Loading...
2008-978-Minutes for Meeting August 04,2008 Recorded 12/11/2008COUNTY OFFICIRt NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKS CJ 2008-978 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL „1„„ 12/11/200810:40:16 AM 2008-978 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page = e-, If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 Present were Commissioner Dennis R. Luke, Michael M. Daly and Tammy Melton. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; David Inbody, Assistant to the Administrator; Judith Ure, Grant Writer; Susan Ross, Property and Facilities; Peter Russell, Community Development; Anna Johnson, Communications; media representatives from The Bulletin and KOHD TV; and approximately 20 other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. i. Update on La Pine to Bend Bus Service. Dave Kanner gave an overview of the status of the bus service between Bend and La Pine; in particular, Central Cascades Lines. ODOT advised that a compliance investigation needed to be done due to various complaints; someone from ODOT did an investigation and it is unknown at this point if grant funds that were supposed to go to Central Cascade Lines can be released. The County is the pass-through agency for funding only because the State would not handle it. Judith Ure explained what Central Cascade Lines does and is expected to do. They provide fixed route services and some demand (door-to-door) services. There is a Dial-a-Ride service separately serving La Pine, which is operated by COIL. Ms. Ure calculated that capacity is about 840 one-way trips per day, if they were filled to capacity and able to keep up with the schedule. Their revenue is from fare receipts and grants. About 4-5% of costs are covered by fares; in the State it is typically around 11-12%. Dial-a-Ride in the area is about 7.5%. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 1 of 10 Pages Central Cascades Lines' revenue calculations may include grants that have not yet been received. They have also gotten $22,500 from economic development grants from the Commissioners, and also are able to use County-owned property for parking purposes. There are formula money and discretionary grants. ODOT provides discretionary grants that come from many sources. Deschutes County solicits applications, some of which go to ODOT. ODOT contracts with the service providers. Their current policy is that they do not contract with new nonprofit service providers; they want to see that the entity is solid and has a history. They do want the provider's services monitored. Deschutes County is acting as a pass-through agency in this case. Commissioner Melton asked if the County has fiduciary responsibility in this regard. Ms. Ure stated that the County has a contract with ODOT for these services, and the County can either not act as a pass-through or arrange for another provider. This is the first time the County has been involved with the discretionary funding part. Central Cascades Lines asked for $550,000 for operations, including buying a bus, gasoline, wages, and so on. ODOT granted $82,000 for new equipment but a match is required by the recipient. Also, an employment-related grant of $25,000 was given; a 50% match is required for this. The contract now in place is through June 30, 2009. The portion having to do with employment-related funding is not retroactive and each month more of it is lost. Therefore, the amount is about $10,000 at this time. At the time, the County signed an agreement with the State, it was not known that the funding is limited in this fashion. When the initial complaints came in, ODOT said that the funding should be put on hold, so there is no formal agreement between Deschutes County and Central Cascades Lines. The initial complaint was related to wage and labor issues. Some safety concerns were then raised. A site compliance review was scheduled at the request of ODOT and in June, the Lines returned the checklist; in July ODOT went through the checklist with Central Cascade Lines. It was found that some policies and procedures have not been completed and submitted. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 2 of 10 Pages There have been questions regarding whether the Board setup is consistent with nonprofit rules; and there is little documentation about employee training and other issues. They may be doing these things but there is no way to verify it. They have a lot of work to do to show that they are in compliance; then a second site review would be needed. The County can provide funding but until the State is satisfied, they will not allow funds to be released. Commissioner Melton observed that obtaining public funding in the nonprofit world is challenging. She asked if they were aware of what was required at the time they were approved for funding. Ms. Ure said that in most cases there is information in the documents that provide guidance as to what is required. Commissioner Daly clarified that private funding can come from foundations and trusts. Mr. Kanner stated that the Board had asked him to request in writing what Central Cascades Lines means by a temporary shutdown and what is needed to continue services. He said that the underlying question is whether the County should even be in this position, as it is not a transit regulatory agency. He feels that the County is being used as a scapegoat and does not have the authority to solve the problems. He did speak with a representative of ODOT, who said they are willing to use a different agency as a pass-through. The recommendations of the advisory committee for funding are based on the applicants' information. He feels there should be a new application form used. He noted that it is clear that it will take some time for Cascades Lines to get into compliance, but cannot operate without this funding. ODOT has indicated a willingness to work with all parties to address this issue, and they have the expertise needed. Based on experience, he would prefer the County not be the pass-through agency; COIC could be the distributor of the funds. The City of La Pine probably does not yet have the expertise or personnel to do so. Ms. Ure said that the contracts are good only through June 30, 2009, and funding decreases during that time. The equipment phasing agreement covers about the period of time that it takes to build a bus. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that the need for service is apparent. He is involved with a large group that is addressing transit in the tri-county area. It is a challenge. All public transit requires a subsidy, as fares are not enough. There is also a need between Bend and Redmond, and Sisters. The County is not in the public transit business, and it is not the County's job to determine whether a nonprofit remains successful. The group got economic development grants and assistance in the past. He is not sure why this is being discussed now. Mr. Kanner replied that given the publicity, it is important for the Board to know what is going on. There should be some concurrence on how to handle this situation. Commissioner Melton added that some of the things that have been stated are unfair. At the time the County agreed to act as the pass-through agency, there should have been policies and procedures in place, and she would not have agreed to do this if she had known there were none. The paperwork is necessary since it involves public funding. It is as if he more the County does, the worse it gets. She is not sure how to help with public transportation. The County has done what it can, but cannot solve the underlying problem. However, taking the County out of the middle removes one layer of bureaucracy. Mr. Kanner stated that he does not know whether COIC is even willing, but they have the experience. Ms. Ure noted that ODOT would decide what happens, but they know the service is needed. ODOT will not contract directly, but the money has been committed to the La Pine to Bend route. Commissioner Daly said that Cascades Lines stepped up years ago to make this happen, and there should be an obligation to let them become compliant. They can provide the service and he would like to leave this option open. Cash flow is the biggest problem. It is not the County's fault but the County may be held liable if it is not done and the County releases the money. He wants to see the service continue. Ms. Ure stated that she is not sure how long it would take them to get everything in place. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 4 of 10 Pages Lupita Lewis said that the busses have been moved to the South County building parking lot. She did not expect this process to be so complicated. She said that they have been running since January 2007, starting out with just 25 passengers. She wants to see it continue. In regard to the policies and procedures, they are developing and growing, and being modified. Some do not apply. The financial policies have been developed. COIC is not helping the elderly and disabled at this point, and it is hard to determine what the ultimate service level will be. Commissioner Luke pointed out that they are not County forms; they are ODOT's and only ODOT can approve them. Ms. Ure stated that this was the purpose of the site review visit. There are a number of things that need to be put in place. Commissioner Melton the requirements don't seem to be gray at this point. She does not want to set a deadline. She asked how long it might take; at that point, maybe ODOT can reconsider. It is necessary for COIC to know what they are in for and whether they can meet that need. It is clear that there is community support for the transit service. Robert Troy said that the bus service through COIC is not what La Pine needs or can accept. It takes an additional two hours to be able to take the bus. Central Cascade Lines get them out of the cars, to work on time and home at a reasonable hour. Ms. Lewis said that they don't want to point fingers any anyone. They want to focus on what is expected and comply as needed. They would like to work with Judith and ODOT through Judith. Commissioner Melton said that once September comes, school starts. Transportation needs to be in place right away. The County won't stand in the way of Cascade complying. The longer it takes, the harder it will be. ODOT could decide to provide the funding to another entity. Ms. Ure said that she hasn't had a chance to look over the financial management documents, but the she is not able to help a nonprofit get compliant. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 5 of 10 Pages Commissioner Luke said that the Board could talk about this further. He asked that Central Cascade Lines submit information to Judith by 5 p.m. on August 5 so that the Board can learn how they are doing. COIC will be asked to handle thirty days without the pass-through funds. Ms. Ure added that at that time the decision becomes where the money goes, or the County gets out of the middle position and lets ODOT decide whom to work with. Central Cascade Lines will need to have a second site visit but realistically it would not happen until after August 31. Tom Moore, Director of COIC said that they have a practical issue with September 1. They want to get systems in place and checked out by then. He asked if there is some flexibility with that date. Ms. Ure said that the contract for state funding could be amended to say who gets it. This can be decided month to month. Mr. Kanner stated that he raised this question with Michael Ward at ODOT, who has indicated that ODOT could make some funds available to COIC to continue service for longer than 30 days. Karen Friend, Operations Manager of COIC said that they are willing to help but only have so many resources. STF allocations for this are very limited. Ms. Ure added that she does not want COIC to harm its other routes. The money can go away if it is not used. Commissioner Melton suggested that perhaps this should not wait a month. Maybe this should be done right away and let the funds go to COIC instead of being lost. LaVonne Slama of Crooked River Ranch said she is not a part of Central Cascade Lines but wanted to know if the Board would accept any comments on today's work session. She is a supporter of Central Cascade Lines and wanted to clarify some issues. 2. Project Update. • Transportation Improvements - Redmond 215 Acres • Mental Health Residential Treatment Facility - State Grant and Potential for Increasing Beds Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 6 of 10 Pages It was explained that a team approach would be used for this ten-bed facility. They did site visits already. Lori Hill said that the State wants to increase the number to 16, as it is getting hard for them to find appropriate locations. Commissioner Luke said that the State will only sign a two-year agreement to pay rent, and the legislature has to approve funding every two years. This is almost doubling the size. Susan Ross replied that the State would pay 100% of incremental costs of construction, about $300,000. There is also a $400,000 grant. To do this, the County will get an extra bed. Ms. Hill noted that the beds start with Central Oregon residents. There will be some out of the State facility. There is never enough room to fill the need. Some with be short-term beds, for maybe ninety days. Ms. Ross stated that because of parking issues and the Swalley Irrigation District canal, even if it is piped, there is not enough land at this location. A building of at least 7,000 square feet is needed. A large facility is more cost effective due to economies of scale. She recommended the original site, the eight acres off Poe Sholes Road, away from the residential area. Commissioner Luke asked to see a plot plan. He does not want to break up the property too much. Ms. Ross said that the State wants to move more quickly. If the same architect that did Sage View does this building, it can save about $35,000 on the design and shave off six months' time. Ms. Hill added that the State is clear that something needs to be done in this biennium. Deschutes County has 13 in the State hospital and another six civil commitments, so the need is there. There is a moratorium in place for civil commitments, with a waiting list of over forty. Ms. Ross said that she would ask for an exemption to the contracting rules and come to the Board for a sole source just for the architect; then go out to bid for the contractor. At this time, the group discussed what kind of fencing and landscaping to use. There will be a meeting on Wednesday, August 6 after the Board business meeting to discuss this further. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 7 of 10 Pages Ms. Ross said that the grant application for $675,000 needs to be signed by the Chair. Ms. Ure added that this is the last piece to go in. Peter Russell noted that if they are putting more than 25 trips to an ODOT intersection, ODOT will need to comment. Zoning is irrelevant. If it is below the city traffic impact threshold, no cards will be sent out. MELTON: Move Chair signature of the grant application, towards construction of the building. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Mr. Kanner said that in regard to ODOT transportation planning rules, he found out from Bob Bryant of ODOT that they don't want any additional trips generated in south Redmond. The City of Redmond is also concerned. This creates a moratorium for east side of Redmond. There is a solution proposed, one that Mr. Bryant supports, which will be discussed in about two weeks by the Oregon Transportation Commission. Ms. Ross stated that the DKS study shows the southern reroute is necessary for the project to work. The County also has 1,600 acres that will eventually be developed. Susan: DKS study showed southern reroute nec for project to work. The cost of 30% of the project is about $70 million. Mr. Bryant said that a letter should be sent to the Oregon Transportation Commission that says $70 million is enough. DALY: Move signature of a letter to the Oregon Transportation Commission regarding the South Redmond property. MELTON: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 8 of 10 Pages 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Daly said that starting on August 12, he has to be available for jury duty for two weeks. 4. Other Items. There was a brief discussion of cases in code enforcement while text amendments are being considered, in regard to event venues. Applicants keep scheduling events even though at this point holding these events is against Code. It is possible to get an injunction but it is complicated since this is in the middle of a text amendment application. In regard to a letter of support for the Security and Energy for America Act (SEA Act), the following action was taken. MELTON: Move approval of a letter of support for the SEA Act. DALY: Second. VOTE: MELTON: Yes. DALY: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Regarding a reader board and electronic equipment at meetings, Commissioner Luke still wants an electronic reader board. Mr. Kanner said that the cost to televise meetings is about $48,000. The cost of mobile video conferencing equipment is separate. Commissioner Melton asked if there is concern about how people act when they know they are being televised. Commissioner Luke said he doesn't understand why this is being pushed. The County has a good reputation. People who need to know something find it out. There is no reason to put everything out there. People who end up on television take advantage of it. The Bend City Council actually hired a consultant to tell them how to look and speak. He feels that doing this is a mistake; it won't help the image and could in fact harm it. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 9 of 10 Pages Commissioner Daly said that the issue was unprofessional image at meetings in past years, but knowing the cameras are on could create more professionalism. Commissioner Luke pointed out that a cost analysis was done and it was found to be too expensive. Mr. Kanner stated that a console would be off to the side, and help will probably be needed to run it, at a cost of perhaps $50 per meeting. Commissioner Daly said that due to budget constraints, it might be a negative to spend this kind of money now. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m. DATED this 4th Day of August 2008 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Dennis R. Luke, Char Tammy aney) Welton, Vice Chair ATTEST: Michael M. Da y, Co missioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, August 4, 2008 Page 10 of 10 Pages IT E- Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or>? WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 1. Update on La Pine to Bend Bus Service - Judith Ure 2. Project Update - Susan Ross • Transportation Improvements - Redmond 215 Acres • Mental Health Residential Treatment Facility - State Grant and Potential for Increasing Beds - Lori Hill, Mental Health 3. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. ve a co 3 co ~ b U Y L ~ x ~i a' 00 2 L9 Q1 V a ri ~O f6 ~n Ci _ N~ N - N 7 u Z, 0 O y \l F- ag O ,C Q i L Q) - I I I I CL Deschutes County / Oregon Department of Transportation Site Review Summary July 31, 2008 Central Cascade Lines Background / History Central Cascade Lines, Inc. (CCL) registered with the State of Oregon as a domestic non-profit corporation in May 2006. The business is located in La Pine, Oregon and was formed for the purpose of providing transportation services for residents of southern Deschutes County. The Oregon Secretary of State's Office records Lupita Lewis as the current president and registered agent of CCL. Services CCL operates both a deviated fixed-route service that transports commuters between La Pine and Bend several times a day and a demand-response service that provides door-to-door transportation for older adults and people with disabilities. The organization operates four vehicles for this purpose: 1 25-passenger bus, 1 17-passenger bus, and 2 7-passenger vans. According to a status report submitted to Deschutes County for the 3-month fourth quarter period of March 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008, CCL provided 400 one-way fixed route trips and 250 demand responsive one-way trips for older adults and people with disabilities. In a grant application submitted by CCL to Deschutes County in May 2008, this figure was stated as representing 65% of the organization's total ridership. Based on those figures and a calculation of full seating for the vehicles operated continually throughout the day, Deschutes County staff estimates that, at a maximum, CCL currently has the capacity to provide 894 one-way trips per day. However, this estimate, as detailed below, does not allow for driver breaks, in-town driving, and delays for picking up and dropping off passengers: 1 25-passenger bus x 6 one-way trips per day between Bend and La Pine = 150 passengers 1 17-passenger bus x 24 one-way trips per day between Bend and La Pine = 408 passengers 2 7-passenger vans x 24 one-way trips per day between Bend and La Pine = 336 passengers Funding Budget documents submitted with grant applications and prior year tax returns indicate that sources of revenue used to operate the business include primarily private and public grants as well as fare receipts. In July 2007, CCL received a grant award of $41,409 from Deschutes County to provide transportation services to elderly and disabled populations using Special Transportation Funds (STF) made available through ODOT. In addition to the STF grant award, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners has awarded a total of $22,500 in economic development grants to CCL, including the following: • $1,500 awarded in 2006 to purchase a computer, monitor, portable computer with speech output, printer, office supplies and grant reference manual. • $2,500 awarded in 2007 for operational costs related to providing a shuttle service between La Pine and the Deschutes County fairgrounds during the 2007 County Fair event. • $3,500 awarded in 2007 to repair/replace the transmission and shift differential on a 25- passenger bus. • $10,000 awarded in 2007 for emergency funds to pay for fuel and wages. • $5,000 awarded in 2008 to purchase a high-speed photocopier. Deschutes County has offered additional assistance to support CCL during the past year as well, including grading and improving County-owned property used for the La Pine Park and Ride at Lupita Lewis' request and making space available at the South County Services Building for overnight bus storage. Discretionary Grants Each biennium, Deschutes County solicits applications from local transportation service providers for projects to be included in the County's request for funding through ODOT's Public Transit Division Discretionary Grant Program. Applications are reviewed and recommended by the County's STF Advisory Committee, approved by the Board of County Commissioners, then evaluated by ODOT which makes a final determination of awards. CCL requested a total of $549,089 through the Discretionary Grant Program for the 2007-09 biennium, including funds for preventive maintenance, purchase of a new bus, operations, and computer equipment. In most cases, ODOT awards discretionary grants directly to the service provider. However, current policy does not allow ODOT to contract directly with newly-formed non-profit entities that are unable to demonstrate a proven record of performance. As a result, ODOT asked Deschutes County to be the direct recipient of two discretionary grants to support transportation services between La Pine and Bend, one in the amount of $82,103 to purchase a new bus, three additional computers, and one additional printer and one in the amount of $25,000 for Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) services to improve access to employment centers. The Board of Commissioners agreed to act in the role of direct recipient with the intention of entering into a sub-agreement with CCL to fulfill the grant requirements. ODOT delivered the direct recipient agreements to be signed by Deschutes County in September of 2007. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners authorized the Chair to sign the agreements in October 2007 and the signed, executed agreements were returned by ODOT to the County in December 2007. Deschutes County staff then prepared and delivered to CCL two sub- recipient agreements for signatures the first week of February 2008. In a telephone call made to County staff in March 2008, Lupita Lewis stated that CCL's Board of Director's had reviewed the agreements, but were considering requesting that changes be made to the documents. No further information was provided and Ms. Lewis next indicated that she was ready to sign the agreements in May 2008. Service Complaints In March 2008, ODOT received a complaint regarding a payroll dispute between CCL and one of its drivers. The complainant was advised by ODOT, and later by Deschutes County, that the appropriate forum for resolving the issue was the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI). However, in subsequent communications, the complainant also reported concerns about the safety of CCL's operations. Between March and June 2008, ODOT and Deschutes County received several more complaints regarding the safety of CCL's services. Beginning in June 2008, both ODOT and Deschutes County also received several letters of support for CCL and its services. Examples of safety concerns cited by the complainants include the following: • Drivers not properly licensed or certified to operate large passenger buses (CDL required in vehicles with 16 occupants, including driver). • Drivers operating buses in unsafe condition, including with a flat tire, without chains during winter months, and with emergency exits locked. • Drivers routinely speeding in school zones, residential areas, and on the highway. • Drivers routinely running red lights and stop signs and making illegal turns. • Overbooked trips with passengers occasionally seated in wheel wells. • No driver training and testing in driving, safety, or first aid. • No driver testing for alcohol or drug use. • Many seatbelts not functional. In consultation with ODOT, Deschutes County determined that the safety complaints were serious enough to warrant a site review of CCL's operations. Site Review Process In June 2008, Lupita Lewis requested a meeting with County Administrator Dave Kanner to discuss the complaints and the process that would be used to resolve them. Mr. Kanner and Management Analyst Judith Ure met with Ms. Lewis and CCL board member T.J. Miller on June 12 and outlined the site review process recommended by ODOT to determine if CCL was in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations required by entities receiving public funds for transportation purposes (as further described in Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 206, published Thursday, October 25, 2007). Rather than attempt to address each individual complaint made, the site review process was intended to uncover underlying deficiencies, if any, that may have led to the complaints. During the meeting, Mr. Kanner and Ms. Ure indicated that, if deficiencies were identified, the County would attempt to work with CCL to resolve them. The same day, Ms. Ure provided Ms. Lewis with copies of the complaints the County and ODOT had received and a site review checklist. As outlined, the site review process included: • Completion by CCL of a site review checklist answering specific questions related to financial, management and legal sufficiency; transit operations, safety, and security; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the FTA drug and alcohol program. • A site visit to verify that responses made on the checklist were accurate and to inspect operational records, equipment, and premises. Ms. Lewis submitted the completed checklist document to the County on June 27, 2008 and Judith Ure and Joni Bramlett, ODOT Capital Program Manager, conducted a site visit on July 18. Lupita Lewis, T.J. Miller, and a receptionist employed by CCL were present during the site visit. General Assessment The issue of greatest concern identified during the site review process is that CCL does not have, or was unable to produce for review, written policies and procedures necessary to determine if the business complies with state and federal laws, rules, and regulations concerning transportation services or if the entity is eligible to receive public funds for such services. Such policies and procedures that do exist at CCL are often informal in nature and communicated verbally which is difficult to verify and does not satisfy requirements for receiving grant funds. Some documents, including a non-discrimination policy and notice, Title VI complaint form, drug and alcohol policy, employment policies and procedures, safety, security, and emergency preparedness plan, pre-employment driving evaluation, and driver daily vehicle inspection report were produced by Ms. Lewis and briefly reviewed on site. However, despite a request made during the site visit, copies were not provided to the review team for more comprehensive evaluation until nearly two weeks after the visit took place. As a result, much information that could have been obtained from those documents is not included in this report. Ms. Lewis indicated that other required written policies and procedures have not yet been developed or adopted, including financial management policies and procedures, procurement policies and procedures, vehicle and equipment maintenance plan and procedures, seat belt and child seat procedures, and passenger guidelines. Specific Issues of Concern Although this document does not provide a complete list of findings made during the site review process, a lack of documentation and established business practices on the part of CCL resulted in the following specific areas of concern being noted by the review team: Financial Policies, Procedures, and Controls: At the time of the site visit, CCL did not have written financial policies, procedures, and controls in place. To be eligible for public funding, CCL must, at a minimum, develop, adopt, and make available for review by State and County officials, policies and procedures that: • Segregate grant funds, matching funds, and expenditures. • Specify cash handling procedures, including frequency of bank deposits. • Specify authority for and limits to payment authorization. • Specify authority for use of business credit cards. • Fare collection and accounting procedures. Use of State and Federal Funds: At the time of the site visit, CCL did not have procedures in place to define and verify the proper use of equipment purchased with state and federal funds. While CCL does not currently operate with any such equipment, such procedures must be developed and adopted before public funds can be received for the purchase of a bus or other equipment. Procedures must include provisions for the following: • Equipment is used consistent with the original purpose. • Equipment is tagged or otherwise identified as property purchased with state or federal funds. • Records must be maintained identifying equipment identification, procurement process, grant sources used, condition, and disposition. • Equipment must be protected from misuse, misappropriation, waste, etc. • A physical inventory system must be in place. Budget and Accounting Systems: CCL was unable to produce adequate documentation that programs receiving state, federal, or local funds are accounted for through specified accounts within the accounting system as required. Ms. Lewis indicated that she is currently working with an accountant to establish such a system. Such a system must include: A defined method to distribute costs to the programs. A defined method to distribute administration and other common expenses between programs. A method of allocating costs to individual grant agreements. Grant Management: CCL is currently receiving grant funds, but could not produce evidence of an adequate system in place to track such funds. Ms. Lewis indicated that she is working with an accountant to establish a system to monitor grants and to meet financial and reporting requirements. At a minimum, the system must: • Provide a method to track matching funds contributed to grants. • Provide a method to track cash donations and in-kind non-cash contributions. • Document the source and amount of in-kind non-cash contributions. • Document tasks and hours per task performed by volunteers. • Document that volunteers are not paid more than out-of-pocket expenses. Procurement Policy and Procedure: CCL does not currently have a written procurement policy and procedures in place. Instructions concerning who is authorized to make purchases and at what limit Board approval is required are informal in nature and based on verbal understanding. The written procurement policy and procedure must: • Limit purchasing to specific individuals. • Require pre-approval for purchases exceeding a defined threshold. • Use an open solicitation and negotiated process to obtain the best possible price and quality. • Designate authority for signing contracts. • Establish procedures to ensure that equipment, goods and services are acquired and received as contracted. • Establish a system to maintain complete purchasing records. Board Mana eg ment: CCL has adopted comprehensive written by-laws and articles of incorporation and maintains full copies of board meeting agendas and minutes. However, the board recruitment process is informal and based on word-of-mouth and board meetings are not widely advertised to the public. In addition, Lupita Lewis, who is currently holding the title of President of CCL, appears to also be acting in the capacity of Board Chair, possibly constituting a conflict of interest. Labor and Employee Relations: CCL provided a copy of a driver job description and application form during the site visit. However, a copy of the organization's employment policies and procedures was not provided until nearly two weeks after the site visit and, as a result, was not thoroughly reviewed prior to preparation of this report. Reviewers did not see evidence of a sample job announcement, use of the Employment Office for recruitment assistance, or a public recruitment process for filling vacancies. Passenger Guidelines: Ms. Lewis indicated that CCL is currently developing passenger guidelines and expects to have them completed by August 2008. However, currently the organization does not have written guidelines for passengers that describe safety instructions, a complaint resolution process, service boundaries, service categories and limitations, reservation policies, eligibility for reduced fare, or the use of seatbelts, service animals, and personal care attendants as required. Driver Training: CCL's response to the site review checklist indicates that a driver training program is currently under development. Although some training records were produced during the site visit, reviewers were unable to assess the scope of training required or made available to drivers. A training program must include the following: • Defensive driving. • Passenger assistance. • ADA requirements. • Passenger relations. • Evacuation and emergency procedures. • Behind the wheel orientation. • Drug and alcohol program policy and prevention. • Customer service. Safety and All Hazards Plan: Although a very rudimentary outline was in place at the time of the site visit, CCL does not appear to have an adequate safety and all hazards plan in place. Ms. Lewis indicated that CCL is currently developing a plan and expects to complete it in August. Such a plan must include provisions for: • Communicable diseases. • Bloodborne pathogens. • Hazardous materials. Vehicle Maintenance Plan: At the time of the site visit, CCL's vehicle maintenance plan was not adequate or complete. Although a visual inspection showed the equipment to be in generally good condition and vehicle maintenance logs were produced, there appeared to be no established schedule indicating when to perform routine maintenance to brakes, lifts, steering, and suspension systems or how to arrange or pay for high-cost repairs. Anti-Drusz Use and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Program: To be eligible for JARC funding, CCL must meet requirements for anti-drug use and alcohol abuse prevention. While CCL does have a written drug and alcohol policy in place, some procedures must be strengthened, including: • Participating in an ODOT pool to meet random testing requirements (encouraged, but not required). • Conducting drug and alcohol tests of candidates prior to official hiring. • Establishing criteria for screening applicants with a positive drug or alcohol history. • Monitoring treatment progress when employees are referred after a positive test. • Establishing policies that document actions when a positive test is taken. • Documentation in policy regarding testing contractor and monitoring of the company. • Documentation in policy regarding thresholds for testing drivers post-accident. Conclusion Deschutes County and ODOT cannot be assured through the site review process that Central Cascade Lines, Inc. meets the requirements to receive public funding for transportation services. The organization is lacking documentation of critical policies and procedures necessary to, at a minimum, assess institutional, managerial, and financial capability to ensure proper planning, management, and completion of the affected projects or compliance in the following categories as required through certification to the Federal Transit Administration (further described in Federal Register, Volume 72, No. 206, published Thursday, October 25, 2007): 01: Assurances Required for Each Applicant (includes Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972, Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Prevention Act of 1970, Public Health Service Act of 1912, Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, OMB Circular A-133 - Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and others). 03: Procurement Compliance. 06: Acquisition of Rolling Stock for Use in Revenue Service. 08: Bus Testing. 11: Demand Responsive Service. 12: Alcohol Misuse and Prohibited Drug Use. 17: Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities Formula Program. 19: Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. If CCL seeks to become eligible for public funding in the future, the organization must develop, adopt, and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate institutional, managerial, and financial capability and compliance with the above referenced laws and regulations. To demonstrate that these conditions have been met, CCL would be subject to a follow-up site review process to be conducted by Deschutes County and ODOT officials. Security and Energy for America Act (SEA Act) Common Questions and Answers Primary Original Sponsor and Cosponsors Rep. Greg Walden (OR) Rep. Rob Bishop (UT)* Rep. Sue Myrick (NC)* Rep. Thelma Drake (VA)* * Primary original cosponsors; other original cosponsors will be added until 3 pm on Thursday, July 31 at which time the bill will be introduced. Q: What does this bill do for the County Payments and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) Programs? This bill has two distinct advantages over the version of H.R. 3058 brought before the full House under suspension of the rules on June 5, 2008. 1. LONGER TERM SUPPORT. It funds the county payments program at the same levels as H.R. 3058 does, but adds an extra fifth year at the same level of the fourth year. H.R. 3058 provided just four years. 2. INCREASED FINANCIAL SUPPORT. After an initial ramp-up of two years, it fully funds the PILT program for three years. The version of H.R. 3058 brought before the full House on June 5 stripped PILT funding at the last minute due to insufficient revenues. The SEA Act also ties funding to the established PILT formula, not a random year, so funds increase as the program intended. PILT is a very important program to rural counties with large amounts of federal land ownership, is strongly supported by a bipartisan group of Senators and Representatives, and has proven to be a key provision to keep intact in legislation in the Senate. For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid comes from a very PILT-dependent state and has been a strong supporter of fully funding PILT. The SEA Act is a much-improved version of bipartisan legislation that passed the House in 2006. That bill, which was supported by Congressman Peter DeFazio and 39 other Democrats when it passed the House on June 29, 2006 (H.R. 4761, Roll Call vote number 356), provided just $50 million a year over five years for county payments, $0 for PILT, and just a fraction of the funding for renewable energy and coastal conservation compared to the SEA Act. When that bill passed with the support of 40 Democrats, oil was "just" over $70 a barrel, and it is nearly double that now. The SEA Act would provide $4.6 billion for county payments and PILT. Q: How does this bill decrease dependence on foreign oil? A: Currently, the United States imports over 60 percent of its oil, sending over $1.6 billion out of the country every day. More than 85 percent of the oil and gas resources off the continental United States cannot be accessed because of federal laws. In fact, there is enough energy locked up in federal lands to power 60 million cars and 160 million homes for the next 60 years. 8/1/2008 - 11:47:21 AM SEA Act - Q and A 8/1/2008 - 11:47:21 AM Page 2 of 7 The SEA Act would lift the ban on domestic offshore energy production and open up oil and natural gas production in the deep waters beyond 75 miles from shore. Through the royalties and bonus bids on the new federal leases and a small conservation of resources fee on liquid fuels imported on tankers, the SEA Act would produce many billions of dollars to pay for the county payments and PILT programs, renewable energy production, environmental enhancement programs, state revenue sharing and many other strongly supported and needed initiatives. The bill would significantly reduce our reliance on foreign oil by increasing production of American resources (thereby increasing American security too), and rather than export billions of dollars to grow foreign countries' wealth it would retain and grow American dollars to be directed to essential American priorities and needs. Q: If it takes around six years to produce oil or natural gas in the OCS, when would Oregon's counties start to see money from (1) the county payments/PILT, and (2) the revenue sharing portions of this legislation? A: (1) Upon enactment of the SEA Act into law, county payments funding would be provided in the current Fiscal Year 2008 and PILT counties would receive funding in Fiscal Year 2009, which starts October 1, 2008. (2) States that allow leasing off of their coasts could see money as soon as two years from enactment as the first bonus bids for leases off their coasts are paid. Q: Wouldn't this bill give oil companies the green light to pollute the marine environment while drilling for energy? A: Absolutely not. No environmental law would be skirted. All energy production on the Outer Continental Shelf must abide by the following acts: ✓ National Environmental Policy Act ✓ Clean Water Act ✓ Clean Air Act ✓ Coastal Zone Management Act ✓ Endangered Species Act ✓ Marine Mammal Protection Act ✓ Fishery Conservation & Management Act ✓ National Historic Preservation Act ✓ Oil Pollution Act Q: Don't states deserve to have a right to say what happens off their coasts? A: Absolutely. The SEA Act would actually expand coastal state authority over ocean resources. Currently, most states control all the resources out to just three miles off their shoreline - the SEA Act would extend that control to 12 miles to include complete control over sand, wave energy, and viewshed resources. The bill would put in place a permanent federal moratorium on oil and natural gas drilling from 0 to 35 miles off the coast, but states could opt out of that ban (the current moratorium must be renewed every year by Congress). From 35 to 75 miles, the same moratorium would be in place, but states would need to opt in to the moratorium just once every five years. SEA Act - Q and A 8/1/2008 - 11:47:21 AM Page 3 of 7 Q: What does this bill do for renewable energy production? A: Huge advancements in real funding. This bill commits $3.1 billion to renewable energy production in matching grants, meaning at least $6.2 billion would be invested in renewable energy production. Not a study, not tax credits, but real production. In Oregon, we are pioneers in the advancement of these forms of renewable energy and our state will be at the forefront of the opportunity to invest these dollars to reduce our reliance on foreign oil (and oil in general) and create jobs while expanding renewable energy production. Here's how it breaks down: ✓ $600 million for geothermal energy production ✓ $500 million for wave energy production ✓ $500 million for wind and solar energy production ✓ $500 million for biomass energy production ✓ $500 million for hydropower production ✓ $500 million for cellulosic energy production The bill also commits $1.1 billion for heating assistance for low-income Americans. Q: Does this bill address the cars and trucks currently on the road with poor gas mileage? A: Yes. This bill provides $3.75 billion for a fully-funded 50/50 grant program to convert 3 million low mileage vehicles to natural gas or gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles. Q: But more energy production in American oceans just means more oil spills, right? A: No, that is not correct. According to the National Academy of Sciences, natural seeps are responsible for over 61 percent of the petroleum in North American marine waters. Petroleum extraction is responsible for just over 1 percent. The technology exists to produce energy in our oceans very safely and reliably. Coastal nations around the world have proven this, and if countries like Norway and Brazil can safely tap their significant ocean resources, the United States can and should too. (http://books.ngp.edu/html/oil- the sea/reportbrief ldf) Q: We need more.than just drilling to get out of the energy mess we're in, don't we? A: This bill is far more than just a "drilling" bill. America needs comprehensive, multi- faceted energy legislation. The SEA Act opens up access to America's great Outer Continental Shelf energy reserves, but also invests billions of dollars in renewable energy production, increases vehicle efficiency (thus reducing consumption), conserves wildlife habitat, and does much more without adding a penny to the national budget deficit. In fact, it helps reduce the budget deficit. Q: How do counties at and near the coast benefit from this legislation? A: Pursuant to state law, coastal counties would be allowed to extend their borders in coastal waters past the current three-mile limit to 12 miles, allowing coastal counties to benefit significantly from new energy development from within the 12 mile boundary. SEA Act - Q and A Page 4 of 7 8/1/2008 - 11:47:21 AM Given this new authority coastal counties and states will have significant control over viewsheds and beach replenishment. Currently, only 27 percent of OCS revenue receipts from the first three miles of federal waters (except in Florida and Texas, where states receive receipts in the first nine miles of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico) are shared with states, with $0 mandated for local governments. Under the SEA Act, states would receive 50 percent of the federal bonus bids and royalty receipts from leases from three to 12 miles from the coast. The states currently have control over the first three miles from the coast. Revenue sharing from new leases within 12 miles of coastline Federal government 50% For leases past 12 miles, 50 percent of the total bonus bids and royalty receipts are still shared with the state and local governments. Counties at and near the coast will receive additional revenue sharing from these receipts, but at a slightly reduced rate than described above. SEA Act - Q and A Page 5 of 7 8/1/2008 -11:47:21 AM Distribution of bonus bids on new leases beyond 12 miles from the coast Freedom Fuels fund 2.50% Higher education investment 2.50% Wildlife habitat management 2.50% Low-income heating assistance program 5% All 50 states, District of Columbia, territories 5% r States within 300 miles of leased tract 7.50% Adjacent state and local governments 25% Federal government 50% Distribution of royalties from new leases beyond 12 miles from the coast Freedom Fuels fund 2.50% Higher education investment 2.50% Wildlife habitat management 2.50%~ Low-income heating assistance program 5% All 50 states, District of Columbia, territories 5%~ States within 300 miles of leased tract 17.50% Adjacent state and local governments 15% Federal government 50% SEA Act - Q and A Page 6 of 7 8/1/2008 - 11:47:21 AM Q: How is the revenue shared with states that already allow exploration and energy development in the OCS? A: States that already allow energy development in the OCS will immediately receive 25 percent of the receipts from leases within 12 miles of the coastline, with a two-percent ramp-up per year until the sharing rate is 50 percent. Q: How will states without a coastline benefit from the SEA Act? A: Besides the $4.6 billion for county payments and PILT, the $3 billion in renewable energy production grants, the over $3 billion for low-mileage vehicle conversion to hybrid or natural gas, the $1 billion for LIHEAP home heating program, and hundreds of millions for education, any state with federal land, regardless of whether they have a coastline, will be eligible to receive a portion of one-third of the receipts directed toward the Federal Energy Natural Resources Enhancement Fund for fish and wildlife habitat enhancement programs. The allocation of this funding is at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture. Q: This bill will be difficult to pass with the current majority in Congress, won't it? A: If given a real chance the SEA Act can become law. The House majority leadership has time and again shut down votes on the House floor and in committees to avoid taking a vote on domestic energy production in the Outer Continental Shelf. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll indicated that 67 percent of Americans support increased domestic energy production offshore. If the House majority leadership would allow a vote, this legislation would pass overwhelmingly with strong bipartisan support. The more important question is, why is comprehensive energy legislation that lessens our dependence on foreign oil and produces the revenues to pay for the county payments and PILT programs, invest billions in renewable energy production and conservation initiatives a non-starter for the majority leadership? At the end of September, the current ban on offshore domestic energy production expires. If the current House majority will respond to the strong will of the American public, which they should, the SEA Act will be ready to address our most important issues in America. Q: Is this worth doing since new energy production would take a while to deliver to the American public, and some argue wouldn't bring an immediate benefit? A: Like any major project, the oil would not come on line for several years because of the lengthy exploratory and federal permitting process and infrastructure development required, but the immediate signal to the world market would be clear: America is done talking about energy independence and finally doing something about it. This is also a tired argument, one that is used year after year by opponents of domestic exploration. The same argument was used in 1996 when President Clinton vetoed legislation to allow production in ANWR and opponents of exploration said "it's not going to help now as it takes 10 years to develop." Today, twelve years after his veto, we would have oil from the 10 billion barrel reserve flowing and helping keep the price at the pump down. SEA Act - Q and A 8/1/2008 - 11:47:21 AM Page 7 of 7 While America must keep working toward increased energy independence, the truth is that fossil fuels will remain a major part of America's and the world's energy needs. The International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook estimates that the world's primary energy needs will grow by 55 percent by 2030, with fossil fuels remaining a significant source of global energy supply. In 2030, does America want to be in the same place we are now? We need to do this all, do it now, and do it for America. Q: Shouldn't you be forcing the oil companies to actually produce on the 68 million acres that are considered non-producing leases by the federal government? A: One can't have it both ways. One can't say "opening up these new areas won't bring energy on line for years" and then ask why oil companies "are sitting on leases and not producing on them." Leases can earn the "non-producing" label for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, the exploration process to determine exactly where oil and natural gas is located is a lengthy process. It can also take years to obtain the many environmental permits necessary to adhere to the law. Moreover, leases often get tied up in court over environmental issues. In all of these scenarios, leases are considered "non-producing." (http://ap.jzoogle.com/article/ALegM5iHcuoEcitO kR272HwGKm6sL1K6gD921NR480) Also, holders of these non-producing leases are required by the terms of the contract to develop the lease within the terms of the lease. If the lease holder doesn't develop on that land or renew the lease, they are required to return the lease to the federal government where it will then be re-leased. Changing those existing contracts legislatively could abrogate them. As the Investor's Business Daily put it in a July 3, 2008 editorial: "Oil companies have spent billions of dollars for those leases. Drilling has increased by more than 66 percent since 2000. They are searching for oil even as you read this. Some parts of those 68 million acres will have oil, some won't. But at $145 a barrel, you can bet oil companies have plenty of incentive to find it. "That said, 68 million acres is in fact a minuscule amount. Some 658 million acres remains off-limits to exploration. Another 1.7 billion acres of federal offshore properties likewise remains off-limits. These lands contain tens of billions of barrels of recoverable oil. It's there for the taking, now."