Loading...
2010-2879-Minutes for Meeting September 08,2010 Recorded 9/28/2010DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 200.2819 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0912812010 10:23:38 AM 1111111 1II 11 II Z-itI111111 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate 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.ory, MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2010 Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tammy Baney and Alan Unger. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Judith Ure, Administration; Mark Pilliod and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Will Groves, Community Development; Anna Johnson, Communications; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin, and six other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. 1. Application for Economic Development Funds. Roger Lee presented information on Rocky Mountain Products, which has requested funding. (A copy of the document is attached for reference) Commissioner Luke noted that this company borrowed money from the County some time ago, and the County ended up forgiving much of it about five years ago. He asked if they are meeting their obligations and whether they are now more financially stable. He was advised that they appear to be in sound financial shape at this time. They have hired professional management to help them operate and expand. There is always risk no matter what, depending upon the market and management practices. This is the first request of its type. Dave Kanner said the fund for economic development contains about $303,000 total. Mr. Lee stated that the company requested $100,000, but EDCO's recommendation is for $569000, and the rest should be raised with matching funds. Commissioner Luke stated that he does not feel he can be objective, and will abstain from voting on this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 8, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Pages Commissioner Unger said that it is important to `grow what you have' already in the area. However, the other funding should be arranged before the County participates. Commissioner Baney asked if they could provide a certain number of jobs if all they got was the funding from the County. Commissioner Unger said that he prefers that they handle it this way, following the plan and obtaining funding from other sources. He wants to see local businesses succeed. Mr. Kanner stated that he feels the EDCO recommendation is prudent. Mr. Lee will report back to Mr. Kanner in about a month. BANEY: Move approval of the recommendation. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Abstain. 2. Discussion of CDGB Rule Changes. Judith Ure explained that the method of distribution for CDGB grants has changed; also, the funding limits have increased. Ms. Ure said the money is pass-through and if adequate instruction has been given, it will stay that way. Even if the proposal is for a regional project, the County can only request funding on a proportional basis, even if other governmental entities are involved. Many of these grants are based on population and the situation could be much different in the bigger cities. The Board thanked Ms. Ure for the update and indicated that she should proceed as required. 3. Outline of Presentation - County College. Dave Kanner said that there is an outline, but not a script. Most discussions will be free-flowing. Commissioner Luke will likely talk about the history of the County and how the various counties were formed and operate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 8, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Pages Commissioner Baney will do the welcome portion and give an overview of County College. Commissioner Unger agreed to talk about organizational structure and shared services. Mr. Kanner suggested that the Board talk about role of the Commissioners in a more casual fashion, beyond what might be listed as their primary focus. Commissioner Baney will start with an overview of the Commissioners' roles and responsibilities. The Board asked that Mr. Kanner handle the ethics overview portion. An explanation will be given as to what Ordinances, Resolutions and Orders are. The Board can have the attendees form focus groups at some point to discuss specifiC. issues, so that they can get a better idea of the work being done by the County. 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 5. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding File #MP-10-3 and MA-10-4 - a Land Partition. Will Groves gave a brief explanation of the item, which involves a minor partition into three parcels of a parcel over 1,300 acres. The Hearings Officer approved the application with conditions, but the decision was appealed to the Board by Central Oregon Landwatch. If the Board decided to allow a hearing, it would have to be held no later than September 23, 2010. The appeal addresses access, which includes flag lots and road frontage. There would be other access to the parcels, but this configuration would allow compliance with the law. Central Oregon Landwatch feels that the proposed access is not adequate. The County wants access to be reasonable and the law states simply that there needs to be frontage on the main road. Central Oregon Landwatch is asking, considering the topography and distance, whether the flag lot roads would be adequate. Commissioner Luke asked if the roads could accommodate a log truck. At this time, the group reviewed an oversized map of the tentative partition, which is part of the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 8, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Pages The public road would be off the area of Johnson Road, Bull Springs Road and the Sisters Mainline Road. Other properties in that area have been approved with a similar road configuration. The intended access would be via a Forest Service Road, whose status is not clear. The Forest Service just has an easement for the road. Ms. Craghead said that the Thomas property, which is similarly configured, was litigated at LUBA and eventually approved. Commissioner Luke stated that the owner just wants to create three lots, and has not specifically indicated this would be for residential use. It could be for management of the timberland. She does not see many differences between this decision and the Thomas decision. The Hearings Officer is basing a great deal of her decision on previous decisions of the Board and LUBA. Mr. Groves said the second concern of Central Oregon Landwatch is suitability, especially in regard to fires. Experts were brought in who stated that the roads might be natural fire breaks, but in the winter, access might be more difficult. The property is within the Fire District. Commissioner Luke feels that the Hearings Officer made a sound decision. Commissioner Unger agreed that there is no compelling reason to hear an appeal. Commissioner Baney also agreed. LUKE: Move that the Board not hear this appeal, and sign Order No. 2010- 052 accordingly. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Abstain. 6. Other Items. Commissioner Baney presented an amendment to the ABHA agreement wit the Department of Human Services that has a deadline. It has been reviewed by Counsel. Since the changes are required by the State, there is not much the County can do about it. Mark Pilliod stated that some work is being expanded. The amendments are fairly simple and Commissioner Baney, as the delegate for the County on ABHA, is already authorized to approve it. No Board action is required. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 8, 2010 Page 4 of 5 Pages 40(( Commissioner Unger asked for an update on the ten-year plan to end homelessness. Commissioner Baney stated that there are two committees that are still doing fact-finding on the needs of the various communities and what is already in place. The findings will go to the working committee chaired by Bruce Abernethy. A letter appointing Erik Kropp as an alternate on the Dog Control Board of Supervisors was presented. It was pointed out that a quorum is needed to hear a dog versus livestock case, and the hearing scheduled this week will be short one member. It is expensive for the County and the dog owners to delay this further. BANEY: Move signature. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. The Board went into Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation, at 2:50 p.m.. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. rl~ DATED this Day of / tzt 2010 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. D nnis R. Luke, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary a~~ - Alan Unger, Vice Chair (111~>~ Tammy B ney, Co issioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 8, 2010 Page 5 of 5 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 8, 2010 1. Application for Economic Development Funds - Roger Lee 2. Discussion of CDBG Rule Changes - Judith Ure 3. Outline of Presentation - County College - Dave Kanner, Anna Johnson 4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules 5. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding File #MP-10-3 and MA-10-4 - a Land Partition - Will Groves 6. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation - Laurie Craghead 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. ' C ~ _ .mill V; C Al L~ ~ ~ , v ~ 0 rr 4 J ~ h ~ i a c 3 ` a c a e:j a~ co C O CL wl 0 co Z ` Q q O ~ a TES UJ~ 2~ Department of Administrative Services A Dave Kanner, County Administrator U MrA%AA 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www. co. deschutes. or. us September 1, 2010 TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FROM: DAVE KANNER RE: APPLICATION FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS As part of the current year's budget, the Board created an economic development fund intended to provide grants and loans to business that either expand and create jobs or relocated to Deschutes County and bring jobs with them. The fund is administered by EDCO, although the final approval of any grants or loans remains with the Board of Commissioners. EDCO has received an application for $56,000 in economic development funds from Rocky Mountain Products of Redmond and is recommending approval pursuant to certain conditions. Roger Lee, EDCO executive director, will attend the September 8tn work session to review the application with you. Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner BRIEFING PAPER FOR ROCKY MOUNTAIN PRODUCTS Request for Deschutes County Forgivable Loan September 8, 2010 Company Request: $100,000 EDCO Recommendation: $56,000 Proposed Job Creation by end of Q2 2011: 56 new employees Average Pay for New Employees (all positions, excluding commissions): $30,543 Industry: Food Processing (NAILS 311421 and 311612) Website: www.rockyrnountainproduct.com Company Backgrounder: The Company is a private food manufacturing company now in its 18th year located at 1610 NE Hemlock Ave. in Redmond, Oregon. Products include a line of sauces, seasonings, dry marinades as well as the ready-to-eat flavored meats that are sold to large grocery buyers, restaurants, and warehouse and retail stores. Rocky Mountain Products has received hundreds of national awards for its products, pioneered new concepts, and has developed well recognized food preparation training programs that the Company believes are unmatched in the industry. Two years ago, the company constructed a new USDA certified, 50,000 SF building production facility with the capacity to do controlled production cooking, cyro vaccum sealing, flash freezing and packaging. Rocky Mountain Products' name and logo are well recognized as a premium supplier of gourmet finishing and barbecue sauces and recently, its Real Pit Barbecue protein products to top grocery retailers, including Kroger, Fred Meyer, Haggens, Raleys, Safeway, Albertson, Costco, Sam's Club and Wal-Mart. The protein business is now certified for sales to the general public by the USDA. The market for marinated real pit barbecue protein products appears to be large and growing. The Company continues to deal with many of the largest grocery chains, to include Krogers (Fred Meyer) and Wal-Mart as well as large regional grocery chains including California-based Raleys. There is also similar roll out activity to smaller sports bars and restaurants. Proceeds from the Deschutes County Economic Development Fund in the form of a forgivable loan would be for training for new hires and to bring them aboard. The company is also pursuing a commercial loan for $400,000 (via the Oregon Credit Enhancement Program) and a BOOST Program award of $150,000. EDCO Recommendation EDCO is recommending to Deschutes County an award of $1,000 per job for this request for a total forgivable loan of $56,000. The award would have several conditions including: • Securing other outside financing via the Boost Program, private loan, investor capital or some other source to the $550,000 level as specified in the Company's application. • Maintaining target employment levels for Q3 2011 for a period of at least 12 months, or through Q2 2012. • Providing quarterly employment updates and complete financial statements from award date through Q2 2012. Failure to meet the first provision would result in not being able to access the funding, while failure on the second two could result in partial or full repayment of the loan, possibly with interest. Date: September 3, 2010 To: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners From: Judith Ure, Management Analyst Subject: Proposed Comments Regarding 2011 Community Development Block Grant Method of Distribution The Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA), a division of the Oregon Business Development Department (OBDD), is currently seeking public comment regarding the proposed 2011 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Method of Distribution (MOD) document. A new MOD document is issued periodically to reflect changes in rules that govern the CDBG program and associated funding decisions. Comments are due to the IFA by September 8, 2010. The attached summary outlines some of the most significant changes to the CDBG program under consideration, many of which reflect a need to streamline program administration and reduce costs. In several cases, such as potential increases to various categorical grant limits, future applicants may benefit from the proposed changes. In other instances, including eliminating certain project types from eligibility, applicants may face greater challenges when seeking project funding. Staff have reviewed the proposed 2011 MOD document and suggests that Deschutes County offer the following comments for consideration by the IFA Board and OBDD Commission during the ongoing review process: 1. Support the increase in funding limits from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 in the Public Water and Wastewater project category and $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 in the Public/Community Facilities category. The increase in maximum grant amounts accurately reflects rising construction and project costs. 2. Oppose eliminating certain project types from eligibility under the Public/Community Facilities category, including mental health treatment facilities; transitional housing; shelters or workshops for persons with disabilities; health clinics; drug and alcohol treatment facilities; family resource centers; fire stations, community centers, and libraries. While the IFA states that such projects are eligible for alternate funding sources and/or were rarely funded by the CDBG program in the past, several facilities within Deschutes County and Central Oregon have qualified for funding under these project types, including the Alyce Hatch Center, Crisis Resolution Center, Juniper Canyon Fire Station, and Ochoco Community Clinic. Similar projects more recently suggested as potential applicants for CDBG funds, such as the Sunriver Fire Station, would no longer qualify under the proposed 2011 guidelines. This change would severely restrict the region's ability to construct facilities necessary to provide critical services to vulnerable populations. The two comments suggested above address only a few of the general concerns that may be shared by local governments and communities across the state. However, the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) has compiled a more detailed list of recommendations. As a result, staff recommends the following: 3. Endorse and support comments on proposed 2011 CDBG guidelines as described in a letter from the Association of Oregon Counties dated September 3, 2010 (see attached). In addition to these general comments which are directly related to changes specifically proposed for the 2011 MOD document by the IFA, staff suggests seeking clarification or revision of two other provisions which could potentially limit the County's ability to seek CDBG funds for qualifying projects. While these are not related to proposed new language of the MOD document, the current review process may provide the best opportunity to address these issues: 4. The MOD document states that "CDBG funds can be used for the acquisition of facilities needed to provide shelter or services to persons with special needs" and that CDBG funds may be used for "property acquisition (including appraisal costs), clearance and disposition by the city or county grant recipient." However, in recent discussions, IFA and OBDD staff have indicated that CDBG funds cannot be used to retire debt and/or to pay for property currently owned by a government agency that is acting as applicant for CDBG funds on behalf of a qualifying non-governmental recipient. In the example under consideration, Deschutes County could not apply for CDBG funds to enable the Bethlehem Inn to purchase the site that currently serves as a homeless shelter because the County holds title to the property. County staff can find no specific language in the MOD document that addresses this point and suggests that Deschutes County request further clarification concerning this interpretation with a goal toward recommending that any such provisions be revised to allow greater flexibility in property acquisition. 5. All recent MOD documents include the following statement under the "Non- Entitlement/Entitlement Boundaries" section of the "Eligible Applicants/Limits on Applications" chapter (2): "When an eligible non-entitlement city or county applicant applies for a project that will be located within the boundaries of a CDBG entitlement city or county whose residents are also residents of the non-entitlement applicant (for example, Lane County sponsoring a project to be physically located within the City of Eugene), eligible project costs are limited to the estimated pro rata share of the project activity beneficiaries who reside in the non-entitlement portion of the project's service area." As the City of Bend is an entitlement city, this provision would appear to either limit prospective grant awards for regional projects that may be located within city boundaries to considerably less than the maximum amount allowed or cause the applicant to raise matching funds equivalent to the amount of the CDBG grant requested. While this issue has not been directly raised by IFA or OBDD staff in regard to any project recently proposed by Deschutes County, further discussion might be needed to determine and possibly mitigate the effect it could have on regional facilities such as the Bethlehem Inn. As noted, comments concerning the CDBG program guidelines are due to the IFA no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 8, 2010. If the Board agrees with the comments outlined in this memorandum, staff will format them into a letter to be submitted in time to meet that deadline. August 9, 2010 To: City Councils, County Boards of Commissioners, Councils of Govemment, Economic Development Districts and Interested Organizations and Individuals From: Lynn Schoessler, Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) Director Subject: Proposed 2011 Community Development Block Grant Guidelines - Request for Comments A copy of the proposed 2011 "Method of Distribution' Community Development Block Grant Program Guidelines is available on the Departments web site at: http•//www odnfrastructure org/Leam-About-Infrastructure-Programs/lnterested-in-a- Community-Development-ProlectlCommunity-Development-Block-Grant! Please take time to review this message and the proposed Guidelines. If you are unable to download a copy of the guidelines the IFA staff will gladly forward a copy to you upon request. The State of Oregon expects to have approximately $15 million in federal funds for award to rural cities and counties in the year 2011. The money comes from the federal Community Development Block Grant Program administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. These grant funds must be awarded under a system with published rules and criteria, which are adopted following an opportunity for public comment. The department is proposing to make changes to the program guidelines adopted for year 2010 funds. The attached "Summary of Significant Changes Proposed for 2011" describes the proposed changes. Your comments and suggestions will help us to improve service in 2011. The deadline for written comments is September 8, 2010. You can send your comments and suggestions in writing, either by letter or e-mail. Letters should be addressed to: Mary Baker, Infrastructure Finance Authority, Oregon Business Development Department, PO Box 866, Klamath Falls, OR 97601. E-mail responses can be sent to: mary.a.baker .biz.state.or,us Thank you for your interest and participation in this very important process. If you have questions, please call Mary Baker at (541) 882-1340. August 9, 2010 Oregon Business Development Department Infrastructure Finance Authority Community Development Block Grant Program Summary of Significant Changes Proposed for 2011 Comments Requested; Please review the following summary and the proposed "Method of Distribution" (program guidelines) for the 2011 Community Development Block Grant program. Comments and suggestions are encouraged and welcomed. Comment Period and Public Hearing Comments on the proposed 2011 Community Development Block Grant Program's Method of Distribution can be submitted either orally, in writing or by e-mail. The 30 day comment period ends at 5'00 pm on September 8, 2010. Please address written comments by letter to Mary Baker, Community Development Division, Oregon Business Development Department-Infrastructure Finance Authority, P.O. Box 866, Klamath Falls, OR 97601 or by e-mail to mary.a.baker(5bizstate.or.us Public Hearing Date: September 8, 2010 Time: 11:00 am to 12:00 noon Location: OBDD-IFA 775 Summer Street NE - Suite 200 Salem, Oregon 97301 Conference Room 201 Summary of Proposed Changes for 2011 The State of Oregon is facing a budget crisis. Every agency has been forced to reduce budgets and furlough employees. Although the Community Development Block Grant program is funded with an annual federal allocation, it comes with a limited amount of administrative dollars. The program also comes with extraordinary federal regulations that must be followed as well as extensively reported on. In the program's origin, the State of Oregon chose to narrowly focus the CDBG program on public health and safety issues. However, over the years the program has expanded to include numerous other funding categories that have resulted in added administrative burden. The cost of program administration has forced the department to use state resources beyond the federal administrative funding allowance to properly administer each annual CDBG allocation the state receives. August 9, 2010 The OBDD-IFA must consider options to reduce the administrative cost of the program and to ease the burden on state resources. At the same time, the IFA program staff is hearing about the ever increasing cost of projects and how the project expense is unaffordable to low and moderate income communities that are the only jurisdictions eligible for the program. The OBDD-IFA is proposing to increase individual project grant funding amounts but limit the number of eligible projects funded to address both issues and accomplish two program imperatives. Proposed program changes include: 1) Public water and wastewater projects: a. Increase the maximum grant from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 to accommodate rising construction and project costs. b. Limit projects to address health and safety issues: i. Water or wastewater projects for systems that are currently out of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act or Clean Water Act requirements; ii. Water or wastewater projects for systems that will be out of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act or Clean Water Act requirements in two years if the system is not improved; and iii. Water projects necessary for the provision of dependable and efficient water storage, treatment and/or transmission; iv. Wastewater projects necessary for the provision of dependable and efficient wastewater collection, treatment and disposal/re-use. 2) Public/Community facilities: a. Increase the maximum grant from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 to accommodate rising construction and project costs. i. Limit projects to those that address hunger and homeless issues: Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence, Emergency/Homeless Shelters, Senior Centers, Food Banks; and ii. Head Start centers. 3) Housing Rehabilitation: a. Streamline the delivery of the regional housing rehabilitation program and make the application dates more flexible. The preservation of the state's aging housing stock through the owner occupied housing rehabilitation program otherwise remains substantially unchanged. 4) Other: a. The Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund, Microenterprise Grant Program, Certified Main Street Fagade Program and the Microenteprise Assistance Program have been eliminated. b. The Regional Housing Center program will no longer be offered by the CDBG program. OHCS will continue to fund this program with a Ids$ onerous alternate state funding resource. The comments and ideas provided regarding this proposal will assist the IFA staff and Board as they consider the final design of the 2011 CDBG program. Your assistance and comments are appreciated. August 9, 2010 The budget issues the state and all agency programs face will require difficult decisions that must be addressed during the coming months. It has been impossible for the CDBG program to meet all of the needs of rural low and moderate income citizens in Oregon and the future holds no hope this situation will change. OBDD-IFA's task is to try and find the best way to meet the highest priority needs of the rural low and moderate income communities statewide. GENERAL PROGRAM CHANGES 1. Matching Funds - Many applicants to the program had unsecured/committed matching funds that could not be secured within 4 months after grant contract execution. Therefore all matching funds necessary to complete the proposed CDBG project must be committed and available at the time the application is received by OBDD. 2. Readiness to Proceed -This section was revised to reflect the change in the matching funds requirement identified above, and to provide the ability for an exception to the matching funds requirement to accommodate funding from other federal or state resources. Non-English Speaking Resident Citizen Participation - To enforce the federal Limited English Proficiency requirements Step 3 of Chapter 7, has been modified so that every applicant must provide the percentage of non-English speaking residents within their community derived from the most recent decennial census data. If more than 5% of the population is non-English speaking than the public notices must be published or posted in that language and the application must include the affidavit of publication or the certification of posting of the non-English speaking public hearing notice. FUNDING CATEGORY CHANGES (Refer to the specific chapter in the proposed 2011 Method of Distribution for more detailed information about each funding category.) Chapter 2 -Eligible Applicants/Limits on Applications: 1. This chapter was revised to incorporate housing rehabilitation projects into the three open grant rule. Chapter 7 - OBDD Application Procedures: 2. This chapter was modified to incorporate the housing rehabilitation projects within the quarterly competitive application process and to include the housing rehabilitation application scoring criteria. This section was also modified to include the modified matching fund and readiness to proceed criteria. Chapter 9 - Public Works: 1. The maximum grant was increased from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 to accommodate rising construction and project costs. 2. The maximum grant exception was increased accordingly from $3,000,000 to $3,500,000. August 9, 2010 3. The historically rarely funded Type 2, Downtown Revitalization and Type 3, Off-Site Infrastructure for New Affordable Housing project types were eliminated as eligible activities from the category. Chapter 10 - Public/Community Facilities: 1. The maximum grant was increased from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 to accommodate rising construction and project costs. 2. The facility types that have historically demonstrated alternate funding sources or were rarely funded by the program have been eliminated from the category. Eliminated activities include: Mental Health Treatment Facilities; Transitional Housing; Shelters or Workshops for Persons with Disabilities; Health Clinics; Drug and Alcohol Treatment Facilities; Family Resource Centers; Fire Stations, Community Centers and Libraries. Chapter 11- Housing Rehabilitation: To streamline the delivery of the regional housing rehabilitation program, on January 1, 2011OBDD-IFA will administer the regional housing rehabilitation program within OBDD- IFA and discontinue providing funding for this program to Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS). OHCS will administer the grants awarded by OHCS until administrative closure and then transfer files to OBDD-IFA. OBDD-IFA will commence making awards quarterly in calendar year 2011. 2. The housing rehabilitation program remains substantially unchanged and Chapter 11 has been revised to reflect the administration by OBDD and to include federal and state requirements for financial review; identified priorities for the housing rehabilitation program; non-competition with local financing institutions; reasonable accommodation policies; borrower defaults; and an entitlement area review. Chapter 15 - Outcome and Performance Measure Reporting: 1. This chapter was modified to provide a better summary of the program's accomplishments under the 2006-2010 Consolidated Plan and to provide the proposed performance measures for the 2011-2015 Consolidated Plan. Other: 1. The Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund, Microenterprise Grant Program, Certified Main Street Fagade Program and the Microenteprise Assistance Program have been eliminated. 2. The Regional Housing Center program will no longer be offered by the CDBG program. OHCS will continue to fund this program with a less onerous alternate state funding resource. August 9, 2010 Association of AOCOregon Counties September 3, 2010 Mary Baker Infrastructure Finance Authority Oregon Business Development Department P.O. Box 866 Klamath Falls OR 97601 RE: Comments on Proposed 2011 Community Development Block Grant Guidelines Dear Ms. Baker: The Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the infrastructure Finance Authority's proposed 2011 "Method of Distribution" Community Development Block Grant Program Guidelines (MOD). The Community Development Block Grant Program is the only 100% grant program to address community facility and infrastructure needs for low and moderate income populations and is often an important and strategic funding source necessary to complete critical projects. Oregon's counties support enhanced community-based economic and community development activities with maximum flexibility to recognize regional needs and differences. Since no two Oregon counties are exactly alike, these differences require a flexible approach to statewide policymaking. We believe it is important to have local capacity to deliver economic and community development services for the retention/creation of jobs in all regions of the state. We strive to provide opportunities for connecting and partnering with the state and the business community to achieve these goals. Oregon's counties act as the hub for coordination and delivery of many shared state-county services such as senior services, alcohol and drug treatment, mental health services and public health services. Like the state of Oregon, counties face severe fiscal strains in the upcoming years that will be exacerbated by the state's financial condition as well as the loss of federal forest payments. Given the severe financial plight facing counties and the state, it is important to allow for as much flexibility and retain as many tools in the economic and community development toolbox as possible to meet individual county needs and let communities determine how best to meet its highest priority needs to serve its low and moderate income citizens. For these reasons, AOC urges the state not to restrict the type of projects which can be funded by CDBG and recognize the different needs and priorities of counties. 1201 Court Street NE • Post Office Box 12729 • Salem 9 Oregon 9 97309 •503-585-8351 • www.aocweb.org AOC understands the difficulty that the state is facing with its finances; however, we also recognize that CDBG and the IFA receive different sources of funding than the General Fund. The current amount of the over-match for the 2009-11 biennium is about $37,000, or 0.2 % of the FY 2010 CDBG funds ($20.7 million) available and overseen by IFA, an amount which should be manageable within the IFA/CDBG budget. In addition, the IFA still has about half of its CDBG resources remaining ($9.9 million) following the recently awarded 2nd quarter projects to allocate for future awards for the remainder of the biennium, and this should allow the IFA the flexibility to fund other types of projects. AOC urges that internal efficiencies be implemented to address this minor over-match so that important potential CDBG-funded programs/projects such the types of community facilities, micro-enterprise, downtown revitalization, and Main Street are not restricted or eliminated from consideration. Over the past four years, local governments have seen flexible funding sources such as the Regional Investment Program eliminated; consequently, a grant program like CDBG that can be used for infrastructure, community facilities, and economic development is more important than ever. Water and Wastewater Projects AOC supports increasing the maximum water and wastewater project grants from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 in recognition of the high cost of construction and to address the needs of individual projects and affordability requirements. It should be noted, however, that raising the cap could result in fewer number of projects being funded. We suggest that this increased amount provides some additional discretion on the part of the IFA to consider those low and moderate income communities that are struggling to finance needed facilities at affordable rates but awarding the higher amounts will need to be weighed when balancing other project priorities. AOC recommends not eliminating public works funding for Type 2 (downtown revitalization) and Type 3 projects (publicly owned off-site infrastructure necessary for the construction of affordable rental or single family homes for low and moderate income persons). Restricting the use of the funds will make it more difficult to achieve community objectives consistent with CDBG. We recognize that Type 3 projects can be complicated because they cannot assist beneficiaries other than low and moderate income individuals. However, there may be circumstances such as with the City of Cascade Locks which needs to extend water/sewer service directly to an affordable housing project. Without access to CDBG funding, the City of Cascade Locks and the Mid-Columbia Housing Authority will not be able to leverage other federal and state funding sources to provide needed affordable housing. 1201 Court Street NE • Post Office Box 12729 • Salem • Oregon • 97309 • 503-585-8351 9 www.aocweb.org Community Facilities We are very concerned that the proposed CDBG 2011 MOD significantly reduces flexibility and choice for funding important community facilities. Since the needs of each community vary greatly especially during the difficult financial times, we urge that communities have the ability to recommend projects that will meet the primary objective of the CDBG program: "...the development of viable (livable) urban communities by expanding economic opportunities, providing decent housing and a suitable living environment principally for persons of low and moderate income." A county should be able to decide which type of community facility its highest priority is given the county's demands and economic and social issues. For example, a fire department building may be needed to address safety and economic development needs while another community with high unemployment and low literacy and test scores may need a library to support educational needs for low and moderate income families that cannot afford books and periodicals and need access to computers especially for job searches, on-line courses, homework, etc. AOC urges that the type of eligible community facilities should not be narrowed as proposed in the 2011 MOD; rather, we recommend that OBDD retain the types of community facilities that were included in the 2010 MOD. CDBG is one of the few remaining grant sources to help local governments fund important community facilities including shelters or workshops, health clinics, mental health treatment centers, drug and alcohol treatment facilities, community centers, family resource centers, fire stations and libraries. In addition, AOC requests that the state include mixed use facilities as CDBG eligible provided those facilities meet the federal CDBG requirements. While we recognize that these type of facilities may be more complicated to manage, they may also be the most efficient way to consolidate and manage programs and services to low and moderate income persons on a local level. Funding facilities provided for in the 2010 MOD is consistent with the agency's Goal 4 as well as the Quality Development Objectives/Healthy Communities to support the four key systems that provide the foundation for all other community activities: an economic base, infrastructure, community facilities, and housing. AOC supports the proposed increase in the maximum grant from $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 to accommodate rising construction and project costs. 1201 Court Street NE • Post Office Box 12729 9 Salem • Oregon • 97309 •503-585-8351 • www.aocweb.org Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund, Microenterprise Grant Program, and Microenterprise Assistance Program With the state's unemployment rate stuck at 10% and many businesses facing tight credit markets, it is critical that communities have tools to retain and attract small businesses, thereby keeping and generating local jobs. CDBG is one of the few sources left for communities to establish economic development revolving loan funds and microenterprise grant programs especially after the loss of the Regional Investment Program. Small businesses generate a substantial portion of new jobs and will be important for our economic revitalization. The IFA should explore potential changes as recommended by the Oregon Economic Development Districts for the Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund Program. This recommendation includes requiring jurisdictions to identify borrowers prior to applying for an Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund grant as a way to simplify the monitoring process and reduce administrative costs. AOC recommends the retention of these programs to receive funding from CDBG and also believes that increased training can reduce administrative costs by helping sub-grantees understand OBDD's expectations in order to comply with the CDBG requirements. Downtown Revitalization and Main Street Eliminating downtown revitalization as an eligible CDBG activity further constrains the community and economic development efforts of local governments and is counter to one of the three CDBG national objectives of prevention or elimination of slum or blight as well as the state's goal of having economically viable and vibrant communities. The Main Street Program has helped many communities revitalize their central business districts by coordinating various state programs including transportation, historic preservation, and urban forestry. Currently, there are 63 Oregon communities participating in one of the three levels of the Oregon Main Street Program. While we understand that CDBG has not been used for Main St. projects to date, interest has been growing and there are many communities that are now involved in the initial tiers such as the "Exploring" and "Transforming" stages. The loss of CDBG funding would be a blow to low and moderate income communities that are formulating their plans and financing packages. For example, communities such as Toledo, Klamath Falls, Philomath, Baker City, Canyonville, Riddle, Enterprise, Bonanza, Irrigon, Lebanon, Myrtle Creek, North Bend, Bandon, Coos Bay, Condon, Turner, St. Helens, and Woodburn would be impacted by the loss of using CDBG as a funding and leveraging revenue source to achieve their downtown revitalization objectives. AOC asks that downtown revitalization and funding for Main Street continue to be programs that can receive CDBG funding. 2201 Court Street NE • Post Office Box 12729 • Salem • Oregon • 97309 9 503-585-8351 • www.aocweb.org Matching Funds Requiring applicants to have all matching funds necessary to complete the proposed CDBG project to be committed and available at the time the application is received by OBDD will be a problem for communities. CDBG funding can be the catalyst to secure the necessary funding from other sources in order to complete a funding package. Although the state has included the possibility for an exception, this adds another step in the application procedure. In recognition of the difficulty in packaging various funding sources and also that CDBG can be used to match other programs, AOC recommends that the state continue to use the CDBG 2010 MOD language that states: "if any necessary funds are not committed, the applicant must provide clear and convincing evidence with the application that demonstrates the funds will be secured within 4 months following the date of grant contract execution." if you have any questions regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at (503) 585-8351, ext. 116 or my cell phone at (503) 871-9764, or email at ahanus@aocweb.org. Sincerely, Ann Hanus Policy Manager Cc: Mike McArthur, Director Steve Grasty, President Lynn Schoessler Infrastructure Finance Authority Board 1201 Court Street NE • Post Office Box 12729 • Salem • Oregon • 97309 • 503-585-8351 • www.aocweb.org TES 2~ Department of Administrative Services i Dave Kanner, County Administrator 0 MCA %AA 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 3BB-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 www. co. deschutes. or. us September 8, 2010 Mary Baker Infrastructure Finance Authority Oregon Business Development Department PO Box 866 Klamath Falls, OR 97601 Dear Ms. Baker: Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments concerning the proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program's 2011 Method of Distribution (MOD) document. Deschutes County has been fortunate to receive CDBG funding in support of several important projects in our community and we appreciate the efforts of the Oregon Business Development Department (OBDD) to streamline and improve the program guidelines. In general, our staff both endorses and supports those comments regarding the proposed 2011 CDBG guidelines described in a letter addressed to you from the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC) dated September 3, 2010. We believe that ADC's position accurately reflects our own on the issues addressed in that letter. In particular, we wish to emphasize the following: 1. Support the increase in funding limits from $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 in the Public Water and Wastewater project category and $1,000,000 to $1,500,000 in the Public/Community Facilities category. The increase in maximum grant amounts accurately addresses rising construction and project costs. 2. Oppose eliminating certain project types from eligibility under the Public/Community Facilities category, including mental health treatment facilities; transitional housing; shelters or workshops for persons with disabilities; health clinics; drug and alcohol treatment facilities; family resource centers; fire stations, community centers, and libraries. While the Infrastructure Finance Authority (IFA) states that such projects are eligible for alternate funding sources and/or were rarely funded by the CDBG program in the past, several facilities within Deschutes County and Central Oregon have qualified for funding under these project types, including the Alyce Hatch Center, Crisis Resolution Center, Juniper Canyon Fire Station, and Ochoco Community Clinic. This change would severely restrict the region's ability to construct facilities necessary to provide critical services to vulnerable populations. 3. Oppose further constraints to matching fund requirements. Projects which rely on a wide variety of private and public funding sources will likely find it difficult, if not impossible, to guarantee the availability of such funds as early in the process as the time a CDBG application is made. Many project partners will only commit grants, donations, or contributions subject to the award of CDBG funding and will not accept a submitted application as adequate assurance that the budget been secured. Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner County College - Session 1 (Light dinner, 6 - 6:30 p.m.) (Commissioners' presentation, 6:30-7:30) • Welcome and introductions: Who are you, where do you live, how long have you been in Deschutes County, what do you hope to get out of County College? • Commissioners and staff introduce themselves. • What is County College - An interactive opportunity to learn more about county government; what we do and how we do it. Will tour facilities and meet staff. Will learn about budget - where the money comes from and where it goes. Will learn about public policy and elections. College will culminate on November 2nd election night - with a behind-the-scenes tour of the ballot counting in the Clerk's Office. We may also from time to time use you as a focus group, since you are a terrific cross-section of Deschutes County. • Tonight's session will be an overview of the structure of County government, the jobs of the Commissioners, public sector ethics laws, and then a highly interactive session on public sector mission and policy-making. • County history: Deschutes County was created in 1916. We had been part of what had been a much larger Crook County which had itself been carved out of a much larger Wasco County in 1882. Shortly after it was incorporated in 1906, the City of Bend began petitioning the legislature to create a separate county of which it would be the County seat and in 1916, the state divided Crook County into what is now Crook, Deschutes and Jefferson Counties. e (Some DC history from the budget document?) • Counties were originally created for the purpose of delivering state services at the local level and to a large degree that's what we still do. Assessment & taxation, elections, document recording in the Clerk's Office, criminal prosecution in the District Attorney's Office, mental health treatment services, juvenile probation services and many, many .f other County functions are state functions delivered locally, often with local tax dollars. We do not have a choice; we must deliver these services. In many instances, if the state is not happy with the way we're doing it, they have a right to step in and do it themselves and then send us a bill for providing the service. • ((((Pop quiz: Where does the word "county" come from?)))) • (((Document to distribute: County/State shared services))) • Organizational structure: (((document to distribute: organizational chart from budget))) Deschutes County is governed by a three-member Board of Commissioners, each of whom is elected at large to a four-year term. There are two commissioner seats up for election this fall, including Tammy's seat, although she is running unopposed. • The County has 19 departments, six of which are headed by elected officials. (((Pop quiz: Can the class name the six electeds?))) Those elected officials are the Sheriff, the District Attorney, the Clerk, the Assessor, the Justice of the Peace and the Treasurer. (Might explain that the Treasurer is a. 10 FTE who is also our finance director.) Although these department heads are independent elected officials, their budgets are set by the Board of Commissioners and all of their employees are County employees who are subject to County personnel rules and policies. ((((Brief description of each of the departments? Don't want to get bogged down in this.)))) The Board of Commissioners appoints a County Administrator to run the day-to-day operations of the County and all of the other department heads report to the County Administrator. The Board also appoints the County's legal counsel. The County Administrator and the County Counsel are the only employees who report directly to the Board. • If you include the employees of the 911 Service District, the County employs slightly more than a thousand people, representing 840 full- time equivalent positions - about S% less than we had four years ago - - making us the third-largest employer in Central Oregon. • The role of the Commissioners: 1. Determine the ends to be achieved. ■ Establish countywide goals and objectives (((documents to distribute: County FY 'I I G&O; dept, report on performance measures))) ■ Adopt the budget • Adopt ordinances, resolutions and policies ■ Serve in a ministerial or quasi-judicial capacity on land use and other matters 2. Serve as a liaison to the ownershi ■ Be available to meet with citizens and address their concerns ■ Communicate with and represent the organization to external audiences ■ Lobby for county interests with other governmental and non- governmental organizations 3. Establish the governance process. Determine how meetings will be run, how input will be taken, how decisions will be made, etc. Difference between open session (business meeting and work session) vs. executive session. Why are executive sessions sometimes necessary? As a rule, everything we do is subject to public scrutiny. 4. Hire, empower and evaluate the executive. ■ Hire a professional administrator to run the day-to-day operations of the organization. ■ Administrator prepares and recommends a budget to the Board. • Administrator communicates the Board's goals and objectives to the organization and is broadly responsible for ensuring that the organization achieves those objectives. • Public employee ethics: All public officials in Oregon are subject to a strict set of ethics laws. "Public Official" includes all elected officials, employees and volunteers of any public organization, as well as the spouses, parents, children, siblings and in-laws of those officials, along with unrelated household members. y The ethics laws place limits on the gifts that a public official can accept from individuals with a legislative or administrative interest in that public official's position and prohibit public officials from using their position for financial gain or the avoidance of financial detriment. ((((Document to distribute: Ethics quiz. Conduct the quiz and discuss the answers.)))) • Public records law: Virtually all public communications are public records and we have to make them available for inspection. • There are a number of exemptions from public records law. ((((Document to distribute: ORS 192.501 and 502. NOTE: This might be an opportunity to test the focus group concept with a group discussion of whether certain items should be exempt or not.)))) ■ Q&A: What questions does the group have before we move on to the next portion of the program? BREAK PART 2: Dave's public sector mission discussion and policy-making exercise.