmond Facilities.
14. Signature of Order No. 2003-053, Declaring Certain Deschutes County
Personal Property as Surplus, and Authorizing its Sale.
15. Signature of Oregon Health Services FY 2002-03 Grant Revision # 10,
regarding Funding Revisions.
16. Signature of an Oregon Commission on Children & Families Grant
Amendment, Reducing State Funding Levels.
17. Signature of an Amendment to a Services Contract between Deschutes County
and Maple Star of Oregon, Reducing Funding Levels.
18. Chair Signature of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Supplying and
Hauling Crushed and Pre -Coated Rock for Chip Seal.
19. Signature of Order No. 2003-050, Authorizing Expenditures of Public Funds
for the Inspection and Load rating of Bowery Lane Bridge, Bend.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 27 of 30 Pages
20. Signature of Order No. 2003-052, Correcting Scrivener's Error in Documents
relating to the Surrender of a Portion of Maple Avenue to the City of Redmond.
21. Approval of Road Dedication RD -99-1 and Consideration of Signature of
Deeds Dedicating a Portion of Ward Road.
22. Signature of a Lease Addendum between Deschutes County and the Oregon
State Water Resources Department regarding the State's Use of County
Facilities at 1340 NW Wall Street, Bend.
23. Signature of Resolution No. 2003-034, Authorizing Signers for Bank Accounts
on Behalf of Deschutes County (Mark Amberg's signature is to replace that of
Rick Isham due to Mr. Isham's Retirement).
24. Signature of Resolution No 2003-035, Transferring Appropriations within
Various Funds of the Deschutes County Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget, and
Directing Entries.
25. Signature of Order No. 2003-048, Authorizing the Refund of Taxes in the
Amount of $1,803.29.
26. Signature of Order No. 2003-051, Amending Order No. 2003-029, Eliminating
the Transfer of Cash from the 9-1-1 Equipment Reserve Fund to the 9-1-1
Operations Fund.
27. Signature of Letters Appointing Tom Davis of Sisters and Michael Fisher of
Bend to the Board of the Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, through
December 31, 2005.
28. Signature of a Letter Reappointing Vern Walters to the La Pine Community
Cemetery Board, through April 1, 2007.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
29. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$2,356.04 (two weeks).
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 28 of 30 Pages
DALY: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
30. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable
Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of
$1,337.53 (two weeks).
DALY: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
31. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,013,372.68
(two weeks).
DALY: Move approval.
DEWOLF: Second.
VOTE: DALY: Yes.
DEWOLF: Yes.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
32. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
None were offered.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 29 of 30 Pages
Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Dennis Luke adjourned
the meeting at 11:55 a.m.
DATED this 23rd Day of April 2003 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
(F - /V
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Chair
To DeWolf, Co ner
loelzkl"
-IZOOIZI&/ ley/
i ael k Daly Commissioner
Attachment:
Exhibit A: Copy of Deschutes County Mental Health Department HB 3024
Local Mental Health Plan, Phase 2
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Page 30 of 30 Pages
REViEv� cu �
pesckutesC-puntif
"WORKING FOR YOU"
Deschutes Co nrntty
Menttall lH eattlhl Depaurtim emit
HS 3024
Local Mental Health Pian
Phase 2
January, 2003
ryo,At A
DC " 2003-~ 045
qI V163
HB 3024, Phase Two
Local Mental Health Plan for Deschutes County
Executive Summary
Background
The HB 3024 Phase I Plan outlined our version of the ideal mental health system for Deschutes
County based on the principles and values of the Governor's Mental Health Alignment
Workgroup of 2001. The system we envision was to be gradually built with an expectation of
some additional funding and the hope that the Association of Oregon Community Mental Health
Programs (AOCMHP) would encourage the state to implement funding for mental health and
chemical dependency treatment services in a fair and consistent manner. Eight months after
submission of the Phase I plan, it is clear neither will occur and budget cuts are soon to be
implemented.
The Phase 2 Plan is a modest document which identifies community stakeholders involved in
the HB 3024 planning effort. In light of revenue reductions, a basic outline for "priorities for a
minimal system" is identified. These include:
Adults/Seniors/Children/Adolescents:
1. Maintain crisis services
2. Increase use of group services for clients
3. Maintain clinic and school based dual diagnosis mental health/chemical
dependency programs
4. Provide minimal intensive case management services
5. Maintain employment services
6. Maintain mental health/corrections "bridge" position
7. Increase referrals to community resources including inter -faith groups
8. Plan for expiration of Safe Schools Alliance grant
One of the goals of the initial HB 3024 Plan was to identify, prioritize and estimate costs for
changes in our mental health system. This process was to be carried over to the Phase 1 Plan.
However, in light of revenue reductions, the Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services
(OMHAS) converted this requirement into an optional element of the plan. We have included
"prioritized areas for system change." These include:
Adults/Seniors/Children/Adolescents:
1. Crisis Resolution Center
2. Horizon House
3. Establish acute care region
4. Enhanced care outreach service
5. Develop child/adolescent sex offender treatment services
6. Develop and expand child/adolescent alcohol/drug treatment services in
conjunction with Juvenile Department
7. Develop local residential beds for children
8. Staff training in areas of trauma, domestic violence, evidence -based practices
and group facilitation skills
The Deschutes County Phase 1 Plan was accepted by OHMAS without revision.
HealthMental Department
2577 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701
General Information/TDD (541) 322-7500
FAX (541) 322-7565
Gary Smith, Director
January 14, 2002
Frank Moore, Manager
Systems Planning
Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services
2575 Bittern Street NE
Salem, Oregon 97309-0740
Dear Frank:
Enclosed is the HB 3024 Phase Two Plan for Deschutes County.
This abbreviated document represents a pared -down version of our
initial plan, presented to your office last May.
As you are acutely aware, Deschutes County continues to be near
the bottom of Oregon counties when it comes to per capita
reimbursement for mental health treatment and at the bottom for
reimbursement of alcohol/drug treatment. This, for the fastest
growing and seventh largest county in Oregon. Across-the-board
budget cuts in county service dollars result in exaggerating
this inequity. The state office needs to develop and implement
an equity funding formula which distributes dollars in a fair
and consistent manner.
We in Deschutes County would like to advocate for comprehensive
planning among the county mental health programs and OMHAS.
Please see the attached white paper on this topic. It would
seem to be counter-productive for the State of Oregon to require
multiple related, but separate, plans be produced by each
community mental health agency as well as the Community Plan by
the Commission on Children and Families. The redundancy of such
an endeavor is wasteful for each agency and disheartening for
each community as citizens are asked the same questions over and
over. This is especially apparent during a fiscal crisis such
as we are currently experiencing. It is our hope that the state
Acute Care Adult Treatment Child & Family Program Developmental Disabilities
FAX 322-7567 FAX 322-7565 FAX 322-7566 PHONE 322-7554
FAX 322-7566
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Frank Moore, Manager
January 14, 2003
Page 2
will modify the planning requests it makes of the individual
counties and combine the HB 3024 plan, the Alcohol and Drug
Biennial plan, the Gambling Biennial plan and the SB 914 plan
and roll these into the SB 555 Community Plan under the
supervision of each community's Commission on Children and
Families. We would further suggest the Department of Human
Services consider a similar tack and have the state Commission
drive the comprehensive planning for the state.
It is our belief comprehensive planning will lead to an
integrated service delivery system. We applaud the state's
movement in this direction by placing mental health and chemical
dependency services under the same administrative roof. We are
hopeful this strategy will lead to an integrated data system
with comprehensive and consistent reporting requirements. As
you know, Deschutes County Mental Health has had an integrated
mental health/alcohol and drug treatment system for over a
decade. We believe this evidence -based approach results in
better client care. The efficiency of our system continues to
be compromised by the state's separate data and reporting
requirements for mental health and chemical dependency services.
We strongly advocate for a comprehensive and consistent
reporting system which allows us to expend less energy on
reporting and more energy on providing services to clients.
We in Deschutes County believe it is only prudent to begin
preparations for revenue reductions sooner rather than later.
We have implemented a reduction in work hours of 10% while
moving to a 4 -day workweek in order to cushion the pending loss
of revenue. We believe it would be prudent for the Office of
Mental Health and Addiction Services to make a reduction of 10%
and move to a 4 -day workweek. We currently have 4.5 FTE in
personnel vacancies which we will not fill in anticipation of
having to lay off up to 22 positions in order to weather the
fiscal storm of the 2003-05 biennial budget. Because of these
and other measures we will implement, the hoped for movement
toward the ideal mental health system as envisioned by the
Governor's Mental Health Alighment Workgroup of 2001 will be
slowed if not compromised.
Frank Moore, Manager
January 14, 2003
Page 3
We look forward to your response to our plan. We are hopeful
that even in the current economic climate Deschutes County
Mental Health, with state office assistance, will be able to
make some significant movement toward the ideal mental health
system. If you have questions about our plan, please contact
US.
Sincerely,
Gary W. Smith, MSW
Director
GWS:kh
Enclosure
Attachment
H\\DC'MH - MANAGEMENT\HB 3023 AND OTHER PLANS\HB 3024 Plan\HB 3024 Plan PhaSe 2 Cover Lette- dor
Position Paper Calling for Coordinated Human Services Planning
Action Needed: Endorsement of this white paper. This is an effort to reform
state requirements for community planning, resulting in more coordinated
human services planning at the local level and greater efficiency in the
management of limited administrative resources.
Special thanks to Gary Smith with Deschutes County Mental Health for drafting this
white paper and promoting more efficient planning in the community. Gary has been
an active member of the Community Plan Steering Committee and the Professional
Advisory Council. This white paper is also being shared with the Mental Health
Advisory Board and other interested parties.
Issue
Various entities within the State Government (e.g. State Department of Human
Services, Criminal Justice Commission, State Commission on Children and Families,
Oregon Youth Authority) require counties to submit plans in order to receive state
funds and / or to comply with state statutes. However, there appears to be little
coordination between these state entities. One of the negative impacts of this is that
these plans all contain different guidelines and due dates. Given the increasing
scarcity of state funds for community programs and policy direction from the state
legislature to coordinate these plans, it is Deschutes County's position that state
funding entities should be directed to unify these planning processes, thereby
increasing efficiency and reducing redundancy and administrative costs.
Backaround
SB 555, passed during the 1999 legislative session, directed local Commissions on
Children and Families to convene and coordinate the planning process for human
services programs. Through this effort, county governments were asked to adopt
and submit a coordinated, comprehensive plan to the State of Oregon.
In Deschutes County, 20+ Coalitions (e.g. the Mental Health Advisory Board, Teen
Pregnancy Task Force, and Alcohol and Drug Planning Committee) completed
sections of the plan based on Deschutes CCF Guidelines. The Plan was published by
our local Commission and adopted by both the Deschutes CCF Board and the County
Commissioners. The Plan was approved by the State of Oregon as a state recognized
"coordinated, comprehensive plan". To date, two phases have been completed
satisfactorily. "Phase III" of the 2001-10 Community Plan is due June 30, 2003.
The Biennial Alcohol and Drug Implementation Plan is intended to provide the state
with information about local needs and service priorities and efforts to coordinate
local programs. The 2003-05 plan is due January 17, 2003. One of the sub-
components of this plan is the Alcohol and Drug Prevention Plan, the guidelines for
which won't be available until December of 2002.
The House Bill 3024 Plan for mental health services is a result of legislation that
passed last session that requires every county to develop a comprehensive plan for
an "ideal" mental health system across the state. Phase II of this plan is due
January 15, 2003.
Discussion
Deschutes Countv strongly, believes that olanninq is critical for a number of reasons
including informing policy makers of what local needs are and of our suggested
approaches to meeting those needs artd the associated costs We also believe that it
only makes good sense to coordinate our planning efforts Continued failure to do so
frustrates and confuses our partner agencies consumers and advocates Planning
across programs and agencies is critical because clients are often served by multiple
human services programs This is especially important when state funding for local
programs is being reduced and services need tg_be cut There will be less not more
administrative time to conduct multiple planrdng processes
The Deschutes County Commission on Children and Families and the Deschutes
County Mental Health Department have historically called for state agency leaders to
work together and to produce a set of planning guidelines that will lead local
communities to work together across program and agency lines in order to increase
coordination and reduce expensive and wasteful multiple planning processes. We
also believe that the due dates for these plans should be such that the Governor has
information about local needs and priorities before he / she prepares each biennial
budget request and forwards it to the legislature for its consideration Unfortunately,
neither of these scenarios has come to pass.
It is also our belief that the spirit of SB 555 should be honored and reinforced and
that local Commissions on Children and Families should be the lead planning entity
for each county's human services programs. Local Mental Health Advisory Boards,
Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Committees, Community Health Councils, and other
entities that have statutory standing in the planning arena should be responsible for
providing the local Commissions with specific priorities and plans that address their
areas on concern. Local Commissions should then fashion this input into a
coordinated community plan and submit it to the state in time to influence the
development of the biennial budget.
Recommendation
State agencies with responsibilities for human services, including the Department of
Human Services (DHS) should be directed to coordinate their planning efforts
through the State Commission on Children and Families. Local Commissions on
Children and Families should be directed to work cooperatively with other local
human services planning bodies that are identified in state statute. Planning
guidelines and deadlines should be made consistent. The legislature should require
that Comprehensive Plans be submitted in time to be considered by the Governor
and subsequently by the legislature during the development of each biennial DHS
budget. The Comprehensive Plans should be completed with active involved of each
community and with the formal endorsement and support of each County's Board of
Commissioners.
HB 3024, Phase Two
Local Mental Health Plan for Deschutes County
Introduction
Deschutes County's HB 3024 Phase 2 Plan is an attempt to reduce the ambitious goals
of creating an ideal community mental health system as outlined in the Phase I Plan
created in 2002. Despite the pending budgetary challenges, we desire to move in the
direction of providing evidence -based services—built on goals, outcomes and
performance measures of the Mental Health Services Logic Model—for the mental
health consumers of Deschutes County. Redesigning how our department provides
services will be a labor and time intensive endeavor, especially challenging during a
period of economic contraction.
A decision was made not to recreate the community focus group process as this was -
done less than a year ago as a part of the initial HB 3024 planning. Given the moving
target that is the state and county 2003-05 budget, Deschutes County Mental Health is
unable to present to our community stakeholders and partners a definitive picture of
what our service delivery system will look like in the coming biennium. Community
stakeholders identified service priorities for our department in the HB 3024 Phase I Plan
and in more recent discussions have indicated to us they are not enthusiastic about
giving up existing services. They have identified the highest priorities, and we will
present these following the outline format from the November 4, 2002, OMHAS memo.
1) Stakeholder Participation
There is varied and active partner participation in our Mental Health, Alcohol and
Drug Advisory Board. (The Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Committee and the
Mental Health Advisory Board were combined in 2002.). Membership on this
board represents consumers, consumer families participating in the local chapter
of the National Alliance For The Mentally III, local hospitals, private businesses,
private therapy providers, several state DHS agencies such as the local Seniors
and People With Disabilities Office, the Sheriff's Department, the Parole and
Probation Department, the Juvenile Department, Oregon Youth Authority, the
Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority and the Mental Health department,
representing adult, child and family, developmentally disabled and senior
treatment services. Advisory Board members have discussed the anticipated
budget shortfall and how decreased revenue could impact the service delivery
system.
The Quality Management Committee includes membership representing
consumers, consumer family members, Central Oregon Independent Health
Services (the physical medicine portion of the Oregon Health Plan), the
Commission on Children and Families, BestCare Treatment Services (a local
alcohol and drug treatment provider), the Parole and Probation Department, the
Juvenile Department, local DHS agencies and the Mental Health department
representing adult, child, developmentally disabled and seniors mental health
treatment services. The Committee has discussed the current budget shortfall
and the possible impact on the service delivery system.
Several members of the Mental Health, Alcohol and Drug Advisory Board and the
Quality Management Committee sit on the Local Public Safety Coordinating
Council or play a leadership role in the local chapter of the National Alliance for
the Mentally III. In short, there is broad stakeholder involvement in developing
the priorities included in the Phase Two plan.
2) Priorities For A Minimal System
The initial HB 3024 Plan noted a variety of priorities for system change. An
example of one priority was a full-time position envisioned to serve all consumer
treatment areas for the department. The "Prevention and Health Coordinator"
was designed to enhance collaboration between the medical and mental health
communities. Due to the current budgetary challenges facing the state and
Deschutes County, plans for this position will be deferred in hopes of maintaining
a clinical service position in the future. Other identified priorities such as
development of an early psychosis treatment program have been put on hold or
scaled back. A priority that was implemented in 2002, providing psychiatric
services in Redmond, may be in jeopardy depending on the degree of budget
reductions. While we embrace the philosophy, vision and values of the Mental
Health Alignment Workgroup, the move toward "Evidence -Based Practice" and
the strategies of the "Mental Health Services, Logic Model," making significant
strides in modifying our mental health service delivery practices will be
challenging in the current economic climate.
Deschutes County Mental Health served 4,136 individuals (excluding
developmentally disabled clients) in the 2001-02 fiscal year, a 10% increase over
the previous year. Deschutes County's population is growing at a rate of
approximately 4.5% per year. Despite modifications to the Oregon Health Plan,
which will eliminate over 2,500 Deschutes County citizens from OHP coverage
for mental health and chemical dependency services, and the current budget
deficits, we do not anticipate a slowing of the growth in population or consumer
demand for mental health services. When these factors are combined with the
potential loss of 20% of our staff due to revenue reductions and the threat of
eliminating 100% of our crisis services funding, survival becomes the order of the
day.
The Adult Treatment Program's priorities include:
1) Maintain viable crisis services
2) Increase use of group therapy modalities to maintain client access to
services with fewer available resources
2
3) Maintain the evidence -based dual diagnosis program we have been
offering for over a decade
4) Provide more evidence -based intensive case management services in the
community by shifting staff from Clubhouse responsibilities one day a
week
5) Maintain supportive employment services
6) Maintain a "bridge" position to provide intensive case management
services for individuals in the Deschutes County Jail and/or under the
supervision of the Adult Parole and Probation Office
7) Facilitate coordination with community resources and increase consumer
referrals to community services such as inter -faith groups, self-help
programs and family/social supports
The HB 3024 Phase 1 Plan noted priorities for the creation of two case
management assistant positions and two development/supported employment
positions. It is anticipated the additional positions will not be created due to the
revenue shortfall. Portions of existing staff positions will be shifted to these
responsibilities as service demand allows. We served 2,846 individuals in fiscal
year 2001-02. Services included mental health, chemical dependency evaluation
and treatment, crisis and case management services, supported employment
with 25 individuals served and 5 employed, crisis -respite services, transitional
housing for women and intensive case management for 36 corrections clients.
We anticipate that access times for outpatient services are likely to increase and
are very concerned that decreased county and state resources will force
consumers increasingly into our crisis services system which, as of this writing, is
in jeopardy of losing all funding.
The Seniors Team's priorities include:
1) Maintain viable crisis services
2) Continue to conduct as many PASRRs as staffing will allow
3) Maintain community consultations as staffing will allow
The Seniors Team conducted 164 PASRRs, enrolled 600 clients into services
and provided consultation to an additional 411 unenrolled clients in fiscal year
2001-02. Services for our senior population are vulnerable due to the pending
funding reductions, which are reducing other community services for this
population at the same time. This circumstance of fewer community resources
will result in increased demand for crisis services, which, once again, may lose
all funding. The HB 3024 Phase 1 Plan identified the creation of an additional
case management/outreach position, which will not be created.
The Child and Family Program's priorities include:
1) Maintain viable crisis services
2) Maintain alcohol and drug evaluation, follow-up and case management
services to Central Oregon secondary and middle schools. Pending
budget reductions may interrupt a portion of these services in some
schools.
3) Continue to increase use of group treatment modalities where possible to
maintain access to services with fewer available resources
4) Plan for expiration of Safe Schools Alliance grant. This grant funds all or
part of five clinical positions and will expire at the end of the 2002-03 fiscal
year. Replacement funding has not been secured.
5) Facilitate coordination with community resources and increase consumer
referrals to community services such as inter -faith groups, self-help
programs and family social supports.
The HB 3024 Phase 1 Plan identified creation of additional community-based
and clinic -based alcohol and drug treatment services for children and
adolescents. Any plans to add expanded services are unlikely given current
revenue reductions. Reductions in mental health and chemical dependency
services to the schools are likely. We served 1,257 families in fiscal year 2001-
02 including 259 victims of child abuse/neglect at the KIDS Center, 144 youth
who have substance abuse issues, 677 students who have mental health issues
in 35 schools and 82 families in custody mediation. With current revenue
reductions it is anticipated service access times will increase. Some services will
be eliminated. We are concerned many individuals unable to receive timely
services will require crisis intervention, which is slated to lose all funding.
3) Outcomes
The Proposed Logic Model for Mental Health Services (see attached) identifies
one high-level and five intermediate -level outcomes, all of which will be impacted
for better or worse depending on the ultimate decisions made about the state
Department of Human Services' 2003-05 budget. Given what we know about
budget reductions at this writing, here is our best estimate of how outcomes will
be impacted for a few of the priorities we have identified and our ability, or not, to
implement them.
A. Adults/Seniors
It is our goal to facilitate the self-sufficiency of the mental health
consumers we serve, engage family and social supports and coordinate
care with other community services to enhance that self-sufficiency.
Priority 1—Intermediate-level outcome: "Percent of consumers who are
admitted to community-based services in a timely manner following
discharge from more intense care." If we are able to maintain our crisis
services, we will be able to see 100% of consumers discharged from a
psychiatric hospital or residential program within seven days. If funding
for crisis services is eliminated, 20% of consumers will be seen within
seven days.
Priority 5—Intermediate-level outcome: "Percent of consumers with
improved level of functioning." Supported employment programs enhance
stability and self-sufficiency of consumers. If we are able to maintain our
supported employment program (for which we receive no dedicated state
funds), 50% of consumers enrolled will secure employment within 12
months of enrollment and maintain employment for 12 months or more. If
the program is eliminated, 5% of consumers will secure employment
within 12 months and maintain employment for three months.
Priority 6—Intermediate-level outcome: "Percent of mental health
consumers with improved level of functioning." The intensive case
management "bridge" position will increase the percentage of consumers
in jail or under parole or probation supervision who have improved
functioning and stability in the community by reducing incidents of
rearrest. If we are able to maintain the corrections program, 80% of
consumers will experience an improved level of functioning as evidenced
by probation or parole officers' reports. If the program is eliminated, 35%
of consumers will demonstrate an improved level of functioning.
B. Children/Adolescents
It has been our goal to encourage overall community health with early
intervention, prevention and treatment services to children and families in
a variety of community settings. Historically, this has been accomplished
by securing a variety of grants because state funding has been wholly
inadequate and is not likely to improve in the near future.
Priority 1—Intermediate-level outcome: "Number of people who gain
access to mental health care." Funding for crisis services is currently
slated for elimination. The loss of crisis services, especially in conjunction
with the loss of the Safe Schools Alliance grant, will force consumers
experiencing a mental health crisis to area hospitals. Access to the
mental health system will be severely curtailed. If crisis services are
maintained, 98% of consumers experiencing an urgent emergency will
receive telephone or in-person screening within 15 minutes of contact. If
crisis services are not maintained, 5% of consumers will receive a
response within 15 minutes of contact.
Priority 2—Intermediate-level outcome: "Percent of mental health
consumers who are in an appropriate level of care." Providing school- and
community-based mental health/alcohol and drug evaluation and
treatment services for children and adolescents allows for early
identification of potential mental health and substance abuse issues and
referral to appropriate level and type of intervention. If this service is
maintained or expanded, up to 75% of consumers can be referred and
enrolled in appropriate services. If the service is reduced or eliminated,
30% of consumers will receive an appropriate referral and enrollment.
Priority 3—Intermediate-level outcome: "Number of people who gain
access to mental health care." Use of group treatment modalities is an
effective intervention for many children, adolescents and parents coping
with mental health and/or substance abuse problems. Given current
revenue reductions, access to child/adolescent mental health services is
likely to be curtailed. With an increase in use of this modality, an –
additional 100 families can be served. If services are not increasingly
provided via use of the group modality, 100 fewer families will be served.
4) Prioritized Areas For System Change (optional)
A. Adults/Seniors
Deschutes County has long desired to create local resources for our
citizens. We believe the creation of local resources is consistent with the
values of the Mental Health Alignment Workgroup including that our
mental health system, "... be community-based with services,
– management, and decision-making at the community level," and, " .. .
provide access to comprehensive, 'round the clock' services that address
the needs of individuals with mental disorders." An example of a project
targeting the creation of such resources is the Healing Health Campus, a
collaborative effort between Cascade Health Services, Central Oregon
Regional Housing Authority and Deschutes County Mental Health.
Two elements of the campus concept are a 14 -unit transitional apartment
complex, Horizon House, for adults with significant mental and/or co-
occurring substance abuse disorders and the Crisis Resolution Center, a
15 -bed short -stay residential treatment facility designed to provide safe,
secure supervision and stabilization services for individuals experiencing a
mental health emergency. Both elements have been in the planning
stages for several years and are noted not only in the initial HB 3024 Plan
but also in the SB 555 Deschutes County Community Plan.
The first element provides a clean, safe independent living environment
for adults with mental and/or co-occurring substance abuse disorders.
The second element provides an alternative to psychiatric hospitalization
M
and will allow many individuals to receive care in, or very near, their
community and social support systems versus needing to travel more than
100 miles from our community to receive such care. This project would
not be possible, especially in the current fiscal climate, were it not for the
fact that a large percentage of the development and initial operations
costs are paid for with private funding leveraged with a comparatively
small amount of public dollars. It is our hope to establish an acute care
region in Central Oregon so we can manage indigent inpatient dollars that
currently go to Eastern Oregon Psychiatric Center.
The Seniors Team is planning to develop an enhanced care outreach
service for the elderly which will consist of four beds placed in an existing
facility using fee-for-service slots. The slots are inherited from another
county and do not involve new funds. An existing staff position will be
shifted into this program. It is anticipated these services will be self-
sustaining and may, perhaps, assist in funding a small portion of the
current seniors outpatient services.
During challenging economic times involving service revenue reductions,
staff training is often one of the early items on the budgetary chopping
block. As we face the prospect of doing more with less, it is important we
provide staff with as many tools as possible to provide the most effective
services. Our priorities for the coming biennium include:
1) Crisis Resolution Center
2) Horizon House transitional housing project
3) Establish Acute Care Region in Central Oregon
4) Enhanced Care Outreach Service
5) Staff trainings on trauma, domestic violence, seniors' issues,
evidence -based practices and group facilitation skills
B. Children/Adolescents
Deschutes County Mental Health works in close partnership with the
Deschutes County Juvenile Department. This partnership is currently
looking for funding to create child/adolescent sex offender treatment
services and is pursuing a grant to provide re-entry support services,
including child/adolescent alcohol and drug treatment, to clients of the
Juvenile Department. Our agency has been working with community
partners and the state to bring residential mental health treatment beds for
children and adolescents to Central Oregon. This is consistent with our
value of creating local resources to serve the citizens of our region.
Again, this resource is a priority identified in our HB 3024 Phase 1 Plan
consistent with the SB 555 Community Plan. Priorities for the coming
biennium include:
1) Develop child/adolescent sex offender treatment services in
conjunction with Juvenile Department's pre -adjudicated sex
offender education services
2) Develop and expand community-based child/adolescent alcohol
and drug treatment services in conjunction with the Juvenile
Department
3) Develop local residential beds for children
4) Staff trainings on trauma, domestic violence, evidence -based
practices -and group facilitation skills
5) Further Considerations
According to OMHAS memo, "Review of Phase One HB 3024 Plan" from
Madeline Olson, dated October 14, 2002, the Deschutes County plan requires no
revision.
Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services
Proposed Logic Model
Mental Health Services
C1Y7I7"
Reduce the negative
consequences of mental health Goal
disorders
Percent of mental health
consumers who are engaged High-level
Co constructive community outcome
7 activities.
0
Cn
C
m
am
0.
Percent of mental health
0 consumers with improved level
of functioning.
U
7
U
U
M
E6 Percent of mental health
U) consumers who are readmitted
into mental health care at a
CD more intense level
E
1—
Intermediate -level
a� outcome
Percent of consumers who are
W admitted to community-based Average length of time between
h services in a timely manner treatment episodes.
U following discharge from more p
m intense care.
v�
m
Q
Percent of mental health
consumers who are placed in
M an appropriate level of care.
a) (Measure in development)
E
U
C
N
U
W
Number of people in need who
gain access to mental health Output
care.
STRATEGY/INPUT:
Provide evidence -based services to
adults, children and seniors with mental
health disorders
Page 1 of 1
MENTAL HEALTHIC)l
OVERVIEW
Deschutes County has successfully planned and operated a community men-
tal health system in spite of a rapidly growing population base (now ranked as 7th
largest of Oregon's 36 counties) and state funding for mental health services that have
not kept pace with this population growth. Deschutes County has benefited, however,
from its participation as the community's prime mental health provider for residents
who are enrolled in the Oregon Health Plan. This participation has significantly
expanded access to mental health services for the county's poorest residents, leaving a
large percentage of the working poor as the most under -served population group.
Deschutes County's mental health systern is distinguished by its integrated approach
to mental health and chemical dependency services, by its collaboration with partner
agencies to provide mental health services on-site at a wide array of locations around
the county and by its outstanding services to older adults.
MEASDRES
3 Year Measure
Deschutes County will have successfully operated a mental health
crisis resolution center serving at least the Central Oregon region
within three years.
6 Year Measure
Deschutes County's level of per capita state funding for mental
health services will be at the state average ($12.80 per person).
10 Year Measure
The number of county residents who receive needed mental health
services will increase from 17% to 40%.
ASSETS AND RISK FACTORS
Assets:
Personal Power
Self-esteem
Positive family support and communication.
r
r1 a
34
Risk Factors:
Family management problems.
Early and persistent anti -social behavior.
STRENGTHS AND GAPS
Strengths:
1. There are creative community partnerships, including
cooperation with schools, Safe Schools Alliance assessments,
hospital and mental health planning committee and good
community involvement in planning.
2. There are experienced skilled professionals, including
private practitioners in the mental health field in Deschutes County
3. We have a comprehensive array of programs and services,
including the Clubhouse and Pot of Gold programs, and the
movement toward providing services in outlying areas.
4. We have Behavioral Health Care ownership within the
Oregon Health Plan.
5. We have an excellent geriatric program in our county.
Gaps:
1. There is non -equity of state funding for mental health programs
in different counties.
2. There are barriers in attaining mental health services, including
a cumbersome intake process, lack of services in outlying areas,
eligibility, wait lists, placement hurdles for adolescents and a
confusing referral process.
3. There are not enough acute care options, crisis, non -hospital-
ization issues, hospitalization issues and psychiatric services for
adults and youth.
4. There are not enough strong supportive services, housing,
transportation, employment, childcare, respite care, and enough
communication and coordination between agencies.
5. There is a lack of specialty programs: neuro/behavioral
programs, structured community-based family treatment, services
for incarcerated adults and youth, sexually reactive, offending
children (under 12 years), therapeutic foster care, and brain injured
programs.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
1 . Advocate for and receive equitable mental health funding from
state agencies.
2. Increase abuse reporting and early identification and intervention
services using research based models.
3. Within the next three years create a Crisis Resolution Center by
completing the plan, finding resources, and locating a facility.
4. Streamline the current intake and referral process within the County
Mental Health Department and between area providers to ensure efficient
and timely services for clients.
5. Research and implement models for addressing in-home mental health
services as an alternative to residential treatment.
IMMEDIATE NEEDS
1. The State Mental Health Division and the legislature need to develop a
fund allocation plan that phases in funding increases for counties below
the state average.
2. Grants need to be secured to develop the crisis resolution center.
GET HELP OR HELP OUT
Getting Help if You Need It:
Deschutes County Mental Health: 322-7500
(24-hour crisis 1-888-232-7192)
Family Resource Center Warm Line: 389-5468
Deschutes County National Alliance for the Mentally III:
318-8299
Deschutes County Mental Health Clubhouse: 330-6137
Opportunities for the Community to Help Out:
Financial contributions to mental health.
Donations of professional mental health services.
Be a volunteer.
"We are caught IN AN INESCAPABLE NETWORK OF MUTUALITY,
TIED IN A SINGLE GARMENT OF DESTINY.
WHATEVER AFFECTS ONE DIRECTLY AFFECTS ALL INDIRECTLY."
-Martin Luther King
36
SUBSTANCE AROSE Jul
OVERVIEW
Deschutes County has been challenged over the last several years with a rapid
growth in population. During the 1990s the county population grew by a rate of
39.9%, a full 12% more than any other county in the state. This growth has signifi-
cantly tested social services offered within the county. Substance abuse prevention,
early -intervention, treatment, and aftercare services have felt the effects of this rapid
population increase. Unfortunately, there has not been a corresponding growth in
resources to develop and provide substance abuse services to those in need.
Over the past few years our county has been committed to developing well -
integrated mental health and substance abuse treatment services. We have made a
commitment to coordinate our prevention and early -intervention services and expand
research -based prevention programming. Over the next several years 'we must advo-
cate for equal distribution of state resources, continue to support prevention and
early -intervention efforts to reduce the number of clients we will eventually serve, and
expand our programming to provide treatment services without delay to those who are
in need within our county.
MEASURES
3 Year Measure
Deschutes County's level of state funding for substance abuse
services will increase from the current rate ($1.73 per person) to the
state average ($17.95 per person).
6 Year Measure
100% of community members in need of substance abuse services
will receive them without delay.
10 Year Measure
8th grade use of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs will be reduced
by one-third (measured by students reporting if they have used
alcohol, tobacco and other drugs within the last 30 days).
ASSETS AND RISC FACTORS
Assets:
Positive Adult Role Models
Positive Family Support and Communication
Resistance Skills
31
Risk Factors:
Family History of Problem Behavior
Indifferent (and sometimes favorable) Parental Attitudes
and Involvement in the Problem Behavior
STRENGTHS AND GAPS
Strengths:
1. There are creative community partnerships, including Best
Care and Rimrock Trails residential treatment programs, coop-
eration with the schools, and family support teams.
2. There are experienced skilled professionals in our commu-
nity providing service for individuals and families dealing with
substance abuse issues.
3. There is a comprehensive array of programs and services.
4. There is community emphasis on prevention.
5. Oregon Health Plan Behavioral Health Care ownership.
Gaps:
1. There is non -equity of state funding for alcohol, tobacco,
and other drug programs.
2. There aren't enough early intervention alcohol/other drug
groups and assessments in schools, and for abusive families
with alcohol/other drug issues.
3. There is no transitional housing for people coming out of
treatment.
4. There currently is not a drug court, adult or youth.
5. There aren't enough adolescent services: detox, timely
assessments, waiting lists for outpatient and inpatient
treatment.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES
1. Advocate for and receive equitable alcohol and other drug
funding from state agencies.
2. Expand research -based prevention and early intervention
programs to reduce adolescent substance abuse rates.
3. Alcohol and other drug treatment for adults and youth will
,. be offered "on demand" and waiting lists will be eliminated,
''2
4. Alcohol and other drug assessment and treatment services will
be conducted in middle and high schools in Deschutes County.
5. The array of substance abuse treatment services offered to
youth and adults will be expanded.
IMMEDIATE NEEDS
Develop a plan to advocate for and establish equitable funding for
substance abuse in Deschutes County.
GET HELP OR HELP OUT
Getting Help if You Need It:
Deschutes County Mental Health: 322-7500
Narcotics Anonymous: 330-3733
Alcoholics Anonymous: 389-5203
Opportunities for the Community to Help Out:
Financial donations to local residential treatment programs.
Become a mentor to a youth.
Volunteer professional time (e.g. psychiatric services) to mental
health programs.
C4
U g I V e ANYTHING LESS
THAN YOUR BEST IS TO SACRIFICE THE GIFT.)
- Steve Prefontaine
33
DESCHUTES COUNTY
MENTAL HEALTH, ALCOHOL & DRUG ADVISORY BOARD
DANIEL BLAKE
ROBERT MARBLE
335 NE QUIMBY AVENUE #4
2273 WINTERGREEN DRIVE
BEND, OR 97701
BEND, OR 97701
LAURA BROWN
KENNETH MATHERS
20029 ROCK BLUFF CIRCLE
DESCHUTES COUNTY JUVENILE
BEND, OR 97702
63333 HIGHWAY 20 WEST
BEND, OR 97701
ALAN BURKE
JANE MCELDOWNEY
ST CHARLES MEDICAL CENTER
20506 KLAHANI DRIVE
2500 NE NEFF ROAD
BEND, OR 97702
BEND, OR 97701
RENE CARDENAS
CAROL SISSON
DESCHUTES COUNTY PAROLE &
204 SW DAVIS AVENUE
PROBATION
BEND, OR 97702
63333 HIGHWAY 20 WEST
BEND, OR 97701
AMON DYKES
BOB STEVENS
335 NE QUIMBY AVENUE ##7
STATE VOC REHAB OFFICES
BEND, OR 97701
1230 NE THIRD STREET -#1-152
BEND, OR 97701
RENE EVANS
LINDSAY STEVENS
842 NW MAPLE COURT
21585 STUB PLACE
REDMOND, OR 97756
BEND, OR 97701
CHARLES FRAZIER
KEN WILHELM
1363 NW CITY VIEW DRIVE
DESCHUTES UNITED WAY
BEND, OR 97701
1029 NW 14 STREET
BEND, OR 97701
BECKY JACKSON
DESCHUTES COUNTY ADULT PAROLE &
PROBATION
6333 HIGHWAY 20 WEST
BEND OR 97701
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County: Deschutes
The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners has reviewed
and approved the HB 3024, Phase 2 Plan for 2003-2005. Any
comments are attached.
Name of Chair: Dennis Luke
Address: 1130 NW Harriman
Bend OR 97701
Telephone Number -/641) 388-6568
Signature:
E
MENTAL HEALTH, ALCOHOL & DRUG ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW
COMMENTS
County: Deschutes
Type in or attach list of committee members including addresses and
telephone numbers. Use an asterisk (*) next to the name to designate
members who are minorities (ethnics of color according to the U.S.
Bureau of Census).
The Deschutes County combined Mental Health, Alcohol & Drug
Advisory Board has reviewed and approved the HB 3024, Phase 2 Plan
for 2003-2005. Any comments are attached.
Name of Chair: Charles L. Frazier
Address: 2577 NE Courtne Drive
Bend OR 97701
Telephone Number: (541) 322-7504
Signature:
10
COMMISSION ON CHILDREN & FAMILIES
County: Deschutes
The Deschutes County Commission on Children & Families has
reviewed and approved the HB 3024, Phase 2 Plan for 2003-2005. Any
comments are attached.
Name of Chair: Gene Whisnant
Address: 1029 NW 14 Street
Bend, OR 97701
Telephone Number: 541-385-1717
Signature:
11
LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY COORDINATING COUNCIL
County: Deschutes
The Deschutes County Local Public Safety Coordinating Council has
reviewed and approved the HB 3024, Phase 2 Plan for 2003-2005. Any
comments are attached.
Name of Chair: Judge Stephen N. Tiktin
Address: 1100 NW Bond Street
Bend OR 97701
Telephone Number: 541-385-1717
Signature:
12