Loading...
2005-898-Minutes for Meeting April 12,2005 Recorded 7/6/2005DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11111111111111111110111 -s RECORDS CJ 200~~~~~ CLERK YI v + 0710612005 04;26;47 PM DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE -r- r_ G Uj 0 z This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIAISON DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 2005 Commissioners' Conference Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom De Wolf. Also present were Susan Ross and Anna Johnson, Commissioners' Office; and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel. Also present for a portion of the meeting were Dan Despotopolos, Fair & Expo; David Givans and Joe Studer, Commissioners' Office; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel, Brooke Frandsen, High Desert Middle School, and media representative Chris Barker of the Bulletin. No other citizens were in attendance. The meeting began at 2:15 p.m. 1. Discussion Regarding Fairgrounds. Dan Despotopolos gave a brief overview regarding BLM land south of the fairgrounds. He said that having BLM land next to the fairgrounds is ideal as private development would hinder RV's coming in if the water park is allowed. He also said that the BLM land would be beneficial for future fair expansion. The group was advised that Department of State Lands (DSL) is interested in the property. There is some concern about DSL acquiring the land as it would hinder future expansion of the fairgrounds. (See attached handout marked as Exhibit A.) Mr. Despotopolos said that he has not finalized anything yet with Mt. Bachelor regarding the water park at the fairgrounds. He wants to meet with the Fair Board to go through the criteria list before making a commitment. Minutes of Administrative Liaison Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Page 1 of 5 Pages 2. Discussion Regarding Auditor Ordinance. David Givans said the Auditor Ordinance is a standard for local auditors within an organization. The group had a discussion on the Ordinance, in particularly, who Mr. Givans should report to and who has authority to request he perform audits. The Board requested that Mr. Givans make some changes and come back to them with a new draft. (See attached draft of the Ordinance marked as Exhibit B.) 3. Discussion Regarding Federal Land Advisory Committee and MOU with OSU/Cascades. Joe Stutler discussed the Federal Land Advisory Committee and stated that he and Paul Richardson from the Road Department are interested in being on the Committee. The group asked Mr. Stutler to draft a letter for the Board to sign. They concurred that Mr. Stutler should be the person to participate on the Committee. (See attached copy of the application information marked as Exhibit C.) Mr. Stutler presented Document No. 2005-126, an MOU with Deschutes County, Oregon State University (OSU-Cascades) and Central Oregon Community College for Forestry Related Work on County-Owned Lands. (See attached copy of the MOU marked as Exhibit D.) LUKE: Move approval of the MOU with OSU-Cascades and Central Oregon Community College. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Administrative Liaison Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Page 2 of 5 Pages 4. Discussion Regarding Project Updates, Lottery Grants, and Room Use Policy. Susan Ross did not have anything new to report on project updates. Ms. Ross introduced Brooke Frandsen with High Desert Middle School who presented information on her request for a grant for "Summer Opportunities at High Desert Middle School". (See attached grant application marked as Exhibit E.) Due to loss of federal funding, she is looking for other support to continue with the program. Community partners have committed to helping make the program for this summer a reality by helping with supplies, tuitions, and replacement gear. The school still needs $7,500.00 to stipend the camp counselors who mentor the youth. They are looking to the Board of Commissioners to help with the stipend. LUKE: Move approval of the grant in the amount of $7,500.00. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Ms. Ross presented a copy of a grant for $3,000.00 requested by Orchard District Neighborhood Association for "LET'S PULL TOGETHER/Noxious Weed Awareness Week". (See attached grant application marked as Exhibit F.) Anna Johnson is helping to market the project and Dan Sherwin is working with the Bulletin on ads. The consensus of the group was the project should be coordinated through the Road Department or the Weed Advisory Board. Mike Maier said he would talk with Mr. Sherwin to refer this back to the Weed Advisory Board. Minutes of Administrative Liaison Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Pages Ms. Ross discussed our current Room Use Policy for outside agencies using County facilities. She did not feel that the current policy needed to be revised if room use was limited to government agencies. The consensus was that the existing policy would remain in effect and does not need to be changed. 5. Other Items. Commissioner DeWolf said that Brad Hollemback, owner of the Pine Tavern, said that with all the construction going on parking is worse than ever. He requested possible parking alternatives for customers. The group consensus was that Mr. Hollemback could use the County parking lot on the west side of Worrell Park. If other business's wanted to use the parking lot after hours, they could also. It is ok if they use the parking area, but they would have to carry their own insurance. Commissioner DeWolf said that Jeanine Faria in Finance is making up a special line item account (trust account) outside our budget ($20,000.00 total) for the Early Childhood Retreat. The Retreat will be held in Sunriver on October 28, 2005. The goal is to get invitations out soon. Commissioner Luke said that Project Wildfire met this morning. Extension/4-H is the fiscal agent for the project. The project could be bringing in $100,000.00 to $500,000.00 through grants. The group now has a contract staff and money goes through Extension/4-11. It will either be in the State or the Extension/4-H County Budget, whichever will work the best. Being no further items brought before the group, the Administrative Liaison adjourned at 4: 00 p.m. Minutes of Administrative Liaison Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Pages DATED this 12th Day of April 2005 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording a etary Attachments Exhibit A: Document regarding BLM Lands next to the Fairgrounds. Exhibit B: Document regarding County Internal Audit Ordinance (Draft) Exhibit C: Document regarding Federal Land Advisory Committee Exhibit D: Document regarding MOU (Document No. 2005-126) for Forestry Related Work Exhibit E: Document regarding Grant Program Application for High Desert Middle School Exhibit F: Document regarding Grant Program Application for Orchard District Neighborhood Association Minutes of Administrative Liaison Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Page 5 of 5 Pages Tom DeWolf, Chau = Message 134WA//e / 0°4,;fr r. scz.le Page 1 of 2 ilr ex.7- Mike Maier AJ M t/tj. G, s~ s From: Mike Daly Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 10:50 AM To: Tom DeWolf; Dennis Luke; Mike Maier; Catherine Morrow; Dan Despotopulos Cc: Bonnie Baker Subject: FW: DSL in lieu of lands A heads up. In a discussion with Catherine yesterday, I learned that the DSL had selected the parcel just south of the fairgrounds as one of their in-lieu of parcels in exchange for the parcels they were interested in around Pronghorn. I talked to Dan D. about this and he was unaware of this and was very concerned. I called Janet Brown as I had spoken to her about this recently which she documents below. I am very concerned and admit do not understand the consequences of DSL acquiring this parcel as this has long been on the plan as future fairgrounds expansion lands. I have asked Mike to put this on as a discussion issue for Tuesday's Admin. meeting. Janet's e- mail below explains how we got to this point. I have placed a colored map in each of your boxes for reference. Mike Daly -----Original Message----- From: BROWN Janet L * Governor's Office [mailto:Janet.L.Brown@state.or.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 6:24 PM To: Mike Daly Cc: Mike Maier; BROWN Janet L * Governor's Office Subject: DSL in lieu of lands Hi Two Mikes Mike Daly called today regarding DSL's selection of in lieu lands in the South Redmond area possibly being fairgrounds expansion lands. I then spoke to Steve Purchase, DSL in Salem, who has been attending the South Redmond Planning Group (RSPG) meetings through this process. After reviewing the maps and talking with Steve, I believe the site selected is just south of the fairgrounds. A little history here on this process: • January 20 (ten days on the job I attended a meeting with MerrieSue Carlson of the Redmond South Planning Group (RSPG). The subject of DSL selecting lands "in lieu of for the common school fund came up. The RSPG felt that DSL needed to work with them on selection of these lands. • MerrieSue and I contacted Ann Hanus, Director of DSL and asked who the DSL point person should be for this particular issue. Ann informed us it was Steve Purchase and was very agreeable that Steve work with the SRPG to move forth the selection of lands. • I called a meeting together of the key players, Mayor Unger, Redmond and Deschutes County Planners, National Guard, BLM, DLCD and ODOT, which was held February 9. The SRPG explained to Steve Purchase, and DSL Eastern Oregon Manager Nancy Pustis, why they felt other lands should be specifically looked at rather than some of the lands DSL was looking at. SRPG pointed out those lands on the maps and DSL agreed to look at those lands. February 16, the SRPG and DSL met to narrow down the selection of lands and listen to the SRPG's concerns. • I called Deschutes Co Commissioners and Co Admin. individually to see if there were any concerns with the three areas of land that DSL was considering for selection around 1) Cline Butte, 2) Deschutes Market Rd. and 3) Pronghorn. No major concerns were expressed. 4/7/2005 ~~~5 Message Page 2 of 2 • DSL met with BLM folks regarding selections of some of these specific lands in between this meeting and the next SRPG meeting. • March 17 the next full SRPG, which includes BLM, Redmond and Deschutes Co Planners, the Mayor, ODOT, DLCD, National Guard and others, met and DSL provided maps with three areas of land for selection. The three areas of land that DSL selected were 1) Cline Butte, 2) Deschutes Market Rd and 3) land south of Roberts Field and the fairgrounds. Number three is what I did not catch guys, I was still thinking Pronghorn, although I was unaware that these were fairground expansion lands. I would not have known there would be an issue with these lands. I thought we had the bases covered, sorry. No one at the meeting, that I remember, brought up the fact that these were fairgrounds expansion lands. So, I think we need to have another meeting with some decision makers at the table and all get on the same page please. When I spoke with Steve Purchase today, he was very willing to meet. DSL was looking at lands they were asked to look at. They want to be a team player and thought they were. Here are the two upcoming dates I would like to meet in Redmond: 1) Thursday, April 21 in the afternoon, or 2) Tuesday, April 26 in the morning I will invite a Deschutes Co Commissioner, or Mike M., you guys choose, Mayor Unger, Carrie Novick, Mayor Friedman (the Deschutes Mkt Rd lands) and the rest of the SRPG. I'm assuming one of you can speak to the fair expansion issue. I don't want to leave anyone out, and we need to make a decision here and move on. Thanks for the heads up Mike D., we didn't know there was an issue. Please let me know about these dates, and I'll be emailing the others as well. Thanks - Janet 4/7/2005 Z o-C 5' H \l V Y4 3 &,F 5 Message Mike Maier From: Mike Maier Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:47 PM To: Tom DeWolf; Dennis Luke; Mike Daly Subject: FW: DSL/BLM In Lieu Lands meeting Page 1 of 2 Hello All, There has been a lot of a-mails flying around regarding this matter--it is scheduled for the next admin. liaison on Tuesday the 12th. Mike -----Original Message----- From: BROWN Janet L * Governor's Office [mailto:Janet.L.Brown@state.or.us] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 3:24 PM To: William.McCaffrey@or.ngb.army.mil; aunger@bendcable.com; carrien@ red mond.or. us; Catherine Morrow; chuckm@redmond.or.us; Dan Despotopulos; dtorrence@fs.fed.us; Don Webber; MOORE Ed W; BROWN Janet L; RADABAUGH Mark; Mollie_Chaudet@or.blm.gov; RobertTowne@or.blm.gov; ron_wortman@or.bim.gov; Steve Jorgensen; PURCHASE Steve; PUSTIS Nancy; Bill Friedman; Mike Daly Cc: Gerald.Elliott@or.ngb.army.mil; JamesH@or.ngb.army.mil; David.Duncan@or.ngb.army.mil; Mike Maier Subject: DSL/BLM In Lieu Lands meeting Hello everyone - I am setting up another meeting with DSL, BLM and decision makers from City and County governments, as it appears we are all not on the same page quite yet. Deschutes County Commissioner Mike Daly called me yesterday to let me know that the lands DSL selected south of the airport and fairgrounds have always been in their plan for fairgrounds expansion. I have spoken with Steve Purchase from DSL's Salem office, and he would be happy to meet to resolve any conflicts. At the bottom of this email I have included a brief summary from January of this year to date, that I provided for Commissioner Daly. The two dates that we are looking at for an April meeting in Redmond are: Thursday, April 21 in the afternoon, or Tuesday, April 26 in the morning I would think we should plan two to three hours, so that we may resolve this issue. Along with Mayor Unger, I am inviting one Deschutes County Commissioner. I am also inviting Mayor Friedman regarding the Deschutes Market Rd land that borders the City of Bend's Juniper Ridge lands. I don't know of a problem there, but I want to make sure we have all of our bases covered this time. Also on this list are Carrie Novick and Dan Despotopulos representing RDM and the fairgrounds. I need you to please email back to me today or tomorrow morning. Everyone's calendars are filling up fast and I will need to find a meeting space for us. Realizing we will never find a day that works for everyone, I will go with the day that works best for the decision makers and the majority of the rest of us. Thanks so much for all your time and thoughts that have been put into this process. We're getting there! Thanks again Janet Janet Brown Governor's Regional Coordinator Bullet points sent to Mike Daly yesterday, from January to present: • January 20 (ten days on the job I attended a meeting with MerrieSue Carlson of the Redmond South Planning Group (RSPG). The subject of DSL selecting lands "in lieu of for the common school fund came up. The RSPG felt that DSL needed to work with them on selection of these lands. • MerrieSue and I contacted Ann Hanus, Director of DSL and asked who the DSL point person should be for this particular issue. Ann informed us it was Steve Purchase and was very agreeable that Steve work with the SRPG to move forth the selection of lands. • I called a meeting together of the key players, Mayor Unger, Redmond and Deschutes County Planners, National Guard, BLM, DLCD and ODOT, which was held February 9. The SRPG explained to Steve 4/7/2005 cX4, &4 ,4 0,.' S Message Page 2 of 2 Purchase, and DSL Eastern Oregon Manager Nancy Pustis, why they felt other lands should be specifically looked at rather than some of the lands DSL was looking at. SRPG pointed out those lands on the maps and DSL agreed to look at those lands. • February 16, the SRPG and DSL met to narrow down the selection of lands and listen to the SRPG's concerns. • I called Deschutes Co Commissioners and Co Admin. individually to see if there were any concerns with the three areas of land that DSL was considering for selection around 1) Cline Butte, 2) Deschutes Market Rd. and 3) Pronghorn. No major concerns were expressed. • DSL met with BLM folks regarding selections of some of these specific lands in between this meeting and the next SRPG meeting. • March 17 the next full SRPG, which includes BLM, Redmond and Deschutes Co Planners, the Mayor, ODOT, DLCD, National Guard and others, met and DSL provided maps with three areas of land for selection. The three areas of land that DSL selected were 1) Cline Butte, 2) Deschutes Market Rd and 3) land south of Roberts Field and the fairgrounds. Number three is what I did not catch guys, I was still thinking Pronghorn, although I was unaware that these were fairground expansion lands. I would not have known there would be an issue with these lands. I thought we had the bases covered, sorry. No one at the meeting, that I remember, brought up the fact that these were fairgrounds expansion lands. So, I think we need to have another meeting with some decision makers at the table and all get on the same page please. When I spoke with Steve Purchase today, he was very willing to meet. DSL was looking at lands they were asked to look at. They want to be a team player and thought they were. Here are the two upcoming dates I would like to meet in Redmond: 1) Thursday, April 21 in the afternoon, or 2) Tuesday, April 26 in the morning I will invite a Deschutes Co Commissioner, or Mike M., you guys choose, Mayor Unger, Carrie Novick, Mayor Friedman (the Deschutes Mkt Rd lands) and the rest of the SRPG. I'm assuming one of you can speak to the fair expansion issue. I don't want to leave anyone out, and we need to make a decision here and move on. Thanks for the heads up Mike D., we didn't know there was an issue. Please let me know about these dates, and I'll be emailing the others as well. Thanks Janet 4/7/2005 s' ~~S Memo To: Mike Maier, Tom DeWolf, Dennis Luke, Mike Daly, and Mark Pilliod From: David Givans Date: 4/5/2005 Re: County Internal Audit ordinance comments The following information will help further this discussion. The following e-mail questions (in blue) were raised on the proposed County Internal Auditor ordinance. The comments have been numbered and responses provided based on professional literature. Any revisions proposed from these comments are provided (in purple). The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) in 1997 recommended local governments establish an internal audit function and the "internal audit functions should be established formally by charter". The starting point for this ordinance was. language provided by the National Association of Local Government Auditors. Other internal audit ordinances and numerous'practice advisories were considered while drafting the proposed ordinance. 1. 2.14.010: "Internal Auditor reports functionally to the Audit Committee." This may have gotten away from me and we may have actually approved policies that I wasn't paying close enough attention to (I know, I know, but it happens). But I do not agree that the Auditor `reports functionally to the Audit Committee.' According to our organizational chart, and according to my understanding, the auditor reports directly to the County Administrator. The Audit Committee exists to provide advice and counsel to the Auditor, but the committee should have no actual authority over the Auditor. The current proposed language reads The County Internal Auditor reports functionally to the Audit Committee on the selection, planning, execution and results of audit activities. However, the County Internal Auditor shall report to the County Administrator for purposes of the Internal Auditor's office space, equipment and normal administrative activities. " This language comes from a number of sources. The following excerpt is from the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Advisory 1110-2 on Chief Audit Executive (CAE) Reporting Lines. "The IIA believes strongly that to achieve necessary independence, the CAE should report functionally to the audit committee or its equivalent. For administrative purposes, in most circumstances, the CAE should report directly to the chief executive officer of the organization. The following descriptions of what The IIA considers functional reporting and administrative reporting are provided to help focus the discussion in this Practice Advisory. Page 1 of 8 Date: 4/11/2005 1:26 PM Z-xA it V a / o -P 8 Functional Reporting The functional reporting line for the internal audit function is the ultimate source of its independence and authority. As such, The ILA recommends that the CAE report functionally to the audit committee, board of directors, or other appropriate governing authority. In this context, report functionally means that the governing authority would: - Approve the overall charter of the internal audit function. - Approve the internal audit risk assessment and related audit plan. - Receive communications from the CAE on the results of the internal audit activities or other matters that the CAE determines are necessary, including private meetings with the CAE without management present. - Approve all decisions regarding the appointment or removal of the CAE. - Approve the annual compensation and salary adjustment ofthe.,CAE. - Make appropriate inquiries of management and the CAE to determine whether there are scope or budgetary limitations that impede the ability of the internal audit function to execute its responsibilities. Administrative Reporting Administrative reporting is the reporting relationship within the organization s management structure that facilitates the day-to-day, operations of the internal audit function. Administrative reporting typically includes: - Budgeting and management accounting. - Human resource administration, including personnel evaluations and compensation. - Internal communications and information flows. - Administration of the organizations internal policies and procedures." The suggested language revision would be: This should be discussed further before any additional revision is considered. 2. 2.14.030:1 want to make sure under #2 that I understand your use of the term "independently" and objectively determine... My understanding would be that the auditor should be objective, but is not an independent entity from the county organization, though perhaps this is meant to say independent from the departments whose performance is being audited. That would make sense to me. The current proposed language reads: "2. The Internal Auditor shall have authority to conduct financial, attestation, and performance audits of all departments, offices, boards, activities and agencies of the County in order to independently and objectively determine whether::.." As the internal auditor is an employee, it is not possible to be independent of the entity. The internal auditor should be independent of the activities to be audited. Again, this probably is semantics but Government Auditing Standards used by local government auditors provide guidelines so auditors will observe the principles of serving the public interest and maintaining the highest degree of integrity, objectivity, and independence. • Page 2 Jer~c 4, -1, 4 -R 2 04 8" The following excerpts are from the Government Auditing Standards: "3.03 The general standard related to independence is: In all matters relating to the audit work, the audit organization and the individual auditor, whether government or public, should be free both in fact and appearance from personal, external, and organizational impairments to independence." For organizational independence: "3.27 A government internal audit organization can be presumed to be free from organizational impairments to independence when reporting internally to management if the head of the audit organization meets all of the following. criteria: a. accountable to the head or deputy head of the government entity, b. required to report the results of the audit organization's work to the h.ead.or deputy head of the government entity, and c. located organizationally outside the staff or line management function of the unit under audit. " "3.30 The audit organization's independence is enhanced when it also reports regularly to the entity's independent audit committee and/or the appropriate government oversight body." The suggested language revision would be: This should be discussed further before any additional revision.is considered. 3. 2.14.040: In the first paragraph, I disagree with the wording "This audit work schedule should be approved annually by the Audit Committee." It isn't that I disagree, it's that it doesn't go far enough. It needs to include the approval of the County Administrator and the Board of Commissioners. I have the same concern with the last sentence in that paragraph. Ultimately, the County Auditor works for the County, not the Audit Committee. The Auditor reports to the Administrator, who carries out the policies and direction of the BOCC, which is why this ordinance needs to reflect that. Additionally, I'm concerned that the auditor would have the authority to "spontaneously initiate and conduct any other audit deemed necessary." By whom? By the Administrator and the BOCC. The current proposed language reads: " At the beginning of each calendar (or fiscal) year, the County Internal Auditor shall submit a one to five-year audit work schedule to the Audit Committee for review and comment. This audit work schedule should incorporate information from multiple sources including the County Internal Auditor's assessment of significant risks to the organization. The schedule shall include the proposed plan for auditing departments, offices, boards, activities, subcontractors and agencies for the period. This audit work schedule should be approved annually by the Audit Committee. It may be amended during the period. Additionally, the County Internal Auditor may spontaneously initiate and conduct any other audit deemed necessary. Any significant audit or non-audit projects (greater than 100 hours) should be approved by the Audit Committee. • Page 3 EKE,"6,'~ i3 3 0~ ~ In the selection of audit areas and audit objectives, the determination of audit scope and the timing of audit work, the Internal Auditor should consult with external auditors so that the desirable audit coverage is provided and audit effort is properly coordinated. " Management and Board are asked for their input on the audit work plan each year and these are weighed in with the overall review of risk assessment that goes on with developing a work plan. The Board has charged the audit committee with providing oversight to this process, which removes some of the politics of what is audited. The following excerpt is from the IIA's position paper on The Audit Committee in the Public Sector: "The audit committee should exercise an active oversight role with respect to the internal auditing function. Oversight activities include: - Review and approval of the internal audit charter. - Concurrence in the appointment or removal of the director of internal auditing. - Review of plans and budgets. - Review of audit results. - Request for audit projects. Review of quality assurance reviews. Support for communication with internal auditors. Ensure the independence of the internal auditing function. The following excerpt is from the IIA's Practice Advisory 2010-2: Linking the Audit Plan to Risk and Exposures: "2. The internal audit activity s audit plan should be designed based on an assessment of risk and exposures that may affect the organization. Ultimately, key audit objectives are to provide management with information to mitigate the negative consequences associated with accomplishing the organization s objectives, as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of management s risk management activities. The degree or materiality of exposure can be viewed as risk mitigated by establishing control activities. 3. The audit universe can include components from the organization s strategic plan. By incorporating components of the organization s strategic plan, the audit universe will consider and reflect the overall business objectives. Strategic plans also likely reflect the organization s attitude toward risk and the degree of difficulty to achieving planned objectives. The audit universe will normally be influenced by the results of the risk management process. The organization s strategic plan should have been created considering the environment in which the organization operates. These same environmental factors would likely impact the audit universe and assessment of relative risk. " As for the need to be able to spontaneously initiate and conduct any other audit deemed necessary, this is primarily to allow for audits towards identified or suspected fraudulent activity. • Page 4 E-K .q o~ 8 The suggested language revision would be: " At the beginning of each calendar (or fiscal) year, the County Internal Auditor shall submit a one to five-year audit work schedule to the Audit Committee for review and comment. This audit work schedule should incorporate information from multiple sources including the County Internal Auditor's assessment of significant risks to the organization and input from Management and the Board. The schedule shall include the proposed plan for auditing departments, offices, boards, activities, subcontractors and agencies for the period. This audit work schedule should be approved annually by the Audit Committee. .It may be amended during the period. Additionally, the County Internal Auditor for cause may spontaneously initiate and conduct any other audit deemed necessary. Any significant audit or non-audit projects (greater than 100 hours) should be approved by the Audit Committee. In the selection of audit areas and audit objectives, the determination of audit scope and the timing of audit work, the Internal Auditor should consult with external auditors so that the desirable audit coverage is provided and audit effort is properly coordinated. 4. 2.14.050: "In order to maintain Internal Auditor independence, the Budget Committee's Compensation Committee should review the compensation of the County Internal Auditor." I completely disagree. First, the title is "internal auditor" which means the position is internal to the county. The position exists so county administration has additional tools to work with department directors to insure performance is meeting the highest standards. It is not an independent position. If we want an independent audit, we will hire an outside auditor to perform this function. Second, we don't have a "Budget Committee's Compensation Committee." We have an "Elected Official's Compensation Committee" that reviews salaries of elected officials only because elected officials do, not fall under the same category as the rest of the county's employees. The Auditor position.is not elected and is not anticipated to be elected as far as I know. The auditor should remain subject to the same employment policies and procedures as all non-elected positions within our organization. The current proposed language reads:"The County shall provide sufficient funds to enable the County Internal Auditor to carry out the responsibilities specified herein. In order to maintain Internal Auditor independence, the Budget Committee's Compensation Committee should review the compensation of the County Internal Auditor." This recommendation came out of the audit committee as something that could possibly strengthen auditor independence. The following excerpt is from the above excerpt from the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Advisory 1110-2 on Chief Audit Executive (CAE) Reporting Lines. "In this context, report functionally means that the governing authority (of the audit committee) would: - Approve the annual compensation and salary adjustment of the CAE. • Page 5 E s o ~ The suggested language revision would be: "The County shall provide sufficient funds to enable the County Internal Auditor to carry out the responsibilities specified herein. The Audit committee should approve the annual compensation and salary adjustments of the County Internal Auditor. in ova Committee's maintain Intefaal Auditor independenee, the Budget 5. Under #1 and #1 in this same section, I'm concerned that the language could be read to allow the Auditor to employ people. Even though it says it is in consultation with the County Administrator, I see no need for #1 or #2 in this document. The BOCC has never discussed creating "an organizational structure." My intention in supporting the creation of this position was to create one position, not an organization. I do not see the circumstances in the foreseeable future under which I would agree to hiring additional staff to conduct performance evaluations. This is, in my opinion, a one-person shop. The current proposed language reads: "1. The County Internal Auditor shall establish an organizational structure appropriate to carrying out the responsibilities and functions of this ordinance within the constraints of the budget. This organization will be referred to as the internal audit program. Personnel acting on behalf of the Program will be referred to as Internal Auditors. 2. Within the internal audit program, the County Internal Auditor shall have the power to appoint, employ, and remove such assistants, employees, and personnel (as deemed necessary and in consultation with the County Administrator) for the efficient and effective administration of the Program." This language came out of a desire to allow this ordinance to be flexible if in the future the Board and Management decide additional internal audit staff is necessary to support the needs of the organization. The suggested language revision would be: This should be discussed further before any additional revision is considered. 6. 2.14.060: My concern in this section, particularly in #1 is that we make reference to the handling of confidential information, such as any protected personnel information or information protected through HIPPA. "Unrestricted Access" was not what I had in mind when I agreed to this proposal. That said, it may be handled by the last sentence in #1, but the language preceding that last sentence is quite broad. The current proposed language reads: " 1. All officers and employees of Deschutes County shall furnish the Internal Auditor with unrestricted access to employees, information and records (including electronic/computerized data) within their custody regarding powers, duties, activities, organization, property, financial transactions, contracts and methods of business required to conduct an audit or otherwise • Page 6 ~~8 perform audit duties. In addition, they shall provide access for the Internal Auditor to inspect all property, equipment and facilities within their custody. A discussion of appropriate access should occur with County Counsel if access to documents is restricted by applicable law." This recommendation came out of the standard ordinance language. Requests for information are tailored to the audit objectives. An auditor needs sufficient access to records based on the objectives of the audit. The withholding of information by management or staff, requested as part of an audit, is a potential warning sign and can significantly limit the scope of the audit. If the audit objectives require access to confidential, personal or medically sensitive information those needs are discussed with the Department Director, County's Privacy Officer and in some circumstances Legal Counsel. In discussions with other internal auditors, they have had needed to seize records in certain circumstances. Their audit ordinance helps them fulfill these duties as needed. I am glad this has not happened while I have been around, but these policies are written with the possibility that someone might not want to share everything they are supposed to. The following is from the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Advisory 2300-1 on Internal Auditing's Use of Personal Information in Conducting Audits". " 1. Concerns relating to the protection of personal privacy and information are becoming more apparent, focused, and global as advancements in information technology and communications continually introduce new risks and threats to privacy. Privacy controls are legal requirements for doing business in most of the world. 2. Personal information generally refers to information that can be associated with a specific individual, or that has identifying characteristics that might, be combined with other information to do so it can include any factual or subjective information, recorded or not, in any form or media. Personal information might include, for example: Name, address, identification numbers, income, or blood type; evaluations, comments, social status, or disciplinary actions; and employee files, credit records, loan records. 3. For the most part, laws require organizations to identify the purposes for which personal information is collected, at or before the time the information is collected; and that personal information not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. " The following is from the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Advisory 1000-1: Internal Audit Charter. "The charter should (a) establish the internal audit activity s position within the organization; (b) authorize access to records, personnel, and physical properties relevant to the performance of engagements; and (c) define the scope of internal audit activities. " The suggested language revision would be: This should be discussed further before any additional revision is considered. • Page 7 Ems, b~,' ~r3 ? a -F s~ N : 7. I don't want to give the impression that we're setting up an Auditing Empire here. It may rightly be seen that I'm having second thoughts about just how much authority we may have delegated to the Audit Committee. The bottom line for me on this is that the Audit Committee, like the Board of the Commission on Children and Families, performs a very valuable function that we appreciate very much. But the buck stops with the BOCC. Always. And if there needs to be a shift in direction because the BOCC wants something audited, I did not intend to delegate that authority to a committee. If that is the case, I want to revisit the policy we adopted regarding the Audit Committee. Can you please provide me with a fresh copy? It is not up to the Audit committee to decide what to audit. It is up to, risk assessment performed, as discussed earlier. However, if the Board identified a significant risk•to the County that required an immediate audit, this would likely result in a modification of the work schedule after discussions with the Audit Committee. The audit committee is an independent governance body that is charged with oversight of the County's audit and control functions. The following excerpt is from the IIA's position paper on The Audit Committee in' the Public Sector: "A critical element of the control environment is an effective audit committee that provides oversight of matters of financial reporting, auditing, and internal control. An effective audit committee can provide several important aspects of control, including: ensuring the independence of the internal auditing function and ensuring appropriate action is taken on audit findings. The audit committee serves in a unique capacity as an important communication link among external and internal auditors and operating management, and as a means of reducing the risk of management override of, key elements of a public sector entity's internal control structure. A strong internal auditing function can provide valuable assistance to public sector management by reviewing as appraising: the reliability and integrity of financial and operating information as well as the means utilized to safeguard and verify the existence of assets (financial).. The adequacy of systems established to ensure compliance with policies, plan, procedures, law, and regulations (compliance). The extent to which resources are employed efficiently and economically, as well as whether programs are carried out as planned and whether program results are consistent with established goals and objectives (performance). The Institute recommends that a public sector entity establish an audit committee organized as a standing committee of the governing body. " The suggested language revision would be: This should be discussed further before any additional revision is considered. 0 Page 8 Ochoco and Deschutes National Forests, and Prineville District, Bureau of Land Management Office of Communications Working as One to Serve Central Oregon www..fs..fed.us/r6/ceiitraloregon For immediate release: March 31, 2005 Contacts: Mollie Chaudet, Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee, 541/416-6872 Chris Mickle, Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee, 541/433-3216 Nominations Sought For Federal Land Advisory Committee BEND-Federal land managers are seeking applicants for three positions on the Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee, a citizens' group that works with local communities and interested parties to advise federal agencies on Deschutes basin issues. Selected applicants will serve from 2005 to 2007. One applicant will represent forest products, recreation and tourism interests. Two others will fill at-large positions representing interests that include grazing, recreation, conservation, special forest products and commercial fishing. The committee is one of 12 advisory groups whose charter is directed by the Northwest Forest Plan, a 1994 design for ecosystem management, public collaboration and rural economic assistance in Oregon, Washington and Northern California federal forests. It also serves as a Resource Advisory Committee to the Bureau of Land Management. The local committee is currently considering a number of Deschutes River basin issues, such as vegetation management in the Metolius basin, Lower Deschutes River management and B & B Fire restoration. Committee members include local, state, federal, tribal, industry and special interest representatives who meet three or four times a year. They serve without pay, but are reimbursed for travel and meals. The application deadline is May 1, 2005. Applications can be found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/partnership/pac-index For additional information, contact Committee Liaison Mollie Chaudet at 541/416-6872 or Chris Mickle at 541/433-3216. -End- t ~VIE ED LEGAL COUNSEL Deschutes County - Oregon State University (OSU-Cascades) Central Oregon Community College Memorandum of Understanding For Forestry Related Work on County-Owned Lands Partners This memorandum of understanding was made and entered into by: Deschutes County Oregon State University Central Oregon Community College 1. Introduction: Deschutes County owns approximately 10,500 acres of land which is either timbered or is representative of the Great Basis Ecosystem vegetation, namely juniper, sage or bitter brush. Until recently Deschutes County had held the land for future land exchanges, donations or outright disposal. Both Central Oregon Community College and Oregon State University have forestry and related earth science programs that would benefit from having access to this land for learning opportunities for the students. II. Purpose: Deschutes County and the educational institutions will benefit from the following proposed activities: • "Learn by doing" laboratories by field visits and projects. • Providing student projects and/or research projects in the close proximity of the campuses. • Provide guest instructors who are "practitioners" in forestry, earth science, GIS and planning professions. • Development of land management plans for natural resources on portions of, or all of lands owned by Deschutes County. • Develop other types of plans such as noxious weeds, open space, restoration plans, and community fire plans. • Assist Deschutes County with planning, selling and administering small volume timber sales including posts, poles, chips and saw logs. • Provide summer/seasonal student intern positions using Title III monies. Page 1 of 3 Document No. 2005-126 iaf3 For Recording Stamp Only 4 • Collaborating to apply for National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and other hazardous fuels federal funding sources. • Offer "hands-on" experience in grant writing. • Provide experience in an "urban forest" environment with land use proposals with the federal, state and local governments. • By utilizing a collaborative process, demonstrate how local government and educational institutions can provide a quality learning environment and be recognized as a leader in sound land management of public lands, simultaneously. III. Goals The Goals of this Agreement are: • To manage county-owned lands utilizing "best management practices" that contributes to healthy ecosystems in Deschutes County. • Provide a quality learning experience for the students of Central Oregon Community College and Oregon State University in the field of forestry and natural resource management. IV. Agreements The undersigned parties mutually agree to: a. Appoint representatives from Deschutes County, Central Oregon Community College and Oregon State University to develop an annual program of work which specifically outlines learning opportunity projects on county-owned properties. b. The program of work will be developed annually to complement existing curriculum at each educational institution(s). c. This MOU is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation document. Any endeavor involving reimbursement of contribution of funds will be outlined in separate agreements. d. The parties agree that this Memorandum of Understanding is non-binding. Unless and until a formal agreement is reached each party accepts the risk associated with relying on inducements discussed in the MOU. e. This is a long-term endeavor, extending five years or more. f. The terms of the MOU may be amended at any time, or the MOU may be canceled at any time by mutual agreement of the Partners. g. Partners in this MOU may withdraw or be added by written request. Page 2 of 3 Document No. 2005-126 at. a-F 3 V. Roles and Responsibilities of Partners Partner Role Deschutes County Identify county-owned lands which will be utilized by the educational institutions. Develop annual program of work in collaboration with the educational institutions. Serve as guest instructors/mentors for students Provide employment opportunities for student interns. Central Oregon Provide forestry and natural Resource students for learning Community College opportunities on county-owned lands. Develop annual program of work in collaboration with Deschutes County. Provide technical and professional assistance to Deschutes County on forestry and natural resource issues. When appropriate, provide field personnel. Oregon State University Provide forestry and natural Resource students for learning opportunities on county-owned lands. Develop annual program of work in collaboration with Deschutes County. Provide technical and professional assistance to Deschutes County on forestry and natural resource issues. When appropriate. Provide field personnel. VI. Cooperators Tom DeWolf, Chair Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Commissioner Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Central Oregon Community College Oregon State University Date Date Date Date Date Page 3 of 3 Document No. 2005-126 Firs -b; 4 -D .3 0k3 E Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOAHC DEVELOPMENT FUND DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Direct Application to: Commissioner Tom DeWolf Commissioner Dennis R. Luke Date: 4/6/2005 Project Name: Commissioner Michael M. Daly All Three Commissioners xy~ Summer Opportunities at High Desert Middle School Project Beginning Date: June 13, 2005 Project End Date: Julv 29- 2005 Amount of Request: $7,500 Date Funds Needed: June 10, 2005 High Desert Middle School . Applicant/Organization: Tag ID Address' 61111 S.E. 27 h St City 4 Zip: Bend 97702 Contact Name(s): Brooke Frandsen, Director Telephone: 383-6484 Brian Lauchlan. Principal Fag: 383-6499 Alternate Phone: 383-6480 Email: bfrandse(@.bend.kl2.or.us On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. lten= anticipated expenditures. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-bind contributions, if any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be fu1 ded in the fidune. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status * Applicant may be contacted during the review process and asked to provide a complete line item budget. Amount Approved: By: Declined: By: Date: Date; Exp., Z,,~ E i Since 1999 High Desert Middle School has had a very successful. Summer Opportunities Program for all middle school age youth. We have lost our federal fimding and are seeking support to continue this valuable program for our youth. We annually serve 125-150 students, age 11-14, with an emphasis on life skills, problem solving and hands on academics. Activities range from canoeing, caving, hiking to 150 mile bike trips and outward bound style 5 day backpacking trips. Our summer program runs for 6 weeks with teachers and aides as camp counselors. All youth (including transitioning Yh and a graders) receive a catalog in early May. Teachers and staff also personally invite youth they feel are "at risk.". These youth can have risk factors that range from behavioral, Vic, homelessness, poverty, peer influence to just needing a safe place to spend some long summer weeks. Fees for the summer opportunities are kept to a minimal "supply fee" level so that all youth can enjoy the fun and learning. We also mss scholarship dollars within our community to assure that nobody is left out for financial need. All of our camps and outings are run by teachers. All of our programs are run specifically to get youth out and about Central Oregon with a positive adult mentor. Our focus with the students is teaching positive youth life skills, coping and problem solving skills and the value in being a responsible and accountable teen. While out in the community and surrounding areas learning how to read a current, calculate the speed of the flow in the river, exploring out of the ordinary hiking paths as the pioneers did, practicing no trace camping and hiking or nursing their tired muscles around the campfire talking about everyday challenges after a long day mountain biking -the youth are continually learning to be responsible teens as they respect fellow team members, nature or the community they are exploring. One of our most popular classes is Give Back-Five full days of giving back to the community with service. Last year's camp spent the week planting gardens at Hospice, cleaning lots at Habitat for Humanity, fixing meals and playing basketball with residents at Ronald Mc Donald house, visiting Aspen Ridge for bingo and cookie baking, cleaning, weeding and planting the south-end "BEND" landscape, weeding and planting flowers at the new park along the river in Old Mill and painting a US map on the playground at Jewell Elementary. Giving back teaches service as part of being a responsible teen. That responsible teen becomes a responsible adult member of our community. With our funding gone we felt that there would be no way we could continue, however, as spring has come we also have come to recognize the there is a huge need for this summer program even if it is a "stripped down" model. We have chosen our most popular camps that our youth feel are most influential and beneficial. The total cost for this program is $15,154 It runs for six full weeks beginning June 13, 2005. We have community partners that have committed to helping make the program this mimmer a reality by helping with supplies, tuitions, and replacement gear. However, High Desert Middle School still needs $7,500 to stipend the camp counselors who menhir our youth. We look to our Commission to help us serve this population for the summer of 2005. Amount Approved: By: Date: Declined: By: Date: 2e~2 ~ 1 E A y~~^^ q11 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes or DESCHUTES COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION Direct Application to: Commissioner Tom DeWolf Commissioner Dennis R. Luke Date: 03.03.2oos Project Name: Project Beginning Date: June ~s Project End Date: June 18`x. 2005 Amount of Request: 3000.00 Date Funds Needed: June 1~`, 2oos Orchard District Neighborhood 11-3687192 Applicant/Organization: Assoc. Tax ID Address: 1972 NE 3`d Street PMB 49 Bend OR 97701 City & Zip. Contact Name(s): Cheryl Howard; Chair Telephone: 385-7906 Fax: 385-7906 Alternate Phone: 815-5558 Email: howardna.bendcable.com On a separate sheet, please briefly answer the following questions: 1. Describe the applicant organization, including its purpose, leadership structure, and activities. 2. Describe the proposed project or activity. 3. Provide a timeline for completing the proposed project or activity. 4. Explain how the proposed project or activity will impact the community's economic health. 5. Identify the specific communities or groups that will benefit. 6. Itemize anticipated expenditures*. Describe how grant funds will be used and include the source and amounts of matching funds or in-kind contributions, if any. If the grant will support an ongoing activity, explain how it will be funded in the future. Attach: Proof of the applicant organization's non-profit status. Amount Approved: By: Commissioner Michael M. Daly All Three Commissioners YEs LET'S PULL TOGETHER/Noxious Weed Awareness Week Declined: By: Date: Date: