Loading...
2013-1242-Minutes for Meeting November 13,2013 Recorded 12/2/2013COUNTY NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKpS 1+d ~0~~-1~47 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL III I III 12/0217013 09;38;56 AM II I I I II I II IIIII I III 2 -Z2 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 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 Present were Commissioners Alan Unger, Tammy Raney and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a part of the meeting, Scott Johnson, DeAnn Carr and Eric Mone, Health Services; Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development, Judith Ure, Administration; Ken Hales, Community Corrections; Jeff Hall, Court Administrator; and media representative Richard Coe of The Bulletin. Chair Unger opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Consideration of Signature of Resolution 2013-115 Authorizing Application for Behavioral Healthcare Funding from the Oregon Health Authority to Support Crisis Services. Scott Johnson explained the item, which has to do with funding from the State. This expands crisis services and requires a Board resolution. BANEY: Move Board signature of Resolution No. 2013-115. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Some emergency services entities did not use all their funding last year. Mr. Johnson would like to apply for $27,000 of those funds for WEBCO (regional). The grant will help with emergency situations by training personnel and advance planning. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 1 of 10 DEBONE: Move Commissioner Baney's signature of this grant application. UNGER: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Abstain. UNGER: Chair votes yes 2. Discussion of NACCHO Grant Application - Environmental Health (Food Standards). Eric Mone gave an overview of the item. Chair Unger asked if this would help with the small groups and events where additional inspections are needed. Mr. Mone said the inspectors have different ways of examining restaurants and off- site or temporary facilities, and this will help work towards consistency and. standardization. DEBONE: Move support of this application. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. In regard to SB 631, some government entities are exempt from licensure. This has been a problem. A disease outbreak at the Oregon Zoo resulted in a change in this law. This will now include culinary classes at colleges and other government organizations. They are not for profit, so they will be exempt from fees. This is a problem for the department since they are already inspecting about a dozen facilities such as the Senior Center, at no cost, and it is an expense; this will add six more. Commissioner Baney said that doing these inspections is a difficult job, since someone's livelihood may depend on how things go, and they have to think about public safety. Mr. Mone said most do not want to be bothered, but if there is an outbreak, people will ask where the County was. This will discussed again at a future date. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 2 of 10 3. Discussion of the Justice Reinvestment Program Proposal. Ken Hales gave an overview of the strategies involved for reintroducing inmates to society. They have to be deemed appropriate for this by local Community Corrections, on a specialized caseload. There need to be funds for treatment and transitional housing. Another strategy is doing the pre-sentence assessment and planning of departure-eligible cases. Pre-sentencing investigation used to be routine. The courts have authority for departure-eligible cases, with a risk profile and initial case file. The D.A. and Court can review and decide whether someone can stay locally and not be sent to prison. There will be a sub-set of individuals who will agree to a departure. There is no opportunity to do pre-sentence work. Often they will go to jail. A risk profile helps with classification purposes and decisions can be made on who should be considered. Mr. Hales went into detail per his memo and documentation. Chair Unger noted that it seems a lot needs to be vetted through PSCC. Mr. Hales said that they are testing people in the front end, which will aid them through more of a ripple effect. This should help with other probationary cases. Capt. Espinoza has done a great job in partnering in a coordinated way. The problem with the earlier recheck strategy was the anticipation of Probation Officers meeting with the people. There was no time to send them to meet with individuals. They had been seeing the P.O. anyway. This will be different because these people are not already on supervision. This will allow a dedicated person to meet with certain ones as needed. He feels the Jail Captain and Parole & Probation administration have an understanding of all of this. Commissioner Baney asked about the caseload. Mr. Wark said this is a hard population to address and there are a lot of players involved, such as the D.A. and Courts. The CJC will have to track them due to prison utilization issues. This will drive the numbers. They will be identified for plea negotiations and plea agreements. This will capture them no matter where they are, and will help to decide who is going where. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 3 of 10 Commissioner Baney said it is not like opting out of 1145 funding. She is not sure about stable funding if they have to hire staff. She asked if there is a way to phase this program, in case funding is cut in the future. Mr. Hales stated they would probably phase it in. They have a vacant Parole Officer position, and would reassign a current Parole Officer for this work and seek to fill the void. A supervisory position is important for sorting out the process. Two FTE's are involved, but he would not bring them both on immediately. Commissioner Baney asked if any of the offenders are on OHP. She wants to be sure they are covered. She also asked if any of the funds are used for crime prevention, and whether incentive funds are included. Mr. Hales stated it is the incentive fund allocation for this and next year. They could ask for all of it. This might be added at the next legislative session if certain population projections are realized. They strategically will target those who look like they are prison-bound. The State wants to spend Juvenile money on gang intervention. He would like to see it used on the front end for prevention, but those programs may not be imminent to the State. Mr. Wark said the DJC wants to specifically identify this population, which needs to be verified. Chair Unger is supportive of the reaction to this change at the State level. Commissioner Baney asked how to best get people onto services and benefits. Mr. Hales said he was thinking the same thing. Commissioner Baney stated that the CCO and transportation would all be a part. Commissioner DeBone noted that finding housing would be hard. Mr. Anderson stated that about $321,000 is available, and Parole & Probation wants $225,000. Victims Assistance may be a part of the larger package. Originally, the Jail would have asked for some. The Sheriff said he would not ask for this and prefers it go to specialty courts. The package will go to PSCC for review. Mr. Hales said that if three parties are making a proposal, a letter of intent is needed. There is no application; just informing the State what is needed or wanted. There will be an application later. This will be on the December 3 PSCC agenda for discussion. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 4 of 10 4. Discussion of Land Use Appeals - Legislative Concepts. Mr. Lelack said that last session, there was a specific appeal to the elected body. The work group has met four times, but is not close to compromise yet. The proponents want to cap appeal fees. However, costs need to be covered. It comes down to them not believing citizens have access to the system. Usually they send anything controversial to a hearing, which is paid by the applicant. They want there to be no fee. On November 22, the Senate Judiciary wants an update. Central Oregon Landwatch and 1,000 Friends of Oregon will testify, as will others. It all comes down to costs. The aim is to be fee supported. The proponents want the cost to be $2,000 maximum no matter how complicated the case is. The fees have not changed since 1995. A fee that would cover 100% averages about $6,000. The proponents do not want to talk about that. (He referred to a list of suggestions.) The next meeting is April 2. Commissioner Baney asked if there has been a discussion of the cost to the applicant and them paying for the actual cost of service. Mr. Lelack said that they are told to pay full up front, and have full access. Both sides can testify. They get the balance back that is not use. If there is a denial from the Hearings Officer, it is $2,640 to appeal. Deschutes County does have one of the higher appeal fees. It goes to a hearing if there is any hint of controversy. Commissioner Baney said there is an opportunity for all to have their views heard if there is a hearing. However, it is a gamble. Chair Unger noted that he would like to see fewer appeals. They could absorb more of the cost if there were fewer. People do this sometimes just to drag things out. Some do not engage in the process when they could have, much earlier. They need to be at the table sooner. Commissioner DeBone is supportive of whatever it takes to cover costs. The other Commissioners agreed. Mr. Lelack said part of their argument is that they feel they should not have to pay for all county services. These are costs that have to be incurred, and legal counsel is not involved until later. There is a set cost, paid one time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 5 of 10 Some want to take elected out of the decision-making. Deschutes County has more regulations and history than some, with greater requirements, and it is proper for the Board to interpret County Code. Commissioner Baney asked if notification has been a problem, and whether people might be encouraged to engage sooner. Mr. Lelack replied that standing and citizen access have been discussed. Clackamas County has different appeal fees; those who are impacted the greatest have the lower fees. 5. Discussion of Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy. Peter Gutowsky said they are kicking out the 90-day public comment period. There will be key dates, including the next regional meeting. Staff will participate as a cooperating agency thru an MOU, providing comments on draft documents. There is an acknowledgment that there is less emphasis on Deschutes County compared to the other six counties, since it is much more metropolitan here. BLM wants to issue a decision next September. The partnership spearheaded by Richard Whitman, addressing sage grouse on non-federal lands. Harney County got a grant to compel other counties to do a risk analysis. That was done here last February. The regional report is being provided now by U.S. Fish & Wildlife to identify risk to the sage grouse by sub-region. There are five habitat fragmentation threats. Oregon's well- established land use program has been effective in minimizing the threat to habitat. With the regional report comes a draft letter to Richard Whitman at AOC. The expectation is that all seven counties will consider this. It demonstrates Oregon is different from other states, and is better able to address sage grouse so it is not threatened here. Oregon's approach is to showcase we do things differently, in an effort to try to head off the listing. It is all about documenting that measures are in place to protect sage grouse now and in the future. They asked that Deschutes County provide a short summary of this process at AOC. He expects the other counties will have a similar letter. Chair Unger said he likes this approach, which adequately address this issue. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Baney noted that people are still allowed to hunt the sage grouse, which makes no sense to her. Mr. Gutowsky stated that the greatest risk is wildfire and how invasive species can come in after one. This is a much more serious threat to sage grouse. BANEY: Move approval of the letter to Richard Whitman. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. 6. EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant Update. Mr. Gutowsky gave an overview of the grant process, including an RFP. They got thirteen high-quality proposals, narrowed them down to four, and he worked with the DEQ and EPA to define goals and objectives and to make sure they were on board. The review committee was expanded to the private sector to include a civil engineer and someone from the Sunriver Homeowners' Association. This was the most competitive interview process he has experienced. The chosen firm rose to the top. Mr. Gutowsky stated there are resources to do a certain number of phase I assessments. Phase II involves the lab work. There is the ability then to do remediation planning, market analysis, master planning and community involvement. Chair Unger indicated that there are multiple sites and wondered if they all will be addressed at some level. Mr. Gutowsky said they need an inventory first. That affords opportunities for further conversations. Then they would prioritize and figure out which are re-developable. This includes community involvement and engaging owners whose properties may have this issue. This process elevates it from baseline to priority, and then maximizes the ones that fit. There are two funds, petroleum and hazardous, and they want to target both. Before any phase I or phase II work can be done, they have to document what it is. There needs to be extraordinary coordination with the cities. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 7 of 10 7. Other Items. Commissioner Baney said she got a message from COVA (Central Oregon Visitors Association) indicating they want to partner with Travel Oregon on a $2 million campaign regarding the seven wonders of Oregon. Several are in this region (Smith Rock, Crater Lake and the Painted Hills). They need money to leverage this campaign and have asked for $50,000. They are concerned about their reserves. They will take $25,000 of reserves and asked the City of Bend for the additional $25,000. They have to respond soon. Mr. Anderson added that it is not just giving them money. They get to contribute ideas and input to the advertising team for the State so that local attractions can be better tailored. It sounds like an effective and professional campaign. Chair Unger likes the idea but is not excited about using general fund for this. It should be based on room taxes. Mr. Anderson said he asked Wayne Lowry for some options. Mr. Lowry explained there are four options. One is general fund contingency. Room taxes are 15% ahead of this time last year. If this holds, it will generate $50,000 or more. COVA rises and falls with this revenue. Chair Unger feels that they probably already have spent this in anticipation; they watch the numbers, too. Mr. Lowry noted that $50,000 could be earmarked for this particular purpose so they do not spend it in advance on something else. However, it is really money out of their pocket and not `new' money. Mr. Lowry said they talked about `losing' money from the budget process last year. Perhaps this could be staggered and paid in increments. Commissioner Baney stated they are talking about media buys, and have to plan far in advance. The bigger question is how to get this back in line and more manageable. Some of the funds are restricted to tourism. Mr. Lowry stated most of it is not limited; just the latest part after amounts were increased. They are spending it all on tourism. Mr. Anderson stated there are two different issues. One is, how they address the surplus, above what the County projects. Now that the TRT ballot measure passed, a revised operating or grant agreement should be drafted with COVA to address the additional funding and the 6%. This would be the appropriate place to address surpluses and deficits. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 8of10 Regarding the request today for the $50,000, Mr. Anderson said that in addition to taking it out of the surplus, another option might be paying the full amount to the Sheriff Office out of room taxes and not use any general fund money for that purpose. This historically did not go to COVA. It otherwise would go into the general fund. Commissioner Baney said they could do a hybrid, giving $25,000 from the general fund and the balance out of anticipated higher revenue. If it does not fill the amount their budget was impacted, the County could fill this. Chair Unger thinks this should all come out of their budget. The County should create a reserve with anything extra that does not go to the Sheriff. Commissioner DeBone wants to be sure this program is a good investment. Commissioner Baney feels it is a worthwhile program and beneficial to the area. Other counties are doing this if they can. Chair Unger supports the campaign but does not like them spending their money before they get it. Commissioner Baney said the County has allowed them to work this way for years and she is not sure it is right to penalize them for it now. Commissioner DeBone does not mind the $25,000 general fund transfer. Commissioner Baney said there is a more difficult conversation to come when a new contract is drafted. Mr. Anderson said he added to the draft agreement a provision that they come to the Board twice a year, once at the end of the calendar year, and again in May with a proposed budget. Mr. Anderson said some could come out of video lottery funds, but the amount is not clear and there are some carryover expenses from last year. They could look at what is not allocated from this fund first, and then go to the general fund. transfer. Commissioner Baney does not want to use the video lottery funds for this. Mr. Kropp said general fund has more available options. Mr. Anderson stated that COVA needs to confirm this program with the State soon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 2013 Page 9 of 10 Mr. Lelack showed the Board an oversized map of potential Metolius TDO sites. It includes forest land and exception lands. Nothing in eastern Oregon is included but Aspen Lakes is eligible. Most other areas are already developed or are too small.. They used the destination resort criterion to develop this. BANEY: Move approval of the minutes except those of November 6, which have not been reviewed. DEBONE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Chair votes yes. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. DATED this c25 ~4- Day of N~L 2013 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 6)'a'V' Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Vic&thair ATTEST: G~~ Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 13, 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., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2013 1. Discussion of NACCHO Grant Application - Environmental Health (Food Standards) - Eric Mone 2. Discussion of the Justice Reinvestment Program Proposal - Ken Hales 3. Discussion of Land Use Appeals Legislative Concepts - Nick Lelack 4. Discussion of Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy - Peter Gutowsky 5. EPA Brownf elds Assessment Grant Update - Peter Gutowsky 6. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations, ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation, ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues, or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' neeeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Send, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyoa have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. Ibis eventAocation is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation possible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker(ci)deschutes.org. Health Security, Preparedness and Response Program 2013 PHEP BP1 Carryover Projects Application Name of Agencies: Deschutes County Health Services (Lead Agency), Crook County Health Dept., and Jefferson County Health Department Point of Contact Name: Mary Goodwin Address: 2577 NE Courtney Dr., Bend, OR 97701 Phone Number: 541-322-7466 desk; 541-3508338 cell Fax Number: 541-322-7618 Email: marygo@deschutes.org Please provide a description of the project in 250 words or less. Include the Capability(ies) addressed. PIA Medical Surge Demonstration Project Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson County health departments request a combined $27,000 grant to develop and exercise a medical surge plan which will culminate in a regional full scale exercise among all three counties in June 2014. Exercise partners will include the hospital in each county (and any additional clinics who wish to play), local county emergency managers, local health department officials, and the Public Health Reserve Corps. The target capabilities addressed by this request are Medical Surge and Volunteer Management. Officials of the three counties are mid-way through a small Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grant project to explore a well integrated and cost effective regional approach to enhance Central Oregon's preparedness and response capabilities. The project leadership group believes that a combined mini grant would enable us to begin developing a Preparedness Innovator Agent (PIA) model. The PIA will be responsible for activities that are well suited to regional coordination, such as developing preparedness plans and a well coordinated training and exercise program. have been tested as well. We will have fulfilled. HSPRP FY 201314 exercise requirements using a regionally based approach. This project will also prompt collaboration among local emergency managers to engage with each other and. public health to enhance community preparedness in a big way. The project will also help us understand the strengths and weaknesses of the PIA model. We will be able to test the effectiveness of the concept without having to hire FTE, which is an opportunity that we simply could not do this otherwise. The six month mini grant project provides an incredible opportunity to test out cross jurisdictional sharing for preparedness and help us truly understand whether this is a model in which we should invest more resources. Finally, the PIA demonstration project would acknowledge HSPRP's willingness to invest in a potentially innovative approach to regional public health preparedness. **The FDA has a voluntary national program that developed 9 standards that reflect a benchmark for Food Safety programs to strive for to reduce/eliminate Foodborne Illness. **The FDA has offered a grant for enrolled jurisdictions to mentor with another jurisdiction to help navigate the process of meeting the 9 program standards. **Deschutes County EH enrolled in the program in 2006 but has had difficulty finding resources to properly achieve meeting the 9 program standards. **The $8,000 -10,000 grant that EH may be awarded would help in the following areas: - Offset expense of staff doing extra field work - Hire temporary intern for clerical duties and research - Buy equipment (i.e. laptop) - Offset EH staff office time spent on research, clerical duties **This grant, if awarded to us, shall only serve in improving our Food Safety program for Deschutes County. **After any awarded grant monies are spent, no more expense to Deschutes County EH shall be incurred. ,TES 2577 NE Courtney Drive, Bend, Oregon 97701 Public Health (541) 322-7400, Fax (541) 322-7465 Behavioral Health (541) 322-7500, Fax (541) 322-7565 www.deschutes.org October 30, 2013 National Association of County & City Health Officials To Whom It May Concern: The Deschutes County Environmental Health (EH) Team enrolled in the FDA's Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards (Program Standards) in November, 2006. The EH team recognized that meeting the Program Standards would greatly improve our effectiveness in improving our Retail Food Regulatory Program in Deschutes County. Through our efforts to meet the National Standards, the EH team recognizes that the ultimate goal of all retail food regulatory programs is to reduce or eliminate the occurrence of illnesses and deaths from food produced at the retail level. Our EH team would greatly benefit from this Mentorship Program by developing a framework of goals, objectives, and activities that will assist in achieving the goal of meeting the 9 Program Standards. We thank NACCHO for this opportunity and look forward to your consideration of our application in the Mentorship Program. Sincerely, ScVr D\\2EUS\katheh\MY DOCU ME NTS\COR RES PONDENC E\2013-2014\LoS EH NACCHO Mentorship Program.docx Our Mission: To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community. calth Foodborne Illness Prevention Program Subject: Licensing of Government Entities (SB 631) Number: 01-13 Issue Date: November 5, 2013 Expiration Date: January 1, 2019 Overview: The 2013 Oregon Legislative passed Senate Rill 631 to require goveniment entities that serve food to the public to be licensed by tli~: local health department. This new provision in ORS 624 is effective January 1, 2014. tienate Bill 631 was passed in response to a Norovirus outbreak at the Ore2(.)n Goo, which is run by Metro, a regional government body in the Portland Metropolitan Area. The Legislature enacted SB 631 to address the fact that the Zoo and other government entities were exempt from the food service license and inspection requirements. Communication: OHA is not planning any organized statewide notification about this change since the diversity of this cohort is so great. We %ti i 1 I. however, provide this guidance to the Oregon Department of Education so flicy will be aware of the effect of these changes on their ililirti. You will need to contact government entities in your jurisdictionwid determine their licensing status and inform them of this change. Licensing and Fees: Since this chLinge will atl''M some facilities that are of a non-profit or benevolent nature (senior centers and schools) you will want to work with them as they face the costs of achlc% ing compliance, such as plan review and facility upgrades. Also, while government entities such as schools and senior centers do not meet the exact definition of a benevolent organization, if the facility has a benevolent approach (fundraising activities or feeding needy populations) you should consider them as benevolent for licensing purposes. This will allow you to issue reduced fee licenses for benevolent organizations if you so choose. Finally, as you identify licensable government entities, please let us know of any unique situations you encounter so we may update this guidance and inform other Local Public Health Authorities in Oregon. 2013-14 EXEMPT FACILITIES NUMBER FEE FEE IF NOT NAME OF FACILITY OF SEATS CHARGED EXEMPT Bend's Community Center 250 0 $930.00 Bend Elks Lodge No. 1371 110 0 $830.00 Bethlehem Inn 50 0 $700.00 City Center Foursquare Church 25 0 $700.00 Door at Three Rivers Community Church 36 0 $700.00 La Pine Community Kitchen 75 0 $830.00 La Pine Senior Center 140 0 $830.00 Redmond Council for Senior Citizens 170 0 $930.00 Salvation Army 80 0 $830.00 Sisters Senior Center 80 0 $830.00 St. Helens Center - Family Kitchen 72 0 $830.00 St. Thomas Parish Center 400 0 930.00 TOTAL EXEMPT AMOUNT $9,870.00 Justice Reinvestment Program Proposal Deschutes County Community Justice Department J. Kenneth Hales, Director November 12, 2013 Purpose, Objectives, and Utilization The purpose and objective of the Justice Reinvestment Program (JRP) are set forth in 1IB3194 Section 53 that specifies JRP funds are to be awarded to counties for: ■ Establishing a process to assess offenders; and ■ To provide a continuum of community-based sanctions, services and programs. The above mentioned objectives are for the purpose of. Reducing recidivism; and Decreasing the county's utilization of imprisonment. The legislation also describes what kind of activities the funds may be used for by giving examples of "Community-based programs" that includes: ■ Work release programs ■ Structured, transitional leave programs ■ Evidence-based programs that include sanctions, supervision and treatment ■ Reentry courts or specialty courts aimed at medium and high-risk offenders. Additionally legislation specifies that no less than 10 percent of the JRP grant shall be distributed to community-based nonprofit organizations that provide services to victims of crime. Sustainability Sections 52 and 53 of HB3194 are repealed on July 1, 2023. Although the legislature could act to repeal sections 52 and 53 of HB3194 there is no cause to believe this would occur. Much has been said about the necessity to meet prison reduction targets to fund the JRP. In actuality there is nothing in statute that specifically and directly links the level of prison utilization to the level of JRP funding. Future funding for the JRP will be determined by the legislature in the context of revenue and other funding needs including but not limited to the cost of prisons. Nevertheless, the short term impact on prison utilization from the sentencing reforms in HB3194 will reduce the state's prison population by 500 over the next two years and 1,000 over the next ten years, according to the most recent prison population forecast. The impact of the JRP on t future prison utilization is unknown. If Deschutes County does not participate in the program the funds available to Deschutes County will be reallocated to other counties participating in the program. If Deschutes County does not participate in the program it will not have an opportunity to enhance criminal justice services for Deschutes County citizens. Circumstances may arise in the future necessitating a reduction in work force due to reduced county funding and or reduced state funding of M57grant funds, or JRP grant funds, or community corrections grants funds. Funding may increase or decrease nevertheless the department will provide the highest level of service to the community possible for the level of resources provided. Program Proposal The Deschutes County Community Justice Department Adult Parole and Probation Division's (department) proposal has three key components, each to address three inmate and offender populations targeted by HB3194 and the JRP. One impact of 1IB3194 is that a subset of prison inmates will be released on conditional release and to the Alternative Incarceration Program ninety days rather than thirty days prior to the completion of their prison term. Strategy 1 is to have a parole and probation officer (PPO) assigned to the JRP caseload to intervene with these inmates prior to release and based on the prison release counselor's LS/CMI prepare the offender's supervision plan. If a LS/CMI has not been completed or is out of date the PPO will conduct one. This activity will establish a process to assess offenders as specified in Section 53 of HB3194. Additionally the case plan shall call for a continuum of community-based sanctions, services and programs that include a balance of sanctions, supervision and treatment as specified in Section 53 of HB3194. The sanctions will include the full gamut of graduated sanctions including but not limited to electronic monitoring, to be financed from the JRP. Supervision will be applied according to the offender's risk profile and compliance, and the department will assist as needed, within the limits of JRP budget funds, to finance alcohol and drug treatment, sex offender treatment, or batters intervention treatment. Important to the success of this strategy is to maximize the number of eligible prison inmates accepted into the community by the department on the 90-day conditional release or the Alternative Incarceration Program. Statewide approximately 20% of the Short Term Transitional Leave or Alternative Incarceration Program eligible inmates are accepted by the local parole and probation department for return to the community. The impediment to accepting these inmates is often the lack of housing and inability to get the offender into treatment. Funds for transitional housing and treatment for these inmates will be financed from the JRP. Strategy 2 is a diversion from prison strategy. The activity is for the JRP PPO to intervene at pre- sentence with offenders convicted but not yet sentenced for a crime eligible for downward departure to probation in lieu of a prison sentence. The JRP PPO will conduct a risk assessment and do initial supervision planning in an effort to assist the prosecuting attorney and the court to agree to a downward departure sentence. This activity establishing a process to assess offenders; allows for case plan development based on the LS/CMI that includes a balance of sanctions, supervision and treatment as specified in Section 53 of HB3194. Sanctions, supervision and treatment will be financed from the JRP. Key to the success of this strategy is constant monitoring of eligible cases, and quick communication between the District Attorney's office and the department in order to identify as many eligible cases as possible and to respond with the assessment and report promptly. At times the entire process could be initiated and concluded within a day or two.. Strategy 3 is to intervene with the departure cases serving a sentence in jail prior to release to probation. Many defendants will agree to a plea bargain for a departure to probation. In these cases there is no opportunity or need for a presentence assessment. Therefore for these offenders the JRP PPO will do the LS/CMI and initial case planning while the offender is in jail prior to release onto probation. The actual probation cannot start until the offender is released from jail. In addition to getting a head start on the offender's case planning, the assessment and case plan information will be made available to the jail's programs officers to assist him or her in inmate classification and program assignment decision making. This activity establishing a process to assess offenders; allows for case plan development based on the LS/CMI that includes a balance of sanctions, supervision and treatment as specified in Section 53 of HB3194. Sanctions, supervision and treatment will be financed from the JRP. Resources Deschutes County is eligible for $321,192 for each fiscal year FY14 and FYI 5. To implement the proposed the department seeks $225,000 annually to cover startup costs, finance two personnel and to purchase electronic monitoring, transitional housing, drug and 2 alcohol treatment, sex offender treatment, and batterer's intervention treatment for JRP program participants. One personnel position will be responsible to: ■ Perform prison inmate prerelease planning, release investigations, and assessments ■ Provide liaison with the District Attorney's Offices on departure eligible cases • Do presentence assessments, make reports and provide testimony as requested; and ■ Do jail based assessments on departure sentences; and ■ Perform all customary probation, parole or post-prison supervision requirements and duties for the JRP program participants. The second personnel position will, among other duties: ■ Manage the department's justice reinvestment program, and supervise the JRP PPO; and ■ Participate on the Supervisory Authority Board (SAB) Administrative Committee; and ■ Assign staff and track completion of Morrissey Hearings on jail inmates to ensure they are processed in a timely manner; and ■ Liaison with jail staff and SAB to coordinate imposition of jail sanctions for offenders' on community supervision with population management needs of the jail; and ■ Draft revised SAB policies and procedures related to new law, the above mentioned population management activities, new processes for SAB warrants, and issuing the pending sanction report; and ■ Coordinate information with jail regarding those who are being reviewed by the SAB, and insure that PPO's are submitting necessary information to the jail for the SAB hearings; and • Coordinating and as needed assign back up PPOs to complete the presentence assessment on dispositional departure cases; and ■ Coordinate offender services with jail programs officers on JRP program participants. Purchased services for JRP participants will include: ■ Electronic monitoring as a sanction, or as an alternative to jail incarceration for inmates pending release to probation ■ Transition housing ■ Drug and alcohol treatment ■ Sex offender treatment ■ Batters intervention programming ealxh Foodborne Illness Prevention Program Subject: Licensing of Government Entities (SB 631) Number: 01-13 Issue Date: November 5, 2013q" Expiration Date: January 1, 2019 .1 -TA ra d:# rOverview: r The 2013 Oregon Legislative passed Senate B11 631 to require government entities that serve food to the public to be licensed W,~)e loca`lJiealth departi tr'This new provision in ORS 624 is effective Januarys s 20k ~°,Senate Bill y was 71 passed in response to a Norovirus outbreak at theAZ - ..'on Zoo, which is run by Metro, a regional government bodyin the Portland tr opolitan Area. The Legislature enacted SB 631 to addr" pact that the and other government entities were exempt from the food s" I i r r rise and inV ction requirements. Communication: 4- *1 OHA is not planningyany 4. %ized statevi de notification about this change since the diversity of thihort is 41 great. We ~vi11, however, provide this guidance to the Oregon Departmer E " ,4tion so the 'will be aware of the effect of these changes on tli i ~f cilit~Ea 41 contact government entities in your jurisdictXrr ne t~e licensing status and inform them of this change. 41 s F Licens!%nd Fees „ Since this ifmnge will aff t some facilities that are of a non-profit or benevolent 14 nature (seni66 inters an4,"chools) you will want to work with them as they face the costs of achib ftg cgii pliance, such as plan review and facility upgrades. Also, while gove* ''t entities such as schools and senior centers do not meet the exact definition of.;` enevolent organization, if the facility has a benevolent approach (fundraising activities or feeding needy populations) you should consider them as benevolent for licensing purposes. This will allow you to issue reduced fee licenses for benevolent organizations if you so choose. Finally, as you identify licensable government entities, please let us know of any unique situations you encounter so we may update this guidance and inform other Local Public Health Authorities in Oregon. Licensing of Government Entities Page 2 of 3 Guidance: To determine whether a government entity is now subject to the licensing requirements in ORS 624, you need to ask the following: Is the government-run food service establishment servinwty~ the public? 1) If yes, then a food service license is required of the z 'cility operator. . 2) If no, then regardless of who operates the food sQv~utep,establishment, it is not subject to the licensing requirement in ORS-,,624.', License Required " e (from Licegiye • Any state, local or special , • Ark-approved scli;&lunchroom f d id l b d h ; d i red d d at prov es oo governmenta o y t service to the public. Food service W i ejoo s prepa an serve f~r school and community includes restaurants temporary-, ' ` ~ ities and the food preparation ~ restaurants, bed and breakfast fa`itit ariC 1c are under the direction mobile food units, commissaries, T of the`iool lunchroom warehouses and vending machines ~'~4~-,. 7su.pervisor; • Temporary restaura o t events run iversity cafeteria serving only government entities (e g ; -alive students; department sp6ii4%ed chl, cook-off, • Child care facilities; fish fry to supportilunlcec tyre v~ • Head Start facilities; departmenq~,~~ . Nursing home, assisted-living and Concession stailds,,at sclTq football residential care facilities; fi or gymnast ~T • Juvenile detention; • Sen centers; ` • Employee-only cafeteria; • 0regon'2 q • Federal government food service • Food servie,at colleg and establishments (regulated by universities1 e tl public is allowed FDA); (e.g., student urnsporting events); . State prison or county jail; • A private government entity that • Tribal food service facilities on provides catering services to the public reservation land. (e.g., school culinary program, local or state correctional facility). Licensing of Government Entities Page 3 of 3 Pertinent Statutory References*: ORS 174.100 (5) "Person" includes individuals, corporations, associations, firms, partnerships limited liability companies and joint stock companies. ORS 174.109 "Public body"...means state government be fies, bcal government bodies and special government bodies. ORS 624.020 (1) A person may not operate a rest'- vor be 440 breakfast facility without a license to do so from the Oregon Hh1th Author44'; ORS 624.320 (1) A person may not operate a eudiny~q~chine, warel6dse, commissary or mobile unit without first procurin~*Jfcense to do so from the Oregon Health Authority. ORS 624.010 (8) "Person" means a rs a'00 fined in DFS 174.100, a public body as defined in ORS 174.109, the egon;and Science University or the Oregon State Bar. a ORS 624.010 (9) ."ltau~ means an'establishment: (a) Where food or dr is pre ged for cons iWption by the public; (b) Where thq blie olifas`fogo prepared in for or quantity consum es _ here; . ether or rift it is consumed within the confines of the pr ices where eared; (c) T6~.epares food adrink inconsumable form for service outside the remises here re arecym-,, *Keep in mindr the act statutory references may not match since the updated version of ORS 6 ` of available yet. hr DATE: Nov. 7, 2013 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 977011-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director MEETING: Nov-13,2013 RE: Appeal Fee Cap Legislative Work Group The 2013 House Judiciary Committee conducted a public hearing and considered a bill, House Bill (HB) 3087, to cap local appeal fees of Hearings Officer and/or Planning Commission decisions. Deschutes County submitted the attached testimony and testified against the bill with the League of Oregon Cities (LOC), the Association of Oregon Counties (AOC), and the City of Beaverton. The Judiciary Committee did not take action on the bill, but established an interim work group to attempt to address the issue. I have served on this work group. Committee staff continues to explore a compromise, but no compromise has been reached yet. The work group will provide an update to the Judiciary Committee on Friday, Nov. 22. Currently, Deschutes County's appeal fees are: 1. Administrative (staff) Decision: $250 (set by state law in the 1990s) 2. Hearings Officer Decision: $2,640 plus 20% of the original application fee. A 75% refund is provided if the Board decides not to hear the appeal. Over the past 10 years, approximately 91 land use decisions have been appealed - about half Administrative and half Hearings Officer decisions. Staff recommends resubmitting the attached testimony with a Nov. 22 date, and exploring a couple of potential compromises with the Board that might be proposed to the work group and Judiciary Committee. Staff recommends any compromise be an amount that: • Fully covers the Hearings Officer appeal fee costs; • Increases the State cap on Administrative appeals of $250; • Fees increase annually by CPI or some other formula; and, • Supported by LOC and AOC. Staff will present a couple of options at the work session. Quality Services Performed •taith Pride Options Approximately 90% of Hearings Officer appeals costs/fees: $3600-$4000 1. Do not support any caps/limitations. 2. Support a cap: $6,000. This amount would fully cover the costs of all Hearings Officer appeals. This this is a non-starter for 1000 Friends and COLW. b. $4,000. This amount would fully cover the costs of about 95%-98% of appeals. Other. Lower amounts would result in the County covering a portion of the appeal fee costs depending on the amount. Lower appeal fees might allow/invite additional appeals and cause the County to identify a funding source for these costs. 3. Maintain current State imposed limit of $250 on Administrative decisions (established in 1995) or an Increase in this amount. 4. Fees increase annually by CPI or some other formula or maintain it. April 10, 2013 TO: The Honorable Jeff Barker, Chair The Honorable Chris Garrett, Vice Chair The Honorable Wayne Krieger, Vice Chair House Judiciary Committee FROM: Nick Lelack, Interim Director, Deschutes County Community Development Department RE: House Bill 3087 Deschutes County Testimony on HB 3087 Deschutes County joins the Association of Oregon Counties and League of Oregon Cities in opposing HB 3087 which limits the amount of appeal fees that a county or city may charge for quasi-judicial review of a land use decision for the following reasons: Disparity in Appeal Fees. There is significant disparity in costs between counties' appeal fees. The reason is that planning services are funded differently by county. Some counties charge fees to cover the actual cost of services (ACS) and other counties subsidize their services resulting in lower fees. Fee-based organizations, such as Deschutes County, will have higher appeal fees than those that are subsidized. Appellants pay the appeal costs in fee-based counties. Tax payers pay all or most of the appeal costs in counties who subsidize their planning services. The key point is that local iurisdictions decide how to fund tannin services including the fees. HB 3087 requires tax payers to cover 90% of appeal fee costs in all counties similar to the state imposed $250 appeal fee cap for administrative decisions. The outcome of HB 3087 in Deschutes County would be to increase application fees to cover this additional cost or shift the cost to County tax payers. Real and Significant A meal Costs. Deschutes County requires applicants to submit a $3,000 deposit to cover public hearing costs. Public hearings are conducted by a Hearings Officer a land use attorney and independent arbiter (not a county employee) who represents a neutral third party in interpreting laws and rules and rendering decisions. Hearings Officers charge $150 per hour and bill the County following the issuance of the decision. Any unexpended funds are returned to the applicant. Therefore, applicants pay a significant amount for the public hearing. If a Hearings Officer's decision is appealed, the appeal fee to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is $2,490 plus 20% of the original application fee. If the BOCC declines to hear an appeal, 75% of the appeal fee is refunded. The reasons the appeal fee is $2,490 plus 20% of the original application fee include the following: o The County's Community Development Dept. (CDD) is primarily a fee supported department. Fees are intended to fund 100% of the department's services. o County Legal Counsel is directly and significantly involved in an appeal of a Hearings Officer decision. Legal Counsel is generally not involved in the land use decision making process until an appeal is filed. Legal Counsel coordinates with the applicant and appellant and/or their attorneys, planning staff, attends the BOCC work sessions and public hearings, and participates in the drafting of the final BOCC decision. Legal Counsel bills CDD for time spent on appeals. o CDD staff perform nearly all the same functions associated with the initial application including acceptance of appeals, review, coordination with the applicant and public (appellant), the preparation of staff reports, public notifications, and facilitating the public hearing process for the appeal process. The only efficiency is that the issues to be addressed on appeal are often narrower than in the original application o The reason only 75 percent is refunded and not 100 percent is that staff must perform all necessary functions to accept an application, prepare staff reports in consultation with County Legal Counsel, and conduct a work session and/or public hearing with the BOCC to determine whether it will hear the appeal or not. Economic Impact to Deschutes County. Since 2000, 127 land use decisions have been appealed in Deschutes County, most of which are Hearings Officer decisions following public hearings. A recent 2012 example illustrates the economic impact of HB 3087 to Deschutes County. The appeal fee was $2736. Under the HB 3087, the appeal fee would have been $126. The County would be required to subsidize this appeal in the amount of $2,610. Some appeal fees are higher. For example, a Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan Review application for a new development is be $3,472. This hypothetical example would reduce the appeal fee to $491 and result in an appeal fee subsidy of $2,981. The consequence is that Deschutes County would be required to raise fees or rely on General Fund transfers to subsidize appeal fees. In addition, the proposed appeal fee cap could invite additional appeals resulting in higher subsidies or fees for all applications. • Fee Waivers. Deschutes County offers fee waivers for financial hardships or public benefits at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. This policy applies to appeal fees. I appreciate the opportunity to provide the Committee with information regarding Deschutes County's planning services, fees, and position on HB 3087. 1 have coordinated with the Board of County Commissioners on this testimony. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance by contacting me at (541) 385-1708 or Nick. Lelack deschutes.or . cc: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Alan Unger, Chair Tammy Baney, Vice Chair Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Tom Anderson, County Administrator 6 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Sails Division L3 P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2013 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner RE: Brownfield Community-wide Assessment Grant / Draft Personal Services Contract The U.S Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) selected Deschutes County for two brownfields assessment grants totaling $400,000.00. On August 23, the Community Development Department (CDD) released a Request for Proposals (RFP), seeking a qualified consultant firm to assist in implementation. CDD received thirteen proposals. A six person review committee consisting of Deschutes County, City of Bend, City of Redmond, and Oregon State University Cascades narrowed the consulting firms to four finalists. CDD coordinated with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and U.S. EPA Region 10 to expand the review committee to include private sector experience and develop criteria for rating the four consulting teams during a formal interview process. A civil engineer and a representative from Sunriver Owners Association officially joined the review committee. On October 11, the review committee interviewed the four finalists and recommended APEX Companies, LLC (APEX). CDD staff, with Legal Council's review, has drafted a Personal Services Contract with APEX. APEX will collaborate with CDD to build a systematic inventory of hazardous and petroleum brownfield sites, conduct Phase I and Phase II environmental site assessments, perform remediation and redevelopment planning, and conduct community outreach activities in rural Deschutes County and the cities of Bend and Redmond. Consulting services are a requirement of the U.S. EPA Cooperative Agreement (Document 2013-485). The consulting budget is covered by the Community-wide Assessment Brownfield Grant. The total to be paid Apex under this contract is $368,000 over a 35 month period, ending September 30, 2016. CDD staff will formally request the Board of County Commissioners approve the Personal Services Contract at their regular meeting on November 25. Attachment: Personal Services Contract Quality Services Perfor nee zvithh Pride Deschutes County Finance Analysis of COVA Request for $50,000 November 13, 2013 COVA has requested $50,000 from Deschutes County to partially fund a pilot promotional program in partnership with the State's "Visit Oregon". What are the County's options to fund this request should the Board of Commissioners wish to participate in the funding of this program. Room tax revenue is trending higher than last year by 15% through October. After all other costs are paid from this source, COVA has, in the past, been the recipient of any additional revenues. If room tax revenues are up even 7.S% over last year, the fund will be able to meet its commitment to the Sheriff of $2,650,000 without any further general fund subsidy. The general fund has budgeted$375,000 this year that it will not have to use for this purpose. Options for payment of the County share General Fund Contingency The County could appropriate contingency out of the general fund to fund this contribution. This would be easily accomplished through a simple budget adjustment. Room Tax Fund The County could appropriate funds in the room tax fund from greater than expected revenues. If room taxes increase for the year by 7.5%, COVA will receive an estimated increase of $172,000 over the budget for this year. The Board could split any further increase in such a way that the $50,000 comes out of the room tax fund before COVA benefits further from the increased revenue. General Fund Transfer The County could divert $50,000 from the general fund amount that was budget to make up the commitment to the Sheriff from the room tax fund. That transfer will not be needed if room taxes increase by 7.5% over last year. Video Lotte Fund The County could appropriate contingency in the Video Lottery Fund. The fund has a contingency of $59,000 and revenues from video lottery seem to be on track. There will be some additional payments made to service providers held over from last year so more work will need to be done to determine how much of these funds could be available for this purpose.