Loading...
2010-2878-Minutes for Meeting September 15,2010 Recorded 9/28/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11111111 RECORDS CJ 2010'2878 CLERK 091281201010;23;27 AM Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page i Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for portions of the meeting, Mark Pilliod, County Counsel; Capt. Marc Mills and Don Webber, Sheriff's Office; Anna Johnson, Communications; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Teresa Rozic, Property & Facilities; and approximately 30 other citizens, including media representatives from The Bulletin and Channel 21 TV. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Meeting with Edgecliff Neighbors re: Residential Treatment Center. Dylan Schneider & Les Stiles spoke for the Edgecliff subdivision neighbors. Reference was made to the questions placed to the County, Telecare and the State. Mr. Schneider read a statement to the group (a copy of which is attached for reference). Scott Johnson said that the contract period is until the end of the State biennium, when funding would have to be renewed. Telecare has contracted with the State of Oregon through Deschutes County. Mr. Stiles said that he believes oversight is through the County and not simply a pass-through arrangement. Commissioner Luke asked how Deschutes County obtained this program. Mr. Johnson replied that the State found that Deschutes County was underserved in this regard. Lori Hill said that Telecare was selected based on certain criteria. Mr. Johnson said that the State contracts with Deschutes County but authorizes and funds the programs. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Pages Ms. Hill said that the State can directly contract, but the County wanted more oversight in the management of the services provided to clients. Commissioner Baney stated that it was important to the County to have more input. Mr. Stiles asked about performance criteria and who provides oversight, and whether the State or the County is responsible. Ms. Hill said that she believes Deschutes County has oversight at some level, with the permission of the State. Commissioner Luke said that mental health services are a State function that some counties administer. There are many contracts through which funding is funneled. The State wants local government to do this and to provide oversight since they do not have that ability. Some beds in the secure facility were lost to the State along with the guarantee that those would be for local clients. Mark Pilliod stated that the State licenses the provider and does some oversight, and the County oversees most of the actual services provided. The State of Oregon writes the provisions of the contract, which the County is not able to change. Commissioner Luke asked if the County decided to not continue the agreement, whether the State could continue it. He was told that they could. Mr. Schneider said that everyone knows the services are needed, but whoever is responsible should site these facilities in a better way. Mr. Stiles asks who is responsible for what happens, and how. No one is questioning the care, licensing and services. The issue is, how did this happen. People are asking why, and he said it is because they can. The best interest of the clients have to be considered. Parking has been impacted. Someone should have met with the residents long ago. However, there is no neighborhood that will embrace the program with open arms. However, they should have been consulted as some of the input might have made a difference. Commissioner Luke stated that even if the County had not been involved, the location would have been used anyway. A lot could have been handled in a better way, however. Commissioner Baney said that the Board did not know the location until after the property was identified due to real estate negotiations. She said that a lot more could have been done ahead of time. She added that an opportunity was missed and is regretful. Addressing the situation in advance helps to stop the fear and rumors before they snowball. The County has done this in the past when siting the Work Center and other County facilities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Pages Commissioner Luke said SB 197 does not just deal with mental health issues, but juveniles and seniors and others. Mr. Stiles said that more work on siting should have been done, in the best interest of the clients. Commissioner Luke noted that additional siting criteria could be added to the law, but that is up to the State legislators. Commissioner Baney referred to the questions about the programs. There might not be clear answers to all of the questions, as the law might need to be interpreted in some cases. Commissioner Luke said that this was an ongoing process that has taken years. The facility that is near the Sheriff's Office has different clientele. The County was supposed to get a certain number of beds for local clients, but the State decided all beds needed to be available for State use. That caused other ways of serving those clients to be considered. The State is providing funding because the State took away beds that were to be available to the County for local clients. The facilities have to be within the City of Bend with urban transportation and other amenities. Commissioner Luke stated that they followed the law. They did what they were required to do. The requirements can only be changed through the law. It is hard to hear that, but they operate all over the State. He has been in the system and if there is a problem with the law, you adjust the law and not try to go around it. Deschutes County chose to be a partner but the State could have contracted direct. Mr. Stiles said the real question is whether there is a law that would require Telecare to not have a social conscience. Ms. Hill stated that the siting guidelines as established by the State of Oregon were distributed at a community meeting. The County is not allowed to vary from this. Mr. Johnson said that there are three licensed facilities, but there are over 200 special needs housing locations in the County, including transitional housing, Emma's place, residences for developmentally disabled, seniors and others. Commissioner Baney said that in the future, if Deschutes County is involved, there are things that can be done to create clarity and to obtain more input. Commissioner Luke stated that he feels certain that more communication will be a part of this process in the future. Real estate negotiations add difficulty, as the locations are not identified until the properties are secured. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Pages Commissioner Baney said that economic impacts are not considered, as data has not shown that there is a negative impact. Ms. Hill added that this information was provided to the local residents. However, the information is old and the State would have to be requested to do this kind of study. The notification process is not clear, like it is in land use issues. Ms. Hill added that the RFP process was very large, encompassing the State, with many of the projects to be within Deschutes County. The RFP is published and made available to a variety of providers. Mr. Stiles asked about getting a copy of the RFP and results to show how Telecare was chosen. In regard why the homes are on the east side of Bend, Commissioner Baney stated that it is probably a matter of finding a five-bedroom home at the best price. Mr. Johnson stated that there are two in southwest Bend and one in northwest Bend. Mr. Stiles asked if County staff was consulted regarding the two sites in northeast Bend. Mr. Johnson replied that an effort was made to look at the entire County, but the greatest need is in Bend. The properties were desirable in regard to mental health services being nearby as well. Mr. Schneider said that is might be wise to include things that are not there now. Commissioner Luke said that there are laws to protect certain citizens and what they need. Mr. Johnson gave an overview of the clients to be served and from where they are referred. Ms. Hill said the County beds have to do with avoiding having to do a civil commitment. The County has the ability to place local individuals in this way. They do better when living closer to family and friends. Mr. Stiles brought up the fact that the State is having funding issues in a big way, and this is impacting all programs across the board. The County requires more oversight at the local level but does not provide adequate funding. Mr. gave an overview of how someone is placed. A provider cannot be forced to take in clients, for which the entire mental health history is provided to the provider along with a psychiatrist's evaluation. They will not trade revenue for safety. Ms. Hill added that they have supervised anywhere from eight to fifteen clients in PSRB. The County has to report back to the PSRB. The first assessment involves more than just filling in the blanks. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Page 4 of 7 Pages The County's situation is different in that it is taking a more active role. Usually the State would have discussions with just the provider. In regard to the draft siting matrix score, the property scored over 40 and the minimum required would be 25. Mr. McChesney said that services to the clients are tailored to their needs. This includes no parking of their individual vehicles on premises. Individuals living in the facility are required to be medication compliant. There are different levels of care and locations depending on the client's needs. Mr. Stiles asked who is to be contacted if there are problems and the provider is non-responsive. Commissioner Luke said that the County has limited control over Telecare, but Scott Johnson and a Commissioner can be contacted to pursue a response. If the County does not renew the contract, the State can choose to do so but the County would then have less oversight. Mr. Stiles asked if the level of deliveries will subside. Kevin McChesney said they are in the process of preparing the homes for occupancy and equipment is being delivered. They have to get a certificate of occupancy from the City in a week or two, so the actual work being done there should be completed soon. Commissioner Luke stated that he understands that it has not been easy for anyone. Darcy Strahan of the State office asked that comments regarding the draft document be sent to her at darcy-strahan@state.or.us. Pam Marble of NAMI said that she has been to three meetings on this property, and feels that the neighborhood had been shown extreme respect and consideration. She wants her loved one, who has a mental disability, to be able to live in a safe place. Too many people with brain disorders are not shown the consideration they deserve and often are treated as human litter in society and end up having to live in substandard housing. Commissioner Baney said that the process could have been smoother, and there can be better ways to reach out to the community. 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Central Oregon Regional Health Authority and Chemical Dependency Organization Documents. UNGER: Move approval. LUKE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Pages VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 3. Review of Emergency Operations Plan. Capt. Marc Mills and Don Webber gave a brief overview of the Plan. It is mostly the same information as the previous plan, but there have been changes in format. Nationwide standardization is being encouraged. The Oregon Office of Emergency Management had some funding to allow for this work to be done. The County has monitored this process and with the help of County Counsel, developed the final document. Commissioner Unger asked how the different agencies will work together. Mr. Webber said that the local plans are fairly consistent. The Plan is the overriding document and an agency typically will develop certain criteria for themselves within the major Plan. The Plan acts as an umbrella document since all emergencies are local in nature. Some of the small agencies are still working on their individual plans, such as Black Butte Ranch and Sunriver; and La Pine still needs to develop theirs. Technology has allowed for the equipment used by the various entities to `talk' to each other. UNGER: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. Commissioner Unger is taking a tour of the Bend watershed on Friday. 5. Other Items. The Board went into Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Estate Negotiations, at 3:55 p.m. After the session, the following action was taken. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Page 6 of 7 Pages UNGER: Move to require minimum bid on the subject property. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Ms. Rozic said that Four Winds Foundation has asked for an extension of their property loan. They are paying interest only and would like to continue that. The interest rate is 8.4%. She suggested that an adjustment of the interest rate be considered, as requested by the party. The Board asked Ms. Rozic to work with the County Administrator in this regard. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. DATED this Day of 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. D nnis R. Luke, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tammy Baney, Con6rhissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 15, 2010 Page 7 of 7 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2010 1. Meeting with Edgecliff Neighbors re: Residential Treatment Center - Staff 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Central Oregon Regional Health Authority and Chemical Dependency Organization Documents - Scott Johnson 3. Review of Emergency Operations Plan - Don Webber; Capt. Marc Mills 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 5. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Estate Negotiations 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. vl~ t!~, 1~ ~e c O O N ~n N : N ~ O L Q- + co c~ 1,, N1 ``cJ tti U' l C o o a oo a e r J N L ~ y ~ c ~ ~ ~ -Z v co C O - J. y. M cc z o o a _o N N L l g o 0 s 0 V lJ~ ~ o~ N N L V V's V~ c 4 g Z l~ l N a N C J IQ -4 J o ro z V L a Deschutes County Commissioners September IP, 2010 Work Session Representatives of the Edgecliff and NE 12th St. neighborhoods RE: Mental Health Transitional Homes Commissioners Baney, Luke and Unger, On behalf of the residents of the 1P Street and Edgecliff neighborhoods, thank you for giving your attention to our concerns regarding the placement of the mental health treatment facilities. Our purpose today is to a) ensure that you understand our position and concern regarding the county's decision b) solicit your help as our elected representative to correct the situation on multiple levels, and c) ask you to help us clarify conflicting and confusing information regarding the decision making process. We'd like to give you a brief history of what has transpired. In early August some of us received a generically addressed letter, to "Neighbor", from a California company. it was a form letter inviting us to an open house to meet the "new neighbors It is still unclear as to how Telecare determined who received this letter. Many of us tossed it as it appeared to be junk mail. Fortunately, a few alert neighbors read the letter and spread the word that that 2 transitional homes for 5 mentally ill residents were about to open in our neighborhood. As more questions were asked, of a variety of agencies, two things became obvious. First, not only were we not involved in any sort of conversation before hand, but there was little concern on the part of the decision makers who we felt should have been involved. Second, when various parties from all levels of government and Telecare were asked logical and routine questions such as how the siting decision was made, what type of people would be living in the home, and what are the safety hazards, the answers were confusing, conflicting and quite frankly contributed to already building mistrust. On Tuesday, August 24h our neighborhoods met with parties at the state, county and local level involved In the placement of the mental heath treatment facilities in our neighborhoods. The impression conveyed by your County Administrator Dave Kannerand Mental Health Director Scott Johnson as well as Telecare and the state mental health representatives was condescending, and we left the meeting having been informed that nothing would change. They consistently fell back on the argument that since they had obeyed the law, they didn't need to even consider our request that these facilities be re-sited. In our exploration of how the homes came to be sited in such inappropriate locations, we continue to find no substantive answers. There continues to be no consideration of our sincere concern for the residents who will NOT be living close to the services they will need for transitioning into the community or obtaining the medical and mental health services they will obviously require. We come to you because you signed the contract with Telecare, and are ultimately responsible for that contract. The following are several of our concerns 1. Telecare chose properties in what appears to be a grossly irresponsible, but legal, manner. They chose locations, by their own admission, without any consideration given to suitability of the surrounding neighborhoods and certainly without talking with the neighborhoods about whether or not these were the best locations for the fragile residents. One Telecare staff stated that the homes were purchased because they were a great price and add to Telecare's long-term portfolio. 2. We were told by county staff (which quoted 20 year old data) and Telecare staff that there would be no impact on home values in our neighborhoods as a result of these facilities. We find this assertion to be absurd, and this has been confirmed by every realtor we've spoken to. One family attempted to list its home after the homes were purchased and the realtor stated "don't even bother at least for the next two years" Additionally, we question why all such homes are on the east side of Bend. 3. We still have not received concrete or definitive answers to our questions about who will be placed in the homes. County staff has never been able to clarify the level of mental illness, supervision required, criminality, substance abuse and potential safety threats. In fact, some attempted answers contradict the language in the contract you signed with Telecare. 4. Our neighborhoods have been accused of everything from creating bias in our children to being hateful toward the mentally ill. This is not the case and many of us have family members who suffer with mental illness. Had someone consulted with us, we could have advised that these are not the best locations for the residents to achieve success. The Edgecliff home is located on a very small cul de sac, tucked into the trees, at least a mile from any public transportation, and equally far from a medical facility, grocery shopping or jobs. Getting to the Mental Health Department is also difficult. The Social Security and Employment offices are on the other side of town. We feel it is unfair to already challenged people to place them in such a situation and expect them to succeed, even with staff support. There are much better locations FOR THE RESIDENTS. S. We understand, because your staff, Telecare and the state mental health representatives have made it abundantly clear, that they are within federal and state law to place the homes wherever they choose because of ORS 197. Our neighborhoods are offended at their arrogance and lack of common sense in using the law as a rational for such an inept decision. We recognize that the laws permit this use in our neighborhood. That does not make it right. Our point is simple, and based on facts: 1. There were and are many choices when siting this type of facility. 2. This type of facility has an undisputable impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 3. Some neighborhoods are more "sensitive" than others to these impacts. 4. The degree of sensitivity can be quantified. 5. These facilities should be sited in the least sensitive neighborhoods. 6. The needs of the residents to be placed in the homes must be considered. This has nothing to do with the Fair Housing Act, or discrimination against people with mental illness. These principals apply when ANY incongruous use is being inserted in an established area, whether it is a power substation or a liquor store or DMV. Notification after the property has been purchased is simply not satisfactory. We have the following requests of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners: 1. Hold your staff accountable for the inappropriate and unprofessional manner in which our neighborhoods were and have been treated, especially in light of the fact that at least two of the BOCC members specifically told them to involve us early on. 2. Work with us to change the state law to include more appropriate placement criteria and a provision for public hearings and impact disclosure. 3. Direct the county administrator to draft policy, for your approval, that will do the same. 4. Within the next 12 months re-site the homes, using an objective set of criteria that take into consideration both the needs of the future residents AND the nature of the surrounding neighborhood. We understand you cannot directly re-site the facilities because the county does not own them. You will have the choice to sign an extension of the contract with Telecare after this first year. You could also choose to contract with a more responsible company to provide these needed services. Thank you again for your thoughtful consideration of our concerns and requests. You have an opportunity to set a great precedent for public-private partnerships and to model a leadership example for the entire county. You have the opportunity to insist on a process that builds respect instead of resentment and to assure that no other neighborhood or county tax-payer ever have to face a similar situation. In the meantime we look forward to hearing your answers to the questions we submitted to Commissioner Baney last week. Responses to recent questions about residential programs in Bend Pursuant to the questions asked by several neighbors of the new residential programs, the County Commissioners asked staff to prepare the ansYJerS rJhich fviiorY'. The r espouses rvere prepared by County, Telecare and State DHS AMHD staff. September 15, 2010 1. When was the decision made and by whom, to place the transitional homes on 12th street and Edgecliff and when was the BOCC informed of that decision? The decision on the location was made by Telecare, pursuant to state approval and in consultation with County behavioral health staff. The Board of Commissioners was informed of the exact locations in August. 2. What were the key factors that led the BOCC to believe these were good locations for transitional homes? It's not the Board's decision as to whether the homes are "good" locations. The state has siting guidelines that Telecare followed. These homes are located in these neighborhoods to allow residents to integrate back into the community in the least restrictive way possible. This brings a sense of normalcy to the residents and certainly makes these homes good locations. 3. Did the Board of County Commissioners have placement criteria that you applied to assuring the siting of the homes was appropriate for all concerned? No, siting guidelines are established by the State of Oregon. It is not legal for an individual County to adopt specific siting criteria for special needs housing or for limiting where people may live. The State Addictions & Mental Health Division is in the process of developing a more complete siting checklist. 4. Are there other mental health transitional homes using the 5 bed criteria being planned in Deschutes County and if so, where and when? AMH does not have any residential treatment homes or foster homes in the pipeline at this time. It is certainly our hope that there will be additional residential programs in Deschutes County in the future. 5. What were the factors and criteria that led your staff to recommend Telecare as the contracted provider? Are these prescribed criteria based on County policy and practice? Following a competitive procurement process, Telecare was selected by the State to be the operator of several residential programs in Deschutes County. Rather than conduct its own competitive process, the County piggybacked on the state process (as allowed by law) to select Telecare as the operator of the residential treatment programs. Page 1 6. If there was an RFP, how many businesses submitted proposals? Four providers applied for projects specifically in Deschutes County. 7. Why was the decision made to avoid involving the neighborhoods early in the process and who is accountable for that decision? Neighbors were notified after the properties were purchased in a manner similar to the opening of other programs in Oregon. 8. Was any consideration given to the economic impact on the neighborhoods by placement of the transitional facilities and if so using what data? There was no consideration given to this. There has not been reliable data produced that demonstrates an economic impact. 9. Why are the homes placed only on the east side of Bend? These were the best properties available at the time Telecare was in the market. The new 16- bed secure residential treatment facility is in northwest Bend and will open in November. Supported housing projects will also open in Redmond this year. 10. Is the entire process of selecting the sites; not working with the neighborhoods, letting the contract and all else involved with the mental health transitional homes in our neighborhoods, consistent with County policies and practices? The County adheres to state law and state guidelines. 11. What actions will the BOCC take to assure that no such situations ever again happen to its taxpayers and what policies are you planning to put in place to assure a thoughtful process that includes all parties affected are involved in a meaningful way? The County cannot legally adopt siting criteria, policies or processes that would have the effect of limiting where certain citizens are allowed to live. There are no plans to adopt such criteria or policies. Page 2 Our neighborhood representatives have received discrepant answers to questions about the mental health diagnoses of residents to be placed in the homes which has fostered a deep sense of mistrust. While we are cognizant of the confidentiality laws, we need definitive and clearly stated are,)W%crs mom you so that we know the truth about the level of illness, substance abuse a*:d criminality coming into our neighborhoods. 1. What is the diagnostic range of the residents being placed in the homes? What is the level of substance abuse and criminal background of the individuals who will be placed in the homes? Residents will have a variety of backgrounds. All will include diagnosis of a mental illness as the primary issue. Diagnosis will typically include such things as schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder or severe depressions. Just as for individuals in the general public, there may be residents who also have a history of substance abuse or criminal backgrounds that get placed in residential settings. 2. Will these be individuals under PSRB jurisdiction? At this time, there will be no PSRB clients admitted to this facility. The State is currently reexamining the residential system and how it can work most effectively. As the residential system changes state-wide in the future, the make-up of all licensed programs may need to change. 3. How can we be assured that our neighborhoods will be safe and who is accountable for that assurance? There is no local evidence that these residential treatment homes make neighborhoods unsafe. You are welcome to contact Jim Porter at Bend Police Department for further information on any police contacts with current homes. Each neighborhood can play a part in keeping all its residents safe by watching out for each other. 4. Who is responsible for screening the residents of the homes and making the placement decision? The screening and decision process includes both Telecare and Deschutes County Behavioral Health staff. 5. What assurances are in place through the BOCC that there will be no more than 5 residents in the home at one time and that Telecare and your staff are in compliance with those assurances? The homes are licensed through the state for a maximum of 5 residents each. Exceeding that limit would be a violation of license and contract. Page 3 Finally but certainly not the least of our concerns, is the wisdom of placing people destined for mainstreaming into neighborhoods that, by their geographic locations alone, isolate the residents from the community and the services they need to succeed. 1. Are there criteria either by Deschutes County Mental Health and/or Telecare for the distances their clients should be from services? No. 2. Are there requirements and/or processes for determining if residential locations will meet the needs of clients? If so, did Mental Health, Telecare and the County adhere to those requirements? The state offers general guidelines. Telecare used those guidelines and the state has approved these locations. 3. What plan does Mental Health and Telecare have in place to assure that each resident has access to public transportation, employment opportunities, medical and counseling services, community skill building experiences and other supports? Who is responsible for carrying out that plan? Who is responsible for oversight? Telecare and Deschutes County Behavioral Health staff will provide services tailored to each resident according to their need. 4. What plan is in place to change the location of the transitional homes as it becomes evident their locations are not in the best interest of the residents goals to be mainstreamed? There is no plan to change the location of these residential treatment homes. We expect them to be successful. Page 4 Department of Human Services Addictions and Mental Health Division (AMH) 500 Summer St. NE E86, Salem, OR 97301-1118 Phone 503-945-5736 Fax 503-378-8467 AMH Residential Siting Matrix Score • Number ofathrooms: • Parking: • Structural design: • Grounds: • Asking price for site $ • Renovation Cost $ • Total price $ n/a n/a Score: Page 2 AMH Residential Siting Matrix Score Community integration Score 1-3 • Public Transportation If None, alternative transportation: • Mental health programs: • Crisis services: • Treatment programs: • Shopping: • Employment: • Education: • Medical care availability and access=. • Dental care availability and access: • Vision treatment availab d access: Total re: M Scorer's signature: Date: / / Created: 09/13/10 Updated 9/15/10 I I:\AMH-SHARED\Units\RPS\Mike Miting Manual\Siting Criteria\Siting matrix - score sheet 100915 final.doc Instructions for AMH Residential Matrix Score Please use these instructions to determine how to score each question on the sheet. A form must be completed for each property being considered for the placement of a residential program. The final scores will assist the Addictions and Mental Health Division (AMH) to determine the site that best meets the needs of the clients we serve. Scoring is on a three (3) point scale, with one (1) being fia being the highest. Two scoring sections have an addi score of fail means that the site is not suitable for development due to licensing requirements. Facility criteria: Resident capacity: Enter the number of reside: residential program. No score measurement is est and three (3) ing option of fail. A dal program e served i4l 9 planned resident capacity. accessible room can one ADA accessible room room and at least one (1) ADA ffffWbr that can made ADA accessible. AMH licensing requirements. Score 3: re than 7bade (2) residents share a full bathroom and there is at least one bathroo can ADA accessible on the main floor. Score 2: No mo (4) residents share a full bathroom and there is at least one bathroom that ade ADA accessible on the main floor. Score 1: Meets licensing minimum requirement with only one bathroom on site and the bathroom can be made ADA accessible on the main floor. Fail: There is no bathroom that can be made ADA accessible on the main floor. Accordingly, the site would not meet AMH licensing requirements. Parking: Enter highest number of vehicles anticipated at the residential program at one time. Include staff, visitor, and provider vehicles. 1 Score 3: Parking spaces are available for the highest number of vehicles. Score 2: There are not enough parking spaces available to accommodate all vehicles at all times. No more than two (2) vehicles need to park on the street at any one time. There is enough street parking capacity to allow for 2-4 vehicles to park during peak times. Score 1: There are not enough parking spaces available to accommodate all vehicles at all times. Two (2) or more vehicles will need to park on the street at any one time. There is not enough street parking capacity to allow' for 2-4 vehicles to park during peak times. Structural Design: Enter number of floors, includir Score 3: One story with an open floor plan and accessible. Score 2: Two or more stories with an open r plan common areas on main floor are ADA ac ess Th areas on the second floor that are not ADA acce Score 1: Main level does not have open floor pl ADA accessible. Grounds: This score is based on the type, si and side yards of the p yj Sr Score 3: There is a back yard pr resid( covered porch or, for a - ered outdo4r area. ADA the main are additi not all common spaces are ility of the front, back, recreational use. There is a Score 2: There is a r blik ard, for r Went recreational use. There is a AMH lie g standar Total Price: E the g price of the property; the estimated renovation costs; and the combine total price) on the Siting Matrix Score sheet. Consult a realtor, as needed, obtain the fair market value of the property being considered. Score 3: Total price is five (5) percent or more below market value. Score 2: Total price is no more than five (5) percent above market value. Score 1: Total price is more than five (5) percent above market value. Community integration: Public transportation: This score is based on the distance between the residential program and access to public transportation. 2 Score 3: Public transportation is less than 0.1 mile away. Score 2: Public transportation is less than 0.5 mile away. Score 1: Public transportation is more than 0.5 mile away, or there is no public transportation. Mental health Programs: Scores are based on accessibility of available services. Score 3: Residents are able to access community mental health services by walking or public transportation, and travel time will be less than in nutes. Score 2: Residents are able to access community mental th s ices by walking or public transportation, and travel time will be more t minutes. Score 1: Residents are not able to access communi enta lth services by walking or public transportation. Crisis services: Scores are based on access AM 'ty of a ail able service: . i Treatment programs. a based do accessibility of available services. Score 3: Reside able t cess treatment. services by walking or public transportation, and tr tim '11 be less t 30 minutes. Score 2: Re s are N ent services by walking or public transpo vel d, ;will be mire than 30 minutes. Score 'Residents riot ab e Q access treatment services by walking or public Score 3: Residents are able to access an mute ` ' ho 1 or 24/7 metal health crisis services within 20 minutes. ~ ` Score 2: Residents are able to access an acute care ital or 24/7 mental health services within 45 minutes. = Score 1: Residents are not able to ac~e~~ cute care h' al or 24/7 mental health services within 45 minutes. Shopping: is based;"' n the accessibility of stores. Score 3: Store urc Xsing clothing, household items and groceries can be accessed by wal w ° public transportation, and travel time will be less than 30 minutes. Score 2: Stores for purchasing clothing, household items and groceries can be accessed by walking or public transportation, and travel time will be more than 30 minutes. Score 1: Stores for purchasing clothing, household items and groceries are not accessible by walking or public transportation. Employment: Score is based on the accessibility of employment opportunities. 3 Score 3: Residents are able to access employment opportunities by walking or public transportation, and travel time will be less than 30 minutes. Score 2: Residents are able to access employment opportunities by walking or public transportation, and travel time will be more than 30 minutes. Score 1: Residents are not able to access employment opportunities by walking or public transportation. Education: Score is based on the accessibility of educational a ortunities (universities, colleges, trade schools, etc). Score 3: Residents are able to access educational oppo s by walking or public transportation, and travel time will be less th 0 s. Score 2: Residents are able to access educationa itie walking or public transportation, and travel time will be a than 30 m'nu' Score 1: Residents are not able to access a tional Tpoltunities =Ming or public transportation. Medical, dental, and vision servkes accessibility three of these scores are Score 1: Reside not ab %o access A vices by walking or public transportation. 1W AL, I Total S rcr f thN for cate en Please p i. e any app11 Date created: 09/13/10 Upda 9/15/10 fer for the total. If a score of fail was given to the score. sign, and date the score sheet. 4 I:\AMH-SHARED\Units\RPS\Mike H\Siting Manual\Siting Criteria\Siting matrix instructions-100913 v6.doc 5