Loading...
2013-1147-Minutes for Meeting July 29,2013 Recorded 9/3/2013COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKpS COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 09/03/2013 10:32~3fi AM 112 1101 i■ 1MM1.■ i... 111 ...u ■ Mu 2013-1147 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.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JULY 299 2013 Present were Commissioners Alan Unger (arrived at 1:45), Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator and Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Dan Despotopulos, Fair & Expo Center; Chris Doty, Road Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Wayne Lowry, Finance; Hillary Saraceno, Health Services; Alana Hughson of Central Oregon Visitors Association, and two representatives of the media (KBND and The Bulletin). Vice Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1: 30 p.m. Some of the `other items' were addressed first. 1. Discussion of Proposed Transient Lodging Tax Increase. Dan Despotopulos gave an overview of how important the TLT is to the Fair & Expo. In 2002, they spent $4.2 million on horse stalls, covered an arena and started on the RV park. They have landed some large horse events since then. The RV park just finished its best year ever. The room tax increase will help to have stable funding in the future. This would be used for marketing and promoting the Fair & Expo Center. There are three components: Fair & Expo, RV Park and Annual Fair. In 2002, they got mostly general fund and little in room taxes. During the lean times, room taxes went down along with general funds. They have more meeting space than all of the resorts put together. They do a lot for the community. They invested in the concert concept for the Fair. They are investing $200M into the concert program, and expect 40,000 people. It is critical for the facility to continue promotions. Commissioner Baney said that the Fair is one week a year, but they have to fill the buildings the other 51 weeks of the year. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 1 of 10 Mr. Despotopulos stated that they survey after every event. One event had 1,453 participants, from all over the country and Canada, with 13,000 visitors. The total economic impact was over $2 million. Mr. Anderson said the purpose of the work session was to see where everyone stands. The deadline to put a measure on the ballot is August 19. They would bring this back at a business meeting with an Order to prepare the item for the ballot. The City of Bend is going for an increase of 1.4% while the County's is I%. This may be confusing to the voters with these two items on the same ballot. Alana Hughson of the COVA Board said that their Board and membership support this. Commissioner DeBone asked if this would be used for facilities maintenance or reserves. Mr. Despotopulos said that this would be primarily for marketing purposes to drive more business into the area. At some time in the future, they will focus on the other issues. Commissioner Baney stated that this is the only Fair & Expo in the state that makes a profit. It is well run with limited staff. Ms. Hughson stated that the visitors act as ambassadors for others to learn about this area. All were supportive of the concept. There should be a discussion regarding the 70/30 split at some point and the use of the funds. 2. FY 13-14 Budget Discussion. Tom Anderson stated that SB 822 allowed the County to be over-budgeted to a point for PERS; and the payments in lieu of taxes was also favorable. There have been various meetings to critique how things went last year and where to go from here. Mr. Lowry said that the PERS rates were significantly higher than what came to pass. The question is how to use that funding. It could all go into PERS reserves. They could also have the reserves break even and save the departments money; or to split the savings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 2of10 He recommended the first option. A 1 % savings represents about $220,000. Reserves are at about $9 million. It is significant that they did not have to reduce PERS as they originally thought might happen. Commissioner DeBone supports this because of the future liabilities. Mr. Anderson said they need to start thinking about how to use this reserve and over what period of time. Chair Unger felt this should go into the reserve fund. They asked for the departments to pay for part of the increase last time. Commissioner Baney said that their job is to provide service and should have a proper level of reserves. Mr. Anderson stated that this option would not require a budget adjustment. There are about $1.2 million dollars in the general fund over what was expected. These funds are not restricted. He said there seems to be a connection between the Secure Rural Schools and Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) funds. There are four alternatives. Keep in general fund and add to reserves. Set aside for future purposes. • Replace some road funds and a few other programs • Pay down part of the debt to Solid Waste for capital construction projects at the landfill. Mr. Doty said his rationale is that the excess in PILT should go for Road expenses because of the variable funding process. Secure Rural Schools (SRS) funding has fallen. Some of the SRS shows up in PILT. Both are sensitive programs, but PILT might be more sustainable because it affects more counties and states. It is funded through this year while SRS is not. He sees both moving forward but at reduced rates. Even if the SRS is extended, it may not be sustainable for long. Timm Schimke talked about contouring the cells to extend the life of the landfill; and the proposal for Waste Energy Group coming in to treat waste, which may result in some settlement of the landfill. If there is settlement, they have to figure out how to handle this additional sliver of space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 3 of 10 He may be looking at construction of the next cell in the coming year, and will need about $2 million for this, which is not in the reserve funds now. He would have to draw from three funds to total about $1.8 million. He does not yet know what the next cell might cost. Mr. Anderson provided some ideas to consider. He said that the Road Department budget is set for the next year. Solid Waste may need some money this year for design work on the new cell. The Board could split this amount between the two departments. This may not be just a one-time increase in PILT, but it should not be relied upon in any case. There is a linkage between PILT and SRS and there are definitely some difficulties with road maintenance funding. This would help with a solution to that problem. Forestry and noxious weed programs are facing a lot of uncertainty after this year, and a little more security will help to continue the work that has been done in the past. There are other projects that may need to be considered as well. Chair Unger likes to help the landfill, but he sees a link of PILT with SRS, and the Road Department funding has been a bigger challenge. Commissioner Baney supports this, but isn't sure about the payback part. She was thinking about $500,000 to Solid Waste and $700,000 to Road. The needs are great for much more money than this, but they need to get Solid Waste back to its own funding and leave those funds alone, and gradually work towards greater revenue for the Road Department. The more preventative work that can be done now, the better long-term outcome there will be. Commissioner DeBone asked if land sales were to be dedicated to Solid Waste. Commissioner Baney indicated that the real estate market is fluctuating and there is no one big opportunity for that at this time. Chair Unger stated that it is hard to keep a focus on road funding. It is expensive to bring back roads once they get to a certain point. He feels that these funds are connected for Roads. Commissioner Baney is concerned how Solid Waste could get to the $2 million needed any other way. Mr. Schimke said that the Solid Waste Department already transfers funds into the Road Department. Now they are accepting a lot of material from the forest with no revenue from that. The PILT funding request would be for one time only. Chair Unger said he never liked giving money from Solid Waste to Road; this should have been short-term. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 4 of 10 Commissioner Baney would like each department to stand on its own. Solid Waste should be an enterprise fund and not be supporting other departments. Next year they could look at the PILT funding going only to Road and look at not transferring funds as they have been doing. Mr. Schimke does not have a solid number on his capital needs for the next year. Maybe there should be a tip fee for fire -free material that comes in. They are working for a solution to this issue. The pile is growing and they have to use it for something, and he prefers it does not go into the landfill. The companies who were to use this biomass for energy projects are not materializing. It would be great to use it for something worthwhile, but this has been a long time coming. Commissioner Baney asked if there are grant funds to deal with this material. She was advised most grants are for getting it out of the forests and not what to do with it later. A suggestion was made to take some money out of PILT for Solid Waste reserves. There would be no transfer next year from Solid Waste to Road, but 100% of any PILT overage would then to Road Department. They want to make Solid Waste whole, with the remainder going to Road. In the future, tip revenue will go to pay down the Solid Waste debt or landfill projects. Mr. Anderson stated that there needs to be a more defined way to pay back Solid Waste. There are multiple moving parts. Maybe they should work on recommendations to bring back to the Board. The key points are the debt and short-term needs. Solid Waste may need more, but not necessarily out of PILT. The group supports PILT should be tied to SRS in the future, and efforts will be made to sustain a payback plan to Solid Waste and road maintenance's Title III funding. Mr. Schimke said they don't need the total reserve funds right now, but they will need to get some funding for the next cell. Other things may change in the meantime. Wayne Lowry spoke about budget process suggestions, and provided a handout with a summary from staff and others. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 5 of 10 Calendar adjustments were suggested, including that departments start on the process earlier. Mr. Anderson stated the exception would be the Board's January meeting with the Budget Committee. They would need to outline looming issues. He also suggested a mid-year review of the past budget cycle, highlighting bigger items that were resolved or not. The Board is supportive of the additional meeting(s). Commissioner DeBone is concerned about spreading it out so long when a lot of things would be uncertain. Chair Unger said they could concentrate on the bigger issues that would need more time to be addressed. Mr. Lowry said there are a certain number of jobs that have to get done during that time. It would be easier for the departments to do their portion if it is not as compressed. Erik Kropp stated that they would be able to ask the Administrator questions earlier. Mr. Anderson stated the departments could be given more time, but there is a lot going on in Finance during that period as well. A suggestion was to streamline the material presented to the Budget Committee. It should all be useful. If it is not needed or is lightly used, it could be eliminated or not as much work would have to go into it. Chair Unger would like to know what the departments feel could be streamlined compared to what the Board wants to see. Commissioner DeBone said that the goals should be simple, and they should not have to stretch just to show more information. Commissioner Baney said she always thinks about what they are not able to fund. Sometimes the outcomes are solid but the program doesn't serve a large population. Some of these programs may be important to the department's mission or the County's objective. Chair Unger agreed that they should make sure these are considered. Perhaps they should evaluate what did not get put in to determine whether that particular cut should have happened. Mr. Anderson said that some could end up being an add-back if or when funding became available. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 6of10 Mr. Lowry said that some agencies have requests for funding from nonprofits, and those need to be consistent. Mr. Anderson stated that in regard to internal service charges, it was suggested that the BOCC and Administration be removed. For example, there are business costs for I.T. support, but it is hard to rationalize the departments having to support the BOCC and Administration. This would be a general fund expense. He would like to see departments look at their bottom line more carefully and think more like a business. The internal services charges are not consistent. Some departments do not charge others. The internal services departments should know what their I.T. costs are, for example. Communications should be enhanced between internal services departments and the operating departments. They don't want a department to, for example, not to contact County Counsel when necessary due to cost issues. Commissioner Baney said that departments need to know what the actual costs of services are, because it may be possible to contract out; and costs need to be known to be able to compare. 3. Other Items. • Consideration of Approval of Document No. 2013-419, of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for Adult Foster Home Services. DEBONE: Move approval BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Vice Chair votes yes. • Discussion and Acceptance of Order No. 2013-035, regarding a Promissory Note from Sunray Vacation Rentals. This item was pulled from agenda. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 7of10 • Early Learning Hub Letter of Interest. Hillary Saraceno said there is a tight deadline of about a week for the ELC letters of interest. In order for the State to know who is interested and may apply, and there are documents coming in to complete as part of the application process. The Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (tri-county) used to be the past ABHA and the Health Advisory Committee. They do not meet until past the deadline but are supportive of pursuing this funding. There are other partners involved such as COCC, OSU, EDCO, NeighborImpact, High Desert ESD and the Workforce Investment Council. There has to be one point of contact, and Ms. Saraceno has been asked to fill this role. Commissioner Baney stated that there is not always a cost containment factor, but the issue is clients coming across jurisdictional lines in the region. Ms. Saraceno said there are a growing number of programs that are regional. The timeline has been developed so they get the information submitted in a timely factor. An Early Learning summit is planned for August, so they can work on bringing the team together. They also have a tentative commitment from the Tribes in Warm Springs. This work began in September 2011, but is still not solidified. She said a good way to start was to indemnify the strongest writers for applications, and the secondary reviewers. They are trying to keep it manageable. There are stakeholder groups who will take an active role in the review process. She went over the recommended makeup of the group. She and others will want to hear ideas from this group, and also are trying to involve parents. There are good reasons to streamline, but they could not previously get the buy-in of the other counties. Now this should be better managed. • Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 8 of 10 • Delegation of Authority Letters Mr. Anderson said he has delegation of authority letters for the Board to sign for the Forester to be able to help staff with incident command issues for Deschutes County: Joe Studer would be the primary, or Ed Keith if Mr. Studer is not available. The letters detail the authority and limitations of both. DEBONE: Move signature of letters of authority. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Vice Chair votes yes. DEBONE: Authorize legal department to approve the conflict of interest waiver as discussed in executive session. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: BANEY: UNGER: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Commissioner DeBone updated the Board on the NACo conference, which included about twenty Commissioners from Oregon. Big topics were forest management and jail issues. Commissioner DeBone stated that the Eastern Oregon Coalition of Counties (a lobby group) is working on PILT efforts; they want support for this. He met with them in John Day. Chair Unger stated that the bylaws are challenging and this group is primarily representing northeastern Oregon. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 9of10 DATED this Day of 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 6,~e YU04-L- - Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, e Chair ATTEST: fm~ 64z~-, Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 29, 2013 Page 10 of 10 . 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., MONDAY, JULY 299 2013 1. Discussion of Proposed Transient Lodging Tax Increase 2. FY 13-14 Budget Discussion - Wayne Lowry 3. Other Items • Consideration of Approval of Document No. 2013-419, of a Notice of Intent to Award Contract Letter for Adult Foster Home Services • Discussion and Acceptance of Order No. 2013-035, regarding a Promissory Note from Sunray Vacation Rentals - Mark Pilliod • Early Learning Hub Letter of Interest - Hillary Saraceno • Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation - Erik Kropp, Mark Pilliod 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 1.92.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; 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. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations arc 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. Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners Work Session, Monday, July 29, 2013 Budget Issues Discussion PIERS Reserve - Senate Bill 822 lowered effective rates for 2013/14 saving an estimated $2,584,266 in PERS costs. (See attached schedules) How should those savings be reflected in the 2013/14 fiscal year? Options: A) PERS reserve to get all savings -$338,098 increase in PERS reserve B) PERS reserve to get majority of savings, departments save $338,098. C) Split the savings between departments and PERS reserve Recommendation: Option A - Leave the Department Charges for PIERS unchanged from the adopted budget thereby increasing reserves by $338,098. PILT funds - The County budgeted $500,000 for "payments in lieu of taxes" in the general fund but has received $1,753,135, a $1,253,135 increase. (See memo from Chris Doty, Road Department) How should these funds be used in future years? Options: A) Keep in the general fund and add to general fund reserve B) Keep aside for some future purpose C) Use to replace lost Secure Rural Schools (SRS) funds in the Road fund for capital and major maintenance, and lost Title III funds in support of the Forestry and Noxious Weed programs D) Pay down debt to Solid Waste Fund to enable capital construction at Knott Landfill Recommendation: Option C or D- Replace lost Secure Rural Schools (SRS) funds in the Road fund for capital and major maintenance, and lost Title III funds in support of the Forestry and Noxious Weed programs or pay down debt to Solid Waste to enable capital construction at the Knott Landfill. • Budget process suggestions -The citizen members of the budget committee, department heads and other budget related staff have had a chance to weigh in on potential changes to our budget process for next year. Their thoughts are attached. We are seeking additional input from Board members. 6/20/2013 FY 2014 PERS Reserve and Departmental Rates Projections Utilizing Rates (Revised 6/14/2013) Effective 7/1/2013 Rates Estimated Charges Payments) % Rate PERS Rsv Fund Debt PERS Total Rate Increase FY Estimated PERS/ OPSRP Employee LAP Debt Service Increase= Revenue PER5/ Employee Service Reserve Charged 2013 to FY Subject (Charges to (Charges to (Charges to /(Decrease)= OPSRP Rate IAP Rate Rate Rate to Depts 2014 Wages Depts) Depts) Depts) Expenditure Total Charges (A) FY1013 Rates FY 2013 _ OPSRP General Service 6.47 &00 1.72 (1.690) 12.500 17,873,814 1,156,436 1,072,429 307,430 (302,061) 2,234,228 OPSRP Police & Fire 9.18 6.00 1.72 (2.400) 14.500 4,733,647 434,549 284,019 81,419 (113,608) 686,379 PERS General Service 8-23 6.00 1.72 (3.450) 12.500 24,473,098 2,014,136 1,468,386 420,937 1844,322) 3,059,137 PERS Police & Fire 15.83 6.00 1.72 (4.950) 18.600 10,330,238 1,635,277 619,814 177,680 511,347) 1,921,424 5,240,398 3,444,648 987,466 1,771,344) 7,901,168 (0) FY 2014 Rates per Budget FY 2014 OPSRP General Service 11.10 6.00 1.72 (1160) 15.660 25.28% 21,199,178 2,353,109 1,271,951 364,626 (669,894) 3,319,792 OPSRP Police & Fire 13.83 6.00 1.72 (3,520) 18,030 24.34% 5,448,940 753,588 326,936 93,722 (191,803) 982,443 PERS General Service 1348 6.00 1.72 (4.200) 16.700 33.60% 22,114,238 2,914,657 1,326,854 380,365 (928,798) 3,693,D78 PERS Police & Fire 20.02 6,00 1.72 (4.570) 23.170 24.57% 9,970,956 1,996,185 596,257 171,500 (4551673 2,310,269 8,017,539 3,573,998 1,030,213 {2,246,168 10,305,582 (a) tO FY 2014 Rates Revised 6!14/2013 FY 2014 OPSRP General service 6.70 6.00 1.72 1.240 15.660 25.28% 21,199,178 1,420,345 1,271,951 364,52G 262,870 3,319,792 QPSRP Police & Fire 9.43 6.00 1.72 0.880 18.030 24.34% 5,448,940 513,835 326,936 93,722 47,951 982,444 PFRS GMnetal Service 8.78 6.00 1.72 0-200 16.100 33.60% 22,114,238 1,941,630 1,326,854 380,365 44,228 3,693,077 PERS Police & Fire 15.62 6.00 1.72 (0.170) 23.170 24.57% 9,970,956 1,557,463 598.257 171,500 (16,951) 2,310,269 5,433,273 3,523,998 1.010,213 338` 10,305,582 D FY 2014 Rates Revised 041 2013 and PERS Reserve Rates Eliminated FY 2014 OPSRPGeneral servitu 6.70 6.00 1,72 14.420 15.36% 21,199,178 1,420,345 1,271,951 364,626 3,05022 OPSRP Poke & Fire 9.43 6.00 1.72 - 17.150 18.28% 5,448,940 513,835 326,936 93,722 ~ 934,493 NERS General Service 8.78 6.00 1.72 - 16,500 32.00% 22,114,238 1,941,630 1,326,854 380,365 - 3,648,849 PER5 Police & Fire 15.62 6.00 1-72 - 23.340 25.48% 9,970,956 1,557,463 598,257 171,500 _.T_ 2,127,220 5,433,273 3,523,998 1.010,213 9,967.484 (E) FY 2014 Rates Revised 611412013 and 5046 of FY 13 to FY 14 Rat e Increase Charged to Pi„RS Reserve OPSRP General Service 6.70 6.00 1.72 (0.960) 13.460 7.68% 21,199,178 1,420,345 1,271,951 364;626 (203,512) 2,853,410 OPSRR Police & Fire 9.43 6.00 1.12 (1.325) 15.825 9.14% 5,448,940 513,635 326,936 93,722 (72,198) 862,295 PER5G"eralService 8.78 6.00 1.72 (2.000) 14.500 16.00% 22,114,238 1,941.630 1.326,854 380,365 (442,285) 3,206,564 RE RS Police & Fire 15.62 6.00 1,72 (2.370) 20.970 12.741/. 9,970,956 1..557,463 598,257 171;500 (236,312 21090,508 5,433,7.73 3323,998 1,0.10,21:3 (954,307) 9,013.177 F Net Change rom FY 2014 Budget able 8 a nd Z 1 nevi ed Rates and 50% a FY 13 o FY 14 Rate 1n rea r t PER5 Re a able E PER5 PER5/OPSRP gPSRP Ratg, PEBS RU Charge Increase to PERS Decrease to DeCr to Incr AdjIjmfnt Nov Fund Charges Dept Charges OPSRP General Service (4.40) 220 (932,764) - - 466,382 (466,382) OPSRP Police & Fire (4.40) 2.20 (239,753) - - 119,605 (120,148) PERS General Service (4.40) 2.20 (973,027) - - 486,513 (486.514) PERS Police & Fire (4-40) 2.20 (438,722) - - 219,361 19,161j 2,584,266 - - 1,291,861 --.WAGS (a) (a) FY 2014 budget includes $2,230,000 expenditure in Fund 135-PER5 Reserve Rev 6/20/2013 A C O N W O ry`~ N LrnA W V V Vq~ Vt In W W N N N N N~j In rnW 1--i M r H W Q CD O d Q M V Q/ T Ln A N N b lD w U, N T N M Vt A N O W N T RI 7~.1 T o.b 'V f1' G) C W -0 co T r o No a ro ^n, a croa a m c c a w p? y o LO >r a a b o ro a A n ° C co fD W N ' r' o T i m w m ° p W X C i"' _ en (D y w 't) Q° C O 7 W A ro i-i in 2 :r T ' O C7. Q o a y T 3 r~~n N n N c"i (D O rt CL S n W A a N g d D C~oqq w 01 V'1 N N N 'C Ch V bdtllNmV N Pl ~ W q O fo F d w V 4 O C Oai ~ N d N u t W H 6 O v N A o W M DO O LA W M 1+ M W V C!1 V - N N M Q1 Ul W W N N N O A lD W m w In A A V 00 V A W C7 iP ~P W ` 01 lP M N N N W W Ln N (n l!1 iz ~4 W N Q LO A Q wr tl7 t l DO Ol O V N W W M W d O OD Oo ID 10 V A tD W W N~ V ~1 A u7 ~y V V w V M co M V N po 0 V1 Oo 01 M to co W d i-+ d p1 N ,p i/t A V CD N [P Vt Oo v lJl Q W O Vl Ql W V tb Q1 W V O A V tea. b¢ ,row gy V N ?7 / p lp ? 00 W b ~ q v Ut N V v sn b x ro, - . W N A N O N N41 W N h-` ~ N YT" . H 1 N d d W IV H W A N W V LP Cti M V on V1 A A CO Oo to Lo ~P tP A + 9ry7 N 1 N W Cn Cn N A CQ N N A W V W W V N W Vt P~ In N N m V W 4? A A [h d O V (A N tD r p W [!l W W V P" T N ~D Qt Q1 W V !L7 A On N CD N W O V W M M M h1 F-i A V M W W N M M A p lD pp LP m lD 0 Oo N 41 01 a W tD N iD V1 OO A A v A Ql A N A M O b O v W p --t. Y 3 m M F . LO n i F.. rn » rxe v i 6 00 t7 V W r ~ . i r , r N "n ~ m> W W lal tv i A W Do r M M Oo W CT Y-a N N A H iD M P1 !.p M W A F-+ W W Y Ob ~ U} ~ tip q(P Cri :4"` tp C7 p N tD A W W fr W O In d to M N431 N N W '^d In tC7 cf9 C~ O:t ~ 'n w W 6'f V N N N V W W W N -J H w iD co j N A O W t 1ti # N t-~ C? N W M N lD Q1 Q t•+ p N W ID O 0° W lJ1 R1 ''"J t)1 O O N m N W b H+ [D W CIY O~ A W to O w W W t,D A O F+ Ol lD t!1 to (n m !N w ~J A N W al N 1 N W ty ( '1 O A W 1 A ~D O O Q~ ~ ) Lu A N OO l! V M W V V rl N N CA W P1 Ot N N M W V1 V1 N W M 1-+ N M N W N 00 F' lP Cn A t-+ (It N lo W N A W N V A A O W t _ W W A bo Do m CV1 to In V M lD m M lP V (/1 O LA Co N M V1 C7 'Qn w W tD in to A A Oo ~l W W a) W W Z1 co W W m j LA N CO W N In to 4 0o N A In p po w +J V 0 M !D W lA to 0o tP N W W Oo N O A N W Cn tO s C] W W N 0) A 0~ N V W 00 N N O . l!1 QD U7' W O O V1 Y W~ W O Q1 A N v~ Q In In W N - fN. _ r N M M Za . f A A m w N N F-~ V W A O ~ - pp H N W W A N H In W N A N W F+ N F-+ t--, N In N A l!1 N Oo W V N N N V 00 In O F + N© O1 In - W N W V1 d 41 _ N A V A O 00 V1 O iP O M pp A ~~1i V In M 01 00 H lD In A l11 ~D p N LO N N W A W CP W W O i V ( O iD A r W - . 40 Cn v O W M n N N N AD D1 A OD 9,7 O A N W O N N to H In O F-+ 41 p r d D1 W N N A w w V lD m C) A io w A +1 O +1 0 N 0 i•+ W A Oo A Q A 0 V W N N W A A N iD W O A 00 Q1 O V A A l v~ A W p 1 .p W N •A W p r N iB D N Ch A Qt ~ GY1 • d N V A Qt) N _ N N qy M W W n M A V1 tF1 $ W A In H A M W F-' N W W 09 W b N I O C7 A iW N A d O A .n M ON N M W W Vi A Pt M N N Co W H 7, C7 m 0 n p rN A W O] r A N + n W O N V V N W l N d A A A O ut . F N to A O Qo !rl A Q W 00 O W N p in go lp ID W N N Cn m C N 4-+ tD, C7 F° F••' C3 W q1 N Ql Dt -,1 w M O m co on W V O la w M Oo .Px 00 W .A 0 V CG m Flt M N l77 w N Oo V W +Nu .V... -t Cn A N lfl ~l [7tr A A 4O K7 Vt ~J F.i 'may V1 1 O . N d W D fD n d (D CZ M >4 LA T LA { N b C) w a CD to UQ p fo -p CL (D 7 rt S WAV Road Department 61150 SE 271h St. • Bend, Oregon 97702 (541) 388-6581 • FAX (541) 388-2719 MEMORANDUM Date: July 1, 2013 To: Tom Anderson, County Administrator From: Chris Doty, Road Department Director RE: PILT/SRS and Road Funding Recently Deschutes County was informed that its federal PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) allocation was increasing from $731,000 received in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 12 to $1.75M in FFY 13. Prior to FFY 12, the average annual PILT allocation was approximately $470,000 per year. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an explanation for the increased PILT funding and a proposal for allocation of the funding increase based on the nexus between PILT and SRS funding. An explanation of PILT: The federal government's PILT program is administered through the US Department of the Interior. It is a program that compensates counties and local governments for non-taxable federal land within their jurisdictions. Deschutes County contains over 1 AM acres of federal land land eligible for PILT consideration; almost 75% of the total land area within the County is PILT eligible. The federal government's PILT allocation formulas provide two alternative calculations, whereby the County's PILT allocation is the higher of the following: • Alternative A: $2.54 per acre of "entitlement land" (capped at a maximum of $3.42M) reduced by the amount the County received in the prior fiscal year of certain federal land payments (namely SRS' 2 in Deschutes County). This equates to $1,849,064 for Deschutes County prior to adjustment, and $1,753,135 post-adjustment based on availability of program funds3. Or • Alternative B: $0.35 per acre of "entitlement land" with no deductions for prior year Federal payments. This equates to $500,941 for Deschutes County prior to adjustment, and $474,952 post-adjustment based on availability of program funds. Note: Only the Roads portion of Title I (no schools) and Title III portion of SRS are subtracted from the $3.42M PILT cap. z In addition to SRS revenue, Deschutes County receives an allocation of federal revenue obtained via mineral leasing activities within the County. This revenue, averaging approximately $150,0001yr is included within the prior year federal land payments- 3 All PILT payments are reduced by approximately 5.2% due to federal funding shortfall (not including sequestration). Why an increase in PILT in FFY 13 (and slight increase in FFY 12): Historically, the higher of the two alternatives has been Alternative B, whereby the County received approximately $0.35 per acre4 of entitlement land. Although Alternative A has a much higher cap amount, subtraction of the County's SRS allocation has typically exceeded the $3.4M cap allocation, thereby establishing Alternative B as the higher funding amount. As SRS payments have declined however, it appears that the Alternative A allocation formula has provided the higher of the two calculation amounts such that Deschutes County received an additional $259,0005 in FFY 12, and is scheduled to receive an additional $1,278,0006 in FFY 13. The increase in PILT is tied direct) dollar for dollar to the decrease in SRS funding. Why did Deschutes County's PILT allocation increase while neighboring counties did not increase? While Deschutes County transitioned to the program's Alternative A funding formula, other counties may have yet to transition based on the programs lower cap threshold (tied to population). Example: Crook County's Alternative A cap is $1.96M. They received approximately $1.80M in other federal revenue in FFY 12, such that their Alternative A amount is $160,000. Crook County's Alternative B amount of $329, 000 remains the higher of the two alternatives. Future of PILT and SRS Both PILT and SRS are federal programs that are subject to annual reallocation within the federal budget. Although PILT's Alternative A funding calculation factors other federal payments (SRS, mineral leasing revenue), both PILT and SRS are distinct, separate federal programs designed to supplement local government revenue due to the influence of federal land holdings and management practices. PILT provides payment to counties in lieu of property tax revenue that would be locally collected and applied. SRS provides payment to counties to offset the local government's legal right to a portion of historical federal timber receipts. While both programs are federally funded in the $300M to $400M range, PILT revenue is received by counties within 49 of the 50 states. Due to the timber nexus, SRS is primarily a western state benefitting program; Oregon receives almost twice the amount ($63M) of the next closest state (CA - $35M). PILT is been funded for FFY 13 through the federal MAP-21 transportation bill. In his proposed FFY 14 budget, the President has proposed full funding for the program for another year while a " This amount is subject to CPI inflation adjustments as well as proportional reductions based on Federal budget shortfalls, etc. 5 Approximately $259,000 more than the typical annual Alternative B amount- Approximately $1,278,000 more than the typical annual Alternative B amount. long-term sustainable funding solution is developed. (Note: The Interior Department collects $146 in revenue from commercial activities on federal lands). SRS remains less politically stable, however the USFS has proposed a five-year extension of the program, but at reduced (-20%) funding levels. SRS was extended through FFY 12 via MAP-21, but is not currently funded in FFY 13. Oregon's federal delegation is pressing for continuance of SRS. It does not appear that Deschutes County's increased PILT allocation will impact any SRS allocation if SRS is extended. Given the PILT funding allocation alternatives, Deschutes County appears to be uniquely positioned to recoup a portion of prior SRS reductions through the PILT program, while also potentially receiving SRS funding through future program extensions. The Road Department's SRS allocation has decreased from approximately $3.OM in FY 08 to $1.2M in FY 13. With no extension in FY 14, the Road Department has budgeted $360,000 in estimated "actual" timber receipt revenue. PILT Allocation Proposal Given the dollar-to-dollar influence between the FFY 13 increase in PILT revenue and corresponding decrease in SRS revenue (Roads and Title III only), a logical allocation scenario for the PILT increase would follow the typical allocation associated with the County's SRS funding for Roads and Title III. Deschutes County's historic SRS payment allocation is as follows: Title I (County Road Department and County School Fund): 85% Title II (Resource Advisory Committee - USFS funding): 8% Title III (Project Wildfire, search/rescue, wildfire protection plans): 7% Given that the increase in PILT is tied to Deschutes County Road Department (Title 1) and Natural Resource Department (Title III) funding loss, and in consideration of increased duties (Weed District) and fiscal requirements of the Natural Resource Department, staff proposes the following funding allocation of the increased FFY 137 PILT revenue ($1,278,000): Department Fund/Projects % of PILT (of Alt A Total minus Alt B portion) Road 325 85% $1,086,000 Maintenance Reserve proposed use Restore CIP Program Capital Equipment Reserve Natural Resources 327 15% $192,000 Forestry Program proposed use Title Ill Programming Noxious Weed Education Total 100% $1,278,000 Deschutes County has historically budgeted PILT Revenue (Alternative B portion, $470,000+/-) within the General Fund. Unlike many federal government programs, PILT revenue is fairly Deschutes County FY 14 Budget unrestricted in that it may be used for "any governmental purpose". The above proposal allocates anticipated FFY 13 PILT revenue that is above the County's average annual PILT calculated via the Department of Interior's Alternative A methodology which accounts for the County's reduction in recent SRS funding. Sources: This memo was prepared primarily from an evaluation of the PILT and SRS programs via the information contained in the following web links: http://www.doi.gov/i)ilt/ui)load/2013 PILT AnnualRe ort. df http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/interior-announces-nearly-400-mill ion-in-pilt-r)ayments- to-rural-communities-for- olice-fire-and-schools.cfm http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/home htt://www.bendbulletin.com/al?ps/12bcs.d II/article?Al D=/201 30614/N EWSO 1 /306140384/0/S EA RCH As I do not claim to be an expert in either of these two federal programs, you may wish to have the Finance Department verify or perform a similar evaluation of this nature. FY 13-14 Budget Prep Review Ideas for FY 14-15 • Budget Calendar adjustments o Earlier budget kickoff to give departments more time o Preliminary budget meetings 0 ■ Optional February meetings to obtain direction (General Fund support, fee increases, staffing, etc) ■ Required March (after budget submitted) meetings to go over specifics in requested budget • Additional time & review spent on capital budget preparation • Internal service charges o Remove Admin & BOCC o Have ISF departments charge each other o Additional advanced communication with operating departments • May Budget Hearings o More focused ■ Major changes only ■ Pre-identified issues ■ Follow-up on last years issues • Program Budget document o Reformat budget tables o Consistency between program budget and line items • Streamline material prepared for Budget Committee 0 Other suggestions? Budget Committee (Citizen Members) Summary of Budget Input Clay Higuchi Budget: Mid-year fiscal review in January. Includes updates on prior year recommendations (HBT, PERS, school based health centers. CFC transition, etc. PILT: One-time money. Do not spend it on any ongoing program or personnel. Suggest building or equipment reserves. (agrees with Maier) Other ideas - repay debt to Solid Waste (original jail expansion design), reduce Bethlehem Inn liability. PERS: Do not change rates- all savings go to PERS reserve. (Option #1) Milra Maier PERS: Do not change rates -all savings go to PERS reserve. (Option #1) PILT: One-time money. Do not spend it on any ongoing program or personnel. Suggest building or equipment reserves. Rriira Rarratt PERS: Do not change rates -all savings go to PERS reserve. (Option #1) PILT: One-time money. Do not spend it on any ongoing program or personnel. Suggest building or equipment reserves. (agrees with Higuchi) Other ideas - build up forgivable loan fund. Letter of Community Interest in Early Learning Hub Demonstration Project In August 2013, the Oregon Early Learning Council will release a statewide Request for Applications for Early Learning Hub Demonstration Projects. The Council will award no more than seven hubs in round one (2013), and will use a second application round (2014) to award no more than sixteen total hubs to coordinate services to children statewide. In order to plan for adequate technical assistance and support, the Early Learning Council is interested in learning what entities are interested in applying to become Early Learning Hubs. Submitting a letter of community interest is optional and non-binding. Responses to this letter will be posted on the Early Learning Council website (insert link here) to facilitate community conversation and partner dialogue. On August 12, 2013 the Early Learning Council will host a statewide Early Learning Hub Summit to provide support to communities interested in applying to become Early Learning Hubs. It is the ELC's hope that communities will register for the conference in pods that represent each of the five sectors, and a response to this letter will facilitate adequate planning for the conference. A web-based application portal will be established for the Early Learning Hubs application process. This portal will require applicants to log on to the system to input their application and required materials. A log on for each Early Learning Hub application will be established to access this portal. Your letter of interest will serve as a request for log-on to the application portal if you are applying in round one and the letter is due by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, July 31. Interested prospective applicants may submit their letter, addressed to the Early Learning Council, via EarlyLearning.0EIftstate.or.us and should include the following information: 1. What organizations and stakeholders are participating in your collaborative planning to submit an Early Learning Hub application? 2. Who is the lead applicant submitting on behalf of that planning process? Who is signing the Early Learning Hub application? 3. What is the prospective Applicant's desired service area and population? 4. What local process has the prospective Applicant facilitated to engage partners across the five sectors (K-12, health, social/human services, early education, and business) and families in the planning of the application? 5. Do you plan to apply in round one (2013) or round two (2014)? 6. If you are applying in round one, please identify the name of the specific point of contact and their email address so that a log-on for the web-based application portal can be established. Be aware that only one log-on will be created per application and must be shared amongst people who will be entering information into the portal. Users may want to create a new email expressly for this purpose. Thank you for your participation! 775 Court St NE Salem, OR 97301 • 503-373-1283 Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development AV Reviewed by WEBCO Advisory Council July 22, 2013 - DRAFT (7/27/13) LETTER OF INTEREST - Recommendations for Key Components (Due July 31, 2013) 1. Lead Applicant: WEBCO (Damien &/or Chair) 2. Organization and stakeholder participants: See EL process outline on page two 3. Service area and population: Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties 4. Process to include 5 sectors and families: See EL process outline on page two 5. Decide whether to apply Round 1(2013) or 2 (2014): Year one 6. Specific point of contact for EL Hub Application Portal: Hillary Saraceno EL HUB APPLICATION TIME LINE JULY 7/19 - ELC Community Letter and template received 7/29 - WEBINAR #1(10:30 - 11:15 a.m.): Collective Impact 7/31 - WEBINAR #2 (10:30 - 11:15 a.m.): Community Readiness 7/31 - Letter of Intent due to ELC AUGUST • EL Hub Applications released with on-going state technical support • Complete Pathways Mapping. Data summary reports dev. for each county • Complete Provider and Community Readiness Assessments 8/1 - Regional Readiness Assessment Planning Work Group Meeting (Redmond) 8/1 - ELC promulgate emergency rules per HB2013 8/7 - WEBINAR #3 (10:30 - 11:15 a.m.): Aligning Outcomes 8/12 - EL Summit (Salem) SEPTEMBER • Hub application development (see participant list on page 2) • Stakeholder meetings and review of application (see participant list on page 2) • Community parent focus groups (partner with Family Resource Center and Head Start programs to develop and implement outcome goals/questions) 9/4 - ELC Hub Bidder's Forum (Bend); on-going technical support from the state 9/18 & 9/19 - ELC Visit to Central Oregon OCTOBER 10/2 - EL Hub Applications due 10/22 - State review of applications completed 10/31 ELC announces first round EL Hub Certifications NOVEMBER 11/? - State convenes new Hub governing bodies for kick-off and transition workshop NOVEMBER - DECEMBER State and certified EL Hubs craft one year transition plan. Communities to lead on plan creation while state provides support, capacity and technical assistance. JANUARY • Final transformation plans completed and ready for action at each EL Hub. • On-going support and regular monthly check-ins between EL Hubs and state. • EL Hubs provide legislative report in January; Early Learning Council provides legislative report in February. 11 Page Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO) Ken Fahlgren, Commissioner, (;rook County Mike Ahem, Commissioner, Jefferson County Tammy Bancy, Commissioner, Deschutes County John Rexford, Superintendent, High Desert F:SD DATE: July 31, 2013 To: Oregon Early Learning Council From: Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO) Subject: LETTER OF INTEREST IN EARLY LEARNING HUB DEMONSTRATION PROJECT The Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon, in partnership with the noted agencies and stakeholders outlined in the attached document, submit this letter of interest in applying to be certified as an Early Learning Hub (EL Hub) Demonstration Project. LEAD APPLICANT: The Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon will be the lead applicant for this EL Hub application. WEBCO will also continue to oversee the facilitation of the planning process and will be the designated lead signature for the application. As requested, this letter of interest includes signatures by lead representatives from each of the five sectors. As part of the application, all participating collaborative planning agencies and partners within the five sectors will sign a signature page to demonstrate their commitment, support, and participation in the development of the regional early learning hub. ORGANIZATIONS AND STAKEHOLDERS COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS Please refer to the attached Central Oregon Early Learning System Development document for a list of current collaborative partners engaged and committed to the development of the Central Oregon Early Learning Hub. SERVICE AREA AND TARGET POPULATION The targeted service area includes the Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties as well as the Confederated Tribe of Warm Springs. The target population to be served will be at-risk 0-6 year olds and their families who reside in the tri-county area. INSERT NUMBERS PROCESS FACILITATION IN PREPARATION OF APPLICATION Insert portions of the updated summary page documenting what has been done to date. APPLICATION TIME FRAME CONSIDERATION The Wellness and Education Board (WEBCO) will be applying for certification in round one (2013). POINT OF CONTACT FOR EL HUB APPLICATION Hillary Saraceno, Regional Early Learning Development Manager Deschutes County Health Services 1130 NW Harriman, Suite A Bend, Oregon 97701 Mailing address: 200 NE Second Street, Prineville OR 97754 Business: (541) 447-6062 Fax: (267) 295-2059 Email: cohb.calend_ar~a7,corhb.or~ (541) 317-3178 hils@deschutes.or (will be creating a separately designated email for the EL portal to share amongst partners) SIGNATURE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SECTORS See attached Mailing address: 200 NE Second Street, Prineville OR 97754 Business: (541) 447-6062 Fax: (267) 295-2059 Email: cohb.calendar(c7corhb.org Board Wellness and Education Board Ken Fahlgren, C°okCn k ntty Couou Croo of Mike Ahern, Commissioner, Central Oregon (WEBCO) Je£fersonCounty Tammy Bancy, Commissioner, Deschutes County John Rexford, Superintendent, I Iigh Desert ESD July 31, 2013 TO: Oregon Early Learning Council FROM: Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO) SUBJECT: SIGNATURE PAGE OF COLLABORATIVE PARTNER LEADS FROM FIVE SECTORS As requested, below are signatures of lead representatives from each of the five sectors indicating commitment, support and participation in the development of the Central Oregon Early Learning Hub. As part of the application, all participating collaborative partners from each sector will sign a commitment document. LEAD APPLICANT: Wellness and Education Board (WEBCO) Damien Sands, WEBCO Director Ken Fahlgren, WEBCO Chair, Crook Co. Commissioner EARLY LEARNING Patty Wilson, Early Learning, Head Start and CCR&R Director K-12 EDUCATION John Rexford, High Desert ESD Superintendent SOCIAL/HUMAN SERVICES Scott Cooper, Neighborlmpact Director (Community Action Agency) HEALTH CARE/CCO Dan Stevens, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, PacificSource BUSINESS Roger Lee, Economic Development of Central Oregon Mailing address: 200 NE Second Street, Prineville OR 97754 Business: (541) 447-6062 Fax: (267) 295-2059 Email: cohb.calendar[cr),corhb.org Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development EL Hub Application due October 2, 203 EL HUB APPLICATION - Primary Writers and Collaborative Planning Partners 1. WEBCO: Tom Machala, WEBCO Advisory Council Chair 2. Earl Childhood: a. EL Education: i. Patty Wilson, Neighborlmpact CCR&R and Early Leaning/Head Start Director b. Early Childhood Wellness: i. Maggi Machala, DCHS LAUNCH Coordinator 3. K-12 Education: Paul Andrews, HDESD Deputy Superintendent and/or designee 4. Social Service/Human Services: Muriel DeLavergne-Brown, Director Crook Co, Health Dept. 5. Health Care/CCO: Kate Wells, Pacific Source/CCO 6. Business: Other. County EL Leads/Contacts: Hillary Saraceno, Brenda Comini, Minda Morton EL HUB APPLICATION - Secondary Reviewers and Collaborative Planning Partners 1. Lead Applicant: Wellness and Education Board of Central Oregon (WEBCO) a. Damien Sands, Director b. Ken Fahlgren, Chair and Crook County Commissioner c. Mike Ahern, Jefferson County Commissioner d. Tammy Baney, Deschutes County Commissioner e. John Rexford, High Desert Education District Superintendent 2. Early Childhood: a. Early Learning P-K: i. Diane Tipton, EI/ECSE Program Manager ii. Kendra Coates, P-3 Coordinator, Sisters School District, HDESD iii. Patricia Smith, Outreach Coordinator, Jefferson County Library iv. Teresa Martin, Children's Learning Center, Jefferson County v. Anna Higgins, Better Together Coordinator and COCC EC Professor b. Early Childhood Wellness: i. Kate Moore, Deschutes Co. MCH Program Manager ii. Tom Machala, Jefferson County Health Department Director c. Home Visiting and EL Programs: i. Vicki Ertle, Family Resource Center and regional Parenting Hub ii. Tim Rusk, MtStar Relief Nursery iii. Holly Remer, Healthy Beginnings iv. Kathy Thompson, Director of Healthy Families of the High Desert v. Kate Moore, MCH Program Manager DCHS d. Key Stakeholders: C.O. Early Childhood Collaborative, C.O. Parenting Education Hub, LAUNCH, Head Start (Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties) 3. K-12 Education: a. Bend-La Pine School District: Lora Nordquist, Assistant Superintendent b. Bend-La Pine School District: Bruce Abernethy, Grant Writer, COCC Board Chair c. Crook County School District: Dr. Duane Yecha, Crook County Superintendent d. Jefferson County School District: Barb Garland, Director of Special Programs e. Redmond School District: Desiree Margo, MA Lynch Elementary Principal f. Sisters School District: Jim Golden, Superintendent or designee g. Higher Ed: Amy Howell, Central Oregon Community College, Director of EC h. Central Oregon Community College: Anna Higgins, EC Professor and Better Together i. Key Stakeholders: C.O. Education Council, Better Together 4. Social/Human Services: a. Scott Cooper, Director of Neighborlmpact (Community Action Agency) 2 l Page Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development b. Roy Jackson, Jefferson County DHS c. Ron Parson, DHS District Manager and/or designee d. Key Stakeholders: WIC, Communidad Latina en Accion, Child Abuse System Task Forc 5. Health Care/CCO: a. PacificSource: Dan Stevens, Senior Vice President of Government Programs b. Mosaic Medical: Elaine Knobbs c. Jefferson County Health Department: Tom Machala, Director & Chair of AC d. Deschutes County Health Services: Scott Johnson, Director e. Key Stakeholders: C.O. Health Council 6. Business: a. Roger Lee, Economic Development for Central Oregon Director and Better Together b. Ken Wilhelm, United Way of Deschutes County Director c. Better Together, Fight Crime Invest in Kids, Chamber, Kiwanis, 7. Parents: Community parent focus groups (partner with Family Resource Center and Head Start Policy Councils). Also, CCO Citizen Advisory Council 8. CVDataAnalMs: Stephanie Sundborg, DCHS, Sarah Kingston, Pacific Source and ESD? 31 Page Central Oregon Early Learning (EL) System Development AUGUST 12, 2013 EL SUMMIT - C.O. Proposed Reps for Designated Categories 1. Lead Applicant (WEBCO): Tom Machala, WEBCO AC Chair, Jefferson County Health Director 2. Early Childhood a. P-K Education: i. Patty Wilson, Neighborlmpact EL Director ii. Diane Tipton, DHS EI/ECSE Program Manager iii. Amy Howell, Central Oregon Community College, Director of EC iv. Anna Higgins, Better Together Coordinator and COCC EC Professor v. Kendra Coates, P-3 Coordinator, Sisters School District, HDESD vi. Kirsten Histake, Director of Tribal Head Start vii. Patricia Smith, Outreach Coordinator, Jefferson County Library viii. b. EC Wellness Rep: i. Kate Moore, DCHS-MCH Program Manager ii. Maggi Machala, LAUNCH Coordinator c. Key EL program Reps: i. Vicki Ertle, Family Resource Center Director and regional Parenting Hub ii. Holly Remer, Healthy Beginnings Director iii. Tim Rusk, MtStar Family Relief Nursery Director iv. Kathy Thompson, Healthy Families of the High Desert Director 3. K-12 Education Rep a. Paul Andrews, HDESD Deputy Superintendent and Better Together Steering Comm. b. Barb Garland, Director of Special Programs, Jefferson County 509J 4. Social Service/Human Services Rep a. Muriel DeLavergne-Brown, Crook County Health Department Director b. Pat Carey, DHS and Safely Reducing Foster Care Initiative Partner 5. Health Care/CCO Rep a. Kate Wells, Pacific Source/CCO b. Elaine Knobbs, Mosaic Medical? c. Scott Johnson, Director Deschutes County Health Services 6. Business Rep a. Anna Higgins, Better Together, Project Coordinator b. (Ken Wilhelm unable to attend) 7. "Other": County EL Reps/Contacts: Hillary Saraceno, Brenda Comini, Minda Morton Anyone from our region is also welcome to register for the summit as an individual. 41 Page